First Name | James |
---|---|
Last Name | Sell |
Email Address | jsell@paint.org |
Affiliation | NPCA/SCCT |
Subject | Auot Refinish Issues and Sought Clarifications in Proposed Multipurpose Solvent Rule |
Comment | September 11, 2009 Dave, Thanks for the clarification of my understanding of the proposed rule. “1. I would agree with the first paragraph if it were changed to read: To follow up on our recent telephone call, if I understood you correctly, it is CARB’s position that solvents and reducers that are specifically designed to be used with in a marine/pleasure craft coating or for an automotive refinish coating are not included in the proposed regulation of multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners.” If at all possible, we would like to have this formally stated by perhaps a statement in the rule preamble of the rule, an interpretation from enforcement, or letter. In discussing this further with the refinish coating manufacturers- a couple of questions continue to linger. First there remains a great concern about what appears to be CARB's view of treating the refinishing of vehicles as if it is not an “industrial process”. As I have said before, there is very little difference in the way a car is refinished and originally painted in that paint is being applied in both operations under controlled circumstances. The need for solvents to clean application equipment and to prepare surfaces to be painted is the same. The coatings themselves are also very similar. An additional factor to consider is that refinishing of vehicles has been on object of regulation by the districts for nearly two decades and they have always treated it as a stationary source like they treat the OEM automotive operations. The cleaning solvent usage is also housed in industrial operations regulations such as Rule 1171 in the SCAQMD. Also noteworthy is that in multipurpose solvent surveys conducted by CARB, refinish coatings manufacturers were instructed to isolate from the survey those cleaning and surface preparation solvents that were being sold to body shops from that those that were being made available to the general public. Further, CARB has also indicated that because it takes place in stationary sources setting refinish operations should not be subject to the regulation. “TBAc would remain exempt for industrial uses (auto-refinish coatings (Statewide) and industrial maintenance coatings (AQMD area only)) where is has already been delisted. The consumer product regulations do not impose any restrictions on pollution-generating activities that take place at stationary sources.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regact/cpwg2008/table2.pdf So we respectfully request that CARB state in the preamble to the rule as clearly as it did in the above document that refinish operations are not subject to the regulation because auto refinish is an “industrial use” of the solvents and moreover the refinish operations occur at a stationary source and “consumer product regulations do not impose any restrictions on pollution-generating activities that take place at stationary sources.” Further, CARB in developing and issuing a Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Automotive Refinish Operations explicitly treated the operations as a stationary source operation and suggested a VOC limit of 25 g/l for cleaning solvents and surface preparation at such stationary source operations. If refinish operations were subject to CARB's independent consumers products authority then there would have been no need to issue the SCM for consideration and adoption by the individual air districts- it could have directly regulated the operations. Consequently, if one were to take the position that cleaning solvents and surface preparation solvents used in a refinish shop are not industrial products the question would be which regulatory regime controls in say SCAQMD: Rule 1171 for industrial solvent cleaning? Rule 1143 for consumer products solvents? And/or only aspects of CARB’s proposed rule and if so which ones? In addition to the issues stated above, there is the practical concern for the industry’s efforts to keep such materials in the hands of only professional users for industrial applications. Treating them as essentially “consumer products” in a regulatory program undermines these industry efforts. Finally, we need clarity on the impact of the proposed rule in air districts where the national VOC refinish rule prevails. The solvent borne systems used there also use comparatively higher solvent cleaning and surface preparation materials. We believe that the issues discussed above support the rational that refinish operations should be treated as an industrial process as a whole, while not trying to isolate and identify individual activities within the process as other than industrial. Like other industrial processes, required cleaning and surface preparation materials in refinish shops are not generic, but are designed for use at such operations. I will be glad to discuss this with you further. Sincerely, Jim Sell Senior Counsel NPCA/FSCT . |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2009-09-14 11:05:11 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.