I UnitedStates Office ofAir Quality EPA-45W2-78-bh2 Environmental Protection PlanningandStandards OAQPS No. 1.2-112 Agency Research Triangle Park NC27711 June 1978 Air FLAT G!OOD INTERIOR PANEL 

# OAQPS Guideline Series COATING AP-42 Section 4.2.2.5 Reference Number 

# Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existina Stationary ~Gurces 

# VolumeVII: Factorv

- I



# - 

# Surface Coatingof

- 

# FlatWood paneling

## EPA-450/2-78-032 OAQPS NO.1.2-1 12



# ControlofVolatile Organic Emissions from ExistingStationarySources

# - Volume

# VII: FactorySurface Coating of 

# FlatWood Paneling

Emission StandardsandEngineering Division Chemicaland PetroleumBranch

U.S.ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY OfficeofAir and Waste Management OfficeofAir QualityPlanning and Standards Research Triangle Park, NorthCarolina27711
June 1978OAQPSGUIDELINESERIES

The guidelineseries of reportsisbeing issued bytheOfficeofAir Quality PlanningandStandards (OAQPS) to provide information to stateand localair pollution controlagencies;for example, to provide guidance onthe acquisition and processing of air qualitydata and onthe planning and analysisrequisiteforthemaintenanceofairquality.Reportspublishedinthis serieswillbeavailable- as suppliespermit-from theLibraryServicesOffice (MD-35),U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, ResearchTriangle Park, North Carolina 27711.or,for a nominalfee,fromthe NationalTechnical Informatiam Service,5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 221 61.

Publication No. EPA-4501'2-78-032 (OAQPSNO.1.2-112)

### 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 

### (OAQPSNo. 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~rnativesare considered with their costs and limitations. \lolurneI1 

### 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. Itmust 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 !woodindustries; 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 setminimal 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.thatis reasonably available con- sidering technological and economic feasibility. itmay 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'nductedbefore 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 (Ibsper 

### 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 

### paneling

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'tyare 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 1

### imitations
are isquivalent to usage of coatingswhich 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 paneling. Interior printed Idall paneling is made fromtropicalhardwood plywood (and a few domestic hardwoods) and from thin particleboard. Natural finish hardwood plywood ismade 

### 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,rsiding, tileboard, 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 surface layer is a veneer of hardwood. Particleboard is 

### a manufactured board made of individual wocd particles which have been coated with abinder 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 (10 3

### grams) 2.2046 Ib 1i

### ter 1i

### ter 0.0353 ft"
m 

### meter 3.28 

### ft
rn3 

### cubic meter 35.31 ft3 Mg 

### megagram 

### (10 6

### grams) 2,204.6 

### lb metric ton metric ton (10 6

### grams) 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 CentrigradeTABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page 1.0 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSION!;


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


## .................1-1 1.2 FlatWood Products and Coatings


## ..........1-4 1.2.1 FlatWoods and Products

## ........... 1-4 1.2.2 Flat Wood Coatings


## ............. 1-5 1.3 FlatWood 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 InteriorWall 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


## ..... 3-3TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) 

### Page 3.2 Control of Solvent Emissions.

## ............ 3-4 2.1 Retrofit Costs ofWater-Borne Systems


## .... 3-4 2.2 Operation ofa Water-Borne System


## ...... 3-5 2.3 Retrofit Costs of Ultraviolet/Water-Borne Systems

## ................... 3-5 3.2.4 Operation ofan 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 INCOATINGS

# ......... A-1 APPENDiX B CALCULATIONS OF EMISSION /RATES AND REDUCTIONS

# ................... 0-1 APPENDIX C EFFECT OF DEPRECIATION AND TAXES

## .........C-1LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fiqure Page 1-1 Simplified Schematic of Roll Cc~aters 

## .......... 1-7 1-2 Pressure Head Curtain Coater

## .............. 1-8 1-3 Printed Interior Paneling Line (Lauan.Hardboard. and Particleboard)

## ..................... 1-10 1-4 Natural Hardwood Plywood Interi'or Paneling Line 

## ....1-13 3-1 Cost Effectiveness forVOC Control atExisting 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 forComputing Annualized Costs

## .... 3-6 3-2 Net Annualized Cost Estimates 

## ............. 3-9 C-1 Computation of Present Value Tax Savings

## ........ C-31 -0 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS
1.1 GENERAL DlSCUSSION Prefinished flatwood construction products included in this document are interior paneling made of wood materials such as plywood, partic1eboard, and hardboard. Plywoods are assemblies of layers of veneer orveneer in combination with a lumber core which arejoined together with an adhesive. Particleboards are panels manufactured from discrete pieces or particles of 1ignocellulosic materials (usuallywood) with added binder. Particleboards with different properties are produced by the addition of othermaterials and by manufacturing process variations


## . Hardboards are panels 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 atleast 31 lb/ft 3



## . A1though plants which handle these flatwoods 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 

### tocompile the plant numbers. Hardwood plywood prefinishers7 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 flatwoods and are not intended to provide exact numbers of coaters or flatwood plants. However, the overall differences between the numbers of plants shown inTable 1-1 and those given in the 1972 Census of Manufacturers9 are re1

### atively minor, except for hardwood plywoodTable 1-1. FLAT WOOD PLANTS~ (Fabrica tes/Converts/Coats)
Hardwood Softwoocl Particle- HardState P1wood P1vwnnd

Iowa 0 Minnesota 7 n 0 0 0 Missouri

u Colorado 0 Idaho 3 New Mexico 0 Montana



# - 0 I 1 California 24 25 9 Oregon 16 98 14 12 7 Washington



# - 10 35 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 inthe Pacific States. Statistical information concerning the flatwoods 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 flatwood 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 iscoated. In addition tomanufacturing 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 infonnation from the several wood product associations (which are not all inclusive), approximately 40 percent of the hardwood plywood hand1ing plants 10 percent of the softwood plywood plant,scoatY6 and under 15percent 

### 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. Itappears that there will be an increase in the factory surface coating of flatwood products due to the increased use of prefinished wood in the building trade (including recreationalvehicles) for panelina, flooring, cabinetry, mould siding (only paneling iscovered inthis report). for this increase are: Cost savings a Uniform and better quality finish a Longer 1ifefinish ing, and exter Reasons gi ven

Control of emissions of volatile organic solvents from the factory coating of flatwood products by add-on devices isnot 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 certainwood 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 Flatwoods discussed herein include products from hardwood plywood, particleboard (products not used incabinetry and furniture)

### , and hardboard. Product categories considered are: Printed interior paneling Natural hardwood plywood interior. panels

I 

### , Printed interior panelings are produced from plywoods with I hardwood surfaces (primarily lauan) and from various wood cornLposi tion panels, including hardboard and particleboard. Finishing techniques are used primarily tocover the original surfaces; 

## - * The only VOC recommended as exempt are: methane, ethane, 1,1 ,Itrichloroethane (methyl chloroform) 

### , and trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113).10they 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 panels are prefinished 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 flatwood substrate can be factory applied. These include but are not 1 imited to filler, sealer, groove coat, primer, stain, basecoat, inks, and topcoat. Fillers are used to fill pores, voids, and cracks in thewood 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 aswe11 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/coloring of panels and normal1y should completel y hide substrate characteristics. Inks are used 

### toput

### 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 theproduct. Each type of substrate coated and product category handled usually requires a different coating formulation for each--

-- --- -- --

-- 

### appropriate coating application. Moreover, not a11 

### factory wood products with the same substrate and prefinished for the same end use have the same seriesof 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 flatwoods. Roll coating is a process in 

### which coating isapplied to thewood by 

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

### as the panel movement, the coater iscalled a direct roll coater. Most coatings (primer, sealer, basecoat, topcoat, and other coatinqs used for surface coverage) can be applied with a direct roll coater. When the applicator roll isfol1

### owed by awiper roll that rotates against the direction of the panel movement, the process iscalled reverse roll coaling. Reverse roll coaters

+ 

### aregenerally used to apply filler,which isforced into the voids and cracks in 

### the panels by 

### the reverse roller. Precision

__I-___ 

### coating and printing arealso forms of roll coating. The applicator roll shown in Figure 1-1 isused to place the ink 

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

### the coating thickness ismonitored; the coating is then passed to a final rollerwhich coats thewood. 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 ismetered into a pressure head, then forced through a calibrated slitbetween two knives. The rate of pane1 movement and the controlled uniform flow of the film determines thecoatinq thickness. The physical properties of the material 

### ,temperature, slit width, coating flow rate, and panel speed are important variables.COATING- APPLICATOR 

# 7 /

A. DIRECT ROLL COATER

APPLICATORCOATINGEVERSE ROLLER

---L. B. REVERSE ROLL COATER

(ARROWS SHOW DIRECTION OF ROLLER AND PANEL MOVEMENT)

Figure 1-1. Simp1ifiedSchematic of Roll Coaters

1-7COATER HEAD

COATING 

### RESERVOIR

t

Figure 1-2. Pressure Head Curtain Coater

1-8A11excess coating iscaught 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 a11 typical production 1 ine variations. Product categories included are printed interior paneling and natural hardwood plywood interior paneling.
1.3.2.1 Printed Interior Paneling (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 seriesof coatings applied consists of filler, 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 isfollowed 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 (referto Figure 1-3). Groove cutting isusually done prior to filling. Groove 

# --,

.color can be applied in different ways and at different points 

# 1

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

# 1 I the application of filler. Groove coats are usually pigmented,


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

### - - Filler isnormally 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 fillers, each with various advantages and disadvantages, are available: (1) polyester filler, which is ultraviolet-cured, (2) water-based filler, (3) lacquer-based filler, (4) polyurethane filler, and (5)a1kyd urea-based filler. Water-based fillers are in comnon use on printed paneling 1 ines. Filler isof course not applied 

### toprefilled particleboard and to boards that can successfully remain nonfilled. Itcan be applied more than once to assure complete coverage of particularly porous substrates, and is followed by application of a separate sealing compound when necessary. The sealermay be water- or solvent-based, and is usually applied by airless spray ordirectroll 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 stepmay consist of a spray booth where specialty coatings for textured board are applid. For printed paneling, the purpose of t he basecoat is to provide a smooth surface of the appropriate color on which to print thewood 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 atsome lauan finishing plants). Basecoats are usually applied by direct roll coaters. Inks_ayeapplied by an

--offset gravure printing-~pera-tion

'si-millay-to dire_c_t-rqll-coating. Several colors may be applied in order to reproduce the appearance of wood, marble, leather, textured cloth, and 

### so on. The final effect depends on surfacesmoothness, 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 printabi1ity. 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 application of the clear, protective topcoat. These arewet-on-wet applications, usually employing three-roll precision roll coaters. Some topcoats are now synthetic, prepared from sol vent soluble a1kyd or polyester resins, urea formaldehyde cross linkings, resins, and solvents. Such synthetic topcoats arecatalyzed 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 Paneling 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:setransparent or clear finishes that enhance the real wood surface, which isusually modified in color and appearance by stains, toners, fillers, sealers, glazes, and topcoats. Satisflactoryfinishes 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 itwith an opaque finish. The panel is then

, sanded prior toapplication of a stain, which gives the surface

a uniform color without raising the grain of the wood fiber. The.stainisnormally applied by a direct roll coater with a grooved or wire-wrapped doctor roll to increase the applicationZ Y > 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 isthen dried in a high velocity 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 isfilled, usually by 

### a reverse roll coater followed by a 

### series of pads or brushes to glaze the surface of thewood. The sealed, f

### illed panels are then dried and pol i

### shed in 

### a brush unit. The primer sealer is the next coating applied, normally by 

### direct roll coating. The sealer floods the complete panel 

### , including the grooves, in

### order to protect the wood from moisture, provide a smooth base for thetopcoat, and give gloss to the grooves. Following application, the sealer isdried, 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. - 

### ormore print 

### steps may then be used 

### to upgrade the veneer surface or provide special effects. This glaze isthen dried and a sealer applied with a direct roll coater to smooth the surface in

### preparation for topcoating. 

### One ormore topcoats are 

### used to provide durabi1i

### ty, protection, and gloss. Direct roll coating isthe usual application method, but

### curtain coating may also be employed. The set topcoat iscured at200 to 230'~ (93 to 

### 110~~). The panels are then cooled, buffed, and stacked for shipent.1.4 SOURCES 

### AND TYPES OF 

### EMISSIONS Emissions of 

### volatile organic solvents atflatwood coating plants occur primarily atthe coating lines. Solvents used in 

### organic-based coatings are normal1y 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 cellosolve,

### propanol 

### ,and butanol


## . Ranges of nonvolati

### 1 e materials and volati1

### e 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 Re1iance Universal indicates that there are no volatile organic compounds (VOC) in

### the newer water-borne fillers. Vaporization of organics atcoaters and paintmixing and storage areas occurs atambient temperature and pressure. Emissions from ovens areatambient pressure and attemperatures determined by the substrate and the coatings used. The primary fuel used in

### flatwood coating isnatural gas; liquified petroleum gas is the primary backup fuel during 

### curtail

## - ments of natural gas supplies or where natural gas isnot available Some coating plants employ infrared and/or ultraviolet cure ovens, which areelectricallyheated. This type of oven can normally eliminate onsite 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 CReferences 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 Paneling 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 toBuy 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 Prefinish Industry, Arlington, Va. 

### ,May 1977 American Board Products Association, "Latest ABPA Listings of Hardboard Panel Converters

### ,"Park Ridge, I11

# .,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 19772.0 

### 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 atthe 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, forwhich the physics of curing requires that specialized coating materials be used. Coating materials have been developed 

### to take advantage ofthese curing processes.
2.1 

### ADD-ON DEVICES 2.1.1 

### INCINERATION Afterburners have been used successful1 y formany operations withemissions similar to those from flatwood coating. The minimum control efficiency of an afterburner should be in excess of 90 percent of the vapors captured. Nineteen testreports of direct flame 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 flatwood hand1ing plants contacted, only two, both in southern California, have afterburners as addon controls. Representatives oftwo equipment manufacturers whowere contacted had no knowledge 

### of afterburners being installed as add-ons at other flatwood 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 flatwood 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 flatwood 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 isrecoverable 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 flatwoods, primarily for the reduction of VOC emissions. This material change can a1so result in reduced firehazard, some reduction in fire insurance, improved working conditions, and reduced airpollution. Paint manufacturers have developed and are continuing to develop water-borne coating formulations to rep1ace conventional organic solvent-borne coatings for many factory flatwood applications. In water-borne coatings, the organic content of the volatile portion of the coating isnormally 20 volume percentor 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 atleast 70 percent. Values of volatile organics in water-borne and conventional coatings for factory application to flatwoods 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 toavailable 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. water-borne flat-wood coatings is in the fi7

## - The 

# - major use of 

# __- -I____I__. -__/ ler and basecoat applied 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 toprevent freezing. Volume I, Section 3.3.1 may be consulted for additional information concerning water-borne coatings.3Ln. u u2.2.2 HIGH 

### SOLIDS COATINGS High 

### solids coatings have shown promise for use on .specific products other than wood. Although ithas 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 flatwood 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 isthe most widely used process change and, where applicable, effects almost 100-percent reduction of VOC 

### emissions. In the flatwood 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, acrylics

### ,methane, and a1

### kyds are common coating materials. Applied as a liquid, the coating iscross-linked and hardened on exposure to UV. 

### A1though there have been attempts to develop opaque UV 

### coatings, such coatings arenot available.1° Thus, in

### the flatwood industry, UV 

### has found use only in the application of clear to semitransparent fillerand topcoat for interior printed paneling and cabinetry products. Advantages are good machinabil i

### ty, extremely high 

### solids,

### ;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 mi1s 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, flatwood interior panel products have been divided into three subcategories: 

### 1) 

### printed interiorwall 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 (principally exterior siding and tileboard)

## ,particleboard used in furniture, insulation board, and softwood plywood are not considered in this document. 

## 1 Recommended VOC limitations are given in kg/lOC!fl2 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/100m 6.0 

### lbs/1000 ft 2 

### of surface coated permits the use of conventional organic solvent-borne coatings for topcoats and inks, but wi17 

### 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 coatingswill 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 70percent 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 

### 2-2by 

### subtracting 2 

### 1.7 lb/1000 ft for sealer (becausethis 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 amore 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
2-82 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 formost applications,but with somewhat decreased amounts of VOC. 

### Water-borne groove coats and some water-based inks are being used commercially;however, ?roductqualitycannot 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 ClassI1 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-bornecoatings 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 m2 

### (10lbs/1000 it2) 

### 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) lesswater.*
*Calculations in Appendix 8-11References for Section 2.0


### Test Report Summaries, Los Angeles County Zone, South Coast Air Qua1 ityManagement District (SCAOMD)

### ,El Monte, Ca1if. Gadomski, R.R. etal., Evaluations of Emissions and Control Techno1ogies 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., Re1iance 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 ofParticleboard

### ,"Bulletin, EvansvilleyInd. PPG Industries, "A Cure for Energy, Pollution and Plant Space Woes," PPG Products, Vol. 184, No. 2, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1976 Leary, P.E., Re1iance Universal.Inc., "Ultraviolet 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-Willamette 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 interiorpanel coating lines.
3.1.2 SCOPE Estimates ofcapital and annualized costs are presented for con- trolling VOC emissions from a model printed interiorpanels coating line that includes the application and curing of filler/sealer, basecoat, ink, and topcoat. Two categories of VOC control tech- niques, changes in coatingmaterial to water-borne and ultraviolet (UV) coating systems,have been costed. The a1ternatives 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 suitableas retrofit emission control systems for existing interiorwall pane1 coating plants. Cost information for incinera- tion and adsorption systemswill not be discussed herein,but gen- eral informationcan be obtained fromVolume 1, Section 4.2.2.1 Note, however, that add-on devices are viable control techniques forVOC and are not ruled out on the basis of emission limits or applicability.
3.1.3 

### USE OF MODEL PLANTS For the interiorwood 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 isthe 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 a11 

### applications. 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 is32 ft 2 (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 amidpoint in the present analysis; those who do not coat daily arerepresented by 

### the lower production value, and the higher value represents two full shiftsof operation per day. Mode1 plant control cost estimates will differ from actual costs. This isespecia 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 a1ternative 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 towater-borne coatings. However, costs can be

### incurred 

### (Ij 

### to shield or substitute corrosion resistantmaterial 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 thework area and to maintain the organic content in oven exhaust at low levels. For such coaters, a net reduction in energy requirementsmay result. Use of 

### UV systems is limited to the application of fillerand topcoat to the wood. Ultraviolet curing systems require a significant capital investment. If conversion to water-borne coatings is also desired, furtherexpenditure 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 ofwastes 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 ofthe equipment at an appropriate interest rate. The taxes, insurance, and administration are determined by mu1tiplying 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 flatwoods isnot a straightforward task. Inaddition to a wide diversity inthe types and needs of existing facilities, the procedures used to establish similar control systems are also varied. This results ina lack of models that exemplify what might be called a "standard" system. Also, facilities tend to make use of equipment they a1ready have and are often able to improvise. Moreover, itwas found that there were significant plant-to-plant differences inapplying the same emission control techniques, and that not every plant controlled emissions from the same coating function. Therefore, the following presentation isbased on the experiences of those who have installedvarious 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 indicatedthat the total cost for conversion system procurement and instal1 ation ranged from $40,000 to $55,000. Costs were accumulated on the basis ofthe processes employed ina 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 ofan individual process was between $13,000 and $l9,OOO3.2.2 OPERATION OF A WATER-BORNE SYSTEM Operation of a water-borne system should result inlittlechange inlabor 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 inthe ovens. However, this increase will be compensated for by a decrease inthe blower requirements needed to maintain safe working areas and to insure that organic concentrations inexhaust do not exceed approved limits. The major element affectingcost inthe changeover to a waterborne system isthe cost differential ofmaterials, especially the cost of paint. Estimates of paint costs, assuming a facilitywith a complete coating system and based on factors shown inTable 2-2, are given inTable 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 retrofittinga 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 (100m2) 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 toTable 2-2 for coverage factors. Paint costs per gallon: Paint Costs Per Gallon Organic Water Ultravi Filler $ 3.50 Sealer 3.00 Basecoat 5.00 Ink 12.50 Topcoat 4.50 From Reference 3. From Reference 2. Cfor 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 a1so 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 iswater-borne. Therefore, the increased cost for coatings that are UV-cured isapproximately $1.80 per 1,000 ft 2 ($1-95per 100 m2). Ultraviolet lamps have a normal burn lifeof 2,000 to 8,000 hours, depending on their use. Therefore, they should be replaced every 1 to 4 years. Ata 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 effortwas made to use the values that aremost 1ikely 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 lifeof the system.The analyses were based on the following principles: The discount rate (cost of capital) was taken tobe 10percent. The useful 1ife of each system was taken at 15years, with 

### no salvage value. A capital recovery factor was used toallocate the cost of equipment and interest over itsuseful life. 0 Insurance, taxes, and administrative expenses were taken as a standard percentage of capital expenditures. The results of the cost-effective analysis are listed inTable 3-2, and are graphically presented in Figure 3-1. These results clearly show that the water-borne method ismore cost-effective, and illustratethe impact of throughput on each method. Throughput has a much smaller effect on the water-borne method than itdoes on its UV/water-borne counterpart. While the total variation in the former case isjust 3 cents per kilogram of hydrocarbon controlled, the difference is 9 cents in the latter case. The use of lower VOC content water-borne coatings (10 to 15percent 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 'Jater-Borne Jltraviolet/ 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 Controlledemissions (lb) 432,000 1,728.000 Cost-effectiveness ($/kg) 0.286 0.256 Cost-effectiveness ($/lb) 0.130 (1.1I6

a I n s t a l l e d capital cost for water-borne method Installation and startup costs Increase inoven 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 (2at $45,000) 90,0004 Add-on equiplllent (for fi 1lerand topcoat) 16,000 Lnglneerirqarid developnlent cost 9,0004est. Water-borr~cfor 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 lifeassunled tobe 2years for one shift or less, and 1year for two shifts.3 d$0.50 per KH x 130 KW per hour x annual hours of operation.t ings -4- -0- :oatings

Figure 3-1. Cost Effectiveness for VOC Control at Existing Printed Panel Coating Plants 3-10References for Section 3.0

Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (formerly Debel1 and Richardson)

### , "Air Pollution Control Engineering and Cost Study of Surface Coating Industries," First Interim Report, Appendix, Basis for Coatings, Case 6-2,Prepared forU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976 Martin, M., PPG Industries, Inc., Plainfield, I11

# . Springborn Laboratories, Inc. (formerly Debel1 and Richardson)

### , Report of tripsmade toplants 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 formany companies contemplatinga vapor recovery investment. In this connection,the Internal Revenue Code includes special provis- ions for firms,and especia1ly 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 

### 5years. Sections 46 

### and 50of the code deal with the subject of invest- ment tax credits. 

### All businesses may credit 10 percent of the cost of equipmentwith 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 

### 3years to a maximum of 6

### years; for a life of 3

### or 

### 4years, 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 amaximum 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 price4.2 

### 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 timesmust 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 cherni

### cal burns.5.0 

### MONITORING TECHNIQUESAND ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS

As indicated previously, add-on control devices are not gener- ally applied to the factory prefinishing of flatwoods. However, they may be used to meet VOC emission control requirements. Thus, regulationsmust 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- mination of total nonmethane hydrocarbons.1
For facilities that control emissions by using coatings contain- ing 

### lower overall VOC, emission measurements to determine compli

### ance 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 thequantity 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 gallon) are known, pounds of VOC per 1,000 ft for each coating can be computed as shown inAppendix 2 

### B. The sum of the pounds of VOC per 1,000 ft for each coating appliedto 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, 1imitations inpounds 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 eachcoating type differs inboth composition and spread rate, these values cannot be applied indiscriminatelytoa11 coatings,References for Section 5.0

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Volatile OrqanicEmissions From Existinq Stationarybources 

## - Volume 1: Control Methods forSurface 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 StationarySources

# - Volume 11: Surface Coatinq of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Liqht 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 inweight I): 

### VOC = 

# -m(D) Ib/gal 

# Cg

# '"1
(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 

# Lm] % of 

### volatiles: VOC 

### x VOC 

# [G](7.36) Wg31 For VOC (lb/gal less water1

t 

### VOC 

### "OC lb/ga' 

### lb/gal lesswater Volume ? 

### H 

### 0 ('-.+) 

### Conversion lblgal times 

### 0.12 = fglliterAPPENDIX B CALCULATIONS OF EM1SSION RATES AND REDUCTIONS

I. Weight of 

### VOC Per 7,000 Square Feet of Finished Product*
1. Inthe determination of potential volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from an interiorwall paneling finishing plant, two important factors must be known: (1) IbVOC/gal 

# -- This factor is known by the formulator ofthe 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 inftLlqallon

## -- 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:
lbVOC/1,000 ft2 

## - 1b VOC/gal x 1,000 Spread rate inft2/gal Example:lbVOC/gal of a coating = 4.20 Typical spread rate = 1,800 ft2

Note: 

## - A listingof 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 inPart B. The 1b VOC/1,000 ft2 of each coating type2applied can be added together to obtain 1b VOC/1,000 ft of finished product. 

### * Source: W.J. Groah, Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers Association, Arlington

### ,Va.

### 2. The formula for approximating coating type spread rate is:
Theoretical 1,604 x 

### E x 

### Percentvolume solids per gal s~readrate 

## - ' 2 -



### ft /gal Film thickness in mils Where 1,604 = 

### a constant based on the application of 1 

### gallon (0.1337ft3) 

### 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 1

### imitation 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 solventdensity is 7.36 Ibs/gal, the average coating com- position would be: 

### 40 percent solids, 23 percent organic solvent 1.7 and 33percent water. (

## nd'

=



### Emission limit equivalence on awater-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 limitationwould 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 ga1/1,000ft2 

### 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 = 

### 2.8 lbs/ a1 = 

### 3.6 lbs/gal less water (0.43 kg/l) 

# d
111. Emission Reductions Achievable by the Recommended Limitation Compared to the use of conventional organic solvent-borne coatingswith no emission controls, achievement of the recommended limits will result in reduced emissions in each category in the following ratios: Printed Hardwood: 70percent reduction Natural gardwood: 50percent reduction Class I1 Hardboard: 50percent 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 threecategories is as follows: Printed hardwood: 38 percent of total Natural Hardwood: 7 Dercent of total Class I1Hardboard: 15 percent

# of total Total reduction rpercent Production of the three categories isestimated to be 85 percent of the total of all factory finished flatwood ?roducts. The overall emissicn reduction will be about 50 percent of the total emissions from all flatwood pr~ducts.

### APPENDIX C EFFECT OF DEPRECIATION 

### AND TAXES
Tax incentives and depreciation may have a significant impact formany companies contemplatinga vapor recovery investment. In this connection,the Internal Revenue Code includes special provis- ions for firms,and especia1ly 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 

### 5years. Sections 46 

### and 50of the code deal with the subject of invest- ment tax credits. 

### All businesses may credit 10 percent of the cost of equipmentwith 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 

### 3years to a maximum of 6

### years; for a life of 3

### or 

### 4years, 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 amaximum 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 priceof certified pollution control equipment during the firstyear. Other businesses will be able to deduct up to 25 percent plus interest charges during the firstyear. Let us examine the effect of these regulations on a particular pollution control expenditure. Suppose a facilitywas required to spend $10,000 for itsequipment and installation, and $1,000 per year for operations and maintenance. What isthe aftertax cost of this expenditure for both a regular business and a qualifying 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 include depreciation, operations and maintenance costs, and property taxes. For a qualifying small business, there is also bonus firstyear depreciation. The total tax related savings iscalculated 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 example. Property taxes are assumed to be paid atthe 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.- -- TECHNICALREPORTDATA (PleosereadI~rmrcnons onthe reverse beforecompienng) qEDORTNO. 12. 13. RECIPIENT'SACCESSIONNO. 

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

### 1 TITLE ANDSLBT'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 DAODRESS i10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 

### Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. 1930 14th Street Santa Monica, California 90404 1 I 2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAMEAN0ADDRESS 13.TYPE OF REPORTAND 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 regulations to 1

### imit 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 reviewed, and monitoring and enforcement aspects are discussed.



# - 7. KEYWORDSAN0D O C U M E N T A N A L Y S I S 

### - DESCRIPTORS I~.~OENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS 

# Ic. COSATIFieldiGroup

- 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~s Report) 21. NO.OF PAGES 

### Unclass~f led 63 

### Unlimited 20. SECURITY CLASS ~Thtspage) 22.PRICE