ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS OF REASONABLY
AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLIED TO
SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL
PARTS AND PRODUCTS
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
-------
ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS OF REASONABLY
AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLIED TO
SURFACE COATING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL
PARTS AND PRODUCTS
by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Federal Contract No. 68-01-4147
Task Order No. 121
EPA Task Manager
Robert L. King
EPA Project Officer
John R. Busik
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DIVISION OF STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
May 1980
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, in
fulfillment of Task Order No. 121 of Contact No. 68-01-4147. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from
the contractor. The opinions, findings, and conclusions ex-
pressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the
EPA.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As an emission source category, the miscellaneous metal
parts and products segment of manufacturing includes all product
manufacturing and job shop operations under the Standard In-
dustrial Classification (SIC) code of Major Groups 33 through 39
except those specifically covered by other Control Technique
Guideline documents. Because this category is a "catch-all" for
metal coating operations that are too small to justify prepa-
ration of individual control technique guideline documents, it
includes various types of completely dissimilar industries. Such
surface coating operations are major contributors of emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC). Regulation of these emissions
demands satisfactory resolution of enforcement problems resulting
from the unique nature of the category.
Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce indicate that the
miscellaneous metal parts and products category contains.numerous
small emission sources. The category includes roughly 96,000
establishments. Approximately 87,000 of these employ less than
100 persons and 66,000 employ no more than 20. Geographically,
these establishments are distributed throughout the continental
United States, with the heaviest concentrations near large popu-
lation centers in the Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and
Pacific Regions.
The major enforcement difficulty in regulating VOC emissions
from this industry category stems from the large number of
relatively small establishments. These establishments, however,
form a relatively small percentage of total VOC emissions.
Enforcement of regulations for all (large and small) sources
(through permits, annual registration, and periodic inspection)
iii
-------
would result in only minimal additional reduction of total VOC
emissions when compared with the results of regulation of select-
ed large sources.
Diversity of products in this source category also leads to
enforcement problems. Products range from needles, pins, and
fasteners (SIC 3964) to prefabricated structures (SIC 3441).
Such diversity requires an enforcement effort that is geared to
cope with a variety of coating formulations and application
techniques.
In an effort to limit the size of the enforcement effort
required for this source category, this study analyzes population
and emission data and selects an emission exemption level. The
selected emission exemption level (quantity that could be
emitted without being subject to regulation) should significantly
reduce the number of regulated establishments without allowing a
significant amount of the total VOC emissions to go unregulated.
An analysis of the effect of various exemption levels was based
on data obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Figure I
presents the results of this analysis. Personnel on the staff
of EPA's Division of Stationary Source Enforcement and the
Control Programs Development Division reviewed these results
with PEDCo. The joint conclusion of that review was that an
exemption level of 10 tons per year would provide the desired
balance of emission control versus enforcement effort. Although
the exemption level of 10 tons per year eliminates from regulation
all but 14.2 percent of the establishments in this source cate-
gory, 85.9 percent of the VOC emissions would still be regulated.
The problem of product diversity is most evident in devel-
oping control strategies. Regulations can be and often are
written so as to favor a particular control strategy (e.g., the
use of high solids coatings or electrostatic spraying), which may
be appropriate in some of the more homogeneous source categories;
however, regulations for a category that is characterized by
diversity should allow for maximum flexibility in the choice of
IV
-------
100
M 90
9t
_i
o
£ 80
o
g 70
>—
t_>
CO
13
oo
00
DC.
O
CD
»—i
OO
60
50
oo
^ 40
30
20
10
0
EM
EMS
ES
ESS
T
TOTAL EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS SUBJECT TO CONTROL
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
ESTABLISHMENTS SUBJECT TO
CONTROL
EM
ff^xlOO
O-
JL_
J_
o-o-o_n
10
20
30
50 100 200 300
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
—o o o o o oooo
500 1000 2000
Figure I. Effect of emission exemption levels on emissions and establishments
subject to control.
-------
control strategies. Process modifications (such as the use of
waterborne coatings, high-solids coatings, powder coatings, or
electrostatic spray application) or add-on technology (such as
carbon adsorption or incineration) may be applicable to certain
industries in this source category.
Given a reasonable exemption level and regulations that
allow for a variety of control strategies, typical enforcement
problems will be concerned with the determination of the exemption
status of establishments, the compliance status of nonexempt
establishments, and the equivalency of alternate control strat-
egies. The information required to make these determinations is
generally available from company records or can be obtained by
the company without undue effort.
Setting a reasonable exemption level and allowing maximum
flexibility in the choice of control strategies should reduce to
a manageable level the enforcement problems associated with
controlling VOC emissions from the surface coating of miscel-
laneous metal parts and products.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary iii
Figures ix
Tables x
Acknowledgment xii
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Industry Population 2-1
References 2-8
3. Surface Coating Processes 3-1
Dip coating 3-1
Flow coating 3-2
Curtain coating 3-3
Spray coating 3-4
References 3-6
4. Analysis of Emission Exemption Levels 4-1
Analysis approach 4-1
Results 4-6
5. Proposed Regulations and Emission Control Techniques 5-1
Proposed regulations 5-1
Emission control techniques 5-3
References 5-7
6. Enforcement of Regulations 6-1
Determination of exemption level 6-1
Application of alternative strategies 6-4
Appendix A Industries Considered for Inclusion in the
Data Base A-l
Appendix B Number of Establishments and Employees in
the SIC Product Groups Being Studied B-l
VII
-------
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Data Base Used to Analyze the Effects of
Emission Exemption Levels C-l
Procedures for Estimating Total VOC Emis-
sions D-l
Distribution of Establishments in 1972
by Employment Category E-l
Available and Generated Data F-l
Procedures for Proportioning VOC Emissions
by Establishment Size G-l
Estimated Breakdown of VOC Emissions by
Employment Category and SIC Code H-l
Transfer Efficiency Test Results 1-1
Vlll
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
I Effect of Emission Exemption Levels on Emissions
and Establishments Subject to Control v
1 Geographical Divisions Defined by the U.S.
Department of Commerce 2-7
2 Emissions and Establishments by Employment
Category 4_5
3 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 1 to 19
Employees - 4-15
4 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 20 to 49
Employees 4-16
5 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 50 to 99
Employees " 4-17
6 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 100 to 249
Employees 4-18
7 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 250 to 499
Employees 4-19
8 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 500 to 999
Employees 4-20
9 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 1000 or more
Employees 4-21
10 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for All
Establishments 4-22
11 Relationship Between All Establishments Subject
to Control and Emissions Subject to Control 4-23
ix
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Geographic Distribution of Establishments
in Data Base 2-4
2 Emissions of VOC and Establishments by
Employment Category 4-4
3 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 1 to 19
Employees 4-7
4 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 20 to 49
Employees 4-8
5 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 50 to 99
Employees 4-9
6 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 100 to 249
Employees 4-10
7 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 250 to 499
Employees 4-11
8 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 500 to 999
Employees 4-12
9 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for the
Category of Establishments With 1000 or more
Employees 4-13
10 Effect of Emission Exemption Levels for All
Establishments 4-14
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
Page
11 Techniques for Controlling VOC Emissions From
Surface Coating Operations 5-4
A-l Industries Considered for Inclusion in Data Base
Used to Analyze the Effects of Emission Exemp-
tion Levels A-2
B-l Employees and Establishments in the SIC Groups
for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products B-2
C-l Data Base Used to Analyze the Effects of Emis-
sion Exemption Levels C-2
H-l Estimated Breakdown of VOC Emissions by Employ-
ment Category and SIC Code H-2
XI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati. Mr.
Robert L. King was the EPA Task Manager, and PEDCo appreciates
his contributions to this study. PEDCo is also appreciative of
contributions by Thomas Williams of the Control Programs Devel-
opment Division.
Mr. Thomas C. Ponder, Jr., served as the PEDCo Project
Director, and Mr. Yatendra M. Shah served as PEDCo Project Mana-
ger. Mr. Shah and Mr. George J. Beaujon, also of PEDCo, were the
principal authors.
XII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The surfaces of most manufactured goods and articles are
coated, for appearance and protection, with paint composed of
organic solvents and resins. The solvents evaporate during the
curing process, and most escape to the atmosphere if no measures
are taken to capture and recycle them.
Surface coating operations are major contributors to emis-
sions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a control technique
guidelines (CTG) document for VOC emission sources associated
with surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products.
Each state is required to submit a revised state implementation
plan (SIP) outlining reasonably available control technologies
(RACT) for these surface coating operations in nonattainment
areas.
Because the classification of miscellaneous metal parts and
products includes hundreds of small- to medium-size industries
with many dissimilarities, it is important that VOC control
regulations affecting these industries be thoroughly understood.
The purpose of this project was to evaluate potential en-
forcement problems. Such an evaluation required determination of
the composition, emissions, and size distribution of industries
in this classification. Section 2 presents a list of the indus-
tries included, data on the number of employees and establish-
ments, and a regional breakdown of establishments.
Section 3 discusses the major advantages and disadvantages
of various surface coating processes, including dip, flow,
curtain, and spray coating.
1-1
-------
Section 4 presents an analysis of VOC emission exemption
levels. By showing the effects of different exemption levels on
emissions and establishments subject to control, the analysis
indicates the enforcement efforts required by different exemption
levels.
Section 5 surveys VOC emission control techniques, including
alternative coatings, process modifications, and add-on controls.
The discussion provides guidance to establishments in the selec-
tion of the appropriate technique.
Section 6 discusses three specific enforcement problems:
(1) determination of appropriate exemption level, (2) deter-
mination of the exemption and compliance status of designated
facilities, and (3) application of alternative control strategies,
Appendices A through H present the data and calculation
procedures used in the exemption level analysis. Appendix I
contains the data related to transfer efficiency tests at Rans-
burg Corporation.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
INDUSTRY POPULATION
The classification of miscellaneous metal parts and products
encompasses all industries except those that fall under a spe-
cific surface coating process or product line (e.g., the painting
of large appliances). It includes all product manufacturing and
job shop operations under the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) Code of Major Groups 33 through 39 except operations that
are covered by other CTG documents. The following industrial
groups are included.
Large farm machinery (e.g., harvesting, fertilizing,
and planting machines; tractors; and combines)
Small farm machinery (e.g., lawn and garden tractors,
lawn mowers, and rototillers)
Small appliances (e.g., fans, mixers, blenders, crock
pots, dehumidifiers, and vacuum cleaners)
Commercial machinery (e.g., computers and auxiliary
equipment, typewriters, calculators, and vending
machines)
Industrial machinery (e.g., pumps, compressors, con-
veyor components, fans, blowers, and transformers)
Fabricated metal products (e.g., metal-covered doors
and frames)
Any other industrial group that coats metal parts or
products under the Standard Industrial Classification
Code of Major Group 33 (primary metal industries),
Major Gro.up 34 (fabricated metal products) , Major Group
35 (nonelectrical machinery), Major Group 36 (elec-
trical machinery), Major Group 37 (transportation
2-1
-------
equipment), Major Group 38 (miscellaneous instruments),
and Major Group 39 (miscellaneous manufacturing in-
dustries) .
Surface coating operations for the following products are
excluded because these products are specifically covered by other
CTG documents.
Automobiles and light-duty trucks
Metal cans
Flat metal sheets and strips in the form of rolls or
coils
Magnet wire for use in electrical machinery
Metal furniture
Large appliances
Surface coating of airplane and marine vessel exteriors is
excluded because they use high-performance coatings applied under
conditions that cannot be easily controlled. Parts for the
exteriors of airplanes and marine vessels that are coated as a
separate manufacturing or coating operation, however, are in-
tended to be covered by this regulation. Also excluded are
automobile refinishing and customized top coating of automobiles
and trucks where such operations turn out less than 35 vehicles
2
per day.
Emission regulations that apply to miscellaneous metal parts
and products cover application areas, flashoff areas, air and
forced air dryers, and drying/curing ovens. Determining the
magnitude of efforts needed to enforce these regulations required
a population analysis extending to four-digit SIC product groups.
The analysis excluded Major Group 33 (primary metal industries)
because surface coating is not practiced in this group.
The tabular material in Appendix A presents every four-digit
SIC product group under Major Groups 34 through 39. As is
typical of the miscellaneous metal parts and products category,
2-2
-------
many products do not fall within a well-defined group; these are
placed in a group referred to as "not elsewhere classified"
(NEC).
Appendix A also indicates which industries were included in
the data base for analysis of the effects of different emission
exemption levels. Industries were excluded from the data base
for two reasons: (1) they could not be classified under the
surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products as
defined by CTG; and (2) their surface coating operations were
either insignificant or nonexistent. The data base included 120
of the 170 four-digit SIC groups considered. Group 3572 (type-
writers) and Group 3579 [office machines (NEC)] were combined and
counted as one group.
The tabular material in Appendix B lists the total number of
employees, the number of establishments, and the number of estab-
lishments with 20 or more employees for each of the 120 product
groups included in this study. These data show that 66,158 of
the total 96,384 establishments in this source category employ
less than 20 persons. These data were obtained from the "1977
Census of Manufactures" (a publication of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census). The evalution of the effects of
various exemption levels for VOC emissions (Section 4) is based
on these data.
Table 1 shows the geographical distribution of establish-
ments in the SIC groups included in this study according to the
divisions reported in the "1977 Census of Manufactures" and
depicted in Figure 1. Distribution information was available
for only 99 of the 120 groups in the data base. Time, data,
and funding limitations prevented segregation by EPA region or
state or distribution by oxidant attainment status.
This tabular material points out the broad range of estab-
lishments classified under miscellaneous metal parts and products.
Products vary greatly in shape, size, and use; the number of
employees ranges from a handful to several hundred; and facil-
ities are located in virtually every part of the United States.
2-3
-------
TABLE 1. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF ESTABLISHMENTS IN- DATA BASE1
SIC
Code
3423
3425
3479
3431
343?
34)3
3443
3446
3446
3449
3465
3466
3469
3496
3498
3499
3573
3524
3531
3533
3535
3536
3537
3541
3544
J'.47
3549
In th
71fl
115
M69
98
J07
694
1670
1846
1499
461
415
579
56
2630
572
3205
1998
150
910
471
609
242
473
909
425
7154
1406
63
534
Ubittfeie
e United
269
5S
457
34
lOi
iea
641
93?
219
194
186
4i
1116
391
271
76'
65J
91
437
24]
79}
121
30;
16;
1476
IE
162
Is
tatet
429
60
712
64
102
S06
1029
914
1280
267
229
153
13
014
301
7433
1341
59
»73
728
79
314
171
105
602
763
5778
914
ZS
152
E
He*
74
56
44
53
BO
IB
250
?ns
107
74
620
186
49
EnqUnd
16
77
11
71
37
3
116
65
39
ID
113
60
13
"ents
i vision
a
29
3
3
a
t
17
140
68
14
507
126
36
E
At
US
199
117
301
337
32*
1?
537
161
764
53
603
97
23
66
to
94
47
1272
193
15
67
n lh* Middle
Untie Division
60
77
47
111
160
51
10
?IO
96
91
?B
43
i;
aj
3
2)
1)
237
61
9
33
75
121
70
290
177
283
2
312
173
75
54
45
7
67
30
I0]5
147
6
34
[stabl Ishments
In the East North
Central Division
174
202
25
4}
120
307
398
158
460
13
502
251
737
144
347
37
176
32
184
40
75
437
155
3395
475
36
15
125
74
109
13
24
45
129
72?
44
344
10
244
166
100
71
161
27
112
21
90
33
187
73
806
?74
?3
54
100
93
12
19
75
178
176
114
116
3
258
85
71
186
10
64
11
94
IS
42
250
62
2589
201
13
71
EstJbllthnpnti
In the West "Orlh
Central Jlvlslon
IS
77
106
176
61
IB
72
93
10
94
20
17
27
373
3?
I?
7
10
87
50
58
30
1)
ia
54
48
9
a
11
51
II
4
8
17
64
5G
6fl
31
7
54
39
46
11
9
16
274
71
a
t
All
59
315
184
120
101
30
17
6
12
16
169
8
sLdbltihmtnti
In 'he South
antic Division
20
He
86
71
13
3
6
9
32
6
39
167
98
49
88
3
6
7
137
2
Establish
11 the East
ventral Dl
1 1
193
91
104
56
8?
2
14
139
9
B9
36
63
12
39
2?
6
5
11
13
76
oents
South
B
104
55
ai
46
43
10
2
7
a
i)
113
i
in
14
9
26
143
794
172
60
76
G8
1?
31
17
178
41
lUblisnr
the Uest
nlral Dl
1
a
10
49
171
II
70
19
37
7
18
10
16
16
nenti
South
5
5
18
122
94
133
111
40
57
5
13
11?
25
E
60
44
"
St«bl lir»
in trie
32
25
7
28
19
4
Est
79
24
4?
;,
303
264
204
355
153
119
17
59
15
47
147
61
1?
25
7
25
171
105
10?
2t>
12)
45
46
a
20
a
16
30
8
10
54
u
17
187
159
178
234
ion
73
'
3)
;
31
1 17
53
U.S. «ual i
791
610
113
98
514
784
714
3fl
30?
117
197
366
152
326
220
107
70S
5?
43
59
6fl
136
;o
51
116
51
93
118
*t
'0
455
">9
J52
174
Ut
186
66
104
748
10?
230
150
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
SIC
Code
3552
J553
35J4
3SSS
3561
J563
J564
3566
3567
3568
3569
3574
3585
3M9
3599
361?
3613
3521
3679
3634
3639
3WI
3b44
3645
3646
36^8
1651
3661
3662
3677
3694
in the United Slate*
All
651
305
220
599
174
125
306
Z17
1636
963
61
868
977
9.160
280
665
448
219
293
SO
l&8
200
70S
210
77
575
266
2105
?97
p.o,eei
77?
107
103
;oi
199
160
124
157
529
446
31
466
271
144
313
?99
98
149
65
1?)
247
113
18?
155
959
1 7S
P 1 oyces
421
I9S
7J
783
182
60
no;
30
402
706
16.70?
136
352
121
40
103
79
461
9?
.1?
10?
386
211
1I4&
101
2J3
E
Al 1
86
3
8
97
104
33
31
820
13
B
9
JO
33
9
se
17
stabltih
In the
England
P 1 oyee
28
S
4
36
59
16
9
no
6
4
11
5
30
14
Dlviilon
ployees
5.
19
3
4
61
45
27
22
no
7
6
S
19
4
28
3
Csubl tirvnentf
in the H ddle
Atlantic Division
All
134
1?
186
27
77
%
1?
34?
157
86
14fl
977
19
89
8
16
48
18
16
?6fl
64
7
49
36
52
65
ployee
IS
4
58
35
?8
1?4
87
49
37
ISS
7
5?
5
9
19
3
11
100
J4
4
16
18
137
38
pl.,«,
96
8
12B
6
42
28
5
21B
70
37
111
8??
12
26
80
3
29
15
S
168
30
J
33
1R
U
IB
EUabllih
In the Eai
Central 01
All
17
138
46
no
84
94
458
24
184
80
1944
40
152
193
65
6
40
59
39
50
'-0
35
178
71
PI.,,,
6
»
36
59
41
;4
144
12
123
38
338
26
109
9B
41
18
4
31
76
21
29
22
22
69
52
32
men is
vision
Oloyees
11
83
10
46
43
20
314
12
61
42
1606
14
43
95
24
17
2
9
33
18
21
28
13
109
19
26
EstabHihnents
in the Wen North
Central DUIilon
All
21
42
45
S9
48
399
17
16
5
15
S
15
24
38
15
80
B
12
5
9
16
27
21
21
13
319
9
0
6
EiUM fstaenti
in me South
Atlantic Diviiton
243
32
60
30
818
15
23
9
12
II
104
11
101
10
11
18
25
9
71
12
10
7
2
5
49
7
*?0 em-
37
1*2
16
21
39
35
21
767
13
I
10
6
Establishment*
1n the East South
Central 0 viifon
12
9
21
20
43
8
12
10
4
>?0 em
8
4
14
9
3d
6
11
9
3
-20 en-
7
9
2
1
1
1
CltablUhmenli
In the Weil South
44
81
16
J2
83
37
129
55
31
10
53
10
8
13
133
16
'20 e*.
17
41
7
IS
22
10
54
13
11
6
12
3
6
8
S3
a
•20 etn-
27
40
9
17
61
27
75
42
20
4
41
7
2
5
BO
B
Establishment*
In the
15
.20 em-
4
60
8
•20 e-n-
471
7
Establishment* in
B9
46
217
320
91
isa
78
51
90
26
14
148
37
41
59
570
53
42
•20 en
1]
7
63
ISS
34
38
328
35
29
2S
12
6
58
19
39
29
•20 em.
46
39
154
165
57
120
30? 3
43
22
65
14
8
90
IB
16
20
273
33
U.S. eilabllihmtrnti
not c Unified
176
276
116
219
92
95
160
115
112
Til
J2Q
281
17?
427
BOG?
221
74?
125
150
103
190
129
50
150
111
70
70
85
J67
103
eoe
212
-20 en
47
97
W
65
3S
U
5?
43
76
IB
109
89
117
1052
lit
no
71
5?
44
33
65
21
6?
12
50
43
11
1-14
53
366
51
•20 e—
C?
129
179
62
57
48
108
72
68
15
222
172
83
315
no
137
46
98
10;
6J
71
38
59
Ul
40
123
44Q
37
122
N)
I
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
SIC
Code
3714
3731
3732
3743
3712
3311
3322
3S23
3824
3fl2S
3S29
183?
3841
3843
3873
3949
3764
3991
3993
3995
Is
in in
;6io
35)
610
2236
870
791
206
38S
110
66?
679
MB
68S
559
776
304
600
1870
272
409
407
991
165
309
479
120
269
283
-------
NJ
I
WEST NORTH
CENTRAL
EASTS SOUTH
CEIJTRAL
Figure 1. Geographical divisions defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources. Volume
VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Prod-
ucts. EPA-450/2-78-015 (OAQPS No. 1.2-101), June 1978.
2. Capone, S. V., and M. Petroccia. Guidance to State and
Local Agencies in Preparing Regulations to Control Volatile
Organic Compounds From Ten Stationary Source Categories.
EPA-450/2-79-004, September 1979.
2-8
-------
SECTION 3
SURFACE COATING PROCESSES
The industries examined in this study apply a variety of
surface coatings to a wide range of metal parts and products.
Processes include dip coating, flow coating, curtain coating, and
several kinds of spray coating. The choice depends upon such
variables as the type of coating to be applied, the size and
shape of the product, the production rate, and the desired final
appearance of the coated product. This section briefly describes
each major coating process.
DIP COATING
In dip coating, the product is submerged by hand or conveyor
in a tank of coating material. The tank is typically equipped
with circulating pumps and filters to keep the paint well mixed
and free of impurities. Viscosity and temperature of the paint,
which directly affect its coating characteristics, are monitored
closely.
Some advantages of dip coating are:
Products can be painted rapidly with consistent re-
sults.
No skilled labor is required, and the process can
easily be conveyorized, which makes costs relatively
low.
Internal surfaces that are difficult to paint with
other processes can be dip-coated easily if pockets of
trapped air are eliminated and all parts of the product
are designed for proper drainage.
3-1
-------
Some disadvantages of dip coating are:
The coating generally has several minor defects, such
as "drips," "tears," or "fat edges" on lower sections
and thin coatings on top or sharp edges. The use of
high-viscosity paints and slow dipping can minimize
these defects.
The relatively large quantities of paint required to
fill the tank can complicate change from one paint to
another (e.g., color change) and increase the risk of
paint deterioration or contamination.
Solvent loss can be a problem if paints with volatile
solvents are used in tanks with large surface areas and
small volumes.
Chemically cured paints such as epoxies and polyesters
cannot be used economically because of large wastage.
FLOW COATING
In flow coating, paint is poured onto the product and excess
paint is collected in a settling basin for filtration and recir-
culation. Generally, several paint streams are directed at the
product from different angles as it is conveyed through the
coating zone. Variations range from pouring paint on the product
in a steady stream (like that from a garden hose) to propelling
paint globules in a turbulent state against the product.
Some advantages of flow coating are:
The total volume of paint required is much less than
with dip coating because the product need not be sub-
merged; the volume of paint in the storage tanks of a
flow coating process rarely exceeds 10 percent of that
required by a dip tank, to handle the same job.
The flow of paint over the surface of the product tends
to "wash" the product in paint, and simultaneously
remove dust and other deposits that would harm paint
bonding; although products should be thoroughly washed
before any surface coating process, flow-coating seems
less sensitive to incomplete cleaning.
3-2
-------
Conveyorized processes need less headroom and attain
higher output than dip coating because they require no
provision for lowering the article into a tank.
Pigment settlement and accumulation of impurities occur
less often because the paint is circulated and filtered
more frequently than in dip coating operations.
Some disadvantages of flow coating are:
Solvent losses can be relatively high.
The danger of fire and explosion equals or exceeds that
of dip coating.
Relatively high solvent losses make maintenance of
constant paint viscosity more difficult.
The difficulties of changing paint are only slightly
less than with dip coating.
Although the finish on flow-coated products is superior
to that of dip-coated products, it is still inferior to
the finish on spray-coated products and would not be
considered acceptable in certain cases.
Although flow coating with chemically cured paints
(epoxies, polyester, etc.) is not generally recom-
mended, it is somewhat more feasible than dip coating
(because it requires a smaller volume of paint) and has
been practiced in certain cases.1
CURTAIN COATING
In curtain coating, paint is pumped through an adjustable,
horizontal gap in a pressure tank and forms a vertical falling
curtain or "waterfall" through which the products pass. Curtain
coating thickness can be changed by adjusting the gap and varying
the conveyor speed.
Some advantages of curtain coating are:
Products can be coated at extremely high speeds; a
well-organized painting line is required to keep the
curtain coater supplied with work and remove coated
products to the drying racks.1
Paint use is very economical because little excess
paint is required to guarantee adequate coating.
3-3
-------
Chemically cured coatings (epoxies, polyesters, etc.)
which generally involve two components can be applied
by putting the two components in separate curtains.
As with all automatic processes, consistent results are
possible when equipment is properly adjusted.
Some disadvantages of curtain coating are:
Curtain coating is really only practical for relatively
flat articles although adjustments can be made to
accommodate products with a gentle curve or shallow
molded surfaces and corrugated sheets.
The surface to be coated must be very clean to assure
even coating.
SPRAY COATING
In spray coating, paint is atomized into a mist and propelled
toward the surface to be coated. As with other coating processes,
automation is possible, which can improve performance and lower
costs. Spray coating can be accomplished by a conventional air
spray gun, an airless spray gun, or an electrostatic system.
Although the characteristics of each technique make it suitable
for particular applications, certain advantages and disadvantages
(in comparison with dip, flow, and curtain coating) are common to
all kinds of spray coating.
Some advantages of spray coating are:
Spray coating is very flexible because the same gun can
be used to paint objects of various sizes and shapes
with relatively little process alteration.
The finish obtained by spray coating is generally
superior to that obtained by other coating processes.
Capital expenditures for spray coating equipment are
relatively low.
Paint change is quick and simple.
Some disadvantages of spray coating are:
Interior surfaces are usually difficult to coat.
3-4
-------
Considerable paint wastage can result from "overspray."
Viscosity is an important characteristic of the paint used
in spray coating because it affects atomization. Methods of
adjusting viscosity include changing the solvent content and
controlling the paint temperature. Because viscosity is in-
versely proportional to paint temperature, raising the tempera-
ture reduces viscosity and makes the paint easier to atomize and
spray. Although heating the paint poses some problems, the
higher temperature makes results more consistent, shortens drying
times, and generally improves final appearance.
Conventional Spray Gun
A conventional spray gun directs a stream of high-pressure
air at the paint as it flows through a nozzle. Because the air
is moving at much higher velocity than the paint, it breaks the
paint into a fine mist and propels it in whatever direction the
gun is pointed. The degree of atomization, spray pattern, and
velocity can be adjusted by changing spray heads, varying air
pressure, or altering paint flow rate.
Conventional spray guns are very flexible and can be used to
apply most types of paint (including epoxies). A simple change
in spray heads makes many guns capable of handling a wide range
of paint formulations. Of the three types of spray guns, conven-
tional ones generally involve the least capital expenditure and
offer the greatest flexibility, but cause the worst overspray.
Airless Spray Gun
The airless spray gun, which was developed to reduce over-
spray, propels paint by its own momentum toward the target. The
paint is supplied to the gun at a very high pressure and becomes
atomized upon release because of the force of expansion and the
conversion of the solvent into gas. Airless spraying reduces
overspray and bounce, but it also increases film thickness and
drying rate. Solvent balance and vapor pressure of the paint are
3-5
-------
critical because the solvents serve as the atomization agent.
Maintenance and operating costs can be higher than those for
conventional spraying methods.
Electrostatic System
Another approach to reducing overspray is to create an
electrical field that propels paint toward the target. Paint is
statically charged to a high potential (as high as 130 kV), and
the target is grounded. The resulting attraction of the paint to
the target significantly reduces overspray. In fact, a phenom-
enon known as "wraparound" is observed when paint that has been
carried beyond the target curves around and deposits on the back
side of the target.
Electrostatic systems atomize paint mechanically or by use
of compressed air (similar to conventional spraying). Rotating
disc or bell-shaped heads are used for mechanical atomization of
paint by centrifugal motion. Reports indicate that electrostatic
systems can reduce paint consumption as much as 40 percent
through reduced overspray and better control. Because such
systems do not coat interior surfaces, areas inside sharp corners,
or places where shadowing occurs and all of these are fairly
common among miscellaneous metal parts and products, electro-
static systems may find only limited application in the indus-
tries considered in this study.
REFERENCES
1. Tatton, W. H., and E. W. Drew. Industrial Paint Applica-
tion. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey,
1964.
2. Taylor, C. J. A., and S. Marks. The Application of Surface
Coatings. Chapman and Hall, Ltd., London, 1965.
3-6
-------
SECTION 4
ANALYSIS OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS
This section analyzes the effects of exemption levels on VOC
emissions and establishments subject to control. An emission
exemption level reduces the enforcement problem (i.e., the number
of establishments requiring inspection) by excluding establish-
ments whose annual emissions are less than the specified exemption
level.
ANALYSIS APPROACH
Exempt and nonexempt emissions and establishments can be
calculated for a given emission exemption level if the amount of
emissions from each establishment classified under miscellaneous
metal parts and products is known. Because this classification
includes roughly 96,000 establishments and little information is
available regarding VOC emissions, the analysis was based on
estimated emissions from all four-digit SIC product groups under
Major SIC Groups 34 through 39.
The first step was to determine the emissions from each four-
digit SIC group in the data base. This amount was then distrib-
uted among establishments in the group according to size, which
was defined in terms of the number of people employed. Seven
employment categories were used, and determination of exempt and
nonexempt emissions and establishments were based on the assump-
tion that the level of emissions was directly proportional to the
number of employees.
4-1
-------
As discussed in Section 2, PEDCo examined 170 four-digit SIC
product groups and included 120 of these in the data base. Suf-
ficient information was available to determine the effects of
emission exemption levels on 113 of the 120 groups. No data could
be found on Groups 3444, 3761, and 3764 regarding the number of
people employed, the number of establishments, or the level of VOC
emissions. Further, no information was available on the number of
employees and establishments in Group 3559 or the level of VOC
emissions from Groups 3429, 3432, and 3999.
Estimated VOC Emissions by SIC Groups
Total nationwide VOC emissions from each four-digit SIC
product group were estimated from data in the "1977 Census of
Manufactures." Estimates were based on reported annual paint
consumption whenever this information was available, because VOC
emissions from surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and
products are most closely related to actual paint consumption.
When paint consumption data were not available, estimates were
based on reported annual purchases of paint with an assumed paint
cost of $6 per gallon. When neither paint consumption nor
paint purchase information was available, estimates were based on
reported annual product shipments, which represent the total cost
of products (including labor, materials, overhead, profit, etc.)
as they leave the manufacturer. This last basis required a de-
termination of the portion of the total product cost attributable
to the purchase of paint. This "painting factor" was estimated by
PEDCo based on general knowledge of the products included in each
group.
Appendix C presents the input data (paint consumption, paint
purchases, and product shipments), assumed painting factors, and
estimated total VOC emissions for the product groups included in
this study. The estimated emissions are intended only for use in
this analysis and do not necessarily correspond to actual emis-
sions. Appendix D gives the procedure for estimating total VOC
emissions.
4-2
-------
Breakdown of Emissions by Establishment Size
The VOC emissions from each product group were broken down by
establishment size to allow assessment of the effects of different
emission exemption levels.
Although the total number of establishments in each product
group is available for 1977, the most recent breakdown by employ-
ment categories is for 1972. The 1972 data, which cover SIC Codes
2011 through 3999, were compiled by Research Triangle Institute,
Durham, North Carolina, from the information collected by the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Appendix E contains a
copy of a computer printout of the 1972 data.
The breakdown was used to determine the percentage of estab-
lishments in each category in 1972. Based on the assumption that
these percentages had not changed, the number of establishments in
each category was estimated for 1977. Appendix F indicates the
available data and shows how new data were generated to determine
the 1977 distribution of establishments.
The VOC emissions from each category were assumed to be
directly proportional to the number of persons employed by estab-
lishments in the category. Appendix G gives the procedures used
to proportion VOC emissions.
Appendix H presents the detailed results of proportioning VOC
emissions by employment category and SIC product group. Table 2
summarizes the emission and establishment data about all SIC
groups by employment category and shows the percentages of total
emissions and establishments that these values represent; this
same information is presented graphically in Figure 2.
Effects of Emission Exemption Levels
The data from Appendix H were analyzed to determine the
effects of various emission exemption levels on the number of
establishments and amount of VOC emissions subject to control.
First, an emission exemption level was set and the average VOC
4-3
-------
TABLE 2. EMISSIONS OF VOC AND ESTABLISHMENTS BY EMPLOYMENT
CATEGORY
Number of
employees
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
Total
VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
93,664
78,113
88,070
174,403
160,123
179,188
377,917
1,151,478
Portion
of total
emissions,
%
8.1
6.8
7.6
15.1
13.9
15.6
32.8
100.0
Number of
establishments
66,158
14,156
6,589
5,287
2,182
1,148
864
96,384
Portion of total
establishments,
%
68.6
14.7
6.8
5.5
2.3
1.2
0.9
100.0
4-4
-------
70
60
50
u. 40
o
as
O
30
20
10
-
-1
• •
J.I
* • • "
"**. *«*
*•*• •
-168.6
1^1
|;::-:| EMISSIONS
[TT1 ESTABLISHMENTS
14.
6.8
1 " *
7
7.66
•••••
"•";*•
••
1
.8
1
5.1
7.v.
*•• *•
•-:'•:
• ** *
V .".
5
1
13.9
5
F«v
;V/.
'.{*":
**"*•
2.3
Til
5.6
•"'•;"
rV'.«
:?':
i
1.2
TTI
12.
•V*
•'•.•7
••*•••
T **•*•*
""•*.»
".** *
V.s;
I'V
^•;
9
-
•
0.9
•m
1-19 20-49
50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
>1000
Figure 2. Emissions and establishments
by employment category.
4-5
-------
emissions from each category in each SIC product group were com-
pared with this level. Then, the amount of emissions from es-
tablishments whose emissions exceeded the exemption level and the
number of such establishments were determined. This procedure was
repeated for various exemption levels between 0 and 1300 tons per
year. Tables 3 through 9 present the results of this analysis for
each of the seven employment categories. Table 10 presents the
effect of VOC emission exemption levels on the emissions subject
to control and corresponding number of establishments subject to
control (nonexempt emissions and establishments) for the mis-
cellaneous metal parts and products category as a whole.
RESULTS
As the exemption level increases, the number of establish-
ments subject to control decreases more rapidly than the amount of
emissions subject to control, mainly because most VOC emissions
come from establishments with 20 or more employees. As shown in
Figure 2, although establishments with less than 20 employees
constitute 68.6 percent of the total number of establishments,
they are responsible for only 8.1 percent of total VOC emissions.
The ratio of percentage emissions to percentage establish-
ments in an employee category indicates the effectiveness of
enforcement efforts (i.e., enforcement gain per unit of enforce-
ment effort). For establishments with fewer than 20 employees,
the effectiveness ratio is only 0.12, compared with a ratio of
36.56 for establishments with 1000 or more employees.
Figures 3 through 9 are graphical presentations of the
results shown in Tables 3 through 9. Figure 10, a graphical
presentation of the total amount of emissions and number of
establishments subject to control at the various emission exemp-
tion levels, is based on the results in Table 10. Figure 11 shows
the relationship between all establishments subject to control and
emissions subject to control; the number of establishments subject
to control increases rapidly when more than 80 percent of the
emissions are subject to control.
4-6
-------
TABLE 3. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORY OF
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 1 TO 19 EMPLOYEES3
Emission
exemption
level ,
tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
VOC emissions subject to
Tons/yr
93,644
70,035
54,519
34,524
22,990
10,252
370
0
Portion
based on VOC
emissions
from the .
category,
%
100.0
74.8
58.2
36.9
24.5
11.0
0.4
0.0
control
Portion
based on
total VOC
emissions,
%
8.1
6.1
4.7
3.0
2.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
Establishments subject to control
Number
66,158
28,928
16,548
8,036
4,647
1,930
56
0
Portion based on
establishments
in the .
category,
%
100.0
43.7
25.0
12.1
7.0
2.9
0.1
0.0
Portion
based on
total estab-
1 ishments,6
%
68.6
30.0
17.2
8.3
4.8
2.0
0.1
0.0
EM - Total emissions.
em - Emissions from the category.
ems - Emissions from the category that are subject to control.
ES - Total establishments.
es - Establishments in the category.
ess - Establishments in the category that are subject to control
(ems/em) x 100.
C (ems/EM) x 100.
d (ess/es) x 100.
e (ess/ES) x 100.
-------
TABLE 4. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORY OF
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 20 TO 49 EMPLOYEES3
Emission
exemption
level ,
tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
VOC emissions subject to control
Tons/yr
78,113
77,223
74,347
64,218
58,594
55,429
52,897
51,505
44,703
37,640
34,403
609
0
Portion
based on VOC
emissions
from the
category.
%
100.0
98.9
95.2
82.2
75.0
71.0
67.7
65.9
57.2
48.2
44.0
0.8
0.0
Portion
based on
total VOC
emissions,
%
6.8
6.7
6.5
5.6
5.1
4.8
4.6
4.5
3.9
3.3
3.0
0.1
0.0
Establishments subject to control
Number
14,156
13,116
11,313
7,297
5,822
5,106
4,647
4,430
3,541
2,678
2,338
27
0
Portion based on
establishments
in the
category.
%
100.0
92.7
79.9
51.5
41.1
36.1
32.8
31.3
25.0
18.0
16.5
0.2
0.0
Portion
based on
total estab-
lishments,6
%
14.7
13.6
11.7
7.6
6.0
5.3
4.8
4.6
3.7
2.8
2.4
0.0
0.0
.fc.
I
CO
The following abbreviations are used:
EM - Total emissions.
em - Emissions from the category.
ems - Emissions from the category that are subject to control.
ES - Total establishments.
es - Establishments in the category.
ess - Establishments in the category that are subject to control
(ems/em) x 100.
(ems/EM) x 100.
(ess/es) x 100.
(ess/ES) x 100.
-------
TABLE 5. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORY OF
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 50 TO 99 EMPLOYEES*
Emission
exemption
level,
tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
VOC emissions subject to control
Tons/yr
88,070
88,016
87,689
86,837
84,272
81,831
77,553
76,411
75,847
71,861
70,973
47,391
26,731
4,585
0
Portion
based on VOC
emissions
from the .
category,
%
100.0
99.9
99.6
98.6
95.7
92.9
88.1
86.8
86.1
81.6
80.6
53.8
30.4
5.2
0.0
Portion
based on
total VOC
emissions,
%
7.6
7.6
7.6-
7.5
7.3
7.1
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.2
6.2
4.1
2.3
0.4
0.0
Establishments subject to control
Number
6,589
6,526
6,357
5,980
5,245
4,690
3,915
3,736
3,658
3,179
3,016
1,558
716
108
0
—
Portion based on
establ ishments
in the .
category,
%
100 0
99 0
96 5
90.8
79.6
71 .2
59.4
56.7
55 5
48 2
45.8
23.6
10.9
1 .6
0.0
Portion
based on
total estab-
1 ishments,
*
6 ft
6 8
6 fi
6 2
5 4
4 9
4 1
3 9
3 8
3 3
3 1
1 6
0 7
0 1
0.0
The following abbreviations are used:
EM - Total emissions.
em - Emissions from the category.
ems - Emissions from the category that are subject to control
ES - Total establishments.
es - Establishments in the category.
'ess - Establishments in the category that are subject to control.
(ems/em) x 100.
(ems/EM) x 100.
(ess/es) x 100.
(ess/ES) x 100.
4-9
-------
TABLE 6. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORY OF
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 100 TO 249 EMPLOYEES9
Emission
exemption
level,
tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
150
VOC emissions subject to control
Tons/yr
174,403
174,403
174,403
174,319
174,319
173,006
172,912
172,489
170,221
167,276
166,749
148,408
135,227
118,070
91,509
67,919
51,691
45,671
27,658
1,184
0
Portion
based on VOC
emissions
from the .
category,
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.2
99.1
98.9
97.6
95.9
95.6
85.1
77.6
67.7
52.5
38.9
29.6
26.2
15.9
0.7
0.0
Portion
based on
total VOC
emissions,
*
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.1
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.8
14.5
14.5
12.9
11.8
10.3
7.9
5.9
4.5
4.0
2.4
0.1
0.0
Establishments subject to control
Number
5,287
5,287
5,287
5,245
5,245
4,962
4,945
4,880
4,580
4,235
4,181
2,879
2,353
1,887
1,267
847
590
511
296
11
0
Portion based on
establishments
in the j
category,
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.2
99.2
93.9
93.5
92.3
86.6
80.1
79.1
54.5
44.5
35.7
24.0
16.0
11.2
9.7
5.6
0.2
0.0
Portion
based on
total estab-
lishments,6
%
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.8
4.4
4.3
3.0
2.4
2.0
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
The following abbreviations are used:
EM - Total emissions.
em - Emissions from the category.
e'ms - Emissions from the category that are subject to control.
ES - Total establishments.
es - Establishments in the category.
ess - Establishments in the category that are subject to control.
(ems/em) x 100.
(ems/EM) x 100.
(ess/es) x 100.
(ess/ES) x 100.
4-10
-------
TABLE 7. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORY OF
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 250 TO 499 EMPLOYEES3
Emission
exemption
level,
tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
150
200
250
VOC emissions subject to control
Tons/yr
160,123
160,123
160,123
160,123
160,123
160.054
160,054
160,054
160,054
160,054
159,812
153,491
145,748
142,033
135,983
130,086
125,773
107,074
99,779
89,175
44,712
11,496
0
Portion
based on VOC
emissions
from the
category, b
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
95.9
91.0
88.7
84.9
81.2
78.5
66.9
62.3
55.7
27.9
7.2
0.0
Portion
based on
total VOC
emissions, c
%
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.3
12.7
12.3
11.8
11.3
10.9
9.3
8.7
7.7
3.9
1.0
0.0
Establishments subject to control
Number
2182
2182
2182
2182
2182
2166
2166
2166
2166
2166
2141
1747
1432
1327
1189
1084
1017
972
709
596
237
54
0
Portion based on
establishments
in the
category, d
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.3
99.3
99.3
99.3
99.3
98.1
80.1
65.6
60.8
54.5
49.7
46.6
44.5
32.5
27.3
10.9
2.5
0.0
Portion
based on
total estab-
lishments,6
%
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
The following abbreviations are used:
EM - Total emissions.
em - Emissions from the category.
ems - Emission from the category that are subject to control.
ES - Total establishments.
es - Establishments in the category.
ess - Establishments in the category that are subject to control.
(ems/em) x 100.
C (ems/EM) x 100.
d (ess/es) x 100.
e (ess/ES) x 100.
4-11
-------
TABLE 8. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORY OF
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 500 TO 999 EMPLOYEES3
Emission
exemption
level ,
tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
VOC emissions subject to control
Tons/yr
179,188
179,188
179,188
179,188
179,188
179,188
179,188
179,188
179,188
179,162
179,162
178,988
177,995
173,238
170,780
166,763
165,740
162,544
159,963
57,378
45,033
02,718
77,102
44.320
32,214
8,572
495
0
Portion
based on VOC
emissions
from the
category, b
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
99.3
96.7
95.3
93.1
92.5
90.7
89.3
87.8
80.9
57.3
43.0
24.7
18.0
4.8
0.3
0.0
Portion
based on
total VOC
emissions, c
%
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.5
15.5
15.0
14.8
14.5
14.4
14.1
13.9
13.7
12.6
8.9
6.7
3.8
2.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
Establishments subject to control
Number
1148
1148
1148
1148
1148
1148
1148
1148
1148
1145
1145
1136
1095
954
897
822
806
762
731
704
601
358
244
120
83
20
1
0
Portion based on
establishments
in the
category,d
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.7
99.7
99.0
95.4
83.1
78.1
71.6
70.2
66.4
63.7
61.3
52.4
31.2
21 .3
10.5
7.2
1.7
0.1
0.0
Portion
based on
total estab-
lishments,6
%
1 .2
1 .2
1 .2
1 .2
1 .2
1.2
1 .2
1 .2
1 .2
1 .2
1.2
1 .2
1 1
1 0
1 « \J
0 9
\J • J
0 9
\j • y
0.8
0.8
0 8
\J t O
0.7
0 fi
u • u
0 4
U • H
0 3
\J • J
0 1
\J m 1
n i
u • i
0 0
\J t \J
n n
U • \J
0.0
The following abbreviations are used:
EM - Total emissions.
em - Emissions from the category.
ems - Emission from the category that are subject to control
ES - Total establishments.
es - Establishments in the category.
ess - Establishments in the category that are subject to control.
(ems/em) x 100.
c (ems/EM) x 100.
d (ess/es) x 100.
e (ess/ES) x 100.
4-12
-------
-TABLE .9. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR THE CATEGORY OF
ESTABLISHMENTS WITH 1000 OR MORE EMPLOYEES6
Emission
exemptio
level,
tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
VOC emissions subject to control
Tons/yr
377,917
377,917
377,917
377,917
377.917
377,917
377,917
377,917
377,917
377,917
377,917
377,917
377,917
377,840
377,840
376,989
376,861
376,713
375,939
375.842
351,102
338,222
326,500
315,928
303,920
85,568
65,471
49,382
87,572
82,480
76,364
74.386
68.742
63,267
21,198
20,300
13,030
68,777
68.777
68,777
67,646
67,646
55,566
3,947
Portion
based or VOC
emissions
from the
category, b
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.7
99.7
99.5
99.5
92.9
89.5
86.4
83.6
80.4
75.6
70.2
66.0
49.6
48.3
46.7
46.1
44.7
43.2
32.1
31.8
29.9
18.2
18.2
18.2
17.9
17.9
14.7
1.0
Portion
based on
total VOC
emissions,0
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.8
32.7
32.7
32.7
32.6
32.6
30.5
29.4
28.4
27.4
26.4
24.8
23.1
21.7
16.3
15.8
15.3
15.1
14.7
14.2
10.5
10.4
9.8
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
4.8
0.3
Establishments subject to control
Number
864
864
864
864
864
864
864
864
864
864
864
864
864
862
862
846
844
842
833
832
646
570
519
477
441
391
345
311
194
185
175
172
164
157
106
105
97
52
52
52
51
51
41
1
Portion based on
establishments
1n the
category,''
I
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.8
99.8
97^7
97.5
96.4
96.3
74.8
eo!i
55.2
5KO
45.3
39.9
36.0
22.5
21.4
20.3
19.9
19.0
18^2
12.3
12.2
11.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
4.7
0.1
Portion
based on
total estab-
lishments, e
J
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
O.o
o.'g
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
OQ
. y
0.9
On
. y
0.9
0.9
0. 7
o!s
n i
U . J
0.5
OA
. *t
OA
• *i
0 3
0.2
Op
. c
0. 2
Op
. £
Op
. C
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
n i
u . \
0. 1
01
. i
01
. i
01
. i
01
. i
n n
u • u
0.0
The following abbreviations are used:
EM - Total emissions.
em - Emissions from the category.
ems - Emission from the category that are subject to control
ES - Total establishments.
es - Establishments fn the category.
ess - Establishments in the category that are subject to control.
(ems/em) x 100.
(ems/EM) x 100.
(ess/es) x 100.
(ess/ES) x 100.
4-13
-------
TABLE 10. EFFECT OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS FOR ALL ESTABLISHMENTS
1
Emission
exemption
level, tons
VOC/yr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
VOC emissions subject to control
Tons/yr
1,151,478
1,126,905
1,108,186
1,077,126
1,057,403
1,037,687
1,020,891
1,017,564
1,007,930
993,910
989,016
906,804
863,618
815,766
776,112
741,757
720,065
692,002
663,339
623,579
540,847
452,436
403,602
360,248
336,134
294,140
265,966
249,382
187,572
182,480
176,364
174,386
168,742
163,267
121,198
120,300
113,030
68,777
68,777
68,777
67,646
67,646
55,556
3,947
Portion of total
VOC emissions,
%
100.0
97.9
96.2
93.5
91.8
90.1
88.7
88 .-4
87.5
86.3
85.9
78.8
75.0
70.8
67.4
64.4
62.5
60.1
57.6
54.2
47.0
39.3
35.1
31.3
29.2
25.5
23.1
21.7
16.3
15.8
15.3
15.1
Establishments
subject to control
Number
96,384
57,187
42,835
30,752
24,005
20,866
17,741
17,224
15,957
14,267
13,685
8,211
6,460
5,138
4,215
3,599
3,257
3,087
2,569
2,143
1,484
982
763
597
524
411
346
311
194
185
175
172
14.7 164
14.2
10.5
10.4
9.8
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
4.8
0.3
157
106
105
97
52
52
52
51
51
41
Portion of total
establishments,
%
100.0
59.3
44.4
31.9
24.9
21.6
18.4
17.9
16.6
14.8
14.2
8.5
6.7
5.3
4.4
3.7
3.4
3.2
2.7
2.2
1.5
1 .0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0/1
.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Or\
.2
01
.1
OT
.1
On
.1
01
.1
01
. 1
01
. 1
01
. 1
OT
. 1
Of\
.u
n n
u . u
* —
4-14
-------
. 100
o
OL
o
o
co
^
CO
CO
CO
I—•
co
»—
CO
UJ
ac.
o
co
O
co
co
UJ
TOTAL EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
1 2
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
4 5678
Figure 3. Effect of emission exemption levels for the
category of establishments with 1 to 19 employees.
-------
100
O
can
o
o
00
Z3
CO
CO
80
60
CO
•—•
<£ 40
CO
LU
o
CO
§ 20
CO
0
EM TOTAL EMISSIONS
em EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
ems EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
ES TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
es ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ess ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
ems
EM
1 2 345678
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
10
20
30
Figure 4. Effect of emission exemption levels for the
category of establishments with 20 to 49 employees.
-------
o
o
CO
^
OO
oo
00
»•—I
_l
CO
<
i/>
UJ
ex:
o
oo
z
o
t-^
oo
OO
TOTAL EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
3 4 5 6 7 8 10 20
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
Figure 5. Effect of emission exemption levels for the
category of establishments with 50 to 99 employees.
4-17
-------
I
M
CO
o
o
"3
CD
CQ
«t
to
at:
o
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
10
EM
em
ems
ES
es
ess
TOTAL EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
-o o o
5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50 60
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
80 100
200
Figure 6. Effect of emission exemption levels for the
category of establishments with 100 to 249 employees.
-------
TOTAL EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
5 6 7 8 10 20 30 40 50 60
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
80 100
200 300
Figure 7. Effect of emission exemption levels for the
category of establishments with 250 to 499 employees.
-------
i
to
O
O
oc.
CD
O
(—
»—
CJ
LU
—3
CO
co
I—
GO
UJ
CD
GO
CD
i—»
GO
GO
EM TOTAL EMISSIONS
-em EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
ems EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
es ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ess ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
20 30 40 50 100 200 300
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
1000
Figure 8. Effect of emission exemption levels for the
category of establishments with 500 to 999 employees.
-------
I
KJ
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
o
o
co
•=>
CO
CO
CO
t—«
_l
CO
I—
CO
UJ
o
CO
~ 10
CO
0<
EM TOTAL EMISSIONS \
em EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY \
ems EMISSIONS FROM THE CATEGORY \
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL ° \ ess
ES TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
es ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
ess ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CATEGORY
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
10
ems
x 100
ess
ES
x 100
o
20 30 50 100 200 300 500
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
1000
2000
Figure 9. Effect of emission exemption levels for the
category of establishments with 1000 or more employees.
-------
I
to
o
on
o
<_>
rs
co
i/>
co
co
_j
CO
TOTAL EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS FROM ALL CATEGORIES
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL
TOTAL ESTABLISHMENTS
ESTABLISHMENTS FROM ALL
CATEGORIES THAT ARE SUBJECT
TO CONTROL
50 100 200 300
EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVEL, tons VOC/yr
500
1000
2000
Figure 10. Effect of emission exemption levels
for all establishments.
-------
20 40 60 80
EMISSIONS SUBJECT TO CONTROL, %
Figure 11. Relationship between all establishments subject to
control and emissions subject to control.
4-23
-------
SECTION 5
PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Whether or not an exemption level is established, emission
limits must be set, and appropriate techniques for achieving these
limits must be determined. This section discusses proposed
regulations and emission control techniques.
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
The EPA has published a guidance document based on the CTG
for VOC emissions from the surface coating of miscellaneous metal
parts and products. This document proposes the following regu-
lations:
(a) No owner or operator of a facility engaged in the
surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and prod-
ucts may operate a coating application system subject
to this regulation that emits VOC in excess of:
(1) 0.52 kg/liter (4.3 Ib/gal) of coating, excluding
water, delivered to a coating applicator that
applies clear coatings;
(2) 0.42 kg/liter (3.5 Ib/gal) of coating, excluding
water, delivered to a coating applicator in a
coating application system that is air dried or
forced warm air dried at temperatures up to 90°C
(194°F);
(3) 0.42 kg/liter (3.5 Ib/gal) of coating, excluding
water, delivered to a coating applicator that
applies extreme performance coatings; and,
(4) 0.36 kg/liter (3.0 Ib/gal) of coating, excluding
water, delivered to a coating applicator for all
other coatings and coating application systems.
5-1
-------
(b) If more than one emission limitation in paragraph (a)
applies to a specific coating, then the least stringent
emission limitation shall be applied.
(c) All VOC emissions from solvent washings shall be con-
sidered in the emission limitations in paragraph (a),
unless the solvent is directed into containers that
prevent evaporation into the atmosphere.
(d) The emission limits set forth in paragraph (a) shall be
achieved by:
(1) the application of low solvent coating technology;
(2) an incineration system which oxidizes at least
90.0 percent of the nonmethane volatile organic
compounds (VOC measured as total combustible
carbon) to carbon dioxide and water; or,
(3) an equivalent means of VOC removal. The equivalent
means must be certified by the owner or operator
and approved by the Director.
(e) A capture system must be used in conjunction with the
emission control systems in part (d)(2). The design
and operation of a capture system must be consistent
with good engineering practice, and shall be required
to provide for an overall VOC emission reduction
efficiency of at least 80 percent.
Because the emission limits are stated in terms of weight
(kilogram or pound) of VOC emitted per volume (liter or gallon)
of coating delivered to the coating applicator, no credit is
given for techniques that improve transfer efficiency (e.g.,
electrostatic spraying). In fact, the proposed regulations state
that emission limits should be achieved by application of low-
solvent coatings, an incineration system, or an equivalent means
of VOC removal. A strict interpretation of the regulation would
seemingly exclude credits for transfer efficiency improvements.
Actually, credit for improved transfer efficiency can be claimed
if the source can demonstrate that transfer efficiency has
achieved equivalent control. In this regard, the EPA has re-
cently published a set of guideline calculations for determining
such equivalency.
5-2
-------
By contrast, sources in California are required to use
electrostatic spray equipment or to demonstrate 60 percent trans-
fer efficiency.* Because the industries that surface-coat mis-
cellaneous metal parts and products vary widely, regulations
should allow maximum flexibility in the choice of control method.
The only requirement should be that the industry demonstrate
achievement of equivalent control (based on VOC emissions per
quantity of paint applied to the substrate).
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The three basic means of controlling VOC emissions from the
surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products are use
of low-solvent coatings, process modifications (including the use
of coating equipment with higher transfer efficiencies), and
installation of systems for collection and carbon adsorption or
incineration of VOC emissions. Depending on emission limita-
tions, low-solvent coatings and process modifications can be used
together. Although add-on systems can be combined with the other
means of VOC emission control, this is generally not done.
This section briefly discusses the advantages and limita-
tions of the emission control techniques summarized in Table 11.
Waterborne Coating
Because the application characteristics of both coatings are
similar, conversion from solvent-base coatings to waterborne
coatings would require minimum equipment modifications and could
reduce VOC emissions by 60 to 90 percent. Although water is the
major carrier, some organic solvents are usually included to
temper the evaporation rate, provide the coating with desired
properties, and provide film coalescence.
*Telephone conversation between Yatendra Shah of PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc., and Don McNeary of the California Air Resources
Branch.
5-3
-------
TABLE 11. TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING VOC EMISSIONS
FROM SURFACE COATING OPERATIONS?
Technique
Waterborne coating
Dip, flow, and
spray coating
Electrodeposition
High-solids coating
(applied by spray gun)
Powder coating
(applied by spray gun)
Carbon adsorption
Incineration
Application
Oven-baked single coat
(primer and topcoat);
air-dried primer and
topcoat
Oven-baked single coat
and primer
Oven-baked single coat;
air-dried primer and
topcoat
Oven-baked single coat
and topcoat
Oven-baked single coat,
(primer and topcoat) in
application and flash-
off areas; air-dried
primer and topcoat in
application and drying
areas
Ovens
VOC emission
reduction, %
60-90a
90-959
50-80a
95-98a
90b
>90b
These values reflect only the range of possible reduction. The actual
reduction depends on the composition of the waterborne coating and reolace-
ment low-organic solvent coating, the transfer efficiency, and the relative
film thickness of the two coatings.
This reduction in VOC emissions is only across the control device and does
not take into account the capture efficiency.
5-4
-------
Waterborne coating offers several advantages. It is easily
adaptable to existing coating lines, it permits use of existing
coating equipment, it reduces toxicity and flammability, coatings
can be thinned by adding water, coating equipment can be cleaned
and flushed with water, and oven temperature can be decreased.
One possible way of combining a process change with the use
of a low-solvent coating is to apply waterborne solvents by
electrodeposition. In this process, the parts to be coated are
grounded and immersed in a bath of coating. Direct current is
applied to the bath, which charges the paint particles and causes
them to migrate to the surface of the parts and deposit. This
change requires new application equipment. The very high trans-
fer efficiency of electrodeposition results in a high-quality
coating because even thin layers are deposited uniformly.
Electrodeposition of waterborne coatings also provides higher-
quality, corrosion-resistant surface coatings. Further, if
electrodeposition replaces spray coating lines, the quantities of
solid and liquid wastes are drastically reduced. The disadvan-
tages of converting existing lines to electrodeposition are higher
energy consumption and the high capital investment for equipment.
The use of waterborne coatings with conventional equipment
requires closer attention than that necessary for solvent-base
coatings. Use of waterborne coatings with electrostatic spray
equipment may not be feasible because of insulation difficulties.
The use of waterborne coatings with dip or flow-coating may
require an additional rinse because of possible coating contam-
ination and pH changes. Also, special precautions may be required
to prevent corrosion of the coating equipment as a result of the
high water content of coatings.
High Solids Coating
Increasing the solids content of coatings would reduce VOC
content and thus VOC emissions. The solids content of high-
solids coatings can be as high as 80 percent, whereas that of
conventional coatings is about 40 percent. Existing coating
5-5
-------
equipment can be used to apply high-solids coatings with minimal
changes. A paint heater may be necessary because high-solids
coatings are more viscous. Reduction in the VOC content of the
paint would reduce air flow rates in the spray booths and ovens
and thereby decrease energy requirements. A decrease in solid
and liquid wastes would also result from the reduction in solvent
contents. Paint cleanup would be more difficult, however,
because of the higher viscosity of high-solids coatings. Also,
some high-solids coatings could be toxic and require special
handling.
Powder Coating
Powder coatings, which are essentially 100 percent solids,
can be applied by electrostatic spraying. Although dip coating
is possible, it would increase the minimum coating thickness to
about 1/4 inch. After the coatings are applied, the parts are
moved to an oven where the powder is melted into a uniform
continuous film.
The use of powder coatings would greatly reduce VOC emis-
sions. Some VOC could be emitted because of unblocking and
crosslinking reactions during curing, but solid and liquid wastes
would be eliminated. The greater thicknesses of powder coatings
can easily hide slight imperfections and weld masks. Energy re-
quirements would be reduced because less circulated air would be
needed. The transfer efficiency of powder coatings is higher
because most of the overspray can be easily reclaimed.
Because conversion of existing lines to powder coatings is
not reversible, line flexibility is lost. Minimum coating thick-
nesses are increased, and the quality of the finishes does not
always match that of solvent-base coatings.
Carbon Adsorption
The VOC emissions from application and flashoff areas can be
collected and treated in carbon adsorption units. Removal effi-
ciency is about 90 percent across the unit. Though feasible,
5-6
-------
carbon adsorption poses such disadvantages as high energy usage
and high capital cost.
Incineration
Although incineration systems are commonly used for reduc-
tion of VOC emissions in the chemical industry, their high
capital cost limits their use for reducing VOC emissions from
surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. Their
major disadvantage is high fuel usage, even though they are
generally equipped with heat recovery systems to recover part of
the energy.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance to State and
Local Agencies in Preparing Regulations to Control Volatile
Organic Compounds From Ten Stationary Source Categories
EPA-450/2-79-004, September 1979.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources. Volume
VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Prod-
ucts. EPA-450/2-78-015 (OAQPS No. 1.2-101), June 1978.
5-7
-------
SECTION 6
ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS
This section discusses three specific enforcement problems
related to the general considerations of reducing the number of
sources requiring control while allowing a variety of control
strategies: (1) determination of an appropriate exemption
level, (2) determination of the exemption and compliance status
of facilities of concern, and (3) the application of alternative
control strategies.
DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION LEVEL
An enforcement effort directed at VOC emissions from surface
coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products could include
about 96,000 establishments in the United States. The states in
which these establishments are located generally do not have
sufficient resources to develop an effective enforcement program
to deal with so large a number of facilities. Furthermore, the
data presented in Section 4 indicate that most of the facilities
are relatively small (less than 20 employees). Because the
enforcement effort (i.e., recordkeeping and inspections) would
yield only a small reduction in total VOC emissions, the concept
of an exemption level has been introduced and an analysis made
of the effect of various exemption levels.
In the determination of an exemption level, three factors
were considered:
The required reduction in VOC emissions (i.e., the per-
centrage of VOC emissions that must be controlled).
6-1
-------
The availability of an enforcement staff (i.e., the per-
centage of the establishments that can be included in an
effective enforcement program).
The relative effectiveness of an enforcement effort in this
source category (i.e., whether or not the same level of
effort directed elsewhere would result in a greater reduc-
tion of total VOC emissions).
These factors will vary from state to state, but the general
objective is to define an exemption level that will significantly
reduce the number of establishments without leaving too many
emissions uncontrolled.
Prior to this study no data were available on which to base
the selection of an exemption level. Consequently, the choice
of an exemption level and opinions regarding its need had to be
based on experience in similar source categories. The data on
this particular source category (presented in Section 4) indi-
cated a need for a review of exemption levels. Personnel on the
staff of EPA's Division of Stationary Source Enforcement and
Control Programs Development Division reviewed the data with
PEDCo. The joint conclusion of that review was that an exemp-
tion level of 10 tons per year would provide the desired balance
of emission control versus enforcement effort. This would cut
the number of establishments subject to regulation to only
13,685 or 14.2 percent of the total, yet it would cover 989,016
tons/year or 85.9 percent of all VOC emissions from this source
category.
Determination of Exemption and Compliance Status
Once regulations containing an exemption level and emission
limitations for nonexempt sources are established, the status of
individual sources must be determined. Because such a deter-
mination must be made for a great many sources on a periodic
basis, successful enforcement requires that this determination be
made in a straightforward manner using readily available data.
6-2
-------
Measurement of VOC emissions from surface coating operations
is difficult because emissions are not exhausted from definite
points at the establishment. The highly volatile nature of VOC
emissions makes them very difficult to capture, and these emis-
sions generally escape to the atmosphere when coatings have a
solvent base. In a typical surface coating operation, VOC
emissions escape during the storage and handling of the coating
materials and during the drying and curing of coated components.
Because VOC emissions from a source are difficult to mea-
sure, an alternative procedure for determining emissions is
necessary for enforcement of emission control regulations.
Estimates of VOC emissions from a source can be calculated from
the quantity and solvent content of coating material used. If a
VOC emission control system is installed at the source, emission
estimates can be adjusted according to the efficiency of the
control system. A slight error in estimating would not affect
the status of establishments whose emissions are significantly
higher or lower than the exemption level. Close examination of
the data would be required in borderline cases.
In most cases, information about annual paint consumption by
a source is available from purchase records. This information
affords one means by which enforcement personnel can determine
the status of an establishment.
The absence of specific emission points makes it difficult
for enforcement personnel to make on-the-spot determinations of
emission rates from an establishment. Enforcement personnel must
familiarize themselves with production rate parameters affecting
emissions, as emission rates can differ significantly with
variations in production rate and product type. The enforcement
agency must also maintain a file containing details regarding
VOC-related parameters at each establishment under its juris-
diction. Average paint usage rate, maximum production rate, and
annual paint consumption should be adequate. Enforcement
6-3
-------
personnel could compare the results of periodic inspections with
the data on file to determine whether or not establishments are
in compliance.
APPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
As the discussion in Section 5 indicates, regulations can
encourage or even require the use of a particular control tech-
nique for reduction of VOC emissions. One manufacturer has
lobbied strongly for regulations such as the one in California,
which specifically requires the use of electrostatic spraying
equipment even though electrostatic spraying equipment does not
remedy all problems and is not always applicable. The claims of
improved transfer efficiency (and consequently reduced VOC
emissions) are well documented for specific situations (see
Appendix I) and the economic advantages of reducing VOC emissions
by more efficient use of paint are certainly attractive, but
these considerations do not warrant regulations requiring the
exclusive use of this equipment at all establishments.
Regulations should include an "equivalent control" clause
that allows a source to apply any control device or strategy
that can be demonstrated to produce a net reduction equivalent
to or better than that specified in the regulations. With this
type of an allowance, if, for example, electrostatic spraying
equipment reduces VOC emissions sufficiently, individual com-
panies would have the option of documenting the claimed emission
reduction and receiving appropriate credit for control of VOC
emissions. Toward this end, the EPA is publishing a document
giving examples of appropriate methods for calculating equiv-
alency. Among these is a calculation of equivalent control
derived from improved transfer efficiency. This approach
provides the flexibility that is essential for a source category
which includes such a diversity of surface coating operations.
6-4
-------
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRIES CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION
IN THE DATA BASE
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. INDUSTRIES CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN DATA BASE
USED TO ANALYZE THE EFFECTS OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS
SIC
Code
3411
3412
3421
3423
3425
3429
3431
3432
3433
3441
3442
3443
3444
3446
3448
3449
3451
3452
3462
3463
3465
Product description
Metal cans
Metal barrels, drums, and
pails
Cutlery
Hand and edge tools, NEC
Handsaws and saw blades
Hardware, NEC
Metal sanitary ware
Plumbing fittings and
brass goods
Heating equipment, except
electrical
Fabricated structural metal
Metal doors, sash, and trim
Fabricated platework
(boiler shops)
Sheet metalwork
Architectural metalwork
Prefabricated metal
buildings
Miscellaneous metalwork
Screw machine products
Bolts, nuts, rivets, and
washers
Iron and steel forgings
Nonferrous forging
Automotive stampings
Included
in
data
base
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Reason for
exclusion
a
b
b
b
b
b
(continued)
A-2
-------
TABLE A-i (continued)
SIC
Code
3466
3469
3471
3479
3482
3483
3484
3489
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3511
3519
3523
3524
3531
3532
3533
3534
Product description
Crowns and closures
Metal stampings, NEC
Plating and polishing
Metal coating and allied
services
Small arms ammunition
Ammunition other than small
arms, NEC
Small arms
Ordinance and accessories,
NEC
Steel springs, except wire
Valves and pipe fittings
Wire springs
Miscellaneous fabricated
wire products
Metal foil and leaf
Fabricated pipe and
fittings
Fabricated metal
products, NEC
Turbines and turbine
generator sets
Internal combustion
engines, NEC
Farm machinery and
equipment
Lawn and garden equipment
Construction machinery
Mining machinery
Oil field machinery
Elevators and moving
stairways
Included
in
data
base
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reason for
exclusion
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
(continued)
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3535
3536
3537
3541
3542
3544
3545
3546
3547
3549
3551
3552
3553
3554
3455
3559
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
Product description
Conveyors and conveying
equipment
Hoists, cranes, and
monorails
Industrial trucks and
tractors
Machine tools, metal
cuttings types
Machine tools, metal for
mining types
Special dies, tools, jigs,
and fixtures
Machine tool accessories
Power-driven hand tools
Rolling mill machinery
Metal working machinery
Food products machinery
Textile machinery
Woodworking machinery
Paper industries machinery
Printing trades machinery
Special industry
machiner, NEC
Pumps and pumping
equipment
Ball and roller bearings
Air and gas compressors
Blowers and fans
Industrial patterns
Speed changers, drives,
and gears
Industrial furnaces and
ovens
(continued)
Included
in
data
base
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Reason for
exclusion
b
b
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3568
3569
3572
and
3579
3573
3574
3576
3581
3582
3585
3586
3589
3592
3599
3612
3613
3621
3622
3623
3624
Product description
Power transmission
equipment, NEC
General industrial
machinery, NEC
Typewriters and
office machines,
NEC
Electronic computing
equipment
Calculating and accounting
machines
Scales and balances,
except laboratory
Automatic merchandising
machines
Commercial laundry
equipment
Refrigeration and
heating equipment
Measuring and dispensing
pumps
Service industry
machinery, NEC
Carburetors, pistons,
rings, valves
Machinery, except
electrical, NEC
Transformers
Switchgear and switch-
board apparatus
Motors and generators
Industrial controls
Welding apparatus,
electrical
Carbon and graphite
products
Included
in
data
base
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(continued)
Reason for
exclusion
b
-
b
A-5
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3629
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3639
3641
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3651
3652
3661
3662
3671
Product description
Electrical industrial
apparatus, NEC
Household cooking
equipment
Household refrigerators
and freezers
Household laundry
equipment
Electrical housewares and
fans
Household vacuum cleaners
Sewing machines
Household appliances, NEC
Electrical lamps
Current-carrying wiring
devices
Noncurrent- carrying
wiring devices
Residential lighting
fixtures
Commercial lighting
fixtures
Vehicular lighting
equipment
Lighting equipment, NEC
Radio and TV receiving
sets
Phonograph records
Telephone and telegraph
apparatus
Radio and TV communication
equipment
Electron tubes, receiving
type
Included
in
data
base
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Reason for
exclusion
a
a
a
b
b
-
b :
(continued)
A-6
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3691
3692
3693
3694
3699
3711
3713
3714
3715
3716
3721
3724
r
3728
3731
3732
Product description
Cathode ray television
picture tubes
Electron tubes, trans-
mitting
Semiconductors and related
devices
Electronic capacitors
Electronic resistors
Electronic coils and
transformers
Electronic connectors
Electronic components, NEC
Storage batteries
Primary batteries, dry and
wet
X-ray apparatus and tubes
Engine electrical equipment
Electrical equipment and
supplies, NEC
Motor vehicles and car
bodies
Truck and bus bodies
Motor vehicle parts and
accessories
Truck trailers
Motor homes
Aircraft
Aircraft engines and engine
parts
Aircraft equipment, NEC
Shipbuilding and repairing
Boat building and repairing
Included
in
data
base
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Reason for
exclusion
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
a
a
a
a -
(continued)
A-7
-------
TABLE -A-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3743
3751
3761
3764
3769
3792
3795
3799
3811
3822
3823
3824
3825
3829
3832
3841
3832
3843
3851
3861
Product description
Railroad equipment
Motorcycles, bicycles, and
parts
Guided missiles and space
vehicles
Space propulsion units and
parts
Space vehicle equipment,
NEC
Travel trailers and
campers
Tanks and tank components
Transportation equipment,
NEC
Engineering and scientific
instruments
Environmental controls
Process control
instruments
Fluid meters and counting
devices
Instruments to measure
electricity
Measuring and controlling
devices, NEC
Optical instruments and
lenses
Surgical and medical
instruments
Surgical applicances and
supplies
Dental equipment and
supplies
Ophthalmic goods
Photographic equipment
and supplies
Included
in
data
base
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Reason for
exclusion
.
b '"
(continued) A-8
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
c-rr
OIL
Code
^•^^^^^—a
3873
3911
3914
3915
3931
3942
3944
3949
3951
3952
3953
3955
3961
3962
3963
3964
3991
3993
3995
3996
3999
•
Product description
Watches, clocks, and
watchcases
Jewelry, precious metal
Silverware and plated ware
Jewelers' materials and
lapidary work
Musical instruments
Dolls
Games, toys, and
children's vehicles
Sporting and athletic
goods, NEC
Pens and mechanical pencils
Pens, pencils, office, and
art supplies
Marking devices
Carbon paper and inked
ribbons
Costume jewelry
Artificial flowers
Buttons
Needles, pins, and
fasteners
Brooms and brushes
Signs and advertising
displays
Burial caskets
Hard surface floor
coverings
Manufacturing industries,
NEC
-|
Included
in
data
base
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
=====
Reason for
exclusion
•
b
b
h
b
b
b
b
b
K
b
b
b
b
_
SUrfaCG C°ating °f miscell™eous metal parts
$UrfaCe C°ating Or an ^significant amount of surface
NEC: Not elsewhere classified.
A- 9
-------
APPENDIX B
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND ESTABLISHMENTS
IN THE SIC PRODUCT GROUPS
BEING STUDIED
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. EMPLOYEES AND ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE SIC GROUPS
FOR MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS
SIC
Code
3412
3423
3425
3429
3431
3432
3433
3441
3442
3443
3444
3446
3448
3449
3465
3466
3469
3484
3489
3494
3496
3498
3499
3511
3519
3523
3524
3531
3532
3533
Number of
employees
12,300
45,900
7,600
98,900
7,600
18,700
25,700
98,500
65,500
122,300
a
20,300
22,900
16,700
131,900
8,400
101,300
17,500
23,500
107,000
32,500
27,100
70,000
40,900
88,700
131,300
19,300
153,900
31,700
58,000
Number of
establishments
185
718
115
1169
98
207
694
2446
1670
1846
a
1499
461
415
579
58
2630
106
88
894
1115
572
3205
84
232
1998
150
910
346
471
Number of
establishments with
20 or more employees
115
289
55
457
34
105
188
1067
641
932
a
219
194
186
426
45
1116
42
40
522
391
271
767
37
128
657 -
91 ;
437 .-
170
243
(continued) B-2
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3534
3535
3536
3537
3541
3542
3544
3545
3545
3547
3549
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3559
3561
3563
3564
3566
3567
3568
3569
3572
and
3579
3573
3574
3576
3581
3582
Number of
employees
9,900
32,700
15,800
28,600
60,400
23,700
105,900
53,700
28,000
7,900
19,400
36,700
26,200
10,500
16,400
25,200
a
63,100
31,600
27,800
25,100
13,900
30,400
54,800
42,000
202,100
17,500
7,000
8,700
4,600
Number of
establishments
149
609
242
473
909
425
7154
1408
124
63
534
761
651
305
220
599
a
612
174
482
325
306
217
1636
221
968
61
102
111
94
Number of
establishments with
20 or more employees
70
295
121
167
307
162
1426
494
71
38
182
319
222
107
103
199
a
285
101
199
160
124
157
529
96
456
31 .
45 .
34 "
38
(continued) B_3
-------
TABLE B-1 (continued)
SIC
Code
3585
3586
3589
3599
3612
3613
3621
3622
3623
3629
3634
3635
3636
3639
3641
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3651
3661
3662
3677
3693
3694
3$99
3713
3714
3715
3716
Number of
employees
139,900
7,100
31,900
188,100
43,200
72,600
98,200
54,700
17,700
16,100
47,300
10,400
8,200
15,400
28,700
25,700
24,300
15,300
14,600
12,800
74,200
124,500
327,200
20,500
29,500
63,000
18,700
35,000
451,300
27,900
16,200
Number of
establishments
866
56
977
19,160
280
665
448
716
176
219
293
35
93
80
168
200
708
210
77
223
575
266
2,105
297
238
408
648
824
2,610
351
103
Number of
establ ishments with
20 or more employees
466
28
271
2458
144
313
299
276
90
98
149
22
25
40
65
121
247
118
45
121
. 189
155
959
196
118
175
181
317 -
991
165 .:
101
(continued)
B-4
-------
TABLE B-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3731
3732
3743
3751
3761
3764
3769
3792
3795
3799
3811
3822
3823
3824
3825
3829
3832
3841
3842
3843
3861
3873
3944
3949
3964
3991
3993
3995
3999
Number of
employees
175,500
44,000
56,700
15,300
a.
a
10,200
27,200
12,400
10,000
42,400
39,900
39,900
16,200
65,600
33,400
31,200
43,500
54,900
16,200
110,300
32,200
52,700
56,300
17,800
16,200
49,400
12,100
67,600
Number of
establishments
610
2,236
212
357
a
a
39
870
19
429
791
206
385
110
662
679
548
685
1,161
559
776
304
800
1,870
272
409
3,496
407
3,971
Number of
establishments with
20 or more employees
309
429
120
67
a
a
25
269
18
106
283
97
173
61
271
221
198
255
318
119
259
113
253
489
115
151
632
134 -
611 '
No data available.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA BASE USED TO ANALYZE
THE EFFECTS OF EMISSION
EXEMPTION LEVELS
C-l
-------
, ..TABLE C-l. DATA BASE USED TO ANALYZE THE EFFECTS OF EMISSION EXEMPTION LEVELS
SIC
Code
3412
3423
3425
3429
3431
3432
3433
3441
3442
3443
3444
3446-, .
3448
3449
Product description
Metal barrels, drums,
and pails
Hand and edge tools,
NEC
Handsaws and saw
blades
Hardware, NEC
Metal sanitary ware
Plumbing fittings
and brass goods
Heating equipment,
except electrical
Fabricated structural
metal
Metal doors, sash, and
trim
Fabricated platework
(boiler shops)
Sheet metal work
•Architectural
metal work
Prefabricated metal
buildings
Miscellaneous
metal work
Paint
consumption,3
gal/yr
3,086,800
Paint
purchases,3
$106/yr
4.2
15.8
9.1
2.6
8.3
4.0
Product
shipments,3
$106/yr
2,007.0
363.9
344.8
2,916.0
Painting
factor,
%
1.0
0.5
4.0
4.0
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
6,719
7,281
660
b
5,004
b
1 ,524
5,732
42,316
3,301
b
943
3,011
1,459
(continued)
o
ro
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3465
3466
3469
3484
3489
3494
3496
3498
3499
3511
3519
3523
3524
3531
3532
3533
t . . -,..i t ..
Product description
Automotive stampings
Crowns and closures
Metal stampings, NEC
Small arms
Ordnance and
accessories, NEC
Valves and pipe
fittings
Miscellaneous fabri-
cated wire products
Fabricated pipe and
fittings
Fabricated metal
products, NEC
Turbines and turbine
generator sets
Internal combustion
engines, NEC
Farm machinery and
equipment
Lawn and garden
equipment
Construction machinery
Mining machinery
Oil field machinery
Paint
consumption,3
gal/yr
1,099,600
5,098,900
753,000
Paint
purchases,9
$106/yr
21.5
11.7
18.9
0.9
19.7
3.3
Product
shipments,9
$106/yr
640.7
463.3
5,247.6
3,293.6
2,616.0
7,531.8
3,145.3
Painting
factor,
%
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
7,800
4,245
6,857
2,324
3,362
38,076
17,923
327
2,394
14,236
40,937
11,099
1,639
7,147
1,197
28,527
I
co
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3534
3535
3536
3537
3541
3542
3544
3545
3546
3547
3549
3551
3552-
3553
3554
1 . ••• H .
Product description
Elevators and moving
stairways
Conveyors and
conveying equipment
Hoists, cranes, and
monorails
Industrial trucks and
tractors
Machine tools, metal
cuttings types
Machine tools, metal
for mining types
Special dies, tools,
jigs, and fixtures
Machine tool
accessories
Power-driven hand
tools
Rolling mill machinery
Metalworking machinery
Food products machinery
•Textile machinery
Woodworking machinery
Paper industries
machinery
Paint
consumption,3
gal/yr
Paint
purchases,3
$106/yr
Product
shipments,3
$l()6/yr
411.6
1,674.5
901.6
1,823.8
2,579.2
1,114.4
4,448.5
2,202.4
1,461.4
360.6
900.0
1,566.4
851.0
556.7
704.9
Painting
factor,
%
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
2 987
t- ) -7LJ /
12,150
6,542
16,542
14,036
6,064
16,139
7,990
10,602
2,616
9,795
11,366
9,262
6,059
7,672
(continued)
o
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3555
3559
3561
3563
3564
3566
3567
3568
3569
3572
and
3579
3573
3574
3576
Product description
Printing trades
machinery
Special industry
machinery, NEC
Pumps and pumping
equipment
Air and gas
compressors
Blowers and fans
Speed changers,
drives, and gears
Industrial furnaces
and ovens
Power transmission
equipment, NEC
General industrial
machinery, NEC
Typewriters and
office machines,
NEC
Electronic computing
equipment
Calculating and
accounting machines
Scales and balances,
except laboratory
Paint
consumption,
gal/yr
Paint
purchases,9
$106/yr
3.2
Product
shipments,3
$106/yr
1,278.2
3,454.4
3,522.4
1,901.2
1,193.0
608.0
1,615.4
2,042.2
2,014.0
13,398.4
290.6
326.9
Painting
factor,
%
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
4.0
2.5
(continued)
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
13,912
37,597
38,337
13,795
1,161
4,328
5,514
5,861
14,818
10,960
72,912
4,302
2,965
o
I
en
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3581
3582
3585
3586
3589
3599
3612
3613
3621
3622
3623
3629
3634'
3635
3636
Product description
Automatic merchan-
dising machines
Commercial laundry
equipment
Refrigeration and
heating equipment
Measuring and
dispensing pumps
Service industry
machinery, NEC
Machinery, except
electrical, NEC
Transformers
Switchgear and switch-
board apparatus
Motors and generators
Industrial controls
Welding apparatus,
electrical
Electrical industrial
apparatus, NEC
Electrical housewares
and fans
Household vacuum
cleaners
Sewing machines
Paint
consumption,3
gal/yr
Paint
purchases,3
$lC)6/yr
26.9
12.3
1.2
Product
shipments,3
$!06/yr
388.3
233.1
239.8
1,648.5
6,328.7
2,084.2
3,296.2
4,940.3
2,420.4
1,043.5
663.1
258.9
Painting
factor,
%
3.5
3.5
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
4,931
2,960
9,759
1,740
17,942
22,960
15,123
11 ,958
26,885
4,391
5,679
2,406
4,462
435
1,409
o
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3639
3641
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3651
3661
3662
3677
3693.
3694
3699
| ,.,.,|«..
Product description
Household appliances,
NEC
Electrial lamps
Noncurrent-carrying
wiring devices
Residential lighting
fixtures
Commercial lighting
fixtures
Vehicular lighting
equipment
Lighting equipment,
NEC
Radio and TV
receiving sets
Telephone and
telegraph apparatus
Radio and TV communi-
cation equipment
Electronic coils and
transformers
. X-ray apparatus and
tubes
Engine electrical
equipment
Electrical equipment
and supplies, NEC
Paint
consumption,3
gal/yr
Paint
purchases,9
$106/yr
14.2
Product
shipments,3
$106/yr
1,638.3
1,295.0
941.9
909.5
644.5
672.9
4,768.2
7,095.0
13,906.4
600.0
1,751.0
2,951.3
819.1
Painting
factor,
%
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
5,152
8,915
7,047
6,834
6,599
2,338
4,882
25,948
38,610
75,677
1,088
6,352
10,707
4,457
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3713
3714
3715
3716
3731
3732
3743
3751
3761
3764
3769
3792
3795
3799
3811
Product description
Truck and bus bodies
Motor vehicle parts
and accessories
Truck trailers
Motor homes
Shipbuilding and
repairing
Boat building and
repairing
Railroad equipment
Motorcycles, bicycles,
and parts
Guided missiles and
space vehicles
Space propulsion
units and parts
Space vehicle
equipment, NEC
Travel trailers
and campers
Tanks and tank
1 components
Transportation
equipment, NEC
Engineering and sci-
entific instruments
Paint
consumption,9
gal/yr
Paint
purchases,3
$106/yr
14.4
54.2
11.9
4.6
27.0
8.7
17.0
3.8
5.8
4.5
(continued)
Product
shipments,3
$106/yr
979.3
906.7
1,829.4
Painting
factor,
%
0.5
2.0
1.5
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
5,224
19,663
4,317
1,669
9,795
3,156
6,167
1,379
b
b
1,776
2,104
6,579
1,633
9,955
o
oo
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3822
3823
3824
3825
3829
3832
3841
3842
3843
3861
3873
3944
3949
3964
Product description
Environmental controls
Process control
instruments
Fluid meters and
counting devices
Instruments to
measure electricity
Measuring and control-
ling devices, NEC
Optical instruments
and lenses
Surgical and medical
instruments
Surgical appliances
and supplies
Dental equipment and
supplies
Photographic equipment
and supplies
Watches, clocks, and
watchcases
Games, toys, and
children's vehicles
Sporting and athletic
goods, NEC
Needles, pins, and
fasteners
i \
Paint
consumption,3
gal Ayr
Paint
purchases,3
$106/yr
Product
shipments,3
$106/yr
1,127.6
1,720.6
643.2
2,587.6
1,138.2
1,314.8
2,131.3
2,348.2
651.1
9,477.9
1,318.4
2,310.3
1,538.8
630.1
Painting
factor,
%
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
4,091
9,363
3,500
14,081
6,194
4,770
11,598
12,779
3,543
34,385
2,392
20,954
8,374
2,286
o
I
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
SIC
Code
3991
3993
3995
3999
Product description
Brooms and brushes
Signs and advertising
displays
Burial caskets
Manufacturing
industries,' NEC
Paint
consumption,3
gal/yr
Paint
purchases,3
$106/yr
13.1
Product
shipments,3
$!06/yr
610.6
496.5
Painting
factor,
%
1.5
0.5
Total VOC
emissions,
tons/yr
3,323
4,753
901
b
o
I
Data obtained from 1977 Census of Manufactures, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
No data available.
NEC: Not elsewhere classified.
-------
APPENDIX D
PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS
1. To obtain total VOC emissions (tons/yr) from paint consump-
tion (gal/yr):
a. Assumptions:
(1) Paint is 60 percent solvent.
(2) Specific gravity of solvents is 0.87.
b. Calculation:
Tons/vr = (gal/vr> (°-87 x 8-34 lb/gal)(0.6 Ib solvent/lb paint)
1 2000 Ib/ton
Total VOC emissions (tons/yr) = Paint consumption (gal/yr)
T 459.4 (tons/gal)
2. To obtain total VOC emissions (tons/yr) from paint purchases
($/yr):
a. Assumptions:
(1) Paint is 60 percent solvent.
(2) Specific gravity of solvents is 0.87.
(3) Paint is purchased at $6.00/gal.
D-l
-------
b. Calculation:
-,_ _/ _ ($/yr) (0.87 x 8.34 lb/gal)(0.6 Ib solvent/lb paint)
lons/yr - ($6/gal) * 2000 lb/ton
Total VOC emissions (tons/yr) = Paint purchases ($/yr)
T 2756.4 (tons/paint $)
3. To obtain total VOC emissions (tons/yr) from product
shipments (?/yr):
a. Assumptions:
(1) Paint is 60 percent solvent.
(2) Specific gravity of solvents is 0.87.
(3) Paint is purchased at $6.00/gal.
(4) Some percentage of the total product shipment value
is due to purchase of paint. The assumed percentage
for each SIC group is given in Table 4-1.
b. Calculation:
Tons/yr = ($/yr)(% paint)
•* $6 gal
(0.87 x 8.34 lb/gal)(0.6 Ib solvent/lb paint)
2000 lb/ton
Total VOC emissions (tons/yr) = Product shipments ($/yr)
x Painting factor (%)
v 275,640 (tons/shipment $)
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
DISTRIBUTION OF ESTABLISHMENTS IN 1972
BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY
E-l
-------
n
G
0
0
0
o
^
UU3 SIC
ii -'j
!.:«." 2011
*&!. 2013
3 2016
a 2017
5 2021
7- V 2023
8 -Si"i 2024
9 2026
10 2052
11 2055
12 r^ii 2034
U-3£2 2035
14 .& 2037
15 2056
16 2041
17 2043
l8:*flR?2044
1»'TM'2045
20. •••'$?& 2 046
21 2047
22 2048
10 28 2065
33 2076
34 2077
35 2079
36488*2082
37 JJS&2083
40 2odo
41 2007
<*3. 4>i2092
44 Sv&ilNS ,
45 2097
46 20^8
47 2o'<9
48 ., 2111
49 2121
SO ,,2151
TYPL
— ^
-e*4
1
1
1
1
1
1
' i '
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
•
'
S T A T 1
IIAMF.
MEATPACKING PLANTS
SAUSAGES, UTHER PREP
PUIJL.TKY DHE._S§_ijJG PL A
PUOLTKY AND Elili PKOC
CRtAMLKY UUTTCH
CONDENSED AND EVAPUR
'• ICE CREAM AND FRUZEN
FLUID MILK
CANNED SPECIALTIES
CANNED FRUITS ADD ¥£
DEHYD FRUITS, VEGET
PICKLES, SAUCES, SAL
FRUZEN FRUITS AND VE
FROZEN SPECIALTIES
FLUUNf UTHER GRAIN M
CEREAL BKEAKFAS'T Foil
BLENDED AND PREPARED
WET CUHN MILLING
DUG, CAT, ADD OTHER
PREPARED FEEDS, UEC
UHEAD, CAKE, RELATED
CUOKIES AND CRACKERS
RAH CANE SUGAR
CANE SUGAR REFINING
CONFECTIONERY PRUDUC
CHOCOLATE AUU CUCIJA
COTTONSEED OIL MILLS
SOYBEAN OIL MILLS
VEGETABLE OIL MILLS,
ANIMAL AND MARINE FA
SHORTENING AND CUUKI
HALT BEVERAGES
MALT
WINE8» BRANDY, BRAND
BOTTLED AND CANNED S"
FLAVUKINU ExlKACIS,
CANNED AND CURED SLA
FRESH OR FRU/EN PACK
ROASTED CUFFEE
MANUFACTURED ICE
'•!ACAKI)ilI AiiU SHAGIIET
FUjl) I'KEPARAliljijS, II
ClGAHtHES
CIGARS
Chtwluo ANU SMUKING
IUI1ACCU STEMMING AJlD
ilEAVlNU .I1LL3, CUTTU
STIC
NTUT
2474
1311
522
l in
1 3V
231
872
283
697
2507
Pni
CUJ
1038
178
495
208
435
457
47
57
137
41
221
? \ PO
3318
315
77
33
61
1011
48
115
94
32
511
109
167
40
213
121
2683
400
JTo
519
213
818
1 Qii
2099
23
124
37
91
307
S
1120^49
354
54
25
179
89
147
499
187
36
90
42
60
5
10
19
5
53
458
57
14
2
0
i <«<;
10
40
19
9
1 T 7
20
17
16
34
TJ
70
59
122
57
76
534
0
14
6
20
25
48
IS SYS
OS Of
NSO 99
216
14fc
65
29
16
54
49
74
415
1 4
156
16
46
40
59
c
13
16
5
24
150
307
46
25
7
1
8
1
35
26
5
48
23
18
6
26
416
20
46
74
21
10
1 4
158
0
9
4
10
17
43
T E M
mOO 249
151
110
147
23
4
34
20
45
18
185
20
36
54
56
40
4
10
12
6
23
54
35
20
85
3
4
9
21
4
10
29
.« -Ji^
19
245
20
45
16
1
19
130
0
9
8
24
34
62
10:29
NPSO
65
)fl
7fl
10
8
5
7
53
17
70
13
15
33
21
4
1
4
1
9
6
156
14
1
L.
11
32
r
0
7
0
r— H-
0
4
16
46
3
8
10
0
5
27
0
6
4
72
86
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1979
33
6
5
0
6
20
3
4
18
7
1
4
7
3
2
38
20
2
2
12
1
0 .
1
0
0
d —
0
6
8
2
2
6
3
0
1
6
0
9
0
4
52
73
CLUUUi
24 .:
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
7
3
0
0
6
0
0
0
S
1
0
s
0
0
9
i >
0
0
0
o
0
9
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
2
o
0
27
DO
-------
UBS
TtPt
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SYSTE
Nl 19 N2U 49 NSQ_99 N1QO_P49
10129 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1979
ASS Msnn Q9Q
59 ,
56
57
60*;S"i
61 -'&?
62
63
64
fcffflf
68
64
70
71SS&
75
75
76
7 JSS'
80
81
82
851
86
87
88
aWfkfc.
91 ;,»£'•
,2
93
94
95- „•
96 ;.-.i..
97,.*
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
2231
2241 , .J
2251
2252
22'ji
2254
2257
2258
2259
22ol
2262
2269
2271
2272
2279
2281
2282
2283
2284
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2311
2321
2322
2323
2327
2320
2329
2331
2335
2337
2339
2341
2342
2351
2352,
2361 '
23u3
c'371
2381
2384
2385
('387
WEAVING, F INISHING M
.,.. IIAKHUU FABRIC MILLS
.«JMEU>S HOSIERY, EXC
HUSIEHY, "LC
KNIT UUrt-K.iLAR MILLS
KNIT UNDERrtEAH MILLS
CIRCULAR KNIT FABRIC
i ; -HARP KNIT FABRIC MIL
KII1TTIHG MILLS. NEC
FINISHING PLANTS, CU
FINISH PLTS. MAIiriAl)
FINISHING PLANTS, NE
WUVEN CARPETS AND RU
TUFTED CAHPETS AND R
CAKHET3 AND HUGS, NE
YARN MILLS, EXCEPT rt
THROWING ANU rtliJDlilG
rtOUL YARN MILLS
THREAD HILLS
FELT GUUD3. EXC rfUV
LACE GUUDS
PAUUINGS AND JJPHUUSJ
PRUCCSSEU UXTILL HA
CUATED FABRICS, NUT
TIRE CURD ANU FABRIC
NONMOVEN FABRICS
CURDAGE AND f«I'lC
TEXTILE GUU03, NEC
MEU>S AliL» bUYS> SUIT
MEN>3, BUY3> SHIRTS,
MEN>S AND BOYS> UNDE
MEN>3 AND «OY3> NECK
MEu>S, UuYS> 3EPAHAT
MEM>3 ANU bUYS> MURK
MEN>3 AUL) bUY3> CLUT
HOMENkS, M1SSES> bLU
.•_ MOMENkS AND M1SSE3>
MOMENTS, MI3SES> SUI
mioMEN>Si MISSES> UUT
UKAJiSlLKLS A.JIJ ALL1L
MILLINEHY
HATS AND CAPS, EXCEP
CHILDREN>3 DKESSES A
CMILDRLu>S CUATS AND
CHlLl'KL"li>3 JUTERtlEAK
FUH GUilUj
FABRIC URESIi ANU HUH
ROBES AI1U DRESSING G
tJATERPRUUK UUTERGAHM
APpfckCL bLLJi
AH'AKEL A,,D ACCL'SSUK
198
376
312
917
87
716
201
73
196
258
201
65
179
85
424
212
98
73
105
132
106
203
18
84
156
345
730
94
299
624
503
537
971
5565
1617
1373
730
272
216
280
490
J65
4Qb
797
137
179
258
187
244
79
Ihl
95
146
170
13
286
4B
40
81
b9
73
47
144
58
67
41
35
28
17
76
73
71
0
17
75
266
286
167
21
164
196
68
171
268
2587
595
476
246
79
164
158
137
60
749
43
69
93
9b
lob
157
42
71
bb
99
24H
7
161
59
34
49
45
1
12
26
41
19
10
a
12
3fa
Ib
57
0
22
38
40
111
97
14
70
75
67
121
318
1732
518
378
134
64
42
50
141
49
107
42
29
47
75
48
60
43
28
11
7J)
17
92
a
26
47
30
6
5
46
12
24
e
a
11
15
11
39
0
17
23
112
10S
16
79
90
109
219
822
129
288
41
7
41
107
.21 .
78
29
3b
49
27
42
28
28
S5
105
19
94
10 ..«*r-
•_ 5
.29
S7
32
5
67
6
164
SI
12
11
7
6
fa
fa
15
5
14
22
10
171
205
18
14
141
154
101
151 V
35a .. ..
,19 ^
185
117
Sb
3
27
77
m
i
25
21
11
18
12
IS
17
17
33
17
61
•' Ifr
10
22
14
2
24
4
90
6
10
0
y
P
13
6
2
IDS
119
19
|07
95
57
1*
40
57
20
0
3
fa
o
6
5
10
4
4
5
a
-20
4
?0
10
18
i
la
12
7
2
17
0
2S
12
1
4
1
0
0
n
6
S
1
0
\y
33
17
?h
2
5
12
h
\R
ft
0
1
n
t^
0
5
1
2
0
n
n
1
x,
0
7
4
4
0
n
3
2
0
2
•*
0
«,
fl
1
2
D
0
2
2 .
A
1
1
17
4
2
7
3
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
5
^
3
-
~*l
*•
_*
_x
•/
^
>
•
^
^
go?
107
108
110
11 1
112
113
114
115
lib
117
120
121
122^
123
125
126
f29-
V 131
*•- 132
~I3T
136
138
110
141
144
14b
147
150
151
152
"153
r^u —
155
15b
15')
3IC
.4i«-T2392
23'»4
23V5
iSfc2396
•lfe'2599
2_411
2421
2435
2T3o
2439
24b2
2511 —
2531
25^1
2621'
21)31
2o-ib
Z047~"
.. 3L.7H
, to MO
2619
; 2651
2b'j3
o i A ,
TYPE riA-ir
1 CURTAINS AiJU URAPEK1
1 HUUSEFUKNISHINGS. ME
1 i ILX.LJLLL UAj,jL___
1 CANVAS AND RELATED P
1 PLFATINb AUU STITCHI
1 •>' AUTOMOTIVE, APPAREL
3CHIFFL1 MACHINE EMB
'FABRICATED TEXTILE P
LOGGING CArtP_g,t LUG C
SAWMILLS* PI flux; Mil
HARDUOOU D1MEUSIUN A
SPECIAL PHODOCT SAHH
MILLHUHK
HOOD KITCHEN CABINET
HARDHOOD VENEER A.'lD
SOFTKUOD VENEER AND
STKUCTUHAL rtUUD MEl-ill
NAILED WOOD BOXES AN
WOUD PALLETS AND SKI
WOOD CONTAINERS, NEC
MOBILE HUMES
PREFABRICATED riUOD B
.JOUD PRESERVING
PARTICLEBOARD
WOUD PRODUCTS, NEC
MOOD HOUSEHOLD FURNI
j UPHOLSTERED HUUSEHOL
I METAL HOUSEHOLD" TURN"
1 M A tf REUSES AuD BCDSP
I HOOD TV AND RADIO CA
1 HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE,
1 WOUD OFFICE FURNITUR
I HtTAL OFFICE: FORlJIfU
i PUBLIC ULDG , RELATE
1 rtOOD PARTITIONS AtiD
I HiTAl PARTITIONS AMD
1 , DRAPERY HOHE , BLIND
1 FURNITURE AND FIXTUR
1 PAPERMILL3, ExC BUI"
1 PAPERflOATfU MILLS
PAPER COATIiJG AND CL
ENVELOPES
BAGS, EXCEPT TEXTILE
I DIE-CUT PAPER AND Uu
PRESSED AilU MOLDED P
SA.ii TAKY PAPEK" PRoblj
STATIONERY PRODUCTS
CONVERTED PAPER PRUD
FOLDING PAPERBOARD b
I J>tn.lK PAHLHbiJARD BOX
i 3A:iiTAKY FUUD CIJNTAI
i o T i L
NTUT
1592
1112
208
B98
668
822
An 7 i
80^1
447
2434
1796
3bb
678
436
456
268
b83
310
399
68
3133
2348
1308
977
TOT—
166
240
421
1503
5T7—
505
494
57 —
349
273
575
247
583
49
100
431
307
544
397
1 2o5
251
A L A
1241
465
395
516
12542
361
1714
1400
112
482
306
185
166
94
bS
231
4
2487
1S21
538
237
607
51
93
136
75
1090
439
317
2W
04
252
2TT~
11
23
300
126
168
128
306
"58
N A L T
N20
212
46
L4JL
129
40
144
5JL
VO 1
168
64
397
224
91
LM.
72
198
3J_
85
on
90
9
352
333
316
flu
217
TT"
32
52
2~T"
MM
265
TPT
38
94
r~
"X i ~
24
48
112
BT~
10
18
57
91
119
148
295
48"
SIS S
49 N50 <
64
1US
33
4^_
47
11
70
111
473
LiiL
14
176
90
87
37
33
64
26
178
57
19
174
190
211
/i a
98
20
24
30
81
6T
8
48
6
33
bb
40
48
82
12
9
32
52
102
82
181
60
Y S F E M
;v MI oo ?
5b
as
19
. .. 15
17
3
08
•4Q
8
107
62
60
91
22
9
il_
295
20
34
92
171
165
41
18
15
36
43
60
55—
10 .
so ;
80
80
72
91
8
23
35
24
115
34
431
51
10:29 THURSDAY,
49 N25Q 499 N.S,
14
32
2
3
2
9
53
0
25
19
14
_ 58
2
0
a
25
15
i
22
83
53
29
8
2
11
12
It
12
3
4
10
56
43
16 .
13
30
T
6
19
jj
10
33
5
52
19
DECEMBER
5
6
0
0
4
0
4
4
14
0
13
0
2
9
1
0
5
2
0
0
4
if
6
4
1
a
8
3
0
5
6
68
20
10
2
11
2
10
3
6
0
0
i i
27,
0
2
D_
JL
4
0
2
1
10
0
2
1
0
o
0
0
1
1
0
2
4
a
0
5
0
6
2
1
27
15
4
0
c
K
0
0
6
0
1
1
0
0
3
1979
1
1
1
1
1
f
I
0
D
M
a
o
m
m
a
c
B
It
11
=
-------
'
•
•
•
»
0
0
H
B
H
u
•
t
•
H
i
en
«
OUS
160
161
162
Ib3
lb'4
165
Ibb
167
lotf
Ib9
170
171
172
173
174
175
17 b
177
178
179
180
fef
T82
183
184
185
186
S T A T I 3
SIC TYPE NA tL
:. • 26b5
..! 260 1
2711 '
2721
2731
m 2732
.;S\-2751
2752
27'j3
§704
7bl
•ISK2771
.^.2782
2789
2791
2793
S?9?
2813
2816
2819
i5JSS2823
2824
187 2831
>
*
n
u
"
u
•
-
u
«
11
,,
t,
w
n
to
H
188
184
190
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
20b
2'6T
208
209
210
" 21 f
21
BUILDING PAPER AND u
NEtlSf'APLRS
PERIODICALS
HOOK HUULlS'U.JG
Jh BOOK PRINTING
> MISCELLANEOUS PUBL1S
'••'••-•• COMMERCIAL PHINT>G, 1
CU'-IMCRCIAL PKINT1NG.
ENGRAVING AND PLATE
COMMERCIAL PRINTING.
MANIFOLD BUSINESS FO
GREETING CARD PUBLIS
BLANK80UK3. LUUSELEA
BOOKBINDING AND RELA
TYPESETTING
PHuTUENGRAvl; INDUS ORGANIC CHEMI
NITROGENOUS FERTILIZ
PHOSPHATlt FERTILISE
FERTILISERS. MIXING
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICA
ADME3IVES AND SEALAN
EXPLOSIVES
PRINTING IuK
CARijun ULACK
CHEMICAL ('REPARATION
PETROLEUM REFINING
PAVING MIXTURES AND
ASPHALT FELTS AMU CO
LUBRICATING OILS AND
PETRULtUM, COAL PRUD
TIPCS AND INilER TlJUE
T I C A L AN
flTUT Nl 19
282
92
8116
1205
700
2041
3198
8388
560
135
667
199
1U04
IJ90.
81
336
48
503
1M
384
323
59
18
61
182
140
756
642
1108
178
645
1599
139
174
514
73
145
627
388
4b3
92
4.QJ
37
Ib06
323
964
235
443
51
«;
JP
« T
14
7
P?
1
A
6
7
a
I
0
0
0
1
S
a
^
17
14
a
8
2
0
24
It
5
20
a
t
9
as
2
1
0
1
1
n
fc
33
1
0
n
10
1
^
t n
| 0
10
4
4
a
_
n
u
0
3
9
o
o
0
0
0
Y
0
2
•«
10
2
0
PS
i
p
24
4
1
0
7
1
1
6
as
o
1
0
1
0
fl
n
n
i
22
0
0
n
n
aa
-------
I
•
1
1
1
H
m
a
m
\
i
* O"
I
, •
>
„
k
»
(1
"
;; .:
«
UU3
213
214
216
217
216
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
22B
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
246
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
250
257
25H'"
259
26'J
2bl
262
263
264
SIC TYPE
1021
.'1031
3041
3069
J079
111
',•1131
'1142
3143
3149
V1S151
:,!ll6l
3172
3199
3211
^.5229
3241
1251
5253
,5261
3262
5263
5264
SSI 71
$273
3274
327',
.05291
i '5292
5293
J297
.- (J312
331 3
3315
331o
3317
3321
3322
3324
332'j
3331
3 T A T
IIA-U:
RUHbER AUU PLASTICS
RECLAIMED RUbbER
RUbbER, PLAJTICii HOS
FAbRICATEu KUbbER PR
MlSCELLAi.LUUS PLA3T1
LEATHER TANNING AND
BOOT, SHUE CUT STUCK
HOUSE SLIPPERS
Ml||>S KUUUEAR, EXCE
nUML":J>S FUJI. YEAR, EX
FUUT.JEAR, EXCEPT RUb
LEATHER GLOVES AMD M
LUGGAGE
MOMEH>S HAUDBAG3 AND
PERSONAL LEATHER GOO
LEATHER UOUUS, NEC
FLAT GLASj
GLASS CONTAINERS
PRESSED AND BLOWN GL
PRODUCTS UF PURCHASE
CEMENT, HYDRAULIC
UR1CK AUU STRUCTURAL
CERAMIC .(ALL AUU FLU
CLAY REFRACTORIES
STRUCTURAL CLAY PROD
VITREOUS PLUMBING FI
VITrtEuus CHINA FOOD
FINE E'ATTRt'HWARE" FOU
PORCELAIN ELECTRICAL
POTTERV PRODUCTS, N£
CONCRETE bLUCK AND b
CONCRETE PRODUCTS, N
READY-MIXED CONCRETE
LIME
GYPSUM PRODUCTS
CUT STONE AND STONE
ABRASIVE PRODUCTS
ASBESTOS PRODUCTS
GASKETS, PACK>G, SEA
" "MINERALS, GROUND IJR
:'l;iERAL i'UUL
HOiJCLAY REFRACTORIES
NONMETAL MINERAL PR
BLAST FURNACES AND 3
ELECTRuMtTALLUROiCAL
STELL nIKL ft. -go KELAT
CiJLI' rlJloilluli i)F ST
STEEL PIPE AuU TUiiES
GRAY IKUH FUU'JURIES
I-1ALLEAULE IRO.I FOUND
STLLL Iin/EST:iE-'lT Fuu
STEEL FIJIJIIDHIES, 'IEC
PRI'IAKY lnlM'Lr<
1 S T I C A L AN
NTOT Nl 19
107
20
90
-.1116 .
7t,9b
517
246
91
221
422
163
106
277
444
244
446
32
117
252
913
198
417
83
156
119
59
i4
in
B3
426
1388
3595
4915
103
114
908
392
142
374
488
10H
90
491
364
40
2H9
125
" 152
993
73
74
2oO
31
33
11
17
510
<4396
294
127
2S
1U6
50
46
147
230
146
349
2
2
142
629
27
115
27
55
49
l«
14
3
19
531
972
2672
3587
34
30
716
225
45
190
336
33
30
410
113
9
90
32
30
270
9
12
59
0
A L Y S I
N20_49
7
16
232
1S13
92
63
23
.20
39
17
25
59
91
46
61
2
0
13
150
3
120
16
42
20
4
1
2
22
47
348
570
1030
27
8
131
84
16
88
108 "
17
21
54
23
4
5fl
21
27
247
9
23
45
0
3 S Y
N5U_V9
11
9
144
894
56
43
17
45
19
20
26
57
25
29
2
2
16
57
29
12
31
20
5
3
2
11
31
58
235
213
23
16
37
39
15
34
30
16
14
16
19
5
63
20
26
164
5
15
4U
1
STEM
111 00 249
19
3
20
141
667
47
12
16
56
93
50
14
33
52
19
8
2
8
31
51
m . .
59
23
21
24
17
2
4
19
a
10
105
73
IB
54
19
26
40
36
14
19
17
11
36
10
47
27
34
178
26
12
57
6
5
10:29 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1979
N250 499 NSOO 999 N1000
20
1
9
52
167
24
1
10
79
119
42
1
a
11
3
1
8
49
17
17
26
3
3
q
6
9
4
0
5
9
0
11
10
0
6
5
12
19
15
0
14
6
0
41
7
20
15
26
69
14
6
35
B
10
o
24
46
4
0
0
28
ia
4
0
3
3
5
0
10
41
23
*
2
2
2
2
0
5
2
5
3
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
3
5
7
0
6
2
0
38
3
a
9
a
26
4
5
17
9
7 .
0
7
13
13
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
o
0
0
6
IS
10
2
0
0
9
i
0
0
2
2
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
0
3
0
0
94
2
3
1
1
19
6
1
7
5
«
i
«
•
•
1
a
H
D
•
a
m
it
a
H
B
B
ir
1*
•
0
a
M
B
M
U
H
•
•
1
U
11
*
U
•
M
B
11
«
I »
-------
o
'
•
"
11
''
" W
-J
"
'
"
n
"
•
u
"
„
II
"
0113
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
27<4
275
276
277
278
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
2B1}
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
3oo
301
302
303
304
305
iOo
307
308
309
310
311
312
31 3
314
315
31 (j
3 1 7
i 1 o
SK
3332
.-:.. 3333
3334
3339
3341
..- 3351
• ' 3353
•:'». 3354
3355
33bo
3357
.,;?• 33ol
.!/ :33o2
•:.V3ic,9
3398
33'»9
3411
••. .'3412
.-.1421
3429
3<431
..^3441
3442
3443
3444
S&', 34 4 6
3451
3452
34o2
^'34 oj
'•if! 3406
34o9
3471
34/9
*••• 3482
.<*,.3483
34H9
3-493
3-195
3490
3497
3490
3 •'! 9 9
3011
S T A T
TYPE NA.IE
1 PHIMAKY LLAU
1 , PH1MARY Z1UC
PH1MAHY HU.
84
241
15
110
374
11
SIS S
9 MSu 9<
1
0
a
20
2
1
24
57
97
48
52
32
14
t>?
108
16
50
182
204
211
61
18
54
149
90
45
6
83
9
264
161
68
5
8
J
7
9
1UO
66
102
47
144
it
Y S T E M
5 Minn PU<*
3
0
1
7 ^
32
10
UK
2
24
78
18
6
10
fc
31
Ifa
2
32
1
46
7
4
2
.
B
59
15
11
2
12
21
3
/\
THURSDAY, DECEMBER
a
-------
1
fl
I
-
•~
UBS
319
320
322
323
324
325
326
328
331
332
334
337
338
" 340
341
« 3"3
346
348
349
350
351
352
353
355
356
35'i
"359
360
362
TAT
36'l
" 360
_. . -
36?
368
T/.O
370
371
SIC
3519
'SS23
3531
-TJIij
•*Sfi535
3536
ite
3Siv
t/J552
3559
^'3562
,:.03563
3566
.^3569
3573
357o
;'J581
• 3582
358*3
TTA i.' " ~
3589
• J592
.3612
' T 1 1 J
361 3
3621 •""•
3622
3623
3621
362''
Ti ^ i
JO} 1
3633
TYPE
1
1 ,
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I .
1 "-
•
-
3 1 A T 1
INTERNAL CUMUUS DIG
FARM MACHINERY AND t
LA,,:J A;L INDUSTRIAL MAC
ELECTRONIC COMPUTING
CALCULATING, ACCOUNT"
SCALES, BALANCES, EX
UFF MACHINES, TYPEw
AUTOMATIC MERCHANTS
COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY E
iGERATiuN, HEATI
"^E~ASUR TNT, AIJD DISPEN
CARUUREfUK$, PlSTGIlS
MACHINERY, EXC ELEC
TRANSFORMERS
S'UTCHGEAR, S.JlTCHl)>
MUTURS Anl> GENERATOR
I-'J;jUSTKi"AL"CUuTrt?UL3
HELDIUG APPARATUS, E
CARltljN Ann GRAPHITE
ELtc INDUSTRIAL APP
HauSEiHjLD C.JUKI'JG Lu
il^tililLD KEFR1GEKATUR
HiluSElliJLU LAiJijUKY L'J
STIC
NTUT
178
110
718
210
315
154
188
383
6616
1231
88
U7
393
688
579
242
218
1384
559
135
84
396
102 1
316
266
155
901
602
79
97
2TT~
125
107
774
57
706
113
16267
216
508
425
590
166
72
250
HI
3o
A L AN
Nl 19
70
984
24
\h i
JOI
LL6
156
66
96
221
5350
818
23
398
354
133
109
u fl i
MWl
859
299
42
20
224
191
TfS
28
541
247
49
53
120
77
60
331
24
474
41
14341
80 .
285
168
372
86
28
137
33
11
b
A L Y S I
TJ20 49
27
210
22
1 07
55
30
38
60
126
66
920
18
J
69
133
108
47
248
81
11
16
83
7/1
70
5o
40
180
95
21
26
16
24
132
12
110
20
1523
36
104
51
92
•"2'3~"
13
48
8
5
1
S S Y
M5U 9V
17
141
18
3
35
33
25
29
34
224
14
33
72
55
22
40
129
45
12
12
32
1 '
34
25
27
95
89
5
20
11
14
89
6
58
16
291
35
52 • —
44
49
16
7
32
5
3
0
STEM
N100 249
20
101
17
78
22
33
20
17 .
47
36
107
63
9
4
19
62
35
j>4
20
27
82
69
22
14
30
6
31
30
57
70
12
7
4 '- •'
103
7
46
13
113
30
55
59
36
" 28
10
28
12
3
7
10129 THURSDAY,
NPSO (194 N
-------
I ons
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
3b2
383
384
385
• 386
387"
388
• 390
• 391
393
394
vi> 396
397
' 399
• 400
402
u 403
405
• 406
408
409
413
414
415
417
» 410
419
420
421
" 422
423
" 424
M
a
SIC
1634
3636
3639
.3*44
•-.•1364.5
364o
3"64~7
3640
3662
3*671
i$r~
•Ij675
3677
3678
3694
3699
: 721
: 724
1731
3751
3761
T3792
3799
3811
3822
3823
3824
362b
3829
383
54
8
34
54
54
329
1
4
b
52
13
75
317
30
21
48
101
22
162
299
45
19
41
112
104
184
34
5
5
8
165
.4
116
13
51
14
99
04
68
IS SYS
NSU 99
21
15
9
47
28
AS
28
7
27
26
2?
199
c
8
44
16
55
Ltt
168
20
Z
8
27
40
9
85
34
16
73
49
BJ
4
3
5
127
:>7
12
21
9
20
33
r E M
44
1
10
53
35
an
39
7
IB
28
22
i a
Ififl
1
4
43
23
139
43
15
31
34
6
82
2B
12
60
46
67
16
7
6
3
12
75
. 2_
. 25 .....
42
12
30
74
31
10129
35
3
1
7
26
17
- - 1?
IS
20
11
9JL
9
24
49
20
Lb_
9
12
19
-.: 34
n
4
L2_
5
5
L5_
7
12
1 1
7
THOHSDAY, DECEMBER
23
S
9
6
i
0
17
1
0
7
17
a
17
6
5
LI
0.
5
9
IS
18
a
lit
2
3
4
1
1
9
7
n
27,
7
1
— 0_
10
4
1
1»
J
9k.
5
18
10
1 .
J-fl —
68
4
1
25 —
19
25
IS
10
6
-.1-
-1
_5
9
7
A
8
1979
1
1
1
1
1
r
t
0
M
11
ff
•
n
a
a
k
a
Is
13 10
6
5
*s
V,
-------
1
1
I
4
1
1
0
U
K
t;
ft
•
a
n
k
ir
n
i
n
o
H
II
k
V
U
It
«t
II
It
1)
Una
427
42't
42''
431
432
434
43b
430
437
431
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
44o
447
M 448
1 449
K "50
- - •
-
SIC TYPE
3641 ,
3842 1 ,,
38l \
3964
3991
J993
.:lj399o
S
Cf Ok
:*.
s T A r i
NA.IL
SUHG1CAL, MEDICAL IN
SUrtGICAL APPLIANCES.
UUNTAL EjUlPilENT AND
OPHTHALMIC GUODS
PMUTUUKAPHIC L'JUIP ,
HATCHES, CLUCKS, AND
JEnELHY, PRECIOUS ME
fllLVERHAHE AND PLATE
JE^ELtKS> MATS , LAP
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
DULLS
GAMES, TOYS, CHILD>3
SPORTING, ATHLETIC U
PENS AND MECHN1CAL P
LEAD PENCILS AND ART
MARKING DEVICES
CAHtflJN PAPER AND INK
COSTUME JEWELRY
ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS
BUTTONS
NEEDLES, PINS, AND F
BROOMS AND BRUSHES
SI (JUS AND ADVEHTIS1N
BURIAL CASKETS
HARD SURFACE FLOOR C
MANUFACTURING INDUST
STIC
JJlilL..
bOb
. 42.9..
499
O27
2U2
1524
206
_ S07
344
243
004
1553
117
144
021
84
700
203
180
2o7
4bO
3287
20
3307
A L A
Nl 19
307
010
322
374
103
1209
480
233
138
360
1090
53
95
522
32
556
210
135
142
284
2050
320
9
2753
N A L Y S
N20_ 49
70
118
bo
bO
81
37
177
30
50
33
48
99
204
25
18
65
10
117
32
27
50
78
419
121
2
340
IS S Y S T
ll'jU 99 fJl
51
bS
24
20
bb
15
70
17
26
19
30
05
105
12
13
22
21
47
14
10
21
40
143
39
1
149
E M
00 ^49
42
43
10
29
46
10
41
14
8
30
18
03
101
17
9
10
10
29
0
7
33
35
01
21
3
90
,
. •. .,
10:29 THURSDAY, DECEMBER
IM2SO 499 N500 999
20
19
7
13
15
10
18
•-. x.. fc
2
14
8
30
40
5
7
2
4
11
0
1
14
12
14
7
t
24
13
15
4.
5
13
0
2
a
1
13
1
14
a
4
' 2
0
1
3
1
0
5
1
0
1
3
8
-/2_ ,
27, 1979
N1000
•3 -• >*'. ' •
it
0
2
15
9
1
1
0
2
0
13
S
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
-
_ _ - . -
1
I
1
1
•
I
a
a
M
B
M
D
•
II
I]
r
>
B
li
V
H
B
n
M
U
II
If
N
11
U
M
M
II
M
•f
U
II
U
11
i;
-------
APPENDIX F
AVAILABLE AND GENERATED DATA
PEDCo used the 1972 distribution of establishments by em-
ployment category to generate a 1977 distribution, based on 1972
ratios. Only the total number of establishments and number of
establishments with 20 or more employees were available for 1977
from U.S. Department of Commerce publications. This appendix
shows the procedure used to generate the 1977 distribution.
Available data were as follows:
a. Total number of establishments in 1977
b. Number of establishments with 20 or more employees in
1977
c. Total number of establishments in 1972
d. Number of establishments with less than 20 employees in
1972
e. Number of establishments with 20 to 49 employees in
1972
f. Number of establishments with 50 to 99 employees in
1972
g. Number of establishments with 100 to 249 employees in
1972
- h. Number of establishments with 250 to 499 employees in
1972
i. Number of establishments with 500 to 999 employees in
1972
F-l
-------
j. Number of establishments with 1000 or more employees in
1972
New data were generated as follows:
k. Number of establishments with less than 20 employees in
1977
= a - b
1. Number of establishments with 50 to 99 employees in
1977
= f x b /(c - d)
m. Number of establishments with 100 to 249 employees in
1977
= g x b /(c - d)
n. Number of establishments with 250 to 499 employees in
1977
= h x b /(c - d)
o. Number of establishments with 500 to 999 employees in
1977
= i x b /(c - d)
p. Number of establishments with 1000 or more employees in
1977
= j x b /(c - d)
q. Number of establishments with 20 to 49 employees in
1977
= b-l-m-n-o-p
All new data were rounded off to the nearest integer.
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G
PROCEDURES FOR PROPORTIONING VOC EMISSIONS BY
ESTABLISHMENT SIZE
The total VOC emissions from each four-digit SIC group were
calculated by the procedure outlined in Appendix D. The pro-
cedure used to proportion emissions by establishment size within
each group is discussed in this appendix. Establishment size was
defined in terms of the number of people whom an establishment
employed, and data about the actual number of employees in each
four-digit SIC group were obtained from the "1977 Census of
Manufactures."
PEDCo used seven establishment size ranges, or employment
categories, and assumed an average number of employees in each
category, as shown below:
Employment category, Average number
number of employees of employees
1 to 19 10
20 to 49 35
50 to 99 75
100 to 249 175
250 to 499 375
500 to 999 750
>_1000
The: largest employment category was open ended and thus, had no
fixed average number of employees.
G-l
-------
PEDCo calculated the theoretical number of employees in each
group by adding the theoretical number of employees in each cate-
gory in that group. This involved multiplying the assumed average
number of employees in each category by the number of establish-
ments in the category; for this step, an average number of 1500
employees was assumed for the largest employment category. The
theoretical and actual numbers of employees in each group were
then compared, and emissions were distributed. If the theoret-
ical number of employees in a group was equal to or less than
the actual number of employees, PEDCo adopted the following
procedure:
a. Calculate the amount of emissions per employee by
dividing the total amount of emissions from the four-
digit SIC group by the actual number of employees in
the group.
b. For categories including fewer than 1000 employees,
calculate the amount of emissions from each category by
multiplying the amount of emissions per employee by the
theoretical number of employees in the category.
c. For the category of 1000 or more employees, calculate
emissions by subtraction; i.e., subtract the sum of
emissions from all categories including fewer than 1000
employees from the total VOC emissions from the four-
digit SIC group.
If the theoretical total number of employees in a group exceeded
the actual number of employees, PEDCo adopted the following pro-
cedure:
a. Calculate the amount of emissions per employee by
\ dividing the total amount of emissions from the four-
digit SIC group by the actual number of employees in
the group.
b. Calculate preliminary estimates of emissions from each
employment category by multiplying the amount of emis-
sions per employee by the theoretical number of em-
ployees in the category (assume an average of 1500
employees in category with 1000 or more employees).
G-2
-------
c. Calculate the ratio of the actual number of employees
to the theoretical number of employees.
d. Multiply each preliminary estimate by the ratio to
obtain the final estimate of emissions from each cate-
gory.
G-3
-------
APPENDIX H
ESTIMATED BREAKDOWN OF VOC
EMISSIONS BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY
AND SIC CODE
H-l
-------
TADLE H-l. ESTIMATED BREAKDOWN OF VOC EMISSIONS BY EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY AND SIC CODE
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. Of
establish-
ments
185.
70.
37.
37.
38.
3.
0.
0.
3412
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
67:9.
375.
693.
i486.
3562.
603.
0.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
36. 3
5. 4
IS. 7
40. 2
93. 7
20 i . 0
0. 0
LI. 0
3423
No. of
establish-
ments
713.
429.
!23.
70.
48.
O '~4 t
14.
5.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
723!.
611.
6 13.
743.
1 19.;..
1549.
1 4 ••?(:..
1 063.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
10. 1
1. 4
5. 0
10. 7
24. 9
53. 4
106. '?
213.6
3425
No. of
establish-
ments
115.
t-0.
24.
15.
10.
4.
2.
0.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
660.
54.
76.
102.
15S.
135.
135.
0.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
5. 7
0. 9
3. 2
6. o
1 5. 3
3.3. S
67. 5
0. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
I
U)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
^1000
No. of
establish-
ments
S8.
6-;.
7.
1 1.
8.
4.
3.
I.
3431
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
500-^.
3:33.
J4&.
194.
oof.1.
!*i '•* l"l
1?4V,
£"33.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
51. i
6. 0
20. 9
44. 9
104. S
22-i. 5
•449, 0
8 38. 0
3433
No. Of
establish-
ments
694.
506.
•?ii .
49.
4y.
20.
o
!.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
1524.
225.
•?6.
163.
3V 3.
333.
2t. 7,
67.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2.2
0. 4
1. 5
•-' r 3
/. o
16. 7
33. 4
67. 0
=^====
3441
No. of
establish
ments
244C..
1379.
5 83.
230.
17'?.
65.
8.
2.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
5732.
t-8 1 .
1 007.
35 1 .
1546.
1203.
296.
143.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
2. 3
0. 5
1. 7
3. 7
3. 6
IS. 5
37. 0
74. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-T (continued)
a
i
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
^1000
No. of
establish-
ments
1C- 70.
1023.
273.
181.
131.
4:3.
13.
n.
3442
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
<2;: 16.
529*.
4917.
69:37.
1 l?^.
£299.
50 IS.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
25. 3
5. i
13. 0
38. 6
SO. !
i 9.3. o
386. 0
0. 0
No. of
establish-
ments
1846.
•?14.
4 6 0 .
239.
161.
42.
19.
1 1.
3443
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
3301.
£47.
435.
434.
760.
425.
365,
565.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
1. 0
n. 8
0. 9
?.. 0
4. 7
10. 1
20. 3
51. 4
3446
No. of
establish-
ments
1499.
i 280.
140.
53.
17.
7.
2.
0.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
943.
419.
162.
1 30.
97.
36.
49.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
0. f.
0. ;:
1. 2
2. 5
5. 7
1 2. 3
24. 5
0. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a:
01
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>.1000
No. of
establish-
ments
46i.
267.
60.
40.
68.
22.
4.
0.
3448
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
301 1.
2 6 0 .
205.
292.
1 159.
H03.
292.
1.1.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
6. 5
1 . 0
3. 4
7. 3
1 7. Ill
36. 5
73. 0
0. 0
3449
No. Of
establish-
ments
415.
229.
96.
46.
2 9.
14.
J .
0.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
M59.
166.
243.
249.
367.
3 SO.
54,
0.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
::. 5
0. 7
£. 5
5. 4
13. 7
27. 1
54. 0
0. 0
3465
No. of
establish-
ments
579.
153.
141.
97.
109.
37.
14.
23.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
7800.
90.
292.
430.
1 128.
821.
621.
4418.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
13. 5
0. f,
2. 1
4. 4
10. 3
22.2
44. 4
157. 8
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
?e.
:3.
14.
,-,
17.
i _
4.
1.
3466
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
4245".
f..\.
22^
ZtU.
1392.
176.
1404.
702.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
73. ?_
4. 7
16. 4
35. 1
81,9
17--:.. n
35!. 0
702. tj
3469
No. of
establish-
ments
2630.
1514.
5:34.
300.
163.
52.
16.
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
6S57.
obo.
1 172.
12'Hi:i.
lt-35.
1 1 1 S,
tSS.
:? C .
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2. 6
0. 6
2. U
4. 3
1 0 . 0
2 1 . f,
43. n
St.. 0
3484
No. of
establish-
ments
1 Ot..
t.4.
17.
3-
7.
£.
4,
C
•_' •
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2324.
35.
79.
3d.
163.
299.
39 S.
1270.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2 ] . 9
1. i
4. t>
10. 0
23. 3
49. S
•j'3, ^
254. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l. (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
2SO-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
ss.
4:?.
c.-
;5.
12.
7.
1.
7.
3489
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
3362.
69.
2,,.
y6.
300.
376.
107.
239'3'.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
38. 2
: . 4
5P 0
'. 0 . 3
25. 0
53. 7
1 i"i7. 0
342. 7
3494
No. of
establish-
ments
394.
372.
154.
1 II1.
142.
66.
35.
< -1
1 J1 •
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
:::3i:i76.
1255.
13:8.
2334.
S3 S 4.
3350.
3356.
&571?.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
'Ki:. 6
3. 4
11.3
25. 3
59. Ci
lit.. 5
253. 0
506. 1
3496
No. of
establish-
ments
1115.
724.
229.
97.
51.
10.
•i.
0.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
l^ZS.
3396.
3761,
3413.
4137.
1 759.
1407.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
it. ;
4. 7
16. 4
35. 2
32. 1
175. 9
351. 3
i.l. 0
a
i
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
00
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
•r'72.
301.
147.
r, 3 .
42.
It.
3.
n.
3498
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
:;27.
-:'• 5 .
59.
5.4.
o4.
il. 9 .
.:' K. .
0L
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
0. 6
0.:
0. 4
'.i.'. U
4. J:
t:. 7
3499
No. of
establish-
ments
?J.'U^.
£43S.
440.
It- 9.
i ^LJ.
•?r
"Z|fc
•-•
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
23'J4.
62:5.
3'jf..
3i'7.
55U.
242.
174.
77.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
iX 7
0. :?
0. 9
1. 9
4. 5
9.7
19. :?
:3S. 0
3511
No. of
establish-
ments
o 4 .
•!7.
10.
-'•
s.
2.
4.
10.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
1-236.
164.
122.
7y.
437.
26 1 .
1044.
12 080.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
169. S
•7. rr
,2.2
2t. 0
tn. 9
ISO. 5
2tl. 0
120:::. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a:
i
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
232.
.'04.
'12.
20.
24.
; *T .
15.
2:}:.
3519
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
409::' 7,
481.
?1S.
69::.
1941.
2426.
5 I'?*.
29730.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
176. 7
4. 6
lo. i;
34. 7'
SU. ':'
173. 3
''f^f... '~<
1^52. 6
_
3523
No. Of
establish-
ments
1 o -:i o
! i4i.
3 : i .
i £ • 4 .
11*.
?1.
14.
j| ^. .
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
1 iL^V.
1 J3t,
'r1 ^.' LI .
I04M.
l?4t..
76 i .
3SS.
4 <:• \ U .
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
T.. 6
0. i'
3. 0
£•. .-:
14. 3
o 1 . 7
6?. -'
177. :•;
~
3524
No. of
establish-
ments
15Ci.
5 '? .
23.
19.
]£:.
lo.
12.
1.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
1 6.39.
4ii .
57.
101.
•'• O •"•
476.
635.
106.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
10. 'j
r.i. 7
•"• c~
5. 3
\2. 3
26. 4
•52. 9
106. :'J
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
— •
3531
No. of
establish-
ments
-10.
473.
124.
1 I'll'.
38.
54.
•-i 1-1
•J 'I' I
2*.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
7K-V.
220.
202.
3 1 >-.• .
715.
9 4 0 .
,:«,.
3380,
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
7. 9
M S
l. 6
-t c
'•'•. 1
17. A
•]:•». 8
li'O. ?'
—
3532
No. of
establish-
ments
o46.
176.
64.
43.
30.
14.
10.
4.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
1 l'-j7.
li 6 .
•I1 c-
1:36.
r?s.
1 9S.
2:r::]:.
?31.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
"•' ci
0. 4
\ . 3
2. o
t>. 6
14. 1
28. 3
CT -7 ^ i
3533
No. of
establish-
ments
~7 1 .
2^8.
S4.
50.
50.
34.
17.
S.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
28527.
1121.
144t'..
1844.
4 3 04.
6271.
6271.
7270.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
60. 6
4. 9
17. 2
36. 9
36. 1
1S4. 4
368. 9
90S. S
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
=
3534
No. of
establish-
ments
M9.
73.
24.
20.
If..
A.
4.
2.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
2937.
176.
'. '•-.' 6 .
:"..'34.
62 '3.
:;:34,
6. 67.
ۥ67.
;
etr
t
1
X
Average
emissions
tons/yr
2. 2
1. 8
333. 5
s
•
3535
No. of
establish-
ments
609,
314.
.3.-.
O O i
46.
21,
*•
0.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
..!».
,0,,,
1615.
20^6.
2710.
2652.
2020.
0.
Average
emissions
tons/yr
20. 0
3. 4
ll.y
*>•*
5:1:. 9
126. 3
252. 5
0. 0
=====
3536
No. of
establish
merits
2 4 2 .
121.
50.
30.
22.
0.
;'-:-
3.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
6542.
351.
50:3.
652.
1 1 16.
370.
] 740.
1305.
Aver
emiss
tons
27
2
10
21.
50.
10o.
S,r.
435.
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
3537
No. of
establish-
ments
•i 7 3 .
306,
75.
36.
33.
! i.
h . .
(3. .
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
16342.
1 5 9 ''•'• .
1365.
1 4 LI 5.
•}: n ij £. .
2147.
2342.
4t?x.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
3S. 0
5. 2
; •:' . Li
3'?. 0
•? i L ;
1'35. 2
.>•:"".'. 3
730. 7
=:==^=^^=^=::^=
3541
No. of
establish-
ments
':' 0 '? .
602.
141.
6 i .
cr --.
27.
16.
10.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
14036.
1363.
i 123.
1040.
2068.
2301.
2727.
3 4 1 j ':"' .
Average
emissions
tons/yr
j 5. 4
•-i •*.
3. 0
17. 0
•".', Cl ;.' ;
35. 2
1 70. 4
:!40. 9
No. of
establish-
ments
42 j.
2 6 3 .
63.
34.
36.
1 3.
10.
1.
3542
VOC erols
sions.
tons/yr
6064.
520.
1066.
1640.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
14. 3
16. 4
32. 0
164. 0
328. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE Hrl (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
^1000
No. of
establish-
ments
7154.
57,? 8.
losi-;.
"-' c •'.•
121.
'1.
c-
3.
3544
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
\(.. I?-'?.
t_ . ."-! t-_ . "ft t
4029.
2 1 L'I 0 .
2353,
37S.
41-.
500.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2. 3
1. !
3, V
o. 3
19. 4
41.7
y3. -4
I'-.o. 7
3545
No. of
establish-
ments
j^uS.
'H 1 4 .
275.
'"^ '"• .
"7 t"
•~t -~i
S.
'-• •
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
7?9U.
1 102.
1161.
I-::-:".
15:;:3.
1447.
724.
1036.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
5. 7
1. 2
4. 2
•?. 1
21.1
45. 2
•.^O. 5
1 :3 1 . 0
3546
No. of
establish-
ments
124.
53.
19.
15,
in.
1 1.
•I)
r' k
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
10602.
201.
252.
426.
663.
1562.
2556.
4942.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
T C"
*-> -J . _'
".\ ;_';
1 *;• •'
* ^» . •_•
26. 4
66. 3
142. 0
234. 0
70t.. 0
a
M
OJ
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
63.
2=i.
15.
'^
4.
O
5.
a.
3547
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2 £.16.
65.
13S.
1 ft,.
1 3-?.
r.'^l.
97?.
7:-J3.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
41.5
I1, 6
9. i
: 9. t
^5. 8
V3. U
19ri. £
::9i. 5
3549
No. of
establish-
ments
tVJM.
352.
•"'J.
4S.
iZ t-.
1 fc.
i .
U.
VOC emis-.
sions,
tons/yr
'-"J7--JIT,.
loOo.
1 jOO.
J539.
i'OT'4.
Z735.
?42.
0.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
i ri_ ';
4. *
It'-. 0
o4. 2
7'H. ;-:;
1 "0. '?
o4i'. 0
0. 0
3551
No. of
establish-
ments
,•' h. 4 t
44 i.
14?.
79.
*8.
16.
9.
0.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
1 1366.
1252,
1456.
167:'::.
3:370.
1699.
1911.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
14. 3
2. S
9 . '-*
21.2
49. 6
1C*. 2
?12. -3
0. 0
a
i
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
6:;ii.
4.V9.
! fit'-.
54.
35.
It..
7.
4.
3552
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
9262.
1 1 22.
969.
105''.
It- 0.1 .
15t-9.
1373.
156?.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
14. 2
2. P.
9. 1
19. f.
45. 7
93. I
19-:.. I
392. 3
3553
No. of
establish-
ments
"OS.
19 3.
50.
22,
24.
5.
5.
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
t- 0 5 9 .
7 1 8.
t-St"-.
59S.
lc..i':?.
680.
ISftu.
rJ44.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
I1?. 9
3. t-
12. 7
27. 2
So1. 5
I'Jt-. 0
272. 0
544. Li
3554
No. of
establish-
ments
220,
1 17.
44.
2t-.
19.
id.
0.
1.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
7t.?2.
54T-1.
720.
912.
1 555.
1754.
105:?..
1131.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
3". 3
4. 7
16. 4
35. 1
3 1 . 8
175. 4
351. 0
1 1 3 i . 0
a
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
^1000
No. of
establ ish-
ments
5??,
•400.
97.
<*-,(•...
31.
15.
7.
-,
3555
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
: ;:912.
1759.
14'32.
1517.
*1 O '•'• ~j •
247.3.
2'308.
197:3.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
23 2
~. 4
15. 4
3-3. 0
7 if.. 9
164. 9
329. ?
t59. :J
3561
No. of
establish-
ments
tlLi1.
?27.
S9.
49.
7C.
44.
If..
1 1 .
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
::•::::::::-: 7,
1£34.
1747.
2061.
7459.
•H 25.^.
67:-:0.
1 ^ 2 "^ ' .
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
62. (-,
5. 6
19. 6
42. 1
98. 1
210. :;-:
420. t.
841. 2
3563
No. of
establish-
ments
!74.
7-:'.
2 ':' .
19.
22.
O •
14.
•^_
VOC emis-
sions ,
tons/yr
1 J795.
29b.
412.
578.
1 St. 1 .
1216..
4258.
5474.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
7' 9 . '?.
4. i
14. 2
.30. 4
7 1 . 0
152. 0
304. 1
608. 2
a
i
M
CTl
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
M
-J
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establ ish-
roents
4 £ 2 .
233.
96.
:"-:?.
35.
20.
10.
i.
3564
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
1161.
104.
123.
102.
225.
276.
2 7 6 .
55.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
2 i 4
0. 4
1. 3
-~l 1-.
iLL • '_•
6. 4
13. 3
2 -7 . 6
55. 0
3566
No. of
establish-
ments
Jl'j.
165.
7'J.
35.
3£.
1 1.
8.
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
4 ?2B.
.I.' y ^' .
4m.
45-?.
9t.i-l..
71 1.
1035.
4:37.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
13. 3
t. 7
6. ill
l ;i. 9
3iX 2
64. 6
129. 4
437. 0
3567
No. of
establish-
ments
306.
IS 2.
5S.
21'4.
' -' •' .
11.
3.
1.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
5514.
565.
631.
676.
1 196.
1281.
699.
466.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
13. 0
•
3. 1
ILL 9
23. 3
54. 4
1 16. 5
233. 0
466. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Emp 1 oyee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
2 1 7.
to.
50.
.33.
o 7" i
2 ! .
1 1.
5.
3568
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
5? ft i.
1 0 1 .
2° J.
4iS.
10:37.
• -:---
i ::34.
12 5 9.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2 / . '..i
1 p
->. 'i
\2. t
^ •"* t ^r
6:3. 0
i ^T.. 8
2^1. ?
3569
No. of
establish-
ments
If. 3<:..
1 107.
2t.4.
140.
'"j- 4 .
31.
Q(
1 .
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
I4oi9.
250'j.
JL l"l 'H . -! .
23:30.
33?1.
2^3-..
: 530.
;:4lj.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
•'•>. :
2. :•:
7. 'r1
17. M
o9. 7
:3S. 0
170. fi
•3 40. 0
3572 R 3579
No. of
establish-
ments
'^21 .
,«.
--. c-
20.
24.
13.
h, .
:3.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
; O'r't-o.
469.
329.
563.
157A.
1S30.
1689.
4504.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
ci '^ r.
A, y,
i -:• . L.'
2:3. 2
65. 7
140. 3
2:3 1 . 5
563. 0
I
M
00
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
h-1
vo
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
•Jf-S.
5 i 2.
\£t.
1 14.
90.
48.
37.
45.
3573
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
?£?;::.
1*47.
i54u.
3 OS 5.
5t.3?:.
6494.
1 0 0 1 ; .
4 4 :•;•:, 3.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
7f.. :?
•? . K'
l^:. 6
:;'.-\ i
t-::. 1
l.;:=J. j:
270. f.
9 S3. 4
3574
NO. Of
establish-
ments
t- 1 .
3fi.
r_
5.
•~i
7.
4 *
6.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
•4 ?.*<:.
74.
& 0 .
92.
'3 <-.• .
t-45.
737.
260S.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
70. *•
•-_, r.-
S. t.
18. 4
4::. 0
•?2. 1
134. 3
4:::4. 7
3576
No. of
establish-
ments
57.
•:> •:•
5.
12.
4.
i .
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2'?t.5.
22:3.
302.
147.
323.
588.
294.
538.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2"?. i
'.'•',. '->
13. 7
29/4
t'.S. 6
147. 0
294. 0
588. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
1 1 1.
77.
1 i.i.
3.
IT
r. .
C.,
1.
3581
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
^'r-o!.
4 111 6 .
JSf..
:.::17.
46ie
1 IS 7.
153-::.
791.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
'i4. 4
s ' -':
,,,
39. 6
92. 4
197. P
'3'? j. S
7 9 i . 0
3582
No. of
establish-
ments
94.
5f .
20.
1 1.
3.
3.
1 _
0.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2'?£.iJ.
370.
4r.3.
544.
:?4t..
742.
495.
0.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
'•':'• i . 5
K . K
'-' 'T' '"!'
49. 5
1 15. 3
247. 3
495. 0
0. LI
3585
No. of
establish-
ments
:?66.
402.
13S.
'rl .'! .
1 Off.
57.
•*• (' •
31.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
9759.
230.
337.
487.
1318.
1491.
1936.
3910.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
11.3
0. 7
2. 4
5. 2
12. 2
2t.. 2
52. 3
126. 1
a
i
to
o
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
1 17
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
7'b.
ta "J *
in.
5.
b.
•";
-•
1.
3586
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
1740.
h"i '-'
3 ii .
92.
•-. e •?
'2.7 r,.
551.
409.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
31. I
7.. 5
3. b
1:3. 4
42. f:
92. 0
13.3. 7
409. 0
No. Of
establish-
ments
977'.
7' U fj .
12:;:.
t'O.
f ..
_' T •
1-i.
7.
o.
3589
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
; ',:iiH42.
::4t.2.
j; ] '"-4 '••' _
?J5 Ij I.
4t34.
2574.
25 M,
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
i y. 4
4. ':*
17. 2
36. i:
35. 3
1 S3. '?
367. 7
0. 0
No. of
establish-
ments
j 9; 6u.
1 H "^fr"'
1 D i 1.' r_ .
r?23.
3* ft.
143.
20.
3.
1.
3599
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2;!' 9 1'-0.
i i.yt>u.
513;:.
2125.
1927.
577.
173.
115.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
l. Z
0. 8
2. 7
5. 3
13. 5
23. 9
57. 7
i 15. H
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
2"0.
136.
37.
37.
32.
12.
1 i
If..
3612
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
i^.]?:-j.
444.
iik ""' J
i il. "l i
907.
} 3 '•'-•'.>.
i ^7>.'.
2696.
7352.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
5<>, 0
3. 1
11 . S
34, 5
57. i'
i:vj. IT-
i%r,. i
490. 1
No. of
establish-
ments
f-.'/ii.
•3 5J:.
1 15.
5o.
6 1 .
41.
?:3.
is.
===^=^^==
3613
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/>r
i r'r'V.^:.
54:-:.
619.
6 7 1 J .
1645.
ii'i'tr..
2655.
3 -'i::.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
It:, o
1. 5
5. 4
11.6
£.•*. 9
57. 7
1 15. 4
230. 9
.
3621
No. of
establish-
ments
44S.
149.
59.
51.
69.
50.
44.
2*!1 .
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
26::':r:5.
363.
505.
933.
£946.
4574.
SO 50.
9514.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
6iJ. 0
2. 4
S. 6
1 :'.-:. 3
42. 7
91.5
1? 3. 0
365. 9
K
I
to
to
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a:
i
NJ
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
7\f..
4-40.
: i (•.
o r. ,
46.
2:3.
1-:-.
10.
3622
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
•i .':'•*! .
3 3 '•-'• ,
- "' I 2. ,
357.
15 13.
:3ij7.
?07.
1 1 ^'2.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
f: ',
0. :•:
;?. >'
S. :-:
; :5. 4
i.1:?. :-:
?7. C
1 i 5. .':
3623
No. of
establish-
ments
i?.-;..
86.
2 S.
1:3.
?:•.
-•_
6.
i'-
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
S r-. ? ' J .
i't-O.
2t.2.
40S.
it. '31.
7 I"1 ."•
i3c;'?.
906.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
32. o
3. 0
id. 5
;:.'£. 7
52. :f:
1 13. 3
226. s
•4?:?. i.i
3629
No. of
establish-
ments
2 i 9 .
12 I.
39.
2 6,
23.
3.
•4.
•71
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2*0fe.
1 70.
191.
273.
564.
158.
420.
630.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
i i. 0
1. 4
4. 9
10. c.:
24. 5
•52. 7
105. 0
210. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
293.
144.
•i::j:.
1 Q.
39.
3 I .
U L .
fc'r
3634
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
4462.
\ o *i> •
if.i'r.
\ :-!4.
644.
1097.
1436,
o •?<•-,
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
l Oi ?i
ii ^
•:; o
7 . 1
1 6. 'T.
o'j. 't
~U. ?
142. 7
3635
No. of
establish-
ments
3'i',
i:":.
G.
•'\.
>•
.-._
i,
-•
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
^1000
3639
No. Of
establish-
ments
R1'1.
40.
:•::.
1 !.
3.
t:
•i.
O
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
515,';.
- O "? i
91.
27b,
4 1 3 .
-' tr •-.
i 004.
2423.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
64. <;
:;:. 4
i 1 , :?
I"j. i
58. '':•
125. 5
2";ii. U
Sfi'f'. 7
3641
No. of
establish-
ments
10S.
103.
12.
ft.
7.
.15.
16.
7_
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
S?!5.
2 '? ;"•" .
] ;:o.
1 70.
:.::4y.
1597.
3407.
2931.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
er • .• *
•7* O
3 0. 0
•-. t •-.
^- i . <_<
49. 7
iOi.;.. 5
212. 9
•425. 9
3644
No. of
establish-
ments
2uO.
7 9 .
2S.
29.
:3f..
IS.
6.
4.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
7047.
202.
252.
557.
1615.
1 7:30.
1 153.
1 53S.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
35. 2
i1— • '"'
9. 0
19. 2
<*4. 9
9t-. i
1 92. 2
3:34. 5
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
708.
Afcl.
] 19.
7 6 .
?f.
1 1.
4.
1.
3645
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
*•?•:• 4.
107 A
'rtfl.
!325.
146-K
9SS.
W7.
349.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
9. 7
2. 3
3. I
17. 4
40. 7
S7. 2
174. 3
34'J1. 0
3646
No. of
establish-
ments
2 I 0.
'^ii'.
44.
24.
3-?.
13.
3.
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
&5C|1:'.
•7' • :• <^
54 S.
t.37.
SO-*?.
1724.
796.
c.30.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
-_: i . 4
3. S
1.I1. 4
<-J6. S
c- 1 . •>
1 32. b
2t-5. 3
530. 0
3647.
No. of
establish-
ments
7f.
32.
i 2
10.
10.
3.
'i.
4 .
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
23?S.
50.
66.
1 .IS.
275.
177.
703.
944.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
30. 4
1. 6
5. 5
11.3
27. 5
59. i.i
1 1 :?. 0
236. 0
ffi
I
to
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
223.
'. 0.';.
44.
."!'-'.
23.
I 0.
4,
I .
3648
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
*??•?..
.lol.1.
4 2 -v.
' *0<.
i i 06,
i 03: .
:?:::'j:.
£ I • .-
. 1 l_ r
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
?l . ?
2. 7
1 "J : -.
.".' :J . vf'
4 •':' . '
20,-:.. 3
4 : > . 1 1
3651
No. of
establish-
ments
syo.
• > il! I ' r
C1 li .
-t ! .
4?.
:;! 0 .
LI >:• .
•".. * '
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
^f.y-rii.
•?fc. 1 .
:::47.
'HUX,
v 219.
,::„.
S7R '
1194S.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
•^5. !
iil. '^
10. .3
Ji' 2. . 1
51. 6
1 10. (-,
221. 2
442. 4
3661
No. of
establish-
ments
::£.•:..
1 i i.
:_•• M .
:3i.
20.
;:\
!6.
.•"::"••'.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
3 St. 1 U.
344.
off.1?.
721.
'.005.
1977.
3721.
30393.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
; -5. 2
•"•. !
in. 9
23. 3
54. 3
1 1 6. 3
232. if.
:-:21. 4
a
i
N)
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-7 (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establ ish-
ments
?. } OT.
1 146.
i43.
20 7.
137.
94.
4 ;£: .
'•-.'• 0 .
3662
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
7 •1.6?,-'.
.?65! .
(.777.
W'li.
7569.
o ! o 7 ,
&'-;;-'-"
426 1 U,
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
?("., ;'•
2, "-:
3. 1
1 -.* --»
i ' • ..'
40. 5
36. :•
17-;:. ':,
^J2. 6
3677
No. of
establish-
ments
29 7.
1 0 1 .
72.
52.
t'ii.
15.
•4 .
1
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
1U :!:::.
•U.
104.
159.
o7 i .
2:-:n,
i J. il i.
61,
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
'•'1. 7
0. 4
1. '-,
3. 1
7. 1
15. 3
30. ';•
61. 0
3693
No. of
establish-
ments
238.
liilj.
46.
17.
O •";
7_
I 1.
4.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
6 1:5 2.
£53.
347.
275.
1 243.
565.
1776.
1 333.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
26. 7
2. 2
_, IT
16. 2
•~.\ '7 '.-'
30. 7
161.5
472. 0
a
N)
00
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-T (continued)
a
i
N)
VD
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
MOOO
No. of
establish-
ments
4 M:::.
2 :'• ':'• .
f'9.
o.".:.
~I '"'
U.TK
lo.
12.
:====
3694
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
io?!.i;\
:.-:•? 6
-. LT i
4 j! i ,
'- 1 .30.
ill'??.
1657.
5477.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
?C. S
i . '.''
c:l '-"-'
i .1. 3
2'\>, 7
i- 3 . ::J
li". "-J
4S':.. ^
' "
3699
No. of
establish-
ments
ts9.
467.
9T.
08.
O -"• .
13.
0.
o.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
44cr.7.
q c. ? .
n:u.
Fi ;-l llj .
1 194.
1003.
0.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
G. 9
2. 1
7. ;:'
1 5. s
•-' ^' » Ll
77. -.
0. 0
0. 0
============
3713
No. of
establish-
ments
?24,
507.
141;.
76 .
7 3 .
1 1.
0.
4.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
5224.
591'.
j'3;;.'.
665.
1491.
432.
701.
701.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
6. 3
!. 2
4. 1
3. 3
,::o. *
4:]:. 3
':' 7 . 6-
1 75. 3
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l.(continued)
nc
i
U)
o
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
3714
No. of
establish-
ments
261 U.
1619.
31 7.
175.
r?7.
'-
i s'..
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
I?^.3.
,;::::,
637.
150^
2075.
2353.
Average
emissions
tons/yr
7. 5
i.i. 4
i . •-;
w1 • •-'
!6.3
;:2. 7
•
3715
No. of
establish-
ments
351.
* p- * . ' .
cr •
J T.
40.
2 i'3. .
14.
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
431 7.
2 4 ii .
247.
»,.
1 123.
1367.
Average
emissions
tons/yr
12. -:
1. 3
4. ff.
9. :~:
22> '"'
4:3. 3
1 95. 0
=========
371 6a
No. of
establish
merits
— -^ __
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
•^ ^^
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-1 (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
£, \ :j,
r.oi.
115.
55.
54.
37.
20.
:-:3.
3731.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
9795.
lt.:-j.
•~i •'. Cf
2:30.
c •-. -?
,74.
y3>\
7034.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
K.. i
0. 6
2, 0
4- 2
M O
£0. 9
-I.';1
251. 2
3732
No. Of
establish-
ments
22 ':.;'..
lyu/.
21 rj.
101.
7:f:.
i7.
:?.
0.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
31^6.
906.
377.
'""-' l"l
6:54.
50:;:.
30].
0.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
i. 4
0. 5
i. e
-• r O
3. :":
13. :?
37. t.
0. 0
3743
No. of
establish-
ments
i i I\
92.
40.
51.
I1:"-1.
13.
10.
17.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
M*7.
100.
1 5 2. .
171.
362.
530.
SI 6.
4036.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2'^ . 1
1. 1
•~i i~i
8. 1
!•?. 1
40. ;:;
S 1 . 6
237. 4
a
i
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
357.
,,,,
».
' a.
•;<.
s.
5.
0.
3751
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
""•
,*.
5,,
60.
'Hu.
107.
2 1 5.
6 S y .
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
3. 9
0. <;.
2. 0
4. 3
10. i"i
21.4
43. C
••:•('.-. 0
3769
No. of
establish-
ments
33.
1 4.
5.
3.
0.
-:-
fi.
4.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
r.v,.
24.
29.
.'::-:.
i35.
!S?.
252.
1009.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
«.s
1 . 7
5. U
,,,
29. 4
63. 0
126. 0
252. 3
3792
No. of
establish-
ments
:-:,Ti.
•iOi.
1 15.
8?.
c- --.
10.
^l-
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2104.
*."• '~' '!• •
261.
431.
585.
242.
•97.
97.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2. 4
0. 6
2. j
4. :{:
1 1 . 3
24. 2
HO. 5
•37. 0
a
U)
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
19.
I.
5.
4.
• ~i
1 .
''_i ,
i .
3795
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
6T./1I.
H'
'-* '•',
1 cr c.
ISC-..
!99.
: 990.
3947.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
3*6. ?
5, 0
ie. 6-
39, e
'?3. 0
159. r:
398. 0
:"::'^47. 0
3799
No. of
establish-
ments
i ;>•:-*.
:;:2'::.
tfi 'j; .
'.-* S
14.
-•
I.
1.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
if.- 1:"::.
4i3.
232.
2 4 i.'i .
314.
?{.:
•?r..
r.^i.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
3. o
J . 3
4. 5
'?. t:
i::. 4
43. 0
'?!:•. 0
r?£. o
3811
No. of
establish-
ments
7^1.
5 OCi.
147.
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
2 "Jr..
1 Ll 9.
-•n.
1'3.
19.
1 1.
14.
14.
3822
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
•tOr!| .
1 0 0 .
h. ;-! .
1 39.
323.
.,00.
101'?.
£03 r.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
i .-i, 'J
1 . 0
J. 4
7. 3
1 ',' . i'J
•36. 4
72. 8
145. 5
3R23
No. of
establish-
ments
*? O f^
£12.
ro.
io.
41.
! t..
•J1
C|(
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
':> -:' f|. :' .
495.
c- -7 ••-,
490.
i (£.:•>..
1401.
157,;..
3153.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
24. :.::
i. 3
S. 2
17. S
40. y
S7. 6
175. i
350. 3
3824
No. of
establish-
ments
1 ! 0.
49.
I'?.
13.
-•_
It-.
*~.< .
0.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
3500.
124.
16S.
246.
309.
1516.
1 137.
0.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
3 1 . o
2. 5
S. 8
13. 9
44. 1
94. 3
IS'?. 5
0. 0
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-T (continued)
Emp 1 oyee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
f-,62.
,•„.
\ 0 2 .
52,
7';..
I*.
1.3.
10.
3825
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
140*1.
3.39.
7|-,f:..
,;.:.-_
2855.
,«,.
2 09 :."•:.
5242.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2K3
*.,
7. 5
it-, :
-;7_ r'.
30. 5
1 6 i . 0
524. £
3829
No. of
establish-
ments
«.'.'•*.
,,,
121.
2-.
45.
10.
9.
7>
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
';• 1 9 4 .
712.
657.
:-: :-::-:.
1224.
533.
1049.
,,,.,
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
9 i
1. <-..
5. 4
11.7
27. 2.
53. 3
lit'.. 6
233. 0
3832
No. of
establish-
ments
543.
350.
9 2 .
45.
42.
12.
4.
3.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
4770.
535.
492.
516.
1 124.
633.
459.
956.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
P. 7
1. 5
5. j
11.5
2.;. a
57. 3
114. 3
:31S. 7
a
i
U)
Ul
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
635.
^?0.
1-1 '"J
t.1:..
54.
26,
17.
4.
3841
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
1 ! •vr'y.
• j 'J ••.; _
7['i.
iii:5.
2,8',.
2251.
294.:.
1 3:55.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
It-. 9
2.3
:?. 1
1 ,"\ '':•
40. 4
St.. 6
I " ^ '
:.::46. :;-:
3842
No. of
establish-
ments
i i e- i .
S4/3.
147.
ir.o.
5?.
•-i .*
^1 *-r •
19.
7.
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
1 2 7 •.-••'.
174i;..
1066.
1 LI 5 1-. .
]•?£].
1S64.
2 '^ ^i '
2175.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
; i . o
T* '
7. :"•:
15. 5
36. Li
77. 7
155. .J
310. 7
3843
No. of
establish-
ments
551--.
440.
62.
27.
IS.
:3.
4.
n.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
354:::.
S71:-'.
433.
404.
629.
599.
599.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
6. 3
2. 0
7. 0
15. 0
34. 9
74. 9
149. S
0. 0
a
i
U)
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
a
i
Co
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>1000
No. of
establish-
ments
776.
Sir.
,4.
';• ? .
c: -_.
17.
i1-:.
i ff
3861
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
.:-:-3P;>.
,,;,
102'.-..
U7=.
2 S'r'l.
1 K-7.
::507.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
-«, "J
••:. I
! 0 , •"-<
2 :i . 4
54, S
1 ' ri . '•>
?33. 9
1 -' •-' "^ t-
No. of
establish-
ments
30^.
i •;' i .
43.
1 < •
,e.
,:,
•.7_
1 I*'
3873
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
fi -i< '-' £
131.
104.
:-::-•;.
2 1 6 ,
•v 6 3 .
3 6 0 .
1 rr'i 0
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
7. 9
0. 7
d. 4
Cj •-•
12. 0
25. 7
5 1 . 4
1 0 3 . i J
No. of
establish-
ments
SUO.
547.
33.
M.
».
2:7.
12.
1.-,
i..
3944
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
2 O';1 3 4.
i?ie.
107'?.
1524.
3432.
3546.
315^:.
6305.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
3. 5
12. 3
26. 3
6 1 . 3
1 :.-: 1 . 3
262. 7"
525. 4
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l (continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
>_1000
No. of
establish-
ments
lo/O.
1 ::.-:!.
i '. t' .
11'.
1 U 7 .
42.
ft.
Ij .
3949
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
::; .T '." ii
14. l:*.
£', 1 .- .
!-! '••* !-l
1-0 1 ''^ .
It- •'•;':.
64;',
SO 9.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
* . ':>
1. i
3. e
8. 1
i W , 'r1
•10. 4
XII, '-^
:,i.8
3964
No. of
establish-
ments
272.
J!f.7.
46.
1-?.
-i 0 .
1 -1;
s,
^•1-
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
iiiir:.'...
lii.7.
1"K
152.
S I1! 'J .
Sly.
:'-: ^ '9 .
i 19.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
o. 4
1. 1
3. 7
o. Ij
13. 6
o'H. '-1
7'r1. ;:i
15'?. 5
3991
No. of
establish-
ments
4 IJ '-1 .
25;i:.
71.
- •• 6 .
O Ll .
1 1.
1.
n.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
oSti:.
4.''0.
452.
4'?2.
1020.
752.
137.
0.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
0. 1
1 . ft
6. 4
13. 7
'•'• 1 . '•?
6:?. 4
137. 0
0. U
EC
I
Ul
CO
(continued)
-------
TABLE H-l. (.continued)
Employee
categories
TOTAL
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-999
^1000
•
No. of
establish-
ments
3491-;..
236.4.
4 i 5 .
; *2.
*~* \ *
14.
LI.
M.
3993
VOC emis-
sions,
tons/yr
•;r'.;3.
ir.r.j,
•r3'-.
7,:X.
-•-...:.
' ' S '-'
!'i.
i_"l.
Average
emissions.
tons/yr
]. ^
2. 4
S. 1
11.9
?:5. •?.
u. '.1
0. 0
3995
No. of
establish-
ments
4 i.'l 7 .
2 73.
o '• _
'- ' !-l
; c-
ir
1 .
!_l.
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
•?i.n .
1 :•;::::.
,"i 0 6 .
141:..
1 3 i .
1 j| M .
'y.'i..
n.
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
2. I1
Li. 7
I:. 4
^. ;i
i;:. i
.;.':;. 0:
T'2. 0
0. U
No. of
establish-
ments
r
VOC emis-
sions.
tons/yr
Average
emissions,
tons/yr
•
a
i
LJ
vo
No breakdown of establishments according-employee categories available.
-------
APPENDIX I
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY TEST RESULTS
1-1
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
MEMORANDUM
Project File
SUBJECT- Transfer Efficiency Tests at Ransburg
DATE: 3/10/80
G- Beaujon
Y. Shah
FILE:
3570-3-D
cc:
. T. Ponder
R. King
Yatendra Shah and George Beaujon visited the laboratories of the Ransburg
Corporation on February 7 and 8 to observe a series of tests that were to be
conducted to demonstrate the transfer efficiency of the electrostatic spraying
equipment and methods of determining the transfer efficiency. The following
individuals were in attendance:
Name
Jim Berry
Bill Johnson
Richard Dalton
Norman D. Emily
Lee. W. Winters
Bill B. Anthony
Terry Brennan
Yatendra M. Shah
Affiliation
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning & Stds.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning & Stds.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
U.S. EPA
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago 60604
General Electric, Finish Systems Lab.
Appliance Park, 35-1117
Louisville, KY 40225
Glidden Coatings & Resins
900 Union Commerce Bldg.
Cleveland, OH 44115
Glidden Coatings & Resins
16651 Sprague Road
Strongsville, OH 44136
Glidden Coatings & Resins
16651 Sprague Road
Strongsville, OH 44136
PEDCo Environmental
Chester Towers
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Phone
919-541-5305
919-541-5305
312-886-4577
502-452-5041
216-771-5121
216-771-5121
216-771-5121
513-782-4700
1-2
-------
Name Affiliation Phone
George 0. Beaujon PEDCo Environmental 513-782-4700
Chester Towers
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Brian J. McCrodden Research Triangle Institute 919-541-6936
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
E.W. "Pete" Drum Ransburg Electrostatic Equipment 317-298-5000
Division of Ransburg Corporation
P.O. Box 88220
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Rob Acker Ransburg Electrostatic Equipment 317-298-5000
Division of Ransburg Corporation
P.O. Box 88220
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Prior to the testing, the group assembled in the conference room to discuss
the tests planned for the day and to answer any initial questions. Pete Drum
of Ransburg explained that all of the tests the first day would involve painting
a washing machine wrapper (the metal shell) using the Ransburg Turbobell
Electrostatic Spraying equipment. The paint was to be applied in a mock
production line consisting of two turbobell spray units on a reciprocating
device with the wrappers carried on an overhead conveyor. The spraying
mechanism was triggered automatically by an electric eye linkage that was set
to begin spraying just before the part was directly in front of the gun and
continue spraying until just after it had passed. The paint used was Polylure
1130, a thermosetting polyester manufactured by Glidden Coatings and Resins of
Cleveland, Ohio. This paint is specifically formulated for application by
electrostatic spraying equipment onto home laundry appliances. During the
day, the transfer efficiency was to be measured three separate ways; the foil
weight method, the filmstrip "mileage" method, and the part mileage method.
In the foil weight method, the part is completely wrapped in foil and spray
painted. The foil is then removed and the paint cured. The weight of paint
on the foil as compared to the weight of paint delivered by the spray gun
(corrected for solvent loss) determines the transfer efficiency.
In the filmstrip mileage method, a strip of foil is attached to the wrapper
before painting. After painting, the strip is removed and the paint cured.
The amount of paint on the film is determined by the thickness of the film and
again compared to the delivered paint to give transfer efficiency.
The part mileage method is similar to the filmstrip mileage method with the
exception that paint thickness is measured directly on the part.
The tests proceeded as planned and the results are given on the enclosed data
sheets. Following a short discussion, the group adjourned for the day.
On the second day the tests were designed to demonstrate the upper and lower
limits of transfer efficiency capabilities of both the conventional and electro-
static air atomizing spray guns. There were four tests in all; first an open
target was sprayed using the Ransburg electrostatic air (REA) spray gun, then
1-3
-------
the same target was sprayed using a conventional air spray gun; these same two
guns were then used to spray a closed target. The open target used was a rack
of 1 inch diameter rods mounted 3 inches (center to center) apart. The closed
target was a flat sheet 22 inches long and 36 inches high. The paint was the
same as that used in the previous day's testing. The transfer efficiency in
all cases was determined using the foil weight method. The tests proceeded as
pla/ined and the results are given on the enclosed data sheets. An additional
run was made using the REA on the open target because it was felt that the air
pressure (which was held constant for the first four tests at 40 psi) was not
providing an acceptable degree of atomization. This final run was made with
the air pressure set at 60 psi.
Between the testing periods, the group had an opportunity to share various
perspectives on the surface coating industry. One discussion of particular
interest concerned the certification of "low solvent" content paints. After
considerable discussion, it was generally agreed that the preferrable method
would be to establish a standard "bake test" to be used to check certification,
thus avoiding the problem of trying to determine which solvents are "volatile"
and which are not.
Another comment worth noting is that Pete Drum of Ransburg stated that electro-
static spray equipment is not likely to be compatible with water based paints
in the foreseeable future.
1-4
-------
GENERAL1& ELECTRIC "AJOR
APPLIANCE
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. APPLIANCE PARK. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40225
Phone(502)452-4311
March 13, 1980
BUSINESS
GROUP
Mr. Brian J. McCrodden
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Dear Sir:
Attached is a portion of my trip report on the feasibility
demonstrations and transfer efficiency testing conducted at the
Ransburg Corporation on February 7-8, 1980.
It has been my intent to provide a subjective analysis of these
tests and other factors pertaining to industry utilization of higher
solids low solvent containing finishes.
Please understand that the application characteristics (transfer
efficiencies) observed on February 7-8 do not necessarily represent
those available with equipment supplied by other manufacturing
companies, such as Interrad (Sames), Graco, DeVilbiss, Walberg, et al.
Additional insight into current industry technology could be derived
from similar demonstrations at one or more of these companies.
Finally let me express my personal appreciation for the opportunity
to interact in these investigative programs.
Sincerely,
^"™.?-y ft.?-.-<~> ^^ s**«--(,-!
Norman D. Emily '/
Finishes and Adhesives Function
Materials and Processes Laboratory
Applied Science & Technology Operation
NDE:sw
cc: R. M. Lukes
W. D. Irish
G. J. Beaujon
J. Berry
W. Johnson
Y. M. Shah^
Attachment
1-5
-------
FA-0-0138
Page 2
TEST PROGRAM (continued)
Bell Transfer Efficiency Tests Conducted 2/7
Application Parameters
Finish
Supplier - Glidden Company
Product - 689-W- 30117 (1130 series)
Color - White
Cure cycle - 20' x 325°F
Application Temperature - ± 120°F (some difficulty was experienced maintaining
a constant temperature.)
Viscosity = 35" //2 zahn cup at 120°F
Resistivity = .4 megohms at 120°F
Reduction = 38 parts paint: 1 part solvent to obtain an estimated VOC level of 2.8//
solvent per gallon.
Calculations Used
Weight loss method:
Percent weight solids - ^iRht of cured residue
weight of wet sample
Transfer efficiency (%) 72 * 1C)5
OCX
Where: a = weight of dry paint (gms.)
b «= delivery weight (gms /minute)
d = solids content (%)
x = target width (inches)
y = conveyor speed (ft. /sec.)
Volume solids, mileage; film strip method:
Determine:
C = theoretical mileage (ft.2/gal. @ 1.0 mil) = % volume solids x 1604
v = total volume (cc's) paint applied to the test target
F = average film deposition on cured film strips (mils)
A • total area of the test target (ft. 2)
Let:
B = ft.2 of applied paint per average film deposition (F)
E = ft.2 of applied paint per gal. per mil
TE = % transfer efficiency per mil
1-6
-------
FA-0-0138
Page 3
TEST PROGRAM (continued
Target:
GE washer bodies with zinc phosphate metal treatment. Dummy bodies were positioned
before and after the test target to provide a "production line spacing1 to influence
the paint electrostatic attraction characteristics.
During the 'weight loss' transfer efficiency trials, the bodies were wrapped inside
and out with preweighed sections of aluminum foil.
For the mileage/film strip tests, only the outside surfaces were covered with foil.
Application Equipment and Facility Parameters:
One reciprocating bell station containing 2 vertical bells.
Serrated turbo bells (2 piece exterior weld construction).
Reciprocating stroke length = 11".
Air turbine drive = modified high torque with an effective operating range of
5000 to 8000 RPM.
Bell rotational speed = 6500 RPM unloaded.
Top and bottom pattern suppressor bars installed.
No shaping air.
Paint delivery period electronically timed.
Cross draft application booth with the 'normal1 air flow available for Ransburg's
booth //5.
Paint/target triggering controlled by an Edon automatic system.
Line speed = 22.8' minute.
Voltage = 90KV
Application Technique:
Four passes per significant surface; all passing from right to left in front of the
bell station. 'Bell to ware distance'«= 11"
Trial Results:
Trial 1 - the 'weight loss' method produced a calculated transfer efficiency
measurement of 94.6%.
Trial 2 - the 'film strip' method produced a calculated transfer efficiency
measurement of 77.4%.
1-7
-------
EA-0-0138
Page 5
Trials Critique - The variation in measured transfer efficiency between these
two techniques can be partially explained. In tri.il 1, foil was placed inside
and outside the washer body. This procedure did, in fact, collect some paint
film inside and this deposition was included in the total applied paint weight.
In trial 2, foil was placed on the exterior body only because this method
uses film thickness of the paint deposition as a factor of calculation.
The 'foil strip1 positions on the body were of considerable importance to the
accuracy of the test. Corner buildup was not included in the calculation. Thus
the lower transfer efficiency obtained in trial 2 was predictable. Finally,
this data can be useful to all concerned if it is realistically evaluated against
the data source.
It is my personal impression that the 'weight loss' technique provides more
reproducible laboratory test results.
However, attempts to compare the results of this laboratory produced data with
those taken from a production environment could be misleading. Most factory
paint systems do not have the flexibility of adjustments which would allow them
to conform to the same rigid application parameters.
Target dimensions, for example, could routinely change in length, width, or
depth. Most automatic application equipment does not have this type of
operational flexibility. Consequently, the user is forced to set up the equip-
ment for one typical or a few generalized target sizes.
The result would be that transfer efficiency in the production environment would
vary from user-to-user and line-to-line. The percent transfer efficiency would
usually be lower than that measured during these tests.
Measurement of production line transfer efficiency would probably be easier to
accomplish using the volume solids/film thickness method rather than attempting
the weight loss procedure. The most accurate technique would be an extended
data compilation which would include material consumption, square footage processed,
and average film deposition. A sampling of every configuration of product normally
coated in a given effective facility should be included.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to list some of the factors which, individually
or in combinations, can affect paint utilization and/or transfer efficiency of
low solvent containing finishes?
Target size and configuration as related to the application equipment design
and set up.
1-8
-------
FA-0-0138
Page 5
February 26, 1980
Trials Critique (continued)
Paint properties
Resistivity
Atomization (particle size)
Viscosity/temperature profile
Electrostatic conductivity; paint over paint (resprays), bent hangers,
poor electrical grounds, etc.
Facility
Booth air make up velocity
Booth relative humidity
Booth temperature
Application Equipment
Design capability (ability to affect spray pattern size)
Pattern shaping air pressure
Atomizing air pressure
Fluid pressure
Rotational speed of bells, discs, etc.
Triggering (automatic paint interruption when no target is present; i.e.,
the gap between conveyorized parts)
Relative Comparison of Hand Guns, 2/8
Equipment and Set Up:
Paint - Same as used on 2/7
Guns - REA-3 electrostatic high fluid delivery
- Conventional air atomizing
Gun to ware distance - 12"
Voltage (REA-3) « 60KV
No booth make up air
Application technique - fixed position; one pass with 24" high pattern
Calculations - Weight loss method
Test Results:
Trial 1 and 2 (REA-3)
. Target = (Broomstick) six aluminum foil covered 1" diameter rods on 3"
centers plus lead/lag dummy rods.
Atomizing Air - 40 psi
Transfer efficiency « 56.9% average
Note: Paint atomization only fair
Second trial duplicates the first
1-9
-------
FA-0-0138
Page 6
February 26, 1980
Trials 3 and A (Conventional air gun)
Target » Broomstick
Atomizing Air = 40PS1
Transfer efficiency = 22.3% average
Note: Paint atomization better than trials 1 and 2.
Trials 5 and 6 (REA-3)
Target = 22" x 36" flat sheet foil covered, with a 2" spacing between
target and lead/lag dummies.
Atomizing Air •= AOPS1
Transfer efficiency = 83% average
Trials 7 and 8 (Conventional air gun)
Target = flat sheet
Atomizing Air = 40PS1
Transfer efficiency = 68.7% average
Trials 9 and 10 (REA-3)
Target = Broomsticks
*Atomizing Air «= 60PS1
Transfer efficiency = 56% average
*
The paint atomization at 60PS1 (REA-3) appears comparable to 40PS1 with
the conventional gun.
Note: The paint viscosity at the end of this final test was 50" //2 zahn cup @
120°F. The viscosity is assumed to have risen gradually during this
testing program from 35" originally measured at the start of trial //I.
Hand Gun Trial Critique:
The electrostatic hand gun, REA-3, appears to present a feasible alternative
to conventional hand guns for the application of low solvent content finishes.
One exception to this conclusion would be on part configurations where the
phenomena of Faraday caging, electrostatic attraction to the nearest mass,
would reduce paint penetration into crevices and recesses.
1-10
-------
FA-0-0138
Page 7
February 26, 1980
i
Other Topics of Discussion:
In-house usage of paints containing no more than 2.8// solvent per gallon - It is my
understanding, from conversations with Research Triangle Institute, that EPA will
not summarily exclude the use of solvents for purposes other than equipment cleanup.
However, they feel that their documentation which will be required for solvent control
may dissuade many users from adding solvent reducers to the paint in-house.
ASTM 112369 determinati.ojvA/OC content - Several discussions were directed toward
alternative methods of VOC measurement. The EPA representatives, paint supplier,
and myself all concur that 20' at 110CC does not provide a realistic method of
removing the solvents from a higher solids appliance grade finish to obtain the
weight loss data.
Alternative approaches to solvent extraction were identified as the following:
a. Use of a longer drive off period, 1 or 2 hours.
b. Equivalent cures, those providing a complete molecular cross-link of the
resin, such as 30' at 350°F for this grouping of finishes.
I made the point, as a member of a using organization, that adoption of option 'b'
without changing the 2.8// solvent/gallon criteria would severely tax existing paint
and equipment technology. Application viscosities would be increased significantly.
One of the EPA representatives, Mr. Berry, stated that adoption of the 'equivalent
cure' technique would not be considered without a compensating increase in the
allowable VOC level above the existing 2.8///gallon.
The large number of varied paint types and cure cycles present industry wide may make
this approach less appealing.
The first approach discussed which retains a temperature of 225-230°F, while increasing
the solvent drive off period, may be more practical. I pointed out that we have
generated substantial amounts of test data using 2 hours at 225°F to drive off the
solvent from higher solids appliance grade finishes.
Temperature control as a means of facilitating the application of higher solids
finishes - We were able to observe definite appearance variations in film texture,
continuity, and deposition during these trials. The measured increases in paint
viscosity wejre a contributing factor in these appearance changes.
I repeatedly made the point, as a member of a using organization, that finite temperature
control of the paint at the point of application is mandatory if consistent application
characteristics are to be obtained. This is certainly valid as applied to the low
solvent containing finishes which are very sensitive to viscosity changes caused by
temperature fluctuations.
1-11
-------
FA-0-0138
Page 8
February 26, 1980
Generally, most appliance grade higher solids finishes will demonstrate significant
viscosity reductions as temperature is increased to the 120-130°F range. Additional
temperature increases are less beneficial because of a leveling of the reaction curve.
Control of paint temperature at the point of application is one of the few remaining
adjustments which are available to the 'user'. This control does not affect VOC,
but does produce a favorable impact on the finish application characteristics such
as gloss, film thickness, texture, and film continuity.
The proposal was made to Ransburg's, Mr. Drum, that the equipment manufacturer consider
integral temperature control as one of their design criteria. This would be one
method of providing the required sophistication of temperature control while limiting
the overall equipment package size.
In summary, it is my personal observation that this opportunity for the equipment
manufacturer, paint supplier, user, and environmental control agencies to interact
and discuss mutual objectives and problems was very beneficial to all who had the
opportunity to participate.
1-12
-------
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY TESTS
RANSBURG CORPORATION
February 7-8, 1980
NAME
COMPANY
PHONE
Jim Berry
Bill Johnson
Richard Dalton
Norman D. Emily
Lee W. Winters
Bill B. Anthony
Terry Brennan
Yatendra M. Shah
George J. Beaujon
Brian J. McCrodden
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning & Stds,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning & Stds,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
U.S. E.P.A.
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago 60604
General Electric, Finish Systems Lab.
Appliance Park, 35-1117
Louisville, KY 40225
Glidden Coatings & Resins
900 Union Commerce Bldg.
Cleveland, OH 44115
Glidden Coatings & Resins
16651 Sprague Road
Strongsville, OH 44136
Glidden Coatings & Resins
16651 Sprague Road
Strongsville, OH 44136
Pedco Environmental
Chester Towers
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Pedco Environmental
Chester Towers
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Research Triangle Institute
P. 0. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-5305
919-541-5305
312-886-4577
502-452-5041
216-771-5121
216-771-5121
216-771-5121
513-782-4700
513-782-4700
919-541-6936
I -13
-------
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY TESTS
RANSBURG CORPORATION
February 7-8, 1980
'RANSBURG ELECTROSTATIC EQUIPMENT 317-298-5000
DIVISION OF RANSBURG CORPORATION:
Don F. Caffee
E. W. "Pete" Drum
Rob Acker
Larry L. Utterback
William W. Smith
Gary Burkhardt
William L. Smart
Dick Rost
Harold Allen
Geoff Michaels
Jim Taylor
1-14
-------
'
When Vou Sav ELECTROSTATIC ... YOU Mean RANSBURG
. • •
^''^ -•'. 'V j.-. / i
A DIVISION OF RANSBURG CORPORATION Marrh ^ 1 QftD
iian.li j, 130U
Mr. Yatendra M. Shah, P.E.
Pedco Environmental, Inc.
Chester Towers
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Dear Mr. Shah:
I was very pleased that both you and George Beaujon were able to attend our
transfer efficiency tests February 7 & 8. I apologize for not getting the
results to you sooner, but our National Sales Meeting was scheduled for the
following week.
Enclosed you will find copies of the raw data sheets which we generated during
our two days of testing and the results. I have also indicated how the calcu-
lations were carried out to derive these results from the raw data. For your
purposes, I do not feel that the numerical values for transfer efficencies were
all that important. As we pointed out during the tests, these will depend upon
the type of coating material sprayed, the delivery rate, and the object con-
figuration being coated. The method of testing, however, is of interest.
The first test method utilized, the weighted foil test, is our most accurate
procedure except for long-term record keeping. Although conceivably an inspec-
tor could pre- and post-weigh the foil, the determination of delivery is the
controlling factor in the accuracy of this method. The three important para-
meters are time that the paint is on, the weight solids content of the coating
as sprayed, and the rate of delivery in grams per minute. In the laboratory
these variables can be accommodated rather well. In the field the exact
deliveries may be slightly difficult to obtain as would be the weight solids
percent. These quantities could be ascertained with a break in production but
this is obviously undesirable.
The volume transfer efficiency, what we refer to as filmstrip mileage or part
mileage, is somewhat, easier to arrive at, but is less accurate. For this test
it is the applied solids instead of the sprayed solids which is difficult to
determine. Film build, when cured, varies from one edge to the center, the
area of the part being coated is difficult to ascertain, and certain resin
systems such as polyester shrink when curing, thus giving an erroneous result.
The part mileage may be used for a quick determination as film build need only
be checked at a few places on a finished part. This would have the least dis-
ruption of production and may prove to be a more flexible technique. It is,
however, less accurate than the weighted foil.
A final technique for measuring transfer efficiencies is a method developed by
General Motors and one which we have never used. It consists of weighing the
object to be painted both before and after paint and curing as well as the
Mailing Address: Posl Office Box 88220 Indianapolis. Ind. 46208 Shipping Address: 3939 West 56th Street Indianapolis. Ind. 4625-
Phone:(317)298-5000 Telex. 027-464 Cable Ranscoat
1-15
-------
Mr. Yatendra M. Shah, P.E. Page 2
Pedco Environmental, Inc. March 5, 1980
delivery system. This is done by suspending the article to be weighed from a
load cell. The one used by GM has sufficient sensitivity to detect the small
amount of paint placed on a large object with a high degree of accuracy.
Barney Matrille at General Motors Technical Center is probably the most fami-
liar with this technique. I have contacted him and he has expressed a willing-
ness to discuss this with you.
Probably the most accurate way to determine efficiency would be record keeping
over an extended period of time. However, in conversations with Bob King and
others involved with enforcement, I have noticed a reluctance to allow the time
frame to expand more than 24 hours. In most cases they feel an instantaneous
average would be desirable. If one is concerned with purge solvents, color
change solvents, cleanup and other miscellaneous sources, record keeping is
probably the only way to account for these losses. Usually records of this
nature are kept although they may not be in the form which is readily usable by
a field inspector, but could be put in such a form with little additional
effort by the manufacturer.
Finally, one last approach to the enforcement aspect of how to determine trans-
fer efficiency is what we refer to as presumptive efficiencies. This type of
determination was recommended in the automotive and light duty truck surface
coating NSPS and also in the metal furniture coating NSPS. Basically, this
refers to simply assigning a presumptive efficiency to an equipment type, for
instance, manual nonelectrostatic spray is presumed to be 40% efficient, or
electrostatic bells are presumed to be 90% efficient, etc. We feel that
whether the numbers are pegged high, low or middle is really irrelevant if
their ratios reflect reality, since credits for improved t.e. vs. presumptive
industry norm is a relative rather than an absolute comparison.
I hope that this will be of help to you in determining an enforcement technique
that will recognize improved transfer efficiency—the only readily available
technique to reduce VOC emissions that saves the user significant money rather
than costing money. If you have any questions or if we can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Again, thank you for your
interest.
Sincerely yours,
Robert M. Acker, Director
Environmental Affairs
RMA:cjc
end.
cc: George Beaujon
Barney Matrille
1-16
-------
Transfer Efficiency Testing Summary
During 2 days, February 7 and 8, 1980, Ransburg conducted transfer efficiency
tests with Glidden Polylure 1130, a laundry top coat. This material was test-
ed on the high torque Turbobells as well as the R-E-A III electrostatic air
atomizing hand gun and, for comparison, a DeVilbiss air atomizing nonelectro-
static hand gun.
The first test was a weighted foil transfer efficiency, carried out on washing
machine cabinets being sprayed with two Reciprocating Turbobells.
Critical parameters were:
Line Speed 24 fpm
Passes four per side (3 sides) - total 12
Delivery approximately 45 grams per bell per minute
Paint Temperature 120°F
Ambient 75°F
Volume Solids 62%
Centers 48"
Film Build 1-1.1 mil
A weighted foil transfer efficiency test is our most accurate method for test-
ing transfer efficiency and consists of a precise preweighing of foil which is
laid over the part, painted, cured and then postweighed. The weight of ap-
plied solids is the difference in the pre and post weight of the foil. The
total paint sprayed, multiplied by the weight per cent solids, yields the
weight of solids sprayed. The ratio of solids applied to solids sprayed mul-
tiplied by 100, yeilds the transfer efficiency. In this instance, a transfer
efficiency of approximately 95% was obtained.
In the second test, a similar procedure was performed except on a volumetric
basis rather than a weight basis. The volume of coating sprayed, multiplied
by the volume solids, yielded the volume of solids sprayed. To obtain the
volume of solids deposited, film strips taped to the part were measured
carefully for film build. This thickness multiplied by the area of the part,
yielded the volume of solids applied. Again, the transfer efficiency would be
the volume of deposited solids, divided by the volume of sprayed solids, times
100. In this case, the test yielded a transfer efficiency of 78%. This does
not take into account film shrinkage which is a result of polyester materials
curing, (10% by Glidden's estimate) nor does it take credit for any deposited
material which is on the inside of the cabinet, as did the previous test.
The next tests were run on both the R-E-A III hand gun and a conventional De-
Vilbiss nonelectrostatic air atomizing hand gun. Both of these hand guns were
sprayed on "broomsticks" and flat sheets. These targets would represent the
extreme cases of both low and high transfer efficiencies, respectively. On
the broomsticks, the R-E-A III averaged approximately 57% and the conventional
hand gun approximately 22%. On the flat panel, the R-E-A III was capable of
84% and a conventional gun 68%. For a rough average, the R-E-A III would
therefore, achieve approximately 70% and a conventional hand gun 45%. Again,
because this was a laboratory test, it was felt that in production approx-
imately 60% would be realistic for the R-E-A III and probably 40% or less for
the conventional hand gun.
1-17
-------
TEST I
Weighted Foil Transfer Efficiency
* T r- Weight of deposited cured solids inn
* *•*•' Weight of sprayed solids * iuu
Part A: Calculate weight of sprayed solids
Sprayed Solids weight = Delivery in _x - rx — x Spray time in Sec,
_
ivprv - f delivery before delivery after .
very - ( sec0nds seconds '
- r43.25 44.50 .
" ^29.833 29.283;
= (2.45 + 2.52)72
= 2.48 grams/sec
% Solids = 73.86%
Spraytime = 90.318 sec
Sprayed Solids Weight = - x 73'86g x 90.318 sec
= 99.04g
Part B: Calculate weight of deposited solids past weight of cured foil
preweight of foil.
Weight deposited solids = 93.7324g
Q-3
Transfer efficiency • 994 x 100
= 94.64%
1-18
-------
TEST 2
Volumetric Film Strip Mileage
T F volume of deposited solids lnn
' " volume of sprayed solids x iuu
Part A: Calculate volume of deposited solids
Volume of Deposited Solids = avera^1^m in mi1s x area in ft? x 144
Average film build = 1.06 mils
Area = 18.34 ft2
Volume of Deposited solids = -- x 18.34 x 144
= 2.799 in3
Part B: Calculate volume of sprayed solids
231
Sprayed solids = delivery in cc x 2735 * v0^ solids
Delivery = 94.93 cc
Solids = 62%
Sprayed solids = 94.93 x x 0.62
= 3.592
Transfer Efficiency = y^ff * 100
= 77.9%
1-19
-------
Hand Gun Tests
Broomstick Panel
Ransburg R-E-A III 57.37 81.90
56.44 85.58
Approximate Ave.: 57 84
70
DeVilbiss 22.67 68.26
21.98 68.08
Approximate Ave.: 22 68
45
1-20
-------
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY TESTS
RANSBURG CORPORATION
February 7-8, 1980
NAME
COMPANY
PHONE
Jim Berry
Bill Johnson
Richard Dalton
Norman D. Emily
Lee V.1. Winters
Bill 5. Anthony
Terry Brennan
Yatendra M. Shah
George J. Beaujon
Brian J. McCrodden
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning & Stds,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning & Stds,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
U.S. E.P.A.
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago 60604
General Electric, Finish Systems Lab.
Appliance Park, 35-1117
Louisville, KY 40225
Glidden Coatings & Resins
900 Union Corrcnerce Bldg.
Cleveland, OH 44115
Glidden Coatings & Resins
16651 Sprague Road
Strongsville, OH 44136
Glidden Coatings & Resins
16651 Sprague Road
Strongsville, OH 44136
Pedco Environmental
Chester Towers
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Pedco Environmental
Chester Towers
Cincinnati, OH 45246
Research Triangle Institute
P. 0. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
919-541-5305
919-541-5305
312-885-4577
502-452-5041
216-771-5121
216-771-5121
216-771-5121
513-782-4700
513-782-4700
919-541-6935
1-21
-------
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY TESTS
RANSBURG CORPORATION
February 7-8, 1980
RANSBURG ELECTROSTATIC EQUIPMENT 317-293-5000
DIVISION OF RANSBURG CORPORATION:
Don F. Caffee
E. W. "Pete" Drum
Rob Acker
Larry L. Utterback
William W. Smith
Gary Burkhardt
William L. Smart
Dick Rost
Harold Allen
Geoff Michaels
Jim Taylor
1-22
-------
BBS
CLIOOIN caariNCS s RCBIHS
PRODUCT:
TYPE:
SUGGESTED USE:
PRODUCT DATA
Polylure 1130
Thermosetting Polyester
Home Laundry Topcoat
COLOR:
VOLUME N.V.:
WEIGHT N.V.:
WEIGHT PER GALLON:
THEORETICAL COVERAGE:
VOLUME SOLIDS AT APPLICATION:
TYPICAL PHYSICAL DATA
White
64.0 percent minimum
78.7 percent
12.0 pounds/gallon
1027 ft2 @ 1 mil
45 - 507. Volume Solids
SUBSTRATE:
PRIMER:
CONDITIONS FOR USE
Zinc Phosphate CRS
BAKE SCHEDULE:
APPLICATION:
REDUCING SOLVENT:
FILM THICKNESS:
Electrolure - Gray Electrolure Primer 1308,
1308, 1500
Acrylure - Gray Electrolure Primer 1110, 11
Aqualure - Aqualure Primer
20 min. @ 350°F or equivalent
Conventional or High Speed Equipment
Xylene or equivalent
0.9 - 1.0 mil, minimum .7 mil
1-23
-------
PENCIL HARDNESS
ADHESION:
FLEXIBILITY:
(1/8" Conical Mandrel)
IMPACT:
TABER ABRASION:
CR-10, lOOOg
SALT SPRAY - ASTM:
HUMIDITY:
DETERGENT - ASTM:
OVERSAXE:
STAIN:
WEATHEROMETER:
SPECIFIC PROPERTIES*
3H Eagle
Pass Crosshatch or 2H Eagle
1/8" Crack
40 In. Ibs. Direct
6 in. Ibs. Reverse
< 10 mg/100 rev.
1000 Hours 1/32 in. creep
No Field Blisters
1000 Hours 1/32 in. creep
No Blisters
2H Eagle
AE <= 0.4
AG » 1.5
250 Hours 1/32 in. creep
3% Blisters
&£ = 0.7
AC = -1
1007. A E = 0.4
£G = -3.0
Mandrel 1/2 in. crack
Excellent
Excellent
*1.0 mils topcoat over 0.4 mils Acrylure 1120 primer on zinc phosphated
CRS. Topcoat bake schedule of 20 minutes at @ 350°F.
K-8
WBA
1-24
-------
SOLIDS CCc-TEj^T DETF.Rl-ilMATIGX
)«^E
! £2 s)-! /*-''•
\! e i'^t n :
-------
7. SOLIDS COMTEK
- 7 -
uTT FT CATION AL
in r-;rcr.;s
Bottle of v.'ct paint
before pourin3 sample into pan ^^ 7^V^7^
Bottle of v:et paint
pourins sample into pan
t p.inc sauple
and dry point s^
Dry paint sample
7, solids content
f>
.-± Ig. ¥138-
(f)
100=
100=
,,M 1.x 100=
AvS. == 77.VZ
3-9-53
Foirm T'o. 5o Revised 4-16-6C
1-26
-------
1. Spraying:
2 .
Turbobell Transfer Efficiency
Delivery Worksheet
8. OK
"7. 113
Total time sprayed: ^O* 3 (8
2. Delivery chaek:
-7-177
. 833
3. Graduate v/eights:
Graduate + paint
Dry Graduate
Paint
Total Paint (P)
Number 1
f /
2. |.
Total time delivery measured
Number 2
33
1(
(Pg/Tg) x TA = PA = Total wet paint sprayed
Solids Content
Total Dry Paint Sprayed
1-27
f
Number i
~ ~-T
77
91.ne
-------
Foil Number Baked Weight Clean Weight Dry Paint
q a
,-<*
ft! . 1464 -73.^30^
g,~7 *U.45£k 1JU2il£k 3.2Q44
£~g l^.fefeftl. "71.^963 ^.ng4jl U3
C,-^>
Total Dry Weight
Transfer Efficiency = Total Dry Weight .Epmijmd / Total BtfTWeight Sprayed
1-28
-------
SOLIDS
2- 7- V0 Tnr;oTTFTr.\TTOM C.Ll^e*/ P/J/
—L 2
Bottle of v:ct paint •
before pouring sample into pan 05\Z7.9
.
Wet paint sample ^ - 2.7 ^ i ^ ' • ' .
Pan and dry paint sample . / ^ /T; ^y^
Pan alone ' / / ^077 \j 2. !£ -*3l 2. O
.
Dry paint sample ; \ (c) , (f)
70 solids content
:.AM | x 100= 73. B 1
3
..B» .| x 100= 1^0 I
,,c.. 1.x 100= 7 5. 7 /
AvS. == 75.56
3-9-33
Form Ko. 56 Revised
1-29
-------
-2.
-2 -V-
C2
V
1-30
-------
DATE: 2-
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY DATA SHEET
TEST NO.:
YPE OF APPLICATOR: ffrf HL
MODEL/PART NO.:
AIR CAP •» /
NOZZLE SFRAV TIP
inches
FLUID NOZZLE
BELL DIA.
inches
'BELL/DISK DIA.
BELL/DISK SPEED(FREE)
SELL/DISK SFEED(LOAD)
inches
RPM
RPM
PROEE TYPE
PRCEE LOCATION
POWER SUPPLY MODEL/PART NO.: iS~/O OUTPUT VOLTAGE £ O KV l
OUTPUT CURRENT 2 o S~
Ma
BOOTH TYPE
BOOTH RELATIVE HUMIDITY
RECIPRCCATCR SPEED ~
LOOP DIA.
BOOTH TEMPERATURE
CONVEYOR SPEED
CPM HEAD/TARGET DISTANCE
?o
inches
PAINT MFG. GL.IC,
TYPE OF PAINT 69<=)
REDUCER H^-LOL.
APPLIED VISCOSITY
BAKE CYCLE
,?,<•,>/ DELIVERY RATE cc/'-'n.
jLLJej/y r '* 7-/r?-V PAINT RESISTANCE
SOLIDS CQN.cNi
ATOM/ SHAP. AIR PRESS.
-------
FOIL
NO.
% I.E.
REMARKS
J- ?. ^
/VJ, ' t
4/c
r. 3- / 3
.5*
*/ y
/=)/!
/.
7 " J" J
S
.ZZS'Z
Z!9
.'22-7?
. /S/S
ft
/o
7.5171
7. 53??
'rQT. J?
fl/3
1-32
-------
FOIL
NO.
/3/P
>l
OH
5V 7^
£23
roT
5/
/4-IZ2I
76
% I.E.
$/. 90
REMARKS
£>=.£>.
52-30
2.C ^ - ULL
t? T'V 1& i
1-33
-------
"'A;
When You Say ELECTROSTATIC . YOU Mean RANSBURG
>D'J!VC7
EtECTOSTKTC
p.f ^ liT),^ /rrv !~
A DIVISION OF RANSBUPtG CORPORATION
October 31, 1978
Mr. Dave Salman
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Dear Dave:
In response to questions about the measurement of the transfer efficiency of
spray coating processes, here are the four most frequently used methods that
we know of.
1. Weight Transfer Efficiency
This is the most accurate quick test, but is
least applicable to production testing. It
yields an absolute number under ideal or
closely controlled conditions, and is very
repeatable. The steps are:
A. Preweigh and identify aluminum foil cut to con-
form to the target.
B. Measure conveyor speed.
C. Capture atomizer output in unatomized state for
one minute and weigh.
D. Record target width, including one "gap".
E. Determine weight solids content of paint when
subject to the same curing conditions as the
sprayed film.
F. Cover the target with foil, and pass it com-
pletely through the spray with appropriate
_> "dummy" targets before and after test targets.
3'
G, Remove and cure the foils, and reweigh. The weight
of dry paint collected is the difference in the
weights recorded here and in step A.
Variable
Dimension
grams
ft/sec
gm/min
inches
grams
%T.E.
72 ay " 10"
bdx
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 88220 Indianapolis. Ind. 46208 Shipping Address: 3939 West 56Th Suee1. Indianapolis, ind. 462>;
Phone: (317) 293-5000 Telex: 027-464 Cable. Ranscoa'.
-------
'R4NS8URG-
ELECTROSTkTIC
EQUIP/V1ENT
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency •
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
October 31, 1978
Page 2
2. Shim Stock Film Strip Mileage (T.E.)
This test is roost frequently used in our labs for
sales demonstrations. The steps are:
A. Target is overlaid at appropriate places with
ferromagnetic shim stock and held in place with
masking tape, exposing at least 80% of the shim
width.
B. Atomizer output(s) are measured individually.
C. Any solvent reduction of the paint beyond as-
received solids is recorded. "Cut" is determined
as ratio of raw paint to reduced paint:
C = (Qp)/(Qp + Qs)
D. Appropriate measurements are taken to calculate
total square feet per part painted.
E. Part is passed in front of atomizer(s) until an
acceptable coating is achieved. Dummy targets
preceed and follow test target. "On-time" of
each atomizer is recorded.
F. Shim is removed after curing, and thickness of
coating is measured at appropriate intervals and
averaged.
G. Mileage (ft /uncut gallon of paint) equals:
Variable
Dimension
3785 A
L(Vntn/60)
avg
avg
cc/min
ft"
seconds
mils
and is corrected to 1.0 mil when computed as shown.
H. Transfer efficiency is this mileage, divided by the
theoretical mileage at 100% application efficiency.
? This latter is usually provided by the paint company
and is loosely related to volume solids.
This test can be performed on any metallic and many non-metallic substrates.
1-35
-------
ELECTPOSTKTIC
- EQUIPMENT
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina'
October 31., 1978
Page 3
3. Mileage Test (T.E.) — Film on Part
This test is used on sales demonstrations involving very small or intricate
parts which do not lend themselves to the above tests. The technique is
identical to method 2 above except no shim stock is used, and film is
measured directly on the part. This generally limits the test to ferro-
magnetic substrates when film is being measured, but on such parts, often
the user is more concerned with the measure of "adequately coated parts
per gallon." This method has the advantage of not spoiling a production
part. When measuring a topcoat over primer (s), all preceeding film must
also be measured and averaged before topcoating.
4. Shift/Day/Week/Month/Year Mileage (T.E.)
This "desk-top" method can be conducted essentially from user's production
records, and accounts for the overall efficiency of utilization of the paint,
including repainting of rejects, spillage, color change waste, etc.
Variable
A. Ft /Part is measured and calculated.
E. Production is counted for each configuration
of part.
C. Paint consumption is recorded for the test period.
D. Film is checked periodically during the test and
averaged.
E. Mileage (Ft2/gallon @ 1.0 mil) is calculated:
V
avg
Dimension
ft2/part
parts
gallons
mils
F. T.E. is again this result divided by theoretical cover-
age possible at 100% application efficiency.
We would be happy to arrange a demonstration of any or all of these methods at our
Indianapolis laboratories for any EPA personnel who would be interested in
participating.
If you have any other questions regarding this, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
E. W. Drum, Director
Environmental Affairs
rah
1-36
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Enforcement Aspects of Reasonably Available Control
Technology Applied to Surface Coating of Miscellaneous
Metal Parts and Products
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Yatendra M. Shah, George J. Beaujon, and Thomas C.
Ponder, Jr.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
P/N 3570-3-D
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-01-4147,
Task Order No. 121
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
DSSE Project Officer: John Busik, EN-341, (202) 755-2560
DSSE Task Manager: Robert L. King. (202) 755-2582
16. ABSTRACT
This report deals with the enforceability aspects of VOC emission regulations for
surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. The emission source cate-
gory is a "Catch-all" that includes metal coating operations not covered by individual
Control Technique Guideline documents.
Population data indicate there are approximately 96,000 industrial sources in-
cluded in this category; however, 69 percent of these sources employ less than 20 per-
sons. To effectively enforce the emission regulations, a VOC emission examption level
of 10 tons/yr is recommended, thus excluding numerous small sources. The remaining
14.2 percent of the total sources contribute 85.9 percent of all VOC emissions from
this category.
A brief discussion of surface coating processes and VOC emission control tech-
niques is included, plus a list of the applicable four-digit SIC product groups and an
estimate of their VOC emissions. Emission regulations and enforcement guidelines are
also presented.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi Field/Group
Air Pollution Control
Coatings, Coating Processes
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds (VOC's)
Surface Coatings, Metal
Parts and Products
13B
11C, 13H
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
179
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |