-------
1
D
as
H
2
8
OS
CO
2
O
H
ft1'
*c
os
2
CO
17
\3
06
H
U
I
as
|
OS
o
£
U]
B
5
0.
a,
£
1
§
M
s
X
00
1
r*
W
m
&5
n
CO
•P
C
10
iH
04
1
00
4J
e
M" -. ~ * oT
<* 41 lit i* 00 t0 . CO rt
in « ^ •» co o . in49^
^— " «^ «* o» *» *** in" tH
"* ~" *" - -
co n _j to *o ._
com in M^2
^ ^ • to ^*? in in. • ^ ~~
in o r«ot«* *> ^
ct ^ ift ^
-.
VO 3
<•* ^*
•
O f*
in r»
p*
* *
•o c » 73 e •
TJ ^ ^t 9 9 V ^ ^ 9 9 41
« ja«e - -» JQ « c -^
>iO« ^ • -4 • 4 4 .H ••^•44
44 tu OK 4 iJ 44 8 U IN O» 4 U 44 f M
U C jQ **» 4 3 Ch • C A •>» 4 3 CU •
• * 0 "* -M^O 3 " 44 *!8 * 3
o— »4 — u o u" — . o TT o iT u o w" M o IT *o v«
OUOU « O><44 9*4 >*>>••><• U>44 O»^ >» > >• • >
> 9* •> 44 ^ cx 4 jj ^ "•* 44 >^ ej<« oa ^ ^
^. ">. M , o 4^ • £><~4>«au -4 >• o 4 a • ^ >, ^ >
M *4 W *4 O
49Sfltl 1 II 1 SOI 1 II 1
1 1 4J
M
H • •
2-51
-------
a
D
2
M
2
O
0»>
06
a
en
2
O
f^
C^
06
2
w
1
^^
H
H
i
06
0
V)
06
a
U
0,
1
0*
2-8. MEDIUM MODEL
H
CO
&5
PO
•
03
4J
C
<0
o!
CM
1
CQ
4J
e
cu
i
GO
4J
C
» r^
in • gj r» M M. MotM9«. 0. -^ Q» -^ 9 « . ft-4 O. -^ O>
• • c >. a, x • • c >, a. x • • _c
hi 9 « «4 4J IK -19 « >4 4J I U ^49 «jl
e £*•>« 3 o. • t» e ja->.« 3 o. • *• c jj-^.«
Wl -4 O 0 ^ • -O -4 O O -^ • fl -4 OC
0 41 > W -» «^ — • O *— O> > W— "4— O «— 0>
U Oh — O M 0 U -4 Oh — O h O U -4 O U —
• O >, 4J 9-4 >«>>••>< U O >< *» 9*^ >,>>»•>, U O >, *J O<-^
*» ^s. CJ<« A -x. "*» • ^ CM* A -» ^ • ^ CJ<«
H 0 « 4* -**+ m 0 m Q « M O«4J «^> • 0 « O « X O « -W -^
a- s2 §*8 3 .2 .2 " .2 8S8 S .2 .2 "4. •*• § ?8
?S lh °i> -3 lu lu JS lu °2S "3 lu lu JSS lu ''i1*
a u -i >, o «.a • ^>,^>, « u *H >. o «ja • -i >, -4 >, « u -i >, o « ja
I h 0 ""^ O O r* 0 "** 0 "** "9 O "**• O 0 ^ O **» O ^ m U O "** O 0 **
]SS >J >0~ * >^ >r* 4j >ld >°~ * >-« >^ i^ >J >o-
soi i ti i 3 a. i i ii i 3 3 i i
• • •
2-52
-------
I
p
M
2
8
06
O
CM)
fj
H
2
0
H
EH
<
EH
OS
2
CO
a
EH
^^^
>
M
§
X
i
OS
o
fa
i
04
EH
04
W
Q
O
X
§
M
O
H
00
1
1
M
H
09
EH
r">
1
CD
4J
e
(0
^ ^ «» C . -4 •
4J T3 -4 J3 U -4 4J fl ^ -H
>i Q. X • « C > Oi C
15^5? SJ? 13^*
3 Oi • Eh C Jl*v.4 3 04 •
~t 4 TJ -4 00-44-0 LI
0 -1 14 4J ^ O 0 0 -<0
> o — -•— o 4— o> > g— ^— -4
OUOU-4 0 U — O U 0 U 14
>• > >t 4 >i U UX*I O»rH > > >< 4 >i •
• 0 4 0 4 X 0 *4 4J »*>« • 04 0*4 H
3 «£ «2 "^ «2 § e 8 3 2 «2
rH 1 ** 1"" «4 i "* O-^> FH 1" I"* M
O3u3hJiO9bt 4t oSuluii
• -I >, -4 >. 4 O ^4XU4jQ • -^ >. ^ >. « U
0 •*» O"**. 08 W 0^» O 0 •-« 0*^ 0"»» 1 f
* >* >^4 14 > ij > O -» «> > ^H >»H J3B
ii i 2 o i i ii i a a.
• •
—
3 £" *
" » 3
<• •*•
"
CO O CO
r>» M •
o
MO •*
r<
« e
• 9
J S »
• 1 I *
9 4 J 4J 1
•5 ^ 0*0 -«
u- «8° §
8 £ v *:r >,
^ ejt 4 JQ
"0*4 v --^ •
• 2 § °*8 3
a w o-^ > ^H
3 w *» o
"3-5 8*3 *
•^ >J 1^ O ^" O
1 1 1
—
OD ^
% ^o
, -( >
*^ ^*4 ^ rH
i i
2-53
-------
CO
=
(0
Irt
3°
CO
8
M
M
•
O
* S s
« « 5
- 3 «
7
CO
^
10
il
§
MEDI
CO
I
(N
M
J
03
IS
A TJ
r* •
U
«
4J
0
a
(0
V4
2
cu
3
i
u
5
u
u
X
I
8
o. ^
& «4
I
2?
28
I I*
$2
x3
*
"* > "* 1
4J O 9
• *
3U « O
•S^1 ?8
5> iH
>^ js «
0» •
"* *^
ISU
0 h 3
• ^ >• ^
3
O
iJ
-
o -
2-54
-------
1
w f^
E" l
2 00
8 4-
>- e
10
os ^
ecu
U
0
H
&4
c
en 10
u cu
04
i
cu
1 U
X 0)
* 3
5 a
H <0
P h
U (0
X CU
•
CD
N
3
03
10 • *~ - M — C* £ ^
,
3 •a ja i a • 6» «
» -4 M « e . -4
«• *0i* eu^a««« cu
>iOi, cu
a««c •-^«««
§U O 9 4ij4Jlw
3 a, • z c jj'-« 3 a. •
-« • -a -4 o o -^ • -a
O -^ U4J«4OUO -^
o tr "3 IT -4 SIT o>— * o »r "3*?
rt ^^ ^^ A ^^ g J^ 0 rt ^^ ^^
• 0*3 0*3 N <0<« 4J »•>> • 0*« 04
•a 9 a> H » e o»y -099
5 1" f .* p 85i i 1- |~
2 IS, IS, -S8 IS, 8 IS A S IS, IS,
o -^ o-^ a u o~>- o o -4 o •>» 0-**
« >*4 >•+ I 0 > *) > U <- « >-H >>^
j -H
II I J O I I II 1
? w • 3 3T
• » § • <•»
d ^* ^ ^^
*•* "*
in * »
* u« . o N
"I • ° » 1
CO « » « H
• • B
a I . 9 i
825 4* T? S
«4 CU ^ 9 4 • CU
«M • • e >. a.
O 9 « d 4J I U
Z C A>s.490t •
-4 o o -4 • -a
U 4J > a — -* —
•«4 OU — O Vl 0 Vl
b U >» *• 9^4 > > X • >
4^ %4 ^4 41 9 *M ^4 *M ^H
fl °2 gi1? 3 °» °5
54 1^* O-^> -^ I" I ""
O 914.U O 3 M 3 U
• U O^OO** O*^ O^»
M
id O 1 1 II 1
2-55
-------
o
ca
D
Z
H
g
8
as
*s
g*
o
OJ
2
O
H
*$
Q£
g
w
<
H
U*
M
§
X
as
o
2
S3
S
a*
cu
.3
N^
ca
MEDIUM MOD
•
03
1
N
TABLE
n
CO
4J
e
10
Q,
P*S
01
1
CO
4J
C
(0
04
r-l
CO
e
19
cu
Parameter
~
o o n no
o o n no
o o n no
•
1
• >»
8 2
* 3 1 fl •
-4 M b J3 M M
f~4 e -4 *4 -.4
hi Qi • B —. « *»
o e OM 9 o
>, • -4 M H C J3
0» » J3 -^ < 40
e > jj i * i b
-4 e 2 ** u -n
o o o o n
o o o o n
o o o o n
B ,
cue
9 9 «
& » -a
f 1 J
& ' P >.
?s 2
0 ^H A
-4 « "2 *
« M I O Mb
^ «^4 ^4 9 U' ^ *4 A
V ^* 4 ^ sn4 "^- •j »f tJ
0 M 9 O 0 3 0 -*
b H C^i > — :: .Q -4
4J «j 0 1 Cu 1 O "M
o * i b .c [j 3 u
JIO ^>> JN
M" • • S— • • Q
O
o
o
«
a. S
• «
b
ing waterwaah
de-draft for
spray, down-d
spray)
4J-4 -^
« «TJ «
*^ «-• 9
9 *» e
O • • i
bJ= 1 1
•4 4* O
O O JJ b
• 0 9 0
02 4s
?i
stf etf
>^>^ o
zz
•v.^. 0
Z Z
j* ff
•~^^. o
Z Z
e
4J
b
h ventilation
), m'/s (acfm)
curing ovena
4J T3
82 1
I -
5-5 V
b 3 •
M «— (9
C
c
a
ication
anafer effici
~i b
0, ^
0«
< 4
o» «
c b
Coati
Ave
2-56
-------
a
D
5P»
8
05
£J
U
CQ
O
H
«
2
2
2
e«
w"
H
i
i
ts
0
w
OS
u
i
04
04
u
o
o
X
3
H
Q
H
X
00
1
(N
3
01
1
0
C
10
Ou
1
CO
c
<0
04
H
1
QQ
C
10
0!
4)
0)
8
(0
10
04
™
^4 ^4 ^4 ^ j j
* 3 a a a ? "9 "9 o o o «
in a .3 .2 .2 minin >^"*.
m inr«r> uuu N»i«i»
* 3'a'a'a 'S'9'9 -o-o-o «•«
s ^«:p!t: ass iii*»
^.^n 555 -««
: 1 I
VI • -O 4»
0 5 : ^ « ,-
« o • M e *
4» -4 e f « *
« je Ji Ot A
O 4» O • •
U -4+4 U
S 5 5 3 3 8
-1-4 1 « X
S«M a ^ vi •
41 4»4li-4 • 4>4lfC 41 4» >
tj>« 4 « -4 « « « &• « « C
vTovvioo «
• • U • 41
> > 3 G >-n
2-57
-------
OS
P-i
U
03
IM
0
M
EH
«
O
04
03
2J
2
S
w
HH
Q
as
o
t4
5
OS
o
fa
CO
S
JJJ
1
04
e_»
3
^•4
flu
J
a
w
o
-5
3
*
0>
1
U
03
«M
1
U
4J
C
10
/-I
04
01
0
4J
C
(0
04
f4
i
•U
(0
04
Li
Paramete
_ 3*
cT °*
S - in
141 *
. «
rC CM
* 1
*"" 2.
o
* 2
CM ^
CM ^
S 8
£
^
00
eT *
5 r-
"* «n
p^ "*
*•* CM
in
at J*
CM
Ct ^
to ®
*** »
^
o ?
in 'T,
pT f*
* *
(9k 1^
CM CM
CM •
• d
o» r»
^O ^D
CM
S
• — W
3 14 >
9"^ iJ
C *4
-* * • U
-* 04 >•
V >H 4 -H'X.
U « O «^
3 -W 4> «
TJ 0 *» 09
0 fri * H —
14
04
0*
f-4
a
>o
in
^
CM
^
CM
% _ ^.
§ 2 « 2
o
f*
-^
1*1
co
m
O
CM
^
in
«M
«»
uT 2 « 2
1-4 t-i in
o»
in
CM
CO
at
CM
CM
S « „, 0
» M 4 f
3 5 ° 5 8 ?, 3
•3- * ? ^ ^ ^ 5
• g, ? « S 5, -S *
-1"-. -4 0 O 4 « •
4-t *j -4 js -a 3 •
4J 4 4 U «
O 9 14 « U
H~$a>*«oo
a. 14
O 04
^ -« ^ —
2 o , -i 9 4 « >
J^ « e > ^.
-4 4 -4 f 4 -<
944h44JS W «
u c a» .0^4 3 at 49
ft-4*- OO»H • TJ —
44 > g -~ -i u
0 O > — O U 0 >
-4 U1^ -U 9^4 X > >» ••>.
14 >J GM 4 A ^ ^H
• 44 •->. m 0 4 O •
44 C T> C 9U TJ 9 TJ
14-4 f • OCO>4 f ~ S '
Cb > 1 4 44 O I U 1 ^
t4<-4i4 O 4 ja tie -i >i -i a
M TI ooiOOrH 3 o^^ o a
o >• > o — * 9 > -• >4
-4 14
14 -4
« < 1 1 1 1 1
e
M 4)
2-53
-------
a
D
Z
M
Sp
8
«
|
CO
2
O
H
6«
<
EH
«
2
(0
2
2
£1
•>*
u
>
§
X
<
§
s;
03
OS
M
2
1
"3
cu
Si
A
h4
Q
i
»
0
•
(N
U
CO
f)
1
u
4J
c
(0
,.4
cu
01
1
u
4J
(0
r-l
04
<-l
1
y
4J
<0
r— 1
0.
^4
4)
Paramet
™
*
£~ S « «----.
A <^ M ^4 ^ ^ f% IWI
T. • • "1 M PH • _J d d
8 * "* S -^ ^2. S * i
^^ *^
^ p»
S S ^SJ 2s «2*
_T « ^ M ^ * **t 55
~ ^ ' ^* * * A Ma * ^
i^4O»« « >•! >, ^ O» « « >
u -^ « c > -^ -3 ^ « c >» -«s.
-^ 0» « * iJ 4J S U «CUO**flJjJS U 4
0 C 0* Jl ^*^ 43 CU fli O* fi 9 J3 ^** << 3 Qi • 9
o -^ — ' oo^ • •a-~u-*<~ oo^ • -a^u
4J » — o u o >. u o >. — o u o >• w
u ijej<«ja •>> ~* v *t GM * a **> ~* 4*
4I%4 419 O » 4* -^ • O«0*MO»4J «>^ • O « O » M
C -0 g 90 -0 ^9 -0 ^-0 C 90 "O _9 "O
-< •« o c o -^ S ~ 1 * !* o e o -< S "* i * * •"
>> 1 « 4« o iul^«i« 4J o 1 u 3 ^ « o
u «4i4 u«ja • c -i > -4 a m -* u o « jj • e ^ > ^ o. « o
^3 0 fli O 0 ^ 3 0 ^^ 0 Qi 1 0 Oto O O *"4 3 O *^* 0 flU 1 W
kl 9 O*^
^J ^J ^J Q
41 1 1 1 I S 1 1 I 1 IXO
• • •
9 —
in vo
^ •
•• »
^ '*"*
\A
a in
% •
fl O
^
14 -•
> *4 9
*** « C
94 « J 4J
4 14 O S*
o >* ^^
Voluma of c
aprayad, L/
VOC contant
coating, kg
(Ib VOC/gal
i i
2-59
-------
a
w
3
Z
W
£4
SB
1
OS
2
u
CO
Z
o
M
e_*
PORTA1
w
1
t*
^^
u
>
M
1
5
OS
0
h
CO
Cj
U
p*4
X
*£
£4
04
J
U
a
i
Ed
O
•
at
fM
Ed
i4
S
6*
n
1
U
4J
C
10
,_4
a*
(N
1
u
-p
S
2.
„ «-4 O)
. '* *
* 1 « o
"* CO CM
-W fl 14*
4 * >»
>« ->.
• 4 -4
i w 4
3 Qi • 9
-4 4 fl '-
0 -4
> O — -4 V(
Oh 0 >
>• > >. 4**«
A ^. ^
. -« a.
3 O"^ 0 CU b
* 9 >*^ > 4 0
•^
u
III*
M
X
u
I * * | S
* « 3 CM* 2
•^ -4 3
"" -
^ *0 MK
o in * o 2
in «o • CM 2
» . !•» . °*
(MO CM O aT
o> r» *
«
— e » —
U -4 V fl U
>, -4 0» 4 « >,
^ « e >» ^
-< 4 -4 • 4 -1
944(4448 14 4
e 9 .a^-4 3 QI 49
U ~4 > UAP4J4
U U 0 >• -» O U O >.
«4 (!•>« *J 9-4 >• > >, 4-^.
•us N) cj< 4 a ^ f4
X-3 »4 «9 «M-4 «0-4>~4 i 1-4
4-434 41 0 3 U 3-4
CO .Q -4 U U4JB 4 C -t >i -4 Q,
1-4 0 Q. O O -4 3 0-^.OCU
£ X >• >0^ *9 >-• >4
9«
-4 -4
X Ou 1 | | | I
•
%
W 44
O 4
-4 O
h-Bak4 Bxt«r
xibl* Color c
94
-4 -4
X fel
•
eT
rt
in
«
CM
l»l
in
1-4
<
-4
II
Su
!«
i*
h
•
_. •
4-44 4
4 «J 4J 8 M
xi^.4 3 a
00-4 4
> O —
— 5 u
SS"3 j? >^
• 9 -M-"
V « -4 I
*> o 3 u
U 4^ 4 C -4 >
O O -4 3 O-x
> U ^ * 9 >>H
1 1 1
2-60
-------
O
U
D
2
5 n
i i
Z, 4J
C
« «
CM C*4
0
w
<
I .
U 1
3 o
0§ 4J
6* C
***• «J
U r-4
> 04
M
|
«
O
fa H
ca '
aj y
W .p
U ^"
2C *
1 *
04
|
04
J
U
a
i
E 2-9. LARGE
Parameter
i4
CO
&«
-
_^
^ o ^r ^*
ao S IT *
^3 fu ^^ ^^ Q^
QO • 09 *O
* 2 * n £ i
^^
O ^ CM * r» OK
rn m in « CM «-4
^ ^ O *^ ^ O
d 10 1*1 r^
« e
-» — C • — -4
5, & ^ 01 li i Si a
S ^ S 5 s 5- ^5
« 944k444§ U 4^4
• O) Cai^)^43 Qt • O» *•
•O — b 44 •* «- OO »H « T3 —
-4 O444 > 0«*~4b O
0 >i U 0 0 X — O Vi O >. -4
• "-. • b O^ 44 0»-4 > > >i «-^ b
*4444 J C J< 4 J3 ^N ^4*
« • Q * Q * H
TJ O -O C QIC TJ » « H
«e « «« o c o -« i ~ f •
i-^JSc a >. o-4> -4 I 1-4 e
3>^4^34 44 0 3b3*^J<
-< cu 00.0 -i w y «ua • e -• >, -4 a 4 b
o cu 1-4 ootOo^ a O^N o cu ca •
> 4 J8M >• > Q "~ * 9 >** > 4 Ifl
0* • * ••*
-4-4 Ob
i x *. i i i i i >Ja*
• •
j_^
*^ 4^ Q
w o" "J S « S
"* ' M « N .
• «e •* • m ..^
CO »» *"* i^Ot« « >>-4 >
~» « C >. — M --
-4 • -4 « « -1 • "•
Ot44ij44B W « -t Ol«
eo*ja*^43 Qi 4o>h> ca
^ -~ OO^ • TJ-» -4 —
44 > y — . -i u o 4b
>, -. ObON-4 0>
u "^ 44 o»*4 >» > > e ^« b O'*-
iJ GJt 4 A "^ ^4 • U
. e 04O»M 0 -
•a e o»y -a a* * H n
ei o c o -* 1 *- 1 • ** i «
I > 0-4? -4 I i-4 « 4 1 >
34 44 O 3b3-4J, -« 0. 4 U -I U
0 Ck O 0 •* 3 0 "*-. OOtOlb OO
> 4 > 0 — * S» >-4 >4 10 >•
j ^4
1 1 I t i J O t
•
2-61
-------
a
3
H
§
^
OS
o
&^
^J
64
CO
Z
O
fcri
£
OS
2
CO
1
§5
^^
Cd
H
UTOMOT
I
W
8
3
«p
1
fcri
0.
j
H
Q
C9
1
CN
W
CO
r»
O
4J
C
(0
s
B*
M
1
o
c
<0
04
1
y
G
(0
04
M
Paramete
1 - «
* » °
i
r*
O O CO
w in •
• . o
MO ^
— *" P 5" — 3" *"
i^ ^*2^ MC^ ^ocn
in SH,*^ 'tW o"^
^* «s ^ i ** f **
"
eo _. m o» _,
co r* o JT >o O co eo
O ^°^in cad ^eo*^
e ,-«^-.e »-• — c
— * 44V MJ3 U -4 4J ^ U V< -4 4J
«e >. -V.M -^ » c >» -s. ^ *• c
• -^ 4 4 -^ « ^ 4 -^ « 4 »4 -4 4 -^ «
4U4J § U 1 r! W4 4UM I U 4 0*4 4nJ-U g
£^••43 Qi « 0« fct CO«J3'>>43 Ot « 0» CO»ja*>>43
U 0 -^ • — • U U -4 ^- O O ~«
> CJ — . -^ U O 4 U 0 > > O—^W-*S4UO> >
e5*4 5* >>««*^W O^.*» »^ >» >>4">.«UO'*»JJ O»^ >t
Sdlf 5 °S "T,* 2 %* loif 5 ^ft °T? fiJ5 ^^ lolf 5
85§ ^ 1- 15 .tJ 1?, 85g ^ p 15 53 15, 8-5S ^
** 0 3h3<^J. -< a. 4 u -t M U4j9 4 e -H > -^ a oa 4 -• u U4J3 • c
O 0 ^ 3 O^.OQ<(BU O Q4 O O »4 3 0 'x* 0 CU 1 »^ OCUOO^ 3
>U'"<»O>>>^ > 4 14 > 4 > O •» <» 9 > ^4 > 4 JS • >U"«Oi
0 -4 -»O
1 llliJCJII 1 1 1 B Z 1 | l
' •
2-62
-------
1
e"?
£J
8
^*
OS
g
w
CO
2
O
H
O
0,
M
3
S
6*
w"
M
OS
o
hi
CO
s
U
»
i
O4
&«
2
M<
j
u
a
i
U
at
i
(M
04
ta
£«
(*)
1
U
e
10
04
C4
1
O
4J
C
a
H
U
•U
G
(0
04
Parameter
O» 9»
^ 00
•o r>
« %
^ CL
* •»
2 S
« U)
m «-•
^ 14
>» "-»
« -4 4t
Volume of VOC ipr
1/yr (gal/yr)
Volume of aolid*
applied, 1/yr (ga
gh-Bake Exterior
nflexible Colorcoa
-4 O
1 1 S Z
•
o
in
CM
nt
10
oo
vT
^
Volume of coating
•prayed, L/yr (ga
i
—» C4 lO a
* « °. s
* m ^ •
*• ' fi 3,
•
in « | 3
in • . m
' M aT •
° W "* M
e
^4 ^ T3 14
-1 0> « « >.
« e >. ^.
• -4 e « -^ v
« u -u i u « «
J3^. « 3 O, • O» 0
O O -4 • -O >- V4 O
** O O O «4 O M
0 > > O — . .* U -* «
~ O U O >. U •
G J* * A ^. -4 4J O
« 0» IH^ U «• * O> >>H >« JS«4
o»c
1 III 8Z
•
I « r 5 5
M gj CO «O
lA ^ O * *
I-* *"* ^* ^
»• * 0«
O 01 * O 00
f^t U) • CV^ W
• . en • .
MO m in in
at in -H
*
- S .
W -W 41 •& V4
>« -H o» « e >
^ : 5 , sr ^
?3. ^^ 1 S, .S
•* — yo-< • -o —
•W > U — ~4 U
>• — O 14 0 >
0*>. 4J 9*4 >, 5 >, »^
~* S^S ^ »4^ *4-
°i l?8 3 °2 °.r
§ « *3 'o S u 3^
^M u«j3 ee ^ >. -H a
ootoo*^ 3 o^ o a
> e > o— #9 >-• > «
ii ill
2-63
-------
s
D
M
H
Z
8
>^
OS
2
y
CO
o
M
OS
S
CO
I
>
o
X
OS
o
CO
OJ
Ed
04
04
w
Q
O
Ed
O
•
9.
1
Ed
00
&*
*"•
t
U
4J
C
•2
eu
i
c
£
CJ
4J
Parameter
-Bake Exterior
flexible Primer
11
•
CM
-4
CO
«n
in
,
o
>,
f+
9«
e 9
44
« w
0 >,
O1^.
•4
t >»49«
• a >• -«v ^ e e
«,-)+> 8 U 4 « 94 « H) 44 I
JJ-^< 3 CU «9 0 69 A**** 1
00-4 m 13 ~ 0-4*- OO.-4
*4 O O 0 -4 141444 -M O O O
o > > g^<4uoo«uo> >
44 9^4* >i >>•->» U O O'** 44 9^4 >«
ex* A -^ -4 «u J ejtm j»
« 9 H4 »4 , -4 a « « ^u w «-fl ee
>oi «9 >^ >• i»4 >e > o ~ «9
1 1 1 I iJ Z 1 1 1
•
_^
if !'
*^ fH «?
^ ^ ^
^J *^ ^w
* o **
0» « 0*
^ " n
•
i I I
4 «™4 >4J ^
U « « 94
a • 9 o c 9
-4 U 14 44
O — . ^ U Q« « U
-JO. «J« -414
O ^» 0 Ot m ** O U
1 1 3 X t
.
2-64
-------
o
w
a
g.
2
OS
p
o
0)
z
o
E-i
!
en
2
£4
•^
W
>
i
o
fa
w
g
«g
3
2
a.
a,
j
w
o
i
Ed
U
GO
IS
01
1
O
•U
e
10
cu
1
o
c
(0
a.
H
u
c
(0
o*
^0}
V
+J
a
(0
(4
(0
a.
-*• -i*
* « S S
W ° * *"!
*" i «^
01 ...
o •
« B >, -^
• -H f « -4 • •
4d44lb« • e b «
-a~x« 3 a « o« B 3 3 jc
O 0 <^ • TJ — 3 Ql • 4J
> O — -4 b >• « O
— O b O >. « >• « b A
-U QiiH >. > > «^. ffl 4 b CU
• •*» ^ *4^ H-^ *J 5 « . S, ? i~ J
4^ «"x, •O40»C-4CJB« OH b
B g«o -o .°lJ.'0i« •*•**_ ° -^t* °
O C O -4 •^-•••B^'40'Q TJ -4 9 -4 § 1-4 a « o • • 4* • i* •
•P 0 3b 3-4 -4 M b J3 H M 4 M SO M b
U«.a«C'4>«<-4Ql3-*49 ^4 ^4 ^ 4J >-l -^ 3 OT «4 ->4 «
>o>-«9>^r>4«o 635>3go5'3g'o'~3giJ
> • -t w»4 6 2 UH B JO >— G 2 -4
0» • £ -4 < 4O4J 4Olfl«4O w i » • h o* a b £ .j a b
-4 B 0 *4 b Ul «O O»> >
4J O 0 • • X "- • • O
S
2-65
-------
Q
W
D
2
&4 C^
2 J
8 °
C. -U
C
os fl
| 0,
W
2
o
H
?s
OS
o
04 O|
«) I
5 °
i +>
H c
u* fl
> 04
M
Q
|
OS
o
s 2
u
S 4J
M C
2J 10
ffi
04
Ei
0,
iJ
H
a
i
M
H 0)
S ti
OS 41
5 a
14
«
04
1
H
J
CQ
i
_
—
m 2 no
o • *^ «o o
«*4 ^*
^
m 2
44»> 4J*. JjJ CO
^5-2 g; ^7 5
o» i u a > • > b
e a fta •> * a
~4-qa usa f u
4J-4 »4 4JI 4J fl
4 • Q 4 0 • 09 'O
-4 -'a 3 o — ov a
3 jj «s ja-4 ja «* b
u a 4 4 4 1 -^
bjsea >• 3 xo » 44-^
-i b -Ob OO > >
a a a
444 000
•3 -3 •«! r» m m
b b b ^ CM w
444
a a a >, >, >
3*3 4 4 «
III 332
a
•3
^ 4^
3 1
& J
b a. u o -ua Q. o u
• b
> 3 e
2-66
-------
n
U
z:
01
a
I
•a
«
2,
o
o
• 44
2-67
-------
OS
Q
p^
o
u
03
56
0
M
&4
1%
&4
«
2
to
5
2
&^
H
E*
2
g
g
OS
2
to
OS
u
i
I
04
e«
ss
fC
04
J
W
Q
0
W
3
i^
cc
g.
x
CN
*
o
r-4
1
.
•W "X
srf
u »
oduction
Total volume of
uaed at capacit
(gal/yr)
u
cu
^
\J3
V0
0
o
ro
en
»
on
~~
.^
(*i
*
00
00
^
m
o
en
^
oo
O
en
olld> «p
L/yr (gal/yr)
— ^ m o
en 01 in
01
en
en
vO
01
%
^
^"
^
^
on
en
01
Ol
Ol
— * in o
O 01 in
*
VO
O
en
d
en
01
O
f^
f4
^
60
— •» m o
« 01 in
in
>o
14 a 4 « • 1 4
-4^4 -O « >i 4 B>
04 0 • ^. • 4 U
4 o» o» u m M a» o
— c -g 3 >. « -4
-4 ^ 5 0 4 « • U
4u.tJ~4.fi-g > • •
44 > 4 VI • 4J
O"- H « 0 C
Q. U M
o a>
*» — Ol
a o
in . *>
Ol vO
^ "^
p»
•**
r+ 01 01
^ P»
P» • ^
• O
en
01
Ol » «
a o» 01
-4 e e
4& *M •**) ""4 4i
u 4 u o ** ** e
O OX 4 J3 4 -
-4 O'X 4* O-* 0 XOI
u »] e u ~u A
• 4* 9 iJ -» • «
e TJ u c c^^ -a
M f « X 0«4U4 -4«
i x~>> u »« o a* -i £
X 3 4 -H •>-«.o:
UU ^4h4 O • O • -^
Of O Q. O> O * 9O O
J > 4 — > J3 J< > *>
-4 U
< a. i i i
•
2-63
-------
SECTOR
_
0
|
I
CO
Gd
1'
5 5
!< g
(X **
2§
CO *~
3
U
1^4
2
5
cu
fri
5
j
cu
^
u
o
i
u
05
T
NN
1
o
H
1
c\l
w
00
£5
r»
1
Q
4J
0
CU
•
M
0
4*
C
0
cu
•
Jo* P o" o" **! n o
in oo in • ^ t«> to
O4 OJ ^* 10 ^^ 00
co «H «n * «n
H VO *-• ^ O •— •
i ^^ W d
Q " "
4i
C
<9 f^ ^4 O€ O4 Ov ^B ^^
p*4 00 ^^ ^^ ^^ * ^P ^4
Oil^OO ~* • ^<*4
.
• C t3t O> •
fl -^ e e -o u
<«4 ^ %4 -*4 -*4 • ^4 Q
0 U ^14 U «U 04J.U SOU ^t U -^
o >• ox o o >» «ja « 5 o >» ox u
n >^ -^ 1J °^ S8i8 ^^ >^ '^ 5
ffl. M*J « • x o-to « -• • § •— f • x •
0 1 S1^ i^^1 xo i S^" °«5-5 ol l^x §3^ 4
14 ^u« rj 9«« wo ^u« u* 5i *"^ •* *•"** -»o«« a» u
M OOUWOtUWQU 0 CM O* O 4 O> O 0 0 CU*^ 0 CU 9 1 •
£ > • — > « ~ 0 >•<- >JO|J(> * > >•« >«*~ £B
* M^ 9 9-3
-40 -- -^ W
i i «o it 111 xeu
* *
0 *
in
r- in
<»7 "*
"•*
in in
on \o
0
•H
C O> CT
-* c e
4 U 0 4J JJ
0*>. *l 0 2 0
j e o <»u
"^w 3s^
-^ u « u • u
§3-2 g«ii
1 1
2-69
-------
as
g
w
ca
§
H
61
«
O
a.
to
1
w
^>
M
|
P M
E 3
Sg
II
CO *"
8
ft
S3
tC
2
2g
a.
64
2
o«
J
&3
o
o
z
ca
(3
^•4
EXTRA
o
H
|
3
OQ
r*»
1
O
«
flu
Of
1
Q
4J
e
A
04
H
1
a
c
iO
a.
(4
«
•M
8
M<
o"
o
o
in
vO
o
co
.)r>i vO in c« <-t oo
• CA *d co in • 01 ^
m r» ^ m • in in ^
• c at ai • e
TJ 14 -4 ec •a u -^
4 ^4 O -«J *W "*4 •*•) * ^4 Q 44
c y u -• w -4 4 u o ** *i euw -4 w • -4 4 u
3 O >« 0 >. Ui 0 >» 4 JJ 4 3. O > 0>« Wi U O >
> >'*« ••^ « o->» 4* o -4 o >a> >"** m-^ «• o-^
J3 f* -4 4J iJCO^OD -4 -4 4J 8 U
4J4 — » • 4 O • O •— • H M 0 >
*o "O w ^ 14 Ttuec •>»»4 t> Q fl u 4J a> •o
-4 § ••>« I • >» « ** 2 « ^ o-< o « -^ • i « — !•>* w • i*
-4 I I >,•** § -4 -^ J« 4 § >^ 0 ^ O 0» -4 1 § > »4 1 -» ^s. « J<« i>,
O3 3 4-4 3-t^4 4Q 34-4 «>^. O3 3 4 >. 3-4^4 0. 4-4 d4
• -4 -4U« -4 0.4 OIO -4 U 4 0 • U «-4 -4 U^s. -4 Ot 4 ad -H U
0 OOiOi OOiO) Ib O O,O> O « OiO O 0 Q.-4 O Qi O» U 1-4 0 Q.
* > >«^->4— £0 > • — > J3 J<> * > > • « > 4 — 0 JC X >•
CII^^ 9 **^ 9 0
-40 ~ l«-4-4
ii i ao i i it i •Shi
M
• H •
2-70
-------
OS
CO
z
0
H
I
1
CO
2
EH
u
^
H
is
|« 3
Sj 3E
*^ hoi
11
CO ""*
OS
H
04
E-l
3
2
cu
J
u
o
o
ac
u
2
3
£
H
0
1
^
U
•J
03
O
4J
C
10
flu
i
a
c
&
fH
1
a
•P
e.
(0
a.
Paraaete
— (jt ^. _ -.-. o, _ ~~
*> • «O 9t O vfl • d 9»
* ^^ ^1 *4* O^ * lA 00 ^^
in •» cir»^
oo in 91 ^ in
in 91 o o otin d'OOCN
to «d
• 1*1 9» CM CO • in009>
O CM • • » o m»«
in 9t r» r» in
i-* d W -^ -^ « -^ 044> «U -* -* « -^
O-W4J B U 14 -1 M -^Q4t4 O ** *J SOU -^ )4
4 jQ 4 5 O >» O >. UUO>i 4 JS 4 3 5 >. O >i
41 0 >^ O >9>'x. a-x, « U U-x. 41 O ^ 0 >*9>-x. ••>.
C O «-O JQ »« ^4 4JO iJ C O — '« J3 *4 ~l
24J "M .»H Q -o w ^ u
P'4Sa*'S it** I*!*'?- iS.** P-^8* "* S !•* !•>
O ^ O 9 -4 | § >,^ | ^ "v. j< • | >,x.. O -^ O 9 -J § I >^ I -4 x.
• >-x* O 3 34^4 3f4»4 4-4 34-4 •>•>>. 03 34-4 3-4-*
U • U «-4 -4 U 4 -4Q.4 OB jQ ^4U4 04 U •-» -4 U 4 ^4&4
O 4 9O 0 0 0.9 O 0*9 1 -4 0 Q. 9 O 4 9O Q 0 Q. 9 O 0*9
> AM> + > >•«• > m *- ji * > • — > a M> * > > 4 — >4 —
9 •
i ii i a to i i ii i
•
0
2-71
-------
OS
g
w
«J
2
0
H
%
at
2
CO
2
£4
^^
u
^
H
i'
i? o
2 2
*• 1^
osB
f* 5C
i~
04
g
*|
•04
J
0
o
ac
a
1
H^
2
1
*
O
H
1
1
o
4J
c
(0
0.
o
c
04
1-4.
1
a
c
<0
04
Parameter
-.-» .»-.-. -»-. «-,
O <*l • CO ^ OO • 09
1-4 • cncoeo en* in 1-1
o •* m CM ^ env0 ** ,H
O O CO ^ r^
in fi — • CM CM
COCM ^onen r» CM mm
oo u) • m en OB r^ • ^
CM* cn*ao M« uten
«O rn«% «O *^«
en ^ CM ^ en
oo ^ ««i en P-
o< . « w - «
e o» o» 4 e o» o»
u *j -4 ec TJ -« ee
04 4J « 4J34 9O> O >» -4 U 0 > 4 J3 4 3 O >« U
• h O^ 4JO-^O >.O» >^> ••>. 14 I O-*. *» O^ 0 >»O* >4>
4^4 ij c o --o ja -H m • a ij c o '-o ja u^.
M M %4 tt ^J ^M %4 ^1 *4 %4 0 ^J %4 ^lU^^
H^H O »— ** « J —> 44 O •— O «•*> M t4 O •-* 4J 4 J — 44 044
U TJ U C C'x.^ -Q -Oh *O U M 0* -Qh C C ^.^ T3 O<
• ««>«O-4U4«4««4>ifa>« 4«>»O-»0«-44«« —
4 -H §4^4* « >^> O9 34^ 3-4^ .5*4 3 4^4 « >"N. 03 I 3 U
OBJ3 -4 U * 04 O 4»« -I U 4 •* Q« 4 4 H -1 U 4 O • O • -4 -H ^ >.
1 -t 0 QiO» O 4 O«O 0 0 QtO» O 04 O» 08-^ O 0. 0» O 4 O»O O OO^
JSW > 4 — >jQJ<> *> > 4 ^- >4<* IX >4— > AJt> + > > > ~
99 * •
-4 -H 5-4
Shi 1 II 1 Ufeil 1 II
0 0
2-72
-------
OS
g
U
CO
z
0
H
Ei
OS
2
CO
2
t^j
^^
U
>
H
|
O 0j
CJ 23
< §
OS E-i
8g
i
cu
H
2
2
cu
J
U
a
o
X
U
fj
2
^•1
g
0
1
M
H
J
03
n
1
O
4J
C
0
p-l
CU
(N
a
4J
g
a
cu
H
a
-P
e
id
cu
U
Paranete
-. -.— r--.— — — co
in or* • en o en w •
\o -4 • en ^ ^ en • o
vo o m -4 in CM cn« »
^ O O * ^
— U) * —• N
»4 oooo f^f^en ^o oo
O 00*0 «*O*9 ^|tf) •
m c«>eneno <0*o
. » O »^ - » <• Q •+
vo en •-( vo ^
oo IA <-« . en
en o» • «
• e*« • c o> o»
tj 4J-«4 o»9 -a 41^ ec
-4 14441 eC« -4 U « 4* «4-4-^«
-• u o o « u -i o o >i o 4» 4* i. 3 >» o >• -« o o >. «^« 3
•>» U U U^> * J3 * >tO» > "«• •*«. b>4 O ^. 410^40 >*O<
<-« «o iJ 4^oja ~t -^ • « »J e o — o ^
-• O 4* "M «4 4l**M • JJ
0 .— xq o «— • •« O »— O «— M^ o .-» 41 • iJ -» mm
•O U H O TJ Ui 4* • J — -O -O W *0 h H U IJ U C C >"< T)
««>i « • X C C *-.-4 ««• «•>« ••>• i • > ° -^ Si * ^ *
I -« ^ « • a >»*^ o -^ o « -i i 1 >.•»» i -^ *«. • • 9 >•*•» o ^ o o> ^ a
3-4-4 J<-4 5 « -4 U-4QOI 09 3 «-4 3-4^4 jif^ 34-4 •>•««. 03
-I Q.« 4 J3 -t Vi 4 «>*^ »-4 -4 H 4 ^ CU4 4J3 -4 W 4 U • O • -4
o Chen ea-4 o a,o» 040 o o o<9 o 0,9 pa 3 o Q.W o 4 o»o o
0-4 Q -4
1 iJhtl 1 II 1 iJ •» 1 1 1
• •
2-73
-------
OS
o
6
U
CO
2
0
s
E-t
06
2
ca
|
^^
u
g
O
•M ^^
If
< *
sS
CO *•*
8
cu
EI
2
J
cu
J
W
a
o
X
u
i
^5
H4
^
a
u
o
1-4
I
(N
U
ca
C_|
n
a
4J
C
id
cu
(N
1
a
(2
id
cu
i-t
i
o
4J
e
*
cu
h
Paranete
O W * **^ 1*1 O
•H • O 00 00 01
o * «* « r» o»
O O* 00 0*
in m — o»
«o O oo * m m
O in • «r
^r ^r
f"| tf*
« •»
Ul v«O
U1 f-t
,
g> * « . j?
• G QV Ol • C
•o hu-4 ee 'Q u -4
-4 0 ffl JJ *<-» -^ « -4 0 4J
Ut« -4 ^ ^ g 4 Vl 04J4J (SUM -1 W -4 4 h
O >. O >l V4-3 0 > 4^J « ?5>t OX 14 OX
>^ «-^» «u o^» 4to-*o >a> >-+. m-^ • o^»
r* -I 4JQ« tj C 0 — O ^l 4
« « >1 i • >1 • J3 « « >l 0-< 0 * -4 f ••>! ••>• • J 4J •*>
i >^ §-*-. j<-i I >^ o^oo» ** I 1 >»^«» i-^-s. j*-^ « !>•**•
3 4-4 3-t^ «M 3 4-H «>>* O3 3 4-4 3^^ 4MO 3 4~4
^144 -I Q.4 0)* -t Wl 4 O 4 U 4-4 "I h 4 »l O> 4 CO • U >HU4
OQi9 OQ«9 1^4 OQiOi O49O O 00*0^ 00*9 1 •• 4 W OCbC
> 4 — >4— J8 4 <— > J J< > * > > 4 — > 4 — OS*4 O >4«-
Ot C O»C ^-4
-40 -HOP
1 1 S Z 1 1 II 1 B Z O 1
2-74
-------
OS
01
§
i
6*
OS
2
w
w"
I*
P H
5 o
*• 2
o|
CO ^
fl
cu
&4
3
2
cw
J
u
Q
0
w
8
05
^5
hJ
^
CL*
B^
O
1
a
00
6$
•• »O i«i • »
^ m ^ ^4 co
*> eou >HU
• jQM 3O>« O >» b O >» « jQ « 3 O >» 0 >«
eo^-o ia ^ *^" 2 j" co~o a ^ *^"
** • j — • mm o •"- o -— M* o »<-» *• • j — •« o »— o -"-
e c^-4 TJ -o w -o u ^ TJ w c e^-4 -o -o u -o u
Q^U« -4 « • • >, 99>> «J3** • • * 0-404 -4 f f • >• «•>
o ^4 o 9 •* a i >••««. a -^ *«. j< -H « a >.-«. o -^ o 9 ^ a 1 >»-*. a -4 -*.
« >**. O 3 3 m~* 3~4~4 « M 0 3«"4 «>^o O 3 3«»4 3^4^4
u« u a~4 ^iu« -4A« ea • u ^» u m u« u a^ 4h4 ^cu«
O49O O Ofl<9 O Oi 9 \ f* It OO>9 O • 9O O 0 Qt 9 OQtO<
>&*> *> >•— > m «- jB«w « > • — >.Q.tf> «> > • «» > « —
-4 O -^
i ii i a z o i i ii i
2-75
-------
OS
&4
f\
fid
u
z
o
§
Of
2
w
l~
1"
*• M
(6 **
88
CO *•*
06
W
04
E?
2
0.
j
ca
a
o
X
w
o
**J
^5
i
X
w
o
1-1
1
M
W
a
n
I
a
4J
C
(0
£
CM
1
C
(0
o.
•-4
1
o
e
at
a*
Parameter
o o" • oT uT o £ *"•
Ot • in »H >O ,H . gi
9^ *o ^ **4 td O in *H
* ^^ * » % «w
•V * 'r4 0
n« (N — M
^^ ^* ^i*
r»f«i inrtf-i o> o> p«
40 ^ • ^i o co ^n •
m« incnm «M • at
«O !-(»» » O 1^
a» r» ao
^
Ot • * Ot • «
C 0* Ot e 699
M«4 CC rj -^ G G
H 9 4i « « ja * 3 o >» o >» -^ o >» «jae 3
u u o^ wo-^o >«9 >^ e^. u o-». 4*0^0 >5t
ecu u c o "O ja M e JJ
Me o «<-» 4J e J — e « o •— o -•~ Me o -^ -w e J -~ e«
M^H T3 u e e*>>-4 -o Tib •on w-4 -o u e e-^^< -a
A « « >. o-i o « -* « BOX ee>i JIM i • >* o-^ue -4§
e-< i >«-^ u -4 o 9 «-4 i § >»"*. a-4^«. e-^ « S >^> 0^09 •* S
MM 3 «^ o3 le'H 3-^^4 j< M o 3«>H e>-«. 03
« e -i u * ge y • ^ -i u « -^ a* eeo -i u « ge g e^
CO ^ OO«9 O49O 0 OCb9 0 Qi 9 (Q~4M OQi9 O « 9O O
1*4 > » ~ > ja j« > •»> >e~ > « — I e — >JBJ«> «>
3 c S c^
2zi i ii i j z S i i i
-
•^
%
o
IMF
fl
<0
m
f-i
2-5
%-
e • >
0 04(
1
2-76
-------
X
o
i
J
i]
CO
z
o
H
Lj
s
2
s
o
04
U)
z
r"
a"
>
H
P H
• CD
<§
;|
r|
d
14
g
5
3
04
£
X]
Q
O
C
a
a
T|
^
U
o
H
1
3
a
-. -. ^ oo -. — .
O O CM • O> .-4
^ o • o oo Ok
•» *^ *. »
* in * *
•—CM iH «-»
n — —
1
a
•P
c
(0 o\ mo aoinot o O n
»-l * cs in • r» «-t
CU O vo o at u?
» » o T » »
^9 ^* ^^ ^9
d 01 m rt
CM
a
4J
^k ^K MK
|Q O O 1*1
04
H
Q
4J
C
A o o in
04
Oi «. «
• c o» o> •
•o •* c c n •
-1 U *J t «A« COX OX -« • •
• -^ U U^s. 4JO-HO X9. >•«•> »^~ ** -^ C A
h * « J CU~0 J3 5« ^ H C •* 4J
O ~ •• o »— o o'- i i o
t: • U H-4 TJ U C C-^r^ T3 TJU • U ft M 14 a
Z § • >• A4J ««X O-t 0 « ~4« § • X • • X -4 -4 f
S I~4*>^ « -4 « I X^. 0 ^ O O> ^ § § >»^ S -4 ^ 3. U ft •
to 3n^4 JZ x o 3«^ «>-^ 03 3*^ 3^rH & o e
^ ^ ft • « • O -1 U «S O • U Ht-l -4 U « -4 ft « H X • -4
O 0 ft O> CO <-* U O ft O> O •) OkQ O O ft W O ft O> • £ "-I
o* *c8 >•*• >-o-»<> *> >•— >«— J 5 ^ i
5 O ** -4 Q Q
-------
Cd
ca
i
M
I
w
u
o
4J
a
o o
oo
O
I
u
3
a
2S
O
_ fi m Ht m ** v
3 <~ 4 >»W • 41 4 C
O O. U 4 TJ U 4 b^_-4
-i -i -o o, o«u i -a o — w ••? u
> «• ca«««M>, jsc-»£ 3
« S M -4 • fl 41 4JSC ^. 41 O fl Ti U
g ~» ^ -4 U 41 -444IU4IO ? 0 -^ • i
3 4 41 « 4.cai 3 H 4 0 -"4 0543-0-4 ^4^ >»-^ O * -•
4 8 U -Mi V4 & £ 4 I 4 >»«4 3 4 41 4««^ **
e • ^ j_i _< • j_i n >^ M u 0 u <• a • I
0
>3H
•
««
a««o
«4bM
SO.—
4 4J C
u e 5.
CU« i.
M>— B
Spr
ven
(au
Ga
ov
2-78
-------
OS
u
ca
o
M
I
2
CO
w
g
Q
go"
|J 3
^5 »»
ce ^
O ^™
r
cu
&4
3
cu
J
w
a
0
1
1
u
a
(N
M
i-l
09
"
1
O
e
* «
cu *
(M
1
a
c
5 *
_^j ^^
cu *
H
1
O
"c
A *
f4 "1
cu *
0
e b u
o e b 41
-4 *4
4» << e i
3 .
.^ .4 ,4 .4 e e e
•^ -4 -4 >4 -4 J« J?
a a a a 3 3 A
r* U) in O -4-4-4
• • • b b b
•H f^ * 444
•
-4 -• -+ -4 e e e
-4-4-4-4 -4 .4 -4
a a a a 444
-4 in m o -4-4-4
• • b b b
, **:::: u u
b o o -M e -4 oo
vebuu Q«. •>.
ct d d Z Z
o o o < <
e» m in ">. ^
-4 CM 01 Z Z
^v 9>v 94 <4 4
b U U *•» -«.
•o «a —
&e 4 4 e e
a -4 o o o -
1 b u o o a
*• 1 e b b *>
i a o 4 e 4*
01-3 -4-4 « 0» » > &-V
4oi i i < • a
2-79
-------
scenarios for each size of model plant were explored.
Therefore, the model plants for the automotive/transportation
industry were developed assuming that only one type of plastic
is coated. By differentiating the model plants by the type of
plastic coated, a facility coating two or three different
types of plastics would be able to compare processes with the
model plants of the appropriate size and processes.
The coatings used in the plastic parts industry have
different VOC and solids contents depending on their
application (i.e., primer, colorcoat, clearcoat, low-bake, and
high-bake). Therefore, each type of coating was evaluated
separately for each of the plastic types coated.
Because of the very low usage of specialty coatings,
their effect on emissions estimates is expected to be
negligible. Therefore, specialty coatings are not included in
the model plant scenarios.
The following sections describe the model plant coating
consumption, operating parameters, and baseline VOC emissions.
2.7.1.1 Coating Consumption. Annual coating consumption
data were selected as the basis for establishing the four
sizes of model plants. These data were obtained from
permitting information, which is more readily available than
data pertaining to the total surface area of parts coated per
year. The total amount of solids sprayed is a function of the
coating formulation (which varies with each coating category)
and annual coating .consumption.
The annual coating consumption data used to establish the
model plants were taken from permitting data supplied by the
Ohio EPA. The data indicated that the industry could be
categorized by four size ranges. These sizes coincided with
those reported in the response to the EPA's investigation.29
The annual coating consumption of the facilities that fell
into each of the four size ranges was averaged to determine
each of the four representative model plant sizes.
2-80
-------
Transfer efficiency plays a Icey role in determining the
annual coating consumption of a spray coating facility. The
lower the transfer efficiency, the more coating that is needed
to coat a given part. For the model plants, the volume of
solids deposited at' baseline is based on an estimated transfer
efficiency of 25 percent if sprayed using a conventional air
atomized spray gun or 50 percent if sprayed using either an
electrostatic or an HVLP spray gun. These transfer
efficiencies are based on average values reported in the
literature and by industries using the equipment, and from
responses to inquiries by the EPA.
Because each model plant uses a combination of spray gun
types, a weighted transfer efficiency was estimated for each
model plant based on the type and number of guns assumed, the
expected transfer efficiency of the gun, and the assumption
that an equal volume of coating passes through each gun.
2.7.1.2 Process Parameters. Interior plastic parts are
usually coated with a primer and a nonflexible colorcoat.
Exterior parts require three different types of coating. A
primer coat is needed to ensure that the additional coating
layers will adhere to the part. If the exterior part is
flexible (such as a RIM fascia), the coating of choice would
be a flexible coating. Flexible coatings can better survive
impact and are less prone to cracking. A flexible colorcoat
would be applied to the exterior part following application of
the primer. Finally, an exterior flexible clearcoat would be
applied. If the exterior part is not flexible, such as an SMC
body panel, then a flexible coating is not necessary; however,
three coating layers would still be needed: primer,
colorcoat, clearcoat.
The type of primer, colorcoat, and clearcoat selected
also varies depending upon the substrate being painted. Both
' high-bake and low-bake coatings are used to some extent in all
applications described above. The proportion of high-bake and
low-bake coatings used in the model plants was determined
based on national usage data for high-bake versus low-bake
2-31
-------
coatings. Interior parts coatings are primarily low-bake,
while exterior coatings are primarily high-bake. Table 2-11
shows the amount of high- and low-bake coating used at the
three small model plants. The ratios of high-bake to low-bake
coating usage for the medium, large, and extra large model
plants are the same as those for the small model plants. The
baseline coatings used in the model facilities were selected
based on information obtained from coating facilities, coating
manufacturers, the National Paint and Coatings Assocation
(NPCA) , and previous regulatory investigations.2*27'30 The
corresponding amount of solids sprayed for each coating type
was calculated from this information, assuming an average
density of 7.1 pounds VOC per gallon (Ib VOC/gal) coating for
the coating thinner added by the coater before spraying.30
Conveyorized lines require a large capital investment
that can only be recovered by facilities with high production
rates. For this reason, only the three largest model plants
have conveyors included in their coating operations.
Likewise, robotized and electrostatic spray systems require
extensive capital investment. For this reason, only the two
largest model plants have robotized, electrostatic spray
equipment. In addition, waterwash spray booths are found in
use only at the larger, higher-production facilities because
this type of spray booth also requires extensive capital
investment.
2.7.1.3 Baseline Volatile Organic Compound Emissions.
Baseline VOC emissions were determined based on the assumption
that all VOC's in coatings are emitted and that baseline
should reflect coating technologies currently in use. The
baseline VOC content levels were determined for each type of
coating by considering available coating consumption and VOC
content data along with existing State regulations--in
particular, Michigan's Rule 632 and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's 1987 limits. A database was
developed with information on the VOC content of each coating
identified in this study.
2-82
-------
TABLE 2-11. AUTOMOTIVE/TRANSPORTATION MODEL PLANT COATINGS
Modal Usage
Plant Coating Type (gal/yr)
1 Interior
Low-bake primer 2,850
High-baJce primer 150
Low-bake colorcoat 8,550
High-bake colorcoat 450
2 Exterior Flexible
High-bake primer 2,880
Low-bake primer 120
High-bake clearcoat 2,330
Low-bake clearcoat 670
High-bake colorcoat 3,400
Low-bake colorcoat 2,600
3 Exterior Nonflexible
High-bake primer 2,750
Low-bake primer 250
High-bake clearcoat 2,330
Low-bake clearcoat 670
High-bake colorcoat 3,400
Low-bake colorcoat 2,600
2-83
-------
Information on VOC content was gathered from responses to
questionnaires sent to coating users, from material safety
data sheets (MSDS's) obtained during site visits and from one
coating formulator, and from background information obtained
from Michigan's regulatory development processes. In
addition, significant data on coating usage and VOC content
were supplied by the NPCA.30 These data reflect a nationwide
survey of plastic parts coatings used for automotive and
transportation applications.
Table 2-12 shows the baseline VOC content for each
coating category used in the automotive/transportation model
plants. The weighted average VOC content was calculated from
1988 national usage data for each coating and was used as a
guideline for determining the baseline level. These weighted
averages were compared to the ranges of VOC contents in the
coating database and adjusted as necessary to reflect current
reported usage.31
2.7.2 Model Plants in the Business Machine Sector
Three model plants were developed to represent the major
equipment and techniques currently being used to surface coat
plastic parts for business machines (including office,
medical, stereo, and telecommunications equipment). These
model plants represent the range of facility types in this
segment, from facilities that perform coating services
exclusively up to large contractors with fully automated
facilities that perform both molding and coating of plastic
parts. The three model plants developed for the business
machine segment were selected based on information collected
during the data gathering phase of this project and during
development of the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for
Plastic Parts for Business Machines.T>32 The three model
plants represent small (Plant A), medium (Plant B), and large
(Plant C) facilities. The model plant in each size category
is expected to apply all four types of coatings: primer,
2-84
-------
TABLE 2-12. BASELINE VOC LEVELS FOR
AUTOMOTIVE/TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
Baseline
Coating Category (lb VOC/qal)
Auto Interiors
High-Bake Colorcoat 4.6
High-Bake Primer 5.4
Low-Bake 6.0
Low-Bake 6.0
Auto Exteriors
Flexible
High-Bake Colorcoat 4.6
High-Bake Clearcoat 4.3
High-Bake Primer 5.4
Low-Bake Primer 6.0
Low-Bake Colorcoat 5.7
Low-Bake Clearcoat 4.2
Nonflexible
High-Bake Colorcoat 4.6
High-Bake Clearcoat 4.3
High-Bake Primer 4.2
Low-Bake Primer 6.0
Low-Bake Colorcoat 5.7
Low-Bake Clearcoat 4.2
2-85
-------
colorcoat, color/texture coat, and EMI/RFI shielding. The
model plant parameters developed for business machines are
presented in Table 2-13.
2.7.2.1 Production. The baseline coating utilization
estimates presented in Table 2-13 are based on data used in
the development of the NSPS for Plastic Parts for Business
Machines as well as information collected during this study.
Because plant sizes used in developing the business machines
NSPS were felt to be representative of the industry, they were
retained for this analysis. Model plant transfer
efficiency was estimated in the same way as described in
Section 2.7.1.1.
2.7.2.2 Process Parameters. The baseline coatings used
in each of the business machine applications were selected
based on information in the coating database. The most
commonly used baseline colorcoats and color/texture coats are
solvent-based polyurethanes, and contain 13 to 80.6 percent
solids by volume at the gun. The most commonly used primers
are also organic solvent-based polyurethanes containing 14 to
41 percent solids by volume at the gun.
All three model plants have the capability to perform
EMI/RFI shielding, although not all plastic parts require it.
A typical EMI/RFI shielding would be either a nickel- or
copper-filled coating with an organic solvent base containing
27 percent solids by volume at the gun.33
As discussed for the automotive/transportation segment,
conveyorized lines, robotized and electrostatic spray systems,
and waterwash booths are found only in the larger facilities
because these types of equipment require a large capital
investment.
2.7.2.3 Baseline Volatile Organic Compound Emissions.
Baseline VOC levels selected for the model plants representing
the business machine segment are presented in Table 2-14. The
baseline coatings used in each type of business machine
coating application were selected based on information
2-86
-------
TABLE 2-13. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS FOR BUSINESS MACHINES
Parajaatar Plant A Plant i Plant C
I. Production
A. Total voluaa of coating usad at 19,408 (5,127) 153,202 (41,000) 388,031 (102,507)
capacity, L/yr (oal/yr)
I. Total solids sprayad, L/yr (oal/yr) 4,192 (954) 33,324 (7.626) 83,815 (19,066)
C. Total solids appliad, L/yr (oal/yr) 1.048 (238) 11.733 (2,669) 32,595 (7,415)
II. Oparating Paraa»tars
A. Pariod of Oparation
1. hours/day 16 16 16
2. days/Mas: 5 5 5
3. waaka/yaar 50 50 50
III. Procass Parajaatars
A. Coaputar Cabinat
1. Solvant-borna priaar
a. Voluaa of coating sprayad, L/yr 4,852 (513) 38,800 (4.100) 97,008 (10,251)
(Oal/yr)
b. VOC contant of baaalina coating. 0.68 (3.7) 0.68 (5.7) 0.68 (5.7)
kg VOC/L (Ib VOC/oal) coating
c. X solids by voluaa at out 20.0X 20.0X 20.OX 20.0X 20.OX 20.OX
d. Voluaa of VOC sprayad. 3.982 (410) 31,040 (3.280) 77,606 (8,201)
L/yr (oal/yr)
a. V«lua» of solids appliad, 243 (26) 2,716 (287) 7,545 (797)
L/yr (oal/yr)
2. Colorcoat - Solvant bssad
a. Voluai of coating sprayad, L/yr 5,822 (1.538) 46.561 (12,300) 116.409 (30,752)
(oal/yr)
b. VOC contant of baaalina coating 0.74 (6.2) 0.74 (6.2) 0.74 (6.2)
kg VOC/L (Ib VOC/oal) coating
c. X solids by voluat at gui 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X
d. voluaa of VOC sprayad, 5,065 (1.338) 40.308 (10,701) 101.276 (26,754)
L/yr (oal/yr)
a. Voluaa of solids appliad, 189 (50) 2.119 (560) 5,885 (1,555)
L/yr (oal/yr)
3. Calorcoat/Taxtura coat - solvant-basad
a. voluai of coating sprayad, L/yr 4.832 (1,282) 38,800 (10.250) 97,008 (23,627)
(0*l/yr)
b. VOC cantant of baaalina coating. 0.74 (6.2) 0.74 (6.2) 0.74 (6.2)
kg VOC/L (Ib MC/gal) coating
c. X sal Ids by voluw at gun 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X 13.0X
d. VoluM of VOC sprayad, 4,221 (1,113) 33.756 (8.918) 84,397 (22,295)
L/yr (oal/yr)
a. volust of solids appliad, 158 (42) 1.769 (466) 4.904 (1.296)
L/yr (oal/yr)
2-87
-------
TABLE 2-13 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS FOR BUSINESS MACHINES
(CONTINUED)
Parameter
4. ENI/MI Solvent-borne nickel- or caff
filled acrylic for EMI/RH Sheilding
a. Voluae of coating sprayed, L/yr
(gal/yr)
b. VQC content of baseline coating,
kg VOC/L (lb VQC/gal) coating
c. X solids by voluaa at gun
d. VolUM of VQC «prayad,
U/yr (gal/yr)
a. Volume of aoi ida appl ltd.
Uyr (gal/yr)
1. Coating equipaant
1. Conveyor lied linaa
2. lootha par Una
3. Off -Una bootha
4. Air atoaizad spray guna (25X TC)
a. Manual
b. Rabat izad
5. Elactroatatic spray guns (SOX Tt)
a. Manual
b. Robotized
6. High volume low pressure (HVLP) (SOX
a. Manual
b. Robotized
7. Dry filter spray bootha
8. Racirculating water-wash spray booths
(Sid* draft for automated spray,
down draft for •anus I spray)
9. Spray booth ventil. rate (••«.},
a3/a
-------
TABLE 2-13 MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS FOR BUSINESS MACHINES
(CONTINUED)
Paraaatar Plant A Mant 1 Plant C
3. Average flaah-off period
•. priwr Variable 12 min 12 min
b. colorcoat Variable 12 min 12 min
e. claarcoat Variable 12 min 12 min
4. Curing taeperature and tlaa in baka «v«n <°C/»in)
a. priaw air dry 140 30 min 140 30 min
b. eoloreoat air dry 140 30 min 140 30 min
e. claarcoat air dry 140 30 min 140 30 min
5. Avaraga eanv«yor tpaad. •/• (ft/*in) M/A 0.04 0.04
(8) (8)
2-89
-------
TABLE 2-14. BASELINE COATINGS FOR THE BUSINESS MACHINE SECTOR
Type of Coating
VOC Content
Ib/gal of coating
less water
Primer
4.5
Colorcoat
4.3
Colorcoat/texture coat
4.3
EMI/RFI Shielding
4.9
2-90
-------
presented in the memorandum summarizing information from the
coating database.29 For colorcoats and color/texture coats, a
baseline of 4.8 Ib/gal, less water was chosen. All
color/texture coats and the majority of colorcoats reported
also can achieve this level. In addition, all State
regulations in effect as of 1991 are at least this stringent.
For primers, the baseline was selected as 4.5 Ib VOC/gal
coating, less water; for EMI/RFI shielding, a baseline level
of 4.9 Ib VOC/gal coating, less water, was selected.
2-91
-------
2.8 REFERENCES
l. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and. S. J. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC., to Kenkor
Molding Division, Englishtown, NJ. September 13, 1990.
2. Technical Support Document. Rule 632 - Coating of
Automobile, Truck and Business Machine Plastic Parts.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Air Quality
Division. Lansing, MI. April 19, 1989.
3. Lewarchik, R. J. Low VOC Coatings for Automotive
• Plastics. Industrial Finishing. November 1983.
4. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC., to Autostyle,
Incorporated. Grand Rapids, MI. September 18, 1990.
5. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC., to Mack
Molding, Inman, SC. May 3, 1990.
6. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, to Ford Motor
Company Plant, Saline, MI. September 19, 1990.
7. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Surface Coating
of Plastic Parts for Business Machines - Background
Information for Proposed Standards. Draft NSPS,
EPA-450/3-85-019a. December 1985.
8. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, NC,
to Ford Motor Company Plant, Milan, MI.
September 19, 1990.
9. Section 114 Response Letter and Attachments from Gates,
G., Webb Manufacturing, Inc. to Farmer, J.,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 30, 1990.
10. Levinson, S. Application of Paints and Coatings.
Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology.
August 1988.
11. /3raco, Incorporated. Product Information. Paint
Application Equipment for the Professional Painting
Contractor. 1989.
12. Graco, Incorporated. Product Information. Manual and
Automatic Air-Assisted Airless Systems. 1988.
13. Graco, Incorporated. Product Information. High Output
HVLP Sprayers. 1990.
2-92
-------
14. Sinks Manufacturing Company. Product Information. The
Binks Approach to HVLP: Second Generation HVLP
Technology. September 1989.
IS. DeVilbiss Company. Product Information. High Volume Low
Pressure System. 1989.
16. Can-Am Engineered Products, Incorporated. Industrial
Duty Turbine Powered HVLP versus Portable Turbine Powered
and Compressed Air Powered HVLP. 1990.
17. Meeting notes with Kish, S., Graco, Incorporated., and
Blackley, C., Radian Corporation. May 16, 1990.
18. Electrostatic Consultants Company. Product Information
and Letter. April 10, 1990.
19. Graco, Incorporated. Product Information. Pro Power -
The Only Self-Contained Electrostatic Spray Gun. 1988.
20. DeVilbiss Company. Product Information. EFX-100
Electrostatic Spray Gun. 1988.
21. Ransburg Corporation. Product Information.
Electrostatic Equipment for the Furniture Industry.
1990.
22. Graco, Incorporated. Product Information. High Torque
Power Disc for High Solids Coating Material. 1990.
23. Nordson Corporation. Product Information. RA-12 Rotary
Atomizer. 1989.
24. Telecon. Blackley, C. Radian Corporation, with
Lamberty, P. BASF. February 5, 1990.
25. Telecon. Blackley, C. Radian Corporation, with
Ricky, K. Akzo Corporation. February 7, 1990.
26. Telecon. Blackley, C. Radian Corporation, with
Home, R. Bee Chemical. February 6, 1990.
27. Dames and Moore. Appendices for the Position Paper
Recommending the Use of Michigan Rule 632 as an
Automotive plastic Parts Control Techniques Guideline.
Prepared for the National Paint and Coatings Association
and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association.
June 28, 1991.
28. Memorandum. Miller, S. J. and J. Johnson, Radian
Corporation, to Salman, D., EPA/CPB. Ranking of Coating
Data and Selection Baseline and Control Levels for
Plastic Parts Surface Coating Operations. December 21,
1990.
2-93
-------
29. Memorandum. Miller, S., C. Norris, and C. Blackley,
Radian Corporation, to Plastic Parts Surface Coating
Operations Project File. Summary of Information Obtained
from Industry Questionnaire. November 16, 1990.
30. National Paint and Coatings Association. National Air
Pollution Control Technology Advisory Committee Meeting:
Comments on Surface Coating of Plastic Parts Control
Techniques Guideline. November 20, 1991.
31. Telecon. Johnson, J., Radian Corporation, to K. Schultz,
DuPont. DuPont Plastic Parts MSDS's. December 10, 1990.
32. Memorandum. McLean, J. and B. Ferrero, Radian
Corporation to David Salman, EPA/CPB. Coating and
Category Revisions for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts
CTG. August 3, 1992.
33. Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources;
Industrial Surface Coating; Plastic Parts for Business
Machines. Final Rule. 53 FR 2672. January 29, 188.
2-94
-------
3.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Volatile organic compound emissions occur when organic
solvents evaporate from coatings during coating and curing
processes. This chapter describes techniques that are
available to control VOC emissions from the surface coating of
plastic parts. The control techniques discussed are the use
of lower-VOC coatings, process modifications, and add-on
controls. Section 3.2 presents a discussion of potential
coating reformulation options, including waterborne coatings
and higher-solids coatings. Section 3.3 discusses potential
process modifications that could reduce VOC emissions before
they are generated and Section 3.4 presents potential add-on
control options to reduce the amount of VOC's that escape to
the atmosphere.
3.2 USE OF COATINGS WITH LOWER VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
CONTENT
One method to reduce the amount of VOC's emitted to the
atmosphere during the plastic parts surface coating process is
through the use of lower-VOC coatings. The two principle
types of lower-VOC coatings are waterborne and higher-solids
coatings. Although additional lower-VOC coating systems
exist, waterborne and higher-solids coatings have been
identified as the only technologies that are suitable to a
wide variety of applications. They are, consequently, the two
lower-VOC technologies that are focused on in this document,
and are discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 3.2.2, respectively.
For the sake of completeness, Section 3.2.3 describes some
other less widely applicable coatings.
3-1
-------
In waterborne coatings, organic solvent is replaced with
water (producing either a waterborne or water-reducible
coating). Higher-solids coatings increase the volume percent
of solids in the coating, thereby reducing the amount of
solvent and the amount of coating required to apply a given
amount of solids.
The coatings discussed in this chapter were identified in
the data-gathering effort to support development of this CTG.
Information was obtained from questionnaires, site visits, and
from data gathered from States in support of their rulemaking
efforts. This information was compiled in a coatings
database. The development and use of the database is
discussed in separate memoranda.1'2 All coating contents
provided in the database are "as sprayed," and follow
recommended dilution instructions.
3.2.1 Waterborne Coatings
Waterborne coatings are those that contain water as the
major solvent or disbursent. A generally accepted definition
of a waterborne coating is "a coating containing more than
5 weight percent water in its volatile fraction."3 Waterborne
coatings can contain 5 to 40 percent organic co-solvent to aid
in wetting, viscosity control, and pigment dispersion,
resulting in a much lower VOC content than that of traditional
coatings. Waterborne coatings can be applied with the normal
application methods found in the painting industry, although
airless and electrostatic techniques are less common for
waterborne coatings. In addition, all fittings on spray
equipment must be made of stainless steel to prevent
corrosion.4* The major advantages of waterborne coatings are
that they reduce VOC emissions, reduce fire hazard, tend to
lower toxicity, and use basically the same application
equipment as solvent-borne paints. Color, impact resistance,
gloss, weatherability, corrosion resistance, and repairability
characteristics are similar to those of conventional coatings.
Primary limitations of waterborne formulations include:
3-2
-------
• Stainless steel or plastic pipe fittings are often
recommended for the coating equipment;
• Some formulations must be protected from freezing
(once waterborne coatings have frozen, they cannot
be recovered);6
• Better control of booth temperature and humidity may
be required;
• Longer flash-off time may be needed; and
• Some plastics may be difficult to coat and may have
poor adhesion.
The performance of waterborne coatings compared to
organic-solvent-based coatings is debated by coaters and
coating manufacturers. Many coaters feel that the adhesion,
durability, and gloss of waterborne coatings are inferior to
those achieved with solvent-based coatings.7'* However, some
coaters feel the quality of the finish obtained with
waterborne coatings is acceptable.9'10 One of the coaters said
that a waterborne EMI/RFI shielding coating outperformed its
solvent-based counterparts.9
3.2.1.1 Waterborne Coatings for the Automotive/
Transportation Sector. There is limited information on the
use of waterborne coatings in the automotive industry.
Waterborne coatings are primarily used in interior coatings
because of the more- stringent durability and gloss
requirements for exterior coatings. Automotive industry
groups have raised several issues concerning waterborne
coatings: (l) color matching with solvent-borne coatings is
difficult; (2) waterborne coatings require increased drying
time and/or the use of plastics that can withstand drying oven
temperatures; (3) stainless steel piping and spray equipment
are required; and (4) waterborne coatings have not been
developed to meet many coating performance specifications.11'12
The only waterborne coatings in the current database for the
automotive segment are five automotive interior colorcoats,
ranging in VOC content from 2.5 to 3.2 Ib VOC/gal coating,
less water.2
3-3
-------
3.2.1.2 Waterborne Coatings for the Business Machines
Sector. Waterborne exterior decorative/ protective coatings
that can be cured at low temperatures are presently used on
some plastic business machine parts, although they are not as
commonly used as organic-solvent-based coatings. Waterborne
coatings are being used to coat structural foam parts that
require substantial coating films and to coat straight-
injection-molded parts with molded-in color and texture that
require films of 0.5 mil or less. Several large business
machine manufacturers have approved waterborne coatings for
use on their products.
The current plastic parts surface coating database
contains 12 waterborne coatings. Each is discussed in the
appropriate section below.
3.2.1.2.1 Primers. One waterborne primer, manufactured
by Lilly, is available for use on business machines. This
coating is reported, to have a VOC content of 1.19 Ib VOC/gal
coating, less water.13
3.2.1.2.2 Colorcoats. Eight waterborne colorcoats or
color/texture coatings are included in the current database.
These coatings are manufactured or distributed by Armitage,
Lilly, Komac, and Sherwin Williams and range in VOC content
from 1.06 to 2.25 Ib VOC/gal coating, less water.9*11
3.2.1.2.3 Clearcoats. Information was obtained on one
waterborne clearcoat manufactured by Lilly. This coating has
a VOC content of 2.5 Ib VOC/gal coating, less water.11
3.2.1.2.4 Electromagnetic interference and radio
frequency interference shieldings. Information was obtained
on one waterborne shielding: a waterborne nickel shielding
coating with a VOC content of 2.5 Ib VOC/gal, less water.9
3.2.2 Higher-Solids Coatings
Higher-solids coatings are typically solvent based and
contain greater than normal amounts of pigment and binder.
Higher-solids paints can reach the 50- to 65-percent solids
range, or higher. Higher-solids coatings reduce VOC emissions
by allowing less coating to accomplish the same coating job.
3-4
-------
For example, a coater using a coating that has 0.25 gallon of
solids per gallon of coating will need to use 4 gallons of
coatings to apply 1 gallon of solids (at a 100 percent
transfer efficiency). Assuming that the remaining coating is
VOC, 3 gallons of VOC will be emitted. If the coater switches
to a coating containing 0.5 gallon solids per gallon of
coating, only 2 gallons of the new coating will need to be
used to apply 1 gallon of solids, emitting only l gallon of
VOC. As the transfer efficiency decreases from 100 percent,
the differences become even more pronounced.
Higher-solids coatings have the following additional
advantages:
• Less solvent is emitted into the atmosphere;
• Less coating must be shipped, stored, pumped, and
sprayed;
• Lower oven air volumes are required;
_ • Spray -booths may sometimes be smaller;
• Formulations may be less expensive to produce on a
solids basis; and
• Less energy is needed for solvent evaporation.
Operating cost savings of 20 to 30 percent are common when a
coating process switches from higher-solvent coatings to
higher-solids coatings.14
The limitations of higher-solids coatings include:
• High-viscosity coatings must often be heated to
around 93°C (200°F) to achieve sprayability;
• They may exhibit poor performance in dip tanks and
flow coaters because of excessive viscosity;
• Films may be much thicker at the bottom of the parts
than at the top;
• Difficulty in pumping and atomizing may be
experienced, especially when cold;
• The cleaning quality of the coating may be more
important than for conventional paints because there
is less solvent present to "clean as it coats;"
3-5
-------
• Overspray is difficult to clean up because it
remains in the uncured state and is sticky; and
• The added viscosity may preclude the use of some
spray systems, which could lead to additional
capital expenditures for new equipment.
3.2.3 Non-Volatile-Organic-Compound"Emitting Coatings
This section describes lower-VOC coating technologies
other than waterborne and higher-solids technologies. Most of
these alternatives are.applicable to specialized uses.
3.2.3.1 Electromagnetic Interference and Radio Frequency
Interference Shieldings. Alternative coatings that provide
EMI/RFI shielding but usually do not emit VOC's include zinc-
arc spraying, electroless plating, and vacuum-metallizing or
sputtering. Considerations other than VOC emissions greatly
influence the EMI/RFI shielding techniques used. Two
important considerations are shielding effectiveness and the
cost of a given technique. Cost factors are discussed in
Chapter 5.0. Simple comparisons of EMI/RFI shielding
effectiveness cannot be made among the different shielding
techniques. Shielding effectiveness depends on the type of
material used for shielding, coating thickness, coating
uniformity, and the frequency of the EMI/RFI signals.
The three methods of non-VOC EMI/RFI coatings are briefly
discussed below. Techniques that provide EMI/RFI shielding
without application of any surface coating are discussed in
Section 3.3.2.2.
3.2.3.1.1 Zinc-arc spraying. Zinc-arc spraying is a
two-step process in which the plastic surface is roughened by
sanding or grit-biasting, and a coating of molten zinc is
sprayed onto the roughened surface. Advantages of zinc-arc
spraying include high shielding effectiveness over a wide
range of frequencies and the fact that it is a widely
demonstrated EMI/RFI shielding technique. Disadvantages
3-6
-------
include the need for special equipment such as a zinc-arc
spray gun, a spray gun air supply, a face shield and breathing
air supply or respirator for the operator, hearing protection,
and a waterwash spray booth or baghouse dust collector.15
3.2.3.1.2 Electroless plating. Electroless plating is a
dip process in which a film of metal is deposited from aqueous
solution onto all exposed surfaces of the part. The plastic
parts are prepared for electroless plating by oxidizing their
surfaces with aqueous chromic and sulfuric acids or with
gaseous sulfur trioxide. Following the oxidizing step, a
metal film (usually copper, nickel, or chrome) is
electrolessly plated onto the plastic part.
Advantages of electroless plating include the ability to
coat the plated parts electrostatically, low materials and
labor costs, and good shielding effectiveness. One
disadvantage is the incompatibility of electroless plating
with molded-in color unless masking is used. Another
disadvantage is the potential for VOC emissions if coatings
that emit VOC's are applied prior to the plating step so that
only selected areas of the parts are plated.16
3.2.3.1.3 Vacuum-metallizing or sputtering. Vacuum-
metallizing and sputtering are two similar techniques in which
a thin film of metal is deposited onto the plastic substrate
from the vapor phase. Although no VOC emissions occur during
the actual metallizing process, solvent-based prime coats and
topcoats are often sprayed onto parts to promote adhesion and
prevent degradation of the metal film. The VOC emissions
reduction potential of these techniques depends on the extent
to which VOC-containing prime coats and topcoats are used, and
the VOC content of the coatings used. A disadvantage of these
techniques is the need to purchase additional equipment.
3.2.3.2 Other Coatings. Other coating technologies
that emit little or no VOC's are powder coatings, UV or
electronic-beam cure coatings, and vapor-cure coatings. These
coating technologies are currently more limited in their use
on plastic parts than are waterborne and higher-solids
3-7
-------
coatings, but are growing in popularity for some coating
applications. A description of the three systems follows.
3.2.3.2.1 Powder coatings. Powder coating is a coating
that is applied in the form of a finely ground dry powder.
The powder weakly adheres to a substrate by means of
electrical attraction. After application, parts are heated to
melt the powder, which is then cooled to form a solid film.
The major advantages of powder coating are:
• No solvent emissions -and/or related costs;
• Less fire hazard;
• Less toxicity;
• No water pollution;
• No liquid mixing or pumping required;
• Less make-up air required;
• No flash-off time needed;
• Less tendency to trap air-borne dirt; and
• Less shrinkage stress developed during curing.
The most serious limitations of the powder coating process
are:
• Limited use on plastics because of the high cure
temperature requirement;
• High-quality appearance often difficult;
• Powder must remain dry at all times prior to
spraying; and
• Color change is a problem because overspray must be
collected for reuse, and each color must be kept
separate from the others.
Because of the limitations of powder coatings, they are
not used to a significant degree in the plastic coating
industry, mainly because many plastics cannot be heated to the
temperatures necessary to melt the coating.15
3-8
-------
3.2.3.2.2 Ultra-violet and electron beam coatings.
Ultraviolet cure coatings involve the absorption of light
energy by an uncured coating material, resulting in a chemical
reaction that cures and hardens the coating. The entire
process may take less than one second. The advantages of
UV-curable technology is the high-solids nature of the coating
(80 to 100 percent solids) and the low temperatures at which
the process operates. Disadvantages include the need for
specialized equipment for the curing process and the safety
hazards associated with this equipment.17
In the electron beam coating process, high-energy
electrons are produced from an electron beam radiation source.
These high-energy electrons cure specially formulated
coatings. Like UV-.cured coatings, electron beam coatings
typically contain low volumes of VOC's, if any. In addition,
both UV and electron beam products have lower energy
requirements than a typical thermal cure line, and the rapid
cure time of these products allows for a high production rate.
Disadvantages of this method includes its ability to cure
only what is in the "line-of-sight," higher material costs,
possible product hazards, and some problems with adhesion.
However, ongoing research is addressing each of these
concerns, and the increased emphasis on developing low-VOC
coatings is leading to the growth of both UV and electronic
beam coatings.1S
The plastic parts surface coating category accounted for
approximately 36 percent of the $110 million radiation-cured
(including both UV and electronic beam) coatings market in
1989. The primary use of these coatings is in the coating of
parts such as plastic cosmetic caps, containers,
ready-to-assemble furniture, speaker enclosures, and headlight
bezels for automobiles. One industrial source projects a
12-percent annual growth for radiation-cured products.17
3.2.3.2.3 Vapor-cure coatings. Vapor cure coatings are
urethane coatings that are cured primarily by exposure to an
amine vapor. The coated parts are exposed to the vapor either
3-9
-------
in a separate curing chamber, or the air to the paint spray
device is enriched with the amine vapor. . In the latter case,
the curing process is initiated as the paint-air mixture
leaves the spray gun. Advantages of this coating system
include the ability to cure at or near ambient temperatures,
short processing cycles, and compatibility with many plastic
substrates. The major limitation of this coating system is
the fact that it is" new, with only a limited number of
coatings currently available.2-3
3.3 PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
Process modifications can also be employed to reduce the
amount of VOC's that are emitted into the atmosphere. The two
major types of process modifications are changes in spray
equipment and process changes that allow finishing to be
completed without the use of solvent-laden coatings. These
two modifications are discussed below.
3.3.1 Spray Equipment
Changes in spray equipment can reduce VOC emissions by
increasing the transfer efficiency of the process. As
discussed in Chapter 2.0, transfer efficiency is defined as
the ratio of the amount of coating solids that adheres to the
surface of the coated part to the amount of coating solids
used (typically, sprayed). Transfer efficiency is dependent
on many factors, including part configuration, spray
equipment, coating characteristics, and operating parameters
(such as distance from nozzle to part and spray booth
ventilation rate).
Because equipment type is only one variable in
determining transfer efficiency, it is impossible to
accurately assign values to the transfer efficiency of
specific spray equipment. A discussion of the various spray
systems is included in Chapter 2.0. Although actual transfer
efficiency values are controversial, there is anecdotal
evidence that HVLP systems can reduce coating usage by 20 to
60 percent, with both turbine and non-turbine HVLP guns
regularly achieving 20 percent reduction.19
3-10
-------
3.3.2 Process Changes
Another method of reducing the emissions of VOC is to
eliminate the coating process. Several methods for
accomplishing this are discussed below.
3.3.2.1 Molded-in Color and Texture. The major non-VOC-
emitting technique employed to provide an attractive finish on
plastic parts is the use of molded-in color and texture. This
method is used primarily on business machines, office
equipment, and on the internal components of some machines
where color matching and finish are not of primary concern.6
This method relies on the use of straight injection molding
techniques in which pigment is added to the resin before or
during the injection molding step to provide the desired
color. Molded-in texture requires that the mold itself be
tooled in such a way as to provide the desired raised texture
pattern on the molded parts. Parts with molded-in color and
texture cannot be produced using structural foam injection
molding.
The use of molded-in color and texture has been the
method of choice for some producers of plastic parts for
business machines and miscellaneous equipment.6-16 Some coaters
feel that the technology of molded-in color and texture does
not provide satisfactory color reproductibility and color
stability, and does not protect the plastic parts from
environmental stress. Some coaters report that plastic parts
with molded-in color and texture still require some surface
coating. If too much coating is applied, however, the molded-
in texture may be masked.6'16
Cost considerations also influence the use of molded-in
color and texture. " The mold used for straight injection
molding is more expensive than the mold used for structural
foam injection molding. The reduction in finishing costs
realized by using molded-in color and texture (a straight
injection molding process) must, therefore, offset the higher
cost of the mold. The cost considerations affecting this
choice are complex and depend on many factors, including the
3-11
-------
size of the part, the complexity of the shape of the part, and
the number of parts produced from the mold.
3.3.2.2 Electromagnetic Interference/Radio Frequency
Interference Shieldingg. There are two types of EMI/RFI
shielding techniques that eliminate or reduce the need for
surface coating of plastic business machine components:
conductive plastics and metal inserts. These are discussed
below.
3.3.2.2.1 Conductive plastics. Conductive plastics,
which are mixtures of resins and conductive fillers, are not
widely used for EMI/RFI shielding at the present time.
However, these materials are being studied extensively for
their usefulness in business machine applications, and some
conductive plastics are already being used to make business
machine enclosures. Available resin types include ABS,
polycarbonate blends, PPO, nylon 6/6, PVC, and PBT.
Conductive fillers include aluminum, steel, metallized glass,
and carbon.
Advantages of using conductive plastics include
elimination of the EMI/RFI shielding finishing step and
improved resistance to warping. Disadvantages include high
materials cost; less effective EMI/RFI shielding, especially
when structural foam molding is used; and the addition of a
cosmetic finishing step to improve the surface appearance.
3.3.2.2.2 Metal inserts. The use of metal inserts to
house electronic components within a plastic housing is a
demonstrated EMI/RFI shielding technique. The metal insert
can be a metal box within a plastic housing, metal foil
laminated between layers of compression-molded plastic, metal
foil glued inside the housing, or metal screens or fibers
placed within a plastic housing. Shielding effectiveness is
comparable to that obtained with metal housings. Many
equipment manufacturers are switching to metal inserts instead
of coatings. The inserts are less expensive and provide a
consistent, known shielding ability.6
3-12
-------
3.4 ADD-ON CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Add-on control- equipment such as carbon adsorbers,
incinerators, and condensers are presently being used to
control VOC emissions at many surface coating facilities,
including magnetic tape coaters, fabric coaters, and
automobile coaters. Some facilities using add-on control
devices have been identified in the plastic parts surface
coating industry, including some automotive plastic part
coaters who-use afterburners on some curing ovens.20-21 Most
of the solvent-laden air in these facilities comes from the
application/flash-off area. The concentration of VOC's in
this air is very low because it is diluted to protect workers
from exposure to harmful levels of organic solvents and
overspray. One plastic business machine parts coater uses an
adsorption/incineration system to control VOC emissions from
the spray booths, flash-off areas, and curing oven.
The amount of VOC's in the air exhausted from the curing
ovens is low because the majority of the solvent evaporates
before the coated parts enter the oven. Therefore, only a
small percent of the total emissions can be reduced by ducting
oven emissions to a control device.
The solvent -laden air from the application/flash-off area
can be captured and ducted to a control device, but the high
volume of air and the low concentration of VOC's make this a
costly method of control. Volatile organic compound
concentrations in the solvent-laden air would typically range
from 10 to 100 ppmv. The actual concentration in the exhaust
stream sent to the control device would be affected by
variables such as VOC content of the coatings and flow rate of
the booth exhaust, a function of blower capacity.
In some cases, such as with automated spray systems, it
may be feasible to recirculate the booth exhaust to
concentrate the VOC's. This would reduce operating costs of
the control device. However, consideration must be given to
product quality and safety, thus limiting the applicability of
recirculation.
3-13
-------
The general principles behind carbon adsorption,
incineration, and condensation are discussed in the following
sections.
3.4.1 Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption uses a bed of activated carbon to
remove organic vapors from an incoming airstream. The
mechanism of VOC removal is complex, but the removal
efficiency is enhanced by specific characteristics of the
carbon. Its high surface-to-volume ratio and its affinity for
organics make activated carbon an effective adsorbent of
VOC's.
The VOC adsorption efficiency across a carbon bed can be
at least 95 percent if the bed is properly maintained and if
inlet VOC concentration levels are sufficiently high.14
Because plastic parts coatings often contain ketones
(e.g., methyl ethyl ketone and methyl isobutyl ketone) in
their formulations, they pose significant operation concerns
for carbon adsorption equipment because of the potential for
ketones to cause fires on the carbon bed. Safety precautions,
in the form of nitrogen blanketing, restrict the chance for
such occurrences but require a more elaborate equipment
c onf igurat i on.
After a carbon bed has adsorbed a certain amount of
VOC1s,.a breakthrough is reached beyond which VOC removal
efficiency decreases rapidly. The bed must be regenerated
before the. breakthrough is reached; otherwise, saturation will
occur and removal efficiency will approach zero. Typically, a
carbon bed is regenerated by passing steam through the carbon,
countercurrent to the regular air flow, to atrip the solvent
from the carbon. The effluent is either condensed and then
separated from the residual water by decantation or it is
incinerated. The solvent collected by condensation may be
reused, sold, or disposed of as hazardous waste.
3-14
-------
Figure 3-1 shows a typical carbon adsorption system. The
two-bed configuration allows for continuous operation of the
coating facility because one adsorber can be regenerated while
the other is on line.
3.4.2 Absorption (Scrubbing)
Absorption involves the scrubbing of soluble organic gas
components by a relatively non-volatile liquid. The
absorption step is only the collection step. After the gas is
dissolved, it must be .recovered or reacted to an innocuous
form and then reclaimed or disposed of. Common adsorbents for
organic vapors are water, non-volatile organics, and aqueous
solutions.
This control method is not demonstrated to adequately
remove organic solvents from an air stream. Scrubbing towers
must be quite large to provide sufficient contact time to
solubilize, react, or condense small quantities of organic
compounds. Because solubility is generally a function of
pollutant concentrations, large volumes of liquid may be
required, and this liquid ultimately requires treatment.
Because of the expense and limited efficiency of this control
method, it is normally not considered a viable control method
for reducing coating operation emissions.16
3.4.3 Incineration
The incineration process converts incoming VOC to carbon
dioxide and water vapor. The two main types of incinerators
are thermal incinerators and catalytic incinerators. Heat
recovery may be used on both types of incinerators to reduce
operating costs. However, capital costs increase as the
extent of heat recovery increases.
3.4.3.1 Thermal Incineration. A schematic diagram of a
thermal incinerator is shown in Figure 3-2. In this
particular design, the solvent-laden air is preheated by
primary heat exchange with waste heat from the combustion
chamber. A burner is supplied with additional fuel that
ignites the preheated air stream.
3-IS
-------
CO
I
C/D
_g
a
o
I'
CO
O
•o
0)
n
i
•o
0}
X
c
3
6
CO
CO
3
a
iZ
3-16
-------
V
i<
O
S
-------
Three important design considerations of the combustion
chamber are time, temperature, and turbulence. The residence
time, which must be sufficient to permit complete combustion
of the VOC's, is typically 0.2 to 0.8 seconds. The necessary
temperature range for combustion of VOC's using thermal
incineration is generally 760°C to 870°C (1400°F to 1600°F).
Turbulence facilitates the mechanical mixing of oxygen, heat,
and VOC's necessary for maximum destruction efficiency. A
properly designed incinerator can achieve destruction
efficiencies of 98 percent if VOC concentration levels are
sufficiently high.22
3.4.3.2 Catalytic Incineration. Figure 3-3 shows a
typical catalytic incinerator. The solvent-laden air enters
the device from the oven or application area. It is preheated
to 260°C to 460°C (500°F to 860°F) and blown across a catalyst
site, where oxidation occurs. About 98 percent of the
incoming VOC' s can be removed in this manner.20
The catalyst accelerates the rate of oxidation without
undergoing a chemical change itself. Typical materials used
are noble metals such as platinum or palladium, dispersed on
an alumina support. Combustion temperatures are lower for
catalytic incinerators than for thermal incinerators.
3.4.4 Combination of Carbon Adsorption and Incineration
This system is designed to concentrate dilute
solvent-laden emissions using carbon adsorption prior to final
treatment by solvent recovery or catalytic/thermal
incineration. The key component of the system is a rotor that
consists of a honeycomb structure element made of activated
carbon fiber paper in a corrugated form. The rotor is divided
into two sectors (one for adsorption and one for desorption)
and rotates continuously at slow speed.
The VOC-laden process exhaust flows through tubular paths
in the honeycomb. Hydrocarbons in the process exhaust are
adsorbed in the activated carbon filter in the adsorption
sector of the rotor. A small air stream is used to desorb the
VOC's from the carbon filter. The desorbed air stream is only
3-18
-------
SoJvent-Fr«
Air
Catalyst Site
Blower
Solvent-Laden
Air
Preheater
Figure 3-3. Catalytic Incinerator
3-19
-------
one-fifth to one-fifteenth the volume of the original solvent-
laden air stream entering the adsorber and, as a result, the
solvent concentration 5 to 15 times greater. Therefore, the
costs to incinerate this desorbed air stream are lower than
those associated with the original solvent-laden stream. Heat
from the incinerator is recovered and used to heat the air
used in the desorption process of the carbon adsorber--another
cost-saving feature of the system.
3.4.5 Condensation
Condensation is a method of controlling VOC emissions by
cooling solvent-laden gases to the dew point of the solvent
and collecting the liquid droplets. Liquid nitrogen and air
are typical coolants used in the shell and tube surface
condenser shown in "Figure 3-4. Heat is extracted from the
incoming air stream as it passes through the cooled metal
tubes. When the vapor condenses, it is collected and either
reused or discarded, depending on its purity.
3-20
-------
BOWSOl*
CO
03
13
C
o
o
0)
o
CO-
t:
3
03
03
.0
3
•a
ca
"33
5
CO
a
II
3-21
-------
3.6 REFERENCES
1. Memorandum from Miller, S., and Johnson, J., Radian
Corporation to Salman, D., U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch. Documentation of
the Coating Database for the Plastic Parts Surface
Coating Industry. December 7, 1990.
2. Memorandum from Miller, J., and Johnson, J., Radian
Corporation to Salman, D., U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch. Ranking of
Coating Data and Selection of Baseline and Control levels
for Plastic Parts Surface Coating Operations.
December 21, 1990.
3. Glossary of Terms, Industrial Finishing Magazine.
August 1990.
4. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, to Ford Motor
Company Plant, Saline, MI. p. 3-52. September 19, 1990.
5. Yaneff, P. V., Coatings for Automotive Plastics. In
Proceedings of Finishing Technologies 1989. Coatings
Magazine, Toronto, Canada. 1989.
6. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and S. J. Miller. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC., to Kenkor
Molding Division, Englishtown, NJ. September 13, 1990.
7. Letter and attachments from Gates, G., Webb Manufacturing
Company to Farmer, J. R., U. S. Environmental Protection.
Agency. March 30, 1990. Section 114 Questionnaire
Response.
8. Letter and attachments from Oyler; B., Fawn Industries to
Farmer, J. R., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 30, 1990. Section 114 Questionnaire Response.
9. Letter and attachments from Reinhardt, D., Kenkor Molding
Division to Farmer, J. R., U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. March 30, 1990. Section 114 Questionnaire
Response.
10. Letter and attachments from Sweetman, B., Spaulding
Sports Worldwide to Farmer, J. R., U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. March 30, 1990. Section 114
Questionnaire Response.
11. Letter and attachments from Bailey, B., Lilly Industrial
Coatings to Miller, S. J., Radian Corporation. June 4,
1990. Formulator Questionnaire Response.
3-22
-------
12. Letter and attachments from Sirmeyer, C., Autostyle to
Farmer, J. R., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
March 30, 1990. Section 114 Questionnaire Response.
13. Dames and Moore. Position paper recommending the use of
Michigan Rule 632 as an Automotive Plastic Parts Control
Techniques Guideline. Prepared for the National Paint
and Coatings Association and the Motor Vehicles
Manufactures Association. June 28, 1991.
14. Technical Support Document. Rule 632 - Coating of
Automobile, Truck and Business Machines Plastic Parts.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Air Quality
Division. Lansing, MI. April 19, 1989.
Bocchi, G. Powder Coatings: The North American Market
and Materials. In Proceedings of Finishing Technologies.
1989. Coating Magazine, Toronto, Canada. 1989.
16. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines -
Background Information for Proposed Standards. Draft
NSPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-450/3-35-019a. December 1985.
17. Schrantz, J., Exciting Infrared and Ultra-violet
Developments. Industrial Finishing. September 1990.
18. Radak, William. Chemical Business. Radiation Curing:
New Market Rx. October 1990.
Can-Am Engineered Products/Can-Am/Turbo Coatair, Ltd.
Proposal to Amend the Definition of HVLP as Presently
Listed in Rules 1136 and 1151. Presented to the Southern
California Air Quality Management District Planning
Department. May 18, 1989.
20. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, to Autostyle,
Incorporated. Grand Rapids, MI. September 18, 1990.
21. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, to Mack Molding,
Inman, SC. May 3, 1990.
22. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC, to Ford Motor
Company Plant, Milan, MI. p. 3-52. September 19, 1990.
3-23
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This chapter presents a discussion of the environmental
impacts associated with the control of VOC emissions from
plastic parts surface coating operations. An analysis of VOC
emissions impacts was performed using the model plants
presented in Chapter 3.0 and three different VOC control
levels representing two control technologies--coating
reformulation and thermal incineration. The VOC emissions
reductions achieved by each control level at each model plant
were calculated. Other environmental impacts were evaluated
qualitatively. Section 4.1 presents the three control levels.
Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 cover air emissions, water quality,
and solid waste impacts, respectively. Section 4.5 discusses
energy consumption. Health and safety impacts are addressed
in Section 4.6 and other environmental concerns are discussed
in Seciton 4.7.
4.1 CONTROL LEVELS
Three control levels were developed to estimate potential
VOC emissions reductions. Two of the levels, Level 1 and
Level 2, are based on reformulation (i.e., use of waterborne
or higher-solids coatings); the third control level, Level 3,
is based on thermal incineration. These technologies were
selected for analysis because of their availability and
feasibility for the" range of coating applications covered by
this ACT. A detailed discussion of these control levels and
how they were chosen are presented in a separate memorandum.1
4-1
-------
4.1.1 Reformulation,
Table 4-1 presents a summary of the coating reformulation
control levels for automotive and business machines plastic
parts, as well as baseline VOC levels. Both reformulation
options represent VOC levels for types of coatings that would
achieve significant VOC emissions reductions and that are
currently available. For more information on exterior
automotive coatings see Section 6.1. For more information on
business machine coatings see Section 6.2.
The technology is not now available to formulate
specialty coatings with reduced VOC content. Since these
coatings are generally used in such small quantities,
reformulation may not be cost effective. The recommended
control options for specialty coatings are therefore equal to
the baseline levels. The baseline levels are based on data
obtained from trade associations, industry, and EPA's coating
data base.2-3-0
One important exception is adhesion primers (adhesion
promoters) which are used in large quantities at some
automotive bumper painting facilites. In the past year
several automobile manufacturers have approved waterborne
adhesion promoters for use by their suppliers. These
waterborne coatings have been used in production by some
coaters, but there are still concerns about how coating
performance may vary with variations in the resin used to mold
the plastic parts.
4.1.2 Thermal Incineration
Control Level 3 is the use of thermal incineration for
destruction of VOC's from surface coating operations. As
described in Section 3.4, VOC concentrations in coating
operation exhaust streams are typically low--about 10 to
100 ppmv. Auxiliary fuel is therefore required for
incineration. For the purposes of impact analysis, 80 percent
capture efficiency and 98 percent destruction efficiency were
assumed for thermal incineration.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1. REFORMULATION CONTROL LEVEL (LOW-VOC COATINGS)
Coating category
Auto interiors
High -bake col or coat
High -bake primer
Low- bake colorcoat
Low- bake primer
Auto exteriors1
Flexible
High -bake colorcoat
High-bake clearcoat
High -bake primer
Low- bake colorcoat
Low- bake clearcoat
Low- bake primer
Nonflexible
High-bake colorcoat
High- bake clearcoat
High -bake primer
Low- bake colorcoat
Low-bake clearcoat
Low- bake primer
Baseline
(Ib
VOC/gal)
4.5
5.4
6.0
6.0
4.6
4.3
5.4
5.7
4.2
6.0
4.6
4.3
4.2
5.7
4.2
6.0
Control
level 1
(Ib
VOC/gal)
4.3
4.3
5.0
3.5
4.3
3.8
5.0
5.4
4.0
5.5
4.3
3.8
4.0
5.4
4.0
5.5
Control
level 2
(Ib
VOC/gal)
4.1
3.8
3.2
3.5
4.1
3.5
4.5
5.1
3.7
5.5
4.1
3.5
3.0
5.1
3.7
5.5
For additional information on exterior automobile coatings
see Section 6.1.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1.
REFORMULATION CONTROL LEVEL (LOW-VOC COATINGS)
(CONTINUED)
Coating category
Baseline
(lb
VOC/gal)
Control
level l
(lb
VOC/gal)
Control
level 2
(lb
VOC/gal)
Auto Specialty
Group A coatings:
Black and reflective
argent
Air bag cover
coatings
Soft coatings
Vacuum metalizing
basecoats
Texture basecoats
Group B coatings:
Gloss reducers
Vacuum metalizing
topcoats
Texture topcoats
Group C coatings:
Stencil
Adhesion primers
Ink pad
Electrostatic prep
Resist
Headlamp lens coatings
5.5
6.4
6.8
7.4
5.5
5.5
6.4
6.4
6.8
6.8
7.4
7.4
4-3a
-------
TABLE 4-1.
REFORMULATION CONTROL LEVEL (LOW-VOC COATINGS)
(CONTINUED)
Coating category
Baseline
(Ib
VOC/gal)
Control
level l
(Ib
VOC/gal)
Control
level 2
(Ib
VOC/gal)
Business Machines2
Colorcoat
Colorcoat/texture coat
Primer
EMI/RFI shielding
Business Specialty
•
Soft coatings
Plating resist
Plating sensitizers
4.8
4.8
4.5
4.9
4.3
5.9
7.1
3.5
3.5
2.9
4.0
4.3
5.9
7.1
2.3
2.3
1.2
4.0
4.3
5.9
7.1
2 For additional information on business machine coatings
see Section 6.2
4-4
-------
4.2 AIR EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The air impacts of each control option are presented in
Section 4.2.1 in terms of VOC emissions. Consideration to
other air emissions occurring during the coating process is
given in Section 4.-2.2.
4-5
-------
4.2.1 Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
Volatile organic compound emissions can occur at several
points during the plastic parts coating process: in the spray
booth, in the flash-off area, and in the curing oven (as
described in Chapter 2.0, some operations do not include a
curing oven). The percent of total emissions occurring at
each of these points depends on a number of factors, including
the transfer efficiency of the operation and the amount of
time the parts spend in the flash-off area before entering the
oven. However, in all cases, the majority of the emissions
occur in the spray booth.
The percentage of emissions occurring at the spray booth
depends on the transfer efficiency because only the coating
that actually adheres to the part has the potential to dry
(and thus release VOC's) outside the confines of the spray
booth. For example, if an average transfer efficiency for a
coating operation is 25 percent, at least 75 percent of the
coating remains in the spray booth or the overspray filter.
Therefore, at least 75 percent of the emissions- occur in the
spray booth.
It is reasonable to assume that an additional percentage
of emissions occurs in the spray booth as the coatings
adhering to the part begin to dry. Furthermore, coatings
applied to plastic parts must dry at lower temperatures than
metal parts coatings, so they often contain solvents with
lower boiling points. The rapid evaporation of these lower-
boiling-point solvents in the spray booth and flash-off area
means that only a small portion of the VOC's are emitted in
the curing oven (if a curing oven is used). According to some
estimates, 80 to 90 percent of VOC emissions occur in the
spray booth.6'7-8
Emissions reductions are calculated from the difference
between the emission level at a model plant using baseline
coatings and the emission level at a model plant using
coatings that meet a given option. Table 4-1 shows a summary
of the VOC content for two potential control levels for which
4-6
-------
emissions reductions are calculated. The emissions reduction
over baseline and the percent emissions reduction achieved by
each option at each model plant are shown in Table 4-2.
Reductions range from a low of 21 percent for Level 1 controls
for automotive/transportation model plants applying exterior
coatings to a high of 86 percent calculated for each interior
automotive/transportation model plant using the Level 2
control option.
Among the control options requiring coatings with reduced
VOC content (Levels 1 and 2), the highest reduction is
achieved using Level 2 controls for automotive interior
coatings. All four sizes of model plants (A through D) show
VOC emissions reductions greater than 80 percent for
automotive interior coatings at Level 2. Percent reductions
are greatest for automotive interior coatings because this
category includes coatings with some of the highest baseline
VOC content coatings. Percent reductions are smallest for
exterior flexible coatings. Emissions reductions from
business machine/miscellaneous coatings are equivalent at all
sizes of model plants, with Level 2 achieving the greatest
percent reductions for lower-VOC-content coatings.
Emissions reductions would be even greater for the model
plants by replacing conventional sprayers with more efficient
sprayers (e.g. HVLP) in addition to reduced-VOC-content
coatings. By increasing transfer efficiency, HVLP sprayers
decrease overspray as well as the total amount of coating
used.
As described in Chapter 3.0, coaters can achieve lower
VOC content by using waterborne or higher-solids coatings. In
addition to containing a lower percentage of VOC's, fewer
gallons of a higher-solids coating are required to apply a
given amount of solids.
4.2.2 Other Air Emissions
Other air emissions that occur during coating operations
include nickel particles from spraying nickel-filled EMI/RFI
shielding coatings, aluminum oxide particles from grit
4-7
-------
1
H
0!
O
b
cn
Z
O
H
cn
§
w
cn
cn
§
H
iJ
H
g
C
K
CO
A
< »rf c
a
i
«1 C
°
'*~ jQ
.H^!
e •
IU
S r
§
u
Si -
S
LU
U) N^ CJ
§ C
§
U
w 41
st;
u —
i XXX
icootco
' X
i^
0 > X
«• 19
0 • XX
^ i^r*»
i O
o
•
o-
^-^mc
O
x^^o'o" x
in>» ~»m u*
O
O
oo C
*O
O
O
*£
ea
«««
^C
o o o
ooo
o
o
o
(O ~» o oo
tvjooru
oooo
m o o m
rvi o o roov*
,'. inoom
o o <
§o<
o<
§*•«*<
>»<
r
(M (MOO
> XXX
i ---ooo
(VJK1O
00 -O
OCNJ O>
. .^ 41
oeo . —
i XXX
i CM -o eo
MM O>
01
—t
^
OOON-O ^
OO«-
(\ioin
o
o
o ._
-o u
nsr>rin
in^o
x rn o
O <_ O
O n O
eo<2
4)
>
_, OOOO -n OOOO P
— oooo S in o o in «
g O (M O O ^ >M^^>
§"^•"00"
Kt in
XXX
v*OJOO
NOOOO
!§
O
o
Oin<\JO
ro «M(\J M
XXX
fMmOO
-OOOO
i §§S
oo m
eo-o
r^--^
£
41
OOOO c OOO
oooo _ ooo
i m o a i
Z O O O <
c o o o <
J: oo o<
i
a
aa
.i «-
in
w O>-*MO>
41
01
«* — oooo
tin , oooo
• " a «...
0 Ov» —O
^j O *T &• O
41
:8g
inK
i O
'§
O O
O
ss
41
a
§§§§
o o
-------
blasting prior to zinc-arc spraying, and zinc oxide fumes from
zinc-arc spraying operations. Paint solids from powder
coatings are also emitted during spray application. Although
free of solvent, the powder can be abrasive.' Dry filters and
water walls in spray booths often have particulate removal
efficiencies in excess of 99 percent; therefore, emissions of
the above substances are expected to be minor.10
Amine vapors are emitted during the curing of vapor-cure
coatings; however, special equipment and separate curing
chambers control and minimize emissions from vapor-cure
operations.
Certain proprietary compounds are often used in
conductive coatings, but their emissions are not known. The
conductive coatings are often composed of alcohol, water,
organic salt, and proprietary compounds that may produce air
emissions during the baking stage. However, these emissions
do not appear to be significant. Conductive coatings are
applied to the substrates by conventional spray.
Electrostatic spray technology may increase the transfer
efficiency of conductive coating application.
Cleaning spray booths and spray guns with solvents also
produces VOC emissions. Guns can be cleaned by soaking them
in vats of solvent.11 Manual guns can also be cleaned by
spraying solvent through the gun.12 Automatic spray systems
can be cleaned with internal solvent circulation systems.
Only the tips of the automatic guns or bells require manual
solvent cleaning, thus reducing air emissions.3 Another
method of reducing emissions is to reclaim the solvent used
for booth and spray gun cleaning through distillation.
Distillation can be performed on site or off site, with
recoveries of roughly 80 percent.5
The following hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) are
typically contained in some combination in plastic parts
coatings and are emitted during the coating processes:
formaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, ethyl benzene,
ethylene glycol, methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene, xylene, and
4-9
-------
glycol ethers. All of these HAP's are VOC's and would be
controlled to some extent by each of the alternatives.
Incineration may produce negligible amounts of nitrogen
oxides and carbon monoxide from the high temperatures and
incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons.
4.3 WATER IMPACTS
Plastic parts surface coating facilities may use water in
waterwash spray booths, gun cleaning systems, and dip tanks
for electroless plating. Waterwash spray booths are equipped
with a water curtain that removes overspray particles from the
spray booth exhaust. Water pollution results from the
entrainment of coating solids and from the dissolution of
soluble overspray components into the water. Water pollution
also results from gun-cleaning solvents in waterwash systems.
Some systems allow the captured paint and water (oil/water
emulsion) to be routed to large vats, where chemicals are
added to deactivate the paint, forming a flocculent that can
be skimmed off through filtering.3
Plastic parts may undergo multi-stage washing cycles that
require water in order to prepare the substrates for
coatings.3'13-14 Water is also used in pressurized systems to
clean paint build-up from grating and carriers.5 In addition,
metal conveyor rods are often dipped into salt water baths to
remove dried paint.3
The types of water pollutants likely to result from spray
coating operations include organic solvents, resins, pigments
such as lead chromates and titanium dioxide, nickel particles
from EMI/RFI shielding coatings, and zinc from zinc-arc
spraying.l3
Water pollution from electroless plating processes for
EMI/RFI shielding results from dragout, which is defined as
the volume of solution carried over the edge of a process tank
by an emerging piece of work. This solution usually ends up
in the water used to clean the application area or in process
4-10
-------
drains. Examples of water pollutants emitted from plating
processes are sulfuric acid and nickel and chromium
compounds.n
Only Wisconsin has specific water pollution regulations
for the electroplating industry. The Wisconsin Administrative
Code, Chapter NR 260, establishes effluent limitations,
standards of performance, and pretreatment standards for
discharging by electroplaters. Federal water pollution
regulations for the electroplating and other industries are
governed by the Water Pollution Control Act.11 This Act
specifies several levels of control: (1) for existing plants,
best practical control technology currently available and best
practical treatment (BPCTCA/BPT) by 1977; (2) for existing
plants, best available technology economically achievable and
best available treatment (BATEA/BAT) by 1983. The Act allows
States to establish more stringent control levels than Federal
standards if desired.
Methods currently employed by the coating industry to
handle wastewater and sludge include discharging to a sanitary
sewer, recycling, incineration, and hauling to a licensed
disposal site. Facilities can reduce water pollution by
improving transfer efficiency and by using dry filter spray
booths and in-plant controls. Use of dry filter spray booths
instead of waterwash spray booths will reduce the amount of
wastewater, but increase the amount of solid waste generated
by a plant. Examples of in-plant controls include separating
process and non-process water and reusing and recycling water.
The regulatory alternative of using higher-solids
coatings would not appreciably affect water usage or
contamination in waterwash spray booths. Regulatory
alternatives such as HVLP and electrostatic spray methods
reduce overspray and, thus, can decrease the volume of
contamination in the wastewater from waterwash spray booths.
However, if a scrubber is used as part of an emissions control
system, water may need to be discharged into a sewer system.
4-11
-------
4.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IMPACTS
The majority of solid waste generated by the surface
coating process is the coating overspray collected by dry
filter and waterwash spray booths. Solid waste is usually in
the form of dirty filters from dry filter spray booths and
sludge from waterwash spray booths. Paint also accumulates on
metal carriers, grates, and booths.
Reducing overspray by using HVLP and electrostatic spray
techniques can decrease the amount of solid waste generated by
coating operations. Paint recirculation systems that
constantly agitate and move the paint can also minimize the
amount of paint wasted.5
Another means of reducing solid waste is a paint recovery
system. In one type of system, paint overspray collects onto
baffles. The paint solids then drop from the baffles into a
barrel, where they are recovered, reduced, and reused.3 Using
only zinc-arc spray for EMI/RFI shielding also reduces solid
waste production, if the zinc overspray is recovered and sold
by coaters.
Using the reformulations control options, solid waste
from coating operations could be significantly reduced where
higher-solids coatings are used. Fewer gallons of higher-
solids coating are needed to apply the same amount of solids
than are needed for conventional coatings. Consequently, less
coating is sprayed, and fewer coating containers are disposed
of. The use of HVLP's significantly decreases the amount of
overspray and, hence, the amount of dry filter and sludge
waste.
4.5 ENERGY IMPACTS
Because coatings for plastic parts must cure at a low
temperature to avoid damaging the plastic, the energy
consumption for this process is lower than for similar metal
coating processes. Many of the organic-solvent-based coatings
used on plastic parts can be cured at room temperature, but
most manufacturers recommend a baking schedule to achieve
optimum finish quality.
4-12
-------
Waterborne coatings generally require a low-temperature
oven cure. Most coaters use low-temperature ovens to speed up
production regardless of the types of coatings used. Some
coaters feel that increased oven air flows, and even
intermediate baking between coats, are necessary to produce an
acceptable finish with waterborne coatings.5 Regulatory
alternatives that require the exclusive use of waterborne
exterior coatings or waterborne EMI/RFI shielding coatings
might increase energy consumption at some surface coating
plants because of the higher air flow rates or longer curing
times. However, waterborne coatings are cured at temperatures
in the range of 50°C to 60°C (125°F to 149°F), similar to
those used for organic-solvent-based coatings. Therefore, the
energy impact of the regulatory alternatives specifying
waterborne coatings is expected to be negligible.
Regulatory alternatives such as emission control
equipment and application equipment with better transfer
efficiency (e.g., HVLP and electrostatic spray devices) could
require additional energy in the form of electricity or fuel
consumption.
4.6 HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS
Some of the regulatory alternatives intended to reduce
VOC emissions may affect the health and safety standards for
workers at surface coating plants. Worker exposure to some of
the materials used in the surface coating process must be
controlled through the use of respirators and proper
ventilation. For example, vapor cure and powder coatings can
reduce VOC emissions, but worker exposure to the fumes and
particles must be considered. Electrostatic spray devices can
also reduce emissions by improving transfer efficiency.
However, these applicators have greater potential fire and
shock hazards than conventional air spray. Examples of
regulated materials that might be.affected by the regulatory
alternatives are listed in Table 4-3.
4-13
-------
2
3
ca
u
S
o
CJ
>H
EH
U
fc
K^
1
JJ
e
(11
Use of organic -solv<
based coatings
CO
jj
C
cu
>
rH
O
CO
CJ
•H
fi —
m u
Cno
rl >
O~
1<
o
o
•
^
O
o
Use of some two-
component
catalyzed urethanes
cu
jj
rd
C
- rd
CN >,
i CJ
CU O
a m
CU-H
3-H
rH T3
o •
EH 5f
•d
in — »
H in
o
i_f
o
JJ
Grit blasting prior
zinc-arc spray
|
d
•H
S
rH
4
in
in
Zinc-arc spray
cu
3
<
CU 5
Qi'r!
ca R
3 b
« S
w* CJ
H
H
m
Use of nickel -fillec
EMI/RFI shielding
coatings
rH
rd
jj
cu
S
rH
CU
X
CJ
•H
2
•gs
.2 en
u °
u r*
cu 5
QiTJ
CO P
3 LJ
CO ??
WW u
H
o
H
O
rH
o
UH
Electroless plating
EMI/RFI shielding
rH
CU
^
CJ
•H
c ca
T3
CD C
rH 3
X) 0
3 a
rH 2
0 0
CO CJ
jj
•H
.,-)
^
T3
rH
O
X!
CQ
0)
rH
Xi
E*
• •
CU
CJ —
rH O
3 o%
O en
CO H
K
• H
CU O
CnCJ
rd CQ
rd JJ
53
T3 CU
cu en
jj rd
COi-H
•H rd
CU CJ
a -H
lue. An 8 -hour time-1
1 substances and phys
rd rd
> 0
•rH
^J €
-rt 0)
S X!
•H CJ
J
rH
•o o
rH H-l
0
X! CQ
CO 0)
CU 3
rlrH
XI rd
E" >
rd
,_!
rd
i_i
CU
T3
CU
b
• •
CU
O
rH
O
CO
•
0)
Ol
2
cu
>
rd
•o
CU
jj
X!
cn
•H
CU
1 "
cu
e
-H
JJ
rH
0
Xi
1
GO
S
jj en
•H CO
S i
O rH
ard
ST3
Cd (3
rd
QJ ra
rH
X) —
IT) rH
CQ CU
CQ JJ
•rH CO
g-H
en
cu cu
04 C^
X)
^
CQ
T3
a
3
0
1
CJ
CJ
•H
M-l
•rH
CJ
CU
a
ry depending on the s;
rd
>
ca
jj
•H
S
•H
rH
CU
rH
3
ca
o
8*
w
o
respirable dust.
rH
0
U-l
JJ
-H
S
•H
rH
CU
rH
3
CQ
O
S1
pa
T3
4-14
-------
Regulatory alternatives that promote the use of
waterbome coatings could reduce worker exposure to organic
solvents and isocyanates. Fire hazards could also be reduced
by use of waterbome coatings.
Regulatory alternatives that promote the use of non-VOC-
emitting EMI/RFI shielding methods could reduce worker
exposure to the organic solvents and nickel particles present
in nickel-filled EMI/RFI shielding coatings; however, other
occupational hazards are associated with non-VOC-emitting
EMI/RFI shielding methods. Zinc-arc spray operators must be
protected from zinc oxide fumes and noise. Electroless
plating techniques employ acids and soluble nickel and
chromium compounds that are toxic. The EMI/RFI shielding
options presented in the regulatory alternative have different
types of health risks associated with them, each of which
should be evaluated accordingly.
Guidance regarding fire and electrical hazards can be
obtained from the National Fire Protection Association. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, among other
government agencies, provide specific guidance on worker
safety and health.
4.7 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
4.7.1 irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
For many of the regulatory alternatives, such as the use
of HVLP's and add-on control devices, additional equipment
would be required. Manufacturing such equipment would consume
steel and other raw materials. However, compared to current
coating industry use of these resources, the increase in
consumption would be insignificant.
4-15
-------
4.8 REFERENCES
1. Memorandum from Miller, S. and Johnson, J. Radian
Corporation to Salman, D., U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chemicals and Petroleum Branch. Documentation of
the Coatings Database for the Plastic Parts Surface
Coating Industry. December 7, 1990.
2. Dames and Moore. Appendices for the Position Paper
Recommending the Use of Michigan Rule 632 as an
Automotive Plastic Parts Control Techniques Guideline.
Prepared for the National Paint and Coatings Association
and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. June
28, 1991.
3. National Paint and Coatings Association. National Air
Pollution Control Technology Advisory Committee Meeting:
Comments on Surface Coating of Plastic Parts Control
Techniques Guideline. November 20, 1991.
4. Plastic Parts Coatings Database Radian Corporation,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
5. Letter and attachments from Nelson, R. J., National
Paint and Coatings Association to Salman, D.,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemicals and
Petroleum Branch. March 4, 1992.
6. Wilson, A. Methods for Attaining VOC Compliance.
Pollution Engineering. Page 15: 34-35. April 1983.
7. Industrial Surface Coating: Appliances-Background
Information for Proposed Standards. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA-450/3-80-037a.
8. Preliminary Review of 19 Source Categories of VOC
Emissions. U. S. Environmental Agency, OAQPS. May 1988.
9. Bryan, G. Bruce, Jr. Powder Coating Safety is No
Accident. Industrial Finishing Magazine.
September 1990.
10. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines -
Background Information for Proposed Standards. Draft
NSPS, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-450/3-85-019a. December 1985.
11. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and S. J. Miller. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC., to Kenkor
Molding Division, Englishtown, NJ. September 13, 1990.
4-16
-------
12. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC., to Autostyle,
Incorporated. Grand Rapids, MI. September 18, 1990
13. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC to Ford Motor
Company Plant, Milan, MI. September 19, 1990.
14. Trip Report. Norris, C. E. and C. R. Blackley. Radian
Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC to Ford Motor
Company Plant, Saline, MI. September 19, 1990.
15. Industrial Surface Coating: Appliances-Background
Information for Proposed Standards. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EPA-450/3-80-037a. pp. 7-1 - 7-14.
4-17
-------
5.0 CONTROL COSTS ANALYSES
This chapter presents the costs associated with the VOC
emissions control options described iii Chapter 4.0 for the
plastic parts surface coating industry. Section 5.1 explains
cost derivations for add-on thermal incineration systems and
for substituting currently used coatings with coatings having
lower VOC and/or higher solids content for the automotive/
transportation sector. Section 5.2 presents the same type of
information for the business machine/miscellaneous sector.
All costs are provided in first-quarter 1990 dollars. When
necessary, equipment and materials costs were updated using
chemical engineering cost indices. Labor rates and utility
prices were obtained from recent publications by the
U. S. Department of Labor and the U. S. Department of Energy.
(See Appendix C for sample calculations of cost analysis.)
5.1 AUTOMOTIVE/TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
5.1.1 Add-on Thermal Incineration Systems
As discussed in Chapter 3.0, the use of add-on thermal
incineration systems is an effective strategy for controlling
VOC emissions at surface coating facilities. Thermal
incineration is the predominant type of add-on control used in
this industry. Incinerator system costs were developed using
the methodology in Chapters 2.0 and 3.0 of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual.1
Scrubbers were neither required nor costed because the VOC's
in the coatings are not halogenated.
Table 5-1 presents the operating parameters used for
thermal incineration design and cost estimations for the
automotive/transportation model plants described in
5-1
-------
IV*
MS
o
&.
CO O*
P5J O
W E-<
M a
H CQ
2 ss
2 o
0,H
2 <
3 E-<
S*
gg
CO CO
2 T
O g
LJ ^H
£^
s|
H Q
U 2
^S
*""* ^
j <
I w
2 a
M pH
t.
5C
^^
.
rH
i
Ul
W
1
X —
> tj'is
*• w 1
« S a
3 Ji
u
u ^
§^e
* .5 7*
IF
^
|h
«il
i—
Number of
ncineratori
required0
'^
u
«•*
_, u *•
10 a ^
+* j ,•
—
Suo
Sfl-
A S
L. 3*-
3 0 0
•M -— «
(0 *^ ^i*
z
a
U ">
O CB ^
w -5 c
|3|
* 91
- 2S
i s's
2^^
CO
a
j
d
"c
4
1
3
5j£5j
•-«»»»
ooo
§(M«\J
CM(M
000
§O O
O O
O 0
KIKlrS
^*" *~
ooo
ooo
ooo
•o
KIKI »-
~*!^^
ill
ooo
KIKIKI
<<<
«<
K(MO
fMN-N.
OOO
(MON-
(MI^-O
OOO
§§§
OOO
in mm
(MOIOJ
ooo
ICICK
111
l-Q't
»- O«O
<— (MOI
ill
ooo
in mm
ca OB m
<«
-
Kl
>»•-»-
lo-S
OfMfM
Iff
to co co
»-^»-
KIKIKt
OOO
ooo
rvj c\jf\j
"~ — "
000
N.m in
x>>o >o
*- ^ ^
o
OKI IM
KIO O
OOO
OOO
ooo
(M(M (M
U U U
<«
«-«»»
(MtMOJ
OOO
•O ^3 -O
Kl KIKI
S^)^
KIKI
Kl CMCM
OOO
§§§
33^
(MCMO
Sac
<«
9
e
3
jj
•H
O
01
rH
td
a1
•H
AJ
00
O
u
o
jj
jj
f+
I
G
M
id
(U
3
id
'W
0)
a
(U
01
a
fd
1
to
o
O
o
10
H
•d
c
(d
o
a
-------
Chapter 2.0. Other information used as input to the costing
program included an operating temperature of 1,600°F and a
destruction/removal efficiency of 98 percent, as discussed in
Chapter 4.0. The inlet stream heat value ranged from 0.044 to
0.344 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf),
as determined from the heat value of the dilute VOC's in the
booth exhaust.
The cost-effectiveness of a system using recirculation to
concentrate the VOC level (and thus the heat content) in the
stream was also investigated. For automated lines,
recirculation may be a cost-effective alternative. However,
recirculation is not feasible on nonautomated coating lines
because worker exposure levels would be unacceptable;
therefore, on a plant-by-plant basis, it was not
cost-effective.2
Annual operating hours of 6,000 hours per year for
automotive/transportation model plants D-l, D-2, and D-3 and
4,000 hours per year for all other model plants were used to
calculate the emission rates as well as operational costs such
as labor and utilities.
Capital costs, annual costs, and cost-effectiveness are
discussed below.
5.1.1.1 Capital Costs. The cost analysis followed the
methodology outlined in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual.1
Equipment cost correlations were based on data provided by
various vendors. Each correlation is valid for flow rates in
the 500 to 50,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) range.
For flow rates above 50,000 scfm, additional incinerators were
costed.
Equipment costs for thermal incinerators are a function of
total volumetric throughput (Qtot)• expressed in scfm. Four
different heat recovery scenarios were evaluated in the cost
estimation procedures. The cost algorithm includes systems
with heat recoveries of 0, 35, 50, and 70 percent. The
equipment costs for each model plant size were calculated by
using the following equations:
5-3
-------
Heat Recovery (%) Equipment Cost ($)
0 10,294 x (Qtot) °-2355
35 13,149 x (Qtot) 0.2609
50 - 17,056 x (Qtot) °-2502
7Q 21,342 x (Qtot) 0.2500
where Qtot ig tjtle sum °f all streams fed to the incinerator:
vent stream, auxiliary fuel, combustion air, and dilution air.
The amount of heat exchange that occurs is decided by an
economic optimization routine, with the least-cost system
being selected as the logical choice for a control device.
Total capital and annual costs are based on the most cost-
effective configuration. The trade-off between the capital
cost of the equipment and the operating cost of fuel for the
system determines the optimum level of energy recovery. For
each of the model plants, 70-percent heat recovery was
selected as the optimum level.
The cost of the"ductwork and fans required to carry the
vent stream from the spray booth to the incinerator are not
included in the above equations. The costs for this auxiliary
equipment were based on the assumption of 1/8-inch carbon
steel ducting, 2 feet in diameter, with two elbows per
100 feet of ducting.3 The fans were assumed to be 24-inch
diameter and able to produce the pressure increase necessary
to move the vent stream. The equations for these costs are as
follows:
Duct Cost - [(210 x d°-839)+(e x 4.52 x d1-43)] x 1
x (355.6/352.4)
where:
d * diameter (in inches),
5-4
-------
e » number of elbows per 100 feet,
1 » length of duct work (in hundreds of
feet), and
355.6/352.4 = cost conversion from February 1989
dollars to Ist-quarter 1990 dollars.
Fan Cost - NX (96.96418 x Qv0-547'
x (355.6/342.5).
where:
N = number of incinerators required,
Qv - Vent stream flow rate (scfm) , and
(355.6/342.5) = cost conversion from 1988 (avg.)
dollars to Ist-quarter 1990 dollars.
The sum of the incinerator, ductwork, and fan costs is the
equipment cost. Table 5-2 presents factors used to calculate
purchased equipment cost. The total direct cost is then
calculated as a function of the purchased equipment cost, as
is the total indirect cost. Total capital cost is the sum of
purchased equipment costs, direct costs, and indirect costs,
or 1.61 times purchased equipment cost, as shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-3 presents a summary of total capital costs for the
12 automotive/transportation model plants
5.1.1.2 Annual Costs. Total annual costs for the thermal
incinerator system include annualized capital costs, as well
as operating and maintenance costs. The assumptions used for
determining annual costs are presented in Table 5-4.
Table 5-3 presents a summary of the annual costs of control.
5.1.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness is
defined as the total annualized cost per megagram of VOC
emissions reduction. The information required to calculate
cost-effectiveness for thermal incineration is summarized in
Table 5-5. The costs per emission reduction were determined
by applying the costing methodologies described in previous
sections to the individual model plant emissions reductions of
VOC. The method for determining model plant emissions
reductions of VOC was described in Chapter 2.0.
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-2. CAPITAL COST FACTORS FOR THERMAL INCINERATORS
Direct Costa
Equipment Costs (EC) :
Incinerator + Auxiliary
Equipmenta EC
Instrumentation 0.10 EC
Sales Taxes 0.03 EC
Freight 0.05 EC
Purchased equipment cost (PEC) PEC » 1.18 EC
Direct Installation Costs
Foundation and Supports 0.08 PEC
Handling and Erection 0.14 PEC
Electrical 0.04 PEC
Piping • 0.02 PEC
Insulation for Ductwork 0.01 PEC
Painting 0.01 PEC
Total Direct Cost (DC) 0.30 PEC
Indirect Costs (Installation)
Engineering 0.10 PEC
Construction and Field
Expenses 0.05 PEC
Contractor Fees 0.10 PEC
Start-up 0.02 PEC
Performance Test 0.01 PEC
Contingencies 0.03 PEC
Total Indirect Cost (1C) 0.31 PEC
Total Capital Cost (TCP
TCC - PEC + DC + 1C
- PEC + 0.30PEC +
0.31PEC
- 1.61PEC
^Ductwork and fan(s).
5-6
-------
en
in
I
o
u
a
U4
at
8
l_
3
> L.
o >
ao
aj
u
a.
u
o
o
... ooo
? mmm
ooo ££2= eaeoco
l
l
(M
-O
IM(M
-O-O
v T-*- OOO
OOO mmm
mmm ooo
§:
) O O
>o o
)O O
*-.-*- £££
mmm mm m
too o o
ooo ooo
__ ooo ooo
oo ooo ooo
>»«
o
eoeo co
:§§ §:
too ooo
I O O OOO
too ooo
NOJ O4
«•?«•? »•? (\|"|M*C>4*
oo
«< caaea uuu aoo
t— t— ^ Mf»^» h-^H- H*^H»
§
1
2T?
u a
in
fi
O
•H
JJ
U
(U
CO
a
01
•H
O1
•a
o
•d
a)
jj
u
rH
id
o
id
i
in
0)
rd
a
•H
o
o
Cb
d)
O
o
0)
04
rH
id
"a
c
o
•0
0)
CO
id
m
o
en
rH
id
c
•H
4J
tn
o
o
TJ
(U
N
d)
4J
Ol
O
§
•4-1
3
04
4J
5
U
o
•H
id
OQ
-H
I
id
•d
a
id
-------
TABLE 5-4.
ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATING ANNUAL
COSTS OF THERMAL INCINERATION
Annual Operating Hours (hrs)
• Automotive/Transportation Model
Plants D-l, D-2, D-3
• All Other Model Plants
Operating Labor Rate ($/hr)
Operating Labor Required (hrs/8-hour shift)
Supervisor Cost (% of Operating Labor)
Maintenance Labor Rate ($/hr)
Maintenance Labor Required (hrs/8-hour
shift)
Annual Maintenance Material
Utilities
• Electricity ($/1000 KW-hr)
• Natural Gas ($/l06 Btu)
Overhead (% of Operation and Maintenance)
Administrative Charges
Property Taxes
Insurance
Capital Recovery Factor (10% interest,
10-year lifetime)
TCC = Total capital cost.
6,000
4,000
15.64
0.5
15
17.21
0.5
100% of
Maintenance Labor
61.0
3.30
60
2% TCC
1% TCC
1% TCC
0.16275
5-3
-------
TABLE 5-5.
SUMMARY OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR APPLYING THERMAL
INCINERATION TO MODEL PLANTS IN THE
AUTOMOTIVE/TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
Total
annual
Model cost
plant ($/yr)
Ala 524,000
A2a 524,000
A3a 524,000
Blb 910,000
B2b 910,000
B3b 910,000
Clc 2,390,000
C2C 2,390,000
C3C 2,390,000
Dld 6,340,000
D2d 6,340,000
D3d 6,340,000
aSmall model plants.
^Medium model plants,
cLarge model plants.
Total VOC emission
reduction
[Mg/yr
31.7
26.4
25.0
71.9
60.1
56.8
257
215
203
791
661
625
»
(tons/yr) ]
(34.9)
(29.0)
(27.5)
(79.1)
(66.1)
(62.5)
(283)
(236) -
(224)
(870)
(727)
(688)
Overall cost-
effectiveness
[$/Mg
16,600
19,900
21,000
12,700
15,200
16,000
9,281
11,107
11,807
8,000
9,600
10,100
($/ton)l
(15,000)
(18,100)
(19,100)
(11,500)
(13,800)
(14,600)
(7,600)
(9,000)
(9,600)
(7,300)
(8,700)
(9,200)
dVery large model plants.
5-9
-------
These analyses show that, in general, VOC reduction from
dilute streams (e.g., the exhausts from each of the model
plants) requires significant investment of capital. In
addition, large quantities of auxiliary fuel are needed, which
significantly increases annual operating costs. Combining
these conditions with the emissions reductions achieved
produces high cost-effectiveness values, ranging from
$8,000/Mg ($7,300/ton) removed for the largest model plants up
to $21,000/Mg ($19,100/ton) removed for the smallest model
plants.
5.1.2 Substituting Lower-Volatile-Organic-Compound Coatincrs
Using coatings with lower VOC and/or higher solids content
was discussed in Chapter 3.0 as an effective emissions control
strategy. To develop control costs for this strategy, the
baseline and optional VOC levels were first selected as
described in Chapter 4.0. Equations for estimating the cost
of coatings with varying levels of VOC's, were developed and
used to calculate the cost impact and cost-effectiveness at
both option levels for each type of coating used by the model
plants.
5.1.2.1 Capital Costs. No capital costs were estimated
for the reformulation control options. This is based on the
assumption that a facility's existing equipment can apply the
reformulated coatings without a capital expense.
5.1.2.2 Annual Costs. Total annual costs for
reformulated coating application is calculated from the
difference in annual coating cost between the given option
level and the baseline level. The equations used to calculate
coating cost are as follows:
Colorcoat Cost ($/gal) - -14.43 x Cvoc + 99.76
Clearcoat Cost ($/gal) = -12.98 x Cvoc + 89.79
Primer Cost ($/gal) = -7.21 x Cvoc + 49.88
where Cvoc is the amount (Ib/gal) of VOC in the coating.
5-10
-------
The estimated cost associated with each coating was based on
information provided by the NPCA and coating formulators.*
All costs are provided in first-quarter 1990 dollars.
Representative cost estimates for each coating corresponding
to its level of VOC content are presented in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6 shows the VOC level and cost of each coating for the
baseline and both control options. The total annual coating
cost over baseline is estimated by the following equation:
n n
TAG = £ [Ue x VOCC] - £ [UBx VOCB]
i = 1 i = 1
where:
Uc - Usage of control level coating in gal/yr.
Ub - Usage of baseline coating in gal/yr.
VOCC » VOC content of control level coating in Ib/gal
VOCB = VOC content of baseline coating in Ib/gal.
The coating use for an option was estimated based on the
assumption that the' total amount of solids applied remains
constant when substituting the lower-VOC coating for the
baseline coating.
5.1.2.3 Cost-Effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness was
calculated for each option on a model plant basis and on an
overall basis. The equation for cost-effectiveness is:
TAG ($/yr)
CE ($/ton)
[Emissions reduction (Ib/hr)/2000(Ib/ton)]
Emission reductions for each model plant are calculated as in
Chapter 4.
5-11
-------
CO
i
H
S
CO
w
vo
in
H
*f»- C9
«M «MKI *-
o inKi KI
m KI ^ •**
SM«
KI «O KI °
»- KI
00-0 XT
•o-O-f in
ow-bake color
ow-bake primer
igh-bake colorcoat
igh-bake primer
utomotive Exterior
_J —i 3 S <
fcsn
S^2
^IS.
* CO»M I--
f^-O h-
MKI»- KI
-ro in
in-* in
«-^ »M
in CM *o
fw in *o
»-KI
r»OJ O
M 4-»
ss
u u u
«IJ
SoS.
41 « < -*
«^55
52SS
g-i-.--
u.
§
at
SS3
O-* PU
•-in co
•*« KI
*.-»•
o«-
KICOO
03 CO O
KI O1* ^
KIKIO
KIKI «-
^KIOJ
W 4^
a a
o o
u u ^
28.1
•3-2T
u o a.
41 41 41
J<^ -*
^^^
4|4
X Z =
JJ
I
en
GO
a
01
5-12
-------
The results of the cost-effectiveness calculations are
shown in Table 5-7. The cost-effectiveness for each type of
model plant (interior, exterior flexible, and exterior non-
flexible) was constant, regardless of size. Table 5-7 also
shows the incremental cost-effectiveness, i.e., the cost-
effectiveness of the emissions reductions achieved by moving
from control Level 1 to control Level 2.
5.2 BUSINESS MACHINE SECTOR
5.2.1 Add-on Thermal Incineration System
As with the automotive/transportation sector, capital
costs, annual costs, and cost-effectiveness were calculated
using the methodology given in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual.1
Table 5-8 presents system parameters for adding thermal
incineration to the model plants for the business machine
sector described in Chapter 2.0.
5.2.1.1 Capital Costs. The costing equations and
relationships used to calculate total capital costs are shown
in Section 5.1.1.1. The capital costs for applying thermal
incineration to the business machines model plants are
presented in Table 5-9, and range from $590,000 for the small
model plant to $1,870,000 for the large model plant.
5.2.1.2 Annual Costs. The costing equations and
relationships used to calculate total annual costs are shown
in Section 5.1.1.2. The annual costs for applying thermal
incineration to the business machines model plants are
presented in Table 5-9, and range from $373,000/yr for the
small model plant to $1,490,000/yr for the large model plant.
5.2.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness. The costing equations and
relationships used to calculate cost-effectiveness are shown
in Section 5.1.1.3. The cost-effectiveness values for
applying thermal incineration to the business machines model
plants are presented in Table 5-10. These cost-effectiveness
values range from $7,560/Mg removed ($6,860/ton removed) for
the largest model plants up to $37,900/Mg removed ($34,500/ton
removed) for the smallest model plant.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-7. COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF APPLYING REFORMULATION
CONTROL LEVELS TO
AUTOMOTIVE/TRANSPORTATION MODEL PLANTS
$/Mg($/ton)
Model plant IDa
Interior
Exterior
coatings
Exterior
coatings
coatings
flexible
nonflexible
Level 1
694
674
735
(630)
(612)
(667)
Level 2
729
666
736
(662)
(605)
(668)
Incremental
332
655
737
(756)
(595)
(669)
aRefers to model plants described in more detail in
Chapter 3.0.
5-14
-------
I
b
nJ
CO tf
OA O
HU
H W
i> w
3 2
S; o
04 H
E-"
s
H CH
£5
CO O
?H ft
0} CO
~3
NERATIOI
ITIVE/TPJ
02
H EH
3
S<
2 03
ta H
35
c^
>
00
i
in
TABLE
8§
> ti'i.
« ** E
— • £ &
sr
u
ifi
3 ~
w
u „
o UJ
_, 2 C
S*1^
•-
(A
o^
fc2.§
|2j
3 o .*
.-
L.
-••-'*
3
'-
0)
(0 CU
a^o^
III
IB H-
*
> cl
"c — -
—
J! u
c t«^
™* u i
U!
*5"*"
M
11^
ll2
** 0 M
K» "7 "5
o •" •"
5 S RJ
e a ~
o o o
§ i g
IM ^ r*i
(M in a
O 0 0
3 R S
588
r>j >o i>
in ro
in »» «-
§o c
o c
o* o* o
IM in c
- S .
1 ' -
vt x -j
^» *» «%
•< ca t.
^ ^ "*
01
!c
jj
o
•a
a>
05
3
0)
O
o
o
i
OP-I
U (0
rtj IT)
m
j
s'
jj
•1-1
O
01
iH
(15
01
a
-H
JJ
01
o
o
o
JJ
JJ
3
01
C
H
A
,
,
S
jj
•H
0
01
rH
ItS
01
G
•H
JJ
01
O
o
S
0
IM
JJ
Qi
jj
3
O
U
5-15
-------
CO
pd
H
K
CJ
jg
CO
CO
Ed
M
§
3
04
S
3
O
H
§
Ed
H
U
H
j
2
si
Ed
S
EH
JH
0)
J
o
CH
S
o
0
Et*
O
EH
CO
O
U
Ed
O
JM
S
5
g
CO
.
o\
1
in
j
2
EH
(A
O
U
TS **:
? >-
£ >
" W
a
o
•~
jut
\Z.
u*»
»2
5 *
ss
U
•M
S
u
** ^
'*" ^
•- JJ
f
u
01
IU
u
01
o
u
" X
^»
—J ts
3
a
z
n
I.
0 X
2S
— 4-1
w O
(0
u
^
^
fl
n
U
—
a
'a
a
u
Q
w
j
"a
—*
•o
2
0 0
Rl^
SQ
O O
§ §
3" 5
o o
o o
o o
rvi (M
(M in
o o
8 §
«-" o^
•• CM
IM in
§ 1
8 8
§o
, §
O ^D
m oj
^
- §
(A X
~> <-•
< CO
0
o
o
^r
o
§
a
Kl
*™
O
O
o
M
0
§
rj
o>
S
o
§
S
co
v-
O
at
u
a
,»
u
,
H
•
H
,4
•
in
c
o
•H
JJ
U
(U
CO
G
•H
fl
(U
>
•H
01
T*J *
o
jj
S
^
43
•a
O
ca
rH
ftf
•H
^4
0)
jj
g
^
^
o
id
rH
ca
(U
1
rH
O
fl
M
TJ
5-16
-------
TABLE 5-10. COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF APPLYING THERMAL
INCINERATION TO THE BUSINESS MACHINE
MODEL PLANTS
Model Total annual
plant costs
ID* ($/yr)
(A) Small 373,000
(B) Medium 867,000
(C) 'Large 1,490,000
Total VOC
emissions
reduction
11.9 (10.8)
95.4 (86.7)
238 (217)
Cost - effectiveness
$/Mg ($/ton)
38,000 (34,500)
11,000 (10,000)
7,600 (6,900)
aRefers to model plants described in more detail in
Chapter 3.0.
5-17
-------
5.2.2 S.yta.s. fcitutinCT Lower-Volatile-Organic-Compound Coatincrs
As discussed in Chapter 2.0 and Section 5.1.2,
substituting lower-VOC- and/or higher-solids-content coatings
is a cost-effective control strategy. The costs, emissions
reductions, and cost-effectiveness calculations parallel those
shown in sections 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.2, and 5.1.2.3.
5.2.2.1 Capital Costs. No capital costs were estimated
for the reformulation control options. This is based on the
assumption that a facility's existing equipment can be used to
apply the reformulated coatings without a capital expense.
5.2.2.2 Annual Costs. The annual costs of implementing
coatings specified by an option were calculated as detailed in
Section 5.1.2.2. The following equations were used to
estimate coating cost ($/gal):
Colorcoat, colorcoat/texture coat,
Clearcoat, and primer = -9.04 x Cvoc + 62.57
Solventborne EMI/RFI =• -35.07 x Cvoc + 247.20
Waterborne EMI/RFI = -36.09 x Cvoc + 249.85
where Cvoc is the coating VOC content in Ib/gal. Cost curves
were developed based on coating costs reported in the business.
machine surface coating New Source Performance Standards.3
Table 5-11 shows the VOC level and calculated cost per
gallon of each coating at the baseline and both option levels.
5-18
-------
CQ
O
23
M
E-<
rtj
0
U
fa
O
CQ
W
O
U
o
o»
2
O
u
u
H
5
a
as g
pa f]
M W
m
CN
m
en
•
0
m
H
in
in
m
CO
H
.
en
H
CN
m
co
4J
recoa
Textu
1
CN 00
r> ^
H in
in CM
m in
CO VO
CN m
H CN
in ^«
m oo
• •
vo m
m in
CM ^*
in ^t«
(TV O
CN <*
cn o
co r»
. .
H in
CN <*
f~ H
CO f^
in CM
cn
C
H -H
i^ fc T3
(1) OJ rH
g ^ . a
fi J3
•H CO
oj m
CO CQ
o -a cn
0 -H C
rH -H
rH O 4J
rtj CQ ft!
cn o
^>. OJ O
U c
o a; ^
> o m
r-l CO
^3 CO ^>
(H Oi V>
ff* O M
5-19
-------
5.2.2.3 Cost-Effectiveneas. The cost-effectiveness of
each option may be calculated in exactly the same manner as
presented in Section 5.1.2.3. Table 5-12 shows the results
these calculations.
5-20
-------
TABLE 5-12. COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF APPLYING REFORMULATION
CONTROL LEVELS TO BUSINESS
MACHINE MODEL PLANTS
$/Mg ($/ton)
Model plant Level 1 Level 2 Incremental
(A) Small 517 (470) 529 (480) 1,199 (1,088)
(B) Medium 517 (470) 522 (474) 520 (481)
(C) Large J317 (470) 517 (470) 518 (470)
5-21
-------
5.3 REFERENCES
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Control Cost
Manual. OAQPS/EPA. Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-450/3-90-006. January 1990.
2. Memoradum from Ferrero, B., Radian Corporation, to David
Salman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemicals
and Petroleum Branch. Recirculation of Spray Booth
Ventilation Stream. February 24, 1992.
3. Vatavuk, William. Pricing Equipment for Air-Pollution
Control. Chemical Engineering. May 1990. pp. 126-130.
4. Memorandum form Fortier, G., Radian Corporation to Salman,
D., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemicals and
Petroleum Branch. Sensitivity Analysis Performed on
Coating Cost Assumptions. May 1, 1991.
#
5 . Business Machine NSPS.
5-22
-------
6.0 ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION
This chapter presents additional technical information to
supplement the information on low VOC content coatings
presented in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. Section 6.1 presents
additional information on exterior coatings for
automotive/transportation parts. Section 6.2 presents
additional information on coatings for business machine parts.
6.1 EXTERIOR AUTOMOTIVE COATINGS
The development of lower VOC content exterior coatings
for the automotive/transportation industry is a complicated
process involving product development such as new or modified
substrates, coating performance (weatherability, durability,
etc.), and assessment of changing customer demands. As
described in Chapter 2 and Table 2-4, the industry has reduced
exterior coating VOC content and emissions over the past
decade by developing many new lower VOC content materials.
Improvements in exterior coating performance in some
cases has required higher VOC loadings than the lower VOC
content coatings in control levels 1 and 2 in Chapters 4 and
5. Recent information presented by the industry indicate that
some of the lower VOC exterior coatings in control levels 1
and 2 were based on out-of-date or incorrect data. Table 6-1
presents a new exterior coating option (control level 4) for
exterior automotive coatings. The reasons for changes from
the options presented in Chapters 4 and 5 are:
Red and black colorcoats require higher VOC content
than other colors to achieve the same performance
due to pigment particle size (see discussion in
Section 2.3);
6-1
-------
Flexible primers require higher VOC content than the
initial lower VOC formulations to avoid masking
problems for multiple color systems;
Non-flexible primers require higher VOC content than
the initial lower VOC formulations to provide smooth
finishes to match other body parts;
Primers with the initial lower VOC levels had poor
weatherability. Higher VOC levels are needed to
achieve acceptable performance;
Clearcoats with the initial lower VOC levels did not
provide adequate acid etch resistance. Recent
clearcoats with slightly higher VOC content provide
adequate acid etch resistance;
The original colorcoat database did not span the
full range of colors used in the industry; and
The low-bake clearcoat data originally reported by
the coating manufacturers did not reflect correct
as-applied VOC levels.
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 compare control level 4 with the
control levels presented in Chapters 4 and 5 for exterior low-
bake and high-bake coatings. Emission reductions and cost-
effectiveness of control level 4 were determined as discussed
in Chapters 4 and 5 for control levels 1 and 2. Table 6-4
compares the national impacts of control levels l, 2 and 4.
Other environmental impacts of control level 4 are equivalent
to those for levels 1 and 2, as discussed in Chapter 4.
6.2 BUSINESS MACHINE COATINGS
The appropriateness of particular lower VOC content
coatings for business machine parts may be influenced by the
conditions in which the final product will be used. Many
machines are used in a home or office setting, while others
are used in a more hostile factory or field environment. The
coatings used on parts destined for factory or field use must
be able to withstand the conditions present in those
environments. This may preclude the use of some of the lower
VOC content materials suitable for parts destined for home or
office use on parts destined for factory or field use.
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1. AUTOMOTIVE/TRANSPORTATION NEW EXTERIOR COATING OPTION
(CONTROL LEVEL 4)
Low-Bake Flexible and Nonflexible Coatings
Coating Type
Primers
Colorcoats
Red and Black
All other colors
Clearcoats
VOC Content
(lb/gal)a
5.5
5.6
5.1
4.5
High-Bake Coatings
Coating Type
Primers
Flexible
Nonflexible
Colorcoats
Clearcoats
VOC Content
(lb/gal)a
5.0
4.5
4.6
4.3
* All VOC contents are measured as pounds of VOC per gallon of
coating less water.
6-3
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF CONTACTS
-------
Pucci, Mike
AT&T
Rm B-2236
131 Morristown Rd.
Bushing Ridge, NJ 07920
Dougherty, David
ABB Power T and D Co.
Post Office Box 9533
2728 Capitol Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Williams, John
AIMCO
Post Office Box 80153
Conyers, Georgia 30208
Marg, Ken
Marketing Director
Accuspray
Post Office Box 391525
Cleveland, Ohio 44139
Swisher, Doug
Engineer
Advanced Plastics, Inc.
100 Main Street
Sherman, Mississippi 38869
Lowe, Ronnie
Air Power, Inc.
2304 Atlantic Avenue
Post Office Box 41165
Raleigh, North Carolina
27629-1165
Jurczyszyn, Robert
Corporate Manager
AJczo Coatings, Inc.
Regulatory Affairs
Post Office Box 7062
Troy, Michigan 48007-7062
Hickman, Bob
Executive Vice President
Alladin Plastics, Inc.
Post Office Box 129
Surgoinssville, Tennessee
37873
Maty, Joseph
Editor
American Paint & Coatings
Journal
2911 Washington Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63103
Walberg, Arvid
President
Arvid C. Walberg and Co.
Post Office Box 9055
Downers Grove, Illinois 60515
McConnell, John
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Autostyle Plastics, Inc.
5015 52nd Street S.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49512
Bobowski, David
BASF Chemicals
Coatings and Inks Division
5935 Milford Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48210
-------
Young, Barry
Engineer
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
939 Allis Street
San Francisco, California
94109
Home, Reggie
Bee Chemical Company
Division of Morton Thiokol
2700 East 170th Street
Lansing, Illinois 60438
Chalikian, Peter
Director of Marketing
Sinks Manufacturing Co.
9201 West Belmont Avenue
Franklin Park, Illinois 60131
Fair, Paul
Contour Technologies
Design Engineering Group
850 Stephenson, Suite 306
Troy, Michigan 48083
Pond, Bob
Cook Paint and Varnish Co.'
919 East 14th Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64116
Lumby, Mick
Vice President
Croix Air Products, Inc.
520 Airport Road
Fleming Field
South St. Paul, Minnesota
55075
Rankin, Tim
Blue Ridge Hardware &
Industrial Division
P.O. Box 547
Bassett, VA 24055
Supply
Reese, Jim
DeSoto Paint Company
Coatings and Polymers Division
1700 South Mount Prospect Road
Des Plaines, Illinois 60017
Russel, Cheryl
Boeing Corp.
Bunnell, Michael
President/C.E.O.
Can-Am Engineered Products,
Inc.
30850 Industrial Road
Livonia, Michigan 48150
Heuertz, Matt
Executive Director
Chemical Coaters Association
Post Office Box 241
Wheaton, Illinois 60189
Robinson, Frank
Director of Marketing
DeVilbiss Co.
Post Office Box 913
Toledo, Ohio 43692
McClinton, Roy
Delta Environmental Services
6701 Carmel Road
Charlotte, NC 28226
-------
Coletta, Tony
DuPont
Automotive Products
Post Office Box 7013
Troy, Michigan 48007-7013
Turowski, Daniel
Project Development Engineer
Durr Industries, Inc.
Finishing Systems
Post Office Box 2129
Plymouth, Michigan 48170-4297
Schultz, Karl
Environmental Consultant
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.
Automotive Products
1007 Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19898
Lannefors, Hans
Flakt, Inc., Alpha Division
Environmental Research Dept.
29333 Stephenson Highway
Madison Heights, Michigan
48071
Lennon, Joseph
Environmental Control Engineer
Ford Motor Company
Environmental Quality Office
15201 Century Drive
Dearborn, Michigan 48120
Scheaffer, Scott
Vice President
GET Plastics
4157 North Kings Highway
St. Louis, Missouri 63115
Steck, Paul
Manager
Exothermic Molding, inc.
199 West Clay Avenue
Roselle Park, New Jersey
0.7204
Bernhim, Ed
Sales Executive
Exxene Corp.
5939 Holly Road '
Corpus Christi, Texas 78414
Oyler, Bill
Fawn Industries
Engineering Department
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
Peters, Gregory
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corp.
30400 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9015
Flores, James
Districk Manager
Graco Inc.
7158 Open Hearth Drive
Keraersville, North Carolina
27284
Richter, Dick
Manager, Advertising
Graco, Inc.
Post Office Pox 1441
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55440-1441
-------
England, Kevin
Corporate Environmental
Engineer
Hasbro, Inc.
1027 Newport Avenue
Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02862
Bailey, Robert
Senior Vice President
Lilly Industrial Coatings
Corporate Marketing
P.O. Box 946
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Merrill, Ken
President
Hi-Line Plastics
Post Office Box 247
0lathe, Kansas 66062
Dionne, Edam
IBM
Naisaith, Ann
IBM
Department 559, Building 002
P.O. Box 12195
Research Triangle Park, NC
27709
Jewett, Jim
Intel
Armitage, Norman
President
John L. Armitage and Company
1259 Route 46
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
Mullen, Marjorie
Kentucky Division of Air
Quality
316 St. Clair
Frankfort, KY Allen, Andy
Marketing/Materials Engineer
Lexalite International Corp.
Post Office Box 498
Charlevoix, Michigan 49720
Chalfant, Bob
Lockwood Green Engineers
1330 West Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30367
Beaman, Joe
Vice President
Luster Coate
32 East Buffalo
Churchville, New York 14428
Forberger, Steve
MXL Industries
Engineering Dept.
1764 Rohrerstown Road
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601
Steading, Dale
Finishing Manager
Mack Molding
Post Office Box 815
Inman, South Carolina 29349
York, Carl
Maryland Air Management
Administration
2500 Broeing Highway
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
-------
Wagner, John
Environmental Engineer
Masco Corp.
Suite 110, Westpark Center
5111 Auto Club Drive
Dearborn, Michigan 48126
Irvine, Robert
Michigan Dept. of Nat.
Resources
Air Quality Division
Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Haddock, Bryon
Technical Sales Representative
Morton International, inc.
Specialty Chemicals Group
2700 East 170th Street
Lansing, Illinois 60438
Koreck, Joseph
Color Services Manager
Morton International, Inc.
2910 Waterview Drive
Rochester Hills, Michigan
48309
Praschan, Eugene
Manager, Emissions and Control
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
Association
7430 Second Ave, Suite 300
Detroit, Michigan 48202
Schafer, Larry
NCR Corp.
7240 Moorefield Hwy.
Liberty, SC 29857
Nelson, Bob
Director, Environmental
Affairs
National Paint & Coatings
Assoc.
1500 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
Banks, Richard
National Semiconductor
Reddy, Beth
New Jersey of Environmental
Protection
CN-027
Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0027
Dalton, Kathy
New York Division of Air
Quality
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Waffen, Bruce
Director of Marketing
Nordson Corp.
555 Jackson Street
Amherst, Ohio 44001
Reinhardt, David
Director of Operations
North American Reiss Corp.
Kenkor Molding Division
Dept. I, Mount Vernon Road
Englishtown, New Jersey 07726
Lawson, David
Manager, Materials Technology
PPG Industries, Inc.
Coatings and Resins Group
Post Office Box 9 (JPCL5)
Allison Park, Pennsylvania
15101
-------
Suss, Naomi
PPG Industries, Inc.
Automotive Technical Center
Post Office Box 3510
Troy, Michigan 48007-3510
Gregory, Ellen
Seyforth Shaw
55 East Monroe
Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60603
Cyr, Dick
President
Plas-Tec Coating, Inc.
70 Mascola Road
South Windsor, Connecticut
06074
Kirby, Art
Chemical Coatings Division
Sherwin-Williams Company
101 Prospect Avenue, North
West
Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1075
Rafson, Harold
Quad Environmental Technology
3605 Woodhead Drive
Suite 103
Northbrook, IL 60062
Ocampo, Gregory
Product Manager
Sherwin-Williams Company
101 Prospect Avenue, N.W.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1075
Brown, Kate
Ransburg-Gema, Inc.
Marketing Department
Post Office Box 88220
Indianapolis, Indiana 46208
Lutterbach, Mark
Red Spot Paint and Varnish Co.
Post Office Box 418
Evansville, Indiana
47703-0418
Caine, John
Vice President Sales
Reeco Regenerative
Env ironmental
Equipment Co., Inc.
Box 600, 520 Speedwell Ave.
Morris Plains, NJ 07950-2127
Bankoff, Barbara
Siemens
Ulrich, Darryl
Executive Director
Society of Mfg. Engineers
Assoc. for Finishing Processes
Post Office Box 930
Dearborn, Michigan 48121
Thomas, Larry
President
Society of Plastic Industries
1275 K Street N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
Forger, Robert
Executive Director
Society of Plastics Engineers
14 Fairfield Drive
Brookfield, Connecticut 06805
6
-------
Hopps, Don
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
9150 Flair Drive
El Monte, California 91731
Sweetman, Bill
Senior Environmental Engineer
Spaulding Sports Worldwide
425 Meadow Street
Chicopee, Missouri 01013
Glenn, George
Technical Director
Speeflo Manufacturing Corp.
8605 City Park Loop
Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77013
Rosania, Stanley
President
Structural Foam Plastic, Inc.
Post Office Box 5208
North Branch, New Jersey
08876
Donahue, Tim
Executive Vice President
TS Polymers
4750 Ashley Drive
Hamilton, Ohio 45011
Teten, Lance
Director, Research &
Development
Texstar, Inc.
802 Avenue J East
Grand Prairie, Texas 75053
Hynds, Jim
President
Turbo-Spray Midwest, Inc.
24047 Research Drive
Farmington Hills, Michigan
48024
West, Thayer
Union Carbide Chemicals and
Plastics Co., Inc.
39 Old Ridgebury Road
Danbury, Connecticut
06817-0001
Gates, George
Project Engineer
Webb Manufacturing Co.
Post Office Box 707
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
Lluch, Jaime
Wiggin & Dana
1 Century Tower
New Haven, CT 06508-1832
Labak, Larry
Environmental Engineering
Manager
Wilson Sporting Goods
8840 West Palm
River Grove, Illinois 60171
Ayer, Matthew
Environmental Coordinator
Worthington Industries, Inc.
4219 U.S. Route 42
Mason, Ohio 45040
Barefield, Larry
YDK America
P.O. Box 1309
Clinton, GA 30114
-------
APPENDIX B "
EMISSIONS CALCULATION
1. BASELINE
A. Automotive
Baseline VOC levels were determined for each coating
category for each model plant based on information reported by
NPCA. The volume of each coating used at each model plant was
multiplied by the estimated baseline VOC level, to get an
estimate of model plant baseline VOC emissions (see Example B-l).
Example B-l; VOC Emissions Calculation (Model Plant ATA1)
Usaga VOC Content Emission*
Coating Csal/yr) (Ib VOC/oal) fib VOC/yr)
Highbake Colorcoat 450 x 4.6
Highbaka Priwr 150 x 5.4
loubake Colorcoat 8,550 x 6.0
Loubake Priam-
2.850 x 6.0
Total 12,000 gat/yr
• 2,070
• 810
» 51,300
• 17.100
71,280 Ib VOC/yr
(71,280 Ib VOC/yr)(1 ton/2,000 Ib) » 35.6 torn VOC/yr - 24.
VOC/vr
It was assumed that 100 percent of coating VOC content was
emitted. Tables B-l, B-2, B-3, and B-4 present the model plant
usage, VOC level, and emissions for each category at baseline and
each option. Options 1 and 2 are reformulation options, and
Option 3 applies incineration as an add-on control. Note that as
VOC content is lowered due to reformulation, total usage is
3-1
-------
CO
8
CO
CO
M
s
6H
u
a
o
I
(0
u
w
§
M
S!
2
01
E«
u
I
a
s
03
M 3 c
11?
!J|
Hi
N
m
i«i
m
ji!
«
8. 9 •» -
b b b b
5 = 53
b b • ri M
r «
532
0 •»
•• *
3 •
« «
9 2 5
2223 = 3
b b b b b b
3 « S 8 3 3
«1 •• -
O •» —
2 2 2 g 2 g a
b b b b b b •
? S S 55 S 5
« « f« b <4 b n
• 1
» - a
<• <«» •»
- 9
- a
a a
« ri
<« b «4
-o rt —
f» •» f» O f»
•• •
•»«««" —
? S S
•* ri r*
3 2 5
I
j
d
« fl M
t ^« i^ •• B^ •« B^
S S 9 n 9 n «
1
B-2
-------
CO
§
M
CO
(0
«
11!
J
w
o
a
Cd
w
w
o
o
cu
o
Ft
ill
lit
Z
<
I
01
w
J
03
I
I
S S 2 »
3 X 9
- b *
s a -s s s T
b d d b b —
s a s s 5 s «
o o o b b 2 -
P S 5 S S S !^ P S S « S s S
r» « « a in — 2 (- •« « b »i _; ^
b b »> —
« •» •» 9 •» —
>o •+ r\ o •* — n
a « s
•? ^
» M — S
b b b — «
- a
2 5
— r- n
•a
-------
CO
o
M
W
to
w
Q
O
Cd
U
01
O
I
cn
&*
a
1
I
01
ca
>j
a
1
3s II
.31 A
lit
!rt
'•II
1 si
i:
r
!
a a a 3
" S S 5
s a s s a
O — O — O Wl
S S 8 2 3 5
— o ^
am
-------
W
O
w
&
Ok
a
3
X
O
6-t
OS
O
0*
CO
i
03
U
J
03
£
it
— u
M
»i
Iff
t
833?*
R « 3 2 |
8
5
2 S
2 — a
2 w S
- 3
-o o
M-
2
* ?? 3 3 8 P |
S » P « 3 2 3J
3
-
ss
=
£ S
s s
•* «* >rt «rt Q
o» « * — t» « •
$ s
S S!
S3??*
« 3 2 *
i,
B-5
-------
reduced. This is based on the assumption that the total amount
of solids required remains constant across the options (Example
B-2) .
Example B-2: Reformulated Coating Usage
(Highbake Colorcoat, Model Plant ATAl)
Reformulated Usage * Usage at Baseline x
7.1
vac
7.1
option l»v»i.
Usage at Level 1
450 gal/yr x
1-
4.6
771
1-
4.3
7.1
402 gal/yr
l«v«t 1
The emissions from the add-on control option (Option 3) were
calculated from the assumption of 98 percent destruction
efficiency by thermal incineration. Emissions are therefore
2 percent of baseline emissions (Example B-3).
Example B-3; Emissions After Control (Model Plant ATAl)
Emissions from Example B-l» 36 tons
Option 3 emissions » Baseline Emission * 0.02
» 36 tons/yr (0.02) - 0.7 tons/yr
3-6
-------
B. Business Machines
Coating usage and VOC levels were determined for each
coating type for each model plant size based on information
collected from the industry as explained in Chapter 2. VOC
emissions from each model plant were then calculated by
multiplying gallons used by VOC content per gallon as in Example
B-l. Table B-5 shows model plant coating usage, VOC level, and
calculated emissions for each coating at each option for all
three business machine model plant sizes.
As in the automotive sector, add-on control was incineration
with a destruction efficiency of 98 percent. Thus, emissions
were estimated to be 2 percent of baseline emissions (see
Example B-3) .
2. EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Emission reductions are calculated as the difference between
baseline emissions and the emissions at a given control option
for every case. Table B-6 shows the emissions reduction for each
control option for both the automotive and the business machine
sectors. Example B-4 shows the emissions reduction calculation
for ATA1.
Example B-4; Emission Reduction Calculation
(Model Plant ATA1, Option 2)
Emissions at Baseline =-36 tons/yr
Emissions at Option 2 = 6 tons/yr (from Table 1)
Emissions Reduction » 36 tons/yr - 6 tons/yr » 30 tons/yr
B-7
-------
cn
O
M
cn
cn
o.
j
Ed
a
o
as
o
Ed
cn
cn
o
Ed
Ed
O
cn
Ed
Z
M
S
o
cn
cn
Ed
z
M
cn
oa
m
i
aa
Ed
J
00
11!
•5 i
31'
sil
J-1A
3 <•
**
5 I
e||
9-11
- S€
^l.t
2 1 Sg
s S c
1.2 i-
* 1 3
a 1 1
3=^
I1S
b 6
2 8 3 S •
f-l •• m o V)
b O b — M
o> •» o> .0
o. ^ »
>o >« >X — b
— « 9t
r> « •• f>)
b b b <•«
r«>o
«tf
•• 0
^k f^ ^^ ^K
2 S 8 S 2
O O O —
S 3 5
2. « 3 S 3
3
•3
hi
1 £
i
.3
I
o
B-3
-------
a *
•» •?
.si
o
5
0
CO
en
en
03
U
>J
03
<
I
i-§s
| 1-5
ill
01 at •=•
i
DU *-
e _
III
ill
01 06 •=>
S -P
.2 ^.
II
- »
* a a s
" -
« a a
S
i!
.2
II
S
-as
s s s
58=
3
s a , ||5
s s. p
S
385 S 3 3 II
iii
9
iii
a < a a a
-------
APPENDIX C
COST CALCULATIONS
Costs of control for both the Automotive/Transportation and
Business Machine/Miscellaneous sectors were developed in an
identical manner; however, the approach differed between the
reformulation options (1 and 2) and the add-on control
option (3). Reformulation costs were developed from cost data
supplied by manufacturers. The data was used to develop cost
equations based on VOC content. To calculate the cost of a
reformulation option, the cost of each of the individual coatings
must first be calculated at both baseline and option levels. The
cost equations are taken from Chapter 5. Example C-l shows the
required calculations for model plant ATA1.
Example c~l; Coating Cost Calculations
Baseline
Coating
Highbak* Colorcoat
Highbak* Prf«tr
loubaka Cotorcoat
Loubak* Priaar
VOC
Ub/gaL)
4.6
5.4
6.0
6.0
Cost
Equation
-14.43* (4.6) *
•7.21* (5.4) «•
-14.43* (6.0) *
-7.21* (6.0) *
Coating Cost
(VgaO
99.76 - 33.38
49.88 > 10.95
99.76 » 13.18
49.88 - 6.62
C-l
-------
Option l
Coating
Highbake Colorcoat
Highbake Primer
Lowbake Colorcoac
loubake Primer
VOC
(lb/gal>
4.3 -14.43*
4.3 -7.21*
5.0 -14.43*
3.5 -7.21*
CMC Coating Cost
Equation (S/gal }
<4.3)
(4.3)
(5.0)
(3.5)
* 99.76 » 37.71
* 49.88 » 18.88
* 99.76 » 27.61
* 49.88 » 24.64
See Table 5-6 for the VOC content and calculated cost of each
coating at baseline and both options.
The total cost of coating is found on a model plant basis by
multiplying the total usage of each coating by its cost and
summing each cost as shown in Example C-2.
Baseline
Coating
Highbake Coloreoat
Highbeke Primer
lowbake Colorcoat
Lowbake Primer
Totals
Cast
(S/gal)
33.88
10.95
13.18
6.62
tlmm*^
**^^*^^i
-------
Table C-l shows the total coating cost for each model plant at
baseline and at both levels.
The cost of controlling a model plant at an option may then
be calculated by finding the difference in total coating cost
between the option cost and the baseline cost (Example C-3).
Table C-l presents the annual cost of control by reformulation
for each model Plant at both control levels.
Example C-3; Annual Cost of Reformulation
Cost of Baseline (from Example C-2) « $148,200/yr
Cost of Option 1 (from Example C-2) » $161,900/yr
Cost of Control = $16l,900/yr - $148,200/yr = $i3,700/yr
The cost of controlling model plants with add-on
incinerators was calculated by a computer program based on
Chapter 3 of the OAQPS Control Cost Manual.1 Table C-2 shows
the input to the program, and Tables C-3 and C-4 show the costing
output from the program.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS Control Cost
Manual. OAQPS/EPA. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA-450/3-90-006. January 1990
C-3
-------
z
o
H
E-1
a
o
Ch
Ed
OS
X
03
0
OS
E-i
!
fiu
O
CO
O
U
r-l
1
O
U
03
•^
6-1
CM
C
o
-P
Q
O
"
O
1>
o
0)
c
r-
U
09
(0
09
P 4j ^4
H to >i
§ y >
y *~
•5 *• "*•*
** o ^
g y >
u *•"
^
*j sS
Q W V>
y ~
o» ^
^J lj
^* Q ^^
** u v>
y -
^_
5 ** "£
Tj o >i
Tj O °^<
2 y «>i
y ~
r-l 4J
4) C
so!
o
0
^
en
f-4
O
O
vO
P-
vO
•"*
0
o
r-
^
n
r-l
O
0
en
,_4
r-l
O
o
O)
»
CO
2
H
rtj
C^4
"^
0 0
0 0
in «
vo m
o o
O 0
\0 O
O* n"
O CM
P^ f^
O O
a o '
0 •»
^ n
o a
o o
r-l CO
CO O
en CM
CM n
0 O
o o
r-4 *T
% »
^ P»
en i-i
CM en
CM en
< <
H EH
< •<
a o
o o
r-l VO
* ^
•V rH
0 0
a o
r- in
O CM
00 CO
n vo
a o
o o
CM en
r-l CO
n
0 O
O 0
00 CO
r- vo
vo r**
n vo
0 0
o o
vo en
« *
*0 P**
n %
ft CM
03 QQ
6^ EH
< <
a
o
p*
m"
r-l
O
0
e*>
n
n
•"*
o
o
en
(•X
o
o
in
^
CO
(M
0
o
VO
^
a
CM
P»
m
03
*
O
o
o
CO
in
o
o
o
o
VO
n
1-1
0
0
o
CM
"
O
o
o
r-
rH
O
o
a
**
in
a
CM
T-4
r-4
U
EH
<
0
0
0
CM
in
0
o
o
en
^
*
CM
a
a
0
CM
n
a
o
o
^
en
CM
CM
O
o
0
^
rH
en
CM
CM
y
*
o
o
o
tn
**
0
0
o
in
CM
VO
CM
O
O
o
CO
CM
O
o
o
00
o
VO
CM
0
0
0
*
0
CO
in
CM
n
y
£4
*
o
0
a
VO
00
^
o
0
a
r-l
en
iH
*
^
O
a
a
in
^
n
a
0
o
a
in
o
^r
o
o
0
in
o
r»
r»
f-i
a
B
a
a
0
r-(
VO
r-l
O
o
o
•V
f-l
in
^
r-
o
o
a
CO
en
o
o
o
f-l
in
^>
r»
o
o
o
n
in
n
r>
CM
Q
§
a
0
o
r-(
1-
r-l
0
O
o
in
r-
o
^
CO
o
a
0
CO
CO
0
0
0
(M
CM
O
CO
0
o
o
^
n
-------
04
O
H
EH
CO
8
OS
g
H
2
H
u
H
a
H
I
u
H
O
S
5;
i;
!»
i^
1
?
II
^ ^
r
I
«**^«~»M«M<»JI«»«»»»l'»l'»««1^W-»
-»-»-*«c>»-»-»-»~r-o-o>o-»-»-»
MMmwtmiA£<••»••»•>
• .a • .a • .a « y « u
s 1 "il "ii sisss
— 5 —5 —5 — 5 u u u
* * "1 * * * " * * * *
oo^oo_o_oo^^^^« S •
'u'C'C'C^TI^r'b'k'C'u'C c 2 2
CXXCXxSxxSxx333
IM a
0 >
§e*
C-5
-------
I-
Hi
I!
O
O
1
a
CO
o
M
CO
ca
r»
I
y
dl
j
aa
« •
a s s s 3 s
o r\j
o o a o a
PI PV I* lA in
N. > O
(M -O
-------
Business
H«chln«/Mlsc.
W
I! !!
fi fl
<• «r
J> 0
IM d
l>» •»
1 7 J
3 *» •»
?i i
1-' °
» it
2
?
<•
o
— 3m m
3 32 Z
* ?" *
* a? i"
2* *
<» i>
a
z
•
^4 Qk
— am
1 32
i ?i
' l?
2'
If
^*
Ut J*
S? 3
<^ f*
? ?
J '
^•J
1
er
•*
M M
IK M —
* m m «
8 2 X 3
li ! 5
15 « «
• Tt
1
^
*
- - -
li
-i a
r
5
o
It
u
0
T
"5*
*»
i"
|«
f »
• ^
s 2 "
% -
S § *
*• -o o
Vl
UI
O»
3 5
v» ^ o e> e§ o>
333 333
i i i § s §
» t X S 2 »
IM N M 555
sis 333
j M
XMVH
0*O>
««
0>Ot
33
UIUIW*
o» * o>
XtrSrS
U4M
SSI
» *
§ "5 5 S
•
fM IM IS»
M M
uSvM
222
S
-OOi
O -O 0*
'
^
Ok VN I'M
V I'M ^ 4 9>
S 5 '3 I 's 3 § § "s i § 1 S
1
Incinerator
ltal Cost (
rlc
«/
n *
2»
_
£3
I:
H
>
03
f
n
o
i
i
H
§
8
en
"§
cn
C-7
-------
APPENDIX D
CTG MODEL RULE FOR SURFACE COATING OF PLASTIC PARTS
D. 1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix outline a sample rule to limit volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from the surface coating of
plastic parts. The sample rule is for informational purposes
only; it is intended to provide information concerning factors
that need to be considered in writing a rule to ensure that it
is enforceable.
This sample rule is general in nature; that is, the
applicability of the rule, and thus the stringency, are
determined when the emission limits are chosen by a State or
local agency. As mentioned in Chapter 1, this document does
not contain a recommendation on RACT; therefore, no emission
limits are specified in the sample rule.
The remainder of this appendix contains the sample rule.
Separate sections cover the following rule elements:
applicability, definitions, emission standards, compliance
demonstration, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting.
D.2 APPLICABILITY
The provisions set forth in this sample rule apply to any
facility that coats plastic components for the following uses:
Automotive or other transportation equipment
including interior and/or exterior parts for
automobiles, trucks (light-, medium-, or heavy-
duty), large and small farm machinery, motorcycles,
construction equipment, vans, buses, and other
mobile equipment; and
Housings and exterior parts for business and
commercial machines including, but not limited to,
computers, copy machines, typewriters, medical
equipment, and entertainment equipment.
D-l
-------
This sample rule applies to in-house coating processes
located at the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) site, as
well as, to coating contractors specializing in molding and
coating plastic parts, and job-shops performing coating only.
This sample rule applies to coating operations including
coating application, flash-off and drying/curing.
This sample rule does not apply to plastic parts coated
on the main (body) paint line in automobile or light-duty
truck assembly plants. This sample rule does not apply to the
repair of plastic parts on fully assembled vehicles in
automobile or light-duty truck assembly plants. These parts
are covered under regulations for automobile and light-duty
truck coating operations. This sample rule also does not
apply to coating of. interior and exterior parts for aircraft;
coating of exterior of completely assembled marine vessels;
refinishing of automobiles, trucks or other transportation
equipment; and coating of internal electrical components of
business and commercial machines.
The remainder of this appendix contains the sample rule.
Separate sections cover the following rule elements:
applicability, definitions, emission standards, emission
standards testing, monitoring requirements, and reporting/
recordkeeping.
D.3 DEFINITIONS
Add-on control device. An air pollution control device
such as a carbon adsorber or incinerator which reduces the
pollution in an exhaust gas. The control device usually does
not affect the process being controlled and thus is "add-on"
technology as opposed to a scheme to control pollution through
making some alteration to the basic process.
Adhesion promoter (primer). A coating applied to
thermoplastic olefin (TPO) parts to promote adhesion of
subsequent coatings.
Affected facility. Any apparatus, to which a standard is
applicable, involved in the coating of plastic parts.
D-2
-------
Affrermarket automobiles. Vehicles that have been
purchased from the original equipment manufacturer.
Basecoat/clearcoat. A two-step topcoat system in which a
highly pigmented, often metallic, basecoat is followed by a
clearcoat, resulting in a finish with high-gloss
characteristics. It is often used on automotive parts.
As applied. The condition of a coating at the time of
application to the substrate, including any dilution solvents
added before application of the coating.
Capture efficiency. The fraction of all organic vapors
generated by a process that are directed to an abatement or
recovery device.
Clearcoat. A transparent coating usually applied over a
colored, opaque coat to improve gloss and provide protection
to the colorcoat below.
Coating. A material applied onto or impregnated into a
substrate for protective, decorative, or functional purposes.
Such materials include, but are not limited to, paints,
varnishes, sealants, adhesives, inks, maskants, and temporary
protective coatings.
Coating unit Cor line!. A series of one or more coating
applicators and any associated preparation and drying areas
and/or oven wherein a coating is applied, dried, and/or cured.
A coating unit [line] ends at the point where the coating is
dried or cured, or prior to any subsequent application of a
different coating. However, a coating unit does not
necessarily include an oven or a flash-off area, and may
consist of any preparation and application areas.
Electromagnetic interference/radio frecruency interference
(EMI/RFI) coatings. Coatings used in plastic business machine
housing to attenuate electromagnetic and radio frequency
interference signals that would otherwise pass through the
plastic housing.
Flash-off area. The area within a coating operation
where solvents evaporate from a coating during the interval
between coats or before the coated part enters a bake oven.
D-3
-------
Flexible coating. A paint with the ability to withstand
dimensional changes.
Glosa reducers. A low-gloss coating formulated to
eliminate glare for safety purposes on interior surfaces of a
vehicle, as specified under the U.S. Department of
Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
High bake coatings. Coatings designed to cure at
temperatures above 194°F.
Higher-solids coating. Coating containing greater
amounts of pigment and binder than conventional coatings.
Solids are the non-solvent, non-water ingredients in the
coating. Higher-solids coating usually contain more than 60
percent solids by volume.
Low bake coatings. Coatings designed to cure at lower
temperatures (below 194°F).
Non-flexible coating. A paint without the ability to
withstand dimensional changes.
OEM. Original equipment manufacturer.
Overspray. The solids portion of a coating which, when
sprayed, fails to adhere to the part being coated. The
applied solids plus overspray solids equal total coating
solids delivered by the spray application system.
Plastic Part. A piece made from a substance that has
been formed from resin through the application of pressure or
heat or both.
Primer. Any coating applied prior to the application of
a topcoat or color coat for the purpose of corrosion
resistance, adhesion of the topcoat, and color uniformity.
Solids content. The non-solvent, non-water ingredients
in the coating, consisting of pigment and binder, that do not
evaporate and have the potential to form a cured (dry) film.
The solids content can be expressed as volume percent or
weight percent.
Specialty coatings. Coatings used for unusual job
performance requirements. These products include adhesion
primers, resist coatings, soft coatings, reflective coatings,
D-4
-------
electrostatic prep coatings, headlamp lens coatings, ink pad
printing coatings, stencil coatings, coatings (automotive),
vacuum metalizing coatings, and gloss reducers.
Topcoat. The final coat of paint applied to a substrate.
Several layers of topcoat may be applied in some cases.
Transfer efficiency. The ratio of the amount of coating
solids deposited onto the surface of the coated part to the
total amount of coating solids used.
Two-component paint. A coating that is manufactured in
two components that are mixed shortly before use. When mixed,
the two liquids rapidly crosslink to form a solid composition.
Volatile organic compound (VOC) content. The amount of
VOC in a coating as determined by Method 24. The VOC content
can be expressed as pounds of VOC per gallon (or kg VOC/L) of
coating, minus water and exempt compounds.
Waterborne coating. A coating that contains more than
five weight percent water in its volatile fraction.
D.4 STANDARDS
(a) Automotive/Transportation Sector. The VOC content
of any automotive/transportation plastic parts surface coating
shall not exceed the applicable limitations as specified in
Table 1.
(b) Business Machine Sector. The VOC content of any
business machine plastic parts surface coating shall not
exceed the applicable limitations as specified in Table 2.
(c) Daily Weighted Average Alternative. The daily
weighted average VOC content of all coating used on a coating
unit that are subject to a single limit in (a) or (b) above
shall not exceed that limit.
(d) A facility may use a capture system and control
device in lieu of complying coatings on any coating unit. The
capture system and control device on a coating unit shall
achieve an overall control efficiency which is greater than or
equal to that needed to reduce the daily weighted average VOC
content of the coatings used on that unit to the applicable
emission limit on a solids basis.
D-5
-------
D.5 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRATION, MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING AND
REPORTING
For information on possible compliance demonstration,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, see
Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available
Control Technology. Planning for Ozone Nonattainment Pursuant
to Title I of the Clean Air Act. Staff Working Document, June
1992.
D-6
-------
TABLE 1. COATING CATEGORIES FOR
AUTOMOTIVE/TRANSPORTATION COATINGS
Control
Level
Coating Category (Ib
_ VOC/gal)a
I. Auto Interiors
1) High Bake Colorcoat
2) High Bake Primer
3) Low Bake Colorcoat
4} Low Bake Primer
II. Auto Exteriors (Flexible and Nonflexible)
1) High Bake
a) Colorcoat
b) Clearcoat
c) Primer -Flexible
d) Primer-Nonflexible
2) Low Bake
a) Primer
b) Colorcoat Red and Black
c) Colorcoat Others
d) Clearcoat
III. Auto Specialty
1) Group (A)b
2) Group (B)c
3) Group (C)d
4) Headlamp Lens
aVOC content values are expressed in units of mass of VOC (kg,
Ib) per volume of coating (L, gal) , excluding water and
exempt compounds, as applied.
bGroup A - Black and Reflective Argent Coatings, Soft
Coatings, Air Bag Cover Coatings, Vacuum Metalizing Basecoat
and Texture Coatings.
cGroup B - Gloss Reducers, Vacuum Metalizing
Topcoat, and Texture Topcoat.
C - Stencil Coatings, Adhesion Primers, Ink
Pad Printing Coatings, Electrostatic Prep Coats, and Resist
Coatings .
D-7
-------
TABLE 2. COATING CATEGORIES FOR BUSINESS MACHINE
COATINGS
Control Level
Coating Category (Ib VOC/gal)a
I. Primer
II. Colorcoat
III. Colorcoat/texture coat
IV. EMI/RFI Shielding
V. Specialty
1) Soft Coatings
2) Plating Resist
3) Plating Sensitizer
aVOC content values are expressed in units of mass of VOC (kg,
Ib) per volume of coating (L, gal), excluding water and
exempt compounds, as applied.
D-a
-------