Comments from Rule 234 Amendment Workshop, August 5, 2010

Issue 1: A erosol s . A dd cleaning solvents to the aerosol definition

. Aerosol s are used for bug , tar, and sap cleaning that can not meet the 350 g/l limit. These need to be exempt.

Response: Aerosols used for surface cleaning and prep aration are covered under Rule 240, and not directly covered under Rule 234. Rule 240 provides an e xemption for cleaning and prep aerosols, with a provision limiting the use to 160 ounces/day for those with VOC content greater than 50 g/l

.

Issue 2 : M etallics. Is this category n eeded ? If so, a dd “may also include mylar, plastics, and other

minerals ” . Also, w hy does the definition include a requirement to contain more than 5 g/l of metallic ?

Response: The metallics definition has been deleted from the rule as it is not required for rule compliance

.

Issue 3 : P rimer/sealer. Add to definition to include use for “ promote adhesion to the substrate ”

. Primer/sealers are sometimes formulat ed to include adhesion promoter additives

.

Response: To be consistent with the SCM, no change has been made. Products that are used specifically for adhesion promotion need to meet the adhesion category limit

. If the primer/sealer is manufactured and intended for use to meet the primer/sealer definition, but at the same time includes adhesion promotion benefits, and as such could meet the definition of two categories, the product

needs to meet the limit for th e most restrictive category (which happens to be the primer/sealer)

.

Issue 4 : R educer. Change definition to “Products used to thin a coating”.

Response: Made change as requested.

Issue 5 : S olvent. Add to the name “cleaning”.

Response: To be consistent with the SCM, we are retaining the title without the suggested addition of “cleaning”. This is because solvent can be used for coating thinning, and the existing definition specifically mentions cleaning.

Issue 6 : S pot repair. Is this definition n eeded ? If so, c hange requirement from 1 sq ft to for example

20% of the vehicle surface area.

Response: To be consistent with the SCM, we are not changing the definition. The spot definition is

used for the definition of the “uniform finish coating” category. The definition is not changed to a percentage of total vehicle surface area because this could allow very larg e areas for vehicles with large surface areas

.

Issue 7 : Section 305. Separate out (put in different numbered sections) gun cleaning requirements from surface cleaning requirements.

Response: The gun cleaning requirements are included in S ubs ection 305.3, separate from the other surface cleaning and solvent storage and handling requirements in the other subsections of Section

305.

Issue 8 : Section 305.1 Get rid of requirement to dispose and store VOC

- laden materials in “ non

- leaking and vapor tight ” containers , instead characterize as “ closed ” . Does storage in a trash can with lid meet the intent of this requirement ?

Response: As suggested, the disposal and storage container requirements for VOC

- laden materials has been changed to “closed”, as consistent with the SCM

. It is preferred that containers be used

with lids that form a tight and secure seal, such as those with screw

- on or form fit lids. A “ trash can ”with a well sealed lid would comply with this requirement; alternatively, a trash can with lid that has

visible leaks where the lid forms a seal with the container would not comply with this requirement.

Issue 9 : Section 305.3 Add allowance for cleani ng of spray guns with solvents comprised solely of exempt VOCs without an enclosed system.

Response: Made change as requested.

Issue 1 0 : Section 403. Delete second sentence. Clarify that this applies to products that are delivered to

the District. T he D istributer should not be responsible if non

- compliant products are sold outside the
District, and then bro ught into the District and used ?

Response: No change is made . A distributer located outside of the District would not be directly responsible if he unknowingly sold a non

- complian t product that was subsequently used in the District. Alternatively, a distributer would be responsible if he delivered for sale a non

- compliant product into the District, or knowingly sold a non

- compliant product that was clearly intended for use
in the District.

Issue 1 1 : Section 404. It is b u rdensome and unnecessary to include the requirement for information on the volume of exempts, weight of exempts, and density. Is this condition asking for the supplier to provide this info rmation to the user when purchased, or to District on request ? Clarify this.

Response: We have clarified that the manufacturer or repackager may provide this information to the purchaser , at time of sale, in electronic or web media format.

Issue 1 2 : Section 405

. Not reasonable to include requirements for the VOC category on the label. Also

n eed to add option of reporting VOC content in lb/gal instead of g/l.

Response: We have added that the VOC content can be provided in either lb/gal or g/l. Regarding the category, we have added that the category identification is only required on labels for products

that hav e been man ufactured after the effective date of the rule amendment.

Issue 1 3 : Section 501. 4 For purchase records, it is not always feasible to include the coating type, and

have the records available on

- site. Should require to supply them on request.

Response: We have clarified that coating type (category) information must be on

- site and correlated with all individual products, and that purchase records may be stored off

- site.

Issue 1 4 : Section 503.4. Get rid of requirement to include “point of use” for each sale. Also, can t he VOC content requirement be met by having information available at the shop, and does not need to be included in each sep arate sales transaction receipt ?

Respon se: We have eliminated the “point of use” requirement. D ocumentation of the product VOC

content must be available on

- site, and does not need to be included in each separate transaction receipt.

Issue 1 5 : Section 507. Test Methods. Is the metallic method needed ? If so, it needs to be corrected to

allow for characterization of other additives.

Response: We are eliminating the metallic test method as it is not required for rule compliance.

Issue 1 6 : Rule should take effect six months from board approval.

Response:Issue 1 7 : NESHAP MACT Rule will require all operations, regardless of size, to have a local operating permit.

Response: