ATTACHMENT F



### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT



### Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 – Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings

December 2009

Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

AUTHOR: Don Hopps - Air Quality Specialist

REVIEWED BY: Andrew Lee, P.E. - Program Supervisor William Wong – Principal Deputy District CounselSOUTH COAST AIR QUALIT Y MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
Chairman: DR. WILLIAM A. BURKE Speaker of the Assembly Appointee Vice Chairman: DENNIS YATES Mayor, Chino Cities of San Bernardino MEMBERS:
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District County of Los Angeles MARION ASHLEY Supervisor, Fifth District County of Riverside MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI Councilmember, South Pasadena Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region BILL CAMPBELL Supervisor, Third District County of Orange
JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Appointee JOSIE GONZALES Supervisor, Fifth District County of San Bernardino RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, Riverside Cities of Riverside County JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph. D. Governor’s Appointee JAN PERRY Councilmember, Ninth District City of Los Angeles MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor, Santa Ana Cities of Orange County TONIA REYES URANGA Councilmember, City of Long Beach Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region
EXECUTIVE OFFICER: BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.i 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................................................................................... ES-1
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND Introduction

............................................................................................................................. 1-1 Regulatory History

..................................................................................................................... 1-1 Affected Industries

..................................................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1145 Overview: Proposed Amendments to Rule 1145

....................................................................... 2-1

Proposed Amendment #1

...................................................................................................................... 2-1 Proposed Amendment #2

...................................................................................................................... 2-1 Proposed Amendment #3

...................................................................................................................... 2-7 Proposed Amendment #4

...................................................................................................................... 2-8
CHAPTER 3: IMPACT ASSESSMENT Introduction

.............................................................................................................................. .. 3-1 Emission Impact Assessment

..................................................................................................... 3-1 Socioeconomic Impact Assessment

........................................................................................... 3-4 Potential Environmental Impacts

............................................................................................... 3-4 Draft Findings Under California Health and Safety Code 40727

.............................................. 3-5 Comparative Analysis

................................................................................................................ 3-6 Public Comments and Staff Responses

...................................................................................... 3-8
REFERENCES

........................................................................................................................ R-1
APPENDIX:

............................................................. ADHESION BY TAPE TEST RESULTS

∗ UV Coating Test Result s (08/27/09 & 09/08/09)

∗ Epoxy Ink Coating Test Results (09/17/09)

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARYExecutive Summary Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 ES-1 December 2009 

### Executive Summary Rule 1145 – Plastic, Rubber, Leather, and Gla ss Coatings, was origin ally adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board on July 8, 1983, to regulate Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOC”) emissions from plastic, rubber, and glass coating operations (leather substrates were added to the rule during the December 3, 2004 amendment). At this tim e, the rule has been amended fifteen times since the adoption date of July 8, 1983. This proposed sixteenth amendment would, in part, impl ement control measure MCS-07 – Application of All Feasib le Measures of the 2007 AQMP.

This proposed amendment to Ru le 1145 is designed to: (1) revise the VOC limit for the multi-color coatings category and bring it in lin e with the September 2008 U.S. EPA Control Techniques Guidelines (“CTG”), (2) establ ish a new coating category for a niche manufacturing process where a on e inch wide border is coated onto glass panels during the manufacturing of refrigerated glass doors for refrigeration cabinets, for which a compliant product is currently not available, (3) update th e rule with the deletion of paragraph (c)(3), where automotive coatings can be used in certain circumstances, and (4) make minor clarifications and editorial corrections to the rule.

The first proposed amendment seeks to reduc e the VOC limit for the multi-color category from 685 g/L VOC to 680 g/L VOC, to match the U.S. EPA CT G. Based on a 260 days per year work schedule, AQMD staff calculated the theoretical VOC reduction to be approximately 0.4 lbs/day.

The second proposed amendment seeks to a dd a new coating categor y to the Table of Standards in Rule 1145. This new propose d coating category, refr igerated glass door coatings, will allow the continued operation for one facility that has been operating under a Hearing Board Variance for the last two year s. As per conditions of the Hearing Board Variance, the facility was required to test VOC compliant coatings as part of their increments of progress requirement. AQMD staff agrees that the facility has been unable to locate a VOC compliant coating that would perform to the exp ected performance standards the refrigerated doors must adhere to. The current version of Rule 1145 would place this facility’s roll-coating operation into the two-component coati ng category which is currently limited to one pound of VOC per gallon. Th e proposed refrigerated glass door coating category will be limited to 4.0 pounds of VOC per gallon and would allow the facility to continue operating in complian ce after their Hearing Board Va riance expires. This new proposed coating category will result in a mino r increase of VOC em issions forgone in relation to Rule 1145 but th ese emissions will only be fro m one facility. AQMD staffExecutive Summary Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 ES-2 December 2009 calculated these emissions to be approximately 2.1 lbs/day of VOC forgone. It should be noted, however, that these forgon e emissions are theoretical si nce the facility could legally apply their coatings through a screen printi ng process subject to Rule 1130.1 – Screen Printing Operations, which has a higher allowa ble VOC limit to that proposed under Rule 1145. The proposed amendment not only will allow the facility to streamline its manufacturing process by switching from screen printing to a much simpler roll coating, it will also produce a marginal air quality benef it resulting from the elim ination of emissions associated with the clean-up of the screens.

The combined total emissions for the proposed amendments to the multi-color category and the addition of the refrigerated glass door coati ngs calculate to approximately 1.7 lbs/day of VOC emissions forgone.

The third proposed amendment seeks to delete paragraph (c)(3) in Rule 1145 which allowed automotive coatings to be used on plastic, ru bber, leather, and gla ss products to match the existing coating of motor vehicles provided th at the applicator applied for and received written approval from the Executive Officer. St aff has determined that paragraph (c)(3) is now obsolete language based on recent July 1, 2008 provisions in Rule 1151 contained in its Appendix A. The new definition for Associated Parts and Components in the current version of Rule 1151 (Appendix A) includes parts and components that are not attached to a motor vehicle or mobile equipment. Theref ore, paragraph (c)(3) in Rule 1145 should be removed since the current versi on of Rule 1151 addresses the issue of associated parts and components that are not attached to a motor vehicle or mobile equipment.

The fourth proposed amendment w ill include minor clarifications and editorial corrections to the rule. The Table of Standards has obsolet e dates for VOC limits in various coating categories that are no longer relevant and shou ld be removed. This amendment will present the most current VOC limits.

There is no expected cost increase associat ed with the reduction of the VOC limit for the multi-color coating category or th e addition of a coating categor y for refrigerated glass door coatings.

### CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION REGULATORY HISTORY AFFECTED INDUSTRIESChapter 1: Background Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 1

- 1 December 2009 

### INTRODUCTION AQMD staff reviewed the Sept ember 2008 U.S. EPA CTG fo r Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings and found a VOC limit discrepancy with the multi-color coating category in AQMD Rule 1145 – Plastic, Rubber, Le ather, and Glass Coa tings. The review found that the VOC limit in the current vers ion of Rule 1145, for the multi-color coating category, was listed as 685 g/L of VOC wher eas the CTG VOC limit, for the multi-color coating category, was listed as 680 g/L. AQMD st aff proposes this am endment to Rule 1145 to reduce the VOC limit for multi-color coating category and bring it in line with U.S. EPA’s current recommended VOC limit of 680 g/L.



### REGULATORY HISTORY Rule 1145 was originally adopted by the AQM D Governing Board on July 8, 1983 and has undergone fifteen subsequent adopted amendments. The mu lti-color coating category was adopted on February 14, 1997 and the maximum allowable VOC limit was listed as 685 g/L. On October 24, 2008, AQMD staff found the VOC limit out of alignment with the multicolor coating category of the CTG, while revi ewing U.S. EPA’s CTG. The CTG specified a maximum allowable VOC limit of 680 g/L for the multi-color co ating category contrary to the 685 g/L VOC limit shown in the AQMD Rule 1145 multi-color coating category.



### AFFECTED INDUSTRIES Approximately, 5% of the coatings subject to Rule 1145 fall into the multi-color coating category and the first proposed amendment is intended to align the allowable VOC limit in the multi-color coating category in AQMD Rule 1145 with the allowable VOC limit in the multi-color coating category in the September 2008 U.S. EPA’s CTG. AQMD staff does not expect this amendment to affect any facility under the purview of Rule 1145.

There is one facility that would be impact ed by the second proposed amendment which proposes to add a new coating category, the refrigerated gla ss door coating category. This facility currently operates under a two-year variance that will provide continued coverage until December 31, 2009. This facility has wo rked with AQMD planning and rules staff since February 2008 and has tried several coati ng chemistries to comply with the increments of progress required by the vari ance but has not found a coating system that can successfully meet the adhesion requirements for their niche operation.

### CHAPTER 2: SUMMARY OF PR OPOSED AMENDED RULE 1145
OVERVIEW: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1145 PROPOSED AMENDMENT #1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2

∗ Stationary Source Committee Meeting Held July 24, 2009

∗ ASTM D3359-97 Technical Assessment PROPOSED AMENDMENT #3 PROPOSED AMENDMENT #4Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-1 December 2009 

### OVERVIEW: PROPOSED AMEN DMENTS TO RULE 1145 There are four recomm ended amendments proposed for Rule 1145.
1. Reduce the VOC limit for the multi-color coating category from 685 g/L to 680 g/L
2. Add one additional coating category for re frigerated glass doors to the Table of Standards in the rule
3. Remove paragraph (c)(3) from Rule 1145; the July 1, 2008 version of Rule 1151 provides language for associated parts an d components not attached to a motor vehicle and mobile equipment
4. Make minor clarifications and ed itorial corrections to the rule


### PROPOSED AMENDMENT #1 The first proposed amendment addresses the mu lti-color coating category in Rule 1145. AQMD staff determined that the U.S. EPA CTG specified a maximu m VOC of 680 g/L for multi-color coatings used on plas tic parts. Rule 1145 currently lists the multi-color coating category with a maximum VOC li mit at 685 g/L VOC. The firs t proposed amendment would be to align the VOC limit fo r the multi-color coating categor y in Rule 1145 with the CTG recommended VOC limit of 680 g/L.



### PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2 The second proposed amendment requires additional discussion. AQMD staff proposes to add a new coating category to Rule 1145 to be known as the refrigerated glass door coating category. AQMD staff rec ognizes one facility that has a niche operation and cannot meet the current VOC limits in Rule 1145 for a two-component coati ng (the current two-component coating VOC limit is 1.0 lbs/gal). The facility filed and was granted a two-year variance by the AQMD Hearing Board and is allowed to continue operating using the existing coating products that were known to work, without adhesion failures, until December 31, 2009. The variance was granted on December 19, 2007 as a Hearing Board Action Item and it required the facility to meet increments of progress which included the te sting of coatings that may be viable low-VOC compliant alte rnatives to their current co atings. AQMD staff has been working with the facility since February 20 08 and has noted that of all the low-VOC alternate coatings they have tried, none ha ve met all of the f acility’s performance requirements for this niche operation; adhesion being one of the most important performance specifications, along with opaqueness, color variety, ease of application, etc. The coating used by the facility is hand ro ll-coated along the edges of a large glass pane , approximately one inch wide, which not only serves as an opaque border to hide the undesirable rough edges, hinges and related hardware of the gla ss panel, but also provides a substrate for theChapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-2 December 2009 spacer and sealant that is used to bond th ree glass panes together (in a sandwich-like configuration) to make one glass door assembly for refrigerated cabinets. These are the doors that are commonly seen at gr ocery stores in the frozen food aisles as well as the cold beverages aisles. If the coating fails to adhere to the glass substrate, the seal between the glass panels and the spacer will fail and th e door will be subject to replacement by the facility under the conditions of their warranty. AQMD staff reviewed the Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) codes 1 for glass coatings and found th at the facility conducting this operation is the only facility in the South Co ast jurisdiction that conducts this type of operation.

Prior to the current hand rolling operation, the facility used a screen printing process and was able to meet the much higher 600 g/L VOC lim it specified in Rule 1130.1 – Screen Printing Operations. The facility, in an effort to streamline their pr ocess and produce less waste and reduce emissions, applied for and received their variance to roll coat their current epoxy ink coating in lieu of the screen printing operation. It should be recogni zed that by switching over to the much simpler roll coating operati on, the facility was actually able to yield a marginal air quality benefit by eliminating the excess emissions associated with the extra coating required for the screen printing operation and the clean- up of the screens.

The manufactured triple panel glass door assemb ly is sealed to provide moisture prevention between the glass panels. Se veral alternative coatings we re tried as potential low-VOC replacements to the two current screen pr inting ink systems but none have adequately adhered to the glass substrate and as a result, the coating lost adhesion to the glass panels which then resulted in spacer and sealant failure between the glass panels. As a consequence, the glass door assembly was determ ined to be a defective door assembly that was rejected while in service and required replacement under warranty. The facility also tried powder coating applications in the pa st but this technology resulted in multiple rejections leading to multiple warranty issues. The facility informed AQMD staff that during the trials using powder coating, several refrigerated glass door assemblies failed resulting in $3,500,000 in warranty costs; these were costs the facility had to absorb.

The facility states that it is imperative that th e border coating stick to the glass substrate or the seal between the glass panels will fail to prevent moisture en tering in between the individual glass panels and raise warranty issues. This is exacerbated by the constant opening and closing of the door while in servi ce which dynamically stre sses the seal and the border coating. The facility recen tly worked with a UV coating manufacturer to determine if

1 See reference section for SIC code referencesChapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-3 December 2009 a low-VOC Ultra-Violet (“UV”) cured coating c ould work for this particular niche operation. The UV coating manufactur er coated glass sample panels using the UV technology and upon testing for adhesion the facility commented that the UV coating appeared to be satisfactory. The facility requested a second round of te sting from the UV coatin g manufacturer and upon inspection of these UV coated glass sample panels, it was observed th at two out of three sample panels did not pass th e facility’s adhesion requiremen ts (i.e., did not meet the facility’s performance specification of 100% adhe sion). The facility became concerned with the second round of tests after the UV coating ma nufacturer, when asked, informed them that they could not warrant y the UV coatings.

The facility uses ASTM D3359-9 7, the test method used to measure adhesion by tape. The test is a simple tape pull-off te st that is performed by first in scribing 11 parallel lines in the coating all the way down to the substrate and then crosshatching 11 more lines, perpendicular to the first 11 lines , again all the way down to the substrate, in a cross-hatched pattern. A piece of masking tape is then applie d directly over the cro ss-hatched pattern and a pencil eraser is used to rub the tape onto the su rface. The tape is then pulled up at a constant rate, not in a jerky or a fast pull motion but in a uniform constant pull motion. A 100% successful test will reveal that the edges of the cu ts are completely sm ooth and none of the squares of the lattice are detached. If there are small flakes of the coating detached along the cuts, or at the intersections of cuts, or the co ating has flaked along th e edges and on parts of the squares, the adhesion test is compared to Figure 1 in ASTM D 3359-97 to determine the percentage of the coating removed. The facili ty considers any detachment; including flaking on the cuts or ragged cut e dges, to be unacceptable.

AQMD staff contacted the UV coating manufactu rer regarding the results of the second series samples and was informed that the adhe sion strength could have been enhanced with a pretreatment such as a flame/plasma application treatment, this process is also known as pure or silicate flaming. This pretreatment opera tion is conducted in an oven where the flame application is applied onto the glass surface to raise the tensile strength of the glass surface to enhance the coatings adhesion to the glass. This type of equi pment could be employed but at significant expense to the fac ility as well as producing increase d NOx (oxides of nitrogen), CO (carbon monoxide), particulate emissions a nd increased greenhouse ga ses. In addition, the thermal effects impacted on the glass subs trate would have to be considered in the manufacturing process of the refrigerated glass door assembly as they may potentially cause undesirable tempering that could alter the physi cal properties of the glass door panels. The UV coating manufacturer informed staff that given more research and development time, they may be able to develop a UV coating that would work for the facility’s niche coatingChapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-4 December 2009 operation and satisfy all their adhesion requirements. Howeve r, the facility’s variance expires December 31, 2009.

Stationary Source Committee me eting held July 24, 2009 Immediately following the AQMD staff presenta tion of Proposed Amended Rule 1145, three members of the UV coating i ndustry made comments in support that UV coatings would work for the facility’s niche coating operation despite the re cent unacceptable (determined by the facility) results. The Stationary So urce Committee recommended that one last adhesion test be conducted by the same UV coater that coated the previous samples and that data would then be used to determine if a UV coating would meet the coating performance requirements for the facility’s niche coating opera tion. The fac ility agreed to provide six (6) sample glass panels to the UV coater who w ould then apply the UV coating to the glass sample panels and ship them to AQMD.

ASTM D 3359-97 Technical Assessment (Refer to Appendix for reports) AQMD staff contracted with a third party to c onduct the adhesion by the tape pull-off tests using ASTM test method D 3359-97, the adhesion by tape pull-off test. The third party contractor ultimately conducted three different test series to determine the adhesion by tape pull-off for the coated sample glass pane ls in accordance w ith ASTM D 3359-97.

The first test series was conducted at th e recommendation of the Stationary Source Committee. On August 5, 2009, the facility e-mailed a descriptive list of criteria for their coating performance re quirements and a list of questions to both the UV coater and AQMD staff. The facility also shippe d six glass sample panels to th e UV coater on th e same day. On August 21, 2009, AQMD staff re ceived the UV coated sample glass panel package from the UV coater. To avoid handling the glass pa nels, AQMD staff did not open the cardboard shipping container, but instead relinquished the cardboard shipping container on August 26, 2009, to the third party tester who was contract ed by AQMD to conduct the adhesion by tape pull-off tests. On August 27, 2009, the third party tester informed AQMD staff that there was only one UV coated glass sample panel in the cardboard shipping container and the adhesion by tape pull-off test results had been completed. The pa nel was divided into quadrants and the adhesion by tape pull-off tests were performed in each quadrant. The test results showed that each of the four tests ar eas on the UV coated panel rated 5B based on Figure 1 in ASTM D 3359-97, mean ing that no material was re moved from the test area (except for the sharp scribe lines).Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-5 December 2009 The second test series was essentially an exte nsion of the first test run since the facility voiced their concerns to the UV coater a nd AQMD staff that only one UV coated glass sample panel was submitte d out of the six glass sample pa nels that they shipped. The UV coater requested the facility to ship another twel ve sample glass panels for additional testing. On August 20, 2009, the facility shipped twelve additional glass sample panels and on August 21, 2009, the UV coater received them. The UV coater applied the UV coating to the glass sample panels and shipped them to AQ MD on September 1, 2 009. On September 3, 2009, AQMD staff received the UV coated glass samples and again did not open the wooden shipping box they came in to avoid handling the sample glass panels. AQMD staff then relinquished the unopened wooden shipping box to the third party tester on the same day. On September 8, 2009, the third party tester in formed AQMD staff that there were only six UV coated glass samples in the wooden shippi ng box and the adhesion by tape pull-off tests had been completed. The third party tester inqu ired if a different coating was used because the color was a lighter gray than the first UV co ated glass sample. AQMD staff was not able to verify this despite multiple communications with the UV coater. The six UV coated glass samples were tested exac tly the same way the one sample was in the first test run. Each UV coated sample glass panel was divided into qu adrants and the adhesion by tape pull-off test was conducted inside each quadr ant. There were a total of twenty-four adhesion by tape pull-off tests performed on the six UV coated gl ass samples and each test resulted in a 3B rating, the ratings are shown in Figure 1 of ASTM D 3359-97. The third party tester’s report explained that the UV coated glass sample pane ls were difficult to grade and that the ragged edges (the cuts made into the coating) put it in the 5 to 15% category which was why the panels were rated 3B. That means that up to 15% of th e coating material was removed from the test area. AQMD staff observed the UV coated glass samples and observed jagged lines where the scribe tool crosshatched the coating as compared to sharp crisp crosshatched lines that were observed in the first test run.

The third test series was conducted after AQMD staff met with th e facility’s staff on September 11, 2009. Both parties agreed that the facility’s current epoxy ink system should be tested by the third party tester exactly th e same way the UV coati ngs were tested. On September 15, 2009, the facility shipped five glass sample panels to AQMD that were coated with their existing epoxy ink. AQMD staff re ceived the epoxy ink coated glass sample panels on September 16, 2009 a nd also did not open the wooden box that they were shipped in. On the same day, AQMD staff relinquished the wooden box to the third party tester. On September 17, 2009, the third party tester informed AQMD staff that the wooden shipping container contained five epoxy i nk coated glass sample panels inside and the adhesion by tape pull-off tests had been co mpleted. The epoxy ink coated gl ass panels were divided intoChapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-6 December 2009 quadrants and the adhesion by tape pull-off test was performed inside each quadrant. There were a total of twenty adhesion by tape pull-of f tests conducted on the five samples and each one was rated 5B, meaning that no material wa s removed from the test area (except for the sharp scribe lines) as shown in Figure 1 of ASTM D 3359-97.

On September 18, 2009, the facility was visite d by two representatives from an established and well known architectural and industrial maintenance finish ma nufacturer. The two representatives were shown the facility’s coati ng operation and according to the facility, they commented that in the immediate term, a UV coating would not be the best recommendation. Their additional comments included that a UV co ating operation would require a defined UV end application process such as roll coating or screen printing and these types of coating operations would require additio nal research and development time to determine how they would affect the UV coatings curing process as well as the UV coatings adhesion properties. In addition, there would have to be resear ch and development time necessary for color matching. On October 6, 2009, AQMD sta ff contacted the representative from the architectural and industrial maintenance fini sh manufacturer, identified by the facility, and inquired if they had a UV coa ting or a low-VOC alternate co nventional coating that would work for the facility’s operation. The arch itectural and industrial maintenance finish manufacturer representative informed AQMD staff that “Based on their operations and their comments we don’t have anything to offer them”. “Our coa ting was not manu factured for something like that”. “This will require subs tantial testing”. AQMD Staff inquired about a two-part polyurethane coating and was informed “We do have a two-part polyurethane 6S series and it has 0.7 lbs/Gal of VOC”. “We ca n work with them (Anthony International) but their coating operation involves mo re than just a coating”. “T hey were very upfront with everything and we can’t offer a coa ting for that (their operation)”.

AQMD staff concluded from the technical assess ment, for this particular niche coating process, the adhesion by tape pull-off for the second series of testing for the UV coating had less adhesion to the glass substrate than the UV coating used in the firs t series and the epoxy ink that the facility currently uses. Staff further acknowledges that while the adhesion level achieved by the UV coating would be acceptable in most other applications, it did not quite meet the very stringent adhesion specificati ons required by this niche application. The facility specified that the adhesion by tape pull- off tests must rate no less than a 5B which means that no material must come off the glass substrate when th e tape is pulled off the test area. The facility considers any detachment; including flaking on the cuts or ragged cut edges, to be unacceptable. AQMD staff does recognize that one UV coated glass sample from the first series adhe sion by tape pull off test did rate a 5B in all four quadrants but allChapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-7 December 2009 the second series test samples rated a 3B, based on Figure 1 in ASTM D 3359-97. There were a total of twenty-eight adhesion by ta pe pull-off tests performed on the UV coated samples overall and twenty-four of those were ra ted 3B. The UV coated samples, based on the facility’s rating system, showed that 86% of the UV coating adhe sion by tape pull-off tests did not perform to a 5B rating. In contra st, there were a total of twenty adhesion by tape pull-off tests performed on the epoxy ink coated glass sample panels. The epoxy ink coated glass sample panels had excellent adhe sion as each of the tw enty adhesion by tape pull-off tests showed a rating of 5B. The epoxy inks have be en used by the facility for the last 15 years and are known to work well and ha ve less than 1% failure in long term field testing, according to the interview AQMD staff ha d with the facility’s staff. In addition, the facility’s staff also commented that the refrige rated glass doors that use the epoxy ink have had a ten year warranty for th e last six years and replacemen t costs under warranty for these type doors can range from $500 to $800 dollars per door depending on customer options. Based on the results from the technical assessment, the significant costs involved to install the UV coating equipment fo r production and employee tr aining, the multiple low VOC alternate coatings that were tested but did not perform well enough for this niche coating operation and because the facility uses a smal l amount of coating that results in 2.1 pounds per day of VOC emissions, AQMD staff recomme nds amending the rule with the addition of a new refrigerated coating categor y that will allow the facility to continue to operate their coating system after their vari ance expires on December 31, 2009.



### PROPOSED AMENDMENT #3 The third proposed amendment will delete paragraph (c)(3) from Rule 1145 since this paragraph is no longer necessary after the sunset date of June 30, 2008 for Rule 1151 - Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-assembly Line Coating Operations. Rule 1151 was amended back on December 2, 20 05 and the provisions of the rule were replaced with the provisions of Rule 1151, Appendix A, on July 1, 2008. AQMD Rule 1151 now includes a new definition for Associated Part s and Components which reads; “ means structures, devices, pieces, modules, sections, assemblies, subassemblies, or elements of motor vehicles or mobile equipment that are designed to be a part of motor vehicles or mobile equipment but which are not attached to motor vehicles or mobile equipment at the time of coating the structure, device, piece, module, section, assemb ly, subassembly, or element. The Associated parts and components definition does not include circuit boards. Any associated parts or components that are not attached to a motor ve hicle or mobile equipment but are designed to be a part of a motor vehicle or mobile equipment is now governed under Rule 1151”

.Chapter 2: Summary of Proposed Amended Rule 1145 Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 2-8 December 2009 

### PROPOSED AMENDMENT #4 The fourth proposed amendment w ill include minor clarifications and editorial corrections to the rule. The Table of Standa rds has obsolete dates for the VOC limits in various coating categories that are no longer re levant and will be removed. Subparagraph (i)(1)(E) exempts individual coating categories using less than 50 ga llons in any one year, if compliant coatings are not available, and provided that the total us age of all such coatings does not exceed 200 gallons per year, per facility. Facilities that have opted for this exemption have been required to provide supporting documentation to AQMD to qua lify for this exemption and were subject to the exemption if they receive d written approval from the Executive Officer. AQMD staff added the language “ and for which written approval of the Executive Officer has been obtained ” at the end of the subparagraph to pr ovide enhanced clarification on this exemption. There will also be so me other minor editorial clarifications in the rule as well.

### CHAPTER 3: IMPACT ASSESSMENT
INTRODUCTION EMISSION IMPACT ASSESSMENT SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DRAFT FINDINGS UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 40727 COMPARATIVE ANALYSISChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-1 December 2009 

### INTRODUCTION The current version of Rule 1145 applies to plastic, rubber, leathe r, and glass coating operations. There are approxi mately 115 facilities that fall under the purview of Rule 1145 and these facilities include aerospace, automoti ve, electronic, and medical industries.

There is no sales specific data available for the classification of the emission inventory in terms of specific coating categories for Rule 1145. For this reason, the model used in the 2004 Staff Report for Rule 1145 w ill be implemented. The distribution of the emission inventory is based on the results of a survey that was conducted by AQMD in late 2002 and on other verbal information received by coati ngs suppliers. The 2002 survey included 58 facilities representing a divers e group of industries that perform Rule 1145 coating operations and from this data it was determined that th e multi-color co ating category populated 5% of the total distribution studied for all the coating categories. AQMD staff believes that this distribution for the multi-colo r coating category conti nues to be relevant.

The emissions inventory for the Rule 1145 un iverse was provided by the AQMD emissions reporting branch. The inventory was based on th e year 2007 and the total emission inventory for Rule 1145, for 2007, wa s 0.49 tons per day (“tp d”) of VOC emissions.



### EMISSION IMPACT ASSESSMENT VOC Limit Modification for Mu lti-color Coating Category: The first proposed amendment seeks to redu ce the VOC limit in Rule 1145 for the multicolor coating category from 685 g/L to 680 g/L of VOC which will yield a theoretical emission benefit that can be ca lculated. The esti mated emissions inventory for multi-color coating category can be calculated by; 0.49 tpd * 5% = 0.03 tpd = 49.0 lbs/day, (NOTE: Calculations shown using significant figures) Next, the gallons of the multi-co lor coating can be calculated, 5.716 lbs/gal * X gal = 49.0 lb/day, and (Note: 685 g/L VOC = 5.716 lbs/gal VOC), X gal = 8.6 gallon/day so, Using 680 g/L VOC instead of 685 g/L VOC yields, 5.675 lbs/gal * 8.6 gal/day = 48.6 lbs/day (Note: 680 g/L VOC = 5.675 lbs/Gal VOC), Therefore, the difference between the 680 and 685 g/L VOC calculations is the theoretical emission benefit, which calculates to 0.4 lbs/ day (based on 260 workin g days per year).Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-2 December 2009 Adding a New Coating Category for Refr igerated Glass Door Operations: The second proposed amendment seeks to a dd a new coating categor y to the Table of Standards in Rule 1145 to provide relief to one facility that is cu rrently operating under a two-year variance but has not be en able to find a lower VOC alternate coating that could be used successfully in their roll-coating applicati on. In lieu of this, th e new coating category, refrigerated glass door coatings, will be lim ited to 4 lbs/gal of VOC. The two coating systems currently used by the facility are actua lly screen printing inks and have been proven to provide satisfactory perf ormance results for their refrigerated glass doors.
Nazdar ADE Series Epoxy Screen Ink System: AQMD staff calculated the mix ra tios for the Nazdar system a nd determined by using the facility’s usage records for CY2007 (“CY is for Calendar Year”) that on average 4.6 parts of ink were mixed with one part of catalyst. Staff then calc ulated the quantity of thinner used and found that on average 5.9 parts of the ink/catal yst mix were mixed with one part thinner. Using this information, staff calculated the VOC content of the Nazdar system, The ink mixed 4.6 parts ink to 1 part catalyst yields, {4.6*(3.1 lbs/gal) + 1*(4.15 lbs/gal)}/5.6 = {14.26 lbs/gal + 4.15 lbs/gal}/5.6 = 3.29 lbs/gal, [where the VOC of the ink = 3.1 lbs/gal and th e VOC of the catalyst = 4.15 lbs/gal)], The ink/catalyst mixture is then mixed with 15% (of that mix) with the RE 190 Thinner,
5.6 * 0.15 = 0.84 = 0.8 and, {5.6*(3.29 lbs/gal) + 0.8*(8.08 lbs/gal)}/6.4 = 3.89 lbs/gal [Where the VOC of the RE 190 Thinner = 8.08 lbs/gal]
Based on this information staff recognizes that a VOC limit of 4 80 g/L (4.0 lbs/gal) will be appropriate for the new refrigerat ed glass door coa tings category. AQMD staff determined, after revi ew of the facility’s usage reco rds that the largest quantity used for the Nazdar system was in CY2007; when 123.7 gallons of the Nazdar ADE Series Epoxy Screen Ink was used, 27.0 gallons of th e ADE677 catalyst was used, and 25.4 gallons of the RE 190 Thinner was used. AQMD staff su mmed up the totals for the ink, catalyst and the thinner used in terms of pounds of emissions for CY2007 and found, 123.7 gal*(3.1 lbs/gal) + 27.0 gal*(4.15 lbs/gal) + 25.4 gal*(8.08 lbs/gal) = 700.7 pounds of VOC The emissions forgone for the Nazdar system can be calculated by comparing the result of the equation above with the allowable limit in Rule 1145. This type of roll-coating operation would normally fall into the two-component co ating category where the VOC limit is oneChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-3 December 2009 pound per gallon of VOC. Using the same vol umes as the equati on above and then calculating the pounds VOC, 123.7 gal + 27.0 gal + 25.4 gal = 176.1 gallons, and 176.1 gal * 1.0 lbs/gal = 176.1 pounds of VOC Therefore, the emissions forgone for the Nazdar system would be, 700.7 pounds of VOC – 176.1 pounds of VOC = 524.6 pounds of VOC forgone.
Enthone 50 Series Cat-L-Ink System: AQMD staff calculated the mix ratios for the Enthone system and determined by using the facility’s usage records for CY2007 that on average 10.4 parts of ink were mixed with one part of catalyst. Staff then calculated the quantity of thinner used and found that on average 12.8 parts of the ink/catalyst mix were mixed with one part thi nner. Using this information, staff calculated the VOC content of the Enthone system, {5.0*(3.64 lbs/gal) + 0.5*(0.83 lbs/gal)}/5.5 = {18.2 lbs/gal + 0.42 lbs/gal}/5.5 = 3.38 lbs/gal, [where the VOC of the ink = 3.64 lbs/gal and the VOC of the catalyst = 0.83 lbs/gal)], The ink/catalyst is then mixed with 6% (of that mix) with the Nazdar RE 190 Thinner,
5.5 * 0.06 = 0.33 = 0.3 and, {5.5*(3.64 lbs/gal) + 0.3*(8.08 lbs/gal)}/5.8 = 3.87 lbs/gal [Where the VOC of the RE 190 Thinner = 8.08 lbs/gal]
Based on this information staff recognizes that a VOC limit of 4 80 g/L (4.0 lbs/gal) will be appropriate for the new refrigerat ed glass door co ating category.

AQMD staff, after a thor ough review of the facility’s usage re cords, also determined that the largest quantity of the Enthone system was in CY2007; when 5.0 gallons of the Enthone 50- Series Cat-L-Link Epoxy Screen Ink was used, 0.5 gallons of th e Enthone Catalyst 45 Part B was used and 0.4 gallons of the Nazdar RE 190 Thinner was used. AQMD staff summed up the totals for the ink, catalyst and the thinne r used in terms of p ounds of emissions for CY2007 and found, 5.0 gal*(3.64 lbs/gal) + 0.5 gal*(0.83 lbs/gal) + 0.4 gal*(8.08 lbs/gal) = 21.8 pounds of VOC The emissions forgone for the En thone system can be calculated by comparing the result of the equation above with the allowable limit in Rule 1145. This type of roll-coating operation would normally fall into the two-component coating category and the VOC limit is oneChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-4 December 2009 pound per gallon VOC. Using the same volumes as the equation above and then calculating the pounds VOC,

5.0 gal + 0.5 gal + 0.4 gal = 5.9 gallons, and 5.9 gallons * 1.0 lbs/gal = 5.9 pounds of VOC Therefore, the emissions forgone for the Enthone system would be, 21.8 pounds of VOC – 5.9 pounds of VOC = 15.9 pounds of VOC forgone.
Combining the emissions forgone for both th e Nazdar and the Enthone systems yields, 524.6 lbs VOC/CY2007 forgone + 15.9 lbs VOC/ CY2007 forgone = 540.5 lbs VOC/CY2007 forgone
The emissions for the first tw o amendments to this rule can now be calculated. The amendment to the multi-color category combined with th e emissions forgone for the refrigerated glass door coatings yields, 540.5 lbs/year VOC emissions forgone - 104 lbs/yea r VOC emission benefit = 436.5 lbs/year VOC = 1.7 lbs/day (based on a 260 working days per year) of emissions, forgone.



### SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT Since PAR 1145 does not significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, a socioeconomic analysis is not required [H&SC 40440.8(a)]. Proposed Amended Rule 1145 (PAR 1145) has four separate provisions. The first provision of PAR 1145 reduces the VOC limit for the multi-color coatings category fr om 685 g/L to 680 g/L to align it with the September 2008 U.S. EPA Control Techniques Guid elines (CTG). No additional costs from such alignment are expected. The second provision of PAR 1145 creates a new coating category for refrigerated commercial glass door coatings. The change provides additional flexibility for one facility with special manufacturin g requirements, whic h would lead to savings for the facility. The third provisi on deletes paragraph (c )(3) that is obsolete language. The fourth provision of PAR 1145 w ill be to make editorial changes to the existing rule language that have no associated cost implications.
In summary, PAR 1145 does not increase the cost of comp liance for any facility and therefore will not have any signi ficant socioeconomic impacts.



### POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA) and SCAQMD Rule 110, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prep ared for proposed amended Rule 1145 andChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-5 December 2009 circulated for public review from June 30, 2009 to July 29, 2009. Comm ents received during the review period were responded to and included in the Final EA. Copies of the Final EA can be obtained by calling the SCAQMD’s Public Information Center at (909) 396-2039.



### DRAFT FINDINGS UNDER CALIFORNI A HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 40727 Before adopting, amending or repealing a rule, the AQMD shall make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplication, and re ference, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 40727. The draft findings are as follows: Necessity - The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines that Proposed Amended Rule 1145 - Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coati ngs, is necessary in order to implement control measure MCS-07 – Application of All Feasible Measures of the 2007 AQMP. A new coating category for Refrigerated Glass Doors is necessary as there is no current compliant coating that will meet the performance specifications and the current rule VOC limits. Authority - The AQMD Governing Board obtains its authority to adopt, amend or repeal rules and regulations from Health and Safety Code §§40000, 40001, and 40440. Clarity - The AQMD Governing Board finds and determines that Proposed Amended Rule 1145, is written and displayed so that the mean ing can be easily understood by persons directly affected by it. Consistency – The AQMD Governing Bo ard finds and determines that Proposed Amended Rule 1145 is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or federa l or state regulations. Non-Duplication – The AQMD Governing Board has determ ined that Proposed Amended Rule 1145 does not impose the same requirement as any existing state or federal regulation, and the proposed amendments are necessary and proper to execute the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the AQMD

. Reference - In adopting these proposed amen dments, the AQMD Governing Board references the following statutes which AQM D hereby implements, interprets or makes specific: Health and Safety Code Sections 40001 and 40440. Problem Finding – The AQMD Governing Board find s and determines that Proposed Amended Rule 1145 will reduce the VOC limit fo r the multi-color coating category to align it with the CTG recommended lim it to promote the attainment or maintenance of state and federal ambient air quality standards.Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-6 December 2009 

### COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2 As required by Health and Safety Code Sect ion 40727.2, the purpose of this analysis is to identify and compare any othe r AQMD or federal regulations that apply to the same equipment or source type. The existing as well as the proposed VOC limits in Rule 1145 are not in conflict with the National Emissi on Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAP”) for Surface Coating of Plastic Part s and Products (“Plastic Substrates”); 69 FR 20990, April 19, 2004, Title 40, Subpart PPPP. The U.S. EPA CTG does have one conflict with the current versio n of AQMD Rule 1145 and that is the VOC limit fo r the multi-color coating category. This amen dment seeks to align AQMD Rule 1145 multi-color coating category with the recommende d VOC limit for that coating category in the CTG.

The NESHAP for Plastic Substrates sets forth Hazardous Air Pollutants (“HAP”) emission limits for existing and new and reconstructed affected sources. Affected sources under this NESHAP are plastic coating operations that are major sources under federal law or are coating operations located within the confines of a federal major source. The NESHAP for plastics explicitly exempts non-major sources, operations regulated under another NESHAP, military installations, research facilities, and reinforced plas tic composites.

The CTG is intended to provide state and local air pollution authorities information that shall assist them in determining RACT for VOCs for metal and plastic parts surface coating operations.

The proposed amendments to Rule 1145 will result in minor VOC emissions forgone, but Rule 1145 and the proposed amendments do not regulate HAP emissions directly. Therefore, the existing as well as the proposed VOC limits of Rule 1145 are not in conflict with federal regulations.

A table (shown next page) has been prepared to show comparisons between AQMD Rule 1145, the CTG and the NESHAP regulation.Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-7 December 2009 CATEGORY SCAQMD RULE 1145 U.S.EPA CTG Metal & Plastic Parts USEPA NESHAP 40 CFR 63 Sub-part PPPP

Purpose Reduce VOC emissions from plastic, rubber, leather and glass coatings. The CTG is intended to provide state and local air pollution authorities information that shall assist them in determining RACT for VOCs for metal & plastic parts surface coating operations. Establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for plastic parts & products surface coating facilities.

Applicability Rule 1145 applies to any plastic, rubber, leather or glass coating operation. Applies to facilities that perform surface coating operations to metal & plastic parts. Applies to surface coating facilities & requires initial and continuous demonstration of compliance with emission limits. Averaging Provisions None None None

Units Mass/Volume: Grams/Liter or Pounds/gallon. Mass/Volume: Kilogram VOC/Liter or Pounds VOC/Gallon. Mass fraction of coating solids: Kg organic HAP/Kg coating solids used. Operating Parameters Application equipment transfer efficiency requirements. Application equipment transfer efficiency requirements. The NESHAP does not mention the use of HVLP type transfer efficiency for application equipment. Method to Determine VOC U.S.EPA Method 24 The CTG does not mention U.S.EPA Methods. U.S.EPA Method 24 Capture Efficiency U.S.EPA Method 204 The CTG does not mention U.S.EPA Methods. U.S.EPA Method 204 Control Device Efficiency U.S.EPA Method 25 & 25A The CTG does not mention U.S.EPA Methods. U.S.EPA Method 25 & 25A

Work Practices Rule 1145 defers to Rule 1171 for storage and disposal of VOC containing materials. VOC containing containers to be kept closed when not using. VOC containing containers to be kept closed when not using. Minimize spills of VOC containing materials. Minimize spills of VOC containing materials. Monitoring None None None Reporting None There is no mention for reporting in the CTG. Annual reporting period of 6 months and 12 months.
Recordkeeping Rule 1145 defers recordkeeping to Rule 109, records to be kept annually. There is no mention for recordkeeping in the CTG. Comprehensive records required annually to support compliance with NESHAP for plastics.

Other Elements Prohibition of sale for coatings that do not comply with the VOC limits in the rule. There is no mention of a prohibition of sale requirement in the CTG. The NESHAP does not mention a prohibition of sale for coatings.
Exemptions provided for processes that would otherwise be deemed not compliant by the rule and do not have an alternate means to comply. The CTG recommends the exemptions in SCAQMD Rule 1145 and Michigan Rule 336.1632. The NESHAP offers one exemption and that is the presidential compliance exemption.Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-8 December 2009 

### PUBLIC COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES The public comments and staff responses show n below are numbered 1 through 11 and are from the June 25, 2009 public workshop.
1. COMMENT: As AQMD staff is aware, we have diligently pursued a means to compliance short of rule amendm ent. The pursuit has included numerous inquiries to vendors and multiple tests of alternative coatings, including UV coatings . Moreover, the pursuit has required the commitment of sign ificant time and resources. Unfortunately, the pursuit has yet to yield a viable solution to our compliance problems and SC AQMD staff has expressed its concurrence that no sufficient a lternative coating is likely to become available in the near future. We sincerely hope the SCAQMD Governing Board will c onsider these facts as it moves toward a final decision on the Proposed Rule. Given the small quantity of VOC emissions that will be generated by adoption of the Proposed Rule, it does not make sense to force our niche operation to stop and move production.

STAFF RESPONSE: AQMD staff agrees that the facility has tried several alternate coating technologies such as powder coating, silk-screening and UV coatings over the last 17 months and that all of them have yielded unsatisfactory results using the industry standard ASTM Test Method D3359-97, which showed unsatisfactory adhesion measurements. The facility has shown due diligence in complying with their variance commitments to try and facilitate new low VOC emitting technology. AQMD staff further recognizes that if a low VOC technology becomes available in the future that we will reassess this coating category for a lower VOC content, but at this time due to the expiration of their variance on December 31, 2009 it is recomm ended that a new coating category for refrigerated glass door coatings be made.
2. COMMENT: Radtech disagrees with the Dist rict findings that UV and EB technology does not meet the adhesion test data. Does the District have data from the fa cility to verify these claims?Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-9 December 2009 STAFF RESPONSE: Staff met with the facility back on February 24, 2009 and was presented with three UV coated glass sample panels that were tested under ASTM test method D3359-97, the test method used to measure adhesion by tape test . Staff documented the results and found that even though the first round of testing showed positive results, the second round of testing yielded two out of three adhesion test failures. AQMD staff observed the two glass sample panels where the UV co ating flaked along the scribe lines. The facility staff informed AQMD staff that during the testing of the UV coating syst em they asked the UV coating manufacturer if they would warrant y their coating to which the UV coating manufacturer informed them that they would not. The District also has progress re ports from the facility that are required quarterly by the facility ’s variance that requirement will show how the coatings they tried performed.
3. COMMENT: What really strikes me is that th e thinner used at the refrigerated glass door facility is at 890 g/ L VOC content and recently the District board adopted Rule 1143 for the consumer paint thinners and I believe some of thos e limits were down to 25 g/L. So, it strikes me, as a consumer in my garage, I can’t have thinners above 25 g/L but in this particular rule there’s a 890 g/L thinner.
STAFF RESPONSE: Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-purpose Solvents and Rule 1145 – Plastic, Rubber, Leather, and Glass Coatings are two different rules. The main difference is Rule 1143 is intended for consumer product based paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents whereas Rule 1145 is intended for industrial source specific facilitie s. Rule 1145 does not regulate the VOC emissions from paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents rather it regulates the coating VOC, as applied to plastic, rubber, leather and glass applications. So, even though the thinner used by the refrigerated glass door facility has a high-VOC content of 969.7 g/L ( 8.08 lbs/Gal), not 890 g/L as stated by the commentator, the end result is that the coating would have to meet the VOC limit for its specific coating category even after thinning. The facility that is manufacturingChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-10 December 2009 refrigerated glass doors for refrigeration cabinets is using the Nazdar coating system and they are following the recommended products for the coating system as specified on the Nazdar technical data sheet. The thinne r is used at 15% by weight to reduce the viscosity of the ink c oating. However, the amount of the coating used by the facility is rather small, which equates to just 2.1 pounds of VOC per day, based on a 260 working day year, of VOC emissions forgone. AQMD staff calculated the maximum VOC limit for the new proposed refrigerated glass door coating category by using the facility’s highest VOC constituents for the ink, catalyst and thinner. The proposed new coating category, refrigerated glass door coatings, will be limited to a maximum limit of 480 g/L of VOC, as applied. The consumer product rule, Rule 1143, will take effect on January 1, 2010 and the VOC limit for the interim period will be 300 g/L of VOC followed by the final VOC limit of 25 g/L effective on January 1, 2011. Currently, these consumer product solvents are sold in large box stores a nd hardware stores and have VOC contents of 800 g/L and higher.

4. COMMENT: Basically, the SCAQMD has concluded in this Rule 1145 staff report that UV coatings do not work for glass coating applications. We have been c ontacted by environmental groups to provide technical data on the feasibility of UV coatings for: (1) Multi-colored coatings (2) Glass coatings for refrigerated doors
STAFF RESPONSE: AQMD staff did not conclude that UV coatings do not work for glass coating applications as stated in the paragraph above. AQMD staff acknowledges that the facility required a coating for their refrigerated glass doors and they did investigate UV coatings. AQMD staff contacted Radtech back on February 12, 2009 and informed them of a facility that was not able to meet the VOC limit for Rule 1145. Radtech provided only one UV coating manufacturer contact that was the same contact that worked with the facility to test a UV coating that could meet all of the facility’s performance requirements. The coatingChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-11 December 2009 manufacturer that was provided by Radtech did prepare several glass panels samples that were coated using UV coatings however, there were some adhesion failures. The coating manufacturer informed the facility that they would not warranty their coatings.
5. COMMENT: The adhesion problems cited in the staff report may be overcome with certain pre-treatment steps. The attached article by Petra Burger of Fusion UV (Glass worldwide, issue fourteen 2007, Page 50) shows how a UV co ating fails adhesion tests without pre-treatment and how the same coating gets 100 percent adhesion with the prop er pre-treatment. The same article illustrates that UV coatin gs are being used in glass bottles. Coatings on beverage containers have to withstand refrigeration by consumers. Th e article by Dawn Skinner (page S20 Annual ESMA Glass Public ation 2009) talks about the importance of pre-treatment to achieve good adhesion results.

STAFF RESPONSE: AQMD staff has had conversations with UV coating manufacturers and one topic that was discussed was glass pretreatment. One of the UV coating manufacturers stated that they did not know of any liquid pretreatments for glass but for plastics, the pretreatment is to simply wipe down the substrate with acetone. For glass, and in the case of large glass panels, a flame/plasma application treatmen t such as pure or silicate flaming will increase the adhesion characteristics of the UV coating. This operation is conducted in an oven where the flame application is applied onto the glass surface to raise the tensile strength of the glass surface to enhance the coatings adhesion to the glass. This type of equipment could be employed but at significant expe nse to the facility as well as increased NOx (oxides of nitr ogen), CO (carbon monoxide), particulate emissions and gree nhouse gases. In addition, the thermal application impacted on the glass substrate would have to be considered in the manufacturing process of the refrigerated glass door assembly as potential undesirableChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-12 December 2009 tempering effects could alter the physical properties of the glass door panels.
6. COMMENT: The South Coast Air Quality Ma nagement District (SCAQMD), is proposing amendments to th eir Rule 1145—Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings. According to the agency, the changes would mirror the require ments of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Control Techniques Guidelines and create some exemptions. There are approximately 115 facilities that fall under the purview of Rule 1145 involved in the following processes:

• Aerospace

• Automotive

• Electronic and

• Medical industries
According to the rule staff repo rt, the changes to Rule 1145 will result in an increase in emissi ons of 436.5 pounds per year from a single facility. This is mostly due to the creation of a new coating category “for a nich e manufacturing process where coated glass panels are used in the manufacturing of refrigerated glass doors for refrigeration ca binets, for which a compliant product is currently not available. "The staff conc luded that the facility should be allowed to c ontinue to use its conventional 2 component coating system which requires the use of a thinner with a VOC content of 890 grams/liter. Staff also accepted the facility’s claims that lower VOC coatings, including UV/EB coatings, failed adhesion tests by the facility. The report states that “AQMD staff has determined that the facility has been unable to locate a VOC compliant coating that would perform to the expected performance standard s the refrigerated doors must adhere to.” AQMD staff calculated these emissions to be approximately 540.5 lbs/year (2.1 lbs/day) of VOC forgone.
The emissions reduction in the ru le can be attributed to an amendment changing the VOC lim it for multi-colored coatings from 685 grams per liter to 680 gram s per liter, as per the EPA’s CTG. The combined total e missions for the proposedChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-13 December 2009 amendments to the multi-colore d category and the addition of the refrigerated glass door coatin gs calculate to approximately 436.5 lbs/year (1.7 lbs/day) of VOC emissions forgone. I wanted to let you know that Radtech members have met with district staff and provided data to show that UV coatings would work for the refrigerated doors. The district did not include any of our data in the report. We made comments yesterday at the workshop and requested the company's data as a matter of public record, that data which a llegedly shows that UV coatings fail adhesion tests, was also not included in the report or provided at the workshop.
STAFF RESPONSE: The first paragraph is not entirely accurate when stating that the rule changes would mirror the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Control Techniques Guidelines and create some exemptions. The proposed amendments to Rule 1145 do not include any additional exemptions. The proposed amendment does include an additional coating category for refrigerated glass door coatings which is intended to allow one fa cility to operate in compliance with Rule 1145 after their va riance expires on December 31, 2009. In the second paragraph Radtech states that AQMD staff accepted the facility’s claims. AQMD staff has worked with the facility since February 2008 and over the course of the testing period has been shown several glass panel samples where coatings, including UV coatings, did not meet the 5B adhesion level of ASTM test method D3359-97, the adhesion specifications required for this niche application. The adhesion requirements are two-fold for the facility’s operation. The coatings must adhere to the glass substrate not just for aesthetics but also as a substrate for the spacer and sealant that is used to seal the triplicate glass panels together to complete the refrigerated glass door assembly. The seal cannot fail; if it does the warranty requires a comp lete door replacement. The UV coating manufacturer informed the facility that they wouldChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-14 December 2009 not warranty their coating. The facility has not found a readily available VOC compliant alternate coating that can meet the performance requirements for their product. The facility has shown their due diligence by comply ing with the requirements of their variance and by testing several low-VOC alternate coatings, but none have been found satisfactory. Subsequent testing conducted further corroborates earlier conclusions.
7. COMMENT: We oppose the amendments to Rule 1145 – Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings. Seve ral months ago, district staff contacted us to assist the fac ility manufacturi ng refrigerated glass doors in the conversion to co mpliant coatings. At a June 10, 2009 meeting, we shared with district staff our disappointment that the facility did not appear committed to the prospect of conversion to UV te chnology, despite the fact that a viable UV coating was availabl e to meet their performance needs as we understood them. The facility did not provide us with specifics such as product specifications and performance data. As a service to the industry and to support SCAQMD efforts, we made an excepti on to its charge policy for the facility. We conducted significant work and testing for the facility at no charge. We typically charge prospective customers for development work; a fee that was waived for the facility. We incurred a significa nt amount of cost with zero return, on behalf of the facility. The facility’s staff failure to provide a prompt response to us indicated that finding compliant coatings was not a priority for the facility and th at the inquiry process they engaged us in was a mere formality.
STAFF RESPONSE: AQMD staff appreciates all the assistance provided towards identifying a compliant product but disagrees with the commentator that a viable coating was available to meet the facility’s performance needs. AQ MD staff has worked with the facility since February 2008 and ha s been privy to observe the UV coated glass panel samples. The facility admitted to the first round of testing having positive re sults but when the second round of testing was conducted, two out of the three UV coating glass panel samples were failure s. In addition, the facilityChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-15 December 2009 stated that the coating manufacturer informed them that they would not warranty their UV coat ing. AQMD staff does not get involved with business arrangements between companies, and therefore, will not comment on research fees. Subsequent testing conducted further corroborates earlier conclusions.
8. COMMENT: At a June 10, 2009 meeting, we shar ed with district staff our disappointment that the facility did not appear committed to the prospect of conversion to UV te chnology, despite the fact that a viable UV coating was availabl e to meet their performance needs as we understood them. The facility did not provide us with specifics such as product specifications and performance data. The materials used in our process have negligible VOC’s. Therefore, the facility’s convers ion to UV would render its process “super-compliant” with current district requirements. Our company services the gla ss coatings industry. The UV coatings used in the process meet the performance requirements specified by our customers, good adhesion to the substrate is one of those requirements.
STAFF RESPONSE: AQMD staff recognizes and appreciates the efforts that the commentator continues to put forth toward developing a UV coating that could work successfully without failures and that would be a “super-compliant coating“. However, as it stands, the facility does not have a low-VOC alternate coating available that can perform without failures at this time. AQMD staff encourages the commentator to con tinue their efforts to develop and formulate a UV coating and field test it to ensure that it will meet the performance requirem ents for this niche coating operation. The facility requires a coating that must have complete opacity, permanently a dhere to the glass and survive in its end-use environment where temperatures continually range between 35 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. In addition, the coating must also serve as a substrate for the spacer and sealant that bonds the three glass panels together for the final refrigeration glass door assembly.Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-16 December 2009 9. COMMENT: We are involved in Ultraviolet/Electron Beam technology. Our company is working towards a project to service the glass coatings industry. The UV coati ngs used in the process meet the performance requirements spec ified by our customers; good adhesion to the substrate is one of those requirements. The end goal of the continued developmen t work on the formulations is for the materials used in the proc ess to have negligible VOC’s. Under the current Rule 1145 propos al, a new category would be created to exempt refrigerate d glass doors. The amendment would result in an unwarranted emissions increase to the basin because UV coatings can m eet the VOC requirements. Furthermore, the staff report er roneously concluded that UV/EB coatings failed to adequately adhere to glass. Our company’s UV products show good adhesion to glass. We look forward to the incorporation of our comp any’s comment in the Rule 1145 rulemaking.
STAFF RESPONSE: AQMD staff appreciates you taking time to participate during the public workshop comment pe riod. The proposed amendment for the refrigerated glass door coating category is intended to allow one manufacturer to con tinue operating in the South Coast District. AQMD staff did a comprehensive analysis and determined that the facility was the only facility in the AQMD jurisdiction that conducts the niche operation of applying a border coating to glass panels that not only has to meet customer satisfaction for aesthetics but also has to serve as a substrate for the spacer and sealant that bonds three of these large glass panels in a sandwich like configuration to complete the refrigerated glass door assembly . As of this time, the facility has not found a readily available low-VOC coating that will satisfy the performance requireme nts without failures. Based on this information, AQMD staff believes that the additional coating category for refrigerated glass doors should be included in the amendment and will continue to support UV coating manufacturers such as yours to continue development for a suitable UV coating that will be available as a low-VOC alternate coating for this niche operation.Chapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-17 December 2009 10. COMMENT: Under the current Rule 1145 propos al, a new category would be created to exempt refrigerated glass doors based on one facility. The amendment would result in an unwarranted emissions increase to the basin because UV coatings can meet the VOC requirements. Furthermore, the staff report erroneously concluded that UV/EB coatings fa iled to adequately adhere to glass. Our company’s UV products show good adhesion to glass by the facility engineer’s own admission. AQMD’s exception for the facility is not reasonable and should not be approved. Furthermore, conventional gla ss coatings may contain heavy metals. We are not aware of the district taking this issue into consideration in its staff anal ysis. We supply compliant UV coatings that are essentially VOC free, with no toxics, and can meet industrial demands. We l ook forward to working with the district staff in the Rule 1145 rulemaking.
STAFF RESPONSE: The AQMD is not providing an additional exemption in the rule but is proposing a new coating category to be added to the Table of Standards. Please also note that the facility, prior to obtaining their variance, was operating under Rule 1130.1 which allows for a much high er VOC limit. AQMD staff disagrees with the statement “the staff report erroneously concluded that UV/EB coatings failed to adhere to glass”. AQMD staff discussed the UV coati ngs with the facility in detail. The facility recognized that the first round of testing showed promise that the UV coatings had potential to work for their operation. However, after the second round of testing, the facility found that two out of the three UV coated glass panel samples did not meet the fac ility’s adhesion specification under ASTM test method D3359-97. AQMD staff observed these glass panel samples and noted that the scribe lines showed coating fragmentation. The facility informed AQMD staff that they were alarmed with this because for their manufacturing process, any portion of the coating that comes off on the tape pull off constitutes a failure. Therefore, AQMD’s proposed amendment for a refrigerated glass door coating is reasonable. AQMD staff reviewed the Nazdar coating line and did not find anyChapter 3: Impact Assessment Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 3-18 December 2009 specification of heavy metals in the material safety data sheets with the exception of one color, red, which contains 18-27% lead. Lead is considered a toxic metal in contrast to heavy metals which can include iron, cobalt, copper, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc, and are found in living organisms.

11. COMMENT: We wish to express our c ontinued support for Proposed Amended Rule 1145 titled: Plastic , Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings (“the Proposed Rule”), and strongly urge the South Coast Air Quality Manageme nt District (“SCAQMD”) Governing Board to adopt the Proposed Rule at its September 11, 2009 meeting. We have a ni che operation that has been ongoing since 1990 but without adoption of the proposed rule, we will be unable to comply w ith applicable SCAQMD rules. The adoption of the proposed rule is crucial to our continued existence in this region.
STAFF RESPONSE: AQMD staff appreciates your support of this rule amendment. AQMD staff believes that the proposal is needed to allow the facility to continue to operate while still looking for a low VOC technology that can be used in this niche operation for refrigerated glass door manufacturing.References Final Staff Report

Proposed Amended Rule 1145 R - 1 December 2009 

### REFERENCES 1. Helmy Sultan, Ph.D., Air Qu ality Specialist, Ricardo Rive ra, Air Quality Specialist: “Draft Staff Report for Pr oposed Amended Rule 1145 – Pl astic, Rubber, Leather and Glass Coatings”, SCAQMD Document, Nove mber 2, 2004.
2 Nazdar coating system hyperlinks: Nazdar ADE Series Epoxy Screen Ink, Opaque Black link: http://www.nazdar.com/wv/private/document. aspx?prd=ADE52%7E%7EPDF%7E%7EMTR%7E%7ENAM %7E%7EEN%7E%7E12/08/2008%7E%7EOpaque%20Black&language=d__EN&productID=ade Nazdar ADE677 Catalyst MSDS link: http://www.nazdar.com/wv/private/document.as px?prd=ADE677%7E%7EPDF%7E%7EMTR%7E%7ENA M%7E%7EEN%7E%7E12/08/2008%7E%7ECatalyst&language=d__EN&productID=ade677 Nazdar RE-190 Thinner MSDS link: http://www.nazdar.com/wv/private/document. aspx?prd=RE190%7E%7EPDF%7E%7EMTR%7E%7ENAM %7E%7EEN%7E%7E11/18/2008%7E%7EThinner&language=d__EN&productID=re190 3 Enthone coating system hyperlinks: http://enthonedata.cooksonelectronics.com/PWBChemistry/dsinforeq.nsf/InfoReq2?OpenForm (Must inquire for links) 4. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), for plastic parts, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/ documents/deq-ess-caap-fedreg ister-plasticsf inalrule.pdf 5. South Coast AQMD Hearing Board, Case No. 4797-1, Petitioner gr anted on December 19, 2007
6. Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Vi rginia 22161, Order no. 87-100012, pg 165, Industry Group No. 323, Industry No. 3231 – Glass Produc ts, Made of Purchased Glass.
7. North American Industrial Classification System, United States, 2007, Executive Office of the President of the United States, IS BN 978-1-59888-082-3 (NTIS Order Number: PB2007-100002),Published 2007 by Bernan, a di vision of The Kraus Organization Limited, 4611-F Assembly Drive, Lanham, MD 20706, (800) 274-4447, www.bernan.com , National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (800) 553-6847, info@ntis.gov , Pg 344, Subsector 327215 – Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass.

### APPENDIX: ADHESION BY TAPE TEST RESULTS The adhesion by tape test results are shown in this appendix. The adhe sion by tape testing was recommended by the Stationa ry Source Committee (07/24/09) and were subsequent to the staff report for the set-hearing. UV Coating Test Results (08/27/09 & 09/08/09) Epoxy Ink Coating Test Results (09/17/09)

# V.C. BUD JENKINS WWW.COATINGSSCIENTIST.COM BS CHEMISTRY, MBA MARKETING, JD LAW CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGER CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTITIONER EXPERT WITNESS, COATINGS COATINGS INSTRUCTOR, CAL POLY UNIVERSITY POMONA 

### 3366 Somis Drive, Riverside, CA 92507, email: vcbudjenkins@yahoo.com Phone/FAX 951-682-4023 Cell Phone: 909-260-4263 August 27, 2009 Subject: Cross Hatch Adhesion Test of UV-cure Gray Paint on Glass

DECLARATION OF V.C. “BUD” JENKINS I, V.C. “Bud” Jenkins, declare: The facts set forth in this declar ation are my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I coul d competently testify to them.

I am an instructor of Chemistry at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, specializing in Coatings Scie nce (i.e., the science of paint and related coating products) and have held that position continuously since 1994. At Cal Poly Pomona, I teach a 1- year course in Coatings Science, resulting in an industry-recognized certif icate in Coatings Science. I have presented several technical papers at the annual Federation of Societies of Coatings Technology convention, in cluding papers on coatings stability, color change with change of viewing angle, environmental problems in the coatings industry, and problems associat ed with paint overspray on bridges. In my capacity as a consulta nt, I have been retained and have testified as an

### expert witness in numerous civil law suits and two criminal actions involving coatings defects, applica tion defects, corrosion protection, raw materials omissions, color matching pr oblems, color changing problems, attempted murder and murder. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of California, Ri verside, that I obtained in 1973; a

Master of Business Administration fro m the University of California,
Riverside, (1976); a Juris Doctorate fro m Western States University (1982), Certified Hazardous Materials Manager Certificate from the University of
California, Riverside (1983); a Certified Hazardous Waste Practitioner Certificate from the University of Ca lifornia, Riverside (1985) and have successfully completed a coatings sc ience course at Los Angeles City College as well as a Color Matching C ourse at Los Angeles Trade Technical College. I was President of the Los Angeles Society for Coatings Technology for two terms and have held severa l Chairperson positions during my more than 25 years with th at organization, including Technology
Committee Chair, Educati on Committee Chair, Pub licity Committee Chair, Manufacturing Committee Chair, and Li brary Committee Chair. I have studied and organized nearly 100 semi nars for UV Coatings, aerosol spray coatings, artist colors, wood coatings, a nd concrete coatings as well as the

more familiar Architectural and Indust rial Maintenance coatings. Among

### the industry classes I ha ve attended are courses on polymers, crosslink density, waterborne formulation, inks , sealants, caulking, instrumental analysis, and furniture finishes. I pres ently sit as the only coating scientist on a committee of the Getty Museum to re search ways to restore and protect

murals all over the world. In add ition, I have more than 40 years of experience in the paint and coatings in dustry, having worked as a painter for a paint crew, as the Operations Mana ger for a medium sized paint company and as a paint lab technician and lab manager for three large paint companies. Besides that , as a full time consultant , I have developed many coatings for coating companies and have resolved coating disputes in the

field. On August 26, 2009, a glass coated pa nel was received from Mr. Don Hopps

and Mr. Andrew Lee of the South Coas t Air Quality Management District. It was wrapped in tissu e paper and encased in two sheets of cardboard wrapped tightly in plastic packing ta pe and had not been opened. It remained in my control in my lab at Cal Poly Pomona and in my car for 2 days.

On August 28, 2009, it was carefully op ened and laid on a sturdy table, painted side up. The pane l was marked in quadrants marked A, B, C, and D.

### Testing was done in each quadrant.

A Gardco PA-2000 kit with a PA-2054 1.5mm blade was used to make

11x11 cuts in the film in accordan ce with ASTM D-3369 Standard Test Method for Measuring A dhesion by Tape Test. A straight edge was used to make sure the cuts were straight and at right angles to each other. A soft brush was used to remove any debris caused by the cutting. Two windings of Permacel tape were removed and discarded prior to using the tape for adhesion tes ting. The tape was smoothed onto the surface over the crosshatch area and pres sed into place with a pencil eraser

and allowed to set for 90 seconds. Th e tape was pulled rapidly (less than one second without jerking) at 180 degr ees. The amount of paint removal was compared with the standard ch art supplied with the ASTM test.

RESULTS
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 5B 0% NONE

B 5B 0% NONE

C 5B 0% NONE

D 5B 0% NONE

Photos were taken each step of the way to show the progress of the test.

# V.C. BUD JENKINS WWW.COATINGSSCIENTIST.COM BS CHEMISTRY, MBA MARKETING, JD LAW CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGER CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTITIONER EXPERT WITNESS, COATINGS COATINGS INSTRUCTOR, CAL POLY UNIVERSITY POMONA 

### 3366 Somis Drive, Riverside, CA 92507, email: vcbudjenkins@yahoo.com Phone/FAX 951-682-4023 Cell Phone: 909-260-4263 September 8, 2009 Subject: Cross Hatch Adhesion Test of UV-cure Gray Paint on Glass

DECLARATION OF V.C. “BUD” JENKINS I, V.C. “Bud” Jenkins, declare: The facts set forth in this declar ation are my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I coul d competently testify to them.

I am an instructor of Chemistry at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, specializing in Coatings Scie nce (i.e., the science of paint and related coating products) and have held that position continuously since 1994. At Cal Poly Pomona, I teach a 1- year course in Coatings Science, resulting in an industry-recognized certif icate in Coatings Science. I have presented several technical papers at the annual Federation of Societies of Coatings Technology convention, in cluding papers on coatings stability, color change with change of viewing angle, environmental problems in the coatings industry, and problems associat ed with paint overspray on bridges. In my capacity as a consulta nt, I have been retained and have testified as an

### expert witness in numerous civil law suits and two criminal actions involving coatings defects, applica tion defects, corrosion protection, raw materials omissions, color matching pr oblems, color changing problems, attempted murder and murder. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of California, Ri verside, that I obtained in 1973; a

Master of Business Administration fro m the University of California,
Riverside, (1976); a Juris Doctorate fro m Western States University (1982), Certified Hazardous Materials Manager Certificate from the University of
California, Riverside (1983); a Certified Hazardous Waste Practitioner Certificate from the University of Ca lifornia, Riverside (1985) and have successfully completed a coatings sc ience course at Los Angeles City College as well as a Color Matching C ourse at Los Angeles Trade Technical College. I was President of the Los Angeles Society for Coatings Technology for two terms and have held severa l Chairperson positions during my more than 25 years with th at organization, including Technology
Committee Chair, Educati on Committee Chair, Pub licity Committee Chair, Manufacturing Committee Chair, and Li brary Committee Chair. I have studied and organized nearly 100 semi nars for UV Coatings, aerosol spray coatings, artist colors, wood coatings, a nd concrete coatings as well as the

more familiar Architectural and Indust rial Maintenance coatings. Among

### the industry classes I ha ve attended are courses on polymers, crosslink density, waterborne formulation, inks , sealants, caulking, instrumental analysis, and furniture finishes. I pres ently sit as the only coating scientist on a committee of the Getty Museum to re search ways to restore and protect

murals all over the world. In add ition, I have more than 40 years of experience in the paint and coatings in dustry, having worked as a painter for a paint crew, as the Operations Mana ger for a medium sized paint company and as a paint lab technician and lab manager for three large paint companies. Besides that , as a full time consultant , I have developed many coatings for coating companies and have resolved coating disputes in the

field. On August 26, 2009, a glass coated pa nel was received from Mr. Don Hopps

and Mr. Andrew Lee of the South Coas t Air Quality Management District. It was wrapped in tissu e paper and encased in two sheets of cardboard wrapped tightly in plastic packing ta pe and had not been opened. It remained in my control in my lab at Cal Poly Pomona and in my car for 2 days.

On August 27, 2009, it was carefully op ened and laid on a sturdy table, painted side up. It was labeled 3/16” THK GL ASS #2. The panel was

### marked in quadrants marked A, B, C, and D. Testing was done in each quadrant.

A Gardco PA-2000 kit with a PA-2054 1.5mm blade was used to make

11x11 cuts in the film in accordan ce with ASTM D-3369 Standard Test Method for Measuring A dhesion by Tape Test. A straight edge was used to make sure the cuts were straight and at right angles to each other. A soft brush was used to remove any debris caused by the cutting. Two windings of Permacel tape were removed and discarded prior to using the tape for adhesion tes ting. The tape was smoothed onto the surface over the crosshatch area and pres sed into place with a pencil eraser

and allowed to set for 90 seconds. Th e tape was pulled rapidly (less than one second without jerking) at 180 degr ees. The amount of paint removal was compared with the standard ch art supplied with the ASTM test.

TABLE 1

3/16” THK GLASS #2 RESULTS
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 5B 0% NONE

B 5B 0% NONE

C 5B 0% NONE

D 5B 0% NONE

### Photos were taken each step of the way to show the progress of the test.

Conclusion: The adhesion of the #2 coating to the glass panel is outstanding. September 8, 2009

TESTING OF SIX NEW PANELS IN THE SAME SERIES An unopened wooden box was received by the writer from Mr. Don Hopps, SCAQMD, on Thursday, September 3, 2009, containing 6 more coated glass panels for cross-hatch a dhesion testing. They had etching in them as

follows:
1/8” THK GLASS #1, #4, #5, #9, #10 and #12. They were tested on September 8, 2009 in the same ma nner as the above August 27, 2009 #2 panel was tested. The results ar e found in the following

tables:

TABLE 2

RESULTS PANEL 1
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 3B 5-15%

B 3B 5-15%

C 3B 5-15%

### D 3B 5-15%

TABLE 3

RESULTS PANEL 4
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 3B 5-15%

B 3B 5-15%

C 3B 5-15%

D 3B 5-15%

TABLE 4

RESULTS PANEL 5
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 3B 5-15%

B 3B 5-15%

C 3B 5-15%

D 3B 5-15%

### TABLE 5

RESULTS PANEL 9
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 3B 5-15%

B 3B 5-15%

C 3B 5-15%

D 3B 5-15%

TABLE 6

RESULTS PANEL 10
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 3B 5-15%

B 3B 5-15%

C 3B 5-15%

D 3B 5-15%

# V.C. BUD JENKINS WWW.COATINGSSCIENTIST.COM BS CHEMISTRY, MBA MARKETING, JD LAW CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGER CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTITIONER EXPERT WITNESS, COATINGS COATINGS INSTRUCTOR, CAL POLY UNIVERSITY POMONA 

### 3366 Somis Drive, Riverside, CA 92507, email: vcbudjenkins@yahoo.com Phone/FAX 951-682-4023 Cell Phone: 909-260-4263 September 17, 2009 Subject: Cross Hatch Adhesion Te st of Epoxy Gray Paint on Glass

DECLARATION OF V.C. “BUD” JENKINS I, V.C. “Bud” Jenkins, declare: The facts set forth in this declar ation are my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, I coul d competently testify to them.

I am an instructor of Chemistry at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, specializing in Coatings Scie nce (i.e., the science of paint and related coating products) and have held that position continuously since 1994. At Cal Poly Pomona, I teach a 1- year course in Coatings Science, resulting in an industry-recognized certif icate in Coatings Science. I have presented several technical papers at the annual Federation of Societies of Coatings Technology convention, in cluding papers on coatings stability, color change with change of viewing angle, environmental problems in the coatings industry, and problems associat ed with paint overspray on bridges. In my capacity as a consulta nt, I have been retained and have testified as an

### expert witness in numerous civil law suits and two criminal actions involving coatings defects, applica tion defects, corrosion protection, raw materials omissions, color matching pr oblems, color changing problems, attempted murder and murder. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from the University of California, Ri verside, that I obtained in 1973; a

Master of Business Administration fro m the University of California,
Riverside, (1976); a Juris Doctorate fro m Western States University (1982), Certified Hazardous Materials Manager Certificate from the University of
California, Riverside (1983); a Certified Hazardous Waste Practitioner Certificate from the University of Ca lifornia, Riverside (1985) and have successfully completed a coatings sc ience course at Los Angeles City College as well as a Color Matching C ourse at Los Angeles Trade Technical College. I was President of the Los Angeles Society for Coatings Technology for two terms and have held severa l Chairperson positions during my more than 25 years with th at organization, including Technology
Committee Chair, Educati on Committee Chair, Pub licity Committee Chair, Manufacturing Committee Chair, and Li brary Committee Chair. I have studied and organized nearly 100 semi nars for UV Coatings, aerosol spray coatings, artist colors, wood coatings, a nd concrete coatings as well as the

more familiar Architectural and Indust rial Maintenance coatings. Among

### the industry classes I ha ve attended are courses on polymers, crosslink density, waterborne formulation, inks , sealants, caulking, instrumental analysis, and furniture finishes. I pres ently sit as the only coating scientist on a committee of the Getty Museum to re search ways to restore and protect

murals all over the world. In add ition, I have more than 40 years of experience in the paint and coatings in dustry, having worked as a painter for a paint crew, as the Operations Mana ger for a medium sized paint company and as a paint lab technician and lab manager for three large paint companies. Besides that , as a full time consultant , I have developed many coatings for coating companies and have resolved coating disputes in the

field. On September 16, 2009, a box containing 5 glass coated panels was received from Mr. Don Hopps of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. They were wrapped in tissue paper and encased in a wooden box. It remained in my control in my lab at Cal Poly Pomona and in my car until testing time on September 17, 2009.

On September 17, 2009, it was carefully opened and the 5 panels were laid on a sturdy table, painted side up. The panels were marked panel 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with the September 17, 2009 date written on them. Each panel was

### marked in quadrants marked A, B, C, and D. Testing was done in each quadrant.

A Gardco PA-2000 kit with a PA-2054 1.5mm blade was used to make

11x11 cuts in the film in accordan ce with ASTM D-3369 Standard Test Method for Measuring A dhesion by Tape Test. A straight edge was used to make sure the cuts were straight and at right angles to each other. A soft brush was used to remove any debris caused by the cutting. Two windings of Permacel tape were removed and discarded prior to using the tape for adhesion tes ting. The tape was smoothed onto the surface over the crosshatch area and pres sed into place with a pencil eraser

and allowed to set for 90 seconds. Th e tape was pulled rapidly (less than one second without jerking) at 180 degr ees. The amount of paint removal was compared with the standard ch art supplied with the ASTM test.

RESULTS

PANEL 1
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 5B 0% NONE

B 5B 0% NONE

C 5B 0% NONE

D 5B 0% NONE

### PANEL 2
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 5B 0% NONE

B 5B 0% NONE

C 5B 0% NONE

D 5B 0% NONE

PANEL 3
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 5B 0% NONE

B 5B 0% NONE

C 5B 0% NONE

D 5B 0% NONE

PANEL 4
QUADRANT CLASSIFICATION PERCENT AREA REMOVED

A 5B 0% NONE

B 5B 0% NONE

C 5B 0% NONE