AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 67.0 – ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS



### WORKSHOP REPORT

A notice for a workshop on the proposed Rule 67.0 a mendments was mailed to all known

manufacturers, distributors, and retail sellers of architectural coatings located in San Diego County. Notices were also mailed to all Econ omic Development Corporations and Chambers of Commerce in San Diego County, the U.S E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), an d other interested parties. The workshop was held on September 6, 2001. Oral and w ritten comments were received

from affected manufacturers, distributors, end user s, and ARB. The comments and District responses are as follows:

1. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The term “industrial use” in Subsection (d)(5) shou ld be defined or clarified. As written, after January 1, 2004, a Rust Preventive coating ca n be applied for industrial uses only if it meets the Industrial Maintenance coating VOC con tent limit specified in Table 1. This implies that Rust Preventative coatings can be used for industrial use which conflicts with the Subsection (c)(45) definition which states that they are coatings “...formulated exclusively for non-industrial use...”

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The Subsection (d)(5) language has been modified as follows: After January 1, 2004, a person shall only apply or solicit the application of a rust preventative coating for nonindustrial uses, unless the rust preventative coati ng complies with the industrial maintenance coating VOC limit specified in Table 1. In addition, the definition for Rust Preventative coatings has been revised to delete th e word “exclusively.”

2. WORKSHOP COMMENT

Would a coating applied to a warehouse component, s uch as shelving, be considered

‘non-industrial’ use?

DISTRICT RESPONSE

Yes. Coatings applied to warehouse components, suc h as shelving, would be considered

a ‘non-industrial’ use. An industrial maintenance coating could be applied to shelving within a warehouse if the shelving was exposed to o ne or more of the extreme environmental conditions specified in the definitio n of industrial maintenance coating.Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 2 -

3. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The amendments to Rule 67.0 propose to lower the VO C content limits of 12 coating categories upon adoption. ARB’s Suggested Control Measure (SCM) does not propose lower limits for these coatings until January 1, 20 03, or January 1, 2004, for Industrial Maintenance coatings. The District should not be m ore stringent than the SCM. It will take time for coating manufacturers to produce and distribute coatings that meet the

lower VOC content limits.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District agrees. Rule 67.0 has been revised to propose that these coatings meet the lower VOC limits by January 1, 2003 (January 1, 200 4, for Industrial Maintenance coatings), consistent with the SCM.

4. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The District should reconsider the proposed VOC con tent limit of 250 grams per liter (g/l) for Floor coatings. These coatings are curre ntly marketed in California as Industrial Maintenance coatings or Quick Dry Enamels with VOC content limits of 420 and 400 g/l, respectively. The District should retain a minimum VOC content limit of 400 g/l for Floor coatings.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District agrees. The VOC content limit has bee n revised to 400 g/l, effective upon adoption, and 250 g/l effective January 1, 2003, co nsistent with the SCM. Coatings that

meet the definitions of both Floor and Industrial M aintenance coatings will be treated as Industrial Maintenance coatings for determining all owable VOC content, pursuant to Subsection (d)(3).

5. WORKSHOP COMMENT

If a coating is purchased before the lower VOC cont ent limits take effect on January 1, 2003, is there a date by which the coating must be applied?

DISTRICT RESPONSE

No. If a coating complies with the VOC content lim its applicable when it is

manufactured, there are no restrictions on when the coating may be used. The appropriate VOC content limit is determined by the manufactured date, which is required to be listed on all coating containers.Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 3 -

6. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The Appendix A averaging provisions contain ceiling limits specifying the maximum allowable VOC content for coatings eligible for ave raging. The ceiling limits are unnecessary since EPA’s National Architectural Coat ing Rule provides upper bound ceiling limits. In addition, as long as the same e mission reductions are achieved, ceiling limits only serve to limit a coating manufacturer’s compliance flexibility.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District disagrees. Ceiling limits, recommende d by ARB, are necessary to protect against regional differences that could result in h igh VOC products being sold in San Diego County. Using EPA’s National Architectural R ule to provide upper bound ceiling limits would allow coatings with VOC contents highe r than those allowed by current Rule 67.0, which has been in effect for over 10 yea rs. Although these emissions would be offset from a statewide perspective, VOC emissio ns could increase in San Diego. Including the ceiling limits eliminates this potent ial.

7. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The imposition of ceiling limits diminishes the fle xibility otherwise provided to manufacturers to utilize averaging to produce limit ed quantities of higher-performing coatings.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The ceiling limits reflect the VOC content limits f ound in California air district Architectural Coating rules. There is no need to a llow the use of coatings with higher VOC content limits, since coatings which meet these limits have been readily available for nearly 10 years. In addition, the ceiling limi ts will ensure that existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) emission reduction commit ments are met throughout the state.

8. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The proposed Appendix A averaging program will suns et on January 1, 2005. The District should consider removing the sunset provis ion. If averaging achieves the same

emission reductions, then it should remain a viable alternative to reformulating all coating categories.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The Appendix A averaging program will be a statewid e program authorized by district rules, but implemented by the ARB. Therefore, cons istency between air district rules is important. To maintain statewide consistency, the District will retain the January 1,Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 4 -

2005, sunset provision. However, the District is n ot proposing to submit the amended

version of Rule 67.0 for inclusion in the federal S IP. The emission reductions are not currently necessary to demonstrate compliance with federal attainment requirements. If

the District, other air districts, or ARB determine s it necessary to extend the sunset provision, the District will consider recommending such a change at that time.

9. WORKSHOP COMMENT

Are graphic arts operations subject to the Graphic Arts coating category contained in

Rule 67.0?

DISTRICT RESPONSE

No. Rule 67.0 regulates coatings applied to statio nary structures and their appurtenances at the site of installation. District Rule 67.16 ( Graphic Arts Operations) applies to web or sheet fed graphics art operations, typically conduc ted at a graphic arts business.

10. WORKSHOP COMMENT

Technology assessments are still occurring for seve ral coating categories. The District

should not submit Rule 67.0 for inclusion in the SI P to avoid locking in VOC content limits that may be unachievable.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District agrees. The District is not proposing to submit amended Rule 67.0 as a SIP

revision unless the emission reductions are determi ned in the future to be needed for a

federal attainment demonstration or to meet other f ederal requirements.

11. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The District should revise Rule 67.0 to include a c oating category for Concrete Protective coatings with a VOC content limit of 400 g/l, consi stent with the category provided in EPA’s National Architectural Coating Rule, which de fines it as follows: “Concrete Protective Coating means a high-build coating, form ulated and recommended for application in a single coat over concrete, plaster or other cementitious surfaces. These coatings are formulated to be primeless, one-coat s ystems that can be applied over form oils and/or uncured concrete. These coatings preve nt the spalling of concrete in freezing temperatures by providing long-term protection from water and chloride ion intrusion.”

This is a high performance, primerless, one-coat sy stem that can be applied over form oils and/or uncured concrete. The coating achieves excellent adhesion to the concrete and cures to a hard protective coating, lasting for periods of over 20 years withoutWorkshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 5 -

requiring recoating. The coating’s primerless, sin gle coat application and longevity features not only reduce VOC emissions, they also r educe worker safety risks. The use of this coating results in fewer overall emissions. Less than 50,000 gallons of this coating was sold in California by our company in 20 00.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The addition of a Concrete Protective Coating categ ory was raised during the development of the SCM. The District concurs with the conclusion in ARB’s SCM Staff Report, that “Concrete Protective Coatings” are alr eady included under the Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer category with a VOC limit of 400 g/l. Accordingly, it is not necessary to add a new coati ng category for “Concrete Protective Coatings.”

12. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The District should revise Rule 67.0 to include a c oating category for Anti-Graffiti coatings with a VOC content limit of 600 g/l. Anti -Graffiti coatings are used on top of paints, coatings, or murals to protect the film und erneath. A sacrificial anti-graffiti coating (waterborne) will typically be reapplied af ter one to three washings. Our high performance urethane anti-graffiti coating lasts fo r ten to 15 washings. This eliminates the need for successive recoatings and reduces VOC emissions, as repainting is required less often when the underlying coating is protected by a hard, permanent anti-graffiti system. With the extremely low volume of anti-graf fiti coatings used, less than 0.01% nationwide, raising the limit to 600 g/l would have minimal impact on the total VOC’s in the region.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SC AQMD) and ARB have identified both permanent and sacrificial anti-graffiti coatin gs that comply with the 250 g/l future effective limit for Industrial Maintenance coatings . No specific performance data has been provided to the District or ARB to indicate pe rformance problems with the low VOC anti-graffiti coatings. The product informatio n sheets for some of these products indicate that graffiti can be removed without resid ual “shadowing” (ghosting) and/or that the coating forms a non-porous, monolithic surface, resulting in a very low coefficient of friction. One product has been successfully used b y Caltrans since 1999. Given the availability of low-VOC anti-graffiti coatings, the re is no need for a separate coating category at 600 g/l.Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 6 -

13. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The Rule 67.0 definition of Specialty Primer should be revised to be consistent with the National Paint and Coating Association definition a s follows: “Specialty primer means a coating formulated and recommended for application to a substrate to block stains, odors,

or efflorescence; to seal fire, smoke or water dama ge; to condition excessively chalky surfaces; or recommended for application to exterio r wood or wood-based surfaces, or for highly alkaline cement, plaster and or other cement itious surfaces . An excessively chalky surface is one that is defined as having a chalk ra ting of four or less as determined by ASTM Designation D 4214-98 Photographic Reference S tandard No. 1 of the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology ‘Pictorial Sta ndards for Defects’.” ( Emphasis

added. )

The proposed modification to the Specialty Primer d efinition would allow the use of primers specifically formulated for use on concrete , plaster, wood and other masonry surfaces or for highly alkaline cement, plaster and other cementitious surfaces. Without this change, these types of primers would be classi fied as general primers, with VOC content limits of 200 g/l effective January 1, 2003

.

At 200 g/l, the ability to maintain a viable primer for specific concrete and masonry applications is totally lost. The result would be holidays (holes in the coating), dry spray particles, and heavy overlapped films. The use of acetone will not achieve a 200 g/l VOC coating and would further contribute to film format ion and application problems, especially cob webbing. Waterborne primers used in such applications, as well as the top coat applied on it, peel off in large sheets, resul ting in the entire building being recoated. Latex primers or coatings will not adhere to surfac es previously coated with silanes or siloxanes, while solvent borne primers will penetra te these hard substrates, forming a strong bond with the surface.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The current Subsection (c)(52) definition of Specia lty Primer is consistent with the SCM definition and already includes excessively chalky surfaces (defined as having a chalk rating of four or less). Therefore, exterior wood or wood-base surfaces and highly alkaline cement plaster or other cementitious surfa ces with excessively chalky surfaces are already included in this coating category and i t is not necessary to change the definition as suggested.

14. WORKSHOP COMMENT

The Rule 67.0 definition of Waterproofing Concrete/ Masonry Sealer should be revised as follows: “Waterproofing concrete/masonry sealer me ans a clear or pigmented filmforming or non film-forming coating that is labeled or formulated for sealing concrete and masonry to provide resistance against water, al kalis, ultraviolet light, and staining.”Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 7 -

The addition of the phrase “non-film forming” is re commended so that all concrete and masonry sealers are included in this category. We believe it was the intent to have these materials included. However, the way the category is worded makes it sound as though only film-forming sealers are allowed.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer coating c ategory is a specialty type of Waterproofing Sealer, and thus allowed a higher VOC content limit of 400 g/l. Non filmforming Waterproofing Sealers that comply with the 250 g/l VOC content limit are readily available. Therefore, it is not necessary to include non film-forming Waterproofing Sealers in the specialty category of Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry

Sealers.

15. WORKSHOP COMMENT

We are a specialty, high-performance coating manufa cturer and therefore do not manufacture coatings which lend themselves to very low VOC content, e.g., flat interior coatings. We do make every effort to lower the con tent of our coatings, however, as evidenced by the use of our acrylic technology for our concrete protective coatings. The averaging provisions can only be effectively used b y companies with diverse coating lines and this penalizes our company, which has dev oted its efforts to developing niche market coatings that otherwise would not have been developed, because the volumes are too small to interest large manufacturers with dive rse product lines.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The VOC content limits for Architectural Coatings h ave been tightening gradually for several years as the technology has developed to lo wer the VOC contents of various types of coatings. Higher VOC content limits are provide d within the rule for various specialty coatings. The VOC content limits proposed within p roposed Rule 67.0 are currently available or are considered technologically feasibl e. ARB and the District are committed to monitoring industry’s progress in complying with the proposed limits. (See Written Comment 16 below.) The averaging provision was ado pted in the SCM and Rule 67.0 to provide industry with flexibility in meeting new an d lower limits. However, use of the averaging program is not necessary to comply with t he Rule 67.0 coating VOC content

limits.

16. WRITTEN COMMENT Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

The Board Resolution adopting proposed amendments t o Rule 67.0 should contain the following or equivalent wording: “SDAPCD will monit or the progress and results of theWorkshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 8 -

technical assessment being conducted by SCAQMD and the essential public services agencies, and will make future modifications to the Rule that may be appropriate.”

DISTRICT RESPONSE

ARB plans to conduct technology assessments for eac h coating category with lower future effective VOC limits (2003 or 2004) prior to the effective dates in order to monitor the industry’s progress in complying with the propo sed limits. These technology

assessments will consider the Essential Public Serv ices Agencies’ test programs, the Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Trea tment Works test program, and the National Technical Systems test program. In additi on, ARB will be working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD ) to identify any potential problems industry is having in meeting the lower VO C limits. District staff will follow ARB’s technology assessment and SCAQMD’s work to mo nitor the industry’s progress in complying with the standards and make any approp riate changes to the rule as needed.

The commitment to do this will be included in the B oard resolution for Rule 67.0.

17. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

The ARB Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings (SCM) definition for “Residential” does not appear in Rule 67.0. “Resid ential” is used in the labeling requirements for industrial maintenance coatings. We do not believe that a simple dictionary definition of residential is adequate to describe the important labeling restrictions for industrial maintenance coatings. To maintain compliance integrity of the

rule, relevant definitions contained in the SCM sho uld appear in the rule.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District disagrees. As currently written, both the SCM and Rule 67.0 only require Industrial Maintenance coatings to be labeled using the term “residential.” There is no specific requirement or standard based upon this te rm, only that the label states such coatings are not for residential use.

18. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

The exemption for emulsion-type bituminous pavement sealers does not exist in the SCM. This provision should either be deleted or re worded to make it clear that these products are subject to the District’s cutback and emulsified asphalt rules. We believe do-it-yourself repair coatings for driveways are ar chitectural coatings, and could be unintentionally exempted by Subsection (b)(1)(iv). The ARB is currently collecting speciated survey information to better understand b ituminous coatings, and it is possible that in the future, driveway repair coatings will b e defined as a separate category.Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 9 -

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District agrees. Subsection (b)(1)(iv) has bee n revised to specify that only bituminous pavement sealers applied to roads are ex empt from Rule 67.0. These sealers are subject to the requirements of District Rule 67 .7.

19. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

The sentence in the Architectural Coatings definiti on explaining that coatings used in shop application are not architectural coatings has been omitted. We believe that the rule needs an explanation that coatings applied in a fac tory or shop are not architectural, since this is a common question asked by both end users a nd manufacturers. We understand that District staff feels that it is important to c larify that spray booths located within a facility painting appurtenances create an exception to the shop application definition. District staff has suggested that the second senten ce of the SCM definition be changed to read as follows: “Coatings applied in offsite shop applications or to non-stationary structures such as airplanes, ships, boats, railcar s, and automobiles, and adhesives are not considered architectural coatings for the purposes of this rule.” The word “offsite” would clarify that painting of appurtenances done in spra y booths within a facility is classified as an architectural coating and would leave intact the intent that coatings applied in a factory or spray booth away from the facility are n ot considered architectural. It is also consistent with the definition of appurtenance. We agree with this solution.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

Subsection (c)(6) has been revised as suggested.

20. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

SCM Subsections 3.4 (Painting Practices) and 3.5 (T hinning) have been omitted in proposed amended Rule 67.0. We understand that sto rage of VOC-containing materials is covered in Rule 67.17, but this rule is not spec ific for painting practices. Therefore, we

believe that SCM Subsection 3.4 should be added to Rule 67.0, or at a minimum, Rule

67.0 should reference Rule 67.17. We note that the District references Rule 2 to define the term VOC. We believe that District inspectors should use discretion in not issuing an

uncovered container citation for both Rules 67.17 a nd 67.0.

We understand that SCM Subsection 3.5 is not includ ed in Rule 67.0 because District

staff feels that it is redundant since it is covere d in footnote 1 of Table 1. However, footnote 1 is simply a statement that VOC content i s calculated to include the manufacturer’s maximum thinning recommendation on t he label. In contrast, SCM Subsection 3.5 prohibits the application of a produ ct thinned more than the manufacturer

recommends. We added this Subsection to the SCM to enhance enforceability and clarify that excess thinning is a violation.Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 10 -

The ARB believes that, for statewide uniformity and to maintain compliance integrity of the rule, all of Section 3 (Standards) in the SCM s hould appear in district rules (except Section 3.8, which does not apply to San Diego Coun ty).

DISTRICT RESPONSE

District Rule 67.17 already regulates the storage o f materials containing volatile organic compounds which include architectural coatings. Th e District will include a reference to

Rule 67.17 in Rule 67.0. In addition, if Rule 67.0 amendments are approved, the District will be notifying affected persons of the new requi rements. At that time, the District will remind parties of the Rule 67.17 requirements.

To provide consistency with the SCM, Subsection (d) (7) has been added to prohibit thinning beyond the manufacturer’s maximum thinning recommendation.

21. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

Subsection (f)(1) states that an annual report to t he Executive Officer be submitted. We recommend that the District indicate that the repor t to the Executive Officer must be in writing.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District has revised Subsection (f)(1) as sugge sted.

22. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

In Subsection (f)(2)(iv), references to EPA-approve d State or local methods do not include a complete title and do not specify the ver sion date. We recommend changing portions of the rule to read as follows:

For subsection (J): “Exempt Compounds: `The conten t of compounds...SCAQMD

Method 303 4 -91 (Revised August 1996 3 ), Determination of Exempt Compounds, ...”; and

For subsection (L): “Alternative VOC Content of Co atings: The VOC...SCAQMD Method 304-91 (Revised February 1996 3 ), Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Various Materials, ...”

DISTRICT RESPONSE

Subsections (f)(2)(iv)(J) and (L) have been revised as suggested.Workshop Report -

Rule 67.0 - 11 -

23. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

The word “statewide” appears four times in Subsecti on (d)(6), presumably to emphasize that the averaging program is being managed by the ARB statewide, rather than by each district individually. The word "statewide" is ina ppropriate; it precludes a manufacturer from submitting a district-specific averaging plan, which he can choose to do.

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District disagrees. The proposed wording does not prelude a manufacturer from submitting a district-specific averaging plan. How ever, to provide consistency with the averaging program provisions being adopted by other districts, the term “statewide” has been deleted from the text and will only be retaine d in the Section header.

24. ARB WRITTEN COMMENT

The Table in Appendix A titled “Averaging Categorie s and VOC Ceiling (Maximum VOC allowed)” has no units indicated. We recommend that the District add units to the table. We also recommend changing the second colum n title of the table to read as follows: Rule/VOC Limit (In effect 1/1/2003 except Industrial Maintenance Coatings).

DISTRICT RESPONSE

The District agrees. The Table has been revised as suggested. The special effective date for Industrial Maintenance Coating will be included as a footnote.

10/18/01

LY:AS:ls