BOARD MEETING DATE: August 13, 1999 AGENDA NO. 25

PROPOSAL:

Report on Discussions with Industry Pertaining to Amended Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings

SYNOPSIS:

This report summarizes the activities of staff over the past 90 days pertaining to Amended Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. At the May 14, 1999 Board meeting, the Board directed staff to meet with members of the industry. Staff received comments pertaining to many issues already discussed during the rulemaking process, as well as some new issues. These comments and staff responses are summarized in the report. Staff also plans to continue the working group process for implementation of the averaging compliance option and the Technical Advisory Committee.

COMMITTEE:  

Stationary Source, July 23, 1999, Reviewed

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

  1. Approve this report.
  2. Approve workplan to further ensure successful implementation of amended Rule 1113.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

On May 14, 1999, the Board approved the amendments to Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings, with a direction to staff to work with industry to address certain concerns raised at the public hearing, and to report back to the Board in 90 days. Since the adoption of the Rule 1113 amendments, three lawsuits were filed challenging the amendments, brought by Sherwin-Williams, the National Paint Coatings Association ("NPCA"), and the California Paint Alliance (incorporated as EL RAP).

Issues

Staff has held two public workshops with industry members since the May 14, 1999 public hearing to solicit a list of issues/concerns and implement the Board’s directive. Staff further invited industry to send their issues in writing by July 30. Copies of the comment letters received are attached as Appendix A.

Many of the issues identified to staff relate to the validity of the Board’s action in amending Rule 1113, are the subject of the ongoing litigation, and have already been fully addressed during the rulemaking. Staff does not believe that the Board directed a reconsideration of those issues. Other identified issues relate mainly to the future technology assessments, for which staff has developed an extensive workplan. A listing of all the issues raised in these recent discussions with industry representatives, along with summary responses, are included in Appendix B. A copy of the workplan is attached as Appendix C and is briefly described below.

Workplan

In response to concerns received, the staff will continue to implement a number of efforts summarized in the workplan in Appendix C. The workplan contains objectives, measurable outputs, memberships, and a schedule for reports to the Board. The workplan consists of continued meetings with the existing architectural coatings working group and a number of outreach and technology status evaluations until the implementation of the final limits. Appendix C contains the current working group list (i.e. Pages C-2 to C-6). Additionally, a special sub-group will be continued to assist in the implementation of the averaging compliance option and to address issues that arise related to niche market coatings. Specifically, this sub-group will provide input to staff on the development of a guidance document for the averaging compliance option. A list of this sub-group is also attached as Appendix C (Page C-8).

Lastly, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which was formed during the development of the Phase II amendments, will continue to provide technical input for any future field testing . A copy of the testing protocol for the laboratory and field portion of the Phase II Assessment Study is included in Appendix D. This protocol was reviewed and approved by the TAC. The TAC will also provide input regarding the technology assessment for flat coatings. Staff will also, as a part of the amended rule, be providing technology assessments prior to implementation of the interim and final limits, as well as annual status reports pertaining to the state-of-the-technology, incorporating any information provided by the manufacturers. Staff plans to provide the first annual status report, including the first technology assessment report for flat coatings, in July 2000. A consensus reached with industry was to use the technology assessment for flat coatings as a pilot for identifying and refining the mechanism of incorporating manufacturer’s input on the state-of-the-technology for future annual status reports to the Board.

Staff also plans to conduct another Architectural Coatings Technology Symposium in Spring 2000 to highlight the state-of-the-technology coatings currently available from coating manufacturers and raw material suppliers. Furthermore, the AQMD has recently contracted with AVES for $185,000 to develop and demonstrate zero- and low-VOC resin technology for clear wood finishes, water-proofing sealers, and stains, as a part of a Cost Share Project totaling $557,500. This information will assist staff in conducting future technology assessments for clear wood lacquers, as well as the implementation of Phase III amendments.

Resource Impacts

The Board has already allocated $200,000 for the technology assessments in the FY 1999-2000 Budget. Staff may request additional funding for future technology assessments, including studies for reactivity and availability assessment of VOC, as appropriate.

Attachments (1,353 kb)

Appendix A – Comment Letters
Appendix B – Issues and Responses
Appendix C – Workplan
Appendix D – NTS Study Testing Protocol

Appendix A – Comment Letters
  1. Sierra Performance Coatings
  2. National Paint & Coatings Association
  3. Smiland & Kachigian
  4. Painting & Decorating Contractors of America
  5. Law Offices of Curtis L. Coleman

Appendix B – Issues and Responses

Sierra Performance Coatings Letter

  

VOC limits are too high and compliance dates are too far into the future. The amendments fail to adopt the ‘best available controls".

Disagree. The amended rule was based on a thorough technology assessment, as well as overall cost-effectiveness. The adopted limits represent best available and cost-effective technology for each of the categories. The implementation dates represent a feasible timeframe for manufacturers to reformulate their existing coating lines, as well as for raw materials supplier/resin manufacturers to refine the coatings technology. The amendments represent the Best Available Controls within the context of a cost-effective regulation.

The NTS Study shows that the low-VOC products generally perform as well as high-VOC products, and out perform them in some characteristics. This shows that they are technologically feasible as currently designed.

Agree. The NTS study results supported staff’s technology assessment. However, the extended compliance dates represent a feasible timeframe for manufacturers to reformulate their existing coating lines, as well as for raw materials supplier/resin manufacturers to refine the coatings technology

High performance, low-VOC products are commercially available.

Agree. Staff’s own technology assessment is consistent with your findings.

Raw material suppliers have made tremendous advances in technology.

Agree. Staff’s own technology assessment is consistent with your findings.

A limit of 100 g/l VOC should be adopted across the board.

Disagree. An across the board 100 g/l limit is not feasible for all categories at this time. The amendments focus on the most appropriate and feasible limits for each category due to the differing uses, performance needs, and available information.

Averaging Provisions are not necessary. It creates a loophole.

Disagree. Staff believes that the averaging compliance option is a flexibility option needed for compliance with the amendments in a more cost-effective manner, as well as retention of certain coatings for some very specific uses, where reformulation may not be cost-effective for a particular manufacturer.

The District has overestimated the proposed rule’s economic impact. Overall costs are over-estimated. Cost of reformulating (20%) will be repeated each year, instead of incurred on a one-time basis. It also assumes that the price increase will persist until 2015 at the same percentage discrepancy. Health Insurance costs and quicker re-occupancy costs associated with faster dry times and no odors for hotels, factories, and other institutional consumers were not considered.

The District recognizes the cost savings from each one of the items mentioned by the commentator. However, adequate data was not available to quantify the cost savings from these. As a result, the cost-effectiveness figures may be conservative.

Not implementing the Best Available Controls will cause serious adverse health effects.

Disagree. The amended rule was based on a thorough technology assessment, as well as overall cost-effectiveness. The adopted limits represent best available and cost-effective technology for each of the categories. The implementation dates represent a feasible timeframe for manufacturers to reformulate their existing coating lines, as well as for raw materials supplier/resin manufacturers to refine the coatings technology. The amendments represent the Best Available Controls within the context of a cost-effective regulation. The emission reductions are in line with reductions included in the AQMP, which considers the overall health benefits associated with ozone reductions.

National Paint & Coatings Association Letter

  

Full presentation of NTS Study should be made.

Agree. A full presentation of the NTS study was conducted at the June 23, 1999 meeting, and summarized data was distributed.

Field Studies of new low-polluting paint should be made available to industry for evaluation.

The TAC is currently working on a protocol to conduct the field application study to compare the performance of zero- and low-VOC coatings with high-VOC coatings, and results will be incorporated into future technology assessments. As the protocol is further developed and finalized, staff will present the final protocol to the working group.

Information to industry should be provided in a timely manner.

Staff has presented information regarding the NTS study, as requested by the commentator.

Discussion of Specialty Primers and Chemical Tank Coatings.

These categories were briefly discussed at the June 23, 1999 meeting. Staff also requested that any requests for interpretations regarding these categories be submitted in writing.

Staff should engage in an on-going dialogue as directed by the Board concerning various issues pertaining to the implementation of the Rule 1113 amendments.

Staff is committed to such dialogue. A detailed workplan is included in this report for future meetings and discussions.

Smiland & Kachigian Letter

  

Issues

Response

National Rule preempts regulating sale and manufacturing of architectural coatings.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was also unsuccessfully raised in the prior litigation filed in response to the November 8, 1996 amendments, and discussed during the rulemaking process.

Staff Report, FSEA, and FSIA were significantly changed several days prior to public hearing. 30 day notice requirements were violated No mention of Clean Air Act section 183 (e.)

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Staff disagrees with these contentions. All notice requirements pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 40440.5 were met. Any changes made were within the scope of the rulemaking.

NTS Study fatally flawed. Repeal amended rule. Redo lab study and start and complete the field study.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. The amended rule is based on staff’s own technology assessment, which has been well supported by the laboratory portion of the NTS study. Staff disagrees with these contentions, and points out that industry heavily participated in the development of this study. The field portion of the NTS study will be conducted over the next three years, and results will be incorporated into future technology assessments presented to the Governing Board.

Competitor and Lobbyist Misrepresentations. Correct misrepresentations before Board.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. There is no basis to conclude that misrepresentations were made. In any event, conflicting viewpoints were amply presented to this Board.

Competitor Claims in Staff Reports are not accurate.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Staff disagrees with these contentions. The Staff Report discusses a wide variety of technologies for the coating categories included in the amendment, and does not purport to endorse any of them. The technologies discussed in the staff report are available from a variety of resin manufacturers, as well as national, regional, and local coating manufacturers. Industry has not provided any credible test data, as requested during the rulemaking process, to dispute the validity of these technologies.

Interest Group Bargains. Explicit or implicit deals were made between staff and favored market actors or segments. Rulemaking should be based on factual, legal and policy merits.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Staff disagrees with these contentions. As always, staff is available to meet with members of the industry until the public hearing to address their concerns. There were no private deals made between staff and any members of the industry. Changes to the proposed rule were made at industry’s request based on technical information provided to staff.

Staff misrepresentations were made pertaining to emissions, comparison of emissions, availability, and use of zero-VOC paints. Additionally, even after massive promotion, zero-VOC paints represent an extremely small slice of the paint market, perhaps 1%.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Staff disagrees with these contentions and stands by its presentation. Information presented was based upon VOC emissions which in turn was based upon the latest currently available data. Staff fairly represented the availability and performance characteristics of low-VOC paints.

No Board Deliberation – Only two Board Members asked questions, and only two offered comments.

There is no basis to assume that the extent of an individual board member’s deliberation may be measured by the number of questions or comments he or she may publicly raise. The extent of deliberation is typically dependant on several issues, including the Board’s familiarity with the issues.

Low Volatility of Glycol Products – CARB exempts products containing such compounds.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was also unsuccessfully raised in the prior litigation, and discussed during the rulemaking process. The commentator has yet to demonstrate that water-borne coatings do not result in air pollution. Indeed, the commentator’s current position is inconsistent with his earlier position that the use of water-borne coatings may cause significant increases in air pollution. Both USEPA and CARB, who have also considered this issue, do not recognize a low volatility exception for architectural coatings. Nonetheless, staff will continue to work with CARB staff in reviewing any new scientific evidence on this point.

Mineral Spirits are the largest volume solvent used in solvent-based coatings, and they are low in reactivity. Therefore, staff should evaluate the reactivity of mineral spirits before banning them. The rule should be repealed.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was also previously raised unsuccessfully in both the 1996 and the 1990 litigation, as well as discussed during the rulemaking process. Staff again disagrees with these contentions. Indeed, Dr. Carter, one of the experts on reactivity, has recently found that under a revised model, mineral spirits should still be considered reactive. Staff has been closely following the latest developments in the science of reactivity. In the summer meeting of the Reactivity Research Working Group, Dr. Carter, as well as other experts in the field, presented a series of studies that need to be conducted in an attempt to reduce the uncertainties associated with modeling, ozone chamber studies, and fate/availability assessments. The CARB has not yet implemented the alternative reactivity approach in their Aerosol Coatings Rule due to uncertainties associated with reactivity scales, especially under varying NOx conditions. These results are undergoing a peer review process in an attempt to validate the results to date.

Staff, as well as the Board, have committed to continue studying reactivity and availability in the amended rule and the Resolutions.

The District has no explicit authority over product formulas. Paints are not direct sources of ozone, and the District has not established that the compounds in waterborne paints are volatile enough, or those in solvent-based paints are reactive enough. The rule should be repealed.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was also unsuccessfully raised in the prior litigation. Staff again disagrees with these contentions, as discussed above.

The District did not assess the key environmental impacts and alternatives. The FSEA should be de-certified and the amendments repealed.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue has been discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. Staff disagrees with these contentions and believes the FSEA fully complied with all applicable requirements of CEQA. Staff examined the alternatives to the proposed rule, and determined that they were infeasible. For example, the science does not support regulations based on volatility or reactivity. A seasonal control strategy was discussed during the rulemaking process, but deemed infeasible by numerous manufacturers and retailers. A regional approach is clearly infeasible due to the differing needs of differing air quality conditions found in the various regions in the state.

Economic Impacts were not adequately analyzed. The rule amendments should be repealed until the FSIA is supplemented.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. Staff disagrees with these contentions and believes the FSIA adequately analyzed to the extent data was available the socio-economic impacts of the rule amendments.

Federal mandates. Staff materials and presentation represented that the Board was federally mandated to adopt the rule amendments. This is a false representation. The amendments should be repealed.

No such representations were made.

The 7,000 paint formulas outlawed have a fair market value of $182,000,000. These formulas will become useless, and therefore, valueless. This is considered an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was also unsuccessfully raised in the prior litigation. Furthermore, this issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. For the same reasons stated earlier, Staff disagrees with these contentions.

There is no public purpose behind Rule 1113, since paint VOC’s are neither volatile nor reactive enough to result in ozone.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was also unsuccessfully raised in the prior litigation. Furthermore, this issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. Rule 1113 does serve a public purpose by reducing VOC’s. Modeling studies performed in support of the 1991, 1994, and 1997 AQMPs indicate that the Basin is VOC limited and thus ozone formation is a function primarily of available VOC not NOx as advocated by some commentators. In addition, it is generally accepted that the dramatic improvement in ozone air quality in the Basin is primarily the result of decreased VOC emissions.

Equal Protection. The District has banned the compounds in paints when the same ones in other products are not regulated. It unconstitutionally gives favored classes exemptions, but not unfavored classes. The District should repeal the amendments until it treats like compounds, manufacturers, and users alike.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. This issue was also unsuccessfully raised in the prior litigation. Staff disagrees with these contentions. There is no unconstitutional differential treatment.

Damages. Manufacturers are suffering massive reformulation costs, whether successful or unsuccessful. The costs of paints will increase, labor costs will increase, and eventually consumers will switch to non-paint substrates.

The FSIA recognized the significant costs that may result from the amendments to Rule 1113. These costs were properly considered by the Board when it adopted those amendments. In the FSIA, the District did a comprehensive evaluation of all socio-economic impacts, and determined the overall cost-effectiveness of the amendments. The amended rule does not outlaw product lines, but requires reformulation of these product lines. However, the manufacturers of these product lines will be able to continue to market and sell those paint formulas outside of the four county area currently under the AQMD’s purview absent similar action by other air districts. In addition, the amendments include an averaging compliance option, which will allow manufacturers to reformulate certain product lines, and maintain other product lines at their current VOC levels.

The 1996 amendments are also impacted by the above issues.

These issues were previously addressed in the litigation over those amendments.

Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA) Letter

  

Clarification of definitions for Essential Public Service Coatings and Chemical Storage Tank Coatings.

These clarification will be sent to PDCA under separate cover.

The NTS study needs to be evaluated to address the following:

· Discussion of errors in the initial raw data;

· Discussion of errors in the summary tables;

· Discussion of information and recommendations from raw data.

The Staff has coordinated two tele-conferences and one meeting with TAC to receive specific information pertaining to errors or omissions in the raw data and the summarized data. Specific comments have been received, and NTS provided clarifications at a July 27, 1999 meeting. For example, NTS discussed the test methods used for dry time analysis, as well as explained the reasons for the initial, negative values included in the raw data for some samples. The TAC has identified other specific areas that need to be reviewed in the summary results, and NTS staff will revise items identified.

 

  

Law Offices of Curtis Coleman Letter

  

Interior semi-transparent wood stains should be treated separately from other stain categories.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Furthermore, this issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. The AQMD believes that the VOC limit of 250 g/l for stains, including interior, semi-transparent stains, is feasible. This limit is based on the availability of numerous, compliant interior stains. The commentator is also encouraged to assess the averaging compliance option to assist with compliance, while retaining certain product lines.

Opaque Floor Coatings, especially single component, used for wood porches and decks are not available. Furthermore, the rule requires a lower limit for floor coatings than for non-flat coatings. This does not make sense.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Furthermore, this issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. The AQMD believes that the VOC limit of 100 g/l is appropriate for the floor coatings category, and has identified coatings in single-component as well as two-component formulations. Both single- and two-component are available for a variety of uses, including wood porches and decks. In addition to the two single-component coatings discussed in the staff report, other compliant single component floor coatings are manufactured by Polycoat Products and Tufflex.

Stain-blocking primers, especially to block tannins in wood, are not available, and should be included in the specialty primers category.

This issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. The staff’s technology assessment has identified a variety of primers available for stain blocking. Nonetheless, staff proposed a specialty primers category with a higher interim limit at the public hearing to address concerns about specific substrates, such as fire-, smoke-, and water-damaged or excessively chalky surfaces. Furthermore, the averaging compliance option will allow a manufacturer to continue marketing non-compliant primers.

Industrial Maintenance Tank and Pipe Lining Coatings for immersion service cannot meet the new limits.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Furthermore, this issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. The staff’s technology assessment has identified a variety of industrial maintenance coatings recommended for use in immersion service. Nonetheless, staff proposed a chemical storage tank coating category with a higher interim limit at the public hearing to address concerns about specific solvents, including oxygenated solvents.

Essential Public Service definition needs to be clarified. Additionally, this category should be expanded to private facilities, since they have similar exposure conditions.

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. Additionally, this issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. The Essential Public Service Coating category was included to provide limited higher interim limits as a contingency for public agencies to accommodate their greater delays in updating their specifications and bidding procedures for the use of paints. Notably, these agencies typically use coatings that are below the proposed compliance limits for July 2002, the Essential Public Service Coating category, based on annual coating usage information submitted by essential public service agencies, is expected to be a relatively small usage category and will be monitored annually. Furthermore, these essential public service agencies have already initiated discussions to start a technology assessment to comply with the final VOC limits, which are the same as the final limits for private facilities. Higher limits for private facilities were also created, where appropriate. For example, a chemical storage tank coating category was created in response to the need for storage of oxygenated solvents.

Any specific clarification of the definition should be requested in writing and will be forward to the working group for discussion.

Exterior coatings at the 50 g/l level are not available. The lack of durability studies on exterior 50 g/l coatings make that limit grossly premature

This issue is a subject of the current litigation and will be addressed in the context of that litigation. The staff report has numerous discussions on the variety of coatings available in each category, including the final limits of 50 g/l for nonflat and floor coatings. Some of the zero-VOC nonflat exterior coatings are included in the Phase II Assessment Study, and have shown comparable performance to their higher-VOC counterparts. The field studies, including accelerated exterior exposure studies and real time exposure studies, will also provide additional data. Additionally, raw material suppliers have exterior exposure studies for these coatings.
   

Other Issues Presented at Meetings

  

Anti-Graffiti Systems not available.

This issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. Compliant permanent, anti-graffiti coatings are available, as indicated by some of the testimony at the public hearing, as well as information collected by staff as a part of their technology assessment.

Specialty primers for concrete and stain blocking not available.

This issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. The staff’s technology assessment has identified a variety of primers available for concrete and masonry. Nonetheless, staff proposed a specialty primers category with a higher interim limit at the public hearing to address concerns about specific substrates, such as fire-, smoke-, and water-damaged or excessively chalky surfaces.

Differentiate between interior and exterior wood sealers.

This issue was discussed during the rulemaking process and addressed in the staff report. The staff’s technology assessment has identified compliant waterproofing wood sealers for interior and exterior uses.

 

Appendix C– Workplan

 

RULE 1113 – ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

WORKPLAN

COMMITTEE:   

 

Working Group

 

OBJECTIVE:   

To provide a forum for discussion of technological advancements in coatings material, market trends, and product performance as it relates to Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings.

 

DESCRIPTION:   

The Working Group is comprised of coating manufacturers, raw material suppliers, coating contractors, consultants, other governmental agencies, as well as the public. The meetings are coordinated by AQMD staff, and usually held at headquarters. The future meetings will be scheduled on a quarterly basis.

MEASURABLE OUTPUT(S):

BOARD REPORT(S):

 

CURRENT WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

Sal

Fname

Lname

Coname

Phone

Mr.

Bert

Adams

Glaze N Seal

949-250-9104

Ms.

Heidi

Alderman

Air Products & Chemicals

610-481-8316

Ms.

Jodi

Allen

Union Carbide

310-214-5322

Mr.

Don

Ames

State of CA Air Resources Board

916-323-4227

Mr.

Bernie

Appleman

SSPC

412-281-2331x234

Mr.

Allen

Armstrong

Hill Brothers Chemical Co.

714-998-8800

Mr.

Yin

Aye

Smiland Paint Co.

323-222-7616

Mr.

Marty

Balow

Frazee Paint Co.

619-552-3261

Mr.

Jasen

Banta

Matt Construction

562-903-2277

Mr.

Barry

Barman

KTA-TATOR, Inc.

818-713-9172

Mr.

Paul

Beemer

Henry Co

323-583-5000

Mr.

Chuck

Benesch

D’Angelos

805-483-4398

Mr.

Howard

Berman

Kessler & Associates, Inc.

202-547-6808

Mr.

Jim

Bossardt

Blast/Coat Systems, Inc.

909-981-8137

Mr.

Tim

Bosveld

Dunn Edwards

213-771-3330

Mr.

Larry

Breeding

Walt Disney Company

818.840.1948

Mr.

Mike

Butler

Behr Process Corporation

714-545-7101

Mr.

Mike

Callahan

Jacobs

310-847-3922

Mr.

David

Clifford

AKZO NOBEL

248-637-5294

Mr.

Curtis

Coleman

Law Offices of Curtis L. Coleman

310-348-8186

Mr.

Gerrold

Coleman

Paramount Pictures

213-956-8214

Mr.

Tim

Conkin

LADWP

213-367-0443

Ms.

Margaret

Coon

Ameron Protective Coatings

714-529-1951x336

Mr.

Stan

Cowen

Ventura County APCD

805-645-1408

Mr.

Pete

Cutrona

Ellis Paint Co.

323-262-8114

Mr.

James

Dabbs

Spectra-Tone Paint Corp.

909-478-3485

Mr.

Mike

De La Vega

Life Paint Company

310-944-6391

Mr.

Geoffrey

Dearth

Air Products & Chem. Inc.

626-964-3451

Ms.

Stacey

Dobrosky

Union Carbide

310-214-5338

Mr.

Lee

Doyle

S.G. Pinney & Associates Inc.

949-770-3010

Mr.

Richard

Drisko

SSPC

  

Mr.

Phil

Drooks

Metropolitan Water District of So. California

909-392-5214

Mr.

M.

Dyer

Devoe Castings

213-888-8888x8344

Mr.

Mehrdad

Emami

McWhorter Tech.

310-884-5517

Mr.

Wes

Emerson

Rust-Oleum

909-468-9136

Ms.

Daniela

Fernandez

County Government Center

  

Mr.

Bob

Floriani

ICI-Dulux

323-888-8888

Ms.

Yvonne

Fong

U.S. EPA

415-744-1199

Mr.

Chris

Foster

Smiland & Khachigian

213-891-1010

Mr.

Randy

Francisco

McWhorter Technologies, Inc.

847-551-3159

Mr.

John

Frantz

DWR

916-653-1328

Mr.

Harley

Fung

Benjamin Moore & Co.

213-722-3484

Ms.

P

Ghuman

LACSD

562-699-7411 x2138

Mr.

Robert

Gross

PPG Industries, Inc.

412-274-3455

Mr.

Lloyd

Haanstra

DEFT

949-476-6733

Mr.

Jay

Haines

Texture Coatings of America, Inc.

213-233-3111

Ms.

Madelyn

Harding

The Sherwin-Williams Co.

216-566-2630

Mr.

Hal

Hargrave

Tri-County PDCA

909-593-9539

Mr.

Richard

Hart

Hart Polymers

949-955-3813

Mr.

Brian

Heath

The Valspar Corp.

612-375-7963

Mr.

Robert

Henderson

Coatings Resource Corp.

714-894-5252

Mr.

Tony

Hobbs

Tnemec Corporation

310-643-5191

Mr.

Scott

Holland

Cal Western Paints

562-693-0872

Mr.

Eddy

Huang

AVES

626-447-5216

Mr.

Alex

Iaroli

E. P. S.

323-889-2520

Mr.

George

Illes

LFR, Levine Fricke

949-955-1390

Ms.

Gail

Ito

Chevron

310-615-5475

Mr.

Mike

Jacola

Califronia Air Resources Board

916-327-1515

Mr.

Barry

Jenkin

Benjamin Moore

973-252-2650

Ms.

LaShawn

Johnson

Carboline Coatings

314-644-1000x2410

Ms.

Carol Yip

Kaufman

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

909-392-2504

Mr.

Ned

Kisner

Triangle Coatings

510-895-8000

Ms.

Dinah

Land

Bona Kemi

303-371-1411

Ms.

Terri

Lasso

Sherwin-Williams

214-553-3931

Mr.

Jay

Leause

PROCOS

323-981-9195

Mr.

Martin

Ledwitz

SCE

626-302-9538

Mr.

Gene

Lee

Rohm and Haas Company

909-899-7955

Mr.

David

Leehy

Vista Paints

714-680-3800 x277

Mr.

Stanton

Lewis

City of Los Angeles

310-648-5380

Mr.

Pat

Lofgren

ICI Paints

440-826-5519*

Mr.

John

Long

Smiland Paint Co.

213-222-7000

Ms.

Geraldine

Lucas

Disneyland Resort

714-781-0304

Mr.

Dave

Lunzer

Union Carbide

310-214-5321

Mr.

Pat

Lutz

Dunn Edwards

323-771-3334

Mr.

Todd

Maiden

Seyfarth, Shaw

415-544-1014

Mr.

Tom

Marsden

Disneyland Resort

714-781-4504

Mr.

Mike

Mason

Southern California Edison

714-368-9145

Mr.

John L.

Massingill, Jr.

Eastern Michigan University

734-487-2203

Ms.

Judith

McCourt

Union Carbide

310-214-5300

Mr.

John

Means

Universal Studios

818-777-2351

Mr.

Clayton

Miller

CIAQC

909-612-5707

Mr.

Gil

Mislang

Dunn Edwards

800-733-3866x2305

Mr.

Norm

Mowrer

Ameron

714-529-1951

Mr.

Jerry

Mulnix

Cal-Western Paints, Inc.

310-693-0872

Mr.

Stephen

Murphy

Murphy Industrial Coatings

310-427-7720
         
         

Mr.

Dinkar

Naik

Pacific Polymers

714-898-0025

Mr.

Bob

Nelson

National Paint & Coating Association

202-462-6272

Mr.

Wayne

Nelson

Spectra-Tone Paint

909-478-3485

Mr.

Bob

Newton

NSTS

  

Mr.

Marcy

Nichol

TruServ Mfg

847-639-5383

Mr.

R.

Novielli

Rohm & Haas

714-556-8658

Mr.

Jim

Nyarady

CARB

916-322-8273

Mr.

Bert

Osen

U.S. Celluluse

562-222-2200

Mr.

Parker

Pace

BEHR Process

714-545-7101

Mr.

Ijay

Palansky

Dunn Edwards

202-669-6602

Mr.

Randy

Pasek

California Air Resources Board

916-324-8496

Mr.

Fenando

Pedroza

Frazee Paint

619-276-9500

Mr.

Herb

Pigram

Rohm & Haas Co.

714-974-7611

Mr.

Hamid

Pourshirazi

Vista Paint

714-680-3800 x277

Mr.

Greg

Quinn

Los Angeles PDCA

213-258-8136

Mr.

Joe

Ramirez

Ever Guard Coatings

562-531-0131

Mr.

Bob

Reeves

Benjamin Moore Paints

213-722-3484

Ms.

Ellen

Reinhardt

The Better Paint Tray LLC

800-946-9391

Mr.

Benjamin

Remley

DuPont Engineered Services

281-359-8749
714-593-3803

Mr.

William

Riechers

Genesis Coatings, Inc.

800-533-4273

Mr.

Ray

Robinson

ELRAP

909-335-2223

Mr.

Mark

Robson

Golden State PDCA

760-949-4848

Mr.

Andy

Rogerson

Caltrans

916-227-7289

Mr.

Steve

Sanchez

US Can Company

323-267-5931

Mr.

Oscar

Sandoval

Frazee Paint

619-276-9500

Mr.

Anil

Sayta

Zynolyte/I.C.I Paints

310-513-0700

Mr.

Jim

Sell

NPCA

202-462-6272

Mr.

Rodney

Sells

Resin Technology Co.

909-947-7224

Mr.

Patrick

Shannon

Sierra Performance Coatings

650-548-5188

Ms.

Erin

Sheehy

Environmental Compliance Solutions

626-844-6655

Mr.

Dean

Simeroth

Air Resources Board

916-322-6020

Mr.

Mark

Simon

MWD

909-392-2909

Mr.

Al

Singh

Surface Protection Inc.

323-269-9231

Mr.

Jim

Sliff

Rust-Oleum

310-937-3429

Mr.

Bill

Smiland

Smiland & Kachigian (CPA)

213-891-1010

Mr.

Craig

Smith

C-F

562-596-7448

Mr.

Harry

Sporidis

Kessler & Associates/Dunn-Edwards

202-547-6808

Ms.

Christine

Stanley

Ameron Protective Coatings Systems

714-529-1951

Mr.

Bob

Steel

Park Water District / SICC

562-923-0711

Mr.

Joe

Stoddard

Mobile Pipe Wrappers & Coaters Inc.

750-246-4707

Mr.

Gene

Suconey

Disneyland Resort

  

Ms.

Sharilen

Talati

  

213-586-3996

Ms.

Sheri

Thompson

Sherwin Williams

562-404-0582

Mr.

Rob

Truitt

Dayton Superior Corp

562-946-5504

Mr.

Jay

Umphrey

EPS Inc.

800-642-7077

Ms.

Barbara

VanCina

Carboline

949-654-9905

Mr.

John

Wallace

MWD

909-392-5173

Mr.

John

Waltman

Cal Western Paints

562-693-0872

Mr.

Robert

Wendoll

Dunn-Edwards Paints

213-771-3330

Mr.

Peter

Whittingham

County of Los Angeles

213-974-5555

Mr.

Max

Wills

Cal Poly State University

805-756-2746

Mr.

Tek

Woo

Union Carbide

310-214-5366

Mr.

Kevin

Worrall

TeraCota

323-233-3111

Mr.

Steven

Yagade

Walt Disney Imagineering

818-544-6567

Mr.

Mark

Zielinski

ICI

800-339-6910

RULE 1113 – ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

 WORKPLAN

 

COMMITTEE:   

AVERAGING/NICHE MARKETS SUB-GROUP

 

OBJECTIVE:   

To successfully implement the averaging compliance option program, as well as monitor and address issues related to niche markets

 

DESCRIPTION:   

The Averaging/Niche Market Subgroup consists of working group members that initially participated in the development of the averaging compliance option program, as well as additional interested parties. The committee will meet on a quarterly basis to develop a guidance document and monitoring program to further ensure the successful implementation of the averaging compliance option. The guidance document will include prototype plans for national, regional, and small manufacturers, as well as address manufacturers that only carry coatings for niche markets.

MEASURABLE OUTPUT(S):

BOARD REPORT(S):

CURRENT AVERAGING/NICHE MARKET SUB-GROUP MEMBERS

Mr.

Don

Ames

California Air Resources Board

916-323-4227

Mr.

Paul

Beemer

Henry Co.

323-583-5000

Ms.

Yvonne

Fong

USEPA, Region IX

415-744-1199

Ms.

Madelyn

Harding

The Sherwin Williams Co.

216-566-2630

Mr.

Barry

Jenkin

Benjamin Moore Co.

973-252-2650

Mr.

David

Leehy

Vista Paints

714-447-9540

Mr.

John

Long

Smiland Paint Co.

213-222-7000

Mr.

Bob

Nelson

National Paint & Coatings Association

202-462-6272

Mr.

Jim

Nyarady

CARB

916-322-8273

Mr.

Jerry

Mulnix

Cal-Western Paints

562-693-0872

Mr.

Jim

Sell

National Paint & Coatings Association

202-462-6272

Mr.

Harry

Sporidis

Kessler & Associates/

Dunn Edwards

202-547-6808

Mr.

Christine

Stanley

Ameron Protective Coatings Systems

714-529-1951

Mr.

Robert

Wendoll

Dunn Edwards Paints

323-771-3330

Mr.

Kevin

Worrall

Textured Coatings of America

323-233-3111

 

RULE 1113 – ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

 WORKPLAN

 

COMMITTEE:   

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

 

OBJECTIVE:   

To provide technical oversight of the Phase II Assessment Study and future technology assessments, including selection of coatings, relevant testing, and the report formats. Additionally, the TAC will evaluate data to identify links between performance characteristics and emission potential of architectural coatings.

 

DESCRIPTION:   

In February 1998, the AQMD formed a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to help oversee a study to obtain performance data for zero-, low-, and high-VOC coatings in certain categories. The TAC was charged with providing input on the design of the study, as well as the selection of the contractor to perform the study. National Technical Systems (NTS) was selected to perform the study. The TAC is comprised of Mr. Robert Wendoll, previously of ELRAP, and now representing Dunn Edwards, Mr. Steve Murphy, representing PDCA, Harley Fung, representing Benjamin Moore Paints, Mr. Jim Nyarady, CARB, Ms. Yin Aye, representing Smiland Paints, Mr. David Leehy, now representing ELRAP, and Mr. Naveen Berry, representing the AQMD. Madelyn Harding, representing the Sherwin Williams Co., was added to the TAC on July 23, 1999. The TAC will continue to search for a replacement for Dr. Johnny Gordon, who represented academia. The TAC membership may change or expanded for future technology assessments.

MEASURABLE OUTPUTS:

 

BOARD REPORT(S):

Appendix D – NTS Testing Procotol

Progress Report #1

Testing Protocol Support Document,
and Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program

 For

 PHASE II ASSESSMENT STUDY OF ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS

 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Contract No. 98126

September 2, 1998

 

NTS Master Job Order

8450-1096

 
National Technical Systems
PO Box 857
North Highlands, CA 95660
Phone (916) 779-3100
FAX (916) 779-3105

The following describes the specific tests specific tests identified in part II in reference to the part II paragraph numbering scheme. The following also contains a summary of our laboratory quality assurance and quality control programs to ensure the integrity of the testing and to ensure accuracy and precision of the test results of this study.

CATEGORY

COATING

1.

Industrial Maintenance Coatings

2.

Non-Flats

3.

Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters

4.

Quick-Dry Enamels

5.

Quick Dry Primers and Sealers

6.

Waterproofing Sealers

 

1.3 Storage and Aging: ASTM D2243-95 Freeze-Thaw Resistance of Water-borne Coatings

COATING CATEGORY: 1-6 (water borne)

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The water-borne coating is put into two pint-size (500 ml) resin lined cans. One can is stored at room temperature, while the other can is subjected to cycles of freezing and thawing. Five cycles @: –18 ° C (17 hrs.) followed by + 25 C ° (7 hrs.) After cycling, the coating is examined for changes in viscosity and visual film properties. Evaluate the applied film (dry) appearance, before and after free-thaw cycles. Evaluated changes in container condition (scale 0-10) and Brookfield viscosity.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., Brookfield viscometer model and spindle, viscosity at the spindle/speed utilized, temperature, relative humidity, viscosity standards used, test conditions, etc. Viscosity standards will be used to calibrate the instrument. Calibrated thermometers and viscometers will be used. (See Appearance 3.2)

2.1 Brushing Properties: FTMS Method 4321.2 Brushing Properties

COATING CATEGORY: 1, 2, 4

FIELD TEST OF SELECTED COATINGS BY PAINTING CONTRACTOR:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Apply coating by brush (2 ½ " wide), brush back and forth then 90 degree cross strokes. Note brushing and spreading, especially around the joint area. Rate dry coating for appearance and inspected for freedom of lap marks. Use the Leneta brushout standards on a scale of 1 to 10.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: This test is quite subjective; however, someone experienced in the art can produce quite consistent results, particularly in the determination of the "drag" properties. To be performed by an experienced painting contractor in a field application on selected coatings.

2.2 Dry Time: ASTM D5895-95 Times of Drying or Curing During Film Formation of Organic Coatings Using Mechanical Recorders

COATING CATEGORY: 1-5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The coating is applied to glass strips approximately 12 inches in length by 1 inch in width. The drying time recorder is immediately placed on the wet film and the stylus lowered onto the wet coating. The stylus moves across the glass strip at a selected constant speed. Determine drying time at 90° F and 30 % Relative Humidity (RH) and at 50° F and 80% RH.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be done in duplicate when drying times are outside of specification requirements.

2.3 Flow Characteristics:

COATING CATEGORY: 1-5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Rather than making Brookfield viscosity measurements with an arbitrary spindle and at an arbitrary RPM, we will make leveling and sag resistance measurements directly. (see Leveling 2.4 and Sag Resistance 2.7)

2.4 Leveling: NYPC Leveling Test (blade)

COATING CATEGORY: 1-5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: A drawdown using a notched blade on a horizontal surface is made over black test chart. The coating is let dry and the gaps between blade notches is rated on a scale of 1 to 5

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Leneta charts will be used to measure the leveling.

2.5 Pot Life: ASTM D 2196-86 (Reapproved 1991) Rheological Properties of Non-Newtonian Materials by Rotation (Brookfield) Viscometer

COATING CATEGORY: 1

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Test Method A consists of determining the apparent viscosity of coatings by measuring the torque on a spindle rotating at a constant speed in the material under test at 25° C. At manufacturer’s stated pot life, make drawdown panels and check for appearance.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in duplicate if viscosity measurements are outside of specification requirements. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., Brookfield viscometer model and spindle, viscosity at the spindle/speed utilized, temperature, viscosity standards used, test conditions, etc. Viscosity standards will be used to calibrate the instrument. Drawdown panels will be evaluated for Appearance (See Appearance 3.2)

2.6 Roller Coating Properties: FTMS Method 4335 Roller Coating Properties

COATING CATEGORY: 2,3,4,5

FIELD TESTS OF SELECTED COATINGS BY PAINTING CONTRACTOR:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Apply test coating with a roller and allow the panels to dry in a vertical position for the time and under the conditions required in the product specification. After drying observe for film defects, dimples and lack of hiding

QUALITY ASSURANCE: This test is quite subjective; however, someone experience in the art can produce quite consistent results. To be performed by an experienced painting contractor in a field application on selected coatings. Evaluate for appearance (see Appearance 3.2). Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, humidity, roller used, test conditions, etc.

2.7 Sag Resistance: FTMS Method 4494.1 Sag Test

COATING CATEGORY: 2, 3, 4, 5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: A drawdown using a notched blade on a horizontal surface is made over black and white test chart. The chart is then placed in a vertical plane, letting the coated areas sag over the uncoated areas. The coating is let dry and the strip that has not been completely "sagged" over is determined, and the blade clearance of the strip immediately below, is the sag rating given the coating.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Leneta Anti-sag applicators will be used on the Leneta Form 7B chart. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, test conditions, etc.

2.9 Spraying Properties: FTMS Method 4331.1 Spraying Properties

COATING CATEGORY: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

FIELD TESTS OF SELECTED COATINGS BY PAINTING CONTRACTOR:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Spray against a flat brown paper surface. Record use of spray gun pressure and distance from paper. Record use of any thinners/reducers to achieve ability to properly spray. Note all method 4331 spraying characteristics, e.g., running, sagging, fogging, etc. Dried film shall be free of the following defects: dusting, floating, mottling, bubbling, wrinkling, streaking, pinholing, cratering, orange peel, blushing, blooming, silking, etc.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: The method is very subjective and should be performed by an individual skilled in the art of using a spray gun. To be performed by an experienced painting contractor in a field application on selected coatings.

2.10 Spreading (wet) Rate: ASTM D5007-89 (Reapproved 1993) Wet-to-Dry Hiding Change

COATING CATEGORY: 1-5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The spreading rate of a paint applied uniformly on a standard black and white hiding power chart to give a standard degree of contrast just short of complete hiding. These are exploratory drawdowns to establish a proper applicator gap distance to achieve recommended wet and dry film thickness on specimens and panels. By use of the ASTM D5007 method on spreading chart paper, on flat glass or on aluminum panels (panel M10) both spreading rates (ASTM 5007) and wet and dry film thickness can be determined.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in IAW ASTM and the mean spreading index value to 0.1 units will be calculated. Individual values that deviate from the mean by more than 1.5 spreading units will be discarded and the test repeated. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, drying time, etc. Wet and dry film thickness gauges will be calibrated against known standards.

3.1 Adhesion to Substrate: ASTM D3359-95a Measuring Adhesion by Tape Test, ASTM D4541-95 Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers, Whatman Filter Paper Test

A. Adhesion of topcoats over new surfaces ASTM D3359 (Wet Tape) - Architectural:

COATING CATEGORY: 2, 3, 4,-5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: ASTM D3359 Wet Tape) An X-cut is made in the film to the substrate, pressure-sensitive tape is applied over the cut and then removed, and adhesion is assessed qualitatively on the 0 to 5 scale. Adhesion determinations using ASTM D3359 (Tape) will be on the dry coating and on the 24-hr. water-wetted coating. For coatings with dry thickness over 1.5 mils, we will deviate from the ASTM D3359 test method and use wider grids, up to 5 mm for the thicker coated surfaces.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. If necessary, tests may be repeated in two other locations on each test panel. Report the number of tests, their mean and range, where the failure occurred, that is, between first coat and substrate, between first and second coat, the specific tape used and its manufacturer. The adhesion will be rated in accordance with the scale listed in the ASTM.

B. Adhesion of topcoats over new surfaces(PATTI) – IMC:

COATING CATEGORY: 1

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: ASTM D 4541 A4 Self-Alignment Adhesion Tester Type IV (PATTI). The general pull-off test is performed by securing a loading fixture (dolly, stud) normal (perpendicular) to the surface of the coating with an adhesive. After the adhesive is cured, a testing apparatus is attached to the loading fixture and aligned to apply tension normal to the test surface. The force applied to the loading fixture is then gradually increased and monitored until either a plug of material is detached, or a specified value is reached.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Report the temperature and relative humidity, description of the apparatus used, record test results. If necessary, testing will be performed in duplicate.

C. Adhesion of topcoats over weathered surfaces (Whatman Filter Paper)– Architectural:

 

COATING CATEGORY: 2 (exterior), 4 (exterior)

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: If panels with old, weathered, chalking surfaces are available, then the standard ASTM methods described above apply to any new coatings applied over this surface.

If such panels are not available a test provided by John Gordon applies. This is a quick check on topcoats to determine if they have sufficient polymer penetrating ability to be able to penetrate into the weathered surface and adhere. The test is to place a drop of the paint on filter paper and let it dry 24 hours. Upon turning it over the circle of penetration of the polymer can be noted on the underside and measured.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Record filter paper used, temperature and relative humidity, drying time, degree of penetration, etc.

3.2 Appearance:

The following methods and practices will be used as appropriate to describe appearance, both before and after any of the coating tests. Some, or all, of the methods and practices will be used as appropriate to describe appearance, both before and after any of the coating tests:

ASTM D523 Specular gloss (T)
ASTM D610 Degree of rusting (T)
ASTM D660 Degree of checking (P)
ASTM D661 Degree of cracking (T)
ASTM D662 Degree of erosion (T)
ASTM D714 Degree of blistering (T)
ASTM D772 Degree of flaking (scaling) (T)
ASTM D1654 Evaluation of specimens subject to corrosion (P)
ASTM D1848 Reporting film failures (C)
ASTM D4214 Degree of chalking (T) {Non-instrument Method}
ASTM E284 Standard terminology of appearance (A)
ASTM E313 Yellowness index (P)

COATING CATEGORY: 1-6

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Reference individual ASTM standards.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test will be performed in accordance with ASTM standards and evaluated using ASTM visual standards where available. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature and relative humidity, instrument used, calibrations standards, used, etc.

3.3 Household Chemical Resistance: ASTM D308-87 (Reapproved 1993) Effect of Household Chemicals on Clear and Pigmented Organic Finishes

COATING CATEGORY: 2 (interior), 4 (interior)

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The test surface is subjected directly to the effect of substance, such as citrus fruit, oils, greases, beverages, etc. Maintain surface contact of the common household cleaner, e.g., 409. to coating surface for 30 minutes at 75 F and 50% relative humidity. Wipe off surface clean with damp water wetted sponge and examine immediately for any objectionable alteration in the surface, such as discoloration, change in gloss, blistering, softening, swelling, loss of adhesion, or special phenomena.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., household cleaner used, temperature and relative humidity, duration, etc. Coating will be evaluated for Appearance (See Appearance 3.2).

3.4 Industrial Chemical Resistance Tnemec Test Method 59, August 1993, Chemical Resistance Screening Test

COATING CATEGORY: 1

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Modified test method based on Tnemec Test Method 59. Cured panels are contacted with the following reagents: 5% sulfuric acid, 5% household bleach, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) at ambient temperatures contained on their surface with inverted glass funnels. The panels are checked at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 day intervals and the degree of softening of the coating will be reported.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., industrial chemicals used, temperature, duration, softening or lifting of the coating, etc. The results shall be reported on a 0 to 4 scale established by Tnemec.

3.5 Corrosion Resistance: ASTM G85-94 Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing, Dilute Electrolyte Cyclic Fog Dry Test (Prohesion)

COATING CATEGORY: 1

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The test consists of cycles of 1 hour dry-off and 1 hour fog. The electrolyte is a solution of sodium chloride and ammonium sulfate, and is much more dilute than traditional salt fog. The fog is performed at room temperature, while the dry-off is at elevated temperature. The test will continue essentially uninterrupted for 2,000 hours.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in triplicate. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., pH of the salt solution, all readings of temperature, method of cleaning specimens before and after testing, exposure period, interruptions in exposure, cause, and length of time, etc. The extent of corrosion and paint deterioration will be rated against ASTM visual standards.

3.6 Dirt Resistance: ASTM D3719-95 Quantifying Dirt Collection on Coated Exterior Panels

COATING CATEGORY: 1, 2 (exterior), 4 (exterior)

FIELD TESTS OF SELECTED COATINGS:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: This is an instrumental procedure for quantifying dirt on a panel. Lightness readings using a color difference meter are made before and after exposure, and the difference is considered to be due to dirt collection. The size of the panel is not important, just sufficient to be able to make color difference measurements using an instrument that measures L* (ASTM D2244). The initial (clean) and exposed (dirty) panels are measured and an L* ratio *100 reported. Panels are exposed at a 45-degree angle to the horizontal at NTS-LAX for a 6 month duration.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in duplicate. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., calendar time, location, angle of exposure, exposure time, any noticeable color change which, for reasons other than dirt accumulation, i.e., fungal growth, may have occurred.

3.7 Dirt Removal Ability: ASTM D3450-94 Washability Properties of Interior Architectural Coatings

COATING CATEGORY: 2 (interior), 4 (exterior)

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The test material is applied to a black plastic panel and allowed to dry for 7 days. The reflectance of the film is measured (R1), and then a soilant consisting of carbon black dispersed in mineral oil is applied on the film. The panel is placed on a glass plate in a washability machine and the film is washed with either an abrasive or non abrasive scrub medium for 100 cycles. The panel is rinsed and dried and reflectance in the stained area is read (R2). The ratio of the reflectance, R2/R1 is a measure of the degree to which the soilant has been removed. This uses the BYK Gardner abrasion tester (washability tester model AG8100), with a weight loaded sponge moving back and forth (37 cycles per minute) for 100 cycles in 25 cycle increments of sponge scrubbing, using an agreed on cleaning medium. Washability is determined by the ratio of the reflectance of the soiled area, before applying the soil and after scrubbing, using an instrument per ASTM E1347. For high gloss and semi-gloss coatings, the non-abrasive medium will be used. For satin and eggshell coatings, the abrasive medium will be used.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in duplicate. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., calibration of reflectance meter, scrub cycles, abrasive or nonabrasive scrub medium, etc. We will choose commercially available coatings and use them to establish reference standards. These standards will be occasionally inserted in the testing process as reference points.

3.8 Environmental (Atmosphere) Resistance: ASTM D2247-94 Testing Water Resistance of Coatings in 100% Relative Humidity

COATING CATEGORY: 1, 2 (exterior), 4 (exterior)

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Coated specimens are placed in an enclosed chamber containing a heated, saturated mixture of air and water vapor. The proposed test will be for 14 days (336 hours) at 100 F. At 100% relative humidity, a very small temperature difference between the specimen and the surrounding vapor causes the formation of condensation on the specimens. Water permeates the coating at rates that are dependent upon the characteristics of the coating. We will use an alternate chamber that maintains the proper condensing environment. Metal coated panels will be used for industrial maintenance coatings and Wood panels will be used for architectural coatings and sealers.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in duplicate. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, etc. Any effects such as color change, blistering, loss of adhesion, softening, or embrittlement are observed and reported. We will make appearance observations after the test (including color and gloss). We will also make pencil hardness measurements (ASTM D3363) and perform the tape test for adhesion (ASTM D3359). After a 24-hour drying period, we will repeat the measurements to obtain some estimate of permanent and temporary effects of exposure.

3.9 Film Flexibility: ASTM D522 Mandrel Bend Test of Attached Organic Coatings, Method A, Conical Mandrel

COATING CATEGORY: 1, 2, 4

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The coating materials under test are applied at uniform thickness to panels of sheet metal. After drying or curing the coated panels are bent over a mandrel and the resistance to cracking of the coating is determined. Coatings attached to substrates are elongated when the substrates are bent during the manufacture of articles or when the articles are abused in service. This test method has been useful in rating attached coatings for their ability to resist cracking when elongated. We will use thin steel panels.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in duplicate. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., coating thickness, test conditions, etc. The thinner gauge panels allow for more repeatable results over the smaller mandrels for flexible coatings. The copper sulfate test in ASTM D2794 will be used when there is no clear cut cracking. The test will be at standard laboratory conditions.

3.10 Dry Film Thickness ASTM D1005-95 Measurement of Dry-Film Thickness of Organic Coatings using Micrometers:

COATING CATEGORY: 1-6

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: This is a dry film thickness, depending upon the substrate and the coating:
ASTM D1005 Measurement (T)
ASTM D1186 Measurement over ferrous substrate (T)
ASTM D1400 Nonconductive coatings over a non ferrous metal base (T)
ASTM D4138 Protective coatings by destructive methods (T)
ASTM D5235 Microscopic measurements on wood substrates (T)

Film thickness over metal substrates can be very quickly and accurately done. Over wood, the ASTM method is a destructive measurement (destroys the specimen) that takes a lot of man-hours to do. We plan to compare the ASTM D5235 method with the results of the dry film thickness data from spreading rate evaluations (see 2.10 above) and with Tooke paint inspection gage values. We will use the Tooke gage on the wood coated specimens and determine an equivalent D5235 thickness from the comparison data. The damaged area will be carefully recoated. This method is also applicable to coatings over masonry and concrete.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Two measurements, each the mean of four replicates, obtained by the same operator will be considered suspect if they differ by more than 0.7 mil at the 1 mil thickness level and by more than 1.2 mils at the 4 to 8 mil thickness level. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., coating thickness, test conditions, etc.

3.12 Hardness: ASTM D3363-92a Film Hardness by Pencil Test

COATING CATEGORY: 1-5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: A coated panel is placed on a firm horizontal surface. The pencil is held firmly against the film at a 45° angle (point away from the operator) and pushed away from the operator in a 1.4 inch stroke. The process is started with the hardest pencil and continued down the scale of hardness to either of two end points: one, the pencil that will not cut into or gouge the film (pencil hardness), or two, the pencil that will not scratch the film (scratch hardness).

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Testing will be performed in duplicate. A set of calibrated drawing leads or equivalent calibrated wood pencil will be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., coating thickness, test conditions, the make and grade of lead or pencil used, any deviation from standard conditions, including roughness in the finish, etc.

3.14 Hiding of Substrate Surface: ASTM D5007 Wet-to-dry hiding change

See 2.10 Above

3.15 Mildew and Fungus Resistance: ASTM D3273-94 Resistance to Growth of Mold on the Surface of Interior coatings in an Environmental Chamber

COATING CATEGORY: 2 (interior) and 4 (interior)

TESTS PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED LABORATORY:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Test coatings are placed in a small environmental chamber and the conditions of operation to evaluate reproducibly in a 4 week period the relative resistance of paint films to mildew growth in a severe interior environment. Among the different tests for mildew, the difference is in the use of Aspergillus oryzare or one of the penicillium strains. We will sterilize G1 specimens and dip seal them in one of the sealers. After drying we will coat the specimen with the designated coating system in accordance with the ASTM method for two coats. After drying we will seal the specimens in plastic bags and ship to the test facility for exposure.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by persons who have had basic microbiological training or an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature and relative humidity, culture used, control coatings, duration, etc. The panels will be rated for mold growth each week for 4 weeks on a 0 to 10 rating scale using photographic standards [Test Method D 3274 Evaluating Degree of Surface Disfigurement of Paint Films by Microbial (Fungal or Algal) Growth or Soil and Dirt Accumulation]

3.16 Penetration of Water through Coating: Toothill Pressure Block Test, ASTM D5401-93 Evaluating Clear Water Repellent Coatings on Wood

For cement or masonry sealers we will use the Toothill Pressure Block Test. For waterproof sealers and wood, ASTM D5401 will be used.

A. Penetration of Water through Masonry:

COATING CATEGORY: 6

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD:

Toothill Pressure Block Test as specified in Paint Testing Manual, 13th Edition, 1972. The substrate used will be a hollow concrete block, approximately 8" x 8" x 8". The cavity is closed with steel plates attached to the top and bottom and sealed with gaskets and a suitable patching cement to prevent leaks. Two coats of waterproofing sealer are applied to the four sides of the block. The cavity is kept filled with water for seven days, the seals are checked for leaks, and the WPS for any irregularities. If all things are satisfactory the assembly is completed and the plates are secured. A pressure of 4 psi is applied for ½ hour, and the assembly is left alone for 24 hours. The procedure is repeated, and the specimen is inspected for film irregularities, such as loss of adhesion or softening or water penetration.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: Testing will be performed in duplicate. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, pressure, application rate of WPS, amount of water collected, etc. An untreated block will be tested to demonstrate the penetration of water through the porous concrete and to serve as a standard.

B. Penetration of Water through Wood:

COATING CATEGORY: 6

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD (ASTM D5401-93): Five Ponderosa pine specimens are treated with the clear water repellent under test and allowed to dry for seven days. Five untreated specimens serve as controls. The treated and untreated specimens are each weighed and then allowed to float in water for 30 minutes. The specimens are removed, the excess water is wiped off, and each are reweighed. The effectiveness of the water repellent coating is then calculated.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, analytical balance used, etc. Untreated specimens will serve as controls.

3.18 Sanding Properties: FTMS Method 6321 Sanding Characteristics:

COATING CATEGORY: 3, 5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Wood panels will be coated with the undercoating to be evaluated according to manufacturer’s recommendations or instructions as to the sequence of coatings and thicknesses to be achieved. The sanding tests will be made using the Gardner type AG8100 scrubbing machine described above, following method 6321 instructions.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, dry film thickness, etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls.

3.19 Stain Transfer Blocking:

COATING CATEGORY: 3, 5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Essentially it will measure the ability of a wood primer/sealer/undercoater to block the bleeding through of the stain on a stained wood panel into the topcoat. Commercial oil type stains (dark red) will be used to stain the test panels. Color measurements of the coated panel (after an aging period) will be made, and compared to the coating on metal/new wood panels.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, dry film thickness, etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls.

3.20 Staining Resistance: ASTM D1546-96 Evaluation of Clear Wood Sealers

COATING CATEGORY: 3, 5

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: This determines the ability of sealers to resist being stained by an externally applied stain. Place several drops of blue black ink at a few locations on the surface of one of the completely sealed panels and allow to remain for 3 minutes. Absorb the ink with the blotting paper and wipe the spots lightly with a damp cloth. Examine the surface for indications of the presence of ink.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, dry film thickness, etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls.

3.21 Surface Contact Transfer Effects (Blocking): ASTM D4946 Blocking Resistance of Architectural Paints

COATING CATEGORY: 2, 4

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: This is a straightforward test using paper charts with the coatings to be tested. It is applicable to all types of coatings. Dried paint films are place face-to-face and a pressure of about 1.8 psi is applied. These paint films are put into an oven for 30 minutes to make the test more stringent. After cooling, the blocked panels are peeled apart. The degree of blocking is rated subjectively for tack or seal using a series of standard descriptive terms corresponding to numerical ASTM values of 10 to 0.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, dry film thickness, etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls.

3.23 Water Resistance: ASTM D870-92 Testing Water Resistance of Coatings Using Water Immersion

COATING CATEGORY: 1

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: The proposed test for industrial maintenance coatings will be for 1000 hours at 100 F. Immersion will be in stirred beakers. Water will be changed and beakers cleaned out weekly. Water permeates the coating at rates that are dependent upon the characteristics of the coating and upon the temperature of the water. We will make appearance observations after the test (including color and gloss). We will also make pencil hardness measurements (ASTM D3363) and perform the tape test for adhesion (ASTM D3359). After a 24-hour drying period, we will repeat the measurements to obtain some estimate of permanent and temporary effects of exposure.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., water temperature, duration, dry film thickness, etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls.

3.24 Wear, Mar and Abrasion Resistance: ASTM D2486-96 Scrub Resistance of Wall Paints, and ASTM D5178-91 Mar Resistance of Organic Coatings

A. ASTM D2486 Scrub Resistance of Wall Paints (Will be used on the architectural coatings)

COATING CATEGORY: 2 (interior), 4 (interior)

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: This test method covers a procedure for determining the resistance of wall paints to erosion caused by scrubbing. This test method covers determination of the relative resistance of different wall paints to erosion when repeatedly scrubbed to remove the stains during the life of the paint. The test paint is applied to a black plastic panel. After curing, the coated panel is placed over a ½ inch by 10 mil shim and held in place on a glass plate in a washability machine by means of a gasketed frame. It is then scrubbed with a nylon bristle brush and an abrasive scrub medium until failure occurs over the shim.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared in duplicate and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, dry film thickness, mean number of cycles to failure, any deviations from standard procedure, etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls. Will be compared to abrasion tests on Leneta scrub test calibration panels, form P121-A, P212-C and P-121-D. Periodically these calibration panels will be scrubbed and the number of cycles to break through entered into the test record. This will give some control over the variability of this test method

B. ASTM D5178 Mar Resistance of Organic Coatings

COATING CATEGORY: 1

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: Will be used on industrial coatings as the industrial coatings are too hard to show much abrasion with the scrubbing machine. Mar resistance is defined as the ability of a coating to resist damage caused by light abrasion. This test method covers the determination of the mar resistance on smooth, flat surfaces. Results are expressed in terms of force-to-mar films of organic coatings. The coatings under test are applied at uniform thickness to flat panels of uniform surface texture. After drying/curing, the mar resistance is determined by pushing the panels beneath a rounded stylus or loop that is loaded in increasing amounts until the coating is marred.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: All test specimens will be prepared and tested in duplicate by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., temperature, relative humidity, dry film thickness, load at the marring failure point (kg), panel material and surface preparation, any deviation from the specified procedure, etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls.

3.25 Weathering Resistance: ASTM D1006-93 Conducting Exterior Exposure Tests of Paints on Wood, ASTM D1014-95 Conducting Exterior Exposure Tests of Paints on Steel, and ASTM D4141-95 Conducting Accelerated Outdoor Exposure Tests of Coatings (Procedure C)

A. Outdoor Weathering Tests for house paints and trim paints on new previously unpainted wood ASTM D1006-93 Conducting Exterior Exposure Tests of Paints on Wood

COATING CATEGORY: 2 (exterior), 4 (exterior)

FIELD TESTS ON SELECTED COATINGS IN SCAQMD BASIN:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: ASTM D1006-93 Conducting Exterior Exposure Tests of Paints on Wood. All coatings will be applied in strict accordance with the coating manufacturer’s written recommendations. Measure and record the film thickness of each coat. Allow the proper drying time between coats for multiple paint systems and before exposure as required by the coatings manufacturer and include in the test record. Paint the back and edges of all test specimens with the same systems as that being tested on the front of each panel. This painting provides considerable information on the behavior of the paint system on the reverse side. Mount the specimens so they do not cast shadows on each other, or contact each other or any metallic material, or any material capable of acting as a wick. Mount the specimens so that the products of weathering and rain water drippings do not flow from on to another. Inspections will be made after 3 months, and at intervals of 3 months during the first years, and every 6 months thereafter

QUALITY ASSURANCE: Since natural environment varies with respect to season, geography, and topography, test results can vary in accordance with location and may not correlate to actual in-service performance. The climatic conditions of the test sites should be representative of those of the area in which the paints are to be used. For reliable results, exposure sites should be selected that are representative geographically, climatically, and in atmospheric contamination with those of the locality in which the paint will be used. The flat exposed surface will be drawdown coated, and the remaining surfaces, brush painted to reduce bare wood exposure problems. Where exposure area is limited, existing wood coated panels will be cut after being coated to the required size, and the unpainted surfaces sealed. Planned exposure will be in one of NTS’s locations in Southern California: Saugus, Fullerton, or Los Angeles Airport (LAX)

All test specimens will be prepared and tested in duplicate by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., duration, type of exposure, orientation of the samples, site location comments, dry film thickness, panel material and surface preparation, any deviation from the specified procedure, gloss and color measurements (see Appearance 3.2), etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls. Tests may continue beyond the contract with access granted to SCAQMD to inspect the panels on a regular basis.

B. Outdoor Weathering Tests of exterior paints when applied on steel surfaces exposed out-of-doors, ASTM D1014-95 Conducting Exterior Exposure Tests of Paints on Steel

COATING CATEGORY: 1

FIELD TESTS OF SELECTED COATINGS IN SCAQMD BASIN:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: ASTM D1014-95 Conducting Exterior Exposure Tests of Paints on Steel. All coatings will be applied in strict accordance with the coating manufacturer’s written recommendations. Measure and record the film thickness of each coat. Allow the proper drying time between coats for multiple paint systems and before exposure as required by the coatings manufacturer and include in the test record. Paint the back and edges of all test specimens with the same systems as that being tested on the front of each panel. This painting provides considerable information on the behavior of the paint system on the reverse side. Mount the specimens so they do not cast shadows on each other, or contact each other or any metallic material, or any material capable of acting as a wick. Mount the specimens so that the products of weathering and rain water drippings do not flow from on to another. Inspections will be made after 3 months, and at intervals of 3 months during the first years, and every 6 months thereafter.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: Experience indicates that the steel used as a test surface has a marked bearing upon the weathering results. It is the purpose of this test method to minimize the influence of variation in steel surfaces on any series of tests by providing for uniformity in the selection of the steel surface, particularly in cooperative work. The surface preparation for the test panels should be that expected to be done in the field or in-service. The surface preparation shall be the same for all test panels in the test program. Surface preparation must be essentially identical for all test panel, as the thoroughness of preparation may directly determine the performance life of the applied coating system. Steel panels are made from standard low-carbon, cold-rolled steel complying with ASTM A366, a109, and QQ-S-698 (Q-Panel Matte, dull Finish Steel Panels, Type R). Since the natural environment varies with respect to season and geographic location, test results may not correlate with in-service performance.

All test specimens will be prepared and tested in duplicate by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., duration, type of exposure, orientation of the samples, site location comments, dry film thickness, panel material and surface preparation, any deviation from the specified procedure, gloss and color measurements (see Appearance 3.2), etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls. Tests may continue beyond the contract with access granted to SCAQMD to inspect the panels on a regular basis.

C. Accelerated Outdoor Weathering Tests, ASTM D4141-95 Conducting Accelerated Outdoor Exposure Tests of Coatings (Procedure C)

COATING CATEGORY: 1, 2 exterior, 4(exterior)

FIELD TESTS OF SELECTED COATINGS AT Q-LAB ARIZONA:

CONTRACTED TESTS:

SUMMARY OF TEST METHOD: All coatings will be applied in strict accordance with the coating manufacturer’s written recommendations. Measure and record the film thickness of each coat. Allow the proper drying time between coats for multiple paint systems and before exposure as required by the coatings manufacturer and include in the test record. Paint the back and edges of all test specimens with the same systems as that being tested on the front of each panel. This painting provides considerable information on the behavior of the paint system on the reverse side. Mount the specimens so they do not cast shadows on each other, or contact each other or any metallic material, or any material capable of acting as a wick.

QUALITY ASSURANCE: We will contract with Q-Lab Arizona for use of the Q-Trac Natural Sunlight Concentrator. The Q-Trac is in conformance with ASTM G90, cycle 3 Night Time Wetting for an exposure time of 85 days which is the amount of UV light a test specimen would receive outdoors during one standard Florida year (280 Mj/m2). Provides acceleration of the degradation that coatings experience during natural weathering. Exposure on a Fresnel reflector panel rack that provides a high intensity of sunlight irradiation by following the sun and focusing the sunlight on the test panels by means of mirrors. The panels are wet periodically by deionized water spray. Because outdoor weather conditions vary from season to season and year to year, these procedures are not reliable for establishing absolute performance ratings for coatings. The procedure should be used only for comparing the relative performance of coatings exposed at the same time at the same location.

All test specimens will be prepared and tested by an operator properly skilled in the methods to be used. Records will be kept of all test conditions, i.e., duration, type of exposure, orientation of the samples, site location comments, dry film thickness, panel material and surface preparation, any deviation from the specified procedure, gloss and color measurements (see Appearance 3.2), etc. Standard coatings will serve as controls.

Note: For purpose of this contract and to ensure uniformity we will use steel panels made from standard low-carbon, cold-rolled steel complying with ASTM A366, a109, and QQ-S-698 (Q-Panel Matte, dull Finish Steel Panels, Type R)

/ / /


This page updated: July 30, 2010
URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/1999/990825a.html