Lyondell Chemical

3801 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073

USA dan.pourreau@lyondellbasell.com Tel +1 610-359-2411
Cell +1 610-212-9592

Fax +1-610-359-2328 lyondellbasell.com 

### August 31, 2010

David Yang Air Quality Engineer Rule Development Sacramento Metropolitan Air Q uality Management District 777 12th Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 874-4847

Re: Comments on Proposed Amended Rules 451, 459 and Staff Report.

Dear Mr. Yang,

As the developer and producer of tertiary-butyl acetate (TBAC), Lyondell Chemical is pleased to provide the following comm ents on Proposed Amended Rules (PAR) 451, 459 and the staff report fo r these rules.

We support the exemption of TBAC in rule 459 for automotive coatings, including thinners and reducers. Exempt TBAC safely is used in low-VOC automotive coatings

and cleaners in 49 states and over 20 Califor nia counties, including adjoining Placer, Yolo, Solano, and San Joaquin Counties. We also request that TBAC be exempted for automotive cleaning applications and for coati ngs in rule 451. As we noted in our comments for rule 101, TBAC is negligibly photochemically reactive, with an MIR of 0.17 grams ozone/gram (Dr. W. Carter SAPRC-07 mechanism). 1



### It is an excellent solvent for industrial c oatings including those listed in several categories in rule 451. Your risk analysis for rule 459 has determined that TBAC use in automotive coatings will not pose a risk to hu man health. This is especially true since

the cancer risk calculation was based on a r odent tumor endpoint that is no relevance to

human health since humans do not produce the protein respons ible for tumor formation. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that TBAC us e in 451 rule coatings will pose any chronic risk to humans and we request that TBAC be exempted in that rule as well.

In summary, Lyondell requests that the AQ MD extend the exemption of TBAC for automotive cleaners in rule 459 and propose it in rule 451. This will greatly reduce the flammability risks and emissions associat ion with cleaning and gun-flushing with acetone-based cleaners and coatings. We will provide additiona l comments on these two rules once we have the opportunity to ca refully review the staff report which was

1 http://www.engr.ucr.e du/%7Ecarter/SAPRC/Page 2 of 2 

### released only five days ago. We look forward to worki ng with you on this important rulemaking. Please call me with any questi ons, comments, or if you need additional

information.

Sincerely,

Daniel B. Pourreau, Ph.D.

cc: Kevin Williams

### STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

## AIR RESOURCES BOARD

P. O. Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812

September 13, 2010

ARB Staff Rule Review Results

To: Kevin J. Williams, Program Coordinator Sacramento Metropolitan Air Q uality Management District Telephone Number: (916) 874-4851 e-mail: kjwilliams@airquality.org

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222 e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov

The following draft rules, which are scheduled fo r a workshop to be held by your District staff on September 16, 2010, were received by us on August 18, 2010, for our review:

Rule 101 General Provisions and Definitions Rule 451 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Rule 459 Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and Associated Parts and Components Coating Operations

The Air Resources Board staff has review ed the rules and, based on the information available to us at this time, we have no comments.

The rules were examined by the Stationary S ource Division, the Enforcement Division, and by the Monitoring and Laboratory Division.

We received the rule after the ARB/CAPCOA protocol date. When we receive draft rules at least 30 days before a workshop, our st aff is afforded suffici ent time to conduct a thorough, comprehensive review and you wil l likely receive our comments well before the workshop.

If you have any questions, please contact me by e-mail or at t he telephone number

above.

# PPG INDUSTRIES

Automotive and Fleet Finishes 3800 West 143 rd Street, Cleveland, OH 44111

216 671

- 7152 Fax 216 671

- 7691

E

- M ail: mkoss@ppg.com

MIKE KOSS MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS AUTOMOTIVE,FLEET, & LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FINISHES

September 16 , 2010

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 777 12th Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: David Yang

Phone: (916) 874

- 4847

Subject: Proposed revisions of Rule 451

- SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL

PARTS A ND PRODUCTS & Rule 459

- AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED

PARTS AND COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS

Mr

. Yang :

We recogniz e the district’s motivations to refine & revise regulations to improve the quality of life of its

citizens. We want to state our appreciation to the district for allowing us this opportunity to comment on the p roposed draft versions

. W e would like to state the following:

In Rule 451

- SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS we find the following definition un der section 238 :

PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER: A coating which contains at least 1⁄2 percent acid by weight, as determined by the method specified in Section 502.2, and no more than 12 percent solids by weight, and is applied directly to metal surfaces to provi de surface etching and corrosion resistance or adhesion of subsequent coatings

...

We suspect this coating type definition i s patterned after South Coast AQMD ’s Rule 1107 (45)

PRETREATMENT COATING . We ask that if the district chooses to follow the precede nt set by the
South Coast AQMD Rule 1107 that they also include a related coating type definition for a similar product that meets the same customer performance requirements :

Rule 1107 (16) ETCHING FILLER is a coating that contains less than 23 percent s olids by weight and
at least 1/2

- percent acid by weight, and is used instead of applying a pretreatment coating followed by a primer.

Both of these products typically use the same resin chemistries and are intended to be applied direct to

metal for corros ion resistance. We find that coatings manufacturers may not have the capability to offer a product to meet PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER 12% solids maximum requirement, but may offer

one tha t meets the definition of ETCHING FILLER

. We propose that the distr ict allows both options for application facilities and coatings manufac turers . We should note that the VOC limit in Rule 1107 for

both coating types is 3.5 lbs/gal.

We propose that either the 12% solids maximum limit be withdrawn from the definition of

P RETREAMENT COATING or the ETCHING FILLER coating type be added to Rule 451

.page 2

In Rule 459

- AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND

COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS we find a separate definition and limit for TRUNK
INTERIOR COATING.

We are not aware of any other auto refinish rule that carries this de finition. Typically

, we might ex pect this coating to fall within the UNDERBODY COATING d efinition. In fact, the (264) UNDERBODY COATING definition already includes “the underside of a trunk”. The VOC limit for TR UNK INTERIOR

COATI NG is set at 3.5 lbs/gal, for UNDERBODY CO A TING it is 3.6 lbs/gal. We would hope that new

district regulations a cr os s t he st ate maintain as much uniformity as possible

.

We propose eliminating the TRUNK INTE RIOR COATING defini tion & VOC limit in Rule 459 and merging its requirements into the UND E RBODY COATING definition & VOC limit

.

In Rule 459

- AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND C OMPONENTS

COATING OPERATIONS we find a several reference s to the use of tertiar y butyl acetate (TBAC).

We appreciate the opportunity to use a new formulating tool as the district allows TBAC as an exempt solvent. However, 402.1 f and 402.2f call for listing TBAC content in product data sheets, 403 calls for listing TBAC content again on the product label.

As we have recently gone to great lengths to accommodate CARB SCM label requirements we would be hesitant to again change labels to meet a new, unique requirement set out only in Sacramento’s Rule 459. We feel asking coatings manufact urer to show TBAC content in both Product Data Sheets and labels is an unneeded, redundant requirement .

We pr opose that the section 403 label requirement to show TBAC cont ent be withdrawn as the same requirement for product data sheets is sufficient.

In Rule 459

- AUTOMOTIVE, MOBILE EQUIPMENT, AND ASSOCIATED PARTS AND

COMPONENTS COATING OPERATIONS (section 310 ) we find a VOC limit for cleaning application equipment of 25 g/L.

We do see this limit in a number of CARB SCM based a ir district rules recently implemented. We find

s etting the limit at this low level forces formulators to use high exempt content products. Acetone &
ParChloro Benz oTriFluoride (PCBTF) are typically selected for these types of products, there are only a few formulator options. Acet one cu t s well b u t has a very high evaporation rate. PCBTF does not cut

as well. We could design a better product by not setting a limit for this category , these solvents are not intended to be emitted but should be captured in a well designed gun cleaning device.

Of the districts that have recently implemented new CARB SCM based rules, Bay Area AQMD Rule 45

has no limit stated, under 308.3

- “ Shall not use organic compounds for the cleanup of spray equipment, including paint lines, unless equipment for col lecting the organic compounds and minimizing their evaporation to the atmosphere is used. ”

We propose that the district considers following Bay A rea AQMD’s practical approach to applicator cleaners, setting no limit but requiring efficient devices that min imize vapors released.

If you have any questions about these requests, feel free to contact me.

### 1 of 3 

## Performance Coatings

September 17, 2010

Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD 777 12th Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Attention: David Yang (916) 874-4847.

RE: Proposed Revised Rules 101, 451, and 459

Dear Mr. Yang,

DuPont Performance Coatings submits t he following comments to the District for

consideration in the revision of the rules referenced above.

Proposed Revised Rule 101: General Provisions and Definitions DuPont Performance Coatings appreciates t he District’s commitment to protection of human health and the environment, and recognize this commitment internally to be a
Core Value.

In support of this Core Value, we pr ovide recommendations on product MSDS, labels and other product literature, for the use of PPE that provides adequate protection from the potential hazards associated with ingr edients in our products. The use of engineering controls, respiratory protecti on, and other forms of PPE are commonplace in the application of industrial coatings by professional, trained painters.

We struggle to understand the conditional exem ption of Dimethyl Carbonate and Methyl Formate, and the absence of an exemption for TBAc. Like many of the other solvents exempted from consideration as a VO C, DMC and Methyl Formate would be incorporated into finished products. End-user s may not have the capacity to track this required information, and we believe the provision is unnecessarily burdensome.

Further, manufacturers need every available tool to formulate coatings that meet everlowering VOC standards. TBAC is VOC-exempt in most States and some California Air Districts. This solvent is effective for a wide range of coatings types, and formulations for surface preparation. There is a crit ical and urgent need for safe, effective and affordable exempt solvents for use in the industry.

Because of their broad usefulness in formu lation, and demonstrated safety we request that the District fully exempt all solvents currently exempted by USEPA. Barley Mill Plaza 21

P O Box 80021 Wilmington, DE 19880-0021

### 2 of 3 Proposed Revised Rule 451: Surface Coat ing of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products There is inconsistency betw een the definitions of Pretr eatment Wash Primer in Proposed Revised Rule 451 and Pr etreatment Coating in Pr oposed Revised Rule 459. For all intents and purposes, the coating types are synonymous. We would request that

the current definition of Pretreatment Coating be reta ined as expressed in Rule 459, that is, 0.5% acid by weight and no more than 16% solids by weight. The proposed decreased solids content is not technically feasible, while still delivering the desired product attributes.

Proposed Revised Rule 459: Automotive, Mobile Equipment, and Associated parts and Components Coating Operations

• The proposed revised definition of Ae rosol Coating (Paint) Product does not appear to be specifically applicable to the operations within scope of this proposed revised rule. The reason for in clusion of the qualifying statement “...or for use in specialized equipment for ground traffic/marking applications” is unclear. We would request that the pr oposed revised definition be modified to

read: “a pressurized coating product contai ning pigments or resins that dispenses product ingredients by means of a propellant, and is packaged in a disposable can for hand-held application.”

• The newly included definition of spot r epair is not descriptive of the process actually completed during Refinish operations . The size of a spot repair can vary with the size of the vehicle being repair ed. We request that the definition be modified to be more reflective of the process, and propose the following, taken
from BAAQMD Rule 8-45-236: Spot Repair: Repair of an area on a motor vehicle, piece or mobile equipment, or associated parts or components of less than an entire panel.

• The newly included definition of trunk inte rior coating is unnecessary. Coatings used to complete this task are typically single-stage coatings or color coatings, where there is a need for color match. We would suggest that this definition be removed from the Proposed Revised Rule, and that the associated addition of a new Coating Category and limit also be removed. The additional Coating Category only serves to complicate labeling requirements for manufacturers.

• The language found is section 309 (Prohibition of Possession) to be applicablesix months after rule adoption should be revised to be specific to product endusers, and not applicable to product dist ributors that may service customers

outside of the District.

• The proposed 25 g/L VOC content lim it proposed for Solvent Cleaning Operations, while currently in commerce, has proven to be ineffective for the task at hand. Surface prep is a critical step in the Refinishing process, and must be completed with solvent blends effective enough to remove surface dirt, oil and grease, without depositing residue. Acet one does not meet the requirement. Solvent blends of higher VOC content can be used, and used far more efficiently to get the job done. For routine cleani ng between process steps, we propose a VOC content limit of 160 g/L.

### 3 of 3 • For difficult cleaning tasks, such as the re moval of bugs and road tar, we propose an allowance for the use of higher VOC mate rial with a volume limitation. We propose inclusion of provision in line with BAAQMD Rule 8-45-308.5.

We appreciate this opportunity to submit comment on the proposed revisions to Rules 101, 451, and 459; and respectfully request t hat consideration be given to our suggestions.

Sincerely,

Emily L Taylor Product Stewardship Consultant DuPont Performance Coatings

### STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

## AIR RESOURCES BOARD

P. O. Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812

October 18, 2010

ARB Staff Rule Review Results

To: Kevin Williams, Program Coordinator Sacramento Metropolitan Air Q uality Management District Telephone Number: (916) 874-4851 e-mail: kjwilliams@airquality.org

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222 e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov

The following rule, which is scheduled for a hear ing to be held by your District Board on October 28, 2010, was received by us on August 24, 2010, for our review:

Rule 451 Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

The Air Resources Board staff has review ed the rule and, based on the information available to us at this time, we have no comments.

The rule was reviewed by the Monitori ng and Laboratory Divisio n, and the Stationary

Source Division.

If you have any questions, please contact me by e-mail or at t he telephone number

above.