Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 74 Table VI-6 Dusting Aid Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Aerosol 17 13 5 151 155

Non-aerosol 3 33 77 0 0

Total ------ 46 ------ 151 155

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Con sumer Products – Phase II – Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

4. Fabric Protectant (non-aerosol)

Product Category Description :

Fabric Protectants are applied to fabric substrate s to protect the surface from dirt, soil, and other contaminants, and from stains that may result. While some products also provide water repellency, Fabric Protectants a re used specifically to protect against dirt, soil, or stains. Products which solely provi de water repellency (i.e. water-proofing protection), without any claim for dirt, soil, or s tain protection, are considered Waterproofer products, and are not included in the Fabric Protectant category. Typically, Waterproofer products are silicone-based , while some Fabric Protectant products (notably the aerosols) are fluoropolymer-b ased (ARB, 1991a).

Fabric Protectants were regulated under Phase II o f the Consumer Products Regulation adopted in January 1992, and a descripti on of the product category is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (A RB, 1991a). At that time, the Board approved the staff recommendation of a 75 percent V OC limit for all product forms effective January 1, 1995, along with a 60 percent VOC limit for all product forms subsequently effective January 1, 1997. The 60 per cent VOC limit for all product forms

remains in effect.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 75 The current proposal for a specifying a lower VOC limit pertains only to the nonaerosol products, for reasons discussed later. Tab le VI-7 below summarizes the sales and emissions from ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are a bout 5,517 pounds per day.

Table VI-7

Fabric Protectant*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

Non-Aerosol 63 5,517 366

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions of non-aerosol Fabric Prot ectants are 366 pounds per day, or about 0.18 tons per day. Although not show n, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is 5 percent by weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Fabric Protectants are used by household consumers and outdoor recreational enthusiasts; as well as commercial and professional workers for clothing care, upholstery care, carpet care, and automotive interi or care. Fabric Protectants may be

used for household fabric articles such as bed cove rs, quilts, craft, and vehicle upholstery. Fabric Protectants are also used on th e fabric tops of convertible

automobiles.

Non-aerosol products are typically applied by mech anical spray on clean fabric articles, and left to dry. A resin film, usually v ery thin and often invisible, is formed and left behind on the fabric fibers. Occasional re-ap plication may be needed to maintain protection (ARB, 1991a).

Fabric Protectants are sold in general merchandise stores, supermarkets, hardware stores, recreational equipment stores, aut o parts stores, janitorial and maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Interne t.

Product Formulation :

The non-aerosol products are liquid, mechanical-sp ray-applied products, some sold as dilutables (i.e. concentrates). Most formu lations are water-based with low levels of VOCs. Typical VOCs include glycol ethers and al cohol. Non-VOC products represented approximately 42 percent of the non-aer osol sales. The sales-weighted average VOC content of the products reported in the 2003 Survey was 5 percent by weight.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 76 Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for non-aerosol products is 1 percent VOC by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI- 8, using emissions adjusted to 2010, the proposed limit will result in an estimate d emission reduction of 163 pounds per day, or about 0.08 tons per day. Table VI-8 al so shows that about 95 percent of the non-aerosol market currently complies with the prop osed 1 percent VOC limit.

Table VI-8 Fabric Protectant Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Non-Aerosol 1 42 95 159 163

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

The proposed 1 percent VOC limit is intended to al low for complying water-based formulations. As discussed above, the 2003 survey data showed many non-aerosol products are water-based and already are low or non -VOC.

The 2003 survey data show very limited use of perc hloroethylene (an exempt chlorinated compound) and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlorinated compound) in this category. While it is not likely these toxic air c ontaminants will be used as cleaning solvents in the future reformulated products, ARB s taff is proposing that perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride be prohibited from use in Fabric Protectant products. This prohibition is pr oposed to ensure that manufacturers

do not choose to reformulate with toxic chlorinated solvents in response to the lower VOC limits. Staff has determined that currently av ailable formulation technologies do not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, o r methylene chloride, thus they are not needed to comply with the proposed standard. S ee Chapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroe thylene, and methylene chloride.

Issues :

a. Issue : The proposed 1 percent VOC limit for non-aerosol Fabric Protectants may be feasible for some types of products, but not others.

Response : The commenter did not identify which types of produ cts for which the proposal may not be feasible. A review of labe ls for products that comply with the proposed standard shows a variety of claim s, demonstrating the proposal is feasible for many types of products. N o specific claims were foundTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 77 on the labels of non-complying products that could not also be found on the labels of complying products. In addition, the lar ge complying market share for the non-aerosol products suggests that the proposal is feasible.

b. Issue : The proposed VOC limit for aerosol products is n ot feasible for products labeled for use on upholstery.

Response : Regarding the aerosol products, ARB staff believes that survey year 2003 was likely within the transition period during which industry conducted research and development and phased in replacement products using new chemical technologies, following the phase-out of t he perfluorooctanyl chemistry products at the end of 2000 (3M, 2007; 3M, 2000a; 3 M, 2000b; U.S. EPA 2000). Also, five years have passed since the 2003 survey, so current products may be the result of several transitional changes. Theref ore, products marketed now may be substantially different in terms of product formulations, sales, and possible VOC emission reductions, compared with the products in the 2003 survey. Staff therefore plans to defer proposing a VOC standard for aerosol Fabric Protectants and intends to re-survey the aer osol products to obtain more representative data. Staff will reconsider the VOC limit for aerosol products in a future rulemaking, assuming that the phase-in of ne w technologies has largely been accomplished.

REFERENCES

1. 3M. What you should know about 3M’s ‘next genera tion’ Scotchgard TM Protector products . 2007. http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Scotchg ard/Home/Resources/Envi

ronmental

. October 29, 2007. (3M, 2007)

2. 3M. RE: Phase-out Plan for POSF-Based Products . July 7, 2000. http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/pfos.fr.fin al.docket.0009.pdf

. (July 10, 2000). (3M, 2000a)

3. 3M. 3M Phasing Out Some of its Specialty Materia ls . May 16, 2000. http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecret s/scotchgard/pdfs/226- 0641.pdf#page=1 . (September 1, 2000). (3M, 2000b)

4. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

5. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Con sumer Products - Phase II – Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 78 6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. M emo from Charles Auer to Barbara Leczynski, Mary Dominiak, Frank Kover, Ward Penberthy, and Karen Lannon. Subject: Phaseout of PFOS . May 16, 2000. (U.S. EPA, 2000)

5. Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product

Product Category Description :

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product is a lau ndry care product designed or labeled for single use in the clothes dryer to impa rt softness to, or control static cling of, a load of washable fabrics; and may impart a fragra nce or scent. For the purpose of this definition only, “single use” means a product that is intended for one time use during a single drying cycle and is removed after completi on of the drying cycle. A “load” is the amount of washable fabrics in a single drying cycle . Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer

Product includes treated non-woven sheets which are typically packaged in boxes with a multiple number of sheets. Fabric Softener – Sin gle Use Dryer Product does not include products applied to washable fabrics prior to placing the washable fabrics in the clothes dryer and multiple use dryer-added products

.

These products are often sold in packages of as lit tle as 20 sheets to as many as 200 sheets per box and are available in both scente d and unscented varieties. A product brand may have more than one fragrance vari ant. Based on the shelf survey conducted by ARB staff in 2006 and Internet searche s, the majority of dryer-added fabric softener products are sold as single use she ets but are also available to consumers in multiple use products such as packets, sachets, blocks and dryer balls. However, the Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Pro duct category only applies to single use products.

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product is a pr eviously unregulated category.

Table VI-9 below summarizes the sales and emissions from products in the Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product category based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to t he 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 26,804 pounds per day.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 79 Table VI-9 Fabric Softener--Single Use Dryer Product *

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

All Forms + 26 26,804 1,037

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Only the amount of product impregnated on a sheet r eported. The mass of the sheet is not

included.

As shown in Table VI-9, products in the Fabric Sof tener – Single Use Dryer Product category have estimated VOC emissions of ab out 1,037 pounds per day, or about 0.52 tons per day, in California. Although n ot shown, the SWA-VOC content for this category is about 4 percent by weight (includi ng all fragrance but excludes the sheet) or about 0.08 grams of VOC per sheet.

Product Use and Marketing :

Fabric softener products can often be found as liq uid and sheet products. According to the Soap and Detergent Association (SD A), 86 percent of households use a fabric softener product; with 40 percent preferri ng a dryer-added sheet product, 21 percent using a washer-added product, and 25 per cent using both (SDA, 2006b). Dryer-added products are used to treat laundered fa brics in the clothes dryer. These products claim to soften clothes and eliminate stat ic cling, or add a fresh scent. To impart softness refers to a “quality of the fabric in which its “hand” or feel to the touch is smooth, pliable and fluffy, as distinguished from c oarse or scratchy” (US Patent, 2005). The term static cling refers to the “tendency of ar ticles of clothing to adhere to one another after being dried in clothes dryer as a res ult of static electrical charges created on the surface of the fabric” (US Patent, 2005).

The dryer-added and washer-added products provide t he same softening and anti-static benefits. The dryer-added sheet produc ts are perceived to be more convenient to use, being added into the clothes dry er as opposed to the washer rinse cycle. Dryer-added sheet products are generally so ld as single use products. Single use and multiple use products refers to “the number of drying cycles in which the fabric treatment composition can be used and release an ef fective amount of a fabric treatment agent to fabric that is being dried durin g the operation of a dryer (US Patent, 2007).” Typically, one sheet is used per drying cy cle, with larger/atypical loads requiring up to two sheets per drying cycle. While dryer-add ed fabric softener products are more commonly used, liquid fabric softeners added to the clothes washer are more effective at softening clothes. This is because the wash wat er allows the softening ingredients to more easily penetrate into the fabric (SDA, 2006b).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 80 Both scented and unscented fabric softener products are marketed. According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “15 percent of the U.S. population is hypersensitive to chemicals, including fragrances” (Clements, 2006). In order to meet market demand, companies have responded with unscen ted products.

Fabric softener products are typically found in bot h household and commercial settings. They are available to consumers through n ational and private store label brands, with the national brands owning a large sha re of the market. Most fabric softener products are available for purchase in gro cery stores, diversified pharmacies, warehouses, superstores, laundromats, and from Inte rnet companies.

Product Formulation :

Products in the Fabric Softener – Single Use D ryer Product category are formulated with cationic and nonionic softening age nts, used to soften fabric and control static cling; water, used as a perfume carrier; fra grances, for aesthetic appeal; and/or inorganic materials such as preservatives, effectiv e in “preventing biological degradation of the composition and substrate” (US Patent, 2005) . These ingredients are typically impregnated on a non-woven sheet of synthetic fabri c, and released by the heat and direct contact with the fabrics during the tumbling action of the clothes dryer.

Dryer-added fabric softener products contain the sa me types of cationic compounds as those found in the washer-added fabric softener products, however, the dryer-added products contain alkyl sulfate salts in stead of chloride salts (SDA, 2006a). The active ingredient consists of cationic fabric s oftening agents, known as quaternary ammonium compounds, used to impart softness to laun dered fabrics. One side of the quaternary molecule contains a positively charged a tom that binds to the negatively charged fabrics. The other side of the molecule co nsists of a long chain fatty material that leaves a coating on the fabric, making the fab ric soft and controlling static cling (Kozen, 2006). Dryer-added fabric softener product s may also contain long chain fatty based hydrocarbon nonionic molecules. “These nonio nics have no positive charge but are effective in the dryer where deposition depends mostly on physical contact” (SDA, 2006a).

Along with its cationic and nonionic ingredients, d ryer-added fabric softener products may also contain fragrances in their formu lation. Data reported in the 2003 Survey shows that the VOC ingredients found in drye r-added fabric softener products are mostly attributed to fragrances, with fragrance ranging from zero to 8 percent by weight (ARB, 2004a). According to the Fragrance Ma terial Association (FMA), there are approximately 2,500 individual fragrance materials currently available, with mixtures of these materials containing as many as 50 to 300 ind ividual chemical entities (FMA, 2006). These fragrance materials may be naturally derived or synthetic, having a floral, woody or citrus scent. Because of the vast combina tion of mixtures to work with, companies are able to offer fabric softener product s with different types of scents.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 81 Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for products in the Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product category is 0.05 grams of VOC per use. Sta ff believes, and some industry stakeholders have agreed, that the proposed gram of VOC per use limit, instead of a percent by weight VOC limit, is more appropriate fo r this category as it would provide a level playing field and ensure that the size of the sheet substrate does not increase (SDA, 2008a). This proposed limit includes all VOC s in the product, including fragrance.

Staff’s proposal for grams of VOC per use limit wou ld provide a level playing field as manufacturers apply varying amounts of liquid to the sheet substrate and the VOC content on the sheet substrate may not be the same as the formulation of the liquid applied to the sheet during manufacture. As indica ted by manufacturers, some of the water or fragrance in the liquid formulation could be driven off during the drying process. Also, a liquid with a lower VOC weight percent that is applied to the sheet in a large quantity could deposit more VOC on the sheet compar ed to a higher VOC weight percent liquid that is applied in a smaller quantit y.

The grams of VOC per use limit is designed to ensur e that the size of the sheet substrate does not increase. In developing the lim it for these products, staff determined that establishing a VOC percent by weight limit cou ld result in manufacturers using larger size sheets to comply. This would diminish emissions reductions and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. Therefor e, to mitigate this potential and in
accordance with the California Environmental Qualit y Act (CEQA), the grams of VOC per use limit is proposed.

The 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit provides emissi on reductions equivalent to setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit (includin g fragrance). Because the limit already accounts for the fragrance, there is no nee d for the fragrance exemption provided in section 94510(c) for these products (AR B, 2007a). This modification is proposed in section 94510(c).

Compliance with the VOC limit shall be determined p er sheet, or equivalent delivery substrate, based on the minimum recommende d use for a single drying cycle specified on the product packaging or label. In ot her words, if one sheet is the minimum recommended use for a single drying cycle, then the VOC limit applies per sheet. If two sheets are the minimum recommended use for a single drying cycle, then the VOC limit applies to the aggregate VOC content in two sheets. “Minimum recommended use”

does not include recommendations for incidental use of additional sheets, or equivalent delivery substrate, for limited applications such a s for extra large or double loads of washable fabrics in large capacity clothes dryers.

As shown in Table VI-10, using adjusted 2010 emissi ons, the proposed limit

would result in an estimated emission reduction of 414 pounds per day, or aboutTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 82 0.21 tons per day. Table VI-10 also shows that 24 percent of the market currently complies with the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per us e limit. This limit would become effective December 31, 2010.

Table VI-10

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

Grams of VOC per

Use Limit Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

All Forms ++ 0.05 20 24 404 414

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

++ Only the amount of product impregnated on a sheet r eported. The mass of the sheet is not

included.

In proposing this limit, we find that 24 percent o f the market (20 out of 26 products, both scented and unscented) complies with the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit (ARB, 2004a). The proposed limit wil l not require a change to the active ingredients or in the amount of active ingredients used in the formulation of the product. The active ingredients, LVP-VOCs, are not considere d when determining compliance with the proposed limit, per the exemption provided in section 94510(d) (ARB, 2007a).

As described above, the main ingredients found in d ryer-added fabric softener products are cationic and nonionic softening agents also known as quaternary ammonium compounds, water, fragrances and inorganic s. The active ingredients used are LVP-VOCs. The primary VOC ingredient in this c ategory is the fragrance, which currently ranges from zero to 8 percent by weight ( ARB, 2004a). Staff believes fragrance is the VOC ingredient most likely to be r educed in the reformulation of a product. Reformulation under the grams of VOC per use strategy would only require manufacturers to reduce the amount of fragrance whi le keeping the active ingredients

the same.

Although fragrances provide an important attribute for many customers, fragrances do not contribute to the primary functio n of softening fabric. Manufacturers should not have significant difficulty reformulatin g their products to meet the proposed limit of 0.05 grams of VOC per use. As indicated b y the 2003 Survey, only a small number of companies would have to reformulate to me et this limit. Private label companies would not have to reformulate, but only r equest that their formulators use existing formulations which currently meet the prop osed limit.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 83 Issues :

a. Issue : ARB has proposed a new category (Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product) and definition that go substantially beyon d the category covered by the 2003 Consumer Product Survey. ARB surveyed for all the “sheet” form of dryer products and did not include “packets, sachets, and dryer balls.”

Response : The CARB 2003 Consumer Products Survey not only s urveyed for “Dryer Sheets” but “Other Laundry Products,” “In-Dr yer Fabric Care” and “Fabric Softener.” All dryer-added products that were sold in California in 2003 should have been reported in one of these four categories. Dryer-added products are available not only as sheets, but in other forms. However, staff’s proposal only applies to singe use dryer products.

b. Issue : The products reported in this category of the sur vey all appear to soften fabric. Although they may provide other benefits i n terms of fabric care, their primary purpose is softening. Inclusion of product s that “prevent static cling, reduce wrinkles, reduce drying time, [and] make iro ning easier” would be inappropriate since it would capture products on th e market now or in the future that are designed with these primary purposes and m ay not, as the category name implies, soften fabrics.

Response : Based on staff evaluation of the product labels s ubmitted by manufacturers, a large percent of products surveyed made claims of both softening as well as controlling static cling. ARB staff revised the definition as suggested by SDA but retained the anti-static prope rty as this claim is often seen on the labels of most fabric softener products.

c. Issue : Fragrance is a very desirable quality for consume rs who use fabric softener sheets. If the amount of fragrance per so ftener sheet is reduced, consumers will use more to compensate. This will r esult in less emissions reduction achieved. There will be a significant im pact on the environment from increased solid waste and shipping-related energy a nd air emissions.

Response : While acknowledging that some consumers may incre ase their usage of fabric softener sheets in response to redu ced fragrance, ARB staff does not believe that the proposed regulation will signi ficantly increase consumer usage. No data were provided to support this claim . Consumer use data provided by SDA indicate that 80 percent of consume rs use one sheet or less per drying cycle (SDA, 2008b). Increasing usage to two sheets would translate to added cost that many consumers may not be willing t o pay. In addition, using two sheets would deposit more softening ingredients on the fabric and customers may notice a different “feel” to the fabrics. Howe ver, staff will use its periodic surveys to monitor product sales and take appropria te action if any unanticipated increased usage is occurring.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 84 d. Issue : The low market share, 24 percent, for existing pr oducts complying with the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit indica tes that this limit is not technologically and commercially feasible. If sale s of unscented products were excluded, then the complying market share is even l ower. Customers will find that reformulated products will not meet their need s and switch to liquid fabric softener products. These products are heavier than dryer sheet products and are packaged in bulky plastic containers. This wil l result in a significant impact

on the environment from increased solid waste and s hipping-related energy and

air emissions.

Response : Staff disagrees. No data were provided to suppor t this claim. The 24 percent complying market share, with 20 complyin g products out of 26 products, indicates that the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit is technologically and commercially feasible. However , staff intends to monitor product sales through periodic surveys, as is alway s done, to ensure that unintended consequences of establishing the propose d VOC limit does not

occur.

e. Issue : The up to 2 percent by weight fragrance exemption per section 94510(c) should be provided to Fabric Softener-Single Use Dr yer Product. It sets a bad precedent to treat Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product differently from other regulated product categories.

Response : The softening and anti-static active ingredients in fabric softeners are LVP-VOCs. Fragrance, therefore, is the primary ingredient restrained by the proposed 0.05 grams VOC per use limit. The 0.05 gr ams of VOC per use limit provides emission reductions equivalent to setting a 2.6 percent by weight limit including fragrance (or a 0.6 percent by weight lim it with the fragrance exemption in section 94510(c)). Because the proposed limit a lready accounts for the fragrance, there is no need for the fragrance exemp tion in section 94510(c).

f. Issue : Manufacturers will have to consider increasing th e sheet sizes. This will

result in less emissions reduction achieved. There will be a significant impact on the environment from increased solid waste and ship ping-related energy and air emissions. (This comment is in reference to an ear lier staff proposal for a percent by weight limit).

Response : Staff believes that the existing corporate enviro nmental policies will not favor the option of increasing sheet size. In addition, staff’s proposal for a grams of VOC per use limit, instead of a percent by weight limit, mitigates the potential for increases in sheet sizes.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 85 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. The California Consumer Pro ducts Regulations

. December, 2007. (ARB, 2007a)

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

3. Clement, Carla. Fragrance Facts. May, 2005. http://www.alive.com/3163a6a2.php?subject_bread_cra mb=179 . (August 15, 2006). (Clement, 2006)

4. Fragrance Materials Association. Presentation to ARB staff . July 24, 2006. (FMA, 2006)

5. Kozen, Frances. Liquid Surfactant on Dryer Sheet s Coat Fabric, Eliminating Cling . February 8, 2006. Cornell University. http://www.ccmr.cornee.edu/education/ask/index.html . (August 15, 2006). (Kozen, 2006)

6. Soap and Detergent Association. Telephone Confer ence with ARB staff

. April 10, 2008. (SDA, 2008a)

7. Soap and Detergent Association. Comment Letter R e: Fabric Softeners – Dryer

Sheets . February 1, 2008. (SDA, 2008b)

8. Soap and Detergent Association. Facts About Laun dry

. http://www.cleaning 101.com/laundry/fact/fact_sheet 4.html. (January 17, 2006). (SDA, 2006a)

9. Soap and Detergent Association. Liquid Fabric S ofteners and Dryer Sheets

Presentation . July 24, 2006. (SDA, 2006b)

10. United States Patent 7250393B2. Fabric Treatmen t Compositions and Methods for Treating Fabric in a Dryer. July 31, 2007. (US Patent, 2007)

11. United States Patent, 20050020475. Fabric Softe ner System and Method for use in Clothes Dryer . January 27, 2005. (US Patent, 2005)

6. Floor Maintenance Product

Product Category Description :

The Floor Maintenance Product category consists of products that are labeled as Spray Buff products as well as products labeled as maintainers and restorers. ProductsTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 86 in this category are designed or labeled to restore , maintain, or enhance a previously applied floor finish. Spray Buff products are desi gned or labeled to be used in conjunction with a floor buffing machine and specia l pad. Floor maintainers or restorers are designed or labeled to be applied with a mop an d burnished with a floor buffing machine. Though the application methods for these two types of products differ, their formulations are similar. This category does not i nclude floor polish products, products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning, or pro ducts designed specifically for the

use on marble floors.

Floor Maintenance Products are a previously unregu lated category. Table VI-11

below summarizes the sales and emissions from Floor Maintenance Products based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). Flo or Maintenance Products have estimated VOC emissions of 194 pounds per day, or a bout 0.1 tons per day in

California.

Table VI-11

Floor Maintenance Product*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

All Forms 98 3,540 194

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As shown in Table VI-11, this category contains 98 products with sales of 3,540 pounds per day. Although not shown, the sale s-weighted average VOC content is about 5 percent by weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Floor Maintenance Products are primarily used by c ommercial/institutional users and are designed for use on finishes previously app lied to resilient and non-resilient floors. These products are able to remove traffic damage, soils, and reduce maintenance costs by extending the time between top coating and stripping the previous finish (Rohm and Haas, 2006). The process may take place in the presence of pedestrian traffic resulting in minimum floor down- time (Rohm and Haas, 2006).

Products labeled as Spray Buffs are applied to a c lean and dry floor surface. The user or machine will spray the product in a small a rea of the floor, avoiding excess application or allowing the product to puddle. The final step is then to buff the product using a buffer or burnishing machine.

Products labeled as floor maintainers or restorers are usually applied to a clean and dry floor surface with a mop in a thin, even la yer, avoiding using excess product orTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 87 allowing the product to puddle. The user allows th e product to dry (usually about 20 minutes) before burnishing or buffing with a machin e.

Floor Maintenance Products are sold to commercial and industrial establishments. They can be found at janitorial st ores, the Internet, as well as through manufacturers’ and distributors’ sales representati ves.

Product Formulation :

Floor Maintenance Products are primarily composed of water and polymer solids. Other ingredients include coalescent aids and other modifiers (such as levelers, plasticizers, viscosity modifiers, etc.) that optim ize product properties. The coalescent aids are typically volatile glycol ethers that help the polymer solids form a smooth continuous coating over the floor surface.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for Floor Maintenance Produ cts is 1 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI- 12, using adjusted 2003 emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emis sion reduction of 142 pounds per day, or about 0.07 tons per day, by 2010. Table VI-12 a lso shows that 53 percent of the market currently complies with the proposed 1 perce nt VOC limit.

Table VI-12 Floor Maintenance Product Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

All Forms 1 57 53 140 142

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

There are reformulation options available that mak e reductions in VOC content technologically and commercially feasible. We expe ct manufacturers of noncompliant products to reformulate similarly to the compliant products. We also expect the technology used to reformulate floor polish for res ilient and non-resilient floors may be

used to reformulate Floor Maintenance Products. A 1 percent VOC limit was set for Resilient and Non-Resilient Floor Polish products i n 2006. Reformulation options that can be used to meet the proposed limit include the use of water, LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents, LVP-VOC glycol ethers, as well as non-VOC alternatives available for

substitution.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 88 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Rohm and Haas. Presentation to ARB staff . June 2006 (Rohm and Haas, 2006)

7. Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax

Product Category Description :

Floor Polish or Wax is divided into three subcateg ories: products for Resilient Flooring Material, products for Nonresilient Floori ng Material, and Wood Floor Wax. Floor Polish or Wax products for Resilient and Nonr esilient floors were regulated as part of the 2006 Amendments. The proposal described her e relates to Wood Floor Wax products only.

Wood Floor Wax products are designed or labeled fo r use solely on wood floors. These products are designed to polish, protect, wax , condition, protect, temporarily seal, or otherwise enhance floor surfaces by leaving a pr otective finish that is designed or labeled to be periodically replenished. This categ ory does not include Floor Maintenance Products, Floor Wax Strippers, or coati ngs subject to architectural coatings regulations. Wood Floor Wax products that claim to “clean and wax” or “clean and polish” are Wood Cleaner products.

Floor Polish or Wax products were first regulated under Phase I of the Consumer Products Regulation adopted in October of 1990, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaki ng (ARB, 1990b). At that time, the Board adopted a 90 percent VOC limit for products u sed on wood floors, effective on January 1, 1994.

Table VI-13 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns reported for Wood Floor Wax products, based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total c ategory sales are about 136 pounds per day.

As shown in Table VI-13, Wood Floor Wax products h ave estimated VOC emissions of 112 pounds per day, or about 0.06 tons per day in California in 2008. Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content is about 82 percent by weight.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 89 Table VI-13

Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax*

Product Form: Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

All Forms 7 136 112

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Product Use and Marketing :

Wood Floor Wax is used by general consumers, as we ll as commercial and

institutional customers. Commercial and institutio nal products account for the majority of reported products and total sales.

These products are historically designed to provid e a temporary, water resistant

seal to a finished or unfinished wood floor. Unfin ished wood flooring material is becoming increasingly rare as evidenced by small sa les in this category. Today they are being replaced with factory sealed wood floorin g material. Generally anhydrous wax-based products (such as a paste wax) are used o n unsealed wood floors, whereas a wax-based, but not necessarily anhydrous product is used on sealed wood floors. Because there is a potential for “side-bonding” or water damage if water-based products are used on an unsealed wood floor, anhydrous produ cts are still needed (Owens, 2006).

Wood Floor Wax products are generally applied with a sponge or cloth to a dry floor, and are then rubbed into the wood in a circu lar motion and allowed to dry. Depending on the manufacturer recommendations, the final step may then be to buff the finish to a shine using a buffer or burnishing machine, or to polish by hand with a

clean cloth.

Wood Floor Wax products are sold to household cons umers, commercial, and industrial establishments. They can be found at ja nitorial stores, supermarkets, warehouse and hardware stores, and the Internet, as well as through manufacturers’ and distributors’ sales representatives.

Product Formulation :

Wood Floor Waxes typically contain a suspension of natural wax such as carnauba or montan or other polymer in a hydrocarbo n solvent such as mineral spirits. A solid form of Wood Floor Wax is generally compose d of approximately 70 percent solids (wax) and 30 percent hydrocarbon solvent or LVP-VOC solvent. A liquid form of wood floor wax is generally composed of a mixture o f water, a polymer solid, and an

LVP-VOC solvent.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 90 Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for Wood Floor Wax products is 70 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI- 2, using adjusted 2003 emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emis sion reduction of 24 pounds per day, or about 0.012 tons per day in 2010.

Table VI-14 does not show the number of complying products or complying marketshare due to data confidentiality.

Table VI-14 Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

All Forms 70 *** *** 22 24

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Reformulation options for Wood Floor Wax products include the substitution of hydrocarbon solvents with LVP-VOC solvents. Manufa cturers may also develop a polymer technology that requires less VOC solvent. A minimal number of product reformulations are anticipated, as the market for t hese products is small and is anticipated to continue to decrease.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Redu ce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al Support Document

. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b)

3. Owens, Joseph M. Presentation to ARB staff . August, 2006. (Owens, 2006)Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 91 8. Glass Cleaner – aerosol

Product Category Description :

Glass Cleaners are specialty cleaning products desi gned primarily for cleaning surfaces made of glass such as windows, mirrors, gl ass tabletops, and computer screens. However, the Glass Cleaner category does not include products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning optical material s used in eyeglasses, photographic equipment, scientific equipment and photocopying ma chines. Products marketed as “glass and surface cleaner” are not included in thi s category; they are regulated as General Purpose Cleaner.

Glass Cleaners were first regulated under “Phase I” of the Consumer Products Regulation adopted in October of 1990, and a descri ption of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (A RB, 1990b). At that time, the Board adopted a 12 percent VOC limit for these products w hich was effective on January 1, 1993. Although past regulatory actions resulted in significant emission reductions, we believe that technology now exists t o further reduce VOC emissions from the aerosol product form. Therefore, we are propos ing to amend the regulation to

reduce the VOC content limit for aerosol Glass Clea ners to 10 percent by weight VOC.

Table VI-15 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns from aerosol Glass Cleaners based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total catego ry sales are about 6,087 pounds per day.

Table VI-15

Glass Cleaner – aerosol*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

Aerosol 95 6087 663

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions are 663 pounds per day, or about 0.33 tons per day. Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is about 11 percent.

Product Use and Marketing :

Aerosol Glass Cleaners are used by household, insti tutional and industrial users for cleaning surfaces made primarily of glass and m ay have additional claims for cleaning surfaces such as chrome and plastic which require a “non-streaking” cleaning performance – leaving no non-volatile residues whic h show up readily on such surfaces.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 92 They are marketed towards automotive, household, of fice, institutional, professional and other specialty uses.

These products can be purchased through many sales outlets including grocery stores, discount stores, wholesalers, mass merchand isers, hardware stores, automotive parts stores, warehouse stores and home centers. T hese products are labeled primarily for use on glass. If the product makes a “multi-su rface” claim on the front panel, it is categorized as a General Purpose Cleaner.

Product Formulation :

Glass Cleaners are typically formulated with a high water content. Short carbon chain alcohols (such as isopropyl alcohol or ethyl alcohol) and/or glycol ethers are used to dissolve oily soils. Trace amounts of surfactan t are included to emulsify oily soils. The surfactant also creates a layer of foam which f orms on the sprayed surface. This allows the product to cling to the surface making t he cleaning agents more effective and preventing run-off while the user wipes the surface clean. Trace amounts of a suitable inorganic material prevent corrosion in the can. F ragrance imparts a pleasant odor into

the air and contributes to the overall aesthetic of the product. It can also mask the solvent and ammonia odor, if present. Non-volatile s, also known as residuals, are left behind on the surface after the rest of the product evaporates and can contribute to streaking, and are, therefore, kept to a minimum in the formulation. All of the products reported in the 2003 Survey are propelled by hydroc arbon propellants, typically in the 4 to 5 percent by weight range.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance

The proposed VOC limit for aerosol Glass Cleaners is 10 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2012. As shown in Table VI- 16, using adjusted 2012 emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emis sion reduction of 65 pounds per day, or about 0.03 tons per day. Table VI-16 also shows that 37 percent of the market currently complies with the proposed 10 percent VOC limit.

Table VI-16 Glass Cleaner – aerosol Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2012

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Aerosol 10 32 37 62 65

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age and grown, by population, to 2012 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 93 The proposed standard for aerosol Glass Cleaner was established after review of the 2003 survey data, consultation with industry re presentatives, review of available literature materials, and analysis of the technolog ical and commercial feasibility of the

standard.

As shown in Table VI-16, over a third of the marke t currently meets the proposed 10 percent VOC limit. These complying products are using a combination of alcohol and glycol ether solvents, and hydrocarbon propella nt in order to reach the proposed 10 percent VOC level.

For most aerosol Glass Cleaners, the reformulation will involve replacing some of the VOC solvent and/or propellant with water. Many products at, or below, the 10 percent VOC level already claim to clean glass w hile leaving the surface streakfree. Besides products categorized as Glass Cleane r, there is a substantial market volume of products making equivalent claims in addi tion to cleaning claims for other

hard surfaces.

Reformulated products, while effective, may have d ifferent attributes than the consumer is used to for some products. Staff belie ves this will require extensive test marketing before bringing the reformulated product to market. For these reasons, staff believes more time for compliance is warranted.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commerci al Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Redu ce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al Support Document

. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b)

9. Motor Vehicle Wash

Product Category Description :

Motor Vehicle Wash means a product designed or lab eled to wash, wash and wax, wash and shine, or wash and/or clean the exter ior surfaces of motor vehicles. Motor Vehicle Wash includes, but is not limited to, products for use in commercial, fleet, hand, and “drive through” car washes, commercial tr uck washing or large vehicle washing stations, and vehicle dealers and repair sh ops, as well as products intended for

household use. Motor Vehicle Wash does not include Bug and Tar Remover, Glass Cleaner, Engine Degreaser, Brake Cleaner, Tire or W heel Cleaner, and products labeled exclusively for use on locomotives or aircr aft.

Motor Vehicle Wash is a previously unregulated cat egory. Table VI-l7 below

summarizes the sales and emissions from Motor Vehic le Wash based on the results ofTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 94 ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 53,680 pounds per day.

Table VI-17

Motor Vehicle Wash*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

All Forms 366 53,680 752

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions are 752 pounds per day, or about 0.38 tons per day. Motor Vehicle Wash, while primarily marketed as liq uid, can also be found in nonaerosol product forms such as solid, foam/mousse, m ist/dispersed spray, and postfoaming gel. No aerosol products were reported in the 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is approximately 1 percent by weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Motor Vehicle Wash products are sold to household o r “do-it-yourself” consumers, commercial, and industrial establishment s. They are to be used on the

exterior surfaces of motor vehicles such as automob iles, vans, sport utility vehicles (SUV), motorcycles, commercial trucks and trailers, noncommercial trucks, service vehicles, and recreational vehicles. These product s are used to safely remove dirt, grime, and other road soils from a variety of mater ial surfaces including, but not limited to, painted metal, vinyl, and metallic trim. In so me instances, the product cleans the vehicle and leaves a shine or wax finish in a singl e step. These one-step products are unlike wax products, which must be applied separate ly to a clean vehicle surface. Both “wash and shine” and “wash and wax” products are ab le to be applied to a dirty vehicle

surface.

For the “do-it-yourself” consumers, Motor Vehicle W ash products are available in, but not limited to, retail outlets such as supermar kets, diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, auto supply stores, super store s, and specialty stores. Auto dealers, repair shops, catalog sales, and the Inter net are additional marketing locations. For commercial and industrial businesses, products are available from manufacturers and/or distributors, warehouses, as well as the Int ernet and retail outlets.

The majority of Motor Vehicle Wash products are sol d as liquid concentrates and must be diluted prior to use. A typical dilution w ould be one ounce of Motor Vehicle Wash to one gallon of clean water. Directions for product use indicate that the water should be cool, and the solution should be applied to a cool surface with soft material.

The directions also often direct consumers to wash vehicles from the top down andTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 95 rinse after the wash is applied. Using a terry clo th towel or other material such as a

chamois to remove water is recommended.

Concentrated Motor Vehicle Wash products that are u sed in commercial establishments, such as car wash or auto detailing businesses, may be used in proportioning units through which the concentrate p asses in order to achieve the proper dilution ratio. An example of a commercial dilutio n ratio can be 1 part product to 300 to 500 parts water. After the wash cycle, vehicles ar e rinsed. Depending on the properties of the concentrate or other additives, v ehicles may air dry or need to be dried either mechanically or by hand to avoid spotting.

Product Formulation :

Motor Vehicle Wash products are primarily very near -zero VOC water-based formulations. Surfactants are the active ingredien t of the products in this category. These surfactants are typically detergents and comp rise the LVP-VOC portion of the product. Typical formulations include water and a small amount of LVP-VOCs, or water and a small amount of inorganics, or water and both LVP-VOCs and inorganics. The VOCs used in this category include small amounts of 2-butoxyethanol and isopropyl

alcohol.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed limit for Motor Vehicle Wash is 0.2 pe rcent VOC by weight, effective December 31, 2010. The proposed limit is applicable to both ready-to-use and dilutable products. The limit applies to diluted p roducts after the minimum dilution is made. As shown in Table VI-18, using adjusted 2010 emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated reduction of 284 pounds per day, or about 0.14 tons per day. Table Vl-18 also shows that 89 percent of the marke t currently complies with the proposed 0.2 percent VOC limit.

Table Vl-18 Motor Vehicle Wash Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

All Forms 0.2 311 89 276 284

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Reformulation options that could be used by manufac turers to meet the proposed limit include the use of water and LVP-VOC hydrocar bon solvents; water andTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 96 inorganics; or water in combination with both LVP-V OC solvents and inorganics. Because there are many viable non-VOC alternatives available for substitution, we believe the proposed limit is commercially and tech nologically feasible.

Issues:

a. Issue : Wash-and-wax should be removed from the definitio n as it is a different product “type” from wash and cleaner.

Response : Staff maintains that motor vehicle “wash and wax” products and “wash and shine” products should be included in the definition because these products are marketed as vehicle washes and are for mulated similarly. Both Motor Vehicle Wash ingredients and wax or shine ing redients are combined in the product and labeled to be applied to vehicles i n the same manner as other Motor Vehicle Wash products. They are usually app lied to dirty surfaces, unlike waxes which must be applied to clean surfaces. Ret ail outlets from supermarkets to superstores and auto supply stores, for example, stock and feature “wash and wax” and “wash and shine” product s with other Motor Vehicle Wash products and not with vehicle wax products.

b. Issue : Industry only assumed one product “type” (i.e., w ash only products) when responding to the 2003 Consumer Products Survey and the data may not be available to support meeting the criteria for this new category.

Response : Industry did not assume only one motor vehicle wa sh and cleaner product type when responding to the 2003 Consumer P roducts Survey. Twentyfive companies responded with 38 products that are either wash and wax or wash and shine which they identified as belonging i n the vehicle wash category along with the other 300-plus products that were re ported in the category. After considering dilution ratios, most of these products already comply with the proposed 0.2 percent VOC by weight limit.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

10. Multi-purpose Lubricant

Product Category Description :

Multi-purpose Lubricants are lubricant products de signed for general purpose lubrication, or lubricants labeled for use in a wid e variety of applications. This category includes products that are labeled for household us e and for institutional and industrial use (for example, use by mechanics, professional co ntractors, and manufacturingTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 97 facilities). This category includes products that are simply labeled as “lubricants;” multifunctional products that provide light duty lubrica tion; products labeled as aerosol spray greases; and liquid or aerosol products containing heavier base oils. This category includes multi-functional Multi-purpose Lubricants, which may also make claims to function as demoisturants, penetrants, and rust pre ventatives.

This category does not include specialty lubricant products, such as products labeled only for use on chains, even if the label s pecifies use on different types of chains. As defined in the Consumer Products Regula tion, Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants, Penetrants, and Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubric ants are excluded from the Multipurpose Lubricant category. The Multi-purpose Lubr icant category also excludes lubricant products that are (1) sold exclusively to establishments which manufacture or construct goods or commodities, and are (2) labeled “not for retail sale.” Automotive power steering fluids, lubricant products for use i nside power generating motors, engines, and turbines, and their associated power-t ransfer gearboxes, two cycle oils or other products designed to be added to fuels, and p roducts for use on the human body or animals are excluded from this category as well. Multi-purpose Lubricant products that are marketed in solid and semisolid-forms, as defined in the Consumer Products Regulation, are excluded from this category.

Multi-purpose Lubricants were first regulated unde r “Midterm Measures I” of the Consumer Products Regulation approved in July of 19 97, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report for t hat rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the Board adopted a 50 percent by weight VOC limit for these products which became effective on January 1, 2003.

Table VI-19 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns from Multi-purpose

Lubricants based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Surve y (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total catego ry sales are about 16,337 pounds per day.

Table VI-19 Multi-purpose Lubricant*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

Aerosol 146 11,568 5,784

Liquid 30 4,769 2,384

Total 176 16,337 8,168

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Su rvey (ARB, 2004a); Includes products containing exempt chlorinated solvents. ** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverag e and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 98 Estimated 2008 VOC emissions for Multi-purpose Lubr icants are 8,168 pounds per day, or about 4.08 tons per day in California. Table VI-19 shows the lubricant products separated into aerosol and liquid forms, w ith the aerosol form dominating the market in both sales and emissions. According to o ur data, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is about 48 percent b y weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Multi-purpose Lubricants are used by household, in stitutional, and industrial users. Household consumers use multi-purpose lubri cants on a variety of objects, including door hinges, bicycle chains, garage door tracks, window tracks, camping and sporting equipment, gardening tools, locks and fire arms. Institutional and industrial consumers use Multi-purpose Lubricant products on t he above mentioned items, as well as on more specialized equipment such as conveyors, open gears, electrical equipment, nuts, bolts, cables, and machinery.

Some Multi-purpose Lubricants are designed to depo sit a heavier coating that provides lubricity under higher loads. These produ cts include aerosol spray greases, such as “white lithium grease;” liquid or aerosol l ubricants containing heavier base oils; and lubricants that provide extra protection agains t corrosion.

The Multi-purpose Lubricant category includes mult i-functional products that are typically designed to provide a light lubricant fil m that penetrates surfaces, displaces water and inhibits rust and corrosion (ARB, 2004a). They are more often used for light duty lubrication, or for use as a penetrant, demois turant, or for corrosion prevention. Typical applications include lubrication of locks o r sliding mechanisms.

Multi-purpose Lubricants for household use are sol d in various retail venues such as hardware stores, supermarkets, do-it-yourself ho me building supply stores, on the Internet, and everywhere automotive supplies are so ld. Products may also be sold to institutional users through distributors.

Product Formulation :

Multi-purpose Lubricants provide lubrication throu gh use of base oils. These base oils are typically various grades of petroleum oils or greases. In some cases, synthetic oils are used. The balance of the produc t is usually a hydrocarbon solvent which may be a VOC, a LVP-VOC, or a mixture of VOC and LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents. A small number of products use chlorinat ed solvents. The propellant, in aerosol products, is either a liquefied petroleum g as or carbon dioxide. After the product is sprayed, the solvent and propellant evap orate away, leaving a coating of oil or grease. Liquid products are typically comprised of pure base oils, or base oils thinned in any of the solvents used in aerosol prod ucts.

The oils or greases used in aerosol Multi-purpose Lubricants constitute approximately 15 to 40 percent of the formulation b y weight (ARB, 2004a). The baseTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 99 oils, are generally chosen based on their viscosity and typically consist of highly refined aliphatic or naphthenic hydrocarbon mixtures. Some Multi-purpose Lubricants, such as aerosol spray greases, use synthetic oils in their formulations (ARB, 2004a).

The solvents used in Multi-purpose Lubricants comp rise 35 to 90 percent of aerosol formulations. Various grades of petroleum distillates are used. VOC solvents used include heptanes, hexanes, toluene, trichloroe thylene, and glycol ethers. LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents are also used.

The propellants used in aerosol Multi-purpose Lubr icants are either liquefied petroleum gases (propane, isobutane, normal butane) , or carbon dioxide. Liquefied petroleum gases constitute approximately 20 to 30 p ercent of the product weight, compared to 2 to 3 percent when carbon dioxide is u sed.

Specialized extreme pressure additives may also be added in small amounts to Multi-purpose Lubricant formulations to enhance the ability of the base oil to protect surfaces under high load conditions. These special ized additives include graphite, Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene), and “moly” (molyb denum disulfide). Multi-purpose

Lubricants that contain these additives are not con sidered Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants.

Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants provide lubricity sol ely through use of graphite, molybdenum disulfide, or polytetrafluoroethylene orclosely related fluoropolymer. Multipurpose Dry Lubricants do not contain oils. The pr oposed amendments include a modification to the Multi-purpose Dry Lubricant def inition. The proposed modification clarifies that lubricity is provided solely by thes e compounds. The modification is intended to clearly distinguish these products from Multi-purpose Lubricants.

Corrosion inhibitors may also be added to Multi-pu rpose Lubricant formulations to prevent corrosion on the coated surfaces. These co mpounds generally make up a small percentage of the overall lubricant formulati on and they may consist of organic acids, esters, amino acid derivatives, and various alkaline compounds.

Aerosol spray greases (i.e. white lithium grease, or red grease) are Multi-purpose Lubricants made up of oils which are thickened with a “metal soap,” such as lithium hydroxystearate) or a gelling agent, such as silica or clay.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

We are proposing two tiers of VOC limits for Multi -purpose Lubricants. The first tier VOC limit for Multi-purpose Lubricants is 25 p ercent by weight for both aerosol and liquid forms, effective December 31, 2013. As show n in Table VI-20, using adjusted 2003 emissions, the proposed limit will result in a n estimated VOC emission reduction of 4,084 pounds per day, or about 2 tons per day, i n 2013. A technology-forcing second tier VOC limit of 10 percent VOC by weight, effecti ve December 31, 2015, is also proposed. As shown in Table VI-20, the 10 percent limit would reduce emissions byTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 100 2,545 pounds per day, or about 1.3 tons per day. W hen fully effective, these two limits would reduce emissions from Multi-purpose Lubricant s by about 3.3 tons per day.

Table VI-20 also shows that 38 products, represent ing approximately 4 percent of the total Multi-purpose Lubricant market, currently comply with the proposed 25 percent VOC limit. Table VI-20 also shows that 22 products , representing 3 percent of the market currently comply with the proposed 10 percen t limit. Only those products complying without the use of methylene chloride, pe rchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, are included in the complying ma rket share data. The complying products include both aerosol and liquid Multi-purp ose Lubricants for household,

commercial and institutional use.

Table VI-20 Multi-purpose Lubricant Proposal*

Product

Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

25 27 3 2,748 2,924 Aerosol 10 11 2 1,677 1,827

25 11 6 1,090 1,160 Liquid 10 11 6 659 718

25 38 4 3,838 4,084 Total 10 22 3 2,336 2,545

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market c overage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2013 for the 25% VOC limit; and to 2015 for the 10% VOC limit (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

The proposed VOC limits are designed to restrict t he use of VOCs in Multipurpose Lubricant formulations. Reformulation opti ons include adding more base oil to the formulation; replacing some of the VOC solvents with LVP-VOC solvents; and using carbon dioxide as an alternative to liquefied gas h ydrocarbon propellants.

We believe that the small complying market shares demonstrate that the VOC limits are feasible, but challenging - especial ly for aerosols. Therefore, staff is proposing extended effective dates for the limits. As proposed, the compliance date to meet the 25 percent limit is December 31, 2013. Th e 10 percent limit is proposed to become effective on December 31, 2015. The second tier technology-forcing limit of 10 percent is designed to encourage manufacturers t o explore emerging technologies.

Staff’s research indicates that use of materials su ch as soy-based products provide a partial path forward. However, maintaining many ot her attributes of Multi-purpose Lubricants will require extensive research and deve lopment.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 101 While the reformulation options may appear straigh t-forward, maintaining existing lubricity and evaporative characteristics will be c hallenging. As mentioned earlier, Multipurpose Lubricants may also function as demoisturan ts, penetrants, and rust inhibitors. Research to find additives for corrosion protection and to maintain the products’ penetrating ability will be required. Utilizing em erging technologies in an aerosol product also presents challenges. Many reformulate d products, while effective, may

have different attributes than the consumer is used to. Staff believes this will lead to extensive test marketing before bringing the reform ulated products to the market. For these reasons, staff believes additional time is ne eded to successfully reformulate and bring products into the market.

The Institute for Research and Technical Assistanc e (IRTA)conducted lubricant research in 2004 and 2006 with a focus on finding a lternatives to high VOC petroleum-based and chlorinated oils. The alternat ives that IRTA tested, and demonstrated in the industrial setting during the t wo projects, were water-based and vegetable-based products. Some businesses have bee n using these products as cutting oils or for honing, machining, or stamping (IRTA, 2006; IRTA, 2004). These operations are not typical consumer uses. We also note the products used were not aerosols, which household consumers prefer. Nevert heless, we believe, given more time, that Multi-purpose Lubricant products, includ ing aerosols, could be formulated to

lower VOC levels.

While staff believes that technologies are progres sing to allow for Multi-purpose Lubricants at VOC content levels of 25 percent and, in the future 10 percent, staff intends to work with industry to assess progress as compliance dates near. To that end, staff is proposing two technology assessments. To ensure that manufacturers are on track, and that technology advances as expected, staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrate their progress toward meeting th ese limits.

As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpo se Lubricant manufacturers would need to supply detailed written updates on th eir research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the V OC limits. The reports would include sales and formulation data for products, as well as detailed information on the raw materials evaluated for use, maximum incrementa l reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function of t he raw material evaluated, testing protocols used, the results of the testing, the har dware evaluated, and the cost of reformulation efforts. The first report would be d ue on March 31, 2012, and would provide data for the 2011 calendar year. A second report would be due on March 31, 2014, and would provide data for the 2013 calendar year.

Because our data show compliance can be achieved w ithout the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichlor oethylene we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs from the Multi-purpo se Lubricant category effective December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchlor oethylene are exempt VOC solvents. Therefore, without the prohibition, thei r use could increase as products reformulate to comply. Trichloroethylene is a VOC, and its use would likely decrease toTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 102 meet the proposed limit. However, other solvents a re available that make its use unnecessary. Prohibiting these three TACs will lea d to approximately 0.01 tons per day of toxic compound emission reductions from this cat egory. The health effects associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, meth ylene chloride and trichloroethylene, are summarized in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts.

Issues :

a. Issue : This limit should be set at 10 percent or lower b ased on findings in the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IR TA) lubricant research

summary.

Response : ARB staff agrees, but believes that additional ti me is necessary to successfully reformulate complying products. Staff is proposing that Multipurpose Lubricants meet a 10 percent by weight VOC limit effective December 31, 2015. We believe that lubricant resea rch conducted by IRTA is useful data for manufacturers to evaluate as they d evelop complying products. However, there are some limitations. Staff reviewe d the lubricant studies conducted by IRTA in 2004 and 2006 (IRTA, 2006; IRT A, 2004). It is unclear whether the products tested would work well in vari ous household consumer applications. Typical household consumers use mult i-purpose lubricants for a host of lubrication needs, as well as for penetrati on, water displacement, and rust

inhibition. IRTA studies focused on commercial man ufacturing and repair operations with specific lubricating needs. Additi onally, IRTA did not test any aerosol lubricant products. Our data show that con sumers prefer aerosol products for their general lubrication needs.

b. Issue : We believe it may be technologically and commerci ally feasible to reformulate Multi-Purpose Lubricants to a 25 percen t VOC limit by December 31, 2014. However, the Automotive Special ty Products Association (ASPA) asserts that the ARB must commit to conducti ng a thorough assessment for this product category in 2010, 2012 and 2013 to determine the commercial and technological feasibility of the 25 percent VOC limit, if requested by our industry.

Response : Staff agrees in part. We have evaluated technolo gy and are proposing that products meet a 25 percent VOC limit by December 31, 2013, and a technology-forcing limit of 10 percent by Decembe r 31, 2015. We also agree that technology reviews are appropriate, and are pr oposing two as described

earlier.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commerci al Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 103 2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reaso ns for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

3. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance . Assessment, Development and Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-emitting Lubri cants, Vanishing Oils and

Rust Inhibitors . August, 2006. (IRTA, 2006)

4. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance . Alternatives to VOC Emitting

Petroleum Based Lubricants and Chlorinated Paraffin Lubricants: Minimizing the Health and Environmental Consequences . November, 2004. (IRTA, 2004)

11. Odor Eliminator/Remover

Product Category Description :

Odor Eliminator/Remover means a product that is de signed or labeled to be applied exclusively to hard surfaces to inhibit the ability of soils to create malodors, or functions to entrap, encapsulate, neutralize, conve rt or eliminate malodor molecules. Odor Eliminator/Remover does not include products d esigned or labeled for use in cleaning soils from hard surfaces, laundering, soft ening, de-wrinkling or cleaning fabrics, or dishwashing, or products that are defin ed as Air Freshener, Bathroom and Tile Cleaner, Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, Fabric Ref resher, General Purpose Cleaner, Toilet/Urinal Care Product, Disinfectant, or Saniti zer. Odor Eliminator/Remover is used in household, automotive, institutional and commerc ial settings to counteract unpleasant odors. These products may employ bacterial culture s, enzymes or anti-bacterial chemical active ingredients to counteract odor caus ing substances. Use of Odor Eliminator/Remover, Air Fresheners and Fabric Refre shers may result in similar outcomes such as freshening air or removing odors. Odor Eliminators/Removers are distinguished from Air Fresheners, which are releas ed directly to the air, and Fabric Refreshers, which are applied to fabric or other so ft surfaces.

Odor Eliminators/Removers are a previously unregul ated category. Table VI-21

below summarizes the sales and emissions from Odor Eliminator/Remover based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). Cat egory sales are 7,034 pounds per day, or about 3.5 tons per day, adjusted for comple te market coverage and grown by population, to 2008.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 104 Table VI-21

Odor Eliminator/Remover*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

Aerosol < 5 *** ***

Liquid 184 7034 247

Total > 184 *** ***

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).
*** Data not shown due to confidentiality.

Estimated VOC emissions (grown, by population, to 2008) are 247 pounds per day, or about 0.12 tons per day. Because there wer e less than five aerosol products reported in the survey, the sales data are not show n to protect data confidentiality. The sales-weighted average VOC content for liquid produ cts as packaged is 3.5 percent and 2.2 percent as diluted.

Product Use and Marketing :

Odor Eliminator/Remover products are used on hard s urfaces in household, automotive, institutional, and commercial settings to eliminate, neutralize, remove, encapsulate, inhibit, control, destroy and/or count eract odor. The household products are generally available through retailers, while th e institutional and commercial products are sold via wholesalers through distribut ion channels or direct sales.

Household Odor Eliminators/Removers are used on har d surfaces to treat bathroom and kitchen odors, closets, basements, flo or mats, drawers, odors from ventilation systems, pet odors, cat litter odors, g arbage odors, smoke, and odors caused by moisture. These products are generally a pplied as needed with the user controlling the amount of product used (ARB, 2004a)

.

Automotive Odor Eliminator/Remover products are use d to eliminate musty odors due to mildew formation in the persistently damp su rfaces of automobile air conditioning vents and ducts (ARB, 2004a).

Odor Eliminators/Removers used on hard surfaces in institutional and commercial settings control odors from bathrooms, l aundry areas, food preparation areas and specific industries such as diaper servic es (ARB, 2004a). Odor Eliminator/Remover products used in commercial sett ings are used to control garbage odors from trash compactors/dumpsters; mold and mil dew and waste in bathrooms; body odor and mold and mildew in locker rooms; odor s in air ducts and pipelines; odors in transportation settings such as airplanes and bu ses and odors in remediation services (ARB, 2004a).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 105 Product Formulation :

The VOC content of products in the liquid category ranges from 0 to about 53 percent by weight as diluted. Fragrance oils co nstitute from 0 to 53 percent of the product’s weight as diluted. They produce the prod uct’s scent. Although fragrance oils are VOCs by definition, the Consumer Products Regulation allows an exemption of up to two percent by weight of the product, as long as the vapor pressure of the fragrance and other functional components of the fr agrance are less than 2 millimeters mercury (mm Hg) at 20 degrees Celsius.

Emulsifiers are used in the product formulation to aid the mixing of the fragrance oil in the water phase by creating a homogeneous li quid. Because the desired emulsions are oil-in-water, surfactants with higher hydrophilic-lipophilic balance

values are more suitable in oil-in-water formulatio ns.

Active ingredients include bacterial cultures, enzy mes, or chemical agents which are used to inactivate odor causing molecules.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for liquid Odor Eliminator/ Remover is 6 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in T able VI-22, using adjusted 2010 emissions, the proposed limits will result in an es timated emission reduction of 50 pounds per day, or about 0.03 tons per day. Tab le VI-22 also shows that 82 percent of the market currently complies with the proposed 6 percent VOC limit for liquid Odor Eliminator/Remover products. The proposed limit fo r aerosol Odor Eliminator/Remover is 25 percent VOC by weight. The aerosol products reported in the survey comply with the 25 percent limit.

Table VI-22 Odor Eliminator/Remover Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Aerosol 25 < 5 100 0 0

Liquid 6 154 82 49 50

Total ------- > 154 ------- 49 50

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 106 Generally, reformulation to the 6 percent VOC leve l will involve replacing some of the VOC solvent and/or fragrance with water keeping the active “odor eliminating” ingredient constant, or possibly increasing it as a ppropriate.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

12. Penetrant

Product Category Description :

Penetrants are lubricant products designed and lab eled primarily to loosen metal parts that have bonded together due to rusting, oxi dation, or other causes. This category does not include Multi-purpose Lubricants that claim to have penetrating qualities, but are not labeled primarily to loosen bonded parts. Penetrants that are (1) sold exclusively to establishments which manufa cture or construct goods or commodities, and are (2) labeled “not for retail sa le” are also excluded from this
category.

Penetrants were first regulated under “Midterm Mea sures I” of the Consumer Products Regulation approved in July of 1997, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaki ng (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the Board adopted a 50 percent by weight VOC limit for these products, which became effective on January 1, 2003.

Table VI-23 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns from Penetrants based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey. The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 2,021 pounds per day.

Table VI-23

Penetrant*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day) **

Aerosol 68 1,709 714

Liquid 16 312 79

Total 84 2,021 793

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Su rvey (ARB, 2004a); Includes products containing chlorinated compounds.
** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 107 Estimated 2008 VOC emissions for Penetrants are 79 3 pounds per day, or about 0.4 tons per day, in California. Table VI-23 shows the Penetrant products separated into aerosol and liquid forms, with the aerosol for m dominating the market in both sales and emissions. According to our data, the sales-we ighted average for this category is 38 percent VOC by weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Penetrants are used by household, institutional an d industrial users to loosen immovable parts such as rusted pipe fittings, autom otive parts, and nuts and bolts. Some product labels instruct the user to tap extrem ely rusted parts after spraying to set up vibrations that assist in the penetration of the product (ARB, 2004a). Some Penetrants claim to have lubricating properties and many claim corrosion protection (ARB, 2004a).

Penetrants are sold in hardware stores, automotive parts stores, by specialty retailers, by mass merchandisers, and on the Intern et. Penetrants are also sold to industrial or institutional users through distribut ors that serve these customers, or directly to large customers.

Product Formulation :

Penetrant formulations are similar to Multi-purpos e Lubricants in that they contain lubricating oils, solvents, and, in some cases, ext reme pressure additives, such as a fluoropolymer, or molybdenum disulfide. Penetrants are typically comprised of light petroleum oils that vary in range from 10 to 40 per cent. Liquefied petroleum gas, carbon dioxide, or nitrogen gas act as propellants for the aerosol products. The balance of the product formulation is comprised of various hydrocarbon solvents. A few Penetrants contain chlorinated solvents, such as me thylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. Some contain synthetic oils ; vegetable oils; and others utilize water-based formulations (ARB, 2004a).

Penetrants contain a balance of solvents and oils in order to achieve both low viscosity and low surface tension. According to th e 2003 Survey, some of the VOC solvents used in Penetrants include various grades of petroleum distillates such as kerosene (VOC portion), mineral spirits and trichlo roethylene. A variety of LVP-VOC solvents used in Penetrants include hydrocarbon sol vents and fatty acid methyl esters.

Water is also used.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for Penetrants is 25 percen t by weight for both aerosol and liquid forms, effective December 31, 2013. As shown in Table VI-24, using adjusted 2003 emissions, the proposed limit will re sult in an estimated emission reduction of 305 pounds per day, or about 0.15 tons per day, in 2013.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 108 Table VI-24 also shows that 14 products, represent ing about 30 percent of the total Penetrant market share, currently comply with the proposed 25 percent VOC limit. Only those products complying without the use of me thylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene are includ ed in the complying market share data. The complying products include both aerosol and liquid Penetrants for household,

commercial and institutional use.

Table VI-24 Penetrant Proposal *

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emissions

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2013

Emissions

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Aerosol 25 9 28 255 271

Liquid 25 5 36 32 34

Total 14 30 287 305

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market c overage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2012 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Penetrants that already comply with the proposed V OC limit are using a combination of LVP-VOC solvents, VOC solvents, oils , and various additives. Reformulation options include adding more oil to th e formulation; replacing some of the VOC solvents with LVP-VOC solvents, or water; and u sing non-VOC alternatives to liquefied gas propellants, such as carbon dioxide. R eformulation may also require use of less viscous oils. Different solvents may be used to reduce the overall viscosity of some

Penetrant formulations.

Because Penetrants are closely related to Multi-pu rpose Lubricants in formulation and their uses, the VOC limits and effective dates for these two categories have historically tracked. For this reason, the reformu lation efforts for Penetrants are similar to Multi-purpose Lubricants in that research to fin d the correct balance of oils, solvents and additives without sacrificing the products’ pen etrating ability will be required. Therefore, the proposed effective date for the VOC limit for Penetrants is December 31, 2013.

While staff believes that technologies are progres sing to allow for Penetrant products at a VOC content level of 25 percent staff intends to work with industry to assess progress as the compliance date nears. To t hat end, staff is proposing a technology assessment. To ensure that manufacturer s are on track, and that technology advances as expected, staff believes tha t manufacturers should demonstrate their progress toward meeting the limit

.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 109 As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Penetrant p roduct manufacturers would need to supply detailed written updates on their re search and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the VOC limit s. The reports would include sales and formulation data for products, as well as detai led information on the raw materials evaluated for use, MIR values for any VOC or LVP-VO C used or evaluated, the function of the raw material evaluated, testing protocols us ed, the results of the testing, the hardware evaluated, and the cost of reformulation e fforts. The report would be due on March 31, 2012, and would provide data for the 2011 calendar year. Should technical or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reduct ions could occur within a shorter timeframe, staff would develop appropriate measures to ensure air quality benefits occur as soon as possible.

Because our data show compliance can be achieved w ithout the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichlor oethylene, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs from the Penetrant c ategory, effective December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchlor oethylene are exempt VOC solvents. Therefore, without the prohibition, thei r use could increase as products reformulate to comply. Trichloroethylene is a VOC, and its use would likely decrease to meet the proposed limit. However, other solvents a re available that make its use unnecessary. Prohibiting these three TACs will lea d to approximately 0.01 tons per day of toxic compound emission reductions from this cat egory. The health effects associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, meth ylene chloride and trichloroethylene, are summarized in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts.

We have received information that suggests usage o f non-flammable solvents in Penetrants is necessary in situations where Penetra nts are used on energized equipment, near heat, flame, or other ignition sour ces. Staff agrees. Applying Penetrants to energized equipment may pose a safety risk. However, at the present time, use of chlorinated solvents is the only optio n for these applications.

Therefore, because of toxicity concerns, we are pr oposing to prohibit the use of perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, and trichlor oethylene in Penetrants. However,

we believe there is a small niche use for non-flamm able products. Therefore, we are also proposing that Penetrants labeled as non-flamm able and for use on energized equipment not be subject to the prohibition. To ac count for this specialized use, but to restrict the use of TACs to the extent possible, we are proposing that to qualify for the exemption from the toxic prohibition, Penetrants wo uld have to include on the product’s Principal Display Panel: “Non-flammable and only f or use where equipment is energized.” This proposal is set forth in new sect ion 94509(q) of the Consumer Products Regulation.

Issues :

a. Issue : This limit should be set at 10 percent or lower b ased on findings in the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IR TA) lubricant research

summary.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 110 Response : ARB staff disagrees. Staff reviewed the studies conducted by IRTA in 2004 and 2006 (IRTA, 2006; IRTA, 2004). The foc us was on lubrication rather than penetration, therefore it is unclear whether t he products tested would work well in various penetrant applications. However, a s noted above, we are proposing a technology review in 2012 to assess pro gress and to determine if

future further VOC reductions are feasible.

b. Issue: We believe it may be technologically and commerci ally feasible to reformulate Penetrants to a 25 percent VOC limit by December 31, 2014. However, Automotive Specialty Products Association (ASPA) asserts that the ARB must commit to conducting a thorough assessment for this product category in 2010, 2012 and 2013 to determine the commercial and technological feasibility of the 25 percent VOC limit, if requested by our in dustry.

Response : Staff agrees in part. We have evaluated technolo gy and are proposing that products meet the 25 percent VOC lim it by December 31, 2013. We also agree that a technology review is appropria te, and are proposing one in

2012 as described earlier.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commerci al Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reaso ns for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

3. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance . Assessment, Development and Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-emitting Lubri cants, Vanishing Oils and

Rust Inhibitors . August, 2006. (IRTA, 2006)

4. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance . Alternatives to VOC Emitting

Petroleum Based Lubricants and Chlorinated Paraffin Lubricants: Minimizing the Health and Environmental Consequences . November, 2004. (IRTA, 2004)

13. Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 p ercent or less fragrance)

Product Category Description :

Personal Fragrance Product is currently defined as any product which is applied to the human body or clothing for the primary purpo se of adding a scent or masking a malodor, including cologne, perfume, aftershave, an d toilet water. Personal Fragrance Product does not include: (A) Deodorant, as define d in section 94501(d);Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 111 (B) medicated products designed primarily to allevi ate fungal or bacterial growth on feet or other areas of the body; (C) mouthwashes , breath fresheners and deodorizers; (D) lotions, moisturizers, powders or other skin care products used primarily to alleviate skin conditions such as dryn ess and irritations; (E) products designed exclusively for use on human genitalia; (F ) soaps, shampoos, and products primarily used to clean the human body; and (G) fra grance products designed to be used exclusively on non-human animals.

Staff is proposing to add clarifying language to th e definition to indicate that Personal Fragrance Product includes, but is not lim ited to, lotions, powders, body mists, and body sprays.

Personal Fragrance Products were regulated under “ Phase II” of the Consumer Products Regulation adopted in January of 1992, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaki ng (ARB, 1991a). However, instead of the product forms and standards described in that s taff report, the Board divided the category into two subcategories, based on fragrance content, and adopted two tiers of VOC limits for each subcategory. Products with 20 percent or less fragrance were required to meet a VOC limit of 80 percent by weigh t, effective in 1995. A future lower limit of 75 percent by weight became effective in 1 999. Products with more than 20 percent fragrance were required to meet a VOC li mit of 70 percent by weight, effective in 1995. A lower limit of 65 percent bec ame effective in 1999 (ARB, 1992).

However, an exemption from compliance with the ini tial VOC limit was adopted for existing products, and products “in development ” on or before April 1, 1992, provided that such products were registered with ARB prior t o July 1, 1993, and were sold in California before January 1, 1994. The regulation was further amended to specify (section 94510(l)) that the January 1, 1999 VOC lim its do not apply to products which were sold in California prior to January 1, 1999 (A RB, 2007a). The overall effect of these two exemptions (“Grandfather” clauses) has me ant that products in existence prior to 1992 were not reformulated to comply with VOC limits, and products subject to

the 1995 first tier limit did not have to reformula te to meet the second tier 1999 VOC limits. Only products introduced after 1999 have b een required to meet the second tier limits (ARB, 1992).

In addition, section 94510(j) of the Consumer Produ ct Regulation specifies that the VOC standards specified in section 94509(a) do not apply to any VOC which is a fragrance in a Personal Fragrance Product (ARB, 200 7a).

The Personal Fragrance Product category (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) is one of the larger emissions sources w ithin the personal fragrance category. The proposal for this rulemaking affects only those Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance. Table VI-25 below summarizes the sales and emissions from Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance, based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 200 4a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales ar e about 26,905 pounds per day.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 112 Table VI-25 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percen t or less fragrance)*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

All Forms 1101 26,905 21,809

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

This category includes all product forms and inclu des, but is not limited to, colognes, perfumes, aftershaves, toilet waters, lot ions, powders, body mists, and body sprays. Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) have estimated VOC emissions of 21,809 pounds per day , or about 10.9 tons per day, in California. Although not shown in Table VI-25, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is about 81 percent by we ight including fragrance and about 76 percent by weight excluding fragrance.

Product Use and Marketing:

Personal Fragrance Products (products with 20 perce nt or less fragrance) are used by both men and women to impart a fragrance or scent. The concentration of fragrance oil found in different products can vary widely. Perfumes, toilet waters, colognes, and aftershaves make up the largest segme nt of the personal fragrance market. Perfumes, colognes, and toilet waters are generally more concentrated in fragrance, than body sprays or aftershaves, and are used in smaller quantities. In general, perfumes are the most expensive and concen trated, followed by toilet waters (or eau de toilettes), and colognes (or eau de colo gnes) (ARB, 1991a). Perfumes are typically used in small quantities and are intended for “spot” or “pulse point” application. Colognes and toilet waters are the most common frag rance form and are intended for “everyday” use (ARB, 1991a). These products are ty pically less concentrated and are used more liberally.

Personal Fragrance Products are typically sold in r etail stores, department stores, and diversified drug stores, but are also a vailable to consumers for purchase from discount warehouses, Internet companies, home sales, and catalog sales. It is estimated that sales of women’s fragrances are appr oximately twice as much as sales of men’s fragrance products (PCPC, 2006).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 113 Product Formulation :

The main ingredients found in Personal Fragrance P roducts (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) are denatured alcohol (ethanol), fragrances, and water. Aerosol products also contain VOC propellants such as n-Butane, propane, isobutane, and/or the non-VOC propellant, HFC-152a. It should be noted that denatured alcohol often contains 5 to 7 percent water and that any VO C which is a fragrance in a Personal Fragrance Product is exempt from the VOC limits. E thanol is the primary VOC ingredient in this category and is most likely to b e the VOC ingredient that is reduced in the reformulation of a product.

The majority of Personal Fragrance Products (produc ts with 20 percent or less fragrance) contain fragrance oil dissolved in ethan ol and, to a lesser degree, water. Small amounts of other ingredients may also be incl uded, such as preservatives, colorants, and agents used to prevent photodegradat ion or oxidation of fragrance ingredients (ARB, 1991a).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

Staff is not proposing to lower existing VOC limits for Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less fragrance), but i nstead is proposing to eliminate the “Grandfather” clauses for this category. This woul d require that all products, new and existing, be subject to the same VOC standard, name ly 75 percent by weight.

Based on the 2003 Survey, products within a signatu re line contain varying amounts of ethanol and fragrance, but continue to b e labeled and sold under the same signature line as the same scent (ARB, 2004a). Thi s is an indication that reformulation is possible, while preserving a signature scent. C ompanies with products covered under the “Grandfather” clauses may have been opera ting with a competitive advantage since 1995, having avoided the cost of reformulatio n, consumer testing, and marketing. This proposal will require companies to reformulate their products to meet the 75 percent by weight VOC limit, regardless of when they were first sold in California.

As shown in Table V-26 below, 679 products comply w ith the 75 percent by weight VOC standard; indicating that products can be refor mulated to comply with the standard. The complying products account for about 37 percent of the market.

Removing the “Grandfather” clauses will result in an estimated emission reduction of 824 pounds per day, or 0.41 tons per d ay, using emissions adjusted to 2014. If adopted, the removal of the “Grandfather” clauses would become effective December 31, 2014. We are proposing to extend the effective date until December 31, 2014 because of the large number of pr oducts that would need to be

reformulated.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 114 Table VI-26 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percen t or less fragrance) Proposal*

Product

Form Proposed VOC

Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2014

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

All Forms 75 (Remove

“Grandfather” clauses) 679 37 765 824

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2014 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Compliance with the Standard:

Removing the exemption for existing products will s ubject both new and existing Personal Fragrance Products (products with 20 perce nt or less fragrance) to a 75 percent by weight VOC standard. Reformulation o ptions could include reducing ethanol content, adding water, making adjustments t o fragrance components that can tolerate higher levels of water, and, if applicable , replacing VOC propellants with nonVOC propellants.

The most straightforward method of reformulating Pe rsonal Fragrance Products (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) is to replace some of the alcohol with water or some other non-VOC ingredients. Simple replacem ent, as industry has pointed out, may lead to an altered fragrance due to some of the fragrance oil ingredients "coming out of solution." However, emulsion technology or fragrance modification may be utilized to minimize fragrance alteration (ARB, 199 1a).

Reformulation options also include adjustments to t he fragrance oil components to allow for higher water content. For example, fr actional distillation of the polar compounds, in some essential oils, would yield wate r-soluble extracts retaining the same fragrance as their essential oil even though t hey may differ greatly in chemical nature. Examples would include the distilled aroma tic waters from rose, witch hazel, yarrow, orange flowers, chamomile, balm mint and li nden (ARB, 1991a). One study reported that by lowering the quantities of crystal line materials such as vanillin, coumarin, and heliotropin and using resins such as oak moss and Mousse de Chene sparingly, fragrance solubility in aerosol products can be increased (ARB, 1991a).

Another reformulation option for aerosol products c ould include adjusting propellant. For example, the amount of VOC propell ant could be adjusted or VOC propellant could be blended with non-VOC propellant , such as HFC-152a. However, we do not expect such propellant blending to occur as the limit is feasible without the use of HFC-152a, a more expensive propellant. Although hy drocarbon propellants functionTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 115 also as solvents in aerosol formulations, they are poor solvents for some fragrance constituents. According to an article in "Cosmetic s and Toiletries," hydrocarbon propellants are poor solvents for many of the polar constituents of perfume oils (ARB, 1991a). We conclude, for the reasons given, above, that it is unlikely propellant adjustments will result in fragrance alterations.

Issues :

a. Issue : Reducing the alcohol content of personal fragranc e products will result in some fragrance components precipitating out of solu tion, resulting in an altered fragrance.

Response : While simple replacement of alcohol with water ma y result in some fragrance components precipitating out, emulsifying agents may be used to prevent this. In addition, certain fragrance oil c omponents are more compatible with water. By properly selecting the components f rom these fragrance oils, a formulator can create a scent that can tolerate hig h levels of water. According to the 1991 and 2003 ARB Consumer Products Surveys, ma ny aftershave products with water content ranging from 10 to 90 percent ha ve been identified. Colognes with 1 to 90 percent water content and perfumes wit h zero to 10 percent water

content have also been identified.

b. Issue : The proposed VOC restrictions will hinder the cre ative process of developing a fragrance by limiting the choice of fr agrance oils.

Response : According to the 2003 Survey, there are over 670 products that comply with the existing 75 percent by weight VOC l imit. ARB staff has identified complying colognes and perfumes from a number of th e fragrance families, including, but not limited to the following: musk, floral, chypre, aldehydic, tobacco and leather, spicy, and oriental. This ind icates that manufacturers will not be limited to a narrow range of scent type s. In addition, the staff has identified a number of technologies that can be used to comply with the VOC standards in the regulation without necessarily lim iting manufacturers to fewer fragrance oils. We are confident the creative abil ities of perfumers and manufacturers will allow development of products th at meet consumers’ needs

and reduce VOC emissions.

c. Issue : The Personal Care Products Council has provided A RB staff with a twotiered proposal for consideration. Products betwee n 75 to 80 percent by weight VOC would be subject to a VOC limit of 75 percent b y weight. Products above 80 percent by weight VOC would be reformulated to a VOC limit of 80 percent by weight. In addition, industry requests a lengthier compliance period of 5 years.

Response : Companies with products covered under the “Grandf ather” clauses may have been operating with a competitive advantag e since 1995, when the first-tier VOC limit of 80 percent by weight became effective. In order to level theTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 116 playing field for all stakeholders, staff is propos ing a single VOC standard. However, staff is proposing an extended future effe ctive date of December 31, 2014, to provide sufficient time for c ompanies to reformulate and conduct consumer testing of the hundreds of current ly “grandfathered” products.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. The California Consumer Pro ducts Regulations

. December, 2007. (ARB, 2007a)

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

3. Air Resources Board. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Amendments to t he Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer P roducts - Phase II

. January 9, 1992. (ARB, 1992)

4. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Con sumer Products - Phase II – Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

5. Personal Care Products Council (formerly known as Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association). Presentation to ARB staff . July 26, 2006. (PCPC, 2006)

14. Sealant or Caulking Compound

Product Category Description:

Sealant or Caulking Compound is any product with ad hesive properties that is designed to fill, seal, waterproof, or weatherproof gaps or joints between two surfaces, including threaded pipe sealants and gasket makers. Sealant or Caulking Compound does not include roof cements and roof sealants; in sulating foams; removable caulking compounds; clear/paintable/water resistant caulking compounds; floor seam sealers; products designed exclusively for automotive uses; or sealers that are applied as continuous coatings. Sealant or Caulking Compound also does not include units of product, less packaging, which weigh more than one pound and consist of more than

16 fluid ounces.

“Removable caulking compounds” means a compound whi ch temporarily seals

windows or doors for three to six month time interv als. “Clear/paintable/water resistant compounds” means a compound which contains no appre ciable level of opaque fillers or pigments; transmits most or all visible light th rough the caulk when cured; is paintable; and is immediately resistant to precipit ation upon application.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 117 Sealant and caulking products, packaged in aerosol and non-aerosol forms, were first regulated statewide under the “Midterm Measur es II” of the Consumer Products Regulation, adopted in October of 1999, and a descr iption of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (A RB, 1999). At that time, the Board adopted a single VOC limit of 4 percent by weight f or all forms of these products, which became effective on December 31, 2002. We believe technology now exists to further

reduce the VOC content limit for non-aerosol Sealan t or Caulking Compound products. For this current rulemaking, staff is proposing to change the category name from Sealant and Caulking Compound to Sealant or Caulkin g Compound. In addition, staff has proposed to subcategorize the category into Non -Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound and Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound with different proposed VOC limits for non-aerosol produ cts in these two subcategories.

Other minor clarifications in the definition are al so proposed, such as clarifying that the Sealant or Caulking Compound definition includes th readed pipe sealants and gasket

makers.

We are proposing to divide the non-aerosol product s into two subcategories based on the formulation technologies used. A Chem ically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound is defined as any Sealant or Caulking Comp ound which achieves its final composition and physical form through a catalyst-dr iven chemical reaction. The reaction causes a change in chemical structure, and leads to the release of chemical by-products. Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound includes, but is not limited to products that utilize silicone, polyuret hane, silyl-terminated polyether or silylterminated polyurethane reactive chemistries. Chem ically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound does not include products, which are not s olely dependent on a chemically curing process to achieve the cured state. Non-Che mically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound means any Sealant or Caulking Compound whi ch is not a Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound.

Staff is proposing to add clarifying language that the Sealant or Caulking Compound definition includes pipe thread sealants a nd gasket makers as these products are designed to fill, seal, waterproof or weatherproof gaps or joints between two surfaces. Staff has made a number of product r eviews, at the request of manufacturers, and determined that such products ar e subject to the Consumer Products Regulation requirements for Sealant or Cau lking Compounds.

While Sealant or Caulking Compound products come in several forms, ten to eleven fluid ounce disposable cartridges that fit i n half-barrel caulking guns are the most common. Smaller squeeze tubes are also available. Sealant or Caulking Compound products vary in their ability to adhere to differe nt materials and in their resilience, durability, cost, and ease of clean-up. Some produ cts have special properties, such as mildew resistance, high flexibility, temperature re sistance, abrasion resistance, paintability, and the ability to self-level.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 118 By definition, the proposal affects products that consist of 16 fluid ounces or less and weigh one pound or less. The local air distric ts in California regulate the use of large size (greater than 16 fluid ounces or one pou nd) and industrial-use sealants and caulks. Following is a list of local air districts and their corresponding currently applicable Sealant or Caulking Compound regulations :

• Bay Area AQMD, Rule 8-51, Adhesives and Sealant Pr oducts;

• Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Rule 460, Adhesives and Sealants;

• Santa Barbara County APCD, Rule 353, Adhesives and Sealants;

• Shasta County APCD, Rule 3-32, Adhesives and Seala nts;

• South Coast AQMD, Rule 1168, Adhesive and Sealant Applications;

• Tehama County APCD, Rule 4-40, Adhesives and Seala nts; and

• Ventura County APCD, Rule 74.20, Adhesives and Sea lants.

Table VI-27 summarizes the sales and emissions fro m Sealant or Caulking Compound products based on the results of ARB’s 200 3 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. To tal category sales are about 141,927 pounds per day.

Estimated combined VOC emissions from the non-aeros ol Sealant or Caulking Compound category are 5,168 pounds per day, or abou t 2.6 tons per day, in California. Although not shown in Table VI-27, the sales-weight ed average VOC content was about 2 percent by weight for the non-aerosol products in the Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound subcategory, and about 7 perce nt by weight for the non-aerosol products in the Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulki ng Compound subcategory, according to the 2003 Survey. The sales-weighted a verage VOC content values for the two subcategories were based on the group of produc ts that also included sell-through products with VOC content above the current VOC lim it of 4 percent for the category. Due to the impact of sell-through products with hig her VOC content, the calculated values for the sales-weighted average are greater t han what they would be with all products reformulated to meet the current VOC limit

.

Product Use and Marketing :

Non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products a re used to prevent air infiltration, heat loss, water penetration, insect entry, or to improve appearance while being flexible and resistant to substrate movement. These products are also used to prevent the passage of a liquid or gas between two surfaces, while being flexible and

resistant to substrate movement.

Non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products are used extensively in the construction, remodeling, and maintenance of houses and other structures in order to further weatherize and protect the structure. Ther e are many different types and uses for sealants and caulks, including: exterior sealan ts and caulks; all-purpose indoor/outdoor sealant and caulks; removable sealan t and caulks; roof repair sealantsTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 119 Table VI-27 Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol)*

Product Subcategory Number of

Products 2008 Category

Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)** Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) 344 83,915 1,354

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) 196 58,012 3,814

Total 540 141,927 5,168

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

and caulks; elastomeric sealant and caulks; high te mperature sealants and caulks; waterproof (submerged) sealant and caulks; gasket m akers; and pipe thread sealants. These products are used for filling gaps and cracks in a foundation; around windows and doors; vents; faucets; pipes; wiring; electrica l and utility boxes; outlets; ceiling fixtures; drains; bathtubs; tiles; air conditioners ; ceiling and wall joints; chimneys; and

other uses.

The market offers Chemically Curing Sealant or Cau lking Compound products and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compo und products. Chemically curing products undergo a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst leading to a change in chemical structure, such as cross-linking of a polymer, as part of the curing process. Non-chemically curing products do not par ticipate in such chemical reactions. The curing actually occurs through a physical chang e by water or solvent evaporation.

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) :

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol products do not cure through a chemical reaction. The curing r esults from solvent evaporation. Some of the basic types of sealants and caulks on t he market today include acrylic latex caulks, solvent-based synthetic rubber products, bu tyl caulks, and oil-based sealants and caulks. Some non-chemically curing sealants an d caulks use the terms “siliconized” or “polyurethane acrylic product” but they do not chemically cure.

Acrylic latex caulks are often chosen for general u se because of their low price, durability, convenience, low odor, low toxicity, an d effectiveness on both inside and outside surfaces. These compounds remain durable a nd flexible after they have been applied, and are not affected by the sun’s ultravio let (UV) rays, alkali surfaces, or water. According to product labels, acrylic latex sealants will also adhere well to concrete, ceramic tile, paint, wood, sheet rock, plaster, bri cks, plastic, and glass. However, theyTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 120 are not recommended for use in extreme temperatures , continuously damp areas, or for high-movement areas (ARB, 1999).

Siliconized latex caulks have some of the performance characteristics of sil iconebased chemically curing caulks. Silicone is added to latex for increased durability, better adhesion, and increased flexibility. Applic ation is easy, clean-up is with water, and the cost is lower than pure silicone caulks. T his caulk is paintable and comes in a variety of colors. Cure time is between 12-24 hour s and the caulk should not be exposed to water in this period of time (ARB, 1999)

.

Solvent-based synthetic rubber sealants and caulks also claim to adhere well to most surfaces and can be applied under harsh weathe r conditions. They have an ability to recover, stretch and are paintable with water-ba sed paints. These products are more prone to shrinkage and are flammable until they cur e. They are also higher in VOC content (Pontolilo, 2004).

Butyl caulks are used to seal exterior metal and ma sonry surfaces. They are solvent-based with a life expectancy of 2 to 5 year s. Although butyl caulks can be painted, they usually take 3 to 7 days to dry. Pur ported advantages of butyl caulks include their relatively low cost, good water resis tance, and good adhesion without primers. Disadvantages may include limited joint m ovement tolerance, a tendency for shrinkage, and difficulty in forming a neat bead. However, butyl caulks will not become brittle and have good resiliency. Clean up can be difficult because they require special chemical solutions (ARB, 1999).

Oil-based sealants and caulks are usually inexpensi ve, low durability caulks composed of drying oils, such as linseed oil, and f illers. The oils slowly dry out and the caulk could show significant hardening and cracking within a year. They also can discolor and stain the surface to which they are ap plied when the surface is not primed (ARB, 1999).

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non -aerosol) :

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non -aerosol products include, but are not limited to, products that utilize silic one, polyurethane, silyl-terminated polyether and silyl-terminated polyurethane reactiv e chemistries. Products based on these reactive chemistries cure by absorbing atmosp heric moisture.

Products with silicone chemical cure have a wide va riety of performance

characteristics. Silicone sealants and caulks have very little shrinkage, high flexibility, and are available both in clear and pigmented formu la. According to manufacturers, these products are chosen by many consumers for the ir long term durability and UV resistance. As stated on product labels, silicone sealants and caulks are good for joints that move extensively, will perform at very low and high temperatures, and have a fast cure rate. These products are formulated for most substrates and are claimed to be good for adhesion to nonporous surfaces, such as gl ass, metal, ceramic tile andTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 121 porcelain. However, most silicone-based compounds cannot be painted and tear easily (Pontolilo, 2004).

Products utilizing polyurethane chemical cure claim to have versatile properties and are used in a wide range of commercial applicat ions. Product labels indicate that they are flexible, can be painted and can adhere to most surfaces. In addition, these products have good chemical resistance. Consumers have a choice of non-sagging or self-leveling formulas (HPI, 2008). Polyurethanes are able to fill larger cracks because they expand when curing and can act as both an insu lation and air barrier. However, polyurethanes must be protected from UV radiation ( ARB, 1999).

Modified silicone polymer sealants are relatively n ew products that offer the benefits of water-based, silicone and polyurethane sealants. These products are also more expensive. According to product labels, modif ied silicone polymer sealants and caulks can be applied in extreme temperatures, are watertight almost immediately, are very durable and adhere well to most substrate mate rials. Modified silicone polymers include silyl-terminated polyether products. These products claim to be flexible, paintable, quick curing and do not shrink. They ar e also low in VOC content (Pontolilo, 2004). Silyl-terminated polyurethane products are purported to have several distinct advantages over conventional polyurethanes. These products show improved adhesion to glass, UV stability and weatherability (O’Connor , 2004).

Sealants and caulks are sold in hardware stores, ho me supply stores, paint stores, hobby and craft stores, and by mass merchan disers. Sealants are also sold to industrial or institutional users through distribut ors or through direct sales by the

manufacturer.

Product Formulation :

Sealant or Caulking Compound products generally ha ve low solvent levels, high concentrations of fillers, and are thick and nonpou rable.

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) :

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol products are

either water-based or solvent-based. One of the ad vantages of water-based caulking compounds is that they can be cleaned up with water prior to curing. Solvent-based compounds must be cleaned up with solvents. Each t ype of sealant or caulking compound formulation offers its own particular stre ngth and weakness depending on how it is used. Many products are formulated to me et the performance requirements described in American Society for Testing and Mater ials (ASTM) C-920, the “Standard Specification for Elastomeric Joint Sealants.”

A typical formulation might consist of the followin g:

1. Polymer – Polymer is the most important contributing factor to sealant o r caulk performance. It provides elastomeric and adhesive properties. Different types of resinsTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 122 include oil-based, butyl, solvent-based acrylic, bl ock copolymer, polyvinyl acetate and water-based acrylic polymers (ARB, 1999).

2. Plasticizer – Plasticizers improve sealant flexibility, extrudabi lity of uncured product, and can reduce cost. The plasticizer must be compa tible with the polymer system being used. As the plasticizer content increases, adhesi on decreases. Types of plasticizers include phthalates, benzoate, and epoxidized oils ( ARB, 1999).

3. Filler – Fillers provide reinforcement to the product, can r educe product raw material cost, add desired color to the product, and can imp art sag or slump resistance. Types of fillers include calcium carbonate (chalk), alumi num silicate (clay), magnesium silicate (talc), fumed silica, cellulosic fiber, organic cla ys, titanium dioxide, carbon blacks, and metal oxides (ARB, 1999).

4. Specialty Additives – Additives are used to improve and enhance specific aspects of the sealant or caulk such as weatherability, adh esion, package stability, and cure rate. Examples of specialty additives are adhesion promoters, UV absorbers, biocides, pigments, and waterborne additives. Adhesion promo ters, such as organotitanates and silane coupling agents, provide adhesion to specifi c substrates. UV absorbers, which include hindered amines and benzotriazoles, provide long term stability of the cured product and eliminate surface cracking, chalking, o r discoloration. Finally, waterborne additives, such as freeze thaw stabilizers, are use d to preserve the integrity of latex particles. Examples of common waterborne additives are: ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, urea, and isopropanol (ARB, 1999). Biocide s are added to provide antimicrobial protection, which is especially important in sealan ts or caulks used in the kitchen and bathroom, where water and mildew are common (Pontol ilo, 2004).

5. Diluents – Diluents reduce the viscosity and aid in the appli cation of the sealant or caulk. For water-based formulations, water is the primary diluent, however, some VOC co-solvents are used including: acetates (acetic ac id, butyl acetate, vinyl acetate, etc.), alcohols (ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, etc.), an d glycols (ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol methyl ether, etc.). Dil uents used in solvent-based formulations include: mineral spirits, hexane, stoddard solvent , toluene, and xylene. Manufacturers limit the amount of diluents to control shrinkage r esulting from the evaporation of the diluent during curing (ARB, 1999). A few products reported in the 2003 Survey contain perchloroethylene, an exempt VOC solvent.

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non -aerosol) :

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non- aerosol products participate in a chemical reaction. The reaction u sually involves the formation of new internal bonds and results in a change in the chemi cal structure of the product, such as cross-linking of a polymer. As compounds undergo c ross-linking reactions as part of the curing process, products become more stable and chemical by-products are

released.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 123 Chemically curing products that utilize silicone, polyurethane, or modified silicone polyether reactive chemistries react in the presenc e of moisture. Similar to non-chemically curing products, chemically curing p roducts also contain fillers, polymers, plasticizers and specialty additives. Th ese products also contain catalysts and cross-linkers. Catalysts are used to initiate the reaction, and examples include peroxides, tertiary amines, and compounds based on nickel, tin, or platinum (ARB, 1999). Cross-linkers are involved in the actual cr oss-linking once the cure reaction is

initiated.

Silicone sealants contain siloxane polymers and pl asticizers. Most of these are based on polydimethylsiloxane. Depending on whethe r the formula is based on an acetoxy, neutral or basic cure type, cross-linkers involved can be acetoxy, oxime or alcohol. Consequently, groups released during the reaction would include an acetic acid, an oxime, such as 2-oximobutane, or amine, su ch as cyclohexylamine, depending on the cure type (Macco, 2006).

Polyurethane cure reaction is based on the cross-l inking of isocyanates and an alcohol (polyol) during cure. Some common isocyana tes used in a formula include toluene diisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate and h examethylene diisocyanate (Macco, 2006).

Products that are based on silyl-terminated polyet hers are very similar to silicone sealants and caulks with acidic cure. They differ in the types of cross-linker functional groups, leading to the release of an alcohol during the reaction, such as methanol, ethanol or propanol, instead of an acid (Macco, 200 6). Silyl-terminated polyurethanes contain urethane prepolymers, prepared from the rea ction of a diisocyante and a conventional polyol, that are end-capped with an or gano-functional silane. Silylterminated polyurethane sealants have been prepared with varying isocyanates, polyol, and silanes (O’Connor, 2004).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for the Non-Chemically Cur ing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory is 1.5 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. The proposed VOC limit for the Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory is 3 perc ent by weight, effective December 31, 2012.

As shown in Table VI-28a, using emissions adjusted to 2010, the proposed limit

will result in an estimated emission reduction of 2 46 pounds per day, or about 0.12 tons per day, for the Non-Chemically Curing Se alant or Caulking Compound nonaerosol subcategory.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 124 Table VI-28a Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) Subcategory Proposal)

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Non-aerosol 1.5 201 76 240 246

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Complying products in the Non-Chemically Curing Se alant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory include water-base d and solvent-based technologies. Only those products complying withou t the use of perchloroethylene are included in the complying market share data. Most of the complying products are water-based formulations. Reformulation options in clude switching from solvent-based formulations to water-based formulations, using alt ernative LVP-VOC solvents or a

combination of VOC and LVP- VOC solvents. These al ternative ingredients are already being used in many products.

As shown in Table VI-28b, using emissions adjusted to 2012, the proposed limit

will result in an estimated emission reduction of 4 46 pounds per day, or about 0.22 tons per day, for the Chemically Curing Sealan t or Caulking Compound nonaerosol subcategory.

Table VI-28b Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non -aerosol) Subcategory Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2012

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Non-aerosol 3 95 23 420 446

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2012 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Non-complying products in the Chemically Curing Se alant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory may reformulate by lowering the amount of VOC solvents, using alternative LVP-VOC solvents or a c ombination of both. Where the essential formulation components involved in the ch emical cure reaction contribute toTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 125 VOC content themselves or lead to the formation and release of VOC compounds as by-products of the cure, products may reformulate b y slightly reducing the levels of VOC cross-linkers or other VOC ingredients and increasi ng the levels of non-VOC ingredients, such as fillers, non-VOC polymers and resins, and other additives.

In some cases, reformulation efforts will involve modification of the existing resins/polymers or development of new resins for so me of the reactive chemistries. Currently, the market resin supply is somewhat unce rtain. Resins are not developed specifically for sealants and caulks because it is a small market. Hence, manufacturers

have to select from those available and test differ ent resins and combinations. Because of this, staff believes an extended effective date is warranted. The Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategor y would be given until December 31, 2012, to comply with the proposed VOC limit. This extra time should give manufacturers the time required for research a nd development efforts to work with resin and polymer reactive chemistry systems to dev elop a complying formula.

Staff is also proposing in section 92412(d) additi onal labeling requirements for non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound. The prod uct category as specified in section 94509(a), or an abbreviation of the categor y, and the applicable VOC standard shall be displayed. This requirement is to facilit ate enforcement of the applicable standards for Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing products.

Aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products cont inue to be subject to the 4 percent VOC by weight limit, effective December 3 1, 2002. Our data show that there are existing compliant Chemically Curing and Non-Ch emically Curing aerosol products.

Because our data for both aerosol and non-aerosol products show compliance can be achieved without the use of methylene chlori de, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs from the Sealant or Caulking Compound category, effective December 3 1, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are exempt VOC solvents. Therefo re, without the prohibition, their use could increase as products reformulate to compl y. Trichloroethylene is a VOC, and its use would likely decrease to meet the proposed limit. However, other solvents are available that make its use unnecessary. Prohibiti ng these three TACs will lead to approximately 0.12 tons per day of toxic compound e mission reductions from this category. The health effects associated with expos ure to perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene, are summarized in C hapter VIII, Environmental Impacts.

Issues :

a. Issue : Non-Chemically Curing Sealants or Caulks serve a w ide range of applications, including many specialty uses and sub strates. The VOC standard should allow for the whole range of general use and specialty applications.

Response : Analysis of 2003 Survey data indicates that 76 pe rcent of the market complies with the proposal for the Non-Chemically C uring Sealant or CaulkingTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 126 Compound non-aerosol subcategory. Many of these pr oducts can be applied to a varied range of substrates, including many specia lty use applications. Staff believes, and some industry stakeholders have agree d, that the proposed VOC standard allows for a wide range of general and spe cialty use product applications.

b. Issue : The lower VOC limit proposed for Non-Chemically C uring Sealant or Caulking Compound products will have a negative eff ect on product performance, causing the market to shift to the use of Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products, which have a higher VOC standard.

Response : As stated in response to the first issue, staff b elieves that the proposed VOC limit for Non-Chemically Curing Sealan t or Caulking Compound non-aerosol products will accommodate a wide range of product applications. In addition, there are existing products that meet the definition of the Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol sub category that are low in VOC content. These products claim to perform well under extreme weather conditions and can be used for many applications.

c. Issue : Staff is adding pipe thread sealants and gasket makers to the definition of Sealant or Caulking Compound. Pipe thread sealants and gasket makers were not included in the original proposal to regulate S ealant or Caulking Compounds

and should not be added to the definition.

Response : Staff is making a clarification that the Sealant or Caulking Compound category definition does include pipe thread sealan ts and gasket makers as these products are designed to fill, seal, waterpro of or weatherproof gaps or joints between two surfaces. Staff has made a numb er of product reviews, at the request of manufacturers, and determined that such products are subject to the Consumer Products Regulation requirements for seala nt or caulking compounds. A number of chemically curing and non-chemically cu ring pipe thread sealants and gasket makers were reported in the 2003 Survey, with complying products existing in both subcategories.

d. Issue : The proposed lower VOC limits will eliminate the aerosol product form.

Response : Staff’s proposal sets lower VOC limits for non-a erosol products only. The current VOC limit of 4 percent by weight for th e Sealant or Caulking Compound category is applicable to all product form s and will continue to be applicable to aerosol forms. The 2003 Survey indic ates that there are products utilizing aerosol technologies available on the mar ket, in both the Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulkin g Compound non-aerosol subcategories that comply with the existing 4 perce nt by weight VOC limit.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 127 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures II . September, 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

3. Air Resources Board. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Adhesives and Sealants. December, 1998. (ARB, 1998)

4. House-Painting-Info. Polyurethane Caulk Possibly the Best. March 20, 2008. http://www.house-painting-info.com/polyurethane-cau lk.html . (April 9, 2008). (HPI, 2008)

5. Macco Adhesives. Notes on Chemically Curing Adhe sive and Sealant Systems

. August 1, 2006. (Macco, 2006)

6. O’Connor, AE. Silyl-Terminated Polyurethanes for Construction Sealants. Kingston, T. ASTM International , Volume 1, Issue 3 – Online Abstract.
March 10, 2004. http://www.astm.org/cgibin/SoftCart.exe/JOURNALS/JA I/PAGES/460.htm?E+my

store . (April 9, 2008). (O’Conner, 2004)

7. Pontolilo, Brian. Making Sense of Caulks and Sea lants . Fine Homebuilding. April/May, 2004. http://www.tauton.com/finehomebuil ding/PDF/Free/ 021162097.pdf . (Pontolilo, 2004)

15. Spot Removers

Product Category Description :

Spot Removers are used to remove localized spots o r stains on articles such as carpets, rugs, upholstery, drapes, or clothing. Su bsequent laundering is not required to achieve stain removal. Spots and stains include vi sible contamination from spills and other mishaps. The distinction between Spot Remove rs and related cleaning products, such as Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, is that Spot Rem overs are “on-demand” products for local treatment/cleaning of areas with heavier dirt or stains, while the cleaning products are for general cleaning of the majority o f, or an entire article, after routine accumulation of contaminants over time. Generally, Spot Removers use more powerful cleaning ingredients than Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner s. Some products are intended for specific types of soils. Spot Removers do not incl ude products that treat spots and stains on clothes or other fabrics that need subseq uent laundering (machine or handTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 128 wash) to remove the stain. Such products are inclu ded in the category of Laundry

Prewash.

Spot Removers include products designed to remove tough, localized stains, such as grease, oil, oxidized oil (old, dried-out), tar, dry paint spots (latex, oil-based, enamels), blood, urine, vomit, feces, most foods, m ake-up, crayon, lipstick, nail polish, floor waxes, rust, or ink. A product may be intend ed for one type of stain, or for several. While the cause and contamination in some spots/sta ins may be known such that an appropriate type of Spot Remover is chosen, others may be of unknown origin. “Unknown” spots and stains may be treated by “unive rsal” Spot Removers intended for several types of contamination, or by “trial-and-er ror” with a series of different Spot Removers, each for a different type of spot/stain. For treating localized odor contamination, Spot Removers may use biologically-d erived odor destroying ingredients (e.g. enzymes or live bacterial culture).

Spot Removers were regulated under “Mid-term Measu res 1” of the Consumer Products Regulation approved on July 24, 1997, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaki ng (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the Board adopted, as staff had recommended, a VOC limi t of 25 percent by weight for aerosol products, and a VOC limit of 8 percent by w eight for non-aerosol products. Both VOC limits became effective January 1, 2001. The Spot Remover category does not include Dry Clea ning Fluid. Dry Cleaning Fluid includes non-aqueous liquid products used exc lusively on fabrics labeled "for dry clean only" or on "S-coded" fabrics specified by th e Joint Industry Fabric Standards Committee to be cleaned only with water-free spot c leaning products.

Also historically, the category excluded Multi-pur pose Solvents, which are defined as organic liquid products with no VOC limi t. However, the 2006 Consumer Products Regulation amendments (ARB, 2006a; ARB, 20 07e) to section 94508(a) modified requirements. Multi-purpose Solvent produ cts manufactured on or after January 1, 2008, with multiple-use claims, are subj ect to the Spot Remover VOC limit if the product label includes a claim for spot or stai n removal from fabric surfaces. The product would also be subject to the "most-restrict ive-limit" provisions of section 94512(a).

Table VI-29 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns from Spot Remover products based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total catego ry sales are 42,308 pounds per day.

As shown in Table VI-29, Spot Remover products are sold in both the aerosol and non-aerosol forms, with estimated VOC emissions of 2,105 pounds per day, or about 1.05 tons per day, in California. Although n ot shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content of the aerosol and non-aerosol products are about 22 and 2 percent by weight, respectively.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 129 Table VI-29 Spot Remover*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

Aerosol 70 6,910 1,520

Non-Aerosol 361 35,398 585

Total 431 42,308 2,105

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Product Use and Marketing :

Spot Removers are used by household consumers for cleaning localized spots, stains, and soiled areas on fabric articles in home s and vehicles. Spot Removers are also used by commercial/institutional professionals such as janitors; carpet, furniture, drapery, and laundry workers; commercial detailers of automotive interiors; workers in health care facilities; and remediation specialists for fabric articles in buildings after fire/smoke damage. Spot Removers are applied by aerosol spray, mechan ical sprayer, bottle dispenser, or special applicator, to the affected a rea, and left to soak to release/treat the spot or stain in the fibers. The area is then blot ted with a dry cloth or scrubbing cap to

lift and remove the contaminants from the substrate . Sometimes repeat application is needed to adequately remove the spot or stain. The area may be dampened with water from a clean cloth, and blotted with a dry cloth to dilute and remove residual cleaner. The area is then allowed to dry (ARB, 1997b).

Both Spot Removers and Laundry Pre-wash products c laim to treat or remove localized spots. However, the products differ in t hat Laundry Pre-wash products contain instructions for treating stains on articles prior to laundering, while Spot Removers do

not.

The Spot Remover category is currently regulated a s “aerosol” and “non-aerosol” products with different VOC limits. Spot Removers are sold in general merchandise, hardware, drug stores, supermarkets, automotive par ts stores, janitorial and maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Interne t. Some products are packaged as kits containing products formulated for differen t types of spots or stains (ARB, 1997b).

Product Formulation :

Spot Removers are generally water-based products c ontaining ingredients such as glycol ethers, isopropyl alcohol, surfactants, e nzymes, and various inorganic cleaning compounds. Ingredients vary depending on the types of spots and stains,Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 130 although many products are formulated for general u se to address several types of stains. A common ingredient is 2-butoxyethanol (al so called ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) which is used to treat many solvent-based an d water-based stains. Other glycol ethers are also used, some of which are VOCs, but o thers are LVP-VOCs and are thus, slower drying.

Typically, products complying with the current 25 percent VOC limit for aerosols, may contain zero to 20 percent VOC cleaners such as VOC glycol ethers, alcohol, or other organic compounds such as surfactants, and 5 to 10 percent hydrocarbon propellant. Surfactants or enzymes, typically clas sified as LVP-VOCs, may be part of the formulation to clean soils, including oily spot s and stains. Enzymes and other biologically-derived ingredients, such as non-patho genic bacterial cultures may be used to address odor, grease, and other organic contamin ation. Some products use oxygen compounds (e.g. bleach) to clean stains. With non- VOC propellants such as HFC152a, products may contain up to 25 percent VOC cle aning ingredients under the current VOC limit. Some products rely on surfactan ts, containing minimal or no VOCs, for removal of various contaminants including oil a nd grease. Inorganic ingredients may be used as cleaners, or to enhance the cleaning eff ectiveness of surfactants.

The non-aerosol products are generally liquids app lied by trigger sprayer, hand-pump-pressurized tank sprayer, or bottle dispe nser. Low-VOC products are typically water-based and may include LVP-VOC clean ers, such as surfactants and LVP-VOC glycol ethers, and inorganic ingredients. Some products for

commercial/institutional use are sold in dilutable (i.e. concentrated) liquid form.

Specialized products also exist in this category. For example, products containing mainly acid or bleach (inorganic and thu s zero-VOC) are used to remove rust

and certain water-based stains.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for Spot Remover is 15 perc ent by weight for aerosols and 3 percent by weight for non-aerosols, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-30, using emissions adjusted to 2010, the proposed limits for the category will result in an estimated emission reduction of 573 po unds per day, or about 0.29 tons per day statewide.

Table VI-30 also shows that about 4 percent of the aerosol market currently complies with the proposed 15 percent VOC limit, an d 94 percent of the non-aerosol market complies with the 3 percent VOC limit.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 131 Table VI-30 Spot Remover Proposal *

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Aerosol 15 18 4 468 479

Non-Aerosol 3 231 94 91 94

Total ----- 249 ----- 559 573

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

The proposed 15 percent VOC limit for aerosol prod ucts is intended to allow both sufficient VOC solvent for removing grease or oil-t ype spots and stains, and sufficient hydrocarbon propellant for adequate spray performan ce. Products may be formulated to contain LVP-VOCs and non-VOC ingredients such as surfactants, enzymes, live bacterial cultures, inorganic compounds, or exempt compounds.

Alternative formulations with non-VOC propellant w ould enable up to 15 percent VOC solvent ingredients, with the addition of non-V OC ingredients as discussed above. Non-VOC propellants available include compressed ca rbon dioxide.

A reformulation option is limited use of acetone ( a VOC exempt compound). Because it is an aggressive solvent that may damage common materials, acetone may have limited applications for certain fabrics with nearby surfaces vulnerable to over-spray. Acetone is not suitable for use on ace tate, triacetate, and modacrylic fabrics, and must be used away from plastic or wood finishes. Acetone, as well as certain other organic and hydrocarbon solvents, may have limited use with carpets and rugs with vulnerable backing material. Because of its fast drying characteristics, acetone in a formulation may be used to supplement and partially offset the slower drying characteristics of LVP-VOC ingredients.

Regarding non-aerosol products, the VOC proposal w ould allow up to 3 percent VOC cleaning solvent. The balance would be primari ly water with small amounts of LVP-VOC solvents, acetone, surfactants, enzymes, li ve bacterial cultures, inorganic compounds, or other exempt compounds.

The few products with perchloroethylene (an exempt chlorinated compound and thus non-VOC) are aerosols and generally low-VOC. However, the combined sales of these products were minimal and are not portrayed i n the complying market share. The 15 percent VOC proposal is minimally affected by th e presence or absence of the perchloroethylene products in the data. The 2003 S urvey data show very limited use ofTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 132 perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlo rinated compound) in this category.

While ARB staff believes these toxic air contaminan ts are not likely to be used as cleaning solvents in the future reformulated produc ts, ARB staff is proposing that perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride be prohibited in the Spot Remover category. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that manufacturers do not

choose to reformulate with toxic chlorinated solven ts in response to the lower VOC limits. Staff has determined that currently availa ble formulation technologies that do not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or me thylene chloride are readily available and thus they are not needed to comply with the pro posed standard. See Chapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloro ethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride.

To update and strengthen regulatory requirements, the Multi-purpose Solvent exclusion in the definition is proposed to be elimi nated. This revision would make the requirements for Spot Remover consistent with the a dopted 2006 update for Multipurpose Solvent. Also, when a product is subject t o more than one VOC limit, the most restrictive limit would apply, in accordance with s ection 94512(a).

A new exclusion for aerosol gum remover products i s proposed for the category definition. A literal interpretation of the curren t Spot Remover definition may include aerosol gum removers, since gum contamination on fa bric may be considered "spots." Since the formulation and method of operation of ae rosol gum removers are very different from typical Spot Removers, staff believe s it is not appropriate to include aerosol gum removers in this category. Aerosol gum remover products, will be evaluated for regulation in the future.

Issues :

a. Issue : VOC solvents are needed to remove oil-based stains such as lipstick, nail polish, ink, tar, oxidized oils (old, dried-out), d ry paint spots (latex, oil-based, enamels), floor waxes, and crayon. LVP-VOC solvent s do not work well because they do not evaporate quickly and are very sticky. The resulting sticky residues attract more soil. The cleaning of fabrics is diff erent than the cleaning of hard surfaces, which can be easily wiped off for faster drying.

Response : When LVP-VOC solvent cleaners are used, the extent of the slower drying time will depend on the amount used, how tho roughly residual cleaners are diluted and removed, and how crucial the longer drying time is. Products already exist with LVP-VOC solvent cleaners, as ind icated by the 2003 Survey, that comply with the proposed VOC limits. For prod ucts that will need reformulation, greater use of a wet cloth for dilut ing residual cleaners, and more thorough blotting with dry absorbent cloth, may be appropriate. Increased caution and customer education by product marketers , to avoid product-over-use and encourage appropriate drying procedures and pro per article return-toservice, should address the concerns with LVP-VOCs.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 133 b. Issue : This category includes a broad range of products for a variety of fabrics and soils. Reported products include many based on non-VOC ingredients, such as bleach, hydrogen peroxide, acid, or surfactant, which are appropriate for some types of soils. Hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, a nd certain enzymes can not be used on all types of fabrics due to possible damage to fabrics. There is a wide range of VOC levels, which reflect the variety of i ntended uses. In some cases, higher VOC levels are needed to remove difficult st ains and soils.

Response : We have considered the functions of low-VOC produc ts and inorganic ingredients for particular types of spots and stains, as well as the advantages and limitations. We are also aware that many complying products make universal spot removing claims, some not needi ng VOC solvents. High VOC products may create emissions without a cleanin g benefit when treating spots and stains that do not need VOC solvents. Ou r proposal addresses both those products for specific spot removal, and produ cts for general spot removal. Regarding damage to fabrics, the product marketer s hould determine the type of product for the type of spots and stains to be addr essed for different fabrics and articles, and to provide appropriate label warnings . Label instructions now commonly suggest that the customer test the Spot Re mover on an inconspicuous location on the fabric before fully using it.

c. Issue : Products containing perchloroethylene (an exempt compound) in the 2003 Survey data provide a false impression of the extent of low-VOC products. These products should be removed from the data, sin ce use of perchloroethylene, a toxic air contaminant, should not be considered a realistic reformulation option to lower VOC content in this c ategory. Response : We agree that perchloroethylene products should not be relied on

as a basis to lower VOC limits. We also believe th at these products should not

be marketed in the future because of air toxics con cerns. However, the amount of product sales in 2003 with this compound was low and minimally affected the complying market share or the basis of our proposal , as discussed above. We have also reviewed the survey data with and without the perchloroethylenecontaining products, and have presented the 2003 Su rvey results with the products included since that was the historical rea lity at the time. We believe there is no misrepresentation of the survey results as shown.

d. Issue : Products with label claims for general carpet cl eaning, in addition to localized cleaning, should be move from the Spot Re mover category to the Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner category.

Response : To a certain extent, we agree that products should be considered in one product category or another. If a product is l abeled clearly as Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner with only incidental use as Spot Remover, we would agree. However, a product label may have several e qually important recommend uses, and thus fall under more than one category. For regulatory development purposes, a product as labeled may be appropriately considered in more thanTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 134 one categories for review, depending on the wording of the various category definitions and the product label, although the reg ulatory emission reduction should be counted for only one category. We also c onsider the category identified by the marketer, since the marketer is m ost familiar with the product and has the first opportunity to categorize the pro duct when submitting the survey. Please note that data review is separate f rom any enforcement evaluation for individual products.

e. Issue : ARB should regulate non-aerosol Spot Removers us ed by dry cleaning establishments. Water-based and soy-based alternat ive Spot Removers are available alternatives to the currently used and mo re toxic perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene-based Spot Removers. Alternative Spot Removers perform well and are less costly.

Response : While currently available data are encouraging for spot removal for water-tolerant or water-washable articles, data are currently lacking on suitable low-VOC, non-chlorinated, Spot Remover products for dry-clean-only fabrics. ARB staff intends to reevaluate the "dry-clean-only " exclusion in the Spot Remover definition, when more data become available regarding the suitability of low-VOC, non-chlorinated products for use on dry-cl ean-only fabrics. However, with products for other types of fabric (i.e. water -tolerant or water-washable), the exclusion does not apply, and hence the proposed VO C limits would apply to Spot Remover products labeled for general spot remo val (i.e. suitable for watertolerant or water-washable fabrics) that may be use d in dry cleaning

establishments.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses -- Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the California C onsumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation - Scheduled for Consideration November 17, 2006 - Agenda Item No. 06-10-8 . Submitted to Office of Administrative Law on September 26, 2007. (ARB, 200 7e)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation . September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a)

3. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 135 5. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Spotting Chemicals: Alternatives to Perchloroethylene and Trichloroethy lene in the Textile Cleaning Industry . Prepared by Katy Wolf and Mike Morris for Cal/EPA 's Department of

Toxic Substances Control and U.S. Environmental Pro tection Agency Region IX. January 2007. (IRTA, 2007)

6. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Evaluation of New and Emerging Technologies for Textile Cleaning . Prepared by Michael Morris and Dr. Katy Wolf for Air Resources Board and Cal/EPA (Agre ement Number 02-408), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August, 2 005. (IRTA, 2005)

16. Tire or Wheel Cleaner

Product Category Description :

Tire or Wheel Cleaner means a product designed or l abeled exclusively to clean either tires, wheels, or both. Tire or Wheel Clean er includes, but is not limited to, products for use in commercial, fleet, hand, and “d rive-through” car washes, commercial truck or large vehicle washing stations, vehicle de alers and repair shops as well as products intended for household consumer use. Tire or Wheel Cleaners include aerosol products as well as non-aerosol products, which can be found in both dilutable and ready-to-use forms. Tire or Wheel Cleaners do not include products identified as Rubber/Vinyl Protectant and Motor Vehicle Wash.

Tire or Wheel Cleaner is a previously unregulated c ategory. Table VI-31 below

summarizes the sales and emissions from Tire or Whe el Cleaners based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have b een grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 9,829 pounds per day.

Table VI-31

Tire or Wheel Cleaner*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

Aerosol 8 189 17

Non-aerosol 102 9,640 278

Total 110 9,829 295

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions are 295 pounds per day, or about 0.15 tons per day. As shown in Table VI-31, non-aerosol Tire or Wheel Cleaner products dominate the marketplace. Although not shown in the table, aero sol Tire or Wheel Cleaners have aTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 136 sales-weighted average of about 8 percent by weight VOC, while the non-aerosol products have a sales-weighted average of 2 percent by weight VOC.

Product Use and Marketing :

Tire or Wheel Cleaners are used by both commercial businesses and “do-ityourself” consumers. For the “do-it-yourself” cons umers, tire cleaners, wheel cleaners,

and combination tire and wheel cleaners are availab le in, but not limited to, retail outlets such as supermarkets, diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, auto supply stores, super stores, and specialty stores. Auto d ealers, catalog sales, and the Internet are additional marketing locations. For commercial businesses, products are available from manufacturers and/or distributors, and warehou ses as well as retail outlets.

Tire or Wheel Cleaners are normally designed to be sprayed onto the part and then washed or wiped off. The majority of the prod ucts in this category are non-aerosol products that are designed to be applied either by pump spray or diluted with water before use. Tire or Wheel Cleaner products claim t o remove dirt, debris, and other soils from the surfaces of tires, wheels, or both. Most wheel cleaners claim to be available for use on all wheel surfaces, including chrome and aluminum. Tire cleaners claim to be usable on either regular tires or specifically o n whitewall tires.

Product Formulation :

Tire or Wheel Cleaners are water-based products co ntaining glycol ethers, alcohols, VOC and LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents, and inorganic compounds. The glycol ethers, VOC solvents, and alcohols make up t he majority of the product’s VOC content and act as the active ingredients. The ino rganics and LVP-VOC solvents are normally surfactants to aid in cleaning. The aeros ol products normally use a small amount of hydrocarbon propellant.

Proposed VOC limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limits for aerosol and non-aeroso l Tire or Wheel Cleaner are 8 and 2 percent VOC by weight, respectively, effect ive December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-32 using adjusted emissions, the propos ed limits will result in an estimated reduction of 130 pounds per day, or about 0.06 tons per day.

Table Vl-32 also shows that 69 percent of the non-a erosol market currently complies with the proposed VOC limit. The percent of the market that currently complies with the proposed aerosol limit of 8 perce nt VOC is small and therefore treated

as confidential.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 137 Table Vl-32 Tire or Wheel Cleaner Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

Aerosol 8 *** *** 2 2

Non-aerosol 2 63 69 126 128

Total

___ ___ ___ 128 130

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Most of the non-complying products are already form ulated close to the proposed limits, so the proposed effective date is feasible. The few manufacturers that would have to reformulate should be able to meet the prop osed limits by increasing the product’s water and/or LVP-VOC content.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

17. Windshield Water Repellent

Product Category Description :

Windshield Water Repellents are products designed or labeled exclusively to repel water from motor vehicle windshields and othe r exterior glass surfaces. These products claim to improve driving visibility during inclement weather by repelling rain, sleet and snow. Windshield Water Repellents do not include Automotive Windshield

Washer Fluid. Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids are designed, or labeled, to clean glass surfaces, while Windshield Water Repellents a re applied to surfaces that have already been cleaned.

Windshield Water Repellent is a previously unregul ated category. Table VI-33

below summarizes the sales and emissions from Winds hield Water Repellent based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The emissions have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are a bout 538 pounds per day.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 138 Table VI-33 Windshield Water Repellent*

Product Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day)** 2008 Adjusted

VOC Emissions (lbs/day)**

All Forms 30 538 462

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As shown in Table VI-33, Windshield Water Repellen t products have estimated VOC emissions of 462 pounds per day, or about 0.23 tons per day, in California. Although not shown, Windshield Water Repellent has a sales-weighted average VOC content of about 86 percent.

Product Use and Marketing :

Windshield Water Repellents are used by both comme rcial businesses and “doit-yourself” consumers. For the “do-it-yourself” c onsumers, Windshield Water Repellents are available in, but not limited to, re tail outlets such as supermarkets, diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, au to supply stores, super stores, and specialty stores. Auto dealers, catalog sales, and the Internet are additional marketing locations. Products for commercial busin esses are available from manufacturers and/or distributors, and warehouses, as well as retail outlets. Windshield Water Repellents are sometimes applied to glass sur faces by the original equipment

manufacturer.

Windshield Water Repellent products are sprayed, o r rubbed, onto clean, exterior windshields and other glass surfaces to provide a w ater repellent coating. This coating repels rain by producing a high water contact angle such that bead droplets form and roll down the surface, instead of sticking to the g lass, leaving the windshield clear (CSPA, 2006). This is especially useful during the more hazardous weather conditions that contribute to lowered visibility.

Product Formulation :

Windshield Water Repellents have essential perform ance needs. They must provide a static, high, contact angle. Water shoul d bead and roll down the windshield, rather than leave a droplet trail, and it must func tion with the current windshield wiper. Use of the product must not result in abrasion, str eaking, or haze on the glass, due to the product’s use, as these instances would reduce visibility, thereby becoming a potential consumer safety issue.

To provide this function, Windshield Water Repelle nts are typically formulated with alcohols and inorganics. The alcohols provide solvency for the inorganic coating, normally a surfactant, so that it can be readily ap plied onto the surface of the windshieldTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 139 or other automotive glass surfaces. Alcohol-based products with a silicone catalyst dominate the market. Some products were also found to contain LVP-VOC compounds, as well as VOC propellants.

Available technologies include silicone with an ac id catalyst, organo-silanes, silicone functionalized surfactants, carnauba wax, silicone emulsion, diamond-like carbon coatings, and hydrophobic treated nano-parti culates (CSPA, 2006).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for Windshield Water Repell ent is 75 percent, by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI- 34, using adjusted emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 84 pounds per day, or about 0.04 tons per day.

Table VI-34 also shows that the percent of the mar ket that currently complies with the proposed 75 percent VOC limit is small and therefore treated as confidential.

Table VI-34 Windshield Water Repellent Proposal*

Product Form Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2008

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)** 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day) +

All Forms 75 *** *** 83 84

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Water-based technology, for Windshield Water Repel lent, is being researched by manufacturers. However, at present time, further d evelopment is necessary. We believe that technology is advancing that would all ow lower VOC products in the future. The proposed 75 percent VOC limit is set as low as current technology allows. Staff

believes manufacturers will be able to use current LVP-VOC technology to formulate effective products while developing the technology to implement more LVP-VOC solvent use as well as water-based technology.

Issues :

a. Issue : The effective date for the limit should be exten ded until 2012 to allow adequate time for reformulation.

Response : Staff believes that the current effective date of 2010 is sufficient time to allow for reformulation to meet the proposed 75 percent VOC limit and makeTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 140 complying products available in the marketplace. W e also note that in a 2006 presentation industry indicated that a 75 percent V OC limit was feasible.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Consumer Specialty Products Association. CSPA Au tomotive and Solvent

Products Technical Seminar for ARB Staff . July 13, 2006. (CSPA, 2006)

B. CATEGORIES FOR WHICH A GREENHOUSE GAS LIMIT IS P ROPOSED

1. Pressurized Gas Duster

Product Category Description:

Pressurized Gas Duster is a product designed to rem ove foreign particles such as dust, dirt, lint, and other particles from sensi tive equipment and materials, solely by the means of mass air or gas flow. Pressurized Gas Dusters are distinguished from Electronic Cleaners which remove foreign particles primarily by means of a solvent.

The Board first defined Pressurized Gas Duster in t he 2004 rulemaking (ARB, 2004b). However, at that time, no VOC standard for Pressurized Gas Duster was

established.

In this rulemaking, we are proposing to limit the g lobal warming potential (GWP) of compounds used in Pressurized Gas Dusters. To i mplement this proposal, we are proposing to add definitions for “Global Warming Po tential” and “Global Warming Potential Value.” These definitions are necessary to implement our proposal to reduce the potency of greenhouse gas emissions from Pressu rized Gas Dusters. We are using the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel o n Climate Change (IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming compared to CO 2 . The GWP value definition specifies that the 100-year GW P values in the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of IPCC would be used to de termine compliance. To enforce our proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emiss ions from Pressurized Gas Duster, the definition further specifies that, if t he SAR does not contain a GWP value for a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC, Fou rth Assessment Report (FAR) GWP value for that chemical or compound can be used . If there is no GWP value listed for a specific chemical or compound in the SAR or t he FAR, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to the GWP applicable standard.

As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climat e Change 1995: Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996), the GWP of a greenh ouse gas (GHG) is defined as the radiative forcing impact of one mass-based unit of a given greenhouse gas relativeTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 141 to an equivalent unit of carbon dioxide over a give n period of time. The standard units of measurement used to express the emissions of a G HG are million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO 2 e) per year.

The global warming potential (GWP) of products in t his category is high due to the use of hydrofluorocarbon-134a (HFC-134a) and hydrof luorocarbon-152a (HFC-152a). HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, which is one hundred and forty times greater than the GWP of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). HFC-134a has a GWP of 1300, which is approximat ely ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO 2 (IPCC, 1996; IPCC, 2007).

We are also proposing to modify the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster to exclude electronic cleaners, electrical cleaners, o r energized electrical cleaners. However, we are proposing to add an exemption to th e definition for the niche uses

where non-flammable dusters are needed. HFC-134a i s a non-flammable propellant, whereas HFC-152a is moderately flammable. The prop osed exemption is for nonflammable products labeled exclusively to remove du st from equipment where dust removal is accomplished when: electric current exi sts; residual electrical potential from a component such as a capacitor exists; or an open flame exists. In addition, the product’s “Principal Display Panel” must clearly co ntain the statement: “Energized Equipment use only.” Additionally, to ensure that there are no increases in VOC or air toxics emissions, as a result of the proposed GWP l imit, staff is proposing a 1 percent by weight VOC standard and a prohibition on the use of perchloroethylene and methylene chloride as mitigation measures as requir ed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The GHG emission reductions from the Pressurized Ga s Dusters were estimated using reported information from the 2003 Consumer P roducts Survey and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update gathered durin g February 2008. During the public process of developing the proposed GWP limit , staff held numerous meetings

and teleconferences to solicit information and comm ents from industry associations and industry representatives. At that time, industry r epresentatives advised ARB staff that changes in the gas duster market had occurred since 2003. In response, staff conducted the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Up date to collect updated

information.

The emissions and reduction estimates for 2010 and 2020 were grown from 2007 sales data and the state Department of Finance’s po pulation estimates. Annual population growth factors were calculated using the 2007 state population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (C al/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicl e Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). It was assumed that without the proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, the annual sales would grow proportionate to population growth. Staff used GWP values from the IPCC Climate Change 1995; The Science of C limate Change (IPCC, 1996) for calculating the CO 2 equivalent emissions and CO 2 equivalent reductions for this category of products.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 142 Table VI-35 below summarizes the 2003 and 2007 sal es and GHG emissions

from Pressurized Gas Dusters based on the results o f ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a) and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Su rvey Update (ARB, 2008c).

As shown in Table VI-35, 39 duster products were r eported for 2003 with adjusted sales of 3,657 pounds per day for 2008. Although n ot shown on the table, Pressurized Gas Dusters had a sales-weighted average GHG conten t of over 99 percent by weight, with estimated GHG emissions of 2,242,171 CO 2 e pounds per day, or about

0.37 MMT CO 2 e per year in California.

Table VI-35

Pressurized Gas Duster

Survey

Data Product

Form Number of

Products 2008

Category Sales (lbs/day) 2008 Adjusted

GHG Emissions (CO 2 e lbs/day) +

2003* Aerosol 39 3,657 2,242,171

2007** Aerosol 90 7,292 2,179,855

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c)

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Additionally, as shown in Table VI-35, 90 duster p roducts were reported for 2007 with adjusted sales of 7,292 pounds per day for 200 8. Although not shown in the table, the sales-weighted average GHG content is over 99 p ercent by weight, and the estimated adjusted GHG emissions are 2,179,855 CO 2 e pounds per day, or about 0.36

MMT CO 2 e per year.

Prior to 2003, industry leaders voluntarily shifte d away from using HFC-134a as the propellant in gas dusters to using HFC-152a (CS PA, 2008). Changes in the market between 2003 and 2007 were captured in the 2007 Pre ssurized Gas Duster Survey Update (ARB, 2008c). In 2003, HFC-134a gas dusters made up approximately 41 percent of the market. The updated sales informati on shows that HFC-134a gas dusters were approximately 14 percent of the market in 2007, while HFC-152a gas dusters made up 85 percent of the market. This is why the 2008 adjusted GHG emissions have not increased proportionate to the c ategory sales, which have nearly doubled. The potency of GHG emissions from this ca tegory have been decreasing with

the increased use of HFC-152a.

Product Use and Marketing :

Pressurized Gas Dusters are aerosol sprays that pro duce a burst of pressurized gas that is used to remove dust, dirt, lint and oth er particles from a surface. Pressurized Gas Dusters differ from products such as “Electroni c Cleaners” as they do not use liquids or solvents to remove dirt or grease.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 143 These products are used in applications where no-to uch, moisture-free, precision cleaning is needed, or in cleaning applications of hard to reach, hidden spots, in equipment and delicate instruments and their housin gs.

Pressurized Gas Dusters are used by “do-it-yoursel f” consumers, technicians, and professional engineers. These products are use d in applications such as cleaning computers and other internal workings of equipment and delicate instruments, in

addition to the surface of delicate materials such as photographic lenses, photographs, film, and negatives that require no-touch, moisture -free cleaning. They are often marketed as no residue, moisture-free, ultra pure o r filtered to 0.2 micrometers, and plastics safe.

These products are labeled for cleaning delicate eq uipment such as: electronic, photographic and office equipment; laboratory equip ment and medical devices; audio and video equipment; computer keyboards and printer s, the inside of computer housings, copiers and TVs; disc drives, and tape he ads of cassette players. These products are also used to clean delicate materials such as: photographs, photographic film, negatives, and slides; audio and video cartri dges and cassettes, and other types of

surfaces that cannot be cleaned with solvents. The se products are sometimes labeled “For Industrial and Institutional Use Only.”

Pressurized Gas Dusters are sold in computer and e lectronic stores, mass market chain-stores, warehouse club stores, office supply stores, hardware stores, scientific or laboratory supply catalogs, and on th e Internet.

Product Formulation :

Pressurized Gas Dusters are composed of 99 – 100 p ercent propellant. The propellant is typically a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC): HFC-134a or HFC-152a. A few products are composed of a blend of hydrocarbon pro pellants or a blend of hydrocarbon propellants, HFC-134a, and dimethyl ether (DME). S ome formulations may contain a bittering agent (to prevent product misuse), or oth er additives at trace concentrations.

The GWP for products in this category is high due t o the use of HFC-134a and HFC-152a. As mentioned previously, HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, which is one hundred and forty times greater than the GWP of car bon dioxide (CO 2 ). HFC-134a has a GWP of 1300, which is approximately ten times gre ater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO 2 (IPCC, 1996; IPCC, 2007).

Proposed GWP Limit and Compliance :

We are proposing a GWP limit of 150 for any chemic al compound used in Pressurized Gas Duster products, effective December , 31, 2010. The GWP limit does not apply to any chemicals present as contaminants, which, in aggregate, areTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 144 0.1 percent by weight or less. The proposed GWP li mit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is designed to be equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT CO 2 e per year, effective December 31, 2010, with HFC-134a emissions reductions of approxi mately 0.23 MMT CO 2 e per year by 2020. The reductions in 2020 are important beca use AB 32 requires a reduction of GHG emissions equal to the 1990 baseline level in C alifornia by the year 2020.

We expect that compliance with the proposed limit w ill be achieved by substituting HFC-152a with a GWP of 140 for the HFC -134a propellant with a GWP of

1300. Pressurized Gas Dusters formulated with HFC- 152a already exist on the market today.

As shown in Table VI-36a using adjusted 2007 emissi ons, we expect an estimated emission reduction of 1,198,574 CO 2 e pounds per day, or about

0.20 MMT CO 2 e tons per year, by 2010. The GWP limit was set at 150 rather than 140 because it is anticipated that GWP values may chang e as the “state-of-the-science” evolves. The GWP of HFC-152a (140) was used to est imate emission reductions.

Table VI-36a below shows the emission reductions from the GWP li mit of 150 for this category, and that about 86 percent of the market currently complies with the l imit.

Table VI-36a Pressurized Gas Duster GHG Proposal

Survey

Data Proposed

GWP Limit Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2010

Emission

Reductions (CO 2 e lbs/day) + 2020

Emission

Reductions (CO 2 e lbs/day) +

2003* 150 7/39 59 1,776,263 2,007,387

2007** 150 18/90 86 1,198,574 1,348,396

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c)

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age (see Chapter IV, Emissions). Note: Emission reductions have been adjusted from 2003 to 2008 using a population growth factor.

Reformulation options that could be used by manufa cturers to meet the proposed limit include the use of 100 percent HFC-152a. We are aware of some compressed

CO 2 duster products available on the Internet. Staff initially considered a technology forcing, second tier lower limit of 10 for Pressuri zed Gas Dusters, effective December 31, 2015, based on CO 2 technology and new lower GWP refrigerant technology. However, after further investigation a nd discussions with manufacturers,

staff believes that CO 2 (compressed gas) dusters are a different product t han Pressurized Gas Dusters that use liquefied propella nt. Dusters using CO 2 , as they exist today, are not a commercially competitive product ( DuPont & Falcon, 2004).

We are also aware of new lower GWP refrigerants in development. Indications are that these new refrigerants may have very low G WPs. The newly emergingTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 145 refrigerants are in the process of under going toxi city and safety testing, and the results are not yet available. The VOC status of these new refrigerants and their applicability for use as propellants in consumer products, partic ularly Pressurized Gas Dusters, is

unknown at this time. Staff intends to work with P ressurized Gas Duster manufacturers, and other stakeholders to monitor new technologies and conduct a technical assessment of low-GWP propellants that might be app ropriate for Pressurized Gas

Dusters in the future.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

We are also proposing a 1 percent by weight VOC li mit, effective December 31, 2010. The limit is designed to preven t the use of hydrocarbon propellants, and other VOCs, as products are reform ulated to meet the 150 GWP limit. Hydrocarbon propellants (butane, propane, isobutane ) may have lower GWPs, but contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. As proposed, the VOC limit would also apply to any added fragrance. We believe the limit is feasible even if a small amount of fragrance is added. Therefore, we are pr oposing, in section 94510(c), that Pressurized Gas Dusters do not qualify for the two percent by weight fragrance exemption. The 1 percent limit is designed as a CE QA mitigation measure to prevent VOC emission increases. From the standpoint of cle aning shots and total cleaning force available per container and potential environ mental impact, HFC-152a is more

efficient than HFC-134a or CO 2 (DuPont & Falcon, 2004). As shown in Table VI-36b

, using 2008 VOC emissions, the proposed limit will r esult in an estimated emission reduction of 1.0 pound per day, or about 0.0005 tons per day.

Table VI-36b also shows that more than 99 percent of the market currently complies with the proposed 1 percent VOC limit.

Table VI-36b Pressurized Gas Duster VOC Proposal

Survey Data Proposed

VOC Limit (wt. %) Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2010

Emission

Reductions (lbs/day)**

2007** 1.0 89/90 >99 1.0

** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c)

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

We expect products to be able to comply with both the VOC and GWP limits using HFC-152a. HFC-152a is negligibly reactive wi th respect to ozone formation and

has been excluded from the definition of VOC. Whil e ARB staff believes toxic air contaminants are not likely to be used in future re formulated products, ARB staff is proposing that perchloroethylene and methylene chlo ride be prohibited in the Pressurized Gas Duster category. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that

manufacturers do not choose to reformulate with tox ic chlorinated solvents in response to the new VOC and GWP limits. The prohibition doe s not apply to any chemicalsTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 146 present as contaminants, which, in aggregate, are 0 .1 percent by weight or less. Staff has determined that currently available formulation technologies that do not contain perchloroethylene or methylene chloride are readily available and thus they are not needed to comply with the proposed standard. See C hapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloroethylene and methylene c hloride.

Issues :

a. Issue : Industry recommends a narrow exclusion in the defi nition, for products that are completely nonflammable.

Response : The proposed modification to the definition of Pr essurized Gas Duster includes a narrow exemption for products tha t are labeled exclusively to remove dust from equipment where dust removal is ac complished when: electric current exists; residual electrical potential from a component such as a capacitor exists; or an open flame exists. In addition, the “Principal Display Panel” must clearly contain the statement: “Energized Equipmen t use only.” [Title 17, CCR, Section 94508(a)(118)]

b. Issue : Industry recommends that the GWP values contained in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report from 2007 be adopted, and that th ese GWP values be included in the regulation as a table.

Response : Staff acknowledges the comment. ARB’s policy is to use the IPCC: 1995 Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) GWP valu es where they exist for a specific compound. If there is no SAR value, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007) GWP value shall be used. In th e case where neither the SAR nor the FAR contain a GWP value for the specifi c compound, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to the emission standa rd. These values are used

to be consistent with other statewide and national Greenhouse Gas inventories (ARB, 2007c).

c. Issue : Industry urges ARB to provide stable values over time while allowing updating as new materials are developed and new GWP values develop.

Response : See response to Issue #2 above.

d. Issue : Industry urges ARB to ensure the proposed regulat ion (i.e., Table of GWPs) states clearly that compounds not listed as h aving a GWP value shall be

considered to have a GWP value of 0.

Response : See response to Issue #2 above.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 147 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update

. February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c)

2. Air Resources Board. Statewide Human Population Chart: Population and Vehicle Trends Report . April, 2008. (ARB, 2008d)

3. Air Resources Board. ARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to Support Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions . October, 2007. (ARB, 2007c)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresheners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004 (ARB, 2004b)

5. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

6. Consumer Specialty Products Association. Technol ogy of Pressurized Gas Duster Products – Meeting with ARB staff . Andrew Steinman, Executive Vice President, Falcon Safety Products, Inc. March 5, 20 08. (CSPA, 2008)

7. DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Products. Fluorochemical Fluorochemicals Laboratory DuPont Company Technica l Report, Subject: Cleaning Tests for Aerosol Dusting Aids (Dusters) . December 1, 2004. Melodie Schweitzer, Janet Ludert, Bruce Hitches (DuPont Com pany). Brian Bilsback, Dermot McLeer (Falcon Safety Products). (Dupont & F alcon, 2004)

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fors ter, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywo od, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiativ e Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribut ion of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change

. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqu is, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univer sity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007)

9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clima te Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . [J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. Cambri dge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 148

VII. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

A. INTRODUCTION

This Chapter provides our analysis of the estimate d economic impacts we predict from implementation of the proposed VOC limits, one global warming potential (GWP) limit, and other proposed amendments to the regulat ion. In general, economic impact analyses are inherently imprecise by nature, given the unpredictable behavior of companies in a highly competitive market such as co nsumer products. While staff has quantified the economic impacts to the extent feasi ble, some projections are necessarily qualitative, and based on general observations and facts known about the consumer products industry. This analysis, therefore, serve s to provide a general picture of the economic impacts typical businesses subject to the proposed limits might encounter. Individual companies may experience different impac ts than projected.

The overall impacts are first summarized in Sectio n B. A description of specific aspects of the economic impacts then follows in the sections listed below:

C. Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses, Consumers, and Employment;

D. Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies;

E. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness (CE) of the Pro posed Limits;

F. Analysis of the Impacts to Raw Materials Cost;

G. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost from Recurring and Nonrecurring Costs;

H. Other Possible Economic Impacts from Proposed Amen dments; and

I. Mitigation of Potential Impacts through Additional Regulatory Flexibility.

It is important to note that we conducted this eco nomic impacts analysis in accordance with the current legal requirements unde r the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This analysis uses similar methodologies an d assumptions as were used in the last four major consumer products rulemakings, the “Mid-Term Measures” regulations adopted by the Board in 1997, 1999, and in the 2004 and 2006 amendments to the regulation (ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1999; ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). However, we have used updated methodologies to determine the high co st estimates for nonrecurring costs as was done in the 2004 and 2006 amendments ( ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). We have determined a likely high cost scenario specifi c to each category. See Section G of this Chapter for a detailed description of the nonr ecurring cost determination methodology.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 149

B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs (or will likely pass through some of the costs to the consumer) of the proposed limits and requirements with no significant adverse impacts on their profitability. This finding is indicated by the staff’s estimated change in “retur n on owner’s equity” (ROE) analysis. The analysis found that the overall change in ROE r anges from a low of 0.7 percent to a high of about 4.0 percent, with an average change i n ROE of about 2.5 percent. However, the proposed measures may impose economic hardship on some businesses with very little or no margin of profitability. Th ese businesses, if hard pressed, can seek relief under the variance provision of the consumer products regulation for extensions to the compliance dates. Such extensions may provide sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to these businesses. Because the proposed measures would not significantly alter the profitability of most businesses, we do n ot expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or expan sion; and business competitiveness in California. We also found no si gnificant adverse economic impacts to any local or State agencies.

Our analysis shows that the CE of the proposed ame ndments is higher than other existing VOC ARB regulatory programs. This i s not surprising given that many categories proposed for regulation are smaller, in terms of emissions, and therefore,

smaller emissions reductions result. We estimate t he total overall CE of the proposed VOC limits and other requirements to be about $6.23 per pound of VOC reduced. We have also determined the CE of the proposed GHG lim it relative to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We estimate the CE of the propo sed GHG limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters to be $0.22 per metric ton of CO 2 equivalent (MT CO 2 e) reduced.

We estimate that the total cost incurred by indust ry to comply with this regulation is about $26 million per year for 10 years. These cost estimates are based on assumptions specific to each category depending on reformulation needs, and represent the mid-range of the cost estimates. Sta ff believes the mid-range costs are the most likely to be incurred by industry to compl y with the proposed limits. For some categories, it was assumed that manufacturers would either drop certain products or undergo minor product formulation changes, and for other categories manufacturers would undergo complete production line overhaul and equipment replacement rather than simple re-tooling.

One way to estimate the potential change in cost t o produce a product is to determine the change in raw materials cost, which g enerally has the biggest influence on product cost for most product categories. Our a nalysis indicates that reformulations to comply with the proposed limits can result in ra w material changes ranging from negligible cost (net savings or no cost) up to a co st increase of about $0.63 per unit. The value of $0.63 represents the maximum, worst ca se, per-unit cost increase. This range compares favorably to the change in per unit cost projected for the Ph ase I and II, the Mid-Term Measures I and II regulations and the 2004 and 2006 Amendments. The analysis assumed the present cost for raw materials ; these costs may be lower orTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 150

higher at the time of the limit effective date depe nding on the formulations chosen by manufacturers and the future price of raw materials . To the extent that the projected cost savings or increases are ultimately passed on to the consumer, the actual retail price of products after the proposed limits become effective may be higher or lower than suggested by this analysis.

Even if all annualized nonrecurring costs (researc h and development, capital equipment purchases, etc.) and recurring raw materi al cost increases are factored into the affected products manufacturing costs, the pote ntial increase in production per-unit costs are comparable to previous ARB consumer produ ct rulemakings. The estimated per-unit cost increases from both annualized nonrec urring and annual recurring costs range from negligible cost (net savings or no cost) to about $2.05 per unit. The value of $2.05 represents the maximum, worst case, per-unit cost increase for a product which is typically packaged in a one gallon container. When averaged over the total number of unit sales in California of noncomplying products, (those that need to reformulate) the product weighted average cost increase is about $0. 20 per unit. As noted before, these per unit cost increases compare favorably to the ch ange in per unit cost projected for previous ARB consumer product rulemakings.

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE dete rmination methodologies are quite conservative, and are thus in most cases, ove r-estimated. There are several

factors that contribute to the over estimation of c osts. The mid-range cost, (used to

determine the overall cost and cost effectiveness o f the regulation) is the average of the estimated high and low cost scenarios. The low cos t scenario assumes that companies would choose the lowest cost reformulation pathway, making minor adjustments to a product’s formulation, or simply eliminating higher VOC products. We believe that most

manufacturers would choose the lowest cost reformul ation option. For the high cost scenario, it is assumed that there is significant r esearch and development, and new equipment is needed to reformulate the product. We believe that few manufacturers would need to take the high cost reformulation appr oach.

In the economic analysis, staff assumed that the VO C limits for Multi-purpose Lubricants would be the most challenging and costly to comply with. Staff separately

calculated the estimated costs of reformulation for each of the proposed tiers of the Multi-purpose Lubricant proposal. Further, cost es timates were performed separately for aerosol and non-aerosol products respectively. The analysis shows that greater costs will be incurred during the first tier reform ulation than the second tier reformulation. This results from the assumption th at significant high end costs will be incurred in the first tier reformulation, but not a ll of these costs would necessarily be duplicated in the second tier reformulation. If ma jor plant modifications or new equipment purchases are needed to meet either tier of the VOC limits, a manufacturer would likely choose to make these significant chang es during one plant modification, rather than making significant more than once. In fact, certain companies may choose to reformulate only once, (i.e. reformulate to meet the second tier VOC limit before 2013.) Regardless of whether this assumption is co rrect, we believe that it is appropriate to assume that high end reformulation c osts will be incurred during eitherTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 151

the first tier reformulation or the second tier ref ormulation, but not both. Either assumption, that higher costs would be incurred dur ing a given tier relative to the other, would yield the same amount of total costs being in curred to meet both tiers.

Another factor that can contribute to an over estim ation of costs are the assumptions used for the raw ingredient costs. For the product categories for which VOC limits are proposed, we assumed that if the raw ingredients used in the reformulated product yielded a cost savings, the co st of the raw ingredients necessary

to meet the new VOC limit is zero. This is a conse rvative assumption because for most product categories, there is more than one reformul ation option. However, it is possible that a given manufacturer will choose more expensiv e ingredients to preserve certain specific product attributes.

However, in the case of Pressurized Gas Dusters we assumed that reformulation would yield a raw ingredient savings, and incorpora ted the decreased cost into the overall cost estimate. We believe that this approa ch is appropriate because in order to comply with the proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, there is only one identified reformulation pathway, replacing HFC-134 a with HFC-152a. Because HFC152a is less expensive per pound that HFC-134a, it is appropriate that there would be a cost savings in virtually every case. Therefore, f or Pressurized Gas Dusters, instead of assuming that the raw material cost is zero, the ra w material cost savings was subtracted from the anticipated equipment and resea rch and development costs of

reformulation.

C. ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS ON CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES, CONSUMERS, AND EMPLOYMENT

1. Legal Requirements

Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires St ate agencies to assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on Californi a business enterprises and individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any ad ministrative regulation. The assessment must include a consideration of the impa ct of the proposed regulation on California jobs; business expansion, elimination or creation; and the ability of California business to compete with businesses in other states

.

Also, State agencies are required to estimate the cost or savings to any State or local agency and school district in accordance with instructions adopted by the Department of Finance. The estimate shall include any nondiscretionary cost or savings to local agencies and the cost or savings i n federal funding to the State.

2. Potential Impact on California Businesses

Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs of the proposed measures with no significant adverse impacts on their profitabili ty. It is likely that all cost will not be absorbed by businesses, b y passing a portion through toTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 152

consumers. However, the proposed measures may impo se economic hardship on some businesses with very little or no margin of pr ofitability. These businesses, if hard pressed, can seek relief under the variance provisi on of the consumer products regulation for extensions to their compliance dates . Such extensions may provide sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to the se businesses. Additional mitigation may be achieved by taking advantage of the complian ce flexibility offered by the existing Innovative Product Provision (IPP) and the Alternative Control Plan (ACP) Regulation (see Subsection I of this Chapter). Bec ause the change on the return on owners’ equity (ROE) has been determined to be quit e low, the proposed measures would not significantly alter the profitability of most businesses. Further, we do not expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or expansion; and business competitiveness in California.

a. Return on Owners’ Equity

This portion of the economic impacts analysis is b ased on a comparison of the

ROE for affected businesses before and after inclus ion of the cost to comply with the proposed requirements. The data used in this analy sis are obtained from Dun and Bradstreet Industry Norms and Key Business Ratio (D &B, 2006-2007), the ARB’s 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Surve y), and the staff’s CE analysis discussed later in this Chapter.

b. Affected Businesses

Any business which manufactures or markets consume r products subject to the proposed new limits and requirements can be directl y affected by this regulation. Also potentially affected are businesses which supply ra w materials or equipment to manufacturers or marketers, and those that distribu te or sell consumer products in California. The focus of this analysis, however, w ill be on manufacturers, marketers, and distributors that are most affected by the prop osed measures.

The consumer products subject to the proposed meas ures are manufactured, marketed, or distributed by a large number of compa nies worldwide. According to the 2003 Survey, there are about 300 companies that mar ket the affected products in California. These companies manufacture, market, a nd distribute a broad range of solvent, adhesive, household, and personal care pro ducts, including an estimated total of 2,366 complying and 1,535 noncomplying products (based on reported figures). Of the companies manufacturing these products, about 6 0 firms (mostly medium- or smallsized firms) are located in California.

These 300 companies fall primarily into 5 North Am erican Industry Classification System codes (NAICS). A list of these industries w hich we have been able to identify is provided in Table VII-1. As shown in Table VII-1, the industries with the most noncomplying products fall under the NAICS for Lubr icant Manufacturing; Adhesive Manufacturing; Polish and Other Sanitation Good Man ufacturing, Toilet PreparationTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 153

Manufacturing and All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing.

Table VII-1 Industries with Businesses Potentially Affected by the Proposed Limits

NAICS* Industry Number of

Product Categories* Number of

Noncompliant

Products** Includes:

324191 Lubricant Manufacturing 2 226 Multi-Purpose Lubricant – excluding solid & semisolid;

Penetrant

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 2 271 Sealant or Caulking Compound – Chemically Curing; Sealant or Caulking Compound – Non-Chemically Curing

325612 Polish & Other Sanitation Good

Manufacturing 10 637 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Dusting Aid; Fabric Protectant; Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product; Floor Maintenance Product; Floor Polish or Wax; Glass Cleaner; Odor Remover/Eliminator; Pressurized Gas Duster; Spot

Remover

325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 2 498 Astringent/Toner (non-FDA regulated); Personal Fragrance Product – 20% or less fragrance

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical

Product & Preparation Manufacturing 3 140 Motor Vehicle Wash; Tire or Wheel Cleaner; Windshield Water Repellent
*As reported in the 2003 Consumer and Commercial P roducts Survey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Some noncomplying products may relate to more than one NAICS code. Number of products may be differen t than those indicated in Table VII-5, due to calcula tions based on representative product size.

c. Study Approach

This study covers 5 industries with at least 300 a ffected businesses. The approach used in evaluating the potential economic impact of the proposed measures

on these businesses is as follows:

(1) A typical business from each product category w as selected from the 2003 Survey respondents. (2) A range of compliance costs were estimated for each affected product category. The mid-range cost for each category was used in this analysis. (3) Compliance cost to a typical business was then estimated based on a weighted average of all product category costs in a n affected industry. (4) Estimated cost was adjusted for federal and Sta te taxes. (5) The Return on Owner’s equity (ROE) was calculat ed for each of these businesses by dividing the net profit by the net wo rth. The adjusted cost was then subtracted from net profit data. The resu lts were used to calculate an adjusted ROE. The adjusted ROE was th en compared withTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 154 the ROE before the subtraction of the cost to deter mine the potential impact on the profitability of the business.

A reduction of more than 10 percent in profitabili ty is considered to indicate a potential for significant adverse economic impacts. This value has been used consistently by the ARB staff to determine impact s everity (ARB,1990c; ARB, 1991a; ARB, 1995; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1999; ARB, 2004b; and A RB, 2006a). This threshold is consistent with the thresholds used by the U.S. EPA

.

d. Assumptions

This study uses 2004-2006 Dun and Bradstreet finan cial data for a nationwide typical business in each affected industry except f or Toilet Preparation Manufacturing

and All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Pr eparation manufacturing where

2005 and 2004-2005 Dun and Bradstreet financial dat a were used, respectively, due to lack of complete financial data. These data were u sed to calculate the ROEs before and after the subtraction of the compliance costs f or a typical business in each industry

listed in Table VII-1. The calculations were based on the following assumptions:

(1) A typical business on a nationwide basis in eac h industry is representative of a typical California business in that industry; (2) All affected businesses were subject to federal and State tax rates of 35 percent and 9.3 percent respectively; and (3) Affected businesses are not able to increase th e prices of their products, nor can they lower their costs of doing business th rough short-term costcutting measures.

Given the limitation of available data, staff beli eves these assumptions are

reasonable for most businesses at least in the shor t run; however, they may not be applicable to all businesses.

e. Results

Typical California businesses are affected by t he proposed new limits to the

extent that the implementation of these requirement s would change their profitability. Based on our assessment of the proposed limits’ CE (see Subsection E of this Chapter), we estimate the per-business compliance c osts to range from about $1,700 (low cost for typical Penetrant manufacturer) to ab out $54,000 per year (high cost for typical Multi-Purpose Lubricant manufacturer) as sh own in Table VII-2. Table VII-7 also shows total mid-range, per product cost of about $1 4,000 per year.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 155 Table VII-2 Estimated Total Impacts to Businesses from Both Ann ualized Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring CostsTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 156

Using ROE to measure profitability, we found that the average ROE of sample businesses in affected industries declined by about 2.5 percent as shown in Table VII-3. This represents a minor change in the average profitability of typical

businesses in California.

Table VII-3 Changes in Return on Owner’s Equity (ROEs) for Typi cal Businesses in

Affected Industries

NAICS* Industry % Change

in ROE

324191 Lubricant Manufacturing 2.8

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 4.0

325612 Polish & Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 2.8

325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 2.4

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product & Preparat ion

Manufacturing 0.7

Average 2.5

Note: Changes in ROE mean change or difference; all changes in ROEs shown are negative (i.e., shows a decline in profitability).

As shown in Table VII-3, the projected change in p rofitability of typical businesses in the 5 affected industries varies by i ndustry sector. Within the NAICS shown, the predicted change (decline) in profitabil ity of a typical business ranged from a high of about 4.0 percent to a low of 0.7 percent. This variation in the impact of the proposed measures can be attributed primarily to tw o factors. First, some businesses incur higher costs due to the type of products or t he number of noncompliant products they manufacture or market. For instance, the esti mated annualized costs for typical businesses in each affected industry ranged from a high of approximately $35,000 to a low of about $5,000. These values are a product we ighted average cost of the respective annualized costs for all products. Seco nd, the performance of businesses may differ from year to year. Hence, the financial data used may not be representative of an average-year performance for some businesses.

The potential impacts to businesses’ ROEs may be o verestimated for the following reasons. First, annualized costs of comp liance are estimated using, in part, the current prices of raw materials. Raw material prices usually tend to rise as oil prices increase, but tend to fall as higher demand for the se materials induces economy of scale production in the long run. Second, affected businesses would not absorb all of the increase in their costs of doing business. The y may be able to either pass some of the cost on to consumers in the form of higher pric es, reduce their costs, or do both.

In this analysis, as in 2004 and 2006, we allocate d nonrecurring reformulation costs only to the noncomplying products.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 157

3. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Eliminat ion or Expansion

The proposed measures would have no noticeable impact on the status of

California businesses. This is because the reformu lation costs are not expected to impose a significant impact on the profitability of businesses in California. However, some small businesses with little or no margin of p rofitability may lack the financial resources to reformulate their products on a timely basis. Should the proposed measures impose significant hardship on these busin esses, temporary relief in the form of a compliance date extension under the variance p rovision may be warranted.

On the other hand, the proposed measures may provi de business opportunities

for some California businesses or result in the cre ation of new businesses. California businesses which supply raw materials and equipment or provide consulting services to affected industries may benefit from increased indu stry spending on reformulation.

4. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness

The proposed measures would have no significant imp act on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Because the proposed measures would apply to all businesses tha t manufacture or market certain consumer products regardless of their location, the staff’s proposal should not present any economic disadvantages specific to California businesses.

Nonetheless, the proposed measures may have an adv erse impact on the competitive position of some small, marginal busine sses in California if these businesses lack resources to develop commercially a cceptable products in a timely manner. As stated above, such impacts can be mitig ated to a degree with a justifiable compliance extension under the variance provision o f the Consumer Products Regulation, or through additional regulatory flexib ility afforded by the IPP or the ACP Regulation (see Subsection H).

5. Potential Impact on California Consumers

The potential impact of the proposed measures on co nsumers depends upon the ability of affected businesses to pass on the cost increase s to consumers. In the short run, competitive market forces may prevent businesses fr om passing their cost increases on to consumers. Thus, we do not expect a significant change in retail prices in the short run. In the long run, however, if businesses are u nable to bring down their costs of doing business they will likely pass their cost inc reases on to consumers.

To estimate the price increase, we adjusted per un it compliance costs for each affected industry by its profit margin as provided by Dun and Bradstreet. Assuming affected industries will pass on the entire complia nce costs to consumers in terms of higher prices, we estimate the average price of a p roduct would increase by about $0.03 per unit. Product price increases, however, would vary from industry to industry. They would range from a low of $0.01 per unit of th e products sold by the PersonalTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 158

Care Products Industry to a high of about $0.05 per unit of the products sold by

Household Care Products.

The proposed measures may also affect consumers ad versely if they result in reduced performance attributes of the products. Ho wever, this scenario is unlikely to occur for the following reasons. First, for nearly every proposed limit, there are already complying products that represent significant marke t share in many of their respective categories. Thus, the industry already has the tec hnology to manufacture compliant products that satisfy consumers. Second, marketers are unlikely to introduce a product which does not meet their consumers’ expectations. This is because such an introduction would be damaging not only to the prod uct sale, but also to the sale of other products sold under the same brand name (impa iring so-called “brand loyalty”). Finally, the Board has provided flexibility, under the existing consumer products program, to businesses whose situations warrant an extension to their compliance dates. For companies that can justify such varianc es, the additional time may afford more opportunity to explore different formulation, cost-cutting, performance-enhancing, or other marketing strategies which can help make t he transition to new complying products nearly transparent to consumers.

6. Potential Impact on California Employment

The proposed measures are not expected to cause a noticeable change in California employment and payroll. According to th e U.S. Department of Commerce, California employment in industries affected by the proposed measures was 13,885 in 2005, as shown in Table VII-4, or about 9.7 percent of national employment in the affected industries. This represents less than 1 p ercent of manufacturing employment in California. These employees working in the 458 establishments generated about $667 million in payroll, or about 9.4 percent of na tional payroll in the affected industries. This also accounts for less than 1 percent of the t otal California manufacturing payroll in

2005.

D. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CALIFORNIA STATE O R LOCAL

AGENCIES

We have identified two State agencies that could/or would be impacted. The California Prison Industry Authority (PIA) manufact ures and markets consumer products for use in State service. This is the only State a gency we are aware of that makes consumer products. The PIA manufactures a drain ma intainer, which could be subject to the proposed six percent limit for non-aerosol O dor Remover/Eliminator. This product, if subject, would meet the proposed new li mit for Odor Removers/Eliminators. The PIA also sells bar soaps, powder bleaches, liqu id glass cleaners, liquid multipurpose cleaner and degreasers, floor finishes , and liquid and powder detergents (PIA, 2008). The proposed measures do not affect t hese categories and, as such, will not have an impact on the PIA.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 159 Table VII-4 California Employment and Payroll in Affected Indus tries

NAICS Number of Employees Payroll

California CA Share as % of US California (million in 2005$) CA Share as %

of US

324191 720 5.4 39,807 5.5

325520 2,452 11.9 130,584 12.4

325612 1,081 6.0 44,846 5.2

325620 7,542 13.3 346,387 13.2

325998 2,090 5.9 105,257 5.9

Total 13,885 9.7 666,881 9.4

Source: (U.S. Census, 2005)

The Air Resources Board (ARB) would have costs ass ociated with adoption of the proposed amendments. Adoption of the amendment s would necessitate an increase in ARB staff to properly enforce the Consu mer Products Regulation. These proposed amendments are setting new limits for a nu mber of previously unregulated categories. It has been determined that to enforce these new limits, two ARB staff will

be needed. This would result in an increased cost to the State of approximately $300,000 per year.

E. ANALYSIS OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS (CE) OF THE PROP OSED

LIMITS

1. Introduction

In the following analysis, we evaluated the antici pated CE of the proposed new limits. Such an evaluation allows us to compare th e efficiency of the proposed limits in reducing a pound of VOC or a metric ton of CO 2 e relative to other existing regulatory programs. To do this, we applied a well-establishe d methodology for converting compliance costs, both nonrecurring and recurring, to an annual basis. We then report

the ratio of the annualized costs to the annual emi ssion reductions in terms of “dollars (to be) spent per pound of VOC reduced or metric to n of CO 2 e reduced in the case of Pressurized Gas Duster. For perspective, we compar e the estimated cost-effectiveness of the proposed limits to the cost-effectiveness of other ARB regulations and control

measures.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 160

2. Methodology

The CE of a reduction strategy is generally define d as the ratio of total dollars to be spent to comply with the strategy (as an annual cost) to the mass reduction of the pollutant(s) to be achieved by complying with that strategy (in annual pounds or metric tons). Annual costs include annualized nonrecurrin g fixed costs (e.g., total research and development (R&D), product and consumer testing , equipment purchases/modifications, etc.) and annual recurring costs (e.g., raw materials, labeling, packaging, etc.).

We annualized nonrecurring fixed costs using the C apital Recovery Method, as recommended under guidelines issued by the Californ ia Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Using this method, we multiply t he estimated total fixed costs to comply with the limits by the Capital Recovery Fact or (CRF) to convert these costs into equal annual payments over a project horizon (i.e., the projected useful life of the investment) at a discount rate. We then sum the an nualized fixed costs with the annual recurring costs and divide that sum by the annual e mission

reductions to calculate the cost-effectiveness of t he regulation, as shown by the following general equation:

Cost-Effectiveness

= (Annualized Fixed Costs) + (Annual Recurring Cost) (Annual Mass Reduction in VOC)

where:

Annualized Fixed Costs =

i(1+i) n /((1+i) n -1) = Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)

i = discount interest rate over project horizon, % n = number of years in project horizon Fixed Costs = total nonrecurring cost per prod uct category = (Nonrecurring Cost per Product) x (Total Noncompliant Products in the Category)

As shown by the raw materials cost analyses in App endix D, a convenient method for estimating the annual recurring cost por tion of overall cost-effectiveness is to separate Equation (1) into two fractions, one for t he nonrecurring costs and one for the recurring costs. It can then be shown that the CE fraction for recurring costs can be simplified and calculated as follows: 1

- n i)+ (1 n i)+ (1 i

x Costs) (Fixed (1)

(2)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 161

Annual Recurring Costs CE=

where,

Baseline Materials Cost = cost of raw materials fo r product before reformulation to the proposed limit $/lb product Baseline VOC Content = product VOC weight fraction before reformulation to limit, lb VOC/lb product Compliant Materials Cost = cost of raw materials f or compliant product, $/lb product Compliant VOC Content = product VOC weight fractio n of compliant product, lb VOC/lb product.

In the case of Pressurized Gas Duster, the calcula tions are similar except that in place of VOC content, product GWP value content is used. To use Equation (3), staff determined typical VOC or GWP value content of both compliant and noncompliant products in each of the product categories/subcateg ories, based on sales data and the speciated formulations as reported by manufacturers in the ARB’s 2003 Survey. To the extent feasible, staff determined the detailed form ulations that most closely reflect the “typical” compliant and noncompliant VOC or GWP val ue contents. These formulations, in turn, were designated as compliant and baseline formulations, respectively (See Appendix D).

For most ingredients, we used the most recent, dis tributor-level bulk prices from

the ICIS Chemical Business web site (ICIS, 2008). Costs for other ingredient s were obtained from discussions with chemical suppliers, or from web searches of analytical grade chemicals. All of these data sources were us ed to calculate the baseline and compliant material costs based on these designated formulations shown in Appendix D. Inorganic compounds were assigned a low and high co st of $0.09 and $0.91 per pound based on the costs found of the most common inorgan ic compounds found in the product categories. Other unspecified ingredients or ingredients for which prices were unknown were grouped into an “all others” classific ation and assigned a default low and high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectivel y (ARB, 1997c). These analyses are shown in Appendix D and discussed in more detai l in “Analysis of Impacts to Raw

Materials Cost” later in this section.

We used a very similar methodology to determine th e CE of the proposal to reduce the potency of greenhouse gas emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters, as described above. Instead of evaluating costs relat ive to VOC reductions, for

Pressurized Gas Dusters we evaluated the costs of r educing GHG emissions equivalent to reducing a metric ton of carbon dioxide. Content) VOC (Compliant - Content) VOC (Baseline Cost) Materials (Baseline - Cost) Materials (Compliant (3)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 162

3. Assumptions

We calculated the CE with an assumed project horiz on of 10 years, a commonly cited period for an investment’s useful lifetime in the chemical processing industry. We also assumed a fixed interest rate of 10 percent th roughout the project horizon. These assumptions are conservative and constitute standar d practice in CE analyses of air pollution regulations, including previous consumer product rulemakings. Based on these assumptions, the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF ) is 0.16275.

For this rulemaking, we assumed products reformulated to mee t the proposed limits will be marketed throughout the U.S. by nati onal marketers (ARB, 1997b). We earlier determined that businesses generally formul ate for, and distribute to the entire nation, products compliant with our regulations rat her than incurring the additional cost of setting up a California specific product distrib ution system. We believe the same strategy will be employed by companies subject to t he proposed new limits. We, therefore, assumed in the Midterm II analysis in 19 99 that, for the annualized fixed cost portion of Equation (1), it was appropriate to use the fixed cost for national production divided by the national emission reductions.

However, an alternative but equivalent approach, w hich we used in the 2004 and 2006 analyses, and in this analysis, is to report t he California-apportioned (by population) annualized fixed cost divided by the Ca lifornia-apportioned emission reductions. To illustrate, a manufacturer may need to install $10 million worth of equipment to produce its national sales volume of p roducts compliant with the proposed limits. However, if the company were to produce a California and 49-state product, the company may only need to install $1 million worth of equipment to produce unit sales

sufficient for the smaller California market. Usin g this alternative approach, we discounted the total fixed costs for producing nati onal sales volumes by the Californiaapportionment factor (i.e., the current ratio of Ca lifornia to U.S. population, or 12.5 percent (CA DOF, 2007)), which we then divided by the California-only emission reductions. It is important to note that, while bo th of the approaches described above -- the national marketing and California-only approach es -- reach the same conclusion, they do so for different reasons as discussed above

.

For the annual recurring costs, we assumed complia nt reformulations would result in cost changes as a result of changes in a product’s raw materials and their associated prices. Changes in packaging, labeling, distribution and other recurring costs were assumed to be negligible relative to bas eline levels of these costs. This assumption is based on our previous regulatory expe riences. To illustrate, in 1996, we conducted a comprehensive technical assessment of t he 55 percent by weight VOC hairspray limit, which required extensive reformula tions to existing products (ARB, 1997c). The hairspray limit is generally considere d to be among the most challenging of the consumer product limits; it likely resulted in more changes to the regulated product, relative to pre-regulatory products, than any other VOC limit. However, our assessment found that changes to recurring costs other than ha irspray raw material costs were expected to be negligible (ARB, 1997c). Based on t his finding and because theTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 163

proposed new limits are designed to preserve produc t forms, we believe our assumptions regarding the recurring costs are reaso nable.

4. Results

A review of relevant technical literature and indu stry trade journals provided little

information that we could use to estimate costs dir ectly. This is not surprising, because the consumer products industry is very competitive, and production cost data specific to a company are closely-guarded trade secrets. We ha ve received significant comments regarding our assumptions for fixed costs from spec ific interested parties. We worked with these industry representatives to obtain new, updated, substantiated fixed cost data. The information we received generally confir ms our cost assumptions to be correct. We therefore developed estimates for the nonrecurring costs based on analogous costs reported by ARB staff for the Phase II consumer products rulemaking ( Id , Appendix D1). The Phase II nonrecurring costs ar e applicable for this analysis since they were based on staff’s detailed estimates of labor, research and development, equipment purchase, and other costs involved in pro duct reformulations for generic household, automotive, and personal care categories , all of which are impacted by proposed limits. This is the same approach we used for the 1997 Mid-Term Measures rulemaking, the 1999 Mid-Term Measures II rulemakin g, and the 2004 and 2006 rulemakings.

The Phase II nonrecurring investment costs, report ed in 1991 dollars, were adjusted to 2007 dollars using a well-established m ethod of ratioing chemical engineering plant cost indices as follows (Peters a nd Timmerhaus, 1980):

)4( Index 1991 C.E. Index 2007 C.E.

10 dollars) 1991 (in Costs Recurring Non dollars) 2007 (in Costs Recurring

- Non × −

=

where,

CE 2007 index = 2007 Chemical Engineering Plant C ost Index = 525.0 ( Chemical Engineering , April 2008).

CE 1991 index = 1991 Chemical Engineering Plant Co st Index = 361.3 ( Chemical Engineering , April 1997).

We believe the original Phase II cost estimates we re beneficial at the time of the rulemaking for predicting the costs to comply with those limits. However, it was discovered during Midterm II that these original co st estimates grossly overestimated the true nonrecurring costs for Phase II by a facto r of ten (ARB, 1999, op cit. at Vol II, Chapter VII, Page 211). We therefore estimated the nonrecurring costs for the proposed new limits by adjusting the Phase II estim ates to be consistent as shown in Equation (4).Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 164

Table VII-5 shows our estimates for per-product an d total annualized nonrecurring costs for each of the product categori es/subcategories subject to the proposed limits.

As shown, we project a per-product annualized nonr ecurring cost ranging from a low of about $8,000 to a high of about $243,000. W ith 1,535 noncompliant products that would need to be reformulated, the overall tot al annualized fixed cost to industry is projected to range from about $4 million to just ab out $16 million dollars per year, with a general breakdown of this range as follows: automot ive care products (2 percent), household care products (72 percent), personal care products (16 percent) and adhesives (10 percent).

Our analysis shows that the CE of the proposed req uirements is higher than the CE of other rulemakings for consumer products or th e Suggested Control Measure for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings. We estimate the total overall CE of the initial proposed limits and other requirements to be about $6.23 per pound of VOC reduced, and about $0.22 per metric ton of CO 2 equivalent reduced.

It should be noted that a contributing factor to t he total average cost per pound of

VOC reduced is that the VOC emission reductions ach ieved from some of the proposed limits specific to individual categories may be qui te low. A limit may have been set largely as a cap, with the few reductions being ach ieved resulting in a few VOC

reductions and a low CE. While the costs incurred by manufacturers to reformulate small categories is not excessive, when those costs are apportioned to a relatively small emission reduction, the CE may appear low (high cos t per pound of VOC reduced). Therefore, when presenting the overall CE of the pr oposal, one should consider the effect of relatively low CE in some categories.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 165 Table VII-5 Estimated Total Nonrecurring Fixed Costs to Comply with Proposed LimitsTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 166

Table VII-6 shows a comparison of the CE for the p roposed limits relative to other ARB consumer product regulations and control measures. As expected, costs for the proposed amendments are higher than other recen t consumer products measures. These higher costs can be attributed to regulating smaller emitting and/or more challenging categories than in the past.

Table VII-6 Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for ARB Consumer P roduct

Regulations/Measures

Regulation/Control Measure Cost-Effectiveness (Dollars per Pound VOC Reduced)

2008 Amendments $6.23

2006 Amendments 1 $2.35

2004 Amendments 1 $2.01 to $2.34

Aerosol Adhesives 2 $6.00

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings 3 $1.12

1 Categories where reduction of toxic air contam inant emissions occurred were included (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). 2 ARB, 2000c. 3 Suggested Control Measure, developed with the Cal ifornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association (ARB, 2007i).

F. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS TO RAW MATERIALS COST

1. Introduction

As part of the economic impact analysis, we evalua ted the expected cost impacts from the proposed limits on raw material costs. As stated previously, the raw material costs generally constitute the major portion of the compliance costs for most categories. However, evaluating the impacts to raw material cos ts provides only an indicator of possible impacts to the retail prices of the affect ed products (assuming the cost impacts are passed on partially or fully to consumers). Be cause of unpredictable factors such as the highly competitive nature of the consumer pr oducts market, it is not possible to accurately predict the final retail price of produc ts that will comply with the proposed limits when they become effective. To the extent t he cost impacts are passed on to consumers, the final retail prices may be lower or higher than suggested by this analysis.

2. Methodology

As discussed previously, staff determined the form ulations which most closely reflect the “typical” compliant and noncompliant VO C contents. These formulations, in turn, were designated as compliant and non-complian t formulations, respectively.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 167

Distributor-level ingredient prices from ICIS Chemical Business website (ICIS, 2008),

and chemical materials distributors were used to ca lculate the baseline and compliant

material costs for these formulations. Sources of cost information were used for selected ingredients as discussed previously. Othe r than compounds specifically requested, the 2003 Survey did not ask for specific ingredient details for exempt, fragrance, some low vapor pressure VOCs, and inorga nic compounds. Unspecified ingredients or ingredients for which prices were un known were grouped into an “all others” classification and assigned a default low a nd high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectively (ARB, 1997b), with the exceptio n of fragrance which was assumed to have a default low and high cost of $5.00 and $1 0.00 per pound respectively. However, inorganic compounds tend to be less expens ive and using the default low and high cost would not give an accurate representation of inorganic compound cost. Therefore inorganic compounds were assigned a low a nd high cost of $0.09 and $0.91 per pound based on the costs found of the most comm on inorganic compounds found in the product categories. These analyses and the for mulations evaluated (with individual weight fractions and unit prices per pound) are sho wn as cost spreadsheets in Appendix D. While these formulations may not refle ct the exact composition of existing noncompliant products and compliant products that w ill be marketed, we believe they are reasonably representative for the purposes of t his analysis.

3. Assumptions

As noted previously, we assumed changes in packagi ng, labeling, distribution and other recurring costs to be negligible relative to baseline levels of these costs (ARB, 1997b. The most likely pathway for reformulation w as assumed for noncompliant products. Despite this assumption, alternative for mulations may allow lower-cost compliant products than shown in our analysis.

4. Results

As shown in Table VII-7, the anticipated raw mater ials cost changes range from no cost (net savings or no cost) to about $0.63 inc rease per unit (for Floor Polish or Wax – Wood Floor Wax).Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 168 Table VII-7 Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per UnitTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 169 Table VII-7 Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit (c ontinued)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 170

Table VII-8 shows a comparison of the impacts to r aw materials cost under the proposed limits relative to those of other ARB cons umer product regulations.

Table VII-8 Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Pr oposed Limits and Other

ARB Consumer Product Regulations (unadjusted dollar s)

Regulation Cost Impacts (Dollars per Unit of Product)

2008 Amendments $0.00 to $0.63

2006 Amendments 1 $0.00 to $0.44

2004 Amendments 2 $0.00 to $0.77

Mid-Term Measures II 3 $0.00 to $0.25

Aerosol Adhesives 4 $0.00 to $0.60

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings 5 $0.00 to $4.40

1. (ARB, 2006a) 2. (ARB, 2004b) 3. (ARB, 1999) 4. (ARB, 2000c) 5. Suggested Control Measure, developed with the Ca lifornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association (ARB, 2007i)

G. ANALYSIS OF THE COMBINED IMPACTS ON PER-UNIT CO ST FROM

RECURRING AND NONRECURRING COSTS

1. Introduction

In this analysis, we evaluated the combined impac ts of both recurring (i.e., raw materials costs) and nonrecurring costs from the pr oposed limits on per-unit costs. Although the raw material costs generally constitut e the major portion of the compliance costs, in some categories, the nonrecurring (fixed) cost was the major contributor. In performing this analysis, we used the fixed costs, raw material costs, assumptions, and other facts discussed previously.

2. Methodology

Nonrecurring Costs

Historically, staff has considered a variety of c osts in its calculations to determine the costs of complying with proposed VOC limits aff ecting consumer products. In the 1991 Phase II Consumer Products Rulemaking, staff d eveloped a methodology to determine nonrecurring reformulation costs (non-raw material costs) for proposed VOC limits. These costs were broken down by each proce ss needed for reformulation to occur (ARB, 1991a). It was subsequently determined through a thorough cost analysisTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 171

of the reformulations that was done to comply with the 55 percent by weight VOC limit for hairspray, that these costs were overestimated by a factor of 10. It was widely believed that the 55 percent by weight VOC limit fo r hairspray represented the most aggressive, challenging, and expensive reformulatio n that had been required by the Consumer Products Regulations. Therefore, subseque nt cost analyses grew the factors by the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index then divided these reformulation factors by 10 (see Section C, Equation (4)).

There are many variables in producing a product f or market, and assumptions about those variables will greatly affect the outco me of any cost analysis. For each assumption, a test of “reasonableness” was applied to determine if this was a likely approach to take or if the event had a high probabi lity of occurring. Results were also compared to data provided by other agencies and ind ustry to verify that the numbers are “reasonable.” Significant input regarding refo rmulation costs have been provided by industry representatives. In all cases, only new o r additional costs were considered. Costs were not considered that would have been expe cted in the normal course of business if the regulation had not been in effect.

To estimate nonrecurring cost numbers, the staff c onsidered two cost estimate approaches for each product category, one for low c ost, and one for high cost, with a different set of assumptions for each approach. To further refine the analyses, the product categories proposed for regulation were gro uped under “adhesives,” “automotive,” “household care,” and “personal care” to better reflect the impact on each
category.

3. Approach

For a systematic approach to the cost analysis, th e entire time from initial statement of development goals to final delivery of the new product to the marketplace shelves was divided into eight phases. The phases are: product development, including reformulation and development of a new de livery system if necessary; stability testing; efficacy testing; safety testing; labeling modification; registration with regulatory agencies, if necessary; manufacturing change; and m arketing. The length of time in each phase was estimated based on an industry analy sis of 80 new product innovations. Most of the phases occur in sequence; however, there is some time overlap in each phase.

Next, estimated personnel resources were allocated against each phase considering the most probable types of skills neede d including general engineering; technician; drafting; packaging engineering; specif ication engineering; model making; chemical engineering; technical publication; produc tion support; quality assurance; marketing; warehousing; word processing; and cleric al. For high cost elements, additional personnel were allocated to each phase.

After the personnel costs were determined, additio nal cost elements were considered at each phase and added as appropriate. These cost elements are facility; equipment; tool; jig; fixture and miscellaneous mat erials handling equipment; purchasedTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 172

material; packaging; distribution; warehousing; tec hnical data; research studies and tests; promotional literature; residual inventory a nd disposal; consumer tests; general and administrative expense; patent; registration fe es; and computer support. The result of these considerations is a per-product cost for d eveloping a reformulated product and putting it on the market.

4. Assumptions

The staff used different assumptions for the low a nd high cost analyses, and considered the specific likelihood that each of the cost elements would occur for each product category individually. In reviewing the 20 03 Survey, staff found that many of the products which would technically be noncomplyin g are within a couple of percentage points of VOC weight from being in compl iance with the standard. These products may require only minor modification to the ir current formulation to come into compliance. Therefore, for the low cost analysis n o major costs were added for changing delivery systems or other product attribut es.

In addition, it is common that large companies hav ing significant market-share and broad product lines offer both low VOC complyin g products and higher VOC noncomplying products. In many cases, relatively l ow costs would be incurred where these companies could increase sales and distributi on of complying products and discontinue noncomplying products.

If products do not change significantly, it is ass umed that major retooling of manufacturing equipment would not be required, tech nical data changes would be minor, and the change in marketing costs would be s mall. It was also assumed that these reformulated products would be marketed natio nally.

For the high cost approach, each category was anal yzed individually to determine which of the elements, discussed above, m anufacturers would likely include in their reformulation efforts. High costs for spe cific steps of the reformulation process were only included in the cost analysis where staff believed they were likely to occur. If staff believed a markedly different product woul d be needed to comply with the proposed limit, such as a new delivery system, then high personnel and capital resources, especially in product development and ma nufacturing changes, were assumed. In addition, a new delivery system would require investment for prototypes, new filling machines training, and technical data, so these high costs were also included

in these scenarios. Additional costs were also add ed for packaging, distribution and warehousing. In areas where it was expected that l ittle or no reformulation would occur, or that the cost of reformulation would be minimal, the value for low cost was used (Tire or Wheel Cleaner, Motor Vehicle Wash).

For especially challenging limits, it was assumed for the high cost approach that, because of a markedly different product, there woul d also be additional marketing costs, including research studies and tests, promotional l iterature, and consumer tests. These costs vary by the type of product, with household p roducts typically having a largerTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 173

expense in this area. The cost analysis did not in clude the costs for an extensive advertising campaign. New products are regularly b rought onto the market, and the advertising for a new product, whether reformulated or not, would replace the advertising for the existing product, and would be a normal cost. It was assumed that the new product would be marketed nationally.

The staff also recognized that development of a ne w product does not occur in isolation. Few companies have only one product lin e; for those that have more than one product line, the product lines can be very sim ilar. Development and production tasks, from the initial concept through marketing, would be proceeding simultaneously on more than one product line, with a transfer of i nformation and work-sharing between the products. For these companies, this “technolog y transfer” would substantially reduce the cost of developing and marketing a new p roduct on a per product basis. For categories where the majority of products were held by a few companies it was assumed that this “technology transfer” would occur , and high costs adjusted accordingly.

Therefore, staff has considered only nonrecurring costs that are likely to occur on a per category basis. If it was determined that fo r a majority of products in the category, the most likely scenario was that only minor change s to the product’s reformulation were necessary to comply with the new proposed limi t then only the lower end of the nonrecurring cost was included. For some categorie s, it was appropriate, based on the variety of products and reformulation approaches ne eded to meet the proposed limit, that certain high cost factors be included in the a nalysis, but not others, on a case-bycase basis. We believe that this approach gives a more realistic estimate of the costs of a given limit.

5. Results

As shown in Table VII-9, the combined fixed and r aw material cost changes to per-unit production costs ranged from no cost incre ase (net savings or no cost for various categories) to about $2.05 per unit (for 1 gallon of non-aerosol Penetrant). Averaged over all of the noncomplying products affe cted by the proposed limits and other requirements, the product-weighted average co st increase is about $0.20 per unit.

H. OTHER POSSIBLE ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

Beyond the VOC and GHG limits, there are other prop osed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation, some of which may hav e a potential economic impact on affected businesses. While we do not expect any significant economic impact from any of the proposals, it is possible that there cou ld be some increased cost to business resulting from proposed changes.

Some products that do not need to reformulate, be cause they already comply with the VOC limits, may need to relabel because of other proposed changes to the regulation.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 174 Table VII-9

Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annuali zed Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring CostsTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 175

We expect that businesses will benefit economical ly from the exemption of HFE 7200 from the definition of VOC, because it could o ffer more formulation flexibility.

There may be minimal reformulation costs incurred b y those very few companies that use chlorinated solvents in those categories f or which staff has proposed to prohibit the toxic compounds.

I. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS THROUGH ADDITION AL

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

If adopted by the Board, the proposed limits will b e incorporated in section 94509 of the Consumer Products Regulation (title 17, Cali fornia Code of Regulations, sections 94507-94517). To complement the mandatory VOC limits specified in section 94509, the existing consumer products program provi des a very high degree of compliance flexibility, through two voluntary, mark et-based programs: the IPP and the ACP Regulation. These options could be evaluated t o minimize cost impacts. The IPP (section 94511) allows qualified manufacturers to s ell products that have VOC contents greater than the applicable VOC limit, provided the y demonstrate that such products actually emit less VOCs than representative product s that comply with the VOC limit. Using the emissions averaging approach, the ACP is a voluntary regulation (title 17, CCR, sections 94540-94555) designed to a llow multi-product VOC averaging as an alternative means of complying with the VOC l imits.

Various manufacturers have formulated technologic ally-advanced IPP products that are more concentrated, higher in efficacy, or have some other chemical or physical properties that permit users to release less VOCs w hen using such products. To date, 14 manufacturers have submitted and obtained approv al for 25 IPP applications involving 23 products. Based on their participatio n in the program, it is reasonable to conclude that manufacturers are using this program to provide consumers with products that meet their needs, while lowering costs, improv ing the “market value” of their products, or otherwise maintaining profit margins.

The potential benefits of emissions averaging or “bubbling” for consumer product manufacturers under the ACP regulation have been do cumented by ARB staff (ARB, 1994). In general, emissions averaging under appro ved ACPs allows manufacturers to choose the least-cost or other advantageous reformu lation options for its product lines. Rather than directly complying with each and every VOC limit, manufacturers can choose to “overcomply” with some reformulations in order to offset the “undercompliance” of other product lines. The ACP regulation requires the net resulting emissions from products under such averaging plans to be no greater than the level which would have resulted had all the products unde r the ACP bubble directly complied with the applicable limits. In short, the same emi ssion reductions are achieved while providing a high degree of formulation and marketin g flexibility to manufacturers. To date, three manufacturers have implemented approved ACP averaging programs, reducing VOC emissions by about 4.9 million pounds more than would have occurredTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 176

under the mandatory VOC limits. We expect that suc h emissions averaging will also benefit manufacturers subject to the proposed limit s.

Overall, most affected businesses will benefit fr om the IPP and the ACP Regulation. Both programs are completely voluntary and impose no additional costs to businesses to meet their requirements other than te sting and reporting requirements. Manufacturers who take advantage of these market-ba sed programs presumably do so because it costs less than direct compliance with t he limits or it provides some other

market benefits. It should be noted that because t he IPP and ACP provisions apply to VOC only, manufacturers of Pressurized Gas Dusters would not have the opportunity to use the provisions to address GWP limits.

According to previous staff analyses, the potenti al cost differential which might result from competition under the ACP between small and large firms would not necessarily cause extreme hardship on small firms. However, inclusion of the proposed limits in the ACP regulation may increase the level of competition for some products and may lead to the elimination of some marginal produc ers for those products. Such competition may also have minor impacts on Californ ia employment and payroll. However, the impact is expected to be positive in t he long term. Any potential impacts on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states are also expected to be minimal.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document for Proposed Amendments to the Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coa tings

. September, 2007. (ARB, 2007i)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regula tion

. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a)

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresherners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regu lation Relating to

Aerosol Adhesives . April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000c)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 177

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures II

. September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

7. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments Pertaining to Hairspray in the California Consumer Products Regulation

. February 7, 1997. (ARB, 1997c)

8 Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for a Proposed Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emis sions from Aerosol Coating Products and Amendments to the Alternative Control Plan for Consumer

Products . February 3, 1995. Volume II. pp. VIII.1-VIII.20, X.1-X.13, and Appendix G. (ARB, 1995)

9. Air Resources Board. Proposed Alternative Contro l Plan for Consumer Products

. August, 1994. (ARB, 1994)

10. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Con sumer Products - Phase II-Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

11. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Red uce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al Support Document

. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990c)

12. Air Resources Board. Technical Review Group’s P roposed Architectural Coatings Suggested Control Measure – Staff Report . April 20, 1989. (ARB, 1989c)

13. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds Almost 470,000 in 2006: 2007 Population Nears 37.7 Million . May 1, 2007. (CA DOF, 2007)

14. California Prison Industry Authority. On-Line C atalog . 2008. http://catalog.pia.ca.gov/store.php?t=1210100718 . (PIA, 2008)

15. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Enginee ring Plant Cost Index

. April, 2008. (Chemical Engineering, 2008)

16. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Enginee ring Plant Cost Index

. April, 1997. (Chemical Engineering, 1997)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 178

17. Dun and Bradstreet. Industry Norms and Key Busi ness Ratios . Manufacturing - Volume 1. SIC # 2000-2999. 2006-2007. (D&B, 2006-20 07)

18. ICIS. ICIS Chemical Business

. http://icispricing.com . April 11, 2008. (ICIS, 2008)

19. United States Census Bureau. 2005 County Busine ss Patterns (NAICS)

. California, 31 – Manufacturing. http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl. pl

. April 22, 2008. (U.S. Census, 2005)Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -179

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

In this rulemaking, ARB staff is proposing amendme nts to the Consumer Products Regulation that are designed to reduce vol atile organic compounds (VOC) and

air toxic emissions. The amendments would also red uce the use of greenhouse gas (GHG) compounds with high global warming potential (GWP) used in consumer products.

We have evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments on atmospheric processes and other media. Overall, we found that the proposed

amendments would have beneficial effects and reduce exposure to ground-level ozone and air toxics. No significant adverse impacts wer e identified. However, several measures are proposed to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to occur. In making these determinations, we evaluated how the p roposed amendments would impact ground-level ozone concentrations, particula te matter (particularly secondary organic aerosols), climate change, stratospheric oz one depletion, air toxic emission exposure, water quality, solid waste, and energy us e.

Staff has conducted a qualitative health risk asses sment that concludes that because VOCs are ozone precursors, public health is further protected by reducing

VOC emissions. Staff has also determined that ambi ent air and personal exposures to perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl) , and trichloroethylene (TCE) will be reduced by prohibiting the use of these chlorina ted toxic air contaminants (TAC).

Our analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environm ental impacts of the methods of compliance is presented in subsections C through H below. Regarding reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures, the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an agency to identify and adopt fea sible mitigation measures that would minimize any significant adverse environmenta l impacts described in the environmental analysis.

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE ANALYSIS

The CEQA and ARB policy require an analysis to dete rmine the potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed regulatio ns. Because ARB’s program involving the adoption of regulations has been cert ified by the Secretary of Resources (see Public Resources Code section 21080.5), the CE QA environmental analysis requirements are allowed to be included in ARB’s In itial Statement of Reasons instead of preparing an environmental impact report or nega tive declaration. In addition, ARB will respond in writing to all significant environm ental points raised by the public during the public review period or at the Board hearing. These responses will be contained in the Final Statement of Reasons for the proposed ame ndments to the Consumer Products Regulation.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -180

Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that t he environmental impact analysis conducted by ARB include the following: (1 ) an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods of compliance; (2) an analysis of reasonably foreseeable feasible mitigation measures ; and, (3) an analysis of reasonably foreseeable alternative means of compliance with th e regulation. Before we present our analysis of the environmental impacts, for ease of the reader the proposed amendments

are summarized in Part B.

B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

1. Proposed VOC Standards

Staff is proposing to establish new or lower VOC li mits for multiple categories. These limits would reduce VOC emissions by about 5. 8 tons per day when fully effective. The proposed amendments to reduce VOC e missions would partially fulfill the consumer product reduction commitment contained in the 2007 Strategy to meet the

federal ozone standard.

2. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

We are proposing an amendment to reduce the use of GHG with high GWP in Pressurized Gas Duster products. Pressurized Gas D uster products would not be allowed to contain a compound that has a GWP of 150 or greater. This proposal would essentially eliminate use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC ) 134a in this category. In 2010, we anticipate that this measure would achieve a reduct ion equivalent to reducing of 0.20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) per year.

To ensure that the VOC content of these products do es not increase as a result of reformulation to meet the GWP limit, a 1 percent by weight, including fragrance, VOC limit is also being proposed for Pressurized Gas Du ster products. To mitigate potential exposure to air toxics, we are also proposing to pr ohibit use of MeCl and Perc in this
category.

3. Proposed VOC Exemption

Staff is proposing that the definition of VOC be mo dified to exclude two isomers of hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. In a report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals,” (ARB, 2008b) ARB s taff determined that use of HFE-7200 has negligible impacts on ground-level ozo ne formation. Staff believes that exemption of this negligibly reactive compound woul d provide additional reformulation flexibility.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -181

4. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

Staff is also proposing a measure to reduce emissio ns of three TACs in the categories proposed for VOC regulation where they a re, or could potentially, be used. The proposed prohibition on the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in six categories would result in a reduction of about 0.20 tons per day wh en fully effective.

5. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Staff is also proposing additional language modifi cations. These modifications include clarifying language for the product date co ding requirement, requirements for dilutable products sold in pump spray containers, t oxic compound prohibitions, and additional requirements for categories such as Fabr ic Softener – Single Use Dryer Product, Personal Fragrance Product with 20 percent or less fragrance, and Sealant or Caulking Compound. Other proposals include the cor rection of a drafting error in the Table of Standards regarding Furniture Maintenance Product. The long-standing exemption for solid/paste wax forms would be reinst ated.

C. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

In this section, we evaluate the impacts on atmosph eric processes. The evaluation includes our assessment on whether the p roposed amendments would have a positive, negative, or no impact on these atmosph eric processes.

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Ground-level O zone Concentrations

Enhanced ground-level ozone formation involves the interaction between VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sun light. The rate of ozone generation is related closely to both the amount and reactivit y of VOC emissions as well as the

amount of NO x emissions available in the atmosphere (Seinfeld and Pandis,1998). Ozone is a colorless gas and the chief component of urban smog. It is one of the State’s more persistent air quality problems. Nine ty-three percent of Californians, or 36 million people, live in areas designated as non- attainment for the federal 8-hour

ozone standard. It has been well documented that o zone adversely affects respiratory

function of humans and animals. Research has shown that, when inhaled, ozone can cause respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, impai r the immune system, and cause increased risk of premature death.

Not only does ozone adversely affect human and anim al health, but it also affects vegetation throughout most of California resulting in reduced yield and quality in agricultural crops, disfiguration or unsatisfactory growth in ornamental vegetation, and damage to native plants. More information on the i mpacts of exposure to ozone can be found in Chapter IV, of this Technical Support Docu ment.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -182 a. Proposed VOC Standards

The proposed amendments are designed to reduce VOC emissions by about 5.8 tons per day when fully effective. Reducing th ese ozone precursor emissions will result in a positive environmental impact by loweri ng the concentrations of ground-level ozone in the atmosphere. If we assume that the ave rage ozone forming potential of consumer product VOC emissions is about 1.50 pounds of ozone per pound of VOC emitted (based on the maximum incremental reactivit y (MIR) scale, see title 17, CCR, sections 94700-94701), then we would predict the re sulting ozone reductions would be about 9 tons per day. The categories proposed for regulation and the corresponding

VOC emission reductions are shown in Table VIII-1.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposed GHG measure would have no impact on gr ound-level ozone concentrations. This is because the proposal essen tially requires replacing HFC-134a

with HFC-152a. Both HFC-134a and HFC-152a are excl uded from the definition of VOC due to negligible photochemical reactivity with respect to ozone. However, to ensure VOC emissions do not increase, as a mitigati on measure, staff is proposing to set a 1 percent by weight VOC limit to prevent VOC increases as products reformulate.

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

The exemption of HFE-7200 will likely have a positi ve impact on ground-level ozone concentrations. Whenever this negligibly rea ctive compound replaces more reactive VOCs the result will be a reduction in gro und-level ozone concentrations. Replacing HFE-7200 for similarly unreactive compoun ds, such as MeCl, Perc, and hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 141b, should have no impact on ground-level ozone

concentrations.

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

In accordance with CEQA, we are proposing a mitigat ion measure to ensure that emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE do not increase wh en products are reformulated. As such, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners; Fabric Protectants; Multi-Purpose Lubrica nts; Penetrants; Sealant or Caulking Compounds; and Spot Removers. The prohibition of t hese three solvents is necessary, particularly for MeCl and Perc because they are als o exempt VOCs. However, this proposal to prohibit the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in these six categories could result in a slight increase in VOC emissions. Products co ntaining these TACs may have to reformulate using VOC solvents. Staff, therefore, evaluated the potential for VOC emission increases resulting from this proposal.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -183 Table VIII-1 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at E ffective Date

Product Category Product

Form Proposed

VOC Limit

(percent by weight) 2008 VOC

Emissions*

(tons per day) Reductions

at Effective

Date

(tons per day) Astringent/Toner (non-FDA regulated) a All 35 0.62 0.11

Aerosol 5 0.32 0.07 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner a Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 Dusting Aid a Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00

Fabric Protectant a Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product a All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21

Floor Maintenance Product a All 1 0.11 0.07

Floor Polish or Wax –

Wood Floor Wax a All 70 0.06 0.01

Glass Cleaner b Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03

Motor Vehicle Wash a All 0.2 0.38 0.14

25 c 4.08 2.04 Multi-purpose Lubricant – excluding solid & semisolid c/e All 10 e 1.27

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00

Odor Remover/Eliminator a Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03

Penetrant c All 25 0.40 0.15 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20% or less fragrance) d All 75 + 10.89 0.41

Pressurized Gas Duster a All 1 0 0

Chemically Curing b Nonaerosol 3 1.9 0.22 Sealant or Caulking Compound Non-Chemically

Curing a Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 Spot Remover a Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00

Tire or Wheel Cleaner a Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06

Windshield Water Repellent a All 75 0.23 0.04

Total Emissions 2008 22.61 tons per day

Total Reductions 2015 5.76 tons per day

* Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, Effective Dates: and grown to the 2008 calendar year a: 12/31/2010 ** Grams per use limit provides emissions reduct ions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c: 12/31/2013 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 12 /31/2014

+ Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2015Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -184

The emissions of chlorinated solvents in these cate gories is about 0.20 tons per day. If we assume that these solvents are replaced one-to-one with VOC solvents, then

the increase in VOC emissions would be no more than 0.20 tons per day. We expect

VOC increases will be less because other reformulat ion options are available. Note, however, that TCE is a VOC. This is a neutral impa ct because VOC would replace VOC. Although no aerosol or non-aerosol Fabric Pro tectant products currently contain any of these chlorinated solvents, this category is included in the proposed prohibition to prevent use in reformulations. The 5.8 tons per da y VOC reduction already accounts

for the increase of VOC emissions due to the toxics prohibition proposal. Staff believes the potential slight increase in VOC emissions is o ut-weighed by the benefit of reducing exposure to these probable human carcinogens.

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect no impact or a slight benefit on ground-l evel ozone concentrations resulting from the proposed changes to definitions and language change proposals. Currently, the Consumer Products Regulation states that any product that is designed to be diluted prior to use is subject to the VOC limit s after the product has been diluted. Staff has become aware of products packaged in pump spray containers that appear to be marketed as “ready-to-use” products, but are des igned to be diluted by the consumer prior to use. Staff believes this approach to pack aging may be diminishing VOC reductions, and is a potential circumvention of the intent of the regulation.

Therefore, the proposal to apply the VOC limit for dilutable products sold in pump spray containers, prior to the minimum recommended dilution, could provide a slight benefit. It is likely these products are used undi luted, resulting in higher VOC emissions than allowed by the VOC limit. The other language changes add clarity and do not impact emissions.

2. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Particulate Ma tter (Secondary Organic Aerosols)

Fine particulate matter (PM) is prevalent in the ur ban atmosphere (see, for example, Pandis et al., 1992), and ambient PM, especially those with diamet ers less than two and a half micrometers (PM 2.5 ), is known to have negative impacts on human health (Schwartz et al. ,1996; Moolgavkar and Luebeck, 1996). Like ozone, PM can be formed via atmospheric oxidation of organic compoun ds (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000). Significant advances have been made in the theoretical and the experimental studies of the formation of secondary organic aerosols (SOA) (Pankow, 1994a, Pankow, 1994b; Odum et al. , 1996; Seinfeld and Pandis,1998; Harner and Bidleman, 1998; Kleindienst, et al. , 1999; Yu et al. , 1999). In addition, modeling techniques to determine the amount of ozone as well as the amount of aerosol formed from a VOC have been established (Bowman et al. , 1994), and the concept similar to maximum incremental reactivity is being applied to quantitatively assess the aerosol formation potential of a VOC (i.e. incremental aero sol reactivity) (Griffin et al. , 1999).Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -185

Based on the results of these studies, we now know that there is a mechanistic linkage between ozone formation and SOA formation o f a VOC. Because of this relationship, the proposed amendments may also affe ct the SOA formation potential of consumer products. The analysis of the impact on S OA formation resulting from implementing the proposed VOC limits is detailed be low.

Although most organic compounds contribute to ozone formation, SOA is usually formed from photooxidation of organic compounds wit h carbon numbers equal to six or more (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). It has also been shown that aromatic compounds are more likely to participate in the formation of SOA than are alkanes (Grosjean, 1992;

Pandis et al., 1992). In other words, only chemicals that react f ast enough in the atmosphere will generate sufficient amounts of low volatility products for forming aerosols. In general terms, the potential to form SOA among commonly used classes of VOCs used in consumer products could be described b y the following order, with the lower molecular weight alkanes and ketones being le ast likely:

Least Likely Lower molecular weight alkanes and ke tones (6 carbons or

less) Higher molecular weight alkanes Higher molecular weight aromatics (polysubstituted benzenes) More Likely Lower molecular weight aromatics (C6 - C8 compounds)

a. Proposed VOC Standards

The analysis of the potential impact on PM formatio n from the proposed VOC limits assumes that to meet the proposed limits wil l require replacing 5.8 tons per day of VOCs for 5.8 tons per day of non-VOC ingredients or exempt VOCs. To meet the proposed VOC limits, manufacturers generally have f ive reformulation options: use of exempt VOCs, such as acetone or methyl acetate; use of LVP-VOC solvents; use of water; increasing ‘solids’ content; or use of non-V OC propellants. Substitution for VOCs with water, higher solids content, or non-VOC prope llants would likely result in a small reduction in SOA formation. The most likely exempt VOC solvents to be used to comply, acetone and methyl acetate, both having thr ee carbon atoms, have little potential to contribute to SOA formation. Indeed, it has been predicted that there would be no SOA yield from acetone (Pandis et al., 1992). Hence, use of these compounds

could also result in a reduction in SOA.

To the extent manufacturers may reduce overall VOC content but formulate with stronger solvents could result in increased SOA for mation. This is because the commonly used stronger solvents are aromatic compou nds, such as xylenes and toluene, which are known to have higher SOA potenti als than other commonly used VOCs. On the other hand, if product reformulation involves the substitution of an aromatic by a non-aromatic species, the SOA formati on potential of the product is likely to be reduced. If VOC aromatics are replaced with LVP-VOC aromatic compounds, a decrease in SOA potential should also occur. Howev er, substitution of LVP-VOCTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -186

alkane or aromatic compounds for smaller low molecu lar weight alkanes could result in a slight SOA increase (Grosjean, 1992).

Because we can not predict how manufacturers will c hoose to reformulate, we can not fully evaluate the potential for increased SOA formation. However, it is likely to be only a slight potential for increase, if any, du e to the variety of reformulation options available. At any rate, it will not be a significa nt adverse impact. Additionally, any

reformulations that result in increased SOA would l ikely be offset by reformulations resulting in lower SOA. We will continue to monito r implementation of the regulation and reassess the impacts as more data become availa ble.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

Because this proposal essentially requires the rep lacement of one compound for another – each with two carbon atoms – we expect th e proposal to have no impact on

PM 2.5 concentrations or SOA.

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

As mentioned above, SOA is generally formed from o xidation of compounds with six or more carbon atoms. We do not expect HFE-720 0 to increase SOA concentrations because HFE-7200 is comprised of two isomers, each with four carbon

atoms.

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposal to prohibit TACs in six categories sho uld have no or negligible impacts on SOA formation because replacements for t hese TACs (alkanes or exempt compounds) are not known to have strong SOA formati on potentials. Prohibiting use of Perc and MeCl in Pressurized Gas Duster products al so should have no impact.

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Because proposed language changes and definitions generally only clarify or provide descriptions, we expect no impact on PM 2.5 or SOA.

3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Climate Change

Climate change, or global warming is the process wh ereby emissions of anthropogenic pollutants, together with other natur ally-occurring gases, absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, leading to increases i n the overall average global temperature. While CO 2 is the largest contributor to radiative forcing, m ethane, halocarbon, N 2 O, and other species also contribute to climate cha nge.

Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the green house effect both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself is a GHG. While there is relativeTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -187

agreement on how to account for these direct effect s of GHG emissions, accounting for indirect effects is more problematic. Indirect rad iative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the original gas produce other G HGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of CH 4 , and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes t hat alter the radiative balance of the earth (e.g., aff ect cloud formation).

As mentioned earlier, the GWP of a compound may ref lect a direct effect as well as an indirect effect on global warming. The direc t effect is the warming due to the absorption of radiation by molecules of the compoun d in question. VOCs, CO 2 , HFCs, HFEs, and HCFCs all have direct effects. The indir ect effect is due to the impact that the presence of the compound has on the concentrati on of other GHGs. For example, VOCs contribute indirectly to global warming, in-so -far as they react chemically in the atmosphere in ways that increase GHG concentrations , most notably, concentrations of ozone and methane. The indirect forcing of VOCs is , however, still poorly quantified and requires the use of global three-dimensional ch emical transport models.

Even though VOCs have direct effects, they are cons idered as GHGs because of their role in creating ozone and in prolonging the life of methane in the atmosphere, although the effect varies depending on local air q uality. A further narrative on climate change and expected impacts is included in Chapter IV of this Technical Support

Document.

a. Proposed VOC Standards

As just described, VOCs are considered GHGs becaus e of their role in creation of ozone. However, because the VOC limits will red uce the total amount of VOCs, and thereby ground-level ozone concentrations, the prop osed VOC limits should reduce consumer product’s impacts on climate change. Whil e we expect an overall positive impact, two reformulation options may lead to very slight increases in GHG emissions.

These are discussed below.

To meet the proposed VOC limits to a limited extent , CO 2 may replace hydrocarbon propellants in some products. The 2003 Survey data indicate that CO 2 is already used in certain consumer products considere d for regulation, including MultiPurpose Lubricants, and Penetrants. In these categ ories, CO 2 use is likely to increase as manufacturers reformulate to meet the lower prop osed VOC limits. In other categories with aerosol product forms, CO 2 may also be a reformulation pathway. Even though CO 2 has a direct effect on climate change, co-benefits are expected to the extent

that CO 2 replaces VOC propellants in consumer products. Sp ecifically, less ozone and methane will be formed, thus lowering the populatio n’s exposure to a pollutant with serious health effects. Further, the contribution of CO 2 to global warming is likely less than that of the VOC being replaced. In addition, most CO 2 used as a propellant is a recycled by-product of existing processes and, ther efore, does not increase global warming from a lifecycle standpoint (ARB, 1999).Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -188

Another reformulation path for some aerosol produc t manufacturers may be to replace some or all the typical hydrocarbon propell ants with HFC-152a or HFC-134a. These compounds are exempt VOCs. We do not predict increased usage of HFC-134a due to its higher GWP, and because its use is not r ecommended except in certain specific uses. In consumer products, HFC-134a is g enerally used when flammability is

a concern.

Staff believes that for the Spot Remover category under consideration for regulation, HFC-152a may be a potential reformulati on option. If all VOC propellants in these categories were replaced with HFC-152a, total emissions of HFC-152a would be 0.17 tons per day. This represents a worst-case sc enario. Staff believes usage would be considerably less because of raw material cost a nd because other reformulation options are available.

Also, when cost considerations are factored in (HFC -152a is about $1.80 per pound, HFC-134a is $3.50 versus VOC propellants at $1.00 per pound), it is anticipated that manufacturers will use as little HFC-152a as p ossible, or none at all, when reformulating their aerosol products. ARB staff do es not expect the price of HFCs to change appreciably in the near future, thus a signi ficant increase in use is not anticipated.

Based on the foregoing, while there is a slight pot ential for a very small increase in the emissions of HFC-152a, the proposed VOC limi ts will likely more than offset this impact by reducing concentrations of ground-level o zone.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposal to reduce the use of compounds with hi gh GWP in Pressurized Gas Dusters will have an overall beneficial impact on climate change. As proposed, the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters would require products using HFC-134a to

reformulate with HFC-152a. This reformulation woul d be equivalent to reducing

0.20 MMT CO 2 per year, effective December 31, 2010.

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

HFE-7200 is a solvent proposed for exemption from t he VOC definition based on its photochemical reactivity. It has a relatively low GWP of 59 based on the FAR values. Its main use is in precision cleaning, and its use will likely be limited to applications where HCFC-141b is, or has been, used. Because it is a stratospheric ozone depleting compound, HCFC-141b production is n o longer allowed. However, use of existing stockpiles is allowed. In addition to depleting stratospheric ozone concentrations, HCFC-141b is also a fairly potent g lobal warming compound with a FAR GWP value of 725. HFE-7200 is purported as an all or partial replacement for HCFC-141b in that it provides mild cleaning ability and reduces flammability. In the short-term, to the extent HFE-7200 is used to repla ce HCFC-141b, a reduction in the potency of GHG emissions is expected. This is a di rect emission benefit related toTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -189

climate change. To the extent HFE-7200 replaces VO Cs in various consumer product categories, there will be a small increase in direc t GHG emissions. This will likely be offset by the indirect benefit of reduced ground-le vel ozone concentrations.

A longer term potential benefit may also be expecte d. Precision cleaning products where flammability is a concern generally rely on use of the propellant HFC-134a, a potent global warming gas. Because of the ability to reduce flammability, as well as its solubility with CO 2 , in the future, it is possible that use of HFE-720 0 in

combination with CO 2 as a propellant, could lead to further limiting th e use of HFC-134a (Werner, 2008).

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The prohibition on the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE w ill likely have a negligible to positive impact on GHG emissions. If VOCs are used to replace these TACs, because VOCs play a role in both direct and indirect impact s on global warming, this would lead to a very slight increase in global warming emissio ns. We believe the reduced exposure to these TACs out-weighs this potential in crease.

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Clarifying language and proposed definition change s should have no impact on global warming.

4. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

The stratospheric ozone layer shields the earth fro m harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Depletion of the earth’s ozone layer al lows a higher penetration of UV

radiation to the earth's surface. This increase in UV radiation penetration leads to a greater incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and im paired immune systems. Reduced crop yields and diminished ocean productivity are a lso expected. Because the chemical reactions which form ground-level ozone are driven by UV radiation, it is conceivable that a reduction in stratospheric ozone may also re sult in an increase in the formation of photochemical smog because of the increased levels of UV radiation on the earth’s surface (ARB, 2000b). The chemicals most implicate d as causing stratospheric ozone depletion are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlo rofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons (U.S. EPA, 2003). Specifically, the chlorin e or bromine atoms released by photolysis of the compounds react in chain reaction s leading to the catalytic destruction of ozone (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000).

Solar irradiation in the stratosphere contains suff icient UV light to break down CFCs and HCFCs to yield chlorine atoms that convert ozone to molecular oxygen. However, this UV light is not strong enough to brea k down HFCs and HFEs to create fluorine atoms. In addition, the molecular structu re of HFCs and HFEs includes hydrogen atoms, which renders them susceptible to a ttack by hydroxyl radicals in theTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -190

troposphere. Therefore, these chemicals have a rel atively short atmospheric lifetime which does not allow any appreciable amounts to pen etrate into the stratosphere (ARB, 2008b).

To address stratospheric ozone depletion, the Montr eal protocol was enacted in 1989, to phase out a number of CFCs, HCFCs, and hal ons. As a signatory of this protocol, the United States, in the Federal Clean A ir Act of 1990 established timetables for ceasing production (see part 40, Code of Federa l Regulations, section 602). In general, the protocol establishes dates by which ce rtain compounds can no longer be manufactured; however, existing stocks can continue to be used in some applications

until exhausted.

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reducing VOCs will have no impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. As products reformulate to meet the proposed VOC limit s, provisions in the Consumer Products Regulation (see section 94509(e)) already prohibit the use of various stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. This prov ision ensures there will be no increased use of stratospheric ozone depleting comp ounds.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposed GHG measure will have no impact on str atospheric ozone depletion. Neither HFC-134a nor HFC-152a contribut e to stratospheric ozone depletion. This is mainly because these compounds do not contain chlorine. Therefore, substituting HFC-152a for HFC-134a in Pressurized G as Dusters has no impact. Additionally, these compounds have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes. Both compounds contain hydrogen which makes them suscept ible to hydroxyl radical attack in the troposphere.

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

Use of HFE-7200 would be a positive impact if it re places HCFC-141b, a known stratospheric ozone depleting compound. HFE-7200 i tself is not an ozone depleting compound because it does not contain chlorine. In addition, because the compound contains hydrogen it may be susceptible to hydroxyl radical attack in the troposphere.

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposed prohibition on the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE will likely have a negligible impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. In order to comply with this prohibition, VOCs may replace these TACs in reformu lated products. If this occurs, VOCs are not stratospheric ozone depleting compound s. Additionally, manufacturers are precluded from reformulating with stratospheric ozone depleting compounds because provisions in the regulation already prohib it use of various stratospheric ozone depleting compounds (94509(e)).Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -191 e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Clarifying language and proposed definition change s will have no impact on stratospheric ozone depletion.

D. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Solid Waste Di sposal

Consumer products contribute to the solid waste str eam by virtue of the containers and the towelettes or “wipes” used to de liver the product. Therefore, we evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed ame ndments on the solid waste stream.

a. Proposed VOC Standards

We do not expect an adverse impact on solid waste d isposal from the proposed amendments relating to VOC limits. This is because we do not anticipate any changes in packaging or disposal due to the amendments. We also designed the VOC limit for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product so that the waste stream will not be adversely impacted by increasing sheet size to comp ly. To mitigate the potential for solid waste impacts from this category, staff is pr oposing a VOC standard based on grams of VOC per use (typically a single dryer shee t per load), as opposed to a percent by weight VOC limit.

It has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fab ric Softeners – Single Use Dryer Products may begin using more than a single d ryer sheet per load of laundry. The contention is that the reformulated dryer sheet products will be perceived to be inadequate, because of the reductions in fragrance. No data were provided to support this claim. Moreover, this suggestion implies that the consumer will essentially begin doubling the cost per load of clothes dried. This is highly unlikely. Absent data, staff has determined this potential increased use to be u nfounded. It has also been suggested that the end-use consumers will switch us e to liquid products which are packaged in bulkier plastic containers. Again, no data were provided to support this claim. However, we intend to monitor product sales trends through periodic surveys, as is always done, to ensure that unintended consequen ces of establishing the proposed

VOC limit do not occur.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

We expect that the GHG proposal could result in red ucing the solid waste

stream. This is because data show that Pressurized Gas Duster products that use HFC-152a typically get more uses per can than produ cts that use HFC-134a (Dupont & Falcon, 2004). We also note that no significant ch anges in packaging will be needed to

reformulate with HFC-152a.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -192 c. Proposed VOC Exemption

The proposed VOC exemption should have no solid was te impacts because we expect HFE-7200 to replace VOCs on a one-to-one bas is. No new or additional packaging should be needed.

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposed TAC prohibition should have no impact because the compounds used to replace Perc, MeCl, and TCE (VOCs or exempt compounds) require no different packaging, or additional packaging.

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

By specifying that VOC content be determined prior to the minimum dilution, for products intended for dilution, but sold in ready-t o-use pump sprays should reduce the amount of solid waste. If products are used as is, without making the dilution, the number of uses per container would be greatly reduc ed, compared to if the product were properly diluted. The overall result, without this provision, would be that more

containers would be landfilled.

2. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Water Quality

Because of how consumer products are used there are potential water quality impacts. Therefore, we evaluated the impacts of th e proposed amendments on water quality.

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reducing VOCs should have no impact on water qualit y and could ultimately result in a positive impact. As products reformula te to meet the proposed VOC limits, to a limited extent, water may replace VOCs in some pr oducts. This would have a positive impact on water quality by reducing the quantity of VOCs that might be introduced to the water supply. If exempt compounds replace VOCs in reformulated products, there should be no impact. This is because as far as wat er chemistry is concerned, VOCs and VOC exempt compounds are similar compounds. It is also true that many VOCs are biodegraded as they pass through the waste wate r stream.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposal to reduce the use of compounds with h igh GWP in Pressurized Gas Duster products will have no impact on water qu ality. Both HFC-134a and HFC-152a have an air fate and are not likely to ent er the water.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -193 c. Proposed VOC Exemption

Use of HFE-7200 is expected to have no impact or a slightly beneficial impact on water quality. HFE-7200 is volatile, and based on its intended use, emissions have an air fate. However, there may be a slight benefit t o sanitation districts resulting from the potential decrease in the amount of chlorinated sol vents reaching water treatment facilities if HFE-7200 is used in place of Perc, Me Cl, or TCE in products (ARB, 2008b).

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

Current use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Uphols tery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sea lant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover is not expected to have an impact on w ater quality. This is because as used, these solvents have an air fate. However, th e proposed prohibition of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from these six categories may prevent an in crease in the amount of chlorinated solvents reaching storm drains, and was te water treatment plants if these products are misused or improperly discarded. As a result of this proposal, TAC emissions will be reduced by about 0.20 tons per da y in 2010.

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Because the proposed language changes and definitio ns generally only clarify or provide descriptions, we expect no impacts on water quality.

3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Energy

We do not expect the proposed amendments to result in an increase in energy use because production and shipment of the reformul ated products will be similar to existing products.

It has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fab ric Softeners – Single Use Dryer Products may shift use to liquid products. T he contention is that the reformulated dryer sheet products will be perceived to be inadeq uate, related to potential reductions in fragrance. If this were to occur, fuel usage co uld increase as products are transported, due to the weight differential between Fabric Softeners – Single Use Dryer Products and liquid products. No data were provide d to support this claim. Absent data, we believe the concern with this potential sw itch is unfounded. Moreover, other

data show that consumers favor the use of Fabric So fteners – Single Use Dryer Products (SDA, 2006a). However, we intend to monit or product sales trends through periodic surveys, as is always done, to ensure that unintended consequences of establishing the proposed VOC limit do not occur.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -194

E. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MITIGATION M EASURES

As part of our obligations under CEQA, the ARB staf f is required to evaluate and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts re sulting from regulatory proposals. Also, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39 650 et seq ., the ARB is required to identify and control TACs. The Health and Safety C ode defines a TAC as “...an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an incre ase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health.” Moreover , in accordance with section 39666 of the Health and Safety Code, for TA Cs for which no safe exposure threshold has been established, the ARB is required to “.... reduce emissions to the lowest level achievable through application of best available control technology or a

more effective control method....”

Several chemicals currently used in the consumer pr oduct formulations considered for regulation have been identified as T ACs. An increased or continued use of TACs in any of the consumer product categories c onsidered for regulation could lead to a potential adverse environmental impact. ARB s taff has evaluated this potential and has concluded that there would be a potential adver se environmental impact of implementing the VOC limits. Therefore, staff is p roposing mitigation measures designed to ensure that use of TACs will be reduced or prohibited, resulting in a positive environmental impact.

We also found that the GHG measure could result in increased VOC emissions as products are reformulated to comply with the GWP limit. A mitigation measure is proposed to address this potential.

In evaluating proposed VOC reduction opportunities for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product we considered, as is typically do ne, a percent by weight VOC limit. However, we determined using this approach could re sult in simply increasing the sheet size to comply. Therefore, the gram of VOC per use limit is designed as a mitigation measure to address this potential impact on the sol id waste stream.

1. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Establish ing VOC Limits

Staff believes that specific mitigation measures ar e necessary to restrict the use of three chlorinated solvents, Perc, MeCl, and TCE because of their potential to cause cancer. Two of these TACs used in some consumer pr oducts, MeCl, and Perc, are specifically exempted from the VOC definition (sect ion 94508 of the Regulation) in recognition of their very low ozone-forming capabil ity. Thus, the potential exists that to meet VOC limits, manufacturers could reformulate us ing these exempt VOC TACs leading to an adverse impact. Trichloroethylene is regulated as a VOC, such that its use should not increase as products reformulate to meet VOC limits. However, because it is a probable human carcinogen, we are p roposing a specific mitigation measure to address its use. Below, we provide some general information on toxicity, and the usage of Perc, MeCl, and TCE. Further info rmation on these chemicals isTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -195

included in “The Proposed Amendments to the Califor nia Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation,” re leased September 29, 2006.

Presented in Table VIII-2 are pollutant-specific he alth effects values developed for Perc, MeCl, and TCE to characterize the relatio nship between a person's exposure

to these TACs and the incidence or occurrence of an adverse health effect. Unit risk factors (URF), cancer potency factors, and referenc e exposure levels (RELs) are

shown in Table VIII-2. Also included in Table VIII -2 are the non-cancer acute and chronic toxicological endpoints for Perc, MeCl, and TCE.

Table VIII-2 Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for D etermining

Potential Health Impacts 1

1 Health effects values and toxicological endpoints w ere obtained from the following three sources: (OEHHA, 2005a; OEHHA, 2005b; OEHHA, 2000)

A URF is defined as the estimated upper-confidence limit (usually 95 percent) probability of a person contracting cancer as a res ult of constant exposure to a concentration of 1μg/m 3 over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, using th e URF for Perc as an example, which is 5.9 x 10 -6 (microgram per cubic meter) -1 or (μg/m 3 ) -1 , the potential excess cancer risk for a person continuou sly exposed over a 70-year lifetime to 1μg/m 3 of Perc is estimated to be no greater than 5.9 cha nces per 1 million exposed people (ARB, 2000c).

A cancer potency factor is the toxicity criterion, or health guidance value used for carcinogens, to describe the potential risk of deve loping cancer per unit of average daily dose over a 70-year lifetime. Cancer potency value s are expressed as the upper bound probability of developing cancer assuming continuou s lifetime exposure to a substance at a dose of one milligram per kilogram of body wei ght, and are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day) -1 . The derivation of inhalation cancer potency fact ors takes into account Non-cancer

Reference Exposure Levels (μg/m 3 ) Toxicological Endpoints Compound Cancer Unit

Risk Factor (μg/m 3 ) -1 Cancer

Potency

Factor (mg/kg-day) -1 Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Perchloroethylene (Perc) 5.9 E-6 2.1 E-02 20,000 35 central nervous system; eye & respiratory

irritation kidney;

alimentary system (liver)

Methylene Chloride (MeCl) 1.0 E-6 3.5 E-03 14,000 400 central nervous
system cardiovascular

system;

nervous system;

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 2.0 E-6 7.0 E-03 None 600 none nervous system; eyesTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -196

the available information on pharmacokinetics and o n the mechanism of carcinogenic action. These values are generally the 95 percent upper confidence limits on the doseresponse slope. It is a more accurate measure of a person’s chance of developing

cancer than is the URF because it considers breathi ng rate and weight of the individual.

A REL is used as an indicator of potential non-canc er adverse health effects and

is defined as a concentration level at or below whi ch no adverse health effects are anticipated. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by including safety factors in their dev elopment and can be created for both acute and chronic exposures. An acute exposure is defined as one or a series of shortterm exposures generally lasting less than 24 hours . Consistent with risk guidelines, a 1-hour exposure is used to determine acute non-canc er impacts. Chronic exposure is defined as long-term exposure usually lasting from one year to a lifetime. Generally,

hazard indices of less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health. A

hazard index is the ratio of the modeled concentrat ion for a toxic pollutant and the reference exposure level for that pollutant (ARB, 2 000d). A further discussion of the health effects that may result from exposure to Per c, MeCl, and TCE follows.

a. Perchloroethylene

i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Perchloroethyl ene

Exposure to Perc may result in both cancer and non -cancer health effects. The probable route of human exposure to Perc is inhalat ion (ARB, 1997a). Table VIII-2 presents the current health effects values that are used for determining the potential health impacts.

Perc is a potential human carcinogen with no ident ifiable threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The B oard formally identified Perc as a TAC in October 1991 (ARB, 1991b). The State of Califor nia under Proposition 65 listed Perc as a carcinogen in April 1988 (OEHHA, 2006).

Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposur e to Perc may result in

non-cancer health effects. Acute toxic health effe cts resulting from short term exposure to high levels of Perc may include headaches, dizzi ness, rapid heartbeat, and irritation or burns on the skin, eyes, or respiratory tract. Massive acute doses can induce central nervous system depression resulting in respiratory failure. Chronic exposure to lower Perc concentration levels may result in dizziness, impaired judgement and perception, and damage to the liver and kidneys (ARB, 2000d).

ii. Sources and Emissions of Perchlororethylene

Perc is currently used in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner ; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot R emover product. Perc is not currently used in any Fabric Protectant products. If Perc is not prohibited from use in these categories, it could conceivably be used as a n avenue for compliance with theTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -197

proposed lower VOC limits, increasing human exposur e. Emissions of Perc in these categories are expected to grow to 0.19 tons per da y by 2010.

b. Methylene Chloride

i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Methylene Chlo ride

Exposure to MeCl (also known as dichloromethane) m ay result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. The probable route of human exposure to MeCl is inhalation (ARB, 1997). Table VIII-2 presents the current health effects values that are used to determine potential health impacts.

MeCl is either a possible or probable human carcin ogen with no identifiable threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are l ikely to occur. The Board formally identified MeCl as a TAC in July 1989 (ARB, 1989b. The State of California under Proposition 65 listed MeCl as a carcinogen in April 1988 (OEHHA, 2006).

Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to MeCl may result in non-cancer health effects. MeCl vapor is irritatin g to the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. It is also a central nervous system depressa nt including decreased visual and auditory functions and may cause headache, nausea, and vomiting. Acute toxic health effects resulting from short term exposure to high levels of MeCl may include pulmonary edema, cardiac arrhythmias, and loss of consciousne ss. Chronic exposure can lead to bone marrow, hepatic, and renal toxicity. MeCl is metabolized by the liver with resultant carboxyhemoglobin formation (ARB, 1997a).

ii. Sources and Emissions of Methylene Chloride

MeCl is currently used in Multi-Purpose Lubricant; and Penetrant products. MeCl is not currently used in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; or Sealant or Caulking Compound products. If its use is not proh ibited in these categories, MeCl could conceivably be used as an avenue for complian ce with the proposed lower VOC limit, increasing human exposure. Emissions of MeCl are expected to grow to 0.01 tons per day by 2010.

c. Trichloroethylene

i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Trichloroethyle ne

Exposure to TCE may result in both cancer and non-c ancer health effects. The probable routes of human exposure to TCE are inhala tion and ingestion (ARB, 1997a). Table VIII-2 presents the current health effects va lues that are used to determine potential health impacts.

TCE is a probable human carcinogen with no identifi able threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The B oard formally identified TCE as a TACTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -198

in October 1990 (ARB, 1990d. The State of Californ ia under Proposition 65 listed TCE as a carcinogen in April, 1988 (OEHHA, 2006).

Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to TCE may result in

non-cancer health effects. TCE is a central nervou s system depressant. It is mildly irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. Occu pational exposure to TCE has resulted in nausea, headache, loss of appetite, weakness, di zziness, ataxia, and tremors. Acute exposures to high concentrations have caused irreve rsible cardiac arrhythmias, nerve and liver damage and death. Chronic exposure to TC E has also been shown to cause respiratory irritation, renal toxicity, and immune system depression. Alcohol consumption in humans increases the toxicity of TCE and causes "degreaser's flush," which are red blotches on the skin (ARB, 1997a).

ii. Sources and Emissions of Trichloroethylene

TCE is currently used in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; and Spot Remover. TCE is not currently used in Fabric Protectant products and Sealant or Caulking Compound products. TCE is regulated as a VOC, such that its use should not increase as products reformulate to meet VOC limits. However, because TCE is a probable human carcinogen, we are proposing to prohibit its use in these categories. In 2010, this proposal will redu ce emissions of TCE by 0.02 tons per day.

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

In this rulemaking, staff is proposing to prohibit the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Mu lti-purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover prod ucts. This proposal is based on data suggesting that there would be potential ex cess cancer cases resulting from their use. In proposing this prohibition we are re lying on previous work conducted by

ARB staff.

Specifically we are relying on two previous rulema kings. To review the complete analyses relied upon to propose these prohibitions, the reader is referred to the following two documents:

1. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed A irborne Toxic Control

Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Cont aminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities . March 10, 2000. (ARB, 2000d).

2. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed A mendments to the

California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirant s and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic

Control Measure for Para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners and

Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b).Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -199

In the above listed rulemakings, staff found that u se of these chlorinated compounds posed an unnecessary health hazard. As d etailed in the March 10, 2000, report, modeling results showed the potential for i ncreased cases of cancer. Because many alternative products were available, the ARB, in 2000, prohibited the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in General Purpose Degreasers designe d for automotive use, Engine Degreasers, Brake Cleaners, and Carburetor or Fuel- injection Air Intake Cleaners. The 2004 report provided the rationale for prohibiting the use of these three chlorinated solvents in Adhesive Removers, Contact Adhesives, E lectrical Cleaners, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear or Leather Care Product, Graffit i Removers, and General Purpose Degreasers. In total, not including this rulemakin g, ARB has prohibited the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in 62 categories.

Staff has determined that the proposed prohibition is necessary to mitigate potential adverse impacts that would result from im plementing VOC limits for these categories, and to ensure a level playing field amo ng all products.

The proposed prohibition of chlorinated solvents i n Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetra nt; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover is being proposed as a mitigation measure under CEQA (Public

Resources Code section 2100 et seq .). An alternative basis for the prohibition, however, is the authority granted the ARB to contro l toxic air contaminants (TACs) under Health and Safety Code section 39665 et seq . This section E, comprises the "needs assessment" report for the prohibition on ch lorinated solvents, as specified in Health and Safety Code section 39665.

Additional information to support the proposed pro hibition on use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover are contained in other documents and within other chapters of thi s Technical Support Document. Information regarding sources of these TACs (source s of emissions other than what is discussed in this Chapter) and atmospheric persiste nce has already been presented in the Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed A irborne Toxic Control Measure for

Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants fro m Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities, March 10, 2000, (ARB, 2000d). T he reader is referred to this

document for further information.

In each category, staff has determined that altern ative compounds are available to successfully formulate or reformulate products. More detailed information on alternative products and chemicals that can be used as replacements to Perc, MeCl, and TCE is contained in sections contained in Chapt er VI that are specific to these product categories. Costs for reformulating and co st effectiveness of the proposal are contained in Chapter VII of this report.

In the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, th e United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identifi ed Perc, MeCl, and TCE asTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -200

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) because evidence in dicated the substances may have

adverse effects on human health or the environment. As of the writing of this report, the U.S. EPA has not promulgated a comparable NESHAP co ntrol measure specifically for consumer products containing Perc, MeCl, or TCE. T he U.S. EPA has adopted

NESHAP standards which control emissions of these H APs from other sources. These

other measures are described in the ATCM for AMR fa cilities (ARB, 2000d).

To summarize, staff finds that the proposed prohib ition on use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant ; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot R emover products is necessary to reduce exposure and the health risk associated with use of these compounds. Without control, emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from thes e six categories would be just over 0.20 tons per day in 2010. Staff has identified th at there is a potential for increased chances of contracting cancer from using products c ontaining these compounds. The proposed prohibitions are necessary to mitigate pot ential adverse impacts that would result from implementing VOC limits for these categ ories. The prohibitions would also align with State law that requires use of best avai lable control technology in instances where no safe exposure threshold is known.

2. Proposed Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhou se Gas

Emissions

Staff is proposing, in new subsection 94509(r)(1), that Pressurized Gas Duster products shall not contain a compound that has a GW P of 150 or greater.

In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC co ntent of these products

does not increase as a result of reformulation to m eet GWP limits, a 1 percent by weight, including fragrance, VOC limit is also bein g proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. Also to ensure VOC exempt TAC solvents ar e not used, staff is proposing to prohibit use of Perc and MeCl in Pressurized Gas Du ster products.

3. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Fabric So fteners – Single Use Dryer Product

Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to des cribe the VOC content limit for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product. Ra ther than a percent by weight limit, a 0.05 gram of VOC per use limit is proposed. The li mit is designed to ensure that the size of each dryer sheet does not increase. In dev eloping the limit for these products, staff determined that establishing a percent by wei ght limit could result in product reformulation using larger sheets to comply. This would diminish emissions reductions and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the gram of VOC per use limit is proposed.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -201

F. RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REDUCED EXPOSURE TO OZONE A ND TACS

The health risks associated with ozone exposure ha ve been known for many years and are discussed in detail in Chapter IV. S tudies have shown that when inhaled, even at relatively low levels, ozone can impact lun g tissue and lung function. The greatest risk is to those who are more active outdo ors during smoggy periods, such as children, athletes, and outdoor workers. Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient air standard leads to lung inflammation and lung tissue damage, and a

reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lun gs. Recent evidence has, for the first time, linked the onset of asthma to exposure to ele vated ozone levels in exercising children (McConnell et al. , 2002).

The actual lowering of health risks that would resu lt from reducing VOC emissions, if the staff’s proposal were to be adopt ed, is not quantified in this report. However, qualitatively, we are able to conclude tha t reducing VOC emissions, because of their role as ozone precursors, will result in i ncremental improvement of the public’s

health – whether it be in fewer incidences of asthm a or hospitalizations, improvement in lung function, or fewer premature deaths.

The VOC reductions from the proposed amendments are designed as partial fulfillment of the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. Thus, one can conclude that increments of progress toward s attainment improve the public’s health. As shown in Table VIII-1, the proposed ame ndments to the Regulation are designed to achieve the maximum feasible VOC emissi on reduction from the categories proposed for regulation at this time. When fully e ffective, adopting the amendments

would result in a VOC emissions reduction of about 5.8 tons per day. The impacts of our proposal on SOA formation are not clear, althou gh we do not expect a disbenefit.

We are better able to assess the reduced health ri sk associated with prohibiting the use of the chlorinated solvents Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetra nt; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover products. Overall, the proposed a mendments would prevent chlorinated solvent emissions by about 0.20 tons pe r day annually in 2010. It should also be noted that the scenarios analyzed to determ ine increased cancer risk evaluated concentrations in the outdoor air. It is likely th at, in indoor environments, workers’ and

other end-users’ chances of increased cancers would be higher from use of products containing these chlorinated solvents.

In summary, our health risk analysis shows that, b y achieving these VOC reductions, the proposed amendments would reduce he alth risks posed by ground-level ozone by slightly lowering ambient concentrations. We predict that almost nine less tons per day of ozone would be formed. Moreover, e xposure to probable carcinogens would be reduced by prohibiting the use of chlorina ted TACs.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -202

G. ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE

Two alternative means of compliance with the Regula tion have been developed. A current compliance alternative for manufacturers of consumer products is the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The ACP Regulation , title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94540-94555, is a voluntary e missions averaging program. Under the ACP, an overall limit on the VOC content of emissions from each individual product in the ACP is determined. To be approved, an ACP must demonstrate that the

total VOC emissions within the ACP would not exceed the emissions that would have resulted had the products been formulated to meet t he VOC limit established for each product category. In other words, some products in the ACP could exceed the established VOC limits in the Regulation as long as those increased emissions were offset by additional products that over-comply with the established VOC limits. The ACP provides manufacturers with flexibility, but pr eserves the overall environmental

benefits of emission reductions.

Another compliance alternative that is available fo r manufacturers is the Innovative Products Provision specified in title 17 , California Code of Regulations, section 94511. This provision allows a manufacture r to formulate products that exceed the mass-based limit specified in the Regulation fo r a particular product category. The manufacturer must demonstrate that, through some ch aracteristic of the higher VOC product, its use will result in less VOC emissions compared to a representative complying product. This alternative is also specif ically designed to allow manufacturers flexibility, while preserving the emission benefits of the Regulation.

Absent use of either of these alternatives, staff i s not aware of any additional compliance means, other than direct compliance with the proposed amendments.

H. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

State law defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the de velopment, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental la ws, regulations, and policies. The ARB is committed to evaluating community impacts of proposed regulations, including environmental justice concerns.

Consumer products are considered area sources and, as such their use is not focused in a particular area leading to a potential “hot spot.” Generally, use of consumer products is fairly uniform across the Stat e, tracking with housing units, and their emissions are spread over the course of a day , rather than concentrated at a particular time of day. For these reasons, we do n ot believe that people of any given race, culture, or income would be more impacted tha n any others would. All Californians should benefit equally from the reduct ion in VOC emissions from the consumer product categories proposed for regulation , as well as from the prohibition on use of chlorinated solvents that are TACs, and the reduction in potency of GHGs.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -203

Some manufacturers of Astringent/Toner products ass ert that regulation of these products would adversely affect individuals who can not afford professional dermatological care. They also contend that higher VOC-containing products may be necessary for people of certain ethnicities to prev ent scarring and/or increased pigmentation. ARB staff disagrees with these asser tions. We have evaluated the claims and directions on the labels of Astringent/T oner products and researched sales prices of products via in-store shelf surveys and on the Internet. We fo und that complying products that make all Astringent/Toner f unctional claims are readily available over-the-counter in a variety of retail o utlets. Purchase of these products does not require a medical prescription, and these produ cts are not priced differently. Moreover, we have not found or been presented with any data that support these claims. Therefore, we do not believe that the regu lation of Astringent/Toner would adversely or disproportionately impact people of an y given age, race, culture, or

income.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assess ment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report . March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b)

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresheners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and Propose d Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values, and Proposed A mendments to Method 310, “Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Con sumer Products

. May 5, 2000. (ARB, 2000b)

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regu lation Relating to

Aerosol Adhesives . April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000c)

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Airborne

Toxic Control Measures for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities . March 10, 2000. (ARB, 2000d)Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -204

7. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures II

. September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

8. Air Resources Board. Toxic Air Contaminant Ident ification List – Summaries

. September, 1997. (ARB, 1997a)

9. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Rulemaking, Staff Report/Executive Summary, Proposed Identification o f Perchloroethylene as a

Toxic Air Contaminant . August, 1991. (ARB, 1991b)

10. Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant - Staff Report/Executive Summary . August, 1990. (ARB, 1990d)

11. Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Methylene Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant - Technical Support Document . May, 1989. (ARB, 1989b)

12. Bowman, F. M., Pilinis, C. and Seinfeld, J. H. Ozone and Aerosol Productivity of Reactive Organics . 1995. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 29: 579-589

. (Bowman et al

., 1994)

13. DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safet y Products. Fluorochemicals Laboratory DuPont Company, Technical Report – Clean ing Tests for Aerosol Dusting Aids (Dusters) . December 1, 2004. Schweitzer, M., Lubert, J., Hit ches, B., Bilsback, B., McLeer, D., Creazzo, J.A. (DuPont & Falcon, 2004)

14. Finlayson-Pitts, B. J. and J. N. Pitts Jr. Chem istry of the Upper and Lower Atmosphere . Chapter 9, Academic Press, New York, 2000. (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000)

15. Griffin, R. J., Cocker III, D. R., and Seinfeld , J. H. Incremental Aerosol Reactivity: Application to Aromatic and Biogenic Hydrocarbons . 1999. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 33: 2403-2408. (Griffi n et al. , 1999)

16. Grosjean, D. In Situ Organic Aerosol Formation during a Smog Episode: Estimated Production and Chemical Functionality . 1992. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 26A. Number 6: 953-963. (Grosje an, 1992)

17. Harner, T. and Bidleman, T. F. Octanol-air Part ition Coefficient for Describing Particle/Gas Partitioning of Aromatic Compounds in Urban Air . 1998. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 32: 1494 -1502. (Harner and Bidleman, 1998)

18. Kleindienst, T. E., Smith, D. F., Li, W., Edney , E. O., Driscoll, D. J., Speer, R. E., and Weathers, W. S. Secondary Organic Aerosol Forma tion from the Oxidation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Presence of Dry Sub micron Ammonium Sulfate

Aerosol . 1999. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 33 : 3669-3 681. (Kleindienst et al. , 1999)Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -205

19. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. L ondon, T. Islam, W.J. Gauderman, E. Avol, H.G. Margolis, and J.M. Peters. Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study . 2002. Lancet. Volume 359: 386-391. (McConnell et al ., 2002)

20. Moolgavkar, S. H. and Luebeck, E. G. A Critical Review of the Evidence on Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality . 1996. Epidemiology. Volume 7. Number 4: 420-428. (Moolgavkar and Luebeck, 1996)

21. Odum, J. R., T. Hoffmann, F. Bowman, D. Collins , R. C. Flagan, and J. H. Seinfeld. Gas/Particle Partitioning and Secon dary Organic Aerosol Yields

. 1996. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 30 . Number 8: 2580-2585. (Odum et al. , 1996)

22. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessment, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforceme nt Act of 1986, Chemical Known To The State To Cause Cancer And Reproductive Toxicity

. August, 2006. (OEHHA, 2006)

23. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Techni cal Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors . May, 2005. (OEHHA, 2005a)

24. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. All Chronic Reference Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of February 200 5 . (OEHHA, 2005b)

25. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. All Acute Reference Exposure Levels Developed by the Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessment as of May 2000 . (OEHHA, 2000)

26. Pandis, S. N., R. A. Harley, G. R. Cass, and J. H. Seinfeld. Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation and Transport . 1992. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 26A: 2269-2282. (Pandis et al. , 1992)

27. Pankow, J. F. An Absorption Model of Gas/Partic le Partitioning of Organic Compounds in the Atmosphere . 1994. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 28. Number 2: 185-188. (Pankow, 1994a)

28. Pankow, J. F. An Absorption Model of the Gas/Ae rosol Partitioning Involved in the Formation of Secondary Organic Aerosol . 1994. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 28. Number 2: 189-193. (Pankow, 1994b)

29. Seinfeld J. H. and Pandis S. N. Atmospheric Che mistry and Physics-from Air Pollution to Climate Change . John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1998. (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998)Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -206

30. Schwartz, J., Dockery, D. W., and Neas, L. M. I s Daily Mortality Associated Specifically with Fine Particles . 1996. Journal of Air & Waste Management Association. Volume 46: 927-939. (Schwartz et al. , 1996)

31. Soap and Detergent Association. Liquid Fabric S ofteners and Dryer Sheets

Presentation . July 24, 2006. (SDA, 2006a)

32. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Indicators: Ozone Depletion . July 7, 2003. http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/science/indicat/

. (July 8, 2003). (U.S. EPA, 2003)

33. Werner, Kurt. Re: CO 2 propellant can be use with solvent HFE-7200 . Email to Femi Olaluwoye. April, 4 2008. (Werner, 2008)

34. Yu, J., Cocker III, D. R., Griffin, R. J., Flag an, R. C., and Seinfeld, J. H. Gas-phase Ozone Oxidation of Monoterpenes: Gaseous and Particulate

Products . 1999. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. Volume 34 : 207-258. (Yu et al. , 1999)