United States Office of Air Quality EPA-45W2-78-bh2 I 

Environmental Protection Planning and Standards OAQPS No. 1.2-1 12 

Agency Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1 June 1978 

Air 

FLAT G!OOD OAQPS Guideline INTERIOR PANEL

Series COATING 

AP-42 Section 

4.2.2.5 

Reference Number 

Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions 

from Existina 

Stationary ~Gurces 

Volume VII: Factorv - I 

- Surface Coating of - Flat Wood paneling 
EPA-450/2-78-032 

OAQPS NO.1.2-1 12 

Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions 

from 

Existing Stationary Sources -

Volume VII: Factory Surface Coating of 

Flat Wood Paneling 

Emission Standards and Engineering Division 

Chemical and Petroleum Branch 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air and Waste Management 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

June 1978 
OAQPS GUIDELINE SERIES 

The guideline series of reports is being issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) to provide information to state and local air pollution control agencies; for example, to 

provide guidance on the acquisition and processing of air quality data and on the planning and 

analysis requisite for the maintenance of air quality. Reports published in this serieswill be available -

as supplies permit - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1. or, for a nominal fee, from the National Technical 

Informatiam Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 221 61. 

Publication No. EPA-4501'2-78-032 

(OAQPS NO. 1.2-1 12) 
This is one in a series of reports designed ~3 assist State and local 


jurisdiction in the development of air polluticn control regulations for 


surface coating industries. The series is direct2d entirely az volatil? 


organic compounds (VOC) which contribute to the formation of photochemical 

oxidants. 


Volume I, "Control Methods for Surface Coa~ing Operations," EPA-450/ 

2-76-025 (OAQPS No. 1,2-067), November 1976, provides general information 

on the cost and effectiveness of control technology and guidelines for 


sampling and analyzing VOC emissions. 


Volume I1 (EPA-450/2-77-008, May 1977), provides specific inforaazion 

on five surface coating industries; namely, automobile and light duty 


truck, can,coil, fabr:c, and paper coating operations. For each industry, 


coating systems are reviewed and various YOC control alt~rnatives are 


considered with their costs and limitations. \lolurne I1 also provides 

guidmce on the preparation of air pollution control regulations and tesz 


methodology suitable for their enforcement (Appendixes A and C of Volume I!). 

Volumes 111, IV, and 'ul cover magnet wire coating, large appliance and metal 

furnitare manufacture. 


It must be cautioned that the limits provided in the table are based en 


capabilities and chzracteristics which are general and therefore presumed 


normdl to the flat !wood industries; the limits nay not be applicable to 


ever:/ plant dithin :he industry. 


iii 

[n each case, the recommended limitation is stated in terms of the 


total solvent content of all the coatings applied to a specific area of 


finished paneling 9roduct. This form is mlost applicable to situations 


where low solvent coatings are employed. If an operator should choose to 


comply by installation of add-on control devices, it may be appropriate 


for the agency to set minimal requirements on the hooding or capture and 


the efficiency of the control device. 


The table that follows provides emission limitations that represent 


the presumptive norm that can be achieved through the application of 


reasonably available control technology (RACT). RACT is definedas the 

lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by 


the application of control technology.that is reasonably available con- 


sidering technological and economic feasibility. it may require technology 


that has been applied to similar, but not necessarily identical source 


categlories. It is not intended that extensive research and development 


be co'nducted before a given control technology can be applied to the source. 


This does not, however, preclude requiring a short-term evaluation 


program to permit the application of a given technology to a particular 


source. The latter is an appropriate technology-forcing aspect of RACT. 

The recommended emission limits are stated in tsrms of kg of VOC per 

100 square meters of coated surface (Ibs per 1000 square feet) to give 


operators necessary flexibility in adjusting the VOC content of the various 

coatings applied to a given panel. Practices vary such that it would 


be difficult to set a VOC limit for each type of coating. By balancing 

the VOC content and properties of the various coats, acceptable VOC 
reductions can be achieved without sacrificing product quality. 


FACTORY FIMIS'AED PANELING 


Product Category Recommended Limitation 


kg of VOC per lbs of VOC ger 


100 sq meters of 1,000 sq ft of 

coated surface coated surface 


Printed interior wall panels made 2.9 


of hardwood plywood and thin particle- 


board 


Natural finish hardwood 


plywood panels 


Class I1 finishes for hardboard 4.8 10.0 

panel ing 


For printed interior panels, emission limits are based on partial 


use of water-borne and solvent-borne coatings. Water-borne coatings that 


procluce products of acceptable quali'ty are not available for all coatings, 

particularly clear topcoats and printing inks. For natural finish 


paneling, the limits are based on use of solvent based coatings of lower 


solvent content than conventional coatings. The number of coats and 


coverage of coatings vary but (for typical usage) the recommended 1imitations 

are isquivalent to usage of coatings which have average VOC contents of 

0.20 kg/l (1.7 lbs/gal) for printed hardwood paneling, 0.38 kg/l (3.2 Ibs/gal) 


for natural finish panelinq, and 0.32 kg/l (2.7 lbs/gal) for Class I1 

finishes for hardboard panel ing. 


Interior printed Idall paneling is made fromtropicalhardwood plywood 


(and a few domestic hardwoods) and from thin particleboard. Natural finish 


hardwood plywood is made from domestic hardwoods. Class I1 finishes for 

hardboard are used for printed wall paneling and panels for other int~rior 


uses. 

The other significant categories of factory finished flat wood products -

exterio,r siding, ti leboard, and particleboard used as a furniture component 

are not reviewed in this document nor are emission limitations suagested. 
GLOSSARY 

Printed panels means panels whose grain or natural surface is obscured 

by fillers and basecoats upon which a simulated grain or decorative 

pattern is printed. 

Hardwood glywooc! is plywood whose surf ace layer is a veneer of hardwood. 

Particleboard is a manufactured board made of individual wocd particles 

which have been coated with a binder and formed into flat sheets by pressure. 

Thin particleboard has a thickness of one-fourth inch or less. 

Natural finish hardwood plywood panels ineans panels whose or~ginal grain 

pattern is enhanced by essentially transparent finishes frequently 

supplemented by fillers and toners. 

Hardboard is a panel manufactured primarily from inter-felted lignocellulosic fibers which are consolidated under heat and pressure in a 

hot-press. 

Class I1 hardboard paneling finishes means finishes which meet the 

specifications of Voluntary Product Standard PS-59-73 as approved by 

the American National Standards Institutie. 

Laum is an imported tropical hardwood. 
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR METRIC UNITS 


r
cquivalen 


Metric Unit Metric Name English Unit 


Kg kilogram (103grams) 2.2046 Ib 

1i ter 1 i ter 0.0353 ft" 

m meter 3.28 ft 

rn 3 cubic meter 35.31 ft3 

Mg megagram (106grams) 2,204.6 lb 

metric ton metric ton (106grams) 2,204.6 Ib 

In keepins with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ?olicy, metric 


units arle used in this report. These units may be converted to common 


English units by using the above conversion factors. 


Temperature in degrees Celsius (cO) can be converted to temperature 


in degrees Farenheit (OF) by the following formula: 


tuf = temperature in degrees Farenheit 

to, = temperature in degrees Celsius or degrees Centrigrade 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Section Page 

1.0 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSION!; ............. 1-1 


1.1 General Discussion ................. 1-1 


1.2 Flat Wood Products and Coatings .......... 1-4 


1.2.1 Flat Woods and Products ........... 1-4 


1.2.2 Flat Wood Coatings ............. 1-5 


1.3 Flat Wood Coating Processes ............ 1-6 


1.3.1 Coating Application Methods ......... 1-6 


1.3.2 Process Description ............. 1-9 


1.4 Sources and Types of Emis.sions........... 1-15 


References for Section 1.0 ............... 1-17 


2.0 APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMISSION REDUCTION ........ 2-1 


2.1 Add-on Devices ................... 2-1 


2.1.1 Incineration ................ 2-1 


2.1.2 Adsorption ................. 2-2 


2.2 Materials Changes ................. 2-2 


2.2.1 Water-borne Coatings ............ 2-2 


2.2.2 High Solids Coatings ............ 2-6 


2.3 Process Changes .................. 2-6 


2.3.1 Ultraviolet Curing ............. 2-6 


2.3.2 Electron Beam Curing ............ 2-7 


2.4 Control Levels ................... 2-7 


2.4.1 Printed Interior Wall Paneling ....... 2-8 


2.4.2 Natural Hardwood Plywood Interior Paneling . 2-8 


References for Section 2.0 ............... 2-9 


3.0 COSTS AND ANALYSES OF CONTROL OPTIONS .......... 3-1 


3.1 Introduction .................... 3-1 


3.1.1 Purpose ................... 3-1 


3.1.2 Scope .................... 3-1 


3.1.3 Useof.Mode1 Plants ............. 3-1 


3.1.4 Bases for Estimates of Capital Costs .... 3-2 


3.1.5 Bases for Annualized Cost Estimates ..... 3-3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) 

Page 


3.2 Control of Sol vent Emissions............. 3-4 


2.1 Retrofit Costs of Water-Borne Systems .... 3-4 


2.2 Operation of a Water-Borne System...... 3-5 


2.3 Retrofit Costs of Ultraviolet/Water-Borne 

Systems ................... 3-5 


3.2.4 Operation of an Ultraviolet/Water-Borne 

System ................... 3-5 


3.2.5 Net Annualized Cost ............. 3-7 


3.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ............ 3-7 


References for Section 3.0 ............... 3-11 


EFFECTS OF ACHIEVING EMISSION LEVELS REPRESENTATIVE OF 

RACT .......................... 4-1 


4.1 Water-Borne Systems ................ 4-1 


4.2 Ultraviolet-Curable Coatings ............ 4-2 


MONITORING TECHNIQUES AND ENF0RCE:MENT ASPECTS ...... 5-1 


References for Section 5.0 ............... 5-3 


APPENDIX A DETERMINATION OF VOC IN COATINGS ......... A-1 


APPENDiX B CALCULATIONS OF EMISSION /RATES AND 

REDUCTIONS ................... 0-1 


APPENDIX C EFFECT OF DEPRECIATION AND TAXES ......... C-1 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

Fi qure Page 

1-1 Simplified Schematic of Roll Cc~ater.......... s 1-7 


1-2 Pressure Head Curtain Coater .............. 1-8 


1-3 Printed Interior Panel ing Line (Lauan. Hardboard. and 

Particleboard) ..................... 1-10 


1-4 Natural Hardwood Plywood Interi'or Panel ing Line .... 1-13 


3-1 Cost Effectiveness for VOC Control at Existing Printed 

Panel Coating Plants ................... 3-10 


LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1-1 Flat Wood Plants .....................1-2 


1-2 Flat Wood Coatings ................... 1-16 


2-1 Volatile Organics in Flat Wood Coatings ........ 2-4 


2-2 Sample Estimation of VOC Emissions for Interior Printed 

Panels ......................... .2-5 


3-1 Cost Factors Used for Computing Annualized Costs .... 3-6 


3-2 Net Annualized Cost Estimates ............. 3-9 


C-1 Computation of Present Value Tax Savings ........ C-3 

1 -0 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS 

1.1 GENERAL Dl SCUSSION 

Prefinished flat wood construction products included in this 

document are interior paneling made of wood materials such as 

plywood, parti c1 eboard, and hardboard. 

Plywoods are assemblies of layers of veneer or veneer in 

combination with a lumber core which are joined together with an 

adhesive. Particleboards are panels manufactured from discrete 

pieces or particles of 1 ignocellul osic materials (usually wood) 

with added binder. Particleboards with different properties are 

produced by the addition of other materials and by manufacturing 

process variations . Hardboards are panel s manufactured from wood 

(usually) or other vegetable fiber!; to which other materials are 

added to improve product properties; the panels are then consolidated under heat and pressure to a density of at least 31 lb/ft 3 . 

A1 though plants which handle these flat woods are located 

throughout the United States, the Pacific Coast and the southern 

States have the largest numbers (Table 1-1). Listings from the 

1976 Directory of Panel plants-u .s.A.~and from several wood products along with direct phone contacts, were 

used to compile the plant numbers. Hardwood plywood prefinishers 7 

and converters of hardboard8 are included in the plant numbers. 

These numbers are intended to give an indication of the general 

regional distribution of plants which handle flat woods and are 

not intended to provide exact numbers of coaters or flat wood 

pl ants. 

However, the overall differences between the numbers of plants 

shown in Table 1-1 and those given in the 1972 Census of Manufacturers9 are re1 a ti vely mi nor, except for hardwood plywood 
Table 1-1. FLAT WOOD PLANTS~ 

(Fabrica tes/Converts/Coa ts) 

Hardwood Sof twoocl Particle- HardState P1 wood P1 vwnnd 

Iowa 0 

Minnesota 7 0 n 0 0 

Missouri 

u 

Colorado 0 

Idaho 3 

New Mexico 0 

Montana

- 0 I 1 

California 24 25 9 

Oregon 16 98 14 127 

Washington

- 10 3 5 1 3 

a Source: References 2-8 and direct contacts . \ 
plants, for which the census data show significantly larger 

numbers in Indiana and North Carolina and smaller numbers in the 

Pacific States. 

Statistical information concerning the flat woods industry 

as a hole can be obtained under the following Standard Industrial 

Classifications (SIC): 

2431 - Millwork, doors, moulding 

24314 - Wood doors 

2435 - Hardwood veneer and plywood 

2436 - Softwood veneer and plywood 

2492 - Particleboard 

2499 - Wood, not elsewhere classified 

24996 - Hardboard 

No more than one quarter of the flat wood manufacturers 

discussed herein are estimated to coat in their plants. In some 

of the plants that do coat, only a small percentage of the total 

production capacity is coated. In addition to manufacturing 

plants, there are intermediate plants, which obtain unfinished 

products and prefinish or finish them according to their customers' 

specifications or product requirements. 

Based on membership infonnat ion from the several wood product 

associations (which are not all inclusive), approximately 40 

percent of the hardwood plywood hand1 ing plants 10 percent of the softwood plywood plant,s coatY6 and under 15 percent 

of the particleboard plants coat. The American Board Products 

Association estimates that 70 percent or more of the hardboard 

manufactured is factory coated in some fashion. 

It appears that there will be an increase in the factory 

surface coating of flat wood products due to the increased use 

of prefinished wood in the building trade (including recreational 
vehicles) for panel ina, flooring, cabinetry, mould 

siding (only paneling is covered in this report). 

for this increase are: 

Cost savings 

a Uniform and better quality finish 

a Longer 1 ife finish 

ing, and exter 

Reasons gi ven 

Control of emissions of volatile organic solvents from the 

factory coating of flat wood products by add-on devices is not 

being practiced to any great extent. Many coaters are using 

solvents which were previously assumed to be of low photochemical * 

 reactivity and were therefore considered exempt. Others have 

been converting to water-borne coatings where possible. Coatings 

manufacturers and certain wood coaters are continuing efforts to 

develop useful water-borne coatings with reduced quantities of 

volatile organics. 

1.2 FLAT WOOD PRODUCTS AND COATINGS 

1.2.1 FLAT WOODS AND PRODUCTS 

Flat woods discussed herein include products from hardwood 

plywood, particleboard (products not used in cabinetry and 

furniture) , and hardboard. Product categories considered are : 

Printed interior panel ing 

Natural hardwood plywood interior. panel s 

I 

, Printed interior panelings are produced from plywoods with 

I hardwood surfaces (primarily lauan) and from various wood cornLposi tion panel s, including hardboard and particleboard. Finishing 

techniques are used primarily to cover the original surfaces; 

- 

* The only VOC recommended as exempt are: methane, ethane, 1,1 ,Itrichloroethane (methyl chloroform) , and trichl orotri fl uoroethane (Freon 113).10 
they also function to produce various decorative surfaces, which 

include wood patterns, simuiations of other natural materials, 

and original decorative effects. 

Natural hardw.ood plywood interior panel s are prefini shed to 

enhance and protect their natural appearance. Almost a11 the 

finishes applied are essentially clear. Possible exceptions 

include coatings for the grooves that may be cut into the panel 

and stains or toners used to complement the natural wood grain. 

FLAT WOOD COATINGS 

All coatings which can be applied to a flat wood substrate 

can be factory applied. These include but are not 1 imi ted to 

filler, sealer, groove coat, primer, stain, basecoat, inks, and 

topcoat. Fillers are used to fill pores, voids, and cracks in 

the wood to provide a smooth surface; they can also accentuate 

the grain of nattc.ra1 hardwood veneers. Sealers seal off substances in the wood which may affect subsequent finishes as we1 1 

as protect the wood from moisture. Groove coats cover grooves 

cut into the panel to assure that the grooves are compatible with 

the final surface color. Primers are used to protect the wood 

from moisture and to provide a good surface for further coating 

applications. Stains are nonprotective, coloring the wood surface without obscuring the grain. Basecoats are the primary 

coating/col ori ng of panel s and normal 1y should compl etel y hide 

substrate characteristics. Inks are used to put a decorative 

design on printed panels; they can also produce special appearances on natural hardwood plywoods. Topcoats provide protection, 

durability, and the required sheen or gloss to the product. 

Each type of substrate coated and product category handled 

usually requires a different coating formulation for each 
-- 

-- - -- -- - - 

-- 

appropriate coating appl i cation. Moreover, not a1 1 factory 

wood products with the same substrate and prefinished for the 

same end use have the same series of coatings applied. 

1.3 FLAT WOOD COATING PROCESSES 

1.3.1 COATING APPLICATION METHODS 

Different forms of roll coating are the favored procedures 

for applying coatings to flat woods. Roll coating is a process 

in which coating is applied to the wood by cylindrical rollers 

(Figure 1-1). If the applicator rotates in the same direction 

as the panel movement, the coater is called a direct roll coater. 

Most coatings (primer, sealer, basecoat, topcoat, and other 

coatinqs used for surface coverage) can be appl ied with a direct 

roll coater. When the appl icator roll is fol 1owed by a wiper 

roll that rotates agai nst the direction of the panel movement, 

the process is called reverse roll coaling. Reverse roll coaters + 

are generally used to apply filler, which is forced into the 

voids 

__I-___ 

and cracks in the panels by the reverse roller. Precision 

coating and printing are also forms of roll coating. The applicator roll shown in Figure 1-1 is used to place the ink or coating 

onto a second roll (engraved for printing) on which the coating 

thickness is monitored; the coating is then passed to a final 

roll er which coats the wood. 

Several types of curtain coaters are also used. In this 

method, the panel passes through a free-fallinq film of coating. 

In a pressure head curtain coater (Figure 1-2), coating material 

is metered into a pressure head, then forced through a calibrated 

slit between two knives. The rate of pane1 movement and the 

controlled uniform flow of the film determines the coatinq thickness. The physical properties of the material , temperature, slit 

width, coating flow rate, and panel speed are important variables. 
COATING- 7 APPLICATOR

/ 

A. DIRECT ROLL COATER 

APPLICATOR 

COATINGEVERSE ROLLER 

---L. 

B. REVERSE ROLL COATER 

(ARROWS SHOW DIRECTION OF 

ROLLER AND PANEL MOVEMENT) 

Figure 1-1. Simp1 ified Schematic of Roll Coaters 

1-7 
COATER HEAD 

COATING 

RESERVO I R 

t 


Figure 1-2. Pressure Head Curtain Coater 

1-8 
A1 1 excess coating is caught in a trough and recirculated. 

Additional coating methods include various spraying techniques 

and brush coating. 

1 .3.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

The flow diagrams that accompany the following process 

descriptions are general, showing some but not a1 1 typical 

production 1 i ne variations. Product categories incl uded are 

printed interior paneling and natural hardwood plywood interior 

paneling. 

1.3.2.1 Printed Interior Panel i ng (Lauan , Hardboard, and 

Particleboard) 

Printed interior paneling products are the result of 

applying a decorative finish to the surface of lauan, hardboard, 

or particleboard. Substrates are o.ften presanded by the flat 

wood manufacturer prior to delivery to the intermediate coating 

plant or in-house coating line. The basic series of coatings 

appl i ed consists of fill er, basecoat, inks, and topcoat 

(Figure 1-3). 

The first step in finishing hardboard consists of tempering 

the board with a mixture of oil and resin to give it added 

strength and stability. This is followed by brush dustinq to 

remove any foreign matter from the surface of the board. For 

particleboard, on the other hand, the first step in the finishing 

process is sanding (refer to Figure 1-3). 

Groove cutting is usually done prior to filling. Groove --, . color can be appl ied in different ways and at different points 1 

in the coating procedure; in Figure 1-3, it is shown preceding 1 

I the appl ication of filler. Groove coats are usually pigmented, -I 

low resin solids that are reduced with water prior to use. 

- - 

Filler is normally applied by reverse roll coating. Fillers 

must dry fast, be easily sanded, sea.1 the board (especially if 

no separate sealer is applied), and not shrink with age. Several 

different fill ers, each with various advantages and disadvantages, 

are available: (1) polyester filler, which is ul traviolet-cured, 

(2) water-based filler, (3) lacquer-based filler, (4) polyurethane 

filler, and (5) a1 kyd urea-based filler. Water-based fillers are 

in comnon use on printed panel ing 1 ines. Filler is of course 

not applied to prefi lled particleboard and to boards that can 

successfully remain nonfilled. It can be applied more than once 

to assure complete coverage of particularly porous substrates, 

and is followed by application of a separate seal ing compound 

when necessary. The sealer may be water- or solvent-based, and 

is usually applied by airless spray or direct roll coating, 

respectively. Both filling and sealing operations are followed 

by ovens (steam heated, convection, infrared, or ultraviolet, 

as applicable) and by sanders. In hardboard finishing, the next 

step may consist of a spray booth where specialty coatings for 

textured board are appl id. 

For printed paneling, the purpose of t he basecoat is to 

provide a smooth surface of the appropriate color on which to 

print the wood grainorother pattern. Basecoats must therefore 

be fast drying and provide good coverage. Those used in printed 

paneling usually fall into the folllowing categories: lacquer, 

synthetic, vinyl, modified alkyd urea, catalyzed vinyl, and 

water-based (which are now used at some lauan finishing plants). 

Basecoats are usually applied by direct roll coaters. 

Inks _aye appl i ed by an --offset gravure pri nting-~pera-tion 

' si-millay-to dire_c_t-rqll-coating. Several colors may be appl i ed 

in order to reproduce the appearance of wood, marble, leather, 

textured cloth, and so on. The final effect depends on surface 
smoothness, color of the basecoat and i~qks, strength and transfer 

properties of the inks, and other variables. Most lauan printing 

inks are pigments dispersed in alkyd resin, with some nitrocel- -

Iulose added for better wipe and printabi 1i ty. Water-based inks 

have a good future for clarity, cost and ecological reasons. 

After printing, the board goes through one or two direct 

roll coaters for appl i cation of the clear, protective topcoat. 

These are wet-on-wet applications, usually employing three-roll 

precision roll coaters. Some topcoats are now synthetic, 

prepared from sol vent soluble a1 kyd or polyester resins, urea 

formaldehyde cross linkings, resins, and solvents. Such synthetic 

topcoats are catalyzed and sent through a hot air oven for curing; 

other topcoats are cured in infrared or ultraviolet ovens. The 

panels are cooled prior to stacking, inspection, and shipping. 

1.3.2.2 Natural Hardwood Plywood Interior Panel ing 

Hardwood plywood has a face ply of hardwood veneer. The 

woods used are classified as porous or open grain species and 

nonporous or smooth species. Natural hardwood plywood panels 

u:se transparent or clear finishes that enhance the real wood 

surface, which is usually modified in color and appearance by 

stains, toners, fillers, sealers, glazes, and topcoats. Sati sflactory finishes require a number of operations, which are shown 

in flow chart form in Figure 1-4. 

The first step in finishing a hardwood panel is to fill the 

open knots with a putty material. The second step is to cut a 

groove and paint it with an opaque finish. The panel is then 

, sanded prior to application of a stain, which gives the surface 

a uniform color without raising the grain of the wood fiber. 

The .stain is normally appl ied by a direct roll coater with a 

grooved or wire-wrapped doctor roll to increase the application 
ZY 

> 

0 

LA
 -v 

UCL c.0 

In-


-

a 

w 

n 

Z 

u 


v, 


Lu' 

> + oa 


00 

CT U 

u 
 ; 

A 

amount of this thin coating, which is then dried in a high 

vel oci ty or infrared oven. 

A thin wash coat, known as a "toner" if it is colored with 

dyes or transparent pigments, is then direct roll coated over 

the stain. The toner seals the stain, improves the clarity and 

lightness of the finish, and performs various other preparatory 

functions . 

Next, the plywood is filled, usually by a reverse roll coater 

followed by a series of pads or brushes to glaze the surface of 

the wood. The sealed, f ill ed panel s are then dried and pol ished 

in a brush unit. 

The primer sealer is the next coating applied, normally by 

direct roll coating. The seal er floods the compl ete panel , 

including the grooves, in order to protect the wood from moisture, 

provide a smooth base for the topcoat, and give gloss to the 

grooves. Following appl ication, the sealer is dried, sanded, 

and buffed. 

At this point, the surface of the panel is embossed and 

valley printed to give a distressed or antique-appear-ance. One -I. - -

or more print steps may then be used to upgrade the veneer 

surface or provide special effects. This glaze is then dried and 

a sealer applied with a direct roll coater to smooth the surface 

in preparation for topcoati ng. 

One or more topcoats are used to provide durabi 1ity, protection, and gloss. Direct roll coating is the usual application 

method, but curtain coating may also be employed. The set topcoat 

is cured at 200 to 230'~ (93 to 110~~). The panels are then 

cooled, buffed, and stacked for shi pent. 
1.4 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS 

Emissions of volatile organic solvents at flat wood coating 

plants occur primarily at the coating lines. Solvents used in 

organi c-based coati ngs are normal 1y mu1 ticomponent mixtures 

that may include methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, 

toluene, xylene, butyl acetates, propanol , ethanol , butanol , 

VM&P naptha, methanol , amyl acetate, mineral spirits, SoCal I 

and 11, glycols, and glycol ethers. Organic solvents most often 

used in water-borne coatings are glycol, glycol-ethers such as 

butyl cell osol ve , propanol , and butanol . Ranges of nonvol a ti 1 e 

material s and vol ati 1e organics present in the different types 

of conventional and water-borne coatings supplied to the flat 

wood coating industry are shown in Table 1-2. Information from 

PPG Industries and Re1 iance Universal indicates that there are 

no volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the newer water-borne 

fillers. Vaporization of organics at coaters and paint mixing 

and storage areas occurs at ambient temperature and pressure. 

Emissions from ovens are at ambient pressure and at temperatures 

determined by the substrate and the coatings used. 

The primary fuel used in flat wood coating is natural gas; 

liquified petroleum gas is the primary backup fuel during curtail - ments of natural gas suppl ies or where natural gas is not available 

Some coating plants employ infrared and/or ultraviolet cure ovens, 

which are electrically heated. This type of oven can normally 

el iminate onsi te combustion emissions, such as carbon monoxide, 

unburned fuel, and nitrogen oxides. 
0 0 

m UY 

I I 

UJ LC) 

N N 

m LC) . . LC) LC) 

e b C CU 

F r- F C 
References for Section 1 ,, 0 

"Directory of Panel Plants-U.S.A.," Forest Industries, March 

1976, pp. 122-125 

National Particleboard Association, Directory of Particleboard 

and Medium Density Fiberboard Manufacturers, Silver Spring, 

Md. , December 1975 

American Plywood Association, "Plywood Panel ing and Siding 

Manufacturers," Tacoma, Wash., no date 

Acoustical and Board Products Association, "Insulation Board 

and Hardboard Plants in the United States," Park Ridge, Ill., 

March 1976 

Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers Association, Where to Buy 

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer, Arlington, Va., August 1976 

Wood and Wood Products/Reference Data Buying Guide, March 1977, 

pp. 9 and 10 

Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers Association, Directory of Hardwood Plywood Prefini sh Industry, Arl ington, Va. , May 1977 

American Board Products Associati on, "Latest ABPA Listings of 

Hardboard Panel Converters ,"Park Ridge, I1 1 ., April 1978 

1972 Census of Manufacturers, United States Bureau of Census, 

Vol. 11, Industry Statistics, Part I. SIC 20-26, 2431, 2435, 

2436, 2492, 24996 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Recommended Policy on 

Control of Volatile Organic ~ompounds," Federal Reqister , Vol. 42, No. 131, 3T314-3T316, July 1977 
2.0 APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMISSION REDUCTION 


Potential emission reduction systems are categorized as add-on 

devices, materials changes, and process changes. Add-on devices 

include incineration and adsorption systems, coupled with their 

attendant systems to capture the volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

being released at the affected facilities. Materials change 

refers to modifying a coating formulation so that the quantity 

of organic solvents per unit of solids is substantially reduced. 

Process modifications may be required, but are not the primary 

consideration involved in the change. Process changes include 

ultraviolet (UV) and electron beam (EB) systems, for which the 

physics of curing requires that specialized coating materials 

be used. Coating materials have been developed to take advantage 

of these curing processes. 

2.1 ADD-ON DEVICES 

2.1.1 INCINERATION 

Afterburners have been used successful 1 y for many operations 

with emissions similar to those from flat wood coating. The 

minimum control efficiency of an afterburner should be in excess 

of 90 percent of the vapors captured. Nineteen test reports of 

direct fl ame afterburners showed an average reduction efficiency 

of 95-percent across the afterburner, and eight tests of catalytic 

afterburners averaged 89-percent efficiency. " Overall plant 

control would be less because not a11 organic emissions are 

captured. Refer to Volume I, Section 3.2.2 for further discussion 

of incinerators. 

Of the more than 150 flat wood hand1 ing plants contacted, 

only two, both in southern Cal i forn ia, have afterburners as addon controls. Representatives of two equipment manufacturers who 
were contacted had no knowledge of afterburners being installed as 

add-ons at other flat wood coating operations .4 '5 Nevertheless, the 

use of afterburners is a viable option for reducing VOC emissions 

where other control techniques are not applicable due to product 

requirements. 

2.1.2 ADSORPTION 

No adsorption system was found to be used in the flat wood industry. Multicomponent solvents and the use of different coating formulations for the several steps along the coating line are not conducive 

to the general use of adsorption to control flat wood coating emissions. Specific applications may be found, however, e.g., in redwood 

surface treatment, where over 90 percent of the coating is volatile 

and can be recycled. In this treatment, a solution of pentachlorophenol in mineral spirits is applied to redwood or cedar sidings for 

protection against mildew and water staining. This volatile solvent 

is recoverable and reusable with minimal processing. Further details 

on carbon adsorption are given in Volume I, Section 3.2.1. 3 

MATERIALS CHANGES 

2.2.1 WATER-BORNE COATINGS 

The use of water-borne coatings is continually increasing in 

the surface coating of flat woods, primarily for the reduction of 

VOC emissions. This material change can a1 so resul t in reduced 

fire hazard, some reduction in fire insurance, improved working 

conditions, and reduced air pollution. 

Paint manufacturers have developed and are continuing to 

develop water-borne coating formulations to rep1 ace conventional 

organic solvent-borne coatings for many factory flat wood applications. In water-borne coatings, the organic content of the 

volatile portion of the coating is normally 20 volume percent 
or less. Typically, the use of an applicable water-borne coating 

in place of a conventional organic solvent-borne coating can 

reduce volatile organic emissions by at least 70 percent. 

Values of volatile organics in water-borne and conventional 

coatings for factory application to flat woods are given in Table 

2-1. From the range of VOC values provided by various paint manufacturers for their water-borne coatings, a fixed value was estimated for each paint category. The paint manufacturers contacted 

indicated that coatings with these estimated VOC contents are available, but not all paint manufacturers supply a11 of the listed 

coatings. Table 2-2 presents estimated VOC emissions for coating 

printed panels for interior use, assuming that the coatings listed 

in Table 2-1 are employed. For this example, complete conversion 

to available water-borne coatings would reduce VOC emissions by 

84 percent. 

Printed paneling for i~terior walls can be made of hardboard, 

particleboard and other composition boards, and lauan-faced plywoods. Also, the coating lines can differ substantially even when 

the same substrate is used. Thus, many lines can either apply fewer 

coatings or additional print inks and groove coats. 

The-major use of _ _-water-borne -I____I__. flat-wood coatings -__/ 

is in the fi7 -

ler and basecoat appl ied m-prin-t-ed-intexior ga_?el ing. Limited use - - - _c--

has been made of water-borne materials for inks, groove coats, and 

topcoats for printed paneling, and for inks and groove coats for 

natural hardwood panels. 

Problems with water-borne coatings include grain raising, wood 

swelling, poor finish quality, difficulties in curing topcoats, and 

possible care required to prevent freezing. Volume I, Section 3.3.1 

may be consulted for additional information concerning water-borne 

coatings. 3 

Ln. 


u u 

2.2.2 HIGH SOLIDS COATINGS 

High solids coatings have shown promise for use on .specific 

products other than wood. Although it has been demonstrated that 

high solids coatings can fill pores and seal wood, thus offering 

considerable encouragement, they do not appear practicable for 

current or near future use in the flat wood coating industry. 7 

For additional information on high solids coatings, refer to 

Volume I, Section 3.3.2. 3 

2.3 PROCESS CHANGES 

2.3.1 ULTRAVIOLET CURING 

Ultraviolet curing is the most widely used process change and, 

where applicable, effects almost 100-percent reduction of VOC 

emissions. In the flat wood industry, UV systems have been found 

to be especially useful on particleboard coating 1 ines and in 

specialty coating operations. 

Ultraviolet curing is extremely fast: for a typical sealer/ 

filler, an exposure of approximatley 10 seconds is sufficient. 

Thus, a 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m) UV oven can replace a 90 to 100 

ft (30 m) thermal oven required for conventional paint.899 

Ultraviolet-curable coatings are a combination of resin, prepolyners 

and monomers, and photosensitizer (which serves as a catalyst). 

Polyester, acryl ics , methane, and a1 kyds are common coating materials. Applied as a liquid, the coating is cross-linked and hardened 

on exposure to UV. 

A1 though there have been attempts to develop opaque UV coatings, 

such coatings are not available.1° Thus, in the flat wood industry, 

UV has found use only in the application of clear to semi transparent 

filler and topcoat for interior printed paneling and cabinetry 

products. Advantages are good machinabil ity, extremely high sol ids, 
;ow shrinkage, good adhesion to most substrates, good sanding qualities, 


and good chemical resistance. 


One of the najor disadvantages of UV coating systems is the limited 

number of available materials that can be successiul1y used to overcoat 

CV-cured paints. Intercoat adhesion of UV materials to water-borne and 

conventional solvent systems remains a problem. Other disadvantages 


include the hazards of potential exposure to UV radiation, ozone, and 


organic monomers, all of which may pose serious health problems. 


2.3.2 ELECTRON BEAM CURING 

One commercial facility in the United States uses an €8 curing systen. 


Opaque coatings can be cured to a depth of approximately 15 mi 1s by 


this method; 3 to 5 mils of EB-cured coating produce a smooth, wear resistant 

finish with a performance comparable to many plastic laminates. 11,12 


Costs of both the installed system (over $500,000) and the coating 

($22 to $28 per gallon) limit the applicability of EB curing as a 

control technique. However, over 99 percent control of VOC can be expected. 

Monomers and ozone are possible emissions and some air-borne acrylics 


have been experienced. 11 


2.4 CONTROL LEVELS 


For purposes of recommending levels of control, flat wood interior 


panel products have been divided into three subcategories : 1 ) printed 

interior wall panels made of hardwood plywood (principally lauan) and 


oarti,-leboard ; . 2) natural finish hardwood plywood panels; and 3) 

Class I finishes for hardboard paneling. [Class I hardboard panels 


(principal ly exterior siding and ti leboard) , particleboard used in 

furniture, insulation board, and softwood plywood are not considered in 


this document. 1 Recommended VOC limitations are given in kg/lOC!fl 2 

2 (lbs/1000 ft ) of surface covered to allow panel coaters maximum flexibility 

in adjusting VOC content of the different coatings so as to meet the 


emission limitation while maintaining prcduct quality. 

2.4.1 PRINTED INTERIOR !4ALL PANELS MACE OF HARDWOOD PLYWOOD AND PARTICLEBOARD 


Finishing of panels in this category is characterized by the use 


of fillers and basecoats which obscure the grain or natural surface. 

Simulated grain patterns or other decorative patterns are then printed 
 2

on the surface. The recommended VOC limitation of 2.9 kg/100 m 

6.0 lbs/1000 ft 2 of surface coated permits the use of conventional 

organic sol vent-borne coatings for topcoats and inks, but wi 17 require 


use of water-borne coatings for some of the coating types. 


The composition of the different coatings used on a given panel 


will vary, but the recommended limitation is equivalent to an average 
 * 

coating with a VOC content of 0.20 kg/l (1.7 lbs/gal). Few, if any, 

coatings will have this composition. Water-borne coatings will have 


less VOC and the solvent-borne coatings more VOC, but the total VOC of 

all the coatings used must meet the limitations. In terms of limitations 


used in previous documents. the recommended limitation is equivalent to 


an average coating with a VOC content of 0.29 kg/l (2.5 lbs/gal) less * 

water. 


The recommended emission limit will provide an emission reudction of 


about 70 percent compared to the use of conventional coatings. This 


2

assumes conventional coatings have an emission rate of 18.2 lbs/1000 ft , 

which is derived from the total of 16.1 in Table 2-2 by subtracting


2 1.7 lb/1000 ft for sealer (because this product does not require a 


2 sealer) and adding an additional 3.2 lb/l000 ft to allow for coating 


the grooves. This modification results in a more representative total 


figure for printed hardwood plywood. 13 

2.4.2 NATURAL FINISH HARDWOOD PLYWOOD 


Finishes in this cateogry are characterized by use of essentially 


transparent coatings frequently supplemented by fillers, toners and other 


preliminary coats that complement the natural grain sf the wood and 


maintains its intrinsic attractiveness. 


*Calculations in Appendix 6-11 

2 -8 
2 7 A recommended VOC limitation of 5.3 kg/100 TI (12.0 lb/1000 ft-) 

of surface coated ?emits the use of conventional organic coating 


solvents for most applications, but with somewhat decreased amounts of 


VOC. Water-borne groove coats and some water-based inks are being used 

commercially; however, ?roduct qualitycannot be maintained by use of 


the other developmental water-borne coatings. The recommended emission 


limit is equivalent to the usage of coatings which average 0.40 kg/l 


(3.3 lbs/gal) of VOC. This is equivalent to the usaqe of organic 

solvent-borne coatings average 55 percent solids* 


A typical total emission rate for coating panels with natural finish 


coatings is 24 lbs/1000 ft2.13 Thus, the recommended emission limits 


will result in a 50 percent reduction in emissions of VOC for this 


category. 


2.4.3 CLASS 11 FINISHES FOR HARDBOARD PANELS 


Factory applied finishes for hardboard panels are classified as 


Class I and Class I1 by American National Standards Institute under 


Voluntary Product Standard PS 59-73. Class I1 finish has no heat, 


humidity, or steam resistance requirements as it is not meant to be 


~sed'where these conditions are excessive. Combinations of water-borne 


and solvent-borne coatings can be used to meet the recomended emission 


limit and produce a panel which meets the Class I1 requirements. 


The recomended emission limit of 4.8 kg/100 m 2 (10 lbs/1000 it 2) 

is equivalent to the usage of coatings which average 0.34 kg/1 (2.8 lbs/gal) 


of VOC. Assuming 40 percent solids, this would be equivalent to 0.43 kg/l 

(3.6 lbs/gal) less water.* 


*Calculations in Appendix 8-11 

References for Section 2.0 

Test Report Summaries, Los Angeles County Zone, South Coast 

Air Qua1 i ty Management Di strict (SCAOMD) , El Monte, Ca1 if. 

Gadomski, R.R. et al., Evaluations of Emissions and Control 

Techno1 ogi es in the Graphic Arts Industries, Phase 11, Graphic 

Arts Technical Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa. 1973 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume-I: 

Control Methods for Surface Coatinq Operations, €PA-450/2-76-

28 (OAQPS No. 1.2-067), Research Trianqle Park, N.C., 

November 1976 

Harr, G.R., Hirt Combustion Engineering, Montebello, Calif. 

William, P., Ashdee Division of George Koch Sons, Inc., Evansville, Ind., September 1977 

Russel, P., Abitibi Corporation, Cucamonga, Calif. 

Price., M. D., Re1 iance Universal , Inc. , "The Future of HighSolids Coatings," Proceedinqs of the Fourth Water-Borne and 

Higher-Solids Coatings Symposium, New Orleans, La., 1977, p. 155 

Koch, R.L., Ashdee Division of George Koch Sons, Inc., "UVCuring of Particleboard ," Bulletin, Evansvil ley Ind. 

PPG Industries, "A Cure for Energy, Pollution and Plant Space 

Woes," PPG Products, Vol. 184, No. 2, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1976 

Leary, P.E., Re1 iance Universal .Inc., "Ul traviolet Curable 

~oatjngs for Industrial ~inishin~s ,"-American Paint and 

Coatinqs Journal, Vol. 59, No. 15, 1974, pp. 86, 88, 90, 92 

Christopherson, 0. , and Carnagey, D., Brookes-Wil lamette 

Corporation, Bend, Ore. 

"Space-Age Coating of Particleboard Offers Durable Surface," 

Furniture Methods and Materials , May 1977 

Letter of comnent to EPA from Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers 

Association, Arlington, Virginia. May 17, 1978. 
3.0 COSTS AND ANALYSES OF CONTROL OPTIONS 


3.1 INTRODUCTION 


3.1.1 PURPOSE 


The purpose of this section is to present estimated costs and 


cost analyses for the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) 


emissions from existing flat wood interior panel coating lines. 


3.1.2 SCOPE 


Estimates of capital and annualized costs are presented for con- 


troll ing VOC emissions from a model printed interior panel s coating 


line that includes the application and curing of filler/sealer, 


basecoat, ink, and topcoat. Two categories of VOC control tech- 


niques, changes in coating material to water-borne and ultraviolet 


(UV) coating systems, have been costed. The a1 ternatives considered 


include (1) the complete conversion -- except ink -- to a waterborne system, and (2) use of UV-curable coatings for the filler and 


topcoat, with a water-borne basecoat. 


Control devices such as afterburners and adsorbers are not gen- 


erally suitable as retrofit emission control systems for existing 


interior wall pane1 coating plants. Cost information for incinera- 


tion and adsorption systems will not be discussed herein, but gen- 


eral information can be obtained from Volume 1, Section 4.2.2.1 


Note, however, that add-on devices are viable control techniques 


for VOC and are not ruled out on the basis of emission limits or 


applicability. 


3.1.3 USE OF MODEL PLANTS 


For the interior wood panel coating industry, facility size is 


normally a function of the number of finishing lines. It is assumed 

that differences in modifications of the various finishing lines 

for the same process change are not significant. Therefore, costs 

are estimated for typical modifications required to one line, and 

several throughputs for the one line are then considered. The 

basis for the throughputs is the number of hours of operation, since 

the production rate of a given line is essentially constant. Also, 

existing plants are assumed to use conventional organic sol ventbased coatings for a1 1 appl ications. 

For both control systems analyzed, water-borne and UV coatings, 

three throughputs were considered: coating of 1,000,000, 1,920,000, 

and 4,000,000 standard panels per year. A standard panel is 32 ft2 

(2.97 m2). Prior studies had used 1,920,000 panels per year for a 

one shift operation as a basis for evaluation.2 This rate of production was used as a midpoint in the present analysis; those who 

do not coat daily are represented by the lower production value, and 

the higher value represents two full shifts of operation per day. 

Mode1 plant control cost estimates will differ from actual costs. 

This is especia 1y true for the coating of interior wall panels because different substrates are used, different finishes are applied 

(due to process and customer requirements), and there are plant-toplant process d fferences, such as existing line equipment and line 

speed. Model plant estimates are, however, the most convenient 

means of comparing the relative costs of a1 ternative control measures. 

BASES FOR ESTIMATES CAPITAL COSTS 

Capital cost represents the total investment required for the 

purchase and installation of each control option. Costs due to production losses during installation and startup, retraining of personnel, and other items affecting production are not included. 

Major equipment purchases are not normally necessary to convert 

from conventional to water-borne coatings. However, costs can be 
incurred (I j to shield or substitute corrosion resistant material 

for those components that come into contact with and can be affected 

by the coating, and (2) to provide a higher oven temperature or to 

increase oven length. For facilities that do not utilize forced 

airflow over the coatings, additional heating capacity and blowers 

may be required. In most facilities, forced airflow exists to minimize organic solvent concentrations in the work area and to maintain the organic content in oven exhaust at low levels. For such 

coaters, a net reduction in energy requirements may result. 

Use of UV systems is limited to the application of filler and 

topcoat to the wood. Ultraviolet curing systems require a significant capital investment. If conversion to water-borne coatings is 

also desired, further expenditure is necessary. 

3.1 .5 BASES FOR ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES 

Annual ized cost estimates consist of the differences in expenditures between controlled and uncontrolled processes for direct operating costs and annualized capital charges. A summary of factors 

used in computing the annual ized costs appears in Table 3-1 . 

Direct operating costs include expenditures for the following 

i terns : 

a Labor 

0 Materials (including solvent) 

Utilities 

Disposal of wastes 

Annualized capital charges include the following expenses: 

0 Depreciation and interest 

0 Taxes, insurance, and administration 

The depreciation and interest is computed by multiplying the capital 

cost by a capital recovery factor, which is dependent on the life of 
the equipment at an appropriate interest rate. The taxes, insurance, and admini stration are determined by mu1 tiplying the capital 

cost by a factor of 4 percent. 

3.2 CONTROL OF SOLVENT EMISSIONS 

Developing estimates for the control of VOC emissions from the 

coating of flat woods is not a straightforward task. In addition 

to a wide diversity in the types and needs of existing facilities, 

the procedures used to establish similar control systems are also 

varied. This results in a lack of models that exemplify what might 

be called a "standard" system. Also, facilities tend to make use of 

equipment they a1 ready have and are often able to improvise. Moreover, it was found that there were significant plant-to-plant differences in applying the same emission control techniques, and that not 

every plant controlled emissions from the same coating function. 

Therefore, the fol lowing presentation is based on the experiences 

of those who have installed various segments of a control system. 

Using these data, costs for installation of complete systems are 

estimated. 

3.2.1 RETROFIT COSTS OF WATER-BORNE SYSTEMS 

The coaters who provided data indicated that the total cost for 

conversion system procurement and instal 1 ation ranged from $40,000 

to $55,000. Costs were accumulated on the basis of the processes employed in a water-borne system (filler/sealer, basecoat, and topcoat). 

For each process, equipment modifications cost $5,000 to $7,000, installation and startup expenses ranged from $7,000 to $10,000, and 

4 system engineering and design work was between $1,000 and $2,000. 

Thus the cost of an individual process was between $13,000 and $l9,OOO 
3.2.2 OPERATION OF A WATER-BORNE SYSTEM 

Operation of a water-borne system should result inlittle change 

in labor and energy costs. Labor requirements are identical with 

those necessary for a solvent-based system. Energy needs should 

grow as a result of increased temperature and airflow requirements 

in the ovens. However, this increase will be compensated for by a 

decrease in the blower requirements needed to maintain safe working 

areas and to insure that organic concentrations in exhaust do not 

exceed approved limits. 

The major element affecting cost in the changeover to a waterborne system is the cost differential of materials, especially the 

cost of paint. Estimates of paint costs, assuming a facil ity with 

a complete coating system and based on factors shown in Table 2-2, 

are given in Table 3-1. 

3.2.3 RETROFIT COSTS OF ULTRAVIOLET/WATER-BORNE SYSTEMS 

Since UV systems cannot be used to apply a basecoat, a waterborne process must be used. From the previous discussion, this 

cost can be estimated at $15,000. 

For the filler/sealer and topcoat processes, equipment expenses 

should run between $45,000 and $55,000 per process, including the 

purchase of an oven and other items. Installation and startup costs 

vary from $10,000 to $15,000, and engineering and design costs $3,000 

to $5,000 per process. Summing up these estimates yields a price tag 

of $1 30,000 to $165,000 for retrofitting a UV/water-borne system. 4-7 

3.2.4 OPERATION OF AN ULTRAVIOLET/WATER-BORNE SYSTEM 

Labor costs should not change due to conversion to a UVIwaterborne system, but energy costs will decrease. The power requirements 
-- 

Table 3-1. COST FACTORS USED FOR COMPUTING ANNUALIZED COSTS 

I. Direct Operating Costs 

Cost per 1,000 2 ft ( 100 m2) Covered 

Organic Water Ultraviolet 

Filler Q 6.00 ($ 6.50) $ 6-40 ($ 6.90) $ 9.00 ($ 9.70) 

Sealer 0.90 ( 1.00) 1.05 ( 1.10) - ( - 1 

Basecoat 4.00 ( 4.30) 3.60 ( 3.90) 3.60 ( 3.90) 

Ink 1.30 ( 1.40) 1.35 ( 1.45) 1.35 ( 1.45) 

Topcoat 3.20 ( 3.40) 4.55 ( 4.90) 3.30 '( 3.55) 

Total $15.40 ($16.60) $16.95 ($18.25) $17.25 ($18.60) 

$150 each 

2. Utilities 

Electricity (net savings) d 

Annualized Capital Charges 

1. Depreciation and interest expense 13% of capital cost 

2. Taxes, insurance, and administration 4% of capital cost 

a Refer to Table 2-2 for coverage factors. 

Paint costs per gallon: 

Paint Costs Per Gallon 

Organic Water Ul travi 

Filler $ 3.50 

Sealer 3.00 

Basecoat 5.00 

Ink 12.50 

Topcoat 4.50 

From Reference 3. 

From Reference 2. 

C 
for UV lamps are 10 kilowatts per 50-inch lamp, so for two 12-lamp 

systems replacing infrared ovens, a reduction of 130 kilowatts per 

shift hour will be realized.' Reduced blower needs will a1 so add 

a minimal amount to the energy savings. 

As with the water-borne system previously discussed, material 

costs, such as paint expenses and lamp replacement, will have a 

major impact. Paint costs are listed in Table 3-1. A sealer is 

not required with the UV filler and the basecoat is water-borne. 

Therefore, the increased cost for coatings that are UV-cured is approximately $1.80 per 1,000 ft 2 ($1 -95 per 100 m 

2 ). Ultraviolet 

lamps have a normal burn life of 2,000 to 8,000 hours, depending on 

their use. Therefore, they should be replaced every 1 to 4 years. 

At a cost of $150 per lamp, a complete set of 24 costs $3,600. 3 

3.2.5 NET ANNUALIZED COST 

Net annualized cost estimates for water-borne and UV/water-borne 

systems are given in Table 3-2. This table compares the net annual 

cost of the two methods for three different throughput levels. In 

gathering the cost data, a range was noted for almost all expenses, 

so an effort was made to use the values that are most 1i kely to reflect the expected costs. The footnotes provide explanatory information as to how this table was compiled. 

3.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 

The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted by first describing 

the incremental annual costs required for existing facilities to institute a program of effective VOC control. These costs were then 

compared with the expected VOC reductions in order to determine 

cost-effectiveness over the useful life of the system. 
The analyses were based on the following principles: 

The discount rate (cost of capital) was taken to be 

10 percent. 

The useful 1 ife of each system was taken at 15 years, with no salvage value. 

A capital recovery factor was used to allocate the 

cost of equipment and interest over its useful life. 

0 Insurance, taxes, and admi ni strative expenses were 

taken as a standard percentage of capital expenditures. 

The results of the cost-effective analysis are listed in Table 

3-2, and are graphically presented in Figure 3-1. These results 

clearly show that the water-borne method is more cost-effective, and 

illustrate the impact of throughput on each method. Throughput has 

a much smaller effect on the water-borne method than it does on its 

UV/water-borne counterpart. While the total variation in the former 

case is just 3 cents per kilogram of hydrocarbon control led, the 

difference is 9 cents in the latter case. The use of lower VOC content water-borne coatings (10 to 15 percent of the volatile portion) 

would further reduce emissions and improve cost-effectiveness. 
--- -- - - -- ---- 

-- --- 

-- 

-- 

- 

-- 

-- 

--- 

-- 

-- 

Table 3-2. NET ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES 

- Shifts - Less Than 1 

- ----A 

Panels . 1,000,000 

~eet'l~ear 

- 32,OOO.OOO 

'Ja ter-Borne 

Jl traviolet/ 

Water-Borne Water-Borne 

lnstalled capital costa d 52,000 $ 52,000 

Direct operating cost 

Pdintb 48.000 192,000 

~amps~ 

Utilitiesd 

Capital charges 8.840 8.840 

Net annualized cost $156,000 $ 200.800 

Controlled emissions (kg) 1 96,000 783,800 

Controlled emissions (lb) 432,000 1,728.000 

Cost-effectiveness ($/kg) 0.286 0.256 

Cost-effectiveness ($/lb) 0.130 (1.1 I6 

a I n s t a l l e d capital cost for water-borne method 

Installation and startup costs 

Increase in oven capacity 

Pumps (61,000 per process) 

Engineering and development cost 

Blowers (4 per process at $500 each) 

Total 

Installed capital cost for ultraviolet/water-borne 

Irethod 

Installat~on and startup costs (filler and topcoat) $ 24.000~:~-~ 

Ovens (2 at $45,000) 90, 0004 

Add-on equiplllent (for fi 1 ler and topcoat) 16,000 

Lnglneerirq arid developnlent cost 9,0004est. 

Water-borr~c for bdsecoat 16,000 

rotdl $~~:000 

Wdter-borne $1.50/1,000 f t2 x throughput 

Ultravlolet/water-borne $1.80/1,000 f t2 x throughput 

C $150 per larr~p. Useful life assunled to be 2 years for one shift or less, and 1 year for two shifts. 3 

d$0.50 per KH x 130 KW per hour x annual hours of operation. 
t ings 

-4-

-0-

:oa tings 

Figure 3-1. Cost Effectiveness for VOC Control at Existing 

Printed Panel Coating Plants 

3-1 0 
References for Section 3.0 

Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (formerly Debel 1 and Richardson) , "Air Pollution Control Engineering and Cost Study of Surface 

Coating Industries," First Interim Report, Appendix, Basis for 

Coatings, Case 6-2, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1976 

Martin, M., PPG Industries, Inc., Plainfield, I1 1 . Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (formerly Debel 1 and Richardson) , Report of trips made to plants during December 1975 through 

March 1976 

Christopherson, B., Brooks-Willamette Corporation, Bend, Ore., 1977. 

Nickolson, T., Ashdee-George Koch, Inc., Evansville, Ind., 1977. 

Estipia, J., General Wood Corporation, Buena Park, Calif., 1977. 
APPENDIX C 


EFFECT OF DEPRECIATION AND TAXES 


Tax incentives and depreciation may have a significant impact 


for many companies contemplating a vapor recovery investment. In 


this connection, the Internal Revenue Code includes special provis- 


ions for firms, and especi a1 ly small businesses purchasing and in- 


stalling certified pollution control facilities. In addition to 


all interest payments being deductible expenses for tax purposes, 


Section 169 of the Internal Revenue Code permits rapid write-off of 


such certified investments. Under this regulation a business may 


choose to depreciate its newly acquired equipment over a 60-month 


period instead of over its useful life. Employing the straight -

line depreciation method, 20 percent of the cost of this investment 


would be deductible annually for 5 years. 


Sections 46 and 50 of the code deal with the subject of invest- 


ment tax credits. All businesses may credit 10 percent of the cost 


of equipment with a depreciable life of at least 7 years to their 


actual tax liability. Lesser percentages may be credited for equip- 


ment depreciated over a minimum of 3 years to a maximum of 6 years; 


for a life of 3 or 4 years, the investment tax credit is 3.33 per-


cent; for 5 or 6 years, the credit is 6.67 percent. The purpose of 


this regulation is to provide businesses with added incentives to 


purchase equipment. 


Finally, Section 179 of the code furnishes small business with 


an additional opportunity to reduce their taxes. It permits an ad- 


ded first year bonus depreciation allowance equal to 20 percent of 


the purchase price of the equipment up to a maximum of $2,000. If 


this bonus depreciation is taken by the taxpayer, he must make an 


appropriate reduction in the basis of the equipment. 


Accordingly, a small business may be able to deduct its interest 


expense plus up to 30 percent of the purchase and installation price 

4.2 ULTRAVIOLET - CURABLE COATINGS 

The advantages of ultraviolet-curable coatings include reduced power 


requirements, very little emiss~on of VOC, and he essentially 100 

percent usable coating (since all components of the mating normally 


react and become part of the coating). As a result, blower requirements 


are negligible, space savings are effected by reduced storage and oven 


space needs, and very little waste is produced for disposal. Morecver, 


cure times can be measured in seconds and a superior product results. 


Since little or no curing takes place after the panel leaves the 


oven, proper cure times must be carefully sstablished. Safety 


precautions must be taken to minimize exposure to UV radiation and to 


avoid contact with the coating as some of the raw materials can cause 


chernical burns. 

5.0 MONITORING TECHNIQUES AND ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS 

As indicated previously, add-on control devices are not gener- 


ally applied to the factory prefinishing of flat woods. However, 


they may be used to meet VOC emission control requirements. Thus, 


regulations must not only specify that a given percentage of nonmeth- 


ane VOC be either converted to carbon dioxide and water or be ad- 


sorbed, but must also require that approved capture systems be used 


in conjunction with the add-on devices. Since suitable techniques 


for testing capture systems are dependent on the facility, it is 


recommended that each facility be individually reviewed to assure 


that a satisfactory capture system is installed. Volume I, Section 


5.0 of this series should be consulted for approaches to the deter- 


mi nati on of total nonmethane hydrocarbons. 1 


For facilities that control emissions by using coatings contain- 


i ng l ower overall VOC, emission measurements to determine compl iance 


may be difficult. Whether or not direct emission measurements can be 


correlated with the rate of finishing interior panels must be deter- 


mined on an individual basis. 


For most plants, emission estimates require knowing the VOC 


content of each coating, the quantity of each coating used per thou- 


sand square feet of each product finished, and any additional 


quantities of VOC used. 


Density and volatile content of coatings can be determined by 


using ASTM D 1475-60, ASTM D 1644-59, and ASTM D 2369-73. Applicability, and procedures for using these methods to determine the 


volatile content of paint, varnish, lacquer, and related products 


are given in Volume II, Appendix A.~ These methods are not 


applicable to coatings that require UV or EB curing. If an analysis 


of these special coatings is required, alternative methods must be 


developed. Procedures for calculating the quantity of VOC per 


volume of paint, given the composition and density of the coating, 


are presented in Appendix A. 

2 

Ifthe pounds of VOC per gallon of coating and the spread rate 

of the coating (in square feet per gal lon) are known, pounds of VOC 

per 1,000 ft for each coating can be computed as shown in Appendix 

2 B. The sum of the pounds of VOC per 1,000 ft for each coating applied to a specific product would give the final pounds of VOC per 

2 1,000 ft . An alternative procedure would be to obtain, for each 

relevant facility, data on the quantity and VOC content of each type 

of coating used, the quantity of solvents used as diluent, and the 

amount of finished paneling produced during a specified period of 

time. These data permit computation of the average pounds of VOC 

2 per 1,000 ft of product finished. 

With the recomnended system of emission limitations, enforcement becomes relatively difficult. For some regulating agencies, 

1 imitations in pounds of VOC per unit volume of coating may be more 

suitable. Field personnel can then collect samples, have them analyzed, and make determinations more rapidly. 

Overall average values of VOC content for the recommended 

limits are estimated to be 0.20 kg/l (1.7 Ib/gal) for printed hardwood panels, 0.40 kg/1 (3.3 lb/gal) for natural finish panels, and 

0.34 kg/l (2.8 Ib/gal) for Class 11 hardboard panel finishes. Since 

each coating type differs in both composition and spread rate, these 

values cannot be appl ied indiscriminately to a1 1 coatings, 
References for Section 5.0 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Volatile Orqanic Emissions From Existinq Stationary bources - Volume 1: Control Methods for Surface Coatinq Operations, EPA-45012-76-028 

(OAQPS No. 1.2-067), November 1976 

2. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Volatile Orqanic Emissions From Existinq Stationary Sources - Volume 11: Surface Coatinq of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and 

Li qht Trucks, EPA-4501'2-77-008 (OAQPS No. 1 .2-073) , May 1977 
APPENDIX A 

DETERMINATION OF VOC IN COATINGS 


Dzta Required: 

Coating density D ( Wgal ) 

Paint composition "on-V, V, VOC, ti20 

where : 

V = volatiles, including water -

VOC = volatile organic compounds = 7.36 lb/gal (Yo1 11, p. D-2) 

Hz0 = water = 8.34 lb/gal 

for Conventional Paint 


(data in weight I): VOC = Cg -m'"1 
 (D) Ib/gal

(data in volume I): VOC = -m(7.36) lb/gal 1%vocl 

For Water-Borne Paint 


(data in weight - I)


% of total coating: VOC = 'OC'3 (D) Ib/gal 

% of volatiles: Voc ' z voc [GI(0) Wgal 


(data in volume I) 

of total coating: voc = (7.36) Ib/gal 

% of volatiles: VOC Lm]x VOC [G] (7.36) Wg31 

For VOC (lb/gal less water1 


VOC t
 "OC lb/ga' lb/gal less water 
 Volume ? H 0 

('-.+) 

Conversion 


lblgal times 0.12 = fglliter 
APPENDIX B 

CALCULATIONS OF EM1SS ION RATES AND REDUCTIONS 

I. Weight of VOC Per 7,000 Square Feet of Finished Product* 

1. In the determination of potential volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from an interior wall paneling finishing plant, 

two important factors must be known: 

(1) Ib VOC/gal -- This factor is known by the formulator of the 

industrial finish (the amount of solvent added can be obtained from the finisher, or samples of the coating can be 

tested). 

n 

(2) Spread rate in ftLlqal lon -- This factor is known and/or 

can be calculated as it relates to each product finished 

by the hardwood plywood manufacturer. 

The appropriate formula for determining 1b VOC/1,000 ft2 of a 

coating type is: 

lb VOC/1,000 ft2 - 1b VOC/gal x 1,000 

Spread rate in ft2/gal 

Example : 

lb VOC/gal of a coating = 4.20 

Typical spread rate = 1,800 ft2 

-

Note: A listing of coating types applied and their respective 

spread rates per gallon should be available from the hardwood plywood factory finisher. Spread rates can also be 

estimated by the formula given in Part B. 

The 1b VOC/1,000 ft2 of each coating type2appl ied can be 

added together to obtain 1b VOC/1,000 ft of finished product. 

* 

Source: W.J. Groah, Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers Association, 

Arl ington , Va. 
2. The formula for approximating coating type spread rate is: 


Theoretical 1,604 x E x Percent volume 

solids per gal
 s~readrate - ' 2 - ft /gal Film thickness in mils 


Where 1,604 = a constant based on the application of 1 gallon 

(0.1337 ft3) material of 100 percent solids 

applied 1 mil (0.001 in) thick. 


E = percent efficiency for application of finish. 

For roller coating appli cations (predominant 


in the interior panel finishing industry), E 


can be taken as 0.95 ( i .e., 95 percent of 

material used is applied to the product). 


Film thickness is measurable using various techniques. 


11. Equivalency of Emission Rates per Area Coated vs. VOC Per Volume 

of Coating 


1. Printed Hardwood Plywood Panels 


Table 2.2 is assume9 to apply to this category. A coverage rate 


of 3.5 ga1/1,000 ft is appropriate. 
 C) 

Emission 1imitation equivalency = 6.0 1bs/1,000 ft; 

3.5 ga1/1,000 ft 


Assuming a typical coating has a solids content of 40 percent, 


and solvent density is 7.36 Ibs/gal, the average coating com-


position would be: 40 percent solids, 23 percent organic solvent 


1.7 and 33 percent water. 


( nd' 

Emission limit equivalence on a water-free basis = = i.: Nlgqal 

2.5 lbs/gal less water 


(0.29 kg/l) 


2. Natural Finish Hardwood Plywood Panels 


A coverage rate of 3.6 ga1/1,000 ft2 is assumed. 
Emission limitation equivalency = 

If no water-borne coatings are used, this limitation would require 


the average coating to contain 45 percent solvent (3.3/ 7.36), and 


55 percenr solids. The water-free emission limit would be the same, 

3.3 lbs/gal less water (0.40 kg/l less water). 


3. Class I1 Finishes for Hardboard Panels. 


A coverage rate of 3.5 ga1/1,000ft 2 is assumed. 


Emission limitation equivalency = 

Assuming a typical coatinu has a solids content of 40 percent, the 


average coating composition would be: 40 percent solids, 38 percent 


organic solvent(2.8/7,36) and 22 percent water. 


Emission limit equivalency on a water-free basis = 

d 
 2.8 lbs/ a1 = 3.6 lbs/gal less water (0.43 kg/l) 

111. Emission Reductions Achievable by the Recommended Limitation 


Compared to the use of conventional organic solvent-borne coatings with 


no emission controls, achievement of the recommended limits will result 


in reduced emissions in each category in the following ratios: 


Printed Hardwood: 70 percent reduction 


Natural gardwood: 50 percent reduction 


Class I1 Hardboard: 50 percent reduction 


The relative production of the three categories on a nationwide basis is 


estimated to be as follows: 


Printed Hardwood: 55 percent of total 


Natural Hardwood: 15 percent of total 


Class I1 Hardboara: 30 percent of total 


If the recommended levels are adopted it is estimated that the emission 

reduction of each category as a percent of the total for the three 

categories is as follows: 

Printed hardwood: 38 percent of total 

Natural Hardwood: 7 Dercent of total 

Class I1 Hardboard: 15 percent of total 

Total reduction rpercent 

Production of the three categories is estimated to be 85 percent of the 

total of all factory finished flat wood ?roducts. The overall emissicn 

reduction will be about 50 percent of the total emissions from all 

flat wood pr~ducts. 
APPENDIX C 


EFFECT OF DEPRECIATION AND TAXES 


Tax incentives and depreciation may have a significant impact 


for many companies contemplating a vapor recovery investment. In 


this connection, the Internal Revenue Code includes special provis- 


ions for firms, and especi a1 ly small businesses purchasing and in- 


stalling certified pollution control facilities. In addition to 


all interest payments being deductible expenses for tax purposes, 


Section 169 of the Internal Revenue Code permits rapid write-off of 


such certified investments. Under this regulation a business may 


choose to depreciate its newly acquired equipment over a 60-month 


period instead of over its useful life. Employing the straight -

line depreciation method, 20 percent of the cost of this investment 


would be deductible annually for 5 years. 


Sections 46 and 50 of the code deal with the subject of invest- 


ment tax credits. All businesses may credit 10 percent of the cost 


of equipment with a depreciable life of at least 7 years to their 


actual tax liability. Lesser percentages may be credited for equip- 


ment depreciated over a minimum of 3 years to a maximum of 6 years; 


for a life of 3 or 4 years, the investment tax credit is 3.33 per-


cent; for 5 or 6 years, the credit is 6.67 percent. The purpose of 


this regulation is to provide businesses with added incentives to 


purchase equipment. 


Finally, Section 179 of the code furnishes small business with 


an additional opportunity to reduce their taxes. It permits an ad- 


ded first year bonus depreciation allowance equal to 20 percent of 


the purchase price of the equipment up to a maximum of $2,000. If 


this bonus depreciation is taken by the taxpayer, he must make an 


appropriate reduction in the basis of the equipment. 


Accordingly, a small business may be able to deduct its interest 


expense plus up to 30 percent of the purchase and installation price 

of certified pollution control equipment during the first year. 

Other businesses will be able to deduct up to 25 percent plus interest 

charges during the first year. 

Let us examine the effect of these regulations on a particular 

pollution control expenditure. Suppose a facility was required to 

spend $10,000 for its equipment and installation, and $1,000 per 

year for operations and maintenance. What is the aftertax cost of 

this expenditure for both a regular business and a qual ifying small 

business? Let us assume the marginal tax is 48 percent for a regular 

business and 22 percent for a small business and that the cost of 

capital is 10 percent. The appropriate calculations are shown in 

Table C-I. 

Tax deductible expenses incl ude depreciation, operations and 

maintenance costs, and property taxes. For a qual ifying small business, there is also bonus first year depreciation. The total tax 

related savings is calculated by taking the sum of the present value 

of all deductible expenses, multiplying this figure by the marginal 

tax rate, and adding the investment tax credit. This figure is then 

subtracted from the before tax present value cost to determine the 

"true" expense. Interest payments have not been included in this 

exampl e. 

Property taxes are assumed to be paid at the end of each year, 

while operating and maintenance expenditures are assumed to be continuous throughout the year. Accordingly, the latter are attributed 

to the yearly midpoint for computing present values. 

For a regular business, total present value expenses would be 

$10,000 + $1,536" + $6,443,** yielding $17,979. With a tax savings 

of $8,075, the true cost is $9,904. For a small business, the tax 

savings would be $4,096, generating a true cost of $13,883. 

* Property taxes 

* Operating and maintenance costs 
OOggggggggl FES .% .ss .% 
This sizable difference is caused by a disparity in marginal 

tax rates for the two businesses. A business earning more than 

$50,000 net annually has a 48 percent tax rate, while the small business has a 22 percent rate. This 26 percent variation has 

considerable impact. 
- -- 

TECHNICAL REPORT DATA 

(Pleose read I~rmrcnons on the reverse before compienng) 

qEDORT NO. 12. 13. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIONNO. 

EPA-~~O/
 2-78-032 1 

TITLE AND SLBT'TLE 15. REPORT DATE 

Control Of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing 


ORGANIZATION 'ODE Stationary Sources - Volume V: Factory Surface Coating 

of Flat wood Paneling 


AbTHOR(S1 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZAT!ON REP'JR' 'IC 

Roy R. Sakaida OAQPS No. 1-2. 112 

PERFORMING 3 R G A N l Z A T I O N N A M E A N D AODRESS i 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 

Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 


1930 14th Street 


Santa Monica, California 90404 


1 

I 

2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AN0 ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


\14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE Office of Air and Waste Management 


Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 


Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 


5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

- 6. ABSTRACT 

This document provides guidance for development of regul ations to 1imi t 

emissions of volatile organic compounds from the factory surface coating of flat 


wood panels. This guidance includes emission limits for three categories of 


panels which represents Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 


these operations. The industry is described, methods for reducing orgznic 


emissions are rev iewed, and mon itoring and enforcement aspects are discussed. 


- 7. KEY WORDS AN0 D O C U M E N T A N A L Y S I S - DESCRIPTORS I~.~OENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS Ic. COSATI FieldiGroup - I I 

Air Pollution Air Pollution Control 


Flat Wood Panel Finishing Stationary Sources 


Emission Limits Organic Vapors 


Regulatory Guidance 


9. SlSTAlaUTiCPu STATEMENT 19. SECURITY .CLfiSS iTh~sReport) 21. NO. OF PAGES 

Unclass~f
led 63 

Unl imi ted 20. SECURITY CLASS ~Thtspage) 22. PRICE