August 11, 1995
South Coast Air Quality
Management District Board
BACKGROUND
Staff is proposing amendments to Rule 1136 to (1) make corrections identified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); (2) clarify rule language; and (3) add a provision for VOC emission averaging; and (4) extend the final compliance limits for Architectural Millwork Goods. The USEPA corrections were published in the Federal Register as a Notice of Final Rulemaking, which finalized their limited disapproval of this rule. The corrections must be accomplished by November 16, 1995, to avoid federal sanctions which include withholding federal highway funds, or a 2:1 offset ratio for new and modified sources.
When Rule 1136 was amended in August 1994, an extension of the compliance dates until September 1, 1995, was given to provide companies enough time to switch to clean coatings or use alternative techniques. At that Board meeting, staff identified several companies that had already converted their entire process to clean coatings and that many more had made a partial transition. Since that time, even more companies have come into full compliance with the September 1, 1995, Rule 1136 limits.
Staff also committed to work with the wood products manufacturing industry to assist their conversion to clean coatings. Three meetings of an advisory committee have been held to discuss industry-wide progress. In March of this year, AQMD inspectors began surveying this industry to learn first hand of their success. Finally, in May 1995, a letter was mailed to all Rule 1136 sources to remind them of the compliance dates and to offer AQMD support, including two free compliance seminars to provide them information on clean coatings and Rule 1136 requirements.
Only three companies responded to our letter. Of the three, one noted that they had spent and committed additional capital to achieve compliance. Based on the lack of response to our letter and our survey results, a high level of compliance is expected with the September 1, 1995 limits for topcoats and sealers.
District inspectors have visited over one hundred facilities between March and July of 1995. These results show that 39% are already in compliance with the September limits for topcoats and sealers, and 48% anticipate being in compliance. The results are shown below.
PROPOSAL
The USEPA-identified corrections include adding test methods for capture efficiency of emission control systems and transfer efficiency of spray equipment, and a method to calculate equivalent efficiencies of control systems. Staff is also clarifying language about rule applicability, definitions, and exemptions that arose from staff and public input. The most current test methods will also be referenced. In practice, these methods and definitions are currently in use. These amendments have no air quality or economic impact and are discussed in detail in the attached staff report.
In response to industry requests, staff is proposing the addition of a VOC emission averaging provision for the coating categories. This provision will allow companies to use a "hybrid" coating system and still meet the overall rule requirements. "Hybrid" systems involve the use of a higher VOC coating - typically the sealer - with clean water-based coatings (shown schematically in Figure 2). Several companies have mentioned that such an approach would address their concerns about the September limits. This change has been discussed witeh USEPA and has received their preliminary approval.
Staff is also proposing to extend the current VOC limits for coatings applied to architectural millwork goods until July 1, 1996 - through a new exemption. These goods are custom, made-to-order, finished products which must be coated with products that meet a national standard (currently based on solvent technology). The seven Los Angeles County-based companies subject to this standard compete globally for business, and much of their work is shipped out of the area. Because of the unique nature of this industry and that a solvent finish is mandated, an extension is recommended in order to work with this industry to develop a viable compliance strategy.
By clarifying test methods and definitions, the proposed amendments should improve compliance and enforcement of the rules. The averaging proposal provides companies another tool in their compliance kit and produces a net 10% reduction in emissions. The amendments will have no negative socioeconomic impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments to Rule 1136 and has determined that potential adverse environmental impacts may be generated by the delayed compliance and facility averaging provisions. Although delaying the final compliance date for architectural millwork goods coatings is not expected to increase VOC emissions from this source category, it will result in a loss of approximately 160 pounds per day of anticipated future VOC emission reductions. This air quality impact exceeds the AQMD's VOC significance criteria of 55 pounds per day. This impact, however, is considered to be within the scope of the environmental analysis contained in the August 1994 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings. A facility bubbling provision similar to the one proposed for Rule 1136 is contained in Rule 108 - Alternative Emission Control Plans. Consequently, potential impacts from the facility bubbling provision are considered to be within the scope of the environmental analysis contained in the February 1990 Environmental Assessment (EA) for Rule 108. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15153, the previously prepared CEQA documents identified here will be used as the CEQA document for proposed amended Rule 1136 since the circumstances of the currently proposed project are essentially the same. A notice was circulated to the public stating this determination and stating that comments on this determination would be accepted during a 30-day public comment period beginning July 31, 1995, and ending August 29, 1995. The remaining amendments have no impact on emission limits or air quality.
THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD
--Set a public hearing on September 8, 1995, to amend Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings.
Respectfully,
James M. Lents, Ph.D.
Executive Officer
Attachments
PL:WJF:RRP:cao
(i:\sbps\admin\bdltrs\1136bdlt)
ATTACHMENT A
KEY ISSUES AND RESPONSES
Rule 1136
USEPA has required corrections for approval of the rule into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP).
The appropriate EPA test methods, and language for capture efficiency have
been added to the rule.
Industry is having difficulties with finding sealers and topcoats that
meet the 9/1/95 VOC content limits.
The rule now contains provisions for facilities to average VOC emissions
from their coating lines, as contained in an USEPA Model Rule for Wood
Furniture Finishing and Cleaning Operations. This provision will provide
flexibility in the use of coatings with low-VOC content, subject to
approval by the AQMD.
Industry feels that architectural millwork products require higher VOC
content limits since the National Architectural Woodwork Quality Standards
mandate solventborne coating finishes.
Staff proposes to extend the compliance dates for the use of low-VOC
coatings on architectural millwork goods. These facilities may use
solvent-borne coatings through 7/1/96. Staff will continue to work with
industry on approaches and solutions to use the low-VOC coatings in these
applications.
Industry feels that low-VOC compliant coatings are not available.
Staff has observed that low-VOC, waterborne sealers and topcoats that meet
the 9/1/95 VOC content limits do exist are in production use within the
South Coast Air Basin. In addition, two joint studies between AQMD,
California Furniture Manufacturers Association and Southern California
Edison have borne that a variety and range of waterborne coatings are
available.
Industry feels that the implementation date for the use of low-VOC
coatings should be delayed.
For those facilities that require additional time to find compliant
coatings, the rule contains some flexibility in both an emissions averaging
provision, and an extension of compliance dates for certain categories.
The public requested definition and rule language clarifications
Several definitions, including aerosol coating products, custom replica
furniture, and fiberboard and particleboard coatings have been modified for
such clarification.
ATTACHMENT B
RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
RULE 1136 - Wood Products Coatings
First Request For Public Input
Public Workshop: December, 1994
Initial Rule Development, Identification of Alternatives and Initial Environmental Socioeconomic Assessment
January, 1995
Survey of Wood Products Coatings Industry
Phase I: January, 1995
Phase II: March, 1995
Phase III: July, 1995
Second Request for Public Input
Public Worksop: August 8, 1995
Date Set for Hearing: August 11, 1995
Date of Hearing: September 8, 1995
Total Time Spent in Rule Development
Pre-Board Hearing: 9 months
ATTACHMENT C
KEY CONTACTS LIST
RULE 1136 - Wood Products Coatings
INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS
Architectural Woodworking Association (AWA)
California Furniture Manufacturers Association (CFMA)
El Rap
Small Business Coalition (SBC)
Southern California Fabric Finishers Association (SCFFA)
Woodwork Institute of California
COMPANIES
Coating Formulators
Akzo-Nobel
Alternative Materials Technology (AMT)
Clearly Superior Products, Inc.
Frazee
FSM Corporation
Genii Technology Advanced
JHN, Inc.
Sherwin Williams
Wood Products Manufacturers
Harmon - JBL
Horton Furniture
L & L Shutters
McConnell Cabinets
Ohline
Sandberg Furniture
Standard Cabinets
Terra Furniture
The Wood Wizard
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS/CONSULTANTS
Southern California Edison - Consumers Technology Application Center
AQC Environmental Engineering, Inc.
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
California Air Resources Board
(Adopted September 16, 1983) (Amended August 5, 1988)(Amended May 5, 1989)
(Amended March 2, 1990)(Amended June 28, 1990)(Amended November
2, 1990)
(Amended December 7, 1990)(Amended August 2, 1991)(Amended April
8, 1994)
(Amended August 12, 1994)
July 31, 1995
(PAR1136K)
PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1136. WOOD PRODUCTS COATINGS
(a) Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of Rule 1136 is to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from the application of coatings or strippers to, and surface preparation of, any wood products, including furniture, cabinets, shutters, frames and toys. This rule shall not apply to residential noncommercial operations.
(b) Definitions
For the purposes of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) AEROSOL COATING PRODUCT means a pressurized coating product containing pigments or resins that dispenses product ingredients by means of a propellant, and is packaged in a disposable can for hand-held application.
(2) ARCHITECTURAL MILLWORK GOODS are custom designed, made-to-order, finished woodwork, including doors, jambs, panelling, casework, trim, work stations, and window treatments, required by the customer to be coated to a premium finish as defined by Architectural Woodwork Quality Standards, 6th edition, Version 1.1, 1994 of the Architectural Woodwork Institute.
(3) BINDERS are non-volatile polymeric organic materials (resins) which form the surface film in coating applications.
(4) CLASSIC GUITARS are replicas of guitars that were originally manufactured before 1965 and are manufactured by the same original processes.
(5) CLEAR TOPCOAT is a final coating which contains binders, but not opaque pigments, and is specifically formulated to form a transparent or translucent solid protective film.
(6) COATING is a material which is applied to a surface and which forms a film in order to beautify and/or protect such surface.
(7) CUSTOM REPLICA FURNITURE is new, made-to-order furniture that looks like antique furniture, rather than new furniture. It features detailed wood carvings and bruising of the wood to simulate antique furniture.
(6)(8) DIP COAT is to dip an object into
a vat of coating material and drain off any excess coating.
(7)(9) ELECTROSTATIC APPLICATION is charging
of atomized paint droplets for deposition by electrostatic attraction.
(8)(10) EXEMPT COMPOUNDS - See Rule
102.
(9) (11) EXTREME PERFORMANCE COATING is
a two-component high-solids epoxy, urethane or polyester coating
which requires the mixing of a resin and a catalyst, and is applied
to a wood product to achieve a high gloss and/or high film
build coat which cannot be achieved with a low-VOC coating, or
to protect the wood product from one or more of the following
environmental conditions:
(a) Repeated scrubbing with industrial grade detergents, cleaners, or abrasive scouring agents; or
(b) Frequent exposure to water, to outdoor weather, or to ultraviolet radiation.
(12) FIBERBOARD AND PARTICLEBOARD COATINGS are the first coating that is applied directly to the surface of a wood product composed of tightly compressed wood fibers bonded with resins, and having a density greater than 45 pounds per cubic foot.
(10)(13) FILLER is a material which is
applied to a wood product, and whose primary function is
to build up, or fill the voids and imperfections in the wood product
to be coated. This shall include edge filler which is applied
to the edge of a wood product, and whose primary function
is to build up, or fill the voids and imperfections on the
edge of the wood product.
(11)(14) FLOW COAT is to coat an object
by flowing a stream of coating over an object and draining off
any excess coating.
(12)(15) GRAMS OF VOC PER LITER OF COATING,
LESS WATER AND LESS EXEMPT COMPOUNDS is the weight of VOC per
combined volume of VOC and coating solids and can be calculated
by the following equation:
Grams of VOC per Liter of Coating, Less Ws - Ww - Wes
Water and Less Exempt Compounds =
Vm - Vw - Ves
Where: Ws = weight of volatile compounds in grams
Ww = weight of water in grams
Wes = weight of exempt compounds in grams
Vm = volume of material in liters
Vw = volume of water in liters
Ves = volume of exempt compounds in liters
For coatings that contain reactive diluents, the VOC content of the coating is determined after curing. The grams of VOC per liter of coating shall be calculated by the following equation:
Grams of VOC per Liter of Coating, Less Ws - Ww - Wes
Water and Less Exempt Compounds =
Vm - Vw - Ves
Where: Ws = weight of volatile compounds not consumed during curing in grams
Ww = weight of water not consumed during curing in grams
Wes = weight of exempt compounds not consumed during curing in grams
Vm = volume of the material prior to reaction in liters
Vw = volume of water not consumed during curing in liters
Ves = volume of exempt compounds not consumed during curing in liters
(13)(16) GRAMS OF VOC PER LITER OF MATERIAL
is the weight of VOC per volume of material and can be calculated
by the following equation:
Ws - Ww - Wes
Grams of VOC per Liter of Material =
Vm
Where: Ws = weight of volatile compounds in grams
Ww = weight of water in grams
Wes = weight of exempt compounds in grams
Vm = volume of material in liters
(14)(17) HIGH FILM BUILD is when the dry-film
thickness per application is greater than four thousandths of
an inch.
(15)(18) HIGH GLOSS is when a coating
surface shows a reflectance of 75 or more on a 60 degree meter.
(16)(19) HIGH-SOLIDS STAINS are stains
containing more than 1 pound of solids per gallon of material,
and include wiping stains, glazes, and opaque stains.
(17)(20) HIGH-VOLUME, LOW-PRESSURE (HVLP)
SPRAY is an equipment used to apply coating by means of
a spray gun which is designed to be operated
and which is operated between 0.1 and 10.0 pounds per square
inch gauge (psig) air pressure, measured dynamically at the
center of the air cap and at the air horns.
(18)(21) INK is a fluid that contains
dyes and/or colorants and is used to make markings, but not to
protect surfaces.
(22) LOW-SOLIDS STAINS are stains containing 1 pound, or less, of solids per gallon of material.
(23) MOLD-SEAL COATING is the initial coating applied to a new mold or repaired mold to provide a smooth surface which, when coated with a mold release coating, prevents products from sticking to the mold.
(24) MULTI-COLORED COATING is a coating which exhibits more than one color when applied, and which is packaged in a single container and applied in a single coat.
(25) PIGMENTED COATINGS are opaque coatings which contain binders and colored pigments formulated to hide the wood surface, either as an undercoat or topcoat.
(26) REACTIVE DILUENT is a liquid which is a VOC during application and one in which, through chemical or physical reactions, such as polymerization, becomes an integral part of a finished coating.
(27) RATE PER DAY is the amount applied between 12:00 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. on the same calendar day.
(28) RATE PER CALENDAR YEAR is the amount applied between
12:00 a.m. January 1 and 11:59 p.m. December 31.
(29) REFINISH is the recoating of wood products that have been previously coated .
(30) REPAIR COATING is a coating used to recoat portions of a wood product which has sustained mechanical damage to the coating following normal painting operations.
(31) ROLL COATER is a series of mechanical rollers that forms a thin coating film on the surface of the last roller, which applies the coating to a substrate by moving the substrate underneath the roller.
(32) SEALER is a coating containing binders which seals the wood product prior to application of the subsequent coatings.
(33) SIMULATED WOOD MATERIALS are materials, such as plastic, glass, metal, paper etc., that are made to give a wood-like appearance or are processed like a wood product.
(34) STENCIL COATING is an ink or a pigmented coating which is rolled or brushed onto a template or stamp in order to add identifying letters and/or numbers to wood products.
(35) STRIPPER is a liquid used to remove cured coatings, cured inks and/or cured adhesives.
(36) TONER is a wash coat which contains binders and dyes or pigments to add tint to a coated surface.
(37) TOUCH-UP COATING is a coating used to cover minor coating imperfections appearing after the main coating operation.
(38) TRANSFER EFFICIENCY is the ratio of the weight of coating solids deposited on an object to the total weight of coating solids used in a coating application step, expressed as a percentage.
(39) UNFINISHED means that stains, sealers, clear topcoat, multi-colored coatings, pigmented coatings, toners or washcoats have not been applied to the substrate.
(40) VOC COMPOSITE PARTIAL PRESSURE is the sum of the partial pressures of the compounds defined as VOCs.
VOC Composite Partial Pressure is calculated as follows:
n (Wi)(VPi)/MWi
PPc =
i=1 Ww We n Wi
+ +
MWw MWe i=1 MWi
Where:
Wi = Weight of the "i"th VOC compound, in grams (g)
Ww = Weight of water, in grams (g)
We = Weight of exempt compound, in grams (g)
g
MWi = Molecular weight of the "i"th VOC compound, in
g-mole
g
MWw = Molecular weight of water, in
g-mole
g
MWe = Molecular weight of exempt compound, in
g-mole
PPc = VOC composite partial pressure at 20oC, in mm Hg
VPi = Vapor pressure of the "i"th VOC compound at 20oC,
in mm Hg
(41) VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) is any volatile compound of carbon, excluding methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonate, and exempt compounds.
(42) WASH COAT is a coating that contains no more than 1.0 pound of solids per gallon of material, which is used to seal wood product surfaces, prevent undesired staining, and control penetration. A wash coat may also be used to provide a barrier coat when paper laminates are applied to the wood product , or when glazes are applied during the coating operations.
(43) WOOD PRODUCTS are those surface-coated room furnishings which include cabinets (kitchen, bath, and vanity), tables, chairs, beds, sofas, shutters, art objects, and any other coated objects made of wood, wood composites, simulated wood material used in combination with wood or wood composites; and/or paper laminated on wood composites .
(44) WOOD PRODUCT COATING APPLICATION OPERATIONS are a combination of coating application steps which may include use of spray guns, flash-off areas, spray booths, ovens, conveyors, and/or other equipment operated for the purpose of applying coating materials.
(c) Requirements
(1) VOC Content of Coatings and Strippers
(A) A person or facility shall not apply any coating to a wood product which has a VOC content, including any VOC-containing material added to the original coating supplied by the manufacturer, which exceeds the applicable limit specified below:
VOC LIMITS
Grams Per Liter of Coating,
Less Water and Less Exempt Compounds
On and After On and After
9/1/95 7/1/96
COATING (g/L) (lb/gal) (g/L) (lb/gal) (g/L) (lb/gal)
Clear Topcoats
with Group II Exempt
Compounds 550 (4.6) 275 (2.3) 275 (2.3)
without Group II Exempt
Compounds 680 (5.7) 275 (2.3) 275 (2.3)
Extreme Performance Coatings 420 (3.5) 420 (3.5) 275 (2.3)
Fillers 500 (4.2) 500 (4.2) 275 (2.3)
High-Solid Stains 700 (5.8) 700 (5.8) 240 (2.0)
Inks 500 (4.2) 500 (4.2) 500 (4.2)
Fiberboard and Particleboard
Coating 680 (5.7) 680 (5.7) 275 (2.3)
Mold-Seal Coatings 750 (6.3) 750 (6.3) 750 (6.3)
Multi-Colored Coatings 685 (5.7) 685 (5.7) 275 (2.3)
Pigmented Coatings 600 (5.0) 275 (2.3) 275 (2.3)
VOC LIMITS
Grams Per Liter of Coating,
Less Water and Less Exempt Compounds
On and After
9/1/95
COATING (g/L) (lb/gal) (g/L) (lb/gal)
Sealers
with Group II Exempt
Compounds 550 (4.6) 240 (2.0)
without Group II Exempt
Compounds 680 (5.7) 240 (2.0)
VOC LIMITS
Grams Per Liter of Material
On and After
7/1/96
COATING (g/L) (lb/gal) (g/L) (lb/gal)
Low-Solids Stains,
Toners, or Washcoats
with Group II Exempt 480 (4.0) 120 (1.0)
Compounds
without Group II Exempt 800 (6.7) 120 (1.0)
Compounds
(B) A person shall not use a stripper on wood products unless:
(i) it contains less than 350 grams of VOC per liter of material; or
(ii) the composite vapor pressure of the VOC is 2 mm Hg
(0.04 psia) or less at 20oC (68oF).
(C) Owners and/or operators may comply with provisions of paragraph (c)(1) by using an approved air pollution control system, consisting of collection and control devices, which reduces VOC emissions from the application of wood product coatings or strippers by an equivalent or greater amount than the limits specified in subparagraphs (c)(1)(A) and (B), with the written approval of the Executive Officer. The minimum required control efficiency of an emission control system at which an equivalent or greater level of VOC reduction will be achieved shall be calculated by the following equation:
(VOC LWc) 1 - (VOCLWn,Max/ Dn,Max)
C. E. = [ 1 - { x } ] x 100
(VOCLWn,Max) 1 - (VOCLWc/Dc)
Where: C.E. = Control Efficiency, percent
VOCLWc = VOC Limit of Rule 1136, less water and less exempt compounds, pursuant to subparagraph (c)(1)(A).
VOCLWn,Max = Maximum VOC content of non-compliant coating used in conjunction with a control device, less water and less exempt compounds.
Dn,Max = Density of solvent, reducer, or thinner contained in the non-compliant coating, containing the maximum VOC content of the multicomponent coating.
Dc = Density of corresponding solvent, reducer, or thinner used in the compliant coating system = 880 g/L.
I
(D) Owners and/or operators may comply with the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) by using the emissions averaging provisions of subdivision (j).
(2) Transfer Efficiency
A person or facility shall not apply coatings to wood products subject to the provisions of this rule unless the coating is applied with properly operating equipment, according to the equipment manufacturer's operating procedures, and by the use of one of the following methods:
(A) electrostatic application; or
(B) flow coat; or
(C) dip coat; or
(D) high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray; or
(E) paint brush; or
(F) hand roller; or
(G) roll coater; or
(H) such other coating application methods as are demonstrated to the Executive Officer to be capable of achieving at least 65 percent transfer efficiency, and for which written approval of the Executive Officer has been obtained.
(3) Solvent Cleaning Operations; Storage and Disposal of VOC-containing Materials
Solvent cleaning operations and the storage and disposal of VOC containing materials are subject to the provisions of Rule 1171 - Solvent Cleaning Operations.
(d) Recordkeeping Requirements
Records shall be maintained pursuant to Rule 109.
(e) Prohibition of Specifications
A person shall not specify the use in the District of any coating to be applied to any wood products subject to the provisions of this rule that does not meet the limits and/or requirements of this rule. The requirements of this paragraph shall apply to all written or oral contracts.
(f) Test Methods
(1) The VOC content of coatings and strippers shall be determined by:
(A) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Reference Method 24 (Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coating, Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Appendix A), or Method 304 (Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Various Materials) in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) "Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples" manual.(B) The exempt compounds' content shall be determined by: (i) Methods 302 (Distillation of Solvents from Paints, Coatings and Inks) and 303 (Determination of Exempt Compounds) in the SCAQMD "Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples" manual .
(ii) The following classes of compounds: cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations; cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with no unsaturations; and sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine, will be analyzed as exempt compounds for compliance with subdivision (c), only at such time as manufacturers specify which individual compounds are used in the coating formulations and identify the test methods, which, prior to such analysis, have been approved by the USEPA and the SCAQMD, that can be used to quantify the amounts of each exempt compound.
(3) Film build thickness shall be determined using American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 2691, as adopted in 1988.
(4) Gloss shall be determined using ASTM Test Method D 523, as adopted in 1989.
(5) For the purpose of calculating the VOC composite vapor pressure of a VOC-containing material, the composition of the material shall be based on the known formulation of the material or determined by Method 308 in the SCAQMD "Laboratory Methods of Analysis for Enforcement Samples".
(6) For determining the concentration of VOC in a gas stream and the efficiency of a control device, the total organic compound concentrations shall be determined using USEPA Test Method 25, 25A, or SCAQMD Method 25.1 (Determination of Total Gaseous Non-Methane Organic Emissions as Carbon) as applicable, and the concentration of exempt compounds shall be determined using either USEPA Test Method 18 or California Air Resources Board Method 422.
(7) The capture efficiency of an emission control system as defined in paragraph (b)(2) shall be determined by a minimum of three sampling runs subject to the data quality objective (DQO) presented in the USEPA technical guidance document "Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency", January 9, 1995. Individual capture efficiency test runs subject to the USEPA technical guidelines shall be determined by:
(A) Applicable USEPA Methods 204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204E, and/or 204F; or
(B) The SCAQMD "Protocol for Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Capture Efficiency; or
(C) Any other method approved by the USEPA, the California Air Resources Board, and the SCAQMD Executive Officer.
(8) The transfer efficiency of alternative coating application methods shall be determined in accordance with the SCAQMD method "Spray Equipment Transfer Efficiency Test Procedure for Equipment User, May 24, 1989."
(9) When more than one test method or set of test methods are specified for any testing, a violation of any requirement of this rule established by any one of the specified test methods or set of test methods shall constitute a violation of the rule.
(10) All test methods referenced in this subdivision shall be the most recently approved version.
(g) Continuous Monitors
(1) Each coating operation subject to subparagraph (c)(1)(C) shall have a continuous monitor, as approved by the Executive Officer, for any add-on control device used to meet the control requirement.
(2) Records of the monitoring devices pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) and other data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the control requirements shall be maintained on the premises and made accessible for a period of two years to the Executive Officer in a form and manner as specified by the Executive Officer.
(3) Compliance with subparagraph (c)(1)(C) shall be determined by source testing and/or evaluating continuous monitor data.
(4) Each monitoring device used pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) shall be calibrated in a manner approved by the Executive Officer and maintained in optimum working order.
(h) Rule 442 Applicability
Any coating, coating operation, or facility which is exempt from all or a portion of the VOC limits of this rule shall comply with the provisions of Rule 442 unless compliance with the limits specified in this rule is achieved.
(i) Alternative Emission Control Plan
An owner or operator may achieve compliance with paragraph (c)(1) by means of an Alternative Emission Control Plan pursuant to Rule 108.
(j) Emissions Averaging Provisions
(1) Owners or operators may comply with the provisions of subparagraph (c)(1)(A) by using an averaging approach, provided all requirements of this subdivision are met. The owner or operator shall demonstrate that actual emissions from the coatings being averaged are less than or equal to 90 percent of the allowable emissions, on a daily basis, using the following inequality:
Where:
VOCi = VOC content limit of coating "i" (kilograms (kg) of VOC/liter of material for low solids stains; and kg VOC/kg solids for all other coatings), as required by subparagraph (c)(1)(A);
Ui = Usage of coating "i" (liters of material for low-solids stains; and kg of solids for all other coatings); and
ERi = Actual VOC content of coating "i", as applied (kg of VOC/liter of material for low-solids stains; and kg VOC/kg solids for all other coatings).
(2) The emission averaging is limited to any combination of stains, sealers, clear topcoats, and pigmented coatings selected by the owners or operators. Any wood product coating not included in the emission averaging shall comply with the VOC limits in subparagraph (c)(1)(A).
(3) Emissions Averaging Plan (Plan)
Owners or operators using the averaging approach shall submit a Plan, pursuant to Rule 221 - Plans, to the Executive Officer and USEPA. The applicant must receive approval of the Plan in writing from the Executive Officer and USEPA prior to implementation. Submittal of the Plan does not provide an exemption from the rule requirements. The owner or operator shall resubmit, on an annual basis, a Plan for approval by the AQMD. The Plan shall include, at a minimum:
(A) A description of the wood product coatings to be included in the averaging program; and
(B) A description of the quantification and recordkeeping procedures for coating usage; coating VOC and solids content; VOC emissions; and calculations to show daily compliance with paragraph (j)(1).
(k) Exemptions
(1) The provisions of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this rule shall not apply tofacilities that use less than one gallon per day of coating, as applied, subject to this rule.
(2) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to coating operations subject to, and in compliance with, the provisions of Rule 1104.
(3) The provisions of subparagraphs (c)(1)(A) and (C) shall not apply to the manufacturing of classic guitars until January 1, 1996.
(4) Refinishing, Replacement, and Custom Replica Furniture Operations: Until July 1, 1996, the provisions of subparagraphs (c)(1)(A) and (C) shall not apply to any refinishing operations necessary for preservation, to return the wood product to original condition, to replace missing furniture to produce a matching set, or to produce custom replica furniture, provided records are maintained daily for two years as to the amount, type and VOC content of each coating used.
(5) The provisions of paragraph (c)(1) shall not apply to touch-up and repair coatings until July 1, 1996.
(6) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to aerosol coating products.
(7) The provisions of subparagraph (c)(1)(A) that are effective
on and after September 1, 1995 shall not apply until July 1, 1996
to clear topcoats, pigmented coatings and sealers applied to architectural
millwork goods, provided that the coatings comply with the pre-September
1, 1995 VOC limits.
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Draft Staff Report for Proposed Amendments to Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings:
July 31, 1995
Deputy Executive Officer
Stationary Source Compliance
Patricia Leyden, A.I.C.P.
Assistant Deputy Executive Officer
Stationary Source Compliance
William J. Fray
Senior Manager
Stationary Source Compliance
Robert R. Pease, P.E.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Author: Mike Krause Air Quality Engineer I
Jeanne Pandes Air Quality Engineer I
Reviewed By: Martin Kay, P.E. Air Quality Analysis and Compliance Supervisor
Sue Lieu Program Supervisor
Steve Smith Program Supervisor
Frances Keeler Deputy District Counsel II
Technical Assistance: Brian Yeah, P.E. Air Quality Analysis and Compliance Supervisor
Stacey Ebiner, P.E. Senior Air Quality Engineer
David Hauck Air Quality Engineer II
Tara Sheehy Technical Writer
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD
Chairman: JON D. MIKELS
Supervisor, Second District
San Bernardino County Representative
Vice Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D.
Speaker of the Assembly Appointee
MEMBERS:
MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
Supervisor, Fifth District
Los Angeles County Representative
MARVIN BRAUDE
Councilmember, City of Los Angeles
Cities Representative, Los Angeles County/Western Region
CANDACE HAGGARD
Mayor Pro Tem, City of San Clemente
Cities Representative, County of Orange
MEE HAE LEE
Senate Rules Committee Appointee
HUGH HEWITT
Governor's Appointee
RONALD O. LOVERIDGE
Mayor, City of Riverside
Cities Representative, Riverside County
LEONARD PAULITZ
Councilmember, City of Montclair
Cities Representative, San Bernardino County
JIM SILVA
Supervisor, Second District
Orange County Representative
NELL SOTO
Councilmember, City of Pomona
Cities Representative, Los Angeles County/Eastern Region
S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D.
Supervisor, Fourth District
Riverside County Representative
EXECUTIVE OFFICER
JAMES M. LENTS, Ph.D.
____________________________________________________________
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Page
Introduction 1
Legislative Authority 2
Current Rule Status...........................................................2
Proposed Amendments 3
Emission Reductions 10
CEQA 10
Socioeconomic Analysis 11
Draft Findings 11
Appendix A: Response to Comments
INTRODUCTION
This rule was originally adopted on September 16, 1983, and subsequently amended nine times. Its purpose is to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the application of coatings or strippers to, and surface preparation of, any wood products, including furniture, cabinets, shutters, frames and toys. The rule does not apply to residential non-commercial operations.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified deficiencies with the August 2, 1991, version of this rule which was submitted for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). These deficiencies must be corrected before the rule can be added to the SIP. The USEPA published a Notice of Final Rule Making (NFR) on April 14, 1994, (59FR48589) that approved parts of Rule 1136 and disapproved certain administrative parts of Rule 1136. If the deficiencies identified by the USEPA for these rules are not corrected within eighteen months after the effective date of the NFR, the USEPA is required by the Clean Air Act to withhold federal highway funding to the State or a 2:1 emission offset requirement for new or modified stationary sources (increased from 1.2:1). The deadline for correcting the deficiencies is November 16, 1995.
USEPA recently issued a control technology guideline (CTG) model rule for wood furniture coating operations which would allow wood furniture manufacturers to comply by averaging VOC emissions of compliant and non-compliant coatings to show overall equivalency. The local wood coating industry has requested that similar provisions be put into Rule 1136 to give them greater flexibility to comply. As a result, staff will be conducting another public workshop on August 8, 1995 to get public input on this. The first public workshop was held on December 16, 1994.
The proposed amendments to Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings will:
The amendments will have no effect on VOC limits. No effect on overall VOC emissions is expected.
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
The California Legislature created the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) in 1977 (The Lewis - Presley Air Quality Management Act, Health and Safety Code Section 40400 et seq.) as the agency responsible for developing and enforcing air pollution control rules and regulations in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). By statute, the AQMD is required to adopt an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) demonstrating compliance with all state and federal ambient air quality standards for the Basin [Health and Safety Code Section 40460(a)]. Further, the AQMD must adopt rules and regulations that carry out the AQMP [Health and Safety Code Section 40440(a)].
CURRENT STATUS OF RULE 1136
Lower VOC limits for several coating categories will soon go into effect for wood coaters. On September 1, 1995, a 275 grams of VOC per liter of coating, less water and exempt solvent (g/l) limit goes into effect for clear topcoats, sealers and pigmented coatings. Staff has taken several steps to assist the industry to convert to low-VOC coatings.
To assure that satisfactory compliant coatings exist, the AQMD participated in two cooperative studies with Southern California Edison Company's Customer Technology Application Center and the California Furniture Manufacturing Association. These studies confirm that good, compliant coatings are available from many coating manufacturers.
Staff conducted two Rule 1136 compliance seminars for wood coaters in May 1995 to provide them information on low-VOC coatings and the requirements of Rule 1136.
A survey of over 100 wood coaters found that more than a third are currently using compliant, low-VOC coatings, and an additional one-half expect to be able to convert to compliant coatings by September 1, 1995. The results are graphically depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Survey of Wood Coater Conversions to Low-VOC Coatings
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The following summarizes the major proposed amendments for the rule. The items are listed in the order in which they appear in the rule.
1. Addition of "strippers" to purpose and applicability, subdivision (a)
The statement of purpose and applicability needed clarification that the rule also applies to those facilities in the AQMD which only strip coatings from wood products and are subject to the current subparagraph (c)(1)(B) of Rule 1136. This is for clarification only. It is not an expansion of the rule.
2. Revised definition of "aerosol-spray coating," paragraph (b)(1)
The definition of "aerosol-spray coating" has been revised to "aerosol coating product" to be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) definition and other recent AQMD rules.
3. Addition of "architectural millwork goods" definition, paragraph (b)(2)
The definition of "architectural millwork goods" has been added to support the exemption for "architectural millwork goods," as detailed in paragraph (k)(7).
4. Addition of "custom replica furniture" definition, paragraph (b)(7)
The definition of "custom replica furniture" has been added to clarify the meaning of these antique pieces which are exempt from the VOC limit requirements by paragraph (k)(4) and thus alleviate concerns raised by the public about who qualifies as a manufacturer of custom replica furniture.
5. Revised definition of "exempt compounds," paragraph (b)(10)
The definition of exempt compounds has been deleted and replaced with a reference to Rule 102 - Definition of Terms, which defines terms used throughout the AQMD Rules and Regulations. The reason for this is that the Rule 102 definition of "exempt compounds" has specific language that supersedes different definitions in other rules. A simple reference to Rule 102 will avoid having a definition inconsistent with Rule 102 and make future definition changes much easier.
6. Revised definition of "Grams of VOC Per Liter of Coating, Less Water and Less Exempt Compounds," paragraph (b)(15)
The definition of grams of VOC per liter of coating, less water and less exempt compounds for coatings that contain reactive diluents was moved from paragraph (b)(26), Reactive Diluents, to (b)(15) to consolidate these definitions under one paragraph.
7. Revised definition of "High-Volume, Low-Pressure (HVLP) Spray," new paragraph (b)(20)
The definition has been revised to clarify the description and explain the enforcement procedure when measuring the air pressure of the unit. This version is consistent with the CARB definition, as well as other recent AQMD rules. This amendment will have no effect on the equipment wood coaters use.
8. Delete category "medium density fiberboard coating," old paragraph (b)(20) and add category "fiberboard and particleboard coatings," paragraph (b)(12)
The category name has been revised to clarify the term, as requested by industry. This change will not affect the definition or the VOC limits.
9. Revised definition of "Reactive Diluent," paragraph (b)(26)
The reference to "20 percent or more of the VOC" has been removed based on the request of CARB and USEPA for this and other VOC rules, because of enforcement difficulties. In addition, the definition of grams per liter of coating, less water and less exempt compounds has been moved to paragraph (b)(15). The revised language will have no practical effect on how the VOC content is determined or the results of the VOC test methods.
10. Revised definition of "Wood Products," paragraph (b)(43)
The paragraph has been clarified by the removal of extraneous words and punctuation, and the use of "wood composites", a more accurate term that includes wood products such as particle board, fiberboard and hardboard. The amendment does not change what is considered a wood product.
11. Addition of language and equation for control device equivalency, subparagraph (c)(1)(C)
The language and equation stipulate how to calculate the minimum required control efficiency that would be equivalent to using compliant coatings when non-compliant coatings and an emission control system are used. A specific equivalency method is required in order for USEPA to approve the rule. The proposed equation correctly calculates the required efficiency and produces the same result that staff has calculated in the past. The rule amendment will not change the results of equivalent control efficiency determinations.
12. Deletion of contradictory compliance requirements for equivalent control equipment, subparagraph (c)(1)(C)
The last sentence of subparagraph (c)(1)(C) requires an equivalent control device to comply with Rule 108 - Alternative Emission Control Plan (AECP). According to Rule 108, the equipment is subject to an additional 20 percent reduction from VOC baseline emissions, which is not consistent with subparagraph (c)(1)(C). Therefore, the reference to Rule 108 is proposed for deletion.
Subdivision (i) still allows wood coaters to propose an AECP subject to Rule 108, using other means than an equivalent control device.
13. Addition of emission averaging, subparagraph (c)(1)(C)
Provisions were added to allow a facility to comply with the VOC content requirements of subparagraph (c)(1)(A) by an averaging approach for stains, sealers, clear topcoats and pigmented coatings. The averaging approach would allow wood coaters to use a variety of coatings so long as the overall, resultant VOC emissions are at least 10% less than the allowable emissions. USEPA provides the same option in a recently released Model Rule for Wood Furniture and Finishing and Cleaning Operation. Local wood coaters have requested that the same option be allowed in Rule 1136.
Detailed requirements for emission averaging are in new subdivision (j), and are discussed later.
14. Clarification of expected operating procedures, paragraph (c)(2)
Paragraph (c)(2) requires wood coaters to use "proper operating procedures." In order to define the meaning of "proper" operating procedures, "the equipment manufacturer's" has been substituted to specify the requirement. This reflect what AQMD personnel have already been doing to determine what proper procedures are.
15. Deletion of outdated requirement, subparagraph (c)(2)(I)
Since the deadline for using air assisted spray has passed, this paragraph serves no purpose and can be deleted.
16. Addition of test method specifications, subdivision (f)
This addition will cite specific USEPA, CARB, and/or AQMD test methods for the determination of the capture efficiency of the emissions collection system and the transfer efficiency of alternative coating application methods. The originally proposed protocol for capture efficiency has been replaced by a more recent USEPA-approved protocol that simplifies the procedure. USEPA requires that all test methods necessary to determine compliance be specified and USEPA approved.
Paragraphs (f)(9) and (f)(10) are standard rule language put into all current rules which reflect current AQMD and USEPA policies. Paragraph (f)(9) is being added and says that when there are several possible test methods, a violation determined by any of the test methods is a violation. Paragraph (f)(10) has new language requiring the most recently approved version of a test method be used.
The subdivision heading (g), Source Test Methods, has been eliminated and the source test methods have been consolidated in a renamed subdivision (f), Test Methods. This reorganization has no effect on the implementation of the rule.
17. Requirements for emission averaging, subdivision (j).
The emission averaging requirements in subdivision (j) are modeled after the USEPA model rule. They include the means of calculating compliance and the submittal of a compliance plan which must be approved by AQMD and USEPA. The compliance plan must include the program scope and quantification and recordkeeping procedures.
In order to be in compliance, a facility's actual emissions each day must be at least ten percent less than the allowable emissions for that day. In accordance with the USEPA procedure, allowable emissions are based on the VOC emissions that would occur with compliant coatings formulated at the VOC content limit, assuming the same total weight of solids in the compliant coatings as the total weight of solids in the actual coatings used.
USEPA's calculation procedure requires that AQMD's gram per liter VOC limits be converted to kilograms of VOC per kilogram of solids (same as lbs of VOC per lb of solids). To do this, staff has assumed that the compliant coatings have a VOC solvent density of 880 g/l (7.33 lbs/gal) and a solids density of 1200 g/l (10 lbs/gal). This results in the following equation to use for the conversion:
Where:
VOC(kg/kg) = VOC content limit in kg of VOC per kg of solids; and
VOC (g/l) = VOC content limit from subparagraph (c)(1)(A) in grams per liter of coating, less water and exempt solvents.
Emission averaging is not entirely new to the rule. Subdivision (j) of the current rule [(i) of the new rule] already allows a facility to average emissions of coatings to show equivalent compliance by means of an Alternative Emission Control Plan (AECP) and Rule 108. The proposed emission averaging provisions and an AECP are different, as follows:
The emission impacts of the emission averaging provisions are difficult, if not impossible, to determine quantitatively. Whether the new provisions would result in more, or less, of emission reductions than the current AECP provisions depends on the following factors:
These factors are all case-specific.
Since the purpose of the averaging provision is to obtain equivalent emission reductions while providing flexibility in the means of compliance, it is reasonable to conclude that the averaging provisions will achieve about the same emission reductions as the current rule.
No significant impact on toxic emissions should occur. The impact of switching to waterborne coatings was analyzed in the August 1994 Rule 1136 amendments. The proposed amendments will result in no new coatings being used that are not already being used. The "Evaluation of Low VOC Coatings for Wood Furniture" study completed last year evaluated many super-compliant coatings, which were part of the toxic emission analysis of the August 1994 amendments. The averaging may result in more use of super-compliant coatings with even lower VOC than required, which should have less toxic components (the toxics are VOCs) as well. More non-compliant (high-VOC) coatings may be used than would be without the averaging, but still much less than today. The high-VOC coatings tend not to contain ethylene glycol ethers, which was the solvent material of concern in some waterborne coatings.
18. Replacement of "wood" or "wood surface" with "wood product," various paragraphs
Several parts of the rule referred to "wood" or "wood surfaces", which are not as inclusive as the defined term "wood products". Therefore, the terms have been replaced with "wood products".
19. Addition of an exemption for "architectural millwork goods," paragraph (k)(7)
An exemption for "architectural millwork goods" facilities was added to extend the compliance date for VOC limits specified in paragraph (c)(1)(A), Table of Standards until July 1, 1996. In the interim, pre-9/1/95 VOC limits will apply to these facilities. This exemption has air quality impacts that are addressed in the California Environmental Quality Act section on page 10.
One deficiency of Rule 1136 identified by USEPA will be addressed in another rule. USEPA requested a record keeping requirement for key parameters of emission control devices. This requirement will be put into Rule 109 - Recordkeeping For Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, rather than in Rule 1136.
EMISSION REDUCTIONS
The proposed amendments to Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings correct SIP deficiencies to avoid USEPA sanctions, clarify rule language, delete outdated provisions, update test methods, and provide the option of emission averaging. Because the amendments reflect current AQMD interpretations, lab methods and practices, and do not impose any new requirements, the proposed amendments to these rules will not affect VOC limits. VOC emission reductions with the emission averaging option should be approximately the same as with the current rule. The exemption for architectural millwork goods delays a reduction of VOC emissions of 0.08 tons per day from September 1, 1995 until July 1, 1996.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
As the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has evaluated the proposed amendments to Rule 1136 and has determined that potential adverse environmental impacts may be generated by the delayed compliance and facility averaging provisions. Although delaying the final compliance date for architectural millwork goods coatings is not expected to increase VOC emissions from this source category, it will result in a loss of approximately 160 pounds per day of anticipated future VOC emission reductions. This air quality impact exceeds the AQMD's VOC significance criteria of 55 pounds per day. This impact, however, is considered to be within the scope of the environmental analysis contained in the August 1994 Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings. A facility bubbling provision similar to the one proposed for Rule 1136 is contained in Rule 108 - Alternative Emission Control Plans. Consequently, potential impacts from the facility bubbling provision are considered to be within the scope of the environmental analysis contained in the February 1990 Environmental Assessment (EA) for Rule 108. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15153, the previously prepared CEQA documents identified here will be used as the CEQA document for proposed amended Rule 1136 since the circumstances of the currently proposed project are essentially the same. A notice was circulated to the public stating this determination and stating that comments on this determination would be accepted during a 30-day public comment period beginning July 31, 1995, and ending August 29, 1995.
SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The proposed amendments to the existing Rule 1136 are intended to correct SIP deficiencies identified by the USEPA, and respond to issues raised by the coating manufacturers and trade associations. These amendments include clarification of definitions and test methods. The emission averaging option provides more flexibility to demonstrate compliance, is voluntary, and results in no negative cost impacts. The extension of the compliance date for architectural millwork goods will allow local millwork companies to bid on some jobs they would not otherwise be able to bid on, and may result in increased revenue for them. Any revenue estimates would by speculative because these companies are competing nationally for these jobs. The proposed amendments will not impose any additional costs on the affected facilities. Therefore, the amendments are cost effective.
On October 14, 1994, the Governing Board adopted a resolution that requires staff to address whether proposed rules being considered for adoption are in order of cost-effectiveness, as defined in the 1994 AQMP. The proposed amendments are not included in the 1994 AQMP, are not for the purpose of reducing emissions, and will result in no additional costs to industry. These amendments correct SIP deficiencies, and must be adopted by November 1995 to avoid USEPA sanctions.
DRAFT FINDINGS UNDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
Before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule, the California Health and Safety Code requires the AQMD to adopt written findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non-duplication, and reference, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 40727. The draft findings are as follows:
Necessity - The Governing Board of the AQMD has determined that a need exists to amend Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings, to correct the deficiencies identified by USEPA, clarify rule language, bring test methods up-to-date, and make the rule more flexible with an emission averaging approach.
Authority - The AQMD Governing Board obtains its authority to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations from Health and Safety Code Sections 40000, 40001, 40440, 40463, 40702, 40725 through 40728.
Clarity - The AQMD Governing Board has determined that the proposed amendments to Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings, are written and displayed so that the meaning can be easily understood by persons directly affected by them.
Consistency - The AQMD Governing Board has determined that Proposed Amended Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings, is in harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, federal or state regulations.
Non-Duplication - The AQMD Governing Board has determined that the proposed amendments to Rule 1136 - Wood Products Coatings, do not impose the same requirement as any existing state or federal regulation, and the proposed amended rules are necessary and proper to execute the powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon, the AQMD.
Reference - In adopting these regulations, the AQMD Governing Board references the following statutes which the AQMD hereby implements, interprets or makes specific: Health and Safety Code Sections 40001 (rules to achieve ambient air quality standards), 40440(a) (rules to carry out the Air Quality Management Plan), and 40440(c) (cost effectiveness), and Federal Clean Air Act Section 172(c)(1)(RACT).
MAK(i:\stream\1136\sip_fix\staff9d.doc)
A P P E N D I X A
________________________________________________________________
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1136
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following are comments were received as a result of the December 16, 1994 workshop. Additional comments from the August 8, 1995 workshop will be incorporated into the final staff report.
COMMENT:
Since the AQMD has recently released the proposed rule and staff report, there is not enough time to review and comment in today's public workshop.
RESPONSE:
The public comment period for the proposed rule and staff report was open until January 2, 1995, so the public could still respond in writing up to that date. This deadline was identified in the public notice announcing the workshop.
COMMENT:
There needs to be a formal definition for custom replica furniture, since it is listed under exemptions, along with "refinishing" and "replacement". A more detailed definition will assist applicants in knowing whether they qualify for an exemption. The definition should include such wording as hand work, distressing, as well as paint finishes that give the impression of antique furniture.
RESPONSE:
Staff has created a definition of custom replica furniture to include such descriptions suggested as made-to-order, detailed wood carvings and bruising of the wood surface to create an antique looking piece. This new definition will be included in the present rule amendment proposal.
COMMENT:
The control efficiency equivalency equation, subparagraph (c)(1)(C), is correct but "somewhat misleading" and should be rearranged so compliant VOC values and non-compliant VOC values line up in both numerator and denominator.
RESPONSE:
The proposed rearranged equation appears to be more complex and does not change the calculation results. We are proposing to retain the original equation because it was requested by EPA and it yields the correct result.
COMMENT:
The USEPA method for capture efficiency cited in 55FR26865, would cost around $30,000 to 70,000 and we should adopt the AQMD proposed protocol.
RESPONSE:
The proposed paragraph (f)(7) allows the use of either the USEPA method or the AQMD method, which is less expensive.
COMMENT:
Has there been any response to the cost effectiveness analysis of control equipment on spray booths performed in 1988 for the Rule 1136 amendment that year?
RESPONSE:
Staff has not done any further analysis of the cost-effectiveness of control equipment on spray booths for the purpose of complying with Rule 1136. That issue is not relevant to the proposed amendments, but staff would be happy to discuss this issue with persons who have information about the subject.
COMMENT:
A definition of VOC needs to be established so the list of what is considered "VOC" will be consistent with other rules and will not be changed so often with the addition "new" compounds.
RESPONSE:
The definition of "exempt compounds" in AQMD's Regulation I - General Provisions, Rule 102 - Definition of Terms does provide a uniform definition because it supersedes all inconsistent definitions of exempt compounds in all other AQMD rules. To avoid future inconsistencies between the exempt compound definitions in Rule 1136 and Rule 102, the proposed paragraph (b)(10) will simply refer to the Rule 102 definition.
COMMENT:
Will you accept acetone on the list of exempt compounds if EPA recognizes it as such? There is an interest since acetone is used in our topcoat, sealer and washcoat.
RESPONSE:
Staff is currently working on amendments to Rule 102 to revise the definition of "exempt compounds". The AQMD will address the acetone issue in the rule development.
COMMENT:
If a company uses a control device, such as an afterburner, can they use higher-VOC coatings?
RESPONSE:
If a control device is installed and the equivalence requirements of 1136(c)(1)(C) are met, then the coatings that exceed the rule's VOC coating limits may be used. A wood coater may also demonstrate compliance by the emissions averaging provisions, which are being incorporated into the rule, or through Rule 108 - Alternative Emission Control Plans.
COMMENT:
How did the AQMD come up with the control device equivalency formula? And where does the capture efficiency come into effect, as it is more important than the destruction efficiency?
RESPONSE:
The equation is the same as in other AQMD rules. It calculates the control efficiency of a control system necessary to be equivalent to using a compliant coating. The equation is for the overall efficiency of the emission control system, including both the capture efficiency of the collection system and the destruction efficiency of the control device.
COMMENT:
I am using a flow coater and am having problems with bubbling on the wood surface when applying waterborne coatings. What can I do?
RESPONSE:
The application of waterborne coatings is new to both the wood product manufacturers as well as the coatings formulators. Working with the coating supplier and research groups, such as CTAC, should lead to solutions to these application problems with waterborne coatings. We will continue to monitor flow coating operations.
COMMENT:
The definition of "repair coating," in paragraph (b)(30), only involves a recoat due to the damage of the original coating but should also allow a recoat from damages to the wood surface.
RESPONSE:
In order to clarify the definition to give applicants the ability to recoat whether damage has occurred to the coating or the wood surface, staff will add "damage to the coating, or the wood product surface" to the "repair coating" definition.
COMMENT:
In several places in the rule, the term "wood surface" should be replaced with "wood product," to be inclusive of fiberboard and other wood products that are not solid woods.
RESPONSE:
Staff agrees and has made this change throughout the rule.
COMMENT:
There should be an addition of "plastic or foams" to the listing of coatings along with low-solids, stains and toners under the VOC limits, subparagraph (c)(1)(A).
RESPONSE:
The definition of "wood products" in paragraph (b)(43) includes "simulated wood material in combination with wood or wood composites." Therefore, it is the intent of the rule that only when plastic or foam is used to simulate wood, in combination with real wood, are coatings used on plastic or foam subject to the rule. Because of this limited applicability to plastic and foam coatings, it would be misleading to add plastics and foams to subparagraph (c)(1)(A). Rule 1145- Plastic, Rubber and Glass Coatings applies to other plastic and foam coatings.
COMMENT:
Extreme performance coatings should include one-component coatings as well as two-component coatings.
RESPONSE:
The original intent of the current definition was to include only the two-component extreme performance coatings. These are expensive coatings used by relatively few facilities. No need has been established to make this change.
COMMENT:
Edge fillers should have a separate definition and a different VOC limit from fillers.
RESPONSE:
The current definition of "fillers" already specifies "edge fillers" as a subcategory; therefore, a new definition of "edge filler" has not been added. The solventborne fillers may be used until 7/1/96.
COMMENT:
The category of "medium density fiberboard coatings" should be changed to "fiberboard and particleboard coatings."
RESPONSE:
The category name for "medium density fiberboard coatings" has been revised to "fiberboard and particleboard coatings". Solventborne formulations for this category may be used until 7/1/96.
COMMENT:
A new coating category is needed for barrier coatings for foam and plastic.
RESPONSE:
See the response two responses before this. Also, the coatings may qualify under the existing category of low-solids wash coats which applies to coatings used to seal wood products, including simulated wood made from plastic or foam.
COMMENT:
The reference to hiding the surface should be removed from the definition of pigmented coatings. Some pigmented coatings allow some of the grain to show through the finish.
RESPONSE:
A change to the definition is not necessary. A pigmented coating may hide the surface but still allow some surface texture to show through.
COMMENT:
The definitions of "refinish" and "repair coatings" should be combined and allow for repair of unnoticed surface damage present before coating.
RESPONSE:
Combining the definitions would make the rule less clear. However, the definition of "repair coating" has been revised to allow for the repair of the coating or the wood product surface for any reason.
COMMENT:
The 7/1/96 limits for medium density fiberboard, multi-colored coatings, pigmented coatings and washcoats are all too low.
RESPONSE:
The 7/1/96 limits should remain as a target for the industry to strive to meet. It would not be appropriate to raise limits now, so long before the limits go into effect. Staff will reconsider the 7/1/96 limits at a later date if the limits are found to be unachievable despite the best efforts of the industry.
COMMENT:
The definition of "wood products" should include paper laminated on particle board or fiberboard, and plastic and foam.
RESPONSE:
The definition already includes "simulated wood material" which includes plastic and foam that simulates wood. The definition has been revised to include "paper laminated on wood composites", which more clearly includes particle board and fiberboard.