## Comment 1 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Reinhard Last Name: Oppl Email Address: ReinhardOppl@eurofins.com Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: Low VOC determination with method 310 not very reliable Comment:

Low VOC coatings, adhesives etc. are difficult to assess by present method 310 using gravimetric determination of all volatiles (weight loss during 1 hour of heating) and then subtraction of evaporated water: 1) With low VOC products, sensitivity and accuracy go down. 2) With high water content and low VOC content, the limited accuracy of water determination method will overrule any findings of the low VOC content, resulting in very bad reliability. 3) All this is even worse for cement based tile adhesives that are almost impossible to determine with method 310. 4) Modern water-based products then are punished relative to solvent-based products due to weakness of test method, which cannot be the meaning of method 310. The proposed change (direct gas chromatographic determination) is basically excellent, but it should not refer to analytical methods dealing with completely different issues (industrial emissions, or solid waste), when a low VOC paint specific method is available: ASTM D6886-03. Please use ASTM D6886-03 for low VOC products. Best regards, Reinhard Oppl, Eurofins Product Testing A/S, Galten/Denmark and San Ramon/California



### Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-08-17 09:38:44

No Duplicates.

## Comment 2 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Steve Last Name: Bunting Email Address: sbunting@nbfd.net Phone Number: 949-644-3353 Affiliation: So. California Fire Prevention Officers

Subject: Consumer Products Regulation Amendments-Solvents Comment:

REF: Section 94512, "Administrative Requirements", subsection (e), "Additional Requirements for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners.",(2)

The Southern California Fire Prevention Officers feel that Section 94512(e)(2)(B)1, lacks specificity and may result in tags that are too small to adequately deliver the intended message. While our proposed additional language will serve to standardize the message, It does not restrict the manufacturers from using colors or logos associated with their brand.

Tag specifications are found in other sections of the California Administrative Code. Please see CAC Title 19, Article 9, Section 596 through 596.16

In addition, we believe that the message should be printed in at least five languages, including, Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/2-solvent_tags_1.docx

Original File Name: Solvent tags 1.docx

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-08-17 15:03:57

No Duplicates.

### 1. Products which include an attached “hang tag” or sticker that disp lays, at a minimum, the following statement: “Formu lated to meet California VO C limits; see warnings on label.” Hang tags and stickers shall be in accordance with the following:

a. Hang tags or stickers shall be lar ge enough to display the minimum statement printed in Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese. The statement in each language shall be printed in a minimum of size 14 font.

b. The color of the hang tag or sticker sha ll be such that the lettering or characters of the statement are in sharp visual c ontrast to the backgr ound color of the hang tag or sticker.

c. Hang tags shall be attached by means of wire or plastic tie or by the use of a self- adhesive. A self adhesive tag or st icker may not obscure any other warning messages printed on the container.

d. A hang tag may also be fastened to the cont ainer by means of the threaded cap.

## Comment 3 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: James Last Name: Sell Email Address: jsell@paint.org Phone Number: 202 462 6272 Affiliation: NPCA/SCCT

Subject: Auot Refinish Issues and Sought Clarifications in Proposed Multipurpose Solvent Rule Comment:

September 11, 2009

Dave,

Thanks for the clarification of my understanding of the proposed rule.

“1. I would agree with the first paragraph if it were changed to read:

To follow up on our recent telephone call, if I understood you correctly, it is CARB’s position that solvents and reducers that are specifically designed to be used with in a marine/pleasure craft coating or for an automotive refinish coating are not included in the proposed regulation of multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners.”

If at all possible, we would like to have this formally stated by perhaps a statement in the rule preamble of the rule, an interpretation from enforcement, or letter.

In discussing this further with the refinish coating manufacturers- a couple of questions continue to linger.

First there remains a great concern about what appears to be CARB's view of treating the refinishing of vehicles as if it is not an “industrial process”. As I have said before, there is very little difference in the way a car is refinished and originally painted in that paint is being applied in both operations under controlled circumstances. The need for solvents to clean application equipment and to prepare surfaces to be painted is the same. The coatings themselves are also very similar. An additional factor to consider is that refinishing of vehicles has been on object of regulation by the districts for nearly two decades and they have always treated it as a stationary source like they treat the OEM automotive operations. The cleaning solvent usage is also housed in industrial operations regulations such as Rule 1171 in the SCAQMD.

Also noteworthy is that in multipurpose solvent surveys conducted by CARB, refinish coatings manufacturers were instructed to isolate from the survey those cleaning and surface preparation solventsthat were being sold to body shops from that those that were being made available to the general public.

Further, CARB has also indicated that because it takes place in stationary sources setting refinish operations should not be subject to the regulation.

“TBAc would remain exempt for industrial uses (auto-refinish coatings (Statewide) and industrial maintenance coatings (AQMD area only)) where is has already been delisted. The consumer product regulations do not impose any restrictions on pollution-generating activities that take place at stationary sources.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regact/cpwg2008/table2.pdf

So we respectfully request that CARB state in the preamble to the rule as clearly as it did in the above document that refinish operations are not subject to the regulation because auto refinish is an “industrial use” of the solvents and moreover the refinish operations occur at a stationary source and “consumer product regulations do not impose any restrictions on pollution-generating activities that take place at stationary sources.”

Further, CARB in developing and issuing a Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Automotive Refinish Operations explicitly treated the operations as a stationary source operation and suggested a VOC limit of 25 g/l for cleaning solvents and surface preparation at such stationary source operations. If refinish operations were subject to CARB's independent consumers products authority then there would have been no need to issue the SCM for consideration and adoption by the individual air districts- it could have directly regulated the operations.

Consequently, if one were to take the position that cleaning solvents and surface preparation solvents used in a refinish shop are not industrial products the question would be which regulatory regime controls in say SCAQMD: Rule 1171 for industrial solvent cleaning? Rule 1143 for consumer products solvents? And/or only aspects of CARB’s proposed rule and if so which ones?

In addition to the issues stated above, there is the practical concern for the industry’s efforts to keep such materials in the hands of only professional users for industrial applications. Treating them as essentially “consumer products” in a regulatory program undermines these industry efforts.

Finally, we need clarity on the impact of the proposed rule in air districts where the national VOC refinish rule prevails. The solvent borne systems used there also use comparatively higher solvent cleaning and surface preparation materials.

We believe that the issues discussed above support the rational that refinish operations should be treated as an industrial process as a whole, while not trying to isolate and identify individual activities within the process as other than industrial. Like other industrial processes, required cleaning and surface preparation materials in refinish shops are not generic, but are designed for use at such operations.

I will be glad to discuss this with you further.Sincerely,

Jim Sell Senior Counsel NPCA/FSCT

.



### Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-14 11:05:11

No Duplicates.

## Comment 4 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Gregory Last Name: Johnson Email Address: Non-web submitted comment Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands Comment:

please see attached



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/5-conscomment.doc

Original File Name: CONSComment.doc

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-15 09:44:26

No Duplicates.August 25, 2009

David Mallory, P.E. Manager, Measures Development Section Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, 6 th Floor P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands Comments on the Current Consumer Product Rulemaking.

Dear Mr. Mallory:

Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands (S-W DBD) appreciates the opportunity to review, comment and participate in the development of the current proposed changes to the Consumer Products Regulation. We have significant concerns with one section of the proposed regulation.

Section 94509(u) – The provisions proposed in this section would prohibit compounds with a Global Warming Potential of greater than 150, prohibit the use of specified chlorinated solvents, and limit aromatic hydrocarbons to 1% or le ss in Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners.

Concerns

1. The scope of the proposed restrictions is unprecedented. Never has a product category or group of product categories had a 97 percent limit reduction coupled with chemical constituent prohibitions of this magnitude.

2. The restrictions proposed for global warming, chlorinated chemicals, and aromatics take away too many tools available to formulators. These wholesale restrictions will reduce the chemist ability to develop i nnovative new products. Aromatics are valuable due to their high solvency and unique molecular structure. Simply put, there are some chemicals that can only be dissolved in an aromatic solvent.

3. Limiting aromatics to 1 percent was proposed for reactivity reasons. Combining a mass based regulation with a reactivity limitation is to o confining and will eventually eliminate all the available technology for the category. This should not be done for any category. It should either be a mass based regulation or a reactivity regulation. Never both. This category would be very suitable for a reactivity regulation and we would recommend dropping the mass based proposal in favor of a reactivity limit.

4. Restricting an entire class of chemicals such as aromatics to prevent the use of higher reactivity solvents within that class is a bad regulatory precedent. There are aromatic solvents that will be virtually eliminated that should not be restricted at all. For example, parachlorobenzotriflouride (PCBTF) is an aromat ic solvent exempt from VOC regulation in California due to its low ozone reactivity. If not for this specific exemption, the proposedregulation would limit PCBTF to 1% in any mu ltipurpose or thinning solvent. This extreme example illustrates that the premise of eliminatin g an entire class of chemicals in this manner is capricious and arbitrary. There are many non-ex empt aromatic compounds with low reactivity that will be unnecessarily restricted.

As stated above, we believe this category would be best regulated under a reactivity approach. However, if the ARB wishes to continue with a mass based regulation we strongly urge the 1 percent aromatic restriction be dropped from the regulation. Your time and consideration of our input is much appreciated.

If you have any questions or need further information please call me anytime at 216-332-1473.

Best regards,

Gregory L. Johnson Director Legislative Affairs Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands

Cc: Janette Brooks, ARB Stationary Source Division

## Comment 5 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Joseph Last Name: Yost Email Address: jyost@cspa.org Phone Number: 202-833-7325 Affiliation: Consumer Specialty Products Association

Subject: Board Agenda Item # 09-8-4; Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regula Comment:

Attached, please find a copy of CSPA’s comments on the proposed amendments to the existing California Consumer Products Regulations.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/6- cspa_comments_on_arb_proposed_2009_amemdments_-_board_agenda_item_09-8-4.pdf

Original File Name: CSPA Comments on ARB Proposed 2009 Amemdments - Board Agenda Item 09-8-4.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-21 08:45:57

No Duplicates.

## Comment 6 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: David Last Name: Darling Email Address: ddarling@paint.org Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: NPCA/FSCT Comments Comment:

Attached are comments from the NPCA/FSCT.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/7-carb92009.doc

Original File Name: CARB92009.doc

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-21 11:33:18

No Duplicates.

### September 21, 2009

David Mallory, P.E. Manager, Measures Development Section Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, 23 rd 

### Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulations; Board Agenda It em # 09-8-4; NPCA Comments

Dear Mr. Mallory:

The National Paint and Coatings Association/FSCT (NPCA/FSCT) 1 

### submits the following comments on the Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulations; Board Agenda Item # 09-8-4 and incorporates by reference previously submitted comments.

Aromatic Limitation



### The proposed 1% limitation on aromatic com pounds restricts formulation flexibility. Formulators need this flexibility especia lly given the stringent 3% limit for Paint Thinners and Multi-purpose Solvents. NPCA /FSCT believes that this provision is problematic and not necessary and that ARB delete this proposed requirement and work with Industry to develop reactivity-based limits . NPCA/FSCT is also concerned that this could and most likely will establish a preceden t for other consumer products categories in the future. Please refer to the letter from the National Paint & Coatings Association’s Spray Paint Manufacturing Committee and CSA Committees for additional comments.

1 NPCA/FSCT is a voluntary, nonprofit trade association working to advance the needs of the paint and coatings industry and the professionals who work in it. The organization represents paint and coatings manufacturers, raw materials suppliers, distributors, and technical professionals. NPCA/FSCT serves as an advocate and ally for members on legi slative, regulatory and judicial issues, and provides forums for the advancement and promotion of the industry through educational and professional development services.

### 2 Labeling Concerns



### NPCA/FSCT is concerned the “tag” label stat ement are problematic in that they may compel manufacturers to provide “dual” Span ish language on the labels for the affected products. This would increase burden on the i ndustry by forcing companies to redo their product labels, and discard existing labels.

Inconsistent VOC Content Labeling



### NPCA/FSCT is concerned that if this rule is finalized as propose d, manufacturers will need to comply with both ARB VOC per cent and SCAQMD weight-per-volume limits which is problematic from a compliance and labeling perspective. In addition, while ARB states that the standards are “virtually e quivalent”, the 3% limit is probably more restrictive than the SCAQM D limits. Further, as propos ed, manufacturers selling products into SCAQMD will be subject to and be burdened by four successive standards between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013. ARB should minimize burden by either using its authority to supersede existing district rules or modi fy the language in the proposed regulation to have ARB VOC limits fo r these products apply everywhere in the state except for the SCAQMD.

3% Limit is Problematic



### While ARB has attempted to mitigate the increas ed risk of fire hazard that will result from the substitution of mineral spirits to a cetone in this rulemaking, this risk still remains. This problem is actually acerbated by the fact that the aromatic restriction will limit the use of an alternative to acetone – PCBTF – to only 1%. NPCA/FSCT continues to be concerned that few effective products exist today that w ill meet the 3% limit, as a result we question the feasibility of the proposed rule. We appreciat e the fact that CARB has included a technology review of the rule in 2012 and we are hope ful that CARB will make any necessary changes as needed, to the limits based on this review.



### Thank you for your consideration of these comme nts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

/s/ David Darling, P.E. Director, Environmental Affairs

** Sent via email **

## Comment 7 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Dency Last Name: Nelson Email Address: dln52@verizon.net Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: Reduce VOCs on September 24 Comment:

To: Chairman Mary Nichols California Air Resources Board 1001 "I" Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Re: Reduce VOCs on September 24th

Dear Chairman Nichols:

I applaud the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) efforts to reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from consumer products.

I strongly encourage you to lead the way in reducing harmful toxics found in consumer and industrial products, specifically multipurpose solvents and paint thinners. By regulating and limiting these chemicals from our products, the state of California would again set a precedent in protecting our environment and the health of families and workers.

VOCs endanger the health of those who come in contact with them. We are all vulnerable to the harmful effects of these chemicals, which are often emitted by products used where we live and work, as well as where our children study and play.

Many children in our communities suffer from asthma, and the chemicals emitted by consumer and industrial products, only increase the chances of more frequent attacks or develop asthma in the future. Workers, and others on the front lines of exposure, may experience an increased risk of cancer or liver and kidney damage from daily use of these toxic substances.

As a consumer and concerned citizen, I urge CARB to adopt tough regulations on consumer and industrial multipurpose solvents and paint thinners.

Please take this opportunity to protect the health of our families by significantly reducing these air pollutants that emanate from multipurpose solvents and paint thinners.

### Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-21 12:42:17

179 Duplicates.

## Board Meeting Form Letter Log

Below is the Form Letter Log for cpmthd310, comment 7.

# Received From Subject Comment Period Date/Time Added to Database

9 Martin, Timothy, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:43:04

10 TOOBERT, MICHAEL, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:43:24

11 Arnold, Frank, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:43:43

12 Cobb, Dean, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:44:01

13 Laieski, Caleb, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:44:16

14 Reback, Mark, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:45:52

15 Ev, Kayla, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:46:14

16 Osorio, Herman, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:46:31

17 Matlock, KL, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:46:45

18 Rentfro, Kris, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:47:46

19 Triplett, Tia, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:49:09

20 Sanborn, Heidi, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:49:24

21 Provenzano, James, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:49:40

22 Lassiter and Family, Robert, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:49:57

23 Foss, Janice, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:50:40

24 jessler, darynne, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:50:54

25 Mehrotra, Siddharth, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:51:08

26 Frank, Lee, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:51:25

27 Zelter, Gabriela, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:51:40

28 Laieski, Caleb, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:51:57

29 Murdock, Lauren, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:52:48

30 Rockey, Phil, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:53:03

31 McGill, Ron, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:53:45

32 Barrs, Sarah, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:54:00

33 Nunez, Carlos, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:54:39 Board Meeting Form Letter Log http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcformltrlog.php?listname=cpmthd...

1 of 6 12/15/2010 3:09 P M34 Sky, Kate, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:56:11

35 Flewitt, Claire, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:56:27

36 Montapert, Anthony, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:56:55

37 Tomczyszyn, Michael, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:57:11

38 Farnum, Lorna, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:58:15

39 Floyd, Kim, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:58:28

40 kramer, julie, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:59:02

41 Affonso, Jane, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 12:59:31

42 Schwartz, Don, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:14:18

43 Klosterman, Peter, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:15:13

44 Pennington, Heather, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:16:21

45 Ernst, Elizabeth, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:16:36

46 Johnson, Louise, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:16:50

47 Bechtel, Deborah, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:17:10

48 Cuff, Kermit, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:17:29

49 Brennan, Eleanor, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:19:14

50 Ryan, therese, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:19:46

51 Hsu, Bill, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:20:36

52 Clark, Donna, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:20:53

53 Fultz Stout, Laura, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:21:09

54 Gilbert, Camille, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:21:50

55 Seidman, Dr. and Mrs. Peter, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:22:18

56 Fish, James, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:23:37

57 Spitz, Jon, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:24:36

58 Piner, Lisa, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:24:53

59 Kirschenbaum, Alan, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:25:08

60 Frederick, Nicholas, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:25:41 Board Meeting Form Letter Log http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcformltrlog.php?listname=cpmthd...

2 of 6 12/15/2010 3:09 P M61 Tracy, Melvin, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:26:00

62 Zelter, Daniel, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:26:15

63 Quinn, Michael, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:26:39

64 REEL, JOSEPH, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:26:54

65 Kim, Candice, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:27:20

66 Yeager, Will, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:27:57

67 Sky, Kate, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:29:21

68 Newlon, David, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:30:21

69 Perkins, Nancy, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:31:20

70 Thompson, Lawrence, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:31:33

71 Diederichs, Barbara, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:31:47

72 Hicks, Janet, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:32:01

73 Campbell, Bruce, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:32:16

74 carr, gaile, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:32:30

75 GARCIA, CESAR, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:32:46

76 Cavanah, George, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:33:00

77 Zahller, Guy, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:33:14

78 SORAGHAN, CONOR, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:33:47

79 Amato, Julie, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:34:04

80 Harmon, Zac, Reduce Toxic Emissions from Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 13:34:20

81 Forman, Joan, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:49:14

82 Lowery, Bryce, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:50:06

83 Klabin, Julie, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:51:09

84 Cooper, Richard, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:51:56

85 Rosenstein, Richard & Carolyn, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:52:24

86 Anthony, Elizabeth, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:52:59

87 Marsh, Marilynn, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:53:45

88 Briggs, Jr., William C., Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:54:22

89 petrulias, linda, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:55:48

90 Cruz, Marian, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:57:49 Board Meeting Form Letter Log http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcformltrlog.php?listname=cpmthd...

3 of 6 12/15/2010 3:09 P M91 Yarbrough, Jim, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:58:22

92 Hammond, Marcella, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:58:46

93 Grant, Eric, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 14:59:31

94 Fishman, Ted, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:00:25

95 Fishman, Ted, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:01:56

96 Duckert, Ken, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:02:22

97 Estrada, Gilbert, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:02:55

98 Wollman, Michael, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:03:40

99 Mauer, Michael, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:04:06

100 Tonsberg, Barbara, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:04:36

101 Sheedy, Keenan, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:07:15

102 Lobdell, James, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:07:52

103 Redish, Maryellen, Reduce VOCs on September 24 45 Day 2009-09-21 15:08:16

106 Anderson, John H., Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:52:12

107 Mackey, Claudia, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:54:12

108 Ireland, Kelly, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:55:29

109 Hong, Celeste, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:56:18

110 Ledden, Dennis, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:57:08

111 Meyer, Twyla, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:57:50

112 LeBlanc, Candy, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:58:49

113 Marshall, RJ, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 10:59:53

114 Bowman, Jason, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:00:32

115 Bowman, Candy, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:01:10

116 Bechtel, Paul, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:01:47

117 Rubin, Michael, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:02:28

118 Gill, Ayesha, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:03:01

119 Bocchetti, Ralph, riverglen2816@yahoo.com 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:03:40

120 Sanchez, Tom, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:04:18

121 Tidwell, Amber, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:04:51

122 Vogel, Linda, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:05:23

123 Weiss, Edward, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:06:00

124 Warshaw, Lisa, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:06:37

125 Jackson, J, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:07:20

126 John, LaWana, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:07:54

127 Seltzer, Rob, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:08:28

128 Davies, Dorothy L., Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:09:05

129 Baanta, Lynne, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:09:36

130 Ibarra, Anai, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:10:34

131 Fiore, Mark J., Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:11:06

132 Chandler, Leonard B., Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:11:48

133 Miller, Harriet, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:12:38

134 DeTora, Danny, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:13:22 Board Meeting Form Letter Log http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcformltrlog.php?listname=cpmthd...

4 of 6 12/15/2010 3:09 P M135 Parker, Clark, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:13:56

136 Miller, Nancy, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:14:48

137 Rowe, Carol, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:15:25

138 Hernandez, Robin, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:16:24

139 Wilson, Jack, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:16:57

140 Beadman, H, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:17:28

141 Tuomi, Reesha, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:18:08

142 Bolman, Diane, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:18:44

143 Denton, John T., Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:19:17

144 Viken, Barbara, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:20:03

145 Schickele, Gail, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:20:40

146 Conroy, Thomas, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:22:33

147 Nuehauser, Alice, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:23:16

148 Schreyack, Claus, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:23:59

149 Estes, Douglas, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:24:33

150 Toback, Norman, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:25:12

151 Cabrales, Liz, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:25:51

152 Denison, James, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:26:28

153 Markus, Mary, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:26:57

154 Morris, Keith, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:27:33

155 Fields, Jill, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:28:03

156 Buenabad, Jose, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:28:36

157 Barry, Dwight, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:29:09

158 Essman, John, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:29:40

159 Baer, Ted, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:30:11

160 Chiang, Ben, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:30:46

161 Evans, Michael W., Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:31:16

162 Rosenfeld, Henry, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:32:05

163 Sanfilippo, Val, sanfiv@yahoo.com 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:32:29

164 Holtzclaw, John, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:33:14

165 Zentura, J, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:33:47

166 Bostick, Amy, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:34:20

167 Watts, Susan, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:35:04

168 Herndon, Laura, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:35:39

169 Lao, Fabiola, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:36:27

170 Cyr, Vicki, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 11:36:59

173 Gill, Susan, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:13:14

174 Iosif, Katherine, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:14:11

175 Brodkin, Karen, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:14:49

176 Rotcher, Michael, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:15:18

177 McCall, Daniel, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:15:54

178 Whitener, William, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:16:32 Board Meeting Form Letter Log http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcformltrlog.php?listname=cpmthd...

5 of 6 12/15/2010 3:09 P M179 Scholz, Ernest, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:17:09

180 Kelly, Nancy, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:17:43

181 Scholz, Ernest, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:22:11

182 Calhoun, Charles, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:22:53

183 Cukrov, Vince, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:23:57

184 Doi, Shari, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:24:27

185 Garciaa, Luis A., Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:27:42

186 Graffell, Jess, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:28:22

187 Fish, Margaret, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:29:09

188 Sanchez, Elba, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:29:50

189 Wyatt, Aimee, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:30:25

190 Wertheim, Lisa, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:31:18

191 Kondo, Annette, Adopt a Strong Regulation, Reduce VOCs in Consumer Products 45 Day 2009-09-22 12:32:10

If you have any questions or comments please contact COTB at (916) 322-5594.

Board Comments Home Board Meeting Form Letter Log http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bcformltrlog.php?listname=cpmthd...

6 of 6 12/15/2010 3:09 P M

## Comment 8 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: F.H. Last Name: Brewer Email Address: Non-web submitted comment Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Comment:

Please see attached.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/104-johnson.pdf

Original File Name: Johnson.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-21 16:43:54

No Duplicates.

## Comment 9 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Leslie Last Name: Berry Email Address: Leslie_Berry@americanchemistry.com Phone Number: Affiliation: American Chemistry Council

Subject: American Chemistry Council Solvents Industry Groups Consumer Product Comments Comment:

Please see attached.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/105-acc_sig_carb_cp_comments_092209.zip

Original File Name: ACC SIG CARB CP comments 092209.zip

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-22 06:09:49

No Duplicates.September 2 2 , 2009

Via email

David Mallory, P.E. Manager, Measures Development Section Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, 6 th Floor P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Califor nia Consumer Products Regulations; Board Agenda Item #

09

- 8

- 4

Dear Mr. Mallory:

The Solvents Industry Group (―SIG‖) 1 of the American Chemistry Council is pleased to provide the following comments on the California Air Resources Board’s (―CARB‖ or ―Boar d‖) Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products and Revisions to Test Method 310 (―Proposed Amendments‖), as updated by CARB’s ―Staff’s Suggested Modifications to the Original Proposal.‖ The proposal would establish

, inter alia

, tiered

, ultra

- low, mass

- based volatile organic compound (―VOC‖) standards for multi

- purpose solvents

, paint thinners and double phase aerosol air freshener. As solvent manufacturers that conduct business in the state of California, SIG membe r companies must be considered part of the regulated industry for this proposal. Therefore , SIG would be significantly and negatively affected by this unbalanced proposed regulation. As discussed in these
comment s , SIG requests that CARB suspend consider ation of the proposed amendments based on the following concerns:

Reactivity

- based standards more effectively reduce the ozone

- forming potential of solvent

- based products while providing formulators with greater flexibility to produce products that meet
p erformance and safety specifications. 2 SIG strongly supports the adoption of reactivity

- based standards either as the sole compliance option or at least as an alternative compliance option for product categories, including paint thinners and multipurpose solvents.

CARB has not met its legal burden of demonstrating that its proposed regulations are commercially and technologically feasible and necessary.

CARB’s proposed aromatics prohibition is arbitrary and capricious.

1 SIG represents major U.S. manufacturers of hydrocarbon and oxygenated solvents and was formed to address health, safety, and environmental issues affecti ng both the producers and users of those materials. Members of SIG include: The Dow Chemical Company, ExxonMobil Chemical Corporation, Shell Chemical LP, and Eastman Chemical Company.

2 See William P. L. Carter, Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volatile Organic Compounds, 44 J. Air & Waste Mgmt. Ass’n 881 (1994); A. Russell et al.

, Urban Ozone Control and Atmospheric Reactivity of Organic Gases , 269 Science 491 (1995).Page 2 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

CARB has not considered and e valuated a reactivity

- based approach as a reasonable alternative to its mass

- based proposal as required by Government Code section 11346.2.

I nterested stakeholders have not had the opportunity to review and comment on the full detail of CARB’s 2008 Pain t Thinner and MPS survey update.

Current proposal would result in the formulation of consumer products that pose a significantly higher fire risk to consumers and the public.

I. General Position

SIG has long worked with CARB, South Coast Air Quality M anagement District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, other air quality management districts in California , and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (―EPA‖) on regulations and policies to reduce tropospheric ozone. SIG’s own research and inves tigation s , as well as many other independent studies, including those undertaken by CARB , Dr. William Carter, the University of North Carolina, and Georgia Tech, have consistently concluded that the most efficient and cost effective means of regulating con sumer products emissions and obtaining meaningful ozone reductions is through reactivity

- based regulations. As is often the case, CARB and the State of California have been leaders in this progressive approach to regulating

ozone . M ass

- based approaches

, in stark contrast, are outdated, inefficient, needlessly rigid, and potentially counterproductive to the overall goal of ozone reduction. SIG strongly supports the adoption of reactivity

- based standards either as the sole compliance option or at least as a n alternative compliance option for product categories, including paint thinners and multipurpose solvents.

Importantly, SIG is also concerned that CARB has not met its legal burden of demonstrating that its propos ed regulations are commercially and te chnologically feasible and necessary. For example, CARB is proposing to adopt a 3 percent tier 2 standard that it acknowledges ―has not been demonstrated,‖ at least for thinners, and the impacts of which cannot be ―fully assess[ed]‖ until more information is obtained. At the very least, CARB has not provided interested stakeholders with sufficient information to weigh in meaningfully on its feasibility determinations . Although the Initial Statement of Reasons suggests otherwise, CARB has not released the full detailed results of its 2008 survey update , which according to the staff report serve as the primary bases of th is proposal. Before adopting a final amendment, CARB must afford SIG and other stakeholders with an opportunity to evaluate and comment

o n this critical information. SIG also opposes CARB’s aromatic restriction as arbitrary and capricious. If CARB wants to adopt reactivity concepts, it should do so completely as a sole compliance option or as an alternate control plan and not in a pieceme al and one

- sided fashion.

SIG is disappointed that CARB has not considered and evaluate d a reactivity

- based approach as a reasonable alternative to its mass

- based proposal as required by Government Code section 11346.2. Reactivity

- based standards offer a legitimate and cost

- effective alternative, and thus must be evaluated. S uch an evaluation would reveal the benefits and superiority of reactivity standards.

SIG is also concerned, like CARB itself was during SCAQMD’s recent promulgation of Rule 1143 t hat adoption of CARB’s proposal would result in the formulation of consumer products that pose a higher fire risk to consumers and the public. Indeed, CARB was sufficiently concerned with this issue that it solicited the input of the Office of the State F ire Marshall on Rule 1143 and submitted comments on this specific issue to SCAQMD in December 2008. Despite its expressed concerns, CARB has nevertheless proposed a state

- wide rule that would create the same public health risk as Rule 1143

. And although S IG supports the rule’s proposed notification and marking requirements, CARB has not explained or provided support for how such requirements would significantly abate the acknowledged public hazards that will undoubtedly result from the proposal.Page 3 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

For th ese and the other reasons provided below, SIG urges the Board to table its mass

- based proposal and to instead pursue a reactivity

- based approach. CARB has all the tools necessary to develop, implement, and enforce such an approach , a nd to do so now . Alte rnatively, SIG request s that CARB delay its consideration of the staff proposal until interested stakeholders have had a chance to review and comment on the full detail of CARB’s 2008 Paint Thinner and MPS survey update

. SIG further request s that CARB pos tpone consideration of its Tier 2 standards until at least 2012 when additional feasibility and safety data will be avai lable.

II. Reactivity Is More Effective And Efficient At Reducing Ozone than Mass

- Based Approaches

. Photochemical reactivity is a scienti fically sound and more effective means of addressing tropospheric ozone. It is a better predictor of the ozone

- forming potential of solvent based VOCs than

mass

- based measurements and therefore serves as a superior basis for reducing ozone formation. 3 Th is is due to the varying reactivities of different solvent VOCs, which, as even CARB notes in the April 1, 2009 workshop materials, are determinable in a laboratory and subject to peer review. 4 Research demonstrates that VOC reactivities vary significantl y, by as much as 100

- fold. 5 In contrast, mass

- based limits implicitly

– and erroneously

– assume that all VOCs have the same potential to contribute to ozone levels. B ecause mass

- based limitations create an incentive for product manufacturers to use more active (and often more reactive) VOCs, lowering mass

- based limits also may well lead to an increase in the use of more reactive solvents in product formulations, limiting the effectiveness of the proposed regulations and in some cases, increasing overall VOC emissions on a product category basis. 6 As discussed in more detail below, a lthough CARB’s propos al would prevent erosion of air quality gains attributable to the increased use of aromatics, it would not prevent formulators more generally from meeting lower mass

based limits by substituting lower

- reactive VOCs with higher

- reactive ones.

Mass

- based limits arbitrarily set too low may force formulators to utilize highly

- reactive compounds to achieve desired product performance that, in turn, form la rger quantities of ozone than otherwise would have been produced. In fact, instances in which mass

- based regulation yielded less

- than

-

3 See William P. L. Carter, Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for Volat ile Organic Compounds, 44 J. Air & Waste Mgmt. Ass’n 881 (1994); A. Russell et al.

, Urban Ozone Control and Atmospheric Reactivity of Organic Gases , 269 Science 491 (1995).

4 See William P. L. Carter, Reactivity Estimates for Selected Consumer Product Co mpound s (Feb. 19, 2008) at Table C

- 1 (listing VOCs for which ozone impact estimates are available); see also CARB, Workshop Presentation at Slide 23 (April 1, 2009), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regact/tscpwg/cpworkshop04_01_09.pdf.

5 Lett er from Courtney M. Price, ACC, to EPA Docket ID. No. OAR

- 203

- 0200, at 2 (Mar. 2, 2005). See also William R. Stockwell, Review of the Updated Maximum Incremental Reactivity Scale of Dr. William Carter , at 1 (Nov. 29, 1999) (―The contribution of each VOC t o the formation of ozone is different because each has a different oxidation mechanism in the atmosphere. The ozone formation potential has been characterized by several different measures . . . .‖).

6 See, e.g., National Volatile Organic Compound Emi ssion Standards for Aerosol Coatings , 72 Fed. Reg. 38,952, 38,963, 38,962 (July 16, 2007) (proposed rule) (―EPA recognizes that individual VOC can react differently in the atmosphere and can vary in the amount of ozone generated.‖ Furthermore, ―[I]f the V OC content limits are [set] too low manufacturers may be forced to use more reactive solvents to achieve comparable product performance. For example, . . . manufacturers may have to increase the usage of toluene and xylene in order to reformulate to a hig her solids coating. Both toluene and xylene are very reactive compounds and have the potential to form significantly larger quantities of ozone than many other solvents. If manufacturers use VOC with higher reactivities, it is possible that decreasing th e VOC content of the coating potentially increases the actual ozone formation.‖).Page 4 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

satisfactory VOC emission reductions have been noted in the past. 7 It is irrational to anticipate that formulators will s imply reduce the quantity of existing VOCs in products without making substitutions to maintain product performance. Another unintended consequence of the Proposed Amendments would be reduced product performance. A reactivity

- based approach, by contrast, will minimize ozone formation potential because formulators will not be restricted to compensating for low

- VOC compound volumes with highly

- reactive constituents. Under a reactivity

- based approach, formulators will have the flexibility to create better p erforming products for the market while ensuring that atmospheric impacts from VOC emissions are reduced. Such an approach benefits consumers, industry, the environment, and public healt h.

If CARB’s desire is to achieve a certain overall reduction in oz one formation that is at least equivalent to reductions achievable through mass

- based reductions , it can easily back calculate product

weighted MIR limits to achieve that outcome. Such an approach would be far superior to CARB’s proposed mass

- based standa rd and supplemental aromatics restriction.

III. Reactivity

- Based Standards Are Already Being Successfully Implemented By CARB.

Reactivity

- based standards are already in effect in California, having successfully been implemented by CARB in its 2001 aerosol co atings rule. Thus, there is an existing regulatory and policy framework that supports the further development and implementation of reactivity

- based standards.

EPA has also recognized the superiority of a reactivity

- based regulatory approach, based larg ely on CARB’s own experience in the area. For example, EPA approved California’s own reactivity

- based rule governing VOC emissions from aerosol coatings products in 2005. 8 That same day, EPA issued an interim guidance, recommending to the states that the y explore adopting reactivity

- based approaches in their State Implementation Plans. 9 EPA then adopted a reactivity

- based standard for aerosol coatings in 2008, based on California’s rule, and has recently proposed to add additional compounds and reactivit y factors. 10

6 Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan and Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

– Removal of VOC Exemptions for California’s Ae rosol Coating Products Reactivity

- Based Regulation; Proposed Rule

, 70 Fed. Reg. 1,640, 1,648 (Jan. 7, 2005) (proposed rule) (―The CARB reported that one company intended to comply with stricter CARB VOC mass

- based limits by using less total VOC, but also b y increasing the amount of much more reactive VOCs to compensate for solvency needs in the product. The CARB also reported that another large company indicated that its compliance strategy with more stringent VOC mass limits would be to increase the aroma tic content (increasing reactivity) in its products. In these instances, CARB points out that the increased reactivity of the VOC emissions likely reduces the benefits of the lower mass of VOC emissions.).

8 Revisions to the California State Implementati on Plan and Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

– Removal of VOC Exemptions for California’s Aerosol Coating Products Reactivity

- based Regulation , 70 Fed. Reg. 53,930, 53,931 (Sept. 13, 2005) (final rule) (―The CARB hopes to targ et VOC emissions reductions to better control a product’s contribution to ozone formation by encouraging reductions of higher reactivity VOCs, rather than by treating all VOCs in a product alike through a mass

- based rule.‖)

9 Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans , 70 Fed. Reg. 54,046, at 54,046 (Sept. 13, 2005) (―[EPA] encourages States to consider recent scientific information on the photochemical reactivity of [VOCs]. . . .).

10 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings, 74 Fed. Reg. 14,941 (Apr. 2, 2009) (proposed rule); National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings , 73 Fed. Reg. 15,604, 15,606 (Mar. 24, 2008) (final rule) (―It is gener ally understood that not all VOC are equal in their effects on ground

- level ozone formation. Some VOC react extremely slowly and changes in their emissions have limited effects on ozone pollution episodes. Some VOC form ozone more quickly than other VOC, or they may form more ozone than other VOC. Other VOC not only form ozone themselves, but also act as catalysts and enhance ozone formation from other VOC.‖).Page 5 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

Despite the growing trend toward reactivity

- based standards, SIG is aware that a select group of other stakeholder s has raised concerns about the appropriateness of regulating based on reactivity. First, some raise the issue of ―toxicity. ‖ The argument is that reactivity

- based standards would result in the formulation of products that are more ―toxic‖ than conventional products. This argument is ambiguous and misplaced.

As an initial matter, it is not clear in this context what is me ant by ―toxicity.‖ Is the concern exposure to the general public through ambient concentrations? Or is the concern acute exposure to workers or consumers? Toxicity of particular compounds, by itself, provides little information about actual risk. If an ything, the discussion should be about risk, which is a measure of toxicity, dose, and duration of exposure. If the concern is workplace safety for product formulators, federal and state workplace safety regulations would govern. If the argument is point of use exposure, consumers are given clear instructions for minimizing exposures through proper handling and application techniques. If the argument is ambient air exposure, there is simply no credible evidence that suggests that releases from Thinners a nd Solvents create toxic conditions in the ambient environment. Moreover, to the extent that CARB is concerned with exposure to certain chlorinated compounds, then it could adopt a reactivity

based approach that also restricts substances of concern.

A nother concern some have raised is that reactivity

- based regulations will increase ambient PM 2.5 concentrations and Secondary Organic Aerosol (―SOA‖) yields. SIG is unaware of any data supporting that proposition. To the contrary, recent data published b y the South Coast Air Quality Management District contradicts this assertion. Specifically, a recent CE

- CERT study cited by the South Coast concluded that the PM formation potential of several common VOC compounds are similar to and in several cases lower than the ―base case.‖ 11 These results shed significant doubt on the assertion that reactivity

- based rules will increase secondary PM.

Finally, CARB has raised questions about the enforceability of reactivity

- based standards, citing technical and cos t concerns associated with sampling product off the shelf and determining compliance with established limits. As a practical matter, any regulation, whether mass or reactivity

- based, will require formulators and manufacturers to comply with the law or fac e significant civil or criminal penalties (like virtually every other environmental regulatory scheme in the United States). To avoid an otherwise viable regulatory scheme based on the unfounded assumption that the regulated community will automatically t ry to cheat the system discredits the regulated community. In any event, it is obvious that several recordkeeping and certification/reporting mechanisms could be adopted to address this concern. For example, p roduct formulators can be required to keep ve ry specific product formulation and manufacturing data, and CARB can require submission of this data at any time. If, upon review of submitted data, CARB were to determine that actual product sampling is required, it c ould perform that testing on a much s maller subset of products of interest. In the alternative, we are willing to work with CARB to develop a third

- party certification system that product formulators would have to obtain prior to putting product on the market. Third

- party certification syst ems are widely used in other consumer product settings, and can easily be adapted to MPS and t hinners if necessary. CARB would also have the authority to independently verify compliance through product specific testing similar to the current enforcement s cheme for CARB’s aerosol rule.

11 See SCAQMD draft Environmental Assessment for its proposed Rule 1143, Consumer Paint Thinne rs and Multi

Purpose Solvents, at table 2

- 5.Page 6 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

IV. Specific Comments

.

A. CARB Must Evaluate a Reactivity

- Based Option

CARB has long recognized that reactivity

- based methodologies provide a reasonable alternative to convention al mass

- based approaches. Indeed, i n its 20 07 comprehensive strategy (the ―Strategy‖) for obtaining the federal 8

- hour ozone standard , CARB acknowledges that :

the ability to achieve significant reduction from mass

- based standards is waning, so staff will likely be shifting the focus to other poten tial emission reduction opportunities. O n e such measure would include investigating emission reduction opportunities through reactivity

- based standards in most categories . A reactivity

- based approach relies on the scientific principle that different chem ical compounds form different amounts of ozone in the atmosphere, rather than the mass

- based approach that reduces ozone formation by reduc ing all reactive organic gases. . . . In the future, it is likely that further emission reductions from the consumer products source category will not be feasible using conventional approaches. 12

In light of this recognition, pursuant to Government Code section 11346.2, CARB has an obligation to consider and evaluate a reactivity

- based alternative to its current propos al. To date, CARB has only considered four alternatives: (1) no action, (2) different limits, (3) the setting of different effective dates , and (4) different limits for different categories

. 13 This analysis is legally insufficient. By failing to evaluate reactivity, CARB has ignored by far the most reasonable alternative, one it has adopted for aerosol coating products. If CARB is going to reject reactivity, it has an obligation to provide its formal explanation for such a decision.

SIG urges CARB to adhere to its own comprehensive Strategy and to shift its focus to a more progressive reactivity approach.

B. CARB’s Proposed Aromatics Prohibition is Arbitrary and Capricious

CARB’s proposed amendments would, effective December 31, 2010, prohibit an y person from selling, supplying, offering for sale, or manufacturing for use in California any MPS or thinner that contains greater than 1 percent aromatic compounds by weight. See proposed § 94509(u)(1)(c). The purpose of this provision is to prohibit formulators from replacing current VOC solvents used in MPS and thinners with ―highly reactive‖ aromatics and hence negate the reductions anticipated by the tier 1 standards.

This aromatic prohibition is essentially a reactivity

- based provision grafted onto a conventional

mass

- based approach. SIG opposes this prohibition on several grounds. First, if CARB is going to rely on reactivity

- based concepts, then it ought to adopt the concept in its entirety. CARB selective use of reactivity unfairly serve s only to make the mass

- based approach more onerous and denies formulators any of the benefits of relative reactivity. Second, at the very least, if CARB is going to rely on reactivity to prohibit the use of aromatics, it should also allow reactivity to se rve as the basis for an alternate control plan

. As currently drafted, a consumer product could only be eligible for a n innovative products exemption if the manufacturer ―demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that . . . use of the product will res ult in less VOC emissions.‖ Proposed § 94511(a). Thus, a product that emits more VOC

12 Strategy at 129.

13 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation, Initial Statement of Reason Technical Support Document page 12.Page 7 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

emissions than a representative product could not be eligible for an exception even if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that its actual ozone

- forming potential is lower. Such an outcome is un justified in the face of CARB’s use of reactivity to ban the use of aromatics. It must also be noted that CARB uses reactivity to exempt low reactive compounds in this proposal.

Finally, CARB has not adequately explaine d and justified the need for and scope of the aromatics prohibition. First, CARB has not explained why it proposes to limit the prohibition to aromatics. CARB offers several examples of why prohibiting formulators from using xylenes and toluene , which ha ve MIR values of 7.37 and 3.97 g O 3 /g VOC, respectively, would ensure that reformulated products would not result in greater ozone generation

. 14 While this may be true, it does not explain why the prohibition is limited to aromatics. Many other compounds have MIR values that exceed xylene and toluene, yet they would not be subject to the rule’s use prohibition

. It would be arbitrary and capricious for CARB to adopt, with out adequate explanation

, a ban on the use of certain higher reactive compounds ( i.e
., aromatics) yet allow other compounds with equivalent or higher MIRs to be used freely.

In addition, in the absence of regulating based on reactivity, a formulator could choose to use 3% of any non

- exempt VOC species, which could have an MIR up to abou t 20. A blend that is 97% acetone and 3% of a 20 MIR species would have a weighted MIR value of approximately 1.0. In effect, CARB has unintentionally set an upper reactivity limit of about 1.0 g ozone per gram of product, potentially limiting the total emission reduction to about 53% not 98.5% ozone reduction as claimed. The arbitrary 1% limit placed solely upon aromatic compounds does little or nothing to mitigate this.

Nor has CARB provided any justification for the specific aromatic limit of one per cent. How did CARB arrive at that number? What would be the implications of a prohibition set at some higher percentage, such as 2 or 5 percent? SIG requests that CARB provide this analysis and allow stakeholders to comment on it before finalizing the p rohibition.

C. CARB Has Not Demonstrated that Its Proposed Regulations are Commercially and Technologically Feasible

CARB has proposed to establish a two tiered approach to regulating MPS and thinners. Tier 1 would become effective on December 31 , 2010 and limit VOCs to 30 percent by weight. The tier 2 standard would take effect on December 31, 2013 and limit VOCs to 3 percent. California Health and Safety Code § 41712 provides that before CARB may adopt regulations to control VOCs in consumer
p roducts , it must first determine that such standards are (1) commercially and technologically feasible and necessary; and (2) necessary to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards. CARB has not met it s burden here

, particularly with respect to its proposed tier 2 standard s.

First , SIG object s to CARB’s failure to make available the complete results of its 2008 MPS/Thinners survey update . The absence of this information has prevented SIG and other stakeholders from assess ing fully the feasi bility and merit of CARB’s proposal. The limited data released in March 2009 included in the proposed amendments to the consumer products regulation initial statement of reason technical support document simply does not provide enough detail for a meaning ful evaluation. Thus, we respectfully request that CARB make the comprehensive results of its 2008 survey available and allow stakeholders sufficient time to evaluate the data and comment before making any final decisions on the proposal.

14 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Produc ts Regulation, Initial Statement of Reason Technical Support Document page 101

.Page 8 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

CARB staff it self makes the case that the tier 2 standards are not commercially and technologically feasible. For example, CARB staff state in the T SD that, ―For the second tier limit, w e believe it has not been demonstrated that products meeting the 3 percent VOC lim it will function as paint thinners for all solvent

- borne coatings available in commerce. While we are encouraged about the future viability of low VOC thinners, such as soy based products, it has not yet been demonstrated that they are ready for introduct ion into the market. ‖ 15 CARB staff elsewhere state that the ―overwhelming majority of existing products that meet the 3 percent VOC limit are formulated with pure acetone. We believe that the 3 percent VOC limit is challenging because products formulated with pure acetone have not been demonstrated to adequately thin all types of coatings.‖ 16 To account for this feasibility concern , CARB staff has proposed to undertake a technology assessment in 2012 ―to evaluate manufacturer’s progress toward meeting the 3 percent limit.‖ Id.

This on its face shows that CARB has not met its burden. Until CARB can conclusively demonstrate that its tier 2 standard is feasible for thinners, it simply cannot, as a matter of law, adopt the standard

— at least as it applies sp ecifically to thinners. SIG recommends that CARB table further consideration of its Tier 2 standards until it can complete its technology assessment in 2012.

CARB has not sufficiently demonstrated that its tier 1 standard is feasible for both MPS and th inners. CARB bases its conclusion that the tier 1 standards are feasible on the results of its 2008 MPS/Thinners survey. I n particular, CARB staff assert that ―18 products, representing approximately 11.3 percent of the tot al Thinners and Solvent market o n a sales basis, currently comply with the proposed 30 percent VOC limit. . . . We believe that this demonstrates that the first tier VOC limit of 30 percent by weight can be met using existing technology

. ‖ 17

However, of the 18 products that currentl y meet the 30 percent limit, 15 of them also meet the 3 percent limit. Id. This in turn means that the ―overwhelming majority‖ of these products are formulated with pure acetone

— a formulation that according to CARB has ―not been demonstrated to adequatel y thin all types of coatings.‖ 18 In other words, most of the existing products meeting the 30 percent limit are the very same acetone products for which CARB has raised efficacy concerns as it relates to the 3 percent limit

. Thus, the same feasibility con cerns exist for tier 1. Since CARB has not yet released the full results of the 2008 survey , SIG has no way of knowing the characteristics of the three remaining products and whether they have been demonstrated to adequately thin all types of coatings.

Nor has CARB demonstrated that its proposal is necessary to attain State and federal ambient air quality standards. As discussed above, since CARB has not evaluated a reactivity

- based option, it cannot be said that this CARB proposal , i.e., a mass

- based approach, is ―necessary‖ as that term is used in Health and Safety Code § 41712. That determination cannot be made until CARB completes its comprehensive analysis of all available options , including reactivity

.

15 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation, Initial Statement of Reason Executive summary ES

7

.

16 SIG shares CARB’s efficacy concerns. Recent studi es show, for example, that acetone may not be suitable as a lacquer thinner and may cause ―cobwebbing‖ and ―humidity blushing‖ due to its rapid evaporation rate. Cobwebbing occurs during a spray application when too much of the solvent evaporates. Humidi ty blushing can occur after any application method, and results from the evaporative cooling effect of the rapidly evaporating solvent. SIG reiterates that CARB should not promulga te its proposal, particular the tier 2 standard, until it has confirmed tha t ultra

- low VOC products are compatible with their intended

uses.

17 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation, Initial Statement of Reason Technical Support Document page 61.

18 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Pro ducts Regulation, Initial Statement of Reason Technical Support Document page 62.Page 9 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

D. CARB’s Tier 2 Standard Could Raise Pub lic Safety Concerns

SIG shares CARB’s concern that an ultra

- low, mass

- based VOC standard raise s public safety concerns resulting from the increased fire hazards of reformulated MPS/thinner products. Although SIG supports CARB’s proposed labeling require ments and enhanced public education generally

, CARB has
not sufficiently explained how these measures would meaningful ly mitigate the increase d fire risks that

w ould result from the rule as proposed . SIG believes that th is is yet another reason why CARB s hould delay finaliz ing its proposed tier 2 standard. CARB should not make any final determinations on its tier 2 limits until it completes its proposed technology assessment in 2012 . The risks to public safety are too great to proceed without this needed assessment

. In light of CARB’s acknowledgement that its ultra

- low tier 2 standard could result in increased fire hazards for consumers and the public at large

, 19 SIG questions how CARB staff could simultaneous ly conclude that ―No significant adverse impa cts were identified‖ with the proposal 20 . SIG requests that CARB reassess its preliminary conclusion on this issue.

E. Global Warming

CARB staff also proposes to limit the Global Warming Potential of MPS and thinners to no more than 150. But ina smuch as CARB proposes such a limit as part of its regulatory efforts to reduce the

ozone

- forming potential of consumer products, it has an obligation to demonstrate that its proposed GWP limit is commercially and technologically feasible. CARB has done n o such analysis here. Nor are we aware of an analysis of the projected actual climate benefits of the rule, which would allow for a cost

benefit assessment.

SIG respectfully requests that before finalizing its GWP proposal CARB provide record support
to demonstrate that the limit is indeed feasible and will not eliminate a product form.

V. Conclusion

SIG urges ARB to suspend consideration of their Consumer Products amendments at its September 24, 2009 Board meeting in its current form. To be cle ar, we are not against the regulation of multipurpose solvents and paint thinners. On the contrary, SIG supports reasonable regulation aimed at securing reductions of ground

- level ozone in our urban environments. SIG is, however, against ill

conceived re gulation that places a heavy burden on industry, reduces product performance, and raises safety concerns, the effectiveness of which is uncertain at best.

19 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation, Initial Statement of Reason Executive Summary

- 17.

20 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Produ cts Regulation, Initial Statement of Reason Executive Summary

- 16.Page 10 of 10

CARB CP Amendments, Sept.24, 2009

As always, SIG appreciates the opportunity to work with CARB on regulations that may impa ct the solvent industry. SIG is also appending to these comments a white paper further explaining the role of reactivity as part of effective ozone control strategies for your consideration. We remain committed to working with the Board on the development and implementation of reactivity

- based standards in California, and look forward to continued dialogue in this area. Thank you for considering these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at (703) 741

- 5612 or Leslie_Berry@americanchemist ry.com.
Sincerely,

Leslie Berry Solvent s Industry Group Manager Chemical Products and Technology Division

cc: Robert Fletcher, P.E., Division Ch ief, Stationary Source Division Janette Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch, Stationary Source Division Carla Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section, Stationary Source Division Judy Yee, Manager, Implementation Section, Stationary Sourc e Division Trish Johnson, Air Quality Measures Staff Lead, 2009 Regulatory amendments

AttachmentSolvent Industry Group

2009 

## Development of an Effective Regulatory Approach Approach 

# Control of Ozone Formation from Household and Commercial Product Use

Solvents Industry GroupSqueezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 1 The paints, cleaners, and personal care products we use to beautify and sanitize our homes, offices, and belongings contain a wide range of volatile chemicals that may be contributors to urba n air pollution. These chemicals, known commonly as VOCs, are essential to the overall performance of these products. A common definition of a VOC refers to any chemical that is capable of entering the atmosp here and participating in a chemical reaction that leads to ozone formation. This broad definition encompasses many types of chemical s in addition to the VOCs used as solvents in household and commercial p roducts. Although the use of solvent VOCs has been curtailed over the last 40 years, more ozone reductions are necessary to achie ve our goals of a safe and healthy atmosphere. The complete removal of solvent VOCs from the marketplace is not a practical optional, h owever, since the performance properties of many items depends on the use of some solvent as an aid to formulation and application.

Enormous effort has been made in reformulating prod ucts to eliminate the nonessential use of solvent VOCs while retainin g their properties in a range of applications. For the most part, these ga ins have been achieved through the nonselective removal of VOCs, regardless of their relative ability to react and form ozone, the main component of urban smog. This "shotgun" approach to VOC control, whic h treats all VOCs as equal contributors to ozone formation is no long er a viable method for reducing emissions. Aggressive control of VOC use in the twenty-first century demands the replacement of current manageme nt practices in favor of controls that rely on the principles of ph otochemical reactivity.

This new approach recognizes that some solvent VOCs are far more reactive in the atmosphere than others, and that ta rgeting the most reactive will achieve a far greater benefit at a lo wer cost. Although some VOC control plans utilize reactivity principles, mo re needs to be done to accelerate the conversion to a new control policy a nd reduce the ozone threat in a technically correct and environmentally sound manner. ...... targeting those solvent VOCs with the highest reactivity is more effective than the nonselective removal of all VOCs 

# Control of Ozone Formation from

Household and Commercial Product Use Household and Commercial Product Use

Development of an effective regulatory approach

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 2



## Role of VOCs in Ozone Formation Role of VOCs in Ozone Formation

VOCs may contribute to the formation of ozone in a complex series of reactions that requires the presence of heat, sunli ght, and nitrogen oxides or NOx, whose primary source is automobile e xhaust.

To reduce ozone levels in the atmosphere, both VOC and NOx emissions can be controlled; but, depending on thei r relative amounts, one component or the other will be the most effecti ve target. For instance, in a NOx rich urban environment, the rate of ozone formation is directly related to the amount of VOC available. T he opposite may be true in rural environments where VOCs are in excess and the removal of NOx translates into an ozone decline.

The VOCs emitted into an urban environment come fro m the following four sources:

• 

### Vegetation – biogenic sources are generally important in rura l environments, but some cities in the Southeast have major emissions from trees and plants.

• 

### Mobile – mobile emissions come from the transportation se ctor and are the result of evaporative and exhaust emiss ions from the use of on-road and off-road vehicles; including tra ins, planes, watercraft, construction equipment.

• 

### Stationary Stationary – these emissions are from fixed locations and include the fugitive releases of VOCs from industri al and nonindustrial locations that use or manufacture volati le chemicals. Many nonattainment areas are located in major urban hubs, such as Houston, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, that are natural targets for VOC control.

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 3 • 

### Area – area sources of VOCs emissions include the widel y dispersive releases associated with the use of cons umer and commercial products.

Although each of these sources contribute to the at mospheric burden of VOCs, some sources are more amenable to control tha n others, especially in an urban environment. Vegetative sou rces, for example, cannot be reasonably controlled; and cities like At lanta where biogenic emissions dominate the landscape, need to extract a larger percentage of their VOC reductions from the remaining source c ategories.

Although the relative contribution of the three maj or VOC sources can vary according to location, the pie chart for the S acramento nonattainment region is reasonably representative o f the distribution observed in many urban environments. As shown, mob ile emissions are the dominant source of VOCs in most situations. So lvent VOC emissions from the three area sources categories ar e by comparison far lower, comprising about 19% of the overall total. The solvent VOCs emitted from individual area sources each contribut e to less than 10% of the total emission inventory. Though the solvent V OCs from these product areas are not major contributors, they are a potentially controllable sources that are often addressed in an y ozone attainment plan. Cities like Atlanta where biogenic emissions dominate, need to extract a larger percentage of their VOCs reductions from the remaining source categories.

Constructing an emissions inventory from a survey of VOCs in the 4 major source categories is a crucialfirst step in the identification of potential control options. Sacramento VOC Emissions (168 tons/day)

Consumer Products 9%
Arch. Coatings 5%

Other 5%Auto/LightMed Duty Trucks 34% Other 7% Rec. Boat 15% Off-Road

Equip. 8% Other

6%

Other

6% Stationary 11% Other Mobile 29%

Area-Wide 19%

On-Road Mobile 41% Coatings 5%

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 4 The USEPA recently released figures to show that VO C emissions from non-biogenic sources in the US have declined by 52% in the 16 year period ranging from 1980 to 2006. A closer examina tion of this information reveals, however, that the majority of these gains were made in the early years of the program. The chart below shows that the reduction of VOC emissions has tailed off in recent years and that more moderate mass reductions can be expected in the fut ure.

This shrinking pool of VOCs available for ozone con trol has important implications for the development of control options . Many ozone nonattainment areas in the East and Southwest have projected large shortfalls in their VOC reduction goals. This has necessitated far stricter emission limits on solvent VOCs to compensate for i ncreases associated with population growth. These new restrictions hig hlight the need for innovative ways of thinking about the relationship between VOC use and ozone formation. Despite these problems, there has not been any attempt to systematically entertain new options for solvent VOC control.



## Ozone control in the US : a selective history Ozone control in the US : a selective history

Limiting the creation of urban ozone through VOC co ntrol has been a regulatory priority for over 40 years. The first r ules can be traced back to Los Angeles District's Rule 66, which targeted t he release of many VOC species in an attempt to limit the formation of urban ozone. Rule The reduction of VOC emissions has tailed off in recent years and more moderate mass reductions can be expected in the future.

The California Air Resources Board was the first to pass an Aerosol Coatings regulation in 2001 that incorporated theprinciples of photochemical reactivity. 

### 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007


### year 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35VOC emissions (M tons/year)

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 5 66 was a pass/fail regulation that only considered those reactive VOCs considered to have appreciable ozone-formation pote ntial.

For nearly two decades, ozone control in the United States focused entirely on limiting VOC emissions. It was only af ter the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that NOx became a target for future action. NOx regulations provided an important new tool in the fight against ozone pollution, since their implementation in many parts of the country brought far greater benefit than the contro l of VOCs alone. But because NOx controls are not as effective in urban environments, where the rate of ozone formation is directly related to VOC emissions, both ozone precursors must be subjected to control.

The Clean Air Act Amendments also marked the beginn ing of an aggressive attempt to control solvent VOCs by ident ifying areas that were not in compliance with the national ambient oz one standard. Those States with ozone nonattainment areas were re quired to submit a more detailed State Implementation Plan or SIP for tackling their air pollution problems. A necessary ingredient to thes e plans was the requirement for a 15 percent reduction of VOC relea se over a 6 year period in those areas in moderate violation of the standard.

To assist the States in carrying out these goals, t he CAA Amendments required the USEPA to regulate consumer and commerc ial product categories that accounted for at least 80 percent o f the solvent VOC emissions in nonattainment areas. Although this li st of potential control categories was created after first considering the ozone-forming potential, or reactivity, of individual VOCs in eac h product category, there was no stipulation that photochemical reactiv ity be used as the basis for controlling VOC release from these source s.

Using the list of product categories, the USEPA cre ated two types of control measures that the States could utilize to l imit the use and release of solvent VOCs. The first type of control measure s were called Control Technique Guidelines or CTGs, which are not regulat ions but recommendations that target facilities using large amounts of VOCcontaining products whose composition can be contro lled through arrangements with the supplier. Since 2006, CTGs h ave been issued for 12 VOC categories. Some CTGs specify solvent V OC content limits

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 6 for products, but most identify emission limits for the application of a particular type of coating. The second type of con trol measures are rules, which are aimed at the manufacturers of cons umer and commercial products. These EPA rules are applied t o products that are in use by the general public rather than industrial facilities. Once implemented, they apply nationwide and can affect t hose living in both attainment and nonattainment areas. Rules have bee n issued for 5 product categories.

• Consumer products

• Architectural coatings

• Automobile refinish coatings

• Portable fuel containers

• Aerosol spray paints

Although ozone contribution to air pollution is ind isputable, the methods used to control VOC release from consumer products have been the subject of considerable debate for many years. Two alternatives are available to State and Federal regulators:

i ) treat all reactive VOCs as equal contributors to urban smog without any consideration of relative impact ( mass- based approach ) ; or

ii ) Encourage industry to reformulate to the VOC sp ecies which have the least potential for ozone formation ( reactivitybased approach ) .

Traditionally, solvent VOCs have been regulated usi ng mass-based controls that limit the mass percentage of VOCs in various products or formulations, such as paint. Under this approach, VOCs are either considered reactive, and therefore subject to VOC r egulation, or negligibly reactive, and thus exempt from control. Negligibly reactive compounds are compounds that, based on USEPA studie s, contribute minimally to ozone formation. This list of compoun ds ( often referred to as VOC exempt compounds ) was established by USEPA a nd can be modified by regulation. The rules for consumer products and architectural coatings were created in 1997 and are in the process of being updated.

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 7 Mass-based limits, which are relatively easy to iss ue and implement have been the avenue of choice for developing new c ontrol regulations based on their long history of use. A mass-based a pproach treats all non-exempt VOCs alike in their ability to generate ozone. However, solvent VOCs vary significantly in their ability to impact ozone levels. Despite the fact that mass-based controls are rapid ly becoming ineffective, many State regulatory authorities have adopted the position that reactivity will only be considered as a VOC co ntrol option once mass-based opportunities have been exhausted. Alth ough both types of controls have their own advantages and disadvantage s, recent events suggest that mass-based controls are becoming ineff ective and going forward significant benefits are more realistically achieved with widespread adoption of reactivity-based controls.



## Diminishing returns from current policies Diminishing returns from current policies

State compliance with the Clean Air Act is no easy matter. Preparation, submission, and approval of a SIP for bringing nona ttainment areas into compliance with air pollution standards can take up to 3 years to complete. State agencies are often faced with prop osing dozens of control methodologies for both VOC and NOx in a sin gle action plan. In addition, SIPs contain a reasonable further progres s provision that mandates a yearly reduction of VOC and NOx in nonat tainment areas. In the face of these requirements, State authoritie s often need to develop VOC control options that go above and beyon d those proposed by the USEPA. The California Air Resources Board is currently considering the use of reactive measures in rulemaking for hairspray and nail coating products.

0.5 1.0 1.5 3 4 2 8 7 5 6 9 Esters 0.1-1.2 Aliphatics 0.4-2.7 Alcohols 0.4–3.4 Ketones 0.4-4.3

Glycol Ethers 1.8-3.8 Aromatics 4.0-9.0



### Incremental Reactivity Value

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 8 There is an initial appeal in adopting control plan s that require the least amount of up front effort. Under these circumstance s, the preferred approach to VOC control in the consumer and commerc ial product sector has been mass-based emission or content limi ts. Though this approach at first appears to respond to the problem of VOC control, there are numerous pitfalls, the most important of which is that massbased controls are not an effective means of loweri ng ozone levels in urban environments.

The following list cites some of the most serious p roblems with the use of mass-based limits in a control scheme for solven t VOCs. In particular, mass-based controls:

• do not utilize the latest scientific knowledge and allow the continued use of inaccurate and outmoded chemical " lumping" techniques to group VOCs into a few discrete chemic al groups;

• have become increasingly expensive to implement and comply with as the reservoir of controllable solvent VOCs is diminished;

• do not provide manufacturers with enough options to reformulate their products in a manner that will preserve perfo rmance under all use conditions;

• are arguably at variance with Section 183e of the C lean Air Act, which requires the use of the "best available contr ol" measures to achieve attainment;

• stifle innovation and product improvement by needle ssly restricting solvent VOC content rather than VOC haz ard;

• promotes the use of an exempt category of VOCs that is mistakenly believed to lack any ozone forming poten tial;

• are based on the mistaken belief that they are actu ally reducing urban ozone levels in all circumstances when recent evidence shows the ozone-forming potential of products is in creasing.

A recent analysis of the results from a solvent sur vey conducted before and after the implementation of mass-based controls in California has confirmed what many leading authorities have long s uspected, that mass-based regulations do not reliably reduce ozone forming potential Mass-based controlshave become increasingly expensive to implement and comply with as the reservoir of controllable VOCs is diminished.

The number ofcounties in nonattainment increased from 85 to 345 with the passage of the new ozone air quality standard in 2008.

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 9 and can in fact promote the use of more reactive VO C species. This may seem to be at odds with SIP requirements which stipulate that the value of all recommended control measures be substa ntiated using sophisticated urban airshed models. It must be rec ognized, however, that the urban airshed models used to predict the i mpact of these control measures simplify the chemistry and reactivity of t he available VOCs by grouping them into a few discrete categories. Thes e oversimplifications can easily distort the true picture and predict an ozone benefit when none actually exists.

Information presented at the VOC Reactivity Technol ogy Forum and Roundtable Discussion sponsored by the South Coast AQMD has indicated that the ozone-forming potential of many coating categories is actually on the rise. The increase is the result o f an overreliance on mass-based standards, which has allowed formulators to select solvents based on solvent strength, not on their actual envi ronmental impact. This lack of true control has led to most categorie s not achieving the ozone reduction touted by the mass-based VOC adjust ment, and in many cases the ozone formation from the coating cat egory actually increased despite a reduction in VOC mass. While s ome of that increase in ozone forming potential is due to volum e growth in the category, a large portion of it is due to a demonst rable increase in the reactivity of the solvents being selected. This un intended consequence of mass-based controls, becomes more severe as the reservoir of potentially controllable solvent VOCs in the produc t becomes smaller. 

## A need for new pollutant control ideas A need for new pollutant control ideas

Pollution control regulations in the US have target ed the use and release of solvent VOCs from consumer and commercial produc ts for many years, but the era of fast and easy gains on the oz one problem are quickly coming to an end. The need for new ingenui ty and insight into the problems of urban air pollution has never been greater. There is no better example of the increased demands being place d on VOC control policy than the predicted impact of the new nationa l ambient air quality standard for ozone.VOC Reactivity Technology Forum and Roundtable Discussion September 25, 2007, South Coast Air Quality Management District Headquarters Diamond Bar, CA.

In the face of ever stricter ozone standards and the impacts of global warming, the issue of VOC control needs to be reexamined at all levels of government

.

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 10 The recent reduction of the 8-hr ozone standard fro m 80 to 75 parts per billion is projected to put 4 times as many countie s into ozone nonattainment. Those States affected by the new st andard are required to file new SIPs by the year 2013. This will gener ate an even greater demand for novel VOC control methods, especially in urban areas where ozone concentrations are particularly high.

In fact, there are concerns that we may never be ab le to achieve total control of urban ozone because of the impacts from global warming. Studies have shown that rising greenhouse gas emiss ions have caused a temperature increase that will adversely affect o ur attempts to control ozone in polluted environments. In effect, these s tudies suggest that large increases in the emission of biogenic VOCs wi ll accompany a shift in the chemistry of smog formation. Together, thes e changes will lead to an increase in the regional background concentratio n of ozone. Climate change will also affect the intensity and duration of stagnant air episodes in urban areas and cause more prolonged periods of elevated ozone. The dual impacts of climate change and new ozone co ntrol standards mandate that agencies take a new approach to VOC co ntrol that will maximize environmental improvement opportunities an d minimize the burden to commerce, the community, and the economy. The Reactivity Research Working Group ( RRWG ) was organized in 1998 to conduct research and develop an improved scientific basis for reactivity-related regulatory policies.

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 11



## Reactivity: a rational alternative Reactivity: a rational alternative

VOC control policy in the US has not managed to sta y abreast of advances in the science of photochemical reactivity . For many years now scientists, manufacturers, and pollution preven tion advocates have argued for the use of reactivity scales in new poli cy initiatives.

Regulating chemicals according to their ability to contribute to ozone formation has the potential for dramatically impact ing urban ozone levels. The adoption of this new approach has met with considerable resistance, however. Although some rules have been passed at the State and Federal level that incorporate the princi ples of reactivity, there has been a belief by many that the old mass-based c ontrols provide greater benefit.

The current philosophy seems to be that reactivity should not be considered until all opportunities for mass-based c ontrols have been exhausted. But this policy of forcing ever tighter restrictions on the use of solvent VOCs is shortsighted and ignores the ben efits that can be accrued when reactivity is used early in the proces s. It is based entirely on the belief that as long as manufacturers can ref ormulate, mass reductions are the best option. Indeed, the recent passage of the photochemical reactivity-based Aerosol Coatings Rul e by the State of California was only possible after first determinin g that product reformulation was not an option. The USEPA has als o published a photochemical reactivity based Aerosol Coatings Rul e that is anticipated to be finalized in 2009. Evidence exists thatmass-based reformulation has resulted in products with a higher ozone formation potential than their predecessors.

The USEPA ’ s 2005 Interim Guidance encouraged states to consider recent scientific information on reactivity in the development of their SIPs. VOCs are not all alike... VOCs are not all alike... some react faster than ot some react faster than others some react faster than others

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 12 Under some circumstances mass-based reductions woul d seem to be a reasonable alternative, if there was a method to en sure that the VOC decreases were equally distributed among high and l ow reactivity solvents. This would ensure that the mass reduction s actually resulted in a decline in ozone formation. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and there is no guarantee that the products of tomo rrow will actually achieve the desired result of lowering urban ozone levels.

As noted earlier, evidence presented at the VOC Rea ctivity Technology Forum and Roundtable Discussion showed that mass-ba sed reformulation has resulted in products that have a higher ozone formation potential than their predecessors. This unanticipated effect occurs because product designers have seen a perfor mance advantage when low reactivity VOCs are preferentially removed from reformulated products. The result is an increased percentage of highly reactive VOCs and an overall greater ozone-forming potential for the product. Adopting a reactivity-based VOC control policy would prevent this unintended effect and ensure that all product reformulations a ctually result in a benefit to the environment. The continued push for mass reductions from consumer and commercial product categories doe s not guarantee that urban ozone levels will actually decline.

A shift in VOC control policy to a scheme that prom otes the use of reactivity-based limits would have a number of anci llary benefits that should also be considered. These include:

• easier prioritization of potential control measures using reactivity metrics;

• the identification of more cost-effective approache s to solvent VOC control;

• the development and use of more robust urban air sh ed models to identify control options and track progress on o zone attainment;

• an incentive to further speciate emissions inventor ies, which allow a more accurate identification of potential c ontrol VOC options;

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 13 • the creation of more substitution options for produ ct formulators resulting in more effective and efficient products.

Although some criticisms have been levied against t he use of reactivitybased standards, they are generally speculative and easily addressed in any future policy initiatives. For instance, the c laim that reactivity-based controls will allow greater use of less reactive, b ut highly toxic, solvents is difficult to substantiate, since manufacturers r outinely screen and eliminate highly hazardous chemicals from their pro duct formulations. Another criticism that has been cited is the belief that reactivity-based controls will lead to greater use of low reactivity VOCs that can be transported out of an area only to cause downwind i ncreases in ozone formation. Studies have shown, however, that this is not the case and that the ozone reductions realized by the upwind el imination of highly reactive VOCs are far greater that the increases re sulting from downwind formation.

In the face of increasingly difficult compliance de mands on State governments, reactivity-based controls provide a sc ientifically vetted and highly innovative approach to VOC control. The pat h has been cleared for the incorporation of reactivity metrics into St ate pollution control plans. The primary roadblock to widespread adoptio n is the failure to fully understand and appreciate the relative streng ths afforded by this state-of the art approach to ozone abatement. The sooner these advantages are recognized, the faster we can realiz e real improvements in urban ozone levels throughout the country.



## Summary

The current approach to the control of solvent VOCs focuses on massbased reductions to extract as much VOC as possible from a product category before looking at the feasibility of using reactivity-based controls. This tactic, however, can have negative environmental consequences by forcing product formulators to sele ct alternative VOCs without any regard to their ozone-forming potential . This trend was recently illustrated at the VOC Reactivity Technolo gy Forum where an analysis of past regulatory initiatives showed that strict reliance on mass -based VOC controls has led to an overall increase in the ozone-forming potential of some products as manufacturers choose more efficient, but more highly reactive, VOCs to reformulate their pro ducts. The failure to adopt reactivity-based controls on a wide spread ba sis represents a The first step in designing a regulation based on reactivity is to select the most appropriate reactivity scale.

VOC Reactivity Technology Forum and Roundtable Discussion September 25, 2007, South Coast Air Quality Management District Headquarters Diamond Bar, CA.

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 14 missed opportunity that could yield far greater env ironmental benefit than the present approach.

Drawbacks in the current VOC control policy can be prevented with a more aggressive move towards a reactivity-based VOC control plan at both the regional and national level. State agenci es in charge of pollution planning must become more willing to ente rtain alternatives to the rigid and restrictive nature of the mass-based measures currently in use. Adoption of a more robust and technically jus tified reactivity scheme provides an alternative that can reap benefi ts far into the twenty -first century. Over twenty differentphotochemical reactivity scales have been developed to meet any particular regulatory need.

### Squeezing the most out of VOC control

© 2009 American Chemistry Council All Rights Reserv ed 

### Page 15



## Reading List Reading List

The following reading list provides more informatio n on many of the topics discussed in this white paper.

Avery, R. J. ( 2006 ) . Reactivity-based VOC control for solvent products: More efficient ozone reduction strategies. Environmental Science & Technology 40 , 4845-4850.

Carter, W. P. L. ( 1994 ) . Development of ozone react ivity scales for volatile organic compounds. Journal of the Air & Waste Manag ement Association 44 , 881-899.

Environmental Protection Agency ( 2005 ) . Interim Gui dance on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implement ation Plans. Federal Register 70 , 54046-54051.

Environmental Protection Agency ( 2008 ) . National Vo latile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings; F inal Rule. Federal Register 73 , 15604-15631.

Luecken, D. J., and Mebust, M. R. ( 2008 ) . Technical challenges involved in implementation of VOC reactivity-based control of o zone. Environmental Science & Technology 42 , 1615-1622.

Nam, J., Webster, M., Kimura, Y., Jeffries, H., Viz uete, W., and Allen, D. T. ( 2 008 ) . Reductions in ozone concentrations due to c ontrols on variability in industrial flare emissions in Houston, Texas. Atmos pheric Environment 42 , 4198-4211.

National Academy of Science ( 1992 ) . Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Rector, D. ( 2005 ) . Controlling Reactivity to Achiev e Greater Reductions in Ozone-Forming Potential VOC Reactivity Technology F orum and Roundtable Discussion September 25, 2007. South Coast AQMD Hea dquarters Diamond Bar, CA.

Roth, P. M., Reynolds, S. D., and Tesche, T. W. ( 20 05 ) . Air quality modeling and decisions for ozone reduction strategies. Journ al of the Air & Waste Management Association 55 , 1558-1573.

Russell, A., Milford, J., Bergin, M. S., McBride, S ., McNair, L., Yang, Y., Stockwell, W. R., and Croes, B. ( 1995 ) . Urban ozone control and atmospheric reactivity of organic gases. Science 26 9 9 , 491-495. Please visit www.americanchemistry.com/ solvents for more information about other solvent topics.

This article may be reprinted in its entirety, non-commercially, if the following statement appears: “Reprinted with permission from the American Chemistry Council.” Solvent Industry Group Members

The Dow Chemical Company www.dow.com

ExxonMobil Chemical Company www.exxonmobilchemical.com

Shell Chemical LP www.shell.com

Eastman Chemical Company
ww.eastman.com

## Comment 10 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Doug Last Name: Raymond Email Address: djraymond@reg-resources.com Phone Number: 440-474-4999 Affiliation: WM Barr & Comapny, Inc.

Subject: NAA Comments on Consumer Product Amendments Board Agenda #09-8-4 Comment:

These comments go along with a DVD that will be distrubuted.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/171-skmbt_c35309092016470__3_.pdf

Original File Name: SKMBT_C35309092016470 (3).pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-22 11:55:59

No Duplicates.

## Comment 11 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Doug Last Name: Raymond Email Address: djraymond@reg-resources.com Phone Number: 440-474-4999 Affiliation: The National Aerosol Association

Subject: NAA Comments on Consumer Product Amendments Board Agenda #09-8-4 Comment:

Please find attached comments on behalf of the National Aerosol Association (NAA). Thank you.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/172- naa_comments_on_arb_proposed_board_agenda_item_09-8-4.doc

Original File Name: NAA comments on ARB proposed Board Agenda Item 09-8-4.doc

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-22 11:58:59

No Duplicates.

### 1 September 22, 2009

Clerk of the Board California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, Ca lifornia 95814 http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm/bclist.php

Subject: Comments on Consumer Product Amendments Board Agenda #09-8-4

Dear Clerk of the Board,

The National Aerosol Association (NAA) represents market ers, manufacturers and suppliers in the US aerosol industry. NAA is the only national trade association focused solely on the aerosol product form. The NAA has a long history of work ing cooperatively with the Air Resources Board (ARB) on past rulemakings dealing with Consumer Products. NAA’s goal is to provide ARB staff with the required emission reductions while mainta ining safe and efficacious aerosol products for the consumer.

NAA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ARB’s proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation. After revi ewing the proposed amendment s, the NAA has the following comments in four areas of concern t hat need to be addressed. Our comments will focus on the following areas. 1. Lack of a Reactivity Regulation for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. 2. The inclusion of an “aro matic” restriction. 3. Restriction of Global Warming Potentia l for Double Phase Air Freshener aerosol. 4. Increased Fire Risk to consumers for the 3% VOC limit.

Reactivity Concept NAA has been an active supporter of the science of reactivity. N AA was the first association to support ARB in the adoption of the Aerosol Coati ng regulation in 2000. While the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner amendments do not effect aerosols, NAA is disappointed that the concept of reactivity was not used when regulating these categories. The use of reactivity would have provided known emission reductions while providing flexibility to the manufacturer.

### 2 NAA Comments on Board Agenda Item #09-8-4 September 21, 2009 Page Two

Aromatic Compounds Restriction The inclusion of the aromatic compounds restriction would not be necessary if the concept of reactivity was utilized. In addition, the aromat ic compounds restriction does not accomplish the staff goal of reducing all high r eactive alternative compounds. While some aromatic compounds are high in reactivity, there are numerous other compounds which are high in reactivity and are not aromatic. Lastly, the definition fo r aromatic compounds is overly broad and will be difficult to verify through testing. Staff should remove this rest riction and focus on improvements for a reactivity regulation.
Global Warming Potential (GWP) Staff has proposed a GWP restriction on Double P hase Air Freshener aerosol s. Currently only one non flammable propellant remains thatcould be utilized in this category. That propellant is HFC134a. The GWP restriction eliminates the possible use of this compound. If there is a need for a non-flammable product in this category, industry has no alternatives. Staff should consider language to provide an exemption for this situat ion if it were to occur in the future.

Increased Fire Risk from 3% VOC Limit. NAA supports other commenters that the staff’s 3% proposed VOC li mit will force manufacturers to use the exempt compounds which are extremel y flammable. These compounds when added to a coating product will create an extremely flammable mi xture and drastically increase the fire hazard to the consumer.

Recommendations Staff should remove the 3% limit and aromat ic compounds restriction and focus on adopting reactivity based regulation. A reactivity regulatio n will also remove the increased fire risk issue.

In addition, staff should include wording to ex empt Double Phase Air Freshener products which may need to use a non-flammable propellant in the future.

NAA appreciates the opportunity to comment and I can be reached at 440-474-4999 or at djraymond@reg-resources.com with any questions.

On behalf of NAA

Doug Raymond

## Comment 12 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Larry Last Name: Greene Email Address: lgreene@airquality.org Phone Number: (916) 874-4802 Affiliation: SMAQMD

Subject: Comments on the Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulations Comment:

See attached letter dated 9/22/09.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/193- david_mallory__carb_re_1291_comments_on_arb_consumer_product_regulation__2_.doc

Original File Name: David Mallory, CARB re 1291_Comments on ARB Consumer Product Regulation (2).doc

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-22 16:25:10

No Duplicates.

### September 22, 2009

Mr. David Mallory Manager, Measures Development Section California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95812

RE: Comments on the Proposed Amendmen ts to the California Consumer Products Regulations

Dear Mr. Mallory:

Thank you for the opportunity to comm ent on the California Air Resources Board's proposed amendments to t he California Consumer Products Regulations. We commend and support the efforts to develop this regulation which achieves significant emissions reductions. The proposed regulation is written in a clear and detailed ma nner and provides the needed emissions reductions committed to in the recently adopted State Impl ementation Plan for the Sacramento region.

We request clarification regar ding the legal standing of our Rule 466 - Solvent Cleaning, following the effe ctive date of this Cons umer Product Regulation, considering the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 41712(f), which prohibits districts from adopting consumer product regulations that are different from a regulation adopted by the state board for that purpose.

Rule 466 - Solvent Cle aning, was originally a dopted May 23, 2002, and was recently amended September 25, 2008. Ru le 466 applies to consumer products and contains a cleaning solvent VOC content limit of 50 grams VOC per liter that is currently effective, a nd a 25 grams VOC per liter lim it that becomes effective on September 25, 2009. The proposed stat e regulation specif ies a multi-purpose solvent limit of 30% VOC by weight e ffective December 31, 2010, and a 3% VOC by weight effective December 31, 2013.

We would like clarification in ARB' s rulemaking record on two points:

1. We believe ARB's 3% limit is virtua lly equivalent to our Rule 466 25 gram limit, even though it is stated in differ ent numerical units. Does ARB agree that District Rule 466 is consist ent with the propos ed regulation and 41712(f)?

### Mr. David Mallory, CARB - 2 - September 22, 2009 Re: California Consumer Products Regulations

2. ARB has indicated that South C oast's Rule 1143, which will implement ARB's 2013 3% limit in 2010, is not affected by the ARB rulemaking, even though the deadlines for compliance are different. The same issue is raised by the District's September, 2009 implementation of its 25 gram VOC limit. Does ARB agree that the early implement ation of the new limit under our Rule 466 is c onsistent with 41712(f)?

We urge the California Air Resources Board to adopt the regulation at its September 24, 2009 hearing. If you have an y questions regarding this comment, please contact me or Brigette Tollstrup at (916) 874-4832.

Sincerely,

Larry Greene Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer

c. Mr. Robert Fletcher, ARB Ms. Janette Brooks, ARB Ms. Brigette Tollstrup

## Comment 13 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Daniel Last Name: Tennant Email Address: dantw1@yahoo.com Phone Number: n/a Affiliation: none

Subject: elimination of Comment:

The elimination of emissions of consumer products, that strikes at what every person in this state uses and sells. I don't know what this is aimed at, but I see the price of every product in this state going up, while the wind blows China's pollution to our shore.



### Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-22 23:54:16

No Duplicates.

## Comment 14 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Heriberta Last Name: Sandoval Email Address: anjalid@seiulocal1877.org Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: Reduce VOCs to protect workers Comment:

Heriberta Sandoval, 11703 Pioneer Blvd #20 Norwalk, CA 90650

September 24, 2009

Mary Nichols Chairman California Air Resources Board 1001 “I” Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Dear Chairman Nichols:

I want to thank your agency’s staff for your efforts to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and protecting the health of workers like me.

I am addressing you as a janitor who has been cleaning supermarkets for more than 15 years, as well as a concerned parent and consumer. I want to encourage your staff to continue working hard to reduce more toxic chemicals from products like multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners.

I am very committed to my job and I work hard to keep these supermarkets clean and open every day. However, on a daily basis I have to use harsh chemicals to clean the store. These chemicals and cleaning products cause a lot of damage – sometimes corroding my shoes and clothes. My co-workers and I constantly get headaches, nose bleeds, eye irritations and burns to our hands. Some janitors have developed serious asthma and other breathing problems.

I strongly encourage you to support your staff by setting the VOC limit to 3% and ask you to move the implementation date for multi-purpose solvents to 2012. Many products in the market already emit only 3% of VOCs. We believe that by moving the date for multi-purpose solvents, CARB will reduce the health impacts associated with the misuse of these products at our work places.

Finally, I would like to remind you that janitors like me, are waiting for a strong regulation of janitorial products and hope you will remind your staff they need to include them in the 2010 Consumer Products regulation. The regulation of janitorial products is a very important protection in our work.Again, thank you for your commitment.

Sincerely,

Heriberta Sandoval,



### Attachment:

Original File Name:

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-23 11:28:23

No Duplicates.

## Comment 15 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Luis Last Name: Cabrales Email Address: luis@coalitionforcleananir.org Phone Number: 12136301192 Affiliation:

Subject: 2009 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments Comment:

Please see the attached comments on behalf of the following organization:

COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR NOW SEIU-USWW ASIAN COMMUNITIES FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT BAY AREA HEALTHY 880 COMMUNITIES-SL NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT NOW SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA TRI-VALLEY CARES WOMEN’S VOICES FOR THE EARTH GREEN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE SIERRA CLUB—ANGELES CHAPTER EARTH DAY L.A. REGIONAL ASTHMA MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION/ COMMUNITY ACTION TO FIGHT ASTHMA INSTITUTO DE EDUCACIÓN POPULAR DEL SUR DE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA HEALTHY NAIL SALON COLLABORATIVE TEENS TURNING GREEN



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/196-2009_carb_reg_comments_092409.pdf

Original File Name: 2009 CARB Reg Comments_092409.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-09-23 11:48:00

No Duplicates.

## COALITION FOR CLEAN AIR CLEAN AIR NOW SEIU-USWW ASIAN COMMUNITIES FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT BAY AREA HEALTHY 880 COMMUNITIES-SL NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION IN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENT NOW * SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA TRI-VALLEY CARES * WOMENíS VOICES FOR THE EARTH GREEN SCHOOLS INITIATIVE SIERRA CLUBóANGELES CHAP TER * EARTH DAY L.A. REGIONAL ASTHMA MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION/ COMMUNITY ACTION TO FIGHT ASTHMA INSTITUTO DE EDUCACI”N POPULAR DEL SUR DE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA HEALTHY NAI L SALON COLLABORATIVE TEENS TURNING GREEN

September 24, 2009

Mary Nichols Chairman California Air Resources Board 1001 ìIî Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Via e-mail

Re: 2009 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments

Dear Chairman Nichols:

We, the cosigners, are writing to comment on the revised proposal for categories to be considered in the September 2009 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments.

We applaud your agencyís efforts to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from consumer products and commend your staff for listening to CARB board membersí orders to help protect the health of California residents, consumers and workers.

### We would like to highlight the following items from the most recent draft proposal.

MULTI-PURPOSE SOLVENT AND PAINT THINNER VOC LIMITS: Staff has proposed a reduction of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner VOC limits in two parts: Tier 1: 30% VOC limit by 12/31/2010; Tier 2: 3% VOC limit by 12/31/2013. Staff estimates that excluding SCAQMDís Rule 1143 reductions, this regulation will achieve a total of 14.7+ tons per day (tpd) VOC reductions by 2013. We are very hopeful about the estimated reductions from this regulation, but are concerned about the disparity with the SCAQMDís Rule 1143 implementation dates.

We strongly encourage CARB to align the VOC limit implementation date for multipurpose solvents closer to Rule 1143, setting 2012 as the implementation timeline. Our main reasons for this request are as follows: 1. The majority of the total volume of multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners is used for cleaning purposes, not thinning. 2. We are concerned that, as a result, products labeled as paint thinners will be inappropriately being used as multi-purpose solvents. 3. SCAQMD staff has conducted an extensive technology review of research on alternative products and found 164 that would meet the 3% VOC limit. These products are already available and 102 are certified under SCAQMDís Certified Clean-Air Solvents Program.

We believe that by aligning the effective date for multi-purpose solvents closer to that of Rule 1143, CARB will reduce the health impacts associated with the misuse of these products, and will achieve VOC reductions one year earlier.

PROPOSED NEW SUBSECTION 94509(U): We also want to express our strong support to the proposed new subsection 94509(u), which would prohibit perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene on multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners.

GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS: We are very supportive of staffís efforts to look at global warming emissions from consumer products. Many of these consumer products and their ingredients contribute directly and indirectly to the GHG emissions. Prohibiting chemical compounds with high Global Warming Potential (GWP) value is a great start. 

### We want to also encourage your agency to consider addressing other products and their ingredients and make California the first state to officially take steps to reduce our Global Warming foot print from consumer products.

PROPOSED EXEMPTION OF ARTISTíS SOLVENT/THINNER SOLD IN CONTAINERS OF 32 FL. OZ. OR LESS: We are concerned about staffís proposal to exempt artistís solvent/thinner sold in containers of up to 32 fl. oz. We feel this exemption is not necessary, and will continue to expose people to these dangerous chemicals. However, if staff thinks an exemption for this type of products is absolutely necessary, we suggest that it is a temporary exemption of small size paint thinners sold in containers of 8 fl. oz. or less.

### CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION IN 2010: Staff mentioned there will be another regulation process for the Consumer Products category in 2010. Staff has not shared details about the regulation, but according to their estimates, this regulation may help the state achieve an additional 5-8 tons per day (tpd) of VOC emissions reductions. We are hopeful staff will also include the following pending regulations, some of which were ordered by the Board members in 2008.

1. JANITORIAL PRODUCTS: During the June 2008 Board meeting, the Board instructed staff to regulate this category. Although staff has been working to compile data for possible VOC limits in cleaning products, and to allow for the peer review exposure scenarios reflecting the potential for increased use of certain toxic low vapor pressure solvents, it has been more than one year since the decision was made by the Board. We encourage you to direct staff to look at the information shared by the SCAQMD. CARB will be able to move forward with this regulation at a faster and less expensive manner.

As you may have learned, SCAQMD researched possible VOC reductions in a broad category of janitorial cleaning products. The SCAQMDís Clean Air Certification Program has already tested more than 50 cleaners able to meet the 1% VOC limit, which are cost-competitive and do not contain the compounds under review at OEHHA. However, if staff is concerned that industry may reformulate using those toxic low vapor pressure solvents, we urge you to direct staff to prohibit them. Alternatively, consideration should be made to remove the exemption for low vapor pressure solvents. These solvents eventually evaporate and ultimately contribute to VOC emissions.

2. METHYLENE CHLORIDE IN PAINT REMOVERS OR STRIPPERS: Staff has evaluated the products reported in the 2006 survey of Paint Removers and Strippers to reduce VOC emissions and ban the use of methylene chloride. Since 1/1/2005, the VOC limit for these products has been 50% by weight. Methylene chloride, however, is the most common ingredient; it is used by more than 50% of reported products, with concentrations ranging between 17 and 93% by weight. CARB staff is evaluating several potential alternatives (benzyl alcohol, dibasic esters and dimethyl sulfoxide) to move forward with a safe ban of methylene chloride. We commend this work and are very hopeful about the possibility of regulating this chemical.

3. DRY-CLEAN ONLY SPOT REMOVERS: Staff is evaluating the findings from its 2008 survey for the use of dry-clean only spot removers. Seven companies reported 48 products with VOC content ranging from less than 1% to 100%. Although CARB calculates 0.16 tpd of VOC emissions, the survey confirmed our concerns that Trichloroethylene was the most common VOC reported. CARB is evaluating the feasibility of reducing VOCs and TACs from formulations in these products. We hope staff will draft a proposal to remove the exemptions that prevent them from regulating dry cleaning only spot removers and include them in the 2010 Consumer Products rulemaking processes.

### 4. NAIL COATINGS EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT: Staff is evaluating the feasibility of regulating xylenes, toluene, dibutyl phthalate and formaldehyde from nail coatings used in nail salons. CARB staff conducted several site visits to Bay Area nail salons for information about the amount and type of products used. Staff is currently performing emissions modeling and will analyze and summarize the results. Staff has not confirmed when they will be done with this assessment, but we are urging them to continue working on this important matter and include a regulation in the 2010 Consumer Products rulemaking processes.

The actions suggested above will help CARB save much needed resources and move closer to achieving its 2007 SIP commitments. But most importantly, these actions are critical in the work and home environments, where exposure to emissions from products tends to be more than outdoors. We encourage you to not only choose the most environmentally friendly VOC limit but also one that is health protective and in line with the laudable goals put forward by the California Green Chemistry Initiative.

Again, thank you for your commitment to regulate VOCs in consumer products. We are very hopeful about this regulationís potential to help protect the health of California residents, consumers and workers who use these products on a daily basis.

We look forward to continue working with you on this important decision-making
process.
Sincerely,

Luis R. Cabrales, Senior Campaign and Outreach Associate Coalition for Clean Air

James J. Provenzano, C.Ph., President, Clean Air Now

Mike Garcia, President SEIU-USWW

Eveline Shen, Executive Director Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice

Pamela King Palitz Environmental Health Advocate and Staff Attorney Environment California

Lenny Siegel, Executive Director Center for Public Environmental Oversight

### Wafaa Aborashed, Executive Director Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities-SL

Adrian Martinez, Project Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council

Bonnie Holmes-Gen, Senior Policy Director American Lung Association in California

Mara Burstein, Air Program Manager Environment Now

Bill Magavern, Director Sierra Club California

Marylia Kelley, Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs

Erin Switalski, Acting Executive Director Womenís Voices for the Earth.

Anne Kelsey-Lamb, Director Regional Asthma Management and Prevention and Community Action to Fight Asthma

Deborah Moore, Executive Director Green Schools Initiative

Jim Stewart, PhD, President Earth Day L.A. Co-chair, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Global Warming, Energy & Air Quality Committee

Raul Anorve, Executive Director Instituto De EducaciÛn Popular Del Sur De California

Bahram Fazeli, Research & Policy Analyst Communities for a Better Environment

### Julia Liou, Coordinator California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative

Judi.Shils, Executive Director Teens Turning Green

## Comment 16 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310) - 45 Day.

First Name: Heidi Last Name: McAuliffe Email Address: Non-web submitted comment Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: National Paint & Coating Association Comment:

Please see attached.



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/197-cpmthd0001.pdf

Original File Name: cpmthd0001.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-10-05 16:22:50

No Duplicates.

## Comment 1 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310). (At Board Hearing)

First Name: Chet Last Name: Thompson Email Address: Non-web submitted comment Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: American Chemistry Council Comment:

please see attached



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/198-chet.pdf

Original File Name: Chet.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-10-06 10:00:20

No Duplicates.

## Comment 2 for Consumer Products Test Method 310 (cpmthd310). (At Board Hearing)

First Name: Barry Last Name: Wallerstein Email Address: Non-web submitted comment Phone Number: Affiliation:

Subject: South Coast AQMD Comment:

please see attached



### Attachment: www.arb.ca.gov/lists/cpmthd310/199-barry.pdf

Original File Name: Barry.pdf

Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2009-10-06 10:00:20

No Duplicates.