SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

FINAL STAFF REPORT

Amendments to Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)

December 17, 2009

Prepared by: Anna Myers, Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed by: Colette Kincaid, Senior Air Quality Sp ecialist Glenn Reed, Senior Air Quality Specialist Joven R. Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer Creighton Smith, Compliance Supervisor Michael Carrera, Compliance Supervisor George Heinen, Rule Development Supervisor Errol Villegas, Planning Manager

I. SUMMARY

A. Reasons for Rule Development and Implementation

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Un ited States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) as severe and extreme (as of August 30, 2009) non-atta inment for the state and federal ozone standards, respectively. In accordan ce with Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for non-attainment areas, the Sa n Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) adopted the 2 007 Ozone Plan to establish a strategy for attaining the eight-hour ozone standar ds.

The ozone attainment strategy is comprised of regul atory and incentive-based measures to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOC), a precursor of ground-level ozone. The District 2007 Ozone Plan includes VOC control measure S-SOL-1 (Architec tural Coatings). Therefore, this rule development project is subject to CAA and California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) requirements.

This rule development project will seek to obtain a s much VOC emission reductions from the source category as is expeditio usly practicable, technologically feasible, and economically reasonab le, as determined by the District's Governing Board. The rule development p roject would attempt to satisfy the attainment goal listed in the 2007 Ozon e Plan. Furthermore, the District intends to satisfy the requirements identi fied in Table 1.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

2 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Table 1

Ozone Plan Commitments Subject Reference Requirement

BACM CAA 189 (b)(1)(B) Provisions in attainment plans should include the application of best available control measures (BACM) to existing major stationary

sources.

BARCT CH&SC 40919(a)(3)

2007 Ozone Plan Ozone attainment plan should provide for best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for existing permitted sources.

Deadlines Ozone Plan Rule amendments adoption public hearing by the 4th quarter of 2009.

Feasible

Controls CH&SC 40914(b)(2) Ozone attainment plans should include "all

feasible control measures."

RACT CAA 182(b)(2) and

182(f) Ozone attainment plans shall assure that reasonable available control technology (RACT) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) is in use at sources and on source categories

at or above the RACT threshold.

RACT

Threshold 70 Federal Register

30592-30596

5/26/05 The applicable RACT threshold for control

measures shall be the threshold in effect on June 15, 2004. The District’s threshold on June 15, 2004 was 10 tons per year (tpy) for

VOC.

Reductions 2007 Ozone Plan Estimated reduction is about 2.0 tons VOC per day by 2012.

Timeline CAA Section

172(c)(1) Ozone attainment plans shall implement control measures as expeditiously as practicable, and provide for attainment.

B. Climate Change

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce greenho use gas (GHG) emissions in California, with the goal of restoring emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In the coming years, ARB and the Legislature will be devel oping policies and programs to implement AB 32. There are many win-win strateg ies that can reduce both GHG and criteria/toxic pollutant emissions. In rel ation to criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases have been recognized by EPA to con tribute to the air pollution, and therefore have an impact on the publ ic health and welfare of citizens. However, the Districts statutory authorit y dictates that criteria pollutantsSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

3 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 be addressed first while also recognizing the impac ts of greenhouse gases on

the environment.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Distri ct’s Governing Board adopted the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in August 200 8. For CEQA, one of the goals of the CCAP is to establish District processe s for assessing the significance of greenhouse gas impacts. The Distric t has developed a proposed policy and proposed guidance for addressing greenho use gases under CEQA, which will be going to the District Governing Board for approval in December

2009.

C. Description of Project

Total emissions from architectural coatings and ass ociated materials represent almost ten percent of the total VOC emissions from stationary and area sources, and almost five percent of all VOC emissions statew ide. This rule project would amend Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) to impleme nt the emission control requirements listed in the 2007 Ozone Plan and requ irements in the ARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for architectural c oatings, promulgated September 2007. Implementing SCM standards will en sure that Rule 4601 meets RACT requirements in accordance with CAA 182( b)(2) and 182(f).

As guidelines for developing the proposed changes t o Rule 4601, District staff looked at the 2007 Ozone Plan, rules in other distr icts, the ARB 2007 SCM, federal rules and regulations, and best available c ontrol technology (BACT)

determinations. The SIP commitment in the District ’s 2007 Ozone Plan calls for this rule project to reduce 2.0 tons per day (tpd) of VOC, 21% reduction from the baseline inventory, upon rule implementation in 201 2. Revised proposed amendments would reduce VOC emissions by 2.8 tpd (2 8%) upon rule implementation.

District staff evaluated the option of implementing the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) architectural coating VOC limits. While the SCAQMD limits would achieve 4.5 tpd (48%) VOC emiss ion reductions it could potentially have a significant impact on the region al economy of the San Joaquin Valley. Additionally, the cost effectiveness of th e SCAQMD VOC limits would be

more than twice that of the SCM VOC limits. Techni cal reasons, as discussed later in this Final Draft Staff Report, contributed to the District’s decision to implement SCM VOC limits. The technical reasons in clude, but are not limited to freeze/thaw stability, safety issues, and performan ce standards.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

4 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 It is also important to note that the SJVAB is a NO x limited ozone area, while the

South coast Air Basin is a VOC limited attainment a rea. As reported in the SJVAPCD Annual Report to the Community (October 200 8) NOx is the primary culprit in the formation of both ozone and PM2.5. Air-quality models that simulate future formation, transport, and removal o f ozone from the lower atmosphere are used to develop an emission-control strategy to meet the 8-hour ozone standard. Air-quality computer modeling used for the District's 2007

Ozone Plan demonstrated that reductions in VOC emis sions are relatively weak in affecting 8-hour ozone levels compared to the sa me amount of NOx
reductions. As such, 

### NOx reductions are more important to attainment tha n VOC reductions. A detailed discussion on the impact on ambient ozon e levels from NOx and VOC reduction strategies is in Chapter 3 of the SJVAPCD 2007

Ozone Plan.

The SCAQMD, on the other hand, is much more VOC lim ited than the SJVAB due to topography, meteorology, and the chemical co mposition of the air pollutants. As stated in the 2007 Air Quality Mana gement Plan (AQMP) for SCAQMD, the pathway to lower ozone levels and attai nment of the 8-hour ozone standard [for SCAQMD] would be more based towards l owering VOC emissions. The SCAQMD AQMP also stated that significant VOC re ductions are needed for the 8-hour ozone standard by 2024.

Amended Rule 4601 will specify the Best Available R etrofit Control Technology. As used in this project, "Best Available Retrofit C ontrol Technology" means an

emission limitation that is based on the maximum de gree of reduction achievable, taking into account environmental, ener gy, and economic impacts by each class or category of source (CH&SC 40406).

D. Rule Amendment Process

As part of the rule amendment process, District sta ff conducted a public scoping meeting in November 2008. At the scoping meeting, District staff presented the objectives of the proposed rulemaking project, expl ained the District’s rule development process, solicited suggestions from aff ected stakeholders on how best to achieve the emission reductions, and inform ed all interested parties about upcoming workshop dates, comment periods, and proje ct milestones.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

5 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 The knowledge gathered during the scoping meeting w as used to help in the preparation of the first draft rule that was presen ted at workshop one in March 2008. A Socioeconomic Focus Group meeting was also conducted in March 2008, immediately following the workshop. During t he Socioeconomic Focus Group meeting stakeholders were asked to share esti mated costs for compliance

of the then draft amendments to the rule. The work shop was followed by a public comment period. The comments received from the pub lic, affected sources, ARB, and EPA during the public workshop process wer e evaluated and incorporated into the drafts of the rule as appropr iate.

The revised proposed rule amendments, Final Draft S taff Report, and Socioeconomic Analysis Report has been published pr ior to the public hearing to consider the adoption of the amendments to the rule by the district Governing

Board. The District’s 2007 Ozone Plan mandates a s chedule for the public hearing to consider the adoption of the newly amend ed rules for the fourth quarter of 2009.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Architectural Coatings

Architectural coatings are coatings that are applie d to stationary structures and their accessories. They include house paints, stai ns, industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, and many other products . VOCs are emitted from the coatings during application and from the associated solvents used for thinning and clean-up. For purposes of this rule architectu ral coatings are defined as a coating to be applied to stationary structures or t heir appurtenances at the site of installation, to portable buildings at the site of installation, to pavements or to

curbs.

B. ARB Suggested Control Measure (SCM)

On October 26, 2007 the ARB approved amendments to the SCM for Architectural Coatings. The SCM was developed for districts that need additional

emission reductions for the attainment or maintenan ce of state or federal ambient air quality standards. ARB amended the SCM to lowe r the VOC limits, improve definitions for coatings, and to promote consistenc y and uniformity among district

rules.

Districts in need of further VOC reductions than th e reductions expected to be achieved by the approved SCM may also consider the more stringent regulation adopted by the South Coast AQMD as its Rule 1113.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

6 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 SCM Amendments

The amended SCM established VOC content limits for more than 40 categories of architectural coatings, compared to the 47 categ ories in the 2000 SCM. Of the 47 coating categories in the 2000 SCM, 15 coating c ategories were eliminated, ten were added, and the limits for 19 existing coat ing categories were made more stringent. Table 2 illustrates the SCM recomm ended VOC limits, as presented in the SCM.

The SCM also calls for several other requirements b esides the VOC content limit requirements. The additional SCM requirements incl ude:

• Requirement for operators to submit sales data to ARB

• New, updated container labeling requirements

• A “Painting practices” provision for painting oper ations to follow

• A new thinning provision specifying allowable thin ning practices

• A sell through provision allowing three years to s ell products manufactured prior to the effective date of the VOC limit.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

7 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Table 2 SCM Suggested VOC Content Limits

Coating Category Effective 1/1/2010 Effective 1/1/ 2012
Flat Coatings 50
Nonflat Coatings 100
Nonflat - High Gloss Coatings 150
Specialty Coatings
Aluminum Roof Coatings 400
Basement Specialty Coatings 400
Bituminous Roof Coatings 50

Bituminous Roof Primers 350

Bond Breakers 350
Concrete Curing Compounds 350
Concrete/Masonry Sealers 100
Driveway Sealers 50
Dry Fog Coatings 150
Faux Finishing Coatings 350
Fire Resistive Coatings 350
Floor Coatings 100
Form - Release Compounds 250
Graphic Arts Coatings (Sign Paints) 500
High Temperature Coatings 420
Industrial Maintenance Coatings 250
Low Solids Coatings 120
Magnesite Cement Coatings 450
Mastic Texture Coatings 100
Metallic Pigmented Coatings 500
Multi - Color Coatings 250

Pre- Treatment Wash Primers 420

Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters 100
Reactive Penetrating Sealers 350
Recycled Coatings 250
Roof Coatings 50
Rust Preventative Coatings 250

Shellacs:

- Clear 730
- Opaque 550

Specialty Primers, Sealers, and

Undercoaters 100

Stains 250

Stone Consolidants 450
Swimming Pool Coatings 340
Traffic Marking Coatings 100
Tub and Tile Refinish Coatings 420
Waterproofing Membranes 250
Wood Coatings 275

Wood Preservatives 350

Zinc-Rich Primers 340SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

8 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 SCM V. South Coast AQMD Rule 1113 ARB staff considered the feasibility of the SCAQMD Rule 1113 VOC limits as a part of the SCM development process. ARB staff det ermined that the SCAQMD limits would not be feasible for implementation for several coatings categories in other districts, for technical reasons discussed la ter in this report. As such, ARB has deemed that many of the limits in the SCAQMD Ru le 1113 are beyond RACT. Table 3 below is a comparison between SCAQMD Rule 1113 and the SCM illustrating which coatings in Rule 1113 are mo re stringent than the SCM. Table 3 was copied directly from the SCM Staff Repo rt.

Table 3 Comparison Between SCAQMD Rule 1113 and S CM

SCAQMD Rule 1113 Category Rule

1113 Ceiling

Limit 1

(g/l) Rule

1113

VOC

Limit (g/l) Corresponding Categories in

SCM SCM

VOC

Limit (g/l)
Concrete-Curing Compounds 350 100 Concrete Curing C ompounds 350
Floor Coatings 420 50 Floor Coatings 100
Industrial Maintenance Coatings 420 100 2 Industrial Maintenance Coatings 250

Zinc-Rich IM Primers 420 100 Zinc-Rich Primers 340
Mastic Coatings 300 300 Mastic Texture Coatings 100
Nonflat Coatings 250 50 Nonflat Coatings 100
Nonflat High Gloss 250 50 Nonflat - High Gloss 150
Quick-Dry Enamels 400 50 Nonflat - High Gloss 150
Roof Coatings, Aluminum 500 100 Aluminum Roof Coati ngs 400
Rust Preventative Coatings 420 100 Rust Preventativ e Coatings 250
Stains (Exterior) 350 100 Stains 250
Traffic Marking Coatings 100 Traffic Coatings 250 100 Driveway Sealers 50
Concrete /Masonry Sealers 100
Wood Coatings 275
Basement Specialty Coatings 400
Reactive Penetrating Sealer 350 Waterproofing Sealers 400 100 Waterproofing Membranes 250 Concrete/Masonry Sealers 100
Basement Specialty Coatings 400
Reactive Penetrating Sealer 350

Stone Consolidant 450 Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry

Sealers 400 100 Waterproofing Membranes 250
Form-Release Compounds 250

Stone Consolidant 450

Stub and Tile Refinish 420

Default NA 250 Default 50-

150
1. Ceiling Limit: The maximum allowable VOC content for coatings that are included in the Rule 1113 av eraging

program. 2. For Industrial Maintenance Coatings, Rule 1113 allows for the use of TBAc as an exempt solvent to help achieve the 100 g/l VOC limit.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

9 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 • The SCM coating limits need to be suitable for a v ariety of climates found throughout California. As SCAQMD staff has said in public meetings, some of the VOC limits in their rule, specifically for N onflat and Nonflat-high gloss coatings are not intended for areas outside the SCA QMD. There are concerns with freeze/thaw stability and dirt pick u p due to removal of VOCs to meet the lower limits. This concern also applies i n varying degrees to the other categories mentioned above.

o According to the SCAQMD 2007 Annual Status Report on Rule 1113, tests were conducted to measure the freeze/thaw cyc le stability of ultra low-VOC coatings in a laboratory performance study. The SCAQMD staff concluded that 75% of low-VOC coatings failed the test after the first cycle; however, one of the low-VOC coatings p assed four cycles and one passed all five cycles. This is evidence t hat formulators have made progress in addressing the freeze/thaw issue i n Flat coatings

with a VOC of < 50g/l. Conversations with ARB illuminated that th e evidence presented by SCAQMD is regarding Flat Coat ings, not Nonflat coatings. Staff searched for more informat ion regarding Nonflat and Nonflat-High Gloss Coatings and freeze/ thaw test results. Staff was unsuccessful in this search. Therefore, based on information available at this time, staff must support the SCM VOC limits for Nonflat and Nonflat-High Gloss Coatings.

• The SCM does not contain an averaging provision. In the SCAQMD, coating manufacturers can sell products that exceed the VOC limits, if they demonstrate that the excess emissions are offset by emissions from sales of over-complying products.

o The 2006 SCAQMD Annual Status Report on Rule 1113 verifies that there are coatings available that meet the new stan dards. SCAQMD

staff conducted a Web Based Search for Available Fu ture Compliant Coatings and found several. It was the recommendat ion of SCAQMD staff in 2006 that “Virtually all coating categorie s in Rule 1113 except for high gloss coatings currently have more than ad equate replacement products for solvent-based and other hi gher VOC counterparts, many of which are well below the curr ent lowest effective limit of 50 g/l VOC.” It was at that time that SCA QMD staff recommended amending Rule 1113 to include a new cat egory for nonflat high gloss coatings with a VOC limit of 150 g/ l effective on July 1, 2006. On July 1, 2007 the limit for the new catego ry would be reduced to 50 g/l VOC, coinciding with the general non-flat category. The suggested amendment also included the category of Q uick Dry
Enamels. The SCAQMD staff also concluded in the 20 07 Annual Status Report on Rule 1113 that there are increasin g numbers and volumes of products that meet SCAQMD VOC limits, or are well below

those limits.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

10 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Based on conversations with stakeholders and ARB, D istrict staff have come to the conclusion that allowing an averaging p rovision would give an unfair advantage to large manufacturers versus s mall manufacturers. Averaging would allow a manufacture r to sell products that exceed the VOC limit if they can demonstrate t hat the excess emissions are offset by emissions from over-complyi ng products. Small manufacturers may not qualify for the averagi ng advantage because they only manufacture a single type of coat ing, or do not manufacture enough volume to offset noncompliant ma terials with over-compliant materials.

• The SCM does not contain an exemption for tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) due to concerns about the toxicity of TBAc. SCAQMD Rul e 1113 contains a TBAc exemption for Industrial Maintenance Coatings only. Under this exemption

manufacturers do not have to include TBAc when calc ulating the VOC content of industrial maintenance coatings.

o The SJVAPCD also has an exemption for TBAc; theref ore manufacturers in the SJVAB will also not have to in clude TBAc when calculating the VOC content of industrial maintenan ce coatings.

• The SCM does not contain a small business exemptio n. Rule 1113 allows small businesses in certain categories to be exempt from VOC limits or to have additional time to comply with VOC limits.

o District staff acknowledges that the SCAQMD has an exemption for small businesses, and that the SJVAPCD does not pro vide this exemption, but points out that according to SCAQMD compliant coatings are readily available.

• The SCM does not contain an exemption for high ele vations. Under Rule 1113, stains and lacquers do not have to comply wit h the rule’s VOC limits if they are used at an elevation of 4,000 feet or grea ter above sea level.

o The SJVAPCD encompasses climate regions that requi re the use of solvents to prevent structural and environmental is sues. San Joaquin Valley has several areas that fall within Climate Z one 16 as defined by the CEC Climate Zone Descriptions, which tends to b e found at higher altitudes. The weather patterns described in Clima te Zone 16 are better suited to solvent-based products which can b e applied at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or better and withstand moisture sooner than water based products.

o The solvent in these aluminum coatings allows the coating to “skin” while the product cures to its final state. The sk inning as defined by the NRCA Guide to Roof Coatings is a “function of t he time necessary to form a dense film on the surface of a liquid coa ting or mastic to the extent that the material is unaffected by a water s pray.” WaterborneSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

11 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 products must be applied at 40 degrees Fahrenheit o r better with minimal moisture present during curing, and if appl ied incorrectly will lead to product performance issues such as rain was h off, potentially creating environmental hazards; poor film formation , resulting in premature coating failure; or if frozen during appl ication or curing, result in immediate catastrophic coating failure.

• The SCM needs to be enforceable by small districts with limited resources. Accordingly, the SCM does not contain an averaging provision, which requires resources for recordkeeping and auditing.

o Staff has decided not to recommend the District re -instate the averaging provision that was retired in 2005.

The SCAQMD Rule 1113 does not have exemptions for s mall containers or varnishes, sanding sealers, clear lacquers, and pig mented lacquers, and requires manufacturers to submit an annual report to documen t sales of products sold in small containers. The SCM does not contain a requir ement for annual reporting, and the SCM has a small container exemption for woo d coatings.

III. DISCUSSION

This source category currently includes any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, applies, or solicits the application of any a rchitectural coating, or who manufactures any architectural coating for use with in the District. Those who are subject to the Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings) i ncludes, but are not limited to, manufacturers, retailers, paint contractors, import ers, distributors, public works personnel, and construction workers.

A. Current Regulations

District Rule 4601 currently limits VOC emissions f rom architectural coatings. This rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements. The rule applicable to any person wh o supplies, sells, offers for sale, applies, or solicits the application of any a rchitectural coating, or who manufactures any architectural coating for use with in the District.

Currently rule language has exemptions for architec tural coatings that are sold or

manufactured for use outside of the District or for shipment to other manufacturers for reformulation or repackaging. Als o exempted from rule requirements are any architectural coatings that ar e sold in containers with a volume of one liter (1.057 quarts) or less.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

12 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 On January 15, 2009, the SJVAPCD Governing Board ad opted amendments to Rule 1020 (Definitions). The adopted amendments in cluded an amendment to the definition of VOC to exempt TBAc. However, the exemption for TBAc is for VOC emissions limitations or VOC content requiremen ts only. It is not exempt from recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemi cal dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements which apply to all VOCs. This provision is based on language from the EPA Final Action on TBAc as codif ied in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CFR Part 51.I 00 (s)(5). Also , any use of TBAc exceeding a total of one gallon per year per facility will re quire the operator to apply to modify their District Permit to Operate. This prov ision allows the use of TBAc to reduce ozone precursor emissions, but is still prot ective of public health. For further explanation and details of amendments to Ru le 1020 (Definitions) please refer to Rule 1020 (Definitions).

B. Summary of Proposed Amendments

In establishing proposed VOC emission limits, Distr ict staff considered and evaluated BACT determinations, rules in other Calif ornia air districts and other states, and the ARB SCM for architectural coatings. The main objective of this rule project is to obtain as much reduction of VOC from this source category as expeditiously practicable, technologically feasible , and economically reasonable.

Revised Proposed Amendments Revised Proposed Amendments include the addition of references to test methods and labeling requirements in the definition s section of the rule. Also, proposed language omitted some SCM language from Se ction 6.3.1, that language has been added for the sake of clarity and consistency.

District staff is recommending the following propos ed amendments:

Section 1.0 – Purpose No changes proposed at this time.

Section 2.0 – Applicability The phrase “blends or repackages” would be added to rule language to extend the applicability of rule language to stakeholders involved in those activities.

Section 3.0 – Definitions Numerous definitions would be added, deleted or mod ified in order to make this rule harmonize with definitions and rule requiremen ts presented in the ARB

SCM.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

13 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Section 4.0 – Exemptions A reporting requirement will be added for any archi tectural coating that is sold in

a container with a volume of one liter or less. Th e exemption for architectural coatings would be further defined by adding “coatin gs that are supplied and offered for sale” to current language, in order to make this rule consistent with the

ARB SCM.

Section 5.0 – Requirements

Section 5.1 VOC Coating Limits This rule-amending project would implement the reco mmended VOC limits per the ARB SCM. The following changes are recommended at this time: 15 coating categories would be eliminated, ten would be added, nineteen coatings categories would remain unchanged, and the VOC cont ent limits for 19 categories would be lowered. The following is a su mmary of VOC coating limits

for this rule.

The following coating categories will be eliminated effective on and after January
1, 2011.

• Antenna Coatings

• Antifouling Coatings

• Clear Wood Coatings

o Clear Brushing Lacquers

o Lacquers

o Sanding Sealers

o Varnishes

• Fire-Retardant Coatings

o Clear

o Opaque

• Flow coatings • Quick-Dry Enamels

• Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers

and Undercoaters

• Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coatings

• Temperature-Indicator Safety Coatings

• Waterproofing Sealers

• Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers

The following Coating Categories would not have any changes during this rule amending project.

• Bituminous Roof Primers

• Bond Breakers

• Concrete Curing Compounds

• Faux Finishing Coatings

• Fire Resistive Coatings

• Form-Release Compounds

• Graphic Arts Coatings (Sign Paints) • High Temperature Coatings

• Industrial Maintenance Coatings

• Magnesite Cement Coatings

• Metallic Pigmented Coatings

• Multi-Color Coatings

• Pre-Treatment Wash Primers

• Recycled CoatingsSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

14 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 • Shellacs

o Clear

o Opaque

• Stains • Swimming Pool Coatings

• Wood Preservatives

The following Coating Categories, and corresponding VOC content limits, would be added to rule language effective on and after Ja nuary 1, 2011.

• Aluminum Roof Coatings (400 g/l)

• Basement Specialty coatings (400 g/l)

• Concrete/Masonry Sealers (100 g/l)

• Driveway Sealers (50 g/l)

• Reactive Penetrating Sealers (350 g/l) • Stone Consolidants (450 g/l)

• Tub and Tile Refinish Coatings (420 g/l)

• Waterproofing Membranes (250 g/l)

• Wood Coatings (275 g/l)

• Zinc-Rich Primers (340 g/l)

The following is a discussion of new coating catego ries that would be added to this rule during this rule-amending project.

It is important to note that some coating categorie s, specifically Basement Specialty, Reactive Penetrating Sealers, Stone Cons olidants, and Tub and Tile Refinish, that are being added to rule language, ar e new to regulation as architectural coatings. Prior to the 2007 SCM ARB did not consider these coatings to be architectural coatings. With this S CM ARB is declaring that these products are now to be considered and regulated as architectural coatings. These products have previously been sold in Califor nia as either a consumer product, an unregulated product, or in small contai ners.

This rule amending project will align Rule 4601with the intentions of ARB’s 2007 SCM to include those coating categories and make th em subject to regulation as architectural coatings in the Valley. It is also i mportant to note that these coating categories are specialized niche categories with sm all sales volumes and emissions as verified in the 2007 ARB SCM Staff Rep ort. According to the 2007 ARB SCM Staff Report, the combined documented VOC e missions from coatings that could be considered a part of the four aforeme ntioned coating categories in 2004 was 0.02 tons per day.

To avoid imposing unintended and technologically in feasible VOC limits for the four specific coating categories, industry requeste d a temporary exemption from the general coating limits. District staff recomme nds that industry’s recommendation be implemented but that this conside ration be accomplished through a special provision rather than an exemptio n.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

15 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 The following is a discussion of coating categories that would be changed during this rule-amending project.

Aluminum Roof Coatings Aluminum Roof Coating is a new category that was fo rmerly included in the Metallic Pigmented category. These coatings are pr imarily used as a topcoat for asphalt roof systems or metal roofs that need a ref lective coating. They contain

aluminum flakes for the reflection of solar radiati on to reduce the surface temperature of the roof and the internal temperatur e of the structure. These aluminum pigments float to the surface of the coati ng during settling (a process known as “leafing”) and they can reflect up to 60% of ultraviolet (UV) rays. They

also aid in the inhibition of rust formation and al leviate corrosion of metal surfaces. These coatings are not intended to preve nt water penetration or stop leaks, repair seams, or repair blisters, but they c an prevent moisture

accumulation due to the inherent nature of bitumino us resin water resistance (RCMA, 1997). In addition, most Aluminum Roof coati ngs are Underwriter’s Laboratory (UL) Class A Fire Rated, which improves fire resistance and enhances building safety.

In the first draft of the Rule the VOC content limi t for this coating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limi t of 400 g/l. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Report (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Repo rt), staff have come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to imp lement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of an Aver aging Provision. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. The averaging provision allows for a “ceiling limit” to be used by operators as long as they offset those emissions by using other coatings that are over-compliant. The SCAQMD VOC content limit for aluminum roof coatings is 100 g/l. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to operators all ows the use of coatings with VOC content of 500 g/l.

The SCAQMD has determined that it is technically fe asible to implement a 100 g/l limit for Aluminum Roof coatings, because they have local climactic conditions that are not representative of other areas in the S tate, the SJVAB included. For the remainder of California, ARB staff has determin ed that the technology exists to formulate Aluminum Roof Coatings that comply wit h a 400 g/l limit.

ARB recommends a 400 g/l VOC limit for Aluminum Roo f coatings because the VOC limit is technologically and commercially feasi ble, based on review of ARB survey data, complying marketshare, the number of c ompanies making compliant products, and product information from manufacturer s. The South Coast AQMD adopted a 100 g/l limit for Aluminum Roof coatings that became effective January 1, 2005. ARB’s recommended VOC limit is higher tha n the limit adopted by the South Coast AQMD, because the South Coast area has a temperate climate thatSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

16 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 is not subject to the weather extremes that occur i n other parts of California. ARB staff found that solventborne products are need ed for colder, wetter climates until the technology advances for waterbor ne products. In addition, ARB staff is concerned about potential safety issue s associated with the generation of hydrogen gas in waterborne aluminum c oatings. Based on discussions with manufacturers, those products that do meet the South Coast limit have been repackaged with plastic containers and vents, have a shelf life of six months from production to application, and are usually made to order for specific jobs.

Other reasons supporting the implementation of a 40 0 g/l VOC content limit for Aluminum Roof Coatings have been presented by stake holders. For example, many producers of aluminum roof coatings have quali fied their products as meeting EPA’s Energy Star Roof Products program. T he proposed reduction in

VOC limits would necessitate a re-evaluation of Ene rgy Star rated aluminum coatings by producers of those products. Re-evalua tion would require producers to take current products off the market for a perio d of more than three years while the coatings are reformulated and resubmitted for t hree year outdoor testing.

The shelf life could be reduced to 3-6 months resul ting from the chemical

reaction that occurs between the aluminum and water . This reaction generates hydrogen gas, which can become trapped inside the c ontainer and may become explosive. As such, special care and storage preca utions would have to be taken when stocking this product to eliminate scena rios where explosions could

occur. The shortened shelf-life would also result in manufacturers continually restocking these coatings, which would lead to addi tional handling and transportation costs, and vehicle miles driven to r emove and replace the unsafe out dated inventory.

Caltrans has done extensive research regarding the performance of aluminum coatings and has not identified any acceptable 100 g/l products that perform as well as coatings with VOC limits between 200 and 25 0 g/l. The aluminum coatings between 200 and 250 g/l that Caltrans uses require trained personnel to mix and apply, thus are not for the average contrac tor, business owner, and/or homeowner to use. Caltrans’ research is a strong i ndicator that the 400 g/l stipulated in the 2007 ARB SCM for Architectural Co atings is the appropriate

VOC limit.

The significant reduction in the VOC limit could po ssibly affect the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Class A Fire Rating of many roofing systems. By changing the VOC limits of these aluminum coatings from 400 g/l to 100g/l, it would trigger the need for reformulation and retesting of many previo usly approved UL Class A Fire rated roofing systems.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

17 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Tert Butyl Acetate (TBAc) should not be used as a r eplacement solvent for

reformulation in Solvent Borne Aluminum Roof Coatin gs for two reasons: it is not an effective solvent for the asphaltic resin binder in these coatings, and it is a "red label" (DOT Flammable Liquid). TBAc is a shor t (C6), polar solvent. It is not effective at reducing the viscosity of asphalts, wh ich are blends of long- to verylong chain aliphatic oils and aromatic resins with a flash point of 16.7 o C (62 o F), essentially the same as that of gasoline (roughly 1 5 o C). This classifies TBAc, and any product made from TBAc, as a Flammable Liqu id under the Department of Transportation regulations. Almost all Fire Pro tection Associations and Building Codes use the DOT definitions as part of t heir regulations, which may have severe consequences throughout the production and distribution chain.

Basement Specialty Coatings Basement Specialty Coatings is a new category that includes coatings formerly could have been covered by Waterproofing Sealer and Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealer. Basement Specialty Coatin gs are a clear or opaque coating that is labeled and formulated for applicat ion to concrete and masonry surfaces to provide a hydrostatic seal for basement s and other below-grade surfaces to prevent the intrusion of water into bas ement areas, and help prevent mold, mildew, and efflorescence. Basement Specialt y coatings must be able to withstand at least 10 psi of hydrostatic pressure a nd must be resistant to mold and mildew growth and must achieve a microbial grow th rating of eight or more. Basement Specialty Coatings can be applied by profe ssional contractors or

homeowners.

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 400 g /l. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to oper ators allows the use of coatings with VOC limits of 420 g/l.

For the new Basement Specialty Coating category, AR B recommends a VOC limit of 400 g/l. The SCM VOC limit is higher than the 100 g/l limit contained in SCAQMD Rule 1113. However, manufacturers that prov ide coatings in the SCAQMD area can still sell products that exceed the 100 g/l limit, if they participate in SCAQMD’s averaging program. In addi tion, the emission reduction losses for this category are negligible for a 400 g /l limit as compared to a 100 g/l limit, due to the small sales volume.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

18 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Concrete Curing Compounds The Concrete Curing Compounds coating category woul d not have VOC limits made more stringent during this rule-amending proje ct. The SCM VOC content limit for this coating category is 350 g/l, while t he SCAQMD VOC content limit is 100 g/l. Upon review of the SCAQMD rule requiremen ts, and the SCM Staff Report (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff have come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provision at the District. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” of 350 g/l for this coating category due to the averaging provision.

Concrete/Masonry Sealer Concrete/Masonry Sealer is a new category that cove rs coatings formerly covered by Waterproofing Sealer, Waterproofing Conc rete/Masonry Sealer, and other Categories. Concrete/Masonry Sealers are a c lear or opaque coating labeled and formulated primarily for application to concrete and masonry surfaces to prevent penetration of water, provide r esistance against abrasion, alkalis, acids, mildew, straining, or ultraviolet l ight, or to harden or dustproof the surface of aged or cured concrete.

Driveway Sealer Driveway Sealer is a new category that includes coa tings that were formerly covered by the default VOC limits. Driveway Sealer is a coating labeled and formulated for application to worn asphalt driveway surfaces to fill cracks, seal the surface to provide protection, and/or to restor e or preserve the appearance. Driveway Sealers can extend driveway longevity and protect against weather, erosion, oil, and gasoline. If applied and cured p roperly, Driveway Sealers are waterproof. These products are applied with a brus h, squeegee, roller, or sprayer and they can be applied by homeowners or co ntractors.

Fire Retardant Coatings Effective on and after January 1, 2011, the Fire Re tardant coating categories would be eliminated because they are no longer need ed. Coatings with fire retardant properties would be subject to the VOC li mit of their primary coating (e.g., Flat, Nonflat, etc.).

Floor Coatings

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 50 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 100 g /l. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. TheSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

19 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to oper ators allows the use of coatings with VOC limits up to 420 g/l.

ARB recommends a 100 g/l VOC limit for Floor Coatin gs, the SCM VOC limit is technologically and commercially feasible by 2010, based on the high complying marketshare, the number of companies making complyi ng products, and information provided by manufacturers. The propose d VOC limit is higher than the 50 g/l limit contained in the SCAQMD Rule 1113. However, manufacturers that provide coatings in the SCAQMD area can still sell products with exceed the 50 g/l limit, if they participate in SCAQMD’s avera ging program. In addition, ARB staff research reviewed lists of low-VOC products t hat could be applied to floors and had VOC contents near or below 50 g/l. Under t he SCM, almost all of the products that were reviewed would be classified as concrete/masonry sealers or industrial maintenance coatings, rather than Floor Coatings. Since Floor Coatings need to stand up to abrasion from pedestri an traffic, it has been challenging to develop resins that can be used to f ormulate 50 g/l products with acceptable performance. Therefore, ARB staff belie ves that the proposed 100 g/l VOC limit is most appropriate at this time and the SJVAPCD staff support this

conclusion.

Industrial Maintenance Coatings

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 250 g /l. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to oper ators allows the use of coatings with VOC limits of 420 g/l.

On April 2, 2009, ARB approved the “Installation, O peration and Maintenance Manual For Standing Loss Control Vapor Recovery Sys tem for Existing Installations of Aboveground Storage Tanks As Certi fied by Executive Order VR301-A”. The aforementioned manual describes the to ols and methods required to install the Standing Loss Control Enhanced Vapor Reduction (EVR) System. The manual establishes guidelines that will be adhe red to when preparing and applying white paint to existing aboveground storag e tanks (ASTs), a mandatory activity. Only three paints are allowed for the pr ogram, the manual identifies

them as follows:

1. PPG High Performance Coatings - VOC 241 g/l 2. Ponderosa Paint Co, Inc - VOC 17 g/l 3. ICI Devoe Devthane - VOC 229 g/lSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

20 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 For further details of this program please refer to the manual, which is posted on the ARB website at http://arb.ca.gov/vapor/ast/eo30 1a_IOM.pdf . District staff

has reviewed this manual and has come to the conclu sion that it would be extremely limiting on operators to comply with the standards therein if the VOC content limit were amended to 100 g/l thereby elimi nating two of the three compliant paint options. Therefore, staff feel it would be more appropriate at this

time to recommend the VOC content limit for industr ial maintenance coatings remain at 250 g/l.

Anti-Graffiti coatings are a subset of Industrial M aintenance category and are important in combating graffiti removal from buildi ngs. ARB found that AntiGraffiti coatings up to 250 g/l are being used by S tate and city agencies, and an ARB economic analysis of a 150 g/l limit for anti-g raffiti coatings showed that the

limit was not cost effective.

Low Solids Coatings The VOC Limit for Low Solids Coatings is expressed as “VOC, including water and exempt compounds” (i.e., Material VOC or VOC Ac tual).

Nonflat Coatings

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 50 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 100 g /l. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to oper ators allows the use of coatings with VOC content of up to 250 g/l.

The proposed 100 g/l VOC limit is higher than the 5 0 g/l limit contained in SCAQMD Rule 1113. However, manufacturers that prov ide coatings in the SCAQMD area can still sell products that exceed the 50 g/l limit, if they participate in SCAQMD’s averaging program. In addi tion, the SCM needs to be technologically feasible throughout California. To comply with the 50 g/l limit, some Nonflat coating manufacturers have eliminated glycols in their formulations. As a result, their products must be transported in heated trucks and stored in heated areas, to prevent freezing. Paints with hig h water contents can coagulate and become unusable if they become frozen. The SCA QMD has a mild climate, so freezing temperatures are less of a concern. Ho wever, in other areas of California, freezing temperatures are more prevalen t. ARB staff believes that additional research is needed to develop products t hat perform well in areas with more extreme climates, particularly for exterior No nflat coatings. ARB recommends adopting the 100 g/l VOC limit because i t is technologically andSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

21 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 commercially feasible based on the complying market share, the number of companies making complying products, and product in formation from manufacturers. In addition, the proposed limit is supported by the results of product testing conducted by Consumers Union, Maste r Painter’s Institute (MPI), University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR), and National Te chnical Systems (NTS).

Nonflat-High Gloss Coatings

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 50 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 150 g /l. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to oper ators allows the use of coatings with VOC content of 250 g/l. The Quick-Dr y Enamels coating category would be included as a part of the Nonflat-High Glo ss coating on and after January 1, 2011. The SCAQMD ceiling limit for this category is as high as 400 g/l VOC content.

The proposed limit is higher than the 50 g/l limit contained in SCAQMD Rule 1113. However, manufacturers that provide coatings in the SCAQMD area can still sell products which exceed the 50 g/l limit, if they participate in SCAQMD’s averaging program. To comply with the 50 g/l limit , some coating manufacturers have eliminated glycols in their formulations. As a result, their products must be transported in heated trucks and stored in heated a reas, to prevent freezing. Paints with high water contents can coagulate and b ecome unusable if they become frozen. The SCAQMD has a mild climate, so f reezing temperatures are less of a concern. However, in other areas of Cali fornia, freezing temperatures are more prevalent. ARB staff believes that additi onal research is needed to develop products that perform well in areas with mo re extreme climates, particularly for Nonflat – High Gloss coatings. In addition, more coalescing agents allow for the use of harder resins that impr ove scrub resistance and dirt pickup resistance.

Reactive Penetrating Sealer Reactive Penetrating Sealer is a new category that was formerly covered by Waterproofing Sealer and Waterproofing Concrete/Mas onry Sealer. Reactive Penetrating Sealer is a clear or pigmented product that is labeled and formulated for application to above-grade concrete and masonry substrates to provide protection from water and waterborne contaminants, including but not limited to, alkalis, acids, and salts. Reactive Penetrating Se alers must penetrate into concrete and masonry substrates and chemically reac t to form covalent bonds with naturally occurring minerals in the substrate. Reactive Penetrating Sealers line the pores of concrete and masonry substrates w ith a hydrophobic coating,SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

22 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 but do not form a surface film. Reactive Penetrati ng Sealers can be used on walls, roadways, bridge decks, sidewalks, driveways , historical monuments, and

other surfaces.

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 350 g /l. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. Reactive Penetrating Sealers from the SCM when comp ared to the SCAQMD rule, as illustrated in Table 3 of this Staff Repor t, are equivalent coatings to Waterproofing Sealers and Waterproofing Concrete/Ma sonry Sealers, each of which has a VOC content limit of 100 g/l. The “cei ling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD for both coating categories is 400 g/l.

ARB has determined that a VOC limit of 350 g/l is t echnologically and commercially feasible, based on information provide d by manufacturers. This would provide a consistent VOC limit for Reactive P enetrating Sealers and Concrete Curing Compounds. Both of these categorie s use similar reactive penetrating materials, but the products in the Conc rete Curing Compound category must be suitable for use on freshly poured concrete. Other types of concrete and masonry coatings that do not meet the criteria for Reactive Penetrating Sealer would be covered by another cate gory (e.g., Concrete/Masonry Sealer, Basement Specialty Coating , Waterproofing Membrane, etc.).

The proposed VOC limit is higher than the 100 g/l l imit contained in SCAQMD Rule 1113. However, manufacturers that provide coa tings in the SCAQMD can still sell products which exceed the 100 g/l limit, if they participate in South Coast AQMD’s averaging program. In addition, the emissio n reduction losses for this category are negligible for a 350 g/l limit as comp ared to a 100 g/l limit, according

to ARB.

Rust Preventative Coatings

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 250 g /l. The effective date for this coating limit would be January 1, 2012. ARB r ecommends a 250 g/l VOC limit for Rust Preventative coatings, effective Jan uary 1, 2012. The extra time would provide Rust Preventative manufacturers time to reformulate low VOC alkyd technologies. Under the SCM VOC limit and de finition, most solventborne coatings and topcoats would be excluded from the ca tegory. Lowering the VOC limit from 400 g/l to 250 g/l will eliminate many h igh-VOC solventborne coatingsSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

23 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 that were shifted to the Rust Preventative category after VOC limits were implemented from the 2000 SCM. New products in thi s category and existing products that comply with the proposed limit are ex pected to use waterborne acrylic latex technology. These types of products have previously been used in the Industrial Maintenance category to protect meta l substrates from corrosion. These coatings generally have VOC contents under 25 0 g/l and are predominantly single component. Although the curre nt Rust Preventative category is primarily comprised of solventborne alk yd coatings, it is technologically feasible to protect metal substrate s from corrosion with waterborne acrylic coatings. The VOC limit for the Rust Preventative category is higher than the 100 g/l limit in the SCAQMD. Howeve r, coating manufacturers who sell in the SCAQMD can continue to sell high-VO C Rust Preventative coatings if they participate in the SCAQMD averagin g program.

Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters This coating category VOC content limit would be ma de more stringent in 2012 from the current limit of 350 g/l to 100 g/l. ARB recommends a 100 g/l VOC limit for Specialty Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters, e ffective January 1, 2012. The later effective date for Specialty Primers, Sealers , and Undercoaters would allow manufacturers to develop appropriate stain-blocking test methods. The VOC limit is technologically and commercially feasible by January 1, 2012, based on the complying marketshare, test data, the number of companies making complying products, and product information from ma nufacturers. The VOC limit is consistent with the limit adopted by the South C oast AQMD.

Stains In the first draft of amendments to Rule 4601, staf f had divided the category into internal and external stains. However, Upon carefu l review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Report (as presente d in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff have come to the conclus ion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provision. The SCAQMD all ows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provisio n. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to operators allows the use of co atings with VOC limits up to 420 g/l. Therefore, staff is recommending this category stay one category with a VOC content of 250 g/l as recommended by the SCM.

ARB recommends maintaining the current 250 g/l VOC limit for Stains, based on the complying marketshare, the number of companies making complying products, testing data, and product information fro m manufacturers. The South Coast AQMD adopted a 100 g/l limit for Exterior Sta ins while the limit for Interior Stains has remained at 250 g/l. ARB’s SCM limit fo r Exterior Stains is higher than South Coast AQMD limit, while the SCM limit fo r Interior Stains is the same
as the South Coast AQMD. ARB staff believes that a dditional research and testing is needed to develop exterior semi-transpar ent stains that can complySAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

24 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 with a 100 g/l VOC limit and perform well throughou t California. Based on performance testing results in the AVES report, zer o-VOC exterior semitransparent stains generally do not perform as well in freeze/thaw, mildew/fungus resistance, stain blocking, and dirt pickup, though they generally perform better in color change and moisture/UV resistance. South Coa st AQMD did not adopt a 100 g/l limit for interior stains, due to appearanc e and depth issues related to the use of low-VOC clear wood coatings (SCAQMD, 2003).

According to the ARB survey, exterior Semi-transpar ent Stains with VOC contents below 100 g/l represented close to zero pe rcent of the overall sales volume. Based on these data, ARB staff does not be lieve that there is sufficient complying marketshare to support a 100 g/l limit fo r exterior Semitransparent

Stains. ARB also believes that there are enforceme nt concerns with splitting the Stains category into Interior and Exterior subcateg ories.

Stone Consolidant Stone Consolidant is a new category that was previo usly not considered an architectural coating. However, if they had previo usly been regulated they could have been covered by the default VOC limits and Wat erproofing Concrete/ Masonry Sealer. Stone Consolidants penetrate into stone substrates to help restore the integrity of crumbling or decayed mater ials. These products are often considered to be concrete treatments, rather than c oatings, and are not for general purpose use. The intent of establishing th e Stone Consolidant category is to support historical preservation efforts by al lowing limited use of these products under the direction of a stone conservatio n specialist, such as an architect, conservator, or engineer. Stone Consoli dants are clear products that are designed to leave the surface appearance unchan ged. After the consolidation process is complete, manufacturers of ten recommend that the substrate be coated with a water repellent to provi de protection from the

elements. Stone Consolidants can be used on a vari ety of historical structures, including statues, monuments, and buildings.

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 450 g /l. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to oper ators allows the use of coatings with VOC limits of 420 g/l.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

25 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 For the new Stone Consolidant category, the ARB SCM VOC limit is 450 g/l. The VOC limit is technologically and commercially feasi ble by January 1, 2010, based on information provided by raw material suppliers a nd coating manufacturers. The VOC limit is higher than the 100 g/l limit cont ained in South Coast AQMD Rule 1113. However, manufacturers that provide coa tings in the South Coast AQMD area can still sell products exceeding the 100 g/l limit, if they participate in South Coast AQMD’s averaging program. In addition, this is a very small category and the emission reduction losses for this category are negligible for a 450 g/l limit as compared to a 100 g/l limit.

Tub and Tile Refinish Coatings Tub and Tile Refinish Coatings is a new category th at was formerly covered by the default VOC limits and Nonflat-High gloss. Tub and Tile Refinish Coatings are a clear or opaque coating that is labeled and f ormulated exclusively for refinishing the surface of a bathtub, shower, sink, or countertop. Tub and Tile Refinish coatings include primers and topcoats that are used to refurbish bathtubs, showers, sinks, countertops, and other ti le and porcelain surfaces. These products are designed to provide a hard surfa ce that can withstand abrasion and immersion in hot water. However, they are not generally recommended for pools or hot tubs. Most products p rovide a glossy sheen, but

some leave a satin finish. Tub and Tile Refinish c oatings can be applied either by professional contractors or by homeowners. Most of the products identified by ARB staff are multi-component, solventborne formula tions with acrylic urethane topcoats and epoxy primers.

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 250 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 420 g /l. The ARB SCM established a new category for Tub and Tile Refinis h coatings to clarify how these products should be classified and regulated. ARB staff does not believe that it is technologically feasible for Tub and Til e Refinish products to be

formulated to meet the VOC limit for the “Other” ca tegory. In addition, it does not appear that the products being sold in California a re primarily being sold in small

containers. The definition for the Tub and Tile Re finish category includes strict performance requirements to help prevent this categ ory from becoming a loophole for Nonflat and other categories. While U .S. EPA considers Tub and Tile Refinish products to be covered by Industrial Maintenance, ARB staff does not believe that this is appropriate. For the new Tub and Tile Refinish category, we are recommending a VOC limit of 420 g/l, effecti ve January 1, 2010. The VOC limit is technologically and commercially feasi ble by January 1, 2010, based on the number of companies making complying product s and information provided by manufacturers.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

26 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Tub and Tile Refinishing is not currently listed in architectural coating rules for
the South Coast AQMD. Establishment of the Tub and Tile Refinish category is for clarification purposes, rather than for obtaini ng emission reductions. While some products would need to be reformulated to meet the 420 g/l limit, the resulting emission reductions would be relatively n egligible.

Waterproofing Membranes Waterproofing Membranes is a new category that was formerly covered by Waterproofing Sealer and Waterproofing Concrete/Mas onry Sealer. Waterproofing Membranes are a clear or opaque coati ng that is labeled and formulated for application to concrete and masonry surfaces to provide a seamless waterproofing membrane that prevents any p enetration of liquid water into the substrate. Waterproofing Membranes are in tended for application to below-grade surfaces, between concrete slabs, insid e tunnels, inside concrete planters, and under flooring materials. The Waterp roofing Membrane category does not include topcoats that are included in the Concrete/Masonry Sealer category (e.g., parking deck topcoats, pedestrian d eck topcoats, etc.). The Waterproofing Membrane category is intended for non -wearing surfaces and it does not include products that are used to coat the surface of parking decks, roof decks, bridges, etc.

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 250 g /l. Waterproofing Membranes from the SCM when compared to the SCAQMD rule, as illustrated in Table 3 of this Staff Report, are equivalent coatin gs to Waterproofing Sealers and Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers, each of which has a VOC content limit of 100 g/l. Upon careful review of the SCAQM D rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Report (as presented in Table 3 of this F inal Draft Staff Report), staff

have come to the conclusion that it would be more a ppropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provision. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. The “ceiling limit” pr ovision offered by SCAQMD for both coating categories is 400 g/l.

ARB recommends a VOC limit of 250 g/l. This limit will apply to the higher-build (>25 mil) products that comply with the requirement s in the Waterproofing Membrane definition. Thinner coatings that provide a waterproofing membrane, but do not comply with the definition, will be cove red by the new Concrete / Masonry Sealer category, and will need to comply wi th a VOC limit of 100 g/l. The limit for Waterproofing Membranes is consistent with the VOC limit for Industrial Maintenance coatings. It is expected th at there may be some overlap between these two categories for products that are used in water/wastewater facilities and other applications that are covered by the Industrial Maintenance definition. Therefore, ARB believes that a consist ent VOC limit makes the SCM VOC limits more enforceable. For Waterproofing Mem brane products that wereSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

27 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 previously classified as “Waterproofing Sealers” (2 50 g/l), the VOC limit remains the same. For products that were previously classi fied as “Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers” (400 g/l), the limit will be a significant decrease.

ARB staff’s analysis supports the conclusion that t he limit is technologically and commercially feasible. In the South Coast AQMD, it is expected that Waterproofing Membrane products could fall under In dustrial Maintenance or Waterproofing Sealer, both of which have a VOC limi t of 100 g/l. The SCM VOC limit is higher than the South Coast AQMD limit. H owever, manufacturers that provide coatings in the South Coast AQMD can still sell products that exceed the 100 g/l limit, if they participate in the South Coa st AQMD averaging program.

ARB staff believes that additional research is need ed to verify the performance of 100 g/l Waterproofing Membranes in a way that prote cts the infrastructure throughout California. The South Coast AQMD area h as a mild climate, so

climatic conditions are less of a concern. However , in other areas of California, the infrastructure is exposed to more extreme clima tes (e.g., mountainous areas with freezing temperatures). ARB staff believes th at additional research is needed to develop products that perform well in the se areas. Therefore, ARB staff believes that the current 250 g/l VOC limit i s most appropriate at this time.

Wood Coatings Wood Coatings is a new category that was formerly c overed by Clear Brushing Lacquers, Lacquers, Sanding Sealers, Varnishes, and other categories. In the first draft the VOC content limit for this coating was 100 g/l, during the workshop it was established that the 100 g/l VOC limit was a type-o. It was intended to be 275 g/l. The correction has been made to the Table of Standards. Staff is currently recommending the originally intended VOC content limit of 275 g/l, in alignment with the SCM limit.

ARB recommends a 275 g/l VOC limit for Wood Coating s, as the VOC limit is technologically and commercially feasible, based on the complying marketshare, the number of companies making complying products, product information from manufacturers, and test results. The SCM limit is consistent with the limit adopted by the South Coast AQMD. It is important t o note that the vast majority of products reported in the survey with VOC limits below 275 g/l are waterborne. Few solventborne products meet the proposed VOC lim it so they would either have to be reformulated, replaced by waterborne pro ducts, or use the small container exemption.

Zinc-Rich Primer Zinc-Rich Primer is a new coating category that was formerly included in the Metallic Pigmented coating category. Zinc-Rich Pri mers are used to protect steel surfaces from corrosion. Regular coatings resist c orrosion by forming a barrier between the metal and the atmosphere, but Zinc-Rich Primers provide corrosion protection via electrochemical reactions. A Zinc-R ich Primer is a coating thatSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

28 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 contains at least 65 percent metallic zinc powder o r zinc dust by weight of total solids, is formulated for application to metal subs trates to provide a firm bond between the substrate and subsequent applications o f coatings, and is intended for professional use only and is labeled as such.

In the first draft the VOC content limit for this c oating was 100 g/l, staff are currently recommending a VOC content limit of 340 g /l. The SJVAPCD will not re-instate the averaging provision that expired in 2005. Upon careful review of the SCAQMD rule requirements, and the SCM Staff Rep ort (as presented in Table 3 of this Final Draft Staff Report), staff ha ve come to the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to implement the SCM VOC limit for this coating category due to the absence of the averaging provis ion. The SCAQMD allows for a “ceiling limit” for this coating category due to the averaging provision. The “ceiling limit” provision offered by SCAQMD to oper ators allows the use of coatings with VOC limits of 420 g/l.

ARB recommends a 340 g/l VOC limit for Zinc-Rich Pr imers because the VOC limit is technologically and commercially feasible, based on the complying marketshare, the number of companies making complia nt products, and product

information from manufacturers. The VOC limit is h igher than the 100 g/l South Coast AQMD limit. However, manufacturers that prov ide coatings in the South Coast AQMD can still sell products that exceed the 100 g/l limit, if they participate in the averaging program.

Since Zinc-Rich Primers are often applied to critic al infrastructure, it is vital that they meet the performance specifications establishe d by public agencies. Based on ARB discussions with Caltrans and others, ARB st aff believes that additional research is needed to verify the performance of 100 g/l Zinc-Rich Primers in a way that protects the infrastructure throughout Cal ifornia. The South Coast AQMD area has a mild climate, so climatic condition s are less of a concern. Research is also needed to address potential safety issues associated with the production of hydrogen gas, caused by chemical reac tions with zinc dust and water. Therefore, ARB staff believes that the prop osed 340 g/l VOC limit is most appropriate at this time.

Section 5.2 Most Restrictive VOC Limit For purposes of this rule, if a coating is marketed for more than one coating category, the most stringent VOC limit will apply. However, there are exceptions to the most restrictive requirement. This section would be modified to list the

situations in which the most restrictive limit is n ot applicable. The modified list corresponds with the ARB SCM requirements.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

29 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Section 5.3 Sell – Through of Coatings The Sell-Through provisions for coatings in current ly enforced rule language is 3 years after the effective date of new VOC content l imits for coatings. The first version of draft amendments to rule requirements re commended that the three year provision be amended to a twelve month provisi on. Upon conversations with ARB, EPA, and stakeholders, and research of se ll through provisions in other districts, staff changed the provision back t o a three year sell-through provision. Therefore, there would be no changes to this section of the rule from the current active version of the rule during this rule amending project.

Section 5.6 Coatings Not Listed in the Table of Sta ndards Coatings not listed in the Table of Standards would be modified to add Nonflat – High Gloss coatings as another category in addition to the Flat and Nonflat coatings categories already in place.

Section 5.8 To avoid imposing unintended and technologically in feasible VOC limits for the new coating categories, industry requested a tempor ary exemption from the general coating limits. District staff recommends that industry’s recommendation be implemented but that this consideration be accom plished through a special provision rather than an exemption. This section w ould be added to provide that language.

Lacquers This section would be deleted, as there will be no lacquer specific category after the new requirements become effective on 1/1/011. The SCM, and therefore, this rule project would propose that all Clear Wood Coatings be combined under the new “Wood Coatings” category.

Averaging Compliance Option This section would be deleted from rule language be cause it expired in 2005. ARB believes that many districts do not have suffic ient resources to manage an averaging program, and it is difficult for small bu sinesses to participate because they have fewer products.

Section 6.0 – Administrative Requirements

Section 6.1 Labeling Requirements Labeling requirements would be updated to add new l abeling standards consistent with new coatings categories per the SCM

.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

30 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 Per stakeholder comments and conversations with ARB the language for labeling of Industrial Maintenance Coatings has been amended back to the original standards. Also, the labeling requirement for Zinc Rich Primers has also been amended to include language matching the Industrial Maintenance coating labels, per stakeholder request and conversations w ith ARB.

Section 6.2 Reporting Requirements A new section would be added to include reporting r equirements per the SCM. The SCM contains a new requirement to submit sales data. Collection of this

data is authorized in the California Health and Saf ety Code which requires submission of data to estimate emissions. This pro vision is intended to expedite the collection of survey data for architectural coa tings. Under this provision, survey data must be provided within 180 days. Conv ersations with ARB confirmed that they do not want stakeholders to kee p sales data for a minimum of five years, therefore the language has been chan ged to align with the 2007 SCM. As such, sales data must be kept on site for three years.

Section 6.3 Test Methods

New sections would be added to coincide with new co ating categories pursuant

to the ARB SCM.

Section 7.0 – Compliance Schedule This section would be updated to account for the ne w amendments to rule language by adding the phrase “the dates specified within the text of the rule”.

Section 8.0 – Averaging Compliance Option This section would be deleted in its entirety. The 2000 SCM contained an averaging compliance option, which expired in 2005 and was administered by ARB staff. The averaging provision that was in Rul e 4601 also expired in 2005. ARB deleted this provision in the SCM because they believe that many districts do not have sufficient resources to manage an avera ging program, and that an averaging compliance option may inadvertently provi de an unfair business advantage to large businesses.

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION ANALYSIS

According to the 2007 Ozone Plan, total VOC emissio ns from sources subject to Rule 4601 are estimated to be 9.7 tpd in 2012. The total VOC emission reductions associated with amendments to rule langu age is expected to be 2.8 tpd by 2012. An emission reduction analysis has be en prepared, based on the

best available information at this time. Please se e Appendix B for further details.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

31 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 V. COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS

Pursuant to CH&SC section 40920.6(a), a cost effect iveness analysis is required for rules that implement BARCT. The purpose of the cost effectiveness analysis is

to evaluate the economic reasonableness of the rule or rule amendments. The analysis also serves as a guideline for developing the control requirements of the

rule. District staff conducted a cost effectiveness analysis of the proposed amendments based on reports from ARB in the SCM as well as the SCAQMD staff report. Please see Appendix C for further details.

VI. SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Pursuant to CH&SC 40728.5, “whenever a district int ends to propose the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a rule or regulat ion that will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, that agency s hall, to the extent data are available; perform an assessment of the socioeconom ic impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the rule or regulation.”

As a part of the District’s socioeconomic analysis process, District staff convened a Focus Group. The Focus Group met on July 1, 2008 to assist in the development of the socioeconomic report for the dra ft rule.

The Focus Group consisted of volunteers who assiste d with the socioeconomic analysis by gathering and providing information abo ut costs expected to be incurred to comply with the rule and hypothetical b usiness responses to those costs. Operators and other interested parties were invited to submit their estimate of compliance costs and possible business responses to aid District staff in estimating the regulatory compliance costs and business impacts resulting from compliance with the rule. This info rmation and supporting data was provided to an outside consultant who identifie d and analyzed the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed amendments to Rule 4601 on the regional economy.

A preliminary socioeconomic analysis was conducted using the cost data from the March 3, 2009 version of the staff report which recommended the implementation of SCAQMD VOC limits for the twelve coating categories with lower VOC content limits than the SCM. The prelimi nary cost effectiveness analysis indicated that the SCAQMD coating limits w ould result in an increase in cost of $2.91 per gallon of coating. Staff found t hat the $2.91 per gallon cost increase could potentially have a significant impac t on the regional economy of the San Joaquin Valley in that it the predicted res ults of the cost increase would be a 2.5% workforce reduction at coating manufactur ing operations in addition to

a cost increase to consumers. The consultant deter mined that for the socioeconomic impacts to be not significant the cos t increase could not exceedSAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

32 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 the average historic price change of 3% plus a 1.3% standard deviation factor. The preliminary socioeconomic information indicated that in addition to the 2.5%

workforce reduction the cost increase would result in an increase to consumers of 5.9%, meaning the SCAQMD limits would have a sig nificant socioeconomic impact on the SJVAB. Therefore, staff decided to r ecommend the VOC content
limits of the SCM rather than the SCAQMD limits. S taff instructed the consultant to update the socioeconomic impact report only usin g cost data from the SCM VOC limits, thereby making it a more accurate and u p-to-date document. Please see Appendix D for further details.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA), staff investigated the possible environmental impacts of the revised p roposed amendments to Rule

4601. Based on the lack of evidence to the contrar y, District staff has concluded that the revised proposed amendments to the rules w ill not have any significant

adverse effects on the environment. Staff recommen ds filing a Notice of Exemption under the provisions of Public Resource C ode 15061 (b) (3).

Amendments to Rule 4601 are intended to reduce VOC content below than currently in use for certain coating categories and implement work practices that will reduce fugitive VOC emissions. In addition, Di strict Staff has considered the potential impacts that paint reformulation might ha ve on GHG emissions. Staff has determined that reformulation of paint and mate rials would not require use of

solvents that would contribute to GHG emissions. Th us, District staff concludes that adoption of the revised proposed amendments to the rule would not result in increased GHG emissions and therefore, would have n o impact on global climatic change.

VIII. RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

Pursuant to CH&SC 40272.2, District staff prepared a rule consistency analysis that compares the elements of amendments with the c orresponding elements of other District rules, federal regulations and guide lines that apply to the same source category or type of equipment. District sta ff found that none of the revised proposed requirements of these rules would conflict with other District rules, or federal rules, regulations, or policies c overing similar stationary sources. The rule consistency analysis is presented in Appen dix E of the Final Draft Staff Report.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

33 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 IX. REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNIQUES (RACT)

ANALYSIS

RACT Discussion

The Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 182(b)(2) states th at ozone attainment plans shall assure that RACT for volatile organic compoun ds (VOC) is applied at certain sources. District Rule 4601 is a VOC rule, therefore underwent a RACT analysis during this rule amending project. A RACT analysis requires an examination of a rule against Federal rules, regula tions, and technology guidelines as well as comparing it against rules fr om other Districts in California. District Rule 4601 was compared to federal and stat e regulations and guidance. The following is a discussion of that analysis.

District staff compared emission limits, optional c ontrol requirements, and work practice standards in District Rule 4601 to compara ble requirements in rules from

the other Air Districts in California nonattainment areas. Further discussion and comparisons of District Rule 4601 with rules in oth er Air Districts in California is presented in Section III “Discussion” of the Final Draft Staff Report. District staff has concluded based on the aforementioned analyses, that District Rule 4601 satisfies RACT for architectural coating operations

.

A. Comparison with Federal Rules and Regulations

EPA – Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) - There is no CTG for this source
category.

EPA – Alternative Control Technology (ACT) - There is no ACT for this source
category.

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS )

There is no NSPS for this source category.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants (NESHAPs) and Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACTs) - There is no NESHAP or MACT for this source category.

B. Comparison with Other California Non-Attainment Areas

District staff compared emission limits, optional c ontrol requirements, and work practice standards in District Rule 4601 to compara ble requirements in rules from the following California nonattainment areas:

• South Coast AQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings ) amended July

2007SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

34 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 • Bay Area AQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 (Architectural C oatings) amended

November 2001

• Sacramento Metro AQMD Rule 442 (Architectural Coat ings) amended May 2001.

• Ventura County APCD Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coati ngs) amended

November 2001.

SCAQMD Rule 1113 SCAQMD has introduced new coatings limits that are more stringent than the state’s 2007 SCM. As a result, coatings that meet these new limits have been introduced in the South Coast area beginning in 200 5. The new limits were phased-in over three years, with the final phase ef fective in July 2008.

The SCAQMD architectural coating rule differs the a rchitectural coating rules in

all other air districts in California in that the S CAQMD allows the use of an averaging provision for architectural coatings. Th is enables the SCAQMD to require more stringent coatings limits for certain coatings categories with a ceiling limit on the VOC content at levels higher than thos e in the 2007 ARB SCM.

ARB staff considered the feasibility of the SCAQMD Rule 1113 VOC limits as a part of the 2007 SCM development process. ARB staf f determined that the SCAQMD limits would not be feasible for implementat ion for several coatings categories in other districts. Table 4 below is a comparison of the VOC content
limits of SCAQMD Rule 1113 and the 2007 ARB SCM.

Table 4. Comparison Between SCAQMD Rule 1113 and SCM

Coating Category SCAQMD R1113 Ceiling VOC Limit (g/l) SCAQMD Rule

1113 VOC Limit (g/l) ARB 2007

SCM VOC Limit (g/l)

Concrete-Curing Compounds 350 100 350

Floor Coatings 420 50 100

Industrial Maintenance Coatings 420 1002 250

Zinc-Rich IM Primers 420 100 340

Mastic Coatings 300 300 100

Nonflat Coatings 250 50 100

Nonflat High Gloss 250 50 150

Quick-Dry Enamels 400 50 150

Roof Coatings, Aluminum 500 100 400

Rust Preventative Coatings 420 100 250

Stains (Exterior) 350 100 250

Traffic Coatings 250 100 100

Waterproofing Sealers 400 100 100-400

Waterproofing Concrete/Masonry Sealers 400 100 100- 450SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

35 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 The following are the reasons cited by ARB in the S taff Report for the 2007 ARB SCM as to why the SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural C oatings) VOC content

limits are not feasible for other air districts in California. The following language

is further discussed in Section II.B of this Final Draft Staff Report.

• The SCM coating limits need to be suitable for a v ariety of climates found throughout California. As SCAQMD staff has said in public meetings, some of the VOC limits in their rule, specifically for N onflat and Nonflat-high gloss coatings are not intended for areas outside the SCA QMD. There are concerns with freeze/thaw stability and dirt pick u p due to removal of VOCs to meet the lower limits. This concern also applies i n varying degrees to the other categories mentioned above.

• The SCM does not contain an averaging provision. In the SCAQMD, coating manufacturers can sell products that exceed the VOC limits, if they demonstrate that the excess emissions are offset by emissions from sales of over-complying products.

• The SCM does not contain an exemption for tertiary butyl acetate (TBAc) due to concerns about the toxicity of TBAc. SCAQMD Rul e 1113 contains a TBAc exemption for Industrial Maintenance Coatings only. Under this exemption

manufacturers do not have to include TBAc when calc ulating the VOC content of industrial maintenance coatings.

o The SJVAPCD also has an exemption for TBAc; theref ore manufacturers in the SJVAB will also not have to in clude TBAc when calculating the VOC content of industrial maintenan ce coatings.

• The SCM does not contain a small business exemptio n. Rule 1113 allows small businesses in certain categories to be exempt from VOC limits or to have additional time to comply with VOC limits.

• The SCM does not contain an exemption for high ele vations. Under Rule 1113, stains and lacquers do not have to comply wit h the rule’s VOC limits if they are used at an elevation of 4,000 feet or grea ter above sea level.

• The proposed SCM needs to be enforceable by small districts with limited resources. Accordingly, the proposed SCM does not contain an averaging provision, which requires resources for recordkeepi ng and auditing.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Final Staff Report: Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatin gs) December 17, 2009

36 Final Staff Report with Appendices For

Amendments to Rule 4601 BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 BAAQMD adopted amendments to Regulation 8 Rule 3 on July 2009 to incorporate the 2007 ARB SCM requirements. This ru le amending project is also proposing the adoption of the 2007 ARB SCM requirem ents. Therefore, this rule would be as stringent as the BAAQMD Regulation 8 Ru le 3 (Architectural Coatings).

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 442 and Ventura C ounty APCD Rule 74.2

These air districts adopted the ARB 2000 SCM for ar chitectural coatings. District staff used the 2000 ARB SCM as a template for the O ctober 2001 amendments and, therefore, was at the same level of stringency as these air district rules. However, the current proposed amendments are based on the ARB 2007 SCM limits and are therefore more stringent than these air districts.

C. Conclusion

After careful evaluation of prohibitory rules in ot her California nonattainment areas, District staff concludes that District Rule 4601 satisfies RACT for architectural coatings.

X. REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board (ARB). “2007 Suggested Cont rol Measure for Architectural Coatings”. February 1, 2008. 2. ARB. “Installation, Operation and Maintenance Ma nual For Standing Loss Control Vapor Recovery System for Existing Installa tions of Aboveground Storage Tanks As Certified by Executive Order VR-30 1-A”. April 2009. http://arb.ca.gov/vapor/ast/eo301a_IOM.pdf 3. ARB. “Staff Report for Proposed Amendments to th e Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings”. September 200 7. 4. ARB. “Resolution 07-46 approving the 2007 SCM”. October 26, 2007 5. ARB. “Technical Support Document for Proposed Am endments to the Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coating s. http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/arch/Approved_2007_S CM.pdf 6. Bay Area AQMD. “Regulation 8 - Organic Compound s. Rule 3 - Architectural coatings”. November 21, 2001. 7. San Joaquin Valley APCD. “2007 Ozone Plan”. Ap ril 30, 2007.
8. South Coast AQMD. “Rule 1113. Architectural Co atings”. July 13, 2007.