Additional Response to EPA Comments 

EPA comment 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), DES will need to justify adopting the less stringent limits when the rule 

is submitted for EPA approval as an amendment to the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). 

DES response: Regarding the limits for metal furniture, DES formerly had just one limit 

- 0.36 kg VOC/Z (3.0 lb VOC/gal). The CTG suggested limits for 8 coating types, ranging 

from 0.275 to 0.420 kg VOC/l. Two coating types, pretreatment coatings and metallic 

coatings, have higher limits than the former DES limit of 0.36, and 2 coating types, 

general one-component and general multi-component, have lower limits than the former 

DES limit. DES believes that the general coatings, each having a limit of 0.275 kg 

VOC/l, are applied more than pretreatment and metallic coatings, each with a limit of 

0.420 kg VOC/l. Even if their 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 the former limit of 0.36 

kg VOC/l, and the lower limit is 0.085 kg VOCII less than the former limit. 

Regarding the limits for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coaters, it is difficult to 

compare the CTG limits to the former DES limits. For example, the CTG suggests limits 

that apply to high bake coatings for both interior and exterior automotive parts. The 

former DES rule had different high bake coating limits for interior and exterior 

automotive parts but fewer coating types. With respect to low bake limits, the former 

limits for interior parts were more stringent than the new rule's single limit, but the new 

rule's limits for exterior parts are more stringent than the former rule's limits . Thus, it 

appears that the differences offset each other to the point that the new rule has the same 

effect as the former rule, and may even be more stringent since it covers more coating 

types. The following table attempts to compare the former and current 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: DES agrees that the specified limits for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat and 

Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating are less stringent than those in the CTG. The 

Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating is a new coating type proposed by the American Coatings 

Association (ACA). DES met with representatives of the ACA last summer after the 

stakeholders meeting and received information concerning these 3 coating types. The 

representatives stated that EPA did not seek input from the ACA when it created VOC 

coating limits for pleasure craft (a subcategory of the miscellaneous metal parts 

category). After a presentation about the inadequacy of the coatings that meet the CTG 

limits for these 3 coating types, we agreed to adjust the limits for those coatings . 

Information submitted by the ACA in support of these limits is attached. 

Specifically, DES believes that coatings that meet the CTG limit for Extreme High Gloss 

Topcoat do not provide the appearance and functionality required from a pleasure craft 

Extreme High Gloss Coating. In addition, some low VOC topcoats 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 VOCs are emitted. 
With respect to the low- VOC limit for Other Substrate Antifoulant Coatings, the VOC 

must be replaced with something non-volatile, effectively reducing the percentage of 

biocide in the dry film with a concomitant reduction in performance/reduced lifetime of 

the coating. Again, this may mean more frequent application of the antifouling coating, 

potentially leading to a greater overall VOC impact. 

The Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating category is required as a result of the International 

Maritime Organisation Antifouling Systems convention (IMO AFS). 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 the waters of countries which are 

signatories to the convention is controlled according to the requirements of Annex 1 of 

the AFS A specialized 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. Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coats must contain a VOC up to 420 g/L in order to 

facilitate adequate penetration into an underlying paint film for maximum adhesion. 

In summary, DES has concluded that, for purposes of functionality, cost, and VOC 

emissions, the limits adopted for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat, Other Substrate 

Antifoulant Coating, and Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating are RA CT for 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 form a 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) 

CTG VOC content 

taken from South 

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 ASTM Method D523-89 

" * Revised definition required : Pre-Treatment Wash Primer means a coating which 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 Primer/Surfacer cateqorv 

Boat owners have very high expectations for the final look of their boats. The finish is 

expected to be super smooth, super glossy (almost `mirror-like') and durable . Coatings can 

be applied by a variety of application methods (brush, roller or spray) and must flow out to 

give a smooth, glossy finish . In order to flow out 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/low VOC primers 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/low VOC primers 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 currently available, 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 interim measure 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 from 420 g/L to 600 g/L. 

(See panels showina differences between high and low VOC containinp primers which 

fit into this categorvl 
Revised VOC limit 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 quality of 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. These coatings 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 

from a pleasure craft Extreme High Gloss Coating. Some low VOC topcoats, 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 VOC extreme 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 areas where a VOC limit of 490g/It is 

implemented uncompetitive with yards in other states or in other countries. 

A final point of importance is that in a typical extreme high gloss coatings scheme, the topcoat 

represents less than 40% of the overall VOC burden and less than 10% of total yacht 

coatings on an annualised basis. Rule 1106.1 was developed to tackle serious ozone nonattainment in South Coast AQMD in California . It is overly severe and restrictive for adoption 

for the majority of non-attainment areas where the problem is 'Moderate' according to the 

EPA. The industry feels that restricting the VOC of some of the other coating categories and 

setting the VOC limit for Extreme High Gloss topcoats to 600 gIL, will provide the state with a 

balanced VOC reduction strategy that is appropriate to the challenge and that does not 

seriously impact the competitiveness of the industry. This VOC limit 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 the final gloss level of the product at the point of 

application . To manage this variation it is suggested that the gloss level stated in the 

definition of the Extreme High Gloss Topcoats category be lowered slightly to read; 

"Extreme high gloss coating means any coating which achieves greater than 90 percent 

reflectance on a 60° meter when tested by ASTM Method D 523-89" 
Revised VOC limit 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 VOC technology is constantly 

evolving and improving. The key is to set VOC targets 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 EPA on the basis of the percentage weight of 

biocide in the wet paint. As the VOC is reduced then the solvent must be replaced with 

something non-volatile, effectively reducing the percentage of biocide in the dry film with 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/low VOC coatings 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 the VOC challenge, 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 460 g/I w/based 68g/I std 468 g/I 350 g/L 

In addition, technologies for low VOC antifoulings 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 yachts 
The National Emission Standard for HAPs for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (40 CFR Part 63 

Subpart II) limits antifoulings in the US to 400g/L. Likewise SCAQMD Marine Rule 1106 

applies a VOC limit 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. Certainly we find no justification 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 from 330g/L to 400g/L 

(see demonstration films which show a low VOC water based Antifouling compared to 

a _solvent based eguivalen-0 
Additional Speciality Category and VOC Limit: 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 day which are more environmentally friendly 

and/or compliant with International law. 

A new category is required as a result of the International Maritime Organisation Antifouling 

Systems convention (IMO AFS) 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 the waters of 

countries which are signatories to the convention is controlled according to the requirements 

of Annex 1 of the AFS. A specialised 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 VOC content 

of 420 g/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 VOC up to 420 g/L in order to facilitate adequate 

penetration into an underlying paint film for maximum adhesion . They also contain a high 

degree of polymeric material (hence need a higher VOC content to maintain an acceptable 

application viscosity) so the coating can form a 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 of preventing release of 

biocides into the environment andlor to promote adhesion between an antifouling and a 

primer or other antifoulings ." 
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 CTG is 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 EPA has 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, and at 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 allow for 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' from 0.5 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)