OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\0000064X\tiff\2000MNU8.tif): Unspecified error
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available
through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park NC 27711, or from
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield VA 22161.
11
-------
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction i"1
2.0 Symposium Speakers 2-1
Dav One. November 14. 1989
2.1 John O'Connor, Deputy Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Opening Remarks 2-1
2.2 John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Overview of VOC Regulatory Programs and the Nonattainment
Problem 2-1
2.3 Bill Harnett
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Status of the Clean Air Act Amendments 2-7
2.4 Brock Nicholson
Chief, Policy Development Section
Air Quality Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Possible EPA Control Strategies for Consumer Products 2-12
2.5 Ralph Engel, President
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
Industry's View of Regulating Consumer Products 2-14
iii
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
2.6 John Chamber!in
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Use of Market-based Approaches to Reduce VOC Emissions
from the Use of Consumer Products 2-23
Dav Two. November 15. 1989
2.7 James Weigold, Deputy Director
Emissions Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Opening Remarks 2-31
2.8 Dean Simeroth
Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch
California Air Resources Board
California Regulatory Activities 2-32
2.9 Ted Wernick
Gillette Medical Evaluation Laboratory
Reformulation and Safety Testing - Their Timing and
Costs 2-38
2.10 Ted Davis
Acting Assistant Director, Division of Air Resources
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
New York Regulatory Activities 2-46
2.11 Edward Heiden, President
Heiden Associates, Inc
The Socioeconomics of Regulating Consumer Products 2-51
2.12 Sandra Chen
Supervisor, Bureau of Engineering and Regulatory
Development
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Regulatory Activities 2-59
iv
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
2.13 Michael Kosusko
Organics Control Branch
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Research Toward Reduction of VOC Emissions from
Consumer Products 2-65
3.0 Work Group Summaries 3-1
3.1 Personal Care Products 3-1
3.2 Household Care Products 3-4
3.3 Automotive Products 3-8
3.4 Household Pesticides 3-11
3.5 Adhesives and Sealants 3-15
3.6 Aerosol Paints 3-20
4.0 Agenda and Attendees 4-1
4.1 Agenda 4-2
4.2 Product Category Work Groups 4-4
4.3 List of Attendees 4-6
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The failure of at least 66 metropolitan areas in the United States to
attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone by
December 31, 1987, is one of the major environmental issues currently faced by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over 100 major metropolitan areas,
representing one third of the U.S. population, are exposed to excessive levels
of ozone. In addition, the EPA announced in July 1989 that 37 additional
areas are now violating the ozone NAAQS as a result of high 1988 measured
ozone concentrations. Consequently, the EPA is developing regulatory
strategies to control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and to
further reduce ozone levels in the ambient air.
The EPA's strategy for controlling ozone focuses primarily on control of
VOC's that react in the presence of sunlight and other pollutants to form
ozone. During the last dozen or so years, the EPA has developed regulations
for major industries that release VOC's to the atmosphere. The EPA has also
implemented regulations for automobiles, whose exhausts are a major source of
VOC emissions. Most of the remaining sources of VOC emissions are small or
dispersed and have been categorized as area sources. Area sources of VOC
emissions include, but are not limited to, solvent cleaners, commercial dry
cleaners, sites where architectural surface coatings are being applied, and
commercial and consumer applications of a wide range of products containing
solvents. Estimates of VOC emissions from area sources indicate that they
comprise a major emissions source. Thus, the EPA has targeted area sources
for regulation.
One measure being investigated by the EPA to address the ozone
nonattainment problem is the development of control techniques and regulations
to reduce VOC emissions from the use of a variety of consumer products. In
order to determine the nature of consumer products as a source of VOC
emissions and to examine the possible emission controls applicable to consumer
products, the EPA is undertaking an examination of the formulation, use, and
emissions potential of these products.
1-1
-------
On November 14 and 15, 1989, the EPA held a Symposium on "Regulatory
Approaches for Reducing VOC Emissions from the Use of Consumer Products." The
objectives for the symposium were the following:
1. Communicate to the consumer products industry that the EPA is
considering approaches for regulating VOC emissions from the use of
consumer products.
2. Initiate a dialogue among the EPA, the States, and the consumer
products industry.
3. Provide a forum for discussing the views of the industry, the
States, and the EPA regarding the implementation of alternative
control measures and regulatory approaches to reduce VOC emissions
from the use of consumer products.
4. Develop agreements for continued industry and State participation in
the EPA's investigations of approaches for reducing VOC emissions
from the use of consumer products.
Approximately 100 different companies and trade associations involved in
the consumer products industry were contacted and invited to participate in
the symposium. State regulatory agencies currently involved in the regulation
of consumer product VOC emissions were also invited. A list of participants
and their affiliation is found in Section 4.0.
The symposium consisted of a combination of industry and government
presentations, and work group sessions. There was one work group for each of
six product categories: household care products, personal care products,
automotive products, household pesticides, adhesives and sealants, and aerosol
paints. Each work group was composed of one industry and one government co-
chair, and approximately 10 representatives from industry and government.
Work group members were generally individuals with expertise or knowledge
pertinent to regulation of their specific product category. Each work group
also accommodated an audience of approximately 25 interested observers, with
1-2
-------
limited participation of the observers at the discretion of the individual
work groups. The groups addressed regulatory issues and questions as they
pertain to their respective segments of the consumer products industry.
These proceedings include the industry and government presentations made
during plenary sessions (Section 2.0) and summaries of each work group's
discussion and recommendations (Section 3.0). The plenary session
presentations have been transcribed from tape recordings; the work group
sessions have been summarized by the work group recorders and circulated to
work group participants for comment.
1-3
-------
2.0 SYMPOSIUM SPEAKERS
DAY ONE, NOVEMBER 14, 1989
2.1 JOHN O'CONNOR, Deputy Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Opening Remarks
The Symposium on Regulatory Approaches for Reducing VOC Emissions from
the Use of Consumer Products is a unique opportunity for initiating a dialogue
between the EPA, State agencies, and the consumer products industry. This
symposium is particularly important as the EPA begins to evaluate possible
regulatory approaches for reducing emissions of VOC. The timing of this
meeting is also very opportune. Right now, the EPA is in the midst of Clean
Air Act debates; this issue will be discussed later in the morning. In the
United States, there is a very widespread nonattainment problem with respect
to the Ozone Standard that is going to require that some unusual measures be
taken. The EPA's goal for the last ten years has been to reduce VOC
emissions, and essentially all effort has focused on the regulation of large
major stationary sources and automobiles. The remaining source categories to
be examined are small, widely dispersed sources. That is the reason for
sponsoring this symposium today. The EPA must begin to address consumer
products as an area source for VOC emissions. [Mr. O'Connor went on to
discuss the Research Triangle Park area and describe the functions of the
various EPA offices in this area.]
2.2 JOHN CALCAGNI, Director
Air Quality Management Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Overview of VOC Regulatory Programs and the Nonattainment Problem
The idea for this symposium predates the EPA's work on the Clean Air Act.
Last year the EPA became aware of a number of concerns, concerns of our own,
2-1
-------
concerns of the States, and concerns of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturing
Association. In general, there was a fear that the EPA was vulcanizing the
rule-making process for consumer and commercial solvents, that individual
States were taking individual approaches and developing rules; there appeared
to be a need for national involvement in a development of a regulatory
structure in this area. As an agency, the EPA does not have a lot of
experience or background in the regulation of this industry, and it was
generally felt that, before moving into any kind of active program, the Agency
would need a lot more information. This symposium is the start of the
information gathering process. The EPA has conducted some research for
development of an information base, but sponsoring this symposium is a novel
way for the EPA to begin the process of developing a regulatory structure.
The consumer products industry is a very diverse industry, one that probably
does not think of itself in the same way that EPA thinks of industries. Many
present at this workshop have not dealt with one another and are not
accustomed to being grouped together. The EPA hopes to informally gather
information and begin dialogue. It is also hoped that industry will gain an
understanding of the regulatory approaches the EPA is considering, and get a
look at the proposed Clean Air Act amendments. In addition, this symposium
will include a discussion of the efforts of individual States that are moving
in this area, and give some background as to why the EPA thinks this is an
area which requires regulation.
The EPA hopes that industries will cooperate in the search for better
regulatory solutions. Regulatory solutions have typically been "we are from
Washington and we are here to help." We realize that none of you look forward
to regulation, but if we work together in this kind of forum, we can come up
with the best possible solution in terms of how to regulate in an efficient
and effective manner that achieves our objectives and maintains your goals,
without hamstringing you unnecessarily in areas where we have no need to
impact you. EPA hopes to develop some agreements to continue after this
meeting to present and share ideas, develop new concepts, and develop further
the concepts that are nurtured here at these sessions.
For the purposes of this symposium, we would like to have a few
assumptions for the dialogue that will go on today. We do not mean to
preclude your ability to raise these issues at other forums. But in order to
2-2
-------
make our time more useful, there are certain assumptions we would like to work
within. The first assumption is that we are talking of a Federal regulatory
structure and the best way to go about it. Debates on whether or not there
ought to be Federal regulation in this area will probably not be very useful
today. You will have your opportunity to discuss that issue at length before
the EPA reaches a rulemaking stage. The other area where the EPA would like
to limit discussion concerns reactivity and product substitution. Development
of strategies related to reactivity will detract from what the EPA is trying
to accomplish at this symposium. We want to begin with the assumption that we
are looking at the reduction of the VOC's to be used in products, and pursue
the alternatives along those lines. Once again, the EPA does not want to
preclude your ability to raise these issues in other forums, and your
involvement here does not mean that you accept those concepts. For the
purposes of moving forward, however, and developing a regulatory structure
over the next two days, we would like to use those assumptions in the work
group discussions.
With regard to the format, EPA has contacted a number of industry
representatives and we particularly want to thank Ralph Engel for serving as
liaison. Each morning session will consist of presentations from Federal and
State government officials. Afternoon sessions will be broken into six work
groups. The work groups will be: personal care products, automotive
products, adhesives and sealants, household care products, household
pesticides, and spray paints. Each group will be co-chaired by one government
and one industry representative, and approximately ten people have been
assigned to each group based on their specific expertise and knowledge. In
addition, other interested observers and participants can attend the work
group sessions. The primary function of the work groups is to address
regulatory issues and questions that may pertain to the specific segments of
the consumer product industry. There is an appendix to the background paper
that was sent to you, and it has nine questions on it. These questions should
be used as a focus for discussion. At the end of the second day, each work
group will report a summary of the findings of the entire group.
In conclusion, the EPA would like to personally thank all of you for your
interest, not just in attending this symposium, but also your interest in
working with us in developing a regulatory structure for consumer solvents and
2-3
-------
consumer products as we proceed in the future.
Overview of VOC Regulatory Programs and Non-Attainment Problems
Ozone is not directly emitted by consumer products. The precursors to
ozone formation, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, are released in urban areas
at the approximate ratio of 5:1 hydrocarbons to nitrogen oxides. Major
sources of VOC are industrial, automotive, some natural sources, and consumer
solvent products. With regard to oxides of nitrogen, power plants and
automobiles are responsible for about 90% of the emissions. Oxides of
nitrogen are emitted as NO, and react with hydrocarbons. NO converts to N02
fairly quickly, with a half-life of about one-half hour. The key compound in
the reaction is N02. N02 generally reacts with hydrocarbons consistently over
a three-hour period, peaking in the middle afternoon. Other factors that
affect the peak of ozone concentrations are heat and sunlight. The higher the
sunlight, the higher the heat, and the higher the concentrations of oxides of
nitrogen, thus the higher the afternoon ozone peaks. The peak tends to rise
in early afternoon and drop off late in the afternoon as the plume is
transported out of the area. Those who live in the northeast corridor will
recognize that residual ozone from one day can participate in a second day
reaction and a third day reaction as the air mass moves up the East Coast.
Thus, emissions of hydrocarbons in Virginia could impact ozone levels in two
or three days as far north as New York City and Boston. The EPA has measured
plumes of ozone more than 200 miles over the ocean. We have measured
exceedances in Acadia National Park that are attributable to plumes from
Boston and New York City. So as you see, these plumes can move quite a
distance and cover a large geographic area.
On the west coast, the ambient ozone standard of 0.12 ppm is exceeded on
the average about 100 days every year. The Northeast corridor has between 25
and 35 days that exceed the ambient standard, with the rest of the country
(with the exception of Houston) exceeding the standard for 5 to 10 days per
year. This should give some relative sense of the degree of seriousness of
the problem. With regard to the magnitude of these peaks; a plot with a
summation of 274 sites is an approximation of the EPA's design value.
[Mr. Calcagni then showed slides depicting historical ozone trends in the
2-4
-------
United States and non-attainment areas.] The ambient standard of 0.12 ppm is
not to be exceeded more than once per year on a three-year average. The key
message here is that even as a national average, we are not achieving the
standard. Over half the monitors in the country are showing violations, and
many of them are showing violations that are 2-1/2 times the standard.
To give another sense of where the violations are occurring, the EPA has
prepared a map that shows the non-attainment areas. In general, populated
areas probably have an ozone exceedance. The areas that are not showing
exceedances at this point in time are marginal. Kansas City is marginal, but
the Gulf Coast area, Houston, southern California, the Northeast corridor from
Washington up to Maine, and the Lakes area around Chicago probably have ozone
violations. With regard to the sources of VOC, this is a relatively
ubiquitous pollutant. If a production process involves a petrochemical, VOC
will be emitted. Approximately 35% of VOC emissions are from mobile sources.
These motor vehicle losses are from the evaporation of hydrocarbons from the
carburetor and the gas tank, as well as exhaust emissions. Presently, about
two-thirds of the automotive emissions are from evaporative losses of
gasoline. About 9.6% of VOC is emitted from the industrial category. This is
the major 100 ton source.
Area sources account for 29.5% of the inventory, including solvents from
numerous products, degreasers, dry cleaners, consumer/commercial products,
industrial maintenance solvents, and paints that are used in coatings. Other
area sources include gasoline facilities and service stations. To give more
information on the consumer products sources, the consumer sector of the area
sources encompasses 7% of the total. Though 7% sounds like a small number,
the Agency is faced with controlling industrial source categories that might
include 1 or 2% in aggregate contribution. The Clean Air Act established
automotive tail pipe emission standards and ambient air quality standards for
the criteria pollutants.
The EPA has conducted a lot work on the health effects following ozone
exposure. At ambient ozone levels, adverse effects can be measured in healthy
people. Unlike most regulated pollutants, the ambient Ozone Standard does not
have a safety factor of 10 built into it. At ambient levels normal, healthy
people can show effects. Tests in California indicate that some of these
effects, particularly those in children, are likely to be irreversible.
2-5
-------
Research conducted from 1978 to 1985 has shown that ozone is a very potent
chemical which can have a very adverse affect on the lungs. Existing
regulatory pressures indicate tightening of the standard, not relaxing of it.
The Clean Air Act is structured such that the EPA is required to
establish an ambient air quality standard for ozone, and individual States are
required to develop and adopt attainment plans, called state implementation
plans or "SIP's". In general, States have primacy in the adoption of
regulation. The Clean Air Act originally established attainment dates from
1975 to 1977. These dates were revised in 1977 to 1982 and 1987, primarily
1987. The 1987 deadline has now passed, and the Clean Air Act is being
revised once again. In the next presentation, Bill Harnett will talk about
the proposed Clean Air Act revisions and some of the implications, but
generally, we are looking at a maximum of 20 years, generally on the order of
10 years for most parts of the country, to attain the Ozone Standard. In the
1977 Amendments, the Clean Air Act established some minimum requirements for
extension, including transportation measures and an inspection maintenance
program. The intent of Congress was to take a number of measures that they
know to be effective and insist that they be done, but give States time to
achieve attainment. This attitude should prevail in the amendments of 1989-
90.
In terms of mobile sources, the average of emissions from all cars has
come down quite significantly for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Prior to
1981, there was a major difference between the standards and what the average
new car would achieve. Since 1981, newly manufactured vehicles have been very
clean. The average of all cars, however, is still higher because the typical
vehicle on the road is 10 years old. By the year 1991, however, most of the
fleet will have turned over. A six-year fleet average is typical, and it
takes 10 to 15 years to get the old cars off the road. By 1991, the major
benefits of the motor vehicle program will largely have been accomplished.
The EPA expects a major upturn in the total VOC emissions unless
additional controls are placed on stationary sources. The motor vehicle
inspection program is an example of a regulatory program that has directly
affected the public in a way that is very visible to them. The EPA has also
published a number of Control Techniques Guidelines. These serve as templates
for the States to use in adopting regulations for certain industrial
2-6
-------
categories. The States can adopt different regulations, but generally the EPA
tries to ascertain whether a given State has a unique situation before it is
allowed to vary from the EPA's Control Techniques Guideline.
While the EPA has seen some major reductions in the motor vehicle program
and in the industrial source category, there are other potential reductions
that have yet to be achieved. The consumer solvent area is one area where
significant attention is expected in the next three to five years, and that is
the reason for this symposium. VOC emission controls will be applied more
effectively to existing sources, to a wider variety of sources, and to the
smaller sources categories. And as we look forward to the future, VOC control
will become increasingly more stringent as we move into our regulatory
programs. With regard to consumer solvent programs, it must be kept in mind
that a number of States have already moved to control this area source.
New York, New Jersey, Texas, and California have all addressed regulations in
these areas because of litigation and commitments in their State plans to show
attainment. The current Clean Air Act Amendments specifically mention
consumer solvents as an area for the EPA to study and to regulate. In some of
the later bills, the EPA is directed to move directly to regulation with
relatively tight dates. A report is to be completed in two years, and in many
cases regulations are to be addressed in three years. In conclusion, there is
significant pressure to regulate in this area, and even if the Clean Air Act
Amendments do not pass, the litigation structure is such that we may see 50
states moving independently to adopt some rules on sources in these
categories.
2.3 BILL HARNETT
Emissions Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Status of the Clean Air Act Amendments
The EPA's analyses are starting to show that the VOC inventory from
mobile sources and large stationary sources is going to account for less of
the total VOC inventory in the future, while the VOC contribution from small
sources and consumer products will increase over time. The EPA studies and
the Office of Technology Assessment studies both show this trend. The picture
2-7
-------
that is emerging, and it is emerging in the bills that are coming forth, is
while there is still more pressure to keep tail pipe emissions down, at some
point the EPA will have to look at sources not previously addressed. The
problem that exists, however, is that not a lot is known about the
significance of consumer products in the emissions inventory, or what can be
done to reduce emissions.
On the Federal level, there are two bills proposed right now; one in the
House and one in the Senate. They have slightly different provisions related
to consumer solvents. The House started with the President's Bill (H.R. 3030)
that requires a two-year study on consumer products and VOC emissions. At the
end of the study the EPA is to develop regulations as appropriate. The bill
has since been marked up in a Subcommittee and passed on to the Commerce and
Energy Committee. At the present time, Committee Chairman John Oingell does
not want to bring it in to the full Committee for mark up until after the
first of the year. In the Senate, they moved in their own direction with
Bill No. 1630 that deals only with the nonattainment problems and with motor
vehicles. Their provision is also for a two-year study, followed by
regulations within one and two years with an overall mandate to reduce
consumer solvents or reduce national emissions from consumer solvents down to
3% reduction of the current inventory. Senate Bill 1630 has been marked up in
the Subcommittee. In July, when the President's proposal came out, the House
moved quickly to push the President's bill through Committee mark-up. The
Senate was waiting to develop its own bill. The EPA had hoped that the Senate
would also use the Administration vehicle. It is easier for the two parties
to come together if they accept the same base. The Senate did not accept the
base, so now there are a lot of differences to be worked out. It is George
Mitchell's hope that the Senate bill will come to a vote before they break for
Thanksgiving. Mitchell definitely wants to address it before they break for
the year. There has been pressure on John Dingell to do the same, to get the
bill out to the floor and get a vote on it this year and attempt to work out
their differences. One of the reasons that the President hoped to sign a bill
in January 1990 was to welcome in the decade of Clean Air. Now they want to
sign it on April 20, 1990, the twentieth anniversary of the first Earth Day.
It is not clear when the two parties will get into Conference Committee; the
original estimates were six months to a year. The EPA is hopeful that,
2-8
-------
because of an election year, they will be able to get it out early. This
Administration clearly wants the bill. There are no issues included that will
clearly prevent its being signed. It seems possible to still work something
out and soon, but a lot depends on how Congress moves. In the past, the
biggest holdup has been that John Dingell of Michigan is the Chair of the Full
Committee and Henry Waxman from California is the Chair of the Subcommittee;
getting any kind of agreement on motor vehicle tail pipes was impossible.
Consumer products are of interest because the percent of the inventories
is growing in the nonattainment areas, and the concern is that too little is
known about what can and cannot be done to reduce those emissions. For this
reason both proposed bills mandate that the EPA first initiate a study and
establish a dialogue with industry. The purpose of this symposium is to start
gathering information. It is clear in the Senate bill that regulations will
be mandated, that something will be regulated, and some reductions will be
achieved. The EPA has no preconceived notion of what percentage of reduction
we are going to get out of the consumer products inventory. In any case, the
EPA will have a mandate to look at the consumer products VOC emissions and to
develop regulations. Industry is encouraged to regularly coordinate with the
EPA and to find out the status of development. The EPA will be very
forthcoming with the materials we prepare, and as we proceed through the
system, there will be formal stages for various reviews.
Question: What exactly is the 3% that is talked about in the Senate Bill and
how does it relate to consumer products?
Bill Harnett: What it amounts to is an inventory of 10,000,000 to 12,000,000
tons of VOC emitted annually in the United States in nonattainment ares. The
Senate bill requires that EPA achieve sufficient emission reductions from the
consumer products area to reduce the future inventory by three percent, taking
into account future growth. Three percent is somewhere between 300,000 to
360,000 tons per year.
Question: Does that include the emission inventory estimates; does it include
Reid vapor pressure (RVP)?
2-9
-------
Bill Harnett: There are two potential Reid vapor regulations. One is 10.5,
and the one specified in the Administration's Bill is 9.0. Right now that is
not accounted for in the inventories.
Question: Why is one of the ground rules of this symposium to ban any
discussion of photochemical reactivity?
John Calcagni: We have been involved since 1970, early 1960's actually, in
California's rule 66 on various attempts to use photochemical reactivity.
Photochemical reactivity's primary contribution is changing the rate of
reaction, the rate of formation, which allows the emissions plume to move into
the second and third day of reaction. We have found with second and third day
reactions that relative rate of conversion, unless you are talking of
converting into a fluorocarbon, at which time it will go into the stratosphere
and react, still contributes in second and third day reactions. Our research
is indicating that in the Northeast corridor, particularly where we are seeing
three and four day reactions, reactivity shifts are not a particularly
effective way of reducing VOC. The EPA recognizes that a number of people
have disagreements with us on that debate, and the issue should be pursued as
a scientific debate with EPA scientists. However, it appears likely that, as
we move into an inventory management system, and as all States are pushing
toward reducing inventories, VOC reductions, not substitutions, are the likely
phases of regulation we are going to proceed with in the next few years. The
EPA does not want to hamper efforts to show that considering reactivity is an
appropriate approach, but we hope to focus on ways to manage regulation of VOC
and reduce emissions.
Question: Is the consumer products category included under the definition of
a "moveable" stationary source?
Bill Harnett: No, it is not. Only the section on consumer products is meant
to deal with products that emit VOC in use.
Question: [Inaudible]
Bill Harnett: Generally, the States would much prefer a national regulation.
It (a) saves them time and resources, and (b) ensures consistency across the
2-10
-------
country. In some areas, however, both because of the magnitude of the problem
and their attitude towards the ozone problem, they do not want to wait on the
Federal government. Authorities in these areas will be more aggressive and
they will want to address the problem quicker than the EPA might allow for in
the bill.
Question: Is EPA going to get more accurate quantification of the VOC
inventories, so that in calculating the 3% we have a better number to deal
with?
Bill Harnett: The answer is probably not, though if we are forced to at some
point, we will have to try to fine tune them. The EPA, however, is not
backing the use of that percentage. The Administration has also made it clear
that it would prefer not to have that in there. You can measure percent of
total inventory, but you really cannot go out and measure to show that you
have achieved a percentage reduction.
John Calcagni: In the EPA's attempts to conduct the inventories in the early
1980's, we assumed 3.6 pounds of VOC per capita, which is an appropriate
number for commercial solvents. In the mid 1980's, the EPA invested a
significant amount of research in developing a national inventory, and more
closely examined this category. At that time, we evaluated one category in
particular, aerosol cans, and found one billion pounds of VOC per year
emitted, which is about four pounds per capita, just from aerosol cans. In
general, 7.7% of the inventory translates to about 6.8 or 6.9 pounds per
capita of VOC emitted. The EPA has little confidence in this number, and we
are very concerned that the Senate bill may lock in a particular number.
Question: [Inaudible]
John Calcagni: The EPA is aware that biogenics do play a role. One way of
looking at ozone is that it is nature's scrubber: it is the way that nature
removes hydrocarbons from the atmosphere. The biogenics were present before
any significant rise was seen in ambient ozone levels. Biogenic VOC
contributions must be taken into account, and different controls of oxides of
nitrogen in combination with VOC control may be necessary.
2-11
-------
Question: [Inaudible]
John Calcagni: It is the general feeling on the part of most States that they
want national rules in these areas. There are areas in California, in
particular, and some in the Northeast corridor that are concerned that the EPA
will miss many dates, that the EPA will not regulate very quickly. The EPA
does not have a good track record on making dates, and most States currently
do not want to be precluded from regulation, should the Federal government not
move aggressively or not move sufficiently expeditiously to help them solve
their air quality problems. As long as the States must achieve attainment,
they want every tool in the arsenal that is possible.
2.4 BROCK NICHOLSON
Chief, Policy Development Section
Air Quality Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Possible EPA Control Strategies for Consumer Products
Conceptually, regulatory programs are discussed in terms of specifying
requirements directly at the point of regulation. This has traditionally
consisted of Control Technology Guidelines for stationary sources, for
example, and these guidelines are usually fairly specific and point to a
particular emission point. This is sometimes referred to this as "command and
control". Command and control is a traditional regulatory approach. In the
area of consumer and commercial solvents, however, the classic approach is not
necessarily the only approach that could be used. While the command and
control approach may have appropriate application here, another general
category to consider is the incentive or market-based approach.
In dealing with regulation, the EPA obviously needs to consider the point
of regulation. Some of the regulatory options will obviously overlap in
certain situations. Traditionally, command and control regulation has focused
on the point of emissions. For consumer and commercial solvents, the
emissions occur during product use, so the person in the home using a spray
can, for example, is the one that should be regulated. Obviously, there are a
2-12
-------
lot of implications there. On the other hand, there may very well be some
control techniques that could be employed and directed at the end user.
The next step is the retailer. Again, there might be some advantages for
regulating on this level, but there may also be a lot of disadvantages. One
consideration, of course, is the efficiency of administering a regulation.
The same situation may exist for a distributor, except that efficiency in
administering a rule may be increased, for example, by dealing at the
distribution point.
Efficiency may also be increased by working with the formulators,
packagers or manufacturers. A packager may purchase a product in bulk and
repackage it. A formulator may create a product from raw materials, and
package and distribute the product. Finally, solvent suppliers may be the
most upstream point of regulation. The most efficient regulatory approach may
be to identify the solvent going into a product line, or to an industry, or to
a company.
Another conceptual approach, one that is market-based, might allow a much
wider opportunity for flexibility on the regulated community. But no matter
how we conceptually develop a regulatory program, or at whom we direct that
program, it must be enforceable. There are various approaches that would
achieve this in different degrees. Given the level of enforcement that the
EPA is capable of, and given the ability to administer the rules, a rule must
be effective. It is also important that the results of a program be
quantifiable so they can be measured. The regulation must be logical and
clear so that people understand the specifications of the program. In a
sense, the simpler, the better. The regulation should not require massive
calculations, investigations, and an audit team to determine compliance. A
regulation must also be politically acceptable. In addition, recordkeeping
and averaging time must be considered; some of the representatives at this
symposium have been in many lengthy discussions with the EPA concerning
averaging time in other areas. Obviously, the point of control has to be well
considered, along with geographic area of coverage. Geographical location
determines seasonal effects. For example, will products sold in Minnesota be
treated the same as products sold in southern California? Special exceptions
such as hospitals and emergency situations must also be considered.
The concept of command and control and the market-based approach are not
2-13
-------
always distinct from one another. Some command and control options might be
product limits on VOC content or weight limitation. These limits could be
directed at various points of control: the manufacturer, the distributor or
the formulator. A market-based approach might be viewed as a means to provide
an incentive to limit emissions, but perhaps with less specificity than
allowed under the command and control program (less directed toward a specific
product or a specific manufacturer).
The market-based approach might also take the form of solvent allotments.
This would theoretically give the regulated community freedom to meet an
overall goal without having a specific command and control style of program
dictated. Incentives are another way to administer the market-based approach,
perhaps as fees. But they do not necessarily have to be trades or bubbles in
order to be market-based. Permits are perhaps one way to help administer such
a program. Percent reductions may apply across an entire industry or company.
In conclusion, there are lots of combinations of regulation, and EPA's
objective is to explore all of the possibilities available.
2.5 RALPH ENGEL, President
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
Industry's View of Regulating Consumer Products
The Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA) has a
membership of more than 400 firms engaged in the manufacture, formulation,
distribution and sale of household pesticides, including antimicrobial
products, automotive specialty products, detergents and cleaning compounds,
personal care products, and polishes and floor maintenance products, all of
which are used in the household or for institutional and industrial use. Many
of these products are formulated and packaged in both aerosolized and non-
aerosolized form. Most are marketed nationally. In addition, CSMA leads an
industry coalition which includes the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance
Association (CTFA) and the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA), addressing
the issues relating to consumer and commercial products.
CSMA and a number of its member companies, several of whom are present
here today, welcome the opportunity to interact at this meeting to discuss
volatile organic compounds as they relate to consumer and commercial products.
2-14
-------
You should be aware that commercial and consumer products could include
architectural coatings, traffic coatings, and aircraft and marine products and
the like, but these products will not be addressed here today, nor are they
represented in our total mix. CSMA's membership interest is grouped into the
following divisions: antimicrobial division, the aerosol division, the
detergent division, the industrial and automotive products division, pesticide
division (home lawn and garden pesticides), polishes and floor maintenance
division, and commercial and residential services. Our members join the
Association as a whole and participate in the divisional interest which best
fits the needs of their product mix. A "chemical specialty" is a chemically
formulated product manufactured from basic chemicals or chemical compounds and
used without further processing by household, institutional, and industrial
consumers. The word "specialty" distinguishes this finished product from the
basic chemical and chemical compounds from which it is mixed or compounded.
The products contemplated in proposals to reduce emissions from
commercial and consumer products are not a particular type or class, but cover
a universe of commercial, household, and personal care uses. They include
personal care products such as shaving cream and mouthwash, deodorant,
perfume, shampoo, and sunscreen; home care products such as window cleaner,
furniture polish, floor wax, laundry detergent, and kitchen cleaner; auto care
products such as carburetor cleaner, anti-freeze and windshield de-icer; and
vital health care products such as disinfectants, sterilants, insecticides,
and medicines. In short, they may even include some beer, wine, and alcoholic
beverages. In all, we are speaking about a segment of our economy that
produces well over 700,000 products and provides some 30 billion dollars to
our Gross National Product (GNP). These are products that make all of our
lives run more efficiently and conveniently. The contributions made by this
industry to the overall quality of American life are immeasurable.
Clean Air and Effects on Consumer Products
These products cannot be viewed in the same way as other emission
sources. Commercial and consumer products are an entirely new and unique
subject for clean air regulation. This is a category that cannot be dealt
with by traditional approaches or control strategies. Its contribution to
2-15
-------
ozone is not at all clear, and at this point there is no reliable database
from which to determine its contribution, or to determine now to approach
these small sources of emissions with any certainty or knowledge of whether
control is feasible at all. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the
United States Congress confirms this in its comprehensive study "Catching Our
Breath: Next Step for Reducing Urban Ozone," published in July of this year.
The OTA found that in the area of consumer products, any emission estimates
are subject to potentially large uncertainties. The OTA also concluded that
it is not clear whether an attempt to control emissions from this source will
be either technically or economically feasible. In short, investing huge sums
and causing great dislocation, may be pointless. In fact, because control
technology information is so lacking for the category, OTA excluded consumer
and commercial products from its otherwise thorough analysis of emissions
reduction potential and cost. The few studies that exist assessing the
feasibility and impact of controlling volatile organic compounds emissions
from consumer and commercial products have, for the most part, been undertaken
by the industry. These studies indicate that the societal impact of control
on consumer and commercial products would be enormous. In late 1986, a study
was conducted by Heiden Associates for the industry to determine the cost of
reducing VOC content to 50% in underarm products in California. The study
concluded that the direct cost to remove VOC emissions range from $49,000 to
$98,000 per ton. This was based on data which included, among other things,
reformulation costs, incumbent safety testing, plant shutdown and retooling,
process changes, and other miscellaneous costs. Furthermore, a study by Dr.
Gary Whitten of Systems Application, Inc. investigated the impact of underarm
spray products propellants on urban smog formation in California's South Coast
Air Quality Basin. This study indicates that mandatory VOC reduction in these
products would have a negligible, if measurable, effect on the concentration
of ozone in the lower atmosphere. The urban airshed model used as the basis
for the study has prioritized the effectiveness of controlling multiple small
sources on both a total impact basis, which combines reactivity and the weight
of the emissions, and on a per unit impact basis, which normalizes the smog
impact to show the control effectiveness per ton.
2-16
-------
Are Not an Acceptable Control Strategy
Current legislation submitted by the Administration authorizes the EPA
Administrator to employ a system of fees as a method of controlling VOC
emissions from consumer products. It was mentioned as one of a large group of
control processes. CSMA submits that any generic, unfettered provision
authorizing EPA to assess fees carries too high a potential to become simply a
revenue-raiser unrelated to ozone attainment, and is likely to be viewed by
the courts as an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power to tax.
Economic incentives are useful for controlling emissions for consumer
products. However, they raise the specter of governmental regulation on the
amount of products that may be sold, and carry with them the potential for
seriously interfering with the marketability of consumer products. Their
usefulness is obviously very limited.
Consumer Impact
Regulation of consumer products will have an enormous direct impact on
consumers. Because of their cost, solvents are used today at a very low
concentration level, or only in products for which there is no practical
alternative. Therefore, any regulation requiring elimination or major
reduction of solvents will result in the disappearance from stores of many
useful and necessary products. The monetary cost to consumers will also be
great. One category of products that could be virtually eliminated by
controls, if they are illogically handled, is aerosols. Any proposed
regulations could result in loss of nearly two to three billion aerosol unit
sales in the United States alone each year. Besides denying consumers
a considerable choice, it would translate into a loss of some $8 billion in
sales by American retailers.
If valuable consumer products are arbitrarily removed from the
marketplace, consumers will have to rely on professional services to replace
the effectiveness and efficiency of existing products. The same jobs that the
consumer had done inexpensively would now cost much more to have done by
professionals. And even the professionals would be required to find
2-17
-------
alternatives that would cost them more in labor and materials. These costs
certainly would be born by the consumer. Some examples are in order to
illustrate these hidden, but very real, costs.
An important product category is total release insecticide. These are in
the form of room foggers with constant release lock valves which spray a
continuous fog and effectively fumigate a room or an entire home. A single
consumer application of this product costs approximately five dollars. In
order to achieve the same insect control after adoption of a proposed control
measure, a consumer would have to contract with a commercial pest exterminator
for fumigation. Each application would cost between 80 and 100 dollars.
Imagine that problem in the inner cities of our country.
Aerosol sprays are increasingly common where automotive supplies are sold
or in any garage where maintenance work is done. Aerosols provide ease and
economy in normal automotive maintenance procedures. For example, using a
spray cleaner, dirt, gum, and carbon deposits are removed from an engine
carburetor and an automatic choke. The carburetor throat is easily reached by
an extension tube on an aerosol can. Gasoline additives used for non-aerosol
carburetor cleaning are simply not as effective as direct spray. A 13-ounce
spray can costs 3.25 dollars. The shop costs for a complete overhaul and
carburetor cleaning of a typical recent model car is $169.00; and this does
not take into consideration the amount of VOC spewing out of the tail pipe
because of the clogged or dirty carburetor.
For these reasons, we oppose any attempt to reduce VOC emissions from
consumer and commercial products without a thorough consideration of societal
impact, technological feasibility, and economic effects. We further believe
that such consideration just may result in a final determination that such
regulations are not very cost effective, or that ozone concentrations are not
significantly reduced. However, CSMA welcomes any and all credible efforts to
determine whether these products play a part in ozone formation. Let us not
prejudge any studies that may be done. And let us not write regulations,
mentally or on paper, to meet artificially contrived deadlines. Mr. Bush can
wait just a few more months to sign the Clean Air Act if it is rationally
concluded.
2-18
-------
End vs. Product Regulation
Clean air regulations have all generally focused on the waste end
emissions of major sources of pollution in our society. Consumer products
cannot be viewed in the same way as traditional sources. The Clean Air Act up
to this point has regulated waste emissions and not end-use consumer products
created for the benefit of society. The regulation of consumer products
raises many different issues. Instead of controlling valueless waste, these
regulations will be directed at products themselves. These benefits have to
be considered as part of any regulatory decision. Utility plants, for
example, may need bigger and better scrubbers, but they will not be closed
down. Thus, utilities may be forced to shoulder a heavy and possibly
unjustifiable financial burden, but will continue to be viable. Cars may
require more effective catalytic converters or other devices, but no one is
advocating banning their sale.
Because emission control devices cannot be placed on consumers
themselves, the only means available to control emissions from the products
they use is to alter these products if technology is available, or to
eliminate them from the marketplace. Alternative technology does not now
exist for many of these product formulations. Therefore, the consumer and
commercial solvents industry is faced not just with an increased financial
burden today, but with the impossible task of quickly reformulating many
thousands of products. It would obviously be unacceptable for government to
require reformulation of medications (many of them contain VOC),
disinfectants, insecticides, and sterilants, and a whole host of other
consumer products, for clean air purposes without making sure that the
reformulated products or substitutes will be effective.
Interstate Commerce
Most consumer products that are marketed nationally rely upon the freedom
of movement traditionally and constitutionally accorded to interstate
commerce. If anything should move freely in the marketplace, it must be these
many products that are such an important part of modern life. It is essential
2-19
-------
that any regulation of emissions from commercial and consumer products not
erect unnecessary barriers to the free flow of commerce. Therefore, there
must be consistency of regulation in a national marketplace. At the very
least, any Federal program should take particular care not create incentives
for states to adopt different or obstructive requirements for commercial and
consumer products. Manufacturers, marketers, and distributors of commercial
and consumer products simply cannot contend with patchwork, state-by-state,
clean air regulation schemes.
CSMA Recommendations
Because of the lack of data on the contribution of VOC emissions from
consumer products to ozone formation, and the economic and societal impact of
reducing VOC emissions, any specific action to control emissions at this time
is truly without justification. For this reason, we support an approach that
would ensure that the appropriate path to minimizing VOC emissions from
consumer products is technically, environmentally, and commercially
acceptable. Regulation efforts which are based on unproven assumptions, old
data, myth, and rhetoric are inappropriate for this industry or frankly, this
Nation.
Comprehensive Study of Consumer Products
The non-attainment section of the Administration's Clean Air Bill before
the Congress directs the EPA to study and analyze the subject of emissions
from consumer products for a two year period. CSMA strongly believes this
period is insufficient. As noted earlier, the OTA study, "Catching Our
Breath," concluded that very little is known about either the ozone
contribution or control technology for consumer products. The agency has said
the same today. For this reason, OTA excluded consumer products altogether
from its emission reduction potential and cost analysis. A Federal court in
New York, in reviewing a State Implementation Plan revision regulating
consumer products, concurred with New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's assertion that no valid data exist to regulate these products;
and they were limited to three categories. The Court further agreed with the
2-20
-------
need for a four year study to gather the appropriate data.
The CSMA believes that the best approach is a comprehensive four year
study that is conducted by the EPA. During the first year, consumer products
should be defined and a complete emissions inventory of the approximately
700,000 products should be compiled. After the inventory is established, a
study would is needed that would, at a minimum, identify the following:
consumer solvent contribution to the ozone formation; alternatives for
reducing VOC emissions from products; economic and commercial feasibility of
such methods and alternatives; net environmental, health, and societal impacts
and/or value of such methods and alternatives. The study, in addition, would
assess and evaluate such other issues associated with volatile organic
compound emissions from consumer products as they are identified during a
protocol development process.
The study required by the protocol could be complete in approximately 36
months after the protocol has been developed. At the end of that study, if
the Administrator at the EPA finds that the regulation of VOC emissions of any
consumer product is beneficial and commercially and technologically feasible,
then such regulations could be rationally promulgated.
National Consistency
There must be consistency of regulation in a national marketplace, since
consumer products are marketed nationally. The CSMA believes that the goal of
regulation in a national marketplace can be accommodated with regional
necessity. Under certain compelling and extraordinary circumstances, States
could adopt additional controls after a finding of need has been made.
Current Clean Air Act provisions relating to mobile sources, motor fuels and
aircraft make such an accommodation now. Moreover, during the development of
Federal regulation, the States ought to be called upon to suspend their own
efforts to adopt or enforce standards relating to emissions from commercial
and consumer products. The CSMA believes that this not only appropriate, but
imperative, with regard to consumer products clean air regulation.
Inconsistency could well lead to the destruction of a national distribution
system relied upon by this industry, but more importantly, relied upon by
every industry in this entire country.
2-21
-------
Conclusion
In closing, CSMA would like to publicly object to the assumptions for
dialogue for this symposium. We came with an open mind to sit down at the
table and have a level playing field. As far as our industry is concerned, we
are here on that basis. We do not want any issues taken off the table now or
later. There should be room for discussion of all areas. So as far as I am
concerned, as far as CSMA is concerned, the three assumptions in this package
should be put aside for now.
Also, something that occurred a couple of hours ago is of importance. On
September 20, 1989 a Court settlement was signed between the EPA, Illinois,
Wisconsin, and now Michigan. It was accepted by the Court last week. The
settlement is an agreement to put off a Federal Implementation Plan to
regulate a whole host of emission sources until September 1994. The EPA and
the States are to participate in a $12 million air quality study which is to
be a photoreactive grid modeling study. While doing that study, there are
interim control measures established in that agreement which do not include
consumer products, again because of the lack of data and the lack of impact
analysis.
Finally, CSMA believes that, in the area of commercial and consumer
product regulation, we have all benefited from the inquiries and analysis
which have been made by both government and industry over the last year or so.
Industry and government are more aware of the need to proceed with care, and
all of us are a bit more sensitive to the complexities involved in any
regulation of emissions from this category. We appreciate this opportunity to
present our views concerning the appropriate strategy for establishing a
national program for achieving ozone attainment and will indeed work with you.
2-22
-------
2.6 JOHN CHAMBERLIN
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Use of Market-based Approaches to Reduce VOC Emissions from the Use of
Consumer Products
The EPA hopes that, by defining the term "market-based approach to
regulation", industry will be able to identify issues of concern that EPA
should be aware of as they explore approaches to obtain reductions in VOC
emissions from consumer products. In addition, the EPA would like to share
some preliminary information on the consumer products industry structure for
some product categories of concern.
The EPA is interested in market-based approaches partly because this
philosophy is now central to the Administration's proposed legislation for the
Clean Air Act. For example, some of the provisions regarding acid rain now
allow and encourage utilities to implement the lowest cost reduction
techniques to meet prescribed limitations in their S02 emissions. They may do
so by use of control technology, or they may switch fuels, and they may even
buy and sell credits for additional reductions achieved or bank them for
future use. This reliance on the free market is a substantial change from the
prescriptive philosophy that has been the hallmark of pollution regulation.
And this market philosophy carries over to the VOC emissions from consumer
products. Again, the Administration's proposal requires a report to Congress
that should consider alternative regulatory approaches to those products,
including fees, marketable permits, and auctions. Moreover, the proposed
language of the Bill specifically exhorts the EPA to consider economic
incentives in its regulatory approach.
The EPA is interested in these approaches because they may have
advantages both for industry and the EPA over the exclusive use of traditional
command and control regulations. For example, the 1977 Clean Air Act
prescribed that all utilities had to install scrubbers, regardless of their
current emission rates. The EPA now believes marketplace approaches would
allow firms the opportunity to respond more flexibly, depending on their
individual circumstances, and to save money in the process. Bottom line
incentives may also spur compliance. Incentives may also encourage
2-23
-------
innovations to obtain additional emissions reductions for future use or sale,
aspects lacking in traditional command and control approaches. Finally, from
the EPA's perspective, they have the potential to ease the knowledge-intensive
burden of traditional approaches which typically require very detailed
knowledge of either a product or a production process or the performance of
technology.
Market-based approaches generally fall into two categories: charges or
permits. A charge or a fee system basically imposes a direct cost on a
product for emitting pollutants to the atmosphere. Implicitly, a fee system
focuses on limiting the cost that society is willing to pay to abate
pollution. It foregoes certainty about the amount of emissions reductions.
On the other hand, permits specifically limit the amount of emissions to the
atmosphere. Permit systems focus on limiting the amount of pollution society
is willing to accept and forego certainty about the cost of obtaining those
reductions.
Fees and permits have advantages both for the regulators and the
regulated. A system of fees can provide an immediate bottom line for any
reductions in emissions. Fees can encourage further efforts to reduce
emissions while also providing a degree of predictability to the regulated
industry about potential compliance costs. Fees do not impose technological
constraints on control measures. There is freedom to explore alternative
control methods. Similarly, permits provide a quantifiable limit on
emissions, allow the regulated industry to buy and sell allocations
(potentially lowering the total cost of compliance), rely on markets instead
of government to set the price of those permits, and have the potential to
provide incentives to be innovative in production, product, or control
technology.
Fees and permits, as characterized in this example, raise a lot of
issues. For example, how do you set the initial fee charge? How does one
quantify those reductions that result from that fee? Who gets the money?
When is that charge adjusted and how often? Similarly, there are issues that
arise with a system of permits. How is the initial amount of that permit
established? How are they distributed? If you are going to run a permit
system, how do you assure that there is a fair market with lots of buyers and
sellers so hoarding or monopoly situations do not result? What is the life of
2-24
-------
a permit? What is the area in which the permit operates?
The EPA has a general set of concerns regarding all regulatory
approaches. These same concerns also apply to market-based approaches.
First, how would the EPA go about quantifying the emissions reductions
achieved with a fee or a permit system? Second, what are the administrative
problems, especially recordkeeping problems, that are associated with setting
up either a fee or permit system; and how are they different from other kinds
of recordkeeping requirements that your firms presently face? Finally, with
either fees or permits, what are the compliance and enforcement problems both
from industry's perspective and EPA's perspective?
The market approaches, using a fee or a permit, are not necessarily
exclusive of one another. For example, a permit could have a cap or a ceiling
on emissions with a fee for its issuance to cover the administrative cost, and
perhaps a fee in excess of that cap, in effect, a penalty. Alternatively, one
could couple a market permit with traditional approaches. One could have a
permit with a cap plus a mandatory annual percentage decrease in emissions.
Those of you who are familiar with the Agency's phase-down of CFC's are in
fact looking at exactly that kind of system. Obviously, there are many other
possible combinations. The EPA is interested in hearing industry's ideas
about what those combinations might be.
To the EPA, the consumer products industry structure is extremely
interesting because of its implications for the choice of the regulatory
approach. There are literally thousands of consumer products in the
marketplace, with millions, possibly tens of millions, units sold annually.
The individual emissions from these units are small, but in aggregate they are
large. Putting aside the questions about the inventory, the EPA's estimate of
VOC emissions is approximately 154,000 tons a year. We agree that direct
control at the point of emission to the atmosphere is totally impractical, if
not infeasible. And similarly, control at the point of retail sales seems
inefficient. However, as one moves back in the distribution chain, the number
of points of control diminish substantially. Based on information from
various trade publications, the EPA estimates that there are approximately 100
manufacturers of window and glass cleaners, about 200 for all purpose
cleaners, and about 400 for room deodorizers and disinfectants.
Alternatively, consider the aerosol paints category. Again, the number of
2-25
-------
products and the number of units sold is likely to be very similar to those
for household care products. The EPA estimates aggregate annual emissions at
about 159,000 tons. However, as one moves back in distribution chain, again,
the picture is quite different. Based on information from trade association
sources, it is estimated that there are approximately 25 formulators aerosol
paint. That makes a substantial difference in the way one thinks about how
one might regulate, if one chooses to do so, in this area.
The point of these two examples is simply that the better the EPA
understands the consumer products industry and its products, the better we can
tailor the fit of the regulatory approach to industry's needs. We do not
believe that "one size fits all" is the best approach. The EPA is truly
interested in exploring alternative approaches. As the number and diversity
of these sources increase, the problem grows almost unmanageable.
Question: There appears to be a lot of thought given by the EPA speakers to
the determining of fees or permits or charges and collecting the money. But I
haven't heard what would happen to that money and how it would benefit the
reduction of VOC emissions. Can you please tell me what would happen to the
money?
John Chamber!in: We don't have an answer to that. In one of the earlier
versions of the Clean Air legislation, the language said something about money
accruing at the Treasury, to be used by EPA for future research and
development. There are possibilities to rebate these kinds of revenues to the
industry so the money doesn't necessarily have to leave the industry. There
are questions about how one goes about returning those revenues to the
industry, if the charges are based on the unit of VOC content in a product.
You don't want to be collecting revenues on the one hand, and just giving it
back on the other. That accomplishes nothing.
John Calcagni: The acid rain bill under consideration has a remarkable system
of permits in it. Under that system, the utilities are each issued an
allocation of sulfur emissions that the EPA then manages in terms by
establishing a trading system and a market. Utilities are also free to trade
2-26
-------
those allocations at whatever price the market will bear. In discussion of
fees, the EPA is concerned with finding one that's revenue neutral. We're not
in the business of balancing a budget.
John Chamberlin: Fees can operate in two different ways. With a permit
system, one could charge a fee for the permit, and the cost of that fee would
presumably be nothing more than the administrative cost of running a permit
system. That doesn't really generate revenues; that just covers the
administrative costs of a permit. Alternatively, one can run a fee system
based on the content of the product. First, we're going to have to decide
what that charge is. This type of fee does have the potential for raising
revenues. Those revenues could go into an industry fund for further research.
They would not necessarily have to go to the Agency. We haven't decided in
any way what happens to those revenues. In fact, one of the sticky issues in
talking about a fee system that generates revenues that is not as John said,
'revenue neutral', is how to use the revenues. It's something that the EPA is
sensitive to.
Question: What has the Agency learned from the experience with the CFC
regulations. In particular, how are those fees going to be applied or used,
and how might that relate to the consumer products issues?
John Chamberlin: My understanding is that that's a permit-base system, not a
fee-base system, where allocations to the manufacturers are being reduced over
time. The amount of CFC-containing product that can be produced is being
curtailed.
Question: Would you explain how the permit concept would apply to consumer
products. For stationary sources, a permit is usually issued to control a
particular facility, but there is no limitation on what products can be
produced. Are permits for consumer products permits for a particular product
line, for VOC's generally, or for a specific product? How would it work?
John Chamberlin: One approach would focus on the manufacturer. Each
manufacturer is allowed a certain number of pounds of VOC per thousand units
2-27
-------
of consumer product. These allotments are tradeable; they are a right to
emit, if you would, and you can emit, you can keep the allotment for growth,
you can sell it to a competitor, you can swap it within your firm, you can
sell it to somebody who is not a competitor. It becomes a market-based
system. Another approach would focus on formulators, or solvent suppliers,
depending upon the nature of the product. The CFC program is an example where
the supplier is regulated. All of these approaches are on the table, and we
are actively exploring these sorts of approaches.
The EPA is finding that, because of the potential for the CFC prices to
rise, industry is seeing an opportunity for new products, improved products;
they're looking upon it as an advantage, as an opportunity to make some
improvements and to take advantage of business opportunities. For the ozone
non-attainment issue, some of the same philosophy may prevail in industry.
This is not necessarily something being imposed upon industry, so much as an
opportunity to make some new products, and see some improvements not only in
the product, but also in the environment.
Question: Is there any plan for standardizing testing of VOC content of
products?
John Chamberlin: Historically, the EPA has been in the business of providing
test methods. Rather than a generic method, we may be able to work out
inventory records, and assume that what you buy is what you emit. The EPA
will bring this issue to the attention of the test and methods people.
Question: Just a comment: there have been some parallels drawn between acid
rain and CFC issues. Those two issues both involve long-lived atmospheric
species. It doesn't matter where S02 is emitted, whether it's Indiana,
Illinois, or Kansas, or what have you. CFC's are also long-lived. However,
the point of emissions of VOC is very important, whether it's in an attainment
area or a non-attainment area must be a consideration.
John Chamberlin: Very true; the issues of geographic location, and of
reactivity are important. The EPA has invested heavily in a photochemical
dispersion model in the Northeast called the Rondette exercise. As I
2-28
-------
indicated earlier, we do find that the dispersion occurs beyond the urbanized
areas. And there is a question as to whether transport from outside the
Standardized Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) are indeed also
contributing to non-attainment. With regard to reactivity, the models we do
run differentiate between species. They consider the characteristics of each
of the species in evaluating, on an area-wide basis, what the potential
impacts would be of different reactivities. Those features are built into the
EPA's evaluation techniques. I will tell you that we're having difficulty in
showing attainment with our models even with maximum technologies.
Those of you who remember Rule 66 will recall that there weren't any
substitutes for stains and creosotes. The EPA defined boundaries where sale
of creosote was legal; for instance, outside Route 128 in Boston sale of
creosote was legal, and inside it was illegal. The EPA does not want to
create that situation in the consumer product market, where there are
artificial boundaries with high solvent products on one side, and low solvent
products on the other. The EPA recognizes this as a concern.
Question: I believe that a good definition of VOC is necessary. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff defines VOC differently than the
emissions control laboratory at the University of California at Riverside.
For CARB's purposes, carbon monoxide is not a VOC, methane is not a VOC; but
it still is a volatile organic compound, and both of these contribute to ozone
formation. Is the EPA defining VOC's differently that on the basis of
volatility. Another definition which came up at CARB meeting addresses high,
medium, and low volatility VOC's. Does volatility make any difference or is
it just a question of time? Most organic compounds do have some kind of vapor
pressure; Whether a compound has a higher or lower vapor pressure might make
a difference of a couple of hours, but, in either case, the compound will
eventually go into the atmosphere. With regard to EPA's definition of
volatile organic compounds, many of you have dealt with state regulations that
have different regulatory structures. Some of them have a tenth of millimeter
of mercury as an exemption cut point. Others have specifications of certain
chemicals. We have attempted to standardize the definitions throughout the
states. The states are presently all going through a regulatory process. One
of the issues we've looked at in California is how they define VOC's. There
2-29
-------
will probably not be a vapor pressure limit in the state regulations. We have
found that certain high boilers with low vapor pressures are, in fact, get
emitted in the air as an aerosol and do eventually convert to a volatile
organic compound. Compounds in printing inks are an example. California will
not exempt those compounds. Our definition is quite broad. It exempts
methane and ethane, certain chlorof1uorocarbons, and methylene chloride, as
being nonreactive. In addition, carbon monoxide (CO) would not be included,
metallic carbonate would not be included, and carbon dioxide (C02) would not
be included. These compounds are not organic in nature. They do participate
in photochemical reaction processes. We have found that CO does in fact play
a role, but it's not a very active compound and this would be incorporated
into our modeling. But virtually all other compounds that are typically
considered organic are covered. There isn't a long list of exemptions, nor do
I anticipate expansion of that list. Virtually everything has some
photochemical reactivity under atmospheric conditions that would occur during
two and three days of transport. In general, it is a broad definition, and
getting broader, as opposed to getting narrower.
2-30
-------
DAY TWO, NOVEMBER 15, 1989
2.7 JAMES WEIGOLD
Deputy Director
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Opening Remarks
The initiation of this process exemplifies what has become something of a
change in the way the EPA has been operating. This has been a gradual change
that has been taking place, and it is gaining in momentum. The EPA wants to
encourage consultation and communication, not only with the regulated
communities, but also with the State and local agencies that have to carry out
the rules. In a way, that was a hole in the way the EPA operated in the past.
We have been working actively, certainly at OAQPS, in the last year and a half
to try to improve our relations with State and local agencies that are
responsible for improving air quality and dealing with industry. The EPA has
not only worked more closely with State and local agencies, but we have also
begun to negotiate regulations. We worked closely with the woodstove industry
and promulgated regulation for the control of emissions from woodstoves. The
EPA is currently involved with the chemical industry in negotiating rules for
controlling equipment leaks. In addition, the EPA's new administrator Bill
Reilly puts great stock in the need to work cooperatively with industry, and
he has called some nine companies to deal with the issue of air toxics
emissions, including GE, DOW, and Exxon. He met with them in August and asked
them for cooperation; they agreed and said it is a problem we are going to
have to work on together. The EPA is in the process of working with those
companies as they develop plans for voluntary pollution reductions.
This process is similar. The EPA wants to meet with representatives from
State and local agencies and industry to create a more effective program. The
EPA needs the cooperation of industry and their expertise to do it well. It
is hoped that industry will see this as an opportunity to get into the
process. If the Congress should pass a law that says the EPA will produce a
report in two years and produce a regulation in four years, and industry is
not part of the process, they run the risk of getting regulations that are not
2-31
-------
the most effective from their standpoint.
If there are long protracted delays, you will also run the risk of having
a proliferation of State regulations that will be difficult to deal with.
Different states may have different definitions of VOC and different labeling
requirements. The EPA hopes that the consumer products industry
representatives will have the sense to participate, and the ability to get
their views into the process early.
The discussions that will take place today will include the technical
issues and alternative control measures, including changes in the method of
application, product reformulation, and product substitution. Dean Simeroth
of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is going to describe California's
consumer products control plans. Ted Davis from New York will discuss New
York's efforts to reduce VOC emissions from air fresheners, disinfectants, and
insecticides; and Sandra Chen will describe New Jersey's program. From
industry, Ike Emery of Helene Curtis will talk about VOC's in consumer
products and the functions that are involved in propellant solvents, active
ingredients, carriers for the active ingredients, and the associated problems.
Ted Wernick of Gillette Medical Evaluation Laboratories will discuss the time
and costs associated with reformulating and safety testing of products. Ed
Heiden of Heiden Associates will discuss the economic implications as well as
the social effects of regulating consumer products.
2.8 DEAN SIMEROTH
Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch
California Air Resources Board
California Regulatory Activities
In California a solvent is defined as a carrier vehicle for applying
solids, a propellant binder, active ingredient, or a cleaning agent. Over 90%
of the population in California lives in nonattainment areas. In terms of
emissions, solvents account for about 830 tons per day out of 1900 tons per
day for total non-vehicular sources. Our vehicular sources emit another 1900
tons per day. Consumer product emissions are about 230 tons per day, and
other surface coatings (basically industrial-type surface coatings) emit about
320 tons per day.
The California Clean Air Act was passed last year and will become
2-32
-------
effective January. It requires us to reduce total emissions contributing to
ozone nonattainment by 5% a year, both NOX and volatile organic compounds.
CARB was given authority over consumer products for the first time, so the
individual Air Quality Management Districts do not have to adopt their own
regulations. The districts were not preempted from adopting regulations,
however, if we adopt a rule, the only thing that they can adopt is exactly the
same rule. The Air Resources Board must, however, assure that the regulations
are necessary and technologically and commercially feasible.
For non-consumer products such architectural coatings (specifically
exempted in the California law), industrial coatings (320 tons per day
emitted) and industrial solvents the Air Resources Board does not have direct
authority. Three committees with the local air pollution control districts
were established to deal with these solvent use categories. There are a total
of sixteen committees working on various control measures in California. The
Air Resources Board works with the committees to come up with a concept, and
there is a minimum of three workshops with industry and the interested public.
If a concept is approved by the ARB's governing board, it is then distributed
to the districts with our strong encouragement to adopt what we have
developed, since they have participated in the development.
For consumer products, a public hearing, rather than a public meeting,
was held because the Board is adopting actual regulations, and we have the
enforcement authority. For non-consumer product categories, we will be
working on regulations for aerospace, automobile refinishing, marine coatings,
polyester resin in wood products, and wood furniture. Next year we will be
looking at industrial/commercial application of adhesives, architectural
coatings, general organic solvents, cleanup solvents, and add-on control
technology. In addition, the Air Resources Board is sponsoring research and
is involved in support activities. For transfer efficiency test methods for
coating application techniques, we are revisiting our test method for
voluntary organic compounds in coatings. We are looking at technology that
exists for automobile refinishing, and investigating the potential uses of
economic incentives.
For consumer products, our emission inventories total about 230 tons of
VOC per day. Personal care products are thought to emit about 80 tons a day;
automobile and industrial sources emit about 80 tons a day; and household
2-33
-------
products are thought to emit about 50 tons per day. The Air Resources Board
is looking at the regulations that have been adopted by the other States and
is working actively with other States. The ARB is looking for regulations for
personal care products by July 1990, household products by January 1991,
automobile/industrial products by July 1991, aerosol paints (suggested control
measure) by July 1991, pesticides regulations by July 1992.
Last week the Air Resources Board adopted the regulation for
antiperspirants and deodorants. Final adoption will occur when the
administrative process is complete and another public comment period is held.
Basically, any supplier, retailer, or manufacturer will be affected. ARB has
added some definitions to address propellants, solvents, solids, and active
ingredients. There will be administrative requirements, labeling requirements
on each unit, and annual reporting requirements for units sold in California.
There will be some exemptions; for example, products manufactured for sale
outside of the state are exempt. Colorants and fragrances up to 2% by volume
are exempt. We precluded anything that has already been identified as a toxic
air contaminant through our toxics program, including fluorocarbons.
The plan will be implemented in phases. In phase I we put a cap on
existing levels of the VOC content. Phase II will mean a 20% reduction. The
Board changed the date for the 20% reduction from January 1, 1994 to
January 1, 1992. Another 60% reduction of emissions, for an overall 80%
reduction from antiperspirants/deodorants, will translate to slightly over
four tons per day emissions reduction. The Board approved a final compliance
date of January 1, 1995, and added a clause stating that if, by January 1,
1994, any manufacturer submits a plan for reformulation to non-VOC propellants
and includes key dates in their plan, they will have until January 1, 1999 to
comply for the aerosol products. The plan also establishes reporting
requirements for progress towards the January 1, 1999 date.
In conclusion, the Air Resources Board is addressing a wide variety of
different source categories including motor vehicle fuels and motor vehicles.
We feel this plan is only going to be successful if it's a cooperative effort
between the Air Resources Board, our local districts, industry and the
affected public.
Question: Is the exemption for ethanol in existing products a generic
2-34
-------
exemption or for specific products. Take hair sprays as a generic example.
Dean Simeroth: The only thing we've adopted so far for ethanol is the
antiperspirant/deodorant regulation. So there is no regulation specifically
for hair sprays. But for antiperspirant/deodorant products, a new product
would be precluded from having ethanol in the non-aerosol form; the aerosols
can have up to 10%. VOC in new products.
Question: In development of the California regulations, you have looked at
the correlation between VOC content and emission rates or emission reduction.
It seems that a reduction in VOC content is not necessarily directly
relatable to emission reduction, in that you can reduce your VOC content,
increase the product use, and have no net reduction or conceivably an increase
in emissions. To what extent have you dealt with that in your standards?
Dean Simeroth: To the extent that we're able to foresee how industry is going
to change, our intent is obviously to have a net reduction of emissions. One
of the things that has kept us from proceeding with the hair spray regulation
is the concern that a shift from aerosols to other forms of hair spray (that
may have an even higher alcohol content) may inadvertently cause an increase
in emissions. This issue came up during adoption of our architectural coating
regulations last May. Our final conclusion was that we had no evidence that
regulations were going to result in increased emissions.
Question: You had an entry on your time line of a date of December 1989 for
determining the feasibility of a generic aerosol regulation? Could you
explain that little bit?
Dean Simeroth: What we're looking at is something similar to what we have
done for architectural coatings (architectural coatings have a general
standard of 250 grams per VOC per liter of coating minus water). Within that
regulation there are about 30 categories which have higher limits. Likewise,
for aerosol regulations there would be some type of general standard, and each
individual category would have an individual limit. Generic is probably too
strong a word.
2-35
-------
Question: Could you comment on the decision to exempt products manufactured
for export from the State of California, given the fact that this a national
problem?
Dean Simeroth: Unfortunately, we don't have authority for any state other
than California. If products are not going to be used within the state we
feel there would be need to regulate them. The manufacturing process would be
regulated under other authorities, usually local district authorities within
the State.
Question: Have you been able to come up with any figures on the cost to the
consumer per ton of VOC reduction, financial cost and cost in less desirable
products?
Dean Simeroth: We estimated that the annual cost for the antiperspirant/
deodorant regulations will be two to four million dollars per year. The
increased cost per aerosol unit is estimated to be 20 to 50 cents per unit.
Question: You prioritized both by type of product and to some degree by type
of VOC. Do you have a technological justification for that prioritization
process, and do you have a plan for measuring the impact of each of the steps
in the priority process, both in VOC reduction and in impact on ozone
production?
Dean Simeroth: A lot of these processes are simultaneous, so in our initial
prioritization we looked at the categories whose emissions we felt were
technically feasible to control. Pesticides are last because we recognized
we're going to have to deal with the FIFRA process to address pesticides. In
terms of the technology impact on the individual products, that will be done
as we complete the regulation development. One extreme possibility is that,
if we get into regulation development for a product category and discover that
regulation is not feasible for one reason or another, we may just drop the
regulatory process. Our requirement for adopting a regulation is to examine
environmental and economic impacts. When we iopted the antiperspirant/
deodorant regulations, we looked at ozone depletion, global warming,
2-36
-------
economics, the existing alternative product forms, and the potential for
development of new aerosol propel 1 ants. In terms of actual ozone reduction, we
have a network of 100 ozone monitors. We usually look at the three-year
averages for overall impact on ambient ozone concentrations. In terms of
photochemical reactivity, the Board's policy is to look at mass reductions of
VOC's first, and then we start exploring how we can shift the reactivities.
Question: [Inaudible.]
Dean Simeroth: Usually there are so many regulations being adopted in any one
year that there's no way to really see the impact of a single regulation. If
a single regulation reduces emissions of four, or five, or ten tons of VOC out
of 3800 tons, it will be hard to see an impact. The industry had Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) do an analysis, and they found
that a two ton reduction in the South Coast would be a 0.006% reduction in
ozone.
Ralph Engel: The California Air Resources Board's cost estimates for
reduction were $0.50 to $1.20 per pound, while CSMA's cost studies showed
between $1.64 and $12.67 per pound. For aerosol underarm products in
California, that translates out to about $30 million additional costs
annually. And in addition, each manufacturer will need to complete their own
laboratory formulation, safety testing, and manufacturing modifications at
significant capital and development costs of several million as well.
Question: You said that one of the reasons that pesticides will be addressed
last is that you recognized that you would have to deal with FIFRA problems.
Why are disinfectants, which are also FIFRA products, included in the
household products category instead of with the pesticides?
Dean Simeroth: It was an arbitrary classification into that category. We
recognize that disinfectants fall under FIFRA as well, and this will have to
be considered in the process.
Question: Just recently, the ARB has taken away exemptions for HCFC's. Is
that something that the Board did contrary to the suggestions of the staff,
2-37
-------
and if so, why?
Dean Simeroth: The Board, in my opinion, never does anything contrary to the
suggestions of staff. The Board recognized the political impact of the ozone
depletion problem in California, and they set a standard that no compound with
an ozone depleting potential greater than 0.00 can be used.
2.9 TED WERNICK
Gillette Medical Evaluation Laboratory
Reformulation and Safety Testing - Their Timing and Costs
As many of you know, since 1978 consumer products were banned from using
fully hydrogenated chlorofluorocarbons as propel 1 ants for aerosol products.
The concern, of course, is that the CFC's were contributing to the depletion
of the protective ozone layer. The ban was instituted by the EPA, the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Consumer Products Safety Commission
(CPSC). Industry turned to existing alternatives, namely butane, isobutane,
and propane. Ozone depletion by CFC's is still an issue. In addition,
Federal, State, and local governments are concerned about tropospheric ozone
formation. In order to further reduce the amount of ozone depletion by CFC's
without contributing to an increase of ozone in the troposphere, a chemical
industry consortium has developed a series of HFC's (hydrofluorocarbons).
Information released by the manufacturers of these products leads us to
believe that they may be usable in consumer products. However, the safety of
these new products has not been determined.
The purpose of today's presentation is to demonstrate the nature and
extent of toxicological investigations that are needed to establish the safety
of consumer products utilizing new propellants. It must be established that
the products are safe for the men and women who manufacture them and safe for
the men, women, and children who use the products.
Basically, a consumer product is made up of three components, the active
ingredient, the vehicle, and the propellant that is needed to get the product
out of the can. Perfumes and colorants are added for aesthetic reasons. The
development of each of these components must include a safety evaluation of
the individual ingredient. The manufacturers of consumer products are
2-38
-------
responsible for the safety of the final product. The components, when mixed
together, may have additive or synergistic effects. Therefore, the nature and
the extent of testing cannot be determined for a product until a formulation
is developed and preliminary tests are conducted and evaluated. The
obligation to substantiate the safety of products and ingredients is both a
moral and legal one. The Toxic Substances Control Act and the Food and Drug
Act both require substantiation of the safety of new products before they are
marketed.
The development of consumer products with a new propel 1 ant is basically
divided into four phases. The first phase is the development and testing of
the new propel 1 ant. The second phase is the laboratory formulation or product
development; the third phase is safety testing of the final formulation and
preparation for marketing. And of course, the last phase would be the market
research, manufacture, and distribution of the new product. Some of the
phases must be conducted sequentially. Other phases may be conducted either
simultaneously or may overlap each other.
The first phase, the development and testing of the propellants, is now
in progress as the chemical industry consortium is already investigating
certain propellants. These propellants are mainly for blowing agents and
refrigerants. The results of these studies are expected to be available
sometime in 1994. And it will probably take another year or two for this data
to be published and peer reviewed in the toxicology or medical journals. The
information provided by these evaluations will provide basic data needed to
develop and safety test a line of consumer products. Consequently,
toxicological investigations and product development cannot begin until 1994
at the very earliest. However, recently it was learned that the propellant
HFC-134a, one that most likely could be used in consumer products, has not
begun its two year toxicology studies.
The next phase after the evaluation of the propellants, the formulation
phase, involves selection of the valve to determine the spray rate or the
spray pattern of the product; can size and can strength also have to be
determined. Then stability testing, compatibility of the can with the
product, and efficacy testing are required. Preference tests with human
subjects obviously cannot begin until animal studies at least have been
initiated and evaluated.
2-39
-------
The third phase is the actual safety testing. First, toxicity studies
are conducted. Dermal toxicity tests determine if a new product absorbs
through the skin. Inhalation toxicity of these products is also evaluated.
Animals are exposed appropriately to the new products, and then observed for a
period of approximately 14 days. Animals are examined for convulsions,
respiratory rate changes, agitation, body weight changes, and survival.
Animals that survive are sacrificed at the end of the observation period and
are also examined grossly and microscopically. Primary irritation studies are
also conducted to determine the effects of a single application to the skin,
and to the eye. Respiratory irritation studies determine whether or not a new
product would cause upper or lower respiratory irritation. Sensitization
tests determine whether or not the products will cause sensitization or an
allergic response.
Tests are also conducted to determine the potential for carcinogenicity.
These begin with the standard Ames test. And then, depending on the results
of the Ames test, information from suppliers, the medical literature on the
propellants, and the vehicle and the active ingredients, in vitro tests may
also be conducted. The testing for acute toxicity, irritation, sensitization,
mutagenicity, can be conducted simultaneously. This would take an eight-
month period. The cost, depending on the types of tests, would be between
$40,000 and $80,000 per product.
A subchronic test is then conducted to determine longer term effects and
target organ toxicity, and to delineate exposure levels for the chronic or
lifetime study. The duration of the subchronic test is approximately three
months. Animals are examined for an additional three-month period to
determine if any of the effects observed are reversible. The exposure level
used in the subchronic test is usually based on the acute studies, the
information we've received from the suppliers, and the medical literature on
other components in the product. Changes in body weight, food consumption,
behavior, and survival are observed. Complete blood and urine analyses, blood
chemistries, and pathological examinations are run on all animals that die
during the course of the study and those that are sacrificed during the end of
the three-month exposure period, or after the three-month observation period.
And of course, all the data are subject to statistical analysis. The time
required for this phase is 12 to 14 months, and the cost is approximately
2-40
-------
$200,000 per product.
Chronic toxicity is the next phase. The objective here is to determine
the effects of each exposure level, to determine a no observed effect level,
and to determine a margin of safety, that is, the margin between the exposure
level during product use and the level where no observable effects occur. The
duration of this test is generally 24 months. There are three exposure
levels: low, middle and high, and a control level. The exposure levels are
based on the information derived from subchronic studies and medical
literature, and human exposure is taken into consideration. Here, the same
types of observations as in the subchronic study are conducted, along with an
evaluation of tumor development.
A true carcinogenicity study or a lifetime study with the product is
conducted. At this time, we can also conduct teratology studies. The
objective of a teratology study is to determine the effects of exposure of
pregnant animals to consumer products on the embryo, fetal viability, and
development. The animals are exposed at various levels, and a maximum
tolerated dose is used as the highest exposure level. Sacrificed animals are
examined for such things as body weights, clinical signs of toxicity,
viability of the pups, fetal weights, gross observation, examination of serial
sections of pups, skeletal examination to determine the effect on the long
bones, and the effect on the various organs. The estimated time for the
teratology studies is 12 months, and the costs are approximately $150,000 per
product.
The reproductive phase can also be conducted. In this phase of the
study, we determine the effect of a product on three generations of animals.
The animal of choice is generally the rat; the first generation is mated from
that generation, a second and a third generation. We keeping exposing the
animals at this time, and keep mating them to determine the effects. We
determine mating indexes, fertility indexes, live birth weights, 24-hour
survival, 4-day survival, and 21-day survival. Animals are examined for
malformations when possible, and a statistical analysis is conducted as well.
The time required for this phase is 12 months, but it can be run
simultaneously with the teratology study and chronic toxicity study. The cost
for this study is approximately $270,000.
The final phase is market research, manufacturing development, and
2-41
-------
distribution of the product. In market research, consumer use studies are
conducted to determine the effects and the feelings of consumers. This study
cannot be started until a sufficient time has elapsed in the longer term
studies to assure the safety to the consumer. Procurement and installation of
manufacturing equipment must be done when the company has a feeling of
certainty that the tests will come out satisfactorily. The final stage is
production and distribution. The time period required for this phase is
roughly 30 months. It must be emphasized that the time and costs that are
mentioned throughout this presentation assume that no problems arise.
In summary, the purpose of this presentation was to demonstrate the
extent and nature of toxicologic investigation needed to establish the safety
of aerosol consumer products involving new propel1 ants. The tests described
range from those that evaluate acute toxic effects, irritation, and skin
sensitization to chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, assessment of reproductive
toxicity, and teratogenicity. While several tests can be carried out
simultaneously, the starting point would be when the propellant is made
available and the formulation is identified. It is projected that the total
minimum time needed to complete these studies is approximately six years.
Assuming that propel 1 ants and the safety data for these propel 1 ants would be
available for 1993, the earliest that industry could possibly have a new
product on the market is 1999.
Question: [inaudible]
Ted Wernick: The total cost for the safety testing portion of a product would
be approximately $1.5 million per product.
Question: How much of this testing is just an ongoing process, looking at
existing product improvements and looking for new products? Are some of the
costs you presented basically costs that reflect this ongoing in-house
capability? You must have some funding for this as part of your normal
business. Can you separate these costs from having to replace a whole line of
products?
Ted Wernick: Of course there are ongoing R&D and ongoing toxicological
2-42
-------
evaluations. This discussion concerns a brand new ingredient, one that has
never been used before. We're talking about an ingredient that hasn't even
been released. I must emphasize that these are the tests that we anticipate
will have to be done. Once the chemical industry releases the information, we
may decide that more testing or less testing is required. Some monies are
always available, and we are all looking to have a better product, one that is
new and improved. But when it comes to a brand new ingredient, it's hard to
say.
Question: Could you comment on other factors besides the VOC issue? You
mention animal testing for example; there's a strong movement for animal
rights and possible requirements for changing some of those tests from 1993 to
the year 1999. What kind of impact, would you expect that to have on both
timing and costs?
Ted Wernick: It could have a very significant impact. The most serious
impact may be sabotage from extreme animal rights groups. In fact, the FBI
has labeled one of the groups, the Animal Liberation Front, as a terrorist
organization. They have done a fair amount of damage to a number of
universities. And if they hit a place where one of our studies is being
conducted, on the last day of a two-year study, there would be a tremendous
impact. The rat becomes exceedingly more and more valuable each day of the
study. Otherwise, I don't believe that any of the laws or regulations that
the animal rights people are trying to implement will impact this type of
investigation. But I could be wrong.
Question: Regarding hair sprays and antiperspirants in the aerosol
formulation, if we use our hypothesis that testing has been conducted on the
HCFC's, chronic testing, things of that nature, and it comes up clean, are you
saying that you'll have a tiered approach for the actual formulated products?
Are you still going to.conduct chronic testing if it has been done on the
active ingredient and the propel!ant already?
Ted Wernick: That would depend on the results of the subchronic and acute
studies.
2-43
-------
Question: It's a tiered approach. You're going to start out with the acute
and mutagenicity?
Ted Wernick: We would have to, definitely.
Question: Is it true that not too much chronic testing being done on
formulated products on a routine basis?
Ted Wernick: You're right. However, we have to keep that option open. I
tried to emphasize that each sequential step determines the need for
subsequent steps.
Question: If we assume the test results are in by 1994, you estimate that it
would be 1999 before the product would be released?
Ted Wernick: Yes.
Question: Is that assuming that you would have to go through the whole range
of testing? If you stopped at the acute or subchronic portion, would that
subtract from that point?
Ted Wernick: Of course. But we can't commit to anything until we have the
data. We haven't had the first sample of any new propel 1 ant.
Comment: [Don Strubach, DuPont]. Those of you who attended the EPA/Industry
CFC Ozone meeting in Washington on October 10-11, 1989 must realize that it is
extremely unlikely that HCFC's will be permitted for nonessential aerosol uses
by the Agency. In addition, I would like to comment that our company has no
plans to make HCFC's available for such aerosol uses.
Comment: [Leonard Drell, Demert & Dougherty]. To my knowledge, this so-
called consortium is greatly a figment of the imagination. If there were a
valid consortium, there would have been invitations to the people now in the
propellant business to join them. To my knowledge, no one in the hydrocarbon
2-44
-------
propellant business has been invited into this consortium, and there seems to
be a decision that hydrocarbons are to be abandoned. Part of the purpose of
the investigation of propel 1 ants is to improve the species of hydrocarbon and
finding out more about hydrocarbons. Much of the regulatory approach has been
to assume that all hydrocarbons are the same. They are not; and another
assumption is that they are really a factor in ground-level ozone. They can
be made less a factor. I think that giving this industry and this audience an
assumption that there's a problem that may or may not be real, is not a good
service, and I don't know of any major marketer who's making plans based upon
a new propellant. I really think they should look at improving the present
propel 1 ants.
Question: Please comment on the amount of testing that is done, from a safety
perspective, that is associated both with product safety as well as protecting
yourself against tort law or liability law requirements. Also, are there some
EPA representatives who would like to comment regarding this issue? How can
we minimize our future liability?
Ted Wernick: Let me try to answer this the best way I can. I have been a
toxicologist since 1956, and I have never worked for a company that has asked
me to test a product to assure that we wouldn't be sued. I was always given
the assignment to make sure that our products are safe for the people that
manufacture them and safe for the people that use them. So as far as
conducting a test to protect myself from liability, I have never designed or
conducted a test for that purpose. The final responsibility of toxicologists
is to assure the safety of our products.
Jim Weigold: I find it hard to believe that EPA would be able to tell anyone
that they will be immune from suits.
2-45
-------
2.10 TED DAVIS
Acting Assistant Director, Division of Air Resources
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
New York Regulatory Activities
Representatives from New York really appreciate the opportunity to share
information at this type of symposium. To start with, I want to explain how a
consumer/commercial solvent program got into the N.Y. state implementation
plan. As you may know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required a two-
step approach for non-attainment areas. A plan was submitted for ozone in
1982. The wording of those programs that could be implemented were intended
to result in some ozone reductions, but they did not demonstrate attainment of
the ozone standard. Unfortunately, the EPA proposed to disapprove that plan
in 1983, so we prepared another plan in 1984 that included five extraordinary
measures. Those were measures that went beyond what we and the EPA believed
were reasonably available. These measures included stage two gasoline station
controls, reasonable available control technology on small sources, auto body
refinishing controls, controls on architectural coatings, and lastly,
controls on consumer/commercial solvents. However, in submitting that plan,
New York put some conditions on it. First, we requested that the EPA publish
its proposed Stage II control technology guidance document. It was released
in a draft form in 1979. Second, we asked that the EPA get the oxidant model
working, so that before any final decisions are made, we can predict what is
expected to happen with air quality. Third, we wanted to assure tri-state
consistency with New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. None of these
conditions have been fulfilled. In the current plan we assume that in
commercial/consumer solvents, the 6.3 Ib per capita number that was listed in
AP-42 would be reduced to 4.0. That is roughly a 13,000 ton per year
reduction.
After approval of the SIP, the EPA initiated the first of several SAIC
studies. It was done during 1985-1986 and its purpose was to check the
emissions and the emission factors that were being used for
consumer/commercial solvent categories. This study covered New York, New
Jersey, and California. The SAIC study confirmed the f : per capita figure
for the New York Metropolitan area, although the categories were somewhat
2-46
-------
different from those in the AP-42. A second SAIC study addressed emission
reduction techniques. It was done in 1987 and covered only New York and New
Jersey. The highest emitting product categories identified in the first SAIC
study, air fresheners, disinfectants, and insecticides, were studied in more
detail. This study considered such changes as reformulation, change in
application method, substitution, and banning. The second study included no
recommendations, and both New Jersey and New York concluded that the results
were not usable.
Next we were sued in Federal court, with NYDEC and a few citizens' groups
opposing the EPA and New York State. We were sued on the grounds that we had
failed to implement four of the five extraordinary measures, despite the fact
that the SIP never made a commitment to implement any measure until the other
conditions were met. There was a similar suit in New Jersey. They had a few
more measures that were not in the New York SIP; the only measure excluded was
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for four small sources. The
court order took over a year to negotiate, and it concluded that we would
implement the Stage II program, the auto finishing program, and the
architectural coatings program. We have developed regulations for those
categories and implemented them.
However, we dropped all the other VOC programs in order to get them done.
So even the small source RACT program fell by the wayside. We also agreed to
implement part of the consumer/commercial solvent regulation for the three
categories identified in the SAIC study. The Part 235 regulations cover air
fresheners, disinfectants, and insecticides and require product registration,
a complete study, and full compliance by January 1, 1997. More specifically
in the registration area, it applies to all VOC-containing products in the
three categories, and the registration had to be completed by September 1 of
this past year. Registrations are slowly trickling in, and we have about 300
companies and 3,000 products registered thus far.
The registration process also required a commitment to initiate a study.
If there was a consortium of manufacturers that represented 75% or more of the
volume in the three categories, then they could agree to conduct a joint
study. Studies must be approved by July 1 of 1990. The rule also required
that all the study protocols be submitted for approval by the 1st of January,
1990. CSMA will submit a study protocol on behalf of at least 75% of the
2-47
-------
volume. If a product is riot registered, there is a sales prohibition
commencing January 1 1990. Shelf studies will probably be conducted to see if
there are unregistered products. Manufacture date is not the issue; if a
product is registered, that it can be sold. Each study had to be designed so
that a 25% reduction in VOC emissions, in tons per year, not ounces per jar,
would occur by 1997. The study had to commence no later than July 1 of 1990
and be completed by January, 1994. We expect to act on protocols in the
spring, and have them completed by the first of July. For those companies
that are registered but have unapproved or disapproved protocols, the sales
prohibition would apply some time next summer.
We are still studying the consumer/commercial solvent categories. About
a year ago, we held the Saratoga Workshop and concluded the Saratoga
Agreement. It was an agreement among the NESCAUM States - that's all of New
England, New York, New Jersey, and California, and Texas - that we would study
various consumer/commercial solvent categories. Spray paints, all-purpose
cleaners, hair care products, adhesives, underarm products, windshield washer
fluids, and aerosol cans will be examined. Air fresheners, disinfectants, and
insecticides are also included. The insecticides category is expanded to
include all the pesticides. Schedules were assigned to these categories. New
York will study the spray paint, the all-purpose cleaner, hair care product,
adhesive, air freshener, disinfectant, and the pesticides/insecticides
categories. New Jersey will also review the last three categories.
California will conduct a study of underarm products, and Texas will examine
windshield washer products. In the first year, and the first year is ending
shortly, we hope to be in a position on hair care products, underarm products,
and windshield washers, arid to be able to make midcourse adjustments on the
ones that were already in our regulation. Two years is the deadline for spray
paints, all-purpose cleaners, and adhesives. The three-year study is for
aerosol cans.
In general, without EPA action soon, it is expected that amendments to
Part 235 will start covering other product categories. If the EPA wants to
supersede the states in these areas, that probably should happen soon.
Otherwise, we will be in the rulemaking process once again. It is expected
that we will allow the same schedules in any new proposals as we have allowed
in the past.
2-48
-------
The study that New York is conducting is being handled by Pacific
Environmental Services (PES). It began in October of 1988, and we expect a
draft report in late August, 1990. This study covers six product categories
identified in the first SAIC report as high emitters. The study is a complete
inventory and reviews VOC reduction options. The study has been expanded to
include other parts of New England, and a draft is expected in February, 1990.
It will show the various options, what kind of emissions reduction could be
expected from them, and give guidance on how to further regulate if necessary.
The court agreed that insignificant sources emitting less than 100 tons per
year could be eliminated from consideration.
In conclusion, it may be helpful to share the New York perspective, it
was stated yesterday that the consumer/commercial category was 7% of VOC
emission on a nationwide basis. In the New York metropolitan area it's 13%
based on 1987 data, and expected to be 15% in 1990. This increase is not
necessarily due to increased emissions, but rather because of reductions in
other elements of the emission inventory. In 1970 the consumer/commercial
category was 6% of the New York metropolitan inventory. The New York
metropolitan area includes New York City, Long Island, and the two counties
just north of the city. From 1970 to 1987 the total VOC inventory has
decreased from 625,000 tons to 298,000 tons. A 55% reduction has occurred and
there is discussion of a further 75 to 80% reduction. Programs have already
been implemented for motor vehicles, industrial sources, and architectural
coatings. These programs have been and are being implemented, and many are
being reexamined. There is discussion of a stringent emission package to
further reduce automotive emissions. Our conclusion is that reductions in
consumer/commercial contributions to high ozone are an integral part of the
solution. Whatever happens in Congress or with the EPA, it is hoped that
existing State programs will not decelerate.
We have discovered that industry needs time however, and that the best
solutions will come out of an industry/government partnership that will need
time to develop. There are some technical questions that must first be
addressed. The sampling methods for determining compliance, particularly from
aerosols, have not been developed. An active emission inventory has not been
developed. We need to know the role of VOC substitution before we can make
decisions. Consumer satisfaction and consumer acceptability must also be
2-49
-------
assured. And finally, we have to be very careful concerning the environmental
and health consequences of what we propose.
Question: You said that the New York City area has had a 55% reduction in
their VOC inventory since 1970. What is the resulting ozone drop?
Ted Davis: The design value for ozone has maybe gone done by approximately
one-third. For a rule of thumb for the New York area, for every percent VOC
inventory reduction you get about 1/2 of a percent decrease in ozone.
Question: In the development of a mandate for a reduction study, how do you
address the formulator who has a product that contains 100% VOC, and that VOC
is the active ingredient?
Ted Davis: From our perspective, if there is still 100% VOC content but
consumers could use less of the product to get the desired effect, that would
still be considered a reduction in the amount of VOC emitted. This would
still conform with the intent of the regulation, which is to reduce hot summer
day and seasonal emissions. We are not looking at an absolute reduction in
content, instead we are looking at a reduction in emissions.
Question: [inaudible]
Ted Davis: One thing not mentioned was that we would probably allow a
reduction program in place of a study if somebody could demonstrate a 25%
reduction in emissions.
Question: The 1987 SAIC study didn't provide any reliable information, and
the 1985 SAIC study also had some significant problems in its inventory. I
question the relevance of any data from the 1985 study. Even if the data were
correct in 1985, there are major product categories in existence now that were
barely created in 1985. It's a constantly changing marketplace. In addition,
the 1985 SAIC study was based on no accurate formulation information, very
little accurate sales information, and regional differences in the use of the
products were not taken into account. The best data in the study may be
2-50
-------
within an order of magnitude.
Ted Davis: It's still the best study we had, it basically started the ball
roll ing.
2.11 EDWARD HEIDEN President
Heiden Associates, Inc.
The Socioeconomics of Regulating Consumer Products
Heiden Associations was retained by CSMA to conduct an economic impact
study of the cost of VOC removal for underarm products in the state of
California. The products discussed at this symposium are in everybody's
closet, bathroom, garage, and kitchen. The whole household lifestyle could be
affected. No comprehensive figures on the total amount of consumer spending
involved have been published yet but it will be considerable. For just four
categories, hair spray, antiperspirant/deodorant, shaving cream and
fragrances, shipments were worth $2,000,000,000 based upon 1980 data. These
figures are more than double that now for shipments, and consumer spending is
a 2- or 3-fold multiple. Many products are involved, including, personal
products which have already been mentioned, household products, waxes,
starches, and laundry products, furniture polish, veterinary products like pet
sprays, paints, insecticides like flying insect sprays, automotive products,
cleaners, and even miscellaneous products like artificial snow and bird
repellant. There are very few regulatory possibilities, and many of them
will, in one form or another, require suppliers to reformulate their products,
particularly focusing on aerosols. This may also be true for non-aerosol
products, such as antiperspirants and deodorants. The impact will be large in
terms of costs for dealing effectively and efficiently with this regulation.
The following is a review of the costs and some of the impacts that are
likely to arise. There are two kinds of costs: costs on businesses and
suppliers, and costs that affect consumers. There are several categories of
business costs and many of them are quite large. The first is capital costs
that reflect abandonment of line, or conversion of an existing aerosol line to
2-51
-------
a non-aerosol line for manufacturing. This is a fairly large capital cost
item and will affect many of these products.
Second are R&D and marketing costs associated with reformulation of each
type that doesn't need particular content specification. There are a good
many of these types of costs, and they are large and more exhaustive than you
might imagine. They include such things as in-house laboratory testing to
determine the technical feasibility of product formulation and reformulation;
packaged screening studies to meet reformulated product profiles; adjustments
in container size and type and valve delivery rate; small-scale animal
toxicity studies; large-scale process testing; process compatibility; plant
manufacturing test runs, and so on. In some cases, large-scale toxicity and
human irritation studies must be conducted. Safety and efficacy studies; mass
production scale-up, consumer acceptance studies; and development of
advertising and marketing strategies, are required. In-house marketing staff
and out-of-house advertising agencies will be affected in having to conduct
controlled distribution test marketing, develop new lithography mechanicals,
and conduct engineering assessment of equipment needed for full-scale
manufacturing (including plans for changes and plant and manufacturing line
configuration). In addition, decisions must be made in management analysis as
to whether or not to introduce the new product. The key thing about many
segments of the consumer products industry, including some of the most
important ones, is that there are dozens of combinations of products. Within
a single line these combinations are based on variations in product size,
product type (whether it's a standard or a non-standard product, for example),
the type of container, and appearance. These are marketing costs that have to
be applied in the context of a large number of product combinations. Thus,
R&D marketing costs are likely to be extremely significant.
The third type of cost is the replacement cost for the hydrocarbon
propellant to create an acceptable non-VOC alternative. In connection with
the California study, one major manufacturer indicated that, compared to an
upcharge in the propellant cost estimated at about $0.26 per pound for
hydrocarbon, the upcharge for developing an acceptable VOC alternative would
be $1.00 to $5.00 per pound. It was also estimated that this would add, on
the average, between $.33 and $2.13, using adjustments for weight and content
of container in the underarm area, to the final consumer cost. So replacement
2-52
-------
cost is likely to be substantial.
The fourth category of cost involves changes in distribution
requirements. One of the things found in the California study was that firms
would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to respond on a California-
only basis in terms of aerosol reformulation for underarm products. Many of
the survey respondents, covering the majority of output for the underarm
antiperspirant and deodorant segment, indicated that they simply would not be
interested, and from an economic standpoint would not be able to separately
distribute products to California. Under separate state-by-state regulatory
requirements a new set of costs would be added for distribution, storage, and
inventory costs. New transportation requirements, changes in storage space
requirements, changes in company owned warehouses, separation of inventories,
and the need for clerical staff to monitor distribution and direct wholesale
and retail accounts, will all be additional costs.
The fifth category, and an extremely important one, is the economic loss
that is associated with capital that will no longer be productively employed.
This includes the loss of aerosol cans, valves, plastic components,
ingredients, concentrates, propellants, and the loss of capacity to produce
those. These are not just hypothetical losses, this is capital that is in
place and contributes directly and indirectly to the gross national products.
This is a very significant loss, and it is recognized as such in the impact
work that was done in connection with the CFC aerosol reduction and ban. The
costs will amount to well over a billion dollars if you total up all of the
lost processes. Obviously, we don't have the data or the scenarios yet, but
this is going to be an extremely significant category of cost.
This is also a real economic loss as measured by and reflected by job
loss and in reduced capacity. There is also a potential cost in terms of
foregoing alternative research opportunities. A good deal is heard about the
need to develop an acceptable alternative to hydrocarbons. No one at this
stage knows how much, but that effort represents lost opportunity costs in
terms of other kinds of R&D efforts that could have been undertaken. This
could be an extremely significant component.
Turning to consumer costs, what we know from the cost increments that
will occur from the business standpoint is that consumers are going to pay
significantly higher prices for aerosol delivery, if they're going to have
2-53
-------
them at all. Some firms in our California survey said they would simply
respond by cutting out the production of aerosols and turn to non-aerosols.
Those firms that stay with aerosols will be reformulating them, and costs will
be reflected in significantly higher prices for consumers. Also, we can
expect significantly higher prices for non-aerosols. Although this is not as
definitive, there might well be a demand shift toward non-aerosols. There
will again be some cost of reformulation involved, and both of these factors
will tend to increase the price of non-aerosol.
Increased prices for both aerosol and non-aerosols with take place
against the backdrop of some equity considerations. One issue that is
extremely important to an economist, in addition to losses, efficiency, and
direct cost, is the distributional equity of costs and economic arrangements
dealing with a regulation. Many affected consumers in attainment areas will
be forced to pay for these costs, but will derive no benefit. Regulatory
approaches that are designed to address this issue, have their drawbacks.
This equity issue is one of the key issues. It is a very difficult problem
and one that is of enormous importance in the regulatory impact area.
Another dimension to be considered with aerosols is the issue of their
convenience. Why do consumers like them? A good many consumers, we found in
our California study, are real fans of aerosol delivery. Practically 25% of
total underarm products are in the form of aerosols, and this had been a
fairly stable percentage over time. We did a small scale survey, not a
statistical one, of California consumers with respect to why they liked
aerosols and why they continued to purchase them even though they have
significantly higher price per application than non-aerosols. The responses
included quicker drying time and allergic potential to non-aerosols. A number
of responses involved possible clothing stain problems. So underpinning the
tendency in the marketplace to vote with the pocketbook for aerosols is the
issue of convenience. For many of these products, the issue is functional
usefulness as well as convenience. A survey of users of these products might
find a high concern for usefulness to go along with the convenience. But
again, we don't have specific data in this area, but we are talking about a
loss of usefulness as well as a loss of functionality.
The last issue which we found in the California study was that if
regulations occurs state-by-state, some of the consumers in our survey
2-54
-------
indicated that they might take advantage of availability in other areas to
bring aerosols products back into California. This issue can be troubling in
terms of achieving goals of reduced emissions. Roughly 40% said that if they
were somewhere else and had the opportunity, they would purchase an aerosol
can that was banned in California.
There are other impacts as well that cannot be looked at as rigorously.
First there is the impact on small business which is one that cannot be
neglected. This impact is part of the fabric in the loss of economic value
for the upstream vendor industry that we talked about earlier. In particular,
there is a group of individuals called contract fillers who fill the requests
of the formulators. There are a lot of these contact fillers out there, and a
lot of them have very specialized, one-on-one relationships with
formulators/marketers. They have been, if you will, in commercial marriages
for many years. Fillers for aerosol underarm products specifically mentioned
that there is a very strong possibility that they would be forced out of
business. The applicability goes well beyond underarm products in this case.
An impact on employment is also likely.
There are other impacts that could be important such as possible changes
in the competitive structure of this industry. Changes in the competitive
role that contract fillers play may possibly change the competitive fabric and
market relationships in them. Possible loss in trade advantages may also occur
for some products. It could well be that regulation will create a situation
where these products become non-competitive, thus reducing our price advantage
relative to countries that don't have these requirements, and changing the
terms of trade. That is a policy decision that would have to be taken into
account in making regulatory decisions.
The point is that there are a number of very important impacts. We can't
possibly know what they all are or could be.
Any study of the potential regulatory agenda for reducing hydrocarbon
emissions has to take a look at the candidate for that regulation from the
standpoint of economic impact as well as from the standpoint of ozone
reduction. An emissions inventory for purpose of rational decision-making is
not enough. It must be accompanied by an economic inventory or an economic
impact assessment.
2-55
-------
Question: When you were mentioning the costs, it struck me that there would
be significant loss of jobs, sales, and business opportunity associated with
excess industry capacity. If you're talking about modified products,
reformulated products, it's not as if those products are necessarily going to
disappear or a whole gamut of products would disappear.
Ed Heiden: No, it's certainly true that you would have new value added, in
the other sectors, but of course, you may have that at significantly higher
cost. The point is however, that you will be losing what used to be a source
of employment and economic value whose capacity can not be converted. If this
was convertible capacity, you would certainly take that into account, although
you'd still have the extra resource cost of conversion. But we're talking
about capacity that could not potentially be earmarked for substitutes in the
event of severe restrictions on aerosols. That would lead to permanently lost
GNP.
Brock Nicholson: I think that in that one example one might suggest that
you'd lost some of that, but (1) that doesn't necessarily represent the
prospects the industry as a whole across the country, and (2) to a certain
extent, those employees and that capacity are certainly viable there for
conversion, for new opportunity, and for new products not strictly in the
aerosol can area.
Ed Heiden: It is one thing to say that these people could find new employment
and it is quite another to say that a part of our country's gross national
product is permanently lost. There are enormous friction and dislocation
costs in making transitions for capital. I am sure it can be done, and that's
why one of the costs I have not talked about was the cost of lost employment.
The capital specifically designed for aerosols in most cases can't be
converted in terms of the upstream supplier capital, although the lines can be
converted from the marketing and formulation standpoint to a great extent.
One of the participants in the California study indicated that they could not
convert their aerosol line and that they would have to abandon it; but
generally, the conversion was at least a technical possibility. We're talking
about the upstream suppliers and that's simply lost GNP.
2-56
-------
Comment: [Bob Hangebrauck, EPA]. It seems that we need to look at this whole
picture as an evolutionary kind of thing that is going to occur anyway.
Within our development of new products, existing products change with time.
The names are going to change, and at the same time, new products are being
brought into the marketplace. I think we're talking about environmentally
attractive evolution. I am used to seeing a label on products which says
"new". A lot of times it's the largest lettering on the product. This gives
us the idea that there is constant change going on in the consumer area with
respect to products.
Another comment on the aerosols; I think there are obviously alternative
propellants and alternative dispensing mechanisms that people are thinking
about. Considering that worldwide we are manufacturing something like 8
billion of those units a year and they are causing disposal problems, maybe we
should think about innovative approaches for dealing not just with the problem
discussed here, but other aspects of it as well.
Ed Heiden: Those are good comments. The goal you stated, to make sure that
commercial development is seen as part of the normal process of the ongoing
development of innovative new products, is a worthwhile goal. The point is,
however, that most new product development occurs against a calculus that it
is going to be worth while in a consumer payoff sense, that there will be a
market for it, and that the benefits will exceed the long run cost of the
investment. That is a good principle to apply to this type of regulation as
well. Certainly you don't want to impose these costs unless they will have
meaningful benefits.
Question: The set of concerns that you talked about in regulating in this
area, the desire to minimize vulcanization, to minimize costs to industry and
consumers, and to assure compliance, are the traditional array of regulatory
approaches; prescriptive command and control, fees, market permits, whatever.
What kind of advice would you suggest as a way to regulate in this area, where
obviously it is difficult for the Agency to know a priori all of the possible
impact? What are the desirable features of different regulatory approaches?
2-57
-------
Ed Heiden: Considering the basic costs and benefits of permitting, taxes, and
command and control, these approaches should be examined. They have real
implications for addressing some of the equity considerations that we've
talked about. But, again, they also have their problems. I think it is very
admirable to examine all the potential strategies and conduct a systematic
assessment of them. I can't answer your question, however, because I have not
given a lot of thought to it.
Comment: [Leonard Drell, Demert and Dougherty]. There seems to be no
experimental verification for many of the allegations that have been made. It
is very hard to show industry that a real benefit would occur, in terms of
ozone diminishing, from banning aerosols. Hydrocarbon propellants have been
lumped together, but the whole concept of VOC exaggerates the ozone forming
potential of hydrocarbon propellants. It would be unfortunate for industry to
make a large sacrifice with no real benefit to public health. The best course
would be to experimentally verify some of these assumptions to convince both
the public and industry that this is a worthwhile endeavor. Reducing ozone is
very important, but the elimination of aerosols will not solve the problem.
The attitude that hydrocarbon propel!ants should be disposed of ignores the
possibility that they can be improved. But the government people who have
spoken here show no desire to improve them. The problem requires a solution;
it doesn't require unproven theories.
Jim Weigold: EPA and a lot of other people have been studying the issue of
hydrocarbons for the past 18 years. There is an enormous body of data on
these studies, and I would suggest that you contact some of EPA's researchers.
The specific issue of how much reduction results from regulating aerosols is
extremely difficult to estimate. There is strong feeling that reducing
hydrocarbons will reduce ozone, but continued progress in meeting the ozone
standard is going to be enormously expensive. Analysis that takes place
should be comparative. The Clean Air Act does not allow consideration of
costs in establishing ambient air quality standards. It only allows indirect
consideration of costs in terms of the time needed to achieve the standard and
for implementation of the programs achieve the standards. It is understood
that this process is going to be enormously expensive and disruptive. If a
2-58
-------
strict cost benefit analysis were performed and the benefits were accurately
determined, there might be some imbalance. But, while costs for this industry
are certainly an important consideration, impact analysis has to include more
than that.
2.12 SANDRA CHEN
Supervisor, Bureau of Engineering and Regulatory Development
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Regulatory Activities
The pathway that led to New Jersey's regulation of volatile organic
content of consumer products began in 1982, as New Jersey finalized its
submittal of revisions to the SIP for the attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard for ozone. New Jersey found that it could not attain the
necessary reduction for volatile organic emissions through reasonably
available control strategies alone. To be able to demonstrate attainment of
the ozone standard by 1987, the State had to resort to extraordinary measures.
One of these extraordinary measures was reducing the emissions from consumer
or commercial solvents. In the revised draft SIP submitted to the Federal
EPA, New Jersey proposed to study the feasibility of implementing certain
extraordinary measures including controlling emissions from the use of
consumer solvents. However, during New Jersey's negotiations, the EPA
maintained that a commitment only to study the feasibility of these measures
was insufficient. The final version of the SIP document approved by the EPA
on November 9, 1983 described consumer/commercial solvent use as a source
category which includes volatile organic emissions from a variety of products,
including toiletries and cleaning agents. The Department committed to a
strategy of achieving emissions reductions within this source category by
developing appropriate regulations concerning reformulation or product
substitution. Certain qualifying language preceded this commitment in the
text such that if air quality improves, or if more reductions than anticipated
are achieved through the reasonably available control strategies, the
2-59
-------
magnitude of the emissions reductions necessary from extraordinary measures
would be reduced. In such a case, New Jersey would seek a SIP revision.
The commitment to adopt extraordinary measures including regulation of
consumer products was made "until and unless such revisions are approved by
the U.S. EPA." Also, regulation of product content was one of a number of
measures the New Jersey regulators felt could best be addressed by the U.S.
EPA at the national level. Most consumer products are marketed on a regional
or national basis, making regulation by a broader jurisdiction rather than the
State more logical. All these factors left a sense of ambiguity at least in
the minds of New Jersey regulators as to whether they were in fact committed
to regulating emissions from consumer product use. And in any case, it was
not a question that needed to be settled right away since the schedule in the
1983 SIP document did not require adoption of regulations implementing
extraordinary measures until January 1, 1987.
New Jersey did, nonetheless, clearly recognize its obligation to carry
out studies to establish the technical basis for regulating emissions from
consumer products. It carried out this obligation by contributing monies, as
did New York and California, to help support a two phase consultant study
conducted by the U.S. EPA Region II. The first phase of these studies was
undertaken in 1985 and set out to determine if there is a potential for
emission reductions from regulating the consumer product category. A Phase I
report entitled "Photochemically Reactive Organic Compound Emissions From
Consumer and Commercial Products" was completed in November of 1986. This
study reported that tens of thousands of tons of volatile organic compounds
were being emitted in New Jersey each year through product use. Further, it
found that a preponderance of these emissions emanated from the following six
consumer and commercial product categories in addition to architectural
coatings adhesives, hair sprays, all purpose cleaners, insect sprays, air
fresheners and disinfectants, and car polishes and waxes. The second phase of
the study focused on two of these six categories: air fresheners and
disinfectants, and insecticides. A technical report, "Control Techniques for
Reducing Emissions of Photochemically Reactive Organic Compounds from Consumer
and Commercial Products," was issued on September 30, 1987. This report
recommended banning the use of ozone precursors in the manufacture of consumer
products as probably the most effective control strategy. It noted that such
2-60
-------
banning might serve as an impetus for industry to pursue other strategies such
as reformulation, changes in application method, and development of substitute
products.
New Jersey regulatory focus had been on support of these two studies.
Despite the schedule in the SIP ruling that implementation of extraordinary
measures would be proposed by January 1, 1986, no rule had as yet been
drafted. On November 14, 1986, a coalition of environmental groups, led by
the American Lung Association of New Jersey and the Natural Resources Defense
Council notified the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the
U.S. EPA of its intent to commence a civil action against the state for its
failure to carry the SIP commitment. On January 28, 1987 this coalition
brought suit to compel the state to implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery
and six extraordinary measures including control of emissions from consumer
products. On September 24, 1987 the U.S. District Court Judge ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs, and on November 19, 1987, ordered the State of New Jersey
to act to adopt the seven measures in accordance to the prescribed stringent
timetable. New Jersey was ordered to adopt regulations to control emissions
from consumer solvents by December 30, 1988.
New Jersey acted expeditiously to carry out the Federal court order.
Regulatory development work on the consumer solvent category was combined with
the regulation of the volatile organic content of architectural coating. A
combined rule NJAC 727-23, otherwise referred as Subchapter 23, was proposed
on August 15, 1989. The proposal took the strategy of establishing maximum
content limit and concentrated on the two product categories focused on in the
second Phase of the U.S. EPA Region II consultant study. The proposal
prohibited anyone from selling, offering for sale, using, or manufacturing for
sale within New Jersey any air freshener or consumer insecticide which did not
conform with stipulated VOC content limits, and it set forth a 3-step
implementation schedule, with a more stringent VOC content limit being imposed
at each consecutive step, for both air fresheners and insecticides. The VOC
content of regulated products was to be limited to 50% in 1990, 25% in 1992,
and 5% in 1994. The intent of the phased-in approach was to allow
manufacturers to reformulate their products, or to develop substitute products
or alternative modes of application for their product. The proposal also
required product labeling and recordkeeping, and spelled out the department's
2-61
-------
authority. The intent of the labeling section was not only to facilitate
enforcement also to allow informed and environmentally conscientious consumers
to choose products with lower emissions potential. The products registered
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) were
exempted from the labeling requirement as the labels of the products
registered under FIFRA could not be changed without prior EPA approval. The
intent of the recordkeeping section was to create a paper trail from the
retailers to the distributors and back to the manufacturers which could be
retraced by enforcement officials. The inspection rights to the department
were included so that affected retailers, distributors, and manufacturers,
would be aware of the department's authority and of their obligation to assist
and not hinder or delay the performance of any inspection.
Voluminous comments were received on this proposal. As the department
studied the comments, it recognized the validity of the issues raised by a
number of commenters. The department recognized that there was uncertainty as
to the availability of alternative products, particularly for all types of
insecticides. The absence of a detailed inventory, compounded by the
reluctance of manufacturers claiming confidentiality of information and trade
secrets, undermines confidence with regulatory assessments of the proposed
rule's effect. Nonetheless, the underlying premise of the rule, that
emissions from solvent-based products contribute to New Jersey's overall
emissions, could not be doubted.
Subchapter 23 was adopted on January 26, 1989, and was published in the
February 1 New Jersey Register. Because of the uncertainties associated with
the technical basis of the rule, the version adopted was less comprehensive,
less stringent and less burdensome on the regulated community than the
original proposal. Consumer insecticides were not made subject to the
volatile organic substances (VOS) content limit or labeling requirements.
Subchapter 23 did, however, establish required documents of VOS contents in
consumer insecticides shipped for use in New Jersey. Only the 50% VOS content
limit for air fresheners was adopted. In addition, retailers of air
fresheners were exempt from recordkeeping requirements. In order to make
certain of the architecture coatings standards in this rule were consistent
with New York, the department undertook immediately following the adoption of
Subchapter 23 to propose amendments to it. These amendments appeared in the
2-62
-------
New Jersey Register on May 1 of this year and were adopted on October 16,
1989. These amendments affected primarily the architectural portions of the
rule; however, the definition of air fresheners was amended in response to
comments to explicitly exclude products for use on the human body, such as
perfumes.
To ease the burden on manufacturers who had to contend with the use of
differing terminology and different jurisdictions, the changes also allowed
other terms such as VOC or PROC to be used in labeling to refer to a product's
volatile organic contents. The term normally used in New Jersey is VOS. And
the unlimited exemption of private products subject to a fifth rule was
deleted.
In June, during the public comment period for these proposed revisions,
the department received a petition for rulemaking from over two dozen New
Jersey paint retailers requesting that the rule be further revised to include
a grandfather clause for architectural coatings. The department granted this
petition, thus setting into motion the development of a second set of
revisions. In lieu of the recordkeeping of provisions previously promulgated,
the department is proposing to require manufacturers and distributors to
attest on the invoice, bill of lading, or other shipping document to the
distributors or retailers receiving the shipment if the product is in
compliance with Subchapter 23 requirements. And also, in lieu of only
manufacturers of consumer insecticides being asked to document the VOS content
of products sold in New Jersey, all manufacturers of consumer products
containing VOS sold for use in New Jersey are to be required to maintain
records indicating the type and quantity of products sold, their VOS content,
and the number of units sold. Manufacturers are to report this information
upon request to the Department.
Also, the intent of this provision is to make accessible to the
department a valid database as it proceeds with future consumer product
regulation. This second set of proposed revisions to Subchapter 23 was
published just last week on November 6th, in the New Jersey register. Public
comment on this proposal is invited. The deadline for comment is the eighth
of December. I encourage any of you who wish to do so to submit comments in
writing, or in person at the public hearing scheduled for December 5th in
Trenton, New Jersey.
2-63
-------
New Jersey and many other states have not yet come into compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. Further reduction of the
emission of ozone precursors must inevitably be an objective for air pollution
control programs in states such as New Jersey for at least the next decade.
This ensures that reducing the emission of volatile organic substances from
products will not be overlooked by regulatory programs in years to come. The
steps that New Jersey has taken to date toward the regulation of product
emissions are clearly just the beginning. There is more information to
gather. There are more emission reductions that may be obtained from the air
freshener product category and there are more product categories to address.
There are products used in commercial activities, as well as those used by
consumers to consider. Also, there remains a lot of thinking to be done as to
the appropriate control strategy. Consumer products are one emission category
in which the use of economic incentives and disincentives may be an
appropriate approach. It may be more socially beneficial to allow market
forces, rather than the more inflexible product VOS content ban, to dictate
which products will be forced out of the marketplace. As New Jersey
contemplates future consumer product rulemaking, it does not believe it will
be proceeding in isolation. New Jersey is committed to working with other
states to form a common regulatory strategy. New Jersey is mindful of the
initiatives being undertaken in California. The EPA, as the calling of this
conference attests, is now also taking steps to act in the consumer product
arena. The new Clean Air Act Amendments, if adopted, would make regulation of
product emissions a national initiative.
As a closing remark, I will comment on the provision for federal
preemption of consumer product regulation and the Administration's Clean Air
Act bill. While New Jersey believes that the U.S. EPA should take the lead in
regulating consumer products nationwide, we also believe that there should be
no preemption of state rulemaking. More severe regional or local ozone
problems may require some states to be more stringent than the EPA. Also,
state rules can test innovative strategies, which could help the EPA in its
efforts to regulate this extraordinary VOC category.
Question: I think that the opposite is true regarding your last statement
about preemption and the state of New Jersey's position that they should have
2-64
-------
their own regulations. The ozone problem in New Jersey is related to the
problem in New York City and Philadelphia. I don't see how any regulations
which relate to the State of New Jersey are going to affect the overall
inventory of a region which goes beyond the state boundaries. The New Jersey
situation is a classic illustration of the preemption issue.
Sandra Chen: The problems of the Northeast corridor are clearly not going to
be solved by the actions of any one State. The actions of any one State can
contribute to diminishing these problems, but the most effective strategy is
for all the states in the corridor to work together in a common and
cooperative fashion, and this is certainly an objective we would like to see
achieved in New Jersey.
Question: New Jersey's proposed rules allow manufacturers to ship products
containing VOC out of state, but manufacturers cannot ship these products into
the state. It seems that you're just pushing the problem back into the
Northeast corridor.
Sandra Chen: Our jurisdiction is as a State agency and our mandate is to
protect the air quality of New Jersey. This is what we have the authority to
do. We would welcome similar actions in neighboring states, but we can only
act to mitigate this problem in New Jersey.
2.13 MICHAEL KOSUSKO
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Research Toward Reduction of VOC Emission from Consumer Products
The EPA's Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) is
responsible for air pollution control research in the Office of Research and
Development. In particular, the Organics Control Branch has the
responsibility for ozone non-attainment, air toxics from organics, and
woodstove emissions. There are a number of research programs ongoing in the
Branch, including some concerning add-on control technologies. I'm
responsible for stationary area sources of VOC and how they can be reduced.
The funding for the program has been $300,000 over a three-year period for all
2-65
-------
area sources and consumer products.
The first stage in our current program is to gather information about
consumer products and evaluate emission reduction strategies. AEERL will be
supporting New York State and NESCAUM in gathering more information about
emissions in the Northeast, and will continuously monitor California
activities. AEERL was also involved in the planning of this symposium and
gathering much of the industry information.
The other part of our program involves source-specific research. A
report on aerosols was prepared and is currently being reviewed by CSMA and
other industry representatives. Once these reviews are complete, we will
decide whether or not to publish the report. Some concerns expressed have to
do with the reliability of the formulation data in the report and the
interpretation of market data to yield a true emissions inventory. Accurate
emissions inventory data are very important. Another question concerns the
loss of effectiveness in changing from aerosols. If we go to a different
product form, is that really going to make a difference in the amount of VOC
emitted? The same question arises with changes in formulation, especially
once you take into consideration consumer use patterns and the effectiveness
of the product. The second source-specific research project has to do with
charcoal lighter fluid emissions and the potential for emissions reduction.
This is a small source, but emissions can be eliminated almost entirely by use
of alternatives. Evaporative and combustion emissions from charcoal lighter
fluid account for about one-tenth of a percent of the VOC inventory. The
alternatives may involve replacement of charcoal altogether or replacement of
only charcoal lighter fluid by using electric starters or chimney starters
(where you mount the charcoal over a screen and use a natural draft and a
piece of newspaper to light the charcoal). Of course, there are other
alternatives that have to do with using solvents to get them started. We
also have a very small effort (in the range of about $25,000) going on right
now to try to identify existing methods for testing the VOC content of
products.
The plans for the current year are to finish the ongoing work, and
prepare for next year's projects. The EPA administrator took 2% of the R&D
funds for fiscal year 1991 to work on pollution prevention type projects,
rather than add-on controls like carbon adsorbers or catalytic incinerators at
2-66
-------
the end of a stack. Pollution Prevention is concerned with changing
formulations and changing process methods to reduce the amount of emissions.
Our initiative Demonstration of Emerging VOC Area Source Prevention Options is
one of probably 100 proposed projects. The laboratory was funded for this
effort for the fiscal year 1991 at the level of $1,000,000. There is
potential for funding in fiscal year 1992.
One important issue in the pollution prevention initiative was to have a
broad base of support partners in the effort. AEERL is the lead laboratory or
the lead agency, but others have a part to play in the initiative. The
initiative is split essentially into two parts, with funding equally divided.
The first part is demonstrating the viability and benefits of substitutes for
volatile organics. This is an interesting effort, because it's going to be
jointly funded by our Laboratory, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
and an unidentified industrial partner, at a level of about $250,000 per year
per group. The proposed activities will look at alternatives to aerosol
propellant packaging and whether they will have an effect on VOC emissions,
and surface coating-free materials. The significance of surface coating-free
materials is that, if you can avoid coating a structure on a regular basis,
you can cut down the amount of emissions that come from that process. If you
have a surface that doesn't need to be coated at all, you can reduce emissions
even further. For example, a few years ago U.S. Steel came out with girders
that rusted in such a way that protected them from the need to be coated. The
other participants in this part of the work are South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Region 9, California ARB, and OAQPS.
The second part of the prevention initiative deals with consumer
institutional product VOC prevention options. This work involves development
of information on organic emissions from consumer products.. The background
engineering analysis is to identify the key players in the marketplace. We
plan to get a better inventory, have more workshops to identify pollution
prevention options, and examine technical/institutional barriers to making
changes to products. An example of a technical/institutional barrier might be
found in the stratospheric ozone program in the use of Freon refrigerant in
automobile air conditioners. Until a few years ago, there was no way to
certify the quality of recycled Freon, and for this reason the automobile
industry would not honor their warranties when recycled freon was used. The
2-67
-------
AEERL identified this problem, set up a work group, and developed a test
method for recycled automobile refrigerants. Now there is a standard for
recycled Freon, and there is recycling equipment in the automotive industry.
We need to have this type of workshop to work on the problems and the barriers
that are being identified today so that we can go forward.
In conclusion, the purpose of our program is to gather information about
the entire consumer products industry and focus on emission reduction options
for specific products. Secondly, to date, our research efforts have been
pretty small, but we expect them to grow in 1991. We have identified several
areas of uncertainty, a lot of them came directly from CSMA's response to the
aerosol report, and a lot of them have been identified here at this Symposium.
The consumer products industry is extremely complex, and we're going to need
to cooperate with industry to make gains and to come up with an attainable and
verifiable VOC reduction strategies and goals. Cooperation between industry
and government is needed to identify the barriers to making changes and to
identify opportunities for pollution prevention. Some of these barriers may
be greater than one company alone can handle. We would like to work with
industry, with CSMA, and other trade associations to define what government
research may be beneficial. And finally, we need some input on how we are
going to focus our research in consumer products to make a difference.
2-68
-------
3.0 WORK GROUP SUMMARIES
3.1 PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS
The Personal Care Products Work Group focused its discussion on four
major points:
1. Current inventories of VOC emissions from the use of consumer products
are inaccurate and unreliable.
2. Future inventories should be compound-specific and consider the ozone
formation potential of VOC's used in consumer products.
3. Discussions of regulatory approaches is premature. Regulatory approaches
should be tailored to specific product categories.
4. Control measures selected for consumer products must be accompanied by a
demonstration that reductions in ozone will be achieved.
5. Regulation of VOC's must be equitable both across VOC source categories
and within specific consumer product categories.
3.1.1 Development of an Inventory Database
Industry representatives felt strongly that there is not currently a
sufficient database upon which the EPA can base a regulatory program. A
chemical specific consumer products VOC emissions inventory should be the
first priority for regulatory development.
There was consensus that the inventory protocol should be jointly
developed by the EPA and industry, and then quality assured. Industry would
be happy to work with the EPA and its consultants in order to insure that the
inventory is done with a full understanding of the affected industry. The
aerosol industry uses only three hydrocarbons as propel 1 ants, and there are
only five producers of these propel 1 ants. The participants from the aerosol
industry felt that their industry would be happy to work with the EPA by
giving them ozone formation data on each of these three hydrocarbons.
Information on product formulation is available from the Cosmetic Division of
the federal Food and Drug Administration for many consumer products.
3-1
-------
The work group participants also felt that clarification of the goal of
regulation is needed: is the EPA intending to focus on the reduction of VOC
emissions from the use of consumer products, or on the overall reduction of
tropospheric ozone? This issue would have bearing upon how an inventory is
executed, as well as upon regulatory strategy in general.
3.1.2 PHoHtlzatlon of Solvents
Industry feels the need to demonstrate to regulators that all VOC's are
not the same; different solvents have different potential to contribute to
ozone formation. Many participants also had difficulty with the EPA's
definition of a "VOC", feeling that it is too broad and leaves formulators no
solvents with which to work. According to the EPA's definition, unless a
product is water-based, it contains some solvent and consequently emits some
VOC. According to industry representatives, many personal care products would
no longer be effective without some solvent content.
In the case of aerosols, propellants are liquified gases and are
virtually all solvents. The group also pointed out that many alternative
(i.e., non-VOC) propellants are likely to create new emissions problems or
contribute to other existing air pollution problems. It was the opinion of
some participants that hydrocarbons are the most acceptable propellants and do
not contribute significantly to air or water pollution.
The group suggested that the inventory of VOC emissions be compound
specific and include some consideration of each organic compound's relative
ozone formation potential. Participants felt that it is important for the
inventory to include ozone formation values for each of the 50 most prevalent
organic compounds in consumer products. All industry participants agreed that
photochemical reactivity must be considered.
One industry participant suggested that the "80/20" rule may apply, in
that a relatively small subset of products (i.e., 20%) may produce 80% of the
VOC emissions. Focusing on the 20% would produce substantial reductions with
less disruption to the industry as a whole.
3-2
-------
3.1.3 Ozone Reduction
The group felt it important that any proposed control of consumer
products include a prediction of the amount of ozone reduction it would
achieve. The group considered market approaches to regulation, such as
economic incentives and allotments, viable options; however, industry is not
able to assess the merits of these options without an emissions inventory and
an estimate of the ozone reduction that the EPA intends to accomplish.
In addition, there is strong concern within industry about having
sufficient time and opportunity to adapt/change their products to accommodate
regulation. A ban similar to the California ban on aerosol deodorants could
be very disruptive to the personal care product industry if insufficient
warning and preparation time were given.
Therefore, industry and government should work together to establish a
reasonable attainment goal. Industry representatives feel that they can
familiarize regulators with their production processes and, thus, ensure
development of an attainable regulatory goal.
3.1.4 Control Measures
Participants agreed that product substitutions are feasible with some
personal care products; for example, spray deodorants can be replaced with
stick deodorants, which contain less VOC's. However, substitution is not
possible with other products such as styling mousse or hair spray. Product
design changes could also limit VOC emissions; for example, containers can be
designed to release a pre-measured amount of spray with each application. The
cost of this change could be high, however, and VOC emission reductions could
be negated if the consumer repeatedly pressed the spray button. Consumer
preferences and willingness to accept substitutes are an important
consideration in finding product substitutes with acceptable market impacts.
3-3
-------
3.1.5 Fairness in the Marketplace
Fairness in the marketplace should be a guiding principle for any
proposed regulation. The regulatory approach should be tailored to specific
product categories, providing for reasonable exemptions for products in which
solvent content is essential. The equity (fairness) issue addresses concern
over possible disproportionate effects (impacts) between (1) small and large
companies, and (2) fair-share of ozone reduction burden.
3.2 HOUSEHOLD CARE PRODUCTS
The participants in the Household Care Products Work Group felt that it
is too early in the regulatory process to provide answers to the nine
questions posed by the EPA for this workshop. They felt it imperative that
industry, States, and the EPA continued to work together in the future to
answer some of these questions. Instead, the group chose to concentrate its
current discussion on three areas:
1. Current research activities on VOC emissions from their products,
2. Evaluation of the regulatory approaches discussed in the morning sessions
of the workshop, and
3. Steps the EPA should take next to gain a better understanding of VOC
emissions from consumer products.
3.2.1 Current Research Activities
An industry consortium has been established in response to recent
regulations (NY Rule 235) adopted by the New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC). The consortium has been charged with developing a
protocol for the 25% reduction of VOC emissions from the following products:
air fresheners, disinfectants, room deodorants, and insecticides. NY Rule 235
includes a four-year study period to develop this protocol. As of this date,
the consortium has elected officials and a Steering Committee, and has
approved bylaws. They have yet to establish technical committees to develop
specific protocols.
3-4
-------
The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) is currently studying the fate
of the volatile organic constituents in a number of consumer products to
determine whether or not VOC content of consumer products equals VOC
emissions. In the household care products category, many of the end use
solutions which contain these products are disposed of down household drains,
and end up at wastewater treatment plants or in septic tank systems.
Preliminary study results indicate that a large percentage of household
products that go down the drain are not emitted to the ambient air and thus
will undergo biodegradation. Preliminary results from Phase 1 of the study,
which evaluated light duty and heavy duty detergent products such as liquid
dish washing and laundry products, should be available to the public by the
end of 1989. The SDA believes the results from these studies will be broadly
applicable to other categories of household products.
The Clorox Company is also studying the fate of VOC's in certain consumer
products. They are currently conducting a study on the formation of volatile
and non-volatile chlorinated organics from household bleaches. Clorox feels
that VOC's may undergo other processes besides biodegradation and release to
the air. Their study includes identification of interactions that may be
occurring between the VOC's in the products and other materials in sewage.
Members of the work group also indicated that some reformulation and
testing of new products is underway in response to recent State legislation.
Some companies are either attempting to reformulate or are choosing to abandon
certain products in the air freshener category in order to comply with
recently promulgated NJ regulations.
3.2.2 Evaluation of Regulatory Approaches
3.2.2.1 Fee Structure--
The household care products group agreed that a fee structure is not a
desirable option for this industry. There was concern that whatever fees were
established would not achieve the desired goal of reducing VOC emissions,
because industry and consumers would be willing to pay more for certain
products containing higher percentages of VOC's.
3-5
-------
3.2.2.2 Marketable Permits--
Marketable Permits were considered a better option than the fee
structure; however, there are many issues to resolve. Participants encouraged
the EPA to explore this option and provide the industry with more concrete
ideas. One issue discussed was the need for an accurate baseline emissions
inventory. The participants felt that an inventory is essential for gauging
how well a regulation will achieve the desired goal of reduced VOC emissions.
3.2.2.3 Command and Control--
Participants felt that the consumer products industry has successfully
dealt with a command and control approach in some individual States, and that,
therefore, this would be the best approach for Federal regulations as long as
they are based on an accurate understanding of the industry. The participants
stressed that EPA emission reduction targets for the various product
categories must be based on sound emission and use-pattern data. The
participants suggested that industry and States should be involved in
preliminary research to help determine what the appropriate emissions
reduction targets should be.
3.2.3 Definition of VOC Content
There was an overwhelming consensus among the work group participants
that the EPA's current definition of VOC provides little leeway for
reformulation efforts, and must be narrowed down for the household products
industry. Participants encouraged the EPA to include photochemical reactivity
in their definition of "VOC" and to share the results of some recent studies
on reactivity of various VOC's. Considerable discussion addressed a test
method for determining volatility or vapor pressure of specific VOC's as they
occur as components in consumer products. The following are three basic
questions that the participants feel the EPA should address in defining "VOC"
for regulatory purposes:
What compounds should be covered by a definition for VOC for this
industry?
3-6
-------
How are the various products containing VOC's used and disposed of,
and how does this affect the amount of VOC's actually reaching the
atmosphere?
Can the VOC's be ranked based on photochemical reactivity; and can
photochemical reactivity be taken into account in order to assess
the VOC's impact on ozone formation?
3.2.4 Recommendations for Additional Study
The Work Group participants suggested that the EPA, working with
industry, conduct additional research to accurately quantify emissions from
consumer products, particularly in light of results obtained from the SDA
study. Product usage practices and the ultimate fate of product organics in
the environment should be considered. The participants felt that a two year
study period would be adequate for quantifying consumer product VOC content,
but not for defining and evaluating the impacts of the different products on
ozone formation. The participants encouraged the EPA to conduct additional
studies after the two-year period to establish the amount of VOC actually
emitted to the atmosphere before deciding on the most appropriate regulatory
strategy.
Following preliminary evaluation of the industry, the EPA should work
with industry and States to establish an approximate reduction target for VOC
emissions from consumer products.
3.2.5 Consistency with Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)
It was the opinion of the Work Group that products regulated by FIFRA
should be given special consideration under VOC regulations. The EPA should
coordinate with other regulatory agencies and other offices within EPA, such
as the Office of Pesticides and the Office of Toxic Substances, in determining
appropriate time frames and regulatory requirements for developing new
products. Registration of new products, product safety testing, and
compliance with existing FIFRA requirements must be considered when
3-7
-------
establishing time frames for compliance with a VOC regulation. This becomes
especially important when regulating products whose active ingredients are
VOC's.
3.2.6 r.nnsi«;tencv with Future Regulations
Industry also encouraged the EPA to try to anticipate other air quality
issues that will need to be addressed in the future. There was concern among
the participants that compounds identified now as suitable alternatives may be
cause for concern later with regard to indoor air quality, air toxics,
carcinogens, or global warming. Industry needs to avoid spending millions of
dollars to reformulate products only to find that their new products are
contributing to new air quality problems.
3.2.7 Industry and State Roles in the Reaulatorv Process
Both the household care products industry and States would like to
continue to advise the EPA through workshops like this one throughout the
study and regulatory process. It may be necessary to involve more technical
people to address the more technical issues. Participants would like to
continue to act in an advisory role to the EPA.
Participants also suggested that the EPA should work closely with the
trade associations to gather information and industry input. The trade
associations can collect necessary data for the EPA while protecting
proprietary information; or they can direct the EPA to appropriate sources for
information gathering. A close working relationship with the trade
associations is essential for continued industry-government coordination.
3.3 AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS
3.3.1 NPPH fnr a National Inventory
The Automotive Products Work Group asserted that the primary issue for
regulatory development is the need for a complete and reliable VOC emissions
inventory for the consumer products source category. The group recommended
3-8
-------
development of a protocol for gathering VOC emissions data. The protocol
should include use of existing databases such as SARA-313, NIOSH, MSDS, and
State agency data bases, as well as existing industry data such as market
surveys, product formulation, and industry-sponsored studies. Industry would
be willing to cooperate and contribute to an inventory if they were included
in development of the inventory protocol.
The inventory should be species specific, or at least specific to solvent
use categories, and would establish a baseline against which to measure future
emission reductions. Furthermore, it must be determined whether product VOC
content or VOC emissions are to be measured. It was the group's feeling that
the two years allotted by Congress for an industry study are not enough; four
years, as suggested by Dr. Ralph Engel, would be more appropriate.
3.3.2 Prioritization of Solvents
All of the industry representatives agreed that ignoring relative
volatility or photochemical reactivity is not a realistic or productive
approach to regulation. Two types of ranking or categorizing of products were
discussed: first, participants felt that solvents or groups of products should
be ranked according to their propensity to emit ozone forming VOC's. Certain
products could then be targeted as primary contributors to ozone formation due
to their high ozone forming potential. Secondly, products that cannot be
formulated without substantial amounts of VOC should be identified, and the
emissions involved quantified. The industry representatives feel that certain
products, such as antifreeze or carburetor cleaner, cannot be effective
without solvent content, and must be exempt from regulation or at least
treated individually.
Elasticity of consumer demand must also be determined for classes of
products. There are certain consumer products whose contents and/or cost can
readily be altered in order to meet ozone compliance, but other products meet
essential consumer needs and cannot be reformulated. For example, VOC's in
hairspray would be considered more expendable than those in carburetor
cleaners or antifreeze.
3-9
-------
The EPA representatives responded to these points by reiterating that a
market approach to regulation is intended to address just such issues,
allowing industry to respond to regulations in the most effective way. The
EPA cannot possibly be as familiar with the intricacies of the market as are
those involved in the industry. Approaches such as fees and allotments set
limits within which the industry can apply their more complete understanding
of the market in complying with regulations.
In any case, the industry representatives stated that, in order to know
where to focus their current R&D efforts, they need an indication of the
degree of VOC reduction planned by the EPA and the time frame for coming into
compliance.
3.3.3 Industry Response to Regulatory Alternatives
The potential for regulation to inhibit innovation and industry growth
was also of concern to the industry participants. Allotments can create
barriers to entry if larger companies monopolize available allotments. If
allotments are distributed according to current production, the industry may
become locked into a market share status quo. Innovation can also be
discouraged if a particular formulator develops an improved product using less
(or no) VOC's, but is made to release the formulation to the entire industry.
Additionally, unless there is a guarantee of stable regulations, industry will
be hesitant to commit money to developing low VOC products that may eventually
come under regulation or be banned. Innovation in a regulated industry is
assumed to be a high-risk endeavor. According to industry representatives, a
satisfactory regulatory strategy will need to consider this risk and provide
incentives for innovation and industry growth.
In response to this concern, the EPA and some industry representatives
pointed out that there is already a growing market for environmentally sound
products. Rather than inhibit growth, regulation could act as a stimulator
for entirely new markets and new product lines.
Industry representatives further pointed out that there is little room
left for consumer product VOC content reduction. It was emphasized that VOC's
are an expensive ingredient, and that use of VOC's in consumer products has
3-10
-------
already been minimized in order to optimize profits. Reformulation,
consequently, does not seem to be a promising alternative in many cases.
Additionally, it was pointed out that formulating products with less VOC may
create less effective products. Consumers may respond by simply using twice
as much of the product, and thereby negating any gains in emission reductions,
or they may stop buying the product altogether, eliminating a market.
3.3.4 Conclusions
In conclusion, all participants agreed that this exchange was productive
and should be continued. Several industry representatives would like to
remain in communication with each other and with the EPA representatives. The
EPA representatives also emphasized the need for this continued exchange and
gave names and phone numbers of appropriate Agency personnel to be contacted
for information and discussion. Industry participants showed an interest in
the regulatory development procedure, and how to be involved in the public
comment period. This information was also given by the EPA representatives.
Once again, the industry representatives stressed the need for a reliable
VOC inventory, their need to anticipate regulatory actions and subsequent
market reactions, and their conviction that relative ozone formation potential
of different solvents must be considered in regulating consumer product VOC
emissions.
3.4 HOUSEHOLD PESTICIDES
3.4.1 Current Research Activities
Industry participants described a project that the Chemical Specialties
Manufacturing Association (CSMA) is undertaking in conjunction with NYDEC.
The Court ordered NYDEC to regulate VOC's and approved a four year study to
determine how to regulate VOC emissions from consumer air fresheners,
disinfectants and insecticides. An industry consortium, through CSMA, is
developing a protocol to identify VOC control strategies which maintain
product efficacy, while reducing non-active ingredient VOC emissions into the
ambient air to the maximum extent feasible. The study is intended to:
3-11
-------
1) determine technologically-feasible ways to reduce VOC's (through
reformulation, total alteration, changes in pressurants for aerosols, for
example) and 2) evaluate control-mechanism impacts (including economic and
societal impacts). For the purposes of this study, VOC was defined by a
specific vapor pressure. This is a court-ordered process, and CSMA will
report the results of their evaluation to the Court through NYDEC. CSMA
expects to work with several other regions on similar studies.
3.4.2 Recommendations for Additional Research
The work group felt that a national study similar to the New Y-ork study
should be initiated. The participants agreed that one study for the entire
country would be more helpful than regional or statewide studies whose results
may or may not be transferable to the national scale. In addition, compiling
data on a national scale would preclude the need to prepare distribution
estimates. Though limited by confidentiality, the necessary formulation and
annual production data for household pesticides are already housed with the
EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). The CSMA member companies and other
members of the pesticide industry expressed a desire to work with the EPA in
designing and implementing a study of this nature, in order to develop
credible emissions data. The work group felt that this type of study will
require at least four years to complete, considering the fact that the New
York study will evaluate only two product categories in four years and will
include only one percent of the total pesticide products used in the U.S.
3.4.3 Need for Federal Preemption over State Regulations
The overwhelming feeling of the work group was that the Federal
government must take the lead in setting reduction targets for VOC levels in
consumer products. This feeling stems from the concern that existing and
anticipated State regulations may not be consistent with one another. It was
felt that the EPA could best help industry by impressing upon legislators that
Federal preemption over State regulations is necessary in the Clean Air Act
Amendments with special State needs addressed when proven necessary. Industry
representatives stressed that their ongoing research efforts are hampered by
the lack of a fixed reduction target and inconsistent State requirements.
3-12
-------
Expediting the Federal government's leadership role in this process may also
eliminate the initiation of other independent State efforts.
3.4.4 Consistency with FIFRA Regulations/Internal EPA Coordination
The OPP registration process required by FIFRA includes toxicity testing,
labelling restrictions, and formulation and annual production reporting. Not
only will it be difficult for industry to develop and conduct the appropriate
toxicity testing for major product reformulations, but the approval process
also will be very difficult for OPP to administer in a timely manner without
increased resources. An example was given to illustrate the conflicting
program requirements: methylene chloride cannot be approved for use under
FIFRA, but it would be exempt from consideration as a VOC. The work group
felt that the EPA must begin immediate coordination among the affected program
offices. In addition to FIFRA, the EPA must also coordinate with the
greenhouse gas issue concerning CFC's; the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
and the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements may also
come into play. The work group cautioned that the EPA must be aware that
restrictions imposed by FIFRA are unique to the pesticides product category,
and that the OPP approval process will become significantly more complex when
VOC regulations are promulgated. It must also be kept in mind that the
setting of strict deadlines will be unrealistic unless the OPP approval
process can be expedited. In general, industry asks that the EPA act
consistently across all program offices.
3.4.5 Regulation Must Not Discourage Innovation
The work group's discussion concerning innovation and flexibility focused
on ways to avoid discouraging innovation with regulation. Towards that end,
the work group reiterated that Federal regulation should preempt State
activities and provide nationally consistent regulations. In particular, the
work group asked that the EPA define a standard test method for measuring VOC
emissions and better define "VOC", with reactivity taken into consideration.
Industry also asked that the EPA consider focusing on a subset of VOC's
whose elimination will have the greatest environmental impact. The avoidance
3-13
-------
of outright solvent bans is also important in assisting technological
development. A "miracle solvent" is not likely to be found, and response to
regulation will vary from product to product. It is important for the EPA to
understand that for some pesticide products, VOC's cannot be completely
eliminated.
Additionally, the EPA could avoid discouraging innovation by including an
efficacy protection clause in any forthcoming regulation. The EPA should not
promote less efficient formulations simply to control VOC; the end result may
be that consumers are forced to use more of the product to achieve the desired
result, thus emitting the same amount of VOC. Industry is further hesitant to
market a low VOC product before legislation is enacted, because if an across-
the-board VOC reduction is promulgated, those who have already reduced product
VOCs will be penalized. A baseline needs to be established now, or there will
continue to be no incentive to market low VOC products.
3.4.6 Effect of Regulations on Markets
The work group expressed the concern that efficacy and cost be considered
in regulatory development. Also, the costs to consumers must remain
reasonable. As discussed above, consumers will not be satisfied if product
efficacy is decreased and more product is required. (An efficacy protection
clause is included in the New York regulation.) This issue will also affect
OPP considerations since consumer exposure to a product may be increased
because of decreased efficacy.
Industry representatives also stated that competition for market share
will drive technology, and that the companies to first market an
"environmentally safe" product will be at an advantage. The fear was
expressed, however, that larger corporations will be at an economic advantage
due to their greater available R&D resources. Participants suggested that
forcing technology may actually mean that some companies will be "regulated
out of business."
3-14
-------
3.4.7 Regulatory Burden on Formulators
The possibility that the EPA will initiate a program to force technology
was discussed in the work group, and it was stated that the segment of
industry most affected by this type of program would have the least control
over the development of new technology. The pesticide industry is a very
small part of the solvent suppliers' business; thus, the supplier would have
no financial interest in taking on the responsibility or liability of
developing substitutes for pesticides. Similarly, the pesticide formulators
are in no position to develop alternative delivery systems for their aerosol
products. In addition, the active ingredients in household pesticides have
been developed for agricultural uses, and then formulated for consumer use.
Therefore, only 10% by volume of the active ingredient produced are used in
the household pesticide products. Because of the low volume of consumer
pesticides, the producers of the active ingredients for pesticides will have
little or no incentive to develop new active ingredients for use in non-VOC
systems of regulated consumer pesticides. Thus, the burden will fall on the
household pesticide formulators to develop both new formulations and delivery
systems.
3.5 ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS
3.5.1 Recommendations for Additional Research
The industry participants in the Adhesives and Sealants Work Group
generally questioned whether regulation of VOC emissions from adhesive and
sealant products is warranted on the basis of their contribution to ozone
formation. Therefore, they agreed that the first step to be taken in
considering regulatory strategies for VOC emissions from adhesive and sealant
products is to conduct a thorough study of these products, including analyses
of:
The formulation of adhesive and sealant products;
The quantity and types of VOC's emitted from different products;
3-15
-------
The effect of different application and product delivery systems on
VOC emissions; and
The impact of specific VOC's on ozone formation.
One goal of this study should be to develop information that can be used to
compare products on the basis of the quantity of VOC's emitted per household
over a year's time. This study would then be used as the basis for decisions
by the EPA on which products, if any, warrant regulation. Products that do
not have high VOC contents should be excluded from regulation. Similarly,
products emitting VOC's that do not contribute significantly to ozone
formation should be excluded from regulation.
3.5.2 Definition of VOC Content
Participants in the work group were concerned that "VOC" is not
adequately defined, or that the definitions developed by the EPA, the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and various States are conflicting,
and that equations for calculating VOC content differ. They recommended that
the EPA define "VOC" before developing control strategies, and that individual
industries and trade associations participate in the development of this
definition. It was also recommended that the EPA and industry define the
equations for calculating VOC content. A related issue raised in the
discussions was the need to develop test methods for detecting and measuring
VOC emissions from adhesive and sealant products. These test methods should
take into account the methods of applying the product, the volatility and
reactivity of the VOC's in the product, and the contribution of those VOCs to
ozone generation.
3.5.3 Diversity of Adhesives and Sealant Industry
The participants agreed that any regulatory program for adhesives and
sealants should address specific products, rather than general categories of
products. The most important distinction cited by the group is between
products that have a high solvent content and those that have been formulated
to contain relatively small amounts of VOC. An across-the-board emission
reduction requirement for all products would disadvantage low-solvent
3-16
-------
products, which already have minimal VOC emissions, while possibly achieving
inadequate VOC reductions from high solvent content products. Distinguishing
low-solvent from high-solvent content products would also recognize that
companies are likely to reduce the cost of a product by reducing the solvent
content whenever possible.
The work group members also urged that the "social value" (i.e., benefit
to human welfare) of a product should be a basis for distinction. The solvent
content of products that couple a higher social value with a higher VOC
content should not be required to be reduced if the effectiveness of the
product would be reduced.
A final distinction urged would be based on the opportunity for VOC
emissions reduction presented by certain products. Those products that can be
readily controlled could be regulated more stringently than those that are
difficult to control. For instance, the method of application of a product
might be changed in some instances to reduce emissions, in lieu of or in
combination with a reformulation of the product.
3.5.4 Need for Federal Preemption over State Regulations
The work group members said that it is important to their industry that
emission standards for consumer products be consistent nation-wide, and that
the most effective way of achieving this goal is for Federal standards to
preempt State and local standards. Consistent standards will prevent
companies from having to formulate, test, and market their products
differently depending on where they will be marketed. Nationally consistent
requirements will also benefit the end user by controlling compliance costs.
3.5.5 Economic Incentives
The industry participants in the work group felt that economic incentives
for reducing emissions (e.g., excess emission fees) should be set at a level
sufficient to cause companies to reformulate or redesign their products. They
expressed a concern that some companies may be under market pressure to pay an
emission fee, rather than reduce emissions. By doing so, they would avoid the
3-17
-------
high costs of researching and developing new product formulations or delivery
systems, and maintain consumer acceptance of the established product.
3.5.6 Effect nf Regulations on Markets
The work group members pointed out that requiring controls on VOC
emissions from adhesive and sealant products will have a significant effect on
the market for those products. Reformulation of a product to eliminate
organic solvents may result in reduced consumer satisfaction with the
reformulated product and in lower sales of that product. Not only is this
true for the general population of consumers, but it is particularly true for
industries and trades that have product specifications that call for organic
solvent-based formulations. Reformulation may also result in increased rates
of application of a product that consumers perceive to be less effective than
the original, which would adversely affect the emission reductions sought
through the regulation.
3.5.7 Regulatory Burden on Formulators
The participants in the work group agreed that the focus of any
regulation limiting VOC emissions from adhesive and sealant products should be
on the product formulator. Formulation is the point at which the final
product is manufactured and the mixture of solvent-containing materials
decided upon. The formulators are also relatively few in number, compared to
retailers or consumers, and consequently are the easiest point in the market
to regulate. In addition to regulating formulators, any standards for
emissions from adhesive and sealant products should also address imported
products by making importers responsible for the compliance of the products
they introduce in the market in this country.
3.5.8 Evaluation of Regulatory Approaches
3.5.8.1 Command and control--
The industry participants agreed that a regulation limiting the organic
solvent content of a product or products would be preferable to a regulation
3-18
-------
requiring an across-the-board reduction in VOC emissions from all products.
Limiting the organic solvent content of a product or products would benefit
those products and manufacturers that have already invested in reformulation
to reduce emissions, while requiring manufacturers of high solvent content
products to take action to comply with the regulation. Requiring uniform VOC
emission reductions would benefit high-solvent products, which have a greater
opportunity for reducing emissions through reformulation. Low-solvent
products, on the other hand, already have low emissions and it would be
difficult to reduce them further.
3.5.8.2 Bubble regulations--
The industry representatives said that regulation that allowed a company
to allocate the solvent content or VOC emission reductions among the company's
various products would result in the most cost effective controls being
applied, and would give the company the option of retaining specific high-
value, high-solvent products by achieving reductions in emissions from other
products. On the other hand, regulations controlling VOC emissions from
specific adhesive and sealant products, rather than categories of products,
would have the smallest effect on competition between products, since all
products would be treated similarly. Further, product specific regulations
would simplify recordkeeping and enforcement of the regulation. In the
absence of a bubble, compliance could be determined by testing any single
product; with a bubble, compliance could only be determined by testing all of
a company's products.
3.5.8.3 Emission fee system--
Inclusion of an excess emission fee system as part of a VOC regulation
for adhesive and sealant products would benefit the industry by providing
companies with a way to continue producing products that do not meet an
emission or solvent content limit. This could allow the company to keep
marketing the product while attempting to reformulate or redesign it to reduce
emissions. It could also allow companies to continue producing specified
high-solvent products if the benefits of those products outweighed the cost of
the emission fee. The problems with an emission fee system are that it may
3-19
-------
not achieve the emission reductions desired (since companies can pay the fee
in lieu of reducing emissions) and setting the level of the fee would be
complex and difficult. The fee would have to be proportional to market size
in order to have an equitable effect, since a high fee would have a more
significant impact on a small company than on a large one. The fee could be
applied on a per unit of product basis to reflect company size and resources.
For the EPA to set the fee at a level that would be equitable, reduce
emissions, and separate the high-value products from the low-value products
would require industry input to the fee-setting process.
3.5.8.4 Allotment system--
The work group reacted negatively to basing regulations on an allotment
system, because this system would allow a company to approach a monopoly in an
industry by controlling allotments and would limit the entry of new companies
into the industry. An allotment system would also reward companies with the
highest historical emissions by providing them more allotments, putting at a
disadvantage companies that have made efforts to reduce emissions. The only
positive aspect of an allotment system recognized by the work group was that
it would alleviate the problem of setting an emissions fee by letting the
market for allotments set the price.
3.6 AEROSOL PAINTS
3.6.1 Diversity of Aerosol Paint Industry
In the Aerosol Paint Work Group's initial discussion, industry
representatives agreed that the aerosol paint industry is too big and diverse
to be regulated as one entity. Each area has unique requirements and
limitations. The work group agreed that the regulatory process would require
a combination of approaches - command and control, averaging, and economic
incentives - tailored for the specific product categories within the aerosol
paint industry.
3-20
-------
3.6.2 Definition of VQC Content
Industry representatives felt that the California definition of "weight
VOC per gallon of product minus water" was not applicable to the aerosol paint
industry, since their product is packaged in pressurized containers where the
VOC used as the propellant is lighter than that used as the solvent.
Therefore, removing the propellant would increase the weight VOC/volume
coating. It was suggested that a more relevant definition would include a
ratio of weight VOC to weight solids. Industry representatives felt that some
reduction in VOC emissions would be possible by substituting water for solvent
without changing the solids content.
3.6.3 VOC Inventory for Aerosol Paint Industry
Industry representatives felt very strongly that the aerosol paint
industry needs a baseline emission inventory against which to measure progress
in emission reduction and market acceptance of new products.
It was suggested that industry work on its own to produce an accurate
inventory. However, there was concern that the confidentiality of information
would make such an approach impossible. No real solution was found to the
inventory issue, but representatives from the EPA felt that inability to
develop of an inventory would not preclude development of a regulation.
3.6.4 Industry's Role in the Regulatory Process
The aerosol paint industry has been sensitized to the need for change.
The industry representatives agree that it is in their best interest to
participate actively in the regulatory process. The work group agreed that
industry should provide information to the regulators on the specific needs of
the aerosol paint industry. They felt that one of the first steps should be
the formation of an industry task force to further discuss the issues raised
at the symposium and to develop a model plan for reducing VOC emissions.
3-21
-------
3.6.5 Recommendations for Additional Research
The aerosol paint industry was initially motivated to reduce their
products' VOC emissions by promulgation of the California regulation.
Research activities are still in their infancy and include a variety of
approaches to VOC emission reduction. Specific research projects were not
discussed because this information is considered confidential. The work group
members agreed that any response to regulation should address environmental
responsibility for products "from cradle to grave", since other regulations
(e.g., air toxics, workplace hazards, waste disposal) would also apply to
these products.
There was some discussion of promoting the recycling of aerosol paint
cans and recovering the VOC. There is some feeling that, since these cans are
not completely emptied during use, they are a source of VOC emissions as they
disintegrate in landfills. However, industry participants felt certain that
aerosol products typically do get used in their entirety and that recycling is
not a valid issue.
3-22
-------
4.0 AGENDA AND ATTENDEES
jkb.007
4-1
-------
SYMPOSIUM ON REGULATORY APPROACHES
FOR REDUCING VOC EMISSIONS
FROM THE USE OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Tuesday
Noverter 14, 1989
Regulatory Emphasis
Moderator
8:00 Registration
8:30 Welcome
8:35 Introduction/Objectives
Overview of VOC Regulatory Programs
and the Nonattainment Problem
9:15 Status of the Clean Air Act Amendments
9:45 Break
10:15 Possible EPA Control Strategies for
Consumer Products
10:45 Industry's View of Regulating Consumer
Products
11:15 Use of Market-based Approaches to
Reduce VOC Emissions from the Use of
Consumer Products
11:45 Distribution of Questions to Product
Category Work Groups
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Concurrent Product Category Work Groups
2:30 Break
3:00 Concurrent Product Category Work Groups
5:00 Adjourn
John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management
Division, Office of
Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS)
John O'Connor
Deputy Director, OAQPS
John Calcagni, Director
Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS
Bill Harnett
Emission Standards
Division, OAQPS
Brock Nicholson
Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS
Ralph Engel
Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Assoc.
John Chamberlin
Office of Pol icy,
Planning, and Evaluation
John Calcagni
4-2
-------
Wednesday
November 15, 1989
Technical Emphasis
Moderator
8:00 California Regulatory Activities
8:30 The Functions of VOC's in Consumer
Products
9:00 New York Regulatory Activities
9:30 Reformulation and Safety Testing
Their Timing and Costs
10:00 Break
10:30 New Jersey Regulatory Activities
11:00 The Socioeconomics of Regulating
Consumer Products
11:30 EPA Research Toward Reduction of
VOC Emissions from Consumer Products
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Concurrent Product Category Work Groups
2:30 Break
3:00 Work Group Summary Presentations
4:45 Adjourn
Jim Weigold
Deputy Director
Emission Standards
Division, OAQPS
Dean Simeroth
California Air Resources
Board
Ike Emery, Vice Pres.
Helene Curtis
Ted Davis
New York Dept. of
Environmental
Conservation
Theodore Wernick
Gillette Medical
Evaluation Laboratories
Sandra Chen, New Jersey
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Edward Heiden
Heiden Associates, Inc.
Mike Kosusko, Office of
Research and Development
Work Group Co-chairs
4-3
-------
PRODUCT CATEGORY WORK GROUPS
Personal Care Products
Oean Simeroth
Kevin Loftus
Harry McCain
C. Kelly Burton
Leonard Drell
Robert Jamieson
Wallace Coscarelli
John Lazar
Ike Emery
Cynthia Greene
Al Vervaert
Household Care Products
Ted Davis
Richard Bednarz
Richard Sedlak
Robert Koenig
Armin Globes
Ramon Llenado
William Wilderson
John Ferguson
Eileen Moyer
Lorraine Lillis
Matthew McCarthy
James Crowder
Automotive Products
John Chamber!in
Alan Rogers
Graham Reed
Jerone Newberry
Jim Namnath
Norwin Wolff
Laurence Midtbo
Robert Hamilton
Clayton Smith
Bill Johnson
Household Pesticides
John Silvasi
Dean O'Hair
James Case
Steven Rogosheske
Bernard Weinstein
Jay Price
John Domanski
Kerry Leifer
John Ungvarsky
CARB
Gillette Corp.
Aeropres Corp
S.C. Johnson
Demert & Dougherty
Procter & Gamble
American Cyanamid - Shulton
Carter-Wallace Corp
Helene Curtis
EPA-Region 1
EPA/OAQPS
Govt Co-chair
Ind Co-chair
NYDEC
Amway Corp
SDA
Procter & Gamble
S.C. Johnson
Lehn & Fink
Scott's Liquid Gold Inc.
The Drackett Co.
Airwick Industries
CPL
EPA-Region 2
EPA/OAQPS
Govt Co-chair
Ind Co-chair
EPA/OPPE
First Brands Corp
Blue Coral
Pennzoil
Chevron Chemical
Interpolymer Corp
IKI Mfg Co
Amway Corp
TACB
EPA/OAQPS
Govt Co-chair
Ind Co-chair
EPA/OAQPS
Chevron Chemical
S.C. Johnson
McLaughlin, Gormley, King
Boyle-Midway
Dowbrands
Lehn & Fink
EPA/OPP
EPA-Region 9
Govt Co-chair
Ind Co-chair
4-4
-------
Adheslves and Sealants
Brock Nicholson
Dale Oosser
Michael Pezzuto, Jr.
Gerry Klosowski
Ray Thimineur
Kathy Hoi en
Tom Tupa
Greg Walsh
Steve Rosenthal
Wade Ponder
Aerosol Sprav Paints
Jim Berry
Robert Graham
Jim O'Connor
Karl Schultz
Steve Chalmers
Gus Leep
Edward Majkrzak
Roy Mallarnee
Gary long
Vickie Boothe
EPA/OAQPS
3M
ICI Resins U.S.
Dow Corning
General Electric
Loctite Corp
Loctite Corp
Darworth Co
EPA-Region 5
EPA/AEERL
Govt Co-chair
Ind Co-chair
EPA/OAQPS
Sprayon Products
Rustoleum
Dupont
Guardsman Prod., Inc.
Seymour of Sycamore, Inc.
General Paint and Chemical
Plastikote Co.
Borden
EPA-Region 4
Govt Co-chair
Ind Co-chair
4-5
-------
4.3 LIST OF ATTENDEES
MICHAEL ADAMS
FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION
200 C STREET - HFF-415
WASHINGTON, DC 20204
(202)472-5680
JIM ALBANESE
DIRECTOR, RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
SPECTRUM GROUP
8494 CHOPIN INDUSTRIAL DR.
ST.LOUIS, MO 63114
(314)427-4886
ALLEN C. BASALA
CHIEF, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SECTION
U.S.EPA/OAQPS
MD-12
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5622
REBECCA BATTYE
PROJECT MANAGER
E.H. PECHAN & ASSOCIATES
3514 UNIVERSITY DRIVE
DURHAM, N.C. 27707
(919)493-3144
DR. RICHARD BEDNARZ
DIRECTOR, RESEARCH SERVICES
AMWAY
7575 E. FULTON RD.
ADA, MI 49301
(616)676-5050
JAMES C. BERRY
CHIEF, CHEMICAL APPLICATION SECTION
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5605
RAY BIAS
EASTERN REGION SALES MANAGER
PHILLIPS 66
203 HUNTING RIDGE RD.
ROANOKE RAPIDS, NC 27870
(919)537-3817
4-6
-------
VICKIE BOOTHE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/REGION 4
345 COURTLAND ST.
ATLANTA, GA 30365
(404)347-2864
EARL K. BORMAN
LEHN AND FINK/D-CON
225 SUMMIT AVE.
MONTVALE, NO 07645
(201)573-5785
MARSHA BRANSCOME
ENVIR. ANALYST, CENTER FOR ENVIR. SYSTEM
REASEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
P.O. BOX 12194
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709-2194
(919)541-6726
NANCY S. BRYSON
ATTORNEY/COUNSEL
LEHN & FINK PRODUCTS GROUP
1001 PENNSYLVANIA AV, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-2505
(202)624-2529
FRANK BUNYARD
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/AMBIENT STANDARDS BRANCH
MD-12
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NIC 27711
(919)541-5297
KELLY BURTON
SENIOR SECTION MANAGER
S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.
1525 HOWE ST. (M.S. #138)
RACINE, WI 53403
(414)631-2402
JOHN CALCAGNI
DIRECTOR, AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
U.S.EPA/OAQPS
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5621
RICHARD J. CARTER
DIRECTOR OF ADVER., TOXIC., AND REG. AFF
BOYLE MIDWAY HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS, INC.
SOUTH AVENUE & HALE STREET
CRANFORD, N.J. 07016
4-7
-------
JAMES CASE
SECTION MANAGER
S.C. JOHNSON WAX
1525 HOWE STREET
MS 167
RACINE, WI 53406
(414)631-2630
STEVE CHALMERS
VICE-PRESIDENT
GUARDSMAN PRODUCTS, INC.
3033 ORCHARD VISTA DR.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49501
(616)957-2600
JOHN CHAMBERLIN
U.S.EPA/OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS
(PM-221)
401 M ST, S.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
(202)382-2762
SANDRA CHEN
SUPERVISOR OF RULE MAKING
NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CN-027
401 E. STATE STREET, 2ND FLOOR
TRENTON, NJ 08625
(609)633-1122
MARTIN CIFUENTES
AUTOMOTIVE CARE REPRESENTATIVE
DOW CORNING
2200 W. SALZBURG RD.
MIDLAND, MI 48686-0994
(517)496-5725
DR. ARMIN L. GLOBES
SECTION MANAGER
S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.
1525 HOWE ST.
RACINE, WI 53403
(414)631-2351
DAVID COLE
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
U.S.EPA/OAQPS
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5565
4-8
-------
DR. W. COSCARELLI
DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL A
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY
697 ROUTE 46
CLIFTON, NJ 07015
(201)340-6150
TED CREEKMORE
ENVIRONEMNTAL ENGINEER
U.S. EPA
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27711
(919)541-5699
JOHN CRENSHAW
PROGRAM MANAGER
RADIAN CORPORATION
P.O.BOX 13000
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, MC 27709
(919)541-9100
JAMES CROWDER
CHIEF, INDUSTRIAL STUDIES BRANCH
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5596
EDWARD W. DAVIS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AIR RESOURCES
NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF ENVIR. CONSERVAT
50 WOLF RD., RM.128
ALBANY, NY 12233-3250
(518)457-7231
JOHN DOMANSKI
DIRECTOR, PRODUCT SAFETY
LEHN & FINK
225 SUMMIT AVE.
MONTVALE, NJ 07645
(201)573-5785
DALE M. DOSSER
DIVISION VICE PRESIDENT
3-M COMPANY, ADHESIVES, COATINGS & SEALE
BLDG 223-IN-07, 3-M CENTER
ST.PAUL, MN 55144
(612)733-6675
4-9
-------
JAMES E. DOWNES
MANAGER OF PRODUCT SAFETY
MONSANTO CHEMICAL CO.
800 N. LINDBERGH
ST. LOUIS, MO 63167
(314)694-2918
LEONARD B. DRELL
DEMERT & DOUGHERTY
814 COMMERCE DR
STE. 310
OAK BROOK, IL 60521-1964
(312)271-6000
ELLEN DUCEY
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5408
IKE EMERY
CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH & DEVELOP
HELENE CURTIS INC.
4401 W. NORTH AVE.
CHICAGO, IL 60639
(312)661-0222
GERALD EMISON
U.S.EPA/OAQPS
MD-10
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5616
DR. RALPH ENGEL
PRESIDENT
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
1913 EYE STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
(202)872-8110
JACK FARMER
DIRECTOR, EMISSION STANDARDS DIVISION
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5572
DR. JOHN A. FERGUSON
DIRECTOR, PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
THE DRACKETT COMPANY
5020 SPRING GROVE AVE.
CINCINNATI, OH 45232
(513)632-1439
4-10
-------
D. DOUGLAS FRATZ
DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURERS ASSOC
1913 EYE STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
(202)872-8110
BETH FRIEDMAN
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
401 HARRISON OAKS BLVD
STE.350
CARY, NC 27513
(919)467-5215
PETER G. GOULD
PRESIDENT
EXXEL CONTAINER, L.P.
33 SCHOOLHOUSE RD.
SOMERSET, NJ 07090
(201)560-3655
DR. JOYCE GRAF
STAFF CHEMIST
THE COSMETIC, TOILETRY & FRAGRANCE ASSN.
SUITE 800
1110 VERMONT AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
(202)331-1770
ROBERT GRAHAM
VICE-PRESIDENT & DIV. TECH DIR
SPRAYON PRODUCTS, DIV. OF SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
26300 FARGO AVENUE
BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OHIO 44146
(216)292-7410
CYNTHIA GREENE
U.S.EPA/REGION 1
JFK FEDERAL BLDG.
APS-2311
BOSTON, MA 02203
(617)565-3244
LARRY A. HACKER
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
U.S.EPA/REGION 7
ARTX/ARBR
726 MINNESOTA AVE.
KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
(913)236-2893
4-11
-------
ROBERT HAMILTON
SENIOR GROUP LEADER
AMWAY CORPORATION
MAIL CODE 50-2E
7575 E. FULTON RD.
ADA, MI 49355
(616)676-7697
ROBERT HANGEBRAUCK
U.S.EPA/AEERL
MD-62
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-4134
WILLIAM HARNETT
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5253
ALTA HEFLEY
MGR., QUALITY ASSUR. & REG. AFFAIRS
MILES, INC.
7123 W. 65TH ST.
CHICAGO, IL 60638
(708)458-6100
DR. EDWARD J HEIDEN
PRESIDENT
HEIDEN ASSOC., INC.
1815 H STREET, NW, STE. 501
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
(202)463-8171
BRUCE HENNING
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
100 EUROPA DRIVE, SUITE 150
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514
(919)968-9900
DR. JIM HILL
CHEMICAL SPECIALTIES MANUFACTURES ASSOC
1913 EYE STREET, NW
STE.1120
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
(202)872-8110
THOMAS B. HILTON
DIRECTOR, ENVIR. & TECHNICAL REGULATORY
THE DRACKETT COMPANY
5020 SPRING GROVE AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OH 45232
(513)632-1139
4-12
-------
KATHY HOLEN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY SPECIALIST
LOCTITE CORPORATION
187-31 CRANWOOD PARKWAY
CLEVELAND, OH 44128
(216)439-5341
ROBERT IRVINE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPT OF NATURAL RESOU
BOX 30028
LANSING, MI 48909
(517)373-7042
M.J. IRWIN
GROUP LEADER, REGULATORY SERVICES
PROCTER & GAMBLE
5299 SPRING GROVE AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45217
(513)627-5357
MIKE ISHIMOTO
PENNZOIL COMPANY
700 MILAM STREET
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2967
DR. NORMAN JACOBSON
SIMPSON, THATCHER, & BARTLETT
425 LEXINGTON AVE.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
(212)455-2645
R.A. JAMIESON
SECTION HEAD
PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY
11511 REED HARTMAN HIGHWAY
CINCINNATI, OH 45241
(513)626-2410
WILLIAM L. JOHNSON
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/AQMD
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5245
BRENDA JOHNSON
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
U.S.EPA/REGION 4
345 COURTLAND ST., N.E.
ATLANTA, GA 30365
(404)347-2864
4-13
-------
PAULINE JOHNSTON
CHEMIST-INDOOR AIR DIVISION
U.S.EPA
401 M ST., SW
(MD-ANR-445)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
(202)382-2871
JOHN R. KEENAN
SCIENTIST
ECOLAB INC.
ECOLAB CENTER
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
(612)451-5693
SUE KIMBROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/TSD
MD-14
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5457
JEROME KLOSOWSKI
SCIENTIST
DOW CORNING CORP.
DOW CORNING CENTER
MIDLAND, MI 48686-0994
(517)496-4244
ROBERT G. KOENIG
MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
IVORYDALE TECHNICAL CENTER
5299 SPRING GROVE AVENUE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45217
(513)627-5040
STEVE KOMAZEC
PROCESS ENGINEER
FABERGE/CHESEBROUGH-POND'S INC.
HWY.211 E
P.O. BOX 740
RAEFORD, NC 28376
(919)875-4121
MICHAEL KOSUSKO
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S. EPA/AEERL
MD 61
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27711
(919)541-2734
4-14
-------
TOM LAHRE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/OAQPS
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5668
BYRON LAPIN
CLAYTON CORPORATION
JAMES A. LATTY
VICE PRESIDENT TECHNOLOGY
ARMOR ALL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
22 CORPORATE PARK
IRVINE, CA 92714
(714)553-1003
JOHN LAZAR
SENIOR RESEARCH MANAGER
CARTER-WALLACE CORP.
P.O. BOX 1001
CRANBURY, NJ 08512
(609)655-6399
GUS W. LEEP
VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
SEYMOUR OF SYCAMORE, INC.
917 CROSBY AVE.
SYCAMORE, IL 60178
(815)895-9101
KERRY LEI PER
U.S.EPA/OFFICE OF PESTICIDES PROGRAMS
401 M STREET, SW
(H-7505C)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
(202)557-4354
RICK LEONE
SANITARY ENGINEER
NEW YORK STATE DEC
50 WOLF RD. ALBANY, NY 12233
(518)457-7611
IRWIN LIEBMAN
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY
P.O. BOX 34689
CHARLOTTE, NC 28234-6080
(704)377-6555
4-15
-------
LORRAINE LILLIS
MANAGER, REGUALTORY AFFAIRS
CPL INDUSTRIES, DIVISION OF COLGATE PALM
909 RIVER ROAD
PISCATAWAY, NJ 08855-1343
(201)878-7468
ROMON LLENDO
LEHN & FINK PRODUCTS GROUP
225 SUMMIT AVE.
MONTVALE, NJ 07645
(201)573-5500
DOORIS LO
U.S.EPA-REGION 9
215 FREMONT STREET
A-2-3
SANA FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415)974-7054
KEVIN LOFTUS
GILLETTE COMPANY
PRUDENTIAL TOWER
38TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02199
(617)421-7880
ARCH A. MACQUEEN
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/CRITERIA EMISSIONS SECTION
MD-14
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5576
EDWARD P. MAJKRZAK
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL PAINT & CHEMICAL
201 JANDUS RD.
GARY, IL 60013
(312)639-5383
W. ROY MALLARNEE
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
PLASTI-KOTE CO., INC.
1000 LAKE ROAD
MEDINA, OHIO 44256
(216)725-4511
KELVIN MARTIN
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/CHEMICALS & PETROLEUM BRAN
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5416
4-16
-------
BRENDA MASSENGILL
U.S.EPA/AEERL
MD-49
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-2990
JAMES W. MCCABE
PRODUCT SAFETY SPECIALIST
THE CLOROX COMPANY
P.O. BOX 493
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
(415)847-6674
DR. HARRY B. MCCAIN
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
AEROPRES CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 78588
SHREVEPORT,, LA 71137-8588
(318)221-6282
MATTHEW W. MCCARTHY
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA-REGION 11
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10278
(212)264-2517
RANDY MCDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5402
DR. DEBRA MESCHKE
RESEARCH SCIENTIST
UNION CARBIDE
P.O. BOX 8361
S. CHARLESTON, WV 25303
(304)747-3934
LARRY MIDTBO
VICE PRESIDENT
1-K-l MANUFACTURING
116 SWIFT ST.
EDGERTON, WI 53534
(608)884-3411
MARK MILLKEY
ATTORNEY
SIMPSON, THATCHER, & BARTLETT
425 LEXINGTON AVE.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
(212)455-2645
4-17
-------
BRUCE MOORE
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5460
EILEEN MOVER
DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AFFAIRS
AIRWICK INDUSTRY
1655 VALLEY ROAD
P.O. BOX 941
WAYNE, N.J. 07474-0914
(201)633-2778
KENNETH J. MURRAY
ENVIRONMETNAL AFFAIRS MANAGER
EXXON CHEMICAL COMPANY
P.O. BOX 536
LINDEN, N.J. 07036
(201)474-2861
J.S. NAMNATH
SUPV., FORMULATION & ANALYTICAL CHEMISTR
CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO., CONSUMER PRODUCTS
P.O. BOX 4010
RICHMOND, CA 94804-0010
(415)231-6212
RICHARD NEILL
REGULATORY DIRECTOR
AMREP, INC.
63 INDUSTRIAL DR.
CARTERSVILLE,, GA 30120
(800)221-6772
ROBERT J. NELSON
DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL PAINT & COATING ASSOCIATION
1500 RHODE ISLAND AVE. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
(202)462-6272
JERONE NEWBERRY
PRODUCT MANAGER
PENNZOIL COMPANY
700 MILAM STREET
HOUSTON, TX 77252-2967
BROCK NICHOLSON
CHIEF, POLICY DEVELOPMENT SECTION
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/AQMD
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5517
4-18
-------
JAMES C. O'CONNOR
CORPORATE MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION
11 HAWTHORN PARKWAY
VERNON HILLS, IL 60061
(312)816-2251
JOHN P. O'CONNOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING & STANDARDS
U.S.EPA
MD-10
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5506
DEAN O'HAIR
CHEVRON CHEMICAL CO., CONSUMER PRODUCTS
P.O. BOX 4010
15049 SAN PABLO AVE., 94806
RICHMOND, CA 94804-0010
(415)231-6351
RICHARD OLIN
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
VIRGINIA DEPT. OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
P.O. BOX 10089
RICMOND, VA 23240
(804)786-7564
DAVID B. OLSEN
SR. PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY SPECIALIST
3M COMPANY
251-2E-12, 3M CENTER
AUTOMOTIVE TRADES DIV.
ST. PAUL, MN 55144
(612)733-4604
ANTHONY PATTI
SR. RESEARCH CHEMIST
CHESBOROUGH PONDS
40 MERRITT BLVD
TRUMBULL, CT 06611
(203)381-4344
TIM PETERSEN
ASSOCIATE
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, IMC.
2067 MASSACHUSETTS AVE.
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02140
(617)354-0074
4-19
-------
MICHAEL PEZZULO, JR.
Id RESINS
730 MAIN STREET
WILMINGTON, MA 01887
JAMES POLLACK
DOW CORNING CORP.
DOW CORNING CENTER
MIDLAND, MI 48686-0994
(517)496-4244
WADE PONDER
CHIEF, ORGANICS CONTROL BRANCH
U.S.EPA/AEERL
MD-61
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-2818
BARBARA POPEK
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR
LEHN & FINK PRODUCTS GROUP
225 SUMMIT AVENUE
MONTVALE, NJ 07645
(201)573-5502
DANNY POTEET
BEECHAM LABORATORIES
501 5TH ST.
BRISTOL, TN 37620
(615)652-3681
J. PRICE
DOW BRANDS
P.O. BOX 368
GREENVILLE, SC 29602
DOUGLAS RAYMOND
REGULATORY AFFAIRS SPECIALIST
SPRAYON PRODUCTS, DIV. OF SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
26300 FARGO AVENUE
BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OHIO 44146
(216)292-7410
ALLEN REED
VICE PRESIDENT, RESEARCH & TECHNICAL SER
CRC INDUSTRIES 885 LOUIS DR.
WARMINSTER, PA 18974
(215)674-4300
4-20
-------
GLENN REED
SENIOR ENGINEER
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
11440 ISAAC NEWTON ST.
STE.209
RESTON, VA 22090
(703)471-8383
GRAHAM REED
VICE PRESIDENT MANUFACTURING
BLUE CORAL, INC.
5300 HARVARD AVENUE
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44105
(216)641-5490
JOHN ROBSON
U.S.EPA/STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5305
A.F. ROGERS
TECHNICAL MANAGER
FIRST BRANDS CORPORATION
88 LONG HILL STREET
EAST HARTFORD, CT 06108
(203)728-6086
STEVEN ROGOSHESKE
MCLAUGHLIN, GORMLEY & KING
8810 TENTH AVE. NORTH
MINNEAPOLISN, MN55 55427
DAVID ROMENESKO
SENIOR SPECIALIST-FLUIDS TECHNOLOGY
DOW CORNING
2200 W. SALZBURG RD.
MIDLAND, MI 48686
(517)496-5428
STEVE ROSENTHAL
U.S.EPA/REGION 5
230 S. DEARBORN AVE.
MD-5AR-26
CHICAGO, IL 60604
(312)886-6052
RONALD RYAN
MANAGER, PROCESS ENGINEERING SECTION
ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
100 EUROPA DRIVE, STE.150
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514
(919)929-8370
4-21
-------
SUNNY RYERSON
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
WATERBURY COMPANIES, INC.
P.O. BOX 640
100 CALHOUN STREET
INDEPENDENCE, LA 70443
(504)878-6751
DALLAS W. SAFRIET
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA
MO-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5371
PATRICIA SAMUEL
MANAGER, REGULATORY AFFAIRS
ROUSSEL BIO CORP
170 BEAVER BROOK RD.
LINCOLN PARK, NJ 07035
(201)628-7200
MIKE SANGI0VANNI
EDITOR
AEROSOL AGE MAGAZINE
389 PASSAIC AVE.
FAIRFIELD, NJ 07006
(201)227-5151
RONALD SANTELLI
SR. RESEARCH SCIENTIST
FISONS PHARMACEUTICALS
755 JEFFERSON RD.
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
(716)475-9000 X2533
ELLEN M. SCHEIDE
REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER
3M COMPANY/ADHESIVES, COATINGS & SEALERS
3M CENTER
209-1C-13
ST. PAUL, MN 55124
(612)733-4116
LAUREL SCHULTZ
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S. EPA, OAQPS
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27711
(919)541-5511
4-22
-------
KARL R. SCHULTZ
E.I. DUPONT CO.
1007 MARAKET ST., B-5226
WILMINGTON, DE 19898
(302)773-4394
MARILYN SCHWAB
MANAGER OF TECHNICAL SERVICES
ARYLESSENCE, INC.
1091 LAKE DRIVE
MARIETTA, GA 30066
(404)924-3775
RICHARD SEDLAK
RESEARCH DIRECTOR
THE SOAP & DETERGENT ASSOCIATION
475 PARK AVENUE, SOUTH
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016
(212)725-1262
DAVID SHAW
TECHNICAL DIRECTOR
CLAIRE MANUFACTURING
500 VISTA AVE.
ADDISON, IL 60101
(708)543-7600
JOHN SILVASI
CHIEF, POLICY IMPLEMENTATION SECTION
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/AQMD
MD-15
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27711
(919)541-5666
DEAN SIMEROTH
CHIEF, CRITERIA POLLUTANTS BRANCH
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
1025 P STREET, ROOM 210
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
(916)322-8283
CLAYTON SMITH
ENGINEER
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
6330 HIGHWAY 290 EAST
AUSTIN, TX 78723
(512)451-5711
R.L. SMITH
SUPERVISOR, TECHNICAL SERVICE & DEV.
EASTMAN CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
P.O. BOX 431
KINGSPORT, TN 37762
(615)229-3665
4-23
-------
CYNTHIA STAHL
U.S.EPA/REGION 3
841 CHESTNUT BLDG
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
(215)597-9337
KEN STAMPER
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM
12 B-l PHILLIPS BLDG.
BARTLESVILLE, OK 74004
(918)661-3797
DR. ROBERT R STEWART
MANAGER OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS
S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.
1525 HOWE STREET
RACINE, WI 53403
(414)631-2882
RANDY STRAIT
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
100 EUROPA DRIVE, SUITE 150
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514
(919)968-9900
DONALD STROBACH
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
DU PONT
CHESTNUT RUN PLAZA
P.O. BOX 711
WILMINGTRON, DE 19880-0711
(302)999-3212
NICOLA A. STUFANO
DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
STANDARD CHLORINE CHEMICAL
1035 BELLEVILLE TURNPIKE
KEARNY, NJ 07032
(201)997-1700
STANLEY SUTHERLAND
SENIOR COUNSEL
S.C. JOHNSON WAX
1525 HOWE ST.
RACINE, WI 53403
(414)631-2995
4-24
-------
BETH TEAGUE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5428
RAY THIMINEUR
GENERAL ELECTRIC
BRUCE A. TICHENOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
U.S.EPA/AEERL
MD-54
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-2991
GARY TONG
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
BORDEN, INC.
1050 KINSMILL PARKWAY
COLUMBUS, OH 43229-1143
(614)431-6660
PAUL TRUCHAN
U.S.EPA/REGION 2
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10278
(212)264-2517
W.GENE TUCKER
CHIEF-INDOOR AIR BRANCH
U.S.EPA/AEERL
MD-54
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-2746
TOM TUPA
CHEMIST
LOCTITE CORPORATION
18731 CRANWOOD PARKWAY
CLEVELAND, OH 44128
(216)475-3600
JOHN UNGVARSKY
U.S.EPA-REGION 9
215 FREMONT
A-2-3
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
(415)974-7054
4-25
-------
CAROLE VARANELLI
BUSINESS MANAGER
MICRO VESICULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
22 COTTON RD.
NASHUA, NH 03063
(603)889-5538
VISH VARMA
VICE PRESIDENT
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
1635 PUMPHREY AVE.
AUBURN, AL 36830
(205)826-6100
CHUCK VAUGHT
CHEMICAL ENGINEER
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
401 HARRISON OAKS BLVD.
STE.350
CARY, NC 27513
(919)467-5215
AL VERVAERT
CHIEF, STANDARDS SUPPORT SECTION
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MO-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5602
SUZANNE VETRANO
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
CLOROX CO.
7200 JOHNSON DR.
PLEASANTON, CA 94566
(415)847-6674
DR. ALLAN WAGNER
DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AFFAIRS
ADAMS VETERNARY RESEARCH LABORATORIES
P.O. BOX 971039
MIAMI, FL 33197
(305)253-6601
GREG WALSH
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUPERVISOR
DARWORTH CO.
50 TOWER LANE
AVON, CT 06001
(203)677-7721
4-26
-------
AL WEHE
CHIEF, COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT SECTION
U.S.EPA/OAQPS/ESD
MD-13
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
(919)541-5623
BERNARD WEINSTEIN
BOYLE-MIDWAY
SOUTH AVE. & HALE ST.
CRANFORD, NJ 07016
JAMES D. WELLS
VICE PRESIDENT CHEMICAL OPERATIONS
RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY
P.O. BOX 159
INDIAN TRAIL, NC 28079
(704)821-7642
THEODORE WERNICK
DIRECTOR, SCIENTIFIC REGULATORY AFFAIRS
GILLETTE MEDICAL EVALUATION LABORATORIES
401 PROFESSIONAL DR.
GAITHERSBURG, MD 20879
(301)590-1550
BILL WILDERSON
OPERATIONS MANAGER
SCOTT'S LIQUID GOLD-INC.
4880 HAVANA STREET
DENVER, CO 80239
(303)373-4860
CAROLYN WILLS
REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MARY KAY COSMETICS
1330 REGAL ROW
DALLAS, TX 75247
(214)638-6750
NORWIN W. WOLFF
PRESIDENT
INTERPOLYMER CORP.
330 PINE STREET
CANTON, MA 02021
(617)828-7120
ROBERT WOOTEN
NORTH CAROLINA AIR QUALITY
512 N. SALISBURY STREET
RALEIGH, N.C. 27611
(919)733-3340 X 326
4-27
-------
CAREL WRIGHT
SIMPSON, THATCHER & BARTLETT
425 LEXINGTON AVE.
NEW YORK, NY 10017
(212)455-2645
ROGER YOUNG
RESEARCH CHEMIST
DESOTO, INC.
1700 S. MT. PROSPECT RD.
DES PLAINES, IL 60017
(708)391-9427
HARVEY ZIMMERMAN
LIQUID FORMULATION MANAGER
BEECHAM LABORATORIES
501 5TH STREET
BRISTOL, TN 37620
(615)652-3574
«"'• • '.'?,-•••'• ;S •;,,. . - ..
4-28 i H*
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Ag«ncy
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Flo*
Chic^o, 1L 60604-3590
------- |