APPENDIX A. Comments and Responses For Proposed Amendments to Rule November 5, 2009

Transcription

1 APPENDIX A Comments and Responses For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4601 November 5, 2009

2 This page intentionally blank. A-2 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

3 Summary of Significant Comments and District Responses for the Draft Staff Report dated September 15, 2009 The following is a brief summary significant comments received and the District responses to those comments. US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 1. COMMENT: EPA supports the District s efforts to obtain additional emission reductions from this category by adopting the limits in CARB s 2007 Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings. We also appreciate District staff s efforts to asses whether the lower limits in SCAQMD R1113 were feasible for the San Joaquin Valley. RESPONSE: District staff thanks EPA for support during this rule-amending project. 2. COMMENT: We concur with ARB s recommendation to amend the language at the end of the definitions of the categories that are expiring effective January 1, The District can either specify the appropriate categories for each of the expiring definitions, or can use a more generic alternative approach that specifies that coatings are subject to the VOC limit for the applicable category in the Table of Standards 1 or Table of Standards Table 2. RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB Comment COMMENT: We concur with ARB to delete the definitions for Nonindustrial Use and Secondary Coating (Rework). EPA notes that ARB recommends removing the definitions for Sealer and Undercoater. If District staff decides to not remove the latter two categories, please remove langue in the definitions that suggests that sealer and undercoater are categories that are being eliminated effective January 1, RESPONSE: All four definitions have been removed from rule language. Please see Proposed Rule for amendments. A-3 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

4 4. COMMENT: Certain categories (e.g., antenna coatings, fire retardant coatings, etc.) that are expiring have been stricken from the list of coatings that are exempt from the most restrictive VOC limit provision in Section 5.2. Consider whether these coating categories should be retained in Section 5.2 until Jan 1, RESPONSE: Section 5.2 has been amended to keep the coating language until Please see Proposed Rule for amendments. 5. COMMENT: We recommend the following change to Section 5.5 to make it consistent with other sections of the rule: the applicable VOC limit specified in the Table of Standards 1 and Table of Standards 2. RESPONSE: Rule language has been amended to incorporate the suggested language. Please see the Proposed Rule for amendments. 6. COMMENT: The low solids coating category in Table of Standards 1 does not seem to contain a footnote that specified that this limit is expressed as VOC actual. EPA recommends inserting the SCM footnote into the draft rule. RESPONSE: Rule language has been amended to incorporate the suggested language. Please see the Proposed Rule for amendments. 7. COMMENT: Section states in addition to the information specified in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3, each manufacturer. It seems as though Section and Sections through Sections all contain labeling requirements that are in addition to those in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and Please consider whether removing the phrase in addition to the information specified in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and from Section to improve rule clarity. RESPONSE: Rule language has been amended to incorporate the suggested language. Please see the Proposed Rule for amendments. 8. COMMENT: EPA understands that the District will be changing the following: Section 6.2: shall apply until December 13 31, 2010 Section : for compliance with Section 8 6 RESPONSE: Rule language has been amended to incorporate the suggested language. Please see the Proposed Rule for amendments. A-4 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

5 9. COMMENT: ARB recommends that the District consider inserting language that references applicable test methods in the definitions. If the District decides not to alter the definitions in the rule, please consider whether relevant language from the definitions in the SCM could be inserted in Section through of the draft rule. For instance, language from Section of the SCM could be inserted in Section in the following way: Hydrostatic pressure for Basement Specialty Coatings: Basement Specialty Coatings must be capable of withstanding at least 10 psi of hydrostatic pressure, as determined in accordance with ASTM D , Standard Practice RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB Comment 2. ARB STAFF COMMENTS 1. COMMENT: ARB recommends the District consider amending the language at the end of the definitions for the categories that are expiring effective January 1, As currently proposed, the general categories to which the expiring categories revert are sometimes incorrect; they need to be specific for each expiring category. An alternative approach would be to use more generic language, as was done in the BAAQMD Rule 8.3, such as: Effective January 1, 2011, a coating meeting this definition will be subject to the VOC limit for the applicable category in the Table of Standards 1 or the Table of Standards 2, except as provided in Section 5.2. RESPONSE: Staff has implemented the generic language into the definition section as suggested by ARB. Please see Proposed Rule for changes. 2. COMMENT: ARB recommends the District consider inserting language that references applicable test methods in the definitions that rely on test methods, as was done in the SCM for Architectural coatings. Even though many of the test methods in Section 6.3 identify to which category they apply, some do not, and so without the cross reference in the definition it is unclear why those test methods are referenced with in the definitions. ARB recommends the District should consider including language in the applicable definitions that references the labeling requirements in Section through , as was done in the 2007 SCM. A-5 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

6 RESPONSE: Requested amendments have been implemented. Please see Proposed Rule for amendments. 3. COMMENT: For clarification, and consistency, ARB suggests deleting the following definitions: Nonindustrial Use, Sealer, Secondary Coating (Rework), Undercoater, Gonioapparent, and Metallic. Also remove language for the test method of gonioapparent. RESPONSE: The requested language has been deleted. Please see the Proposed Rule for amendments. 4. COMMENT: For clarification, ARB suggests the following changes to the Table of Standards 1 and Table of Standards 2: o Metallic Pigmented Coatings should be 500 g/l VOC for both current and future VOC limits. o Footnote a stating units are grams of VOC per liter of coating, including water and exempt compounds, in accordance with Section 3.84 on the bottom of Table of Standards 2 should not be deleted, but moved to the bottom of Table of Standards 1. o The effective date for the new VOC limits in Table of Standards 2 should be January 1, 2012, to be consistent with other districts adopting the 2007 SCM. RESPONSE: Rule language has been amended to incorporate the suggestions. Please see the Proposed Rule for amendments. 5. COMMENT: In Section change the referenced section from Section 8 to Section 6. (see Section 3, VOC, and Section 6.3.1). RESPONSE: The requested change has been made. Please see the Proposed Rule for amendments. A-6 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

7 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS Stakeholders sending comments: Sherwin-Williams Company (SWC) National Paint Coating Association (NPCA) Dunn Edwards Paint (DEP) 1. COMMENT: In the definitions section, the term primary category should be changed to applicable category wherever it appears. In addition, the following definitions should be revised to better reflect the most likely category: (SWC, NPCA) Coating category being deleted Most likely new category Antenna Coating Industrial Maintenance or rust preventative Antifouling Industrial Maintenance Clear Brushing Lacquer Wood Clear Wood Wood Flow Industrial maintenance or rust preventative Lacquer Wood Quick dry enamel High gloss Quick dry primer, sealer Primer, sealer, and undercoater and undercoater Sanding sealer Wood Sealer Primer, sealer, and undercoater Undercoater Primer, sealer, and undercoater Varnish Wood RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB Comment COMMENT: Clarify definitions by including the specific performance requirements that must be met and including the specific testing methods to be used, which can be found in both the SCM and BAAQMD rule Basement specialty coating, reactive penetrating sealer, tub and tile refinish coatings and waterproofing membrane all need to state that they need to be labeled as per Section (SWC, NPCA) RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB Comment 2. A-7 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

8 3. COMMENT: The definition of specialty primer, sealer and undercoater should not be changed until the effective date of the new limits, since the current definition allows the category for blocking stains and /or conditioning chalky substrates. (SWC, NPCA) RESPONSE: The definition of specialty primer, sealer and undercoater has been amended to account for the new standards and corresponding compliance date. Please see Proposed Rule for Amendments. 4. COMMENT: Delete the following terms from the definitions, and corresponding test methods: gonioapparent, metallic, nonindustrial use, secondary coating (rework). Combine the categories swimming pool repair and maintenance coating and swimming pool categories since they are currently have identical limits. Complete the definition of waterproofing membranes. (SWC, NPCA) RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB Comment COMMENT: The effective date of Tub and Tile refinish, stone Consolidants, reactive penetrating sealers, and basement specialty coatings among others, should be set at the time of adoption since these are new and needed niche categories. As such, these categories have higher VOC content limits than the default categories and are currently only available in small containers. In addition, a company may comply early with new standards. The District should provide an early compliance exemption, similar to that found in the BAAQMD Rule (SWC, NPCA) RESPONSE: For consistency with other districts in California, the effective date for VOC content limits of the aforementioned coating categories will not be made effective on the date of adoption. Also, an early compliance exemption will not be provided for coatings that comply with new standards ahead of the compliance date. However, District staff recommends that industries recommendation be implemented through a special provision as Section 5.8. Please see proposed rule language and final draft staff report for further details. 6. COMMENT: The Most Restrictive Limit provision should be divided between the current provisions and the provisions effective on the Amendment Effective date of 1/1/2011. (SWC) RESPONSE: Please see response to EPA Comment 4. A-8 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

9 7. COMMENT: Reversal of removal of Section 5.6 is needed, since the rust preventative coating will have a higher limit then industrial maintenance coatings until 1/1/2012(3) and with the sell-thru provision until 1/1/2015(6). (SWC) RESPONSE: The requested change has been made. Please see Proposed Rule for amendments. 8. COMMENT: Reversal of the removal of the effective date for the current limits in the Table of Standards, since that date is needed for the 3 year limitation to the sell-through provision. (SWC, NPCA) RESPONSE: Please see response to EPA Comment COMMENT: Correction of the limit for metallic pigmented coatings to 500 g/l for both the current and new limit. (SWC, NPCA) RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB Comment COMMENT: The dates for the new limits for coatings effective 2013 should be changed to 2012 for statewide uniformity. (SWC, NPCA, DEP) RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB Comment COMMENT: Various test methods need to be added, based on the test methods listed in the 2007 SCM. (SWC, NPCA) RESPONSE: Please see response to ARB comment COMMENT: For consistency with the 2007 SCM please include the following language in the definition of concrete curing compound: or harden or dustproof the surface of freshly poured concrete. (NPCA) RESPONSE: The requested change has been made. Please see Proposed Rule for amendments. 13. COMMENT: For clarity the District should utilize similar language to that of the Sell Through language from the Ventura rule: A coating manufactured prior to the effective date specified for that coating in the Table of Standards in Subsection B.1, and that complied with the applicable standards in effect in A-9 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

10 VCAPCD Rule 74.2 at the time the coating was manufactured, may be sold, supplied, or offered for sale for up to three years after the specified effective date. In addition, such coating may be applied at any time, both before and after the specified effective date. This Section does not apply to any coating that does not display the date or date code required by Subsection C.1. (NPCA, DEP) RESPONSE: Sell through language in Rule 4601 is from prior amendments to the rule and has been in effect with in the Valley since at least This language is also consistent with the SCM and the BAAQMD Architectural rule, therefore no changes will be made at this time to the sell through provision language. 14. COMMENT: The low solids coating has an a footnote without the corresponding language. The footnote needs to be added at the end of Table of Standards. (NPCA) RESPONSE: Please see response to EPA Comment COMMENT: For labeling of Industrial maintenance coatings the District should not change the labeling requirements, since the four current labeling statements are used throughout the country. For labeling of Zinc Rich Primers the District should provide the same labeling requirements as for Industrial Maintenance Coatings. (NPCA) RESPONSE: Labeling requirements for Industrial Maintenance Coatings has been changed to the original language. Labeling for Zinc Rich Primers has been updated. Please see Proposed Rule for amendments. 16. COMMENT: Consistent with the SCM, BAAQMD, and VCAQMD, reduce the number of years that sales data needs to be maintained on site from 5 years to three years, and rewrite the section to be consistent with the SCM shall be provided upon request by the responsible official or his/her delegate. (NPCA) RESPONSE: Conversations with ARB Support the request for a three year record retention. The requested change has been made. Please see Proposed Rule for amendments. 17. COMMENT: Dimethyl Carbonate and Propylene Carbonate were recently exempted from VOC by EPA, as such the SJVAPCD should also exempt them. A-10 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

11 RESPONSE: The deletion of Dimethyl Carbonate and Propylene Carbonate from the definition of a VOC would have to be deleted in the District Rule 1020 (Definitions). In order to do this, the District rule development process to amend Rule 1020 must be followed. Therefore, until Rule 1020 is amended in the future to consider these compounds as exempt, VOC Dimethyl Carbonate and Propylene Carbonate will not be removed from the definition of VOC at this time. 18. COMMENT: A voluntary reactivity-based compliance alternative may be viable in the future and the District should include a bookmark for this option in the Board Resolution such that this option can be reevaluated in the future. RESPONSE: Staff is willing, and happy, to evaluate new technologies and industry/scientific advances that may reduce emissions each time a rule is opened for amendments. However, rules do not need to be bookmarked in order to do so. Therefore, we will not be proposing that option for this rule-amending project. 19. COMMENT: The effective date for flat coatings and specialty primers, sealers, and undercoaters should be changed to 2012 to allow industry more time to comply with new standards. (DEP) RESPONSE: To remain consistent with the 2007 SCM and other districts in the state, staff will not recommend delaying the effective date by one year. A-11 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices

12 This page intentionally blank. A-12 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices