New SCAQMD Rule 1113

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 82 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 12:54 pm:    I just attended a technical workshop @ LACSI on the new Rule 1113, effective June 3, 2011. http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg11/r1113.pdf There have been significant language changes this time. The words "for use" have been removed which means that even unopened containers have to be compliant, whether on shelves for storage or on the jobsite. What really concerns me even more is this: "This rule is applicable to...; as well as any person who applies, stores at a worksite, or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the District." So now the specifier is also responsible to ensure that coatings specified are compliant. Furthermore, the District will use a shared responsibility approach to fines for violations. I'm thinking I want to add a statement to my coating specs along the lines of: Verify [and submit manufacturer's certificate stating] that provided coatings meet or exceed current SCAQMD Rule 1113 requirements. Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C Moffatt & Nichol - Long Beach, CA Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 25 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 02:05 pm:    I just wrote one that's going out today in an addendum and wouldn't mind input on it. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1205 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 06:44 pm:    Karen: how I read this regulation is that the architect is responsible for soliciting compliant products, but would not be responsible if, after the correct solicitation (ie, specification) the contractor opted to provide non-compliant materials. However, the non-compliant materials alone would probably end up being a building inspection issue, and that would mess up the job anyway. And clearly, as you have mentioned, you can't specify non-compliant products. Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 84 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 11:22 pm:    Rich, this week "addendum" is a 4-letter word 'cuz I just had one, too. ...and more coming I'm sure. So what are you ending up with? Anne, don't you just MISS this SoCal stuff? I revise (this is the intent, at least): Verify [and for substitutions, submit manufacturer's certificate stating] that provided coatings meet or exceed current SCAQMD Rule 1113 requirements. Of course this is assuming we specify a verified product to begin with... what do I do with my Master when I have less control -- a note to "Engineer" I guess to check prior to the Bid. Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C Moffatt & Nichol - Long Beach, CA Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 26 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 12:22 am:    I can send you the complete section, but I don't have your email. 1.07 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS A. All VOC restricted products shall be compliant with local jurisdiction and South Coast Air Quality Managment District, Rules and Regulations in effect at the time of installation. Products specified in this project shall be used as a basis of design. Updated products that are compliant with the rules in force at the time of installation shall be submitted as substitutions when they become available. 1. If a product is found to be non-compliant with the VOC rules at the time of installation. Notify the Architect a minimum of 90 days prior to installation. Contractor shall submit a suggested product that is equal to the performance and cost of the specified product using the substitution procedure described in section 01 6000. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 27 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 12:25 am:    Forgot to mention the above is part of section 01 6116 - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTENT RESTRICTIONS. This is based on the BSD LEED section. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 423 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 10:15 am:    Disturbing is that the regulation specifically imposes a duty on the Architect. All such regulations shall focus on what is needed tocomply such as the maximum VOC and not on who performs the task. What if the Architect had specified compliance with a generic standard with the requirement that the product also meet certain VOC limits? Is it then the Architect's responsibility to select the specific product? Normally if the Architect is acting as the Owners consultant in the context of the building code the Owner would be the formal entity responsible for compliance to the building department. Would suggest that the insurance company lawyers should look at this for implications. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 513 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 05:20 pm:    "This rule is applicable to any person who...in the District..." If you're doing work elsewhere, it seems you're off the hook. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP LEED Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 28 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 - 05:29 pm:    FYI, I hear it's being adopted word for word by jurisdictions across the country. BTW, if you even have a non-compliant container in your possesion, you can be fined. Including in your personal or company vehicle. Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 85 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 01:01 pm:    Sheldon, correct. SCAQMD jurisdiction is: "...all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the smoggiest region of the U.S." http://www3.aqmd.gov/webappl/gisaqi2/VEMap3D.aspx However, Rich also makes a good point. Our presenter was involved in the hearings etc and noted that someone representing a governing body in Florida was constantly flown out. What these other jurisdictions fail to understand or consider is that the reason the SCAQMD became so stringent in their requirements in the first place, was because of the smog problems the region was having... a regional microclimate that not many other places experience in such an urban environment. ...anyone remember the Los Angeles basin days before the SCAQMD started regulating? Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C Moffatt & Nichol - Long Beach, CA Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 86 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 01:15 pm:    Rich is also right that they only need to catch you with a non-compliant, unopened container. But they do have a progressive approach to violations, including a "fix-it" ticket type. Feel sorry for the poor contractor coming from a job in Ventura (outside District) that happens to have non-compliant cans with him, though. I think in reality it will still come down mainly to application within the District as the trigger. Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C Moffatt & Nichol - Long Beach, CA John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 544 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 - 11:39 pm:    Also, this should be a concern for (1) design professionals from outside SCAQMD who prepare specifications for a project within the SCAQMD jurisdiction and (2) design professionals where SCAQMD is used as the basis for creating VOC requirements within their area. The SCAQMD criteria are being adopted without much understanding by other jurisdictions ... including out of state. SCAQMD self-description: "The AQMD is the air pollution control agency for all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. This area of 10,743 square miles is home to over 16.8 million people - about half the population of the whole state of California. It is the second most populated urban area in the United States and one of the smoggiest." John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1339 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 - 11:25 am:    A few observations: - The concern about the architect having some exposure is not new. I clearly recall this being discussed with other iterations of this regulation. I think in comes from the people who do seminars. Does anyone actually have any (factual) information that an architect was pursued on this basis? I didn't think so. Furthermore, I would say that the mere specification of a product does not constitute the "solicitation" of use. Only an owner, in requesting bids or proposals, would be in that position. Perhaps, and this is a stretch, you could be considered negligent in executing professional duties. Something for the lawyers to figure out. - Other jurisdictions may adopt regulations that use the same limits, and even much of the same text, but it is unlikely that the exact text would be used it another locale. Also, almost certainly it would not be adopted by other jurisdictions merely by reference. Interpretation and enforcment also vary considerably by location. And the "green" programs that reference this do so only for the limits, and possibly definitions, but not everything else. - I seriously doubt the "for use" clause could be successfully applied if the storage is not on the job site, and there is the reasonable possibility that the materials could be used in a location without these regs. What if you're a California contractor on the border with Nevada? Also, I doubt they can restrict transport of materials through the state due based on the commerce clause of the US constitution. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 151 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 01:35 pm:    Actually, the East Coast corridor from Virginia to New England is fast catching up to California for poor air quality and has implemented the OTC, Ozone Transport Commission. One aspect of the OTC is that it is illegal to transport containers of non-compliant paints and coatings greater than one quart capacity. You can carry a hundred one-quart cans of high-VOC paint, but not twenty-five 1-gallon cans or five 5-gallon cans or one 50 gallon drum. Oh, OTC does not prevent either use or manufacturing of the higher VOC products, just the transport.I'm not clear on when one type of pollution became acceptable at the expense of another type, but this is nuts. LEED requires compliance with SCAQMD as do most jurisdictions around the country. I believe the 2012 International Energy Code, and therefore the 2012 IBC, includes it so it's everywhere from now on. Does that mean that someone from California is going to come to my project in North Carolina and then to my office in Boston if someone has a can of moonshine in the back of his pickup truck? J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 - 02:33 pm:    LEED Certification programs require compliance wth certain aspects of SCAQMD, but not the most current requirements. That may change with LEED 2012. Read the requirements for your certification program carefully. This is complicated by the fact that USGBC has included stuff that does not apply. I have had to argue with "LEED consultants" who don't understand that compliance with current requirements is not required.