Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0148-0011
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-09T05:00Z

Minutes
of
Meeting
with
Sherwin­
Williams
Company
and
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
Date:
November
8,
2005
Attendees:

Sherwin­
Williams
Company
Randy
Lutz
(
with
the
law
firm
of
Hodes,
Ulman,
Pessin
&
Katz,
P.
A.
representing
Sherwin
Williams)
Dan
Forestiere
Madeline
Harding
Representing
the
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
Bob
Nelson
EPA
Tom
Helms,
OAQPS
Bill
Johnson,
OAQPS
Dave
Sanders,
OAQPS
Bob
Stallings,
OAQPS
Dave
Salman,
OAQPS
Bruce
Moore,
OAQPS
Individuals
who
participated
by
conference
telephone:

EPA
Geoffrey
Wilcox,
OGC
Anne
Arnold,
Region
I
Rick
Ruvo,
Region
II
Kirt
Wieber,
Region
II
Paul
Truchan,
Region
II
Neil
Bigioni,
Region
III
Chris
Cripps,
Region
III
Stan
Tong,
Region
IX
Department
of
Justice
Pamela
Tonglao
Discussion:

In
its
"
Advance
Notice
to
Solicit
Comments,
Data
and
Information
for
Determining
the
Emissions
Reductions
Achieved
in
Ozone
Nonattainment
and
Maintenance
Areas
From
the
Implementation
of
Rules
Limiting
the
VOC
Content
of
AIM
Coatings"
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
asked
for
comments
by
December
16.
In
response
for
this
invitation
to
comment,
Sherwin­
Williams
Company
and
a
representative
from
the
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
came
to
the
EPA
facility
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
on
November
8,
2005
to
discuss
their
comments
on
a
baseline
for
use
in
architectural
and
industrial
coatings
(
AIM)
emission
reductions
calculations.

As
an
introduction,
Geoffrey
Wilcox
from
EPA's
Office
of
General
Counsel
gave
some
general
ground
rules
for
the
discussion.
He
said
that
we
would
not
discuss
the
pending
litigation
by
Sherwin­
Williams
against
EPA
regarding
the
District
of
Columbia
ROP
SIP
approval.
This
SIP
approval
deals
with
some
issues
of
baselines
and
emission
reduction
calculations.
Randy
Lutz,
an
attorney
with
a
law
firm
representing
Sherwin
Williams,
said
that
they
had
requested
this
meeting
in
response
to
the
invitation
in
the
ANPR
and
did
not
intend
to
discuss
the
pending
litigation.

Dan
Forestiere,
Director
Regulatory
Affairs
for
Sherwin­
Williams
Company,
discussed
Sherwin­
Williams'
concern
about
base
lines
used
in
calculations.
He
identified
several
base
lines
for
pounds
of
VOC
emissions
from
use
of
AIM
coating
per
person
per
year
which
have
been
used
in
various
calculations
in
the
past.
These
include
4.5,
5.4
or
5.7
(
Forestiere
said
likely
from
the
National
Inventory
Improvement
Program),
and
6.7.
The
6.7
number
is
from
a
1979
draft
report
called
"
Control
Techniques
Guideline
for
Architectural
Surface
Coatings"
which
was
prepared
by
an
EPA
contractor,
Acurex
Corporation.
This
report,
which
was
never
formally
released
by
EPA
in
final
form,
has
VOC
emissions
data
for
architectural
coatings
which
were
taken
form
the
NPCA
Data
Bank
Program
which
was
prepared
for
the
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
by
SRI,
Inc
in
1976.

Bob
Nelson
discussed
the
NPCA
data
book.
He
said
that
it
had
been
prepared
as
a
marketing
document.
It
was
intended
to
summarize
raw
material
supplies
which
might
be
available
to
the
industry
at
that
time,
but
the
data
was
never
intended
for
emission
inventory
or
rule
development.
He
said
important
segments
of
the
industry
such
as
small
companies
may
not
have
been
represented.
According
to
the
industry
representatives
the
6.7
lb
VOC
emissions
per
person
per
year
is
not
an
acceptable
number
to
use
for
an
emission
baseline
since
it
is
based
on
data
that
was
never
intended
for
emission
inventory
development.

Madeline
Harding
said
that
emission
inventories
developed
by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
(
CARB)
may
be
the
best
data
to
use
for
AIM
baseline
development
since
these
inventories
are
based
on
actual
industry
surveys.
She
said
that
Sherwin­
Williams
is
seeking
an
alternative
to
the
6.7
lb/
person/
year
number
which
doesn't
look
like
a
good
number.

There
was
some
discussion
about
the
level
of
detail
which
some
of
the
OTC
states
have
required
in
their
AIM
rules
including
such
things
as
sales,
VOC
content,
speciated
VOC,
label
trade
names,
container
sizes
and
water
content
and
also
information
about
trans­
State
shipments.
Geoffrey
Wilcox
asked
if
California
required
this
level
of
detail
now
in
its
record
keeping
requirements.
Ms.
Harding
said
yes
that
the
OTC
had
adopted
many
of
these
data
requirements
from
the
California
rules.
Ms.
Harding
said
that
companies
have
this
data
as
a
matter
of
business
practice
and
that
keeping
it
is
not
an
undue
burden.
Ms.
Harding
added
that
small
businesses
are
not
exempt
from
this
rule.

Ms.
Harding
said
that
she
would
prefer
that
EPA
do
a
new
national
survey
of
AIM
coatings
usage
and
emissions
in
order
to
establish
a
new
baseline.
She
said
that
it
would
be
advantageous
to
divide
the
country
into
two
sections:
the
ultra­
regulated
areas
(
including
California
and
the
OTC
states)
and
the
rest
of
the
country
subject
only
to
the
national
EPA
AIM
rule.
This
would
allow
a
different
baseline
to
be
developed
for
each
type
of
area.
She
said
that
2005
would
not
be
a
good
base
year
since
it
is
a
transitional
year.
Companies
are
still
allowed
to
sell
higher
VOC
paints
which
they
have
in
stock
in
2005
and
this
would
skew
results
of
a
survey.

There
was
a
discussion
of
the
Industry
Insight
data
that
was
used
by
EPA
to
develop
some
of
the
past
baseline
numbers.
Sherwin­
Williams
does
not
like
this
data
because
they
have
discovered
several
anomalies
in
the
data,
and
they
are
not
able
to
reproduce
how
calculations
were
made.
Mr.
Lutz
said
that
they
have
had
a
statistician
look
at
CARB
data
and
think
that
it
is
much
better
quality
data
for
use
in
developing
a
base
line.
Dave
Salman
mentioned
that
data
for
the
San
Francisco
data
seems
different
from
the
data
for
the
rest
of
the
State.

There
was
further
discussion
about
the
possibility
of
EPA
doing
a
national
survey.
Several
people
form
EPA
pointed
out
the
problem
that
OMB
only
allows
10
companies
to
be
surveyed
with
any
particular
survey
without
OMB
permission.
This
would
not
give
a
very
representative
sample
of
the
500
plus
paint
companies.
Randy
Lutz
asked
if
OMB
might
be
more
willing
to
approve
a
larger
survey
if
stakeholders
recommended
it.
Bruce
Moore
said
that
in
1992
OMB
had
been
reluctant
to
approve
a
consumer
product
survey
even
though
the
industry
was
cooperating
with
the
survey.

Tom
Helms
asked
if
it
would
not
be
in
the
industry's
interest
for
the
National
Paint
and
Coating
Association
to
do
a
survey.
They
would
not
have
to
deal
with
getting
OMB
approval.
Madeline
Harding
said
that
NPCA
does
not
have
authority
to
survey
the
industry.
Also
since
NPCA
members
represent
80%
of
the
market,
many
small
producers
who
are
not
NPCA
members
might
not
be
represented
in
an
NPCA
survey,
and
this
could
skew
results.

Still
a
survey
done
by
NPCA
was
not
ruled
out.
There
was
some
discussion
of
how
a
survey
should
be
done.
Should
this
be
state­
by­
state
or
national?
Bob
Nelson
asked
if
a
survey
could
be
done
separately
for
the
OTC
states
and
use
CARB
data
extrapolated
to
the
rest
of
the
country.

Mr.
Forestiere
said
that
we
have
to
have
a
pre
regulatory
base
line
that
makes
sense.
Tom
Helms
asked
Sherwin­
Williams
if
they
would
give
some
thought
to
what
kind
of
survey
could
be
done
and
get
back
to
EPA
with
written
comments.
He
said
we
still
have
to
meet
with
other
people
before
making
a
decision.
The
industry
people
asked
who
else
we
are
meeting
with.
EPA
said
that
we
now
have
meetings
scheduled
with
New
York
DEC
and
with
OTC.
Madeline
Harding
asked
what
is
EPA's
timeline
for
making
decisions.
Tom
Helms
said
the
comment
period
on
the
ANPR
closes
December
16
and
we
possibly
should
have
evaluated
the
comments
and
made
some
decisions
by
next
spring.

Randy
Lutz
said
he
would
like
to
keep
the
lines
of
communication
open
between
Sherwin­
Williams
and
NPCA
staff
and
EPA
staff.
Geoffrey
Wilcox
replied
that
the
pending
litigation
complicates
the
situation.
He
suggested
that
formal
meetings
such
as
this
one
would
be
a
good
forum
for
communication.

The
meeting
lasted
two
hours.