p. 1


# OAR Box 1392 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 133 ) II-A- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/7/20089:45:59AM

Sheet 133 of 136Unite d State s Offic e of Environmenta l Protectio n Researc h an d Developmen t Agency Washington , D C 2046 0 

## A-94-5 2 P. 2 

### EPA-600/ft-96-I3 8 Novembe r

199 6 M i *\ 

# * EP A Evaluatio n o

f Styren e Emission s Fro m a Showe r Stall/Bathtu b Manufacturin g Facilit

y
CH-=-CH2

S--A- 9

p'p v '\V^ t 

### - N ^V

? ,\ rs 

### ^'Cv ^ f V % ? " * ^ « 73 ? ,"? x 

### ^^^- f 

### '!w w

# . missions nventory ver si ght 

### Prepare d fo rOffic e of Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Prepare d b yAi raa d Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator yP. 3



### FOREWOR

D Th e U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y i s charge d b y Congres s wit h pro tectin g th e Nation' s land , air , an d wate rresources . Unde ramandat e o f nationa l environmenta l laws , th e Agenc y strive s t o formulat e and implemen taction s lead in g t o acompatibl e balanc e betwee n huma n activitie s and th e abilit y of natura l system s t o suppor tan d nurtur e life . T o mee tthi s mandate , EPA' s researc h progra m i s providin g dat aan d technica l suppor tfo rsolvin g environmenta l pro blem s toda y an d buildin g ascienc e knowledg e bas e necessar y t o manag e ou reco logica l resource s wisely , understan d ho wpollutant s affec tou rhealth , an d pre ven to rreduc e environmenta l risk s i n th e future . Th e Nationa l Ris kManagemen tResearc h Laborator y i s th e Agency' s cente rfo r investigatio n o f

technologica l an d managemen tapproache s fo rreducin g risk s fro m threat s t o huma n healt h an d th e environment . Th e focu s o f th e Laboratory' s researc h progra m i s o n method s fo rth e preventio n an d contro l o f pollutio n to air , land , water , an d subsurfac e resources ; protectio n o f wate rqualit y i n publi cwate r systems ; remediatio n o f contaminate d site s an d groundwater ; an d preventio n and contro l o f

indoo rai rpollution . Th e goa l o f thi s researc h effor ti s t o catalyz e developmen tan d implementatio n o f innovative , cost-effectiv e environmenta l technologies ; develo p scientifi can d engineerin g informatio n neede d b y EP A t o suppor tregulator y an d polic y decisions ; an d provid e technica l suppor tan d infbr matio n transfe rt o ensur e effectiv e implementatio n o f environmenta l regulation s an d strategies . Thi s publicatio n ha s bee n produce d a s par to f th e Laboratory' s strategi clong ter m researc h plan . I ti s publishe d an d mad e availabl e b y EPA' s Offic e o f Re searc h an d Developmen tt o assis tth e use rcommunit y an d t o lin kresearcher s wit h thei rclients . E . Timoth y Oppelt , Directo r Nationa l Ris kManagemen tResearc h Laborator y
EP A REVIE WNOTIC E Thi s report ha s bee n pee ran d administrativel yreviewe d byth e U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , an d approve d fo rpublication
. Mentio n o f trad e name s o r commercia l product s doe s not constitut e endorsemen t o rrecommendatio n fo ruse . Thi s documen t i s availabl e t o th e publi cthroug h th e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n Service , Springfield , Virgini a 22161
.P. 4 

## EPA-600/R-96-13 8 Novembe r

199 6

EVALUATIO N O F STYREN E EMISSION S FRO M A SHOWE R STALL/BATHTU B MANUFACTURIN G FACIUT Y

Prepare d by : Larr yFelix , RandyMerritt , an d Ashle yWilliamso n Souther n Researc h Institut e Environmenta l Science s Researc h Departmen t

P
. O
. Bo x5530 5 Birmingham , A L 35255-530 5

EP AContrac

t Numbe r68-D2-006 2 Tas k No
. 12 , Phas e 1

Tas k Office rBobb

yE
. Danie l Ai ran d Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator y U
. S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1

Prepare d for :
U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Office o f Researc h an d Developmen t Washington , D.C
. 2046 0

• . rP. 5

ABSTRAC T Curren t EP A emissio n factors (AP-42 ) fo rstyren e emission s fro m th e productio n o fpolyeste r resi n reinforce d plasti c products represen t a composite o fsprayin g an d post-sprayin g emission s fro m showe r stall/bathtu b manufacturin g plant s that us e compresse d air-powere d spray gun s to appl y catalyze d styren e resin s t o prepare d molds . Becaus e eac h ste p o fmanufacture (ge l coating , first-stag e spra y lay-up , an d second-stag e spray lay-up ) create s larg e surfac e area s fro m whic h volatil e styren e monome r ca n evaporate , non-sprayin g emission s ca n constitute a larg e fractio n o fth e styren e emitte d t o th e atmosphere . Thus , i t i s o finteres t t o quantif

y th e leve l o

fnon-sprayin g styren e emission s characteristi c o

fthi s industry . I n thi s study , emission s measurement s were carrie d ou t a t a representative facilit y (Elje r Plumbingwar e i n Wilson , NC ) that manufacture s polyeste r resi n reinforce d showe r stall s an d bathtub s by sprayin g styrene-base d resin s ont o mold s i n vented , open , spray booths . Styren e emission s wer e characterize d fo rth e thre e stage s o fmanufacture b

y measurin g styren e concentration s a t th e vent s o f spray booth s use d i n eac h part o fth e process . I n addition , styren e concentration s wer e measure d at eac h ventilatio n fa n exhaust . Emissio n level s wer e determine d usin g EP A Metho d 1 8 t o obtai n integrate d emission s sample s an d tota l hydrocarbo n (THC ) analyzer s t o measur e continuou s emission s level s durin g th e EP A Metho d 1 8 sampling . Analysi s o

fth e EP A Referenc e Metho d dat a indicate s that : (1 ) styren e monome r i s th e onl y volatil e organi c compoun d release d i n thi s process ; (2 ) overall , approximatel y 4 % o fal l materia l spraye d i s los

t to atmospheri c emission s a s styren e (approximatel y 19 % o fal l styren e sprayed) : an d (3 ) emission s vary fo reac h phas e o fmanufacture , wit h post-sprayin g emission s o fstyren e (fro m curin g molds ) constitutin g a larg e part , approximatel y 29 % o fal l emissions .P. 6

TABL E O F CONTENT S Abstrac t i i Lis t of Figure s i v Lis t o f Table s i v Acknowledgment s v Metri ct o Nonmetri cConversion s v i 1
. Introductio n 1 2
. Projec t Descriptio n 4 Experimenta l Approac h 4 Tes t Matri x5 Elje rPlumbingwar e Facilit y6 Samplin g Location s 1 2 3
. Samplin g an d Analytica l Procedure s 1 5 Plan t Proces s Informatio n 1 5 EP AMetho d 1 8 Samplin g 1 7 Metho d 1 8 Samplin g Equipmen t 1 8 Metho d 1 8 Samplin g Procedure s 1 8 Metho d 1 8 Styren e Analysi s 1 9 Samplin g wit h TH C Analyzer s 2 1 Volumetri cFlo wRat e Determinatio n 2 4 4
. Result s 2 5 Recommendation s fo rFutur e Samplin g 3 7 5
. Reference s 3 9 Appendi xAQualit yContro l Evaluatio n Report 4 0 Summary4 0 Significan t QA/Q C Problem s 4 1 Dat a Qualit y4 8 Precisio n , 5 0 Bia s 5 2 Completenes s 5 3 Representativenes s 5 3 Comparabilit y5 4P. 7

LISTO F FIGURE S Figure Pag e 1
. Layou t o

f th e Elje rPlumbingwar

e Facilit y8 2
. Overal l Arrangemen t fo rRoo fSamplin g Location s 1 3 3
. Equipmen t Arrangemen t Use d fo rSamplin g wit h TH C Analyzer s 2 3
LISTO F TABLE S Tabl e Pag e 1
. Emissio n Factor

s fo rUncontrolle d Polyeste rResi n 2 2
. Elje rPlumbingwar

e Test Matri x7 3
. Plan t Ra

wMateria l Consumption , Jun e 15-17,199 3 1 6 4
. Styren e Concentratio n an d Emissio n Rate Summar yfo rElje rPlumbingwar

e (Jun e 1993) 3 0 5
. Styren e Emission s pe rUni t Are a o fMol d Sprayed , Elje rPlumbingwar e (Jun e 1993) 3 1 6
. Determinatio n o

fNon-Spra

yBoot h Styren e Emissio n Rate 3 2 7
. Plan t Ra

wMateria l an d Styren e Usage , Jun e 15-17,199 3 3 2 8
. Styren e Emission s fo rEac h Par t o fth e Manufacturin g Proces s 3 3 9
. Distributio n o

fStyren e Emission s fro m Eac h Par t o f th e Manufacturin g Process , Includin g Styren e Emission s no

t Capture d b

ySpra yBooth s 3 7 A-1
. Results o

f Analyse s o

fEP APerformance Evaluatio n Audi t Sampl e 4 5 A-2
. Results of Analyse s o f Matheso n Calibratio n Ga s 4 5 A-3
. GC-FI D Calibration s Performe d a t Elje rPlumbingwar

e 4 7 A-4
. Data QualityIndicato rGoal s fo rCritica l Measurements Estimate d i n QAP P 5 0 A-5
. Data QualityIndicato rValue s fo rMetho d 1 8 an d TH C Measurements Mad e a t Elje rPlumbingwar

e 5 1

IVACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Th e author

s woul d like t o than k

J
. N
. Eason , Plan t Manage rat Elje rPlumbingware i n Wilson , NC , fo rprovidin g a sit e t o carr you t thi s evaluatio n an d Rolli e Nagel , Manage ro fSafet yan d Environmenta l Healt h at Eljer , fo rhi s suppor t an d hel p durin g th e test . Th e authors woul d als o like t o than k EPA Tas k Office rBobbyDanie l o

f th e EP AAi ran d Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator yfo rhi s help , support , an d coordinatio n throughou t thi s work
.P. 9

Metri ct o Nonmetri cConversion s Reader s more familia rwit h nonmetri cunit s ma yus e th e followin g factors t o conver t t o that system . Motri n MiiHipllo r Vlolri c Mnnmetri r kP a kP a ° C I (100 0 cm 3 ) m m 2 m 3 k g 100 0 kg (metri cton ) 1450.3 8 4.014 5 1.8 T+ 3 2 0.2641 7 3.280 8 10.763 7 35.313 4 2.202 6 1.102 3 psi g in
. H 20
° F gal
. f t ft 2 ft3 l b to n (short )

V IP.1 0

SECTIO N 1 INTRODUCTIO N
Curren t EP

Aemissio n factor

s (Tabl e 1 ) fo rstyren e emission s fro m th e productio n of polyeste r resi n reinforce d plasti cproducts represen t a composit e o fsprayin g an d post-sprayin g emission s (fro m curin g molds ) fro m showe rstall/bathtu b manufacturin g plants that us e compresse d air-powere d spray gun s t o appl ycatalyze d styren e resin s t o prepare d molds. 1 Becaus e eac h ste p o f manufacture create s larg e surfac e area s fro m whic h volatil e styren e monome rca n evaporate , post-sprayin g emission s ca n constitut e a larg e fractio n o f th e styren e emitte d t o th e atmosphere
. Thus , i t i s o finteres t t o quantif

y th e leve l o

f sprayin g an d post-sprayin g styren e emission s characteristi co fthi s industry
. Showe rstall s an d bathtub s are amon g th e man ykind s o fproduct s fabricate d fro m liqui d polyeste rresi n that has bee n extende d wit h variou s inorgani cfille rmaterial s an d reinforce d wit h glas s fibers
. Thes e composit e material s are ofte n referre d t o collectivel ya s fiberglas s reinforce d plasti c (FRP ) o r"fiberglass"
. Dependin g o n th e size , shape , an d intende d use , an yon e o fsevera l manufacturin g processe s ca n b e use d fo rfabrication
. Fo rth e manufacture of showe rstall s an d bathtubs , th e preferre d techniqu e i s spra ylay-u p o rsprayup . Regardless , al l ofthes e processe s involve th e applicatio n ofa liqui d resi n that i s mixe d wit h a catalys t t o initiat e polymerization
. I n polymerization , a liqui d unsaturate d polyeste ri s cross-linke d wit h a vinyl-typ e monomer , usuall y styrene , b yth e actio n o

f th e catalyst
. Commo n catalyst s are organi cperoxides , typicall ymethy l ethy l keton e peroxid e (MEKP ) o rbenzoy l peroxide
. Resin s ma ycontai n inhibitors , t o avoi d self-curin g durin g resi n storage , an d promoters , t o allo wpolymerizatio n t o occu rat lowe rtemperatures. 2, 3 I n th e productio n o

f fiberglas s showe rstall s an d bathtubs , exhaust ai rfro m th e spraybooth s use d fo rmold-coatin g an d plan t ventilatio n ai routlet s represen t th e majo rpoin t source s o f VO C emissions
. Thus , a

t a particula rfacility , th e numbe ro fmanufacturin g step s that involve th e sprayin g o f styrene-base d resins , th e amoun t o fstyren e spraye d i n eac h ste p o f manufacture , an d th e amoun t o f



## r \P.1 1

Tabl e 1 . Emissio n Factors fo r Uncontrolle d Polyeste r Resin 1 4 PRODUC TFABRICATIO N PROCESSE S (a ) (10 0 xmas s o

fVO C emitted/mas s o fmonome rinput) Proces s Han d lay-u p Spra y lay-u p Continuou s laminatio n Pultrusion(d ) Filamen t winding(e ) Marbl e castin g Close d moldin g (g ) I NVS 5-1 0 9-1 3 4 - 7 4 - 7 5 - 1 0 1 - 3 1 - 3 Resi n VS(b )

2 - 7 3 - 9 1 - 5 1 - 5 2 - 7 1 - 2 1 - 2 Emissio n

Facto r Rating * C B B D D B D Ge l Coa t

NVS 2 6 -3 5 2 6 -3 5 (c ) (c) (c ) 

## ( 0 (c ) VS(b ) 8-2 5 8-2 5 (c) (c ) (c ) 

## ( 0 (c ) Emissio n Facto r Rating * D B

(a ) Range s represen t th e variabilit y o fprocesse s an d sensitivit y o femission s to proces s parameters . Singl e valu e factors shoul d b e selecte d wit h caution . NV S = nonvapor-suppresse d resin . V S = vapor-suppresse d resin . (b ) Factor s are 30-70 % o fthos e fo r nonvapor-suppresse d resins . (c ) Ge l coat i s no

t normall y use d i n thi s process . (d ) Resi n factors fo rth e continuou s laminatio n proces s ar e assume d t o apply . (e ) Resi n factors fo r th e han d lay-u p proces s ar e assume d t o apply . ( 0 Factor s unavailable . However , whe n cas t part s ar e subsequentl y spraye d wit h ge l coat , han d an d spray lay-u p ge l coa t factors ar e assume d t o apply . (g ) Resi n factors fo r marbl e casting , a semiclose d process , ar e assume d t o apply .
* Emissio n factors develope d fro m th e results o ffacility sourc e test s ( B Rating) , laborator y test s ( C Rating) , an d throug h technolog y transfe r estimation s ( D Rating). 2



### <l~P.1 2

styren e tha

t i s volatilize d durin g th e sprayin g an d curin g o fmold s determine s th e amoun t o fstyren e emitte d t o th e atmosphere . Thi s stud y wa s undertake n to quantif y styren e emissio n factors a t a showe r stall/bathtu b manufacturin g plan t determine d b y th e EP A to b e a representative facility . Onc e styren e emission s wer e measured , th e emission s measurement s an d ra wmateria l usag e dat a fro m th e plan t wer e use d to determin e emissio n factors fo r eac h phas e i n th e manufacturin g process . Testin g wa s carrie d ou t at Elje r Plumbingware , i n Wilson , Nort h Carolin a an d wa s par t o fa large r effor

t that als o involve d th e evaluatio n o fa pilot-scal e liqui d chemica l scrubbe r fo rstyren e removal . Styren e emission s measurement s wer e originall y schedule d fo r th e wee k o fJun e 14 , 199 3 an d th e liqui d chemica l scnibbe r evaluatio n wa s originall y schedule d fo r th e followin g week . Becaus e th e plan t wa s operatin g o n a four-day productio n wee k durin g thi s tim e (Monda y throug h Thursday) , instea d o

fth e five-day productio n wee k that ha d bee n expected , emission s testin g ha d to b e extende d throug h Monday , Jun e 21,199 3 to obtai n a suitabl e set o femission s data . A ful l da y o ftestin g coul d no t b e carrie d ou t o n Monday becaus e portion s o fthat day ha d to b e devote d t o preparin g fo r th e upcomin g liqui d chemica l scrubbe r evaluation . Sectio n 2 contain s a detaile d descriptio n o fth e facilit

y an d samplin g locations . Detaile d description s o

fth e samplin g methodolog y ar e presente d i n Sectio n 3 an d th e results o fthi s evaluatio n alon g wit h a discussio n o fthes e results are presente d i n Sectio n 4 . Th e qualit y assuranc e an d quality contro l measure s take n durin g thi s evaluatio n a s wel l a s th e results o fthes e measure s ar e containe d i n th e Quality Contro l Evaluatio n Repor t i n Appendi xA .

3 

# 3P.1 3

SECTIO N 2 PROJEC TDESCRIPTIO N

EXPERIMENTA L APPROAC H Styren e i s a n integra l par t o fth e industria l proces s tha t produce s fiberglas s bat h tub s an d showe r stalls . I n th e first ste p o fthi s manufacturin g process , styren e monome r i s mixe d wit h polyeste r resi n an d a pigmen t t o creat e a "ge l coat " that i s spraye d ont o a previousl y prepare d mold . Methy l ethy l keton e peroxid e (MEKP ) catalyst i s adde d t o th e mi xexternall y a s i t exits th e compresse d air powere d spray gu n use d to appl y th e mi xto a mold . Mold s are reusabl e an d before eac h us e th e mol d i s waxe d an d coate d wit h a mold-releas e agen t tha t als o help s t o provid e a hig h glos s t o th e finishe d product . I n subsequen t manufacturin g steps , styren e an d polyeste r resi n ar e mixe d wit h inert filler s an d spraye d ont o th e previousl y coate d mol d alon g wit h choppe d fiberglass . Betwee n eac h applicatio n th e fiberglas s strand s ar e compacte d o n th e mol d by manua l rollin g afte r whic h th e coate d mol d i s se t asid e whil e th e resi n i s allowe d t o cure . Becaus e curin g i s a n exothermi c process , succeedin g manufacturin g step s are usuall y no t earne d ou t unti l th e coate d mol d ha s cooled . Fiberglas s provide s structura l suppor

t fo rth e finishe d article , whil e th e cross-linke d styren e an d polyeste r resi n ac t a s a glu e t o hol d th e matri xtogether , an d th e iner t fillers provid e additiona l structura l suppor t an d ca n als o provid e fire retardan t properties . Th e fina l stag e o fmanufacture i s to separat e th e finishe d fiberglas s produc t fro m th e mold , an d prepar e i t fo r shipmen t Th e purpos e o

fthi s project i s t o develo p quantitative emissio n factors specifi c t o a spray layu p polyeste r resi n showe r stal l an d bathtu b manufacturin g process . T o develo p thes e emissio n factors , styren e emission s wer e quantifie d fro m every poin t o fai r exhaus t to th e atmosphere at a fiberglas s showe r stal l an d bathtu b manufacturin g plan t locate d i n Wilson , Nort h Carolina . Specifically , th e followin g informatio n wa s require d t o develo p quantitative emissio n factors fo r styrene :

•Determinatio n o

fth e emissio n rat e o

fstyren e emitte d fro m proces s exhaus t vent s durin g norma l production .
*<-P.1 4

Determinatio n o f th e emissio n rate s ofan yfugitiv e styren e emission s durin g storage , transfe ro rmixin g of th e resi n o rge l coat b yproces s materia l balance
. Relatio n o

f emissio n rate s o f styren e t o th e amoun t o fra wmaterial s use d an d t o th e numbe ro f units produce d b ycollectin g proces s dat a durin g test s ofproces s exhaus t vents , measurin g th e tim e require d t o complet e eac h unit , determinin g materia l balance s fo rth e productio n process , an d b ycomputin g emissio n factors fo rvent s an d fo rfugitiv e emission s (weigh t o f emission s pe rweigh t ofmateria l processed)
. Wit h th e exception s note d below , tw o method s were use d t o measure styren e emissions
. A heate d TedlarTM ba g sample rwa s use d t o obtai n a n integrate d sampl e ofth e contaminate d ai rexitin g a representative poin t i n eac h proces s exhaust ven t (EPAReferenc e Metho d 18). 5
- 6 Concurrently , styren e emission s were measure d o n a continuou s basi s usin g a Tota l Hydrocarbo n Analyze r(THC ) equippe d wit h Flam e Ionizatio n Detector s (FIDs)
. Sampl e time s range d fro m 4 0 t o 4 5 minutes , typicall y th e tim e require d t o sprayeigh t t o te n molds
. Sampl e time s were dictate d byth e plan t productio n rat e an d th e tim e availabl e fo rsamplin g durin g a particula rperio d o f spraying
. Tes t Matri x Fiftee n location s were sample d fo rstyrene . Eleve n o fthes e location s were roof vent s fro m spraybooth s (seve n booth s were i n us e throughou t th e evaluatio n whil e th e othe rfou rwere use d onl y fo rbuildin g ventilation) , whil e th e fou rothe rlocation s were exhaust fan s locate d o n th e sid e o f th e building
. Thre e exhaus t fan s were devote d t o are a ventilatio n fo rth e buildin g an d on e exhaus t fa n wa s use d t o provid e ventilatio n fo rth e resi n mixin g room . A s note d i n Sectio n 1 , becaus e productio n was carrie d ou t onl yfou rdays pe rwee k (Monday throug h Thursday) instea d o f fiv e days pe rweek , on e les s da yof testin g wa s availabl e tha n wa s scheduled
. Th e origina l tes t schedul e calle d fo ron e dayofsetu p (Monday) , fou rdays oftestin g (Tuesdaythroug h Friday) , a weeken d off , an d th e nex t wee k t o b e devote d t o th e evaluatio n o fa pilot scal e liqui d chemica l scrubbe rwit h Monda ybein g a setu p day
. Unfortunately , i t wa s no t know n tha t th e plan t was o n a four-dayproductio n schedul e unti l Monday , Jun e 14
. O n tha t day , afte rconsultin g wit h th e EP AProjec t Officer , i t wa s decide d tha t t o obtai n th e maximu m amoun t of reliabl e dat a durin g th e wee k o f Jun e 14 , EPAMetho d 1 8 samplin g woul d b e focuse d o n th e seve n activ e spraybooth s an d tha t styren e emission s fro m non-activ e booth s an d buildin g exhaust fan s (includin g th e resi n mixin g 5P.1 5

roo m exhaus t fan ) woul d b e measure d wit h TH C analyzer s only . Becaus e thes e measurement s coul d no t al l b e complete d durin g th e wee k o fJun e 14 , TH C samplin g o fexhaus t fa n emission s wa s carrie d ou t o n Monda y o

fth e followin g wee k

(whil e preparation s wer e underwa y t o begi n th e evaluatio n o fth e liqui d chemica l scrubber) . N o more tim e coul d b e take n fro m th e evaluatio n o fth e liqui d chemica l scrubbe r becaus e th e followin g wee k wa s als o t o b e a four-day wor k wee k wit h on e les s da y o

f samplin g tha n wa s expected . Wit h th e permissio n o fth e EP A Project Officer , headspac e sample s fro m styren e storag e tank

s wer e als o no

t take n becaus e th e vat s o fstyren e containin g mi xar e ope n at thei r tops , s o i t wa s decide d that a sampl e woul d b e take n fro m th e ai r exitin g th e resi n mi xroom . Tabl e 2 shows th e samplin g an d analytica l tes t matri xthat wa s use d fo r thi s testing . Detail s o fth e samplin g an d analytica l procedure s use d fo r thi s evaluatio n are presente d i n Sectio n 3 .
ELJE R PLUMBINGWAR E FACILIT Y Th e Elje r Plumbingware facility , diagrammaticall y show n i n Figure 1 , i s locate d i n Wilson , Nort h Carolina . I n thi s figure th e locatio n o feac h proces s ven t i s indicated . Ther e are a tota l o ffiftee n vent s wher e ai r i s exhausted . Eleve n o fthes e vent s ar e fro m spray booths , seve n o fwhic h wer e use d fo r sprayin g durin g thi s test . Thre e larg e fan s show n o n Rgur e 1 are use d to provid e a continuou s sourc e o foutsid e ventilatio n ai rt o th e plant . Durin g thi s testing , thre e booth s wer e no t use d (marke d a s "unused " i n Figure 1 ) an d th e ai r exhaus t o n thes e booth s wa s close d of f(normally , al l fiftee n vent s ar e use d throughou t th e day) . Ventilatio n ai r i s turne d o n approximatel y 1 5 minute s before th e workday start s an d i s shu t of

fapproximatel y fiftee n minute s afte r th e workday ends .



## G »P.1 6
Tabl e 2
. Elje rPlumbingware Tes t Matri x
Sampl e Locatio n
Ge l Coat Boot h # 1 Ge l Coa t Boot h # 2 Ge l Coat Boot h # 3 Lay-U p Boot h # 1 Lay-U p Boot h # 2 Lay-U p Boot h # 3 Lay-U p Boot h #4 ' Lay-U p Boot h #5 ' Lay-U p Boot h #6 ' Back-U p Boot h # 1 Back-U p Boot h #2 ' Exhaus t Fa n # 1 Exhaus t Fa n # 2 Exhaus t Fa n # 3 Exhaust Fan , Resi n Mixin g Roo m No . ofRun s
1 4 5 4 4 6 2 3 3 1 4 5 1 3 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

- 1 Sampl e Typ e

Ga s Velocity Styren e Sytrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocity Styren e Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocit

y Styren e Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocit

y Styren e Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocit

y Styren e Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocit

y Sytren e Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocity . Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocity Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocit

y Styrene/Ga s Velocit

y Ga s Velocit

y Styren e Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocit

y Styrene/Ga s Velocity Ga s Velocit

y Styren e Ga s Velocity Styren e Ga s Velocit

y Styren e Ga s Velocity Styren e Procedure
Metho d 1-2 Metho d 1 8 • TH C Analyze r Metho d 1-2 Metho d 1 8 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1-2 Metho d 1 8 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1-2 Metho d 1 8 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1-2 Metho d 1 8 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1-2 Metho d 1 8 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1-2 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1- 2 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1- 2 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1-2 Metho d 1 8 TH C Analyze r Metho d 1- 2 TH C Analyze r Velocity Mete r TH C Analyze r Velocity Mete r TH C Analyze r Velocity Mete r TH C Analyze r Velocity Mete r TH C Analyze r Sampl e Duratio n 3 0 min . 4 5 min . 4 5 min . 3 0 min . 4 5 min . 4 5 min . 3 0 min . 4 5 min . 4 5 min . 3 0 min . 4 5 min . 4 5 min . 3 0 min . 4 5 min . 4 5 min . 3 0 min . 4 5 min . 4 5 min . 3 0 min . 3 3 min . 3 0 min . 1 2 min . 3 0 min
. 1 0 min . 3 0 min . 4 5 min . 4 5 min . 3 0 min . 1 0 min . 3 0 min . 1 8 min . 3 0 min . 3 3 min . 3 0 min . 3 1 min . 3 0 min . 1 4 min . Analysi s Metho d

Pitot GC/FI D THC/FID . Pitot Pitot GC/FI D THC/FID . Pito t Pitot GC/FI D THC/FID . Pitot Pitot GC/FI D THC/FID , Pito t Pitot GC/FI D THC/FID . Pitot Pito t GC/FI D THC/FID . Pitot Pitot THC/FID . Pitot Pitot THC/FID . Pito t Pitot THC/FID . Pitot Pito t GC/FI D THC/FID . Pitot Volumetri c THC/FI D Volumetri c THC/FI D Volumetri c THC/FI D Volumetri c THC/FI D Volumetri c TCH/FI D N o activ e sprayin g was carrie d ou t i n thes e booth s durin g th e tes t period
. Use d lo rventilatio n only
.



## 1P.1 7

EXHAUS T FA N 

# t

RESI N MIXIN G ROO M SERVIC E

ACCES S 

### J. •19 0 ft. - FIBERGLAS S ROVIN G FEEDE R 

# H

T 8ACX-U P BOOT H # 2

VA N

MOBIL E LA B TRAILE R GELCOA T

STAGIN G ARE A 

# T

1151 1



## -L l 

## L@

f BACK-U P BOOT H I
LAY-U P BOOT H M

^ LAY-UP YBOOT

H # S 

# d l ; 

# r LAY-U P BOOT H M 

# d§ r LAYU P BOOT H « 3
LAY-U P BOOT H n 

# d a LAY-U P BOOT H » 1

. GELC C

, GE L COA ' PUMPS MOL D SEPARATIN G STATIO N '/
26 5 ft.

MOL D REPAI R SHO P

ROO F EXHAUST . VEN T STAC K EXHAUS TFAN S 

### cz > 

## TT 

# « J 1

Figur e 1 . Layou t o fElje rPlumbingwar e FacilityP.1 8

Durin g thi s evaluation , th e workdaystarte d a t 0700
. One-hal fhou rbreak s i n productio n occurre d a

t 100 0 hour

s (mornin g break

) an d 120 0 hour

s (lunc h break)
. Th e workda yende d a

t 1400
. Thus , durin g a typica l da yo f testing , al l ventilatio n fan s ra n fo r7. 5 hour s whil e thre e period s o

f mol d sprayin g too k

place : 070 0 t o 1000 , 103 0 t o 1200 , an d 123 0 t o 1400 , accountin g fo rsi xhour s o f actua l spraying
. Eac h stag e o

fmanufacture except fo rmol d separatio n o r"pulling " i s carrie d ou t i n a spraybooth
. A t th e Elje rfacilityth e spra ybooth s were no

t constructe d i n plac e bu t are prefabricate d unit s manufacture d b

yBinks , Inc
. Th e availabl e volum e i n eac h sprayboot h i s comprise d o fa heigh t of abou t 3.0 5 m (1 0 ft) , a widt h o f abou t 4.1 1 m (13. 5 ft) , an d a dept h ofabou t 3.6 6 m (1 2 ft)
. Th e booth s ar e approximatel y1 m deepe rbu t 3.6 6 m bac k fro m th e mout h ofth e boot h a n expande d meta l grat e i s mounte d acros s th e widt h an d heigh t o f th e boot h o n whic h a larg e sheet o f ai rconditioning-typ e filte r materia l i s mounted
. Th e filte rmateria l i s usuall ychange d ever yothe rday
. Whil e thes e filters appea r quit e dirtywhe n the yare removed , th e resuit s o f velocit ytraverse s mad e at th e exi t ven t o fa boot h before an d afte rth e filte rmateria l wa s replace d showe d tha t ai rflo wwa s essentiall yunaffecte d bya clea n o r dirtyfilter
. Eac h sprayboot h i s continuousl yvente d wit h ai rfro m th e interio ro fth e plan t that i s pulle d int o th e boot h entrance , throug h th e filte rmat , an d a five-blad e fa n uni t mounte d approximatel y2 m belo wth e roo f o f th e building
. Ai rpulle d int o th e fa n exit s verticall ythroug h a 0.9 1 m ( 3 ft ) diamete rstac k mounte d o n th e roof of th e facility
. Eac h exhaust fa n has a nomina l rate d flo wof 41 1 m 3 /mi n (14,50 0 acfm)
. Durin g testing , fa n capacitie s offro m 353. 5 t o 427. 9 m 3 /mi n (dry , reference d t o 20°C ) were measured
. There ar e thre e distinc

t manufacturin g step s that ar e require d t o produc e a fiberglas s showe r stal l o rbat h tu b at th e Elje rfacility
. First , a prepare d mol d i s mounte d o n a car t an d wheele d int o on e of th e thre e ge l coa t spraybooth s locate d nea rth e mol d repai rshop
. I n th e spraybooth , th e mol d an d car t are designe d t o slid e ont o th e an n o f a permanentl ymounte d pedesta l assembl ythat ca n b e hydraulicall y elevate d abov e th e floo rof th e spraybooth
. Th e mol d an d car t are als o designe d t o rotat e o n th e ar m o f th e pedesta l s o tha t al l parts o fth e mol d are accessibl e fo rspraying
. Thi s mountin g syste m i s duplicate d i n ever ysprayboot h at th e Elje rfacility
.



## TP.1 9

Ge l coa t i s a mixture o fstyren e monomer , polyeste r resin , an d pigmen t (chromatographi c analysis , 32.2 % styrene ) an d i s purchase d a s a prepare d mi xi n 5 5 gallo n drums . Durin g thi s test , th e ge l coat mi xcontaine d n o additive t o suppres s styren e vapo r emissions . At th e tim e o fthi s tes t a t leas t fou r color s o fpigmen t wer e observed : white , of fwhite , pink , an d blue . However , plan t record s onl y kee p trac k o fwhite an d colore d ge l coa t usage . Abou t two to thre e minute s ar e require d to coa t a bat h tu b mol d (approximatel y 2. 5 m 2 ) wit h ge l coat an d abou t five minute s ar e require d t o coat a larg e showe r stal l mol d (7- 8 m 2) wit h ge l coa L Afte r sprayin g i s completed , th e mol d i s oriente d uprigh t an d th e pedesta l i s lowere d unti l th e wheele d cart mounte d t o th e mol d contact s th e floor . Th e mol d an d its attache d car t ar e the n wheele d ou t o fth e boot h to awai t th e next stag e o fmanufacture . Betwee n eac h stag e o fmanufacture th e coate d mol d i s se t asid e to cure an d harde n fo r abou t a n hour . Curin g generate s heat , s o ther e i s a tim e interva l betwee n spraying s t o allo wth e coate d mol d t o cool .

Th e secon d stag e o

fmanufacture i s calle d th e "firs t lay-up ' o r "initia l laminating " ste p an d occurs i n tw o parts . I n thi s stage , th e mol d i s conveye d to on e o fth e first lay-u p booth s and , a s wit h th e first ste p o fmanufacture , mounte d o n a pedesta l an d prepare d fo r spraying . Th e mi xspraye d i n thi s stag e i s compose d o

fa powdere d iner

t fille r adde d to a mixtur e o fstyren e monome r an d polyeste r resi n t o for m a slurr y that contain s approximatel y 50 % solid s (chromatographi c analysis , 21.4 % styrene) . Th e lay-u p mi x i s prepare d i n th e resi n mi xroo m show n i n Figure 1 an d i s pumpe d to th e poin t o fdelivery . Tw o coat s o

fthi s slurr

y ar e spraye d ont o th e mol d an d durin g th e sprayin g operation , choppe d fiberglas s rovin g ( 3 to 4 c m long ) i s als o blow n at abou t a 30 ° angl e into th e strea m o fspray a s i t exit s th e spray nozzle . Th e spray mixe s wit h th e strand s o fchoppe d fiberglas s an d form s a entangle d ma t o f resi n impregnate d fiberglas s o n th e surfac e o fth e mold . Th e iner

t fille r an d th e choppe d fiberglas s hel p provid e structura l suppor t t o th e finishe d produc t Betwee n sprayings , th e mol d i s lef t i n th e boot h whil e fro m two t o fou r worker s quickl y compact an d flatte n th e matte d surfac e o fth e mol d wit h small , hand-hel d rollers . Afte r th e secon d spraying , th e mol d i s wheele d fro m th e boot h an d rolle d again . Th e tota l tim e fo r bot h spraying s usuall y take s two to thre e minute s an d rollin g ca n take anothe r on e to two minutes . However , becaus e on e perso n i s use d t o operat e th e spraye r i n th e thre e lay-u p booths , th e tim e betwee n spraying s average s fro m seve n t o te n minute s whil e othe r mold s ar e bein g spraye d i n th e othe rlay-u p 1 0P.2 0

booths
. As wit h th e firs t stag e o f manufacture , thi s ste p i s brie fan d require s onl ythre e t o fiv e minute s t o complete
. Whe n thi s ste p i s complete d th e coate d mol d i s onc e agai n se t asid e t o cure . Th e third , an d final , sprayin g ste p i s calle d th e "secon d lay-up " o r"bac k up " ste p an d take s plac e i n on e of th e tw o secon d lay-u p booth s show n i n th e uppe rlef t come ro f Figure 1 (Back-U p Boot h # 1 o r Back-U p Boot h #2)
. Durin g thi s evaluation , onl yback-u p boot h # 1 was used
. Like th e lay-u p step , thi s operatio n i s carrie d ou t i n two parts wit h tw o sprayin g steps . I n thi s step , a blen d o f powdere d iner t fille r (incorporatin g a fir e retardant ) i s adde d t o a mixture o fstyren e monome ran d polyeste rresi n t o for m a slurr ytha t i s contain s approximatel y50 % solid s (chromatographi canalysis
. 20.9 % styrene)
. A s wit h th e lay-u p mix , th e back-u p mi xi s prepare d i n th e resi n mi xroo m show n i n Figure 1 an d i s pumpe d t o th e poin t o f delivery
. Th e back-u p mixture i s als o spraye d wit h choppe d fiberglas s fibers an d form s th e fina l tw o layers of th e product
. A s wit h th e secon d stag e of manufacture , th e mol d i s firs t move d int o th e back-u p boot h where a fres h laye rof th e back-u p slurry/choppe d fiberglas s mi xi s spraye d ont o th e mold
. Th e mol d i s the n move d ou t i n fron t o f th e boot h where precu t chipboard an d corrugate d pape rsupport s are presse d an d molde d int o th e we t slurry/fiberglas s laye ro n th e side s an d botto m o fth e mold
. Th e mol d i s the n move d bac k

int o th e boot h fo ra fina l sprayin g that cover s al l o fth e chipboard an d heav ycorrugate d pape rsupports . Afte rth e mol d emerge s fro m th e back-u p boot h fo rth e secon d tim e i t i s manuall yrolle d an d se t asid e t o cur e fo rth e las t time
. Two mold s ar e usuall yworke d o n a t a time
. Thus , whil e th e supportin g laye ro f chi p boar d an d corrugate d pape ri s applie d t o on e mold , anothe rmol d i s bein g spraye d wit h it s firs t laye ro f back-u p mix
. Whe n th e secon d mol d i s move d bac k int o th e boot h fo rit s fina l spraying , th e firs t mol d has it s supportin g laye rof chi p board an d corrugate d pape rapplied
. Thi s ste p i s briefan d require s onl yseve n t o te n minute s t o complet e tw o molds
. Th e las t phas e o f manufacture i s "pulling " o rseparatio n of th e mol d fro m th e complete d showe r stal l o rbat h tub
. Afte rth e finishe d fiberglas s piec e i s trimme d an d inspecte d i t i s prepare d fo rshipment
. Durin g th e tim e of th e emission s testing , o n a dail ybasis , thi s facilityconsume d approximatel y 50 0 kg ge l coat mi xan d approximatel y400 0 kg of lay-u p mi xan d back-u p mix
. O n th e basi s o fa four daywor k week , whic h wa s typica l fo rthat time , an d a 50-wee k wor k year , yearl yge l coat mi x 1 1 / (P.2 1

consumptio n woul d b e approximatel y 100,00 0 kg , an d yearl y consumptio n o flay-u p an d back-u p mi x woul d b e approximatel y 800,00 0 kg .
SAMPLIN G LOCATION S

Tw o type s o

fsamplin g location s wer e encountere d i n thi s evaluation . Th e firs t typ e o fsamplin g locatio n wa s locate d o n th e roo fo fth e facilit

y an d consiste d o

fa 0.9 1 m ( 3 ft) diamete r stac k that extende d approximatel y 1. 5 m ( 5 ft) abov e th e surfac e o fth e roof . Eleve n suc h stack s are use d t o convey ven t ai r t o th e outsid e fro m th e eleve n spray booth s wit h operatin g exhaus t fans . Moveabl e spli t circula r doors are positione d approximatel y 0. 3 m ( 1 ft) belo wth e to p o

feac h stack . Thes e spli t doors are designe d so tha t whe n th e exhaus t fa n feedin g th e stac k i s turne d on , th e doors fol d together , u p an d ou t o fth e way , kep t ope n b y th e outwardl y movin g ai rstream . Whe n th e exhaus t fa n feedin g th e stac k i s turne d off , th e doors clos e to preven t th e entranc e o frai n o r vermin . Th e actua l exhaus t fa n fo r eac h stac k i s locate d approximatel y 2 m (6. 6 ft) belowroo flevel . Th e fan s typicall y hav e five blades . Figure 2 show s th e overal l arrangemen t fo r on e o fthes e samplin g locations . A s Figure 2 shows , becaus e o fth e eductor-typ e shrou d that i s mounte d nea r th e surfac e o fth e roof , an d becaus e o

fth e spli t doo r covers , i t wa s necessar y to conduc

t al l samplin g fro m a s clos e to th e to p o fth e roo fa s was . possible . Belowth e eductor-typ e shrou d an d abov e th e rai n cap , two smal l 2. 5 c m ( 1 in. ) hole s wer e drille d i n th e sid e o feac h stac k

at a 90 ° angl e t o eac h other , just larg e enoug h t o allow th e entr y o fa n s-typ e pito

t o r Metho d 1 8 samplin g probe . Becaus e th e vent s wer e at essentiall y atmospheri c pressure , n o significan t amoun t o fai r entere d o r wa s los t throug h thes e smal l ports . Th e ports wer e covere d ove rat th e en d o fth e evaluation . Th e secon d typ e o

fsamplin g locatio n wa s a t th e exhaus t o fa thre e o rfour-blade d exhaus t fa n o n th e sid e o

fth e buildin g show n i n Figure 1 , abou t 3 m (1 0 ft) abov e th e ground . Thes e fan s wer e protecte d fro m th e element s b y horizonta l louvers o n th e discharg e sid e o fth e fa n that clos e whe n th e fa n i s turne d off , bu t ar e kept ope n b y ai r exitin g th e fa n whe n it i s turne d on . Becaus e th e louvers tende d t o oscillate fro m nearl y full y ope n to approximatel y 75 % ope n whil e they operated , th e louvers ha d to b e hel d full y ope n to b e abl e to measur e th e velocit y o fth e ai r exitin g an y on e o fthes e fans . Eve n so , becaus e thes e fan s operat e wit h n o stac k t o straighte n o r direc

t thei r exhaust , ai r flo

wi s very uneven . 1 2WBmm 

### Weathe rFlap s Hel d Ope n b

yAi rFlo w 

# 7 7
' /


## ^ J 1 7 ?

icmisemitamxrwxamimMmimtmm 

### Samplin g Por t

ROO F LIN E AI R FLOW

- 3 ft.

Figur e 2 . Overal l Arrangemen t fo rRoo fSampOn g Locations .

1 3 

### I SP.2 3

Thre e exhaust fan s wer e locate d o n th e northwest sid e o fth e building . Anothe r fa n o fthi s typ e wa s locate d o n th e southeas t sid e o fth e buildin g an d wa s use d to ventilat e th e resi n mixin g room . Ai rvelocity wa s measure d wit h a direct readin g velocit y mete r that wa s checke d against th e s-pito t use d a t th e spray boot h exhaust s fo r ai rflo wmeasurement .

1 4 1 *P.2 4

SECTIO N 3 SAMPLIN G AN D ANALYTICA L PROCEDURE S
Th e samplin g an d analytica l procedure s use d fo rthi s evaluatio n incorporate d th e mos t recen t revision s of th e publishe d EP Amethods , where applicable
. I n thi s section , description s ofeac h samplin g an d analytica l metho d that wa s use d i n thi s evaluatio n are presented
. I n orde rt o meet th e tes t objective s i n a n expedien t manner , a traile rhousin g a mobil e laborator y wa s se t u p o n site
. Al l gas chromatographi c(GC ) analysi s ofth e integrate d Tedla rba g sample s fo r styren e wer e performe d there
. Thi s traile rwa s als o equippe d fo rsamplin g tw o separat e emission s source s wit h TH C monitors. 7 Th e traile rwa s supplie d byDEECO , Inc
. o f Cary , N C wh o als o provide d personne l t o conduc

t th e Metho d 1 8 samplin g an d GC-FI D analysis
. Th e mobil e laborator ywa s locate d o n th e northeaster n sid e ofth e building , outside , nex t t o th e ge l coa t stagin g area . I n additio n t o th e mobil e laboratory , a secon d vehicle , a van , wa s equippe d fo rTH C samplin g an d wa s use d i n thi s evaluatio n an d fo rth e evaluatio n of a liqui d chemica l scrubbe rdurin g th e wee k followin g thi s testing
. Th e va n wa s locate d i n fron t of th e mobil e laboratory , alon g th e northeaster n sid e ofth e building
.

Electrica l powe rwa s provide d t o th e mobil e laborator yfro m plan t servic e ( a 22 0 VAC line ) throug h cablin g supplie d bySouthe m Research
. Electrica l powe rwa s connecte d an d disconnecte d b ya loca l electrica l contracto rfamilia rwit h th e plan t powe rsystem . Electrica l powe rt o th e va n fo rth e TH C analyzers an d ancillar

yelectrica l equipmen t wa s obtaine d fro m on e le g of th e 22 0 VA C lin e tha t fe d th e mobil e laboratory
. Powe rfo rroofto p samplin g wa s carrie d b yheavy-dut yextensio n cord s fro m a powe r distributio n cente rinstalle d b yth e electrica l contracto rfo rth e duratio n ofth e test .
PLAN TPROCES S INFORMATIO N Elje rPlumbingware provide d plan t ra wmateria l usag e record s fo rth e thre e days durin g whic h sprayboot h sample s wer e taken
. Thes e record s are reproduce d i n Tabl e 3
. Thes e dat a gave raw materia l usag e i n term s of kilogram s o f produc t use d i n eac h phas e o

fmanufacture an d i n 1 5P.2 5

Tabl e 3
. Plan t Ra

wMateria l Consumption , Jun e 15-17 , 1993 " Ite m Ge l Coa t Mi x(32.2 % Styrene" )

Are a Spraye d Whit e Mi x Colore d Mi x MEK P Tota l Lay-U p Mi x(21.4 % Styrene" )

Are a Spraye d Resi n (incl
. styrene )

Iner t Fille r Pigmen t Vapo rSuppressan t

MEK P Fiberglas s Rovin g

Tota l Back-U p Mi x(20.9 % Styrene" )

Are a Spraye d Resi n (incl
. styrene )

Iner t Fille r Pigmen t Vapo rSuppressan t

MEK P Fiberglas s Rovin g

Tota l Units
m 2 kg k g k g k g

m 2 k g k g k g k g .k g k g kg

m 2 k g k g k g kg kg kg kg 6/15/9 3

664. 6 290. 8 197. 3 7. 3 495. 3
640. 5 958. 0 1272. 3 1. 8 5. 0 27. 7 306. 2 2571. 0
640. 5 775. 2 1166. 6 1. 4 4. 1 29. 0 163. 3 2139. 6 6/16/9 3

646. 0 295. 7 220. 4 7. 7 523. 9
642. 1 909. 9 1208. 8 1. 4 4. 5 26. 3 306. 2 2457. 1
642. 1 721. 2 1085. 4 1. 4 3. 6 27. 2 161. 9 2000. 8 6/17/9 3

653. 0 286. 2 226. 8 7. 7 520. 7
652. 1 923. 5 1226. 5 1. 4 4. 5 26. 8 349. 3 2532. 0
652. 1 716. 2 1077. 7 1. 4 3. 6 26. 8 165. 6 1991. 3 Results fo rsampl e obtaine d o n 6/22/9 3 a t 102 0 hours
.

1 6P.2 6

kilogram s of produc

t use d pe rsquare foo t ofmol d sprayed
. Th e tota l are a of mol d tha t wa s spraye d i n eac h phas e o

f manufacture was als o provide d a s par t of th e dail yrecord
. T o relat e th e emission s dat a take n a t eac h activ e sprayboot h t o ra wmateria l usage , record s were kept o

fth e are a ofmold s that were spraye d i n eac h activ e boot h whil e samplin g wa s underway
. Becaus e plan t productio n record s d o no t trac k where a mol d wa s sprayed , portabl e vide o camera s wer e use d t o recor

d th e sprayin g activitythat too k place i n a particula rsprayboot h whil e th e ai rexhauste d fro m that boot h was bein g sampled
. Afterwards , byinspectin g th e vide o record , mol d type s coul d b e identifie d and , wit h th e hel p o

f catalo g dat a sheet s provide d byElje rPlumbingware , th e tota l mol d are a spraye d coul d b e determine d fo reac h perio d o fsampling
. I n thi s way , styren e emission s pe runi t are a o f mol d spraye d coul d b e determine d t o compare wit h styren e us e pe runi t are a o f mol d sprayed
. Unfortunately , on e vide o camera faile d partwa ythroug h th e tes t an d tw o dat a sets fro m th e sam e sprayboot h were los t (ge l coat boot h #2)
. Data fro m tw o othe rspra ybooth s were los t whe n on e camera was inadvertentl ypointe d at th e wron g sprayboot h (lay-u p boot h # 3 instea d o flay-u p boot h #2 ) an d whe n plan t productio n wa s shifte d awa yfro m on e boot h s o that n o mold s were spraye d durin g th e tim e tha t boot h wa s sample d (ge l coat boot h #1)
.

EP AMETHO D 1 8 SAMPLIN G Sample s fo ron-sit e analysi s o fstyren e conten t were collecte d usin g EPAMetho d 18 , accordin g t o Sectio n 7.1. 1 ofth e method : Integrate d Ba g Samplin g an d Analysis , Evacuate d Containe rSamplin g Procedure. 6 Tim e integrate d sample s were collecte d fo ra typica l collectio n tim e of4 5 minute s b ydrawin g sprayboot h exhaus t ai rint o ne w1 5 lite rTedla ro rTeflo n bag s at constan t samplin g rates . Wit h on e exception , sample s were collecte d i n triplicat e o rquadruplicat e a t th e location s describe d i n Tabl e 2
. Eac h sampl e wa s analyze d o n sit e b ygas chromatograph yutilizin g a flam e ionizatio n detecto r(GC/FID)
. Stac k parameter

s of velocityan d flowrat e were determine d byMethod s 1-2
.

1 7

\ ^ tP.2 7

Metho d 1 8 Samplin g Ftiuiomen t Styrene-containin g sample s o f sprayboot h exhaust were collecte d i n evacuate d Tedla ran d Teflo n bags
. Th e samplin g trai n consiste d o fa heate d Teflo n prob e an d samplin g line , heate d leakproof rigi d samplin g container , an d VOST-trai n samplin g boxe s wit h samplin g pum p an d dr yga s meters . Constan t samplin g rate s were used , typicall y0.2 5 liter/minute
. To prepare fo rsampling , Tedla ro rTeflo n bag s wer e blanke d wit h dr

yair , evacuated , an d seale d int o th e samplin g containers
. Al l bag s were heate d t o 11° C (20°F ) above ambien t t o minimiz e styren e loss
. Thi s temperature wa s chose n becaus e roofto p temperature s average d abou t 38° C (100°F ) durin g most testing
. Th e Teflo n probe s an d samplin g line s were als o maintaine d a t 49° C (120°F)
. Thus , bag s were evacuated , installe d i n th e samplin g containers , an d preheate d t o 49° C (120°F ) before bein g take n t o th e samplin g location
. Before , during , an d afte rsampling , an d unti l the ywere analyzed , th e 1 5 lite rTedla rbag s were maintaine d at 49° C (120°F ) withi n th e samplin g container
.

Metho d 1 8 Samplin g Procedure s Th e orde ro

f testin g wa s determine d byspra yboot h availabilityan d distance fro m th e mobil e laboratory
. Testin g starte d wit h ge l coat booth s 1 throug h 3 whic h wer e th e furthes t awayfro m th e mobil e laboratory
. Lay-U p booth s 1 throug h 3 were sample d next , the n Back-U p boot h # 1 an d an yothe rspray booth s that neede d t o b e repeated
. T o prepare fo rsampling , i n th e mobil e laboratory , evacuate d Tedla ro rTeflo n bag s were place d i n th e rigid, leakproo fsamplin g containe ran d th e inle t o fth e ba g wa s connecte d t o on e o ftwo Swagelock

® fitting s mounte d i n th e to p of th e container
. Th e li d wa s place d o n th e containe ran d sealed
. At thi s poin t th e heatin g jacke t o n th e containe rwa s allowe d t o brin g th e containe ran d its ba g t o 49° C (120°F)
. Whe n th e containe rha d stabilize d at 49° C (120°F) , i t was transporte d t o th e roo f o fth e facility
. O n th e roof , eac h sampl e containe rwa s lea k checked , an d th e heate d prob e an d sampl e lin e were attache d t o th e sampl e container
. Th e prob e wa s place d a t a poin t where th e loca l velocit ywas approximatel y> 1 8P.2 8

equa l t o th e averag e velocitymeasure d fo rth e stack , a s clos e t o th e cente rofth e stac k a s wa s possible , an d th e bag an d sampl e lin e wer e conditione d wit h stac k gas byfillin g an d evacuatin g th e ba g thre e time s i n succession
. Samplin g bega n an d pertinen t time s an d samplin g parameter s wer e entere d o n th e appropriat e ru n sheet
. Samplin g continue d fo r4 5 minute s wit h th e exceptio n o f fou rrun s that wer e cu t 5 minute s shor

t becaus e sprayin g i n a particula rboot h ha d temporaril yceased
. Whe n samplin g was completed , th e heate d samplin g containe ran d Tedla ro rTeflo n ba g wa s returne d t o th e mobil e laborator yfo ranalysis
. Fo ranalysis , content s o fth e heate d ba g were sample d directl ybyth e GC/FI D i n th e mobil e laborator ywithi n on e t o two hour

s afte rsamplin g was completed
. Th e ba g was the n remove d an d discarde d whil e a ne wba g wa s fitte d int o th e rigid sampfe containe ran d allowe d t o heat
.

Metho d 1 8 Stvren e Analvsi s Sample s were analyze d b yGC/FI D i n th e on-sit e mobil e laboratory
. Th e GC/FI D instrumen t condition s were a s follows : Shimadz u GC-14

AGas Chromatograp h wit h 0. 5 m l sampl e loop
. Colum n - 3 0 m lon g megabor e colum n (0.5 3 m m I.D) 1 u m fil m thickness , Reste k RTX- 1 (Equivalen t toJ&WDB-1 ) Detecto r- Flam e Ionizatio n Temperature progra m - isotherma l a t 100° C Integrato r- Shimadz u CR-501
.

T o calibrat e th e GC-FID , th e sampl e loo p wa s flushe d wit h a standard an d the n injecte d int o th e GC-FI D an d th e are a coun t was measure d b yth e integrator
. Thi s was repeate d fo reac h standard
. A
1 9 

## 1 1P.2 9

calibratio n curve wa s develope d b y performin g a leas t square s fi t usin g th e concentration s an d correspondin g are a counts o fth e standards . A calibratio n curve wa s develope d a t th e beginnin g o

feac h day o fsampling . Initially , it wa s planne d to calibrat e th e G C wit h styren e standard s prepare d accordin g to Sectio n 6.2.2. 2 o fMetho d 1 8 (Liqui d Injectio n Technique) . However , a t th e tim e o fthi s test , th e equipmen t require d to generat e suc h styren e standard s o n site wa s no t available . Therefore , precisio n o fth e GC FI D wa s establishe d b y repetitive samplin g o fstyren e standard s containe d i n commerciall y availabl e compresse d ga s cylinders . Immediatel y before thi s test , tw o bottle s eac h o

flo wan d mid-rang e styren e calibratio n standard s (nomina l 5 an d 5 0 ppm vo fstyren e i n nitrogen ) wer e ordere d fro m Matheso n Ga s Products . Whe n received , th e styren e concentration s wer e certifie d b y vendo r analysi s to b e 3 ppm v(fo r bot h bottles o

fnomina l 5 ppm vstyren e gas ) an d 5 2 an d 5 4 ppm v(fo r th e tw o bottles o

fnomina l 5 0 ppm v styren e calibratio n gas) . Fo r a hig h styren e calibratio n standard , a n unuse d bottl e o fnomina l 20 0 ppm v styren e calibratio n ga s (i n nitrogen ) lef t ove rfro m a previou s EP A evaluatio n carrie d ou t a t th e Elje rfacility i n Octobe r 199 2 wa s used . Th e concentratio n o fstyren e i n thi s cylinde r wa s certifie d by Matheso n Ga s Products to b e 19 5 ppm vwhe n i t wa s receive d i n Octobe r1992 .

Tim e integrate d ba g sample s wer e analyze d i n th e sam e manne r by flushin g th e sampl e loop , injectin g th e sample , notin g th e retentio n time , an d measurin g th e are a count . Identificatio n o fstyren e wa s base d o n retentio n tim e establishe d b y th e calibratio n standards . Th e are a coun t wa s converte d into a concentratio n usin g th e leas t square s calibratio n develope d wit h th e calibratio n standards . Eac h sampl e wa s analyze d i n duplicate . N o interferent s wer e anticipate d du e to th e fact that n o othe r chemical s excep t MEK P ar e use d i n th e manufacturin g process . MEK P i s use d i n ver y smal l quantitie s relative t o th e amoun t o

fstyrene-containin g mi xspraye d (1.1 t o 1.5 % by weight ) an d woul d no t b e detecte d by th e GC/FI D o r th e TH C analyzers . Also , durin g a previou s test conducte d at th e Elje r facility , GC-FI D analysi s o fEP A Metho d 1 8 sample s obtaine d usin g th e adsorptio n tub e procedure showe d onl y th e presenc e o f styren e i n th e ai r exhauste d fro m gel-coat , lay-up , an d back-u p spray booths. 8

2 0 Z OP.3 0

A t th e tim e o

f testin g th e EP

AProjec t Office rdecide d agains t requirin g a separat e analysi s o f a n appropriat e styren e audi t material
. However , afte rsamplin g wa s over , inconsisten t styren e concentration s fro m concurren t GC/FI D an d TH C measurements suggeste d that i t woul d b e appropriat e t o reques t that a n audi t sampl e b e supplie d fo ranalysis
. Th e audi t cylinde rwa s analyze d usin g th e Absorptio n Tub e Procedure o

f Metho d 1 8 an d th e result s of thi s analysi s wa s foun d t o b e wel l withi n ±10 % o fth e verifie d concentration
. Unfortunately , thi s showe d that there wa s substantia l erro ri n th e factor yanalyse s of th e standard gas mixture s o f styren e use d fo rfiel d calibration , necessitatin g a n overal l correctio n ofth e results
. Subsequently , i t wa s determine d fro m TH C analyse s usin g a TH C analyze rtha t ha d bee n calibrate d wit h th e EP

Astyren e Audi t Standard that th e calibratio n ga s standard s obtaine d fro m Matheso n Gas Products actuall ycontaine d 2.2
. 39. 4 (Matheson-certifie d 5 4 ppmv) , an d 170. 8 ppm vo f styrene , respectivel y(se e Appendi xA)
. As i s als o show n i n Appendi xA , th e Matheson-certifie d 5 2 ppm vstyren e cylinde rwa s determine d b yEP AMetho d 1 8 analysi s (adsorptio n tub e procedure ) t o contai n 39. 1 ppm vo f styrene . Th e manne ri n whic h thes e errors i n styren e concentratio n were detecte d an d th e effor t tha t wa s require d t o correc

t th e dat a take n i n th e fiel d are detaile d i n th e QualityContro l Evaluatio n Repor t i n Appendi xA
.

SAMPLIN G WIT H TH C ANALYZER S JU M Instrument s Mode l VE- 7 tota l hydrocarbo n (THC ) analyzer s were use d t o monito rstyren e emission s fro m activ e spraybooth s durin g tim e period s whe n Metho d 1 8 samplin g wa s conducte d a t thes e spraybooths
. I n addition , th e TH C analyzer s were use d t o monito rstyren e emission s fro m otherwis e activ e spraybooth s durin g mid-mornin g break s an d lunc h break

s an d t o monito rstyren e emission s fro m al l othe rpoint s o f ventilatio n ai rexhaust
. Fou rJU M TH C analyzers were use d fo rthi s sampling
. Tw o o f th e TH C analyzer

s were associate d wit h th e GC/FI D syste m i n th e mobil e laboratory
. Th e othe rtw o TH C analyzers wer e kep t i n th e va n an d were use d t o corroborat e dat a take n wit h th e TH C analyzer s i n th e mobil e laboratory
. Figure 3 shows how
. thes e analyzers were configured
. As i s show n i n thi s figure , two lon g samplin g hose s were 2 1 2 - \P.3 1

use d to convey a sampl e o fexhaus t ai r fro m a proces s ven t to on e pai ro fTH C analyzers . Thes e 0.635 c m (0.2 5 in. ) outsid e diamete r sampl e line s wer e mad e o fTeflo n an d wer e heate d t o approximatel y 66° C (150°F ) an d wer e 22. 9 m (7 5 ft) long . At th e flo wrate s use d fo rsampling , transi t tim e throug h th e line s average d betwee n 4 3 an d 5 1 seconds .

Dat a fro m two o

fth e TH C analyzers , thos e i n th e mobil e laboratory , wer e recorde d o n a dedicate d chart recorde ran d logge d o n a PC-base d dat a acquisitio n syste m (DAS ) develope d b y DEECO , Inc. 7 Outpu t fro m eac h TH C analyze rwa s average d ove r a perio d o fon e minute an d th e on e minut e average s wer e recorde d by th e dat a logger . Th e chart recorde rrecorde d instrumenta l outpu t o n a continuou s basis . A S-typ e pito t prob e wit h a K-typ e thermocoupl e wa s positione d i n th e stac k i n clos e proximit y to th e Metho d 1 8 samplin g prob e an d th e prob e use d fo r th e TH C analyzers . On e minute average s o

fth e pressure dro p acros s th e S-typ e pito t prob e an d th e temperatur e recorde d b y th e K-typ e thermocoupl e attache d t o th e prob e wer e als o logge d o n datalogger . I n thi s manner , ifth e flowrat e o fai r exitin g a particula rspray boot h wa s observe d t o chang e o r fluctuate significantly , th e ru n coul d b e aborted . Overall , flowrate s throug h a give n spray boot h exhaus t wer e observe d to vary insignificantl y ove r tim e an d n o run s ha d t o b e aborte d becaus e o funstabl e exhaus t flow . Th e tw o TH C analyzer s i n th e mobil e laborator y wer e calibrate d wit h 85 0 pp m ±1 % propan e i n th e mornin g an d i n th e afternoo n an d instrumen t zer o wa s verifie d wit h hydrocarbon-fre e ai r (les s tha n 0. 1 pp m THC) . t o b e abl e to develo p comparison s wit h th e othe r two TH C analyzer s that wer e calibrate d wit h styrene , mid-rang e styren e calibratio n ga s (nomina l 5 0 ppmv ) wa s als o sample d b

y thes e instrument s an d th e resul t wa s recorded . Se e th e Quality Contro l Evaluatio n Repor t i n Appendi xA fo r detail s o fthi s comparison . Dat a fro m th e tw o TH C analyzer s i n th e va n wer e logge d o n a separat e DAS . thi s PC base d DA S recorde d instrumenta l outpu t onc e a secon d an d logge d th e value s o n a floppy dis k alon g wit h loca l time . Output s fro m thes e TH C analyzer s wer e als o recorde d o n a two-channe l chart recorde r whic h wa s annotate d an d becam e par t o fth e experimenta l record . Th e two analyzer s i n th e va n wer e calibrate d before samplin g starte d i n th e morning , an d a t th e mid-mornin g brea k

wit h mid-rang e (nomina l 5 0 ppmv) calibratio n ga s an d wer e als o checke d fo r linearit y
2 2P.3 2

T O HEATE D SAMPLIN G LIN E 

# X T O EP A METHO D 1 8 (NIOS H METHO D 1501 ) SAMPLIN G APPARATU S (Use d fo r Othe r Sampling ) OUTPU TTO DA

S AN D CHAR TRECORDE R EXHAUS T T O OTHE R TH C ANALYZE R SPA N AN D ZER O GA S INPUT S 

# 1

J.U.M . VE- 7 TH C Analyze r 

# H& 

# t

<& # 

# w ^ ® #

.ZER O AI R 3 *

pp m 52 *

pp m 195 '

pp m

T O OTHE R TH C ANALYZE R STYREN E CAUBRATIO N GA S ( * Manufacturer s analysis , actua l value s wer e lower . S« e Appendi xA )
Figure 3 . Equipment Arrangemen t Use d fo r Samplh g wit h TH C Analyzer s

2 3 

## 2- 3P.3 3

wit h lo w(nomina l 5 ppmv

) an d high-rang e (nomina l 20 0 ppmv) styren e calibratio n standards . Th e calibratio n wa s als o checke d a t th e en d o fth e day . A s par

t o feac h calibratio n check , instrumen t zer o wa s verifie d wit h hydrocarbon-fre e ai r (les s tha n 0. 1 pp m THC) . A 10. 7 pp m propan e standar d wa s als o use d to determin e a n instrumenta l respons e fo rpropane .

VOLUMETRI C FLO WRAT E DETERMINATIO N

Fo rspra y boot h exhausts , volumetri c flo wwa s determine d accordin g to EP A Metho d 2. 6 A typ e Kthermocoupl e an d S-typ e pito t prob e wer e use d t o determin e flu e ga s temperature , an d velocity , respectively . EP A Metho d 1 wa s use d t o determin e th e numbe r o ftravers e points. 6 Parameter s measure d include d pito t pressure drop , stac k temperature , static , an d barometri c pressure . A compute r progra m wa s use d t o calculat e th e averag e velocity .

Stac k exhaus t ga s wa s assume d to b e ambien t air . Throughou t th e tes t relative humidity average d approximatel y 60 % (monitore d on-site wit h a relative humidit y sensor , Col e Parme r Mode l 3310 - 40) . A t typica l plan t ai r temperature s (27° C o r 80°F ) thi s correspond s to 2 % wate r vapo r i n th e air , th e valu e that wa s use d fo r dr y ga s corrections . Th e othe r ventilatio n exhaust s wer e thre e o r four-blade d exhaus t fans . Becaus e o fth e very uneve n ai r flows an d th e absenc e o fa flowstraightenin g exhaus t stack , i t wa s essentiall y impossibl e t o determin e th e locatio n o fsuitabl e travers e points o r to mak e measurement s wit h a n s-typ e pitot probe . Thus , wit h th e permissio n o fth e EP A Project Officer , a direct readin g ai r velocity mete r (Air-Neotronic s Mode l 50-4 ) wit h a lon g enoug h averagin g tim e t o suppres s th e effect s o fbuffetin g fro m th e fa n exhaus t wa s use d to determin e a n averag e velocity . Th e direct readin g ai r velocit y mete r was checke d agains t th e s-typ e pito

t prob e i n on e o

fthe'spra y boot h exhaus t vents .

2 4SECTIO N 4 RESULTS

Emissio n factor

s wer e calculate d fro m emissio n rate s determine d fro m TH C analyze ran d Metho d 1 8 samplin g an d knowledg e o fth e amoun t o

f styren e use d i n eac h stag e o fmanufacture a t th e Elje rfacility(fro m productio n record s fo reac h da yo ftesting , show n i n Tabl e 3)
. Knowledg e o fth e tota l of are a spraye d durin g Metho d 1 8 samplin g (fro m inspectio n ofvideotape s mad e o f sprayin g carrie d ou t i n th e boot h bein g sample d t o identifyth e typ e an d surfac e are a of mol d sprayed ) provide d th e amoun t of styren e expende d pe rsquare mete ro fmol d sprayed
. Compariso n o fth e styren e emissio n rat e determine d fro m TH C analyze ran d Metho d 1 8 samplin g a t th e exhaus t ofa give n spra yboot h wit h th e amoun t o f styren e spraye d yielde d th e emissio n rat e fo rtha t par t of th e manufacturin g process . Thus , I f M , i s th e mas s o f styren e spraye d pe rsquare foo t o fmol d are a fo ra give n phas e o f th e sprayin g operatio n (supplie d fro m plan t productio n record s an d analysi s ofsample s o fmi xfro m eac h sprayin g operation ) an d A , i s th e surfac e are a o f th e it h mol d sprayed , th e mass of styren e spraye d durin g th e sprayin g o f tha t mold , M„i s equa l t o th e produc t o fM , an d AJ : M , - M , • A , (1 ) I f durin g a perio d of time , T s , whe n TH C analyze ro rMetho d 1 8 samplin g wa s conducted , n mold s were sprayed , th e tota l mas s o f styren e sprayed , M Twas :

M T= M s £ A , (2 )

i- i

2 5 

## -z- ^P.3 5

Now , i fC S B i s th e concentratio n o fstyren e measure d a t th e exhaust stac k o fth e activ e spray boot h unde r tes t (fro m th e TH C analyze r o r Metho d 1 8 measurement) , an d i fth e averag e ai r flowrat e throug h th e boot h unde r tes t i s Q SB . the n th e rat e a t whic h gaseou s styren e i s emitte d throug h th e spray boot h exhaus t ven t (emissio n rat e ove r th e tim e o fth e Metho d 1 8 measurement ) is :

ES B - Css ' Q S B (3 )

an d th e tota l mas s o

fstyren e emitte d durin g th e tim e T s is :

M S B " E S B ' T S (4 ) It shoul d b e note d that thi s calculatio n presume s that non e o fth e styren e spraye d i n a give n spray boot h escape d throug h th e fron t o fth e boot h into th e plant . Ther e are tw o reason s wh y thi s assumptio n i s warranted : First , al l sprayin g i s directe d into th e booth , i.e . i n reviewin g th e videotap e record mad e t o identif y whic h mold s wer e spraye d whil e samplin g wa s carrie d ou t i n a particula rbooth , th e operato r o

fth e spray gu n wa s neve r observe d t o direct th e spra y gu n toward th e mout h o fth e booth . Second , th e net ai rvelocit y into th e boot h (acros s th e mout h o fth e booth ) range d fro m 0.4 7 t o 0.5 7 m/s , whic h shoul d b e great enoug h t o capture al l styren e vapo r generate d i n th e booth .

Indeed , becaus e styren e emission s associate d wit h sprayin g d o no t escap e fro m spra y booth s into th e plant , som e styren e emission s fro m othe r part s o fth e manufacturin g proces s mus t b e capture d b

y ai r bein g swept into th e spray booths . A t th e Elje r facilit

y (an d perhap s at othe rsimila rfacilities) , mold s that have bee n spraye d ar e frequentl y lef t nea r th e mouth s o

fspray booth s where sprayin g i s i n progress . Thus , styren e evolve d fro m a curin g mol d ca n b e capture d b y a n nearby spra

y booth . Whil e thi s i s probabl y no

t a commo n occurrenc e fo r ge l coa t booth s a t th e Elje rfacilit y (becaus e o

flimite d spac e i n fron t o fthes e booths) , it i s a n integra l par t o fth e manufacturin g proces s fo r th e latte r two stage s o f spraying . I n fact , a t an y on e time , i t i s commo n fo ra s man y fiftee n mold s to b e i n variou s stage s o f manufacture i n th e genera l vicinit y o fth e lay-u p an d back-u p booths . Also , mold s ar e generall y lef t i n a

2 6 

## 7AsP.3 6

lay-u p boot h betwee n spraying s where th e surfac e of th e mol d i s rolle d flat
. I n AP-4 2 i t i s note d tha t styren e emission s ar e increase d b ysuc h manua l rolling. ' Thus , th e concentratio n o fstyren e measure d at th e exhaus t o f a give n activ e spraybooth , C SB , i s actuall yth e su m of th e concentratio n o f styren e vapo remitte d i n th e spraybooth , C s , an d th e concentratio n of styren e vapo rswept int o th e spra yboot h fro m th e are a adjacen t t o th e spraybooth , C P : C S B - C s * C P (5 )

an d equatio n (3 ) shoul d b e writte n as : Es s = (p s + C P) • Qs

e (6 ) The n th e emissio n factor , F se , fo rth e spra yboot h unde rtes t i s th e rati o o f th e amoun t o f styren e emitted , M SB . fro m equatio n (4 ) t o th e amoun t o f styren e sprayed , M T , fro m equatio n (2) :

Fs B 

## 1vi 7 (7 ) Styren e emission s not capture d b yth e active spra yboot h exhaust fan s (styren e evolve d fro m recentl yspraye d mold s an d fro m ope n resi n mixin g tanks ) were determine d i n a simila rmanner . Durin g period s o f norma l productio n styren e emission s wer e measure d at ever

ypoin t where plan t ventilatio n ai r wa s exhauste d t o th e atmosphere (thi s include d fou rventilatio n exhaust fan s an d fou rspraybooth s tha t were no t i n us e bu t whos e exhaust fan s v/ere kept runnin g throughou t th e day)
. Also , durin g th e tw o dail y break s i n productio n (mornin g brea k an d lunc h break) , styren e emission s were measure d at normall y active spraybooth s where th e exhaust fan s were lef t running
. Thus , fo ra give n ventilatio n exhaus t fan , unuse d spraybooth , o rinactiv e spra ybooth , i fCvi i s th e concentratio n of styren e measure d a t th e exhaus t poin t unde rtes t (fro m th e TH C analyzer) , an d i fth e averag e ai rflo wrat e fo rthi s locatio n i s Q Vi , the n th e rat e at whic h gaseou s styren e i s emitte d throug h a ventilatio n fan , a n unuse d sprayboot h exhaus t vent , o ra n inactiv e sprayboot h exhaust ven t (mas s emissio n rat e ove rth e tim e o fth e TH C measurement ) is :

2 7 

## IFP.3 7

E V i = C V i • Q V i (8 )
Becaus e thes e emission s are no t directl ytie d t o a mol d surfac e are a o rstag e o fth e productio n process , mas s emission s pe runi t tim e were determine d byequatio n (8) , an d extrapolate d t o a typica l dayo f productio n usin g th e amoun t o f tim e spen t sprayin g an d th e amoun t oftim e spen t o n break
. Thus , i fT p i s th e tota l tim e spen t sprayin g durin g th e thre e period s o f mol d productio n an d i f T B i s th e tota l tim e spen t o n brea k (mornin g brea k

plu s lunc h break

) the n th e tota l mas s o

fstyren e emitte d fro m a give n ventilatio n exhaust fa n o runuse d sprayboot h is : M V i = E v j • (T p • T B ) (9 )
an d th e tota l mas s o

fstyren e emitte d fro m a n inactive spra yboot h (durin g a brea k

i n production ) is :

M ISB j = E Vj * T B (10 )
Thus , th e emissio n factor , F v , associate d wit h styren e emission s no t capture d byth e spra

yboot h exhaust fan s (fro m recentl yspraye d mold s an d fro m ope n resi n mixin g tanks ) i s th e rati o o fth e tota l amoun t o f styren e vente d throug h th e fou rventilatio n exhaust fan s an d fou runuse d spra ybooth s an d th e seve n inactive spraybooth s t o th e tota l amoun t o f styren e spraye d durin g a give n da yo fproduction , M ST :

' 8 7 Z M V i * £ M ISB

j F 

### v = 

### ~ kT

* L

### < 1 1 

### > M S T

Th e amoun t o

f styren e spraye d o n a give n day , M ST , was calculate d fro m plan t productio n record s an d chemica l analysi s (bychromatography) o f sample s o

f eac h mi xspraye d (to determin e styren e content)
. Knowledg e o

f M STan d th e averag e mol d are a spraye d pe rda y(fro m th e thre e sprayin g operations ) make s i t possibl e t o relat e styren e emission s no t capture d b

yactive spra

yboot h exhaust fan s t o bot h th e mass o f styren e that wa s spraye d a s wel l as tota l mol d area .
2 8P.3 8

Th e overal l results o

f th e samplin g t o determin e styren e emission s are detaile d belowan d th e results o f individua l TH C an d EP

AMetho d 1 8 run s ar e show n i n Tabl e 4
. Styren e emission s pe runi t are a o f mol d spraye d ar e presente d i n Tabl e 5
. Tabl e 6 shows ho wstyren e emission s were determine d fo rstyren e emission s not capture d byth e spra yboot h exhaust fans
. Tabl e 7 summarize s tota l mol d surfac e are a sprayed , plan t ra

wmateria l usage , an d styren e us e fo reac h stag e o fmanufacture fo reac h da yof testing
. Tabl e 8 combine s th e results show n i n Table s 4 throug h 7 an d present s averag e styren e emission s a s a functio n o f th e are a sprayed , th e tota l mass that wa s sprayed , an d th e tota l amoun t o f styren e tha t wa s sprayed
. Finally , Tabl e 9 shows relative styren e emission s fo reac h stag e of manufacture , includin g emission s not capture d b yspra yboot h exhaust fans
. As Table s 4 an d 5 show , styren e emission s base d o n measurements wit h th e TH C analyzers were generall ymuc h greate rtha n thos e determine d byMetho d 18
. Th e two technique s ha d bee n expecte d t o produce comparabl e results
. Indeed , i t was fel t that i f on e techniqu e wa s t o b e biase d toward a lowe r measurement , i t woul d likel yb e th e TH C analyzers , becaus e som e styren e coul d b e los t i n th e lon g heate d samplin g line s use d t o conveyth e ventilatio n ai rsample s t o th e analyzers
. Note , however , that Metho d 1 8 employ s a complexprocedure t o obtai n a time-average d sampl e ofa n aeroso l whic h must b e transporte d t o a GC-FI D fo ranalysis
. I n contrast , samplin g wit h a TH C analyze ri s relativel ystraightforward an d immediate
. Nevertheless , a s Tabl e 8 show s (withi n th e uncertaint

yo f th e data ) that styren e emission s a s determine d fro m th e two methods ' dat a d o overlap
. I t shoul d b e emphasize d that becaus e o f th e lac k ofmultipl e measurements , n o uncertaint ycoul d b e determine d fo rstyren e emission s not capture d b ysprayboot h exhaust fan s (base d onl yo n TH C analyze rdata)
. Therefore , th e uncertaintie s i n Tabl e 8 ar e minimum values
. Th e lac k

of multipl e measurements fo rsuc h emission s i s especiall yunfortunat e becaus e styren e emission s not capture d b yactiv e spra yboot h exhaust fan s are on e of th e largest source s o f styren e emissions
. Researc h conducte d subsequen t t o th e above analysi s o f tes t results has als o show n difference s betwee n EP

AMetho d 1 8 measurements o f styren e emission s an d thos e usin g TH C analyzers. 9,1 0 However , th e reaso n fo rthes e difference s remain s th e subjec t o f research
. I t has bee n suggeste d that i n th e Metho d

2 9 

## OHP.3 9

Tabl e 4
. Styren e Concentratio n an d Emissio n Rate Summar yfo rElje rPlumbingwar

e (Jun e 1993)

Samplin g Locatio n Ge l Coa t # 1

Ge l Coa t # 2

Ge l Coa t #3
Lay-U p # 1

Lay-U p # 2
Lay-U p # 3 Back-U p # 1 Dat

e 6/15/9 3
6/17/9 3 6/15/9 3
6/17/9 3 6/16/9 3

6/16/9 3
6/17/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 Samplin g

Time Spa n 0900-094 5 1030-111 5 1120-120 5 1245-133 0 0900-094 5 1030-111 5 1120-1205 1245-133 0 0740-082 5 0830-091 5 0920-100 5 0740-082 5 0830-091 5 0920-100 5 1100-114 5 1030-111 0 1125-120 5 1100-1145 1030-111 0 1125-120 5 1245-133 0 1245-133 0 0825-091 0 0825-091 0 Ven t

Ro wRat e (dscmm) 374. 3 374. 3 374. 3 374. 0 373. 6 373. 6 373. 6 373. 6 362. 2 362. 2 362. 2 358. 8 358. 8 358. 8 358. 8 427. 9 427. 9 427. 9 404. 2 404. 2 370. 1 370. 1 378. 4 378. 4 —Styren e Concen t

Lab TH C (ppm) 45. 4 59. 5 N/ A 8.9 60. 5 67. 3 N/ A 71. 6 60. 9 35. 3 49. 4 51. 4 49. 5 50. 9 42. 0 51. 6 51. 4 44. 0 29. 7 31. 3 100. 7 105. 1 68. 3 74. 3 Va n TH C

(ppm) N/ A N/ A 59. 7 5.9 N/ A N/ A 65. 2 63. 8 N/ A N/ A 51. 1 N/ A N/ A N/ A 35. 2 49. 0 47. 6 44. 8 28. 6 30. 2 N/ A N/ A N/ A 76. 0 ration —

Method 1 8 (ppm ) 21. 5 33. 3 39. 2 6.3 24. 7 44. 3 62. 3 36. 8 39. 7 27. 3 41. 4 27. 8 30. 5 35. 3 29. 7 39. 5 33. 7 34. 3 26. 0 37. 6 92. 8 92. 3 45 4 40. 2 —Styren e Emissio n Rate —

Lab TH C (kg/hr ) 4.41 3 5.78 8 N/ A 0.86 4 5.86 9 6.52 7 N/ A 6.94 5 5.73 2 3.31 9 4.64 7 4.79 1 4.61 8 4.74 3 3.911 . 5.73 6 5.71 1 4.89 2 3.11 6 3.28 5 9.68 0 10.10 0 6.71 1 7.30 5 Va n TH C

(kg/hr ) N/ A N/ A 5.80 6 0.575 N/ A N/ A 6.33 1 6.18 8 N/ A N/ A 4.81 3 N/ A N/ A N/ A 3.28 2 5.44 7 5.28 8 4.97 9 3.00 3 3.175 N/ A N/ A N/ A 7.47 2 Method 1 8

(kg/hr ) 2.09 3 3.24 3 3.81 0 0.61 6 2.39 9 4.29 8 6.04 6 3.57 5 3.73 5 2.56 9 3.98 6 2.59 0 2.83 5 3.28 9 2.77 2 4.39 2 3.75 1 3.81 1 2.72 7 3.94 6 8.92 5 8.87 3 4.46 2 3.94 9 • EMISSION S FO F Exhaus t 1 Exhaus t 2 Exhaus t 3 Resi n Mix Lay-U p # 4 Lay-U p #5 Lay-U p # 6 Back-U p #

2 VENT S O R 6/21/9 3 6/21/9 3 6/21/9 3 6/21/9 3 6/21/9 3 6/21/9 3 6/21/9 3 6/21/9 3
AVERAG E EMISSION S PE R E Ge l Coa t # 1 Ge l Coa t #2 Ge l Coa t #2 Back-U p # 1 Lay-U p # 1 6/15/9 3

6/15/9 3 6/22/9 3 6/17/9 3 6/16/9 3 JOOTHSWHE R

0812-083 0 0840-091 3 0916-094 0 1326-134 0 1154-122 9 1302-131 5 1250-130 0 1316-132 4 I

N O STYREN E 363. 5 163. 1 331. 4 187. 9 396. 9 379. 1 353. 5 367. 3 /VA

S SPRAYEC 8. 0 9. 7 9.6 7. 2 8.7 10. 2 13. 9 8.2
OOT H DURIN G MORNIN G AN D LUNC H BREAK 1003-102 4 1003-102 4 1005-103 1 1000-103 0 1207-122 4 374. 3

373. 6 373. 6 370. 1 358. 8 6.9

9.9 N/ A 5.2 7. 0 Averag e (pe rbooth) = 7. 0 i N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/

A N/ A N/A ' N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Tota l (Al l Vents) = 6.29 5 3 (N O SPRAYIN G ACTIVITY) N/ A N/ A 7. 5 N/ A N/ A N/

A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Average (pe rbooth) = 0.6 6 0.75 8 0.41 2 0.82 3 0.35 2 0.894 1.00 5 1.273 0.779

0.67 4 0.96 1 0.73 2 0.49 8 0.65 3 8 N/

A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/

A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

30 

## 6 CTabl e 5
. Styren e Emission s pe rUni t Are a o fMol d Sprayed , Elje rPlumbingware (Jun e 1993) P.4 0

Samplin g Locatio n Ge l Coa t # 1

Ge l Coa t # 2

Ge l Coa t # 3

Lay-U p # 1

Lay-U p # 2
Lay-U p # 3

Back-U p # 1 Dat e

6/15/9 3

6/17/9 3 6/15/9 3
6717/9 3
6/16/9 3

6/16/9 3
6/17/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 6/16/9 3

6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 Samplin g

Tim e Spa n 0900-094 5 1030-111 5 1120-120 5 1245-133 0 0900-094 5 1030-111 5 1120-120 5 1245-133 0
0740-082 5 0830-091 5 0920-100 5

0740-082 5 0830-091 5 0920-100 5 1100-114 5 1030-111 0 1125-120 5 1100-114 5 1030-111 0 1125-120 5

1245-133 0 1245-133 0 0825-091 0 0825-091 0 Sampl e

Tim e (min ) 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5
4 5 4 5 4 5 Mol d

Are a (m 1 ) 44.5 0 43.6 6 36.1 4 0.0 0 38.5 5 N/A ' N/A ' 54.6 3
34.1 9 22.3 0 23.9 7 Ven t

Ro wRat e (dscmm ) 374. 3 374. 3 374. 3 374. 3 373. 6 373. 6 373. 6 373. 6
362. 2 362. 2 362. 2 Ge l Coat Boot h Averag e = Relative Standard Deviatio n (% ) = 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 0 4 0 4 5 4 0 4 0 28.4 3

30.1 0 27.2 2 34.1 9 22.9 9 19.5 1 N/A " 40.1 3 28.2 4 358. 8

358. 8 358. 8 358. 8 427. 9 427. 9 427. 9 404. 2 404. 2 Lay-U p Boot h Averag e = Relative Standar d Deviatio n (%) = 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 103.5 8

103.5 B 80.2 7 80.2 7 370. 1

370. 1 378. 4 378. 4 Back-U p Boot h Averag e = Relative Standard Deviatio n (% ) = —Styren e Emitted —

TH C (Q/m J ) 74. 4 99. 4 120. 5 N/ A 114. 2 N/ A N/ A 90. 2
125. 7 111. 6 148. 0 110. 5 20. 5 126. 4 115. 1 130. 7 78. 9 162. 1 187. 9 N/ A 50. 8 76. 3 116. 0 39. 7 70. 1 73. 1 62. 7 69. 0 68. 7 6. 4 Metho d 1 8

(q/m 2 ) 35. 3 55. 7 79. 1 N/ A 46. 7 N/ A N/ A 49.1 1
81. 9 86. 4 121. 9 69. 5 40. 6 68. 3 70. 6 90. 6 60.8 T 127. 3 128. 2 N/ A 45. 3 93. 1 85. 5 35. 3 64. 6 64. 3 41. 7 36. 9 51. 9 28. 2 Vide o camer a failure . " Vide o Camer a pointe d at wron g booth , n o data , t Valu e may b e i n erro rdu e to shif t i n G C calibratio n durin g analysis .

3 1P.4 1

Tabl e 6
. Determinatio n ofNon-Spra yBooth Styren e Emissio n Rat e

Activit y Al l Vent s Durin g Spraying ' = Al l Vent s Durin g Breaks' * = Usuall yActiv e Spra yBooth s Durin g Breaks * = Al l Vents , Al l Day , (TH C measurement s only ) = Amoun t 37.77 3 9.44 3 7.01 2 54.22 7 Uni t

kg/da y kg/da y kg/da y kg/da y

* Activ e spra ybooth s excluded , ( 6 h o fventilation/day ) x(6.29 5 kg/ h fro m non-sprayin g vents)
. " Activ e spra ybooth s excluded , (1. 5 h o fbreaks/day ) x(6.29 5 kg/ h fro m non-sprayin g vents)
. * Booth s normall yuse d fo rspraying , (1. 5 h ofbreaks/day ) x(0.66 8 kg/ h pe rboot h durin g breaks ) x( 7 booths)
.

Dat e

6/15/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 Tota l Tabl e 7
. Plan t Ra wMateria l an d Styren e Usage , Jun e 15-17,199 3

Mas s Ge l Coa t (•<9 ) 488. 1 516. 2 513. 0 1517. 3 > o f Materia l Used '

La yU p (kq ) 2237. 1 2124. 6 2155. 9 6517. 6 Bac k

U p (kg ) 1947. 3 1811. 6 1798. 9 5557. 8 —Amoun t Sprayed —

Total " (kg ) 4672. 4 4452. 4 4467. 9 13592. 7 Styrene "

(kg ) 1042. 9 999. 5 1002. 5 3044. 9 —Styren e Emitted —

TH C (kg ) 246. 0 244. 2 246. 9 737. 1 Metho d 1 8

(kg ) 188. 4 187. 4 189. 2 565. 0

Dat e Ge l Coat *

(m 2 ) Are a Spraye d

La yU p (m 2 ) Bac k

U p -Area l Densit y Ge l Coa t (kg/m 2 ) La yU p

(kg/m 2 ) Bac k

U p (kg/m 2 ) 6/15/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 Tota l 664. 6

646. 0 653. 0 1963. 6 640. 5

642. 0 652. 1 1934. 5 640. 5

642. 0 652. 1 1934. 5 0.734 4

0.799 0 0.785 6 0.772 7 3.493 0

3.309 2 3.306 3 3.369 1 3.040 4

2.821 7 2.758 8 2.872 9

* No t countin g MEKP
. Se e Tabl e 3 fo rdetail s o fra wmateria l use . " Ge l Coa t = 32.2 % styrene , Lay-U p Mi x= 21.4 % styrene , Back-U p Mi x= 20.9 % styrene . * Include s mold s rejecte d du e t o imperfections
.

3 2 

## ST-Tabl e 8 . Styren e Emission s fo r Eac h Part o fth e Manufacturin g Proces s P.4 2

(a ) Styren e Emission s pe rUni t Are a o fMol d Spraye d
Emission s from :

Ge l Coat Booth s La y U p Booth s Bac k U p Booth s Non-Spray Boot h Emission s Al l Emission s TH C Analyze r Styren e (Q/m° ) 110. 5 116. 0 68. 7 83. 7 378. 9 Pop . Std .

Dev . (Q/m J) 21. 2 43. 1 3. 8 N/ A 48.1 ' EP A Metho d 1 8

Styren e (0/m 2 ) 69. 5 85. 5 51. 9 83. 7 290. 6 Pop . Std .

Dev . (q/m ! ) 26. 4 28. 3 12. 6 N/ A 40.7 ' (b ) Percen t o

fTota l Mas s Use d i n Eac h Stag e o fManufactur

e tha t wa s Emitte d a s Styren e
Emission s from : Ge l Coat Booth s Lay U p Booth s Bac k U p Booth s Non-Spray Boot h Emission s Al l Emission s TH C t Styren e (% ) 14. 3 3. 4 2. 4 1. 2 5. 4 ,nalyze r •

Rel . Std . Dev . (%) 2. 7 1. 3 1. 5 N/ A 0.7 ' EP A Metho d 1 8

Styren e (% ) 9. 0 2. 5 1. 8 1. 2 4. 2 Rel . Std . Dev .

(% ) 3. 4 0. 8 0. 4 N/ A 0.6 ' (c ) Percen t o

fStyren e Use d i n eac h Stag e o fManufactur

e that wa s Emitte d
Emission s from : Ge l Coat Booth s La y U p Booth s Bac k U p Booth s Non-Spray Boot h Emission s Al l Emission s —TW P t Styren e (% ) 44. 4 16. 1 11. 4 5. 3 24. 2 Jialyze r

Rel . Std . Dev . (% )

. 8. 5 6. 0 0. 6 N/ A 3.3 ' Styren e

(% ) 27. 9 11. 9 8. 6 5. 3 18. 6 Rel . Std . Dev .

(% ) 10. 6 3. 9 2. 1 N/ A 2.8 ' Minimu m estimate . Assume s eac h proces s independen t wit h n o contributio n fro m th e non-sprayin g emission s component .

3 3 

### S2>P.4 3

1 8 procedure , styren e ca n polymeriz e before analysi s an d ma yals o have a ver

ylo wvapo rpressure a t stac k o rinstrumen t conditions
. Bot h o f thes e condition s woul d resul t i n a lowe rmeasuremen t fo rstyrene . Althoug h i t i s not specificall ynote d i n AP-42, 1 i t i s reasonabl e t o assum e that styren e emissio n factors cite d i n thi s standard fo rpolyeste rresi n plastics products fabricatio n includ e emission s not capture d byactiv e spraybooths
. Thus , i n orde rt o compare th e results obtaine d i n thi s stud ywit h thos e cite d i n AP 42 , i t i s necessar

yt o apportio n styren e emission s fro m non-spra yboot h emission s t o thos e part s of th e proces s associate d wit h sprayin g operations : ge l coating , lay-u p an d back-up
. Th e followin g approac h was followe d t o apportio n non-spra yboot h emission s t o eac h o f th e sprayin g operations
. 1
. Obtai n a n averag e emissio n facto rfo reac h of th e sprayin g operation s b yaveragin g th e Metho d 1 8 an d TH C measurements fo reac h o fth e thre e sprayin g operation s (ge l coating , lay-u p an d back-up ) 2
. Apportio n emission s no t directl yassociate d wit h sprayin g t o eac h o fth e thre e sprayin g operation s a s follows : 2. 1 Assum e that vents that are i n th e clos e proximityt o a particula rsprayin g operatio n captur e th e emission s (fro m curin g molds ) generate d b ythat operation
. Som e non-sprayin g emission s are surel ycapture d b yactive spra

ybooths
. However , fo rth e purpose s o f apportionin g emission s t o obtai n a compariso n wit h AP-42 , we wil l assum e that al l emission s capture d b

ya n activ e spra

yboot h are emission s directl yrelate d t o that phas e o f manufacture
. 2. 2 Thus , becaus e th e are a o fth e plan t use d fo rge l coatin g i s mor e o rles s of

fbyitself , w e assum e that th e thre e exhaust fan s o n th e sid e o fth e plan t adjacen t t o th e ge l coat spray booth s capture curin g emission s fro m mold s previousl yspraye d i n on e o fth e thre e ge l coat booths
. Likewise , we wil l assum e that lay-u p booth s 4 , 5 , an d 6 , (tha t were not use d fo r spraying ) capture styren e emission s fro m mold s that were spraye d i n lay-u p booth s 1,2 ,
3 4 

## 34 rP.4 4

an d 3 , an d we wil l assum e that back-u p boot h 2 (tha t wa s not use d fo rspraying ) capture s styren e emission s fro m mold s that were spraye d i n bac k u p boot h 1
. 2. 3 Similarly , we wil l assum e tha t durin g break

s i n sprayin g (mornin g break , lunch ) an y emission s capture d b

ya particula rspra

yboot h cam e fro m mold s that wer e spraye d i n th e phas e o fmanufactur

e normall yassociate d wit h that spra ybooth
. Thi s include s styren e emission s capture d durin g th e 1 5 minute s before wor k commenced , th e 3 0 minut e midmomin g break , th e 3 0 minute lunc h break , an d th e 1 5 minute s that th e vent s are operate d a t th e en d o

fth e da yafte rsprayin g ha s ended
. 2. 4 Assum e that resi n mixin g roo m emission s that ar e exhauste d t o th e atmosphere ca n b e apportione d t o emission s fro m th e lay-u p an d back-u p operation s becaus e thes e resin s ar e onl yuse d i n thos e phase s o fmanufacture ; ge l coat i s supplie d i n pre-mixe d 5 5 gallo n drums
. We wil l apportio n th e resi n mixin g roo m emission s accordin g t o th e mas s o fmi x spraye d i n eac h o

f th e two operations
.

' Usin g thes e assumptions , th e followin g emissio n factor s were calculated : Ge l Coa t 47.5 % ofth e styren e spraye d i n that phas e o fmanufacture Lay-U p 20.0 % o fth e styren e spraye d i n that phas e o fmanufactur

e Back-U p 12.1 % of th e styren e spraye d i n that phas e o fmanufactur

e Thes e dat a suggest that sprayboot h emission s are highe rtha n thos e cite d i n AP-4 2 fo rge l coatin g an d spra ylay-u p (se e Tabl e 1 , reproduce d fro m AP-42 , fo rstyren e emissio n factors). 1 AP-4 2 cite s a valu e o f fro m 2 6 t o 35 % o

f styren e monome rbein g emitte d fo rge l coat that contain s n o vapo rsuppressin g additive s (as wa s th e cas e a t Eljer)
. Th e results calculate d accordin g t o th e above procedure t o apportio n non-sprayin g emission s t o eac h par t o fth e manufacturin g proces s that incorporate s sprayin g suggest that nearl y48 % o

fth e styren e i n th e ge l coat mi xi s lost t o th e atmosphere
. 35 

# 65-P.4 5

AP-4 2 make s n o distinctio n betwee n styren e emission s fro m lay-u p booth s o rfro m back-u p booths , an d indicate s that , wit h vapo rsuppressin g additive s i n th e mix , fro m 3 t o 9 % o fth e styren e spraye d i n thi s operatio n i s emitted
. I f vapor-suppressin g additive s are not adde d t o th e mix , emission s rise t o fro m 9 t o 13 % o f th e styren e sprayed
. A t Eljer , vapo rsuppressants are adde d t o th e lay-u p an d back-u p mix
. However , th e level s o

f styren e emission s measure d there suggest that th e emission s level s ar e probabl y highe rtha n what AP-4 2 cite s as typica l fo rnon-vapo rsuppresse d emissions , particularl yfo rth e lay-u p phas e o f manufacture
. Thus , results calculate d accordin g t o th e above apportionin g procedure showthat styren e emission s t o th e atmospher e average d 20 % o

fth e styren e spraye d i n th e lay-u p booth s an d 12 % o f th e styren e spraye d i n th e singl e back-u p booth
. Thes e generall yhighe rtha n expecte d emissio n level s ma ybe , a t least i n part , du e t o th e nature o f th e process . A

t th e Elje rfacility(whic h i s probabl ylike othe rsuc h manufacturin g plants) , mold s that have bee n spraye d ar e frequentl ylef t nea rth e mouth s o

f spra ybooth s where sprayin g i s i n progress . Hence , styren e evolve d fro m a curin g mol d ca n b e capture d b ya n adjacen t spra

ybooth
. Whil e thi s practic e i s not commo n i n th e ge l coat booth s (becaus e o flimite d space i n fron t o

f th e booth s a

t th e Elje rfacility), ; thi s practic e i s a n integra l par t o f th e manufacturin g proces s fo rth e latte rtwo stage s o fspraying
. I n fact , at an y on e time , i t i s commo n fo ra s man yfiftee n mold s t o b e i n variou s stage s o f manufactur

e i n th e genera l vicinityo f th e lay-u p an d back-u p booths
. Also , mold s are generall ylef t i n a lay-u p boot h betwee n spraying s where th e surfac e of th e mol d i s rolle d flat
. I n AP-4 2 i t i s note d that styren e emission s ar e increase d b ysuc h manua l rolling. 1 Finally , AP-4 2 provide s n o separat e estimat e o fstyren e emission s not capture d byspraybooths
. Whil e suc h emission s are certainl ya functio n o fventilatio n syste m desig n an d th e specifi cequipmen t a t a give n facility , a

t Elje ri t was foun d that 6 % o fall th e styren e spraye d exits th e facilitythroug h opening s othe r tha n spra yboot h exhausts
. As note d i n Tabl e 9 , thi s correspond s t o rro m 2 2 t o 29 % (dependin g o n th e measuremen t method ) o fal l styren e emitte d t o th e atmosphere ; thus , styren e emission s not capture d b y spraybooth s represen t a sourc e of styren e emission s a s great a s (o rpossibl ygreate rthan ) styren e emission s associate d wit h an yon e o f th e sprayin g operations
.

3 6 

## 3 GTabl e 9
. Distributio n of Styren e Emission s fro m Eac h Par t o f th e Manufacturin g Process , Includin g Styren e Emission s not Capture d bySpra yBooth s P.4 6

Date

6/15/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 Averag e F

Ge l Coat Booth s (% ) 29. 9 29. 2 29. 2 29. 4 ro m TH C

La y U p Booth s (% ) 30. 2 30. 5 30. 6 30. 5 Analyze rMeasurements Bac k U p Booth s (% )
17. 9 18. 1 18. 2 18. 0 Non Sprayin g (% )
22.0
. 22. 2 22. 0 22. 1 Al l Source s (% ) 100. 0

. 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 Ge l Coa

t Booth s (% )
24. 5 24. 0 24. 0 24. 2 Fro m Metho d 1 8 Measurement s

La y U p Boot h s (% ) 29. 1 29. 3 29. 5 29. 3 Bac k

U p Booth s (% )
17. 6 17. 8 17. 9 17. 7 Non Sprayin g (% )
28. 8 28. 9 26. 6 28. 8 Al l

Sourc e s (% ) 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0

RECOMMENDATION S FO R FUTUR E SAMPLIN G Thre e method s are availabl e t o measur e hydrocarbo n emissio n rate s fo ra n emissio n sourc e suc h a s Elje rPlumbingware
. Two o f th e thre e method s were use d here : EP AMetho d 1 8 (usin g Tedla rbag s t o obtai n time-average d samples ) an d TH C analyzer s (direc t samplin g throug h heate d hoses)
. Th e thir d metho d that i s appropriat e i s a variatio n o f Metho d 1 8 that use s a charcoal-fille d adsorptio n tub e instea d o f a Tedla rba g t o obtai n a tim e integrate d aeroso l sample
. Wit h thi s method , styren e (o ranothe rVOC ) tha t wa s adsorbe d o n th e activate d charcoa l durin g samplin g i s desorbe d i n a know n volum e o f carbo n disulfid e (usuall yi n th e laboratory)
. Then , a know n volum e o fth e carbo n disulfid e an d desorbe d hydrocarbo n mixture i s injecte d directl yint o a GC, usuall yequippe d wit h a n FID
. Th e advantag e o

f th e firs t two method s i s that results are obtaine d o n sit e an d whil e th e Metho d 1 8 procedure usin g Tedla rbag s i s complex , i t has bee n use d successfull yfo rsom e tim e an d i s wel l documented. 5 TH C analyzers hav e als o bee n use d fo ra numbe rofyears an d usuall yemploya n FI D fo r detection
. Wit h thes e devices , tim e averagin g i s accomplishe d byaveragin g recorde d instrumen t respons e ove rth e perio d o

f interest
. Importan t caveat s fo rTH C analysi s are that first , i fmor e tha n on e hydrocarbo n i s 3 7 

## 5^rP.4 7

present , som e wa

ymus t b e foun d t o determin e th e relative concentratio n o feac h componen t (presumin g th e spli t remain s constan t throughou t th e samplin g period ) an d second , th e instrumen t shoul d b e calibrate d wit h th e compoun d that i s bein g measure d (a t a concentratio n nea rthat whic h i s expected , ifpossible)
. A n o n sit e GC-FI D coul d b e use d fo rspeciatio n (fro m direc t sampling ) o rsample s obtaine d wit h adsorptio n tube s (take n concurrentl ywit h othe rmeasurements ) coul d b e use d t o provid e compoun d speciation
. Th e problem s encountere d i n thi s investigatio n wer e exacerbate d byinaccurat e styren e concentratio n determination s o n th e par t o fMatheso n Ga

s Products fo rth e calibratio n ga s standards
. However , th e genera l disagreemen t betwee n th e TH C analyzer s an d th e EP

AMetho d 1 8 Tedla rba g results cannot b e du e t o inaccurat e calibratio n gase s becaus e bot h instrument s were calibrate d wit h th e sam e calibratio n gas standards
. Thus , thoug h absolut e respons e i n th e fiel d wa s i n error , thi s proble m wa s eliminate d whe n th e dat a were correcte d accordin g t o th e procedure s documente d i n Appendi xA
. Thi s disagreemen t doe s suggest that i t woul d have bee n desirabl e t o use . a third metho d t o ascertai n whic h o f th e tw o othe rmethod s were i n error . Som e EP AMetho d 1 8 adsorptio n tube s shoul d have bee n ru n durin g th e tes t (concurren t wit h othe rsampling ) t o provid e a third , separat e determinatio n o fstyren e concentration
. I n th e future , suc h a procedure shoul d b e followed
. Thus , i n a future emission s test , tw o technique s (perhap s Metho d 1 8 wit h Tedla rbag s an d TH C analyzers ) shoul d b e use d t o measur e hydrocarbo n concentratio n and , at a minimum , som e Metho d 1 8 adsorptio n tube s shoul d b e take n concurrentl ywit h othe rsamples
. I n th e cas e of a disagreement , result s fro m th e analysi s o fth e adsorptio n tube s coul d b e use d t o determin e whic h techniqu e provide s th e best results
. I n th e cas e wher e tim e i s available , Metho d 1 8 sample s wit h adsorptio n tube s coul d b e take n o n th e firs t da yo fsamplin g an d b e analyze d immediatel ys o that th e results fro m th e adsorptio n tub e analysi s coul d b e compare d wit h results fro m th e othe rtw o methods
. Two fina l recommendation s are i n order
. First , al l calibratio n standard s shoul d b e independentl y checke d before a fiel d evaluatio n commences . Second , i t i s als o recommende d that prio rt o an yemission s testing , a n EP

Aaudi t standar

d shoul d b e obtaine d an d evaluate d t o validat e laborator ystandard operatin g procedures
.

38 

## 2 $P.4 8 SECTIO N 5 REFERENCE S

1
. Offic e of Ai rQualit

yPlannin g an d Standards , Compilatio n o f Ai rPollutio n Emissio n Factors , Volum e 1 : Stationar yan d Poin t Sources , AP-42 , Fourt h Editio n (GP O 055-000-00251-7)
. U.S.Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park
. NC
. Septembe r1985 [supplemente d Octobe r198 6 GP O 055-000-00265-7 ) an d Septembe r198 8 (GPO-055-000-00278-9)] , Sectio n 4.12 , Polyeste rResi n Plastics Fabrication , Tabl e 4.12-1
. 2
. Rogozen , M
. B. , Contro l Technique s fo rOrgani cGas Emission s fro m Fibe rglas s Impregnatio n an d Fabricatio n Processes , ARB/R-82/165 , Californi a Ai rResource s Board , Sacramento , CA , (NTI S PB82-251109) , Jun e 1982
. 3
. Moder n Plastics Encyclopedia , 1986-1987,63( 1 OA) , McGraw-Hill , Inc. , Ne wYork , NY , Octobe r1986
. 4
. LaFlam , G
. A. , Emissio n Facto rDocumentatio n fo rAP-4 2 Sectio n 4.12 : Polyeste rResi n Plastics Produc t Fabrication , Pacifi cEnvironmenta l Services , Inc. , Durham , NC , Novembe r1987
. 5
. Vo n Lehmden , D.J. , DeWees , W.G. , an d Nelson , C , Qualit yAssurance Handboo k

fo rAi rPollutio n Measuremen t Systems : Volum e III
. Stationar ySource s Specifi cMethods , Sectio n 3.16
. U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC
. EPA/600/4-77/027b , NTI S PB80 - 112303 , Ma

y1979
. 6
. Cod e o

f Federa l Regulation s 4 0 (Parts 5 3 t o 60) , Revise d a s o f Jul y1,1991 , Office o

f th e Federa l Register , Nationa l Archive s an d Record s Administration , U
. S
. Governmen t Printin g Office , Washington
. DC 20402
. 7
. Steinsberger , S.C
. Buynitzky
. W.D. , DeWees , W.G. , Knoll , J.E. , Midgett , M
. R. , Hartman , M. , U.S
. EP A Evaluatio n of th e Hazardou s Organi cMass Emissio n Rat e (HOMER) Syste m fo rMeasuremen t of Hazardou s Organi cNESHAP S Emissions
. Presente d a t th e 86t h Annua l Meetin g o f th e Ai ran d Wast e Managemen t Association , Denver
. CO , Jun e 13-18,1993
. 8
. Felix , L. , Merritt , R. , Williamson , A.
. Evaluatio n o fth e Polyad

® F B Ai rPurificatio n an d Solven t Recover y Proces s fo rStyren e Removal , U
. S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC
. EPA-600/R-93-212 , NTI S PB94-130317 , Novembe r1993
. 9
. Persona l Communicatio n fro m Bahner , M.A. , Researc h Triangl e Institute , Researc h Triangl e Park
. NC , t o J.W
. Jones , U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , April , 1996
. 10
. Schweitzer , J. , Pultrusio n Industr yCounci l Phas e I I Emissio n Stud yReport , Societ yo f th e Plastics Industr y(SPI ) Composite s Institute , Ne wYork
. NY , February , 1996
. 3 9P.4 9

APPENDI X A QUALIT YCONTRO L EVALUATIO N REPORT

SUMMARY AQualityAssurance Projec t Pla n (QAPP ) wa s writte n an d approve d fo rthi s project
. N o fiel d audit s were planne d o rperformed
. However , a s state d i n th e QAPP , vendor-certifie d calibratio n gase s (3
. 52,54 , an d 19 5 ppm vo

f styren e i n nitroge n an d zero ai rwit h les s tha n 0. 1 pp m TH C content) serve d a s fiel d performanc e audi t sample s fo rEP AMetho d 1 8 an d TH C sampling
. Unfortunately , as documente d below , th e concentration s o

f th e styren e calibratio n gase s were incorrectl ydetermine d byth e vendor , Matheso n Gas Products
. Actua l concentration s were determine d t o b e 2.2,39.1 , 39.4 , an d 170. 8 ppm vo fstyrene , respectively
. EP

Apersonne l were o n sit e t o overse e diagnosti cmeasurements . I n th e field , Q C wa s addresse d byadherence t o standard samplin g protocol s eithe ra s specifie d fo rEP AMetho d 1 8 o rby followin g a standard operatin g procedure (modifie d as neede d fo rthi s particula rsamplin g task ) wit h th e TH C analyzers a s specifie d i n th e TH C instructio n manual
. I n th e Souther n Researc h Analytica l Chemistr yfacilities , Q C i s addresse d b ystric t adherence t o standard operatin g procedure s (SOP ) previousl ydefine d an d implemented
. Whil e rando m audit s ca n occu r whil e th e fiel d sample s fro m an yprojec t are bein g analyzed , an d audit s are regularl yperforme d byth e Q A office rat thi s facility , n o audi t wa s planne d o rperforme d as par t o fthi s project
. Overall , th e dat a qualityindicato r(DQI ) goal s were not achieved
. Thi s i s partiall ydu e t o reduce d plan t availabilitybecaus e th e wor k wee k at th e plan t wa s on e da

yles s tha n was expecte d whe n th e project wa s initiated
. Mainly , th e DQ I goal s wer e not achieve d becaus e significan t problem s were encountere d wit h

4 0 

## -f DP.5 0

th e calibratio n gase s purchase d fo rthi s test . Thes e difficultie s are discusse d i n detai l i n th e followin g sectio n o n QA/Q C problems
. Wit h respec

t t o plan t availability , we wer e abl e t o perfor m Metho d 1 8 samplin g fo ronl ythre e o f th e fou rdays that were originall yplanned
. Unfortunately , becaus e th e followin g wee k wa s schedule d fo ra secon d phas e o

f thi s Wor k

Assignment , th e testin g o f a liqui d chemica l scrubber , onl ya minima l extensio n o f thi s testin g coul d b e accommodated
. Withi n thes e constraints th e Projec t Office rconclude d that i n orde rt o obtai n th e neede d data withi n th e tim e availabl e Metho d 1 8 samplin g woul d focu s o n th e operationa l spray booth s ( a tota l o

f seven ) whil e styren e emission s not capture d byactive spra ybooth s (spraybooth s use d a s ventilatio n ai rexhausts an d separat e ventilatio n ai rfa n exhausts ) woul d b e measure d wit h th e TH C analyzers
. Thus , fro m Jun e 1 5 throug h 17 , Metho d 1 8 testin g was conducte d a t th e sprayboot h exits an d th e TH C analyzer

s wer e use d a s continuou s monitor s t o measur

e styren e emission s a t th e sam e location s an d time s use d fo rMetho d 1 8 sampling
. O n Monday , Jun e 21 , whil e preparation s were underwa yt o begi n Phas e 2 o

f thi s Work

Assignment , th e TH C analyzer s were use d t o quantif

ystyren e emission s not capture d b yactiv e spraybooth s that ha d not bee n determine d durin g th e previou s wee k o f testing
.

SIGNIFICAN TQA/Q C PROBLEM S On e significan t QA/Q C proble m wa s encountered
. Afte rsamplin g fo rbot h phase s o f th e Wor k Assignmen t ha d bee n completed , sample s o f th e nomina l 3 an d 5 2 ppm vstyren e cylinde rgas standard s take n i n th e fiel d o n Jun e 2 4 wit h Metho d 1 8 (Sectio n 7.4
. Absorptio n Tub e Procedure , equivalen t t o NIOS H Metho d 1501 ) were analyze d t o verif ysampl e recover

yfo rth e secon d phas e o f thi s Wor k

Assignment
. Thes e sample s were analyze d o n Jul y7
. Styren e concentration s of 2. 3 an d 35. 8 ppm vwere determine d correspondin g t o vendor-certifie d value s o f3 an d 5 2 ppmv . Suc h larg e discrepancie s betwee n th e styren e concentration s certifie d b yMatheso n Gas Products an d th e styren e concentration s measure d wit h th e adsorptio n tube s suggeste d that th e vendor-certifie d concentration s o f thes e calibratio n gase s were i n erro r o rthat som e par

t o f th e laborator

yanalysi s performe d bySouther n wa s incorrect
. Therefore , a two-pronge d

4 1 

# MP.5 1

investigatio n followe d that focuse d o n th e possibilitythat th e styren e calibratio n gase s were i n error , that Souther n mad e incorrec

t determination s o

fth e styren e conten t i n th e calibratio n gases , o ra combinatio n o f th e tw o possibilitie s occurred
. Wit h respec

t t o th e calibratio n gases , tw o bottle s eac h o fth e lowstyren e concentratio n (nomina l 5 ppm vstyren e i n nitrogen ) an d intermediat e styren e concentratio n (nomina l 5 0 ppm vstyren e i n nitrogen ) calibratio n gase s were ordere d fro m Matheso n Gas Products fo rthi s test o n Ma y13,199 3 an d were receive d i n earl yJune
. As indicate d above , Matheso n Gas Products certifie d that th e styren e conten t i n th e two bottle s o

f lo wconcentratio n gas were actuall y3 ppmvwhil e th e styren e concentratio n i n on e o fth e intermediat e calibratio n standard s wa s 5 2 ppm van d th e othe rintermediat e concentratio n standard wa s 5 4 ppmv . Tw o cylinders ofth e hig h calibratio n standard (nomina l 20 0 ppm vstyren e i n nitrogen ) were ordere d o n Septembe r30,199 2 fo ra n earlie rEPA-sponsore d test at th e Elje rfacility
. Thes e gase s were receive d i n mid-October , 1992
. On e cylinde ro f thi s gas wa s no

t use d durin g that test an d wa s take n o n thi s tes t fo rus e as a hig h styren e concentratio n calibratio n gas . Matheso n certifie d tha t th e styren e conten t wa s 19 5 ppm v fo rthi s cylinder
. Matheso n Gas Products was contacte d an d a representative indicate d that a s fa ra s thei r record s indicated , th e cylinders were properl yprepare d an d passivate d an d that stabl e styren e concentration s were determine d i n thei rlaborator y(an d were recorde d o n th e calibratio n tag s supplie d wit h eac h cylinder) whe n th e gase s were shippe d t o Southern
. Wit h respec

t t o Southern' s laborator

yprocedures , whil e conversation s were bein g hel d wit h Matheso n Gas Products , two othe rsample s o fth e 3 an d 5 2 ppm vstyren e calibratio n gase s wer e take n o n Jul y1 3 an d analyze d t o chec k th e procedure s followe d durin g th e earlie ranalyses
. I n addition , differen t high-purityliqui d laborator ystandard s fo rstyren e (fro m two differen t suppliers , Aldric h an d Che m Service ) were use d t o prepare independen t calibratio n standard s that were checke d against on e anothe ro n th e sam e G C FI D use d fo rbot h set s o fanalyses
. Approximatel ysi xcalibratio n standard s (o fdifferen t concentration s below , centere d about , an d above thos e measure d fro m th e earlie ranalyse s o f th e adsorptio n tubes ) were prepare d byaddin g a know n quantityo f eac h high-purit

yliqui d styren e standard t o a know n quantit yo fhigh puritycarbo n disulfide
. Know n microlite rvolume s o f thes e liqui d mixture s were the n injecte d int o th e GC-FI D 42 

# 42 -P.5 2

use d fo rth e adsorptio n tub e analyse s an d th e pea k area s were recorde d an d averaged
. N o statisticall y differen t resul t was determine d fo rth e two liqui d styren e standard s an d th e analyse s ofthes e two adsorptio n tub e sample s were consisten t wit h th e earlie rresults
. T o mak e a definitiv e assessmen t ofth e actua l styren e conten t of th e Matheson-certifie d 3 an d 5 2 ppm vstyren e calibratio n gases , o n Jul y2 9 an d 30
. fou r adsorptio n tub e sample s eac h wer e take n fro m eac h calibratio n gas cylinde r(usin g Metho d 18 , th e adsorptio n tub e procedure)
. Two adsorptio n tub e sample s ofeac h styren e calibratio n standard were take n insid e (at a n averag e laborator ytemperature o

f22°C ) an d tw o adsorptio n tub e sample s were take n outsid e wit h th e calibratio n ga

s bottle s i n th e direc

t su n (a n a n averag e temperature o f38°C)
. Th e reaso n sample s were take n at laborator

ycondition s an d at condition s that mimicke d ambien t fiel d temperature s experience d a t th e Elje rfacilitywas t o determin e i f styren e gas was condense d withi n th e samplin g apparatu s a t roo m temperature - a possibl e explanatio n fo rth e apparen t lowrecover ybase d o n Matheson' s certifie d values
. Th e adsorptio n tube s (fro m th e sam e lot use d at Elje rSKC , Inc
. catalo g # 226-01 , coconu t charcoal
. Lo t 120) were analyze d b

yremovin g th e charcoa l fro m th e tube s an d desorbin g th e styren e int o high-purity carbo n disulfide
. As par

t o f th e analytica l procedure , th e desorptio n efficienc yofstyren e fro m thi s lo t of coconu t charcoa l i s separatel ydetermine d eac h tim e a sampl e o rse t o fsample s i s analyzed
. Th e desorptio n efficienc

ywas determine d t o b e 90.25% , equa l t o th e valu e that ha s bee n determine d i n th e past . Th e result s o f thes e analyses , carrie d ou t durin g th e firs t wee k o f August , wa s that n o differenc e coul d b e detecte d betwee n sample s obtaine d insid e o routsid e th e laborator yan d that th e Matheson-certifie d 3 ppm v styren e ga s wa s 2.6 9 ppmvwit h a n RS D o f3.55 % whil e th e Matheson-certifie d 5 2 ppm vstyren e gas wa s 39. 1 ppm vwit h a n RS D of0.55%
. N o erro rwa s foun d i n th e analytica l procedure s followe d i n thes e analyses , i n th e preparatio n of th e two set s of calibratio n standards , o ri n th e behavio ro roperatio n ofth e GC-FI D use d fo rthes e analyses
. Next , a performance evaluatio n audi t standard was requeste d fro m EP At o determin e wit h certainty i f th e erro rwa s du e t o ou ranalytica l procedures
. Th e cylinde rwa s sen t t o Souther n o n Septembe r1 7 an d th e results o f Southern' s triplicat e analysi s (usin g th e Metho d 18 , Adsorptio n Tub e Procedure ) of th e styren e conten t i n th e cylinde rwas reporte d t o th e EP Ao n Septembe r21
. Afte ri t wa s determine d tha t Southern' s
43

* &P.5 3

analysi s wa s withi n 96.6 % ofth e actua l styren e concentratio n o f 58. 6 ppm v(wit h a n accurac yo f±2.2%) , i t wa s conclude d that th e concentration s reporte d o n Matheson' s analysi s of al l th e gas sample s provide d fo r thi s tes t were i n error . Th e result s o f th e test s o

f th e EP Aperformanc e evaluatio n audi t sampl e are show n i n Tabl e A-1
. Tabl e A- 2 shows th e result s o ftest s performe d t o determin e th e actua l styren e conten t o fthes e gases . N o othe rcorrective action s were require d o rtake n durin g th e collectio n o f sample s an d dat a o r durin g subsequen t analysi s o f sample s collecte d durin g testing
. Th e value s reporte d i n Tabl e A- 2 were obtaine d bytw o separat e methods
. First , a s par t o f th e investigatio n discusse d above , EP AMetho d 18 , Adsorptio n Tub e Procedure (equivalen t t o NIOS H Metho d 1501) , wa s use d t o mak

e triplicat e determination s o f th e styren e conten t o

feac h o fth e nomina l 3 , 52 , 54 , an d 19 5 pp m styren e calibratio n gases . Al l o fthes e determination s were complete d bySeptembe r14
. Second , o n Septembe r29
. a JU M VE- 7 TH C analyze r(on e o f th e TH C analyzer

s use d i n th e samplin g van ) wa s allowe d t o stabiliz e fo r2 4 hour s o n filtere d ambien t laborator yai ran d was the n spanne d wit h 10. 7 pp m ±1 % propan e (unfortunately , othe rpropan e standard s were not availabl e whe n thes e measurements wer e performed ) an d zeroe d wit h a THC-fre e zero ai rstandar d ( s 0. 1 pp m o

f hydrocarbo n compounds)
. Th e TH C analyze rwa s the n use d t o sampl e th e 58. 6 pp m EP Aaudi t standard , a s wel l as th e nomina l 3 , 54 , an d 19 5 pp m styren e calibratio n gase s (at thi s tim e th e cylinde rcontainin g th e 5 2 pp m calibratio n gas ha d bee n exhausted)
. Styren e conten t wa s determine d base d o n th e respons e o feac h o f th e calibratio n gase s t o th e valu e measure d fo rth e EP Aaudi t standard
. Zer

o an d spa n check

s performe d a

t th e beginning , middl e an d a t th e en d o

fth e TH C measurements confirme d instrumenta l stability
. Thes e result s require d that , at best , al l o f th e dat a b e scale d t o reflec t th e tru e concentration s o f styren e presen t i n th e gas cylinders obtaine d fro m Matheso n Ga s Products tha

t wer e use d fo rfiel d calibrations
. A t worst , th e dat a coul d b e completel ycompromise d becaus e th e styren e withi n th e cylinders supplie d byMatheso n coul d have bee n slowl ypolymerizin g since th e cylinder s wer e prepare d an d th e styren e concentration s measure d afte rth e tes t woui d not represen t styren e concentration s

44 

## A ^P.5 4
Tabl e A-1
. Results o

f Analyse s o

f EP APerformance Evaluatio n Audi t Sample * Sample " 1
. 2
. 3
. Averag e ±RS D Measure d (ppm ) 55. 6 57. 0 57. 1 56. 6 ±1.5 % Actua l (ppm ) 58. 6 58. 6 58. 6 58. 6 ±2.2 % Re l % Differenc e -5. 1 -2. 7 -2. 6 -3. 4

* Cylinde rCL M 008308
. Specifie d as containin g styren e at a concentratio n unde r10 0 pp m wit h th e balance ga

s bein g nitrogen
. Conten t late rquote d b yEP At o b e 58. 6 pp m ±2.2 % RSD
. " Analysi s byEP

AMetho d 18 , Absorptio n Tub e Procedure , wit h GC/FID
. Asid e fro m th e diluen t (CS 2 ) , styren e was th e onl ymateria l detected
.
Tabl e A-2
. Results o

f Analyse s o

fMatheso n Calibratio n Gas Matheso n Analysis * (ppm ) 3 5 2 5 4 19 5 Metho d 1 8 Analysis "

(ppm ) 2.6 9 39. 1 37. 8 176. 8 RS D (%)

3.5 5 0.5 5 2.0 7 4.0 6 TH C Analysis '

(ppm ) 2.1 6 N/A n 39.4 5 170. 8 RS D (%)

0.2 5

- 0.1 2 0.1 8 Comparabilit y

( % Diff. ) 21. 9 — -4. 3 3. 5

* As indicate d o n gas cylinder , pp m styren e i n nitrogen
. " Absorptio n Tub e Procedure usin g charcoa l tubes
. fTH C calibrate d wit h 10. 7 pp m propan e i n nitrogen
. Respons e referre d t o styren e b yanalysi s o f EP Aperformance evaluatio n audi t sampl e (58. 6 pp m styren e measure d 151.0 6 ±0.2 4 pp m wit h propane-base d calibration)
. n Cylinde rexhauste d before TH C measurement s coul d b e made
. presen t i n th e cylinder

s at th e tim e of th e test . Th e latte reventualit ywa s explore d wit h Matheso n i n th e initia l conversation s that were directe d toward determinin g th e source ofth e disagreement
. As indicate d above , Matheso n Gas Products asserte d tha t th e cylinder s were properl yprepare d an d passivated
. Whil e Matheso n wa s unabl e t o explai n wh yth e concentration s were s o fa rfro m thos e determine d bythei rorigina l in-hous e analysis , the ydi d maintai n that i f th e temperatur e indicatin g strip s o n th e side s o fth e cylinder

s ha d 4 5 

## 4 ^P.5 5

no t change d colo r(indicatin g exposure t o temperature s that coul d degrad e th e sample) , styren e concentration s withi n th e cylinder s shoul d have remaine d stabl e throug h th e tim e perio d o f th e tes t an d ou r subsequen t determinatio n o f th e actua l styren e concentration s withi n th e cylinders
. Becaus e non e o fth e temperature indicatin g strip s o n th e side s o f th e cylinder

s ha d change d colo r(indicatin g th e temperature of th e cylinde rha d reache d o rexceede d 125°F) , w e proceede d t o correc t th e dat a assumin g that styren e concentration s i n th e calibratio n cylinders measure d afte rth e tes t wer e representativ e o fstyren e concentration s presen t durin g testing
. Bot h TH C dat a an d EP

AMetho d 1 8 dat a require d correction
. Correctio n o f th e TH C dat a wa s relativel ystraightforward
. La b TH C dat a wa s take n o n TH C analyzer s calibrate d wit h propan e (85 0 ppm , ± 1%)
. Durin g th e test , th e nomina l 5 4 pp m styren e calibratio n gas (actuall y39.4 5 pp m b ylate rTH C analysis ) wa s observe d t o produce a n equivalen t propan e respons e o f 11 5 pp m o n THC# 1 an d 11 6 pp m o n TH C #2
. Thus , thes e dat a wer

e scale d b

yth e rati o o

f 0.343 0 (o r39.45/115 ) fo rTH C # 1 an d 0.340 1 (o r39.45/116 ) fo r TH C #2
. Bot h TH C analyzer s i n th e samplin g va n wer e calibrate d wit h th e sam e nomina l 5 2 pp m styren e calibratio n gas (actuall y39. 1 pp m byMetho d 1 8 analysis)
. Becaus e thi s cylinde rwa s emptie d before th e TH C measurements reporte d i n Tabl e A- 2 coul d b e made , results obtaine d wit h thes e analyzer s were scale d bya rati o of 0.751 9 (o r39.1/52)
. Th e EP AMetho d 1 8 dat a require d mor e extensive correction
. Th e concentratio n o f a VO C a s measure d b ya gas chromatograp h i s determine d b yfirs t measurin g th e instrumenta l respons e (pea k area ) t o a se t of calibratio n gase s an d the n relatin g th e pea k are a measure d fo reac h calibratio n ga s t o th e know n concentratio n o

fthat gas . Becaus e a FI D produce s a linea rrespons e t o concentration , a linea rfi t i s usuall y mad e t o th e pea k

are a (x ) versu s concentratio n calibratio n (y ) data
. I n th e field , afte rmeasurin g th e pea k are a respons e t o eac h calibratio n gas (nomina l 3 , 54 , an d 19 5 pp m styrene) , linea rfit s were mad e t o relat e pea k are a t o styren e conten t fo rsubsequen t determinations
. Thus , t o correc

t th e G C dat a obtaine d o n thi s test , eac h linea r(calibration ) fi t obtaine d i n th e fiel d wa s recalculate d base d o n wha t th e actua l styren e concentratio n o feac h calibratio n gas was late rdetermine d t o b e an d th e styren e concentration s obtaine d durin g th e tim e that calibratio n was use d wer e correcte d wit h th e ne wlinea rfits
. Fo rthes e corrections , th e TH C analyzer-determine d value s fo rth e calibratio n gase s were 4 6 

## 4- UP.5 6

use d becaus e durin g thos e measurements repeated , direc t comparison s were mad e wit h th e EP Aaudi t standard
. Tabl e A- 3 presents th e calibratio n data determine d fo reac h dayo ftestin g (o n site)
. Tabl e A-3
. GC-FI D Calibration s Performe d at Elje rPlumbingware *
Nomina l Styren e Concentratio n (ppm ) 3 5 4 195 Actua l Styren e

Concentratio n (ppm ) 2.1 6 39.4 5 170. 8 GC-FI D

Pea k Are a 6/15/9 3 (0935-1151 ) 499 4 11891 0 34324 8 GC-FI D

Pea k Are a 6/16/9 3 (0819-0902 ) 390 3 10074 4 36429 0 GC-FI D

Pea k Are a 6/17/9 3 (1052-1145 ) 698 6 273351 " 96857 6 GC-FI D

Pea k Are a 6/21/9 3 (before 0800 ) 942 8 20144 7 78031 0 Performe d byDEECO
. Inc.
. Reanalysi s a

t 134 6 gave pea k

are a o f 17615 0

Durin g th e test , ful l instrumenta l calibration s were performe d earl yeac h mornin g an d afterwards , occasiona l check

s were performe d wit h th e nomina l 5 4 pp m calibratio n standard t o assure that instrumen t respons e ha d not drifted
. Becaus e o fth e limite d tim e availabl e fo rsamplin g (du e t o th e plan t operatin g schedule ) onl yon e ful l calibratio n was performe d eac h day
. Thes e correction s are not completel ysatisfactory
. I n particular , th e pea k are a measure d fo rth e 195 pp m styren e calibratio n ga s (actuall y170. 8 pp m bysubsequen t TH C analysis) , appear s t o b e lowas compare d t o th e othe rtwo calibratio n gases . I t coul d b e that thi s relativel yhig h concentratio n o fstyren e di d chang e betwee n th e tim e th e tes t was performe d an d th e tim e that th e concentratio n o fthi s calibratio n ga s was measure d i n th e laboratory
. Anothe rlikel ypossibilit yi s that th e Teflo n samplin g lin e that was use d t o conveythi s gas t o th e G C wa s not kept war m enoug h (th e la b traile rwa s ai rconditione d an d maintaine d at approximatel y75°F ) an d som e o f th e styren e condense d i n th e lin e before i t coul d reac h th e inle t o f th e GC
. Befor e th e tes t thi s concentratio n o f styren e ha d bee n observe d t o condens e i n Teflo n samplin g line s unde r simila rlaborator

yconditions
. Becaus e ofthi s discrepancy , an d becaus e fe wo f th e styren e concentration s measure d were greate rtha n 10 0 pp m (corrected) , i t was decide d t o eliminat e th e 195 pp m (actua l 170. 8 ppm ) poin t fro m th e set o fcalibratio n dat a fro m whic h ne wfit s wer e determine d t o correc

t th e origina l data
. 4 7 

## 4r >P.5 7

On e othe rsignifican t proble m wa s encountere d i n correctin g th e G C data
. O n Jun e 17 , at th e mornin g calibration , G C respons e t o styren e was observe d t o have increase d dramaticall ya s compare d t o th e respons e measure d durin g earlie rcalibrations
. Afterwards , instrumenta l respons e was monitore d closel y whil e tw o sample s (on e fro m a Tedla rba g an d anothe rfro m a Teflo n bag ) were repeatedl yanalyzed
. Approximatel yon e hou rafte rthat calibration , th e G C was observe d t o have stabilize d a t a lowe rrespons e leve l an d a singl e poin t calibratio n wa s performe d wit h th e 5 4 pp m (39.4 5 pp m actual ) s o that sample s tha t ha d bee n accumulatin g coul d b e analyzed
. Thus , w e wer e force d t o rel yo n a singl e poin t calibratio n fo r Metho d 1 8 dat a acquire d o n Jun e 17
. DAT AQUALIT

Y Th e followin g procedure s were use d t o determin e ho wwel l dat a DQ I goal s wer e met :
• Precisio n i s expresse d a s percen t coefficien t o f variation : %CV=100x(S > /X avg ) where S , i s th e standard deviatio n of xnumbe ro f dat a value s fro m th e dat a se t an d X av g i s th e mea n o r averag e o

f th e xnumbe ro

fdat a value s fro m th e dat a set .

4 8

*<&P,58
_

• Bias i s expresse d as a differenc e o rpercen t differenc e betwee n measure d an d know n values :
Bias = (X-T)
%RP D = 100 [(X-T)/T ]
wher e Ti s th e tru e valu e (referenc e standard ) an d X i s th e mea n sampl e concentration
. %RP D i s th e relative percen t difference
.

• Completenes s i s expresse d a s a percen t betwee n successfu l analyse s an d tota l attempts : Completenes s = 100 S/

A
. where S i s th e numbe rof successfu l analyse s an d Ai s th e tota l numbe ro fattempts .

• Comparabilityi s expresse d a s a percen t differenc e (%Diff ) betwee n th e result s fo rtwo methods :
%Dif f = 10 0 (R,-R 2 .V[(rVR2)/2 ]
where R , i s th e resul t fo ron e metho d an d R 2 i s th e resul t fo rth e secon d method
. Tabl e A- 4 shows th e DQ I goal s that wer e estimate d fo rcritica l measurements i n th e QAPP , an d Tabl e A- 5 present s th e DQ I value s fo rmeasurements carrie d ou t wit h EP AReference Metho d 1 8 an d th e TH C analyzer

s i n th e samplin g va n an d th e mobil e lab
. Below , th e precision , accuracy , an d completenes s o f th e dat a that were obtaine d i n thi s projec t are reviewed
.

4 9 

# 4 ^P.5 9

Precisio n Precision , a s reporte d i n Tabl e A- 5 (a) , meets th e DQ I goal s show n i n Tabl e A*4 fo rMetho d 1 8 wit h th e exceptio n o

fth e 170. 8 pp m calibratio n poin t whic h wa s expected
. Mainly , thi s i s becaus e fiel d calibration s were compromise d b yincorrec t concentration s fo rth e calibratio n gases . Usin g th e procedure describe d above , th e value s reporte d i n Tabl e A- 4 (a) wer e obtaine d b ygeneratin g ne wfit s t o th e origina l calibratio n data (excludin g th e 170. 8 pp m point) , as take n fo reac h dayo ftestin g an d the n determinin g th e differenc e betwee n th e correc t styren e concentratio n (fro m TH C remeasurement ) an d styren e concentration s determine d fro m best linea rfi t t o th e calibratio n data
.

Tabl e A-4
. Data Qualit

yIndicato rGoal s fo rCritica l Measurements Estimate d i n QAP P
Metho d an d Referenc e EPA Metho d 18 , Sectio n 7. 1 an d Sectio n 7. 3 Tota l Hydrocarbo n Analyze rwit h FID T

. Measuremen t

Paramete r VO C Speciatio n an d Concentratio n
Hydrocarbo n compound s i n air
. Experimenta l

Conditio n 1
. Spra ybooth
. Ven t an d ai r exhausts
. 2
. Headspace measurements fro m styren e storaq e tanks. TM 1
. Spra yboot h Ven t an d ai r exhausts
. 2
. Headspace measurements fro m styren e storaq e tanks. " Expecte d

Precisio n (RSD,% ) 5.0*

±10 f t Expecte d

Accurac y f % Bias ) 10 *

± 5 " Completenes s

(% ) 9 0

9 0

Expecte d precisio n an d bia s fo rGC-FI D analysi s o fsample s obtaine d usin g EP AMetho d 18
. Precisio n an d bia s wil l b e determine d fo rth e GC-FI D use d (Shimadz u GC-14A)
. Headspace measurement s eliminate d fro m testin g b yProjec t Officer
. TJ.U.M
. Mode l VE- 7 TH C Analyze rwit h FID
. n Estimate d values
.

5 0



# s ^P.6 0

Tabl e A-5
. Dat a QualityIndicato rValue s fo rMetho d 1 8 an d TH C Measurements Mad e a t Elje rPlumbingware (a ) Metho d 1 8 Measurement s i n Mobil e La b Ca ! Gas , % Bia s
6/15/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 6/21/9 3 Averag e Precisio n (% CV ) 2.1 6 pp m Styren e Ca l Ga s (Metho d 1 8 Value ) 2.2 3 2.2 3 2.1 9 2.2 0 2.2 1 0. 9 Bia s

% 3. 2 3. 2 1. 4 1. 9 2. 4 39. 4 pp m Styren e

Ca l Ga s (Metho d 1 8 Value ) 39. 4 39. 4 39. 4 39. 4 39. 4 0. 0 Bia s

% 0 0 0 0 0 170. 8 pp m Styren e

Ca l Ga s (Metho d 1 8 Value ) 112. 6 140. 5 136. 5 152. 6 135. 3 12. 1 Bia s

% -3 4 -1 8 -2 0 -1 1 -2 1 (b ) TH C Measurement s Mad e i n Samplin q THC# 1 Ca l Gas/ % Bia s 6/15/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 Averag e Precisio n ( % CV ) TH C # 2 Ca l Gas/ % Bia s 6/15/9 3 6/16/9 3 6/17/9 3 Averag e Precisio n ( % CV ) 2.1 6 pp m Styren e Ca l Ga s (TH C Value ) 3.0 3 2.6 9 2.5 1 2. 7 9. 6 2.1 6 pp m Styren e Ca l Ga s (TH C Value ) 2.8 2 2.6 0 2.5 8 2.6 7 5. 0 Van , THC'# 1 an d TH C # 2

Bia s % 40 - 2 5 1 6 2 7
Bia s % 3 1 2 0 1 9 2 4 170. 8 pp m Styren e

Ca l Ga s (TH C Value ) 178. 2

170. 8 pp m Styren e Ca l Ga s (TH C Value ) 174. 9 Bia s

% 4

Bia s % • - I 2

(c ) TH C Measurement s Mad e i n Mobil e Lab
. TH C # 1 an d TH C # 2 Dat e
6/15/9 3 6/16/6 3 6/17/9 3 6/21/9 3 Averag e THC# t

85 0 pp m Propan e Ca l Ga s 84 8 85 6 85 1 85 0 85 9 85 0 85 2 Precisio n ( % CV ) I 0. 5 Bia s % •0. 2

. 0. 7 0. 1 0. 0 1. 1 0.0 0 0. 3 TH C # 2 85 0 pp m Propan e Ca l Ga s 66 0 85 6 86 0 85 6 85 6 84 8 84 8 84 0 85 3 0. 8 Bia s

% 1. 2 0. 7 1. 2 0. 7 0. 7 -0. 2 -0. 2 -1. 2 0. 4

5 1P.6 1

A s wit h th e Metho d 1 8 measurements , fo rth e TH C analyzer s i n th e samplin g va n precisio n wa s determine d b yrepetitiv e samplin g o fcalibratio n gases . Becaus e of suspecte d problem s wit h lin e losse s th e 170. 8 pp m calibratio n ga s wa s onl ysample d once . Precisio n wa s determine d b yrepetitiv e samplin g ofth e 2,1 6 pp m styren e calibratio n gas . Th e result s of thes e determinations , show n i n Tabl e A-5(b) , ar e withi n th e DQ I goal s show n i n Tabl e A-5
. Wit h respec

t t o th e determinatio n o

fprecisio n fo rth e TH C analyzer s i n th e mobil e laboratory , thes e i analyzer s were calibrate d wit h 85 0 pp m propane . Precisio n was determine d b yrepetitiv e samplin g o f th e 85 0 pp m propan e calibratio n gas . Th e result s o f thes e determinations , show n i n Tabl e A-5(c) , are wel l withi n th e DQ I goal s show n i n Tabl e A-4
. Th e relative respons e ofeac h TH C t o styren e was determine d o n Jun e i
. 17
. Afte rbot h analyzer

s ha d bee n calibrate d wit h th e propan e standard , nomina l 5 4 pp m (actua l 39.4 5 ppm ) styren e calibratio n gas was fe d t o bot h TH C analyzers
. TH C # 1 rea d 11 5 pp m an d TH C #2 indicate d 11 6 ppm . 

### Bias Fo rMetho d 1 8 measurements , bias was muc h highe rtha n th e DQ I goa l o f 10 % show n i n Tabl e A3
. Th e 2.1 6 pp m dat a ma yb e of f becaus e th e styren e concentratio n i s ver ylo wan d a smal l differenc e i n th e valu e a s determine d b yth e TH C ca n resul t i n a larg e percentag e bia s ( a 5 pp m concentratio n of styren e i n nitroge n wa s originall yordered)
. I n retrospect , i t woul d have bee n bette rt o us e a highe rconcentration , i n th e rang e o f 1 5 ppm . Th e 170. 8 pp m dat a ar e als o low , b yabou t th e sam e percentage . However , i n thi s case , lin e losse s coul d b e partl ya t faul t becaus e som e condensatio n ofstyren e withi n a Teflo n sampl e lin e ha d bee n observe d i n th e past wit h thi s gas . I n th e ai rconditione d mobil e lab , a n unheate d 2 m Teflo n sampl e lin e was used
. Fo rTH C analyze rmeasurements i n th e sampl e van , bia s was determine d fo reac h measuremen t of th e 2.1 6 pp m spa n gase s an d i s reporte d i n Tabl e A-5(b)
. A t thi s concentration , averag e bia s value s fo r bot h analyzer

s wer e muc h greate rtha n th e targe t DQ I o f ±5%
. Partly , thi s i s becaus e a lowvalu e ofstyren e was sample d whil e th e TH C was calibrate d wit h (wha t was though t t o be ) 5 2 pp m calibratio n gas . I n retrospect , i t woul d have bee n bette rt o us e a highe rconcentration , eithe rlowe rtha n th e calibratio n standard (i n th e rang e o

f 1 5 ppm ) o rhighe rtha n th e calibratio n standard (i n th e rang e o f10 0 ppm)
. Th e singl e 5 2 

# <52 ^P.6 2

sampl e of 170. 8 pp m styren e calibratio n gas di d sho wa muc h lowe rbia s fo rbot h TH C analyzers , belo wth e expecte d DQ I o

f 5%
. Fo rTH C analyze rmeasurements i n th e mobil e lab , bias was determine d fo reac h measuremen t o f th e 85 0 pp m propan e spa n gas an d i s reporte d i n Tabl e A-5(c)
. A s wit h th e value s measure d fo rprecision , bia s was ver

ylow , averagin g les s tha n 0.5 % fo rbot h TH C analyzers
. Completenes s Fo rMetho d 1 8 samples , completenes s was 100%
. Som e dat a were not usabl e becaus e th e mold s that were spraye d durin g samplin g run s whe n th e vide o cameras malfunctione d coul d not b e use d t o determin e emission s pe rare a o fmol d sprayed , bu t thi s was not relate d t o th e samplin g effort
. Fo rTH C analyze rmeasurements mad e i n th e samplin g van , completenes s was 50 % (fo ractiv e spraybooths)
. Thi s i s muc h lowe rtha n th e DQ I goa l o f 90% , but , dat a fro m thes e TH C analyzer s wa s onl y intende d t o bac k

u p data take n byth e othe rse t o f TH C analyzer

s i n th e mobil e laboratory
. Fo rth e TH C analyzer s i n th e mobil e laboratory , a completenes s o f 91 % was achieve d (fo ractive spraybooths) , essentiall yequa l t o th e DQ I goa l o f90%
. Together , bot h TH C analyzer s were abl e t o obtai n corroborativ e dat a fo rever

yMetho d 1 8 sample
. Wit h respec t t o TH C sample s take n t o characteriz e styren e emission s no t capture d b yactiv e spraybooths , 100 % ofth e dat a neede d t o quantif ynon-sprayin g emission s was obtaine d b yth e TH C analyzer

s i n th e mobil e laboratory
. I t was not intende d t o utiliz e th e TH C analyzer s i n th e samplin g va n a s par

t of thi s effor

t althoug h thes e instruments were abl e t o contribut e som e of th e emission s dat a measure d durin g wor k da ybreak s at th e active spra

ybooths
. Representativenes s Th e physica l layou t of samplin g location s at th e Elje rfacilitydictate d muc h ofth e samplin g strateg y an d samplin g methodolog ypractice d durin g thi s evaluatio n t o obtai n representativ e samples
. Th e us e of heate d samplin g line s avoide d condensatio n o f styren e an d th e us e o

fheate d Tedla rbag s als o prevente d condensatio n o

f styren e whil e th e sample s wer e bein g take n an d subsequentl yanalyzed
. Locatio n o fth e samplin g lin e inlet s nea rth e cente rof exi t vent s assure d that sample s were representative
. Followin g th e

5 3 

# 5 3P.6 3

sampl e methodolog yrecommende d i n EP AMetho d 1 8 als o assure d that representative sample s were obtained
. Comparabilit

y Th e samplin g pla n fo rthi s projec t mad e provisio n fo rsimultaneou s samplin g usin g tw o measuremen t method s that shoul d allowcompariso n o f th e result s whe n suitabl yaverage d ove rth e sam e samplin g period
. I n general , fo rTH C analyzer-base d measurements , styren e emission s fro m th e lay-u p booth s an d fro m th e ge l coat booth s were muc h greate rtha n thos e determine d fro m Metho d 1 8 measurements . Wit h th e exceptio n o f th e Jun e 1 7 data , bot h method s measure d essentiall yth e sam e emission s fro m th e singl e back-u p booth
. However , thes e difference s d o not suggest that th e measurement s are no

t comparable
. Becaus e standard deviation s are relativel ylarg e fo rth e lay-u p an d ge l coat booths , th e dat a d o overlap
.

5 4 

## 64rP.6 4

TECHNICA L REPOR T DAT A (Please read

Insmtctions on the reverse before completing) 1 . REPOR TNO . 

### EPA-600/R-96-13 8 3 . RECIPIENT' S ACCESSIO N NO . 4 . TITL E AN O SUBTITL E 

### Evaluatio nof

Styren e Emission s fro maShowe r Stall / Bathtu b Manufacturin g Facilit y 5 . REPOR TDAT E 

### Novembe r

199 6 6 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N COD E
7 . AUTHOR(S ) 

### Larr y Felix , Rand y Merritt , an dAshle y Williamso n 8 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N REPOR TNO .
9 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N NAM E AN O AOORES S 

### Souther nResearc hInstitut e P . O . Bo x 5530 5 Birmingham , Alabam a35355-530 5 10 . PROGRA M ELEMEN TNO . 1 1 . CONTRACT/GRAN TNO . 

### 68-D2-0062 . Tas k

12/ 1 12 . SPONSORIN G AGENC YNAM E AN O AOORES S 

## EPA , Offic e o

f Researc han dDevelopment Ai r Pollutio nPreventio nan dContro l Division * Researc hTriiingl e Park , N C 2771 1 13 . TYP E O F REPOR TAN O PERIO D COVERE D 

### Tas k Final ; 11/93-4/9 4 14 . SPONSORIN G AGENC YCOD E 

### EPA/600/1 3 is . SUPPLEMENTAR

Y 

### NOTES APPC D pr0 

### jec t

office r Bobb y E . Danie l i s n o longe r wit hth e Agency . Fo r

details , contac t

Julia nW . Jones , Mai l Dro p 61 , 919/541-2489 . (* ) Prio r t o Apri l 1 , 1995 , th e Divisio nwa s th e Ai r an dEnerg y Engineerin g Researc hLab . i6 . ABSTRAC

T T 

### | j ere 

### p 0 r 

### t

give s result s o f

emission s measurements , carrie dou t a t arep resentativ e facilit y (Elje r Plumbingwar e i nWilson , NC ) tha t manufacture s polyester
resin-reinforce dshowe r stall s an dbathtub s b y sprayin g styrene-base dresin s ont o mold s i nvented , open , spra y booths . Styren e emission s wer e characterize dfo r th e thre e stage s o f

manufactur e b y measurin g styren e concentration s a t th e vent s o f spra y booth s use di neac hpar t o f th e process . I naddition , styren e concentration s wer e measure da t

eac hventilatio nfa nexhaust . Emissio nlevel s wer e determine d usin g EP A Metho d1 8 t o obtai nintegrate demission s sample s an dtota l hydrocarbo n (THC ) analyzer s t o measur e continuou s emission s level s durin g th e EP A Metho d1 8 sampling . Analysi s o f th e EP A Referenc e Metho ddat aindicate s that : (1 ) styren e monome r

i s th e onl y volatil e organi c compoun drelease di nth e process ; (2 ) overall , approximatel y 4 % o f

al l materia l spraye di s los t t o atmospheri c emission s a s sty ren e (approximatel y 19 % o f al l styren e sprayed) ; an d(3 ) emission s var y fo r eac h phas e of manufacture , wit hpost-sprayin g emission s o f styren e (fro mcurin g molds ) constitutin g alarg e part , approximatel y 29 % o f al l emissions . (NOTE : Curren t EP A emissio nfactors—AP-42—fo r styren e emission s fro mth e productio no f polyester
resin-reinforce dplastic s represen t acomposit e o f

spraying/post-sprayin g emissions ) 17 . KE YWORD S AN D OOCUMEN TANALYSI S DESCRIPTOR S b.lOENTIFIERS/OPE N ENOE O TERM S c . COSAT I Field/Crou p 

### Pollutio n Styren e Styren e Resin s Emissio n Manufacturin g Hydrocarbon s Pollutio nContro l Stationar y Source s Showe r Stall s Bathtub s 1 3 B 07 C UI , 11 J 14G 05 C

18 . DISTRIBUTIO N STATEMEN T 

### Releas e t o PubU c INSECURIT YCLAS S (ThisReport) 

### Uncle s i f

ie d 2 1 . NO . O F PAGE S 

### 6 1 20 . SECURIT YCLAS S (Thispage) 

### Unclassifie d 22 . PRIC E
EP A For m 2220- 1 (9-73 ) 

### 5 5

### U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

Offic e ofResearc h an d Development Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t Researc h Laborator y Technolog y Transfe r an d Suppor t Divisio n 

### Cincinnati , Ohi o 4526 8 OFFICIA L BUSINES S PENALT YFO R PRIVAT E USE . S30 0 A N EQUA L OPPORTUNIT YEMPLOYE R



# 1 0

/ / your address is incorrect, please

change on the above label tear off; and return to the above address. If you do not desire to continue

receiving

these technical reports. CHECK

HEREU};

tear off label, and

return it to the above address. 

## Publicatio n No . EPA - 600/R-96-13 8