 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regulators Provide Structure for Paint ControlsPosted 10/7/1999By Robert L. Redding, Jr.
Since 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have been meeting with the automotive refinish industry to "explore feasible and effective approaches to reducing the risk to health and safety of workers and the environment during automotive refinishing operations." Recently the federal government partners in the Autorefinish Voluntary Product Stewardship Partnership brought closure to the project but not without offering suggestions for the future of the auto refinish industry in dealing with the complex use of paint products. In a letter to the partners in the project, Charles Auer, director of the Chemical Control Division of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, outlined the history of the project and necessary criteria for moving the collision industry forward in the areas of safety, health and the environment. Although this was a voluntary initiative, it is important to note that states and municipalities considering any types of paint product controls are starved for specific industry criteria in developing laws or regulations. Policymakers have little data to ensure increased air quality improvements or the health and safety of workers in the area of controlling paint products. This project is an attempt to bring the industry closer to a model for future product use. Prior to the publication of the national volatile organic compounds (VOC) regulation, the Automotive Service Association (ASA) pressed the EPA to develop model training and equipment recommendations for the use of auto refinish products. Unfortunately, the EPA did not include recommendations for states in its final regulation. This has left a void as states attempt to meet air quality requirements and monitor studies on the impact of paint products on painters. The city of Austin, Texas, and the state of Pennsylvania have been leaders in trying to develop paint product controls. Pennsylvania's regulation is a product of efforts to meet stringent federal air quality demands. It is also a compromise between regulators, collision repairers, consumer groups and paint manufacturers. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection went so far as to obtain air quality improvement data if a substantive paint product control program were put in place, with firm equipment and training requirements. The outcome of the study was very encouraging. As the Autorefinish Partnership came to closure, Auer noted: "Although all members can agree on the overarching goal of the program (enhancing painter safety), there remains a strong division between the paint companies and auto body shops regarding such issues as who should bear the costs of end user protective equipment, avoiding disproportionate burdens on paint manufacturers or collision repair facilities, and 'point of sale' restrictions for purchasing new paint products." The lack of a compromise amongst industry leaders as to paint product controls leads us to Auer's conservative attempt to provide state and municipal policymakers guidelines for improving worker health and safety as well as air quality. During the partnership's deliberations, NIOSH produced a control strategy matrix for protecting painters from polyisocyanate exposure. They described the type of respiratory protection that should be used with specific spray painting booths. Auer pointed out that: "There is a need for paint companies and the auto body repair industry to collaborate, however, to keep these recommendations current." But what might be more important to policymakers and the industry as we move into the 21st century is the partnership's checklist of equipment that should be available in shops. Under the partnership's original proposal, shops meeting these equipment and training criteria would be certified. Putting aside the certification concept, policymakers have a detailed set of standards that auto body shops should aspire to achieve. These equipment recommendations include:
The partnership also included a solid standardized training program and module. I-CAR worked diligently to educate the partnership about the training needs of the industry. The partnership agreed that a good Health and Safety Training program would include the following:
ASA is appreciative of EPA, NIOSH and OSHA's efforts to take the auto body repair industry to the next level of safety and health. Clearly ASE and I-CAR are doing their part to enhance the professionalism and quality of life for auto body employers and employees. Unfortunately, the partnership did not achieve final agreement on controlling the sale of paint products. ASA has advocated for several years that auto refinish products should be sold only to professionals. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) has developed, along with ASA, model "point of sale" legislation. ASA is hopeful that the federal government's interest in controlling paint products and the time they spent developing training and equipment criteria will benefit state and municipal policymakers as they seek to achieve improved air quality standards and better worker health and safety. This is the second opportunity the industry has missed to establish a voluntary program for controlling the sale of paint - the first missed opportunity being the national volatile organic compound rule. The industry may not be so fortunate as to have a third voluntary opportunity.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright (c) 1996-2008. Automotive Service Association. All rights reserved.
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
