Event: 1996-11-08 Amend Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings

808 Pages·2000·39.74 MB·English

%$,,%~tManagement District
p&
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. CA 917654182
(‘X9) 3962ooO - http://www.aqmd.gov
BOARD MEETING DATE: November 8,1996 AGENDA No....24
&-
PROPOSAL: Amc& Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings -
SYNOPSIS: The proposed amendmentw ill clarify rule requirements,d ecrease
VOC limits for clear and pigmented lacquers,f lat coatings, traffic
coatings, and multi-color coatings, and increaseV OC limits for fire-
prooting exterior coatings, japans/faux finishing coatings, and mag-‘
nesite cement coatings to reflect current technology. The amend-
ments will also implement a portion of the AQMP Control Measure
for architectural coatings.
COMivKlTEE: Stationary Source, September2 0, 1996, Reviewed
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Certify the Final SubsequentE nvironmental Assessmentf or ProposedA mended
Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings; and
2. Amend Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings.
‘Executive Officer
Background
On October 11, the Governing Board held a Public Hearing to considera mendmentst o
Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings. Staff presentedt he proposed amendments,a nd pub-
lic testimony was presented. The Board continued the Public Hearing to allow additional
time for public testimony and for interested parties to review the staffproposal, and sup-
porting documentation. This letter surmuarizest he public testimony relative to the issues
presenteda nd provides the staffs responses. This letter supplementst he October Board
letter and staffreport. Substitute the attachedp roposed Board Resolution, proposed
amendedR ule 1113,a nd Attachment 1 for the previous proposedB oard Resolution, pro-
posed amendedR ule 1113, and Attachment 1.
Although the architectural coatings rule was adopted nineteeny ears ago and has been re-
vised eighteent imes, eleven of the eighteen amendmentsw ere at the requesto f manufac-
tnrers or directedby the Board to de&e specialty coating categories,r elax limits, and
clarify reqiements. Four of the amendmentsw ere in responset o CARB comments,r e-
quhing SIP fixes and did not achieve any emission reductions. Only three amendments
were designedt o obtain significant emission reductions, and part of one of those amend-
ments was-stayedb y the Superior Court These three amendmentsw ere basedo n tech-
nology-forcing limits. In contrast, the currentproposed amendmentsa re basedo n cur-
rently available technology. The staff report contains a detailed history of the amend-
mentstoRule 1113.
Current daily emissionsf rom architectural and industrial maintenance( AIM) coatings are
estimated at 60 tons per day (tpd), basedo n the latest CARB survey completedi n 1994.
The C&B has been conducting coating surveys and estimating AIM coating emissions
for many years. Figures 1 and 2, included as Attachment D, show the results of these
surveys since 1975. Figure 1 has AIM coating sales,V OC emissionsa nd population for
the state. Figure 2 shows per capita data for sales, VOC emissions,a nd VOC content. -.\
_,i
Figure 2 shows that coating usageh as not significantly changeds ince Rule 1113 &st
went into effect in September 1979. However, the averageV OC content of AJh4 coatings
has decreased4 2 %, from 2.06 to Ii19 lbs/gal of material, and the per capitaVOC emis-
sions declined 34 %, from 4.60 to 3.04 lbs/person-yr. These results demonstratet he sue-
cess of technology advancements‘ andt he coating manufacturersi n obtaining VOC emis-
sion reductions. Theset rends are consistentw. ith national trends for AIM coatings.
Proposal
Proposed Amendmenfs
Staff is proposing to establish future lower VOC limits for a few coating categoriesb ased
on currently available technology. These categoriesa re flats, lacquers,m ulti-color, and
traftic coatings. Table J summarizest he key amendments.
Additionally, for flat coatings, the proposed amendedr ule (PAR) includes a provision for
a technology assessmenfto r feasibility by July I,2000 for the 100 g/l lit and by July 1,
2007 for the 50 g/J limit. The PAR also includes an averagingp rovision to allow manu-
facturers to averaget he VOC content of their flat coatings, on’s salesw eighted basis,
upon plan submittal and approval. For lacquers,t he PAR also includes a provision for a
technology assessmenfto r feasibility of the 275 gfl limit by January 1,2004. ,In addition,
-2-
the PAR includes an exemption for lacquers to add up to 10% retarder above the VOC
limit during cool, humid days to addressb lushing issuesw ith acetonef ormulated lac-
quers.
TABLF, 1
1 7r2008 1 50 1 -1.3
Multi-Color ( 420 1 1198 ( 250 1 -0.1 1 -0.1
.. . . Lowering the VOC limits for flats, traffic, multi-color, and lacquersw ill achieve an
emission reduction of 10.5 tpd basedo n the current emission inventory. Partially offset-
ting these reductions will be an increaseo f 0.14 tpd for japans, magnesite,a nd fire-
proofing coatings, since staff is also recommendiig to increaset he VOC limits for these
specialty coating categoriest hat are currently under variance.
Staffrecommends deletion, consolidation, and addition of definitions, as well as rein-
statement of VOC liits and definitions pursuant to the Superior Court judgment. The,
-exemption for quick-dry primers, sealersa nd undercoat-erws ill continue, provided the
manufacturer continuest o submit to the Executive Officer annual reports of those coat-
ings sold in the AQMD. In addition, staff has reorganizedt he Table of Standardscoating
categories into alphabetical order, eliiated coating categoriest hat have been at the de-
fault 250 g0 lit of paragraph (c)( 1) for at least three years, and consolidated similar
categories with the sameV OC limit.
In ,a letter dated October 10, 1996, the EPA supportedt he proposed amendedr ule by indi-
cating that the EPA, “...commends the District for its recognition of the current technol-
ogy in low-VOC architectural coatings and for its inclusion of the averaging provisions.”
A copy of the letter is included in Attachment E.
-3-
Ad&ionaI ProposedA mendments
Based on the comments and concerns received during the October public heating, staff is
proposing two new provisions to the rule, including a provision that addressesth e impact
,on small manufacturerso f flats.a nd lacquers, and a reevaluation of the proposed limits for
lacquers and flats basedo n a review of future CARB surveys. The tirst proposed provi-
@onw ill result in a loss of emission reductions of approximately 0.2 tpd in 2008.
Staff is fui%ier proposing an additional resolution for AQMD staffto monitor any job im-
pacts as a result of theseR ule 1113 amendments.
Key Policy Issues
Several issuesw ere raisedw ith respect to the proposed~limitsf or flats and lacquers as part
of the public testimony during the October 11,1996 Board meeting. Someo f these issues
are listed in Attachment A along with staffs responses. The remaining key issues relative
to the staffs proposal for theset wo categories are reviewed below. The staffs response is
also provided. .’
Performance
Some manufacturersa nd painting contractors testified that the low- and zero-VOC flats
and lacquers are not as durable and do not perform as well as products formulatedat
higher VOC levels. Specifically, it was stated that the lower VOC flats exhibit lower --a.
2;;
hiding ability, adhesion,a nd stain resistance. As such,t hese lower VOC products cover
less and require more tiequent recoatin-*, and more touch-up and repair. For example,
Dunn-Edwards’ technical researchd irector provided scrub resistance test results compar-
ing some of the currently available zero-VOC products with currently available products
formulated at 65 g/l and 130 g/l. Data was also presentedc omparing Behr Process’ Inte-
rior Flat Wall Super Scrub (1400) paint (VOC = 161 g/l) with Dunn Edwards’ Decoval
and Suprema,t hat indicated both Dunn Edwards’ products had overall superior scrub re-
sistance.
Response
l%e proposed amendments would require-flats to ultimately achieve a VOC limit of 50
g/l, which is closer to the 65 g/lji’at coating tested by Dunn EdnaraTs than the zero-
VOCflats. Nevertheless, zero-VOCflats are currently manzcfactured by th;ee’d@er-r-
ent nationally recognized companies (ICI- Glioden; Benjamin Moore, and Frazee)
and several smaller companies located in d@erentparts of the country. Low (275 g@
VOC lacquers, primarily water-based lacquers, are produced by several manufactur-
ers. According to these manufacturers’ technical information,, these products have
equivalent to superior performance characteristics. Zero-VOCflats and water-based
lacquers provide similar coverage, including dry mil-thickness, as conventional svs-
terns. Surface preparation for these products is identical and the estimated life of
4
thesep roducts is ako identical. However, any thinning or clean-upf or thesep roducts
ti u-n&y done with water, not YOCs.
In aq event,s ta#has establisheda significant time periodfor implementations ince only
a limited number of manufacttuers currently produce thesep roducts, and to provide ade-
quate timef or the other manufacturers to reformulate their products. lhis time period
consists offive and I2 years to meet the proposed 100 and 50 g/l limits for flats respec-
tively. Fo f-lacquers, it consists of 14 months and eight years to meet thep roposed 550
and 275 g/l limits. Theses ame limits for lacquers iverep reviously proposed and adopted
in Febnuuy 1990. Moreover, staghas ako proposed a technology review prior to im-
plementing the 100 g/I, 50 g/T,a nd275 g/l limits. For theser eviews, staffwill assesst he
state of the technology andpropose amendmentst o the Board as necessary. Finally, for
flats, the manu$acturersc an make use of the averaging provisions in the rule. Several
manzrfacturersh ave already indicated to staff that they &I utiIize this provision in the
rule to meet the proposed 2001 limit if 100 g/I. Presumably, industry wiII also make use
of the averagin,provision to comply with thef inal 50 gn limit. ’
Flammabilitv of Acetone-BasedL acouers
Some manufacturest estified that lacquers formulated with acetonet o meet the future,5 50
g/l limit in 1998, may causea n increasei n fire risks in field applications.
-.,
Response
When compared to conventional solventss uch as methyl ethyl ketone, toluene or butyl
acetate, basedo n the 1994 Unifrm Fire Code (UFC) hazard ciasst$kations,a cetone has
identical health andphysical hazard classifications. St@has relied upon Los Angeles
and Orange County fiTe departments,w hich indicate that suchp roducts pose the same
degree of$re hazard as conventional lacquers. Thus, acetonew ould not create an in-
creasedfire hazard, and as a solvent, handling characteristics would be identical relative
to fire departmentp rocedures. The UFC treats all of the mentioneds olventsa s Class I
Flammable liquids, and considerst hem all to present the samer elative degreeo fjire
hazard. Letters from the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Orange County Fire
Authority addressing this issue are.included in Attachment E
However, acetone is signtjicant& less toxic than solvents used in traditional solvent-
based lacquers. The daily exposurel imits are more than sevent imes lower for xylenes, ‘Y
more than three times lower for toluenea nd MEK, and almost two times lower for ISO- .I
propanol, as compared to the daily exposure limitfor acetone. The extremelyl ower tox-
icity of acetonea s compared to other, traditional solvents isj iuther illustrated by the
Immediate Danger to Life or Health (IDLH,) exposure limits. Allowable acetorkexposure
limits are ten times greater than toluene, more than six timesg reater than MEK, and two
times &greatetrh an xylene. In the Federal Register dated June 16, 1996, the EPA granted
.:
a petition to delete acetonefiom the Iist of toxic chemicals wuderS ection 313‘of the
EmergenncPy lanning and Community Right-to-Know Act, better known as Title ILIof the
Superjmd Amendmentsa nd Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
Inmact of L&w-VOC Coatins on Painters
Several speakersr aised concern over the impact lower-VOC products will have on the
painting contracting industry. Specifically, the painters contend that since they are held
accountabzfor the final product, that their jobs are at stake if the low- &d zero-VOC
flats do not pex5orma s well as cm-rently,a vailable products.
Response .
Throughout the developmento f these amendmentss tdconducted numerous site visits
and observations ofpainttng in thef ield of low- andzero-VOCpaints. Attachment B
provides a short list of current users of low- andzero-VOCf2ats in the South CoastA ir
Basin (Basin).
During thesef ield observations,p ainters indicated that both the low- andzero-VOCflats
pet$ormed well, but the zero-VOCfrats require a slightiy dyerent technique that.must be
employed due to thef aster dry times. Namely that when painting walls using a roller, a
smaller,a rea is painted at a time to maintain a wet edge, as opposedt o the current
method ,where the perimeter of a wall ispaintedfirst beforep roceeding to cover thefidl .-\
wall space.
Additionally, staffhas proposedficture effective limits for flats that are several years in
the-e. This is to ailow s@cient timef or manufacturers to incorporate the necessary
technologies andf or painters to become accustomedt o their use. Furthermore, the
AQMD, aIong with man$acturers of the zero-VOCpaints, plan ‘to initiate trainingpro-
gramsf or painters and the paint contracting community. AQMD st@wiR also develop
Iiterature with manujacturersf or the do-it-yourseIfend users.
Interior V&us Exterior Flats
Representativeso f Sherwin Williams, Benjamin Moore, and the National Paint and
Coatings Association suggestedt hat the Board establish a separatec ategory for exterior
flats with a lit of 200 gjl in 2001. They claim that due to the environmental
conditions
that these p&&s must meet, egerior flats generally must be formulated at a higher VOC
content to provide the film forming characteristicsf or their softerresins. At presenf they
claim most exterior flats wouldnot meet the proposed 2001 of 100 g& They also
limit
stated that zero-VOC exterior flats have only recently been introduced on the market, and
have had only limited use.
-6
Response
Ecteriorflats comprise approximatkly one-third of the totaIjIats sold in the Basin The
1994 CARB survey indicates that 31% of thefzats sold in 1990 complying with thepro-
posed 100 gQ limit are recommendedfor exterior use only, 53% for interior use only, and
16% for either interior or exterior use. Fw?hermore, since a sign$kntportion of the
interior&& sold already meet’the@ure limit, manufactiers can utiIize the averaging
provision to meet the-e limits. With regard to the zero-VOC limitfor exterior flats,
+actG%rs have I2 years for the technology to continue to develop &d refine the
coatings to meet thisjkture limit ami the perjornmnce requirements. Additionally, staff
wiI1 review the technology prior to the effective a&e of the rule adprovide recommen-
abionito the Board’k necessmy.
Imuact on Small Manufacturers
A few speakerst estified that the proposed limits for flats and lacquersw ill dispropor-
tionally impact small manufacturersi n the Basin. These speakerst estified that there may
be small manufacturerst hat produce higher-VOC specializedp roductst o meet specific
niche markets. Further, thesem anufacturers cannot make use of the averaging provisions
in the rule for flats sincet hey do not produce lower-VOC products to offset their special-
ized products.
Response
CARB conducts an extensive survey ofpaint production and sales in California every few
years. According to the latest CYRB survey, there are approximately I9 manufacturers
offrts and eight man$actiers of lacquers located in the Bask In responseto these
potential impacts on small man$aCturers, staff $ proposing to add a provision to the rule
which will address the concerns of small manu$actw-ers by delaying the final January 1,
2005 compliance datef or lacquers to Janumy I, 2007 andexempting them from the final
July I, 2008 VOC limitforjlats. A smalI mangacturer imchuies @ mami$aaCturetrh at
has total gross annual receipts of %2,000,000 or”iess and lb0 or less employees, which is
consistent with the dejkition used in Rule 1302 - Defnitio~.
Future Swevs and Studies
Finally, several speakersr ecommendedt hat the Board not adopt the proposed limits for
flats and lacquers and wait until several ongoing or soon-to-be-initiated studies are.c om-
pleted. Attachment C summarizest he ongoing study being conductedb y Eastern Michi-
gan University for staff, asw ell as the reactivity studies by North American Research
Strategy for Tropospheric Ozone WARSTO), CARB, and EPA. It also reviews the
status
of the CARB architectural coating survey and expectedc ompletion date.
-7-
Response
To the extentt heses tudies are relevant to the proposed rulemaking, staffwill consider the
reszdts of theses tudies asp art of the required technology assessmentsw, hich should be
conducted at approximately the time theses tudies will be completed The AQMD St@
stun) by Eastern Michigan Universily SpecificaIly examinest he perfomzancei ssuesa s-
sociated wiih specialty coatings which are not the subject of this proposed amendment.
The reactivity studies by CARB and EPA have only beenr ecently initiated and are not
expected i6?e completedfor several years. Finally, the CARB sur&y is anticipated to
commencen exty ear. CARB staffh indicated that it wilI take more than two years to
coIIect the sales data through confidentia&y agreements,a s well as collect andanaIyze
the SampZresfiomth e over two hun&ed manu$actiers of architectural coatings.L astly,
staffis monitoring work being done by NATO to evaluater esearch studies conducted
at the national and local level.
AQMD staffdoes not believe delaying these rule amena?nenttso incoForate thesewe
studies is appropriate, since the proposed limits are basedo n currently avaiIable tech-
nology and are required to be implementedpursuant to the 1994 AQMl?
AQMT and Legal Mandates
The 1994A QM?, which included a specific control measure( CTS-07) to reduceA IM
~..,
VOC emissionsb y 75 % by the year 2010, received SIP approval on September2 6,1996 ‘!.
.-
and is therefore consideredf edeixlly enforceable. The AQMF’ incorporatest he concepts
that eachi ndustry will reduce their fair ihare of emissionsa nd there should be relative
equity in the costs of theser eductions.
These proposedR ule 1113 amendmentsi mplement a small portion of the 1994A QMP
becauset hey include lowering the VOC limits for only a few of the coating categories
discussed in the c@rol measure. The proposed amendmentsw ill only reduceA IM
emissions by’ 17.2%,w hich equatest o approximately an 11.8t pd reduction in 2010. This
is only a &action of the 75% emission reduction that will eventually be required from.
AIM coatingst o provide their fair shareo f the required emission reductions.
As presentedt o the board, emissions fi&rn architectural coatings are the Iargests tationary
source category of emissions subject to AQMD requirements. They are larger than all oft.
the re&ry emissions,w ood fixnit& facilities, printing, marine tanks, and aerospace
facilities’combined. Figure 1 compares emissions Tom theses ources.’
-8-
Fi,qe 1
Comparison of Daily VOC Emissions
The additional proposedr evisions contained in Attachment F were addedt o reduce cost
impacts to small businesses.T his cost savings however, is not easily quantifiable and for
purposeso f calculating cost-effectivenessf &ures, it is conservatively assumedt hat no
cost savings is achievedw hile some emissions reductions are lost. As a result, cost-
effectiveness figures are slightly, but insignificantly, changedf or the proposed rule.
These changesa re listed in the attachedr evised Table 8 of the socioeconomici mpact as-
sessment( Attachment G). The cost-effectivenesso f the proposed amendmentsi s esti-
mated to be $8,100 per ton and is not within the ranking order of control,m easuresi n the
1994 AQh4F’. Figure 2 illustrates a comparison betweent he cost-effectivenesso f various
VOC control rules and the proposed amendments.A s can be seen the cost effectiveness
of the proposed,amendmentsis within the range of other amendedr ules, including Rule
1124 - Aerospace Coatings, Rule 1173 - Fugitive Emissions of VOCs, Rule 1136 - Wood
Products Coatings, Rule 1142 - Marine Tank Vessel Operations, and Rule 1130 - Graphic
Arts. The draft 1997 AQMP considers this control measuret o be a key element of its
strategy to achieve the national standard for ozone by the year 20 10.
Figure 2
Cost-Effectiveness Comparison
-9-
Attachments
Additiokl issuesr aised
Jhmple’of current low- and zero-VOC coating users
Ongoing’and future studies
CAREi Survey - Summaries
-
Lettekzom EPA and Fire Dep&ents
Additional ProposedA mendments
Revised Table 8 of SocioeconomicI mpact Assessment