p. 1 

# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 81 ) ll-E-4 1 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM

Sheet 81 of 264B BOB M B

ImwJ luteal lr*z.l B P. 2 

### A-Q4-5 2

TO : FROM : DATE : MEMORANDUM

Madeleine Strum U.S . EPA/ESD/CCP G Gre g LaFla

mand Ke n Meardo n Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) 

### -b it' . Safe* . EPAAIRDGSKET " Ma y 24 , 199 6 P:\N40 4 SUBJECT : Minute s o

f Apri l 26 , 199 6 Meetin g Betwee n th e EP A andRepresentative s of. th e Pultrusio n Industr

y Counci l (PIC ) Technica

l Committe e LOCATION : EPA/Mutua l Building , Durham , NC , 11t h floor conferenc e room , 9:0 0 a m- 12:0 0 noo n ATTENDEES : Mr . Ji mBerr

y Mr . Rober

t DeGraf f Mr . Nelso n Douglas s Mr . Dav e Evan s Mr . To mGriffith s Ms . Lind aHerrin g Mr . Gre g LaFla

m Mr . Ken Meardo n Mr . John Schweitze

r Ms . Madelein e Strum EPA/ES D Werne r Compan y Reichhol dChemical s Creativ e Pultrusion s Omeg aPultrusion s EPA/ES D PES , Inc . PES , Inc . • SPI/Composite s Institut

e EPA/ES D (919 ) 541-560 5 (847 ) 455-945 0 (919 ) 990-825 6 (505 ) 347-222 6 (216 ) 562-520 1 (919 ) 541-535 8 (919 ) 941-033 3 (919 ) 941-033 3 (313 ) 668-470 3 (919 ) 541-238 3 PURPOS E Th e meetin g wa s requeste dby the PI C Technica l Committe e to discus s specifi c approache s t o regulatin g th e pultrusio n industry , including determinatio n o f MAC T floors and evaluatio n of

emissio n reductio n measures . Th e EP A als o wa s seekin g additiona l informatio n o n th e contro l measure s tha t th e PI C ha

dtested . Thes e measure s ma y allo w facilitie s t o achiev e floor

level s of control . DISCUSSIO N Afte r introduction s wer

e made , Mr . Schweitze

r aske dth e EP

A to summariz e th e current statu s o f th e MACT floor s fo

r th e pultrusio n subcategory . Ms . Strumdescribe d th e floor for existin g source s a s a47. 5 percent reductio n (base do n th e media n of th e bes tP. 3

Madelein e Strum Ma y 24 , 199 6 Pag e 2 controlle d sources , which ha s acontro l syste mwit h a n estimate d5 0 percent

capture and a 9 5 percent destructio n efficiency) . Fo r ne w sources , th e floor

i s 9 5 percent

reductio n o

f totally uncontrolle d emissions . Mr . Schweitze r then state dthat , despit

e thei r economie s of scale , n o ne w majo

r pultrusio n facilitie s wouldb e buil t i f 9 5 percent

wer e th e require d level o f control ; therefore , thi s standar di s no t actually "achievable. " Instead , new plant s woul d consis t

o f man y smaller , uncontrolle dplants . H e fel t tha t encouragin g th e construc tio n of larger , bette r

controlle d facilitie s (wit

h th e attendan

t better economie s of

scale ) woul d b e asmarter

approac h becaus e bot

h th e environmen

t an dindustr y woul dbenefit . Mr . Griffith s aske d whetherne w productio n line s woul db e treate da s ne w sources . Ms . Herrin g replie d tha

t thi s woul d dependo n how th e affecte dsourc e was define di n th e standards . Mr . Schweitze

r expresse d th e opinio n tha t th e top thre e pultrusio n facilitie s i n th e EPA' s dat abas e are no t

typica l o f th e pultrusio n industry . Fo r on e facilit

y (Enduro) , h e sai d th e vas t

majorit y o f emission s ar

e fro mth e continuou s laminatio n andhan dlayup/ sprayu p processes . Fo r

the secondfacilit

y (Owens-Corning) , th e operatio n i s no t profit

abl e wit h th e contro l syste

mi n place . Additionally , fo r anothe r o f th e controlle dfacilitie s (Glastic) , th e captur

e efficiency o

f their buildin g enclosure/carbo n filte r systemi s ver

y poor . Finally , wit

h regar d t o th e thirdfacilit

y (Tecton) , Mr . Griffith s state dthat al l pultrude d windo w lineal s mus t b e painted ; therefore , Tecton' s incinerator i s probabl y installe d t o contro l bot

h pultrusio n an

dpaintin g operations . Ms . Stru msai dtha

t Tecton' s pultrusio n operatio n wa s controlle dwit h a n incinerator ; sh

e di dno t thin k th e paintin g operatio n wa s controlle d wit h a n incinerator . Tecton' s Stat e air permit doe s no t refer t o emission s contro l o

f painting ; PI C member s pointe dout tha t th e paintin g ma

y b e covere d i n aseparat

e permit . I n respons e to Mr . Schweitzer' s observatio n tha t pultrusio n i s a small par t of som e facilities ' operations , Ms . Stru msai dtha t amajo r sourc e facilit

y wit h an y amoun t of pultrusio n woul d qualif

y to b e regulate dunde

r thi s standard . Ms . Stru m als o sai d tha

t di e Offic e o f Genera l Counsel ha

dadvise dtha

t th e reaso n fo

r afacility' s installin g contro l equipmen t shoul dno t

b e aconsideratio n i n th e EPA' s evaluatio n o f controlle d facilities . Mr . Schweitze

r pointe d ou t

that , whil e i t

i s technically feasibl e t o ven t emission s fro mth e pultrusio n proces s alon e to a n incinerator , i t

wouldnot

b e economically feasible . Whe n aske d whethe

r the industr

y ha danalyzedcontro l device s other tha n incinerators , Mr . Schweitze r sai d tha t the industry' s experienc e ha dno t been goo dwit

h alternate technolo

gies . H e note d tha

t aPolya d adsorptio n syste

mha dexploded . (Ms . Strumcalle dth e vendor (Weatherly ) an

d wa s tol d th e explosio n wa s no t a t afacilit y emittin g styrene ; i t

wa s du e t o apollutan t

fo r which th e syste

mwa s no t originally designed. ) Mr . Griffith s agree d tha t economi c viabilit

y i s th e botto mlin e issu e fo r th e industry . Mr . Schweitze r state d hi s belie f tha t Congres s coul d no t

hav e intendedtha

t thi s potentia

l level o f hardshi p occur , and asked whethe

r th e EP A coul d utiliz e a

n interpretatio n of

th e Clea n Air Ac t tha t woul d avoi d it , suc h a s ha s recently bee n done b y th e EP A fo r sectio n 112(g) . Ms . Herrin g sai d 

# 2.P. 4

Madeleine Strum Ma y 24 , 199 6 Pag e 3 tha t th e only flexibilit

y availabl e unde

r sectio n 112(d

) i s subcategorization . Sh e stresse d tha t th e EP A doe s no t

want t o impos e hardship o n anyone , bu t that , unlike sectio n 112(g) , alot o f precedent ha s been set

in interpretin g sectio n 112(d ) an dsettin g HA P standards . Sh e als o sai d tha

t th e subcategorizatio n ma

y no t b e base do n economi c considerations . Mr . Schweitze

r then observe d that , under th e dr y cleanin g standard , small cleaner s had bee n exempte d fro

mcontro l equipmen

t requirement s o n tha

t basis . I t wa s note dtha

t dr y cleanin g als o covere d are asources , which are no t necessarily subject

to MACT . Th e PI C representative s noted tha

t i t wouldb e ver

y difficul t to structure arul e o n th e basi s of th e end-product s tha

t could b e subject

t o particula

r contro l technologies . Ms . Herrin g asked whether , in th e absenc e o f aMAC T standard , ther e woul d b e an y major source s a t facilitie s tha

t performe dpultrusio n only . Mr . Schweitze r sai d tha t there are dire e facilitie s tha t are pultruder s onl

y an dare als o majo

r sources . Mr . Griffith s pointe d ou t

tha t thes e companie s are Creativ e Pultrusion s (24 machine s a t tw o locations) , Omeg aPultrusions , an

d MMF G (Bristol , VA) . Ms . Herrin g askedwha t growt h wa s expecte d i n th e pultrusio n industry . Mr . Evan s saidtha t 1 0 percent

growt h pe r yea r i s projecte d over

th e nex t 5 years , wit

h tw o o r thre e ne w machine s being installe dper month , o r adoublin g i n capacit

y b y th e endo

f th e century . Mr . Griffith s sai dtha t they would no t remai n competitiv e if

contro l equipmen

t ha dto b e installed , andth e increase d cost s o f operatio n wil l no t

b e abl e to b e passe do n to customers . H e note dtha t when they firs t starte d ou t

the y kne w ver y littl e about

th e cost s o

f abatement . Sinc e then , the y hav e hire d aconsultant

to visi t man y facilitie s an

dstud y contro l devices . Basedo n th e result s o f thi s effort , their

conclusio n ha s been tha

t th e cost s of

such device s fo

r facilitie s wit

h 1 0 t o 1 5 line s would not

allo w the mt o b e competitive ; tha

t th e cost s "ea

t u p th e profit s an

d then some. " Mr . Griffith s di d not e tha t the y are no t oppose dto abatement , bu t they can' t affor d t o spend $1. 5 millio n dollar s fo r controls . Mr . Evan s saidtha t thei r competitor s are aluminumextrusions , pre-stresse dconcrete , an d (wooden ) too l handles . Mr . Berr y pointe d ou t

tha t Congres s probably intende dth e industrie s wit h th e smalles t environmenta

l impact s to survive . Mr . Evan s note dtha t standard s generall y impac t smal l businesse s muc h mor e heavily tha

n larger ones , ye t i n thi s industr

y a$4 0 millio n compan

y wit h 23 0 employee s i s one of th e larger facilities . Mr . Berr

y indicate d tha t aresidua l ris k assessmen

t wouldb e performe d7 year s afte r th e standard s are issued . Mr . Schweitze

r stated that , whil e a

n odo r problemexists , studie s are bein g conducted , th e result s o f whic h h e fel

t woul d show tha

t th e effects o

f styren e are no t

likely t o sho w exces s disease s an

d th e industry , therefore , doe s not present ahealt h risk . H e furthe

r state d tha t th e half-lif

e of styren e i s ver

y shor t andth e decompositio n product s are benign . Thus , h e di d no t

fee l "residua l risk " wouldb e a

n issue fo r th e industr

y in 7 years . Tw o o f th e companie s presen

t a t th e meeting reviewe dth e emissio n reductio n measure s i n effec

t a t thei r productio n facilities . Creativ e Pultrusion s ha s institute dman y pollutio n preventio n measures , suc h a s atemperatur

e controlle denvironment

an dair



# _ ?P. 5

Madeleine Strum Ma y 24 , 199 6 Pag e 4 curtai n barrier s a

t th e wet area s of the machines . Mr . Evan s saidtha t thei r emission s hav e bee n reduced , but

th e compan

y cannot evaluat e th e impac t

of the measure s individually . Mr . DeGraf

f state d tha

t th e Werne

r Compan y als o ha s place dman

y measure s into effect , includin g temperature contro l an dresi n di e injection . Mr . Griffith s made apresentatio n discussin g th e fou r principa l emissio n reductio n approache s tha

t th e pultrusio n industr

y ha s evaluated . Thes e are : 1 ) di e injection , 2 ) prefor minjection , 3 ) maxima

l we t are aenclosur

e (WAE) , and4 ) lo

w air flow pas t th e we t are a(1 5 fp

mo r less) . Ms . Stru

mnotedtha

t th e di e injectio n machin

e teste di n th e pultrusio n stud

y wa s a t leas t equivalen t to (if no t bette r than ) a n add-on contro l device . Mr . DeGraf

f the n state d tha

t Werne r coul dno t verif y tha t the y have seen 9 5 percen t emissio n reductio n fro

mtheir di e injectors . H e sai dtha t there wer e reductions , bu t

ther e i s als o acos t

i n term s of

highe r scra p generation . Mr . Griffith s stressedtha t som e o f thes e reductio n measure s ma y no t b e appropriate for

some type s o

f product . However , ther e are to o man

y criteri ainvolvedt

o decide in advanc e al l th e case s wher e di e injectio n would b e feasibl e (e.g. , shap e o f part , porosit

y requirements , electrica

l properties , etc.) . Mr . Douglas s pointe d out

tha t product s wit

h lowe r fille r conten t or thin-walle dconstruc tio n are more likely t o b e abl e to b e mad e successfull

y wit h di e injection . Th e company representative s estimate d tha t injecte ddie s ad d3 0 percent

(Creativ e Pultrusions ) t o 4 0 percent (Werner) t o toolin g costs , wit h respec t to th e cos t

of regula r dies . Mr . Evan s pointe d ou t

tha t th e total cost s wouldinclude th e resi n fee dsyste mcost s a s wel l a s th e di e costs . Th e die s d o wea

r out an dhav e to b e reworke do r

replaced ; Omeg aPultrusion s ha s replace d thre e die s i n 1 4 years . Ms . Stru maske d whethe

r th e industr

y ha ddevelope dadefinitio n fo r thi s contro l measure , and Mr . Griffith s rea d adefinitio n fo

r "in-di e injection. " Sinc e there inevitabl y i s som e los s o r leakag e o f

resi n a t the inlet side of th e injecteddi e (know n a s backflow) , th e group discusse d way s to measur e andlimi t

backflow , an

dth e contro l efficiency that shoul d b e attribute d t o thi s measure . Th e difficultie s of enforcing arequirement

an d verifying complianc e were discussed . On e approac h coul dinvolve placin g alimi t o n th e amoun t o f backflo w allowed , expresseda s apercentag e o f resi n us e o r

total production . In thi s scheme , a9 9 percent emissio n reductio n efficiency migh t b e assumedfo

r th e situatio n i n whic h th e di e remaineddr y (a s occurre d i n th e pultrusio n study) , wit h th e efficiency reductio n reduce d proportiona l to th e measure damoun

t o f backflow . Th e grou p discusse d certifyin g ne

w injection die s o n th e basi s o f thei r backflow . Mr . Evan s sai d that , du e to di e wear , abackflow tes t shoul db e ru n o n adi e a

t fixed productio n interval s (such a s ever

y 10,00 0 fee

t o f product) . Mr . Griffith s the n rea

d asuggesteddefinitio n fo r "prefor minjection. " Thi s measure , whic h allow s considerabl y mor e wet resi n t o b e exposedto th e ai r

tha n in-di e injection (and th e wet

are ai s no

t covered) , achieve s it s reductio n b y reducin g th e lengt

h o f th e wet are a(fromapproximately 6 0 inche s in the norma l cas e to 1 5 inche s wit

h preform 

# HP. 6

Madelein e Strum Ma y 24 , 199 6 Pag e 5 injection) . Therefore , trackin g th e cyclin g o f resin fro mth e preforme

r t o th e dri p pa

n i s no t neede d t o verif y th e emissio n reductio n fro

mthi s contro l measur

e (a s i t i s wit h in-di e injection) . Ms . Stru

msuggeste d that , as lon

g as th e lengt

h o f th e wet are awas no t

more than 1 5 inches , it

woul d b e considere di

n compliance . Sinc e i t

ma y b e unclea

r ho w muc h th e wet are awas reduced i n an

y particula

r situation , thi s techniqu e woul dno t b e given an

y extr acredi t

fo r averaging . Mr . Griffith s the

n rea d th e industry' s definition fo r "covere dwetout

device, " and showe d photograph s depictin g thi s measure . H e saidtha t th e wetout

are ai s considere d t o exten d fromthe entranc e o f th e resi n bat

h to th e entranc e o

f th e die . Th e grou p discusse d th e us e o

f low air flow s (1 5 fp

mo r less ) pas t th e wet are aa s another contro l measur

e tha t ha s bee n shown to achiev e reductions . Th e issu e o f whethe r instrument s ar

e availabl e to measur

e such alow flo

w wa s brought

up , andth e participant s fel t tha t demonstratin g complianc e wit h thi s leve l coul dpresent

aproblem . Mr . Schweit

zer sai d h e would investigat

e thi s issu e an

dprovid e result s t o th e group . Anothe r issu e discusse d wa s the frequency wit h whic h a n air flo w readin g shoul db e take n t o ensur e complianc e wit

h alo w air flow requirement . Suggestion s range dfro monc e pe

r shif t o r day , t o onc e pe

r productio n ru n tha

t last s mor e tha n 1 day . Mr . Schweitze

r conclude dby pointin g ou t tha t th e industr

y ha s com

e par t wa y b y tentativel y accepting the 47. 5 percent reductio n level a s a

n achievabl e floor

fo r existin g pultrusio n sources . Mr . Griffith s provide dt o th e EP A th e industry' s propose dMACT standard fo

r pultrusio n operation s (include da s a n attachmen

t t o thi s memorandum) . ACTIO N ITEM S Mr . Schweitze

r an d th e other

PI C members agree dt o perfor mfollowu p activitie s pursuan t to the discussion s a

t th e meeting . Thes e activitie s are : 1 . Revis e th e industry' s contro l measur e definition s a s discusse da t th e meeting . 2 . Investigat

e the availabilit

y of instrument s tha

t wil l provid e reliabl e measurement s o

f air flow in th e vicinit

y o f 1 5 fee t per minute . 3 . Develo

p apreliminar

y metho dt

o calibrat e aresi n injecteddi e (i.e. , determina

tio n o f resi n backflow) . Th e EP A an d PE S agree d to investigat e th e MMFG facilit

y in Bristol , V

A an d ad d i t t o th e databas e i

f appropriate . Attachment 

# 3

### prcv/>'ded i oT P. 7



# t

Propose d MAC T Standar d Fo r Pultrusio n 1 . Bul k resi n storag e tank s shal l hav e conservatio n vents . 2 . Mixin g an

d transfe r tank s shal l remai n covere d unles s material s ar e bein g adde d t o th e tank . 3 . On e o f th e followin g (A . o r B . o r C. ) shal l b e employe d t o reduc e HA P emission s fro mth e pultrusio n process . A . Direc t Resi n Injection . Direc t resi n injectio n shal l b e define d a s a pultrusio n syste

mi n whic h th e reinforcement s ente r th e applicatio n syste mdry . Afte r being we t out , th e reinforcement s ar e no t expose d t o ai r prio r t o bein g cured"~±nr-4he . die . B . Th e modifie d resi n injectio n systemi s compose d o f on e o r tw o reinforcemen t saturatio n (we t out ) chambers . Th e reinforcemen t we t ou t occur s withi n enclose d chamber s b

y pressure d resi n mixe s transferre d t o th e chambe r withou t ai r exposure . Th e direc t exposur e o f th e we t ou t reinforcement s t o ai r i s minimize d b y a combinatio n o f meta l shields , dryreinforcement , and/o r drysurfacin g veil . Amaximu mexposur e o f 15 " o f we t reinforcemen t alon

g th e directio n o f pul l i s permitted . Drip-of f o f exces s resi n mi x a t th e entranc e t o th e di e an d injector(s ) ar e permitted .

t^^^y-^H^wsrpii? ^ -i- &

'•rj ,, **v* f *<'?•-*«*• # •<.-» • ' •^S'fnw.'tr y jAj*e?* t T?r??v>n , ^<;e»s!y>* a ?-r'. 7 •P. 8

C . A covere d we t ou

t devic e plus on

e o f th e followin

g method s o f minimizin g ai r flo

w ove r we t areas . Th e covere

d we t ou

t devic e shal l b

e th e apparatu s wher e th e reinforcement s an d liqui d resi n initiall y mak e contact . The opening s t o allo w dr y reinforcement s t o ente r an

d we t reinforcement t o exi t ma y be n o large r tha n th e dimensio

n o f thos e reinforcement s plu s 3/8" . Th e we t ou

t devic e shal l b

e fully enclose

d t o limi t contac t o f the resi n withfree flowin g air . Thi s enclosur e wil l consis t o f a fully enclose

d bloc k desig

n or covers . The assemble d cover s shal l hav

e n o gap s wide r tha

n 3/8" . Port s fo

r leve l contro l devices , monitorin

g devices , agitatio n shafts , fil l hoses , etc . shal l hav

e n o mor e tha

n 3/8 " pe r sid

e clearance . An

y li d o r openin

g fo r addin g resi n o r reinforcement s t o a bat hshal l be designe d t o fit . i . Enclos e Wette

d Areas . Fro m th e exi t o f th

e covere

d we t out devic e t o the di e entranc e o r resi n preheate r entrance , 66 % (40% ) o f th

e prefor

m area shal l b

e enclosed t o minimiz e ai r flow . Th e enclosur e shal l b e designe

d t o cove r the top , bottom , an

d bothside s o f th

e area , includin

g dri p pans , resi n pans , sumps , etc . Th e opening s for 

## -2- 7P. 9

we t reinforcement s t o ente r an d exi t th e enclosur e ma y hav e a maximu

m 12 " pe r sid e clearanc e aroun d th e we t reinforcements . (Se e drawin g #1 )

Acces s panels , doors , hatche s o r flexibl e curtain s wil l b e considere d a s par t o f th e enclosur e provide d the y

ar e designe d t o fit . Appropriat e measure s t o protec t personne l fro m exposur e t o hazardou s vapor s wil l b e taken . Enclosur e material s shal l b e non-porou s t o exclud e th e fre e flo

w o f air . Bot hrigi d an d flexibl e material s ar e allowed . \y „

L - Lengt ho f spac e betwee n resi n bat hand die . W - Widt ho f saturate d reinforcements . t = Thicknes s o f saturate d reinforcement s (Se e Fig . 1 ) Propose d MAC T ha s tha t the enclosur e mus t b e withi n 12 " o f the we t reinforcements .



### -3 - 

# ?

IG#ft«Si*W«fy;Mi^^*m?MW ^P.1 0

Define : a Distanc e fro

m the lef t sid e o f th e enclosur e t o the saturate d reinforcement . i 2 = Distanc e fro

m th e righ t sid e o f th e enclosur e t o the edg e o f th e saturate d reinforcements . i x~ Distanc e fro

m th e to p o f th e enclosur e t o th e to

p o f the saturate d reinforcements . i 2 - Distanc e fro

m th e botto

m o f th e enclosur e t o the botto m o f th e saturate d reinforcement .

An imaginary

enclosur e can b e constructe d i n th e are a betwee n th e resi n bat han d di e wit hth e followin g dimensions : 

# u i 

# H

-4 - 

## <i ri-g^fisjCTWfftBsgagx ^P.1 1

Wher e th e followin g limitation s exis t o n th e spac e fro m th e enclosur e t o th e we t reinforcements , (propose d MACT) . h x_12 " h 2 _12 " (1 ) a 1 _ 12 " (Se e Fig . 2 ) a 2 _12 " Th e surfac e are a o f th e enclosur e i s calculate d by : A = L x( t + h : + h 2 ) + L x( t + \ + h 2 ) + L x ( W + a x+ a 2 ) + L x( W

+ a l + a 2 ) A = 2 L x( t + h x+ h 2 ) + 2 L x( W + a x+ a 2 ) A = 2 L [( t + h ; + h 2) ) + ( W + a x+ a 2 ) ] (2 ) (eg ) t = 2 "

\ h 2 W

a i

a 2 L _ _

_ =

_ =

_ 10 " 10 " 6 " 8 " 8 " 36 "

A = 2 (36 ) [( 2 + 1 0 + 10 ) + ( 6 + 8 + 8) ] A = 316 8 in 2

-5 -



## 10A . • * Th e enclosur e doe s no t hav e a sid e opening ,

- T o us e a 67 % coverag e factor , reduc e "L" , th e lengt ho f th e imaginar y enclosur e b y 33% . (Se e Fig . 3 )



### L 1 

### = .6 7 X L wit hsom

e restrictio n on sealin g ope n end .

B . - • Th e enclosur e contain s a sid e openin g fo r continua l operation . (Se e Fig . 4 )



### -6 - 

## h \ m 

# -7^ WET-OU T DEVIC E a

L 

### ENCLOSUR E

° i _ i

^ \ ' 

### DI E \

»BW<%WBW3WnBaW!BWMWJ^ ^Where : R = Widt ho f openin g (side ) L 2 - Ne w

lengt ht o maintai n a 67 % surfac e are a coverag e wit ha continua l vie w slot . L >.L 2 > L x

_ 2 mus t b e longe r tha n th e enclosur e withou t a slot . Fro m th e surfac e are a formul a previousl y presente d (2) . A = 2 L [( t + hx+ h 2 ) + ( W + a x+ a 2 ) ] (2 ) Becaus e o f th e widt ho f th e slo t "R" , th e effectiv e heigh t o f th e surfac e are a i s reduce d b y ( t + h

x+ h 2 ) -

» ( t + h

x+ h 2 - . 5 R ) Wher e th e . 5 facto r account s fo r th e fac t tha t equatio n (2 ) i s derive d fo r tw o sides , bu t th e slo t onl y

goe s o n on e side . Equatio n (2 ) becomes , fo r a slot . • 67 A - A 2 - 2 L 2 [( t + \ + h 2 - R ) + ( W + ax+ a 2 ) ] (3 )

Fo r a slo t i n th e (eg ) previousl y discusse d havin g a tota l spac e o f L = 36" .

A , = .67 A

» .6 7 (316 8 in 2 ) = 2122.5 6 in 2

-7 -P.1 4

Thi s i s the surfac e are a whic hmus t b e maintaine d wit hth e slot . Fro m this , th e constraint s o n "L 2 " an d "R " ca n b e obtained .

A 2 = 2122.5 6 = 2 L 2 [( 2 + 1 0 + 1 0 - .5R ) + ( 6 + 8 + 8)] .

A 2 = 2122.5 6 = 2 L 2 [(2 2 - .5R ) + 22 ] 1061.2 8 - L 2 [4 4 - .5R ]

. 5 L 2 R = 4 4 L 2 - 1061.2 8 L 2 R » 8 8 L 2 - 2122.5 6

L , 24.1 2 0 (i.e. , n o slo t a t thi s length ) 28.0 0 12. 2 3 0 17. 2

To us e this : (1 ) Calculat e referenc e surfac e are a i n equatio n (2) . (2 ) Us e equatio n (3 )

NOTE : Th e availabl e coverin g wil l b e a

function o f th e preforme r size .



## -8 - 

## [ 3P.1 5

NOTE : Thi s assume s a rectangula r enclosure .

Th e surfac e are a concep t work s fo r othe r designs . ii . An y shroud , curtai n o r othe r coverin g metho d shal l b e suc ha s t o maintai n a n ai r velocit y o f 1 5 ft/min . o r les s a t 3 inche s abov e th e we t reinforcement . 4 . HA P solven t purchase s othe r tha n reactiv e diluent s shal l b e n o mor e tha n .01 5 lbs . pe r poun d o f composite s produced .



### -9 - 3 "