United States      Control Technology
Environmental Protection Center
Agency         Research Triangle Park NC 27711
                                     EPA-450/3-89-001
                                     September 1989
EPA    Evaluation of Emission
         Control Options at
         Leeds Architectural Products
          control  * technology center

-------
                                           EPA-450/3-89-001
EVALUATION OF EMISSION CONTROL OPTIONS

    AT LEED ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS
      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
              SEPTEMBER 1989

-------
                                  EPA-450/3-89-001
                                   September, 1989
 EVALUATION OF EMISSION CONTOOL OPTIONS
     AT LEED ARCHTTECTURAL PRODUCTS

              PREPARED BY:
             JON N. BOLSTAD
         ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC
              TWO FLINT HILL
          10521ROSEHAVEN STREET
          FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22030
         EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-02-4398
            WORK ASSIGNMENT 22

              PREPARED FOR:
              DAVID SALMAN
       CHEMICAL APPLICATION SECTION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
                      -11-

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

      This report was  prepared by staff in Engineering-Science's Air Engineering
Department located in Fairfax, Virginia. Participating on the project team for the EPA
were David Salman 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 literature review, surveys of equipment manufacturers, and information
gained during site inspection.
                                        -ui-

-------
                                   PREFACE

      This emission  control evaluation  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 engineering assistance can be provided when  appropriate. Third, the CTC can
provide  technical  guidance through  publication of  technical   guidance  documents,
development of personal computer software, and presentation of workshops on control
technology matters.

       The engineering assistance projects, such as this one, focus on specific topics that
 are identified by State and Local agencies. This report discusses emission control options
 for the architectural aluminum coating operation at Leed Architectural Products.
                                           -IV-

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                          Page
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES                                   vi
1.   INTRODUCTION                                            1
2.   PROCESS DESCRIPTION                                      2
3.   EVALUATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES                      6
4.   ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES                       13
5.   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                               17
6.   REFERENCES                                             18
    APPENDICES
    A.   Sigma PVDF Powder Coatings
    B.   Mobile Zone System Description
    C   Detailed Cost Calculations
                               -v-

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES
                                                                 PAGE
1   Characteristics of Systems Evaluated                                    12
2   Cost Summary                                                     18

                           LIST OF FIGURES
1   General Layout                                                     4
                                   -VI-

-------
                                  SECTION 1
                               INTRODUCTION
      The  Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) requested
assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Control Technology
Center in evaluation of feasible alternatives  to  control  emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from  a  specialty aluminum  coating facility.   Leed Architectural
Products (Leed)  proposed  to CTDEP to increase production and requested that their
permitted  VOC  emission  level be raised  from  40 Ibs VOC/booth/day  to  150 Ibs
VOC/booth/day. Leed submitted a BACT evaluation stating that added emission control
was not economically feasible.  The CTDEP questioned this conclusion and requested an
independent evaluation to  be performed. Engineering Science (ES) was contracted to
assist CTC in performing this evaluation.

      CTC identified  several broad options for reducing emissions to be investigated,
including:

1)    Control of existing exhaust streams with conventional VOC control devices;

2)    Use  of conventional  methods  to reduce exhaust  flow  and  treatment with
      conventional VOC control devices; and

3)    Use of novel or developmental methods of  achieving more cost-effective emission
      control.

      ES, CTC and CTDEP personnel visited the  facility on October 29,1988 to observe
the operations and  gather data for use in a technical and economic evaluation of control
options.  Mark Peak  represented CTDEP, CTC representatives  were David Salman
(OAQPS) and Chuck Darvin, (AEERL) and ES was represented by Bill Piske  and Jon
Bolstad. Howard Goldfarb was the Leed representative.
                                       -l-

-------
                                   SECTION 2
                            PROCESS DESCRIPTION
      Leed coats specialty aluminum products used  for building construction, mostly
monumental  (high-rise office) buildings, and  low-rise commercial  buildings.   Typical
products include door and window frames, column covers, flat panels for eave and cornice
trim, air ventilator covers, light poles and other products. In addition to coating, Leed also
fabricates shapes from bar and rod stock. Leed produces anodized parts, powder-coated
parts, and KynarR-coated parts.  Kynar* is used for monumental (high-rise office-type)
buildings The building designer specifies the use of Kynar^-coated metal. Powder-coating
is used, by Leed for storefront and other metal where KynarR is not specifically identified
or powder coating can be negotiated. Anodization is used when the limited color choices
and surface textures possible are acceptable.  Neither the anodization nor powder-coating
generates VOCs and are not at issue.  The basic issue is VOC emissions from the use of
Kynar*.

       KynarR is a trade name  for a solvent-based,  high-performance,  polyvinylidene
fluoride (PVF) resin developed by Pennwalt Corporation and licensed to several producers
for manufacture.  PPG products, marketed as Duranar, are the coatings used by Leed.

       KynarR thermoplastic resin is relatively impervious to solvent so a relatively large
amount of solvent is required to place the  resin in solution.  Partially because of the
resulting high VOC (volatile organic compound) content, there have been extensive efforts
over the last  ten years to develop low-VOC alternatives for use on monumental buildings.
For example, the triglycidyl isocyanuarte (TGIC) polyester powder coating used almost
exclusively for monumental buildings in Europe (where, unlike in this country, there is a
specification  for  acid rain  resistance  but none for a 5-year Florida exposure  test)  has
recently made some inroads into  the  United States. The three-year-old 23-story World
Bank Building in Oakland, the new Trump Casino in Atlantic City and the proposed MGM
studios to be built at Disney World in Orlando are all reportedly TGIC polyester. Liquid

-------
KynarR has  made little  progress  in the European  market,  reportedly  because of
performance in the acid rain test.

       Powder PVF coatings are now becoming available. A Dutch coatings company,
Sigma, has marketed a KynarR powder coating in Europe  for two years. Information on
this coating is presented in Appendix A  In this country, Pennwalt has licensed several
major companies to formulate KynarR powder coatings. At this time, two years of Florida
exposure obtained on one company's product indicate it will equal or surpass the resistance
of liquid KynarR to ultraviolet  At the 1989 annual meeting of the American Architectural
Manufacturer's Association, a representative of a major coating supplier to  that market
announced development of a proprietary PVF resin powder coating which they anticipate
will compete directly with KynarR liquid and powder coatings. The formulator reports that,
unlike KynarR, their powder requires no prime coat thereby eliminating even more VOC
emissions.  After 18 months of Florida exposure, that company reports superior unltraviolet
resistance from this thermosetting PVF powder coating.

       The coatings used by Leed are applied manually using Graco electrostatic spray
guns in two adjoining, but opposite-facing DeVilbiss booths. An overhead conveyor moves
the racked parts through the spray booths.  One side of each part is coated in each booth,
using spray guns supph'ed from a common paint tank. Each booth is approximately 7-2"H x
10*-4"W x 6'-0"D with dry filters across the backs of the booths. Ventilation air is drawn in
through the booths, through filters and out the stack by in-duct vane-axial fans.  Each booth
currently exhausts about 12^00 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air at approximately 70°F.

       The conveyor moves the parts from the loading rack area, through the booth and
through about 30 feet of unenclosed flash-off area into the oven. The curing oven operates
at 450°F (gas/oil heat)  and circulates 12,500 cfm with about 1,500-2,000 cfm  exhausted to
the atmosphere.  A typical KynarR topcoat requires about 10 minutes at 450°F to cure;
residence time of 14-15 minutes in the oven is obtained by a  looping conveyor inside the
oven and matching the length of the loop to the conveyor speed.  The line speed is usually
4-6 feet per minute for color coats. Figure 1 shows the layout of the system.  Between the
DeVilbiss booths and oven is an enclosed powder booth mounted on rails. When material
is being powder-coated, this booth is moved into the conveyor path; otherwise it remains
out of the path.
                                         -3-

-------
                                             FIGURE  1
                                       GENERAL  LAYOUT
                                            OUTSIDE WALL-
SPRAY GUN POWER SUPPLY
   AND PAINT MIXING
  oo
                 \
                        ELECTRICAL/PAINT
                        LINE
POWDER
 BOOTH
  DRY FILTER
 LOADING AREA
          CONVEYOR
                   ^—
                      DRY FILTER
                  STACK
                                                                                      OVEN
                                                                               BURNER / AIR REGISTERS
                  DeVILBISS BOOTH

-------
      The coating operation is usually a two or three coat operation.  The first coat is
primer applied to a dry film thickness of 1/4 mil. The second coat is the top (color) coat
and is applied to a dry film thickness of about 12 mils.  The third coat is a clear coat if
required.  Typically, the painters are able to coat a total of 325 - 375 ft2 of product per
hour. It may be as low as 300 ft2 per hour when complicated shapes and small pieces are
being painted, and as high as 450 ft2 on large  (4'xl2') flat panels. Leed estimates that
coverage averages 200 ft2/gal. of topcoat, as applied, ranging from 175 (small piece) to 250
(flat panels). Primer coverage is about 400 ft2 /gal, as applied.
                          \
      Leed currently operates the KynarR coating operation until they reach their daily
VOC limit  The limit (40 Ibs per booth per day) is converted to operating practice by
assuming that the VOC content of coating as applied is 62 Ibs/gal, which is  equivalent to
12.9 gallons of coating per day. Leed also estimates that this is equivalent to 1,700-1,800
ft2 coated per day.

       Leed  had requested  that  the VOC  limit be  increased to 300 Ibs/day (150
Ib/booth/day).  According to Mr. Goldfarb, a 300-pound limit would reflect the highest
production rate they could achieve in 16 hours and would cover approximately 6,500 ft2 of
product
                                          -5-

-------
                                  SECTIONS
                EVALUATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
GENERAL

      As previously stated,  CTC identified broad options and ES investigated several
specific possibilities for controlling emission from the booths and the oven.  This section
discusses the technical feasibility of specific control technologies under each of the options
described in Section 1.  The economics of technically feasible alternatives are discussed in
the next section.

BASIS FOR EVALUATION

      Leed  submitted an  analysis to CTDEP  (Ref. 1,  "the Radian Report")  which
addressed the addition of emission controls to the existing facility. An operating schedule
of 16 hours/day, 6 days/week was used in that evaluation and this extended schedule was
used in our analysis. An uncontrolled emission rate of 300 Ibs VOC/day (18.75 Ibs/hr) was
used,  as presented in  the  Radian  Report.   No flow  rate  or  VOC concentration
measurements have been performed at the facility, so the manufacturers specifications for
flow rates were used and spatial distribution of VOCs assumed as follows:
Source
Booth 1
Booth 2
Flash-Off
Oven
Air Flow
scfm
12^00
12^00
	
2,000
VOCs
% of Total
40
45
5
10
The VOC distributions were estimated from the literature (Refs. 2,3). The solvent mixture
is described in the Radian report as 45 wt.% toluene, 25 wt.% methyl isobutyl  ketone
(MIBK), 15 wt% xylene and 15 wt.% butyl carbitol.

-------
      The booth specifications (Ref. 4) call for a face velocity through openings of greater
than 125 feet/min. Each booth has about 85 ft2 of opening which requires 10,625 acfm to
maintain the face velocity and the fans are designed to exhaust 12,500 acfm.  The face
velocity specifications address capturing the solvents and overspray as they are generated.

      Another  concern is  the  concentration of  solvents in the  gas  stream.  The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA) has established standards  for
occupational exposure to solvent-laden air (SLA). Flammability issues are addressed by
OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The exposure standards are
8-hour time-weighted averages (TWAs) and 30-minute short term exposure limits (STELs).

      For purposes of both technical and economic feasibility, the control technologies
evaluated were sized to treat the emissions from both spray booths and the oven. The
unenclosed  flash-off area was not included.  The following control technologies were
evaluated.

1)    Emission control of the  existing facilities  with  conventional  pollution control
       devices,

2)     Conventional methods of  flow rate  reduction  and  treatment with  conventional
       devices, and

3)     Novel or developmental methods to reduce flow and/or treat emissions.

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES

Conventional Control of Existing Facilities

       A pollution control system for the existing plant would consist of a treatment device
and the ductwork to connect it to the booth exhausts and oven  exhaust.  Conventional
devices considered were direct-fired and catalytic incinerators.

       Both types of incinerators are technically feasible for use in Leed's situation. The
only consideration of potential significance is whether the existing dry filters on the booths
remove enough paint solids to avoid poisoning the catalyst in a catalytic system. This could
                                         -7-

-------
be minimized by adding a second set of filters to the existing system and sizing the required
new exhaust fan appropriately. The basic consideration for this treatment option is the
relative cost between direct-fired and catalytic incineration, discussed in Section 4.

Conventional Method of Flow Rate Reduction and Treatment with Conventional Devices

       Modification of Existing Booths.  Reduction of the gas volume to be treated is a
common technique for reducing the overall cost of pollution control; many systems for air
flow management and pollutant capture can be modified to effect the same  or similar
results with a more sophisticated  (and usually more costly) approach to air management
ES evaluated the technical feasibility of modifying  Leed's booths to reduce the exhaust
volume. Either reduction in total circulating flow or recirculation of exhaust air, alone or
in combination, are  the options available.  There are some  regulatory and engineering
limitations which affect how much flow reduction  can be effected by one or  the other
approach.

       First, NFPA sets limits with regard to  the allowable concentration of potentially
flammable vapors in the gas.  Second, OSHA has established  standards for  worker
exposure to solvent vapors.   In Leed's case, the flammability issues addressed  by NFPA
standards will not be an issue unless the exhaust flow rate is  reduced by a factor of 100,
which is very unlikely. Practically, the OSHA standards will be limiting and these relate to
booth design and solvent vapor concentration.

       Spray booths are designed so that sufficient air is drawn to prevent the vapors and
particles from escaping the  area  and/or exposing workers to SLA.  Leed's booths were
designed to maintain a face velocity through openings of at least 125 ft/min.  The existing
system flow rate maintains this velocity.

       Leed's painting procedures require a  significant amount of operator freedom.  The
size and shape of the parts requires the painter to move back and forth across the booth
and to paint items or portions at elevation from 1* to 6' off the floor. One approach which
offers a significant reduction in  flow rate  is  to reduce the  face velocity  to 60 ft/min.
Reflecting the higher transfer  efficiency of electrostatic spray guns,  OSHA permits a
minimum face velocity of 60 ft/min for manual electrostatic spray guns. In Leed's case, the

-------
exhaust flow rate could be reduced from the current 25,000 cfm (-135 ft/min) to 11,040
cfm (60 ft/min). In order to ensure that the booths were not used for conventional air- or
airless-atomized spray guns, an interlock should be added to the gun power supply to
ensure that only electrostatic guns are  used.   The exhaust fans would be slowed by
replacing drive sheaves with an appropriate size. We have assumed a booth flow rate
reduction of 50 percent to be  conservative and  have evaluated the economics of such a
system in Section 4.  Except for the gas flows, all other elements of system (solvent loss,
production, oven exhaust, etc.) remain the same.

       Replacement  of  Existing Booths  with  Air  Recirculation  Systems Followed by
Conventional Control Devices. ES contacted several manufacturers of paint spray booths
to determine the availability (and cost) of "off-the-shelf recirculating booths. None of the
suppliers contacted were willing to propose a recirculation booth for a manual operation
the size of Lead's.

       These manufacturers (Ref. 5) gave  several reasons  for  not recommending or
proposing recirculating booths for Leed's situation.  Generally, the booths they design are
for automated assembly-line operations where there is little or no operator exposure and
solvent content of the air is limited by NFPA,  or they are built for painting large pieces
(like tractors) and involve closed booths with supplied-air suits for the painters. Neither of
these is Leed's case and the manufacturers were not interested in the engineering costs for
such a small one-time system.  Further they indicated that for such a small system the cost
of the necessary recirculation hardware and safety features would negate the saving in
control costs.

NOVEL OR DEVELOPMENTAL TECHNIQUES

       EPS AutoRoll  Booth.   Initial information was  that  this  system was  an air
recirculation booth system for automated painting that might be adaptable to manual
operation. In fact, it is not normally supplied as a recirculating booth.  The significant
characteristic of this system is an automatic advance of continuous filter mat for overspray
solids removal from the exhaust air stream. The filter media are said to provide better
particle removal than either typical dry filter  pads (like  those at Leed) or water  wash
booths and to reduce maintenance compared to the  conventional wet  or dry filtration
                                         -9-

-------
schemes. The physical layout of the booth is very similar to Leed's booth (back draw, open
front, side conveyor opening) and would be subject to the same constraint on breathing
zone exposure, painter mobility, and face velocity as the existing units.  Thus, the system
offers little benefit in Leed's situation.

      Nobel Chematur  Polyad  System.   The  Radian  analysis  documented  that
conventional carbon adsorption was expensive and not cost  effective compared to other
alternatives.   However, one  system,  the Polyad System by Nobel  Chematur, was
investigated as an alternative to conventional carbon adsorption.

      This system uses a fluidized bed of polymeric beads as surface adsorbers. The bed is
stripped and solvent  recovered in  a manner akin  to fixed-bed  carbon adsorption.
According  to the manufacturer, its  advantages over  carbon accrue with high solvent
loadings and humid gas streams, neither  of which are present at Leeds.  The limited
information available suggests that performance (removal efficiency) declines  rapidly as
inlet  concentrations go  below about  30  ppm.   Like  carbon systems,  the  economic
advantages over thermal treatment derive  from solvent recovery.  This Swedish process
may have  application to systems  such as Leed's, even without  solvent recovery,  but
significant  additional  investigation would be necessary to determine feasibility and
performance, as well as cost

       Mobile Zone System.  The Mobile Zone System is  a method of recirculating a
portion of the solvent-laden air, but supplying only fresh air to the work area by enclosing
the painter in a  mobile cab.  Fresh air is admitted to the cab  and recirculated air is
delivered to the interior of the booth.  Therefore,  only the quantity of fresh air admitted
through the cab opening is exhausted from the system. The designer's description of this
system  is included as Appendix B. The designer  of this system estimated that the total
exhaust flow from the two booths and the oven  could be reduced from 27,000 cfrn to
between 5,800 and  9,300 cfm (Ref. 6).  They also stated, however, that application to a
system as small as Leed's was marginal. The estimated flow reductions are dependent on
work practices, piece sizes, and painting rates. As yet, no commercial Mobile Zone System
has been installed, so the technology is still unproven in  commercial applications.
                                         -10-

-------
SUMMARY OF TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE OPTIONS

      Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of feasible systems for Leed.  The feasible
options for emission control at this facility appear to be:

1)    Addition of conventional devices to the existing system and treat -27,000 cfm.

2)    Reduction of the flow rate to achieve an exhaust rate equivalent to 60 ft/min face
      velocity and using conventional devices to treat -14,000 scfm.

3)    Addition of some  form of recirculation  air system, like the  Mobile Zone,  and
      treating 5800 to 9300 scfm with conventional devices.

Option one is provided for comparison with data presented in the Radian report  Option
two is a minimum-cost scheme to achieve some flow reduction.  Option three has not been
commercially demonstrated  but has sufficient promise to warrant consideration.  It also
provides  a basis to  compare  capital  and operating costs  if  other  means  of flow
reduction/recirculation could be developed.  A fourth option,  which  treats only the
reduced-flow emissions from one booth and the oven using the flow reduction offered by
the Mobile Zone System use also considered.  This option would have lower capital costs
and achieve less emission reduction than option three.
                                        -11-

-------
TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF SYSTEMS EVALUATED
Ventilation System Incinerator
Type Flow Rate, scfm Temp, °F Type
1-Current* 27,000

2-Reduce Fan* 14,000
Speed
3-Mobile Zone* 8,000

4-Mobile Zone for 5,000
Reduced Flow,
Treatment of One
Booth & Oven
Emissions
85°F Direct Fire
Catalytic
100°F Direct Fire .
Catalytic
130°F Direct Fire
Catalytic
175°F Direct Fire
• Catalytic

Comb. Temp,
oF
1500
650
1500
650
1500
650
1500
650

Burner Size
MM Btu/hr
12.5
5.0
6.4
2J
3.6
1.4
2.2
0.8

Capture %
95
95
95
95
95
95
55
55

Removal %
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95

Table 1 - Characteristics of System
Overall ffl
Control % <
90.3 j?
90.3 0.
90.3
90.3
90.3
90.3
52J
52J

•Both spray booth and the oven ducted to control device

-------
                                  SECTION 4
                  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
      Two types of control devices for removing VOCs have been considered - catalytic
and direct-fired incinerators.   For comparison purposes,  costs were developed for four
systems.  Both direct-fired and catalytic incinerators were evaluated for each of these
systems.  Option one represents  adding an incinerator to the existing  system with no
physical  or operating  modifications  except the  necessary  electrical  and pneumatic
connections. Option two reflects the same physical plant as option one but sized to treat
the lower gas volume achievable  by reducing face velocity to  60 ft/min.  Option three
reflects a "middle-of-the road" estimate of the flow rate resulting from use of a Mobile
Zone System, and Option four includes the same hardware for flow reduction but treating
only 5000 cfm of exhaust (oven-2000 cfm, 1 booth-3000 cfm).

BASIS OF EVALUATION

      The  capital  costs for the incinerators  were developed as  follows.   Purchased
equipment costs for the incinerator, including the fans, instrumentation and controls were
estimated from the  EAB manual (Ref. 7). These costs were then converted from 1986 to
1988 dollars using  Chemical Engineering's Plant Cost Index (ratio  = 1.059).  The EAB
manual states that the cost estimates are accurate to ± 50%. We compared the 1988 EAB
estimates to 15 quotes (1986 to 1988  quotes, adjusted to  1988 dollars) for thermal and
catalytic units of capacities from 5,000 scfm to 25,000 scfrn. These quotes were obtained
from ES records from other  recent study  and design projects (11) as well as  quotes
obtained specifically for this evaluation (4). The quoted prices were higher than predicted
by approximately 13% for catalytic systems and were approximately equal for thermal
systems,  so the EAB values were adjusted by a factor  of 1.13  for catalytic systems.
Auxiliary ductwork  was sized and costs calculated as described hi the EAB manual.

      Total installed equipment  costs are  comprised of the  purchased hardware plus
added cost  elements described in the  EAB manual in terms of a fraction of purchased
                                        -13-

-------
equipment  Adjustment factors were  established based on size and complexity of the
system using engineering judgement The list below identifies where an adjustment factor
other than 1.0 was used and why.  Operating costs were determined similarly, using the
values of labor, utilities, and cost of capital as presented in the Radian analysis.

                               ADJUSTMENT
        ITEM                 FACTOR USED           REASON
   Instruments                       0.0                Included with system
   Erection and Handling              0.5                Packaged, skid-mounted
   Insulation                         2.0                Exposed ductwork, cold
                                                        climate
   Painting                          0.0                Outside items, already
                                                        painted
   Construction/Field
   Expenses                          0.5                Modular system
   Construction Fee                  0.5                Pre-engineered
   Performance Test                  4.0 - 5.0            Back calculated to yield
                                                        approximately $12,000
                                                        fixed price test
   Contingencies                     2.0                Limited data on
                                                        structure, power
                                                        supplies, etc.

       Burner capacities were determined using simple linear heat transfer equations and
average values with the appropriate heat exchange efficiency (70% for catalytic, 70% for
direct-fired).  These heat exchange efficiencies are those on which the EAB manual  costs
were based.  Cost effectiveness ($/ton pollutant removed) were determined by assuming
18.75 Ibs/hr VOC uncontrolled, 55 or 95% capture, 95% destruction and 4,992 hours/year
operation. Table 3 summarizes the total capital costs and the annual costs of the systems
evaluated. The designer of the  Mobile Zone System estimated that a system could be
designed  and installed (hardware included) at Leed for about $150,000.  This  value  is
included in the capital costs for options three and four. The detailed costs are included  in
Appendix C
                                         -14-

-------
       A thorough analysis of the significance of capital and operating costs on Leed's
profitability and ability to service the debt is beyond the scope of this analysis.  However, a
limited evaluation can be developed from the production and cost data provided by Leed
during plant visit

       At the 4,992 hour/year operating rate, Leed's coating operation could  paint 1.4 to
1.9 million ft2 per year. The annual costs added to the painting operation by the emission
controls would range from as high as $389/ft2 to as low as $.097/ft2, calculated  from lowest
production/highest cost to highest production/lowest cost using the annual costs presented
in Table 3.  The actual cost of coating depends on many factors, but Leed estimates  that
the average cost is $1.00-$1.50/ft2. If the product mix and coating specifications did not
change, the addition of controls could increase painting costs anywhere from 6.5 percent to
38.9 percent
                                          -15-

-------
                                              TABLE 2

                                          COST SUMMARY
Annual Costs, $

System
(cfm)
1-27,000-
2-14,(KXr
3- 8,000*
4-5,000"

Type
Direct-Fired
Catalytic
Direct-Fired
Catalytic
Direct-Fired
Catalytic
Direct-Fired
Catalytic

Total Capital Costs, $
540,000
738,000
400,000
446,000
471,000
461,000
444,000
406,000
Direct
Operating
403,200
224,500
228,700
136,100
146,800
94,800
107,000
72,700
Indirect
Operating
140,800
183,800
110,500
120,400
125,900
123,600
112,000
111,700

Total
544,000
408,300
339,200
256,500
273,600
218,400
227,000
184,400
Cost Effect.
$/ton
12,880
9,670
8,030
6,070
6,480
5,170
9,280
7.540
Both spray booths and the oven ducted to the control device
•One spray booth and the oven ducted to the control device

-------
                                   SECTIONS
                         SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
      The technical and economic evaluations lead to several conclusions. The capital
and operating costs for addition of a control system to the facility as it currently stands are
lower than the estimates provided by Leed via the Radian analysis  for conventional
thermal treatment  Further, our estimates are about equal to  the combination carbon
adsorption/catalytic incineration  system discussed in that report, but derive from lower
capital costs (less debt service).  Catalytic incineration appears  more cost-effective than
direct-fired, regardless of size.

      Reducing the flow rates to 14,000 scfm and thus reducing capital and operating costs
of the treatment system yields significant savings compared to treating 27,000 scfm.

      The Mobile Zone System  appears to provide the most cost-effective control.  This
system has not been commercially demonstrated, so the cost data are questionable.

      Controlling emissions would permit Leed to increase production and the revenues
from the production increase could offset, at least in part, the added cost of the emission
controls. The cost data provided here can also be used to estimate emission rates and costs
of alternatives involving partial emission control.
                                         -17-

-------
                                  SECTION 6
                                REFERENCES
1.     Radian Corporation,  "Best Available Control Technology Assessment for Leed
      Architectural Products Paint Spray Booth Operation." Research Triangle Park, NC,
      April 1,1988.

2.     "Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Stationary
      Sources." Third Edition, Draft.

3.     "Guide for Inspecting Capture Systems and Control Devices at Surface  Coating
      Operation." U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC,
      May 1982.

4.     DeVilbiss Co., Specifications for Leed Spray Booths.

5.     Telecons with various manufacturers:
            Durr Industries; Bob Taylor
            George Koch Co.; Bill Walker
            Bilco Industries; Steve Cots
            Binks Co.; Bob Wagner
            DeVilbiss Co.; Terry York
            JBI, Inc.; Paul Kenderiman
            Protectaire, Inc.; Paul Farkas

6.     Letter from Clyde Smith, Smith Engineering, November 29,1988.

7.     "EAB Control  Cost  Manual,  Third  Edition".   EPA  450/5-87-001A.  U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS-EAB.  Research Triangle Park, NC,
      February, 1987.
                                       -18-

-------
        APPENDIX A
SIGMA PVDF POWDER COATINGS

-------
SIGMA COATINGS, THE SPECIALIST IN EXTERIOR PAINT
       SYSTEMS, INTRODUCES SIGMA PVDF,
    A NEW GENERATION OF POWDER COATINGS
                     SIGMA
                     COATINGS

-------
Microphotograph: illustration
PVDF powder oo
 A NEW GENERATION:
 POWDER COATINGS
 BASED ON PVDF
            Architects and
 designers  are familiar  with
 polyester powder coatings.
 And  they  are familiar  with
 long  lasting PVDF  based
 wet spray and coil coatings.
 Sigma  Coatings offers  a
 wide range of high perform-
 ance coating  systems util-
 izing  both  techniques.  But,
 Keeping   abreast  of  the
 needs of architects and ap-
 plicators alike.  Sigma  has
 now developed the ultimate      ~"
 exterior finish, SIGMA PVDF - powder coating based on
 Pennwalt's  KYNAR*  PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride).

            Design for endunng beauty and durability.
 As with PVDF wet systems, aluminium profiles and clad-
 ding coated with the new PVOF powder are assured of
 unsurpassed outdoor protection. Whether a building is
 baking m the heat of a blistering sun, awash with salt
 spray from  the sea or being attacked by industrial pollu-
 tion, colour and  gloss will remain virtually unchanged.
 Once applied, the architect's design is protected by a
 heavy fluoropolymer film that will last for years to come.

            The  SIGMA PVDF powder system was de-
veloped to  meet the needs of architectural  designers
who wanted a supenor alternative  to today's powder
coatings. At the  same  time,  it solved the applicators'
demand for a more efficient, emission free spray system.
The result has not only satisfied market demand, but in-
creased the durability and value of coated metal build-
ings - Sigma guaranteed.

            Sigma Coatings is one  of the oldest paint
manufacturers in the  world. It is from their continuing
research that they now bnng on the market an extenor
finish that is as tough as it is beautiful. Sigma knows that
architects will  want  to  consider the prestigious new
SIGMA PVDF because it allows them both durability and
design versatility.  Building owners will also recognize the
opportunity to enhance and ensure their investment with
lasting beauty and long term economy.
ot edge covering by Sigma's
                         COLOUR AND
                         PROTECTION
                                    Design    with
                         colour and confidence. New
                         SIGMA PVDF based powder
                         coating has the same pro-
                         tective qualities as all fluoro-
                         polymer coatings, with even
                         better  mechanical  proper-
                         ties:  one  coat  of  SIGMA
                         PVDF is thicker than two or
                         three  wet  spray  applica-
                         tions. Therefore,  architects
                         can expect:

                         - extremely  high  outdoor
                         resistance  to  weathering,
   industnal pollution, maritime climates
-  excellent resistance to corrosion (in particular, filiform)
-  supenor colour retention and light fastness
-  unsurpassed gloss retention (non-chalking)
-  optimal edge covering
-  maximum durability with high abrasion  and shock
   resistance
-  good flexibility and impact resistance.

           And of course, SIGMA PVDF ensures the
economy of long life to first maintenance. With such low
dirt collection, buildings coated  with SIGMA PVDF re-
main practically maintenance free.

           Sigma's new  PVDF based powder coating
is  available in  many beautiful, exciting RAL colours -
colours that will remain fresh and sparkling without the
need for repainting for many years. Special colours can
also be formulated.

           The  system has been fully tested by the
Dutch TNO Paint Research Institute following the VMR
Quality Requirements of Aluminium Windows. Doors and
Fronts, edition 1986.

-------
 END-USES
            SIGMA  PVDF
 based powder is -ideal for
 aluminium   cladding  and
 profiles. Components coat-
 ed  with  this  remarkable
 powder  coating  can  be
 bent, shaped,  bored and
 cnmped after coating, or in
 the case of extrusions and
 preformed shapes, sprayed
 after fabrication.
    90
^  80
•!  7C
.1  6C
 =  5C
 5  4C
 1  30
5  :c
    10 -
ACCELERATED WEATHERING Q.U.V.
PVDF Powder coating compared with Polyester Powder coating


                                    	   	   _ White (9C%)
                                                   Brown (8C%)
                                                   PVDF
       POLYESTER
       Brown (25%)
           Wall   panels,
roofs, windows or any alu-
minium  profile can be de-
signed with imagination by
combining structural  beauty with performance. The
colour uniformity of PVDF based powder coatings  will
ensure realization of the onginal design and  allow
building extensions  or  additions with perfect colour
match for many years.
       Hours exposition time Q.U.V.
                                                        4CGC hrs
                         THE GUARANTEE
                                    Incorporating ceramic pigments and PVDF
                         fluoropolymers means a durable coating. SIGMA PVDF
                         is guaranteed for durability of gloss and colour retention,
                         light fastness,  resistance  to chalking and protection
                         against corrosion (filiform),  no loss of  adhesion and no
                         cracking or blistering.

                                    When SIGMA  PVDF is applied by one of
                         Sigma's approved applicators and meets with Sigma's
                         high standard requirements for quality  control, a written
                         guarantee is issued for durability for at  least 10 years.

-------
                                           SIGMA PVDF POWDER COATING
                                           TECHNICAL INFORMATION

                         Weather-O-Meter  ASTM G 23 / G 26
                                           2000 hours: Loss of gloss less than 10%.
                                                     No chalking.
                                                     No significant colour change.

                                Sattspray  ASTM B 117
                                           2000 hours: No blistering.
                                                     Undercutting from cross hatch less than
                                                     1 mm.

                          Acidic Saltspray  ASTM B 287
                                           2000 hours: No blistering.
                                                     Undercutting from cross hatch less than
                                                     1 mm.

                                Humidity  DIN 50017
                                           1000 hours: No blistering or loss of adhesion.
                                                     No loss of hardness 24 hrs. after test.

                               Flexibility  ASTM D 2794 (Impact resistance)
                                           3.0 Nm:     No defects.
                                Adhesion  DIN 53151                    : Gt 0 -,
                                          after 1000 hours humidity
                                          (DIN 50017)                   : Gt 0
                                          after 1000 hours immersion
                                          (ASTM D 870)                  : Gt 0 -I

                                Hardness  DIN 53153 (Buchholz)           : 100
no pick-off
with
Scotch-
tape
                                          ASTM D 3363 (Pencil hardness) : F

Resistance to concrete mortar according to  ASTM C 207                  : No defects.
                                          The information  above has been extracted from the
                                          technical experiences with SIGMA PVDF Powder System
                                          applied on chromated aluminium. It is for information
                                          purposes only. Full performance data of SIGMA PVDF
                                          Powder Coating will be given on request.
                                                    SIGMA
                                                    COATINGS
                                                    Industrial Coatings Division
                                                    Postoox 112
                                                    NL-3700 AC Zeist
                                                    Tel 31 (3439)2211
                                                    Telex 40834
                                                    Fax (34391 1731

-------
          APPENDIX B
MOBILE ZONE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

-------
          Mobile Zone: Final Solution to Spray Booth VOC Emission Control
                                   presented by Clyde Smith
                                  1988 Air Pollution Congress
                                        Dallas, Texas
                                      revisions 9119 / 88
         Acknowledgements

         I wish to thank Mr. James Berry of the Environmental Protection Agency for
         extending an invitation to me to address  this meeting  I wish to thank those
         attending this meeting, for you represent the opinion makers and decision.makers
         who will largely influence the course of events in the future. Hopefully, I will be
         able to report significant progress from the field to you at the next Congress.

         Introduction

         My name is  Clyde Smith and I reside in Nashville, Tennessee. I am a mechanical
•         engineer in private practice having graduated in 1974 from the Georgia Institute of
         Technology.  I have been heavily  involved in industrial ventilation and pollution
I          control the last fourteen years and waste reduction techniques the last three.

          The Mobile Zone represents very advanced waste reduction technology rather than
1          control technology. Mobile  Zone is a name which I have applied to a  lanea of
1          designs for reducing the quantity of air required to safely and efficiently operate
          spray booths by up to 95 percent. In turn, this will reduce the capital "*<*•"*"«
1          cost of heating, cooling and VOC emission  control equipment by the same
          percentage.  From  the beginning, the goals of these designs were to  maintain or
T     -     improve  productivity,  production quality, safety, and compliance with EPA NFPA
I          33 and OHSA. This has been achieved. As the inventor, I have patents pending on
          these designs.  The Mobile Zone legal  counsel and patent attorney  is Mr. John
T         Behringer of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan of Washington, DC.. The Mobile Zone
J         technical consultant is Mr. William H. White of Perrysburg, Ohio  Mr. White is the
          retired chief of engineered systems for the DeVilbiss Company, a leading builder of
•1          spray booths. Mr. White is currently the secretary of Committee 33 of the National
"           Fire Protection Association which writes the national standards for spray booth
           design.

*          Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
->          Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
 1          11 pages with 4 Figures
0          Page 1 of 11

-------
       This presentation will describe one of a number of designs which I have developed
       for reducing the quantity of air required to safely operate spray booths. The other
       designs are based on the same principle, although differently configured to
       accommodate small parts (such as ball point pens), large products (such as
       transport  aircraft), side draft,  down draft, continuous and batch operation As an
       add on device, it is equally suitable for installation into new or existing facilites. I
       believe these designs solve the spray  booth VOC emission problem. In this
       presentation,  I  hope to convince you as well that  the Mobile Zone is the final
       solution to the problem of spray booth VOC emissions. The spray booth VOC
       emission problem has two major components: first, it requires effective VOC control
       technology; secondly, it requires an affordable price tag. The first component of the
       problem has been solved  by the vendors of regenerative incinerators and carbon
       adsorption units. The second component of the problem which is one of cost has
       been solved by the Mobile Zone control system.  For if control equipment is not
       installed due to its high cost, then its real effectiveness against VOCs is not 90, 95
       or 95* percent but rather zero percent.

       VOC Emission Control Technology

       The existing VOC emission control technology is quite good and is readily available
       commercially. The REECO regenerative incinerator is a good example although
       there are others. For instance, the REECO units are 95 percent plus effective in the
        destruction of VOCs. The units work well throughout  a wide range of ambient
        temperature and humidity conditions. They are tolerant of high exhaust air
        particulate loading. They work  well regardless of VOC  concentration. They work
        well throughout a wide  range  of exhaust air flow rates. The units have a long
        service life; they are mechanically simple and as a result highly reliable The units
        work unattended with little routine or preventative maintenance required. In short,
        the REECO  units in  their present form represent an effective, mature,  and
        desirable control technology. Therefore it can be safely said that effective VOC
        emission control technology for spray booth exists and is readily available.

        As effective  as the existing control technology is, it only represents a partial
        solution  to the spray booth VOC problem. The other part of the problem is the high
        price tag. In fact, it is the high price tag which has insured that spray booth VUC
        emissions are presently controlled only at a handful of sites throughout the entire
        United States. Installed VOC emission control equipment can cost of upwards of
         Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
         Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
         11 pages with 4 Figures
         Page 2 of 11
1

-------
J
3
3
3
3
3
$40 per cubic foot of exhaust air treated. This translates into an installed cost per
VOC source of between $200,000 and 10 million dollars. The prospect of reducing
the capital and operating cost for treating a cubic foot of exhaust air is bleak. There
are no exotic alternative technologies on the horizon and even with a mass market
for VOC emission control equipment the cost per cubic foot of exhaust air treated is
likely to decline by only 20 to 30 percent which still  leaves the  price tag too high.
The only other logical approach left is to reduce the quantity of exhaust air which
must be treated. The John Deere recirculation method and the Mobile Zone are two
such approaches.  Both of these approaches difier from normal spray booth design
and operation and as a result the issues addressed by NFPA 33 and OHSA must be
considered.

NFPA 33

NFPA 33 stands for the National Fire Protection Association Committee #33 which
writes standards for the design and operation of spray booths as they relate to
workplace safety, specifically the fire and explosion issue. The principal objective of
the NFPA 33 standards is that under no circumstances should there be a volatile
concentration of over 25 percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LED anywhere in
the workplace. To achieve this objective  a number of design standards are
suggested. NFPA 33 has no enforcement powers; however a number of
organizations which do have coercive  powers have  adopted NFPA 33 standards.
These organizations include the local fire department which enforces the fire codes,
the factory insurance companies and OHSA.

OHSA

OHSA stands for Occupational Health and Safety Administration and is  a
governmental organization which has  regulations for the design and operation of
spray booths as they relate  to  workplace safety,  specifically the worker toxic
 chemical issue. The OHSA regulations include some of the NFPA 33  standards in
 addition to its own. The principal objective of the OHSA regulations is that under
 no circumstances will a worker be exposed to a  solvent concentration of over 100
 parts per million during an eight hour shift or solvent specific peak exposures. To
 achieve this objective a number of design standards are suggested.
           Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
           Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
           11 pages with 4 Figures
           Page 3 of 11
0

-------
NFPA 33 and OHSA Variances

Variances are granted  to the spray booth owner upon petition to the appropriate
authority to achieve the objective by a different means than is described in the
standards or regulations. Variances are  not granted for  failure to meet the
objectives of the NFPA 33 standards or OHSA regulations. It is up to the booth
owner or his agent to convince the authorities to grant a variance; it is by no means
automatic. In fact, a variance once granted can be revoked  at any time. Should
disaster strike, the booth owner is in a weaker position from the liability point of
view if he is operating under a variance.

Recirculation Method vs. Mobile Zone

The ventilating air used in a spray booth is  an integral part of the spray operation;
it removes overspray  which otherwise would damage the  finish  and blind the
painter from seeing his workpiece. It is not essential to the spraying operation that
the ventilating air be fresh. Recirculated exhaust air contaminated with VOCs but
free of particulate will work fine. This is the basis of the John Deere recirculation
method. The  only  exhaust air which must be treated by VOC emission control
equipment is the air corresponding to the quantity of fresh air purposely introduced
into the booth to maintain the explosive gases  at a concentration under 25 percent
of the Lower Explosive Limit. Of course with the recirculation method, the painter
will have to work in an environmentally sealed suit  supplied  with fresh outside air
since he  will be working in a  sealed  room filled with explosive and  toxic gases.
Needless to say,  the recirculation method requires extensive spray booth
modification, variances, special training and special insurance. On the other hand,
the Mobile Zone provides fresh ventilating air to  the painter and the spraying
operation. To reduce the quantity of exhaust air the cross  section of the ventilated
 zone must be considerably less than the entire cross section of the booth. Since the
 painter and spraying operation will invariable shift in location within the booth this
 zone must be made mobile  as  well. Thus the name Mobile Zone is  an accurate
 description of how these designs function. It is also clear that to substantially
 reduce the spray booth exhaust air will require either the recirculation method or
 the Mobile Zone;  anything else defies the  physical laws of nature. The particular
 Mobile Zone design  which I  will  shortly disclose to  you is superior to  the
 recirculation method.  The Mobile Zone design requires no spray booth modification,
 no  variances,   no   special   training   and  no  special  insurance.   The
  Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
  Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville. Tennessee
  11 pages with 4 Figures
  Page 4 of 11

-------
recirculation method is forbidden in government facilities. It has been rejected by
several labor unions  and it has received unfavorable rulings from the Surgeon
General and OHSA.

Mobile Zone

For work activity which requires ventilation, the Mobile Zone provides zone of fresh
air within a work chamber for the benefit of a worker and his work activity.  The
work activity contemplated includes surface coating, surface stripping, surface
cleaning as well as  manufacturing and fabrication operations  which require
ventilation such as the spray and lay-up of fiberglass products. This zone of fresh
air shifts in response to  shifting locational needs of the work activity. The Mobile
Zone provides  a movable opening through  which fresh air flows  over the spray
operator. Additionally, the opening may be in a structure which serves as a conduit
for the fresh air, a conduit for the ingress and  egress of the spray operator and
mobile work platform for the spray operator. In this way, the linkage between booth
size  and quantity of air exhausted to the atmosphere is  broken. This is directly
analogous to having a smaller mobile spray booth within a larger stationary spray
booth. The smaller booth would be occupied  by the spray operator while the larger
booth containing the product remains unoccupied. This differs substantially from
present practice, since the introduction of fresh air into the booth is limited to the
area immediate to the spraying activity and the openings for the  entrance and exit
of product.  This is accomplished by means of either a Mobile Zone Damper Panel,
Mobile Zone Curtain  Panel, Mobile Zone Cab or combination. A circulation scheme
can  be incorporated  with  the Mobile  Zone  to promote laminar  flow and provide
additional  overspray control.  In this way, the  cross section of the booth (work
chamber) will be uniformly ventilated.

Curtain Pane!

The Mobile Zone Curtain Panel contains two or more sets of opposing curtains. The
curtains are moveable. The opposing curtains will be rigidly linked by a member of
 fixed or variable length. This linkage will provide a  standoff between the curtains
 to define an opening. The location of the opening can  be varied at will by advancing
 one curtain while retracting the other by a like amount. Were both the opposing
 curtains to be  completely retracted at the same time, the ventilating air flow would
 be uniform throughout the cross section of the panel. Were both the opposing
 Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
 Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
 11 pages with 4 Figures
 Page 5 of 11

-------
curtains to be completely advanced at the same time, the ventilating air would be
substantially blocked from flowing through the panel.  With the Mobile  Zone
Curtain Panel, a zone of ventilating air can be created whose location can be shifted
by coordinated movement of the curtains. In addition, since the opening is not ever
encumbered or blocked while in use, the Curtain Panel can be located in the work
chamber and used as a shield. The operator can stand on the upstream  side and
spray his  material  through the opening  onto the work piece located on the
downstream side. The combination of the curtain as a physical barrier and the flow
of ventilating air through the opening will prevent the  sprayed material from
contaminating  the  operator side of the  Curtain Panel. A  variation of this
arrangement would include a cab attached to  the opening in which the  operator
could ride as he shifted location and spray his material.

There will be a difference in air pressure from one  side of the Curtain Panel to the
other during operation. The difference in air pressure caused by the fan will cause a
draft through the opening. The dimensions of the  draft will  be defined by the
dimensions of the opening. The velocity of the draft  will be established by the
magnitude of the pressure differential from one side of the opening to the other.

Mobile Zone featuring Curtain Panel with Laminar Flow Option

In the Mobile Zone  control system using Curtain Panels with laminar flow the
entire cross section of the booth is uniformly ventilated as is a conventional booth.
However, a small portion of the  cross section is fresh Mobile  Zone air  with the
balance being laminar flow air. The net effect of this arrangement is that the spray
operator is supplied with fresh ventilating air; the air exhausted to VOC equipment
or atmosphere is greatly reduced and yet the entire work chamber is uniformly
ventilated with non-turbulent, laminar airflow just as in a conventional booth.

VOC enforcement action when it occurs involves high production facilities; this
tends by nature to be conveyorized spray booths. This Mobile Zone is particularly
well suited to a conveyorized  booth. It needs only to be attached to the  booth
through the laminar flow duct and it  requires very  little floor space. However it will
work with any booth in which the product occupies a well defined area, the painter
occupies a well  defined area and the spraying takes place predominantly in one
direction. These are easy constraints to meet; there are  few spraying operations
which would not benefit from this orderliness and organization alone.
 Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
 Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
 11 pages with 4 Figures
 Page 6 of 11

-------
As an example, for a side draft booth with a cross section of 10 feet high by 15 feet
wide, the total air flow would be 22,500 cubic feet per minute based on 150 square
feet of cross section at 150 feet per minute ventilating velocity. Assuming only one
painter at a time used this booth, then only one cab would be required. If the cab
dimensions were 4  feet wide and 7 feet tall, then  the fresh Mobile Zone air flow
would be 4,200 cubic feet per minute based on 28 square feet of cab cross section at
150 feet per minute ventilating velocity. Thus for the total air flow of 22,500 cubic
feet per minute, the laminar flow component will be 18,300 cubic feet per minute
with a fresh component of 4,200 cubic feet per minute. As a result, with the Mobile
Zone control system every minute 4,200 cubic feet of fresh air is introduced into the
booth and the same amount of spent exhaust air is discharged to the atmosphere.
This compares to 22,500 cubic feet per minute of air which is required  in booth
without the Mobile Zone control system. This represent an 81 percent reduction in
the ventilating air required to safely operate the booth.

Benefits

Production quality will be maintained or improved. Since the Mobile Zone provides
air over the spray gun  in a direction predominately parallel to the spray gun's
operating direction, the paint transfer efficiency should improve  and eddy induced
overspray deposits eliminated. Productivity will improve since the Mobile Zone
provides mechanized mobility to the operator to speed access to the product's
surface and reduce fatigue. The cost of owning and operating a spray booth will be
substantially reduced since the Mobile Zone will reduce the ventilating air required
by between 75 and 95 percent. In turn, this will reduce the capital and operating
cost of heating, air conditioning and pollution control equipment by a like amount.
These costs represent a major portion of the costs of a surface coating facility and a
principal area of energy consumption in a manufacturing plant. Over a  period of
years the energy costs saved by the Mobile Zone alone will be several times greater
than the initial capital  cost of the surface coating facility. Many  industrial firms
presently must choose between  either products with inferior surface coatings or
production  schedules subject to the whims of the weather because they can not
afford humidity and temperature control such as air conditioning. The Mobile Zone
will make this climate control affordable, again improving productivity and quality.
The objectives and regulations  of the EPA are met by reducing the quantity of
 pollutants  generated thereby making abatement practical  and affordable. The
 objectives and standards of NFPA #33 are met by introducing the required fresh air
 Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
 Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
 11 pages with 4 Figures
 Page 7 of 11

-------
         to keep volatile concentrations below 25 percent LEL. In fact, fire and explosion
         danger is greatly reduced since the spray booth work chamber is contained and
         isolated from the rest of the facility to a much greater degree than is possible with a
         conventional design. The objectives and regulations of QHSA are met by providing
         both fresh air over the  worker and his spraying activity as well as a physical
         barrier between the worker and contamination. In fact, worker safety is greatly
         enhanced compared to a conventional  design since the worker is provided with a
         smoke and fire free path from the booth. Additionally, by design the fresh Mobile
         Zone air always passes first over the worker's breathing zone and then to the work
         area providing positive protection to his breathing zone. This is in sharp contrast to
         conventional design where by common practice the worker often is downstream of
         his spraying activity  and the overspray is blown back over  him thereby
         contaminating him and his breathing zone.

         Conclusion

         Detail descriptions and drawings are included in this presentation. A working scale
         model is present for your examination and illustrates the simplicity of the design
         and operation. The Mobile Zone finally breaks the linkage between booth size and
         exhaust air rate, thereby allowing larger booths without penalty. In most cases, the
         Mobile Zone is  simply add  on equipment  with little down time required for
         installation. Therefore the fundamental booth design whether new or existing is
         still appropriate  and valid. As a result, the Mobile Zone represents easier to accept
         'evolution' rather then 'revolution'. For the industrial firm, high control costs are no
         longer a barrier to cleaning up VOC emissions and VOC emissions are no longer a
         barrier to plant  expansion. By significantly reducing pollution and energy usage,
         the Mobile Zone  provides the industrial firm with its only means to manage future
         liability and cost risk in these areas. Any booth without the Mobile Zone is obsolete;
          for the Mobile Zone represents preparation for the future.
           Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
           Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
1          11 pages with 4 Figures
f          Page 8 of 11

-------
1          ILLUSTRATIONS

I          Figures 11, 13 & 14 illustrate a configurations of a Mobile Zone featuring Curtain
          Panels with laminar flow option.

I          Figure 11 illustrates schematically a booth (down draft or side draft) of the present
          invention. Just outside the Work Chamber 53, two Curtain panels 55 and 56 are
          (located; an opening through both Curtain  Panels  is defined by a cab 57. As
          illustrated in figure  11, in response to the manipulation of an manual position
          sensor by the operator, the cab 57 moves at the rate and in the direction selected by
I          the operator to provide proper access to the products in the work chamber 53. In
•          conjunction with the movement of the cab 57, one curtain of each curtain panel 55
          and 56 retracts while the other curtain in each panel advances.  Curtain Panel 56
I          forms  the upstream boundary and Curtain Panel 55 forms  the downstream
          boundary of laminar flow chambers 70. Exhaust air enters each laminar flow
_          chamber 70 by means of conduit 54. The volume of air entering each laminar flow
I          chamber is controlled by  flow control damper 60 in response to the proportion of
          each curtain area exposed in Curtain Panel 55. The exhaust air 59 exits the
J          laminar flow chambers into the work chamber 53 through perforations in the
          curtains of Curtain Panel 55. Fresh Mobile Zone ventilating air 58 enters the work
          chamber 53 through the cab 57. The entire work chamber is uniformly ventilated by
          }a combination of laminar flow air 59 and fresh air 58. This ventilating air then
          enters the exhaust  chamber  13  and passes through filter 15 which removes
          overspray. The exhaust air exits through the exhaust fan (not shown) in housing 17
I         whereupon the exhaust air is split. The larger portion is diverted into the laminar
          flow duct 54 and the smaller portion exits to the atmosphere through exhaust stack
          19. The volume of air exiting is controlled by flow control damper 18. The ratio of
J         air exhausted to laminar flow air is proportional to the ratio of area of the opening
          as defined by the cab 57 in the Curtain Panels 55 & 56 to the total  area of
          perforated curtain in Curtain Panel 55 in the booth cross section.
3
1

          In Figures 13 & 14 is depicted a conveyorized spray booth of the present invention
          utilizing a Curtain Panel and the laminar flow feature as described in the Figure 11
          schematic. Figure 13 is a frontal isometric view and  Figure 14 is a sectional side
          view. Suspended from the ceiling 23 are monorail conveyor trays 41 that slowly
          transport the objects to be sprayed (not shown) through the booth. Monorail 40
          Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
          Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
          11 pages with 4 Figures
          Page 9 of 11
I

-------
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
I
3
J
I
f
extends through the booth. Booth end walls 52 have openings 39 for the passage of
the conveyor trays 41. The operator 51 (shown only in Figure 14) rides back and
forth the full cross section of the booth in a motorized cab which is comprised of
floor 47, walls 48 and ceiling 49. The operator sprays the coating from his vantage
point in the cab,  thereby avoiding the fatigue of pacing back and forth  all day
dragging his paint hoses. Like partitions, the cab further defines the opening in the
two Curtain Panels. In this instance, the cab has the dimensions  of four feet wide
and eight feet high. The walls 48 of the cab have windows 50. The cab is equipped
with manual operator control (not shown) to signal the controller 26 which will in
turn cause the cab to stop or move it in a particular direction and speed. The
Curtain Panels are comprised of opposing curtains 43, 44 and opposing curtains 61,
62 which are fabricated from narrow interlocking steel slats. These curtains 43, 44,
61 and 62 spool in and out from drums inside housing 46. Tension is maintained on
these curtains 43, 44, 61 and 62 by tensioning devices 42 connected to the drums.
The curtains and the cab operate in tracks 45. A laminar flow chamber 64 is formed
and bounded peripherally by the floor, walls, ceiling and the two Curtain Panel
comprised of curtains 43, 44, 61 and 62. The downstream curtains 61 and 62 are
perforated to permit exit of the laminar flow air supplied by laminar flow duct 63
from exhaust fan 22. In addition, the perforated curtains 61 and 62 act as diffusers
to evenly distribute the laminar flow air across the booth cross section.

The overspray  laden air is drawn through the exhaust chamber 24 by an  exhaust
fan 22 to exit to the atmosphere through the exhaust stack 21. The  exhaust
chamber 24 is separated from the work chamber 38 by the lower wall portion 32. A
pool of scrubbing water 29 stands in the exhaust chamber  24. The water is
recirculated by pump 27 to spray header 28. The spray constantly wets baffles 30
and 31 which along with the spray constitute a water wash filter, which extends the
entire  length of exhaust chamber 24. Openings (not shown) near the bottom of
baffle 30 allow water 29 to stand at the same level throughout exhaust chamber 24.
 Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
 Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
 11 pages with 4 Figures
 Page 10 of 11

-------
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
I
                                                                   FIG 11
                                                                      laminar flow  duct
                                                                      tensioner
                                                                      drum housing
                                                          solid panel
                                                          perforated panel
                                                          laminar flow  chamber
                                                           motorized cab
                                                           MOBILE ZONE
Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
Figures 1 4 2 of 4

-------
                    FIG  13
                   40
1
3
 1
1
11
 I
                                                                    21
Mobile Zone Control System — Patents Pending
Property of Clyde Smith of Nashville, Tennessee
Figures 3 & 4 of 4

-------
        APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST CALCULATIONS

-------
                    DETAILED COST CALCULATIONS

                            FILENAME KEY
                                            Filename
        Option                     Thermal              Catalytic
1
2
3
4
27KCAT
14KCAT
8KCAT
5KCAT
27KDFIRE
14DFIRE
8KDFIRE
5KDFIRE
Note:    For options 3 & 4, capital cost of mobile zone system is included in auxiliary
        equipment (Line A)l)b)

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                         FILE:5KCAT
                               BASIS OF DESIGN


   PARAMETER                                 LABEL             VALUE

   GAS FLOW
      LBS/HR                                 SLA#                  18763
      SCFM                                   SLAS                   5000
      ACFM                                   SLAA                   6000

   GAS TEMP. DEC. F                          TI                     175

   SOLVENT LOADING
      LBS/HR                                 SLL                   18.75
         AVG. MOLEC. WT                      MW                     106
         PPM                                 PPM                    126

   COMBUSTIO'N CHAMBER  TEMP,  DEG.  F           TC                      650

   HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.                      HEX                    70.0%

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY                        CE                     0.55
   DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY                   ORE                    0.95

   REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY,  MM  Btu/HR      BC                     0.77
                            SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


    CATALYTIC INCINERATOR,  COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES,  UPDATED TO 1988
    DOLLARS;  AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN.  PRICE
 DATE; 02/02/89                                               PAGE 1 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST  EVAL.
                          FILE:5KCAT
                                 CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT

      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      e) FREIGHT
                                       BASIS     RATE     AF
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
      la *  0.10 *  0.0
  la+b+c *  0.03 *  1.0
    la+b *  0.05 *  1.0
                  SUBTOTAL PURCHASED  EQUIPMENT
                            COST
 $159,200
  $96,216
      $0
   $7,662
  $12,771
m^m^m^* «wa^ •• ^ ^ •
 $275,849
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS        la+b
      b) ERECTION AND HANDLING           la-t-b
      C) ELECTRICAL                        la
      d) PIPING                            la
      e) INSULATION                      la+b
      f) PAINTING                        la+b
      g) SITE PREPARATION            AS  REQ'D
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS    AS  REQ'D
                  SUBTOTAL  INSTALLATION DIRECT
*
4
*
*
*
*


0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01


1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0


$20,433
$17,879
$6,368
$3,184
$5,108
$0
$0
$0
                             $52,973
B) INDIRECT COSTS

   3) INSTALLATION  INDIRECT

      a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
      b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
      C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
      d) STARTUP
      e) PERFORMANCE TEST
      f) MODEL STUDY
      g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b *
INDIRI
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.01
* 0.03 <
:cr
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.7
* 2.0

$25,542
$6,385
$12,771
$5,108
$12,005
$15,325
$77,136
      SUMMARY - TOTAL  CAPITAL COSTS
         PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
         INSTALLATION  DIRECT
         INSTALLATION  INDIRECT
                                                TIEC
                            $275,849
                             $52,973
                             $77,136
                           • •• ^m ^«B«B «» ^ ^«

                            $405,958
DATE: 02/02/89
                        PAGE  2  OF  4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                         FILE:5KCAT
                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS
                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                   624
         AUXILIARY FUEL  NEEDS
                  DH  - SLAS *  CPg  *  ( TC - TI  ) *  (  1  -  HEX  )
                           CPg -     0.0181 Btu/(£t3  *  deg  F)
                  DH  -          0.77  MM  BtU/HR
         ANNUAL FUEL  CONSUMPTION               GAS    BtU/CCF    100,000
                  AFC -  DH *  HOURS / Btu/UNIT
                  AFC -        38627 CCF
         STACK TEMP,  TS
                  TS  -  TI + ( 1 - HEX ) *  (  TC -  TI )
                   TS  »          318 DEG.  F
          PREHEAT TEMP,  TP
                   TP - TI -i- HEX * ( TC - TI )
                   TP *          508 DEG.  F
          FAN POWER, KWH/HR
                   SG -         0.062 LBS/FT3
                   DP -            25 in WC
                   FP -  0.746  * SUVA *  DP * SG /  (6356 *.65  )
                      »         1.679 KWH/HR

          CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
                   WASTE » 2  FT3/MCFM  * SLAS  / LIFE [5  YRS]
                                    2 FT3
                                 0.12 TONS
  DATE: 02/02/39                                              PAGE 3 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                                   FILE:5KCAT
                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS
      b) SUPERVISORS

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR
      b) MATERIALS
 HR/SHIFT 6 $/HR
15% OF OPER.  LABOR
 HR/SHIFT § $/HR
100% OF OPER.  LABOR
 0.5
0.15
   4) REPLACEMENT  PARTS     CATALYST   $3,000 /FT3
   5) UTILITIES
      a) ELECTRICITY

      b) NATURAL GAS
  $0.120 /KWH

 $0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500
 $0.7100 /CCF NEXT   5500
 $0.6671 /CCF NEXT  49000
 $0.5714 /CCF OVER  55000
                   SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

 B)  INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS

    7)  OVERHEAD

    8)  PROPERTY TAX

    9)  INSURANCE

    10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
$40
    11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY
          10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
             0.60 *  (OL+SL+ML+MM)

             0.01 * TIEC

             0.01 * TIEC

             0.02 * TIEC

           0.1770 * TIEC
$12,480
 $1,872
0.5
1.00
'3
$40
1.0
$12,480
$12,480
$6,000
                  $1,006

                    $396
                  $3,905
                 $22,099
                      $0
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
                 $72,718




                 $23,587

                  $4,060

                  $4,060

                  $8,119

                 $71,855
               m •• •• ^m^m^ «• ^ ^ «


                $111,680
          SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS

                   DIRECT OPERATING
                   INDIRECT OPERATING

          TOTAL ANNUAL COST

       COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED
                                      $72,718
                                     $111,680
                                    »•••••*••»*

                                     $184,398

                                       $7,541
  DATE:  02/02/89
                                                              PAGE 4 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                       FILE:5KDFIRE
                               BASIS OF DESIGN
   PARAMETER                                 LABEL             VALUE

   GAS FLOW
      LBS/HR                                 SLA#                 18763
      SCFM                                   SLAS                  5000
      ACFM                                   SLAA                  6000

   GAS TEMP. DEG. F                          TI                     175

   SOLVENT LOADING
      LBS/HR                                 SLL                  18.75
         AVG. MOLEC. WT                      MW                     106
         PPM                                 PPM                    126

   COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F           TC                     1500

   HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.                      HEX                    70.0%

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY                        CE                     0.55
   DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY                    DRE                    0.95

   REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM  Btu/HR       BC                     2.16
                            SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


   DIRECT FIRED  INCINERATOR,  COST FROM  SEVERAL QUOTES,  UPDATED TO 1988
   DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED  IN INCIN.  PRICE;  FAN AND
   INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
 DATE: 02/02/89                                              PAGE 1 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                    FILE:5KDFIRZ
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
                                CAPITAL COSTS

                                      BASIS
        RATE
        AF
      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      e) FREIGHT
                  SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
           COST
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
la *
la+b+c *
la+b *


0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *


0.0
1.0
1.0
$183,600
$96,216
$0
$8,394
$13,991
                       $302,201
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
      b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
      c) ELECTRICAL
      d) PIPING
      e) INSULATION
      f) PAINTING
      g) SITE PREPARATION
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS






AS
AS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
REQ'D
REQ'D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.


08
14
04
02
01
01


*
*
*
*
*
*


1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
0.


0
5
0
0
0
0


$22,
$19,
$7,
$3,
$5,



385
587
344
672
596
$0
$0
$0
                  SUBTOTAL  INSTALLATION  DIRECT
                        $58,585
B) INDIRECT COSTS

   3) INSTALLATION  INDIRECT

      a) ENGINEERING AND  SUPERVISION
      b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
      C) CONSTRUCTION  FEE
      d) STARTUP
      e) PERFORMANCE TEST
      f) MODEL STUDY
      g) CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.01
*
*
*
*
                   SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION  INDIRECT
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.3
la+b *  0.03 *  2.0
           $27,982
            $6,995
           $13,991
            $5,596
           $12,032

           $16,789

           $83,385

t*******************
      SUMMARY  -  TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
          PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
          INSTALLATION DIRECT
          INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                                                TIEC
                       $302,201
                        $58,585
                        $83,385
                       • ^ ^ •» ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ «
                       $444,171
 DATE:  02/02/89
                    PAGE 2 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                       FILE:5KDFIRE

                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS
                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR                  4992
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                  624
         AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
                  DH - SLAS * CPg *  ( TC - TI ) *  ( 1 - HEX  )
                           CPg -      0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg  F)
                  DH -         2.16  MM  Btu/HR
         ANNUAL  FUEL CONSUMPTION               GAS   Btu/CCF    100,000
                  AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
                  AFC -       107749  CCF
         STACK TEMP, TS
                  TS - TI +  (  1  -  HEX ) *  (  TC  -  TI  )
                  TS -         572.5  DEG.  F
         PREHEAT TEMP, TP
                   TP -  TI +  HEX *  (  TC - TI  )
                   TP -       1102.5  DEG.  F
          FAN POWER,  KWH/HR
                   SG -        0.062  LBS/FT3
                   DP -           15 in WC
                   FP - 0.746 * SLAA *  DP * SG / (6356 *.65  )
                               1.008 KWH/HR

          CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
                   WASTE  - 2 FT3/MCFM   * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
                                   2  FT3
                                0.12  TONS
  DATE:  02/02/89                                               PAGE 3 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                       FILE:5KDFIRE


                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS          HR/SHIFT § $/HR      0.5     $40      $12,480
      b) SUPERVISORS       15% OF OPER. LABOR   0.15              $1,872

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR              HR/SHIFT @ $/HR      0.5     $40      $12,480
      b) MATERIALS         100% OF OPER. LABOR  1.00             $12,480

   4) REPLACEMENT PARTS    CATALYST   $3,000 /FT3        0.0           $0

   5) UTILITIES
      a) ELECTRICITY          $0.120 /KWH                            $604

      b) NATURAL GAS        $0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500                $396
                            $0.7100 /CCF NEXT   5500              $3,905
                            $0.6671 /CCF NEXT   49000             $32,688
                            $0.5714 /CCF OVER   55000             $30,141
                  SUBTOTAL DIRECT  OPERATING  COSTS               $107,045

B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   7) OVERHEAD                           0.60 *  (OL+SL+ML+MM)     $23,587

   8) PROPERTY TAX                       0.01 *  TIEC               $4,442

   9) INSURANCE                          0.01 *  TIEC               $4,442

   10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE        0.02 *  TIEC               $8,883

   11)CAPITAL COST  RECOVERY           0.1770 *  TIEC              $78,618
          10 YEARS,  12 % INTEREST                            	
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS             $119,972
         SUMMARY  - ANNUALIZED COSTS
                   DIRECT OPERATING                             $107,045
                   INDIRECT OPERATING                           $119,972
         TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                     $227,018

       COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED                          $9,284




 DATE:  02/02/89                                              PAGE 4 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                 FILE:8KCAT
                               BASIS OF DESIGN
   PARAMETER

   GAS FLOW
      LBS/HR
      SCFM
      ACFM

   GAS TEMP. DEC. F

   SOLVENT LOADING
      LBS/HR
         AVG. MOLEG. WT
         PPM

   COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP,  DEG.  F

   HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
   DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY

   REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY,  MM Btu/HR
LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA

TI
SLL
MW
PPM

TC

HEX

CE
DRE

BC
                                                               VALUE
32311
 8000
 9000

  130
18.75
  106
  135

  650

 70.0%

 0.95
 0.95

 1.36
                            SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


    CATALYTIC INCINERATOR,  COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES,  UPDATED TO 1988
    DOLLARS;  AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN.  PRICE
 DATE: 02/02/89
                                                              PAGE  1  OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                          FILE:8KCAT
                                CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT

      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      e) FREIGHT
                                      BASIS
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
      la *
  la+b+c *
    la+b *
                  SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
            RATE    AF      COST
               $192,500
                $98,208
0.10 *  0.0          $0
0.03 *  1.0      $8,721
0.05 *  1.0     $14,535
            •»^«K«»^»«* *»^ •• w» ^ «

               $313,965
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
      b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
      c) ELECTRICAL
      d) PIPING
      €) INSULATION
      f) PAINTING
      g) SITE PREPARATION
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS






AS
AS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
REQ'D
REQ'D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.


08
14
04
02
01
01


*
*
*
*
*
*


1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
0.


0
5
0
0
0
0


$23
$20
$7
$3
$5



i

i
i
i



257
350
700
850
814
$0
$0
$0
                  SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
                            $60,970
B) INDIRECT COSTS

   3) INSTALLATION INDIRECT

      a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
      b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
      c) CONSTRUCTION FEE
      d) STARTUP
      e) PERFORMANCE TEST
      t) MODEL STUDY
      g) CONTINGENCIES
    la+b
    la+b
    la+b
    la+b
    la+b
0,
0,
0,
0,
10
05
10
02
0.01
*
*
*
*
*
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.1
    la+b *  0.03 *  2.0
                  SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
 $29,071
  $7,268
 $14,535
  $5,814
 $11,919

 $17,442
»^^ •• ^ «• •• •» •
 $86,050
      SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
         PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
         INSTALLATION DIRECT
         INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                                               TIEC
                           $313,965
                            $60,970
                            $86,050
                           • «• ^«» «• ^ ^ «• ^ •

                           $460,985
DATE: 02/02/89
                        PAGE 2 OF 4

-------
PROJECT:  LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                         FILE:SKCAT
                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS
                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR                  4992
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                  624
         AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
                  DH - SLAS * CPg *  ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX  )
                           CPg -      0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg  F)
                  DH »         1.36  MM Btu/HR
         ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION               GAS   Btu/CCF    100,000
                  AFC - DH * HOURS / BtU/UNIT
                  AFC -        67658  CCF
         STACK TEMP, TS
                  TS - TI +  (  1  - HEX  )  *  ( TC -  TI  )
                  TS -           286  DEG.  F
         PREHEAT  TEMP, TP
                  TP - TI +  HEX  *  (  TC - TI  )
                  TP -          494  DEG.  F
         FAN POWER,  KWH/HR
                   SG -        0.067  LBS/FT3
                   DP -           25  in WC
                   FP - 0.746 * SLAA * DP * SG /  (6356 *.65  )
                               2.722  KWH/HR

          CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
                   WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM  * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]
                                 3.2 FT3
                               0.192 TONS
 DATE: 02/02/89                                               PAGE 3 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                          FILE:8KCAT


                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS          HR/SHIFT 6 $/HR      0.5     $40      $12,480
      b) SUPERVISORS       15% OF OPER. LABOR   0.15              $1,872

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR              HR/SHIFT @ $/HR      0.5     $40      $12,480
      b) MATERIALS         100% OF OPER. LABOR  1.00             $12,480

   4) REPLACEMENT PARTS    CATALYST   $3,000 /FT3        1.0       $9,600

   5) UTILITIES
      a) ELECTRICITY          $0.120 /KWH                          $1,631

      b) NATURAL GAS        $0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500                $396
                            $0.7100 /CCF NEXT -  5500              $3,905
                            $0.6671 /CCF NEXT   49000             $32,688
                            $0.5714 /CCF OVER   55000              $7,233
                   SUBTOTAL DIRECT  OPERATING  COSTS                $94,765

B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   7) OVERHEAD                           0.60 *  (OL+SL+ML+MM)     $23,587

   8) PROPERTY  TAX                      0.01 *  TIEC              $4,610

   9) INSURANCE                         0.01 *  TIEC              $4,610

   10) GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE        0.02 *  TIEC              $9,220

   11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY           0.1770 *  TIEC             $81,594
          10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST                            	
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS             $123,621
          SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
                   DIRECT OPERATING                              $94,765
                   INDIRECT OPERATING                           $123,621
          TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                     $218,386

       COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED                          $5,170




 DATE:  02/02/89                                              PAGE 4 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL,
               FILE:8KDFIRE
                               BASIS OF DESIGN
   PARAMETER

   GAS FLOW
      LBS/HR
      SCFM
      ACFM

   GAS TEMP. DEG. F

   SOLVENT LOADING
      LBS/HR
         AVG. MOLEG.  WT
         PPM

   COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP,  DEG.  F

   HEAT EXCHANGE  EFFIC.

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
   DESTRUCTION  EFFICIENCY

   REQUIRED BURNER  CAPACITY, MM Btu/HR
                                             LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA

TI
SLL
MW
PPM

TC

HEX

CE
DRE

BC
                  VALUE
32311
 8000
 9000

  130
18.75
  106
  135

 1500

 70.0%

 0.95
 0.95

 3.57
                            SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


    DIRECT FIRED INCINERATOR,  COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES,  UPDATED TO 1988
    DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN.  PRICE; FAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
 DATE: 02/02/89
                                                              PAGE  1  OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                        FILE-.8KDFIRE
                                CAPITAL COSTS

                                      BASIS
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT

      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      c) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      e) FREIGHT
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
      la *
  la+b+c *
    la+b *
                  SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
            RATE    AF      COST
               $199,300
                $98,208
0.10 *  0.0          $0
0.03 *  1.0      $8,925
0.05 *  1.0     $14,875
            M^«»WMMW«MV»«»«
               $321,309
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
      b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
      c) ELECTRICAL
      d) PIPING
      e) INSULATION
      f) PAINTING
      g) SITE PREPARATION
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01


1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0


$23,801
$20,826
$7,972
$3,986
$5,950
$0
$0
$0
                  SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION  DIRECT
                             $62,534
B) INDIRECT COSTS

   3) INSTALLATION  INDIRECT

      a) ENGINEERING  AND SUPERVISION
      b) CONSTR. AND  FIELD EXPENSES
      C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
      d) STARTUP
      e) PERFORMANCE  TEST
      f) MODEL STUDY
      g) CONTINGENCIES
    la+b *
    la+b *
    la+b *
    la+b *
    la+b *
0.10
0.05
  10
  ,02
  ,01
0.
0,
0,
                   SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
        1.0
0
0
1.0
4.0
    la+b *  0.03  *   2.0
 $29,751
  $7,438
 $14,875
  $5,950
 $11,900

 $17,850
m^ ^«» ^ ^ ^ ^ «
 $87,765
      SUMMARY  - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
          PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
          INSTALLATION DIRECT
          INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                                                TIEC
                            $321,309
                             $62,534
                             $87,765
                           m^^ «• •• ^^ ^ ^ «

                            $471,608
 DATE:  02/02/89
                         PAGE 2 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                       FILE:8KDFIRE
                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS
                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR                  4992
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                   624
         AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS
                  DH - SLAS * CPg *  ( TC - TI ) * ( 1  -  HEX  )
                           CPg -      0.0181 Btu/(ft3  *  deg  F)
                  DH -         3.57  MM BtU/HR
         ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION               GAS   Btu/CCF    100,000
                  AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT
                  AFC -      178253  CCF
         STACK TEMP, TS
                  TS - TI +  (  1 - HEX  )  *  ( TC - TI  )
                  TS -          541  DEG. F
         PREHEAT  TEMP, TP
                  TP » TI +  HEX  *  (  TC  - TI  )
                  TP -          1089  DEG. F
         FAN POWER,  KWH/HR
                   SG «        0.067  LBS/FT3
                   DP -           15  in WC
                   FP » 0.746 * SLAA *  DP *  SG /  (6356 *.65 )
                               1.633  KWH/HR

          CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL
                   WASTE » 2 FT3/MCFM  * SLAS / LIFE [5  YRS]
                      »          3.2 FT3
                               0.192 TONS
 DATE: 02/02/89                                               PAGE  3  OF 4

-------
PROJECT:  LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                       FILE:8KDFIRE


                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS          HR/SHIFT § $/HR      0.5    $40     $12,480
      b) SUPERVISORS       15% OF OPER. LABOR   0.15             $1,872

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR              HR/SHIFT § $/HR      0.5    $40     $12,480
      b) MATERIALS         100% OF OPER. LABOR  1.00            $12,480

   4) REPLACEMENT PARTS    CATALYST   $3,000 /FT3       0.0           $0

   5) UTILITIES                                                     „  „
      a) ELECTRICITY          $0.120 /KWH                            $578

      b) NATURAL GAS        $0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500                $396
                            $0.7100 /CCF NEXT   5500              $3,905
                            $0.6671 /CCF NEXT   49000             $32,688
                            $0.5714 /CCF OVER   55000             $70,427
                  SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING  COSTS               $147,706

B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   7) OVERHEAD                           0.60 *  (OL+SL+ML+MM)     $23,587

   8) PROPERTY  TAX                       0.01 *  TIEC              $4,716

   9) INSURANCE                         0.01 *  TIEC              $4,716

   10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE        0.02 *  TIEC              $9,432

   11)CAPITAL COST  RECOVERY           0.1770 *  TIEC             $83,475
          10 YEARS,  12 % INTEREST                            	
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS             $125,926
          SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
                   DIRECT OPERATING                             $147,706
                   INDIRECT OPERATING                           $125,926
          TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                     $273,632

       COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED                          $6,478




 DATE: 02/02/89                                              PAGE 4 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED.ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                        FILE:14KCAT



                               BASIS OF DESIGN


   PARAMETER                                 LABEL             VALUE
                                                                   59574
      SCFM                                   SLAS                  14000
      ACFM                                   SLAA                  15000

   GAS TEMP. DEG. F                          TI                      100

   SOLVENT LOADING                                                  „ „
      LBS/HR                                 SLL                   18.75
         AVG. MOLEC. WT                      MW                      106
         PPM                                 PPM                      77

   COMBUSTION CHAMBER  TEMP,  DEG.  F           TC                      650

   HEAT EXCHANGE  EFFIC.                      HEX                    70.0%

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY                        CE                     0.95
   DESTRUCTION  EFFICIENCY                   ORE                    0.95

   REQUIRED BURNER  CAPACITY, MM BtU/HR      BC                     2.51
                            SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


    CATALYTIC INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES,  UPDATED TO 1988
    DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
 DATE: 02/02/89                                               PAGE 1 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                                                              FILE:14KCAT
                                CAPITAL COSTS

                                      BASIS
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT

      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      e) FREIGHT
                                    AS REQ'D
                                    AS REQ'D
                                          la *
                                      la+b+c *
                                         la+b *
                  SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
                                                RATE
        AF
              COST


0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *


0.0
1.0
1.0
$266,500
$11,296
$0
$8,334
$13,890
                                                                $300,020
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
      b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
      C) ELECTRICAL
      d) PIPING
      e) INSULATION
      f) PAINTING
      g) SITE PREPARATION
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01


1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0


$22,224
$19,446
$10,660
$5,330
$5,556
$0
$0
$0
                  SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION  DIRECT
                                                                 $63,215
B) INDIRECT COSTS

   3) INSTALLATION  INDIRECT

      a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
      b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
      C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
      d) STARTUP
      e) PERFORMANCE TEST
      f) MODEL STUDY
      g) CONTINGENCIES
                                         la+b
                                         la+b
                                         la+b
                                         la+b
                                         la+b
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10
05
10
02
01
1.0
 ,5
 ,5
1.0
4.3
                                         la+b *  0.03 *  2.0
                   SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
 $27,780
  $6,945
 $13,890
  $5,556
 $11,945

 $16,668
• «• «» ^ ^ ^«B«» •
 $82,783
       SUMMARY  - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
          PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
          INSTALLATION DIRECT
          INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                                                TIEC
                                                                $300,020
                                                                 $63,215
                                                                 $82,783
                                                                • «• ^ «» «• ^ «• ^m ^ *
                                                                $446,018
 DATE:  02/02/89
                                                             PAGE 2 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                        FILE:14KCAT


                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS
                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR                  4992
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                  624

         AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS

                  OH - SLAS * CPg *  ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX )

                           CPg -      0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg F)

                  DH -         2.51 MM Btu/HR

         ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION               GAS   Btu/CCF    100,000

                  AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT

                  AFC -      125232 CCF

         STACK TEMP, TS

                  TS - TI *  ( 1 - HEX ) *  ( TC - TI )

                  TS -          265  DEC- F

         PREHEAT TEMP, TP

                  TP - TI * HEX *  (  TC - TI )

                  TP -          485  DEG. F

         FAN POWER, KWH/HR

                  SG -        0.070  LBS/FT3
                  DP -           25  in WC

                  FP - 0.746  * SLAA  * DP * SG /  (6356  *.65  )

                              4.740  KWH/HR


         CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL

                  WASTE  -  2  FT3/MCFM  * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]

                                 5.6  FT3

                      -         0.336  TONS
 DATE:  02/02/89                                              PAGE 3 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                                 FILE:14KCAT
                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS
      b) SUPERVISORS

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR
      b) MATERIALS
 HR/ SHIFT i $/HR      0.5
15% OF OPER. LABOR   0.15
 HR/SHIFT @ $/HR      0.5
100% OF OPER. LABOR  1.00
   4) REPLACEMENT  PARTS     CATALYST    $3,000 /FT3
   5) UTILITIES
      a) ELECTRICITY

      b) NATURAL GAS
 $0.120 /KWH

$0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500
$0.7100 /CCF NEXT   5500
$0.6671 /CCF NEXT  49000
$0.5714 /CCF OVER  55000
                   SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

 B)  INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS

    7) OVERHEAD

    8) PROPERTY TAX

    9) INSURANCE

    10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
                            $40
                            $40


                            1.0
    11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY
          10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST
            0.60 * (OL+SL+ML+MM)

            0.01 * TIEC

            0.01 * TIEC

            0.02 * TIEC

          0.1770 * TIEC
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
$12,480
 $1,872
$12,480
$12,480

$16,800
                                       $2,839

                                         $396
                                       $3,905
                                      $32,688
                                      $40,131
                                    • •w^«^w*»«»«
                                    $136,071
                                      $23,587

                                       $4,460

                                       $4,460

                                       $8,920

                                      $78,945
                                    »MB«»W«M»W«


                                     $120,373
          SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS

                   DIRECT OPERATING
                   INDIRECT OPERATING

          TOTAL ANNUAL COST

       COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED
                                    $136,071
                                    $120,373
                                   »«»*•••*••«•»*

                                    $256,445

                                      •$6,072
 DATE: 02/02/89
                                                              PAGE 4  OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                      FILE:14KDFIRE
                               BASIS OF DESIGN
   PARAMETER                                 LABEL             VALUE

   GAS FLOW
      LBS/HR                                 SLA#                  59574
      SCFM                                   SLAS                  14000
      ACFM                                   SLAA                  15000

   GAS TEMP. DEG. F                          TI                     100

   SOLVENT LOADING
      LBS/HR                                 SLL                   18.75
         AVG. MOLEC. WT                      MW                     106
         PPM                                 PPM                      77

   COMBUSTION CHAMBER  TEMP,  DEG.  F          TC                     1500

   HEAT EXCHANGE  EFFIC.                      HEX                    70.0%

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY                        CE                     0.95
   DESTRUCTION  EFFICIENCY                   ORE                    0.95

   REQUIRED BURNER  CAPACITY, MM BtU/HR      BC                     6.39
                            SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


    DIRECT FIRED INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO 1988
    DOLLARS;  AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN.  PRICE; FAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN.  PRICE
 DATE: 02/02/89                                               PAGE 1  OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                       FILE:14KDFIRE
                                CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      e) FREIGHT
                                      BASIS
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
      la *
  la+b+c *
    la+b *
            RATE
0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *
                  SUBTOTAL  PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
        AF      COST
       $236,900
        $11,296
0.0          $0
1.0      $7,446
1.0     $12,410

       $268,052
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
      b) ERECTION AND  HANDLING
      c) ELECTRICAL
      d) PIPING
      e) INSULATION
      f) PAINTING
      g) SITE PREPARATION
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS






AS
AS
la+b
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
REQ'D
REQ'D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.


08
.14
.04
02
.01
01


*
*
*
*
*
*


1
0
1
1
2
0


.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0


$19
$17
$9
$4
$4



,856
,374
,476
,738
,964
$0
$0
$0
                   SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
                            $56,407
B)  INDIRECT  COSTS

    3)  INSTALLATION  INDIRECT

       a)  ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
       b)  CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
       C)  CONSTRUCTION FEE
       d)  STARTUP
       e)  PERFORMANCE TEST
       f)  MODEL STUDY
       g)  CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
0.10 *
0.05 *
0.10 *
0.02 *
0.01 *
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
4.8
     la+b *  0.03  *   2.0
                $24,820
                 $6,205
                $12,410
                 $4,964
                $11,913

                $14,892
                   SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                             $75,203
       SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
          PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
          INSTALLATION DIRECT
          INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                                                TIEC
                            $268,052
                             $56,407
                             $75,203
                           • «•» ^^ ^ ^ *• ^ •• «

                            $399,662
 DATE:  02/02/89
                         PAGE 2 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                      FILE:14KDFIRE


                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS


                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR                  4992
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                  624

         AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS

                  DH - SLAS * CPg *  ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX  )

                           CPg -      0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg  F)

                  DH -         6.39 MM Btu/HR

         ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION               GAS   BtU/CCF   100,000

                  AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT

                  AFC -      318773  CCF

         STACK TEMP, TS

                  TS - TI +  (  1 - HEX ) *  ( TC - TI  )

                  TS -          520  DEG. F

         PREHEAT  TEMP, TP

                  TP - TI * HEX *  (  TC - TI  )

                  TP -          1080  DEG. F

         FAN POWER, KWH/HR

                   SG -          0.07  LBS/FT3
                   DP -            15  in WC

                   FP -  0.746  * SLAA  * DP  * SG  /  (6356  *.65 )

                               2.844  KWH/HR


          CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL

                   WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM  *  SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]

                                 5.6  FT3

                      -        0.336  TONS




 DATE: 02/02/89                                              PAGE 3 OF  4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                      FILE:14KDFIRE


                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS          HR/SHIFT § $/HR      0.5    $40      $12,480
      b) SUPERVISORS       15% OF OPER. LABOR   0.15              $1,872

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR              HR/SHIFT g $/HR      0.5    $40      $12,480
      b) MATERIALS         100% OF OPER. LABOR  1.00             $12,480

   4) REPLACEMENT PARTS    CATALYST   $3,000 /FT3       0.0           $0

   5) UTILITIES
      a) ELECTRICITY         $0.120 /KWH                          $1,704

      b) NATURAL GAS        $0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500                $396
                            $0.7100 /CCF NEXT   5500              $3,905
                            $0.6671 /CCF NEXT  49000             $32,688
                            $0.5714 /CCF OVER  55000            $150,720
                  SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS               $228,725

B) INDIRECT OPERATING  COSTS

   7) OVERHEAD                           0.60 *  (OL+SL+ML+MM)     $23,587

   8) PROPERTY TAX                       0.01 *  TIEC               $3,997

   9) INSURANCE                          0.01 *  TIEC               $3,997

   10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE         0.02 *  TIEC               $7,993

   11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY            0.1770 *  TIEC              $70,740
         10 YEARS, 12  %  INTEREST                             	
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT COSTS              $110,314
         SUMMARY  -  ANNUALIZED  COSTS
                   DIRECT OPERATING                              $228,725
                   INDIRECT OPERATING                            $110,314
         TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                     $339,039

      COST EFFECTIVENESS,  $/TON REMOVED                          $8,027




 DATE: 02/02/89                                               PAGE 4 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                FILE:27KCAT
                               BASIS OF DESIGN
   PARAMETER

   GAS FLOW
      LBS/HR
      SCFM
      ACFM

   GAS TEMP. DEG. F

   SOLVENT LOADING
      LBS/HR
         AVG. MOLEG. WT
         PPM

   COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP, DEG. F

   HEAT EXCHANGE EFFIC.

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
   DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY

   REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM Btu/HR
LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA

TI
SLL
MW
PPM

TC

HEX

CE
DRE

BC
VALUE
  118054
   27000
   28000

      85
   18.75
     106
      40

     650

    70.0%

    0.95
    0.95

    4.97
                           SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
   CATALYTIC INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES, UPDATED TO  1988
   DOLLARS? AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
   INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
DATE: 02/02/89
                PAGE  1  OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                         FILE.-27KCAT
                                CAPITAL COSTS
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      C) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      e) FREIGHT
                                      BASIS     RATE     AF
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
      la *  0.10 *  0.0
  la+b+c *  0.03 *  1.0
    la+b *  0.05 *  1.0
                  SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
                            COST
               $448,800
                $15,762
                     $0
                $13,937
                $23,228

               $501,727
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS
      b) ERECTION AND HANDLING
      c) ELECTRICAL
      d) PIPING
      e) INSULATION
      f) PAINTING
      g) SITE PREPARATION
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS
la+b '
la+b
la
la
la+b
la+b
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
' 0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01


1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0


$37,165
$32,519
$17,952
$8,976
$9,291
$0
$0
$0
                   SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION  DIRECT
                            $105,904
 B)  INDIRECT  COSTS

    3)  INSTALLATION INDIRECT

       a) ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
       b) CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
       C) CONSTRUCTION FEE
       d) STARTUP
       e) PERFORMANCE TEST
       f) MODEL STUDY
       g) CONTINGENCIES
    la+b *
    la+b *
    la+b *
    la+b *
    la+b *
0
0
0
 ,10
 .05
 ,10
0.02
0.01
*
*
*
*
                   SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION INDIRECT
   1.0
0,
0,
        1.0
        2.6
     la+b  *   0.03  *  2.0
  $46,456
  $11,614
  $23,228
   $9,291
  $12,079

  $27,874
• ^ ^ •• •» ^ ^ ^ •• •
$130,542
       SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
          PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
          INSTALLATION DIRECT
          INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                                                TIEC
                            $501,727
                            $105,904
                            $130,542
                           • «Mt ^ «• •» ^ *»^ ^ «

                            $738,172
 DATE:  02/02/89
                         PAGE 2 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                        FILE:27KCAT


                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS
                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR                  4992
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                  624

         AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS

                  DH - SLAS * CPg *  ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX  )

                           CPg -      0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg  F)

                  DH -         4.97  MM BtU/HR

         ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION               GAS   Btu/CCF    100,000

                  AFC » DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT

                  AFC -      248106  CCF

         STACK TEMP, TS

                  TS - TI +  (  1  - HEX  )  *  ( TC -  TI  )

                  TS »           255  DEG. F

         PREHEAT  TEMP, TP

                  TP - TI +  HEX  *  (  TC - TI  )

                  TP.»           481  DEG. F

         FAN POWER, KWH/HR

                  SG »         0.072  LBS/FT3
                  DP -            25  in WC

                  FP -  0.746 * SLAA *  DP * SG /  (6356 *.65 )

                      -    *     9.101 KWH/HR


          CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL

                   WASTE - 2 FT3/MCFM  * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]

                      «         10.8 FT3

                      -        0.648 TONS
 DATE: 02/02/89                                               PAGE  3  OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                        FILE:27KCAT


                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS          HR/SHIFT @ $/HR      0.5    $40     $12,480
      b) SUPERVISORS        15% OF OPER. LABOR   0.15             $1,872

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR              HR/SHIFT I $/HR      0.5    $40     $12,480
      b) MATERIALS          100% OF OPER. LABOR  1.00            $12,480

   4) REPLACEMENT PARTS     CATALYST   $3,000 /FT3       1.0     $32,400

   5) UTILITIES
      a) ELECTRICITY          $0.120 /KWH                         $5,452

      b) NATURAL GAS        $0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500                $396
                            $0.7100 /CCF NEXT   5500             $3,905
                            $0.6671 /CCF NEXT  49000            $32,688
                            $0.5714 /CCF OVER  55000            $110,341
                   SUBTOTAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS               $224,494

B) INDIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   7) OVERHEAD                           0.60  *  (OL+SL+ML+MM)     $23,587

   8) PROPERTY  TAX                      0.01  *  TIEC               $7,382

   9) INSURANCE                         0.01  *  TIEC               $7,382

   10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE        0.02  *  TIEC              $14,763

   11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY           0.1770  *  TIEC             $130,657
          10 YEARS, 12 % INTEREST                            	
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT  COSTS              $183,771
          SUMMARY - ANNUALIZED COSTS
                   DIRECT OPERATING                             $224,494
                   INDIRECT OPERATING                           $183,771
          TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                     $408,265

       COST EFFECTIVENESS, $/TON REMOVED                          $9,666




 DATE:  02/02/89                                              PAGE 4 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
              FILE:27KDFIRE
                               BASIS OF DESIGN
   PARAMETER

   GAS FLOW
      LBS/HR
      SCFM
      ACFM

   GAS TEMP. DEG. F

   SOLVENT LOADING
      LBS/HR
         AVG. MOLEG.  WT
         PPM

   COMBUSTION CHAMBER TEMP,  DEG.  F

   HEAT EXCHANGE  EFFIC.

   CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
   DESTRUCTION  EFFICIENCY

   REQUIRED BURNER CAPACITY, MM BtU/HR
                                             LABEL
SLA*
SLAS
SLAA

TI
SLL
MW
PPM

TC

HEX

CE
DRE

BC
                  VALUE
118054
 27000
 28000

    85
 18.75
   106
    40

  1500

  70.0*

  0.95
  0.95

 12.45
                            SYSTEM DESCRIPTION


    DIRECT FIRED INCINERATOR, COST FROM SEVERAL QUOTES,  UPDATED TO 1988
    DOLLARS; AUXILARY DUCTWORK NOT INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE; FAN AND
    INSTRUMENTATION/CONTROLS INCLUDED IN INCIN. PRICE
  DATE:  02/02/89
                                                              PAGE 1 OF 4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.
                       FILE:27KDFIRE
A) DIRECT COSTS

   1) PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
                                CAPITAL COSTS
      a) CONTROL DEVICE
      b) AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
      c) INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS
      d) TAXES
      c) FREIGHT
                                      BASIS
AS REQ'D
AS REQ'D
      la *
  la+b+c *
    la+b *
                  SUBTOTAL PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
            RATE
AF
COST


0.10 *
0.03 *
0.05 *


0.0
1.0
1.0
$322,300
$15,762
$0
$10,142
$16,903
                           $365,107
   2) INSTALLATION DIRECT

      a) FOUNDATIONS AND SUPPORTS        la+b
      b) ERECTION AND HANDLING           la+b
      C) ELECTRICAL                        la
      d) PIPING                            la
      «) INSULATION                      la+b
      f) PAINTING                        la+b
      g) SITE  PREPARATION            AS  REQ'D
      h) FACILITIES AND BUILDINGS    AS  REQ'D

                  SUBTOTAL INSTALLATION DIRECT
*
*
*
*
*
*


0.08
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01


1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.0


$27,045
$23,664
$12,892
$6,446
$6,761
$0
$0
$0
                             $76,809
 B)  INDIRECT  COSTS

    3)  INSTALLATION INDIRECT

       a)  ENGINEERING AND SUPERVISION
       b)  CONSTR. AND FIELD EXPENSES
       C)  CONSTRUCTION FEE
       d)  STARTUP
       e)  PERFORMANCE TEST
       f)  MODEL STUDY
       g)  CONTINGENCIES
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
la+b
INDII
*
*
*
*
*
*
*£C
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
T
10
05
10
02
01
03

*
*
*
*
*
*

1.
0.
0.
1.
3.
2.

0
5
5
0
6
0

$33
$8
$16
$6
$12
$20
$98
,806
,452
,903
,761
,170
,284
,376
       SUMMARY - TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
          PURCHASED EQUIPMENT
          INSTALLATION DIRECT
          INSTALLATION INDIRECT
                                                TIEC
                            $365,107
                             $76,809
                             $98,376
                           »W»<»M«W«»W»«

                            $540,292
 DATE:  02/02/89
                         PAGE 2 OF 4

-------
PROJECT:  LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                      FILE:27KDFIRE


                                ANNUAL OPERATIONS
                  HOURS/DAY                       16
                  DAYS/WEEK                        6
                  WEEKS/YEAR                      52
                           HOURS/YEAR                  4992
                           SHIFTS/YEAR                  624

         AUXILIARY FUEL NEEDS

                  DH - SLAS * CPg *  ( TC - TI ) * ( 1 - HEX  )

                           CPg -      0.0181 Btu/(ft3 * deg  F)

                  DH -        12.45  MM BtU/HR

         ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION               GAS   Btu/CCF    100,000

                  AFC - DH * HOURS / Btu/UNIT

                  •AFC »      621364  CCF

         STACK TEMP, TS

                  TS - TI +  ( 1 - HEX  )  *  ( TC - TI  )

                  TS -        509-5  DEG. F

         PREHEAT  TEMP, TP

                  TP - TI +  0.7 *  (  TC - TI  )

                  TP -        1075.5  DEG. F

         FAN  POWER, KWH/HR

                  SG -         0.072  LBS/FT3
                  DP -            15  in WC

                  FP -  0.746 *  SLAA  *  DP *  SG  /  (6356  *.65 )

                     -         5.460  KWH/HR


         CATALYST USE/DISPOSAL

                  WASTE » 2  FT3/MCFM  * SLAS / LIFE [5 YRS]

                                10.8  FT3

                               0.648  TONS
 DATE: 02/02/89                                              PAGE  3 OF  4

-------
PROJECT: LEED ARCH. PRODS. COST EVAL.                      FILE:27KDFIRE


                           ANNUAL COSTS
A) DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

   1) OPERATING LABOR
      a) OPERATORS          HR/SHIFT i $/HR      0.5     $40      $12,480
      b) SUPERVISORS       15% OF OPER. LABOR   0.15              $1,872

   2) OPERATING MATERIALS

   3) MAINTENANCE
      a) LABOR              HR/SHIFT € $/HR      0.5     $40      $12,480
      b) MATERIALS         100% OF OPER. LABOR  1.00             $12,480

   4) REPLACEMENT PARTS    CATALYST   $3,000 /FT3        0.0           $0

   5) UTILITIES
      a) ELECTRICITY          $0.120 /KWH                          $3,271

      b) NATURAL GAS        $0.7928 /CCF 1ST     500                $396
                            $0.7100 /CCF NEXT   5500              $3,905
                            $0.6671 /CCF NEXT  49000             $32,688
                            $0.5714 /CCF OVER  55000            $323,620
                  SUBTOTAL  DIRECT OPERATING COSTS               $403,192

B) INDIRECT OPERATING  COSTS

   7) OVERHEAD                           0.60  *  (OL+SL+ML+MM)     $23,587

   8) PROPERTY TAX                       0.01  *  TIEC               $5,403

   9) INSURANCE                          0.01  *  TIEC               $5,403

   10)GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE        0.02  *  TIEC              $10,806

   11)CAPITAL COST RECOVERY           0.1770  *  TIEC              $95,632
          10 YEARS, 12  *  INTEREST                            	
                            SUBTOTAL INDIRECT  COSTS              $140,830
         SUMMARY  - ANNUALIZED COSTS
                   DIRECT OPERATING                             $403,192
                   INDIRECT OPERATING                           $140,830
          TOTAL ANNUAL COST                                     $544,023

       COST EFFECTIVENESS,  $/TON REMOVED                         $12,880




 DATE:  02/02/89                                              PAGE 4 OF 4

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
 EPA 450/3-89-001
              3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
 Evaluation of Emission Control  Options at Leed
 Architectural Products
              5. REPORT DATE
              ieptember 1989
                                                            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
 Engineering Science, Inc.
              8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Engineering  Science, Inc.
 Two Flint  Hill
 10521 Rosehaven Street
 Fairfax, VA   22030
              10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

              68-02-4398
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Emission  Standards Division
 Mail Drop  13
 Research  Triangle Park, NC  27711
              13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT                                           '	"—'	'	'	——'	"	
      The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection requested assistance  from
the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's  Control Technology  Center in evaluation  of
feasible alternatives to  control emissions  of  volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
a specialty aluminum coating facility.  The facility desired to increase its use  of
high VOC content liquid polyvinylidene fluoride  (PVF) Kynar* coatings.  The report
examines several options  for emission control  by incineration  of spray booth and  bake
oven exhaust gases.  The  report also discusses the development of Kynar*powder coatings
other PVF powder coatings and triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC)  polyester powder coatings
with performance characteristics similar to liquid Kynar*coatings.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.lDENTtFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                           c.  COSATl Field/Group
Air  Pollution
Surface Coating
Architectural Aluminum Products
KynarR Coatings
Powder Coatings
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Release  Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
 Unclassified
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                               Unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rav. 4-77)
                      PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------
                                                       INSTRUCTIONS

 t.   REPORT NUMBER
      Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.

 2.   LEAVE BLANK

 3.   RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
      Reserved for use by each report recipient.

 4.   TITLE AND SUBTITLE
      TITLE AND SUBTITLE
      Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, il used, in smaller
      type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
      number and include subtitle for the specific title.
 5.   REPORT DATE
      REPORT DATE
      Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which il \\as selected (e.g.. Jate oj /.v.wir, date <>j
      approval, date of preparation, etc.).
 6.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
      Leave blank.

 7.   AUTHOR(S)                                                                              .         .     .-   •
      Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doc. etc.).  List author's affiliation il it ditlcrs Irom the performing organi-
      zation.

 8.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
      Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.

 9.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
      Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code.  List no more than two levels ot an organisational hircarchy.

 10.  PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
      Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers  may be included in parentheses.

 11.  CONTR ACT/G R ANT NUMBE R
      Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.

  12.  SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
      Include ZIP code.

  13.  TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
      Indicate interim final, etc,, and if applicable, dates covered.

  14.  SPONSORING AGtNCY CODE
      Insert appropriate code.

  15.  SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES                                                       ,           ,  „      ,      ,        .
      Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as:  Prepared in cooperation with, translation <>l, I resented a( coiUi-u-iuc »i.
      To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.

  16  ABSTRACT
      Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in die report.  II I IK- report contains a
      significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.

  17.  KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
      (a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper aullion/cd terms that identity me major
      concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries lor  cataloging.

      (b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc.  Use open-
      ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.

      (c) COSATI III LD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 C'OSAl I Sub|ect Category List. Since  the ma-
      jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignments) will be spentic discipline, area ol human
      endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-rclercnced with secondary  1 ield/(,roup assignments that will lollov.
      the primary posting) s).


    ', Denote releasabihty to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." < He any availability to
       the public, with address and price.

   19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
       DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.


       Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution  list, il any.

   22   PRICE
       Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, il known.
EPA Form 2220-1  (Rex. 4-77) (Reverse)

-------