Environmental Technology Verification to Reduce the Risk
of Using Innovative Coating Technologies
Paper # 565
Michael Kosusko
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division. Emissions
Characterization and Prevention Branch. MD-61. Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
ABSTRACT
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program's Coatings and Coating Equipment
Pilot (ETV CCEP) was established in January 1997 to verify the environmental (and finishing)
performance of innovative surface coatings, coating equipment, and related processes. It provides
high quality data through the use of efficient and fully quality assured verification test protocols.
The ETV CCEP is part of one of six ETV Technology Centers in the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) ETV Program. EPA's partner for ETV CCEP is Concurrent
Technologies Corporation (CTC) of Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
The ETV Program was originally established in October 1995 as a 5-year pilot by EPA's Office
of Research and Development and provides independent, third-party verification of the
performance of cost-effective innovative technologies and processes that provide an
environmental benefit, hence accelerating their entrance into the marketplace and reducing the
implementation risk of end users. The end product of the verification process for each technology
is a Verification Statement, a summary of the testing and results, signed by the EPA and its
partner testing organization, which the vendor can use to market its product. ETV is a voluntary
program that seeks to make objective performance information available to all of the players in
the environmental marketplace for their consideration and decision-making. Each pilot has at
least one Stakeholder Group representing customers for that pilot's technology focus. The
program does not rank, certify, approve, or disapprove technologies. The ETV Program focuses
only on commercial-ready technologies; it does not evaluate technologies at the bench or pilot
scale and does not conduct or support research.
This paper will present the key concepts of the ETV Program, review the scope of the ETV
CCEP and its use of the verification process; discuss the benefits of verification; and review
completed verification tests and those planned in the near future.
INTRODUCTION
The ETV Program was established by the U.S. EPA to accelerate the development and
commercialization of improved environmental technologies through independent and credible
third-party verification and reporting of performance. The ETV Program provides purchasers,
permit writers, and developers with objective, quality-assured performance data on the
technology they are buying, permitting, or marketing. Independent, third-party verification of
I
-------
such technologies is intended to increase their marketability by reducing the implementation risk
to technology end users. All significant ETV documents, including tests protocols, verification
reports, verification statements, stakeholder information, and quarterly reports, can be found on
the ETV website.1 Since beginning in 1995 as a 5-year pilot program to test a variety of
environmental technology verification approaches in different technology markets, the intent of
the ETV Program has been to identify the most effective and efficient methods of verification. At
the end of September 2000, the ETV Program concluded the 5-year pilot period and is currently
transitioning into six ETV Technology Centers. EPA will make recommendations to the
Congress during the year 2001 on whether and in what form an ETV Program should continue.
Initially, each ETV pilot selected a pilot organizationis) to oversee and conduct verification
activities based on testing and quality assurance protocols developed with input from all major
stakeholder/customer groups associated with the technology area. The ETV CCEP is currently
operating under the ETV Pollution Prevention, Recycling, and Waste Treatment Systems Center.
EPA partnered with Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) - a nonprofit, professional
services and testing organization - in conjunction with the Department of Defense's National
Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE) to establish a self-supporting,
operational verification center to evaluate innovative coatings and coating application techniques
for metal and other substrates. Standardized test protocols have been developed in coordination
with industry trade associations and other appropriate stakeholders selected by EPA and CTC to
facilitate broad acceptance of results.
Coating processes account for an estimated 20% of stationary source volatile organic compound
(VOC) and significant hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions," These emissions contribute to
cancer and non-cancer health risks as well as ecological damage. In order to reduce these
emissions and their effects, a multitude of new coating technologies are being developed and
marketed without the use of standardized evaluation protocols to ensure that products provide an
environmental benefit at equivalent or enhanced performance and cost. Many lower polluting
products are not accepted by the marketplace as performance and cost effective. An unbiased,
third-party coating verification center using standardized test protocols provides documentation
to verify environmental as well as performance and cost benefits. Documentation is needed by
users and permit writers to respond to existing regulatory forces. Increased market penetration of
lower polluting products and sales of verified productions are expected to occur as a result of
testing. The pilot has identified a niche and need for ETV of smaller companies with innovative
products. Industry interest is growing steadily.
The key concepts of the ETV Program will be presented in this paper. The scope of the ETV
CCEP, its use of the verification process, and the reaction of the vendor community will be
summarized. Finally, completed and planned verification tests will be reviewed.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
Throughout its history, the U.S. EPA has evaluated technologies to determine their effectiveness
in monitoring, preventing, controlling, and cleaning up pollution. Since the early 1990s,
however, numerous government and private groups have determined that the lack of an organized
and ongoing program to produce independent, credible performance data is a major impediment
9
-------
lo the development and use of innovative environmental technology. Such data arc needed by
technology buyers and permit writers, both in the United States and abroad, lo make informed
technology decisions. Vendors with innovative, belter, faster, and cheaper technologies need
independent evaluation to penetrate a conservative, risk-averse environmental marketplace.
In October 1995, the EPA established the ETV Program to address this need. The ETV Program,
which heavily emphasizes innovative, environmentally beneficial technologies and products,
officially began operation as a pilot program. It began with a 5-year pilot period to test a wide
variety of partner and procedural alternatives, as well as the true market demand for and public
response to such a program. The ETV Program was created to accelerate the development and
commercialization of improved environmental technologies through third-party verification and
reporting of performance. EPA's independent Science Advisory Board stated in a recent
memorandum,
"The scarcity of independent and credible technology information is one
critical barrier to the use of innovative environmental technologies....
Verification testing information provided by the ETV Program fulfills an
essential need of the environmental technology marketplace''."
The ETV Program Verification Strategy, published in February 1997, sets out the goals of the
ETV Program, the selection criteria for ETV pilots, and the operating principles for
implementation of the program.4 These operating principles are reflected in the program
description that follows.
During this initial pilot period, the EPA operated 12 pilots that focused on many of the categories
that environmental technology covers. The original 12 pilots are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. The 12 original Environmental Technology Verification Program pilots.
Advanced Monitoring Systems (Air, Water)
P2 Innovative Coatings and Coating Equipment
Air Pollution Control Technology
P2 Metal Finishing Technologies
Drinking Water Systems
P2 Recycling and Waste Treatment Systems
EvTEC (any technology area)
Site Characterization and Monitoring
Technologies
Greenhouse Gas Technology
Source Water Protection Technologies
Indoor Air Technologies
Wet Weather Flow Technologies
For each pilot, EPA selected "verification partners" to oversee and conduct technology
verification activities. The ETV Program has been carried out through a wide variety of
partnerships with public and private testing and evaluation organizations. These "verification
organizations" partner with EPA technology experts to create efficient and fully quality assured
procedures that facilitate highly credible and objective performance verification of innovative .
3
-------
technologies. States, federal laboratories, and. most prominently, private sector organizations
have joined EPA in these partnerships. These partners work with EPA technology experts to
develop procedures for verifying the performance of innovative technologies. For each pilot, the
efforts of each partner and EPA are guided by at least one Stakeholder Group that represents all
of the customers for that particular technology sector. For each technology verified, die ETV
partner organization develops a test plan in conjunction with the developer. An independent third
party conducts testing. As a result of testing, the EPA issues a Verification Statement of three to
five pages along with a Verification Report covering details of testing.
In addition. ETV is a voluntary program that seeks to make objective performance information
available to all of the participants in the environmental marketplace for their consideration and
decision-making. The ETV Program does not rank, certify, approve, or disapprove technologies.
The ETV Program focuses solely on commercial-ready technologies; it is not a research or
"scale-up" program. All vendors are welcome to participate. The ETV Program has developed
and implemented a comprehensive outreach strategy to state and federal permit writers, the
consulting community, and international markets. ETV is intended to change from being a
primarily government-funded program to funding primarily from the private sector.
During its 5-year pilot period, the ETV Program successfully created 12 verification pilot
programs that address different areas of the environmental technology market. These programs
organized 18 Stakeholder Groups and held 80 Stakeholder Group meetings. By that time, the
ETV Program developed 49 generic verification protocols for categories of technologies and 70
technology-specific test plans to guide the testing of specific products.3 In addition, the ETV
Program successfully verified 111 technologies in 35 different technology categories, exceeding
its strategic goal of verifying 95 products during the 5-year pilot period. ETV Program funding
during the pilot period peaked in 1997 and 1998 when Congress appropriated $10 million per
year for verification. EPA has closely monitored the costs and effectiveness of the 12 pilot
programs. The ETV Program is now analyzing its successes, shortcomings, and lessons learned
to develop recommendations for the most effective and efficient verification program possible.
This analysis will result in a Report to Congress that will contain recommendations for
continuation of the ETV Program, both in terms of the overall program structure and specific
procedures for successful verifications. The Report to Congress is scheduled for issue durina
2001.
At the end of September 2000, the ETV Program concluded the 5-year pilot period. The ETV
Program is now in its post-pilot operational phase. The 12 original pilots have been reorganized
into the 6 ETV Technology Centers listed in Table 2.
THE COATINGS AND COATING EQUIPMENT PROGRAM (ETV CCEP)
The concepts of the ETV Program have been applied to the establishment of the ETV CCEP pilot
since it began in October 1996. The purpose of ETV CCEP is to complete unbiased, third-party
verification of the acceptability of lower polluting coatings and coating equipment for various
substrates in a broad range of industries. EPA's partner organization for this pilot is Concurrent
Technologies Corporation (CTC), a nonprofit technical services company headquartered in
4
-------
Table 2. The six Environmental Technology Verification Program Technology Centers.
1 ETV Advanced Monitoring Technology Center - all media
ETV Air Pollution Control Technology Center - stationary and mobile sources
ETV Drinking Water Treatment System Center
ETV Greenhouse Gas Prevention Technology Center
ETV Pollution Prevention, Recycling, and Waste Treatment Systems Center -
technologies and products
ETV Water Protection Technology Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Testing has been completed in conjunction with the Department of
Defense's (DOD's) National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE) in
Johnstown, Pennsylvania. As have most of the other pilots, ETV CCEP followed the operations
process steps identified in Table 3. Following these steps has helped ETV CCEP to develop a
market presence, identify technological focus areas, enlist vendors for verification testing,
complete tests, and report their results.
Table 3. The ETV operations process.
Form Stakeholder Group(s) and conduct regular meetings
Research, identify, and prioritize focus areas
Conduct open solicitations within each focus area via direct mailings, notices in
publications, Commerce Business Daily (CBD) announcements, etc.
Develop test and quality assurance (QA) protocols
Conduct verification testing
Evaluate test results and quality and provide reports to EPA
Issue Verification Statements
Conduct ongoing outreach
To date, products verified by the ETV CCEP include high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) paint
spray guns, and the Laser Touch™ Targeting Device which was developed to improve the
efficiency of manual spray operations by providing real-time feedback to the painter. Examples
of products that are currently or will soon be in the verification process include liquid coatings,
an ultraviolet (UV) response coating system, a conversion coating for magnesium, a UV-curable
coating, and a powder coaling gun that small- and medium-sized businesses can afford.
-------
The Operations Process
Stakeholder Group
ETV CCEP is guided and shaped by using the expertise of its Stakeholder Group. The group
consists of representatives of all verification customer groups: buyers and users of coating
technology, developers and vendors, and, most importantly, technology '"enablers," i.e., the state
technical assistance providers, consulting engineers, industry trade associations and professional
societies that recommend technology alternatives to purchasers, and the state permit writers and
regulators who allow it to be used. For example. ETV CCEP has 27 stakeholders: 4 representing
state and federal technical assistance programs. 5 from coatings and coating equipment vendors
and end users, 7 from state and federal regulatory agencies. 2 from industry consultants, 5 from
industry trade associations {e.g.. Chemical Coating Association International [CCA1] and
RadTech International). 2 from professional societies {e.g.. the American Society for Testing and
Materials [ASTM] and the Association for Finishing Processes, a division of the Society of
Manufacturing Engineers [AFP-SME®] ), and 2 from DOD. Stakeholders assist in the
development of procedures and protocols, help prioritize types of technologies to be verified,
assist in defining and conducting outreach activities appropriate to the coatings industry, and
serve as information conduits to their particular constituencies.
ETV CCEP's Stakeholder Group has met eight times and has held three conference calls since
first coming together during March 1997. Past and future scheduled meetings are identified in
Table 4. A list of stakeholders and copies of meeting summaries are available.6'7
Focus Areas and Solicitations
The ETV CCEP targets key technology focus areas for pollution prevention in the coating
industry based on market research and stakeholder guidance. This has been an iterative process.
At the initial stakeholder meeting in March 1997, we decided to conduct a market study using
information and statistics from industry trade associations and publications. Prioritization
criteria, such as multimedia pollution prevention potential and user impact, were to be applied to
this information. As a result, three focus areas were identified before the second stakeholder
meeting on October 30, 1997. These were epoxy powder coatings, UV-curable coatings, and
HVLP paint spray guns. Solicitations for two of these areas, HVLP guns and epoxy powder
coatings, were released during July 1997.7 Vendor meetings for these areas were held during
October 1997. Powder coating industry representatives were polite and appeared to express some
interest. The HVLP vendors were excited about testing.
The results of the focus area study and our experiences to dale were presented to the stakeholders
at the October 1997 meeting. The group decided to test HVLP guns as quickly as possible, to
search for a way to generate interest from the powder coating manufacturers, and to develop a
solicitation for UV-curable coatings. Between meetings, ETV CCEP found that the proposed
powder and UV-curable coatings technology verification areas were not readily accepted by
coating manufacturers because they felt these coatings were already accepted by users and they
did not identify a substantial benefit from the program. In May 1998, ETV CCEP released an
6
-------
Table 4, Past and future Stakeholder Group meetings and conference calls.
DATE
LOCATION
Week of October 14, 2001
COATING 2001™, Orlando, FL
June 4, 2001
Finishing 2001, Chicago, IL
March 15,2001
Conference Call
November 9, 2000
Research Triangle Park, NC
August 10, 2000
Conference Call
April 27, 2000
Conference Call
September 20, 1999
COATING '99™, Dallas. TX
April 15, 1999
Research Triangle Park, NC
November 5, 1998
Research Triangle Park. NC
May 6. 1998
Research Triangle Park, NC
October 30, 1997
NDCEE, Johnstown, PA
March 21, 1997
Research Triangle Park, NC
open-ended solicitation for powder and UV-eurable coatings to leave the door open to industry
vendors for testing should they have a change of heart.
Given this low level of interest, during the May 1998 stakeholder meeting we decided to issue a
much broader solicitation to the entire coatings industry to determine where industry's interest
might lie. ETV CCEP personnel developed an approach that allowed a much wider range of
products to be evaluated, thus allowing truly innovative technologies to benefit from the
program. Solicitations for the new Innovative Technologies focus area were mailed to vendors
and published in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) in late May.7 From the responses of over
30 vendors, ETV CCEP personnel noted a grouping of interested liquid coating vendors. We
gave these our highest priority and held a successful vendor meeting on November 4, 1998.
For the November 5, 1998, stakeholder meeting, ETV CCEP personnel created a list of the
remaining 17 respondents, most of whom would require tests of unique technologies. Of these,
the 6 most critical technologies were identified by the stakeholders as:
(1) UV-curable coatings (4) Powder/PLO slurry application
(2) Laser-guided spray gun (Laser Touch™) (5) Waterborne coatings for wood
(3) Spray gun cleaning equipment (6) Supercritical COi paint spray application
7
-------
ETV CCEP has pursued these areas/technologies to determine the degree of interest of the
vendors in participating. Of these, verification of the Laser Touch™ has been completed.
Current focus areas include additional high transfer efficiency equipment, such as HVLP spray
guns, innovative liquid coatings, UV-curable coatings, cleaning systems for painting equipment
and surface preparation, and individual innovative products.
Tabic 5 summarizes the status of ETV CCEP's solicitations. ETV CCEP has completed open
solicitations for highly prioritized focus areas. Any technology vendor within each technology
focus area selected for verification is welcome, but in no way required, to participate. The ETV
CCEP accepts applications from any interested vendor that has an innovative, environmentally
beneficial and commercially available (market-ready) coating, coating application method, or
related product.
Table 5. ETV CCEP technology solicitations.
SOLICITATION
TOPIC
OPEN DATE
CLOSE DATE
COMMENTS
High-volume. Low-
pressure (HVLP)
Spray Equipment
July 14. 1997 (CBD)
September 8. 1997 (RFT)
July 31. 1997
October 17, 1997
Vendor meeting, NDCEE,
Johnstown. PA, October 29, 1997
Epoxy Powder
Coalings
July 14. 1997 (CBD)
September 5, 1997 (RFT)
July 31, 1997
Sepiember 26. 1997
Vendor meeting at the Powder
Coatings '97 Conference,
Charlotte. NC; October 6, 1997
Powder and UV-
curable Coalings
May 1, 1998 (CBD)
May 29, 1998
Solicitation open-ended per RFT
Innovative
Technologies
May 26, 1998 (CBD)
June 30. 1998
Liquid Coatings vendor meeting,
November 4, 1998
Solicitation open-ended per RFT
CBD - Commerce Business Daily Notice
RFT - Request for Technology
Generic and Product-specific Test Protocols
ETV CCEP develops two types of test protocols, the Generic Protocol and the product-specific
Testing and Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP). Generic Protocols are developed for each
technology area based on the ETV CCEP Quality Management Plan.8 Each contains a wide range
of test parameters that apply to the technology area being verified. Included in the protocol will
be all testing required to gather sufficient data for environmental verification of the technology.
CTC project personnel, EPA, and the Stakeholder Group design the Generic Protocol with input
from the vendor community. The Generic Protocol includes the following sections:
- Purpose and objectives of planned testing
- Verification description including approach, experimental design, performance criteria,
measurements to be taken, and critical and non-critical parameters
8
-------
- Personnel and responsibilities
~ Data quality objectives such as accuracy, precision, comparability, representativeness,
and completeness including calculations
- Sample collection including site selection, sampling procedures, and sample frequency
- Analytical procedures, calculations, and calibration
- Data collection, reduction, validation, and reporting
- Internal quality control checks, audits and corrective action.
After meeting with coating technology vendors and being assured of their interest in
participation, product-specific TQAPPs are developed by ETV CCEF personnel for acceptance
by each vendor. A TQAPP applies the Generic Protocol to each product to be tested,
documenting the parameters specific to that product. The TQAPP details the exact settings for
each test. Each TQAPP is reviewed and approved by the organization requesting verification
testing and ETV CCEP managers from EPA and CTC prior to the initiation of testing. All
Generic Protocols and TQAPPs are available on the ETV website and are listed in Table 6.*
Table 6. Generic Protocols and product-specific TQAPPs for ETV CCEP.
TITLE
REVISION #
APPROVAL
DATE
Evermore Paints and Coatings Formula 5 Coating - Test and
Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP)
0
October 12, 2000
Liquid Coatings Generic Testing and Quality Assurance
Protocol
0
February 16, 2000
HVLP Coating Equipment Generic Testing and Quality
Assurance Protocol
1
December 22, 1999
Laser Touch™ Beta Model - Test and Quality Assurance
Project Plan (TQAPP)
0
September 16, 1999
Sharpe Platinum 2013 HVLP Spray Gun - Testing and
Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP)
0
February 25, 1999
1TW DeVilbiss GTI-600G HVLP Spray Gun - Testing and
Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP)
0
December 15. 1998
ITW DeVilbiss JGHV-531-46FF HVLP Spray Gun -
Testing and Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP)
0
December 15, 1998
ITW DeVilbiss FLG-631-31S HVLP Spray Gun - Testing
and Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP)
0
December 11,1998
UV-curable Coatings Generic Testing and Quality
Assurance Protocol
Draft
March 24, 1998
Powder Coating Generic Testing and Quality Assurance
Protocol
Draft
February 17, 1998
9
-------
Testing and Evaluation of Results
Testing is (hen completed at a very high level of QA. and test results are evaluated according to
the approved TQAPP. EPA has completed three QA audits during HVLP testing. ETV CCEP/
CTC personnel oversaw testing of the Laser Touch™ device at the Iowa Waste Reduction
Center (IWRC) and completed a QA audit using non-project personnel. A complete set of results
and statistical data analyses are captured in a Data Notebook for each verification test. The Data
Notebook is maintained by CTC and is used as the basis for further reporting. Data collected
from both process and laboratory testing is included.
Verification Reports and Verification Statements
The resulting products of each verification test are a final Verification Report and a three- to five-
page Verification Statement, signed by the Director of EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL) and CTC's representative. Verification test results are first
documented in the Data Notebook, as mentioned above. The Data Notebook is summarized in
the Verification Report. This report includes a QA section that documents data quality indicators,
deviations from the approved TQAPP. and confidence intervals associated with the data.
iVlost importantly, a Verification Statement is issued that includes the tests performed and results,
statistical analysis of the data, process information, and a QA/quality control (QC) narrative. The
EPA and CTC review each Verification Report and Verification Statement prior to publishing the
information. Once the Verification Statement is issued, it will be published on the ETV website
where it will be available to the public.9 The key portion of the Verification Statement is the
listing of verification factors and associated results. Verification factors are those critical
parameters that are measured during verification testing that address environmental performance
and marketability and allow readers to evaluate the technology for their applications. For
example, an environmental verification factor was the improvement of paint transfer efficiency
using each HVLP gun. A key marketability verification factor was the quality of the finish
provided by each HVLP gun. Verification factors are carefully selected for each Generic Protocol
and product-specific TQAPP to make sure that the full benefits of testing are obtained. ETV
CCEP Verification Statements are listed in Table 7.
Outreach
ETV CCEP's outreach activities have focused on: 1) involving state representatives in
Stakeholder Groups that arc designing the protocols and procedures. 2) developing an ETV
CCEP fact sheet, 3) feeding up-to-date information to the ETV website, and 4) representing ETV
CCEP and the ETV Program at numerous national meetings. Information on the activities of the
ETV CCEP, including Verification Statements, Verification Reports, test protocols, and
stakeholder meeting announcements and minutes, can be obtained at the ETV website or through
the authors.10
The ETV Program has an extensive outreach program. It has developed and maintained the ETV
website. All test procedures, Verification Reports, and Verification Statements for all ETV pilots
are available within hours of finalization.i ;i 9 The ETV Program publishes quarterly program
10
-------
Table 7. Verification Statements prepared by ETV CCEP.
TITLE
ISSUE DATE
ITW Automotive Refinishing - DeVilbiss
FLG-631-318; Liquid Organics Coatings Application
September 23, 1999
ITW Automotive Refinishing - DeVilbiss GTi-600G;
Liquid Organics Coatings Application
September 23, 1999
ITW Industrial Finishing, Binks*DeVilbiss - DeVilbiss
JGHV-531-46FF; Liquid Organics Coatings
Application
September 23, 1999
Sharpe Manufacturing Company - Sharpe Platinum
2013; Liquid Organics Coatings Application
September 30, 1999
Laser Touch and Technologies, LLC - Laser Touch™
Model LT-B512
May 18, 2000
updates, prepares and distributes the monthly ETVoice Listserv, has developed a brochure and
fact sheet about the ETV Program, and provided an ETV exhibition booth at numerous
conferences, exhibitions, and symposia. EPA has held a national ETV conference, and provided
verification training to an international audience from India, the Philippines, Thailand, and
Malaysia.
Reaction of the Vendor Community
ETV CCEP initially received a mixed response from the coatings industry. Industry's impression
continues to become more positive as their knowledge of the program increases and as products
are verified and reported upon. The vendor community has readily accepted ETV concepts for
use with coating equipment, but not for coatings. Five equipment verifications have been
completed and many more are in the pipeline. ITW Industrial Finishing, Binks*DeVilbiss and
ITW Automotive have used the verification results for their three HVLP paint spray guns as the
centerpiece of a new marketing campaign during the past year. Laser Touch and Technology,
LLC, has seen a tremendous increase of sales since releasing their laser-guided paint spray gun
targeting device, the Laser Touch™, and completing verification testing. Equipment vendors
have found value in EPA's issuance of the Verification Statement.
On the other hand, industry has been much less excited about verifying innovative coatings. The
powder and UV-curablc coatings segments of the industry rejected our initial approach and some
negative press was generated." These vendors generally believe that their research reputation and
success penetrating the market provide the credibility that they need to continue gaining market
shares. They question what ETV CCEP can verify that would provide them with a market
advantage. They are also concerned that coating formulations are fine-tuned for each customer
and that the coatings available in the marketplace change too quickly for verification testing to be
of value. In order to overcome industry apprehension, we have been challenged to provide a .
-------
stronger rationale for their participation. Our stakeholders have substantially helped to market the
program and overcome our challenges. Upon seeing positive results for coating equipment and
receiving feedback from ETV CCEP's stakeholders, at least one of our early critics has had a
change of heart, generating favorable press for ETV CCEP.1" Several liquid coatings are slated
for testing before the end of this year and many vendors have expressed interest in future testing.
Recently, UV-curable coating vendors have begun to express their interest, and we plan to test
our first UV-curable coating soon.
RESULTS
The ETV CCEP has completed verification testing of four HVLP paint spray guns and of the
Laser Touch™ laser-guided targeting device for manual paint spray guns. ETV CCEP tested its
first liquid coating during March 2001. Another six technologies are on our short list of excited,
interested participants for which TQAPPs are being developed. These include a chromate-free
conversion coaling, a UV-curable coating, a high transfer efficiency paint spray gun, a UV-light
sensitive architectural/maintenance painting system, and two powder coating technologies. ETV
CCEP plans to solicit innovative coating technologies in several trade journals. Special emphasis
will be placed on UV-curable coatings.
High Transfer Efficiency Painting Systems
High-Volume, Low-Pressure (HVLP) Guns
Product Description
HVLP coating equipment is a paint application method that was developed to reduce VOC and
HAP emissions that typically result from organic finishing operations. The low air pressure of
HVLP coating equipment results in a low-velocity air stream with larger average paint droplet
size and lower paint particle momentum, when compared to traditional spray application
equipment. These conditions combine to create less paint overspray. thus improving transfer
efficiency (TE) of the coating process, which in turn leads to reduced paint usage, VOC and HAP
emissions, solid and liquid waste disposal, and spray booth maintenance costs. Regulations
requiring the use of coating technology that is at least as efficient as HVLP coating equipment
have been adopted throughout the United States, with the intention of reducing VOC and HAP
emissions. For example, Rule 1511 of California's South Coast Air Quality Management District
established the following definition of HVLP coating equipment on June 13, 1997:
"Equipment used to apply coatings by means of a spray gun. which is
designed to be operated and which is operated between 0.1 and 10 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) air pressure measured dynamically at the center of
the air cap and at the air horns13."
Verification Factors
The HVLP coating equipment verification tests involved performance tests, in which the
equipment applied a coating to standard test panels, followed by laboratory analysis, in which the
12
-------
conditions and results of the performance tests were characterized. The performance
characteristics were then grouped into environmental and marketability verification factors.
The environmental factors are:
- Relative TE Improvement
- Emissions Reduction
- Cost Savings
- Output Air Pressure (<10 psig at cap)
The marketability factors are:
- Dry Film Thickness Uniformity
- Distinctness-of-Image (DOI)
- Gloss
- General Visual Appearance
Each of the four HVLP spray guns was compared to a coating reference standard and a traditional
air spray baseline, in which each baseline consisted of three traditional spray guns with similar
fluid delivery systems using the same coating material as the HVLP gun.
Testing and Results
Four products from two vendors participated in verification testing of HVLP paint spray guns.
The four HVLP guns are shown in Figure 1. The vendors selected the coatings used based on the
target market of the HVLP gun they submitted for testing. The first three verification tests were
conducted during the week of January 11, 1999. ITW Industrial Finishing, Binks*DeVilbiss
submitted one pressure-feed HVLP spray gun and ITW Automotive Refinishing submitted two
gravity-feed HVLP spray guns for testing. Both ITW divisions are based in Maumee, Ohio. The
fourth verification test evaluated an HVLP spray gun provided by Sharpe Manufacturing
Company of Santa Fe Springs, California, on March 17-18, 1999.
Figure 1. The ETV CCEP-verified High-volume, Low-pressure Paint Spray Guns
u
\r
%
f
-K\
r
¦"j
i
i
w
1
*
DeVilbiss JGHV
ITW Industrial Finishing,
Binks- DeVilbiss
DeVilbiss GTi
ITW Automotive
Refinishing
DeVilbiss FLG
ITW Automotive
Refinishing
Sharpe Platinum
Sharpe Manufacturing
Company
Each of the tested guns showed improved environmental performance. Relative transfer
efficiencies improved from 16 to 37%. Calculated emissions reductions per kilogram of solids
applied ranged from 0.3 to 1.5 kg. Calculated paint usage reduction per kilogram solids applied
ranged from 1.2 to 5.6 L. Solid waste reduction per kilogram solids applied ranged from 0.8 to
1.8 kg. There was no significant difference in the quality of the finish.
13
-------
Laser Touch™ Targeting Device
Product Description
The ETV CCEP evaluated the pollution prevention capabilities of the Laser Touch™ model LT-
B5J2 targeting device tor manual spray painting operations. The test was conducted under
representative factory conditions at the IWRC's Painting and Coating Compliance Enhancement
(PAC'E) facility in Cedar Falls, Iowa. The Laser Touch™ attaches to any manual spray gun
using an adapter bracket designed for each particular gun. The device is battery operated and
emits two laser light beams that overlap when the spray gun is operated at a preset distance from
the product being coated. This provides an environmental benefit through improved TE and
consistent coating finish quality. The Laser Touch™ device is manufactured by Laser Touch and
Technologies, LLC. of Waterloo, Iowa.
Verification Factors
This test was designed to verily the performance of the Laser Touch™ model LT-B512 and
compare its environmental benefits with unassisted manual spray application systems, while
maintaining or improving the finish quality of the applied coating. The performance
characteristics were then grouped into environmental and marketability verification factors.
The environmental factors are: The marketability factors are:
- Relative TE Improvement - Dry Film Thickness Uniformity
- Emissions Reduction - Gloss
- Cost Savings - General Visual Appearance
Testing and Results
The Laser Touch™ model LT-B512 provided an increase in TE of up to 15,8 percentage points,
at an average of 5.7 percentage points, which equates to a relative improvement of up to 38.8%
over the unassisted baseline, at an average of 11 A%. This TE improvement equates to a
reduction of volatile emissions of 0.1 kg/kg solids applied when compared to the unassisted
baseline. The TE improvement also provides an economic advantage in terms of reduced paint
usage (0.2 L/kg solids applied) and solid waste generation (0.2 kg/kg solids applied) when
compared to the unassisted baseline. The quality of the finish improved.
At the November 2000 stakeholder meeting. Rick Klein of IWRC discussed marketplace reaction
to the Laser Touch™ verification results and the effect the verification has had on the marketing
of the product. Klein noted that the pollution prevention findings appear to be the most valuable
results to the end users. He highlighted immediately increased sales upon release of the Laser
Touch™ Verification Report, which had continued to be sustained.
14
-------
Air mix® Paint Spray Gun
Product Description
The Airmix® paint spray gun is manufactured by Kremlin, Inc., of West Chicago, Illinois.
Airmix® uses a patented air cap with a unique fluid tip design that produces fine atomization of
coatings in a very uniform spray pattern at extremely low paint velocities and is expected to
result in high TE. Verification factors would be similar to those used for HVLP paint spray guns.
Kremlin is committed to verification testing.14 The TQAPP is ncaring completion, and testing
could occur as early as March 2001.
Innovative Liquid Coatings
Paint and coating vendors are continually developing new formulations that meet or improve
upon regulatory limits for VOC and HAP content. Compliance with regulatory limits drives the
use of innovative, lower VOC and HAP content coatings in most areas and industries. However,
regulatory limits do not necessarily help to market formulations that are available with VOC and
HAP contents well below regulatory limits. ETV CCEP would like to verify the VOC and HAP
content and performance of these coatings. One barrier to such verification is the development of
the precise and accurate measurement techniques for very low, near-zero VOC content. Also,
industry has little impetus to use very low VOC coatings if they arc not forced to do so by
environmental regulations. ETV CCEP believes that its interaction with state permit writers will
encourage the use of very low VOC coatings.
ETV CCEP has designed the Generic Protocol for liquid coatings to include both mandatory and
optional verification factors/ All environmental factors and two of the marketability factors are
mandatory. The mandatory environmental verification factors are VOC and HAP content. The
mandatory marketability verification factors are dry film thickness uniformity and general visual
appearance. A large selection of optional marketability (performance) tests arc available to the
vendor should it choose to pay for their completion. Many of these optional factors are identified
in the discussion of Evermore Paints and Coatings.
Evermore Paints and Coatings, LLC - Formula 5 Coating
Product Description
Evermore Paints and Coatings of Tulsa, Oklahoma, developed Formula 5 as a high-performance,
water-reducible, architectural and industrial coating that is low in VOC and HAP content. It is a
polyamide-epoxy-silicone-modified coating that can be air-dried or oven-cured.
Verification Factors
In addition to the mandatory verification tests for all liquid coatings, Evermore has selected a
15
-------
number of optional marketability/performance tests for completion. These include gloss, MEK
(methyl ethyl ketone) rub, tape adhesion, color, mandrel bend, pencil hardness, direct impact,
color difference, abrasion resistance, weather resistance, salt spray, and humidity resistance.
Testing and Results
The Evermore TQAPP has been approved and testing was completed on March 23, 2001, at the
NDCEE facility in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
Technology Applications Group, Inc., Tagnite®
Product Description
The Technology Applications Group of Grand Forks, North Dakota, developed Tagnite© to be a
chromate- and permanganate-free anodic conversion coating for magnesium alloys. Traditional
anodic coatings use chromate or permanganate in either the coating itself or in one of the
associated, pretreatment coatings.15,16 Both are toxic compounds.
Testing and Results
Aside from the mandatory verification factors for liquid coatings, the main environmental
verification factors for Tagnite® will be the avoidance of chromium or permanganate in waste
streams and the reduction of liquid waste volume. Additional marketability verification factors
may be corrosion resistance, paint adhesion, and abrasion resistance. Technology Applications
i -t
Group has committed to working with ETV CCEP on a test plan for verification testing. The
TQAPP is nearing completion, and testing is expected to begin this spring.
Allied Photochemical - KZ 1007
Allied Photochemical of Marysville, Michigan, has developed KZ 1007, a one-part urethane
coating which is capable of direct application to the substrate. It is 100% UV-curable with no
heat required for curing. The coating emits virtually no VOCs or HAPs since, in theory, all of the
liquid coating package becomes part of the cured coating film. KZ 1007 can be applied via
vacuum, roll, or spray coating.
Allied Photochemical has committed to working with ETV CCEP on a test plan for verification
testing.18 The TQAPP is under development, and testing is expected to begin this spring.
Process Technologies
Most process technologies submitted to ETV CCEP will require the development of a TQAPP
for each individual verification test. Initially, ETV CCEP will develop TQAPPs only for process
technologies. In time, a Generic Protocol will be developed.
16
-------
The Superior Coatings, Inc., Ultraviolet Response (UVR) Coating System
Product Description
The UVR Coating System was developed by Superior Coatings, Inc, of Chillicothe, Missouri. It
is expected to assist both manual and automatic coating applications with obtaining a uniform
film thickness across the surface being coated and to aid these application processes in the more
efficient use of the coatings being applied. Utilizing the properties of ultraviolet light and energy,
the UVR Coating System was designed to aid in the reduction of VOC and HAP emissions by
helping to meet the targeted dry film thickness and minimizing the dry film thickness variation
across the coated surface.
Verification Factors
Environmental verification factors are:
- VOC Content of the UVR Primer
- HAP Content of the UVR Primer
- Dry Film Thickness
- Dry Film Thickness Variation
Marketability/performance factors are:
- General Visual Appearance
- Gloss
- Adhesion
- Salt Spray
- Humidity Resistance
~ Weather Resistance
- Abrasion Resistance
Dry film thickness and its variability impact the volume of topcoat materials used for the
application. The closer and more consistently the painter can achieve the desired dry film
thickness without having too thin a coating layer, the less paint that will be used. Using less paint
equates to fewer air emissions.
Testing Status
The draft TQAPP is completed, undergoing EPA review, and nearing approval. Tests could
occur as early as April 2001.
Supercritical C02 Paint Spray Application
Supercritical carbon dioxide (CO2) painting system manufacturers have approached the ETV
CCEP to explore the possibility of verification testing. Supercritical C02 painting systems are
designed to reduce VOC and HAP emissions by replacing a significant portion of the solvents in
paints with supercritical C02 liquid. At one point, Linden Industries. Inc., of Cuyahoga Falls,
Ohio, was very interested in pursuing verification testing. However, since the impending merger
of Union Carbide with Dow Chemical was announced, this project has been on hold. Union
Carbide holds the patents on the Unicarb® C02 system which would be verified. ETV CCEP
continues to watch this opportunity and hopes to complete testing during the next year.
17
-------
Powder Coating Technologies
Easthill Group, Inc., HotCoat® Powder Gun
Easthill Group, Inc., of Malvern, Pennsylvania, has developed inexpensive spray guns for powder
coating application for use both at home and in small- to medium-sized manufacturing facilities.
The company notes that affordable applications include automotive, appliances, tools, sports
equipment, marine, aviation, and industrial uses. It is anticipated that ETV CCEP will verify that
use of this device will allow the replacement of liquid coatings and spray paints in the
marketplace, substantially reducing VOC and HAP emissions, reducing solid waste (e.g., spray
cans), and reducing user costs. Easthill Group has committed to working with ETV CCEP on a
test plan for verification testing.19 The TQAPP is under development.
MSC PreFinish Metals, Inc., Powder Cloud™
The MSC Powder Cloud™ is a coil coating process that anticipates high powder coating
deposition efficiency, a high degree of dry film thickness control, and reduced amounts of
coating waste. MSC PreFinish Metals, Inc., of Elk Grove, Illinois, has installed Powder Cloud™
technology on its production line in Middletown, Ohio. The company hopes to license the
technology to other coil coating facilities. Line speeds comparable to those with liquid coatings
are anticipated with powder film thicknesses of 0.4 to 5.0 mils.20
MSC PreFinish Metals sent a representative to ETV CCEP's November 2000 stakeholder
meeting and has committed to working with ETV CCEP on a test plan for verification testing.21
The TQAPP has not yet been started.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented the key concepts used by the ETV Program since its inception in 1995
and throughout the program's pilot period that ended on September 30, 2000. It has reviewed the
scope of ETV's Coatings and Coating Equipment Pilot and how that pilot applied the verification
process. The paper has also discussed the benefits of verification and the response of the vendor
community. Finally, verification tests completed by ETV CCEP have been reviewed and future
testing has been summarized. Additional information about the ETV Program and ETV CCEP
can be found on the ETV website.1'10 On the site, you can find information about future ETV
CCEP stakeholder meetings. Please feel free to attend these meetings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank those in the ETV Program and ETV CCEP for developing
excellent written materials for the ETV website, the ETV and ETV CCEP fact sheets, and other
program documents. They are certain to recognize bits and pieces of their efforts in this
manuscript.
I would also like to thank the stakeholders of ETV CCEP without whose efforts, persistence, and
efforts the pilot could not have been the success it has become.
18
-------
DISCLAIMER
This paper has been peer and QA reviewed by U.S. EPA and approved for publication. Mention
of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
REFERENCES
1. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Home Page.
http://www.epa.gov/etv.
2. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends 1900 - 1994; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park. NTC. October 1995;
EPA-454/R-95-011 (NTIS PB96-135678); A-12 - A-14.
3. Lippmann, M., Inyang, H.L and McFarland, M.J. Review of EPA's Environmental
Technology Verification Program; Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Carol M.
Browner, August 16, 2000. EPA-SAB-EEC-00-012. Washington. D.C.
4. Environmental Technology Verification Program - Verification Strategy; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.
February 1997; EPA/600 K-96-003 (NTIS PB97-160006).
http://purl.access.gpo.gov GPO/LPS528.
5. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Protocols and Test Plans Page.
http://www.epa.gov/etv/teNt_plan.htm.
6. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program ETV CCEP Stakeholders List Page.
http://www.epa.gov/etv/04/04_stake.htm.
7. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program ETV CCEP Announcements and
Meeting Summaries Page, http://www.epa.gov/etv/04/04_ann.htm.
8. Summerson, L., Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV CCEP) - Quality
Management Plan, Revision 0: National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
(NDCEE). Concurrent Technologies Corporations, Johnstown, PA. 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/etv/04/04_qmp.pdf.
9. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Verification Statements and Reports
Page, http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifrpt.htm.
10. Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program ETV CCEP Home Page.
http://www.epa.gov/ctv/04/04_main.htm.
19
-------
11. Bailey. J.M.. "ETV Interim Report Card: D-," Industrial Paint and Powder. 2000, 74 (9), 4.
12. Bailey. J.M,. "Give ETV a Second Look " Industrial Paint and Powder. 2000, 76 (10), 4.
13. SCAQMD Rule 1511. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA.
14. Michalski. M,. Kremlin, Inc. Email message to Julie Napotnik, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation. November 30, 2000. West Chicago. LL.
15. Holmes. J., Metal Finishing. 1989. 87 (11), 65.
16. Mansfield. F.. King, S., and Lin, S., "Evaluation of Corrosion Protection Methods for
Magnesium." Journal of Coatings Technology. 1989, 61 (774), 33-39.
17. Elmquist, B.. Technology Applications Group. Inc. Letter to Brian Schweitzer, Concurrent
Technologies Corporation, February 3, 2000. Grand Forks, ND,
18. Krohn, R., Allied Photochemical. Email to Julie Napotnik, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation, November 27, 2000. Marysville, Ml.
19. Bullen. M.. The Eastwood Company. Letter to Robert Fisher, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation. October 4, 2000. Pottstown, PA.
20. Pennington. J.N., "Powder Coating Ups the Engineering Ante," Modern Metals®. September
2000. 50-53.
21. Pepevnik, M.. MSC PreFinish Metals, Inc. Email to Julie Napotnik, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation, February 5, 2001. Elk Grove, IL.
KEY WORDS
Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV)
Coatings and Coating Equipment Pilot (CCEP)
Generic Protocol
Product-specific test protocol
Testing and Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP)
Verification Report
Verification Statement
Coating equipment
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE)
Volatile organic compound (VOC)
Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
High-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) paint spray gun
Paint transfer efficienc;
Stakeholder Group
20
-------
wmz,nr T> cnn TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
IN JctlVlrti-i- rtl ir~ tr~ OyU (Please read Inttiuctiom on the reverse before completii
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/A-01/062
3. F
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Technology Verification to Reduce
the Risk of Using Innovative Coating Technologies
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Michael Kosusko
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
See Block 12
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
DW 21938366
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREO
Published paper;8/99~l/01
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. supplementary notes APPCD project officer Michael Kosusko, Mail Drop 61, 919/541-
2734. Presented at AWMA Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, 6/24-28/01.
16. abstract TJie paper discusses the use of environmental technology verification (ETV)
to reduce the risk of using innovative coating technologies. It presents key concepts
of the ETV program, reviews the scope of the ETV program's coatings and coating
equipment pilot (CCEP) and its use of the verification process, discusses benefits
of verification, and reviews completed verification tests and those planned in the
near future. The program's CCEP was established in January 1997 to verify the en-
vironmental and finishing performance of innovative surface coatings, coating equip-
ment, and related processes. It provides high quality data through the use of effi-
cient and fully quality assured verification test protocols. EPA's partner for the
CCEP is Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) of Johnstown, PA. The ETV
program was established in October 1995 as a 5-year pilot by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development and provides independent, third-party verification of the
performance of cost-effective innovative technologies and processes that provide an
environmental benefit, hence accelerating their entrance into the marketplace and
reducing the implementation risk of end users. The end product of the verification
process for each technology is a verification statement, a summary of the testing
and results, signed by the EPA and its partner testing organization.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Coating Processes
Coatings
Verifying
Risk
Quality Assurance
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13 B
13 H
lie
14B
12 B
14D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |