State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Summary of Board Meeting
June 22, 2000
Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Hons.||Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D., Chairman|
|Dr. William A. Burke|
|Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.|
|C. Hugh Friedman|
|Matthew R. McKinnon|
|00-6-1||Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and Proposed Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values, and
Adoption of Proposed Amendments to Method 310, "Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products"
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
Staff proposed amendments to the California aerosol coatings regulation, which would replace mass-based limits with reactivity-based limits and would add a new specialty coating category. Staff also proposed amendments that would prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in aerosol coatings. Finally, staff proposed Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values to be included in a new subchapter in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), changes to ARB Test Method 310 to implement and enforce reactivity limits, and numerous other clarifying changes.
A reactivity-based control approach achieves efficient ozone reductions by limiting the ozone formed from aerosol coating products, rather than limiting the total volatile organic compound (VOC) content. The adopted regulation would achieve 9.6 tons per day ozone reductions equivalent to the VOC mass-based reductions of 3.1 tons per day committed to in 1998. To allow adequate time to comply with the reactivity-based limits, staff proposed to extend the effective date for the general coating categories for five months, until June 1, 2002; and the effective date for the specialty coating categories until January 1, 2003. Staff also proposed amendments to ARB Test Method 310 to allow it to be used to verify formulation data to determine compliance with the reactivity limits. In addition, staff proposed to place the Tables of MIR Values in a new Subchapter 8.6 to title 17 of the CCR.
At the hearing, staff proposed to adjust the limits for four categories and added a limit for one new category, polyolefin adhesion promoters. These changes were necessary to ensure the technological feasibility of the limits. Staff also rounded off the limits for ease of use. Staff proposed: 1) to prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in aerosol coatings; 2) a 0.1 percent cut point for reporting formulation data for compliance purposes; 3) to reorganize and reformat the Table of MIR Values for Compounds (in section 94700, title 17, CCR) by organizing the list of compounds by chemical family or class, instead of alphabetically, and adding to the list several additional compounds, along with their corresponding MIR values; 4) language for default MIR values for uncharacterized aromatic hydrocarbon solvents, and proposed clarification to the aromatic hydrocarbon solvents to indicate greater than or equal to 98 percent aromatic content; and 5) to lock in the MIR values for aerosol coating manufacturers until June 1, 2007, to provide them with stability of MIRs. In addition, staff proposed language that allows new compounds and their MIRs to be used after they are added to the Tables of MIR Values.
Three individuals (two representatives from Sherwin-Williams and one from 3M) expressed support of the proposed limits, along with changes proposed by staff at the hearing. One individual (representative from the National Paint and Coatings Association) expressed general support, but opposed the proposed prohibition on methylene chloride use in aerosol coatings. The Board approved prohibiting the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in aerosol coatings and adopted the changes to staff's original proposal. The Board discussed issues raised in letters received from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) that indicated reservations about using reactivity as a control approach. The Board decided that the concerns raised did not merit changes in the rule, but directed staff to meet with the U.S. EPA, NRDC, and CCA to address their concerns on the reactivity-based limits for aerosol coatings and provide a summary of those meetings to the Board within 90 days.
FORMAL BOARD ACTION:
Approved Resolution 00-22 by a unanimous vote.
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: SSD
STAFF REPORT: Yes (133 pages)
|00-6-2||Public Meeting to Present Information to the Board on Federal Regional Haze Requirements
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
Staff provided a summary and update on federal and regional efforts to address visibility impairment in the Western states. These efforts are underway in response to a Clean Air Act directive to prevent future, and remedy existing, impairment of visibility in the nation's parks and wilderness areas from man-made pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated a Regional Haze regulation in July of last year, requiring states to put into place a long range strategy to meet these goals.
California is working with other Western states to address the relative impacts from our sources on visibility in national scenic areas in the Colorado Plateau. These areas include the Grand Canyon, Zion, Canyonlands, and Bryce Canyon National Parks. Staff concluded that large stationary sources in California, potentially subject to provisions for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), already meet or exceed those requirements.
The Air Resources Board (ARB) will submit a State Implementation Plan that addresses these areas in 2003, based on existing air quality programs. The ARB will also address parks and wilderness areas within California beginning in 2006, in conjunction with related work to reduce particulate matter levels.
ORAL TESTIMONY: None
FORMAL BOARD ACTION: None
RESPONSIBLE DIVISION: PTSD
STAFF REPORT: No
|00-6-3||Public Meeting to Consider Approval of a Suggested Control Measure for Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds
from the Application of Architectural Coatings|
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ITEM:
Staff proposed to update the Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings to assist the local air districts in adopting architectural coatings rules. The current SCM reflects advances in technology that have occurred since the last SCM was approved in 1989. The SCM specifies volatile organic compound (VOC) limits for 47 coatings categories. The VOC limits for eleven of the 47 categories are lower than the predominant limits in current district rules. The VOC limits are generally similar to the interim VOC limits in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (South Coast AQMD) Rule 1113, and more stringent than those in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's national architectural coatings rule.
Along with the SCM, ARB staff prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), for consideration by the Board. The final Program EIR certified by the the Board will assist the districts in the adoption of the SCM. Districts may rely on the Program EIR by incorporating it by reference in whatever California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents a district chooses to prepare for its own architectural coatings rule.
At the meeting, staff proposed the addition of an averaging compliance option that will provide additional flexibility to the regulated industry. The averaging provision would allow manufacturers to average emissions of noncomplying products with emissions of overcomplying products. The averaging provision has a sunset date of January 1, 2005. Additional proposed changes to the SCM were: minor modifications to definitions; the exemption of specialty primers, sealers, and undercoaters from the most restrictive VOC limit; allowing the use of drying retarders to prevent blushing of lacquers applied in cold weather; and clarifying that higher VOC industrial maintenance coatings sold under a petition process are not to be sold to the general public.
Eleven witnesses testified regarding the proposal. Five witnesses supported the proposal, while six witnesses expressed concerns regarding specific provisions of the proposed SCM. Three witnesses requested a delay of up to six months in the approval of the SCM. One witness testified about impacts of the SCM on small businesses.
The Board approved staff's proposal with the modifications as described and certified the Final Program EIR. The Board requested that staff report back to the Board within twelve months regarding: the feasibility of modifying the calculation of reportable VOC content; the availability of exempt solvents such as t-butyl acetate and Oxsol 100; and the feasibility of a small volume exemption to lessen the impacts on small business. The Board also directed staff to provide the Board an update on the development