&EPA
United States      Control Technology       EPA-450/3-88-007
Environmental Protection Center            August 1988
Agency        Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Reduction of
Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from the
Application of
Traffic Markings
           control ^technology center

-------
                                                EPA - 450/3-88-007
REDUCTION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS

     FROM THE APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC MARKINGS
           CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER


                  SPONSORED BY:
              Emission Standards Division
        Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
       Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
            Office of Research and Development
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Research Triangle Park.NC 27711
        Center for Environmental Research Information
            Office of Research and Development
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                Cincinnati, OH 45268
                    August 1988

-------
                                                EPA - 450/3-88-007
                                                August 1988
REDUCTION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS

     FROM THE APPLICATION OF TRAFFIC MARKINGS
                    Prepared by:

                   Gary A. Aurand
                   Mark B. Turner
                   Carol J. Athey
                   Roy M. Neulicht

            MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
              Gary, North Carolina 27513
              EPA Contract No. 68-02-4379
                ESD Project No. 87/31
               MRI Project NO. 8950-07
                   Prepared for:

                   Karen Catlett

        Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
               Control Technology Center
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

-------
                                 PREFACE

     The traffic markings investigation was funded as a project of EPA' s
Control Technology Center (CTC).

     The CTC was established by EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide
technical assistance to State and Local air pollution control agencies.
Three levels of assistance can be accessed through the CTC.  First, a CTC
HOTLINE has been established to provide telephone assistance on matters
relating to air pollution control  technology.   Second, more in-depth engi-
neering assistance can be provided when appropriate.  Third, the CTC can
provide technical  guidance through publication of technical guidance docu-
ments, development of personal computer software, and presentation of
workshops on control  technology matters.

     The technical  guidance projects, such as  this one, focus on topics  of
national or regional  interest that are identified through State and Local
agencies.  This report discusses methods of controlling volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from the application  of highway traffic markings,
a very unique source inasmuch as the State Government generally has total
control of the specifications for the coatings.

     The purchase and application of traffic markings is generally under
the purview of the State Departments of Transportation, consequently, the
control of VOC emissions, that is the development of regulations and imple-
mentation of control  techniques, lies completely within the control  of the
Governor.  Most importantly, perhaps, is  that  VOC emission reductions from
this source can usually be obtained  at a  cost  savings to the State since
mosflow-VOC markings are considerably more durable than the traditional
solvent-based paints.

     This document  provides an analysis of the cost savings that can accrue
when a State converts to a low solvent coating.   Further,  in Section 5.3
example calculations  permit the reader to analyze the cost associated with
specific circumstances  which may be  unique to  the State.

                                     ii

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

     This  report was  prepared by staff in  Midwest Research Instititute1s
Environmental  Engineering Department located  in Gary,  North Carolina.
Participating  on the  project team for the  EPA were Karen Catlett of the
Office of Air  Quality Planning and Standards  and Charles Darvin of the
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory.  The data presented were
generated through a literature search and  surveys of paint formulators,
equipment manufacturers, and State Departments of Transportation.
                                    m

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                      Page

LIST OF TABLES	      v

1.0  INTRODUCTION	      1

2.0  SUMMARY	«•'      3

3.0  AVAILABLE TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS	      7

     3.1  FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SELECTING A MARKING MATERIAL	      7

     3.2  DESCRIPTIONS OF MATERIALS AND APPLICATION METHODS	     10
          3.2.1  Solvent-Borne Paints	     10
          3.2.2  Water-borne Paints	     15
          3.2.3  Thermoplastics	     16
          3.2.4  Preformed Tapes	     17
          3.2.5  Field-Reacted Materials	     18
          3.2.6  Permanent Markers	     19

4.0  EMISSIONS, EMISSION REDUCTIONS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS	     20

     4.1  EMISSIONS	     20

     4.2  BASELINE AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS	     24
          4.2.1  Explanation of Baseline	     24
          4.2.2  Emission Reductions	     24

     4.3  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS	     27

5.0  COST ANALYSIS	     28

     5.1  ANNUALIZED COSTS	     28
          5.1.1  Annualized Capital Costs	     28
          5.1.2  Annualized Application Costs	     31
          5.1.3  Total Annualized Costs	     34

     5.2  COST EFFECTIVENESS	     37

     5.3  APPROACH TO ESTIMATE STATE-SPECIFIC COSTS	     37

6.0  REFERENCES	     42
                                    iv

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES

                                                                        Page

 TABLE la.   VOC EMISSIONS AND COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE
               TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS	      4

 TABLE Ib.   VOC EMISSIONS AND COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE
               TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS	      5

 TABLE 2.    FACTORS AFFECTING THE SELECTION OF A TRAFFIC MARKING
               MATERIAL	      8

 TABLE 3.    ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC
               MARKING MATERIALS	    11

 TABLE 4a.   PROPERTIES OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS.....    13

 TABLE 4b.   PROPERTIES OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS	    14

 TABLE 5a.   VOC EMISSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE MARKING MATERIALS	    21

 TABLE 5b.   VOC EMISSIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
               MATERIALS	    22

 TABLE 6a.   VOC EMISSION  REDUCTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
               MATERIALS FROM  BASELINE	    25

 TABLE 6b.   VOC EMISSION  REDUCTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
               MATERIALS FROM  BASELINE	    26

 TABLE 7a.   PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE  CAPITAL EQUIPMENT  COSTS
               ASSOCIATED  WITH MAINTAINING 32,000 KILOMETERS OF
               TRAFFIC MARKINGS	    29

 TABLE  7b.    PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE  CAPITAL EQUIPMENT  COSTS
               ASSOCIATED  WITH MAINTAINING  20,000 MILES OF
               TRAFFIC MARKINGS	     30

 TABLE 8a.    PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
              APPLICATION COSTS	     32

 TABLE 8b.    PARAMETERS USED TO CALCULATE ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
              APPLICATION COSTS	     33

 TABLE 9a.   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
              MATERIALS	     35

TABLE 9b.  TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE  TRAFFIC MARKING
              MATERIALS	    36

-------
                         LIST  OF  TABLES  (continued)

                                                                      Page


TABLE lOa.  COST EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
              MATERIALS	    38

TABLE lOb.  COST EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING
              MATERIALS	    39

-------
                              1.0   INTRODUCTION

      The Clean Air Act identified December 31, 1987, as the latest date
 for attainment of the national  ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
 ozone.   As of this writing,  many  areas of the country are not in
 attainment with the ozone NAAQS.   The U.  S.  Environmental Protection
 Agency  (EPA)  has proposed to require States  that have ozone nonattainment
 areas to submit revised State Implementation Plans (SIP's) that describe
 what steps will be taken to  attain the standard (52 FR 45044,  November 24,
 1987).
      Under the proposed rule (52  FR 45044),  to demonstrate attainment of
 the NAAQS  for ozone,  emissions  of volatile organic compounds (VOC's)  must
 be  reduced to a level  that will produce ozone concentrations consistent
 with the NAAQS as  demonstrated  by atmospheric dispersion  modeling.   Once
 the State  has determined  the VOC  emission  reduction required to  meet  the
 NAAQS,  it  must identify and  select  control measures that  will  produce the
 required reductions as  expeditiously  as practicable.
      Nonattainment  areas  are likely to have  a high  population  density and,
 therefore,  a  high  frequency  of traffic marking  applications.   This  report
 presents technical  information that State  and local  agencies can use  to
 develop  strategies for  reducing VOC emissions  from  the application  of
 traffic  paints  and marking materials.  The information in  this document
 will  allow  planners to:   (a)  identify available alternative  low- and  zero-
 VOC  traffic paints and marking materials;   (b) determine the area's
 baseline condition; and (c) evaluate the VOC  reduction, cost, and
 environmental  impacts of implementing the  alternatives.
     This document provides  information on traffic marking application
 processes, VOC emissions and emission reductions, and costs associated
with the application of the alternative traffic marking materials.   This
 information was generated through  a literature search and  surveys of State
Departments of Transportation, traffic paint  formulators,  and application
equipment manufacturers.  Section  2.0 presents a summary of the findings
of this  study.  Section 3.0 provides the following information  on
alternative marking materials:  (1)  factors affecting the  selection  of a
traffic  marking material,  (2) descriptions  of alternative  traffic marking

-------
materials and associated application  techniques, and  (3)  brief discussions
of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the use  of each
material.  Section 4.0 provides emission estimates for each  alternative
and estimated emission reductions from traditional solvent-borne  traffic
marking paints and describes the environmental impacts associated with the
application of these alternative traffic marking materials.  Section 5.0
presents a cost analysis that includes a methodology for computing
annualized equipment and materials cost and the anticipated  savings for
each alternative with respect to the use of solvent-borne paints.  The
annualized application cost of each alternative is equal to  or  less than
that for solvent-borne paints.  In addition, Section 5.0 provides a
qualitative discussion of the critical parameters required to develop
annualized costs of alternative traffic marking materials.   This
discussion will  assist the users of this document in developing the cost
information necessary to develop a VOC reduction strategy specific to
their area.  Note that,  whenever appropriate,  the tables in  this document
are numbered and designated "a"  and "b" to indicate the same table in
Systeme Internationale (SI) and  English units,  respectively.

-------
                               2.0  SUMMARY

     Traffic marking materials include solvent-borne paints, waterborne
paints, thermoplastics, preformed tapes, field-reacted materials, and
permanent markers.  Because the performance requirements for different
marking situations differ and because these materials have different
physical and chemical properties and a wide range of costs, different
materials are advantageous for specific application situations.  In some
geographic areas, a combination of traffic marking materials (including
solvent-borne paints and low- and zero-VOC materials) is used while in
other areas solvent-borne paint is used exclusively.  Therefore, the VOC
emission reduction impact of implementing low- and zero-VOC alternative
marking materials will vary by area depending on current practice.  In
choosing regulatory alternatives to reduce VOC emissions based on specific
traffic marking materials, planners should coordinate with their
Departments of Transportation regarding the change to an alternative
material.
     The traditional and most common materials used for traffic markings
are solvent-borne paints.1'16  The VOC emissions from solvent-borne paint
traffic markings are estimated to be 19 kilograms per kilometer of
10-centimeter (cm)-wide solid stripe per year (kg/km-yr) (69 pounds per
mile of 4-inch (in.)-wide solid stripe per year [lb/mile-yr]).  The
alternatives to solvent-borne paint that are discussed in this document
are:  (1) waterborne paints, (2) thermoplastics, (3) preformed tapes,
(4) field-reacted materials, and (5) permanent markers.   All of these
alternative marking materials emit less VOC's than solvent-borne paint,
and achievable reductions are as high as 100 percent.  Although no single
traffic marking material is the most desirable in all applications, a
combination of low- and zero-VOC-emitting marking materials can provide
the, performance necessary for highway safety.
     For the marking materials investigated, Tables la and Ib present the
VOC emissions, VOC emission reductions compared to solvent-borne paint,
total annualized cost, and cost savings compared to solvent-borne paint.
Elimination of VOC emissions may be achieved by applying -thermoplastics,
field-reacted materials (epoxy and polyester), preformed tapes without

-------
         TABLE la.  VOC EMISSIONS AND COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS
Marking
Solvent-borne
Waterborne
Thermoplastic
Field reacted
Polyester
Epoxy
Preformed tapes
Without adhesive primer
With adhesive primer
Permanent markers
VOC
emissions,
kg/km-yra
19
3.7
c

c
0.07

0
16
0
=^====
VOC emission
reductions from
solvent-borne,
kg/km-yr
b
16
19

19
19

19
3
19
Percent
VOC reduc-
tion from
solvent-borne
NAb
81
100

100
100

100
15
100
Total
annualized
cost,
$/km-yr
140
120
140

87
120

d
u
d
d
Savings
compared to
solvent-borne,
$/km-yr
b
20
0

50
20


d
d
                         I0-centimeter-w1de So11d striPe that is  1  kilometer long.
^Negligible.
 These alternatives were not included in the cost analysis.

-------
          TABIE Ib.   VOC EMISSIONS AND COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE  TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS
VOC
emissions,
Marking lb/mile-yra
Solvent-borne
Waterborne
Thermoplastic
Field reacted
Polyester
Epoxy
Preformed tapes
Without adhesive primer
With adhesive primer
Permanent markers
69
13
c

c
0.25

0
58
0
VOC emission Percent
reductions from VOC reduc-
sol vent-borne, tion from
Ib/m1le-yr solvent-borne
b
56
69

69
69

69
11
69
NAb
81
100

100
100

100
15
100
Total
annual Ized
cost,
$/mile-yr
230
200
230

140
200

A
d
d
Savings
compared to
solvent-borne,
$/mi le-yr
b
30
0

90
30


d
d
.   ._ ._._.„  _„ ^,.v. -,  iMv,n-n me  au i iu  iLil \iK  IMaL IS I mile
 Not applicable.
^Negligible.
 These alternatives were not  included  in  the  cost analysis.

-------
adhesive primer, and permanent markers.  A significant  reduction (about
81 percent) in VOC emissions can be achieved by applying  waterborne  paint
instead of solvent-borne paint (VOC emissions would drop  from 19 kg/km-yr
[69 Ib/mile-yr] to 3.7 kg/km-yr [13 Ib/mile-yr]).  Preformed  tapes applied
with an adhesive offer a small VOC emission reduction (about  15  percent).
     Three alternative traffic marking materials were evaluated  with
regard to cost:  waterborne paints, thermoplastics, and field-reacted
materials.  All of these materials have an annualized cost equal  to or
less than the cost of solvent-borne paint.  The application of waterborne
paint and field-reacted materials (epoxy and polyester) offer a  savings
over the annualized cost of application solvent-borne paint.  The field-
reacted polyester has a savings associated with it of $50/km-yr  ($90/mile-
yr).  Waterborne paint and field-reacted epoxy both offer a savings of
$20/km-yr ($30/mile-yr).  Thermoplastic costs the same to apply  as
solvent-borne paint.   Clearly,  significant reductions in VOC emissions can
be achieved safely and at a reduced cost.

-------
                   3.0  AVAILABLE  TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS

      Traffic markings are used to provide  lane  delineation  (center!ines,
 edgelines, lane lines) and other guidance  and information (turn  arrows,
 parking spaces, crosswalks, railroad markings,  special  lanes,  etc.).
 These markings are usually applied by State or  local highway maintenance
 crews or by contractors during new road construction.   Emissions of VOC's
 from traffic marking are the result of organic  solvent  evaporation during
 and shortly after application of the marking.   No traditional  containment
 devices or add-on controls are available.  Emissions of VOC's  must be
 reduced by switching to lower VOC-emitting markings, i.e., "alternative
 markings."
      Site-specific factors related to the performance of the marking
 should be  considered during the selection of alternative materials to
 reduce VOC emissions;  however,  the low-  and zero-VOC emitting marking
 materials  available today  provide sufficient flexibility to  accommodate
 site-specific  constraints.   Section  3.1  presents and discusses  factors
 besides  VOC emissions  and  annual  cost  that  are considered  when  selecting  a
 marking  material.   Section  3.2  provides  descriptions of  the  alternative
 marking  materials  currently  available  and their  application  procedures.
 Chapters 4  and  5 present discussions of  VOC emissions and  annualized cost,
 respectively.
 3.1  FACTORS CONSIDERED IN SELECTING A MARKING MATERIAL
     In  addition to VOC emissions and cost,  the  factors  that must be
 considered  in selecting a traffic marking material are related  to public
 safety or benefit, application crew safety, and  performance.5   Table 2
 presents a  list of factors that may affect  the selection of a traffic
 marking material.  The factors listed are greatly interrelated  and have
 not been listed in order of importance because the relative importance of
 each factor is very site-specific.  Factors other than VOC emissions and
 annualized  cost are discussed briefly below.
     For a  marking to promote public  safety effectively,  it must be
visible day and night under a variety of  conditions.   The condition that
presents the greatest visibility problem  for most markings  is a  rainy
night.   This nighttime  visibility  problem is due  to the fact  that  most

-------
     TABLE 2.   FACTORS AFFECTING THE SELECTION OF A TRAFFIC
                        MARKING MATERIAL
 VOC  emissions
 Visibility
 Durability
 Pavement  type
 Traffic density
 Position  of line or marking
 Climatic  restrictions
 Drying or setting time
 Safety of material and application procedure
 Difficulty of application
Amount to be applied
 Initial cost
Annual cost
Equipment availability

-------
 markings have no vertical  profile that reflects light from headlights back
 to the driver.  Glass beads  typically are added to markings to improve the
 visibility of the markings at night.   On a rainy night, the water film
 that forms over the marking  causes specular reflection (light is reflected
 forward) that further decreases  the nighttime visibility of the marking.
 Some markings, such as permanent markers and thermoplastic with drainage
 grooves marked across it,  have a vertical  profile  that decreases the
 impact of the water film.
      Durability of the markings  can be influenced  by pavement type,  the
 amount of traffic to which it is exposed,  and whether it is placed
 transversely  (such as a crosswalk)  or longitudinally (such as an
 edgeline).  In some areas, traffic  markings can be applied effectively
 only in the summer months.   In these  areas,  a marking must be durable
 enough to perform adequately  between  seasons until  it is feasible  to
 restripe.   Durability of traffic markings  also impacts public safety.   The
 installation  of more durable  traffic  marking materials reduces  the
 exposure of the motoring public  and maintenance personnel  to  high-risk
 conditions created  by frequent painting operations.
      Some  markings,  such as solvent-borne  and  waterborne marking
 materials,  can  be  applied only in warm weather because they may not  adhere
 properly to the  pavement during  cold weather or  because  the temperature
 affects  the drying or  setting time.  Other weather or  weather-related
 conditions  which may  cause similar problems are  rain shortly after
 application,  high humidity, and wet roads.  These conditions limit the
 number of  available days suitable for the application of traffic
 markings.   Also, some types of markings, especially those that protrude
 above grade, rarely survive in areas with heavy snowplow activity or
 frequent salting and sanding  operations.
     After  being applied,  most markings must dry or set before traffic may
 pass over them without endangering the marking.  The time required
 immediately after application for this drying or setting is referred  to as
 the tracking time.  If a marking  has a long tracking time,  a lane may have
 to be closed to traffic or  cones  may have to be placed to prevent traffic
from crossing the marking.  This  nonuse period presents an  inconvenience
to the public, and the placing and removing of cones can be a  safety

-------
hazard to the maintenance personnel who  are  exposed  to traffic.   Markings
with a short tracking time may  be protected  by  trailing a vehicle a
reasonable distance behind the  application equipment.
     Other factors to consider  in choosing a traffic marking material
include personnel safety, purchase cost, difficulty  of application,  and
the size and location of a specific job.
     State transportation departments should be  involved in  developing a
State's VOC emission reduction  plan for  traffic  markings.  The factors
discussed in this section, as well as VOC reductions and annualized  cost,
should be considered in developing a plan that will  reduce VOC emissions.
3.2  DESCRIPTIONS OF MATERIALS  AND APPLICATION METHODS
     This section describes each alternative marking material.  The
information presented includes  VOC content,  solids content,  application
procedure, glass bead application rate,  tracking time,  durability, and
limitations on use.  Tables 3 and 4a and 4b  summarize  the information
presented in this section.  Table 3 is a qualitative comparison of the
advantages and disadvantages of the alternative marking  materials.
Tables 4a and 4b summarize the  properties of the alternative materials.
3.2.1  Solvent-Borne Paints
     Solvent-borne traffic paints typically consist of a resin, pigment,
and various additives, all of which are suspended in an  organic solvent.
Paints containing an alkyd-based resin are the most common.  Paints
containing chlorinated rubber resins or alkyd resins modified with
chlorinated rubber are frequently used and are similar to alkyd resin
paints in most respects.1'16'21  Epoxy paint is a two-component
material.  One component is a solution containing solid  epoxy resin and
pigments.  The second component consists of a curing agent and a reaction-
blocking organic solvent such as methyl  ethyl ketone.  The two components
are mixed prior to being placed in the application equipment.  The
resulting mixture remains liquid for several  days if kept in  a closed
container.   After application,  the reaction-blocking solvent  evaporates,
allowing the paint to harden.
     When evaluating  paint formulations,  both the solids content  and the
VOC content are of interest.   The solids  content usually-is expressed as a
volume percent.   The  VOC content is  expressed in one  of two ways:
                                    10

-------
            TABLE 3.  ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS
Marking material
Advantages
Disadvantages
Solvent-borne paints
Waterborne paints
Thermoplastics
Preformed tapes
Low initial cost
Good dry-night visibility
Short dry times available
Good equipment availability
Well-established technology
No pavement-type limitations

Low VOC emissions
Low Initial cost
Good dry-night visibility
Good equipment availability
Easy to adapt from solvent-borne
Easy cleanup
No pavement-type limitations

Negligible VOC emissions
Long life
Good night (wet and dry)
  visibility
100 percent solids

No VOC emissions if adhesion
  primer not needed
Long life
Little or no application
  equipment needed
Excellent material safety
100 percent solids
High VOC emissions
Short life
Poor wet-night visibility
Poor wet-night visibility
Short life
Weather restrictions
High initial cost
High application temperature
Reduced durability on portland cement
  concrete
More difficult application than for paint

High VOC emissions if adhesive primer is
  used
Very high initial cost
Variable night visibility
                                                                                             (continued)

-------
Marking material
Field-reacted materials
Permanent markers
                                         TABLE 3.  (continued)
Advantages
Negligible VOC emissions
Long life
Moderate initial  cost
Essentially 100 percent solids
Good night visibility

Negligible VOC emissions
Long life
Excellent night (wet and dry)
  visibility
Disadvantages
                                                              Polyester type adheres poorly to Portland
                                                                cement concrete
                                                              Special  application equipment needed
                                                              High initial  cost
                                                              Poor durability 1n snowplow areas

-------
                     TABLE 4a.   PROPERTIES OF ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS


Material
Solvent-borne paints
Waterborne paints
Thermoplastics
Preformed tapes
F ie Id-reacted
Epoxy
Polyester
Permanent markers6
^Kilometer refers to one
NA = not applicable.
*jNeg. = negl igible.
1 Inl/ = unL1 rtstun ae c i imA/4
voc
content.
g/a
marking
377
91
0
0

Neg.c
Unka
0
Solids
content,
percent
by volume
50
50
100
100

100
100
NA
1 0-cent i raeter-w i de so 1 i d



i : I* i «
Application Application
thickness, rate4
mm-wet
0.38
0.38
1.5
1.5

0.38
0.38
NA
stripe that is


A/km"
39
39
155
NAb

39
39
NA
1 ki lometer long.


Glass bead
appl i cat ion
rate, g/8.
marking
720
720
190
0

3,000
1,800
0





Expected 1 i f e
Low
0.25
0.5
2
3

3
2
5



High
1
2
8
13

5
4
5




, years
Typical
0.75
1
4
4

4
3
5



eBased on one data point.

-------
                       TABLE  4b.  PROPERTIES  OF ALTERNATIVE  TRAFFIC  MARKING  MATERIALS
Material
So vent-borne paints
Waterborne paints
Thermoplastics
Preformed tapes
Field-reacted
Epoxy
Polyester
Permanent markers6
Mi le refers to one
NA = not annl i rah la
VOC Solids
content, content. Application
Ib/gal percent thickness,
marking by volume mils-wet
3.15
0.76
0
0

Unk.d
0
==»a«aa
4- inch-wide s
50
50
100
100

100
100
NA
olid stripe the
15
15
60
60

15
15
NA
t is 1 mile 1 ong .
Appl i cat ion
rate,
gal/mi lea
16
16
66
NAb

16
16
NA

Glass bead
appl i cat ion
rate, Ib/gal
marking
6.0
6.0
1.6
0

25
15
0

Expected life,
Low
0 25
0 5
2
3

3
2
5

High
1
2
3
13

5
4
5

years
Typical
075
i



4
3
5
BSSS8a.VEKa.33B
 •""   nwi up}j i I l»CJU 1 C •
rfNeg. = negligible.
 link. = unknown, assumed to be negligible.
 Based on one data point.

-------
     1.  Mass of VOC per  volume  of  coating,  e.g.,  gram VOC/liter (g VQC/a,)
paint  (Ib VOC/galIon [Ib  VOC/gal]);  or
     2.  Mass of VOC per  volume  of  solids, e.g., g VOC/i solids
(Ib VOC/gal).
The latter value often  is the most  useful because  it  directly relates  the
VOC content to the amount of solids;  the  amount of solids are of interest
because it is the solids  available  in the paint that  ultimately forms  the
marking.
     Most solvent-borne traffic  paints  have  a  solids  content  between 45
and 55 percent by volume1"16.  The  VOC  contents range from 320 to
460 g VOC/j, (2.7 to 3.8 Ib VOC/gal)  paint and  580  to  970 g VOC/2, (4.8  to
8.1 Ib VOC/gal) solids.  Typical values are  50 percent solids and  380  g
VOC/i  (3.15 Ib VOC/gal) paint (750 g  VOC/gal [6.30 Ib VOC/gal1
solids).1'16
     Solvent-borne paints are usually applied  by spraying.  The wet film
thickness typically is 0.38 millimeters (mm) (15 thousandths  of an  inch
[mils]), and dry thickness is about 0.18 or  0.20 mm (7 or  8 mils),
depending on the solids content. "   '    Immediately  after application,
glass beads are dropped or sprayed onto the  wet film  at  a  rate  of about
6 Ib per gallon of paint.  Glass beads provide reflectivity for  nighttime
visibility.  The time required for the paints  to dry  enough to  receive
traffic ranges from 20 seconds to several minutes,  depending on  the
properties of the paint and on application conditions.   The paint may be
heated before application to decrease the drying time.   Solvent-borne
paints are usually applied only when  the temperature of  the road surface
is 10°C (50°F) or higher.
     Application equipment ranges in  size from small hand units  to large,
high-speed, truck-mounted units.   Solvent-borne paints may be used for all
types of markings on all types of paved surfaces and last from 3 to
12 months depending on site-specific factors, with  9 months being
.   /  , 11 13-16
typical.  '
3.2.2  Waterborne Paints
     Waterborne paints  are latex  emulsions containing  pigments, additives,
and usually some organic solvent.  Waterborne paints typically contain
about 80 g VOC/a (0.70  Ib VOC/gal)  paint and  about  50  percent  solids by
  .    1-16
volume.
                                    15

-------
      Waterborne paints are applied  in  the  same manner  as  solvent-borne
 paints and have similar appearance,  lower  VOC emissions,  and  better
 durability.1"16  The range of tracking times is similar to  that  for
 solvent-borne paints (20 seconds to  several minutes).  The  durability of
 waterborne paints is affected by the weather conditions at  the time of
 application.  The best conditions at which to apply waterborne paints are
 days with high temperatures (at least higher than 10°C [50°F]) and low
 humidity.  One source specified that the durability of waterborne paints
 is affected if there is rain or heavy fog within about 7 days after
 application.    However,  one vendor indicated that although durability is
 affected by weather conditions during curing, 7 days is is an excessive
 curing period.    If the  paint is applied at the proper climatic
 conditions, then the durability should not be affected.  Waterborne paints
 can generally be applied  wherever solvent-borne  paints  are used.
 Waterborne paints  usually last from 6 to  24 months depending on site-
 specific  factors,  with  12 months  being  typical.1-ls
      Some States,  such  as  Maryland,  have  switched  from  solvent-borne
 paints  to waterborne paints because  of  their  cost  effectiveness  and  low
 VOC content.2
 3.2.3  Thermoplastics
      The  three distinct types  of thermoplastics currently  available are
 alkyd,  hydrocarbon,  and epoxy  thermoplastics.  Alkyd and hydrocarbon
 thermoplastics consist of alkyd and hydrocarbon resin,  respectively;
 pigments;  calcium carbonate filler; and glass beads.  Alkyd  thermoplastic
 was  initially introduced as an improvement over hydrocarbon
 thermoplastic.  The  thermoplastics are solids and are usually delivered in
 block or granular form.  The solids melt when heated and are extruded or
 sprayed at about 232°C (450°F).  The materials are usually applied at a
 film thickness of 1.27 to  3.8 mm (50 to 150 mils)  depending on the
 application method and the purpose of the  line or marking.   The
 thermoplastics contain premixed glass beads for  long-term  reflectivity,
 but additional glass beads are  usually applied to  the hot  film to  improve
 initial  reflectivity.  There  is little difference  in  the performance of
the two types of  material.
                                    16

-------
      Epoxy thermoplastic, sometimes called epoflex, is a thermoplastic
 which uses a blend of epoxy resins.  It is similar to alkyd and
 hydrocarbon thermoplastic except that it is typically applied at a film
 thickness of about 0.51 mm (20 mils) and has a shorter setting time.
      Data on the average expected life of thermoplastics was obtained from
 State survey responses.  The reported average expected life of
 thermoplastics ranges from about 2 years (Maryland) to about 7 years
 (California).  Other States reported averages from 4 to 5 years (New York
 and Colorado).  The States responding to the survey supplied data only on
 alkyd and hydrocarbon thermoplastics and the data showed little difference
 in life expectancy between the two types.   The life expectancy for epoxy
 thermoplastics should be between 2 to 4 years.21   Alkyd and hydrocarbon
 thermoplastics adhere better to asphalt concrete  than  to portland cement
 concrete while epoxy thermoplastics are claimed to have good durability on
 both  surface types.     Field experience with  epoxy thermoplastic  is  still
 limited.     Thermoplastics  emit a negligible  amount of VOC's and  are
 essentially  100 percent solids.
      A  wide  range  of  equipment  is  available for applying
 thermoplastics.  "    Application  temperature  and  thickness  must  be
 closely controlled  to ensure good  durability.    Thermoplastics have
 received  considerable use, especially in areas where a marking more
 durable than  paint  is needed. ~     Because paint lasts  less  than a year  in
 some  locations  and because traffic markings in some areas may only be
 applied in the  summer months due to weather restrictions, a more durable
 traffic marking material than paint, such as thermoplastic,  is desirable
 to provide adequate delineation from one striping period to the next.
 3.2.4   Preformed Tapes
     Preformed plastic tapes consist of resins, pigments, glass beads, and
 fillers.  The tapes have an adhesive backing for direct application to the
 pavement.  The tapes are supplied in rolls of various widths to be applied
 as lines and in sheets to be cut for legends and directional markings.
The thickness of the tape is usually 1.52 or 2.28  mm (60 or 90 mils).
     The tapes may be applied to existing or new pavement.   An adhesive
primer is often applied to precondition  the  pavement surface when  tapes
are used on existing pavement.   No application equipment is  needed to
                                    17

-------
 apply tapes,  but equipment may be used for large jobs.  Traffic tapes last
 from 3 to 13  years with 4 years being typical.
      Tapes are  100 percent solids and emit no VOC's.  Adhesive primers
 contain about 640 g VOC/J, (5.3 Ib VOC/gal) and are applied at a rate of
 about 0.98 square meters per liter (40 square feet per gallon).12
      Preformed  tapes are applied by a large number of users but due to
 their high cost are used mostly for small  jobs such as intersection work
 (crosswalks,  turn arrows, etc.).  Tapes also are easy to apply, emit no
 VOC's,  and are  more durable when inlaid into new asphalt.   The tape is
 placed  onto the asphalt behind the paving  machine and then pressed  into
 the  asphalt with  the paving roller.
 3.2.5  Field-Reacted Materials
      Both  epoxy and polyester  field-reacted materials consist of resin,
 pigments,  and a hardening agent.   The  materials  are stored in two separate
 components—one containing the resin  (either epoxy  or polyester)  and one
 containing the  hardener.   One  or both  components may be  heated to about
 60°C  (140°F) before application  to improve flow.  The two  components are
 fed separately  to  the  spray nozzle or  nozzles  and are mixed as they  are
 sprayed  into the pavement.   As  soon as  the components mix, a  reaction
 begins  that forms  a hard  marking.  The  materials  are  normally  applied  at a
 film  thickness  of  0.38  mm (15 mils), and glass beads  are added  at a  rate
 of 1,800 g/Ł (15 Ib/gal)  of  material for polyester  and 3,000 q/i
 (25 Ib/gal) for epoxy.21
      Field-reacted  materials are nearly 100 percent solids and emit  a very
 small amount of VOC's before the reaction  is complete.
      Polyester field-reacted markings last about  3 years, and epoxy
markings last about 4 years.  Polyester markings do not adhere well  to
Portland cement  concrete.   Information obtained from the surveys of State
Departments of Transportation conducted during this study indicates  that
State highway  maintenance crews may require training in order to apply
field-reacted  materials, and that these materials are usually applied by
contractors.2'8'25
                                    18

-------
 3.2.6   Permanent Markers
     Permanent markers are preformed units made of  a  variety of materials
 such as steel, ceramic, or plastic that are bonded  to the  pavement.   The
 numerous designs available include nonreflective markers for daytime
 delineation and reflective markers for nighttime delineation.   Permanent
 markers are bonded to the pavement with any of a number of  adhesives
 including epoxy, magnesium phosphate cement, silicon  caulk,  or  bituminous
 materials.  Most permanent markers are of the raised  type.   They may  be
 affixed directly to the existing pavement surface in  a hole  drilled for
 the purpose.  Markers of the recessed type are installed below  the road
 surface in grooves cut into the pavement to protect them from snowplow
 blades.  The high profile of raised permanent markers makes  them
 susceptible to damage from snowplows.
     Permanent markers contain no VOC's,  although  a small  amount may be
emitted if an adhesive is used to bond the marker  to the pavement.
     Permanent markers are most often used on highways as  a supplement to
other marking materials.   The vertical  profile of  permanent markers
provides nighttime lane delineation during both rainy and  dry periods.
                                   19

-------
       4.0  EMISSIONS, EMISSION REDUCTIONS, AND  ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACTS

      This chapter provides VOC emission estimates and the estimated
 emission reductions from traditional solvent-borne paints for each of the
 marking materials identified in Section 3.0.   The environmental impacts
 associated with the application of each material are also discussed.  The
 methodology for calculating the VOC emissions from the marking materials
 is presented in Section 4.1.  Estimated VOC emissions from each material
 are presented in tabular form.   The baseline  condition and relative
 reduction in VOC emissions from baseline for  each alternative  are
 discussed in Section 4.2.   Other  environmental  impacts are discussed in
 Section 4.3.
 4.1  EMISSIONS
      This section presents the  methodology for  calculating the VOC
 emissions from  each  alternative.   The methodology is  presented using
 English  units.   The  emissions are averaged over  the  life  of  the marking to
 account  for the  marking  material's durability.   Tables  5a and  5b present
 the estimated VOC emissions  per application and  annual  emissions for each
 of  the marking materials identified in Section 3.0.   The  parameters
 required  to make  these estimates  include application  thickness,
 application rate,  VOC content, and  expected life.
      The  application rate  was calculated from the wet application
 thickness.  The calculations assume a 4-inch-wide solid stripe that is
 1 mile long as the basis.  The equation for calculating the application
 rate  is:
     AR = (WAT) (4 inches) ( liif^j (  llnch  } (  l^Ft   } 2 (7±48_jal)
               v        /v  mile  /vl,000 rmlsM12 inches' k   f.3  >

where
      AR = the application rate in gal/mile,  and
     WAT = the wet application thickness in mils.

The thickness of  the  wet film must be used  in the  equation above.   Often
the wet film thickness  is  adjusted to give  a  desired  dry -film  thickness.
                                    20

-------
                                TABLE  5a.   VOC EMISSIONS  FROM ALTERNATIVE MARKING MATERIALS
ro
Mark i ng
Solvent-borne paints
Waterborne paints
Thermoplastics
Preformed tapes
Without primer
With primer
Field-reacted
Epoxy
Polyester
Permanent markers'
a — —
. Ki lometer refers to nn«
Appl i cat ion
thickness,
mm-wet
0.38
0.38
1.5

1.5
1.5

0.38
0.38
NA
— — — — «.• .
A 1 A— f*ar\ +• I mA+A«» 	 u >
Appl i cat ion
rate,
fc/km
39
39
155

NAC
j<
94d

39
39
NA
— =^— •— ..M.M..M— •
••«
Typical
expected
1 ife, years
0.75
1
4


4


4
3
5
VOC emis-
sions per
appl i cat ion,
kg/kma
15
3.7
0


0
66


0.3
0
0
Typical
annual VOC
emissions,
kg/km-yeara
19
3.7
0


0
16


0.07
0
0
Q          - --—  ._._..._ • -V WWII I I IIIW * VI  W | «
 Neg =  negIi g i bIe.
 NA = not applicable.
gRefers to the adhesive primer.
jUnk =  unknown, assumed to be negligible.
 Based  on one data point.

-------
                     TABLE 5b.   VOC EMISSIONS  FROM ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS
Marking
Solvent-borne paints
Waterborne paints
Thermoplastics
Preformed tapes
Without primer
With primer
Field-reacted
Epoxy
Polyester
Permanent markers'
.Mile refers to one 4-i
Appl i cat ion
thickness,
mils-wet
15
15
60

60
60

15
15
NA
=^^g?~
nch— w i rift ^nli/1 c-f
Appl i cat ion
rate,
ga 1 /m i 1 e
16
16
66

NAC
40d

16
16
NA

VOC
content ,
Ib/gal
3.15
0.76
Negb

r\
5.3'

0.06
Unke
0

Typical
expected
life,
years
0.75
1
4


4

4
3
5

VOC emis-
sions per
appl i cat ion,
Ib/mile8
52
13
0


0
233

1
0
0

Typical
annual VOC
emissions,
Ib/mi le-yeara
69
13
0


0
58

0.25
0
0
===
jjNeg = negl igible.
 NA = not applicable.
Defers to the  adhesive primer.
,Unk = unknown, assumed to be negligible.
 Based on one data point.

-------
 The relationship between wet  film  thickness  and  dry film thickness is:
      WAT = DAT/S

 where,
      WAT = the wet application thickness,
      DAT = the dry application thickness, and
        S = the volume fraction of  solids in the  paint.

 The VOC emissions per application  (Ib/mile) were calculated by multiplying
 the application rate (gal/mile) by the VOC content  (Ib/gal).  The annual
 VOC emissions (Ib/mile-yr) were calculated by dividing the VOC emissions
 per application (Ib/mile) by the expected life (years).  Therefore,
 emissions are averaged over the life of the marking.
      As indicated in Tables 5a and 5b, solvent-borne paints have the
 highest annual  VOC  emissions of all the marking materials.  Preformed
 tapes  used  with adhesive primer emit the next highest amount—about
 58 pounds per mile  per year (Ib/mile-yr) compared to 69 Ib/mile-yr for
 solvent-borne paint.   The annual  VOC emissions  from waterborne paints are
 about  13  Ib/mile-year or about 80 percent less  than the emissions  from
 solvent-borne paints.  Thermoplastics, preformed  tapes  used without
 adhesive  primer,  field-reacted materials, and permanent markers  emit
 negligible  amounts  of VOC's.
     Data on  low- and zero-VOC marking materials  was obtained  from  survey
 responses from  paint  formulators  and  the  States of  Alabama, Arizona,
 California, Colorado,  Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey,  New York,
 North Carolina, Ohio, and South Carolina.  The values for the  parameters
 (VOC content, expected life, etc.)  used to calculate  emissions are based
 on average or typical values obtained  from available  literature and survey
 responses.  The particular marking material used by a State may have
 properties quite different from the average.  Values for these parameters
 that are specific to the materials used by each State can be obtained from
 the State transportation department or from material suppliers.  These
 values can then  be used with the methodology described above to obtain a
more accurate emission estimate for a particular marking
-------
      In deciding which traffic marking material to purchase, most  States
 conduct performance tests of various marking materials supplied by various
 manufacturers.  Also, each State has its own specifications for each type
 of marking material used that a manufacturer must meet.  As a quality
 assurance procedure, States should test samples of the traffic marking
 material purchased to ensure that it conforms to their specifications and
 is of consistent quality.  This type of testing should be ongoing  and
 should be conducted independent of the manufacturer's own quality  control.
 4.2  BASELINE AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS
 4.2.1  Explanation of Baseline
      A baseline emission level  was established  to  facilitate comparison of
 the impacts of various alternatives.   The actual baseline emission level
 for a specific geographic area would  comprise emissions from all  the
 marking materials in current use.   Because of the  variations in  usage
 nationwide, it was not possible to select one baseline that  would  be
 representative for all  areas.   However,  it is possible to select  a
 baseline level  that can be used to evaluate the relative  impacts of
 various materials.
      Solvent-borne paints  have  been chosen as the  baseline for the
 comparison  of emission  reductions  and costs because solvent-borne  paints
 are the most  widely used marking material  and have the  greatest annual VOC
 emissions.
      A  State  may  calculate  the  true baseline  emission  level for a
 particular  area by  estimating the VOC emissions from each marking material
 used  according to the methodology described  in Section 4.1.  A sum  of the
 emissions from each material used will provide a true baseline.  For
 example, if a State currently marks 8,000 miles  with solvent-borne  paint
 that  emits 69 Ib VOC/mile-yr and 2,000 miles with waterborne paint  that
 emits 13 Ib VOC/mile-yr, then its baseline would be:
    (69  Ib VOC/mile-yr)(8,000 miles)+(13 Ib  VOC/mile-yr)(2,000 miles) =
                          578,000 Ib VOC/year.
 4.2.2  Emission Reductions
     Tables 6a and 6b present typical  annual VOC  emission  reductions from
baseline (solvent-borne paint)  for each  alternative.   These  values  were
calculated by subtracting the annual  VOC  emissions  per mile  (Ib/mile-yr)
                                    24

-------
         TABLE  6a.   VOC  EMISSION  REDUCTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC
                     MARKING  MATERIALS FROM BASELINE
Traffic
marking material
  Typical
annual VOC
emissions,
 kg/km-yr
Typical annual
VOC  reduction
from baseline,
   kg/km-yr
 Percent
reduction
  from
baseline
Solvent-borne paints

Waterborne paints

Thermoplastics

Preformed tapes
  Without adhesive primer
  With adhesive primer

Field-reacted

Permanent markers
   19

  3.7

    0


    0
   16

    0

    0
     NA

     15

     19


     19
      3

     19

     19
   NA

   81

  100


  100
   16

  100

  100
NA = not applicable.
                                   25

-------
         TABLE  6b.   VOC EMISSION  REDUCTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC
                      MARKING  MATERIALS  FROM BASELINE
Traffic
marking material
 Typical
annual VOC
emissions,
Ib/mile-yr
Typical annual
VOC  reduction
from baseline,
  Ib/mile-yr
 Percent
reduction
  from
baseline
Solvent-borne paints

Waterborne paints

Thermoplastics

Preformed tapes
  Without adhesive primer
  With adhesive primer

Field-reacted

Permanent markers
   69

   13

    0


    0
   58

    0

    0
     NA

     56

     69


     69
     11

     69

     69
   NA

   81

  100


  100
   16

  100

  100
NA = not applicable.
                                   26

-------
 for  each alternative  from  the  annual VOC  emissions  per  mile for solvent-
 borne paints.  Also presented  is  the percent reduction  from baseline  for
 each alternative.  Percent reductions range from  16 percent for preformed
 tapes with adhesive primer to  100 percent for thermoplastics,  preformed
 tapes without primer, field-reacted materials, and  permanent markers.
 4.3  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
     No adverse environmental  impacts from alternative  traffic marking
 materials are apparent.  Positive impacts on air quality result from  the
 VOC  reductions associated with the alternatives.  Secondary  impacts
 resulting from the cleanup of equipment and disposal of containers for the
 alternative marking materials are expected to be the same or smaller than
 those for solvent-borne paints.  For example, solvent-borne paints require
 the  use of organic solvents during the cleanup of equipment.  These
 organic solvents further contribute to VOC emissions,  although  these
 emissions are estimated to be small  in comparison to the emissions from
 the paint.   Some alternatives (e.g.,  waterborne paints)  do not  require
VOC-containing solvents during cleanup.   Also,  thermoplastics can be
purchased in block form or in meltable  plastic  bags; therefore, disposal
of containers is not  a concern with  thermoplastics.
                                   27

-------
                              5.0   COST  ANALYSIS

      A cost analysis was performed for three alternative  traffic marking
 materials and solvent-borne paint.  The alternatives that were evaluated
 are (1) waterborne paints, (2) thermoplastics, and  (3) field-reacted
 materials.  Waterborne paints were chosen because they reportedly are more
 durable than conventional solvent-borne traffic paints, they can be
 adopted easily with minor equipment modifications where solvent-borne
 paints currently are used, and their VOC emissions are about 80 percent
 less than those of solvent-borne paints.  Thermoplastics were chosen
 because they are currently the most widely used zero-VOC alternative.
 Field-reacted materials were chosen because they are a zero-VOC
 alternative that has been reported as having a low cost.21  Costs were not
 developed for preformed plastic tapes and  permanent markers because
 analysis of the costs associated  with these alternatives were not within
 the scope of this study.
      The costs presented  in  this  chapter were  developed  using a common
 basis of continuous  maintenance of 32,000  kilometers of  10-centimeter-wide
 stripe (20,000 miles of 4-inch-wide stripe).   The  costs  should  be used for
 comparison  purposes  only  because  the  parameters used to  generate the  costs
 will  likely vary  considerably  from State to  State.   This chapter presents
 the methodology States  can use to  perform  their own  cost analysis based  on
 their  experience  with the application of traffic marking materials.   The
 cost methodology  is  presented  in English units.
     Section 5.1  presents the  annualized costs for the alternatives,
 Section  5.2 presents the cost  effectiveness of each  alternative based on
 VOC reduction, and Section 5.3 discusses an approach a State can use to
 determine its specific costs.
 5.1  ANNUALIZED COSTS
     Annualized capital costs, annualized application costs, and total
 annualized costs are discussed in Sections  5.1.1,  5.1.2,  and 5.1.3,
 respectively.
 5.1.1  Annualized Capital  Costs
     Tables 7a and 7b present information on capital  equipment costs used
to determine annualized  costs.   Included in the table are total  miles  of
                                    28

-------
                      TABLE 7a.   PARAMETERS USED TO  CALCULATE CAPITAL  EQUIPMENT COSTS
                                     MAINTAINING  32,000 KILOMETERS OF TRAFFIC  MARKINGS1"
ASSOCIATED WITH
b

Marking
Solvent-borne
Waterborne
Thermoplastic
Field-reacted polyester
Field-reacted epoxy
°A kilometer of traffic ma

Total
ki lometers
maintained
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
rkina is nne in-
Expected
life of
marking,
years
0.75
1.00
4.00
3.00
4.00

Average
ki lometers
appl ied
per year0
42,700
32,000
8,000
10,700
8,000


Estimated
equipment
life, km
160,000
160,000
80,000
80,000
80,000


Equipment
life
years
3.75
5.00
10.00
7.50
10.00

Estimated
equipment
purchased
cost, S
200,000
250,000
250,000
300,000
300,000


Annual ized
equ i pment
cost, $/yeare
63,000
61 000
36,000
53,000
43.000

       D i «+*>.-,.=„«!'* ~" i".'!".,	,""a '" *"'"  '"-«="""«»ici-HIue soiia srnpe tnar is  1 kilometer lonq.
        Intermediate calculated  values have not been rounded to significant figures
       ^Kilometers maintained  divided by expected marking  life.
        Estimated equipment Iife divided by average kilometers applied per year
       eBased on an interest rate of 7.26 percent!
ro
us

-------
                     TABLE 7b.   PARAMETERS  USED TO CALCULATE CAPITAL  EQUIPMENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
                                      MAINTAINING 20,000 MILES OF TRAFFIC  MARKINGS3 b

Marking
Solvent borne
Waterborne
Thermop 1 ast i c
Field-reacted polyester
Field-reacted epoxy

Total mi les
maintained
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
Expected
life of
marking,
years
0.75
1.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
Average
miles
appl ied
per yearc
26,667
20,000
5,000
6,667
5,000

Estimated
equipment
1 ife, mi les
100,000
100,000
50,000
50,000
50,000

Equ i pment
life
years
3.75
5.00
10.00
7.50
10.00
Estimated
equipment
purchased
cost, $
200.000
250,000
250,000
300,000
300,000

Annual ized
equipment
cost, $/yeare
63,000
61,000
36 000
53,000
43,000
      5" 	" W1 ••<•''"- moiiwiiy o one i-incn-wiae sol id stripe that is  1 mile lorn
       Intermediate calculated values have not been rounded  to significant figures."
      dMHes maintained divided by expected marking life.
       Estimated equipment  life divided by average miles applied per year
       Based on an interest rate of 7.26 percent.
CO
o

-------
 marking  maintained, expected life of each marking material, average miles
 of marking  applied per year, equipment life (miles), equipment life
 (years), equipment purchased cost, and annualized equipment cost.
      The cost calculations are based on the continuous maintenance of
 20,000 miles  of 4-inch-wide stripe.  The number of miles maintained
 divided  by  the life of the marking results in the average number of miles
 that  must be  applied per year to maintain the required mileage
 continuously.  The equipment life is an estimate of the number of stripe-
 miles that  can be applied by a piece of equipment during its useful
 life. The  equipment life in years, or average replacement period,  was
 calculated  by dividing the equipment life in miles by the average miles
 applied  per year.   The annualized capital  equipment cost was calculated
 using the following equation:

                             AEC  =  P[
                                      (i+i)n-i
 where
      AEC =  the annualized equipment cost  in  $/year,
       P =  the installed  cost  of  the equipment  in  current  dollars,
       n =  the life of the  equipment in years,  and
       i  =  the annual  interest  rate.
 The annual  interest rate  used was  7.26 percent.    This  rate  is the yield
 on new,  State-issued,  long-term,  tax-exempt  securities and should
 represent the  value of money to States.
      The  annualized equipment costs  presented in Tables  7a and 7b range
 from  $36,000/year  for  thermoplastics to $63,000/year for solvent-borne
 paint.  The estimates  used to calculate the annualized equipment costs are
 based on a small amount of data.  "  °  However, as noted in Section 5.1.3,
 annualized capital  equipment costs are very small in relation to the total
 annualized costs.
 5.1.2  Annualized Application Costs
     Tables  8a and  8b present the values used to calculate the annualized
 application  costs and the results of the calculations.  The calculations
 are based on the maintenance of 32,000 stripe-kilometers-(20,000 stripe-
miles) and an  interest rate of 7.26 percent.   The cost per mile of
                                    31

-------
                   TABLE  8a.   PARAMETERS USED  TO  CALCULATE  ALTERNATIVE  TRAFFIC MARKING  APPLICATION COSTS



Harking
Solvent-borne
Waterborne
Thermoplastic
Field-reacted polyester
Field-reacted epoxy


Marking
life, years
0.75
1.0
3.0
3.0
4.0

Application
rate.
Jl/k.
38.7
38.7
1SS
38.7
38.7
Harking
material
unit cost.
s/a
1.32
1.59
2.11
2.64
7.05
Marking
material
cost.
S/kma
51
62
327
102
273



Labor, S/ka
25
25
90
50
50


Glass
beads, l/kn
16
16
16
39
64



Other. S/kmb
9
9
53
31
31


Application
cost, t/kmc
101
112
486
222
418

Annualized
application
cost. t/yeard
4,600.000
3.800.000
4.700.000
2.700.000
4.000,000
       •Application rate multiplied by unit cost.
       "Includes fuel, etc.
       jjSum of marking material, labor, glass beads, and other costs.
       Based on an interest rate of 7.26 percent and on 32.000 stripe-kilometers maintained.
CO
ro

-------
                  TABLE 8b.   PARAMETERS USED  TO  CALCULATE  ALTERNATIVE  TRAFFIC MARKING  APPLICATION  COSTS3

Harking
Solvent borne
Waterborne
Thermoplastic
Field-reacted polyester
Field-reacted epoxy
Intermediate calculated uali

Harking
life, years
0.75
1.0
3.0
3.0
4.0


Application
rate,
gal/>ile
16.5
16.5
66.0
16.5
16.5

Harking
material
unit cost,
J/gal
5.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
26.70

Harking
aatertal
cost,
(/•< leb
82.50
99.00
528.00
165.00
440.55


Labor, t/aile
40
40
145
80
80


Glass
beads, S/unle
25
25
25
62
103


Other. t/«ilec
IS
15
85
50
50


Application
cost. l/«iled
162.50
179.00
783.00
357.00
673.55

	 =
Annual! zed
application
cost. I/ year*
4,600,000
3.800.000
4,700.000
2.700.000
4.000.000

        nifc^imcuiaic lanuiaieu values nave not bi
        Application rate multiplied by unit cost.
       ^Includes fuel.  etc.
       eSun of narking  naterial. labor, glass beads, and other costs
        Based on an interest rate of 7.26 percent  and on 20,000 stripe-mles maintained
CO
CO

-------
  applying  the  marking  is  found  by  summing the component costs.   The
  component costs  include  the  costs  of  the marking  material,  labor,  fuel,
  glass beads,  etc.   The application cost  is  calculated  with  the following
  equation:
                                AC = (APP)(m)
  where
       AC  = the total  application cost  in  $,
      APR  = the application cost in $/mile, and
        m  = the number of miles to be maintained.
  The annual ized application cost is found  using the following equation:

                            AAC =
                                      (1+iT-l
 where
      AAC = the annual ized application cost in $/year,
       AC = the total  application cost in $,.
        k = the life of the marking in years,  and
        i = the annual interest rate.
      The annual ized application costs based on the  application  of
 32,000 stripe-kilometers  (20,000 stripe-miles)  range  from  $2,700,000/year
 for  field-reacted  polyester to $4,700,000/year  for  thermoplastics.
 5.1.3  Total  Annual ized Costs
      Tables 9a and 9b present  the  total  annual ized  costs for the
 alternatives.  The total  annual ized cost  is the  sum of the annual ized
 equipment  cost and the annual ized  application cost:

                               TAC = AEC+AAC

The total  annual ized cost per mile of marking ($/mile-yr)  to be  maintained
is the total annual ized cost divided by the number of miles to  be
maintained:
                                CPM =  TAC/m
                                    34

-------
             TABLE 9a.  TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
                      TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS  a'c
Marking
Solvent-borne paint
Waterborne paint
Thermoplastic
Field-reacted
Polyester
Epoxy
Annual i zed
application
cost, $/yr
4,600,000
3,800,000
4,700,000
2,700,000
4,000,000
Annual i zed
equipment
cost, $/yr
63,000
61,000
36,000
53,000
43,000
Total annual
5/yr
4,700,000
3,900,000
4,700,000
2,800,000
4,000,000
ized cost
$/km-yr
140
120
140
87
120
aA kilometer of traffic marking is one 10-centimeter-wide solid stripe
.that is 1 kilometer long.
DValues based on an interest rate of 7.26 percent and 32,000 kilometers
 maintained.
cValues have been rounded according to the rules  of significant figures.
                                   35

-------
             TABLE 9b.   TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE
                       TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS a"c
Marking
Solvent-borne paint
Waterborne paint
Thermoplastic
Field-reacted
Polyester
Epoxy
Annuali zed
application
cost, $/yr
4,600,000
3,800,000
4,700,000
2,700,000
4,000,000
Annual i zed
equipment
cost, $/yr
63,000
61,000
36,000
53,000
43,000
Total annual
5/yr
4,700,000
3,900,000
4,700,000
2,800,000
4,000,000
ized cost
$/mile-yr
230
200
230
140
200
aA mile of traffic marking is one 4-inch-wide solid stripe that is 1 mile
.long.
DValues based on an interest rate of 7.26 percent and 20,000 miles
 maintained.
cValues have been rounded according to the rules of significant figures.
                                   36

-------
       As indicated in Tables 9a and 9b, two of the three alternatives have
  a total annual1zed cost ($/mile-yr) less than that of solvent-borne
  paint.   The savings can be as high as $50 per kilometer per year ($90 per
  mile per year).   The total  annualized cost for thermoplastics is equal  to
  that for conventional  solvent-borne paints.   None of the alternatives have
  a total annualized cost greater than that for solvent-borne paints.
       Most of  the  cost  of using  a particular marking  material  is  the
  application cost.   Capital  equipment costs amount to less  than 2 percent
  of the  total  annualized  cost.   The  most  important factors  affecting  total
  annualized  cost are  the  marking  material  cost  and the  life  of  the marking.
  5.2   COST EFFECTIVENESS
       Tables lOa and  lOb  present  the  total  annualized cost,  VOC reduction,
  and  the  savings associated with  the marking processes.  Traditionally, the
  incremental cost effectiveness of a control alternative is  calculated by
 dividing the additional cost above baseline by the emission reduction
 below the baseline level.  The incremental costs  ($/unit of reduction) are
 then used to evaluate whether the cost of achieving a reduction is
 reasonable.   However, when  the cost to achieve an  emission reduction
 results  in a negative number (i.e.,  a savings), the calculated traditional
 cost-effectiveness values have no meaning because  there is  no additional
 cost associated with achieving an emission reduction.  Since all  the
 alternatives evaluated  do not  result in any increased cost,  the
 incremental  cost-effectiveness values are not  reported.  The cost
 advantages of  the  various alternatives  can be  evaluated by comparing  the
 cost savings achieved.
 5.3  APPROACH  TO ESTIMATE STATE-SPECIFIC  COSTS
      The costs presented  in this  document  are  intended to be used to
 compare  alternatives on a common  basis.  The information clearly indicates
 that  VOC's can be reduced while the State  saves money on its striping
 program.   However, the savings presented here may not be representative of
 those  for a particular State because States have differing labor rates,
 number of highway miles to stripe, paint costs, interest rates,  etc.   This
 section presents a summary of a methodology that can be used to  calculate
State-specific costs.
                                    37

-------
                    TABLE lOa.   COST  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  ALTERNATIVE  TRAFFIC MARKING MATERIALS*'0
Marking
Solvent-borne paint
Waterborne paint
Thermoplastic
Field-reacted
Polyester
Epoxy
Total annual 1 zed cost
$/yr
4,700,000
3,900,000
4,700,000

2,800,000
4,000,000
$/km-yr
140
120
140

87
120
VOC
emissions,
kg/km-yr
19
3.7
Neg.e

Neg.
0.07
Savings
from
baseline,
$/km-yr
NAd
20
0

50
20
VOC reduc-
tion from
baseline,
kg/km-yr
NA
15
19

19
19
      A kilometer of traffic marking is one 10-centimeter-wide solid stripe that is 1 kilometer lonq
°°    c»a i    u    k°n an 1nt;erest rate of 7.26 percent and 32,000 kilometers maintained.
     d;a1u" have been rounded according to the rules of significant figures.
      NA = Not applicable.
     eNeg. = Negligible.

-------
(.0
       Marking
       ^—w——^___^__

       Solvent-borne paint

       Waterborne paint

       Thermoplastic

       Field-reacted
        Polyester
        Epoxy
 Total annual 1 zed
   $/yr
                                                           cost
4,700,000

3,900,000

4,700,000
2,800,000
4,000,000
5/m1le-yr

   230

   200

   230
  140
  200

voc
emissions,
Ib/ra1le-yr
69
13
Neg.e
Savings
from
baseline,
$/m1le-yr
NAd
30
0
VOC reduc-
tion from
baseline,
Ib/m1le-yr
NA
563.5
693.4
Neg.
0.25

       BNeg. = Negligible.
692.0
692.9

-------
       The following parameters are required to use the cost methodologies
  described in this chapter:
        1.  The number of miles to be maintained;
        2.  The initial cost of new equipment or modifications;
        3.  The expected life of each piece of equipment;
        4.  Paint cost;
        5.  Paint application rate;
        6.  Glass bead cost (if applicable);
        7.  Glass bead application rate  (if applicable);
        8.  Labor cost;
        9.  Fuel  cost;
       10.   Cost  of miscellaneous  materials and replacement  parts;
       11.   The expected  life of the marking; and
       12.   The annual  interest rate.
 A State  should  be able  to determine the values of these parameters from
 experience or to develop estimates with the,help of equipment and material
 vendors.  The values used to calculate the costs presented here should be
 used only as default values if actual  values cannot be obtained.
      Some important factors to consider in estimating equipment cost are
 the number of stripe-miles that are to  be  applied each year and the number
 of days suitable for material  application  each year.   These factors will
 determine the necessary size and  number of application units  required.
      The major factors affecting  the total  annualized  cost  of  a  marking
 are  the marking  material cost  and the life of the marking.   If a State  is
 choosing a new marking material,  several factors should be  considered that
 relate to material cost  and marking life, especially when choosing  a
 paint.   Paints are usually purchased on a total volume basis;  however,
 comparison  only  of cost  per volume of various paints will not  provide an
 accurate  picture of true cost differences.   It is the quantity of solids
 coupled with the required film thickness and useful life that are
 important since the solids in the paint  form the  marking as the carrier
 solvent evaporates.  Therefore, a paint  that contains  50 percent solids  by
 volume will provide a marking 19 mm  (7.5 mils)  thick when  applied at a wet
film thickness of 38 mm (15 mils).  A paint containing  40 percent solids
and applied at the same rate  will  produce a marking only  15  mm  (6.0  mils)
                                    40

-------
 thick.   If the  composition of  the  solids  is  the  same  for each paint,  the
 thicker  marking would  be expected  to  be more durable.   Because the life of
 the marking  is  an  important factor affecting annualized cost, a paint with
 a  low cost per  gallon  and a low solids content actually may  be more
 expensive to use than  a high-solids paint  that costs more  per gallon.   Of
 course,  a paint containing 40  percent solids could  produce a marking  19 mm
 (7.5 mils) thick if applied at a wet thickness of 48 mm (18.75 mils).
 However, because more  paint will need to be  applied per mile,  the  real
 cost is  again increased.  For  this reason, it is useful  to compare  paint
 costs on a solids  basis.  The paint cost can be converted  to  a solids
 basis by dividing  cost per volume  by the fraction of solids  per volume.
 For example, using English units,  a paint  that costs $5.00 per gallon  and
 contains 50 percent solids has a cost of $10.00 per gallon of  solids:

     ($5.00/gal  paint)/(0.50 gal  solids/gal paint)  = $10.00/gal solids

 Similarly, a paint that costs  $4.50 per gallon and contains 40 percent
 solids has a cost of $11.25 per gallon of solids:

     ($4.50/gal  paint)/(0.40 gal solids/gal paint) = $11.25/gal solids

 In this example, the paint  with the higher cost  per  gallon actually costs
 less on a solids basis.
     Also, because the life of  the  marking is an  important factor in cost,
States may want  to test samples of  the traffic marking  purchased to ensure
that it conforms to their specifications  and  is of consistent quality.
This type of  testing should be  ongoing and  should be conducted independent
of the manufacturer's  own quality control.
                                    41

-------
                              6.0  REFERENCES

  1.  California Department of Transportation, Division of Construction,
      Office of Transporation Laboratory, Sacramento, California.  Response
      to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency questionnaire.  January 13,
      1988.

  2.  Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration,
      Office of Materials and Research, Brook!andvilie, Maryland.  Response
      to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency questionnaire.  January 6,
      1988.

  3.  Alabama Highway Department,  Montgomery,  Alabama.   Response to U. S.
      Environmental  Protection Agency questionnaire.   December 15,  1987.

  4.  Louisiana Department of Transportation and  Development, Baton Rouge,
      Louisiana.   Response to State  and Territorial Air Pollution Program
      Administrators questionnaire.   January 21,  1988.

  5.  North Carolina Department  of Transportation,  Division of Highways,
      Raleigh, North Carolina.   Response to  State  and Territorial Air
      Pollution Program Administrators  questionnaire.   February 24,  1988.

  6.   Ohio  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Columbus, Ohio.   Response to
      State and Territorial  Air  Pollution Program Administrators
      questionnaire.   February 26, 1988.

  7.   Arizona  Department  of  Environmental Quality, Phoenix, Arizona.
      Response to  State and  Territorial  Air  Pollution Program
      Administrators questionnaire.   February 26, 1988.

  8.   Colorado Department of Highways, Denver, Colorado.  Response to State
      and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators questionnaire.
      February 17, 1988.

  9.   South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation,
      Columbia, South Carolina.  Response to State and Territorial Air
      Pollution Program Administrators questionnaire.   February 17, 1988.

10.  Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.  Response to
     State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
     questionnaire.   February 29,  1988.

11.  Pave-Mark, Atlanta,  Georgia.   Response  to U.  S.  Environmental  Protection
    • Agency questionnaire.  January  11, 1988.

12.  3M, St. Paul, Minnesota.  Response to U.  S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency questionnaire.  Janauary 13, 1988.

13.  Whittaker, Los  Angeles, California. Response  to U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency questionnaire.  January 18,  1988. '
                                    42

-------
 14.  Linear Dynamics Inc., Canton, Georgia.  Response  to  U.  S.  Environmental
      Protection Agency questionnaire.  January 26,  1988.

 15.  Safety Coatings, Foley, Alabama.  Response to  U.  S.  Environmental
      Protection Agency questionnaire.  February 5,  1988.

 16.  The Sherwin Williams Company, Baltimore, Maryland.   Response to U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency questionnaire.  February 3, 1988.

 17.  California Department of Transportation, Delineation Study Team.
      Establishing Evaluation of Pavement Delineation Alternatives to
      Solvent-Based Paint.  Final  Report.   April  1982.

 18.  Linear Dynamics Inc., Montgomery,  Pennsylvania.  Response to U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency questionnaire.  December 21, 1987.

 19.  M-B Company,  Inc.,  of Wisconsin, Chilton, Wisconsin.   Response  to U.  S.
      Environmental Protection Agency questionnaire.  December 14, 1987.

 20.  Kelly-Creswell  Company,  Inc.,  Xenia,  Ohio.   Response  to  U.  S.
      Environmental  Protection Agency questionnaire.   February 18, 1988.

 21.   Bryden, J.  E.  and G.  F.  Gurney.  Pavement-Marking  Materials:  New York's
      Experience.   Transportation Research  Record 979.   1984.   pp. 29-35.

 22.   Municipal Bond  Index, Merrill  Lynch 500, The Wall  Street  Journal
      February 26,  1988.

 23.   Taylor, G. A.  Managerial and  Engineering Economy, Economic Decision-
      Making, Third Edition.   1980.

 24.   Chatto, D. R.  Investigate Alternatives for Solvent-Borne Traffic Paint
      Final Report.  Prepared by Office of Transportation Laboratory,
      California Department of Transportation.  Federal Highway
     Administration Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-85/10.   June 1985.

25.  State of New York Department  of Transportation, Albany, New York.
     Response to State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
     Administrators questionnaire.   February 23,  1988.

26.  Telecon.   Turner, M., Midwest  Research Institute,  Gary, North Carolina
     with Peter,  Jon, The Sherwin-Williams  Company  (Baltimore  Paint and
     Chemical  Company).   June  1, 1988.   Durability of waterborne  paint
                                   43

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.    .  - .
  EPA-450/3-88-007
                              2.
                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  Reduction of Volatile ORganic Compound Emissions  from
  the Application of Traffic  Markings
                           5. REPORT DATE
                           August  1988
                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
  Gary A. Aurand, Mark B.  Turner,  Carol J. Athey,
  Roy M. Neulicht
                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Midwest Research Institute
  401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard,  Suite 350
  Gary, North Carolina   27513
                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                           11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                            68-02-4379
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Emission Standards Division
  Office of Air quality  Planning and Standards
  Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina  27711
                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                           Final Report
                           14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  ESD Work Assignment Manager:
Karen Catlett  (MD-13)  (919) 541-0835
 16. ABSTRACT                	~	"	
       Traditional traffic  marking materials  (solvent-borne paints) are a source
  of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.  This  study was conducted to
  evaluate alternative  traffic marking techniques  that can be used to reduce  VOC
  emissions from this source.   This document provides  information on traffic
  marking application processes,  VOC emissions and emission reductions, and
  costs associated with the alternative marking techniques.  This information
  will allow planners to (1)  identify available alternative low- and zero-VOC
  traffic marking techniques,  (2) estimate the baseline VOC emission level for
  the planner's geographic  area,  and (3) evaluate  the  VOC reduction and cost  of
  implementing alternative  traffic marking techniques.  The primary conclusions
  from this study are:   (1) the use of available low-and zero-VOC alternatives
  such as waterborne coatings, thermoplastics, field-reacted materials,
  preformed tapes, and  permanent  markers can result in VOC emission reductions
  ranging from 15 percent to 100  percent; (2) the  annualized costs for  the
  alternative marking techniques  are less than or  equivalent to those for
  traditional solvent-borne paints; and (3) the performance of the alternative
  markings is equivalent to or better than that of traditional solvent-borne
  paints.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                        c.  COSATI Field/Group
  Traffic Markings
  Volatile ORganic Compound  (VOC)  Emissions
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
  Release unlimited
             19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
  49
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page I
                                        22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220.1 (R.y, 4-77)
                      PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------