p. 1



# OAR Box 1392 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 135 ) I l-A-1 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/7/20089:45:59AM

Sheet 135of 136P. 2


# vvEP A Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 

### A-94-5 2 EPA-600/R-97-0l8 b JT>A-/ 0 Marc h 199 7 

# Researc h an d Developmen t

EVALUATIO N O FPOLLUTIO N PREVENTIO N TECHNIQUE S T O REDUC E STYREN E EMISSION S FRO M OPE N CONTAC T MOLDIN G PROCESSE S Volum e II , Appendixe s 

# Prepare d fo r

Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandard s



# Prepare d b y Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t Researc h Laborator

y Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1P. 3

FOREWOR D
Th e U
. S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y i s charge db y Congres s wit hpro tectin g th e Nation' s land , air , an dwate r resources . Unde r

amandat e o f

nationa l environmenta l laws , th e Agenc y strive s t o formulat e an dimplemen t action s lead

in g t o acompatibl e balanc e betwee n huma n activitie s an dth e abilit y o f natura l system s t o suppor t

an dnurtur e life
. T o mee t thi s mandate , EPA' s researc h progra mi s providin g dat aan dtechnica l suppor t fo r solvin g environmenta l pro blem s toda y an dbuildin g ascienc e knowledg e bas e necessar y t o manag e ou r eco logica l resource s wisely , understan dho w pollutant s affec t ou r health , an dpre ven t o r reduc e environmenta l risk s i n th e future
. Th e Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t

Researc hLaborator y i s th e Agency' s cente r fo r investigatio n o

f technologica l an dmanagemen t approache s fo r

reducin g risk s fro mthreat s t o huma n healt h an dth e environment
. Th e focu s o f th e Laboratory' s researc h progra mi s o n method s fo r th e preventio n an dcontro l o f pollutio n t o air , land , water , an dsubsurfac e resources ; protectio n o f wate r qualit y i n publi c wate r systems ; remediatio n o f contaminate dsite s an dgroundwater ; an dpreventio n an d contro l o f

indoo r ai r pollution
. Th e goa l of thi s researc heffor t

i s t o catalyz e developmen t

an dimplementatio n of innovative , cost-effectiv e environmenta l technologies ; develo p scientifi c an dengineerin g informatio n neede db y EP A t o suppor t regulator y an dpolic y decisions ; an dprovid e technica l suppor t an d.toifbr

matio n transfe r

t o ensur e effectiv e implementatio n o f environmenta l regulation s an dstrategies
. Thi s publicatio n ha s bee n produce da s par t o f th e Laboratory' s strategi c long

ter mresearc h plan
. I t i s publishe dan dmad e availabl e b y EPA' s Offic e o f Re

searc h an dDevelopmen t t o assis t

th e use r

communit y an dt o lin k researcher s wit h thei r

clients
. E
. Timoth y Oppelt , Directo r

Nationa l Ris k

Managemen t

Researc hLaborator y

EP A REVIE W NOTIC E Thi s repor t ha s bee n pee ran d administrativel yreviewe d b yth 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 c throug h th e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n Service , Springfield , Virgini a 22161

.P. 4

EPA-600/R-97-0l8 b Marc h 199 7


# Evaluatio n of

Pollution Preventio n Technique s to Reduce Styren e Emission s from Ope n ContactMoldin g Processe s Volum e II, Appendixe

s

B y Emer y J
. Kong , Mar

k A
. Bahner , Rober

t S
. Wright , an dC
. Andre w Clayto n ResearchTriangl e Institut

e P.O
. Box 1219

4 ResearchTriangl e Park , NC 2770 9

EP A Cooperativ e Agreemen

t C R818419-0 3

EP A Project Officer : Gedde s Ramse

y Air Pollutio n Preventio n an

dContro l Divisio n National Ris k

Managemen

t ResearchLaborator

y U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y ResearchTriangl e Park , NC 2771 1

Prepare dfo

r U.S
. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f ResearchandDevelopmen t Washington , D C 2046 0P. 5



### Abstrac t Pollutio n preventio n option s to reduc e styren e emissions , sucha s new material s an d applicatio n equipment , ar e commercially availabl e to th e operator s o f open moldin g processes . However , informatio n i s neededabou t th e percen t

reductio n i n emission s that i s achievabl e wit h thes e options
. T o meet thi s need , severa

l of thes e pollutio n preventio n option s were examined
. Option s examine dwere operato r techniques , ai r

flow velocitie s i n th e sprayin g area , ge l coat andresi n formulations , an dapplicatio n equipment
. Styren e emissio n factor s calculate dfrom thi s tes t resul t were compare dwit

h the existin g AP-4 2 emissio n factor s fo r ge l coa t sprayup andresi n applications
. Th e study foun

dtha t usin g controlle dsprayin g (i.e. , reducin g overspray) , low-styren e an dstyrene-suppresse dmaterials , an dnonatomizin g applicatio n equipmen t ca n reduc e styren e emission s from1 1 t o 5 2 percent
. Facilitie s shoul dinvestigat e th e applicabilit

y an dfeasibilit

y of thes e pollutio n preventio n option s t o reduc e their styren e emissions
. Th e calculate d emissio n factor s were from1. 6 t o 2. 5 time s th e mid-rang e AP-4 2 emissio n factor s fo r th e correspondin g ge l coa

t andresi n application
. Thes e result s indicat e tha t facilitie s usin g existin g .AP-42 emissio n factor s t o estimat e emission s in open molding processe s ar e likely t o underestimate actua

l emissions
.

nP. 6



### Contents Appendixe s A
. A Categor

y II I Qualit y Assuranc e Project

Pla n fo r the Evaluatio n o f

Pollutio n Preventio n Technique s t

o Reduc e Styrene Emission s fromOpe n Contac t Moldin g Processe s B
. Reichhol dStandar

dTes t Method s C
. Verificatio n andIntercompariso n o f Compresse dGa s Calibratio n Standard s D
. Summar

y o f Calibratio n Data , Calibratio n Erro r Tests , andDrif

t Check s E
. A Summar

y of Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , andCalculate d Emissio n Quantitie s andEmissio n Factor s fo r the Tes t F
. Statistica

l Analyse s o f

Tes t Result s G
. TH C Analyze

r Evaluation : Samplin g Lin e Los s andPressure Effect H
. A n RTI Technica

l SystemAudi t

Repor t 1
. EP A Performanc e Evaluatio n o f Tota l Hydrocarbo n Analyze

r

i nP. 7 Jit'--. ' '

Appendi x A A Categor y IE Qualit

y Assuranc e Project

Pla n fo r the Evaluatio n o

f Pollutio n Preventio n Technique s to Reduc e Styrene Emission s fro mOpe n Contac t Molding Processe s (minu s Appendixes ) andRTF s Response s t o EPA' s Comment s o

n the Categor

y mQualit

y Assuranc e Project Pla n

A- iP. 8

POLLUTIO N PREVENTIO N TECHNOLOG Y DEMONSTRATIO N


### EVALUATIO N O F POLLUTIO N PREVENTIO N TECHNIQUE S T O REDUC E STYREN E EMISSION S FRO M OPE N CONTAC T MOLDIN G PROCESSE S

CATEGORY II I QUALIT Y ASSURANC E PROJEC TPLA N

EPA Cooperativ e Agreemen t C R 818419-0 3 RT I Projec

t No

. 96U-5171-01 6

Submitte d to: EPA Projec

t Office r- Carlo s Nune z U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Researc h an d Developmen t Ai ran d Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator y Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1

Prepare d by : Researc h Triangl e Institut e P.O

. Bo x1219 4 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2770 9

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-i iSIGNATUR E PAG E P. 9

Projec t Office rr

U.S

. EPA , OR D Ai r& Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator y
Qualit yAssuranc e Office r- U.S

. EPA , OR D Ai r& Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator y 

# fr

# rh if Carlo s Nune z

fanc y/Vdam s Dat e 

# lam^tMk' A11A(K Dat e Projec t Manage r Researc h Triangl e Institut e Projec t Leade r Researc h Triangl e Institut e
Qualit yAssuranc e Manage r Researc h Triangl e Institut e Jess e Baski rDat e

Emer yKon g Date '
Cynthi a Salmon s Dat e

A-ii iP.1 0

Recipient s of officia l copie s of thi s QualityAssuranc e Projec t Plan :

Mr

. Carlo s Nune z Mr

. Gedde s Ramse y Dr

. Nanc yAdam s
Dr

. Jess e Baski r
Mr

. Emer yKon g
Ms

. Cynthi a Salmon s
Mr

. Mar k Bahne r
Mr

. Andre w Clayto n
Dr

. R

. K

. M

. Jayant y
Mr

. Mar k Callicut t
Mr

. Federic o Linare s
Mr

. Lorenz o Esposit o
Mr

. Mar k Hollenbec h
Mr

. To m Hedge r Mr

. Charle s Star d Mr

. Case yHerber t Mr

. Bo b Lacovar a
Staf f U.S

. EPA , Ai r& Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laboratory Projec t Office r U.S

. EPA , Ai r& Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator y Qualit yAssuranc e Office r Researc h Triangl e Institut e Pollutio n Preventio n Progra m Actin g Manage r Researc h Triangl e Institut e Projec t Leade r Researc h Triangl e Institut e Qualit yAssuranc e Manage r Researc h Triangl e Institut e Testin g Cre w Chie f Researc h Triangl e Institut e Experimenta l Desig n an d Dat a Analysi s Researc h Triangl e Institut e Emissio n Measuremen t Tea m Reichhol d Chemicals , Inc

. Technica l Servic e Superviso r Reichhol d Chemicals , Inc

. Manage ro f Physica l Testin g an d Applicatio n Reichhol d Chemicals , Inc

. Senio rTechnica l Servic e Representativ e Coo k Composite s an d Polymer s Technica l Managerfo rGelcoa t Magnu m Industrie s Researc h an d Developmen t W.E.T

. Inc

. Composite s Fabricator s Associatio n Directo ro f Technica l Servic e Researc h Triangl e Institut e Testin g Cre w Member s

A-i vP.1 1

TABL E O F CONTENT S
1. 0 PROJEC T DESCRIPTIO N A-1- 1 1. 1 Backgroun d A-1- 1 1. 2 Dat a Qualit yObjective s A-1- 2 1. 3 Intende d Us e o f Dat a A-1- 2 1. 4 Scop e o f Wor k

A-1- 2 1.4. 1 Pilo t Experimen t A-1- 3 1.4. 2 Gelcoa t Experimen t A-1- 4 1.4. 3 Resi n Experimen t A- 1 - 5 1. 5 Schedule/Mileston e Char t
. . A-1- 7 1. 6 Facilit yDescriptio n A- 1 - 9 1.6. 1 Tota l Enclosur e Syste m A- 1 - 9 1.6. 2 Resi n Propert yTestin g Laborator yA-1-1 1 1.6. 3 Ope n Contac t Mol d A-1-1 1 1. 7 Experimental/Tes t Matri xDesig n A- 1 -1 1 1.7. 1 Critica l an d Noncritica l Measurement s A-1-1 1 1.7.2

. Experimenta l Desig n A-1-1 3 1.7.2. 1 Pilo t Experimen t A-1-1 3 1.7.2. 2 Gelcoa t Experimen t A-1-1 6 1.7.2. 3 Resi n Experimen t A-1-1 7 1.7.2. 4 Combinin g th e Gelcoa t an d Resi n Experiment s A-1-1 8 2. 0 PROJEC T ORGANIZATIO N AN D RESPONSIBILITIE S

. . A-2- 1 3. 0 DAT A QUALIT Y INDICATO R GOAL S FO R CRITICA L MEASUREMENT S A-3- 1 3. 1 Objective s fo rQuantitativ e Dat a Qualit yIndicator s ..-.'. ' A-3- 2 3.1. 1 Precisio n A-3- 2 3.1. 2 Accurac yA-3- 3 3.1. 3 Detectio n Limi t A-3- 3 3.1. 4 Completenes s A-3- 3 3. 2 Objective s fo rQualitativ e Dat a Qualit yIndicator s A-3- 4 3.2. 1 Representativenes s A-3- 4 3.2. 2 Comparabilit yA-3- 4 4. 0 SAMPLIN G PROCEDURE S A-4- 1 4. 1 Tota l Enclosur e an d Captur e Efficienc yTes t A-4- 1 4. 2 Samplin g Locatio n an d Duratio n o f Tes t Ru n A-4- 1 4. 3 Testin g Procedure s A-4- 1 4. 4 Emissio n Measuremen t A-4- 3 4. 5 Exhaus t Ai rFlo w Rat e Measuremen t A-4- 4 4. 6 Mas s Balanc e Determinatio n A-4- 4 4. 7 Gelcoa t an d Resi n Propertie s A-4- 4 A- vP.1 2

4. 8 Environmenta l Condition s A-4- 5 4.8. 1 Linea rAi rVelocit yi n Spra yBoot h A-4- 5 4.8. 2 Ambien t Temperatur e A-4- 6 4.8. 3 Relativ e Humidit yA-4- 6 4. 9 Equipmen t Typ e an d Setu p A-4- 6 4.9. 1 Equipmen t Typ e A-4- 6 4.9. 2 Equipmen t Setu p A-4- 6 4.1 0 Operatin g Parameter s fo rPart s A-4- 7 4.10. 1 Catalys t Rati o A-4- 7 4.10. 2 Gelcoat/Resi n Thicknes s A-4- 7 4.10. 3 Glass/Resi n Rati o A-4- 7 5. 0 ANALYTICA L PROCEDURE S .'

. A-5- 1 5. 1 Type s o f Gelcoa t an d Resi n Material s A-5- 1 5. 2 Styren e Conten t A-5- 1 5.3 Ge l time , Tim e t o Peak , an d Pea k Exother m Characteristic s o f Polyeste rResin s A-5- 1 6. 0 DAT A REDUCTION , VALIDATION , AN D REPORTIN G A-6- 1 6. 1 Data

. Reductio n A-6- 1 6. 2 Dat a Validatio n A-6- 3 6. 3 Dat a Reportin g A-6- 4 7. 0 INTERNA L PERFORMANC E AN D SYSTE M AUDIT S A-7- 1 7. 1 Technica l System s Audit s A-7- 1 7. 2 Performanc e Evaluatio n Audit s A-7- 1 7. 3 Audit s o f Dat a Qualit yA-7- 1 8. 0 CALCULATIO N O F DAT A QUALIT Y INDICATOR S A-8- 1 8. 1 Precisio n A-8- 1 8. 2 Accurac yA-8- 1 8. 3 Metho d Detectio n Limi t A-8- 2 8. 4 Completenes s A-8- 2 9. 0 CORRECTIV E ACTIO N A-9- 1

A-v iP.1 3

LIS T O F FIGURE S Figur e 1-1

. Propose d schedul e an d milestone s A-1- 8 Figur e 1 -2

. Sid e vie w o f th e Reichhol d Chemical s spra yboot h i n a

permanen t tota l enclosur e A-1-1 0 Figur e 1-3

. Sketc h o f a mal e mol d A-1-1 2 Figur e 2-1

. Projec t organizatio n char t A-2- 3 Figur e 6-1

. Th e dat a handling , reduction , validation , an d reportin g

procedure s A-6- 2

LIS T O F TABLE S Tabl e 1-1

. Anticipate d Performanc e o f Evaluatio n Tes t A-1- 3 Tabl e 1-2

. Tes t Run s fo rPilo t Experimen t ; . A-1- 4 Tabl e 1 -3

. Tes t Run s fo rEac h o f th e Gelcoa t Formulation s an d

Equipmen t Combination s A-1- 5 Tabl e 1-4

. Tes t Run s fo rth e Resi n Formulation s an d Equipmen t Type s ..... . A-1- 7 Tabl e 1-5

. Summar yo f Critica l an d Noncritica l Measurement s A-1-1 4 Tabl e 1 -6

. Randoml yOrdere d Lis t o f Trial s fo rth e Mai n Experimen t
. A- 1 -2 0 Tabl e 3-1

. Summar yo f Styren e Emissio n Dat a fro m a Previou s RT I Testin g . . A-3- 1 Tabl e 3-2

. Objective s fo rQuantitativ e Dat a Qualit yIndicator s A-3- 2 Tabl e 4-1

. Summar yo f Measuremen t Locatio n an d Frequenc yA-4- 2 Tabl e 4-2

. Ai rFlo w Patter n an d Velocit yi n th e Spra yBoot h A-4- 5 Tabl e 4-3

. Dat a Recordin g Shee t fo rth e Pollutio n Preventio n Techniqu e Evaluatio n

Tes t
. ; A-4- 8 Tabl e 5-1

. Dat a Recordin g Shee t fo rGelcoa t an d Resi n Propertie s A-5- 2

A-vi iP. M
Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l A-1
- 28 , 1995 1 o f 2 0
1. 0 PROJEC T DESCRIPTIO N 1. 1 Backgroun d Th e Researc h Triangl e Institut e (RTI ) i s unde ra cooperativ e agreemen t wit h th e U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA) , Ai ran d Energ yEngineerin g Researc h Laborator y(AEERL) , t o evaluat e pollutio n preventio n technique s t o reduc e styren e emission s fro m ope n contac t moldin g processes . Th e ope n contac t moldin g proces s i s on e o f th e mos t commo n productio n processe s use d b yth e reinforce d plastic s an d composite s (RP/C ) industry

. Thi s proces s i s use d t o manufactur e boats , bathtubs , showe rstalls , truc k

bod yparts , swimmin g pools , storag e tanks , corrosion-resistan t equipment , furnitur e an d accessories , electrica l an d equipmen t housing s an d enclosures , duc t an d ai rhandlin g equipment , etc
. I t i s on e o f th e RP/ C processe s tha t consume s th e mos t polyeste rresins

. I t als o ha s th e greates t potentia l o f emittin g styren e du e t o th e sprayin g equipmen t use d an d th e opennes s o f th e process . Styren e i s emitte d durin g th e applicatio n stag e whe n a catalyze d gelcoa t o rresi n i s applie d t o th e surfac e o f a n ope n contac t mold

. Styren e continue s t o emi t fro m we t gelcoa t o rresi n durin g gelatio n an d curing

. Th e ope n contac t moldin g proces s usuall y i s conducte d i n a facilit ywit h ampl e ventilatio n t o maintai n th e ambien t styren e concentration s unde rcurren t Occupationa l Safet yan d Healt h Associatio n (OSHA ) standard s o f 10 0 ppm . Therefore , styren e emission s fro m ope n contac t moldin g proces s ar e difficul t t o captur e an d control

. Th e maximu m achievabl e contro l technolog y<MACT ) standard s fo rth e reinforce d plastic s an d composite s sourc e categor yan d boa t buildin g sourc e categor y ar e schedule d t o b e promulgate d b yNovembe r15,1997 , an d Novembe r15 , 2000 , respectively

. Fo rsom e ope n contac t moldin g processes , pollutio n preventio n technique s coul d b e use d t o reduc e styren e emissions

. Thes e pollutio n preventio n technique s includ e changin g applicatio n equipmen t an d environmen t an d usin g differen t gelcoa t o rresi n formulations

. Existin g informatio n indicate s tha t usin g nonsprayin g equipmen t o rlow-emitting/high-transfe refficienc yspra yguns , suc h a s air
assiste d airles s o rhigh-volum e lo w pressur e spra yguns , ca n reduc e emission s fro m th e applicatio n stage
. Gelcoa t an d resi n manufacturer s als o hav e develope d differen t gelcoa t an d resi n formulation s t o reduc e emissions

. However , th e effect s o f thes e pollutio n preventio n technique s hav e no t bee n compare d systematically

. Th e purpos e o f thi s evaluatio n tes t i s t o us e emissio n measurement s an d mas s balanc e calculation s t o quantif yan d validat e th e effect s o f severa l pollutio n preventio n techniques , specificall ygelcoat/resi n formulation s an d applicatio n equipment , o n styren e emission s fro m th e ope n contac t moldin g process . Th e result s o f thi s stud ywil l b e analyze d an d presente d t o th e RP/ C industr ys o tha t individua l facilitie s ca n identif y
A-1- 1P.1 5

Sectio n No. : 1. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28 , 1995 Page : A-1- 2 o f 2 0 th e mos t effectiv e an d practica l pollutio n preventio n technique s t o reduc e styren e emissions

. Thi s QualityAssuranc e Projec t Pla n (QAPP ) describe s th e scop e o f th e propose d pollutio n preventio n technique s evaluatio n tes t an d th e procedure s tha t wil l b e employe d i n th e evaluatio n tes t t o ensure tha t th e dat a collecte d ar e of sufficien t qualit y t o achiev e projec

t objectives

. 1. 2 Dat a Quality Objective s Th e objectiv e of thi s testin g i s t o determin e th e styren e emissio n reductio n fo r severa l pollutio n preventio n technique s fro m th e baselin e conditions

. Pollutio n preventio n technique s wil l b e evaluate d fo rgelcoa t an d resi n application s o n ope n contact moldin g processes . Th e baselin e emission s wil l b e determine d fo ra regula r gelcoa t an d a regula rresi n formulatio n usin g a n air-assiste d airles s spra ygu n unde ra typica l environmenta l condition

. Compariso n of emission s wil l b e base d o n styren e emissio n factor s expresse d a s weigh t percen t of availabl e styren e ( % AS ) an d a s mas s pe runi t surfac e are a (g/m 2 )

. Th e forme runi t i s th e uni t use d i n th e EPACompilatio n of Ai rPollutan t Emissio n Factors , AP-4 2 Document

. Tabl e 1- 1 summarize s th e anticipate d performanc e of th e evaluatio n i n term s of th e width s of confidenc e interval s fo rdifference s i n mea n %A S associate d wit h th e primar ycomparison s of interest

. Th e width s of th e interval s depen d o n th e magnitud e o f th e measuremen t erro rstandar d deviation , whic h i s denote d b yo . Result s ar e presente d fo ra = 1 , 3 , an d 5 percentag e points

. Thi e prio rtes t result s (show n i n Tabl e 3-1 ) sugges t tha t standar d deviation s i n thi s rang e shoul d b e achievabl e b ymas s balanc e calculatio n method

. 1. 3 Intende d Us e o f Dat a Th e tes t result s wil l b e analyzed , summarized , an d presente d t o th e RP/ C industr yi n a n EPA report
. Th e repor t wil l provid e quantitativ e emissio n reductio n potential s fo rth e pollutio n preventio n technique s evaluated , s o tha t a facilit yowne ro r operato rca n identifyth e mos t effectiv e an d practica l pollutio n preventio n technique s t o reduc e styren e emission s fro m it s operation

. 1. 4 Scop e o

f Wor k Thi s testin g wil l includ e a pilo t experimen t an d a mai n experiment

. Fro m th e pilo t experiment , th e linea rai rflo w velocityan d th e sprayin g techniqu e wil l b e determine d fo r th e mai n experiment

. Th e mai n experimen t wil l includ e a gelcoat experiment , whic h wil l examin e tw o gelcoa t formulation s wit h thre e piece s of gelcoatin g equipment , an d a resi n experiment , whic h wil l examin e si xresi n formulation s an d fou rpiece s o f resi n A-1-2P.1 6

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1.0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-1-3o»2 0 applicatio n equipment

. Th e formulation s an d equipmen t selecte d fo rth e testin g are representativ e of curren t an d evolvin g technologie s availabl e t o th e RP/ C industry

. Eac h o f th e experiment s i s describe d i n th e followin g subsections

. Tabl e 1-1

. Anticipate d Performanc e of Evaluatio n Tes t
Differenc e i n mea n %A S du e to : Expecte d hal f widt h o f 95 % confidenc e interva l o n difference 3 0 = 1 o = 3 o = 5 Alternativ e gelcoa t formulatio n vs . baselin e formulatio n (basedon12df) b ±1.0 3 ±3.0 8 ±5.1 4 Alternativ e gelcoa t spra y equipmen t vs . baselin e equipmen t (basedon12df) b ±1.2 6 ±3.7 7 ±6.2 9

Alternativ e resi n formulatio n vs . baselin e formulatio n (base d p n 1 5 df) c ±1.5 1 ±4.5 2 ±7.5 4

Alternativ e resi n spra y equipmen t vs . baselin e equipmen t (base d o n 9 df) c ±1.6 0 ±4.8 0 ±8.0 0

Unit s fo ro an d th e half-width s are i n percentag e points

. Constructio n o

f th e interva l i s not meaningfu l i f there i s a n interactio n o f th e gelcoat formulation s an d equipmen t types
. Half-width s are conservative i n that large rnumber s o f degree s o

f freedo m (df) ma

yb e available ; thi s wil l lea d t o narrowe rconfidenc e intervals

. 1.4. 1 Pilo t Experimen t Befor e thes e formulation s an d equipmen t are examined , w e wil l conduct a pilo t experimen t t o determin e th e ai rflo w velocityi n th e sprayboot h an d th e sprayin g metho d tha t wil l b e use d throughou t th e entire test
. Alow an d a hig h ai rflo w velocityi n th e spra yare a wil l b e examined

. A low ai rflo w velocityi n th e sprayin g are a wil l b e establishe d bydivertin g th e makeu p ai rawayfro m th e sprayin g are a t o th e side s of th e spraybooth

. A norma l an d a more carefu l sprayin g metho d wil l b e examine d fo rth e applicatio n technique

. Th e pilo t experimen t wil l b e conducte d usin g a low-profil e resi n o ra regula rgelcoa t catalyze d wit h methy l ethy l keton e peroxid e (MEKP ) an d bya n air
assiste d airles s (AAA) spraygun . Reichhol d Chemical s o rCoo k Composite s an d A-1- 3 

# 3P.1 7

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : " 1. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-1-4of2 0 Polymer s wil l provid e th e resi n o rgelcoat , respectively

. Magnu m Industrie s wil l provid e th e AA A spra ygu n an d a n operato rt o operat e it

. Th e result s wil l b e analyze d t o determin e whethe rther e ar e an ydifference s i n styren e emission s resultin g fro m differen t ai rflo w velocitie s an d sprayin g methods

. Followin g th e pilo t experiment , on e ai rflo w velocit yan d on e sprayin g metho d wil l b e selecte d fo rth e gelcoa t an d resi n experiment s i n th e evaluatio n test
. Th e numbe rof tes t run s fo rai rflo w velocityan d sprayin g metho d ar e summarize d a s follow s an d presente d i n Tabl e 1-2

. A

. Ai rflo w velocit y A1

. Low ai rflo w velocity(4 0 t o 10 0 fpm ) A2

. Hig h ai rflo w velocity(10 0 t o 20 0 fpm ) B

. Sprayin g metho d M1

. Norma l techniqu e withou t consciou s contro l of oversprayfro m flange s M2

. Alternativ e sprayin g techniqu e wit h more consciou s contro l of overspra y

Tabl e 1 -2

. Tes t Run s fo rPilo t Experimen t
M1-Norma l techniqu e M2-Alternativ e techniqu e A1-Lo w ai rflo w velocit y 3 3 A2-Hig h ai rflo w velocit y 3 3 1.4. 2 Gelcoa t Experimen t Th e gelcoa t formulation s selecte d are on e regula rgelcoa t wit h isophthali c acid/neopenty l glyco l (ISO/NPG®)-base d resi n an d a lo w volatil e organi ccompoun d (VOC ) gelcoa t wit h th e sam e bas e resin : Coo k Composite s an d Polymers (CCP ) wil l provid e thes e tw o gelcoats

. Fo rth e purpos e of thi s testing , bot h gelcoat s wil l contai n straigh t styren e withou t an ymethy l methacrylate

. MEK P catalys t wil l b e use d an d th e catalys t ratio s wil l follo wthos e suggeste d byCCP

. Th e gelcoatin g equipmen t selecte d includes : on e AA Aexterna l catalys t mixin g spraygun , on e high-volum e low-pressure (HVLP ) externa l catalys t mixin g spra ygun , an d on e HVL P interna l catalys t mixin g spraygun . Th e AAAexterna l mixin g spra ygu n i s considere d th e baselin e conditio n o f th e industry

. Th e AA

Aspraygu n wil l b e compare d wit h HVL P sprayguns . Th e effect s of interna l an d extema l catalys t mixin g wil l b e evaluate d fo rth e HVL P sprayguns . Magnu m wil l provid e th e AA Aan d th e othe r tw o HVL P sprayguns . A pum p rati o of 20: 1 wil l b e selecte d fo rth e gelcoa t pum p systems
. Th e spra ygun s wil l b e compare d a t simila rgelcoa t deliver yrates
.

A-1-4 

# HP.1 8

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l 28 , 1995 A-1-5of2 0 Th e gelcoat formulation s an d applicatio n equipmen t are denote d a s follows : a . Formulation s GF1

. a regula r(ISO/NPG® ) gelcoat containin g onl ystyren e monome r (baselin e condition ) GF2

. a low VO C styrene-suppresse d (ISO/NPG® ) gelcoat containin g onl y styren e monome r b

. Equipmen t GE1

. a n AA

A externa l catalys t mixin g spraygu n (baselin e condition ) GE2

. a n HVL P interna l catalys t mixin g spraygu n GE3

. a n HVL P externa l catalys t mixin g spraygu n Tabl e 1- 3 shows th e numbe ro

f tes t run s fo reac h of th e gelcoat formulatio n an d equipmen t combination s i n th e gelcoa t experiment

.

Tabl e 1-3

. Tes t Run s fo rEac h o f th e Gelcoat Formulation s an d Equipmen t Combination s

Formulatio n GF1-Regula rgelcoa t GF2-Lo w VO C gelcoa t Equipmen t typ e GEI-AAA(ext ) 3 3 GE2-HVLP(int ) 3 3 GE3-HVLP(ext ) 3 3 ext=Externa l catalys t mixing

. int=lnterna l catalys t mixing

. 1.4. 3 Resi n Experimen t Th e resi n experimen t wil l examin e si xresi n formulation s wit h a n AA Aspraygu n an d fou rapplicatio n equipmen t wit h on e standard resin

. Th e resi n formulation s selecte d are on e dicyclopentadien e (DCPD)-base d low
profil e resi n catalyze d wit h MEKP , on e DCPD-base d low-styren e resin , on e orthophthalic(ORTHO)-base d styren e suppresse d resin , on e DCPD-base d low-profil e resi n catalyze d wit h benzoy l peroxid e (BPO) , a water-emulsifie d resi n catalyze d wit h MEKP , an d th e sam e ORTHO-base d styrene-suppresse d resi n at a highe rsuppressan t concentration

. Al l th e resi n formulation s wil l b e spraye d bya n air-assiste d airles s spray gun . Reichhol d Chemicals , Inc. , wil l provid e al l resi n formulation s an d catalyst , excep t th e water-emulsifie d resin

. Th e W.E.T. , Inc

. wil l provid e th e wate remulsifie d resin

. Th e catalys t ratio s wil l follo w thos e suggeste d b yReichhol d an d W.E.T. , Inc

. Th e resi n applicatio n equipmen t selecte d ar e on e AA Aexterna l catalys t mixin g spra ygun ; a n interna l catalys t mixin g flo w coater ; a pressure-fe d roller ; an d a n AA A A-1-5 

# 5P.1 9

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-1-6of2 0 externa l catalys t mixin g spraygu n modifie d fo rth e resi n catalyze d wit h BPO

. Th e AAA , externa l mixin g spraygu n i s conside rth e baselin e conditio n of th e industry

. Th e AA A spraygu n i s t o b e compare d wit h othe rnonsprayin g equipmen t (i.e. , th e flo w coate ran d th e pressure-fe d roller)

. Magnu m wil l provid e al l th e equipmen t fo revaluation

. A pum p rati o of 11: 1 wil l b e selecte d fo rth e resi n pum p systems
. Th e equipmen t wil l b e compare d a t simila rresi n deliver yrates
. Resi n formulation s an d applicatio n equipmen t are denote d a s follows : a . Formulation s RF1

. a DCPD-base d low-profil e resi n catalyze d wit h MEK P (baselin e condition ) RF2

. a DCPD-base d low-styren e resi n RF3

. a n ORTHO-base d styrene-suppresse d resi n RF4

. a DCPD-base d low-profil e resi n catalyze d wit h BP O RF5

. a water-emulsifie d resi n RF6

. th e sam e ORTHO-base d styren e suppresse d resi n a t a highe r suppressan t concentratio n b

. Equipmen t RE1

. a n AA

A externa l catalys t mixin g spraygu n (baselin e condition ) RE2

. a n interna l catalys t mixin g flo w coate r RE3

. a n interna l catalys t mixin g pressure-fe d rolle r RE4

. a modifie d AAA , externa l catalys t mixin g spraygu n fo rth e resi n catalyze d wit h BP O Tabl e 1- 4 sho wth e numbe rof tes t run s fo rth e resi n formulatio n an d equipmen t t o b e examine d i n th e resi n experiment

.

A-1- 6



# IP.2 0

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-1-7of2 0 Tabl e 1-4

. Tes t Run s fo rth e Resi n Formulation s

an d Equipmen t Type s

Formulatio n RF 1 -DCPD-base d low
profil e resi n wit h MEK P RF2-DCPD-base d low
styren e resi n RF3-ORTHO-base d styrene suppresse d resi n RF4-DCPD-base d low
profil e resi n wit h BP O RF5-water-emulsifie d resi n RF6-th e ORTHO-base d styrene-suppresse d resi n a t a highe rsuppressan t concentratio n Equipmen t typ e REI-AAA(ext )
6
3
3
N A
3 3 RE2-flo w

coater(int ) 3
N A
N A
N A
N A N A RE3-pressure
fe d roller(int ) 3
N A
N A
N A
N A N A RE4-modifie d

AA A (ext ) N A
N A
N A
3
N A N A

ext=Externa l catalys t mixing

. Int=lntema l catalys t mixing

. N A = No t include d i n th e experiment

. 1. 5 Schedule/Mileston e Char t Th e schedul e an d milestone s fo rthi s testin g are show n i n Figure 1 -1

. Th e schedul e an d milestone s ar e determine d byth e overal l project completio n dat e a t th e en d of September

. Th e evaluatio n tes t i s schedule d t o star t i n th e firs t wee k

of Jun e 199 5 an d wil l tak e 4 week s t o complete

. Th e resi n an d gelcoa t manufacturers an d equipmen t vendors wil l nee d t o provid e th e material s an d equipmen t t o th e tes t sit e at Reichhol d Chemical s Inc. , c/ o Mr

. Mar k

Callicutt , 240 0 Elli s Road , Durham , Nort h Carolin a 27703-554 3 byMa y26,1995

. RT I wil l prepare a temporar ytota l enclosur e setu p at Reichhold' s sprayboot h i n lat e May

. RT I wil l conduct preliminar ytestin g t o .ensure tha t th e enclosur e an d emissio n measuremen t instrumen t mee t EP A requirements

. Th e preliminar ytestin g wil l als o ensure tha t th e emission s are withi n th e prope rconcentratio n range s of th e tota l hydrocarbo n (THC ) analyze rprio rt o th e actua l testing

. Th e propose d schedul e shows tha t th e testin g wil l tak e plac e durin g th e mont h of June

. Th e testin g schedul e i s base d o n th e assumptio n tha t thre e tes t run s ca n b e conducte d i n eac h workin g da yan d 1 9 workin g days wil l b e neede d t o

A-1- 7 

# 7> 0 3 Majo r activitie s

1

. Prepar e an d submi t a Categor yII I QAPj P t o EPA 2

. EP A review s an d approve s th e QAPj P 3

. RT I revise s th e QAPj P a s neede d 4

. Mak e arrangement s t o hav e material s an d equipmen t delivere d t o Reichhol d 5

. Se t u p th e temporarytota l enclosur e syste m an d instrumentatio n a t Reichhold , conduct preliminarytestin g t o ensur e tha t th e setup , instrument , an d equipmen t wor k properl y 6

. Conduc t th e testin g a t Reichhol d 7

. Analyz e tes t result s 8

. Prepar e an d submi t a draf t repor t t o involve d organization s fo rcomment s 9

. Technica l revie w o f th e draf t repor t b yinvolve d organization s 10

. Finaliz e th e projec t report Projec t schedul e an d milestone s Marc h Apri l Ma y Jun e Jul y Augus t Sep t

•V O 3 0 W m. 0 tt* a 

### ? 

### ?. 

### 5- 1 Figur e 1-1 . Propose d schedul e an d milestones .

- » > o - » * a . b 

### 8. B
u > to

T J h oP.2 2

Sectio n No. : 1. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28 , 199 5 Page : A-1-9of2 0 complet e th e propose d 5 7 tes t runs . Th e fina l tes t perio d ma yb e longe rtha n th e propose d duration , i f Reichhol d need s th e spra yboot h fo rit s ow n testin g o rth e tes t tea m encounter s technica l difficultie s tha t nee d t o b e resolve d befor e th e tes t ca n b e resumed

. 1. 6 Facilit yDescriptio n Th e evaluatio n tes t wil l b e conducte d i n a n isolate d spra yboot h i n th e Reichhol d Chemicals ' physica l testin g laboratory , locate d i n Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina

. Thi s typ e o f spra yboot h i s commonl yuse d i n a gelcoatin g are a o f a n RP/ C facility

. Th e Reichhol d Chemicals ' physica l testin g laborator yi s use d t o conduc t testin g fo rthei rresi n users . I t i s no t a productio n facility ; therefore , th e backgroun d styren e concentratio n ca n b e minimized

. 1.6. 1 Tota l Enclosur e Syste m Th e spra yboot h i s situate d i n a n enclose d roo m wit h a doubl e doo rleadin g t o th e physica l testin g laboratory

. Figur e 1-2 show s th e sid e vie w o f th e spra ybooth

. Th e roo m i s 1 2 fee t wide , 1 9 fee t high , an d 1 5 fee t deep , whic h ca n b e considere d a permanen t tota l enclosure

. Th e doubl e doo rmeasure s 6 fee t wid e b y7 fee t high , whic h ca n b e conside rth e natura l draf t openin g t o th e enclosure

. Th e spra yboot h i s 7 fee t high , 11. 5 fee t wide , an d 7. 5 fee t dee p fro m th e fron t edg e t o th e filte rbank

. Th e filte rban k i s 6 fee t hig h b y1 1 fee t wide

. Th e distanc e betwee n th e fron t edg e o f th e spra yboot h t o th e doubl e doo ri s 4 fee t 1 0 inches

. Th e conditione d makeu p ai ri s provide d throug h a duc t ( 3 fee t 9 inche s b y4 feet ) abov e th e ope n spac e betwee n th e spra yboot h an d th e doubl e door

. Thi s duc t i s considere d a force d draf t openin g t o th e tota l enclosur e system
. Th e makeu p ai rflow s downward , the n turn s horizontall ythroug h th e spra ybooth

. Th e exhaus t ai rflow s throug h th e filte r ban k a t th e en d o f th e spra yboot h an d i s exhauste d upwar d b ya duc t 3 4 inche s i n diameter

. Th e exhaus t flo w rat e fro m th e spra yboot h i s estimate d t o b e 8,00 0 cf m whe n th e doubl e doo ri s closed

. Th e actua l flo wrat e wil l b e determine d i n preliminar y testing

. Emissio n measurement s an d exhaus t ai rflo w rat e wil l b e monitore d fro m th e exhaus t duct

. Th e samplin g locatio n i s 8 diameter s downstrea m o f th e las t ben d a s show n i n Figur e 1-2

. EP A Method s 1 an d 2 wil l b e use d t o determin e th e exhaus t ga s velocit yan d volumetri c flo w rate
. EP A Metho d 25 Awil l b e use d t o determin e tota l gaseou s organi c emissions

. EP A Metho d 20 4 wil l b e use d t o ensur e tha t th e enclose d roo m meet s th e criteri a fo ra tota l enclosure

. Th e samplin g procedure s ar e outline d i n Sectio n 4.0

.

A-1- 9



# 1P.2 3

Sectio n No. : Revision : Date : Page : 1. 0

0 Apri l 28 , 199 5 1-1 0 o f 2 0



# o Emissio n an d Ai rRo w

Rat e Monitorin g Locatio n

7'x6 ' (W) Doubl e Doo r

Groun d Floo r Applicatio n Equipmen t (Coul d b e Place d Insid e o rOutsid e th e Enclosure ) Figur e 1-2 . Sid e vie

wo f th e Reichhol d Chemical s spra y boot h i n a permanen t tota l enclosur e (19' H x 12' W x 15'L)
A-1-1 0 

### I OSectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1.0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-1-1 1 o f 2 0 1.6. 2 Resi n Propert yTestin g Laborator y Reichhol d Chemical s ha s a resi n propert ytestin g laborator ylocate d i n th e sam e buildin g a s th e spra ybooth

. Th e laborator yha s al l th e instrumen t an d equipmen t necessar yt o determin e th e styren e content s an d curin g characteristic s fo rth e gelcoa t an d resi n formulations

. Reichhol d personne l wil l hel p th e projec t tea m examin e thes e propertie s fo rever ygelcoa t an d resi n formulation ; Availabl e instrument s includ e a n analytica l balance , a forced-ai roven , severa l Brookfiel d viscometers , a thermocouple , an d a temperatur e recorder

. 1.6. 3 Ope n Contac t Mol d A mal e mol d wil l b e use d fo rthi s evaluatio n test
. Figur e 1-3 show s a drawin g o f thi s mold

. Th e mal e mol d wil l hav e fiv e expose d smoot h surface s simila rt o a rectangula rbox

. Th e mol d wil l measur e 2 fee t high , 2, 5 fee t long , an d 2 fee t wide

. A2 - inc h wid e flang e surround s th e botto m o f th e mol d fo reas e o f par t removal

. Th e tota l surfac e area , includin g flange , equal s 24. 5 ft 2

. Th e shap e an d surfac e are a o f thi s mol d ar e selecte d t o simulat e rea l condition s i n th e ope n contac t moldin g process . Th e mol d i s constructe d o f traditiona l reinforce d plastic s materia l t o represen t rea l mold s use d b y th e industry

. Th e mol d wil l b e place d o n a car t wit h wheel s s o tha t th e operato rca n spra yo n al l mol d surface s b yturnin g th e car t an d withou t movin g his positio n t o th e down-win d location

. 1. 7 Experimental/Tes t Matri x Desig n 1.7. 1 Critica l an d Noncritica l Measurement s Th e critica l an d noncritica l measurements , th e frequenc yo f measurement , th e location s wher e thes e measurement s ar e taken , an d rhethod s o f measurement s ar e show n i n Tabl e 1 -5

. Th e emissio n measurements , exhaus t ai rflo w rate , an d mas s balanc e calculation s ar e critica l measurement s fo rthi s study

. Th e emissio n rate s ar e t o b e determine d fro m styren e emission s measure d a s tota l hydrocarbo n concentratio n an d th e exhaus t ai rflo w rat e monitore d ove rth e duratio n o f th e tes t run . Mas s balanc e calculation s wil l b e use d t o determin e transfe refficienc yo f th e applicatio n equipmen t an d t o determin e th e weigh t losse s fro m th e mol d an d fro m th e overspray . Th e styren e content s o f th e gelcoa t an d resi n formulation s ar e critica l measurements ; becaus e th e informatio n wil l b e use d t o expres s th e styren e emissio n factor s a s th e percen t o f availabl e styren e i n th e materials

. Th e linea rai rvelocit yove rth e mol d an d th e ambien t temperatur e ar e non-critica l measurements , bu t the ywil l b e recorde d t o documen t actua l tes t conditions

. Th e typ e o f gelcoa t o rresi n material s an d th e equipmen t typ e wil l b e noncritica l parameters , bu t th e emissio n quantitie s wil l b e compare d fo rdifferen t material s an d equipment

. A-1-1 1P.2 5

Sectio n No. : Revision : Date : Page : 1. 0

0 - Apri l 28 , 199 5 1-1 2 of 2 0

2 " Flang e surroundin g th e botto m of th e mol d t o eas e part remova l
Figure 1-3 . Sketc h o

f a mal e mold .

A-1-1 2P.2 6

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1.0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-1-1 3 o f 2 0 Th e equipmen t setu p (suc h a s pum p an d ai rpressure , spra yti p siz e an d angle , deliver yrate , an d catalys t rati o setting ) ar e noncritical

. Th e duratio n o f application , gelcoat/laminat e thickness , glass/resi n ratio , ge l time , tota l tim e t o peak , an d pea k exother m ar e noncritica l measurements
. However , thes e equipmen t condition s an d gelcoat/resi n parameter s ar e importan t informatio n tha t shoul d b e documented

. 1.7. 2 Experimenta l Desig n 1.7.2. 1 Pilo t Experimen t Befor e executin g th e mai n experiment , severa l preliminar yrun s ar e proposed. , Th e primar ypurpos e i s t o hel p establis h "standard " condition s unde rwhic h th e mai n experimen t wil l b e conducted

. A secondar ypurpos e i s t o gai n insigh t int o th e magnitud e o f measuremen t erro rvariabilit ytha t migh t b e anticipate d i n th e mai n experiment

. I f th e pilo t experimen t indicate s majo rdifficultie s wit h th e planne d approach , thi s QAP P wil l b e amende d t o indicat e change s t o th e mai n experiment

. -RT I wil l acquir e verba l approva l fro m th e EP A Projec t Offic e fo rchange s tha t occu rdurin g th e tes t activitie s an d submi t a QAP P chang e a s soo n a s possible

. Th e propose d pilo t consist s o f 1 2 trial s - - namely , thre e replicate s fo reac h o f th e followin g conditions : a . Norma l sprayin g metho d (M1) , lo w ai rflo w velocit y(Al ) b

. Alternativ e sprayin g metho d (M2) , lo w ai rflo w velocit y(A1 ) c . Norma l sprayin g metho d (M1) , hig h airflo w velocit y(A2 ) d

. Alternativ e sprayin g metho d (M2) , hig h airflo w velocit y(A2 ) Resi n RF 1 o rgelcoa t GF 1 wil l b e use d i n al l cases , fh e followin g rando m orderin g o f th e 1 2 trial s wil l b e used : b,c,d,c,b,a,d,a,d,b,c,a

. Sinc e on e o f th e fou r condition s wil l b e chose n a s th e standar d metho d fo rth e subsequen t trials , i t ma yb e . possibl e t o us e thos e thre e pilo t trial s i n th e analysi s o f the.mai n resi n experimen t (e.g. , t o provid e mor e degree s o f freedo m fo rerro rvariability)

. Th e pilo t wil l provid e onl ya limite d amoun t o f informatio n tha t ca n b e use d fo r statistica l purposes . Th e dat a ca n b e used , however , t o giv e som e ide a o f th e impac t o f thes e tw o parameter s o n emissions

. Th e analysi s o f varianc e fo rth e experimen t i s a s follows :

A-1-1 3 

## '•? >Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l A-1
- 28 , 199 5 4 o f 2 0 P.27

_

Tabl e 1-5

. Summar

yo f Critica l an d Noncritica l Measurement s Measuremen t TH C concentratio n Exhaust ai rflow rat e an d velocityhead^ApJ

. Humidit y Mas s balance calculation s 1 ) gelcoat/resi n material s use d 2 ) gelcoat/resi n applie d o n mol d 3 ) cure d materia l o n mol d 4) cure d materia l o n othe rgroun d cove r Type s o f gelcoa t an d resi n material s Styren e conten t Gelcoat/resi n propertie s 1 ) ge l tim e 2 ) tota l tim e t o pea k 3 ) pea k exother m Linea rai rvelocit

yi n th e sprayboot h Ambien t temperature Equipmen t typ e Equipmen t setu p 1 ) pum p pressure 2 ) ai rpressure 3 ) sprayti p siz e 4 ) sprayti p angl e 5 ) catalys t rati o settin g 6 ) equipmen t deliver

yrat e Gelcoat/Resi n dat a 1 ) catalys t rati o 2 ) gelcoat/laminat e thicknes s 3 ) gjass/resi n rati o Classificati o n Critica l Critica l Noncritica l Critica l

Noncritica l Critica l Noncritica l

Noncritica l Noncritica l Noncritica l Noncritica l

Noncritica l Metho d

EP A Metho d 25

A EP AMethod s 1 an d 2 Slin g psychromete ro rrelativ e humiditydetecto r Hig h precisio n scale s wit h 15 0 kg capacityan d 1 g readabilit y

Manufacture rdata Reichhol d standard tes t metho d No

. 18-00 1 Reichhol d standard tes t metho d No

. 18-05 0 an d 18-05 1

Hot wire anemomete r Thermocoupl e Vendo rinformatio n Vendo rinformatio n an d actua l settin g o n equipmen t

Mas s calculatio n an d mi l gauge s

A-1-1 4 

# i fSourc e o

f variatio n M (sprayin g method ) A (ai rflo w velocity) M xA (interaction ) Erro r Tota l Degree s o f freedo m 1 1 1 8 1 1 Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1.0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-1-1 5 012 0 P.2 8

,

Th e magnitud e o f difference s i n mea n %A S tha t ca n b e detecte d vi a th e pilo t experimen t ca n b e expresse d i n term s o f th e half-widt h o f confidenc e interval s (Cl. ) o n th e difference s o f interest : Differenc e i n mea n %AS Expecte d half-widt h o f 95 % Cl

. M 2 vs . M 1 A2 vs . A 1 Fo ran ytw o cell s 1.331 o 1.331 0 2.306O
I n thi s table , a denote s th e standar d deviatio n associate d wit h measuremen t variabilit yo f emission s i n %AS

. Th e widt h o f th e confidenc e interval s i s base d o n a n assumptio n tha t th e dat a fo ra give n combinatio n o f M an d A wil l b e approximatel y normall ydistribute d wit h a commo n measuremen t error.variabilit y(simila rassumption s appl yt o al l othe rconfidenc e interval s describe d herein)

. Th e 9 5 percen t confidenc e interva l half-widt h o n th e differenc e ca n b e relate d t o a pairwis e hypothesi s tes t (conducte d a t a significanc e leve l o f 0.05 ) i n tw o ways . First , i f th e estimate d confidenc e interva l doe s no t includ e zero , the n th e correspondin g tes t o f n o differenc e i n mea n %A S wil l b e rejected

. Second , i f th e tru e differenc e betwee n th e mean s (fo r A 1 an d A2 , say ) i s equa l t o th e expecte d half-width , the n w e wil l hav e a 5 0 percen t chanc e o f detectin g a differenc e i n th e means . (O f course , i f th e tru e differenc e i s large rtha n th e half-width , the n ther e wil l a highe rlikelihoo d tha t w e wil l b e abl e t o detec t a difference. ) Thu s i f th e underlyin g erro rvariabilit yo f emission s i n %A S i s 5 percentag e points , the n w e shoul d hav e abou t a 5 0 percen t chanc e o f findin g a differenc e i n th e tw o flo w rate s i f th e tru e differenc e betwee n the m i s abou t 6. 7 (i.e. , 1.331x5)

. A simila rstatemen t ca n b e mad e regardin g th e methods

. Bot h o f thes e statement s assum e tha t ther e i s no t a metho d b yai rflo w interactio n (i n whic h cas e th e overal l comparison s woul d no t generall yb e meaningful)

. I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e abov e analysi s o f varianc e (ANOVA ) an d confidenc e interva l statement s rel yo n a n assumptio n o f measurement-erro rvarianc e homogeneit yacros s th e fou rcombination s o f factor s M an d A

.

A-1-1 5 

## 16P.2 9

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-1-16of2 0 1.7.2. 2 Gelcoat Experimen t Th e gelcoat experimen t i s on e o f th e tw o majo rcomponent s i n th e mai n experiment

. Thi s experimen t i s aime d at evaluatin g how styren e emission s ar e affecte d b ytyp e o f gelcoat formulatio n (facto rGF) an d typ e of equipmen t (facto rGE)

. Th e facto rcombination s (tw o formulation s an d thre e equipmen t types ) an d propose d sampl e size s ar e give n i n Tabl e 1-3

. Th e 1 8 trial s ar e t o b e performe d i n rando m orde r (trial s wil l b e intersperse d wit h th e trial s o f th e resi n experiment , describe d below)

. Th e ANOV

A associate d wit h th e desig n ( a completel yrando m desig n wit h thre e replications ) ha s th e followin g structure : Sourc e o f Degree s o f variatio n freedo m G F (gelcoats ) 1 G E (equipment ) 2 G F xG E (interaction ) 2 Erro r1 2 Tota l 1 7 Fo rth e gelcoa t experiment , th e magnitud e o f difference s tha t ca n b e detecte d ca n b e expresse d i n term s o f th e half-widt h o

f confidenc e interval s o n th e difference s of interest : Differenc e i n mea n %A S Expecte d half-widt h o f 95 % Cl

. GF2vs

. GF 1 GE2vs

. GE1,GE3vs

. GE1 , o rGE 3 vs . GE 2 Fo ran ytw o cell s 1.027 O 1.258 0 1.779 0 Again , o denote s th e standar d deviatio n associate d wit h measuremen t erro r variability

. Th e 9 5 percen t confidenc e interva l half-widt h o n th e differenc e ca n b e relate d t o a pairwis e hypothesi s tes t (conducte d a t a significanc e leve l o

f 0.05 ) i n tw o ways . First , i f th e estimate d confidenc e interva l doe s no t includ e zero , the n th e correspondin g tes t of n o differenc e wil l b e rejected

. Second , i f th e tru e differenc e betwee n th e mean s (fo rGF 1 an d GF2 , say) i s equa l t o th e expecte d half-width , the n w e wil l hav e a 5 0 percen t chanc e of detectin g a differenc e i n th e means . Henc e i f th e underlyin g erro rvariabilit yof emission s i n percen t availabl e styren e i s 5 percentag e points , the n w

e shoul d hav e (1 ) abou t a 5 0 percen t chanc e of findin g a differenc e i n th e gelcoa t formulation s i f th e tru e differenc e betwee n the m i s abou t 5.1 , an d (2 ) abou t a . 5 0 percen t chanc e of detectin g a differenc e i n tw o piece s of equipmen t i f th e tru e differenc e betwee n the m i s abou t 6.3

. Bot h of thes e statement s assum e tha t n o A-1-1 6 

# AP.3 0

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-1-1 7 of 2 0 differenc e betwee n the m i s abou t 6.3

. Bot h o f thes e statement s assum e tha t n o interaction s ar e present
. I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e abov e ANOVAan d confidenc e interva l statement s rel yo n a n assumptio n o f measuremen t erro rvarianc e homogeneity acros s equipment , gelcoa t formulations , an d ievei s o f percen t availabl e styrene
. I f th e variabilit yappears t o chang e wit h level , the n transformation s suc h a s logarithm s wil l b e considere d (fo rth e logarithmi c transformation , th e o ca n the n b e interprete d a s th e tru e underlyin g relativ e standard deviation)

. 1.7.2. 3 Resi n Experimen t Th e resi n experimen t i s th e othe rmajo rcomponen t ofth e mai n experiment

. Thi s experimen t i s aime d at evaluatin g how styren e emission s ar e affecte d bytyp e o f resi n formulatio n (facto rRF) an d typ e o f equipmen t (facto rRE)

. Tabl e 1 - 4 show s th e propose d combination s an d associate d tes t runs . Thi s desig n consist s o f 2 7 trials , whic h wil l b e ru n i n rando m order

. Separat e ANOVAs are use d t o tes t fo rdifferen t equipmen t (REs ) an d fo rth e differen t resi n formulation s (RFs)

. Th e ANOVA fo requipmen t comparison s i s a s follows : Sourc e o f Degree s o f variatio n freedo m R E (equipments ) 2 Erro r9 o r1 2 o r1 9 o r2 2 Th e variou s choice s fo rth e erro rdegree s o f freedo m (df ) resul t fro m whic h se t o f dat a i s use d fo restimatio n o f erro rvariability : I f jus t th e 1 2 observation s associate d wit h th e differen t equipmen t are employed , the n 9 d f result ; i f th e 3 trial s fro m th e pilo t ar e included , the n 1 2 d f result ; i f al l trial s i n th e resi n experimen t (Tabl e 1-4 ) ar e used , 1 9 d f ar e available ; an d i f th e 3 pilo t trial s ar e added , 2 2 d f ar e available

. I f variance s acros s al l cell s i n th e experimen t appea rhomogeneou s an d ar e als o consisten t wit h th e varianc e o f th e pilo t trials , the n us e o f th e large rdegree s o f freedo m i s warranted

. Th e expecte d half-widt h o f confidenc e interval s o n th e difference s o f equipmen t ar e a s follows : Differenc e i n mea n %AS Expecte d half-widt h of 95 % Cl

. 9 d f 1 9 d f RE2vs.RE1.RE3vs.RE 1 1.599 o 1.480o RE3vs

. RE 2 1.847o 1.709 O

A-1-1 7 

# nP.3 1

Sectio n No. : 1. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28 , 199 5 Page : A-1-18of2 0 Th e widt h o f th e confidenc e interval s wil l b e slightl ynarrowe ri f th e sam e observation s fro m th e pilo t experimen t ca n b e use d fo restimatin g measuremen t erro r variability(i.e. , ther e wil l b e more d f fo rth e erro rcomponen t ofth e ANOVA ) I f th e underlyin g erro rvariabilit yo f emission s i n %A S i s 5 , the n (assumin g th e 1 9 d f situation ) w e shoul d hav e abou t a 5 0 percen t chanc e o f findin g a differenc e betwee n th e baselin e sprayin g equipmen t an d on e o f th e alternative s i f th e tru e differenc e i s 7. 4 percentag e point s (i.e. , 1.480x5)

. Fo rresi n formulatio n comparisons , th e followin g ANOVAapplies : Sourc e o f Degree s o f variatio n freedo m R F (resins ) 5 Erro r1 5 o r1 8 o r1 9 o r2 2 Th e variou s choice s fo rth e erro rd f resul t fro m whic h se t o f dat a on e uses , a s previousl ydiscussed

. Th e expecte d half-widt h o f confidenc e interval s o n th e difference s o f resi n formulation s ar e a s follows : Differenc e i n mea n %A S Expecte d half-widt h o f 95 % Cl

. 1 5 d f 1 9 d f RF2 , RF3 , RF4 , RF5 , orRF6vs

. RF 1 1.507o 1.480 O Al l comparison s no t involvin g RF 1 1.740o 1.709 o I t shoul d b e note d tha t an ycompariso n involvin g RF 4 i s a compariso n no t onl yo f resi n formulation s bu t als o o f applicatio n methods

. Th e widt h o f th e confidenc e interval s wil l b e slightl ynarrowe ri f som e o f th e observation s fro m th e pilo t experimen t ca n b e include d i n th e dat a analysis

. I f th e underlyin g erro rvariabilityo f emission s i n %A S i s 5 , the n (assumin g th e 1 9 d f situation ) w e shoul d hav e abou t a 5 0 percen t chanc e o f findin g a differenc e betwee n th e RF 1 an d on e o f th e alternativ e resi n formulation s i f th e tru e differenc e i s 7. 4 percentag e point s (i.e. , 1.48 0 x5)

. 1.7.2. 4 Combinin g th e Gelcoa t an d Resi n Experiment s Th e gelcoa t an d resi n experiment s ca n b e ru n effectivel yi f trial s o f th e tw o experiment s ar e interspersed

. I n particular , i t i s desirabl e i f eac h gelcoa t tria l i s followe d b ya t leas t on e resi n trial

. T o accomplis h thi s an d t o randomiz e th e orderin g o f
A-1-1 8 

# v.P.3 2

Sectio n No. : 1. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28,199 5 Page : A-1-19of2 0 trial s withi n eac h separat e experiment , a rando m orderin g o f th e 2 7 trial s i n th e resi n experimen t wa s firs t determined

. The n a lis t o f 2 7 "pseudo-trials " wa s create d fo rth e gelcoa t experiment ; th e lis t containe d th e actua l 1 8 gelcoat trial s plu s 9 dumm ytrials

. Thes e 2 7 "trials " were als o independentl yrandoml yordere d an d the n th e tw o randoml y ordere d list s were merge d t o produc e th e fina l composit e se t o f trials , whic h i s show n i n Tabl e 1-6

.

A-1-1 9P.3 3

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 1. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-1-20of2 0 Tabl e 1 -6

. Randoml yOrdere d Lis t of Trial s fo rth e Mai n Experimen t Tria l No

. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 G F

1 1
2 1 1 1 2
2

2 2
1 2 2 2 G E R F R E J
3 2 1
1

1 1
3 3 2 3 2

. 2

2 1
2 1 3 3 5

, 6 5

. 1 1 1 1 3 1

, 2 4 2 6 6 2

, 1 1 1 4 1

. 3 3 5 1

. 4 1

, 1 1 1

, 1 2 3 3 1 1 1

, 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 2

. 1 1 1 1

, 4 1 2 Key :

GF 1 = a regula r(ISO/NPG® ) gelcoa t containin g onl ystyren e monome r(baselin e condition ) GF 2 = a low VO C styrene-suppresse d (ISO/NPG® ) gelcoat containin g onl ystyren e monome r GE 1 = a n AA

Aexterna l catalys t mixin g spraygu n (baselin e condition ) GE 2 = a n HVL P interna l catalys t mixin g spraygu n GE 3 = a n HVL P externa l catalys t mixin g spraygu n RF 1 = a DCPD-base d low-profil e resi n catalyze d wit h MEK P (baselin e condition ) RF 2 = a DCPD-base d low-styren e resi n RF3 = a n ORTHO-base d styrene-suppresse d resi n RF 4 = a DCPD-base d low-profil e resi n catalyze d wit h BP O RF5 = • a water-emulsifie d resi n RF6 = th e sam e ORTHO-base d styren e suppresse d resi n a t a highe rsuppressan t concentratio n RE 1 = a n AA

A externa l catalys t mixin g spra ygu n (baselin e condition ) RE 2 = a n interna l catalys t mjxin g flo w coate r RE 3 = a n interna l catalys t mixin g pressure-fe d rolle r RE 4 = a modifie d AAA , externa l catalyst mixin g spraygu n fo rth e resi n catalyze d wit h BP O

A-1-2 0
^ 0P.3 4
Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 2. 0

• Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-2- 1 o f 3
2. 0 PROJEC T ORGANIZATIO N AN D RESPONSIBILITIE S Figur e 2- 1 depict s th e organization s an d personne l involve d i n thi s pollutio n preventio n techniqu e evaluatio n test
. Carlo s Nune z i s th e EP AProjec t Office rfo rthi s researc h project

. Nanc yAdam s i s th e EP AQualit yAssuranc e Officer

. Emer yKong , th e RT I Projec t Leader , wil l coordinat e th e preparatio n an d testin g activities

. Emer yKon g wil l b e responsibl e fo rdevelopin g th e QAPP , al l dat a generate d unde rthi s study , al l correctiv e action , an d th e overal l technica l qualit yo f th e evaluatio n test
. Andre w Clayto n wil l assis t i n th e experimenta l desig n an d dat a analysis

. Mar k Bahne ri s th e RT I Testin g Cre w Chief

. H e an d Keit h Lees e wil l conduc t th e actua l testing

. Crai g Whitake ran d Rober t Wrigh t wil l operat e th e TH C analyze ran d measur e th e exhaus t ai rflo w rate
. Mar k Bahne rwil l als o b e responsibl e fo rth e dat a reductio n activities , analyzin g th e tes t results , an d preparin g th e fina l report
. Cynthi a Salmons , th e RT I Q A Manager , Willia m Yeager , an d Shrikan t Kulkarn i wil l provid e assistanc e i n th e QAP P preparatio n an d ensur e tha t th e dat a collecte d adher e t o th e qualit yassuranc e requirement s specifie d herein

. The yar e independen t o f th e technica l activitie s o n thi s project

. Reichhol d wil l provid e technica l assistance , resi n materials , an d catalyst s fo rth e testing

. Mar k

Callicutt , Reichhold' s Technica l Servic e Supervisor , wil l b e th e primar y contac t a t Reichhold

. Federic o Linares , Manage ro f Physica l Testin g an d Application , wil l provid e facilit ysupport , an d Lorenz o Esposito , Reichhold' s Senio rTechnica l Servic e Representative , wil l provid e technica l suppor t t o th e test
. Reichhold' s technica l servic e personne l wil l analyz e som e specifi c propertie s o f th e gelcoa t an d resi n formulation s i n thei rlaboratory

. Mar k Hollenbec h o f Coo k

Composite s an d Polymer s (CCP ) wil l provid e bot h th e ISO/NPG®-base d regula rgelcoa t an d lo w VO C gelcoa t fo rtesting

. Case yHerber t o f W.E.T

. Inc. , wil l provid e th e wate remulsifie d resi n fo rtesting

. To m Hedge ro f Magnu m Industrie s wil l provid e gelcoa t an d resi n applicatio n equipment

. Charle s Star d fro m Magnu m Industrie s wil l b e onsit e durin g th e tes t perio d t o operat e th e equipment

. Thi s testin g wil l no t hav e an yoff-sit e sampl e analysis

. Al l measurement s an d proces s dat a wil l b e collecte d onsit e o ranalyze d i n Reichhol d Chemicals ' laborator y durin g th e test
. Emer yKon g wil l ensur e tha t al l testin g procedure s ari d qualit y assuranc e requirement s ar e correctl yfollowed

. EmeryKon g wil l communicat e wit h othe rcontributin g organization s tha t wil l provid e materials , equipment , an d suppor t fo r th e test
. H e wil l communicat e wit h Reichhol d personne l fo rnecessar yfacility , laboratory , an d technica l suppor t fo rth e test
. I f EmeryKon g i s absent , Mar k Bahne r wil l assum e al l coordinatio n responsibilities

.

A-2- 1P.3 5 

# 1

Sectio n No. : 2. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28,199 5 Page : A-2- 2 o f 3 A s th e Testin g Cre wChief , Mar k Bahne rwil l coordinat e al l activitie s an d on-sit e personne l durin g th e testin g an d repor t t o th e Projec

t Leader

. H e wil l communicat e wit h th e applicatio n equipmen t operato ran d th e TH C analyze roperato rt o addres s an y concern s o rproblem s tha t the ymigh t encounter
. Decision s t o sto p o rcontinu e testin g wil l b e mad e b yth e Projec t Leader

.

A-2- 2 

# AAP.3 6

Sectio n No. : Revision : Date : Page : 2. 0

0 Apri l 28 , 199 5 2- 3 of 3

I I EP

A Qualit y1 I I Assuranc e Office r1 Nanc yAdam s 919-541-551 0

• I RT I Qualit y I I Assuranc e Office rI Cynthi a Salmon s 919-541-694 8 Willia m Yeage r 919-541-628 7 Shrikan t Kulkarn i 919-541-591 9 Provid e Q

A suppor t an d revie w QAP P

• 1 RT I Experimenta l I I Desig n an d | | Dat a Analysi s Andrew Clayto n 919-541-639 2

1 Magnu m Industrie s Charle s Star d 919-361-209 5 Operate s applicatio n equipmen t on-sit e EPA/AEER L Projec t Office r Carlo s Nune z 919-541-115 6

1 RT I Project Leade r1 Emer yKon g 919-541-596 4 Responsibl e fo r overal l planning , coordination , an d repor t preparatio n

1 Testin g Crew1 Mar k Bahne r(Chief) 919-541-601 6 Keit h Lees e 919-541-802 0 Responsibl e fo rdata collection , analysis , an d repor t preparatio n
| RT I Emissio n I | Measuremen t Tea m I Crai g Whitake r 919-541-598 8 Rober t Wrigh t 919-541-626 3 Operat e th e TH C analyze ran d measur

e ai rflowrat e Composite s Fabricator s 1 Associatio n | Bo b Lacovar

a 215-721-924 6 Provide s technica l review an d suggestion s
Reichhol d Chemicals , Inc

. Mar k Callicut t 919-990-801 3 Federico Linare s 919-990-808 3 Lorenz o Esposito 919-990-802 2 Provid e resins , catalysts , spraybooth , an d laborator yanalysi s
1 Coo k

Composite s I I 1 an d Polymer s I I Mar k Hollenbec k 816-391-600 0 Provide s ge l coat formulation s
1 Magnu m Industrie s l | To m Heage r 813-573-295 5 Provide s applicatio n equipmen t an d operato r
1 W.E.T

. Inc

. I I CaseyHerber

t 803-556-250 6 Provide s wate remulsifie r resi n

Figur e 2-1 . Projec

t organizatio n chart . A-2-3 

# 2 3P.3 7

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Oate : Page : 3. 0

Apri l 28 , 1995 A-3- 1 o f 5 3. 0 DAT

A QUALIT

Y INDICATO R GOAL S FO R CRITICA L MEASUREMENT S Thi s sectio n present s th e qualitativ e an d quantitativ e descriptors tha t are use d t o interpre t th e degre e of acceptabilityo f th e tes t data

. Th e principa l dat a qualit y indicators are precision , accuracy , detectio n limits , an d completeness

. Th e primar

yobjective s fo rthi s testin g ar e t o quantifyth e emission s fro m selecte d pollutio n preventio n technique s an d t o compar e th e emission s o f thes e technique s wit h th e baselin e conditions

. Styren e emission s fo rbaselin e condition s an d eac h of th e pollutio n preventio n technique s wil l b e expresse d a s percen t of availabl e styren e i n th e gelcoat an d resi n formulations

. Th e dat a qualityindicato r(DQI ) goal s specifie d i n thi s sectio n ar e base d o n result s obtaine d fro m previou s tests
. I f thes e DQ I goal s ar e attaine d i n thi s testing , sufficien t vali d dat a o f know n qualitywil l b e collecte d t o evaluat e differen t pollutio n preventio n techniques

. Th e result s o

f a recen t tes t conducte d byRT I i n earl yMarc h 199 5 ar e summarize d i n Tabl e 3.1

. Thi s tabl e present s th e styren e emissio n dat a (expresse d a s %AS ) an d preliminar

ystatistica l analysi s o

f th e result s measure d b ymas s balanc e an d TH C emissio n measuremen t methods

. I n thi s table , a denote s th e standard deviatio n associate d wit h measuremen t variabilityof emission s i n %AS

. Tabl e 3-1

. Summar y Formulatio n

Gelcoa t
Resi n
Resi n Equipmen t

Spray-u p
Han d lay
u p Cho p an d spray-u p o f Styren e

Metho d

MB a TH C M B TH C MB a TH C Emissio n Dat a fro m a Previou s RT I Testin g

No

. o f tes t run s

3 3 3 3 4 4 Mea n ( % o f

AS )

65. 0 66. 7 20. 3 19. 7 24. 5 20.8 b O

(standar d deviatio n i n %AS ) 2. 6 4. 6 1. 2 0. 7 1. 3 5.3 b Relativ e

standar d deviatio n (% ) 4 7 6 4 5 26 b v1B=mas s balanc e method

. THC=TH C emissio n measuremen t method

. a Mas s balanc e standard deviation s fo rgelcoat an d resi n spray-u p includ e correcte d values

. b Include s on e cho p spra ytes t ru n that ha d a know n larg e error .

A-3- 1 

## Z YP.3 8

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 3. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-3- 2 o f 5 3. 1 Objective s fo r Quantitative Dat a Quality Indicator s Quantitativ e DQI s are typicall ydefine d i n term s o f measuremen t precision , accuracy , detectio n limits , an d completeness

. Th e DQ I objective s fo rth e critica l measurement s are summarize d i n Tabl e 3-2

. Thes e DQ I objective s are base d o n th e result s of a recen t RT I tes t an d dat a i n Tabl e 3-1

. Precisio n i s typicall ydetermine d fro m duplicat e measurement s an d i s usuall yexpresse d a s percen t differenc e o rstandar d deviatio n i n eithe rabsolut e o rrelativ e terms
. Accuracyi s th e degre e of agreemen t betwee n a n observe d valu e an d a n accepte d referenc e value

. Fo rth e TH C analyze r an d balance , th e accurac ywil l b e determine d fro m standard referenc e styren e gase s an d weights , respectively

. Detectio n limit s ar e th e lowes t concentratio n o ramoun t of weigh t tha t ca n b e determine d t o b e differen t fro m zero . Completenes s i s define d a s • th e rati o o f th e amoun t of vali d dat a obtaine d compare d t o th e planne d amount
. Procedure s fo rdeterminin g thes e quantitativ e DQI s are discusse d i n more detai l below

.

Tabl e 3-2

. Objective s fo rQuantitativ e Dat a Measuremen t (unit) TH C conc . (ppm ) Exhaust ai r flo w rat e (cfm ) Mas s balanc e (g ) Styren e conten t (%

)

RP D = Relativ e p

< Metho d

EP A Metho d 25A EP A Metho d 2 Floor-type , high
precisio n balanc e Reichhol d standard tes t metho d No

. 18 - 00 1 an d a high
precisio n analytica l balance jrcen t differenc e a s Precisio n

(RP D o r RSD ) 10 % 10 %

5 %

0. 5 %

calculate d fro m Accurac y (% ) +1-5 +/- 5
+/- 1
+/- 1

duplicat e meas Qualityjndicator s

Detectio n limi t

1 pp m N A

i g
0.000 1 g

jrements

. Completenes s

(% ) 9 0 9 0

9 0

9 0

RS D = Relativ e standard deviatio n as calculate d fro m thre e o rmor e replicate s 3.1. 1 Precisio n Precisio n objective s fo ral l th e liste d measurement s are presente d a s relativ e percen t differenc e (RPD ) o f duplicat e measurement s o ra s relativ e standar d deviatio n (RSD ) of thre e o rmore replicates

. Th e numbe ro f replicate s fo reac h tes t ar e show n i n Table s 1- 3 an d 1-4

. Precisio n fo rTH C measurement , ai rflo w rat e measurement , an d mas s balanc e measuremen t i s show n i n Tabl e 3-2

. Th e styren e conten t fo reac h A-3- 2 

# ^ 5P.3 9

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : . Page : 3. 0

Apri l 28.199 5 A-3- 3 of 5 gelcoat o rresi n formulatio n i s determinatio n byduplicat e sample s havin g a n RP D of +/
- 0. 5 percent
. I f duplicat e sample s are not withi n +/
- 0. 5 percent , th e entir e tes t t o determin e styren e conten t wil l b e repeated

. 3.1. 2 Accurac

y Th e accurac

yof th e TH C analyze rwil l b e determine d followin g th e calibratio n erro rtes t procedure s i n Sectio n 6. 4 o f EP AMetho d 25A

. Immediatel yprio rt o th e tes t series , a zero ga s an d high-leve l calibratio n ga s ar e introduce d a t th e calibratio n valv e assemble

. The n th e analyze routpu t i s adjuste d t o th e appropriat e levels , i f necessary . Th e predicte d respons e fo rth e low-leve l an d mid-leve l gase s base d o n a linea r. respons e lin e betwee n th e zero an d high-leve l response s i s calculated

. The n low-leve l an d mid-leve l calibratio n gase s ar e introduce d successivel yt o th e measuremen t system
. Th e analyze rresponse s fo rlow-leve l an d mid-leve l calibratio n gase s ar e recorde d an d th e difference s betwee n th e predicte d response s ar e determined

. Thes e difference s mus t b e les s tha n 5 percen t of th e respectiv e calibratio n ga s values

. I f not , th e measuremen t syste m i s not acceptabl e an d mus t b e replace d o rrepaire d prio rt o testing

.Th e accurac

yof th e floor-type , high-precisio n balanc e (150,00 0 g capacitywit h 1 g readability ) wil l b e determine d usih g standard referenc e weights

. Th e balanc e ha s a n interna l calibratio n weigh t tha t i s use d t o calibrat e th e balanc e initially

. The n th e accuracyof th e floor-typ e balanc e wil l b e checke d b yplacin g referenc e standar d weight s fro m 1 g u p t o 1 k g wit h an d withou t th e car t an d emptymold

. Th e accurac yof th e analytica l balanc e wil l b e checke d usin g standar d weight s suitabl e fo rit s capacit y range . Th e accurac

yof th e floor-typ e balanc e an d th e analytica l balanc e shoul d b e les s tha n 1 percen t o

f th e respectiv e standard weights

. 3.1. 3 Detectio n Limi t Th e detectio n limi t i s define d as th e lowest concentratio n o ramoun t o f th e targe t analyt e tha t ca n b e determine d t o b e differen t fro m zero fro m a singl e measuremen t a t a state d leve l of probability

. Th e detectio n limit s fo rth e instrument s use d fo rcritica l measurement s ar e presente d i n Tabl e 3-2

. Thes e instrument s includ e th e TH C analyze rfo remissio n measurement , th e floor-typ e high-precisio n balanc e fo rmateria l balanc e determination , an d th e analytica l balanc e fo rstyren e conten t determination

. Th e detectio n limit s specifie d i n Tabl e 3- 2 provid e adequat e quantificatio n fo rth e measurement s o

f interest

. 3.1. 4 Completenes s Completenes s i s define d a s th e amoun t o f vali d dat a obtaine d compare d t o th e planne d amount
. Th e completenes s objectiv e of 9 0 percen t wa s selecte d base d o n th e result s of a recen t RT I tes t tha t compare d emissio n measuremen t an d mas s balanc e A-3-3 

## Z kP.4 0

Sectio n No. : 3. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28,199 5 Page : A-3- 4 o f 5 method s t o quantif

ystyren e emission s fro m ope n contac t moldin g processes . A completenes s leve l of 9 0 percen t ensure s tha t sufficien t vali d dat a o f know n qualit yar e collecte d t o evaluat e differen t pollutio n preventio n technique s fo rstyren e emissio n reduction

. Th e result s fro m emissio n measurement s an d mas s balanc e method s wil l complemen t eac h other , becaus e eac h metho d ha s goo d precision

. I n th e even t tha t bot h tes t method s faile d fo rmore tha n 1 0 percen t o f th e planne d tes t run s an d th e completenes s leve l of 9 0 percen t i s no t met , the n thos e invali d tes t run s wil l b e repeated

. 3. 2 Objective s fo r Qualitative Dat a Quality Indicator s Qualitativ e DQI s are typicall ydefine d i n term s of representativenes s an d comparability

. Th e representativenes s i s th e degre e t o whic h th e collecte d dat a accuratel yan d precisel yrepresen t th e populatio n o rth e actua l operations

. Th e comparabilityi s th e degre e o rconfidenc e t o whic h on e dat a se t ca n b e compare d t o another

. Thes e qualitativ e DQI s are describe d i n mor e detai l i n th e followin g sections

. 3.2. 1 Representativenes s Th e representativenes s o f thi s testin g i s bes t determine d b yth e material s an d equipmen t used , th e environmenta l condition s of th e testing , an d th e operato r techniques

. Th e gelcoat an d resi n materials , excep t th e water-emulsifie d resin , an d th e applicatio n selecte d fo rtestin g are currentl yavailabl e to , an d use d by , th e industry

. Water-emulsifie d resi n i s currentl yuse d b yth e industr yt o a ver ylimite d extent ; however , thi s testin g wil l determin e whetherfhi s resi n ca n significantl yreduc e styren e emissions

. Th e environmenta l condition s (i.e. , ai rflo w velocityan d ambien t temperature ) fo rth e testin g wil l b e controlle d s o tha t the yare representativ e of typica l condition s i n a n operatin g facility

. Th e perso n wh o wil l operat e th e equipmen t i s a n experience d technica l suppor t perso n fro m Magnu m Industries

. Hi s experienc e wil l ensur e tha t th e operatin g procedure s ar e consisten t betwee n tes t run s an d representativ e of industr ypractice

. Th e emission s i n th e spra yboot h wil l b e representativ e o f actua l industr y practice

. A s i s discussed.i n more detai l i n Sectio n 4.1 , EPAMetho d 20 4 fo ra tota l enclosur e i s t o b e followe d t o ensure tha t 10 0 percen t o f th e emission s i s captured

. 3.2. 2 Comparability Th e baselin e emission s of thi s testin g wil l b e compare d t o th e result s RT i collecte d fro m a n earl yMarc h testin g a t Dow Chemica l that use d simila rsprayin g technique s an d th e sam e gelcoat an d resi n materials

. Anothe rstyren e emissio n stud y i s planne d byComposite s Fabricators Associatio n (CFA) t o b e conducte d at Dow Chemical s i n a tim e fram e simila rt o thi s testing

. Th e sam e regula rgelcoa t an d low
profil e resi n material s wil l b e applie d b ysimila rsprayin g technique s i n th e CFAtesting

. A-3-4P.4 1

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 3. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-3- 5 o f 5 Th e measuremen t procedure s an d method s wil l b e simila rfo rth e CF Atest s an d thi s testing ; therefore , result s fro m bot h testing s shoul d b e comparable

.

A-3- 5 

### Zr?P.4 2

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 4. 0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-4- 1 o f 9
4. 0 SAMPLIN G PROCEDURE S 4. 1 Tota l Enclosur e an d Captur e Efficienc y Tes t Th e ope n contac t moldin g proces s wil l b e conducte d a t a spra yboot h i n a tota l enclosur e setu p i n Reichhol d Chemicals ' physica l testin g laboratory

. Th e spra yboot h i s describe d i n Sectio n 1.6.1

. Th e enclosur e wil l b e teste d prio rt o th e pilo t an d mai n experiment s t o ensur e tha t th e enclosur e meet s EPA' s tota l enclosur e guideline s (EP A Metho d 204) , s o tha t th e emission s fro m th e tes t ca n b e assume d 100 percen t captured

. Th e captur e efficienc yo f th e enclosur e wil l b e examine d b y(1 ) evaporatin g a know n quantit yo f styren e (determine d b ya high
- precisio n scale ) an d measurin g th e tota l styren e emission s a t th e exhaus t stac k an d (2 ) makin g sur e tha t al l ai rflow s a t natura l draf t opening s flo w inwar d an d th e velocit yi s a t leas t 20 0 fpm

. 4. 2 Samplin g Locatio n an d Duratio n o f Tes t Ru n Emission s fro m th e ope n contac t moldin g processe s wil l b e measure d a t th e exhaus t stac k

o f th e enclosure

. A tes t ru n wil l star t whe n gelcoa t o rresi n materia l i s applie d t o a mol d an d finis h whe n th e gelcoa t o rresi n materia l i s cure d (a s determine d b ya negligibl e rat e o f emissions)

. A n earlie rRT I tes t a t Do w Chemica l Compan y indicate d tha t a tes t ru n ma ylas t fro m 1 -1/ 2 t o 2 hours

. A t th e en d o f a tes t run , th e mol d wil l b e remove d fro m th e enclosur e an d th e enclosur e wil l b e flushe d wit h fres h makeu p ai rfo rth e nex t tes t run . Th e TH C analyze rwil l measur e th e backgroun d concentratio n befor e eac h tes t run . An yothe rVO C emissio n source s wil l b e eliminate d fro m th e immediat e are a t o minimiz e th e backgroun d VO C concentration

. Tabl e 4- 1 show s th e location s an d frequencie s o f th e measurement s fo rth e test
. 4. 3 Testin g Procedure s Procedure s fo rindividua l tes t run s ar e outline d i n thi s section

. Mor e detaile d description s o f th e procedure s ar e presente d i n th e followin g sections

. A Befor e th e Tes t Ru n 1

. Measur e an d recor d th e gelcoat/resi n propertie s 2

. Calibrat e th e TH C analyze r 3

. Measur e th e baselin e concentratio n i n th e spra yboot h wit h th e TH C analyze r 4

. Measur e an d recor d initia l ai rtemperature , velocit yhead , an d relativ e humidit y

A-4- 1 

# V\P.4 3

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : . Page : 4. 0

Apri l 28.199 5 A-4- 2 o f 9 Tabl e 4-1

. Summar

yof Measuremen t Locatio n an d Frequenc y Measuremen t TH C concentratio n Exhaust ai rflo w rat e an d velocityhea d (Ap )

Humidity Mas s balanc e calculation s 1 ) gelcoat/resi n material s use d 2 ) gelcoat/resi n applie d o n mol d 3 ) cure d materia l o n mol d 4 ) cure d materia l o n othe rgroun d cove r Type s o f gelcoat an d resi n material s Styren e conten t Gelcoat/resi n propertie s 1 ) ge l tim e 2 ) tota l tim e t o pea k 3 ) pea k exother m Linea rai rvelocityi n th e sprayboot h Ambien t temperature Equipmen t typ e Equipmen t setu p 1 ) pum p pressure 2 ) ai rpressure 3 ) sprayti p siz e 4 ) sprayti p angl e 5 ) catalys t rati o settin g 6 ) equipmen t deliver

yrat e Gelcoat/Resi n dat a 1 ) catalys t rati o 2 ) gelcoat/laminat e thicknes s 3 ) glass/resi n rati o Classificatio n Critica l Critica l

Noncritica l Critica l

Noncritica l Critica l Noncritica l

Noncritica l Noncritica l Noncritica l Noncritica l

Noncritica l Locatio n

Exhaust stac k Exhaust stac k
Spra yboot h Spra yboot h

Manufacture r Laborator y Laborator y
Sprayboot h Spra yboot h Equipmen t vendo r Spra yboot h

Spra yboot h Frequenc

y Continuou s Flo w rat e (weekly) , A p (ever y1 5 minutes ) Before eac h tes t ru n Eac h tes t ru n

Eac h gelcoa

t an d resi n formulatio n Eac h gelcoat an d resi n formulatio n Eac h gelcoa

t an d resi n formulatio n
Ever ywee k Ever ytes t ru n Eac h equipmen t Eac h equipmen t

Eac h tes t ru n

A-4- 2 

# 3 °P.4 4

Sectio n No. : 4. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28,199 5 Page : A-4- 3 of 9 5

. Calibrat e th e balance(s ) an d chec k th e accurac ywit h standar d weight s 6

. Prepar e an d adjus t th e applicatio n equipmen t 7

. Measur e equipmen t deliver yrat e a t th e setu p condition s i n a remot e locatio n 8

. Recor d th e equipmen t setu p condition s 9

. Recor d th e initia l weight s fo rmold , gelcoat/resin , catalyst , fiberglas s reinforcement , protectiv e skir t fo rcart , an d groun d cove r B

. Durin g th e Tes t Ru n 1

. Initiat e th e time ra s soo n a s th e applicatio n start s 2

. Recor d styren e emission s wit h th e TH C analyze rcontinuousl y 3

. Recor d velocit yhea d (AP ) an d ai rtemperatur e every1 5 minute s 4

. Recor d th e tim e an d th e weigh t o f gelcoat/resi n readin g a s soo n a s th e applicatio n i s complete d (th e applicatio n equipmen t ca n b e remove d fo r cleaning ) 5

. Measur e an d recor d we t gelcoat/laminat e thicknes s a t th e cente ro f eac h mol d surfac e 6

. Remov e th e protectiv e skirt fro m th e car t an d recor d th e weigh t o f th e we t mol d a t th e en d o f applicatio n 7

. Reattac h th e protectiv e skirt t o th e car t 8

. Sto p th e tes t ru n whe n th e concentratio n return s t o th e baselin e concentratio n o r whe n incrementa l emission s ar e negligibl e 9

. Recor d th e tim e a t th e en d o f th e tes t ru n C

. Afte rth e Tes t Ru n 1

. Recor d th e fina l weight s fo rmold , catalyst , fiberglas s reinforcement , protectiv e skir t fo rcart , an d groun d cove rimmediatel y 2

. Conduc t th e baselin e drif t determinatio n fo rth e TH C analyze r 3

. Remov e th e moi d fro m th e enclosur e an d flus h th e enclosur e wit h fres h makeu p ai runti l th e baselin e concentratio n stabilize s 4. 4 Emissio n Measuremen t Styren e emission s wil l b e measure d fro m th e exhaus t stac k o f th e enclosur e usin g a tota l hydrocarbo n analyze rfollowin g th e EP AMetho d 25A

. Th e TH C analyze r wil l provid e real-tim e measurement s o f th e emissio n concentrations

. An yothe rVO C emissio n source s wil l b e eliminate d fro m th e enclosure , s o tha t th e tota l VO C emission s measure d ca n b e assume d t o b e fro m styren e emissions

. Tw o t o thre e concentratio n range s (0-1 1 ppm , 0-11 0 ppm , an d 0-1,10 0 ppm ) o n th e TH C analyze rwil l b e use d fo r th e emissio n measurement
. I f th e highes t concentratio n rang e (0-1,10 0 ppm ) i s used , th e maximu m concentratio n i s no t expecte d t o excee d 30 0 ppm . Th e followin g styren e standar d referenc e gase s ar e availabl e t o establis h th e calibratio n curv e fo reac h o f th e concentratio n ranges ; 5.1,10.7 , 49.5 , 81.5 , an d 237. 1 ppm . Exception s t o EP AMetho d 25 A ar e tha t th e calibratio n erro rchec k fo rlowes t concentratio n rang e (0-1 1 ppm ) wil l b e don e wit h on e instea d o f tw o standar d referenc e gases . A-4- 3 

# 3 ^P.4 5

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 4. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-4- 4 of 9 4. 5 Exhaust Ai r FlowRat e Measuremen t Th e exhaus t flo wrat e wil l b e measure d usin g EPAMethod s 1 an d 2 a t leas t onc e a week

. EPA Metho d 2 specifie s th e us e of eithe ra standar d o rS-typ e pito t tub e t o travers e th e duct

. Becaus e th e particulat e loadin g o f th e exhaus t ai rstrea m i s expecte d t o b e lowfo rthi s tes t series , a standard pito t tub e wil l b e used

. Th e exhaus t flo w rat e wil l b e measure d at travers e point s usin g a standar d pito t tub e wit h a differentia l pressure gaug e tha t meets th e specification s describe d i n EP AMetho d 2 , Sectio n 2.2

. Th e exhaus t flo w rat e wil l b e correlate d t o th e velocityhea d measure d a t th e cente rpoint

. Th e cente rpoin t velocityhea d (Ap ) wil l b e monitore d periodicall y (ever y1 5 minutes ) t o ensur e tha t airflo w rat e i s consisten t durin g th e tes t run . Th e relativ e humidityof th e ai ri n th e sprayboot h wil l b e measure d b ya slin g psyc h rometer
. 4. 6 Mas s Balanc e Determinatio n Weigh t losse s du e t o styren e emission s wil l b e determine d usin g a floor-type , high-precisio n balanc e (Sartoriu s Corporation , Mode l F150S ) tha t ha s a 150,000- g capacityan d 1 g readability

. Th e initia l an d fina l Weight s of mold , gelcoat/resi n materials , catalyst , fiberglas s reinforcement , protectiv e skir t fo rth e cart , an d groun d cove rwil l b e measure d bytw o balances

. ( Aprotectiv e skir

t wil l encircl e th e car

t t o preven t contaminatio n durin g th e application. ) Tota l emissio n quantitywil l b e determine d fro m th e differenc e of tota l material s use d an d th e fina l weight s afte rcurin g (se e dat a reductio n i n Sectio n 6.0)

. Fro m th e weight s of material s use d an d material s applie d o n th e mold , th e transfe refficienc yca n b e calculate d fo reac h tes t run . Weigh t los s du e t o emission s wil l b e recorde d fo reac h tes t ru n an d th e result s wil l b e compare d t o th e emissio n measuremen t t o determin e whethe rthes e tw o method s are comparable

. 4. 7 Gelcoat an d Resi n Propertie s Roughl ya lite rof sampl e wil l b e take n fro m eac h o f th e gelcoat an d resi n containe rfo ranalysis

. Befor e sampling , th e conten t i n th e containe rwil l b e thoroughl y mixe d b ya hand-hel d mixe rfo r2 minutes

. Th e conten t wil l b e scoope d ou t t o a nonreactiv e containe ran d delivere d t o th e laboratory

. Th e typ e of material , lot/batc h number , an d containe rnumbe rwil l b e recorde d o n th e sampl e container

. Thi s informatio n wil l b e recorde d o n th e dat a shee t i n Sectio n 5.0

. Analytica l procedure s use d t o determin e gelcoa t an d resi n propertie s are presente d i n Sectio n 5.0

. Thes e gelcoa t an d resi n propertie s wil l b e documente d i n th e repor t t o sho w th e reade rwha t kin d of gelcoa t material s wer e examine d i n th e testing

. A-4-4

^P.4 6

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 4. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-4- 5 of 9 4. 8 Environmenta l Condition s Environmenta l condition s includ e linea rai rvelocityan d th e ambien t temperatur e i n th e spraybooth

. Thes e condition s wil l b e maintaine d a t constan t ievei s whe n feasible

. Th e linea rai rvelocityi n th e sprayboot h wil l b e maintaine d a t th e leve l selecte d fro m th e pilo t testing

. Th e temperatur e i n th e spra yboot h i s affecte d b yth e temperatur e o

f th e makeu p air , whic h i s heate d o rcoole d accordin g t o th e differenc e i n indoo ran d outdoo rtemperatures
. Th e actua l temperature wil l b e recorde d fo rever y tes t ru n o n th e dat a shee t show n a t th e en d of Sectio n 4

. 4.8. 1 Linea rAi rVelocityi n SprayBoot h Linea rai rvelocityi n th e sprayboot h wil l b e measure d wit h a ho t wir e anemomete ra t variou s travers e point s i n th e spraybooth

. Th e spra yboot h wil l b e divide d int o thre e section s (i.e. , at fron t edge , i n th e middle , an d a t filte rface) , tw o layers (i n th e middl e of to p an d botto m filte rbanks) , an d fou rdivision s fro m left t o right

. Thes e (3x2x4 ) volumetri c travers e point s wil l provid e 2 4 reading s t o characteriz e th e ai r flo w patter n an d velocitie s i n th e spra ybooth

. Linea rai rvelocitie s wil l b e verifie d onc e ever ywee k o rwheneve rth e physica l setu p of th e enclosure i s changed

. Th e ai rflo w patter n an d velocitie s wil l b e recorde d i n Tabl e 4-2

.

Tabl e 4-2

. Ai rFlow Patter n an d Velocityi n th e Spra yBoot h

Filte rban k

(top ) Filte rban k (bottom ) Middl e (top ) Middl e (bottom ) Fron t edg e (top ) Fron t edg e (bottom ) 1/

5 widt h fro m lef

t wal l Dir

. Vel

. 2/

5 widt h fro m lef t wal l Dir

. Vel

. 3/

5 widt h fro m lef t wal l Dir

. Vel

. 4/

5 widt h fro m lef

t wal l Dir

. Vel

.

Dir

. = Ai rflo w directio n expresse d b ya n arrowhead

. Vel. = ai rflo w velocityi n fpm

.

A-4- 5



# 3 3P.4 7

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 4. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-4- 6 of 9 4.8. 2 Ambien t Temperatur e Ambien t temperatur e i n th e exhaus t ai ran d i n th e sprayboot h wil l b e monitore d wit h thermocouples

. Th e temperature wil l b e recorde d ever y1 5 minute s durin g th e tes t run . 4.8. 3 Relativ e Humidity Relativ e humidityi n th e sprayboot h wil l b e measure d befor e eac h tes t ru n b ya slin g psychromete ro ra relativ e humiditydetector

. Th e relativ e humidityreadin g wil l b e recorde d o n th e dat a shee t show n later

. 4. 9 Equipmen t Typ e an d Setu p Th e equipmen t typ e an d setu p wil l b e documente d i n th e repor t t o show th e reade rwhat kind s o

f equipmen t are examine d i n th e testing

. 4.9. 1 Equipmen t Typ e Th e type s o

f equipmen t t o b e examine d are describe d i n Sectio n 1.4

. 4.9. 2 Equipmen t Setu p Th e equipmen t setu p affect s th e operatio n of th e equipmen t an d th e emissio n generated

. Thes e condition s includ e pum p pressure , ai rpressure , sprayti p size , spray ti p angle , catalys t ratio , an d equipmen t deliver yrate
. Thes e set-u p condition s wil l b e adjuste d accordin g t o th e vendors ' recommendation s b ya n experience d operato rs o tha t th e equipmen t wil l b e operate d unde rthei roptimu m conditions

. Th e setu p wil l b e recorde d fo reac h equipmen t i n eac h tes t run . Th e sam e setu p wil l b e use d fo rth e sam e equipmen t an d materia l i n th e replicat e tes t runs . Th e equipmen t deliver

yrat e wil l b e determine d durin g th e standar d calibratio n o f th e equipmen t unde rth e sam e condition s of th e testing

. Th e standard calibratio n procedure s consis t o

f sprayin g th e gelcoat o rresi n material s int o a piasti c ba g fo r3 0 second s an d weighin g th e amoun t of outpu t materials

. Th e weigh t i s the n multiplie d b y 2 t o conver

t t o a flo w rat e i n pound s pe rminute

.

A-4- 6 

## 3*fP.4 8

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 4. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-4- 7 of 9 4.1 0 Operatin g Parameter s fo r Part s Th e operatin g parameters fo rpart s includ e catalys t ratio , gelcoat/laminat e thickness , an d glass/resi n ratio

. Thes e parameters wil l b e measure d an d documente d i n th e report
. 4.10. 1 Catalys t Rati o Th e actua l catalys t rati o wil l follo w th e catalys t rati o suggeste d b yth e gelcoa t an d resi n manufacturers

. 4.10. 2 Gelcoat/Resi n Thicknes s I n th e gelcoatin g an d spray-u p laminatin g tests , th e operato rwil l us e a gelcoa t an d cho p mi l gaug e durin g th e applicatio n t o determin e th e thickness

. Th e operato rwil l chec k an d buil d th e thicknes s o f th e gelcoat o rlaminat e at variou s location s o n th e mol d surfac e t o th e specifie d thickness

. Th e wet gelcoat thicknes s i s expecte d t o b e 1 8 t o 2 4 mil s an d i s t o b e achieve d bymultipl e passe s o f spraying

. Th e spray-u p laminat e thicknes s i s expecte d t o b e 8 0 t o 10 0 mil s an d i s t o b e achieve d b ytw o passe s of 40 - t o 50-mi l thic k

laminate

. Eac h pas s o

f th e spray-u p laminat e i s equivalen t t o 1. 5 oz/ft 2 of glass

. I n th e flo w coatin g an d pressure-fe d rollin g laminat e tests , th e primar ythicknes s contro l wil l b e th e thicknes s of th e choppe d stran d ma t reinforcement

. Tw o pl yof 1.5 - oz/ft 2 ma t wil l b e use d t o buil d the.laminat e s o tha t th e thicknes s o f th e laminate s fabricate d byth e flo wcoate ran d pressure-fe d rolle rwil l b e simila rt o tha t of th e ' laminate s fabricate d b

ysprayin g equipment

. 4.10. 3 Glass/Resi n Rati o Th e glass/resi n rati o wil l b e determine d fro m th e weight s of glas s rovin g o r choppe d stran d mat an d th e amoun t of resi n use d t o buil d th e laminate

. Th e glass/resi n rati o wil l b e documente d fo rresi n laminat e only

. Th e dat a recordin g shee t fo rth e measurement s describe d i n Sectio n 4. 0 i s a s follows :

A-4- 7



# 3 5P.4 9

Sectio n No. : 4. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28,199 5 Page : A-4-8of 9 Tabl e 4-3

. Dat a Recordin g Shee t fo rth e Pollutio n Preventio n Techniqu e Evaluatio n Tes t Date/Tim e span : Tes t ru n No. : Formulatio n typ e (gelcoat/resin) : Equipmen t type : Recorde d by : 1

. Temporar

yTota l Enclosure Syste m a . Ai rflo w velocitie s at natura l draft opening s (fprii ) b

. Ai rflo wvelocityove rapplicatio n are a (fpm ) 2

. Ai rTemperature , Exhaust Ai rFlo w Rate , an d Relativ e Humidity a . Ambien t ai rtemperature (°F ) 0 ' 15'(min ) 30 ' 45 ' 60 ' 75'

. 90 ' 105 ' 120 '

. 135 ' b

. Velocit yhea d (Ap ) o n th e pito t tub e (inches ) 0 ' 15 ' 30 ' 45 ' 60 ' 75 ' 90 ' 105 ' 120 * 135 ' c . Exhaus t ai rflo w rat e (cfm ) d

. Relativ e humidity(%

) 3

. Emissio n Measuremen t a . Reading s o f TH C analyze rcalibratio n chec k Rang e 1 Low Me d Hig h Rang e 2 LowMe d Hig h Rang e 3 LowMe d Hig h b

. Readin g o f zer o ga s befor e th e tes t ru n c . Readin g o f zer o ga s afte rth e tes t ru n d

. Zer o an d spa n potentiomete rsettin g befor e calibratio n e . Zer o an d spa n potentiomete rsettin g afte rcalibratio n 4

. Mas s Balanc e Calculatio n Reading s o f balanc e accurac ychec k wit h standard weight s 1 g 5 g 10 g 50 g 100 g 200 g 500 g 1,000 g a . Weigh t o f emptymold , g b

. Weigh t o f emptygroun d cover , skir t fo rcart , gloves , an d tapes , g (cont. ) A-4- 8

>P.5 0

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 4. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-4- 9 of 9
Tabl e 4-3

. Dat a Recordin g Shee t fo rth e Pollutio n Preventio n Techniqu e Evaluatio n Tes t (continued )
c . Initia l weigh t o f gelcoat/resi n used , g (containe rNo : ) Initia l reading , g Fina l reading , g d

. Weigh t o f catalys t used , g Initia l reading , g Fina l reading , g e . Weigh t o f fiberglas s reinforcemen t used , g Initia l reading , g Fina l reading , g f

. Weigh t o f we t mol d a t th e en d o f application , g g . Weigh t o f mol d wit h cure d part , g h

. Weigh t o f groun d cover , skir t fo rcart , gloves , an d tape s wit h cure d overspray , g 5

. Ope n Contac t Moldin g Processe s a . Typ e o f spra ygu n b

. Spra ygu n bran d name/mode l No

. c . Pum p bran d name/mode l No

. d

. Pum p rati o e . Ai rsuppl ypressure , ps i f

. Pressur e a t pum p assembly , ps i g . Spra yti p number/siz e h

. Catalys t rati o settin g I

. Deliver yrate , gp m j

. Gelcoat/laminat e thickness , mi l

. to p fron t
. lef t righ t bac k k

. Glass/resi n ratio , %

A-4- 9



# 3 9P.5 1

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 5. 0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-5- 1 o f 2 5. 0 ANALYTICA L PROCEDURE S Thi s sectio n describe s th e analytica l procedure s tha t wil l b e use d t o analyz e th e gelcoat an d resi n material s tested

. Gelcoat an d resi n propertie s includ e type s of materials , styren e contents , an d curin g characteristic s o f th e materials

. Laborator y procedure s commonl yuse d b yth e industr

ywil l b e followe d t o measure thes e properties

. Th e othe rmeasurements , suc h as emissio n an d environmenta l measurements , are describe d i n Sectio n 4 i n conjunctio n wit h samplin g procedures

. 5. 1 Type s o

f Gelcoat an d Resi n Material s Th e type s of gelcoa t an d resi n material s t o b e examine d are liste d i n Sectio n 1 .4 . 5. 2 Styren e Conten t Styren e conten t fo reac h o f th e gelcoat an d resi n material s wil l b e measure d usin g Reichhol d Standar d Tes t Metho d No

. 18-00 1 {Appendi xA) i n th e Reichhol d laboratory

. Th e gelcoa t an d resi n manufacturers wil l b e aske d t o provid e material s tha t contai n onl ystyren e a s th e monomer . Th e Reichhol d tes t metho d determine s th e nonvolatil e conten t of th e materials , an d th e remainde ri s considere d th e styren e content
. Th e styren e conten t o f th e water-emulsifie d resi n wil l b e determine d fo rth e bas e resi n materia l befor e wate ri s added

. 5. 3 Ge l time , Tim e t o Peak , an d Pea k Exother m Characteristic s o f Polyeste r Resin s Th e ge l time , tim e t o peak , an d pea k exother m characteristic s o f polyeste rresin s wil l b e measure d followin g th e Reichhol d Standard Tes t Metho d No

. 18-05 0 (i n Appendi xA) fo rgelcoat s an d resin s catalyze d wit h MEKP

. Th e Reichhold

. Standar d Tes t Metho d No

. 18-05 1 (i n Appendi xA ) wil l b e use d fo rth e resi n catalyze d wit h BPO

. Th e catalys t rati o suggeste d b yth e gelcoat an d resi n manufacturers wil l b e use d i n th e curin g characteristic s determinatio n an d i n th e actua l testing

. Th e dat a recordin g shee t fo rth e measurement s describe d i n Sectio n 5. 0 i s presente d o n th e nex

t page .

A-5- 1



# 32P.5 2

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 5. 0

Apri l 28,199 5 A-5- 2 of 2 Tabl e 5-1

. Dat a Recordin g Shee t fo rGelcoat an d Resi n Propertie s Date/Time : Tes t ru n No. : Formulatio n type:(gelcoat/resin ) Containe rNo. : Recorde d by : a . Gelcoat/Resi n typ e b

. Manufacturer , Lot/Batc h No

. c . Styren e conten t (%

) d

. Weigh t percen t of wate r(water-emulsifie d resi n only ) e . Catalys t typ e f

. Catalys t rati o (wt

. % ) g . Geltim e (minute/second ) h

. Tim e t o pea k

(minute/second ) I

. Pea k exother m (°F )

A-5- 2P.5 3

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 6. 0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-6- 1 O f 4 6. 0 DAT

A REDUCTION , VALIDATION , AN D REPORTIN G Thi s sectio n describe s how dat a wil l b e reduced , validated , an d reported

. Th e dat a handling , reduction , validation , an d reportin g procedure s are show n i n Figur e 6-1

. 6. 1 Dat a Reductio n Afte rdail ysamplin g i s completed , th e recordin g sheet s containin g samplin g an d analytica l result s wil l b e collected , verified , an d analyze d byth e Testin g Cre w Chief

. I f TH C analyze rreading s are not availabl e o n a recorder , the ywil l b e entere d int o a compute rspreadsheet

. Th e styren e concentration s wil l b e calculate d fro m th e TH C analyze rreading s an d th e styren e standard calibratio n curv e fo reac h correspondin g concentratio n rang e used

. A n averag e styren e emissio n concentratio n wil l b e calculate d fo rth e duratio n o f th e tes t run . A n averag e exhaus t ai rflo w rat e wil l b e calculate d fro m th e averag e velocity hea d monitore d durin g th e tes t ru n usin g th e equation s i n EP AMetho d 2

. Styren e emissio n quantity(Em ) fo reac h tes t ru n wil l b e calculate d byth e followin g equation : Em , I b = 2.6x10 9 xQ xMW xC xT Em , g = 1.18x10" 6 xQ xMW xC xT wher e 2.6x10' 9 , 1.18x10' 6 = conversio n factor s t o standard condition s (6 8 °F.an d 29.9 2 inche s mercury ) i n Englis h an d metri cunits , respectivel y Q = averag e exhaus t ai rflo w rat e (dr ystandar d cubi cfee t pe rminute ) M W = molecula rweigh t o f styren e (104 ) C = averag e styren e emissio n concentratio n (ppm vdry ) T = duratio n o

f tes t ru n (minute)

. Th e weigh t los s du e t o emission s (Wloss ) an d th e transfe refficiency(TReff ) wil l b e calculate d b yth e followin g equation s fo reac h tes t run : Wloss , g = (Wa+Wb+Wc+Wd+We ) - (Wg+Wh ) TReff , % = (Wf-Wa ) /

(Wc+Wd+We ) x100 % wher e W a = Weigh t of emptymol d (g ) W b = Weigh t o

f empt ygroun d cover , skir

t fo rth e cart , gloves , tape s (g )

A-6- 1 

## HOP.5 4

Sectio n No. : Revision : Date : Page : 6. 0

0 Apri l 28 , 199 5 6- 2 of 4

Testin g Crew Chief collect s dat a recordin g sheets fro m testin g crew member

s an d verifie s ra w dat a 

# I
Testin g Cre

w Chie f perform s dat a reductio n 

# I Projec t Leade rreview

s ra w an d reduce d dat a fo rcorrectnes s 

# I Projec t Leade ran d Testin g Crew Chie

f validat e emissio n measuremen t an d weigh t los s dat a fo reac h tes t ru n i f A > 30 % I f DQ I fo rtest completenes s i s not met
. Th e tes t tea m repeats th e flagge d test run .

Fla g th e tes t run . Projec

t Leade r an d Testin g Cre

w Chief identif

y an d resolve th e problem

. i f A < 30 % Forwar d th e reduce d dat a t o statisticia n fo ranalysi s 

# I I f DQ I fo rtes t completenes s i s met
.

Projec t Leade ran d Testin g Crew Chief summariz e an d interpret th e dat a an d prepare a fina l repor

t whic h als o include s a QA/Q C evaluatio n sectio n Note : A i s th e difference betwee n th e emissio n measuremen t an d weigh t los s result s fo reac h tes t run . Figure 6-1 . Th e dat a handling , reduction , validation , an d reportin g procedures .

A-6-2 

# H. vP.5 5

Sectio n No. : 6. 0 Revision : 0 Date : Apri l 28 , 1995 Page : A-6- 3 o f 4 W c = Weigh t of gelcoat/resi n use d (g ) W d = Weigh t o

f catalys t use d (g ) W e = Weigh t o

f fiberglas s reinforcemen t use d (g ) Wf = Weigh t o

f we t mol d a

t th e en d o

f applicatio n (withou t th e skir t o n th e cart)(g ) W g = Weigh t o

f cure d par

t wit h mol d (g ) W h = Weigh t o

f groun d cover , skir

t fo rth e cart , gloves , an d tape s wit h cure d overspray(g)

. Th e emissio n quantityan d weigh t los s dat a wil l b e expresse d as emissio n facto r (Ef) i n percen t availabl e styren e accordin g t o th e followin g formula

. Ef , %A S = (E m o rWloss , g ) / (Wc , g xstyren e content ) x100 % wher e styren e conten t i s th e weigh t fractio n o f styren e i n th e gelcoa t o rresi n formulation

. Th e sam e emissio n quantit yan d weigh t los s dat a ca n als o b e expresse d a s emission s pe runi t mol d are a (Ea ) i n gra m pe rsquar e mete raccordin g t o th e followin g formula : Ea , g/m 2 = (E m o rWloss , g ) / (surfac e are a o

f th e mold , m 2 )

. Th e fiel d dat a wil l b e reduce d byth e Testin g Crew Chief a s the yare generated

. A t th e en d o

f th e pilo t experiment , thes e fiel d dat a an d reduce d dat a wil l b e analyze d t o establis h "standard " condition s unde rwhic h th e mai n experimen t wil l b e conducted

. Th e standar d condition s wil l b e selecte d tha t bes t represen t th e actua l operatin g condition s i n th e industry

. At th e en d of th e mai n experiment , th e fiel d dat a an d reduce d dat a wil l b e reviewe d byth e Projec

t Leade rfo rcorrectness
. Th e reduce d dat a ar e the n passe d t o a n RT I statisticia n fo rth e analysi s o f varianc e a s outline d i n Sectio n 1.7

. Th e reduce d dat a an d th e result s of th e statistica l anaiysi s wil l b e include d i n th e fina l report
. 6. 2 Dat a Validatio n A ke yelemen t i n assessin g dat a qualityan d validityi s th e compariso n o f emissio n measuremen t an d th e weigh t los s dat a fo rth e pur e styren e emission s tes t (describe d i n Sectio n 4.1 ) an d fo reac h tes t run . Th e Testin g Cre w Chie f wil l perfor m th e basi c revie w an d audi t o f th e fiel d dat a shee t fo rcompletenes s an d accuracy . Th e Testin g Cre wChie f wil l als o compare th e reduce d emissio n measuremen t wit h th e weigh t los s dat a t o ensur e tha t thes e tw o result s are comparabl e withi n ±3 0 percent
. I f thes e tw o result s ar e not withi n ±3 0 percent , th e tes t ru n wil l b e flagged

. Th e tes t tea m wil l investigat e th e possibl e caus e o f th e differenc e an d correc t th e proble m A-6- 3P.5 6

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 6. 0

Apri l 28 , 1995 A-6- 4 of 4 immediately

. At th e en d of th e mai n experiment , i f th e dat a qualityindicato rfo r completenes s i s no t me t fo remissio n measuremen t an d weigh t los s determination , the n thes e flagge d tes t run s wil l b e repeated

. 6. 3 Dat a Reportin g A n RT I statisticia n wil l analyz e reduce d dat a an d prepare th e result s o f th e statistica l analysis

. Th e Projec t Leade ran d th e Tes t Cre w Chie f wil l b e responsibl e fo r dat a summary , interpretation , an d fina l repor t preparation

. Th e repor t wil l presen t th e effect s of ai rflo wvelocity , sprayin g methods , gelcoa t formulations , gelcoa t applicatio n equipment , resi n formulations , an d resi n applicatio n equipmen t o n styren e emissions

. Th e emission s fro m differen t formulation s o requipmen t wil l b e compare d wit h th e emission s fro m th e baselin e conditions

. Th e abilityt o differentiat e an yemissio n reductio n potentia l wil l b e determine d b yth e variabilityof th e measuremen t metho d an d th e actua l differenc e betwee n th e tw o compare d conditions

. Th e fina l repor t wil l als o contai n a Qualit yAssurance/QualityContro l (QA/QC ) evaluatio n repor t t o documen t th e QA/Q C activitie s an d results

. Th e fina l repor t wil l includ e a statemen t indicatin g whethe rth e dat a qualit yobjective s were met o rnot
. I f th e Q Aobjective s wer e no t met , a n explanatio n of th e impact of no t meetin g th e project' s Q Aobjective s wil l b e included

.

A-6- 4 

# AbP.5 7

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 7. 0

Apri l 28.199 5 A-7- 1 o f 1
7. 0 INTERNA L PERFORMANC E AN D SYSTE M AUDIT S 7. 1 Technica l System s Audit s A technica l system s audi t (TSA ) i s a qualitativ e on-sit e evaluation

. A TS A evaluate s complianc e wit h th e QAP P an d an ystandar d operatin g procedure s (SOPs)

. On e interna l TS A i s planne d fo rthi s project

. Th e TS Awil l b e conducte d b yth e projec t Q A Manager , Ms

. Salmons , o rhe rdesigne e an d wil l cove rsampling , analysis , an d dat a handlin g steps
. A writte n report wil l b e prepared , summarizin g th e result s o f th e audi t an d notin g an ydeviation s fro m th e QAPP , withi n on e mont h o f completio n o f th e audit

. I n addition , RT I wil l cooperat e full ywit h an yexterna l audit s performe d b yEPA

. 7. 2 Performanc e Evaluatio n Audit s A performanc e evaluatio n audi t (PEA ) i s a quantitativ e evaluatio n o f a measuremen t system
. N o interna l performanc e audit s ar e planne d fo rthi s project

. I f EP A provide s performanc e evaluatio n samples , RT I wil l analyz e them

. 7. 3 Audit s o f Dat a Qualit y Audit s o f dat a qualit y(ADQs ) involv e assessment s o f th e method s use d t o collect , interpret , an d report th e informatio n require d t o characteriz e dat a quality

. Whil e n o forma l AD Q i s planne d fo rth e project , th e projec t Q AManage ro rhe rdesigne e wil l revie w th e dat a a t th e en d o f th e project , befor e th e repor t i s finalized

. Thi s revie wwil l chec k tha t reductio n an d validation , a s describe d i n Sectio n 6 , hav e bee n performed , an d tha t dat a ca n b e tracke d fro m dat a form s an d notebook s t o th e summar ytable s i n th e report
.

A-7- 1

^P.5 8

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 8. 0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-8- 1 o f 2 8. 0 CALCULATIO N O F DAT A QUALIT

Y INDICATOR S Th e exhaus t ai rflo w rate , th e TH C analyze rreadings , an d weigh t los s dat a are measure d an d recorde d a t th e tes t site

. Thes e fiel d dat a ar e immediatel yavailabl e fo r dat a qualit

yreview

. Th e fiel d dat a wil l b e reduce d durin g th e testin g t o th e exten t possibl e t o provid e a mean s o f immediatel yassessin g th e fiel d dat a quality

. I f i t i s foun d durin g th e testin g tha t accuracy , precision , metho d detectio n limit , an d completenes s measurement s deviat e fro m th e DQ I goal s indicate d i n Sectio n 3 , th e sourc e o f erro rwil l b e identifie d an d th e proble m correcte d a s soo n a s possible

. A pur e styren e emissio n tes t a s describe d i n th e captur e efficiencytes t fo rth e tota l enclosur e ma yb e use d t o identif

yth e sourc e o

f error . Th e followin g calculation s wil l b e use d fo rthi s study

. 8. 1 Precisio n Fo rprecision , relativ e standard deviatio n wil l b e reported : RS D = (s/y)x100 % where RS D = relativ e standar d deviatio n s = standar d deviatio n y= mea n o

f replicat e analyses

. Standard deviatio n i s define d a s follows :

s 

### N M 

## "- 1 where

. y ; = measure d valu e of th e wit h replicat e n = numbe ro

f replicates

. 8. 2 Accuracy Fo raccuracy , percen t recover ywil l b e reported

.

A-8- 1 

# H *P.59

Sectio n No. : 8. 0 Revision : 0 ' ~ Date : Apri l 28,199 5 Page : A-8- 2 of 2 Whe n a standar d referenc e materia l (SRM ) i s used :

%R = 100 % x C

m srm
wher e % R = percen t recover y C m = measure d concentratio n o f SR M C sm = actua l concentratio n o f SRM

.
8. 3 Metho d Detectio n Limi t MD L i s define d a s follow s fo ral l measurements :

M D L=

'(/>-1.1-a=0.99)* S
wher e MD L = metho d detectio n limi t s = standar d deviatio n o f th e replicat e analyse s t(n -i,i-a=o.99) = students ' t-valu e fo ra one-side d 99 % confidenc e leve l an d a

standar d deviatio n estimat e fo rn- 1 degree s o f freedom

. 8. 4 Completenes s Completenes s i s define d a s follow s fo ral l measurements :

%C = 100 % x
wher e % C = percen t completenes s V = numbe ro f measurement s judge d vali d n = tota l numbe ro f measurement s planne d
A-8- 2P.6 0

Sectio n No. : Revision : 0 Date : Page : 9. 0

Apri l 28 , 199 5 A-9- 1 o f 1 9. 0 CORRECTIV E ACTIO N Th e nee d fo rcorrectiv e actio n ma yb e identifie d throug h interna l performanc e an d syste m audit s (describe d i n Sectio n 7) ; wheneve rmeasuremen t precision , accuracy , detectio n limit , o rcompletenes s deviate s fro m th e objective s establishe d i n Sectio n 3 ; o rwheneve rth e compariso n o f emissio n measuremen t an d weigh t los s calculatio n fo rindividua l tes t run s differs bymore tha n 1 0 percent
. Correctiv e actio n begin s wit h identifyin g th e sourc e of th e problem

. Potentia l source s o

f problem s includ e failur e t o adhere t o prescribe d tes t procedure s o rmethods , equipmen t malfunction , o rerro ri n dat a reduction

. Pure styren e emissio n test s describe d i n Sectio n 4. 1 ma yb e use d t o identif

yproblem s relate d t o th e TH C analyzer : I f a n instrumen t calibratio n chec k doe s not mee t th e specifie d acceptanc e criteria , recalibratio n wil l b e required

. Th e Testin g Crew Chief ha s th e primar yresponsibilityfo rinitiatin g an d completin g correctiv e actio n require d t o resolve measuremen t problem s encountere d durin g th e testing

. Th e Projec t Leade ran d th e Testin g Cre w Chie f wil l determin e whethe rth e correctiv e actio n ha s resolve d th e proble m o rno t an d whe n t o resum e th e testing

. Th e QualityAssuranc e Manage rwil l b e notifie d o f al l correctiv e action s undertake n a t th e tes t site

. I f necessary , th e Projec t Leade rwil l wor k

wit h th e Qualit y Assuranc e Manage rt o resolve majo rproblem s suc h a s TH C analyze rmalfunctio n an d to
. obtai n concurrenc e fro m th e EPAProjec t Office ran d QAOfficer

. Al l correctiv e action s an d th e natur e of proble m wil l b e documente d i n th e QA/Q C evaluatio n i n th e fina l report
.

A-9- 1 

# yr\P.6 1



### RESEARC H TRIANGL E INSTITUT E 

# _RT J

Cente rfo rEnvironmenta l Analysi s MEMORANDU M DATE : May 25 , 199 5 TO : Carlo s Nunez , EP A ProjectOffice r FROM : Emer

y J . Kon g ^\^-~ SUBJECT : Response s to EPA' s Comments o n th e Category II I Qualit y Assuranc e Project Plan (QAPP ) RE : Evaluatio n o f Pollutio n Preventio n Technique s t o Reduc e Styren e Emission s from Ope

n ContactMoldin g Processe s EP A Cooperativ e Agreemen tNo . C R818419-0 3 RTI ProjectNo . 96U-5171-01 6 Ou rresponse s to EPA' s comments o n th e QAPPare presente d i n th e attachment. A s I hav e discusse d wit

h Dr . Nanc y Adam s o n May 5 , RT I wil l make th e followin g change s t o th e QAPP : (1 ) RTI wil l calibrate th e TH C analyze rwit h propane standards an

d establis h a respons e facto rrelationshi p betwee n th e propan e and styren e standards , an d thi s relationshi p wil l b e use d t o determin e the styren e concentration s monitored , an d (2 ) RT I wil l us e hydroge n ga s a s th e fuel fo rth e Ratfisch TH C analyze r(a s calle d fo rin the instrument manual ) instea d o f

ahydrogen/nitroge n mixture . In additio n t o th e abov e changes , w e wil l separat e th e gelcoa texperimen tfrom th e resi n experimen tbecaus e w e ar e abl e t o resolv e som e technical problem s i n gelcoa tan d resi n application . Thi s chang e wil l notaffec tth e validity o f measurement

s fo reithe rgelcoa t experimen to rresi n experimen tbecaus e dat aanalysi s fo reach experimen ti s don e separately . W e wil l perfor

m th e pilo texperimen tfirstusin g th e regulargelcoat , the n th e gelcoa t experiment , an

d finall y th e resi n experiment . Pleas e fo.rwar

d ou rresponse s t o Dr . Nanc y Adams . I f yo u believ e ou rresponse s hav e adequatel y addresse d EPA' s concern s in th e QAPP , pleas e sig n an d dat e th e attached signatur e pag e an

d retur n itto m e a s soo n a s possible . Pleas e cal l m e a t541-596 4 immediately , i f

yo u thin k th e response s are notadequate . Than k yo u very much . Attachments
cc : Cynthi aSalmons , RT I Mar k Bahner , RTI .Bo b Wright , RTI And y Clayton , RTI Jess e B.askir, RT I 304 0 Cornwalli s Roa d • Pos t Offic e Box1219 4

. Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27709-219 4 US A Telephon e 91 9 541-581 6 • Fa x91 9 541-715

5 £ £ A-9- 2 VX A

### Attachment

Sectio n Comment 1 . Tabl e 1- 4 TES T RUN S FO RTH E RESI N FORMULATION S AN D EQUIPMEN T TYPE S Ho w wil l RE- 3 (pressure-fe d rollers ) an d RE- 4 (modifie d AAA ) b e compare d when differentresi n formulation s are bein g used i n th e testin g o f thes e tw o type s o f

equipment ? RE-1 , RE-2 , and RE- 3 ar e al l bein g teste d wit h th e sam e resin formulation , butRE- 4 testin g i s propose d usin g a differen tformulation . A discussio n o f di e way in which th e fou r equipmenttype s (REs ) wil l b e compare d woul d ad d to th e plan . Response : Th e resi n catalyze d wit

h benzoy l peroxid e (BPO ) catalys trequire s th e modificatio n o f

the air-assiste d airles s (AAA ) spra y gu n an d pum p system , s o i ti s no tpossibl e t o tes tth e BP O syste m usin g th e conventiona l AA A spra y gun . Thi s means tha

ti twil l no tb e possibl e within th e presen ttes t desig n t o separat

e the effect s o f

th e BP O catalys tfro

m th e effect s o f

th e modifie d spra

y gun . Therefore , th e tes trepor twil l acknowledg e tiiatn o separation o f

thes e effect s can b e made . A s noted on pag e 1-18 , any compariso n o f

RF- 4 wit

h othe rresi n formulation s wil l b e confounde d wit h th e equipmentdifference . 2 . Tabl e 1- 5 SUMMAR Y O F CRITICA L AN D NONCRITICA L MEASUREMENT S

Reichhol d Method No . 18-00 1 i s propose d fo rthe measuremento f styren e conten tin th e formulations tested . Thi s method (Appendix A ) involve s weigh tlos s wit

h heating b f

asmal l sampl e o n foil . Metho d 18-00 1 seem s t o b e ameasuremen

to f volatile s an

d no tstyrene . Thi s matteri s discusse d in Sectio n 5.2 ; the manufacturer s wil l b e aske d to "provid e material s tha t contai n onl y styrene a s th e monomer. " However , throughoutth e document , styren e measuremen ti s liste d a s acritica l measurement , an

d th e propose d method i s no tmeasurin g styrene . I s tlier e any additional dat

a tha tcoul d b e supplied t o verif y tha tth e propose d method reall y i s a n accurate measur

e o f styrene ? Response : Reichhol d Method No . 18-00 1 i s commonl y used b y the industr y t o determin e the non-volatil e (NV ) conten to f polyeste rresins . Sectio n VI o f

1 A-9- 3P.6 3

th e metho dshow s tha

t th e %monome

r content i s calculate dusing th e followin g formula :

% monome

r = 10 0 - % NV. Sinc e th e material s usedin th e testin g wil l contai n onl y styren e monomer , w e ca n us e th e metho da s a

n indirec t measurement

o f styren e content
. 3
. Sectio n 3.1. 2 ACCURAC Y

Thes e accurac y goal s pertai n to calibratio n erro r only
. Wha

t about zero andcalibratio n drif

t (pos t tes t checks) ? Ther e i s aminor

typ o note di

n th e text
. Th e wor

di s "assembly"
. Response : Th e zer o an dmid-level calibratio n drif t wil l b e checke daccordin g to th e procedure s oudine din Metho d25 A section 7.2 , at th e en dof

eachru n (bu t no t hourl y durin g th e run)
. Th e acceptabl e drif t wil l b e taken t o b e ± 3 percent o f spa n value
. I f

th e drif t exceed s tiie acceptabl e level , th e TH C respons e wil l b e checke dfo r all calibratio n gase s within th e range(s) used i n th e run . Th e tes t

result s will b e reporte dusin g bot hset s o f calibratio n dat a(before andafte

r th e run)
. Th e TH C analyzer wil l then b e recalibrate da s describe di n Method25 A sectio n 6.4 , prio r t o th e following run . 4
. Tabl e 3- 2 OBJECTIVE S FORQUPANTITATIV EDAT A QUALIT Y INDICATORS Th e accurac y objective s shouldb e clearly defined
. I s %bia s fro mful l scal e o r fro maknow n standard ? I s th e TH C detectio n limi t o f 1 pp m realisti c in th e 0 - 1 , 10 0 ppmrange ? Ho w wa s th e detectio n limi t derived ? Doe s th e equatio n i n Section 8. 3 appl y for

non-discrete measurement s suc

ha s thos e fro

mCEMs ? Response : RTI no w plan s t

o operate th e tota

l hydrocarbo n analyzer

on instrumenta

l range s tha t correspon dt o 0 t o 2 0 ppmstyren e (C8 ) an d0 to 20 0 ppm styren e (C8)
. Thes e range s ar e als o equivalent t o 0 t o 5 3 pp

mpropan e (C3 ) an d0 t o 53 3 ppmpropan e (C3)
. Th e calibratio n gase s will b e 16 , 27 , 45 , 160 , 267 , an d45 3 ppmpropane . Thes e calibratio n gase s will correspon dt o 3 0 percent , 5 0 percent , and8 5 percen t o f th e tw o full-scal e ranges , a s calle dfor

i n EPA Metho d25A
.

A-9- 4 

# JP.6 4

Th e accurac y dat aqualit

y objectiv e i s bein g change dfro m+/

- 5 percent

t o +/

- 3 pp mon th e 0 t o 5 3 ppmpropan e rang e an dt o +/

- 3 1 ppmon th e 0 t o 53 3 ppmpropan e range. Th e value s ar e the root-sum-square s o f th e calibratio n ga s accuracy , th e calibratio n error , an dth e calibratio n drift
. Th e following exampl e i s fo r th e 0 t o 5 3 pp

mpropan e range : calibratio n ga s accurac y = 5 % o f 4 5 ppm=2.2 5 ppm calibratio n erro r

= 5 % o f

2 7 pp m=1.3 5 pp

m calibratio n drif

t = 3 % o f

5 3 pp m= 1.5 9 pp

m root-sum-square = 3.0 7 pp m Pleas e note tha

t eac ho f thes e accurac y component s i s measurable
. Th e calibratio n ga s accurac y will b e detennine dby comparin g the specialt y ga s producer' s certifie dvalu e wit hRTI' s verification valu e fo r th e high-level calibratio n gases . Th e calibratio n erro r andcalibratio n drif

t will b e measuredaccordin g t o th e procedure s outline din Metho d25 A section 7.2 , a t th e endo f

each run . Th e TH C detectio n limi t

o f 1 ppm(a s styrene ) i s quit e realisti c fo r the 0

- 20 0 ppm(a s styrene ) range . A s shown i n th e attache dfigure , th e zero ga s analysi s in aMarch 199 5 testin g at Dow (using th e sam

e TH C analyzer) showedtha

t adetectio n limi t

o f les s tha n 1 pp mwa s achievedi

n a0-35 0 ppm(a s styrene ) range. Th e equatio n in Section 8. 3 ca n b e use dif TH C reading s ar e take

n at fixe dinterval s (sucha s ever

y 1 5 seconds)
. 5
. Sectio n 4. 4 .EMISSION MEASUREMEN T Ho w man y point s wil l g o into , th e calibration ? Basedo n th e gase s discusse di

n the QAPP , only th e 1,10 0 pp mscal e ca

n b e calibrate dper Metho d25A
. Wha

t i s th e sampl e lin e mad

e of ? I s i t heated ? Are th e other component s o f

th e sample deliver

y syste mheated ? Ar e an

y syste m bia s check s planned ? Styren e i s ver y reactive
. Wha

t will b e don e t o evaluate th e bia s o f

the sample deliver

y system ? Where will th e prob e b e locate di n th e stack ? Will a

n emission s profil e b e performe dt o asses s stratificatio n i

n th e duct ? A prob e ca

n b e built t o sampl e representatively acros s th e duc t

(se e 4 0 CFR Van 86.310-79)
. Response : In accordanc e wit

hEP A Metho d25 , eac

hof th e tw o concentratio n ranges use din th e tota

l hydrocarbo n analyzer

will b e calibrate dwit

hzer o ga s and low-level , mid-level , an

dhigh-level calibratio n gases . Th e concentration s o f thes e calibratio n gase s ar e shown i n the respons e t o Commen t No
. 4
.

A-9- 5 

# S VP.6 5

RT I anticipate s using PFA Teflo n for th e sampl e line
. Th e samplin g locatio n wil l b e 5 o r

6 stac k diameter s downstrea

mo f th e las t bend
. Th e sampl e lin e will b e cappedat it s endandanumbe

r o f hole s wil l b e drille d alon g it s in-stac k

lengt ht o obtai n asampl e strea mtha t i s representativ e o f th e entir e stack
. I

n general , RT I wil l follo w th e specification s fo r th e sampl e prob e given i

n 4 0 CFR , Part

86.310.7 9 (b ) excep t

for th e us e o f PFA Teflo n rather

tha n stainles s steel
. Metho d2 5 state s tha

t th e sampl e lin e shoul db e heated , i f necessary , t o prevent condensation in th e line
. Th e tota l hydrocarbo n analyzer

will b e samplin g essentially roo mai r at room.temperature
. A s such , ther e i s n o needt o hea

t th e sampl e lin e t o preven t condensation
. Further , heate d sampl e lin e ma

y caus e styren e polymerizatio n within th e sampl e line
. Durin g apreviou s ga s chromatographi c verification study o f styren e calibratio n gases , RTI checke dfor sampl e lin e losse s usin g acalibratio n ga s containin g approximately 5 pp mstyrene
. No difference s among unheate dstainles s steel , heate dstainles s steel , an dunheate dTeflon sampl e line s wer e found
. An

y sampl e lin e losse s wouldlikel y b e les s at th e muc h higher flow rate associatedwit

hth e total hydrocarbo n analyzer
. Th e bia s o f

th e sample deliver

y systemwil l b e tested , before tiie actua l testing , b y comparing the instrumental response s t o th e styren e and propan e calibratio n gase s when they ar e delivere dthroug hth e analyzer' s calibratio n ga s port

andthroug hth e unheatedsample line
. I f th e responses for bot h styren e an

dpropan e gase s ar e the same , th e sampl e lin e will no t b e heated
. I f

th e respons e for

styren e ga s i s differen

t an dth e respons e fo

r propan e ga s i s th e same , then th e nee dfo r heating th e sampl e lin e wil l b e evaluated
. I f

response s fo

r bot hstyren e andpropan e gase s ar e different , then th e TH C analyzer

wil l b e checke dandrepaired
. A TH C analyzer renta l uni t ca n b e arrange di f

th e Ratfisch TH C analyzer i s no t functional
. In additio n t o th e direc t

sampl e deliver

y syste mbia s test , a

n indirec t sampl e systembia s check

wil l b e conducte di

n the preliminar

y testin g using pur e styren e evaporation
. Th e pur e styren e evaporatio n tes t wil l identif

y th e bia s i n exhaus t

flow rat e an dTH C measurement s when th e emissio n quantit y i s compare dt o th e known quantit y o f styren e evaporated
. Th e pur e styren e evaporatio n tes t wil l releas e styren e at

aconstant

rate; therefore , i t

ca n b e use dt o determin e th e emission s profil e andt o asses s stratificatio n in th e exhaus t stack
. Th e emission concentration s profil e coul dno t b e performe ddurin g a

n actual tes t

du e to th e changin g styren e concentrations
. Additionally , th e multi-point sample prob e describe dabov e shoul deliminate bia s du e t o potential stratification
.

A-9- 6 

# <?P.6 6

6 . Sectio n 4. 5 .EXHAUS T AIRFLO W MEASUREMENT S

I s th e exhaus tflo w rate stabl e enough t o onl y measure flow s weekly ? Why wa s th e cente ro f

th e duc tselecte d to monito rAp ? Wouldn' tthe averag e square roo to f

Ap s acros s the duc

tb e mor e appropriate ? Ha s a n Annuba

r bee n considere d t o determin e tota l flo w wit

h asingl e Ap ? Response : Prio rt o th e actua

l testing , severa

l velocit y traverse/centerlin e measurements wil l b e mad e p n differentday s to determin e whethe rth e exhaus tflo w rate change s ove rtime an d whethe rth e centerlin e A p measurements accuratel y correlat e with velocit y travers e measurements . I f the preliminary exhaus tflo w rat e measurements indicate tha tcenterlin e A p measurements d o n o correlate to withi n ±5 percen to f th e exhaus tflo w rate a s determine d b y travers e measurements , a n Annubarprob e wil l b e used fo rA p monitorin g i n th e actua l testing . I f th e exhaus tflo w rate i s relativel y stabl e ove rtime, avelocit y travers e wil l b e performe d atth e beginnin g o f eac h wee k t o determin e th e exhaus t flo w rate, and th e A p (eithe ra tcenterlin e o rb y Annubar ) wil l b e monitore d ever y 1 5 minute s during th e tes trun . Th e exhaus tflow rate during th e tes tru

n wil l b e calculate d accordin g t o th e followin g formula : Q ru n = [av g (A p run)°- 5

/(A p weekly) 0,5 ] x Q weekl y wher e Q ru n = exhaus tflo w rate durin g ates tru

n (scfm ) Q weekl y = exhaus tflo w rate determined b y th e weekl y velocity travers e (scfm ) av g (A p run) 0
- 3 = averag e squar e roo to f th e 15-minute Ap s recorded durin g th e tes trun , eithe ra tthe centerlin e o rb y Annubar (A p weekly) 0
- 3 = squar e roo to f th e Ap s recorde d during th e weekl y velocit y travers e 7 . Sectio n 4. 7 GELCOA T AN D RKI N PROPERTTE S I s th e hand-hel d mixe relectric ? I f so , pleas e b e sur e th e moto ri s explosio n proo f

sinc e th e flash poin to f

styren e i s 31°C . Response : Th e hand-hel d mixe rwil l b e powered b y compresse d air . 5 A-9- 7P.6 7

8
. Sectio n 8. 3 METHO D DETECTIO N LIMIT

Doe s th e definitio n o f

s mea n th e (estimated ) standar

ddeviatio n of

asingl e observation , o r

th e averag e o f

th e nl Presumably th e "MDL " refer s to a singl e observatio n bu t

i s basedo

n avarianc e estimate dfro mmultipl e observations
. Response : Th e metho ddetectio n limi t will b e calculate dusin g th e equatio n shown wit h s bein g determine dfro

mn measurement s o f

zer o ga s take

n a t 15

- secon dintervals
. RTI anticipate s tha t n wil l equal 20
. 9
. GENERAL COMMENT S FRO M ROS S LEADBETTE

R Response : Th e entrie s i

n Tabl e 1- 1 ar e approximate dhalf widths
. Th e QAP P wa s arrange daccordin g t o th e forma t given in th e Q

A manual ; therefore , som

e o f th e text s ma

y b e disconnecte dt o th e reader
. Nevertheless , th e reade r

shoul db e abl e t o fin

dth e essentia

l informatio n by referrin g t o th e tabl e o f

contents
.

A-9- 8 ^Sc\ri\o\:*\^Arnb'.v*^*• > Zer o ga s additio n durin g 030795A C

2. 5
2

. 5 '•*•, •

E o . 3 . c o

e o c o o 0. 5
0 ) 0 -0. 5 0.5 0 ^u/iicrl&L -ft > ^w > 4a > ^?y

- banzUnx^(JUUVM:nu-hjr^- 

# T

• ••

1.0 0 1.5 0 2.0 0 2.5ft " 3.0 0

- 1 Elapse d tim e (minutes)

030795AC.XL C

0 ) 0 0P.6 9

Appendi x B ReichholdStandar

dTes t Method s

B- iP.7 0

Reichhol d Standard Tes tMethod s Tes t Metho dPag e 18-001
. Detenninatio n o f non-volatil e content

o f polyester resin s B- 1 18-021
. Determinatio n o f Brookfiel dviscosit

y andthixotropi c index o f

polyester resin s ; B- 4 18-050
. Detenninatio n o f roo mtemperatur

e gel , tim e t o pea k an dpea k exother m characteristic s o f

polyester resin s B- 9 18-152
. Determinatio n o f stati c styren e emission s fo r complianc e wit

hSCAQMD Rul e 1162 B-1 2

B-i i

# REICHHOL

D R.EACTIV E POLYMER S DIVISIO N P.7 1



## TES TPROCEDUR E

DETERMINATIO N

O F NON-VOLATIL E CONTEN T O F POLYESTE RRESIN S METHO D ISSUE D REVISE D PAGE : 18-00 1

11/17/8 7 02/27/8 9 1 O F 3

I . SCOP E Thi s metho ddescribe s a procedur e fo r th e rapi ddeterminatio no f th e non-volatil e conten t o f polyeste r resi nsolutions . II . SAFET Y Safet y glasse s ar e recommende dfo r thi s procedure . III . EQUIPMEN T 1 . Aluminu

m foi l - 6 " x12" , Thoma s Scientifi c 1086-F27-F3 2 o r equivalent . (Reynold s Wra pHeav y Duty ) 2 . Pape r clips , # 1 ge m clipso r equivalent . 3 . Cardboar dshee t - 8 " x12 " x0.025" . 4 . Analytica l balance, capabl e o f accuratel y weighin g t o +/ - 0.000 1 grams . 5 . Disposabl e syringe , 3c c capacity , B- D #558 6 o r equivalent . 6 . Oven , force dair , o f suitabl e capacit y maintaine da t 12 0 +/ - 2°C . 7 . Thermometer , (1.0° C divisions) . 8 . Clea nglas s plate s (2 ) approximatel y 8 " x8 " x1/4" . 9 . Stopwatc ho r time r capabl e o f measurin g t o on e secondintervals .

Th e intormatio n herei n i s to assis t customer

s i n determinin g whethe r ou r product s ar e suitabl e tor thei r applications . Ou r product s ar e intended tor sal e t o industria l an d commercia l customers . Wa reques t tha t customer

s inspec t an d tes t ou r product

s befor e us e an d satisf

y themselve

s as to content

s an d suitability . W

e warran t tha

t ou r product

s wil l mee

t ou r writte n specifications . Nothin g herei n shal l constitut e an y othe r warrant

y expres s o r implied , includin g an y warrant

y o f merchantabilit

y o r fitness , no r i s protectio n fro m an y la wo r patent t

o b e inferred . A

D patent right

s ar e reserved. Th e exclusiv e remedy for al l prove n claim s i s replacement o f ou r material s an d i n n o event sha l w e be liabl e tor special , incidenta l o r consequentia l damages . REICHHOL D CHEMICALS , INC . •REACTIV E POLYMERS DIVISIO N •JACKSONVILLE , F L 3224 5 •(904)739-217 0 

### B- 1 5P.7 2

METHOO : 18-00 1 ISSUED : 11/17/8 7 REVISED : 02/27/8 9 PAGE : 2 O F 3

IV . PROCEDUR E 1 . Fil l disposabl e syring e wit hpolyeste r resi nsolutio nt o b e tested , cleanin g awa y

al l exces s resi nfrom th e exterio r o f th e syring e an d removin g al l exces s ai r fro m th e interior . Immediatel y replac e syring e ca pt o insur e minima l monome r los s du e t o evaporation . 2 . Fol da 6 " x12 " aluminu m foi l shee t inhalf , shin y surfac e facin g in , an dmeasur e it s dry

weigh t (withou t resin ) t o th e neares t 0.000 1 gm . Recor dthi s weigh t a s "A" . 3 . Unfol dth e aluminu m foi l shee t andres t i t shiny sid e upo non e o f th e 8 " x8 " x1/4 " glas s plates . Plac e approximatel y 0. 5 gram s (0.5cc ) o f polyeste r resi nsolutio ni nth e cente r o f eithe r o f th e 6 " x6 " halve s o f th e aluminu m foi l sheet . Replac e th e syring e cap . 4 . Carefull y

fol dfoi l shee t halve s togethe r an dgentl y plac e second glas s plat e oyer

th e folde dfoi l sheet . Pres s carefull y t o ensur e eve ndistributio no f th e resi nsampl e int o a thi nfil m withou t exudin g fro

m th e edge s o f th e aluminu m foil . 5 . Quickl y

reweig hth e aluminu

m foi l containin g th e resi nsample , t o th e neares t 0.000 1 gram . Recor dthi s weigh t a s "B" . 6 . Unfol dth e foi l shee t an dplac e (resi nsid e up ) ont o th e cardboar d sheet . Us e th e pape r clip s t o carefull y secur e th e foi l t o opposit e corner s o f th e cardboard . NOTE : Us e car e no t t o tea r th e aluminu m foi l shee t o r allow

th e pape r clip s t o come i

ncontac t wit hth e resin . 7 . Plac e entir e apparatu s in12 0 +/ - 2° C oven , begi ntimer , an dleav e inove nfo r 1 0 minutes . 8 . Repea t step s tw

o (2 ) throughseve n(7 ) fo r duplicat e sample . 9 . Afte r 1 0 minutes , remov e th e sampl e apparatu s from th e oven . Carefull y

remov e th e aluminu

m foi l fro

m th e cardboar dsurfac e an d fol dsevera l time s t o avoi dth e los s o f drie dresi nsample . Thi s wil l als o hel pt o minimiz e adde dmoistur e fro m condensation . Quickl y reweig hth e aluminu

m foi l t o th e neares t 0.000 1 gram . Recor dthi s weigh t a s "C" .

B- 2 

# * AMETHOD : 18-00 1 ISSUED : 11/17/8 7 REVISED : 02/27/8 9 PAGE : 3 O F 3

V . CALCULATION S Percen t non-volatil e canthe nb e calculate dusin g th e followin g formula : % N V = • Weigh t o f Resi nSolid s X10 0 Weigh t o f Resi nSolutio n Where : Weigh t o f resi nsolid s = C - A Weigh t o f resi nsolutio n= B - A Duplicat e sample s shoul dagre e t o withi n+/ - 0.5% . I f duplicat e sample s ar e no t withi n+/ - 0.5% , rerunth e entir e test . NOTE : Occasionally , hig hboilin g monomer s ar e use dinmanufacturin g polyeste r resins . Som e ma y no t evaporat e a s quickl y a s styrene . I f sample s don' t agre e o nth e secon drun , thi s ma y

b e th e cause . VI . REPOR T Th e percen t non-volatil e i s reporte da s a naverag e o f th e duplicat e samples . Roun dth e valu e t o th e neares t 0.1% . Onc e th e % N V i s known , % Monome r Conten t ma y

b e calculate dusing th e followin g formula : % Monome r = 10 0 - %N

V

Author : Approve dby :

B- 3

# REICHHOL

D REACTIV E POLYMERS DIVISIO N P.7 4



# TES T PROCEDUR E

DETERMINATIO N

O F BROOKFIEL D VISCOSIT Y AND THIXOTROPI C INDEXO F POLYESTE RRESIN S METHOD : 18-02 1 ISSUED : 02/17/8 4 REVISED : 02/27/8 9 PAG E 1 O F 5

I . SCOP E Thi s metho ddescribe s a procedur e fo r determinin g th e Brookfiel d viscosit y

and/o r thixotropy

o f polyeste r resins . II . SAFET Y Safet y glasse s an

d protectiv e glove s ar e recommende dfo r thi s procedure . III . EQUIPMEN T 1 . Brookfiel dViscometer , Mode l LVF , (6,12,3 0 an d 6 0 RPM ) wit h spindle s #1.throug h# 4 an dwithou t guard . 2 . Brookfiel dViscometer , Mode l RV F (2,4,1 0 an

d 2 0 RPM ) wit h spindle s # 1 through# 7 an dwithou t guard . 3 . Brookfiel dViscometer , Mode l RV T (0.5,1,2.5,5,10,5 0 an d 10 0 RPM ) wit hspindle s # 1 through# 7 an dwithou t guard . 4 . Brookfiel dLaborator y Stand . Mode l A . 5 . Circulatin g wate r bat hcontrolle da t 25° C +/ - 0.2°C . 6 . Thermometer , ASTM-17 C (19-27°C) < 7 . Stopwatc hor

time r capabl e o f measurin g t o on e secon dintervals . 8 . Quar t ca n an

d lid . 9 . Brookfiel dfacto r finde r o r not e pag e _5

_o f 5 .

Th e informatio n herei n i s to assis t customer

s i n determinin g whethe r ou r product s are suitabl e for thei r applications . Ou r product s are intended tor sal e t o industria l an d commercia l customers . W e request tha

t customer

s inspec t an d tes t ou r product

s befor e use an d satisf

y themselves a s t o contents an d suitability . W

e warran t tha

t ou r product

s wi n mee

t ou r writte n specifications . Nothin g herei n sha d constitut

e an y othe r warrant

y express o r implied , includin g an y warrant

y o f merchantabilit

y or fitness , no r i s protectio n fro m an y la wor patent to b e inferred . A D patent rights are reserved. Th e exclusiv e remedy for al l prove n claim s i s replacement o f ou r material s an d i n n o even t shal l w e b e liabl e for special , incidenta l o r consequentia l damages . REICHHOL D CHEMICALS , INC . •REACTIV E POLYMER S DIVISIO N •JACKSONVILLE , F L 3224 5 •(904)739-217 0 B- 4 ^ VP.7 5
METHOD : 18-02 1 ISSUED : 02/17/8 4 REVISED : 02/27/8 9 PAG E 2 O F 5

10 . Laborator y

monitore da t 25+/-l° C o r 77+/-2°F . IV . CALIBRATIO N 1 . Brookfiel d50 0 cp s an d250 0 cp s oi l standard s ar e t o b e used . Eac h viscomete r calibratio nshoul db e checke donc e pe r mont husin g th e . Brookfiel dStandardize doils . Selec t a spindl e an dRP M tha t wil l giv e a readin g inth e mi drang e o f th e viscomete r scale ; 40-6 0 on th e dial . 2 . Moun t th e viscomete r i nai r an dleve l it . Deflec t th e needl e lightl y from it s zer o positio nan

dle t i t swin g bac k unde r it s ow n power . I f th e needl e swing s freel y an dreturn s t o zer o i t i s acceptable . V . PROCEDUR E (N0N-THIX0TR0PI C RESINS ) 1 . Pou r approximatel y 80 0 ml o f resi nsampl e int o a quar t canan d adjus t t o 2 5 +/ - 0.2° C usin g a thermomete r (avoi dai r entrapment) . 2 . Plac e th e resi nsampl e int o th e constan t temperatur e wate r bat ha t 2 5 +/ - 0.2°C . Allo w

sufficien t tim

e fo r th e sampl e t o deaerat e completel y

sinc e ai r bubble s wil l affec t viscosit y readings . 3 . Selec t th e appropriat e viscometer , spindl e an dspindl e spee d accordin g t o th e Maste r Formula . I f unspecified , selec t spindl e and spee dwhic hwil l giv e a readin g inth e mi drang e o f viscomete r dial . 4 . Remov e th e li dandplac e th e resi nsampl e unde r th e levele d viscometer . Lowe r th e viscomete r t o a poin t wher e th e spindl e couplin g i s approximatel y two (2 ) inche s from

th e resi nsurface . Inser t th e clean , dr y

spindl e int o th e sampl e a t a nangl e t o avoi d ai r entrapmen t unde r th e spindle . Lif t upo nth e spindl e couplin g andattac hth e spindle . (NOTE : left-han dthread) . Avoi dputtin g sid e o r dow

nthrus t onth e shaf t whe nattachin g spindle . 5 . Cente r th e spindle , the nrais e o r lowe r th e viscomete r housin g unti l th e uppe r surfac e o f th e sampl e i s i nth e middl e o f th e spindl e shaf t indentation .

B- 5



# U ^P.7 6
METHOD : 18-02 1 ISSUED : 02/17/8 4 REVISED : 02/27/8 9 PAG E 3 O F 5

6 . Afte r selectin g the desire dviscomete r RPM , tur nonviscomete r moto r an dsimultaneousl y

star t th e stopwatch . 7 . Afte r on e (1 ) minut e ha s elapsed , depres s th e viscomete r clutch , sto pth e moto r an

dtak e a dia l reading . Va . CALCULATIO N 1 . Multipl y

th e dia l readin g b

v th e facto r obtaine dfro m th e facto r finde r (se e pag e _5_

_o f 5 ) t o obtai na centipois e value . Repor t result s incentipoise s (CPS ) showing temperature , Brookfiel dModel , spindl e numbe r an

dRPM . VI . PROCEDUR E (THIXOTROPI C RESINS ) 1 . Pou r approximatel y 80 0 m l o f resi nsampl e int o a quar t canan d adjus t t o 2 5 +/ - 0.2° C using a thermomete r (avoi dai r entrapment) . 2 . Plac e th e resi nsampl e int o the constan t temperatur e wate r bat ha t 2 5 +/ - 0.2°C , undisturbe dfo r exactl y fiftee n(15 ) minute s prio r t o viscosit y

determination . 3 . Selec t th e appropriat e viscometer , spindl e an dspindl e speed . Unles s specified , al l thixotropi c resin s wil l b e evaluate dusin g the Brookfiel dMode l LV

F viscometer , # 3 spindl e a t 6 RP M and6 0 RPM . 4 . Follo w

step s (4 ) an

d(5 ) fo r non-thixotropi c resins . Handl e th e sampl e wit hcar e t o minimiz e disturbanc e o f th e resin . 5 . Se t th e spee dt o 6 rpm , thenstar t th e viscomete r simultaneousl y wit hth e timer . Afte r 6 0 seconds , increas e th e spee dt o 6 0 rpm . Afte r thre e (3 ) minute s depres s th e viscomete r clutc han dtak e a reading . Reduc e th e spee dt o 6 RPM an dstar t th e viscomete r again . Tak e a fina l readin g a t third(3 ) minutes . Via . CALCULATION S Multipl y th e dia l readin g take na t eac hspee db y th e respectiv e facto r obtaine dfro m

th e facto r finde r (se e Pag e _5

_o f 5 ) t o obtai n centipois e values . Repor t result s i ncentipoise s (CPS ) showin g temperature , Brookfiel dModel , spindl e numbe r an dRPM . (NOTE : I nmos t case s th e viscosit y

i s reporte dusing th e highe r RP M value) .

B- 6 

# IAP.7 7
METHOD : 18-02 1 ISSUED : 2/17/8 4 REVISED : 11/4/8 8 PAG E 4 O F 5

VII . THIXOTROPI C INDEX CALCULATION S Divid e th e viscosit y

obtaine da t th e slowe r spindl e spee dby th e viscosit y

obtaine da t th e highe r spindl e spee dt o obtai nth e thixotropi c index . Thixotropi c indexha s n o unit s o f measur e andi s reporte dt o th e neares t 0.1 . T j = Viscosit y

@ 6rp m Viscosit y

@ 60rp m

Author : Approve dby :

B- 7 

# LHBROOKFIEL D FACTO R FINDE R METHOD : 18-02 1

ISSUED : 2/17/8 4 REVISED : 2/27/8 9 PAG E 5 O F 5



### w 0 0 

# frViscomete r Mode l Spindl e Numbe r

Speed RP M . 5

1 2 2. 5 4 5 1 0 2 0 5 0 10 0 R

V

1

20 0 10 0 5 0 4 0 2 5 2 0 1 0 5 2 1 R V

2

80 0 40 0 20 0 16 0 10 0 8 0 4 0 2 0 8 4 R V

3

2 M I M 50 0 40 0 25 0 20 0 10 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 R

V

4

4 M 2 M I M 80 0 50 0 40 0 20 0 10 0 4 0 2 0 R

V

5

8M 4 M 2 M 1.6 M I M 80 0 40 0 20 0 8 0 4 0 R

V

6

20 M 10M 5 M 4 M 26 M 2 M I M 50 0 20 0 10 0 W

7

80 M 40 M 20 M 16M 10M 8M 4 M 2 M 80 0 40 0 Speed

RP M 

### L

V L V L V L V

. 3

. 6

. 5 3 6 1 2 3 0 6 0 20 0

10 0 4 0 2 0 1 0 5 2 1

• • I M 50 0 20 0 10 0 5 0 2 5 1 0 5 Facto r 4

M 2M 80 0 40 0 20 0 10 0 4 0 2 0 20 M

10 M 4M 2 M I M 50 0 20 0 10 0

Facto r T o conver t viscomete r dia l readin g t o centipoise , locat e th e colum nwhic hidentifie s th e viscomete r mode l an

d spindl e numbe r used . Locat e viscomete r speed , RPM's . Th e numbe r foun d a t the intersection 'o f viscometer , spindl e an d spee d i s th

e factor . Multipl y viscomete r dia l reading b y the facto r t o determin e viscosity i n centipoise . M-100 0

o oP.7 9 

# REICHHOL

D REACTIV E POLYMERS DIVISIO N 

## 7IES7 PROCEDUR E

DETERMINATIO N

O F ROOM

TEMPERATUR E GEL , METHOD : 18-05 0 TIM E T O PEA

KAN D PEA

KEXOTHERM

CHARACTERISTIC S ISSUED : 2/17/8 4 OF POLYESTE RRESIN S REVISED : 2/27/8 9 PAG E 1 O F 3

SCOP E Thi s metho ddescribe s a procedur e fo r determinin g th e gel , total-tim e t o pea k an d peak exotherm

o f promote do r unpromote dresin s whe ncatalyze d wit hmethy l ethy l keton e peroxide . II . SAFET Y Safet y glasse s and protectiv e glove s ar e recommende dfo r thi s procedure . Us e car e whe nhandlin g methy l ethy l keton e peroxide . Rea dand thoroughl y understan dth e Materia l Safet y Dat a Shee t provide dwit hthi s materia l befor e it s use .
III . EQUIPMEN T 1 . Temperatur e recorde r wit h0 . t o 500° F range . Typ e J thermocoupl e interface . Capabl e o f speed s o f 30"/nou r an d 60"/hour . 2 . Typ e J thermocouple , iron-constantan , 6 " sheathe dinstainles s steel . 3 . Constan t temperatur e wate r bat hmaintaine da t 2 5 +/ - 0.2° C wit h suitabl e rack . 4 . Laborator y

balance , 40 0 g

m minimu m capacity , capabl e o f weighin g t o 0.0 1 grams . 5 . ASTM-17 C thermometer , (19-27°C) . 6 . 6 " woode nhandl e stainles s stee l spatul a o r woode ntongu e depresso r (6 " X3/4") .

Th e intormatio n herei n i s t o assis t customer s i n determinin g whethe r ou r product s ar e suitabl e tor thei r applications . Ou r product s ar e intende d tor sal e t o industria l an d commercia l customers . W e request that customer s inspec t an d tes t ou r product s befor e us e an d satisf y themselve s a s to content s an d suitability . W e warran t that ou r product s wil l mee t ou r writte n specifications . Nothin g herei n shal l constitut e an y othe r warrant y expres s o r implied , includin g an y warrant y o f merchantability o r fitness , no r i s protectio n fro m an y la wo r paten t t o b e inferred . Al l paten t right s ar e reserved. Th e exclusive remed y tor a

D prove n claim s i s replacement of ou r material s an d i n n o even t shal l w e b e liabl e tor special , incidenta l o r consequentia l damages . REICHHOL D CHEMICALS , INC . •REACTIV E POLYMERS DIVISIO N •JACKSONVILLE , F L 3224 5 •(904)739-217 0 

### B- 9 

### UP.8 0

METHOD : 18-05 0 ISSUED : 2/17/8 4 REVISED : 2/27/8 9 PAGE : 2 o f 3

7 . Disposabl e 15 0 m l polypropylen e beake r (VW RScientifi c Cat . no . 13915-54 4 o r equivalent) . 8 . Stopwatc ho r time r capabl e o f measurin g t o on e secondintervals . 9 . Laborator y

- maintaine d@ 2 5 +/ - 1° C o r 7 7 +/ - 2°F . 10 . Repipe t dispenser . 5 ml capacit y wit h0.0 5 ml graduation s (Fishe r Scientific-Cat . no . 13-687-5 4 o r equivalent ) o r Tuberculi nSyringe , 1. 0 C C capacit y

wit h1/10 0 graduation s (Fishe r Scientific-Cat . n o 14-820-1 5 or

equivalent . IV . REAGENT S 1 . Methy l Ethy l Keton e Peroxid e (Typ e specifie db y Maste r Formula) . 2 . 12 % (metal ) cobal t octoat e solutio n(optional) . V . PROCEDUR E 1 . Weigh10 0 +/ - 0. 1 gram s o f resi nint o a 15 0 ml polypropylen e beaker . 2 . Inser t meta l spatula , woode ntongu e depressor , o r thermomete r int o beaker . I f th e woode ntongu e depresso r i s used , i t mus t b e coate d 1/ 2 inchabov e th e resi nleve l wit hpreviousl y weighe dresi nt o preven t absorption.o f cobal t solution , MEK P o r an y additiona l additives . 3 . Promot e resi ni f necessar y fo r roo

m temperatur e cure . Unles s specificall y

state db

y Maste r Formula , unpromote dresin s ar e promote dwit h0.2 1 gram s o f 12 % cobal t octoate . Any promote r mus t b e thoroughl y

mixe dint o the resi nbefor e proceeding . 4 . Plac e the beake r containin g resi nint o a constan t temperatur e wate r bat ha t 2 5 +/ - 0.2°C . Allow sufficien t tim

e fo r th e resi nsampl e t o equilibrat e t o 2 5 +/ - 0.2°C . I f a thermomete r i s use dt o facilitat e resi ntemperatur e adjustmen t i t mus t remai ninth e sampl e unti l afte r th e MEK P ha s bee nadde dan dthoroughl y

dispersed . 5 . Ad dth e typ e andamoun t o f MEK P specificall y state dinth e Maste r Formul a int o th e sampl e resin ; simultaneousl y star t th e stopwatc h an dmi xthoroughl y

fo r on e minut e i

nth e wate r bath . Avoi dai r entrapmen t whil e mixing . Allow th e stopwatc ht o runfo r th e entir e test .

B-1 0



# WP.8 1

METHOD : 18-05 0 ISSUED : 2/17/8 4 REVISED : 2/27/8 9 PAGE : 3 o f 3

6 . Chec k th e sampl e periodicall y b y lifting th e spatul a o r tongu e blad e to . observ e th e resi nflo w rat e watchin g fo r sign s o f gellation . D o no t sti r th e sampl e whe ncheckin g it , bu t simpl y lif t th e spatul a o r tongu e blad e straigh t upandreplac e it . Th e poin t a t whic hth e resi ncease s t o flow an d"snaps " of f th e stic k bac k int o th e beake r i s calle dth e ge l poin t andth e elapse dtim e from catalys t additio n t o th e ge l poin t i s calle d"ge l time" . Recor dth e ge l time . O o no t sto pth e stopwatch . 7 . Upo nreachin g th e ge l time , immediatel y remov e th e beake r from th e wate r bath , plac e ona non-heat-conductiv e surfac e (i.e. , wood ) an d inser t th e thermoccuple . Th e ti pp f th e thermocoupl e i s t o b e locate d3/1 6 inc

hfro m th e beaker' s boc:o

m an dwithi nth e cente r o f th e resi nsampl e surface . 8 . Observ e th e recorde r an dstopwatch . Recor dth e time elapsedfrom catalys t additio nt o th e pea k temperature . Thi s i s called , "Tota l Time t o Peak" . 9 . Th e maximu

m temperatur e reache di s reporte da s th e "Pea k Exotherm" . NOTE : Som

e customer s requir e aninterva l tim e rathe r tha n"Tota l Time t o Peak" . Th e interva l (als o calle dGel-to-Peak ) i s th e Tota l Time t o Pea k minu s th e Ge l Time . Example : GE L TIME : 13 ' TOTA L TIM E T O PEAK : 28 ' PEA KEXOTHERM : 325° F Here , th e interva l (or Gel-to-Peak ) is : 28 ' - 13 ' = 15 '

AUTHOR : APPROVE D BY :

B-1 1



# (oiP.8 2 

# REICHHOL

D REACTIV E POLYMERS DIVISIO N 

# TES

T PROCEDUR E

DETERMINATIO N

OF STATI C STYREN E EMISSION S FO RCOMPLIANC E WIT H SCAQM D RUL E 116 2 METHO D ISSUE D REVISE D 18-15 2

06/07/8 8 11/15/8 8 PAGE : 1 O F 3

I . SCOP E Thi s metho ddescribe s th e procedur e fo r determinin g th e weigh t los s o f styren e from

a polyeste r resi ndurin g it s ge l and cur e unde r stati c conditions . Result s ar e reporte di ng/ m fo r complianc e wit hRul e 1162' s limit-o f 6 0 g/ m

maximu m emissions . II . SAFET Y Safet y glasse s an

d protectiv e glove s ar e recommende dfo r thi s procedure . Us e car e whe nhandlin g methy l ethy l keton e peroxide . Rea dan d thoroughl y understan dth e Materia l Safet y Dat a Shee t provide dwit hthi s materia l befor e it s use . III . EQUIPMEN T 1 . Constan t temperatur e wate r bat hmaintaine da t 2 5 +/ - 0. 2 de g C . • ASTM-17 C Thermometer , (19-2 7 de g C) . Laborator y

balance , 40 0 g

m minimu m capacity , accurat e t o +/ - 0.0 1 gm . Stopwatc ho r time r capabl e o f on e secon dintervals . Disposabl e 40 0 m-

l polypropylen e beaker . 2 . 3 . 4 . .5 . 6 . 6 " woode nhandl e stainles s stee l spatul a o r woode ntongu e depresso r (6 " x3/4") . 7 . Gallo nca n lid , 14. 5 c m diameter , dee pform

t o hol d10 0 g

m resin .

Th e intormatio n herei n i s to assis t customer

s i n determinin g whethe r ou r product s are suitabl e tor thei r applications . Ou r product s are intended tor sal e to industria l an d commercia l customers . W e request tha

t customer

s inspec t an d test ou r product

s betor e us e an d satisf

y themselves a s to content s an d suitability . We warran t tha t ou r product

s wi n mee

t ou r writte n specifications . Nothin g herei n shal l constitut e an y othe r warrant

y express o r implied , includin g an y warrant

y o f merchantabilit

y o r fitness , no r i s protectio n fro m an y la wo r paten t t o b e inferred . Al l paten t right s are reserved. Th e exclusiv e remedy tor al l prove n claim s i s replacement o f ou r material s an d i n n o event shal l w e b e liabl e for special , incidenta l o r consequentia l damages . REICHHOL D CHEMICALS , INC . REACTIV E POLYMER S DIVISIO N •JACKSONVILLE , F L 32245 B-1 2 ^ (904 ) 739-2170P.8 3

METHOD : ISSUED : REVISED : PAGE : 2 18-15 2

06/07/8 8 11/15/8 8 OF 3

8 . Pape r clip ; ben t t o 9 0 de g angle . 9 . Relativ e Humidit y Meter , +/ - 3 % accuracy . 10 . Repipe t dispense r 5 m l capacit y wit h0.0 5 ml graduation s (Fishe r Scientifi c Cat . No . 13-687-5 4 o r equivalent) . A Tuberculi nsyringe , 1. 0 c c capacit y

wit h1/10 0 graduation s (Fishe r Scientifi c Cat . No . 14-820-1 5 o r equivalent ) ma y als o b e used . IV . REAGENT S 1 . MEK P (Typ e specifie donMaste r Formula) . V . PROCEDUR E 1 . Plac e ben t pape r cli ponca nlid . 2 . Weig hcanlid.t o +/ - O.Olgm . Recor dweight . 3 . Recor drelativ e humidit y andambien t temperature . 4 . Weig h20 0 +/ - O.lg m o f resi nint o polypropylen e beaker . 5 . Adjus t temperatur e o f resi nt o 2 5 +/ - 0. 2 de g C . 6 . Inser t meta l spatula , woode ntongu e depresso r o r thermometer . I f th e woode ntongu e i s use dth e depresso r muc hb e coate d1/ 2 inc habov e th e resi nleve l wit hpresiousl y weighe dresi nt o preven t absorptio no f cobal t solution , MEK P o r any additiona l additives . Ad dth e typ e and amoun t o f MEK P specifie di nth e Maste r Formula , the nstar t th e stopwatch . Mi xthoroughl y fo r on e (1 ) minute . 7 . Plac e th e gallo nli do nth e balanc e the ntare . The npou r 10 0 +/ - 0.5g m o f catalyze dresi nint o th e lid . Recor dth e weigh t o f resi nt o +/ - O.Olgm . 8 . Not e th e ge l time o f resi nremainin g i nth e beaker . Determin e th e ge l time o f th e resi ni nth e ca nli db y cautiousl y

liftin g pape r clip . Recor dge l time o f resi ninth e ca nlid . Avoi dexcessiv e movemen t o f th e pape r cli pa s thi s wil l interfer e wit hth e results .

B-1 3 

# 1 5P.8 4 .

METHO D ISSUE D REVISE D 18-152 .

06/07/8 8 11/15/8 8 PAGE : 3 O F 3

9 . Allo w

th e resi nt o cur e i

nth e li dfo r on e (1 ) hour , o r unti l th e resi nha s coole dt o roo m temperature . NOT E I : I f balanc e us e i s required , remov e th e ca nli dfrom th e balanc e afte r ge l an

dplac e th e li do na hea t conductiv e surfac e unti l weigh t bac k i s required . NOT E II : A

draft-fre e are a i s require dfo r th e test . 10 . Recor dth e fina l weigh t o f resi ninth e ca nli dt o +/ - O.Olgm , o r recor dth e fina l weigh t o f resi nplu s th e ca nli dt o +/ - O.Olgm . VI . CALCULATIO N 1 . Styren e los s ing/ m (E )
a . Ca nli dlef t onbalanc e fo r duratio no f tes t E = ( W - W ) A . Where : W

= initia l weigh t o f resi n W = fina l weigh t o f resi n A = 60.5 6 fo r 14.5cm

li d b . Ca nli dremove dfro m balanc e durin g tes t fo r othe r balanc e us e E = ( W + W-W) A Where : W

= initia l weigh t o f resi n W * weigh t o f ca nli dandpape r cli p W = fina l weigh t o f resi nplu s ca nli d A = 60.5 6 fo r 14.5cm

li d VII . REPOR T Resi n Batc hNumbe r Ge l Time , Catalyst , an dCatalys t Leve l Relativ e Humidit y Ambien t Temperatur e Styren e Los s i

ng/ m Author : Approve dby : B-14 fP.8 5

Appendix C Verification an

dIntercompariso n o

f CompressedGa s Calibratio n Standard s

C- iP.8 6

APPENDI

X C . VERIFICATION AN D INTERCOMPARISON OF COMPRESSED GA S CALIBRATION STANDARD S Styren e andpropan e compressedga s calibratio n standard s usedt o calibrate th e Ratfisch tota l hydrocarbo n analyzer

wer e purchase di n 1994 and199 5 fro mScot t Specialt y Gase s in Durham , Nort

h Carolina
. The styrene calibratio n standard s couldnot b e useddirectly fo

r routin e calibration s durin g styrene emission testin g becaus e of cylinde r pressure limitation s associate dwit

h styrene' s de w point
. Instead , propane calibratio n standard s without suchpressure limitation s were use dfo

r th e routin e calibrations
. Prio r t o th e styren e emissio n testin g a t Reichhol dChemical , the certifiedconcentration s ofth e styrene an dpropane calibratio n standard s wer e verifieda

t RTI
. Additionally , the styrene andpropane calibratio n standard s wer e intercompare dusin g th e tota l hydrocarbon analyze

r to obtain apropane-to-styren e correctio n factor fo r th e styren e emissio n testing
. Thi s sectio n discusse s th e verificatio n and intercompariso n ofth e calibratio n standards
. Th e styren e i n nitrogen calibratio n standard s wer e verifiedusing aHewlet

t Packar d Model 5890 , Serie s II ga s chromatographwit haflam e ionizatio n detector , aga s samplin g valve , anda10-foo

t lon g by 1/8-inc

h O D stainles s steel colum

n packedwit

h10-percen

t OV-10 1 o n Chromasor

b WHP , 80/10 0 mes h a

t a n ove n temperatur

e o f 15 0 degree s Celsiu s (oC ) isothermal
. The analytica

l referenc e standard s wer

e prepare dby seria

l dilutio n ofaprimar

y standar dthat wa s prepare dby injectio n o f

liqui dstyren e andgaseou s nitrogen into acanister
. The analytical referenc e standar

dconcentration s wer

e 249 , 25.1 , and2.4 9 part s pe r millio n b y volume (ppmv)
. . Each analytica

l referenc e standar

dandcalibratio n standar

dwa s analyzedthre e time s i n successio n befor

e th e nex t standar dwa s analyzed
. Styren e concentration s wer e calculate dby linea r interpolatio n between th e neares t tw o analytica

l referenc e standar

dmeasurements
. The propan e i n air

calibratio n standard s wer

e verifie dusin g aHewlet

t Packar dModel 5890 , Serie s II ga s chromatograp h wit haflame ionizatio n detector , aga s samplin g valve , an da 6-foo t lon g by 1/8-inc

h O D stainles s steel colum

n packe dwit

hn-octane/Porasi l C

j 80/10 0 mes h a t a n oven temperature o f

4 0 o C isothermal
. The analytica l referenc e standard s wer

e National Institute o f

Standard s andTechnolog y (NIST) Standar dReferenc e Material s (SRMs ) containin g propan e i n ai r

a t concentration s o f

476 , 94.8,48.6 , and0.9 9 part s ppmv . Eachanalytica l referenc e standardan dcalibratio n standar dwa s analyze dfive time s i n successio n befor

e th e nex t standar dwa s analyzed
. Propan e concentration s wer e calculate dfro

maleas t square s regressio n lin e determine dfromth e analytica l referenc e standar

dmeasurements
. The result s ofth e styren e andpropane calibratio n standar dverification s ar

e given in th e following table :

C- 1 

# 1 ?P.8 7

Stampe dCylinde

r Number

AAL1746 1

BAL370 3
BAL136 1
ALM03682 6 BAL431 9 1A00979 7 ALM04416 2 ALM01933 6 AAL4968(1 ) A02261 7 A1215 8 A540 6 Scott

- Certified

Concentratio n

237. 1 ppm styrene(about

175 pp mupon reanalysis ) 81. 5 ppmstyrene 49. 5 ppmstyren e 10. 7 ppmstyrene 5.1 2 ppmstyrene 45 4 ppmpropan e 27 5 ppmpropane 150. 9 ppmpropane 95. 4 ppmpropane 44. 8 ppmpropane 26. 9 ppmpropane 15.9 5 pp mpropane RTI-Verified

Concentratio n (yea r o f RTI verification ) 18 4 ppm(95 )

85. 0 ppm(94 ) 87. 9 ppm(95 ) 53. 4 pp m(94 ) 53. 9 ppm(95 ) 9.8 3 ppm(95 ) 5.42 ppm(94 ) 5.3 3 ppm(95)
. 453. 6 ppm(95 ) 278. 0 pp m(95 ) 153. 4 pp m(95 ) 95.7 7 ppm(93 ) 96. 9 pp m(95 ) 45.0 3 ppm(95 ) 27.0 2 ppm(95 ) 15.9 9 ppm.(95 ) Percen t Differenc e

-22. 4

+4. 3 +7. 9 +7. 9 +8. 9 -8. 1 +5. 9 +4. 1 -0. 1 +1. 1 +1. 7 +0. 4 +1. 6 +0. 5 +0. 4 +0. 3 (1 ) Thi s calibratio n standardwa s no t use dfo r routine calibration s durin g th e styrene emissio n testing , but

wa s useddurin g th e evaluatio n of th e tota l hydrocarbo n analyzer
. In general , the Scott-certifie dconcentration s andth e RTI-verifie dconcentration s fo r fou r o f five styren e calibratio n standard s agreedto within +/-1 0 percent
. However , the agreemen t wa s -22. 4 percent

fo r AA L 17461
. Thi s calibratio n standar dwa s returne dto Scot

t Specialt y Gase s fo r reanalysi s andit s concentratio n wa s foun dto hav e shiftedsinc e it s first analysis
. I t wa s judge dt o b e unstabl e andwa s no t usedfo r routin e calibrations
. Thre e othe r styren e calibratio n standard s (i.e. , BAL1361 , BAL3703 , andBAL4319 ) ha dbeen verifiedby RT

I in 1994
. The reasonably goo dagreemen t betwee n RTFs 199

4 and199 5 value s fo

r thes e thre e calibratio n standard s support s th e belief s tha t all styrene calibratio n standard s wer e measure d accurately andtha

t th e styren e concentration s ar e stabl e ove

r th e time perio dbetween th e verifications
. C- 2

^P.8 8

The Scott-certifie dpropane concentration s an dthe RTI-verifie dconcentration s agreedt o withi n +/

- 2 percent

fo r all seve n propan e calibratio n standards
. One propan e calibratio n standard(i.e
. AAL4968 ) hadbee n verifie dby RT

I in 1993
. The goo dagreement between RTI' s 199 3 and199 5 value s fo

r thi s calibratio n standar

dsupport s the belief

s tha t al l propan e calibratio n standard s wer

e measure daccurately andtha t the propane concentration s ar e stabl e ove

r the tim e perio dbetween th e verifications
. The 199 5 RTI-verifiedconcentration s fo r th e propan e calibratio n standard s wer

e usedi n the routin e calibration s during th e styren e emission s testing
. Th e styren e andpropan e calibratio n standard s wer e intercompare dusin g th e Ratfisch tota l hydrocarbo n analyze

r to obtain apropane-to-styren e correctio n factor fo r th e styren e emissio n testing
. The calibratio n standard s wer e deliveredto th e analyzer

in amanner

ver y simila r t o tha t employe ddurin g routin e calibrations
. The analyze r operatin g parameter s were identica l t o thos e useddurin g styrene emissio n testing
. Two styrene calibratio n standards , fou r propan e calibratio n standards , andzer o air wer e measuredtwic e o n Rang e 2 (0 t o 20 0 ppm v styrene)
. Tw o other

styren e calibratio n standards , thre e othe r propan e standards , an dzero ai r wer e measure dtwic e on Rang e 1 ( 0 to 2 0 ppm v styrene)
. Leas t

square s regressio n analysi s o f 2

- minut e mea n voltage s yielde dthe following slope s fo r the styrene andpropan e regressio n lines :
Styren e Slop e (Volts/ppmv ) Propan e Slop e (Volts/ppmv ) Slop e Rati o Rang e 2 0.0492 8 0.0183 4
2.68 6 Rang e 1 0.5055 0 0.1830 5 2.76 2 A styren e molecul e ha s 8 carbo n atom s andapropane molecul e ha s 3 carbo n atoms
. A s a first approximation , one wouldexpect th e propane-to-styrene correctio n facto r to equa l th e rati o ofth e carbo n atom s (i.e. , 8/ 3 = 2.667)
. The measure dslop e ratio s ar e in goo dagreement

wit h thi s theoretical value , particularly fo r Rang e 2
.

C-

3 

# 1 5P.8 9

Appendix D Summar y o f Calibratio n Data , Calibratio n Error Tests , andDrif

t Check s

D- i
~^G ?P.9 0

APPENDI

X D . SUMMAR

Y O F CALIBRATION DATA , CALIBRATIO N ERRO R TESTS , AN

D DRIF T CHECKS The tota l hydrocarbo n analyze

r wa s calibrate dprio r

t o eac htes t

ru n andacalibratio n drif

t chec k wa s don e a

t th e endo f

each tes t run . Thi s sectio n present s asummar y o f th e calibratio n data , includin g calibratio n error test s an ddrif t checks
. The calibratio n requirement s o f EP A Metho d25 A wer

e met or exceede dfo

r th e styrene emissio n tests
. The metho dspecifie s tha t th e calibratio n error

mus t b e les s tha

n +/

- 5 percen

t ofth e calibratio n standard' s concentration
. The mid-leve l calibratio n erro r

wa s les s tha

n +/- 1 percent

fo r al l tes t run s andth e low-leve l calibratio n error

wa s les s tha

n +/

- 2 percen

t fo r all tes t runs . The metho dspecifie s tha t th e zero andcalibratio n drift s mus t

b e les s tha

n +/

- 3 percent

o f scale
. Th e zer

o andcalibratio n drift s wer e les s tha n or equa l to +/- 1 percen

t ful l scale (% FS ) fo

r all tes t runs . The propan e calibratio n standard s tha t RT I ha dverifie dandintercompare dwit hstyren e calibratio n standard s wer

e usedfo r routine calibrations
. The RTI-verifie dconcentration s wer e useda s th e value s fo

r thes e calibratio n standards
. For mos t tes t runs , th e styren e measurement s wer e mad e usin g Rang e 2 ofth e analyzer
. Thes e measurement s wer e recorde dby a

n Omeg a Engineerin g model OM-17 0 datalogge r an daHewlett-Packar

dmodel 7132

A strip char

t recorder
. The discussio n o f calibratio n error

test s anddrif

t check s in thi s sectio n i s base do n thos e datarecorde dby th e strip char t recorder
. Thes e datahav e a n approximat

e resolutio n o f

1/ 4 %FS
. The tota

l hydrocarbo n analyzer' s respons e to th e high-leve l calibratio n standar d throughout

th e styren e emissio n testin g i s summarize di n th e following table
. The analyzer wa s operate don Rang e 2 fo

r all tes t runs , except

fo r thos e Rang e 1 tes t

run s marke dby asterisk s in th e table
. The analyzer' s zero andspa n pot s wer e no t adjuste ddurin g th e entire 5-wee k testin g period
. Thi s tabl e demonstrate s tha t th e analyzer' s calibratio n remaine dver y stabl e durin g th e testin g period
. Al l 5 3 measurement s ofth e high-level calibratio n standar don Rang e 2 fell between 8 7 and90. 5 % FS
. Tes t Run

P I P2 P 3 P 4 P5 High-Level

Cal
. Std
. Respons e (% FS ) 89.7 5 90.5 0 90.0 0 89.5 0 89.7 5 Tes t

Ru n

G l G 2 G3 G 4 G5 High-Level

Cal
. Std. ' Respons e (% FS ) 89.2 5 88.7 5 89.2 5 89.2 5 88.5 0 Tes t

Ru n

R l R2 R 3 R4 *
. R5 High-Level

Cal
. Std
. Respons e (% FS ) 88.7 5 89.0 0 88.7 5 89.5 0 88.5 0
D- 1P.9 1

Tes t Ru n

P 6 P7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 Pl l P1 2 High-Level

Cal
. Std
. Respons e (% FS ) 88.5 0 89.0 0 89.5 0 88.5 0 89.2 5 89.0 0 89.00 Tes t

Ru n

G 6 G 7 G 8 G 9 G1 0 Gi l G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5 G1 6 G1 7 G1 8 High-Level

Cal
. Std
. Respons e (% FS ) 88.7 5 90.0 0 90.5 0 90.0 0 90.0 0 90.2 5 89.7 5 89.5 0 89.5 0 88.5 0 88.7 5 88.5 0 88.7 5 Tes t

Ru n

R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 RIO Rl l R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R16 * R1 7 R18 * R1 9 R2 0 R2 1 R2 2 R2 3 R24 R2 5 High-Leve l

Cal
. Std
. Respons e (% FS ) 87.7 5 88.0 0 88.2 5 88.5 0 88.0 0 88.2 5 88.0 0 88.0 0 88.5 0 88.5 0 89.0 0 87.0 0 88.0 0 88.7 5 89.0 0 87.7 5 87.5 0 88.0 0 88.2 5 87.7 5 * .Analyze r operate don Rang e 1 ( 0 to 2 0 pp mstyrene)
. EP A Metho d25 A specifie s tha t calibratio n error

test s b e conducte dimmediately prio r t o eac h tes t run . Afte r th e analyzer' s calibratio n equatio n wa s determine db y measurement s ofth e high-leve l calibratio n standar dandzero air , th e linearit

y ofth e calibratio n curv e wa s teste dby measurement s ofth e mid-leve l andlow-leve l calibratio n standards
. Th e calibratio n error i s
D- 2

< &P.9 2

calculate da s th e differenc e betwee n the analyzer' s actua

l respons e t

o thes e calibratio n standard s an dth e respons e tha

t i s predicte dfro

mth e calibratio n equation
. The metho dspecifie s tha t th e calibratio n erro r

mus t b e les s tha

n +/

- 5 percent

ofth e calibratio n standard' s concentration
. The following tabl e demonstrate s tha t th e mid-level calibratio n error wa s les s tha

n +/

- 1 percent

fo r all tes t run s andtha

t th e low-level calibratio n error wa s les s tha

n +/

- 2 percent

fo r all tes t runs . Othe r datanot reporte dher

e support s the belie f

tha t th e analyzer' s calibratio n curv e i s astraight line
. Tes t Run P I P2 P 3 P 4 P5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 Pl l P1 2 G l G 2 G 3 G 4 G5 G6 G7 G 8 Mid-Level Cal
. Erro r (percent) -1.3 0 -0.3 5 0.1 9 -0.6 0 0.0 2 0.0 5 -0.5 0 -0.1 5 0.0 5 0.1 2 -0.5 0 -0.5 0
. -0.3 3 -0.2 3 -0.3 3 -0.5 0 0.0 5 -0.2 3 0.0 2 0.1 8 Low-Level Cal
.

Error (percent)
-1.7 1 -0.9 7 0.2 8 -0.7 1

. -0.9 6 0.3 1 -0.2 0 -0.7 1 -0.4 5 -0.4 6 -1.7 2 -0.9 6 -0.4 6 -0.7 1 -1.2 1 -1.7 0 -0.4 5 0.0 5 -0.9 6 0.0 3 Tes t

Run R l R2 R 3

• R4 * R 5 R 6 R7 R 8 R 9 R1 0 Rl l R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R16 * R1 7 R18 * R1 9 R2 0 Mid-Level

Cal
. Error (percent) -0.4 0 -0.2 3 0.2 2 0.0 8 0.0 5 -0.0 3 0.1 5 -0.1 3 -0.4 0 0.6 0 -0.1 3 -0.0 3 -0.0 3 -0.5 7 -0.1 3 0.7 1 -0.2 7 -0.7 4 -0.2 3 0.3 9 Low-Level

Cal
. Erro r (percent) -1.2 0 -0.7 0 0.0 5

. -0.7 3 -0.4 5 -0.4 4 -0.7 0 -0.9 6 -1.2 1 0.0 6 -0.9 6 -1.2 0 -0.44 -0.9 5 -0.9 5 -0.4 3 -0.9 4 -0.3 9 0.0 5 -0.2 0 D- 3P.9 3

• Tes t Ru n G 9 G1 0 Gi l G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5 G1 6 G1 7 G1 8 Mid-Level Cal
. Error (percent)
-0.4 2 -0.4 2 -0.5 2 -0.5 9 -0.6 0 -0.6 0 -0.4 0 -0.2 3 -0.4 0 -0.2 3 Low-Level Cal
.

Error (percent )
-0.9 6 -1.7 0 -1.4 6 -1.4 5 -0.7 1 -1.4 6 -0.4 5 -0.7 1 -1.2 1 -0.7 1 Tes t

Ru n R2 1 R2 2 R2 3 R24 R2 5 Mid-Level

Cal
. Error (percent) -0.0 3 0.5 3 0.1 5 -0.1 3 -0.4 8 Low-Leve l

Cal
. Erro r (percent) -1.2 1 -0.6 9 -0.7 0 -0.9 6 -1.2 1

* Analyzer

operate do n Rang e 1 ( 0 t o 2 0 ppmstyrene)
. EP A Metho d25 A specifie s tha t zer o an dcalibratio n drif

t check s b e conducte d immediately following th e completio n o f eac htes t run . Th e sam

e mid-leve l calibratio n standard andzero air

tha t wer e measure ddurin g th e calibratio n are t o b e remeasure da t th e endo f th e tes t run . The metho dspecifie s tha t the zer o an dcalibratio n drift s mus t

b e les s tha

n +/

- 3 percent

o f scale
. The following tabl e demonstrate s tha t the zer o an dcalibratio n drift s wer e les s tha n or equa l t o +/

- 1 % FS fo

r al l tes t runs . Tes t Ru n

P I P 2 P 3 P 4 P5 P 6 Zer

o Drif t (% FS ) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mid-Level

Cal
. Drif t ( % FS ) 0.5 0 0.2 5 0.5 0 0.2 5 0.00 -0.5 0 Tes t

Ru n

R l R2 R3 R4 * R 5 R 6 Zer

o Drif t (% FS ) 0.0 0 -0.2 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 Mid-Leve l

Cal
. Drif t (% FS ) 0.2 5 0.0 0 -0.2 5 0.2 5 -0.5 0 0.5 0

D- 4 

# g PP.9 4

Tes t Run

P 7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 Pl l P1 2 G l G2 G 3 G 4 G5 G 6 G7 G 8 G 9 G1 0 Gi l G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5 G1 6 G1 7 G1 8 Zero Drif

t (% FS )
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 -0.2 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.2 5 -0.2 5 0.2 5 -0.2 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mid-Level

Cal
. Drif t (% FS ) 0.5 0 -0.5 0 0.2 5 -0.5 0 0.00 0.5 0 -0.2 5 0.2 5 0.2 5 -0.2 5 0.00 0.2 5 0.2 5 -0.5 0 0.5 0 0.00 -0.2 5 0.0 0 0.00 -0.5 0 -0.5 0 -0.2 5 0.2 5 0.00 Tes t

Ru n

R 7 R 8 R9 RI O Rl l R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R16 *

. R1 7 R18 * R1 9 R20 R2 1 R22 R2 3 R24 R25 Zero Drif

t (% FS )
0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 -0.2 5 0.00 -0.7 5 0.00 0.0 0 0.00

• -0.2 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 Mid-Level

Cal
. Drif t (% FS ) 0.0 0 0.00 0.2 5 -0.2 5 0.00 0.2 5 0.0 0 0.2 5 -0.7 5 -0.2 5 0.2 5 0.0 0 0.5 0 -1.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.2 5 0.7 5

* Analyzer

operate don Rang e 1 (0 to 2 0 ppmstyrene)
. D- 5P.9 5

Appendix E A Summar

y o f Emission Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , andCalculate dEmissio n Quantitie s an

dEmission Factor s fo

r the Tes t

E- i 

# 8z

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

m 

# u Dat e Tim e Tes t ru n #

EXPERIMENTA L RUN S 6/6/9 5 6/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 7/7/9 5 10:2 2

14:5 5 12:1 9 14:1 2 RF1-EX P GF1-EX P EXP 1 EXP 2 PILO T EXPERIMEN T 6/7/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 678/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 14:5 0

10:0 1 12:1 1 14:4 0 10:2 0 14:4 5 10:3 6 13:4 7 15:4 4 10:3 7 12:5 7 15:2 1 Averag e (1 2 runs ) I P 1

P2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 P1 1 P1 2

M1-Norma l sprayin g ( 6 runs ) M2-Controlle d sprayin g ( 6 run s I I A2-Hig h ai rvelocit y( 6 runs ) A 1 -Lo w ai rvelocit y( 6 runs ) I M1/A 1 ( 3 runs ) M2/A 1 ( 3 runs ) M1/A 2 ( 3 runs ) M2/A 2 ( 3 runs ) Material / containe r#

RF 1 GF 1 GF 1 GF 1

GF 1 #1 0 GF1# 1 GF 1 # 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF 1 #1/# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 Equip

.

RE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1

GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 Applicatio n

Metho d

Norma l Norma l Enclose d Part

. End

.

Controlle d Norma l Controlle d Norma l Controlle d Norma l Controlle d Norma l Controlle d Controlle d Norma l Norma l

, Ai rVel

.

Hig h Hig h Lo w Lo w

Lo w Hig h Hig h Hig h Lo w Lo w Hig h Lo w Hig h Lo w Hig h Lo w Avg

. sqr t

. (delt a P )

0.369 3 0.365 7 0.337 6 0.346 4

0.358 2 0.361 9 0.360 5 0.346 4 0.353 5 0.347 6 0.355 9 0.352 4 0.346 4 0.364 7 0.362 3 0.358 2 0.355 7 0.354 8 0.356 5 0.355 6 0.355 8 0.352 7 0.358 8 0.356 9 0.354 3 Exhaus t flo w

rate , cf m

912 4 905 4 851 0 868 1

890 9 898 0 895 3 868 1 881 8 870 4 886 4 879 6 868 1 903 4 898 7 890 9 886 0 884 3 887 6 885 8 886 2 880 3 892 0 888 3 883 3 Avg

. conc .

pp m

6.9 4 7.5 4 1.0 6 4.9 0

4.1 8 7.6 0 5.3 9 7.7 5 5.1 4 6.6 2 5.2 8 7.8 5 6.5 7 5.6 4 6.4 9 6.6 1 6.2 6 7.1 5 5.3 7 6.5 1 6.0 1 7.0 3 4.9 9 7.2 8 5.7 5 Backgroun d conc , pp m

0.5 9 0.2 3 0.4 8 0.4 2

0.3 2 0.4 7 0.3 3 0.3 6 0.4 2 0.4 1 0.2 9 0.3 2 0.6 5 0.5 3 0.4 5 0.5 9 0.4 3 0.4 3 0.4 2 0.4 3 0.4 3 0.4 4 0.4 3 0.4 3 0.4 2 Avg

. ne t conc , pp m

6.3 5 7.3 0 0.5 8 4.4 8

3.8 5 7.1 4 5.0 5 7.3 9 4.7 2 6.2 1 4.9 9 7.5 3 5.9 2 5.1 1 6.0 4 6.0 2 5.8 3 6.7 2 4.9 4 6.0 9 5.5 7 6.5 9 4.5 6 6.8 6 5.3 2 Tes t ru n duration , mi n

88. 8 56. 2 102. 2 31. 2

76. 3 68. 2 68. 8 66. 8 77. 8 76. 3 78. 7 68. 2 66. 9 70. 0 71. 9 72. 3 71. 8 70. 6 73. 1 70. 2 73. 5 72. 3 74. 7 69. 0 71. 5 Tota l emission s

b yTHC , g

63 1 45 6 6 2 14 9

32 2 53 6 38 2 52 6 39 7 50 6 42 7 55 4 42 2 39 6 47 9 47 6 45 2 51 3 39 1 46 2 44 2 51 2 37 2 51 4 41 0

SUMNEW.XL S

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

m i I O ^ . r Dat e Tim e Tes t m n #

EXPERIMENTA L RUN S 6/6/9 5 6/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 7/7/9 5 10:2 2

14:5 5 12:1 9 14:1 2 RF1-EX P GF1-EX P EXP 1 EXP 2 PILO TEXPERIMEN T 6/7/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 14:5 0

10:0 1 12:1 1 14:4 0 10:2 0 14:4 5 10:3 6 13:4 7 15:4 4 10:3 7 12:5 7 15:2 1 Averag e (1 2 mns ) 

### I P 1

P2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 P1 1 P1 2

M1-Norma l sprayin g ( 6 mns ) Material / containe rft

RF 1 GF 1 GF 1 GF 1

GF 1 #1 0 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF 1 # 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF 1 #1/# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2

M2-Controlle d sprayin g ( 6 mns ) I I A2-Hig h ai rvelocit y( 6 mns ) Al-Lo w ai rvelocit y( 6 mns ) 1 M1/A 1 ( 3 runs ) M2/A1(3runs ) M1/A 2 ( 3 mns ) M2/A 2 ( 3 runs ) Equip

.

RE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1

GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 Avg

. sprayin g

conc , pp m

65.7 4 41.3 1 1.0 5 45.2 5

29.7 3 43.7 1 42.1 4 65.2 4 39.4 4 59.0 3 48.3 0 74.0 4 52.8 2 41.8 0 64.6 0 58.4 4 51.6 1 60.8 4 42.3 7 52.8 0 50.4 1 63.8 4 36.9 9 57.8 5 47.7 5 Avg

. ne t spraying , pp m

65.1 4 41.0 8 0.5 7 44.8 3

29.4 1 43.2 4 41.8 0 64.8 7 39.0 1 58.6 2 48.0 1 73.7 1 52.1 7 41.2 7 64.1 5 57.8 5 51.1 8 60.4 1 41.9 5 52.3 7 49.9 8 63.3 9 36.5 6 57.4 2 47.3 3 Sprayin g time , mi n

4. 5 5. 0 2. 0 2. 2

4. 2 6. 5 3. 0 3. 7 3. 2 3. 5 3. 0 3. 4 3. 2 3. 2 3. 0 3. 2 3. 6 3. 9 3. 3 3. 7 3. 4 3. 4 3. 5 4. 4 3. 1 Emission s

durin g applicatio n (byTHC )

32 8 22 8 1 10 3

13 4 31 0 13 8 25 3 13 4 21 9 15 7 27 1 17 6 14 5 21 4 20 4 19 6 24 5 14 7 20 8 18 4 23 1 13 8 25 9 15 7 Std

. Dev

. o f applicatio n emission s (byTHC )

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 5 7 3 7 1 5 5 9 5 1 2 8 5 3 9 1 6 Wt

. los s fro m part durin g curin g stag e (b yMB )

26 4 19 3 4 4 5 0

16 7 190 22 1 20 3 22 4 24 2 23 5 21 7 21 3 22 1 23 5 21 8 21 6 21 8 21 4 21 6 21 5 22 6 20 4 20 9 22 3 Std

. Dev

. o f curin g los s fro m par t (b yMB )

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 2 0 1 8 2 2 1 6 2 3 1 2 2 6 1 9 9 Wt

. los s durin g applicatio n an d fro m overspray , g (b yMB )

62 2 28 5 2 1 10 2

21 3 41 7 22 1 21 2 18 8 26 4 23 1 28 2 17 6 23 6 30 0 22 4 24 7 28 3 21 1 26 0 23 5 25 7 21 2 31 0 20 9

SUMNEW.XL S

^ i

## (A) 

# A' m

i C O 

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

Dat e Tim e Tes t m n # EXPERIMENTA L RUN S 6/6/9 5 6/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 7/7/9 5 10:2 2

14:5 5 12:1 9 14:1 2 RF1-EX P GF1-EX P EXP 1 EXP 2 PILO T EXPERIMEN T 6/7/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 14:5 0

10.0 1 12:1 1 14:4 0 10:2 0 14:4 5 10:3 6 13:4 7 15:4 4 10:3 7 12:5 7 15:2 1 Averag e (1 2 mns ) I P 1

P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 P1 1 P1 2

Ml-Norma l sprayin g ( 6 mns ) M2-Controlle d sprayin g ( 6 mn s 

### 1 1 A2-Hig h ai rvelocit y( 6 mns ) A1-Lo w ai rvelocit y( 6 mns ) I M1/A 1 ( 3 mns ) M2/A 1 ( 3 mns ) M1/A 2 ( 3 mns ) M2/A 2 ( 3 mns ) Material / containe r#

RF 1 GF 1 GF 1 GF 1

GF 1 #1 0 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF 1 #1/# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 Equip

.

RE I GE 1 GE 1 GE 1

GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 Tota l emission s

b yMB , g

88 6 47 8 6 5 15 2

38 0 60 7 44 2 41 5 41 2 50 6 46 6 49 9 38 9 45 7 53 5 44 2 46 3 50 1 42 4 47 6 44 9 48 2 41 6 51 9 43 2 Rati o o f tw o measuremen t method s (MB/THC )

1.4 0 1.0 5 1.0 5 1.0 2

1.1 8 1.1 3 1.1 6 o.7 g 1.0 4 1.0 0 1.0 9 0.9 0 0.9 2 1.1 5 1.1 2 0.9 3 1.0 3 0.9 8 1.0 9 1.0 3 1.0 3 0.9 4 1.1 2 1.0 1 1.0 6 Materia l used , g

928 7 156 4 173 2 173 7

156 4 226 1 169 5 206 7 196 4 220 4 190 0 205 6 206 4 202 1 207 7 204 9 199 4 211 9 186 8 201 1 197 6 210 3 185 0 213 5 188 6 Transfe r

eff

. %

90. 1 75. 5 99. 9 94. 2

79. 8 66. 1 80. 0 74. 0 85. 1 75. 7 81. 2 73. 8 85. 0 82. 6 74. 5 77. 7 78. 0 73. 6 82. 3 76. 8 79. 1 75. 7 82. 5 71. 5 82. 1 Styren e content , %

38.3 3 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5

38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 I EF , % availabl e styren e b yTH C

17. 7 75. 2 9. 2 22. 2

53. 1 61. 2 58. 2 65. 7 52. 2 59. 2 58. 0 69. 6 52. 7 50. 6 59. 5 60. 0 58. 3 62. 5 54. 1 59. 2 57. 4 62. 9 52. 0 62. 1 56. 3 b yM B

24. 9 78. 9 9. 7 22. 6

62. 7 69. 3 67. 3 51. 8 54. 1 59. 2 63. 3 62. 6 48. 6 58. 4 66. 5 55. 7 60. 0 60. 9 59. 1 61. 1 58. 8 59. 2 58. 4 62. 5 59. 7 

### 1 Std

. Dev.

. % A S b yTH C

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 5. 4 3. 8 2. 9 3. 9 6. 5 4. 7 1. 0 2. 6 2. 5 b yM B

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 6. 2 6. 0 6. 2 8. 0 3. 2 2. 8 3. 5 7. 7 8. 0 Tota l mol d surface , m 2

2.2 8 2.2 8 0.3 2 0.4 5

2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8

SUMNEW.XL S

T l CO 0 0

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

Q> m

i Dat e Tim e Tes t m n # EXPERIMENTA L RUN S 6/6/9 5 6/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 7/7/9 5 10:2 2

14:5 5 12:1 9 14:1 2 RF1-EX P GF1-EX P EXP 1 EXP 2 PILO T EXPERIMEN T 6/7/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/8/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/9/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/12/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 6/13/9 5 14:5 0

10:0 1 12:1 1 14:4 0 10:2 0 14:4 5 10:3 6 13:4 7 15:4 4 10:3 7 12:5 7 15:2 1 Averag e (1 2 mns ) I P 1

P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8 P 9 P1 0 P l l P1 2

Ml-Norma l sprayin g ( 6 mns ) M2-Controlle d sprayin g ( 6 mn s 1 1 A2-Hig h ai rvelocit y( 6 mns ) A1-Lo w ai rvelocit y( 6 mns ) 

### I M1/A1(3mns ) M2/A 1 ( 3 runs ) M1/A2(3runs ) M2/A2(3runs ) Material / containe r#

RF 1 GF 1 GF 1 GF 1

GF 1 #1 0 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF1# 1 GF 1 #1/# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 GF1# 2 Equip

.

RE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1

GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 

### 1

EF. j b yTH C

27 7 20 0 19 4 33 2

14 1 23 6 16 8 23 1 17 5 22 2 18 8 24 4 18 5 174 21 0 20 g 19 9 22 5 17 2 20 3 19 4 22 5 16 3 22 6 18 0 i/m 2 b yM B

38 9 21 0 20 5 33 9

16 7 26 7 19 4 18 2 18 1 22 2 20 5 21 9 17 1 20 1 23 5 19 4 20 3 22 0 18 6 20 9 19 7 21 2 18 3 22 8 19 0 I Std

. Dev. , g/m 2 b yTH C

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. 2 12. 6 15. 2 24. 8 34. 2 14. 2 15. 6 10. 9 8. 8 b yM B

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 27. 6 27. 4 14. 4 32. 7 19. 6 12. 6 13. 9 34. 8 14. 1 

### 1 EF , g/ g materia l b yTH C

0.06 8 0.29 1 0.03 6 0.08 6

0.20 6 0.23 7 0.22 5 0.25 4 0.20 2 0.23 0 0.22 5 0.27 0 0.20 4 0.19 6 0.23 1 0.23 2 0.22 6 0.24 2 0.21 0 0.22 9 0.22 3 0.24 4 0.20 1 0.24 1 0.21 8 b yM B

0.09 5 0.30 6 0.03 8 0.08 8

0.24 3 0.26 8 0.26 1 0.20 1 0.21 0 0.23 0 0.24 5 0.24 3 0.18 8 0.22 6 0.25 8 0.21 6 0.23 2 0.23 6 0.22 9 0:23 7 0.22 8 0.22 9 0.22 6 0.24 2 0.23 1 1

Std

. Dev. , g/ g b yTH C

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 0.02 1 0.01 5 0.01 1 0.01 5 0.02 5 0.01 8 0.00 4 0.01 0 0.01 0 b yM B

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 0.02 4 0.02 3 0.02 4 0.03 1 0.01 2 0.01 1 0.01 4 0.03 0 0.03 1 Catalys t Ratio , %

1.3 3 1.4 0 N C N C

1.6 6 1.6 8 1.6 5 1.7 9 1.6 3 1.6 8 1.7 4 1.7 5 1.7 4 1.7 3 1.6 9 1.7 6 1.7 1 1.7 3 1.6 9 1.7 2 1.7 0 1.7 3 1.6 7 1.7 2 1.7 1 Glass/rtesi n Ratio , %

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

SUMNEW.XL S T l CO C O

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

Q D m

i c n Dat e Tim e Tes t m n # GELCOA TEXPERIMEN T 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 10:1 1

13:4 6 16:0 6 11:3 8 14:0 3 15:5 9 10:2 3 12:4 9 15:3 3 10:3 6 12:4 7 15:2 3 10:4 6 13:1 8 16:2 7 11:1 4 13:4 1 15:5 5 Averag e (1 8 mns ) I G 1

G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 G 7 G8 G9 G1 0 G1 1 G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5 G1 6 G1 7 G1 8
GFl-Regula rge l coa t ( 9 mns ) Material / containe r#
GF l # 2 GF 1 #2/# 3 GF 1 #2/# 3 GF2# 1 GF l # 3 GF1# 3 GF2# 1 GF l #3/# 4 GF 1 #3/# 4 GF l # 4 GF2#1/# 2 GF2#1/# 2 GF2# 2 GF2# 2 GF l # 4 GF2#2/# 3 GF2#2/# 3 GF2# 3

GF2-Lo w VO C ge l coa t ( 9 mns ) 

### 1 1 GE1-AA A ext mi xgu n ( 6 mns ) GE2-HVL P in t mi xgu n ( 6 mns ) GE3-HVL P ext mi xgu n ( 6 mn s 

### 1 GF1/GE 1 ( 3 mns ) GF1/GE 2 ( 3 mns ) GF1/GE3(3mns ) GF2/GE 1 ( 3 mns ) GF2/GE 2 ( 3 mns ) GF2/GE 3 ( 3 mns ) ) Equip

.

GE 3 GE 2 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 3 GE 3 GE 2 GE 3 GE 2 GE 2 GE 2 GE 1 GE 2 GE 1 GE 3 GE 3 Applicatio n

Metho d

Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Ai rVel

.

Lo w Lo w Low
Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Avg

. sqr t

(delt a P )

0.350 7 0.346 4 0.340 3 0.342 8 0.342 7 0.344 0 0.358 6 0.357 1 0.353 6 0.350 0 0.355 9 0.347 3 0.352 7 0.349 3 0.345 2 0.351 1 0.353 5 0.348 4 0.349 4 0.347 8 0.351 1 0:345 0 0.350 2 0.353 0 0.342 3 0.348 4 0.352 6 0.347 7 0.351 9 0.353 5 Exhaus t flow

rate , cf m

876 4 868 0 856 3 861 0 860 9 863 3 891 6 888 7 881 9 875 2 886 6 870 0 880 4 873 9 866 0 877 5 882 0 872 2 874 0 870 7 877 2 865 5 875 5 881 0 860 2 872 0 880 1 870 8 879 0 881 9 Avg

. cone .

pp m

5.8 0 5.8 9 6.9 4 3.8 0 5.9 2 5.8 0 3.3 8 5.6 0 5.6 5 5.6 0 3.7 7 3.4 7 3.7 7 3.3 6 5.8 1 3.4 7 3.8 0 3.8 0 4.7 6 5.8 9 3.6 2 4.8 8 4.7 3 4.6 6 6.2 2 5.7 9 5.6 7 3.5 4 3.6 7 3.6 6 Backgroun d cone , pp m

0.5 5 0.5 9 0.4 7 0.3 9 0.5 1 0.6 8 0.3 1 0.6 3 0.5 8 0.4 6 0.5 9 0.7 2 0.5 5 0.5 1 0.5 6 0.4 7 0.5 8 0.6 0 0.5 4 0.5 6 0.5 3 0.5 0 0.6 0 0.5 2 0.5 5 0.5 8 0.5 5 04 6 0.6 2 0.5 0 Avg

. ne t cone , pp m

5.2 5 5.3 0 6.4 6 3.4 1 5.4 1 5.1 3 3.0 7 4.9 7 5.0 7 5.1 4 3.1 8 2.7 4 3.2 2 2.8 5 5.2 5 3.0 0 3.2 1 3.1 9 4.2 1 5.3 3 3.1 0 4.3 8 4.1 3 4.1 4 5.6 7 5.2 1 5.1 2 3.0 9 3.0 5 3.1 6 Tes t m n duration , mi n

70. 0 70. 0 60. 3 75. 7 70. 4 71. 2 80. 7 70. 5 70. 2 69. 6 85. 1 85. 0 83. 7 87. 5 60. 7 85. 0 85. 7 82. 4 75. 8 68. 1 83. 4 75. 0 75. 8 76. 5 67. 3 67. 0 70. 0 82. 7 84. 6 82. 9 Tota l emission s

b yTHC , g

39 5 39 5 40 9 27 3 40 3 38 7 27 1 38 2 38 6 38 4 29 4 24 9 29 1 26 7 33 9 27 4 29 8 28 2 33 2 38 7 27 8 33 6 32 6 33 5 40 0 37 3 38 7 27 2 27 8 28 4

SUMNEW.XL S

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

m i C O Oat e Tim e Tes t ru n # GELCOA T EXPERIMEN T 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 10:1 1

13:4 6 16:0 6 11:3 8 14:0 3 15:5 9 10:2 3 12:4 9 15:3 3 10:3 6 12:4 7 15:2 3 10:4 6 13:1 8 16:2 7 11:1 4 13:4 1 15:5 5 Averag e (1 8 runs ) I G 1

G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 G 7 G8 G9 G1 0 G1 1 G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5 G1 6 G1 7 G1 8

GF 1 -Regula rge l coa t ( 9 runs ) GF2-Lo w VO C ge l coa t ( 9 mn s I I GEI-AAA.ex t mi xgu n ( 6 mns ) Material / containe r9
GF l # 2 GF l #2/# 3 GF 1 #2/# 3 GF2# 1 GF 1 # 3 GF1# 3 GF2# 1 GF l #3/# 4 GF l #3/# 4 GF l # 4 GF2#1/# 2 GF 2 #1/# 2 GF2# 2 GF2# 2 GF l # 4 GF 2 #2/# 3 GF 2 #2/# 3 GF2# 3

)
GE2-HVL P in t mi xgu n ( 6 mns ) GE3-HVL P ext mi xgu n ( 6 run s

„ •1 GF1/GE 1 ( 3 runs ) GF1/GE 2 ( 3 mns ) GF1/GE3(3mns ) GF2/GE 1 ( 3 mns ) GF2/GE 2 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE3<3mns ) ) Equip

.

GE 3 GE 2 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 3 GE 3 GE 2 GE 3 GE 2 GE 2 GE 2 GE 1 GE 2 GE 1 GE 3 GE 3 Avg

. sprayin g

cone , pp m

48.2 2 44.4 8 50.5 1 21.8 8 49.0 1 45.3 4 23.4 6 44.3 1 45.0 4 43.4 0 28.4 3 29.1 0 34.9 1 30.1 2 48.3 1 26.7 5 31.4 1 29.3 9 37.4 5 46.5 1 28.3 8 37.2 7 38.3 8 36.7 0 48.2 9 45.9 4 45.3 1 26.2 5 30.8 1 28.0 9 Avg

. ne t spraying , pp m

47.6 6 43.8 9 50.0 4 21.5 0 48.5 0 44.6 6 23.1 4 43.6 8 44.4 6 42.9 4 27.8 4 28.3 7 34.3 5 29.6 1 47.7 5 26.2 8 30.8 3 28.7 9 36.9 0 45.9 5 27.8 6 36.7 6 37.7 8 36.1 7 47.7 3 45.3 7 44.7 6 25.8 0 30.1 9 27.5 9 Sprayin g time , mi n

3. 0 3. 5 3. 0 4. 0 3. 0 3. 0 3. 2 3. 0 3. 2 2. 9 3. 1 3. 1 3. 0 2. 9 3. 2 3. 5 3. 0 3. 0 3. 1 3. 1 3. 2 3. 2 3. 2 3. 0 3. 0 3. 3 3. 0 3. 5 3. 1 3. 1 Emission s

durin g applicatio n (b yTHC )

154 164 15 8 9 1 15 4 14 2 8 0 14 3 15 5 13 4 9 4 9 4 11 2 9 2
• 16 2 9 9 100 9 3

. , 12 3 15 2 9 5 12 3 13 0 " 7 15 1 160 14 3 9 4 100 9 1 Std

. Dev

. o f applicatio n • emission s (byTHC )

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 3 0 9 8 2 9 3 1 2 7 7 4 8 4 9 8 Wt

. los s fro m par t durin g curin g stag e (by MB )

22 0 20 6 20 4 15 3 21 2 22 0 16 1 21 1 20 5 21 4 15 9 15 7 16 3 16 5 20 1 15 5 15 7 160 18 5 21 0 15 9 18 5 18 2 18 7 21 2 20 4 21 5 15 8 160 15 9 Std

. Dev

. o f curin g loss frompar t (byMB )

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 2 6 6 4 2 8 2 2 2 8 1 2 4 5 2 2 Wt

. los s durin g applicatio n an d fro m overspray , g (b yMB )

12 8 20 0 20 0 7 4 14 3 190 11 2 26 1 19 3 14 6 16 8 18 9 21 1 16 7 18 6 14 7 15 3 12 6 16 6 18 3 150 15 4 19 1 15 4 17 8 19 3 17 8 12 9 18 9 13 0

SUMNEW.XL S -o t o

# Ofc , -Q m

i 

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

Date Tim e Tes t m n # GELCOA T EXPERIMEN T 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 10:1 1

13:4 6 16:0 6 11:3 8 14:0 3 15:5 9 10.2 3 12:4 9 15:3 3 10:3 6 12:4 7 15:2 3 10:4 6 13:1 8 16:2 7 11:1 4 13:4 1 15:5 5 Averag e (1 8 mns ) I G 1

G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 G 7 G 8 G 9 G1 0 G1 1 G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5 G1 6 G1 7 G1 8
GF1-Regula r ge l coa

t ( 9 mns ) GF2-Lo wVO C ge l coa t ( 9 mn s I I GE1-AA A ex

t mix gu n ( 6 mns ) Material/

containe r #

GF1# 2 GF l #2/# 3 GF 1 #2/# 3 GF2# 1 GF1# 3 GF l #3 GF2# 1 GF l #3/# 4 GF 1 #3/# 4 GF1# 4 GF2#1/# 2 GF2#1/# 2 GF2# 2 GF2# 2 GF l # 4 GF2#2/# 3 GF2#2/# 3 GF2# 3

)
GE2-HVL P int mix gu n ( 6 mns ) GE3-HVL P ex

t mix gu n ( 6 mn s 1 GF1/GE 1 ( 3 mns ) GF1/GE 2 ( 3 mns ) GF1/GE3(3mns ) GF2/GE 1 ( 3 mns ) GF2/GE 2 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE 3 ( 3 mns ) ) Equip .

GE 3 GE 2 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 3 GE 3 GE 2 GE 3 GE 2 GE 2 GE 2 GE 1 GE 2 GE 1 GE 3 GE 3 Tota l emission s

b y MB , g

34 8 40 6 40 4 22 7 35 5 41 0 27 3 47 2 39 8 36 0 32 7 34 6 37 4 33 2 38 7 30 2 31 0 28 6 35 1 39 3 30 9 33 8 37 3 34 2 39 0 39 7 39 3 28 7 34 9 29 0 Rati o o f tw

o measuremen t method s (MB/THC )

0.8 8 1.0 3 0.9 9 0.8 3 0.8 8 1.0 6 1.0 1 1.2 4 1.0 3 0.9 4 1.1 1 1.3 9 1.2 8 12 4 1.1 4 1.1 0 1.0 4 1.0 1 1.07 1.0 2
•1.1 1 1.02 1.1 6 1.0 2 0.9 8 1.0 7 1.0 2 1.0 6 1.2 6 1.0 2 Materia l used , g

172 3 180 8 175 6 192 9 176 5 181 7 187 6 189 1 178 7 172 3 194 0 194 0 224 5 193 3 177 6 212 8 227 5 196 3 190 4 178 3 202 5 188 8 191 6 190 9 177 9 179 0 177 9 199 7 204 2 203 8 Transfe r

eff . %

84. 6
•81. 4 79. 0 88. 8 84. 3 82. 9 87. 3 80. 0 82. 4 84. 7 83. 3 81. 9 81. 1 81. 9 82. 0 87. 4 85. 7 85. 4 83. 6 82. 4 84. 8 84. 1 82. 0

. 84. 6 82. 1 81. 9 83. 1 86. 0 82. 1 86. 1 Styren e content , %

38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25:3 5 32.0 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 32.0 5 32.0 5 32.0 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 25.3 5 1 EF , % availabl e styren e b y TH C

59. 2 56. 4 60. 2 55. 8 58. 9 54. 9 56. 9 52. 1 55. 7 57. 6 59. 8 50. 6 51. 2 54. 6 49. 2 50. 9 51. 7 56. 6 55. 1 56. 0 54. 2 55. 9 53, 8 55. 7 58. 0 53. 8 56. 3 53. 7 53. 9 55. 1 b

y M B

52. 1 58. 0 59. 4 46. 4 51. 9 58. 2 57. 4 64. 4 57. 5 53. 9 66. 5 70. 4 65. 7 67. 8 56. 2 56. 0 53. 8 57. 5 58. 5 56. 8 60. 2 56. 6 62. 4 56. 5 56. 5 57. 2 56. 8 56. 7 67. 5 56. 2 I Std . Dev. , % A S b y TH C

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 3. 4 3. 3 3. 1 3. 0 3. 8 2. 8 2. 2 3. 2 3. 0 2. 1 4. 2 2. 4 b y M B

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 6. 1 3. 7 7. 4 6. 6 5. 4 4. 0 3. 3 0. 7 5. 4 8. 7 2. 0 1. 7 Tota l mol d surface , m 2

2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 22 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8

SUMNEW.XL S

C O

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s



# .- 8 m C O Dat e Tim e Tes t ru n tt GELCOA T EXPERIMEN T 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/14/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/15/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/16/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/19/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/21/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 6/22/9 5 10:1 1

13:4 6 16:0 6 11:3 8 14:0 3 15:5 9 10:2 3 12:4 9 15:3 3 10:3 6 12:4 7 15:2 3 10:4 6 13:1 8 16:2 7 11:1 4 13:4 1 15:5 5 Averag e (1 8 mns ) I G 1

G 2 G 3 G 4 G 5 G 6 G 7 G8 G 9 G1 0 G1 1 G1 2 G1 3 G1 4 G1 5

. G1 6 G1 7 G1 8

GF 1 -Regula rge l coa t ( 9 mns ) GF2-Lo w VO C ge l coa t ( 9 mn s I I GE1-AA A ext mi xgu n ( 6 mns ) Material / containe r#

, GF1# 2 GF l #2/# 3 GF 1 #2/# 3 GF2# 1 GF1# 3 GF 1 # 3 GF2# 1 GF l #3/# 4 GF 1 #3/# 4 GF l # 4 GF2#1/# 2 GF2#1/# 2 GF2# 2 GF2# 2 GF l # 4 GF2#2/» 3 GF2#2/# 3 GF2# 3

)
GE2-HVL P in t mi xgu n ( 6 mns ) GE3-HVL P ext mi xgu n ( 6 mn s | GF1/GE 1 ( 3 mns ) GF1/GE 2 ( 3 runs ) GF1/GE 3 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE 1 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE 2 ( 3 runs ) GF2/GE 3 ( 3 mns ) ) Equip

.

GE 3 GE 2 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 1 GE 3 GE 3 GE 2 GE 3 GE 2 GE 2 GE 2 GE 1 GE 2 GE 1 GE 3 GE S 1

EF, £ b yTH C

17 4 174 18 0 12 0 17 7 17 0 11 9 16 8 16 9 16 9 12 9 10 9 12 8 11 7 14 9 12 0 13 1 124 14 6 170 12 2 14 7 14 3 14 7 17 6 164 17 0 11 9 12 2 12 4 i/m 2 b yM B

15 3 17 8 17 7 10 0 15 6 18 0 120 20 7 17 5 15 8 14 4 15 2 164 14 6 170 13 2 13 6 12 5 154 17 3 13 5 14 9 16 4 15 0 17 1 17 4 17 3 12 6 15 3 12 7 I Std

. Dev. , g/m 2 b yTH C

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 25. 1 8. 4 6. 4 28. 4 23. 2 23. 1 4. 2 10. 9 2. 5 1. 3 9. 1 4. 8 b yM B

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 25. 1 15. 7 17. 9 27. 5 12. 4 29. 1 10. 8 3. 5 24. 5 19. 3 8. 4 6. 6 I EF , g/ g materia l b yTH C

0.22 9 0.21 8 0.23 3 0.14 1 0.22 8 0.21 3 0.14 4 0.20 2 0.21 6 0.22 3 0.15 2 0.12 8 0.13 0 0.13 8 0.19 1 0.12 9 0.13 1 0.14 4 0.17 7 0.21 7 0.13 7 0.18 0 0.17 2 0.17 9 0.22 5 0.20 8 0.21 8 0.13 6 0.13 7 0.14 0 b yM B

0.20 2 0.22 5 0.23 0 0.11 8 0.20 1 0.22 6 0.14 6 0.25 0 0.22 3 0.20 9 0.16 9 0.17 8 0.16 7 0.17 2 0.21 8 0.14 2 0.13 6 0.14 6 0.18 6 0.22 0 0.15 2 0.18 1 0.19 6 0.18 1 0.21 9 0.22 2 0.22 0 0.14 4 0.17 1 0.14 2 I

Std

. Dev. , g/ g b yTH C

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 0.04 1 0.01 3 0.00 8 0.04 5 0.03 8 0.04 0 0.00 9 0.01 2 0,01 2 0.00 5 0.01 1 0.00 6 b yM B

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 0.03 8 0.01 4 0.01 9 0.04 2 0.02 6 0.04 2 0.01 3 0.00 3 0.02 1 0.02 2 0.00 5 0.00 4 Catalys t Ratio , %

1.8 6 1.8 8 1.8 2 1.6 8 1.9 2 1.8 7 1.6 5 1.8 0 1.8 2 1.8 0 1.8 6 1.7 5 1.8 7 1.8 6 1.8 9 1.8 0 1.7 1 1.7 8 1.8 1 1.8 5 1.7 7 1.8 3 1.8 5 1.7 7 1.8 7 1.8 6 1.8 2 1.7 8 1.8 3 1.7 1 Glass/Resi n Ratio , %

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 N A N A N A N A

SUMNEW.XL S

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

m i to Dat e Tim e Tes t m n # RESI N EXPERIMEN T 6723/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/30/9 5 6/30/9 5 6/30/9 5 7/5/9 5
•7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 11:0 6

14:3 0 16:3 5 10:4 2 13:2 7 16:0 5 10:4 6 13:1 4 15:5 1 10.2 1 12:4 5 15:2 0 10:2 2 12:2 0 14:3 6 10:1 4 13:1 3 15:5 1 11:5 3 14:0 2 16:1 9 10:1 2 14:3 4 16:4 1 10:1 0 R 1 R 2 R 3 R 4 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R1 0 R1 1 R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R1 6 R1 7 R1 8 R1 9 R2 0 R2 1 R2 2 R2 3 R2 4 R2 5 Material/

containe r # RF6# 1 RF1# 3 RF1# 3 RF1# 4 RF1# 5 RF3# 1 RF 1 #5* 6 RF2# 1 RF4# 1 RF1# 6 RF 6 #1/2 RF 6 #1/2/

3 RF2# 2 RF2# 2 RF1#6/ 7 RF1#4/ 8 RF4# 2 RF 1 #4/8 RF3# 2 RF3#2/ 3 RF1#8/ 7 RF1#8/# 9 RF4# 3 RF1#8/# 9 RF4# 4 Averag e (2 5 runs , w"Normal " ru n 1 ? 10 ) Averag e (2 4 mns , w/

o "Normal " m n RIO ) 

### II . I

- , Equip .

RE I RE 2 RE 3 RE 3 RE I RE 1 RE I RE 1 RE 4 RE 1 RE I RE 1 RE 1 RE I RE 1 RE 3 RE 4 RE 2 RE 1 RE I RE I RE 1 RE 4 RE 2 RE 4

RE1/RF1-AA A ex

t mi x gu n ( 6 runs , w/ru n R10 ) RE1/RF1-AA A ex

t mix gu n ( 5 mns , w/

o m n R10 ) RE2-Flo wcoate r ( 3 mns ) | RES-Pressure-fe d rolle r ( 3 mns ) .. . RE4-AA A ex

t mi x gu n fo r BP O syste m (se e RF4 ) RF2-Lo wstyren e Resi n ( 3 mns ) RF3-Styren e suppresse d resi n (3runs ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 4 mns ) RF4-BPO-Catalyzed . Resi n ( 2 mns , slo wgel ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 2 mns , fast gel ) RF5-Wate r emulsifie d resi n (Not tested ) RF6-Styren e suppresse d resi n plu s wa x ( 3 mns ) Applicatio n

Metho d
Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlled Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Norma l Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Ai r Vel .

Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Lo w Avg . sqr

t (delta P )
0.347 8 0.346 4 0.331 6 0.340 1 0.336 6 0.336 6 0.342 7 0.339 1 0.329 5 0.336 9 0.335 4 0.336 9 0.340 3 0.336 6 0.343 8 0.336 6 0.338 0 0.334 6 0.344 0 0.335 4 0.332 7 0.341 5 0:345 2 0.336 4 0.345 1 0.338 8 0.338 9 0.339 1 0.339 5 0.339 2 0.336 1 0.338 7 0.338 7 0.339 5 0.333 8 0.345 2 N A 0.340 0 Exhaust flow

rate , cf m
871 0 868 3 839 9 856 3 849 5 849 5 861 3 854 3 835 8 850 1 847 1 850 1 856 6 849 5 863 3 849 5 852 1 845 7 863 7 847 1 841 9 858 9 866 1 849 2 865 8 853 7 853 9 854 2 855 0 854 4 848 6 853 5 853 4 855 0 844 0 865 9 N A 856 1 Avg . cone .

pp m
3.2 1 3.9 7 4.1 5 3.6 3 6.6 6 4.0 8 5.8 3 5.5 9 5.2 1 7.9 5 3.2 2 2.5 5 5.2 8 5.4 3 5.9 7 4.5 1 7.6 1 4.5 2 3.9 2 3.9 1 6.3 2 6.1 5 5.8 5 4.3 8 6.1 5 5.0 4 4.9 2 6.4 8 6.1 8 4.2 9 L 4.1 0 5.4 4 3.9 7 6.2 0 6.4 1 6.0 0 N A 2.9 9 Backgroun d cone , pp m
0.3 5 0.4 5 0.4 6 0.4 5 0.3 9 0.4 3 0.7 7 0.4 3 0.4 6 0.4 6 0.4 2 0.3 6 0.2 7 0.4 0 0.3 7 0.4 9 0.5 1 0.4 4 0.2 9 0.4 1 0.4 5 0.4 1 0.3 0 0.4 3 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.4 3 0.4 8 0.4 8 0.4 4 0.4 6 0.3 7 0.3 8 0.4 7 0.4 8 0.4 6 N A 0.3 8 Avg . ne

t cone , pp m
2.8 6 3.5 2 3.7 0 3.1 7 6.2 7 3.6 5 5.0 5 5.1 6 4.7 6 7.4 9 2.8 1 2.1 8 5.0 1 5.0 4 5.5 9 4.0 3 7.1 0 4.0 7 3.6 3 3.5 1 5.8 7 5.7 4 5.5 5 3.9 6 5.5 3 4.6 1 4.4 9 6.0 0 5.7 1 3.8 5 3.6 3 5.0 7 3.5 9 5.7 3 5.9 3 5.5 4 N A 2.6 2 Tes t ru n duration , mi n
103. 1 81. 3 75. 0 83. 8 67. 3 78. 0 75. 7 71. 8 152. 4 81. 5 91. 3 95. 2 76. 5 75. 1 76. 5 79. 1 102. 6 69. 3 75. 6 74. 7 77. 2 75. 9 88. 9 78. 0 85. 1 83. 6 83. 7 75. 7 74. 5 76. 2 79. 3 74. 5 76. 1 107. 2 127. 5 87. 0 N A 96. 5 Tota l emission s

b y THC , g
31 6 30 5 28 6 27 9 44 0 29 6 40 4 38 9 74 3 63 6 26 7 21 7 40 3 39 4 45 3 33 2 76 2 29 3 29 1 27 2 46 8 45 9 52 4 32 2 50 0 40 2 39 2 47 7 44 5 30 6 29 9 39 5 28 6 63 2 75 2 51 2 N A 26 6

SUMNEWJCLS T l in

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

m Dat e Tim e Tes t ru n #

RESI N EXPERIMEN T 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/30/9 5 6/30/9 5 6/30/9 5 7/5/9 5
" 7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 11:0 6

14:3 0 16:3 5 10:4 2 13:2 7 16:0 5 10:4 6 13:1 4 15:5 1 10:2 1 12:4 5 15:2 0 10:2 2 12:2 0 14:3 6 10:1 4 13:1 3 15:5 1 11:5 3 14:0 2 16:1 9 10:1 2 14:3 4 16:4 1 10:1 0 R 1 R 2 R 3 R 4 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R1 0 R1 1 R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R1 6 R1 7 R1 8 R1 9 R2 0 R2 1 R2 2 R2 3 R2 4 R2 5 Material /

containe r # RF6# 1 RF1# 3 RF1# 3 RF1# 4 RF1# 5 RF3# 1 RF 1 #5/# 6 RF2# 1 RF4# 1 RF1# 6 RF6#1/ 2 RF 6 #1/2/3 RF2# 2 RF2# 2 RF 1 #6/7 RF 1 #4/8 RF4# 2 RF 1 #4/ 8 RF3# 2 RF3#2/ 3 RF 1 #8/7 RF 1 #8/# 9 RF4# 3 RF 1 #8/# 9 RF4# 4 Averag e (2 5 runs* w"Normal " m n RIO ) Averag e (2 4 runs , w/

o "Normal " m n RIO ) 

### 1 1 iv , Equip .
RE I RE 2 RE 3 RE 3 RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE I RE 4 RE 1 RE I RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 3 RE 4 RE 2 RE I RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 4 RE 2 RE 4

RE1/RF1-AA A ex

t mix gu n ( 6 runs , w

/ m n RIO ) RE1/RF1-AA A ex

t mix gu n ( 5 mns , w/

o ru n R10 ) RE2-Flo wcoate r ( 3 mns ) | RE3-Pressure-fe d rolle r ( 3 mns ) RE4-AA A ex

t mi x gu n fo r BP O syste m (se e R l RF2^Lo wstyren e Resi n ( 3 mns ) RF3-Styren e suppresse d resi n ( 3 runs ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 4 mns ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 2 mns , slo wgel ) RF4^BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 2 mns , fas t gel ) RF5-Wate r emulsifie d resi n (Not tested ) =4 )

RF6-Styren e suppresse d resi n plu s wa x ( 3 runs ) Avg . sprayin g

cone , pp m
40.8 8 7.3 6 7.3 1 6.7 7 58.5 2 56.4 7 65.9 3 56.1 2 73.7 9 88.6 6 44.6 7 32.3 4 52.4 3 51.2 3 60.2 3 8.0 8 56.6 7 9.2 1 53.1 8 57.6 4 57.0 3 58.2 5 50.5 1 8.8 2 58.0 1 44.8 1 42.9 8 64.7 7 59.9 9 8.4 6 7.3 9 53.2 6 55.7 7 59.7 4 65.2 3 54.2 6 N A 39.3 0 Avg . ne

t spraying , pp m
40.5 3 6.9 1 6.8 6 6.3 2 58.1 3 56.0 4 65.1 6 55.6 9 73.3 4 88.2 0 44.2 6 31.9 8 52.1 6 50.8 3 59.8 6 7.6 0 56.1 6 8.7 7 52.8 9 57.2 4 56.5 8 57.8 3 50:2 1 8.3 9 57.3 9 44.3 7 42.5 5 64.2 9 59.5 1 8.0 2 6.9 3 52.9 0 55.3 9 59.2 7 64.7 5 53:8 0 NA 38.9 2 Sprayin g time , mi n
4. 5 23. 0 19. 2 21. 4 3. 5 3. 3 3. 0 3. 3 3. 5 3. 4
•3. 3 2. 9 3. 5 3. 6 3. 6 27. 9 6! 1 13. 9 3. 0 3. 0 3. 7 3. 4 3. 6 15. 3 3. 2 7. 5 7. 7 3. 4 3. 4 17. 4 22. 8 3. 5 3. 1 4. 1 4. 8 3. 4 N A 3. 6 Emission s

durin g applicatio n (b y THC ) 19 6 16 9 13 6 14 2 21 2 19 3 20 7 19 5 26 6 31 0 15 3 9 7 19 2 19 1 22 8 22 1 35 6 12 6 16 6 18 0 21 6 20 7 19 2 13 4 19 3 19 5 19 0 23 0 21 4 14 3 16 6 19 2 18 0 25 2 31 1 19 3 N A 14 9 Std . Dev . o

f applicatio n emission s (b y THC ) 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 5 5 5 5 3 6 8 1 9 3 9 2 1 1 6 7 4 5 0 N A 4 1 Wt . los s fro m par t durin g curin g stag e (by MB ) 7 1 9 2 13 5 10 7 19 3 9 7 18 7 16 2 45 1 25 0 8 5 7 6 17 5 17 4 20 4 12 1 31 4 16 6 7 8 8 5 21 0 21 6 26 2 18 9 26 2 17 4 17 1 2.1 0 20 2 14 9 12 1 17 0 8 7 32 2 38 3 26 2 N A 7 7 Std . Dev . of curin g los s fro m par t (by MB ) 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 8 7 8 7 2 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 6 8 7 7 6 9 0 N A 6 Wt . los s durin g applicatio n an d fro m overspray , g (byMB l 21 3 24 3 13 2 17 3 24 1 20 5 23 7 19 9 24 3 35 7 16 2 12 7 19 9 19 2 23 8 21 5 41 8 9 9 18 4 18 8 21 8 21 5 22 6 10 0 22 6 21 0 20 4 2§ 1 23 0 14 7 17 3 19 7 19 2 27 8 33 1 22 6 N A 16 7

SUMNEW.XL S T l b >

### NP 3 2 

## OsEmissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s

Dat e Tim e Tes t ru n # RESI N EXPERIMEN T 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6726/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/30/9 5 6/30/9 5 6/3079 5 7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 11:0 6

14:3 0 16:3 5
•10:4 2 13:2 7 16:0 5 10:4 6 13:1 4 15:5 1 10:2 1 12:4 5 15:2 0 10:2 2 12:2 0 14:3 6 10:1 4 13:1 3 15:5 1 11:5 3 14:0 2 16:1 9 10:1 2 14:3 4 16:4 1 10:1 0 R l R 2 R 3 R 4 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R1 0 R1 1 R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R1 6 R1 7 R1 8 R1 9 R2 0 R2 1 R2 2 R2 3 R2 4 R2 5 Material/

containe r # RF6# 1 RF1# 3 RF 1 # 3 RF1# 4 RF1# 5 RF3# 1 RF 1 #5/# 6 RF2# 1 RF4# 1 RF1# 6 RF6#1/ 2 RF 6 #1/2/3 RF2# 2 RF2# 2 RF 1 #6/7 RF1#4/ 8 RF4# 2 RF 1 #4/8 RF3# 2 RF3#2/ 3 RF1#8/ 7 RF 1 #8/# 9 RF4# 3 RF 1 #8/# 9 RF4# 4 Averag e (2 5 mns , w"Normal " m n RIO ) Averag e (2 4 mns , w/

o "Normal " ru n R10 ) • I I \

: . Equip .

RE 1 RE 2 RE 3 RE 3 RE 1 RE I RE I RE 1 RE 4 RE I RE 1 RE I RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 3 RE 4 RE 2 RE 1 RE I RE I RE 1 RE 4 RE 2 RE 4

RE1/RF1-AA A ex

t mix gu n ( 6 runs , w

/ m n R10 ) RE1/RF1-AA A ex

t mix gu n ( 5 mns , w/

o m n R10 ) RE2-Flo wcoate r ( 3 mns ) j RE3-Pressure-fe d roller ( 3 mns ) RE4nAA A ex t mi x gu n fo r BP O syste m (se e RF4 ) RF2-Lo wstyren e Resi n ( 3 mns ) RF3-Styren e suppresse d resi n ( 3 mns ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 4 mns ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 2 mns , sto wgel ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 2 runs , fast gel ) RF5-Wate r emulsifie d resi n (No t tested ) RF6-Styren e suppresse d resi n plu s wa x ( 3 mns ) Tota l emission s b y MB , g
28 4 33 5 26 7 28 0 43 4 30 2 42 4 36 1 69 4 60 7 24 7 20 3 37 4 36 6 44 2 33 6 73 2 26 5 26 2 27 3 42 8 43 1 48 8 28 9 48 8 38 4 37 5 46 1 43 2 29 6 29 4 36 7 27 9 60 1 71 3 48 8 N A •24 5 Rati o o

f tw o measuremen t method s (MB/THC ) 0.9 0 1.1 0 0.9 3 1.0 0 0.9 9 1.0 2 1.0 5 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.9 5 0.9 3 .0.9 4 0.9 3 0.9 3 0.9 8 1.0 1 0.9 6 0.9 0 0.9 0 1.0 0 0.9 1 0.9 4 0.9 3 0.9 0 0.9 8 0.9 6 0.9 6 0.9 7 0.9 7 0.9 7 0.9 8 0.9 3 0.9 7 0.9 5

. 0.9 5 0.9 5 N A 0.9 2 Materia l used , g
771 2 544 5 491 9 504 1 597 8 566 3 616 0 597 9 611 6 613 3 515 2 487 2 656 6 687 0 700 0 532 8 746 7

. 537 1 668 9 642 3 695 8 725 6 560 6 604 0 569 8 609 8 609 6 658 1 667 0 561 9 509 6 647 2 625 8 622 2 679 2 565 2 N A 591 2 Transfe r

eff . %

92. 7 96. 2 97. 2 97. 3 90. 8 91. 7 91. 0 91. 4 88. 7 80. 5 89. 9 92. 7 91. 4 93. 2 92. 6
•96. 7 79. 5 97. 7 92. 9 92. 9 92. 2 93. 5 91. 7 97. 9 91. 9 92. 2 92. 7 90. 1 92. 0 97. 3 97. 1 92. 0 92. 5 88. 0 84. 1 91. 8 N A 91. 8 Styren e content , %

43.2 9 36.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 43.4 5 38.3 3 35.3 4 42.6 1 38.3 3 43.2 9 43.2 9 35.3 4 35.3 4 38.3 3 38:3 3 42.6 1 38.3 3 43.4 5 43:4 5 38:3 3 38.3 3 42.6 f 38.3 3 42.6 1 39.8 7 39.9 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 35.3 4 43.4 5 42.6 1 42.6 1 42.6 1 N A 43.2 9 I EF , % availabl e styren e b y TH C

9. 5 14. 6 15. 2 14. 5 19. 2 12. 0 17. 1 18. 4 28. 5 27. 1 12. 0 10. 3 17. 4 16. 2 16. 9 16. 3 23. 9 14. 2 10. 0 9. 8 17. 5 16. 5 21. 9 13. 9 20. 6 16. 5 16. 1 19. 1 17. 5 14. 2 15. 3 17. 3 10. 6 23. 7 26. 2 21. 3 N A 10. 6 b

y M B

8. 5 16. 1 14. 2 14. 5 18. 9 12. 3 18. 0 17. 1 26. 6 25. 8 11. 1 9. 6 16. 1 15. 1 16. 5 16. 5 23. 0 12. 9 9. 0

. 9. 8 16. 0 15. 5 20. 4 12. 5 20. 1 15. 8 15. 4 18. 5 17. 0 13. 8 15. 0 16. 1 10. 4 22. 5 24. 8 20. 3 N A 9. 7 

### 1 Std . Dev. , % A S b y TH C

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 4. 9 4. 9 3. 7 0. 9 0. 3 0. 7 0. 9 1. 0 3. 0 2. 3 0. 7 N A 1. 0 b y M B

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 4. 7 4. 7 3. 5 1. 3 1. 6 1. 0 0. 8 1. 4 2. 6 1. 8 0. 2 N A 1. 1 Tota l mol d surface , m 2

2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 2.2 8 N A 2.2 8

SUMNEW.XL S
T l

### Emissio n Measurements , Gravimetri c Measurements , an d Calculate d Emission s an d Factor s



# - g 

# 11 Dat e Tim e Tes t m n #

RESI N EXPERIMEN T 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/23/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/26/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/27/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/28/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/29/9 5 6/30/9 5 6/3079 5 6/30/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/5/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/6/9 5 7/7/9 5 11:0 6

14:3 0 16:3 5 10:4 2 13:2 7 16:0 5 10:4 6 13:1 4 15:5 1 10:2 1 12:4 5 15:2 0 10:2 2 12:2 0 14:3 6 10:1 4 13:1 3 15:5 1 11:5 3 14:0 2 16:1 9 10:1 2 14:3 4 16:4 1 10:1 0 R 1 R 2 R 3 R 4 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 R1 0 R1 1 R1 2 R1 3 R1 4 R1 5 R1 6 R1 7 R1 8 R1 9 R2 0 R21 R2 2 R2 3 R2 4 R2 5 Material /

containe r# RF6# 1 RF1# 3 RF1# 3 RF1# 4 RF1# 5 RF3# 1 RF 1 #5/# 6 RF2# 1 RF4# 1 RF1# 6 RF6#1/ 2 RF 6 #1/2/ 3 RF2# 2 RF2# 2 RF 1 #6/ 7 RF1#4/ 8 RF4# 2 RFl#4/ 8 RF3# 2 RF3#2/ 3 RFl#8/ 7 RF1,#8/# 9 RF4# 3 RF 1 #8/# 9 RF4# 4 ; Averag e (2 5 run's, , w "Normal " ru n R10 ) Averag e (2 4 mns , w/ o "Normal " m n R10 ) I \; . r . . Equip

.

RE 1 RE 2 RE 3 RE 3 RE 1 RE 1 RE I RE I RE 4 RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 1 RE 3 RE 4 RE 2 RE 1 RE 1 RE I RE 1 RE 4 RE 2 RE 4

RE1/RFT-AA A ex t mi xgu n ( 6 mns , w / ru n R10 ) RE1/RF1-AA A ext mi xgu n ( 5 runs , w/ o m n R10 ) RE2-Flo w coate r( 3 mns ) | RE3-Pressure-fe d rolle r( 3 runs ) RE4-AA A ex

t mi xgu n fo rBP O syste m (se e RF4 ) RF2-Lo w styren e Resi n ( 3 mns ) RF3-Styren e suppresse d resi n ( 3 runs ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 4 mns ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 2 mns , slo wgel ) RF4-BPO-Catalyze d Resi n ( 2 runs , fas t gel ) RF5-Wate remulsifie d resi n (No t tested ) RF6-Styren e suppresse d resi n plu s wa x( 3 runs ) 

### I EF , g/m 2 b yTH C

13 8 13 4 12 5 12 3 19 3 13 0 17 7 17 0 32 6 27 9 11 7 9 5 17 7 17 3 19 9 14 6 33 4 12 9 12 7 11 9 20 5 20 1 230 14 1 21 9 17 5 17 2 20 9 19 5 13 4 13 1 17 3 12 6 27 7 330 22 5 N A 11 7 b yM B

12 5 14 7 11 7 12 3 190 13 2 18 6 15 8 30 4 26 6 10 8 8 9 16 4 16 1 19 4 14 7 32 1 11 6 11 5 12 0 18 8 18 9 21 4 12 7 21 4 16 7 16 5 20 2 18 9 13 0 12 9 16 1 12 2 26 3 31 3 21 4 N A 10 7 

### 1 • Std

. Dev. , g/m 2 b yTH C

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 62. 0 62. 0 32. 5 9. 8 5. 1 10. 3 2: 7 4. 5 52. 9 4. 0 5. 4 N A 17. 7 b yM B

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 58. 8 58. 8 28. 7 2. 7 12. 7 13. 1 2. 3 7. 4 49. 7 8. 3 0. 0 N A 14. 5 I EF , g/ g materia l b yTH C

0.04 1 0.05 6 0.05 8 0.05 5 0.07 4 0.05 2 0.06 6 0.06 5 0.12 2 0.10 4 0.05 2 0.04 4 0.06 1

. 0.05 7 0.06 5

. 0.06 2 0.10 2 0.05 5 0.04 3 0.04 2 0.06 7 0.06 3 0.09 4 0.05 3 0.08 8 0.06 5 0.06 4 0.07 3 0.06 7 0.05 5 0.05 9 0.06 1 0.04 6 0.10 1 0.11 2 0.09 1 N A 0.04 6 b yM B

0.03 7 0.06 2 0.05 4 0.05 6 0.07 3 0.05 3 0.06 9 0.06 0 0.11 3 0.09 9 0.04 8 0.04 2 0.05 7 0.05 3 0.06 3 0.06 3 0.09 8 0.04 9 0.03 9 0.04 3 0.06 2 0.05 9 0.08 7 0.04 8 0.08 6 0.06 2 0.06 1 0.07 1 0.06 5 0.05 3 0.05 8 0.05 7 0.04 5 0.09 6 0.10 6 0.08 6 N A 6.04 2 I

Std

. Dev. , g/ g b yTH C

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 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 4 0.00 4 0.00 1 0.00 3 0.00 3 0.00 4 0.01 3 0.01 0 0.00 3 N A 0.00 4 b yM B

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 0.01 9 0.01 9 0.01 3 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 4 0.00 3 0.00 6 0.01 1 0.00 8 0.00 1 N A 0.00 5 Catalys t Ratio , %

1.5 0 1.4 5 1.6 5 1.6 1 1.4 6 1.4 5 1.4 6 1.4 7 1.6 7 1.4 5 1.4 4 1.4 8 1.4 2 1.4 1 1.4 7 1.6 9 2.5 0 1.5 1 1.4 4 1.4 6 1.4 5 1.4 7 3.1 2 1.5 2 3.0 9 1.6 7 1.6 7 1,4 6 1.4 6 1.4 9 1.6 5 1.4 3 1.4 5 2.6 0 2.0 9 3.1 1 N A 1.4 7 Glass/Resi n Ratio , %

29. 2

32. 0 33. 6 33. 8 33. 0 34. 6 32. 4 33. 2 34. 3 32. 2 33. 4 33. 3 34. 8 32. 9 32. 6 32. 4 35. 4 32. 7 30. 0 31. 9 32: 7 31. 1 37. 5 30. 6 38. 1 33. 1 33. 1 32. 3 32. 4 31. 8 33. 3 33. 6 32. 2 36. 3 34. 9 37. 8 N A 32. 0

SUMNEW.XL S T l 0 0P. 9

Appendi x F Statistica l Analyse s o

f Tes t Result s

Tabl e o f Content s Sectio n Pag e No
. F
. 1 Pilo t

Experimen

t F- l F. 2 Geicoa

t Experiment

F- 8 F. 3 Resi n Experimen

t F-l 5 F. 4 Summar

y F-2 3

F- iP.1 0

Lis t o f Table s Tabl e No
. Pag e No
. 1 Analysi s o f

varianc e result s fo

r pilo t stud y F- 3 2 Estimate dmea

n difference s and95 % confidenc e interva l estimate s fo r norma l vs . controlle dapplicatio n method s i n th e pilo t experimen

t F- 4 3 Confidenc e limit s fo r pilo t study : hig hvs . lo w air

velocit y F- 5 4 Within-cel l standar ddeviations-pilo t

stud y dataF- 5 5 Analysi s o f

covarianc e result s for

pilo t stud y F- 7 6 Analysi s o f

varianc e result s fo

r geicoa t experimen

t F- 9 7 Confidenc e limit s fo r geicoa t study : regula

r vs . lo w VO C gelcoat s F-1 0 8 Confidenc e limit s fo r geicoa t study : differen

t spra y gun s F- l 1 9 Within-cel l standar ddeviations—geicoa

t experimen

t F-1 2 1 0 Analysi s o f

covarianc e result s fo

r geicoa t experimen

t F-1 4 1 1 Analysi s o f

varianc e result s fo

r resi n experimen

t F-1 7 1 2 Estimate dmea

n difference s andconfidenc e interva l estimate s fo

r percent availabl e styrene : resi n experiment F-1 8 1 3 Estimate dmea

n difference s andconfidenc e interva l estimate s fo

r emissio n factor (g/m 2 ) : resi n experimen

t F-l 9 1 4 Estimate dmea

n difference s andconfidenc e interva l estimate s fo

r emissio n factor (g/g) : resi n experiment

F-2 0 1 5 Within-treatment

standar ddeviations—resi

n experimen

t F-2 1 1 6 Analysi s o f

covarianc e result s fo

r resi n experimen

t F-2 2 1 7 Summar

y o f result s o f specifi c hypothesi s test s F-2 3

F-ii 

# qtp 'P.1 1

F. l Pilo tExperiment . Befor e executin g the mai

n experiment , apilo t

stud y wa s conducte dt

o help establis h "standard " condition s unde r which th e subsequen

t experiment s shoul db e conducted
. A secondar y purpos e wa s to gai

n insight into the magnitude o

f measuremen

t error variabilit y tha t migh t b e anticipate di

n the mai n experiment
. The pilo t

stud y wa s ru n a s afactoria

l experiment involvin g tw o factors : M = spraying method , an dA = air velocity
. The experiment

consiste do

f 1 2 trial s —namely , thre e replicate s fo r eac ho f th e followin g conditions : (a) (b ) (c ) (d ) Norma

l sprayin g metho d(Ml) , low ai r velocit y (Al ) Controlle dsprayin g metho d(M2) , lo w air velocit y (Al ) Norma l sprayin g metho d(Ml) , hig hai r velocit y (A2 ) Controlle dspraying metho d(M2) , hig hair velocit y (A2 ) A singl e geicoa

t formulation (GFl ) an

dasingle applicatio n equipmen t (GE1 ) wer

e used throughout

th e pilo t experiment
. Th e 1 2 trial s wer e run in arandomorder
. Although it

wa s recognize dtha

t the pilot stud y wouldprovide onl

y alimite damoun

t o f statistica l information , th e resultant dat awer e subjecte dt o statistica

l analysi s i

n orde r t o get some ide ao f th e impact

o f th e tw o factors o

n percen t availabl e styrene (%AS ) an dothe r relate d measures . Th e specifi c outcom e measure s tha

t wer e analyze dar

e the following : Variabl e X Zl Z 2 Y l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y 6 Y 7 Y 8 Description

Transfe r Efficienc y (% ) (standardize dt o hav e mea n 0 ) Tota l Emission s (g) , by TH C Tota l Emission s (g) , by M

B Emission s during the applicatio n stag e (g) , b y THC Curing Los s fro

mPar t (g) , b y M B EF( % Available Styrene) , b

y THC EF( % Available Styrene) , b

y M B EF(g/m

2 ) , b y TH C EF(g/m

2 ) , b y M B E F(g/g) , b

y THC E F(g/g) , b y M B

F' l



# QAP.1 2

Th e x variabl e was considere dapossibl e coovariat e fo r th e Z l andZ 2 variables ; a s aresult , th e X variabl e wa s standardize dt o hav e azero mean . Fo r eac h variable , a

n initia l analysi s o f

varianc e (ANOVA) o f

th e followin g for

mwa s performed : SOURC E OFDEGREE S OF VARIATION FREEDOM M (methods ) 1 A (air flow ) 1 M x A (interaction ) 1 Erro r 8 Tota l 1 1 I n eac h case , th e interactio n ter mappeare dstatistically nonsignificant ; henc e th e interactio n ter m wa s droppe dto produc e a

n ANOV A a s follows : SOURCE OFDEGREE S O F VARIATION FREEDOM M (methods ) 1 A (air flow ) 1 Erro r 9 Total 1 1 The result s o f

the abov e analyse s ar

e summarizedin Tabl e 1 fo r th e X variabl e an

deac h o f th e Y s (the tw o Z variable s are considere dsubsequently)
. The uppe r portio n o f the tabl e give s mean s o f th e pertinent

variable s fo

r eac hcombinatio n o f

the M andA factors
. Thes e row s ar e followedby row s giving the mean s separately fo r eachlevel of

eachfactor
. The lowe

r portio n o f th e tabl e provide s information relatin g to the statistica l tests
. Th e first

ro w give s th e root

mea n square derror

(RMSE) ; thi s i s equivalent t o th e poole dwithin-cell variance
. Thi s i s usedto tes t whether, there i s aMETHOD by AIRVELOCITY interaction
. The tes t results , summarize din th e nex t row , sho w thes e interaction s t o b e statistically nonsignifican t (n.s.)
. Consequently , a ne w RMS E fo

r testin g the mai n effects o f th e factor s i s constructe d(by poolin g o f th e forme r RMS E andth e interactio n mea n square) ; thes e RMSEs , basedon 9 degree s o f freedo m(df) , ar e displaye din th e nex

t ro w of Tabl e 1
. Result s o f

th e test s fo

r main effects are given i

n th e las t tw o row s o f

th e table
. Th

e effec t o f AI RVELOCITY i s statistically nonsignificant , althoughth e lo w velocit

y exhibite dlowe

r estimate dvalue s tha

n the highvelocit

y fo r eac ho f th e Y variables
. Fo r th e METHOD effect, statisticall y signfican t difference s wer

e foundfo r severa l o f th e variables : th e controlle dspraying , a s contraste dwit hth e norma

l spraying , yielde dahigher transfer efficiency (0.0 1 level) , an dlowe r averag e spraying emissions , percent availabl e styrene , F- 2

<$>T l i TABL E 1 . Analysi s o f Varianc e Result s fo rPilo tStudy : Variable s X , Yl , Y2,... , an d Y 8

Means , b y variable :
n X aY l Y 2 Appli catio n Ai r metho d velocit y Controlle dHig h Controlle dLo w Norma l Hig h Norma l Lo w Controlle d Norma l Hig h

Lo w Hypothesi s Testin g Result s RMS E fo r

testin g interactio n ( 8 df) : Tes t fo r interaction : RMS E fo r

testin g mai n effect s ( 9 df) : Tes t fo r METHOD : Tes t fo r AI RVELOCITY : Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y 6 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 4. 1 4. 5 -6. 4 -2. 2 4. 3 -4. 3 -1. 2 1. 2

3.1 6

n.s . 3.1 7

n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s .

n.s . n.s . ** * Y 7 Y 8 157. 0 137. 7 259. 0 231. 3 147. 3 245. 2 208. 0 184. 5

31.5 0 223. 0 204. 0 209. 3 225. 7 213. 5 217. 5 216. 2 214. 8

21.7 4 56. 3 52. 0 62. 1 62. 9 54. 1 62. 5 59. 2 57. 5

3.7 1 59. 7 58. 4 •62. 5 59. 2 59. 1 60. 9 61. 1 58. 8

7.3 4 180. 3 163. 3 225. 7 225. 0 171. 8 225. 3 203. 0 194. 2

15.7 6 190. 0 183. 0 228. 0 211. 7 186. 5 219. 8 209. 0 197. 3

25.8 5 0.21 8

0.20 1 0.24 1 0.24 4 0.21 0 0.24 2 0.22 9 0.22 3

0.01 4 0.23 1 0.22 6 0.24 2 0.22 9 0.22 9 0.23 6 0.23 7 0.22 8

0.02 8

n. s n. s 29.7 9 22.8 9 3.8 0 6.9 5 15.5 9 24.5 2 0.01 5 0.02 7

n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n. s
n.s . n.s . * = statisticall y significan t at th e 0.0 5 leve l * * = statisticall y significan t a t th e 0.0 1 leve l ** * = statisticall y significan t at th e 0.00 1 leve l 'Overal l mean for

X prio r t o standardizatio n wa s 79.96
.P.1 4

andemissio n factor

(EF) , a s measure dby THC
. Whe n measure dvi ath e mas s balanc e (MB ) approach , only the E

Fvariabl e appearedstatistically significan t (a t th e 0.0 5 level)
. Poin t estimate s andconfidenc e interva l estimate s fo

r th e difference s du

e t o applicatio n method s an

dai r velocitie s ar

e shown in Table s 2 an

d3 , respectively
. I n Table s 2 an d3 , th e constructio n o f th e confidenc e interval s i s basedon a n assumptio n tha t th e datafo

r agive n combinatio n o f

METHOD andAIRVELOCITY are approximately normally distribute dwit

h acommon measuremen

t error variabilit y (th e sam e assumptio n applie s to th e hypothesi s test s previously described , andsimila r assumption s apply to all other confidenc e interval s describe dherein)
. Cell-specifi c estimate s o f th e measuremen

t error variablit y (or standar ddeviations ) ar

e show n i n Tabl e 4
. The 9 5 percent

confidenc e interval on th e differenc e i s relate dto apairwis e hypothesi s tes t (conducte da

t asignificanc e level o f

0.05 ) in tha t i f the estimate dconfidenc e interva l doe s no t include zero , then th e correspondin g tes t o f n o differenc e i

n mea n %A S will b e rejected
. TABL E 2 . Estimate d Mea n Differences and 95 % Confidence Interval Estmates fo r Norma l Vs . Controlle d Applicatio n Method s in th e Pilo tExperiment

Variabl e an

d compariso n X - Transfe

r efficienc y (% ) Z l - Tota

l emission s b

y TH C (g ) Z2 - Tota

l emission s by M

B (g ) Yl - Applicatio n emission s b y TH C (g ) Y 2 - Curin g los s fro

mpar t b y M B (g )
Y3 - E Fa s % AS b

y THC Y 4 - E Fa s % A S by M

B Y5 - E Fa s g/m

2 b y TH C Y 6 - E Fa s g/m

2 b y M B Y7 - E F(g/g ) b y TH C Y 8 - E F(g/g ) b y MB Lower95 %

confidence limi t -12.7 9 76.4 0 3.8 8
58.9 2
-25.9 0 3.4 4 -7.2 9 33.1 4 1.3 1 0.013 4 -0.028 2 Esitmate d

mea n difference -8.6 5 121.8 3 76.3 3
97.8 3
4.0 0 8.4 0 1.7 8 53.5 0 33.3 3 0.032 5 0.006 9 Uppe r95 %

confidence limi t -4.5 1 167.2 7 148.7 9
136.7 5
33.9 0 13.3 6 10.8 6 73.8 6 65.3 5 0.051 6 0.042 0 Significan t

* *
** *

' *

** *

n. s * *
n. s ** * * *
n.s . * = Statistically significan t a t the 0.0 5 level
. * * = Statistically significan t a t th e 0.0 1 level
. ** * = Statistically significan t a t the 0.00 1 level , n.s . = No t statistically significan

t a t the 0.0 5 level
. F- 4 

# 190P.1 5

TABL E 3 . Confidenc e Limit s fo rPilo tStudy : Hig h Vs . Lo w Ai rVelocit y

Variabl e an

d comparison
X - Transfe r

efficienc y % Z l - Tota l emission s b y TH C (g ) Z 2 - Tota l emission s b y M B (g ) Y l - Applicatio n emission s b y TH C (g ) Y 2 - Curin g los s fro mpart b y M B (g ) Y 3 - E Fa s % A S b y TH C Y 4 -EFas%ASbyM B Y 5 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y TH C Y 6 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y M B Y 7 - E F(g/g ) b y TH C Y 8 -E F(g/g ) b y M B Lowe r95 % confidence limi t -6.4 5 -25.2 7 -46.1 2
-15.4 1
-28.5 6 -3.2 0 -6.7 3 -11.5 3 -20.3 5 -0.012 2 -0.026 0 Esitmated

difference
-2.3 2 20.1 7 26.3 3
23.5 0
1.3 3 1.7 7 2.3 5 8.8 3 11.6 7 0.006 9 0.009 1 mea

n Uppe r95 % confidence limi t 1.8 2 65.6 0 98.7 9
62.4 1
31.2 3 6.7 3 11.4 3 29.20
. 43.6 9 0.026 0 0.044 2 Significant

n.s . n.s . n.s .

n.s .

n.s . n.s . n. s n.s . n.s . n.s . n. s n. s = Not statistically significan

t a t the 0.0 5 level
.

TABL E 4 . Within-cel l Standar d Deviation s - Pilo tStud y Dat a
METHO D AIRVE

L Z l Z 2 Y l Y 2 Y3 Y 4 Y 5 Y 6 Y

7 Y 8 Controlle d Controlle d Norma l Norma l Hig

h Lo w Hig h Lo w 2. 6 24. 7 2. 7 43. 0 4. 7 30. 4 2. 0 39. 3 39. 4

38. 7 97. 0 35. 1 19. 0 6. 4 48. 3 35. 2 11. 1 32. 1 23. 2 14. 2 3. 1 1. 3 3. 2 5. 8 9. 8 4. 3 9. 4 3. 5 10. 8 19. 3 13. 8 17. 7 17. 3 17. 1 42. 9 15. 4 0.01 2 0.00 5 0.01 2 0.02 2 0.03 8 0.01 7 0.03 6 0.01 3

F- 5 

# /biP.1 6

Fo r th e tw o tota

l emissio n variable s (Z l andZ2) , a n initia l analysi s o f

covarianc e (ANACOVA) o f

the following for

mwa s performed : SOURC E OFVARIATION DEGREE S O FFREEDOM X (transfe r efficiency ) 1 M (methods ) 1 A (air flow ) 1 M x A (interaction ) 1 Erro r 7 Tota l 1 1 Sinc e i n eac h cas e the interactio n ter mappearedstatisticall y nonsignificant , tha t ter mwa s droppe dto produc e th e following : SOURCE O FVARIATION DEGREE S OFFREEDOM X (transfe r efficiency ) 1 M (methods ) 1 A (air flow ) 1 Error 8 Tota l 1 1 Th e result s are summarize di

n Table 5
. Th

e forma t o f th e tabl e i s simila

r to tha t o f Tabl e 1 in tha t th e uppe r portio n show s mean s b

y cell s andfacto

r level s andthe lowe

r portio n give s RMSE s an dresult s o f

hypothesi s tests
. I

n thi s case , th e hypothesi s test s ar e performedon mean s o f

th e Z variable s afte

r adjustmen

t fo r the covariat

e X (assumin g alinea

r relaionship between aZ andX)
. (The ANOVA result s fo

r th e Z variable s (i.e. , ignorin g adjustment s fo r X ) are shown i n th e lower lef t portio n o f

th e tabl e whil e th e ANACOV A result s ar

e given i n th e lowe

r right portion. ) Th e adjustedmean s are given in th e uppe r righthan dpar

t o f th e table
. Tota

l emission s by TH C (variabl e Zl ) appea

r t o b e affecte

d(0.0 5 significanc e level ) by sprayin g method , whil e AIR VELOCIT Y andX appea

r to hav e nonsignifican

t effects on Zl
. Neithe

r facto r A o r M no r th e covariat e X appear s to affec

t variabl e Z2
. A s note dpreviously (se e Tabl e 1) , the METHO D facto r appear s t o affect

th e covariat

e X an dthi s situatio n ca

n lea dto problem s wit

h interpretation
. Fo r

instance , it

i s not clea r whether METHOD affects X only , whic hi n turn induce s difference s i n th e Z l variate , or whethe r (a t leas t par t of ) th e effec t o f METHO D o n Z l a direc t effec t (i.e. , no t relate dto th e differenc e i n X levels)
.

F- 6 

# \o% JP.1 7

TABL E 5 . Analysi s o f Covarianc e Result s fo rPilo tStudy : Variable s Z l an d Z 2

MEANS MEAN S ADJUSTE D FORX METHOD AmVE L N X Z l Z 2 Z l Z 2 Controlle d Controlle d Norma l Norma l Controlle d Norma l Hig

h Low Hig h Low

Hig h Low 3

3 3 3 6 6 6 6 4. 1 4. 5 -6. 4 -2. 2 4. 3 -4. 3 -1. 2 1. 2 410. 3 371. 7 513. 7 512. 0 391. 0 512. 8 462. 0 441. 8 432. 3

416. 3 519. 0 482. 3 424. 3 500. 7 475. 7 449. 3 413. 7

375. 4 508. 4 510. 2 389. 1 514. 7 462. 5 441. 3 477. 9

466. 8 447. 7 457. 6 469. 5 455. 5 463. 6 461. 4 Hypothesi s Testin g Results : RMS E fo r testin g interactio n ( 8 df) :

(7df) : 35. 1 58. 5 37. 4 50. 1 Tes t fo r interaction : n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . RMS E fo r testin g main effects ( 9 df) : (andcovariate ) ( 8 df) : 4. 8 55. 5 36. 9 47. 2 Tes t fo r METHOD : ** * n.s . Tes t fo r AI RVELOCITY : n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . Tes t fo r covariate X : n.s . n.s . * = statisticall

y significan t a t th e 0.0 5 leve l * * = statisticall

y significan

t a t th e 0.0 1 leve

l ** * = statisticall

y significan

t a t th e 0.00 1 leve

l

F- 7 

# YasF. 2 GeicoatExperiment.

Thi s experimen

t i s aimeda

t evaluatin g ho w styrene emission s are affectedby geicoa t formulatio n (factor

GF ) an dtyp e o f equipmen t (facto r GE)
. The facto

r combination s (tw o formulation s andthre e equipmen t types ) wer

e eac hru n i n triplicate , wit

htrial s run i n arando m order (i.e. , a2x 3 factoria

l experimen

t wit hthre e replication s embeddedi n acompletely rando m design)
. Th e analysis , which wa s conducte dfo r th e X variat

e an deacho f th e previously define d Y variates , entaile dconducting a n analysi s of

varianc e (ANOVA

) havin g th e following structure : SOURCE O

FVARIATION DEGREE S O FFREEDO

M G F(gelcoats ) 1 G E (equipments ) 2 G Fx G E (interaction ) 2 Error 1 2 Tota l 1 7 I n eac h case , th e interactio n ter mappeare dstatistically nonsignificant ; henc e the interactio n ter m wa s droppe dt o produc e a

n ANOV A a s follows : SOURC E O FVARIATION DEGREE S O FFREEDOM G F(gelcoats ) 1 GE
. (equipments ) 2 Erro r 1 4 Tota l 1 7 The result s ar

e summarizedi

n Tabl e 6
. Th e forma

t o f thi s tabl e i s simila

r t o tha t describe dfo

r Tabl e 1 : th e uppe

r portio n give s mean s o f

th e pertinent

variable s fo

r eac hcombinatio n o f

th e G F an dG E factors , th e middl e portio n show s th e mean s separately for eac hlevel o f

eac hfactor , an d th e lower portio n give s the pertinent RMSE s an

dhypothesi s testin g results
. Wit hone exceptio n ( adifferenc e in variabl e Y l fo r GE 2 andGE3 , a

t the 0.05 leve

l o f significance) , th e effec

t of EQUIPMENT i s statisticall y nonsignificant
. For the geicoa t FORMULATION S effect , statisticall y signfican

t difference s wer

e foun dfo r the X variabl e (0.0 5 level ) an dfo r severa l o f th e Y variable s (Yl , Y2 , Y5 , andY6 , al l highly significant)
. Statistically significan t difference s fo r th e G FandG E factor s wer

e no t foun dfo r the percen

t availabl e styren e variable s (Y 3 and Y4)
. Point

estimate s an

dconfidenc e interva

l estimate s fo

r th e difference s due t o tw o ge l coa t formulation s andthre e spra y gun s are show n in Table s 7 an d8 , respectively
. The with-i n cell standarddeviation s fo

r gel coa t experiment

ar e shown i n Tabl e 9
. F- 8 

# /f AP.1 9

O v C NO r f —C

N G O —O l C

Nr t f

- r t ^ , C NC NC N— —— d <5 CD d <6 o o

C N C N CN U O
*•" * — v o 0 0 O N

__« , _ - 0 0

~- © o o o o r - © © r o d * * * c

f

uooooovor^ o r-- r - o o \ C N r - C N O —r o r o r t —r o oor^r ~ ^ , C N C N C N — ——

CN —— . — . — d <z> d> d> d d> d o od d C M O d o

d *

v. Z w O r o r~; O r o O vo — •r t r i v

d r o K > , r - t- - r - C N > o C N

r- ~ o r o o O r

^ ! 2 u o r tO O

N C N r t ? • r ~ V O P - - N N r

^ ( N r — r t u o r o u o 0 0 r t 0 0 r o v o o o O N r t

O O N d ~ r~ - C N r o p u o

r ^ r o r ^ r tr tr t r o r o

r t O N r- ' *

u o * •— * * 0 0 </

5

X Vi C U S « l a C O > r r

>

r o u o C N o o r~ u o C N C N oo v o r tu o v o r - v o v o r

— v o U O U O U O U O V O U O o V O v O U O V O C Nv o u o v o I O

o o o U 0 o o r o u o r o v O U O 0 0 r o U O O N r o u o — u o u o o V O u o C N r t U O O N u o u o o o C O u o r » u o > o 0 0

u o u o

C N v q r o oo

o o

u o r o c/ i c tn c
C V S ' E 0 ) 

### a
es © u 

### a

3 C A C U P S a > u C

. 2 ' E > © .c w *5 5 ^ > I s C
veW J c a o p p r- ; r~ ; r o

r ? C N r tU O r ~ O N O N > " —O —u o u o uo C N C N C N —— —

r o r o r - ©

© © r * —O r o r td — ^ >< uo v o r tO

N O O N

« uo v q uo i o uo V D X ——

I d C N — • C N

Z r o r o r o r o r o r o

5 . —o> r o —C

N r o C U J U J U J U J LU U J W O O O O O O

—— —C N C N C N fc. LL, U - U - LL, U - U . OOOOOO O r o210

0 0 U O O N158

o u o O N 0 0184

rC N C N o o 0 0

X C N o r o C N187

X r o r —

C N C N

O N O N

—C N LL . LL , o o u o uo —

d - r- -

v o v o v o u o O N

O N CO

NO C N r t

uo

O v * * *

* * *

0 0 C N C N

—C N r o L U L U L U O O O <

3 " 3 c n c u P S OJ ) c c n c u 

### H c nhesiypot S C w j O C " Otesti(12fortionMSEterac
D S . 5 B

O C J ? 3 C 3 £
tn O .S 2 (Z l Z o p < D O i O tt i M < 2 W o ^ « faU C d ^ 3 H H

Z w S S3 

### a w c n H v O

u o r o 0 0 > > —* c j CJ o

* > c u i —u o o o —-x ddg S C J C J O • - •S •£ <5?

~ - 7

. a o C J
_ g • o e c Z B c o 0 3 rt w

j L > O w
_ c ce 2
' = ' = S fe e o o o ( 2 . 2 •5 5 • « - E £

_ • « " 3 ' * ^ •=• = = >

£ « u i rt 2 2 w i t o • S i

" > C J ii 5 * O
F- 9 /d? ^TABL E 7 . Confidence Limits fo rGeicoa tStudy : RegularVs . Lo

w Vo c Gelcoat

s

Variabl e an

d compariso n
X - Transfe r

efficienc y % Z l - Tota l emission s b y TH C (g ) Z 2 - Tota l emission s b y M B (g ) Y l - Applicatio n emission s b y TH C (g ) Y 2 - Curin g los s frompart b y M B (g ) Y 3 - E Fa s % A S b y TH C Y 4 - E Fa s % A S b y M B Y 5 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y TH C Y 6 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y M B Y 7 - E F(g/g ) b y TH C Y 8 -E F(g/g ) b y M B Lower95 % confidence limi

t
-4.7 0 90.4 4 46.6 3 48.7 2
45.9 8 -1.7 6 -9.2 7 39.8 7 19.7 2 0.068 0 0.050 5 Esitmate d

mea n difference -2.3 9 109.0 0 86.7 8 56.7 8
51.4 4 1.7 9 -3.3 2 48.1 1 37.2 2 0.079 6 0.067 8 Uppe r95 %

confidence limi t -0.0 8 127.5 6 126.9 3 64.8 3
56.9 1 5.3 4 2.6 2 56.3 6 54.7 3 0.091 2 0.085 1 Significant

*
** *

** *

*** '

** *
n.s . n.s . ** *

** *

** *

** *

* = Statistically significan t a t the 0.0 5 level
. * * = Statistically significan t a t the 0.0 1 level
. ** * = Statistically significan t a t th e 0.00 1 level
. n.s . = Not statistically significan

t a t th e 0.0 5 level
.

F-1 0 

## (0® :P.2 1

TABL E 8 . Confidence Limit s fo rGeicoatStudy : Differen tSpray Gun s

Variabl e an d compariso n Lowe r95 % confidenc e limi t Compariso n betwee n AA A vs . HVL P (interna l mix ) X - Transfe r

efficienc y % Z l - Tota l emission s b y TH C (g ) Z 2 - Tota l emission s b y M B (g ) Y l - Applicatio n emission s b y TH C (g )
Y 2 - Curin g los s frompar t b y M B (g )
Y 3 - E Fa s % A S b y TH C Y 4 -EFas%ASbyM B Y 5 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y TH C Y 6 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y M B Y 7 - E F(g/g ) b y TH C Y 8 -E F(g/g ) b y M B Compariso n betwee n AA A vs . HVL P (extern * X - Transfe r

efficienc y % Z l - Tota l emission s b y TH C (g ) Z 2 - Tota l emission s b y M B (g ) Y l - Applicatio n emission s b y TH C (g )
Y 2 - Curin g los s fro mpart b y M B (g )
Y 3 -EFas%ASbyTH C Y 4 - E Fa s % A S b y M B Y 5 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y TH C -0.7 9 -12.9 0 -83.8 4
-17.3 7
-3.6 9 -2.2 8
. -13.0 5 -5.7 6 -36.7 7

: 0.006 3 -0.036 3 i l mix ) -3.3 9 -22.5 6 -52.3 4
-4.5 3
-9.0 3 -4.1 5 -7.1 8 -10.2 6 Esitmate d

mea n differenc e

2.0 3 9.8 3 -34.6 7
-7.5 0
3.0 0 2.0 7 -5.7 7 4.3 3 -15.3 3 0.008 0 -0.015 1

-0.5 7 0.1 7 -3.1 7
5.3 3
-2.3 3 0.2 0 0.1 0 -0.1 7 Uppe r95 %

confidenc e limi t

4.8 6 32.5 6 14.5 0
2.3 7
9.6 9 6.4 1 1.5 1 14.4 3 6.1 1 0.022 2 0.006 2

2.2 6 22.9 0 46.0 0
15.2 0
4.3 6 4.5 5 7.3 8 9.9 3 Significan t

n.s . n.s . n.s . .

n.s .

n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s . . n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s .

n.s .

n.s . n.s . n.s . n.s .
F- l 1 (cont. ) 

# /AhP.2 2

TABL E 8 . Continue d

Variabl e an d compariso n
Y 6 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y M B Y 7 - E F(g/g ) b y TH C Y 8 - E F(g/g ) b y M B Lowe r95 % Esitmate d Uppe r95 % confidenc e mea n confidenc e limi tdifferenc e limi tSignifican t -22.7 7 -1.3 3 20.1 1 n.s . -0.012 7 0.001 6 0.015 8 n. s -0.021 2 0.000 0 0.021 3 n.s . Compariso n betwee n HVL P (int ) vs . HVL P (externa l mix ) X - Transfe r

efficienc y % Z l - Tota l emission s b y TH C (g ) Z 2 - Tota l emission s b y M B (g ) Y l - Applicatio n emission s b y TH C (g )
Y 2 - Curin g los s frompar t b y M B (g )
Y 3 - E Fa s % A S b y TH C Y 4 - E Fa s % A S b y M B Y 5 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y TH C Y 6 - E Fa s g/m 2 b y M B Y 7 - E F(g/g ) b y TH C Y 8 -E F(g/g ) b y M B -5.4 3 -2.6 0 0.2 3 n.s . -32.4 0 -9.6 7 13.0 6 n.s . -17.6 7 31.5 0 80.6 7 n.s . 2.9 7 12.8 3 22.7 0
. *
-12.0 3 -5.3 3 1.3 6 n.s . -6.2 1 -1.8 7 2.4 8 n.s . -1.4 1 5.8 7 13.1 5 n.s . -14.6 0 -4.5 0 5.6 0 n.s . -7.4 4 14.0 0 35.4 4 n.s . -0.020 6 -0.006 4 0.007 8 n.s . -0.006 1 0.015 1 0.036 3 n.s . * = Statistically significan

t a t th e 0.0 5 level
. n.s . = Not statistically significan

t a t th e 0.05 level
. TABLE 9 . Within-cel l Standard Deviation s - Geicoa tExperiment G F EQUI

PX Z l Z

2 Y l Y

2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y 6 Y 7 Y 8 GF l GF l GF l GF 2 GF 2 GF 2 GE 1 GE 2 GE 3 GE 1 GE 2 GE 3 2. 7 0. 5 2. 7 3. 6 1. 1 1. 0 11. 4 30. 1 7. 0 3. 8 25. 2 13. 6 30. 2 9. 5 68. 4 54. 1 23. 6 18. 8 8. 3 4. 7 10. 0 4. 4 10. 4 10. 1 8. 0 2. 6 4. 6 6. 4 3. 1 2. 1 2. 8 4. 0 3. 7 2. 6 5. 1 2. 9 4. 0 0. 9 6. 6 • 10. 7 2. 5 2. 1 5. 1 13. 2 3. 2 1. 7 11. 3 6. 0 13. 1 4. 0 29. 8 23. 6 10. 1 8. 2 0.01 0 0.01 5 0.01 4 0.00 7 0.01 3 0.00 8 0.01 6 0.00 3 0.02 6 0.02 7 0.00 6 0.00 5

F-1 2 

# mP.2 3

For the tw o Z variables , a

n initia l analysi s o

f covarianc e (ANACOVA) o f the followin g for mwas performed : SOURCE OFVARIATION DEGREES OFFREEDOM X (transfe r efficiency ) 1 GF(gelcoats ) 1 G E (equipments ) 2 GFx G E (interaction ) 2 Error 1 1 Tota l 1 7 Sinc e i n eac hcas e th e interactio n ter

mappearedstatistically nonsignificant , tha t ter mwa s droppe dt o produc e th e following : SOURCE OFVARIATION DEGREE S OFFREEDOM X (transfe r efficiency ) 1 G F(gelcoats ) 1 G E (equipments ) 2 Erro r 1 3 Tota l 1 7
Tabl e 1 0 provide s th e ANOV A andANACOV

A result s fo

r th e tw o Z variables
. Typ e o f geicoa t FORMULATION appear s t o hav e asignifican t effect on bot hvariables
. Neither

Z l nor Z 2 exhibit s difference s attributabl e t o type s o f EQUIPMENT
.

F-1 3 

# /o9P.2 4

TABL E 10 . AnaFysi

s of Covariance Result

s fo rGeicoatExperiment : Variable s Z l an d Z 2 MEAN S MEANS ADJUSTE D FO RX GF GF l GFl GF l GF 2 GF2 GF 2 GFl GF 2

.

-

- EQUI

P GE 1 GE 2 GE3 GE 1 GE 2 GE3

.

- GE 1 GE2 GE3 N

3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 6 6 6 X -1. 5 -1. 6 -0. 5 2. 5 -1. 5 2. 6 -1. 2 1. 2 0. 5 -1. 5 1. 1 Z l

399. 7 373. 3 387. 0 271. 3 278. 0 283, 7 386. 7 277. 7 335. 5 325. 7 335. 3 Z2

389. 7 397. 0 393. 3 287. 0 349. 0 289. 7 393. 3 308. 6 338. 3 373. 0 341. 5 Z l

399. 7 373. 4 387. 0 271. 3 278. 0 283. 6 385. 3 279. 0 336. 1 323. 9 336. 6 Z2

368. 1 373, 5 386. 7 322. 7 327. 9 326. 8 375. 9 326. 0 345. 5 350. 4 356. 9 Hypothesi s testin g results : RMS E fo r testin g interactio n (1 2 df) :

(1 1 df) : Tes t fo r interaction : RMS E fo r testin g main effects (1 4 df) : (andcovariate ) (1 3 df) : Tes t fo r FORMULATIONS : Tes t fo r EQUIPMENT : Tes t fo r covariat e X : 17. 9

n.s . 18. 4

n.s . 39. 8

n.s . 39. 7

n.s . 18. 7

n.s .

18. 9

n.s . n.s . 23. 9

n.s .

22. 4

n.s .

* = statistically significan

t a t the 0.05 level
. * * = statistically significan t a t the 0.0 1 level
. ** * = statistically significan t a t the 0.00 1 level
.

F-1 4



# I OP.2 5

F. 3 Resi n Experiment
. Thi s experiment

wa s aimeda

t evaluatin g ho w styren e emission s ar e affectedb y typ e o f resin formulatio n (facto

r RF) an dtyp e o f equipmen t (facto r RE)
. The factor

combination s use d i n th e experiment

andth e associate dsampl e size s wer e a s follows : Treatmen t Level o f

R E Level o f

R Fn 

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 RE I RE I RE I RE I RE 2 RE 3 RE 4 RE 4 RF 1

RF 2 RF 3 RF 6 RF 1 RF 1 RF4F G RF4S G 

### 5

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 Thi s desig n deviate s slightly fro mth e orignally planne ddesign
. Resin RF 4 wa s modifie dto shorten gel tim e afte

r tw o tes t run s ha dshown tha

t resi n drain s t o th e flange befor e i t cures . Thes e tw o RF4 tes t

run s are note dwit

hS G fo r slo w gel
. The modifiedRF 4 resi n ha s afaste

r ge l time tha t allow s resi n t o cure befor

e it drains
. RF5 resi n wa s no t teste dbecaus e th e resi n manufacture

r decide dt o dro p ou t

fromth e testing
. The actua l run s yiel d1 6 degree s o f

freedo m fo r error . Separate analyse s are usedt o tes t fo r equipment

difference s andfo

r differen t resi n formulations
. The ANOV

A fo r equipmen t comparison s among REI , RE2 , andRE 3 (fo r resi n RF1 ) i s a s follows : SOURC E O FVARIATION DEGREES O FFREEDOM R E (equipments ) 2 Error 1 6 (assume s poolin g o f variance s fro

mwithi n all treatments )

For resi n formulatio n comparison s (i.e. , excludin g treatment s 5 and6 ) th e followin g ANOV A applies : SOURCE OFVARIATION DEGREES O FFREEDOM R F(resins ) 5 Error 1 6 (assume s poolin g o f variance s fromwithin al l treatments )

F-1 5
/ / /P.2 6

I t shoul db e notedtha

t an y compariso n involving RF4S G or RF4FG versu s one o f

th e other treatment s i s not

onl y acompariso n o f

resin formulation s but

als o o f applicatio n method
. Tabl e 1 1 present s th e ANOV A result s fo

r the X andall o f

th e Y variables
. Th e upper portio n o f the tabl e give s mean s fo

r eachtreatmen

t (combinatio n o f

equipmen t an dformualtion ) whil e the lowe

r portio n show s th e result s o f testin g hypotheses
. Nonsignifican t result s wer

e obtaine dfo

r X andY l wit

h regar dto difference s du e t o resi n formulation s (whil e usin g afixed typ e o f equipment , REI) ; th e remainin g Y variable s al l exhibite dhighl y significan t effect s du e t o thes e formulations
. Typ e o f equipmen t appearedt

o b e asignifican

t facto r fo r all o f seven o f thes e variables
. Poin

t estimate s of

mea n difference s an

d9 5 percent

confidenc e interva

l estimate s ar e given i n Tabl e 1 2 fo

r E Fi n percent

availabl e styrene (% AS ) a s measure db y THC an dMB
. Simila r infonnatio n i s presente din Tabl e 1 3 fo r E Fin g/m

2 a s measure db y TH

C ari dMB
. Simila r information i s presente din Tabl e 1 4 fo r E Fin g/ g a s measure dby THC andMB
. The with-in cell standar

ddeviation s fo

r resin experimen

t ar e shown in Tabl e 15
. Fo r the tw o Z variables , a

n initia l analyse s of

covarianc e wer

e ru n by incorporatin g th e transfe r efficiency variabl e X into th e ANOV A model
. Th e result s are give n i n Tabl e 16
. Bot h typ e o f resi n formulation andtyp e o f equipmen t appear s t o hav e asignifican t effec t on bot h variables
.

F-1 6TABL E 11 . Analysi s of Variance Results fo rResin Experiment : Variables X , Yl , Y2,... , Y8 MEAN S TREATMEN T 1 RE I 2 RE I 3 RE I 4 RE I 5RE 2 6RE 3 7RE 4 8RE 4 RF 1 RF 2 RF 3 RF 6 RF 1 RF 1 RF4F G RF4S G N

5 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 X a -0. 6 -0. 7 -0. 2 -0. 9 4. 6 4. 4 -0. 9 -8. 6 Y l

214. 0 192. 7 179. 7 148. 7 143. 0 166. 3 192. 5 311. 0 Y 2

202. 0 170. 3 86. 7 77. 3 149. 0 121. 0 262. 0 382. 5 Y 3

17. 4 17. 3 10. 6 10. 6 14. 2 15. 3 21. 3 26. 2 Y 4

17. 0 16. 1 10. 4 9. 7 13. 8 15. 1 20. 3 24. 8 Y 5

195. 0 173. 3 125. 3 116. 7 134. 7 131. 3 224. 5

. 330. 0 Y 6

189. 4 161. 0 122. 3 107. 3 130. 0 129. 0 214. 0 312. 5 Y 7

0.06 7 0.06 1 0.04 6 0.04 6 0.05 5 0.05 9 0.09 1 0.11 2 Y 8

0.06 5 0.05 7 0.04 5 0.04 2 0.05 3 0.05 8 0.08 6 0.10 6

i

- J Hypothesi s Testin g Results :

RMS E fo r

testin g effect s (1 6 df) : 19 0 Tes t fo r Treatment s ** * 30.8 2 31.5 0 1.2 8

** * 1.5 2 11.1 4 11.1 7

** * 0.005 3

** * 0.006 1

** * Tes t fo r Resi n Formulation s (Trt 1 vs . 2 vs . 3 vs : 4) : n.s . n.s . Tes t fo r Equipment s (Trt 1 vs . 5 vs . 6) : * * *

* = statistically significan

t a t the 0.0 5 level
. * * = statistically significan t a t th e 0.0 1 level
. ** * = statistically significan t a t th e 0.00 1 level
. 'Overal l mea

n fo r X prior t o standardization wa

s 92.65
. ** * ** *

** * ** *



### PP.2 8

TABL E 12 . Estimate d Mea n Difference s an d Confidenc e Interva l Estimate s fo rPercen t

Availabl e Styren e ( % AS) : Resi n Experimen t

Variabl e an d compariso n Y3 - EF , % AS (by THC ) Equipmen t Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE2RF 1 RE1RF 1 -RE3RF 1 RE2RF 1 -RE3RF 1 Resi n Formulation Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 2 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 1 -REIRF 6 RE1RF 2 -REIRF 3 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF3 -RE1RF 6 Comparison o f

MEK P an dBP O systems RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4F G RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4S G
Y 4 - EF , % AS (b y MB ) Equipmen t Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE2RF 1 RE1RF 1 -RE3RF 1 RE2RF 1 -RE3RF 1 Resi n Formulation Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 2 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF3 -REIRF 6 Comparison o f

MEK P andBP O system s RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4F G RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4S G Lowe r95 % Estimate d confidenc e mea n limi tdifferenc e

1.22 0 3.207 0.12 0 2.10 7 -3.32 2 -1.10 0
-1.88 0 0.107 4.85 3 6.84 0 4.85 3 6.84 0 4.51 2 6.73 3 4.51 2 6.73 3 -2.22 2 0.00 0

-6.08 6 -3.81 0 -11.03 6 -8.76 0

0.79 6 3.147 -0.43 7 1.91 3 -3.32 2 -1.10 0
-1.47 0 0.88 0 4.26 3 6.61 3 4.89 6 7.247 3.10 5 5.73 3 3.73 9 6.36 7 -1.99 5 0.63 3
-5.96 3 -3.27 0 -10.51 3 -7.82 0 Uppe r95 % confidenc e limi t

5.194 4.09 4 1.12 2
2.09 4 8.82 7 8.82 7 8.95 5 8.95 5 2.22 2

-1.53 4 -6.48 4

5.49 7 4.264 1.12 2
3.23 0 8.96 4 9.59 7 8.36 1 8.99 5 3.26 1
-0.57 7 -5.12 7 Significan t

* * *

** * ** * ** * ** *

* * ** *

* •

** * ** * ** * ** *

* ** * Comparison s significan

t a t the 0.0 5 leve

l ar e indicatedb

y '* ' * = statistically significan

t a t th e 0.0 5 level
. * * = statistically significan t a t th e 0.0 1 level
. ** * = statistically significan t a t th e 0.00 1 level
.
F-1 8 

# \\ VP.2 9

TABLE 13 . Estimate d Mea n Differences an

d Confidence Interval Estimate s fo rEmissio n Facto r(g/m 2 ) : Resi n Experiment

Variabl e and compariso n Y 5 - EF , g/m

2 (by THC ) Equipmen t Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE2RF 1 RE1RF 1 -RE3RF 1 RE2RF 1 -RE3RF 1 Resi n Formulation Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 2 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF2 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF 3 -RE1RF 6 Comparison o f

MEK P andBP O system s RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4F G RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4S G Y 6 - EF , g/m

2 (b y MB ) Equipmen t Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE2RF 1 RE1RF 1 -RE3RF 1 RE2RF 1 -RE3RF 1 Resi n Formulation Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 2 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF3 -RE1RF 6 Compariso n of

MEK P andBPO system s RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4F G RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4S G Lower95 % confidenc e limit

43.094 46.42 8 -15.94 0
4.42 8 52.42 8 61.094 28.72 6 37.39 3 -10.607
-49.25 0 -154.75 0

42.10 4 43.104 -18.33 8
11.10 4 49.77 1 64.77 1 19.329 34.32 9 -4.33 8
-44.41 5 -142.91 5 Estimate d

mea n difference

60.33 3 63.66 7 3.33 3
21.66 7 69.66 7 78.33 3 48.00 0 56.66 7 8.667
-29.50 0 -135.00 0

59.40 0 60.40 0 1.00 0
28.40 0 67.06 7 82.067 38.667 53.667 15.00 0
-24.60 0 -123.100 Uppe r95 %

confidence limi t

77.57 2 80.90 6 22.60 7
38.90 6 86.90 6 95.57 2 67.27 4 75.94 0 27.94 0
-9.75 0 115.25 0

76.69 6 77.69 6 20.33 8
45.69 6 84.36 3 99.36 3 58.004 73.004 34.33 8
-4.78 5 -103.28 5 Significan t

** * ** *

* * ** * ** * ** *

* * *« *

** * ** *

* * • * * • ** * ** * * * •

* * • * Comparison s significan

t a t th e 0.0 5 level ar

e indicatedby '*'
. * = Statistically significan t a t the 0.0 5 level
. * * = Statistically significan t a t th e 0.0 1 level
. ** * = Statistically significan t a t th e 0.00 1 level , n.s . = No t statistically significan

t a t th e 0.0 5 level
. F-1 9 

# ASP.3 0

TABL E 14 . Estimated Mea n Differences an

d Confidenc

e Interva l Estimate s fo rEmission Facto r(g/g) : Resin Experiment

Variabl e an d compariso n Y 7 - EF , g/ g (by THC ) Equipmen t Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE2RF 1 RE1RF 1 -RE3RF 1 RE2RF 1 -RE3RF 1 Resi n Formulatio n Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 2 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 3 REIRF 1 -RE.1RF 6 RE1RF2 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF 3 -RE1RF 6 Compariso n o f

MEK P andBP O system s RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4F G RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4S G Y 8 - EF , g/

g (b y MB ) Equipment

Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE2RF 1 REIRF 1 -RE3RF 1
Resi n Formulatio n Comparison s RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 2 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF 1 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF 2 -RE1RF 3 RE1RF2 -RE1RF 6 RE1RF 3 -RE1RF 6 Compariso n o f

MEK P andBPO system s RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4F G RE1RF 1 -RE4RF4S G Lowe r95 % confidenc e limi t

0.00 4 0.00 0 -0.01 3
-0.00 3 0.01 3 0.01 3 0.00 6 0.00 6 -0.00 9

-0.03 3 -0.05 4

0.00 3 -0.00 2 -0.01 5
-0.00 1 0.01 1 0.01 4 0.00 1 0.00 4 -0.00 8

-0.03 2 -0.05 1 Esimtated

mea n difference

0.01 2 0.00 8 -0.004
0.00 6 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.01 5 0.01 5 0.000

-0.024 -0.04 5

0.01 2 0.007 -0.00 5
0.00 8 0.02 0 0.02 3 0.01 2 0.01 5 0.00 3

-0.02 1 -0.04 1 Uppe r95 %

confidenc e limi t

0.02 0 0.01 6 0.00 5
0.01 4 0.029 0.029 0.02 4 0.02 5 0.00 9

-0.01 4 -0.03 5

0.022 0.01 7 0.00 6
0.01 8 0.03 0 0.03 2 0.022 0.02 5 0.01 3

-0.01 0 -0.03 0 Significan t

* * *

** * ** * * * * *

** * ** *

*

** * ** * * * *

** * #* * Comparison s significan

t a t th e 0.05 leve

l ar e indicatedby '*'
. * = Statistically significan t a t the 0.05 level
. * * = Statistically significan t a t the 0.0 1 level
. ** * = Statistically significan t a t the 0.00 1 level , n.s . = No t statistically significan

t a t th e 0.05 level
. F-20



## p( UP.3 1

TABLE 15 . Within-treatmentStandar d Deviation s - Resin Experiment
TR T N X Z l Z 2 Y l Y

2 Y3 Y

4 Y 5 Y6 Y

7 Y 8 RE1RF 1 RE1RF 2 REIRF 3 RE1RF6 RE2RF 1 RE3RF 1 RE4RF4F G RE4RF4S G 5

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1. 1 1. 0 0. 7 1.6 0. 9 0. 3 0. 1 6. 5 25. 0 7. 1 12. 7 49. 5 14. 6 28. 8 17. 0 13. 4 6. 8 6. 6 20. 7 40. 6 35. 6 36. 7 0. 0 26. 9 8. 7 2. 1 13. 5 49. 6 22. 9 47. 4 0. 7 63. 6 11. 9 7. 2 9. 6 7. 1 50. 7 14. 0 0. 0 96. 9 1.

0 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 0. 4 0. 9 0. 9 3. 3 1. 4 1. 0 1. 7 1. 3 2. 0 1.3 0. 2 2. 5 11. 0 3. 5 5. 7 21. 5 6. 0 12. 7 7. 8 5. 7 3. 0 3. 0 8. 7 18. 0 15. 7 15. 9 0. 0 12. 0 0.00

4 0.004 0.00 5 0.00 6 0.00 1 0.00 4 0.004 0.01 4 0.00 5 0.004 0.00 7 0.00 6 0.00 8 0.00 5 0.00 1 0.01 1

F-2 1 

# //AP.3 2

TABL E 16 . Analysi s o f Covariance Result

s forResin Experiment : Variable s Z l and Z 2 MEAN S MEAN

S ADJUSTE

D FO RX TREATMEN

T N X " Z l Z 2 Z l Z 2 1 REI 2 REI 3RE 1 4RE 1 5RE 2 6RE 3 7RE 4 8RE 4 RF1 '

RF 2 RF 3 RF6 RF 1 RF 1 RF4F G RF4S G 5

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 -0. 6

-0. 7 -0. 2 -0. 9 4. 6 4. 4 -0. 9 -8. 6 444. 8

395. 3 286. 3 266. 7 306. 7 299. 0 512. 0 752. 5 431. 8

367. 0 279. 0 244. 7 296. 3 294. 3 488. 0 713. 0 444. 4

394. 9 286. 2 266. 0 309. 9 302. 1 511. 4 746. 5 428. 7

363. 8 278. 2 240. 3 319. 0 316. 0 483. 8 671. 0 Hypothesi s Testin g Results : RMS E fo r

testin g effect s (1 6 df) : (an dcovariate ) (1 5 df) : Tes t fo r Treatments : 25.4 6

** * 25.44

** * 26.2 6 24.4 5

** * ** * Tes t fo r Resi n Formulation s (Tr t 1 vs . 2 vs . 3 vs . 4) : Tes t fo r Equipment s (Tr t 1 vs . 5 vs . 6) : ** * .** *

** * ** * ** *

** * ** *

* = statistically significan

t a t the 0.05 leve

l * * = statistically significan t a t th e 0.0 1 leve

l ** * = statistically significan t a t the 0.00 1 leve

l "Overal l mea

n fo r X prior to standardizatio n was 79.96
.

F-2 2 

# rl 8P.3 3

F. 4 Summar y Tabl e 1 7 provide s a summar y o f th e hypothesi s testin g results
. TABL E 17 . Summar y o f Result s o f

Specifi c Hypothesi s Test s Compariso n M l vs.M 2 A l vs . A 2 GF l vs . GF2 GE l vs.GE 2 GE l vs.GE 3 GE 2 vs . GE 3 RF l vs . RF

2 | REI RF l vs . RF3JRE 1 RF l vs . RF 6 | REI RF2vs.RF3|RE l RF2vs
. RF6|RE 1 RF3 vs . RF6 | RE

I REI vs.RE2|RF l RE l vs.RE3|RF l RE 2 vs . RE3 | RF l REI RF l vs . RE4RF4F

G RE1RFI vs.RE4RF4S G RE4RF4FG vs . RE4RF4S G X
* *

#

* * * *

** *
** * Z l
** *

** *

** * ** * ** *
* * •

** * ** *

* * ** *
** * Z 2 *

** *

* * ** * ** * ** *

** * ** *
* ** *
** * Y l
** *

** *

*

*

* *

** *
** * Y 2

** *

** * ** * * * * *
* * *

** *
** * Y 3
* *

** * ** * ** * ** *

* * *

* * ** *
** * Y 4

* • * ** * ** * ** *
*

*

** * Y5
** *

** *

# ** * ** * ** * »* *

** *
* • *

* * ** *

* * • Y6 *

* # •

* *

** * ** * ** *

• * * ** *
* ** *
** * Y 7 Y 8 *

•• * ** •

** * ** * ** * ** * * * * * * * *

* * * *

** * *» * ** * ** *
* * * *

* = statisticall y significan

t a t th e 0.0 5 level
. * * = statisticall y significan t a t th e 0.0 1 level
. ** * = statisticall y significan t a t th e 0.00 1 level
.

F-2 3



# I fiP.3 4

Appendix G THC Analyze

r Evaluation : Sampling Line Los s andPressure Effec t

Sectio n Tabl e o f Content s

G- i


# /ZO Pag e No
. G
. 1 Samplin g Line Los s G- 1 G. 2 Pressure Effec

t G- 2P.3 5

G. l Samplin g Lin e Los s A t the beginnin g o

f th e project , question s wer

e raise dabout

whethe r styren e woul db e los t i n th e samplin g lin e du e to it s reactiv e nature
. RT I investigate dpotentia l samplin g lin e losse s prior

t o the styrene emissio n testing a t Reichhol dChemical
. Styrene an dpropan e calibratio n standard s wer

e delivere dthroughvariou s samplin g line s connecte dt o th e analyzer' s calibratio n andsampl e port s i n amanne r ver y simila r to tha t employeddurin g routin e calibrations
. The analyze

r operatin g parameter s wer

e identica l to thos e useddurin g styren e emissio n testing
. Th e result s o f thi s stud y indicat e tha t ther e are n o significan

t pressure effect s o r styrene losse s associate dwit h the sampling line
. I n a n initia l test , tw o differen

t length s ( 4 fee t versu s 2 5 feet)of

1/8-inc h ID PF A Teflon tubin g wer

e compared
. I

n asecondtest , 4 fee

t o f 1/8-inc h I D PF A Teflo n tubin g wa s compare d to 1 2 fee t o f 1/4-inc h E D tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) Teflon tubing
. I n th e initia

l test , tw o styrene calibratio n standards , fou r propan e calibratio n standards , andzero air

wer e measure don Rang e 2 ( 0 t o 20 0 ppm

v styrene ) afte

r bein g delivere dthroughth e 4-foot and25-foot

length s o f 1/8-inc h I D samplin g lines
. Tw o other styrene calibratio n standards , thre e other

propan e calibratio n standards , andzer o air wer e measure don Rang e 1 ( 0 t o 2 0 ppm v styrene ) afte

r being delivere dthroughthe tw o samplin g lines
. Leas t square s regressio n analysi s o f 2-minut e mea n voltage s yieldedslope s fo r th e 25-foot

dataregresse dagains t

th e 4

- foo f data
. Th e result s o

f thi s tes t ar e give n i n the following table :
Styrene Slop e (Volts/Volt) Propan e Slop e (Volts/Volt) Styrene-to-Propan e Slop e Rati o Rang e 2 1.069 7 (+/

- 0.0070 ) 1.0485 (+/-0.0150 ) 1.0203 Rang e 1 1.111 5 (+/

- 0.0266 ) 1.043 0 (+/

- 0.0032 ) 1.065 7
A styrene or

propan e slop e equa

l t o 1.000 0 woul dindicat

e equa l o r no losse s fo

r propan e or styren e i n the tw o differen

t sampling lines
. Th e measure dslope s ar e greate r tha n 1.0000 , which coul dmea

n tha t the 25-foot

sampling lin e ha

dlower losse s tha n th e 4-foot

samplin g line
. Thi s possibl e conclusio n i s counterintuitive
. Instead , i t wa s hypothesize dtha

t th e higher

tota l hydrocarbo n analyze

r response s i

n the 25-foot

samplin g lin e wer

e associate dwit

hsome pressure effect i n th e analyzer
. G- 1P.3 6

A styrene-to-propane slop e rati o o f 1.000 0 wouldindicat

e tha t an y styren e losse s i

n the samplin g line s wer

e equa l to an y propane losses
. No conclusion s wer e drawn fro

mthes e data concernin g styrene losse s du e to question s abou t possibl e pressure effects
. Th e sampling lin e los s measurement s wer e repeate di

n asecondtes t

usin g adifferen

t samplin g line
. A 12-foo

t lengt h o f 3/16-inch I D TF

E tubing , whichmor

e realisticall y simulate s th e actua l samplin g line , wa s compare dto th e 4-foot lengt ho f 1/8-inc h I D PFA tubing
. Thi s tes t use dth e same calibratio n standard s a s wa s use din the previou s test
. Th e result s of th e leas t square s regressio n analysi s o f thes e tes t dataare give

n i n th e followin g table :
Styren e Slop e (Volts/Volt) Propan e Slop e (Volts/Volt) Styrene-to-Propan e Slop e Rati o Rang e 2 0.997 2 (+/-0.0186 ) 1.013 4 (+/

- 0.0020 ) 0.984 0 Rang e 1 1.0326 (+/

- 0.0072 ) 1.022 8 (+/

- 0.0064 ) 1.009 5
Thes e result s indicat

e tha t there are n o significan

t pressure effects associate dwit h th e tw o samplin g line s tha

t wer e teste dandtha

t ther e i s n o significan

t styren e losse s i

n th e longe

r samplin g line
. G. 2 Pressur e Effect Durin g routine calibration s o f th e tota l hydrocarbon analyzer , RTI observe dtha t th e analyzer' s respons e i s ver

y sensitiv e t o change s in th e sampl e pressure a t th e inlet o f th e FTD's capillary
. Th e analyzer' s operatin g manua l state s tha t i t i s ver y critical t o maintai n exactly th e same sampl e pressure durin g calibration s a s durin g analysi s of actua l samples , i t

ma y b e necessar y to adjust the back-pressur

e regulator

t o maintain the sampl e pressure . RTI carefull

y maintaine dthe sampl e pressure a t 3. 0 psi g durin g calibration s an droutin e samplin g andnotedtha

t th e sampl e pressure shiftedb y approximately 0. 1 psi g whe n the analyze

r wa s switche dbetwee

n thes e tw o operatin g modes
. The back-pressur e regulator

wa s adjusteda s needed
. RTI foundtha

t a+/

- 0. 1 psi g sampl e pressure shif t durin g acalibratio n produce da n approximately +/

- 6. 5 percen t shif t i n th e analyzer' s response . Some question s remaine dconcernin g possibl e residua l pressure effects
. The sampl e pressure gaug e i s connectedt o the inlet o f the back-pressur

e regulator , whichi s about 9 inche s downstrea mo f the inle t o f the FT D capillary
. Difference s i

n samplin g lin e pressure drop s upstrea mof the sampling pum

p ma y produc e pressure difference s a t th e FID inlet

eve n though th e sampl e pressur

e wa s maintaine da

t 3. 0 psig
. G- 2 

# at-P.3 7

RTI investigate dthes e question s by deliverin g three propane calibratio n standard s an d zero ai r through thre e differen

t sampling line s to th e analyze r i n amanne r simila r to tha t used durin g routin e calibrations
. The analyze r wa s operate do

n Range 2
. The thre e following sampl e line s wer e connecte dt

o the analyzer' s thre e inlet

ports : (A) 8-fee

t x 1/8-inc h I D PF A Teflon tubin g wit

hga s pressur

e maintaine da

t 5 psi g b y a n in-lin e pressur

e regulator

(norma l calibratio n configuration) ; (B ) 4-fee

t x 1/8-inc h E D PF A Teflon tubin g wit

hgas pressur

e maintaine da

t 0 psi g b y a n atmospheric

- pressur

e samplin g manifold ; an

d (C ) 12-fee

t x 3/16-inch E

D TF E Teflon tubin g wit

hga s pressure maintaine da t 0 psi g by a n atmospheric-pressur

e samplin g manifold
. Leas t square s regression analysi s of 2-minut e mea n voltage s yielde dth e following slope s : or th e regressio n line s associatedwit h the thre e samplin g lines : Samplin g Lin e A B C Regression Slop e

(Volts/ppmv ) 0.0184 5 0.0179 2 0.0196 9 Slop e Rati o relativ e t o Norma l Calibratio n Configuration
0.97 1 1.06 7 Thes e result s indicat

e tha t residua l pressur e effects exis t

eve n whe n the sampl e pressure i s maintaine da

t 3. 0 psig
. Although Samplin g Line s B an dC wer e operatin g a

t atmospheri c pressure , th e slope s differedby approximately 1 1 percent
. I t i s hypothesize dtha

t the pressure drop s acros s th e samplin g line s ar e the caus e o

f the difference
. The theoretica l pressur e drop acros s Samplin g Lin e B i s 0.4 7 psi g a t aflowrat e o f 7 liter s pe r minute
. Th e correspondin g pressure dro p acros s Samplin g Line C i s 0.2 0 psig
. It i s unclea r how thes e result s ca

n b e extrapolate dt o the 12-foo t lon g by 1/4-inc

h E D PF A Teflo n tubin g use da s the sampling lin e i n th e styrene emission tests
. The theoretica l pressure dro p fo r thi s samplin g line i s 0.05 3 psig
. Immediately following the EP A performanc e evaluation , RT I conducte da

n additiona

l pressure effect s tes t

usin g th e 15 3 pp mpropan e calibratio n standar dandvariou s samplin g lines
. The result s o

f thi s tes t i s give n i n the following table
.

G O 

## /-2-s ;P.38

_

Samplin g Line an

d Configuratio n

8-fee t x 1/8-inc h I D PF A Teflo n tubing wit

h pressure maintaine da

t 5 psi g by a

n in-line pressur e regulator

(norma l calibratio n configuration ) 12-fee t x 3/16-inch ID TF

E Teflon tubing wit

h pressure maintaine da

t G psi g b y a n atmospheri c pressur e samplin g manifold 12-fee t x 1/4-inc h I D PF A Teflo n tubing wit

h pressure maintaine da

t 0 psi g by a

n atmospheri c pressure samplin g manifold(norma l sampling line ) Analyze r Respons e to 15 3 ppm Propan e (Volts ) 2.78 2

2.80 9

2.96 8 Analyze

r Respons e Rati o Relativ e t o Norma l Calibratio n Configuration

1.01 0

1.06 7

Thes e result s are somewha t differen t fro mth e previou s set

o f results
. The 3/16-inch tubin g produce da

n analyzer respons e 1 percen

t greate r tha n the norma

l calibratio n configuratio n wherea s i t wa s 6. 7 percent

greate r i n the previou s se

t o f results
. Thi s differenc e ma y b e du e t o either avariatio n i

n th e magnitude o

f th e pressur

e effec t durin g the tw o set s o

f measurement s or t o avariatio n i

n the concentratio n i

n the sampling lines
. Nevertheless , th e genera l trendo f thes e result s i s the sam

e (i.e. , larger-bor

e sampling line s a

t atmospheri c pressur

e produc e greate

r response s tha

n th e norma

l pressurize dcalibratio n line)
. Base do n thes e limite dmeasurement s an dthos e obtaine ddurin g the performanc e evaluation , th e following conclusion s ma y b e drawn :

• despite carefu

l contro l o

f th e analyzer' s sample pressure , variation s of the ga s pressure i

n th e sampling lin e an dth e calibratio n line produc e change s i n the analyzer' s response ; • th e result s o

f the pressure effects measurement s ar e inconsistent

andmor e measurement s wouldb e require dto quantif y definitivel

y the magnitude o

f the pressur

e effect ; an

d
• th e observe dmagnitude o f the pressur

e effec t rangedbetwee

n 1 an d7 percent
. Th e impact

o f the pressure effects o

n the tota l hydrocarbon measurement s i s not excessiv e relativ e t

o th e +/

- 5 percent

accuracy objectiv e tha

t i s give n i n the qualit

y assuranc e projec t plan
. Consequently , the tota l hydrocarbon measurement s shoul dnot b e correctedfo

r pressure effects o

f unquantifie dmagnitude
. (Reference : F
. Caplan , "Findin g Air Pressur e Drop ThroughSmoot

hTubes" , Plan

t Engineering
. Januar y 6 , 1977 , pp . 74-75. )
G-4



# f l *P.3 9

Appendi x H A n RTI Technica

l Syste mAudit Repor t

H- i 

# /zsP.4 0



### RESEARC H TRIANGL E INSTITUT E 

# /RT I

MEMORANDU M TO : Emer y Kong , RT I Projec t Leade r FROM : Cynthi aSalmons , RT I QA Officer (t& DATE : Jul y 20 , 199 5 SUBJECT : Technica l System s Audi t o f Evaluatio n o f

Pollutio n Preventio n Technique s t o Reduc e Styren e Emission s Fro mOpe n Contac t Moldin g Processe s O n Jun e 9 , Dr
. Willia mYeage r an dI conducte datechnica l system s audi t (TSA ) o f th e styren e emission s project
. Pre-audi t activitie s include dpreparatio n o f a n audi t checklis t

base do n th e qualit y assuranc e projec t pla n (QAPP , se e attachment ) an da n informa l walkthroug ho n Jun e 2
. Thi s memorandu m summarize s th e audi t

findings
. W e generall y foun dtha t th e activitie s wer e conducte di n accordanc e wit h th e QAPP
. Th e scale s an dtota l hydrocarbo n analyze r (THA ) wer e calibrated
. Th e actua l TH A calibratio n procedur e wa s mor e extensiv e tha n tha t describe di n th e QAP P an dMetho d25A
. Originally , us e o f tw o concentratio n range s o n th e TH A wa s planne ds o adequat e cylinder s t o calibrat e bot hwer e obtained
. -Throug h Jun e 9 , fo r al l tes t run s involvin g spra y guns , th e highe r concentratio n rang e (0-20 0 ppm ) wa s used , bu t

al l o f th e cylinder s (seve n al l together ) wer e use dt o calibrat e and/o r chec k th e calibratio n o f

th e on e rang e befor e eac hrun . I n addition , th e calibratio n drif

t tes t wa s performe dafte r

eac hrun . Whe n th e flo w coate r o r pressure-fe drolle r

wa s use di n th e tes t

run , th e lowe r

concentratio n rang e (0-2 0 ppm ) o n th e TH A wa s use dfo r bette r resolution
. O n day s wit hthre e o r fou r runs , thi s approac h involve dman y check s wit hth e sam e calibratio n gases . I f a calibratio n i s performe dbefor e eac hrun , usin g tw o o f th e cylinder s fro mth e serie s o f calibratio n gase s fo r

th e calibratio n drif

t chec k immediatel y before , fo r nin e analyse s o f

th e seve n cylinders , i s probabl y no t necessary . Whil e i t

seem s reasonabl e t o perfor mth e seve n poin t calibratio n a t

th e star t

o f th e day , afou r poin t calibration , a s calle dfo r i n th e method , shoul db e sufficien t befor e th e othe r run s o f th e day
. Whil e Metho d25 A i s explici t abou t whic hconcentration s shoul d b e use d(80-90% , 45-55% , an d25-35 % o f th e spa n value , an dazero ) fo r th e fou r poin t calibration , wit h thi s man y calibration s takin g place , i t woul dsee m reasonabl e t o switc h aroun dth e cylinder s use dfo r th e fou r poin t calibration , appropriat e fo r

th e hig h o r

lo w concentratio n range , i n th e cours e o f th e day
. Afte r Jun e 9 , whe n w e discusse dthi s issue , seve n poin t calibration s wer e performe da t

th e star t

o f eac h day
. Then , fou r

poin t calibration s wer e performe d befor e eac h tes t

run . Th e scal e calibration s consiste do f addin g 9 weight s sequentially
. Thi s
30-i O Comwaii. s Rca o • Pes : Offic e Box1219 4

. Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27709 : 219 4 USA Telephon e 91 9 541-600 0 • Fa x91 9 541-598 5 

## H- l 72 6P.4 1

procedur e wa s the n repeate dwit hsomethin g heavy , suc ha s th e mold , o n th e scale
. Bot h scale s (i.e. , insid e th e enclosur e an doutsid e th e enclosure ) wer e linear
. Th e measuremen t poin t fo r th e exhaus t

flow rat e (i.e. , wher e th e pito t tub e i s placed ) i s approximatel y 5- 6 diameter s downstrea mfro mabend
. Thus , th e measuremen t

poin t satisfie s th e requiremen t tha t ther e no t

b e adisturbanc e les s tha n 2 diameter s upstrea mo f th e measuremen t

point , bu t

i s no t consisten t

wit h th e recommendatio n o f no t havin g adisturbanc e les s tha n 8 diameter s upstrea m o f th e measuremen t

point
. Ther e i s no t

areasonabl e wa y o f

achievin g th e recommende d8 diameters
. Metho d1 require s a t leas t 1 6 point s fo r

avelocit y traverse ; 2 4 point s wer e use dfo r thi s project
. Mar k

Bahne r checke dfo r

off-axi s flow b y rotatin g th e pito t tub e i n th e duc t

an dmakin g velocit y hea d( A P ) measurements
. Thi s chec k di dno t indicat e aproble mwit hoff-axi s flow. Th e demonstratio n tha t th e spra y boot h meet s th e criteri afo r tota l ; " enclosur e wa s no t

observed , bu t

th e note s fro mthisjwer e reviewed.
. A fe w o f th e -.. , hot-wir e anemomete r

reading s a t

th e natura l draf

t opening s wer e slightl y les s y tha n 20 0 fpm , an dther e wa s considerabl e fluctuatio n i n th e ho t wir e anemomete r readings
. Smok e tube s wer e use dt o chec k th e natura l draf

t a t th e door , an dth e " ai r wa s alway s observe dt o b e flowin g int o th e spra y booth
. Calculatin g th e duc t flowrate b y dividin g th e duc t flo w rate , whic haverage d8,67 4 cfm , b y th e ope n are a(4 2 squar e feet ) indicate s anatura l draft openin g velocit y o f

20 6 fpm
. Th e • *

: result s o f

th e styren e evaporatio n experiment s indicat e tha t th e styren e emission s wer e captured
. ' - • •-"-•-

- •••••-••••-••• -••••-•••••• • • • ••..••—...-^-.-' i W e di dno t

observ e th e samplin g an danalysi s o f th e geicoa t

an dresi n becaus e thi s wa s no t

performe do n th e da y o f ou r visit
. W e understan dtha t a Reichhol dlaborator y wil l perfor mth e geicoa t propert y measurements
. W e als o di dno t observ e th e styren e evaporatio n experimen t o r th e weekl y travers e ' measurements , bu t

w e reviewe dresult s fro mthes e activities
. W e als o di driot se e th e measuremen t

o f th e equipmen t

deliver y rate /

W e understan dtha t

thi s wa s performe donc e pe r

day , a t th e en do f

th e day , durin g th e earl y tests
. Later , thi s wa s don e afte r

eac h tes t

run , excep t

for th e pressure-fe droller , fo r whic hthis f

, . determinatio n wa s difficul t t o mak e an dinaccurate
. ' ' ,!
. "' ' ' , w t " ''
' •' 'Th e manufacturer' s specification s fo r th e geicoa t

an dresi n indicat e tha t styren e i s th e onl y volatil e component
. Th e 5 5 gallo n dru mwa s mixe dan dthe n spli t int o 5 gallo n cans . On e quar t sample s wer e take n fo r th e laborator y measurement s fromth e firs t 5 gallo n can s whe n th e materia l wa s use dth e firs t ytime. 1 ' Smal l sample s (approximatel y 3 0 grams ) wer e take n whe n th e materia l wa s las t use dfo r th e analysi s o f

non-volatil e content
. Th e baselin e i n th e spra y boot hwa s measure dwit hth e TH A fo r approximatel y 5 minute s befor e eac hrun . Fo r th e purpose s o f

endin g atest , baselin e wa s define da s areadin g o f les s tha n 1 pp mstyren e o n th e THA
. Typically , th e pre-tes t

backgroun dwa s betwee n 0. 4 an d0. 6 ppm , an dtest s wer e no t ende dunti l th e reading s reache dthi s level
. Th e dat alogge r record s ever y 2 seconds
. A t

th e en do f

eac h run , th e dat awer e downloade dt o acomputer , bu t ther e wa s acompute r

softwar e proble mwit h thi s ste p durin g th e perio dw e observed
. Thi s compute r softwar e proble mwa s resolve dlater , an dal l dat awer e

G o H- 2P.4 2

smoothl y transferre dt o acomputer
. Bo b Wrigh t

recorde dth e pito t

tub e measurement s an dtemperatur e ever y 1 5 minute s o n dat arecordin g sheet s an di n hi s notebook
. Ther e i s aNIST

traceabl e thermomete r

fo r checkin g thes e temperatur e measurements , bu t thi s ha dno t bee n performe dyet
. W e hav e reviewe dth e material s tha t Mar k Bahne r provide do n Jun e 2 0 i n respons e t o Bil l Yeager' s electroni c mai l reques t o f Jun e 12
. Thi s include dresult s fro mth e styren e evaporatio n experiment , th e weekl y travers e measurements , th e check s fo r

off-axi s flow i n th e duct , an dth e test s tha t w e observe ddurin g ou r audit
. Thes e result s di dno t indicat e an y problem s wit hth e projec t activities
. cc : Shr i Kulkarn i Bil l Yeage r Bo b Wrigh t Mar k Bahne r Keit h Lees e File : 5171-01 6

H- 3
/P.4 3

TECHNICA L SYSTEM S AUDI T CHECKLIS T Audi t Subject : Styren e Emission s Date : Jun e 9 , 199 5 Auditee : RT I Auditors : Salmons , Yeage r Location : Reichhol dChemica l Audito r Affil. : RT I Personne l Presen t

Durin g Audit : Emer y Kong , Mar k Bahner , Bo b Wrigh t GENERA L 1 . I s awritte n an dapprove dQA Projec t Pla n (QAPP ) availabl e t o .fiel dpersonne l fo r thi s project ? ,,.,, . Yes
. 2
. Ar e al l deviation s fromth e QAP P an dmethod s properl y documented ? Th e dat alogge r

i s usin g a2 secon dinterval , whic hi s mor e frequen t tha n discusse di n th e QAPP
. Thi s stil l need s t o b e formall y documented
. 3
. Ho w ar e correctiv e actio n procedure s implemented ? Non e neede ds o far
. INITIA L AN D PERIODI C PROCEDURE S 4 . Ar e ther e record s o f

th e compariso n betwee n th e propan e an dstyren e standardizatons ? Whe n wa s th e compariso n performed ? Wha t wer e th e results ? Yes
. Ma y 26 , 1995
. Experimenta l an dtheoretica l result s ar e i n goo d agreement
. 5
. Ar e ther e record s fo r th e compariso n of

direc t injectio n an dunheate dsampl e lines ? Whe n wa s thi s performed ? Wha t wer e th e results ? Yes
. Ma y 30 , 1995 ? Th e agreemen t i s goo dwhe n th e pressur e i s steady
. Whe n th e pressur e fluctuates , introducin g ga s throug hth e sampl e lin e lead s t o higher , no t

lower , values
. A large r diamete r

sampl e lin e wa s als o use dan dseeme dt o improv e agreement
. 6
. Wa s EP A Metho d20 4 use dt o demonstrat e tha t th e spra y boot hmeet s th e criteri afo r

atota l enclosure ? Yes
. Som e hot-wir e anemomete r measurement s a t

th e natura l draft opening s wer e les s tha n 20 0 fp m(approx
. 175)
. Considerabl e fluctuation i n
H- 4P.4 4

th e hot-wir e anemomete r readings
. 7
. Wa s th e captur e efficienc y o f th e boot hdetermine db y evaporatin g aknow n amoun t o f pur e styrene ? Wa s thi s tes t replicated ? Withi n days ? Amon g days ? Yes
. Fiv e test s o n 6/5 ; repeate do n 6/ 7 an do n 6/29
. 8
. I s th e measuremen t

locatio n fo r

exhaus t flowrat e consisten t

wit hth e EP A recommendatio n ( 8 diameter s downstrea mo f ben do r disturbanc e an d2 diameter s upstream) ? Wa s th e flow directio n paralle l t o th e axi s o f th e duc t a t al l point s o n th e traverse ? Wa s a3 D pito t tub e use dt o chec k

fo r turbulence ? Th e measuremen t

locatio n i s 5 o r

6 diameter s downstrea mo f th e ben ds o i t meet s th e 2 diamete r

criteri abu t

no t th e 8 diamete r

recommendation
. A 3 D pito t tub e wa s no t

used
. A t

alate r time , achec k

fo r off-axi s flow wa s performe db y rotatin g th e pito t tub e i n th e duct
. Off-axi s flo w doe s no t see mt o b e aproblem
. 9
. Doe s th e flowrate derive dfro mcenterlin e A P accuratel y predic t th e flowrate determine db y th e traverse ? Ho w doe s th e pito t tub e A P a t

th e cente r

o f th e duc t compar e wit h th e A P s o n th e traverse ? Ho w muc hdoe s thi s A P var y durin g a run ? Ar e ther e an y acceptanc e criteri afo r thi s variation ? Th e precisio n goa l fo r th e exhaus t

flow rat e i s RP D les s tha n o r equa l t o 10%
. Yes , withi n approximatel y 1 percent
. Approx
. 0.1 4 a t center , approx . 0.1 0 a t sid e o f th e traverse
. Velocit y varie s b y approx . 18%
. A P i s slightl y asymmetri c acros s th e duct
. 10
. Whe n was.th e ho t

wir e anemomete r

calibrated ? Ha s i t

recentl y bee n checke d agains t apito t tube ? Calibratio n on . Apri l 14 , 1995
. Wil l chec k agai n afte r

June
. No t

checke d agains t apito t tube
. 11
. Wer e th e linea r

ai r velocitie s i n th e spra y boot hconsisten t wit hth e exhaus t flow rat e measurements ? Approx
. 770 0 cf

mversu s 900 0 i n th e duct
. Ther e wer e considerabl e fluctuations i n th e hot-wir e anemomete r use dt o measur e flow rat e a t th e filter fac e i n th e booth
. 12
. Wa s th e exhaus t

flow rat e determine da t leas t onc e pe r week ? Yes
. A travers e of

bot h th e spra y boot han dth e stac k wa s performe deac h week
. Th e exhaus t

flowrate wa s calculate dbase do n th e cente r lin e A P measurements , whic h wer e take n ever y 1 5 minutes
. H- 513
. Wer e th e ai r flow velocitie s determine dan drecorde dfo r th e natura l draf

t opening s an dove r

th e applicatio n area ? Yes
. 14
. Wer e th e content s o f th e geicoa t

o r resi n containe r

mixe dfo r

2 minute s befor e sampling ?

.. , „ . No t

observed , bu t

discusse dthi s wit htechnica l staff
. ,15
. Ho w wa s th e 1 lite r sampl e o f

geicoa t o r resi n take n fro mth e containe r t o assur e tha t

i t wa s representative ? Wa s eac hcontaine r sampled ? Wer e thes e ... ,, , determination s replicated ? Withi n days ? Amon g days ? Doe s th e manufacturer's ^ invoic e indicat e tha t

styren e i s th e onl y volatil e componen t o f th e material ?

T . . A. No t observed
. Manufacturer' s specificatio n indicate s tha t styren e i s th e 7
. , ''\"~ onl y volatil e component
. 5 5 gallo n drum s ar e broke n dow n int o 5 gallo n ^ "
. i cans. ' 1 quar t

sample s wil l b e take n fro mth e first 5 gallo n ca n an da3 0

- 4 gra msampl e wil l b e take n fromth e las t 5 gallo n can . Th e geicoa t sample s wil l b e sen t

t o aReichhol dlaborator y fo r analysis
. 16
. Wer e th e materia l type , lo t o r batc hnumber , an dcontaine r numbe r recorde d oh'th e geicoa t

o r resi n containe r

delivere dt o th e laboratory ? '•".• " -Z-, •

• . .. . i •

• ..-J. Pi...
. . . : .-..•••. - , - .4.Z i
. -' : , • . . • , PJ Pi 

# ;%/$£:* lf^-/:, . "•""•.'':.:,' " ": : 

# :; x 

# ;:' • ; i 

# ;-;;v: ; 

# ;:'..'J. " \~',.^' " 17
. Wa s styren e conten t fo r th e geicoa t

an dresi n material s determine dwith , Reichhol dStandar dTes t Metho dNo
. 18-001 ?
. : * : .,'.»it;:v.f, ;,u.'••T

j
. , ,'>.. .-..-.. • . • . •::•-. P « ne * .: ! •• .-. " " ' '.''-". ' '"^^•fiv;v, \ '\.v/V>' ' • , .•••,... , ' • . • • • .,• • • • ; p .' . • " ,•.•-•,• ' • • ">;• ' P: * • i •" " < ; '•'- } "' No t observed
. '

. '
. / ,-•>" A ' '••'• ; ; ppm . u.i
. ..."••

J .•'».
. . '
. P: P
." •'• • : •': ,-.': •"

• Viy " v . ..«•: . : ...'•*. ' p>r ; rv^
. 18..Wer e th e ge l time , tim e t o peak , an dpea k exother mcharacteristic s of.
. . polyeste r resin s measure dfollowin g Reichhol dStandar dTes t Metho dNo
. 18-05 0 ' and,18-051?;. : . ; ', i '.'7,
. .'"". "
... . .' 7 ' •—•- • - No t observed
. ..,..'
. , , , . k , , , , ,
. -.<ir* t p^ibru^*^ ' .-•.'•'-••' ' • • 1; ; ; ^ :-'--7>]i.-il } ~''-^Zd he i-yuFAtn:. h-?A7->. An Jher PROCEDURE S FO REAC H RU N V ^ Aa„J i M e i
. ^ •••-.I vte7-t >A\J-~JV--i-, 4; J
... . . .. • . .:••-...:'
. •-• • .":•:.•*."'
. vk'ir. % an d3 ' ; erJ5 : . . .A:. :...r,\r 19
. Wa s th e TH C ^calibrate dbefor e eac hrun ? \ A "i "' ' , '
. : -7 7 „ . spprct-y-^-tf

t f r » r th : AA> O"

-'- ; : .or 1 C:'ri,.r'/ti'ji.' : rango , <:. fr.e cours e t> f th o da y Afte r J auk 9 , whe n »v

o d,; -' , :'/;. c .i-.: ^ thi s /SSJC , ?e-vy n poin t onKbrrtiur: : w'T « 20..,Wa s th e calibratio n erro r tes t procedur e fo r

th e TH C followe d(i.e. , introductio n o f

th e zer o an dhigh-leve l gases , adjustment , analysi s o f th e low , an d mid-leve l gases) ? I f

so , wer e th e result s withi n 5 % o f expected ? Wha t

wer e th e H- 6 

# WP.4 6

predicte dan dobserve dreadings ? Durin g th e project , th e zer o an dspa n pot s wer e no t adjuste ds o tha t

th e instrumen t

drif t coul db e monitored
. A s i s describe di n th e memorandu mt o whic h thi s i s attached , mor e standard s wer e analyze dtha n ar e describe di n th e method
. Th e calculate dcalibratio n wa s base do n th e hig hspa n ga s an d th e zer o gas , whic h wa s assume dt o b e zero . Th e othe r standard s functione da s linearit y an dcalibratio n checks
. Th e predicte dan dobserve d value s wer e generall y withi n 5%
. Background , a s determine dfro mth e instrumen t

readin g prio r

t o th e star t

o f th e test , wa s subtracted
. 21
. Wer e th e balance s checke dwit hstandar dreferenc e weights ? I f so , ho w man y an dwha t

siz e weight s wer e used ? Yes
. Nin e weights , rangin g fro m2 k g t o 1 g . Als o abo x o f fiberglass o r

a mol dwa s adde dt o th e scal e an dth e weight s adde dagai n t o chec k fo r linearity
. 22
. Wa s th e baselin e i n th e spra y boot hmeasure dwit hth e TH C befor e an dafte r eac h run ? Fo r

ho w long ? Yes
. Th e baselin e i s indicate db y aTH C readin g o f les s tha n 1 ppm . Approx
. 5 minutes
. 23
. Wer e th e initia l ai r temperature , velocit y head , an drelativ e humidit y measure dan drecorded ? Yes
. 24
. Wa s th e equipmen t deliver y rat e measure di n aremot e location ? No t observed , bu t

tol dthi s wa s don e a t

th e en do f

th e da y durin g th e earl y testing
. Later , thi s wa s don e afte r eac htest , excep t

fo r th e pressure-fe d roller
. 25
. Wer e th e equipmen t setu p condition s recorded ? No t observed
. 26
. Wer e th e initia l weight s fo r th e mold , gelcoat/resin , catalyst , fiberglass reinforcement , protectiv e skir t fo r cart , an dgroundcove r

recorded ? Yes
. 27
. Wa s th e tim e initiate da s soo n a s applicatio n started ? H- 7



## . ' :>7 

## 13Z-'P.4 7

Yes
. 28
. Wer e th e velocit y hea dan dai r temperatur e recorde dever y 1 5 minutes ? Yes
. Recorde do n adat arecordin g shee t an di n Bo b Wright' s noteboo k excep t durin g lunc h breaks
. 29
. Wer e th e tim e an dweigh t of geicoa t o r resi n recorde da s soo n a s applicatio n wa s completed ? Yes
. 30
. Wa s th e weigh t

o f th e we t mol da t th e en do f

applicatio n withou t

th e protectiv e skir t

recorded ? No
. Recorde dwit h th e skir t on . Th e skir t

wa s no t remove dunti l ge l ha d cure dan dTH C returne dt o baseline
. 31
. Ar e th e equipmen t

deliver y rate s consisten t wit hth e befor e an dafte r mas s measurement s fo r

th e mas s balanc e calculations ? No t observed
. 32
. Wa s th e ru n stoppe dwhe n th e TH C indicate dtha t th e concentratio n returne d t o baseline ? Wa s th e tim e a t whic hthi s happene drecorded ? Yes
.

. 33
. Wa s th e baselin e drif t fo r th e TH C determine da t th e en do f

th e run ? Yes
. 34
. Wa s th e enclosur e flushedwit hfres hmakeu p ai r unti l th e baselin e stabilized ? Yes
. 35
. A t th e en dof

th e day , wer e th e recordin g sheet s wit hsamplin g an danalytica l result s collected , verified , an danalyze db y th e Testin g Cre w Chief ? No t observed , bu t

Mar k Bahne r ha dth e result s fro mth e previou s day s an d wa s abl e t o sho w comparisons , etc
.

H- 8 

# 6 ^P.4 8

Appendi x I EP A Performanc e Evaluatio n o f Tota l Hydrocarbo n Analyze

r

I- i 

# IM -P.4 9

APPENDI

X I . EP

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TOTA L HYDROCARBON ANALYZER EPA personnel conductedaperformanc e evaluatio n o f th e tota l hydrocarbo n analyzer

o n July 7 , 1995
. The purpos e o f the performanc e evaluatio n wa s to asses s th e accurac y of th e analyze r an dt o compar

e thi s assessmen

t wit hth e accurac y dat aqualit

y objectiv e tha

t wa s given i n the qualit

y assuranc e project

plan
. Th e assessment

wa s accomplishe dby measurement o f a styrene perforfanc e evaluatio n sample whos e certifie dconcentratio n wa s unknow n t o RTI
. Th e measurement s wer

e performedo

n Rang e 2 o f

th e analyzer
. RTFs predicte dconcentratio n fo r thi s sampl e differedby 2 percen t fro mit s certifie dconcentration
. Thi s result meet s th e dat aqualit

y objectiv e o

f +/

- 5 percent

fo r calibratio n ga s accurac y tha t wa s give n i n th e qualit

y assuranc e projec t plan
. Additiona

l measurement s showe dtha t pressur e effects di dno t

excee d3 percent durin g th e performanc e evaluation
. The styren e los s i n the sampling lin e wa s foun dt o b e les s tha n 2 percent
. A mor

e detaile ddiscussio n o

f the EP A performanc e evaluatio n i s presente d below
. Discussion s betwee n RT I an dEP A personnel resulte di

n agreemen

t tha t thre e component s o

f accurac y neededt

o b e assesse ddurin g the performanc e evaluation : (1 ) the accuracy o

f RTI' s calibratio n standard s (especially i n ligh t o f the us e o f propan e to calibrat

e fo r styren e measurements) ; (2 ) pressur

e effects associate dwit

hcalibratio n line/samplin g lin e differences ; and (3 ) styrene sampling line losses
. EPA andRTI personnel agreedtha t thes e thre e accuracy component s woul db e assesse d b y measuremen

t o f RTTs propane calibratio n standard s andEPA' s performanc e evaluatio n sampl e throug h RTF s calibratio n lin e fro mth e cylinder s directly an dthroughRTI' s samplin g line fro ma n EP A heate dsampling manifold
. Th e accurac y o

f RTI' s propane calibratio n standard s was determine dfro mmeasurement s i n RTI' s norma

l calibratio n configuration
. RTI measure dit s propane calibratio n standard s and the performanc e evaluatio n sample
. RTI calculate dacalibratio n equatio n fro mth e propan e measurement s andpredicte daconcentratio n fo r th e styrene sampl e base don thi s equation
. Thi s accurac y component

wa s calculate da s th e percentag e differenc e betwee n th e predicte dand certifie dconcentrations
. Pressure effects wer

e determine dby comparin g measurement s o f RTI' s propan e calibratio n standar

dthrough the norma

l calibratio n lin e an

dthroughthe samplin g lin e fro ma n EP A heate dsamplin g manifold
. Thi s accurac y componen t wa s calculate da s th e percentag e differenc e between th e tw o set s o f analyze r responses .

I- l 

# /5S -P.5 0

Styrene samplin g losse s wer e determine dfro

mmeasurement s o

f EPA' s styrene performanc e evaluatio n sampl e i n the norma

l calibratio n configuratio n andthroughthe EP A heate dsampling manifold

/ RTI samplin g line
. Thi s accurac y componen t wa s calculate da s th e percentag e differenc e between the tw o predicte dstyrene concentrations
. The EP A performanc e evaluatio n sample wa s acompresse dga s calibratio n standardtha t wa s prepare di

n Jun e 199 5 b

y Scot t Specialt y Gases
. It s certifie dstyrene concentratio n i s 31. 0 ppma s measuredby Scott , bu t thi s valu e wa s not

independently verifiedby EPA
. RTI di dno t kno w th e certifie dconcentratio n unti l afte r th e evaluatio n hadbee

n completed
. EPA' s samplin g manifoldwa s constructe dfro ma28-inc hlengt

hof 2-inch OD stainles s steel tube
. Stainles s stee l tubin g fitting s wer e weldedt o th e tube
. RTI' s samplin g lin e wa s inserte dinto th e manifoldalon g th e tube' s lon g axis
. Th e manifol dwa s heate dto approximately 13 0 oC
. Th e stati c pressure inside th e manifoldwa s measure db y RTI' s Magnehelic ® differentia l pressure gaug e andwa s maintaine da t 0.0 1 inche s o

f water to ensur e tha t it wa s a t near-atmospheri c conditions
. Th e result s o

f th e evaluatio n are give

n i n th e followin g table :
Paramete r

Equivalent

Styrene Concentratio n TH C Analyze

r Respons e vi aCa

l Por t (Volts ) TH C Analyze

r Respons e vi aEP

A Manifold(Volts ) Predicte dStyrene Concentratio n (Ca

l Port ) Predicte dStyrene Concentratio n (EP

A Manifold) RTI 45.0 3 ppm Propane Calibratio n Standar d 16.8 8 0.844

0.86 3

—

— RT

I 153.3 7 ppm Propan e Calibratio n Standar d

. 57.5 1 2.84 8

2.76 5

—.

— EP

A Styrene Performanc e Evaluatio n Sample Unknown durin g analysi s 1.51 1

1.46 9

30.3 9

29.8 2 RTI

Zero Air 0.0 0 0.00 8

0.03 5

-0.0 8

-0.8 1

1- 2 

# mP.5 1

Parameter

Respons e Chang e due to Pressure Effects (percent) Styren e Los s i

n Samplin g Lin e (percent) RT I 45.0 3 ppm Propan e Calibratio n Standar d +2.2 3

— RTI 153.3 7 ppm .

Propane Calibratio n Standar d -2.9 2

— EP

A Styrene Performanc e Evaluatio n Sampl e -2.7 6

-1.8 7 RTI

Zer o Ai r

—

—

Usin g measurement s i

n RTI' s norma

l calibratio n configuration , th e predicte d concentratio n of

the styrene performanc e evaluatio n sample i s 30.3 9 ppm . Thi s valu e differs b y - 2. 0 percent

fro mthe certifiedvalu e o

f 31. 0 ppm . Th e result s o

f the pressur

e effects measurement s ar

e inconsistent
. Th e analyzer' s respons e fo

r one propane calibratio n standar dincreasedb

y 2. 2 percent , but

respons e decrease d by 2. 9 an d2. 8 percent

fo r th e other propan e calibratio n standar dandfo r th e styren e performanc e evaluatio n sample , respectively
. It i s hypothesize dtha

t stabilizatio n problem s o r

som e unknown problemwer

e biasin g the EP

A manifoldresults
. I

n an y case , pressur

e effects d o not

appea r t o excee d+/

- 3 percent
. Th e styren e los s i

n RTI' s samplin g lin e wer

e les s tha t 2 percent i f one accept s all the propan e andstyrene measurement s a s being correct
.

1- 3 

## IrTECHNICA L REPOR T OAT A (Please read

Instructions on Ihe reverse before completing) 1 . REPOR T NO . EPA-600/R-97-018 b 3 . RECIPIENT' S ACCESSIO N NO . 4 . TITL E AN O SUBTITL E Evaluatio n o f

Pollutio n Preventio n Technique s t o Reduc e Styren e Emission s fro mOpe n Contac t Moldin g Processes ; Volum e II , Appendixe s 5 . REPOR TOAT E Marc h 199 7 6 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N COD E

7 . AUTHOR(S ) Emer y Kong , Mar k

Bahner , Rober t

Wright , an d Andre w Clayto n 8 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N REPOR TNO .

9 . PERFORMIN G ORGANIZATIO N NAM E AN O ADDRES S 10 . PROGRA M ELEMEN TNO . Researc h Triangl e Institut e P
. O
. Bo x 1219 4 Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a2770 9 11 . CONTRACT/GRAN TNO . C R818419-0 3

12 . SPONSORIN G AGENC Y NAM E AN O AOORES S EPA , Offic e o f

Researc h an dDevelopmen t Ai rPollutio n Preventio n an dContro l Divisio n Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 13 . TYP E O F REPOR T AN D PERIOD COVERE D Final ; 4/94-9/9 5 14 . SPONSORIN G AGENC Y COD E EPA/600/1 3 I8.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES AP P C D p r o j e C t office r i s GeddesH
. Ramsey , Mai l Dro p 61
. 919 / 541-7963
. Volum e I i s th e fina l report
. i«
. ABSTRAC

T Tn e re p 0 r t

give s result s o f

astud y t o evaluat e severa l pollutio n preventio n technique s tha t

coul db e use dt o reduc e styren e emission s fro mope n moldin g pro - cesse s i n th e fiberglass-reinforce dplastics/composite s (FRP/C ) an dfiberglas s boa t buildin g industries
. Styren e emission s usin g standar dindustr y techniques , mater
ials , an dequipmen t wer e evaluate di n acontrolle denvironmen t an dcompare dt o a baslin e conditio n t o determin e th e effect s o f thes e pollutio n preventio n technique s o n styren e emissions
. Th e stud y foun dtha t usin g controlle dsprayin g (i.e. , reducin g overspray) , low-styren e an dstyrene-suppresse dmaterials , an dnonatomizin g appli

catio n equipmen t

ca n reduc e styren e emission s b y fro m1 1 t o 52%
. Facilitie s shoul d investigat e th e applicabilit y an dfeasibilit y o f thes e pollutio n preventio n option s t o reduc e thei r

styren e emissions
. Th e calculate demissio n factor s wer e fro m1. 6 t b 2
. 5 time s th e mid-rang e AP-4 2 emissio n factor s fo r th e correspondin g ge l coa t an d resi n application
. Thes e result s indicat e tha t facilitie s usin g AP-4 2 emissio n factor s t o estimat e emission s i n ope n moldin g processe s ar e likel y t o underestimat e actua l emissions
.

17 . KE Y WORD S AN D DOCUMEN TANALYSI S DESCRIPTOR S b.lOENTIFIERS/OPE N ENDE D TERM S c . COSAT I Field/Group Pollutio n Styren e Resin s Emissio n Moldin g Technique s Fiberglass-reinforce dPlastic s Boat s Pollutio n Preventio n Stationar y Source s Boa t Buildin g 1 3 B 111 , U J 14 G 13 H 11 D 1 3 J
18 . DISTRIBUTIO N STATEMEN T Releas e t o Publi c 19 . SECURIT Y CLAS S (ThisReport) Unclassifie d 2 1 . NO . O F PAGE S 14 8 20 . SECURIT Y CLAS S (This page) Unclassifie d 22 . PRIC E
EP A For m 2220- 1 (9-73 ) 1- 4 

# l€f eU.S

. ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

Offic e o f Researc h an d Developmen t 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 Y FO R PRIVAT E USE . S30 0 A N EQUA L OPPORTUNIT Y EMPLOYE R

If 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

Wffl f • ; tear

off label, and

return it to the above address. 

### Publicatio n No . EPA - 600/R - 

### 97-018 b