COSTS OF CONTROLLING METHYL CHLOROFORM IN THE U.S
REVIEW DRAFT
OCTOBER 5, 1989
DIVISION OF GLOBAL CHANGE
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
COSTS OF CONTROLLING METHYL CHLOROFORM IN THE U.S
REVIEW DRAFT
OCTOBER 5, 1989
DIVISION OF GLOBAL CHANGE
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1. INTRODUCTION • 1
2. METHYL CHLOROFORM'S CONTRIBUTION TO STRATOSPHERIC CHLORINE
CONCENTRATIONS 4
2.1 Current Chlorine Contributions 4
2.2 Impact of Atmospheric Lifetimes 5
2.3 Impacts on Total Chlorine Concentrations 9
2.4 Reducing Near-term Chlorine Concentrations 10
2.5 Conclusions 12
3. DEMAND FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM IN MAJOR END-USES 14
3.1 MCF Production and Trade Over the Past Ten Years 14
3.2 Major Factors Driving Future MCF Demand 16
3.2.1 Decrease in MCF Demand due to Increased
Conservation Practices 17
3.2.2 Increase in MCF Demand due to Growth
in MCF-Using Industries 18
3.2.3 Increase in MCF Demand due to Regulatory
Restrictions on Other Solvents 20
3.3 Summary of Demand Scenarios 22
3.3.1 Scenario 1: Low Conservation-High Chlorinated
Solvent Switch 22
3.3.2 Scenario 2: High Conservation-Low Chlorinated Solvent
Switch 24
3.3.3 Scenario 3: Low Conservation-No Solvent Switch 25
3.4 Discussion of Demand in Specific End-Uses 27
3.4.1 Vapor Degreasing and Cold Cleaning in the Metal Cleaning
Industry 27
3.4.2 Aerosols 31
- i -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED")
3.4.3 Adhesives 32
3.4.4 Electronics 33
3.4.5 Coatings and Inks 34
3.4.6 Fluorocarbon/Fluoropolymer Intermediates 36
3.4.7 Miscellaneous Uses 36
3.5 Long Term Projections of Methyl Chloroform Demand 37
4. CONTROL OPTIONS BY END-USE 39
4.1 Vapor Degreasing and Cold Cleaning in the Metal Cleaning and
Electronics Industries 39
4.1.1 Aqueous and Terpene Cleaning 48
4.1.2 Engineering Controls 48
4.1.3 Alternative Organic Solvents 49
4.1.4 Response to Public Comments 49
4.2 Adhesives -. 53
4.2.1 Water-based Adhesives 54
4.2.2 Hot-melt Adhesives 55
4.2.3 Solvent Recovery 56
4.2.4 Response to Public Comments 57
4.3 Aerosols 58
4.3.1 Reformulation Petroleum Distillates 59
4.3.2 Reformulation to Water-based Systems 59
4.3.3 Alternative Delivery Systems 60
4.3.4 Response to Public Comments 60
4.4 Coatings and Inks 62
4.4.1 Water-based Coatings and Inks 62
4.4.2 High-Solid Coatings 63
4.4.3 Powder Coatings 64
4.4.4 Solvent Recovery 64
4.4.5 Response to Public Comments 64
4.5 Miscellaneous Uses 66
5. APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING COSTS OF CONTROLLING MCF PRODUCTION 69
5.1 Methodology used to Simulate the Adoption of Controls 70
- ii -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED')
5.1.1 Input Data 70
5.1.2 Model Operation 76
5.2 Significance of Social Costs and Transfer Payments 77
5.3 Costs for Individual Controls in each End-Use 80
5.3.1 Methodology for Vapor Degreasing and Cold Cleaning 80
5.3.2 Cost Data for Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing 83
5.3.3 Cost Data for Open Top Vapor Degreasing 87
5.3.4 Cost Data for Cold Cleaning 89
5.3.5 Aerosols 91
5.3.5 Adhesives 95
5.3.6 Coatings and Inks 95
5.3.7 Miscellaneous Uses 99
6. COST ESTIMATES FOR PHASE-OUT AND FREEZE SCENARIOS 100
APPENDIX A. CALCULATION OF INDUSTRY GROWTH RATES FOR METAL CLEANING AND
ELECTRONICS A-l
APPENDIX B. DESCRIPTION OF METHOD USED TO PROJECT SOLVENT SUBSTITUTION
IN THE AEROSOLS INDUSTRY B-l
REFERENCES R-l
- iii -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
\
Exhibit 1. Contributions to 1985 Anthropogenic Chlorine
Concentrations 6
Exhibit 2. Simulated Chlorine concentrations from CFC-11, CFC-12,
and Methyl Chloroform 7
Exhibit 3. Simulated Chlorine Concentrations from fully halogenated
CFCs and Methyl Chloroform 8
Exhibit 4. Effect of Methyl Chloroform Phase Out 11
Exhibit 5. Changes in Clx Levels from a Phaseout: 2000 to 2035 ... 13
Exhibit 6. U.S. Production and Trade of Methyl Chloroform: 1978-1988 15
Exhibit 7. Market Growth in end-Uses for Methyl Chloroform 19
Exhibit 8. Summary of Demand Scenarios for Methyl Chloroform 23
Exhibit 9. Growth in Methyl Chloroform in its Six Major end-Uses ... 28
Exhibit 10. Summary of Control Options for Methyl Chloroform 40
Exhibit 11. Aqueous Cleaning Process 41
Exhibit 12. Zero Discharge Water Recycling System for the
Electronics Industry 44
Exhibit 13. Semi-Continuous Wastewater Treatment Process for the
Metal Cleaning Industry 46
Exhibit 14. Methyl Chloroform Control and Data Used to Estimate
Their Implementation 73
Exhibit 15. Maximum Methyl Chloroform Reduction Possible Due to
Controls 75
Exhibit 16. Solvent Materials Balance in Vapor Degreasing 82
Exhibit 17. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Conveyorized
Vapor Degreasing 84
Exhibit 18. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Open
Top Vapor Degreasing 88
Exhibit 19. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Cold
Cleaning 90
Exhibit 20. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Aerosols .... 92
Exhibit 21. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Adhesives ... 96
Exhibit 22. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Coatings
and Inks 97
Exhibit 23. Estimates of Social Costs for Phaseout and Freeze
Scenarios 101
Exhibit 24. Estimates of Transfer Payments for Phaseout and
Freeze Scenarios 103
Exhibit 25. Phaseout of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1986; 4.7% Growth) 105
Exhibit 26. Phaseout of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1988; 4.7% Growth) 106
Exhibit 27. Phaseout of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1986; 2.4% Growth) 107
Exhibit 28. Phaseout of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1988; 2.4% Growth) 108
- iv -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
Exhibit 29. Phaseout of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1986; 2.2% Growth) 109
Exhibit 30. Phaseout of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1988; 2.2% Growth) 110
Exhibit 31. Freeze of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1986; 4.7% Growth) Ill
Exhibit 32. Freeze of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1988; 4.7% Growth) 112
Exhibit 33. Freeze of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1986; 2.4% Growth) 113
Exhibit 34. Freeze of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1988; 2.4% Growth) 114
Exhibit 35. Freeze of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1986; 2.2% Growth) 115
Exhibit 36. Freeze of Methyl Chloroform Production
(1988; 2.2% Growth) 116
- v -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Because of its high production volume, methyl chloroform (MCF) currently
represents a significant source of chlorine (about 15 percent) to the
stratosphere. The short atmospheric lifetime of MCF relative to the fully
halogenated CFCs allows its contribution to stratospheric ozone to be reduced
significantly faster than the contribution from any of the CFCs. Because of
these factors, significant short term reductions in stratospheric chlorine
concentrations can be achieved by controlling MCF use. This analysis focuses
on the technical feasibility and costs of limiting MCF use in the United
States.
The report examines the growth prospects for MCF demand in the U.S. and
the costs associated with a potential freeze of MCF production at 1986 levels
and a phase-out of MCF production by the year 2000. Overall, demand for MCF
is projected to grow from 1989 to 2000 at average annual rates ranging from
2.2 to 4.7 percent. These growth rate estimates consider alternative
assumptions on the reductions in MCF use achievable by conservation and
recycling practices and allow for potential increased demand in the near-term
due to restrictions on CFC-113 and other regulated solvents. The largest end
uses for MCF are metal vapor degreasing and cold cleaning; however, most of
the growth in market demand for MCF will be due to increased use in smaller
end uses (aerosols, coatings and inks, adhesives, and electronics cleaning).
This is due to the rapid growth in the markets for these products and the fact
that industry is switching from increasingly regulated solvents (e.g.,
perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, VOCs, and CFC-113) to MCF.
ES-1
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Technically feasible technologies that reduce or eliminate the use of
MCF are available for all end-uses of MCF.1 For vapor degreasing and cold
cleaning these alternative technologies include primarily aqueous and terpene
cleaning, but also alternative cleaning solvents of low ozone depleting
potential and engineering controls. For aerosols, adhesives, and coatings and
inks, water-based technology offers effective substitutes for MCF-based
systems in most applications. In addition, reformulation to petroleum
distillates and use of alternative delivery systems currently available can
significantly reduce the use of aerosols containing MCF in consumer and
occupational uses. The expanded use of hot melt adhesives and solvent
recovery systems can achieve further reductions of MCF use in adhesives.
High-solid and powder coatings are innovative technologies that are currently
available to users of coatings.
This analysis estimates the costs of a freeze of MCF production at 1986
levels and a phase-out by the year 2000. The social costs associated with a
phase-out by the year 2000 are estimated to be between $1.3 and $2.7 billion
during the period 1989-2000 depending on the baseline growth rate assumed for
MCF. Over longer periods of time, the present value of social costs grows
significantly --to about $58 billion by the year 2075. The estimates of
social costs are reduced by about 10 percent or less if the phase-out is
initiated with MCF production assumed to be frozen at 1988 instead of 1986
levels.
1 MCF is also used as an intermediate for the production of fluorocarbons
and fluoropolymers. However, this end use is assumed to remain uncontrolled
and has negligible emissions.
ES-2
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The United States as a party to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer has committed to reducing the use of specified fully
halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. These chemicals contain
chlorine and bromine, which migrate to the stratosphere and have been shown to
deplete the ozone layer. EPA promulgated final regulations implementing the
Protocol on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566). The conditions for the Protocol's
entry-into-force were satisfied in December 1988, and the Protocol and the
EPA's rule went into effect January 1, 1989.
On the same day that the Agency issued its final rule implementing the
Montreal Protocol, it also published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) on possible further efforts to protect stratospheric ozone (53 FR
30604, August 12, 1988). Currently, the Montreal Protocol and the EPA
regulation require a 50 percent phased-in reduction in the production and
consumption of specified fully-halogenated CFCs by 1998, and a freeze at 1986
levels of specified halons beginning in 1992. In the August ANPRM however,
EPA described new scientific information which suggests that additional
reductions in CFCs, halons and possibly other ozone depleting chemicals may be
necessary. This new scientific information suggests that ozone is depleting
at a faster rate than the scientific community and the Parties to the Protocol
had originally anticipated. Future chlorine and bromine concentrations in the
upper atmosphere will depend primarily on future emissions of CFCs, halons,
and other ozone depleting substances.
- 1 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
In August 1988, the U.S. EPA issued a study entitled "Future
Concentrations of Stratospheric Chlorine and Bromine,"1 which looked at
chlorine and bromine levels after the implementation of the restrictions in
the Montreal Protocol. The U.S. EPA estimated that concentration of chlorine
in the stratosphere would increase from the current level of 2.7 to 8 parts
per billion (ppb) by 2075, even with the reductions in CFC production called
for in the Protocol. This increase would be caused not only by the allowed
use of CFCs and halons under the Protocol, but also by CFC use in countries
that are not members of the Protocol and by the growth in the production and
use of the non-regulated chemicals such as methyl chloroform2 and carbon
tetrachloride. Specifically, the study predicted that approximately 45
percent of the total increase in chlorine and bromine would be caused by
emissions from the remaining CFCs and halons. An additional 35 percent of the
increase in chlorine would occur as the result of methyl chloroform emissions.
The role of MCF in contributing chlorine to the stratosphere is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 2 of this report.
Because methyl chloroform currently contributes significant quantities
of chlorine to the stratosphere on April 17, 1989, EPA issued an ANPRM
(Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) (54 FR 15230, April 17, 1989) stating
that it would be discussed as part of efforts to strengthen the Montreal
Protocol and requesting that industry provide information on the availability
1 Clx Report, U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, 400/1-88/005, August
1988.
2 Methyl chloroform is also referred to as 1,1,1-trichloroethane, TCA,
and CH3CC13.
- 2 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
of substitutes for methyl chloroform. This analysis incorporates the comments
received by EPA, which are discussed in the individual sections describing
substitute technologies for the various end uses of methyl chloroform.
In addition, this report presents estimates of the costs that society
would incur if the use of methyl chloroform is reduced according to two
alternative reduction scenarios:
• a freeze at 1986 levels, and
• a phase-out by the year 2000.
Chapter 2 discusses methyl chloroform's contribution to stratospheric
chlorine concentrations. Chapter 3 describes the potential increase in demand
for methyl chloroform over the next twelve years (i.e., from 1989 through the
year 2000) given the current market and regulatory environment in the end-use
industries. This chapter describes the reasons for the use of methyl
chloroform in each end-use and projects the growth in methyl chloroform demand
assuming that no restrictions were imposed. For modelling purposes, this
chapter also presents long term growth projections for the period 2000 to
2050, and after 2050. Chapter 4 describes control technologies that reduce
the use of methyl chloroform in each end-use. Public comments on the
availability and feasibility of substitutes are addressed in this chapter.
Chapter 5 describes the approach used to estimate the costs of the two
alternative reduction scenarios for methyl chloroform (freeze and phase-out).
Chapter 6 presents the results of this cost analysis for the two reduction
scenarios including the social costs and transfer payments associated with the
reduction of methyl chloroform use in the various user industries.
- 3 -
* * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
2. METHYL CHLOROFORM'S CONTRIBUTION TO STRATOSPHERIC CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS
Because methyl chloroform currently is a significant source of chlorine
to the stratosphere, it is being considered for possible regulation under the
Montreal Protocol. This chapter seeks to assess the role of past and current
methyl chloroform emissions in increasing stratospheric chlorine levels, the
potential role of future emissions, and the magnitude and timing of decreases
in chlorine concentrations that would result from including this chemical in
the Montreal Protocol.
2.1 Current Chlorine Contributions
Methyl Chloroform differs from the fully halogenated CFCs in that it has
a substantially shorter atmospheric lifetime. For example, the lifetime of
methyl chloroform has been calculated to be on the order of 6-7 years compared
to lifetimes of 60 and 120 years for CFC-11 and CFC-12, respectively. The
importance of a chemical's atmospheric lifetime is that the longer its
lifetime, the higher the percentage "of the compound that will survive to be
transported to the stratosphere where its chlorine will be released and begin
the process of destroying ozone. However, the lifetime alone does not
determine the risks from that chemical to the ozone layer. The total amount
of stratospheric chlorine contributed from a particular chemical will be
determined not only by its atmospheric lifetime, but also by the quantity of
its emissions, and the amount of chlorine it contains. Because methyl
chloroform is currently produced and used in large quantities (e.g., roughly
equivalent to the total of all the CFCs combined) and because it contains
three chlorine atoms, its contribution to current stratospheric chlorine
levels has been significant.
- 4 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Exhibit 1 shows the current contribution to chlorine concentrations from
the fully halogenated CFCs, methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and
HCFC-22. Despite its short atmospheric lifetime, MCF contributes 16 percent
of the chlorine in the atmosphere. This is about 4 times more than the
contribution from CFC-113 and 5 times more than HCFC-22.
2.2 Impact of Atmospheric Lifetimes
The relatively short atmospheric lifetime of methyl chloroform is one
characteristic that makes this chemical similar to many of the HCFC
substitutes currently being developed. This same characteristic also means
that chlorine in the stratosphere from methyl chloroform will be reduced at a
much faster rate once emissions are reduced. Exhibit 2 illustrates this
point. It shows changes in chlorine contributions over time from a one-time
flux of an equal quantity of emissions (i.e., 300 million kilograms) of CFC-11
and 12 and methyl chloroform. The graph demonstrates that methyl chloroform's
short atmospheric lifetime (relative to the fully halogenated CFCs) allows its
contribution to stratospheric chlorine concentrations to be reduced
significantly faster than the contribution from any of the CFCs. It shows
that chlorine from methyl chloroform is almost entirely cleansed from the
atmosphere in 15 to 20 years, whereas significant quantities of chlorine from
the CFCs remain for well over 100 years. Thus, controls on methyl chloroform
emissions will reduce stratospheric chlorine levels more rapidly than controls
on any of the CFCs.
Exhibit 3 makes the same point but shows the reductions in chlorine
based on each chemical's actual 1986 contribution to stratospheric chlorine
- 5 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 1
CONTRIBUTIONS TO 1985 ANTHROPOGENIC
CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS
CFC-12(31%)
CFC-113(4%)
CH3CCI3(16%)
CFC-11(28%)
HCFC-22(3%)
CCI4(17%)
- 6 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 2
SIMULATED CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS FROM
CFC- 1 1, CFC- 1 2 AND METHYL CHLOROFORM FROM
HYPOTHETICAL ONE YEAR EMISSIONS OF 300 MILLION KILOGRAMS
0.05
Methyl Chloroform
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft gi (?) ft ft ft ft ft
1 1 1 1 1 T T T T T T T T T T T
i i i I i i i i i ii ii i i i i i i ii i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 1
- 7 -
* *_* DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 3
SIMULATED STRATOSPHERIC CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS FROM
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
FULLY HALOGENATED CFCS AND METHYL CHLOROFORM
FROM HISTORIC EMISSIONS THROUGH 1985
Methyl Chloroform
fe»fe»fc>fe»fc>eaQ ~e
TTTTT¥ T T T
T- CFC- 1 1 5
19851990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
CFC-12
- 8 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
concentrations. By assuming arbitrarily that emissions of each chemical were
completely eliminated in 1986, it shows the path of reductions in chlorine
over time for each chemical. Again, the graph underscores the dominant role
played by a phase-out of methyl chloroform in achieving near-term reductions
in stratospheric chlorine. It shows that chlorine from methyl chloroform is
essentially eliminated within several decades following a phase-out, whereas
significant quantities of chlorine from CFCs continue to remain in the
stratosphere for well over a 100 years.
2.3 Impacts on Total Chlorine Concentrations
The Montreal Protocol's Scientific Assessment focussed on two aspects of
efforts to minimize damage from ozone depletion. One involved limiting the
magnitude of increases in total chlorine levels. To put this in context,
natural concentrations of stratospheric chlorine are approximately 0.7 ppb.
Current concentrations are about 3.0 ppb. Future increases in chlorine
concentration appear inevitable for several reasons: chlorinated compounds
already in the troposphere will eventually add to stratospheric
concentrations; chlorinated compounds trapped in products will slowly be
released over time; and CFCs and related compounds will continue to be used
over the next decade or longer (in developing countries) until substitutes are
developed and fully employed.
The second consideration in limiting damage from ozone depletion
involves reducing stratospheric chlorine concentrations back to levels that
existed prior to the onset of the Antarctic ozone hole -- approximately 1.5-
2.0 ppb.
- 9 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Exhibit 4 shows the effect on both of these goals (i.e., maximum
chlorine concentrations and timing of reaching pre-ozone hole concentrations)
of different levels of controls on methyl chloroform. A phase-out of methyl
chloroform would reduce maximum chlorine levels from 4.0 ppb to 3.7 ppb which
would result from a freeze on this chemical at 1986 levels (assuming the CFCs
and carbon tetrachloride are phased out in 2000 and no substitution occurs).
Thus, whether MCF is frozen or phased out will significantly affect the
increased risks of greater ozone depletion from higher chlorine concentration.
The difference between a phaseout of MCF (3.7 ppb) and a freeze (4.0 ppb)
represents a 40 percent increase in risks from today's level (3.0 ppb).
Further, a phase out of methyl chloroform would allow stratospheric
chlorine to return to current concentrations by about 2060, or 35 years
earlier than if methyl chloroform emissions were simply frozen. It is
important to note that this graph compares the difference between a freeze and
a phase-out of methyl chloroform and therefore assumes no growth in future
emissions.
2.4 Reducing Near-term Chlorine Concentrations
The analysis clearly indicates that a phase-out of methyl chloroform
would be the single most important source for near-term reductions in
stratospheric chlorine levels. The significant role played by this chemical
can be attributed to two factors: it is already a significant contributor of
chlorine to the stratosphere and because it has a relatively short atmospheric
lifetime, its chlorine contribution can be eliminated relatively rapidly
following a phase out.
- 10 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 4
EFFECT OF METHYL CHLOROFORM PHASE OUT
TOTAL CIX CONCENTRATIONS
1985 Through 2100
(2) Phase out
2.0
1985
2005
2025 2045
Year
(1) Methyl Chloroform Freeze
(2) Methyl Chloroform Phase out
Assumptions:
o 2000 Phase out of Fully Halogenated CFCs and Carbon Tetrachlorlde
o 100% Global Participation
o No HCFC Substitution for Foregone CFCs
_.*_* * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTED - OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
Max
4.0
3.7
2075
2.9
2.4
-------
Exhibit 5 demonstrates this point. It shows the same phase-out scenario
presented in the previous figure (i.e., a phase-out of CFCs, carbon
tetrachloride and methyl chloroform). However, it depicts the changes in
chlorine concentrations separately for each chemical for the period from 2005
to 2035. It shows that a phase-out in 2000 of the CFCs and carbon
tetrachloride will not have significant short-term results in reducing
stratospheric chlorine concentrations, though they will be critical for
achieving long-term reductions. In sharp contrast, the 2000 phase-out of
methyl chloroform will result in its full impact being experienced during this
near-term period and will yield a net reduction of 0.3 ppb.
2.5 Conclusions
This chapter examined the role of methyl chloroform in contributing to
stratospheric chlorine concentrations. It focussed on the unique
characteristics surrounding methyl chloroform, specifically its large
contribution to current stratospheric chlorine concentrations (e.g., roughly
equal to CFC-11, -12 and carbon tetrachloride) and its relatively short
atmospheric lifetime. Taken together, these factors suggest that a phase-out
of methyl chloroform is the most effective means of limiting increases in peak
chlorine concentrations and in achieving significant near-term reductions in
stratospheric chlorine concentrations.
- 12 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
a.
Q.
-------
3. DEHAND FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM IN MAJOR END-USES
This chapter discusses projections of the growth in methyl chloroform
demand in the U.S. Section 3.1 discusses the changes in MCF production and
trade over the past 10 years and addresses public comments regarding the
future trends in MCF demand. Section 3.2 discusses the factors driving methyl
chloroform demand in the future and section 3.3 summarizes the demand growth
rate projections for three alternate scenarios for the period of 1989 to 2000.
Section 3.4 elaborates on the factors affecting methyl chloroform demand in
specific end-uses and presents the resulting demand growth rate estimates for
these end-uses. Section 3.5 discusses long-term projections in methyl
chloroform demand (i.e., from 2001 to 2075) which are necessary to model the
long-term economic impacts associated with potential reductions in methyl
chloroform use.
3.1 MCF Production and Trade Over the Past 10 Years.
Exhibit 6 shows the production figures for MCF reported by the U.S.
International Trade Commission sources, exports reported by the U.S. Bureau of
Census, and imports estimated by an independent market research firm for the
period of 1978-1989. Various comments to the MCF ANPRM (54 FR 15230, April
17, 1989) indicate that MCF is a commodity chemical that is approaching
maturity, i.e., MCF demand will remain essentially the same over the next few
years. The figures reported in Exhibit 6 show production changes over time.
It shows that production had decreased in the early 1980's during the
worldwide economic recession. More recently, however, production levels
appear to be increasing with growth in 4 of the last 5 years. While it is
difficult to make definitive conclusions from this data on MCF production, the
- 14 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
Exhibit 6. U.S. Production and Trade, of Methyl Chloroform: 1978 - 1988
(Thousands of pounds)
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Average Growth
Production
(a)
644,475
716,336
692,269
613,993
595,186
586,400
674,540
868,776
652,109
694,274
723,656
('79-88):
Annual
Growth
Rate
(b)
11.2%
-3.4%
-11.3%
-3.1%
-1.5%
15.0%
28.8%
-24.9%
6.5%
4.2%p
1.2%(h)
Exports
(c)
N/A
59,557
61,279
56,003
63,743
56,785
46,533
39,796
87,279
110,547
94,808
Annua I
Growth
Rate
(d)
N/A
2.9%
-8.6%
13.8%
-10.9%
-18.1%
-14.5%
119.3%
26.7%
-14.2%
Imports
(e) (
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10,000
12,000
15,000
20,000
N/A
N/A
71,152 (g)
U.S.
Demand
F)=(a)-(c)+(e)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
541,443
541,615-
643,007
848,980
N/A
N/A
700,000
Notes:
N/A: Not available.
p: preliminary USITC estimate.
Sources:
(a) U.S. International Trade Commission - Synthetic Organic Chemicals (various years)
(b) Percent change in production with respect to previous year.
(c) Exports: U.S. Census Bureau (publication FT446).
(d) Percent change in exports with respect to previous year.
(e) The U.S. Bureau of Census does not report imports for MCF separately. The above
estimates are from a market research firm: Chemical Products Synopsis - Mannsville
Chemical Products Corp. (June 1985).
(f) Demand = Production - Exports + Imports. Lack of import data prevents the calculation
of demand for all years.
(g) Computed imports: Based on CMR (1989) estimate of demand of 700 million pounds in 1988
and reported exports.
(h) Compounded growth rate from 1978 to 1988 production levels.
- 15 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
data does show that the average annual percentage change in MCF production
over the past 10 years has been a positive 1.2 percent1.
The demand for MCF (i.e., domestic consumption) is the difference
between the sum of MCF production and imports and MCF exports. Export data
for MCF are available from the Bureau of Census; however, imports are reported
for a generic category of "chlorinated hydrocarbons" and not separately for
MCF. Current estimates of MCF demand place total MCF demand in the U.S. at
700 million pounds (CMR 1989); this is lower than the estimated demand for
1985 but higher than demand in 1982 through 1984. Incomplete data, therefore,
make it difficult: to assess any trends in MCF consumption.
In conclusion, the change in production over the past ten years has been
on average a positive 1.2 percent annually. Lack of adequate trade data
prevent reliable projections of future MCF demand based on historical demand.
However, the analysis of major factors driving MCF demand in each sector in
the subsequent sections lead to the conclusion that MCF has a significant
growth potential.
3.2 Major Factors Driving Future MCF Demand in the U.S.
Three factors will determine the growth in methyl chloroform demand over
the next 12 years (from 1989 to 2000): (1) increased use of conservation
practices2 which reduce the use of methyl chloroform, (2) market growth in
1 This average is calculated as the average compounded growth from 1978
to 1988 production levels reported in Exhibit 6 (column b); however, it should
be noted that growth over the past ten years has not been steady.
2 Conservation practices include the use of recycling technologies and
improved operating measures that result in a reduction in MCF use. The term
"conservation" is used in the rest of the report to describe these type of
controls.
- 16 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
industries that use methyl chloroform, and (3) regulatory restrictions on
other chlorinated solvents (trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and
methylene chloride), CFC-113, and materials classified as Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)3.
3.2.1 Decrease in MCF Demand due to Increased Conservation
Practices.
Conservation practices in the cold cleaning and vapor degreasing
end-uses have in the past and will continue in the future to reduce the use of
MCF as users attempt to minimize the costs associated with solvent losses and
waste disposal. Based on current consumption, these measures may lead to
reductions ranging from 20 to 60 percent of current MCF consumption in these
end-uses by the year 2000*. The specific conservation practices that can be
implemented to reduce MCF use in metal cleaning include improved operating
practices, the use of recycling technologies (including carbon adsorption
systems), avoiding the use (or frequency of use) of a solvent where necessary,
and emissions control technologies such as refrigerated freeboard chillers,
and automatic covers and hoists. In the electronics industry, similar control
technologies may lead to significant reductions in the amount of solvent
needed to deflux printed circuit boards, and for preparation of wafers for
integrated circuits and degreasing of semiconductors.
3 Methyl chloroform is not classified as a Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC). VOCs include most hydrocarbons which are capable of becoming gases
under atmospheric pressure and that upon contact with solar radiation produce
ground level ozone (smog). Restrictions on the use of VOCs may result in a
switch to methyl chloroform.
* This is consistent with various industry comments to the April 14 ANPRM
indicating that users can implement technically available, low-cost controls
which will lead to significant reductions in MCF use.
- 17 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
3.2.2 Increase in HCF Demand due to Growth in MCF-Using
Industries.
The market growth, i.e., the increase (or decrease) in the output
or number of units produced in the industries that use MCF will lead to
increased (or decreased) demand for methyl chloroform. This analysis is based
on historical market growth rates reported in government and industry sources
(primarily the U.S. Department of Commerce Industrial Outlook and trade
journals). Exhibit 7 presents the specific industry growth rates used for the
five major end-uses of methyl chloroform.
The growth rate estimate for the metal vapor degreasing and cold
cleaning end-uses is an average of the growth rates in seven major metal
working or metal using industries (i.e., fabricated metal products, primary
metal industries, machinery, furniture and fixtures, transportation equipment,
and instruments and related products) which are classified as 2-digit SIC
codes (Standard Industrial Classification). The growth rates for each of
these industries are averages because the data reported in the U.S. Department
of Commerce 1989 Industrial Outlook only reports growth rates for 4-digit SIC
codes (e.g., sub-sectors within the fabricated metal products). A similar
procedure was used to compute the average growth rate for the electronics
industry. A detailed presentation of the methodology and data used to compute
these values is presented in Appendix A.
The adhesives and coatings industries are reported by 4-digit SIC codes
and, therefore, the industry growth rates of 5 and 1 percent, respectively,
are quoted directly from the reported data. The market growth rate for the
aerosols industry of 6 percent is the weighted average output growth for
- 18 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 7
MARKET GROWTH IN END-USES FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
Industry Annual
MCF End-Use Growth Rate8 SIC CODES
Metal Vapor Degreasing
and Cold Cleaning
Aerosols
Adhesives
Electronics
Coatings and Inks
2.1%
6.0%b
5.0%
8.7%
1.0%
25,33,34,35,37,38,39
N/A°
2891
36
2851
Sources: Based on U.S. Industrial Outlook 1989. U.S. Department of Commerce.
N/A: Not available.
a Except where noted otherwise, the annual average growth rates are averages
for the 1984-89 period as reported. Because the averages for 2-digit SIC codes
are not reported, the rates shown are the weighted average growth rates of all
corresponding 4-digit SIC codes reported. The calculation of these average
growth rates is presented in Appendix A.
b Based on Aerosol Age 1989. Weighted average output growth of household
products, automotive and industrial products, and aerosol pesticides from 1983
to 1988. The estimated shares of MCF consumption in these aerosol product
categories (ICF 1989a) are used as the weights for computing the average.
c Statistics for the aerosols industry are not reported in the U.S. Industrial
Outlook 1989.
- 19 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
household products, automotive and industrial products, and aerosol pesticides
from 1983 to 1988 (Aerosol Age 19895). As discussed in Section 2.3.2, these
represent the product categories where most of the MCF is used. The estimated
shares of MCF consumption in these aerosol product categories (analyzed in ICF
1989a) are used as the weights for computing this average.
3.2.3 Increase in MCF Demand due to Regulatory Restrictions on Other
Solvents
Demand for methyl chloroform may also grow due to increased regulatory
restrictions on the use of CFC-113, other chlorinated solvents (e.g.,
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride), and Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) solvents (particularly in California). It is estimated
that current restrictions imposed on CFC-113 use under the Montreal Protocol,
will encourage some users of CFC-113 at least in the near-term, to switch to
methyl chloroform. In addition, early this year OSHA enacted a final rule
lowering the exposure limits for perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene
(methylene chloride's exposure limit is currently under review and is expected
to undergo similar reductions) (54 FR 2944, January 19, 1989). The increased
stringency of these exposure limits may lead some chlorinated solvent users to
switch to methyl chloroform instead of trying to control exposure. Compliance
with VOC emissions limits, particularly in the coatings and inks and adhesives
industries, may also cause a switch to MCF-based products, which is exempt
from VOC rules.
5 This source reports the number of aerosol units produced in various
product categories and is based on the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers
Association's pressurized products survey for 1988. The U.S. Industrial
Outlook does not report statistics for the aerosols industry.
- 20 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
Each of the three factors discussed above (i.e., increased conservation,
market growth, and regulatory restrictions on other solvents) will affect the
level of demand for methyl chloroform in each end-use depending on specific
characteristics of the end-use in question. For example, conservation
practices in the metal cleaning industry are projected to offset to a large
extent the combined effect of market growth and switch from other solvents to
methyl chloroform resulting in a slow to no growth in methyl chloroform demand
in this sector. In contrast, the high market growth in the aerosols industry
and the increased use of methyl chloroform as a replacement for methylene
chloride and perchloroethylene leads to a net increase in methyl chloroform
consumption in aerosols. Hence, some end-uses contribute to large increases
in methyl chloroform demand whereas other end-uses will stabilize methyl
chloroform demand. For this reason, the distribution of methyl chloroform
consumption by end-use is important for projecting total methyl chloroform
demand.
Two alternative distributions of current demand for methyl chloroform by
end-use are used in the projections discussed below: the Halogenated Solvents
Industry Alliance's (HSIA) distribution and the Chemical Marketing Reporter's
distribution (CMR) published in January of 19896:
6 Various comments to the methyl chloroform's ANPRM quote this
distribution of consumption by end-uses reported in CMR, including comments by
MCF producers and others.
- 21 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
End Use
Metal Vapor Degreasing
Metal Cold Cleaning
Aerosols
Adhesives
Electronics
Fluorocarbons/
Fluoropolymer Intermediates
Coatings and Inks
Miscellaneous
CMRa Use
Shares
40
14
12
9.
5
8
6
6
HSIA Use
Shares
44
20
11
9
6
4
3
3
Total 100 100
a Values adjusted to exclude exports.
Source: CMR 1989.
HSIA 1987.
As shown above, CMR attributes more consumption to non-traditional
methyl chloroform end-uses (i.e., aerosols, adhesives, and inks and coatings).
The differences in the shares allocated for each end-use affect the
projections of total demand because of the significant difference in their
market growth rates (as shown in Exhibit 7). Thus, the alternative share
distributions are used as a tool for sensitivity analysis.
3.3 Summary of Demand Scenarios
Demand for methyl chloroform totalled 700 million pounds in 1988 (CMR
1989). Exhibit 8 shows demand projections for methyl chloroform considering
three scenarios: "low conservation-high chlorinated solvent switch", "high
conservation-low chlorinated solvent switch", and "no solvent switch".
3.3.1. Scenario 1: Low Conservation-High Chlorinated Solvent Switch
For this scenario the following assumptions were used:
• 25 percent of the chlorinated solvents consumption in metal vapor
degreasing, cold cleaning, and electronics switches to MCF;
- 22 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 8. SUMMARY OF DEMAND SCENARIOS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
(million pounds)
Scenario 1988 Demand 2000 Demand Annual Growth
1. LOW CONSERVATION -- HIGH CHLORINATED SOLVENT SWITCH3
HSIA Use Shares13 700 1,129 +4.1%
CMR Use Sharesb 700 1,215 +4.7%
2. HIGH CONSERVATION -- LOW CHLORINATED SOLVENT SWITCH0
HSIA Use Shares 700 816 +1.3%
CMR Use Shares 700 936 '+2.4%
3. LOW CONSERVATION -- NO SOLVENT SWITCHd
HSIA Use Shares 700 901 +2.1%
CMR Use Shares 700 904 +2.2%
a The assumptions for scenario 1 are as follows:
• 25 percent of the chlorinated solvents used in metal vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and electronics
switches to MCF;
• MCF captures 25 percent of the volume of CFC-113.used in metal vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and
electronics in 1986;
• conservation practices in vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and electronics reduce current MCF consumption
in these end-uses by 20 percent by the year 2000; and
• the growth rates of the industries using MCF will be the same as their past five-year growth rates.
b The HSIA and CMR use shares are shown in page 22.
c The assumptions for scenario 2 are the same as those of scenario 1 except for the following:
• 10 percent of the chlorinated solvents used in metal vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and electronics
switches to methyl chloroform; and
• conservation practices in vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and electronics reduce current MCF consumption
immediately by 60 percent by the year 2000.
^ This scenario uses the same assumptions as scenario 1 except that no VOC, chlorinated solvents, and CFC-113
consumption is assumed to be captured by MCF.
- 23 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
• conservation practices in vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and
electronics reduce current MCF consumption in these end-uses by 20
percent by the year 2000;
• the volume of CFC-113 used in metal vapor degreasing, cold
cleaning, and electronics is reduced to 50 percent of 1986 levels.
That is, if 100 units of CFC-113 were used in 1986 then only 50
units are used in 1998. Of these 50 units, 50 percent switches to
MCF, i.e., 25 units of use switch to MCF7;
• demand growth (or decline) in the industries that use methyl
chloroform results from the combination of their market growth
rates shown Exhibit 7 (i.e., their growth rates over the last five
years) and the conservation measures and/or solvent switch
assumptions described above.
Under this scenario, the annual growth in methyl chloroform demand could
range from range from 4.1 percent to 4.7 percent resulting in total
consumption of between 1,129 and 1,215 million pounds by the year 2000. This
range of projected growth rates is based on the HSIA and CMR end use
distributions.
3.3.2 Scenario 2: High Conservation-Low Chlorinated Solvent Switch
The assumptions for the second scenario, "high conservation-low
solvent switch" are:
• 10 percent of the chlorinated solvents consumption in metal vapor
degreasing, cold cleaning, and electronics switches to methyl
chloroform;
• the volume of CFC-113 used in metal vapor degreasing, cold
cleaning, and electronics is reduced to 50 percent of 1986 levels.
That is, if 100 units of CFC-113 were used in 1986 then only 50
units are used in 1998. Of these 50 units, 50 percent switches to
MCF, i.e., 25 units of use switch to MCF;
0 7 Alternatively, if CFC-113 use is phased-out by 2000, it is assumed that
MCF would account for 25 percent of the CFC-113 market in 1986. Thus, the
amount of MCF that results from CFC-113 substitution in either case (a 50
percent reduction or a phaseout of CFC-113) is assumed to be the same.
- 24 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
• conservation practices in vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and
electronics reduce current methyl chloroform consumption
immediately by 60 percent by the year 20008;
• demand for methyl chloroform in coatings and inks grows at 13
percent annually9; and,
• demand growth (or decline) in the other industries that use methyl
chloroform results from the combination of their market growth
rates shown Exhibit 7 (i.e., their growth rates over the last five
years) and the conservation measures and/or solvent switch
assumptions described above.
This scenario indicates that growth in methyl chloroform demand could
range from 1.3 percent to 2.4 percent resulting in total consumption of
between 816 and 936 million pounds by 2000. Again, the low and high growth
rate estimates correspond to HSIA and CMR end use distributions, respectively.
3.3.3 Scenario 3: Low Conservation-No Solvent Switch
As discussed in section 2.1 three factors will determine the
growth in methyl chloroform demand through the year 2000: (1) increased use of
conservation practices, (2) the market growth in industries that use methyl
chloroform, and (3) regulatory restrictions on other solvents (other
chlorinated solvents, CFC-113, and VOCs) and the resultant switch by users to
methyl chloroform. This scenario is developed assuming that the growth in MCF
demand is driven by only the first two factors described above, i.e.,
increased conservation practices and market growth, and no increase in MCF
demand occurs as a result of solvent substitution. Thus the assumptions for
this scenario are:
8 The percentage reduction associated with conservation practices is not
applied to the amount of MCF implied in the previous bullet. •
9 Based on industry projections of the growth of MCF demand in this end-
use discussed below in section 3.4.5 (CMR 1987, Chemical Engineering 1987).
- 25 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
• conservation practices in vapor degreasing, cold cleaning, and
electronics reduce current MCF consumption in these end-uses by 20
percent by the year 2000;
• demand for methyl chloroform in coatings and inks grows at 1
percent annually;
• demand growth (or decline) in the other industries that use methyl
chloroform results from the combination of their market growth
rates shown Exhibit 7 (i.e., their growth rates over the last five
years) and the conservation measures described above; and,
• users do not switch from regulated solvents (i.e., CFC-113, other
chlorinated solvents, and VOCs) to MCF.
Although this is an extremely conservative scenario, it is intended to
show the residual demand for MCF in the event that users decided to continue
using the current solvents when feasible or to replace them with alternatives
other than MCF (e.g., aqueous cleaning, water-based adhesives and coatings,
etc.). The results of this scenario indicate that MCF demand would still grow
at 2.1 to 2.2 percent annually and reach 901 to 904 million pounds, based on
HSIA and CMR use shares, respectively.
As shown in Exhibit 8, demand for methyl chloroform is expected to
grow even in the most conservative scenario primarily because of the high
market growth in the aerosols, adhesives, coatings and inks, and electronics
end-uses. The demand for methyl chloroform in vapor degreasing and cold
cleaning end-uses, which account for the largest proportion of use at present,
are expected to have slow growth or even decline because increased used of
conservation practices will offset increases in demand resulting from the
substitution of chlorinated solvents and CFC-113.
- 26 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
3.4 Discussion of Demand in Specific End-Uses
Exhibit 9 shows a summary of the demand growth rates for MCF in its
seven end-uses. These rates result from applying the conservation, market
growth, and solvent substitution assumptions discussed under the three
projection scenarios. The following sections review the use of methyl
chloroform in each end-use and discuss in detail the demand growth rates
presented in Exhibit 9.
3.4.1 Vapor Degreasing and Cold Cleaning in The Metal Cleaning
Industry
Vapor degreasing and cold cleaning account for the largest use of
methyl chloroform. High solvency, low heat of vaporization, non-flammability,
and low toxicity make methyl chloroform a good solvent for removing organic
compounds, such as grease and oil from the surface of metals or metal
manufactured parts. Solvent cleaning is usually an essential part of the
production process as it prepares parts for next operations, such as assembly,
painting, coating, electroplating, machining, fabrication, packaging, and
inspection. Solvent cleaning may be divided into two types: cold cleaning and
vapor degreasing. Cold cleaning is usually accomplished by immersing,
soaking, or spraying the metal parts with solvent that is at room temperature.
Vapor degreasing is a process that uses hot solvent vapor to remove
contaminants. The advantage of using vapor degreasing over cold cleaning is
that in vapor degreasing the metal parts are always cleaned with pure solvent
because it is in the vapor state, as opposed to cold cleaning where the parts
are being cleaned with solvent that has been contaminated with organics
removed from the metal parts.
- 27 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 9
GROWTH IN METHYL CHLOROFORM IN ITS SIX MAJOR END-USES
Demand Scenarios
MCF End-Use
Use Shares:
Scenario la Scenario 2b
HSIA CMR HSIA CMR
Scenario 3°
HSIA CMR
Metal Vapor Degreasing
Metal Cold Cleaning
Aerosols
Adhesives
Electronics
Coatings and Inksd
Miscellaneous
1.3%
0.8%
9.5%
5.0%
9.4%
13.0%
3.2%
1.4%
1.0%
9.5%
5.0%
9.9%
13 . 0%
3.6%
-4.2%
-4.8%
9.5%
5.0%
4.8%
13 . 0%
-0.6%
-4.1%
-4.7%
9.5%
5.0%
5.4%
13.0%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
6.0%
5.0%
6.9%
1.0%
1.7%
0.3%
0.3%
6.0%
5.0%
6.9%
1.0%
1.7%
Source: ICF estimates.
a Scenario 1: Low Conservation-High Chlorinated Solvent Switch
b Scenario 2: High Conservation-Low Chlorinated Solvent Switch
0 Scenario 3: Low Conservation-No Solvent Switch
d The growth rate estimates for coatings and inks are discussed in detail in
section 3.4.5.
- 28 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
The future demand for methyl chloroform in this end-use will depend on
three factors: (1) the extent of conservation measures that will be practiced
by industry to reduce the use of methyl chloroform, (2) the market expansion
(contraction) of these end-uses which will result in an increased (decreased)
use of methyl chloroform, and (3) the increase in demand due to the
substitution away from chlorinated solvents such as perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride and CFC-113. It is estimated that
current regulatory actions on chlorinated solvents which impose stricter
exposure limits may lead some chlorinated solvent users to switch to methyl
chloroform instead of trying to control exposure. In addition, it is assumed
that current restrictions imposed on CFC-113 use under the Montreal Protocol,
will encourage some users of CFC-113 to switch to methyl chloroform. This is
particularly true in the near-term in cases where current equipment allows for
substitution among chlorinated solvents and would result in use of a lower
ozone-depleting compound.
To determine the future growth in methyl chloroform demand three
scenarios are used: "low conservation-high chlorinated solvent switch", "high
conservation-low chlorinated solvent switch", and a conservative scenario of
"low conservation-no solvent switch". In the first scenario it is assumed
that 25 percent of the current use of chlorinated solvents (i.e.,
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride10) in vapor
degreasing and cold cleaning in the metal cleaning end use will be substituted
10 OSHA is in the process of promulgating a proposed rule that would
considerably lower the permissible exposure level (500 ppm) for methylene
chloride.
- 29 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
by methyl chloroform. This is based on the assumption that some users will
switch to methyl chloroform instead of adopting better control measures to
reduce exposures, whereas, other users would continue to use chlorinated
solvents because MCF has the desired properties fot a specific application or
because equipment has been adapted to use MCF. It is estimated that 25
percent of the CFG-113 use, based on 1986 levels, will be substituted by
methyl chloroform11. In addition, it is estimated that conservation practices
will reduce methyl chloroform use by 20 percent by the year 2000 and that the
market will grow at an estimated annual growth rate of 2.1 percent,
respectively (see Exhibit 7). This results in an annual growth rate of 1.3
percent and 0.8 percent for the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning end uses
under the HSIA end use distribution, and a 1.4 percent and 1.0 percent annual
growth rate under the CMR end use distribution.
The second scenario, "high conservation-low chlorinated solvent switch"
is similar to the first scenario except that: (1) increased conservation
practices reduce methyl chloroform consumption by 60 percent by 2000, (2) 10
percent of the current use of chlorinated solvents is substituted by methyl
chloroform, and (3) 10 percent of the CFC-113 use, based on 1986 estimate, is
substituted by methyl chloroform. As shown in Exhibit 9, this results in an
annual growth rate of -4.2 percent and -4.8 percent for the vapor degreasing
and cold cleaning end uses under the HSIA end use share estimates, and a -4.1
11 As stated in an earlier footnote, this is based on the estimate that
CFC-113 consumption in this end use will be reduced by 50 percent due to the
Montreal Protocol, and 50 percent of this reduction will be accomplished by
substitution to methyl chloroform. Alternatively, if CFC-113 use is phased-
out by 2000, this would represent a 25 percent substitution of MCF for CFC-113
in this use.
- 30 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
percent and -4.7 percent annual growth rate under the CMR end use share
assumptions. Finally, under the "low conservation-no solvent switch" scenario
is similar to the scenario 1 except that MCF is not used to substitute other
chlorinated solvents or CFC-113. It is implicitly assumed that users continue
using the same solvents or switch to alternatives other than MCF. This
scenario results in an annual growth rate of 0.3 percent for both, the vapor
degreasing and cold cleaning end uses under both the HSIA and CMR end use
share estimates. (Only one growth rate value results because market growth
rate and conservation assumptions are the same for both end-uses).
3.4.2 Aerosols
Methyl chloroform is used in aerosol formulations as either an
active ingredient or as a solvent of other active ingredients. Its main
advantages with respect to other solvents are its non-flammability, the
acceptability of its toxicity profile, and good solvency power. In automotive
and industrial products, which include various aerosol automotive cleaners and
degreasers, methyl chloroform acts as the active ingredient because it is the
degreasing or cleaning agent of the formulation. In aerosol pesticides,
methyl chloroform is used to dissolve the active ingredients (i.e., the insect
toxicant) and to allow rapid evaporation of the product. In household
products, methyl chloroform may act as a solvent of resin-based active
ingredients (e.g., in spray shoe polishes and water repellents), or as the
active ingredient of cleaning products (e.g., aerosol spot removers and
leather/suede cleaners).
It is estimated that demand for methyl chloroform in the aerosols
industry will increase at an annual rate of 10 percent over the next 12 years
- 31 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
(ICF 1989a, Aerosol Age 1989). Two factors contribute to this increased use
of methyl chloroform: (1) the rapid market expansion of specific product
categories where methyl chloroform is used, and (2) the switch from regulated
chlorinated solvents (methylene chloride and perchloroethylene) to methyl
chloroform given their similar non-flammability and solvency power. The
aerosol industry's output has seen healthy growth since 1983. In particular,
the combined output growth of household products, automotive and industrial
products, and aerosol pesticides, which account for most of the methyl
chloroform used in aerosols, has averaged 6 percent per year over the past 5
years (Aerosol Age 1989). In addition, increased regulatory restrictions due
to health concerns on the use of perchloroethylene and methylene chloride in
aerosols are likely to cause a switch from these solvents to methyl
chloroform. Because of this substitution effect, it is estimated that
consumption of methyl chloroform in aerosols will increase at an annual rate
of 3.5 percent over the next 12 years12.
Thus, the combined effect of these two factors -- market expansion and
switch from other chlorinated solvents --is estimated to result in a 9.5
percent annual growth of methyl chloroform demand in this use sector.
3.4.3 Adhesives
The main physical properties that make methyl chloroform a
suitable solvent for adhesive applications are its non-flammability, good
12 This growth rate is based on a calculated base-case consumption of 41
million kilograms and a projected consumption of 62 million kilograms in 12
years. The projection to 62 million kilograms is based on the assumption that
methyl chloroform will substitute for methylene chloride and perchloroethylene
in aerosol formulations to the maximum extent feasible (see Appendix B).
- 32 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
solvency power, and high evaporation rate. Methyl chloroform is used to
formulate styrene butadiene rubber adhesives, neoprene contact adhesives, and
natural rubber and urethane-based adhesives, among others. These adhesives
are used in various construction and packaging applications, such as
recreation turf installation, hardboard panelling, glued plywood floors,
assembly of metal doors, installation of thermal sandwich panels, manufacture
of pressure-sensitive tapes and labels, and consumer contact cements.
Various sources project substantial growth in the adhesives market over
the next decade with estimates ranging from 5 to about 8 percent (Chemical
Week 1988, Chemical Week 1987, C&EN 1989). As shown in Exhibit 7, the U.S.
Department of Commerce projects the adhesive market to grow at 5 percent (U.S.
Industrial Outlook 1989) . In addition, growth in methyl chloroform use in the
adhesives industry is fueled by the replacement of VOC solvents in
applications such as laminating adhesives. Although the switch away from VOC
solvents in certain sectors is leading to increase MCF demand, there is no
basis for quantifying this increase. Considering the average growth prospects
of the major market segments where methyl chloroform-based adhesives are used
(i.e., 5 percent for construction and packaging markets (Chemical Week 1987))
and consistent with U.S. Department of Commerce estimates of overall market
growth, it is estimated that methyl chloroform use will grow at an annual rate
of 5 percent.
3.4.4 Electronics
Methyl chloroform is used in the electronics industry to remove
solder flux from printed circuit assemblies, in the oxidation step during the
fabrication of silicon wafers, in the dry photo resists process, and in the
- 33 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
degreasing step to clean silicon wafers in the initial wafer fabrication
process. It is estimated that the demand for methyl chloroform in the
electronics end-use will depend on the same three factors discussed in Section
2.1 (i.e., the extent of conservation, the switch from chlorinated solvents
and CFC-113, and the market growth). The growth in methyl chloroform in this
end use is estimated for the three scenarios discussed earlier. Except for an
estimated 8.7 percent market growth (U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1989, see
Exhibit 7), the assumptions used for electronics (e.g., concerning
conservation and solvent switch) are similar to those for vapor degreasing and
cold cleaning because of the similarity of MCF use in these end-uses.
This results in an annual growth rate in MCF demand of 9.4 percent and
9.9 percent for the low conservation-high chlorinated solvent switch scenario,
and 4.8 percent and 5.4 percent annual growth rate for the high conservation-
low chlorinated solvent switch scenario under the HSIA and CMR end use share
estimates, respectively. Under the low conservation-no solvent switch
scenario demand for MCF in the electronics industry grows at 6.9 percent
annually.
3.4.5 Coatings and Inks
Methyl chloroform is used by manufacturers, printers, and users of
protective and decorative coatings and inks. In coatings, methyl chloroform
is used alone or combined with other solvents to solubilize the binding
substance composed of resin systems such as, alkyd, acrylic, vinyl,
polyurethane, silicone, and nitrocellulose resin. In addition to its non-VOC
status and good solvency power, methyl chloroform is also used because of its
- 34 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
non-flammability and fast evaporation rate. These properties also make methyl
chloroform a suitable thinner13 for spray coating applications. Inks are used
to print items ranging from wallpaper to dog food bags to beverage bottles and
cartons. Many of these applications involve the application of colored ink to
a film (or laminate) in the flexible packaging industry. As for coatings,
methyl chloroform is a desirable solvent for ink applications because of its
non-VOC status, non-flammability, and fast evaporation rate.
Although the overall market for coatings and inks is projected to have a
relatively slow growth (approximately 1 percent according to U.S. Industrial
Outlook 1989), the current trends to replace VOC solvents from current
formulations is estimated to result in a significant increase in methyl
chloroform demand. According to CMR (1987), Dow Chemical has indicated that
"1,1,1-trichloroethane [methyl chloroform] use in coatings and inks end uses
has risen from 8 to 9 million pounds in 1983 to 45 million today (1987)". In
addition, Chemical Engineering (1987) quotes a Dow Chemical representative
indicating that continued growth is expected to reach "120 million pounds by
1990". This represents an average annual growth of 51 percent from 1983 to
1987 and a 39 percent increase from 1987 to 1990. Because this sudden growth
is likely to level off over the next 12 years, it is assumed that one-third of
the latter estimate or 13 percent will be the average growth in methyl
chloroform use over the next 12 years. This 13 percent growth rate is used
for the first two demand scenarios and the "low conservation-no solvent
switch" scenario assumes that MCF demand in this end use grows at the industry
13 A thinner is used to reduce the viscosity of high-solid coatings.
- 35 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
growth rate of 1 percent (U.S. Industrial Outlook 1989), i.e., for the
purposes of constructing an extremely conservative demand scenario it is
assumed that no switch occurs from VOCs to MCF.
3.4.6 Fluorocarbon/Fluoropolymer Intermediates
Methyl chloroform serves as raw material for the manufacture of
polyvinylidene fluoride fluoropolymer. It is also used as the precursor
chemical for HCFC-141b and HCFC-142b. Because these captive uses result in
little or no emissions of methyl chloroform, they are assumed to remain
unrestricted and thus, they are not further discussed in this analysis.
3.4.7 Miscellaneous Uses
Methyl chloroform is used in relatively small quantities in a
variety of industries including the dry cleaning (primarily for the
formulation of spot removers and leather and suede cleaners), fabric
protection, film cleaning, and extraction industries. The common practice in
the dry cleaning industry is the use of perchloroethylene; however, it is
conceivable that stricter worker exposure limits on perchloroethylene may
induce users to either invest in tightening up perchloroethylene machines or
to switch to methyl chloroform machines. A comparison of the cost of MCF dry
cleaning machines with new perchloroethylene machines that comply with the new
OSHA standards indicates that there is little incentive to switch to MCF
because MCF machines cost 10 percent more than the new perchloroethylene
equipment. In addition, the price of MCF (dry cleaning grade) is 86 percent
higher than the price of the standard perchloroethylene used in dry cleaning
(Dickowitz 1989). Hence, little to no-growth in MCF demand is expected in the
dry cleaning industry.
- 36 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
In addition, Dow has indicated in its comments to the ANPRM that MCF may
be used in the future to replace CFC-11 as an auxiliary blowing agent for
flexible polyurethane foam until the industry develops a solventless process
(Dow 1989). In most cases, methylene chloride is the only short-term option
considered for this industry; however, regulations in several states limit its
use (Dow 1989) . The use of MCF in lieu of methylene chloride was successfully
tested in June, 1989, by Dow Chemical's polyurethane flexible foam technology
group. Dow indicates that "the use of 1,1,1 [MCF] as a temporary substitute
for CFC-11 as an auxiliary blowing agent could lead to a slight temporary
increase in 1,1,1 demand" (Dow 1989). In the most extreme case, i.e., a
pound-for-pound substitution of MCF for 100% of the CFC-11 used -- the
introduction of MCF as a blowing agent would only raise its demand by
approximately 4.8 million pounds, or less than 1% of current U.S. demand.
Although limited information is available on the other miscellaneous
uses, methyl chloroform use is likely to grow particularly in areas of the
country where VOC limits are restrictive. For the purposes of this analysis,
it is estimated that miscellaneous uses will grow at the average rate of the
specified end-uses of methyl chloroform, i.e., at 3.2 to 3.6 percent1*1 every
year for HSIA and CMR use shares, respectively.
3.5 Long Term Projections of Methyl Chloroform Demand
Demand projections for the period 2000 to 2075 are necessary for
modelling the economic and environmental effect of potential controls on MCF.
14 Based on demand scenario 1. See Exhibit 4 for demand growth rates
under the other two scenarios.
- 37 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
Demand for MCF from 2000 to 2050 is estimated to grow at 2.2 percent annually
based on projected worldwide growth in overall economic activity. After 2050
MCF production is assumed to remain constant.
- 38 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 4, 1989 * * *
-------
4. CONTROL OPTIONS BY END-USE
Exhibit 10 summarizes the specific control technologies used to model
MCF reductions in the seven end-uses considered. This chapter describes the
controls considered for each end-use and addresses public comments received in
response to the ANPRM on MCF (54 FR 15230, April 17, 1989).
4.1 Vapor Degreasing and Cold Cleaning in the Metal Cleaning and
Electronics Industries
4.1.1 Aqueous and Terpene Cleaning
Aqueous cleaning processes can be used to replace MCF based
cleaning in the metal cleaning and electronics industries. Aqueous cleaning
may be broadly defined as a cleaning process that uses water either alone or
with chemical additives to clean parts in manufacturing and maintenance
applications. In this definition, the word "parts" applies to any
manufactured or partially manufactured object, from a screw to a fully
assembled piece of complicated electronic machinery. Aqueous cleaning
chemicals have a wide variety of formulations, but all of them are used with
water as a cleaning medium. These chemicals are designed to clean inorganic
and organic contaminants. Generally the cleaners consists of some type of
alkaline salt, surfactant, and cleaning additives such as chelating and
sequestering agents. Aqueous cleaning processes generally combine the
cleaning action of a water-based cleaning solution with some type of
mechanical or thermal cleaning action. The aqueous cleaning process consists
of four major steps that include (1) cleaning, (2) rinsing, (3) drying, and
(4) disposal (see Exhibit 11). Each of these steps is an important and .
integral part of an aqueous cleaning system.
- 39 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 ***
-------
EXHIBIT 10. Summary of Control Options for Methyl Chloroform
End Use
Control Option
Open Top and Conveyorized
Vapor Degreasing
Cold Cleaning
Electronics
Aerosols
Adhesives
Coatings and Inks
Miscellaneous
Aqueous and Terpene Cleaning*
Engineering Controls
and Recovery Practices**
Alternative Chemical 1***
Alternative Chemical 2***
Aqueous and Terpene Cleaning*
Engineering Controls
and Recovery Practices**
Alternative Chemical 1***
Alternative Chemical 2***
Aqueous and Terpene Cleaning*
Engineering Controls
and Recovery Practices**
Alternative Chemical 1***
Alternative Chemical 2***
Reformulation to:
Petroleum Distillates
Water-based Systems
Alternative Methods for:
Consumer Uses
Occupational Uses
Water-based systems
Hot Melts
Solvent Recovery
Other Solvents
Water-based Systems
Solvent Recovery
Alternative Solvents
Terpene cleaning is also a technically feasible option to reduce MCF use. Research on the costs of this
option is underway by OAR.
**Includes housekeeping controls, solvent reclamation, carbon adsorption and drying tunnel, automatic
covers, and other emission-reducing measures.
*** Alternative Chemical 1 and 2 represent future blends of organic chemicals (possibly HCFCs of low ODP or
alcohols) for these end uses.
- 40 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 11
AQUEOUS CLEANING PROCESS
Parts from
Manufacturing
Process
Wash
Stage:
Heated Detergent
Solution: Spray,
Immersion
Ultrasonics, etc.
Rinse
Stage:
Water:
Spray, Immersion
Dryer:
Room Temp Air
or Heated Air
Cleaned
Parts Ready
for Continued
Production
Solution
Recirculatlon:
Filtering, Skimming
Periodic Dumping
H
Waste Treatment
- 41 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
1X0)1-}
-------
The cleaning process is defined by both the type of cleaning equipment
and chemical cleaner used to carry out a cleaning job. Aqueous cleaning
equipment may be grouped into two major categories: spray equipment and
immersion equipment. In spray cleaning the parts are washed with a cleaning
solution that is sprayed on to the parts at high pressure. In immersion
cleaning, parts are immersed in the cleaning solution and the contaminants
removed by some form of agitation. The wash stage in the aqueous cleaning
process is based on a recycling design. The wash stage generally consists of
a wash tank where the wash solution is stored. In an immersion type cleaner
the parts are immersed in the wash tank and are cleaned by some form of
agitation. After cleaning the parts are removed from the wash tank and soiled
parts are immersed. In the case of spray washers the parts are placed in the
wash tank and through the use of pumps the water in the wash tanks is sprayed
onto the parts. The wash water is used for weeks and sometimes for months
before being discharged. The amount of time the wash water can be repeatedly
used depends on the cleaning process and the level of contaminants being
removed. In metal cleaning applications, the wash tank is generally equipped
with an oil skimmer that removes free floating oils. In addition, the wash
water is filtered to remove suspended particles (e.g., metal chips) before
being pumped to the spray nozzles. This cleaning step increases the lifetime
of the wash water. In electronics cleaning the standards of cleanliness are
high and therefore the wash water has to be discharged frequently1.
1 For the electronics industry, there are systems available which use
filters to clean the wash water before returning the water to the cleaner.
These systems are discussed below.
- 42 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
The rinsing step involves the washing of the cleaned parts with either
clean water or water in which additives like rust preventive agents or
brighteners have been added. The rinse step is performed either to remove any
remaining contaminants or as a final finishing step. The equipment design for
rinsing equipment is also similar to the wash stage (i.e., the rinse water is
used for a certain period of time before being recycled or discharged). In
the electronics industry, closed loop "zero discharge" recycling systems have
been developed where the rinse and the wash water can continuously been
recirculated without being discharged. Exhibit 12 shows a typical closed loop
"zero-discharge" recycling system2. The system continuously filters the rinse
and the wash water to remove contaminants, thereby allowing continuous use of
the water. In essence the system acts as a source of deionized water which
further aids the cleaning process.
The drying step is performed after the rinsing step and its purpose is
to dry the cleaned parts before the next manufacturing process step. Drying
is carried out using a drying oven or an air knife. An air knife blows air at
high pressure onto the parts. The air can be heated or at room temperature.
Proper disposal is important to the environmental acceptability of
aqueous cleaning. The wastewater generated from aqueous cleaning processes
2 The commercially available "zero-discharge" closed loop recycling
system can only be used currently for aqueous processes used to remove water
soluble fluxes in the electronics industry. These systems are not suitable to
treat wastewater being discharged from rosin based soldering processes because
the rosin material would use up the activated carbon and the ion-exchange
resin at a high rate and thus the process would increase costs substantially.
Research is underway to develop systems that can be used to treat wastewater
from rosin based processes. Alternatively, expanded use of water-soluble
rosins which are now commercially available, might reduce the need of
wastewater treatment.
- 43 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 12
ZERO DISCHARGE WATER RECYCLING SYSTEM
FOR THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
Evaporated
Water
Aqueous
PWB
Cleaner
Contaminated
Water
Purified
Water
Tap
Water
Particle
Removal
(filtration)
Organic
Removal
Ionic
Removal
Closed-Loop
- 44 -
* * * DRAFT. DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 198? * * *
FM073-1
-------
can contain pollutants like oil, grease, dissolved and suspended metals,
organic, and is highly alkaline. Depending on the type and level of
pollutants the wastewater may require treatment prior to disposal3. Exhibit 13
presents a conceptual design of a wastewater treatment process for treating
wastewater generated in the metal cleaning industry. As discussed above
systems are commercially available that can be used to treat wastewater
discharged from aqueous processes in the electronics industry (see
Exhibit 11). This might include pretreatment prior to discharge to the sewer
or the hauling away of the wastewater by an authorized contractor.
Aqueous cleaning technology is commercially available and has
successfully replaced the use of solvents in various operations, which include
some of General Dynamics' vapor degreasing processes, the U.S. Air Force base
(Vandenburg) metal parts cleaners (OAQPS 1989), and printed circuit board
cleanup operations at GE (Waynesboro, VA), AT&T (Montgomery, IL) and. Bose
Corporation (Westborough, MA). Aqueous cleaning has been tested in various
electronics applications and has proved effective for different soil types.
Terpenes are. considered feasible alternatives to replace MCF use in the
electronics and metal cleaning industries4. Terpenes are hydrocarbon based
3The pollutants that are present in aqueous cleaning wastewater are the
contaminants present on the parts prior to being cleaned and the organic
matter present in the cleaner formulation (e.g., surfactants). These
contaminants might include grease/oil, metal fines, polishing and buffing
compounds removed from parts in the metal cleaning industry or organic matter
such as flux and metal fines from solder removed from printed circuit boards
in the electronics industry.
4 This analysis presents a discussion of the technical feasibility of
terpenes and subsequent revisions of this draft will include the costs
associated with this control technology.
- 45 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 13
Wastewater
Holding
Tank
Enhanced
Gravity
Separator
I
Semi-Continuous Wastewater Treatment Process
for the Metal Cleaning Industry
Removal of
Free Oil &
Suspended Solids
Ultra-
Filtration
I
Removal of
Dlssolved-
Emulslfled Oil
Ion
Exchange
1
Removal of
Dissolved
Metals
Carbon
Adsorption
Removal of
Organlcs
pH Adjusting
tank
POTW
Reuse as
Process Water
- 46 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
B9O31 I
-------
solvents derived from natural sources. Natural solvent terpenes are found in
nature and occur in nearly all living plants. The two most abundant sources
of terpenes are turpentine and other essential oils. Terpenes are generally
regarded as derivatives of isoprene (2-methyl-1,3-butadiene). Terpene
cleaning is similar to aqueous based cleaning processes in that it is also a
four step cleaning process: (1) washing, (2) rinsing, (3) drying, and (4)
waste disposal. The wash stage consists of washing the components/parts with
a terpene solution. The terpene solution used in the wash stage is generally
used either in concentrated form (50 to 100 percent concentration) or in very
diluted form (5 to 10 percent concentration). The concentrated form is used
for cleaning purposes in the electronics industry and the diluted form is
generally used in the metal cleaning industry. The rinse stage involves the
rinsing of the components/parts with water. Both the wash and rinse stage
used in terpene cleaning process are similar to those used in the aqueous
process. Terpene cleaning machines under development are likely to be
completely enclosed machines which will minimize worker exposure by reducing
terpene emissions. Research is underway to develop equipment that can be used
to recycle and treat waste generated from terpene cleaning processes.
Most commercially available terpenes have a flash point of between 100°F
and 200°F, i.e., they are combustible. This concern is especially important
when the a concentrated terpene solution is used. Equipment is currently
available with an inert gas blanket to reduce the combustibility risk of using
terpenes. At the present time inadequate data is available to fully examine
issues regarding the toxicity and aquatic effects of terpene. Tests are being
conducted to quantify the human health and ecotoxicity issues related to the
- 47 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
use of terpenes.
4.1.2 Engineering Controls
Engineering controls include a number of emission control devices
or practices that may substantially reduce the use of methyl chloroform. Add-
on engineering controls for vapor degreasers used in the electronics and metal
cleaning industry include the use of automatic covers and hoists, increased
freeboard ratio, freeboard refrigeration devices, and carbon adsorption
systems and drying tunnels. For cold cleaning, the use of a cover, increased
freeboard height, and proper drainage all contribute to the reduction of
solvents emissions. Improved housekeeping can also eliminate waste and reduce
overall solvent use. All of the above are established technologies and
practices that can be implemented immediately.
4.1.3 Alternative Organic Solvents
Several alternative solvents are available and others are under
development which can substitute for methyl chloroform. Some of the candidate
substitutes include HCFC blends with weighted OOP ranging from 0.03 to 0.08
(e.g., HCFC-123 and HCFC-141b) and hydrocarbons such as 5-pentafluoro propanol
(5FP), which is an alcohol that has had its hydrogen replaced with fluorine.
In this analysis two substitute proprietary chemicals are considered.
Alternative solvent 1 is assumed only to be used in new equipment.
Alternative solvent 2 is assumed to be used in existing, as well as, new vapor
degreasing and cold cleaning units. None of these solvents are currently
available, but are likely to become available within the next 2 to 10 years.
It is further assumed that the amount of alternative solvents 1 and 2 used in
- 48 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
new equipment would be one-half of the methyl chloroform use5 and that the
amount of alternative solvent 2 used in existing equipment would be the same
V
as the amount used for MCF.
4.1.4 Response to Public Comments
The majority of the public comments received on the substitutes
for MCF in metal cleaning and electronics cleaning focused on aqueous cleaning
in the following specific areas:
• aqueous cleaning equipment requires much more energy than solvent
cleaning;
• aqueous cleaning consumes large amounts of water, and generates
large volumes of wastewater which is expensive to treat;
• aqueous cleaning equipment requires increased floor space as
compared to solvent systems;
• aqueous cleaning causes corrosion and leaves residues; and
• aqueous cleaning cannot be used to remove contaminants like
buffing compounds and carbon black.
Energy consumption of aqueous cleaning system varies from being less
than solvent cleaning to four times that of a solvent based systems. The
energy consumption of an aqueous cleaning process depends upon: (1) the state
of technology used, (2) the number of cleaning stages used, and (3) the type
of equipment configuration used. Newer equipment, both batch and in-line,
being installed today is more energy efficient than solvent cleaning equipment
(Gengler 1989). In particular, this applies to aqueous cleaning systems that
are based on the closed loop recycling principle. The continuous filtering
5 This is based on communications with industry sources indicating that
these solvents require one half of the amount of CFC-113 used in these
applications (Ruckriegel 1989). This analysis assumes that MCF and CFC-113
are used in the same amounts.
- 49 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
and reusing of the wastewater generated from the wash and rinse stage, reduces
the amount of energy needed to heat the water used in these cleaning steps
compared to a once-through system. In a once-through system the rinse and
wash water after use is discharged and fresh water is then heated to the
operating temperature. By avoiding the heat required to raise the temperature
of the water from room temperature to the process operating temperature the
energy consumption of the aqueous cleaning system is reduced significantly.
The number of cleaning stages depends on the cleaning requirement. For
example, for low degree of cleanliness (maintenance applications) most systems
generally consists only of one stage - the wash stage, whereas, for high
degree of cleanliness, systems generally consists of a wash and a rinse stage.
The addition of a drying stage is required when the part being cleaned is to
be worked on in the subsequent process step immediately and is required to be
dry. Thus for cleaning applications (e.g., maintenance cleaning) where only a
wash stage is required energy consumption is generally equivalent to solvent
based processes, whereas, for cleaning processes that require all three stages
(i.e., wash, rinse, and drying) energy consumption can be greater than solvent
based processes.
In addition, the cleaning process also depends upon the type of
equipment configuration used. Aqueous cleaning equipment generally consists
of (1) batch, (2) semi-batch, and in-line cleaners. Batch and semi-batch are
used for low volume cleaning and maintenance applications, whereas, in-line
cleaners are used for high volume cleaning (e.g., in large manufacturing
facilities). Generally in-line cleaners consume more energy than batch and
semi-batch cleaners because of the high volume of water used and the number of
- 50 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
cleaning stages.
Aqueous cleaning equipment with water recycling capabilities is
currently available on the market and is typically used in the metal cleaning
industry. The wash and rinse water from the aqueous cleaner is stored in
holding tanks within the aqueous cleaning unit. Filters and oil skimmers are
attached to the holding tanks to remove particulate matter and free floating
oil. The use of these filters allows water to be reused, thus increasing the
lifetime of the wash and rinse water. In most applications the wash and rinse
water of an aqueous cleaner equipped with recycling capabilities are used for
a period varying from one week to 6 months depending on the cleaning process.
After the end of such period the wash and rinse water is pretreated and
discharged to the sewer, or shipped off-site for treatment.
Aqueous cleaning equipment available for use in the electronics industry
can have a closed loop "zero-discharge system" attached to the aqueous
cleaning process. The addition of the closed loop recycle system filters
(treats) the wastewater discharged from the wash and the rinse stage and
recycles it to the equipment. Thus, no wastewater is generated from closed
loop aqueous processes used in the electronics industry.
The floor space used by an aqueous cleaning system depends upon the
equipment configuration used. Batch systems generally take up the same amount
of space as solvent machines. On the other hand, in-line aqueous cleaning
machines generally take up the same amount to more space than solvent based
machines. This is because of the increased number of stages used (i.e., wash,
rinse, and drying stages). A large communications company has recently
brought on line an aqueous cleaning in-line system where the wastewater is
- 51 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
recycled after filtration. The space requirements are similar to solvent
cleaning in-line systems.
Parts cleaned via aqueous cleaning are prevented from rusting by (1) the
application of rust preventive agents during the rinsing steps, especially if
the parts are not going to be dried, or (2) by drying the parts after cleaning
thus removing any excess water that might cause rusting.
Aqueous cleaning processes with the proper choice of equipment
configuration and cleaner type can be used to remove all types of contaminants
that solvent based cleaning removes. For example, the use of ultrasonics, the
use of increased number of wash and rinse stages, and the use of spray systems
instead of immersion type systems can be used to effectively remove a wide
variety of contaminants.
Public comments on the use of terpenes centered on the following points:
• terpenes are flammable;
• terpenes have raised toxicity concerns; and
• terpenes evaporate slowly and leave residue on parts.
Terpenes are flammable when used in concentrated form. However, in most
applications in the metal cleaning industry terpene cleaners are used in a
diluted form (e.g., 5-10 percent terpene solution in water), thus reducing the
flammability concern. In the electronics industry where terpenes are used in
a concentrated form (50-100 percent solution in water), specially designed
equipment is available that uses an inert atmosphere blanket to prevent the
presence of air or oxygen, thus reducing the flammability concern. Additional
toxicity tests are underway to further quantify the health and environmental
effects of using terpenes. Equipment currently being designed and tested for
- 52 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
terpene cleaning is completely closed, thereby minimizing worker exposure by
eliminating terpene emissions. Research is currently been conducted to
develop equipment that can be used to recycle and treat waste generated from
terpene cleaning processes.
Terpenes evaporate slowly and that is why the terpene cleaning processes
use a rinse and a. drying step after the wash stage. The terpene residues are
removed by rinsing the parts with water and then drying the parts to remove
excess amounts of water and any terpene that is left over after the rinse
step.
4.2 Adhesives
An adhesive is any substance, inorganic or organic, natural or
synthetic, that is capable of bonding by surface attachment. Adhesives are
use to bind similar and dissimilar materials, such as glass, plastic, rubber,
wood, or metal. Adhesives are used in various industries, such as
construction, transportation, and packaging; the range of final products that
use adhesives includes structures for home construction, automobiles,
aircraft, furniture, labels, tapes, and paper bags. In many manufacturing
processes, adhesives are applied using spraying technology, brushes or
rollers. Methyl chloroform is used in adhesive applications because it
dissolves many resins (the binding substance used in adhesives) and is non-
flammable. Recently, demand for MCF in adhesives has increased in certain
areas of the country (e.g., particularly California) because it is exempt from
VOC regulations that limit the use of the traditional solvents used in the
adhesives industry (e.g., toluene, hexane, MEK) ; thus, MCF has been used to
replace VOC solvents.
- 53 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Among the binding substances (resins) that use MCF are styrene-butadiene
rubber, neoprene, natural rubber, and rubber cement. The end-use applications
include construction, packaging, consumer, and automobile adhesives. The use
of MCF may be reduced or eliminated by the use of alternatives such as water-
based and hot melt adhesives, and by the use of solvent recovery systems.
4.2.1 Water-based Adhesives
Water-based adhesives use water, in lieu of organic solvents, as
the primary solvent. A water-based adhesive can be a solution, a latex, or an
emulsion. Solutions are made from materials that are soluble in water alone
or in alkaline water. Most natural adhesives are water solutions. Latexes
are stable dispersions of solid polymeric material in an essentially aqueous
medium. An emulsion is a stable dispersion of immiscible liquids. Emulsions
usually appear milky white liquid and dry to a clear film. Latex adhesives
are more likely to replace solvent-based adhesives than solution adhesives
because their synthetic binders provide more versatility and higher
performance (IGF 1989a). However, latexes require more extensive formulation
because they are produced from polymers that were not designed for use as
adhesives. For instance, most rubbers are used to manufacture durable
products like tires.
The binding substances that are candidates for water-borne adhesives are
natural binding substances including natural rubber; synthetic elastomers such
as SBR, neoprene, and isoprene; vinyl resins like polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) and
polyvinyl chloride (PVC); acrylics; and epoxies (ICF 1989a). Some of these
binding substances require additional formulation and additives such as
emulsifiers, surfactants, or additional resins. Water-based adhesives are
- 54 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
commercially available and are used in various applications, such as the
manufacture of automobiles, and tapes and labels.
Water-based adhesives may prove to be cheaper than solvent-based systems
primarily because (1) no major equipment changes are required to use these new
adhesives, and (2) water-based adhesives are cheaper per pound of dry adhesive
pound.
4.2.2 Hot-melt Adhesives
A hot melt adhesive is applied in a molten state and forms a bond
upon cooling to a solid state. Hot melts are primarily 100 percent solids
thermoplastic bonding materials which achieve a solid state and resultant
strength upon cooling. The major applications of hot melt adhesives are
bookbinding, packaging, textiles, and product assembly including construction
glazing and automotive door panel and carpet installation. The binding
substances that provide the foundation for hot melt adhesives are (ICF 1989a):
ethylene vinyl acetate and other polyolefin resins; polyamide (or nylon) and
polyester resins; polyester/amide resin alloys; and thermoplastic elastomers.
Hot melts have several advantages. Because no solvents are used in hot
melts, they reduce air pollution. The hot melt equipment saves space and
energy (ICF 1989a). Using hot melt technology allows automation, lowering
manufacturing costs and increasing productivity. With hot melts, the 100
percent solids shipments eliminates the excess freight costs involved in
storing and shipping either water- or solvent-based adhesives. Hot melts can
be applied faster and more efficiently than water or solvent-borne adhesives
because there is no delay for evaporation. Hot melts are inherently water
resistant. Hot melt pressure sensitive adhesives require far less energy to
- 55 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
process than any other adhesive types and some of these adhesives now compete
with water-based acrylics in outdoor applications. They have been used on
paper labels for indoor applications since 1978. Hot melt acrylic pressure
sensitive adhesives require relatively low capital investment since no oven
capacity is needed (ICF 1989a).
Hot melt adhesives have certain characteristics that may limit their
performance in certain use conditions. They have poor specific adhesion to a
number of substrates. In particular, performance problems with hot melt
adhesives include material creep under load over time and at high
temperatures, limited strength, and limited heat resistance. Hot melt
adhesives offer lower operating costs (lower energy and space requirements)
for new facilities that can install the relatively inexpensive hot melt
application equipment.
4.2.3 Solvent Recovery
Add-on controls can be used to reduce MCF emissions from
manufacturing plants using MCF-based adhesives (e.g., to produce packaging and
tapes). These existing facilities can also reduce methyl chloroform use by
installing solvent recovery systems such as carbon adsorption systems. In a
carbon adsorption system exhaust air flows through a carbon bed where the
solvent is separated from the effluent and adsorbed onto a surface of carbon
particles. The carbon bed is regenerated for reuse by flushing it with steam.
Smaller units can use replaceable carbon beds which can be regenerated
offsite. The steam and the solvent are then condensed and separated in liquid
form. The water may require additional stripping of residual solvent. The
residual solvent can be reclaimed.
- 56 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
4.2.4 Response to Public Comments
Public comments on the use of MCF in adhesives were in the
following areas:
• MCF is the only VOC compliant solvent left to industry primarily
in California's South. Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD).
• MCF is used for adhesive consumer application because of its non-
flammability.
• wood flooring adhesives requires the use of MCF because water-
based adhesives cause wood to warp.
California's SCAQMD proposed Rule 1168 early this year to control VOC
emissions from adhesive applications and included a number of control
technologies to reduce VOC emissions including the use exempt solvents, such
as MCF. There is also a range of solventless options proposed that may be
used including hot melt adhesives, reactive liquids (two non-solvent liquids
reacting upon contact and forming an uniform bond), anaerobic adhesives
(solventless liquids curing by the exclusion of oxygen), oxygen-cured
adhesives (cured by oxidation), and "UV" cured adhesives (cured by a
crosslinking reaction initiated by UV light). Where solvent use is preferred
because of key performance reasons, high solids alternatives or solvent
recovery devices can significantly reduce emissions. Although the feasibility
of these technologies should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, it is
believed that the range of options is wide and should permit the elimination
or minimization of MCF use in the short to mid-term.
Methyl chloroform's non-flammability is a desirable property for
consumer adhesive applications (e.g., contact cement); however, flammable
consumer products do exist for similar end uses (e.g., sealants, aerosol
- 57 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
coatings, etc.) and for many other uses (e.g., paint thinners, cosmetic
products, etc). The fire hazard can be mitigated with adequate product
labeling as required by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Water-based adhesives have satisfactory performance for wood parquet
bonding if the wood parquet uses a synthetic backing. The synthetic backing
prevents water from getting in contact with the wood and thus minimizes wood
expansion. Wood parquet with synthetic backing is available, it may however
be more expensive than standard parquet.
4.3 Aerosols
Aerosol packaging is a popular method for storing and dispensing
consumer and industrial products ranging from insecticides to hair sprays.
Approximately 84,000 different brand names of aerosol products are estimated
to exist in the U.S. marketplace (ICF 1989a). A total production volume of
2.9 billion units is estimated for 1988 (Aerosol Age 1989).
In an aerosol package, the contents are stored under pressure in a metal
container and dispensed in a controlled manner by the activation of a valve.
Once expelled from the can, a combination of the propellent used, orifice
shape, and composition of the product determines the form in which the product
is delivered. This can range from a fine mist (the most common) to a liquid
stream to a foamy lather. In general, the ingredients of an aerosol are the
active ingredient, the solvent or carrier, and the propellant. The active
ingredient is responsible for the effectiveness of the product, e.g., the
compound that allows a cleaner to clean; the solvent or carrier solubilizes
all ingredients in the formulation; and, the propellant expels the contents
from the can. Generally, methyl chloroform functions as either an active
- 58 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
ingredient or as a solvent in aerosol formulations.
Methyl chloroform functions as the active ingredient as well as the
carrier in various aerosol products, e.g., degreasers and cleaners. It is
generally difficult to substitute this solvent in these applications because
few non-chlorinated solvents have the desired properties. In comparison with
non-chlorinated solvents, for example, methyl chloroform's higher solvency and
its non-flammability make it an excellent solvent for aerosol applications.
Methyl chloroform's high density adds to container weight while its high
stability translates to a long shelf life. Other properties that make methyl
chloroform especially well-suited for aerosol applications are its high
evaporation rate and its ability to generate a spray of small particle size.
Quick evaporation allows methyl chloroform to deliver the active ingredient
efficiently and small particle size results in a good spray pattern.
Two groups of control technologies considered for the reduction of MCF
use in aerosol products: (1) the reformulation of aerosols to petroleum
distillates or to water-based systems and (2) a switch to alternative methods
that eliminate the need for the aerosol delivery system.
4.3.1 Reformulation to Petroleum Distillates
Reformulation from methyl chloroform to petroleum distillates can
be done in various automotive products such as, tire cleaners, lubricants,
spray undercoatings, and in household products such as, water repellents/shoe
waterproofers, glass frostings, and insecticides.
4.3.2 Reformulation to Water-based Systems
Reformulation from methyl chloroform to water-based systems can
be performed in certain shoe polishes and foggers (partial or total release
- 59 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
insecticides used to control infested rooms).
4.3.3 Alternative Delivery Systems
Methyl chloroform use in aerosols can also be reduced if
alternative methods that eliminate the use of the aerosol delivery system in
occupational and consumer uses are adopted. Two examples of these
alternative methods include the substitution of aerosol brake cleaners used in
repair shops with a manual "wet-brush" (recirculating liquid) systems, and the
substitution of aerosol spot removers with increased use of professional dry
cleaning services. Although more examples of alternative non-aerosol methods
can be found for the other aerosol products that currently use MCF, the cost
data presented in the Chapter 5 uses these two applications as examples.
4.3.4 Response to Public Comments
Most comments on the use of MCF in aerosols concentrated on the
following areas:
• MCF's fast evaporation in wasp and hornet sprays has a knockdown
effect.
• MCF is non-flammable and its use provides an extra margin for
consumer safety. The fire hazard is more significant for products
designed to clean electric motors and appliances.
• In air insecticides and room foggers, MCF helps penetration of
insects' exoskeleton while water-based formulae bead up and choice
of active ingredients is limited.
The knockdown effect of aerosol insecticides is really a chilling effect
that results from the fast evaporation of the solvent. If MCF is replaced
with a solvent of relatively low boiling (or similar to MCF's boiling point)
the same knockdown effect will be obtained. If MCF is replaced with water-
based systems, chemical additives in the toxicant blend known as synergists or
- 60 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
knockdown-agent (e.g., pyrethrin) can be added to the formulation to achieve
similar effects (Aerosol Age 1987). Mclaughlin Gormley King, a leading
supplier of insecticide active ingredients indicates that although the
knockdown effect obtained with these insecticide synergists is not as quick as
that obtained with solvent-based formulae, the results are satisfactory for
homeowner purposes (Aerosol Age 1987).
Consumer safety has been a major concern of the aerosol industry ever
since non essential uses of fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were
replaced with flammable hydrocarbon propellants. The industry reformulated
the vast majority of aerosol products resulting in most cases in flammable
aerosol products. For example, aerosol hair sprays contain more than 95
percent flammable materials (ethanol and isobutane) and many spray paints
contain more than 90 percent flammable solvents and propellants. These
products have warning labels with the precautionary measures that should be
taken for safe use. Flammable consumer products are already available and the
fire risk associated with the reformulation from MCF to flammable materials
can be mitigated if product labels and consumer education programs are
implemented. In addition, the use of MCF in an aerosol formulation does not
necessarily mean that the product will be non-flammable because the typical
propellants used are flammable (e.g., propane and isobutane).
Industry sources confirmed that an organic solvent is needed in
insecticides to aid the penetration of the waxy insect exoskeleton; however,
MCF is not the only solvent that can be used (Rogosheske 1989). Mineral
spirits and petroleum distillates are also effective for this use in either
solvent-based or water-based systems. (These solvents may be emulsified in
- 61 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
water-based systems). A wider range of active ingredients for water-based
systems has recently become available (Rogosheske 1989) . An increased number
of active ingredients can now be dissolved using emulsifiers and low
concentration of organic solvents.
4.4 Coatings and Inks
According to CMR (1987), 48 percent of the U.S. coatings market in 1986
was based on solvent-based formulations. Alternate technologies include
waterborne coatings with 12 percent, high solids with 11.5 percent, two part-
systems with 12 percent, emulsions with 10 percent, powder coatings 6 percent,
and radiation cured coatings with 1.5 percent of the market, respectively. In
addition, there are solvent recovery and alternative low-emissions coating
application methods to the use of spray coating, such as dipping, flow, and
curtain coating.
4.4.1 Water-based Coatings and Inks
Water-borne coatings contain water in lieu of conventional
solvents. They are applied using methods similar to those used for high-solid
coatings. Recent advances in technology have improved the dry-time,
durability, stability, adhesion, and application of water-borne coatings
(Fitzwater 1986). Primary uses of these coatings include furniture,
electronics in automobiles, aluminum siding, hardboard, metal containers,
appliances, structured steel, and heavy equipment. In some water-borne
coatings, standard solvents are added to aid application, but even these
contain much less solvent than conventional coatings, since the primary
solvent is water (Johnson 1987).
Water-based inks for flexographic and rotogravure laminations have
- 62 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
been successfully developed that overcome technical hurdles such as substrate
wetting, adhesion, color stability, and productivity. Solvent borne inks have
good wetting properties because of the low surface tension of solvents. The
high surface tension of water requires the use of co-solvents to lower the
surface tension to enable the wetting of treated surfaces. 80 parts by volume
of water can be combined with 20 parts by volume of alcohol and ethyl acetate
to achieve an effective surface tension. The ability of the water-based ink
to adhere to the film can be enhanced by treating the film through accepted
methods such as use of primers or heat (Podhany 1988). It is estimated that
55 percent of the flexographic inks and 15 percent the gravure inks used in
the U.S. in 1987 were water-based. Continued growth of aqueous inks has been
projected by various industry sources (Weiss 1988, Argent 1985).
4.4.2 High-solid Coatings
High-solid coatings resemble conventional solvent coatings in
appearance and use; however, high-solid coatings contain less solvent and a
greater percentage of resin. Many methods are used to apply high-solid
coatings, including dipping, flow coating, conventional air and airless
atomizing, air and airless electrostatic spraying, rotating disks and bells,
rolling, continuous coating, centrifugal coating, and tumbling. High-solid
coatings are currently used for appliances, metal furniture, and farm and road
construction equipment. Because of the refinement of application technology
and the addition of flow control agents and thinners, high-solid coatings
offer superior finish quality, yet require much less solvent than standard
coatings (Clark 1987).
- 63 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
4.4.3 Powder Coatings
Powder coatings contain only the resin in powder form, and thus
have no solvent. They are applied using fluidized beds, electrostatic spray,
and electrostatic fluidized beds. Typically, the object coated is heated
above the powder's melting point, so that the resin fuses into a continuous
film. The resin then hardens, either at the heated temperature or as the
object cools, to form a finish with superior durability and corrosion
resistance (Jarosh 1985) . While powder coatings were first used only for
electrical transformer covers, they have expanded in use to include
underground pipes, electrical components, concrete reinforcing bars,
appliances, automobiles, farm and lawn equipment, lighting fixtures, aluminum
extrusions, steel shelving, and some furniture. (Farrell 1987).
4.4.4 Solvent Recovery
Goods are printed or coated with solvent-based coatings and inks
in a continuous process. Once the coating or ink has been applied, the
product is passed through a drying step where the solvent is eliminated by
evaporation. Solvent recovery systems such as carbon adsorption systems can
be used to capture these solvent emissions.
4.4.5 Response to Public Comments
Most of the public comments received on the use of MCF in coatings
and inks centered in the following areas:
• poor performance of water-based coatings, particularly under
changing weather conditions for road striping/marking
applications;
• MCF is needed to meet VOC limits; water-based alternatives are
corrosive and other alternatives requiring curing cannot be used
due to the sensitivity of aluminum structures;
- 64 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
• MCF is the last compliant solvent available to industry in the
SCAQMD; change to water-based or other alternatives will be
expensive (equipment changes).
Although waterborne traffic paints work well in many states, they have
caused problems in certain areas of the country (e.g., two California
counties), because poor adhesion and durability in cold, wet weather. In such
climates, where waterborne coatings are rendered impractical, there are other,
low-VOC alternatives that should be considered, most notably thermoplastics.
Thermoplastics are solids that typically contain a resin, pigments, calcium
carbonate filler, and glass beads. They are melted and sprayed at about
450°F. Thermoplastics provide superior wet/dry night visibility and
durability, yet emit virtually zero VOCs (EPA 1988). During wet weather, the
substrate upon which the coatings are applied must be artificially dried with
heated air. This is a relatively inexpensive process, according to the
California Department of Transportation (Warnes 1989). Once applied, the
durability is satisfactory even under severe weather conditions.
Since application requires special support equipment, the initial
capital costs for thermoplastic painting are 25 percent higher than for
solvent borne painting. However, thermoplastic markings last four to nine
times longer than solvent borne markings. Thus, the same amount of road
maintenance would require fewer hours worked, fewer salaried employees, fewer
hours of traffic control and clogged highways. The annual operating savings,
which would amount to 43 percent, would pay for the cost of new equipment
within ten years (EPA 1988). Thermoplastics do have the disadvantages of (1)
a slower, more complicated application process, and (2) reduced durability on
Portland cement concrete. These problems must be weighed against the cost
- 65 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
effectiveness and high performance of thermoplastics.
Further public comments indicate that, in the aerospace industry, heat-
cured coatings (e.g., powder coatings) may be impossible to apply without
damaging the aircraft parts, and that other alternative coatings (e.g., high-
solid and water-borne coatings) will not meet military specifications for
durability or adhesion. Heat cured processes cannot be used to coat an
assembled aircraft, but can be used to coat all detailed parts, which account
for 75 percent of total painting (Toepke 1989). Several alternatives to MCF-
based coatings now meet military specifications. For the primer used on all
painted surfaces, water-borne coatings meet military specs for all military
aircraft, except the SR-71 and some F-15s, which account for less than 10
percent of total military aircraft produced. For these two models, and for
the topcoats used on exterior surfaces, high-solid coatings exist that meet
military specifications. Furthermore, with the present research underway,
water-borne and high-solid coatings may soon be able to meet radar evasion
requirements for stealth aircraft (Toepke 1989).
Some concerns have been voiced that control options for MCF in this area
may not be financially feasible. In the case of water-borne, high-solid, and
powder coatings, capital costs may be 20-27 percent lower than for solvent-
based coatings (see Exhibit 22 in Chapter 5) (PCI 1989). Moreover, these
control options may provide savings of up to 40% in annual operating costs ^
(PCI 1989).
4.5 Miscellaneous Uses
Methyl chloroform is used in miscellaneous industries such as dry
cleaning, fabric protection, and film cleaning. The possibility of increased
- 66 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
use of MCF in dry cleaning resulting from increased limits on the use
perchloroethylene use was analyzed. In January 1989 the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) published a final rule amending its existing
Air Contaminants standard (54 FR 2332). In the final rule, the permissible
exposure limit (PEL) of perchloroethylene is reduced to 25 ppm.
Perchloroethylene is also a VOC and emission restrictions may lead some users
to consider alternative dry cleaning solvents. Currently methyl chloroform is
used extensively as a dry cleaning solvent in both Europe and Japan with
limited usage in the United States. Some industry sources indicate in their
comments to the ANPRM that MCF is used primarily to clean suede and leather.
A study by the International Fabricare Institute (1988), however, indicates
that MCF's properties are similar to perchloroethylene's and that MCF can be
readily used in all application areas. MCF dry cleaning equipment requires
the use of stainless steel and costs 10 percent more than new
perchloroethylene equipment capable of meeting the 25 ppm exposure level6
(Dickowitz 1989). In addition, MCF (dry cleaning grade) is 86 percent more
expensive than perchloroethyl-ene. This cost disadvantage and the availability
of cheaper perchloroethylene machines that meet the new exposure levels is
likely to limit the growth of MCF demand in the dry cleaning industry. This
is supported by industry sources who believe that the dry cleaning industry,
which in the past resisted change from petroleum-based solvents to
perchloroethylene (Collins 1989, Dickowitz 1989), would opt to continue using
6 Based on the costs of two comparable machines: $53,250 for the MCF
machine and $48,250 for the perchloroethylene machines (Dickowitz 1989). The
costs of the solvents were quoted at $7.90 (MCF) and $4.25 (perchloroethylene)
per gallon (Collins 1989).
- 67 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
perchloroethylene instead of the more expensive and less familiar MCF.
Other public comments on miscellaneous uses of MCF included:
• use of MCF in specialized lubricants used in mold releases and
because of non-flammability, volatility, and compatibility with
other ingredients, non-VOC; water has low volatility and solvency.
• non-aerosol consumer products (stainless steel cleaners, spot
removers, general purpose degreasing products).
Methyl chloroform is used as a diluent in specialized lubricants.
Specialized lubricants containing methyl chloroform are used in mold release
agents (Kidd 1989). An industry source, reported that methylene chloride is
the predominant solvent used in mold release agents at their company (Van der
Graf 1989). Research and testing is currently underway on water-based mold
release agents and it is likely that a water-based mold release agent will be
available in the near future (Zasachy 1989).
The use of MCF in non-aerosol certain consumer products may be reduced
if alternative solvents are used. In many cases, these solvent will be
flammable; however, adequate labelling and consumer education programs could
be used to reduce fire risks. Consumer currently use extremely flammable
materials such paint thinners and aerosol products containing flammable
solvents and propellants; thus, the same precautions already taken for these
products could be taken for the products mentioned above. For some products,
the flammability risk may be too high, e.g., spot removers usually applied to
fabrics. In such cases, professional services (perchloroethylene based-dry
cleaning in this case) are available which will achieve the same results. The
costs of professional services may substantially higher than the costs of the
products sold directly to consumers.
- 68 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
5. APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING COSTS OF CONTROLLING MCF PRODUCTION
This chapter describes the analytical methods used to estimate the costs
to society due to restrictions on MCF production. The economic rationale
underlying this analysis is based on the framework described in EPA's
Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 1988) that assessed the costs associated with
regulating the production of CFCs. Because potential regulation of MCF will
restrict its supply and possibly increase its price, an important step in
estimating social costs is assessing the costs borne by affected industries.
The costs associated with various controls determine potential industry
responses to regulations on MCF. A detailed description of the underlying
economic framework is not discussed here,1 but essentially consists of
estimating social costs based on the changes in consumer and producer surplus
caused by proposed regulations on MCF production. Thus, a major component of
this approach is characterizing the markets that use MCF and, in particular,
estimating the demand schedules for MCF, i.e., the amount of MCF that would be
demanded by each industry (or end-use) at higher prices. The costs of the
options that firms adopt in response to increased MCF prices define the
derived demand schedules for MCF. A model (referred to as the "MCF Cost
Model" in the remainder of this chapter) was developed to estimate the timing
and costs of MCF reductions. The remainder of this chapter is divided into
three sections. Section 5.1 discusses the methodology used to evaluate the
adoption of controls over time and describes the input data for the model.
1 For a detailed discussion of this subject see Appendix I: Framework and
Method for Estimating Costs of Reducing the Use of Ozone-Depleting Compounds
in the U.S., Regulatory Impact Analysis: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone,
Volume II, Part 1, OAR, EPA. August 1, 1988.
- 69 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Section 5.2 describes the operation of the model and Section 5.3 describes the
interpretation of the results (social costs and transfer payments). Section
5.4 presents a detailed discussion of the costs of individual controls
potentially available for implementation in each end-use. A more detailed
presentation of the data is contained in an earlier document (ICF 1989a).
5.1 Methodology Used to Evaluate the Adoption of Controls
This section describes the methodology used to simulate the adoption of
controls over time and the total costs of controlling MCF production in the
U.S. Section 5.1.1 describes the input data used in the MCF Cost Model.
Section 5.1.2 provides step-by-step description of the manner in which these
input data are used in the model.
5.1.1 Input Data
The operation of the MCF Cost Model requires a set of input data
that includes:
• baseline MCF demand, i.e., the estimated consumption of MCF from
1989 to the year 2000 assuming that no controls are imposed,
• the reduction schedule, i.e., the timing of MCF reductions over
time,
• distribution of MCF consumption by end-use,
• market penetration and use-reduction potential of each control
option, and
• costs of each control option,
The baseline MCF demand is a projection of the amount of MCF (in
kilograms) that would be used in the U.S. from 1989 to the year 2000 if no
controls are imposed. Two important considerations are incorporated into the
calculation of baseline MCF production. First, the baseline excludes eight
- 70 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
percent of the total MCF demand because this amount is used as a chemical
intermediate and is assumed to remain uncontrolled over time. Second, a base
year is established to define a reference amount of MCF that can be used as
the basis to calculate reduction percentages for each future year. This
analysis uses two alternative base years, 1986 and 1988; thus, two baseline
demand schedules are used to estimate costs.
The reduction schedule defines the target percent reduction of MCF
production with respect to the base year over the period of analysis. The
reduction schedules modeled include a freeze at 1986 (or 1988) production
levels, and a phase-out by the year 2000. In the freeze scenario production
remains constant at 1986 (or 1988) production after 1989. In the phase-out
scenario production is frozen to 1986 (or 1988) levels from 1989 to 1994,
reduced by fifty percent of 1986 (or 1988) levels from 1995 to 1999, and
phased out in the year 2000.
The distribution of MCF by end use is important because it defines the
level of reduction that can be achieved by the various industries using MCF.
The distribution by end-use proposed by CMR (1989) and presented in Chapter 2
is used in the model. Because the MCF used as a chemical intermediate is not
included in this analysis, the distribution by end use is normalized to
exclude this eight percent of total demand.
The market penetration and use reduction potential for each control
option are key inputs because they determine the level of MCF reductions that
can be achieved in a given year. The market penetration rate is defined for
each end use separately and takes into account the following factors:
- 71 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
• starting date: the year in which a control is first available for
adoption;
• penetration time: the amount of time for a control option to be
evaluated by industry and adopted by firms for whom it would be
cost-effective;
• use reduction: the amount of MCF that can be reduced by the
implementation of a control;
• applicability to new and/or existing equipment: defines whether a
control option can be applied to both new and existing equipment
or only to new equipment;
• market penetration: the portion of the market that is captured by
a control option in a given year.
Exhibit 14 presents the data corresponding to the first four factors for
each of the control options considered. For example, "Alternative Solvent 2"
is simulated to become available in 1992, takes 6 years to reach its maximum
penetration of 80 percent2, and is applicable to new and existing equipment.
Exhibit 14 also shows the use reduction, i.e., the amount of MCF that can be
reduced by the implementation of any given control relative to the amount used
in the base case situation for each end use. For example, "Alternative
Solvent 2" mentioned earlier eliminates completely the use of MCF and thus,
the use reduction rate is 100 percent. Recovery and recycling options reduce
between 40 to 55 percent of MCF use.
The market penetration for each control option varies over the
simulation period. Initially, engineering controls and other conservation and
recycling technologies are readily available and take a large proportion of
the market; subsequently, alternative chemicals replace these technologies as
2 The market here refers to the market for particular end-uses (e.g.,
cold cleaning, vapor degreasing, etc.).
- 72 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Exhibit 14. MCF Controls and Data Used to Estimate Their Implementation
End-Use
Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing
Open Top Vapor Degreasing
Cold Cleaning
Aerosols
Control
Aqueous Cleaning
Alternative Solvent 1
Alternative Solvent 2
Engineering Controls
Aqueous Cleaning
Alternative Solvent 1
Alternative Solvent 2
Engineering Controls
Aqueous Cleaning
Alternative Solvent 1
Alternative Solvent 2
Engineering Controls
Petroleum Distillates
Water-based Systems
Alternative Delivery Systems
- Occupational Uses
- Consumer Uses
Years to Reach
Start Maximum Use
Year Penetration Reduction
1989
1992
1992
1989
1989
1992
1992
1989
1989
1992
1992
1989
1989
1989
1990
1989
3
3
6
1
3
3
6
1
3
3
6
1
2
3
5
1
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
53.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
51.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Applicable to
New (N) or to New
and Existing (N/E)
Equipment
N
N
N/E
N/E
N
N
N/E
N/E
N
N
N/E
N/E
N/E
N/E
N
N
Adhesives
Coatings & Inks
Miscellaneous
Water-based
Hot Melts
Solvent Recovery
Water-based Ink
Water-based Coating
High-solids
Powder coating
Solvent Recovery
Other Solvents
1990
1990
1989
1990
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
100.0%
100.0%
40.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
40.0%
100.0%
N/E
N/E
N/E
N/E
N/E
N/E
N
N/E
N/E
Note: For illustrative purposes, the controls shown in this Exhibit have been regrouped into 7 controls in Exhibit 15.
The controls in Exhibit 15 were grouped as follows:
(a) considering aqueous cleaning systems for conveyorized vapor degreasing, open top vapor degreasing and cold cleaning as a single control,
(b) grouping together Alternative Solvents 1 and 2 in the above end uses (which represent HCFCs and alcohol-based cleaning solvents),
(c) grouping together engineering controls and all other conservation or recycling technologies,
(d) specifying that petroleum distillates for aerosols and "other solvents" for miscellaneous uses refer to non-chlorinated solvents,
(e) grouping together water-based systems for aerosols, adhesives, and coatings and inks,
(f) grouping alternative delivery systems for occupational and consumer aerosols,
(g) grouping high solids and powder coatings, and hot melt adheisives as "Other Technologies".
- 73 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * *
-------
greater reductions are required. To calculate market penetration, a
distinction is made in the model between control options that cannot be
applied to existing MCF manufacturing equipment and control options that can
be used in existing MCF equipment. For example, in the baseline there is an
existing stock of vapor degreasing and cold cleaning equipment and this stock
grows as new MCF equipment is purchased every year. Some controls such as
aqueous cleaning and "Alternative Solvent 1" require new equipment
specifically designed for these substitutes and, thus, these options can only
compete in the "replacement" market. A firm that has used a vapor degreasing
machine for its estimated useful life is likely to replace the unit with a new
machine using an alternative cleaning solvent (or an aqueous cleaner) if the
costs of MCF and/or MCF-using equipment are higher. The market penetration
for aqueous cleaning and "Alternative Solvent 1" are therefore limited by the
number of new machines added every year.3 For this reason the market shares
for aqueous cleaning and Alternative Solvent 1 grow gradually.
The market penetration rates and the use reduction rates are converted
to percentage reduction of total methyl chloroform use that can be achieved by
each control option annually from 1989 to 2000. Exhibit 15 shows the maximum
penetration possible of the controls in terms of reductions of MCF use that
can be achieved by their implementation4. Exhibit 15 also shows the gradual
introduction of water-based adhesives, coatings & inks, and aerosols.
3 For other end-uses this is not applicable. For example, it is assumed
that aerosol products manufacturing equipment can be directed to the
production of other non-MCF containing aerosols.
4 The actual controls selected in any given year depend on the
phaseout/freeze schedule selected.
- 74 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Exhibit 15. Maximum MCF Reduction Possible Due to Controls*
1
1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent MCF Reduction
90 100
Aqueous Cleaning Systems
Conservation and Recycling
for Chlorinated Solvents
Alternative Solvents 1 and 2
(HCFCs and Alcohol-Based Solvents)
Water-Based Systems for
Aerosols, Adheslves, and
Coatings
Alternative Non-Chlorinated
Solvents (Petroleum Distillates)
Alternative Delivery Systems
for Aerosols
Other Technologies
(High Solids, Powder Coatings, and
Hot Melt Adheslves)
* Note: The actual controls selected In any year depend on the phase-out/freeze schedule specified. This exhibit does not show the actual controls selected,
Instead It shows the maximum MCF reduction If all available controls are used.
- 76-
»»» DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- October 6, 1989 »*«
-------
Social and private annualized costs of the control options were
estimated from the capital and operating costs data discussed in section 5.4.
The social costs are evaluated using pre-tax costs discounted at a social
discount rate of two percent. Private costs are evaluated using after-tax
costs using a private after tax discount rate of six percent. The costs are
expressed in terms of dollars per kilogram of MCF avoided and are computed by
dividing the annualized cost estimate for any control by the amount of MCF
that is avoided by implementing the same control. The specific cost data for
the controls in each end-use are discussed in section 5.4.
In summary, input data for the model that computes the costs of reducing
MCF costs consists of: (a) baseline MCF demand (in million kg) for the years
1989 to 2000, (b) a series of control options to reduce MCF use (c) the level
of total reduction achievable by each control option from 1989 to the year
2000, and (d) the social and private costs per kilogram of MCF reduced by each
control option.
5.1.2 Model Operation
The input data described above is used to compute total social
costs and transfer payments5 associated with the reductions imposed by a
freeze or a phase-out of MCF production. To compute these costs, the model
performs the following steps:
1. Compute target production and associated reductions: based on the
baseline demand and reduction schedule compute the desired level
of use (in million kilograms) and reductions (in percent relative
to the baseline) for each year (1989-2000).
5 The significance of social costs and transfer payments is discussed in
detail in section 5.3.
- 76 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
2. Generate the derived demand curve for MCF: sort the control
options and associated annual use reductions by ascending private
costs. This establishes the order in which controls will be
selected in step 4.
3. Compute cumulative reductions: add use-reductions for each control
moving down in the ordered list to show the total reductions that
would be achieved at each price level.
4. Select the set of controls that meet the target consumption: for
each year compare the target reduction with the cumulative
reductions achievable by a set of controls; consider the next
control if the target is not met or stop if the target is
achieved.
5. Compute social costs and transfer payments: for each year multiply
the absolute value of reductions (in kilograms) by the social and
private cost per kilogram for the last control option in the
selected set (i.e., the option with the highest private cost per
kg of MCF reduced).
6. Discount the stream of social costs and transfer payments: use two
percent for social costs and six percent for private costs and
discount costs over a 10 year period.
5.2 Significance of Social Costs and Transfer Payments
The results of this analysis are presented in terms of social costs and
transfer payments. Each type of action undertaken by industry to reduce
methyl chloroform use may increase the resources required to produce or
consume the same amount of goods and services. A product switch may increase
the resources required because consumers might pay more for a different
product than they were paying previously for the methyl chloroform-based
product. A switch in production methods or the use of a substitute chemical
similarly may increase the resources required to produce the same product.
The manufacturer will, of course, pass as much of these increased production
costs as possible to consumers depending on market conditions.
For this analysis, the increase in resources necessary to produce the
- 77 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
same amount of goods and services is termed a social cost. Other analyses
often use the equivalent term "real resource cost". Social costs measure the
extent to which society as a whole is poorer due to regulation.
Social costs can take different forms: capital costs (including costs
of purchasing new capital to replace capital retired due to a phase out), one-
time costs (e.g., product reformulations or industry retooling), operating
costs, and energy costs. For example, electronics firms cleaning printed
circuit boards may experience increased capital costs if they must purchase
aqueous cleaning equipment to replace solvent cleaners that use MCF. Energy
costs could increase if less energy efficient cleaning processes were adopted
as a result of a phase-out. Finally, operating costs could increase if more
expensive chemicals were substituted for methyl chloroform. If less expensive
materials are substituted, costs could decline.
The costs of a potential regulation on a commodity are not all resource
or social costs. For example, if a tax increases the price of the commodity,
consumers pay more for the commodity, but more resources are not required to
produce the product.6 The tax only transfers money from consumers to the
government. Similarly, if the supply of a commodity is restricted by
government regulation or by a monopolist, consumers will have to pay more for
the commodity but again no additional resources (machinery, labor, raw
materials, etc.) will be needed to manufacture the commodity. If the price
rises, it provides extra profit -- that is, money is transferred from
consumers to producers, but no additional resources are used.
6 For simplicity, this discussion assumes that the tax does not decrease
the amount of this commodity purchased by consumers.
- 78 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Economists distinguish such transfer payments from real resource or
social costs. The distinction is important because if a regulation increases
the social costs of production, society as a whole is worse off. However, a
regulation that induces transfer payments but not resource costs makes some
parties in society worse off, but other parties better off by an equal amount.
Therefore, society as a whole is neither worse off or better off.
To calculate the social costs and transfer payments associated with a
freeze and phase-out of methyl chloroform use, the potential set of control
actions is sorted from lowest to highest private cost per kilogram of
reduction to determine the order in which each action would be taken. Given
any required level of total methyl chloroform reduction, the list defines the
increase in methyl chloroform price (the "trigger price") necessary to
initiate a given control. Implicitly, MCF users are assumed to compare the
trigger prices of the controls and the current price for methyl chloroform as
restrictions on the supply of this chemical are imposed. If the trigger price
for a control is less than the methyl chloroform price increase in a given
year, then the control is assumed to be implemented. If two or more control
options for a given end use had costs below the trigger price, then the
options that meet the target emissions reduction are implemented. If two
control options have equal private costs, the option with lower social costs
is assumed to be implemented first.
In the phase out scenario, the price per kilogram of methyl chloroform
reduced is undefined in the year 2000 because methyl chloroform is no longer
available. At this juncture, it is assumed that firms using methyl chloroform
will choose the controls that minimize cost while meeting the requirements of
- 79 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
the phase out. In this analysis, firms are assumed to select controls that
completely phase out methyl chloroform and have the lowest cost per kilogram
of reduction. These controls must also meet all the interim methyl chloroform
reductions mandated prior to the complete phase out. Social costs and
transfer payments are then estimated based on the cost per kilogram of methyl
chloroform reduction associated with the selected control options. It is
important to remember that the cost per kilogram of methyl chloroform
reduction is estimated on an annual basis. As a result, this price may vary
each year depending on the timing of the implementation of different controls
selected.
5.3 Costs for Individual Controls in each End-Use
5.3.1 Methodology for Vapor Degreasing and Cold Cleaning
The approach used in this analysis to develop the costs of
reducing the use of MCF in vapor degreasing and cold cleaning is based on a
comparison of total costs for a base case and for the control options. This
approach shows the current actual costs of MCF use in vapor degreasing and
cold cleaning and permits a direct comparison of actual costs across options.
A general description of the elements used to develop the cost data follows.
Definition of Base Case Costs. The base case costs are defined as the
current average costs of using MCF according to the operating characteristics
of average or "model" vapor degreasing and cold cleaning units. The
definition of these average units is based on a detailed analysis of the types
of equipment available and the amount of solvent consumed (IGF 1988b). In
addition, it is assumed that these average units currently operate with no
additional controls except those provided with the standard equipment. The
- 80 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
base case thus defines the costs associated with the current practice which
include the capital and operating costs. Operating costs include the costs of
solvent, electricity, and waste disposal. Labor costs are not included in the
operating costs because they are estimated to remain unchanged across control
options.
An important parameter in estimating the amount of solvent consumed in
the base case vapor degreasing and cold cleaning units is based on the amount
of solvent consumed and/or lost during the operation of these units. This
amount is determined by performing a mass balance on the vapor degreasing and
cold cleaning units. Exhibit 16 shows a schematic of the solvent material
balance in a vapor degreasing unit7. As depicted in the schematic, the major
losses from an uncontrolled vapor degreaser result from evaporative emissions,
drag out emissions, clean out losses, and downtime losses. Evaporative
emissions result from the vaporization of solvent during the operation of the
vapor degreaser; drag out emissions result from the solvent being carried over
by the parts that are being cleaned; clean out losses occur when the contents
(i.e., the solvent contaminated with metal fines, grease, and other
contaminants removed from the cleaned parts) of the vapor degreasing unit are
drained out and distilled (recycled) to purify the solvent. The bottoms from
the still that remain after distillation (recycling) represent the clean out
losses; and downtime losses resulting from emissions when the unit is not in
operation. Each of these emissions and/or losses are determined for the base
7The solvent material balance schematic for a conveyorized vapor
degreasing, open top vapor degreasing, and cold cleaning unit is identical to
this one.
- 81 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 16
SOLVENT MATERIALS BALANCE IN VAPOR DECREASING
Control
Fresh
Solvent
Feed
Vapor
Degreasing
Process
Gross
Cleanout
Loss
.Evaporative
Emissions
(Vaporization)
Control
Drag Out
^^^^ V^^M
Emissions
Operating
Solvent
Loss *
Recycling
Solvent for
Waste Disposal
This excludes downtime solvent loss which is assumed to be
two percent of the other losses (i.e. operating and cleanout
losses).
- 82 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
case and are in turn used to quantify the amount of solvent used. The solvent
consumption in a solvent cleaning machine thus consists of virgin solvent and
recycled solvent. The virgin solvent is assumed to replace the solvent losses
due to evaporation, down time, drag out, and waste disposal.
In this analysis it is assumed that the gross clean out losses from a
solvent cleaning machine are recycled. The recycling can be carried out in-
house or off-site. If the solvent were recycled in-house then the analysis
would have to consider the capital investment for the still and the operating
costs associated with the use of the still. However, in this analysis the
recycling is carried out off-site. Thus, in order to compensate for the
estimated capital and operating costs of carrying out in-house recycling the
costs of off-site recycled solvent is assumed to be 20 percent less than the
costs of virgin solvent (i.e., $0.71 per Kg for recycled solvent versus $0.89
per kg) (Ruckriegel 1989).
Incremental Costs of Controls. The costs of the control options are
developed to estimate the total costs associated with the use of the control
technology. Capital costs include the costs of new equipment needed for the
implementation of the control option. Annual operating costs include raw
material costs (solvent for MCF and detergent for aqueous cleaning), water,
electricity, and waste treatment or disposal costs. As stated earlier, labor
costs are not included because they are estimated to remain unchanged across
control options.
5.3.2 Cost Data for Conveyorized Vapor Degreasing
Base Case Costs. As shown in Exhibit 17, it is estimated that the
average conveyorized vapor degreaser assumed for this analysis consumes raw
- 83 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 17 COSTS OF CONTROLS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM IN CONVEYORI ZED VAPOR DECREASING
Annual Operating Costs
\ I ) --• • Co)
(2) (3) (4) (5) Total
Capital Cost Raw Material Water Electricity Waste Treatment Operating
(Detergent/Solvent) or Disposal Costs
Base Case: MCF
Control Option
Aqueous Cleaning (d)
Engineering Controls (j)
Alternative Solvent 1 (n)
Alternative Solvent 2 (s)
93,555 69,814 (a) Napp (a1)
Incremental Costs
6,408 (e) (68,613)(f) 2 (g)
54,000 (33,535)(k) 2,020 (I)
23,388 (o) 62,154 (p) Napp
20,000 (t) 194,123 (u) Napp
6,078 (b)
(Savings) (c)
6,759 (h)
447 (m)
0 (q)
0 (q)
3,135 79,027
2,865 (i) (58,987)
0 (31,068)
(1,567)(r) 60,587
0 (v) 194,123
Notes:
(1) Cost of new equipment as estimated by industry sources. All costs reflect 1988 dollars.
(2) For the Base Case, raw material costs refer to the cost of solvent (virgin and recycled).
For aqueous cleaning, raw material costs include the costs of detergent (ICF 1988b).
(3) Assumes the cost of water is $0.0006 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(4) Electricity costs are computed multiplying the number of kilowatt-hr consumed times the costs of a kilowatt-hour.
Annual costs are based on 2000 hrs and electricity costs of $0.0487/kwh.
(5) Costs of disposal of MCF and alternative solvents are estimated at $0.84 per kg.
For aqueous cleaning disposal costs are based on contract hauling costs of SB/gallon.
(6) = (2) + (3) + (4) + (5)
Sources:
(a) An average conveyorized vapor degreaser consumes 66,534 Kg of virgin solvent and 14,928 Kg of recycled solvent
in a year (ICF 1988b).It is assumed that the price of virgin solvent is $0.89 and that of recycled solvent is
$0.71/Kg. Recycling is carried out off-site and the cost of recycling off-site is comparable to the cost of
in-house recycling. !n-House recycling would require capital investment for a still and operating costs
associated with operating the still. The virgin solvent is used to replace the operating solvent loss
(i.e., evaporative loss, drag out loss, down time loss, and waste disposal loss).
(a1) It is assumed that water costs are negligible (ICF 1988b)
(b) Based on electricity costs for heating the solvent, the work load, and compensation for heat loss due to
radiation (ICF 1988b).
(c) Incremental costs (savings) indicate the difference in costs between the control options and the base case.
(d) Aqueous cleaning costs are based on the the assumption that a typical conveyorized spray washers would be
needed to replace a typical conveyorized vapor degreaser (ICF 1989a).
(e) The capital costs include the costs of aqueous cleaning equipment (i.e., wash tanks, rinse tanks, air knife
and dryer) and installation costs (ICF 1989a).
(f) Raw materials costs are based on the costs of detergent (ICF 1989a).
(g) Water costs are based on an annual water consumption of 2000 gallons at a cost of $0.0006 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(h) Electricity costs are based on a consumption of 132 kwh. This is based on energy consumption of the aqueous
cleaning and drying equipment (ICF 1989a).
(i) Waste disposal costs are based on an annual waste disposal of 2000 gallons at a cost of $3 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(j) Based on a combination of improved housekeeping practices and carbon adsorption control technologies.
(k) It is assumed that the engineering control reduces solvent loss by 60 percent (i.e., drag out, downtime, and
evaporative losses) (OAQPS 1989).
(1) Represents the cost of steam used to regenerate the activated carbon (OAQPS, 1989).
(m) Assumes that a 6 hp fan is used for the activated carbon system (OAQPS 1989).
(n) Represents an HCFC blend used in new equipment (Ruckriegel 1989).
(o) It is assumed that the new solvent equipment is 25 percent more expensive than the base case.
(Ruckriegel 1989).
(p) It is assumed that compared to the old machines the new machines consumes one-half the amount of solvent.
It is further assumed that the solvent (virgin & recycled) cost 20 percent more than CFC-113 ($2.70/Kg)
(i.e., $3.24 per Kg) (Ruckriegel 1989)
(q) It is assumed that the energy requirements are similar (Ruckriegel 1989)
(r) Based on the assumption that the new equipment uses one-half the amount of solvent used in the base case.
(s) Alternative solvent 2 is assumed to be similar to alternative solvent 1.
(t) To use alternative solvent 2 the existing equipment has to be retrofitted.
(u) It is assumed the amount of alternative solvent 2 consumed in existing equipment is similar to the base case,
and that the price of alternative solvent 2 is the same as alternative solvent 1 (i.e., $3.24/Kg).
(v) Disposal cost similar because same amount of solvent used as in the base case.
- 84 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
materials worth $69,814 per year. Electricity is used to heat the solvent and
the work load, and to compensate for heat loss due to radiation (ICF 1988b).
Electricity costs are estimated at $6,078. The waste solvent in this model
vapor degreaser is assumed to be disposed of at a cost of $0.84 per kilogram
or $3,135 per year. Total annual operating costs (solvent, electricity and
waste disposal) amount to $79,027 and are the base costs of MCF use in a
typical vapor degreaser. The capital cost is estimated at $93,555.
Aqueous Cleaning. Aqueous cleaning costs are based on the assumption that a
typical conveyorized spray washers would be needed to replace the conveyorized
vapor degreaser depicted in the base case8. The throughput of the systems was
used to determine the number of aqueous cleaning conveyorized spray washers
required to provide the same cleaning load as a conveyorized vapor degreaser
(ICF 1989a)9. The incremental capital costs of this unit is estimated at
$6,408 which includes installation costs (ICF 1989a). Annual operating
savings with respect to the base case costs are estimated at $58,987 which
include raw material savings of $68,613 (i.e., the difference between the
detergent costs and the costs of the solvent replaced), water costs of $2,
electricity costs of $6,759, and waste disposal costs of $2,865.
Engineering Controls. Engineering controls are based on a combination
of improved housekeeping practices and carbon adsorption control technologies.
It is estimated that engineering controls reduce solvent loss by 60 percent
8It is assumed that the aqueous cleaning process used will be the most
current technology available.
9 Floor space comparisons and the associated costs are not included in
this analysis.
- 85 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
(i.e., evaporative emissions, drag out emissions, and downtime losses -- see
Exhibit 16). Note that engineering controls do not reduce the amount of
solvent that is disposed of because this only depends on the gross cleanout
losses. Gross cleanout losses depend on the level of solvent contamination
and, therefore, are not affected by the use of engineering controls. Hence,
waste disposal costs relative to the base remain unchanged.
Annual operating savings associated with engineering controls amount to
$31,068 which include solvent savings of $33,535, water costs of $2020, and
electricity costs of $447. The capital cost of engineering controls is
estimated at $54,000.
Alternative Solvents. Alternative solvents are considered possible
replacements for MCF. In this analysis two solvents are evaluated.
Alternative solvent 1 is assumed only to be used in new equipment costing
$23,388 more than the MCF base equipment. Alternative solvent 2 is assumed to
be used in existing, as well as, new conveyorized vapor degreaser units. It
is assumed that the amount of alternative solvent 1 used in new equipment is
50 percent of the base case MCF use (Ruckriegel 1989). It is also estimated
that alternative solvent 1 will cost 20 percent more than CFC-113. In this
analysis it is estimated that CFC-113 costs $2.70 per Kg, and therefore, the
price of alternative solvent 1 is $3.24 per Kg. The lower boiling point of
alternative solvent 1 compared to MCF, and the high energy requirement of the
new equipment results in an overall energy consumption equivalent to the base
case machine. The use of alternative solvent 1 results in costs of $60,587
per year. In this analysis, it is assumed that the use of alternative solvent
2 in existing equipment require retrofitting of the existing equipment worth
- 86 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
$20,000. It is assumed that the amount of alternative solvent 2 consumed in
existing equipment is similar to the base case, and that the price of
alternative solvent 1 is the same as alternative solvent 2. The use of
alternative solvent 2 results in annual operating costs of $194,123.
5.3.3 Cost Data for Open Top Vapor Degreasing
Base Case Costs. As shown in Exhibit 18, it is estimated that the
raw material costs in the average open top vapor degreaser is $9,770 per year.
Electricity costs are estimated at $2,600 (IGF 1988b). The waste solvent in
this model open top vapor degreaser is assumed to be disposed for a cost of
$0.84 per kilogram or $888 per year. Total base case annual operating costs
in a typical open top vapor degreaser amount to $13,258. The capital cost is
estimated at $10,896.
Aqueous Cleaning. Aqueous cleaning costs are based on the assumption
that two typical batch immersion washers would be needed to replace the base
case open top vapor degreaser. The incremental capital costs of these units
with respect to the base case are estimated at $77,893 and include
installation costs (ICF 1989a). Annual operating costs with respect to the
base case costs are estimated at $2,875 including raw material savings of
$2,545, water costs of $2, electricity costs of $2,742, and waste disposal
costs of $2,676.
Engineering Controls. Engineering controls are based on a combination
of improved housekeeping practices, increased freeboard, refrigerated
freeboard chillers, and automatic cover and hoists control technologies. It
is estimated that engineering controls reduce solvent loss by 60 percent
(i.e., evaporative, drag out, and downtime losses). Annual operating savings
- 87 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 18 COSTS OF CONTROLS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM IN OPEN TOP VAPOR DECREASING
/ 1 \
Annual Operating Costs
CD vo i
(2) (3) (4) (5) Total
Capital Cost Raw Material Water Electricity Waste Treatment Operating
(Detergent/Solvent) or Disposal Costs
Base Case: MCF 10,896 (a)
Control Option
Aqueous Cleaning (d) 77,893 (e)
Engineering Controls (j) 11,000
Alternative Solvents 1 (m) 2,724 (n)
Alternative Solvents 2 (r) 10,000 (s)
9,770 Napp (a1)
Incremental Costs
(2,545)(f) 2 (g)
(3,497)(k) Napp
9,399 (o) Napp
28,568 (t) Napp
2,600 (b)
(Savings) (c)
2,742 (h)
112 (I)
0 (p)
0 (p)
888 13,258
2,676 (i) 2,875
0 (3,385)
(710)(q) 8,689
0 (u) 28,568
Notes:
(1) Cost of new equipment as estimated by industry sources. All costs reflect 1988 dollars.
(2) For the Base Case, raw material costs refer to the cost of solvent (virgin and recycled).
For aqueous cleaning, raw material costs include the costs of detergent (ICF 1988b).
(3) Assumes the cost of water is $0.0006 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(4) Electricity costs are computed multiplying the number of kilowatt-hr consumed times the costs of a kilowatt-hour.
Annual costs are based on 2000 hrs and electricity costs of $0.0487/kwh.
(5) Costs of disposal of MCF and alternative solvents are estimated at $0.84 per kg.
For aqueous cleaning disposal costs are based on contract hauling costs of $3/gallon.
(6) = (2) + (3) + (4) + (5)
Sources:
(a) An average open top vapor degreaser-consumes ,7f606 Kg of virgin solvent and 4,227 Kg of recycled solvent
in a year. It is assumed that the price of virgin solvent is $0.89 and that of recycled solvent is $1.32 per Kg.
Recycling is carried out off-site and the cost of recycling off-site is comparable to the cost of in-house
recycling. In-House recycling would require capital investment for a still and operating costs associated with
operating the still. The virgin solvent is used to replace the operating solvent loss (i.e., evaporative loss,
drag out loss, down time loss, and waste disposal loss) (ICF 19886).
(a1) It is assumed that water costs are negligible (ICF 1988b)
(b) Based on electricity costs for heating the solvent, the work load, and compensation for heat loss due to
radiation (ICF 1988b).
(c) Incremental costs (savings) indicate the difference in costs between the control options and the base case.
(d) Aqueous cleaning costs are based on the the assumption that a two typical batch immersion washers would be
needed to replace a typical open top vapor degreaser (ICF 1989a).
(e) The capital costs include the costs of aqueous cleaning equipment (i.e., wash tanks, rinse tanks, and air knife)
and installation costs (ICF 1989a).
(f) Raw materials costs are based on the costs of detergent (ICF 1989a).
(g) Water costs are based on an annual water consumption of 1188 gallons at a cost of $0.0006 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(h) Electricity costs are based on a consumption of 55 kwh. This is based on energy consumption of the aqueous
cleaning and drying equipment (ICF 1989a).
(i) Waste disposal costs are based on an annual waste disposal of 1188 gallons at a cost of $3 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(j) Based on a combination of improved housekeeping practices, refrigerated freeboard chiller, increased free board
height, and automatic hoist.
(k) It is assumed that the engineering control reduces solvent loss by 60 percent (i.e., drag out, downtime, and
evaporative losses) (OAQPS 1989).
(I) Based on the electricity consumption of a refrigerated chiller (OAQPS 1989).
(m) Represents an HCFC blend used in new equipment (Ruckriegel 1989).
(n) It is assumed that the new solvent equipment is 25 percent more expensive than the base case.
(Ruckrigel 1989).
(o) It is assumed that compared to the old machines the new machines consumes one-half the amount of solvent.
It is further assumed that the solvent (virgin & recycled) cost 20 percent more than CFC-113 ($2.70/Kg)
(i.e., $3.24 per Kg) (Ruckriegel 1989)
(p) It is assumed that the energy requirements are similar (Ruckriegel 1989)
(q) Based on the assumption that the new equipment uses one-half the amount of solvent used in the base case.
(r) Alternative solvent 2 is assumed to be similar to alternative solvent 1.
(s) To use alternative solvent 2 the existing equipment has to be retrofitted.
(t) It is assumed the amount of alternative solvent 2 consumed in existing equipment is similar to the base case,
and that the price of alternative solvent 2 is the same as alternative solvent 1 (i.e., $3.24/Kg).
(u) Disposal cost similar because same amount of solvent used as in the base case.
- 88 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
are $3,385 which include solvent savings of $3,497, and electricity costs of
$112. The capital cost of engineering controls is estimated at $11,000.
Alternative Solvents. As for conveyorized vapor degreasing two
alternative solvents are considered possible replacements for MCF. Alternative
solvent 1 is assumed only to be used in new equipment. Alternative solvent 2
is assumed to be used in existing, as well as, new vapor degreaser units. It
is assumed that the amount of alternative solvent 1 used in new equipment is
50 percent of the base case MCF use (Ruckriegel 1989) . It is also estimated
that alternative solvent 1 will cost 20 percent more than CFC-113. CFC-113
costs $2.70 per Kg, and therefore, the price of alternative solvent 1 is $3.24
per Kg. The lower boiling point of alternative solvent 1 compared to MCF, and
the high energy requirement of the new equipment results in an overall energy
consumption equivalent to the base case machine. Based on this, the use of
alternative solvent 1 results in costs of $8,689 per year. Alternative
solvent 2 is assumed to be used in existing units with retrofitment costs
estimated at $10,000. This includes estimates for retrofitment costs on
existing units. The price and energy consumption of alternative solvent 2 are
similar to alternative solvent 1. In addition, the amount of alternative
solvent 2 used is the same as the amount of MCF used in the base case. Total
operating costs for alternative solvent 2 amount to $28,568.
5.3.4 Cost Data for Cold Cleaning
Base Case Costs. As shown in Exhibit 19, it is estimated that the
operating cost of a cold cleaning unit is $3,850. This includes raw material
costs of $3,467 per year and waste disposal costs of $383 (at $0.84 per
kilogram). Electricity and water costs are negligible. The capital cost is
- 89 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 19
COSTS OF CONTROLS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM IN COLO CLEANING
/ *t \
Annual Operating Costs
n ;
(2) (3) (4) (5)
Control Options Capital Cost Raw Material Water Electricity Waste Treatment 0
(Detergent/Solvent) or Disposal
Base Case: MCF 1,447 (a)
Control Option
Aqueous Cleaning (d) 9,187 (e)
Engineering Controls (j) 405
Alternative Solvents 1 (1) 362 0
Napp (b) (315)(o)
Napp (b) 0 (s)
(6)
Total
perating
Costs
3,850
(1,981)
(897)
3,866
11,829
Notes:
(1) Cost of new equipment as estimated by industry sources. All costs reflect 1988 dollars.
(2) For the Base Case, raw material costs refer to the cost of solvent (virgin and recycled).
For aqueous cleaning, raw material costs include the costs of detergent (ICF 1988b).
(3) Assumes the cost of water is $0.0006 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(4) Electricity costs are computed multiplying the number of kilowatt-hr consumed times the costs of a kilowatt-hour.
Annual costs are based on 2000 hrs and electricity costs of $0.0487/kwh.
(5) Costs of disposal of MCF and alternative solvents are estimated at $0.84 per kg.
For aqueous cleaning disposal costs are based on contract hauling costs of $3/gallon.
(6) = (2) + (3) + (4) + (5)
Sources:
(a) An average cold cleaner consumes 2,898 Kg of virgin solvent and 1,823 Kg of recycled solvent
in a year. It is assumed that the price of virgin solvent is $0.89 and that of recycled solvent is $1.32 per Kg.
Recycling is carried out off-site and the cost of recycling off-site is comparable to the cost of in-house
recycling. In-House recycling would require capital investment for a still and operating costs associated with
operating the still. The virgin solvent is used to replace the operating solvent loss (i.e., evaporative loss,
drag out loss, down time loss, and waste disposal loss) (ICF 1988b).
(b) Based on electricity costs for heating the solvent, the work load, and compensation for heat loss due to
radiation (ICF 1988b).
(c) Incremental costs (savings) indicate the difference in costs between the control options and the base case.
(d) Aqueous cleaning costs are based on the the assumption that a typical bench top ultrasonic washers would be
needed to replace a typical cold cleaner (ICF 1989a).
(e) The capital costs include the costs of aqueous cleaning equipment (i.e., wash tanks, rinse tanks, and air knife)
and installation costs (ICF 1989a).
(f) Raw materials costs are based on the costs of detergent (ICF 1989a).
(g) Water costs are based on an annual water consumption of 450 gallons at a cost of $0.0006 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(h) Electricity costs are based on a consumption of 3 kwh. This is based on energy consumption of the aqueous
cleaning and drying equipment (ICF 1989a).
(i) Waste disposal costs are based on an annual waste disposal of 450 gallons at a cost of $3 per gallon (ICF 1989a).
(j) Based on a combination of improved housekeeping practices, increased free board
height, and water covers.
(k) It is assumed that the engineering control reduces solvent loss by 60 percent (i.e., drag out, downtime, and
evaporative losses) (OAQPS 1989).
(1) Represents an HCFC blend used in new equipment (Ruckriegel 1989).
(m) It is assumed that the new solvent equipment is 25 percent more expensive than the base case.
(Ruckrigel 1989).
(n) It is assumed that compared to the old machines the new machines consumes one-half the amount of solvent.
It is further assumed that the solvent (virgin & recycled) cost 20 percent more than CFC-113 ($2.70/Kg)
(i.e., $3.24 per Kg) (Ruckriegel 1989)
(o) Based on the assumption that the new equipment uses one-half the amount of solvent used in the base case.
(p) Alternative solvent 2 is assumed to be similar to alternative solvent 1.
(q) To use alternative solvent 2 the existing equipment has to be retrofitted.
(r) It is assumed the amount of alternative solvent 2 consumed in existing equipment is similar to the base case,
and that the price of alternative solvent 2 is the same as alternative solvent 1 (i.e., $3.24/Kg).
(s) Disposal cost similar because same amount of solvent used as in the base case.
- 90 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
estimated at $1,447.
Aqueous Cleaning. The average cold cleaner defined in the base case can
be substituted by a typical bench top ultrasonic washer. The incremental
capital cost of this unit is estimated at $9,187 (including installation
costs) (ICF 1989a). Annual operating savings for this aqueous cleaning
configuration with respect to the base case costs are estimated at $1,981
which include raw material savings of $3,233 (i.e., the difference between the
detergent costs and the costs of the solvent replaced), water costs of $1,
electricity costs of $284, and waste disposal savings of $967.
Engineering Controls. Engineering controls reduce solvent operating
losses by 60 percent (i.e., evaporative emissions, drag out emissions, and
down time losses). This results in an annual operating savings of $897 which
is solely due to solvent savings. The capital costs of engineering controls
are $405.
Alternative Solvents. Alternative solvents can also replace MCF in
cold cleaning. Based on identical assumptions as for conveyorized vapor
degreasing and open top vapor degreasing, the annual operating costs of a cold
cleaner using alternate solvent 1 and alternative solvent 2 are $3,866 and
$11,829, respectively. Capital costs for the two solvent are estimated at
$362 and $1,000, respectively.
5.3.5 Aerosols.
Exhibit 20 presents the costs for the two groups of control
technologies considered for the reduction of MCF use in aerosol products: (1)
the reformulation of aerosol formulations, and (2) a switch to alternative
methods that eliminate the need for the aerosol delivery system. The
- 91 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Exhibit 20. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Aerosols
Incremental Costs8 (thousand dollars)
Control Option
Capital
R&D and
Marketing13
Total
Annualized
Costs0
Dollars
per Kg
of MCF
Replaced*1
Reformulation to:
Petroleum Distillates
Water-based Systems
5,594
92.3 2,244
622.7
260.2
0.16
0.17
Alternate Delivery Systems
Occupational Uses
Consumer Uses
170,700e
19,000.0
3.84
20.00f
Source: ICF 1989a.
Raw material costs are not considered in this analysis primarily because the replacement chemicals in
both, the reformulated products and the alternate delivery systems are as expensive as MCF.
Includes R&D and marketing costs associated with the reformulation of various automotive and industrial
products, household products, and aerosol pesticides currently using methyl chloroform.
c Costs are discounted at the social rate of discount (2 percent) over the equipment lifetime (10 years).
d For the reformulation control options, the consumption of MCF in model plants is used to compute the costs
per kilogram of MCF replaced. For the costs of alternative systems, the total consumption of methyl
chloroform in brake cleaners and spot removers was used to model a representative product category where a
switch to non-aerosol (and non-MCF) technologies is feasible.
e These costs represent the capital investment required if all users of MCF-based brake cleaners purchased
alternative equipment.
Based on a comparison between the costs of professional dry cleaning services and the costs of an aerosol
spot remover (ICF 1989b).
- 92 -
' * * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
methodology used to estimate the costs associated with the reformulation of
aerosol products currently using MCF is based on a previous ICF analysis (ICF
1988c) and includes the estimation of reformulation costs per plant (i.e.,
R&D, marketing, and capital costs), the number of aerosol plants that would
incur these costs (based on the production volume of an average "model"
plant), the calculation of total annualized costs and, finally, the
computation of total costs per kilogram of MCF replaced.
The costs considered for a switch to alternative delivery systems in
consumer and occupational uses include the costs incurred by the current users
of aerosol products (e.g., brake shop owners and consumers) and do not include
costs to the aerosol industry. In the event that MCF-aerosol were no longer
marketable, it is estimated that aerosol manufacturing facilities could either
reformulate these products or produce other aerosol products without incurring
major economic losses. An example of an alternative consumer use of MCF-based
aerosol is the aerosol spot remover that can be replaced with the use of
professional services10.
Aerosol spot removers are designed to reduce dry-cleaning costs to
consumers by providing an easy way to remove specific spots from dry-cleanable
garments. No substitute formulations are available for the use of chlorinated
solvents in aerosol spot removers (ICF 1988b). In the event that aerosol spot
removers became no longer available, consumers would resort to additional dry
cleaning services. ICF estimated these costs based on the increased number of
times that consumers will have garments cleaned to get spots removed from
10 Professional dry cleaners use perchloroethylene and not MCF.
- 93 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
their garments which they could have treated with aerosol spot removers (ICF
1989b). The data used in this analysis includes experimental data on the
number cleaning events obtained from aerosol spot removers, the period of time
likely to be involved between dry cleaning events, the size of the spot
remover market, and current dry cleaning fees. Spot removers used 1.1 million
kilograms of MCF in 1987. The results of this analysis indicate that
additional dry cleaning costs to consumers are approximately $20 per kilogram
of MCF used. These are upper bound costs because a portion of current aerosol
spot remover users might decide to "live with the spot" and avoid the
additional dry cleaning expense. Even in this case it is believed the level
of costs remains in the tenths of dollars per kilogram of MCF replaced
primarily due to the high cost of professional dry cleaning as compared to
aerosol spot removers.
Aerosol brake cleaners are used by brake mechanics to remove the excess
dust accumulated inside brake housings. Various systems have been developed
for this application that could replace the use of the aerosol can including
vacuum enclosures, recirculating liquid systems, and wet-brush systems. The
liquid usually recommended for these systems is water containing a surfactant
(PEI 1987). The wet-brush is the option of lowest cost and is used to show
the level of costs involved. According to PEI (1987), there are 297,416 brake
repair shops that employ aerosol brake cleaners and the cost of the substitute
wet-brush system is $574. The investment for all shops would amount to $170.7
million. Operating costs are assumed to be approximately the same as the
current costs of aerosol brake cleaners; thus, the cost of the equipment are
believed to be indicative of the additional costs incurred. Using 10 year and
- 94 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
2 percent, annual costs amount to approximately $19 million. Aerosol brake
cleaners employed 4.95 million kilograms of MCF in 1987; therefore, the costs
can be expressed as $3.84 per kilogram of MCF (see Exhibit 20).
5.3.5 Adhesives.
Exhibit 21 presents the costs of the control options considered
in this analysis and include the costs of replacement of MCF-based adhesives
with water-based, hot melt, and non-MCF solvent-based adhesives. When MCF-
based adhesives are applied as part of a manufacturing process (e.g.,
packaging, tape manufacturing), solvent recovery is also considered as a
control option. The available cost data permits the comparison of the costs
associated with a switch from a typical MCF-based adhesive (a pressure
sensitive adhesive) to the alternatives mentioned above. Raw material costs
represent more than 92 percent of the total costs associated with the use of
water-based and hot melt adhesives11; thus, raw material costs are used to
establish the differences in costs associated with these options.
5.3.6 Coatings and Inks
Exhibit 22 compares the costs associated with MCF-based coatings and
inks with various control options. Capital costs represent the cost of new
equipment needed to set up a typical process line for each control option.
Although water-based inks are more expensive on a per pound basis, the
concentration of solids is higher and, therefore, 30 to 40 percent more area
nEnergy and labor costs are reported to be approximately the same for
solvent-based adhesives and water-based and hot melt adhesives. The equipment
conversion costs associated with the use of water-based and hot melt adhesives
represent approximately 1 percent of total costs; thus, only raw material
costs are significant and are used as indicative of relative costs.
- 95 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Exhibit 21. Costs of Controls for Methyl Chloroform in Adhesives
Incremental Costs
Control Option Raw Materials Capital Energy
per Kg of Dry
Adhesive a/
Recovered Solvent
Water-based -$2.79 Od Oe
Hot-melt -$2.37 Od 0
Solvent-borne -$1.85 0 0
Solvent Recovery ($52,040)f 500,000 34,368
Total Dollars
Annual ized per Kg
Costsb of MCF
Replaced0
-$0.93
-$0.79
-$0.62
37,978 $0.65
Source: ICF 1989a.
a The costs of a MCF-based adhesive is $4.63 per kilogram of dry adhesive.
b Annualized costs for water-based, hot-melt, and alternate solvent-borne
adhesives are not shown because the comparison with MCF-based adhesives is
made with respect to raw material costs on a per kilogram of dry adhesive
used. Costs are annualized over 10 years using a 2 percent discount rate.
0 For water-based, hot-melt, and solventborne adhesives, the comparison is
done by diving the incremental costs per Kg. of dry adhesive by 3. Each
kilogram of dry adhesive requires 3 kilograms of MCF. The use of a typical
recovery system saves 58,473 Kgs of MCF.
d Equipment conversion costs are insignificant compared to raw material costs
given the large volume of adhesive handled in typical operations.
6 Energy costs associated with water-based adhesives do not increase because
the volume of air handled in the drying equipment can be lowered significantly
with respect to the volume handled with solvent-based adhesives.
£ Solvent recovery systems recover 96 percent of the total solvent used and 67
percent of this amount can be reused after recycling. This recovered solvent
results in raw materials savings of $52,040 for the model operation assumed.
- 96 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 22. COST OF CONTROLS FO FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM IN COATINGS AND INKS
(b) (c) (d) (e)
(a) Annualized Annual Total Social Cost per Kg
Capital Costs Capital Costs Operating Costs Annual Costs of MCF Reduced
Inks:
MCF-based
Water-borne
0 (f)
0 (f)
Coatings:
MCF-based 150,000
Water-borne 110,000
High Solids 110,000
Powder 120,000
Solvent Recovery 500,000
0
0
16,699
12,246
12,246
13,359
55,663
550,000 (g)
733,000 (g)
750,644
666,364
518,500
443,600
(17,672)(h)
550,000
733,000
767,343
678,610
530,746
456,959
37,991
2.29
(0.59)
(1.56)
(2.05)
0.65
Notes:
(a) Cost of new capital equipment.
(b) Annual capital costs, discounted at 2 percent annual interest rate over 10 years.
(c) Includes annual costs for: raw materials, labor & clean-up, maintenance, energy, and sludge
disposal.
(d) = (b) + (c)
(e) Cost difference with respect to MCF base case divided by the amount of MCF replaced; 151,423 Kg for
coatings and 80,000 Kgs for inks.
(f) Capital costs for handling water-based inks are negligible.
(g) The water-based ink used in tthis analysis costs $7.33 per Kg. The cost of a MCF-based ink is
estimated at $5.50 per Kg. The concentration of MCF is 80 percent by weight (Capristo 1989).
It is assumed that the model printing line uses 100,000 Kgs of ink in a year.
(h) Includes energy costs of $34,368 and savings of $52,040 for the 58,473 Kgs of MCF recovered (ICF 1989a).
Source:
Bocchi, Gregory J., "Powder Coating Today," in Products Finishing Directory 1986, reprinted for
Powder Coatings Institute, 1987.
- 97 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
can be coated. In addition, incremental equipment costs associated with
water-based inks are estimated to be negligible. For coatings, this equipment
includes: two waterwash booths (or powder spray booths, in the case of powder
coating); a dry filter booth (not needed for powder spray); four automatic
electrostatic guns; two manual electrostatic guns (just one needed for powder
coating); two reciprocators (not needed for high-solid coating); heating
equipment (not needed for water-borne or powder coating); recovery systems
(not needed for water-borne or high-solids coating); and safety interlocks and
standoffs (for water-borne coating only) (PCI 1987).
Examining the equipment needs of each type of coating, MCF-based
solvents prove to be the most expensive in terms of capital costs. Switching
to powder coating will save $30,000 (20 percent) in capital costs. Switching
to water-borne or high solid coatings will save even more: $40,000 (27
percent) in capital costs (PCI 1987)12.
Annual operating costs include the costs of raw materials, labor and
cleanup, maintenance, energy, and sludge disposal. Compared with MCF-based
coatings, water-borne coatings show slightly higher energy costs, but
substantially lower material and disposal costs. Overall, the annual
operating savings associated with water-borne coatings are $84,280. High-
solid coatings had lower material, disposal, and energy costs. Overall, the
annual operating savings are $232,000. Powder coatings cost considerably less
12 The capital costs indicated in Exhibit 22 may be lower if existing
coating lines using MCF are converted to the new technologies. Because the
possibility of equipment conversion is dependent on the type of equipment and
the control technology in question (e.g., it is easier to convert from
solvent-based to water-borne technology than to powder technology) it is
conservatively assumed that the full costs shown in Exhibit 22 are incurred.
- 98 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
in all 5 areas of annual operating costs, with annual savings of $307,000 (PCI
1987).
To calculate the social cost per kilogram of MCF reduced, the difference
between the total annual costs of the control option and of MCF is calculated.
This difference is divided by 151,423 kilograms, the amount of MCF used in the
base case model process line. For inks, substituting water-borne coatings
would cost $2.29 per kg of MCF reduced. This is based on a comparison of raw
material costs only; no other operating cost data are available for inks. For
coatings, substituting water-borne, high-solid, or powder coatings would save
$0.59, $1.56, or $2.05, respectively, per kg of MCF reduced (PCI 1987; see
Exhibit 22).
The solvent recovery system presented in Exhibit 22 is similar to that
used for adhesives because the characteristics of printing and coating
equipment are comparable.
5.3.7 Miscellaneous Uses.
No data are available on the solvents or technologies that could
be used as a replacement for methyl chloroform in miscellaneous uses. The
weighted average costs of the control options for the other end-uses are used
as indicative of the costs of the controls that could be used in the
miscellaneous sectors. Miscellaneous uses account for 6 percent of total
methyl chloroform; thus, the impact the potential inaccuracy of this
assumption is small.
- 99 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
6. COST ESTIMATES FOR PHASE-OUT AND FREEZE SCENARIOS
This chapter presents estimates of the social costs and transfer
payments associated with a phase-out and freeze of methyl chloroform
production. Exhibit 23 shows the estimates of social costs for these
scenarios.1 In all cases, the results are consistent with expectations. The
costs of achieving a phase-out are higher if the phase-out schedule is based
on 1986 rather than 1988 production quantities. The same is true for freezing
production of methyl chloroform. The costs for the freeze are higher if the
production is frozen at 1986 levels instead of 1988 levels. Furthermore, the
costs are higher for higher growth rates in the baseline in the period
1989-2000.2 The costs of the phase-out and the freeze for Scenario 1
(corresponding to the "low conservation-high chlorinated solvent switch") are
higher than those for Scenario 2 (corresponding to the "high conservation-low
chlorinated solvent switch"), and the costs for Scenario 2 in turn are higher
than those for Scenario 3 (corresponding to the "low conservation-no solvent
switch") as the baseline growth rates for the three scenarios are 4.7, 2.4,
and 2.2 percent, respectively.
The total social costs associated with a phase-out under Scenario 1 are
about $2.7 billion (if the base year is assumed to be 1986) or about $2.4
billion (if the base year is assumed to be 1988) during the period 1989-2000.
Over longer periods of time, the present value of social costs grow
significantly -- to about $58 billion by the year 2075. The costs of the
1 The present value of social costs are calculated using a social
discount rate of two percent.
2 It is assumed that the baseline growth in methyl chloroform production
is 2.2 percent per year for the period 2001-2050 and zero after the year 2050.
- 100 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 23
S FOR PHASE-
(billions of 1985 dollars)
ESTIMATES OF SOCIAL COSTS FOR PHASE-OUT AND FREEZE SCENARIOS8
Scenario Short Term Long Term
(1989-2000) (1989-2075)
A. PHASE-OUT OF NCF PRODUCTION
1. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = t».T&
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 25) 2.657 58.215
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 26) 2.365 55.558
2. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.4X0
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 27) 1.384 43.942
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 28) 1.323 43.881
3. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.Z&
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 29) 1.357 42.928
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 30) 1.233 42.804
B. FREEZE OF NCF PRODUCTION6
1. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 4.7Xb
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 31) 0.247 . 8.455
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 32) 0.143 7.004
2. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.«c
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 33) 0.011 0.484
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 34) 0.000 0.000
3. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.2J^
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 35) 0.009 0.471
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 36) 0.000 0.000
a Costs are discounted at 2 percent. It is assumed that the baseline growth in MCF
production is 2.2 percent per year for the period 2001-2050 and zero after the year 2050.
Corresponds to the "low conservation-high chlorinated solvent switch" scenario presented in
the September 19 MCF Draft Report for the CMR end use distribution.
c Corresponds to the "high conservation-low chlorinated solvent switch" scenario presented in
the September 19 MCF Draft Report for the CMR end use distribution.
Corresponds to the "low conservation-no solvent switch" scenario presented in the
September 19 MCF Draft Report for the CMR end use distribution.
e It is assumed that the production freeze will continue to be met after 2000 with the set of
controls selected in 2000.
- 101 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
phase-out in the short term (1989 to 2000) for Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 are
about 45-50 percent lower than those for Scenario 1, and about 25 percent
lower in the long term (1989 to 2075). The costs in the long term for
Scenarios 2 and 3 are closer to those for Scenario 1, largely because the
controls used in the post-2000 period are similar, the growth rate is the same
across all scenarios, and because the post-2000 period is large. The
differences still exist because the production quantity in the year 2000 is
still different across the three scenarios.
The total social costs associated with a freeze are much lower in the
short and long term relative to the phase-out. During the period 1989-2000,
the costs are about $0.25 billion for Scenario 1, if the freeze is assumed to
be at 1986 levels, or about $0.14 billion if the freeze is assumed to be at
1988 levels.
Exhibit 24 shows the estimates of transfer payments for the same
scenarios.3 The transfer payments associated with the phase-out in the period
1989-2000 are in the range $0.8-0.9 billion for all the scenarios. The values
do not change after 2000 because methyl chloroform is no longer produced. The
transfer payments associated with a freeze are lower than those for the phase-
out -- about $0.6-0.7 billion for Scenario 1, and about $0.1 billion for
Scenarios 2 and 3 in the short term. In the post-2000 period, unlike the
phase-out, transfer payments exist for the freeze on production because methyl
chloroform continues to be produced. The payments are about $3 billion for
3 The present: value of transfer payments are calculated using a private
discount rate of six percent.
- 102 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 24
ESTIMATES OF TRANSFER PAYMENTS FOR PHASE-OUT AND FREEZE SCENARIOS8
(billions of 1985 dollars)
Scenario Short Term Long Term
(1989-2000) (1989-2075)
A. PHASE-OUT OF NCF PRODUCTION
1. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 4.7Xb
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 25) 0.852 0.852
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 26) 0.895 0.895
2. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.455°
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 27) 0.869 0.869
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 28) 0.818 0.818
3. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.23^
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 29) 0.854 0.854
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 30) 0.793 0.793
B. FREEZE OF MCF PRODUCTION6
1. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 4.7Jr
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 31) . 0.727 3.165
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 32) 0.578 2.846
2. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.4X0
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 33) 0.083 0.416
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 34) 0.000 0.000
3. Growth Rate for Production (1989-2000) = 2.23^
Base Year: 1986 (Exhibit 35) 0.082 0.408
Base Year: 1988 (Exhibit 36) 0.000 0.000
a Payments are discounted at 6 percent. It is assumed that the baseline growth in HCF
production is 2.2 percent per year for the period 2001-2050 and zero after the year 2050.
Corresponds to the "low conservation-high chlorinated solvent switch" scenario presented in
the September 19 MCF Draft Report for the CMR end use distribution.
c Corresponds to the "high conservation-low chlorinated solvent switch" scenario presented in
the September 19 MCF Draft Report for the CMR end use distribution.
Corresponds to the "low conservation-no solvent switch" scenario presented in the
e It is assumed that the production freeze will continue to be met after 2000 with the set of
September 19 MCF Draft Report for the CMR end use distribution.
It is assumed that the proc
controls selected in 2000.
- 103 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
Scenario 1 in the period 1989 to 2075, and about $0.4 billion for Scenarios 2
and 3.
In general, the estimates of transfer payments are lower if the base
year is assumed to be 1988 instead of 1986. However, as the estimate of
transfer payments in any year is the product of the amount of methyl
chloroform produced and the increase in the price of methyl chloroform, this
need not be true always (as is borne out by the entries for Scenario 1 under a
phase-down in Exhibit 24). What will always be true is that if the base year
is assumed to be 1986 rather than 1988, the amount of methyl chloroform
produced in any given year will be always lower and the increase in the price
of methyl chloroform will always be higher (or the same).
Exhibits 25 through 36 show the baseline production, the production
target, and the actual production under controls for each year in the period
1989 to 2000 for all scenarios.
- 104 -
* * *.. DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 25
PHASE-OUT OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1966; Baseline Growth = 4.7%
600
500 -
C
o
C
_o
V
o
•o
o
CL
U_
O
400
300
100
200 -
i i i i i i i i i i i i r
1986 1967 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D
Baseline
Year
Target
o
Controlled
- 105 -
DR
19
-------
O)
.£
C
O
C
g
IP
o
•D
O
i_
0.
U.
O
PHASE-OUT OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1988; Baseline Growth - 4.7%
600
500
400 -
300 -
200 -
100
0
i i i 1 1 1 —i 1 1 1 1 r
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D Baseline
Year
+ Target o Controlled
- 106 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 27
PHASE-OUT OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1966; Baseline Growth = 2.4%
600
500 -
O)
.£
C
O
.0
V
O
•o
O
l_
a.
u_
O
400
300 -
200
100
0
i i i i i i i I I i i i r
1966 1987 1986 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D Baseline
Year
+ Target o Controlled
- 107 -
* * * DRAFT. DO NOT QUOTE - -. OCTOBER S, 1989 * *•_._*.
-------
EXHIBIT 28
PHASE-OUT OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1988; Baseline Growth = 2.4%
600
500 -
D)
X.
C.
o
C
_o
'•&
o
•o
o
l_
Q.
U.
O
5
400 -
300 -
200 -
100
i i i I i i i i i i i i r
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
n Baseline
Year
+ Target o Controlled
- 108 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 29
PHASE-OUT OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Yean 1986; Baseline Growth = 2.2%
600
500 -
O)
x.
c
o
c
o
*!
O
•a
o
_
O
400
300
200 -
100 -
0
i i i I i i i i i i i i r
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
n Baseline
+
Year
Target
o
Controlled
- 109 -
* * -JL PR ACT DO NOT DTTfVTF - -
E'P _S._ 1 QBQ _ * *
-------
EXHIBIT 30
CD
jt:
c
o
.0
'<£!
O
TJ
O
i_
CL
Ll.
O
600
500 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
100 -
0
PHASE-OUT OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1988; Baseline Growth -. 2.2%
i i i i i i i i i i i i r
1986 1987 1988 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000
D
Baseline
Year
+ Targe! o Controlled
- no -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 ,* * *
-------
EXHIBIT 31
FREEZE OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1986; Baseline Growth - 4.7%
600
500 -
O)
.£
C
O
.0
1*3
u
3
•O
O
CL
U_
O
400 -
300 -
200
100 -
T~ I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 T
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D Baseline
Year
+ Target o Controlled
- ill -
DO MOT QUQ1E1 -- QC1DBER i 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 32
O)
J£
O
c
O
O
CL
LL.
O
600
500 -
400
300 -
200
100
FREEZE OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1988: Baseline Growth = 4.7%
0
i i i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 r
1986 1967 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000
D Baseline
Year
+ Target o Controlled
- 112 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 33
0)
X
C
o
.0
*!
U
•o
O
o
600
500 -
400
300 -
200
100 -
FREEZE OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Yean 1986: Baseline Growth - 2.4%
0
i - 1 - 1 - 1 i i i i i - 1 - 1 - 1 - r
1986 1967 1986 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D Baseline
+
Year
Target
o
Controlled
- 113 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE. --
19M t*
-------
EXHIBIT 34
FREEZE OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year: 1988; Baseline Growth = 2.4%
600
500 -
O)
x.
o
o
V
o
•3
•o
o
_
O
400 -
300
200 -
100
0
n 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1—~—n— 1 1
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D Baseline
Year
+ Target o Controlled
- 114 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT 35
O)
x.
o
c
_o
'£•
O
TJ
O
a.
u.
o
600
500
400 -
300 -
200
100 -
0
FREEZE OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Yean 1986; Baseline Growth - 2.2%
i i I i i i i i I I i i r
1966 1987 1988 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D
Baseline
Year
Target
O
Controlled
- 115 -
* * * DRAFT- nn MOT
119
-------
EXHIBIT 36
FREEZE OF MCF PRODUCTION
Base Year 1988; Baseline Growth - 2.2%
600
500
o>
a
o
.0
V
o
3
•o
O
CL
U.
O
400
300 -
200 -
100 -
0
i I i i i i i i i i i i i
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
D Baseline
Year
+ Target o Controlled
- 116 -
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
APPENDIX A: CALCULATION OF INDUSTRY GROWTH RATES FOR METAL CLEANING AND
ELECTRONICS
MCF demand will grow or decline as production in the industries using
this solvent grows or contracts. To estimate the growth in the metal cleaning
and the electronics industries (i.e., the vapor degreasing and cold cleaning
end uses of MCF), this analysis uses historical growth rates reported in the
"1989 U.S. Industrial Outlook" published by the Department of Commerce. .The
growth rate estimates presented below correspond to industries classified as
2-digit SIC codes which use methyl chloroform: seven SIC codes for metal
cleaning industries and one SIC code for the electronics industry. These SIC
codes account for most of the MCF consumption in these two end-uses1:
('82MM$)
1989 Industry
SIC Code Industry Growth Rates Shipments
Metal Cleaning:
25 Furniture & Fixtures +1.9% 15.3
33 Primary Metal Industries -0.8% 65.2
34 Fabricated Metal Products +1.1% 54.0
35 Machinery, except Electrical -0.2% 72.9
37 Transportation Equipment +3.0% 286.2
38 Instruments and Related Products +4.8% 67.6
39 Misc. Manufacturing Industries +1.1% 14.3
Weighted Average Growth Rate: +2.1% 575.5
Electronics:
36 Electric & Electronic Equipment +8.7% 233.8
The U.S. Industrial Outlook (1989) reports average annual growth rates
for the period 1984-1989 for 4-digit SIC codes; thus, an aggregation of these
figures is needed to arrive at estimates for 2-digit SIC codes presented
above. Exhibit A-l shows the calculation of the weighted average annual
growth rates including all of the 4-digit SIC codes corresponding to a 2-digit
SIC code. The 4-digit averages are weighted using 1989 industry shipments in
constant (1982) dollars2.
MCF may also be used for degreasing applications in SIC 75, Automobile Repair, Services & Parking;
however, the U.S. Industrial Outlook does not report growth rates for this industry.
A more rigorous approach would be to weight these growth rates by solvent consumption in each SIC
code; however, based on previous research this methodology has proved difficult to implement because of the
lack of information on solvent use by SIC code.
A - 1
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EXHIBIT A - 1. WEIGHTED AVERAGE GROWTH RATES FOR METAL CLEANING AND ELECTRONICS.
SIC Industry Title
2511 Wood Household Furniture
2512 Upholstered Houselhold Furniture
2514 Metal Household Furniture
2515 Mattresses and Bedsprings
25 Furniture and Fixtures
331 A Steel Mill Products \a
332 Iron and Steel Foundries
3331 Primary Copper
336 Nonferrous Foundries
33 Primary Metals
3411 Metal Cans
3441 Fabricated Structural Metal
3448 Prefabricated Metal Buildings
3451 Screw Machine Products
3452 Bolts, Nuts, Rivets, and Washers
3465 Automotive Stampings
3494 Valves and Pipe Fittings
34 Fabricated Metal
3523 Farm Machinery and Equipment
3524 Lawn and Garden Equipment
3531 Construction Machinery
3532 Mining Machinery
3533 Oilfield Machinery
3541 Metal-Cutting Machine Tools
3542 Metal -Forming Machine Tools
3546 Power Driven Handtools
3551 Food Products Machinery
3552 Textile Machinery
3554 Paper Industries Machinery
3555 Printing Trades Machinery
3561 Pumps and Pumping Equipment
3562 Ball and Roller Bearings
3563 Air and Gas Compressors
3585 Refrigeration and Heating Equipment
3592 Carburators, Pistons, and Rings, Etc.
35 Machinery, Electric
1989
INDUSTRY
SHIPMENTS
(BILL. 82$)
(1)
6.615
4.875
1.865
1.942
15.297
46.946
9.845
2.800
5.645
65.236
11.567
7.746
3.020
3.300
5.090
14.500
8.740
53.963
6.835
3.273
13.350
1.593
3.779
2.657
1.911
2.080
2.238
1.118
1.944
2.655
5.883
3.792
3.041
14.332
2.464
72.945
COMPOUND
ANNUAL
GROWTH
89/84
(2)
1.8
3.1
0.8
0.5
-0.6
-1.7
-1.2
-0.6
0.8
-1.1
4.7
3.0
2.5
1.4
0.1
-6.0
2.2
2.0
0.3
-8.8
-2.9
8.6
1.2
0.4
1.9
10.7
1.7
0.8
0.7
-0.2
-0.9
-3.4
WEIGHTED
GROWTH
RATE
(1)*(2)/ (1)
1.927
-0.792
1.088
======
-0.204
(CONTINUED)
* * *
A - 2
DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989
* * *
-------
EXHIBIT A - 1. WEIGHTED AVERAGE GROWTH RATES FOR METAL CLEANING AND ELECTRONICS.
SIC Industry Title
3612 Transformers
3613 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus
3621 Motors and Generators
3622 Industrial Controls
3631 Household Cooking Equipment
3632 Household Refrigerators and Freezers
3633 Household Laundry Equipment
3634 Electric Housewares and Fans
3635 Household Vacuum Cleaners
3636 Sewing Machines
3639 Household Appliances, n.e.c.
364A Lighting Fixtures \b
3643 Current-carrying Wiring Devices
3644 Noncurrent-carrying Wiring Devices
3647 Vehicular Lighting Equipment
3651 Radio and Television Receiving Sets
3661 Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus
3662 Radio and TV Communication Equipment
367 Electronic Components and Accessories \c
3691 Storage Batteries
3693 X-ray and Elect romedical Apparatus
3694 Engine Electrical Equipment
36 Electric/Electronic Equipment
3711 Motor Vehicles and Car Bodies
3713 Truck and Bus Bodies
3714 Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories
3715 Truck Trailers
3716 Motor Homes
3721 Aircraft
3724 Aircraft Engines and Engine Parts
3728 Aircraft Equipment, n.e.c.
3731 Ship Building and Repairing
3751 Motorcycles, Bicycles, and Parts
3761 Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles
3764 Space Propulsion Units and Parts
3769 Space Vehicle Equipment, n.e.c.
37 Transportation Equipment
1989
INDUSTRY
SHIPMENTS
(BILL. 82$)
(1)
2.997
4.809
6.196
5.241
2.730
3.327
3.410
2.685
1.410
0.175
2.200
5.209
2.997
2.036
1.650
12.843
14.796
51.465
93.120
2.991
5.903
5.586
233.776
108.470
3.761
56.444
3.083
2.013
35.450
19.400
19.920
7.000
1.025
23.900
3.520
2.240
286.226
COMPOUND
ANNUAL
GROWTH
89/84
(2)
-0.3
-2.2
0.2
1.3
-3.5
2.8
5.4
-2.7
2.1
1.2
1.8
2.5
-1.1
-1.4
3.9
8.3
-0.5
6.6
16.6
-1.3
3.9
-0.6
-0.8
3.8
1.8
-0.6
0.2
7.3
8.9
5.4
-4.8
-1.4
14.1
5.9
-8.0
WEIGHTED
GROWTH
RATE
(1)*(2)/ (1)
8.661
=5====
3.045
(CONTINUED)
* * *
A - 3
DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989
* * *
-------
EXHIBIT A - 1. WEIGHTED AVERAGE GROWTH RATES FOR METAL CLEANING AND ELECTRONICS.
SIC Industry Title
3811 Engineering and Scientific Instrument
3822 Environmental Controls
3823 Process Control Instruments
3824 Fluid Meters and Counting Devices
3825 Instruments to Measure Electricity
3829 Measuring and Controlling Devices
3832 Optical Instruments and Lenses
3841 Surgical and Medical Instruments
3842 Surgical Appliances and Supplies
3843 Dental Equipment and Supplies
3861 Photographic Equipment and Supplies
38 Instruments
3911 Jewelry and Precious Metals
3914 Silverware and Plated Ware
3931 Musical Instruments
3942,44 Dolls, Games and Toys \d
3949 Sporting & Athletic Goods
3961 Costume Jewelry
39 Misc. Manufacturing Industries
TOTAL FOR ALL INDUSTRIES
1989
INDUSTRY
SHIPMENTS
(BILL. 82$)
(1)
4.871
1.881
4.125
1.022
7.765
3.057
7.511
6.682
9.034
1.451
20.211
67.610
3.455
0.473
0.713
3.338
5.292
1.063
14.334
809.387
COMPOUND
ANNUAL
GROWTH
89/84
(2)
8.9
0.7
2.8
6.4
1.3
7.7
7.8
9.1
6.7
5.1
2.1
2.2
-2.4
-1.5
-7.9
7.2
-1.1
WEIGHTED
GROWTH
RATE
(1)*<2)/ (1)
4.824
1.113
\a 331A includes SIC 3312, 15, 16, 17
\b 364A includes SIC 3645, 46, 48
\c 367 includes SIC 3671-2, 3674-9
Annual growth rate calculated for 89/85
\d SIC's 3942, 44 - Annual growth rate for 86/81
Source: U.S. Industrial Outlook, 1989
* * *
A - 4
DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989
* * *
-------
APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTION OF METHOD USED TO PROJECT SOLVENT SUBSTITUTION IN THE
AEROSOLS INDUSTRY
With the increased regulatory attention to methylene chloride and
perchloroethylene, the use of methyl chloroform might increase as producers
using other chlorinated solvents search for alternatives. The consumption of
chlorinated solvents in various aerosol product categories has been estimated
in a previous analysis (ICF 1989a) by means of the following calculation:
Pounds of chlorinated solvent = (weight concentration of the solvent in
formulation X) * (weight of average can) *
(market share of formulation) * (number of
cans filled in category)
Using this formula and data for the market size, aerosol formulations,
and can sizes available in 1987, the methyl chloroform consumption is
estimated at 41 million pounds in the base case (ICF 1989a). Assuming
regulatory restrictions are imposed on the use of methylene chloride and
perchloroethylene, the choices currently available to producers include:
• switch to an existing formulation that uses only methyl chloroform
as the primary solvent if available;
• reformulate to a new formulation that uses methyl chloroform as the
primary solvent; and
• switch to a non-chlorinated alternative.
The consumption of MCF is projected assuming that manufacturers will
reformulate aerosol products eliminating methylene chloride and
perchloroethylene and switching to MCF. If non-chlorinated alternatives
exist, the methyl chloroform formulation will share the market with these
formulations in amounts proportional to their 1987 market shares, excluding
the portion of the market occupied by the regulated formulations1. This
methodology is applied to all aerosol product categories resulting in a
projected MCF consumption of 62 million pounds. Assuming that this increased
MCF demand occurred in 12 years, the annual increase is 3.5 percent2.
example, assume that the methylene chloride formulation has a market
share of 40 percent, the MCF formulation accounts for 20 percent and the non-
chlorinated formulation accounts for 40 percent of the 1987 market. As
substitution occurs, the MCF formulation will take one third (20/60) of 40
percent and the non-chlorinated formulation will take the remaining two thirds
of 40 percent.
2 (62/41)A(l/12) = 1.035, or 3.5 percent.
B - 1
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
REFERENCES
Aerosol Age 1989. "Water-base aerosols for the Pesticide Industry," by Steven
E. Rogosheske. March, 1987.
Aerosol Age 1989. "Aerosol Production Hits New High in 1988", by Dan Minogue.
May 1989.
Argent, D. 1985. "Water Base Laminating Inks - Technical Review", 1985
Polymers, Laminations & Coatings Conference Proceedings.
Capristo 1989. Telephone conversation with Mike Capristo, BASF Corporation
and Peter Weisberg, ICF, Inc. August 9, 1989.
Chemical Engineering 1987. "Coatings get a new look, as pace of solvent
phaseout quickens". January 1987, p.14.
Chemical Marketing Reporter 1987. "Coatings Materials '87 -- Solvent Sales
Plunge as Substitutes Soar". October 5, 1987, p.40.
Chemical Marketing Reporter 1988. "Chlorosolvent Makers Ponder Shaky
Outlook", May 2, 1988.
Chemical Marketing Reporter 1989. "Chemical Profile -- 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane". January 30, 1989.
Chemical Week 1988. "Adhesives and Sealants -- Stronger than Ever", March 16,
1988.
Chemical Week 1987. "Adhesives and Sealants -- A Booming $ 4 billion
Business", March 18, 1987.
C&EN 1989. Chemical and Engineering News. "Adhesives and Sealants Formulators
Look to Specialties for Growth", February 27, 1989.
Clark, Whaite M., 1987. "High-Solids Coatings," in Products Finishing
Directory 1987 (Cincinati, Ohio: Gardner Publications), Vol. 50, No. 12A (Dec,
1987), pp. 24-31.
Collins, R. 1989. Telephone converstaion with Rick Collins, Kirk's Suede-Life
Inc. and Jeff Kash. September 12, 1989.
Dickowitz, 1989. Telephone conversation with Dockowitz, Multi-Matic, Inc.
and Jeff Kash, ICF Incorporated. September 13 and 15, 1989.
Dow Chemical 1989. Letter from Carol Niemi, Environmental Specialist - Air
Issues, Dow Chemical U.S.A. in response to MCF ANPRM dated June 29, 1989.
R-l
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
EPA 1988. "Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from the
Application of Traffic Markings", prepared by the Control Technology
Center, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1"988.
Farrell, Ron, 1987. "Powder Coatings," in Products Finishing Directory 1987
(Cincinati, Ohio: Gardner Publications), Vol. 50, No. 12A (Dec, 1987), pp.
32-40.
Fitzwater, John E., 1986. "Formulation Options Produce Aqueous Coating
Improvements," in Modern Paint and Coatings (Aug, 1986), pp. 32-6.
Gengler, B. 1989. Personal communication between Bob Gengler, AT&T and
Sudhakar Kesavan, ICF Incorporated. August 30, 1989.
HSIA 1987. White Paper on 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. Halogenated Solvents
Industry Alliance. June 1987.
ICF 1988a. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone.
Volume III. Addenda to the Regulatory Impact Analysis Document. Part 7:
Solvents and Part 10: Supplement -- Revisions to Engineering Data. Prepared
for the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA. August 1, 1988.
ICF 1988b. Use and Substitutes Analysis for Chlorinates Solvents in Metal
Cleaning Report. Draft Report. Volume I-III. Prepared for the Regulatory
Impacts Branch, Economics and Technology Division, Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA. March 1988.
ICF 1988c. Use and Substitutes Analysis of Chlorinated Solvents in Aerosols
Draft Report. Prepared for the Regulatory Impacts Branch, Economics and
Technology Division, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA.
April 14, 1988.
ICF 1989a. Use and Substitutes Analysis of Methyl Chloroform (1,1,1-
Trichloroethane). Preliminary Draft Report. Prepared for the Global Change
Division, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA. February 14, 1989.
ICF 1989b. "Costs of Banning Consumer Spot Removers Containing Methylene
Chloride or Perchloroethylene", memorandum from ICF to Dan Axelrad, Regulatory
Impacts Branch, Economics and Technology Division, Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA. February 14, 1989.
International Fabricare Institute, 1988. "A Study of Dowclene LS, 1,1,1
Trichloroethane", publisged by the International Fabricare Institute in
collaboration with Dow Chemical. September 1988.
Jarosh, John I., 1985. "Powder Coating Finish For '85," in Production (Feb,
1985), pp. 46-9.
Johnson, Steven D., 1987. "Water-Borne Coatings," in Products Finishing
Directory 1987 (Cincinati, Ohio: Gardner Publications), Vol. 50, No. 12A (Dec,
R-2
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
-------
1987), pp. 41-6.
Kidd, R. , 1989. Telephone conversation between Robert Kidd, McGee Industries,
and Peter Weisberg, ICF Incorporated. October 3, 1989.
OAQPS 1989. "Alternative Control Technology Document - Halogenated Solvent
Cleaners", prepared by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA.
Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1989.
PCI 1987. "Powder Coatings Today," by Gregory J. Bocchi, Powder Coatings
Institute, 1987.
PEI 1987. Cost of Engineering Controls for Brake Maintenance/Repair.
Prepared by PEI Associates, Inc. for the Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, U.S. EPA. August 31, 1987.
Podhany, R.M. 1988. "Waterborne Inks Proven As Acceptable Alternative", Paper,
Film, and Foil Converter. July 1988.
Rogosheske 1989. Telephone conversation between Steven E. Rogosheske,
McLaughlin Gormley King Company, and Patricia Koman, ICF Incorporated, October
3, 1989.
Ruckriegel , M.J. 1989. Telephone converstaion with M. Ruckriegel, Allied
Signal, Inc. and Farzan Riza, ICF Incorpoarted. September 15, 1989.
Toepke, S., 1989. Telephone conversation between Sheldon Toepke, McDonnell
Douglas Corporation, and Alex Greenwood, ICF Incorporated. October 3, 1989.
U.S. Industrial Outlook 1989. U.S. Department of Commerce/International Trade
Administration. January 1989, Edition 40, pp.18-20.
Van Der Graf, J., 1989. Telephone conversation between Jan Van Der Graf, Percy
Harms Corporation, and Peter Weisberg, ICF Incorporated. October 3, 1989.
Warnes, M. 1989. Telephone conversation between M. Warnes, California
Department of Transportation and Alexander Greenwood, ICF Incorporated.
September 18, 1989.
Weiss, L. 1988. "Interchangeable Trolleys for Flexo & Gravure", Paper, Film
and Foil Converter. January 1988.
Wolf, K. 1989. "Response to EPA Federal Registrer Notice on Restricting
Production of Methyl Chloroform and Carbon Tetrachloride", by Katy Wolf,
Ph.D., Project Manager, Source Reduction Research Partnership, Los Angeles,
CA. p. 3. June 1989.
Zasachy, R., 1989. Telephone conversation between Ron Zasachy, Park Chemical
Company, and Peter Weisberg, ICF Incorporated. October 3, 1989.
R-3
* * * DRAFT, DO NOT QUOTE -- OCTOBER 5, 1989 * * *
------- |