EVALUATION OF SUPERCRITICAL CARBON
DIOXIDE TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE SOLVENT
IN SPRAY COATING APPLICATIONS
by
Kenneth J, Heater
Alice B. Parsons
Robert F. Olfenbuttel
Battelle
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Contract No. 68-CO-0003
Work Assignment No. 3-36
Technical Project Manager
Paul Randall
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
) Printed on Recycled Papar
-------
NOTICE
This material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-CO-0003 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative review and approved for publication as an EPA document. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or Battelle; nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
recommendation for use. This document is intended as advisory guidance only to manufacturers of
solvent-based paints in developing approaches to solvent reduction. Compliance with environ-
mental and occupational safety and health laws is the responsibility of each individual business and
is not the focus of this document.
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and
practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt
with, can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources.
Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our environ-
mental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing,
and managing research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative,
defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with
respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes,
Superfund-related activities, and pollution prevention. This publication is one of the products of
that research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
Passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 marked a significant change in U.S.
policies concerning the generation of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. This bill implements the
national objective of pollution prevention by establishing a source reduction program at the EPA and
by assisting States in providing information and technical assistance regarding source reduction. In
support of the emphasis on pollution prevention, the Clean Technology Demonstration (CTD)
program is designed to identify, evaluate, and/or demonstrate new ideas and technologies that lead
to waste reduction. It continues the efforts of the Waste Reduction Innovative Technology
Evaluation (WRITE) Program. CTD focuses on evaluating and demonstrating technologies available
to a particular industry to minimize pollution at the source. These methods reduce or eliminate
transportation, handling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials in the environment. The
technology evaluation project discussed in this report emphasizes the study and development of
methods to reduce waste and prevent pollution.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in
-------
ABSTRACT
This evaluation addresses the product quality, waste reduction, and economic issues
of spray paint application using supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2). In the UNICARB™ process
developed by Union Carbide, supercritical CO2 is used to replace some of the solvents in conven-
tional coating formulations. The CO2 acts as a diluent to reduce the viscosity of the reduced
solvent coating formulation for spray application; it also aids in the spray atomization process. CO2
is introduced into the paint stream by means of specialized equipment which meters and mixes the
CO2 in the proportions selected for optimum coating application. Using this process in the
application of nitrocellulose lacquer finish on a chair-finishing line, Pennsylvania House Furniture
Company, in White Deer, Pennsylvania, has been able to move from a two-coat to a one-coat finish
while maintaining product quality. Product quality evaluation included gloss and hardness
measurements, subject ratings by three groups of evaluators, and Pennsylvania House records
concerning levels of customer acceptance of furniture units. Pennsylvania House has more than a
year's experience producing high-quality products using this technology. VOC emission is reduced
because supercritical CO2, recovered from the wastestreams of other industrial processes, replaces
most of the volatile fast- and medium-drying solvents in the solvent-borne coating being applied,
and one coat is applied instead of two. Solid wastes from the conventional process and from the
supercritical CO2 spray process are approximately the same per furniture unit sprayed. The
equipment costs and other factors that affect the return on investment for this process can be
variable, but a payback period of 5 years is estimated for the process as implemented at the White
Deer facility.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68 CO-0003 Work
Assignment No. 3-36 under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
report covers a period from November 1992 through September 1993, and work was completed as
of January 31, 1994.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
NOTICE . . .
FOREWORD
-....• H
ABSTRACT ....... . ....... . .............. ........................ iv
FIGURES ......................................... '.''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ........ vii
TABLES .................................. ........................ ' ' vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................. viii
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . .......... ........ ........ ....... 1
PROJECT OBJECTIVES .......................... ............... ' 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE ........................ '.'.'.'.'.'.'. ............ 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY ..... . ............... ............... 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE FINISHING PROCESS .............. ............... 5
SUMMARY OF APPROACH ........ . ....................... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 8
Product Quality Evaluation ....... ........ . ........ .- ................ g
Pollution Prevention Potential ........... ............................. 10
Economic Analysis .......... ........................ '. .......... 1 Q
SECTION 2
PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION . . _____ . ...................... -j !
ON-SITE SAMPLE PREPARATION .... ................. ..'!.'.' ......... 12
QUALITY EVALUATIONS ........................... . ' ' ......... ' ' ' -j 3
PRODUCT QUALITY ASSESSMENT ..................... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 20
SECTION 3
POLLUTION PREVENTION POTENTIAL ................ . ............... 22
POLLUTION PREVENTION ........... ................. ... .............. 22
VOC EMISSIONS ........ ........... ....... ....... ....... 22
CARBON DIOXIDE .................. .... ........ ...... • • • • • ....... ^
WASTE REDUCTION ................... . ............. '...!! .......... 28
POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSESSMENT .............. ........... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 28
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ........... . . . .................. ... 29
CAPITAL INVESTMENT ............................. '.'.'. .............. 29
RAW MATERIALS .................................. ........ 31
OPERATING COSTS ................ ...... . .......... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ....... 31
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ...... . . . ............... ......... '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 32
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE 35
ON-SITE SAMPLING '.'.'.'.['.'. " ' 35
LABORATORY ANALYSIS 36
PRODUCT QUALITY '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 37
POLLUTION PREVENTION POTENTIAL ' ' 33
RECORD DATA 38
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION
39
SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONS . . 41
SECTION 8
REFERENCES 43
APPENDIX
RAW DATA FROM ANALYSIS OF FIELD SAMPLES 45
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number pj|g§
1 Phase diagram for carbon dioxide 3
2 The UNICARB" system 6
3 Schematic of chair-finish line at Pennsylvania House White Deer facility. . . . 7
4 Rating sheet for subjective evaluation of finish quality , . 14
5 Cost analysis for C02 program 30
TABLES
Number p^
1 Summary of evaluation criteria 9
2 On-site sampling ^2
3 Finish quality evaluation results by Pennsylvania
House representatives 15
4 Finish quality evaluation results by Battelle coatings experts 16
5 Finish quality evaluation results by non-expert Battelle test group 17
6 Summary of finish quality results 18
7 Best overall panel selected by the non-expert
Battelle test group 1 g
8 Gloss data on sample panels . . . ][ 1 g
9 Pencil hardness test results '.'.'.'. 20
10 Description of VOCs from material safety data sheets
and laboratory analysis 24
11 Results of economic analysis - gas utilities saving 33
12 Results of economic analysis - no gas savings . 34
13 Quantitative QA objectives '.'.'.'. 36
A-1 Analytical data from percent volatiles/percent
solids determination on UNICARB™ . 45
A-2 Analytical data from percent volatiles/percent
solids determination on conventional nitrocellulose
field samples 45
A-3 60-degree gloss readings 9-24-93 '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 46
A-4 Economic analysis inputs - gas utilities savings 48
A-5 Economic analysis inputs - no gas utilities savings 49
VII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following people are acknowledged for their cooperation and support of this pro-
gram: Pennsylvania House White Deer Plant staff, especially Clinton Shurtliff, Plant Manager, and
George Palmer, Finishing Manager; Thayer West, Market Manager - UNICARB™ System, Union
Carbide Corporation; Cindy Daignault, Business Development Specialist, Liquid Systems Group,
Nordson Corporation. The technical reviewers for this report were Lisa Brown (U.S. EPA Risk Re-
duction Engineering Laboratory, Pollution Prevention Research Branch, in Cincinnati, OH) and Robert
McCrillis (U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC).
VIII
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This program was conducted by Battelle for the Pollution Prevention Research
Branch (PPRB) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with the cooperation of Union Carbide
Corporation, Nordson Corporation, and Pennsylvania House Furniture Company. The PPRB is evalu-
ating and demonstrating new technologies for pollution prevention through the Pollution Prevention
Clean Technology Demonstration (CTD) Program. The goal of this program is to promote the use of
clean technologies that reduce or eliminate sources of pollution in a particular industry. The CTD
program is a continuation of efforts of the Process Engineering Section (PES) of PPRB, which direct-
ed the efforts of the Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) Program.
In this particular evaluation, the use of supercritical CO2 (carbon dioxide) technology
for paint spray application is reviewed. Specifically, this technology is evaluated as it is used by
Pennsylvania House to apply a nitrocellulose lacquer finish on a chair-finishing line. This process is
not specific to the application of nitrocellulose lacquer finishes used by Pennsylvania House. It is
used with other coating formulations to coat baking utensils, automotive components, and metal.
If the supercritical CO2 spray technology process is to be considered a commercially
viable alternative for coating applications, it must be capable of producing a product of equal or
better quality than the spray process it is replacing. Furthermore, to be considered a candidate for
the CTD program, the technology must be environmentally friendly, offering advantages in waste
reduction or pollution prevention. The economics of the technology must be quantified and com-
pared with the economics of the existing technology. However, reduction of operating costs is not
an absolute criterion for the use of this or any other technology. Other justifications, such as a
demonstrated favorable impact on the environment via waste reduction or pollution prevention,
would encourage adoption of new operating approaches. This document addresses issues associat-
ed with the environmental impact of using supercritical CO2 technology in paint spray applications,
effects on product quality, and the economic ramifications of implementing this technology in the
finishing operation at Pennsylvania House.
-------
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study is to provide an independent evaluation of the use of super-
critical CO2 technology for paint spray applications. Specifically, this is an evaluation of the
UNICARB™* process as it is used to apply nitrocellulose lacquer on a chair-finishing line at Pennsyl-
vania House Furniture. This study has the following critical objectives:
• Product Quality: Show that coating applied by this spray technology meets
company standards for a quality finish.
• Pollution Prevention Potential: Demonstrate that use of this spray application tech-
nology to replace solvents in coatings reduces VOCs released in finishing operations.
• Economic Ramifications: Document the cost to install and operate this pollution
prevention technology on an existing spray coating finish line.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The site selected for evaluating this new technology is Pennsylvania House Furniture
Company in White Deer, Pennsylvania. The White Deer facility produces cherry and oak chairs,
stools, mirrors, dining room tables, and four-poster beds. Pennsylvania House has been using
supercritical CO2 coating technology at its White Deer plant for more than a year to apply a nitro-
cellulose lacquer finish to wood furniture on its chair line. At current production rates, more than
250 furniture units per day are coated with nitrocellulose lacquer by this process. Plans are under
way to expand the use of the technology to a second finish line in the next year.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
Union Carbide Corporation developed the use of supercritical CO2 for spray coating
applications, introducing this technology commercially in 1988 under the UNICARB™ trademark. A
number of publications provide thorough descriptions of this process. {See the Reference List,
Section 7). Union Carbide claims that the UNICARB™ process is an environmentally friendly way to
reduce VOC emissions by using supercritical CO2 to replace some of the volatile organic solvents
that are used conventionally to dilute coatings for spray application. Additionally, Union Carbide
Mention of tradenames or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
2
-------
claims that expansion of the supercritical CO2 as it leaves the spray gun nozzle aids in the paint
spray atomization process. The net result is a process that makes possible the application of high-
quality coatings at reduced levels of VOC emissions.
Supercritical fluids are gases that exist at temperatures and pressures near or above
the critical point of the fluid as depicted on a phase diagram (Figure 1). At the critical point, the
properties of the liquid and the gas are similar or identical. The resulting single-phase fluid exhibits
solvent-like properties that can be altered by adjusting temperature and pressure. A number of
gases have been examined for use as supercritical fluids in applications such as industrial and ana-
lytical separation processes, cleaning, chromatography, and coating. The UNICARB™ process for
coating uses nontoxic, nonflammable carbon dioxide as the supercritical fluid for coating dilution.
Carbon dioxide, readily available as a by-product of a variety of industrial processes, has a critical
temperature of 31.3 °C (88 °F) and a critical pressure of 72.9 atm (1070 psi), falling within the
ranges already used for heated paint systems and airless spray equipment.
1000
LU
3
o
(It
CO
O
OT 100
cc
UJ
Q.
tn
m
UJ
cc
CO
en
Ul
cc
a.
10
CRITICAL
POINT
1
-160 -120
-BO -40 0 40 60
TEMPERATURE IN F
120
Figure 1. Phase Diagram for Carbon Dioxide.*
* Nielsen, K.A., Busby, D.C., Clancy, C.W., Hoy, K.L., Kuo, A.C., and Lee, C., "Supercritical Fluid Spray Application Tech-
nology: A Pollution Prevention Technology for the Future," Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. Present-
ed at the 17th Water-Borne & Higher-Solids Coatings Symposium, February 21-23, 1990, New Orleans, LA.
-------
In the UNICARB™ process, the solvent-like properties of supercritical CO2 are exploited
to replace a portion of the organic solvent in the conventional solvent-borne coating formulation.
The supercritical CO2 acts as a diluent solvent to thin the viscous coating just prior to application,
so that the coating can be atomized and applied with a modified spray gun. According to Union
Carbide, 30 to 80% of the organic solvent in a coating formulation can be replaced with super-
critical fluid. Typically, most of the volatile, fast-drying solvents and some of the medium-drying
solvents are eliminated, retaining enough medium- and slow-evaporating solvents to obtain proper
leveling and film coalescence. The solvent blends may need to be adjusted to optimize performance
with the supercritical CO2 spray technology. This usually can be done without changing the resin
chemistry or pigment-loading levels. The solvent level of even conventional high-solids coatings
can be reduced further when applied by this process. The actual reduction in solvent content that
can be achieved is dictated by a number of factors. These include the type of coating being applied
and its exact formulation, the desired film thickness and properties of the applied coating, and the
environment in which the coating is being applied.
Thermosetting, thermoplastic, air-dry, and two-component formulations, in clear, pig-
mented, and metallic coating systems, have been developed successfully for application by super-
critical CO2 spray technology. Limitations exist with pigmented systems because some of the pig-
ments, (e.g., carbon black), may be soluble in the supercritical CO2. However, other pigments,
including aluminum flake, titanium dioxide, and calcium carbonate, have been included successfully
in formulations applied using this process. Nitrocellulose, silicone alkyds, acrylics, and a two-part
urethane formulation have been developed for supercritical CO2 application. Union Carbide is cur-
rently working on a two-part epoxy system and a phenolic resin formulation.
The supercritical temperature and pressure of CO2 are within the ranges already used
for heated paint systems and airless spray equipment, but special equipment is needed to introduce
the CO2 into the reduced solvent formulations and then heat and pressurize the resultant mixture
-prior, to spraying. Typically, 10 to 50% carbon dioxide by weight may be introduced depending on
the solubility in the coating, the solids level, the pigment loading, and the ambient conditions in the
spray booth. Heating lowers the coating viscosity for easier pumping but decreases the solubility
of the CO2 in the coating concentrate. Therefore, optimum operating temperature and pressure
must be determined and maintained to achieve the best results in each application.
Usually, the coating is heated to 40° to 70 °C with spray pressures of 1200 to 1600
psi. The specially formulated coatings are applied with spray guns similar to those used for airless
applications. However, because the decompression of supercritical CO2 results in finer atomization
of the sprayed coating and smaller particles than is common with use of airless spray equipment,
slight modification of the spray gun nozzle design was required to optimize the spray pattern. The
-------
result is a more finely dispersed and more uniform pattern than typically is achieved with conven-
tional air spray equipment.
Nordson Corporation has developed a complete line of special equipment for the
UNICARB™ process (Figure 2) and designed the equipment used by Pennsylvania House. A supply
unit mixes coating concentrate and carbon dioxide to a desired ratio, pressure, and temperature,
and delivers the solution to specially designed spray guns. The size of the supply unit is dictated
by production requirements. A microprocessor-based controller continuously monitors the system
and allows the operator to adjust the ratio of coating concentrate to carbon dioxide for best results.
The supply unit and controller are placed adjacent to, but outside of, the spray booth. The system
equipment is available for either manual or automatic operation. Manual and automatic spray guns
for electrostatic and non-electrostatic applications can be used with minor modifications to the
nozzle. Because the reduced solvent coating is more viscous, a special pumping station is required.
DESCRIPTION OF THE FINISHING PROCESS
Pennsylvania House uses the UNICARB™ process on the chair-finishing line at its plant
in White Deer, Pennsylvania, to apply nitrocellulose lacquer finishes. This supercritical CO2 spray
technology has allowed Pennsylvania House to continue using the solvent-borne nitrocellulose lac-
quer coating that is used widely in the U.S. wood-finishing industry, while reducing VOC emissions
from their finishing operation. To bring this technology to production-line use, Pennsylvania House
worked closely with Union Carbide to optimize the basic process, Nordson for equipment-related
issues, and with Guardsman and Lilly to optimize the formulations of reduced solvent coatings.
The chair-finishing line at the White Deer facility carries chairs, stools, and mirrors
from assembly through the finishing process and to packaging. A schematic representation of the
finishing operation appears as Figure 3. The finishing process is labor intensive, with manned sta-
tions for staining, wiping, rubbing, sanding, polishing, and inspection. The overhead conveyor
system runs through the various work stations at 6 to 7 ft per minute; 6 ft per minute is approxi-
mately 60-70% of capacity. At this speed, 250-300 units per day are produced. Total time on the
line from start to finish is about 4 hours.
Two color stains usually are used to highlight the natural grain and provide color to the
wood. Toner stain is sprayed on first, followed by a sprayed mineral-spirit wiping stain, which then
is wiped off by hand. Some pieces get a spatter stain for special effects before entering the oven
for the first drying step. Oven temperature is maintained at 110°F for all heating steps. The next
-------
Nordson Pump
Caiton Dioxide Gas
Nordson SCF Conirolter
Nordson SCF Spray Gun
Nordson SCF Supply Unit
Figure 2. The UNICARB™ system.4
* The UNICARB™ System, Nordson Corporation, 555 Jackson Street, Amherst, Ohio 44001, Telephone: 800-241-8777.
-------
Ł
1
o>
o
Q
o>
Q)
O5
O
I
to
O)
H=
ID
U
•s
O
'i
«
•g
CO
CO
I
CD
iJL
-------
step is spray application of a 20%-solids nitrocellulose sealer followed by a second pass through
the oven. Light hand sanding is performed if needed before or after application of the sealer.
The nitrocellulose lacquer is spray applied next. In the conventional finishing process,
nitrocellulose lacquer (21-23%-solids) is applied manually using airless spray equipment in two
coats, with a pass through the oven between the coats. Flash-off time between spraying the coat-
ing and entering the oven is 10 to 12 minutes. Oven residence time is 7 minutes. The same flash-
off and oven-time intervals are used after the second coat of lacquer. Furniture units remain on the
line at ambient temperatures for one hour and forty-five minutes after the last oven pass before
they are packaged. When the supercritical CO2 finishing process is used, only one coat of nitrocel-
lulose lacquer is needed to achieve the desired film build and finish quality. The nitrocellulose
lacquer formulation optimized for the Pennsylvania House production line has approximately a 41 %-
solids content. This coating is applied using the UNICARB™ equipment in spray booth #1, followed
by a 10- to 12-minute flash-off period, and a 7-minute pass through the oven. Because Pennsylva-
nia House has not reconfigured the chair conveyor line, the UNICARB™ line follows the existing
conveyor line through the unused spray booth #2 and the final stage of the oven before reaching
inspection and packaging for shipment. The second oven pass is not required for this process but
has no negative effect on the cured finish coat.
Conventional and reformulated nitrocellulose lacquer coatings used by Pennsylvania
House are supplied to the spray guns directly from the shipping drums. The drums of coating are
equilibrated and mixed in the Pennsylvania House paint room before being pumped through lines to
the spray booths. Temperature and humidity changes in the plant sometimes require adjustments
in the solvent blend of the formulations for optimal spray results. With conventional lacquer, sol-
vent is added to the drum of coating, which then takes about 1 hour to reach the spray booth.
This adjustment process sometimes must be repeated to get the desired results. Once extra sol-
vent has been added to a drum of coating, the contents of the drum have a higher volatile content.
With the supercritical CO2 spray system, the operator simply adjusts the ratio of CO2 to coating
concentrate at the control unit located just outside the spray booth. No additional solvents are
introduced into the process, and adjustments are immediately evident.
SUMMARY OF APPROACH
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), prepared at the beginning of this study
(Battelle, 1993), describes the detailed approach and scientific rationale used to evaluate the
UNICARB™ process. The process evaluation included a product quality assessment, an estimation
8
-------
of the pollution prevention potential of this technology, and an economic analysis. A summary of
the data used to address each of these issues is presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
Objective of Evaluation
Product Quality
Pollution Prevention Potential
Economic Ramifications
Sample Type
wooden (cherry) chair-
back splats*
conventional coating
formulation
UNBARE" formulation
carbon dioxide
solid waste
UNICARB" process
Property
gloss
pencil hardness
total appearance
percent volatiles/
percent solids
percent volatiles/ .
percent solids
volume used
volume disposed
capital cost
operating cost
waste disposal
Criteria
measurement
measurement
subjective:
1 . Pennsylvania House
2. Battelle Test Groups
measurement
measurement
company records
company records
Nordson Corporation*
company records
company records
Critical
no
no
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
* Substitute for oak panels in QAPP. See Section 2, "On-Site Sample Preparation" for complete explanation.
t 1993 equipment cost figures from Nordson Corporation. See Section 4 for complete explanation.
Product Quality Evaluation
The objective of the product quality evaluation was to determine whether a coating
applied by the supercritical CO2 spray process provides a finish of equal or better quality than the
finish achieved by the conventional coating process. Specifically, the objective was to find out
whether nitrocellulose lacquer applied by the UNICARB™ process provides a wood finish of equal or
better quality than does the conventional nitrocellulose formulation and spray technique previously
used by Pennsylvania House Furniture Company. This was accomplished by comparing three sets
of chair-back splats that were finished on the Pennsylvania House chair line in an identical man-
ner except for the nitrocellulose lacquer finish—one set of samples was finished using the one-coat
supercritical CO2 spray process and the other two sets of samples were finished using one and two
coats (respectively) of the old nitrocellulose formulation and the airless spray equipment still in
place on the chair-finishing line.
-------
Pollution Prevention Potential
The pollution prevention potential of this technology is based on reduction in emission
of organic solvents added to a coating formulation to control viscosity for spray application. In
conventional spray coatings, a blend of solvents is used. Fast-evaporating solvents reduce viscosi-
ty for good atomization; medium-evaporating solvents aid in leveling; and slow-evaporating solvents
allow time for final film formation. In the supercritical CO2 spray process, most of the fast- and
medium-drying solvents are removed from the formulation, and the slow-drying solvents are adjust-
ed slightly for better film formation. Supercritical CO2 is used to replace the fast- and medium-dry-
ing solvents. Thus, the supercritical CO2 spray process was expected to reduce VOC emissions
from the chair-finishing line at the White Deer Plant. It was important to verify that this technology
did not add to other wastestreams while it reduced VOC emissions.
Economic Analysis
The objective of the economic analysis was to determine the payback period for the
switch to the supercritical spray process from the conventional system previously used at the White
Deer facility. This was accomplished by comparing the operating costs of the UNICARB™ process
to the conventional finishing process. The initial investment by Pennsylvania House in capital
equipment and installation costs was considered, as were operating costs, which include materials,
waste disposal, labor, and utilities. A return on investment (ROD and payback period for the con-
version was calculated.
10
-------
SECTION 2
PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION
Nitrocellulose coating formulations have been used with good results in the U.S. v/ood
finishing industry for many years to give a warm, rich, defect-free appearance. Criteria for judging
a quality wood finish are subjective and unique to each company, but the natural beauty of the
wood typically is emphasized for stained and clear coat finishes. At Pennsylvania House, the final
appearance and quality of the finish are judged through visual examination by inspectors on the
coating line. Special attention is given to gloss, smoothness, and lack of surface defects such as
blisters or pinholes. The evaluation of product quality is strictly subjective in nature; it is up to the
discretion of Pennsylvania House and ultimately the customers who purchase their products. No
physical tests are used-to generate a quantitative measure of product quality.
In this study, product quality was assessed through independent subjective evaluations
of nine test panels (three sample sets) prepared by Pennsylvania House staff on the chair-finishing
line. All panels were finished by the same production methods that typically are used on the chair
line at Pennsylvania House. Three test panels were finished using the one-coat nitrocellulose
UNICARB™ process currently used in production on the chair line at Pennsylvania House, three
panels received one coat of the conventional nitrocellulose applied by the conventional airless
equipment, and the remaining three chair splats received the full two-coat finish by the conven-
tional process previously used on the chair-finishing line at Pennsylvania House.
Product quality, as discussed in this document, was evaluated through independent
evaluations performed by Pennsylvania House staff members, coatings experts in the Battelle Ad-
vanced Organic Coatings Group, and other Battelle staff members making up a panel considered
representative of the consumer market. The product quality evaluation demonstrated that a coating
applied by the UNICARB™ spray process yields a product with a finish quality equal to or better
than the quality finish obtained by conventional methods.
11
-------
ON-SITE SAMPLE PREPARATION
Finished samples for the product quality evaluation were prepared on site by experi-
enced Pennsylvania House staff at the White Deer facility (Table 2). Care was taken to ensure all
samples were prepared by the same methods typically used by Pennsylvania House on their chair-
finishing line. Because actual furniture units were too costly to be used as samples for the project
evaluation, cherry chair-back splats were finished on the chair line in the same way the
TABLE 2. ON-SITE SAMPLING
Field Sample Description
Wood Panels
one coat conventional
nitrocellulose
Wood Panels
two coats conventional
nitrocellulose
Wood Panels
one coat UNICARB™
nitrocellulose
Nitrocellulose lacquer
conventional formulation
Nitrocellulose lacquer
UNICARB™ formulation
Field Sample
Number and Size
three cherry chair-back
splats (7" x21")
three cherry chair-back
splats (7" x21")
three cherry chair-back
splats (7" x21")
three (450 ml each)*
three (450 mL each)f
Field Sampling Method
spray on finish line
spray on finish line
spray on finish line
pump from drum as
received
pump from drum as
received
Storage
Conditions
ambient
ambient
ambient
ambient,
protect from
freezing*
ambient,
protect from
freezing*
« Samples were analyzed within 14 days after sample collection. Unopened reserve samples could be used up to 6
months after collection.
t Two 450-mL field samples collected from each formulation were used for testing. The third was held in reserve.
chair units are routinely finished. Nine panels (splats) were treated with toner stain, dried, sealed,
and sanded by staff on the chair line. Then three splats were sprayed with one coat of nitrocellu-
lose lacquer using the UNICARB™ process. The conventional process requires two coats of nitrocel-
lulose lacquer to achieve the desired appearance and film quality; the second coating is applied after
the first coating is dried in the oven. Six splats were sprayed with a single coat of conventional
nitrocellulose lacquer using airless equipment. After drying, three of these splats were sprayed
with a second coat of nitrocellulose lacquer using the conventional airless spray process. The sin-
gle-coat samples were retained for comparison to the UNICARB™ splats. All three sets of splats
12
-------
made a total of four 7-minute passes through the 110'F oven in the same sequence actually fol-
lowed during production (Figure 3). After the sample splats reached point P-1 on Figure 3, they
were inspected by employees of Pennsylvania House Furniture Company for production defects.
It was possible to spray sample chair splats using the conventional lacquer and equip-
ment because the White Deer facility continues to use conventional nitrocellulose/airless spray
equipment on its table finishing line and still has the airless spray equipment in place on the chair
line, although it is no longer used in production. The formulation currently used on the table line is
the same as that used on the chair line before conversion to the UNICARB™ process. Pennsylvania
House is beginning to convert the table line to supercritical CO2 spray technology also.
At the time of the site visit and under direction of the Battelle Study Leader, two
changes were made in the sampling procedure outlined in the QAPP. The first change was the
substitution of 7" x 21" cherry chair-back splats for the flat oak 1' x 3' panels described in the
QAPP. Pennsylvania House employees suggested the use of cherry instead of oak because the
quality of the final finish is somewhat easier to determine on dark stained cherry than on the lighter
oak. Because both oak and cherry are used routinely in chairs at White Deer, the employees are
skilled in handling both. In addition, the chair-back splats simulate the geometry of the furniture
surfaces coated on the chair line better than do flat, rectangular panels. The second change in
procedure compensated for the fact that the sample splats could not be hung on the chair conveyor
and had to be manually transported. In order to simulate the processing sequence and timing inter-
vals, a marker was attached to an empty hanger on the conveyor line and followed through the
production process. These deviations from the sampling procedures specified in Section 3.0 of the
QAPP were approved by the Battelle Study Leader in the field and are documented in the laboratory
record book.
QUALITY EVALUATIONS
The objective of the product quality evaluation was to determine whether the nitrocel-
lulose lacquer finish applied using the UNICARB™ process provides a wood finish of equal or belter
quality than that of the conventional nitrocellulose formulation and spray technique previously used
by Pennsylvania House Furniture Company. This was accomplished by performing three indepen-
dent evaluations of the three sets of chair splats that were finished by Pennsylvania House for this
study. Pennsylvania House experts provided a visual judgment of the finish quality of each of the
nine sample splats just as they typically would do for their furniture units. The ratings of the Penn-
sylvania House experts were considered the critical factor in judging finish quality. To provide an
13
-------
additional perspective on product quality, the coated sample splats also were evaluated subjectively
for gloss, smoothness, and overall appearance by two test groups at Battelle: a group of three
coating experts from Battelle's Advanced Organic Coatings Group, experienced in coatings technol-
ogy; and a second test group made up of ten Battelle staff members having no professional exper-
tise in coatings. This second group was considered representative of general consumer interests.
While the results of the viewer evaluations at Battelle are not considered critical to the product
quality evaluation, they are presented as an objective comparison to the ratings given by the Penn-
sylvania House experts.
The Finish Quality Evaluation Sample Panel Rating Form completed for each of the
sample splats by the Pennsylvania House experts and the members of the Battelle test groups is
presented in Figure 4. The subjective evaluation of "total appearance" is largely dependent on
visual observation of two factors—gloss and smoothness (tactile). A rating of "1" indicates high
quality, a rating of "2" is acceptable quality, and a rating of "3" means unacceptable quality.
FINISH QUALITY EVALUATION SAMPLE PANEL RATING. FORM
Please rate the sample panel identified on this sheet on the following scale of 1 to 3 for qloss
smoothness, and overall appearance:
1 = high quality
2 .= acceptable quality
3 = unacceptable quality
Sample ID Number
Observer Name
Company
Date
proPertV Rating
Gloss
Smoothness
Total Appearance
Reviewed By Date
Figure 4. Rating sheet for subjective evaluation of finish quality.
14
-------
The results of the Finish Quality evaluations are presented in Tables 3, 4, and 5, and
then summarized in Table 6. The total appearance of each of the splats is summarized by a
pass/fail criteria. A single rating of "3" (unacceptable quality) in total appearance by any expert
{Pennsylvania House or Battelle) merited a "fail," indicating that the quality of the sample finish was
unacceptable. Two ratings of "3" by the non-expert group were taken as sufficient criteria for
failure, indicating that the product would not meet consumer appeal. The results of the indepen-
dent quality evaluations clearly demonstrate that sample panels finished by the UNICARB™ process
are of consistently better quality.
TABLE 3. FINISH QUALITY EVALUATION RESULTS BY
PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
Process
Conventional
One Coat
Process
Conventional
Two-Coat
Process
UNICARB™
Process
Sample
Number
46482-9-1
46482-9-2
46482-9-3
46482-10-1
46482-10-2
46482-10-3
46482-11-1
46482-11-2
46482-11-3
Gloss
PH-1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
PH-2
3
1
3
1.
1
1
2
2
2
Smoothness
PH-1
3
2
2
3
1
3
2
2
1
PH-2
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
3
2
Total
Appearance
PH-1
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
1
PH-2
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
Total
Appearance
(Pass/Fail)
Fail
Pass
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Note: A single rating of "3" for TOTAL APPEARANCE by any expert resulted in a fail.
In addition to evaluating individual sample splats, the test groups at Battelle were
asked to view three groups of three mixed spats, and to chose the panel with the best overall ap-
pearance (Table 7). Each group of mixed splats included a splat sprayed with the supercritical CO2
technology, a splat with one coat of conventionally applied nitrocellulose lacquer, and a splat fin-
ished with two coats of conventionally applied nitrocellulose lacquer. Once again, the results of
this comparative evaluation demonstrated a preference for the UNICARB™-finished splats.
15
-------
w
(3
I
O
O
ui
Hi
co
UJ
tc
o
I
CO
2
03
JS
«
o
c
Q.
Q.
s
o
H
co
g
co
CO
O
<
c
c
V
S
S. .Q
: |
Process
Ł
CO
CM
CM
CM
'-
CM
CO
CO
CO
cn
CN
00
^si-
CD
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
cn
CM
00
CO
CO
V:
Conventional
ne-Coat Proce
O
CO
Ll-
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
CO
CO
CM
00
CO
CO
U-
CM
CO
^
CO
CO
-
CM
CM
6
CM
00
«*
CO
•*
CO
a.
CM
CM
CO
^
CM
CO
-
CM
CM
CM
6
CM
CO
•*
CO
•^~
CO
te.
Conventional
wo-Coat Proce
H
Ł
CM
CM
CO
CM
"-
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
6
CM
00
•*
CO
«*
CO
CO
I
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
I
CM
CO
•*
CD
•<*
UNICARB™
CO
CO
CO
Q.
CN
CN
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
00
^1-
CO
•<*
process
2
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
"r—
-
CO
T—
CM
00
•<*
CO
•*
ro
.c
•v
Ł
. 3
V)
Ł
e
IS
HI
O
UJ
Q_
Q.
D>
I
a>
O
16
-------
D.
O
DC
O
to
LLI
111
cc
Ul
a.
X
UJ
2
O
I
CO
(O
UJ
cc
z
o
I
I
to
z
U.
in
a
CO
1
K-
.
i
'Q.
9
s
o
t-
n
o
c
o
i
1
O
.
(
§.
11
II
-»
-
X
C9
U.
Ill
O
U
CO
<
-3
-
. X
C9
u-
Ul
Q
O
CO
<
-»
-
X
(9
U.
Ul
Q
0
03
<
_ g
ii
"to
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
C0|
*~
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
.-
CM
*""
-
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
-
CO
-
CM
s
CM
01
to
CM
CM
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
CO
CO
<-
CM
-
-
O)
CM
CD
'at
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
v~
m
CM
CM
CM
CM
'*-
CM
CO
CM
-
CO
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
CO
-
CO
-
CM
CO
cn
S
1
'to
CM
CM
-
-
CO
CO
CM
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
-
CM
CO
CO
-
CM
-
CM
CM
-
-
-
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
S
CM
CO
CD
=:
to
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
*~
CO
CM
'«-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
-.
CM
6
1
CO
'3
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
-
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
•CM
CO
6
[| 46482-'
01
V)
j"
a.
CM
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
CO
CM
-
-
-
CM
CO
<~
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
^
c!i
CO
CO
i
a.
CM
CM
CM
-
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
*-
CM
CO
CM
"
CM
CO
CM
CM
-
CM
-
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
CM
CM
CO
CO
at
m
CL
-
-
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
-
-
CM
CM
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
-
-
CM
-
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
-
CO
CM
CO
I
Ul
o
cc
<
Ul
o
17
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF FINISH QUALITY RESULTS
Process
Conventional
One-Coat Process
Conventional
Two-Coat Process
UNICARB7" Process
Sample
Number
46482-9-1
46482-9-2
46482-9-3
46482-10-1
46482-10-2
46482-10-3
46482-11-1
46482-11-2
46482-11-3
Battelle Experts*
Fail
Pass
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Pass
Fail
Battelle
Non-Experts*
Fail
Pass .
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pennsylvania House
Experts*
Fail
Pass
Fail
Fail
Pass
Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
* A single rating of "3" for TOTAL APPEARANCE by any expert resulted in a fail.
t Two ratings of "3" for TOTAL APPEARANCE by any non-expert resulted in a fail.
TABLE 7. BEST OVERALL PANEL SELECTED BY THE
NON-EXPERT BATTELLE TEST GROUP
Process
Conventional One-
Coat Process
Conventional
Two-Coat Process
UNICARB™ Process
Sample
Number
46482-9-1
46482-9-2
46482-9-3
46482-10-1
46482-10-2
46482-10-3
46482-11-1
46482-11-2
46482-11-3
Number Times
Rated as Best
4
2
2
2
1
1
6
5
7
18
-------
In addition to the subjective visual inspections of the test samples, Battelle wanted to
determine some of the physical attributes of the finished samples for comparative purposes. Mea-
surements of gloss (Table 8) and pencil hardness (Table 9), using standard ASTM test methods,
were taken to generate additional data on the physical attributes of the coating. Although these
measurements are not critical to the product quality evaluation, they do provide some quantitative
insight into the physical attributes of the finish of each of the coating processes.
TABLE 8. GLOSS DATA ON SAMPLE PANELS
Finishing Process
Conventional
One Coat '
Conventional
Two Coat
UNICARB™
Sample
Number
46482-9-1
46482-9-2
46482-9-3
46482-10-1
46482-1 0-2
46482-10-3
46482-11-1
46482-1 1 -2
46482-11-3
Average
Gloss Data/Panel
20.3
± 4.3
20.4
± 3.1
20.3
± 3.1
33.2
±1.6
35.0
± 2.2
28.7
± 2.8
35.3
± 3.2
30.5
± 3.1
28.7
± 2.9
Average Gloss
Data/Set
20.3
32.3
31.5
The number of gloss measurements taken on each splat differed from that specified in
the QAPP. The splats evaluated measured approximately 7 inches x 21 inches. The test proce-
dures outlined in ASTM D529 recommend averaging six gloss measurements for a 3-inch x 6-inch
sample area, which correlates to 49 measurements on the 7-inch x 21-inch splat. The mean and
standard deviation of the 49 data points represent the overall gloss appearance of each sample,
alleviating subjective biases of the person performing the measurements while still incorporating
the assessment of any nonuniformity in the gloss across the sample surface. The breadth in stan-
dard deviation of the data can be used as a gauge of the uniformity of the sample finish. Gloss
test results for each of the nine panels are reported as the mean of 49 determinations and then
19
-------
averaged for each of the sample sets for easy comparison among each of the finishing processes in
Table 8. The averaged gloss data for the UNICARB™ samples are statistically the same as those for
the conventional two-coat process. The gloss data of both of these sets show that they are sub-
stantially glossier than the one-coat conventional finish sample set.
TABLES. PENCIL HARDNESS TEST RESULTS
Finishing Process
Conventional
One Coat
Conventional
Two Coat
UNICARB™
Sample
Number
46482-9-1
46482-9-2
46482-9-3
46482-10-1
46482-10-2
46482-10-3
46482-11-1
46482-11-2
46482-11-3
Hardness Values
3B
3B
2B
B
B
B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
HB
HB
B
3B
3B
3B
2B
2B
3B
HB
B
B
2B
3B
3B
Range
3B-2B
B-HB
3B-2B
The hardness of the finish on the wood samples was measured on each of the nine
coated wood panels using ASTM D3363. Three readings were taken on each panel. The results
did not differ by more than one hardness unit for each panel and each type of coating. The degree
of hardness is determined using the following scale (from soft to hard): 6B-5B-4B-3B-2B-B-HB-F-H-
2H-3H-4H-5H-6H. The conventional two-coat system appears harder than the other samples by
approximately 2 hardness units. The one-coat conventional and the UNICARB™ coatings are essen-
tially the same hardness. The difference in the hardness data could be attributed to a difference in
film thickness between the two-coat conventional process and the one-coat applications. Because
accurate measurement of film thickness on wood substrates is difficult to obtain, film thickness
data are not available to substantiate further comment.
PRODUCT QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The results of the product quality assessment indicate clearly that the nitrocellulose
lacquer finish applied by the supercritical CO2 process is of equal or better quality than the finish
20
-------
obtained by conventional methods. Product quality verification was supported by coating experts,
who typically will be more critical of the more subtle aspects of the coating finish, and by non-ex-
pert examinations. Both groups indicate that the UNICARB™ process will provide a finish with ac-
ceptable consumer appeal. Thus, it is concluded that the use of this process for the application of
nitrocellulose lacquer finishes on the chair line at Pennsylvania House in no way compromises the
quality of the finished product. These results are supported by the fact that Pennsylvania House
has not seen an increase in returns since the inception of the UNICARB™ process. Further, the
number of chairs that have to be reworked in the plant to remove finish defects before shipping has
decreased, indicating that the production efficiency has remained the same or increased slightly
since the UNICARB™ process was implemented.
21
-------
SECTION 3
POLLUTION PREVENTION POTENTIAL
The primary impetus for considering any technology for evaluation under the Clean
Technology Demonstration Program is that the technology have a measurable and positive impact
on the environment. This effect may be measured in terms of pollution prevention or waste volume
reduction. Pollution prevention addresses the specific hazards of individual pollutants (e.g., solvent)
in the gross wastestream, whereas volume reduction addresses the effects of waste products on
environmental resources (e.g., landfill space).
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The pollution prevention potential of the UNICARB™ process is manifested by the re-
duction in emissions of organic solvents that are added to a coating formulation to control the vis-
cosity for spray application. Because the UNICARB™ process uses supercritical CO2 to replace most
of the fast- and medium-drying solvents in the conventional formulation, a reduction in VOC emis-
sions from the chair-finishing line at the White Deer facility is expected. Although reducing VOC
emissions is important, it is equally important to demonstrate that the UNICARB™ process does not
add pollutants to other wastestreams.
In this evaluation, the pollution prevention potential of the UNICARB™ process was
determined by carefully considering all wastestreams. The nitrocellulose lacquer finishing process
used on the chair line can contribute to pollution in two ways: VOC emissions from the coating
formulation, and spray booth wastes, including solvent-laden filters and nitrocellulose dust.
VOC EMISSIONS
VOC emissions using the conventional and UNICARB™ process were estimated in
terms of the total amount of volatile compounds emitted on an annual basis, considering a constant
volume of production. The total amount of VOCs emitted by each process was calculated using
the percent volatile content of the respective coating systems and the amount of each coating
22
-------
needed to coat the same number of furniture units. By using the UNICARB™ process, Pennsylvania
House has been able to reduce the number of coats of nitrocellulose jacquer from two to one.
Therefore, the calculation of VOCs emitted must take into account the difference in the amount of
coating actually sprayed to coat a furniture unit by the conventional and by the UNICARB™ process.
Pennsylvania House records were used in conjunction with test measurements to determine the
amount of VOCs emitted using the conventional and UNICARB™ processes.
The volume of nitrocellulose lacquer used in each finishing operation was determined
during the initial phases of implementing the UNICARB™ process at Pennsylvania House. Metering
devices were placed in line on the airless spray guns used to apply the conventional nitrocellulose
formulation, and on the coating inlet line to the supercritical fluid (SCF) supply unit used to feed the
mixture of coating concentrate and supercritical CO2 to the modified spray guns used with the
UNICARB™ process. Pennsylvania House records indicate that it takes approximately 16 oz of the
conventional formulation to apply the two coats needed to achieve the desired quality in the fin-
ished product. The UNICARB™ process required about 7 oz of the reduced solvent formulation per
furniture unit to achieve the same quality. Less volume of coating is required using the UNICARB™
process for two reasons: the higher solids content of the UNICARB™ formulation means more resin
is transferred to the substrate per volume of formulation sprayed; and the increased viscosity of the
film deposited by the UNICARB™ process inhibits film buildup by soaking into the wood substrate.
Data on the volatile content of the conventional nitrocellulose coating and the
UNICARB™ coating were obtained from the coatings formulator (Lilly) and from direct determination
of percent volatile/percent solids content of samples collected by the Battelle project team. VOC
contents were determined by methods outlined in ASTM D2369. Liquid samples of both the con-
ventional nitrocellulose coating and the nitrocellulose coating modified for the UNICARB™ process
were collected for laboratory analysis. Coating formulation samples were taken from drums of
coating material received by Pennsylvania House from Lilly. The supplier, lot number, and date
were recorded in the laboratory record book for each field sample. At the White Deer facility,
drums of coating are temperature equilibrated in the paint room for at least 24 hours before mixing
and dispensing to the spray guns. Three samples were pumped into glass jars with Teflon® lid
liners from a drum of conventional solvent-based nitrocellulose and three from a drum of the nitro-
cellulose coating reformulated for the UNICARB™ process. Sample containers were sealed to pre-
vent evaporation during shipping.
23
-------
A summary of the volatile compounds, extracted from the Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDSs), for each of the formulations (in the conventional system, coat one and coat two are the
same formulation) is presented in Table 10 as a percentage of the weight of a gal of formulation.
VOC data, as determined by laboratory analysis (ASTM D2369), are included for comparison. If
the solvent listed is on the EPA's list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), a notation is made.
'Other' indicates unspecified volatile content, and is taken as the difference between the volatile
content reported on the MSDSs and the sum of the solvent contents reported. The MSDSs indicate
the UNICARB™ coating is formulated using 17.5% less solvents {on an absolute basis) than the
conventional formulation, with only 9.67% of its formulation being comprised of HAP materials
compared to 35.78% for the conventional formulation. On a per-gallon-of-coating-sprayed basis,
this would result in a relative decrease in VOC emissions of 22.81%, with a 72.97% decrease in
HAPs using the UNICARB™ formulation. VOC contents on a Ib/gal basis are reported on the MSDSs
as 4.7 Ib/gal for the UNICARB™ formulation and 5.9 Ib/gal for the conventional system.
TABLE 10. DESCRIPTION OF VOCS FROM MATERIAL SAFETY
DATA SHEETS AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Materials Description
M EK-heptanone
methoxypropylacetate
xylene
isopropanol
toluene
N-butyl acetate
isobutyl acetate
2-butoxyethanol
MIBK
isopropyl acetate
Other
Total VOC {% by weight)
Total VOC (% by weight)
HAP (Y/N)
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
, No
Yes
Yes
No
MSDS:
Average of Analytical
Data*
Conventional
(% by weight)
7.36
16.80
11.20
10.39
11.83
6.89
3.27
5.32
1.46
2.37
76.88
66.69
±0.067
UNICARB™
(% by weight)
37.25
6.55
9.67
5.87
59.34
64.23
±0.186
* Complete listing of raw data in the Appendix, Tables A-1 and A-2.
24
-------
These data did not compare well with the ASTM D2369 results obtained from the
laboratory analysis. The VOC content of each of the formulations was determined on each of the
two replicate samples using ASTM D2369. Experiments were repeated on two different days.
The raw data for all determinations are shown in the Appendix. The laboratory analysis indicated
that the conventional formulation actually was higher in solids than it was supposed to have been
formulated at, and the UNICARB™ formulation to be lower in solids. Results are listed in Table 10
as an average of the raw data for each formulation. By the laboratory results, a relative decrease in
solvent content of only 3.69% was noted, or a difference of only 2.46% solvent per gal on an
absolute basis. The reasons for the measured differences are not clear, because the data reported
were generated according to standard procedures. Repeated analyses did not generate different
results. The data may indeed be accurate representations of the samples collected, but may not be
accurate representations of the formulations. Because Lilly routinely performs these determina-
tions, and is bound to accurately report the results of these evaluations on their MSDSs, other
factors must be responsible for the differences noted.
The conventional formulation was determined by Battelle in the laboratory analysis to
be 33.31%-solids, compared to the 23.12%-solids level at which it is supposed to be formulated.
Aside from the fact that higher solids coatings are more expensive to formulate, a higher solids
coating would not spray the same as a formulation more diluted with solvent. The samples taken
at Pennsylvania House were pumped from a drum that was on line and being used for production
on the table line with satisfactory results. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the solvent blend of the
formulation differed much from specification because the paint room operator would have been
made aware of this when the coating applicators started getting bad product. The one reasonable
explanation for the difference is the fast evaporation rate of the fast-drying solvents comprising a
significant portion of the conventional formulation. Solvent evaporation could have occurred at two
points in the evaluation: (1) as the sample formulations were being pumped into the sample jars
during field collection; and (2) sample handling during the VOC determinations. Weight loss during
the initial weighing of the samples for the VOC determinations was noted during laboratory analy-
sis. Solvent evaporation at any step in the evaluation process would have the net result of increas-
ing the measured solids content or decreasing the VOC levels.
Although some evaporation would be expected to occur with the UNICARB™ formula-
tion also, it would not be expected to be as severe a factor because most of the fast-drying sol-
vents were removed from the UNICARB™ formulation to begin with. The ASTM data indicate the
volatile content in the UNICARB™ formulation to be higher (64.23) than reported in the MSDS by
approximately 5%. The precision of the ASTM method may account for part of this. A relative
difference of 4.7% is allowed between laboratories.
25
-------
Undoubtedly, inaccurate determination of the VQC content of the formulations can
affect the results of the pollution prevention potential evaluation. If the difference in VOC content
is not very large between the two formulations, then the overall reduction in emissions will not be
that significant on a gallon-per-gallon basis. If the actual difference in VOC content is reflected
accurately by the data on the MSDSs, and the difference in VOC content is substantial, then the
pollution prevention potential of the supercritical C02 spray process will be underestimated if the
laboratory results are used in the evaluation. Because there are some probable reasons why the
laboratory analysis may be inaccurate, the data from the MSDSs will be used for further calcula-
tions. These data are believed to be accurate for reasons previously stated.
In order to determine the reduction in VOC emissions on an annual basis, the number
of gal of each formulation sprayed per year (Q) was estimated using the following equation:
Q = PVxDOPxOZ/16x 1/D
where PV is the daily production volume, OOP is the days of operation per year, OZ is the amount
of coating sprayed per unit, and D is the density of the coating formulation. An average production
rate of 250 chairs a day was assumed, with 200 production days a year. Pennsylvania House
operates one shift a day. Density is reported on the MSDSs as 8.0 Ib/gal for the UNICARB™ formu-
lation and 7.7 Ib/gal for the conventional formulation. The total volume of each coating sprayed
per unit has been established at 7 oz for the one-coat UNICARB™ process and 16 oz for the two
coats of conventional formulation. Under these assumptions, 2734 gal of UNICARB™ formulation
are needed compared to the 6494 gal of the conventional formulation needed to finish the same
number of units.
The difference between the volatile content of the conventional coating sprayed and
the volatile content of the UNICARB™ coating sprayed represents the net change in volatiles emitted
into the airstream.
VC-VS =
Vc = VOC of conventional coatings sprayed annually (Ib VOC/year)
Vs = VOC of UNICARB™ coatings sprayed annually (Ib VOC/year)
Rv = net change annually in VOC emissions (Ib VOC/year)
38,315 Ib VOC/year - 12,850 Ib VOC/year = 25,465 Ib VOC/year
Rv = 25,465 Ib VOC/year
26
-------
Use of the UNICARB™ one-coat finish process could reduce VOCs by 25,465 Ib/year at the White
Deer Facility.
Using the VOC content reported on the MSDSs, this corresponds to an annual VOC
emmision reduction of 67.5%. Even if the VOC content of the formulations were the same, an
annual reduction in VOC emissions of 57.9% would be achieved simply due to the decreased
amount of formulation needed per unit using the UNICARB™ process to achieve the same quality of
finish.
CARBON DIOXIDE
Although a reduction in VOC emissions is important, it is equally important to demon-
strate that the UNICARB1" process does not add pollutants to other wastestreams. Supercritical
CO2 is used in the UNICARB™ process to decrease VOC emissions. The reduced solvent formula-
tion used by Pennsylvania House requires approximately 2.43 Ib of C02 for every gal of coating
concentrate sprayed with the UNICARB™ process. The actual quantity of CO2 needed may require
slight adjustment by the operator at the SCF control unit to compensate for changes in environmen-
tal conditions.
The amount of CO2 released annually into the atmosphere can be determined based on
annual usage of the UNICARB™ formulation. This has been determined previously to be 2734.4 gal
for an annual production of 50,000 units. Using this as a basis, the annual emission of CO2 from
the finishing process is expected to be 6644 Ibs (2.43 Ib/gal x 2734 gal).
Any process that releases C02 into the atmosphere will be questioned in today's eco-
logical environment. However, it is important to remember that carbon dioxide is not being
"produced" through use of the UNICARB™ process; it is simply being used as a substitute solvent to
thin and aid in the spray atomization process. The CO2 used in this technology is supplied by vari-
ous distributors of CO2 which obtain and sometimes purify CO2 generated as a by-product of other
chemical processes. It is neither efficient nor economically favorable to "manufacture" CO2. Thus,
CO2 used in processes such as supercritical CO2 spray application of coatings does not actually
contribute to the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. These methods simply use CO2 that would
have been released into the atmosphere as the result of other processes. The net result is that the
UNICARB™ process does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. In fact, this process may actually
help prevent CO2 generation by reducing VOC emissions, because CO2 is a natural by-product of
the decomposition of many organic compounds, as well as a by-product of incineration methods
used for reducing VOC emissions.
27
-------
WASTE REDUCTION
Coating overspray at Pennsylvania House is collected on dry filters that are com-
pressed and stored in 55-gal drums for disposal by landfill. One drum, at a disposal cost of
$150/55 gal drum, can hold about 200 compacted filters and solid debris. Waste products gener-
ated will include dry and solvent-laden filters and nitrocellulose dust, both loose and trapped in the
filters. No liquid waste was generated. Because Pennsylvania House does not separate waste by
production lines, no physical data were available for the solid wastestream analysis. However,
discussions with Pennsylvania House management and staff consistently indicated that the solid
and liquid wastestreams were unaffected by the conversion to the supercritical CO2 technology.
The chair-finishing process is the same except for the application of the nitrocellulose
lacquer finish. Using the old process, two booths were in operation which required cleaning and
maintenance. With the UNICARB™ process, only one booth is needed. The transfer efficiency of
the modified UNICARB™ spray gun and the air-assisted spray gun are both approximately 50%
based on Union Carbide records. However, due to the increased solids content of the UNICARB™
formulation, more solid waste is generated from the overspray by the UNICARB™ process. The 28
dry filters in each of the two spray booths needed for the conventional two-coat finishing process
were changed once per week for a total disposal rate of 56 filters/week. The 28 dry filters in the
one spray booth required for UNICARB™ finishing are changed twice per week for a total of 56
filters/week. Dry paint and dust from the booths is packed in the disposal drums with the filters,
but no increase or decrease in the total volume of these products was noted. In conclusion, no
change was observed by Pennsylvania House in the volume of solid waste generated by converting
to the supercritical C02 spray process on the chair line.
POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSESSMENT
The results of the pollution prevention analysis clearly indicate that a reduction in VOC
emissions occurred with use of the UNICARB™ process. The only new by-product of the process
introduced into the wastestream is CO2, but market information clearly indicates that the CO2 sold
commercially is itself a by-product of other production processes. Thus, the emission of CO2 from
the UNICARB™ process is not considered a detriment to the environment. Although the higher
solids UNICARB™ formulation made it necessary to clean the spray booth 'more often, the difference
in waste generation was offset by the fact that only one spray booth is needed with the UNICARB™
process.
28
-------
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The economic evaluation of this technology involved comparing the cost of operating
the chair-finishing line using the supercritical C02 spray process to the costs associated with oper-
ating the line using the conventional process. A return on investment (ROD was determined for the
conversion to the supercritical CO2 spray process. The ROI was based on the costs associated
with capital expenditures, including equipment and installation, and the return on this investment
generated through lower personnel, operating, and materials costs. A summary of all costs used in
computing the ROI is provided in Figure 5.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT
The UNICARB™ system equipment used by Pennsylvania House was supplied by Nord-
son Corporation. A schematic of this system is presented in Figure 2. The equipment used at
Pennsylvania House was developmental and not reflective of cost of equipment now commercially
available.
Nordson provided a current price quote for a system such as the one used in produc-
tion at Pennsylvania House. The price quote included the SCF Supply Unit and Controller
($35,000) specially suited for wood finishing applications and an operating capacity of 4 gal/min,
spray gun ($1,000), a supply pump for the reduced solvent coating ($10,000), and installation
costs ($12,000), which included piping to the paint room and C02 tank, electrical supplies, and
labor. Installation can be performed during one shift, if production is taken off line. The actual
time to optimize use for production quality will vary depending on the actual finishing process. The
CO2 tank bulk storage used at Pennsylvania House is supplied by Cardox. The 16-ton tank rents
for $500 a month, and the CO2 pump rents for $250 a month. The current cost of CO2 is $0.07 a
Ib.
29
-------
CAPITAL COSTS
Initial Investment: $58,000
Equipment:
SCF Supply Unit/Controller: $35,000
SCF Spray Guns (1) $ -l'f000
Special Pump for Reduced Solvent Coating: $10,'ooO
TOTAL: $46,000
Installation Costs:
Electrical supplies/installation:
Piping for CO2 and coating/installation:
TOTAL: $12,000
OPERATING COSTS
Basis: 250 chairs/day x 1 shift/day x 200 working days/year = 50,000 chairs/year
UNICARB PROCESS ($/year): $45,546
Coating Formulation ($/vear):
7 oz of coating/chair x 50,000 chairs = 350,000 oz/year
350,000 oz x 1 lb/16 oz x 1 gal/8.0 Ib = 2,734.4 gal
2734.4 gal x $13.11/gal = $35,848
Carbon Dioxide ($/vear):
Equipment Rental:
16 ton Storage Tank ($/year): $6,000
CO2 pump ($/year): $3^000
Usage:
2.43 Ib C02/gal of concentrate x 2734.4 gal/year = 6645 Ib/year
6645 Ib @ $0.07/lb ($/year) = $465
assume loss factor of 1.5 $ 698
CONVENTIONAL ($/year): $46,883
16 oz of coating/chair x 50,000 chairs = 800,000 oz/year
800,000 oz x 1 lb/16 oz x 1 gal/7.7 Ib = 6493.5 gal
6494 gal x $7.22/gal = $46,883
OPERATIONAL SAVINGS AT PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE
Labor ($/year): $46,000
W/UNICARB: one less finisher @ $23,000/year
one less sander @ $23,000/year
Electricity ($/year):$11,000
W/UNICARB: one less booth to operate because only one coat is applied
Saving in Propane Possible {$/year):$ 18,000
W/UNICARB: one less coat is applied, last pass through oven is not needed, could partition
off and turn off burners
Figure 5. Cost Analysis for CO2 Program.
30
-------
RAW MATERIALS
Raw material costs were provided by Pennsylvania House for the supercritical CO2
adjusted formulation ($13.11/gal) and the conventional formulation ($7.22/gal). The annual costs
of raw materials were determined using the previous estimates for the amount of each formulation
needed to finish an annual production volume of 50,000 units {250 units/day, 200 units). The
conventional formulation required 6,494 gal of coating, for an annual cost of $46,883. The
UNICARB™ formulation required 2,734 gal at an annual cost of $35,848. However, the UNICARB™
process requires an additional expense for the CO2. Assuming a use rate of 2.43 Ib CO2/gal
concentrate, with 2734.4 gal of coating 6645 Ib of CO2 would be needed, at a total cost of
$465/year. Some boil off and loss due to other factors is expected. Assuming a loss rate of 50%,
the total annual cost would still be $698. Although a raw materials savings of $10,337 is realized
annually for the actual formulations, this cost is almost offset by the $9,000 in leasing fees for the
CO2 tank and pump, for a net savings of $1,337. No change in cost is assumed for filters or other
operating materials.
OPERATING COSTS
Conversion to the UNICARB™ process led to a decrease in operating costs. Most of
the reduction came about because the finishing operation could be converted to a one-coat process
using the UNICARB™ process, compared to the two-coat process previously used. Because of this
reduction in finishing steps, Pennsylvania House was able to decrease its utility and labor costs. No
change is assumed for line waste handling and disposal costs or finishing line maintenance.
As stated above, the UNICARB™ process requires only one spray booth. Shutting
down the second booth results in a net annual savings of $11,000 for electricity costs. Additional-
ly, because the one-coat process requires only one pass through the oven for final cure, savings
could be made by sectioning off the last stage of the oven and turning off the burners used to heat
this section. Although this option has not been implemented, Pennsylvania House has estimated
the gas savings from doing this at about $ 18,000/year. The only costs that would have to be
recovered would be those costs associated with bricking off the last stage of the oven.
Labor savings also were realized by converting to the UNICARB™ process. One less
person is needed to operate the gun in the second spray booth, and one less sander is needed with
the new process. One man-year for a person serving these functions is quoted at $23,000. Thus,
a total labor savings of $46,000 is realized immediately.
31
-------
ECOMOMIC ASSESSMENT
;•
The return on investment and payback period for the conversion to the UNICARB™
process were calculated based on worksheets provided in the Waste Minimization Opportunity
Manual (U.S. EPA, 1988). Capital, materials, labor, and operating costs have already been out-
lined. Two analyses were performed. The first analysis includes the costs savings that would be
realized if Pennsylvania House decides to turn off the gas to the final stages of the oven. This
analysis ignores the costs incurred for actually sectioning off the oven, because no information was
provided to estimate these costs. The second analysis reflects the actual expenditures and return
realized in the current production operation. The following additional assumptions were made in
the computations:
• No costs incurred in finance charges, i.e., the equipment was paid for
in full by Pennsylvania House
• Depreciation period of 7 years
• Income tax rate of 43%
• An escalation rate of 5%
• Cost of capital return of 15%
• Plant overhead rate of 25%; labor burden of 28%
• Supervisory costs 10% of labor costs.
The first analysis included gas utilities savings of $ 18,000/year. Actual inputs and
outputs of the worksheet for incorporating the assumptions used for that analysis are presented in
Table A-4 (see Appendix). The resulting revenues and cost factors are reported in Table 11, along
with the tabulated output for the return on investment. The resulting return on investment esti-
mate is impressive, due primarily to the decrease in operating costs, with a 100% return on invest-
ment being achieved in the third year of operation.
The second analysis (Table 12) did not assume savings in gas utilities. The inputs for
this second analysis are presented in Table A-5 in the Appendix. This analysis shows a 100%
return on investment achieved in the fifth year of operation. This analysis reflects the economics of
the actual operation currently in use on the chair line at the White Deer facility at the time of this
evaluation.
32
-------
TABLE 11. RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - GAS UTILITIES SAVING
Operating Year Number
Escalation Factor
INCREASED REVENUES
Increased Production
Marketable By-products
Annual Revenue
REVENUE AND COST FACTORS
1.000
1
1.050
$0
$0
$0
2
1.103
$0
$0
$0
3
1.158
$0
$0
$0
4
1.216
$0
$0
$0
OPERATING SAVINGS (Numbers in parentheses indicate net expense)
Raw Materials
Disposal Costs
Maintenance Labor
Maintenance Supplies
Operating Labor
Operating Supplies
Utilities
Supervision
Labor Burden
Plant Overhead
Home Office Overhead
Total Operating Savings
Construction Year
Operating Year
Book Value
Depreciation (by straight-line)
Depreciation (by double DB)
Depreciation
Cash Flows
Operating Year
Revenues
+ Operating Savings
Net Revenues
- Depreciation
Taxable Income
- Income Tax
Profit after Tax
+ Depreciation
After-Tax Cash Flow
Cash Flow for ROI
Net Present Value
Return on Investment
$374
$0
$0
$0
$48,317
$0
$11,550
$4,832
$14,882
$13,287
$0
$93,241
$392
$0
$0
$0
$50,733
$0
$12,128
$5,073
$15,626
$13,951
$0
$97,903
$412
$0
$0
$0
$53,269
$0
$12,734
$5,327
$16,407
$14,649
$0
$102,798
$433
$0
$0
$0
$55,933
$0
$13,371
$5,593
$17,227
$15,382
$0
$107,938
5
1.276
$0
$0
$0
$454
$0
$0
$0
$58,729
$0
$14,039
$5,873
$18,089
$16,151
$0
$113,335
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
1
$58,000
($58,000)
($58,000)
1
$41,429
$8,286
$16,571
$16,571
1
$0
$93,241
$93,241
$16,571
$76,670
$32,968
$43,702
$16,571
$60,273
$60,273
($5,589)
3.92%
2
$29,592
$8,286
$11,837
$11,837
2
$0
$97,903
$97,903
$11,837
$86,066
$37,009
$49,058
$11,837
$60,895
$60,895
$40,456
66.85%
3
$21,137
$8,286
$8,455
$8,455
3
$0
$102,798
$102,798
$8,455
$94,343
$40,568
$53,776
$8,455
$62,231
$62,231
$81,374
89.31%
4
$12,851
$8,286
$6,039
$8,286
4
$0
$107,938
$107,938
$8,286
$99,652
$42,851
$56,802
$8,286
$65,088
$65,088
$118,588
98.44%
5
$4,566
$8,286
$3,672
$8,286
5
$0
$113,335
$113,335
$8,286
$105,049
$45,171
$59,878
$8,286
$68,164
$68,164
$152,477
102.46%
33
-------
TABLE 12. RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - NO GAS SAVINGS
REVENUE AND COST FACTORS
Operating Year Number
Escalation Factor
INCREASED REVENUES
Increased Production
Marketable By-products
Annual Revenue
1.000
1
1.050
$0
$0
$0
2
1.103
$0
$0
$0
OPERATING SAVINGS (Numbers in parentheses indicate net expense)
Raw Materials
Disposal Costs
Maintenance Labor
Maintenance Supplies
Operating Labor
Operating Supplies
Utilities
Supervision
Labor Burden
Plant Overhead
Home Office Overhead
Total Operating Savings
$374
$0
$0
$0
$48,317
$0
$30,450
$4,832
$14,882
$13,287
$0
$112,141
$392
$0
$0
$0
$50,733
$0
$31,973
$5,073
$15,626
$13,951
$0
$117,748
3
1.158
$0
$0
$0
$412
$0
$0
$0
$53,269
$0
$33,571
$5,327
$16,407
$14,649
$0
$123,635
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Construction Year
Operating Year
Book Value
Depreciation (by straight-line)
Depreciation (by double DB)
Depreciation
Cash Flows
Operating Year
Revenues
+ Operating Savings
Net Revenues
- Depreciation
Taxable Income
- Income Tax
Profit after Tax
+ Depreciation
After-Tax Cash Flow
Cash Flow for ROI
Net Present Value
Return on Investment
1
$58,000
($58,000)
($58,000)
1
$41 ,429
$8,286
$16,571
$16,571
1
$0
$112,141
$112,141
$16,571
$95,570
$41,095
$54,475
$16,571
$71,046
$71,046
$3,779
22.49%
2
$29,592
$8,286
$11,837
$11,837
2
$0
$117,748
$117,748
$11,837
$105,911
$45,542
$60,369
$11,837
$72,206
$72,206
$58,377
88.53%
3
$21,137
$8,286
$8,455
$8,455
3
$0
$123,635
$123,635
$8,455
$115,181
$49,528
$65,653
$8,455
$74,108
$74,108
$107,104
110.48%
34
-------
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was prepared and approved by the EPA be-
fore testing began (Battelle, 1993). This plan outlined a detailed design for conducting this technol-
ogy evaluation, including parameters for field sampling, laboratory analysis, and data reduction.
The quality assurance objectives of the QAPP are discussed below.
ON-SITE SAMPLING
On-site sampling included collecting three samples each of the UNICARB™ and conven-
tional nitrocellulose lacquer formulations for the pollution prevention evaluation, and finishing three
sets of chair-back splats (panels) for the product quality evaluation. Each set was comprised of
three samples. With the exception of the manner in which the nitrocellulose lacquer finish was
applied, all samples were finished using the standard production methods for the chair line at the
White Deer facility. Different nitrocellulose finishes were applied to each of the three sets: one set
received one coat of the conventional nitrocellulose formulation, one set was finished using the
conventional two-coat nitrocellulose lacquer finishing process, and one set was finished using the
UNICARB™ production method currently on line at the White Deer facility.
The nitrocellulose lacquer formulations were collected and handled according to the
procedures outlined in the QAPP and reviewed in Section 3 of this report for the environmental
impact evaluation. The test panels finished for the product quality evaluation were finished accord-
ing to methods outlined in the QAPP, with two exceptions. A review of the actual finishing pro-
cess is presented in Section 1 of this report. Test panel preparation and explanations for the devia-
tions from the QAPP were reviewed in Section 2. Deviations from the QAPP included finishing
actual cherry chair-back splats instead of preparing special samples for the product quality evalua-
tion, and carrying these samples from station to station instead of hanging them on the overhead
conveyor line.
35
-------
It was necessary to carry the samples because they could not be hung on the convey-
or line and transported without falling off. Care was taken to ensure that all timing intervals be-
tween stations and during oven exposure were kept consistent with the transport rate of the pro-
duction line. No impacts on the quality or accuracy of the results of this report are expected from
this deviation.
Using cherry splats for the product quality evaluation can have only a positive impact
on the results of this evaluations. They are part of the actual product finished at Pennsylvania
House and are therefore more representative of the actual finished product than the test panels
originally proposed. Using actual product for the quality evaluation was not considered when the
QAPP was being prepared because it seemed an unnecessary inconvenience to Pennsylvania House.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
All analyses were performed as proposed in the QAPP, with one exception: more gloss
measurements were taken than previously proposed. Table 13 summarizes the achievement of the
QA objectives for the critical measurements. Analytical data for pencil hardness and percent sol-
ids/percent voiatiles are valid according to the criteria presented in the QAPP. The gloss data are
invalid according to the precision requirements of the QAPP. Data for the critical measurements are
included in the Appendix.
TABLE 13. QUANTITATIVE QA OBJECTIVES
Test Method
•Gloss Measurement*
ASTM D523-89
Pencil Hardness*
ASTM D3363-74
Percent Solids/
Percent Voiatiles*
ASTM D23369-90
Number of Determinations
49 determinations on each
of the 9 coated 7 x 21 -inch
panels
3 determinations on each of
the 9 coated 7 x 21 -inch
panels
3 determinations on each of
the 4 samples collected:
2 conventional,
2 UNICARB™
Completeness
Goal: 80%
Actual: 1 00 %
Goal: 80%
Actual: 100 %
Goal: 80%
Actual: 100 %
Precision
Valid Criteria; Results
Valid = 2 gloss units; Gloss data
within a sample varied by as much
as 1 1 units - invalid by QAPP crite-
ria, see text for discussion
Valid = 1 hardness units; Criteria
met - results of data are valid for a
given sample and within a sample
set
Valid = determinations on each
sample should not differ by more
than 1.5%; Valid criteria met for
individual samples and between
samples of same formulation.
* Data in Appendix.
t Data in Table 9.
36
-------
PRODUCT QUALITY
The number of gloss measurements taken on each test panel differed from the number
specified in the QAPP. The test panels evaluated measured approximately 7 x 21-inches. The test
procedures outlined in ASTM D529 recommend averaging six gloss measurements for a 3 x 6-inch
sample area, or one measurement for every 3 square inches. This corresponds to 49 measure-
ments on a 7 x 21-inch panel. Measuring the gloss across the entire surface of the samples allevi-
ated any subjective biases of the person performing the measurements and compensated for any
nonuniformity in the gloss across the sample surface.
Nonuniformity in the gloss readings raw data on all of the samples was readily evident
(Table A-3, Appendix). The values on a single panel varied by as much as 11 gloss units, well out-
side of the requirements for precision set in the QAPP. However, the large difference in values
does not reflect technical problems encountered in coating the panels or in collecting the data, but
rather is a reflection of the nature of the wood panels being coated. The natural wood finish allows
for the character and grain of the wood substrate to show through, so that the finish on even, well-
sanded and well-prepared panels will show some variation. This is part of the natural beauty of the
wood and is not considered to be indicative of a deficient finishing process. Had the substrate
been an impermeable and highly uniform, more consistent readings might be expected. The impor-
tant factor in comparing the gloss measurements among the panels finished for this study is that
the UNICARB™ panels are not statistically different from the panels coated using the conventional
two-coat process. This was demonstrated by the statistical analysis of the results for mean and
standard deviation. Both of these sample sets were shown to be quite different (glossier) from the
one-coat conventional finish sample set (Table 8). In conclusion, although the gloss data are invalid
according to the precision requirements of the QAPP, there is no negative impact on the objectives
of the QAPP. The variation in gloss data is not a function of the finishing process but an artifact of
the substrate being finished. This is supported by the fact that the scatter in the data is approxi-
mately the same for each set of panels. These gloss measurements were not a critical measure-
ment for the product quality analysis.
Film hardness on wood samples using the pencil test was measured on the nine coated
wood panels mentioned above (Table 9). Three readings were taken on each of the sample panels.
The results did not differ by more than one hardness unit for each type of coating. The convention-
al spray (two coats) was harder than the other two coatings.
37
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION POTENTIAL
The pollution prevention potential analysis demonstrated a decrease in VOC emissions
using the UNICARB™ process. This analysis required the VOC content of each of the coating for-
mulations to be determined. Sample handling and the percent solids/percent volatiles determina-
tions were performed according to the procedures outlined in the QAPP. The percent solids/percent
volatiles are reported in Tables A-1 and A-2 in the Appendix as the mean for 12 determinations for
the conventional formulation and 12 for the UNICARB™ formulation. The percent volatiles is statis-
tically different between the two formulations. The mean for the conventional formulation is
66.69% and that for the UNICARB™ formulation is 64.23%. The results of the laboratory analysis
on each sample replicate are valid when compared to other replicate data from the same sample
and within a given sample set (same formulation).
. As reported and discussed in Section 3 of this report, the difference in percent solids
between the conventional and UNICARB™ formulations data differed substantially from the differ-
ence calculated according to the MSDS. This difference has a definite effect on the results of the
pollution prevention potential evaluation. However, this incongruity was demonstrated not to have
a profound effect on the objectives of this report, because a 57.9% reduction in VOC emissions
would be achieved simply due to the fact that the UNICARB™ process requires only 7 oz of formula-
tion per furniture unit compared to the 16 oz needed by the conventional process for the same
quality of product. The 57.9% reduction in VOC emissions is based on formulations of equal VOC
content.
RECORD DATA
The pollution prevention and economic analyses each required nonanalytical input1 and
assumptions. These evaluations were performed in accord with the criteria and objectives of the
QAPP, and as such the results of these evaluations are believed to be valid and in accord with the
terms of the QAPP.
38
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this evaluation was to provide an objective evaluation of the use of
supercritical CO2 as an alternative technology for spray applied in coating processes using reduced
solvent formulations. Union Carbide has pioneered this technology under the UNICARB™ trademark.
This evaluation was performed to answer questions regarding this technology which addressed the
issues of product quality, pollution prevention potential, and process economics. Accomplishing
the objectives of this evaluation required selecting a site that currently uses this process in a pro-
duction process. The site selected was the White Deer Plant of Pennsylvania House Furniture. At
the time of this evaluation, the White Deer Plant had been using the UNICARB™ process to apply
nitrocellulose lacquer finish on their chair line for over a year with good results. While the results of
this evaluation are specific to the production operation used at the White Deer Plant on their chair
line, some limited comparisons should be able to be made to other production processes in which
spray-applied solvent-borne coatings are used.
This evaluation found that conversion to the UNICARB™ process on the chair line at
the White Deer Plant was favorable. Product quality evaluations demonstrated that the nitrocellu-
lose finish applied using the UNICARB™ process was of equal or better quality than that of finish
applied using the conventional two-coat process. Some concern was raised over the hardness of
the UNICARB™ coat, which was determined by ASTM D3363 to be slightly softer than the conven-
tional two-coat finish. However, arguments were presented which indicated that the low results
could be related to coating thickness, because the UNICARB™ hardness was equal to that of the
samples finished using a one-coat conventional process. This issue was not resolved because the
pencil hardness measurements were not critical to the evaluation. The impact of reduced finish
hardness on product quality or performance had not been defined.
The impact of converting to a supercritical CO2 spray process for the application of
coatings in other processes would have to be determined independently. Pennsylvania House used
the resources of Union Carbide, Nordson, and two coatings suppliers to optimize their UNICARB™
coating process. As necessary when converting to any new coating formulation, the blend of dilu-
39
-------
ent and film-forming solvents needed to be optimized for best performance along with changes in
the parameters associated with the actual spray process. Because of the supercritical gas compo-
nent, optimization of the supercritical CO2 technology may require more time than optimizing con-
ventional formulations and widely used spray application methods. A number of coating formula-
tors have been licensed to formulate the reduced-solvent coatings, but they currently are not devot-
ing resources to converting conventional formulations to formulations that will perform well using
the UNICARB™ process. Union Carbide still provides this service for new customers. This situation
is not unusual in an evolving technology, but it may affect the time required to convert new pro-
duction processes to the UNICARB™ process, as some degree of experimentation will be required to
optimize the technology to individual needs. The time required to implement this technology will
decrease as the number of new formulations developed {with different resin chemistries and color-
ants) for use with the UNICARB™ process increases. Some technical problems, including formula-
tions, equipment and application techniques, still exist in using this technology to apply coatinqs to
large horizontal surfaces, but these issues are being addressed by the companies developing this
technology. Pennsylvania House is pursuing solutions as it proceeds with implementation of the
supercritical spray technology on its table line.
Although the pollution prevention potential of this technology can be evaluated only on
an individual basis, the pollution prevention potential for the production process evaluated in this
study demonstrated very favorable results. An annual reduction in VOC emissions in the range of
57% to 67% was demonstrated relative to the conventional finishing process. A large percentage
of this reduction was attributed to the fact that the use of the UNICARB™ process on the chair line
at the White Deer Plant required only one coat of the reduced solvent nitrocellulose formulation to
achieve the same level of finish quality as the conventional two-coat process. This resulted in a
decrease from 6494 gal/year of lacquer sprayed to 2734 gal/year. An additional reduction in VOC
emissions was achieved through the decreased solvent content of the UNICARB™ nitrocellulose
formulation. Solvent-loading levels are reportedly decreased by as much as 30 to 80% in some
formulations. According to the MSDSs for the'formulations used in this evaluation, a 23% reduc-
tion in solvent content per gal is achieved if supercritical CO2 is used as a diluent. These results
could not be substantiated by the laboratory analysis performed under this evaluation.
Capital equipment costs will vary according to production volume. The capital invest-
ment costs incurred by Pennsylvania House will be recovered in the first 5 years of operation.
Although there is some reduction in raw material costs, most of the economic benefit gained from
the conversion to the UNICARB™ process can be attributed to the reduction in labor and operating
costs on the chair line at the White Deer Plant, as a result of reducing the nitrocellulose finishing
process from a two-coat to a one-coat process.
40
-------
SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONS
This evaluation of supercritical CO2 spray technology for application of solvent-borne
coating focused on three aspects: product quality, pollution prevention potential, and process eco-
nomics.
The quality of the one-coat nitrocellulose lacquer finish applied at Pennsylvania House
Furniture Company by supercritical CO2 spray technology was demonstrated to be equal to or bet-
ter than the quality of the two-coat finish applied by conventional air-assisted airless spray in this
evaluation. In production, the furniture finish passes or fails on the basis of subjective evaluation of
the total appearance by Pennsylvania House experts and ultimately by the customers. Quality of the
supercritical CO2 finish was supported by subjective evaluations by Pennsylvania House staff, coat-
ings experts in the Battelle Coatings Group, and a group of non-experts, as well as by Pennsylvania
House's records on customer acceptance and rates of in-plant defect corrections spanning more
than one years's production line use of the supercritical CO2 spray technology support.
Release of volatile organic compounds during the finish process was reduced at Penn-
sylvania House by the supercritical CO2 spray technology. The CO2 used in this process is recov-
ered from the wastestream of other industrial processes so it is not an additional contributor to
global warming. Overall CO2 may be decreased because many organic solvents that can add CO2 to
the wastestream are eliminated from the coating formulation. An annual reduction in VOC emis-
sions in the range of 57% to 67% was demonstrated. Much of this reduction occurred because
supercritical CO2 is used at Pennsylvania House to apply a one-coat finish. The conventional finish
process required two coats of nitrocellulose lacquer. Solid waste remained the same.
Capital investment costs incurred by Pennsylvania House will be recovered in the first
5 years of operation. Most of the economic benefit gained from conversion to the supercritical CO2
process can be attributed to the reduction in labor and operating costs on the chair line at the
White Deer plant.
This technology is one approach to reducing VOC emissions in the application of
solvent-borne coatings. Product quality can be maintained and operating costs can be decreased.
41
-------
Capital costs will vary with each implementation but a favorable payback period can be anticipated,
in light of the findings of this evaluation.
This technology evaluation focused on a single product type and coating formulation
wood furniture industry. However, this specific supercritical CO2 spray technology seems adapt-
able to a number of solvent-borne coating formulations and products.
42
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
Battelle Memorial Institute. 1993. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Evaluation of Supercritical
Carbon Dioxide Technology to Reduce Solvent in Spray Coating Applications. Prepared for
U.S. EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, May 13, 1993.
Busby, D.C., and R.A, Engelman. 1991. "Measurement of Phase Phenomena of Mixtures of
Coatings Materials and Supercritical Carbon Dioxide." Polymeric Materials Science and Engi-
neering 65:76-77.
Busby, D. C., C.W. Glancy, K.L. Hoy, A.C. Kuo, C. Lee, and K.A. Nielsen. 1991. "Supercritical
Fluid Spray Application Technology: A Pollution Prevention Technology for the Future " Surf
Coat. Int. 74:362-368.
Chemical & Engineering News. 1990. "Carbide Licenses Coatings Technology." Chemical &
Engineering News, July 30, p. 9.
Christiansen, R. 1991. "Pennsylvania House Scores a Finishing First." Wood & Wood Products
96(1):53-55.
Daignault, C.M. 1993. "Compliance Technology for the Finishing Industry." In: Water-Borne &
Higher-Solids, and Powder Coatings Symposium. Published by University of Southern Missis-
sippi Department of Polymer Science and Southern Society for Coatings Technology, pp.
452-461.
Donohue, M.D., and M.A. McHugh. 1991. "Phase Behavior of Polymer/Supercritical Fluid Mix-
tures." Polymeric Materials Science and Engineering 65:74-75.
Hoy, K. 1991. "Unicarb System for Spray Coatings — A Contribution to Pollution Prevention."
European Polymers Paint Colour Journal 181: 438, 440-2.
Hoy, K.L., and M.D. Donohue. 1990. "Supercritical Fluid Spray Technology — An Emission
Control Technology for the Future." Polym. Prepr. (Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Polym. Chem )
31:679-680.
Industrial Finishing. 1994. "First CO2 'Solvent' Production System." Industrial Finishinq
67(11):34-36.
Martin, E., R. Tucker, and M.D. Hodges. 1991. "Regulations and Consumer Choice Impact
Furniture Finish Trends." Modern Paint and Coatings 81 (Sept):43-45.
Modern Paint and Coatings. 1991. "Supercritical CO2 As a Solvent: Update on Union Carbide's
Process." Modern Paint and Coatings 81:56-57.
43
-------
Murphy, M. 1992. "Technical Developments in 1991 — Organic Coatings, Processes and
Equipment." Metal Finishing, February, pp. 13-20.
Nielsen, K.A., D.C. Busby, C.W. Glancy, K.L. Hoy, A.C. Kuo, and C. Lee. 1990. "Application of
High-Solids Coatings Using Supercritical Fluids." Polymeric Materials Science and Engineering
63:996-999.
Nielsen, K.A., D.J. Dickson, E.J. Derderian, C.W. Glancy, J.D. Goad, K.M. Perry, and G.C. Ross.
1991. "Advances in Supercritical Fluid Spray Application of Low-Pollution Coatings." Proc.
Annual Meeting - Air Waste Management Assoc., 84th (Vol. 9B), Paper 91/104, pp. 5, 15.
Nielsen, K.A., C.W. Glancy, K.L. Hoy, and K.M. Perry. 1991. "A New Atomization Mechanism
for Airless Spraying: The Supercritical Fluid Spray Process." Proc. Int. Conf. Liq. Atomization
Spray Syst., 5th. NISTSpec. Pub/. 813:367-374.
Nielsen, K.A., J.N. Argyropoulos, D.C. Busby, D.J. Dickson, C.W. Glancy, A.C. Kuo, and C. Lee.
1993. "Supercritical Fluid Spray Coating, Technical Development of a New Pollution Preven-
tion Technology." In: Water-Borne & Higher-Solids, and Powder Coatings Symposium. Pub-
lished by University of Southern Mississippi Department of Polymer Science and Southern
Society for Coatings Technology, pp. 173-193.
von Lehmden, D.J. 1991. EPA Early Reductions Program for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Mid-
west Research Institute for Nordson Corporation: Amherst, Ohio, 9 p.
White, T.F. 1991. "An Economic Solution to Meeting VOC Regulations." Metal Finishina
89:55-58.
44
-------
APPENDIX
RAW DATA FROM ANALYSIS OF FIELD SAMPLES
TABLE A-1. ANALYTICAL DATA FROM PERCENT VOLATILES/
PERCENT SOLIDS DETERMINATION ON UNICARB™
Sample No.
46482- 12-2-A
2-B
2-C
2-D
2-E
2-F
46482-1 2-3-A
3-B
3-C
3-D
3-E
3-F
Average
Percent Volatiles (%}
63.66552
64.24810
64.35622
64.22322
64.27560
64.25083
64.32866
64.28932
64.19441
64.35120
64.32956
64.28883
64.233456
Percent Solids (%)
36.33448
35.75190
35.64378
35.77678
35.72440
35.74917
, 35.67134
35.71068
35.80559
35.64880
35.67044
35.71117
35.766544
TABLE A-2. ANALYTICAL DATA FROM PERCENT VOLATILES/
PERCENT SOLIDS DETERMINATION ON CONVENTIONAL
NITROCELLULOSE FIELD SAMPLES
Sample No.
46482-1 3-2-A
2-B
2-C
2-D
2-E
2-F
46482-1 3-3-A
- 3-B
3-C
3-D
3-E
3-F
Average
Percent Volatiles {%)
66.65651
66.71645
66.59757
66.67201
66.72490
66.70360
66.85705
66.67916
66.73917
66.68234
66.68787
66.60912
66.693813
Percent Solids (%}
33.34349
33.28355
33.40243
33.32799
33.27510
33.29640
33.14295
33.32051
33.26083
33.31766
33.31213
33.39088
33.306160
45
-------
TABLE A-3. 60 DEGREE GLOSS READINGS 9-24-93
46482-09-1
25.2
24.8
25.1
25.9
26.3
26:7
26.6
25.5
25.1
23.6
23.5
24.1
24.6
24.4
24.0
- 23.7
23.6
22.9
23.2
23.4
23.4
23.2
21.6
20.4
19.9
19.1
19.0
19.1
20.4
20.5
19.3
17.7
16.1
16.6
46482-09-2
19.6
20.1
24.0
25.2
25.9
25.8
24.8
25.3
25.5
25.1
24.3
23.3
23.4
23.6
24.1
23.2
22.4
21.9
21.8
21.7
20.8
19.7
20.1
20.0
19.1
17.8
17.3
17.4
17.6
17.8
17.6
17.2
16.5
18.2
46482-09-3
23.7
24.9
24.7
24.1
23.9
23.9
23.8
24.0
23.8
23.5
23.2
22.4
22.7
22.1
22.8
22.4
22.2
22.1
21.5
21.3
20.8
20.4
21.3 '
22.2
21.0
20.4
19.9
19.6
20.2
20.0
20.0
20.2
18.6
18.3
46482-10-1
33.0
33.6
33.4
32.6
31.2
31.7
32.6
32.7
34.1
33.8
32.2
31.4
31.6
31.7
31.9
32.1
32.7
33.6
34.4
32.9
30.9
29.9
31.2
32.1
31.8
31.5
32.2
33.1
33.7
34.1
34.6
33.4
32.6
33.1
46482-10-2
32.5
31.3
32.2
32.1
32.7
33.8
34.3
34.3
33.6
33.9
34.9
35.2
34.4
33.8
34.3
34.9
36.2
36.6
36.4
35.5
35.7
36.7
37.0
36.3
32.4
30.6
33.0
34.2
36.4
37.8
37.6
37.7
37.6
39.4
46482-10-3
29.5
29.8
29.4
29.1
29.6
30.7
30.6
30.4
31.2
32.0
32.6
31.6
31.2
32.1
32.8
31.7
31.8
32.2
32.1
31.5
31.3
31.9
30.0
29.4
30.2
30.6
29.8
28.2
27.8
28.0
28.3
26.1
25.6
25.8
46482-11-1
26.5
29.2
31.5
33.5
36.7
38.8
39.7
39.2
37.7
37.3
38.1
38.9
38.9
39.7
39.4
38.6
38.5
38.6
35.6
34.5
33.8
33.2
33.2
36.4
39.9
40.6
39.8
36.2
34.2
33.8
33.1
34.3
35.8
35.3
46482-11-2
27.5
26.9
27.4
25.9
25.9
28.9
28.0
27.3
27.8
26.8
26.5
27.8
28.9
28.9
28.2
29.4
30.7
32.0
32.8
32.1
31.4
29.9
30.9
32.7
32.9
31.0
30.0
29.9
31.5
30.9
32.6
35.6
37.0
S6..4
46482-11-3
26.2
27.2
29.7
31.0
30.3
30.9
31.3
32.5
33.7
33.5
30.7
28.9
29.6
29.3
27.6
26.6
25.9
26.1
27.8
28.7
27.5
25.6
28.2
26.7
26.5
28.8
27.4
30.1
33.7
32.7
31.6
28.3
31.7
32.8
46
-------
TABLE A-3. (Continued)
46482-09-1
13.8
16.7
16.3
15.9
15.5
15.4
15.8
15.9
16.0
15.2
16.3
13.8
13.4
13.0
11.7
20.3
+/-4.29
46482-09-2
15.0
17.4
17.6
17.2
16.6
17.9
18.7
18.1
18.4
18.8
21.5
19.2
18.6
17.5
16.6
20.4
+/-3.10
46482-09-3
17.9
16.6
15.6
14.7
15.0
16.5
17.8
18.0
18.1
18.3
18.0
16.9
15.7
14.8
12.9
20.3
+ /-3.09
46482-10-1
33.9
34.7
35.2
34.5
33.4
33.3
32.3
33.5
35.0
35.4
33.6
34.3
35.1
34.3
39.5
33.2
+/-1.55
46482-10-2
37.2
31.0
34.6
36.9
38.7
38.3
37.0
37.5
37.1
35.0
34.0
33.0
31.7
32.3
33.0
35.0
+ /-2.21
46482-10-3
27.3
26.7
23.0
22.9
22.4
26.6
24.9
24.7
26.4
26.6
25.9
25.9
26.6
26.3
27.1
28.6
+/-2.80
46482-11-1
35.9
31.8
34.4
34.1
29.8
31.2
30.2
32.3
36.1
35.0
34.4
34.9
32.9
33.0
32.3
35.3
+ /-S.24
46482-11-2
35.3
36.7
36.8
34.2
34.8
33.6
30.7
29.5
29.4
30.2
30.5
27.6
29.3
27.4
27.9
30.5
+/-3.06
46482-11-3
31.9
26.0
28.7
27.9
31.1
31.0
28.9
31.5
28.4
27.9
25.4
23.3
22.3
21.5
23.6
28.7
+ /-2.9S
47
-------
TABLE A-4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INPUTS - GAS UTILITIES SAVINGS
INPUT
===============
Capital Cost
Equipment
Materials (incl.)
Installation (incl.)
Plant Engineering
Contractor/Engineering
Contingency
Working Capital
1. Startup Costs
% Equity
% Debt
Interest Rate on Debt, %
Debt Repayment, years
Depreciation period
Income Tax Rate, %
Escalation Rates, %
Cost of Capital
Operating Cost/Revenue
Marketable By-products
Recycled Ink
Recycled Solvent
Total $/yr.
Utilities
Gas
1 Electric .
Total $/yr.
Raw Materials
Total, $/yr.
Waste Disposal Savings
Offsite Fees, $
Storage Drums $
Total Disposal Savings
$46,000
$0
$12,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
100%
0%
0.00%
0
7
43.00%
5.0%
15.00%
$0
$0
$0
$.0
($11,000)
($11,000)
($1,337)
$0
$0
$0
==============================
OUTPUT
Capital Requirement
Construction Year
Capital Expenditures
Equipment
Materials
Installation
Plant Engineering
Contractor/Engineering
Permitting Costs
Contingency
Startup Costs
Depreciable Capital
Working Capital
Subtotal
Interest on Debt
Total Capital Requirement
Equity Investment
Debt Principal
Interest on Debt
Total Financing
Operating Labor Savings
Operator hrs/shift
Shifts/yr
Wage rate, $/hr.
Operating Supplies
Total $/yr.
Maintenance Costs
(% of Capital Costs)
Labor
Materials
Supervision
(% of O&M Labor)
Overhead Costs
(% of O&M Labor + Super.)
Plant Overhead
Home Office
Labor Burden
=====
== 1
1
$46,000
$0
$12,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$58,000 ||
$0
$58,000~|
$0~|
$58,000 [|
$58,000 |
$0
$0
$58,000
16
200
$14.38
oj
$0 ~|
0.00%
0.00%
10.0%|
25.0%
0.0%
48
-------
TABLE A-5. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INPUTS - NO GAS UTILITIES SAVINGS
INPUT
Capital Cost
Equipment
Materials (incl.)
Installation (incl.)
Plant Engineering
Contractor/Engineering
Permitting Costs
Contingency
Working Capital
Startup Costs
% Equity
% Debt
Interest Rate on Debt, %
Debt Repayment, years
Depreciation period
Income Tax Rate, %
Escalation Rates, %
Cost of Capital
Marketable By-products
Recycled Ink
Recycled Solvent
Total $/yr.
Utilities
Gas
Electric
Total $/yr.
Raw Materials ,
Total, $/yr.
Waste Disposal Savings
Offsite Fees, $
Storage Drums $
Total Disposal Savings
•
$46,000
$0
$12,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
100%
0%
0.00%
0
7
43.00%
5.0%
15.00%
OUTPUT
.Capital Requirement
Construction Year
Capital Expenditures
Equipment
Materials
Installation
Plant Engineering
Contractor/Engineering
Permitting Costs
Contingency
Startup Costs
Depreciable Capital
Working Capital
Subtotal
Interest on Debt
Total Capital Requirement
Equity Investment
Debt Principal
Interest on Debt
Total Financing
Operating Cost/Revenue
$0
$0
$0
($18,000)
($11,000)
($29,000)
($1,337)
$0
$0
$0
Operating Labor Savings
Operator hrs/shift
Shifts/yr
Wage rate, $/hr.
Operating Supplies
Total $/yr.
Maintenance Costs
(% of Capital Costs)
Labor
Materials
Supervision
(% of O&M Labor)
Overhead Costs
(% of O&M Labor + Super.)
Plant Overhead
Home Office
Labor Burden
1
$46,000
$0
$12,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$58,000
$0
$58,000
$0
$58,000
$58,000
$0
$0
$58,000
16
200
$14.38
0
$0
0.00%
0.00%
10.0%
25.0%
0.0%
28.0%
49
------- |