April 15, 2011
Mr. Alex Ryan-Bond
Ozone Transport Commission
Hall of States, 444 North Capitol St, Suite 638
Washington, DC
Mr. Ali Mirzakhalili
Administrator, Air Quality Management Section
Division of Air and Waste Management
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
RE:
Inclusion of “Paint Thinner and Multipurpose Solvents” in the
Consumer Products Model Rule; OTC White Paper; ACA Comments
Concerning Automotive Refinish and Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings
I am writing to request additional time in which the ACA can discuss the OTC’s
“DRAFT WHITE PAPER on the Inclusion of ‘Paint Thinner and Multipurpose Solvents’ in the
Consumer Products Model Rule”.
As the Draft Paper notes, such programs exist both within the CARB regulations and as a
separate regulation at the SCAQMD.
Your White Paper does a good job of summarizing the developments of these programs and the
ACA, and several of its members with products in California, have both participated in the
development of the two programs and are regulated by them.
That experience has raised a number of concerns and considerations that we would like to
discuss with you and your OTC Stationary Source Committee before any final conclusions are
reached on the advisability of a similar program in the OTC, and if so, whether it should copy
the California programs.
As the Paper suggests, the category is quite broad and potentially affects a multitude of different
coatings and associated surface preparation and clean up operations. Indeed, the cleaning
operations are not confined to those only involving coatings.
“The source category includes products that are commonly used in the thinning of
coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning
operations.”
Another feature of the category, at least as constructed in California, is that at the CARB level it
is necessarily confined to “consumer products” because, generally CARB’s authority is so
confined, with individual air districts having jurisdiction over individual coatings categories.
(Strictly speaking, CARB can be said to have authority over aerosol coatings, but with the
districts being allowed to go beyond the limits imposed).
Indeed CARB’s definition of consumer products makes this clear by noting the type of products
that are not included:
“’Consumer Product’ means a chemically formulated product used by household and
institutional consumers including, but not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds;
polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden
products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products;
but does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural
coatings. As used in this article, the term “consumer product” shall also refer to aerosol
adhesives, including aerosol adhesives used for consumer, industrial, and commercial
uses.”
One immediately sees the potential difficulties in squaring up the CARB regime with that of the
air districts in regulating so-called consumer products.
Architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings by any definition encompass products
that are readily used by households. Its industrial maintenance components and most of its
specialized field applied coatings such as under the national AIM and the current OTC Model
AIM rule, such as “antenna coatings” of course are not applied by households but rather by
certified professional often with special equipment and respiratory safety protection. But the
residential coatings component of the AIM rule is an important one.
A potential disconnect therefore can occur between the VOC limits authorized or permitted in
the various air districts in California and a CARB limit on their thinners and the solvents to
prepare surfaces and clean brushes etc.
Under the CARB rule the limit is presently 300 gram pr liter but is eventually to go to 25 g/l.
Nether of these is adequate for thinning or associated clean up of the solvent borne coatings
authorized by the national AIM rule or the current OTC Model AIM rule.
While it may be possible for so called exempt VOC solvents to be used in this case, this is
uncertain.
More importantly, in any event such a determination has to be made on the basis of the specific
individual coating categories involved- not on a generic basis.
More importantly, over the course of now over three decades of clean air national and local
regulation of the VOC in coatings applications and operations, regulators have each coating
category within the framework of its often unique performance and application requirements.
This has not been confined to the coating itself, but also the VOC emissions from the surface
preparation and clean up.
The reason for this has been the sound recognition that coatings are specifically designed and
formulated for specific performance requirements and are not interchangeable. Obvious cases
are seen in comparing the performance needs and application systems of can coatings versus
OEM automotive coatings versus plastic parts coatings versus architectural coatings. .
2
In considering all of this, we firmly believe that the consideration development of any generic or
multipurpose solvent VOC regulation should not include the cleaning and thinner solvents used
for coatings because emissions from these materials is already controlled through existing
regulations imposed on the coatings and processes in which they are used. Indeed, the effort to
implement such a generic solvent thinner regulation would require the consideration of all of its
potential impacts on the variety of coatings to which it would potentially apply if it is adopted in
the OTC states each time it was amended.
We note that CARB in interpreting the application of its regulation has drawn a distinction
between “consumer/institutional” usages and “industrial” usages, stating that the regulation does
not apply to industrial usages. Unfortunately, confusion still exists even in the application of this
distinction. An example from its 2009 Response to Comments:
Staff acknowledges that clarifications of rule applicability as suggested
By the commenter would be helpful. Therefore, the following response serves to
Clarify the applicability of the proposed amendments. When considered together, the
Applicability of the regulation found in section 94507 and the definitions of Consumer
Product; Institutional Product; Multi-purpose Solvent; and Paint Thinner in section
94508(a), make it clear that solvents and reducers labeled to be used exclusively in
Marine and automotive coatings are not subject to the regulation. The Suggested
Control Measure that the commenter refers to specifies the VOC content limits of the
Coatings for which the solvent products are a part. However, the use of solvents in
automotive refinishing is not an industrial application and is subject to local air district
rules. Further, the Consumer Products Regulation would apply to the VOC content of the
solvents sold to the facility that were not part of a coating system.
As the CARB response suggests, it sees its Consumer Products solvent regulation as capable
of trumping solvent materials that are required in the surface preparation and clean up of a
coating which uses a solvent but not over the thinner, reducer, over which it has no say.
Moreover, its position above seems to be at variance with an Advisory from its own legal
counsels office which clearly stated that an “industrial” product is not only what is incorporated
into a finished good, but also those materials that are needed for that industrial process, such
mold-release materials, and therefore by analogy, surface prep and clean up solvents. See
http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/advs/advs307.pdf
All of this confusion we believe can be avoided by continuing the practice of considering VOC
emission control technologies within the context of each individual coating categories
performance and application requirements as opposed to having generic solvent requirements
potentially applying.
Consumer Access as a Criterion
Another issue raised under the California regulation is whether including a product within the
reach of the regulation should turn upon whether a consumer has access to it. We believe that
while such a criterion has some validity in determining what is likely to generally be found in
household usage, mere accessibility cannot be a dispositive criterion.
Similar Issues Exist for Marine/Pleasure Craft Coatings
3
The issues discussed above with respect to refinish coatings are also found in the case of
marine/pleasure craft coatings. Like refinish coatings, these coatings can be very specialized
and unique materials that are sold by specialty distributors in the industry, often referred to as
“ship or marine chandler” stores.
A typical statement indicating the special use of marine coatings is seen in the following:
“DuPont Marine Finishes provide long-lasting beauty, exceptional color and gloss
retention for the marine industry. The product offering includes primers, fairing
compounds, topcoats, exterior clearcoats and interior wood finishing products that are
polishable and repairable. DuPont Marine Finishes for Professional Use Only.” See
http://www.dupontmarinefinishes.com/
Similarly, for an International/AKZO marine coating, the following appears in advertizing:
“Two Part Linear Polyurethane Enamel Paint, (professional Application Only) 2 Claret Qt. from Awlgrip” See
http://www.westmarine.com/1/3/awlgrip-two-part-linear-polyurethane-enamel-paintprofessional-application-only
CARB’s Review Provisions
The White Paper notes that CARB will conduct a technology review to determine if there are
effective solvents available prior to imposing VOC limits of three percent on solvents regulated
by its rule. We question the soundness of a decision by the OTC to encourage states to adopt
the CARB measure without first knowing whether this limit will be available - and if so, whether
for all uses and applications it will be technologically and economically feasible as “reasonably
available control technology” (RACT) as defined by the federal Clean Air Act and state
programs. This would be less of a worry for the coatings addressed here if the OTC would
continue the practice of determining the types of solvents needed for these coatings operations
strictly in the context of those operations themselves.
Cured Coating Exception
In reviewing some California air district regulations relating to solvent cleaning of equipment
used in the application of coatings, inks, and adhesives, which specify relatively low VOC limits
for cleaning solvents, coatings material which have “cured” (“dry to the touch”) are excluded
from the regulation. In setting any similar generic low VOC solvent limits, this factor must also
be considered, which in our view requires evaluating the circumstances of each particular
coating operation. See http://www.airquality.org/rules/rule466.pdf
Would Welcome the Opportunity to Meet With the Stationary Source Committee
In summary, we would like to meet with you and your Stationary Source Committee to discuss
this matter before any recommendations for the Commissioners are finalized.
James Sell
ACA Senior Counsel
4
5