EPA-600 /R-96-075
June 1996
EVALUATION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION
OPPORTUNITIES FOR MOLD RELEASE AGENTS
Project Report
Prepared by:
Jeffrey S. Lanning and Kevin A. Cavender
Southern Research Institute
Environmental Studies Group
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0062
EPA Project Officer: J. Kaye Whitfield
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Thane'?! Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
{Please read Imiimctions on the reverse before comp!
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-60Q/R-96-075
III
iiiininniiiiiiii
PB96-187745
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
Evaluation of Pollution Prevention Opportunities for
Mold Release -Agents
S. REPORT DATE
June 1996
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jeffrey S. Lanning and Kevin A. Cavender
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
». PERFORMING OROANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southern Research Institute
P. O. Box 13825
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
ID. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D2-0062
12.SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND AODRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOO COVERED
Final; 5/94 - 12/95
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.supplementary notes AppCD project officer is J. Kaye Whitfield, Mail Drop 61, 919/
541-2509.
is.abstract The report gives results of an assessment of the processes, materials, in-
stallation practices, and emission characteristics associated with the application of
mold release agents (MRAs). Emissions were estimated based on available informa-
tion on MRA composition and consumption. Volatile organic compound (VOC) emis-
sions of MRAs were estimated to be 126,000 tons (114,000 tonnes) per year. The
study also found that polyurethane molding operations accounted for a significant por-
tion of the total MRA emissions (about 25%) and that automobile seat and other foam
molding operations accounted for most of the emissions associated with the polyure-
thane category. Thus, the polyurethane foam manufacturing industry was selected
for a pollution prevention technology demonstration. Several pollution prevention al-
ternatives were identified for conventional MRA usage in the polyurethane foaming
industry. An initial assessment of each identified technology was performed. The
Solvent Emission Reduction Technology (SERT) process was selected for further
evaluation. A detailed assessment of SERT was made through a demonstration at the
Integram-St. Louis Seating polyurethane molding facility in Pacific, Missouri. The
demonstration showed that a 60% reduction in VOC emissions is readily attainable
with this process.
17.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
»- DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Estimating
Mold Release Agents Organic Compounds
Foam Rubber Volatility
Polyurethane Resins
Molds
Emission
Pollution Prevention
Stationary Sources
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds (VOCs)
13 B
11G 07 C
11J 20 M
111
131
14G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
f»1
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The U. S, Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
i i i"
-------
ABSTRACT
EPA's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD) completed an assessment
of the processes, materials, installation practices and emission characteristics associated with
the application of mold release agents (MRA). Emissions estimates were developed based on
available information on MRA composition and consumption. Volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions of MRA were estimated to be 126,000 tons per year. The study also found that
polyurethane molding operations accounted for a significant percent of the total MRA emissions
{about 25 percent) and that automobile seat and other foam molding operations accounted for
most of the emissions associated with the polyurethane category. Thus, the polyurethane foam
manufacturing industry was selected for a pollution prevention technology demonstration.
Several pollution prevention alternatives were identified for conventional MRA usage in
the polyurethane foaming industry. An initial assessment of each of the identified technologies
was performed. APPCD selected the Solvent Emission Reduction Technology™ {SERT™)
process for further evaluation. A detailed assessment of SERT™ was made through a
demonstration at the Integram-St. Louis Seating polyurethane molding facility in Pacific,
Missouri. The demonstration evaluated the applicability and technical barriers associated with
the penetration of the SERT™ process into the current MRA using infrastructure, the overall
emission reduction potential, and the costs associated with switching to the SERT™ process.
The demonstration showed that a 60 percent reduction in VOC emissions is readily attainable
with this process and that pollution prevention, i.e., the SERT™ process, is a much more cost
effective way to reduce VOC emissions as compared to conventional treatment methods.
1v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES VI i
LIST OF ACRONYMS vii 1
LIST OF SYMBOLS i x
METRIC CONVERSIONS X
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
SECTION 2
MRA BACKGROUND 3
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3
2.2 EXTERNAL MRA FORMS 4
2.2.1 Aerosol Sprays 4
2.2.2 Liquids 5
2.2.3 Dusts 5
2.3 MRA COMPOSITION 5
2.4 POTENTIAL EMISSIONS SOURCES 6
2.5 USE IN INDUSTRY 7
SECTION 3
AIR EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR MRA USAGE 9
3.1 METHODOLOGY 9
3.1.1 Aerosol Spray-Applied MRA 9
3.1.2 Liquid MRA .... 10
3.2 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES BY INDUSTRY 11
SECTION 4
POLLUTION PREVENTION OPTIONS FOR THE POLYURETHANE FOAM INDUSTRY .... 13
4.1 MOLDED POLYURETHANE INDUSTRY PROFILE 13
4.1.1 Process Description 13
4.1.1.1 Polyurethane Chemistry 13
4.1.1.2 Foam Processing 15
4.1.2 Molded Polyurethane Facilities 17
4.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPTIONS 17
4.2.1 High Volume Low Pressure Spray Guns 18
4.2.2 Solvent Emission Reduction Technology™ 18
4.2.3 Water-Based MRA 19
4.2.4 High-Solids MRA 20
4.2.5 Powder-Based MRA 21
4.2.6 Permanent MRA 22
4.2.7 Semi-Permanent MRA 22
4.3 SELECTING AN OPTION FOR DEMONSTRATION 23
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd. J
SECTION 5
DEMONSTRATION OF SOLVENT EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY™ 24
5.1 MEASUREMENTS DATA 25
5.1.1 MRA Usage Rate and VOC Emissions 26
5.1.2 Production Rate 27
5.1.3 Product Quality 28
5.1.4 Worker Acceptance 28
5.1.5 Health & Safety 29
5.2 COST ANALYSIS FOR SERT™ PROCESS 29
5.2.1 Total Capital Investment 29
5.2.2 Operating Costs 31
5.2.3 Total Annual Cost 34
5.2.4 Cost Effectiveness 34
5.2.5 Sensitivity Analysis 34
5.2.6 SERT™ Versus Add-On Control Devices 36
SECTION 6
DATA QUALITY 37
SECTION 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 39
SECTION 8
REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX A Cost Information and Estimates . 43
APPENDIX B ECR Database information 50
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of MRA types and consumption , 6
Table 2-2. MRA active ingredient consumption by industry in 1939 7
Table 2-3. Active ingredients and their use by industry 8
Table 3-1. MRA VOC emissions by industry 11
Table 3-2. Summary of national VOC emissions 12
Table 4-1. Comparison of pollution prevention options '. .24
Table 5-1. Summary of MRA usage and VOC emissions measured during SERT™
demonstration 27
Table 5-2a. Estimate of total capita! investment for SERT™ process 31
Table 5-2b. Estimate of total capital investment for conventional process 32
Table 5-3. Estimate of change in annual MRA cost with SERT™ process 33
Table 5-4. Comparison of SERT™ process with incinerators 36
Table 6.1. Precision and accuracy for key values 37
Table A-1. Sensitivity analysis - Scenario 1- Optimized SERT™ MRA usage rate 45
Table A-2. Sensitivity analysis - Scenario 2A - Reduced conventional MRA cost 46
Table A-3. Sensitivity analysis - Scenario 2B - Increased Conventional MRA cost ..... 47
Table A-4. Sensitivity analysis - Scenario 3 - TWO SERT™ Stations 48
Table A-5. Sensitivity analysis - Scenario 4 - TWO SERT™ Stations with optimized
SERT™ MRA usage rate 49
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1. Schematic of foam molding process 16
Figure 5-1, Schematic of demonstration setup 25
vii
-------
UST OF ACRONYMS
ABS Acrylonitrile, Butadiene, Styrene Polymer
ACG1H American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
APPCD US EPA - Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
BCC Business Communications Company, Inc.
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CE Cost Effectiveness
CFC Chlorofluorocarbons
C02 Carbon Dioxide
CRC Capital Recovery Cost
CRF Capital Recovery Factor
DoE US Department of Energy
DoL US Department of Labor
ECR Environmental Consulting and Research
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
FOB Free on Board
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HR High Resiliency
HVLP High Volume Low Pressure
MDI Diphenyl Methane Diisocyanate
MRA Mold Release Agent
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
MVSS Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
NTIS National Technical Information Service
OAQPS US EPA - Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEL Permissible Exposure Limit
PPA Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
OA Quality Assurance
RTI Research Triangle Institute
SERT™ Solvent Emission Reduction Technology™
TAC Total Annual Cost
TCI Total Capital Investment
TDI Toluene Diisocyanate
TLV Threshold Limit Value
tpy Tons per Year
VAC Volts, Alternating Current
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
V 7" 7 i
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS
D Percent Reduction in VOC
i Interest Rate
n Payback Period (years)
Np Number of Units Produced
Subscripts
n New Technology (SERT™)
s Standard Technology {Conventional)
ix
-------
METRIC CONVERSIONS
Nonmetric
Times
Yields Metric
ft
0.3
m
ft2
0.093
m2
in
2.54
cm
in2
6.45
cm2
lb
0.454
kg
scfm
0.00047
sm3/s
ton
0.907
tonne
x
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, a new and innovative approach to reducing hazardous
waste and emissions has been rapidly developing in the United States. This new approach,
called "pollution prevention," has been defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA! as "the use of materials, processes, or practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of
pollutants or wastes at the sources. It includes practices that protect natural resources
through conservation or more efficient use."
In the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), the U.S. Congress passed legislation to
make pollution prevention a major part of national environmental policy and required the EPA
to facilitate the adoption of source reduction techniques by industries. Following the PPA, the
U.S. Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) which requires the EPA
to establish a basic engineering research and technology program to develop, evaluate, and
demonstrate non-regulatory strategies and technologies for air pollution. In response to this
legislation, the EPA published the Pollution Prevention Strategy (56 FR 7849) which outlines
EPA's pollution prevention goals and sets forth a program to achieve specific objectives. A key
component of the program outlined in the strategy is the establishment of a pollution
prevention research program to assist in the development, evaluation and demonstration of
clean products and clean technologies. One such research program required the assessment
of emissions and pollution prevention options for several consumer categories, including mold
release agents.
The EPA's Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD) completed an
assessment of the processes, materials, installation practices and emission characteristics
associated with the application of mold release agents (MRA). Eleven categories of industrial
processes were identified as consumers of MRA. Emissions estimates were developed based
on available information on MRA composition and consumption for these eleven categories.
While the available data were limited, total emissions from industrial mold release agent use
were found to be significant. Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions for the eleven
categories of MRA processes were estimated to be 126,000 tons per year. The study also
found that polyurethane molding operations accounted for a significant percent of the total
MRA emissions (about 25 percent) and that automobile seat and other foam molding operations
accounted for most of the emissions associated with the polyurethane category. Rubber
processing and polyester manufacturing were also found to be sizable, but not as significant
as polyurethane.
Initial evaluations concluded that automotive and furniture seat cushion molding
— ations had the greatest opportunity for pollution prevention. These operations were
1
-------
identified because: (1) their activity represents a significant fraction of the total national
emissions associated with MRA usage, (2) processes related to MRA usage do riot vary
significantly in the automotive and furniture seat molding industries, making it likely that a
single pollution prevention approach could be demonstrated that would be broadly applicable,
and (3) several pollution prevention technologies at various stages of development are
applicable.
Several pollution prevention alternatives were identified for conventional MRA usage in
the polyurethane foaming industry. An initial assessment of each of the identified technologies
was performed. This initial assessment included potential to reduce emissions of VOC,
technical feasibility, and cost. Based on this preliminary evaluation, the Solvent Emission
Reduction Technology1* (SERT™) process was selected for further evaluation. A detailed
assessment of SERT™ was made through a demonstration at the Integram-St. Louis Seating
polyurethane molding facility in Pacific, Missouri. The demonstration evaluated the applicability
and technical barriers associated with the penetration of the SERT™ process into the current
MRA using infrastructure, the overall emission reduction potential, and the costs associated
with switching to the SERT™ process. The demonstration showed that a 60 percent reduction
in VOC emissions is readily attainable with this process. Additionally, the study showed that
the system can be cost effective in comparison to other pollution control strategies.
This document presents a detailed account of the studies performed under this project.
Section 2 provides background information on MRA types and uses. Section 3 details the
development of emissions estimates for MRA using industries. Section 4 provides a description
and initial evaluation of the pollution prevention options for the polyurethane foam molding
industry. Section 5 provides a summary of the SERT™ demonstration. Included in Section 5
is a discussion of the demonstration approach, the results of the demonstration, and an
analysis of the costs associated with the SERT™ process. Section 6 is a discussion of data
quality as it relates to the demonstration. Section 7 provides a summary and conclusion for
the work performed in this project. References are provided in Section 8. Finally, the
appendices contain various economic definitions and calculations, and a database of
information on polyurethane molding facilities in the U.S.
2
-------
SECTION 2
MRA BACKGROUND
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
An MRA can be generically described as any substance used to control or eliminate the
adhesion of a material to itself or to another material. The MRA prevents the molded product
from sticking to the mold so that the product can easily be removed in one piece. Factors such
as penetration, chemical reaction and compatibility, low surface tension, surface configuration,
and differences in polarity between the two materials influence adhesion between materials
(Swift, 1990). MRA may also be known as adherents, anti-blocking agents, external or surface
lubricants, parting agents, and slip aids. The MRA consists of the active ingredient (the
ingredient that actually prevents adhesion) and a carrier or additive that is used to apply the
active ingredient. The active ingredient is most often inert, that is, it contains no VOC. The
carriers and additives often contain VOC, although non-VOC carriers and additives may be
used. Major industrial applications for MRA include casting, molding, forming, and materials
transfer operations in a wide variety of industries, including plastic (or polymer} processing,
rubber, metal processing, glass, food processing, textiles, printing, and others.
Mold release agents can be divided into three major types of agents: external MRA,
internal MRA, and permanent MRA. External MRA can be further divided into single release and
semi-permanent MRA. External MRA operate much in the same manner as oil, lard, and
non-stick sprays operate on cookware. Adherents can be applied to a surface by standard
coating methods such as spraying, brushing, dusting, dipping, electrostatic powder coating,
and plasma arc coating. The product (e.g., resin, metal, rubber, glass, etc.) is injected, laid,
rolled, sprayed, etc., in the mold where the product is cured. The part is then released from
the mold and the MRA is reapplied to the mold. Most external MRA are designed as single use
MRA. That is, the MRA must be re-applied following every mold cycle.
Semi-permanents, or multiple release products, are a relatively new concept in release
agents. Semi-permanents allow a relatively large number of processing cycles to occur
(approximately 10) before re-application of the MRA is needed. They are usually water- or
solvent-based with the latter predominantly used in heat-cured systems. They can be used to
coat the mold or can be applied to become an integral part of the mold. Advantages include
low buildup, promotion of excellent part surface and finish, minimal transfer to the part, high
release efficiencies, low or non-toxicity of some products, and high temperature stability (up
to 375°C).
Internal MRA, typically metallic stearates, are agents that are added to the resin itself
(Swift, 1990). While there is no consensus as to how such agents work, one hypothesis is
3
-------
that the MRA migrates to the surface of the resin, that is, to the part/mold interface, during the
interval between the injection and the ejection. The agent then acts as an external release
agent, essentially lubricating the boundary. A number of factors influence the performance of
internal MRA, including solubility in the resin, rate of migration, lubricity, melting point of the
additive, and extent of electrostatic inhibition (Grayson, 1985; Pereell, et al., 1987).
Self-releasing molds are coated with a permanent MRA, usually Teflon, high phosphorus
nickel, or tungsten disulfide. Although not truly permanent, self-releasing molds are capable
of producing several hundred molded parts before the surface needs to be reapplied.
Application of the permanent MRA is performed at the MRA vendor's facility, and is relatively
costly. As such, the use of permanent MRA has been limited to low production operations
requiring a high level of mold detail.
Both internal and permanent MRA have little to no associated air emissions. However,
many forms of external MRA contain significant amounts of organic solvent. As such, the
remainder of this section will be limited to a discussion of external MRA.
2.2 EXTERNAL MRA FORMS
External MRA can be obtained as aerosol sprays, liquids, and dusts. Almost any MRA
can be applied by a spray operation using a solution, dispersion, or emulsion. In fact, most
mold release products can be applied by all of these methods, depending on the individual
user's needs. Liquids are often used to brush or dip molds. Many parting agents are dusted
directly on to the mold surface. Topical coatings include a variety of solid parting agents (e.g.,
mica, talc, metallic stearates, etc.), soap solutions, waxes, silicones, and other selective,
formulated chemical compounds which can be applied by spraying, dipping, brushing, or
dusting. Semi-permanents are available in aerosol and bulk packaging. Determining the proper
MRA and MRA delivery system for a particular process and material is complex because
selection is based on a multitude of chemical and physical factors. The end selection is
generally based on process and finished part compatibility. Data shows that 25.8 million
pounds (48 percent) of MRA active ingredient were spray applied in 1989, while 18.4 million
pounds (34 percent) were applied by dipping or brushing (Swift, 1990). Dusting and other
methods of application accounted for the remaining 10.1 million pounds (18 percent) of active
MRA ingredient.
2.2.1 Aerosol Soravs
Spraying with aerosols is by far the most popular MRA application. While application
can be repeated as often as required, the application activity also interrupts the molding cycle.
Therefore, an effective MRA must allow rapid application. Silicones offer quick-application
properties, and are widely used as sprays although large amounts of other mold releases are
4
-------
also applied by spraying. Despite the fact that most aerosol sprays are more expensive than
an alternative application, they are projected to maintain their dominance in the market (Swift,
1990).
2.2 2 liquids
Using liquid MRA for brushing, dipping, and spraying is usually accomplished manually
and offers low-cost application. Since productivity is low with brushing and dipping, these
techniques have usually been limited to batch processing of low- to medium- volume products.
Approximately 34 percent of mold release active ingredient consumed in 1989 was applied by
brushing and dipping. With the rising cost of propellants due to chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)
regulations, this mode of application is projected to slightly increase (Swift, 1990).
2.2.3 Dusts
Dusting and related methods are primarily used to apply powders such as talc and mica,
calcium stearate, calcium silicate, polyethylene powders, powdered waxes and minor amounts
of other related mold releases. Dusting is also usually performed manually and offers low-cost
application although productivity is low. A major application of dusting is for soft rubber
products such as rubber bands, tubing, and rubber sheets. Closely related to dusting for MRA
application is electrostatic powder coating and plasma arc coating. These methods feature
much higher productivity, but can entail a sizable capital investment. As a result they are used
primarily in high-volume applications.
2.3 MRA COMPOSITION
As mentioned earlier, an MRA consists of two chemical parts: the active ingredient and
the additives, including the carrying agent(s) or carriers. The active ingredient is the actual
mold release agent, i.e., the material that prevents the adhesion. The additives are the
compounds, solvents, or aerosols added to the active ingredient that deliver the agent in the
form that will work best for the particular molding process.
The active ingredients are generally inert, containing no, or very little, VOC. Active
ingredients common to topical coatings are parting agents, soaps, waxes, silicones, and others
including graphites and natural products (e.g., flour). Semi-permanent formulations are
generally proprietary, because of the competitiveness of the market. The additives and carriers
portion of an MRA can be solvents (e.g., mineral spirits), oils, water, or other materials.
Virtually all MRA can be applied by a spray operation using a solution, dispersion, or emulsion.
For example, CFCs or some other alternative propellant such as 1,1,1 -trichloroethane are often
used in sprays. Many parting agents such as talc, mica, and metallic stearates are dusted
5
-------
directly on to the surface without being mixed with any kind of additive. A list of the active
ingredients consumed in 1989 by MRA type is given in Table 2-1,
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF MRA TYPES AND CONSUMPTION
MRA TYPE
ACTIVE INGREDIENT
CONSUMED (million lbs}
Topical Coatings
SO.O
Parting Agents
16.2
Soaps
2.2
Waxes
11.9
Silicones
17.1
Others (graphites, oils, flour, etc.)
2.6
Semi-Permanents
4.3
TOTAL
54.3
Determining the active ingredient and additives to incorporate into an MRA is based on
several variables, such as the material being molded, the molding process, the configuration
of the mold, the cycle time, etc. Currently, there are about 10,000 different formulations on
the market, many of which are proprietary, plant and process specific MRA (Allardiee, 1981).
2.4 POTENTIAL EMISSIONS SOURCES
Emissions from MRA use can occur at several points in the application process and
depend primarily on the mode of application. With external MRA, VOC emissions will occur
from the application of sprays and liquids. Emissions points are the applicator, the mold and
the product. Emissions points for application and use of semi-permanents are similar to other
external MRA. However, since these MRA are not applied as frequently as externals, their
relative emissions (assuming the same VOC content as a comparable, external MRA) will be
lower.
Another source of emissions from the MRA application process involves clean up
activities. Mold surfaces are cleaned at regular intervals to increase the efficiency of the MRA.
Many of the products used in clean up are solvents with high VOC contents (e.g., mineral
spirits, trichioroethylene).
6
-------
2.5 USE IN INDUSTRY
MRA are used in many industries including polymer processing, rubber, metal, glass, and
food processing. In the U.S., there are 14,248 molding plants which use processes that require
an MRA. Total active ingredient consumption in 1989 was 54.3 million pounds. Polyurethanes
consume the greatest amount of MRA active ingredient with 12.8 million pounds.
Padding/cushioning and appliance insulation are the most common uses for the finished
polyurethane. Table 2-2 lists MRA usage for several industries (Swift, 1990). The manufacture
of molded polyester and the processing of rubber and meta! are also major consumers of MRA.
Molded polyester finds a variety of uses including boat hulls, automobile body panels, and bath
tubs. The processed rubber is used to make tires, hoses, and belts. Die casting and metal
fabrication are the most common applications for metal processing. Table 2-3 presents a list
of the types of MRA used in each industry. Most industries can use a variety of MRA
formulations based on mold and product characteristics.
TABLE 2-2. MRA ACTIVE INGREDIENT CONSUMPTION BY INDUSTRY IN 1989
INDUSTRY
r mra active
INGREDIENT USE
PERCENT OF USE
Polymers - Thermosetting
23.3
42.9
Polyurethanes
12.8
23.6
Polyesters
6.7
12.3
Epoxies
1.7
3.1
Others
2.1
3.9
Polymers - Thermoplastic
8.2
15.1
PVC
3.0
5.5
Polystyrene
2.9
5.3
Others (ABS, Nylon)
2.3
4.3
Non-Polymers
22.8
42.0
Rubber Processing
8.9
16.4
Metal Processing
6.7
12.3
Glass
4.1
7.6
Othfirs /Fnnri)
3 1
R 7
totai
BAJZ
7
-------
TABLE 2-3. ACTIVE INGREDIENTS AND THEIR USE BY INDUSTRY
" INDUSTRY
TYPE
CONSUMPTION (10* lb)
Polymers
Thermosetting &
Fine Particle Solids
1.0
Thermoplastic
Metallic Stearates
6,3
Polymers
4.2
Soaps
2.2
Waxes
8.2
Silicones
5.7
Semi-Permanents
3.9
Total
31.5
Non-Polymers
Rubber Processing
Fine Particle Solids
2.7
Metallic Stearates
1.0
Polymers
0.9
Waxes
1.1
Silicones
2.8
Semi-Permanents
0.4
Total
8.9
Metal Processing
Metallic Stearates
0.1
Waxes
2.6
Silicones
2.8
Others
1.2
Total
6.7
Glass
Silicones
3.0
Other
1.1
Total
4.1
Other
Silicones
2.0
Other
1.1
Total
3.1
TOTAL
54.3
8
-------
SECTION 3
AIR EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR MRA USAGE
Industry-specific air emission estimates for aerosol sprays and liquids were developed
based on literature data, contact with users, MRA vendors and manufacturers, and material
safety data sheets (MSDS). The MRA applied as dusts are assumed to contain only active
ingredient, i.e., no additives or carriers. Therefore, no VOC emissions are expected from MRA
dusts. Section 3.1 summarizes the methodology used in estimating emissions from MRA use.
Section 3,2 presents the industry-specific emission estimates.
3.1 METHODOLOGY
For liquids and aerosol sprays, the total weight is equal to the sum of the active
ingredient and solvents. The solvents can contain both volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Solvents identified as HAP were typically non-VOC compounds
including 1,1,1-trichioroethane and methylene chloride. MSDS representing each MRA type
(aerosol spray, liquid, etc.) were utilized to determine the composition for that MRA type. The
methodology used to estimate emissions from aerosol and liquid MRA are discussed in detail
in the following sections.
3.1.1 Aerosol Sorav-Apolied MRA
Based on the literature, 25.8 million pounds of MRA active ingredients were spray
applied in 1989. In addition, 75 percent of sprayed MRA active ingredients are applied by
aerosol and 25 percent are liquids sprayed with compressed air (Swift, 1990). Based on this
information, it is estimated that 19.4 million pounds of active ingredient are applied using an
aerosol spray. Sixteen MSDS of MRA aerosols were provided by MRA vendors. These MSDS
were reviewed, and average composition values for aerosol MRA were calculated. The average
composition of an aerosol MRA is 4 percent active ingredient, 33.5 percent VOC, and 62.5
percent HAP by weight. Note that the average VOC and HAP contents are not representative
of any one MRA formulation. Rather, individual MRA formulations are apt to contain only one
solvent type, either all VOC or all HAP.
The total weight of aerosol MRA can be determined by dividing the average active
ingredient percentage into the total amount of active ingredients. By dividing 19.4 million
pounds of active ingredients for aerosol MRA by 4 percent, a total weight of aerosol MRA of
484 million pounds can be estimated.
9
-------
To estimate the total VOC and HAP, the total weight is multiplied by the respective
percent composition, as follows:
VOC = (484 million lb) x 33.5%
= 162 million lb (81,000 tons)
HAP = (484 millions lb) x 62.5%
= 302 million lb (151,000 tons)
3.1.2 Liquid MRA
The literature states that 18.4 million pounds of active ingredients for brushed and
dipped MRA, plus 6.5 million pounds of non-aerosol spray-applied MRA are associated with
liquid MRA, The total amount of liquid MRA is assumed to be 24.9 million pounds. Nine MSDS
of MRA liquids were provided by MRA vendors. These MSDS were reviewed and average
composition values for liquid MRA were calculated. The average MRA liquid is estimated to
contain 12 percent active ingredient, 43 percent VOC, and 45 percent non-VOC by weight.
No HAP compounds were identified in the MSDS reviewed for liquid MRA.
The total weight of liquid MRA was determined by dividing the average percent active
ingredient into the total amount of active ingredients, as follows:
Total Weight = {24.9 million lb) + 12%
= 207 million lb (103,500 tons)
To estimate the total VOC, the total weight is multiplied by the respective composition
percentages, as follows:
VOC = (207 million lb) x 43%
= 89 million lb (44,500 tons)
Several MRA vendors were asked to comment on the liquid MRA VOC estimates. One
concern was that the MRA liquid market is moving toward water-based MRA. If this is true,
the estimated VOC percentage may be too high. From discussions with metal die-casting
representatives, the active ingredients are diluted with 40 parts water to one part active
ingredient. The additives and carriers for this particular industry are mainly water. The VOC
emissions calculated above may be an overestimate due to the inclusion of the metal die-
casting active ingredient with the other liquid active ingredients.
10
-------
3.2 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES BY INDUSTRY
Total VOC emissions from MRA» as calculated above, are 125,600 tons. Industry-
specific emissions estimates were calculated using data on the amount of active ingredient
consumed and the total emissions estimated for MRA above. Total emissions were
apportioned to an industry based on industry-specific active ingredient consumption, from
Table 2-2. A detailed survey of each industry would be required to obtain better resolution and
estimates of relative percentages than are used here. As an example, MBA VOC emissions
for the polyurethane industry are calculated as follows:
VOC polyurethane = (polyurethane % of MRA use) x (total VOC MRA emissions)
(0.236) x (125,600 tons)
29,600 tons
Table 3-1 provides VOC emissions by industry. Table 3-2 presents a summary of national
VOC emissions for 1990, except for miscellaneous emissions, showing the importance of MRA
use relative to other major emission sources (U.S. EPA, 1995). MRA is included under the
general industry category of Surface Coatings.
TABLE 3-1. MRA VOC EMISSIONS BY INDUSTRY
INDUSTRY
' VOC EMISSIONS (toris)
29.624
Pnlyfi.ct^re;
1fi 44.fi
PpnviRR
3.R91
Other Thftrmnsefs
4 RCjfi
Pn1y
-------
TABLE 3-2. SUMMARY OF NATIONAL VOC EMISSIONS*
VOC {tons}
Highway Vehicles
6.RB4.00O
r inn snn
Surf are Coating
? riq nnn
Nnn-lnrfirstria!
1 soorono
7R7 nnn
f5raphir Arts
3fi3rfsnn
Hry niftsining
9flP 9flO
Mnlri Release Agents
Other InrtiiRtrial
15fi *nn
Waste Oispnsal anrl Renyniing
9 9fi1 Rflfi
Dff Highway
?r 11 .Q, Rnn
Storage anrl Transpnrt
1,7fi«r7m
Hheminal and Allied Prnriunt Maruifantiiring
1 K7R Rfin
Fuel Cnmhiieitirin Flentriral 1 Itilities/Indiistrial/Other
9iflrRnn
Petrnleiim arid Related
fid s, Rnn
Other Inrli iQtrial PrnrpQ«p
-------
SECTION 4
POLLUTION PREVENTION OPTIONS FOR THE POLYURETHANE FOAM INDUSTRY
Polyurethane molding operations account for a significant percent of total MRA
emissions (about 25 percent) as shown in the emission estimates presented in Section 3.
Further review indicated that automobile seat and other foam molding operations accounted
for most of the emissions associated with the polyurethane category (Southern Research,
September 8, 1993). APPCD decided to identify and characterize pollution prevention
opportunities for solvent-based MRA in the polyurethane foam molding industry due to the
significance of this single industrial activity. This section summarizes the findings of these
investigations.
4.1 MOLDED POLYURETHANE INDUSTRY PROFILE
4.11 Process Description
Polyurethane foam molding is both a chemical process and a mechanical production
process. Polyurethane foam is formed by the reaction of isocyanates with polyols and water.
By running this chemical reaction inside a moid, a final product can be made in a wide variety
of shapes and sizes. The following sections describe both the chemical and mechanical
processes involved in the manufacturing of molded polyurethane foam.
4.1.1.1 Polyurethane Chemistry
The basic reaction in industrial polyurethane chemistry is the reaction of hydrogen from
water, a hydroxyl group, or an amine with an isocyanate. Hydroxy! groups are found in
alcohols. Equation 4-1 shows the reaction of a primary alcohol with an isocyanate to form a
urethane, while Equations 4-2a and 4-2b show the reaction of the isocyanate with water and
the subsequent reaction of the amine product with the isocyanate to form a urea (Dow, 1991).
H - NCO
isocy&n&ie
n - CM OH
2
Primary Alcohol
ft - mi - COO - CM ^ /?
Ur*tb»ne
(4-1)
* - NCO
isocy&yite
H O
s
Wster
fi - NH * CO
t i
Amine Caftan Dioxide
(4-2a)
13
-------
H - NH - ft - NCO H - NH - CO NH - .
(4-2b)
Amine Isoc/anale Usee
Equation 4-2a is important because the gas (C02) liberated during this reaction is
responsible for the foaming of the material. Primary amines, such as the one in Equation 4-2b,
are much more reactive than primary hydroxyls and water toward isocyanates. Water and
primary hydroxyls are equally reactive with isocyanate. Therefore, catalysts are often
necessary to optimize the reaction with hydroxyls and water in order to obtain the desired
products.
Two types of isocyanate are commonly used in industry. The most common type is
Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI). The 2, 4 and 2, 6 isomers of TDI are often used in a mixture, 80
percent and 20 percent, respectively, (abbreviated 80:20 TDI) (Dow, 1991). However, some
processes use 65:35 mixtures or a pure isomer. The second type of isocyanate used is
diphenyl methane diisocyanate (MDI). Recently, some advantages to using MDI have been
discovered. These advantages include: shorter cycles, lower molding temperatures, less mold
waste from vents and seals, and a higher rate of cure. The most common MDI mixtures are
polymeric MDI and a prepolymer, a partially reacted, not fully polymerized urethane, or
polymeric MDI with pure 2, 4'- or 4, 4'-MDI. Pure 2, 4' and 4, 4'-MDI react too quickly to be
used alone. Polyurethane foam recipes usually specify isocyanate concentration as an index.
This index is a percentage of the amount determined by stoichiometry. Therefore, 105 index
means that 105 percent of the stoichiometric amount of isocyanate is used. Commonly, the
index is between 90 and 120.
Polyols are polyether compounds that contain more than one hydroxy! group (Dow,
1991). These compounds take the place of the alcohol in Equation 4-1. The polymers used
here vary from formulation to formulation, but most have molecular weights between 2000 and
7000. Polyols are the polymerization product of an initiator and an alkylene oxide. Common
initiators include ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerine, and ethylene diamine. The two
most common oxides used in polyol preparation are ethylene oxide and propylene oxide. The
ethylene oxide polymer will have primary hydroxyl reaction sites, while the propylene oxide
polymer will have secondary hydroxyl reaction sites. The use of a secondary hydroxyl polyol
imparts different characteristics to the polymer. In industrial practice, the use of primary and
secondary hydroxyl polyols does not significantly change the processing time since all foaming
reactions are run in the presence of several catalysts.
Catalysts play an important role in foam production, as most foam recipes include
several catalysts. Different catalysts are used to increase the rate of foam production, and to
increase the rate of gas production from the reactions in Equations 4-2a and 4-2b. The most
common types of catalysts are tertiary amines and organometallics (Dow, 1991). The tertiary
amines have a free electron pair on the nitrogen atom which aides in the formation of highly
reactive complexes. Tin based compounds are the most used organometallic catalysts. The
tin is usually held to the organic part of the molecule by ester linkages. Organometallics are
14
-------
generally thought of as gelation catalysts while the tertiary amines are used more as blowing
catalysts. The rates of the two reactions (polymer gelling and blowing) must be balanced so
that gas is efficiently trapped in the foam and the cell walls develop sufficient strength to
maintain their structure.
Other compounds that are added to the foam mixture are surfactants, cross-linkers,
blowing agents, and flame retardants. The surfactants are nonionic and silicone based. They
are used to lower bulk surface tension, emulsify incompatible formulation ingredients, promote
nucleation of bubbles during mixing, reduce stress concentrations in cell walls, and counteract
the defoaming effect of solids. The cross linkers are short-chain polyfunctional polyols. They
join the polymer chains together, thus adding load bearing capabilities and Increasing stability.
If the water present in the system cannot generate enough gas to promote foaming, an
additional blowing agent will be introduced. Previously, blowing agents were
chlorofluorocarbons !CFCs), however, industry is currently looking at new compounds for use
as blowing agents. The last major component added to foams is a flame retardant. Flame
retardants are important since many foam products are required to meet state and federal
regulations regarding flammability. The most common types of flame retardant used today are
chlorinated phosphate esters.
4.1.1.2 Foam Processing
There are several ways to manufacture polyurethane foam. Generally, foams are molded
or made into large slab stocks. The molded foams can then be broken down into two types:
hot cure and high resiliency (HR) foam. The high resiliency foam is very common in North
America because it uses much less energy than hot cure foams. In automobile seat processing,
roughly 45,000 Btu are used to process one hot cure cushion, which is enough energy to
process six high resiliency cushions. The following paragraphs describe an industrial HR foam
molding operation (Dow, 1991). Figure 4-1 provides a simplified process flow diagram of a
typical high resiliency polyurethane molding line.
15
-------
*«¦
Curing
Fill Mold
Strip Foam
trom Mold
Close arid Clamp
Mold Lids
Figure 4-1. Schematic of foam molding process.
Industrial polyurethane foam molding operations are highly automated processes. The
molds typically revolve on a carousel or around a "racetrack". The carousel style is becoming
increasingly popular because it requires less space. Additionally, changes to the foaming
process have led to significantly shorter residence times within the mold, therefore allowing for
a smaller process with greater production capacity.
The first step in the process is to preheat the molds. The use of a preheated mold helps
to evenly dissipate the heat generated by the polymerization reaction. This, in turn, gives a
uniform skin density and helps to complete the reaction at the skin. Next, the mold is sprayed
with a release agent. Urethanes are good adhesives, and without a release agent it would be
impossible to remove the molded piece intact. The preheating of the mold also aids in the
release agent process. Preheated molds flash off the solvent carriers used in the MRA. At this
point, the necessary foam ingredients are added to the mold. The polyol and isocyanate are
fed into a mixing head from local storage tanks. The mixing heads can be low pressure, which
require solvent cleaning, or high pressure impingement mixers, which are self-cleaning. The
mixing head is attached to a robot, which aids in evenly distributing the foam system within
the mold. Since the mixing/distribution system is used discontinuously, recirculation pumps
have been added to return unmixed reactants to their storage tanks for later use.
The molds are generally made of cast aluminum. In high resiliency molding, the molds
have few vents, and therefore, must be able to withstand pressures of up to 30 psig. All seals
16
-------
must be tightly clamped to allow pressure of that magnitude. The molding surface has an
unpolished finish to allow for better coating of the mold release agent. The lids are
mechanically opened and closed. After the mold has been closed and locked, it proceeds
through a curing oven if more than ambient temperatures are needed to cure the foam.
Generally, these ovens heat the molds to a range of 170°F to 200°F. If no additional heat is
required, the mold simply continues around.
The product is now ready to be removed. There are processes for removing the part
mechanically and by hand. Care must be taken when removing the part, so that it is not
damaged. The effect of the MRA is seen here. After the part is stripped from the mold, it is
placed on a conveyor that leads to a storage area. The mold is then cleaned if necessary. At
this point, the process can begin again with the application of the mold release agent or
preheating if necessary.
4.1.2 Molded Polvurethane Facilities
APPCD obtained and reviewed a database of polyurethane foam molders created by
Environmental Consulting and Research (ECR). Appendix B summarizes the data pertaining to
mold release agents collected on the foam molding facilities. It appears that the database of
facilities may be incomplete. The total annual production represented in the database is just
under 100,000 tons per year (tpy). Two literature sources estimate the nationwide molded
polyurethane demand at roughly 1,600,000 tpy (Swift, 1990; Polyurethane Foam Association,
1991). It is also possible that the literature estimates include slab stock polyurethane foam.
While the database may be incomplete, several observations can be made assuming the
database provides a representative sample of polyurethane foam molding facilities.
The molded polyurethane foam industry's primary products include automotive seating
(70 percent) and furniture cushions (20 percent}. Other products include molded dashboards,
arm rests, packaging, toys, and miscellaneous molded foam parts.
Facility size varies greatly within the polyurethane foam molding industry, from less than
5 tpy to as high as 15,000 tpy of polyurethane. The average facility size is estimated to be
2,300 tpy of polyurethane, with nearly 50 percent of the facilities having a capacity less than
500 tpy of polyurethane. However, the majority of production {roughly 65 percent) is
accounted for by facilities with a production capacity greater than 5,000 tpy of polyurethane.
4.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION OPTIONS
Several potential pollution prevention technologies for reducing VOC and HAP emissions
from the use of MRA at polyurethane molding operations have been identified. Potentially
feasible technologies examined here include the following:
(1) High Volume Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns,
1?
-------
(2) Solvent Emissions Reduction Technology™ (SERT™),
(3) Water-based MRA,
(4) High solids MRA,
(5) Powder Mold Release System,
(6) Permanent MRA, and
(7) Semi-permanent MRA.
4.2.1 High Volume Low Pressure Sorav Guns
HVLP spray guns are currently used in several coating industries, including polyurethane
foam molding. The use of HVLP spray guns minimizes the effect of overspray, the fraction of
coating which does not adhere, by producing a more uniform aerosol size distribution. The
performance of HVLP has been well documented and has been shown to potentially reduce
coating usage and emissions by 30 to 50 percent over conventional spray gun technology.
While the capital cost of HVLP is higher than conventional spray guns, the savings in annual
coating costs can more than offset the initial capital cost differential. A cost effectiveness of
-$1200 per ton of VOC reduced was estimated over conventional spray technology with
solvent-based MRA. HVLP can be used in conjunction with conventional, water-based, and
high-solids MRA.
4.2.2 Solvent Emission Reduction Technology™
SERT™ was developed by Union Carbide specifically for the polyurethane foam molding
industry. This technology has been under development since 1989, and is now commercially
available from OSI Specialties*. In SERT™, supercritical carbon dioxide {C02) is used as the
solvent carrier to deliver a specially formulated MRA to the mold using spray guns. SERT™ is
an offshoot of Union Carbide's UNICARB™, a system that uses supercritical CO 2 to apply
paints. The critical point of C02 is 88 °F and 1,070 psi. Above these conditions, C02 acts as
a solvent. When sprayed the C02 flashes off almost instantaneously upon leaving the spray
nozzle. Only a fine spray remains, consisting mostly of MRA active ingredient and a small
amount of solvent. The solvent is required to assist in good film formation on the mold surface
(i.e. even, complete coverage of the mold with MRA}. This results in good release
characteristics with minimal MRA buildup.
Discussion with the vendor indicated that results of limited tests have been encouraging.
With SERT™, the VOC content of the MRA is low, as is the usage rate, resulting in high VOC
reductions compared to the use of solvent-based MRA. Emission reductions of 70 to 80
percent are being achieved now in limited demonstrations, but reductions of 90 to 95 percent
may be possible with incorporation of higher solids MRA. OSI plans to begin the research
necessary to extend the use of SERT™ into other molding operations.
•OSI Specialties, Box 38015, 3200/3300 Kanawha Turnpike, South Charleston, WV 25303-3815
18
-------
Based on the information supplied by the vendor, SERT™ provides as good or better
performance as conventional MRA (Dan Blakemore, OS) Specialties, Teleconference, June
1994}, Only the carrier solvent is replaced with super-critical C02 and standard active
ingredients are used. However, some concerns exist regarding the initial capital investment
required to adopt SERT™ at the plant level. The equipment cost for the SERT™ process is on
the order of $60,000 per line {Dan Blakemore, OSI Specialties, Teleconference, June 1994).
Discussions with the vendor indicate that the market they are targeting is automotive seat
manufacturers who, the vendor believes, could accept the SERT™ capital expense. A
substantial emission reduction could be achieved even if only the largest plants adopted
SERT™. A review of the industry shows that nearly 70 percent of all molded foam is produced
by companies with capacities greater than 5,000 tpy of polyurethane.
The cost of the reformulated MRA on a per gallon basis is higher than solvent- and
water-based MRA. However, since SERT™ MRA is more concentrated, less MRA is used
resulting in an actual cost between that of solvent-based and water-based MRA. Based on
information supplied by the vendor, a preliminary cost effectiveness estimate of $ 1,000 per ton
of VOC reduced was made. In addition to incremental MRA costs, this estimate includes an
annualized capital cost for SERT™ based on a 10 year life and a 10 percent cost of capital.
4.2.3 Water-Based MRA
Water-based release agents use water as the primary carrier, have low VOC contents
ranging from 0 to 10 percent, and generally have usage rates that are about 50 percent higher
than solvent-
based MRA. Although solvent-based MRA typically have lower usage rates than water-based
MRA, the VOC contents range from 43 to 99 percent. The solvent content of a conventional
spray-applied MRA is typically 95 percent or higher. For a typical molding operation using 100
gallons of solvent-based MRA, the VOC content would be 95 gallons. For the same operation,
up to 150 gallons of water-based MRA may be used, with a VOC content of between 0 and
15 gallons, representing an emission reduction of between 84 and 100 percent.
Water-based MRA have been used in automotive seat molding facilities with mixed
results. A review of the facility database indicates that at least eight facilities are currently
using water-based MRA. Correspondence with two car seat molding plants that use water-
based MRA indicated that water-based MRA can be successfully integrated into the seat
molding process, but time and effort are required to successfully make the transition from
solvent-based to water-based MRA (Doug McClain, Douglas and Lomason, Teleconference,
September 1993; Anant Shah, Johnson Controls, Teleconference, September 1993).
Successful transitions have occurred in both cases without a decrease in the production rate.
However, according to plant personnel, problems still exist with the increased number of
defects and the elevated price of the release agent.
Technical issues associated with the use of water-based MRA include potential for
increased defects, difficulties in application, and MRA cost. Isocyanate, one of the primary
19
-------
ingredients in polyurethane foam, reacts with water to form carbon dioxide. The presence of
residual water on the mold surface can lead to the formation of carbon dioxide at the mold
surface which can cause surface defects. One vendor claims to have developed a water-based
MRA which creates a "barrier" between any residual water and the polyurethane foam (John
Robinson, Air Products, Teleconference, June 1994).
Water-based MRA could be integrated into most existing polyurethane foam molding
facilities since the application technology, spray guns, is the same as for conventional solvent-
based MRA. However, according to the industry, water-based MRA do not apply as evenly as
solvent-based MRA because it is more difficult to achieve a fine mist spray that coats all
surfaces of the mold. The water-based MRA is, therefore, subject to overspraying and as a
result, there is increased build-up in the mold. Plant personnel also reported excessive build-up
in the molds caused by the isocyanate/water reaction mentioned above. In an attempt to
reduce the problems with overspray, one facility has evaluated different spray technology, and
has found that HVLP spray guns help control MRA buildup when using water-based MRA.
In addition to the technical difficulties, there may be a cost penalty associated with
water-based solvents. Based on information supplied by one of the facilities using a water-
based MRA, the cost differential between water-based and solvent-based MRA is approximately
$4 per gallon (Doug McClain, Douglas and Lomason, Teleconference, September 1993).
Southern Research estimated an increase in MRA cost for a 2,000 tpy polyurethane facility
would be on the order of $85,000 per year, with cost effectiveness estimated at approximately
$1700 per ton VOC reduced. Increased defect rates or reduced production rates may increase
the cost further.
4.2.4 High-Solids MRA
High-solids MRA formulations are under development. Typical active ingredient content
for conventional solvent-based MRA is less than 5 percent. The remaining 95 percent is
composed of solvents used as a carrier fluid and for proper film formation. By increasing the
active ingredient content, less solvent is used for the same amount of active ingredient applied.
For the flexible polyurethane foam molding industry, high solid MRA have active ingredient
concentrations ranging from 6 to 12 percent (Paul Gavin, Chem-Trend, Teleconference, June
1994). For example, for an application of 5 gallons of active ingredient using conventional
solvent-based MRA containing 5 percent solids, 100 gallons of total MRA would be used
consisting of 95 gallons of VOC. For a high-solid MRA with an active ingredient content of 10
percent, only 50 gallons of total MRA would be needed with a total VOC content of 45 gallons.
This corresponds to a 53 percent reduction in VOC emissions.
Limited operating experience exists for high-solid MRA, Based on discussions with the
vendor, high-solid coatings are difficult to apply using conventional spray technologies and
HVLP spray guns would be needed to achieve good results, MRA buildup could also be a
problem due to difficulties achieving a uniform coat, and a tendency for workers familiar with
20
-------
conventional MRA to over apply the high solids MRA. No facilities were identified that are
currently using high-solid MRA.
An estimate of the cost effectiveness of high-solids MRA was made based on the
information supplied by the vendor (Paul Gavin, Chem-Trend, Teleconference, June 1994), The
cost of high-solid MRA is much higher on a per gallon basis than solvent-based MRA. This is
only partially offset by the lower usage rate. High-solids MRA are estimated to result in a cost
effectiveness of $3,000 per ton of VOC reduced.
4-2.5 Powder-E^sed MRA
Polymerit began development of a powder-based MRA in 1987. The technology has
been tested by the vendor at several polyurethane molding facilities (Bror Hanson, Polymerit,
Teleconference, June 1994). However, there are currently no polyurethane molding facilities
using the Polymerit system. Polymerit uses a dry powder release agent instead of other
conventional agents (e.g., waxes or silicones). The powder contains no VOC resulting in a 100
percent emission reduction over conventional solvent-based MRA. Prior to service, each mold
must be pre-conditioned with a coat of Polymerit base coat. According to the vendor, this
conditioning is only required once during the lifetime of the mold. A coating of powder is then
applied prior to each molding. Several different powders are used depending on the type of
foam to be molded and the surface desired on the part. Currently, the powder is applied with
a powder-impregnated urethane sponge. Alternative application strategies are being evaluated
by the vendor to decrease the application time required.
Limited demonstrations of the Polymerit system have been performed for the industry.
Although full sized parts have been produced, these tests have generally been limited to
non-production scale demonstrations (i.e. one mold used to produce 100 to 1000 parts).
Companies who have participated in these demonstrations include Dow Chemical, Johnson
Controls, Lear Seating, Woodbridge Foam, and Michigan Seat. Southern Research contacted
the representatives from these companies to determine the success of the demonstrations. All
companies contacted said the powder-based MRA produced excellent parts and had several
advantages over water-based MRA. The powder-based MRA eliminated waxy MRA carryover
often occurring with both conventional and water-based MRA. Also, the powder-based MRA
system is reported to result in much less mold cleaning. One group who had evaluated the
powder-based MRA noted that the "skin" on the foam produced had an open pore structure,
which allows the foam to "breathe", a desirable quality for seat cushions (Douglas Hunter, Dow
Chemicals USA, Teleconference, June 1994).
The biggest factor keeping the Polymerit powder-based MRA from entering the market
place is the need for a better application method. The current system cannot keep up with the
high production rate of large polyurethane molding operations, A representative of the
Woodbridge Corporation said that the MRA application time is roughly six seconds at their
automotive seating facilities (Erny Gatto, Woodbridge Group, Teleconference, June 1994). In
comparison, the Polymerit application time is currently on the order of 25 seconds. As
21
-------
mentioned above, Polymerit is continuing to evaluate alternative methods for applying the
powder.
Based on information supplied by the vendor, the powder-based MRA is approximately
30-50 percent more costly on a per part basis than conventional solvent-based MRA, In
comparison, water-based MRA are estimated to cost nearly twice as much as conventional
solvent-based MRA on a per part basis. In addition, the vendor is currently charging $500/mold
for pre-conditioning. This cost would be lower for a licensed facility. Based on information
supplied by the vendor, a cost effectiveness estimate of $830 per ton of VOC reduced was
estimated. This includes the cost of pre-conditioning the mold, but does not include any
developmental costs associated with making a more "production oriented" MRA delivery
system.
4,2 g Permanent MRA
Self-releasing molds are coated with a permanent MRA, usually Teflon, high phosphorus
nickel, or tungsten disulfide. No polyurethane foam molding facilities have been identified as
using permanent MRA. Based on discussions with one Teflon applicator, permanent MRA have
several technical problems (Tom Sloan, Plas-Teeh Coating, Teleconference, June 1994), The
primary problem is that teflon-based MRA are not permanent. According to the above vendor,
for a polyurethane foam molding operation, no more than 300 to 400 cycles could be expected
before the coating would need to be reapplied. Based on a cycle rate of 1 part every 10
minutes, it is estimated that a mold would need to be recoated every 2 to 4 days. The molds
would need to be taken out of service as the coating can not be applied on site, necessitating
extra sets of molds. A second problem with permanent MRA is that they do not have the best
release characteristics. This could lead to increased defects due to rips or tears caused by
sticking. In addition, as the mold gets dirty the problems with sticking become worse. As a
result, to get good performance, the molds would need cleaning approximately every 10 cycles.
In addition, since teflon is non-wetting, conventional MRA cannot be used in conjunction with
permanent MRA as the conventional MRA would bead-up and not leave a uniform coat.
The initial cost of preparing a teflon coated self-releasing tool is estimated at $4 to $6
per square foot of mold surface (Tom Sloan, Plas-Tech Coating, Teleconference, June 1994).
For a simple 1.5' by 1.5' by 0.33' rectangular mold, the surface area would be 6.5 square feet,
and the cost to prepare the mold would be roughly $30. No attempt was made at estimating
a cost effectiveness value for permanent MRA due to the high loss of production that would
be incurred,
4.2.7 Semi-Permanent MRA
Semi-permanent MRA are more durable than conventional MRA. The solvent content
of semi-permanent MRA can be comparable to conventional solvent-based MRA, however,
several moldings can be performed before the MRA needs to be reapplied. A theoretical
22
-------
emission reduction of 90 percent could be achieved with an application rate of once per 10
moldings. Water-based semi-permanent MRA are also being developed which could increase
the emission reduction to nearly 100 percent.
Semi-permanent MRA are currently used in several molding industries. However, none
of the polyurethane foam molding facilities are believed to be using semi-permanent MRA at
this time. According to vendors, due to the longer curing time required (approximately 1 hour),
semi-permanent MRA are best suited for long, low cycle operations (molding of airplane wings
was given as an example) (Dave Martin, Dexter Freco, Teleconference, June 1994).
Polyurethane foam molding has a very high cycle rate, roughly 1 part every 10 minutes, which
make semi-permanent MRA undesirable. Taking the molds out of production for 1 hour every
10 parts would result in a potential production decrease of 37 percent when compared to
conventional MRA. For comparison, a process with a 2 hour cycle time would only experience
a five percent decrease in production. No attempt was made at estimating a cost effectiveness
value for semi-permanent MRA due to the high loss of production that would be incurred.
4.3 SELECTING AN OPTION FOR DEMONSTRATION
The first step in selecting an option is to summarize the information available for each
option. Table 4-1 summarizes the cost effectiveness values for each option. The cost
effectiveness is a combination of the costs associated with an option and an option's potential
to reduce emissions. Other information to be considered is technical feasibility. The last three
options presented (powder-based, permanent, and semi-permanent MRA) are currently not
suitable for large high-output polyurethane production lines. The other four options have been
used on large, production lines in testing or actual production. HVLP spray guns offer a cost
savings but are already widely used to apply MRA as well as a number of other coatings. HVLP
spray guns were, therefore, not selected for this demonstration. From the three remaining
candidates, the SERT™ system was selected for the demonstration based on two factors: (1)
the SERT™ system is more cost effective than the high solids system, and (2) installing the
SERT™ system for the demonstration would require far fewer changes to the equipment and
foam formulation than the water-based system, thus, minimizing the impact on the industrial
site selected for the demonstration.
23
-------
TABLE 4-1. COMPARISON OF POLLUTION PREVENTION OPTIONS
TECHNOLOGY
EMISSIONS REDUCTION
(%1
ESTIMATED
COST EFFECTIVENESS1-
HVLP Spray Guns
30-50
-1,200
SERT™
70-95
1,000*
Water-based MRA
84-100
1,700
High Solids MRA
53
3,000
Powder System'
100
830
Permanent MRA'
100
....
Somi-Pormanpnt MRA'
qn.mn
'These cost effectiveness values are approximations based on available information. They were arranged to
help determine which process to evaluate further. Actual costs associated with these technologies may differ.
'Not feasible for use in high production polyurethane plant.
"Preliminary estimate. Refined estimates based on demonstration results are presented in later sections.
SECTION 5
DEMONSTRATION OF SOLVENT EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY™
APPCD decided to perform a demonstration of the SERT™ process at a polyurethane
foam molding facility based on the analysis summarized in Section 4-3. The site selected for
the demonstration was Integram's St. Louis Seating plant in Pacific, Missouri. This plant has
a capacity of roughly 4,000 tons per year of molded polyurethane, and its main product is a
high resiliency foam automobile seat for the Chrysler Corporation. The Integram facility uses
a patented "foam in place" molding technology in which an upholstered lining is inserted into
the mold, and the mold is charged to allow the polyurethane to expand and fill the mold. The
foam adheres to the lining and produces a finished upholstered seat cushion. This foam in
place technology greatly reduces the mold surface area which comes in contact with the
polyurethane. Currently, a solvent-based MRA is applied with HVLP spray guns to those areas
where the lining does not cover the mold. Each mold proceeds around the carousel style
molding line, stopping at each "station". Figure 5-1 is a schematic of a carousel line as set up
for the demonstration. Mold release is applied at three stations. Station 1 accounts for only
10 percent of the MRA applied on the line. This station is located in such a way that including
it in the SERT™ test would have greatly increased the set-up time, and required the
rearrangement of the operating line, therefore, it was not included in the testing. During the
testing of the conventional MRA, two operators sprayed mold release from a pressure pot
system using HVLP spray guns at stations 2 and 3 in Figure 5-1. During the testing of the
24
-------
Figure 5-1: Schematic of Demonstration Setup
Note: (1) 1,2, and 3 are the MRA spraying stations. Spray station 1 was not used in any of the tests, but accounts for only
10 percent of the MRA sprayed. |2) Stations 2 and 3 were used in the test of the conventional MRA. All of the parts coated
with MSA from stations 2 and 3 in the test of the conventional MRA were sprayed from station 3 in the test of the SERT* station.
SERT* process, the spraying duties of stations 2 and 3 were combined and performed from
station 3.
The goal of the demonstration was to evaluate the SERT™ process as a method of
reducing VOC emissions from the application of mold release agents in polyurethane foam
molding. Section 5.1 summarizes the approach used as described in the quality assurance and
test plan for this project. Additionally, the data collected during the demonstration is presented
in Section 5.1. Section 5.2 presents a feasibility cost analysis for retrofitting the Integram
facility with the SERT™ process.
5.1 MEASUREMENTS DATA
The demonstration approach was designed to gather data to allow a direct comparison
of SERT MRA to conventional MRA in four areas:
• VOC emission reductions,
• Effect on production rate,
• Effect on product quality, and
• Cost impacts.
The demonstration was carried out over a period of four days. Each technology was
tested during ten lots of approximately 100 parts each. During each lot, approximately 1 hour
of running time, data was collected to allow the comparison of the SERT™ technology to the
conventional MRA. Section 6 examines the quality of the data collected.
Product surface quality data was collected to help determine if the process can be easily
integrated into a processing facility. Foams with poor surface quality or ones that are
flammable will be difficult or impossible for the manufacturer to sell, thus making surface
25
-------
quality and flammability key factors in this technology assessment. Factors such as
production rate and downtime were also examined to determine their impact on the economics
of the process.
5.1.1 MRA Usage Rate and VOC Emissions
Alternative MRA technologies (e.g., SERT™) are of interest due to their ability to reduce
VOC emissions. It is assumed that all of the VOC in the MRA will be volatilized either during
the molding process or during product storage and usage. As such, the VOC emission rate is
a function of the MRA use rate and the VOC content of the MRA.
The quantity of MRA used at the stations in the test was determined by weighing the
MRA storage container before and after each production lot. A lot size of 100 parts was
chosen to allow for an appreciable weight change in the MRA storage container and for a
sample size adequate for testing differences in VOC emissions rates and product surface
quality. Table 5-1 summarizes the data collected on MRA usage rate. The SERT™ process
resulted in a decrease in MRA usage of 60 percent.
Samples of the MRA were taken before and after each lot, so that an average VOC
content could be determined. The MRA samples were analyzed for VOC content and density
using EPA Reference Method 24 (CFR, 1986). The conventional MRA contained 96 percent
VOC on average, and had an average density of 6.4 lb/gal (0.77 g/ml). The SERT™ MRA,
which is applied in lower quantities, averaged 87 percent VOC, with a density of 6.5 lb/gal
(0.78 g/ml).
The VOC emissions per 100 molded parts were then calculated for each technology
based on the average MRA usage rate and VOC content. The estimated emissions are also
presented in Table 5-1. The conventional MRA system is estimated to result in VOC emissions
of 4,8 lb/100 molded parts. The VOC emission rate estimated for the SERT process is 1.8
lb/100 molded parts. Based on these estimates, the SERT™ process was able to reduce VOC
emissions by 63 percent during the demonstration.
Two factors should be considered when evaluating these results. First, the standard
MRA system, which the SERT™ system was compared against, uses high volume low pressure
HVLP spray guns. The VOC reduction when compared to standard spray gun equipment would
be considerably higher (VOC reductions of 75 to 80 percent). Second, to avoid a lengthy set-
up during the demonstration, the SERT™ MRA was applied at only one station (Figure 5-1).
This station had a greater than optimum spraying distance for coating some parts of the mold.
This condition likely resulted in the need to spray additional MRA. The conventional MRA data
was gathered using two spray stations. Upon installation, VOC reductions could be higher
than those seen during the demonstration by moving the operator closer to the part being
sprayed.
26
-------
5.1.2 Production Rate
The use of an alternative MRA can effect the production rate in two ways. First,
production rate could be negatively impacted if the alternative MRA has a longer application
time than the current MRA. Second, the production rate can be impacted if the alternative
MRA has either a greater or lesser amount of downtime due to malfunctions or maintenance.
Both the SERT™ and conventional MRA were spray applied taking only a few seconds per part.
The MRA application step was not a limiting factor with either technology. Downtime was also
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF MRA USAGE AND VOC EMISSIONS MEASURED
DURING SERT™ DEMONSTRATION
MRA
RUN
".MRA USAGE"
VOC EMISSIONS'
TYPE
NUMBER
Ob/100 twits)
(lb/100 ports)
Conventional
1
6.1
5.9
2
6.0
5.7
3
4.0
3.8
4
8.3
8.0
5
6.8
6.5
6
4.9
4.7
7
2.9
2.7
8
4.4
4.2
9
3.5
3.4
10
3.4
3.2
Average
5.0
4.8
SERT™ High Solids
1
1.9
1.7
2
2.3
2.0
3
1.6
1.3
4
2.1
1.8
5
1.6
1.4
6
1.6
1.4
7
2.5
2.2
8
2.0
1.7
9
2.2
1.9
10
2.3
2.0
Average
2.0
1.8
Estimated Percent Reduction (%)
60
63
"MRA usage estimates does riot include station 1 in Figure 5-1. Based ori historical information supplied by the test
facility, station 1 is estimated to contribute an additional 10% to the total MRA usage.
27
-------
monitored during the demonstration. The cause for each downtime was determined to identify
if the MRA were at fault. Downtime averaged less than 10 percent (5 minutes per hour) for
both the conventional and SERT" processes. No MRA related downtime was observed during
the demonstration for either technology. Additionally, the number of parts molded per hour per
number of active molds was determined for each tot. The difference in the values for the
SERT™ and conventional processes was insignificant {less than two percent). The production
rate for the conventional process during testing was typical of normal operations {about 95
parts per hour). Based on these observations, it can be concluded that the SERT™ process did
not result in any significant impact on production rate.
5.1.3 Product Quality
As in most industries, molded polyurethane foam must meet specific surface qualities
to ensure that the foam will be adequate for its intended use. Poor surface quality foams are
often shredded for other uses, such as carpet backing, thus lowering the value to the
manufacturer. During the demonstration, surface quality was evaluated by Integram's trained
inspectors. Each molded part was initially inspected following demolding. The foam was
allowed to finish curing, and was then evaluated by a final inspector. The inspectors examined
the foam for defects {i.e., tears, surface bubbles, and pore structure defects) and rated the
pieces of foam on a pass/fail basis. There were no MRA related defects for parts made by
either process. Based on the results of the demonstration, it is concluded that the SERT™
process would have no negative impacts on the quality of the molded foam.
5.1.4 Worker Acceptance
A key issue in implementing any new process is worker acceptance. If the workers are
uncomfortable with a process or piece of equipment, overall performance and quality may
suffer. During the test, the operators were asked for their opinion of the SERT™ system. Half
of the operators were completely satisfied with the system in its present state. The others
recommended minor changes to the system. The most common recommendation was the use
of lighter, more flexible hoses and a swivel at the base of the spray gun. This would allow the
operator more maneuverability, and could potentially reduce overspray by giving the worker
better access to the part that needs to be sprayed. The only other complaint voiced by the
workers was the "cloud" the system produced. This was simply the vaporization of the C02>
By increasing the maneuverability of the worker, worker exposure to this "nuisance cloud"
could be avoided. From these interviews, the workers appeared receptive to the SERT™
process.
28
-------
5.1.5 Hggith & Safety
Worker comfort and safety are major concerns at any manufacturing facility, and thus
any process that would improve working conditions needs to be considered. Reducing the VOC
usage will likely reduce worker exposure to the solvent vapor. Most facilities are able to meet
OSHA standards, however, future process modifications may increase MRA use. This may, in
turn, push the solvent concentration over the permissible limit if no other actions are taken.
Stoddard solvent has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 100 ppm (525 mg/m3}. Many
workers exposed to permissible levels of solvent vapor develop minor health problems such as
nose bleeds, headaches and increased mucous production. Reducing solvent use by switching
to the SERT™ could lead to a decrease in the number of these incidents, thus improving worker
satisfaction and health, and decreasing absenteeism. Additionally, the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, ACGIH, is reviewing the threshold limit values (TLV) for
petroleum solvents. The TLV is not the legal limit, but in many cases, a change in the TLV has
led to a change in the PEL,
5.2 COST ANALYSIS FOR SERT™ PROCESS
Cost is a key factor in the evaluation of any technology. Two cost impacts are
commonly considered when evaluating alternative technologies - total capital investment (TCI)
and total annual cost (TACK The total capital investment represents the amount of money that
must be invested in order to implement the new technology, and includes equipment costs,
engineering design costs, and installation expenses. The total annual cost represents the
annual operating costs such as raw materials and labor, as well as indirect operating costs such
as overhead and capital recovery. Pollution abatement systems are also evaluated based on
"Cost Effectiveness", which is the annual cost of a system divided by the total annual pollution
abated. The remainder of this section presents the methodology used to estimate TCI and
TAC, as well as the results of the analysis. Additionally, the sensitivity of the costs to design
and operating factors are also evaluated and discussed.
The costs presented in this section will be based on a four carousel operation with
annual production of 2.1 million parts, and MRA consumption equal to the values observed
during the demonstration. The costs information (electricity, MRA, etc.) will be determined
from industry and national standards, not site specific values. The base case for comparison
will be a plant of the same layout using conventional MRA with HVLP spray guns.
5,2.1 Total Capital Investment
The total capital investment in technology is often far more than the purchase price of
the equipment. The capital investment can be broken down into the following smaller groups:
purchased equipment, direct installation, site preparation/buildings, and indirect installation
costs. The first three are often combined and referred to as the total direct cost (Peters &
29
-------
Timmerhaus, 1991). The purchased equipment cost includes the primary device, plus ancillary
equipment and instrumentation. Often these prices are quoted free on board (FOB), and thus
sales tax and freight must be added. For the SERT* process, instrumentation is included in the
price of the primary device, and no ancillary equipment is necessary; therefore, the purchased
equipment price was assigned the price of the primary device, sales tax, and freight.
The equipment cost for the SERT™ equipment was obtained from the manufacturer.
Each SERT™ station is estimated to cost $60,000. A four carousel facility would need four
stations to fully implement the SERT™ technology. A liquid C02 distribution system would also
need to be purchased. Based on the use rates obtained during testing, two large (384 lb, 174
kg) dewars of C02 could be coupled together for use with the SERT™ system. Two other
dewars would be coupled together and connected to the same system. An automatic
switching device would need to be purchased to switch from an empty manifold to the full one.
The purchase of the manifolds and switching device would cost $3,000 (Shawn Smyth, Liquid
Carbonic, Teleconference, April 1995.!. The dewars could be rented, thus their costs are
incorporated into the operating costs. The total equipment purchase price is, therefore,
$243,000.
The costs due to sales tax and freight are typically estimated using average values
which appear in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Vatavuk, 1990) and other cost estimating
manuals. For this study, sales tax was set at 3 percent, and freight at 5 percent of the
equipment purchase price (Vatavuk, 1990; Peters and Timmerhaus, 1991). The direct
installation costs were assumed to be minima) since the SERT™ process does not require
painting, insulation, or a separate foundation/support. This leaves only costs for handling and
erecting the system and supplying electricity to the system. The indirect installation costs
include engineering, construction, contractor, start-up, and contingency costs. No construction
or start-up costs were deemed necessary for the SERT™ process. The TCI for the SERT"
process is estimated at $290,000. Table 5-2a summarizes the estimated costs leading to the
TCI.
The capital costs associated with the conventional system would include the purchase
of 12 HVLF spray guns and an agitator. Since conventional MRA can be purchased in large
totes that accommodate mixing arms, a tank does not need to be purchased. A price quote
of $385 per HVLP guns was obtained from a vendor. The cost of the agitator was estimated
at $3000. The total purchased equipment cost is $7,620. Sales tax was estimated in the
same manner as the SERT™ costs. Freight was taken as 5 percent of the purchased equipment
price. Piping was estimated at 20 percent of the agitator cost. Installation was estimated at
10 percent of the purchased equipment cost, and engineering at 25 percent of the purchased
equipment price. Contingency was estimated at 5 percent of the purchased equipment cost.
The TCI is simply the sum of these values. For the conventional process, the TCI is $11,900.
Table 5-2b summarizes the cost estimate made for the conventional process.
30
-------
5.2,2 Operating Costs
The TAC of both the SERT™ process and the conventional MRA system were estimated.
Table 5-3 summarizes the estimated annual costs for the two MRA technologies. Annual costs
can be broken down to direct costs, indirect costs, and recovery credits. Recovery credits
represent savings in raw material or energy costs due to recovered materials or energy. The
SERT™ process does not recover either materials or energy, so recovery credits do not apply.
Direct costs include raw materials, utilities, waste disposal, labor, and maintenance. Raw
materia! costs include MRA and the C02 carrier gas (SERT™ only). The raw material cost were
estimated from vendor price data and the measured use rates. Utilities were limited to
electricity since neither process require fuel, water, or steam. Electricity costs were determined
from use rates provided by the vendor and national average electricity costs to industrial users
from the Monthly Energy Review (USDoE, 1994).
TABLE 5-2a. ESTIMATE OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR SERT™ PROCESS
ITEM
' BASIS
COST ESTIMATED)
SERT™ Units (4)
OS)
240,000
CO, Manifold
Liquid Carbonic Inc.
3,000
Electrical Improvements
5% of 1 Unit
(Handbook)'
3,000
Painting
OSI
0
Insulation
OSI
0
Support/Foundation
OSI
0
Piping
20% of Manifold
{Handbook)
600
Sales Tax
3% of Equipment
(Handbook)
7,300
Freight
Vendor Estimate
3,000
Installation
13% of 1 Unit
(Handbook)
7,800
Engineering
25% of 1 Unit
(Handbook)
15,000
Construction
OSI
0
Start-Up
OSI
0
Contingency
4% of Equipment Cost
(Handbook)
10,000
Total Capital Investment
$290,000
'Handbook values were taken from the OAQPS Control Cost Manual {Vatavuk, 1990} end Plant Design and Economics for
Chemical Engineers by Peters & Timtnerhaus.
31
-------
TABLE 5-2b. ESTIMATE OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR
CONVENTIONAL PROCESS
iTEM
BASIS
COST ESTIMATE
HVLP Spray Guns (12)
Vendor
4,620
Agitator
Estimate
(Handbook)*
3,000
Piping
20% of Agitator
(Handbook)
600
Sales Tax
3% of Equipment
(Handbook)
230
Freight
5% of Equipment Cost
(Handbook)
380
Installation
10% of Equipment Cost
(Handbook)
760
Engineering
25% of Equipment Cost
(Handbook)
1,900
Contingency
5% of Equipment Cost
(Handbook)
380
Total Capital Investment
$11,900
"Handbook values were taken from the OAQPS Control Cost Manual |Vatavuk,1990) and Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers by Peters & Timmerhaus.
Three types of labor costs are typically accounted for; operating, supervisory, and
maintenance. Due to the additional equipment involved, it was estimated that the SERT
process would require one additional hour per day to operate the process. The supervisory
requirements are estimated at 15 percent of the operating labor. Labor rates for the motor
vehicle manufacturing industry were obtained from the Monthly Labor Review (USDoL, 1994).
The total maintenance costs can be estimated at 3 percent of the total capital investment
{Peters and Timmerhaus, 1991). The OAQPS control cost manual suggests that maintenance
materials costs are equal to maintenance labor costs, so each was estimated at 1.5 percent of
the total capita! investment (Vatavuk, 1990).
The total indirect costs are far less tangible. Overhead, property tax, insurance, and
administrative costs make up the indirect costs. The property tax, insurance, and
administrative costs were estimated at 4 percent of the total capital investment (Vatavuk,
32
-------
1990). The overhead can be estimated in terms of the labor costs. Cost estimating manuals
suggest 60 percent of the total labor cost for overhead. The total labor costs include
maintenance, operating, and supervisory labor. Changes in production rate and product quality
need to be considered when evaluating alternative processes or technologies. However, no
changes in production rate or product quality were realized during the demonstration.
Therefore, no losses were included. Annual operating costs total $117,000 for the SERT™
system and $96,700 for the conventional process.
TABLE 5-3. ESTIMATE OF CHANGE IN ANNUAL MRA COST WITH SERT™ PROCESS
ITEM
CONVENTIONAL MBA
SERT1* PROCESS
Biosis
Cost Estimate
m
Basis
Cost Estimate
Mold Release
18,200 gal
@$5/flal
91,000
7,200 gal
@$12/gal
86,400
C02
N/A
N/A
39,000 lb
@10.16/lb
6,200
CO; Tank Rental
N/A
N/A
4 tanks
@$35/month
1,680
Electricity
9,500 kw/yr
@4,9C/kw-hr
470
34,700 kw/yr
@4.9t/kw-hr
1,700
Operator Labor
150 hr
@$16.91/hr
2,500
300 hr
@$16.91/hr
5,100
Supervisory Labor
22 hr
@$19.45/hr
430
45 hr
@$19.45/hr
880
Maintenance Labor
1.5% of TCI
180
1.5% of TCI
4,300
Maintenance Materials
1.5% of TCI
180
1.5% of TCI
4,300
Overhead
60% of Labor
1,890
60% of Labor
6,200
Capital Recovery
lOyr life, 10%
interest
1,940
10yr life, 10%
interest
47,150
Total
98,600
164,000
Net Increase
65,400
Cost Effectiveness (35 tons VOC not released) |
1,870
33
-------
5.2.3 Total Annual Cost
Capital recovery is added to the annua! operating costs to determine a total annual cost. The
fraction of the total capital investment that is added to the annual operating cost is based on equal
yearly payments to cover principle and interest. This value is known as the capital recovery cost,
CRC. The CRC is determined from the capital recovery factor (CRF) and the TCI. The CRF is
calculated in Equation 5-1:
CRF* (5-1)
Where:
i = interest rate
n = useful life of the equipment
Standard OAQPS assumptions set i at 10 percent and n at 10 years. Using these assumptions, the
CRF is 0.163. The CRC is then $47,000 for 10 years, based on the SERT™ process, thus giving
a pre-tax TAC of $164,000. For the conventional process, the CRC is $1940. The TAC is then
$98,600.
5.2.4 Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is a useful tool in comparing pollution prevention options as well as
pollution control devices. Cost effectiveness can be calculated from the TAC and VOC emissions
rates. For a production rate of 2,100,000 parts per year, the VOC emission reduction obtainable with
the SERT™ process, as compared to the base case, is estimated at 35 tons per year. Therefore,
the cost effectiveness of the SERT™ process using four units at the base MRA use rates will be
$1,870 per ton of VOC not released.
5.2.5 Sensitivity Analysis
A number of alternative costing scenarios were performed to evaluate the cost sensitivity of
tie SERT™ process to alternative conditions. Variation in raw material prices, MRA use rate, and
capital investment were examined. Each of these categories will be discussed in the following
subsections. Tables A-1 to A-5 in Appendix A derive TAC for various usage rates and capital
investment. From this analysis, it was determined that the cost effectiveness of the SERT™ process
is highly sensitive to the number of SERT ™ stations required, and the cost of the conventional MRA.
Three probable scenarios are discussed below along with the change in TAC and cost effectiveness.
34
-------
Scenario 1. Reduced SERT™ MRA Usage Rates
Since the SERT™ process involves the use of new equipment, and a new MRA, the
operators were uncertain how much MRA needed to be sprayed, so it is possible that they
sprayed an excess amount of the SERT™ MRA. Analysis of the amount of solids sprayed
showed that the operators were using roughly 30 percent more solids with the SERT™ process
than with the conventional MRA. Therefore, it is possible that SERT™ MRA use would decline
as the operators learned more about the SERT™ MRA and process. An optimized SERT™ MRA
use scenario was made where the SERT™ use rate was set to provide the same solids usage
rate as the current system. The SERT™ MRA use rate was set at 1.7 lb/100 parts (0.77
kg/100 parts). For the optimized case, annual MRA usage would be 5,500 gallons {21,000
liters) with a net emission reduction of 40 tons per year. The TAC for this case would be
$142,000, leading to a cost effectiveness of $1,090 per ton of VOC reduced.
Scenario 2, Higher and Lower Conventional MRA Costs
A higher and lower conventional MRA cost were also examined. Conventional MRA
costs of $4 per gallon and $6 per gallon were used. These led to annual MRA costs of
$72,800 and $109,200 for each of the alternate cost estimates. The cost effectiveness (after
taxes) associated with each of these alternate cost estimates would be $2,390 and $1,350 per
ton of VOC reduced, respectively.
Scenario 3, Two SERT™ Stations
The number of SERT™ stations needed at a facility directly affects the capital
investment, maintenance, and labor costs and indirectly affects overhead costs. It is likely that
some facilities may be able to use fewer SERT™ stations due to differences in their design.
In this scenario, a racetrack molding line is modeled. According to OSI personnel, a racetrack
design could obtain the same production rate using only two SERT™ stations. TCI for this case
is estimated at $161,000. Additionally, the maintenance costs, labor and materials, are based
on the TCI, and therefore, these values also decrease. This decrease in operating costs also
effects overhead, which is based on total labor requirements. The cost effectiveness of this
arrangement would be $1,110 per ton of VOC reduced.
Scenario 4. Two SERT™ Stations and Optimized MRA Usage Rates
This Scenario is a combination of Scenarios 1 and 3 in that reduced MRA usage is
examined for a facility that would only need two SERT™ stations {racetrack layout). For this
scenario, a cost effectiveness value of $440 is estimated using the optimized usage rate,
reduced capital, labor, maintenance, and electricity costs.
35
-------
5.2.6 SERT™ versus Add-On Control Devices
A comparison of costs associated with the base-case SERT™ process to costs for
thermal arid fixed bed incinerators was conducted. Incinerators were chosen as a likely add-on
control device since foam molding facilities may not have the steam capacity necessary to
regenerate spent carbon adsorbers. Additionally, air flow rates at such facilities would be too
large to be processed by disposable carbon canisters. For this simulation, a plant air flow of
13,000 cfm (370 m3/min) was chosen. The capture efficiency of the ventilation system was
estimated at 50 percent, thus 6,500 cfm <190 m3/min) of gas are to be processed by the add-
on pollution control equipment. The concentration of the pollutant (Stoddard solvent) in the
plant is estimated to be 76 ppm. Table 5-4 summarizes the information used to compare the
various options. It can be seen that the SERT* system is much less expensive than either of
these add-control technologies. The add-on control system could be improved by increasing the
capture efficiency of the exhaust system, however, this would increase the necessary size of
the control device as well as the price. The incinerators were designed and the costs estimated
based on information found in the OAQPS control cost manual (Vatavuk, 1990).
TABLE 5-4: COMPARISON OF SERT™ PROCESS WITH INCINERATORS
THERMAL
INCINERATOR'
FIXED BED
' ¦ CATALYTIC:^!
INCINERATOR'
SERT™
PROCESS
Purchased Equipment Costs
$226,800
$218,900
$253,300
Direct Installation Costs
$76,900
$74,200
$11,400
Indirect Costs
$70,300
$67,800
$25,000
Total Capital Investment
$374,000
$360,900
$290,000
Direct Annual Costs
$146,900
$103,300
$110,600
Indirect Annual Costs
$25,300
$24,800
$6,200
Capital Recovery Cost
$60,900
$58,800
$47,150
Total Annual Cost
$233,100
$186,900
$164,000
VOC Reduction
29 tons
29 tons
35 tons
COST EFFECTIVENESS
$8,040
$6,440
$1,870
'Estimate for comparison purposes only.
Costs shown are increases over the use of conventional mold release.
70 percent energy recovery assumed for both incinerators.
98 percent VOC reduction for both incinerators.
36
-------
SECTION 6
DATA QUALITY
Sampling, analytical, and quality control procedures were carried out as specified in the
QAPjP. The QAPjP was prepared and approved for this APPCD OA Category III project. Overall
the data quality was good. Completeness was not an issue, as 100 percent of all
measurements were collected and accepted for use. The following section will outline the data
quality measurements that were made.
The precision and accuracy of the primary measurements was very good. Table 6-1 lists
the primary measurements, and their associated values for precision and accuracy. The
accuracy and precision of the scale used to weigh the MRA container was checked daily using
two calibration weights (25 and 50 pounds). An internal performance audit of the EPA Method
24 procedure was conducted to verify the precision and accuracy of the VOC content data.
This consisted of duplicate analyses and comparisons of method results against standard
mixtures. The VOC content results in Table 6-1 show the results of this audit. An internal
systems audit was also conducted to verify adherence to the QAPjP, completeness and
consistency of field documentation, and calculations and summary statistics. No external audit
was conducted.
Table 6-1. Precision and Accuracy for Key Values
Measurement
Precision (%)
Accuracy (%)
Conventional Process
Objective
Measured
Objective
Measured
MRA Use
—
4.5
—
4.5
VOC Content
—
0.4
...
0.4
VOC Emissions
15
4.2
15
5
SERT™ Process
MRA Use
—
11.6
—
11.6
VOC Content
—
0.2
—
0.4
VOC Emissions
15
11.6
15
12
VOC Reduction
...
6.0
6.0
Production Rate
Conventional
5
1.7
5
>1
SERT™
5
1.7
5
> 1
37
-------
The product quality is not shown in Table 6-1 since no parts were rated as defective due
to the MRA. All products were examined multiple times and graded acceptable in regards to
MRA performance. No flammability data was collected during the demonstration. However,
Integram personnel felt that the MRA active ingredients were so similar that these tests would
be unnecessary.
The last data quality objective was cost effectiveness. The cost effectiveness is a
combination of the VOC reduction and the cost estimate. Table 6-1 shows that the accuracy
in the VOC reduction is 6.0 percent. Therefore, the accuracy of the cost estimate must be
discussed. The cost estimate was a "study" estimate (accuracy ±30 percent) as defined in
the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Vatavuk, 1990). However, the accuracy of the estimate was
improved by obtaining actual vendor cost information. The costs of all equipment and raw
materials was obtained from vendors and therefore can be considered exact (accuracy equals
zero). The exact costs represent 93 percent of the total annual cost for the conventional MRA
system and 81 percent of the SERF" process total annual cost. Assuming a 30 percent
accuracy for the remaining costs, the overall accuracy values would be 2.1 percent for the
conventional process, and 5.7 percent for the SERF" process. From these values it is easy to
see that the accuracy is well within the 25 percent specified in the QAPjP.
38
-------
SECTION 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The manufacture of many molded products, such as polyurethane, requires the use of
mold release agents. These agents facilitate the separation of the mold and the product, VOC
emissions from MRA use has been estimated at 126,000 tons per year, thus making MRA use
a significant source of VOC emissions. Data was collected to identify the industries most
responsible for MRA use and emissions. The polyurethane foam industry was found to be
responsible for the consumption of 23 percent of the MRA active ingredients (12.8 million lb).
From this, the VOC emissions from polyurethane foam were estimated at 29,600 tpy. Further
examination of the polyurethane industry showed that most of the foam produced and the MRA
used are associated with the manufacture of automobile seating. A list of pollution prevention
options for the automobile seating industry was created. These options were ranked based on
cost potential to reduce emissions, feasibility for use at a large production facility, current use
in production facilities, and impact on the demonstration host facility's production. SERT™ was
selected from a number of options as the best candidate for the execution of a pollution
prevention demonstration.
The SERT™ process was found to be effective at reducing VOC emissions during the
demonstration. MRA usage was reduced from 4.8 lb/100 parts (2.27kg/100 parts) to 1.8
lb/100 parts (0.91 kg/100 parts). This corresponds to a decrease in VOC emissions of 3 lb/100
parts (1.36 kg/100 parts), representing a 63 percent reduction in VOC emissions. For a plant
producing 2,100,000 parts per year, the VOC reduction would be over 35 tpy. From the ECR
database, it can be determined that 57 percent of the VOC emissions are due to plants with
annual foam production greater than 4,000 tpy. If SERT™ was installed at polyurethane plants
using solvent based MRA and 63 percent reductions were seen, VOC emissions from mold
release agents could potentially decrease by 10,700 tpy.
Production rate and product quality were examined during the demonstration to ensure
that the SERT™ process had not adversely affected the production line. The production rates
for the conventional and SERT1" processes were the same. Additionally, no MRA related
product defects occurred during the study. The workers were questioned to determine if they
would be comfortable using the new system. Half of the workers that used the system were
satisfied with the system in its current state. The other half recommended minor changes to
the system. These changes would reduce the weight and increase the maneuverability of the
system. The OSI staff felt that these changes could be worked into the design of the system
with minimal effort.
Optimization of the system and training of the sprayers would lead to even greater
reductions in VOC emissions. During the study, it was determined that workers using the
SERT™ system were spraying 30 percent more solids than the workers using the conventional
MRA. Experience using this system will help the workers determine the proper amount of MRA
39
-------
to use, thus reducing the amount of overspray. The two spraying stations used in the study
of the conventional process were combined into one for testing the SERT" system. One
section of the mold was being sprayed from beyond the optimum distance. This may have led
to additional overspray in an attempt to compensate for the MRA that was not reaching the
mold. If the system were optimized to equal the amount of solids sprayed by the conventional
system, emissions reductions may exceed 70 percent. This would correspond to a 40 tpy
reduction in VOC emissions from a plant such as the one in the demonstration.
The costs associated with implementing the new system were broken up into two
groups, capital and annual. The total capital investment for four SERT™ stations including
freight, engineering, electrical improvements, and installation would be $290,000. The total
annual cost is $164,000 (including operating costs of 1117,000 and capital recovery costs of
$47,000). The total annual cost for the conventional MRA is equal to $98,600. From the total
annual costs for the new and conventional systems and the VOC reduction, a cost
effectiveness value can be calculated. The cost effectiveness for the SERT™ system is 11,870
per ton of VOC reduced. Several scenarios were generated by manipulating conventional MRA
price, number of SERT™ stations required, and SERT™ MRA use rate. The cost effectiveness
for scenarios involving four SERT" stations ranged from $1,090 to $2,390, while it ranged
from $440 to $1,110 if only two stations were required.
The cost effectiveness value obtained for the SERT™ process with four stations was
compared to standard add-on VOC control measures. Thermal and catalytic incinerators were
chosen as the control methods, since many polyurethane facilities may not have the steam
necessary to regenerate carbon adsorbers. The incinerators were designed and costs
determined by the methods described in the OAGPS Control Cost Manual (Vatavuk, 1990).
The cost effectiveness value for a thermal incinerator was estimated at $8,040 per ton of VOC
reduced, while the cost effectiveness for the fixed bed catalytic incinerator was estimated at
$6,440 per ton of VOC reduced. From these values, it is clear that pollution prevention, i.e.,
the SERT™ process, is a much more cost effective way to reduce VOC emissions as compared
to conventional treatment methods.
40
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
Allardice, Jr The Perfect '10' in Mold Release Agents. Rubber World, October 1981.
CFR, "Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids,
and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings," Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60,
Appendix A, Method 24, July 1986.
Dow Chemical Company, Flexible Polvurethane Foams, Dow, Midland, Michigan, 1991.
Grayson, H, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,"Wiley & Sons, New York,
1985.
Percell, KS; Tomlinson, HH; and Walp, LE; Selective Fattv Chemicals as Mold Release
Agents. Plastics Engineering, September 1987.
Peters, M and Timmerhaus, K, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
Polyurethane Foam Association. 1991 U.S. Foamed Plastics Markets and Directory.
Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1991.
Swift, K. Mold Release Agents. Business Communications Company, Inc., Norwalk,
Connecticut, May 1990.
U.S. Department of Energy -- Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review.
Washington, D.C., May 1994,
U.S. Department of Labor -- Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review. Washington,
D.C., May 1994.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Air Pollutant Emission Trends. 1900-
1994. EPA-454/R-95-01 KNT1S PB96-135678), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
October 1995.
Vatavuk, WM, OAQPS Control Cost Manual. 4th Edition, EPA-450/3-90-006 (NTIS PB90-
1699545, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1990.
41
-------
TELECONFERENCES
Telecons. Jill Webster, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
with Doug McClain, Douglas and Lomason, Milan, Tennessee, September 1993.
Telecons. Jill Webster, Southern Research institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
with Anant Shah, Johnson Controls, Belcamp, Maryland, September 1993.
Telecons. Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Dan Blakemore, OSI Specialties, Danbury, Connecticut, June 1994.
Telecons. Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with John Robinson, Air Products, Allentown, Pennsylvania, June 1994.
Telecons. Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Paul Gavin, Chem-Trend, Howell, Michigan, June 1994.
Telecons. Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Bror Hanson, Polymerit, New Baltimore, Michigan, June 1994.
Telecons, Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Douglas Hunter, Dow Chemicals USA, Midland, Michigan, June 1994,
Telecons. Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Erny Gatto, Woodbridge Group, Troy, Michigan, June 1994.
Telecons. Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Tom Sloan, Plas-Tech Coating, West Palm Beach, Florida, June 1994.
Telecons. Kevin Cavender, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Dave Martin, Dexter Freco, Seabrooke, New Hampshire, June 1994.
Telecons. Jeffrey Lanning, Southern Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina with Shawn Smyth, Liquid Carbonic, Shelbyville, Indiana, April 1995.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
COST INFORMATION & ESTIMATES
43
-------
CAPITAL COSTS
Purchased Equipment - SERP" Units, C02 Manifold Switching System
Installation - Includes labor, supports, and other expenses related to installation.
Electrical Improvements - Labor and materials to provide 460 VAC to the units.
Engineering & Supervision - Includes engineering, drafting, purchasing, accounting, cost
engineering, travel, communications, and home office expenses.
Piping - Pipes, valves, and fittings to deliver liquid C02 to the SERT™ Units.
Start-Up & Contingency - Accounts for unforeseen expenses, strikes, price changes, design
changes, errors in estimation, and lost production (downtime or limited capacity).
OPERATING COSTS
Raw Materials - MRA, C02, C02 Dewar rental
Electricity • Needed to run the SERF" Units.
Labor - Worker to check on SERT™ units and C02 system. Clerical and supervisory labor
needed to order more raw materials, and assist with problems.
Maintenance - Materials and labor to repair damaged or malfunctioning equipment.
Overhead - Helps to offset costs associated with general engineering, safety services,
cafeteria facilities, payroll overhead (employee benefits), plant maintenance, QA
laboratories, plant security, custodial services, lighting, climate control, machine shop, and
shipping and receiving facilities.
44
-------
TABLE A-1. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 1
OPTIMIZED SERT" MRA USAGE RATE
Jtwm
Conventional MRA
SERT™ Process
Basis
Cost Estimate
W
Basis
Cost Estimate
m
Mold Release
18,200 gal
@$5/ftaI
91,000
5,500 gal
@$12/gel
66,000
co2
na
na
30,000 lb
@$0.16/lb
4,800
C02 Tank Rental
na
na
4 tanks
@$35/mor>th
1,680
Electricity
9,500 kw/yr
@4.9t/kw-hr
470
34,700 kw/yr
@4.9C/kw-hr
1,700
Operator Labor
150 hr
@$1 6.91 /hr
2,500
300 hr
@$16.91 /hr
5,100
Supervisory Labor
22 hr
@*19,45/hr
430
45 hr
@$19.45/hr
880
Maintenance Labor
1.5% of TCI
180
1.5% of TCI
4,300
Maintenance Materials
1.5% of TCI
180
1.5% of TCI
4,300
Overhead
60% of Labor
1,890
60% of Labor
6,200
Capital Recovery
10yr life, 10%
interest
1,940
10yr life, 10%
interest
47,150
Total
98,600
142,000
Net Increase
44,000
Cost Effectiveness (40 tons of VOC not released)
1,090
45
-------
TABLE A-2. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 2A
REDUCED CONVENTIONAL MRA COST
Warn ,
. Conventional MRA
SERT™ Process
Basis
Cost" Estimate
<$)
Basis
Coat Estimate
Mold Release
18,200 gal
@$4/gal
72,800
7,200 gal
@>$12/gal
86,400
C02
na
na
39,000 lb
@$0.16/lb
6,200
CO} Tank Rental
na
na
4 tanks
@$35/month
1,680
Electricity
0,500 kw/yr
@4.9C/kw-hr
470
34,700 kw/yr
@4,9£/kw-hr
1,700
Operator Labor
150 hr
@$16.91/hr
2,500
300 hr
@$16,91/hr
5,100
Supervisory Labor
22 hr
@$19,45/hr
430
45 hr
@$19.45/hr
880
Maintenance Labor
1.5% of TCI
180
1.5% of TCI
4,300
Maintenance Materials
1,5% of TCI
180
1,5% of TCI
4,300
Overhead
60% of Labor
1,890
60% of Labor
6,200
Capital Recovery
10yr life, 10%
interest
1,940
lOyr life, 10%
interest
47,150
Total
80,400
164,000
Net Increase
83,600
Cost Effectiveness (35 tons VOC not released)
2,390
46
-------
TABLE A-3. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 2B
INCREASED CONVENTIONAL MRA COST
ltam
Convantiona! MRA
SERT™ Process
Basis
Cost EstSmata
<*»
Bitii
Cost Estimate
1
Mold Release
18,200 gal
@$6/ga!
109,200
7,200 gal
@$12/gal
86,400
COj
na
na
39,000 lb
@$0.16/lb
6,200
C02 Tank Rental
na
na
4 tanks
@$35/month
1,680
Electricity
8,500 kw/yr
@4,95/kw-hr
470
34,700 kw/yr
§>4,9«kw-hr
1,700
Operator Labor
150 hr
@$!6.91/hr
2,500
300 hr
@§16.B1/hr
5,100
Supervisory Labor
22 hr
@$19.45/hr
430
45 hr
@S19.45/hr
880
Maintenance tabor
1.5% of TCi
180
1.5% of TCI
4,300
Maintenance Materials
1,5% of TCI
180
1.5% of TCI
4,300
Overhead
60% of Labor
1,780
60% of Labor
6,200
Capital Recovery
10yr life, 10%
interest
1,940
10yr life, 10%
interest
47,150
Total
116,700
164,000
Net Increase
47,300
Cost Effectiveness (35 tons of VOC not released)
1,350
47
-------
TABLE A-4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 3
TWO SERT- STATIONS
lt»m
Conventional MR A
SERT™ Process
Basis .
Cost Estimate
Basis
Cost Estimate
Mold Release
18,200 gal
@$5/aal
91,000
7,200 gal
@$12/ga!
86,400
C02
na
na
39,000 lb
@$0.16/Ib
6,200
C02 Tank Rental
na
na
4 tanks
@$35/month
1,680
Electricity
9,5000 kw/yr
-------
TABLE A-i. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS • SCENARIO 4
TWO SERT" STATIONS WITH OPTIMIZED SERT7" MRA USAGE RATE
Item
Conventional MRA
SERT™ Process
'i?,Basis
Cost Estimate
Basis
Cost Estimate
Mold Release
18,200 gal
@$5/aal
91,000
5,500 gal
@$1 2/aal
66,000
co2
na
na
30,000 lb
@$0.16/lb
4,800
C02 Tank Rental
na
na
4 tanks
@$35/month
1,680
Electricity
9,500 kw/yr
@4,9C/kw-hr
470
17,500 kw/yr
@4.9C/kw-hr
860
Operator Labor
150 hr
6.91/hr
2,500
300 hr
@$16.91 /hr
5,100
Supervisory Labor
22 hr
@$1 9.45/hr
430
45 hr
@#19.45/hr
880
Maintenance Labor
1.5% of TCI
130
1.5% of TCI
2,400
Maintenance Materials
1.5% of TCI
130
1.5% of TCI
2,400
Overhead
60% of Labor
1,860
60% of Labor
5,000
Capital Recovery
10yr life, 10%
interest
1,380
lOyr life, 10%
interest
26,200
Total
87,900
115,300
Net Increase
17,400
Cost Effectiveness <40 tons of VOC not released)
440
49
-------
APPENDIX i
ECR DATABASE INFORMATION
%
50
-------
Polyurethane Foam Industry Database
FACILITY
LOCATION
MAJ0K PRODUCT
OTHM PRODUCT
CAPACITY
~HHATYPi 1
ftMUStftsQ
VOCIM1MIOHS
0b»»!
«¥)
Johnson Conitfcis * OfwWd Plant
GreenfleW.OH
mokJeeHoem
«.000
NON
i.728,000
388.8
WwdfcKldge Corpefifiof! - BraShatd Plant
Srodha^WI
molded avfemplive seeing
9,734
NOH
1,121,a»
252-4
Jehftsofl CenSrota- JeffeiiemOty Plant
Jefferson Ca* MO
fficdcMltofiifii
»,*00
NON
1.882.880
243.6
Wood bridge Foam ¦ Wfrfimera La Ice Fte<%
Whrtmcfe Lake Ml
mokJedfeem
7.300
NOW
840.980
189.2
John%m Cor trots - PulasW Plant
PuiatJg, TN
molded foem
?jJ50
WATER
835,200
JOB
Wcodfcndga Con***ftw - St Peter* Facftty
St Patent MO
mekted team Mats
S.Mf
WATER
872,883
18.8
Fortf Motor Camp**? - UBea Ptort .
Use*. Ml
molded au?o aeat pads
mokl«j into hMdrM(»
5,750
NON
882,400
149.0
Johnson Corals, Inc. - Beteainp Pleat
Seteamp, MO
molded foam
«,soo
WATER
111,400
13.0
imegram - St Loufc Seeing, R»m
PadRc, MO
mok5»d ai&>
4.100
NON
472.320
1083
Johnson Central* • Uwnrtore Plant
Uv*rmof«sCA
molded auto fbara
3.50C
WATER
403,200
10.1
Fan#eil Rant, *eneaa Corpefasar*
Fan#a4t, Ml
melded loam seaSng
MM h«sd M annr»Ma
2.900
NON
322,580
72.8
Hi. BtscMord-TfOy Plant
Troy, Ml
eas1->?vp*acefoem
2.1«5
NON
249,408
561
Douglas & LomttKm Company
Milan. TN
awfomotfweaeeta
PIP hsadrasB
1,985
NON
228,368
50J
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company - Logan Plant
Logan. OH
automotive Jnatr. panel*
t.aoo
NON
184,320
415
Jc^rrtMjn CorftTDrtfoe -OtsiBf* Plant
Oisian.lN
molded foam
1.400
NON
161,280
36.3
OoygEas S Lomwon Company
Havre da Oirnca, MD
«rtomo^e aaats
1,302
WATER
149.990
a?
AufemotMs livflustrfes, Inc., Plants 2,3 & VTior Foam Bfdg.
Stnwfcwrg, VA
auto m tarter armrests
p«M team far Mnvtara
%ou
NON
117,274
28.4
Harma* MiUs? - Holland Ope>«t*rfis
HoMsnd, Ml
molded tiiilf piflt
mowed arm p«J«
m
NON
91,584
20,8
Johnson Cofitrots * Prototype Laboratory
Plymouth, M
molded foam
m
WATER
77,780
1.9
RL BieefTterd - West Clsteeg©
West Chicago, C
cwl In piece team
am
WATER
73,728
1.8
Foam Design, Ineefperafed
Lasdngteft, KY
fcem4n-p»aee FU packaging
PUs, Inc.
Portland, OR
(nigral aid* foam
307
NON
23,848
54
Cofwiy Wu*?rie*. focerpofalad
¦ , 'H-- - All
^arnSfTOn, yd
molded petyure&tafte ft?em
m
NON
11,088
2.5
African Saatlr^g Cetnpany
Orand Rapid*. Mi
mo&edfoem
m
NON
9,218
2,1
Pefry Chemical & Manuftefurfng Company me.
Lafaya«*,IN
utffX* praparatkxi pads
•oapfoam
m
NON
7.142
16
Kjstom Foam Mamrfacturtng
Modwto.CA
IS foam
o#»f wowed finm
M
HAP
4,3?$
1.0
Fle*bie Indyatrte* Company
Bw&agton.ft
molded Mpimjofi jouA
32
NON
3.888
0.8
Stephenson & IfswiMfweed
Oram! RajSdi, Ml
integral Udn pfodaefs
1#
NON
2 189
O.S
Foam Holders and SpeeiafSea
Cer*»a,CA
irwWad aareapcoa produd*
moW* «nd
------- |