|
by Ron Joseph
June, 2001
Placing the Onus of Compliance on the Paint Manufacturer
Q. In order to reduce HAP and VOC emissions, why not simply focus on reducing
the HAP and VOC contents in the paint, as opposed to making the paint
facility compliant through capital improvements?
A. Thanks for your e-mail. Your question has been asked a zillion times since
the first coating regulations were written in the late 1970s, and the EPA has
been challenged repeatedly on this topic. Your question is a good one and
since so many people are interested in knowing some of the logic behind EPAs
decision to regulate the end-user, I will give you a reasonably detailed
answer. Bear in mind that they might not cover all of the arguments.
- Original RACT regulations were written and enforced by the states, NOT
the EPA, in the early 1980s. True, the EPA provided the guidelines via their
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs), but since each state had its own unique
air pollution problems, the Congress (in the Clean Air Act of 1977) allowed
the states to write regulations that were specific to their own industries.
While California was struggling with a humongous ozone problem, Montana,
Wyoming, and other rural states had, and still do not have the type of
industries that warrant regulations.
- California decided to go well beyond EPAs RACT guidelines and wrote
regulations requiring lower VOC (and later HAP) limits.
- If the paint manufacturers were required to sell only "compliant"
coatings, which state reg would they follow? What if one city within a state
required low VOC/HAP while the rural regions of the same state had no
regulatory requirements? (Even in 2001 this situation applies to many
states.) Which coating would the paint manufacturer sell .. the high VOC/HAP
or low VOC/HAP coating?
- Most large paint manufacturers sell through distributors, and in some
cases this goes down at least one more level. Who would be responsible for
insuring that the "compliant" coatings were appropriately sold to customers?
If a distributor, such as a hardware store, sold a high VOC coating to a
company that really should have received a low VOC coating, who would be
responsible? What if the person purchasing the coating did not want to
purchase the more difficult-to-use low VOC coating? Would the paint
manufacturer, several levels above the hardware store in the distribution
chain, be required to pay the fine?
- If the paint manufacturers were held responsible for formulating only
"compliant" coatings, they would force many of their customers to make
process changes, even if the customers were not required by regulation to do
so.
I'm sure there are more arguments that can be made, but this gives you a
glimpse of the complexity of the topic.
Please also bear in mind that many companies have been able to incorporate
"compliant" coatings without incurring capital outlays.
I hope this helps.
|
