United States Office of Air Quality EPA 456/R-99-006

Environmental Protection Agency Planning and Standards August 1999 

Air Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-456/R-99-006

Emissions and Prevention/Control

Techniques for Automobile Body Shops

in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico

U.S.-Mexico Border

Information Center on Air Pollution

CICA

Centro de Información sobre Contaminación de Aire

en la Frontera de la EE. UU.-México

Sponsored by 

Clean Air Technology Center (MD-12)

Information Transfer Group

Information Transfer and Program Integration Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

August 1999
EPA-456/R-99-006

August 1999

Emissions and Prevention/Control

Techniques for Automobile Body Shops

in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico

Prepared By:

John D. Jeffery

Dr. Mark Sager

Science Applications International Corporation

1710 Goodridge Drive

Post Office Box 1303

McLean, Virginia 22102

EPA Contract No. 68-D3-0030

Work Assignment No. III-98

Project Manager

Robert J. Blaszczak

Clean Air Technology Center (MD-12)

Information Transfer Group

Information Transfer and Program Integration Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Prepared for

U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution/

Centro de Información sobre Contaminación de Aire

en la Frontera de la EE.UU.-México (CICA) (MD-12)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
ii

EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. This review was coordinated by the U.S.-Mexico Information Center on Air

Pollution / Centro de Informacion Sobre Contaminacion de Aire Para la Frontera entre EE.UU. Y

México (CICA). In addition, CICA coordinated review of this report with other agencies that

participated in the study, including: the Dirección de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología, Ciudad

Juárez, México; and the Instituto Nacional de Ecoligía, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos

Naturales y Pesca, México. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
iii

PREFACE

The U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution (Centro de Información

sobre Contaminación de Aire Para la Frontera entre EE.UU.-México, or CICA) was established

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical support and assistance in evaluating air pollution

problems along the U.S.-Mexico Border. These services and products are available at no cost to

Federal, State and Local Agencies and universities in Mexico. Others can use these services

depending on available resources. CICA provides ready access to U.S. EPA information and

expertise. It draws on professional staff from the EPA’s OAQPS and Office of Research and

Development (ORD). Private contractors also are available when appropriate.

CICA SERVICES

CICA provides assistance in the following ways:

 LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS

CICA offers bilingual communication services (English & Spanish)

TELEPHONE: Toll-Free from Mexico only: (800) 304-1115 (Spanish)

 From other locations: (919) 541-1800 (Spanish)

or (919) 541-0800 (English)

FAX: (919) 541-0242

E-Mail: catcmail@epa.gov

 ON-LINE ASSISTANCE

 Internet World Wide Web (CICA Web)

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica/ 

 ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE / TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 

 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND TECHNICAL TOOLS

 INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER CENTER FOR GLOBAL

GREENHOUSE GASSES

This CICA technical assistance project resulted from a request from the Dirección de

Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología (DDUE), Unidad Adminstrativa Lic. Benito Juarez (the local

environmental agency in Ciudad Juárez, México). The DDUE requested CICA's assistance in

determining emissions from and identifying appropriate pollution prevention and control

techniques for automobile body repair shops in Ciudad Juárez. This report is the result of that

effort. It provides information on auto body paint shops in Ciudad Juárez, México gathered

through a survey of these facilities, done in cooperation with the DDUE, and evaluates feasible

pollution prevention and control measures to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds
iv

(VOC) at these facilities. The report includes data on the operation, paint and solvent use,

emissions, and prevention and control measures at these facilities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors want to thank the Dirección Municipal de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología

(the local environmental agency in Ciudad Juárez, México), its director Ing. Oscar Ibañe and 

Biologo Abraham Aquino for their help in identifying the auto body shops surveyed in this effort

and for their assistance in providing local engineering students from Ciudad Juárez to conduct

the survey. 
v

CONTENTS

 Page

EPA Review Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Acronyms and Spanish Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

INTRODUCTION ..............................................1

OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

BACKGROUND ............................................3

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..............................4

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEY AND DATABASE ................4

OVERVIEW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ..............5

EMISSIONS ESTIMATES AND POSSIBLE CONTROLS ..............8

EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED EMISSIONS AND PAINT

 DISTRIBUTION ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM USED IN THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B DATA TABLES FROM THE SURVEY DATABASE . . B-1
vi

TABLES

 Page

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PAINT USE IN THE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF VOC EMISSIONS FROM 

PAINTING OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT

USE ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

TABLE B-1 PAINT USE SUMMARY AND

EMISSIONS ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3

TABLE B-2 SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . B-11

TABLE B-3 EXISTING CONTROL EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15

TABLE B-4 WASTE GENERATION SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19
vii

ACRONYMS AND SPANISH TERMS

BACT Best Available Control Technology

CATC Clean Air Technology Center, OAQPS, EPA

CICA U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution; Centro de Información

sobre Contaminación de Aire en la Frontera EE.UU.-México

DDUE Dirección de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecología; the local environmental agency in

Ciudad Juaréz, México

E-Mail Electronic Mail

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Home Page A WWW site

HVLP High Volume Low Pressure

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

NADB North American Development Bank

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA

ORD Office of Research and Development, EPA

RACT Reasonable Available Control Technology

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER/Clearinghouse

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation

TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WWW Internet World Wide Web
1

INTRODUCTION 

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency sponsors and implements the U.S. - Mexico Border Information Center on Air

Pollution (Centro de Información sobre Contaminación de Aire en la Frontera EE.UU.-México,

or CICA). One function of this center is to provide assistance to State agencies on both sides of

the U.S.-Mexico border to improve ambient air quality in the border region. 

Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from automobile body repair shops are

believed to be significant and to contribute to ozone nonattainment in El Paso, Texas and to

violations of ozone air quality standards in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. The Dirección de Desarrollo

Urbano y Ecología (DDUE), (the local agency in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico) requested CICA’s

assistance in determining emissions from and identifying appropriate pollution prevention and

control techniques for automobile body repair shops in Ciudad Juárez. 

This project is also supported by the City of El Paso, the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC), and Region VI of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency in Dallas, Texas. During the completion of this work, every effort was made to

coordinate with all of the sponsoring and supporting agencies to ensure that there was no

duplication of effort, and that information collected by any of the other agencies was used to

support the objectives of this project. 
2

OBJECTIVES

This effort is a continuation of preliminary work that was completed earlier to collect

information on operations at, and potential emissions from, the significant auto body repair shops

operating in Ciudad Juárez. The specific objectives of this work are:

 Review the existing data from the previous study and develop a plan to

supplement that data to provide the necessary information to calculate potential

emissions from those facilities

 Collect information for the remaining auto body repair shops that were not

included in the first study

 Assemble these data into a consistent database suitable for estimating the total

potential emissions from auto body repair operations in Ciudad Juárez

 Based on that review, recommend options for pollution prevention and control

measures to reduce the emissions of VOC from these operations in the Ciudad

Juárez - El Paso area and in the U.S. - Mexico border area in general.

The following tasks were completed to achieve the objectives:

 Discussions and conference calls were conducted between all sponsoring and

supporting agencies to determine the level of detail included in the existing data,

and to ensure that all pertinent information collected previously was applied to

this study. 

 A detailed and comprehensive questionnaire was developed to collect all

significant information that could be applied to the development of emissions

estimates and the identification of cost-effective pollution prevention and control

measures applicable to this source category.

 Conversations were held with the DDUE and other agencies to identify all of the

significant auto body repair operations in the Ciudad Juárez area.

 Arrangements were made with local engineering students to complete the

interviews and fill in the questionnaires. The students were provided training on

techniques and procedures for the completion of survey questionnaires.

 The data collected through the survey were assembled into a database and

summarized in formats that are suitable for estimating and tracking emissions.

 Information on suitable pollution prevention and emissions control techniques

applicable to this source category was assembled.

 Information on total paint sales was collected from the major paint distributors in

the Ciudad Juárez area to serve as an independent check on reported paint and

solvent use data and to augment the emissions estimation procedures.

 All of the information collected in the study was included in this report and the

report was generated in both English and Spanish for distribution to the

sponsoring and supporting agencies.
3

BACKGROUND

In previous studies sponsored through both TNRCC and EPA’s Region VI offices,

information was collected on the operations at approximately 200 auto body repair shops in

Ciudad Juárez over the period 1993-1994. These data were collected through a survey in which

operators of some of the significant auto body repair shops were interviewed and a standard

questionnaire was completed. It was not possible to review the actual questionnaire that was

used in that study, but the database that was compiled as a result of that work was made

available. The information included in that database was reviewed and, based on that review, a

list of more specific questions was developed and a new questionnaire was prepared. The new

questionnaire included specific questions concerning the types of detergents, cleaners, solvents

and paints, including primers, color coats, and finish coats, used at the facilities so that an

estimate of the solvent content and potential VOC emissions could be calculated. The

questionnaire also included questions about paint and solvent storage and waste handling

operations, and control measures in place at the facilities. 

During preliminary coordination efforts it was discovered that a second effort, sponsored

by the City of El Paso had also been completed. This effort was completed by Dr. Octavio

Chávez under contract to the TNRCC and in cooperation with some local environmental groups

in the El Paso - Ciudad Juárez area. Several conversations were held with Dr. Chávez, and

representatives of CICA to understand completely the data that were already available and to

determine if this study was necessary. After a complete review of the data that were available

through the previous studies, it was determined that additional information was necessary to

provide a consistent and comprehensive database of information that could be used to estimate

VOC emissions from these facilities. All parties agreed that the new questionnaire developed

under this effort would be used to collect the more detailed information from all of the auto body

shop facilities in Ciudad Juárez. The new survey conducted for this project included those shops

that had been included in the previous studies and those that had not been included in any of the

previous studies. Based on conversations with Dr. Chavez and Mr. Aquino of the DDUE, the

first two surveys collected information from approximately 150-200 auto body shops. There is

still no confirming information which would allow for a crosscheck of the two pervious surveys

to see if the same sources or if new sources were interviewed as part of the survey. The list used

for this project was provided by DDUE and SAIC was told it contained 200 sources. Whether

these were new sources or were the original 200 is not known. Of the 200 sources, over 150 were

visited and questionnaires from these sources make up the data found in this report. The findings

of this report are based entirely on the results of the information collected during the September

1996 survey. A copy of the questionnaire used in this study is included as Appendix A.
4

 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EFFORTS

Although this project was initiated at the request of DDUE, it was discovered early in the

project that a significant amount of work related to the objectives of this assignment had already

been completed by other groups working in coordination with DDUE. It was necessary to review

the data and techniques used to collect information in the earlier efforts to determine if the

correct procedures and methodologies had been used and if any of the collected information was

of use to this project. 

The previous efforts were known to have collected information from approximately 200

sources. While not tailored as a VOC usage survey, the information that had been collected was

useful in establishing rough estimates of both the number of sources and the potential emissions

from these sources. At no time during this project was there any definitive determination of the

exact number of auto body shops operating in the Juarez area. From conversations with DDUE

and Dr. Chávez, the number never exceeded 300 and was more likely in the 150 to 250 range.

This fluctuation is caused by economic factors and not environmental related issues. As was

found in all of the surveys, the vast majority (approximately 95%) of the shops are very small in

size (less than 6 jobs per week). The new survey was based on a list provided by DDUE and

given directly to the students used to perform the actual questionnaire work. At no time was this

list made available to EPA or SAIC. As a result, no correlation was made between previous

efforts and those being conducted for the new survey. It was therefore not possible to determine

if any of the shops visited during the new survey were “repeats” or “new” sources. The original

intent was to collect information from any remaining sources that had not been visited in any of

the previous survey efforts. This number was estimated to be approximately 100 shops. It was

hoped that this new survey would serve as an independent database that could support the

estimation of emissions magnitude and to estimate the temporal and seasonal distribution of

emissions from this source category.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURVEY AND DATABASE

The questionnaire was finalized, translated into Spanish and distributed to the U.S. and

Mexican supporting and sponsoring agencies. The final questionnaire is included as Appendix

A. Discussions continued with Mr. Abraham Aquino of the DDUE in Ciudad Juárez to identify

a group of students who could complete the survey and to schedule a convenient time for training

these students. These negotiations were completed and the training of students was conducted by

SAIC during the week of September 9, 1996. At the same time, the SAIC representative visited

the three major suppliers of paint and other solvents used in the preparation and painting of auto

bodies and parts in Ciudad Juárez. The survey was completed in September and October of

1996. A total of 156 facilities were visited and data collected for each of these facilities. Delays

were experienced in the delivery of the data due to conflicts in work and holiday schedules of the
5

U.S. and Mexican project participants. The data were made available, translated into English and

delivered to EPA in late December 1996.

All of the translated questionnaires were reviewed, and the data useful in the development

of emissions estimates and in identification and evaluation of pollution prevention and emissions

control opportunities were entered into a database in EXCEL format. A copy of the final ®

database is provided as Appendix B, and electronic copies have been made available to EPA.

OVERVIEW OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

A total of 156 auto body repair shop questionnaires were completed and returned to

SAIC. Copies of the questionnaires are available in both Spanish and English. The shops range

in size from 1 to 6 employees, and reported completing from one job per week to 14 jobs per

week. A job is defined for the purposes of this report as any application of paint to an

automotive fixture. It includes small touch-up or spot repairs and ranges all the way to a

complete repaint of an entire vehicle. Over 90% of the shops reported only small spot repairs,

however, a limited number of the larger shops did report a small number of full car repainting

jobs. Average employee experience was quite variable, ranging from a minimum of less than a

month to a maximum of more than 10 years. 

Table 1 presents a summary of the total amounts of each type of paint reported for all of

the shops included in the survey. The data indicate that lacquer and enamel paints, and to a

lesser extent urethane paints, dominate the paint use for the shops in Ciudad Juárez. 

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PAINT USE IN THE SURVEY

PAINTING STEP PRIMER COATS TOP COATS CLEAR COATS

TOTAL QUANTITY 51,688 liter/year 48,854 liter/year 41,522 liter/year

PERCENT LACQUER 20% 19% 20%

PERCENT ENAMEL 55% 60% 56%

PERCENT WATER

BASE

7% 7% 8%

PERCENT URETHANE 15% 14% 15%

PERCENT OTHER 3% 0% 1%

In almost all cases, the survey indicated that paint is applied in these shops using standard

air guns. A total of 7 shops indicated the use of high-volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray guns

exclusively, and an additional 37 shops indicated that they use a mix of HVLP and standard air
6

guns. One shop indicated the use of an electric gun and one indicated a special application

method, but the details were not provided. Expanded use of HVLP spray guns could improve

transfer efficiency and reduce the amount of paint used to complete the typical job. This would

reduce emissions between 10 and 20 percent. This reduction would not be as much as could be

achieved through the installation of capture and control devices. The best possible reduction for

these devices is in the 70-90 percent range.

The survey asked questions about the use of solvents for surface preparation and in

cleaning up both spray guns and work areas after each job was completed. One part of the survey

was designed to collect information on the amount and type of solvent used in surface

preparation. Only 44 of the shops reported the use of solvents in surface preparation activities. 

The remaining 112 or 72% indicated the use of detergents to clean surfaces prior to repair work

and painting. Each of the shops, however, reported some solvent use in the section on

preparation activities. In all, the total amount of solvent use reported in that section of the survey

was 1,012.5 liters per week. Of the 44 shops that reported the use of solvent for preparations, the

type of solvent used is given below:

 22 indicated the use of thinner, 

 7 indicated use of petroleum distillates, 

 3 indicated the use of blends, 

 2 indicated the use of gasoline,

 1 indicated the use of xylene,

 1 indicated the use of all solvents listed, and 

 7 indicated some solvent that was not listed, but did not specify which solvent.

A question was also asked about solvent use in clean up activities after a job is

completed. These activities would include cleaning the spray guns, and any other clean up of

spilled paint or spray that adhered to surfaces in the shop. One hundred forty-eight, or 95% of

the shops reported the use of thinner for these clean up activities. Four shops indicated the use of

a blend, two indicated the use of a strong unspecified solvent, one shop each reported the use of a

substance called mezcal, and one indicated the use of a creme. The amount of solvent used

ranged from a low of 0.1 liter per job to a high of 5 liters per job. In most cases, the shops

reported 0.5 to 1 liter of solvent used in cleanup activities per job. The total amount of solvent

used in clean up activities was estimated by multiplying the amount of solvent used per job by

the average number of jobs completed per week. The total amount of solvent used in clean up

activities, using that approach, was calculated to be 458.6 liters per week.

The survey also asked questions about painting operations. Specifically, shops were

asked to indicate whether or not they used a spray paint booth, enclosed and ventilated area, or

open areas for painting. Given the high percentage of combined enamel, lacquer and urethane

coatings, the data would imply a similar high usage of spray booths or controlled areas to ensure

proper curing of the painted parts. The survey results concerning paint booths and other

enclosures for painting operations were contradictory in some cases. A total of 110 of the shops
7

indicated that they do not use a booth. Some of those did indicate that they paint in an enclosed

or semi-enclosed area. Many of those reported some form of ventilation system to exhaust paint

fumes to the exterior of the enclosure, but some did not indicate any ventilation system at all. 

Forty-three shops indicated the use of a spray paint booth; however, seven of those also

indicated that there was no ventilation system associated with the booth. It is highly unlikely that

painting is performed in an enclosed booth without any ventilation. Another 28 of the shops

reported the use of a booth, but did not report the use of any type of control equipment. This

suggests that they used some enclosed area, but not what is commonly thought of as a spray paint

booth in the United States. Several of the shops reported using some form of enclosure for

painting operations, with an exhaust system and filters in line for control of the aerosol mist. 

These units were assumed to be uncontrolled for the purpose of reducing VOC emissions, since

the VOC content of the paint would still evaporate from the filter and be exhausted to the

ambient air. Two shops reported use of a booth with a ventilation system and extractors for

control. One of the shops using an extractor reported a control efficiency of 90%. There is no

way to determine, as part of this survey, what is meant by the use of the term “extractor” or to

verify that control efficiency. The survey takers were not allowed to examine the devises and

there may be a translation issue that equates “extractor” with exhaust fan. Even assuming that

both of the shops using extractors had a VOC capture efficiency of 90 % and a control efficiency

of greater than 90%, the overall impact to the entire survey results is insignificant. Their

emissions were calculated with the assumption that all shops were uncontrolled for VOC

emissions. In the shops that reported either a spray booth or an enclosure for painting, it is

assumed that there is a protected area that is used to limit dust and other airborne contamination

during paint application and curing.

Additional questions were asked about waste generation, waste disposal, and general

comments on the operations and appearance of the shop. Total wastes generated for all shops are

listed below:

 rags 223 kg/week 

 sand paper 1,348 sheets/week 

 paper 401 kg/week

 cans 603 cans/week

 tape 574 rolls/week

Every shop indicated that these wastes were disposed in the garbage and eventually taken to a

garbage dump or landfill located in and serving the city of Ciudad Juárez. One hundred six of

the shops were assessed as being generally neat in appearance. The remaining surveys indicated

some waste paint, auto parts, or other materials laying about creating either a dirty and untidy

appearance and a real or potential fire hazard.

The questionnaire also asked the shop to indicate at what time of year they do the most

work. Higher emissions of VOC in late spring, summer and early fall would have more serious
8

effects on ozone air quality than emissions released during the winter months. Fifty-three of the

shops indicated that there is no busier time and that operations continue all through the year. For

those shops that did indicate a seasonal dependence, the distribution is provided below:

 3 spring

 54 summer

 27 fall

 19 winter

These results verify that the majority of the painting activity occurs at times that are conducive to

ozone formation.

EMISSIONS ESTIMATES AND POSSIBLE CONTROLS

EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

VOC emissions for paint use were estimated by applying an emission factor for all paints

used. These emission factors were calculated from solvent content values for various paints used

in auto body painting and refinishing. These data on solvent content were taken from

information presented in “Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Automobile

Refinishing” (EPA-450/3-88-009) , and “Alternative Control Techniques Document: Ref. 1

Automobile Refinishing” (EPA- 453/R-94-037) . The solvent content values in these reports Ref. 2

were provided in units of pounds per gallon. These data were converted to grams per liter. The

number of liters of paint used for each shop was multiplied by an appropriate solvent content

factor. It was assumed that 100% of the solvent was released to the atmosphere. Table 2 lists a

summary of the total amount of each paint type included in the survey, the emission factor

applied, and the total emissions of VOC. The categories of paint use included in the survey did

not match exactly with the paint categories included in the EPA documents. The reference for

the emission factors and the assumptions for emission factors for categories that were not

included in the documents are explained in Table 2.

VOC emissions from solvent use for both surface preparation activities and clean up

activities are summarized in Table 3. The total amount of solvent used for these purposes as

reported in the survey were multiplied by a solvent content factor of 768.11 gr/liter (6.41

lb/gallon). The solvent content value was taken from data presented in Table 4-3 of Alternative

Control Techniques Document: Automobile Refinishing for data representative of typical U.S. Ref. 2

nonattainment areas. 
9

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF VOC EMISSIONS FROM PAINTING OPERATIONS

Paint Category Use, Content, Content, Emissions, Emissions,

Total Paint VOC VOC VOC VOC

liters/year lb/gal gr/liter kg/year tons/year 

Primer Lacquer 10,270 6.0 718.96 7,383.72 8.12

Primer Enamel 28,613 5.1 611.13 17,486.26 19.24

Primer Waterbase 3,614 2.5 299.58 1,082.68 1.19

Primer Urethane 7,735 4.3 515.27 3,985.61 4.38

Primer Other (a) 1,456 7.0 838.81 1,221.31 1.34

Base Coat Lacquer 9,334 6.3 754.93 7,046.52 7.75

Base Coat Enamel 29,263 5.3 635.10 18,584.93 20.44

Base Coat Waterbase (b) 3,484 2.5 299.58 1,043.74 1.15

Base Coat Urethane 6,721 5.2 623.12 4,187.99 4.61

Base Coat Other (a) 52 7.0 838.81 43.62 0.05

Clear Coat Lacquer 8,164 6.4 766.12 6,254.60 6.88

Clear Coat Enamel 23,439 5.6 671.05 15,728.74 17.30

Clear Coat Waterbase (b) 3,172 2.5 299.58 950.27 1.05

Clear Coat Urethane 6,279 4.4 527.25 3,310.60 3.64

Clear Coat Other (a) 468 7.0 838.81 392.56 0.43

Total Emissions 97.57

Notes: Solvent content values are for paint type as sprayed taken from EPA-450/3-88-009 (exception: for other Ref. 1

paint categories see note (a)). Emissions calculated by multiplying total paint use times gr/liter VOC

solvent content (assume 100% is volatilized).

(a) Solvent content for other paint categories taken from EPA453/R-94-031 , for specialty category Ref. 2

(b) All waterbase paint assumed to have same solvent content as that for waterbase primer
10

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM SOLVENT USE ACTIVITIES

SOLVENT USE TOTAL SOLVENT SOLVENT EMISSIONS

ACTIVITY USE, liters/year CONTENT,

gr/liter kg/year tons/year

Surface Preparation 52,650 768.11 40,441 44.48

Spray Gun and Area 23,848 768.11 18,318 20.15

Clean Up

Total 76,498 58,759 64.63

Based on these assumptions and the data collected in the survey, the total VOC emissions

estimated for auto body repair shops in Ciudad Juárez is 162.2 tons per year. During the initial

planning for the project, it was estimated that there might be a total of 300 or more paint shops

operating in Ciudad Juárez. If it is assumed that the shops included in the survey are

representative of all the shops in Juarez, a good estimate of an upper limit for total VOC

emissions from auto body repair shops in Ciudad Juárez can be derived by doubling that

estimate. The doubling assumption is offered to account for potential under reporting of paint

and/or solvent use, and to account for auto body shops that were not included in the survey. 

Therefore, an upper limit estimate for emissions is 324.4 tons per year.

COMPARISON OF CALCULATED EMISSIONS AND PAINT DISTRIBUTION

ESTIMATES

During the period when the students were being trained to conduct the survey, meetings

were held with three of the four major paint distributors in Ciudad Juárez to obtain an estimate

of the total amount of paint that was sold in Ciudad Juárez. Paint and solvent sales data were

also provided by the fourth distributor after the meetings were held. These data were collected to

serve as a check on the paint and solvent use derived through the survey. The combined total

amount of paint sold as estimated by the four distributors was 4,020 liters/month. This can be

compared to a total use of paint, adjusted for the amount that was indicated to be purchased from

the United States, from the survey of 9,179 liters/month. It must be kept in mind that there were

no strict quality control procedures applied to either of these totals. The paint use data from the

survey represent the best estimate of the average amount of paint used per month. A similar

estimate of solvent sold was also obtained from the paint distributors. The data from the

distributors indicate a total of 45,000 liters/month in solvent sales. The data from the survey

indicate a total of 4,050 liters/month of solvent used in the auto body repair shops that took part

in the survey. 
11

Concerning the paint use data from the survey versus paint sold data from the distributors,

it is likely that uncertainties in the data supplied through the two procedures are significant. 

Sources of uncertainty that affect the comparison include:

 differences in the assumptions used in each procedure; for example, it is possible

that average use reported in the survey is being compared to actual sales for the

previous month in the supply data.

 some of the paint use reported in the survey may have been purchased in a

different month.

 there may be errors in the reporting of paint obtained through other suppliers,

either in the United States or elsewhere in Mexico.

Given these and other possible uncertainties, the comparison between paint use data from

the survey and paint sales data from the distributors is not considered to be extreme and lends

some level of confidence in the reported data from the survey. 

The differences between distributor sales and survey data for solvent use are more

extreme, with a discrepancy of nearly an order of magnitude. As noted earlier in this report,

these data imply that there are other uses of solvent sold by the distributors, and that only a

fraction of that solvent sold is consumed by auto body repair shops in Ciudad Juárez. It is

reasonable to assume that there could be several other possible users of the solvent sold through

these distributors. Data included in the Control Technology Center report provide an estimate 1

that solvent use for surface preparation and clean up activities represent approximately 28% of

total emissions from auto body repair activities. Furthermore, the Alternate Control Techniques

document presents an estimate of approximately 0.1 gallons, or 0.378 liters, of solvent use for 2

each manual spray gun cleaning operation. The survey data suggest that 40% of the total

emissions from paint shops in Ciudad Juárez result from solvent use activities, and most shops

reported between 0.5 to 1.0 liters of solvent used for gun cleaning operations. Both methods of

comparison are relatively consistent with typical operations in the United States and provide

some degree of credibility to the survey data. These results certainly support the conclusion that

some other solvent uses must be present to account for the order of magnitude discrepancy

between the reported sales and auto body shop use data. More information would be required to

verify any of these assumptions, but, in general, the results of this comparison are not sufficient

to dispute the data generated through the survey.

It is historically common for shops to under report the use of solvents in either painting or

clean up operations. Some shops may use an order of magnitude more than they report. This

makes any correlation attempt to balance the amount of solvents sold to that used very difficult.

In addition, there are a number of other paint and solvent end-users not associated with auto body

repair shops; such as, heavy equipment production and/or repair, small parts painting, and

general industrial solvent usage. Distributors of solvents that sell to auto body repair shops

generally package their materials in small, easily handled containers. This makes them extremely

attractive to other purchasers who do not want the added cost or inconvenience of a larger
12

container (e.g. 30 or 55 gal. drum). To further define the use of solvents through auto body

repair shop purchases, the actual sales/purchase order invoices must be reviewed to determine

which type of facility received each order of solvents. This determination was not part of this

study, but could be undertaken in any future effort. Information on overall solvent purchases

were given in an informal manner. Any future attempt to obtain more detailed information

would likely require the direct involvement of Mexican environmental officials. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROL OPTIONS 

During the review of the completed survey forms, it became apparent that few, if any, of

the auto body shops that responded to the survey keep detailed records of the work performed or

the amount of paint used. There were also many cases of incompatible data relative to specifics,

such as work load, work practices and paint and solvent use reported in the survey. In addition,

the uncertainties discussed in the summary of the comparison of paint use and paint distribution

are problematic. It is recommended that some form of standard reporting be implemented to

record the volume of coatings sold each month, coatings used each month, cars painted each

month, and percent VOC of average or specific coatings used in the auto body repair shops in

Ciudad Juárez. These data could then be used to construct a reliable data base and improve the

knowledge of base line conditions and possible reductions that could be identified through the

implementation of low-cost measures. The current survey forms could be used as the basis for all

subsequent data collection efforts. In terms of the quality of information obtained, the survey

form itself is very complete in its’ level of requested detail. More experienced (and therefore,

more expensive) survey takers or inspectors might be able to collect more information from these

sources. In addition the question of overall coating operations for the Juarez area should be

addressed, as this survey indicates that auto body shops have a limited contribution to VOC

emissions.

The vast majority of the sources included in the survey are quite small, making most

command and control options unrealistic and cost inefficient. The use of TNRCC’s low-cost

paint/solvent recycling booth system would be too costly (over $10,000.) for all but a very few

(e.g., less than 3 shops within all of Ciudad Juárez) to invest in and install. The reasons are twofold: (1) limited available capital investment monies, and (2) inadequate volume to ensure return

on investment. With less that six partial painting jobs a week in most shops, an investment in

TNRCC’s system would not return any of the invested capital within the useable life cycle of the

equipment. Therefore, an alternate approach is recommended to address potential emissions

reduction programs. Based on the information collected in the survey, a review of available

materials and information, interviews with local environmental agency staff, and from experience

gained in conducting inspections of auto body repair shops, three recommendations are offered to

promote reductions in VOC emissions from these facilities. In order of estimated VOC
13

 reductions, these recommendations are:

 general overall training and environmental awareness program (10-30%)

 spray equipment replacement & education program (10-30%) 

 introduction of low VOC paints and solvents (20-70%)

The presentation of these recommendations is based on potential implementation and not

reduction percentage. 

 The first recommendation is to educate owners and operators of auto body repair shops

in Ciudad Juárez, of enhanced painting methods that could improve transfer efficiency, reduce

solvent use, promote the use of low solvent content paints and thinners, the replacement of

acrylic lacquers with enamels, the replacement of enamels and lacquers with urethane (these two

replacements would require the use of spray booths and may not be economically feasible), and

in overall environmental awareness. The estimated VOC reductions from such activities as

mentioned above are very difficult to determine as they relate to individual usage and acceptance

by the operators. The larger the number of operators participating in the program increases the 

reduction levels. There are a number of instructional materials, pamphlets, videos, and training

courses available that could be given to, or used in formal training programs to help educate the

owners and operators. Some of these materials are already translated into Spanish (e.g., spray

operator’s guide which is available in both Spanish and English in a comic book style

presentation). Other materials would need to be translated and perhaps modified to fit the

specific situations found in Ciudad Juárez. In addition, demonstrations on the most

environmentally effective means of cleaning equipment with solvents, application methods,

problems and solutions when using low solvent paints, and getting the most from the existing

equipment could significantly improve the current situation.

The second recommendation is to implement a program to improve the overall transfer

efficiency of painting operations. Based on figures from EPA’s 1988 CTC report, replacement of

conventional spray guns with HVLP equipment could reduce yearly VOC emissions by 32

percent. One approach would be to start a spray gun buy-back program. Under this scenario, this

effort would involve a cooperative program involving both countries to jointly fund a pilot

project to assist owners in upgrading their current equipment with state-of-the-art spray

applicators. Owners would be required to attend formal classroom and hands on training to learn

the proper use of newer painting techniques. Each owner might then be required to make small

incremental payments back into a general program fund. Other investment and funding options

including industry groups, Non Government Organizations (NGOs), environmental

organizations, and the North American Development (NAD) Bank would need to be researched. 

None of these options has been investigated under the scope of this work, but each are options

that could be considered. 

The third recommendation involves a very complex and coordinated effort by both the

United States and Mexico to make low VOC content paints and solvents more available in
14

Mexico. The estimated reduction in VOC emissions based on EPA’s 1988 CTC report ranges

from 15 percent for installation of a solvent recovery system to 54 percent when urethane replace

lacquers and enamels. Combining replacement of coatings with water-based primers, and

decreasing the use of high VOC solvents for clean-up operations, could reduce emissions 20-70

percent. The likelihood in achieving reductions at the higher end of the range is low as it would

require major financial investments to be made by small coating operators, in all painting

applications throughout the city of Juarez. A more reasonable estimate is 20-40 percent based on

similar attempts conducted in the U.S. in the 1980s. This effort would require activities ranging

from policy and regulatory based options, to education programs aimed at the general public to

explain the reasons for the switch form existing coatings to alternative coatings. Under this

approach suppliers of coatings would need to be brought into the program so that, over time, the

use of VOC contenting solvents and coatings could be phased out. New regulations pertaining

to the use of high VOC content coatings could be developed and implemented. Enforcement

activities would need to be devised to ensure compliance with the new regulations and to track

the effectiveness of those regulations. The cost of such a move away from the currently used

coating methods and associated technologies has not been determined, but is estimated to greatly

exceed the ability of the majority of the auto body shop operators to implement or upgrade to

without financial assistance. The only complying reason to move towards such an effort, high

VOC emissions from auto body repair shops, has not been proven from the findings of this

survey. However, total VOC emissions from all coating and solvent usage within Juarez could

justify such a plan of action. 
15

REFERENCES

1. Control Technology Center, “Reduction of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from

Automobile Refinishing,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 450/3-88-009,

October 1988.

2. Emissions Standards Division, “Alternative Control Techniques Document: Automobile

Refinishing,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-453/R-94-031, April 1994.
A-1

APPENDIX A

SURVEY FORM USED IN THE STUDY
A-2

Survey Form for Assessment of Emissions from

Automobile Refinishing Shops in Ciudad Juarez

Shop Number: _________________ Date: __________________

Surveyor: __________________

General Information

How many employees work at the shop? __________________

How long have the employees been working at the shop?

Average time ________ yr ___ month ____ weeks ____

Maximum ________ yr ___ month ____ weeks ____

Minimum _________ yr ___ month ____ weeks ____

How did employees learn this trade?

Number from Trade School ________

Number from previous job ________

Number trained at this shop ________

How many cars do you paint per week?

Partial Repairs: Average ________

Maximum ______ When? _______

Minimum ______ When? _______

Complete Repainting: Average ________

Maximum _______ When? _______

Minimum _______ When? _______

Normally how many days per week do you paint cars? _______

Normally what time of year do you have the most work? _______

the least work? _______

What type of record keeping is used to account for purchases of paint, solvent, materials, etc.

Operations Information

The following questions refer to operations to clean and prepare surfaces for painting.

Partial Refinishing jobs Detergent Washing Yes ____ No _____ 

Solvent Washing Yes ____ No ______

Full car repainting Detergent Washing Yes ____ No _____ 

Solvent Washing Yes ____ No ______

If solvent washing is used what kind of solvent do you use? Toluene _____

Xylene ______

Blend _______

Petroleum Distillates _______
A-3

Other Specify

Approximately how much solvent is used per week, month year (circle one)?

 ________ liters 

On average this solvent use represents how many partial refinishing jobs ________ 

 full repainting jobs ________ 

What is done with the solvents used?

Left to evaporate ______

Recovered and reused ______

Recovered and disposed ______

Put down a drain ______

If solvents are reused, how are they cleaned?

If solvents are disposed, where are they taken?

If poured down a drain, where does the drain go?

Approximately how much grinding and sanding is done in repairs?

How much bond do you use per week, month, year (circle one)? ____________ kilos

In a typical repair job? ____________ kilos

The following questions refer to painting operations.

Give the amount of paint used per week, month, year (circle one) for base coat or primer coats.

lacquer ________ liters

enamel ________ liters

waterborne ________ liters

urethane _________ liters

other _________ liters, describe _______________________________

Give the amount of paint used per week, month, year (circle one) for topcoats.

acrylic lacquer ________ liters 

acrylic enamel ________ liters

waterborne ________ liters

polyurethane _________ liters

other _________ liters describe _______________________________

Give the amount of paint used per week, month, year (circle one) in clear coats.

acrylic lacquer ________ liters
A-4

acrylic enamel ________ liters

waterborne ________ liters

polyurethane ________ liters

other ________ liters; describe _______________________________

Where is the paint you used manufactured/purchased?

In Mexico ________ /_________percent

In United States _______ /_________percent

Other ________ /__________percent Where? _________________

What type of spray gun do you use? If more than one give percents.

Standard air gun ________ high pressure low volume gun ________

Standard electric gun ______

other _______________ describe ___________________________________

How do you paint? If more than one give percents.

Open air _____ Partial repainting jobs _____ % full car repainting ____ %

Enclosed booth _____ Partial repainting jobs _____ % full car repainting ____ %

In shelter without booth ____ Partial repainting jobs ____ % full car repainting __ %

Under roof not enclosed ____ Partial repainting jobs ____ % full car repainting___ %

If you use a booth do you have and exhaust or ventilation system? __________

If there is an exhaust or ventilation system explain how it works.

Is there any control device in the ventilation or exhaust system?

Do you use heaters to cure paint? _______ If yes, what fuels are used in heaters?

____________

What kind of paint storage and mixing devices are used?

What procedure do you use to clean up the spray guns and work area after job completion?

Solvents used to clean spray guns; type of solvent _________ 

Typical amount _________ liters

Waste Generation and Management

Do you generate waste? Quantities for 

Rags Yes ______ No _______ How many kilos ________

Paint Yes ______ No _______ How many liters ________

Clean up 

 Solvent Yes ______ No ________ How many liters ________
A-5

Sand Paper Yes ______ No _______ How much ________

Paper Yes ______ No _______ How much __________

Cans Yes ______ No _______ How many ________

Tape Yes ______ No _______ How much __________

How do you dispose of wastes generated?

Rags _________________________________

Paint __________________________________

Clean Up

 Solvent ___________________________

Sand Paper ___________________________

Paper __________________________

Cans ___________________________

Tape ___________________________

Miscellaneous To be completed by surveyor

Describe the general appearance of the shop? Is it neat and clean? Are there waste

materials laying about? Do you consider there is an imminent fire hazard?

If there is an enclosed booth with any form of ventilation or exhaust system please look to

see if there is any kind of control device present (e.g., filter, thermal incineration, catalytic

incineration, carbon absorption, vapor recovery, water film, other. Explain the type of equipment

if present and give an estimate of control efficiency.

Do you see evidence of waste paint or solvent being dumped on open ground or poured

down a drain? If poured down a drain can you determine where the drain goes?

Comment on the appearance around the outside of the shop. Does it appear that the

activities in the shop are affecting the surrounding area. Are there opportunities for citizens to

have access to materials and waste products generated by the shop?
B-1

APPENDIX B

DATA TABLES FROM THE SURVEY DATABASE
B-2

The following emission factors were applied in Table B-1:

Emission Factors

 Paint Type lb/gal grams/liter

Primer Lacquer 6.0 718.96

Primer Enamel 5.1 611.13

Primer Water Base 2.5 299.58

Primer Urethane 4.3 515.27

Primer Other 7.0 838.81

Base Coat Lacquer 6.3 754.93

Base Coat Enamel 5.3 635.10

Base Coat Water Base 2.5 299.58

Base Coat Urethane 5.2 623.12

Base Coat Other 7.0 838.81

Clear Coat Lacquer 6.4 766.12

Clear Coat Enamel 5.6 671.05

Clear Coat Water Base 2.5 299.58

Clear Coat Urethane 4.4 527.25

Clear Coat Other 7.0 838.81

Notes: Emission factor for paints in other category are based on solvent content value of 7 lb./gal

taken from ACT document (reference 2) as specified for specialty paints. No information

had been given for the specifications for other paints and this assumption was used to

represent newer paints with the maximum solvent content.

Emission factor for all water base paints is based on the solvent content for water base

primer paints given in the CTC document (reference 1).
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Total 

Spray Amount of

Primer Coat Paint Use in Liters per Week Topcoat Paint Use in Liters per Weel Clear Coats Paint Use in Liters per Week Application Paint Used Primer

Shop Code Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Urethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Device liters per week Lacquer

1 0.00 4.00 4.00 air gun 8 0.00

2 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 air gun 6 0.00

3 0.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 air gun 8 0.00

4 0.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 1.00 air gun 6.5 0.00

5 0.00 4.50 4.50 1.00 air gun 10 0.00

6 0.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 2 0.00

7 0.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 air gun 7 0.00

8 0.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 air gun 9 0.00

9 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 air gun 2.5 0.00

10 0.00 1.00 1.00 4.50 air gun 6.5 0.00

11 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 air gun 18 3594.80

12 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 air gun 17 1437.92

13 0.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 air gun 9 0.00

14 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 air gun 4 0.00

15 0.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 hplv gun 13 0.00

16 0.00 4.00 4.00 2.50 air gun 10.5 0.00

17 0.00 10.00 0.50 air/hplv gun 10.5 0.00

18 0.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 air gun 5 0.00

19 0.00 3.00 1.50 4.50 3.00 air gun 12 0.00

20 1.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 air gun 13 718.96

21 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 hplv gun 12 0.00

22 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 hplv gun 18 0.00

23 0.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 air gun 7 0.00

24 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 air gun 18 0.00

25 0.00 8.00 0.50 4.00 4.00 2.00 air gun 18.5 0.00

26 0.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 air gun 10 0.00

27 0.00 1.50 3.00 air gun 4.5 0.00

28 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 3 0.00

29 0.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 air/hplv gun 9 0.00

30 0.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 air gun 8 0.00

31 0.00 8.00 3.00 3.00 air/hplv gun 14 0.00

32 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 air gun 8 1437.92

33 0.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 0.50 3.00 3.00 air gun 15.5 0.00

34 0.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 air gun 9 0.00

35 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 hplv gun 29 2156.88

36 4.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 6.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 air/hplv gun 40 2875.84

37 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 air/hplv gun 204 12941.28

38 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 air/hplv gun 27 2875.84

39 0.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 air gun 29 0.00

40 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 air gun 0.75 0.00

41 0.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 air/hplv gun 3.5 0.00

42 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 air gun 12 2156.88

43 20.00 5.00 2.00 10.00 18.00 10.00 5.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 9.00 hplv gun 98 14379.20

44 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 air/hplv gun 29 1437.92

45 2.00 10.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 2.00 9.00 5.00 air/hplv gun 48 1437.92

46 2.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 8.00 30 1437.92

47 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 hplv gun 25 718.96

48 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 air/hplv gun 32 1437.92
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Shop Code

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Emissions gr/week (liters per week times paint class emission factor

Total All

Primer Primer Primer Primer Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Paints 

Enamel WaterbaseUrethane Other (a) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (b) Urethane Other, (c) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (d) Urethane Other (e) (gr/week)

0 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 2492.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 5032.88

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 3834.56

1222.26 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 5104.76

1527.825 0 0 0 754.93 1270.2 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 4224.01

2750.085 0 0 0 0 2857.95 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 6279.09

0 0 0 838.81 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1473.91

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 4469.66

611.13 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 5835.73

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 335.525 0 0 0 1581.76

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 3019.725 0 0 0 4265.96

3055.65 0 2576.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 11239.95

1222.26 0 0 0 3019.72 2540.4 0 0 0 3830.6 0 0 0 0 12050.90

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 5847.71

0 0 0 838.81 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 2780.06

3055.65 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 8244.30

2444.52 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 1677.625 0 0 0 6662.55

0 0 0 0 0 6351 0 0 0 0 335.525 0 0 0 6686.53

611.13 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 3187.48

0 0 0 2516.43 1132.395 0 0 2804.04 0 0 0 0 1581.75 0 8034.62

1222.26 0 0 0 1509.86 3175.5 0 0 0 2298.36 0 0 0 0 8924.94

2444.52 0 0 0 3019.72 0 0 0 0 3064.48 0 0 0 0 8528.72

3666.78 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 4026.3 0 0 0 11503.68

1222.26 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 4433.71

3666.78 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 4026.3 0 0 0 11503.68

4889.04 0 257.635 0 3019.72 2540.4 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 12048.90

2444.52 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 6327.02

916.695 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2822.00

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

0 0 0 0 2264.79 1270.2 0 0 0 3064.48 0 0 0 0 6599.47

1833.39 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 5080.79

4889.04 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 8807.49

611.13 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 5260.50

1222.26 0 2576.35 0 1509.86 317.55 0 0 0 2298.36 0 0 1581.75 0 9506.13

1833.39 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 5715.89

611.13 299.58 2061.08 0 1509.86 2540.4 299.58 1869.36 0 2298.36 671.05 599.16 2109 0 17025.44

3666.78 299.58 2061.08 0 2264.79 3810.6 299.58 2492.48 0 1532.24 3355.25 299.58 1581.75 0 24539.55

9778.08 5392.44 8244.32 0 13588.74 10161.6 5392.44 9969.92 0 13790.16 10736.8 5392.44 8436 0 113824.22

611.13 599.16 1545.81 0 1509.86 635.1 299.58 2492.48 838.81 1532.24 671.05 299.58 2109 0 16019.64

3055.65 299.58 1030.54 0 3774.65 3810.6 299.58 1869.36 0 0 2013.15 299.58 1054.5 0 17507.19

152.7825 0 0 0 0 158.775 0 0 0 0 167.7625 0 0 0 479.32

611.13 149.79 0 0 0 635.1 0 311.56 0 0 0 0 263.625 0 1971.21

1222.26 0 0 0 1509.86 1270.2 0 0 0 766.12 1342.1 0 0 0 8267.42

3055.65 599.16 5152.7 15098.58 7549.3 3175.5 599.16 4984.96 0 1532.24 671.05 299.58 2636.25 7549.29 67282.62

2444.52 299.58 2061.08 0 754.93 2540.4 299.58 1869.36 0 766.12 2684.2 299.58 1581.75 0 17039.02

6111.3 0 2576.35 0 754.93 5715.9 0 3115.6 0 1532.24 6039.45 0 2636.25 0 29919.94

4889.04 0 0 0 1509.86 5080.8 0 0 0 1532.24 5368.4 0 0 0 19818.26

1222.26 299.58 2061.08 0 754.93 1270.2 299.58 3115.6 0 766.12 671.05 599.16 2109 0 13887.52

2444.52 599.16 2061.08 0 1509.86 2540.4 299.58 2492.48 0 766.12 2684.2 299.58 1581.75 0 18716.65
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Total 

Spray Amount of

Primer Coat Paint Use in Liters per Week Topcoat Paint Use in Liters per Weel Clear Coats Paint Use in Liters per Week Application Paint Used Primer

Shop Code Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Urethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Device liters per week Lacquer

49 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 air/hplv gun 18 2875.84

50 1.00 5.00 10.00 1.00 4.00 8.00 1.00 5.00 6.00 hplv gun 41 718.96

51 2.00 4.00 2.00 8.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 air/elec gun 42 1437.92

52 0.00 9.00 5.00 5.00 14.00 4.00 air gun 37 0.00

53 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 special 25 1437.92

54 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 24 1437.92

55 10.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 8.00 4.00 7.00 10.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 air gun 73 7189.60

56 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 special 29 1437.92

57 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 air gun 18 2156.88

58 1.00 10.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 air/hplv gun 51 718.96

59 0.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 air gun 12 0.00

60 0.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 air/hplv gun 7 0.00

61 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 air gun 15 0.00

62 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 air gun 30 1437.92

63 0.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 air/hplv gun 24 0.00

64 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 air gun 13 1437.92

65 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 air gun 8 718.96

66 0.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 air gun 18 0.00

67 0.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 air gun 15 0.00

68 0.00 1.50 2.50 2.50 air/hplv gun 6.5 0.00

69 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 air gun 12 0.00

70 0.00 4.00 4.00 air/hplv gun 8 0.00

71 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.50 0.50 0.25 air/lp gun 3.25 0.00

72 0.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 air gun 20 0.00

73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air/hplv gun 3 0.00

74 0.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 air gun 11 0.00

75 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 air/hplv gun 15 0.00

76 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 air gun 8 718.96

77 0.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 air gun 18 0.00

78 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 air/hplv gun 15 1437.92

79 2.00 7.00 7.00 1.50 4.00 air/hplv gun 21.5 1437.92

80 0.00 2.00 5.50 2.00 air gun 9.5 0.00

81 0.00 7.00 9.00 4.00 air/hplv gun 20 0.00

82 0.00 10.00 6.00 6.00 air/hplv gun 22 0.00

83 8.00 6.00 2.50 4.00 2.50 3.00 air gun 26 5751.68

84 0.00 8.00 9.00 2.00 air gun 19 0.00

85 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 air/hplv gun 8 1437.92

86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 air/hplv gun 8 718.96

87 0.00 2.00 air gun 2 0.00

88 0.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 air gun 8 0.00

89 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 9 1437.92

90 0.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 air gun 20 0.00

91 0.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 air gun 7 0.00

92 0.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 air gun 7 0.00

93 2.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 air/hplv gun 14 1437.92

94 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 air gun 6 0.00

95 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 air gun 18 2156.88

96 0.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 air gun 11 0.00
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Shop Code

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Emissions gr/week (liters per week times paint class emission factor

Total All

Primer Primer Primer Primer Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Paints 

Enamel WaterbaseUrethane Other (a) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (b) Urethane Other, (c) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (d) Urethane Other (e) (gr/week)

611.13 0 1030.54 0 2264.79 635.1 0 1246.24 0 1532.24 671.05 0 1054.5 0 11921.43

3055.65 0 5152.7 0 754.93 2540.4 0 4984.96 0 766.12 3355.25 0 3163.5 0 24492.47

2444.52 599.16 4122.16 0 754.93 2540.4 599.16 4361.84 0 766.12 1342.1 898.74 3163.5 0 23030.55

5500.17 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 3830.6 9394.7 0 2109 0 24009.97

2444.52 299.58 1030.54 0 754.93 2540.4 299.58 1246.24 0 766.12 2684.2 299.58 1054.5 0 14858.11

2444.52 299.58 2061.08 0 2264.79 1270.2 299.58 0 0 1532.24 2013.15 299.58 527.25 0 14449.89

3055.65 2097.06 5152.7 0 6039.44 2540.4 2097.06 6231.2 0 3830.6 1342.1 299.58 2109 0 41984.39

2444.52 299.58 2061.08 0 1509.86 1905.3 299.58 1869.36 0 2298.36 2013.15 299.58 1054.5 0 17492.79

2444.52 0 0 0 2264.79 2540.4 0 0 0 1532.24 1342.1 0 0 0 12280.93

6111.3 1497.9 3606.89 0 0 5080.8 1497.9 3738.72 0 0 2013.15 1198.32 1054.5 0 26518.44

0 0 0 4194.05 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 8819.50

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 4601.48

3055.65 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 9586.40

2444.52 599.16 2061.08 0 1509.86 1905.3 599.16 1869.36 0 766.12 2013.15 299.58 1581.75 0 17086.96

4889.04 0 0 0 0 5080.8 0 0 0 0 5368.4 0 0 0 15338.24

1833.39 0 0 0 754.93 1905.3 0 0 0 1532.24 1342.1 0 0 0 8805.88

611.13 0 0 0 754.93 1270.2 0 0 0 766.12 1342.1 0 0 0 5463.44

0 0 3091.62 0 0 0 0 3738.72 0 0 0 0 3163.5 0 9993.84

3666.78 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 9526.48

916.695 0 0 0 0 1587.75 0 0 0 0 1677.625 0 0 0 4182.07

2444.52 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 7669.12

2444.52 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4984.92

0 0 0 0 754.93 0 0 0 0 1149.18 335.525 0 131.8125 0 2371.45

4889.04 0 0 0 0 5080.8 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 12654.04

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

2444.52 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 6998.07

3055.65 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 9586.40

611.13 0 0 0 754.93 1270.2 0 0 0 766.12 1342.1 0 0 0 5463.44

4889.04 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 11383.84

2444.52 0 0 0 2264.79 1905.3 0 0 0 1532.24 671.05 0 0 0 10255.82

4277.91 0 0 0 0 4445.7 0 0 0 1149.18 2684.2 0 0 0 13994.91

1222.26 0 0 0 0 3493.05 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 6057.41

4277.91 0 0 0 0 5715.9 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 12678.01

6111.3 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 4026.3 0 0 0 13948.20

3666.78 0 0 0 1887.325 2540.4 0 0 0 1915.3 2013.15 0 0 0 17774.64

4889.04 0 0 0 0 5715.9 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 11947.04

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 5272.48

611.13 0 0 0 754.93 635.1 0 0 0 1532.24 1342.1 0 0 0 5594.46

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 1342.10

1833.39 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 5080.79

1833.39 0 0 0 754.93 635.1 0 0 0 766.12 671.05 0 0 0 6098.51

4889.04 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 4026.3 0 0 0 12725.94

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 4505.61

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 4505.61

3055.65 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 3830.6 0 0 0 0 9594.37

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 3834.56

1833.39 0 0 0 2264.79 1270.2 0 0 0 2298.36 2684.2 0 0 0 12507.82

2444.52 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 6998.07
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Total 

Spray Amount of

Primer Coat Paint Use in Liters per Week Topcoat Paint Use in Liters per Weel Clear Coats Paint Use in Liters per Week Application Paint Used Primer

Shop Code Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Urethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Device liters per week Lacquer

97 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 air gun 1.5 0.00

98 1.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.50 3.00 air gun 11.5 718.96

99 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 air gun 9 0.00

100 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 3 0.00

101 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 3 0.00

102 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 air gun 9 0.00

103 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air/hplv gun 3 0.00

104 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 air gun 6 0.00

105 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 3 0.00

106 0.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.25 1.00 air/hplv gun 3.5 0.00

107 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 6 718.96

108 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 3 0.00

109 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 air/hplv gun 5 0.00

110 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 3 0.00

111 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 3 0.00

112 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 air gun 6 0.00

113 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 5 718.96

114 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 air gun 9 718.96

115 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 air gun 9 0.00

116 0.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 air gun 36 0.00

117 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 air/hplv gun 7.5 359.48

118 1.50 1.50 1.50 air gun 4.5 1078.44

119 0.50 3.00 0.50 3.00 3.00 air gun 10 359.48

120 0.00 6.00 4.00 3.00 air gun 13 0.00

121 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 air gun 10 0.00

122 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 air/hplv gun 15 0.00

123 0.00 5.00 8.00 4.00 air gun 17 0.00

124 0.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 air gun 7 0.00

125 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 1.50 air gun 9 1437.92

126 1.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 special 24 718.96

127 0.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 air gun 6 0.00

128 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 16.00 18.00 17.00 air/hplv gun 205 12941.28

129 10.00 5.00 1.00 8.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 air/hplv gun 39 7189.60

130 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 air gun 19 2875.84

131 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 air gun 15 2156.88

132 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 air/hplv gun 8 718.96

133 0.00 0.00 5.00 air gun 5 0.00

134 0.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 air gun 11 0.00

135 0.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 air/hplv gun 14 0.00

136 0.00 4.00 6.00 3.00 air gun 13 0.00

137 0.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 air gun 9 0.00

138 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 air gun 11 718.96

139 2.00 6.00 2.00 6.00 1.00 3.00 air gun 20 1437.92

140 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 air gun 13 2875.84

141 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 air gun 15 0.00

142 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 air gun 16 718.96

143 0.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 air gun 15 0.00

144 0.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 air gun 17 0.00
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Shop Code

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

Emissions gr/week (liters per week times paint class emission factor

Total All

Primer Primer Primer Primer Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Paints 

Enamel WaterbaseUrethane Other (a) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (b) Urethane Other, (c) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (d) Urethane Other (e) (gr/week)

305.565 0 0 0 0 317.55 0 0 0 0 335.525 0 0 0 958.64

1833.39 0 0 0 754.93 1905.3 0 0 0 383.06 2013.15 0 0 0 7608.79

1833.39 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 5787.79

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 766.12 0 0 0 0 2012.35

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

1833.39 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 5751.84

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 3834.56

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

611.13 0 128.8175 0 0 635.1 0 155.78 0 0 0 0 527.25 0 2058.08

611.13 0 0 0 754.93 635.1 0 0 0 766.12 671.05 0 0 0 4157.29

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 3163.51

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 1917.28

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1270.2 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 3834.56

611.13 0 0 0 754.93 635.1 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 3391.17

1222.26 0 0 0 754.93 1270.2 0 0 0 766.12 1342.1 0 0 0 6074.57

1833.39 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 5751.84

7333.56 0 0 0 0 7621.2 0 0 0 0 8052.6 0 0 0 23007.36

1222.26 0 0 0 377.465 1270.2 0 0 0 383.06 1342.1 0 0 0 4954.57

0 0 0 0 1132.395 0 0 0 0 1149.18 0 0 0 0 3360.02

1833.39 0 0 0 377.465 1905.3 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 6488.79

3666.78 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 8220.33

1833.39 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 527.25 0 6279.09

3055.65 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 9586.40

3055.65 0 0 0 0 5080.8 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 10820.65

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 4469.66

611.13 0 0 0 1509.86 317.55 0 0 0 1532.24 1006.575 0 0 0 6415.28

3055.65 599.16 515.27 0 0 2540.4 299.58 1246.24 0 0 2684.2 599.16 1054.5 0 13313.12

1222.26 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 671.05 0 0 0 3798.61

9778.08 5392.44 8244.32 0 13588.74 10161.6 5392.44 9969.92 0 13790.16 10736.8 5392.44 8963.25 0 114351.47

3055.65 299.58 4122.16 0 0 3175.5 599.16 0 0 3830.6 1342.1 299.58 0 0 23913.93

2444.52 0 0 0 2264.79 2540.4 0 0 0 1532.24 1342.1 0 0 0 12999.89

1222.26 0 0 0 2264.79 1270.2 0 0 0 2298.36 1342.1 0 0 0 10554.59

1222.26 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 766.12 2013.15 0 0 0 5355.59

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 3355.25

3055.65 0 0 0 0 1905.3 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 6974.10

2444.52 0 0 0 3019.72 2540.4 0 0 0 766.12 671.05 0 0 0 9441.81

2444.52 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 8268.27

1833.39 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 5715.89

1833.39 0 0 0 1509.86 1270.2 0 0 0 1532.24 671.05 0 0 0 7535.70

3666.78 0 0 0 1509.86 3810.6 0 0 0 766.12 2013.15 0 0 0 13204.43

1833.39 0 0 0 1509.86 1270.2 0 0 0 766.12 671.05 0 0 0 8926.46

3055.65 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 9586.40

1833.39 0 0 0 754.93 1270.2 0 0 0 2298.36 4026.3 0 0 0 10902.14

3055.65 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 9550.45

3666.78 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 4026.3 0 0 0 10868.58
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Total 

Spray Amount of

Primer Coat Paint Use in Liters per Week Topcoat Paint Use in Liters per Weel Clear Coats Paint Use in Liters per Week Application Paint Used Primer

Shop Code Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Urethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Lacquer Enamel Waterbase Polyurethane Other Device liters per week Lacquer

145 8.00 8.00 12.00 12.00 6.00 6.00 air gun 52 5751.68

146 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 air/hplv gun 8 718.96

147 2.00 3.00 1.00 7.00 air gun 13 1437.92

148 0.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 air gun 16 0.00

149 5.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 air gun 20 3594.80

150 0.00 5.00 5.00 air gun 10 0.00

151 0.00 9.00 9.00 5.00 air gun 23 0.00

152 0.00 7.00 7.00 air gun 14 0.00

153 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 air gun 1.5 0.00

154 0.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 5.00 9.00 6.00 air/lp gun 47 0.00

155 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 air gun 16 1437.92

156 0.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 air gun 11 0.00

total/week 550.25 69.50 148.75 28.00 179.50 562.75 67.00 129.25 1.00 157.00 450.75 61.00 120.75 9.00 2732 141994.60

total/year 28613.00 3614.00 7735.00 1456.00 9334.00 29263.00 3484.00 6721.00 52.00 8164.00 23439.00 3172.00 6279.00 468.00 142064 7383.72

8.12
Table B-1 Paint Use Summary and Emissions Estimate

Shop Code

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

total/week

total/year

Emissions gr/week (liters per week times paint class emission factor

Total All

Primer Primer Primer Primer Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Topcoat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Clear Coat Paints 

Enamel WaterbaseUrethane Other (a) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (b) Urethane Other, (c) Lacquer Enamel Waterbase (d) Urethane Other (e) (gr/week)

4889.04 0 0 0 9059.16 7621.2 0 0 0 4596.72 4026.3 0 0 0 35944.10

611.13 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 5320.44

1833.39 0 0 0 0 635.1 0 0 0 0 4697.35 0 0 0 8603.76

3666.78 0 0 0 0 3810.6 0 0 0 0 2684.2 0 0 0 10161.58

1833.39 0 0 0 3774.65 3175.5 0 0 0 0 1342.1 0 0 0 13720.44

3055.65 0 0 0 0 3175.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6231.15

5500.17 0 0 0 0 5715.9 0 0 0 0 3355.25 0 0 0 14571.32

0 0 0 0 0 4445.7 0 0 0 0 4697.35 0 0 0 9143.05

305.565 0 0 0 0 317.55 0 0 0 0 335.525 0 0 0 958.64

5500.17 0 0 0 6794.37 5715.9 0 0 0 3830.6 6039.45 0 3163.5 0 31043.99

2444.52 0 0 0 754.93 2540.4 0 0 0 1532.24 2013.15 0 0 0 10723.16

2444.52 0 0 0 0 2540.4 0 0 0 0 2013.15 0 0 0 6998.07

336274.28 20820.81 76646.41 23486.68 135509.94 357402.53 20071.86 80538.26 838.81 120280.84 302475.79 18274.38 63665.44 7549.29 1705829.91

17486.26 1082.68 3985.61 1221.31 7046.52 18584.93 1043.74 4187.99 43.62 6254.60 15728.74 950.27 3310.60 392.56 88703.16

19.23 1.19 4.38 1.34 7.75 20.44 1.15 4.61 0.05 6.88 17.30 1.05 3.64 0.43 97.57
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS

Prepartion Clean Up Total Total 

Solvent Clean Up Clean Up Solvent Solvent Solvent

Number of Amount, Solvent Solvent Amount Amount Emissions

Shop Code jobs (a) liters per week Type Quantity, liter/job liters per week liters per week grams per week

1 4 8 thinner 1.00 4.00 12.00 9217.32

2 3 5 thinner 0.50 1.50 6.50 4992.72

3 4 10 thinner 1.00 4.00 14.00 10753.54

4 2 3 thinner 0.25 0.50 3.50 2688.39

5 4 4.5 thinner 0.50 2.00 6.50 4992.72

6 3 4 thinner 0.25 0.75 4.75 3648.52

7 2 3 thinner 0.25 0.50 3.50 2688.39

8 2 5 thinner 0.50 1.00 6.00 4608.66

9 2 2 thinner 0.50 1.00 3.00 2304.33

10 3 4 thinner 0.25 0.75 4.75 3648.52

11 3 22 thinner 1.00 3.00 25.00 19202.75

12 8 10 thinner 0.50 4.00 14.00 10753.54

13 6 5 thinner 0.50 3.00 8.00 6144.88

14 3 4.5 thinner 0.50 1.50 6.00 4608.66

15 3 5 thinner 0.25 0.75 5.75 4416.63

16 5 5 thinner 0.25 1.25 6.25 4800.69

17 4 10 thinner 0.25 1.00 11.00 8449.21

18 5 5 thinner 0.50 2.50 7.50 5760.83

19 4 5 thinner 0.25 1.00 6.00 4608.66

20 6 8 thinner 0.50 3.00 11.00 8449.21

21 6 20 thinner 0.50 3.00 23.00 17666.53

22 4 15 thinner 0.25 1.00 16.00 12289.76

23 4 7.5 thinner 0.50 2.00 9.50 7297.05

24 2 12 thinner 0.50 1.00 13.00 9985.43

25 5 8 thinner 0.50 2.50 10.50 8065.16

26 3 10 thinner 0.50 1.50 11.50 8833.27

27 3 8 thinner 0.25 0.75 8.75 6720.96

28 2 5 thinner 0.25 0.50 5.50 4224.61

29 3 20 thinner 0.50 1.50 21.50 16514.37

30 3 5 thinner 0.50 1.50 6.50 4992.72

31 3 4 thinner 0.25 0.75 4.75 3648.52

32 4 5 thinner 0.50 2.00 7.00 5376.77

33 14 4 thinner 0.25 3.50 7.50 5760.83

34 5 4 thinner 0.25 1.25 5.25 4032.58

35 5 5 thinner 1.00 5.00 10.00 7681.10

36 5 15 thinner 1.50 7.50 22.50 17282.48

37 3 thinner 20.00 60.00 60.00 46086.60

38 6 12 thinner 0.50 3.00 15.00 11521.65

39 3 5 thinner 1.00 3.00 8.00 6144.88

40 1 1.5 thinner 0.15 0.15 1.65 1267.38

41 3 4 thinner 0.50 1.50 5.50 4224.61

42 3 4 thinner 1.00 3.00 7.00 5376.77

43 7 10 thinner 1.25 8.75 18.75 14402.06

44 4 10 strong 1.50 6.00 16.00 12289.76

45 4 5 thinner 2.00 8.00 13.00 9985.43

46 5 20 thinner 0.50 2.50 22.50 17282.48

47 5 10 thinner 1.50 7.50 17.50 13441.93

48 4 10 blend 1.00 4.00 14.00 10753.54

49 4 10 thinner 1.50 6.00 16.00 12289.76

50 3 10 thinner 2.00 6.00 16.00 12289.76

51 5 10 thinner 1.00 5.00 15.00 11521.65

52 9 thinner 0.00 9.00 6912.99

53 4 10 mezcal 2.50 10.00 20.00 15362.20
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS

Prepartion Clean Up Total Total 

Solvent Clean Up Clean Up Solvent Solvent Solvent

Number of Amount, Solvent Solvent Amount Amount Emissions

Shop Code jobs (a) liters per week Type Quantity, liter/job liters per week liters per week grams per week

54 4 20 blend 1.50 6.00 26.00 19970.86

55 5 10 thinner 1.50 7.50 17.50 13441.93

56 5 20 blend 2.00 10.00 30.00 23043.30

57 7 6 thinner 1.00 7.00 13.00 9985.43

58 3 20 strong 1.00 3.00 23.00 17666.53

59 4 14 thinner 0.25 1.00 15.00 11521.65

60 3 5 thinner 0.50 1.50 6.50 4992.72

61 3 10 thinner 0.50 1.50 11.50 8833.27

62 5 10 thinner 1.00 5.00 15.00 11521.65

63 6 4 thinner 0.50 3.00 7.00 5376.77

64 6 4 thinner 1.00 6.00 10.00 7681.10

65 4 2 thinner 0.50 2.00 4.00 3072.44

66 2 10 thinner 0.50 1.00 11.00 8449.21

67 3 5 thinner 0.50 1.50 6.50 4992.72

68 1 3 thinner 2.50 2.50 5.50 4224.61

69 3 6 thinner 0.50 1.50 7.50 5760.83

70 3 3 thinner 3.50 10.50 13.50 10369.49

71 10 4 creme 1.00 10.00 14.00 10753.54

72 5 5 thinner 0.50 2.50 7.50 5760.83

73 1 8 thinner 0.50 0.50 8.50 6528.94

74 4 4 thinner 0.50 2.00 6.00 4608.66

75 1 5 thinner 1.00 1.00 6.00 4608.66

76 3 2 thinner 0.50 1.50 3.50 2688.39

77 6 6 thinner 1.00 6.00 12.00 9217.32

78 4 8 thinner 1.00 4.00 12.00 9217.32

79 5 7 thinner 0.25 1.25 8.25 6336.91

80 5 3 thinner 0.50 2.50 5.50 4224.61

81 4 5 thinner 0.50 2.00 7.00 5376.77

82 5 4 thinner 0.50 2.50 6.50 4992.72

83 6 7 thinner 0.50 3.00 10.00 7681.10

84 6 3 thinner 0.50 3.00 6.00 4608.66

85 2 5 thinner 0.50 1.00 6.00 4608.66

86 5 12 thinner 0.25 1.25 13.25 10177.46

87 4 4 thinner 0.50 2.00 6.00 4608.66

88 4 3 thinner 1.00 4.00 7.00 5376.77

89 5 3 thinner 0.50 2.50 5.50 4224.61

90 5 5 thinner 0.50 2.50 7.50 5760.83

91 4 2 thinner 0.50 2.00 4.00 3072.44

92 4 2 thinner 0.50 2.00 4.00 3072.44

93 1 5 thinner 1.00 1.00 6.00 4608.66

94 5 2 thinner 0.30 1.50 3.50 2688.39

95 4 3 thinner 1.00 4.00 7.00 5376.77

96 5 8 thinner 0.50 2.50 10.50 8065.16

97 2 1.5 thinner 0.25 0.50 2.00 1536.22

98 8 6 r 0.30 2.40 8.40 6452.12

99 3 4 thinner 0.20 0.60 4.60 3533.31

100 2 3 thinner 0.20 0.40 3.40 2611.57

101 4 2 thinner 0.30 1.20 3.20 2457.95

102 5 4 thinner 0.20 1.00 5.00 3840.55

103 7 5 thinner 0.30 2.10 7.10 5453.58

104 4 5 thinner 0.30 1.20 6.20 4762.28

105 7 4 thinner 0.25 1.75 5.75 4416.63

106 4 6 thinner 0.50 2.00 8.00 6144.88
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS

Prepartion Clean Up Total Total 

Solvent Clean Up Clean Up Solvent Solvent Solvent

Number of Amount, Solvent Solvent Amount Amount Emissions

Shop Code jobs (a) liters per week Type Quantity, liter/job liters per week liters per week grams per week

107 4 3 thinner 0.10 0.40 3.40 2611.57

108 4 3 thinner 0.10 0.40 3.40 2611.57

109 3 4 thinner 0.50 1.50 5.50 4224.61

110 2 3 thinner 0.25 0.50 3.50 2688.39

111 3 3 thinner 0.12 0.36 3.36 2580.85

112 4 3 thinner 0.50 2.00 5.00 3840.55

113 5 6 thinner 0.25 1.25 7.25 5568.80

114 5 4 thinner 0.30 1.50 5.50 4224.61

115 3 5 thinner 0.20 0.60 5.60 4301.42

116 6 18 thinner 0.50 3.00 21.00 16130.31

117 8 6 thinner 1.00 8.00 14.00 10753.54

118 5 6 thinner 0.10 0.50 6.50 4992.72

119 4 5 thinner 0.50 2.00 7.00 5376.77

120 7 6 thinner 0.50 3.50 9.50 7297.05

121 3 8 thinner 1.00 3.00 11.00 8449.21

122 2 5 thinner 2.00 4.00 9.00 6912.99

123 3 3 thinner 0.75 2.25 5.25 4032.58

124 3 4 thinner 0.10 0.30 4.30 3302.87

125 1 5 thinner 0.50 0.50 5.50 4224.61

126 5 5 blend 0.50 2.50 7.50 5760.83

127 3 2 thinner 0.50 1.50 3.50 2688.39

128 5 5 thinner 0.50 2.50 7.50 5760.83

129 5 10 thinner 0.75 3.75 13.75 10561.51

130 6 5 thinner 0.50 3.00 8.00 6144.88

131 3 3 thinner 0.50 1.50 4.50 3456.50

132 1 5 0.00 5.00 3840.55

133 2 5 thinner 0.50 1.00 6.00 4608.66

134 3 4 thinner 0.50 1.50 5.50 4224.61

135 6 12 thinner 0.25 1.50 13.50 10369.49

136 3 5 thinner 0.50 1.50 6.50 4992.72

137 5 3 thinner 0.50 2.50 5.50 4224.61

138 3 4 thinner 0.50 1.50 5.50 4224.61

139 6 6 thinner 0.50 3.00 9.00 6912.99

140 6 3 thinner 0.50 3.00 6.00 4608.66

141 1 5 thinner 5.00 5.00 10.00 7681.10

142 4 2 thinner 0.50 2.00 4.00 3072.44

143 4 4 thinner 0.50 2.00 6.00 4608.66

144 5 5 thinner 0.75 3.75 8.75 6720.96

145 4 8 thinner 1.00 4.00 12.00 9217.32

146 3 5 thinner 0.25 0.75 5.75 4416.63

147 2 8 thinner 0.50 1.00 9.00 6912.99

148 4 6 thinner 0.75 3.00 9.00 6912.99

149 4 7 thinner 0.25 1.00 8.00 6144.88

150 0.25 thinner 0.25 0.00 0.25 192.03

151 4 5 thinner 0.50 2.00 7.00 5376.77

152 2 12 thinner 0.50 1.00 13.00 9985.43

153 1 0.75 thinner 0.50 0.50 1.25 960.14

154 4 20 thinner 1.00 4.00 24.00 18434.64

155 5 8 thinner 0.50 2.50 10.50 8065.16

156 4 6 thinner 0.50 2.00 8.00 6144.88

totals/week, liters 1012.50 458.61 1471.11

total/year, liters 52650.00 23847.72 76497.72
TABLE B-2. SUMMARY OF SOLVENT USE EMISSIONS

Prepartion Clean Up Total Total 

Solvent Clean Up Clean Up Solvent Solvent Solvent

Number of Amount, Solvent Solvent Amount Amount Emissions

Shop Code jobs (a) liters per week Type Quantity, liter/job liters per week liters per week grams per week

a A job is defined as an individual Total emissions gr/week 1129974.30

repair and painting job, the survey is Total Emissions kg/year 58758.66

dominated by small spot repair jobs Total Emissions tonnes/year 58.76

Total Emissions Tons/year 64.63
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment

Total Paint Use Paint Booth Ventilation Control Heat Cure

Shop Code (liter/week) Present Device Device Type In Use

1 8 No No No No

2 6 No No No No

3 8 No No No No

4 6.5 No No No No

5 10 No No No No

6 2 No No No No

7 7 No No No No

8 9 No No No No

9 2.5 No No No No

10 6.5 No No No No

11 18 Yes Yes No No

12 17 Yes Yes No Yes

13 9 Yes Yes Filter No

14 4 No No No No

15 13 No Yes Extractor No

16 10.5 No No No No

17 10.5 No No No No

18 5 No No No No

19 12 Yes Yes No No

20 13 No Yes Filter Yes

21 12 Yes Yes No No

22 18 No No No No

23 7 No Yes No No

24 18 No No No No

25 18.5 Yes Yes Extractor No

26 10 No Yes No No

27 4.5 Yes Yes Filter No

28 3 Yes No No No

29 9 No Yes No No

30 8 No No No No

31 14 No No No No

32 6 No No No No

33 17.5 No No No No

34 9 No No No No

35 29 No No No No

36 40 No No No Yes

37 204 Yes Yes Unknown No

38 27 No No No Yes

39 29 Yes Yes No No

40 0.75 No No No No

41 3.5 No No No No

42 12 No No No No

43 98 No No No No

44 29 No No No Yes

45 48 Yes Yes No Yes

46 30 Yes Yes Filter No
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment

Total Paint Use Paint Booth Ventilation Control Heat Cure

Shop Code (liter/week) Present Device Device Type In Use

47 25 Yes Yes No No

48 32 No No No Yes

49 18 No No No No

50 41 No No No No

51 42 No Yes Unknown Yes

52 37 Yes No Unknown No

53 25 No No No No

54 24 No No No No

55 73 Yes No No No

56 29 No No No Yes

57 18 No No No No

58 51 Yes Yes Unknown Yes

59 12 Yes Yes Filter No

60 7 Yes No No No

61 15 Yes Yes No No

62 30 Yes Yes Unknown No

63 24 Yes Yes No No

64 13 No No No No

65 8 No No No No

66 18 Yes Yes Filter Yes

67 15 No No No No

68 6.5 Yes Yes No No

69 12 No No No No

70 8 Mixed No No No

71 3.25 Yes Yes Filter Yes

72 20 No No No No

73 3 Mixed Yes No No

74 11 No No No No

75 15 Yes Yes No No

76 8 No No No No

77 18 No Yes No N/A

78 15 No No No No

79 21.5 Yes Yes No N/A

80 9.5 No No No No

81 20 No No No No

82 22 No No No No

83 26 Yes Yes No No

84 19 No No No No

85 8 Yes Yes No No

86 8 Yes No No No

87 2 No No No No

88 8 No No No No

89 9 No No No No

90 20 No No No No

91 7 No No No No

92 7 No No No No
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment

Total Paint Use Paint Booth Ventilation Control Heat Cure

Shop Code (liter/week) Present Device Device Type In Use

93 14 Yes Yes Unknown Yes

94 6 No No No No

95 18 No No No No

96 11 No No No No

97 1.5 No No No No

98 11.5 No No No No

99 9 No No No No

100 3 No No No No

101 3 No No No No

102 9 No No No No

103 3 No No No No

104 6 No No No No

105 3 No No No No

106 3.5 No Yes No N/A

107 6 No No No No

108 3 Yes Yes Filter Yes

109 5 No No No No

110 3 No No No No

111 3 No No No No

112 6 No No No No

113 5 No Yes No No

114 9 No No No No

115 9 No No No No

116 36 No No No No

117 7.5 No No No No

118 4.5 Yes Yes No No

119 10 No No No No

120 13 No No No No

121 10 No No No No

122 15 Yes Yes No No

123 17 No No No No

124 7 No No No No

125 9 No No No No

126 24 No No No No

127 6 No No No No

128 205 Yes Yes Unknown No

129 39 Yes Yes No No

130 19 No No No No

131 15 No No No No

132 8 Mixed No No No

133 5 Yes Yes No No

134 11 No No No No

135 14 Yes No No No

136 13 No No No No

137 9 No No No No

138 11 No No No No
TABLE B-3 Existing Control Equipment

Total Paint Use Paint Booth Ventilation Control Heat Cure

Shop Code (liter/week) Present Device Device Type In Use

139 20 No No No No

140 13 No No No No

141 15 No No No No

142 16 No No No No

143 15 No No No No

144 17 No No No No

145 52 No No No No

146 8 No No No No

147 13 No No No No

148 16 No No No No

149 20 Yes Yes No No

150 10 Yes Yes Unknown No

151 23 No No No No

152 14 Yes Yes No No

153 1.5 Yes Yes No No

154 47 Yes Yes No No

155 16 Yes No No No

156 11 No No No No
Table B-4. Waste Generation Summary

Average Season when Wastes Generated Comments

Number of Time on Most Jobs Rags Sand Paper Paper Cans Tape 

Shop Code Employees Job, months are Done (kg) (sheets) (kg) (number) (rolls)

1 3 62 Steady 0.10 15 1.00 4 10 Untidy appearance, auto repair shop, open to public view

2 2 12 Summer 0.50 5 1.00 3 2 Neat in appearance, 

3 3 12 Summer 2.00 10 1.00 3 2 Neat in appearance, no wastes other paint shops in area

4 2 6 Steady 0.50 3 1.00 3 2 Dirty walls, some paint on floor, not a hazard to public

5 2 72 Winter 0.25 10 1.00 3 3 Generally clean and tidy, equipped with fire extinguishers

6 1 4 Summer 0.25 8 2.00 12 2 Also auto repair shop, dirty and greasy, small paint shop use

7 1 2 Steady 4 1.00 2 2 Shop is small and crowded, but neat

8 1 12 Steady 1.00 8 2.00 6 4 Untidy appearance, painting is done outdoors, paint on floor

9 2 12 Steady 0.50 3 0.50 2 Shop is clean in appearance without much activity

10 2 2 Summer 1 0.25 1 1 Also auto repair shop, dirty and parts laying around

11 2 12 Summer 1.00 8 2.00 7 Neat in appearance, significant activity

12 2 24 Winter 6.00 30 5.00 5 4 Neat and clean, large shop neat and clean outside

13 1 12 Winter 1.00 10 1.00 7 3 Neat and clean, clean outside

14 1 1 Steady 1.00 12 1.00 6 3 Shop is in a garage of house, paint on floor, access to public

15 3 100+ Summer 10 0.50 6 3 Neat in appearance, next to a high school

16 2 1 Summer 0.50 8 1.00 3 3 Neat in appearance, operations may affect neighbors

17 2 100+ Summer 0.50 5 2.00 6 4 Shop is small, dirty and crowded, access to public

18 3 12 Steady 1.50 6 1.00 2 Untidy appearance, paint on floor, in residential area

19 2 3 Summer 0.50 10 2.00 8 3 Some paint wastes on floor

20 2 12 Summer 3.00 15 2.00 3 3 Neat and clean, in area with other paint shops

21 7 12 Winter 1.00 10 1.00 3 Neat and clean, in area with other paint shops

22 3 12 Steady 0.50 8 1.00 6 6 Untidy appearance, painting is done outdoors, paint on floor

23 4 60 Winter 1.50 10 1.00 4 Basically neat in appearance

24 2 100+ Steady 0.25 3 0.25 1 Untidy in appearance, in residential area, wastes poured in drain

25 2 100+ Steady 0.25 10 0.50 6 3 Neat in appearance, 

26 2 12 Steady 0.50 8 2.00 2 Untidy in appearance,paint on floor

27 3 12 Summer 15 1.00 6 3 Untidy, also used for repair work, paint on floor, in res. zone

28 1 12 Steady 1.00 8 1.00 6 3 Dirty with car parts and oil around, 

29 2 2 Steady 2.00 8 2.00 6 3 Neat in appearance, wastes poured down the drain

30 1 100+ Steady 1.00 8 1.00 8 3 Untidy in appearance, plastic, oil and paint on floor

31 4 12 Steady 4.00 10 1.00 3 8 Neat in appearance, paint poured down drain

32 2 100+ Winter 1.50 6 2.00 7 2 Untidy appearance, many materials on floor

33 2 2 Spring 4 4.00 Untidy appearance, considered a possible fire hazard

34 5 2 Steady 1.00 8 1.00 1 Neat in appearance, some wastes poured in drain

35 4 12 Summer 15 4 5 Neat in appearance, good appearance outside

36 6 12 Summer 0.25 10 5.00 5 Neat in appearance

37 4 2 Summer 0.25 20 4.00 4 6 Neat in appearance

38 2 12 Summer 0.50 10 5 10 Neat in appearance

39 2 19 Summer 10 5.00 10 2 Shop not observed

40 1 6 Steady 0.25 4 0.25 2 3 Neat in appearance

41 3 1 Winter 2 0.25 2 1.5 No comments

42 3 36 Fall 2.00 6 2.00 7 2 Neat in appearance

43 6 24 Summer 1.00 10 2.00 5 10 No comments

44 4 24 Summer 0.25 10 5.00 8 10 Neat in appearance

45 4 5 Steady 20.00 10 5 4 Untidy in appearance

46 4 12 Winter 1.00 20 5 5 Neat in appearance

47 4 24 Summer 10 10.00 5 4 Neat in appearance

48 3 12 Summer 0.25 5 4.00 6 Neat in appearance, in residential area nuisance to neighbors

49 2 12 Summer 15 9.00 5 Untidy in appearance

50 5 24 Steady 10.00 5 4.00 7 Neat in appearance

51 5 24 Summer 4.00 20 10.00 9 Untidy, possible fire hazard

52 1 1 Steady 0.50 10 0.50 5 2 Neat in appearance

53 6 12 Summer 5.00 10 5.00 5 Neat in appearance

54 3 12 Spring 20 10.00 4 10 Neat in appearance

55 4 18 Summer 10.00 20 4.00 6 2 Shop not observed

56 5 36 Summer 2.00 15 10.00 8 10 Neat in appearance

57 6 60 Summer 2.00 12 3.00 12 3 Neat in appearance

58 4 10 Summer 10 0.50 5 10 Neat in appearance, noise nuisance to neighbors

59 3 10 Summer 1.00 10 1 2 Neat in appearance

60 2 36 Winter 10 1.00 3 2 Neat in appearance

61 2 24 Steady 0.25 3 10.00 2 5 Neat in appearance

62 3 12 Steady 1.00 5 10.00 5 4 Neat in appearance

63 5 8 Steady 0.50 12 5.00 6 6 Neat in appearance

64 4 18 Steady 2.00 6 2.00 10 3 Neat in appearance

65 3 6 Winter 2.00 5 2.00 6 2 Neat in appearance

66 3 2 Fall 10 0.50 3 5 Neat in appearance

67 3 12 Fall 3.00 8 2.00 5 4 Neat in appearance

68 2 24 Steady 0.25 4 0.50 3 1 Neat in appearance

69 2 8 Fall 2.00 6 1.50 4 5 Neat in appearance

70 2 12 Winter 0.25 3 0.50 2 3 Neat in appearance, some rags laying about

71 2 100+ Summer 0.25 20 0.30 2 Neat in appearance

72 3 8 Fall 8 2.00 4 4 Neat in appearance

73 2 12 Summer 0.25 7 0.50 1 2 Neat in appearance
Table B-4. Waste Generation Summary

Average Season when Wastes Generated Comments

Number of Time on Most Jobs Rags Sand Paper Paper Cans Tape 

Shop Code Employees Job, months are Done (kg) (sheets) (kg) (number) (rolls)

74 3 24 Fall 3.00 8 3.00 5 5 Neat in appearance

75 3 1 Summer 0.25 7 0.50 3 3 Neat in appearance

76 3 6 Fall 2.00 8 2.00 6 2 Neat in appearance

77 4 Winter 3.00 15 4.00 7 8 Neat in appearance

78 3 12 Winter 2.00 8 2.00 6 6 Neat in appearance

79 4 24 Fall 3.00 8 4.00 6 6 Neat in appearance

80 2 14 Fall 1.00 5 5.00 4 Untidy with some buckets and such laying about

81 2 12 Fall 3.00 10 3.00 8 6 Unitdy in appearance, cars blocking street

82 3 36 Fall 1.00 12 2.00 10 8 Neat in appearance

83 4 Fall 2.00 12 3.00 6 7 Neat in appearance

84 4 60 Fall 4.00 12 3.00 8 6 Neat in appearance

85 2 36 Steady Neat in appearance

86 4 13 Fall 0.25 10 1.00 3 2 Neat in appearance

87 4 15 Steady 1.00 6 1.00 4 1 Untidy in appearance, wastes poured down the drain

88 3 24 Fall 1.00 6 2.00 5 5 Untidy and dirty in appearance

89 4 24 Fall 5 1.00 7 2 Neat in appearance

90 4 8 Fall Neat in appearance

91 2 24 Steady 2.00 9 1.00 4 2 Untidy possible fire hazard, wastes laying about; poured in drain

92 2 24 Steady 2.00 9 1.00 4 2 Untidy with cans and other wastes laying about

93 2 6 Summer 12 0.50 3 Neat in appearance

94 2 25 Summer 1.00 8 10.00 3 2 No comments

95 3 12 Fall 2.00 6 2.00 7 2 Untidy disorganized, possible fire hazard

96 3 18 Summer 1.00 3 0.50 3 1 Untidy and dirty in appearance

97 1 24 Steady 1.00 3 2.00 2 1 Neat in appearance

98 2 36 Steady 4.00 12 3.00 6 8 Neat in appearance

99 2 12 Summer 1.00 3 0.50 2 3 Dirty in appearance

100 1 Summer 3 1.00 1 1 Operation is undertaken in open on street

101 2 Summer 3.00 6 6.00 3 2 Neat in appearance

102 3 12 Summer 2.00 10 8.00 5 6 Neat in appearance

103 3 48 Steady 3.00 30 2.00 6 4 Neat in appearance

104 2 24 Summer 1.00 4 1.00 3 1 Neat in appearance although run down

105 3 12 Steady 1.00 9 1.00 3 2 Untidy and dirty in appearance

106 3 36 Summer 1.00 5 2.00 3 2 No comments

107 3 24 Steady 0.50 5 1.00 1 2 Untidy in appearance

108 3 12 Steady 1.00 8 1.00 2 2 Neat in appearance

109 2 24 Steady 1.00 4 2.00 2 2 Neat in appearance

110 3 12 Summer 0.50 4 1.00 1 0.5 No comments

111 2 24 Steady 1.00 3 0.50 2 Generally clean and tidy

112 2 48 Summer 2.00 6 2.00 1 3 Untidy in appearance

113 3 12 Summer 0.50 8 0.50 1 2 Neat in appearance

114 2 12 Summer 10 0.50 3 2 Neat in appearance surrounded by walls

115 2 24 Summer 1.00 6 0.50 1 1 Neat in appearance

116 3 Steady 1.00 10 3.00 10 8 Untidy

117 3 48 Summer 4.00 20 3.00 4 3 Neat in appearance

118 5 48 Steady 1.00 8 1.00 5 1 Neat in appearance

119 4 24 Summer 1.00 6 2.00 2 2 Neat in appearance

120 3 24 Summer 0.50 10 0.25 2 2 Neat in appearance

121 2 36 Summer 1.00 6 1.00 1 1 No comments

122 3 7 Summer 0.25 7 0.50 4 3 Neat in appearance

123 0 36 Steady 3.00 12 3.00 5 5 Neat in appearance

124 3 12 Summer 0.20 6 0.25 2 1 No comments

125 N/A 2 Fall 8.00 2 5.00 6 Neat in appearance, some wastes dumped on ground

126 6 24 Summer 10 5.00 2 Neat in appearance

127 4 10 Fall 1.00 5 2.00 5 2 Untidy in appearance , some wastes poured down drain

128 4 2 Summer 4.00 20 4.00 4 6 Neat in appearance

129 3 5 Steady 10 0.25 2 2 N/A

130 6 36 Fall 3.00 10 3.00 12 3 Neat in appearance

131 3 10 Fall 1.00 5 1.00 1 Untidy in appearance, possible fire hazard

132 2 100+ Steady 0.50 2 35.00 1 1 Neat in appearance

133 2 1 Winter 5 1.00 3 2 Neat in appearance

134 5 36 Fall 1.00 12 1.00 7 2 Neat in appearance

135 3 100+ Steady 0.25 15 3.00 3 6 Neat in appearance

136 2 12 Steady 2.00 8 2.00 5 4 Neat in appearance

137 5 36 Steady 1.00 6 1.00 6 1 Untidy in appearance, surrounding area is dirty and untidy

138 3 12 Fall 2.00 5 1.00 6 1 Untidy in appearance

139 4 12 Fall 2.00 8 3.00 5 5 Neat in appearance

140 5 24 Steady 6 1.00 5 1 Neat in appearance

141 2 8 Winter 10 3.00 4 3 Neat in appearance

142 3 10 Steady 1.00 5 2.00 7 2 Neat in appearance

143 3 12 Steady 2.00 8 2.00 5 5 Untidy in appearance some wastes laying about

144 3 8 Steady 3.00 8 2.00 5 5 Neat in appearance

145 2 1 Steady 1.00 10 10.00 8 25 Neat in appearance

146 2 12 Winter 4 5.00 3 Untidy in appearance
Table B-4. Waste Generation Summary

Average Season when Wastes Generated Comments

Number of Time on Most Jobs Rags Sand Paper Paper Cans Tape 

Shop Code Employees Job, months are Done (kg) (sheets) (kg) (number) (rolls)

147 3 14 Fall 1.00 3 4.00 3 Neat in appearance

148 3 12 Steady 2.00 8 2.00 5 4 Neat in appearance

149 2 36 Winter 4 4.00 5 Neat in appearance

150 1 100+ Steady 5 1.00 2 2 Neat in appearance

151 2 18 Winter 0.50 10 2.00 1 4 Neat in appearance

152 2 12 Summer 0.25 10 2.00 5 3 Neat in appearance

153 3 100+ Winter 1 0.10 2 Neat in appearance

154 3 2 Summer 1.00 10 6.00 2 8 Neat in appearance

155 5 36 Fall 6.00 14 4.00 8 8 Neat in appearance

156 3 14 Winter 2.00 14 5.00 7 6 Neat in appearance

total/week 223.05 1349 401.65 603 574

total/year 11598.60 70148 20885.80 31356 29848