At the 2001 hearing, staff recommended that it review the proposed exemption of methyl acetate for compliance with the Board’s 1991 Stratospheric Ozone Policy. That policy requires staff to determine whether exempting a compound from the VOC definition is likely to lead to product reformulations with adverse consequences like increases in emissions of stratospheric ozone depleters or toxic air contaminants.

In 1998, EPA exempted methyl acetate from its VOC definition because methyl acetate is negligibly reactive in ozone formation. In 1998, guided by the EPA decision and a review of any potential hazards of methyl acetate by the California Office of Environmental and Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), ARB also exempted methyl acetate from the VOC definition found in its consumer products rule. Most air districts with adhesive rules have also exempted methyl acetate from their VOC definitions. Methyl acetate is not an ozone depleting chemical and has not been found to be a hazardous air pollutant by the US EPA or a toxic air contaminant by the state of California. The CEQA initial study prepared by the District found that methyl acetate is less hazardous than those solvents it is likely to replace.

The primary effect of the proposed amendments is to allow product formulators to reduce VOC content by substituting methyl acetate, which becomes a non-VOC under the amendments, for more hazardous solvents. One company already makes a contact adhesive containing methyl acetate, but, because methyl acetate is currently classified as a VOC, the adhesive must be sold in the Bay Area under a variance granted by the Hearing Board. Other companies are likely to use the solvent in contact adhesive formulations, primarily as a replacement for hexane, toluene, and xylene, all of which are toxic air contaminants.

The draft amendments were circulated for public comment through a Request for Comments mailed to interested parties, community and environmental groups, and subscribers to the District’s rule notice list. Two comments were received, both from adhesive manufacturers supporting the proposal. The final proposal and CEQA negative declaration were also circulated for public comment. One comment supporting the proposal was received from an adhesive manufacturer, and ARB sent a letter stating that it had no comments.

The proposed amendments, a staff report, and the CEQA negative declaration and initial study are attached.

Respectfully submitted,

William C. Norton
Interim CEO/Executive Secretary