## Additional Response to EPA Comments

EPAcomment on Env-A 1209, Env-A 1212: The proposed limits for metal furniture coaters and miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coaters are consistent with their respective CTGs, but in a few cases the limits are less stringent than the existing limits in Env-A 1204. In accordance with §110(l) of the Clean Air Act (re: antibacksliding), DESwill need tojustify adopting the less stringent limits when the rule is submitted for EPAapproval as an amendment to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) . DES response: Regarding the limitsfor metalfurniture, DESformerly had just one limit - 0 .36 kg VOC/Z (3.0 lb VOC/gal) . The CTGsuggested limitsfor 8coating types, ranging from0 .275 to 0 .420 kg VOC/l . Twocoatingtypes, pretreatment coatings and metallic coatings, have higher limits than the former DES limit of 0

.36, and 2coating types, general one-component andgeneralmulti-component, have lower limits than theformer DES limit. DES believes that the general coatings, each having a limit of0 .275 kg VOC/l, are applied more than pretreatment and metallic coatings, each with a limit of 0 .420 kg VOC/l . Even iftheir use is the same, fewer VOCs will be emitted as a result of the new limits, since the higher limit is only 0 .06 kg VOCII over theformer limit of0 .36 kg VOC/l, andthe lower limit is 0 .085 kg VOCII less than theformer limit. Regarding the limitsfor miscellaneous metal andplasticparts coaters, it is difficult to compare the CTGlimits to theformer DESlimits. For example, the CTGsuggests limits that apply to high bake coatingsfor both interior and exterior automotive parts. The former DES rule haddifferent high bake coating limitsfor interior and exterior automotiveparts but

fewer coating types. With respect to lowbake limits, theformer limitsfor interiorparts were more stringent than the new rule's single limit, but the new rule's limitsfor exteriorparts are more stringent than theformer rule's limits. Thus, it appears that the differences offset each other to thepoint that the new rule has the same effect as theformer rule, and may even be morestringent since it covers more coating types. Thefollowing table attempts to compare theformer andcurrent limits.

Coating New Rule Former Rule High Bake Prime Coating 0 .46 - Interior High Bake Flexible 0 .60 Prime Coating - Exterior High Bake Non-Flexible 0 .54 Primer - Exterior High Bake Flexible 0 .54 Primer - Interior and Exterior High Bake Non-Flexible 0 .42 Primer - Interior and Exterior I High Bake Color Coating 0.49

### Coating New Rule Former Rule - Interior High Bake Color Coating 0 .55 - Exterior High Bake Base Coat - 0 .52 Interior and Exterior Low Bake Prime Coating 0 .42 - Interior Low Bake Color Coating 0 .38 - Interior All Low

Bake Coatings - 0

.60 Interior Low Bake Red or Black 0 .67 Color Coating - Exterior Low Bake Color Coating 0 .61 Except for Red &Black - Exterior Low Bake Basecoat - 0 .60 Exterior Low Bake Clear Coat - 0 .54 0

.54 Exterior Low Bake Prime Coating 0 .58 0

.66 - Exterior EPA comment on Table 1212-7: For pleasure craft coaters, the limits for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat, Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating, and Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating are less stringent than the CTG . DES response: DESagrees that thespecified limitsfor Extreme High Gloss Topcoat and Other SubstrateAntifoulant Coating are less stringent than those in the CTG . The Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating is a new coating type proposed by theAmerican Coatings Association (ACA) . DES met with representatives oftheACA last summer afterthe stakeholders meetingand received information concerning these 3coating types. The representatives stated that EPA did not seek inputfrom theACA when it created VOC coating limitsforpleasure craft (a subcategory ofthe miscellaneous metalparts category) . After apresentation about the inadequacy ofthe coatings that meet the CTG limitsfor these 3coatingtypes, we agreed to adjust the limitsfor those coatings. Information submitted by theACA in support ofthese limits is attached. Specifically, DES believes that coatings that meet the CTGlimitfor Extreme High Gloss Topcoat do not provide the appearance and functionality requiredfromapleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating . In addition, some lowVOCtopcoats now being marketed forpleasure craft usage are based on apolymer type thatprovides reduced durability. These coatings have a reduced lifetime and their use will necessitate a morefrequent recoating schedule which means in relative terms, more VOCs are emitted .

### With respect to the low- VOC limitfor OtherSubstrateAntifoulant Coatings, the VOC must be replaced with somethingnon-volatile, effectively reducing thepercentage of biocide in the dryfilmwith a concomitant reduction in performance/reduced lifetime of the coating

. Again, this may mean morefrequent application ofthe antifouling coating, potentially leading to a greater overall VOCimpact. TheAntifoulingSealer/Tie Coating category is required as a result ofthe International Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convention (IMO AFS) . This convention was ratified in 2007 and houses a list ofsubstances bannedfromuse in antifoulings in Annex 1. Tri Butyl Tin (TBT) is thefirst addition toAnnex 1 and the use ofthis biocide in antifoulings on the hulls ofany marine vessels entering the waters ofcountries which are signatories to the convention is controlled according to the requirements ofAnnex 1 of the AFS Aspecialized coating type is required to seal in old TBTcontaining antifoulings and to promote adhesion ofbiocide free, non-stickfoul release coatings when applied to vessels. Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coats must contain a VOCup to 420g/L in order to facilitate adequate penetration into an underlyingpaintfilm for maximum

adhesion. In summary, DES has concludedthat,for purposes of functionality, cost, and VOC emissions, the limits adoptedfor Extreme High Gloss Topcoat, Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating, andAntifouling Sealer/Tie Coating are RACTfor New Hampshire

.

## Modifications required to South Coast rule 1106.1 to

contribute towards establishing a suitable RACT standard for

the Pleasure Craft coatings industry Summary The required changes to rule 1106.1 to forma RACT standard for the pleasure craft coatings industry are summarised in table 1 . Table 1 - Showing required changes by industry compared to limits in rule 1106. 1 (changes indicated by red font) CTGVOCcontent taken fromSouth Coast rule 1106.1 Industry VOC

Proposal for RACT 

### (g/L)

Revised definition required: Extreme High Gloss coating means any coating which achieves 

### greater than 90 percent reflection on a 60° meter when tested by ASTMMethod D523-89 " * Revised definition required: Pre-TreatmentWash Primer means a coatingwhich contains no more than 25 percent solids, by weight, and at least 0 .1 percent acids, by weight ; is used to provide surface etching; and is applied directly to fiberglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings. The following sections provide more detail to substantiate proposed modifications

### Revised VOC limit for Finish Pri mer/Surfacercateqorv Boat owners have very high expectations for thefinal look of their boats. The finish is expected to be supersmooth, super glossy (almost `mirror-like') and durable. Coatings can be applied by a variety of application methods (brush, roller or spray) and must flowout to give a smooth, glossy finish . In order to flowout and achieve such effects, products with a higher solvent content (lower solids content) are required for both the topcoats and the primers which go beneath them Introducing high solids/lowVOCprimers that provide a smooth, easy-to-sand surface necessary to provide the aesthetics demanded by owners will require significant time to develop and evaluate. Currently, high solids/lowVOCprimers often require additional sanding, creating more dust, to achieve the same smooth surface that is obtained with currently available products. This would necessitate a change in working practices in yards to overcome the increased health hazard associated with the increased dust levels. An additional issue relating to a switch to lower VOC Finish/Primer surfacers is that the cost can be as much as 40% or more higher than currentlyavailable, higher VOC products. This, in combination with increased labor costs associated with the additional sanding needed to remove the increased surface texture, will make yards in areas where a VOC limit of 420g/It is implemented uncompetitive with yards in other states. As an interimmeasure to ensure that competitive products can be supplied into ozone noncompliance areas during the next four years that meet the aesthetic and performance requirements demanded by boat owners, the industry requires VOC levels of the Rule 1106.1 "Finish Primer/Surfacer" coating category to be revised from420g/L to 600 g/L. (See panels showina differences between high and low VOCcontaininp primers which fit into this categorvl

### Revised VOClimit for Extreme Hiph Gloss Coatinjo category The Extreme High Gloss Coatings category represents a comparatively small but critical, high value segment of the overall pleasure craft market . The aesthetic properties that topcoats give to the topsides of pleasure craft are of primary importance to boat owners, a fact that should be neither underestimated nor dismissed. The owner has invested a significant sum of money into owning his yacht and the qualityof the final appearance is its 'crowning glory' . If boat owners cannot achieve the desired superglossy, mirror-like finish, they will not settle for an inferior solution - they will simply have their boats painted elsewhere. Thesecoatings are professionally applied so any restriction on their use that reduces the competitiveness of individual yards will have a direct and immediate bearing on employment levels and local revenues. High solids topcoats have not been well received in the North American pleasure craft coating market . In general, applicators and boat owners have found the finish that these products provide to be inferior to traditional, higher VOC containing products. This can be seen clearly in the situation where a yacht coated with a high solids topcoat is moored alongside-one coated with a traditional finish. Although high solids and water-based technologies are available and in use in other industries (e.g. car refinishing and aviation) the controlled application conditions which make the use of these coatings possible in those industries are neither available nor possible for the pleasure craft coating industry. Despite much product development activity, the lower VOC technologies available at this time do not provide the appearance and functionality required froma pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating. Some low VOCtopcoats, originating from the car refinish market and now being marketed for pleasure craft usage, are based on a polymer type that provides reduced durability. These coatings have a reduced lifetime and their use will necessitate a more frequent recoating schedule which means in relative terms, more VOC is emitted. An additional issue relating to a switch to lower VOCextreme high gloss topcoats is that the cost can be as much as 60% or more higher than currently available, higher VOC products. The resultant increase in scheme cost will make yards in areaswhere a VOC limit of 490g/It is implemented uncompetitive with yards in otherstates or in other countries. Afinal point of importance is that in a typical extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat represents less than 40% of the overall VOCburden and less than 10% of total yacht coatings on an annualised basis. Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone nonattainment in South CoastAQMD in California. It is overly severe and restrictive for adoption for the majority of non-attainment areas where the problemis 'Moderate' according to the EPA . The industry feels that restricting the VOCof some of the other coating categories and setting the VOClimit for Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600gIL, will provide the statewith a balanced VOCreduction strategy that is appropriate to the challenge and that does not seriously impact the competitiveness of the industry. This VOClimit change should be permanent as industry does not foresee any new technology emerging that can offer a route to providing performance characteristics which are acceptable by the pleasure craft coating industry. (see topcoat panels which demonstrate difference in appearance between hiph solids and traditional formulations) . 

### Revised Coating Category Definition for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat As mentioned above, application of topcoats is undertaken in a variety of environmental conditions that can have an effect on thefinal gloss level of the product at the point of application . To manage this variation it is suggested that thegloss level stated in the definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read; "Extreme high gloss coating means anycoating which achieves greater than 90 percent reflectance on a 60° meter when tested byASTM Method D523-89"

### Revised VOClimit for Other Substrate Antifoulant Coatina Significant time and effort have been invested by industry to develop low VOC antifouling coatings suitable for use on pleasure craft. Low VOC/Zero VOCtechnology is constantly evolving and improving. The key is to set VOCtargets at a realistic level based on what we know todav in order to ensure the maximum compromise between performance, cost, appearance, drying time and application characteristics. Formulations are currently registered with the EPAon the basis of the percentage weight of biocide in the wet paint . As the VOCis reduced then the solvent must be replaced with something non-volatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry filmwith a concomitant reduction in performance/reduced lifetime of the coating . This may mean more frequent application of the antifouling, potentially leading to a greater overall VOC impact . It is also true that high solids/lowVOCcoatings tend to dry slower than their high VOC counterparts and this can impact the overall productivity of a yard for example. Similarly, water based technologies are not a panacea to theVOCchallenge, though water-based technologies are being very heavily scrutinised by coatings manufacturers. In general water based coatings can only be formulated at low volume solids (30%compared to say 60%+ for an equivalent solvent-based system) . This inevitably means thin films containing less biocide (which affects the performance and lifetime of the coating) The data below

shows the performance challenge with changing VOC . Panels 1-3 (left) are all based on the same active package The two rightmost panels are standard solvent based controls.

VOC 328g/I std 460g/I w/based 68g/I std 468g/I 350 g/L In addition, technologies for low VOCantifoulings often result in a rougher film. The roughness of the hull contributes directly to drag which is seen as a particular issue in the case of racing yachtsThe National Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFRPart 63 Subpart II) limits antifoulings in the US to 400g/L. Likewise SCAQMD Marine Rule 1106 applies a VOClimit for antifouling coatings of 400g/L. Industry believes this limit is more suitable to represent RACT for this coating category, given the current state of the existing technology. Certainlywe find nojustification in setting a limit lower than that applied to the National Emission Standards for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair and the SCAQMD 1106 limits. The following VOC limit amendment is therefore required; 

### Category of "Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating" - amend from330g/L to 400g/L (see demonstration films which show a low VOCwater based Antifouling compared to a _solvent based eguivalen-0

### Additional Speciality Category and VOCLimit: Antifoulincg Sealer/Tie Coat Rule 1106.1 is dated and there are more recent requirements for an additional category to reflect pleasure craft coatings of the modern daywhich are more environmentally friendly and/or compliantwith International law . A new category is required as a result of the International Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convention (IMOAFS) and should be added to the categories taken from Rule 1106.1 . This convention was ratified in 2007 and houses a list of substances banned from use in antifoulings in Annex 1 . Tri Butyl Tin (TBT) is the first addition to Annex 1 and the use of this biocide in antifoulings on the hulls of any marine vessels entering thewaters of countries which are signatories to the convention is controlled according to the requirements of Annex 1 of the AFS. Aspecialised coating type is required to seal in old TBT containing antifoulings and to promote adhesion of biocide-free, non-stick foul release coatings when applied to vessels. The use of biocide-free coatings brings significant environmental benefits. The category should be named 'Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coat'with a maximum VOCcontent of 420g/L. Antifouling Sealer Coats and Tie Coats have been introduced into the market largely to facilitate compliance with Annex 1 of the IMO-Antifouling Systems Convention (2001) . Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coats must contain a VOCup to 420 g/L in order to facilitate adequate penetration into an underlying paint filmfor maximumadhesion. They also contain a high degree of polymeric material (hence need a higher VOCcontent to maintain an acceptable application viscosity) so the coating can forma flexible yet complete barrier over an underlying paint film

. An appropriate definition for this type of coating would be . . . "a coating applied over Biocidal antifouling coating for the purpose ofpreventing release of biocides into the environment andlor to promote adhesion between an antifouling anda primer or otherantifoulings."

### Revised definition for the catecLory of "Pretreatment Wash Primer The current definition of Pretreatment Wash Primer in South Coast rule 1106.1 is restricting the development of alternative products which would be considerably less toxic to humans and the environment than those used currently. Products which meet the current definition for this are formulated to contain known carcinogens such as zinc chromate (CAS 13530-65-9) and zinc tetroxy chromate (CAS 37300-23-5)' due to the excellent anti-corrosive properties of these materials. In most cases the approach taken in the CTGis to define the control category in terms of the product attribute. For example, the definition of a High Gloss Topcoat refers specifically to the performance attribute of the product - the gloss result . However, in the case of the "Pretreatment Wash Primer" category, the approach has been to define the category both in terms of the formulation parameters (acid content and solids content) and the performance attribute of the product (surface etching) . By taking this approach, South Coast EPAhas very much tied industry to the current, well established but very toxic zinc-based etch primers. This definition requires amending to allow for the introduction of safer, alternative etch systems which are not based on zinc tetroxy chromate. Industry would like a permanent modification made to the definition so that it reads as follows; "PRETREATMENT WASH PRIMER means a coating which contains no more than 25 percent solids, by weight, andat least 0 .1 percent acids, by weight; is used to provide surface etching ; and is applied directly to fibreglass and metal surfaces to provide corrosion resistance and adhesion of subsequent coatings" The `percent solids' value must be raised form 12 to 25 to allowfor an increased quantity of safer (non-carcinogenic) replacement pigment which is required for equivalent coating performance. These replacement formulations require a reduced level of acid to perform adequately therefore it is also necessary to reduce the deminimus value associated to 'percent acids' from0

.5 to 0 .1 .

1 Rated as known carcinogens by Occupational Safety & Health Administrator (OSHA), National Toxicology Program

(NTP), and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)