United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Air
Office of Air Quality EPA 456/R-99-006
Planning and Standards August 1999
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EMISSIONS AND
PREVENTION/CONTROL
TCHNIQUES FOR
c
A
T
C
:^;ซ:ซ:'xlp!!l!^^
ECHNOLOGY
ENTER
on A.T
s
&
;.v-
5>
'*ปvj
^."/*
^
NK^WT''
^Jซ^
Abre
^>
-------
EPA-456/R-99-006
Emissions and Prevention/Control
Techniques for Automobile Body Shops
in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
U.S.-Mexico Border
Information Center on Air Pollution
CICA
Centro de Information sobre Contamination de Aire
en la Frontera de la EE. UU.-Mexico
Sponsored by
Clean Air Technology Center (MD-12)
Information Transfer Group
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
August 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PI-12J)
71 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Rear
Chicago.lt 60604-3590
-------
EPA-456/R-99-006
August 1999
Emissions and Prevention/Control
Techniques for Automobile Body Shops
in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
Prepared By:
John D. Jeffery
Dr. Mark Sager
Science Applications International Corporation
1710 Goodridge Drive
Post Office Box 1303
McLean, Virginia 22102
EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0030
Work Assignment No. 111-98
Project Manager
Robert J. Blaszczak
Clean Air Technology Center (MD-12)
Information Transfer Group
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution/
Centre de Information sobre Contamination de Aire
en la Frontera de la EE.UU.-Mexico (CICA) (MD-12)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This review was coordinated by the U.S.-Mexico Information Center on Air
Pollution / Centre de Informacion Sobre Contaminacion de Aire Para la Frontera entre EE.UU. Y
Mexico (CICA). In addition, CICA coordinated review of this report with other agencies that
participated in the study, including: the Direction de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia, Ciudad
Juarez, Mexico', and the Institute National de Ecoligia, Secretaria de Medic Ambiente, Recursos
Naturales y Pesca, Mexico. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
11
-------
PREFACE
The U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution (Centra de Information
sobre Contamination de Aire Para la Frontera entre EE. UU.-Mexico, or CICA) was established
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical support and assistance in evaluating air pollution
problems along the U.S.-Mexico Border. These services and products are available at no cost to
Federal, State and Local Agencies and universities in Mexico. Others can use these services
depending on available resources. CICA provides ready access to U.S. EPA information and
expertise. It draws on professional staff from the EPA's OAQPS and Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Private contractors also are available when appropriate.
CICA SERVICES
CICA provides assistance in the following ways:
LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS
CICA offers bilingual communication services (English & Spanish)
TELEPHONE: Toll-Free from Mexico only: (800) 304-1115 (Spanish)
From other locations: (919) 541-1800 (Spanish)
or (919) 541-0800 (English)
FAX: (919) 541-0242
E-Mail: catcmail@epa.gov
ON-LINE ASSISTANCE
Internet World Wide Web (CICA Web)
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica/
ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE / TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND TECHNICAL TOOLS
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTER FOR GLOBAL
GREENHOUSE GASSES
/-
This CICA technical assistance project resulted from a request from the Direccion de
Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia (DDUE), Unidad Adminstrativa Lie. Benito Juarez (the local
environmental agency in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico). The DDUE requested CICA's assistance in
determining emissions from and identifying appropriate pollution prevention and control
techniques for automobile body repair shops in Ciudad Juarez. This report is the result of that
effort. It provides information on auto body paint shops in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico gathered
through a survey of these facilities, done in cooperation with the DDUE, and evaluates feasible
pollution prevention and control measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds
iii
-------
(VOC) at these facilities. The report includes data on the operation, paint and solvent use,
emissions, and prevention and control measures at these facilities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors want to thank the Direction Municipal de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia
(the local environmental agency in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico), its director Ing. Oscar Ibane and
Biologo Abraham Aquino for their help in identifying the auto body shops surveyed in this effort
and for their assistance in providing local engineering students from Ciudad Juarez to conduct
the survey.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
EPA Review Notice ii
Preface iii
Acknowledgments iv
Contents v
Tables vi
Acronyms and Spanish Terms vii
INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES 2
BACKGROUND 3
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 4
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EFFORTS 4
DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEY AND DATABASE 4
OVERVIEW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 5
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES AND POSSIBLE CONTROLS 8
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 8
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED EMISSIONS AND PAINT
DISTRIBUTION ESTIMATES 10
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS 12
REFERENCES 15
APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM USED IN THE STUDY A-l
APPENDIX B DATA TABLES FROM THE SURVEY DATABASE . . B-l
-------
TABLES
Page
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PAINT USE IN THE SURVEY 5
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF VOC EMISSIONS FROM
PAINTING OPERATIONS 9
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT
USE ACTIVITIES 10
TABLE B-l PAINT USE SUMMARY AND
EMISSIONS ESTIMATE B-3
TABLE B-2 SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS B-l 1
TABLE B-3 EXISTING CONTROL EQUIPMENT B-l5
TABLE B-4 WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY B-19
VI
-------
ACRONYMS AND SPANISH TERMS
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CATC Clean Air Technology Center, OAQPS, EPA
CICA U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution; Centra de Information
sobre Contamination de Aire en la Frontera EE. UU.-Mexico
DDUE Direction de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia; the local environmental agency in
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
E-Mail Electronic Mail
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Home Page A WWW site
HVLP High Volume Low Pressure
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
NADB North American Development Bank
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA
ORD Office of Research and Development, EPA
RACT Reasonable Available Control Technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER/Clearinghouse
SAIC Science Applications International Corporation
TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WWW Internet World Wide Web
vn
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency sponsors and implements the U.S. - Mexico Border Information Center on Air
Pollution (Centro de Informacion sobre Contamination de Aire en la Frontera EE.UU.-Mexico,
or CICA). One function of this center is to provide assistance to State agencies on both sides of
the U.S.-Mexico border to improve ambient air quality in the border region.
Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from automobile body repair shops are
believed to be significant and to contribute to ozone nonattainment in El Paso, Texas and to
violations of ozone air quality standards in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The Direction de Desarrollo
Urbano y Ecologia (DDUE), (the local agency in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico) requested CICA's
assistance in determining emissions from and identifying appropriate pollution prevention and
control techniques for automobile body repair shops in Ciudad Juarez.
This project is also supported by the City of El Paso, the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC), and Region VI of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in Dallas, Texas. During the completion of this work, every effort was made to
coordinate with all of the sponsoring and supporting agencies to ensure that there was no
duplication of effort, and that information collected by any of the other agencies was used to
support the objectives of this project.
-------
OBJECTIVES
This effort is a continuation of preliminary work that was completed earlier to collect
information on operations at, and potential emissions from, the significant auto body repair shops
operating in Ciudad Juarez. The specific objectives of this work are:
Review the existing data from the previous study and develop a plan to
supplement that data to provide the necessary information to calculate potential
emissions from those facilities
Collect information for the remaining auto body repair shops that were not
included in the first study
Assemble these data into a consistent database suitable for estimating the total
potential emissions from auto body repair operations in Ciudad Juarez
Based on that review, recommend options for pollution prevention and control
measures to reduce the emissions of VOC from these operations in the Ciudad
Juarez - El Paso area and in the U.S. - Mexico border area in general.
The following tasks were completed to achieve the objectives:
Discussions and conference calls were conducted between all sponsoring and
supporting agencies to determine the level of detail included in the existing data,
and to ensure that all pertinent information collected previously was applied to
this study.
A detailed and comprehensive questionnaire was developed to collect all
significant information that could be applied to the development of emissions
estimates and the identification of cost-effective pollution prevention and control
measures applicable to this source category.
Conversations were held with the DDUE and other agencies to identify all of the
significant auto body repair operations in the Ciudad Juarez area.
Arrangements were made with local engineering students to complete the
interviews and fill in the questionnaires. The students were provided training on
techniques and procedures for the completion of survey questionnaires.
The data collected through the survey were assembled into a database and
summarized in formats that are suitable for estimating and tracking emissions.
Information on suitable pollution prevention and emissions control techniques
applicable to this source category was assembled.
Information on total paint sales was collected from the major paint distributors in
the Ciudad Juarez area to serve as an independent check on reported paint and
solvent use data and to augment the emissions estimation procedures.
All of the information collected in the study was included in this report and the
report was generated in both English and Spanish for distribution to the
sponsoring and supporting agencies.
-------
BACKGROUND
In previous studies sponsored through both TNRCC and EPA's Region VI offices,
information was collected on the operations at approximately 200 auto body repair shops in
Ciudad Juarez over the period 1993-1994. These data were collected through a survey in which
operators of some of the significant auto body repair shops were interviewed and a standard
questionnaire was completed. It was not possible to review the actual questionnaire that was
used in that study, but the database that was compiled as a result of that work was made
available. The information included in that database was reviewed and, based on that review, a
list of more specific questions was developed and a new questionnaire was prepared. The new
questionnaire included specific questions concerning the types of detergents, cleaners, solvents
and paints, including primers, color coats, and finish coats, used at the facilities so that an
estimate of the solvent content and potential VOC emissions could be calculated. The
questionnaire also included questions about paint and solvent storage and waste handling
operations, and control measures in place at the facilities.
During preliminary coordination efforts it was discovered that a second effort, sponsored
by the City of El Paso had also been completed. This effort was completed by Dr. Octavio
Chavez under contract to the TNRCC and in cooperation with some local environmental groups
in the El Paso - Ciudad Juarez area. Several conversations were held with Dr. Chavez, and
representatives of CICA to understand completely the data that were already available and to
determine if this study was necessary. After a complete review of the data that were available
through the previous studies, it was determined that additional information was necessary to
provide a consistent and comprehensive database of information that could be used to estimate
VOC emissions from these facilities. All parties agreed that the new questionnaire developed
under this effort would be used to collect the more detailed information from all of the auto body
shop facilities in Ciudad Juarez. The new survey conducted for this project included those shops
that had been included in the previous studies and those that had not been included in any of the
previous studies. Based on conversations with Dr. Chavez and Mr. Aquino of the DDUE, the
first two surveys collected information from approximately 150-200 auto body shops. There is
still no confirming information which would allow for a crosscheck of the two pervious surveys
to see if the same sources or if new sources were interviewed as part of the survey. The list used
for this project was provided by DDUE and SAIC was told it contained 200 sources. Whether
these were new sources or were the original 200 is not known. Of the 200 sources, over 150 were
visited and questionnaires from these sources make up the data found in this report. The findings
of this report are based entirely on the results of the information collected during the September
1996 survey. A copy of the questionnaire used in this study is included as Appendix A.
-------
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EFFORTS
Although this project was initiated at the request of DDUE, it was discovered early in the
project that a significant amount of work related to the objectives of this assignment had already
been completed by other groups working in coordination with DDUE. It was necessary to review
the data and techniques used to collect information in the earlier efforts to determine if the
correct procedures and methodologies had been used and if any of the collected information was
of use to this project.
The previous efforts were known to have collected information from approximately 200
sources. While not tailored as a VOC usage survey, the information that had been collected was
useful in establishing rough estimates of both the number of sources and the potential emissions
from these sources. At no time during this project was there any definitive determination of the
exact number of auto body shops operating in the Juarez area. From conversations with DDUE
and Dr. Chavez, the number never exceeded 300 and was more likely in the 150 to 250 range.
This fluctuation is caused by economic factors and not environmental related issues. As was
found in all of the surveys, the vast majority (approximately 95%) of the shops are very small in
size (less than 6 jobs per week). The new survey was based on a list provided by DDUE and
given directly to the students used to perform the actual questionnaire work. At no time was this
list made available to EPA or SAIC. As a result, no correlation was made between previous
efforts and those being conducted for the new survey. It was therefore not possible to determine
if any of the shops visited during the new survey were "repeats" or "new" sources. The original
intent was to collect information from any remaining sources that had not been visited in any of
the previous survey efforts. This number was estimated to be approximately 100 shops. It was
hoped that this new survey would serve as an independent database that could support the
estimation of emissions magnitude and to estimate the temporal and seasonal distribution of
emissions from this source category.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURVEY AND DATABASE
The questionnaire was finalized, translated into Spanish and distributed to the U.S. and
Mexican supporting and sponsoring agencies. The final questionnaire is included as Appendix
A. Discussions continued with Mr. Abraham Aquino of the DDUE in Ciudad Juarez to identify
a group of students who could complete the survey and to schedule a convenient time for training
these students. These negotiations were completed and the training of students was conducted by
SAIC during the week of September 9, 1996. At the same time, the SAIC representative visited
the three major suppliers of paint and other solvents used in the preparation and painting of auto
bodies and parts in Ciudad Juarez. The survey was completed in September and October of
1996. A total of 156 facilities were visited and data collected for each of these facilities. Delays
were experienced in the delivery of the data due to conflicts in work and holiday schedules of the
-------
U.S. and Mexican project participants. The data were made available, translated into English and
delivered to EPA in late December 1996.
All of the translated questionnaires were reviewed, and the data useful in the development
of emissions estimates and in identification and evaluation of pollution prevention and emissions
control opportunities were entered into a database in EXCELฎ format. A copy of the final
database is provided as Appendix B, and electronic copies have been made available to EPA.
OVERVIEW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
A total of 156 auto body repair shop questionnaires were completed and returned to
SAIC. Copies of the questionnaires are available in both Spanish and English. The shops range
in size from 1 to 6 employees, and reported completing from one job per week to 14 jobs per
week. A job is defined for the purposes of this report as any application of paint to an
automotive fixture. It includes small touch-up or spot repairs and ranges all the way to a
complete repaint of an entire vehicle. Over 90% of the shops reported only small spot repairs,
however, a limited number of the larger shops did report a small number of full car repainting
jobs. Average employee experience was quite variable, ranging from a minimum of less than a
month to a maximum of more than 10 years.
Table 1 presents a summary of the total amounts of each type of paint reported for all of
the shops included in the survey. The data indicate that lacquer and enamel paints, and to a
lesser extent urethane paints, dominate the paint use for the shops in Ciudad Juarez.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PAINT USE IN THE SURVEY
PAINTING STEP
TOTAL QUANTITY
PERCENT LACQUER
PERCENT ENAMEL
PERCENT WATER
BASE
PERCENT URETHANE
PERCENT OTHER
PRIMER COATS
5 1,688 liter/year
20%
55%
7%
15%
3%
TOP COATS
48,854 liter/year
19%
60%
7%
14%
0%
CLEAR COATS
4 1,522 liter/year
20%
56%
8%
15%
1%
In almost all cases, the survey indicated that paint is applied in these shops using standard
air guns. A total of 7 shops indicated the use of high-volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray guns
exclusively, and an additional 37 shops indicated that they use a mix of HVLP and standard air
-------
guns. One shop indicated the use of an electric gun and one indicated a special application
method, but the details were not provided. Expanded use of HVLP spray guns could improve
transfer efficiency and reduce the amount of paint used to complete the typical job. This would
reduce emissions between 10 and 20 percent. This reduction would not be as much as could be
achieved through the installation of capture and control devices. The best possible reduction for
these devices is in the 70-90 percent range.
The survey asked questions about the use of solvents for surface preparation and in
cleaning up both spray guns and work areas after each job was completed. One part of the survey
was designed to collect information on the amount and type of solvent used in surface
preparation. Only 44 of the shops reported the use of solvents in surface preparation activities.
The remaining 112 or 72% indicated the use of detergents to clean surfaces prior to repair work
and painting. Each of the shops, however, reported some solvent use in the section on
preparation activities. In all, the total amount of solvent use reported in that section of the survey
was 1,012.5 liters per week. Of the 44 shops that reported the use of solvent for preparations, the
type of solvent used is given below:
22 indicated the use of thinner,
7 indicated use of petroleum distillates,
3 indicated the use of blends,
2 indicated the use of gasoline,
1 indicated the use of xylene,
1 indicated the use of all solvents listed, and
7 indicated some solvent that was not listed, but did not specify which solvent.
A question was also asked about solvent use in clean up activities after a job is
completed. These activities would include cleaning the spray guns, and any other clean up of
spilled paint or spray that adhered to surfaces in the shop. One hundred forty-eight, or 95% of
the shops reported the use of thinner for these clean up activities. Four shops indicated the use of
a blend, two indicated the use of a strong unspecified solvent, one shop each reported the use of a
substance called mezcal, and one indicated the use of a creme. The amount of solvent used
ranged from a low of 0.1 liter per job to a high of 5 liters per job. In most cases, the shops
reported 0.5 to 1 liter of solvent used in cleanup activities per job. The total amount of solvent
used in clean up activities was estimated by multiplying the amount of solvent used per job by
the average number of jobs completed per week. The total amount of solvent used in clean up
activities, using that approach, was calculated to be 458.6 liters per week.
The survey also asked questions about painting operations. Specifically, shops were
asked to indicate whether or not they used a spray paint booth, enclosed and ventilated area, or
open areas for painting. Given the high percentage of combined enamel, lacquer and urethane
coatings, the data would imply a similar high usage of spray booths or controlled areas to ensure
proper curing of the painted parts. The survey results concerning paint booths and other
enclosures for painting operations were contradictory in some cases. A total of 110 of the shops
-------
indicated that they do not use a booth. Some of those did indicate that they paint in an enclosed
or semi-enclosed area. Many of those reported some form of ventilation system to exhaust paint
fumes to the exterior of the enclosure, but some did not indicate any ventilation system at all.
Forty-three shops indicated the use of a spray paint booth; however, seven of those also
indicated that there was no ventilation system associated with the booth. It is highly unlikely that
painting is performed in an enclosed booth without any ventilation. Another 28 of the shops
reported the use of a booth, but did not report the use of any type of control equipment. This
suggests that they used some enclosed area, but not what is commonly thought of as a spray paint
booth in the United States. Several of the shops reported using some form of enclosure for
painting operations, with an exhaust system and filters in line for control of the aerosol mist.
These units were assumed to be uncontrolled for the purpose of reducing VOC emissions, since
the VOC content of the paint would still evaporate from the filter and be exhausted to the.
ambient air. Two shops reported use of a booth with a ventilation system and extractors for
control. One of the shops using an extractor reported a control efficiency of 90%. There is no
way to determine, as part of this survey, what is meant by the use of the term "extractor" or to
verify that control efficiency. The survey takers were not allowed to examine the devises and
there may be a translation issue that equates "extractor" with exhaust fan. Even assuming that
both of the shops using extractors had a VOC capture efficiency of 90 % and a control efficiency
of greater than 90%, the overall impact to the entire survey results is insignificant. Their
emissions were calculated with the assumption that all shops were uncontrolled for VOC
emissions. In the shops that reported either a spray booth or an enclosure for painting, it is
assumed that there is a protected area that is used to limit dust and other airborne contamination
during paint application and curing.
Additional questions were asked about waste generation, waste disposal, and general
comments on the operations and appearance of the shop. Total wastes generated for all shops are
listed below:
rags 223 kg/week
sandpaper 1,348 sheets/week
paper 401 kg/week
cans 603 cans/week
tape 574 rolls/week
Every shop indicated that these wastes were disposed in the garbage and eventually taken to a
garbage dump or landfill located in and serving the city of Ciudad Juarez. One hundred six of
the shops were assessed as being generally neat in appearance. The remaining surveys indicated
some waste paint, auto parts, or other materials laying about creating either a dirty and untidy
appearance and a real or potential fire hazard.
The questionnaire also asked the shop to indicate at what time of year they do the most
work. Higher emissions of VOC in late spring, summer and early fall would have more serious
-------
effects on ozone air quality than emissions released during the winter months. Fifty-three of the
shops indicated that there is no busier time and that operations continue all through the year. For
those shops that did indicate a seasonal dependence, the distribution is provided below:
3 spring
54 summer
27 fall
19 winter
These results verify that the majority of the painting activity occurs at times that are conducive to
ozone formation.
EMISSIONS ESTIMATES AND POSSIBLE CONTROLS
EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
VOC emissions for paint use were estimated by applying an emission factor for all paints
used. These emission factors were calculated from solvent content values for various paints used
in auto body painting and refmishing. These data on solvent content were taken from
information presented in "Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile
Refmishing" (EPA-450/3-88-009)Ref', and "Alternative Control Techniques Document:
Automobile Refmishing" (EPA- 453/R-94-037)Ref 2. The solvent content values in these reports
were provided in units of pounds per gallon. These data were converted to grams per liter. The
number of liters of paint used for each shop was multiplied by an appropriate solvent content
factor. It was assumed that 100% of the solvent was released to the atmosphere. Table 2 lists a
summary of the total amount of each paint type included in the survey, the emission factor
applied, and the total emissions of VOC. The categories of paint use included in the survey did
not match exactly with the paint categories included in the EPA documents. The reference for
the emission factors and the assumptions for emission factors for categories that were not
included in the documents are explained in Table 2.
VOC emissions from solvent use for both surface preparation activities and clean up
activities are summarized in Table 3. The total amount of solvent used for these purposes as
reported in the survey were multiplied by a solvent content factor of 768.11 gr/liter (6.41
Ib/gallon). The solvent content value was taken from data presented in Table 4-3 of Alternative
Control Techniques Document: Automobile Refmishing2 for data representative of typical U.S.
nonattainment areas.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF VOC EMISSIONS FROM PAINTING OPERATIONS
Paint Category
Primer Lacquer
Primer Enamel
Primer Waterbase
Primer Urethane
Primer Other (a)
Base Coat Lacquer
Base Coat Enamel
Base Coat Waterbase (b)
Base Coat Urethane
Base Coat Other (a)
Clear Coat Lacquer
Clear Coat Enamel
Clear Coat Waterbase (b)
Clear Coat Urethane
Clear Coat Other (a)
Total Emissions
Total Paint
Use,
liters/year
10,270
28,613
3,614
7,735
1,456
9,334
29,263
3,484
6,721
52
8,164
23,439
3,172
6,279
468
yoc
Content,
Ib/gal
6.0
5.1
2.5
4.3
7.0
6.3
5.3
2.5
5.2
7.0
6.4
5.6
2.5
4.4
7.0
VOC
Content,
gr/liter
718.96
611.13
299.58
515.27
838.81
754.93
635.10
299.58
623.12
838.81
766.12
671.05
299.58
527.25
838.81
VOC
Emissions,
kg/year
7,383.72
17,486.26
1,082.68
3,985.61
1,221.31
7,046.52
18,584.93
1,043.74
4,187.99
43.62
6,254.60
15,728.74
950.27
3,310.60
392.56
VOC
Emissions,
tons/year
8.12
19.24
1.19
4.38
1.34
7.75
20.44
1.15
4.61
0.05
6.88
17.30
1.05
3.64
0.43
97.57
Notes: Solvent content values are for paint type as sprayed taken from EPA-450/3-88-009Ref' (exception: for other
paint categories see note (a)). Emissions calculated by multiplying total paint use times gr/liter VOC
solvent content (assume 100% is volatilized).
(a) Solvent content for other paint categories taken from EPA453/R-94-03 lRef 2, for specialty category
(b) All waterbase paint assumed to have same solvent content as that for waterbase primer
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE ACTIVITIES
SOLVENT USE
ACTIVITY
Surface Preparation
Spray Gun and Area
Clean Up
Total
TOTAL SOLVENT
USE, liters/year
52,650
23,848
76,498
SOLVENT
CONTENT,
gr/liter
768.11
768.11
EMISSIONS
kg/year
40,441
18,318
58,759
tons/year
44.48
20.15
64.63
Based on these assumptions and the data collected in the survey, the total VOC emissions
estimated for auto body repair shops in Ciudad Juarez is 162.2 tons per year. During the initial
planning for the project, it was estimated that there might be a total of 300 or more paint shops
operating in Ciudad Juarez. If it is assumed that the shops included in the survey are
representative of all the shops in Juarez, a good estimate of an upper limit for total VOC
emissions from auto body repair shops in Ciudad Juarez can be derived by doubling that
estimate. The doubling assumption is offered to account for potential under reporting of paint
and/or solvent use, and to account for auto body shops that were not included in the survey.
Therefore, an upper limit estimate for emissions is 324.4 tons per year.
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED EMISSIONS AND PAINT DISTRIBUTION
ESTIMATES
During the period when the students were being trained to conduct the survey, meetings
were held with three of the four major paint distributors in Ciudad Juarez to obtain an estimate
of the total amount of paint that was sold in Ciudad Juarez. Paint and solvent sales data were
also provided by the fourth distributor after the meetings were held. These data were collected to
serve as a check on the paint and solvent use derived through the survey. The combined total
amount of paint sold as estimated by the four distributors was 4,020 liters/month. This can be
compared to a total use of paint, adjusted for the amount that was indicated to be purchased from
the United States, from the survey of 9,179 liters/month. It must be kept in mind that there were
no strict quality control procedures applied to either of these totals. The paint use data from the
survey represent the best estimate of the average amount of paint used per month. A similar
estimate of solvent sold was also obtained from the paint distributors. The data from the
distributors indicate a total of 45,000 liters/month in solvent sales. The data from the survey
indicate a total of 4,050 liters/month of solvent used in the auto body repair shops that took part
in the survey.
10
-------
Concerning the paint use data from the survey versus paint sold data from the distributors,
it is likely that uncertainties in the data supplied through the two procedures are significant.
Sources of uncertainty that affect the comparison include:
differences in the assumptions used in each procedure; for example, it is possible
that average use reported in the survey is being compared to actual sales for the
previous month in the supply data.
some of the paint use reported in the survey may have been purchased in a
different month.
there may be errors in the reporting of paint obtained through other suppliers,
either in the United States or elsewhere in Mexico.
Given these and other possible uncertainties, the comparison between paint use data from
the survey and paint sales data from the distributors is not considered to be extreme and lends
some level of confidence in the reported data from the survey.
The differences between distributor sales and survey data for- solvent use are more
extreme, with a discrepancy of nearly an order of magnitude. As noted earlier in this report,
these data imply that there are other uses of solvent sold by the distributors, and that only a
fraction of that solvent sold is consumed by auto body repair shops in Ciudad Juarez. It is
reasonable to assume that there could be several other possible users of the solvent sold through
these distributors. Data included in the Control Technology Center report1 provide an estimate
that solvent use for surface preparation and clean up activities represent approximately 28% of
total emissions from auto body repair activities. Furthermore, the Alternate Control Techniques
document2 presents an estimate of approximately 0.1 gallons, or 0.378 liters, of solvent use for
each manual spray gun cleaning operation. The survey data suggest that 40% of the total
emissions from paint shops in Ciudad Juarez result from solvent use activities, and most shops
reported between 0.5 to 1.0 liters of solvent used for gun cleaning operations. Both methods of
comparison are relatively consistent with typical operations in the United States and provide
some degree of credibility to the survey data. These results certainly support the conclusion that
some other solvent uses must be present to account for the order of magnitude discrepancy
between the reported sales and auto body shop use data. More information would be required to
verify any of these assumptions, but, in general, the results of this comparison are not sufficient
to dispute the data generated through the survey.
It is historically common for shops to under report the use of solvents in either painting or
clean up operations. Some shops may use an order of magnitude more than they report. This
makes any correlation attempt to balance the amount of solvents sold to that used very difficult.
In addition, there are a number of other paint and solvent end-users not associated with auto body
repair shops; such as, heavy equipment production and/or repair, small parts painting, and
general industrial solvent usage. Distributors of solvents that sell to auto body repair shops
generally package their materials in small, easily handled containers. This makes them extremely
attractive to other purchasers who do not want the added cost or inconvenience of a larger
11
-------
container (e.g. 30 or 55 gal. drum). To further define the use of solvents through auto body
repair shop purchases, the actual sales/purchase order invoices must be reviewed to determine
which type of facility received each order of solvents. This determination was not part of this
study, but could be undertaken in any future effort. Information on overall solvent purchases
were given in an informal manner. Any future attempt to obtain more detailed information
would likely require the direct involvement of Mexican environmental officials.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS
During the review of the completed survey forms, it became apparent that few, if any, of
the auto body shops that responded to the survey keep detailed records of the work performed or
the amount of paint used. There were also many cases of incompatible data relative to specifics,
such as work load, work practices and paint and solvent use reported in the survey. In addition,
the uncertainties discussed in the summary of the comparison of paint use and paint distribution
are problematic. It is recommended that some form of standard reporting be implemented to
record the volume of coatings sold each month, coatings used each month, cars painted each
month, and percent VOC of average or specific coatings used in the auto body repair shops in
Ciudad Juarez. These data could then be used to construct a reliable data base and improve the
knowledge of base line conditions and possible reductions that could be identified through the
implementation of low-cost measures. The current survey forms could be used as the basis for all
subsequent data collection efforts. In terms of the quality of information obtained, the survey
form itself is very complete in its' level of requested detail. More experienced (and therefore,
more expensive) survey takers or inspectors might be able to collect more information from these
sources. In addition the question of overall coating operations for the Juarez area should be
addressed, as this survey indicates that auto body shops have a limited contribution to VOC
emissions.
The vast majority of the sources included in the survey are quite small, making most
command and control options unrealistic and cost inefficient. The use of TNRCC's low-cost
paint/solvent recycling booth system would be too costly (over $10,000.) for all but a very few
(e.g., less than 3 shops within all of Ciudad Juarez) to invest in and install. The reasons are two-
fold: (1) limited available capital investment monies, and (2) inadequate volume to ensure return
on investment. With less that six partial painting jobs a week in most shops, an investment in
TNRCC's system would not return any of the invested capital within the useable life cycle of the
equipment. Therefore, an alternate approach is recommended to address potential emissions
reduction programs. Based on the information collected in the survey, a review of available
materials and information, interviews with local environmental agency staff, and from experience
gained in conducting inspections of auto body repair shops, three recommendations are offered to
promote reductions in VOC emissions from these facilities. In order of estimated VOC
12
-------
reductions, these recommendations are:
general overall training and environmental awareness program (10-30%)
spray equipment replacement & education program (10-30%)
introduction of low VOC paints and solvents (20-70%)
The presentation of these recommendations is based on potential implementation and not
reduction percentage.
The first recommendation is to educate owners and operators of auto body repair shops
in Ciudad Juarez, of enhanced painting methods that could improve transfer efficiency, reduce
solvent use, promote the use of low solvent content paints and thinners, the replacement of
acrylic lacquers with enamels, the replacement of enamels and lacquers with urethane (these two
replacements would require the use of spray booths and may not be economically feasible), and
in overall environmental awareness. The estimated VOC reductions from such activities as
mentioned above are very difficult to determine as they relate to individual usage and acceptance
by the operators. The larger the number of operators participating in the program increases the
reduction levels. There are a number of instructional materials, pamphlets, videos, and training
courses available that could be given to, or used in formal training programs to help educate the
owners and operators. Some of these materials are already translated into Spanish (e.g., spray
operator's guide which is available in both Spanish and English in a comic book style
presentation). Other materials would need to be translated and perhaps modified to fit the
specific situations found in Ciudad Juarez. In addition, demonstrations on the most
environmentally effective means of cleaning equipment with solvents, application methods,
problems and solutions when using low solvent paints, and getting the most from the existing
equipment could significantly improve the current situation.
The second recommendation is to implement a program to improve the overall transfer
efficiency of painting operations. Based on figures from EPA's 1988 CTC report, replacement of
conventional spray guns with HVLP equipment could reduce yearly VOC emissions by 32
percent. One approach would be to start a spray gun buy-back program. Under this scenario, this
effort would involve a cooperative program involving both countries to jointly fund a pilot
project to assist owners in upgrading their current equipment with state-of-the-art spray
applicators. Owners would be required to attend formal classroom and hands on training to learn
the proper use of newer painting techniques. Each owner might then be required to make small
incremental payments back into a general program fund. Other investment and funding"options
including industry groups, Non Government Organizations (NGOs), environmental
organizations, and the North American Development (NAD) Bank would need to be researched.
None of these options has been investigated under the scope of this work, but each are options
that could be considered.
The third recommendation involves a ver> omplex and coordinated effort by both the
United States and Mexico to make low VOC com. t paints and solvents more available in
-------
Mexico. The estimated reduction in VOC emissions based on EPA's 1988 CTC report ranges
from 15 percent for installation of a solvent recovery system to 54 percent when urethane replace
lacquers and enamels. Combining replacement of coatings with water-based primers, and
decreasing the use of high VOC solvents for clean-up operations, could reduce emissions 20-70
percent. The likelihood in achieving reductions at the higher end of the range is low as it would
require major financial investments to be made by small coating operators, in all painting
applications throughout the city of Juarez. A more reasonable estimate is 20-40 percent based on
similar attempts conducted in the U.S. in the 1980s. This effort would require activities ranging
from policy and regulatory based options, to education programs aimed at the general public to
explain the reasons for the switch form existing coatings to alternative coatings. Under this
approach suppliers of coatings would need to be brought into the program so that, over time, the
use of VOC contenting solvents and coatings could be phased out. New regulations pertaining
to the use of high VOC content coatings could be developed and implemented. Enforcement
activities would need to be devised to ensure compliance with the new regulations and to track
the effectiveness of those regulations. The cost of such a move away from the currently used
coating methods and associated technologies has not been determined, but is estimated to greatly
exceed the ability of the majority of the auto body shop operators to implement or upgrade to
without financial assistance. The only complying reason to move towards such an effort, high
VOC emissions from auto body repair shops, has not been proven from the findings of this
survey. However, total VOC emissions from all coating and solvent usage within Juarez could
justify such a plan of action.
14
-------
REFERENCES
1. Control Technology Center, "Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Automobile Refmishing," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 450/3-88-009,
October 1988.
2. Emissions Standards Division, "Alternative Control Techniques Document: Automobile
Refmishing," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-453/R-94-031, April 1994.
15
-------
APPENDIX A
SURVEY FORM USED IN THE STUDY
A-l
-------
Survey Form for Assessment of Emissions from
Automobile Refinishing Shops in Ciudad Juarez
Shop Number: Date:
Surveyor:
General Information
How many employees work at the shop?
How long have the employees been working at the shop?
Average time yr month weeks
Maximum yr month weeks
Minimum yr month weeks
How did employees learn this trade?
Number from Trade School
Number from previous job
Number trained at this shop
How many cars do you paint per week?
Partial Repairs: Average
Maximum When?
Minimum When?
Complete Repainting: Average
Maximum When? _______
Minimum When?
Normally how many days per week do you paint cars?
Normally what time of year do you have the most work?
the least work?
What type of record keeping is used to account for purchases of paint, solvent, materials, etc.
Operations Information
The following questions refer to operations to clean and prepare surfaces for painting.
Partial Refinishing jobs Detergent Washing Yes No
Solvent Washing Yes No
Full car repainting Detergent Washing Yes No
Solvent Washing Yes No _
If solvent washing is used what kind of solvent do you use? Toluene
Xylene _
Blend
Petroleum Distillates
A-2
-------
Other Specify
Approximately how much solvent is used per week, month year (circle one)?
liters
On average this solvent use represents how many partial refinishing jobs
full repainting jobs
What is done with the solvents used?
Left to evaporate
Recovered and reused
Recovered and disposed
Put down a drain
If solvents are reused, how are they cleaned?
If solvents are disposed, where are they taken?
If poured down a drain, where does the drain go?
Approximately how much grinding and sanding is done in repairs?
How much bond do you use per week, month, year (circle one)? kilos
In a typical repair job? kilos
The following questions refer to painting operations.
Give the amount of paint used per week, month, year (circle one) for base coat or primer coats.
lacquer liters
enamel liters
waterborne liters
urethane liters
other liters, describe
Give the amount of paint used per week, month, year (circle one) for topcoats.
acrylic lacquer liters
acrylic enamel liters
waterborne liters
polyurethane liters
other liters describe
Give the amount of paint used per week, month, year (circle one) in clear coats.
acrylic lacquer liters
A-3
-------
acrylic enamel liters
waterborne liters
polyurethane liters
other liters; describe
Where is the paint you used manufactured/purchased?
In Mexico / percent
In United States / percent
Other / percent Where?
What type of spray gun do you use? If more than one give percents.
Standard air gun high pressure low volume gun
Standard electric gun
other describe
How do you paint? If more than one give percents.
Open air Partial repainting jobs % full car repainting %
Enclosed booth Partial repainting jobs % full car repainting %
In shelter without booth Partial repainting jobs % full car repainting %
Under roof not enclosed Partial repainting jobs % full car repainting %
If you use a booth do you have and exhaust or ventilation system?
If there is an exhaust or ventilation system explain how it works.
Is there any control device in the ventilation or exhaust system?
Do you use heaters to cure paint? If yes, what fuels are used in heaters?
What kind of paint storage and mixing devices are used?
What procedure do you use to clean up the spray guns and work area after job completion?
Solvents used to clean spray guns; type of solvent
Typical amount liters
Waste Generation and Management
Do you generate waste? Quantities for
Rags Yes No How many kilos
Paint Yes No How many liters
Clean up
Solvent Yes No How many liters
A-4
-------
Sand Paper Yes No How much
Paper Yes No How much
Cans Yes No How many
Tape Yes No How much
How do you dispose of wastes generated?
Rags
Paint
Clean Up
Solvent
Sand Paper
Paper
Cans
Tape
Miscellaneous To be completed by surveyor
Describe the general appearance of the shop? Is it neat and clean? Are there waste
materials laying about? Do you consider there is an imminent fire hazard?
If there is an enclosed booth with any form of ventilation or exhaust system please look to
see if there is any kind of control device present (e.g., filter, thermal incineration, catalytic
incineration, carbon absorption, vapor recovery, water film, other. Explain the type of equipment
if present and give an estimate of control efficiency.
Do you see evidence of waste paint or solvent being dumped on open ground or poured
down a drain? If poured down a drain can you determine where the drain goes?
Comment on the appearance around the outside of the shop. Does it appear thafthe
activities in the shop are affecting the surrounding area. Are there opportunities for citizens to
have access to materials and waste products generated by the shop?
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA TABLES FROM THE SURVEY DATABASE
B-l
-------
The following emission factors were applied in Table B-l:
Emission Factors
Paint Type Ib/gal grams/liter
Primer Lacquer 6.0 718.96
Primer Enamel 5.1 611.13
Primer Water Base 2.5 299.58
Primer Urethane 4.3 515.27
Primer Other 7.0 838.81
Base Coat Lacquer 6.3 754.93
Base Coat Enamel 5.3 635.10
Base Coat Water Base 2.5 299.58
Base Coat Urethane 5.2 623.12
Base Coat Other 7.0 838.81
Clear Coat Lacquer 6.4 766.12
Clear Coat Enamel 5.6 671.05
Clear Coat Water Base 2.5 299.58
Clear Coat Urethane 4.4 527.25
Clear Coat Other 7.0 838.81
Notes: Emission factor for paints in other category are based on solvent content value of 7 Ib./gal
taken from ACT document (reference 2) as specified for specialty paints. No information
had been given for the specifications for other paints and this assumption was used to
represent newer paints with the maximum solvent content.
Emission factor for all water base paints is based on the solvent content for water base
primer paints given in the CTC document (reference 1).
B-2
-------
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate
Shop Cods
1
.- .
3 ""
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
J7
18
20
21
25
27
28 |
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
47
Primer Coat PaJnt Use In Liters per Week
Lacquer
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0,00
3.00
4.00
18.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
20.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00 _
4.00
Enamel
2.00
2.00
250
450
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
2.00
6.00
8.00
4.00
150
1.00
3.00
8.00
1.00
2.00
__3.00
1.00
6.00
16.00
1.00
5.00
0.25
1.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
10.00
8.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
Waterbasa
1.00
1JW
18.00
2.00
1.00
050
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Urethane
5.00
050
5.00
4.00
4.00
16.00
3.00
2.00
10.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
Other
1.00
1.00
3.00
18.00
Topcoat Paint Use In Liters per Weel
Lacquer
1.00
4.00
150
2.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
2XK)
2.00
3jQO
18.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00_ J
Enamel
4.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
450
1.00
3.00
4.00
1JOO
1.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
10.00
3.00
5.00
6.00
4.00
6.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
050
4.00
6.00
1.00
6.00
025
1.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
9.00
8.00
2.00
[ 4.00
' 1.00 1
Waterbase
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1 .00
1.00
1.00
Polyurelhane
4.00
450
4.00
4.00
3.00
050
8.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
2.00
Other
1.00
Clear Coats Paint Use In Liters per Week
Lacquer
5.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
Enamel
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
050
450
3.00
5.00
1.00
3.00
250
050
1.00
e!oo
1.00
6.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
ixio
3.00
025
2.00
1.00
4.00
-Too
4.00
1.00
Waterbase
1ฃ0
UJO
1.00
-Too
1.00
2JOO ~
1.00
Potyurethane
3.00
f
3.00
4 00
3.00
4~!6o
2.00
050
5.00
3.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
Other
9.00
Spray
Application
Device
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
hptvoun
ah- gun
alr/hprv gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
hptvjjun
hprvgun
air gun
air oun
air own
air gun
alroun
air gun
alr/hprv gun
air gun
alr/hp(v gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
hotv oun
alr/hpV gun
alr/hprv gun
air gun
alroun
alr/hpV gun
air gun
hplvgun
alr/hprVflun
alr/hprv gun
hprvoun
alr/hptyjjun
alr/hplv gun
Total
Amount ol
Paint Used
liters per week
8
6 J
8
65
10
2
7
9
25
65
18
17
9
4
13
105
105
5
12
13
12
18
18
185
10
45
3
9
8
14
8
155
9
29
40
204
27
29
0.75
35
12
98
I 29
48
30
~~~**l
Primer
Lacquer
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
359450
143752
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71856
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
143752
6/)o
215638
2875.84
1294128
287554
0.00
0.00
0.00
215658
1437920
143752
B-3
-------
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate
Shop Coda
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Primer
Enamel
0
1222.26
1222.26
1527-.825
2750.085
0
1222.26
611.13
611.13
611.13
3055.65
122256
122256
0
3055.65
244452
0
611.13
0
1222.26
244452
3666.78
122226
3666.78
4889.04
2444.52
916.695
611.13
0
1833.39
4889.04
611.13
122226
18333E
611.1C
3666.7J
9778.08
611.1:
3055.65
152.7825
611.1!
122256
3055.65
244452
6111.1
4889.04
12225
2444.5
611.1
rimer
/Vaterbase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
g
0
0
c
29958
29958
5392.44
599.16
29958
C
149.79
(
599.16
29958
I
I
29958
599.16
Primer
irelhane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2576.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
257.635
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
2576.35
0
2061.08
2061 .Of
824432
1545.81
103054
0
(
0
5152.7
2061.08
2576.35
*
2061.08
2061.08
1030.54
Em
'rimer
Other (a)
0
0
0
0
0
838.81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
838.81
0
0
0
0
2516.43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
0
C
0
C
C
0
150985!
0
(
' 0
(
0
I
sslons gr/w
'opcoat
.aequer
0
0
0
75453
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3019.72
0
0
0
0
0
0
1132.395
1509.86
3019.72
o
0
. 0
3019.72
0
0
0
2264.79
C
0
0
1509.86
C
1509.86
2264.79
13588.74
150956
3774.65
0
0
150936
7549.3
75453
,75453
150956
75453
1509.86
2264.79
eek (liters p
opcoat
name)
2540/4
12705
2540/4
12705
285755
635.1
1905.3
2540/4
635.1
635.1
0
2540/4
12702
12705
31755
2540/4
6351
19053
0
31755
0
38106
2540/4
3810.6
2540/4
2540/4
19053
635.1
12705
1 905.3
1 905.3
2540,4
31755
2540/4
2540/1
3810.6
10161.6
635.1
3810.6
158.775
635.1
12705
31755
2540X
5715J!
50805
12705
2540/
635.'
erweektlm
Topcoat
Vaterbase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29958
29956
5392/44
29958
29958
0
0
0
599.16
2995E
0
(
29958
2995!
(
es paint cla
Topcoat
Urethane
2492.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2804.04
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
186936
2492.48
9969.92
2492.48
1869.36
0
31156
C
4984.96
186936
3115.6
0
3115.6
2492.48
1246.2'
ss emlsslo
"opcoat
Other._(5L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
838.81
0
C
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
n factor
Clear Coat
.aequer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3830.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2298.36
3064.48
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
3064.48
C
C
C
2298.36
C
229836
153254
13790.16
153251
0
0
0
766.12
153251
766.12
15325"
153251
766.12
766.12
153254
<
;iear Coat
:namel
0
1342.1
1342.1
671.05
671.05
0
1342.1
26845
335525
3019.725
2013.15
0
335555
671.05
2013.15
1677.625
335525
671.05
0
0
0
4026.3
671.05
40263
1342.1
1342.1
0
671.05
0
1342.1
2013.15
671.05
0
1342.1
671.05
335555
10736.8
671.05
2013.15
167.7625
C
1342.1
671.05
26845
6039.45
5368.4
671.05
26845
671.05
Ilear Coat
Vaterbase (
-------
Table B-1 PaJnt Uss Summary and Emissions Estimate
Shop Code
50
51
53
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
97
98
1.00
2.00
2.00
10.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
4.00
10.00
1.00
5.00
4.00
8.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
150
4.00
4.00
0 00
8.00
1.00
4.00
5.00
1.00
8.00
4.00
7.00
2.00
7.00
10.00
6.00
8.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
8.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
4.00
050
3.00
2.00
1.00
7.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
10.00
8.00
2.00
10.00
4.00
7.00
4.00
6.00
5-.00
T
1.00
1.00
1.00
8.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
250
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
opcoatPa
Enamel
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
8.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
8.00
3.00
2.00
250
4.00
4.00
0.00
8.00
1.00
4.00
5.00
2.00
6.00
3.00
7.00
550
9.00
6.00
4.00
9.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2100
2.00
4.00
050
3.00
nt Use In Lit
Waterbase
2.00
1.00
1.00
7.00
1.00
5.00
2.00
ereperWeel
Polyurelhane
8.00
7.00
2~!66
10.00
3.00
6.00
3.00
6.00
3ther
Ck
.acquer
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
150
1.00
2.00
150
250
2.00
1.00
5.00
3.00
050
j
aarCoalsl
Enamel
5.00
2.00
14.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
8.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
250
4.00
050
4.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
2.08
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
4.00
050
3.00
3alnt Use In
Waterbase
3.00
T3o
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
1.00
.Hers per Wee
Poryurethane
6.00
6.00
4.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
6.00
(
025
c
Other
Spray
Application
Device
hptv flun
ilr/elec gun
air gun
air gun
special
air gun
alr/hptv gun
air gun
alr/hplv gun
air gun
air gun
alr/hplv gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
alr/hptv gun
alr/lp gun
alr/hplv gun
air gun
alr/hplv gun
air gun
air gun
alr/hplv gur
alr/hplv gun
ah- gun
alr/hplv gun
alr/hplv gun
air gun
air gun
alr/hplv gun
alr/hplv gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
alr/hplv gur
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
Amount ol
Paint Used
Iters per week
41
42
37
24
29
18
51
12
7
15
30
24
13
8
18
15
12
8
3.25
3
11
15
8
18
15
215
95
20
22
26
19
8
8
2
8
9
20
7
7
14
6
18
11
15
115
'rimer
Lacquer
71856
143752
0.00
143752
143752
2156.88
71856
0.00
0.00
0.00
143752
0.00
1437.92
718.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ooc
0.00
0.00
0.00
71856
0.00
143752
143752
0.00
0.00
0.00
5751.68
0.00
143752
71856
0.00
0.00
143752
0.00
0.00
0.00
143752
0.00
2156.88
0.00
0.00
71856
B-5
-------
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate
Shop Code
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
.. i .-.in . -.
91
92
94
95
96
97
98
rimer
namel
3055.65
244452
5500.17
244452
244452
3055.65
244452
244452
6111.3
0
611.13
3055.65
244452
4889.04
1833.39
611 13
0
3666.78
916.695
2444.52
244452
0
4889.04
611.13
244452
3055.65
611.13
4889.04
244452
4277.91
1222.26
4277.91
6111.1
3666.78
4889.CV
1222.26
611.13
0
1833.39
1833.39
4889.04
1222.26
122256
onฃฃ 6
12222
1833.3
24445
I 30556
I 1833.3
rimer
(Vaterbase
0
599.16
0
29958
29958
2097.06
29958
0
14975
0
0
0
599.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
q
0
0
0
0
0
0
L o
0
0
0
c
(
0
0
0
0
(
0
0
I
rimer
'rethane
5152.7
4122.16
0
103054
2061.08
5152.7
2061.08
0
360659
0
0
0
2061.08
0
0
0
3091.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
C
C
0
C
0
C
0
0
I
I
I
o
Em
rimer
Jther (a)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4194.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(
0
I
, I
sslons flr/w
'opcoat
.acquer
754.83
75453
0
75453
2264.79
6039/44
1509.86
2264.79
0
0
0
0
1509.86
0
75453
75453
0
0
0
0
0
75453
0
0
0
G
75453
0
2264.7S
0
0
1887525
C
75453
(
0
7545:
(
0
I
I
0
2264.79
7545:
8ek (liters p
opcoat
Enamel
25404
2540/4
31755
2540/4
12702
2540/4
19053
2540/4
5080.8
12702
635.1
31755
1905.3
50803
19053
12702
0
31755
1587.75
2540/4
2540/4
0
5080.8
635.1
2540/4
31755
12702
3810.6
1905J
4445.7
3493.05
S7155
3810.6
2540/4
57155
12702
635.1
0
19053
635.1
3810.6
12702
12702
12702
12702
12702
2540/t
31755
1905.3
arweektlm
opcoat
Waterbast
0
599.16
0
29958
29958
2097.06
29958
0
14975
0
0
0
599.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
0
0
C
0
0
C
C
(
C
0
0
0
0
0
(
0
I
I
0
I
es paint cla
Topcoat
Urethane
4984.96
4361.84
0
124624
0
62312
186936
0
3733.72
0
0
0
1869.36
0
0
0
3738.72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
(
0
(
(
ss emlsslo
Topcoat
3ther, (c)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(
0
0
c
c
0
0
(
c
(
c
(
i factor
;iear Coat
.acquer
766.12
766.12
3830.6
766.12
153224
3830.6
2298.36
153224
0
0
0
0
766.12
0
153224
766.12
0
0
0
0
1149.18
0
0
C
0
766.12
0
153224
1149.18
0
0
0
19153
0
0
153224
0
0
766.12
0
0
0
3830.6
2298.36
0
0
383.06
Clear Coat
Enamel
335525
1342.1
9394.7
26842
2013.15
1342.1
2013.15
1342.1
2013.15
335525
335525
335525
2013.15
5368/4
1342.1
1342.1
26842
1677.625
26842
0
335525
26842
671.05
2013.15
335525
1342.1
26842
671.05
26842
1342.1
26842
4026.!
2013.15
1342.1
1342.1
1342.1
1342.1
1342.1
671.05
4026.J
2013.15
2013.15
C
26842
201 3.1 ฃ
335525
2013.15
Dlear Coat
Naterbase (d)
0
898.74
0
29958
29958
29958
29958
0
1198.32
0
0
0
29958
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
c
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
0
(
'
0
0
:iearCoat
Jrethane
31635
31635
2109
10545
52725
2109
10545
0
10545
0
0
0
1581.75
0
0
0
31635
0
0
0
t 0
131.8125
(I
0
0
c
c
0
0
c
0
c
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
(
c
0
0
Clear Coat
Other (e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
c
0
c
0
c
c
c
c
0
(
c
c
c
c
(
0
0
t
(
(
0
c
0
0
Q,
c
Total All
Paints
(or/week)
24492/47
2303055
2400957
14858.11
1444939
4198439
17492.79
1228053
26518/44
881950
4601X8
9586/40
1708656
1533824
880538
5463/44
999334
9526/48
4182.07
7669.12
498452
2371/45
12654.04
191728
6998.07
9586/40
5463/44
1138334
1025532
1399451
6057/41
12678.01
1394820
17774.64
11947.04
5272/48
5594/46
1342.10
5080.79
609851
1272554
4505.61
4505.61
959437
383451
1250732
6998.07
958.64
7608.79
B-6
-------
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate
Shop Codซ
99
100
110
112
115
116
118
120
121
123
125
127
129
131
133
134
135
137
139
141
143
144
14S
146
147
Lacquer
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
150
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
10.00
3.00
0.00
0.00__|
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
1.00
2.00
Ename
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
12.00
3.00
5.00
1.00
2.00
S.OO
2.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
8.00
1.00
3.00
lint Use In L
Waterbase
0.00
1.00
IteraperW
Urelhane
8.00
1
eek
|Olhar
Lacquer
0.00
1.00
1.00
OJ50
1SO
050
2.00
18.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
12.00
opcoat Pa
Enamel
2.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Too
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
3M
12.00
2.00
3.00
400
3.00
5.00
8.00
3.00
050
4.00
3.00
18.00
5.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
3.00
4.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
6.00
2.00
5.00
2.00
6.00
5.00
12.00
1.00
1.00
nl Use In Lit
Waterbase
0.00
1.00
18.00
2.00
ersperWeel
Polyurethane
0.25
2.00
16.00
Other
Ck
Lacquer I
000
1.00 I
1.00
1.00
050
150
2.00
18.00
5.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00_,
1.00
1.00
3.00
6.00
I
sar Coats t
enamel
4.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
!oo
.00
2.00
1.00
330
12.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
2.00
150
4.00
1.00
16.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
7.00
3alnt Use In
Waterbase
0.00
2.00
18.00
Liters per Wee
'otyurethane
1^00
i
1.00
2.00
17.00
K
Other
Spray
Application
Device
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
alr/hplvgun
air gun
air gun
alr/hplvgun
afrgun
air gun
alr/hplvgun
air gun
air gun
ah-oun
air gun
alr/hptv_gun
air gun
air gun
alr/hplvgun
alrflun
special
alr/hplv gun
alr/hptvgun
air gun
alr/hptv gur
alrflun
alr/hplv gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun |
alr/hplv gun
air gun
Total
Amount ol
Paint Used
liters per week
9
3
3
3
3
5
36
75
10
10
15
7
24
205
19
8
11
14
13
11
13
16
17
52
8
13
Lacquer_
~~ ooo
0.00
0.00
0.00
71856
0.00
359/18
359.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
71856
1294158
287534
71856
0100
0.00
0.00
71856
2875.84
71856
0.00
5751.68
71856
143752
B-7
-------
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate
Shop Code
99"
100
105
107
109
110
112
114
115
117
119
120
121
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Primer
Enamel
1833.39
611.13
611.13
611.13
122256
611.13
1222.26
122256
1833.39
122256
1833.39
3666.78
1833.39
3055.65
122256
611.13
3055.65
122256
9778.08
3055.65
244452
122256
122256
0
3055.65
244452
244452
1833.39
1833.39
3666.76
1833.3J
3055.65
1833.35
3055.65
3666.7J
4889.04
611.1w
1833.3E
Primer
Waterbast
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
599.16
0
5392.44
29958
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
C
C
(
0
0
0
(
0
Primer
Jrethane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51557
0
8244.32
4122.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
b
0
0
0
Em
'rimer
Otherja)_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
C
0
0
0
C
(
Isslons pr/w
Topcoat
Lacquer
0
0
0
0
0
75453
0
0
0
0
0
754:93
754.93
0
0
377/65
1132.395
377/465
0
0
0
1509.86
0
0
13588.74
0
2264.79
2264.79
0
0
0
3019.72
0
0
1509.86
1509.86
1509.86
0
75453
C
C
9059.16
0
0
eek (liters p
Topcoat
inamel
12705
635.1
635.1
635.1
12705
635.1
635.1
635.1
635.1
12705
635.1
635.1
12705
635.1
12705
1905.3
76215
12705
0
1905.3
2540.4
31755
5080.8
1905.3
31755
2540.4
1905.3
10161.6
31755
2540/4
12705
635.1
0
1905.3
2540,4
3810.6
2540/4
12705
3810.6
12705
31755
12705
3810.6
31755
76215
635.1
635.1
ซrweektlrr
Topcoat
Waterbass
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
0
0
q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29958
0
5392.44
599.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ies paint cl<
Topcoat
Urethane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155.78
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124654
0
9969.92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
jss emlsslo
Topcoat
Other, (c)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n (actor
Clear Coat
Lacquer
0
766.12
0
0
0
766.12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1149.18
0
0
0
0
1 53254
0
0
13790.16
3830.6
153254
229856
766.12
0
0
766.12
0
0
153254
766.12
766.12
0
2298.36
0
0
4596.72
0
0
Clear Coat
Enamel
26845
0
671.05
2013.15
671.05
1342.1
671.05
0
671.05
671.05
671.05
671.05
2013.15
8052.6
0
2013.15
2013.15
335555
1342.1
1006575
26845
671.05
10736.8
1342.1
1342.1
1342.1
2013.15
335555
2013.15
671.05
2013.15
1342.1
671.05
2013.15
671.05
335555
40265
26845
40265
40265
335555
4697.35
Clear Coat
Waterbase (d)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
599.16
0
5392.44
29958
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
Clear Coal
Urethane
0
0
0
52755
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52755
0
0
0
10545
0
896355
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Clear Coat
Other (e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total All
Paints
(or/week)
5787.79
2012.35
191758
2058.08
191758
191758
191758
3391.17
5751.84
2300756
3360.02
8220.33
6279.09
9586.40
4469.66
641558
13313.12
3798.61
114351/47
2391353
12999.89
1055459
535559
335555
6974.10
944151
826857
5715.89
7535.70
13204/43
8926/46
9586/40
10902.14
9550/45
1086858
35944.10
5320/44
8603.76
B-8
-------
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate
Shop Code
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
totalAveek
total/year
Primer Coat Paint Use In Liters per Week
Lacquer
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00'
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
0.00
Enamel
6.00
3.00
5.00
9.00
050
9.00
4.00
4.00
550J25
28613.00
Waterbase
6950
3614.00
Urethane
148.75
7735.00
Other
<
28.00
1456.00
Topcoat Paint Use In Liters per Weel
Lacquer
5.00
9.00
1.00
17950
9334.00
Enamel
6.00
5.00
5.00
9.00
7.00
050
9.00
4.00
4.00
562.75
29263.00
Waterbase
67.00
3484.00
Poryurethane
129.25
6721.00
Other
1.00
52,00
i
.
Clear Coats Paint Use In Lltersper Week
Lacquer
5.00
2.00
157.00
8164.00
Enamel
4.00
2.00
5.00
7.00
050
9.00
3.00
3.00
450.75
23439.00
Waterbase
61.00
3172.00
Potyurethane
6.00
120.75
6279.00
Other
9.00
4.68,90.
Spray
Application
Device
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
air gun
alr/lp gun
air gun
air gun
Total
Amount ot
Paint Used
liters per week
16
20
10
23
14
15
47
16
11
2732
142064
Primer
Lacquer
0.00
3594.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
143752
0.00
141994.60
7383.72
8.12
B-9
-------
Table B-1 Paint Use Summaty and Emissions Estimate
Shop Code
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
total/week
total/year
Primer
Enamel
3666.78
1 833.39
3055".65
5500.17
0
305.565
5500.17
2444.52
2444.52
336274.28
1748626
1923
Primer
Waterbase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20820.81
1082.68
1.19
Emissions or/Weak (liters per week times paint class emission (actor '
Primer
Urethane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76646.41
3985.61
4.38
Primer
Other (a)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23486.68
1221.31
1.34
Topcoat
Lacquer
0
3774.65
0
0
0
0
6794.37
75453
0
'
13550954
704652
7.75
Topcoat
Enamel
3810.6
31755
31755
5715.9
4445.7
31755
5715.9
2540/t
2S4QA
35740253
1858453
20.44
Topcoat
Waterbase
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20071.86
1043.74
1.15
Topcoat
Urethane
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8053826
4187.99
4.61
Topcoat
Other, (c)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
838.81
43.62
0.05
Clear Coat
Lacquer
_0j
0
0
0
0
0
3830.6
153224
0
120280.84
6254.60
6.88
f
Clear Coat
Enamel
26842
1342.1
0
335525
4697.35
335525
6039.45
2013.15
2013.15
302475.79
15728.74
17.30
Clear Coat
Waterbase (d)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18274.38
95027
1.05
Clear Coat
Urethane
0
0
0
0
0
0
31635
0
0
63665/M
3310.60
3.64
Clear Coa
Other (e)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
754929
39256
0X3
Total All
Paints
(gr/week)
1016158
13720.44
6231.15
14571.32
9143.05
958.64
3104359
10723.16
6998.07
170582951
88703.16
9757
8-10
-------
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS
Shop Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
"9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
dumber of
jobs (a)
4
3
4
2
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
8
6
3
3
5
4
5
4
6
6
4
4
2
5
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
14
5
5
5
3
6
3
1
3
3
7
4
4
5
5
4
4
3
5
Prepartion
Solvent
Amount,
iters per week
8
5
10
3
4.5
4
3
5
2
4
22
10
5
4.5
5
5
10
5
5
8
20
15
7.5
12
8
10
8
5
20
5
4
5
4
4
5
15
-
12
5
1.5
4
4
10
10
5
20
10
10
10
10
10
9
Clean Up
Solvent
Type
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
strong
thinner
thinner
thinner
blend
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
Clean Up
Solvent -.
uant'rty, liter/job
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.25
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.25
1.00
1.50
20.00
0.50
1.00
0.15
0.50
1.00
1.25
1.50
2.00
0.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
1.00
Clean Up
Solvent
Amount
ters per week
4.00
1.50
4.00
0.50
2.00
0.75
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.75
3.00
4.00
3.00
1.50
0.75
1.25
1.00
2.50
1.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.50
1.50
0.75
0.50
1.50
1.50
0.75
2.00
3.50
1.25
5.00
7.50
60.00
3.00
3.00
. 0.15
1.50
3.00
8.75
6.00
8.00
2.50
7.50
4.00
6.00
6.00
5.00
0.00
Total
Solvent
Amount
ters per week
12.00
6.50
14.00
3.50
6.50
4.75
3.50
6.00
3.00
4.75
25.00
14.00
8.00
6.00
5.75
6.25
11.00
7.50
6.00
11.00
23.00
16.00
9.50
13.00
10.50
11.50
8.75
5.50
21.50
6.50
4.75
7.00
7.50
5.25
10.00
22.50
60.00
15.00
8.00
1.65
5.50
7.00
18.75
16.00
13.00
22.50
17.50
14.00
16.00
16.00
15.00
9.00
Total
Solvent
Emissions
rams per week
9217.32
4992.72
10753.54
2688.39
4992.72
3648.52
2688.39
4608.66
2304.33
3648.52
19202.75
10753.54
6144.88
4608.66
4416.63
4800.69
8449.21
5760.83
4608.66
8449.21
17666.53
12289.76
7297.05
9985.43
8065.16
8833.27
6720.96
4224.61
16514.37
4992.72
3648.52
5376.77
5760.83
4032.58
7681.10
- 17282.48
46086.60
11521.65
V61 44.88
1267.38
4224.61
5376.77
14402.06
12289.76
9985.43
17282.48
13441.93
10753.54
12289.76
12289.761
11521.65
6912.99
B-11
-------
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS
1 r
Shop Code
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
"61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
T
Mumber of
jobs (a)
4
4
5
5
7
3
4
3
3
5
6
6
4
2
3
1
3
3
10
5
1
4
1
3
6
4
5
5
4
5
6
6
2
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
1
5
4
5
2
8
3
2
4
5
7
4
Prepartion
Solvent
Amount,
liters per week
10
20
10
20
6
20
14
5
10
10
4
4
2
10
5
3
6
3
4
5
8
4
5
2
6
8
7
3
5
4
7
3
5
12
4
3
3 -
5
2
2
5
2
3
8
1.5
6
4
3
2
4
5
5
T
Clean Up
Solvent
Type (
mezcal
blend
thinner
blend
thinner
strong
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
ere me
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
r
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
r
Clean Up
Solvent
Quantity, liter/job
2.50
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.50
"0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.50
3.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.30
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.30
0.20
0 20
0 30
0.20
0.30
0.30
Clean Up
Solvent
Amount
iters per week
10.00
6.00
7.50
10.00
7.00
3.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
5.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
1.50
2.50
1.50
10.50
10.00
2.50
0.50
2.00
1.00
1.50
6.00
4.00
1.25
2.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.25
2.00
4.00
2.50
2.50
^2.00
2.00
1.00
1.50
4.00
2.50
0.50
2.40
0.60
0.40
1.20
1.00
2.10
1.20
Total
Solvent
Amount
iters per week
20.00
26.00
17.50
30.00
13.00
23.00
15.00
6.50
11.50
15.00
7.00
10.00
4.00
11.00
6.50
5.50
7.50
13.50
14.00
7.50
8.50
6.00
6.00
3.50
12.00
12.00
8.25
5.50
7.00
6.50
10.00
6.00
6.00
13.25
6.00
7.00
5.50
7.50
4.00
4.00
6.00
3.50
7.00
10.50
2.00
8.40
4.60
3.40
3.20
5.00
7.10
6.20
Total
Solvent
Emissions
grams per week
15362.20
19970.86
13441.93
23043.30
9985.43
17666.53
11521.65
4992.72
8833.27
11521.65
5376.77
7681.10
3072.44
8449.21
4992.72
4224.61
5760.83
10369.49
10753.54
5760.83
6528.94
4608.66
4608.66
2688.39
9217.32
9217.32
6336.91
4224.61
5376.77
4992.72
7681.10
4608.66
4608.66
10177.46
4608.66
- 5376.77
4224.61
5760.83
3072.44
- 3072.44
'4608.66
2688.39
5376.77
8065.16
1536.22
6452.12
3533.31
2611.57
2457.95
3840.55
5453.58
4762.28
B-12
-------
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS
Shop Code
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
' "113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
12J
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Number of
jobs (a)
7
4
4
4
3
2
3
4
5
5
3
6
8
5
4
7
3
2
3
3
1
5
3
5
5
6
3
1
2
3
6
3
5
3
6
6
1
4
4
5
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
1
4
5
4
Prepartion
Solvent
Amount,
liters per week
4
6
3
3
4
3
3
3
6
4
5
18
6
6
5
6
8
5
3
4
5
5
2
5
10
5
3
5
5
4
12
5
3
4
6
3
5 -
2
4
5
8
5
8
6
7
0.25
5
12
0.75
20
8
6
Clean Up
Solvent
Type
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
blend
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
thinner
Clean Up
Solvent
Quantity, liter/job
0.25
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.50
0.25
0.12
0.50
U25
0.30
0.20
0.50
1.00
0.10
0.50
0.50
1.00
2.00
0.75
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
5.00
0.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
Clean Up
Solvent
Amount
liters per week
1.75
2.00
0.40
0.40
1.50
0.50
0.36
2.00
1.25
1.50
0.60
3.00
8.00
0.50
2.00
3.50
3.00
4.00
2.25
0.30
0.50
2.50
1.50
2.50
3.75
3.00
1.50
0.00
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
2.50
1.50
3.00
3.00
5.00
, 2.00
-2.00
3.75
4.00
0.75
1.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
1.00
0.50
4.00
2.50
2.00
Total
Solvent
Amount
liters per week
5.75
8.00
3.40
3.40
5.50
3.50
3.36
5.00
7.25
5.50
5.60
21.00
14.00
6.50
7.00
9.50
11.00
9.00
5.25
4.30
5.50
7.50
3.50
7.50
13.75
8.00
4.50
5.00
6.00
5.50
13.50
- 6.50
5.50
5.50
9.00
6.00
10.00
4.00
6.00
8.75
12.00
5.75
9.00
9.00
8.00
0.25
7.00
13.00
1.25
24.00
10.50
8.00
Total
Solvent
Emissions
grams per week
4416.63
6144.88
2611.57
2611.57
4224.61
2688.39
2580.85
3840.55
5568.80
4224.61
4301.42
16130.31
10753.54
4992.72
5376.77
7297.05
8449.21
6912.99
4032.58
3302.87
4224.61
5760.83
2688.39
5760.83
10561.51
6144.88
3456.50
3840.55
4608.66
4224.61
10369.49
4992.72
4224.61
4224.61
6912.99
- 4608.66
7681.10
3072.44
4608.66
-720.96
9217.32
4416.63
6912.99
6912.99
6144.88
192.03
5376.77
9985.43
960.14
18434.64
8065.16
6144.88
B-13
-------
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS
Shop Code
Number of
jobs (a)
totals/week, liters
total/year, liters
Prepartion
Solvent
Amount,
liters per week
1012.50
52650.00
a A job is defined as an individual
repair and painting job, the survey is
dominated by small spot repair jobs
Clean Up
Solvent
Type
Clean Up
Solvent
Quantity, liter/job
Clean Up
Solvent
Amount
liters per week
458.61
23847.72
Total
Solvent
Amount
liters per week
1471.11
76497.72
Total emissions gr/week
Total Emissions kg/year
Total Emissions tonnes/year
Total Emissions Tons/year
Total
Solvent
Emissions
grams per week
1129974.30
58758.66
58.76
64.63
B-14
-------
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment
Shop Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Total Paint Use
(liter/week)
8
6
8
6.5
10
2
7
9
2.5
6.5
18
17
9
4
13
10.5
10.5
5
12
13
12
18
7
18
18.5
10
4.5
3
9
8
14
6
17.5
9
29
40
204
27
29
0.75
3.5
12
98
29
48
30
25
Paint Booth
Present
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ventilation
Device
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Control
Device Type
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Filter
No
Extractor
No
No
No
No
Filter
No
No
No
No
Extractor
No
Fitter
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Filter
No
Heat Cure
In Use
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
B-15
-------
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment
Shop Code
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Total Paint Use
(liter/week)
32
18
41
42
37
25
24
73
29
18
51
12
7
15
30
24
13
8
18
15
6.5
12
8
3.25
20
3
11
15
8
18
15
21.5
9.5
20
22
26
19
8
8
2
8
9
20
7
7
14
6
Paint Booth \
Present
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Mixed
Yes
No
Mixed
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
/entilation
Device I
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Control I
Device Type
No
No
No
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
Unknown
Filter
No
No
Unknown
No
No
No
Filter
No
No
No
No
Filter
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Heat Cure
In Use
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
No
N/A
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
B-16
-------
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment
Shop Code
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
Total Paint Use
(liter/week)
18
11
1.5
11.5
9
3
3
9
3
6
3
3.5
6
3
5
3
3
6
5
9
9
36
7.5
4.5
10
13
10
15
17
7
9
24
6
205
39
19
15
8
5
11
14
13
9
11
20
13
15
Paint Booth
Present
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Mixed
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Ventilation
Device
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
-No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Control
Device Type
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Filter
No '
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Heat Cure
In Use
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
B-17
-------
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment
Shop Code
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Total Paint Use
(liter/week)
16
15
17
52
8
13
16
20
10
23
14
1.5
47
16
11
Paint Booth
Present -
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Ventilation
Device
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Control
Device Type
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
No
Heat Cure
In Use
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
B-18
-------
Table B-4. Waste Generation Summary
Shop Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25-.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
46
49
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
60
61
62
63
Number o(
Employees
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
2
2
7
3
4
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
4
2
2
5
4
6
4
2
2
1
3
3
6
4
4
4
4
3
2
5
6
1
6
3
4
6
6
4
3
2
2
3
5
Average
Time on
Job, months
62
12
12
6
72
4
2
12
12
2
12
24
12
1
100+
1
100+
12
3
12
12
12
60
100+
100+
12
12
12
2
100+
12
100+
2
2
12
12
2
12
19
6
1
36
24
24
5
12
24
12
12
24
24
1
12
12
16
36
60
10
10
36
24
12
8
64 4 i 18
65
66
'3i6
3 ' 2
67 3
68 : 2
69 2
\ 12
" 24
8
70 2 12
71 ' 2 | 100+
72 3 ' 8
73 2 12
Season when
Most Jobs
are Done
Steady
Summer
Summer
Steady
Winter
Summer
Steady
Steady
Steady
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Steady
Summer
Summer
Summer
Steady
Summer
Summer
Winter
Steady
Winter
Steady
Steady
Steady
Summer
Steady
Steady
Steady
Steady
Winter
Spring
Steady
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Steady
Winter
Rags
(kg)
0.10
0.60
2.00
0.60
0.25
0.25
t.OO
0.50
1.00
6.00
1.00
1.00
0.60
0.50
1.50
O.SO
3.00
1.00
0.60
1.50
0.25
0.25
0.60
1.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
1.60
1.00
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.25
Fall 2.00
Summer
Summer
Steady
Winter
Summer
Summer
Summer
Steady
Summer
Steady
Summer
Spring
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Winter
Steady
Steady
Steady
1.00
0.2
20.00
1.00
' 0.2
10.00
4.00
0.50
6.00
10.00
2100
2.00
1.00
0.2
1.0C
0.50
Steady 2.0C
Winter i 2.0C
Fall i
Fall i 3.0C
Steady j 0.2
Fall 2.0C
Winter i 0.2
Summer 0 2
Fall
Summer 0 2
Wastes Generated
and Paper
(sheets)
15
6
10
3
10
8
4
e
3
1
8
30
10
12
10
8
5
6
10
15
10
8
10
3
10
8
15
8
8
8
10
6
4
8
Paper
(kg)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
0.60
0.25
2.00
5.00
1.00
- 1.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
15
10
20
5.00
. 4.00
10
10
4
2
6
10
10
5.00
0.25
0.25
2.00
2.00
5.00
10 |
20
10
5
15
5
20
10
10
20
20
15
12
10
10.00
i 4.00
0.00
1 4.00
1 10.00
! 0.50
5.00
10.00
I 4.00
! 10.00
i 3.00
! 0.60
10 '
10
3
6
12
6
5
10
8
4
6
3
20
6
7
! 1.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
2.00
2.00
0.5C
2.00
0.5C
1.5C
0.5C
03C
2.0C
05C
Cans
number)
4
3
3
3
3
12
2
6
1
5
7
6
6
3
6
8
3
6
6
6
6
6
8
3
7
4
4
5
10
2
2
7
5
8
5
5
5
6
S
4
6
e
12
s
1
3
Z
6
6
10
6
3
5
3
4
2
4
t
ape
rods)
10
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
1
7
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
6
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
e
Z
1
E
Comments
Jnttdy appearance, auto repair shop, open lo public view
Neat In appearance.
Meat In appearance, no wastes other paint shops In area
Dirty walls, come paint on floor, not a hazard to public
Generally dean and tidy, equipped with flre extinguishers
Wso auto repair shop, dirty and greasy, small paint shop use
Shop b small and crowded, but neat
Untidy appearance, painting Is done outdoors, paint on ซoor
Shop b dean In appearance without much activity
Abo auto repair shop, dirty and parts laying around
Neat In appearance, significant activity
Neat and clean, large shop neat and clean outside
Neat and clean, clean outside
Shop Is In a garage of house, paint on floor, access to public
Neat In appearance, next lo a high school
Neat In appearance, operations may affect neighbors
Shop Is small, dirty and crowded, access to public
Untidy appearance, paint on floor, In residential area
Some paint wastes on floor
Neat and clean, In area with other paint shops
Neat and clean. In area with other paint shops
Untidy appearance, painting b done outdoors, paint on floor
Basically neat In appearance
Untidy In appearance. In residential area, wastes poured In dri
Neat In appearance,
Untidy In appearance.palnt on floor
Untidy, abo used for repair work, paint on floor, In res. zone
Dirty with car parts and oil around,
Neat In appearance, wastes poured down the drain
Untidy In appearance, plastic, oil and paint on floor
Neat In appearance, paint poured down drain
Untidy appearance, many materials on floor
Untidy appearance, considered a possible fire hazard
Neat In appearance, some wastes poured In drain
Neat In appearance, good appearance outside
S 1 -leal In apoearance
6
10
2
3
1.6
2
10
10
4
6
4
6
7
6
2
5
10
2X
10
3
10
2
2
6
4
6
3
2
4eat In appearance
leal In apoearance
Shop not observed
J eat In appearance
No comments
Neat In appearance
-Jo comments
Neat In appearance
Jntldy In apoearance
^eat In appearance
'J eat In appearance
'teat In appearance, In residential area nuisance lo neighbors
Jntkty In appearance
Sleat In appearance
Untidy, possible fire hazard
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Shop not observed
Neat In appearance
Neat hi appearance
Neat In appearance, noise nuisance to neighbors
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat hi appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
5 INeal In appearance
4 Neat In appearance
1
5
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
3 iNeat In appearance, some rags laylnq about
2 ;Neat In appearance
4 'Neat In appearance
2 'Neat In apoearance
B-10
-------
Table B-4. Waste Generation Summary
Shop Code
74
75
76
77
78
78
80
81
62
63
64
85
66
-- 67
68
69
eo
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
88
09
100
Number of
Employees
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
2
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
Average
Time on
Job, months
24
1
6
12
24
14
12
36
60
36
13
15
24
4 24
4 6
2 ! 24
2
2
2
3
3
24
6
25
12
18
1 24
2 36
2 12
1 '
101 _j 2
102 3 12
103 3 46
104 2 24
105 3 12
106 3 36
107 3 24
108 3 12
109 2 24
110 i 3 12
111
112
113
114
115
2 24
2 48
3 12
2 12
2 24
116 1 3
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
3 1 46
6
4
3
2
3
0
3
N/A
6
4
4
3
6
3
2
2
5
48
24
24
36
7
36
12
2
24
10
2
S
36
10
100+
1
36
3 ' 100+
136 2 12
137 I 6 36
138 3 12
139 i 4 12
140 ! 5 24
141
142"
143
2 8
; 3 t 10
"3 12 ~
144 ; 3 6
<_4S _' ~2 " "" " ~ 1
1~46 ' ^2 12
easonwhen
Most Jobs
are Done
Fan
Summer
Fall
Winter
Winter
Fan
Fafl
Fall
Fan
Fall
Fall
Steady
Fall
Steady
Fall
Fall
Fall
Steady
Steady
Summer
Summer
Fall
Summer
Steady
Rags
(Kg)
3.00
0.2S
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
2.00
4.00
' 0.25
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
Steady 4.00
Summer
1.00
Summer
Summer 3.00
Summer 2.00
Steady
Summer
3.00
1.00
Steady 1.00
Summer 1 .00
Steady 0.50
Steady j 1.00
Steady 1.00
Summer 0.50
Steady l.oo
Summer ! 2.00
Summer
Summer
0.50
Summer 1.00
Steady
Summer
Steady
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Steady
Summer
Fan-
Summer
Fall
Summer
Steady
Fall
Fall
Steady
1.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.2
3.00
0.2
8.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
1.0C
0.5C
Winter
Fall 1.0C
Steady ' 0.2
Steady 2.0C
Steady 1.0C
Fall 2.0C
Fall 2.0C
Steady
Winter
Steady
St'eady
1.0<
2.0<
Steady 3.0(
Steady 1 .CK
Winter
Wastes Generated
wd Paper
(sheets)
8
7
8
15
8
a
s
10
12
12
12
10
6
6
5
Paper
(kg)
3.00
0.50
2.00
4.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.0C
1.00
- 1.00
2.0C
1.0C
i
9
9
12
8
6
3
3
12
3
3
6
10
30
4
9
5
5
8
4
4
3
6
8
10
6
10
20
8
6
10
6
7
12
6
2
10
5
20
10
10
5
2
S
12
15
8
6
5
8
6
10
5
8
8
10"
4
1.00
1.00
0.50
10.00
2.00
0.50
2.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
I 6.00
i 8.00
i 2.00
i 1.00
: 1.00
; 2.00
1.00
: 1.00
i 2.00
; i.oo
i 0.50
i 2.00
i 0.50
1 0.60
! 0.50
i 3.00
! 3.00
! 1.00
2.00
0.2
1.00
! 0.50
3.00
02
6.00
i 5.00
j 2.00
i 4.00
! 0.2
! 3.00
i 1.00
35.00
i 1.00
1.00
3.0C
2.0C
1.0C
1.0C
3.0C
1.0C
3.0C
20C
20C
" 2.0C
10.0(
5.CX
Cans
umber)
5
3
6
7
6
6
8
10
6
8
3
4
5
7
4
4
3
7
ape
(rolls)
5
3
2
8
6
6
4
6
6
7
6
2
1
5
2
Comments
-leal In appearance
-feat In appearance
teat In appearance
>leal In appearance
-leal In appearance
'leal In appearance
Untidy with some buckets and such laying about
Untidy In appearance, cars blocking street
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
-Jaa) In appearance
\Jeal In appearance
'teat In appearance
Untidy In appearance, wastes poured down the drain
Untidy and dirty In appearance
Kleat In appearance
Neat In appearance
2
2
3
2
2
Untidy possible fire hazardj wastes laying about; poured In dra
Untidy with cans and other wastes laying about
Neal In appearance
No comments
Untidy disorganized, possible fire hazard
3 1 iUntidy and dirty In appearance
2
6
2
1
3
5
6
3
3
3
1
6
3
1
2
6
4
1
2
^leat In appearance
Meal In appearance
Dirty In appearance
Operation Is undertaken In open on street
Neal In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance although run down
Untidy and dirty In appearance
2 i No comments
1 i 2
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
10
4
5
2
2
1
4
5
2
5
4
2
12
1
3
7
3
5
6
6
5
2
2
Untidy In appearance
Neal In appearance
Neat In appearance
0.5 iNo comments
2
3
2
2
1
8
3
1
2
2
1
3
6
1
6
2
2
6
2
3
1
1
2
2
6
Generally clean and tidy
Jntldy In appearance
ieai In appearance
Neat In appearance surrounded by walls
Neat In appearance
Untidy
Neal In appearance
-leal In appearance
>Jeal In appearance
Neat In appearance
Vo comments
Meat In appearance
Neat In appearance
No comments
Neat In appearance, some wastes dumped on ground
Neal In appearance
Untidy In aooearance . some wastes poured down drain
Neat In appearance
N/A
Neat In appearance
Untidy In appearance, possible (Ire hazard
Neal In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neal In appearance
Neat In appearance
4 iNeat In appearance
1 iUntldy In appearance, surrounding area Is dirty and untidy
1
1 5"
lUntldy In appearance
iNeat In appearance
5 i 1 iNeat In appearance
4
"7
5
3 INeat In appearance
1 2
5
Neat In appearance
iUnlldy In appearance some wastes laying about
5 j 5 Neat In appearance . .
8 i 25 Neat in appearance
3 Untidy In appearance
B-20
-------
Table B-4. Waste Generation Summary
Shop Code
147
148
149
ISO
151
152
153
154
155
156
total/week
total/year
Number of
Employees
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
5
3
Average
Time on
Job, months
14
12
36
100+
16
12
100+
2
36
14
Season when
Most Jobs
are Done
Rags
fral
i
Fall
1.00
SteaoV 1 2.00
Winter
Sleaoy
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Fan
Winter
0.50
0.25
1.00
6.00
2.00
223.05
11598.60
Wastes Generated
Sandpaper
(sheets)
3
8
4
6
1ฐ
10
1
10
14
14
1349
70146
Paper
(kg)
4.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
,_ 2.00
2.00
0.10
6.00
4.00
L S.OO
401.65
20885.80
Cans
(number)
5
2
1
f,
2
2
e
7
603
31356
Tape
{rolls)
3
4
E
2
4
3
e
e
6
574
29848
Comments
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neai In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
Neat In appearance
B-21
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO
EPA-456/R-99-006
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Emissions and Prevention/Control Techniques for Automobile
Shops in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico
5. REPORT DATE
August 1999
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S) John D. Jeffery and
Mark Saeger, SAIC, 100 Capitol Drive, Durham, NC 27713
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S.-Mexico Information Center on Air Pollution (CICA)(MD-12)
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68D30030
Work Assignment 111-98
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
For more information call the Clean Air Technology Center / CICA Information Line at (919) 541-0800 or
access the CICA Web site at < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica/>
16. ABSTRACT
Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from automobile body repair shops are believed to be significant and
to contribute to ozone nonattainment in El Paso, Texas and to violations of ozone air quality standards in Ciudad Juarez
Mexico. The Direccion de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia (DDUE), (the local agency in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico)
requested CICA's assistance in determining emissions from and identifying appropriate pollution prevention and contro
techniques for automobile body repair shops in Ciudad Juarez.
This project: (1) reviewed existing data; (2) developed a detailed and comprehensive questionnaire; (3) collected data
through a survey; (4) compiled the data into a database in a format suitable for estimating and tracking emissions in
Ciudad Juarez; (5) collected information on total paint sales from the major paint distributors in the Ciudad Juarez are
to serve as an independent check on reported paint and solvent use data and to augment emissions estimation
procedures; and (6) identified and evaluated pollution prevention and control measures to reduce the emissions of VOC
from these operations in the Ciudad Juarez - El Paso area and in the U.S. - Mexico border area in general.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI Field/Group
automobile refmishing, coating
Emissions inventory, volatile
organic compounds, air pollution,
U.S.-Mexico Border
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited, available from the OAQPS
TTN Web page and NTIS
19 SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
20 SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |