United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-453/R-94-029
March 1994
Air
Automobile Assembly Plant
Spray Booth Cleaning
Emission Reduction
Technology Review
control
technology center
-------
EPA: 453/R-94-029
AUTOMOBILE ASSEMBLY PLANT SPRAY BOOTH CLEANING
EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
SPONSORED BY:
Emission Standards and Engineering 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
-------
-•- - -t blank for product!
-------
EPA-453/R-04-029
Spray Booth Cleaning Emission
Reduction Technology Review
Automobile Assembly Plant
Prepared by
Midwest Research Institute
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard
Suite 350
Gary, North Carolina 27513
EPA Contract No. 68-Dl-0115
Work Assignment No. 1-67
Project Mananger
Mohamed Serageldin, Ph.D.
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
Control Technology Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
research Trianglr Park, NC 27711
March 1994
-------
-------
NOTICE
This document has not been formally released by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and should not at this
stage be construed to represent Agency policy. It is being
circulated for comments on its technical merit and policy
implications. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. ^
This document is printed on recycled paper.
iii
-------
-------
PREFACE
The Automobile Spray Booth Cleaning Technology investigation
was funded as a project of EPA's Control Technology Center (CTC).
The CTC was established by EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to State and
local air pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance
can be accessed through the CTC. First, a CTC HOTLINE has been
established to provide telephone assistance on matters relating
to air pollution control technology. Second, more indepth
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 technical guidance projects, such as this one, focus on
topics of national or regional interest that are identified
through contact with State and local agencies. This study was
requested by the State of Michigan. It provides technical infor-
mation that will help agencies develop strategies for reducing
VOC emissions from cleaning automobile spray booths.
This report provides information on the spray booth cleaning
process and alternative cleaning practices that reduce or
eliminate the use of organic cleaning solvents. It provides a
ready reference to actions reported by eight automobile companies
to reduce emissions from booth cleaning operations. It is
carefully referenced to allow readers to take advantage of
others' work. A summary of the cleaning practices currently
being used by 15 automobile assembly plants is included, as is
each plant's VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning. Addition-
ally, a summary of the alternative cleaning practices identified
for each major component of the booth is presented, and the
non-VOC cleaning practices are identified. The Unit Operation
System (UOS) material balance approach was used to calculate VOC
emissions from cleaning spray booths.
vi
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared by staff in Midwest Research
Institute's Environmental Engineering Department located in Gary,
North Carolina. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
project officer was Dr. Mohamed A. Serageldin of the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
The cooperation of numerous personnel in the automotive
assembly industry is greatly appreciated; without their
assistance in providing information and answering questions this
report could not have been prepared.
Mr. Eugene A. Praschan, American Automobile Manufacturers
Association; Mr. Marvin Floer, Chrysler Corporation;
Ms. Sharon D. Dudzinski, Chrysler Corporation; Mr. John E.
Davidson, Ford Motor Company; Ms. Christine Bates, General Motors
Corporation; and Ms. Karen Heyob, Honda of America Manufacturing;
are especially acknowledged for their efforts in arranging site
visits.to facilities and for coordinating the information-
gathering activities for their respective corporations. Numerous
personnel at each of the plants responded to the information
requests from the Agency and provided followup information when
requested; their cooperation is greatly appreciated.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1^0 INTRODUCTION .................... 1-1
1.1 BACKGROUND .................. 1-1
1.2 OBJECTIVES .................. 1-2
1.3 TECHNICAL APPROACH .............. 1-2
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..... ......... 1-4
1.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 ........... 1-4
2.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 2-1
2.1 SUMMARY .................... 2-1
2.2 CONCLUSIONS .................. 2-11
2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . ..... • ......... 2-12
2.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 ........... 2-12
3 . 0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION ................ 3-1
3.1 AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY .............. 3-1
3.2 AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLING PROCESS ......... 3-1
3.3 AUTOMOTIVE PAINTING PROCESS .......... 3-4
3.3.1 Paint Shop Design ........... 3-7
3.3.2 Spray Booth Features .......... 3-8
3'. 4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 ......... ' . . 3-12
4.0 CLEANING PRACTICES FOR AUTOMOTIVE PAINT SPRAY BOOTHS 4-1
4.1 CLEANING OF BOOTH COMPONENTS ......... 4-1
4.2 CLEANING PRACTICES .............. 4-2
4.2.1 Traditional Cleaning Practices
(Based on Solvent) ........... 4-2
4.2.2 Alternative Cleaning Practices ..... 4-2
4.3 APPLICATION OF CLEANING PRACTICES FOR CLEANING
INDIVIDUAL BOOTH COMPONENTS .......... 4-6
4.3.1 Walls and Windows ........... 4-6
4.3.2 Floor Grates .............. 4-7
4.3.3 Fixtures ................ 4-7
4.3.4 Robots and Related Equipment ...... 4-7
4.3.5 Robotic and Manual -Spray Gun Tips ... 4-8
4.3.6 Floors Adjacent to Booths ....... 4-8
4.4 FACTORS AFFECTING CLEANING PRACTICES ..... 4-9
4.4.1 Spray Booth Design ........... 4-9
4.4.2 Paint Type ............... 4-9
4.4.3 Paint Application Method ........ 4-10
4.4.4 Robot Type ............... 4-10
4.4.5 Paint -Application Transfer Efficiency . 4-10
4.4.6 Time Restriction ............ 4-10
4.4.7 Cleanliness Requirements ...... ... 4-11
4.4.8 Labor Requirements ........... 4-n
4.4.9 Safety ................. 4-11
4.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 ........... 4-11
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.0 EMISSION ESTIMATION 5-1
5.1 UNIT OPERATION SYSTEM CONCEPT 5-1
5.2 SPRAY BOOTH UNIT OPERATION SYSTEM 5-2
5.3 APPLICATION OF THE UOS CONCEPT TO THE
SPRAY BOOTH CLEANING SYSTEM 5-6
5.4 APPLICATION OF THE UOS CONCEPT TO
THIS STUDY 5-9
5.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 5-11
6.0 SOLVENT USES AND VOC EMISSIONS AT
SURVEYED PLANTS 6-1
6.1 SOLVENT USAGE FOR SPRAY BOOTH CLEANING .... 6-1
6.2 EMISSIONS 6-5
6.3 NORMALIZED EMISSIONS AND EMISSION FACTORS ... 6-8
6.3.1 Qualitative Comparison of Emissions . . 6-8
6.3.2 Qualitative Comparison of Emission Factors 6-13
6.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6 „ . . . 6-21
7.0 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES IN USE AT SURVEYED '
PLANTS 7-1
7.1 OVERVIEW 7-1
7.2 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR WALLS ... 7-4
7.2.1 Alternatives by Booth Type 7-4
7.2.2 Advantages and Limitations of
Alternatives 7-10
7.2.3 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission
Reductions 7-11
7.3 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR GRATES ... 7-11
7.3.1 Advantages and Limitations of Alternatives 7-14
7.3.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission
Reductions 7-15
7.4 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR FLOORS ... 7-15
7.4.1 Advantages and Limitations of
Alternatives 7-18
7.4.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission
Reductions 7-19
7.5 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR
ROBOTS/EQUIPMENT 7-19
7.5.1 Advantages and Limitations of
Alternatives 7-21
7.5.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC
Emission Reductions 7-21
7.6 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR SPRAY
EQUIPMENT TIPS . . . 7-21
7.7 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR
WINDOWS 7-23
7.7.1 Advantages and Limitations of
Alternatives 7-25
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
7.7.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC
Emission Reductions 7-26
7.8 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR FIXTURES . . 7-26
7.8.1 Advantages and Limitations of
Alternatives 7-28
7.8.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC
Emission Reductions 7-28
7.9 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES THAT AFFECT
MULTIPLE BOOTH COMPONENTS 7-23
7.10 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 7-32
APPENDIX A FACILITY INFORMATION A-l
APPENDIX B FACILITY PROFILES B-l
APPENDIX C TERMS AND DEFINITIONS FOR SOLVENT
CLEANING C-l
ix
-------
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Pace
2-1 Comparison of reported 1991 emissions from
spray booth cleaning with emissions normalized
to 500 operating shifts 2-5
3-1 Automotive manufacturing process . . • 3-4
3-2 Automotive painting process 3-6
3-3 Modular paint shop 3-9
3-4 Main-color split booth paint shop 3-10
5-1 Schematic of a spray booth cleaning unit
operation system . 5-3
5-2 Schematic of a spray booth cleaning unit operation
system with add-on air pollution control 5-5
*
5-3 Schematic of spray booth cleaning unit operation. ?
system for GM (Fort Wayne) . 5-10
6-1 Reported VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning
relative to total plantwide VOC emissions
in 1991 6-9
6-2 Reported VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning
relative to plantwide permitted VOC emission levels
in 1991 . 6-10
6-3 Comparison of reported 1991 VOC emissions from spray
booth cleaning with emissions normalized to 500
operating shifts 6-11
6-4 Spray booth emissions versus the number of vehicles
produced (1991 data) 6-16
6-5 Spray booth emission factors based on the number
of vehicles produced (1991 data) 6-17
6-6 Spray booth emissions versus total vehicle
surface area painted (1991 data) 6-18
6-7 Spray booth emission factors based on total vehicle
surface area painted (1991 data) 6-20
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2-1 SOLVENT USES FOR BOOTH COMPONENTS AT SURVEYED PLANTS 2-2
2-2a PRODUCTION, SOLVENT, AND EMISSION DATA FOR
SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991 (English Units) 2-3
2-2b PRODUCTION, SOLVENT, AND EMISSION DATA FOR
SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991 (Metric Units) 2-4
2-3 RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES FOR CLEANING EACH
BOOTH COMPONENT 2-7
2-4 ALTERNATIVES FOR EACH BOOTH COMPONENT THAT
RESULTED IN THE HIGHEST REPORTED REDUCTIONS .... 2-10
3-1 AUTO ASSEMBLY PLANTS 3-2
6-1 USES AND USAGE OF SOLVENT AND LOW VOC CLEANERS AT
SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991 6-2
•
6-2a ACTUAL, NORMALIZED, AND PERMITTED VOC EMISSION
LEVELS AT THE SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991
(English units) 6-6
6-2b ACTUAL, NORMALIZED, AND PERMITTED VOC EMISSION
LEVELS AT THE SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991 (Metric units) 6-7
6-3a SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS (English units) .... 6-14
6-3b SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS (Metric units) 6-15
7-1 TYPES OF ALTERNATIVE PRACTICES USED FOR CLEANING
BOOTH COMPONENTS 7-2
7-2 CLEANING PRACTICES FOR WALLS 7-5
7-3 REPORTED REDUCTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR WALLS ... 7-12
•
7-4 REPORTED REDUCTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR GRATES ... 7-16
7-5 ALTERNATIVES FOR FLOORS 7-20
7-6 ALTERNATIVES FOR ROBOTS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT . . . 7-22
7-7 REPORTED REDUCTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR SPRAY
EQUIPMENT TIPS 7-24
7-8 REPORTED REDUCTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR WINDOWS . . 7-27
7-9 REPORTED REDUCTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FIXTURES . . 7-29
xi
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study, requested by the State of Michigan, attempted to
identify reasonable alternatives for minimizing Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) emissions during cleaning of paint residue from
automobile assembly paint spray booths. This section presents
the background, objectives, and technical approach of the study.
The organization of the remainder of the report also is
presented.
1.1 BACKGROUND
When vehicles are being painted in the automotive industry,
some of the paint material sprayed in a booth lands on the walls,
windows, robots, fixtures, floor grates, and other components of
•
the spray booth rather than on the vehicle being painted within
the booth. Since the primer, surfacer, and topcoat paints used
by the industry cure only when heated, this "paint overspray"
creates a sticky residue. The large quantities of sticky residue
generated during painting result in the need to clean the paint
spray booth on a regular basis. The ratio of the amount of paint
material deposited on the automobile to the amount sprayed is
called the transfer efficiency. As the transfer efficiency
increases, more paint material adheres to and leave the booth on
the automobile, and a lessor fraction of the paint material
sprayed becomes paint residue that adheres to the booth
components.
The industry uses extensive cleaning procedures to clean
paint spray booths. Traditionally, paint spray booths in the
automotive industry were cleaned with organic solvents. Solvents
containing organic compounds readily dissolve the paint
1-1
-------
overspray, but evaporation of organic solvents during cleaning
also results in VOC emissions. State agencies have been aware
that some auto assembly plants (both existing and new) have been
successful in reducing VOC emissions from booth cleaning.
However, details of the "cleaning practices" that reduce or
eliminate the use of organic solvents and, consequently, reduce
VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning, have not been made
generally available. Furthermore, because emissions resulting
from spray booth cleaning typically have been quantified based
upon "^engineering judgment" estimates of solvent usage, rather
than on a systematic approach using actual data (e.g., usage
records), accurate and reliable information on nationwide VOC
emissions from this source has not been available.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this study is to report technical
information on the available alternative cleaning practices that'
reduce VOC emissions from cleaning spray booths. Within this
overall objective were two specific objectives. The 'first
specific objective was to document the use of alternative
cleaning practices identified, if any,'and evaluate the reduction
in VOC emissions achieved. The second specific objective was to
•
document and explain procedures for estimating VOC emissions from
spray booth cleaning. By meeting these objectives, this report
provides technical information that will help agencies develop
strategies for reducing VOC emissions from automobile booth
cleaning. A summary of the cleaning practices currently being
used by 15 automobile assembly plants is included; specific cases
are noted where reductions in VOC emissions resulting from the
use of alternative cleaning practices have been documented. A
systematic scheme for quantifying VOC emissions from cleaning
spray booths is presented and discussed.
1.3 TECHNICAL APPROACH
The technical approach used for the study involved
obtaining, evaluating, summarizing, and documenting specific
information on alternative cleaning practices being used by
industry. State agencies were contacted via telephone to obtain
1-2
-------
relevant information based upon their experiences with permitting
or setting standards for VOC emissions from this source. Vendors
were contacted to obtain information on available cleaning
compounds and other cleaning materials or equipment that
eliminates or reduces the need for organic cleaning solvents.
Automobile and light-duty truck manufacturers were contacted to
obtain information on cleaning practices used in their auto
assembly plants. Plants with diverse characteristics were
selected for information-gathering purposes. General plant
information was obtained from industry .associations and telephone
calls to some of the facilities. In determining which plants
would receive a survey, various factors were considered,
including the age of the plant, the age and type of the paint
shop (with 'modular or main-color split booths), the size of the
product (compact cars, mid-size cars, full-size cars, and light- i
duty trucks), the type of paint applied, and the use of
alternative "cleaning practices."
The information from auto manufacturers was collected
systematically using questionnaires and plant visits under the
authority of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. The following
types of information were solicited: (1) the design of the paint
shops, types of paint spray booths, and the painting process;
(2) the cleaning requirements and specifications; (3) the use of
organic cleaning solvents and the use of alternative cleaning
practices to reduce organic cleaning solvent usage; (4) the
amount of VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning calculated
using a Unit Operation System1'2 (UOS) (to ensure reporting of
emissions on a consistent basis); (5) details on the
applicability, effectiveness, and costs of alternative cleaning
practices and cleaners used by the facility; and (6) the VOC
reductions achieved through the use of specific alternative .
cleaning practices.
This report is primarily based on the information collected
from 15 plants, operated by 8 companies. The location, the
number of work shifts per day, the total number of hours worked
per year, the model of cars produced, the production rate, and
1-3
-------
the number of employees for each of the 15 plants are presented
in Appendix A. Throughout the rest of this report, any reference
to "all plants" or "plants" alludes to these 15 car or light-duty
truck assembly plants.
1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this report is divided into six sections.
Section 2 presents a summary of the study results, conclusions,
and recommendations for further study. Section 3 presents an
overview of the automotive industry and automotive painting
process. Section 4 identifies spray booth components requiring
cleaning, and describes cleaning techniques. Section 5 presents
the UOS methodology used for systematically calculating VOC
emissions and an example calculation. Section 6 presents a
summary of the ways in which solvent was used for cleaning in the
surveyed plants and the resultant VOC emissions. Section 7
describes the types of alternative cleaning practices "used at ther
surveyed plants in 1991; the advantages, limitations, solvent
usage and VOC reductions reported are presented and discussed.
Appendix A presents a summary of the information provided by
the 15 plants, including the number of vehicles produced, the
number and types of spray booths, use of .cleaning solvents, and
booth emissions. Appendix B provides a detailed profile of each
facility describing the spray booths, types of paint, cleaning
practices, use and disposal of booth cleaners and purge solvents,
and VOC emissions. Appendix C presents a list of definitions for
terms common to industrial cleaning activities.
1.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1. Memorandum from Wyatts, S ., EPA, to "Industrial Cleaning
Solvents - ACT" project file. February 24, 1994. "Unit
Operation System" - Originator of Concept.
2 Serageldin, M.A., "The Unit Operation System--A New Solvent
Management System;" U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
APTI Course No. 582: Issues Related to VOC Control Systems
Teleconference Workshop. July 22-23, 1993.
1-4
-------
2.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 SUMMARY
In the past, practices heavily relying on the use of
solvents were used to remove paint overspray during cleaning of
spray booths. Organic solvents containing VOC's readily dissolve
paint overspray, but their use results in VOC emissions.
Alternative practices which reduce or eliminate cleaning solvents
will reduce VOC emissions. This study was conducted to obtain -
and evaluate information on: (1) the use of alternative "cleaning
practices" within the industry, (2) the level of VOC emissions
resulting from spray booth "cleaning activities," and (3) the
emission reductions achieved by implementing alternative cleaning
practices.
During the study, information submitted by 15 plants as the
result of plant visits and an information request (under the
authority of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990)
was reviewed, evaluated, and summarized. Table 2-1 shows where
solvent was used at these plants and the cleaning activities
associated with its use. Uses were identified for seven
categories of booth components. While Table 2-1 does not show
the amount of solvent used for cleaning each type of component
(and this information was rarely available), it does show that
two or more plants did not use solvent to clean five components.
It also shows solvent was used for at least some cleaning of
spray equipment tips and robots and related equipment at each
plant.
Table 2-2a and 2-2b and Figure 2-1 reveal wide variation in
spray booth cleaning solvent usage and VOC emissions. For
comparison among facilities, the annual emissions were normalized
2-1
-------
CO
2|
CU
Q
"
W
0*
D
CO
CO
H
2
O
2
8
o
o
CQ
tt
g
Cb
CO
H
CO
D
H
O
CO
H
1
CN
w
J
1
4)
oe
W1
0
w
X
X
1
£
1
1?
| Chrysler (Sterling
(Heights)
1
$
Of
1
0.
5
jf
eg"
1
e8
1 Ford (Chicago)
1
?
S.
ji
a.
o
2
!
£
eg"
1
1
Q
Q.
'•S
i
?
§•
2
|
1
eg"
1
c
a
I
|
00
2"
#
1
^
1
^
2*
en
g«
eg"
e
I
O
g-
eg"
8.
'5
1
eg"
S
*••
)
I
eg"
.S.
^
g-
eg1
o
O
o
I"
8-
J
^
g.
^
1
"a.
Q
SL
$
1
Q.
en
§•
IS
CJ
§
1
|
o
_
Jt.
?
.8.
^
jj.
^
1
^
1
^
f
J
I
1
N
jj.
£
1
^
S.
?
J.
^
|| Honda (Marysville)
n
.2.
^
8.
^
.2.
^
2L
^
0)
1
?
!
^
z
^
i
£
0.
3
8.
^
in
I
en
1/1
8.
•J
2
g-
1
^
.8.
^
8.
^
Q.
2
1
5
i
I
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-2a. PRODUCTION, SOLVENT, AND EMISSION DATA
FOR SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991 (English Units!
Plant
Auto Alliance
Chrysler (Belvidere)
Chrysler (Dodge City)
Chrsyler (Sterling Heights)
Ford (Chicago)
Ford (Dearborn)
Ford (Twin Cities)
GM (Fort Wayne)
CM (Moraine)
GM (Oklahoma City)
Honda (East Liberty)
Honda (Marysville)
Nissan
Subaru-Isuzu
Toyota
Ref.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Vehicles
produced
167,900
178,087
177,134
137,842
218,328
81,563
125,275
178,520
228,925
170,501
94,222
356,967
262,000
116,297
187,951
Booth cleaning
solvent usage,
gai/yr
14,600
47,447
66,525
25,656
99,502
5,278
98,139°
53,086
> 189,5 17*
97,6968
31,807
184,400
41,934
10,250
282,289
Booth cleaning
VOC emissions,
tons/yr*
45
160
228
86
347
14
78*
193
>657f
251
114
671
146
35
940
Normalized
booth cleaning
VOC emissions,
tons/yr at
500 shifts/yrb
45
211
265
139
413
26
100
239 :
>730
• 285
114
671
152
36
979
aActual emissions reported for 1991 shifts operated.
b Actual emissions reported for 1991 normalized to 500 operating shifts/yr.
°The plant collected some spent solvent from booth cleaning practices, but the amount was not reported.
"This value was reported by the plant, but it is not clear how it was determined. Unresolved
discrepancies in the data are described in Section 6.
^This value could be higher by up to 9,929 gal/yr.
TTu's value was calculated based on usage data; the plant reported different emissions, as noted in
Section 6.
^Collected spent solvent contained about 25 percent of the solvent used for booth cleaning.
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2b. PRODUCTION, SOLVENT, AND EMISSION DATA
FOR SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991 (Metric Units)
Plant
AutoAlliance
Chrysler (Belvidere)
Chrysler (Dodge City)
Chrsyler (Sterling Heights)
Ford (Chicago)
Ford (Dearborn)
Ford (Twin Cities)
GM (Fort Wayne)
GM (Moraine)
GM (Oklahoma City)
Honda (East Liberty)
Honda (Marysville)
Nissan
Subaru-Iauzu
Toyota
Ref.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Vehicles
produced
167,900
178,087
177,134
137,842
218,328
81,563
125,275
178,520
228,925
170,501
94,222
356,967
262,000
116,297
187,951
Booth cleaning
solvent usage,
1/yr
55,300
179,600
251,830
97,120
376,660
19,980
371,500°
200,950
>717,400fi
369,8208
120,400
698,000
158,740
38,800
1,068,590
Booth ••lining
VOC emissions,
Mg/yr*
41
145
207
78
315
13
71*
175
>597f
228
104
609
133
32
850
Normalized
booth cleaning
VOC emissions,
Mg/yr at
500 shifts/yrb
41
191
241
126
375
24
91
217
663
259
104
609
138
32
889
aActual emissions reported for 1991 shifts operated.
''Actual emissions reported for 1991 normalized to 500 operating shifts/yr.
cThe plant collected some spent solvent from booth cleaning practices, but the amount was not reported.
^This value was reported by the plant, but it is not clear how it was determined. Unresolved
discrepancies in the data are described in Section 6.
eThis value could be higher by up to 37,590 1/yr.
'This value was calculated based on usage data; the plant reported different emissions, as noted in
Section 6.
^Collected spent solvent contained about 25 percent of the solvent used for booth cleaning.
2-4
-------
8888°
^r co CM T--
J//SUQJ 'suojssiiua OuiuBap qjooq Xaids
0)
cn
•H
2-5
-------
to a basis of 500 operating shifts (not cleaning shifts). The
number of operating shifts was selected as a normalizing
parameter because each plant reported operating 2 shifts per day,
S7 days per week, and about 8 hours per shift; however, the number
of weeks of operation ranged from 27 to 50. Also, most cleaning
was performed weekly (or more frequently) ; solvent usage and VOC
emissions should be directly proportional to the number of
operating weeks (or the corresponding number of operating
shifts). Five hundred operating shifts (2 shifts/day x
5 days/week x 50 week/year) was selected as the normalizing
factor. Tables 2-2 and Figure 2-1 present the normalized
emissions.
All plants used one or more alternative cleaning practice.
Table 2-3 presents the alternatives that the survey revealed were
being used for the various booth components. The alternatives
have been separated into three groups. The first group ?
(.Column 2) contains alternatives (listed in decreasing order of
prevalence) that eliminated solvent usage and associated VOC
emissions. The second and third groups (third and fourth
columns) present alternatives with progressively less potential
to reduce VOC emissions. Alternatives in the second and third
groups should be considered if design features or other
technological or economic limitations preclude tne use of any of
the alternatives in the first group.
The distribution between the second and third groupings is
saobjective; the amount of reduction achieved will, to some
extent, depend on how the alternative is applied. For example,
the frequency with which solvent is used to wipe down peelable
coatings on walls will determine the degree of emission reduction
that can be achieved. In developing the group with high
potential to reduce emissions (Column 3} , it was assumed that
solvent would be used sparingly.
Table 2-4 shows the alternative cleaning practices for each
booth component that resulted in the highest reported reductions.
The two largest reductions resulted from implementing
alternatives that eliminated spraying of solvent on walls and
2-6
-------
W
§
cu
1
s
EH
O
CQ
K
CJ
U
o
z
ll
£ 2
go
_> -a
o 3
j* c
S'ff
< 2
*i
sa
3 S
s
j=
a •-
SO
a > a
ao 5 -S
.S J g ^ .3 TJ 2
| - S 1 a g S-
S g ja * 8 « 6
So S"
a JJ
o «
ii
II
. .
.5^ £-2
1 « 1 1 §
•S-3 J-g 8
•5 "5 2 -a g
a 55 a^
Su S. » E S
bath
00
a
'S.
£
?
up
1.
^ §
1 5
as
1 s
I
g
Caustic
VOC cl
Touch
3 U
m
i
ca
'
•a
is
€
'5
"8
M
oo
§
2 g
•8
5 -s-s
High
without
Caustic
Incineraton
O
2
I
2-7
-------
T3
(U
3
C
•H
OJ
C
O
u
1
1 = ¥
! ! J £ e
C /» ^i a} *••
g O « « «
S e
o S a
3-1*8-
qr f •*• u "!
« a ° S H
a.
e
'c.
"e
3
=
2'
o .S '5 S 8 3
IljJ-fl
o .2- S J 2 J ,3
U ^ H o. O ~ X
o
•a
8
* *
.si
.s-l1
^ s-
.£
i a.
5 a
£ § 25
g1 s 5^1
^ « S -
° 1
I ft *S 2
u o
e*
•a w
!i
5 g
e -a
il
.-
S-
Cd
•o -5
O- at
u
JX
o
I
I
a
in
S
"S
Wiping with.wate
Replacement1
° a* Hs O
« = 2
eo 3 -5 j. £
1-5 I s
e
.£•
I
Q.
I
*
2-8
-------
1
1
I
I
•o
SO
S,"
£
00
1
i ^ >
_3 « u «
2
I
X
a
2 23-8
f- S.O ai
-g
3
•H
4J
C
0
CJ
fi
S
'5 'i
c u
Jl
c
"3
o
o
_>,
T>
.£
1
S
§
£
01
_c
"3
j>,
S =
> -o
o c
u a
o
•= 1
•a g
jj
-* «
| c
IH 5
u 8
S~ u
0 CJ «
• o *
l>i
Fll
!
E
3
1.5|
3, 8-S-o
« 3 S ^
•a x « o
Sic >. S
^* _
-•g^ r
- c •* a
« -^ *s e
!§.« s
?: i 1 i-
o
>
• M W
M til
"O O
1 «0 |
-!*•£
5 S* o fc
| 2 2 o
C U ui
S a OT o
o "a >
S*S|
2>§ s 1
.3 2 * T 2
= 22
o o
•H
li-
so
3 S •=
'•si
IS*-
?&.s 2-3,
a
u
>
S
$ 2
3
V)
^5 wi
§ 8
> u
~q *
* 0
-* 'C
^ «
^^
1 I
§
I
a
I
j=
I
_o
"a.
"liiiij
u
-------
O
3§
on
a
Qi
o
H 5
> K
£w
Ss
oi ^
S
D
1
§
1
tij
II
a, .
1
.H 3
.2 -S .|
a. *u n.
ng
ve c
SJ
I
r-
00 P*
«s §
so
Use viscous solvent
and nonatomizing
spra gun
8
s
2 -c
en fl.
Ul
00
•3
o
1
'S 'S
o o
*1
° 'fs
if
Use custom-ma
shoe cleaner lo
reduce Irackout
from booths
Z
g
a w
oo —
11
Cover reciprocators
with aluminum foil
water
Dei
a.
1
"1
i
u
1
"E.
II
u-
in
tn
ao
a at
S 8 S
1? S §2
X
£
S 2
— o
4) *
1 1
1 1
ca
O
1
S S
S S
•2 i
£
00
o
•S
|
"o
o
o
'o
1
I
VI
u
y
2
-a
u
a.
_o
u
I
s s -
^ I I
2-10
-------
fixtures. Although no plant reported data for eliminating
spraying of solvent on robots and related equipment, it is likely
that an alternative practice would also result in large
reductions. Targeting alternatives for cleaning these three
booth components (walls, fixtures, and robots and related
equipment) is likely to achieve the largest VOC emission
reductions, especially at plants that have high emissions.
Of course, the most effective way to reduce the amount of
solvent needed for cleaning is to minimize overspray; if
overspray is not deposited in the booth, cleaning needs are
minimized. Improvements to and quality control of transfer
efficiency in a plant can reduce booth cleaning needs (pollution
prevention). Improvements to transfer efficiency can have
multiple benefits, including reduced material costs (paint and
cleaning solvents), reduced quantities of waste (e.g., sludge),
and lower air pollution.
2.2 CONCLUSIONS
1. Significant potential for VOC emissions reduction exists
because at least one plant cleaned each type of booth component
(except spray equipment tips and some robot surfaces) without
using solvent.
2. The potential for reduction depends on booth design,
type of paint, and the article being painted, as well as the
cleaning practices, without analysis of these factors, the
potential reduction for a particular alternative or the total
reduction for the spray booths in a plant cannot be quantified.
The potential reductions, however, range from a few tons to
nearly 1,000 tons per year (yr) per plant, as exemplified by
Figure 2-1.
3. Typically, emissions reductions achieved by specific
alternatives are less than 20 tons/yr (18 megagrams/yr [Mg/yr]),
but can range up to nearly 200 tons/yr (180 Mg/yr).
4. Elimination of solvent spraying, as a cleaning practice
holds the greatest potential for reducing emissions.
5. -The UOS concept provides a means for calculating
emissions based upon solvent usage and spent solvent collection
2-11
-------
records; the UOS allows all emissions to be calculated
systematically and consistently. The key to its usefulness is
getting good "source" specific data on solvent usage and
collected spent solvent; the "source" being the spray booth.
Knowledge of the relative fractions of solvent and contaminants
contained in the spent solvent also is necessary for material
balance closure. The UOS provides an ideal level for evaluating
the benefits and cost-effectiveness of pollution prevention
practices aimed at reducing emissions from booth cleaning.
2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for possible further study include:
1. Several facilities indicated they are implementing waste
reduction studies/programs. Much useful information could be
obtained if facilities were to use the UOS approach for gathering
data from before and after implementation of alternative
practices. Collaborative studies between industry and agencies
would be the best way to identify study sites and collect data.
2. Establish a data base "clearinghouse" to record the
emissions and reductions achieved by specific spray booth
cleaning practices. This clearinghouse would build on the
reductions reported by this study as summarized in Section 7.
3. Information on the cost of implementing alternative
cleaning practices was reported by some plants; these data should
be summarized and evaluated to provide additional information to
the agencies and facilities.
2.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Response to Section 114 Information Request for AutoAlliance
International, Inc., Flat Rock, MI. August 21, 1992.
2. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Belvidere, IL. August 1, 1992.
3. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Dodge City, MI. August 14, 1992.
4. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Sterling Heights, MI. August 14, 1992.
.5. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Chicago, IL. August 14, 1992.
2-12
-------
6. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Dearborn, MI. August 17, 1992.
7. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Twin Cities, MN. August 17, 1992.
8. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Fort Wayne, IN. August 14, 1992.
9. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Moraine, OH. August 14, 1992.
10. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. August 14, 1993.
11. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., East Liberty, OH. August 12,
1992.
12. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., Marysville, OH.
October 29, 1992.
13. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Nissan Motor
Manufacturing Corporation, USA, Smyrna, TN. September 28,
1992.
14. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Subaru-Isuzu
Auto Incorporated, Lafayette, IN. September IS, 1992.
IS. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, USA, Inc., Georgetown, KY.
2-13
-------
-------
3.0 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
This section presents general information on the automotive
manufacturing industry, the number and location of assembly
plants, the ozone attainment status of the areas in which the
plants are located,"and a brief description of the assembly and
painting processes for a typical automotive assembly plant.
3.1 AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
In 1980, three major auto manufacturing companies--Chrysler :
Corporation (Chrysler), Ford Motor Company (Ford), and General
Motors Corporation (GM)--produced almost all automobile and
light-duty trucks made in the United States. In the early
1980's, foreign-based auto manufacturers began building
automotive assembly plants in the United States. -Today, 10 auto
manufacturing companies operate 61 car and light-duty truck
assembly plants in the United States.1
A list of auto manufacturing companies, the location of
assembly plants in the United States, and whether the location is
an ozone attainment or nonattainment area is provided in
Table 3-I.1'2
3.2 AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLING PROCESS
A typical auto assembly plant consists primarily of a body
shop, a paint shop, a power train assembly area, a trim and final
assembly shop, and a final repair and adjustment area for the
manufactured vehicles. A simplified automotive production
process flow diagram is presented in Figure 3-1. Fundamentally,
the process includes (1) stamping, cutting, and welding of sheet
or coil steel to form the vehicle bodies; (2) assembling the
engine; (3) painting the vehicle bodies; (4) trim and final
assembly, which includes installing interior parts, the
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1. AUTO ASSEMBLY PLANTS1'2
Company
Auto Alliance
International, Inc.
Chrysler Corp.
Diamond-Star Motor
Corp.
Ford Motor Co.
General Motors
Location of plant: City, State (type of
vehicle)
Flat Rock MI (car)
Belvidere, IL (car)
Newark, DE (car)
Sterling Heights, MI (car)
St Louis, MO (car)
St. Louis, MO (light-duty truck)
Toledo, OH (light-duty truck)
Warren, MI (light-duty truck)
Normal, IL (car)
Chicago, IL (car)
Dearborn, MI (car)
Edison, NJ (light-duty truck)
Hapeville, GA (car)
Kansas City, MO (car)
Kansas City, MO (light-duty truck)
Lorain, OH (car)
Lorain, OH (light-duty truck)
Louisville, KY (two light-duty trucks)
Norfolk, VA (light-duty truck)
St. Louis, MO (light-duty truck)
St. Paul, MN (light-duty truck)
Wayne, MI (car)
Wayne, MI (light-duty truck)
Wixom, MI (car)
Arlington, TX (car)
Baltimore, MD (light-duty truck)
Bowling Green, KY (car)
Detroit, MI (light-duty truck)
Detroit-Hamtramck, MI (car)
Doraville, GA (car)
Fairfax, KS (car)
Flint, MI (car)
Flint, MI (light-duty truck)
Fort Wayne, IN (light-duty truck)
Ozone attainment status
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Nonattainmcnt
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Serious
Sub marginal
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Serious
Sub marginal
Transitional
Transitional
3-2
-------
TABLE 3-1. (continued)
Company
General Motors (cont.)
General Motors Corp.,
Saturn Corp.
Honda of America Mfg.,
Inc.
New United Motor Mfg.,
Inc.
Nissan Motor Mfg.
Corp., USA
Nissan Motor Mfg.,
Corp., USA
Subaru-Isuzu Automotive,
Inc.
Subaru-Isuzu Automotive,
Inc.
Toyota Motor Mfg., Inc.,
USA
Location of plant: City, State (type of
vehicle)
Janesville, WI (light-duty truck)
Lake Orion, MI (car)
Lansing, MI plant A (car)
Lansing, MI plant B (car)
Lansing, MI (Reatta, car)
Linden, NJ (car)
Lordstown. OH (car)
Lordstown. OH (light-duty truck)
Moraine, OH (light-duty truck)
Oklahoma City, OK (car)
Pontiac, Ml(east) (light-duty truck)
Pontiac, Ml(west) (light-duty truck)
Shreveport, LA (light-duty truck)
Tarrytown, NY (light-duty truck)
Van Nuys, CA (car)
Wentzville, MO (car)
Willow Run, MI (car)
Wilmington, OE (car)
Spring Hill, TN (car)
East Liberty, OH (car)
Marysville, OH (car)
Fremont, CA (car)
Smyrna, TN (car)
Smyrna, TN (light-duty truck)
Lafayette, IN (car)
Lafayette, IN (light-duty truck)
Georgetown, KY (car)
Ozone attainment status
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment .
Attainment
Attainment
Nonattainment
Moderate
Transitional
Transitional
Transitional
Moderate
Marginal
Marginal
Moderate
Submarginal
Moderate
Moderate
*
Severe
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Severe
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Marginal
3-3
-------
COIL OR SHEET STEEL
BODY ASSEMBLY
PAINT SHOP
Painting the vehicle body: wuh and
prep. E-coat, prune coat, spot-protection
coating, baiecoac. clearcoat, baking
POWER TRAIN ASSEMBLY SHOP
TRIM AND
FINAL ASSEMBLY SHOP
[mulling interior and exterior paru. power train
effeno
GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND TESTING
SHIP TO DEALERSHIP
Figure 3-1. Automotive manufacturing process.3'"10
3-4
-------
instrument panel, exterior parts, and the power train, and
(5) testing of the vehicle before shipment.3'10
3.3 AUTOMOTIVE PAINTING PROCESS
An overview of the painting process, which includes numerous
stages, is presented in this section. Although the details of
A
the painting stages vary among the assembly plants, the following
major steps are fundamental. These stages are shown in
Figure 3-2.11'12'20
The process begins with the vehicle bodies undergoing
surface preparation and pretreatment. Preparation involves
thorough washing and wipe-cleaning. Pretreatment involves
application of anticorrosive chemical compounds to the vehicle
surface. Generally, this step includes (1) immersion of the
vehicle bodiea in a phosphate bath, (2) rinsing of the vehicle
bodies with chromic acid or acid chromate, and (3) dry-off :
baking.^1'12'20
The next step is applying primer to the vehicle bodies. In
the majority of the auto assembly plants, the primer is
electrodeposited to the vehicle bodies (referred to as
electrocoating, or E-coat). After applying the E-coat, the
bodies are baked in an oven for 20 to 35 minutes. Next, spray-
coated primer or primer-surfacer is applied. Then, sealers and
other protective coatings (e.g., polyvinyl chloride [PVC]
coating, antichip coating, and/or stoneguard coating) are applied
to the appropriate spots on the vehicle bodies. For example,
stoneguard coating is applied only to the rocker panels.11'12'20
At this point, the vehicle bodies undergo topcoat paint
application. Some vehicles are painted in a single color, while
others receive two or more colors (two-tone color). Topcoat
application includes several stages. These involve automatic
(reciprocating or robotic spray) application, or a combination of
automatic and manual application of color basecoat and clearcoat,
flash-off and bake stages, and repairs. Finally, black paint
(referred to as blackout) is applied as accent to certain spots
on the car bodies such as the wheel wells and under the grill.12
3-5
-------
CQ
GQ
0)
O
O
Cn
3:
c
•H
•H
4J
O
-------
The-majority of the painting stages occur in specifically
designated booths. Therefore, a typical paint shop includes a
number of booths (or zones within a booth). For example, vehicle
bodies are sanded in the "sand-and-prep" booth. Basecoat is
applied in the "basecoat" booth, which typically is divided into
multiple zones in which specific coating stages are accomplished.
These coating stages include coating exterior door jambs, coating
the interior door jambs, applying the first body coat, and
applying the second body coat. The specific function of the
booth determines the relative amount, type, and location of
overspray deposits and, hence, the cleaning requirements and
cleaning procedures. Detailed information on the paint spray
booths and their functions for all of the plants surveyed is
provided in Appendix A. Additional information is also provided
in the background information document for the New Source
Performance Standard for Automotive and Light-duty Truck Surface
Coating Operations (EPA 450/3-79-030, September 1979) .
3.3.1 Paint Shop Design
Generally, an automotive paint shop consists of a number of
booths each dedicated for a specific painting stage. Although
painting stages in one plant differ from those in another, some
are common to all. One or more booths are used for applying the
primer or primer surfacer, the antichip coat (or other types of
protective coating), the color basecoat, the clearcoat, and
two-tone paint (tu-tone paint). Still other booths are used for
spot-repairing of defective paint, and for applying blackout
(applying black paint to specific spots on the vehicle bodies
such as behind the grill).
Paint shops are designed with either modular or main-color
split booths. The difference is in the booths where the basecoat
and clearcoat are applied. Each type is briefly described in the
following paragraphs.
In shops with modular booths, the vehicle bodies are painted
individually with basecoat in one booth and with clearcoat in the
next. Usually, after applying primer or primer surfacer'in the
primer application booth, the vehicle bodies are carried to the
3-7
-------
modules. The carrier is a single floor conveyor line that splits
into branches that feed 'each module. A module consists of two
small spray booths, a flash-off area, and an oven that permits
only one vehicle body at a time, as shown in Figure 3-3. In the
first booth, the vehicle body is painted with color basecoat.
After a short flash-off period (10 to 30 seconds), the vehicle
enters the next booth for clearcoat. Then, the vehicle body
enters an oven where the paint is baked for 25 to 35 minutes.11
In shops with main-color split booths, vehicle bodies are
.painted in succession with basecoat and clearcoat in one long
booth which consists of several zones. As shown in Figure 3-4,
the chain of vehicle bodies enters the booth and the bodies are
processed in several steps including basecoat application, flash-
off, clearcoat application, and baking.12
3.3.2 Spray Booth Features
When spray-applied, some paint deposits on the piece and the
remaining paint (overspray) either is filtered by the ventilation
system or deposits on various booth components (e.'g., robots,
grates, walls, etc.). Volatile organic compound emissions
related to the removal of this deposited paint is the subject of
this report. Booth design affects the amount of overspray
deposited inside the booth. Each booth is designed for one or
several painting stages. Features of individual booths differ
depending on function. For example, "blackout" booths are
designed for manual application of black paint to specific parts
of the vehicle body such as behind the grill. Some of these
booths have concrete floors which require different cleaning
methods than grate floors.
Any booth feature designed to capture paint particulates (to
reduce particulate emissions to the atmosphere) reduces the
overspray that deposits on the booth components and must be
removed by cleaning. Examples of such features are downdraft and
sidedraft waterwash systems. Most booths in auto assembly
plants, especially those used for applying basecoat and
clearcoat, are designed with a downdraft air flow
system.3"10'13"19 In these booths, a downward air flow is used
3-8
-------
i c w •
ii2!
ecac (E
0.0. 3 <
U)
o
si
tn
C
-H
n3
a
rd
r-l
T3
O
2
m
i
m
(U
U
3
CL,
3-9
-------
1
o
i,,,
|S
o
O ui
I1
BASECOAT
ZONE
1
f*
Ul
2
S
H
u^
|s
u
O ui
|a
BASECOAT
ZONE
U]
Ul
1
I
i-
a<5
is
y
FLASH-OFF
ZONE
ASECOAT '
ZONE |
a
(N
a
o
JS
QQ
C
•H
03
a,
o
o
a
ca
O
o
0)
i-(
en
•H
En
3-10
-------
within the booth to capture overspray and move it downward
through the floor grates. In a downdraft waterwash system, the
air and entrained overspray are directed toward the waterwash
(essentially a water pit under the floor grate); overspray
impacting the water is collected. The water mixture containing
the contaminants flows from the booth to sludge retention pits.
In the pits, various chemical compounds, such as detackifiers
(chemicals that reduce tackiness of the paint materials),
flocculants, and defearners are added. After chemical treatment,
the water and sludge are separated. Then water is returned to
the spray booths, while the paint sludge is collected for either
further treatment, reclamation, or for shipping to an offsite
facility as hazardous or nonhazardous waste.12'20'21'22
Spray booths with sidedraft waterwash systems also may be
used in auto assembly plants.14 The sidedraft and downdraft
waterwash systems perform similarly. In the downdraft system
water flows beneath the grates that comprise the booth floor; the
air within the booth flows downward through the grates to the
water curtain. In the sidedraft system, the wall on one side of
the booth has a water curtain that flows from the top (near the
ceiling) to a waterway (stream) on the booth floor. In a
sidedraft booth the air flows across the booth and through the
water curtain.
Some booths use particulate control arrangements other than
a water wash system such as dry filters or scrubbers.^'14'18'19
3.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
1. Automotive News, 1991 Market Data Book Issue, pg. 12.
2. Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Areas Designated Nonattainment.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. October 26, 1991.
3. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Subaru-Isuzu
Auto Incorporated, Lafayette, IN. September 15, 1992.
4. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Dodge City, MI. August 14, 1992.
3-11
-------
5. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Sterling Heights, MI. August 14, 1992.
6. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., Marysville, OH. October 29,
1992.
7. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., East Liberty, OH. August T2,
1992.
8. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Fort Wayne, IN. August 14, 1992.
9. Response to Section -114 Information Request for Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, USA, Inc., Georgetown, KY.
10. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Nissan Motor
Manufacturing Corporation, USA, Smyrna, TN. September 28,
1992.
11. Memorandum from Trenholm, A. R., and K. L. Schmidtke, MRI,
to Serageldin, M. A., EPA/CPB. January 29, 1992.. Summary ?
of Visit to Fort Wayne Assembly Plant, Truck and Bus Group,
General Motors Corporation, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
12. Memorandum and attachments from Azar, S. J., MRI, to
Serageldin, M. A., EPA/CPB. September 28,1992. Site
Visit--Chrysler Corporation Jefferson North Assembly Plant,
Detroit, Michigan.
13. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Belvidere, IL. August 1, 1992.
14. Response to Section 114 Information Request for AutoAlliance
International, Inc., Flat Rock, MI. August 21, 1992.
IS. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. August 14, 1993.
16. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Moraine, OH. August 14, 1992.
17. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Dearborn, MI. August 17, 1992.
18. Response to Section 114-Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Twin Cities, MN. August 17, 1992.
19. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Chicago, IL. August 14, 1992.
3-12
-------
20. Schrantz, J. How Hyundai Paints the Sonata. Industrial
Finishing. 67:38-39. April 1991.
21. Chrysler Bids Good-bye to Sludge. Industrial Finishing.
67:28-30. July 1991.
22. Memorandum and attachments from Portzer, J. W., and
S. J. Azar, MRI, to Salman, D., EPA/CPB. July 25, 1991.
Cleanup Techniques and VOC Emissions From Cleaning Paint
Spray Booths.
3-13
-------
-------
4.0 CLEANING PRACTICES FOR AUTOMOTIVE PAINT SPRAY BOOTHS
The objective of cleaning a spray booth is to provide a
clean environment such that the presence of foreign materials is
eliminated to a high degree. Achieving this objective is
essential, because dirt ill the booth air and on the booth
components is a source of contaminates that potentially can mar
the wet paint on the vehicle. Cleaning standards for the paint
shop exist for both the personnel (e.g., clothing, shoes) and tl?e
surroundings. However, in this report, the emphasis Is on the
latter. This section identifies and describes the booth
components which require cleaning, the cleaning practices used,
and the factors affecting booth cleaning.
4.1 CLEANING OF BOOTH COMPONENTS
Components of spray booths that are cleaned on a regular
basis include walls, windows, floor grates, floors, conveyors or
conveyor shrouds, robots and related equipment, tips of the spray
equipment, and fixtures (e.g., lights, hoses). These components
•
are common to most spray booths regardless of design (modular or
main-color split booths). The frequency of cleaning paint spray
booths in an auto assembly plant depends on the rate of paint
accumulation and the degree of cleanliness required by the plant.
The amount of overspray accumulation and its location varies
for the different booth components. For example, more overspray
may accumulate on the robotic arms and spray guns than on walls.
Because of their proximity to the vehicles being painted,
overspray on robotic arms and spray guns can become the source of
contamination that creates defects in the paint. Therefore,
robotic arms and spray guns may be cleaned more frequently than
walls.
4-1
-------
Floors adjacent to spray booths typically are cleaned as a
part of the interior booth cleaning process. They are dirtied as
paint shop personnel exit the booths; any overspray adhering to
shoes is carried outside the booth and tracked onto the floor
resulting in "trackout."
Generally, a combination of several cleaning practices is
used to clean booth components (and adjacent floors). Certain
cleaning practices may be used to clean several types of booth
components. For example, in some plants high-pressure water
blasting is used to clean walls, windows, and floor grates.
The major and alternative booth cleaning practices used by
the auto assembly industry are described in Section 4.2.
Application of the cleaning practices to individual components of
the booth are discussed in Section 4.3. Factors that affect the
cleaning practices are described in Section 4.4.
4.2 CLEANING PRACTICES - ?
A variety of spray booth cleaning activities take place in
an auto assembly plant. For the purpose of -this report, cleaning
"activities" refers to a variety of actions such as wiping,
dipping, flushing, spraying, and purging. Cleaning "practices,"
on the other hand, refers to a repeated or customary action that
is specific to an industry. Traditional and alternative cleaning
practices are described in Sections 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.2,
respectively.
4.2.1 Traditional Cleaning Practices (Based on Solvent)
Traditionally, solvent has been (and continues to be) used
in auto assembly plants to clean many spray booth components.
Typically, solvent is applied by wiping or spraying major booth
components. Small items, like spray equipment tips, are often
dipped into a solvent bath.
4.2.2 Alternative Cleaning Practices
A variety of alternative practices also are used either
(1) to minimize the solvent required to remove the dried paint or
(2) to protect the component from deposition so that cleaning is
not required or is minimized. These alternatives may be
classified into four groups: (1) mechanical methods, (2) masking
4-2
-------
agents and protective covers, (3) water-based or low-voc
cleaners, and (4) modified work practices. These practices are
described in the following sections.
4.2.2.1 Mechanical Methods.6'8'11'15'18 Mechanical methods
include water blasting and the use of small tools such as
brushes, chisels, razor blades, putty knives, and other scrapers,
squeegees, or rags. Often small tools are used in conjunction
with other alternatives to reduce or eliminate the use of
cleaning solvents. When used with solvent, they reduce the
amount of solvent necessary. Mechanical methods described in
more detail below are (1) spraying of solvents in conjunction
with manual use of brushes or rags, (2) wiping with solvent -
soaked or dampened rags, (3) scraping with scrapers or chisels,
and (4) water blasting.
4.2.2.1.1 Spraying cleaning solvents in conjunction with
?
manual use of brushes or rags. In this practice, the-booth
component is first wetted (by spraying) with cleaning solvent;
then, bristle brushes or cloth rags are used to loosen and remove
the paint. Sometimes, squeegees or high-pressure water are used
to remove excess solvent.
4.2.2.1.2 Wiping walls with solvent-soaked or dampened
raas. In this practice, overspray is removed by manually wiping
with solvent - soaked or solvent-dampened rags. The object being
cleaned may .be sprayed with high-pressure water before and/or
after the wiping. The high-pressure water is used before wiping
to loosen the paint; water is used after solvent wiping to rinse
the cleaned area.
4.2.2.1.3 Scraping with scrapers and chisels. To eliminate
the use of cleaning solvents, hand-held scrapers or chisels are
used to remove overspray. This practice may be used in
conjunction with hot or cold, high-pressure water blasting.
Scraping is usually confined to coatings that have a waxy or
semipaste texture.
4.2.2.1.4 Water blasting. Water blasting is used in almost
all the plants. Water blasting refers to spraying high pressure
water. The pressures can be between 500 to 20,000 pounds per
4-3
-------
square inch (psi) . In some plants the water is also heated to
99°C for greater effectiveness. Three configurations of high
pressure water are used.
The first consists of portable units with water pressures of
less than 6,000 psi. The second is a fixed piping'system with
water pressures between 6,000 to 9,000 psi. In this system, the
high pressure water is supplied through a piping system to
spigots located throughout the booth; long-handled spray wands or
other types of spray guns are connected to the spigots. The
third fully automated system uses water pressure between 10,000
to 20,000 psi, too dangerous for manual operation. The high-
pressure water is supplied to automated washers that clean
removable booth components (e.g., grates).9
4.2.2.2 Masking Agents and Protective Covers. Shielding
the surface of booth components from overspray, regardless of the
type of shield, is often referred to as either "masking" or
"covering"; the terms sometimes are used interchangeably.
However, in this report each of these terms refers to a specific
type of protective shield.
4.2.2.2.1 Masking Agents.7'9'15 The term "masking agents"
is used to refer to liquid chemical agents (e.g., water-based
polymer emulsions) which, when sprayed, form a protective film on
the substrate. Several types of masking agents are used
depending on the type of paint used, the extent of overspray, and
the component being masked. The masking agent may form a dry
film ("peelable" coating) or may remain in a tacky semiliquid
state ("tacky" coating).
Peelable coatings ("peelcoats") are applied as a liquid and
soon form a transparent film covering the clean walls and the
windows. Accumulated overspray is periodically removed by
peeling the film. Several producers and,distributors provide
peelcoats designed specifically for the auto industry.
Tacky coatings also are used to facilitate cleaning. A
layer of tacky coating is sprayed onto clean walls and windows.
The tacky coating provides a loosely adhered moist film on which
4-4
-------
overspray accumulates. The tacky coating is easier to remove
than overspray adhering directly to the bare walls and windows.
4.2.2.2.2 Protective covers.6'8'10'12,14-19,20 ^g Cerm
"protective covers" refers to a variety of shielding materials
used to blanket or wrap booth components. These include:
(1) polyethylene (plastic) sheeting and masking cling film;
(2) plastic hose-wrappers; (3) aluminum foil; (4) chipboard and
cardboard; (5) robot socks and covers; (6) a variety of adhesive
tapes such as masking, gray duct, and yellow plastic tapes;
(7) tar paper or roofing felt; and (8) a variety of papers such
as fireproof and waxed papers. The selection of protective
covers depends on the booth component, the type of paint, and the
anticipated amount of overspray.
4.2.2.3 Use of Water-Based or Low-VOC Cleaners.8'15>1S A
recent alternative to cleaning solvents is water-based or low-VO£
cleaners. These are specially formulated to decrease" the VOC
content while maintaining the necessary cleaning propert-ies.
Typically, these cleaners are sprayed onto the surface to be
cleaned. After a waiting period to allow the cleaner to react,
some manual method, such as brushing, is used to accelerate the
paint removal. Use of water-based or low-VOC cleaners is not. yet
widespread. Only a few plants are currently trying these
cleaners, and several problems have to be resolved. In some
cases, manufacturers of these cleaners are willing.to modify
their products to accommodate specific needs.2 Several plants
now use water-based or low-VOC cleaners for cleaning trackout.
Problems associated with water-based cleaners generally are
(1) the time needed to let the cleaners react (which lengthens
the time for cleaning); (2) water damage to electrical fittings
and equipment, and (3) lower solvency power compared to the
organic solvents. Any assembly plant may experience other
specific problems, depending on the circumstances under which the
cleaner is used.
4.2.2.4 Work Practices. Changes in traditional work
practices can reduce the associated VOC emissions. Increased
worker training can decrease solvent usage. Examination of
4-5
-------
practices, such as the frequency of cleaning and acceptable
levels of cleanliness, can result in changes that decrease
solvent usage. Restricting access and limiting the amount of
solvent allocated for specific cleaning activities also have been
shown to reduce usage and VOC emissions.20
Initiation of a solvent tracking/accounting^system has often
been a key first step in a management program to reduce usage and
emissions. Knowing where solvent is used, how much is used, and
how much it costs has helped management identify where any of the
alternative cleaning practices described above can be used. This
knowledge also identifies where research efforts should be
focused to develop acceptable alternatives. Continued tracking
is used to document the gains achieved by changing cleaning
practices and is a mechanism to assure that those gains are
maintained.20
a
4.3 APPLICATION OF CLEANING PRACTICES FOR CLEANING INDIVIDUAL, ''
BOOTH COMPONENTS
This section provides a description of the"practices used to
clean the following booth components: (1) walls and windows;
(2) floor grates; (3) fixtures; (4) robots and related equipment;
(5) robotic and manual-spray gun tips; and (6) floors adjacent to
the booths.
4.3.1 Walls and Windows
Various cleaning practices for walls and windows include
(1) water blasting, (2) masking agents, (3> spraying cleaning
solvents in conjunction with the use of brushes or rags,
(4) wiping the walls and windows with solvent-soaked rags,
(5) scraping the walls and windows with hand-held scrapers,
(6) the use of water-based cleaners, or (7) a combination of
several practices.1'2'4"19'20
When a combination of several practices is chosen, the
criteria for their selection is based on the nine factors
described in Section 4.4 (paint shop design, booth features,
etc.) as well as on the specific circumstances of the plant. The
following combination of practices is used for walls and windows
at one facility. A tacky coating is used to protect the walls
4-6
-------
and windows from overspray. At days' end, overspray is removed
in several steps. First, high-pressure water is used to loosen
the tacky coating (and its coating of overspray). Then, solvent
is sprayed onto the walls and windows. Next, brushes are used to
remove the remaining tacky coating and overspray. High-pressure
water again is used to rinse the walls. Finally,- a new coat of
tacky coating is applied.1
4.3.2 FJ.oor Grates
The practice used to clean floor grates depends on whether
the grates are removable. Generally, grates are masked with
grate coating, which is similar to tacky coating. If the grates
are not removable, the cleaning has to be performed inside the
booth using either water blasting, scraping, or both.1
Removable grates can be cleaned in a variety of ways. Some
plants have extra sets to replace the dirty grates. The dirty ".
grates may be cleaned onsite or sent to an offsite cleaning
facility. The practices for cleaning removed grates include
(1) water blasting, (2) hot caustic baths (hot stripping with
sodium or potassium hydroxide), (3) incineration, (4) methylene
chloride (cold stripping), and (5) soda blasting (sodium
bicarbonate-based medium is used for paint stripping).21/22
4.3.3 Fixtures
Practices used for cleaning fixtures, such as lights,
conveyors, and conveyor shrouds, are generally a combination of:
(1) protective covers or masking agents, (2) cleaning solvents,
(3) high-pressure water blasting, (4) tacky coatings, and
(5) scraping. Examples of the protective covers used are
aluminum foil and masking tape. An example of a masking agent
used for conveyors is grease. The scraping is performed using a
razor or flat-bladed scraper, or scrapers with brushes.21
4.3.4 Robots and Related Equipment
Various types of disposable or reusable covers are available
to protect robots and related equipment from paint overspray.
Covers may be designed to fit either loosely (loose covers) or
tightly (robot socks). The type of cover selected depends on the
type of robot and its application. Sometimes, regardless of the
4-7
-------
type of cover, small areas on robots remain exposed or overspray
penetrates the cover (bleeds through) . In such cases, the paint
is usually wiped off with a rag moistened with cleaning solvents.
Protective covers are changed on an as-needed basis. Covers may
not be applicable for some robots, specifically those used for
overhead electrostatic paint applications.^'2'4'21
4.3.5 Robotic and Manual-Spray Gun Tips •
Spray guns must be purged with solvents at the end of the
day and prior to making a paint color change. In most assembly
plants, a closed-loop purging system is used.23 This system is
either connected via a piping system to solvent storage tanks or
to an onsite solvent recycling system. Although the purging
process was not the focus of this study, cleaning the spray gun
tips during normal production hours and at the end of the day is
considered part of spray booth cleaning.
The tips of the spray guns are cleaned by wiping' them with
rags moistened or soaked with solvents. Some of the sensitive
devices (bells) at the orifice of the paint spray guns have to be
disassembled from the guns so that both the internal and external
sides of these devices are cleaned. Typically, immediately after
shutdown of the production shift, these devices are disassembled
and placed in small solvent baths. Sometimes, small paint
brushes are used to remove any remaining paint.
4.3.6 Floors Adjacent to Booths2
Floors adjacent to spray booths usually are shielded by a
protective cover, masked with permanent masking agents, or
protected by a combination of covers and masking agents. In some
plants, plastic sheets, a special type of paper, or chipboards
are used to cover the floor, and the covers are changed on an
as-needed basis. This eliminates or greatly reduces the need to
clean the floors. If the floor is masked, the paint overspray is
removed more quickly because the paint does not adhere strongly
to the masking agent. Masking agents for floors are designed for
this purpose. Usually, water-based or low-VOC cleaners are used
for cleaning masked floors. A few plants occasionally use
solvents to remove tough spots.
4-8
-------
4.4 FACTORS AFFECTING CLEANING PRACTICES
Cleaning practices in each plant are somewhat unique. The
variations in cleaning practices are due to several factors:
(1) spray booth design, (2) paint type, (3) paint application
method, (4) robot type, (5) paint application transfer
efficiency, (6) time restrictions, (7) cleanliness requirements,
(8) labor requirements, and (9) safety concerns.2
Although the above factors may cause variations in cleaning
practices, they also may provide a common basis for selecting or
modifying cleaning practices in a specific plant. Such
modifications could result if an auto manufacturing company
compares the differences in cleaning practices among several
plants within the company to identify successful techniques and
to understand the differences in pollution levels. Such
comparisons might result in more consistent cleaning practices, .
~
or modification of the same practices, yielding a reduction of
VOC emissions or a cost savings. The significance of these
factors 'are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Spray Booth Design
The booth design will affect the frequency and method of
cleaning. For example, if the booth's grates cannot be removed,
the options for cleaning are limited; alternative practices which
require removal of the grates-are not feasible. Other design
elements affect the amount of overspray deposited inside the
booth and the difficulty of cleaning. Newer booths are often
wider and have higher ceilings to minimize overspray deposited
inside the booth. The newer spray booth designs may also
substitute glass for stainless steel wherever possible, because
glass is easier to clean.2
4.4.2 Paint Type
Automotive paint systems are constantly being improved.
Changes in the paint systems may require changes in cleaning
materials, activities, and practices. In fact, improvement of
paint systems may adversely affect current cleaning practices.
The more durable a paint system, the more difficult it may be to
clean the overspray. For example, the overspray from two-
4-9
-------
component urethane clearcoats form deposits that are extremely
difficult to remove. Consequently, unless a suitable method for
protecting the booth components is found, the spray booth
requires more frequent cleaning when such coatings are used.2
4.4.3 Paint .Application Method
The type of paint application, robotic or manual, affects
the components of the booth on which the overspray lands. The
movement of each robot is limited to the command of a
computerized program; hence, it is very predictable. Therefore,
the deposition of paint overspray is more predictable and the
prevention or cleaning can be systematic. In contrast, manual
spraying leads to more random accumulation of overspray,, making
the prevention of deposition more difficult.2
4.4.4 Robot Type
The type of robot affects not only the feasibility of using"
a protective cover, but also the type of cover that can be used/
Overhead robots cannot be covered with a flexible material
because as the robot moves, the cover flexes causing paint
particles to fall onto the vehicles.2
4.4.5 Paint-Application Transfer Efficiency
Transfer efficiency is the ratio of the amount of paint
solids deposited on the automobile bodies to the amount sprayed.
Transfer efficiency directly affects the amount of overspray that
accumulates. The higher the transfer efficiency, the lower the
amount of paint overspray. Of course, if less overspray is
deposited on the booth components, cleaning needs are minimized.
Improvements to and quality control of transfer efficiency can
serve to reduce booth cleaning needs.2'24
4.4.6 Time Restriction
The duration required for a cleaning practice must be
consistent with the time available for booth cleaning;
consequently, time constraints affect the feasibility of some
cleaning practices. Most cleaning is programmed during the third
shift when the assembly line does not operate. Because the
assembly lines may run for either two 8- or two 10-hour shifts,
jt
the time available for cleaning can vary between 4 to 8 hours.
4-10
-------
Time-consuming practices may not be feasible when only 4 hours
are available even though the practice may significantly reduce
VOC emissions. This is also true for those cleaning practices
invoked during production shifts.2
4.4.7 Cleanliness Requirements
The cleanliness requirements or standards established by a
facility to maintain paint job quality affect the frequency of
cleaning required, and may inhibit the use of alternative
practices. These internal standards are plant specific and
depend on the cleaning needs determined by paint shop managers
and engineers. Plant trials will be required to explore the
compatibility of the alternative practices and cleaning
standards.
4.4.8 r^boy Requirements
Labor requirements affect the economic feasibility of some ;
cleaning practices. For example, the use of an alternative
practice may require an increase in the number of cleaning crews
necessary to complete the job in a specified time. The cost of
labor is a consideration in evaluating alternative cleaning
practices.2
4.4.9 Safety
An important consideration in choosing a cleaning practice
is that it must be safe for both operators and equipment. For
example, high-pressure water can present a danger to the
equipment operator. Similarly, if electrical equipment and
fittings in the booth cannot be made water-resistant, water-based
cleaners may not be feasible.2
4.5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Memorandum from Trenholm, A. R., and K. L. Schmidtke,
Midwest Research Institute, to Serageldin, M. A., EPA/CPB.
January 29, 1992. Summary of Visit to Fort Wayne Assembly
Plant, Truck and Bus Group, General Motors Corporation, Fort
Wayne, IN.
2. Memorandum and attachments from Azar, S. J., MRI, to
Serageldin, M. A., EPA/CPB. September 28, 1992. Site
Visit--Chrysler Corporation Jefferson North Assembly Plant,
Detroit, MI.
4-11
-------
3. Schrantz, J. How Hyundai Paints the Sonata. Industrial
Finishing. 67:38-39. April 1991.
4. Memorandum and attachments from Azar, S. J., MRI, to
Serageldin, M. A., EPA/CPB. October 16, 1992.
Documentation of VOC emissions from Spray Booth Cleaning.
5. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Subaru-Isuzu
Auto Incorporated, Lafayette, IN. September IS, 1992.
6. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Dodge City, MI. August 14, 1992.
7. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Belvidere, IL. August 1, 1992.
8. Response to Section 114 Information Request for'Chrysler
Corporation, Sterling Heights, MI. August 14, 1992.
9. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., Marysville, OH. October 29,
1992.
«
?
10. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing,' Inc., East Liberty, OH. August 12,
1992.
11. Response to Section 114 Information Request for AutoAlliance
International, Inc., Flat Rock, MI. August 21, 1992.
12. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Fort Wayne, IN. August 14, 1992.
13. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. August 14, 1993.
14. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Moraine, OH. August 14, 1992.
IS. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Dearborn, MI. August 17, 1992.
16. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Twin Cities, MN. August 17, 1992.
17. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Chicago, IL. August 14, 1992.
18. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, USA, Inc., Georgetown, KY.
4-12
-------
19. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Nissan Motor
Manufacturing Corporation, USA, Smyrna, TN. September 28,
1992.
20. Draft Alternative Control Techniques Document--Industrial
Cleaning Solvents. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. July 1993.
21. Chrysler Bids Good-bye to Sludge. Industrial Finishing.
67:28-30. July 1991.
22. Graves, B. Doing the Dirty Work. Product Finishing.
55-7:42-48. April 1991.
23. Letter1 from Praschan, E. A., American Automobile
Manufacturers Association, to Serageldin, M. A.. EPA/CPB.
January 13, 1993.
24. Memorandum and attachments from Portzer, J. W., and
S. J. Azar, Midwest Research Institute, to Salman, D.,
EPA/CPB. July 25,1992. Cleanup Techniques and VOC
Emissions From Cleaning Paint Spray Booths.
4-13
-------
-------
5.0 EMISSION ESTIMATION
For this study, the concept of the Unit Operation System
(UOS) was used to assist the plants in standardizing the method
of selecting boundaries for the requisite material balances and
subsequent reporting of information.
This section describes the systematic approach used to
calculate VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning. An example
calculation is presented.
5.1 UNIT OPERATION SYSTEM CONCEPT1'5
Cleaning with solvents in an industrial setting may be
perceived on a unit-operation basis. The conventional unit
operation, a term common to the chemical engineering discipline,
is an industrial operation classified or grouped according to its
function in an operating environment. Unit operations vary
considerably among industries. Examples include items of
traditional production equipment such as a distillation column or
a paint mixing vessel (tank). Other less traditional examples
could be defined as areas in which manufacturing parts are
handled or cleaned, such as a spray booth.
For purposes of material balance calculations, the concept
of the unit operation "system," or UOS, extends the boundaries of
the conventional "unit operation." The UOS is defined as the
ensemble around which a material balance for cleaning can be
performed. The boundaries of a UOS should be selected to include
all possible points/sources leading to evaporative emission
losses associated with cleaning the specific unit operation,
including losses during dispensing the solvent, spilling virgin
and used solvent, handling residual solvent in cleaning
applicators, etc. Emissions from "secondary" sources, such as
5-1
-------
in plant waste management (e.g., recycling or subsequent
treatment) are to be determined by defining separate UOSs.
A material balance is a mathematical statement that
expresses the law of conservation of mass (i.e., at equilibrium,
the mass that flows into a process, or UOS, equals the mass out).
It is a calculation technique that can be used to predict the
quantity or composition of one stream when all others flowing in
and out of the UOS are known.
The UOS approach has two interdependent requirements: a
well-defined system boundary and sufficient and reliable
quantitative information on the amount of VOC that enters and
exits those boundaries. The material balance is performed by
determining their difference. The VOC input, often virgin
solvent, can be quantified from usage records based upon some
type of solvent metering system, usage inventory or operator log.
Accurately quantifying the liquid VOC that exits is more
complicated and involves a number of steps because the waste
solvent contains contaminants removed by the cleaning. To
quantify the VOC in the waste solvent requires analytical tests
to provide a "waste profile."
In addition to providing an approach for quantifying
baseline emissions, the UOS approach can help identify and
quantify benefits of alternative pollution prevention activities.
5.2 SPRAY BOOTH UNIT OPERATION SYSTEM
Figure 5-1 shows a spray booth UOS for an example booth in
an auto assembly plant. All inputs for a spray booth are
considered; each feed solvent is indicated by S17 S2/ S3,...,Sn,
while all outputs (the waste .solvents that leave the booth) are
designated as W1/ W2, and W3. Each symbol defines a specific
method of treatment or disposal as follows: W^ refers to any
waste solvent sent offsite for reclamation or disposal; W2 refers
to any waste solvent treated onsite for reclamation; and W3
refers to recycled waste solvent. The difference between the
total VOC's in the feed and in the wastes is presumed to be
emissions that will ultimately reach the atmosphere as
(1) fugitive emissions or (2) vented emissions. The former may
5-2
-------
LU CL
(3 z
11
CO O
03
1
frt LU
vJ UU
z tr
O uj
S?
««
«i2E O
• ^UJ5* ^
at
LU<
(- uj
21
LU t-
>.o
h-
co~
55
<" _.
>^_4._t.
LU^ JT i
> ^ A
t 1
CD 1
UB
^
. _
L
^^ «
co"
u
IB ^
MM •
OJ
CO
1-
>"
1*
0
Z
I
1
OB
• ^^
u
• ••
C3
CO
1
t
d
t
c
i
".
,
f
f
:
L
U
>
-
5
•"
j
^^
CO
n
LU
• • •;•••-. J
L
^
'
^
O
£
i
J
|
>
c
3i=;
"~ LU
cr
1
*t
k
h- uj
LU ~- *—. 2
> w O -i
m1- — <"
yico t a
t- ,_ LU C
5,co 01
_L c
W 'H
• ™ c
^ — "*
2 LU
-------
occur directly from the unit operation or, for waterwash booths,
may take place later as the water and paint sludge are separated.
The VOC material balance for Figure 5-1 is as follows:
VOC in solvent used = VOC emitted + VOC in waste (1)
or
VOC emitted » VOC in solvent used - VOC in waste. (2)
Therefore, the following equation is used to calculate the VOC
emissions during a given period of time:
VT - Vx + V2 + V3
- S^ + S2R2 + S3R3 +...+ S
where :
VT » total VOC emissions, pounds (Ib) ;
V1 - fugitive VOC emissions, Ib;
V2 » vented VOC emissions, Ib;
V3 - fugitive VOC emissions from water
discharge to sludge retention pit
(waterwall booths) , Ib;
S1/ S2, S3,..., Sn - volume of cleaner used to clean the
booth, gallons (gal) ;
l^, R2, R3,..., RJJ - weight fraction of VOC constituents
in the corresponding cleaner,
Ib VOC/gal cleaner;
^wl' ^2' ^3 * Wei9nt fraction of VOC constituents
of each of the waste streams, W^, W2,
W3, Ib VOC/lb waste; and
wl' W2' W3 * pounds of waste generated for each
waste stream.
Figure 5-2 shows the UOS for a hypothetical spray booth
equipped with an air pollution control device that is operated
during cleaning. In this case, the material balance is conducted
using equation 4:
5-4
-------
o
CO
CO
UGITIVE
V3
UJ
£
111
CO
Ul
X
2
CO
co
co
2
m
*
20
iuo:
^_>
CO
1
co
HIM
^^
s
TTT
•fe
CO
CO
CO
:o
•" M
_i co *^
2i8
I5S
58£
«u
0
•H
JJ
nj
l-n •
c
o
•H
04
-
•o
Sche
gure 5-2
5-5
-------
VT " Vl * V3 * V4
where:
V4 - V2 (1 - B) (5)
and V4 and E are defined as follows:
V4 * VOC emissions vented from a control device, Ib, and
E - destruction or removal efficiency of the control
device, percent.
Inserting equation 5 into equation 4 yields:
VT " Vl + V2 (1 ' B) + V3 (6)
Note that VOC emissions from UOS wastes (i.e., Wl, W2, W3)
may occur during storage, handling, and treatment of these
wastes; however, due to the boundaries that have been used to
define the UOS for this study, these emissions are not included
as spray booth cleaning emissions. In practice, one should ?
consider that the storage, handling, and treatment of these
wastes are potential emission sources. Also note that, for this
study, purging of paint lines and spray guns during the
automobile painting process has been considered a separate
cleaning UOS and is not considered a part of booth cleaning
emissions. Emissions from gun purging occur inside a spray booth
during a time frame (during operation of the paint line)
different than the booth cleaning (typically when the paint line
is not operating). Thus, for this study, a distinction was made
between emissions due to booth cleaning and emissions from gun
cleaning even though both cleaning activities result in emissions
from a spray booth.
5.3 APPLICATION OF THE UOS CONCEPT TO THE SPRAY BOOTH
CLEANING SYSTEM
Completing a material balance for a spray booth UOS is the
most efficient way for a plant to estimate emissions from
cleaning exposed surfaces within the spray booth. Also, use of
the UOS approach can provide valuable information on the amount
of solvent being used for specific cleaning practices. This may
5-6
-------
assist plant management in identifying acceptable cleaning
practices that maximize VOC reductions.
Although application of the UOS concept is essentially the
same for every plant, their may be need to define one or more
subcategories of the spray booth UOS. In this case, the UOS
boundaries also need to be established consistently across the
industry. The factors affecting the boundaries chosen include
the number and design of the spray booths, the types of solvent
and waste records that are maintained or need to be established,
and the cleaning procedures used. It is important that a plant
pay particular attention to and be specific in defining UOS
boundaries and details. Theoretically, as a smaller, unique
entity of the entire system is defined as the UOS being studied,
more specific and useful information may be obtained. For
example, if the UOS being studied is defined as cleaning all :
robots within a spray booth, application of the UOS concept will
result in the determination of the amount of solvent used (and
emissions created) to clean robots. On the other hand, if the
UOS is defined as the spray booth, application of the concept,
may or may not yield specific information on the amount of
solvent used and the resultant emissions from cleaning the
robots. If, for example, multiple components within the booth
(e.g.,"robots and walls) are cleaned using the same solvent, then
a material balance around the booth will not yield, specific
information on emissions resulting from robot cleaning unless
care is taken to obtain separate solvent usage (and waste) data
on the amount used for robot cleaning and that for wall cleaning.
If, on the other hand, different, unique solvents are used for
cleaning robots, a material balance around the booth will also
yield emissions information specific to robot cleaning.
Similarly, if a facility has three identical booths which are
operated and cleaned in an identical manner, a UOS comprised of
the three booths should yield an average value as useful as
information obtained by defining a separate UOS for each
individual booth.
5-7
-------
In addition to defining the system boundaries, other major
variables essential to success include the records maintained to
determine solvent usage and waste discharge, and the cleaning
procedures used. Consideration must be given to the time period
for which usage records are needed to determine the material
balance (e.g. per shift, per day, per week, or per year) . If
different procedures are used for daily cleaning and annual
cleaning, separate material balances may be needed and usage
records may need to be maintained separately for each type of
cleaning.
Inputs should be based upon documented usage. Usage may be
based on metering devices or operator log records. Usage may be
evaluated from inventory or purchasing records when one or more
solvents is used only for the cleaning unit operation system.
However, some solvents have multiple uses such as thinning paint,
purging spray guns, and/or other uses in addition to cleaning. '
Ideally, the amount used for booth cleaning will be monitored and
recorded separately to provide accurate usage records. If the
amount used for booth cleaning is not monitored/recorded
separately, the plant will have to estimate usage. The amount
used for all other purposes should also be .independently
estimated, and the sum of the amounts used for each purpose
should be compared with the known total usage from purchasing or
other records to confirm that the estimates have merit.
Outputs may also vary considerably depending on whether
spent solvent is collected and the types of records that the
plant maintains. Solvent used for booth cleaning is rarely
collected for reuse,, recycling, treatment, or disposal. In cases
where no waste solvent is collected, it can be assumed that all
solvent ultimately enters the air as fugitive emissions. When
solvents are collected (for disposal or whatever other purpose as
shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2) , the plant records might report
amounts from individual booths or groups of booths, or the waste
solvent might be combined with other cleaning and/or process
wastes before quantification. As with solvent usage, when the
5-8
-------
only available records are for total waste, the plant needs to
measure or use sound judgement to estimate not only the amount
from the spray booth UOS, but also from all other sources to
provide a crosscheck.
Since most plants do not vent emissions from booth cleaning
to a control device, all losses unaccounted for are considered to
be fugitive emissions. Solvents collected in the waterwash fall
into this category and are considered fugitive emissions.
In summary, in applying the UOS concept to a spray booth,
careful consideration must be given to defining system
boundaries, as 'well as to establishing the criteria for usage and
waste records so that the desired information is obtained. At
the same time, a practical approach to information collection
should be maintained. Furthermore, when evaluating solvent usage
for multiple booths and/or an entire plant, the sums of the
amounts used for all UOS should be totaled and compared to
plantwide records, purchases, etc. to provide a common sense
check.
5.4 APPLICATION OF THE UOS CONCEPT TO THIS STUDY
The information provided for this study by the plants varied
widely with respect to how the UOS's were defined and the type of
input and output records used. Some facilities defined UOS on an
individual booth basis; others defined the UOS as all booths in
the paint shop. Some facilities provided solvent input
information based on actual usage records for the booths, while
others provided information based upon inventory records and
usage estimates.
Figure 5-3 shows an example of a completed spray booth UOS
for the GM (Fort Wayne) plant. The plant defined the system
boundary to encompass the 10 modular basecoat/clearcoat spray
booths at the plant. Within the boundary are all activities
associated with cleaning the surfaces of booth components inside
the spray booth. The material balance for this plant is
presented on a daily basis. Inputs consist of four VOC solvents
that are used in each of these booths. The plant also uses a
5-9
-------
e
.u
a
o
•H
JJ
(fl
U
cn
cvo
-H •
C —
fd ,
O «J
JJ U
0 H
O 0
a
CO V4
o
4-1
-------
non-VOC cleaner, strippable coatings, and high pressure water,
but these do not contain VOC. Since no waste solvent is
collected from these booths and the plant does not vent emissions
to an operating control device, all usage can be assumed to
result in fugitive air emissions. Equation (3) can be simplified
as follows:
VT » Vx - S1R1 + S2R2 + S3R3 + S4R4 (7)
where:
S]_ - 110 gal/d of Atlantis Booth Stripper
R1 « 7.4 Ib/gal for Atlantis Booth Stripper
S2 * 0.5 gal/d of isopropyl alcohol
R2 » 6.5 Ib/gal for .isopropyl alcohol
S3 » 20 gal/d of Wonderstrip Floor Cleaner !
R3 » 8.5 Ib/gal for Wonderstrip Floor .Cleaner
S4 - 2 gal/d of Grow 6518
R4 « 6.9 Ib/gal for Grow 6518
Inventory records and purchasing disbursement history were used
by GM to determine the daily usage of each of the VOC solvents.
Substituting these values in equation (7) shows the total VOC
emissions from cleaning these 10 booths are almost 1,000 Ib/d.
5,5 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5
1. Draft Alternative Control Techniques Document--Industrial
Cleanup Solvents. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. January 1994.
2. Serageldin, M. A., J. C. Berry, and D. I. Salman. A Novel
Approach for Gathering Data on Solvent Cleaning. Proceedings
of the 1992 U.S. EPA/AWMA International Symposium on
Measurement of Toxic and Related Pollutants; Report
No. EPA/600/R-92/131.
3. Serageldin, M. A. Information Requested from Manufacturers.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. October 16, 1991.
4. Memorandum from Serageldin, M. A., EPA/CPB, to Trenholm,
A. R., MRI. September 30, 1992. List of definitions for the
Industrial Cleanup Solvent CTG.
5-11
-------
5. Serageldin, M.A., "The Unit Operation System--A New Solvent
Management System;" U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
APTI Course No. 582: Issues Related to VOC Control Systems
Teleconference Workshop. July 22-23, 1993.
6. Response to Section 114 Information' Request for General
Motors Corp., Fort Wayne, IN. August 14, 1992.
5-12
-------
6.0 SOLVENT USES AND VOC EMISSIONS AT SURVEYED PLANTS
This section describes Che ways in which solvenc was used in
1991 for cleaning spray booth components at IS surveyed plants.
Also presented are the quantities of both the solvent usage and
VOC emissions associated with this cleaning. The section
concludes with a discussion of normalized emissions'and emission
factors.
6.1 SOLVENT USAGE FOR SPRAY BOOTH CLEANING
Table 6-1 shows, for each plant, the spray booth-components
cleaned with solvent, the method and frequency of cleaning, the
•
number of booths in which the cleaning is performed, and the
total solvent used. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, the
amount of solvent used to clean individual spray booth components
was not available. Although use of low VOC cleaners can be
considered an alternative practice, they are shown in Table 6-1
because of their contribution to the total VOC emissions.
Spray equipment tips are the component cleaned with solvent
by the most plants. All but two of the plants clean all spray
equipment tips by spraying or wiping with solvent or dipping in
solvent. The two exceptions are for auxiliary (i.e., not the
main primary, topcoat, or repair) booths, as described in
Section 7.6.
Robots (and related equipment) and windows are the
components cleaned with solvent by the second highest number of
plants. Only AutoAlliance did not use solvent to clean robots,
and only Chrysler (Belvidere) and Ford (Dearborn) did not use
solvent to clean windows.1'2'6 Robots in a wax application booth
were the only ones cleaned with solvent by Subaru-Isuzu.14
-------
a\
a\
Z
H
CO
Q
a
a
OS
D
CO
s
CO
c*
a
j
o
CJ
o
o
J
I as
"I •".
s
s
a
u 3
-
w S JJ
£'>. »
§ 2 a
s- s- ?
.
i
e-
ij:
II--
1J!
»
-------
T3
0)
3
C
•H
4J
C
o
o
fa
E-
S.'Xc
| S ^a
«i
m
1
U
|
^
>%
j
|
e
•5
1
|
2
£
|
1
equipment
as
s .
*•*
,
It
o
w
1
l\
I
•z .
£i
51
S£
-*
£ -5
^ O G
- I - 1 § t
ll III.!
-3
-a 3
2 .9-
1^ "
Iff
«i e -o
•2 Is 1 1 g>
8- || l|i
1 5 1 3 3 1 e 1
? s * s e a 3,3
e „
>. ^
il
§•§
2 *
j>
u ^ O
•* S ~ *5J §
°S 8 5 8 a e
||| ffff
r~
1
.S
u
11
^
25
O A
ns
0
—
"•
i
VI
ll
- '3
** -«
|
3
If
.
J
•
i
< 8 • «
Hi I
«
^
><
>, ^
'3 °*
"° S
S Ci
-
J
o S G
o
if
— o
<^
It
£
S
a.
^
i
.0.
tl
M
£ i
s i
o 2-.
a. a. * 3 * c 3 ">
« o •; ^J ° "2 TS
||| 1 ||| |
Z
f
.3
1|
—
6-3
-------
G
•H
JJ
c
o
o
H
i
VO
W
life*
•f | "3 £
$ a •»«•
-a
|
CJ
I
-O
1
a
0
1
UI
i
I
s
*«
u.
I
1
^
.S-
1
X
: .
*-*
2
-3 |
§ e.
11
5
O
:
J
u.
1
o 3
z i
i
Jo
Z
1!
j 5
-e
1-8 . i .2 1
Hits III
e
•5 •
•3" x
.
f-s
Ij
? &
.2 f .S
,>> J •£• .2,
• x « a
•o - -o H .
.!• s .!• § f
> 1 » II
•3 = -g -3
.S -a I -S J
tl 1^3
Hi III
«
I
i &
It
al
— «•
^^
i
e
'5
1|
> ^
o
^ e
I , .S
1 il-
1 |I1
» - o -2
5.3 S'J 5
01 ja ttt ^ *c
I >
1 1
i]
^
z
gf
2 S
i
e
•" m
o -S
•®*
1
*••
0
1
'a ^
M
«
§
o
H
P.
1
i
51
csS.
11 . a5"
S °- 1 .& 3
3 -5 a 3 u
G i i r 8
^
J* •*•&
9-~
.2
x •
-s =
g.-8 s 8,5
III M.
H* III
.5
« -5
H
.s -
i> S
•5 -i
« c
0
^ >»
J g
£> ^ S x 8* S S
ifl Ilf-Sft
> s .2 <§• i J .s -s
a
!
•a
•a
6-4
-------
The components cleaned with solvent by the fewest plants
were grates and personnel (hands and personal protective
equipment). Only GM (Fort Wayne) and GM (Moraine) used solvent
for cleaning grates, and only at Honda (Marysville) and Toyota
did personnel routinely use solvents to clean
themselves.8,9,12,15
6.2 EMISSIONS
The plants were asked to report (1) the total VOC emissions
from spray booth cleaning and (2) the quantity of each solvent
used for spray booth cleaning. In addition, they were asked to
develop UOS's (for individual or multiple spray booths) following
the procedures described in Section 5. With the material
balances for these UOS's, they were to calculate emissions for
each solvent in each UOS. Total emissions per UOS were estimated
by summing the emissions of the individual solvents. *
Nine of the plants developed UOS's; some lumped all booths
into one UOS, and others developed UOS's for individual booths as
well as multiple booths.1"8'15 For the other six plants, booth
cleaning emissions were calculated from plantwide usage and waste
data provided by the plant; in effect, a UOS was developed for
the entire plant.9"14
The expectation was that the sum of the VOC emissions for
each solvent from-the UOS's would equal the reported total VOC
emissions from booth cleaning. When discrepancies or data gaps
were noted, the plants were asked for clarifications. The
resulting actual spray booth cleaning emissions in 1991 are shown
in Table 6-2. They ranged from about 14 to 940 ton/yr
(13 to 850 Mg/yr), or over a range of nearly two orders of
magnitude. Emissions for most plants are based on estimates of
(1) usage distribution between process (or other cleaning) uses
and spray booth cleaning uses and (2) the amount of collected
spent solvent. However, emissions for two plants are more
uncertain than the others because those plants did not clarify
all discrepancies in their reported data. The facility profiles
in Appendix B present the reported and calculated data and the
assumptions used to determine emissions for each plant.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-2a.
EMISSION
ACTUAL, NORMALIZED, AND PERMITTED VOC
LEVELS AT THE SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991
(English Units)
Plant
Ford (Dearborn)
Subaru-Isuzu
Auto Alliance
Ford (Twin Cities)
Chrysler (Sterling Heights)
Honda (East Liberty)
Nissan
Chrysler (Belvidere)
GM (Ft. Wayne)
Chrysler (Dodge City)
GM (Oklahoma City)
Ford (Chicago)
GM (Moraine)
Honda (Marysville)
Toyota
Ref.
6
14
1
7
4
11
13
2
8
3
10
5
9
12
15
Booth cleaning VOC emissions
Actual
emissions,
tons/yr
14
35
45
78*
36
114
146
160
193
228
251
347
>657b
671
940
Actual
shifts per
year
270
490
500
390
310
500
480
430
404
430
440
420
450
500
480
Normalized
emissions,
tons/yr at
500 shifts/yr
26
36
45
100
139
114
152
211
239
265
285
413
>730
671
979
Plantwide VOC
emissions, tons/yr
Actual
292
813
1,460
556
586
775
1,297
1,015
1,052
. 1,210
1,196
1,009
1,398
2,956
2,219
Permitted
1,323
1,506
3,474
934
3,803
2,529
2,296
4,485
2,931
3,614
2,050
1,009
3,204
5,152
6,196
aThe plant reported total booth cleaning emissions of 78 tons/yr. However, there are unresolved
discrepancies between the reported usage levels and the inputs to the material balance that makes this
value uncertain.
"The plant reported total booth cleaning emissions of 139 tons/yr and 750 tons/yr in different parts of
their response. Based on the usage data and assuming no spent solvent is collected, the emissions were
calculated to be at least 657 tons/yr and could be as high as 681 tons/yr.
6-6
-------
TABLE 6-2b.
EMISSION LEVELS
ACTUAL, NORMALIZED, AND PERMITTED VOC
AT THE SURVEYED PLANTS IN 1991 (Metric Units)
Plant
Ford (Dearborn)
Subaru-Isuzu
Auto Alliance
Ford (Twin Cities)
Chrysler (Sterling Heights)
Honda (East Liberty)
Nissan
Chrysler (Belvidere)
GM (Ft. Wayne)
Chrysler (Dodge City)
GM (Oklahoma City)
Ford (Chicago)
GM (Moraine)
Honda (Marysville)
Toyota
Ref.
6
14
1
7
4
11
13
2
8
3
10
5
9
12
15
Booth cleaning VOC emissions
Actual
emissions,
Mg/yr
13
32
41
.71*
78
104
133
145
175
207
228
315
>597b
609
850
Actual
shifts per
year
270
490
500
390
310
500
480
430
404
430
440
420
450
500
480
Normalized
emissions,
Mg/yr at 500
shifts/yr
24
32
41
91
126
104
138
191
217
241
259
375
>663
609
889
Plantwide VOC
emissions, Mg/yr
Actual
265
738
1,330
505
532
704
1,180
922
955
1,098
. 1,086
916
1,270
2,684
2,015
Permitted
1.201
1,367
3,154
848
3,453
2,296
2,085
4,072
2,661
3,282
1,86!
916
2,909
4,678
5,676
aThe plant reported total booth cleaning emissions of 71 mg/yr. However, there are unresolved
discrepancies between the reported usage levels and the inputs to the material balance that makes this
value uncertain.
"The plant reported total booth cleaning emissions of 126 mg/yr and 680 mg/yr in different parts of their
response. Based on the usage data and assuming no spent solvent is collected, the emissions were
calculated to be at least 597 mg/yr and could be as high as 618 mg/yr.
6-7
-------
The VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning are presented
graphically relative to reported plantwide total VOC emissions
and total permitted VOC emission levels in Figures 6-1 and 6-2,
respectively. (Note that all but Plant 5 have considerable
expansion room within their permits.) Figure 6-1 shows the VOC
emissions from spray booth cleaning ranged from 3 to 47 percent
of the reported total plantwide VOC emissions. Figure 6-2 shows
that VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning ranged from 1 to
34 percent of the plantwide permitted VOC emission levels.1"15
6.3 NORMALIZED EMISSIONS AND EMISSION FACTORS
Each plant reportedly operated 2 shifts per day, 5 days per
week, and about 8 hours per day. The number of operating weeks
per year, however, ranged from 27 to 50. Because most cleaning
is performed on a weekly (or more frequent) basis, normalized
annual emissions were developed for SO weeks (or 500 shifts) of
operation per year. (This normalizing procedure does-not account
for the impact that the capacity may have; the more vehicles
painted, the more cleaning that may be required and the greater
the cleaning emissions.) After normalizing the emissions, only
two of the fifteen plants switched places in the ranking, as
shown in Table 6-2; the same general trend is evident. A
graphical representation of both the actual and normalized
emissions is shown in Figure 6-3.
6.3.1 Qualitative Comparison of Emissions
Figure 6-3 shows Plants 9, 12, and 15 have much higher
emissions than the other plants. It also shows Plants 1, 6, and
14 have much lower emissions. Without considering factors like
the amount of area cleaned per booth (because of booth design
features or the extent of protective cover usage) , the design of
• the spray equipment, the amount of overspray, the type of paint,
and in some cases the frequency of cleaning, it is difficult to
explain the enormous variation. A few generalizations, however,
can be drawn from the information shown in Table 6-1 about
cleaning activities, the number of booths in which solvents are
used, the booth components cleaned with solvent, and the
frequency of cleaning.
6-8
-------
a
•H
C
0)
o
J3
03 m
S s
2 «*
^o'
ra>
c -*
l«
13
B r<
-------
SH
8s
2 c
0,2
««
§CQ
^s
iH o>
CO
« OJ
11
|l
n-, 0)
(0
OJ
(U
01
o
4J
(U
•H
JJ
(TJ
H
(U
(dA/SNOl) SNOISS!I^3 OOA
6-10
-------
s
8888
O) 00 l^
-------
At Plant 9, over 500 tons/yr (450 Mg/yr) of VOC emissions
are from cleaning robots and related equipment. It is likely
that this high level results from spraying solvent on the robots
4 times per shift, while most other plants wipe the equipment.
This plant also sprays solvent to clean walls, windows, and some
paint spray equipment tips. It also is one of only two plants to
use solvent for cleaning floor grates, even though it is reported
as only "touch-up" cleaning.
Plant 12 has the largest production and greatest number of
booths (over twice the average) of the plants studied; this may
contribute to the higher emissions. This plant does clean
windows in 14" booths by spraying with solvent and wiping. The
unprotected portions of robots and robots which cannot be covered
are cleaned by wiping with solvent, as are the walls in the wax
application and repair booths. Furthermore, this plant is one of
the plants that uses solvent for cleaning personnel protective
equipment and is one of two plants in which personnel clean their
hands with solvent.
Although Plant 15 uses peelable coatings on the walls, the
procedures the plant follows calls for wiping these coated walls
on a daily or as-needed basis. Furthermore, the plant does not
use robot covers, and wiping with solvent is the primary
technique used for cleaning robots. Also the operators at this
plant clean their hands and personal protective equipment with
solvent; only one other plant also reported using solvent for
this purpose. Plant personnel also indicated that they clean
frequently and extensively as a result of the very high standard
for cleanliness in their booths. Notably, this plant' also has
nearly twice the average number of booths.
At the other end of the spectrum, Plants 1, 6, and 14 have
low emissions. One reason is because they use little or no
solvent for cleaning booth walls. Also, they wipe solvent only
on uncovered sections of robots and related equipment; in some
booths the covers are extensive enough that no solvent is needed.
6-12
-------
6.3.2 pualitative Comparison of Emission Factors
Emission factors are often based on parameters such as the
production rate or the unit of raw material consumed. In this
study, relationships were examined between annual VOC emissions
from spray booth cleaning and each of three annual production
rate parameters: vehicles produced, unit vehicle surface area
coated, and total vehicle surface area coated. The "unit" area
is the actual surface area of the vehicle and all parts that
receive at least one coat. The "total" area equals the unit area
times the number of coats applied. For example, a vehicle may
have a unit area of 200 ft2 (19 m2). Assuming the entire vehicle
receives a basecoat, 25 percent is coated with black wax,
75 percent receives a clearcoat, and 10 percent of the coated
area is repaired or receives final touchup, the "total" area
would be 420 ft2 (39 m2). Table 6-3 summarizes the emissions, .
?
number of vehicles, area painted, and the resulting emission
factors. Some qualitative observations are discussed below.
Figure 6-4 shows emissions vs. vehicle production rate.
These data are widely scattered. In addition to variations .in
cleaning procedures, it is likely that this scatter is due to
variations in such parameters as booth design and size, vehicle
size and design, paint application procedures, and types of
paint. The emission factors based on these data are shown in
Figure 6-5. Except for the factors for plants 9 and 15, which
are much higher than the others, all the factors fall within the
range of .3 to 4 Ib/vehicle (0.1 to 2 kg/vehicle).
Figure 6-6 shows emissions vs. the total vehicle surface
area coated. As with Figure 6-4, these data also show scatter.
The reasons for the scatter are the same as those given above for
Figure 6-4. In addition, for Figure 6-6, there is uncertainty
about the accuracy of the reported surface areas coated. For
example, Plant 10 reported a total surface area so much higher
than the others that it appears erroneous, and the ratio of total
to unit surface areas vary over an unexpectedly wide range (l.l
to 4.7) for the four plants that provided both values.
6-13
-------
* 3 *
II1
D
JS
•H
i-l
01
e
Cd
cn
§
H
W
CO
ft.
o
CO
m
-------
I'
m
c
D
4J
0)
2
CO
tt
£
01
CD
H
S
w
W
VA
£B
I
h
ft
I
I*.
j2
M
i
I
1!
lcrlia«
i
1
1
i
1
8
1
s!
ii i
[11
I
6-15
-------
a
£
Z
U")
<^|M
J^
D
•
•
*
C
4
* CJ
D C
D C
1
C
1
i
D C
D C
'° 1
.
J«
kJB
vT^H
r*«i
D C
D C
1
•
D C
D C
^
«
:
•
c
c
e
ini
D C
? c
M
COM
001
e
D C
D C
I
^
D C
D C
i-+
e+
D C
rv->
O)
_ 4K
•s
o >>
-§g
T3
0 3 •
-Q c 1o
^ -c9 c
Q-.Q
O CD ^
""€3 ^S J^*-
^^ CM ^^
*l
CM
0
-o
T—
3
m
a
AJ
c
en -H
C fO
o a
ca m
CO (U
•H V4
e m
-------
OJ
•o
-------
en
03
03
Q
_co
Q.
n
£
CD
CO
CO
CD
O
O
O5
c
c
«•
*
\
»•
=*
CO!
00
1
,5
1
o
"co
o
•o
v_
of
"1
03
M
CU
CO
vo
0)
a»
•H
Ct4
6-18
-------
Interestingly, the data shown in Figure 6-6 appear to fall
into three zones. The upper zone includes Plants 2, 5, 9, 12,
and IS; these plants have emission factors between 3.5 and
5.0 tons/million ft2 (33 to 49 Mg/106 m2). The middle zone
includes Plants 3, 4, 7, and 8; these plants have emission
factors of between 1.0 and 1.5 tons/million ft2 (11 to
15 Mg/106 m2) . The lowest zone includes Plants 6 and 14, which
have lower emission factors in the range of only 0.1 to
0.3 tons/million ft2 (1 to 3 Mg/106m2). The emission factors are
shown more clearly in Figure 6-7. More detailed information is
needed to understand what caused these results.
These three zones of emission factors are similar to the
groupings of plants with high, intermediate, and low emissions
described in Section 6.3.1. Two exceptions are Plants 2 and 5
which have high emission factors, but rank in the intermediate \
range of total emissions. The reasons for the differences for
these two plants are speculative. One possible explanation for
Plant 5 is that, like Plant 9, robots and related, equipment were
cleaned by being sprayed with solvent 4 times/shift.. This
practice leads to high emissions. However, Plant 5 had much
lower emissions than Plant 9, possibly because the vehicle
surface area coated, and thus the amount of overspray to be
cleaned, was significantly lower than that for Plant 9. Also,
cleaning may have been performed less frequently at Plant 5.
A more detailed evaluation might result in development of
different emission factors for various booth designs. However,
emission factors based upon the surface area cleaned might be
more useful. For example, an emission factor for wall cleaning
might be based on the amount of solvent used and the wall surface
area cleaned. Another emission factor might be based on the
number of robots cleaned and the amount of solvent used to clean
them. The necessary data for such emission factors were not
collected during this study, and these types of data are not
believed to be readily available.
6-19
-------
T3
0)
JJ
C
CM
a.
aj
-------
6.4 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6
1. Response to Section 114 Information Request for AutoAlliance
International, Inc., Flat Rock, MI. August 21, 1992.
2. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Belvidere, IL. August 1, 1992.
3. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Dodge City, MI. August 14, 1992.
4. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Sterling Heights, MI. August 14, 1992.
5. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Chicago, IL. August 14, 1992.
6. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Dearborn, MI. August 17, 1992.
7. Response to .Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Twin Cities, MN. August 17, 1992.
8. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Fort Wayne, IN. August 14, 1992.
9. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Moraine, OH. August 14, 1992.
10. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. August 14, 1993.
11. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., East Liberty, OH. August 12,
1992.
•
12. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., Marysville, OH.
October 29, 1992.
13. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Nissan Motor
Manufacturing Corporation, USA, Smyrna, TN. September 28,
1992.
14. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Subaru-Isuzu
Auto Incorporated, Lafayette, IN. September 15, 1992.
IS. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, USA, Inc., Georgetown, KY.
6-21
-------
-------
7.0 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES IN USE AT SURVEYED PLANTS
This section describes the types of alternative cleaning
practices used at the 15 plants in 1991. After an overview,
separate sections discuss the alternatives for each of the seven
booth components. Each section presents the types of
alternatives used; the types of booths in which they are used;
and advantages, limitations, and solvent usage and VOC emission
reductions that plants reported for some practices. Also
presented are sections on alternative cleaning practices that
were applied to multiple components and alternatives that were
tried and rejected. Most of these practices are aimed at source
reduction and are, therefore, pollution prevention practices.
7.1 OVERVIEW
Table 7-1 lists all of the alternatives that were reported
by the 15 plants. It shows that specific cleaning practices
within one or more of the five categories of alternatives were
used for cleaning each of the seven booth components. The
greatest variety of alternatives were used for wall cleaning, and
the fewest for cleaning spray equipment tips. When two or more
plants reported using a particular alternative, the number of
plants is shown in parentheses. High-pressure water blasting for
grates was the most common alternative. Other prevalent
alternatives were robot covers, tacky and peelable coatings for
walls and grates, and plastic sheeting for walls. In many cases,
an alternative was used in only certain types of booths.
The following sections show that one or more plants have
eliminated the use of cleaning solvent for each booth component,
except spray tips. Additional information is needed to determine
the reasons why some plants have successfully implemented
7-1
-------
CQ
O
O.
i
u
I
o
CQ
s
u
1
1 ! W! !U
lS^J 8.1^1
•9 -
£
§
•9 2
k.
"
g
8
CO
w
u
~ '
•
M
O
I
1
i
ft
Js,
04
W
cd
w
.3
I
u
I
M
.a
1
I
fa
o
CQ
Cd
0<
Cd
9
ods
. .,
2? i
.
a a-- CJS
1 If
! 1
15-5385
! I i ! t
lsl
u
I
7-2
-------
•a
o
«
.a-si
1
5
O o
II
§1!
jj
I
« o ,_ »a
riifi
in 11 j
•a
-II
I
llll
11
s :
1
• 1
I!
PC v
§1* 1
•aS'S fi.
S**& »«
I Ja
•cimii i
2 «• S: rt Q « U
4>
iillll
: i
S
7-3
-------
Possible factors to examine are the cost and labor requirements
relative to using solvent; booth design parameters such as the
wall construction material, the distance of the wall from paint
application equipment; the type of paint application equipment;
and the type of paint.
7.2 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR WALLS
A wide variety of alternative cleaning practices were used
for walls. The most common were peelable and tacky coatings and
plastic sheeting covers. Lesser used and more specialized
practices included manual scraping, paper and aluminum foil
coverings, water blasting (often in conjunction with tacky
coatings), Vaseline™ masking, and wiping with water and rags.
Plants that still use solvents have reduced usage and
emissions by reducing the frequency of cleaning, switching to low
VOC or more viscous solvents, and reducing spraying in favor of
increased manual scrubbing.
7o2cl Alternatives by Booth Type
Table 7-2 shows the wall cleaning practices used in
different types of booths at the 15 plants. Interestingly,
20 percent of the plants (3 of IS) used no solvent for wall
cleaning in any of the booths and, overall, at least 40 percent
of each type of booth was cleaned without solvent.
7.2.1.1 Topcoat and Tutone Booths. The primary
alternatives used in the topcoat booths were tacky and peelable
coatings. Of the nine plants using these alternatives, six used
no solvent, one sprayed solvent on the coating occasionally to
remove paint that penetrated the coating, and two wiped the
peelable coating every day with solvent and a
rag.2'4'6'8'10'12"15 One plant switched from spraying solvent on
the peelable coating with an air-atomized gun and sloshing
solvent out of buckets to scrubbing with brushes dipped in a
bucket of solvent.4
One plant used Visqueen1* coverings (a polyethylene film) on
parts of the walls and scrubbed the uncovered parts with solvent
and a brush.1 Another plant wiped the walls in the basecoat
booths with water-soaked rags; this plant used waterborne
7-4
-------
h4
J
4*
%
QJ
£
CO
w
0
H
r^
21
cu
i
H
J
u
fs
1
r»
M
j
?!
i
'ype of booth*
"
H
i
2
5
M
i
I
m
§•?
X C
1*
3*
2
9*(«
» <2
JB
.a
-
• ]
s-
at
Topcoat (and
Tutone for some
plants)
•s
at
Jl
.1:
l!
lii
aa-f
o S
5 f
£-1
if
si
s J,
•1
8J
!s
3 Js
?dC
a
« *
§1
"al '
M =
III
Visqueen"*
covering to some
areas and solvent
applied with brush
snd scrubbed in
others
-
Glass walls in ||
topcoat and II
repair booths ||
1
|
^
C
f*
f -s
5 *
? «
a §
II
Tacky coating;
remove with water
•o-Sl
e "S-S
£i'5
oil. Is
•S 1 -S -53
il-2 ^J
s * .f s j
— •; .H I «
•s *^a «-°
ml M
?l
il
lit
•*
Stainless steel 1
walls 1
•<
Z
<
Z
1 in container
i
a,
^
^
« S
H
lrj
-s^
'* >
J5 *
|ji
^•s
•<
Z
Scrub with brush
and low VOC
cleaner
-------
fllil
niii
T3
0)
3
O
o
1
w
i
it
•heeling
l Unk
ic
for fu
black
it
3*1
it-
lii
•s:
« 3
U
if
iL
• e
iflilii
lh solvent
with
e a week
Spray wil
and rinse
H
7-6
-------
G
•H
X)
a
o
o
CN
w
i
IN
3l
§- -S
I!
i
• s 5
11
1
I
i
it
'i
a. S j
as-
a 8 •
•a 3*
*!<
*!•
,
ili
•III
iS
•|«i
II
Jl o -
'3 t» 9
I ill
111
«* o i*
t If
7-7
9
S
l
a i .•§ o •§
"
I!
21
J
JJ
f!
< J
-------
basecoat. This plant covered the walls in the clearcoat booths
with plastic, which was wiped daily with solvent and a rag.11
Three plants relied on solvent to clean the walls, and two
of these plants reported practices to reduce solvent usage. One
switched to a more viscous solvent, and replaced the atomizing
solvent spray gun with a nonatomizing model.3 The plant did not
explain the benefit of a viscous solvent, but it may adhere to
the surface longer than other solvents, thus requiring less to be
applied. The other plant changed from spraying solvent over the
entire wall to spraying only the upper portion of the wall and
manually scrubbing the lower portions with a brush dipped in a
bucket of solvent. This plant also reduced the frequency from 5
•j
times a week to 2 times a week.'
Two of the plants that relied on solvent had glass walls,
and the third had walls made of stainless steel.3'7'9 It is not
known which alternatives are compatible with which construction
materials; most of the other plants did not report the wall
construction materials.
7.2.1.2 Repair Booths. Wall cleaning practices for repair
booths were similar to those for topcoat booths. Seven plants
used tacky or peelable coatings, six of which used no solvent,
and one wiped with solvent every day.2'4'6'10'13'14 One plant
used high-pressure steam with no solvent, and another used
plastic sheeting that was wiped with solvent daily.8'11 Four
plants sprayed or wiped solvent directly on the wall.3'7'9'15
One plant did not specify the cleaning practices, and another did
not have a separate repair booth.1'5
7.2.1.3 Primer and Antichip Booths. Fourteen plants
applied primer, antichip, or both in spray booths (10 applied
primer and 12 applied antichip coatings) ; only one plant had no
primer or antichip spray booth. Seven plants applied both
coatings in the same booth. Overall, eight plants used no
solvent in primer and antichip booths, although two had VOC
emissions because they used low VOC cleaners.5'6'8'10"14
At three of the plants with dual-purpose booths, walls were
coated with peelcoat or tacky coating, and no solvent was
7-8
-------
used.10'13'14 At the other four plants with dual purpose booths,
one coated the walls with tacky coating and removed it with a
low-VOC solvent in conjunction with water blasting; one used
Visqueen™ coverings on part of the walls and wiped the other
parts with solvent; one dipped abrasive pads in a low VOC cleaner
and then scrubbed with the pads, and one sprayed solvent on and
scrubbed with brushes.1'5"7
Three plants had separate primer booths. One used plastic
sheeting, and two used peelcoat. One of the plants using
peelcoat occasionally wiped areas that received heavy overspray
with-solvent.15 The other two used no solvent.11'12
Four plants applied antichip in separate booths. One
applied a tacky coating to the walls and removed it with high-
pressure water.8 One plant partially covered the walls with
kraft paper and removed the residue by scraping and wiping with
solvent and a rag. Two sprayed solvent on the walls (daily at
one plant and weekly at the other).3'9
One plant applied antichip coatings in the tutone booth. As
described above, walls in this booth were masked with peelable
coating and wiped with solvent daily.4
7.2.1.4 Bumpers and Fascia Booths. Seven plants had one or
more booths in which coatings were applied to -bumpers and fascia.
All five of the plants that specified their cleaning practices
used alternatives. Two used peelcoats, one used paper, one used
plastic sheeting, and one used plastic stretch wrap. The stretch
wrap was wiped with a rag and a small amount of solvent once a
week.13 The other four plants used no solvent.1'12'14'15
7.2.1.5 Underbody (Blackout/Deadener) Booths. Nine plants
had booths in which underbody coatings were applied. Five used
alternative cleaning practices that involved no solvent, two of
which used plastic sheeting, one used a peelcoat, one manually
scraped the walls, and one wiped the walls with dry
rags.2'4'12'14
The other four plants used a variety of practices. One
covered the walls with kraft paper and removed the residue by
scraping and wiping with solvent.15 One used plastic to cover
7-9
-------
part of the walls and wiped the uncovered parts with solvent.11
One sprayed solvent from a squeeze bottle and wiped off the
residue.1 One sprayed solvent on the walls and rinsed the
residue off with water.9
7.2.1.6 Wax Booths. Five plants described cleaning
practices for walls in seven wax application booths. In three of
the seven, alternatives were used with no solvent; two used water
blasting, and one used a peelcoat.7'14'15 One plant used plastic
sheeting on some walls and wiped the plastic with solvent once a
week; solvent was sprayed on other walls and wiped off.11 Two
plants wiped solvent-laden rags directly on the walls.12'15
7.2.1.7 Miscellaneous Booths. Seven plants identified a
variety of cleaning practices used for several miscellaneous
booths. The cleaning practices included the use of plastic
sheeting, paper, Vaseline™, peelcoat, tacky coating, scraping •
with razor blades, and wiping with water-soaked or dry rags. Six
use no solvent, and one used no solvent in some booths. The
booths were used for a variety of purposes, including applying
(1) paint to garnish and mirror covers, plastic' parts, and
wheels, (2) antichip coatings to fuel tanks, (3) primer to
engines, and (4) sealers. The final touchup booths at two plants
were also included in this category.7"9'11"13*15
One plant with small parts repair booths used aluminum foil
from the floor to a height of 6 feet and wiped uncovered areas
with solvent.12
7.2.2 Advantages and Limitations of Alternatives
Peelable coatings are applied either by spraying or by using
rollers and brushes. The quantity used and the coverage provided
varies. They are removed after 3 to 6 weeks and are disposed of
in 55-gal drums that are sent either to landfills or to be
incinerated.1'4'14'15 The advantages reported include the
effectiveness of the coating in shielding the walls from
overspray, a reduction in VOC emissions and the amount of waste
generated during cleaning, and fast and easy application and
removal.1'4'14'15 One plant indicated that substituting peelable
coating for plastic sheeting decreased labor costs by
7-10
-------
50 percent.14 No limitations were reported. One plant with
galvanized walls indicated that peelable coatings have been used
since plant startup to protect the walls; the actual cleaning
practice is to wipe the peelable coating with solvent every day.4
Tacky coatings are mostly water-based, nonhazardous, and
non-VOC (or very-low-VOC) materials that can be removed with
water (either high- or low-pressure). The removed material is
washed into the booth waterwash system, and the resulting waste
is nonhazardous. The coatings are easy to apply and remove, and
their use reduces the overall use of cleaning solvents. One
plant cautioned that, because they are removed with water, tacky
coatings cannot be applied in areas where water cannot be used
(e.g., around the automated equipment).10
Plastic sheeting is inexpensive and is not affected
(e.g., does not disintegrate) by paint overspray. It also can be
used to cover those booth components for which specifically
designed covers are unavailable or for which the use of
specifically designed covers is impractical.2'4'7'9'11'12
Advantages and limitations of other alternative cleaning
practices for walls were not reported.
7.2.3 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission Reductions
Table 7-3 shows the reported reductions for alternatives
implemented by 7 plants.2"4'6'7'11'12 These are the total
reductions for all booths at the plants. The largest reductions
were achieved by plants switching from spraying solvents to
spraying more viscous solvents, increased manual scrubbing, and
possibly to a tacky coating or plastic covering (these plants did
not indicate the previous cleaning practice to which the
alternative was compared).2"4'11
7.3 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR GRATES
Grates were used in a variety of booths, and 12 of the
plants implemented alternative cleaning practices that did not
require the use of solvent regardless of the booth. As shown in
Table 7-1, most of the alternatives were based on the use of
either high-pressure water blasting or a caustic soda bath; some
plants used both. Five plants also applied a tacky coating (or
7-11
-------
CO
ao
3
•a *-*
r
1st
QO
Z
ci —'
8
W)
CO
w
fS
&•?•
<- o*
1/100
f o
11
ill
o
II
il
f .
ll
".
•3
•a
l
a
*
«•» •*
11
r with polyethyl
7-12
8
1
•3
us
-------
T3
0)
3
•H
JJ
O
CJ
m
a
j
I
•2^
itc
S »o^
ir
i
M
a
>
£
•3
•g
2
VO W
m *
<5\ >«_
C^
S- S-3 f?
e»T
N^^
.
a
2
^o
as'
r- r^
r£
ht
o.
o
*s rsss^s
•3
£
1
0.
oo
.a
J
«
I
°>
o
£
z
I
CM
a
2
•S
•<
Z
^a"8
ll>
it!
^ g
s
X
s
a,
§ S «
0 'SM
|Sfc
J^ 0
|i|
5t*
liar
Alte
I
'
i
,
•s
•a
I
§
07L2- ^i. 8i-^s
5§:l| .at Ifg.
till fl HI
'* «•! til
J2= S o -
BO
?il§ II
-•„„•« -r? TT
2-q a
§ 3 §
o'8 I
—
-
s-s
««i IM :?
^-a"a3 >i *-S^ ^-s
|f|l] r lllj II
1.1 If « -hi Ii
fliil !! Ill if
oooo.hi
§ > 11 i
IJ J Jl
a .es
2-2 ^oǤ
S3 Sll'5
«
i
&§>
13
g o
a a
18,3
^i
s§§|
g'i.s.1
°|o g
I10 s
g • s.
B!JS
_-
*
8. a
Ii
ll
- 0
Sla§
h^"3
en ? ?
7-13
-------
even tar paper for one booth at one plant) to ease removal with
the water blasting. Some plants used water blasting on the
grates in place, while others removed them for cleaning in a
single location. Naturally, removal .is essential for grates that
are cleaned by dipping in a caustic soda bath.
One plant used a tacky coating on the grates in most booths
(those where water blasting could not be used) and each night
removed and transported them to an onsite "Blu-Surf"
incinerator.10 Another plant removed grates from some booths on
an unspecified interval for paint stripping in a hot fluidized
sand bed. This plant also removed grates from other booths for
cleaning by "incineration" (may be the same hot fluidized sand
system).1 A third plant water blasted the grates in place once a
week and, once a year, removed them for cleaning in a heat
cleaning oven.?
Three plants used solvent along with alternatives. One
performed daily touchup cleaning with solvent and used water
blasting once a week.9 The second applied a tacky coaticig that
was removed by water blasting, but solvent was sprayed on areas
where the paint overspray penetrated the coating.3 The third
dipped the grates from a wax application booth in a caustic
solution that includes a low VOC cleaner.15
7.3.1 Advantages and Limitations of Alternatives
The plants described a variety of water blasting equipment,
including lawn-mower-type units, rotary nozzles on wheels,
spinning wand assemblies, and hand-held lances. Besides
eliminating the use of solvent and the associated VOC emissions.,
the main reasons reported for using this equipment were its
efficacy, speed, relative ease, and reduced waste generation
(primarily relative to dipping in caustic
solutions).1/3,4,6-12,14,15 gome water blasting units were
reportedly inexpensive and easy to use and maintain. One plant
indicated that some equipment allows hot water to be used, which
allows for a lower pressure and reduces operator fatigue.8
Several limitations of high-pressure water blasting were
reported. One plant indicated that it cannot be used around
7-14
-------
electrostatic spray equipment because it will result in grounding
problems.9 Numerous plants indicated that it may splatter debris
in unwanted areas, which one plant combated by draping plastic
sheets over the walls and ceilings while cleaning the grates.
Some plants indicated some areas of the booth are inaccessible to
in-place cleaning (e.g., under the bell zones). One plant
indicated applying tacky coating to the grates was time-consuming
and labor intensive.10 One plant tried to switch from caustic
soda baths to water blasting but gave up primarily because the
water blasting damaged the "wet pans," which in their booths lie
closely beneath the grates.2 One plant indicated the initial
cost of the equipment is high. Although not a limitation,
several plants reported the necessity of operator training to use
the equipment.6'8'12
Caustic stripping tanks are steam heated, and the grates are
loaded on racks or in baskets before lowering by crane into the
tank. The cleaning is fast (but labor intensive to remove, load
into the tank, and replace), relatively inexpensive, and often
eliminates the use of cleaning solvents (one of the five plants
with caustic tanks used a low VOC cleaner in the solution). The
sludge from the caustic tanks is a hazardous waste.
One plant indicated incineration is not as messy as water
blasting, but they have had problems with incinerator
malfunctions.10 Another plant reported incineration could not
remove sealers from the grates.1
7.3,2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission Reductions
Table 7-4 shows the reported plantwide emission reductions
for three of the plants using high-pressure water blasting to
clean grates. One hundred percent reductions were achieved, but
the total reductions were small relative to the remaining solvent
usage at most of the plants.1'4'^
7.4 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR FLOORS
Fourteen of the plants provided information about cleaning
practices for floors. However, they did not all provide
information on the same basis because the information request did
not specify whether the responses were to address floor cleaning
7-15
-------
flj
CO
w
I
OS
o
Cb
CO
H
H
0!
w
EH
fc
O
CO
§
H
ED
Q
W
EH
Oi
O
CLi
W
J
I
§
s
II
*•• S
oo
• OS
S
°°
Pri
o
Topcoat
Repair
s
i
.3
a* «
7-16
-------
inside booths, outside (track-out), or both. Thus, two plants
only described cleaning practices for floors outside booths,
four described practices for floors inside, six described both,
two did not identify the location, and one provided no data.
Although not stated in any of the responses, when no data were
provided for inside cleaning, it probably meant that the booth
had no floors, only grates. Alternatively, when they provided no
information about cleaning track-out from the booth, it simply
may have been overlooked.
As shown in Table 7-1, about two-thirds of the alternatives
involve the use of various covers. Seven of the plants used some
solvent for cleaning.
Of the 10 plants that described cleaning practices for
floors inside booths, 9 had at least one booth in which no
solvent was used. They relied on covers made of chipboard,
plastic, tar paper, cardboard, and kraft paper. These covers
were used in three blackout booths as well as deadener, fuel
tank, antichip, wheel repair, transit coating, small parts, and
final touchup booths.2'5''/12-15 They were also used in a clean
room at one plant.11 Two of the plants used solvent for cleaning
floors in certain booths: one wiped the floor in the cavity wax
booth with a rag and mineral spirits, and the other spot cleaned
the floors in the fascia booth with alcohol and a rag, followed
by mopping with a non-VOC cleaner.11'13
Of the eight plants that reported cleaning practices for
floors outside booths, only two resulted in no VOC emissions.
One used carpeting saturated with a soapy-water solution, and the
other covered some areas with a fireproof paper-backed foil and
mopped uncovered areas with a non-VOC cleaner.4'5 Of the other
six plants, one covered parts of the floor with a fireproof,
paper-backed foil and mopped uncovered areas with solvent or soap
and water, one mopped with a low-VOC cleaner, two mopped with
solvent, one used a low-VOC cleaner with both a
walk-behind/riding scrubber and mopping, and one used a walk-
behind/riding scrubber with solvent for open areas and mopping
with solvent for less accessible areas.2'3'7'8'10'13
7-17
-------
Two plants reported ways to reduce track-out. One custom-
designed a shoe/boot cleaner, and the other required operators to
change shoes when entering and leaving the booths.7'14
One plant indicated that floors were scraped, but it was not
clear whether they were inside or outside booths.1 Another plant
indicated floors were mopped with solvent, but again it was not
clear whether the floors were inside or outside the booths.6
7.4.1 Advantages and Limitations of Alternatives
One plant indicated the chipboard is inexpensive, stays in
place (with tape), is sufficiently wear-resistant, and provides
some cushion for walking comfort.2 One plant reported tar paper
is durable and holds debris well.4 One plant indicated cardboard
is inexpensive and its use eliminates the need to clean and buff
the floor.12 Three plants indicated the waste cover materials
are nonhazardous.4'12/14
Although manual mopping of the floors is a common practice,
it may not be feasible in some plants because scrubbing may
damage the permanent masking film on the floor.16
One plant used a low-VOC cleaner with the powered walk
behind/riding scrubber. The low-VOC cleaner could not be used
with manual mopping because of the extensive scrubbing effort
required.7
One plant tried and rejected an alternative that consisted
of painting the floors adjacent to spray booths with acrylic
paint. This cleaning practice was tested as a way to reduce
manual mopping during the cleaning of track-out; the result was
unsuccessful. Paint, grease, and sealer adhered to the surface,
created a less aesthetic appearance, and was more difficult to
clean.10
One plant tried an alternative low-VOC floor cleaner.
Although it smelled better, it was rejected because it did not
dry fast enough, created a safety hazard due to the slipperiness
of the floor, did not clean as quickly, and compared with
solvent, more of the alternative cleaner was needed to clean a
given area.3
7-18
-------
7.4.2 RepQrte
Table 7-5 shows reported reductions for five alternative
cleaning practices at three plants.4'7'11 The most significant
reductions occurred when switching to alternatives that
eliminated the use of solvent.7 Only minor reductions were
achieved by eliminating the use of low-VOC cleaners.4
7.5 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR ROBOTS/EQUIPMENT
Thirteen plants used alternatives in conjunction with
solvent to clean most robots and related equipment; two plants
relied solely on spraying and wiping with solvent. Typically,
part of the equipment was covered, and the remaining uncovered
areas were wiped with rags and solvent. A few plants used tacky
coatings or mechanical methods for certain surfaces. Except for
the use of water on certain equipment surfaces in one booth at
one plant, no water-based or low-VOC cleaners were used. One
plant reported switching from spraying solvent to wiping (others
probably have done the same thing but did not report it).10
As shown in Table 7-1, the most common alternative cleaning
practice (reported by 10 plants) was the use of specialized,
designed-to-fit robot covers for portions of the
equipment.1'3'6"8'11"15 Four plants reported the use of
disposable Tyvek™ covers, one installed reusable nylon covers,
one indicated reusable "lint-free" (which suggests some type of
cloth) covers were used, and the other four did not describe the
covers. The nylon covers were washed in solvent.7 The "lint-
free" covers were sent offsite for "chemical cleaning" and then
returned.8
Seven of the" plants implemented alternatives that eliminated
the need for solvent in one or more booths, typically auxiliary
booths. One plant reportedly avoided solvent use for cleaning
spray equipment in the topcoat, primer/antichip, and two
tone/repair booths by having used Tyvek™ covers since plant
startup.14 Three plants used robot covers to eliminate or avoid
the use of solvents in bumper painting booths.1'6'14 Two used
only dry rags on equipment in sealer and deadener application
booths.11'12 At three plants, various covers were used without
7-19
-------
ja
8
CO
g
h
£
CO
w
H
W
II
SJS
f
.£
i!!
lil
out)
oat re
hip/p
Are
topc
tic
0 n
-3
j
h
O «
0 O.
fi
1C
in
»—4
§
2
o.
BO
-
I
m-
cleaner red
from booth
I
S
.2
.
8
§
7-20
-------
solvent in small parts painting, fuel tank painting, touchup,
wax, and repair booths.1'13'15 One used Tyvek™ covers and wiped
uncovered areas with a rag and deionized water in the basecoat
booth; this plant used a waterborne basecoat.11 One used water
to clean the spray equipment in the engine primer booth.15
7.5.1 Advantages and Limitations of Alternatives
One plant reported advantages of robot covers are that they
reduce the use of solvents, reduce cleaning time, and the waste
is nonhazardous.3 Another plant reported the use of aluminum
foil on reciprocator spray arms was better than tacky coatings
because the tacky coatings had a tendency to absorb moisture from
the air, get thin, and drip onto the vehicles.2 A third plant
indicated wrapping and covering paint hoses with masking tape
reduced cleaning time and solvent usage, but the waste still was
hazardous.4
In addition to the limitation of tacky coatings noted above,
two other limitations were reported. "Lint-free" covers were
reported to have a "limited" life, and one respondent said that
covers can not be put on Behr equipment.6'8 The life span and
reasons were not given.
7.5.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission Reductions
Table 7-6 shows reported reductions for eight alternative
cleaning practices at six plants.4'6'7'11'12'15 Although the
previous cleaning practice was not available for any of these
examples, it is likely that it involved either wiping or spraying
with solvent. Relative to the VOC emission reductions reported
for alternatives implemented for other booth components, those
for installing robot covers are moderate. The most benefit was
achieved when covers were installed in the basecoat booths.4'7'12
7.6 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR SPRAY EQUIPMENT TIPS
Only three plants implemented alternative cleaning practices
for spray equipment tips that used no solvent, and these
alternatives were applied for only certain tips. One reported
the tips used for applying enamel paint to fuel tanks were
cleaned by wiping with rags and water.13 The second indicated
the tips used to apply waterborne basecoat in the repair booth
7-21
-------
H
8
w
w
CO
8
O
CO
H
<
w
Vfl
I
I
^
60
II
jO
a
00*
11
.2 §
ll
I
si
c*- en
c*
w
C
O r—s
00
-------
were cleaned by wiping with rags and deionized water.11 The
third replaces tips used in the guns to apply antichip coating to
fuel tanks and primer to engines; no cleaning is performed in
either booth.15 Table 7-7 shows these practices eliminated
solvent for cleaning these tips, but the amount of solvent that
otherwise would have been needed was not reported.
Solvent* was used in several ways. Many plants wiped the
tips with rags and solvent (the procedures for transferring
solvent to the rags were not reported}.1"4'6'8'10"13'15 Other
plants dipped the tips in solvent containers, and some used a
brush to scrub them.1'7'10'14 One plant used an ultrasonic parts
cleaner.5 One plant sprayed solvent on the tips.9
7.7 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR WINDOWS
Twelve plants used alternative cleaning practices for
windows; four used alternatives exclusively, and eight used
solvent in conjunction with alternatives. Typically, cleaning
practices for windows in auxiliary booths focused on
alternatives, and cleaning practices in main painting booths
(primer, topcoat, and repair) consisted of either solvent in
conjunction with alternatives or solvent alone. However, four
plants used alternatives for cleaning windows in some main
booths. Two plants relied solely on solvents for cleaning all
windows. Three plants have glass walls in some or all booths;
cleaning these surfaces was addressed in Section 7.2.
As shown in Table 7-1, the most common alternatives were
water-based cleaners, low-VOC cleaners, scraping, and tacky
coatings removed by high-pressure water blasting. Some plants
also used water, hot water blasting, high-pressure steam, and
plastic cling films in certain applications.
Windows in the main booths were cleaned by a variety of
practices. Two plants used alternatives with no solvent; one
scrubbed with a low-VOC cleaner that was applied with the scrub
brush, and the other used high-pressure water blasting followed
by wiping with a non-VOC cleaner.6'7 Seven plants combined
alternatives with a solvent option: (1) two wiped all windows in
the main booths with a rag and solvent followed by wiping with a
7-23
-------
CO
Pu
H
E*
Cd
2
Cm
H
5,
O
Ed
8
O.
CO
Q!
O
Eh
CO
Ed
>
H
E-i
i
oJ
Ed
S
<
En
O
CO
*
o
H
B
D
Q
Ed
«
Q
Ed
EH
&,
2
Ed
&
•
r-
f*^,
I
Ed
-Jl
1—4
§
H
UM
O
oi
« «
§ S
1 1
1
1 *
% -a
•g §
u **
1 V
- £ t
G T3 °°
1 Sg
<8 -^
VI
i
i
•5
JS
u
1
.S
03
| -a
$ S
ea i
o
u
&
a,
BO
.S
§
"^
VI
g
1
4)
1
e
£
<
^^
i
z
<
z
w
e
S
vj
flB
03
<
Z
I
1
5
o
2
o
i
2
<
2
•M
1
"o
3
U.
<
2
U
4J
1
ri
CL
s-
8
I
.9
1
D.
1
U
O
a
I
g
I 1
•1 2.
S a
*^ en
O
a
J
"o.
o
7-24
-------
non-VOC glass cleaner, (2) one wiped most windows with a rag and
solvent, but windows in the basecoat booth were wiped with rags
soaked in water (this plant used a waterborne basecoat paint),
(3) one masked most windows with a tacky coating that was washed
off with water, but windows in the Bell zones were unmasked and
wiped with solvent, (4) one sprayed or wiped solvent on the
windows, scrubbed, and then washed with water, (5) one brushed
solvent on most windows, but those in the basecoat door jam cut-
in areas were covered with plastic cling film so that no solvent
was needed for cleaning, and (6) one used high-pressure water
blasting followed by spraying solvent on stubborn
spots.1'3'4'8'10'11'15 Three plants cleaned all windows by
wiping with a rag and solvent.12"14
Cleaning practices for auxiliary booths were reported by
11 plants, 10 of which used alternatives without solvent in a
variety of booths (5 blackout, 4 final repair/touchup, 3 wax,
2 bumper, small parts, wheel, sealer, and antichip for fuel tank
booths). Five of these plants eliminated VOC emissions from some
of these booths, primarily by scraping or by wiping the windows
with a non-VOC cleaner.1'2'6'14'15 Other alternatives that
eliminated VOC emissions included (1) high-pressure steam in the
wheel painting booth and one of the final touchup booths,
(2) wiping with dry rags followed by wiping with a non-VOC
cleaner in the sealer booth, and (3) hot water blasting in one of
the wax booths.8'11'15 Three plants reduced VOC emissions by
using low-VOC cleaners in two blackout booths and a touchup
booth.3'4'7 One plant wiped windows in an underbody booth with
rags and solvent after scraping them.1 One plant wiped the
windows in all auxiliary booths with rags and solvent.12
7.7.1 Advantages and Limitations of Alternatives
One plant used plastic cling film on the windows in the
basecoat door jam cut-in areas because it is easy to use and
dispose of (although it is treated as hazardous waste), and it
eliminates the use of cleaning solvents for those windows.4 One
plant indicated the advantages of a non-VOC glass cleaner,
besides containing no VOC, was its low cost. However, it has
7-25
-------
limited cutting power and can only be used to clean light
overspray.15 Hot water blasting and tacky coatings followed by
water blasting offer the same advantages described earlier for
wall cleaning.
7.7.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission Reductions
As shown in Table 7-8, one plant reported reductions for an
alternative cleaning practice for windows. By covering some of
the windows in the basecoat booths, the plant estimated solvent
usage was reduced by about 6,000 gal/yr (23,000 1/yr). The
previous solvent application procedure was not provided.4
7.8 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES FOR FIXTURES
Twelve plants identified alternative cleaning practices used
to clean fixtures. Six identified the items they classified as
fixtures, three identified some items, and three used only the
generic term "fixtures." Only three of the 12 plants reported
using solvent. Three plants reported no fixtures in their
booths.
Table 7-1 lists the reported alternative cleaning practices
for fixtures. Specifically, one plant indicated car body
carriers were taken to a separate area at the plant to be water
blasted.10 Three plants reported different practices for
cleaning center track drive covers: (1) "flooding" with a
low-VOC cleaner, followed by scraping and flushing with water,
(2) using grease and removing it by scraping, and (3) using a
tacky coating and removing it by scraping with a flat-bladed
Berylco™ (beryllium and copper alloy) scraper once a week and
water blasting once a year. "4 One plant reported scraping the
exhaust fan and stack, and another greased the stack to improve
the effectiveness of water blasting.5'13 One plant used masking
tape, grease, aluminum foil, and water blasting on parts of the
conveyors.12 One plant used water, hot water, and high-pressure
water to clean certain lights.15 One plant sent jigs offsite to
be burned.11 The cleaning practices for unspecified fixtures
included scrubbing with a low-VOC cleaner; using Tyvek1*, plastic,
aluminum foil, or unspecified covers; masking with grease; and
using high-pressure steam.1'5'8'11'12'14
7-26
-------
1
g
H
05
O
CO
u
i_i
§
I
fri
0
CO
2
DUCTIO
w
o«
Q
W
E-*
O
W
CO
t
e-«
03
3
H
1
.2 ^
| f|
u — ^
0
1 i^~
1 1 ^jj1
S ^ ^ ^^
s '•=
.2
.>
1
"3
JS
so
le
.S
M
1
a.
i
0
1
1
u
1
1
-
1
oS?
^
^
IS
VC g^
r?
S
1
,0
1
00
.9
^5
•2
J
"a.
.•§
*
O *c
—
J
_o
I
"5.
1
^
'I
1
I
M
4
e
°5
J
J
a °
•o o
O *5
^ cx T?
3 a 8
•S..2 a
31-
S»l 1
•A ST JL
lJ!
g.t: B
fli
111
S^ 8.
J ^ 2
|H
S Q. Q.
5j^
* -O 0
7-27
-------
Three plants wiped various fixtures with rags and solvents.
One plant wiped car body carriers and conveyor return covers.^
Another wiped x-tree stands and drip pans.1^ The third wiped
light fixtures in certain booths.1^
7.8.1 Advantages and Limitations of Alternatives
The Berylco™ scraper prevents sparks as required by the
plant's Fire/Safety Department, but it can only be used for
scraping hardened paint (on tacky coatings) from the center track
drive covers and floor grate support structures.4 This plant
also indicated annual water blasting is very time consuming
(about 5 days).4 One plant used grease and various covers on the
conveyor because it reduced the amount of time needed to clean.12
Using grease and water blasting to clean the stack was found to
be the quickest and most cost-effective method.^ Advantages and
limitations of other alternatives were not reported.
7.8.2 Reported Solvent Usage and VOC Emission Reductions
Table 7-9 presents the reported reductions for seven
alternative cleaning practices at four plants. One of the
highest reported reductions of alternative cleaning practices for
any booth component resulted from changing the way center track
drive covers were cleaned at one plant. Another plant estimated
the alternative cleaning practice for center track drive covers
(and floor grate support structures) avoided the use of nearly as
large a quantity of solvent; the percentage attributable to
center track drive covers is unknown.4 Alternative cleaning
practices based on the use of various covers for conveyors and
miscellaneous items reportedly resulted in very small
reductions.11'12
7.9 ALTERNATIVE CLEANING PRACTICES THAT AFFECT MULTIPLE BOOTH
COMPONENTS
Ten plants reported a variety of work practice changes that
reduced solvent usage and associated VOC emissions from cleaning
more than one type of booth component. The changes were not in
the cleaning activities but rather in work practices. They were
reported to reduce waste, conserve solvent, or increase the
efficiency of the solvent used.
7-28
-------
1-1
H
CO
Ed
ft!
E
X
H
Ex*
Oi
O
En
CO
Ed
^
H
EH
<
&
OS
pH
.1
|jj«
rri
0
CO
§
H
EH
U
D
Q
Ed
fc*«
Q
Cd
EH
ft!
O
DJ
W
ft!
e
rt\
r--
TABLE
«*:
c2
"I 1
U U
3 a.
O u t?
•J5 ^^ ^^
•3 " "So
" o S
U] •* x^
i
"S *
>L.
& -3 C"
g 00 *?*
c" s*1*'
g-2
^l
^
M
"••
!J
'5
E
M
•a
J3
O
2
^
C
M
4>
e\
g
n.
00
1
y
3
_o
'>
1
1
£
M
Z
r» fc
— —
"^ '
S""""
p~" —
«n ^t
'"•'
eo
"3?
JsT" **?
i!
b
>
o
U
o
•c
13
|
c
•2 g
1 —
._ «
5* ^3
*?
O !£;
•O O O M
I 1 V §
1 • |a
8582
iin
tt. o "5 ~'
^^
fs| ^^
^^ f^
1 lig
2
2
*• " SC
°» 8* LT §
.63 o M en
° o t: J
D 1 i 1
1
O -— s
^** ^n
^ c,
N S"
K —
Ci
^ ^ ^
^ £L /"^ c^
>*-' p1^ *** H
O a 5 o" 3 JS
H w H OS ffl flQ
c
2
1
"a.
€
1
X
1C 00
t* ^*
ft V
o -S
_
2
in in
O ^
-1 12-
^ s*
<*i —
.j1
'~'
k.
U
-
2
u
1
"5.
•3
'*
1
1
Cj
ll
o /->
^* ^f
o o,
00 Q^
*"" '
^^
^
C^
x™ '
llli
^,
2
irts of conveyors
iking tape
II
0 *
-------
C
jj
C
O
u
a
^
1
1
S
o -C* _.
g»-3 £
S eo-C1
I §"
g •-
1
If
6 6
•£ I g
a •— °
6 Tj-g
S « 'p «-
ails
ll
7-30
-------
Changes to the solvent application method were reported by
six of the plants surveyed. Cleaning solvent usage is reduced,
primarily, through reducing the amount of solvent applied to the
object being cleaned. To eliminate applying an excess amount of
solvent, the direct application of cleaning solvents is reduced
as much as possible or more efficient applicators are used. For
example, cleaning solvents are applied onto rags instead of the
object being cleaned; the object being cleaned is then wiped with
the wetted rags. Alternatively, more efficient applicators such
as sprayers are used, rather than just "sloshing" the solvent
onto the object to be cleaned.3'4'6'7'9'12
One plant reported reducing the frequency of cleaning. The
cleaning frequency was changed from once a week to once every
2 weeks. This resulted in an overall decrease in labor
requirements and an overall reduction in cleaning solvent usage.
Although paint buildup between cleanings doubled, solvent usage
during each cleaning shift increased by only 10 percent.8
Training the labor force on minimizing the use of cleaning
solvents was reported as a management practice implemented by
three plants.5'12'14 The purpose of the training was to increase
personnel awareness of exercising prudence in'regard to the use
of cleaning solvents. The training was provided through either
seminars or documents that present detailed, simple, step-by-step
instructions including pictures of every cleaning step.12'14
Also, implementing programs (e.g., a total toxic organic program
to segregate toxic or hazardous materials from nontoxic and
nonhazardous materials) and establishing guidelines to increase
personnel awareness with respect to handling hazardous materials
was reported to have reduced cleaning solvent usage at one
facility.5
Tracking the use and maintaining an inventory of cleaning
solvents was reported as a management practice used by eight
plants. The tracking was facilitated through installing
measuring devices in the solvent reservoirs and/or computerized
or conventional tracking procedures as well as maintaining an
7-31
-------
inventory of the cleaning solvent usage.3'5"8'10'11'14 In one
plant, the usage was monitored for each booth.14
Restricting access to cleaning solvents was reported as a
management practice used by one plant.6 The access to solvents
can be limited indirectly through providing the labor force with
limited quantities of cleaning solvents in cans or small buckets
instead of allowing unrestricted access to solvent tanks or
totes.
Recycling or reclamation and reuse of solvents was reported
as a solvent management practice used by one plant. All spent
solvents, even very small quantities, are collected. Reuse of
one cleaning solvent resulted in a 50-percent reduction of the
original quantity used.11
7.10 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7
1. Response to Section 114 Information Request for AutoAlliance
International, Inc., Flat Rock, MI. August 21, 1992.
2. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Belvidere, IL. August 1, 1992.
3. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Dodge City, MI. August 14, 1992.
4. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Sterling Heights, MI. August 14, 1992.
5. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Chicago, IL. August 14, 1992.
6. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Dearborn, MI. August 17, 1992.
7. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Twin Cities, MN. August 17, 1992..
8. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Fort Wayne, IN. August 14, 1992.
9. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Moraine, OH. August 14, 1992.
10. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK. August 14, 1993.
7-32
-------
11. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., East Liberty, OH. August 12,
1992.
12. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., Marysville, OH.
October 29, 1992.
13. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Nissan Motor
Manufacturing Corporation, USA, Smyrna, TN. September 28,
1992.
14. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Subaru-Isuzu
Auto Incorporated, Lafayette, IN. September 15, 1992.
15. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, USA, Inc., Georgetown, KY.
16. Memorandum and attachments from Azar, S., MRI, to
Serageldin, M., EPA/CPB. September 28, 1992. Site
Visit--Chrysler Corporation Jefferson North Assembly Plant,
Detroit, MI.
7-33
-------
APPENDIX A
FACILITY INFORMATION
-------
-------
If
'§ 8
0. u
| II
i 1 §•
0 *g
* If
a S
< 0
a e
•I S.-S
€ |*|
llll!
|
6
1
01
!2 ,.
%
£ M s
t
1!
§>
Manufacturing comp
(year operation starte<
00
SO
•t
S
8
oo
PI
ii 8
Ji
III
p
M «
||
P
OO
1 Auto Alliance
International, Inc. (19
^
~*
PI
S!
i
£
oo
o
00
QZ a. J5
r-
r-
oo
P4 «v)
Illinois/
Belvidere/
Boone
Chrysler Corp.—
Belvidere (1965)
X
r3
x>
so
X)
XI
00
N
£
PI
r-
o
Q
Z
S
tM PI
Michigan/
Warren/
Wayne
Chrysler Corp.—
Dodge City (1938)
o\
N
m
PI
S
in
OS
(M
§
S
r-
PI
Shadow
Sundance
8
fM P4
Michigan/
S.H./
Macomb
Chrysler Corp.—
Sterling Heights (1984
JSJ
•^
2
S
8
pi
S
pi
ao
^rt
3|
PI
(M PI
III
Ford Motor Company
Chicago
(1924)
so
N
8
00
tM
5
cs
3
in
00
00
i
2
ts -«
Michigan/
Dearborn/
Wayne
1
Ford Motor Company
Dearborn
(1918)
00
Csl
»
r-
s
—
£
S
1,1s
I
J
00
oo
00
(S d
Minnesota/
Saint Paul/
Ramsey
I
Ford Motor Company
Twin Cities
(1925)
m
PI
2
t?
ts
o
§
0-
'En ^
if
Si
s
d m
Indiana/
Roanoke/
Allen
1
Is
oe 0\
U **
(V)
PI
i
•tn
K
2
l§
K
||
^f **C
II §
^s
^^
3 'TJ
•B 3
S-9 -
III
SO
ts PI
in
i
(General Motors Corp.
Moraine
(1981)
w
A-l
-------
TJ
(U
O
o
H
i
I
e .
Jj
ill
cs
in
« U
3
r- r» r»
^ ^5 ^5
°i, °*. °i
NO NO NO
in m in
- =
•IM
SSD
H
In
3- a.
00 ON
1
y <
2 ^
« ON
U 00
'6 ON
i
II
IS
It
Is
UTS
I
co C-
8
CO
11
11
lie
Hi
BO ^
I M
A-2
-------
2
0
M
CO
CO
H
2
u
0
1
CO*
1?
SOLVE
i
(rf
Cd
J
U
b
O
CO
«
CO
^-1
o
o
OQ
1
CO
H
a
2
O
2
O
H
g
2
H
^
U
ffl
P
• to
.1 •§ "I"
•- J *
" E ?
> ••;
w '"
• "3 "•
|1 r
ll1
s
ll?
•s s
B 3
ri
u
C"
*
|
I
m
'g
3j
••i
*
2«
s|
"M
o •
f- a.
^
•g
c.
tj
1
(Booth No.),
name, process
performed inside
the booth
9
ll
g §•
S 3
-•
•c
vndrsA,
ovable grales,
-pressure ventu
III
a*
8"
M
J
V
K
5
1
(IA) Underfloor
spray, PVC under-
body coaling of
the vehicle exterior
l!
11
o z
•c
vndraA,
ovable grates,
-pressure venlu
III
z
Q
(""*
&
Co
~
»
—
1
(2A) Sloneguard
spray, rocker
panel coating
(exterior)
Non-Melh
Wolvenne
!i
0 Z
•c
vndraft,
ovable grates,
-presiure venlu
ill
z
o
f**
M
^
o
M
3
f
1
(3A) Primer,
surface primer
application
||
11
ll
ll*
(S 1 1
Z
M
i
O
M
CS
f
i
ifjji
;j
s 'i
0 Z
vndrsft,
ovable grales,
cyclone
Is*
Q 8 S
z
^
-------
3 -
If
li
«*
T3
a;
3
C
•H
JJ
§
S\s
fl
3 §
to S
C »
ii
I
llf
* 2
S 3
•2'5
in
§1!
£.!
£{.!»
ii
i:
A-4
-------
2 'a
«
-------
•o
(U
3
C
•H
jj
C
O
u
w
J
I
A-6
-------
«? ^F- " S
^1,8 jjPj'si,:*
?! 2 H J ,2 „ « S
V
I
<
T)
(U
d
o
u
I
II
2
•
ll
I
5 1.1
ill
|i,
111
,,?.
s.
I.
51
li
s a
r^ —™
£l
If
-«
S-51
*1J
ell
-
C u
I!
il
£§
A-7
-------
T3
0)
C
o
o
cs
1
M
^ ei
* B .C
Quantity of
lolvent uied in
1991, gal
l!
ii
u
s
s
1
I
'
I
CO
5
51
•h
il
•3
1
i
1
(Booth No.),
name, proceia
performed inaide
the booth
1
1 1
S 3
C
•f s =
ill
3 I I
X
00
X
a
X
o
m
a
(12) Primer and
antichip applica-
tion
•g
it
_•
r downdra
>le gralei,
•h walll
ill
X
ao
X
a
X
5
fS
8
(14) Topcoat appli-
cation '
/
le grilei,
ah walll
s a j
?
ao
« X
-i :
••• ••
—
1 «
is
SI
(16) Topcoat
repair A high bake
£?
||i
il?
s
\f\
x
jfc
ao
x
£
^
|
.
5 .ii
1"
li
(21) Final repair &
low bake
„.-
8 • .
1 =1
3 «• *
- "I *
ill
j*
ao
r-
* I
-1 :
•M ••
§
1
•§
u.
i
1
—
P
',-
%*
^%^^
^ ^ \
'/•* v
'^?
-^*
&>*'
IE*
W?9
g£g
iK
^< ,»
Ivenu for all
H
•5
s
J!
li
ii
X
«•
M
1
M
§"
^
i
3
(1) Main enamel,
topcoat application
.S
li
£ U
«
•8
li
II
X
«•
M
8
M
9
§
a"
J
S
if «—
6 . '3
I--H
sill
J!
il
I!
s
fs|
M
s
x
J
tn
ao
V
I
3
(3) Antichip,
antichip & primer
application
J!
ii
*• 1C
Is
il
s
r-
X
I
M
£
^
e
e
i
3
r§
•g< §.
s
Ji
i\
s
r»
x
«
X
-J
ri
m
§
i
a
(8) Final repair,
topcoat repair
£
m
§ -
iJ
2 C
CO M
X
^
M
1
X
£
-------
T3
(U
3
•H
4J
c
o
o
tN
I
A-9
-------
l!
n
afx-
5 g s«
.2 * O
i. ••» CL _^
a § •£ 2
«
.s c 9. « «
g-S =1 *
< o I & o
T3
(U
C
•H
4J
C
o
u
I
3 a c
si *
•
I .=
?|5
' -1
l
111
11!
Ill
it
3-j
H
41
i
°--S
Hi
a s.1
sol
ifi
Ill
111
• a. •
1
|
I &
I
A-10
-------
I
s
i'
s
'III
.S3.
* *• ••
; 2 2
c •» e e vi go
IS * I 83
•as -a -s " 3
If
11
I*
a. a. a. g
j_i_j S
o o o
BBEj*
TJ
0)
3
•H
iJ
c
o
u
1
i *
m
"S>
s •=
li
i
M
C 2
S -3
li
II
3
M
«
I j
• •«
§ s
S •*
m M
•g
^ 2
ll
!l
S
-------
•o
0)
3
C
O
O
ha
C
'2 — —"
If
i §
||
.§
§
u
IS
1
J
* "S
1*^
2 4 3 i
S
» _ § §
S «al of
|
g g
111
X
M
g
K
S
s
i
On repaired i
only
(3) Second color
baaecoat/clearco
application
1
g |
Downdraft
gralea, My
acrubber
X
M
g
M
0
O
1
a.
i
j
(4) Third color,
no painting ia
performed
I
i -
i 2
111
X
M
g
M
S
1.
}'
(5) Small paru,
faacia painting
m
1-s
I i
11
l|l
X
2
M
b
M
g
g
i
|
en
(6) Steering
column,
ateering column
painting
A-12
-------
3*3
•^ u
oe «•» «o NX
3 "3 "•
"
-------
•o
0)
c
•1-1
4J
c
o
u
w
A-14
-------
•d
0)
c
•H
4J
C
o
u
w
j
1
iff
'si 1
« E 9
U 2 "3
1*1
•^ «
Qunilily of
aulvenl uaed in
1991, gal
If
ii
5J
u
.5
•c
TJ
1
U
5
•|
l
a
i
3«
:i
y J>
It
II
|
S.
1
(Booth No.),
name, proceu
performed inaide
the booth
1
3*
£ S
9 &
si
1
g 5
fi J
1'
1 8
ii
X
r*
M
>
tn
••
M
J
V)
m
g 9
£ ^
IS
•s -•
Ji
M
>
!n
^*
M
_1
a
o
|
«
|
I
(5) Final Touch-
Up 2, repair paint
proceM (ayatem
paint)
JO
1 o
2 1
Downdraft,
gralea, dry
«
M
>
VI
•• •
M
J
£
£
ja
>
5
i
(6) Final Touch-
Up 3, repair paint
proceM (lacquer)
£
|
i e
S S.
i!
Is
i&
X
in
M
ae
!n
••
K
J
a
„
$
!
\
(7) Final Touch-
Up 4, repair paint
proceM ayatem
paint
«
JO
1 e
*• a.
ii
Is
&i
X
il
—
M
J
\rt
C4
i
£
a
1
(1) Final Touch-
Up S, repair paint
proceM ayatem
paint
J>
1 9
e JJ
Downdraft,
gratea, dry
X
w
M
>
r-
*•
M
J
!2
.a
«
£
52f
zi I
1
(9) Line 1 aealer,
aealer application
I
i 5
E _2
Downdraft,
gratea, dry
X
m
••
M
J
S
.3
«
^
iiSf
zcl
!
(10) Line 1
deadener, PVC
undercoating
1
CO-
5|
il
"S 3
ii
X
M
*
S
M
J
1
§s
•e «•
? i
zl
1
(1 1) Line 1 primer
aurfacer, primer A
aniichip
application
2
•
g g
8 2
-ii
Q a*
as
*
?5
M
J
S
i
•0*
m
1
ii-s
•j§.§
f rl:
-(- .
1
I i
6 ^
Downdraft,
gratea, acru
X
X
»
S
M
_J
S
i
m
m
i
(13) Line 1
Topcoat B, topcoat
application
•j»«
£
il?
Ill
A-15
-------
T3
0)
3
C
•H
4J
O
U
•— •
11
X
1
(18) Line 2 sealer.
paint sealer
application
JU
wndraft, remov
lei, dry booth
£ £
X
£
M
*
•M
M
9O
«
,2
S
Z i
1
(19) Line 2
deadener,
PVC/Deadener
application
i
wndraft, remov
lei, dyna tubel
a M
X
„
1
H
-J
i
s
i
(20) Line 2 primer
surfacer, primer
surfacer
application
j
wndraft, remov
lea, dyna tubei
Q M
X
w
|
M
a
s
00"
1
8 f - .1
J
wndraft, remov
lea, ifyna tubei
ii
X
M
£
K
—
oe"
1
1
(23) Line 2 repair,
repair paint
application
Jf
• S,*
111
x Si
A-16
-------
8S '
>
^
3
* I
•a
(U
§
•H
4J
c
o
o
(N
cq
j
I
Is
• i
15
•s
5 e
II
£
I-5
i i
it
M >
,* •
i
§f-*
ir
|v*
III
S.U
11-*
It!
A-17
-------
-
«
T3
0)
C
o
u
OS
Ed
1
I
!*
« s
s »
"8 B
.s
1*
ndraft
wat
Dow
IE
11
li
&l
•s
gralet,
elimina
11
fl
II
Is-
Jl-
M
fl.
« 3 5
1:1
JM
U aoT>
.•2 5
CO <=
~
9"1
-1 S
* 0
M
J S
1
1
.2
t
(2) topcoat
application
and
(3) prime
aniichip
pplication
1
i*
2 a.
It
Sl
6) Faacia paint
(i) T
top
Two-
air (to
(4) Surfacer,
coat Si aniic
application
e
Ir
A-ia
-------
il
I
i
9
£
•5
§>
£
•a
(U
3
•H
JJ
O
O
I
11
8 »
Is
& E
s >
Is I
.sal
«f
a -o
IS
2 >
•'c
5.S
S
is
M X
la
2
-1
a
s
In
11
•s .-
11
i I
s 5
HI
I
No.
(B
na
pe
th
perfor
(S) Black & wax
black-out A inn
wax application
mper,
t application
Bu
(7) Wax booth.
under floor wax &
acid-rain-proof
pplication
3401) Under
ntichip
pplication to
derbody
(341 1) (2)
Primer/interior
primer applica
innercoal
application, bl
out
(34 15) Tou
primer appl
clear
(34 IT) To
topcoat &
coal appli
A
(34 1
topc
clear
appli
1
Jl
i3
j
-------
T3
0)
C
•H
JJ
C
o
Ed
J
* t
3 -ir
111
S3 -.
5 s S1
Ss J '2
111
•5s-
i
•a
V *
s g
n
Je
'J
at
'I
•
w
S
i
1
*5
3
I
si
|i
5 . §
!- 0.
'S
a.
g
a.
(Booth No.),
name, protein
performed in>id«
the booth
9
I x
1 1
4 i
2 u
|
1 i .
Downdraft.
gratei, wale
dynalube
Z
«
*
8
X
H
1
§
0
1
U
•4
O
(34 19) Topcoat C,
manual application
of topcoat & clear-
coat
JB
5 °c
if
ii
I!
z
— •
M
?
v£>
^™
M
•J
S!
|
-"
I
i.
•
u
(3424)
Underbody/Black-
out, manual appli-
cation of black-out
lo body & manual
wax application
JS
.0
11
«|
III
Z
—
M
J
vO
MM
M
J
§
g
S
f
jj
u
(3426) Interior
wax, louch-up
application of
black-out to under-
body
£
g «
£ i
l!=
z
—
K
*
«
^
M
•J
2
§
"W
1
(M
fl
U
f 1 sill If
C g > 5 S 2 3 J
li
i «
iii
z
o
M
«
^
M
-1
g
1
jj
U
(33 II) Wax appli-
cation, manual
application of wax
to body
|1
|f
III
z
B*
K
o
^
M
-1
5
|
S
U
(3432) Topcoat
repair, manual
repair application
of topcoat lo body
?
1
1
(2
A-20
-------
3
C
•H
AJ
O
u
CN
CO
J
I
g x
'N|
> i
e
"i-s
>, 8 «•
.99.
ll
ll
Booth chiricleriitici
w
.2
I
c
^5
.s
5
m
;|
3 i
1!
H CL
•5
TS
1
(Booth No.),
name, proceM
performed iniide
the booth
2
•c
1 1
• 6
s s
Ceiling dry filter
exhauit, plant floor
X
o
v*\ r*
90 O>
1
>o
8
s- s.
-S "5.
(3231) (2)
Adheaive coaling,
manual application
of adheaive to
interior plaitic
Downdrlft, removable
gratei, walerwaih
venluri
X ,
K>
M
^
f^
^
•*
1
••
I
e
(3238) Faicia
primer, manual
application of
adheaion promotor
and primer
DowndraA, removable
gratei, walerwaih
walli
X
tn
•~
M
^
«
M
J
oo
—
1
1
1
(3241) Topcoat A,
manual application
(A)
Downdraft, removable
gralei, walerwaih
venluri
X
—
M
^
«•
M
-J
M
—
1
••
%
I
(3241) Topcoat B,
manual and robotic
application (B) of
lopcoal
Side venluri, water,
water curtain
m
M
^
M
J
«O
!
>o
•8
Q.
h
(3244) (2) Molded
plaitic painting,
manual application
of lacquer to
interior plaitici
Side venluri,
removable gratea,
waterwaih venturi
M
^
S
SQ
If
j ?
vi r>
•o e>
3
-------
TJ
0)
•H
Jj
C
O
O
ta
j
I
A-22
-------
APPENDIX B
FACILITY PROFILES
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
B.I AUTOALLIANCE ASSEMBLY PLANT (AAP)
FLAT ROCK, MICHIGAN ...... B-l
B.2 CHRYSLER, BELVIDERE ASSEMBLY PLANT (CBAP)
BELVIDERE, ILLINOIS .... B-4
B.3 CHRYSLER, DODGE CITY ASSEMBLY PLANT (CDCAP)
WARREN, MICHIGAN B-7
B.4 CHRYSLER, STERLING HEIGHTS ASSEMBLY PLANT (CSHAP)
STERLING HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN B-9
B.5 FORD, CHICAGO ASSEMBLY PLANT (FCAP)
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ... B-12
B.6 FORD, DEARBORN ASSEMBLY PLANT (FDAP)
DEARBORN, MICHIGAN B-13
?
B.7 FORD, TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT (FTCAP)
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA B-16
B.8 GENERAL MOTORS, FORT WAYNE ASSEMBLY PLANT (GMFWAP)
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA B-19
B.9 GENERAL MOTORS, MORAINE ASSEMBLY PLANT (GMMAP)
MORAINE, OHIO B-21
B.10 GENERAL MOTORS, OKLAHOMA CITY ASSEMBLY PLANT (GMOKAP)
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA . B-24
B.ll HONDA, EAST LIBERTY ASSEMBLY PLANT (HELAP)
EAST LIBERTY, OHIO B-27
B.12 HONDA, MARYSVILLE ASSEMBLY PLANT (HMAP)
MARYSVILLE, OHIO B-29
B.13 NISSAN ASSEMBLY PLANT (NAP) SMYRNA, TENNESSEE . . . B-33
B.14 SUBARU-ISUZU ASSEMBLY PLANT (SLAP)
LAFAYETTE, INDIANA B-35
B.15 TOYOTA ASSEMBLY PLANT (TAP) GEORGETOWN, KENTUCKY . . B-37
B.16 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B B-40
-------
-------
APPENDIX B.
FACILITY PROFILES
This appendix summarizes data from 15 plants that responded
to an EPA request for information. Included are the number of
spray booths and their use, the types of paint and cleaning
solvents used, the cleaning practices for each booth component,
the total usage of booth cleaning and purge solvents, resulting
VOC emissions, and the spent solvent disposal practices. All •
data were derived from responses to the EPA's Section" 114
information request, except where additional references are
noted.1"15
Chapter 5 describes how the plants were asked to report the
total VOC emissions from solvents used for booth cleaning and to
use the UOS approach to present solvent usage, waste, and
emissions from industrial or multiple booths. This appendix
compares the emissions from both procedures and identifies any
unresolved discrepancies between them.
B.I AUTOALLIANCE ASSEMBLY PLANT (AAP) FLAT ROCK, MICHIGAN1
B.I.I spray Booths
The AAP has 16 (main-color split) booths. In these booths,
both automotive bodies and plastic parts are painted. For
painting automotive bodies, two booths are used for applying
basecoat and clearcoat; one booth is used for applying PVC
underbody coating; one booth is used for applying stoneguard
coating; one booth is used for applying primer surfacer; one
booth is used for applying two-tone paint; and one booth is used
for blackout. For painting plastic parts, three booths are used
B-l
-------
to apply basecoat and clearcoat to small parts, and six booths
are used for painting bumpers.
B.I.2 Paint Type
Four main types of paints are applied in the booths:
(1) high-solids urethane antichip, (2) high-solids acrylic/
melamine basecoat, (3) high-solids acrylic/melamine clearcoat,
and (4) air dry water-based blackout paint.
B.I.3 Cleaning Practices
Both organic solvents and a variety of alternative cleaning
practices are used to remove paint overspray in the booths. The
cleaning practices for each of the booth components are as
follows:
1. Walls. Visqueen™ covers are used on sections of the
walls where paint overspray is heavy in the automotive painting
booths. When necessary, the Visqueen™ covers are removed. Any
residual paint remaining in these areas, and light paint buildup ?
in other areas, is removed by applying organic solvent with a
deck brush or rag and scrubbing; the walls are then wiped clean
with a squeegee.
Walls in the booths used for painting plastic parts are
covered with plastic sheeting (which is sprayed with fly catch).
No organic solvents are used.
2, Windows. Heavy paint buildup in the automotive painting
booths is removed with a razor blade. Any residual paint (and
light overspray} is removed by applying organic solvent from a
spray bottle, scrubbing with a rag, and using a squeegee for
final cleaning. All overspray in the parts painting booths is
removed by scraping with a razor blade.
3. Grates. High-pressure water blasting once a week is
used to clean grates (in place) in the undercoating booth.
Grates in the other automotive body painting booths are removed
for onsite paint stripping using a fluidized, hot-sand stripping
system. Grates in the parts painting booth are removed for paint
cleaning via incineration.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are scraped.
B-2
-------
5. Robot3 and related equipment are cleaned by manual
scraping. Where possible, grease is applied to surfaces to
prevent or reduce paint adhesion to the equipment.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned at the end
of the production shifts using sponges and brushes that are
dipped into a solvent container. The used solvent is then
transferred to a spent solvent storage tote that is taken to an
offsite reclamation facility. The type of solvent used and the
amount collected were not reported.
7. Fixtures are mostly covered with peelable coatings.
B.I.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include Non-Meth 1200.7™ and Hasco-Wolverine EC™.
Table B-l shows the cleaning solvent usage based on the plant
inventory and usage records. No spent booth cleaning solvent is-
collected.
TABLE B-l.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR ALL
SPRAY BOOTHS AT AAP1
Cleaning solvent
Non-Meth 1200.7™
Hasco Wolverine EC"
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
13,300
3,200
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
13,300
1,300
Purging
spray guns
0
0
Other
0
1,900
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
6.23
5.72
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
41.4
3.7
1 ton = 2,000 Ib.
Two solvents, Grow-8056™ and Grow-8019™, are used for
purging spray guns used for painting automotive bodies and
plastic parts, respectively. Both solvents are 100 percent
VOC's. In 1991, 82 percent of Grow-8056™ and 26 percent of
Grow-8019™ were collected and shipped to an offsite reclamation
facility.16
B-3
-------
B.I.5 VOC Emissions
The plant reported total VOC emissions from all sources in
1991 were 1,460 tons, of which 64.6 tons were from spray booth
cleaning. However, the plant also developed three UOS's (one for
the undercoating booth, one for the six automotive painting
booths, and one for the nine parts painting booths) from which
they reported emissions of only 43.9 tons/yr. (Correction of the
VOC content of one solvent used in the calculations resulted in
total VOC emissions of 45.1 tons/yr, as shown in Table B-l.)
According to plant personnel, the UOS's do not include
20.8 tons/yr of VOC emissions that resulted from cleaning spray
booth equipment outside the booth.16 Plant personnel also
indicated the use of organic solvent for cleaning each booth is
not monitored and the amounts also could not be estimated.16
B.2 CHRYSLER, BELVIDERE ASSEMBLY PLANT (CBAP) BELVIDERE,
ILLINOIS2
B.2.1 Spray Booths
The CBAP has four (main-color split) booths. Two are used
for applying basecoat and clearcoat to car bodies; one is for
topcoat repair, and one is for applying blackout to the underbody
components.
B.2.2 Paint Type
Two main types of paints are applied in the booths:
(l) high-solids acrylic/melamine topcoat (basecoat and
clearcoat), and (2) air dry water-based blackout paint.
B.2.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls in the three topcoat application/repair booths are
all glass and are coated with a water-washable, clear tacky
coating. The walls are cleaned by spraying with large amounts of
city tap water at approximately 40 psi. After cleaning, a new
coat of tacky coating is applied. The walls in the blackout
B-4
-------
booth are covered with polyethylene sheets that are replaced
weekly. However, in the middle of the week the dried paint
overspray is removed using a broom to sweep it down.
2. Windows in the blackout booth are cleaned using razor
blade scrapers or putty knives (for stubborn spots).
3. Grates are removed nightly or weekly, depending upon the
amount of paint overspray, and are replaced with clean grates.
The dirty grates are stripped onsite using a hot alkaline
stripper. Grates are not used in the blackout booth.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are mopped with booth cleaning
solvent every night. The floor inside the blackout booth is
covered with triple layers of a chipboard paper. During the week
the floors are swept and the top layer of chipboards paper is
peeled off, if necessary.
5. Robots and related equipment are manually wiped down, •
using rags and cleaning solvent (Sol 365) . Some cabinetry
(approximately 15 percent) is covered with aluminum foil
sheeting, which is changed every night; other cabinetry
(approximately 20 percent) is coated with the same tacky booth
coating used for walls.
6. Robotic and manual-spray gun tips are manually wiped
using solvent dampened rags during the production shifts, break
times, and immediately at the end of the production shifts.
Spray gun tips in the blackout booth are cleaned using rags
moistened with naphtha.
7. Fixtures (center-track drive covers) are flooded with
center-track stripper (Polystrip 3290™). After 15 to 20 minutes,
the paint is loosened using flat-bladed scrapers. Then, the
center-track drive is sprayed with low pressure water. This
plant cannot use high-pressure water blasting because this method
damages the wet pans, which are close to the grates.
B.2.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include 301-365™, Polystrip-3290™, and Sol-432™ (purge
solvent). Table B-2 shows the cleaning solvent usage based on
B-5
-------
plant inventory records. From a total of 80,080 gallons (gal) of
purge solvent used during the reported year, 3,800 gal
(5 percent) were used for booth cleaning. No cleaning solvents,
including those used for purging the paint guns and associated
lines, are collected for recycling or reclamation.
TABLE B-2.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR CBAP
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)2
Cleaning solvent
Sol-365™
Polystrip-32901"
Sol-432™ (purge
solvent)
Annual total
solvent
usage, gai/yr
40,170
3,477
80,080
Annual solvent usage, gai/yr
Booth
cleaning
40,170
3,477
3,800
Purging
spray guns
0
0
76,280
Other
0
0
0
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
6.80
5.85
7.10
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr*
137
10
13
*The spent solvent collected from booth cleaning and shipped offsite for disposal contained 7 tons of
VOCs; the total weight of waste, including contaminants, was not reported.
Plant personnel estimated, based on engineering judgment,
that 45 percent of the cleaning solvents were used for cleaning
each topcoat application booth (a total of 90 percent for two
booths), and 10 percent of the cleaning solvents were used for
cleaning the repair booth.17
B.2.5 VQC Emissions
The plant reported that total VOC emissions from all sources
in 1991 were 1,015 tons, of which 160 tons resulted from spray
booth" cleaning. The plant developed one UOS that included the
three painting booths (no solvent was used in the blackout
booth). As shown in Table B-2, the sum of emissions for all
solvents in the UOS also equals 160 tons.
B-6
-------
B.3 CHRYSLER, DODGE CITY ASSEMBLY PLANT (CDCAP) WARREN,
MICHIGAN3
B.3.1 Spray Booths
The CDCAP has seven (main-color split) booths. Two booths
are used for applying stoneguard, basecoat, and clearcoat. The
uses of the other booths are as follows: one booth for applying
two-tone paint, two booths for topcoat repair (the paint on car
bodies is repaired after the low-bake stage in one booth and
after the high-bake stage in the other booth); one booth for
applying black paint (blackout) to the grills and wheel wells;
and one booth for applying black paint to the chassis.
B.3.2. Paint Type
For main types of paints are applied in the booths:
(1) high-solids urethane stoneguard, (2) high-solids acrylic/
melamine basecoat, (3) high-solids acrylic/melamine clearcoat,
and (4) air-dry, water-based blackout paint.
B.3.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls in most booths are cleaned using the following
process: (1) spraying with cleaning solvent pumped from 55-gal
drums, (2) manual scrubbing with brushes, and (3) rinsing with
water. The walls are manually scraped in the blackout booths,
once a month in one and as needed in the other.
2. Windows are cleaned in a similar manner as the walls,
except in one blackout booth where the windows are sprayed with
Windex1* or glass cleaner and wiped with paper towels.
3. Grates are removed once a week and are taken to the
main-color spray booths. Grates are cleaned by being flipped and
washed several times using high-pressure water blasting. When
clean, the grates are coated with a non-VOC grate-coating.
Finally, the coated grates are reinstalled.
B-7
-------
4. Floors adjacent to booths are covered with one-sided
fireproof, aluminum foil sheets. A new layer of aluminum foil
sheeting is added or replaced, as necessary.
5. Robots and related equipment are manually wiped down
using lint-free cloths and cleaning solvent. Some paint line
hoses are wrapped in plastic wrap. Some equipment used for high-
voltage electrostatic (HVES) paint application is covered with
Tyvex1*.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned by wiping
with a lint-free cloth and purge solvent. At the end of each
production shift, some spray gun tips (bell cups) are cleaned
using purge solvent and small paint brushes.
7. Fixtures (center-track drive covers) are coated with
grease and are manually scraped on a rotating, weekly basis.
B.3.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include AX-400 Paint Stripper1*, purge solvent, glass
cleaner, Windex™, and Rambo™. Table B-3 shows the cleaning
solvent usage based on plant inventory records,
TABLE B-3. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR
CDCAP (ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)3
Cleaning solvent
AX-400"1
Purge solvent
Glass cleaner
Windex-
Rambo™
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
55,385
140,849
447
52
1,100
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
55,385
10,034
5
1
1,100
Purging
spray guns
0
130,815
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
51
0
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
6.8
7.12
1.56
1.56
6.3
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
188
36
0
0
3.5
From a total of 140,849 gal of the purge solvent used during
the reported year, 10,034 gal were used for booth cleaning.
Plant personnel could not estimate the amount of solvent used for
cleaning each booth. Spent booth cleaning solvents are not
B-8
-------
collected. However, in 1991, 130,815 gal of contaminated purge
solvent from purging spray guns and lines were collected and sent
to an offsite facility for reclamation (the VOC and contaminant
concentration were not reported).
B.3.5 VOC Emissions
Tha. plant reported that total VOC emissions from all sources
i
in 1991 were 1,210 tons, of which 227.5 were from spray booth
cleaning. The plant developed two UOS's: one for the booth used
to apply blackout to the grills and wheel wells, and the second
for all the other booths. As shown in Table B-3, the sum of the
emissions for all solvents in the UOS's also equals 227.5 tons.
B.4 CHRYSLER, STERLING HEIGHTS ASSEMBLY PLANT (CSHAP) STERLING
HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN4
B.4.1 Spray Booths
The CSHAP has six (main-color split) booths. Two booths ar^e
used for applying basecoat and clearcoat. The uses of the other
booths are as follows: one booth for applying antichip and two-
tone paint to car bodies, two booths for topcoat repair (the
paint on car bodies is repaired after the low-bake stage in one
booth and after the high-bake stage in the other booth), and one
booth for blackout of the wheel wells.
B.4.2 Paint Type
Four main types of paints are applied in the booths:
(1) high-solids urethane antichip, (2) high-solids acrylic/
melamine basecoat, (3) high-solids acrylic/melamine clearcoat,
and (4) air dry water-based blackout paint.
B.4.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls in four booths are covered with strippable
coatings once a month. Between stripping, the walls are wiped as
needed with a lint-free cloth that is dampened with solvent. The
walls in the blackout booth are covered with a clear, heavy
B-9
-------
plastic film. Dried paint is removed using a dry cloth or is
brushed onto the floor where it is removed using a vacuum
cleaner. In the low-bake repair booth, the walls remain
uncovered and are cleaned nightly, using cloths dampened with
solvent.
2, Windows are brushed with solvents, then cleaned with
squeegees. In some areas, the windows are covered with plastic
cling film. In the blackout booth, the windows are sprayed with
a water-based cleaner, then cleaned by squeegees, and finally are
wiped with dry paper towels.
3. Grates are removed once a week and cleaned by a contract
cleaning company onsite, using high-pressure water blasting. In
addition, grates are sprayed with a non-VOC removable coating.
Grates in the blackout booth are also covered by roofing tar
paper. ' :
4. Floo'rs adjacent to booths are partially masked (covered)
with one-sided fireproof, aluminum foil sheeting or roofing tar
paper. The exposed areas are mopped with floor cleaners.
5. Robots and related equipment are masked with aluminum
foil sheeting or masking tape, wherever possible. Also, some
manual cleaning is performed using lint-free cloths or brushes
dampened with solvent.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned at the end
of each production shift and during breaks by wiping with a
lint-free cloth dampened with solvent.
7. Fixtures (center-track drive covers, center rails, and
I-beams) are coated with tacky coating and are manually scraped
weekly with flat-bladed Berylco™ scrapers.
B.4.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include MS-8464 (purge solvent), AX-400 Paint Stripper™,
Shapkleen-21*, White Vincote1*, and Nasco™ glass cleaner. Based on
the inventory records, from a total of 82,712 gal of purge
solvent used during the reported year, 4,136 gal (5 percent) were
B-10
-------
used for booth cleaning. Table B-4 shows Che cleaning solvent
usage based on the plant inventory records.
TABLE B-4.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR
CSHAP (ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)4
Cleaning solvent
MS-8464™ (purge
solvent)
AX-WO™
Shapkleen-21"
White Vincote™
Nasco1* glass cleaner
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
82,712
19,140
1.920
385
150
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
4,136
19,140
1,920
385
75
Purging
spray guns
78,576
0
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
0
75
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
6.96
6.90
3.60
8.40
1.56
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
14.4
66
3.5
1.6
0
The spent cleaning solvents from booth cleaning are not ;
collected. However, a portion of the purge solvent used for
purging the automatic and manual paint spray equipment (before
the paint color change) ,is collected and reclaimed by an offsite
facility. According to the plant, the reclamation facility
reported collecting 54,773 gal of contaminated purge solvent in
1991. They also reported the average composition of the waste
was 8.97 weight percent solids and 0.597 weight percent water.
B.4,5 VOC Emissions
The plant reported that total VOC emissions from all sources
in 1991 were 586 tons, of which 85.6 tons were from spray booth
cleaning. The plant developed three UOS's: one for the blackout
booth, one for the topcoat repair after the low-bake stage, and
one for the other four booths. The sum of the emissions for all
solvents in the UOS's also equals 85.6 tons, and the results are
shown in Table B-4. Plant personnel indicated that the use of
organic solvent for cleaning each booth is not monitored, and the
amount of solvent used for cleaning each booth could not be
estimated.18
B-ll
-------
B.5 FORD, CHICAGO ASSEMBLY PLANT (FCAP) CHICAGO, ILLINOIS5
B.5.1 Sprav Booths
The FCAP has seven booths. One is used for applying
primer/guidecoat; two are used for applying basecoat and
clearcoat; one is used for topcoat repair of the two-tone paint
color (was not used in 1991) ; one is used for applying flange
primer/black paint (blackout); one is used for repairing topcoat
on the wheels; and one is used for applying transit coating on
some areas on car bodies (e.g., hoods, roofs, etc.).
B.5.2 Paint Type
Three main types of paints are applied in the booths:
(1) urethane antichip and nick guard primer, stoneguard, and
flange primer/black paint; (2) high-solids acrylic/melamine
primer/guidecoat, basecoat, clearcoat, and solid colors; and
(3) water-based transit coating.
B.,5.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. Daily cleaning is performed for the topcoat, primer,
and two-tone repair booths. The other three booths are cleaned
once a week. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1= Walls in the primer and topcoat booths are cleaned using
low VOC cleaners and abrasive pads as needed. In the other
booths, the walls are cleaned or are painted with latex paint as
needed.
2. Windows are cleaned using low VOC cleaners and abrasive
pads, as needed.
3. Grates are removed on a rotational basis, and are placed
in a tank of hot caustic solution to be soaked.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are covered with tar paper
(which is changed weekly) or soapy water saturated carpeting.
5. Robots and related equipment are both sprayed with purge
solvent four (4) times per day and manually wiped.
B-12
-------
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips (turbobell cups) are
placed in an ultrasonic cleaner twice a day.
7. Fixtures are cleaned in the same manner as the walls.
B.5.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include Gage 31295 (AAD 803)™, Product Sol 50-8-3™,
Product Sol 777™, and Peerless 813™ floor cleaner. Approximately
42 percent of the purge solvent was used for booth cleaning.1^
No waste booth cleaning solvent was collected; all of the spent
solvent from purging the spray guns and lines was reportedly
collected (but the composition of the collected waste was not
reported).
B.5.5 VOC Emissions
The plant reported total VOC emissions from all sources in
1991 were 1,009 tons, but did not report the total VOC emissions-
from spray booth cleaning. Plant personnel developed"one UOS
that included all of the booths in which solvents were used.
They also reported the plantwide usage of each solvent for spray
booth cleaning and indicated no waste was collected. Thus,
plantwide VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning were
calculated. The total was 347 tons/yr, as shown in Table B-5.
B.6 FORD, DEARBORN ASSEMBLY PLANT (FDAP) DEARBORN, MICHIGAN6
B.6.1 Spray Booths
The FDAP has five booths. One is used for applying primer
and antichip; one is used for applying basecoat and clearcoat;
one is used for topcoat repair; one is used for final repair, and
one is used for fascia painting.
B.6.2 Paint Type
Three main types of paints are applied: (1) one-component
urethane antichip, (2) acrylic enamel basecoat and clearcoat, and
(3) modified-polyester colored primer for interior and exterior.
B.6.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is cleaned using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
B-13
-------
TABLE B-5. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)5
Cleaning solvent
Gage 31295 (AAD
803)" (purge solvent)
Product Sol 50-8-3"
(hose cleaner)
Product Sol 777"
(floor & wall cleaner)
Peerless 813™ (floor
carpet mask)
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
203,000
10,560
2,292
1,650
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
85,000
10,560
2,292
1,650
Purging
spray guns
77,140
0
0
0
Other
40,860
0
0
0
VOC
content,
Ib/gaJ
7.15
7.30
3.34
0.42
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
304
38.5
3.8
0.3
solvent. Cleaning is performed daily. The cleaning practices .
r
are as follows:
1. Walls in different booths are cleaned using various
practices. In most booths, walls are masked with a tacky
coating. Accumulated paint and costing are removed with high-
pressure water blasting. A low VOC and caustic cleaner may also
be applied with the water. Tacky coating is then reapplied. In
the final repair and fascia painting booths, the amount of paint
overspray is light, and the walls are spot cleaned as needed.
2. Windows in the primer and topcoat booths are cleaned
using high-pressure water blasting, followed by window cleaner
and wiping. The window cleaner is also sprayed and wiped on the
windows in the front fascia painting booth. Other booths do not
have windows.
3. Grates in booths where paint overspray is extensive are
cleaned in two steps. First, the grates are cleaned using high-
pressure water blasting. For additional cleaning, the grates are
placed and are soaked in a tank of hot caustic solution. For
cleaning the grates in other booths, only the hot caustic bath is
used.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are mopped with xylene.
B-14
-------
5. Robots and related equipment (cabinets) are manually
wiped with xylene, except in the front fascia booth, where the
robots are covered with Tyvex™ covers.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are manually wiped
with xylene.
7. Fixtures, none.
B.6.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Xylene is the only solvent used for spray booth cleaning.
As Table B-6 shows, from a total of 40,651 gal of xylene used,
5,278 gal were used for booth cleaning, based on the plant
inventory and usage records. The percentage used in each booth
is unknown. Information on the amount used for purging was not
provided. Twenty-five percent of the cleaning solvent used for
booth cleaning was collected for waste disposal (the total amount
of waste, including contaminants, was not reported). ' ;
TABLE B-6.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)6
Cleaning solvent
Xylene
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
40,651
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
5,278*
Purging
spray guns
unknown
Other
unknown
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
7.20
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
14
aAccording to the plant, contaminated solvent collected for offsite waste disposal contained 1,320 gal of
solvent; the total waste, including contaminants, was not reported.
B.6.5 VOC Emissions
The FDAP reported total VOC emissions from all sources in
1991 were 292 tons, of which 14 tons were from spray booth
cleaning. The plant developed one UOS that encompassed all spray
booths. The xylene emissions for the UOS were also 14 tons, as
shown in Table B-6.
B-15
-------
B.7 FORD, TWIN CITIES ASSEMBLY PLANT (FTCAP) SAINT PAUL,
MINNESOTA7
B.7.1 Spray Booths
The FTCAP has seven spray booths. One (Main Enamel booth)
is used for applying topcoat (basecoat and clearcoat); one is
used for applying two-tone basecoat, clearcoat, and repairing/
accenting topcoat; one is used for applying antichip and primer;
one is used for polishing and minor touchup; one is used for
final repair; and one is used for applying wax coat. One booth
has been used for frame touchup, but; it has not been used since
1989.
B.7.2 Paint Type
Paints applied in the Main Enamel and Tu-tone booths include
high-solids acrylic melamine basecoat, clearcoat, and solid
colors. For repairing topcoat, chrome- and lead-free -acrylic
enamel paints are used.
B.7.3 Cleaning Practices
Paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls in the topcoat and antichip/primer booths are all
made of glass. These walls and those in the final repair booth
are cleaned in three steps: (1) solvent is sprayed on the walls;
(2) paint overspray is loosened manually with sponges, and
(3) squeegees are used to remove paint and solvent. In the booth
used for polishing, the walls are first vacuumed and then cleaned
with razor blades and Windex™ glass cleaner. The walls in the
transit coat booth are covered with plastic sheeting, which is
changed as needed.
2. Windows in the polishing booth are cleaned manually
using, razor blades and Windex™ glass cleaner. The repair,
touchup, and wax booths have no windows.
B-16
-------
3. Grates in topcoat and antichip/primer booths are cleaned
once a week, with high-pressure water blasting. All grates are
removed once a year and placed in heat cleaning ovens.
4. Floors adjacent to booths either are covered with
disposable tar paper or are mopped with solvents and alkaline
floor cleaners.
5. Robots and related equipment are covered with washable
nylon covers, which are removed and washed with solvent, and then
reinstalled. The exposed areas of robots are manually wiped
four (4) times per day with sponges moistened with solvents.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned
differently. The tip of the automatic guns are removed and are
soaked in a solvent bath; they are cleaned manually with hand
brushes. The manual spray guns are cleaned hourly in the gun
cleaning station (located inside or outside the booths).
?
7. Fixtures are cleaned using a variety of practices.
Paint line hoses and snap-ons are cleaned inside the booth, using
portable part cleaners. Hooks and skids are cleaned in heat
cleaning ovens. Exhaust tunnels, blowers and stacks are cleaned
once a year with high-pressure water blasting.
B.7.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Table B-7 lists the organic solvents that were used for
booth cleaning in 1991. Some of these solvents were also used
for other cleaning, including purging of spray guns. The amounts
used were based on the plant inventory and usage records. Plant
personnel estimated 15,180 gal (20 percent) of the total purge
solvent were used for booth cleaning, and the other 60,720 gal
were used for purging the paint spray guns and associated.
lines.20
The waste solvent resulting from booth cleaning is sent
offsite for reclamation or for use as fuel blend. Except for
spent purge solvent, the spent solvents are not segregated.
Approximately (based on the inventory records) 60,720 gal
(80 percent) of purge solvent were collected, of which 7,590 gal
were estimated to result from the purge solvent used for booth
B-17
-------
TABLE B-7.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)7
Cleaning solvent
CN-31295* (purge
solvent)
Ethylene glycol
monobutyl ether
Cellosolve acetate
n-Butyl acetate
Hi Sol KT
Toluene
Xylene
Hi Sol IS1"
Butyl cellosolve acetate
Methyl amyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone
DTR-600™ (lacquer
thinner)
E-22T-
Tennant-658*1 (floor
cleaner)
Product Sol-7931"
(floor cleaner)
Product Sol 39-1 1-1 lw
AWR-5441"
Zepride-E™ (oven
cleaner)
1394-Zcpeer"
S-90" Oven Cleaner
CN-71712~ (floor
cleaner)
DCT* (sealer cleaner)
CN-71585" (line
stripper)
RK-5352- (flushing
resin)
Windex1* glass cleaner
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
75,900
935
50
58
10,171
15,297
62,146
6.246
245
55
326
43
4.015
950
770
213
660
1,100
11
110
220
165
3,960
5,000
180
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
15,180*
935
50
53
1,914
9,896
51,798
669
13
16
298
43
4,015
950
770
213
660
1,100
11
110
220
165
3,960
5,000
100
Purging
spray guns
60,720
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
5
8,257
5,401
10,358
5,577
232
39
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0 •
0
0
80
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
7.34
9.28
8.10
7.37
7.30
7.25
7.25
7.38
7.85
6.80
6:71
6.57
7.40
2.20
0.73
1.70
5.63
9.01
8.11
8.84
8.42
1.79
7.50
2.52
8.30
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
27.9
'Approximately 7,590 gal of solvent in waste were collected and sent offsite for disposal (the total waste
and contaminant level were not reported).
B-18
-------
cleaning (the total waste and contaminant level were not
reported). The amount of other spent solvents collected was
not reported.
B.7.5 VOC Emissions
The plant reported total VOC emissions from all sources in
1991 were 556 tons, of which 78 tons were from spray booth
cleaning. The plant also developed spray booth UOS's (some for
individual booths and others for combinations). The material
balance reported for the UOS's also show total booth cleaning
emissions were 78 tons. However, there are unresolved
discrepancies between the reported solvent usage values and the
inputs for the material balances. Further, since only the total
amount of spent solvent that is collected for waste disposal is
known, the VOC emissions from each solvent cannot be calculated.
B.8 GENERAL MOTORS, FORT WAYNE ASSEMBLY PLANT (GMFWAP) FORT :
WAYNE, INDIANA8
B.8.1 Spray Booths
The GMFWAP has 10 modular paint spray booths; each module
includes two booths. These 20 booths are used for applying
basecoat and clearcoat. The plant also has three other booths;
one is used for applying antichip; one is used for final paint
repair, and one is used for painting wheels.
B.8.2 Paint Type
Paints applied in the booths include: (1) urethane
antichip, (2) high-solids enamel basecoat, (3) polyurethane
clearcoat, and (4) high solids enamel paint for wheels.
B. 8 ° 3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls in modules 1 to 10 were cleaned once a week in
three steps: (1) washing with high-pressure water, (2) spraying
with cleaning solvent (as needed) and scrubbing with brushes, and
(3) rinsing with high-pressure water. Walls in the antichip
B-19
-------
booth were cleaned twice a week using high-pressure hot water; no
solvent was used. Walls in the final repair and wheel painting
booths were cleaned once a week with high-pressure steam; no
solvent was used. After cleaning, walls in booths 1 to 10 and
the wheel painting booth were recoated with a tacky coating.
2. Windows were cleaned using the same procedure that was
used for the walls, except for the use of a tacky coating.
3. Grates were cleaned using the same procedures used for
the walls, including the use of a tacky coating in all booths.
4. Floors in the booths were cleaned either with
high-pressure water or high pressure steam. Solvent was used if
necessary. After cleaning in booths 1 to 10, the floors were
recoated with a tacky coating. Floors adjacent to booths were
mopped nightly with a water-based cleaner.
5. Robots and related equipment were covered with
protective covers, wherever possible. Uncovered areas were wipea
with isopropyl alcohol. Spray guns were sent offsite monthly for
chemical cleaning.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips were cleaned at the
end of the production shifts by wiping with rags soaked in purge
solvent.
7. Fixtures (center-track drive covers) were cleaned using
high-pressure water.
B.8.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and cleaning solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include Atlantis Booth Stripper™, Golden Star Stainless
Steel Cleaner1*, isopropyl alcohol, Wonder Strip Floor Cleaner1*,
and Grow 6518™ (purge solvent). Table B-8 shows the cleaning
solvent usage based on the plant inventory records. During 1991,
83,880 gal of the purge solvent were used. A total of 3,640 gal
of the purge solvent was used for booth cleaning. Some of the
purge solvent used to purge spray guns was recovered and
reclaimed by an offsite facility. No booth cleaning solvent was
collected.
B-20
-------
TABLE B-8. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)8
Cleaning solvent
Atlantis Booth
Stripper1*
Golden Star Stainless
Steel Cleaner1"
Isopropyl alcohol
Wonder Strip Floor
Cleaner3"
Grow 65 18* (purge
solvent
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
43,230
16
2.695
6,900
83,880
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
43,230
16
200
6,000
3,640
Purging
spray guns
0
0
0
0
80,240
Other
0
0
2,495
900
0
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
7.14
0
6.50
8.50
6.90
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
154
0
1
25
13
B.8.5 VOC Emissions
For 1991, the total VOC emissions reported for the plant are
1,052 tons, of which 193 tons (18 percent) were from spray booth
cleaning. The GMFWAP developed four spray booth UOS's: one that
encompassed all 10 modules and one each for the other three
booths. Plant personnel also reported average daily usage rates
for each solvent in each UOS (rather than the usage per
cleaning). As noted above, no spent solvent was collected from
booth cleaning. Thus, as shown in Table B-8, emissions from
booth cleaning equals the solvent usage.
B.9 GENERAL MOTORS, MORAINE ASSEMBLY PLANT (GMMAP) MORAINE,
OHIO9
B.9.1 Spray Booths
The GMMAP has 12 (main-color split) spray booths. Two are
for applying antichip; three are for applying topcoat (basecoat
and clearcoat); one is for applying two-tone paint color; one is
for applying deadener; two are for applying black paint to fuel
tanks; one is used for topcoat paint repair, and two are for
final repair.
B-21
-------
B.9.2 Paint Type
Paints applied in the booths include (1) one-component
urethane antichip, (2) high-solids acrylic enamel topcoat,
(3) acrylic sealer deadener, (4) one-component urethane/polyester
primer, and (5) black vinyl sealer for the chassis.
B.9.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. Light cleaning is performed once a day; deep cleaning
is performed once a week, and super cleaning is performed once a
year. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls are sprayed with TEXO LP1582™ that is washed down
with water whenever needed--normally twice a week.
2, Windows are cleaned using the same procedure that is
*
used for the walls; the only additional step is the use of '
squeegees for removing the excess water. In some (maybe all)
booths, window cleaning is wall cleaning because the booths have
glass walls.
3. Grates are cleaned with TEXO LP1582™ stripper during the
light cleaning (touchups). During deep cleaning (on weekends),
the grates and conveyors are cleaned using high-pressure water
blasting.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are not included in the
information provided by plant personnel.
5. Robots and related equipment (turbobells) are cleaned
four times per shift by spraying purge solvent and isopropyl
alcohol, and then wiping with rags.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned four times
per shift by spraying purge solvent and wiping with rags.
7. Fixtures (conveyors) are cleaned with high-pressure
water blasting.
B-22
-------
B.9.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
The organic solvents used for spray booth cleaning include
TEXO LP868™, TEXO LP1582™, TEXO LP856™, isopropyl alcohol,
xylene, and reconstituted purge solvent. The plant used
inventory records to determine the total usage of each solvent.
As shown in Table B-9, reconstituted purge solvent and
TEXO LPlsaz™ accounted for the bulk of the solvent used for booth
cleaning. However, the amount of spent solvent collected was not
reported (and there was no indication that any spent solvent was
collected). The plant also did not report the amounts used for
purging spray guns or other cleaning.
TABLE B-9.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED}9
Cleaning solvent
TEXO LP868™
TEXO LP1582™
TEXO LP856™
Isopropyl alcohol
Xylene
Reconstituted purge
solvent
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
4,400
31,704
880
4,649
57,071
573,935
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
N/A
31,704
N/A
N/A
7,205
150,608
Purging
spray guns
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Other
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
2.40
7.09
9.1
6.58
7.20
6.89
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tona/yr
b
112*
b
b
26*
519*
N/A = not available.
aAssumes no waste was collected.
°VOC emissions cannot be calculated because annual solvent usage is unavailable.
B.9.5 VOC Emissions
Total VOC emissions in 1991 from all sources at the plant
were reported to be 1,398 tons. Reported emissions from cleaning
spray booths were either 139 or 750 tons, depending on which
information in the response is to be believed. Estimates based
on other data suggest the actual emissions were closer to the
high value. Assuming no spent solvent was collected from booth
cleaning, VOC emissions were at least 657 tons. The emissions
B-23
-------
could have been as high as 681 tons. This increase could have
occurred if the three solvents (for which the amount used in
booth cleaning was unknown) were included. Clarifications were
requested from but not provided by the plant.
The plant developed several UOS's (some for individual
booths and one for a combination) but did not provide the data
needed in the material balances.
B.10 GENERAL MOTORS, OKLAHOMA CITY ASSEMBLY PLANT (GMOKAP)
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA10
B.10.1 Spray Booths
The GMOKAP has seven (main-color split) spray booths. One
is used for applying (1) antichip, (2) primer surfacer,
(3) basecoat to the cowl and the trunk interior, and
(4) semigloss black paint to the header (at windows) and the
center post; two are used for applying basecoat and clearcoat;
e
one is used for paint repair (but was not used in 199-1) ; one is f
used for painting bumpers; one is used for painting the steering
column; and one is used for final paint repair,
B.10.2 Paint Type
Paints applied in the booths include: (1) melamine/
formaldehyde antichip and semigloss black paint, (2) high-solids
melamine/ formaldehyde primer surfacer and clearcoat, (3) acrylic
melamine/ formaldehyde basecoat and brown-out enamel, and
(4) polyester/polysiloxane melamine/formaldehyde primer (gray
spotting primer).
B.lO.3 (Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls are sprayed with a water soluble coating that is
cleaned using high-pressure water whenever needed, normally twice
a week.
B-24
-------
2. Windows are cleaned using the same procedure chat is
used for the walls. The windows in the bell zone are manually
wiped with stripper/purge thinner.
3. Grates are cleaned using high-pressure water blasting,
where possible. In booths where water blasting cannot be used,
the grates are covered with a grate coating material, and the
grates are cleaned by removal and incineration.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are mopped nightly with IMS
Thins trip-F1".
5. Robots and related equipment are protected from
overspray or cleaned using three methods: (1) cabinets are
covered with plastic sheets, (2) areas that are not easily
accessible to wiping are sprayed with paint stripper, and
(3) turbobells and areas in the bell zone are manually wiped with
purge solvent. • •
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned at the end
of the" production shifts either by soaking in the purge solvent
inside a closed container or by manually mixing using the purge
solvent.
7. Fixtures (car body carriers, conveyor return covers,
spray hoses, hose racks, and booth access doors) are cleaned
using different methods. The car body carriers are cleaned in a
separate area using high-pressure water. The other fixtures are
either sprayed or wiped manually with purge solvent.
B.10.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and solvents used for spray booth cleaning
include Grow 6518 and 56011* (purge solvent) , Polystrip 3450™,
LP1582™, Texo 1664, Zepride™, and IMS Thinstrip-F™. Table B-10
shows the cleaning solvent usage based on the plant inventory
records. In 1991, from a total of 144,800 gal of the purge
solvent (virgin and reconstituted) used, 45,796 gal were used for
booth cleaning and 99,004 gal were used for purging the paint
lines and paint spray guns.
In 1991, 90,900 gal of the purge solvent were sent to an
offsite facility for reclamation. An additional 11,700 gal of
B-25
-------
TABLE B-10.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)10
Ax
Cleaning solas
Grow 6518 and
(purge solvent
LP1582™ and
Texo 1664
Polystrip 345(
IMS Thins trip-
Zepride™
An
nual tot
solvent
ngte, gal/
SaWSOG
)
42,000
™ 4,500
F* 5,600
3,200
lual solvent usage, gal/
il" ' ~"
Booth
yteaning
45,796a
42,000a
4,500*
2,800*
2,600*
Purging
pray gun
99,004
0
0
0
0
3 Other
0
0
0
2,80C
600
yr «
VOC f
zontent?
Ib/gal
6.9
7.0
7.5
7.5
2.43
VOC
mission
rom boot
leaning
tons/yr
138
88.:
13.!
8.4
2.5
I
h
*tiiii*- of
^nm
fUtrmilnj
i fful I M frr-
5,857
Grow 6518 aod 5601™, 900 gal of Polystrip 3450™, 16,800 of IP1582™ aod Texo 1664, 520 gal
Zepride™, . and 560 gal of IMS Thinstrip-P™.
r
purge solvent were sent off site for use as a fuel supplement;
plant personnel estimate that 5,857 gal of this solvent were from
booth cleaning. In addition to the purge solvent, approximately
40 percent of the LP1582™ and Texo 1664™ (16,900 gal) and
20 percent of the other three solvents (1,980 gal from booth
cleaning) also were sent offsite for use as a fuel
supplement.21'22
B.10.5 VOC Emissions
For 1991, the total VOC emissions reported for the plant
were 1,196 tons, of which 257 tons (21 percent) were from spray
booth cleaning. The plant also developed UOS's for single and
multiple spray booths. However, they provided only purge solvent
usage and waste data for the UOS's. Plantwide usage and waste
data were provided for each of the booth cleaning solvents, and
the difference was used to estimate plantwide emissions. As
shown in Table B-10, the resulting VOC emissions were 251 tons
(the plant erroneously used a high VOC content for one solvent to
obtain total emissions of 257 tons) .
B-26
-------
B.ll HONDA, EAST LIBERTY ASSEMBLY PLANT (HELAP) EAST LIBERTY,
OHIO11
B.ll.l Spray Booths
The HELAP has two paint lines that include a number of spray
booths. The uses of the spray booths are similar to booths at
HMAP.
B.ll.2 Paint Type
Paints and coatings applied in the spray booths include:
(1) waterborne acrylic enamel and lacquer basecoat, (2) acrylic
enamel and lacquer clearcoat, (3) baking polyester primer
surfacer, (4) lacquer for repairing and touchups, (5) air dry PVC
sealer, and (6) various waxes, deadeners, and sealers.
B.ll.3 Cleaninc? Practices
Paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
f
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls in different booths are cleaned using various
practices; generally, the practices are (1) covering the walls
with plastic sheeting, secured by 2-inch masking tape; (2) wiping
with either dry rags or with rags dampened with water, alcohol,
xylene, or mineral spirits (different cleaning solvents are used
for walls in different booths) that are dispensed from squeeze
bottles; and (3) spraying the walls with Citrosolv1* (a solvent
degreaser) using garden sprayers, then, after a while (time is
needed for paint to react to Citrosolv™), using a rag to wipe the
walls.
2. Windows in different booths are cleaned using various
practices: (1) wiping with dry rags; (2) wiping with rags
moistened with alcohol, window cleaner, or alcohol and a window
cleaner; (3) wiping with rags soaked with xylene that is followed
by lightly spraying the windows with window cleaner, which is
wiped with clean rags; (4) wiping with rags moistened with
deionized water that is followed by cleaning with squeegees;
wiping with rags moistened with xylene, which is provided in
B-27
-------
squeeze bottles, followed by cleaning with squeegees; (5) using
mineral spirits and a window cleaner; and (6) spraying the
windows with Citrosolv™ which is provided in 12-ounce (oz)
bottles.
3. Grates are generally cleaned using high-pressure water
blasting; however, some aspects of the grate cleaning vary in
different booths. The variation is possibly the result of
several factors such as the type of paint, the amount of paint
overspray accumulated, the type of grates, booth design, etc.
These variations are (1) the cleaning frequency, which ranges
either from 1 week to 3 months, or as needed; (2) the pressure of
water applied to the grates that ranges from a few hundred psi
(using garden hoses to spray water) to either 3,000 psi or
10,000 psi; and (3) whether the grates are cleaned in place, or
are removed and sent to a designated booth (the blackout booth) .
or a designated area in the plant for cleaning. In the later
case, the grates are returned to the booths after cleaning is
performed.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are covered with plastic
sheeting (12 millimeter [mm] thick), which is changed weekly.
Spot cleaning is performed using mineral spirits and rags.
5. Robots and related equipment are covered with protective
covers wherever possible. Robots are cleaned by manual wiping
with either dry rags or rags dampened with xylene, deionized
water, or alcohol.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned at the end
of the production shifts by wiping with rags soaked in various
liquids. Xylene, Citrosolv™, or alcohol are used in most booths.
Deionized water is used in the basecoat repair booth.
7. Fixtures are cleaned with dry rags. Jigs are sent
offsite for cleaning by incineration. Conveyors are covered with
plastic.
B-28
-------
B.11.4 Use and Disposal of Organic Booth Cleaners and Purge
Solvents
Table B-ll lists all of the booth cleaning solvents used at
the plant. It also includes estimates from paint shop personnel
of the amount of each solvent used for spray gun purging/line
flushing or other uses.23 In 1991, 59,840 gal of the purge
solvent were used for purging the spray guns and lines.
No cleaning solvents used for booth cleaning were collected.
However, reportedly 99 percent of the purge solvent used for
purging the spray guns (before paint color change) and paint
lines was collected and shipped to an offsite facility for
reclamation or to be used as fuel blend.
B.11.5 VOC Emissions
For 1991, the total amount of VOC emissions reported for the
plant was 775 tons, of which 113 tons (15 percent) resulted from.
?
spray booth cleaning. The HELAP developed four incomplete spray
booth UOS's for only five of the spray booths at the plant. The
emissions shown in Table B-ll are based on clarifications of the
original response.23
B.12 HONDA, MARYSVILLE ASSEMBLY PLANT (EMAP) MARYSVILLE, OHIO12
B.12.1 Spray Booths '
The HMAP has 32 spray booths in two paint lines. The uses
of the spray booths are as follows: one booth is for final
repairs; one booth is for applying acid rain wax; one booth is
for applying black wax; five booths are for final touchup; two
booths are for applying sealer; two booths are for applying
deadener and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) undercoating; two booths
are for applying primer surfacer and antichip; two booths are for
applying basecoat; two booths are for applying clearcoat; two
booths are for repairing the topcoat; one booth is for applying
two-tone paint; one booth is for small touchups; four booths are
for applying waxes; and six booths are used for painting bumpers.
B-29
-------
TABLE B-ll.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR
HELAP (ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)
Cleaning solvent
Xylene
Isopropyl alcohol
TE-86254
TE-8190
T-9171
T-9153
Ethyl acetate
Butyl cellosolve
SC-100
SC-150
T-9182
RKF-93539
3608-S
Mineral spirits
Citrosolv1"
Annual total
solvent
usagea,
gal/yr
131,631
8.809
1,837
1,615
385
1.065
236
1,065
2,128
2,082
220
393
1,564
220
3,294
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
26,771
4,666
0
0
0
0
0
200
0
0
0
0
0
70
100
Purging
spray guns
59,840
200
323
99
399
397
100
865
284
238
220
393
680
0
0
Other
45,020
3,943
1,514
1,516
36
668
136
0
1,844
1,844
0
0
884
150
3,194
VOC
content,
Ib/gai
7.26
6.57
7.34
7.34
7.05
7.31
7.52
7.51
7.40
7.3
7.17
3.0
6.61
6.71
6.51
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
97.2
15.3
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.3
aThe annual quantity used in the Paint Shop Department.
B-30
-------
B.12.2 Paint Type
Paints and coatings applied in the booths include:
(1) acrylic enamel basecoat and clearcoat, (2) polyester/
melamine primer surfacer, (3) lacquer for touchups, (4) air dry
PVC sealer, and (5) various waxes, deadeners, and sealers. The
paint applied to bumpers (fascia painting) includes two-component
urethane primer, basecoat, and clearcoat.
B.12.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls in different booths are cleaned using different
practices; generally, the practices are (1) using peelable
coatings and (2) wiping with either dry rags or with rags
dampened with solvent dispensed from a squeeze bottle". These two
practices may be used independently or together, depending upon
the booth. Plastic sheeting and white paper with wax on one side
are also used on walls in some booths.
2. Windows are wiped with rags that have been sprayed with
xylene from a squeeze bottle. The excess solvent is removed
using squeegees.
3. Grates are cleaned once a week using high-pressure water
blasting. The cleaning is either performed inside the booths
(after covering the walls and windows) or the grates are removed
and sent to a designated booth (e.g., the blackout booth); after
cleaning, the grates are returned to the booths.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are covered with cardboard or
black felt paper. Every night, the cardboard is either cleaned
by scraping or it is replaced.
5. Robots and related equipment are covered with protective
covers wherever possible. Some robots are cleaned by manual
wiping with either dry rags or dampened rags (xylene from a
squeeze bottle is sprayed onto rags). The electrostatic
B-31
-------
equipment (RMES) also is cleaned with rags and solvent (the
cleaning solvent is made available in a grounded metal bucket).
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned at the end
of the production shifts by manually wiping with rags dampened
with xylene (supplied in squeeze bottles) and with Scotch brite
pads.
7. Fixtures are mostly covered with plastic. Masking tape
and grease are used on conveyor parts.
B.12.4 Use and Disposal of Organic Booth Cleaners and Purge
Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include SP20D™, Honda wash (purge solvent, 80 percent
xylene), and mineral spirits. Table B-12 shows the cleaning
solvent usage based on estimates made by paint shop personnel.
Plant personnel indicated that records for using cleaning
solvents are not kept because record-keeping for the use of ?
cleaning solvents is not required by the State air permit.
TABLE B-12.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR
HMAP (ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)12
Cleaning solvent
SP2OD"
Mineral spirits
Honda wash (xylene,
purge solvent)
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
NA*
NA*
432,000
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
3,960
440
180,000
Purging
spray guns
0
0
72,000
Other
>.3,960
.>2,200
180,000
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
8.74
6.33
7.26
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
17
1
653
NA = Not available
"The annual quantity used for all processes was not reported; however, the annual quantity used for all
types of cleaning was reported: SP20D™ = 7,920 gal, and mineral spirits = 2,640 gal.
Based on paint shop personnel estimates, from a total of
432,000 gal of purge solvent used during 1991, 180,000 gal were
used for booth cleaning and 72,000 gal were used for purging the
paint spray guns and associated lines and other equipment. Plant
B-32
-------
personnel indicated that the use of solvents for cleaning each
booth is not monitored and the amount could not be estimated.23
No spent cleaning solvents from booth cleaning were
collected. However, a portion of the purge solvent used for
purging the paint spray guns and lines (prior to paint color
change) was collected and sent offsite for reclamation use as
fuel.
B.12.5 VOC Emissions
The plant reported total VOC emissions from all sources in
1991 were 2,956 tons. Initially, the plant reported 31 tons
resulted from spray booth cleaning. However, the plant revised
the amount of purge solvent used for booth cleaning, which
changed the total emissions to 671 tons.24
The HMAP did not provide information on spray booth UOS's.
However, plantwide emissions for each solvent were estimated to .
equal usage because no spent booth cleaning solvent was
collected. Table B-12 provides information on the VOC emissions
from booth cleaning.
B.13 NISSAN ASSEMBLY PLANT (NAP) SMYKUA, TENNESSEE13
B.13.1 Spray Booths
The NAP has six (main-color split) booths. One is used for
applying antichip and primer; two are used for applying basecoat
and clearcoat; one is used for topcoat repair; one is used for
applying fuel tank coating to the fuel tanks; and one is used for
painting plastic parts.
B.13.2 Paint Tvoe
Paint applied in the booths include: (1) enamel solvent
adhesion-promoter, (2) polyester primer, (3) enamel basecoat,
(4) clearcoat, (5) St. shade (6) fuel tank coating, and
(7) elastomeric enamel clearcoat.
B.13.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
B-33
-------
1. Walls in most booths are covered with peelable coatings.
Once a month, paint overspray on the walls is scraped, and the
walls are resprayed with peelable coating. In the fascia booth,
walls are covered with stretch wrap and spot cleaned by wiping
with a solvent-soaked rag. Walls in the fuel tank booth are
coated with vaseline and then scraped clean.
2. Windows are cleaned with the wash solvent, which is
applied using rags and brushes. Squeegees are used to remove
excess materials and to clean the windows.
3. Grates are cleaned using high-pressure water-blasting
mowers.
4. Floors adjacent to most booths are cleaned with Ibw-VOC
aqueous cleaners. Floors in the fascia booth are spot cleaned by
wiping with a rag and alcohol; they are then sopped with window
wash. Floors in the fuel tank booth are covered with tar paper ;
and plastic that is replaced daily.
5. Robots and related equipment are covered with protective
covers or plastic, wherever possible. Robot arms and hoses are
cleaned with wash solvent. Bells and reciprocating equipment are
cleaned with a solvent. Cabinets are cleaned with alcohol.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips in most booths are
cleaned with solvent at the end of the production shifts. In the
fuel tank booth, the tips are cleaned with water.
7. Fixtures are cleaned as follows: manual hoses are
cleaned with solvent; and X-tree stands are wiped with lint-free
rags and solvent.
B.13.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include 32577R Purge GS/C (purge solvent), 33396N wash
solvent, and P3 SAF-T-Clean 1131*. Table B-13 shows the cleaning
solvent usage based on the plant inventory and usage records.
Purge solvent is used only for purging spray guns and related
equipment; none is used for booth cleaning. Plant personnel
estimated that 66.6 percent of the cleaning solvents is used in
topcoat booths, and 33.3 percent is used in the primer booth.
B-34
-------
TABLE B-13.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR NAP
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)13
Cleaning solvent
32577R Purge GS/C
(purge solvent)
33396N wash solvent
P3 SAF-T-Clean 113™
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
167,356
41,714
220
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
0
41,714
220
Purging
spray guns
167,356
0
0
Other
0
0
0
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
7.0
7.0
0
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
0
146
0
The spent cleaning solvents from booth cleaning were not
collected. However, some of the purge solvent used for purging
the paint spray guns and lines (before the paint color change)
was collected for reclamation. An offsite facility reclaimed
30,000 gal of the purge solvent in 1991.2S . . f
B.13.5 VOC Emissions
For 1991, the total amount of VOC emissions reported for the
plant was 1,297 tons, of which 146 tons (11 percent) resulted
from spray booth cleaning. The NAP did not develop UOS's. Thus,
plantwide VOC emissions from all booth cleaning solvents were
calculated assuming emissions equal usage (146 tons), as shown in
Table B-13.
B.14 SUBARU-ISUZTJ ASSEMBLY PLANT (SIAP) LAFAYETTE, INDIANA14
Bol4.1 Spray Booths
The SIAP has a total of seven (main-color split) spray
booths. Three booths are used for applying basecoat, clearcoat,
and two-tone paint to car bodies. The uses of the other booths
are as follows: one booth is for applying primer surfacer and
antichip; one booth is for applying blackout and inner wax; one
booth is for applying under-floor wax, NOX rust, and acid-rain-
proof coat; and one booth is for fascia painting, which includes
applying adhesion promoter, basecoat, and clearcoat to bumpers.
B-3S
-------
B.14.2 Paint Type
Paints applied in the booths include: (1) melamine/acrylic
basecoat, (2) acrylic/melamine clearcoat, (3) polyester/melamine
surfacer, (4) polyester/polyurethane stoneguard, and
(5) polyester/melamine antichip.
B.14.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvents. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls are masked by peelable coatings that are removed
and replaced twice a month in some booths and once a month in
other booths.
2. Windows in most booths are wiped by cloth rags moistened
with solvent. In the two wax booths, windows are wiped with rags
and non-VOC window cleaner.
3. Grates are removed and cleaned by water blasting at a
designated area within the plant.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are covered with plastic
sheets that are changed daily.
5. Robots and related equipment are covered with Tyvex1*
robot covers that are replaced three times per week. In the
under-floor wax booth, a rag with a small amount of solvent is
also used.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned at the end
of the production shifts by manually dipping the tips in small
solvent dip baths.
7. Fixtures are covered with Tyvex1* covers or plastic
sheeting. Grease is applied to fixtures below the grating.
B.14.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purge Solvents
The only organic solvent used for spray booth cleaning is
the purge thinner, which is 100-percent VOC. Plant personnel
indicated that the use of organic solvent for cleaning each booth
is monitored; they estimated that usually 7 to 10 gal (on
average) of the solvent are used to clean each booth daily.26
B-36
-------
Based on the plant inventory records, from a total of
273,827 gal of the purge thinner used during the reported year,
10,250 gal were used for booth cleaning. No spent solvent from
booth cleaning is collected.
In 1991, 15,931 gal of the purge solvent used for purging
spray guns and paint lines were recovered onsite, using a mobile
recycling unit. In addition, 204,691 gal of contaminated solvent
(solvent plus paint) were sent offsite for use as fuel blend.^
B.14.5 VOC Emissions
For 1991, the total VOC emissions reported for the plant
were 813 tons, of which 35 tons were from spray booth cleaning.
The SIAP did not provide information for spray booth UOS's.
However, the plantwide cleaning solvent usage was used to confirm
the reported VOC emissions of 35 tons, as shown in Table B-14.
TABLE B-14
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS FOR
SIAP (ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)14
Cleaning solvent
Purge thinner
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
273,827
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
10,250
Purging
spray guns
253,077
Other
10,500
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
6.88
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
35
B.15 TOYOTA ASSEMBLY PLANT (TAP) GEORGETOWN, KENTUCKY15
B.15.1 Spray Booths
The TAP has 22 (main-color split) booths. In these booths,
both automotive bodies and plastic parts are painted. For
painting automotive bodies, two booths are used for applying
underbody paint and coatings; two booths are used for applying
antichip; one booth is used for applying primer; three booths are
used for applying basecoat and clearcoat; one booth is used for
topcoat repair; one booth is used for touchup; three booths are
used for applying waxes; and one booth is used for applying
engine primer to the engine blocks. Five booths are used for
painting interior plastic parts, and three booths are used for
painting plastic bumpers.
B-37
-------
B.1S.2 Paint Type
Different types of paints are applied in the booths. The
main paint systems are as follows: three types of antichip
coatings (PVC plastisol, urethane resin, and PVC), polyester
primer, acrylic sealer, polyester enamel for interior solid
colors, acrylic melamine basecoat, polyester solid coat, acrylic
melamine clearcoat, polyester-melamine plastic primer, urethane
plastic clearcoat, and polyester melamine, acrylic, and acrylic
lacquer blackout paint.
B.15.3 Cleaning Practices
The paint overspray in these booths is removed using both
organic solvents and a combination of alternative cleaning
practices, which eliminate or reduce the use of organic cleaning
solvent. The cleaning practices are as follows:
1. Walls are protected from overspray or cleaned using :
different practices depending on the booth. The practices are:
(1) manual scraping along with partial Jcraft paper coverage and
wiping heavily coated areas with solvent, (2) wiping with rags
and purge solvent, (3) the use of heavy-duty kraft paper and
wiping with a rag and purge solvent, (4) masking with paper and
tape, (5) using peelcoat and occasionally spraying purge solvent
on areas with heavy paint overspray, and (6) high-pressure water
blasting in wax booths.
2. Windows are wiped using non-VOC glass cleaners or purge
solvent and rags. In booths used for applying waxes, windows are
cleaned using high-pressure water.
3. Grates are cleaned onsite in a designated area in a hot
caustic dip followed by rinsing with high-pressure water. In
booths used for applying waxes, grates are soaked in a tank
containing a caustic de-waxing agent.
4. Floors adjacent to booths are covered with kraft masking
paper.
5. Robots and related equipment are covered with plastic
protective covers, wherever possible. Foil is used to partially
cover robots in one booth. Exposed areas on robots are wiped
B-38
-------
with the purge solvent and rags. In booths used for applying
waxes, automatic equipment is cleaned using high-pressure water
and mineral spirits.
6. Robotic and manual spray gun tips are cleaned with the
purge solvent.
7. Fixtures are wiped with rags and the purge solvent.
B.15.4 Use and Disposal of Booth Cleaners and Purcre Solvents
Booth cleaners and organic solvents used for spray booth
cleaning include Parco Stripper™ (caustic), AX-400 Paint
Stripper™, Toyota Purge Blend™, mineral spirits, Thompson Glass
Cleaner™, and Yumage ST-210™. Table B-15 presents the cleaning
solvent usage based on the plant inventory and usage records.
Also based on these records, from a total of 499,648 gal of the
purge solvent used during the reported year, 251,323 gal
(50 percent) were used for booth cleaning and 248,325 gal were
used for purging the paint spray guns.^ Plant personnel could
not estimate the amount of solvent used for cleaning each booth.
TABLE B-15.
SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE AND VOC EMISSIONS AT TAP
(ALL BOOTHS COMBINED)15
Cleaning solvent
Parco Stripper1*
(caustic)
AX-400 Paint
Stripper"
Toyota Purge Blend"
Mineral spirits
Thompson Glua
Cleaner"
Yumage ST-210™
Annual total
solvent
usage, gal/yr
29,000
1,822
499,648
1,000
912
432
Annual solvent usage, gal/yr
Booth
cleaning
27,000
1,822
251,323
800
912
432
Purging
spray guns
0
0
248,325
0
0
0
Other
2,000
0
0
200
0
0
VOC
content,
Ib/gal
0.52
7.67
7.34
6.57
0
3.38
VOC
emissions
from booth
cleaning,
tons/yr
7
7
922
3
0
1
No spent cleaning solvents from booth cleaning were
collected. However, an offsite facility reclaimed 248,325 gal of
B-39
-------
the purge solvent used for purging the paint spraying and lines
(prior to the paint color changes) in 1991; the total
contaminated solvent collected and the contaminated level were
not reported.
B.15.5 VOC Emissions
For 1991, the total VOC emissions reported for the plant
were 2,219 tons, of which 940 tons (42 percent) resulted from
spray booth cleaning.
The TAP developed five UOS's that each encompassed two or
more of the booths in which cleaning solvent is used. They also
reported the plantwide usage of each booth cleaning solvent.
There are slight discrepancies between the usage and waste
reported for the UOS's and the plantwide values. The VOC
emissions from booth cleaning shown in Table B-15 are based on
the reported plantwide usage with no spent solvent collection. :
B.16 REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
1. Response to Section 114 Information Request for AutoAlliance
International, Inc., Flat Rock, Michigan. August 21, 1992.
2. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporatoin, Belvidere, Illinois. August 1, 1992.
3. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrysler
Corporation, Dodge City, Michigan. August 14, 1992.
4. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Chrsyler
Corporation, Sterling Heights, Michigan. August 14, 1992.
5. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Chicago, Illinois. August 14, 1992.
6. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Dearborn, Michigan. August 17, 1992.
7. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Ford Motor
Company, Twin Cities, Minnesota. August 17, 1992.
8. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Fort Wayne, Indiana. August 14, 1992.
9. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Moraine, Ohio. August 14, 1992.
B-40
-------
10. Response to Section 114 Information Request for General
Motors Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. August 14,
1993.
11. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., East Libery, Ohio. August 12,
1992.
12. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Honda of
America Manufacturing, Inc., Marysville, Ohio. October 29,
1992.
13. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Nissan Motor
Manufacturing Corporation, USA, Smyrna, Tennessee.
September 28, 1992.
14. Response to Section 114 Information Request for Subaruu-Isuzu
Auto Incorporated, Lafayette, Indiana. September 15, 1992.
15. Response to Section il4 Information Request for Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, USA, Inc., Georgetown, Kentucky.
a
16. Telecon. Filipiak, T., AutoAlliance International, Inc., *
with Azar, S., Midwest Research Institute. October 12, 1992.
Clarification of response to EPA's Section 114 information
request.
o
17. Telecon. Conrad, R., Chrysler Corporation, with Azar, S.,
Midwest Research Institute. September 23, 1992.
Clarification of response to EPA's Section 114 information
request.
18. Telecon. Springer, J., Chrysler Corporation, with Azar, S.,
Midwest Research Institute. September 24, 1992.
Clarification of response to EPA's Section 114 information
request.
19. Telecon. Uhle, D., Ford Motor Company, with Azar, S.,
Midwest Research Institute. April 21, 1993. Clarification
of response to EPA's Section 114 information request.
20. Telecon. Kallaus, J., Ford Motor Company, with Azar, S.,
Midwest Research Institute. January 27, 1993. Clarification
of response to EPA's Section 114 information request.
21. Telecon. Tripathy, N., General Motors Corporation, with
Azar, S., Midwest Research Institute. October, 7, 1992.
Clarification of response to EPA's Section 114 information
request.
B-41'
-------
22 i Facsimile transmission from Tripathy, N., General Motors
Corporation, to Azar, s., Midwest Research Institute.
November 9, 1992. Usage of purge solvents.
23. Letter from Henry, M., Honda of America MFG., Inc., to Azar,
S., Midwest Research Institute. August 16, 1993.
Clarification of booth cleaning solvent usage.
24. Letter from Heyob, K., Honda of America MFG., Inc., to Azar,
So, Midwest Research Institute. October 29, 1992. Estimates
of the amount of purge solvent used for spray gun line
purging and booth cleaning.
25. Telecon. Swing, G., Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation
USA, to Azar, S., Midwest Research Institute. March 3, 1993.
Clarification of response to EPA's Section 114 information
request.
26.. Telecon. Brown, E., Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc., with
Azar, S., Midwest Research Institute. October 5, 1992.
Clarification of response to EPA's Section 114 information
request.
p
27. Telecon. Ross, G., Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.,
with Azar, S., Midwest Research Institute. September 18,
1992. Clarification of response to EPA's Section 114
information request.
B-42
-------
APPENDIX C
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS FOR SOLVENT CLEANING
-------
-------
APPENDIX C.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS FOR SOLVENT CLEANING
This Appendix presents a glossary of terms and definitions
used in this report.
Boundary
It is used to mark the limits for the material balance.
A
?
Cleaning activity
Physical removal of foreign material from substrate being
cleaned. Includes actions such as wiping, brushing, flushing, or
spraying.
Cleaning classification
For convenience, cleaning has been considered to have three
main classifications: (l) cleaning of external surfaces,
(2) cleaning of interior surfaces (i.e., containers), and
(3) cleaning of removable parts.
Cleaning of external surfaces
Solvent is applied to the "external surface" being cleaned
(as contrasted to the interior of tanks or pipes). Surfaces that
fall within this classification include rollers in printing
machines, wings of airplanes, floors, tables, and walls. The
"cleaning activities"- applied to the external surface may include
mopping, brushing, or spraying and use "cleaning tools" such as
rags, brushes, mops, or spraying equipment.
C-l
-------
Cleaning1 of internal surfaces/container^
Solvent is applied to an interior surface for cleaning.
Surfaces may include the inside of tanks/vessels, batch reactors,
columns, heat exchangers, paint spray booths, and fuel tanks. The
"cleaning activities" applied may include flushing, agitation,
spraying, and mopping or brushing. Any combination of activities
may be used, depending on the shape and size of the "unit
operation" and on the type residue that is being removed.
Cleaning of parts
Solvent engulfs the entire surface of the item (part) as it
is dipped in a container of solvent, or the part is cleaned above
the container by a cleaning activity such as spraying or wiping.
Equipment, the "unit operation," where this might take place,
includes part washers, batch-loaded cold cleaners, ultrasonic
cleaners, and spray gun washers.
Cleaning practices
A repeated or customary action that is specific to an
industry. An example is nightly maintenance of a spray booth in
an automobile assembly plant
Cleaning1 tool
An item used to aid cleaning, such as wiping rags, brushes,
scrapers, or water jets.
Closed-loop recycling (in-process recycling)
Reuse or recirculation of a chemical material within the
boundaries used to develop a material balance around a "unit
operation system." A recovery or reclamation (R or R) unit
operation may be within the boundaries selected for the primary
unit operation system if it is:
1. Solely dedicated. The chemical is reused only for
cleaning the primary unit operation.
C-2
-------
2. Physically integrated. The R or R operation is
connected to the primary unit operation by means of piping, so
that it is not possible to perform the material balance around
the primary unit operation system without including it.
Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP)
Any of almost 200 substances identified as air toxics in
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
In-process recycling
(See closed-loop recycling),
Line flushing
Line flushing is the procedure of completely cleaning out a .
large paint circulating system such as those found at "auto
assembly plants. The system includes the paint mix tanks and
perhaps hundreds of feet of pipe or piping. This procedure is
only necessary when a system is inadvertently contaminated or for
a routine color change.
Although the system is essentially closed loop, some losses
can occur during the flushing (i.e. through various vents, from
transfer operations and from the paint mix tanks). In the
information supplied to the Agency, automobile assembly plants
with closed loop systems estimated a 10 percent loss from the
line flushing operation, independent of the solvent used, but
they provided no data or rationale to support the estimates.
Onsite recycling
An R or R unit operation located within the plant boundaries
from which clean solvent is returned to a process other than that
which generated the waste solvent. A material balance for the R
or R unit operation (distillation, filtration, etc.) should be
developed independently.
C-3
-------
See "storage containers." (Emissions during cleanup of the R
or R unit operation should not be overlooked when determining the
long-term solvent efficiency of the unit.)
Offsite recycling
An R or R unit operation system located outside of the plant
boundaries.
Pollution prevention
Practices or process changes .that decrease or eliminate the
creation of emissions (or wastes) at the source. Such prevention
techniques include use of new materials, modification of
equipment, and changes in work practices.
Product substitution
Replacement of any product or raw material intended for an
intermediate or final use with another. This substitution is a
source reduction activity if either the VOC emissions or the
quantity of waste generated is reduced.
Protective covers
Shielding of materials used to blanket or enrap all or parts of a
surface.
Purging
The process wherein individual paint applicators and
portions of paint delivery lines are emptied of one color paint,
cleaned, and filled with another. This is a common cleaning
practice in the automobile assembly industry.
Reclaim
. "Reclaim" means a material is processed or regenerated to
recover a usable product. (See recycle).
Recovery or regeneration (R or R) unit operation
C-4
-------
A device for purifying solvent that may use any of a variety
of techniques, including extraction, distillation, filtration,
adsorption, or absorption.
Recycle
"Recycled" means used, reused, or reclaimed
(40 CFR 261.Kb)(7)). A material is "used or reused" if it is
either employed as an ingredient (including its use as an
intermediate) to make a product. For example, when solvent
recovered by distillation is reused in the plant.
Reuse
See "used."
Source reduction
— — .
Any activity or treatment that reduces or eliminates the
generation of VOC emissions (or waste), including product
substitution or elimination and pollution prevention.
Storage container
Emissions from storage containers are to be included in a
material balance.
Treatment
Destruction or degradation of waste using techniques such as
combustion or neutralization to produce material that is less
toxic and more environmentally benign. (See recycle).
Unit operation (UO)
An industrial operation, classified or grouped according to
its function in an operating environment. Examples include
distillation columns, paint mixing vessels (tanks), spray booths,
parts cleaners and printing machines. A unit operation may
consist of one or more items of equipment, e.g., both a reactor
C-5
-------
and a mixing vessel or several mixing vessels. There may be
considerable variation in the type of unit operations from one
industry to another. (See unit operation system.)
Unit operation system (UOS)
The ensemble of equipment around which a material balance is
performed. A UOS includes all possible points/sources that could
result in losses to the atmosphere as a result of its being
cleaned, including losses during dispensing of solvent, losses
from residual solvent on or in cleaning tools (such as rags),
losses from solvent storage, etc. An item of equipment used for
cleaning parts by definition is a unit operation, therefore,
carry-out losses during removal of cleaned parts should be
considered in a material balance.
c
Used (or reused)
A material is "used or reused" if it is employed as an
ingredient (including use as an intermediate) in an industrial
process to make a product (for example, in purifying a waste
solvent, distillation bottoms from one column may be used as
feedstock in another).
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) •*•
[NOTE: This definition may subsequently change. The Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR 51.100 [s]) will provide the current
legal definition.] Any compound of carbon, excluding carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or
carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions.
1. This includes any such organic compound other than the
following, which have been determined to have negligible
photochemical reactivity: methane; ethane; methylene chloride
(dichloromethane); 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform);
l,l,l-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113);
trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) ; dichlorodifluoromethane
C-6
-------
(CFC-12); chlorodifluoromethane (CPC-22); trifluoromethane
(FC-23); 1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114);
chloropentafluorethane (CFC-115); 1,1,1-trifluoro
2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123) ; 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane
(HFC-134a); 1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b); 1-chloro
1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-chloro
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane
(HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134);
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a);
and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these classes:
(a) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated
alkanes;
(b) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely with
fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations;
(c) Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated
?
tertiary amines with no unsaturations; and
(d) Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no
unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to carbon and fluorine.
2. For purposes of determining compliance with emission
limits, VOC will be measured by the test methods in the approved
State implementation plan (SIP) or 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, as
applicable. Where such a method also measures compounds with
negligible photochemical reactivity, these negligibility-reactive
compounds may be deducted from the reported VOC if the amount of
such compounds is accurately quantified, and such exclusion is
approved by the enforcement authority.
3. As a precondition to excluding these compounds as VOC or
at any time thereafter, the enforcement authority may require an
owner or operator to provide monitoring or testing methods and
results demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the enforcement
authority, the amount of negligibly-reactive compounds in the
source's emissions.
4. For the purposes of Federal enforcement for a specific
source, the EPA shall use the test method specified in the
applicable EPA-approved SIP, in a permit issued pursuant to a
C-7
-------
program approved or promulgated under Title V of the Act, or
under 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart I or Appendix S, or under 40 CFR
Parts 52 or 60. The EPA shall not be bound by any State
determination as to appropriate methods for testing or monitoring
negligibly-reactive compounds if such determination is not
reflected in any of the above provisions.
Waste minimization
Means the reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous
waste that is generated or subsequently treated, stored or
disposed. It includes any source reduction or recycling activity
undertaken by a generator that results in either (1) the
reduction of total volume or quantity of hazardous waste, or
both, so long as such reduction is consistent with the goal of
minimizing present and future threats to human health and the
environment. In order of preference there ares source
reduction, recycling, and treatment.
Water Blasting
This term refers to cleaning practices that involve spraying
high pressure water on a surface to remove contaminants.
Work practice
This term is reserved for specific human activities within
industry that lead to a reduction in VOC emissions (or waste).
The activities include increased operator training, management
directives, segregation of the waste solvent, and practices that
lead to a reduction in cleaning frequency. It does not include
the use of specialized equipment, such as solvent dispensers.
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
1. 40 CFR Part 51, Vol. 57, No. 22, February 3, 1992.
C-8
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-94-029
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Automobile Assembly Plant Spray Booth Cleaning
Emission Reduction Technology Review
5. REPORT DATE
March, 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard, Suite 350
Gary, North Carolina 27513
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D1-0115
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emissions Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TyPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Manager: Mohamed Serageldin, Ph.D,
(919) 541-2379
16. ABSTRACT
Cleaning of automobile spray booths is a source of volatile organic compound (VOQ
emissions. This study was conducted to obtain and evaluate information on: (1) the use of alternative
cleaning practices within the industry that reduce or eliminate the use of organic cleaning solvents, (2)
the current level of VOC emissions resulting from spray booth cleaning, and (3) the emission
reductions achieved by implementing alternative cleaning practices. Information from 15 automobile
assembly plants operated by eight companies was reviewed, evaluated, and summarized. Solvent use
and alternative cleaning practices were identified for seven categories of booth components: walls,
floors, grates, robots/equipment, spray equipment tips, windows, and fixtures. Annual (1991 base
year) spray booth cleaning emissions reported by the 15 plants are presented. This document also
explains procedures for estimating VOC emissions from spray booth cleaning based upon the Unit
Operation System (UOS) concept.
The conclusions from this study are: (1) there is significant potential for VOC emissions
reductions; (2) emissions and, thus, potential reductions range from a few tons to nearly 1,000 tons
per year per plant; (3) typical emissions reductions achieved by specific alternatives are less than 20
tons/yr but can range up to nearly 200 tons/yr; and (4) elimination of solvent spraying, as a cleaning
practice, holds the greatest potential for reducing emissions.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Automobile Spray Booth Cleaning
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
VOC's
VOCs
Spray booths
Pollution Prevention
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tliu Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page>
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4-77) PREVIOUS COITION is OBSOLETE
-------
U.S. Envi-oirar.tp! Portion Agency
Region 6 !'. . • :
77 West jaciv.. • ,.'jf 12th flar
Chicago, it tCo04-oo90
------- |