## PLACER COUNTY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT



# STAFF REPORT

RULE 2 34

A UTOMOTIVE REFINISHING OPERATIONS

PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT S

October 14, 2010Staff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 34 October 14, 2010 Page 2

BACKGROUND

R ule 2 34

, AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING OPERATIONS

, limits the volatile or gan ic compound (VOC) emissions from automotive refinishing operations in the Placer County Air Pollution Control

District (District) . The rule was last amended by the District on April 9

, 1998

.

The District is proposing amendments to Rule 2 34 based on a “ Su ggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings ” (SCM) issued on October 20 , 200 5

, by the California Air Resources Board

. The SCM provides VOC limits for coating categories that are more stringent than t hose in current

Rule 2 34

. The SCM is intended for D istricts , like Placer County, which need VOC emission

reductions for attainment of Sta te and Federal ozone standards. The SCM is considered Best Available Retrofit Control Technology, which is part of the District ’ s plan to meet ozone reduction requiremen ts as required under California Health and Safety Code Section 40919; and meets the District’s requirement under California Health and Safety Code Section 40914 to implement “every

feasible measure”

.

This Staff Report addresses amendments that are propose d to Rule 2 34 based on the SCM

. This is an early meeting of the SIP commitment to adopt the SCM’s provisions by 201 5

.

The SCM has been , or is currently being, adopted by the following local air districts:

**•** Yolo

- Solano : Rule 2.26, revised 12/08

**•** San Joaqui n : Rule 4612, revised 09/07

**•** Sac ramento : R ule 459, last revised 10/97, currently under revisio n

**•** Bay Area : Reg ulation 8, Rule 45, revised 12/08

There are twenty

- eight (28) separate automotive refinishing shops operations under twenty

- six (26) separate ow ners that operate and are affected by Rule 234 and its proposed revision.

The amended rule is proposed to be effective July 1, 2011.

DISCUSSION

Rule amendments, in underline/strikeout format, are shown in Attachment #1. Specific changes

to the R ule in clude:

Section 100. General

Section 102. Applicability. The Rule has been expanded to apply to the entire District, including the Mountain Counties and Lake Tahoe Air Basins

. The Rule previously was

limited to the Sacramento Air Basin.

Section 103

. Se verability. A provisio n has been added that retains R ule requirements if part is determined to be invalid.

Section 104

– 107 , 110 . Exemptions. Exemptions for touchup, graphic design, military
vehicles, and radiators , and small production/utility bodies

, have been deleted.

Section 105 and 106. Exemptions. Exemptions have been added for small quan ti t y users (<0.5 ounce containers), and assembly line operations.

Section 200. Definitions

Changes to definitions are made based on coating categories recl assific ations:Staff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 34 October 14, 2010 Page 3

Definitions that were eliminated include : Antiglare/safety coating, Camouflage coating, Finishing, Grams of VOC per liter of coating excluding waste and exempt compounds, Grams of VOC per liter of material, Ground support equipment, Group I vehicles, Group II vehicles, Large/heavy duty truck, Light and medium duty truck or van, Multi

- stage topcoat system, Precoat, Primer sufacer, Refinishing, Specialty coating, Topc oat, Touchup, Utility body

Definitions that have been added include : Assembl y line, Associated parts and components, Automotive coating, Automotive coating components, Automotive refinishing facility, Clear coating, Color coating, Emission control system, Motor
vehicle, Multi

- color coating, Single

- stage coating, Solvent, Spot repa ir, Tuck bed liner coating, Underbody coating, Uniform finish coating

Section 300. Standards

Section 301

. VOC Content L i mits

. VOC coating categories and limits in the current R ule have been removed, and replaced with VOC coating categories and limits f rom the SCM.

Section 302

. Most R estrictive VOC Limits

. A provision has been added which requires compliance with the lowest VOC limit if multiple category limits are applicable

.

Section 302. Operation and Maintenance Plan. This s ection has been moved under

Section 304.

Section 303. Application Requirements

. T his section ’ s t itle has been changed from Transfer Efficiency to Application Requirements. Application methods which have been added or modified, include: brush, dip, roller, spray guns that mee t high volume low pressure, and any other method that has demonstrated and been approved to provide equivalent transfer efficiency to those listed. The requirement for a lternative application

methods to have transfer efficiency of at least 65% has been re moved

.

Section 304

. Emission Control System

. The allowance for use of a VOC control system as an alternative to coating content limits was moved to this new location

.

Section 30 5

. Solvent Limits and Evaporative Loss Minimization

. This section ’ s title has been changed from Surface Preparation and Solvent Loss Minimization

. Provisions have

been a dded and clarified for work practices to minimize evaporation loss. The solvent cleaning VOC content limit has been changed to 25 g/l, with an except ion for bu g and tar remover with a limit specified under the California Consumer Products Regulation (California Code of Regulations Section 94507 et seq.)

.

Section 305, 306, and 307

. Provisions have been deleted for usage limits for specialty

coatin gs, temporary protective coatings

, and pre

- coat

.

Section 30 6

. Toxic Air Contaminant

. A provision has been added which restrict s the use of coating s which contain cadmium or hexavalent chromium. This is consistent with existing State law.

Section 400. Administrativ e Requirements

Section 401

. Prohibition of Possession

. A new provision has been added prohibiting possession of non

- compliant product s at the automotive refinishing facility

.

Section 40 5. Labeling. A new provision has been added for labeling requiremen ts.

Section 500. Monitoring and RecordsStaff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 34 October 14, 2010 Page 4

Section 50 3

. Sales Records

. New record keeping requirements have been added for

sales transactions.

Section 505. Burden of Proof. A new provision has been added for recordkeeping requirements for exempt sources

.

Section 50 6

. Maintenance of Records

. A new section has been a dded requiring the reporting requirements to be retained for 3 years , or 5 years for sources subject to Rule

507

.

Section 50 7. Test Methods

. Reference has been added to numerous additional test methods, and minor changes made to references of methods in the existing R ule.

Miscellaneous

Additional miscellaneous changes were made for readability and conformance with the

SCM which have no impact on the compliance requirements of the Rule.

AN ALYSIS

The following Analysis and the subsequent Findings are intended to address the requirements set forth in the Health and Safety Code relating to adoption of a new or amended District Rule, as well as

other St ate statutes referenced herein.

1. Cost

- Effectiveness of a Control Measure

California Health & Safety Code (H&S) Section 40703 requires a District to consider and make public “the cost

- effectiveness of a control measure”. The cost effectiveness has been estimated at $0.40 per lb of VOC reduced

.

2. Socioeconomic Impact

H&S Section 40728, in relevant part, requires the Board to consider the socioeconomic impact of any new or amended rule if air quality or emission limits are significantly affected. There are twenty six (26) auto refinishing sh ops that operate under District permit. The average annual cost of compliance with the rule amendment based on the CARB SCM is estimated to be $800 per individual shop operation, based on recent estimates by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Note that numerous existing shop operations are already operating in compliance with the amended rule standards.

3. E nvironmental R eview and C ompliance

California Public Resources Code Section 21159 requires an environmental analysis of the reasonably fo reseeable methods of compliance should be conducted. Compliance of the proposed rule amendment is expected to be achieved by the replacement of current coating products with compliant compounds. Application of these compliant compounds will generally res ult in less VOC emissions from the coating activities. Therefore, the proposed rule amendment will reduce emissions from sources and will not cause any significant adverse effects on the environment. Staff has concluded that no adverse environmental impa cts will be caused by compliance with the proposed rule amendment.

According to the above conclusion, Staff finds that the proposed rule amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because ( 1) it can be seen with certainty tha t there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant adverse effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)) and ( 2) it is as anStaff Report

– Revision to Rule 2 34 October 14, 2010 Page 5

action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment (Class 8 Categorical Exempti on, CEQA Guidelines §15308).

FINDINGS

A. Necessity : The adoption of proposed amended Rule satisfies the objective of the District

to implement “Suggested Control Measures ” for the reduction of VOCs to achieve

attainment with ambient air standards for ozone

, and meets the District’s requirements to implement “every feasible measure” and “Best Available Retrofit Control Technology” as required under California Health and Safety Code Sections 40919 and 40914

.

B. Authority : California Health and Safety Code, Secti ons 40000, 40001, 40701, 40702,
40716, 41010, and 41013, are provisions of law that provide the District with the authority

to adopt this proposed amended R ule.

C. Clarity : There is no indication, at this time, that the proposed amended R ule is written in

su ch a manner that persons affected by the R ule cannot easily understand them.

D. Consistency : The proposed amended Rule is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations.

E. Non

- duplication : The proposed amended Rule does not impose the same requirements as an existing state or federal regulation.

F. Reference : All statutes, court decisions, and other provisions of law used by the District in interpreting this proposed amended Rule are incorporated into this analysis and this finding by reference.

SUMMARY

Rule 2 34

, AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING OPERATIONS , has been amended to address the

“ Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings” which was issued on October 20 , 200 5

, by

the Cali fornia Air Resources Board

.

Attachment 1: Proposed Rule 236 Amendments.

### ATTACHMENT # 1

Subject:

Amended Rule 234

, Automotive Refinishing Operations