REPORT 

FACTORS THAT MOTIVATE
 

OWNERS OF AUTO REFINISH SHOPS TO
 

IMPLEMENT CHANGES
 

Submitted to:
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
 

401 M Street, S.W.
 

Washington, D.C. 20460
 

Submitted by: 


Eastern Research Group
 

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200
 

Chantilly, VA 20151-1102
 

April 8, 1999
 

EPA Contract No. 68-D4-0092
 
REPORT 

Factors That Motivate Owners of Auto 

Refinish Shops to Implement Changes 

This report summarizes safe work practices implemented by auto refinish shops participating in the 

Design for the Environment program Auto Refinish Pilot Project (DfE ARPP), as well as the factors that 

motivated shop owners to make these changes. The information in this report is based entirely on ERG’s 

recent site visits to nine auto refinish shops in the Philadelphia area and to one shop in the Minneapolis 

area. Table 1, which starts on the following page, lists a series of safe work practices and other 

improvements implemented by these ten shops. For each improvement, the table indicates the primary 

factors that motivated shop owners to implement the change, as well as the obstacles that seem to prevent 

other shops from making similar changes. These factors, or “change mechanisms,” and obstacles were 

communicated to ERG during site visits and subsequent follow-up conversations with shop owners. 

Table 1 is organized into the following three sections: the first section addresses shop improvements 

involving changes to equipment, such as sanders, spray guns, and spray booths; the second section 

addresses changes to personal protective equipment; and the third section addresses all other changes. 

As Table 1 shows, improved work practices in auto refinish shops result from many different factors. 

However, the following factors appeared to play some role in most changes implemented at the selected 

auto refinish shops: regulatory requirements, production, cost effectiveness, worker safety, and the 

quality of completed paint jobs. As a result, ongoing efforts to encourage changes and improvements at 

auto refinish shops should consider at least these factors. 

2
 
Table 1
 

Factors Motivating Shop Owners to Implement Safe Work Practices
 

Shop Improvement Motivating Factors for Implementing the Change Obstacles for Implementing Change 

Changes to equipment in the auto refinish shop: 

Using vacuum 

sanders instead of 

pneumatic sanders 

or manual sanding 

The primary factor that motivated shop owners to purchase 

vacuum sanders is the perceived benefits associated with 

the reduced dust levels. These benefits include reduced 

worker exposures to dusts, reduced time spent sweeping 

dusts from shop floors, reduced time spent cleaning cars, 

and minimized chances that dust particles might settle on 

freshly painted cars. One owner indicated that his shop 

spent less money on sand paper since the painters began 

using vacuum sanders, but this finding could not be 

substantiated. Note, city of Philadelphia regulations require 

the use of wet sanding methods or vacuum sanders. 

Several shop owners indicated that they would not purchase 

vacuum sanders until they were convinced that this tool was 

effective. Painters and shop owners that ERG interviewed 

mentioned that vacuum sanders tend to take longer to operate 

than other sanding techniques, that workers would rather not 

use a device with an extra hose attachment, and that vacuum 

systems at some shops have frequently malfunctioned. 

Using highvolume, lowpressure (HVLP) 

spray guns instead 

of conventional 

Several different factors appeared to motivate shop owners 

to purchase HVLP spray guns and painters to use them. 

These factors include regulatory requirements (for shops in 

Philadelphia), perceived cost savings associated with higher 

transfer efficiencies, reports that performance of HVLP 

guns is comparable to that of conventional guns, and 

reduced worker exposures to paint overspray. Since many 

shops use HVLP guns in areas where their use is not legally 

required, it seems that regulatory requirements alone are not 

a critical factor for implementing this change. Further, 

Though many of the painters that ERG interviewed own 

HVLP spray guns, not all of these painters use them, 

particularly for spraying clearcoats. Several painters 

indicated that HVLP spray guns were incapable of atomizing 

the more viscous clearcoat formulations to their satisfaction. 

Thus, the primary obstacle in getting shops to use HVLP 

spray guns seems to be a misconception that the guns cannot 

produce the type of quality clearcoat finish demanded by spray guns other motivating factors might include the use of HVLP 

guns becoming more widespread and accepted by the 

industry and paint distributors often recommending their 

use to painters, but shop owners did not cite these 

additional factors during ERG’s site visits. 

customers. Another obstacle may be that painters are 

unaware of how to adjust settings on HVLP spray guns to 

optimize their performance. 

3
 
Table 1 (Continued)
 

Factors Motivating Shop Owners to Implement Safe Work Practices
 

Shop Improvement Motivating Factors for Implementing the Change Obstacles for Implementing Change 

Installing spray 

booths for painting 

operations 

Owners of the auto refinish shops that ERG has visited to 

date almost unanimously indicated that they installed spray 

booths due to the recent shift from lacquer-based paints to 

polyurethane-based paints: (1) curing cycles in spray 

booths now allow shops to refinish many cars in one day; 

and (2) the quality of finishes is now reportedly better when 

paints are sprayed in booths with controlled air flow 

patterns that help prevent dust from settling on freshly 

coated surfaces. It is interesting to note that the shops 

visited to date all installed their spray booths before the city 

of Philadelphia required this equipment. 

Although ERG has yet to visit a shop that does not have a 

spray booth, feedback from shop owners suggests that the 

high cost of purchasing and installing spray booths is 

probably the primary obstacle for making this improvement. 

This obstacle is greatest for the smaller auto refinish shops, 

which may not have the income to finance such an 

improvement or the incentive to do so, given their lower 

production levels. 

Installing prep 

stations for 

painting operations 

Two of the shops that ERG has visited to date had prep 

stations with downdraft ventilation systems, in which 

painters performed some sanding operations and applied 

primers and basecoats. The owners of these shops decided 

to install the prep stations primarily because shops could 

not maintain production demands if they performed priming 

and basecoat applications only in spray booths. A related 

factor that likely affected this change is the city of 

Philadelphia’s regulations, which prohibit painters from 

spraying cars in the open shop space. 

Painters at many of the shops that ERG has visited spray 

primers and basecoats in the open shop space. When asked 

if they would consider installing prep stations to reduce 

worker exposures, shop owners generally indicated that such 

improvements are expensive without an associated cost 

benefit. Some shop owners also indicated that they did not 

have enough shop space to accommodate a spray station. 

Designing effective 

ventilation systems 

for paint mixing 

rooms 

The primary factor motivating shop owners to install 

ventilation systems in paint mixing rooms is that the 

enhanced air flow minimizes the amount of solvent vapors 

in the mixing rooms, thereby reducing worker exposures. 

The main obstacle to installing ventilation systems in paint 

mixing rooms is cost. Most shop owners seem to be aware 

that additional ventilation would improve working 

conditions in their paint mixing rooms, but they either 

cannot afford the expense or they believe the potential 

benefits do not justify the expense. 

4
 
Table 1 (Continued)
 

Factors Motivating Shop Owners to Implement Safe Work Practices
 

Shop Improvement Motivating Factors for Implementing the Change Obstacles for Implementing Change 

Purchasing and 

using automated 

gun cleaners or 

parts washing sinks 

The primary motivation for purchasing gun cleaning 

systems for shops in the Philadelphia area is that the city 

requires that shops have automated, enclosed gun cleaning 

systems that recycle the cleaning solvents. Every shop that 

ERG has visited to date had either an automated gun 

cleaner or a parts washing sink. Thus, some sort of gun 

cleaning equipment appeared to be standard among auto 

refinish shops. Consistent use of this equipment, however, 

varied among the shops. (See the “obstacles” for more 

discussion on this topic.) 

At many shops, painters clean their spray guns manually, 

instead of using a gun cleaning device. The primary obstacle 

to using gun cleaners is the painters’ perception that manual 

cleaning is most effective at removing potentially-damaging 

paint particles from spray guns. Several high production 

shops noted that the solvent reservoirs in gun cleaning 

systems quickly become too contaminated with impurities to 

effectively clean spray guns. These shops indicated that 

residual impurities in the spray guns can ruin both paint 

finishes and the guns themselves. 

Implementing 

onsite solvent 

recycling 

Two of the shops that ERG has visited had distillation units 

that painters used to recycle solvents. The primary 

motivating factor for installing these units was cost: at both 

shops, the owners thought cost savings associated with 

reusing spent solvents outweighed the original investment 

of purchasing the distillation units and the ongoing costs of 

operating them. 

Shop owners generally cited one of two obstacles for why 

they did not recycle solvents. First, owners of smaller shops 

did not think they would be able to recycle and reuse enough 

solvent to recover the costs of the initial purchase and the 

ongoing operation and maintenance of the stills. Second, 

owners of some larger shops indicated that their previous 

attempts at recycling solvents were largely unsuccessful, due 

to malfunctioning equipment. 

Changes to personal protective equipment (PPE): 

Having workers 

use supplied-air 

respirators when 

spraying paints 

The primary factor that seems to motivate shop owners and 

painters to use supplied-air respirators is that they offer 

much better respiratory protection than air-purifying 

respirators. In fact, paint manufacturers recommend and 

OSHA, in some cases, requires that painters use suppliedair systems. It should be noted that one of the shops where 

painters use supplied-air respirators indicated that this form 

of protection may cost less than air-purifying respirators, 

because supplied-air respirators eliminate the need to 

purchase replacement filters. 

The primary obstacle to this improvement is that painters 

tend to find using supplied-air respirators inconvenient and 

uncomfortable: they do not like carrying the supplied-air 

hose with them during paint jobs, they find it cumbersome to 

don and doff the supplied-air equipment every time they 

enter the spray booth, they do not like facepieces that restrict 

their peripheral visions, and they do not like hoses hanging 

from the front of their facepiece. Another obstacle is that 

some shop owners do not attempt to challenge the painters’ 

perception of inconvenience by testing different forms of 

respiratory protection. 

5
 
Table 1 (Continued)
 

Factors Motivating Shop Owners to Implement Safe Work Practices
 

Shop Improvement Motivating Factors for Implementing the Change Obstacles for Implementing Change 

Ensuring that 

workers 

consistently wear 

their respirators, as 

needed 

Some auto refinish shops placed a greater emphasis on their 

painters’ consistent use of respiratory protection than 

others. The primary factor motivating shop owners to 

encourage their workers to use PPE appeared to be both a 

genuine concern for the health of the painters and a fear of 

fines that might result from an inspection by OSHA. (The 

two shops with the most comprehensive respiratory 

protection programs were the only shops that ERG visited 

that had been inspected by OSHA.) 

The main obstacles associated with consistent use of 

respiratory protection are primarily a lack of dedication from 

management to enforce shop policies on PPE and a lack of 

motivation among painters to wear appropriate PPE while 

working with paints. Note, several shop owners indicated 

that good painters are hard to come by, thus, shop owners are 

often reluctant to force painters to wear PPE because they do 

not want the painters to quit. 

Other changes and improvements: 

Implementing 

effective health and 

safety management 

practices (e.g., 

training, 

conducting routine 

inspections, 

following hazard 

communication 

procedures, and so 

on) 

Of the shops that ERG visited, owners cited several 

different factors that motivated them to implement effective 

health and safety management practices, such as employee 

training, conducting routine shop inspections, and hiring 

consulting services to develop respiratory protection and 

hazard communication programs. These factors include, 

but are not limited to, a genuine concern for the health and 

safety of painters, the potential costs associated with 

workers who get sick on the job, fear of fines that may 

result from OSHA inspections, compensation provided by 

insurance carriers for implementing effective safety and 

health programs, and the desire to retain good painters by 

providing a clean and safe work environment. 

ERG noted two major obstacles that auto refinish shops face 

in implementing effective health and safety procedures. The 

first obstacle is cost: shop owners indicated that they would 

need to designate a full-time employee to effectively manage 

environmental and safety and health issues; however, most 

shops cannot afford to have such specialized staff. The 

second obstacle is a concern about production levels: some 

shop owners feel that health and safety practices slow 

workers down, thus, limiting their productivity. 

6