GOVERNING BOARD

Skip Barwick, Chair

Councilmember , City of Tulare

Hub Walsh, Vice Chair Supervisor, Merced County

Oliver L. Baines III Councilmember, City of Fresno

Tony Barba Supervisor, Kings County

Sally J. Bomprezzi Councilmember, City of Madera

Dennis Brazil Mayor, City of Gustine

Judith G. Case Supervisor, Fresno County

David Couch Supervisor, Kern County

Bob Elliott Supervisor, San Joaquin County

Henry Jay Forman, Ph.D. Appointed by Governor

Harold Hanson Councilmember, City of Bakersfield

William O’Brien Supervisor, Stanislaus County

Alexander C. Sherriffs, M.D. Appointed by Governor

Tom Wheeler Supervisor, Madera County

J. Steven Worthley Supervisor, Tulare County

Seyed Sadredin

Executive Director
Air Pollution Control Officer

Northern Region Office 4800 Enterprise Way Modesto, CA 95356

- 8718 (209) 557

- 6400 • FAX (209) 557

- 6475

Central Region Office 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue Fresno, CA 93726

- 0244 (559) 230

- 6000 • FAX (559) 230

- 6061

Southern Region Office 34946 Flyover Court Bakersfield, CA 93308

- 9725 (661) 392

- 5500 • FAX (661) 392

- 5585

www.valleyair.org DATE: February 21, 2013

TO: SJV UAP CD G overning B oard

FROM: Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO

Project Coordinator: Errol Villegas/Jessi Fierro

RE: ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

RULE 1020 (DEFINITIONS)

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 1020 (Definitions).

2. Authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution.

BACKGROUND :

Rule 1020 (Definitions) defines terms used throughout other District rules, including a list of compounds exempt from ozone regulations due to their low ozone forming potential. The District occasionally amends District Rule 1020 to update these definitio ns as they are revised by EPA. The District proposes to make updates related to the list of exempt compounds, including adding two new compounds and clarifying requirements for two existing compounds. The District has conducted a thorough review of the p roposed amendments and has concluded that they will not cause adverse health impacts.

DISCUSSION :

The first proposed rule amendment is to add dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and propylene carbonate (PC) to the District’s list of exempt compounds within the de finition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) (Section 3.53) as a response to EPA findings that DMC and PC have a low potential to form ozone in the atmosphere . EPA found that these compounds are less photo

- chemically reactive than ethane, and

thus have a negligible contribution to ozone formation. EPA announced the exemption of DMC and PC in the Federal Register,SJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1020 (DEFINITIONS)
FEBRUARY 21, 2013

2 effective February 2009 (included as Appendix B to the Final Draft Staff Report). By exempting these compounds, manufacturers of coatings or s olvent cleaning materials have additional options with which to formulate low

- VOC coatings and cleaning

materials.

The District also proposes to remove unnecessary permitting requirements for two previously exempted compounds: methyl formate (MF) and tert iary

- butyl acetate (TBAc). Based on the District’s analysis, the District determined that the current permit requirements included in Rule 1020 for MF and TBAc are not needed and will subsequently be removed.

The District evaluated the potential health i mpacts associated with these proposed amendments and concluded that they would not cause adverse health impacts. The District’s analysis was based on worst

- case assumptions, including assuming that the use of the proposed exempt compounds would be entirel y new, when, in fact, their use would be in lieu of other chemical compounds that could often pose a greater risk. While these compounds are exempt from VOC regulations under Rule 1020, the District’s permitting process evaluates the potential health risk from all new and modified operations to ensure that they do not cause significant health impacts to Valley residents.

A. Addition of dimethyl carbonate (DMC) as a VOC exempt compound

Section 3.53 of Rule 1020 defines VOC and lists compounds that are bot h organic and volatile, but are considered by the District to have low ability to form ozone. As discussed above, EPA found that dimethyl carbonate (DMC), a colorless, fast

evaporating, water soluble solvent, is less photo

- chemically reactive than ethane and has negligible contribution to the formation of ozone

.

The flash point (the lowest temperature at which a liquid can vaporize to form an ignitable mixture in air) of DMC is higher than some solvents already in wide

- spread use like acetone, ethyl acetate, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), thus making DMC an

attrac tive replacement in applications that use these solvents. It also has the potential to replace isopropyl alcohol and trichloroethylene in cleaning and solvent applications. By contrast, the flammability of DMC may limit its use in consumer coatings, indo or application coatings, and as a hand

- wipe cleaning solvent.

Inhalation is expected to be the primary pathway of human exposure as a result of solvent evaporation. This exposure would be similar to any other paint, sealant, and

adhesive solvent that DMC would be intended to replace. There may also be some minor skin exposure from coatings splattering or careless mixing operations. Oral exposure would be rare and would be limited to accidental ingestion.

As a component of this rule amendment project, t he District evaluated the potential health risks associated with the use of DMC and determined that, when used in the small amounts allowed under the District’s permitting exemptions (Rule 2020), theSJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1020 (DEFINITIONS)
FEBRUARY 21, 2013

3 acute, chronic, and cancer risks are all significantly b elow the District’s health risk thresholds. In fact, DMC may replace some compounds such as xylene, toluene, MEK, and hexane, which have been identified as toxic air contaminants by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). In line with the District’s Ri sk

- Based Strategy,

t he inclusion of DMC as a VOC exempt compound would likely decrease the overall health risk to Valley residents if used to replace toxics compounds such as those identified above (refer to the Final Draft Staff Report for more informatio n about DMC and the District’s risk management review process).

B. Addition of propylene carbonate (PC) as a VOC exempt compound

PC is an odorless, non

- viscous, clear liquid with a low vapor pressure, and very slow
evaporation rate. It is combustible, w ith flash point of 132  C. The compound is used in adhesives, paint strippers, and as a solvent for aerial pesticide application. PC is also used in more than 1,300 cosmetic products such as mascara, lip gloss, foundation, sunscreen, and deodorant. Other known applications of PC include special

- purpose lubricant, general

- purpose degreasers for industrial use, rubberized coatings, and non

flat aerosol paint products. PC may also be used as a tail solvent, because of its slow evaporation rate, and in certa in solvent cleaning applications.

PC is not listed as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It contains no chlorine or bromine and, therefore, it does not deplete the stratospheric ozone. Based on available data, PC has low acute toxicity, and there is no established airborne occupational exposure limit for PC. Because this compound has been approved for use in cosmetics, and its relatively low toxicity based on the best available data, it is anticipated that including PC as a VOC exempt co mpound will not pose a significant added risk to Valley residents.

C. Revision to methyl formate (MF) and tertiary

- butyl acetate (TBAc) usage

limitations

Currently, Sections 3.53.2 (applicable to TBAc) and 3.53.3 (applicable to MF) require any operator who elects to use more than one gallon per year (per facility) of either TBAc or MF to submit a permit application for the proposed use. Based on the

Distri ct’s evaluation of potential health risks associated with the use of these compounds, these use limitations are not necessary, given their small potential risk. Additionally, the District’s permitting process evaluates the potential health risk from all

n ew and modified operations, including use of these compounds, to ensure that they would not cause significant health impacts . Therefore, the District proposes to remove the permitting requirements included in Rule 1020 for TBAc and MF, while retaining

the ir status as exempt compounds.

Emission Reduction Analysis

Some manufacturers have expressed interest in replacing current coating solvents with these compounds, and emissions reductions would be expected from any VOC

-SJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1020 (DEFINITIONS)
FEBRUARY 21, 2013

4 containing solvents ultimately rep laced by these newly exempted compounds. However, this action does not require the use of exempt compounds, and emissions reductions from the proposed amendments are therefore not claimed.

Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis

S ince use of these compounds is strictly voluntary, there is no forced additional cost to operators or manufacturers for using coatings or solvent cleaning blends that contain DMC, PC, MF, or TBAc.

Socioeconomic Analysis

California Health and Safety Code Section 40728.5 requires air districts to assess any socioeconomic impacts when adopting, amending, or repealing a rule that significantly affects air quality or emissions limitations. A socioeconomic impact analysis is not required for this rule amendme nt because the proposed amendments do not establish emission limitations and do not require the use of the exempt VOCs.

Rule Consistency Analysis

Under California Health and Safety Code Sections 40727 and 40727.2, before adopting or amending a regulation , an air district must make a rule consistency finding. The air district is to compare the emission limits, operating parameters, and recordkeeping requirements in its proposed regulation to corresponding elements in existing state or federal regulations that apply to the same equipment or source to ensure that requirements are not contradictory.

The proposed revisions to Rule 1020 do not include emission limits, operating parameters, or recordkeeping requirements. Furthermore, the proposed revisions ali gn Rule 1020 definitions to definitions in other District and federal regulations. As such, Rule 1020 is consistent with other regulations on the same sources.

Environmental Impacts

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Distri ct has reviewed the possible environmental impacts of adding DMC and PC to the exempt compounds list contained in District Rule 1020 (Definitions). As presented in the Final Draft Staff Report, EPA considers these chemicals to be exempt volatile organic c ompounds; these chemicals are already in use in California in cosmetics and other products; and, while manufacturers and other businesses may choose to reformulate existing products, the Rule 1020 amendments establish no requirement to do so.

There is no substantial evidence in the whole record before the District that the proposed amendments to Rule 1020 would cause any adverse effects on the environment. The District finds that the project is exempt per the general rule that CEQA applies only to project s which have the potential for causing a significant effectSJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1020 (DEFINITIONS)
FEBRUARY 21, 2013

5 on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)). For these reasons, the District is proposing to file a Notice of Exemption upon Board adoption of the proposed

amendments to Rule 1020.

Rule De velopment Process

Draft amendments to Rule 1020 and the Draft Staff Report were published and made available to stakeholders for their review and comments 30 days prior to a public workshop that was held on December 29, 2010. Comments received from

stakeh olders, ARB, and EPA regarding the original proposed amendments of DMC and PC were evaluated and, if appropriate, incorporated into the draft amendments to the

rule.

The District published the notice of the public hearing for the proposed rule

amendments in general circulation newspapers in each of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties. The District also posted the proposed amendments on its website prior to the public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACTS:

No fiscal impact to the District is expected to result from this action.

Attachments:

Attachment A. Resolution for Proposed Amendments to Rule 1020 (4 pages)

Attachment B. Proposed Amendments to Rule 1020 (Definitions) (14 pages)

Attachment C. Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices for Proposed Amendments to Rule 1020

(52 pages)