Comment Log Display

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



 
.