Ban on Paints Containing OIT Material Preservatives in Canada Effective May 31, 2019

The May 31, 2019 effective date for Canada’s ban on octhilinone (OIT) as a material preservative in paint is fast approaching, and ACA members are advised that after that date, finished paints containing OIT preservatives cannot be manufactured and sold in Canada, AND paints manufactured with OIT preservatives in the United States cannot be sold in Canada.

This regulatory ban was first announced two years ago and has resulted in considerable industry activity.  Recently, ACA learned that Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), while continuing the OIT review process, will not be making any changes in either the final restrictions or the effective date. This prompted the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association (CPCA) to issue a follow-up alert to its membership stressing the need to comply.

Scope of Ban and Relationship to the Treated Article Requirements in Canada

Scope of the OIT DecisionApplies to sales of all finished paints and coatings that contain OIT:  Registrants may not sell OIT for use as a material preservative in the manufacture and/or sale of finished paints and coatings products in Canada.  Imports of finished paints and coatings containing OIT or raw materials containing OIT for finishing paint and coatings mixture formulations is also banned.

In addition, the final PMRA decision also establishes allowable but greatly reduced OIT use rates for polymer compounds, aqueous emulsions, colorants, and adhesives (0.54 a.i./L max).  Consequently, agency inspectors have the right to request additional information from suppliers of individual components of paint products to confirm OIT preservative use in these materials and at which rate.

Sell-Through: CPCA is working with PMRA to clarify and confirm the allowed sell-through of all finished paints and coatings stocks previously containing OIT as a material preservative that were manufactured or imported into Canada prior to May 31, 2019. ACA’s understanding is that PMRA will allow for sale of the finished paint and coatings stocks containing OIT as a material preservative that were manufactured or imported into Canada prior to the May 31, 2019 to be sold until depletion of existing stocks.

PCPA vs. FIFRA: The Pest Control Products Act requires that all antimicrobial preservatives be registered with PMRA. Although there are exemptions for article registrations, such articles remain subject to regulatory oversight. Generally, paints treated with antimicrobial preservatives require registration of the pesticide but not the article itself. PMRA allows the article itself to be exempt from registration if the antimicrobial preservatives used to treat the article is registered under Pest Control Products Act; the article is treated according to the antimicrobial preservative’s approved uses; and the use is limited in preventing degradation or damage to the product from organisms.

In the United States, The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), requires registration of all pesticides with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to their introduction into interstate commerce. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations allows for an exemption for articles treated with or containing a pesticide to protect the article or itself, including paint treated with a pesticide to protect paint coatings.

Next Steps

ACA continues to monitor updates to the OIT review process in Canada, including new restrictions and the ban for uses in finished paint. We are in close contact with CPCA and related trade organizations and will keep members informed on the continued activities of the PMRA.

For More Information

Contact ACA’s Sacha Kathuria, Timothy Wieroniey or Steve Sides.

Background Links

Official Health Canada Notice

Canadian Pest Control Act

The post Ban on Paints Containing OIT Material Preservatives in Canada Effective May 31, 2019 appeared first on American Coatings Association.

from American Coatings Association

Governor Enacts Legislation to Bring PaintCare® Program to Washington


Gov. Jay Inslee (D), on May 9, signed into law legislation, HB 1652, An Act Relating to Paint Stewardship. The law mandates the establishment of a program for the effective management of post-consumer paint. The Washington legislature in late April passed the bill that will bring to the state the ACA- and industry-conceived post-consumer paint platform: PaintCare.  Washington will join Oregon, California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, all of which have implemented PaintCare.

PaintCare is required to submit a state program implementation plan within one year. Paint manufacturers that do not participate in the program will be barred from selling architectural paint in the state.

ACA created PaintCare, a 501(c)(3) organization whose sole purpose is to ensure effective operation and efficient administration of paint product stewardship programs, on behalf of all architectural paint manufacturers in the United States. PaintCare undertakes the responsibility for ensuring an environmentally sound and cost-effective program by developing and implementing strategies to reduce the generation of post-consumer architectural paint; promoting the reuse of post-consumer architectural paint; and providing for the collection, transport, and processing of post-consumer architectural paint using the hierarchy of “reduce, reuse, recycle,” and proper disposal.

“We look forward to building on our 10 years of experience in other states to launch a program in Washington that not only works for the paint industry, but also meets public demand for convenience, efficiency, and cost effectiveness,” said Heidi McAuliffe, ACA vice president of Government Affairs.

PaintCare is designed to relieve a considerable financial burden on local governments, which currently funds these programs. The program’s success has been so widespread that many state officials and local governments dealing with leftover paint are interested in bringing the program to their states. One of ACA’s goals is to make this legislation consistent across all states so that program implementation can truly be nationally coordinated, and manufacturers and consumers of paint do not have differing programs across state lines.

ACA and its industry are committed to finding a viable solution to the issue of post-consumer paint, which is often the number one product, by volume and cost, coming into Hazardous Household Waste (HHW) programs. PaintCare has had resounding success in the nine jurisdictions in which program operations have been implemented. The program’s success has been so widespread that many state officials and local governments dealing with leftover paint are interested in bringing the program to their states.

Notably, funding for the program collected via an assessment fee will cover the cost of all paint — not just new paint sold, but all the legacy paint already in consumers’ basements and garages. The assessment would also go toward consumer education and program outreach, as well as administrative costs. ACA believes that consumer education is paramount with this type of program since paint is a consumable product.

ACA maintains that manufacturers do not produce paint to be thrown away, but rather, to be used up. To work toward a goal of post-consumer paint waste minimization, the consumer must be engaged. PaintCare’s educational program does not just focus on recycling and proper management of unwanted paint, but on buying the right amount of paint and taking advantage of reuse opportunities that can help reduce the generation of leftover paint in the first place.

Contact ACA’s Heidi McAuliffe for more information.

The post Governor Enacts Legislation to Bring PaintCare® Program to Washington appeared first on American Coatings Association.

from American Coatings Association

EPA Industrial Surface Coating MACT Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Update  

On May 17, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its proposed residual risk and technology review (RTR) for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic maximum achievable control technology (MACT). For both rules, EPA found the residual risk acceptable and did not propose any changes based on technology review. However, EPA did suggest that some facilities train their spray gun operators to deliver a controlled spray. EPA estimated that the training resulted in as much as 40–50% reduction in overspray. In the reinforced plastic industry some spray operators weigh the overspray to gauge application efficiency. EPA is asking if this training is widely used and could be applied across both industries. EPA also asks if significant hazardous air pollutant (HAP) reductions would be possible; and if HAP reductions can be achieved for both large and small operations.

EPA is also removing the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions and is adding an electronic reporting requirement. The agency included a 180-day compliance period in the rules. Comments on the proposed rules are due July 1, 2019.

EPA developed numerous MACT standards for Surface Coating between 1995 and 2004. These rules set standards for HAP at major source coating application facilities. EPA is required to conduct an RTR for each MACT standard eight years after promulgation. EPA is concluding the RTR process for several MACT standards.

The RTR requires EPA to review the MACT standard to determine if additional tightening is necessary to eliminate any significant “residual risks” to public health that might remain despite the application of the MACT Standard. Under the residual risk review, EPA must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary. Revisions to a MACT standard must provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. During the decision-making process EPA considers cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors. Under the technology review, EPA must review the technology-based standards and revise them ‘‘as necessary.” EPA has determined that revisions would be considered necessary if there were technological developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. Finally, EPA can also set new MACT standards as part of the RTR process.

On May 6, EPA released a prepublication version of its proposed Metal Can and Metal Coil RTR. EPA is proposing no revisions to HAP limits, but is proposing amending provisions addressing emissions during periods of SSM.

The agency is also proposing to amend provisions regarding electronic reporting of performance test results, as well as monitoring requirements; and to make miscellaneous clarifying and technical corrections. EPA is also proposing that for metal can and coil facilities that utilize add-on control devices, that the performance of these devices be retested every five years (performance testing via state or Title V permits are accepted). As an alternative, EPA has said that the facility could install a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS). In addition, EPA has replaced the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 0.1 percent / 1.0 percent HAP thresholds with a new table of organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.

EPA has completed four other reviews:

  • Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations. EPA limited usage of formaldehyde in coatings and contact adhesives to 1 percent by weight.
  • Shipbuilding and Repair. EPA deemed no changes were necessary.
  • Aerospace Coatings Operations. EPA adopted specialty aerospace coating VOC limits.
  • Large Appliances and Metal Furniture. On Dec. 20, 2018, EPA finalized this RTR. Consistent with ACA comments, EPA did not increase the stringency of the standards (e.g., EPA did not impose more stringent spray gun requirements). EPA replaced the OSHA 0.1 percent / 1.0 percent HAP thresholds with a new table of organic HAP that must be included in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.

EPA is under court ordered deadlines to complete the review of the remaining surface coating MACT rules. This summer the agency will likely propose amendments to the Auto & Light Duty Truck; Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts; and Paper and Other Web MACT Surface Coating Rules; and finalize them by March 13, 2020.

While EPA may propose lower HAP limits and more stringent add-on controls, it is more likely that EPA will propose to prohibit the use of conventional spray guns; require performance testing of control devices, and require that the application facility comply with the standards at all times, including periods of SSM.

Via the Industrial Coatings Council, ACA will review and submit comments the proposed rules. ACA will also coordinate comments with downstream coating application associations (e.g., auto manufacturers, can manufacturers, and coil manufacturers).

The EPA Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) website is

Contact ACA’s David Darling for more information.

The post EPA Industrial Surface Coating MACT Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Update   appeared first on American Coatings Association.

from American Coatings Association

OSHA Issues Final Rule to Revise Requirements in Safety and Health Standards


On May 14, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule that revises 14 provisions in the recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards that may be confusing, outdated, or unnecessary. According to OSHA, the revisions are expected to increase understanding and compliance with the provisions, improve employee safety and health, and save employers an estimated $6.1 million per year.

The final rule takes effect on July 15, 2019.

OSHA proposed the changes in October 2016. This is the fourth final rule under OSHA’s Standards Improvement Project, which began in 1995 in response to a Presidential memorandum to improve government regulations. Other revisions were issued in 1998, 2005, and 2011. This fourth final rule is also responding to Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821) and Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (82 FR 12285).

Issues affecting general industry are detailed here:

Record Requirements for Recording Hearing Loss (29 CFR 1904.10(b)(6))

OSHA added a cross-reference explaining the existing requirement that any health-care professional evaluating a worker’s hearing loss must consider the case work-related if a work-related event contributed to hearing loss, including contribution to pre-existing hearing loss.

Removing Requirement for Lung Cancer Screening by Chest X-Ray

OSHA is removing a requirement in several standards to provide periodic chest X-rays (CXR) to screen for lung cancer.  As proposed, OSHA is removing the requirement for periodic CXR in the following standards:

  • Inorganic Arsenic (29 CFR 1910.1018);
  • Coke Oven Emissions (§ 1910.1029); and
  • Acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045)

OSHA is not removing the requirement for a baseline CXR in these, or any other, standards. OSHA is also not removing the CXR requirements in standards where CXR is used for purposes other than screening for lung cancer; for example, OSHA is retaining the CXR requirements in the asbestos standards (§§ 1910.1001, 1915.1001, and 1926.1101) to continue screening for asbestosis. OSHA is adding the text, “Pleural plaques and thickening may be observed on chest X-rays” in the non-mandatory appendix H of the general industry asbestos standard (§ 1910.1001), as well as appendix I of the maritime and construction asbestos standards (§§ 1915.1001 and 1926.1101, respectively).

OSHA is also updating the CXR requirements to allow, but not require, the use of digital CXRs in the medical surveillance provisions of the inorganic arsenic (§ 1910.1018), coke oven emissions (§ 1910.1029), and acrylonitrile (§ 1910.1045) standards, and the asbestos (§§ 1910.1001, 1915.1001, 1926.1101) and cadmium (§§ 1910.1027 and 1926.1127) standards. In addition, OSHA is allowing other reasonably sized standard X-ray films, such as the 16 inch by 17 inch size, to be used in addition to the 14 inch by 17 inch film specified in some standards.

Update to Cotton-Dust Standard (29 CFR 1910.1043)

OSHA is updating the cotton dust standard pulmonary function testing requirements based on current recommendations from the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS), NIOSH, and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).

Collection of Social Security Numbers

OSHA is revising its exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and other record-keeping requirements to remove requirements to maintain employee Social Security Numbers.  OSHA states the measure is necessary to protect against identity theft.  OSHA states it can use other methods to track employees for research purposes if necessary.

OSHA is removing the requirement from the following 19 standards:

  • Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response – §§ 1910.120(f)(8)(ii)(A) and 1926.65(f)(8)(ii)(A); 97
  • Asbestos – §§ 1910.1001(m)(1)(ii)(F), (m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix D, 1915.1001(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix D, and 1926.1101(n)(2)(ii)(F), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix D.;
  • Vinyl Chloride – § 1910.1017(m)(1);
  • Inorganic Arsenic – § 1910.1018(q)(1)(ii)(D) and (q)(2)(ii)(A);
  • Lead – §§ 1910.1025(d)(5), (n)(1)(ii)(D), (n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B and 1926.62(d)(5), (n)(1)(ii)(D), (n)(2)(ii)(A), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
  • Chromium (VI) – §§ 1910.1026(m)(1)(ii)(F) and (m)(4)(ii)(A), 1915.1026(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A), and 1926.1126(k)(1)(ii)(F) and (k)(4)(ii)(A);
  • Cadmium – §§ 1910.1027(n)(1)(ii)(B), (n)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix D and 1926.1127(d)(2)(iv), (n)(1)(ii)(B), and (n)(3)(ii)(A);
  • Benzene – § 1910.1028(k)(1)(ii)(D) and (k)(2)(ii)(A);
  • Coke Oven Emissions – § 1910.1029(m)(1)(i)(a) and (m)(2)(i)(a);
  • Bloodborne Pathogens – § 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A);
  • Cotton Dust – § 1910.1043(k)(1)(ii)(C), (k)(2)(ii)(A) and appendices B-I, B-II, and B-III;
  • 1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane – § 1910.1044(p)(1)(ii)(d) and (p)(2)(ii)(a);
  • Acrylonitrile – § 1910.1045(q)(2)(ii)(D);
  • Ethylene Oxide – § 1910.1047(k)(2)(ii)(F) and (k)(3)(ii)(A);
  • Formaldehyde – § 1910.1048(o)(1)(vi), (o)(3)(i), (o)(4)(ii)(D), and appendix D; 98
  • Methylenedianiline – §§ 1910.1050(n)(3)(ii)(D), (n)(4)(ii)(A), and (n)(5)(ii)(A) and 1926.60(o)(4)(ii)(F) and (o)(5)(ii)(A);
  • 1,3-Butadiene – § 1910.1051(m)(2)(ii)(F), (m)(4)(ii)(A), and appendix F;
  • Methylene Chloride – § 1910.1052(m)(2)(ii)(F), (m)(2)(iii)(C), (m)(3)(ii)(A), and appendix B;
  • Respirable Crystalline Silica – §§ 1910.1053(k)(1)(ii)(G) and (k)(3)(ii)(A) and 1926.1153(j)(1)(ii)(G) and (j)(3)(ii)(A).

OSHA is making the following changes to construction, maritime, mining, and traffic control standards:

  • Sanitation Standard for Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.80): OSHA is removing “feral cats” from the definition of “vermin.”
  • Construction Standard Update to Use “PEL”: OSHA is revising the standard to use the term “permissible exposure limits” instead of “threshold limit values.”
  • Construction Process Safety Standard (29 CFR 1926.64): OSHA will replace the entire Process Safety Management (PSM) standard for construction (as cited) with a cross reference to the general industry PSM standard at 29 CFR 1910.119.
  • Handling of Construction Materials on Site (29 CFR 1926.250): OSHA is exempting “all single-family residential structures and wood-framed multi-family residential structures” from a requirement to post maximum safe load limits of floors in storage areas used to store construction equipment.
  • Engines Used in Mining Operation (29 CFR 1926.800): OSHA is updating the signage requirement indicating approval for engines used in underground mines.
  • Construction equipment Roll Over and Overhead Protection (29 CFR 1926.1000): OSHA is updating test standards with current consensus standards.
  • Traffic Control Device Standard (29 CFR 1926, Subpart G): OSHA is updating reference to the 1988 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to the 2009 edition.
  • Coke Oven Emissions in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1129): OSHA is updating the coke oven standard so it is not applicable to construction, since the standard is not relevant to construction activities.
  • Posting Facility Location for Emergencies (29 CFR 1926.50): The revision addresses the problem of locating individuals calling an emergency assistance line, usually cellphone callers, in remote areas that do not have automatic-location capability. In such areas, the revisions require the employer post the latitude and longitude of the worksite or other location-identification information that effectively communicates the location of the worksite. The proposed revisions also required employers to ensure that the communication system they use to contact an ambulance service is effective.
    • Employers can obtain information about which counties, or portions of counties, are exempted from the 911 location accuracy requirements from FCC PS Docket No. 07-114, which is publicly available on the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) webpage here.
  • Breaking Strength Requirement for Safety Equipment (29 CFR 1926.104): OSHA is updating the minimum breaking strength of safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards to 5,000 pounds from 5,400 pounds. The breaking strength of a lifeline is the maximum load that it can carry without failing or breaking. The 5,000 pound minimum breaking-strength is a limit based on the force generated by a 250-pound employee experiencing a force 10 times the force of gravity, plus a two-fold margin of safety. The 5,000 pound requirement is also consistent with the most recent ANSI/ASSE standards Z359.1 2007 and A10.32.

Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.

The post OSHA Issues Final Rule to Revise Requirements in Safety and Health Standards appeared first on American Coatings Association.

from American Coatings Association

Why Your Business Needs Systems in Place

When you start your own business, you’re the person who manages everything, taking on a variety of different tasks. In the beginning, you can likely keep everything organized in your head to keep tasks moving. But what needs to happen as you grow?

In a podcast conversation with Nick May of Walls By Design and The Business Brush podcast, we discuss the benefit of creating systems and the different phases of building processes.

As you start to bring in more work, you’ll need other people to take on some of the tasks you manage. Putting systems into play allows you to transfer some of the work to others.

Get Started

Check out the following steps for effectively setting up systems to increase your bandwidth.

  • Massive Action – In this step, you’re figuring out what you’re good at and exactly what you want to do.
  • Focus – Once you have an understanding of what you’ll be doing in your business, you’re able to start building your systems to create efficient processes.
  • Scale – Once you have systems in place, you can multiply what you’re doing to grow your business.

As you work through the process, you’ll be able to step back from some of the day-to-day tasks and keep your business running efficiently. Learn more on the PaintED Podcast, Building Processes that Allow You to Get Away.

The post Why Your Business Needs Systems in Place appeared first on PDCA.

from PDCA

Axalta Announces Distributor for Industrial Wood Coatings in Carolinas

Axalta has announced it is partnering with Palmetto Paint Specialties for wood coatings distribution in the Carolinas. In the partnership with Axalta, Palmetto Paint will stock products from a variety of technologies that include lacquers, catalyzed coatings, UV curables, stains, glazes, and dyes for the industrial wood market.

“We are delighted to partner with Palmetto Paint Specialties for the industrial wood coatings market. Customers in these markets will benefit from a network of a local dealer, fast order fulfilment from stock, and excellent after-sales service,” said Wade Arnold, vice president of Industrial Wood Coatings for Axalta.

Palmetto Paint Specialties stated that it will bring the same customer service and dependability to the new segments that its existing customers have grown to expect.

The post Axalta Announces Distributor for Industrial Wood Coatings in Carolinas appeared first on American Coatings Association.

from American Coatings Association

Evonik Reorganizes its Polyamide Business

Evonik has reorganized its business for high-performance polymers within the polyamide group. The company has begun construction of a new polyamide 12 (PA 12) facility complex and is expanding its production of transparent polyamides at the Marl Chemical Park, focusing its activities on high-performance materials for the automotive, oil and gas, 3-D printing, and optics industries.

“Reorganizing our polyamide business will concentrate our production and innovative strengths on specialty materials for promising applications in attractive markets such as lightweight construction, additive manufacturing, and composites. This, in turn, will give us a solid foundation for continuous growth,” said Dr. Ralf Düssel, head of the High Performance Polymers Business Line at Evonik. “For our customers, the move will mean a more intense focus on developing sophisticated specialty solutions.”

Evonik’s roughly €400 million investment in Germany is reported to increase the company’s overall capacity for PA 12 by over 50 percent. The project coincides with existing PA 12 production at the Marl Chemical Park in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia with additional plants for the polymer and its precursors. The facility complex is scheduled to go on stream in the first half of 2021. Evonik will also expand production of transparent polyamides in Marl in the first quarter of 2020. The change will double the specialty chemicals company’s overall capacity for the high-performance material, according to Evonik.

As part of the reorganization process, Evonik stated that it will withdraw entirely from the polyphthalamide (PPA) business at the Witten site by the end of the first quarter of 2020. Evonik will transfer employees from the PPA plant to its Marl site where they will work at the new PA 12 production plant.

“As we focus our marketing activities on high-performance polymers, we will be utilizing internal synergies to accommodate our long-serving Witten employees with secure jobs at the new polyamide 12 production facility in Marl, where we will be able to draw upon their decades of proven experience in polymer production and compounding,” said Dr. Iordanis Savvopoulos, head of the Product Line Granules & Compounds at Evonik.

The post Evonik Reorganizes its Polyamide Business appeared first on American Coatings Association.

from American Coatings Association