United States Office of Air Quality EPA 4S3/R-94-031
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards Aprll1994
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
&EPA Alternative Control
Techniques Document:
Automobile Refinishing
-------
-------
EPA-453/R-94-031
Alternative Control Techniques Document-
Automobile Refinishing
Emissions Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1994
-------
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, N.C. 27711, Technology Transfer Network (TTKp under
the Clean Air Act Amendments Main Menu, Title 1, Policy and
Guidance, or from National Technical Information Services, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, (800) 553-NTIS.
-------
NOTICE ;
There are no planned changes to this document. However,
corrections or updates sometimes become necessary. Submission .of
a copy of the form below will ensure you receive any supplement or
change to this report that is published in the next twelve months.
Comments may be sent to the same address.
TO: Emission Standards Division
-MD-13 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
ATTN: Mr. Mark Morris
Please forward any supplement or change to EPA Report
Number EPA/450/R-94-031, "Alternative Control Techniques Document:
Automobile Refinishing" to the address below.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . ... . . . . . . . -. . '. - . -. - - 1-1
2.0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION . . . . 2-1
2.1 Industry Overview 2-1
2.1.1 Coating Manufacturers 2-1
2.1.2 Coating Distributors ........... 2-2
2.1.3 Body Shops . 2-3
2.2 Coating Types and Preparation 2-4
2.2.1 Lacquer Coatings ...... 2-5
2.2.2 "Enamel Coatings . 2-5
2.2.3 ,Urethane Coatings1 ........... 2-5
2.2.4 Waterborne Coatings . 2-6
2.2.5 Additives and Specialty Coatings .... , 2-6
2.2.6 Coating Preparation . 2-6
2.2.7 Coating Systems 2-7
2.3 Process Steps and Materials . 2-7
2.3.1 Surface Preparation 2-7
2.3.2 Primer Application 2-8
2.3.3 Primer Surfacer Application 2-9
2.3.4 Primer Sealer Application .. . .. .. 2-9
2.3.5 Topcoat Application .......... 2-9
2."4 Preparation Stations 2-11
2.5 Spray Booths 2-11
2.6 Spray Equipment .......... 2-15
2.6.1 Conventional Air Spray Guns 2-16
2.6.2 High-Volume, Low-Pressure Spray Guns . . 2-16
2.6.3 Low-Volume, Low-Pressure Spray Guns . . 2-18
2.6.4 Electrostatic Spray Guns . . 2-18
2.7 Equipment Cleaning 2-19
2.8 References ....... .... 2-24
3.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3'1
3.1.2 Coating VOC Content 3-2
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
3.2 Emission Reductions from Surface Preparation I.
Products [ 3"3
3.3 Emission Reductions from Coating Applications . , 3-3
3.3.1 Low-VOC Coatings ; 3-3
3.3.2 High-Transfer-Efficiency Spray Equipment i 3-9
3.3.3 New Developments in Spray Equipment . . 3-9
3.4 Emission Reductions from Equipment Cleaning . . j 3-10
3.5 Existing State Regulations ! 3-11
3.5.1 New Jersey [ 3-11
3.5.2 'New York City 3-11
3.5.3 Texas ; 3-11
3.5.4 California 3-13
3.6 Add-On Controls .- . 3-13
3.7 Emission Reductions from Improved Housekeeping -
Practices and Training Programs - ; 3-13
3.8 References - ; 3-15
4.0 BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS ! 4-1
4.1 Surface Preparation . . . .. . . . . 4"1
4.1.1 Baseline Volatile Organic Compound j
Emissions from Surface Preparation . . .| 4-1
4.1.2 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound i
Emissions from Surface Preparation . . .; 4-6
i
4.2 Coating Application ' 4~7
4.2.1 Baseline Volatile Organic Compound i
Emissions from Coating Applications . .[ 4-7
4.2.2 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Coating Applications . .j 4-10
4.3 Equipment Cleaning 4-12
!
4.3.1 Baseline Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Equipment Cleaning ... 4-12
4.3.1.1 Emissions from Gun Cleaners . .; 4-12
4.3.1.2 Emissions from Manual Gun | ,
Cleaning ,....; 4-14
4.3.1.3 Total Gun Cleaning Emissions .j 4-15
4.3.2 Emission Reductions from Gun Cleaning
4-15
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.4 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Improved Housekeeping Practices and Training
Programs .' 4-17
4.5 References 4-18
5.0 COST IMPACTS . . . . " 5-1
5.1 Costs to Coating Manufacturers ........ 5-1
5.1.1-.. Process Modifications 5-1
5.1.2 Disposal Costs - 5-2
5.1.3 Training Costs . 5"2
5.1.4 Annual Costs to Coating Manufacturers . 5-2
5.2 Costs to Distributors . 5-4
5.3 Costs to Body Shops . 5-4
5.3.1 Surface Preparation Product Costs ... 5-4
5.3.2 Training Costs . 5-4
5.3.3 Infrared Heating System Costs ..... 5-5
5.3.4 Spray Gun Cleaning Costs 5-5
5.3.5 Potential Productivity Losses 5-6
5.3.6 Annual Costs to Shops 5-7
5.4 Cost Effectiveness - 5-8
5.5 References 5-9
IV
-------
Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-2,
Figure 2-3.
Figure 2-4,
Figure 2-5,
LIST OF FIGURES
Typical infrared heating unit
Spray booth make-up and exhaust air
orientation ....-.
Conventional spray equipment
Typical enclosed gun cleaner
Typical open gun cleaner . .
2-12
2-13
2-17
2-20
2-22
-------
TABLE 3-1.
TABLE 3-2.
TABLE 4-1.
TABLE 4-2.
TABLE 4-3.
TABLE 4-4.
TABLE 4-5.
TABLE 4-6,
TABLE 5-1.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
COATING CONTROL OPTIONS ......... 3-5
EXISTING REGULATIONS .... 3-12
1995 BASELINE VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
EMISSIONS IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS (tons/yr) 4-2
ANNUAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN NONATTAINMENT
AREAS (tons/yr) 4-3
1995 SURFACE PREPARATION PRODUCT USE,
EMISSIONS, AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN
NONATTAINMENT AREAS 4-5
1995 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS IN
NONATTAINMENT AREAS FROM REFINISH COATINGS 4-8
ANNUAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN NONATTAINMENT
AREAS FROM COATING CONTROL OPTIONS
{tons/yr) . 4-11
1995 GUN CLEANING EMISSIONS AND EMISSION
REDUCTIONS IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS
(tons/yr) 4-16
ANNUAL COSTS OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES (103 $) 5-3
VI
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document provides information on alternative control
techniques (ACT) for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from automobile refinishing.
This document contains information on emissions,
controls, control -options, and'costs that States can use in
developing rules. The document presents options only, and
makes no recommendations.
*
As used in this document, the term "State" includes
State and local air pollution authorities.
l-l
-------
-------
2.0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
This chapter describes the automobile refinish industry.
Section 2.1 provides an industry overview. Section 2.2
discusses the types of coatings used in refinishing. Section
2.3 describes the;. process steps and materials involved in
refinishing. Preparation stations are discussed in Section
2.4, spray booths in Section 2.5, spray equipment in
Section 2.6, and equipment cleaning in Section 2.7.
2.1 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
As used in this document, "automobile" refers to passenger
cars, vans, motorcycles, trucks, and all other mobile
equipment that is capable of being driven or drawn upon a
highway, such as farm machinery and construction equipment.
"Refinishing" refers to any coating applications (to the
interior or exterior bodies of automobiles) that occur
subsequent to those at original equipment manufacturer (OEM)
assembly plants, and includes dock repair of imported
automobiles and dealer repair of transit damage before the
sale of an automobile.
The automobile refinish industry consists of manufacturers
that produce refinish coatings, distributors or "jobbers" that
distribute coatings and other equipment, and body shops that
repair and refinish automobiles.
2.1.1 COATING MANUFACTURERS
In 1989, sales of automobile refinish coatings in the
United States totalled slightly over $1 billion.1 Five
companies accounted for 95 percent of these sales: E.I.
du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. (including Nason
Automotive Finishes), PPG Industries, The Sherwin-Williams
2-1
-------
Company, BASF Chemicals, and Akzo Coatings.2 Approximately
one dozen smaller manufacturers supply the remaining .:
5 percent.3 In the last few years, however, several otiher
large foreign manufacturers have begun to enter the U.S.
market, namely, ICI Autocolor, Spies Hecker, and Herberts
Standox. !
The five major manufacturers also produce components such
[
as catalysts, solvents ("thinners" or "reducers"), and I
additives for use with their coatings. Approximately two dozen
other U.S. manufacturers produce lower-cost coating components
that are marketed for use with the coatings produced by the
major manufacturers.4 However, the major manufacturers report
that these lower-cost components may reduce the overall
quality of their coatings and, consequently, will not honor
their warranties if such components are added to their
products.5 i
2.1.2 COATING DISTRIBUTORS |
Distributors of refinish coatings also sell mixing
components and other products used for refinishing, such as
mixing stations, infrared heating lamps, sandpaper, ancl
masking tape. Some distributors also sell equipment and
products necessary to perform body repairs. Distributors
provide body shops with valuable product support services such
as training in new products and equipment, mixing of topcoat
j
colors, troubleshooting advice, and general product i
information. >
Although at least one coating manufacturer, The
'
Sherwin-Williams Company, operates retail stores that j
distribute only Sherwin-Williams products,6 the large majority
of the approximately 5,000 distributorships in the United
States are not owned or operated by coating manufacturers.
Another 10,000 body part distributors also sell refinish
products.7 Both types of distributorships are known as paint,
body supply, and equipment (PBE) specialists, and are commonly
referred to as "jobbers" or "refinish jobbers."
2-2
-------
2.1.3 BODY SHOPS .
There are approximately 50,000 body shops of various sizes
and technology levels in the U.S.,8'9'10 including small-size
shops, medium-size shops, shops at new car dealerships, and
large "production" shops. The work performed by most small-
and medium-size body shops, which comprise most of the
industry, is somewhat confined to repairing and refinishing
small portions of an automobile (e.g., a panel, or a "spot" on
a panel). About 90 percent of refinish work performed is spot
repair.11'12 "Sixty percent of new-car dealerships
(approximately 13,500 facilities nationwide) reportedly
operate body shops.13 .. New-car dealers refinish not only new
cars damaged in shipment, but also cars that are brought in by
customers for repair. Other types of shops specialize in
repainting entire automobiles and are often referred to as
"production" shops.
Although body shops in some areas of the United States
must obtain permits or licenses to operate, painters are
rarely required to be licensed.14'15 Painter training is
often provided by coating manufacturers and distributors and
by trade organizations, but no formal apprenticeship programs
have been instituted by the industry. :
In contrast, the refinish industry in several European
countries is reportedly structured differently. For instance,
in Germany, the refinish industry comprises large,
sophisticated shops.^ In Holland, painters are required to
be trained, pass a test, and obtain a license.1"7 In several
European countries, painters usually participate in
apprenticeship programs. These apprenticeships are not
usually mandatory, but are part of the European culture.18
The refinish industry in the United States is a dynamic
industry that has changed dramatically in the past decade.19
The industry is shifting away from a large number of small
facilities toward fewer, larger shops, primarily because of
worker health and safety issues and hazardous waste management
concerns.20 It is estimated that there were approximately
2-3
-------
125,000 shops in operation in 1976, but by 1993 the number
decreased to approximately 50,000.21 !
2.2 COATING TYPES AND PREPARATION ;
The main categories of coatings are primers and topcoats.
The primer category consists of pretreatment wash primers,
primers, primer surfacers, and primer sealers. Topcoats are
applied over the primer coats and provide the final color to
i
the refinished area.
Primers and topcoats can be classified as lacquer, enamel,
or urethane coatings. These coatings differ in their i
chemistry, durability, and VOC content. Lacquer coatings cure
by solvent evaporation^only. Enamel and urethane coatings
cure by solvent evaporation and chemical cross-linking
reactions.22 i
Lacquers and some types of enamel coatings consist! mainly
of pigment, resin, and solvent (thinner or reducer). The
resin and pigment are collectively referred to as coating
"solids" or "nonvolatiles" because they remain on the j
substrate to form the dry film. Solvents suspend the solids
in solution and reduce the viscosity so that the coating flows
into a uniform film on the substrate. The solvents evaporate,
and only trace quantities remain in the film on the substrate.
In addition to the coating components discussed above,
urethanes and some enamel coatings use catalysts (or
hardeners) to initiate the chemical cross-linking.
Urethane coatings typically have a much higher volume
percent solids than lacquers and a slightly higher percentage
than enamels. This is an important feature because, as
mentioned above, the coating solids are the permanent part of
the paint that remain on the surface as a film. The greater
the solids content of a coating, the less coating required to
obtain the desired film thickness. I
The coatings applied by body shops differ from those
applied by OEM's. OEM facilities use coatings that require
temperatures up to 400 °F (204 °C) to cure the paint. This is
possible because no temperature-sensitive materials have yet
I
2-4 ;
-------
been installed in the automobile. Body shops, on the other
hand, must use coatings that cure at low temperatures (less
than 150 °F [66 °C]) to avoid damaging the automobile's
upholstery, glass, wiring, or plastic components.
2.2.1 Lacquer Coatings -
Lacquers were one of the first types of coatings used on
automobiles. Lacquers dry faster than most enamels or
urethanes and, when dry, can be buffed to remove surface
imperfections. These characteristics are attractive to body
shops that do 'not have spray booths because the rapid drying
helps minimize the opportunity for dirt to be trapped in the
wet coating. :0ne disadvantage of lacquers is that time and
labor must be expended in buffing-, (compounding) lacquer
finishes to achieve full luster.23 Another disadvantage is
that lacquer finishes are not as durable as enamel and
urethane finishes.
2.2.2 Enamel Coatings
Enamel coatings, either alkyd or acrylic, have long been
used in the automobile refinish industry. Alkyd enamel is a
chemical combination of an alcohol, an acid, and an oil.
Developed in 1929, alkyd enamels are less expensive than
acrylic enamels but not as durable. Some acrylic enamels
require hardeners to promote curing. Both types of enamels
have a natural high gloss and do not require compounding to
remove surface imperfections. Some enamel coatings can be
polished, if necessary, to remove trapped dirt or dust.
2.2.3 Urethane Coatings
Urethane coatings are typically formed by a reaction
between a hydroxyl-containing material and a polyisocyanate
hardener. Their use is growing because of their superior
gloss retention and durability. They are frequently used by
the more technically sophisticated body shops for complete
refinish jobs, such as refinishing of fleet vehicles.24
Urethane coatings dry more slowly than lacquers and
enamels, and spray booths may be necessary to reduce drying
time and provide a clean, dust-free curing environment. The
2-5
-------
possible presence of trace amounts of residual isocyanates
requires painters to use an air-supplied respirator to 'reduce
worker exposure. Isocyanate-free hardeners are available for
use in some coating systems.25
2.2.4 Waterborne Coatings i
<
A waterborne coating contains more than 5 weight-percent
water in its volatile fraction.26/27 Like enamel and urethane
coatings, waterborne coatings dry relatively slowly. The use
of a spray booth may be necessary to prevent contamination,
and infrared heating equipment may be necessary to facilitate
drying. . !
2.2.5 Additives and Specialty Coatings j
Some additives and specialty coatings are necessary for
unusual performance requirements, and are used in relatively
small amounts to impart or improve desirable properties.
Problems such as "fish eye" defects (a surface imperfection
that can occur when the old finish contains silicone) can "be
prevented by the use of additives. Additives and specialty
coatings include adhesion promoters, uniform finish blenders,
elastomeric materials for flexible plastic parts, gloss
flatteners, and anti-glare/safety coatings.
2.2.6 Coating Preparation
i
Most coatings are mixed with additional solvents (and
sometimes catalysts) prior to application to ensure prpper
drying time, adhesion, appearance, and color-match. Topcoats
in particular must be mixed exactly according to the
manufacturer's instructions because even a slight deviation
I
may result in unacceptable,finish quality. j
I
Many shops order topcoats to match the automobile being
refinished from local automotive paint distributors, pthers
mix their own colors using mixing stations. A mixing station
typically consists of a microfiche viewer or a computer that
contains the coating manufacturer's mixing instructions, a
digital scale, and a mixing machine. Shops that use mixing
stations typically stock only a few primary colors, from which
almost any OEM color can be produced.28 According to an
1 i
2-6
-------
industry survey, about one-half of all shops own mixing
machines.29 Almost all large volume or sophisticated shops
own mixing stations, but few small shops (those employing only
one or two painters) own them.30
Shops that mix their own coatings strive to mix as little
as possible to complete a job, but always with a slight excess
to ensure that enough is available to complete the job. By
minimizing the excess, the shop minimizes the cost of
materials and the amount and cost of. hazardous coating waste
disposal .."''.
2.2.7 Coating Systems
All of the major coating manufacturers market specific
brands of primer'and .topcoat products as "systems." All of
the coatings within a particular manufacturer's coating system
are compatible and, according to the manufacturers, should be
used exactly according to instructions and never interchanged
with coatings from other systems,.3?- Problems with adhesion,
durability, and recoatability are reportedly common if coating
systems are not maintained.32
2.3 PROCESS STEPS AND MATERIALS
The procedures for refinishing automobiles vary from shop
to shop; however, some basic steps are followed, whether the
job is to repair a spot, panel, or entire automobile.
Generally, the surface is thoroughly cleaned to ensure proper
adhesion of the coating, the metal surface is -,primed, a
topcoat is applied, and the spray equipment is cleaned.
The following subsections describe the surface preparation
and coating application processes. The spray equipment
cleaning process is discussed in Section 2.6.
2.3.1 Surface Preparation . <
The first step in the refinish process is preparing the
surface. The surface is normally washed with detergent and
water and allowed to dry. It is then cleaned with either
solvent or a solvent-based surface preparation product
(solvent wipe) to ensure removal of all remaining wax, grease,
and other contaminants. '.
2-7
-------
Surface preparation products generally contain solvents
(toluene, xylene, and petroleum distillates) and
surfactants.33 These products are wiped off after they have
effectively dissolved the wax and grease from the surface.
This step is important to avoid contamination and ensure
proper adhesion of the coatings, and is necessary even if the
existing paint does not have to be removed or if the parts to
be coated are new. Some shops use waterborne, low-VOC|surface
preparation products instead of solventborne products. j These
products are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.0.
If an existing primer/topcoat is in good condition (no
chips or cracks),' the new paint can be applied directly on top
of it by merely "" scuff -sanding" (or roughening) the surface to
promote adhesion. If the existing finish has imperfections or
the part has been damaged in an accident, the old finish
should be completely removed down to bare metal.
Removal of old paint is by one of three methods: j(l) by
sanding (best for small areas), (2) with paint removers (which
typically contain solvents such as methylene chloride,|
methanol, and ammonia, and are most efficient for large areas
and complete panels), or (3) by sand blasting (best for
complete automobiles or extremely large areas).34'35 The
paint removal step is followed by a final solvent wipe I
2.3.2 Primer Application
Before any coatings are applied to bare metal, thei surface
should be treated with a metal conditioner to etch the! surface
and prevent flash rusting, which can occur from bare metal
exposure to the atmosphere. Metal conditioning can be
achieved using a hand-applied acidic conditioner, or by the
application of a pretreatment wash ("self-etching") primer,
that both etches and primes the surface. Pretreatment; wash
primers contain at least 0.5 percent acid by weight, and can
be applied prior to the application of solventborne or'
waterborne coatings. If a pretreatment wash primer is not
used, the conditioned surface should be primed to provide
corrosion resistance and promote adhesion.3^
i
2-8 ;
-------
The term "precoat" has been used in several State
automobile refinish rules to describe a bare metal coating
category. A precoat is described as a coating that is applied
to bare metal prior to the application of waterborne coatings-.
When pretreatment wash primers cannot be used (i.e., when they
are incompatible with the substrate or other coatings),
primers or primer sealers can be used to prepare the surface
for subsequent waterborne coatings; therefore, a separate
"precoat" category is not necessary.
2.3.3 Primer Surfacer Application
If imperfections remain in the surface after primer
application, a primer surfacer is applied. Primer surfacers
build film thickness in order to create a smooth surface after
sanding, and provide adhesion and corrosion resistance.
2.3.4 Primer Sealer Application
If there are no surface imperfections, some shops apply
only a primer sealer to provide more corrosion resistance,
promote adhesion of subsequent coatings, and enhance the
uniform appearance of the topcoat. Primer sealers prevent
dulling of the topcoat caused by the penetration of topcoat
solvents into the primer and primer surfacer coats.
2.3.5 Topcoat Application
The topcoat system, applied after the surface is prepared
and free of defects, provides the final color and appearance.
Topcoats may be single-stage, two-stage, or three-stage
coating systems. Each stage of a two- or three-stage system
directly impacts the durability of the topcoat system, and the
ability to successfully match the old paint color.
Two-stage basecoat/clearcoat systems may have either a
solid color or a metallic basecoat, covered by a transparent
clearcoat for protection and gloss. The basecoat is
approximately one-third and the clearcoat two-thirds of the
total coating used.37'38'39 Two-stage systems are popular
because of their deep, rich finish, which reportedly cannot be
duplicated by a single-stage coating.
2-9
-------
_
Metallic finishes contain small metal flakes, typically
aluminum, which are suspended in a mixture of binders,
solvent, and pigment.. Light reflects off these metal flakes
to produce the metallic effect. Color-matching these coatings
is difficult and depends on the alignment of the metallic
particles, which is influenced by the evaporation rate;of the
solvent. OEM's use metallic coatings on at least 50 percent
of all new automobiles.40 '
Three-stage systems consist of a basecoat, midcoat, and
clearcoat. The basecoat and midcoat account for about
one-half of the coating volume and the clearcoat for I
one-half.41'42- Three-stage refinish systems are often;used to
match three-stage.OEM finishes.43
Three-stage iridescent finishes are similar to metallic
finishes; they contain flakes of mica in the midcoat that
reflect light to produce an iridescent, or "pearl", effect.
As OEM topcoats have become more complex, the precise
matching of original colors by painters has become morfe
difficult. Annual changes in OEM color selections add; a
dimension of difficulty to achieving color-match. An
automobile manufacturer typically will introduce over 10 new
colors in a single year.44 New car colors are developed by
coating manufacturers, who preview them with automobile
manufacturing stylists. The automobile manufacturer then
determines from market research which colors to use.
Once a new color has been selected, the coating
i
manufacturers develop coatings that achieve the desired
appearance and performance specifications. Trial application
by the automobile manufacturer may then take a number of
months before the coating is approved for line application.
The typical automobile painter, however, lacks this period
of "trial application" and is expected to meet color
specifications and customer satisfaction for every job,
regardless of previous experience with a particular color.
Although refinish coating formulations are developed for each
OEM color, there is often variability in the shade color,
2-10
-------
which requires the painter to make adjustments to the formula.
Because of the difficulty of matching certain colors, the
painter must sometimes refinish more of the automobile rather
than just the damaged portion. This, of course, increases
coating usage.
2.4 PREPARATION STATIONS
Preparation of the surface for repainting and application
of the primer usually are done in open areas of body shops;
however, in some shops these steps are performed in
preparation, or "prep", stations. Prep stations typically are
ventilated and equipped with plastic curtains to control dust
and coating overspray. Many shops are equipped with portable
infrared heating "units to facilitate drying of primers during
cool and/or humid shop conditions. Figure 2-1 presents a
diagram of a typical heating unit.
2.5 SPRAY BOOTHS
Spray booths are clean, well-lit, and well-ventilated
.enclosures for coating operations. Because of their longer
drying times, enamel, water-based, and urethane coatings are
best applied in a spray booth to minimize the possibility of
dirt adhering to the wet coating. Air is drawn into a spray
booth through filters to assure a flow of clean air past the
automobile being painted. This air hastens drying and
provides a safer work environment for the painter by removing
solvent vapors from the booth. Filters in the discharge from
the booth remove coating overspray (the portion of the coating
solids that does not adhere to the surface being sprayed) from
the exhaust air.
There are three types of spray booths used in the refinish
industry: crossdraft, downdraft, and semi-downdraft (Figure
2-2). Traditionally, the air flow in refinish spray booths
has been from one side of the booth to the other, or
"crossdraft." In the crossdraft design, incoming air is
pulled into the booth through filters located in the entrance
door. The air travels along the length of the car and then
passes through coating arrestor filters at the opposite end,
2-11 ' ' .
-------
r
Figure 2-1. Typical Infrared Heating Unit
2-12
-------
T T T T I f T f T " T
Downdraft
Make-up Air
j i m i m I
Semi-downdraft
Crossdraft
Figure 2-2. Spray booth make-up and exhaust air orientation
2-13
-------
where coating overspray is removed. The air then exits
through an exhaust stack, carrying with it any solvent vapors
or other VOC's.
Downdraft booths have a vertical air flow (top to bottom)
and are considered state-of-the-art because they provide the
cleanest drying/curing environment. In a downdraft booth, the
air is pulled in through filters in the roof, travels down
'
over the top of the automobile, picks up coating solvent and
overspray, and passes into a, grate-covered pit in the floor of
the booth.
,
The downdraft booth is a better design than the crossdraft
booth because the air is less turbulent, which helps minimize
the mixing of overspray with air in the rest of the booth. In
addition, air circulation is more uniformly concentrated
around the automobile and solvent vapor is drawn down and away
from the painter's breathing zone.
Downdraft booths can utilize dry-filtration or
wet-filtration (waterwash) systems to capture coating
overspray. In wet-filtration booths, water is used to capture
overspray. Both types of filters only remove coating solids;
they do not reduce VOC emissions to the atmosphere.
The semi-downdraft spray booth is a combination.of
crossdraft and downdraft booth designs. Air enters the booth
through the ceiling and is discharged at the back of the
booth. Air in a semi-downdraft spray booth is more turbulent
than in a downdraft booth but less turbulent than in a
s
crossdraft booth.
In order to decrease the drying time after coating
application, most shops with spray booths use heated air
drying systems. Smaller shops may use traveling ovens that
can be rolled out for use inside the booth after the
automobile has been sprayed. Small, portable,, infrared
heating units are also available either to warm metal surfaces
prior to coating application or to speed the drying time'of
the repair.
2-14
-------
Approximately 40 percent of all body shops own crossdraft
booths and .30 percent own downdraft or semi-downdraft
booths.45 The portion that can heat the booth air is not
known. As the refinish industry continues to move away from
lacquer coatings and toward slower drying higher-solids and
waterborne coatings, shops that do not already have spray
booths are expected to purchase them.
2 . 6 SPRAY EQUIPMENT
Current practice in the refinish industry is to apply
coatings with hand-held spray guns that use air pressure to
atomize the coating. There are two basic types of spray gun
systems: pressure-feed and suction-feed. In a pressure-feed
.system, the coating is contained in a "pot" that is connected
by hose lines to the spray gun. Compressed air introduced to
the pot pushes the liquid through the hose and out of the
spray gun nozzle. Pressure-feed systems generally require
significantly more coating than suction-feed because of the
amount of residual coating in the pressure pot and hose lines.
In a suction-feed system, coating is contained in a "cup"
mounted on the spray gun. The rapid flow of air through the
air line and spray gun creates a vacuum which draws the
coating from the cup and forces it through the gun nozzle.
Based on available data, it is clear that some spray
equipment is likely to give better transfer efficiency than
others. Simply defined, transfer efficiency is the ratio of
the amount of coating solids deposited onto the surface of the
coated part to the total amount of coating solids that exit
. c
the gun nozzle. Paint that is sprayed but not deposited onto
the surface is referred to as "overspray." Increased transfer
efficiency, or reduction of coating overspray, has a number of
benefits. Because coating overspray releases the same amount
of solvent as the coating that adheres to the substrate,
reducing overspray reduces VOC emissions.
Less overspray also benefits the refinisher. Solvent
concentration in the booth is reduced, less time is spent
applying coatings (because more reaches the substrate), and
2-15
-------
solvent use for cleanup of overspray is reduced. j
Additionally, a shop that uses high-transfer efficiency spray
equipment uses less coating, and therefore may also realize a
savings in coating costs. The transfer efficiency of spray
guns vary dramatically depending on a number of factors;, such
as the shape of the surface being coated, type of gun, |
velocity of the aerosol, skill and diligence of the operator,
and extraneous air movement within the spray booth. ',
2.6.1 Conventional Air Spray Guns
I
Conventional air spray guns are suction-feed and are the
standard method of applying coatings. Figure 2-3 shows the
two basic type's of conventional spray guns: syphon-feed and
gravity-feed. In syphon-feed guns the paint cup is attached
below the spray gun, and the rapid flow of air through the gun
creates a vacuum that siphons the coating out of the cup.
Gravity-feed guns, which have the paint cup attached above the
gun, require less air pressure to move the coating through the
i,
gun and provide substantially better transfer efficiency than
syphon-feed guns.46
The air pressure at which conventional spray guns operate
is usually 30 to 90 pounds per square inch (psi). One pf the
major problems with these guns is that the high velocity of
the aerosol causes the coating particles to "bounce", which
increases overspray. The transfer efficiency of conventional
spray guns is substantially lower than that of "high-volume,
low pressure" (HVLP). spray guns. i
2.6.2 High-Volume, Low-Pressure Spray Guns
*
High-volume, low-pressure spray guns use large volumes of
air at low pressure (10 psi or less) to atomize coatings.
i
Because the atomized spray leaves the gun at a lower velocity
than in conventional air spraying, there is less particle
"bounce." As a result, higher transfer efficiency can be
achieved, with overspray reportedly being reduced by 25 to 50
percent.47
The air source in an HVLP spray system can be a turbine or
conventional compressed air. Both systems can be purchased to
2-16
-------
Syphon-Feed
Gravity-Feed
Figure 2-3. Conventional spray equipment
2-17
-------
handle multiple spray guns. The materials of construction of
most HVLP systems are designed to be compatible with a full
range of coatings. Many HVLP spray systems are designed to
atomize high-, medium-, and low-solids coatings.
When first using HVLP spray equipment, the painter must
adjust to the different characteristics of the spray pattern.
Initially, HVLP spray guns are more difficult to use,
especially for color-matching, because the greater transfer
efficiency requires that the painter move the gun more iquickly
in order to avoid applying an excessively thick coat. Thick
films can cause splotching, which occurs when solvent
initially trapped^ in the thicker coating escapes to the
surface and causes'a blemish. Also, thicker films retard the
evaporation rate of the solvent, which can influence the
positioning of metallic flakes. In addition, the HVLP spray
requires more skill to blend.48 Once a painter becomes
experienced with HVLP guns, however, these problems are
overcome, with a significant cost savings because the amount
of waste coatings can be reduced with no sacrifice in the
quality of the refinished surface. . j ' .
2.6.3 Low-Volume, Low-Pressure Spray Guns
Low-volume, low-pressure (LVLP) spray guns are quite
similar to HVLP spray guns in that atomized coatings are
released at lower pressure (9.5 to 10 psi) and lower velocity
than conventional air spray guns. The transfer efficiency of
LVLP spray guns is reportedly about the same as for HVLP spray
guns. The primary difference is that LVLP guns use a
substantially smaller volume of air for paint atomization (45
to 60 percent less). Consequently, energy costs for air
compression are less than with HVLP guns.49 i .
2.6.4 Electrostatic Spray Guns
Electrostatic spray systems create an electrical potential
between the coating particles and the substrate. The charged
coating particles are attracted to the substrate, thus
reducing overspray and increasing transfer efficiency. ',
2-18
-------
Typical electrostatic spray,systems are pressure-feed.
A large amount of coating is contained in the hose that
connects the spray gun to the paint pot. It must be removed
before" the next coating can be applied with the gun. These
designs appear impractical for the refinish industry,
primarily because refinish facilities change coatings so
often.50 In addition, the cost of electrostatic spray systems
may be prohibitive for most body shops.51
It has been reported that there are explosion and
electrocution risks associated with use of electrostatic spray
guns unless very strict operating procedures are observed.52
Foremost, it is necessary to establish and maintain proper
electrical grounding -of all metallic objects in electrostatic
spray areas, especially solvent and paint containers. If
improperly grounded, these objects can develop high-voltage
charges as they come in contact with the electrified air
molecules and paint molecules. A spark near these objects may
easily ignite any surrounding solvent vapors.53 Users of
electrostatic spray equipment should carefully observe all
manufacturers' operating procedures.
2.7 EQUIPMENT CLEANING .
Spray equipment can be cleaned manually or with any of
several types of gun cleaning systems specifically designed
for this purpose. About 60 percent of all body shops
reportedly use some type of gun cleaning system.54'55 Shops
that do not have spray gun cleaning systems usually rinse the
outside of the gun and cup, add solvent to the cup, and then
spray the solvent into the air or into a drum set aside for
spent solvent.56
An enclosed gun cleaner or washer (Figure 2-4) consists of
a closed container (much like an automatic dishwasher with a
door or top that can be opened and closed) fitted with
cleaning connections. The spray gun is attached to a
connection, and solvent is pumped through the gun and onto the
exterior of the gun. The paint cup is also placed in the
cleaner, where the interior and exterior are sprayed with
2-19
-------
Spray Nozzle
Gun Support
Pump Tubing
Inlet Fitter
and Tubing
Solvent Basin
Pump
Figure 2-4. Typical enclosed gun cleaner
2-20
-------
solvent. Many gun-cleaners are capable of cleaning two guns
and cups per cleaning and are typically designed to clean
other equipment such as paint stirrers and strainers.
Cleaning solvent falls back into the cleaner's solvent
reservoir for recirculation. Solvent is recirculated until it
is too contaminated for further use. Some enclosed gun
cleaners are equipped with a second solvent reservoir that
contains virgin solvent that is used as a final rinse.
A typical open gun cleaner, shown in Figure 2-5, consists
of a basin similar to a sink in which the operator washes the
outside of the. gun under a solvent stream. The gun cup is
filled with recirculated solvent, the gun tip is placed into a
canister attached .to the basin, and suction draws the solvent
from the cup through the gun. The operator then removes the
cup, places the gun's suction stem under the clean solvent
spigot, pulls the trigger, and pumps solvent through the gun.
The solvent gravitates to the bottom of the basin and drains
through a small hole to a reservoir that supplies solvent to
the recirculation pump. The recirculating solvent is changed
when it no longer cleans satisfactorily.
Waste solvents generated by spray equipment cleaning are
often disposed of by evaporation (via spraying into the air,
or by placing in open drums) or incineration, or are reclaimed
via distillation. Solvent can be reclaimed either at the shop
or Off-site. Off-site solvent reclaimers collect spent
solvent from body shops, distill it, and return clean solvent
to the shops. Some companies provide this service only for
those shops that rent their gun cleaning systems.
In-house recycling can be as simple as letting spent
solvents settle and decanting the "clean" layer for reuse.
This method, gravity separation, is used where the purity of
the solvent is not critical. Some on-site distillation units
produce a more refined solvent, which reduces the amount of
new solvent that must be purchased and eliminates disposal
fees for the reclaimed solvent.
2-21
-------
Figure 2-5.
Typical open gun cleaner
2-22
-------
Care must be taken when a solvent reclaim unit is to be
placed in use. Solvents are combustible and can also be an
explosion hazard.57 Explosion hazards are possible from the
distillation residues that contain nitrocellulose.
Nitrocellulose is found in lacquer paint but would not be
expected in enamels and urethanes.58 In addition, some
on-site reclaimers are hot explosion-proof and may pose a
hazard when operated near other non-explosion-proof electrical
equipment. It is recommended that reclaim equipment be
operated outdoors and away from spark-producing equipment, and
that the power is turned off when the machine is being
emptied.59 '
The use of solvent for gun cleaning can reportedly be
reduced by using teflon-lined paint cups, which makes paint
removal easier. Some facilities use a small plastic liner
inside the paint cup to make cleanup easier and reduce solvent
use. The paint-covered plastic liner is discarded after each
use and the paint cup remains essentially free of paint.
2-23
-------
2.8 REFERENCES
1. Rauch Associates, Inc. The Rauch Guide to the U. S. Paint
.Industry. ISBN 0-932157-00-09. 1990. p. 85.
2. National Paint and Coatings Association, NPCA Automotive
Refinish Coalition's Estimates of 1990 National Baseline
VOC Emissions from the Automotive Refinish Industry.
Washington, DC. March 1992.
3. Telseon. Sullivan, J., Radian Corporation, with '
Schultz, K. R.,. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
April 9, 1993. Estimate of the number of refinishing
coating manufacturers in the United States.
4. Ref. 3 ' : i . '
5. Letter from Sell, J., Automotive Refinish Coalition to
Jordan, B., EPA/CPB. December 2, 1991. Automotive
Refinish Coalition's additional comments concerning
technical and factual issues raised by the study. |p. 2.
i
6. Ref. 1 !
7. Letter from Roland, D., Automotive Service Industry
Association, to Ducey, E., EPA/CPB. January 22, 1993.
Distributors of automotive refinishing coatings.
8. Collision Repair Industry. Repair in the 90's. Insight
1:5. February, 1991. i
9. Letter from Graves, T. J., Esq., National Paints and
Coatings Association, to South Coast Air Quality
Management District. July 8, 1988. Automobile
refinishing industry characterization and regulation.
10. Meeting Summary from Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation,.
to Schultz, K. R., E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,
Inc., July 29, 1992. Baseline emission estimates for the
automobile refinishing industry.
11. Sell, J. Position Paper of the NPCA Automotive Refinish
Coalition Concerning Draft Automobile Refinishing Control
Techniques Guidelines. In: National Air Pollution
Control Techniques Advisory Committee. Research Triangle
Park, N.C. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
November 21, 1991. p. 1081.
12. Schultz, K. R., E. I. Du Pont de .Nemours & Company, Inc.
Comments on the Automobile Control Techniques Guideline
Draft for NAPCTAC Review on 11/21/91. In: National Air
Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee. Research
2-24
-------
Triangle Park, NC. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. November 21, 1991. p.1070.
13. Letter from Randall, D. A., Automotive Service
Association, to Ducey, E., EPA/CPB. June 27, 1991.
Summary of Automotive Refinishing Model Shop Emission
Reduction Costs.
14. Ref 13.
15. Letter from French, R., Collision Industry Conference, to
Ellen, D., EPA/CPB. October 11, 1992. Body shop
licensing.
16. Telecon. Shaw, I., Radian Corporation, with Sieradski,
R., Akzo Coatings, Inc. October 12, 1992. European
automobile refinishing industry.
17. Ref. 16. ' '"
18. Ref. 16,
19. Ref. 9.
20
Ref. 11.
21. Memorandum from Campbell, D. L., Radian Corporation, to
Ducey, E., EPA/CPB. June 19, 199'0. Trip report of site
visits with Sherwin-Williams Sales'Manager, Doug Smith.
22
23
24
25
PPG Refinish Manual.
Ref. 22.
PPG Industries. 1989.
Memorandum from Ross A., EPA/ORD, to Ducey, E., EPA/CPB.
September 17, 1991. Urethane Dispersions in Automotive
Refinishing.
Letter from Sell, J., Automotive Refinish Coalition to
Jordan, B., EPA/CPB. December 2, 1991. Automotive
Refinish Coalition's Additional Comments Concerning
Technical and Factual Issues Raised by the Study, p. 2.
26. Athanson, W. J. World Automotive Chemical Coatings--
Solvents Glossary. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, NY.
1989. p. 89.
27. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Glossary for Air
Pollution Control of Industrial Coating Operations. Second
Edition. EPA-450/3-83-013R. Research Triangle Park, NC.
December 1983. p. 23.
2-25
-------
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Telecon. Sullivan, J., Radian Corporation, with
Smith, D., Sherwin-Williams Company. January 10, 1992.
Paint mixing and recordkeeping.
34,
35.
36.
37,
38,
39
Babcox Publications.
'1993. p. 51.
Ref. 28.
1993 Annual Industry Profile. June
Ref. 11. pp. 1076, 1081, and 1082. i
Clark, M. Common Complaints, Specific Solutions. Body
Shop Business. June 1990. pp. 80-81.
Athey, C., C. Hester, M. McLaughlin, R.M. Neulicht, and
M.B. Turner. Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions;from Automobile Refinishing. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA-450/3-88-009. 1988. !
Ref. 22. . ' '
Telecon. Sullivan, J., Radian Corporation, with ;
Smith, D., Sherwin-Williams Company. April 23, 1992.
Coating preparation.
Bay Area Air Quality, Management District. Staff Report on
Proposed Regulation 8, Rule 45 - Motor Vehicle and Mobile
Equipment Coating Operations. May 1, 1989.
Letter from Schultz, K., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Company, Inc., to Brower, G., New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection. January 24, 1989. pp. ;3,4.
New Jersey Refinish Rule Development Procedures.
Inglis, R. J. BASF Comments on Draft Automobile Control
Techniques Guideline. In: National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee. Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
November 21, 1991. Pp. 1012-1019. j
Ocampo, G., Sherwin-Williams. Comments on Draft
Automobile Control Techniques Guideline. In: National
Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee.
Research Triangle Park, NC. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. November 21, 1991. pp. 1045-
1048.
40. Ref. 32.
41. Ref. 38.
42. Ref. 39.
2-26
-------
43. Ref. 22.
44. Ref. 38.
45. .Norton, J. 1992 .Annual Industry Profile. Body Shop
Business. 1JL:56. June 1992.
46. Memorandum from Campbell, D. L., Radian Corporation, to
Ducey, E., EPA/CPB. June 20, 1990. Revised trip report--
CBWD's, Inc.
47. Graco, Incorporated. Product Information. High Output
HVLP Sprayers. 1990.
48. Ref. 33.
49. Telecon, Sullivan J., Radian Corporation, with Thomas, M.,
IWATA Paint Spray Equipment Manufacturing Company.
November 26, 1992. Low-volume low-pressure spray guns.
50. Ref. 13
51. Ref. 33
52. Adams, J. New Application Methods and Techniques. Binks
Manufacturing Company. Franklin Park, IL. In: SPCC '91
National Conference and Exhibition. Long Beach, CA.
November 13, 1991. p. 37-56.
53. Ref. 52.
54. Telecon. Soderberg, E., Radian Corporation with Kusz, J.,
Safety Kleen Corporation. January 8, 1991. Gun
cleaners.
55. Telecon. Campbell, D.L., Radian Corporation, with
Schultz, K., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
December 12, 1990. Coating cost and industry
characterization.
56.
57.
58.
59.
Ref. 54.
Gwynn, Sandra. Are Recylers Safe? Hammer and Dolly.
June 1992. pp. 37 and 38.
Ref. 57.
Ref. 57.
2-27
-------
-------
3.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The steps involved in automobile refinishing include surface
preparation, coating application, and spray equipment
cleaning. Each of these steps can be a source of VOC
emissions. (Techniques for estimating these emissions are
presented in Chapter 4.) This chapter discusses techniques
for reducing VOC emissions from refinishing, which include:
using low-VOC surface preparation products;
using low-VOC ("high-solids" or waterborne) coatings;
improving the transfer efficiency of spray equipment;
using gun cleaning equipment that recirculates gun
cleaning solvent;
using add-on control devices;
improving housekeeping practices and training programs;
and
reducing the number and severity of automobile
collisions. .
VOC emissions can be reduced by using waterborne surface
preparation products, and by using coatings that are
inherently low in VOC, such as urethanes. Emissions could
also be reduced by reformulating conventional coatings to
lower their VOC content. Improved transfer efficiency reduces
VOC emissions by decreasing the amount of coating overspray.
Gun cleaning equipment that controls evaporative losses also
recirculates solvent for several cleanings to reduce solvent
use. Add-on control devices examined for this industry are
carbon adsorbers, incinerators, and biofilters.
3-1
-------
Improved housekeeping practices include using closed
containers for storing fresh and spent solvents. Training
programs could focus on educating shop workers on ways to
reduce solvent and coating use. Reducing the number and
severity of collisions involves equipping automobiles w,ith
safety features such as anti-lock brakes and "5-mile-per-hour"
bumpers. '
Although beyond the scope of this study, increasing the
minimum allowable structural strength of new automobile
bumpers could 'be a pollution prevention step for this
industry. The damage to sheet metal, lamps, etc., must, to
some degree, reflect the effectiveness of the bumper in
protecting the automobile from such damage. Less damage
should translate to less coating use and reduced emissions.
Low-VOC surface preparation products are discussed in
Section 3.2.and low-VOC primers and topcoats are discussed in
Section 3.3. Gun cleaners are discussed in Section 3.4.
Existing State regulations for automobile refinishing are
presented in Section 3.5. Add-on control devices are
discussed in Section 3.6. The use of improved housekeeping
practices and training programs to reduce VOC emissions are
discussed in Section 3.7. !
3.1.2 Coating VOC Content ;
Before discussing techniques to reduce the VOC emissions
from coating applications, it is necessary to discuss the
methodology used to determine the VOC content of coatings. As
explained in Chapter 2, the solids portion of a coating
remains on the substrate to form the film; therefore, the VOC
content of a coating ideally would be related to its volume
solids. There is as yet, however, no generally accepted
method for the determination of the solids content of [
coatings. This document continues the EPA's approach of
relating-the mass of VOC in a coating to the combined volumes
of VOC and solids, expressed as: mass of VOC per unit volume
of coating, minus volume of water and any negligibly
photochemically reactive ("exempt") compounds. Unless
3-2
-------
otherwise stated, the VOC contents discussed in this document
represent the amount of VOC in the coating as it is applied,
that is, after the coating has been reduced or diluted by the
painter prior to application.
3.2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM SURFACE PREPARATION PRODUCTS
VOC emissions can be reduced during surface preparation by
using products that contain less VOC than conventional
products. Conventional surface preparation products average
6.4 pounds of VOC per gallon (Ib VOC/gal), or 765 grams of VOC
per liter (g VOC/-O-1 These products consist mainly of
solvent, the active ingredient for removing residual grease
and wax from the surface to be painted.
The active ingredient in low-VOC surface preparation
products is detergent rather than solvent. A gallon of these
products contains less than 1.7 Ib VOC/gal (200 g VOC/^); more
than a 70 percent reduction over conventional products.2/3
The VOC contents of these products are not expressible in the
same terms as coatings because they contain no solids.
Low-VOC surface preparation products reportedly work as well
as conventional products, but they must be allowed to remain
on the surface longer before being wiped off and they require
additional rubbing for thorough removal.4*5 Conventional
surface preparation products are wiped off almost immediately
after being applied. Low-VOC surface preparation products are
already required in several ozone nonattainment areas of the
United States.
3.3 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COATING APPLICATIONS
Emissions from coating applications can be reduced by: (1)
applying coatings with lower VOC content, (2) using spray
equipment that has a higher transfer efficiency so that less
coating is wasted, and (3). abatement.
3.3.1 Low-VOC Coatings
Information on low-VOC coatings was gathered through a
survey of the major manufacturers of automobile refinish
coatings conducted by the EPA in March of 199O.6 The survey
revealed that all of the major manufacturers have developed
3-3
-------
coatings that contain substantially less VOC than conventional
coatings. These coatings have been developed to comply with
several State regulations that mandate their use. ;
Table 3-1 lists the various coatings used in automobile
refinishing and the VOC contents of conventional coatings.
This table also presents VOC limits for the various coatings,
which are organized into three options.
The limits of Option 1 were derived by evaluating the
availability and reported limitations of the coatings included
in the survey. Coatings at these limits are currently
available, and their use would not require the purchase of any
additional equipment. ' Therefore, shops at all levels of
technical sophistication should be able to use these coatings
with no loss of productivity or quality. j
The Option 2 limits were suggested by coating manufacturers
several years ago when they anticipated that such coatings
could be developed before they were required by a rule. The
Option 2 primer/primer surfacer limit of 3.8 Ib VOC/gal (455 g
VOC/£) and the 5.0 Ib VOC/gal .(600 g VOC/*) limit for 3-stage
topcoats are claimed by manufacturers to be "technology-
forcing" because there are no coatings currently available at
these limits. There are, however, 4.05 Ib VOC/gal primer
surfacers currently available. Whether coatings could be
developed to meet the 3.8 and 5.0 Ib VOC/gal limits before
they are required by a rule is not known.
The VOC limits of Option 3 are identical to the limits
determined to be Best Available Retrofit Control Technology
(BARCT) by the California Air Resources Board (GARB)
(effective January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994),! except
for the precoat.7 These coatings are currently available;
however, their longer drying times would likely require the
purchase of additional equipment (such as heating lamps) by
shops in geographical areas with weather conditions less
favorable than California's. ;
The VOC limits presented in this document are lower than the
VOC contents of most refinish coatings currently used. Newer
3-4 :
-------
§
o
H
H
ft
O
J
o
F-l
8
i
H
I
O
H
i
co
H
J
1
r7
1
O
X)
rH
JJ
a
Q)
a
o
o
u
-g
m
g
H
4J
O
CN
G
O
H
4J
a-
H
,c
u
H
4J
a
o
1u
. en
2
1
i-H
C
Q
4J
a
§»
a
o
o
&
o
Cn
0)
j->
rt
O
S
H
4J
O
O
in co in
i
VO O3 f^O
in oo vo
I *
vo m *#
:in vo vo
t. .f.
tp ^^ -
VO P- P» VO
i i it
00 VO VO O
* *
in *# *f in
U
rt
i.
^
m
t i ti
4-) 0) 0)
C 6rH
Q) -H rt
g r( g
rt -u "^
VD kD
i i i i
GO GO GO VO
.
in ^* in ^*
0)
Q) rt
Cn O
rt o
jj ^. j j_J Q
03 0) rH 4.) rt O
3 a) rt o aJ
03 tt> &1 S O O
AJ rH O S O M 0)
rt Cn rt fl a) rt Cn
o a J w m rt
U -H rt rH 4J
aco mo co
O '
E-. m
o
<>'
0
*
0
c^
o
t^
4J
i-H
rt
H
U
0)
p
CO
3-5
-------
technologies near commercialization hold promise of much
greater reductions.
At least one manufacturer markets a solventborne 2.8 Ib
VOC/gal (335 g VOC/O coating which serves as both a primer
I ,
surfacer and primer sealer. This coating does not take
significantly longer to dry than conventional primers, and is
compatible with most of the manufacturer's topcoat systems;
however, it is incompatible with plastic substrates,8
The VOC contents of conventional pretreatment wash primers
range from 5.8 to 6.5 Ib VOC/gal (695 and 780 g VOC/-O ; the
average is approximately 6.3 Ib VOC/gal (755 g VOC/-O .9 A
limit of 6.5 Ib VOC/gal (780 g VOC/-O is included in all
options to ensure that this bare metal coating can be applied
in a thin film and that it will be compatible with subsequent
coatings. No emission reductions are anticipated from1
pretreatment wash primers, but significant reductions could
not be expected since only about two percent of total
automobile refinish emissions result from their application.
Precoats contain between 4.6 and 7.1 Ib VOC/gal (550 and 850
g VOC/£); the average is approximately 5.8 Ib VOC/gal (695 g
VOC/-O .10 As discussed in Chapter 2, a separate category for
precoats is not necessary; therefore, none of the options
contain precoat categories.
Since primer sealers are sometimes used as bare metal
coatings, the primer sealer limits of the options (discussed
below) were used to estimate the emissions reductions from
j
precoats. The Option 1 and 2 limit of 4.6 Ib VOC/gal (550 g
VOC/O would result in about a 60 percent reduction in VOC
emissions from the average precoat; the Option 3 limit ;of 3.5
Ib VOC/gal (420 g VOC/£) would result in about an 80 percent
reduction. |
Conventional primer/primer surfacers contain between^ 4.6 and
7.1 Ib VOC/gal (550 and 850 g VOC/-O ; the average is
approximately 5.7 Ib VOC/gal (685 g VOC/-O .13- The Option 1
3-6
-------
limit of 4.6 Ib VOC/gal (550 g VOC/O would result in about a
55 percent reduction in VOC emissions from conventional
primer/primer surfacers; the Option 2 limit of 3.8 Ib VOC/gal
(455 g VOC/-O would result in about a 70 percent reduction;
the Option 3 limit of 2.8 Ib VOC/gal (335 g VOC/*) would
result in about an 85 percent reduction.
Conventional primer sealers typically contain between 5.0
and 6.7 Ib VOC/gal (600 and 805 g VOC/£); the "average is
approximately 6.3 Ib VOC/gal (755 g VOC/£)-12 The Option 1
and 2 limit of 4.6 Ib VOC/gal (550 g VOC/*) would result in
about a 75 percent reduction in VOC emissions from
conventional primer sealers; the Option 3 limit of 3.5 Ib
VOC/gal (420 g VOC/*) would result in about a 90 percent
reduction.
As discussed in Chapter 2, topcoats are applied as a single
coating, or a two-stage (basecoat/clearcoat) or three-stage
(basecoat/midcoat/clearcoat) system. The following equation
may be used to estimate the average VOC content of a two-stage
topcoat:
VOC =
a
2 VOC
CC
where:
VOCa
VOCbc
voccc
Average VOC content (Ib VOC/gal)
VOC content of basecoat (Ib VOC/gal)
VOC content of clearcoat (Ib VOC/gal)
This equation is used because the basecoat is approximately
one-third, and the clearcoat two-thirds, of the total film
thickness of a two-stage topcoat system.
The following equation may be used to estimate the average
VOC content of a three-stage system:
3-7
-------
voca =
2 VOCCC
where:
VOCa
VOCbc
VOCmc
VOCCC
Average VOC content (Ib VOC/gal)
VOC content of basecoat (Ib VOC/gal)
VOC content of midcoat (Ib VOC/gal)
VOC content of clearcoat (Ib VOC/gal)
This equation 'is used because the basecoat and midcoat each
are approximately one-quarter, and the clearcoat one-half, of
the total film thickness of a three-stage topcoat system.
The VOC contents of conventional refinish topcoats range
from 4.6 to 6.7 Ib VOC/gal (550 to 805 g VOC/£) .3.3 The
average VOC contents of the different topcoat types are
presented in Table 3-1. The emission reductions from
conventional topcoats that would result from a 5.0 Ib VOC/gal
(600 g VOC/-O limit range from about 70 percent for lacquers
to about 40 percent for all other topcoats. The 5.2 Ib
VOC/gal (625 g VOC/£) limit for 3-stage topcoats included in
Option 1 would result in about a 30 percent reduction from
conventional coatings.
The use of topcoats with VOC contents below the Option 3
limits reportedly can result in inferior color-match. Coating
manufacturers contend that the use of such coatings could
actually increase VOC emissions because painters could be
forced to refinish substantially larger portions of an
automobile in order to blend the refinished area into the
existing finish.
States may wish to consider different VOC limits for mobile
equipment (e.g, farm machinery and construction equipment).
Several States have made such a distinction in their rules.
Lower VOC limits for topcoats are reportedly feasible for
mobile equipment because high gloss and color-match are not as
important as they are in passenger cars.
3-8
-------
A rule containing VOC limits for coatings could be
implemented and enforced at one or more points in .the coating
distribution chain. In California, most rules require body
shops to keep records of the amount and VOC content of the
coatings they use. If accurate records are kept, this is
undoubtedly the most accurate. Shops maintain that such
recordkeeping is burdensome and decreases their productivity.
Such recordkeeping can also be burdensome to the State who
would have to review records for a large number of shops.
A rule could be written such that only compliant coatings
could be sold by distributors in the area affected by the
rule. Recordkeeping at the shop level would be unnecessary if
only compliant coatings could be purchased by shops. However,
the purchase of compliant coatings by shops does not guarantee
that coatings will not be diluted or reduced such that they
are no longer compliant. Also, shops could purchase their
coatings from distributors outside of the regulated area.
Such purchases may be reduced by a statewide rule.
A rule enforced at the distributor .level may decrease the
burden on the State, since no shop records would be reviewed;
however, the State may still need to visit shops if their rule
contained shop requirements such as gun cleaners and high-
transfer-efficiency spray equipment.
3.3.2 High-Transfer-Efficiency Spray Equipment
Although transfer efficiency is a simple concept, it is
difficult to use for regulatory purposes because of the many
factors that can affect it. As a consequence, transfer
efficiency is not a quantifiable VOC control method, even
though it can have a significant effect on coating usage and
resulting emissions. States may choose to publicize the
benefits of certain types of spray equipment (such as HVLP),
or institute equipment standards that require their use.
3.3.3 New Developments in Spray Equipment
In addition to HVLP and LVLP spray equipment designed to
increase transfer efficiency, several manufacturers are
currently developing new types of spray equipment that may be
3-9
-------
feasible for use in automobile refinishing in the future. One
manufacturer has developed a spray system that uses
supercritical carbon dioxide to replace a large portioii of the
solvent normally required for the spray application of:
coatings. This system is currently infeasible for body shops
because existing automobile refinish coatings have yet to be
reformulated to allow application using this technology.
Aside from its current technical infeasibility, its high
capital cost ($50,000 to $70,000) makes it economically
infeasible for most body shops. It is estimated that within 3
years such a system could be feasible for use in shops.14
3.4 EMISSIONS. REDUCTIONS FROM EQUIPMENT CLEANING
Gun cleaning is,a source of solvent emissions. As discussed
in Chapter 2, spray equipment can, be cleaned manually with
little to no control of evaporative emissions or with gun
cleaning equipment designed to reduce solvent consumption,
evaporation, and worker exposure. Solvent may be emitted from
gun cleaning equipment both during the actual cleaning
operation (active losses) and during standby (passive losses).
As discussed in Chapter 2, most body shops already operate
gun cleaners. State rules in several ozone nonattainment
I
areas already require their use (Section 3.5) . An estimated
60 percent reduction in VOC emissions is achieved by shops
that switch from cleaning guns manually to a gun cleaner.
Gun cleaners are of two types, enclosed or open. According
to a March, 1990, study comparing open and enclosed gun
cleaners, VOC emissions from open and enclosed cleaners are
about the same. 3-5 This report is based on comparisons of
passive and active VOC losses from four models of open gun
cleaners manufactured by the same company with five enclosed
units manufactured by other companies. The study concluded
that the bowl-shape of open cleaners causes the cleaning
solvent to readily drain to the solvent reservoir, and the
small diameter of the solvent drain hole and hose mitigates
evaporative losses as well as the lid on enclosed systems..
3-10
-------
In general, neither open nor enclosed gun cleaners are
completely vapor-tight.' For enclosed cleaners, a small amount
of solvent evaporates from the cleaning basin because of an
imperfect seal along the edge of the cleaner lid. One of the
enclosed gun cleaner manufacturers in the above-mentioned
study has since redesigned its seal to reduce VOC leakage.
Solvent emissions also occur from enclosed gun cleaners
while the lid is open for insertion and removal of the spray
guns. Rapid opening and closing of the lid causes significant
turbulence of the air within the cleaner, which causes some
displacement of the solvent-laden air from the cleaner. One
manufacturer above offers an optional speed-controlled lid
opener and closer designed to minimize turbulence and reduce
displacement of solvent-laden air. The redesigned lid seal
and speed-controlled lid have not been tested to quantify
impacts on emissions.
3.5 EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS
A number of States containing ozone nonattainment areas have
already adopted rules for automobile refinishing. A summary
of these regulations is presented in Table 3-2. The following
subsections briefly describe the regulations in these States.
3.5.1 New Jersey
The New Jersey regulation applies to the entire State, and
specifies the maximum allowable VOC emissions per volume of
coating. No requirements are specified regarding surface
preparation or equipment cleaning operations.16
3.5.2 New York City
The New York City Metropolitan Area regulation applies to
the five boroughs of New York City and four surrounding
counties. The regulation limits the VOC content of automobile
refinish coatings applied.17
3.5.3 Texas
In Texas, automobile refinishing is regulated under a rule
covering several types of surface coating processes. The
Texas regulation limits the VOC content of coatings and
surface preparation products in all nonattainment areas. Body
3-11
-------
1
H
§
3
t^
CD
&3
PS
CD
£3
rH
jj-4
CO
H
*
OJ
ro
W
II
H
r4 JJ
Q) tn
C GJ
rc E
Q) 0)
_J t [
O-H
CD H
CQ
H
E
H
i-H <_<
°ti
5 t"
r^ *x^
__o
JH O
5 r*
JJ
o ""H
ri "*"**
**
in
CA
*"»
a *7
o jjd
CU-H-H 2.
U JJ E O £,
ft
Co
/it
CO
rl
rtj
0 g 0
o o
«
og t» in
* CN
o in
in u> ^^
* ^Q &i ,O
VD "CO
^1* JJ *H *r>
O (0* JJ ft
«^J< inOiHOOtC 3rH
VD O JJ-'CO-OO Xi o '
JJ Cti JJ CQ JJ JJ
n5 O CO" JJ CQ JJ O rH ^N^, rH
O O CQ (UnSMMccltDrc! MrH
UJHJH rtOO)
CQCJO ft&i&CUEHmw ptJO
/It ' jtt
UJ U U)
C . CJ
£ H £
>1
JJ
nJ -H
>< U
0)
CO X
0) X! 0
HJ to ><
crj
> X S
Q) 0) QJ
CQ
H
OJ
o
o r-
u
rt co jj
»M C
in SH 04 0) &i
3 u C
f> CO CO -H
0) in jj
in M $H GO rO cti
JJ fl) 0 -H «* O
0) m -H tti ^ H °
E MO) >>.>,
JJ ft CQ U JJ JJ
CtJ JJ *^^ JJ *rH CC rH
Q) ret JH M cc> rH O nJ
5-)OQ)Q)OrHrj-H
jJUSEurtfto
CM CM CM CM H S CO
p*
vo
^1
H
ril
rt
H CQ "O
CO)
rl U U
IH S *O CQ
H O r< Pjj
rt H Xl
a) a-H >,g
JJ CU rt H
jj S ;CQ d o
CQ vH -H C IW
CO *O (ti
tt) JJ t-3 CO
^1 JJ JJ JJ
H fO ti ^t'H
jj (d fl) X) E
0) C (U CO H
tji JJ
o c re d M
JJ -H B a) 0)
fO E S
CO CQ E <1) O
H -H >i-H
rH rH JJ 3 CO
ft ft-H D"d
& ftrH a) a
cd cc co j-i ,Q O *O
3-12
-------
shops in these areas are also required to use enclosed gun
cleaners.1^
3.5.4 California
Several California air quality districts have adopted rules
for automobile refinishing, including the Bay Area, South
Coast, Ventura, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, and Mojave.
Others, such as San Diego and Sacramento, have rules in
development. With minor differences, these rules contain the
same requirements determined to be the "best available"
control technology by CARB,19 including VOC content limits for
coatings and surface preparation products, and spray gun
efficiency and' cleaning requirements.
3.6 ADD-ON CONTROLS
Add-on controls are used to remove VOC's from spray booth
exhausts in a variety of industries. They can be grouped into
two broad categories: destructive and recovery devices. The
most common destructive technique is incineration. Recovery
techniques adsorb, scrub, or condense solvent and other VOC's
from the air.
These devices are.currently, economically infeasible for body
shops. The annual operating cost of an incinerator is
estimated to be $120,000.20 The annual operating cost of a
carbon adsorber is estimated to be $40,000.21 These costs are
prohibitive to body shops, one-quarter of which have annual
.sales less than $100,000.22
The intermittent spray booth activity in many shops also
makes add-on devices very expensive on a cost per emission
reduction basis. At least one manufacturer, however, is
designing a lower cost incineration system specifically for
the process conditions of refinish spray booths. Because of
the high costs of currently available add-on control devices,
they are not further discussed.
3.7 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
In addition to the emission reduction techniques already
described, solvent evaporation can be minimized through
3-13
-------
diligent housekeeping practices. Shops can reduce VOC
emissions by storing fresh and spent solvent in closed
containers that decrease vapor loss by minimizing the amount
of time that solvent is exposed to the atmosphere. Costing
waste can be minimized by mixing only as much coating as is
needed to complete a job. Waste paint, spent solvent, and
sludge from gun cleaners and in-house distillation units
should also be stored in closed containers and disposed of
properly by transfer to designated hazardous waste management
facilities. To assist local enforcement agencies in tracking
disposal and ensuring proper disposal, a manifest system
should be used.'.
"Miscellaneous" .solvent use should also be minimized. For
example, some shop employees use solvent to remove coating
overspray from spray booth walls.. Spray booth walls can be
cleaned with non-VOC products made specifically for this
purpose rather than solvent. Several companies market
waterborne strippable coatings designed for spray booth walls.
When this coating becomes covered with overspray, it is pulled
off the booth walls, and another coat is applied. This
process change can almost eliminate the need to use solvent to
clean booths. ;
Coating use (and costs) and VOC emissions can also be
reduced through training programs that explain why and how
solvent emissions contribute to unhealthful air, and teach
good work practices. These programs could recommend the use
of higher-transfer-efficiency- spray equipment, inform painters
of the importance of minimizing overspray, and teach methods
by which color-match can be achieved without extensively
diluting the coating with additional solvent. Training
programs can also help painters select the correct types of
coatings to use on certain substrates and in certain
conditions (i.e., varying temperature or humidity) so that
jobs do not have to be redone.
3-14
-------
3.8 REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Letter from Ocampo, G.P., The Sherwin-Williams Company,
to Ducey, E., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 30, 1990.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Staff
Report on Proposed Rule 1151--Motor Vehicle and Mobile
Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations. June
16, 1988.
State of California Air Resources Board. Determination
of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology for Automobile
Refinishing Operations. January 8, 1991.
Telecon. Soderberg, E., Radian Corporation, with
Schultz, K., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
February A, 1991. Low-VOC surface preparation
products.
Telecon. Gilbert, J., Radian Corporation, with Torres,
T., H Street Auto Body. August 10, 1992. Low-VOC
refinishing products.
Memorandum from Campbell, D.L., Radian Corporation, to
Ducey, E. EPA/CPB. February 28, 1991. Summary of
Coating Manufacturer's Survey Responses -- Automobile
Refinishing CTG.
Ref. 3.
PPG Industries.
1993.
Product Bulletin No. 184. December,
National Paint and Coatings Association. NPCA
Automotive Refinish Coalition's Estimates of 1990
National Baseline VOC Emissions from the Automotive
Refinish Industry. Washington, DC. March 1992. 6 pp,
Ref. 9.
Ref. 9.
Ref. 9.
Ref. 9.
Telecon. Morris, M., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, with West, T., Union Carbide. April 11, 1994.
Carbon Dioxide Spray Systems.
3-15
-------
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering. Comparison of Solvent
Emissions from Two Types of Spray Gun Cleaning Systems.
Prepared for Safety-Kleen Corporation. ENSR Document
No. 5831-005800. March 1990.
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy. Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by
Volatile Organic Compounds. Title 7, Chapter 27. New
Jersey. State Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy. January 28, 1992.
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. An Evaluation of Alternatives to Reduce
Emissions from Automobile Refinishing in New York, New
York. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. August 1987.
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission.
Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic !
Compounds. Regulation 5, Chapter 115, Subchapter E.
Austin, Texas. November 10, 1993,
Ref. 7.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. OAQPS Control Cost
Manual. Fourth Edition. EPA 450/3-90-006. Research
Triangle Park, NC. January 1990. pp. 4-1 to 4-44.
Ref. 20.
Babcox Publications.
p. 29. June 1993.
1993 Annual Industry Profile.
3-16
-------
4.0 BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Volatile organic compound emissions from automobile
refinishing occur during surface preparation, coating
application, and spray equipment cleaning. This chapter
presents estimates of the VOC emissions from each of these
processes and emission reductions that can be achieved using
the control techniques described in Chapter 3.
Since most of the automobile refinish rules developed by
States will be in effect by early 1995, projections of 1995
emissions were used as the "baseline" from which emission
reductions were measured. Considering the reductions already
achieved by State rules, baseline VOC emissions were estimated
for each refinish process, and are presented in Table 4-1.
Table 4-2 presents estimates of the reductions achievable
using the control techniques described in Chapter 3.
4.1 SURFACE PREPARATION
4.1.1 Baseline Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Surface Preparation
Emissions from surface preparation are a function of the
VOC content of the surface preparation product, the amount of
product used per refinish job, and the number of refinish jobs
performed. As discussed in Chapter 3, several State
regulations require the use of low-VOC surface preparation
products. For purposes of estimating baseline emissions it
was assumed that conventional surface preparation products
will continue to be used in unregulated areas; in States that
have rules, it was assumed that products have the maximum VOC
content permitted by the limits of the respective rules.
For each refinish job, it was assumed that approximately
4-1
-------
o
2
o
1
M
J
W
3
CQ
in
en
en
H
m
d
i-H O
rt -H
JJ CO
o m
[H -rj
Q)
tn
d "H
3 (-<
UJ 5?
H
O
d
o
tn-H
d -U
H rt
4J O
nJ -H
O i-l
o a
rt
d
o
0) -H
O 4-)
rt nj
LJ M
3 a
CO 0)
nS
CO
f£
O O O O O
m o H f- r-
i U rt
(U -H Cn
m 44 d d
a) o o d
i-j >H m »w -H
rt -H nS
> > X rH g
S3 S3 EH U Cd
o
CO
in
m
OQ
U)
OS
0
in
o
M
m
m
in
in
m
0)
rt
g
i=
§
-H
a
4J
rt
d
o
d
.
CO
£3
rH
CC
JJ
0
EH
4-2
-------
td
* *
S-l
"^v.
CO
8
AJ
w
a.
s
K
H
p~|
g
&
O
H
I
H
EH
U
D
Q
§
S
O
H
CO
CO
H
S
w
<
B
z
KC
.
OJ
1
^
TABLE
CO
m
C S-i
O rt
rH
O
ro OJ
Cn
C3 C3
O-H
H 4J
4J ft!
O* 8
03 CO
&}
G G
O-H
H 4->
JJ rt
ao
0 U
rH 03
Cn
G G
O-H
H JJ
4-> rt
.8-8
O
U 0)-H S
O U 4J ij
£* (C rt r-l
i *i i ^-i _t
S M rt o
o s aR
J CD fl) o
>H
rt
a)
H
t^ a\ in o '"],
n m oj 0
H
o
ooo o
in 03 CD o *x>
rn ro rH *
._ _ m
^ °) 0 0 H
CO
rt
Is
* 1 ^
CO C
>i 0)
jj i
H D 3
>^ cj ns -H
£ X rH g G
0) fl) QJ nj
G
U. S.
attainme
-H C
(C O
Jj £j
O
EH
in
cr\
rH
II
5-1
rt
cp
»S
Jaseline
(C
4-3
-------
4 oz, or 0.25 pints (0.12 £), of surface preparation product
are used.1"5 Approximately 19 million refinish jobs are
performed in the United States each year,6"8 and the number of
jobs performed in a particular geographical area of the United
States is assumed to be a function the area's population. The
number of refinish jobs performed in an area is estimated by
i
the following equation:
= JUS * (pa / PUS)
(4.1)
where:
JUS =
PUS -
Number of refinish jobs performed in area;
Number of refinish jobs performed in the United
States;
Population of area; and j
U.S. population. i
Census data for 1990 were used in this document to estimate
1995 populations. The U.S. population in 1990 was
approximately 248,710,000.9 Population data for each
nonattainment area were compiled from available 1990
metropolitan area statistics.
Annual surface preparation product use in an area is
estimated by the following equation:
SP= = Ja * (0.25/8)
(4.2)
where:
SPa
Ja
0.25
8
Area surface preparation product use (gal/yr};
Number of refinish jobs performed in area;
Pints of surface preparation product used per
job; and
Pints per gallon.
As shown in Table 4-3, it is estimated that 226,000 gal/yr
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-3. 1995 SURFACE PREPARATION PRODUCT USE, EMISSIONS,
AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS
Area
New Jersey
New York City'
Texas
California
Remaining U.S.
Baseline
product use
(gal/yr)
7,280
16,590
17,730
51,320 -
133,030
Baseline
emissions
(tons/yr)
23
53
12
39
426
Emission
reductions
(tons/yr)
17
39
0
0
313
nonattainment areas
Total U.S.
nonattainment areas
225,950
553
369
4-5
-------
of surface preparation products are used in nonattainment
areas. !
Baseline emissions from surface preparation were estimated
by the following equation:
ESp = SPa * VOCsp / 2,000
(4.3)
where :
E
sp
VOC
sp
2,000
Area VOC emissions from surface preparation
(Ib/yr);
Area surface preparation product use
(gal/yr);
"VOC content of surface preparation product
(Ib VOC/gal); and
Pounds per ton.
The above equations were used to estimate 1995 baseline
VOC emissions from surface preparation in nonattainment areas
of the United States. As shown in Table 4-3, emissions were
estimated separately for each nonattainment area with an
existing regulation, and for all unregulated nonattainment
areas combined.
4.1.2 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound from Surface
Preparation Operations
The use of surface preparation products with lower VOC
contents will reduce VOC emissions. Waterborne surface
preparation products with VOC contents below 1.7 Ib VOC/gal
(204 g VOC/£) are currently available. The emission ',
reductions achieved in nonattainment areas by using these low-
VOC products are presented in Table 4-3. VOC emissions are
reduced by about 70 percent.
4-6
-------
4.2 COATING APPLICATION
4.2.1 Baseline Volatile Organ-ic Compound Emissions from
Coating Applications
Estimates of 1995 VOC emissions from coating applications
were based on 1988 coating usage and emission estimates
provided by coating manufacturers10r11. The amount of
coatings projected for application in nonattainment areas in
1995, and the resulting VOC emissions, are presented in Table
4-4. Application of about 12 million gallons of coatings is
estimated to result in about 32,000 tons of VOC emissions.
Primer coatings account for approximately 23 percent of the
emissions,' topcoats for approximately 74 percent, and
specialty coatings for the remaining 3 percent.
Emissions from coating applications are dependent on
coating usage and VOC content. The amount of coating .required
for a refinish job ultimately depends on the solids content of
the coating. The relationship between the VOC (predominantly
solvent) and solids in a solventborne coating was approximated
using the following equation:
Vs = 1 - (VOCC / d)
(4.4)
where:
V,
s
vocc
Volume solids content of coating (fraction);
Solvent (VOC) content of coating (Ib solvent/gal
coating); and
Density of solvent (Ib solvent/gal solvent).
The amount of coating solids applied in the United States
was estimated by the following equation:
Cs = Cc * Vs
(4.5)
where:
Gallons of coating solids applied in the United
States;
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-4. 1995 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS IN
NONATTAINMENT AREAS FROM REFINISH COATINGS :
Coating category
Coatings
applied
(103 gallons)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Primers
Pretreatment wash primer 210
Precoat 60
Primer/primer surfacer 1,600
Primer sealer 720
Topcoats
Single stage
Lacquer , 600
Enamel , 1,980
Basecoat 1,810
Clearcoat 4,640
Specialty 260
Total 11,880
650
170
4,260
2,170
1,800
5,240
5,340
11,520
910
32,050
4-8
-------
Cc = Gallons of coatings applied in the United
States; and
Vs = Volume solids content of coating (fraction).
The amount of coating solids applied in a particular area of
the United, States is assumed to be a function of the
population of that area, and was estimated by the following
equation :'.
sa
= C
(P
PUS)
(4.6)
where :
Cs
Pa
PUS
Gallons of solids applied in area;
Gallons of solids applied in the United States;
Population of area; and
U.S. population.
By rearranging equation 4.5, the amount of coating used in
a particular area ("area coating use") can be estimated by
dividing the amount of coating solids applied'in the area by
the coating VOC content that is typical or, in the case of
regulated areas, required in the area. Area coating use was
estimated by the following equation:
-ca - '-sa
/
'sa
(4.7)
where:
cca
Csa
VSa
Area coating use (gal/yr);
Gallons of coating solids applied in area; and
Volume solids content of coating (a function of
the presence and stringency of the area's
applicable rule) expressed as a fraction.
The VOC emissions in an area from coating applications
were estimated using the following equation:
4-9
-------
Et
(Cca * VOCC) / 2,000
(4.8)
where:
Et
Cca
VOCC
2,000
Area coating application emissions
(tons/yr);
Area coating use (gal/yr);
VOC content of coating (Ib VOC/gal); and
Pounds per ton. v>
Equations 4.4 'through 4.8 were used for each coating category
and nonattainment area of the United States to estimate
baseline VOC emissions and emission reductions.
4.2.2 Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Coating Applications
The use of coatings with VOC contents lower than those of
conventional coatings will reduce VOC emissions. Table 4-5
presents the projected reductions from the use of coatings
that meet the limits of Options 1 through 3. Option 1 reduces
baseline emissions by about 10,500 tons, or 33 percent; Option
2 reduces the baseline by about 11,200 tons, or 35 percent;
and Option 3 reduces the baseline by about 12,000 tons, or 38
percent.
No emission reductions are anticipated in California
because by 1995 all nonattainment areas are expected to be
subject to rules at least as stringent as Option 3.
Reductions of about 300 to 500 tons are expected in New Jersey
nonattainment areas, where the VOC limits of their existing
rule are higher than those .of Option 1. Similar reductions
are expected in New York City, which, like New Jersey, has
higher VOC limits than those of Option 1. About 200 to 300
tons of reductions are expected in nonattainment areas in
Texas.
4-10
-------
o
g
o
u
O
s
O
o
§
g
a
w
g-
1
H ^-~
NONATTA
(tons/yr
s
H m o l ^
_u __u ^ *
^ "* ^ rH M
H rH
0 0
S S-'S 0 H S
^ ^ « : o H
rH H
° S
000 0 ^
in CN oo o VD UI
" " - - o
§ § § s 1 §
m 0 r4, t^ "1 X
rH* r>r t>r r>r ^ ^
r-l CN CN CN ^ m
CO
0)
rt
C
>i CO (1)
jj g
H p C
S U rt -H
d) -H en nS
CO _*^ {5 f3 1 *
5-1 J-l 5-1 -H 4J
(u o o. d rt m
hj, rH 03 «W -H d rH
id *H rs O n$
> ^ K rH g d 4J
J5 S3 EH O Pi EH
in
CTi
rH
II
$»l
id
0)
>,
0)
d
H
iH
0)
CO
cd
ffl
Id
4-11
-------
4.3 EQUIPMENT CLEANING
4.3.1 Baseline Volatile Organic Compound.Emissions from
Equipment Cleaning
Emissions from cleaning spray equipment are a function of
the number of refinish jobs performed and the method of
cleaning. A gun is required to be cleaned approximately four
times with each refinish job. Multiplying the four cleanings
by the 19 million refinish jobs performed in the United States
annually, it was estimated that there are 76 million cleanings
annually.
Like the amount of coating used, it was also assumed that
the number of gun cleanings in any area of the United States
is a function of it's population, estimated by the following
equation: i
where :
NUS
Pa
PUS
Na = NUS * (Pa / PUS)
(4.9)
Number of gun cleanings in area;
Number of gun cleanings in the United States;
Population of area; and
U.S. population.
Approximately 60 percent of body shops in unregulated
nonattainment areas of the United States use gun
cleaners.12'13 For areas that require gun cleaners, it was
assumed that all shops are in compliance with the
requirements.
4.3.1.1 Emissions from Gun Cleaners
Although gun cleaners are designed to minimize VOC
emissions, VOC evaporates during cleaning ("active losses"),
and, to a lesser degree, when the cleaner is not in use
("passive losses") because of brief periods of solvent
exposure to the atmosphere and imperfect lid seals. Active
losses are approximately 0.06 pounds per cleaning.14 The
number of cleanings performed using gun cleaners is estimated
4-12
-------
by the following equation:
where:
Nc
Na
Ngc = Na *
(4.10)
Number of gun cleanings performed in area using
gun cleaners;
Number of gun cleanings in area; and
Fraction of shops in area that use gun cleaners.
Gun cleaners are assumed to be in use about five percent
of the time; therefore, passive losses occur about 8320 hours
per year. Passive losses are approximately 0.004 pounds per
hour.15 The number of shops and, thus, gun cleaners, in a
particular area is assumed to be a function of its population.
There are approximately 50,000 body shops in the United
States.16"18 The number of gun cleaners in .an area is
estimated by the following equation:
Ngun = 50,000
/PUS)
(4.11)
where:
N,
gun
Fa
Pa
PUS
Number of gun cleaners in area;
Fraction of shops in area that use gun cleaners;
Population of area; and
U.S. population.
Total emissions from gun cleaners, consisting of active
and passive losses, are estimated by the following equation:
Er
(Nac * A / 2000) + (Naun * P * H / 2,000) (4.12) '
"gc
where:
E,
N
gc
gc
"gun
Area emissions from gun cleaners (tons/yr);
Number of gun cleanings performed in area
4-13 .
-------
A
2,000
N,
P
H
gun
using gun cleaners;
Active VOC emissions (Ib/cleaning);
Pounds per ton;
Number of gun cleaners in area;
Passive VOC emissions (Ib/hr); and
Hours per year the gun cleaner is not in
use.
4.3.1.2 Emissions from Manual Gun Cleaning
Shops not' equipped with a gun cleaner usually rinse the
outside of the spray gun with solvent, fill the gun cup with
solvent, and then spray the solvent through the gun into a
container of spent solvent.19 The number of manual gun
cleanings performed in an area is estimated by the following
equation:
N,
!mc
Na *
- Fa)
(4.13)
where:
Nmc
Number of manual cleanings performed in area;
Total number of gun cleanings performed in area;
and
Fraction of shops in area that use gun cleaners.
It was assumed that approximately 10 ounces of solvent are
used per manual gun cleaning, and that 80 percent of the
solvent evaporates to the atmosphere. Emissions from manual
gun cleaning were estimated by the following equation:
Nmc * (10 / 128 / 2,000) * d * 0.8
(4.14)
where:
N,
'me
Area emissions due to manual gun cleaning
(tons/yr);
Number of manual gun cleanings performed in
area;
4-14
-------
10
128
2,000
d
0.8
Ounces per cleaning;
Ounces per gallons;
Pounds per ton;
Density of solvent = 7.1 Ib/gal (850
and
Fraction of solvent that evaporates.
4.3.1.3 Total Gun Cleaning Emissions
The baseline VOC emissions for any area are the sum of
emissions from gun cleaners and manual cleaning. (In areas
that require gun cleaners, there were assumed to be no
"*-_,»
emissions from manual cleaning.) Total gun cleaning emissions
were estimated by the following equation: . --
where:
EC
Lmc
Eg
+ E
me
(4.15)
Total area emissions from gun cleaning
(tons/yr);
Area emissions from gun cleaners (tons/yr); and
Area emissions due to manual gun cleaning
(tons/yr).
The above equations were used to estimate 1995 baseline
VOC emissions from gun cleaning in nonattainment areas of the
United States. As shown in Table 4-6, emissions were
estimated separately for each nonattainment area with an
existing regulation, and for all unregulated nonattainment
areas combined.
4.3.2 Emission Reductions from Gun Cleaning
As shown in Table 4-6, nonattainment area gun cleaning
emissions would be reduced by about 55 percent by requiring
gun cleaners. None of these reductions are achieved in
regulated areas; emissions in unregulated areas are reduced
about 65 percent.
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-6. 1995 GUN CLEANING EMISSIONS AND EMISSION
REDUCTIONS IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS (tons/yr) ,
Area
Baseline gun
cleaning emissions
Annual
emission
reductions
New Jersey
New York City
Texas
California
Remaining U.S.
nonattainment
areas
Total
107
243
96
280
1,946
2,672
67
152
0
0
1,221
1,440
4-16
-------
4.4 REDUCTION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS USING
' IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING PRACTICES
The emission reductions achievable through improved
housekeeping practices would vary significantly from shop to
shop because of the variability in current work practices.
Nonetheless, there are common-sense measures that all shops
can adopt to reduce emissions. Workers should take care to
minimize coatings and solvents use. Recycling or incinerating
waste coatings and solvents at licensed waste disposal/
treatment facilities can reduce VOC emissions. The regulating
agency can require that all shops maintain a manifest of these
wastes to ensure that they are delivered to a licensed
facility. .-,.
4-17
-------
4.5
1.
8.
9.
10,
11,
REFERENCES
Telecon. Forrester, J., Radian Corporation with Goulding,
B., Maaco Auto Painting and Bodyworks. August 14, 1992.
Surface preparation product usage.
Telecon. Forrester, J., Radian Corporation, with Dameron,
C., CBWD's Collision Repair Center. August 10, 1992.
Surface preparation product usage.
Telecon. Forrester, J., Radian Corporation, with
Barefoot, A., Northside Body Shop. August 14, 1992.
Surface preparation product usage..
Telecon. Sullivan, J., Radian Corporation, with CXNeal,
J., Tyree's Cars, Inc. August 14, 1992. Surface
preparation product usage. ;
Telecon. Sullivan, J., Radian Corporation, with Haslip,
G., Auto Alignment. August 14, 1992. Surface preparation
product usage.
Meeting Summary from Sullivan, J.W., Radian Corporation,
to Schultz, K.R., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
July 29, 1992. Baseline emission estimates for the
automobile refinishing industry.
Telecon. Sullivan, J., Radian Corporation, with Hunke, M.,
Dawn Enterprises. July 23, 1992. Annual automobile
insurance statistics.
Collision Repair Industry.
1:5. February, 1991.
Repair in the 90's. Insight
U. S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1991 (llth edition). Washington, DC.
1991. p. 7.
National Paint and Coatings Association. NPCA Automotive
Refinish Coalition's Estimates of 1990 National Baseline
VOC Emissions from the Automotive Refinish Industry.
Washington, DC. March 1992.
Letter from Inglis, R., BASF Corporation, to Sullivan,
J.W., Radian Corporation. March 8, 1993. Emission
estimates for the automobile refinish industry.
12. Telecon. Soderberg. E., Radian Corporation with Kusz, J.,
Safety-Kleen Corporation. January 8, 1991. Percent of
refinishing shops that use Safety-Kleen spray gun
cleaners.
4-18
-------
13. Telecon. Campbell, D., Radian Corporation with
Schultz, K., E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
December 12, 1990. Automobile and truck refinishing
industry, characterization.
14. ENSR Consulting and Engineering. Comparison of Solvent -
Emissions from Two Types of Spray Gun Cleaning Systems.
Prepared for Safety-Kleen Corporation. Camarillo,
California, p. 3-2, 3-9, 3-10.
15. Ref. 14.
.16. Ref. 6.
17. Ref. 8.
18. Letter from Graves, T.J., Esq., National Paints and
Coatings Association, to South Coast Air Quality
Management District. July 8, 1988. Automobile
refinishing industry characterization and regulation.
19. Telecon. Soderberg, E., Radian Corporation with Kusz, J.,
Safety-Kleen Corporation. January 8, 1991.
4-19
-------
-------
5.0 COST IMPACTS
This chapter discusses the methods and assumptions used
to estimate the cost impacts of implementing the control
techniques described in Chapter 3. Sections 5.1 and 5.2
present estimates of the costs that coating manufacturers and
distributors, respectively, would incur from the
implementation of the coating options. Section 5.3 discusses
the costs incurred by body shops from the implementation of
the coating options, and from the use of low-VOC surface
preparation products and gun cleaners. Cost effectiveness of
the control techniques are discussed in Section 5.4.
5.1 COSTS TO COATING MANUFACTURERS
Coating manufacturers may incur costs from the
implementation of the VOC limits of the coating options due to
(1) process modifications, (2) disposal of obsolete products,
and (3) training. Research and development (R&D) costs
associated with formulating low-VOC coatings were not
considered, since these costs have generally already been
forced by State regulations.
5.1.1 Process Modifications
Implementation of the coating options will require
manufacturers to modify production facilities. Transition to
coatings compliant with Options 1 and 2 is estimated to cost
about $3 million. Most of this cost would be to modify
pumping and mixing equipment to process high-solids coatings.1
Although solventborne coatings are available that meet the
primer and primer sealer VOC limits of Option 3, these limits
would likely be. met using waterborne coatings because of
difficulties in the application of high-solids coatings, such
5-1
-------
as the difficulty in applying a thin coat of primer sealer.
Modifications required to produce waterborne coatings, will
cost about $32 million, primarily to upgrade process equipment
from-carbon steel to corrosion resistant materials.2"5
5.1.2 Disposal Costs
Another potential cost would be the disposal of any
coatings in body shop inventories that are made obsolete by
the control options. There are several ways to minimize this
potential cost, including a "phase-in" period to allow for the
depletion of inventories, and redistribution of noncompliant
coatings to unregulated attainment areas. Manufacturers were
unable to quantify the costs of redistributing noncompliant
coatings, but they-are anticipated to be small.6'7
Noncompliant coatings remaining when the phase-in period ends
may be returnable to manufacturers, who would dispose of the
coatings if another market for them could not be found.8 Due
to the phase-in period and nominal redistribution costs, it
was assumed that the costs of noncompliant coating disposal
and redistribution are insignificant.
5.1.3 Training Costs
Implementation of the coating options would likely
require that manufacturers teach their sales representatives,
technicians/trainers, district/other managers, marketing
personnel, and "product specialists" (personnel who provide
the interface between R&D and marketing departments) to use
the new coatings. It was estimated that approximately
1,000 employees would require one day of training.9/10 The
cost for each was estimated at $425, including travel,
lodging, and wages.11 Training costs for all options are
assumed to be equal.
5.1.4 Annual Costs to Coating Manufacturers
Process modification and training costs were annualized
over 10 years at an interest rate of 7 percent. These costs
are presented in Table 5-1.
5-2
-------
Table 5-1. ANNUAL COSTS OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES
$)
Manufacturer costs
Process
modifications
Training
Distributor training
costs
Body shop costs
Surface preparation
Training
Heating systerfis.
Gun cleaners
Total annual costs
Option 1
430
60
80 .
780
240
0
(l,.230)a
360
Option 2
430
60
80
780
240
6,080
(1,230)
6,440
Option 3
4,560
60
80
780
240
6,080
(1,230)
10,570
aValues in parentheses represent costs savings or credits
5-3
-------
5.2 COSTS TO DISTRIBUTORS
Coating distributors must be trained in order to provide
essential services (e.g., mixing of topcoat colors,
troubleshooting advice, general product information) to their
customers. An estimated 1,300 distributors would have a
representative attend a 1-day training seminar.12/13 The
total cost for each distributor was estimated to be $425,
including travel, lodging and wages.14'15
The training costs for distributors were also annualized
over 10 years at an interest rate of 7 percent, and are
presented in Table 5-1.
5.3 COSTS TO BODY SHOPS
Costs incurred by shops may include surface preparation
product costs, painter retraining, infrared heating system
purchase/operation, and productivity losses. Shops would
likely incur only surface preparation product costs and
training costs if the VOC limits of Option 1 were implemented,
while Options 2 and 3 may trigger all of the costs mentioned
above.
5.3.1 Surface preparation product costs. Low-VOC
surface preparation products cost about $5 more per gallon
than conventional products.16 As previously discussed, the
same amount of product is reportedly needed to prepare a
surface for refinishing; therefore, the incremental cost to
body shops for low-VOC surface preparation products is $5 per
gallon. As shown in Table 4-3, approximately 160,000 gallons
of product are applied in nonattainment areas without VOC
limits for surface preparation products.
As discussed in Chapter 3, low-VOC surface preparation
products may require more time for thorough cleaning and
removal than conventional products. Although this additional
time could decrease shop productivity, it is not expected to
be significant.
5.3.2 Training costs. Because compliant coatings may
mix, spray, and dry differently than noncompliant coatings,
painters must be retrained in these areas, it was estimated
5-4
-------
that 15,150 painters will require training. Coating
manufacturers, who will provide the training, estimate that
the requisite 8 hours of instruction17*18 can be scheduled
(during weekends or evenings) with no loss of shop
revenue, ^-^i 20
Because training may require overtime, it was assumed
that shops will reimburse painters with overtime wages of $12
per hour (1.5 times the normal hourly wage) and the cost of
two meals ($15).21 It was also assumed that no travel costs
will be incurred; training will be made available locally.22"
24 The 8-hour course will be offered at no charge by coating
manufacturers..25"28 ; .
5.3.3 Infrared Heating System Costs. As discussed .
earlier, coatings compliant with Options 2 and 3 may require
supplementary heat because their drying characteristics are
affected by ambient conditions. Without supplementary heating
they reportedly can require up to two days to dry.2^ TO
minimize productivity losses, shops may purchase heating
systems to use during periods of adverse ambient conditions.
Two moderate-to-large heaters were assumed to be
necessary at shops. Most shops already own one heating
system, so the costs presented in this document are for.the
purchase and operation of an additional heating system at
15,150 shops. Heating systems are estimated to cost $2,120
each, and are used on approximately 25 percent of refinish
jobs.30,31
5.3.4 Spray Gun Cleaning Costs. Costs associated with
gun cleaners include capital and maintenance costs. Gun
cleaners are estimated to cost $1,000 each.^2 Annual
maintenance costs include replacement parts and operating
labor, and were assumed to be 4 percent of the gun cleaner
capital cost.
Gun cleaners are designed to reuse cleaning solvent. Gun
cleaners use about 7 ounces less solvent per cleaning than
manual cleaning, resulting in substantial cost savings.
5-5
-------
5.3.5 Potential Productivity Losses
Coatings that meet the limits of Options 2 and 3 may
affect shop productivity because of their longer drying times.
The following is a discussion of the potential effects on
productivity of the various coatings.
Primer surfacers. Although a 3.8 Ib VOC/gal primer
surfacer (Option 2) is not currently available, it is not
likely that the use of such a coating would affect shop
productivity. The availability of a 4.05 Ib VOC/gal primer
surfacer implies that surfacers at this VOC level do not
affect shop productivity. Further, although it may not be
perfectly suitable for.passenger car refinishing, the
currently available 2.8 Ib VOC/gal primer surfacer/sealer does
not adversely affect productivity and, in fact, may increase
productivity according to product literature-33 Since a
primer surfacer at the Option 2 limit is not currently
available, conservative estimates of annual costs for Option 2
include the purchase of infrared heating systems.
As previously discussed, Option 3 primer surfacers are
typically based on waterborne technology. Productivity losses
may occur in some geographical areas if these surfacers are
used. In humid, cool conditions, waterborne surfacers are
reported to dry slowly, and drying times of up to two days
under such conditions are reportedly common in the absence of
supplementary heating.34
The impacts on productivity that would be caused by use
of Option 3 surfacers are highly variable and impossible to
quantify on a nationwide basis. For instance, a substantial
number of shops would not lose any productivity because they
would compensate for increased drying time by performing other
work while the surfacers are drying, and by scheduling work
flow through the shop differently. However, many shops cannot
merely work on other refinish jobs while jobs with primer
surfacer coats are drying because these shops do not have
adequate floor space. Shops may need to use drying equipment,
such as infrared heating systems, to reduce drying time.
5-6
-------
Shops that use infrared heating systems to accelerate drying
may still lose up to 15 minutes per job positioning the
heating systems.35 It should be noted that the use of heating
systems may not totally eliminate productivity losses.
Primer sealers. No productivity losses are anticipated
from the primer sealers of any option. Shop employees in the
SCAQMD reported that primer sealers equivalent to Option 3 dry
as quickly as conventional primer sealers.36'42
Topcoats. Coating manufacturers report that low-VOC
topcoats dp not dry significantly slower than conventional
topcoats and, consequently, no productivity losses are
expected from the use of low-VOC topcoats.43 Manufacturers
claim, however, that shops without spray booths that use
lacquer topcoats will lose productivity when switching to
compliant topcoats. The longer drying times of compliant
topcoats leave the wet surface exposed to airborne
contaminants. Manufacturers maintain that shops must expend
more labor during polishing to remove the additional.
contamination.44
Costs for shops without spray booths that use lacquers
have not been included in this document, primarily because
lacquer use for automobile refinishing has steadily dropped
over the last few years, a trend which would likely continue
even in the absence regulatory action. In 1988 and 1993,
lacquers were used on 25 percent and 14 percent of refinish
jobs, respectively.45/46 Furthermore, there is evidence that
most shops without spray booths are already using conventional
enamels or urethanes, which, as mentioned previously, do not
dry significantly faster than low-VOC topcoats.
5.3.6 Annual Costs to Shops
The capital costs of heating systems and gun cleaners,
and the costs of training were annualized over 10 years at an
interest rate of 7 percent. These annualized costs, annual
costs of electricity and maintenance of heating systems,
annual gun cleaner maintenance costs, and annual costs of low-
VOC surface preparation products are presented in Table 5-1.
5-7
-------
5.4 COST EFFECTIVENESS
Average cost effectiveness is the cost to reduce VOC
emissions by 1 ton. Average cost effectiveness values were
calculated by dividing annual costs by annual emission
reductions. Although surface preparation and gun cleaner
costs are presented with the coating options in Table 5-1,
these control techniques could be implemented separately;
therefore, the cost effectiveness of these techniques are
described individually.
VOC reductions from the use of low-VOC surface
preparation products cost about $2100 per ton. Although there
are annual capital recovery and maintenance costs associated
with using gun cleaners, the savings achieved from the use of
less solvent results in a credit of about $900 per ton of VOC
emission reductions.
The annual costs of the coating options include costs for
process modifications, manufacturer, distributor, and body
shop training, and infrared heating systems (Options 2 and 3).
The average cost effectiveness of Options 1 through 3 are $80,
$600, and $900 per ton, respectively.
Incremental cost effectiveness is the cost to achieve the
incremental emission reductions from implementing one option
instead of another. The cost for the additional emission
reductions achieved by Option 2 over Option 1 is about $8,000
per ton. The incremental cost effectiveness of implementing
Option 3 (instead of Option 2) is about $5,000 per ton.
5-8
-------
5.5 REFERENCES
1, Telecon. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation, with
Schultz, K. R., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
March 16, 1993. Costs of regulation.
2. Ref..1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Meeting Summary from Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation,
to Sell, J., National Paint and Coatings Association, et.
al. January 8, 1993. National Paint and Coatings
Association Automotive Refinish Coalition views on future
Federal regulation.
Letter from Schultz, K. R., E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Company,.Inc., to Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation.
June 18, 1993. Cost estimates of plant modifications
necessary to produce waterborne coatings.
Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation. September 13, 1993.
Calculation of costs to manufacture waterborne primers.
Telecon. Burk, D. G., Radian Corporation, with Inglis,
R., BASF, Inc. June 2, 1993. Effects of regulation on
inventory distribution and coating waste handling and
disposal cost.
Telecon. Burk, D. G.> Radian Corporation, with
Sieradzki> R., AKZO, Inc. June 3, 1993. Effects of
regulation on inventory distribution and coating waste
handling and disposal cost.
Telecon. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation, with
Schultz, K: R., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
April 9, 1993. Impacts of regulation.
Meeting Summary from Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation,
to Sell, J., National Paint and Coatings Association, et.
al. Model shops and costs of Federal regulation.
July 9, 1993.
Memorandum and attachments from Sullivan, J. W., Radian
Corporation, to Radian Project File. August 31, 1993.
Training and low-VOC coatings.
Letter from Sell, J., National Paint and Coatings
Association, to Ducey, E., EPA/CPB. June 3, 1993.
of Federal regulation.
Costs
5-9
-------
12
13.
14,
15.
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29,
Letter from Roland, D. R., Automotive Service Industry
Association, to Ducey, E., EPA/CPB. January 22, 1993.
Comments on chapters 4 and 5 of draft Automobile
Refinishing CTG.
Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation, September 13, 1993
Calculation of manufacturer and distributor training
costs.
Ref. 10.
Ref. 11.
Ref.
Ref,
Ref.
Ref,
1.
10.
11.
10.
Letter from Carragher, R. J., Automotive Service Industry
Association, to Ducey E., EPA/CPB. May 10, 1993.
Comments on training for the automotive refinishing
industry rulemaking.
Ref. 20.
Ref. 10.
Ref. 11.
Ref. 20.
Ref. 9.
Ref. 10.
Ref. 20.
Telecon. Burk, D. G., Radian Corporation, with
Sieradzki, R., AKZO Coatings, Inc. March 25, 1993.
Painter retraining.
Memorandum from Sell, J., National Paint and Coatings
Association, to Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation.
August 23, 1993. Additional background information
concerning the Automotive Refinish Background Information
Document.
5-10
-------
30. Telecon. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation, with
Gregory, D. April 1, 1993. Edwin Trisk heating lamps.
31. Telecon. Sullivan, J. W.,Radian Corporation, with
. Hutchins, J. March 22, 199.3. Infratech curing systems.
32. Ref. 9.
33. PPG Industries. Product Bulletin No. 184. December,
1993.
34. Ref. 29.
35. Ref. 29.
36. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation. Site visit at R. B.
. Paint and Body Center. Sante Fe Springs, CA. prepared
for Morris, M. , EPA/CPB. August 25, 1993.
37. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation. Site visit at One
Day Paint and Body, Anaheim, CA. Prepared for Morris,
M. , EPA/CPB. August 25, 1993.
38. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation. Site visit at Lee's
Body Works. Sante Fe Springs, CA. Prepared for Morris,
M., EPA/CPB. August 25, 1993.
39. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation. Site visit at Maaco
Auto Painting. Sante Fe Springs, CA. Prepared for
Morris, M., EPA/CPB. August 25, 1993.
40. Sullivan J. W., Radian Corporation. Site visit at House
of Imports. Buena Park, CA. Prepared for Morris, M.,
EPA/CPB. August 25, 1993.
41. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation. Site visit at
Camenita Collision Center. Sante Fe Springs, CA.
Prepared for Morris, M., EPA/CPB. August 25, 1993.
42. Sullivan, J. W., Radian Corporation. Site visit at Dave
Salas Metric's Auto Body Shop. Sante Fe Springs, CA.
August 25, 1993.
43. Ref. 9
44. Ref. 9
45. Body Shop Business. 1990 Annual Industry Profile. 9_:49.
June 1990.
46. Babcox Publications. 1993 Annual Industry Profile.
p. 48. June 1993.
5-11
-------
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-94-031
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Alternative Control Techniques Document:
Automobile Refinishing
7.AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Technical Support Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS '' " :
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Technical Support Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
April 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This document provides information on alternative control techniques (ACT) for volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from automobile refinishing. This document contains information on
emissions, controls, control options, and costs that States can use in developing rules. The document
presents options only, and makes no recommendations.
17.
». DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution
Volatile Organic Compounds
Automobile Refinishing
Alternative Control Techniques
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
80
22. PRICE
EPA Fona 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |