State of California

Summary of Board Meeting
March 23, 1995

Air Resources Board
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, California

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Hons. John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman
                                                 Eugene A. Boston, M.D.
                                                 Joseph C. Calhoun, P.E.
                                                 Lynne T. Edgerton, Esq.
                                                 M. Patricia Hilligoss
                                                 John S. Lagarias, P.E.
                                                 Jack C. Parnell
                                                 Barbara Riordan
                                                 Ron Roberts
                                                 James W. Silva
                                                 Doug Vagim



Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products, and Amendments to the Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products


Recent amendments to the Health and Safety Code and commitments in the Air Resources Board's (ARB) recently adopted State Implementation Plan (SIP) require that the ARB adopt a regulation to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from aerosol paints. As specified in section 41712(f), the ARB must adopt a statewide regulation that will achieve at least a 60 percent emission reduction from the use of aerosol paints by December 31, 1999, and include interim limits prior to 1999. Section 41712 also requires the ARB to conduct a public hearing on or before December 31, 1998, to determine the technological or commercial feasibility of achieving full compliance with the 1999 limits by December 31, 1999. If the standards are not found to be feasible at the hearing, they may be delayed for up to five years.

Over the last 2 years and with full public participation, the ARB staff developed a proposed aerosol paint regulation to meet the statutory requirements of Health and Safety Code section 41712 and the near term commitments in the "consumer product element" of the SIP. This was the first regulation proposed to the Board as part of the SIP.

The proposed aerosol paint regulation specifies two tiers of VOC standards for 35 different categories of aerosol paint. The first tier, effective January 1, 1996, satisfies the statutory requirement that the ARB specify interim standards prior to the 1999 standards. The second tier of standards, effective December 31, 1999, is designed to meet the minimum required 60% emission reduction level.

In accordance with section 41712, the regulation also contains a provision requiring that the Board evaluate the technological and commercial feasibility of the December 31, 1999 standards. This provision further provides that if the 1999 standards are not found to be feasible, they can be delayed for up to five years. It also requires the Board to specify the most stringent technologically and commercially feasible interim limits during any such extension of time.

Staff also proposed amendments to the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The ACP is a voluntary, market-based regulation that provides increased flexibility to consumer product manufacturers by allowing them to, in effect, "average" the emissions over a group of consumer products while achieving equivalent emission reductions to the VOC standards. The amendments to the ACP allow aerosol paint manufacturers to be included under the ACP, providing them with a second compliance option. The proposed amendments restrict "averaging" under the ACP to aerosol paint categories only, and not aerosol paints and other products subject to regulation. This restriction was included to alleviate small business concerns, since most small manufacturers of aerosol paint do not sell other types of consumer products.

Staff expect that the proposed aerosol paint regulation will result in a positive environmental impact due to the reduction in VOC emissions. The emission reductions are estimated to be 3 tons per day in 1996 and 18 tons per day in 1999, and are expected to satisfy the emission reduction commitments in the SIP. No adverse environmental impacts were expected due to the proposed regulation.

The proposed aerosol paint regulation is not expected to have an adverse impact on the profitability of most aerosol paint manufacturers. In addition, no significant impacts on business expansion, creation, or employment are predicted. The cost effectiveness of the regulation is estimated to range from $5,700-$6,400 per ton of VOC emissions reduced, and is within the range of other regulations adopted by the ARB and local air districts. The amendments allowing aerosol paints in the ACP will reduce costs to manufacturers since the program is voluntary, and manufacturers would be expected to utilized it only if it is beneficial to them.

At the hearing, support was expressed for the 1996 VOC standards, which were found to be generally feasible and appropriate. Support was also expressed for the regulatory process, which provided ample opportunity for concerns to be addressed by the staff.

Opposition was expressed by several manufacturers to the 1999 standards in the regulation. However, staff explained that the standards are required by law, and that the regulation contains safeguards to ensure that the standards will be feasible when they become effective.

Opposition to the provisions limiting the use of methylene chloride was also expressed. Staff explained that the provisions are necessary to prevent an increase in the use of methylene chloride, a toxic air contaminant previously identified by the Board. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such an increase in the use of a toxic air contaminant is considered a potential adverse environmental impact. Under CEQA, there is a requirement to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the regulations.

Opposition to the proposed amendments to the ACP was voiced primarily by one manufacturer. However, it was explained that the ACP is voluntary, and the benefits of the ACP in providing greater flexibility to the industry as a whole, were expected to outweigh any potential adverse impacts to individual companies. In addition, the staff committed to examining the impacts of the ACP and reporting back to the Board, if necessary.


Eve Blackburn                              Flecto Company

Ken Trautwein                              Flecto Company

Randal Freidman                           United States Navy, San Francisco

Roger Vanderlaan                         Krylon, Division of Sherwin-Williams Co.

Ed Majkrzak                                 Tru-Test Manufacturing Co./National Paint
                                                     and Coatings Association

Heidi McAuliffe                             National Paint and Coatings Association

Robert Graham                             Sherwin-Williams Company

Doug Raymond                             Sherwin-Williams Company


Approved Resolution 95-12 by a vote of 10-0.


STAFF REPORT:  Yes (450 pages)

95-3-2 Public Meeting to Consider an Information Report on the Air Resources Board's Compliance Outreach Programs


Compliance with environmental regulations and standards can be accomplished through a strong enforcement program and by providing active compliance assistance for industry. There are two key elements for effective compliance outreach: a compliance training program and compliance assistance publications. These two programs complement ARB's regulatory programs and make compliance as easy as possible.

A presentation was made to the Board explaining how the Compliance Assistance Program (CAP) assists both regulated businesses and enforcement agencies in better understanding air quality regulations. The CAP develops practical, rule-specific publications which clarify rule requirements, identify compliance issues, and promote self-regulation for greater compliance. By using CAP publications to improve maintenance and conduct routine self-inspections, emission sources can remain in daily compliance.

Staff explained how the Compliance Training Program ensures that all air pollution inspectors equitably enforce air pollution laws throughout the state and assists industry in understanding enforcement practices of agencies. In addition to air pollution inspector training, the Compliance Training Program offers cross-media training dealing with related air, water, waste toxics, and pesticide pollution issues, and air pollution prevention training aimed at reducing pollution through source education. ARB's Compliance Training Program is recognized as standard training for inspectors throughout the United States.





95-3-5 Consideration of Research Proposals

Resolution Nos. 95-13, 95-14, 95-15, 95-16, 95-17, and 95-18 were approved unanimously.