p. 1



# OAR Box 1384
Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 158 ) ll-E-11 8

Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM

Sheet 158 of 264P. 2



### TO :



### FROM :

DATE : MEMORANDUM

Madeleine Stru

m U.S

. EPA/ESD/CCP G
Rober t Jemiso n Pacifi c Environmenta

l Services , Inc

. (PES ) 

## A 9 * 5 2 

# H:£fH S

Januar y 5 , 199 8
SUBJECT : Summar

y o f the Decembe

r 8 , 199 7 Meetin g Betwee n EP A andRepresentative s of the ReinforcedPlastics/Composite s Industr y * 

### LOCATION : EPA/Mutua l BuUding , Durham , NC 11:00 a m- 1:4 5 p m(6t h floor ) 2:3 0 p m- 4:0 0 p m(11t

h floor )
ATTENDEES :
Mr

. Mr

. Mr

. Mr

. Ms

. Ms

. Mr

. Ms

. Ms

. Rober

t Haberlei n Rober t Jemiso n Bo b Lacovara
Steve McNally Ja n Meyer * Melani e Procto r John Schweitze

r
Candac e Sorrel l Madeleine Strum Engineerin g Environmenta l PE S Composit e Fabricator s Associatio n (CFA) CF A EPA/ESD/CCP G PE S Composite s Institut

e (CI ) o f th e (410 ) 268-736 7 (919 ) 941-033 3 (703 ) 525-051 1 (703 ) 525-051 1 (919 ) 541-525 4 (919 ) 941-033 3 (313 ) 668-470 3 Societ y o f the Plastic s Industr

y (SPI ) EPA/EMAD/SCG

A EPA/ESD/CCP G (919 ) 541-106 4 (919 ) 541-238 3

*Ms

. Meye

r attende dthe 2:3 0 p mmeetin g sessio n only

.P. 3



### Madeleine Stru

m Januar y 5 , 199 8 Pag e 2
PURPOS E
The purpos e o

f the meetin

g was fo r representative s o

f th e Reinforce dPlastic/Composite s Industr y andEP A representative s t o discus s th e following : (1. ) A draf

t CF A documen

t entitle d"Developmen

t o f aStandar

dStyren e Suppressant Effectivenes s Test " (Attachmen t 1 ) which outline s ates t metho ddesigne dto measur e th e effectivenes s o

f vapor suppressants

. Attachmen

t 2 contain s Ms

. Strum' s initia l comment s (bol d type ) o n the draft

. (2. ) The MAC T point

valu e model currently being considere dby EP A fo r th e open moldin g proces s grouping

.

DISCUSSION O F DRAF

T CF A DOCUMEN

T
The discussio n starte dwit h Ms

. Stru

mindicatin g EPA' s desire t o wor k wit h industr y representative s to quickly develop ates t metho ddesigne dto measur e the effectivenes s of individua l vapor suppresse dresi n systems

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t industr y wa s willin g to wor k wit h EP A t o quickly develop such ates t method

. H e furthe

r indicate dhi s belie f

that i t wouldno t tak e along time to discer

n whethe r suc h ametho dwoul db e feasibl e anda s such th e metho dcoul deither

b e quickly developedo r discarde dandreplace dwit h amore feasibl e alternative

. The firs t issu e raise dconcerne dthe terminolog y use dt o describ e th e variou s applicatio n technique s tha

t compris e the ope

n moldin g proces s grouping

. Ms

. Strumindicate dtha t industr y andEP A neede dto reac h a

n understandin g o n which applicatio n technique s wil l b e describe d usin g the wor

d"manual. " Ms

. Stru

mfurthe r indicate dtha

t she groupe dth e open moldin g application technique s int

o thre e basi c groups : non-spra y (bucke t an dbrush , pressure-fe droller s an dflow-coaters/choppers) , spra y an dfilamen t winding

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t it ma y b e desirabl e t o avoidusin g the wor d"manual " a s i t

ma y b e confusin

g to som e industr y participants

. Mr

. Schweitze

r state dtha

t som e peopl e ma

y conside r flow-coater s to b e "spray " device s and suggeste dcallin g equipmen t by it s exac t

name , suc

h a s "flow-coater " o r

"pressure-fe droller" , rathe r tha n attempting t

o com e u p wit h othe r descriptiv e name s suc

h as "manual " o r

"mechanical. " Mr

. Haberlei n concurre dwit h Mr

. Schweitzer

. Ms

. Stru mindicate dtha

t EP A wil l wor

k o n clarifying definition s to assur e tha t flo w coater s wouldno t

b e considere dspra

y devices , bu t

als o indicate dtha

t there mus t

b e som e generi c languag e in the final rul e to cove r ne w applicatio n device s (e.g

. a

n applicatio n metho dothe

r tha n aflo w coate r o r pressure fe

droller tha t doe s no t involv e breakin g u

p the resi n int

o distinc t droplets)

.



# 0

.P. 4



### Madeleine Strum Januar y 5 , 199 8 Pag e 3
Th e nex t issue discussedconcernedexactly which component s o f the resi n systemwoul d b e testedusing the draf

t procedures

. Ms

. Stru

maske di f the resi n wouldb e teste dwit h the fillers, catalysts , an

dadditive s actuall

y usedb y the facility

. Mr

. Haberlei n indicatedtha t the combinatio n o f nea t resin , fillers andreinforcemen t use dby the facilit

y wouldb e teste dandtha t th e term "filler " include s all additive s t o the resi n prio r

to it bein g applie dto th e mol dother tha n catalys t an dreinforcement

. Mr

. Lacovarastatedtha t whil e reinforcement

woul db e use di n th e test , th e typ e an dquantit y wouldb e specifie

di n th e test

. Therefore , th e tes t woul dno t

replicate th e exac t reinforcemen

t usedb y the reinforcedplastic s manufacturin g facility

. Mr

. Lacovaracontinue db y stating tha t ther e was n o nee

dt o specif y the typ e o

f catalys t becaus e th e important

factor wa s th e ge l tim e tha t woul db e used , no t

the typ e o f catalys t use dt o produc e aparticula r ge l time

. Ms

. Proctor askedi f it was possibl e tha

t areactio n betwee

n acertai n catalys t

an dm e vapor suppressan

t woul dreduc e the effectivenes s o f avapo r suppressant

. Mr

. Lacovar aindicate dtha

t h e coul dno t thin k o f apossibl e chemica

l reactio n betwee

n th e catalys t an dthe vapor

suppressant

. H e furthe

r indicatedtha

t h e ha dno t hear do f suc h areactio n i n discussin g vapor suppressant s wit

h industr y members

. Mr

. Haberlei n askedi

f the tes t methodwoul

dspecif y the typ e o r

amoun t o f catalys t to b e used

. Mr

. Lacovarastate dtha t differen t resin s require differen

t catalyst s an

dth e propose dtes t metho dwoul dno t

specif y the typ e o r

amoun t o f catalys t t o b e used

. H e furthe

r adde dtha

t specifyin g th e ge l time greatl y simplifie s th e tes t metho dbecaus e usin g aspecifi c ge l time set s man y o f the parameters

. Mr

. Haberlein indicatedtha t specifyin g gel tim e was mor e representativ e o f a n actua l "as-applied " resi n syste

mtha n specifyin g the amoun

t o f catalys t becaus e facilitie s wil l chang e th e amoun

t o f catalys t usedthroughout

the da y i n order to maintai n the sam

e ge l time

. H e furthe r adde dtha

t thes e change s wer

e mad e becaus e change s in ambien t temperature i n th e facilit y woul dchang e th e resi n gel tim e unles s th e amoun

t o f catalys t use dwa s change dto compensat e fo r th e temperatur

e change

. Ms

. Strumaskedwhic

h gel tim e woul db e specifie

db y th e tes t

metho d- the cu

p ge l time o r th e laminate gel time ? Mr

. Lacovar aindicate dtha

t cu p gel time wouldb e th e ge l time specifie dbecaus e cu

p gel tim e i s determine dby prescribe dtes t procedure s whic h produc e scientificall

y accurat e an drepeatable result s whereas th e laminat e gel time i s ver

y subjectiv e and i s ofte n determine dby touc h t

o see i f the resi n ha s "gelled. " H e furthe r addedtha

t th e cu p gel time i s provide do n th e resi n specification sheet s provide db y th e resi n manufacture r andthes e specification sheet s indicat

e th e typ e an damoun t o f catalys t use dt o reac h the targe t

cu p gel time a t 77°F

. Mr

. Haberlei n indicatedtha t cu p gel tim e i s the lowe

r boundfo r laminat e gel time and tha t the laminat

e gel time varie s a

t differen t section s o

f the par t being manufactured

. Ms

. Strumindicate dtha

t sh e wa s confuse

dwit h th e specificatio n of

the cu p gel time sinc e as the composite s manufacture r wouldad do r subtrac t catalys t t o the resi n throughout

th e da y (fo r example , t o accommodat

e ambien t temperatur

e changes ) th e cu

p ge l time of th e resi n woul db e different

. She aske dwhich cu p ge l tim e wouldb e specifiedby the tes t method

. Mr

. Lacovara



# 2 >P. 5



### Madeleine Strum Januar y 5 , 199 8 Pag e 4
indicate dtha

t th e gel time use dby th e tes t woul db e th e sam

e on e use db y th e facilit

y andgav e the example tha

t i f the facilit y use s afiftee

n minut e gel tim e tha t wouldb e the sam

e cup ge l tim e use dby the test

. Mr

. Schweitze r aske dho w the user wouldspecif

y gel tim e to th e manufacturer whe n orderin g aresi n system

. Mr

. Lacovar aindicate dtha

t the use r specifie s acu

p gel time

. Mr

. Schweitze r indicatedtha

t i f th e laminat e ge l tim e varie dfro

mth e cu p gel tim e significantly , the n th e tes t metho dma

y yiel dresult s tha

t ar e no t representativ e o

f actua l suppressan

t effectivenes s values

. Mr

. Lacovar

aindicatedtha

t the tes t metho dwas designe dt

o look fo r averag e (standard ) conditions

. Mr

. Lacovaraaddedtiiat i t wouldno t

b e feasibl e to desig n ates t tha t woul db e ru n a t the actua l laminat e gel time , sinc e as i

t was discusse dearlier , there i s n o standar dtes t metho d t o determine laminat

e gel time , an

dlaminat e gel tim e ca n var y within di e differen

t section s of

th e par t being manufactured

. Mr

. Lacovar afel t tha t usin g th e cu

p gel tim e of th e resin , whic h doe s not vary , wouldb e bot

h reasonable an

dfeasible

. Ms

. Stru

mindicatedtha

t sh e was stil l confuse d becaus e sh e though t the cu p ge l tim e o f the resi n wouldvar

y i f the amoun

t o f catalys t i s adjusted

. Mr

. McNall y explaine dtha t th e user specifie s acu

p ge l tim e (t o aresi n manufacturer

) tha t i s necessar y to mee t bot h produc t specification s andproductio n schedule s an da s such i s no t

likel y to allo w gel time s t

o deviat e substantiall

y fro mthe specifie

dcu p gel time

. H e als o explaine dtha t th e resi n specificatio n shee t tha t accompaniedthe resi n wouldcontai n whic h catalys t andho w much catalys t

woul dneedt

o b e addedto the resi n t o achiev e tha t particula r cu p gel time

. Ms

. Stru mindicatedtha

t if aparticula r cu p ge l tim e valu e wa s to b e use dfo

r th e tes t (rather tha n a n exac t amoun t an dtyp e o f catalyst ) then the cu

p ge l tim e procedur e wouldnee dt o b e par

t o f the tes t metho ds o tha

t i t couldb e verifie

dtha t th e cu p gel tim e a t which the tes t

wa s done matche d the cu p gel time of

the particula

r resin syste mtested

. Mr

. Schweitze

r disagree dtha

t thi s procedure shoul db e par

t o f th e tes t becaus e of

th e difficult

y in gettin g repeatabl e value s outsid e th e resi n supplier' s laboratories

. It

was thu s agreedtha

t th e tes t shoul db e performedusin g th e catalys t typ e an dquantit y tha t wa s providedwit

h the resin specification s to achieve aspecific cu p gel tim e rather tha n allowin g th e tester

t o var y catalys t typ e andquantit

y to achiev e th e specifi c cu p gel time

. Mr

. Schweitze

r askedi f the cu p tes t i s ru n wit

h afilledo r

unfille dresi n system

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha

t the cu p ge l tes t i s conductedwit

h a n unfilledresi n system

. Mr

. Haberlei n indicate dtha

t th e fille r doe s no t affec t the gel time o

f th e resin

. Ms

. Sorrel l inquire di

f th e tes t endeda t th e gel tim

e or som e lengt h o f time greate r

than the gel time

. Mr

. Lacovar aindicatedtha

t the tes t wouldg o beyondthe gel time

. Mr

. Haberlei n indicatedtha

t it ma y b e desirabl e t

o us e alac k o f chang e in the weigh

t o f the tes t sample a s abasi s to conclude tha

t n o furthe r emission s woul

db e given of

f b y the tes t

sample

. H e furthe

r addedtha t one possibl e metho dt

o determine whe

n no emission s wer

e bein g given of

f woul db e i

f th e measurement

di dno t chang e within the precisio n o f the scale

. Ms

. Sorrel l state dtha t another possibl e wa

y of specifyin g alac k o f chang e ma

y b e to specif

y th e lack of chang e a s apercentag e o f loss , i.e

. i

f the percentag e weigh

t los s o f the tes t sample i s les s tha

n acertai n percentag e whe n measure da

t require dintervals , the tes t couldb e considere dcompleted

. 

# HP. 6



### Madeleine Stru

m Januar y 5 , 199 8 Pag e 5
The nex

t issu e discusse dwas th e typ e o f glas s fiber

reinforcemen

t andth e glas s t o resi n rati o specifiedi n the draf

t tes t method

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t h e ha dspecifie dchoppe d stran dma t fiberglas s reinforcemen

t becaus e thi s typ e o

f reinforcemen

t wa s predominan t

i n th e industr y an dwa s easie

r t o rol l ou t tha n reinforcemen

t composedo

f acontinuou s mat

. H e als o indicate dtha

t wit h filledresi n system s th e reinforcemen t goe s down (glas s t o resi n rati o goe s down)

. H e di dno t

kno w whethe r the effectivenes s o

f th e vapor suppressan

t woul dchang e wit

h achang e i n th e glas s t

o resi n rati o o r

th e thicknes s o

f the laminate

. Ms

. Strumaske di f testin g couldb e don

e o n differen

t glas s t o resi n ratio s anddifferen

t thicknesse s to se e ho w sensitiv e th e result s wer

e t o thes e particula

r parameters

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t h e fel t tha t such testin g coul db e conducted

. Th e next issu e discusse dwa s the siz e an dshap e o f th e pa n use dto hol dth e resi n and reinforcement

. Mr

. Lacovar aindicatedtha

t the suggestedsiz e o

f 12 " by 12 " wa s practica

l fo r the amoun t of resi n suggeste dby the draf t method

. H e addedtha

t the pa n woul dhav e t o b e larg e enoug h t o rol l out

th e resin

. Mr

. Haberlei n suggeste dtha t acircula r pa n ma y b e afeasibl e alternativ e a s the rol l ou

t are acoul dstill b e on

e squar e foo t an dma y b e easie r to manipulat

e sinc e man y scale s have aroundweighing surface

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dhi s concer n tha t acircula r pa n ma y mak e aunifor mroll-out difficult

. Mr

. Schweitze

r suggestedarectangula

r aluminumpa

n ma y b e afeasible alternative

. Mr

. Lacovar aindicatedhi s concer

n tha t the botto mo

f a n aluminum pa n ma y fle x durin g roll-out

. Th e next issu e discusse dwas th e metho do f ho w the resi n woul db e transferre dinto the moldan dthe methodo

f roll-out

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t it wouldhav e to b e determine di f the resi n shouldb e poure dint o th e middle o f the moldor

i f it shoul db e poure di n small , separat e stream s acros s the mold

. Mr

. Lacovar aals o indicate dtha

t th e metho dof

roll-ou t woul dhav e to b e determine dan

dsuggestedsuc

h possibilitie s a s specifyin

g how long th e resi n shoul db e rolle d ou t o r ho w man y stroke s o

f the roller shoul db e used

. Ms

. Sorrel l aske dabout th e importanc e o f the roll-out

process
. Mr

. Lacovar

aindicatedtha

t i t i s ver y importan

t becaus e emission s d o no t slop e of f a s rapidly during roll-out

an dtha t roll-out delay s the effec

t o f th e vapo r suppressant

b y disturbin g th e surfac e o

f the appliedresi n system

. Ms

. Sorrel l notedtha t base do n video s tha

t EP A representative s ha

dreviewed , roll-out

occur s fairl

y quickl y an deven aroll-ou t

time o f jus t on e minut e ma y b e unrepresentatively long

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t specifying an amoun

t o f tim e fo r roll-out ma y b e unnecessar

y an dit ma y b e satisfactor

y t o specif y the numbe

r o f passes
. H e furthe r addedtha t area s ar e usuall y rolle dtwice , lef

t to right an dtop to bottom

. Ms

. Sorrel l askedi f the rollin g wouldb e don

e wit h the pa n o n the scale

. Mr

. Haberlei n indicate dtha t suc h aprocedure woulddestro y the accurac y o f the scal e an

dtha t the rollin g coul db e don e wit h th e pan o n ase

t o f blocks

. Mr

. Lacovarastate dtha t tiie pa n coul dals o b e place do n aset o f jack s durin g roll-out

. Mr

. Jemiso n askedMr

. Lacovarai f ther e wouldb e validit

y problem s wit

h the draf t tes t metho dif it i s ver y sensitiv e t o roll-ou t

technique , sinc e th e roll-ou t techniqu e use db y facilit y worker s ma

y var y greatly

. Mr

. Lacovar

aagreedtha

t tha t wa s apossibilit

y an dindicate d tha t differen t roll-ou t technique s wouldhav e to b e teste din order to determin e th e leve l o f


# 5P. 7



### Madeleine Strum Januar y 5 , 199 8 Pag e 6
sensitivit y o f th e metho dto roll-out

technique

. Ms

. Procto r

indicate dtha

t th e result s coul d possibl y b e mad e mor e conservativ e by usin g alonge r roll-out tim e an dthu s reducin g suppressan t effectivenes s values

. The nex t issu e discusse dconcerne dwhethe r or not the test s o n th e suppresse dan dnon
suppresse dresi n system s shoul db e conducte dsimultaneousl y or sequentially

. Mr

. Lacovar a indicate dhi s belief

tha t simultaneou s testin g wouldno t b e necessar

y if th e tes t metho dmet repeatabilit

y requirements

. Ms

. Strumaskedi f the test s shouldb e don e sequentially

. Mr

. Haberlein indicatedtha

t sequentia l testin g wa s no t

necessar y i f repeatabilit

y wa s establishe dand the testing wa s conductedunde r standar dconditions

. Ms

. Stru

mindicatedtha

t it ma y b e desirabl e fo r the sam e perso n t o conduct bot h the tes t on the suppressedan

dnon-suppresse dresi n systems

. Mr

. Schweitze

r indicatedtha

t auser ma y simpl y specif y adesire dpercen t

emissio n reductio n t o the resi n supplie

r an dthe supplie

r ma y hav e t o tr y severa l suppressant/resi n combination s to reac h th e desire dsuppressan

t effectiveness

. I n thi s typ e o f situation , Mr

. Schweitze

r inquire da s t o whether th e supplie

r woul dhav e t o tes t

aseparat

e unsuppresse dresi n syste mfo r eac h suppressant/resi n combination or i f the supplie

r wouldb e able t

o compar e eac h suppressant/resi n combinatio n to asingl e teste dunsuppresse dresi n system

. Ms

. Strumindicate dtha t thi s wa s essentiall y aproduc t

developmen

t scenari o an

dtha t it wouldprobably b e feasibl e t o d o tria l and erro r t o determine the suppressant/resi n combinatio n wit h th e desire deffectivenes s andthe n tes t the final suppresse dan

dnon-suppresse dresi n system s usin g the tes t method

. The nex t issue discussedconcernedth e enforcemen

t vulnerabilit

y of afacilit y who relie d o n asuppressan

t effectivenes s value suppliedb y amanufacturer

. Mr

. McNall y askedif afacilit y ca n us e the vapo

r suppressan

t effectivenes s value tha

t the manufacture

r determine dusin g the tes t metho da s long as the resi n i s unadulterated

. Ms

. Stru mindicate dtha

t th e facilit y coul dus e th e supplie deffectivenes s valu e s o long a s th e resi n was unadulterated

. Mr

. McNally aske di f th e facilit y wouldb e subjec

t t o enforcemen

t i f the EP A testedthe suppressedresi n systemanddi dno t obtain the sam

e suppressan

t effectivenes s valu e supplie dby the resi n manufacturer

. Ms

. Sorrel l indicatedtha

t the facilit y i s alway s considere dliabl e sinc e the y ar e responsibl e fo

r ensurin g tha

t th e measure s use dto contro l emission s are effective

. The nex t issue discussedconcernedthe airflow acros s the surfac e o f the pa n durin g testing

. Mr

. Lacovar aindicate dtha t som e airflo w acros s the surfac e o f th e pa n wa s neede dt o avoi d saturatio n effect

s whic h wouldkee

p som e styren e trappe din the pa n tha t wouldno t

normall y b e trappe di n afacility

. Mr

. Schweitze r askedhow suc

h a n airflo w woul db e measured

. Mr

. Lacovar aindicatedtha

t ahot-wir e anemomete

r (typicall y foun din alaborator

y setting ) woul db e used

. Mr

. Schweitze

r state dhi s concern s tha

t to o larg e o

f a n airflo w coul daffec

t th e balanc e (scale) an dtha t ther e ma y b e difficult

y measuring lo

w airflow rates

. Mr

. Haberlei n indicate dtha t hot-wire anemometer s typically wor k wel l a t lowe r flo w rate s tha

n typica l pitot-tub e typ e flow measuremen

t devices

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t i t ma y b e possibl e t

o us e smok

e tube s t o determine existenc e an

ddirectio n o

f air flow

. Ms

. Sorrell statedtha t usag e o f smok e tube s would



## ioP. 8



### Madeleine Stru

m Januar y 5 , 199 8 Pag e 7
b e difficul t t o standardize

. Ms

. Meye

r indicate dtha

t i t was necessar

y to quantif

y air flow

. Ms

. Stru mstatedi t woul db e necessar

y t o quantif

y air flo w if air flo w i s show n t o hav e an effect o n the result s o

f the tes t becaus e the teste

r mus t ensur e tha t the airflow acros s th e pa

n i s th e sam

e fo r bot h th e suppressedan

dnon-suppressedresi n systems

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicatedtha t the laborator

y hoo dcoul db e expecte dt o dra w air a t aconstan

t rate fo r bot h test s unles s th e hoo dfa n malfunctione

dor ther e wa s ablockag e in hoodexhaus t duct

. Mr

. McNall

y inquire di

f the metho d couldb e mad

e simple r b y not specifyin g acertain flo

w rat e bu t merely requirin g tha

t the flo w rate acros s the pa

n surfac e b e th e sam

e whe n testin g bot

h the suppresse dan

dnon-suppresse dresins

. Mr

. McNall

y statedhi s concer

n tha t specifyin g aspecific flo

w rat e woul drequire laboratorie s to purchas e ne

w fan s unnecessarily

. Mr

. Lacovarastate dtha t thes e issue s coul db e resolve db y measuring air

flo w durin g preliminar

y testing an

dthen conducting asensitivit y analysi s o n the tes t result s to see i

f airflo w ha

dan y affec t o n the suppressan

t effectiveness

. Th e nex t issue discussedwas the tes t procedur e o f stabilizing the resi n sample temperatur e i n awate r bat h to atemperature o

f 77°F

. Ms

. Sorrel l state dtha t the typ e o

f thermometer

use d t o measur e th e resi n sampl e temperatur e wouldhav e t o b e specifie di n orde r t o ensure th e necessar y level s o f accurac y an

dprecision

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t h e ha daspecifi c typ e of laborator y thermomete

r i n mindan

dwouldad

dthe appropriate specifications

. Ms

. Strum aske di f the resi n sampl e discusse di n the procedur e referre dto bot

h resi n an dfiller o r jus t nea t resin

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate dtha t it was intende dto represent

bot h resi n an dfiller

. Th e nex t issue discussedwas whethe r or no t i t was necessar

y to prepar e the tes t

pa n wit h areleas e agen

t t o allo w the easy remova

l o f the cure dresi n systemfro mth e pan
. Mr

. Lacovar a indicate dtha

t the us e o f areleas e agen

t wa s optiona

l whe n conductin g th e tes t

andtha t it s us e wouldallow the pa

n to b e use dagain fo

r additiona l testing

. Ms

. Procto r

askedi f the releas e agen

t woul di n an

y wa y affec t the tes t results

. Mr

. Lacovarareplie dtha t th e us e o f areleas e agent , woul dnot affec t the tes t result s becaus e it

i s applie das aver

y thi n laye

r tha t canno t b e weighte d andwoul dno t

interac t wit h th e resi n o r

suppressan

t i n such awa

y a s to produc e o r

reduc e th e emissions

. Ms

. Sorrel l askedi f the sam e releas e agen

t use db y th e facilit

y woul db e use db y th e manufacturer

. Mr

. Lacovar areplie dtha t there wer e alarg e numbe

r of releas e agent s an dth e releas e agen

t use dby the resi n manufacture r durin g testin g ma

y no t b e th e sam

e on e use db y th e facilit y fo r productio n purposes
. Ms

. Stru msuggestedtha

t i f the releas e agen

t was not necessar y t o properly conduct

the tes t metho dthe n perhap s i

t shouldb e eliminated

. Mr

. McNally pointe d ou t tha t the metho dahead

y calledfo r discarding th

e rolle r useddurin g roll-out

proces s s o h e sa

w no reaso n no t

to discar dthe pa n as well

. Th e nex t issue discussedwas the natur e o f th e emission s profil e tha

t occur s when resi n i s applie dto asurfac e (throug h manua l o r mechanica

l means) , durin g th e roll-ou t o f the laminat

e surfac e anddurin g th e post-rol l out curin g stage

. Ms

. Strumstate dtha t EP A neede ddat a regarding the emission s tha t occurre dduring the application , role-out , an dcurin g phase s becaus e i t was believedtha

t the effec t o f the vapo r suppressan

t woul db e negligibl e durin g th e applicatio n


# nP. 9



### Madeleine Strum Januar y 5 , 199 8 Pag e 8 phase

. Sh e addedtha

t amultiplie

r wouldhave t

o b e develope dto adjus t

fo r thi s effect i n orde r to accurately determin e th e emission s from asuppresse dresi n system

. Mr

. Lacovaraindicate d tha t industr y coul dprovid e EP

A wit h datasufficien

t to determin e th e emission s profile

. Mr

. Haberlein suggestedcomparing the CF A Phas e U emissio n tes t

datacollectedo n vapo

r suppresse d resi n system s wit

h prelirninar

y tes t dat afro mthe vapor

suppressant

laborator y tes t to determin e a n appropriate multiplier

. The final issu e discusse dconcernin g the draf t tes t metiio dwa s th e timetabl e fo r th e preliminar y testing

. Ms

. Stru

maske dMr

. Lacovar

ahow soon industr

y wouldb e able t o conduc t th e preliminar

y testing

. Mr

. Lacovar

aindicatedtha

t th e testin g wouldprobabl y b e conducte di n early January , 1998

.

DISCUSSION O F THE VARIOU S MACT MODEL S
Mr

. Haberlei n distribute dthe followin g material s prepare dby himself an dpresente do n behalf o f the CFA , th e SPI-CI , an

dthe Internationa

l Cas t Polyme r Institute : 1. ) A documen

t date dNovembe

r 25 , 1997 an

dentitle d"EPA' s Powe

r La w Models : curv e fitting throug h the origin" , 2. ) A documen

t date dNovembe

r 26 , 1997 an

dentitle d"Summar

y o f CF A Emissio n Models" , 3. ) A documen

t date dNovembe

r 28 , 1997 an

dentitle d"Piece-wis e Linear/Power La w Model" , 4. ) A documen

t date dNovembe

r 26 , 1997 an

dentitle d"Emissio n Model s fo r Reinforce d Plastics" , 5. ) A documen

t date dDecembe

r 8 , 1997 an

dentitle d"Addendato the Derivatio n and Verificatio n o

f th e CF A Emissio n Models" , 6. ) A documen

t date dDecembe

r 8 , 1997 an

dentitle d"Further

Analyse s o

f the CF A & PE S Emissio n Model s an

dthe Ope n Molding Database. "
7. ) A diskett

e date dDecembe

r 8 , 1997 an

dentitle d"MACT Matrix

. "6 ^ ^cUcre.fc A w^s ^ ^
Thes e document s containe di n Attachment s 3 throug h 9 , respectively

. Mr

. Jemiso n distribute dgraph s o f the origina

l an dmodifie dEP A MACT Model analyse s as wel l a s atable s comparin g the effect s o f variou s option s considere dunde r thos e analyses

.

%P.1 0



## /^// e shm. f*

fX

From : <BLacovara@aol.com > To : RTP3.RTMU546(STRUM-MADELEINE ) Date : 11/17/9 7 11:00a m Subject : Re : Suppressan t Tes t Draf t
Madeleine , Her e i s th e initia l draf t fo r th e developmen t o f a suppressan t effectivenes s test

. Thi s wil l b e distribute d t o intereste d partie s i n th e industryt o ge t th e bal l rolling

. I f ther e i s meri t t o thi s proposal , thi s wor k shoul d b e abl e t o b e accomplishe d i n a reasonababl yshor t time

. I f w e hav e consensu s t o mov e forward , let' s discus s a timeline

.
Bo b Lacovar a - CF A

Note : Documen t i n tex t forma t - wil l follo w wit h fa x copy .

- & •



# 1 0P.1 1

DRAF T - WOR K I NPROGRES S

Proposa l

Date : 11/14/9 7

From : Bo b Lacovar a - CFA

To : MAC T Summi t Group Madelein e Stru

m- EP A Resi n Supplier s Suppressan t Supplier s

Re : Developmen t o f Standar d Styren e Suppressan t Effectivenes s Tes t

I

. Backgroun

d

Recen t testin g ha s documente d th e effectivenes s an d benefit s o f styren e suppressant s i n reducin g emissions

. However , i t ha s bee n recognize d tha t suppressan t efficienc ymayb e variabl e ove r th e rang e o f possibl e suppressan t an d resi n systemcombinations

. Becaus e o f th e potentia l arrayo f combinations , a standardize d tes t metho d mus t b e develope d t o documen t th e performanc e o f suppressant s unde r specifi c conditions

.

Durin g th e cours e o f th e CFAOpe n Moldin g Tes t Project , attempt s wer e mad e t o correlat e th e Californi a SCAQM D Rul e 116 2 "Pi e Pan " tes t t o th e result s o f th e large-scal e emission s testin g bein g conducted

. I t wa s foun d tha t th e 116 2 pi e pa n tes t exhibite d littl e o r n o correlatio n t o emission s develope d i n laminat e samples

. Therefore , i t ha s bee n determine d tha t a ne w tes t metho d i s require d t o accuratel ydetermin e th e effectivenes s o f suppressan t additives

.

Thi s propose d tes t metho d incorporate s a laminat e an d mechanica l roll-ou t metho d t o mor e closel yapproximat e th e condition s foun d i n actua l moldin g operations

.

Thi s tes t i s designe d t o b e a direc t compariso n betwee n a specifi c resi n wit h an d withou t a suppressan t additive

. I t i s no t designe d t o determin e actua l emission s fro

mth e moldin g process . I t i s anticipate d tha t th e dat a generate d fro mthi s tes t wil l b e entere d int o th e CFAemission s mode l a s a suppressan t modifie r factor

. Thi s facto r i s par t o f a mor e comprehensiv e formul a t o determin e overal l proces s emissions

.P.1 2

II

. Point s o f Genera l Consensu s

1 ) Th e effect s o f suppressant s ca n b e variabl e wit h specifi c resi n system s an d specifi c suppressants

.

2 ) Th e SCAQM

D Rul e 116 2 typ e "pi e pan " tes t doe s no t correlat e wel l wit h actua l laminat e tes t results

.

3 ) Ther e ar e distinc t stage s o f emission s generatio n during th e laminatin g process .

a . Spray-u

p o r flo w chopping : Stag e 1 - Spra

yo r flo w coate r applicatio n o f resi n t o mol d surface

. Stag e 2 - Roll-ou t o r mechanica l manipulatio n o f laminat e surface

. Stag e 3 - Pos t roll-ou t curing stag e

b

. Hand Lay-u

p (manua l application) : Stag e 1 - Manua l transfe r o f resi n fro mcontaine r t o mol d surface

. Stag e 2 - Roll-ou t o r mechanica l manipulatio n o f laminat e surface

. Stag e 3 - Pos t roll-ou t curing stag e

4 ) Th e effec t o f suppressio n i s negligibl e durin g th e resi n applicatio n portio n o f th e proces s (i.e

. durin g th e spra ytransfe r o r manua l transfe r o f resi n t o th e mol d surface)

.

5 ) Suppressin g actio n i s effecte d b yth e roll-out , o r mechanica l manipulation , portio n o f th e laminating process , whe n th e laminat e surfac e i s bein g disturbe d b

yFR P rollers , brushing , etc

.

6 ) Onc e th e roll-ou t (mechanica l manipulation ) o f th e laminat e i s conclude d th e effect s o f suppressant s becom e significant

.

III

. Curren t Premis e fo r Tes t Developmen t

1 ) Onl yemission s stage s 2 an d 3 nee d t o b e encompasse d b yth e tes t method

.

2 ) Fibe r reinforcemen t shoul d b e incorporate d int o th e tes t sampl e t o provid e laminat e surfac e effects

.

3 ) Mechanica l roll-ou t i s neede d t o encompas s th e stag e 2 effects

.



## IIP.1 3

4 ) Tes t metho d shoul d b e a s simpl e a s possible

.

5 ) Testin g shoul d b e abl e t o b e duplicate d an d use d o n a broa d scale

.

IV

. Tes t Developmen t Issue s

1 ) Determinin

g weight los s b

y a gravimetri c metho d i s simple . * Th e us e a lab balanc e a s th e primarymeasuremen t metho d woul d b e appropriate , i f repeatabilit yca n b e established

.

2 ) Appropriat e glas s fibe r reinforcemen t an d resi n t o glas s rati o mus t b e selected

. * 11/ 2 oz./ft 2 Choppe d Stran d Ma t (CSM ) Fiberglas s Reinforcemen t @ a rati o o f 25 % glas s t o 75 % resi n b yweigh t wil l b e selecte d fo r initia l trials

.

3 ) Tes t laminat e siz e mus t b e determined

. * Th e tes t laminat e siz e wil l b e 12 " x 12 " fo r th e initia l trials

. Thi s siz e provide s a convenien t enclosur e siz e an d sampl e resi n quantity

.

4 ) Ametho d o f distributin g th e resi n acros s glas s fibe r reinforcemen t mus t b e devised

. * Initia l trial s wil l b e carrie d ou t b ymanuall ypourin g resi n acros s th e CS M surface

. Thi s metho d wil l b e evaluate d fo r repeatability

.

5 ) Ametho d o f controlling th e actio n o f th e FR P rolle r ma yb e required

. * Initia l trial s wil l b e carrie d ou t usin g manua l rollin g fo r a specifie d perio d o f time

. Thi s metho d wil l b e evaluate d fo r repeatability

. I f repeatabilit ycanno t b e establishe d usin g thi s method , a mechanica l rollin g devic e wil l b e devised

.

6 ) Lengt h o f tes t mus t b e established

. * Becaus e thi s tes t i s focuse d o n stag e 2 & 3 emissions , i t i s importan t tha t th e tes t run b e o f duratio n tha t ther e i s a reasonabl e certaint ytha t styren e emission s hav e reache d a baselin e level

. I n th e absenc e o f th e mor e comple x requirement s t o establis h a baseline , th e following i s proposed :

- Ther e i s a relationshi p betwee n ge l tim e an d overal l cur e tim e wit h a vas t majorit yo f resi n an d initiato r systems

. Therefore , usin g ge l tim e multiplie d b ya facto r ca n establis h a perio d i n whic h th e laminat e ca n b e expecte d t o hav e achieve d baselin e emissions

.

- I t i s propose d tha t th e initia l testin g us e th e formul a o f ge l tim e (min. ) > 6 t o establis h th e tes t duration

.

- Usin g th e example s o f tw o commo n ge l time s o f 1 5 an d 3 0 minutes , th e tota l tes t tim e woul d b e 9 0 minute s an d 18 0 minute s respectively

. Previou s testin g ha s show

n thes e time s adequat e fo r emission s t o declin e t o baselin e levels

.



# 1 3P.1 4

7 ) Test procedur e mus t b e developed

. * A n initia l test procedur e i s propose d i n thi s draft

.

V

. Initia l Experimenta l Proposa l

1 ) Tes t Set-up : a . Test t o b e conducte d i n a temperatur e stabl e environment , a t 770 F ( 40 F (250 C (1.20C ) b

. Th e tes t i s conducte d i n a n enclosur e o f ( ) " x ( ) " x ( )" , whic h incorporate s airflo w o f ( ) fp mthroug h th e enclosure

. c . Ashallo w test pa n ( ) " x ( ) " i s positione d o n a digita l balance

. d

. Balanc e wil l b e accurat e withi n ( ( ) g

2 ) Require d Equipment : a . Tes t enclosur e w / fan , baffles , NDO's , an d door s b

. Laborator ybalance(s )
c . Tes t Pa n (dimension s t o b e specified ) d

. Constan t temperatur e wate r bat h
e . Ge l time r f

. FR P roller , disposabl e (siz e & typ e t o b e specified ) g . Plasti c beaker s - 200m l h

. Glas s stirrin g rod s

3 ) Require d Material s a . 11/ 2 oz./ft 2 Choppe d Stran d Ma t (CSM ) Fiberglas s Reinforcemen t (12 " x 12" ) b

. Resi n c . Initiato r d

. Suppressan t additiv e

4 ) Tes t Procedure : a . Stabiliz e resi n sampl e temperatur e i n wate r bat h a t 770 F ( 40 F (250 C (1.20C ) [*Toleranc e TBD ] b

. Measur e resi n ge l tim e wit h identica l initiato r percentag e t o b e use d i n pa n tes t [Us e standar d G T procedure ]
c . Establis h lengt h o f pa n tes t - Ge l Tim e (min. ) x 6 = Tes t Tim e Spa n [*appropriat e multiplie r TBD ] d

. Prepar e tes t pa n wit h releas e agent i f require d
e . Plac e tes t pa n o n balanc e i n enclosur e f

. Prepar e CS M sample

. 1

. Cut t o 12 " x 12 " squar e 2

. Weig h sampl e (Targe t weigh t 42.5 g (4.2g ) [*acceptabl e toleranc e TBD ] g . Plac e CS M sampl e i n tes t pa n h

. Plac e FR P rolle r o n test pa n i

. Tar e balanc e j

. Measur e 130 g ( 2 g resi n int o 200m l plasti c beake r [*exac t quantit y& acceptabl e toleranc e TBD ] k

. Measur e appropriat e quantit yo f initiato r (and suppressant additive ) int o resi n sampl e 

# i HP.1 5

1

. Mi x resi n sampl e fo r 1 minut e wit h glas s stirring ro d
m . Remov e stirring ro d an d se t asid e n . Star t tim e o . Pou r resi n mixtur e int o pan , distributin g uniforml yacros s CS M - se t plasti c beake r asid e p . Recor d initia l weigh t (Iw ) - resi n applie d t o laminat e i n pa n q . Usin g th e FR P roller , rol l th e laminat e surfac e fo r 1 minute , usin g uniform stroke s an

d spee d [*tim

e TBD ]
r . Plac e FR P rolle r i n pa n s . Clos e enclosur e door s t

. Sto p tim e - Tes t Tim e Spa n (G T x 6 = TTS )
u . Recor d fina l weigh t (Fw)

. v . Calculat e weigh t los s an d emission s percen t

a . Initia l weigh t - Fina l weigh t = Styren e los s I w - F w = S l

Styren e los s / Initia l weigh t x 10 0 = % Styren e emission s pe r resi n weigh t S l / I w x 10 0 = % Styren e Emission s (RW )

DRAF T - Developmen t o f Suppressan t Effectivenes s Test

.



# 1 5P.1 6 

# /\ H& ekww ^tZ^

From : MADELEIN E STRU M Xo : Internet."blacovara@aol.com " Date : 11/19/9 7 4:10p m Subject : comment s o n VS R tes t outlin e

<W P Attachmen t Enclosed > Bob ~ M ycomment s ar e i n bold

. Candac e Sorrell , th e Emissio n Measuremen t Cente r lead fo r thi s test , ha s no t gotte n a chanc e t o loo k a t thi s yet

. Sh e ma yhav e mor e comment s o n th e laborator ytes t procedures , repeatabilit yissues , etc

. Thank s fo r thi s earl ydraft

.
Le t m e kno w i f you' d rathe r d o a conferenc e cal l o r mee t i n perso n o n Decembe r 2 an d you r preferre d times

. Madelein e

CC : RT P 6.RTPEML.SORRELL-CANDAC E



## 16P.1 7



### A <

DRAF

T - WOR K IN PROGRES S

Proposa l

Date : 11/14/9 7

From : Bo b Lacovara- CF

A

To : MACT Summi

t Grou p Madeleine Stru

m- EPA Resin Suppliers Suppressan

t Supplier s

Re : Developmen

t of Standar dStyren e Suppressan

t Effectivenes s Tes t

I

. Backgroun d

Recen t testin g ha s documentedth e effectivenes s an dbenefits o f

styren e suppressant s i

n reducin g emissions

. However , it

ha s bee n recognize dtha

t suppressan

t efficienc y ma y b e variabl e over

th e rang e o f possibl e suppressan

t an dresin syste

mcombinations

. Becaus e o f th e potentia

l arra y o f combinations , astandardizedtes t metho dmus t

b e developedt o documen

t th e performanc e o f suppressant s unde

r specifi c conditions

.

Durin g th e cours e of

th e CF A Ope n Moldin g Tes t

Project , attempt s were mad e t o correlate th e Californi aSCAQM

D Rule 1162 "Pie Pan " tes t t o th e result s o f

th e large-scal e emission s testin g bein g conducted

. I t

wa s foun dtha t th e 1162 pie pa

n tes t exhibitedlittl e o r

no correlatio n t o emission s developedi

n laminat e samples

. Therefore , i

t ha s bee n determine dtha

t ane w tes t metho di s require dt o accuratel y determin e th e effectivenes s o f suppressan

t additives

.

Thi s propose dtes t

methodincorporate s alaminat e an dmechanica

l commen t

b y M

. Strum : mayb e th e wor d"manual " shoul db e use dinstea dsinc e th e roll-ou t i s don e b y han droll-ou t metho dt o mor

e closel y approximat

e th e condition s foun

di n actua l moldin g operations

.



# 1 7P.1 8



### Thi s tes t i s designedt o b e adirec t

compariso n betwee

n a specific resin wit

h an dwithou t a suppressan t additive

. I t

i s no t designedt o determine actua l emission s fromth e molding process
. I t i s anticipate dtha

t th e datagenerate dfromthi s tes t commentb

y M
. Strum : ad d th e word s "wil l b e entered into a mode

l to estimat

e th e performanc

e of a particula r suppressant/as
applie d resin combinatio n which will then b e entered.... " wil l b e entere dinto th e CF

A emission s mode

l a s a suppressan

t modifie r factor

. Thi s factor

i s par t o f amore comprehensiv e formul at o determine overall proces s emission s commen tb y M
. Stru

m delete "overal

l proces s emissions " and replac e wit h " a MAC T point-valu e system typ e mode l which reflect

s accurat e emission reductio n credit s t o th e various emissio n reductio n technique s which a facilit y could choos e t o mee

tMACT"
.

II

. Point s of

Genera l Consensu s

1 ) Th e effect

s o f suppressant s ca

n b e variabl e wit

h specifi c resin system s an

dspecific suppressants

. Commen

tb y M
. Strum : Add "Fo

r example , i thas been demonstrate d tha t suppressant

s are les s effective whe n the y are use d wit h filled resin s a s compared to unfilled resins. "

2 ) Th e SCAQM

D Rul e 1162 typ e "pie pan " tes t doe s no t correlate wel

l wit h actua l laminat e tes t results

.

3 ) Ther e ar e distinct stage s o f emission s generatio n during th e laminating process
.

a
. Spray-u p o r flow chopping : commentb y M
. Strum : ma y nee d t o includ e pressure fed rollin g an d flow (no n chopping ) her e since thatis th e wa

y th e industr

y proposed th e proces s groupings t o be
. O n th e othe r hand , i

f w e wan tt o mode

l flow chopping , versu s flow non chop versu s pressur e fe d roller differently , i twoul d stil l b e ok withi n th e mechanica

l proces s grouping sinc e I envisio n spra y choppin g woul d b e differen tfro m flow chopping
. Ma

y jus twan tt

o chang e to "a
. Mechanica l application " Stag e 1 - Spra

y o r flo w coate r commen tby M
. Strum : "Mechanical " applicatio n o f resin t o moldsurface

. Stag e 2 - Roll-out

o r mechanica

l manipulation o f

laminat e surface

. Stag e 3 - Pos t

roll-out curing stag e

b. HandLay-u

p (manua l application): Comment : ma y notwan tt

o distinguis h between manua l (bucke tan

d brush ) an

d othe r non-spra

y mechanica

l means of

applicatio n (such a

s flo w coater , pressur

e fe d roller , etc)

. Stag e 1 - Manua

l transfe r o f resi n fromcontaine

r t o mol dsurface

. 

# iiP.1 9



### Stag e 2 - Roll-out

o r mechanica

l manipulation o f

laminat e surface

. Stag e 3 - Pos t

roll-out curin g stag e
Wantt o addres s filamentwindin g her e a s well ?
I sugges tthi s sectio n b e re-writte n to b e keptver y general , such tha tth e thre e stage s are : Stag e 1 - Applicatio n of

resin t o mold surface
. Stag e 2 - Roll-outo r mechanica l manipulatio n o

f laminat e surface
. Stage 3 - Pos troll-outcurin g stag e
Woul d thes e thre e stage s addres s filamentwindin g as wel l ( I don' tthin k s o sinc e resi n i s applied to filament

s which are the n applied to resin —woul d w e wan tt o combine thes e i n definin g applicatio n of

resin t o mold surface) ?
4 ) The effec

t o f suppression i s negligible durin g th e resin applicatio n portio n o f th e proces s (i.e

. during th e spra

y transfe r o r manua l transfe r o f resi n t o th e mol

dsurface)

.

5 ) Suppressing actio n i s effecte db y th e roll-out , o r

mechanica

l manipulation , portio n o f

th e laminating process , whe

n th e laminat

e surfac e i s being disturbe dby FR P rollers , brushing , etc

. Comment : I ti s believed tha tther e will b e som e effectivenes s of

th e suppressantatthi s stage , bu ti tma

y no tb e a s grea tas th e effectivenes s i n th e curin g stage . Note : th e reason for assumin g some effectivenes s atth e stage when th e resin i s bein g worked i s tha tpreviou s testin g has show

n a maximu

m overall suppressan

teffectivenes s of

40 % whil e only 25 % of th e total emissions wer

e release d durin g curing as indicate d by emissio n profiles
. Thu s some of th e emission reductio n mus talso com e fro m th e othe r two stages .

6 ) Onc e th e roll-out

(mechanica

l manipulation) o f

th e laminat

e i s conclude dth e effect

s o f suppressant s becom

e significant

.

HI

. Current

Premis e fo

r Tes t Developmen

t

1 ) Onl y emission s stage s 2 an

d3 needt o b e encompassedby th e tes t method

. Comment : Onl

y emissions stage s 2 an

d 3 wil l b e encompasse d b

y th e laborator

y par tof th e tes tmethod
. A VS Reffectivenes s mode l wil l then us e th e laborator

y tes tmethod result

s to provid e th e inputfo r th e MAC T model
. 2 ) Fibe r reinforcemen

t shouldb e incorporate dint o th e tes t sample t o provide laminat

e surfac e effects

.



# MP.2 0



### 3 ) Mechanica

l roll-out i s neede dt o encompas s th e stag e 2 effects

.

4 ) Tes t metho dshouldb e a s simpl e a s possible

.

5 ) Testing shouldb e able t o b e duplicatedan dusedo n a broadscale

. Commen tb y M
. Strum : Add : "I

f possible , th e tes tmetho d shoul d b e abl e t o b e conducte d b y resin manufacturer

s o r suppressantmanufacturer s o n th e "as-applied " resins (ma y nee d definitionfo

f as-applied ) s o tha tthes e materia l suppliers (i f

asked by th e composite s manufacturer

) could supply th e dat

a t o th e composit

e manufacturers
. However , i ti s th e composit e manufacturer

s thatar e ultimatel

y responsibl e fo r th e resultof th e test . Woul d resin manufacturer

s b e willin g to d

o thi s o n a ge l tim e specifi c basis , since ge l tim e i s a ver

y composite-manufacture r specifi c parameter ? Woul d tes tmetho d ge l tim e b e th e cup gel tim e a ta specifi c temperature o r th e actua l ge l time ? I tappears par

to f thi s tes twoul d requir e determinatio n of

th e ge l time o f th e resin s o tha tth e tes twoul d b e specifi c fo r a specific ge

l tim e an d result

s coul d onl

y b e used fo r tha tspecifi c ge l tim e tested
. IV

. Tes t Developmen

t Issue s

1 ) Determining weigh

t los s by agravimetric metho di s simple

. * The us e off

ala b balanc e a s th e primar

y measuremen

t metho dwoul db e appropriate , if repeatabilit y ca n b e established

.

2 ) Appropriat

e glas s fiber

reinforcemen

t an dresin t o glas s rati o mus t

b e selected

. * 11/ 2 oz./ft 2 Choppe dStran dMa

t (CSM ) Fiberglas s Reinforcemen t @ arati o o f

25 % glas s t o bJjjA •=—^l^olcsm^b

y weigh t wil l b e selecte dfo

r initia l trials

. Commen

tby M
. Stru

m : coul d a fe

w ratioTb e looked atand compared wit h thi s selectio n s o tha tth e effec tof thi s paramete r i s known ?

3 ) Tes t laminat e siz e mus t

b e determined

. * The tes t laminat e siz e wil l b e 12 " x 12 " fo

r th e initia l trials

. Thi s siz e provide s aconvenien t enclosur e siz e an dsample resin quantity

. Commen tb y M
. Strum : Th e thicknes s of th e laminat

e need s t o b e determined (th e surface are a o f th e laminat

e shoul d no teffec

tth e effectivenes s of

th e suppressant, bu

twoul d i t affec tth e repeatibility/accuracy?)
. 4 ) A methodo f

distributin g th e resi

n acros s glas s fiber

reinforcemen

t mus t b e devised

. * Initia l trial s wil l b e carrie dou t

b y manuall y pourin g resin acros s th e CS M surface

. Thi s metho d wil l b e evaluate dfo

r repeatabilityJfWe nee

d t o bette r define ho w th e laminat e sampl e is prepared
. Ar e thes e followin g step s to prepar e th e laminate sampl e correct ? (1 ) Th e 

# ' I/I!*/



# loP.2 1



### reinforcementi s placed i n th e tes tpan , (2 ) a specified amoun tof resi n i s poured ove r th e reinforcement, and (3 ) th e resin is rolle d ou tfo r a specified amountof time
. 5 ) A metho do f

controlling th e actio n o f

th e FR P rolle r ma y b e required

. * Initia l trial s wil l b e carrie dou t

using manua

l rolling fo r aspecifiedperio do f

time

. Thi s metho d wil l b e evaluate dfo

r repeatability

. I f

repeatabilit

y cannot b e establishedusing thi s method , a mechanica l rolling devic e wil

l b e devised

.

6 ) Lengt h o f tes t mus t b e established

. * Becaus e thi s tes t

i s focusedo n stag e 2 & 3 emissions , i t i s importan

t tha t th e tes t ru n b e o f duratio n tha

t there i s areasonabl e certaint y tha t styrene emission s have reache da baselin e level

. In th e absenc e o f

th e mor e comple x requirement s t o establis h abaseline , th e followin g i s proposed :

- Ther e i s a relationshi

p between ge

l time an doveral l cur e time wit h avas t majorit y o f resin and initiator systems

. Therefore , using ge l time multipliedb

y afactor ca n establis h aperio di

n which th e laminat

e ca n b e expectedt o hav e achievedbaseline emissions

.

- I t i s propose dtha

t th e initia l testin g us e th e formulaof gel tim e (min. ) x 6 t o establish th e tes t duration

.

- Usin g th e example s o f

tw o commo

n gel time s o f

1 5 an d3 0 minutes , th e total tes t

tim e woul db e 9 0 minute s an

d18 0 minute s respectively

. Previou s testin g ha s shown thes e time s adequat e fo r emission s t o decline t o baseline levels

. Commentb y M
. Strum : whatabou twaitin g fo r weigh t los s to achiev e a constantvalue
. Doe s a tim e nee d t o b e specified
.

7 ) Tes t procedure mus t

b e developed

. * A n initia l tes t procedure i s propose di

n thi s draft

.

Commentby M
. Strum
. Shoul d Suppresse d an d nonsuppressed resins b e done atsam e \ , u tim e i n sam e enclosure ? I f th e samples are tested sid e by side , i tneed s to b e assure d tha t^ JJ

1 

### "
. bot h sample s are exposed t o th e sam e ai r flow i n th e enclosure
. However , i twould need s t o Jy b e assured tha ton e sample does no taffec tth e emissions released by th e othe r sample
. Shoul d tes tinclud e 3 set

s of suppressed an

d non suppressed resins ? ^/
V

. Initia l Experimenta

l Proposa l ^

—-^f^P ) V ou)



### 1 ) Tes t Set-up : a
. Tes t t o b e conducte di

n atemperatur

e stabl e environment , at\770p ( 40 F (250 C (1.20C ) ^ Commen tb y M
. Stru

m (need t o delete degree sign since th e translatio n of th e emai l message made i timpossibl e t o rea d th e temperature(s? ) tha tar e being proposed
. Shoul d a fe

w temperatures b e initiall y tried to see i f ther e is a n effect ? If

n o effec tw e mightb e abl e to give a range o f temperatures . I

f bi g effec tw e mightneed t

o wor k harde r t o com e u p wit

h a realistic/representative / bes to r wors tcas e temperature . I s th e 

# z\P.2 2



### temperatur

e of th e wate r bat

h in whic h th e resin sampl e temperature i s stabilize d th e sam e a s th e ai r temperature ? b

. The tes t i s conducte di

n a n enclosur e o f ( ) " x ( ) " x ( )" , whic h incorporate s airflow o f ( ) fp mthroug h th e enclosure

. Commen tb y M
. Strum : whe

n enclosure i s open , ai r flow i s n o longe r a constant( ) fp m throug h th e enclosure
. c
. A shallo w tes t

pa n ( ) " x ( ) " i s positione do n adigita l balance

. Commentb y M
. Strum : do w e nee d to specif

y dept h o f tes tpa n a s well as lengt

h an d width ? D o w e nee d t o specif y th e material s of

th e tes tpa

n a s wel l ( a to o heav

y a pan will give a larg e erro r du e to small weigh tdifferences) ? d

. Balanc e wil

l b e accurat

e withi n ( ( ) g

2 ) Require dEquipment : a
. Tes t enclosur e w / fan , baffles , NDO's , an

ddoor s b. Laborator

y balance(s ) c
. Tes t Pa n (dimension s t o b e specified ) d

. Constant

temperature water

bat h e
. Ge l timer f

. FR P roller , disposabl e (siz e & typ e t o b e specified ) g
. Plasti c beaker s - 200m

l h

. Glas s stirrin g rod s

3 ) Require dMaterial s a
. 11/ 2 oz./ft 2 ChoppedStrandMa

t (CSM ) Fiberglas s Reinforcemen t (12 " x 12" ) b

. Resin .J^* M 

### A c
. Initiato r ^ K



### \ w 

### ' y d

. Suppressan

t additiv e (J" 1 

### ^ ,h r *

4 ) Tes t Procedure^ /

. * ^ a
. Stabiliz e resiniampl e temperatur e i n water bat h a t 770 F (40 F (250 C (1.20C ) [*Toleranc e TBD ] b. MeasureTesin,gejJime-wit h identical-initiato

r percentagef

b b e usedi

n panTe^tfiJse_standar

d G T piouedufe ] c
. EstablisTflengTh-of-pafHest- ^ [*appropriate-multiplie r K ^ ^TBB ] ^ ^_

—: 7 

### V ^ d

. Prepar e tes t

pa n wit h releas e agen

t i f require d(Which (releas

e agentis propose d fo r thi s test ? Unles s thi s releas e agen t i s typically use

d b y all facilitie s durin g actua l production , i t shoul d no tb e used during testing becaus e i tcoul d affec temissions. ) « Auh ^i' ^p e
. Plac e tes t

pa n o n balanc e i

n enclosur e U ^^- ^ r < y f

. Prepare CS M sample

. ~ \jj^f ]A^JL % 6 

### ^ 1

. Cut t o 12 " x 12 " squar

e £ ^^ 2. Weig h sample (Targe t

weigh t 42.5 g (4.2g ) [*acceptabl e toleranc e TBD ] commen tb y M
. Strum : don' tunderstand parenthetica l remar k —mustb e an emai

l transmissio n error . 

# It a^P.2 3



### g
. Plac e CS M sample i

n tes t pa n h

. Plac e FR

P roller o n tes t pa n I

. Tar e balanc e j

. Measure430gX2 g resin int o 200m l plasti c beaker

[*exac t quantit y & acceptabl e toleranc e TBD ] Pleas e explai n thi s i n mor e detail
. Doe s thi s mea

n yo u measur e 130 g of resi n wit h a n acceptabl e measuremen

ttolerance of

2 g ? k

. Measure appropriate quantit y o f initiator (an dsuppressan

t additive ) into resi n sample y , 1

. Mix resin sample fo

r 1 minut e wit h glas s stirrin g ro d» Jfud fn/^00^^
1 

## <$J



## ^nfr..,0s m
. Remov e stirrin g rod^an

dset aside ^____

—— —/ W \w' "

V ' » A C, L/^ "

A n.Starttime ^ ^V_ rr 

### -^"^~~' ~ ^^° \^P

, ~ ^ o
. Pou r

resi n mixtur

e into panTa^strirjutrng ^ CS M - set plasti c beaker

aside c\^P-Recor dinitia l weigh t (Iw ) - resin appliedt o laminat e i n pa n (sampl e weight ) ——z $Ca^sb's '• /,/L, , 

### ^ , ^JL q
. Usin g th e FRP roller , roll th e laminat e surfac e fo

r 1 minute , usin g unifor

mstroke s andspeed^vli ^
^ [*timeTBD ] U\ cj\ | ^ ^ #* ] ^' ^, . . /a ^

r
. Plac e FR

P roller i n pan-^^/ y p Uo< (n^l oj^W^J

n^tyfrw^
s
. Clos e enclosur

e door s commen

tby M
. Strum : where ar

e enclosur e doors open ? How to ^cccO oj make sur e ai r flow is a

tconstant/identical rate during rolling for differen ttests ? £/

?£ ^ t

. Sto p time - Tes t

Tim e Spa n (G T x 6 = TTS ) qu*A>'h u
. Recordfinal weigh

t (Fw)

. f v
. Calculat

e weigh t los s an demission s percent

J

t0

### . , J

;. , .

a
. Initia l weigh t - Fina l weigh t = Styrene los s t' I w - F w = S l

Styren e los s /

Initia l weigh t x 10 0 = % Styren e emission s pe r resi n weigh t S l / I w x 10 0 = % Styrene Emission s (RW) Commen tby M
. Strum : result

s shoul d b e % reductio n fro m non suppresse d resin : { % Styrene Emission s (RW) of nonsuppresse d - % Styrene Emissions (RW ) of suppressed } divide d by % Styrene Emissions (RW ) of nonsuppressed

DRAF T - Developmen

t o f Suppressan

t Effectivenes s Test

.



# rbP.2 4



# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A Haberlein , Ph.D.

. QE

P robhab@erols.com /)!•/ttfhyru^f JIT

TW O FIS K

CIRCL E ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1 (410 ) 268-736 7 (410 ) 267-817 4 FA

X



# Technical

Memorandum Novembe r

25,

. 199 7



# EPA' s Powe

r La wModels ; curve-fittin

g throug h the origi n
Th e OAQPS/PE S propose s t o fit the HA P emissio n models , derive dfo

r th e reinforced plastic s lamination processes , through the origin (Le. , 0 % HA P emission s at

0%HA P content) using apower

la w curv e of

the for mY = A XB



### . Th

e followin g i s adiscussio n o f

the technica

l advantage s an ddisadvantage s o f thi s approach : 

# Advantages : Simple approach
Thi s approac h woul dtrea

t aHA P monomers lik

e awoo dfinish , where all the volatile HA P content i s los t durin g drying

. Avoid s dealing with the extrapolation problem at low HAPcontents
All o f th e current

EP A an dCF A linea r emissio n model s becom

e problemati c a

t lo w monome r conten t levels , becaus e th e linea

r model s show negativ e emissio n rate s a t low monome

r contents

. Forcin g th e emission mode l curve s t o pas s throug h zer o woul davoi dthi s inconsistency

.


# Disadvantages :
No factual

basis
Ther e i s n o tes t

dat at o suppor

t an y conclusion s regardin g th e emissio n rate s fo r ver y low o r ver y hig h HAP content

resins

. Thi s applie s t o bot

h the EP A andCF A models

. EP A argue s tha

t the possible erro r

cause db y us e of thi s approac h will no t

b e significant

. However , ho w ca

n an y assertio n regarding erro r

b e offere di n the absenc e o f

data ? Conside

r th e significan t difference s between the linea r an dpower la w models

. Fo r

example , th e propose dEP A power mode l fo r mechanica

l application is : 

## emission s (lb/ton ) = 0.001 1 x % styrene : 3J04 1



### ^k^P.2 5



# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S TW O FIS K CIRCL E Rober t A Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE

P ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1

EP A Power La w Model Technica

l Memorandu

m Novembe r 25,199 7 pag e 2 of 3

an dth e propose dEP

A linea r model fo r mechanica

l application is :
emission s (lb/ton ) = 16.571 4 x % styren e + 442.375 0


### A t 30 % monome

r content , th e difference betwee n the emissio

n rat e predicte dby th e tw o model s i s 8 4 lb/to n (powe

r law ) versu s 5 5 lb/to n (linear) , whic h i s a53 % difference

. "0% HAPemissions at

0% HAPcontent"

is an illogical

assumption
A resin monome

r i s no t lik e th e vehicl

e containedi

n awoo dfinish. A significan t portio n of th e monome

r mus t reac t b y crosslinking wit

h the polyeste

r resi n chain s t o for

mth e cure d plasti c product

. B y necessity , thi s portio n of th e monome

r content mus t remain a s par

t o f th e finishe dpart

. Resi

n chemist s believ e tha

t aminimu mmonome

r content o f fro m1 0 t o 20 % mus t b e consumeddurin g the cros s linking reaction

. Thi s crosslinkedmonome r will neve r b e emitte d- s o thi s positiv e HA

P content als o correspond s t o zer

o HA P emissions

. EPA ha s apparently confusedth e concept o f "lowe r bound " wit

h th e more appropriate concep t of "th e greates t

lowe r bound. " Ther

e ar e a n infinit e numbe r o f lower bounds , but

onl y on e greates t

lowe r boundfo r eac h process
. Indeed , whil e it ma y tru e tha t zero emission s will occur a t zero HAP content , almos t

zero HA P emission s wil

l als o occur

a t som e positiv e HA P content - perhap s 1 0 t o 20 % by weight

. Thi s conten t leve l i s th e tru e greates t

lowe r bound , an di s amor e appropriat

e endpoint

fo r an y emissio n model

. EP A argue s tha

t it ma y b e possibl e fo

r all o f the monome

r t o escape , i

f th e resi n doe s no t cure
. Thi s argumen

t i s misleading

. The purpos e o f a n emissio n mode l i s t o estimat

e HAP emission s fro

marea l proces s - no t

hypothetica

l no r atypica l situations

. N o facilit

y will produc e part s unles s the resi n cures
. Hence , real worldcondition s requir e th e monome

r t o crosslink

. No resins are commercially available below 28%
The monome

r content o f commerciall

y availabl e productio n resin s i s normall y greate r tha n 33% , although afe

w specialit y andexperimenta

l resin s have monome

r content s dow n t o 28%

. The lowes t

monome r content containe di

n the MAC

T databas e i s 28%

. Hence , th e developmen t of a n emission model fo

r monomer s below 28 % i s not presentl y neede dfo

r th e purpose s o f MAC T development

.



## 2- 5P.2 6



# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A Haberlein

. Ph.D. , QE

P TW O FIS K CIRCL E ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1

EP A Power La w Moa'e l Technica l Memorandu

m Novembe r 25,199 7 pag e 3 o f 3
EPA argue s tha

t thei r propose dmodel extrapolatio n to zer o mus t b e includedin th e MACT rule , becaus e ne

w lowe r monome r resin s ma y b e developedi

n th e futur e belo w th e presen t content levels

. EP

A believe s thi s i s necessar

y becaus e the rul e wil

l b e aroun dfo

r alon g time an dma y difficul t t o change

. However , thi s i s better justification t o no t

extrapolate th e emission model s a

t thi s time. Surely , a

n uncertai n andpotentiall

y erroneou s assumptio n shoul d no t b e include di

n arul e tha

t wil l b e difficul

t t o change

. Instead , the rulemaking shoul dnot e th e lac k of certaint y beyon dthe availabl

e data , andshoul dmak

e provision s fo

r the emission testin g o f ne w lowe r monome r resins.whe

n thes e resin s are developed

. Thes e tes t result s coul dthe n b e incorporate dinto a

n "equivalency determination " simila r t o amode l prediction

. The power

law model

predictions are physically impossible at higher HAPlevels
Forcin g th e emissio

n curv e t o pas s throug h th e availabl e dataandzer

o result s i n apowe r la w curv e wit

h positiv e curvature

. Thi s positiv e curvature cause s the HA P emission rat e t o rapidl y increas e a

t highe r monome r levels

. Thi s create s aphysicall y impossible situatio n a

t higher HA P levels

. Fo r

example , the propose dEPA powe r model fo r mechanica

l applicatio n is :
emission s (lb/ton ) = 0.001 1 x % , 3J04 1 styren e 

### No w conside

r aresin tha

t contain s 100 % styren e - a

n unlikely , bu

t possibl e scenario

. All o f

th e styrene woul deventuall

y evaporat e resultin g in 100 % emissions , whic h i s equivalen

t t o a2,00 0 lb/to n emission rate

. The propose dEP A power mode l result s i

n a4,46 2 lb/to n emission rat e at 100 % styrene content

. Thi s i s impossible , sinc e on e to n equal s 2,00 0 pounds

. I n fact , th e propose dpower

model fo r mechanica

l applicatio n woul dbecom

e imaginar y a t an y monome r content greater tha n 71% , becaus e th e HAP emission s wouldexceedthe total HAP conten t abov e tha t level

. Conceals the extrapolation problem beyond the existing data
B y making a

n overl y simplistic assumption , the underlyin g proble mo f extrapolatio n beyon dth e available datai s concealed

. A mor e accurate approac

h wouldb e t o acknowledg e that the emission rat e fo

r ver y low an dver y hig h monome r conten t resin s i s presently uncertain

. Fo r Engineerin g Environmental ,

Rober t A

. Haberlein , PhTf. , QE

P 

# toP.2 7



# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A Haberlein , PhD. , QE

P robhab@eroIs.co

m TW O FIS K CIRCL E ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1 (410 ) 268-736 7 (410 ) 267-817 4 FA

X



# Technical

Memorandum Novembe r

26,199 7



# Summar y o f CF A Emission Models

Manua l Resi n Application Baselin e Emission Factor Vapor Suppressan

t Contro l Facto r (%styren e > 28% ) 0.0028 6 x %styren e - 0.052 9
0.000447 6 x %stvren

e + 0.0128 9 0.0028 6 x %styren

e - 0.052 9

Mechanica l Resi n Application
Baseline Emission Facto r Vapor Suppressan

t Contro l Facto r Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r < o r > Non-Atomizing Contro l Facto r 0.0071 4 x %styrene - 0.18 0
0.6 2
0.7 7
0.5 1

Filamen t Resin Application
Baseline Emission Facto r
Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r 0.00274 6 x %styrene - 0.029 8
0.6 5

Gelcoa t Spra y Application
Baselin e Emissio n Facto r
Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r 0.0103 6 x %styren e - 0.19 5
0.7 3



# z- 7P.2 8



# * ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A Haberlein

. Ph.D.

. QE

P robhab@ero\s.com TW O FIS K CIRCL E ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1 (410 ) 268-736 7 (410 ) 267-817 4 FA

X


# Technical Memorandum Novembe r

23,199 7



# Piece-wis e Linear/Powe

r La w Mode l

Pacific Environmenta

l Service s (th

e OAQP S ES D technica

l consultant) , propose s t o fi t th e styrene emission models , derivedfo r the reinforcedplastic s lamination processes , throug h th e origin (Le. , 0 % styren e emission s a t 0% styren e content) using apower

la w curv e fit

of th e form : Y = A*X

B 

### The CF A emissio n model s currentl y us e alinea

r curv e fit o f th e form : Y= B*X + A The CF A ha s als o suggeste dtha

t the most pruden t anddefensible approac h woul db e t o truncate the linea r mode l a t th e lowe r an duppe r bounds of th e available tes t

data

. The OAQP S ES D (Madelein e Strum ) believe s tha

t afi t throug h th e origin mus t

b e apart of an y emissio n mode l develope dfo r th e reinforcedplastic s MACT standard

. The ES D believe s thi s i s necessar

y becaus e ne

w lowe r monome r resin s ma y b e develope din th e futur

e belo w th e presen t content levels

. Also , the rul e wil

l be aroundfo

r alon g tim

e andma y difficul t t o change

. Withou t afit throug h th e origin , the ES D argue s tha t th e standardwoul db e incomplet e (wit h a truncate dmodel ) o r

coul dsignificantl

y overpredict

the benefits o f

lowe r monome r content s in th e futur e (extrapolatio n o f

th e linea r curve beyon

dth e lowes t

boun dof data)

. Thes e ar

e bot h vali d arguments

. However , th e CF

A recognize s severa

l significan t inconsistencie s wit

h th e propose dpower la w model , particularl y whe

n applie dt o styren e emission s abov e andbelo w th e teste drang e o f styrene contents

. Pleas e refe r t o the Novembe

r 25,199 7 EEC S technica

l memorandu

mfo r a detaile ddiscussio n o f

th e potentia

l problems wit

h apure powe r

la w fit t o th e available data

. Bot h th e CF A andthe OAQP

S EMA D (Ron Ryan

) agre e tha t aconsisten

t metho dshoul d be usedt o estimat

e styrene emission s fo

r bot h State EP A permittin g andreportin g purposes , and fo r MAC T floo r determination s an

dcompliance purposes
. Otherwise , seriou s inconsistencie s couldoccur
. Fo r

example , alinea

r emissio n model migh

t sho w tha t asmalle r facilit y emit s les s tha n 1 0 tp y o f

styrene , henc e i

t wouldnot be amajo r sourc e subject

t o MACT

. However , th e powe r la w mode l coul dpredic t

HA P emission s greater

tha n 1 0 tp y a t lowe r styrene content levels

. Hence , th e initiall

y "minor " sourc e become s amajo r sourc e unde

r th e MACT mode

L Th e opposit e situatio n coul doccu

r fo r smalle r facilitie s using highe

r monome r content resins

. A piecewis e emission model , describedbelow , i s on e solution

.



# v\P.2 9



# 7 ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S TW O FIS K CIRCL E Rober t A Haberlein , Ph.D.

. QE

P ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1

Piecewis e Model Technica

l Memorandu

m Novembe r 28,199 7 

## page 2 o f 3



# A Piecewis e Emissio n Mode l - apropose dcompromis e solutio n
A piecewis e powe

r law/linea r emission model coul db e develope dtha t retain s th e bes t feature s o f bot h the PE S an

dCF A approaches

. The piecewis e mode l woul dus e apowe r la w approac h belo w the lowest

boun dof teste dstyrene content

level s (le. , 33 % fo

r spra y lay-up) , and woul dus e alinea

r fit approac h above tha

t lowes t bound

. The tw o curv e piece s wouldb e made functionall y continuou s (equa

l emission value s a

t th e linkag e point) , andcoul dals o have th e sam e slope s a t th e linkag e poin

t (although th e "equa

l slope " conditio n i s no t

anecessit y here)

. Usin g the PE S equatio n a s a n example , atwo-par

t piecewis e emission mode

l fo r mechanica l application migh

t appea r a s follows :
belo w 33 % styren e emission s (lb/ton ) = 0.001 1 x % 6tyrena 35 0 abov e 33 % styren e emission s (lb/ton ) = 16. 6 x % 6t;/r8n 8 - 44 2


### Not e tha t som e sligh t adjustmen t i n th e model coefficients ma y b e neede dt o smoot

h th e tw o equatio n value s a

t the linkage point

. Indeed , th e piecewis e model doe s no t really requir

e muc h of acompromis e i

n eithe r th e ES D o r th e CF A positions

. Basedupo n th e scientific merits , th e CF A alread y believe s th e emission model s shoul

db e truncate dt o th e lef

t of th e available data

. Base dupon EP A policy , th e ES D believe s th e for

mo f the leftmost

extrapolatio n o f

th e model shoul db e apowe r la w curv e throug h th e origin

. Th

e tw o position s ar

e no t fundamentall

y different

.



# Advantage s to aPiecewis e Model :
Not overly complicated
The expression o

f a n emissio n model i n tw o part s i s no t

overly complicated

. Mos t

o f th e source s will probabl

y us e the simple

r linea r part , unti l newe

r low styrene resin s becom

e commerciall

y available

.



# 2 4P.3 0



# i ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S TW O FIS K CIRCL E Rober t A Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE

P ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1

Piecewis e Model Technica

l Memorandu

m Novembe r 28,199 7 pag e 3 of 3
Deals with the linear

extrapolation problem at lower HAPcontents
All o f the purely linea

r emission model s becom

e problemati c a

t lo w styrene content

levels , becaus e th e linea

r model s sho

w negativ e emission rate s a t low styrene contents

. B y forcing th e emission model t o assum

e apowe r la w curv e belo w th e lowe

r boun dof tes t dat aa s amatter

o f policy , th e EP

A wouldavoidthi s inconsistency

. Does NOT

conceals the extrapolation problem beyond the existing data
Insteadof concealin g th e underlyin

g problemo f

extrapolatio n beyondthe available data , th e piecewis e model recognize s the problemo f accurately predicting emission s fo r ver y lo w and ver y hig h styrene conten

t resins , andclearl

y provide s apolicy decision i n th e absenc e o f

rea l data

. Clearly separates the "factual" and "policy" parts of the model
A s discusse dearlier , ther

e i s n o tes t dat at o suppor

t an y conclusion s regardin g th e emission rate s fo

r ver y low o r ver y hig h HAP content

resins

. Thi s applie s t o bot

h th e EP A and CF A models

. A piecewis e mode l woul dconsis t

o f two , clearl

y separat e part s - afactua

l part base dupo n the dat aan

dapolicy par

t outsid e th e available data

. Avoids the

fallacy caused

by the power

law curve at

higher HAPlevels
A s discusse di

n the earlie

r memorandum , th e power

la w curv e cause s th e styrene emission rat e t o rapidly increas e a

t highe r styrene levels

. Thi s create s aphysicall y impossible situatio n o f more tha n 100 % emission s a

t highe r styrene level s (abov e 70 % styrene content fo r th e mechanica

l model)

. Wit

h th e piecewis e model , th e linea r piec e t o th e right

wouldprevent

thi s fallac y from occurring

. The technical

merit of"0% HAPemissions at 0% HAPcontent"

is no longer

an issue
The technica

l meri t o f a n EP A policy decisio n i s no t

apertinen t issue

.

For Engineerin g Environmental ,

Rober t A

. Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE

P

10P.3 1
.*1 

# fc /frty^tfir/n/rtfyE


# Emissio n Model s fo

r Reinforce dPlastic s

presentedt o Mr

. Ro n Rya n EPA-EMA D
b y Rober t A

. Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE

P Engineering Environmenta

l

Novembe r 26,199 7

Topics : CF A emission model s an

dlates t revision s NMM A tes t result s RT I tes t result s PE S "supe r set " emissio

n dat aan dlinea r model s PE S "powe

r law " model s

3 1P.3 2



# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S Rober t A Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE

P robhab@erols. com



# Technical Memorandum Novembe r

26,199 7 TW O FIS K CIRCL E ANNAPOLIS , M D 2140 1 (410 ) 268-736 7 (410 ) 267-817 4 FA

X



# Summar y o f CF A Emissio n Model s

Manua l Resin Applicatio n
Baseline Emissio n Facto r Vapo r Suppressan

t Contro l Facto r (%styrene > 28% ) 0.0028 6 x %styrene - 0.052 9
0.000447 6 x %stvrene + 0.0128 9 0.0028 6 x %styrene - 0.052 9

Mechanica

l Resin Applicatio n
Baseline Emissio n Facto r Vapor Suppressan

t Contro l Facto r Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r <or > Non-Atomizing Contro l Facto r 0.0071 4 x %styrene - 0.18 0
0.6 2
0.7 7
0.5 1

Filamen t Resin Applicatio n
Baseline Emissio n Facto r
Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r 0.00274 6 x %styrene - 0.029 8
0.6 5

Gelcoa t Spra y AppUcatio

n
Baseline Emissio n Facto r
Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r 0.0103 6 x %styrene - 0.19 5
0.7 3



# 3 1

# CF A Emissio n Model s Novembe r21,199 7 Revisio n
40 %

V P

20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome rConten t (% styrene ) 45 % CF A Han d

-&- 

### CF A Spra y

CFAF W

CF A Gelcoa t

50 %

# MAC T MATRIX

APPLICATIO N METHO D Curren t Ne w Monome rMonome rMonome r Conten t Conten t Facto r (% ) (%

) (%

) Novembe r26,199 7

Vapo rControlle d Non-Ato m Add-o n %o f Curren t Suppressant Sprayin g Equipmen t Contro l Add-o n Emissio n Facto rFacto ro rFacto rFacto rContro l Facto r (% ) (%

) (%

) (%

) (% ) (lb/ton )

Manua l Resi n 44.0 % 38,0 % 76.5 % H I 100 % fl& v' 95 %

j^.wjrt.v-.-rt-.-.-.YJ r nv^« W 

### Gelcoa t Spra y 44.0% 40.0 % 84.1 % ^ifci^ y 73 %

Filamen t Resi n 44.0% 44.0 % 100.0

% H I 100

% ^ra!^^^a^^^^^^* ^ 

### 0 % 13 1

Mechanica l Resi n 44.0 % 42.0 % 89.4 % H i 100 % H I 77 % i| | 100% 95 % 0 % 25 4

95 % 0 % 52 2

95 % 0 % Ne w Ne

w Emissio n Emissio n Facto rFacto r (lb/ton ) (

% resin )

10 0 5.0 %

17 5 8.7 %



### 32 0 16.0 %

13 1 | 13 1 6.6 % IP.3 5



### Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s



# Addendu m t o the Derivation an

d Verificatio

n of th e CF A Emission Models

Octobe r 8,199 7

Rober t A

. Haberlein , Ph.D. , QEP

Following EPA' s initia

l technica l review , acorrectio n ha s bee n mad e t o th e CF

A Han d Model

. Fou r

of th e thirt y tes t dat apoint s usedt o deriv e th e origina l Han dMode l include dth e effec t o f vapo r suppressant

. Thes e fou

r datapoint s ar

e no w exclude dan

danew regressio n i s performed

. The revise dregressio n analysi s i s show n i n Tabl e A-l

. Note tha

t thi s ne w regressio n i s amuc h better fit tha n th e origina

l regression (r

2 

### = 0.50 3 versu s 0.282)

. Base dupo n th e ne w regressio n analysis , th e ne

w equatio n fo

r han dlay-u p emission s (expresse da s apercentag e o f resi n weight

) is : Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.00286

x % styrene - 0.0529

A s reveale do n th e nex

t page , expressing styren

e emission s a s afunctio

n of resi n weigh

t i s amuc h bette r fi t tha n expressin g emission s a s afunctio n o f available styrene

. Th e ne w equatio n replace s Equatio n 2 i n th e origina

l report , an

dshoul dsubstitute dwher

e appropriate throughou t

bot h reports

. Th

e ne w HandMode l i s compare dt o th e correspondin g EP A Emissio n Equatio n i

n Figur e A-l , an

darevise dplo t

o f all th e CF A Models , including th e new Han dModel i s provide di n Figur e A-2

. Note how closely th e ne w Han dMode l matche s bot h th e EP A Equatio n andth e "non-atomized " Mechanica l Application curve
.
Base dupo n thi s ne

w model an

dthe origina

l styrene monome

r content o f 40 % liste di

n th e Open Molding database , the ne w Manua l Applicatio

n floo r value i s 7 6 lb/ton

. Th e ne

w floo r valu e for Manua l Application andth e ne

w Han dModel hav e anegligible impact upo n th e baseline andemission reductio n calculation s fo r the Ope n Molding database

.

A- l 

# 35P.3 6



### Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s

Tabl e A- l Revise d Han d Lay-u p Regressio n

No

. I D (in. ) (% ) 1 100295 B 0.04 1 3 5 2 100295 C 0.08 8 4 2 a A 092095A 0.04 1 4 2 3B 092695 B 0.04 1 4 2 4 A 100395A 0.08 8 3 5 4B 092695 C 0.08 8 3 5 5 092595A 0.04 1 4 2 6 092695A 0.08 8 3 5 7 092795A 0.04 1 3 5 8 092795 B 0.08 8 4 2 9 092795 C 0.04 1 3 5 1 0 092895A 0.08 8 4 2 11 A 092895 B 0.04 1 4 2 11 B 092995 C 0.04 1 4 2 12 A 092895 C 0.08 8 3 5 12 B 100295

A 0.08 8 3 5 1 3 092995A 0.08 8 3 5 1 4 092995 B 0.04 1 4 2 1 5 091995A 0.04 1 3 5 1 6 091995 B 0.08 8 4 2 052996 B 0.17 6 44. 4 080196A 0.12 0 44. 4 060596A 0.08 8 33. 2 052996A 0.08 8 44. 4 053096 B 0.08 8 44. 4 060396 B 0.08 8 48. 8


### • ; 

### " 0$O49«

B 0M$ & * r\ > 980596

8 * &8& t « ^ 1 

### " s 

### O53096A ; aofc a * s M:4 S

s 

### , * nso496A ojas ? s 

### 4&a >

Regressio n Outp u (

% resin ] Constan l -0.0529 2 StdErrofYEs t 0.0127 8 R Square d 0.5034 3 No

. o f Observatio i 2 6 Degree s o f Freedo m 2 4
X Coefficient(s

) 0.0028 6 St d Er r o f Coef

. 0.0005 8



### Th e shade d value s ar e exclude d from th e (min. ) (fpm ) (% ) ( % resin wt)( % styrene ) 3 0 100 0 1 5 5 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 3 0 10

0 0 3 0 100 0 3 0 5 0 0 1 5 100 0 1 5 10 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 3 0 10

0 0 3 0 10

0 0 3 0 100 0 1 5 5 0 0 1 5 5 0 0 3 0 5 0 0 1 5 100 0 3 0 5 0 0 1 5 100 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 

# * wr\ 

# * - ' * ^ .JM O

5 

### ^ Vt 

### „ %

W A s

. rtv. "..s s s % ^ •• s w f ss s ssv w ss>ss s 6.2 %

4.9 % 7.2 % 7.6 % 4.2 % 4.6 % 8.1 % 3.6 % 5.3 % 5.7 % 5.0 % 6.0 % 8.9 % 8.9 % 3.4 % 3.6 % 4.2 % 7.1 % 6.3 % 4.9 % 7.2 % 4.9 % 4.6 % 6.6 % 8.4% 9.3 % &$ % 

### $3% *&i+- \&6 % * 17.7 %

11.7 % 16.7 % 17.7 % 11.7 % 13.1 % 19.2 % 10.1 % 14.7 % 13.5 % 14.0 % 14.3 % 21.2 % 21.0 % 9.6 % 10.1 % 11.9 % 17.1 % 17.6 % 11.5 % 16.1 % 11.0 % 13.8 % 15.0 % 18.8 % 19.0 %



### ' 8x7 % - * fc1*'5 7U9 U

SSS S \f VAVWW W Regressio n Outpu (

% styrene

) Constan l St d Err o f Y Es t R Square d No

. o f Observatio i Degree s o f Freedo m
X Coef f icient(s ) St d Err o f Coef

.



### ne w regressio n analysi s

A- 2 

# 3 6 0.00353 0.0014 3 0.0094 1 0.0314 4 0.2035 1 2 6 2 4 t

-

## Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s

Figure A- l Compariso

n o f Revise dCF A HandMode

l t o EP A Han dEquation

10 %



## 9 %

O l ^resin)

^ 5
OnFacmissio

U J 

### 8 %

7 %

6 %

5 %

4 %



### 3 %

2 % 28 % 3 0 

## Han d Lay-u p Emissio n Facto rversu s Styren e Conten t

EP A han d

CF A han d

% 32 % 34 % 36 % 38 % 40 % 42 % 44 % 46 % 48 1



## Styren e Content ( % wt) ) %



## A- 3

## o o Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s

35 %

30 % 

### Figur e A- 2 CF A Emissio n Model s wid i Revise dHan dMode l


# CF A Emissio n Model s Emissio n Facto r v

s Styren e Conten t

^ 25 % c "c o C D
S
- 20 % o t 5 re LJ L c o 'c o t o 

### " E U J 15 %

10 % Han d

Non-Spray

Spra y

Gelcoa t
—3fj — FWin d

28 % 30 % 32 % 34 % 36 % 38 % 40 % 42 % 44 % 46 % 48 % 50 % 

### Styren e Conten t (% wt )



### A- 4P.3 9 

# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSULTIN

G SERVICE S Robert A Haberlein , Ph.D

. robhab@erols.com TW O FIS K CIRCL E ANNAPOLIS , MD 2140 1 (410 ) 268-736 7 (410 ) 267-817 4 FA

X 

# Revised CF

A Spra y Mode l Novembe r 20,199 7

Ru n No

. 1 2 3 A 3 B 4A 4 B 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 A 11 B 12 A 12 B 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 (&10 ) l g femal e I g mal e thic k la m I g femal e

Constan t Dat

a I D 111595 B 111695 A 111695 B 113095 A 112895 A 112995 B 112895 B 112995A 120495 A 120595 B 120695A 120695 B 120795 A 121195 B 120895A 121295A 120895 B 121495 B 121295 B 121495A 022296 A 092596 B 101796 B 061296 B 092696 A 120595 A Laminate

Thicknes s (in. ) 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0

0.18 7

0.08 0 Regressio n Output :
StdErrofYEs t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m

X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. Styren e

Conten t (% ) 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4

-0.18022 8 0.01817 7 0.71446 8 2 6 2 4

0.00713 8 0.00092 1 Ge l

Tim e (min. ) 3 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 Resi n

Flo w (Ib/min ) 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 Ai r Flo w (fpm ) 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 100 100 5 0 5 0 100 100 5 0 5 0 5 0 100 100 5 0 10 0 5 0 100 10 0 Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt ) 6.6 % 13.9 % 13.0 % 14.2 % 6.7 % 6.9 % 15.0 % 6.4 % 8.2 % 16.0 % 8.0 % 9.4 % 12.1 % 12.8 % 6.3 % 5.6 % 6.5 % 10.4 % 7.2 % 10.7 % 9.1 % 12.1 % 13.4 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 16.0 % Styren e

Emission s (% monomer

) 18.8 % 33.1 % 31.0 % 33.9 % 19.0 % 19.6 % 35.8 % 18.2 % 23.3 % 38.0 % 22.9 % 22.4 % 28.7 % 30.4 % 18.1 % 16.1 % 18.6 % 24.8 % 20.6 % 25.4 % 21.7 % 27.3 % 30.2 % 23.9 %

Emission

Factor (%resin)

= 0.714 x %styrene

- 0.180 

# 5 ?

# Revise d CF A Spra y Mode l Novembe r20,199 7
20 %

20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome rConten t ( % styrene ) 45 % A CF A Spra y Dat a

CF A Spra y Mode l



### 50 %

## 20 %

% 15 %

C O C D


## • : 10 %

C O



## . 2 5 %
o o

_



## •10 % 20 % 

# CF

A Spra y Mode l wit h 95 % Limit s
Novembe r 21,199 7



## 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 %

Styren e Conten t Lowe r 95 %

Mea n
Uppe r 95 %

X 

## Dat a

45 % 50 %

### NMM A Emissio n Facto r Dat a P.4 2



### GELCOA T
8 Tes t Run s - Tes t Ru n

, . * # NMMA-6- P NMMA-6-2 NMMA-6- 1 NMMA-3-2 NMMA-3- 1 NMMA-8- 1 NMMA-8-2 NMMA-11-1 G On e HA P Content

Tes t Ru n Descriptio n Material/Mo W Siz e Gelcoa t • 1 8 Dec k Gelcoat-1 8 Dec k Gelcoat-1 8 Dec k Gelcoat-1 8 Hul l Gelcoat-1 8 Hul l Gelcoa t - 2 8 Hul l Gelcoa t • 2 8 Hul l Gelcoa t - CF A Contro l Metho d

n o n o no n o n o n o n o n o Styren e Conten t Ib/i b 32.0 % 32.0 % 32.0 % 32.0 % 32.0 % 32.0 % 32.0 % 32.0 % MM

A Conten t ib/i b 5.0 % 5.0 % 5.0 % 5.0 % 5.0 % 5.0 % 5.0 % 5.0 % Metho

d 25 A HA P Emissio n Facto r %HA P 47.0 % 45.2 % 42.3 % 54.2 % 42.6 % 53.6 % 52.9 % 43.4 % Method 1 8

HA P Emissio n Facto r %HA P 54.1 % 46.4 % 43.1 % 53.5 % n/ a n/ a n/ a 39.0 % Method 25A/1 8

Averag e HA P Emissio n Facto r Grou p

Averag e Emissio n Factor % resin/ge l w

t : : 18.7 % 16.9 % 15.8 % 19.9 % 15.8 % 19.8 % 19.6 % 15.2 % 18.1 % I

15.2 %



### FLOWCOATIN G
8 Tes t Pair s - 2 HA P Content

s Tes t Ru n

NMMA-14- 1 NMMA-14-2 NMMA-4- 1 NMMA-4-2 NMMA-16- 1 NMMA-16-2 NMMA-5- 1 NMMA-5-2 NMMA-13- 1 NMMA-13-2 NMMA-1- 1 NMMA-1-2 Tes

t Ru n Descriptio n 

### Material/Mo « Siz

e Resi n -1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resi n -1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resi n -1 8 Hul l Resi n -1 8 Hul l Resi n -1 8 Hul l Resi n -1 8 Hul l NMMA-15- 1 Resin-1 8 Hul l NMMA-15-2 Resin-1 8 Hul l NMMA-2- 1 Resi n -1 8 Hul l NMMA-2-2 Resin-1 8 Hul l Contro l Styren e MM A Metho d Conten

t Conten t

0 0 0 0 Flowcoa t 35.1 % Flowcoa t 35.1 % n o 35.1 % n o 35.1 % Flowcoa t 42.2 % 0 Flowcoa t 42.2 % 0 n o 42.2 % 0 n o 42.2 % 0 Flowcoa t 35.1 % 0 Flowcoa t 35.1 % 0 n o 35.1 % 0 n o 35.1 % 0 Flowcoa t 42.2 % 0 Flowcoa t 42.2 % 0 n o 42.2 % 0 n o 42.2 % 0 Metho d 25 A HA P Emissio n Factor 

### %HA P 11.1 % 12.1 % 11.9 % 16.1 % 12.2 % 14.0 % 20.4 % 20.8 % 10.5 % 10.5 % 15.3 % 13.9 % 11.6 % 10.6 % 22.3 % 18.2 % Method 1 8

HA P Emissio n Facto r /%«***" ' 10.4 % 11.1 % n/ a 16.1 % 12.0 % 14.4 % 14.1 % 22.4 % 11.0 % 10.9 % n/ a 13.2 % 11.7 % 10.8 % 24.1 % 14.2 % Method 25A/1 8 Grou p

Averag e HA P Flowcoat Emissio n Emissio

n Facto r Factor

3.8 % 4.1 % 4.2 % 5.7 % 5.1 % 6.0 % 7.3 % 9.1 % 3.8 % 3.8 % 5.4 % 4.8 % 4.9 % 4.5 % 9.8 % 6.8 % 80 % I

68 % I

74% |

57% l

Overal l Averag e Flowcoa t Emissio n Factor : 70 %



# 4^ -P.4 3



## NMM A Emissio n Facto r Data , continue d SPRA Y LAY-U P 1 7 Tes t Runs Tes t Ru n

, #

. . NMMA-4- 1 NMMA-4- 2 NMMA-1- 1 NMMA-1- 2 NMMA-7- 1 NMMA-7-2 NMMA-5- 1 NMMA-5- 2 NMMA-2- 1 NMMA-2-2 NMMA-9- 1 NMMA-9-2 NMMA-11-1 R NMMA-11-2 R NMMA-11-3 R NMMA-12- 1 NMMA-12-2 2 HA P Content s Tes t Ru n Descriptio n Material/Motr

J Siz e Resin-1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Hul l Resin-1 8 Hul l Resi n - 2 8 Hul l Resi n - 2 8 Hul l Resin-1 8 Dec k Resin-1 8 Dec k Resi n -1 8 Hul l Resi n -1 8 Hul l Resi n - 2 8 Hul l Resi n - 2 8 Hul l Resi n - CF

A Resi n - CF

A Resi n - CF

A Resi n - CF

A Resi n - CF

A Contro l

Metho d

n o n o no n o no n o
no no n o no n o n o
no n o no
no n o . Styren e Conten t fc/Jb 35.1 % 35.1 % 35.1 % 35.1 % 35.1 % 35.1 % 42.2 % 42.2 % 42.2 % 42.2 % 42.2 % 42.2 % 35.1 % 35.1 % 35.1 % 42.2 % 42.2 % MM

A Conten t lb/l b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metho

d 25 A HA P Emission Facto r %HA P 11.9 % 16.1 % 15.3 % 13.9 % 15.7 % 18.8 % 20.4 % 20.8 % 22.3 % 18.2 % 22.8 % 23.0 % 29.8 % 28.8 % 52.0 % 54.6 % 39.2 % Metho

d 1 8 HA P Emission Facto r %HA F n/ a 16.1 % n/ a 13.2 % 18.2 % 18.4 % 14.1 % 22.4 % 24.1 % 14.2 % 25.5 % 23.5 % 37.1 % 26.8 % 44.8 % 44.8 % 38.2 % Metho

d 25A/1 8 Averag e HA P Emissio n Facto r Grou p

Averag e Emissio n Facto r % resin/ge l w

t 4.2 % 5.7 % 5.4 % 4.8 % 5.9 % 6.5 % 7.3 % 9.1 % 9.8 % 6.8 % 10.2 % 9.8 % 11.7 % 9.8 % 17.0 % 21.0 % 16.3 % 5.4% I

8.8 % I

12.8 % I

18.7% | |



# •* 3* 

# Th e summar

y o f result s fo r th e NMM

A Emissio n Stud y are compare dt o th e CF

A Emissio n Model s fo r spra y lay-u p an dgelcoa

t spray , wit h th e following conclusions :
A more conservativ e facto r o f 18.1 % versu s CFA' s 13.7 % fo r th e spra y applicatio n o f 32 % styren e content

gelcoat

. Th e large

r emissio n factor

i s probably cause dby th e additiona l VO C emission s fromthe 5 % MM A content i n th e NMMA' s gelcoa

t
Clos e agreemen

t wit h th e average emissio

n factor s fo

r th e spra y lay-u p applicatio n o f resi n t o bot

h larg e boat

mold s an dthe smalle

r CF A mold(a n averag e 9.1 % versu s 7.7 % fo r 35.1 % monomer , anda

n averag e 13.8 % versu s 11.7 % fo r 42.2 % monomer)

. Th e emission factor s fo

r th e spra y lay-u p applicatio n o f

resi n t o th e standardCF

A mol d were 12.8 % versu s CFA' s 7.7 % fo r 35.1 % monomer , and18.7 % versu s CFA' s 11.7 % fo r 42.2 % monomer
. Th e emission factor s fo r th e spra y lay-u p applicatio n o f

resi n t o th e larger boa t mold s were 5.4 % versu s CFA' s 7.7 % fo r 35.1 % monomer , an d8.8 % versu s CFA' s 11.7 % fo

r 42.2 % monome

r A les s generou s averag e 70 % versu s CFA' s 51 % reduce demission facto r fo r non
atomizin g flowcoate

r applicatio n of

resin

.

### RT I Emissio n Tes t Dat a P.4 5



### Emissio n Results , Sep t 199 5 draf t - page s 3 6 & 4 4 5 5 Tes t Run s

Descriptio n
GELCOA T Regula r Low-VO C RESI N Low-profil e (norma l spray ) Low-profil e (controlle d spray ) Low-styren e Styrene-suppresse d Styrene-suppresse d + wa x Neat BP O BP O + thickene r Tes t Run s

9 9

2 5 3 3 3 2 2 Resi n Formul a

GF- 1 GF- 2

RF- 1 RF- 1 RF- 2 RF- 3 su p RF- 6 su p RF- 4 BP O RF- 4 BP O Styren e

Conten t 

## Mb

38.7 % 25.4 %

38.3 % 38.3 % 35.3 % 43.5 % 43.3 % 42.6 % 42.6 % Styren e

Emissio n Facto r 

## % styren e

56.0 % 54.2 %

27.1 % 17.5 % 17.3 % 10.6 % 10.6 % 26.2 % 21.3 % Styren e

Emissio n Facto r 

## % pestnige l

21.7 % 13.8 %

10.4 % 6.7 % 6.1 % 4.6 % 4.6 % 11.2 % 9.1 %
REDUCE D EMISSIO N FACTOR S Sep t 199 5 draf t - pag e 6 0 emission s expresse d i n g/m 2

Descriptio n Baselin e - Norma l Spra y Controlle d Spray Flowcoate r Pressure-fe d Rolle r Suppresse d Resi n (

w an d w/ o wax) Lowe rMonome r Styren e Conten t Ib/i b 38.3 %

35.3 % Emissio n

Reductio n % 

### 0.0 % 29.9 % 52.0 % 53.0 % 38.0 % 11.0 % Reduce d

Emissio n Facto r % 

### 100.0 % 70.1 % 48.0 % 47.0 % 62.0 % 89.0 %



# f 5

# The summar

y of result s fo r the EPA/RTI Emission Stud y ar e compare dt o th e CF

A Emissio n Models,fo r spra y lay-u p an dgelcoa t spray , wit h th e followin

g conclusions : Near-perfec t

agreemen t wit h th e emission facto

r fo r spra y applicatio n o f

gelcoa t (21.7 % versu s CFA' s factor

o f 20.2 % fo r 38.7 % styrene content

gelcoat)

. Clos e agreement

wit h the uncontrolle demissio

n factor fo r spra y lay-u p applicatio n o f

resi n ( amor e conservativ e 10.4 % versu s CFA' s facto r of 9.5 % fo r 38.3 % monomer)

.

^ Near-perfec t

agreemen t ( amor e generou s 48 % versu s CFA' s factor of 51% ) wit h th e reduce demissio n facto

r fo r non-atomizin g applicatio n o f resi n (Le. , pressure-fe droller s an dflowcoaters).
Perfect agreement

(62.0 % versu s CFA' s facto r o f 62% ) wit h th e reduce demissio n factor fo r spra y applicatio n of

vapor-suppresse dresin

. Clos e agreement

( amor e generou s 70 % versu s CFA' s factor of 77% ) wit h th e reduce d emission facto r

fo r controlle dspra

y application o f

resin

. Overall , the result s o f

th e EPA/RTI Stud

y strongly verif

y th e accurac y o f

th e CF A Emissio n Models

.P.4 7



# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN

G SERVICE S



# Eigh t DataSource s use db y th e EP A

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e II CF A Fille d NMM A Do w Chemica

l RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A plus EP A insist s upon :
Lowe r Boun d h emission s a

t 0 % HA P conten t Uppe r Boun d100% emission s a

t 100 % HA P conten t



# 4 ?P.4 8 

# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTIN G SERVICE S



# EPA' s Te n "Super " Dat

a Set s Manual BEF-

Manual VS

Mech.BEFMech.VSMech. NonA -

Mech. CS

Fila.BEFFila. VS -

Gel Coat BEF

Gel Coat CS - Analysis : On e Variable (Styrene ) Linea r Regression fo

r Manua l Resi n Applicatio n Bucket

an dBrus h 6 CFAPhase l 20 CF A Phase I I

.. . fo r Manua l Resin Applicatio n wit

h Vapor Suppression 4 CFAPhasef

l

.. . for Mechanica

l Resin Applicatio n 20 CFAPhase l 7 CFAPhase H 3 NMM

A 2 RT I Unfille d

.. . fo r Mechanica

l Resi n Application wit

h Vapor Suppression 20 CF A Phase H 4 CF A Fille d 1 2 NMM

A 1 2 RT I Unfille d 3 RT I Fille d2

2 RTI/NMM

A

.. . fo r Mechanica

l Resi n Application wit

h Non-AtomizedApplicatio n 3 CFAPhaseH 8 NMM A 6 RT I Unfille d1 1 RTI/NMM A

.. . fo r Mechanica

l Resin Applicatio n wit

h Controlle dSpra

y 1 8 CF A Phas e D 4 CF A Fille d 1 2 NMM

A 1 2 RT I Unfille d 4 RT I Fille d22 RTI/NMM A

.. . fo r Filamen t Windin g 1 0 Do w Chemica l

.. . fo r Filamen t Winding wit

h Vapor Suppression 1 0 Do w Chemica l
fo r Ge l Coa t Application 2 1 CFAPhase l 7 RT I Unfille d CFAPhase H

fo r Ge l Coa t Application wit

h Controlle dSprayin

g 5 CFAPhaseH 5 NMM A 2 4 RT I Unfille d7 RTI/NMM A



# 4- 9P.4 9



# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L

CONSULTIN G SERVICE S

KSKSSSiSSaSBBSS S



## ManualBEF

# EPA' s Te n "Super " Dat a Set s

Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linear Regressio n fo r

Manua l Resi n Applicatio n Bucke t

an dBrus h 6 CFAPhase l 20 CFAPhase H


## Manual VS - fo r

Manua l Resi n Applicatio n with Vapo r Suppressio n 4 CFAPhase H


### Mech. BEF

- fo r

Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n 2 0 CFAPhase l 7 CFAPhase H 3 NMM

A 2 RT I Unfille d 

## Mech.VS- fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n wit h Vapo r Suppressio n 2 0 CFAPhase H 4 CF A Fille d 1 2 NMM

A 1 2 RT I Unfille d 3 RTI Fille d2 2 RTI/NMMA


### Mech. NonA

Mech. CS fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n wit h Non-Atomize dApplicatio n 3 CFAPhase H 8 NMMA 6 RT I Unfille

d1 1 RTI/NMMA

fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n wit h Controlle dSpra y 1 8 CFAPhase H 4 CF A Fille d 1 2 NMM

A 1 2 RT I Unfille d 4 RTI Fille d2 2 RTI/NMMA

## Fila.BEFFila. VS -

Gel Coat BEF fo r

Filamen t Windin g 1 0 Do w Chemica

l

fo r Filamen t Windin g with Vapo r

Suppressio n 1 0 Do w Chemica

l

fo r Ge l Coa t Applicatio n 2 1 CFAPhase l 7 RTI Unfille

d CFAPhase H



## Gel Coat CS fo r

Ge l Coa t Applicatio n with Controlle dSprayin g 5 CFAPhase H 5 NMM A 2 4 RTI Unfille

d7 RTI/NMMA



# WP.5 0 

# ENGINEERIN G ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTING SERVICE S Rober t A Haberlein

. Ph.D

. robhab@erols.com 

## TW O FIS K CIRCL E ANNAPOLIS , M

D 2140 1 (410 ) 268-736 7 (410 ) 267-817 4 FA

X



### PE S Mode l Dat a point s R 2 

### PE S Regressio n Equation s

Manua l BE F Manua l V S Mec h BE F Mec h V S Mec h Non A Mec h C S Fil a BE F FilaV S Gelcoa t BE F Gelcoa t C S 2 6 4 3 2 6 2 7 7 3 1 0 1 0 3 1 4 1 0.50 4

0.84 7 0.40 1 0.28 8 0.41 8 0.37 0 0.73 7 0.17 6 0.55 2 0.35 4 0.285 6 X%styren e

0.0447 6 X%styren e 0.676 7 X%styren e 0.174 7 X%styren e • 0.180 8 X%styren e 0.379 0 X%styren e 0.276 1 X%styren e 0.048 0 X%styren e 1.327 8 X%styren e 0.437 1 X%styren e - 0.0528 3

+ 0.0128 9

- 0.155 7

• 0.00463 6

- 0.023 4

- 0.0716 1

- 0.0303 7

+ 0.0271 6

- 0.296 8
+ 0.0264 7



# XOP.5 1



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rManua l Resi n Applicatio n
Dat a Legen d



## Run No , Assume d
12 A 6 12 B 4 A 1 3 4 B 9

• 7 1 1 5 2 1 6 8 1 0 1 4 3 A 3 B 5 11 A 11 B

Assume d
Constan t StdErrofYEs t R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CFA Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMM A

Dat a I D Assume d 060596 A 092895 C 092695 A 100295 A 100395 A 092995 A 092695 A 092795 C 092795 A 100295 B 091995 A 100295 C 091995 B 092795 B 092895 A 092995 B 092095 A 092695 B 092595 A 092895 B 092995 C 080196 A 052996 A 052996 B 053096 B 060396 B Assume d ,



### 1 2 3 4
Monome r Conten t ( % Styrene ) 

## fi 33. 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 48. 8 100. 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. of Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0028 6 0.0005 8 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A DO W Chemica l Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt ) 

### 0.0% 4.6 % 3.4 % 3.6 % 3.6 % 4.2 % 4.2 % 4.6 % 5.0 % 5.3 % 6.2 % 6.3 % 4.9 % 4.9 % 5.7 % 6.0 % 7.1 % 7.2 % 7.6 % 8.1 % 8.9 % 8.9 % 4.9 % 6.6 % 7.2 % 8.4 % 9.3 % 100.0 %
-0.0528 3 0.0127 8 0.5035 1 2 6 2 4 - Bucke t & Brus h

. 

### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s ( % monomer ) 

### 0,0 % 13.8% 9.6 % 10.1 % 10.1 % 11.7 % 11.9% 13.1 % 14.0 % 14.7 % 17.7 % 17.6 % 11.7 % 11.5 % 13.5 % 14.3 % 17.1 % 16.7 % 17.7 % 19.2 % 21.2 % 21.0 % 11.0 % 15.0 % 16.1 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 100.0 % Dat a

Sourc e Cod e
2

2 2 2 2 2



# s\P.5 2



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforced Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rManua l Resi n wit h Vapo rSuppressio n Dat a Legen d Lowe rBoun d

.

CFAPhase l 1 CFAPhase H 2 CF A Fille d 3 NMM A 4 Uppe rBoun d

.

RT I Unfille d 5 RT I Fille d 6 RTI/NMM A 7 DO W Chemica l 8

Ru n No

. Assume d

Assume d Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d Dat

a I D Assume d 060496 B 060596 B 050396 A 060496 A Assume d Monome r

Conten t ( % Styrene

) 0

. 33. 2 33. 2 44. 4 48. 8 100. 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0004475 8

0.0001344 3 Suppressan t

Leve l ( % Resin ) 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5
0.0128915662 7 0.0018493230 6 0.8471510269 2

4 2 Styren e Emission s (% resi n wt ) 0,0 % 2.9 % 2.7 % 3.1 % 3.6 % 100.0 % Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 8.7 % 8.1 % 7.0 % 7.4 % 100.0 % Data

Sourc e Cod e
2 2 2 2



# 5AP.5 3



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rMechanica l Resi n Applicatio n 

### Dat a Legen d

Ru n No , Assume d

12 B 12 A 6 1 3 1 4A 4 B 1 5 9 7 11- 3 RF1-EX P R1 0 1 ( & 10) 1 0 1 4 1 6 11 A 11 B 3 A 2 3 B 5 8 12- 2 12- 1 I g femal e I g femal e I g mal e Assume d Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA



### Dat e I D Assume d 081296 B 080896 A 080896 B 121295 A 120895 A 112995 A 120895 B 111595 B 112895 A 112995 B 121295 B 120695 A 120495 A

022296 A 120695 B 121495 B 121495 B 120795 A 121195 B 111695 B 111695 A 113095 A 112895 B 120595 B

092596 B 092596 A 101796 B Assume d ,



### 1 2 3 4
Monome r Conten t 

### (% Styrene ) 0. 33. 8 33. 8 33. 8 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 35. 1 38.3 3 38.3 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 42. 2 42. 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 100. 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0067 7 0.0015 1 Uppe rBoun d

.

RT I Unfille d 5 RT I Fille d 6 RTI/NMM A 7 DO W Chemica l 8 Styren e Emission s Styren e

Emission s ( % resi n wt) (

% monomer

) 0.0 % 7.9 % 8.3 % 8.4 % 5.6 % 6.3 % 6.4 % 6.5 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 6.9 % 7.2 % 8.0 % 8.2 % 18.3 % 6.8 % 10.4 % 9.1 % 9.4 % 10.4 % 10.7 % 12.1 % 12.8 % 13.0 % 13.9 % 14.2 % 15.0 % 16.0 % 16.5 % 23.0 % 12.1 % 12.5 % 13.4 % 100.0 %
-0.1557 5 0.0325 3 0.4006 0 3 2 3 0 

### 0,0 % 23.3 % 24.6 % 25.0 % 16.1 % 18.1 % 18.2 % 18.6 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 19.6 % 20.6 % 22.9 % 23.3 % 52.0 % 17.7 % 27.1 % 21.7 % 22.4 % 24.8 % 25.4 % 28.7 % 30.4 % 31.0 % 33.1 % 33.9 % 35.8 % 38.0 % 39.2 % 54.6 % 27.3 % 28.2 % 30.2 % 100.0 % Data

Sourc e Cod e
2 2 2

4 5 5 2

4 4 2 2 2



# 5 3P.5 4



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rMechanica l Resi n Applicatio n wit h Vapo rSuppressio n Data Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d

Assume d

Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMM A



### Dat e I P Assume d 081396 B 081396A 061396 B 080796A 082796A 081696 B Assume d .



### 1 2 3 4
Monome r Conten t 

### (% Styrene ) 0

. 33. 8 33. 8 44. 4 44. 4 48. 8 48. 8 10 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 0.0017 5 0.0013 7 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RT I / NMM A DO W Chemica l Suppressan t Leve l 

### ( % Resin ) 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5

-0.0046 4 0.0211 7 0.2882 0 6 4 , 

### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s 

### ( % resi n wt ) 0,0 % 6.3 % 4.2 % 5.8 % 10.1 % 9.2 % 6.0 % 100,0 % Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 18.6 % 12.4 % 13.2 % 22.9 % 18.9 % 12.4 % 100.0 % . / 

### Dat a

Sourc e Cod e
2 2 2 2 2 2



# 54 ~P.5 5



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

.

Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforced Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rMechanica l Resi n Applicatio n Data Legen d



### Ru n No , Assume d 13- 3 14- 1 13- 2 14- 3 13- 1 13- 2 13- 1 14- 2 14- 1 14- 2 R2 4 R1 8 R 4 R2 R 3 R1 6 9-FC 15- 2 15- 2 15- 1 15- 1 16- 1 16- 1 16- 2 16- 2

Assume d Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phase I I CF A Fille d NMM A



### Date I D Assume d

022797 A 022797 B 022797 C Assume d .

1 2 3 4
I Monome r Conten t ( % Styrene

)

Regressio n Outpu t

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0. 0 Mec h 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 100. 0

0.0018 1 0.0004 3 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A DO W Chemica l
Contro l Equipmen t 

### Iyja e Eithe rF C o rPF R Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r P F Rolle r Flo w Coate r P F Rolle r P F Rolle r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r P F Rolle r wit h Non-Atomize d Applicatio n

, 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s 1% resi n wt ) 0.0 % 2.5 % 3.1 % 3.2 % 3.3 % 3.4 % 3.7 % 3.7 % 3.7 % 3.9 % 4.3 % 5.3 % 5.5 % 5.5 % 5.6 % 5.8 % 6.2 % 4.4 % 4.5 % 4.7 % 4.9 % 5.0 % 5.2 % 5.6 % 5.9 % 6.2 % 5.0 % 5.1 % 5.7 % Eithe rF C o rPF R 100.0 %
-0.0234 0 0.00762 0.4175 1 2 7 2 5 Styren e Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 7.1 % 8.8 % 9.0 % 9.3 % 9.6 % 10.5 % 10.5 % 10.7 % 11.1 % 12.1 % 13.9 % 14.2 % 14.5 % 14.6 % 15.2 % 16.3 % 10.4 % 10.6 % 11.2 % 11.6 % 11.9 % 12.2 % 13.2 % 14.0 % 14.8 % 11.4 % 11.6 % 12.9 % 100.0 % Dat a

Source Cod e
7 7 7 7 7 4 4 7 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 2 2 2



# 5 5P.5 6



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

.

Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rMechanica l Resi n Applicatio n wit h Controlle d Sprayin g 

## Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d 6 5

7- 1 7- 2 1- 2 7- 4 7- 3 1- 2 1- 1 1- 3 4- 2 4- 4 7- 1 4- 2 4- 3 7- 2 4- 1 11- 3 11- 2 11- 1 11-2 R 11-1 R R1 4 R1 3 R8 4 R2 2 R1 5 R 7 R2 1 R 5 6 1 3 4 5 2 Lowe rBoun d CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA



## Pat e I P Assume d

081296 B 080896 A 080896 B

110696 A 103096 A 103096 C 103196 A 103196 B 103096 B 1

2 3 4
Monome r Conten t 1% Styrene) 0 31. 6 31. 6 33. 8 33. 8 33. 8 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35.3 4 35.3 4 35.3 4 36. 8 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 Uppe rBoun d

.

RT I Unfille d 5 RT I Fille d 6 RT I / NMMA 7 DO W Chemica l 8
Contro l Equipmen t 1 Styren e

Emission s Typ e (

% resi n wt ) Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g Cont

. Sprayin g 0.0 %

4.4 % 4.6 % 7.9 % 8.3 % 8.4% 2.9 % 4.0 % 4.6 % 4.6 % 4.7 % 4.9 % 4.9 % 5.2 % 5.2 % 5.3 % 5.5 % 5.7 % 6.0 % 6.6 % 7.9 % 8.7 % 9.3 % 9.3 % 10.1 % 10.5 % 5.7 % 6.1 % 6.5 % 6.5 % 6.3 % 6.5 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 7.4% 5.1 % 5.4 % 5.5 % 5.5 % 5.7 % 5.8 % Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 14.0 % 14.6 % 23.3 % 24.6 % 25.0 % 8.1 % 11.4 % 13.2 % 13.2 % 13.4 % 13.9 % 14.0 % 14.7 % 14.7 % 15.1 % 15.7 % 16.1 % 17.1 % 18.8 % 22.4 % 24.9 % 26.4 % 26.4 % 28.8 % 29.8 % 16.2 % 17.4 % 18.4 % 17.7 % 16.5 % 16.9 % 17.1 % 17.6 % 19.2 % 12.6 % 13.3 % 13.7 % 13.7 % 14.3 % 14.3 % Data

Sourc e Cod e
6 6 2 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 7 7 7 4 4 7 4 7 7 7 7 4 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 

# 5bC O 

# a
m 

## x o o

. C D

- = * 

# £ §

o ^ * 

## o

C D C O

• ^ C D C D C O

- n C D C D Q

. O 

### 3 

## z — ? C O

- * c 

### O S C D 

## a. W O 

## S ° m o o 

# a ~

m C O C

O c 

### 3 C D Q

. -» •C

O 4*

. I O -riZJJJDrjrtrtcocorocnrocncncnrorococ o s r J M M TM ro i • • • • • ' • • • • • u > ->jcocnA.io , 0 -'- iro

- l

- l - * roroiv>

- t,v >

— C D 

## < 5 > o C D ( 0 0 0 

### £ £ £ 3 C D 5 * 

# o°- >

c 

# • s
c o o o

o o o o ( O

- * ro o ro c o -i*

. C O C O C O o o o > > 0 3 o o o — C O C O 0 0 o o o o -«• c n 4*

. ro ** i C O C O C O C O ooo o > > > > ooo o

c o ro ro o o r o - ^ — o c n c o ro — c o c o c o c o ooo o > > > C

D O O O t o r o r o r o l o r o C O C O c o ro ro ro D D > O

o o o o o o o c o c n ~* J c o c o gcocfec^c^c^c^^^^^^^^N.fefeioiofefeioiofefefefefeiofefefefe* ; ^oorororooooo*».*.*.^*.j». 2 222wiorororororororororororor o



## 0 \ -* U P P o -* J ;* < ro l o S J
—» •c o t o _*

. _ ; O J r o o ) c o ro r ; OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 33333333333^33333333333333 3

••••••••••••••••••••••••• a COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O T3T3T3TJT3^T5T0^^-0-0 - O-O-g - 0-O-0-a-0-0-0T3-O-OT 3

3 ' 3 * 3 " 3 " 3 ' 3 " 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 " 5 ' 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 " 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 5 " 5 " CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQC Q OOOOOOO O o 3 o 3 O 3 O 3 o 3 o 3 o 3 o 3 COCOCOCOCOCOCOC O

• O " O " O c u * < 3 c u * < 3 • n P > " < 3 C O C O ( O •OTJ-CO- O

C U « < 3 C O - ^ C U » < 3 C O — * c u » < 3 C O ( U > < 3 - ^ C U « < 3 C O CO

ScnroooPPcoooPr^ProoPPro^PPPPPPPPo^^PP^rJ ^ b i a * It*

. K

s w* • —

i o o <ocn^jv>jo^c©j 0 ^^ro.»*.ro**jroro4*.->irocoro4*.cor o V J *<• ? ^ *V .. o ^ o - *»

? W .. o ^ o .. o ! V ' V ^ o ^ o "V

*-~
.. o ^ o ^ o ..

o ..o ~ o ^ o ~a

~o .. o ^o .. o .. o w O . o O
*- 5 ff* • § * 5 *-

9 * S ©* • ff* ff* ff* -

S * S ff* ©* • >9 * S * S ff* cr * ff* ff* ff* ff*

- 5 * S
c o ff* C O ff* >

9 * 5 c o ff* P v O v O ^ 0 v P v ° C O ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ^ p < p S P > p % p N P ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff*

5* 5 co - ff*



### r o r o ro ro ro - * -•

• cn-*-ooo**ico^roro-*JC o ro ro 0 0 0 3 

## l oro c o c o r o . - . r o r o ro r o ro ocococororoooo o r o X c o r o ro — § — cn — o o nbo*jblb-*A010)WUOOOOl(DOO)WtOOaJU(BOlA U n s P %

p < p S P X P NP^^><«P^I>P^>>P^>P^ ^ N P S P > p X P V P > p X P > P S " ^V

. ^ X g X ^ V Q*

. QN

. ^S

. gS

. ^s

. ^

. QX

. ^ V ^

. Q*

. ^\

. Q* ^ Q* * ^X

. ^ V ^ X g V ^S

. ^s

. ^ % ^ X cooo«sirocn**j**j«* j

x P s ? s P < p %

p ^ p S P V P ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff*

roMCowo)wiorv3roroNiooioioioiMNiii^*.^*j^Nivi*.*j*j*jioi\3 MP.5 8



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

.

Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rFilamen t Windin g 

### Pat e Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d 1 9 1 6 1 4 1 3 2 6 1 9 7 1 8 Assume d
Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA



### Dat e I D Assume d

Assume d a



### 1 2 3 4 Monome r Conten t ( % Styrene)

Regressio n Outpu t

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 100. 0

0.0027 6 0.0005 8 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A DO W Chemica l Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt ) 0.0 % 4.9 % 5.9 % 6.3 % 7.2 % 8.3 % 8.6 % 10.3 % 10.3 % 11.8 % 12.0 % 100.0 %
-0.0303 7 0.0135 6 0.7366 7 1 0 8 . 

### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s ( % monomer

) 0,0 % 14.9 % 17.9 % 19.1 % 21.8 % 17.4 % 17.9 % 21.4 % 21.4 % 24.5 % 24.9 % 100.0 % Data

Sourc e Cod e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8



# 5 ?P.5 9



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rFilamen t Windin g wit h Vapo rSuppressio n Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d 2 0 1 7 1 0 4 5 3 1 2 8 1 5 1 1 Assume d Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t Lowe rBoun d CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA

Dat e I D Assume d

Assume d 1

2 3 4
Monome r Conten t ( % Styrene)
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 100 Regressio n Output :

R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0004 8 0.0003 7 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RT I / NMMA DO W Chemica l Suppressan t Leve l 

### ( % Resin ) 1. 5 1.5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1.5 1. 5 1. 5 

## 1. 5 1. 5
0.0271 6 0.0087 1 0.1759 9 1 0 8 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt ) 0,0 % 3.7 % 3.7 % 3.9 % 4.8 % 5.4 % 4.0 % 4.6 % 4.9 % 5.0 % 6.6 % 100.0 % Styren e

Emission s 1% monomer

) 0,0 % 11.2 % 11.2 % 11.8 % 14.4% 16.5 % 8.4 % 9.6 % 10.3 % 10.3 % 13.8 % 100,0 % Dat

a Sourc e Code
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8



# 5°iP.6 0



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

.

Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rGe l Coa t Applicatio n
Pat e Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d I g femal e 5 4 B 6 12 B 12 A 1 3 4A 1 5 7 I g mal e 1 9 P 6 P1 1 P1 2 P2 P 4 P 8 GF1-EX P 2 5 1 6 1 0 1 (&14 ) 3 A 1 4 3 B 8 11 A 11 B Assume d
Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMM A

Pat e I D Assume d 091796A 091796 B 101695 A 101395 B 102395 B 101995 A 101995 B 101295 B 102495 A 101695 C 101596 A 101195 A 101795 B

101195 B 101395 A 102495 B 101895 A 030596A 101295 A 101995 C 101695 B 101795 A 101895 B 102395 B Assume d .



### 1 2 3 4
Monome r Conten t ( % Styrene) 

## Q. 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 100. 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0132 8 0.0022 2 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RT I / NMMA DO W Chemica l Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt ) 0,0 % 13.0 % 13.8 % 14.6 % 15.2 % 15.7 % 15.9 % 15.9 % 15.9 % 17.5 % 17.7 % 18.5 % 18.8 % 20.3 % 23.0 % 23.1 % 23.2 % 23.7 % 25.4 % 27.0 % 29.1 % 18.3 % 19.6 % 20.5 % 21.0 % 21.1 % 21.3 % 22.4 % 23.2 % 24.3 % 24.7 % 24.8 % 100.0 %
-0.2968 0 0.0281 1 0.5524 9 3 1 2 9 , 

### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s ( % monomer

) 0-0% 37.4 % 39.8 % 41.7 % 43.4 % 44.9 % 45.4 % 45.4 % 45.4 % 50.0 % 50.6 % 52.8 % 53.7 % 58.0 % 59.3 % 59.5 % 60.0 % 61.2 % 65.7 % 69.6 % 75.2 % 45.8 % 49.0 % 51.3 % 52.5 % 52.8 % 53.3 % 56.0 % 58.0 % 60.8 % 61.8 % 62.0 % 100.0 % Dat a

Sourc e Cod e
2 2

2

5 5 5 5 5 5 5



## (oOC

O

_- to 0 £ 

# c ro^^oQQ^^2^^0T3TJTJo22w 

# V <

# P <

# f 5<

# f ,< 

# ? >



# - i< 

# ? )< 

# ? )c 

# ? , 

# T<?> 3 ® 2o3oS5553 c
3 M >ro w --wco-xi^rocoro-co«» 0 ^^^ioioro^ f Sro-oro^--g3^vi-^^^^5J^ 3 2 "• ' C D = - C D Q

. C D Q

. 

## s r o
C O S L * <

_C

O



### > C O C O c 3 C D Q

. W I P C O B I 

# I E

C D O

-« •cococococococococococococococ o rororororoiororor o o Alk^ttp3ro(B00000)0000p00C0O(Xlpu(0t0UUQUUUtdUQUOf n f n }''}' , } ' l P P , f ' l f ' , o PoOOxJxixJxJxjxjx|x|xJxJx)xJxJxjxJ*4S*J*J*JS*J*J*J*J*J*J010lC0UWWUUW(d W o cncnuicncncnuiuicncncncncncnc n cncncncncncnoioio i 

# o§? |
K 

## ** — — -

•
> = g > C U o Q

. © C D 3

= —O L 4*

. c o r o — •



### 3 5 3

r + «— * r * r * ••* • r * r * r * *"*

• *••* • *• * ^ * *"• • ••"• • «• * ^ * r * r * ••

* r * r * r * r * r * r * r * r * r * •• * r * r ^ r * r * r * sTM*

* r * r * r * !"*

• r * r * r * *"•

• * s » / 

## ooooooooooooo o o 3 O O 3 3 O 3 r+ O 3

.-• • O 3 o 3 «- * o 3 o 3 o 3 i - * O 3 • ^ o 3 ^ * O 3
.- * O 3 •- * 

# 9 3 • * • OOOO O O 3 t ^

- O 3 O 3 ^ * o 3

•-• • O 3 «- * 

# 9 3

• ^ O O O o 3 • ^ O 3 O 3 r+ 

# 999 3 3 3 r * •-• • i^

- COCOCOCO(/>0)COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O "0-OT3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3T3-OT3T3T3T3T3T3T3-OT3T3T3-0- 0

- ^ C U * < 3 C O C U 0 ) « < * < 3 3 C

U « < 3 C U * < 3 C U * < 3 C u * < 3 c u * < 3 C U * < 3 C U * < 3 c u • < 3 C U * < 3 C U C U C o *<»<* < 3 3 3 c

u * < 3 C U

• < 3 C U C U « < * < 3 3 0 > • < 3 & C

U C U - n C U —* ~ 1 — l C O C O C U * < *<*<«<*<* < « < 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 COCOCOCQCQCOCQCQCOCQCOCQCQCQCOCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCOCQCQC Q 

# 9999999 QOQOOOOO 

# ° o 3 O

3 O O

3 3 O O

3 — cococococococococococ o c o c o c o c o c o fcj'-o- § 0"OT3"0"OT3 - O , 0 - OT3T3T3 , OT3T3 - O p a A m f wm c » o i e

o ta ta m to ta ta tn m ta m wS f * » C D < c u CU -

_ C D

< ?

- n C D 3 C D

3 C D C U 3 J c S

C D C O C O 

### 5 " 3 C4S)p)9)cotnp>cacop)fi)S)p)cop)(i > »<«< , <'< v <*< , < , <*<*<*<»<«< , <«<» < 3 " 5 " 5 " 3 " 3 " 5 ' s " 3 " 3 ' 5 " 3 " 5 " 3 ' 5 " 3 " 3 " CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCOCQC Q C D

_ * S > s r = : O /-»

. = • I ? ° - S 3 ®

-^^^rorowiororowiorororoioro-^-^torotororo^^^^^^-*^^^-*-^^-*-*-^^^.

—- 1 3 2? Sroroiocoioiotororo^-^^o©oococorooooococoro^rorocn4*.ocn4*.4*.4*.cococoroioP< D sr« < S " si

. C D 3 O 3 S 3 « ) 5 - ( 0 o * S o*- -xi-xi«wcororowcocorowro4>.roioro-^4*.coro-^o*xi^*xi4*.*xi^*gco«ro4v4*.-^ro^ocoo o p x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* o * ff* o * ff* X O x P x P x P x P x P x P x P x P ff* ff* ff* C

O o * ff* ff* ff* ff • S * $ * P ff* C O ff" S D x v x y xP x f

x v x y x f

x y x y x y x y x y x y x y x y x y x y x y x y iv o * o * o*
. <v

* ft*, o * ft* o * o*

» r o ft** 0 * *? * ft** ft* o*
. ox . ^ x fj x jj * w

S * 9 * P •x

? •* ? < o < 0 ff* ff* C

O « P x P x P 0 0 -x i ro c n

o^-*^ocorororo-xiroai4*.coioiorooco^roro4*.4*.co^o«xicjiwroj --j-co"*jrocn4*.-^-'oo P xco*xit*K3rocoK}bro4*.*xico^-xiK3^rord4*.4*.uio^cor o axPxPxPxPxPxPx P x P >PNPSP^<^^SP^^ ^ X P >PNPNP>P>P>P^^^VPSP^>PSP^>P\P\P>.OSJ)^> Q > x xyffXffXffXffXfJXgXjJxgxgxgxgxgX^X^gxgX^xgxgX^XfJxgxgXfJxgxgxgX^sgX^gxgxgxgxgxgxgX^gx^^ O p- m

3 C D C O o 3 

### o-g . 3 5 - 

# l a 2

. o C D 3 C L CO

• 0

c a • o — fi. c > C D

__ 

## p 

# I 2 |

• C O 

## ?
- 2
. 

## __ 3
. 

### ui O ( D 

# I I

•n l o __\ « i C O — _* o o ' 

# i 3

• o o ( A c ? CA — m C O X > • o

( D

roroiocncncncncncncncncncncncncncncn**j^*xi4*.**j**i*xi*g4*.4*.4*.4*.rorocncncnrocncnuicnc n 

## 9oo c to

____, —*

•- • < D O C D C D

T IP.6 2



### Regressio n Constan t St d Er rof Y Est R Square d No

. of Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. Output :

0.0043 7 0.0009 4 0.0264 7

0.0323 2 0.3543 5 4 1 3 9



## Q?Z

# PE S "Supe r Set " Model s Manua l BE F Dat a Point s
10 %

8 %

c o C D 

### £ 6 %

C O c g c o

" E U J C D 

### c > . + * c o 4 %

2 %

0 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % 

### Monome rConten t (% styrene ) 45 % A CFA Phas e I
O CF A Phas e I I

Manua l BE F fit

50 %

# PE S "Supe r Set " Model s Manua l Model s - sam e as CF A Model s
10 %



# e -

- * 

### 8 %

C O < D 

### 6 % x P OY o

C O c 

## g 'c o .c o W 4 %
C D C C D
C O 

### 2 %

0 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome rConten t (

% styrene ) 45 % Manual BE F

Manual V S

50 %

# PE S "Supe r Set " Model s Mechanica l BE F Dat a Point s

c 'tn 8 >

C O £ = g "c o co
" E L U C D C C D k - > » C O

20 % 25 % £.D/o

ono / c\J /o

•i CO / lOV o

1 no/ luv o

CO / OV o

no / Uv o



### -5% - 

### 1 1 : 2 

# A

— i — 

# r

. J^ T

— \ 

### X



# 3

4 e



## A &



### 1 — / * 

# § r



### 1 30 % 35 % 40 % 

### Monome rConten t (% styrene ) 45 % A CFA Phase I
O CFA Phase I I

X NMM A 

# • RT I Unfilled

Mec h BE F fit

5 0 %

## PE S "Supe r Set " Model s Mechanica l Model s

20 %

^ 

## s -

-5 % 

### 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome rConten t ( % styrene ) 45 % Mec h BE F

Mec h V S

Mec h NonA

MechC S

CF A Spra y

5 0 %H i 

### 40 %

30 %

C O C D


### * 5 20% - C O c g "c o .c o 

## _W 10% - C D 

### c £ C O 0 %



### -10 % 20 % 

## PE S "Supe r Set " Model s Gelcoa t BE F Dat a Point

s



## + 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 %



### Monome rConten t (% styrene ) 45 % A CFA Phase I
O CFA Phase I I

X RT I Unfilled

Mec h BE F fi t

5 0 %

# PE S "Supe r Set " Model s Gelcoa t Model s
40 %

-10 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome rConten t (% styrene ) 45 % Gelcoa t BE F

Gelcoa t C S

CFA Gelcoa t

CF A Ge l C S



### 50 %

# PE S "Supe r Set " Model s Baselin e Emissio n Facto rModel s 40 %

^



## - O

-10 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % 

### Monome r Conten t (

% styrene

) 45 % -*?- Manua l BE F

Mec h BE F

Fil a BE F

Gelcoa t BE F

50 %# 

### ' 3

4 ) CL 

## c B CL < X vt J Q 0 C v> 

# 1 UJ 

# a . < 

# x 20 0

18 0



### 16 0

14 0

12 0 -

10 0



### e o

6 0

4 0

2 0 

# DSifllFi r

Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Manua l Resi n Applicatio n

C O

i Linea r ( b = 0

) y = 2.9889 X

t

Linea r ( b = constant ! y = 5.1786x-85.000 0

Powe r ( n = constant ) y = 0.1846x , - 753 S

2n d Orde r Polynomia l y = 0.0576X 2 + 0.7262 *

" - • •

—

* —

_ _ . "i'. •

•' . —- i

i

^^^ i : 

## i i i

* /

.
A



### o O ,.'

/.•_s^


### o ' / 

# \S'

• ^

%
_./'" » ,



# ' f

Th e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s to b e use d i n a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d to accuratel y reflect emissio n reductio n credit s t o th e variou s emissio n reductio n technique s that a lacilil y coul d choos e l o meet th e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin g emissions

. 

## i 4 

# 1 0

t o CO

c K S C J

m
» H
'jr.

1 0 

### 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0



### Resi n Monome r Conten t ( % HAP) 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

D X 0.04 1 t

n 71 5 mi n 750 fp

m 0.088 in./15min./6 0 fp

m

- Linea i (b

- 0 ) O

- 0.04 1 in/1 5 min710 0 tp m 0.088 in71 5 min./lO

O Ip m Linoa r ( b = constant

) A 

### o 0.04 1 lnV3

0 mir»75 0 fp m 0.088 in730 min/5 0 fp m •Powe r (n - constant i X 0.04 1 In/3 0 min710 0 Ip m
+ 0.06 6 In/30fnin./IOOcp m 2n d Orde r Poly

. 0

^ 1 oo o


### • 9 

# ESflffT

. Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n
45 0



# <- u

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 

### Resi n Monome r Conten t {% HAP ) 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

0 0.04 0 *i715mui72b s per mh

. o 0.04 0 in71 5 minJ 4 lb

s pe r rth. & X 0.G8 0 h./1 5 ninJZ

t> s pe r min

. - ftOJOin./15nm44l>6permli o Linea r ( b = 0 > Lhaar (b«constant )

... . 0.040 ii/3 G nia/ Z fee pa r mki

. x 0.080 aiT M mtn./

2 t * pe t min

. + •Powe r (n = constant

) 0.040 i n 73 0 raktM b t pe r nan. : 0.08 0 trt/3 0 minV

4 ti n ne t nwi. |

* 2nd OrderPoV



# T i

IMI

.• ^ 

# t * J J 

# n

Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Ge l Coa t Applicatio n

1 0 

## a : c £ L <



### c
( 0 

# I
U J 0
. < X 20 0

10 0 ?n d Orde r Polynomia l

y = 0.2145^ + 2.2402 X

s, d s.
/ /

T- / Th e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d i n a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d t o accuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credits t o th e variou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha t a facilit

y coul d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin g emissions

.

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0



### Resi n Monome r Conten t ( % HAP )

0 X 0 01 8 inVI O miri/

2 lbs pe r min

. 0.02- 1 i n 71 0 mln/

2 lb s pe r min

. Linea r \o - u ) o

- 0.01 6 in71 0 min/

4 lb s pa r min

. 0.02 4 in71 0 min/

4 lb s pe r min

.

- Linea r ( b = constacrt

) A

O

„ 0.01 8 in72 0 min. ? lb s pe t min

. 0.02 4 in72 0 min/

2 lb s pe r min

. X 0.01 8 in/2 0 min/ 4 lbs pa r min

. + 0.02 4 in72 0 miaJA lb s pe r mi n

- —•2n d Orde r Poly

. i c o

C *

t o
c K J C J

m 0 1

v.

©

### H A 25 0

20 0



### w o

- c a : 15 0 < X C O
w c 

# I 10 

# ° 1 U J 

# a < 

# x 5 0 

# ssaiFi r

Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Filamen t Windin g Applicatio n

Linea r ( b = 0 ) y = 3.9804 X

Linea r ( b s constant * y = 5.0889 X - 46.433 3



# I Powe r ( n = constant ) y = 1.2938x l M M

2n d Orde r Polynomia l y = 0.0293x z *2.7145 x Th e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d i n a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d to accuratel y reflec

t emissio n reductio n credit s to th e variou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha i a facilit y coul d choose t o mee t Ih e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin g emissions

.
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5



### Resi n Monome r Conten t (%HAP ) 4 0 4 5 5 0

G 7 3 degiees/

6 inche s O 7 3 degrees/3 3 inches & 8 5 degreea/ 6 inche s x 8 5 degrees/3 3 inche s Linea r ( b = 0 ) Linea r ( b - constant ) Powe r ( n = constant) — •—•2n d Olde r Poly

.P.7 4


## M4ttokh**r?'f-_\lI[



# Addendato th e Derivation an

dVerification o f the CF A Emissio n Model s

b y

Rober t A

. Haberlein , Ph.D

. Engineerin g Environmenta

l

o n behal f of the Composite s Fabricator s Association
Internationa

l Cas t Polyme r Association Composite s Institut

e

Decembe r

8,199 7



# 7 +P.7 5



### Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s



# Addendumt o th e Derivatio n an dVerificatio n o f th e CF A Emissio n Model s

Octobe r 8,199 7

Rober t A

. Haberlein , Ph.D. , QE

P

Following EPA' s initia

l technica l review , acorrectio n ha s bee n mad e t o th e CF

A Han d Model

. Four

of th e thirt y tes t dat apoint s usedt o deriv e the origina l HandModel includedth e effec t o f vapor suppressant

. Thes e fou

r dat apoint s ar

e now exclude dandane

w regressio n i s performed

. The revise dregressio n analysi s i s show n i n Tabl e A-l

. Note tha

t thi s ne w regressio n i s amuc h better fi t tha n th e origina

l regressio n (r

2 

### = 0.50 3 versu s 0.282)

. Base dupo n th e ne w regressio n analysis , the ne

w equatio n fo

r han dlay-u p emission s (expresse da s apercentag e o f resi n weight) is : Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.00286

x % styrene - 0.0529

A s reveale do n th e nex

t page , expressing styren

e emission s a s afunctio

n o f resin weigh

t i s amuch better fi t tha n expressing emission s a s afunctio n of available styrene

. Th e ne w equatio n replace s Equatio n 2 i n th e origina

l report , an

dshouldsubstitute dwher

e appropriate throughou t

bot h reports

. The ne

w HandModel i s compare dt o th e correspondin g EP A Emissio n Equatio n i

n Figur e A-l , an

darevise dplo t

o f all the CF A Models , including th e ne w Han dModel i s provide di n Figur e A-2

. Note how closel y th e ne w HandMode l matche s bot h th e EP A Equatio n an

dthe "non-atomized " Mechanica l Application curve
. Base dupo n thi s ne

w model an

dthe origina

l styrene monome

r conten t o f 40 % liste di

n th e Ope n Molding database , th e ne w Manua l Application floo

r value i s 7 6 lb/ton

. Th e ne

w floor value fo r Manua l Application an

dth e ne w Han dModel have anegligibl

e impact upo n th e baseline an demission reductio n calculation s fo r the Ope n Moldin g database

.

A- l


## •? 5

## Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s Tabl e A- l Revise

dHan dLay-u p Regressio

n

No

. I D 1 100295 B 2 100295 C 3 A 092095 A 3 B 092695 B 4 A 100395 A 4 B 092695 C 5 092595 A 6 092695 A 7 092795 A 8 092795 B 9 092795 C 1 0 092895 A 11 A 092895 B 11 B 092995 C 12 A 092895 C 12 B 100295 A 1 3 092995 A 1 4 092995 B 1 5 091995 A 1 6 091995 B 052996 B 080196 A 060596 A 052996 A 053096 B 060396 B 

## nmm 0695988 053096 A 06Q496 A (in. )

0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.17 6 0.12 0 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.08 8 <fM$ 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.08 8 Regressio n Outp u Constan l StdErrofYEs t R Square d No

. o f Observatio i Degree s o

f Freedo m
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er r o f Coef

. 0.0028 6

0.0005 8 (%

) 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 33. 2 44. 4 44. 4 48. 8 33» s & & ^W+T t 48.8 ^ ( % resin ; -0.0529 2 0.0127 8 0.5034 3 2 6 2 4 (min. ) 3 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 1 5

X (fpm ) 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 5 0 10 0

%

Constan l (%

) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. $ 1. 5 1* 5 

## 7 * ( % resin wt)( % styrene ) 6.2 % 4.9 % 7.2 % 7.6 % 4.2 % 4.6 % 8.1 % 3.6 % 5.3 % 5.7 % 5.0 % 6.0 % 8.9 % 8.9 % 3.4 % 3.6 % 4.2 % 7.1 % 6.3 % 4.9 % 7.2 % 4.9 % 4.6 % 6.6 % 8.4 % 9.3 % &* % £7 % a*i % 3.6 % 17.7 % 11.7 % 16.7 % 17.7 % 11.7 % 13.1 % 19.2 % 10.1 % 14.7 % 13.5 % 14.0 % 14.3 % 21.2 % 21.0 % 9.6 % 10.1 % 11.9 % 17.1 % 17.6 % 11.5 % 16.1 % 11.0 % 13.8 % 15.0 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 8-7 % 1 1 % 7.0 % 7,4 % Regressio n Outp u ( % styre r
St d Er r o f Y Est R Square d No

. o f Observatio i Degree s o

f Freedo m
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er r o f Coef

. 0.0035 3

0.0014 3 0.0094 1

0.0314 4 0.2035 1 2 6 2 4



## Th e shade dvalues ar e exclude dfromth e ne w regressio

n analysis

.

A- 2

=&>

## 4 * H i Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s

Figur e A- l Compariso n o f Revise dCFA Han dMode l t o EP A HandEquatio n


## Han d Lay-u p Emissio n Facto rversu s Styren e Conten taresin



## o t5 cd L L CEmissi< 

### 9 % •

•

8% -

7% -

6% -

5% -

4% -

3% ~

Oo /

_ c. / o 

### 2 c % 

### 3 0 % 

### 3 2 % 

### 3 ' % j ! i j i
j 

### 1 j i 

### 3 6 % 

### 3 8 % 

### 4

C % 

### 4 2 % 

### 44 % 46 % 

### 4 * % 

### 50 % 

### EP A han d

CF A han d



## Styren e Conten t (% wt)

A- 3

^ i ^ i

### Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s Figur e A- 2 CF A Emissio n Model s wit

h Revise dHan dMode l



# CF A Emissio n Model s Emissio n Facto r v

s Styren e Conten t

30 %

^ 25 % c "c o C D Z- 20 % o 

### t 3 ta 

### u
. c o 'c o C O 

### E L U 15 %

10 % Han d

Non-Spra y

Spra y

Gelcoa t

FWin d



### Styren e Conten t (% wt

)



### A- 4P.7 9



## Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s



# Secon

dAddendu mt o the Derivation an

dVerification o

f th e CF A Emission Model s Decembe r 6,199 7

Rober t A

. Haberlein , PhD. , QE

P

Afte r reviewing the ful

l dat ase t containe di

n the CFA' s final Phas e I I tes t report , th e followin g tw o modification s have bee n mad e t o the CF

A emissio n model s describe di

n th e Septembe r 18,199 7 repor

t entitle dDerivation and

Verification of

the CFA Emission Models:

* Th e linea

r regressio n fo

r the Mechanica

l Resi n Application Mode l ha s bee n revise d

* H The contro l factor

fo r the Manua

l Resi n Application Model ha s bee n revise dt o match EP A recommendation s



## Mechanica

l Resi n Applicatio n (Spray ) Mode l Revisio n
Seve n of the thirt y tes t dat apoint s use dt o deriv e th e origina l Mechanica

l Resin Applicatio n (Spray ) Model als o includedth e effec t of contro l spraying

. Thes e seve n "controlle d spraying " dat apoint s (080696A , 061396A , 080896A , 080896B , 081296B , 081596A , and 081696A ) ar

e now excluded

. Furthermore , thre e ne w "uncontrolle dspray " tes t dat apoint s (061296B , 092696A , an

d120595A

) wer e liste di n the fina l Phas e I I tes t

report , andhav e bee

n include di n the revise ddat aset

. As discusse di n aseparat e correspondenc e wit

h th e EPA , th e thre e BPO-base duncontrolle dspra y dat apoint s have no t

bee n includedi

n th e revise ddat aset

. /
ne w regressio n i s now performedusing the revise ddataset , wit h the exclusion s andinclusion s discusse dabove

. The ne

w linea r regressio n analysi s i s show n i n Tabl e B-1
. Note tha

t thi s ne w regressio n result s i

n aslightl y better fi t tha n the origina

l regressio n (r

2 

### = 0.71 4 versu s 0.679)

. Base dupo n thi s ne

w linea r regressio n analysis , the revise dequatio n fo r mechanica

l (spray ) emissions , expresse da s apercentag e o f resin weigh

t is :

B- 1P.8 0



## Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s

Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.714 x% styrene - 0.180[eqB-i]

The above , revise dequatio n replace s Equatio n 5 an dpar t of Equatio n 1 5 i

n th e origina

l report , andshouldb e substitute dwher e appropriat

e throughout

bot h reports

. The ne

w Mechanica

l Resi n Application (Spray ) Model i s plotte di n Figure B-1 , whic

h include s ascatter plo t o f th e data

. Th e 95 % confidence interva l fo r the predicte dmea

n modeledvalue i s shown in Figure B-2
.
Base dupo n thi s revise dMechanica l Resi n Application (Spray ) Model andth e origina l "floor " styrene monome

r content s of

35 % (non-corrosion ) an

d38 % (corrosion ) liste din th e Septembe r 18,199 7 Ope

n Moldin g database , th e ne

w Mechanica

l Resi n Application floor

value s are 140 lb/to n fo

r non-corrosio n product s an d18 3 lb/to n fo

r corrosio n products

. Thes e ne w floor value s fo r Mechanica

l Application have a

n insignifican

t impact upo n the baselin

e andemission reductio n calculation s i

n th e Ope n Moldin g database

.



## Manua l Resi n Applicatio

n (Hand ) Vapo r Suppressan

tFacto r Revisio n

Thi s modification i s basedupo n adifferen t approach fo

r calculating contro l factor s recommende dby th e EPA

. The origina l approac h fo

r calculating contro l factors , a s describe din th e Septembe

r 18,199 7 report , calculate s a n averag e contro l factor

base dupo n "paire ddata " response s (le

. th e rati o of

emission s fo

r spli t tes t ru n trial s using identica

l independen

t variabl e values , wit

h andwithout

vapor suppressants)

. The approach recommendedby th e EPA derive s a separat e equatio n fo

r "vapo r suppressed " manua

l application fro

mvapor-suppresse ddat aalone.

. Th e EP A approac h appear s t o b e mor e suitable fo

r vapor-suppresse dmanua

l applicatio n emission s becaus e th e available dat a(although limited ) suggest s ahighl

y linea r effec t between vapor-suppresse dstyrene emission s an dstyrene content

. The available dat avalue s fo r th e variou s mechanica l (spray ) contro l option s ar e mor e scattered , s o the EP

A approach doe s no t

appea r t o b e appropriate fo

r th e spra y contro l options

.
A linea r regressio n i s performedusing th e fou r availabl e dat apoint s fo

r vapor-suppresse d
manua l applicatio n (hand)

. The ne w linea r regressio n analysi s i s show n i n Tabl e B-2
. Base d upo n thi s ne

w linea r regressio n analysis , the equatio n fo r vapor-suppresse dmanua

l applicatio n (hand) emissions , expresse da s apercentag e of resi n weigh

t is :

B- 2 

## <? 0P.8 1



## Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s

Styrene emissions (% of resin wt.) = 0.0004476 x % styrene + 0.01289[eqB-2 ]

I n order t o remain consisten

t wit h the origina

l MAC T contro l matrix format , thi s vapor
suppresse dequatio n i s converte dint o acontro l factor , whic

h i s then appliedt o th e origina l non
vapor-suppresse dmanua

l equation : Vapor-Suppressed

= 0.0004476

x % stvrene + 0.01289 Control Factor 0.00286

x % styrene - 0.0529[eqB-3 ]

Note tha t thi s contro l factor

i s onl y validfo r manuall y appliedresin s wit

h styrene content s greater tha n 28%

. As i

n th e earlie

r reports , th e contro l facto

r represent s th e amoun

t of reduce demission s (ie

. acontro l factor

o f 0. 6 appliedt o emission s of 10 0 tp y wil l result i n controlle demission s of

6 0 tpy)

. The above , revise dequatio n replace s Equatio n 9 an dpar t o f Equatio n 1 2 i

n the origina

l report , an dshouldb e substitute dwher e appropriat

e throughout

bot h reports

. Th e Manua

l Resi n Applicatio n (Hand) Mode l i s plotte din Figure B-3 , whic h include s ascatter

plo t o f th e dat a points

. A comparison o f

th e Manua

l Model bot

h wit h an dwithou t vapor suppressan

t i s show n in Figure B-4
.



## Revise d CF A Model s
A plo t of all the current

baselin e CF A Models , includin

g the ne w Mechanica

l (Spray ) Model , i s provide di

n Figure B-5
. A text

summar y of al l the CF A Models , including th e contro l factors , i s provide di

n Tabl e B-3
. Finally , arevise d"contro l matrix " spreadshee t progra m(i n Lotu s 1-2-3 , Excel an

dQuattro Pr o file formats ) i s includedi n a n attache dflopp

y diskette

.

B- 3

# Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s 

## Tabl e B- 1 Revise dMechanica l Resi n Applicatio n (Spray ) Regressio n

Ru n No

. 1 2 3 A 3 B 4A 4 B 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 A 11 B 12 A 12 B 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 (&10 ) I g femal e I g mal e thic k la m I g femal e

Constan t Dat a

I D 111595 B 111695 A 111695 B 113095 A 112895 A 112995 B 112895 B 112995 A 120495 A 120595 B 120695 A 120695 B 120795 A 121195 B 120895 A 121295 A 120895 B 121495 B 121295 B 121495 A 022296 A 092596 B 101796 B 061296 B 092696 A 120595 A Laminate

Thicknes s (in. ) 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0

0.18 7

0.08 0 Regressio n Output :
StdErrofYEs t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. Styren e Conten t (% ) 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4

-0.18022 8 0.01817 7 0.71446 8 2 6 2 4

0.00713 8 0.00092 1 Ge l

Tim e (min. ) 3 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 Resi n

Flo w (ib/min ) 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 Ai r Flo w (fpm ) 100 5 0 5 0 5 0 100 100 100 5 0 5 0 100 100 5 0 5 0 5 0 100 100 5 0 100 5 0 100 100 Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt ) 6.6 % 13.9 % 13.0 % 14.2 % 6.7 % 6.9 % 15.0 % 6.4 % 8.2 % 16.0 % 8.0 % 9.4 % 12.1 % 12.8 % 6.3 % 5.6 % 6.5 % 10.4 % 7.2 % 10.7 % 9.1 % 12.1 % 13.4 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 16.0 % Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer) 18.8 % 33.1 % 31.0 % 33.9 % 19.0 % 19.6 % 35.8 % 18.2 % 23.3 % 38.0 % 22.9 % 22.4 % 28.7 % 30.4 % 18.1 % 16.1 % 18.6 % 24.8 % 20.6 % 25.4 % 21.7 % 27.3 % 30.2 % 23.9 %



## B- 4 

# ? a

## ° 0 Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s 

## Figur e B- 1 Revise d CF A Mechanical Applicatio n (Spray ) Mode l wit h Scatte r Plo to f

Dat a 20 %

20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome rConten t (

% styrene ) 45 % A CF A Spray Dat a

CF A Spray Mode l



### 50 %



## B- 5

## Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s 

## Figure B- 2 Revise

d CF A Mechanica

l AppUcatio

n (Spray ) Mode l wit h 95 % Confidenc

e Interval s

20 %

% 15 % 

# c 'tn C D 

## 10 %

C O



# . 1 5 %
C O



## w0 % C D C C D 

## % -5 %

•10 % 20 % I — ^

J

_ 

# w

—1— - X


# ^ ^ 2

> ^ > *

\ - — ^ 

# N r

1 h — ^

^



## 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 %

Styren e Content Lowe r 95 %

Mea n
Uppe r 95 %



# x Dat a

45 % 50 %

B- 6P.8 5



## Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s 

## Tabl e B- 2 Revise dManua l Resi n AppUcatio

n (Hand) Regressio n

ru n thicknes s

060496 B 0.08 8 060596 B 0.08 8 053096A 0.08 8 060496A 0.08 8 styren e

conten t (% resin )
33. 2 33. 2 44. 4 48. 8 Regressio n Output : Constan t StdErrofYEs t R Square d No

. of Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 0.000447 6

0.0001344 3 suppressan t

leve l ( % resin )
1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5

0.0128 9 0.00184932 3 0.84715102 7

4 2 styren e emission s ( % resin ) (% styrene )
2.9 % 2.7 % 3.1 % 3.6 % 8.7 %

8.1 % 7.0 % 7.4 %

B- 7 

# 95

## Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s 

## Figur e B- 3 BaseUne CF A Manual AppUcatio n (Hand ) Mode l wit h Scatte r Plo to f Dat a

o O {T- ^ O % c C O C D i

_ ^ 8
cv * C O e 

### o C O C O 

### E UJ C D c C D

> N t/ > U7 o

0 0 / O / o

C O / O / o

AO/ 4v o

0 0 / d/o



### 0 % - 1 -



### 1 

## 4

z 

# y i

1 * A



## X

1 A

A A

A
A

h O

O

O O

1 

### 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome r Conten t (

% styrene

) 45 % A CF A Phas e I
O CF A Phas e I I

Manua l BE F fi t



### 50 %



## B- 8

## Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s 

## Figur e B- 4 Compariso n o f CF A Manua l Application (Hand

) Model s wit

h an d withou tVapor Suppressan

t

10 %



### <= 0

20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % Monome rConten t ( % styrene ) 45 % Manua l BE F

Manua l V S



### 50 %

B- 9

## Engineerin g Environmenta l

Consultin g Service s 

## Figur e B- 5 Baselin e CF A Emission Model

s wit h Revise d Mechanica

l Resi n AppUcatio

n (Spray ) Mode l
40 %

30 %

C O

> P 

### 20 %
C O

C O C O 

### i± i 10 % C D 

## c C D i

_ > . C O 

### 0 %

•10 % 20 % - -

- -

- -

^^^_

-- ^ "



### 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 %

Monome r Conten t (% styrene ) 45 % 50 % - ^ 

### CF A Han d



## -e CF A Spra y

CFAF W

CF A Gelcoa t

B-1 0P.8 9



# Engineerin g Environmenta l Consultin g Service s Tabl e B- 3 Summar y o f Revise dCF A Emissio n Model s

Manua l Resi n Application
Baseline Emission Facto r Vapo r Suppressan

t Contro l Facto r (%styrene > 28% )

Mechanica

l Resi n Application
Baseline Emission Facto r Vapo r Suppressan

t Contro l Facto r
Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r <or > Non-Atomizing Contro l Facto r

Filamen t Resi n Application
Baseline Emission Facto r
Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r 0.0028 6 x %styren e - 0.052 9
0.000447 6 x %stvren e + 0.0128 9 0.0028 6 x %styren e - 0.052 9

0.0071 4 x %styren e - 0.18 0
0.6 2
0.7 7
0.5 1

0.00274 6 x %styren e - 0.029 8
0.6 5

Gelcoa t Spra y Application Baseline Emission Facto r Controlle dSpra

y Contro l Facto r 0.0103 6 x %styrene - 0.19 5
0.7 3

B-l lP.9 0



# Furthe r Analyse s o

f th e CF A & PE S Emissio n Model s andth e Ope n Molding Databas e

presente dt o Madelein e Strum , Ph.D

. Offic e o f Ai r Quality , Planning , an

dStandard s UnitedState s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y

by

Rober t A

. Haberlein , Ph.D

. Engineerin g Environmenta

l

o n behal f o f th e Composite s Fabricator s Association
Internationa

l Cast Polyme r Association Composite s Institut

e



## Decembe r 8,199 7



# °iO

# Engineerin g Environmenta l 12/05/9 7 Pag e 1 

# CF A PHAS E I I MASTE R DAT A TABLE S - fro m 10/3/9 7 fil e Phase II - Data Tables all runs.xls

MECHANICA L DAT

A

Ru n Parameter

s

Ru n No

. 1 2 3 A 3 B 4 Dat

a I D 022697 A 022697 B 022797 A 022797 B 022797 C Applicatio n

Metho d Han d Lay-U p Spray-U p Flo wCho p Flo wCho p P Rolle r 

### Applicatio n Metho d Comparisio n Experimen t - Shee t 1 Dat a Resi n Consume

d (g ) 2072. 0 2130. 0 2132. 0 2160. 0 2115. 0 Availabl e

Styren e (g ) 910. 2 935. 7 936. 6 948. 9 929. 1 Emissio n Weigh t (g ) 69. 8 167. 6 106. 4 110. 3 119. 7 Emissio n %o f A S 9.9 % 17.9% 11.4 % 11.6% 12.9 % Surfac e Are a Emiss

. (g/H2 ) 6.4 1 11.9 7 7.6 0 7.8 8 8.5 5 Surfac e Area Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 69.0 8 128.92 81.8 5 84.8 5 92.0 8 Normalized

Surf

. Area Emissio n (g/ft2/kg GC ) 3.1 0 5.62 3.5 6 3.65 4.04 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW) 4.3 % 7.9 % 5.0% 5.1 % 5.7 % Emissio n Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 86. 7 157. 4 99. 8 102. 1 113. 2 Controlle d



### BP O v s MEK P Initiato r Comparsio n Experimen t • Shee t 2

^Ru n No

. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ru n Parameter s

Dat a I D 103096 A 103096 B 103096 C 103196 A 103196 B 110696 A Initiato r

Typ e BP O BP O MEK P MEK P MEK P BP O Ge l

Tim e (min ) 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 0 Resi n

Consume d (g ) 5603. 0 5577. 0 5580. 0 5550. 0 5581. 0 5592. 0 Availabl e Styren e (g ) 2263. 6 2253. 1 2237. 6 2228. 6 2238. 0 2259. 0 I Emissio n Weigh t (g ) 302. 1 321. 5 306. 9 305. 5 319. 5 285. 2 Oat a Emissio n %o f A S 13.3 % 14.3 % 13.7% 13.7% 14.3 % 12.6 % Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/R2 ) 10.7 5 11.4 5 10.93 10.88 11.3 7 10.1 5 Surface

Area Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 115.7 9 123.23 117.6 3 117.0 9 122.4 6 109.3 1 Normalized

Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/H2/kgGC ) 1.9 2 2.05 1.9 6 1.9 6 2.0 4 1.8 2 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 5.4 % 5.8 % 5.5 % 5.5 % 5.7 % 5.1 % Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 107. 8 115. 3 110. 0 110. 1 114. 5 102. 0 AL L Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d

Ru n No

. 1 2 3 4 5 Ru n Parameter s

Dat a I D 082996 A 090496 A 090496 B 090596 A 090596 B Fille r

Leve l Hig h Hig h Lo w 0 Hig h 

### Spray-U p Fille d System s Comparisio n Experimen t - Shee t 3

1 Dat a
Styren e Supressan t N o N o N o N o Yes Resi n

Consume d (g ) 14329. 0 14238. 0 14319. 0 14260. 0 14329. 0 Availabl e

Styren e (g ) 2765. 5 2747. 9 4668. 0 6549. 6 2765. 5 Emissio n Weigh t (g ) 595. 3 477. 3 880. 6 1314. 4 486. 8 Emissio n

%o f A S 21.5 % 17.4 % 18.9 % 20.1 % 17.6 % Surfac e

Area Emiss

. (g/R2 ) 21.1 9 16.9 9 31.3 5 46.7 9 17.3 3 Surface

Area Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 228.1 7 182.9 4 337.5 2 503.79 186.58 Normalized

Surf

. Area Emissio n (g/ft2/k g GC ) 1.4 8 1.1 9 2.1 9 3.2 8 1.2 1 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 4.2 % 3.4 % 6.1 % 9.2 % 3.4 % Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 83. 1 67. 0 123. 0 184. 3 67. 9 AL L Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d

C O

# Engineerin g Environmenta l 12/05/9 7 Pag e 2

Effect s o

f Laminat e Thicknes s an d Sprayin g Metho d o n Spray-U p Emission s - Shee t 5 Ru n Parameter s

Ru n No

. 1 2 3 4

. 5 Dat a

I D 061296 A 061296 B 061396 A 080196 B 120595 A Laminat e

Thicknes s 0.18 7 0.18 7 0.08 0 0.18 7 0.08 0 Applicatio n

Metho d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Controlle d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Dat a

Resi n Consume d (g ) 14272. 0 18538. 0 5531. 0 14138. 4 8071. 0 Availabl e

Styren e (g ) 6329. 6 8221. 6 2453. 0 6270. 4 3406. 0 Emissio n

Weigh t (g ) 1073. 5 1965. 1 547. 0 862. 3 1295. 0 Emissio n

%o f A S 17.0 % 23.9 % 22.3 % 13.8 % 38.0 % Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/«2 ) 38.2 2 69.9 6 19.4 7 30.7 0 46.1 0 Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 411.4 6 753.2 0 209.6 6 330.5 1 496.3 6 Normalize d

Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/tt2/k g GC ) 2.6 8 3.7 7 3.5 2 2.1 7 5.7 1 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 7.5 % 10.6 % 9.9 % 6.1 % 16.0 % Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 150. 4 212. 0 197. 8 122. 0 320. 9 

### Spray-U p Effect s o

f Styren e Suppressant s Comparisio n Experimen t - Shee t 7 Ru n Parameter s

Dat a I D Resi n

Typ e Styren e

Conten t Vapo r

Suppres s Flo w

Rat e (Ibs/mln ) Dat a

Resi n Consume d (9 ) Availabl e

Styren e (g ) Emissio n

Weigh t (g ) Emissio n

%o f A S Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/ft2 ) Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) Normalize d

Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/H2/k g GC ) Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d AL L

Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d 166. 0 Controlle

d 061396 A G P 44 % N o 5531. 0 2453. 0 545. 9 22.3 % 19.4 3 209.2 4 3.5 1 9.9 % 197. 4 061396 B G

P 44 % Ye s 5558. 0 2465. 0 324. 4 13.2 % 11.5 5 124.3 4 2.0 8 5.8 % 116. 7 080696 A G P 44 % N o 5566. 0 2468. 0 727. 5 29.5 % 25.9 0 278.8 4 4.6 5 13.1 % 261. 4 080796 A G P 44 % Ye s 5586. 0 2477. 0 566. 6 22.9 % 20.1 7 217.1 7 3.6 1 10.1 % 202. 9 080896 A VE-L S 43 % N o 5557. 0 1878. 3 461. 2 24.6 % 16.4 2 176.7 7 2.9 5 8.3 % 080896 B VE-L S 33 % N o 5624. 0 1900. 9 474. 9 25.0 % 16.9 1 182.0 2 3.0 1 8.4 % 168. 9 Controlle d Controlle d 081296 B VE-L S 33 % N o 5608. 0 1895. 5 442. 3 23.3 % 15.7 5 169.5 3 2.8 1 7.9 % 157. 7 081396 A VE-L S 33 % Ye s 5590. 0 1884. 4 234. 6 12.4 % 8.3 5 89.9 2 1.4 9 4.2 % 83. 9 Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d Controlle d 081396 B VE-L S 33 % Ye s 5567. 0 1887. 7 350. 0 18.5 % 12.4 6 134.1 5 2.2 4 6.3 % 125. 7 1 0 081596 A VE-H S 49 % N o 5560. 0 2713. 3 862. 7 31.8 % 30.7 1 330.6 6 5.5 2 15.5 % 310. 3 1 1 081696 A VE-H S 49 % N o 5558. 0 2712. 3 697. 6 25.7 % 24.8 3 267.3 8 4.4 7 12.6 % 251. 0 1 2 081696 B VE-H S 49 % Ye s 5625. 0 2745. 0 339. 7 12.4 % 12.0 9 130.2 0 2.1 5 6.0 % 120. 8 1 3 082796 A VE-H S 49 % Ye s 5575. 0 2720. 6 513. 1 18.9 % 18.2 7 196.6 7 3.2 8 9.2 % 184. 1

Ru n No

. 1 2 3 4 5 

### Effect s o f Mol d Configuratio n o n Ru n Parameter s

Dat a I D 092596 A 092596 B 101796 A 101796 B 092696 A Mol d

Config

. Femal e Femal e Mal e Mal e Femal e Applicatio n

Metho d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Uncontrolle d Resi n

Consume d (g ) 21535. 0 21546. 0 21216. 0 21231. 0 21554. 0 

### Spray-U p Emission s (Larg e Mold ) - Shee t 9 Dat a Availabl e Styren e (g ) 9537. 9 9542. 7 9396. 6 9403. 2 9546. 2 Emissio n

Weigh t (g ) 2148. 8 2603. 2 2309. 7 2837. 9 2692. 4 Emissio n

%o f A S 22.5 % 27.3 % 24.6 % 30.2 % 28.2 % Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/«2 ) 16.8 0 20.3 5 18.0 6 22.1 9 21.0 5 Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 180.8 8 219.1 2 194.4 2 238.8 8 226.6 3 Normalize d

Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/ft2/k g GC ) 0.7 8 0.9 4 0.8 5 1.0 5 0.9 8 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 10.0 % 12.1 % 10.9 % 13.4 % 12.5 % Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 199. 6 241. 6 217. 7 267. 3 249. 8

# Engineerin g Environmenta l 12/05/9 7 Pag e 3

Ru n No

. 1 2 3 4 5 

### Effect s o f Sprayin g Metho d an d Mol d Siz e o n Spray-U p Emission s - Shee t 1 0 Ru n Parameter s

Dat a I D 111695 A 101796 B 061396 A 101796 A 120595 B Mol d

Siz e Smal l Larg e Smal l Larg e Smal l Applicatio n

Metho d Uncontrolle d Uncontrolle d Controlle d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Resi n

Consume d (g ) 8062. 0 21231. 0 5531. 0 21216. 0 8071. 0 Availabl e

Styren e (g ) 3458. 6 9403. 2 2453. 0 9396. 6 3406. 0 Dat a

Emissio n Weigh t (g ) 1144. 5 2837. 9 547. 0 2309. 7 1295. 2 Emissio n

%o f A S 33.1 % 30.2 % 22.3 % 24.6 % 38.0 % Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/«2 ) 30.7 0 22.1 9 14.6 7 18.0 6 34.7 4 Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 330.7 8 238.8 8 158.0 9 194.4 2 374.3 4 Normalize d

Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/ft2/k g GC ) 3.8 1 1.0 5 2.6 5 0.8 5 4.3 0 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 14.2 % 13.4 % 9.9 % 10.9 % 16.0 % - Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 283. 9 267. 3 197. 8 217. 7 321. 0



# MANUA L DAT

A

" ^ Han d Lay-U p Laminat e Thicknes s Comparisio n Experimen t - Shee t 4

•'

5;:Run:; i 

# llii l 1 2 3 4 Ru n Parameter s

Dat a I D 052996 A 052996 B 053096 B 080196 A Laminat e

Thicknes s 0.08 0 0.16 7 0.08 0 0.22 6 Resi n

Consume d (g ) 5563. 0 9346. 0 4361. 0 11002. 0 Availabl e

Styren e (g ) 2467. 3 4145. 0 1934. 1 4879. 4 Dat a Emissio n Weigh t (g ) 369. 5 668. 3 364. 3 534. 3 Emissio n

%o f A S 15.0 % 16.1 % 18.8 % 11.0 % Surfac e

Are a Emiss , (g/«2 ) 13.1 5 23.7 9 12.9 7 19.0 2 Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 141.6 3 256.1 5 139.6 3 204.7 9 Normalize d

Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/ft2/k g GC ) 2.3 6 2.5 5 2.9 7 1.7 3 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 6.6 % 7.2 % 8.4 % 4.9 % Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 132. 8 143. 6 167. 1 97. 1

, Ru n No

. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dat a

I D 052996 A 053096 A 053096 B 060396 B 060496 A 060496 B 060596 A 060596 B 

### Han d lay-U p Effect s o f Styren e Suppressant s Comparisio n Experimen t - Ru n Parameter s

Resi n Typ e G P G P G P VE-H S VE-H S VE-L S VE-L S VE-L S Styren e

Conten t 44 % 44 % 44 % 49 % 49 % 33 % 33 % 33 % Vapo r

Suppresse d N o Ye s N o N o Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Resi n

Consume d (g ) 5563. 0 4295. 0 4361. 0 3649. 0 4344. 0 5693. 0 5515. 0 5686. 0 Dat a

Availabl e Styren e (g ) 2467. 2 1904. 8 1934. 1 1780. 0 2119. 9 1890. 1 1831. 0 1887. 8 Emissio n

Weigh t (g ) 369. 5 133. 4 364. 3 338. 1 156. 8 165. 2 252. 8 152. 5 Emissio n

%o f A S 15.0 % 7.0 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 7.4 % 8.7 % 13.8 % 8.1 % Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/«2 ) 13.1 5 4.7 5 12.9 7 12.0 4 5.5 8 5.8 8 9.0 0 5.4 3 Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 141.6 3 51.1 3 139.6 3 129.5 9 60.1 0 63.3 2 96.9 0 58.4 5 

### Sheet 6

Normalize d Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/ft2/k g GC ) 2.3 6 1.1 1 2.9 7 3.3 0 1.2 9 1.0 3 1.6 3 0.9 5 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 6.6 % 3.1 % 8.4 % 9.3 % 3.6 % 2.9 % 4.6 % 2.7 % Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 132. 8 62. 1 167. 1 185. 3 72. 2 58. 0 91. 7 53. 6

c o

# Engineerin g Environmenta l 12/05/9 7 Pag e 4



# GELCOAT DAT A

Effect s o

f Mol d Configuratio n o n Ge l Coat Emission s (Larg e Mold ) - Shee t 8 Ru n Parameters

Ru n No

. 1 1 2 3 4 1 5 Dat

a I D 091796 A 091896 A 101596 A 101696 A 091796 B Mol d

Conflg

. Femal e Femal e Mal e Mal e Femal e Applicatio n

Metho d Uncontrolle d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Resi n

Consumed (g ) 7942. 0 7998. 0 7944. 0 8040. 0 7963. 0 Availabl e Styren e (g ) 2755. 9 2775. 3 2780. 4 2793. 1 2763. 2 

### Effect s of Sprayin g Metho d an d Ru n Parameters iHun|| :

1 2 3 4 5 Dat

a I D 101695 C 101596 A 030796 B 101696 A 101795 B Mol d

Siz e Smal l Larg e Smal l Larg e Smal l Applicatio n

Metho d Uncontrolle d Uncontrolle d Controlle d Controlle d Uncontrolle d Emissio n Weigh t (g ) 1030J5, 860. 4 1467. 1 1148. 1 1099. 7 Dat a Emissio n %o f A S 37.4% 31.0 % 52.8 % 41.1 % 39.8 % Surfac e

Area Emiss

. (g/«2 ) 36.7 0 30.6 3 52.2 3 40.8 7 39.1 5 Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 395.0 9 329.7 8 562.3 2 440.0 5 421.5 0 Normalize d

Surf

. Are a Emissio n (g/fl2/lcgGC ) 4.6 2 3.83 6.5 7 5.0 8 4.9 2 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 13.0% 10.8 % 18.5% 14.3% 13.8% Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 259. 6 215. 2 369. 4 285. 6 276. 2 

### Mol d Siz e o n Ge l Coa t Emission s - Shee t 1 1 Dat a Resi n Consumed (g ) 2492. 0 7944. 0 1801. 0 8040. 0 2330. 0 Availabl e Styren e (g ) 865. 7 2780. 4 728. 7 2793. 1 809. 4 Emissio n Weigh t (g ) 437. 2 1467. 1 228. 5 1148. 1 469. 5 Emissio n

%o f A S 50.5 % 52.8 % 31.4% 41.1 % 58.0 % Surfac e

Area Emiss

. (g/«2 ) 11.73 11.47 6.1 3 8.9 8 12.5 9 Surfac e

Are a Emiss

. (g/m2 ) 126.3 5 123.4 9 66.0 4 96.6 4 135.6 9 Normalize d

Surf

. Area Emissio n (g/ft2/kgGC ) 4.7 1 1.4 4 3.4 0 1.1 2 5.4 1 Emissio n

%o f Resi n (RW ) 17.5 % 18.5 % 12.7 % 14.3% 20.2 % Emissio n

Lbs/To n Resi n Consume d 350. 9 369. 4 253. 7 285. 6 403. 0P.9 5



# Revie w an dCorrectio

n of CF A Phas e I I Dat aincludedin PES Dat

aSets

9 5P.9 6



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforced Plasti c / Composite

s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rManua l Resi n Applicatio n

- Bucke t & Brus h Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d
12 A 6 12 B 4 A 1 3 4 B 9 7 1 1 5 2 1 6 8 1 0 1 4 3 A 3 B 5 11 A 11 B

Assume d
Constan t St d Er rof Y Es t R Square d Lowe rBoun d

.

CFAPhase l 1 CFAPhase H 2 CFA Fille d 3 NMM A 4

OK Monome r Conten t Dat a I D ( % Styrene ) Assume d 060596 A * 092895 C 092695 A 100295 A 100395 A 092995 A 092695 A 092795 C 092795 A 100295 B 091995 A 100295 C 091995 B 092795 B 092895 A 092995 B 092095 A 092695 B 092595 A 092895 B 092995 C 080196 A ^ 052996 A S 052996 B ^ 053096 B f 060396 B >f Assume d Regressio n Outpu l

No

. of Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 0. 33. 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 48. 8 100. 0

0.0028 6 0.0005 8 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Rile d RTI/NMM A DO W Chemica l Styren e Emission s (% resi n wt ) 0,0% 4.6 % 3.4 % 3.6 % 3.6 % 4.2 % 4.2 % 4.6 % 5.0 % 5.3 % 6.2 % 6.3 % 4.9 % 4.9 % 5.7 % 6.0 % 7.1 % 7.2 % 7.6 % 8.1 % 8.9 % 8.9 % 4.9 % 6.6 % 7.2 % 8.4 % 9.3 % 100.0 %
-0.0528 3 0.0127 8 0.5035 1 2 6 2 4 .



### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s (% monomer ) 0,0% 13.8 % 9.6 % 10.1 % 10.1 % 11.7 % 11.9 % 13.1 % 14.0 % 14.7 % 17.7 % 17.6 % 11.7 % 11.5 % 13.5 % 14.3 % 17.1 % 16.7 % 17.7 % 19.2 % 21.2 % 21.0 % 11.0 % 15.0 % 16.1 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 100.0 % Dat a

Sourc e Cod e
2

2 2 2 2 2



# <? kP.9 7



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 • Reinforced Plasti c / Composite

s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rManua l Resi n wit h Vapo rSuppressio n Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d

Assume d Constan t StdErrofYEs t R Square d Lowe rBoun d

.

CFAPhase l 1 CFAPhase H 2 CF A Fille d 3 NMM A 4

t 

### Monome r 2 £ Conten t Dat a I D ( % Styrene

) Assume d 0

. 060496B V 33. 2 060596B" ' 33. 2 050396A '

44. 4 060496 A S 48. 8 Assume d 100. 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. of Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0004475 8

0.00013443 Uppe rBoun d

.

RT I Unfille d 5 RT I Fille d 6 RTI/NMM A 7 DO W Chemica l 8 Suppressan t Leve l ( % Resin ) ( 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5
0.0128915662 7 0.0018493230 6 0.8471510269 2

4 2 Styren e Emission s 

## [% resi n wt ) 0.0 % 2.9 % 2.7 % 3.1 % 3.6 % 100.0 % Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 8.7 % 8.1 % 7.0 % 7.4 % 100.0 % Dat a

Sourc e Cod e 2 2 2 2



# 9 ^P.9 8

Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea r Regressio n fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n 

### Pat a Legen d

Pu n No , Assume d 

### hJTttouJ—T)

C

12 B 12A 6 1 3 1 4 A 4 B 1 5 9 7 11- 3 RF1-EX P R1 0 1 ( & 10 ) 1 0 1 4 1 6 11 A 11 B 3 A 2 3 B 5 8 12- 2 12- 1 I g femal e I g femal e I g mal e Assume d
Constan t St d Er ro f Y E s R Square d Lowe rBoun d

.

CFAPhase l 1 CFAPhase H 2 CF A Fille d 3 NMMA 4
Monome r 

### OK

. < Conten t Dat a I D —(*%Styrene i Assume d

' X 081296 B X 080896

A X 080896 B 121295 A 120895 A 112995A 120895 B 111595 B 112895 A 112995 B 121295 B 120695 A 120495A

022296A V' 120695 B 121495 B 121495 B 120795 A 121195 B 111695 B 111695 A 113095 A 112895 B 120595 B

092596 B ^ X 092596

A 101796 B f * Assume d Regressio n Outpu t
t
No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficients ] St d Er rof Coef 

### /niSS/rWG : 

# DAT A 12059? A

OCoMfHoB 

## 092&9& A 0

.

33. 8 33. 8 33. 8 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 35. 1 38.3 3 38.3 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 42. 2 42. 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 100. 0

0.0067 7 0.0015 1 Uppe rBoun d

.

RT I Unfille d 5 RT I Fille d 6 RTI/NMM A 7 DO W Chemica l 8 Styren e Emission s Styren e

Emission s ( % resi n wt ) (

% monomer

) .0,0 % 7.9 % 8.3 % 8.4 % 5.6 % 6.3 % 6.4 % 6.5 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 6.9 % 7.2 % 8.0 % 8.2 % 18.3 % 6.8 % 10.4 % 9.1 % 9.4 % 10.4 % 10.7 % 12.1 % 12.8 % 13.0 % 13.9 % 14.2 % 15.0 % 16.0 % 16.5 % 23.0 % 12.1 % 12.5 % 13.4 % 100.0 %
-0.1557 5 0.0325 3 0.4006 0 3 2 3 0



# 9 9 0,0 %

23.3 % 24.6 % 25.0 % 16.1 % 18.1 % 18.2 % 18.6 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 19.6 % 20.6 % 22.9 % 23.3 % 52.0 % 17.7 % 27.1 % 21.7 % 22.4 % 24.8 % 25.4 % 28.7 % 30.4 % 31.0 % 33.1 % 33.9 % 35.8 % 38.0 % 39.2 % 54.6 % 27.3 % 28.2 % 30.2 % 100.0 % Data

Source Cod e
2 2 2

4 5 5 2

4 4 2 2 2

• COhTTdOLXJEt)

SPftA MP.9 9



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rMechanica l Resi n Applicatio n wit h Vapo rSuppressio n Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d 

## AL L 

## (

ZVurROlL£T>

J 

# 5?n*y ll ( Assume d

Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA

Dat a I D Assume d

' X081396 B X081396 A X061396 B X080796 A V082796 A V081696 B Assume d .



### 1 2 3 4
Monome r Conten t 

## ( % styrene ) 0

. 33. 8 33. 8 44. 4 44. 4 48. 8 48. 8 100 Regressio n Output :

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0017 5 0.0013 7 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RT I / NMMA DO W Chemica l Suppressan t Leve l ( % Resin ) 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5

-0.0046 4 0.0211 7 0.2882 0 6 4 _ 

### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt t 0,0 % 6.3 % 4.2 % 5.8 % 10.1 % 9.2 % 6.0 % 100,0 % _



### Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0,0 % 18.6 % 12.4 % 13.2 % 22.9 % 18.9 % 12.4 % 100,0 % Data

Sourc e Code 2 2 2 2 2 2



# °i°\P.10 0



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

.

Project No

. N80 1 • Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rMechanica l Resi n Applicatio n wit h Non-Atomize d Applicatio n 

### Dat e Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d 13- 3 14- 1 13- 2 14- 3 13- 1 13- 2 13- 1 14- 2 14- 1 14- 2 R2 4 R1 8 R 4 R 2 R 3 R1 6 9-FC 15- 2 15- 2 15- 1 15- 1 16- 1 16- 1 16- 2 16- 2

Assume d Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d Lowe rBoun d

.

CFAPhase l 1 CFAPhase H 2 CF A Fille d 3 NMMA 4

. 

### Monome r

Conten t Dat a I D (

% Styrene ) Assume d 

### ? ?

022797 A * 022797 B S 022797 C S Assume d Regressio n Outpu t

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. s~-^



## (Mecj O 35TT 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 35. 1 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 38.3 3 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 42. 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 100. 0

0.0018 1 0.0004 3 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A DO W Chemica l
Contro l Equipmen t Iyjjf i Eithe rF C o rPF R Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r P F Rolle r Flo w Coate r P F Rolle r P F Rolle r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r Flo w Coate r P F Rolle r Eithe rF C o rPFR
-0.0234 0 0.0076 2 0.4175 1 2 7 2 5 5

6 7 8 Styren e Emission s 1%resi n wt ) 0.0 % 2.5 % 3.1 % 3.2 % 3.3 % 3.4 % 3.7 % 3.7 % 3.7 % 3.9 % 4.3 % 5.3 % 5.5 % 5.5 % 5.6 % 5.8 % 6.2 % 4.4 % 4.5 % 4.7 % 4.9 % 5.0 % 5.2 % 5.6 % 5.9 % 6.2 % 5.0 % 5.1 % 5.7 % 100.0 % Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 7.1 % 8.8 % 9.0 % 9.3 % 9.6 % 10.5 % 10.5 % 10.7 % 11.1 % 12.1 % 13.9 % 14.2 % 14.5 % 14.6 % 15.2 % 16.3 % 10.4 % 10.6 % 11.2 % 11.6 % 11.9 % 12.2 % 13.2 % 14.0 % 14.8 % 11.4 % 11.6 % 12.9 % 100.0 % Data

Source Cod e
7 7 7 7 7 4 4 7 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 2 2 2



# loor o c n -j* * 

# 5 ^ n n 3 D 3 J 3 -*• r o ^ o i r o ^>_Ut.^'Jm > >

' ' > J ' ' ' ' > 1 >

> ' c o w ^^M^^^^roww-^^i\3co-'i*oo3^roro- ^ C O OIO) C C D Q

. 

## .

7 Q (* >



# * X

ooooo- * c o c o c o c o c o o o -» •-» •o o o > C D C D C D C O C O C O o > O ) c o o > o > o > O J 0 3 > O > >BPO

•I* - o 

### \\\TO0 D 

## o o

4»

. J*

. o o •1*

. o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 

## o o -* o o o o ru C O C O C O CJ > o* > c* > 0 0 > O J tn

tn tz 

### 3 C D C X 

### a D J B > 

### a WZ

- ^ T J T J " " 2* T l = x - T m

&&&&ScO&S££!wCOCOCOCOGaCOCOWWG30WCOCOCO O PPPPPc»£"H 1 y 1 cjicjioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioioiwwG5-*-»
- 

### ououu^ouu*.*._i 1 

### * i 

### - a 

### _ i 1 

### i i 

### i 4 

### - i l 

### iii 1 

### i 1 

### iii 4 

### i 1 

### * i 

### : 0 0 o o o o o > O J C O

C D 

## o 

# S i 3

. o § 3 - ~v 3

= —a . •j * c o r o —* •



## OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o =3-33=]-3-33-3-3-3333333333 3 33333333333333=3-3 3 3 3 3 

### G > cocowcocococowcocwcocowcowwcowcococowcocococo w

•O-OX)*O-0-O-O-O - O , O , O , O"0 , O , O'O"0 , OT3T3T3TJ - O'0'O-0 - O"OTJ"O 1 O , O , 0 - O 1 O T : PO)P)P|U|UP)p)()p)P)D)P)P)|l)|l)|l)|l)P)P>lVS)R)B)|l)D)P'D>'01»fil|U|l-BI9)! B 5 ' 3 * 5 " 3 ' 3 " 3 " 3 ' 3 " 3 ' 3 ' 5 ' 3 ' 5 ' 3 * 3 * Z3 5 " 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 * 3 " 3 * 3 * 5 ' 5 " 3 * 3 * 3 * 5 ' 3 * 3 * 3 * 5 " 3 - C Q CO CQ (QCQCQCQCQCOCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQC Q C/> C O COC O T J T J T J T J
-• » - ^ - ^ - ^ ft) B > 0 > ft>

«<*<•<• < 3 " 3 ' 5 ' 3 ' CQ CO C

O C Q O o

= 3 

### cox 1 j S I ® 

# s o

O 33 

### E o

" o 2

. © 2

. 3 C O 

# I

. i S i f °

S > •• V = > 3 B L « < C O co " 

# b
3 C D < ft*

C D 

### 2 3 =T=

- c

o j £
• w= O

J O J o * < •*" * m C

O c o c * n a . a > a > § 2

3 C D

C D P J D O 

### c 8

~ * C D C O C O o '

3*Z3 3 (J

J C D 

### $ S?~ o

oic^cncnoicn^c*oo><**-><*na>o>CDW'5'5cococ-o^a ^
jp p Ji*" *• * ff^ w * ff^ ff* 1 ff^ ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * 0 s ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 0
* S ff* ** l O l O l -l"*

. -• • N ^ > p > p * p N P* P * P * P * P * p * p * p ff* o * ff* o * o N o * ff* 0 * ff* ff* o * 0 s " e>* - tf* 

### m

O 3 

# fe 3 

# ° c o «*i O J 0 1

C O

•^-'^^l*ororo"*o^>•^•^•^•^•^-*•^-*^^^^-* m ^>^J 1 ^J•-*••- * >jo)u>oao>0)AMC»>pja(n(n^pUAUUUU-*r(n^u^ ^



### ^rrSl^S^SlQco^^fo^-^orocoo o ^^.C0C0CON)CD-vJ^JO->O>'~sia ) ww^^cob*)K3b>^cocnki^"uKJbo»^^co*k.c » .__.... . * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * p * P * P * P * P * P * P <P P* P * P * P * P >

P N P> P *.

P ^ P > P s p p^

P s P .s P % p p^ p ^ p 0 s O * <x

* ff^ ^ ff* ff^ ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ^ * ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* S * P * s •* ? * s ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* o

ff* 

# s • o O J •H t o 

### m 3 <

_ O 3 

### 3 o

3

"5 " < D 

# 2 i

. z 

### S 

## P s 3 ) C D

o C D 

## a

3 o 3 o 

### 3 to 

### m 3 3 > 

# i f

( 0 C O

• o

* < 3 * C O 

### o 2

OJ tn & o O J ••* - O o 

### 3 T 3 O ( A 

### ff ( 0 Z 

### m c o x > T P

MI\)MMMMO1Cn«OiO10)«Cncn^^*JNJ*JNl^>I^A-*J*JNl>J**"Svlvl>l"OMIO0>0 > O Wm O o O © § wC O XCoetdErfficient(rofCoe r*c2 - O Z D

D C OtdErSquo.ofegrerofYEaredObservesofFrstationeedo 

### 3 w 

## oonst,

3 •— * . > C Osumed

J D C D
C D C O 0 01596sumessior - > C

O - U I O

o ooooo-*ooo o OOOOCOCOCOOOOCOOJOJO O -•••ropopo-'-"*o-*--"- o OJCO^Ol^OJ**JOlCOIO- ^ COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O OJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJOJO J ~a.>>>aj>>>>>>>a j TiDDDDDDr^-r^cocoiooirooioioiroioc o ( °*JUwA|f J M-*-'M-'-'-'MMM- '

O O O 

## isfo-i s

- a . -t. —~ C O C O C O O J O J O J 0 0 > o

o o o b o o 0 C O 0 1 ** J C O C O 2SoDoioioioi55^S^^^^^! u wioioioro*o-\>*oiorororoioio 1 ftft- h O J O J O ) O J ^ooooooooo5oo^^^^^^"*i"i"i^ioioiohJioioi\jioio-*oroioior o ro ro ro



### p p 6

—• > C O < o _t v _J J o o ro o j c o O J r i OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 3333333333333333 3 COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O TJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJ-OT3-OT3T J

— » «- ^

- ^ - ^ —pp-^p"^-"i-^-^-^"^^-n"p'— * ^ 0)0)0)ft)ftJft)0J0)p-*JftJftJ0)0)P)0J0JD J •<»<'<«< , <»< , <»<*<*< , <"<'<*<"<"<* < 3 " 3 " 5 ' 3 " 5 " 5 " 3 ' 5 ' 3 ' 5 " 3 " 3 * 3 ' 3 * 3 " 3 * 3 - CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQC Q OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 O 3 0 3 COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O T J T J

-*•* ! O J • < 3 • ^ 0 >

• < 3 • 0

— r 0 ) *• < 3 C Q C O C Q T3TJ-OT3T3TJT3TJTJTJTJTJTJT J

- 1 0 >

- < 3 0 ) * < 3 C O C Q ft) « < 3 CO " • 1 ft) « < 3 ft) > < 3 ft) * < 3 ft) « < 3 ft) * < 3 0 ) * < 3 ft) « < 3 ft) < < 3 ft) * < 3 CQCQCQCQCQCQCQCQC Q - n ft) * < 3 —**

I ft) * < 3 co c a

OoiroooPpocoooPr^Pioofopoj^PPPpopopowp^HPP 1 ^ ^ ^ •mo.kM M *Jub o w

- l MM* 0 iub"^ ffi ^»^roc»ikNlM(Dro.|itO M Onnon*P*Pnno*£*P*Poo*P*Poo*P*P*P*P*P*P*P*P*P*P*P*P*P*P* P ^*^*jS**S**Sff*ff***5*5S*^ff*ff*ff**^**Sff*^**5*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ff*ff *

"iu^)Ml ^)-»lo^)|oM-'-'W"o*olouu^)M|o^3MM*o^^^-^-»-'-»- ' §-"•0 1 -« •W p>ip^iUIO^UCOUMpCOUUI*OlOOOOO(OOS>vlO>U1N|vJ* J xb*Jcnb-^Acnbbiubbbibbo>uK)boowt»cnA u -* x * P * P * P * P * P * P *P.* P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P * P ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* 0 * ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* o

roMcococowi\>"o*oi*o*oi\joioioicn-*j*si^^^^^^>*j*g^«*j^**iioi*oi* o

h oP. 3



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

.

Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforced Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rFilamen t Windin g 

## Pata Ugen d

Ru n No

. Assume d 1 9 1 6 1 4 1 3 2 6 1 9 7 1 8 Assume d
Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMM A

Dat a I D Assume d

Assume d ,



### 1 2 3 4



### £

Regressio n Outpu t

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. Monome r Conten t Vo Styrene) Q 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 100. 0

0.0027 6 0.0005 8 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RT I / NMM A DO W Chemica l Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt

) 0.0 % 4.9 % 5.9 % 6.3 % 7.2 % 8.3 % 8.6 % 10.3 % 10.3 % 11.8 % 12.0 % 100.0 %
-0.0303 7 0.0135 6 0.7366 7 1 0 8 . 

### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s ( % monomer

t 0,0 % 14.9 % 17.9 % 19.1 % 21.8 % 17.4 % 17.9 % 21.4 % 21.4 % 24.5 % 24.9 % 100.0 % Data

Sourc e Cod e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8



# 103P. 4



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composites NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rFilamen t Windin g wit h Vapo rSuppressio n Dat a Legen d Lowe rBoun d

. Uppe rBoun d

.

CF A Phas e I 1 RT I Unfille d 5 CF A Phas e I I 2 RT I Fille d 6 CF A Fille d 3 RTI/NMM A 7

Ru n No

. Assume d 2 0 1 7 1 0 4 5 3 1 2 8 1 5 1 1 Assume d
Constan t St d Er rof Y Est R Square d NMM A

Dat a I D Assume d

Assume d 4
Monome r

Conten t ( % Styrene ) 

## 0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 100 Regressio n Output :

No

. of Observation s Degree s of Freedo m X Coef f icient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0004 8 0.0003 7 DO

W Chemica l Suppressan t Leve l ( % Resin ) 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5 1. 5
0.0271 6 0.0087 1 0.1759 9 1 0 8 8 Styren e

Emission s ( % resi n wt i 0.0 % 3.7 % 3.7 % 3.9 % 4.8 % 5.4% 4.0 % 4.6 % 4.9 % 5.0 % 6.6 % 100,0 % Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 11.2 % 11.2 % 11.8 % 14.4 % 16.5 % 8.4% 9.6 % 10.3 % 10.3 % 13.8 % 100.0 % Dat a

Sourc e Cod e
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8



# 104-P. 5



### Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

.

Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea rRegressio n fo rGe l Coa t Applicatio n Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d I g femal e 5 4 B 6 12 B 12A 1 3 4A 1 5 7 I g mal e 1 9 P 6 P1 1 P1 2 P 2 P 4 P 8 GF1-EX P 2 5 1 6 1 0 1 (&14 ) 3A 1 4 3 B 8 11 A 11 B Assume d
Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d Lowe rBoun d

.

CF A Phas e I 1 CF A Phas e I I 2 CF A Fille d 3 NMMA 4



## OK Dat a I D — • I Assume d 091796 A V 091796 B \A101695 A 101395 B 102395 B 101995 A 101995 B 101295 B 102495 A 101695 C 101596Af * 101195 A 101795 B

101195 B 101395 A 102495 B 101895A 030596 A 101295 A 101995 C 101695 B 101795 A 101895 B 102395 B Assume d Monome r

Content [ % Styrene

) 

## 0 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 35 3 5 3 5 3 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.75 38.7 5 38.7 5 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 100. 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. of Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0132 8 0.0022 2 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A DO W Chemica l Styren e Emission s ( % resi n wt) 0-0 % 13.0 % 13.8 % 14.6 % 15.2 % 15.7 % 15.9 % 15.9 % 15.9 % 17.5 % 17.7 % 18.5 % 18.8 % 20.3 % 23.0 % 23.1 % 23.2 % 23.7 % 25.4 % 27.0 % 29.1 % 18.3 % 19.6 % 20.5 % 21.0 % 21.1 % 21.3 % 22.4 % 23.2 % 24.3 % 24.7 % 24.8 % 100.0 %
-0.2968 0 0.0281 1 0.5524 9 3 1 2 9 .



### 5 6 7 8 Styren e Emission s ( % monomer

) 

## M % 37.4 % 39.8 % 41.7 % 43.4 % 44.9 % 45.4 % 45.4 % 45.4 % 50.0 % 50.6 % 52.8 % 53.7 % 58.0 % 59.3 % 59.5 % 60.0 % 61.2 % 65.7 % 69.6 % 75.2 % 45.8 % 49.0 % 51.3 % 52.5 % 52.8 % 53.3 % 56.0 % 58.0 % 60.8 % 61.8 % 62.0 % 100.0 % Data

Source Cod e
2 2

2

5 5 5 5 5 5 5



# 105>

C O C O e 

### 3 C D C X \ ^ 

# \2 v

I O > C O I C O " S >

_ L_i

. C Q —C O >t30co^cnco*g-^iocoo)-- i *ooic*o 00l -^^roioro- l ( i 5 io-oi o —-*-»3^-*«oo*'4^-*jcoo)io 3 WC D = - C D

C D Q 3 1 c



### I » I 

# fss g

I 

# B
s r r ( D 3 

### a

I I I /
Q% 0 tj*o o •Ov O •€"*$* » > > i r 62

. * < CO

. C O 

# b
3 C D

< • 0 ) C O C O c 

### 3 C D c x 

### o D ) 3 " 

# b 2>-o-o TM C D

_

=? = 0) p i o c

o o >C D g C

O S ^ ° C X C D C D 3 ^ Q

——Q

. C D C D

cococococococococococococococ o rororoiotoioroioi o ^^^cocncococooooocDCspoapjcopspouuuuuuuuuco u O O O * i L i '* i L r L i L i * i L i L i * i L i * i * i * i * i * J * J v l * J - J » J * J * J * J * J * J » J O l CJ I r. i r. » r o r. i r. » r. » r. i r. i r.1 o o o U U U U U U U U U J U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U {jj {jj ( £ (j j £ £ ^ J {^ J y j £ J {^ J { £ £ J £j j £ £ UT I W l W l UT I W l UT I W l W l W l ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Cflcococococococowc o oioioioioioioiuioicncnoioicno i oioioioioioioioio i , —w Z3

= —C X

* » C O I O s * CO <?

" t CD 

# i f

3 3 2

. C D

* — 

# o £-"* » K i 

### OQOOOOOOOOOOOOQQOOOOOQOQQOOQ Q oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o 3333333333333333333333333333 3 w-+ i-+ *+ •— • #-* • i-+

»- ^ ^ * ^ + r- * r+ 0-* ^ * r * ^ * r- * ^ + *•"# •^ * *• • .p* * *•• • ^ * ^ * ^ * .p* * »• * .p* * j-***
- c o c o wc o c o <*

o c o c o c o c o <

wto c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o TJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT J ft)ft)ft)ft)0)ft)D)ft)ft)0)P)OJO)OJOJO)OJDJD)D)0)0)OJO)0)OJO)0)ft) *<«<»<'<*<»<*<«<»<«<«<*<«<»<«<^«<«<«<»<«<«<«<«<»<*<»<«<« < 3333333333333333333333333333 3 C O C O C O C O C Q C O C Q tOCQCQCQCOCQCQCQCOCQCOCOCQCQCQCOCQCQCOCQCQC Q 

## OOOOOOOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOO ' ~ " 3 3 3 o

3 O

3 3 3 3 O

3 C O C O C O C O C O COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOC O

3 " 3 ' 5 ' 3 ' 5 " 3 " 3 ' 5 " 3 " 3 ' 5 " 3 " 3 ' 3 ' COCOCOCOCQCQCQCQCOCOCQCOCQC Q

•^-••-^-'lo.vuioioioioioioMioiorara^-^ioioioMM- ^ §•o'olooolo*o"oro^^T i ^7'pppppppppppppp^pppl^ool^^^wpwlolo" R "**i^bicococ»woiOJcDcj*wb)ikMKjbj^J^coc » ff* ff* ff* o * o*<""*ff*ff*ff*ff*p^ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*p^ff*ff*0*ff*ff*0 * O * ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*ff*<J*o o 0 * 

# ?3 S 

# 11 1 W\ 

### ° 2

- ^ - ^ n 

# I

*^uuuc»cnuioicnuu(jiwuoioi(noiA*vi »o^^^O<DCD(»COSOlCnAU|ONMOlDi O)O)A*W- - OS(flU"O-'^ 0 o * s o * 

### <ONiuroro«)roo<j)AM(o- » .^ p P^ P* p * P * P * P * P * P * p *p * P * P * p O * ff* O * ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* o * ff^ •*jro-^cj)ro*.^corol cocT)^ o ff*ff*ff*ff*o*e*ff*e*ff*ff*ff*e*ff*o*ff* •&.COOJOOJOOJOOO ) * p * p * p * p * p * p * p * p *p ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ff* ** l I O C O O ) S * P * P * P * P iJ * ff* 0 * ff* 0 * w ( 0

m 

# if
I D ( A 3 o 3 O 

### 3 

# Ii i 

# I f

C D 2 = - a o 

## i

. s a i ? |

0 0 ** l O J O l 3 C D

3 C D 0 >

- u c S

•- % C D C O C O O ' 3 

## S
. o 2
. o 

## g o 

# 2 1

•C D CD D ) O C D


### o . S

Q cp

_ O o

= S B 

## o u
3 " 

# I S
2

. o C D 3 O

. CO T J 3

. CO O

J s r ( A 5 c to o " O o 

### 3

• o o C£

_ vS C O C O

> T O

'OlOloolOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlOlcnolOlCn^^v|^-*J-g•*J*^l^^^^^^loolOlOlOlOlcnolOlO l O c 0 ) Q. —i r* O Q 0 J C DP. 7



### Regressio n Output : Constan t 0.0264 7 St d Er ro f Y Est 0.0323 2 R Square d 0.3543 5 No

. o f Observation s 4 1 Degree s o f Freedo m 3 9
X Coefficient(s ) 0.0043 7 St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.0009 4



# ioiP. 8

U 

# Derivatio n o

f Power " La w Emissio n Model s

\09>

# Powe r La wModel s
PE S Powe rModel s Manua l BE F Manua l V S Mec h BE F Mec h VS Mec h Non A MechC S Fil a BE F Fil a V S Gelcoa t BE F Gelcoa t C S



# o "

- 0 CF A Powe rModel s Manua l BE F Manua l V S Mec h BE F Mec h V S Mec h Non A MechC S Fil a BE F Fil a V S Gelcoa t BE F Gelcoa t C S Dat a point s 2 6 4 3 2 6 2 7 7 3 1 0 1 0 3 1 4 1

Dat a point s 2 6

2 6

1 0

2 1 R 2



### 0.50 5

0.50 3

0.76 8

0.58 8

R 2 

### 0.50 5

0.78 2

0.77 1

0.66 5 PE S Powe rRegressio n Equation s

0.340 7 %styrene 1



### - 903 5



### 1.178 7 %styrene 2593 4 

### Comment s

0.279 9 %styren e
2.517 0 %styren e 1.386 5

2.593 0



### CF A Powe rRegressio n Equation s 0.341 2 %styrene 1



### - 904 9



### 1.476 2 %styrene 2



### - 922 0

1.379 3 

### 0.278 1 %styren e
1.391 3 %styrene 2021 5 

### Comment s Sam e a s PE S (roundin g error )

Sam e a s PE S (roundin g error )

C O

# PE S "Supe r Set " Powe r La wModel s Baselin e Emissio n Factor s



## O 7 0 %

6 0 %

c 'co 5 0 %

•^40 % C O t r g "c o c o
' E U J c u c O J i — > •

. 

## 5 5 3 0 %

•^20%

-

10 %

0 % Manua l BE F
-O

Mec h BE F

Fil a BE F

Gelcoa t BE F



### 20 % 25 % 30 % 35 % 40 % 45 % 50 % 55 % 60 % Monome rConten t ( % styrene )

# CF A Powe r La

wModel s Baselin e Emissio n Factor s

c 'tn

c o c r g 'c o c o
' E L U O J 1 = O J l

_ >*
. U)

20 % 25 % l\J / o

D U / o



### 50%

-

40%

-

ono / oUv o

ono / d\J7o



### 10%

-

0%- i 

# v^ ° Manua l BE F

Mec h BE F

Fil a BE F

Gelcoa t BE F



### 30 % 35 % 40 % 45 % 50 % Monome rConten t (% styrene ) 55 % 60 %P.1 2

Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Project No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea r Regressio n fo r Manua l Resi n Applicatio n • Bucke t & Brus h
Data Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d
12 A 6 12 B 4 A 1 3 4 B 9 7 1 1 5 2 1 6 8 1 0 1 4 3 A 3 B 5 11 A 11 B

Assume d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA

Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefticient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. Dat a ID Assume d 060596 A 092895 C 092695 A 100295 A 100395 A 092995 A 092695 A 092795 C 092795 A 100295 B 091995 A 100295 C 091995 B 092795 B 092895 A 092995 B 092095 A 092695 B 092595 A 092895 B 092995 C 080196 A 052996 A 052996 B 053096 B 060396 B Assume d Regressio n Outpu t

Monome r Conten t •* % Stvrene ) Q. 33. 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 48. 8 100. 0 Uppe r Boun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A DO W Chemica l Styren e Emission s ( % resin wt i 00 % 4.6 % 3.4 % 3.6 % 3.6 % 4.2 % 4.2 % 4.6 % 5.0 % 5.3 % 6.2 % 6.3 % 4.9 % 4.9 % 5.7 % 6.0 % 7.1 % 7.2 % 7.6 % 8.1 % 8.9 % 8.9 % 4.9 % 6.6 % 7.2 % 8.4 % 9.3 % 100.0 %
-0.05283180422 3 0.01277508960 1 0.50350961387 3

2 6 2 4 5 6 7 8 Styren e Data Emission s Source ( % monomer

) Cod e 0.0 % 13.8 % 2 9.6 % 10.1 % 10.1 % 11.7 % 11.9 % 13.1 % 14.0 % 14.7 % 17.7 % 17.6 % 11.7 % 11.5 % 13.5 % 14.3 % 17.1' % 16.7 % 17.7 % 19.2 % 21.2 % 21.0 % 11.0 % 2 15.0 % 2 16.1 % 2 18.8 % 2 19.0 % 2 100.0 % LOG1 0

Monome r Conten t ( % Styrene ) -0.47 9 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.35 3 -0.35 3 -0.35 3 -0.35 3 -0.31 2 LOG1 0

Styren e Emission s (% monomer

t
-1.33 7 -1.46 9 -1.44 4 -1.44 4 -1.37 7 -1.37 7 -1.33 7 -1.30 1 -1.27 6 -1.20 8 -1.20 1 -1.31 0 -1.31 0 -1.24 4 -1.22 2 -1.14 9 -1.14 3 -1.11 9 -1.09 2 -1.05 1 -1.05 1 -1.31 0 -1.18 0 -1.14 3 -1.07 6 -1.03 2

0.00285608 7 0.00057891 8 POWE R Regressio n Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coef f icient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. Output :

1.90345675 8 0.38449309 3 Lo g AA

-0.4676503598 2 0.340682354 6 0.09345588201 9 0.50523686705 6

2 6 2 4

Y = 0.3407 X 1

-9035



# n-2

_P.1 3

Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Project No

. N80 1 • Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea r Regressio n fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d

12 B 12A 6 1 3 1 4 A 4 B 1 5 9 7 11- 3 RF1-EX P R1 0 1 (&10 ) 1 0 1 4 1 6 11 A 11 B 3 A 2 3 B 5 8 12- 2 12- 1 I g femal e I g femal e I g mal e Assume d Lowe rBoun d

.

CF A Phas e I 1 CF A Phas e I I 2 CF A Fille d 3 NMMA 4

Dat a I P Assume d 081296 B 080896A 080896 B 121295A 120895A 112995A 120895 B 111595 B 112895A 112995 B 121295 B 120695A 120495A

022296A 120695 B 121495 B 121495 B 120795A 121195 B 111695 B 111695A 113095A 112895 B 120595 B Uppe rBoun d

. RT I Unfille d 5 RT I Fille d 6 RT I / NMMA 7 DO W Chemica l 8

Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 092596 B

092596A 101796 B Assume d Regressio n Output :

Monome r Conten t 1% Stvrene) 

## a 33. 8 33. 8 33. 8 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 35. 1 38.3 3 38.3 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 42. 2 42. 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 100. 0 Styren e

Emission s .* % resin wt ) 0.0 % 7.9 % 8.3 % 8.4% 5.6 % 6.3 % 6.4% 6.5 % 6.6 % 6.7 % 6.9 % 7.2 % 8.0 % 8.2 % 18.3 % 6.8 % 10.4 %

. 9.1 % 9.4 % 10.4 % 10.7 % 12.1 % 12.8 % 13.0 % 13.9 % 14.2 % 15.0 % 16.0 % 16.5 % 23.0 % 12.1 % 12.5 % 13.4 % 100.0 % -0.155753985 5 0.0325316090 8 0.4006025402 7

3 2 3 0 Styren e Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 23.3 % 24.6 % 25.0 % 16.1 % 18.1 % 18.2 % 18.6 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 19.6 % 20.6 % 22.9 % 23.3 % 52.0 % 17.7 % 27.1 % 21.7 % 22.4 % 24.8 % 25.4 % 28.7 % 30.4 % 31.0 % 33.1 % 33.9 % 35.8 % 38.0 % 39.2 % 54.6 % 27.3 % 28.2 % 30.2 % 100.0 % Dat a

Source Cod e 2 2 2

4 5 5 2

4 4 2 2 2 LOGi o LOGi o Monome r Styren e Conten t Emission s ( % Styrene ) (

% monome r
-0.47 1 -0.47 1 •0.47 1 -0.45 6 •0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 5 -0.41 6 -0.416 -0.37 7 •0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 7 -0.37 5 -0.37 5 -0.35 3 -0.35 3 -0.35 3 -1.10 2

-1.08 1 -1.07 6 -1.25 2 -1.20 1 -1.19 4 -1.18 7 -1.18 0 -1.17 4 -1.16 1 -1.14 3 -1.09 7 -1.08 6 -0.73 9 -1.16 7 -0.98 4 -1.04 1 -1.02 7 -0.98 3 -0.97 1 -0.91 7 -0.89 3 -0.88 6 -0.85 7 -0.84 8 -0.82 4 -0.79 6 -0.78 1 -0.63 8 -0.91 7 -0.90 3 -0.87 3

0.00676737 9 0.00151133 4

POWE R Regressio n Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. Output :

2.59340564 7 0.47074725 4 Lo g A A

0.0714172961 8 1.178738031 7 0.1139969911 7 0.5029035606 1

3 2 3 0
Y = 1.1787 X 2583 4 

# II 3P. M

Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea r Regressio n fo r Filamen t Windin g Data Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d 1 9 1 6 1 4 1 3 2 6 1 9 7 1 8 Assume d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA

Data I D Assume d

Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. Assume d Regressio n Output :

Monome r Conten t 1% Styrene ) 

## fl 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 100. 0 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d RT I Fille d RTI/NMM A 5

6 7 DO W Chemica l 8 Styren e Emission s (% resin wt ) 0.0 % 4.9 % 5.9 % 6.3 % 7.2 % 8.3 % 8.6 % 10.3 % 10.3 % 11.8 % 12.0 % 100.0 %
-0.0303666666 7 0.0135627400 1 0.7366717963 4 1 0 8 Styren e

Emission s ( % monomer

) 0.0 % 14.9 % 17.9 % 19.1 % 21.8 % 17.4 % 17.9 % 21.4 % 21.4 % 24.5 % 24.9 % 100.0 % Dat a

Source Cod e 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 LOGi o Monome r Conten t LOGi o

Styren e Emission s ( % Styrene ) f%monomer i
-0.48 1 -0.48 1 -0.48 1 -0.48 1 -0.31 9 -0.31 9 -0.31 9 -0.31 9 -0.31 9 -0.31 9 -1.31 0

-1.22 9 -1.20 1 -1.14 3 -1.08 1 -1.06 6 -0.98 7 -0.98 7 -0.92 8 -0.92 1

0.00276111 1 0.00058364 7

POWE R Regressio n Output : Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m -0.5529872456 4 0.0679645438 5 0.7677728169 6 1 0 8 0.279906352 1

X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 1.38650425 3 0.26959781 8 Y = 0.2799

X" 86 5



# U4
-Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Project No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysis : On e Variabl e (Styrene ) Linea r Regressio n fo r Ge l Coa t Applicatio n P.1 5

Dat a Legen d

Ru n No

. Assume d I g femal e 5 4 B 6 12 B 12 A 1 3 4 A 1 5 7 I g mal e 1 9 P 6 P1 1 P1 2 P2 P 4 P 8 GF1-EX P 2 5 1 6 1 0 1 (&14 ) 3 A 1 4 3 B 8 11 A 11 B Assume d
Constan t St d Er ro f Y Est R Square d Lowe rBoun d

CF A Phas e I CF A Phas e I I CF A Fille d NMMA

Data I D Assume d 091796A 091796 B 101695A 101395 B 102395 B 101995A 101995 B 101295 B 102495A 101695 C 101596A 101195A 101795 B

101195 B 101395A 102495 B 101895A 030596A 101295A 101995 C 101695 B 101795A 101895 B 102395 B 1

2 3 4
Monome r Conten t (% Styrene ) 

### fl 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 38.7 5 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 Assume d 100. 0 Regressio n Output :

No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 0.01327839 2 0.002219132 5 Uppe rBoun d

RT I Unfille d 5 RT I Fille d 6 RT I / NMM A 7 DO W Chemica l 8 Styren e Emission s Styren e

Emission s (%resin wt ) i*

% monomer

) 0.0 % 13.0 % 13.8 % 14.6 % 15.2 % 15.7 % 15.9 % 15.9 % 15.9 % 17.5 % 17.7 % 18.5 % 18.8 % 20.3 % 23.0 % 23.1 % 23.2 % 23.7 % 25.4 % 27.0 % 29.1 % 18.3 % 19.6 % 20.5 % 21.0 % 21.1 % 21.3 % 22.4 % 23.2 % 24.3 % 24.7 % 24.8 % 100.0 %
-0.296804020 1 0.02811246536 2 0.5524927428 5

3 1 2 9 0.0 % 37.4 % 39.8 % 41.7 % 43.4 % 44.9 % 45.4 % 45.4 % 45.4 % 50.0 % 50.6 % 52.8 % 53.7 % 58.0 % 59.3 % 59.5 % 60.0 % 61.2 % 65.7 % 69.6 % 75.2 % 45.8 % 49.0 % 51.3 % 52.5 % 52.8 % 53.3 % 56.0 % 58.0 % 60.8 % 61.8 % 62.0 % 100.0 % Data

Source Cod e 2 2

2

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 LOGi o Monome r Conten t i- % Styrene)
-0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 •0.45 6 -0.45 6 •0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.45 6 -0.41 2 -0.41 2 -0.41 2 -0.41 2 -0.41 2 -0.41 2 -0.41 2 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 •0.39 8 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 -0.39 8 LOGi o

Styren e Emission s ( % monomer )
-0.88 6 -0.86 0 -0.83 6 -0.81 8 -0.80 4 -0.79 9 -0.79 9 -0.79 9 -0.75 7 -0.75 2 -0.73 3 -0.72 6 -0.69 3 -0.63 9 -0.63 7 -0.63 4 -0.62 5 -0.59 4 -0.56 9 -0.53 6 -0.73 8 -0.70 8 -0.68 8 •0.67 8 -0.67 6 -0.67 2 -0.65 0 -0.63 5 -0.61 4 -0.60 7 -0.60 6

POWE R Regressio n Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o

f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) - St d Er ro f Coef

. Output :

2.592965679 1 0.402887179 1 Lo g AA

0.40089152594 5 2.5170481642 5 0.05937845273 1 0.58819440402 4

3 1 2 9

Y = 2.5170 X" 93 0 

# \\5

## Engineerin g Environmenta l
Powe rLa w Regressio n - CF A Manua l (Hand ) Mode l

^ No

.

1 2 3 A 3 B 4 A 4 B 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 A 11 B 12 A 12 B 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 I D

100295 B 100295 C 092095 A 092695 B 100395 A 092695 C 092595 A 092695 A 092795 A 092795 B 092795 C 092895 A 092895 B 092995 C 092895 C 100295 A 092995 A 092995 B 091995 A 091995 B 052996 B 080196 A 060596 A 052996 A 053096 B 060396 B (in. )

0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.04 1 0.04 1 0.08 8 0.17 6 0.12 0 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.08 8 0.08 8 (%

) 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 33. 2 44. 4 44. 4 48. 8 (min. )

3 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 1 5 (fpm )

10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 (%

) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( % resi n wt ) 6.2 % 4.9 % 7.2 % 7.6 % 4.2 % 4.6 % 8.1 % 3.6 % 5.3 % 5.7 % 5.0 % 6.0 % 8.9 % 8.9 % 3.4 % 3.6 % 4.2 % 7.1 % 6.3 % 4.9 % 7.2 % 4.9 % 4.6 % 6.6 % 8.4 % 9.3 % ( % styrene)

17.7 % 11.7 % 16.7 % 17.7 % 11.7 % 13.1 % 19.2 % 10.1 % 14.7 % 13.5 % 14.0 % 14.3 % 21.2 % 21.0 % 9.6 % 10.1 % 11.9 % 17.1 % 17.6 % 11.5 % 16.1 % 11.0 % 13.8 % 15.0 % 18.8 % 19.0 % Logi o

Conten t -0.4559 3 -0.3767 5 -0.3767 5 -0.3767 5 -0.4559 3 -0.4559 3 -0.3767 5 -0.4559 3 -0.4559 3 -0.3767 5 -0.4559 3 -0.3767 5 -0.3767 5 -0.3767 5 -0.4559 3 -0.4559 3 -0.4559 3 -0.3767 5 -0.4559 3 -0.3767 5 -0.3526 2 -0.3526 2 -0.4788 6 -0.3531 1 -0.3531 1 -0.3115 8 Logi o

Emission s -1.2076083 1 -1.3098039 2 -1.142667 5 -1.1191864 1 -1.3767507 1 -1.3372421 7 -1.0915149 8 -1.443697 5 -1.2757241 3 -1.2441251 4 -1.3010 3 -1.2218487 5 -1.0506099 9 -1.0506099 9 -1.4685210 8 -1.443697 5 -1.3767507 1 -1.1487416 5 -1.2006594 5 -1.3098039 2 -1.142667 5 -1.3098039 2 -1.3372421 7 -1.1804560 6 -1.0757207 1 -1.0315170 5

Monome ronl y - emission s as % resi n

Regressio n Output : Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m 

### -0.0529 2 0.012776 1 0.503431 3 2 6 2 4
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 

### 0.002858 7 0.000579 5
Emission

Factor = 0.286 x %styrene

- 0.0529 Monome ronl y - emission s a s % resi n POWE R Regressio n Output : Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d No

. of Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) 1.904915 9 St d Er rof Coef

. 0.3848633 1 -0.4669 9 0.34120 2 0.09346 5 0.50513 9 2 6 2 4

Emission

Factors

0.3412 %stvrene 19049

## Engineerin g Environmenta l

• ^ Ru n

No

. 1 2 3 A 3 B 4 A 4 B 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 A 11 B 12 A 12 B 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 (&10 ) I g femal e I g mal e thic k la m I g femal e Dat a

I D 111595 B 111695 A 111695 B 113095 A 112895 A 112995 B 112895 B 112995 A 120495 A 120595 B 120695 A 120695 B 120795 A 121195 B 120895 A 121295 A 120895 B 121495 B 121295 B 121495 A 022296 A 092596 B 101796 B 061296 B 092696 A 120595 A 

### Powe rLa w Regressio n - CF A Revise d Mechanica l Mode l Laminat e Styren e Ge l Resi n Ai r Styren e Styren e Thicknes s (in. ) 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.08 0 0.08 0

0.18 7
0.08 0 Conten t

(% ) 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 2 3 5 4 2 4 2 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 44. 4 Tim e

(min. ) 3 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 3 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 1 5 3 0 Ro w

(Ib/min ) 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 Flo

w (fpm ) 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 100 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 Emission s ( % resi n wt ) 6.6 % 13.9 % 13.0 % 14.2 % 6.7 % 6.9 % 15.0 % 6.4 % 8.2 % 16.0 % 8.0 % 9.4 % 12.1 % 12.8 % 6.3 % 5.6 % 6.5 % 10.4 % 7.2 % 10.7 % 9.1 % 12.1 % 13.4 % 10.6 % 12.5 % 16.0 % Emission s

( % monomer) 18.8 % 33.1 % 31.0 % 33.9 % 19.0 % 19.6 % 35.8 % 18.2 % 23.3 % 38.0 % 22.9 % 22.4 % 28.7 % 30.4 % 18.1 % 16.1 % 18.6 % 24.8 % 20.6 % 25.4 % 21.7 % 27.3 % 30.2 % 23.9 % Logi o

Conten t
-0.455 9 -0.376 8 -0.376 8 -0.376 8 -0.455 9 -0.455 9 -0.376 8 -0.455 9 -0.455 9 -0.376 8 -0.455 9 -0.376 8 -0.376 8 -0.376 8 -0.455 9 -0.455 9 -0.455 9 -0.376 8 -0.455 9 -0.376 8 -0.376 8 -0.352 6 -0.352 6 -0.352 6 -0.352 6 -0.352 6 Logi o

Emission s -1.1817 7 -0.8569 2 -0.8853 9 -0.8465 5 -1.1771 8 -1.1636 8 -0.8228 7 -1.1958 6 -1.0885 8 -0.7969 7 -1.096 1 -1.026 5 -0.9188 7 -0.8938 8 -1.1982 5 -1.2491 1 -1.1864 2 -0.982 3 -1.1420 6 -0.9719 2 -1.0409 6 -0.9172 1 -0.872 9 -0.9746 9 -0.9030 9 -0.7958 8 Regressio n Output : Constan t -0.1802 3 St d Er ro f Y Es t 0.0181 8 R Square d 0.7144 7 No

. o f Observation s 2 6 Degree s o f Freedo m 2 4

X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 

### 0.0071 4

0.0009 2

Emissions

(%resin)

= 0.714 x %styrene

- 0.180 POWE R Regressio n Output :

Constan t 0.1691 5 St d Er ro f Y Es t 0.0692 7 R Square d 0.7816 7 No

. o f Obsen/ation s 2 6 Degree s o f Freedo m 2 4
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 2.922018 5

0.315227 3 1.47621 4

Emission

Factor (%resin)

= 1.4762 %styrene*

J > 220

# Engineerin g Environmenta l

Powe rLa w Regressio n - CF A Filamen t Windin g Mode l



### c Q Ru n '

9 7 1 6 1 3 1 4 6 19 2 1 8 1 Filamen t Windin g test s %St y 3 3 4 8 3 3 4 8 3 3 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 3 3 Sup p

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tem p

8 5 7 3 8 5 7 3 7 3 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 7 3 Siz e

6 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 6 Emission s Base d o n % Resi n 5. 9 11. 8 6. 3 8. 3 7. 2 10. 3 10. 3 8. 6 12. 0 4. 9 Emission s

Base d o n Emission s

Base d o n % Resi n w

t % Styren e 5.90 % 11.77 % 6.29 % 8.34 % 7.21 % 10.28 % 10.28 % 8.58 % 11.96 % 4.93 % 17.9 %

24.5 % 19.1 % 17.4 % 21.8 % 21.4 % 21.4 % 17.9 % 24.9 % 14.9 % Logi o Conten t
-0.4814 9 -0.3187 6 -0.4814 9 -0.3187 6 -0.4814 9 -0.3187 6 -0.3187 6 -0.3187 6 -0.3187 6 -0.4814 9 Logi o

Emission s -1.2291 5 -0.9292 2 -1.2013 5 -1.0788 3 -1.1420 6 -0.9880 1 -0.9880 1 -1.0665 1 -0.9222 7 -1.3071 5
Regressio n Output : Constan t -0.029 8 St d Er ro f Y Est 0.01338 6 R Square d 0.73963 2 No

. o f Observation s 1 0 Degree s o f Freedo m 8
X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 0.00274 6

0.00057 6
Emission

Factor (% resin) = 0.275 x %styrene

- 0.0298 POWE R Regressio n Output :

Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er ro f Coef

. 1.3793218976 2

0.2659348353 3


### Emission

Factor (% resin) = -0.555 8 0.27809 6 0.06704 1 0.77078 5 1 0 8

0.2781 %styrene 137S3

# Engineerin g Environmenta l
Powe r La

wRegressio n - CF A Gelcoa t Mode l

Run # 1 2 3 A 3 B 4 A 4 B 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 A 11 B 12A 12 B 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 ( & 14 ) I D

101195 A 101195 B 101295 A 101695 B 101295 B 101695 A 101395 A 101395 B 101695 C 101795 A 101795 B 101895 A 101895 B 102395 A 101995 A 102395 B 101995 B 101995 C 102495 A 102495 B 030596 A (in. )

0.01 8 0.02 4 0.01 8 0.01 8 0.02 4 0.02 4 0.02 4 0.02 4 0.01 8 0.01 8 0.01 8 0.02 4 0.01 8 0.01 8 0.02 4 0.02 4 0.02 4 0.01 8 0.01 8 0.02 4 0.01 8 (%

) 3 5 4 0 4 0 4 0 3 5 3 5 4 0 3 5 3 5 4 0 3 5 4 0 4 0 4 0 3 5 3 5 3 5 4 0 3 5 4 0 4 0 (min. )

2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 (Ib/min )

4 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 4 (fpm )

10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 (% resi n wt )

18.8 % 18.3 % 21.3 % 23.2 % 15.9 % 14.6 % 19.6 % 15.2 % 17.7 % 24.3 % 20.3 % 21.0 % 24.7 % 24.8 % 15.9 % 15.7 % 15.9 % 22.4 % 17.5 % 20.5 % 21.1 % (

% styrene ) 53.8 % 45.8 % 53.2 % 57.9 % 45.3 % 41.8 % 49.0 % 43.5 % 50.5 % 60.7 % 58.0 % 52.4 % 61.8 % 62.0 % 45.4 % 44.8 % 45.4 % 56.0 % 49.9 % 51.3 % 52.7 % Logi o

Conten t -0.4559319 6 -0.3979400 1 -0.3979400 1 -0.3979400 1 -0.4559319 6 -0.4559319 6 -0.3979400 1 -0.4559319 6 -0.4559319 6 -0.3979400 1 -0.4559319 6 -0.3979400 1 -0.3979400 1 -0.3979400 1 -0.4559319 6 -0.4559319 6 -0.4559319 6 -0.3979400 1 -0.4559319 6 -0.3979400 1 -0.3979400 1 Logi o

Emission s -0.7251 5 -0.73707 5 -0.67202 8 -0.63526 1 -0.79983 4 -0.83475 6 -0.70774 4 -0.81744 3 -0.75264 1 -0.61475 1 -0.69250 4 -0.67860 9 -0.60695 2 -0.60554 8 -0.79887 6 -0.80465 4 -0.79887 6 -0.64975 2 -0.75783 1 -0.68782 3 -0.67571 8



### Phas e I run s - emission s a

s % resi n weight : Regressio n Output : Constan t St d Er ro f Y Es t R Square d No

. o f Observation s Degree s o f Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 0.0103 6

0.0017 3 -0.195 0

0.019 8 0.653 9 2 1 1 9



### Emission

Factor (% resin) = 1.036 x %styrene

- 0.1950 Phas e I run s - emission s a s % resi n weight :

POWE R Regressio n Output : Constan t 0.14342579 8 1.391316 1 St d Er rof Y Est 0.04368052 6 R Square d 0.66508460 2 No

. o f Observation s 2 1 Degree s of Freedo m X Coefficient(s ) St d Er rof Coef

. 1 9

2.0215345 2 0.3291042 4

Emission

Factor (% resin) = 1.3913 x Vostyrene

2

- 0215P.2 0



# A n Exampl e o

f Piecewis e Constructio n fo r th e Derivatio n o

f Emissio n Model s

\7J0

# Linea r an d Powe r Model s fo r Mechanica l Applicatio n

9 3 

# 25 %

. E 20 % c o 0 )



# ~ 15 %

0 ) 

# | 

# 10 % 

# w <j >
>- 

# 5 5 5 %

0 % 0 % - o • i 

## Lowei\ 8OUWD\ K
\



### ^TRIMJCAT E 

## UPP& BOMO

\



### Tr?c//ocArg


# 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % Styren e Conten t (

% resi n wt ) 50 % 

# on 4 

# fir

Linea rMode l Powe rMode l

h o

# Linea r an d Powe r Model s fo r Mechanica l Applicatio n

-y-t 

# £ c ( 0 < D 

## •^ 5
tn C 

# o tn C O 

# E U J 0 ) 

# c 0

> 

## C O 

# 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 

# 0 % /

- o » • J 

# D/ 

# ?4F r

Linea rMode l Powe rMode l

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %

Styren e Conten t (

% resi n wt )

# Piecewis e Mode l fo r Mechanica l Applicatio n

30 % - 

# f

c

• M M C O 0 

# ^ 20 % -
C O 

## "c o C O

••• • 

# uj 10 % 

# -ene

i a



### U / o 

### ^ 

## 0 C i • 

# / o 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 %

Styren e Conten t ( % resi n wt ) 

# 0 

# *4/ ^

-*

- Linea rPiec e

-• - Powe rPiec e

t 

# 60 %

r oNoncorrosio n - Resistan t Manua l Applicatio n DRAFT 11/5/9 7 p:\n801\dbase\ne w aer\manmec h lin.xl s

Ran k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 DRAFT

ImDortan t Notes : Th e averag e emission s factor s use d i n thi s sprea d shee t t o calculat e emission s shoul d no t b e use d t o determin e actua l emission s a t a specifi c facility

. A facility' s specifi c emission s show n i n thi s sprea d shee t ma y no t represen t th e facility' s actua l emission s an d shoul d therefor e no t b e used

. Thi s databas e onl y contain s facilitie s fo rwhic h th e Administrato rha s information

. Othe rfacilitie s tha t shoul d b e par t o f thi s databas e ar e likel y t o exist

.
EXISTIN G SOURCE S No n Corrosio n Resistan t - Manua l

Plan t Nam e Co rTe c Co

. Warminste rFiberglas s Co

. (Southampton ) Warminste rFiberglas s Co

. (Jacksonville ) GHM , Inc

. Custo m Flbreglas s Manufacturin g Co

. Plcken' s Plastics , Inc

. Prototyp e Concepts , Inc

. Monarc h Plastic , Inc

. Cerami c Coolin g Towe rCo

. Emsl g Manufacturin g Corp

. Bowi e Manufacturing , Inc

. CD R System s Corp

. (Corcoran ) CD R System s Corp

. (Palatka ) Niagar a Fiberglass , Inc

. Ne w Yor k

Blowe rCo

. (Plan t #2 ) Johnso n Truc k

Bodie s Universa l Plastics , Inc

. Teco , Inc

. Retterbus h Injectio n Molde d Fiberglas s Corp

. Eckle rIndustrie s Fiber-Tec h Industrie s Robro y Industries , Inc

. (Belding , Ml ) IMC O Reinforce d Plastics , Inc

. Sea l Reinforce d Fiberglas s Plasti c Composite s Corp

. Diamon d Coac h Corp

. Fiberglas s Industries , Inc

. Aer o Transportatio n Product s Resi n IMI 2,10 0 7 0 6 1 3 9 9 24 9 2 7 4 4 11 0 25 2 1 15 2 12 5 5 9 8 19 5 8 2 3 3 2 3 1,45 9 3 4 12 0 2 6 5 0 13 8 4 4 54 7 %HA P

nea t resi n plu s 33. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 6 44. 9 45. 0 46. 0 44. 0 32. 0 32. 0 33. 5 34. 0 34. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 4 37. 0 37. 0 38. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 41. 0 41, 8 Resi n

Emission s iMl 58. 6 2. 1 1. 8 0. 1 3. 4 8. 5 1. 0 1. 6 5. 4 12. 4 0. 0 7. 9 6. 5 3. 2 0. 4 10. 5 4. 4 1. 8 0. 1 0. 2 85. 2 2. 1 7. 4 1. 6 3. 1 8. 5 2. 8 35. 2 Emission s

pe rTo n Resi n fibs/ton ) 5 6 6 1 6 1 $ 2 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 4 9 8 9 8 10 3 10 5 10 5 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 9 11 4 11 4 11 7 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 6 12 9 Floor :

Reductio n Techniaue s Vac

. bagJResi n + Ca t Oxidizer/Ge l Coa t

VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R Vac

. Ba g 6 2

MAC T Emission s iMl 58. 6 2. 1 1. 8 0. 1 3. 1 7. 7 0. 8 1. 4 3. 4 7. 8 0. 0 4. 7 3. 9 1. 8 0. 2 6. 0 2. 5 1. 0 0. 1 0. 1 45. 2 1. 1 3. 7 0. 8 1. 6 4. 3 1. 4 17. 0 Page lNoncorrosio n - Resistan t Manua l Applicatio n DRAF T 11/5/9 7 p:\n801\dbase\ne w aer\manmec h lin.xl s

Ran H 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 44 45 4 6 4 7 4 8 Plan t Nam e E D Industries , Inc

. (Sportsma n Picku p Covers ) McClari n Plastics , Inc

. S

. R

. Smith , Inc

. Chanc e Operations , Inc

. Hy-Te c Fiberglass , Inc

. Arrowhea d Plasti c Engineering , Inc

. Gorman-Rup p Co

. Willia m Kreysle r & Associates , Inc

. IK G Industrie s Norto n Performanc e Plastic s Corp

. Centur y Manufacturin g Co

. Oxfor d CMP , Inc

. Grube r Systems , Inc

. Simon-Telelect , Inc

. Pilling s SR P Larso n Co

. Blu e Dolphi n Fiberglas s Pool s Fowle r Manufacturing , Inc

. Sunris e Fiberglas s Corp

. M

. C

. Gil l Corp

.
Total :

Leaend : Assume d value s - N o dataprovide d Resi n (toy * 41 2 11 7 12 5 3 8 0 7 0 4 2 0 127 1 74 2 6 6 3 3 3 2 1 6 87 43 9 1 6 7 9 7,88 4 %HA P

neat resi n olu s 4!< 8 41. 8 41. 5 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 44. 0 45. 0 45. 0 47. 0 48. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 5 51. 0 57. 4 Resi n

Emission s (toy ) 26. 5 7. 5 7. 9 0. 2 5. 3 4. 6 0. 3 1. 4 8. 8 0. 1 5. 5 2. 0 4. 8 2. 5 0. 2 1. 2 6. 7 34. 1 1. 2 7. 0
403. 6 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (|b?Aon ) 12 9 129 12 9 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 5 13 8 13 8 14 5 14 8 15 4 15 4 15 4 15 4 15 4 15 4 15 5 15 7 17 7 Reductio n Techniaue s MAC T Emission s (toy) 12. 8 3. 6 3. 8 0. 1 2. 5 2. 2 0. 1 0. 6 3. 9 0. 0 2. 3 0. 8 2. 0 1. 0 0. 1 0. 5 2. 7 13. 6 0. 5 2. 4
237. 8

Pag e 2^ 

### €" Ran k

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 Noncorrosio n - Resistan t Mechanica l Applicatio n DRAF I 11/5/9 7 p:\n801\dbase\ne w aertmanmec h lin.xl s 'GRAF T

Importan t Notes : Th e averag e emission s factors use d i n thi s sprea d shee t t o calculat e emission s shoul d no t b e use d t o determin e actua l emission s at a spedfi c fadlity

. A fadlityl s specifi c emission s show n i n thi s sprea d shee t ma y no t represen t th e facility' s actua l emission s an d shoul d therefore no t b e used

. Thi s databas e onl y contain s fadlitie s for whic h th e Administrato r ha s information

. Othe r fadlitie s tha t shoul d b e par t o f thi s databas e ar e likel y t o exis t

EXISTIN G SOURCE S No n Corrosio n Resistan t - Mechanlpa |

Plan t Nam e A

. R

. E. , Inc

. (MassiUon ) America n Standar d Contemporar y Product s Balte k Corp

. Livingston , Inc

. Bristo l Fiberlit e Industrie s Fibe r Pr o (formerl y Grea t Dan e Trailer s Indiana , Inc. ) America n Technolog y & Researc h Ind. , Inc

. Zane' s Fiberglas s Shop , Inc

. Prestigiou s Accessories , Inc

. Wester n Recreationa l Vehicles , Inc

. S.W.C

. Industries , Inc

. (Swirl-Wa y Div. ) LASC O Bathwar e (Elizabethtown ) F G Product s Tompkin s - LASC O Bathwar e (Lancaster ) Ceda r Manufacturing , Inc

. (Breme n Glas ) America n Reinforce d Plastic s Warminste r Fiberglas s Co

. (Southampton ) Warminste r Fiberglas s Co

. (Jacksonville ) GHM , Inc

. Lawrenc e Wlttma n & Co. , Inc

. Hoo d Manufacturing , Inc

. Bathcraft , Inc

. AKE R Plastic s Co. , Inc

. (Martinsburg ) Acm e Fiberglass , Inc

. AKE R Plastic s Co. , Inc

. (Plymouth , Pidco Dr ) AKE R Plastic s Co. , Inc

. (Plymouth , N Oa k Rd ) Breme n Glas , Inc

. Resi n iM} 5,86 6 % HA P nea t resi n ply ? 42. 0 1,00 0 43. 0 19 0 4 4 51 2 24 7 37 5 1 5 7 6 43 2 5 4 

## liilii i 2,12 5 18 9 2,27 9 36 7 28 8 7 0 6 1 15 8 2 6 17 4 94 5 j 38. 0

35. 0 38. 0 28. 2 39. 0 40. 0 42. 0 33. 0 34. 0 35. 0 47. 7 36. 0 47. 7 38. 0 39. 5 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 1 41 0 41. 2 2 t 05 8 43. 0 18 5 16 5 2,31 0 1,15 9 43. 0

43. 0 43. 0 44. 0 Resi n

Emission s Umi 27. 5 4. 8 6. 4 1. 8 23. 4 11. 4 18. 0 0. 7 3. 8 23. 4 3. 0 40. 1 125. 4 11. 2 138. 3 22. 9 18. 7 4. 6 4. 0 10. 4 1. 7 11. 7 63. 8 145. 1 13. 0 11. 6 162. 9 83. 6 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 9 1 0 6 7 8 4 9 1 9 3 9 6 9 6 10 1 10 8 11 2 11 5 11 8 11 8 12 1 12 5 13 0 13 1 13 1 13 1 13 1 13 4 13 5 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 4 Floor :

Reductio n Techniques

. Therma l Oxidize r (95 % Control ) Polya d (95 % Control ) VS R & Flo wCoater s Pressure-Fe d Rolle r Flo wChoppe r VS R Vacuu m baggin g Pressure-Fe d Rolle r Pressure-Fe d Rolle r VS R VS R VS R Therma l Oxidize r (24 % Control) , VS R

VS R Therma l Oxidize r (22 % Control) , VS R

VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R VS R Pag e 1 11 2

MAC T Emission s (tov) 27. 5 4. 8 6. 4 1. 8 23. 4 11. 4 18. 0 0. 7 3. 8 23. 4 3. 0 39. 1 119. 0 10. 6 127. 6 20. 6 16. 1 3. 9 3. 4 8. 9 1. 5 9. 7 52. 9 115. 2 10. 4 9. 2 129. 4 64. 9 • f 

### r

•Ran k

2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 Noncorrosio n - Resistan t Mechanica l Applicatio n

Plan t Nam e U.S

. Fiberglas s Products , Inc

. Custo m Rbreglas s Manufacturin g Co

. Verte x Plastics , Inc

. Picken' s Plastics , Inc

. G

. W

. Fiberglass , Inc

. Bowi e Manufacturing , Inc

. Eagl e Craft , Inc

. Kreide r Manufacturing , Inc

. Grayso n Too l Co

. Unfversal-Rundl e Corp

. (Ottumwa ) LASC O Bathwar

e (Moapa ) Johnso n Truc k

Bodie s Styl e Cres t Products ACM E Reinforce d Plastics , Inc

. Newpor t Laminate s Gibbo n Fiberglas s Reprod. , Inc

. Glas s pe c Associates , Ltd

. Ne wYor k Blowe r Co

. (Plan t #2 ) VM C Fiberglas s Products , Inc./Tri-Gla s Epoc h Industries Marle y Coolin g Towe r Co

. Fiberglas s Products , Inc

. Glasstite , Inc

. Astori a Industrie s Hes s Count

y Industrie s of WV , Inc

. Americ h Corp

. (Hollywood , CA ) Lee r East , Inc

. MF G - Molde d Fibe r Glas s Co

. (Adelanto ) Universa l Plastics , Inc

. Odo m Fiberglass , Inc

. Sunse t Plastics , Inc

. LASC O Bathwar

e (Thre e Rivers ) LASC O Bathwar

e (Anaheim ) LASC O Bathwar

e (Cordele ) Nationa l Fibe r Glas s Products , Inc

. Tompkin s - LASC O Bathwar e (Sout h Boston ) Charlom a Fiberglass , Inc

. Molde d Plasti c Industries , Inc

. LASC O Bathwar

e (Yelm ) Resin

. (toy) 37 5 45 4 6 8 2 7 73 8 5 0 6 0 21 0 15 7 2,50 0 6,25 9 19 5 8 4 13 3 18 0 2 2 1 8 7 2 1,15 6 4 4 63 4 12 0 33 0 6 0 49 4 4 2 53 4 20 9 8 2 8 3 25 4 2,81 5 3,13 6 1,97 7 64 0 2,77 0 34 4 10 2 2,75 4 %HA P

nea t resin Diu s 46. 0 44. 9 33. 0 45. 0 45. 0 33. 5 33. 5 33. 7 34. 0 46. 5 47. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 35. 0 43. 0 47. 7 47. 7 47. 8 48. 0 48. 1 41. 0 36. 0 47. 8 Resi n

Emission s (toy) 27. 6 33. 4 5. 0 2. 0 54. 5 3. 7 4. 5 15. 8 11. 9 190. 7 482. 5 15. 2 6. 6 10. 4 14. 1 1. 7 1. 4 5. 6 90. 3 3. 4 49. 5 9. 4 25. 8 4. 7 38. 6 3. 3 41. 7 16. 3 6. 4 6. 5 19. 9 220. 3 245. 4 154. 8 50. 4 219. 6 27. 3 8. 2 223. 8 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 14 7 14 7 14 7 14 8 14 8 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 2 15 3 15 4 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 15 7 15 7 15 7 15 9 15 9 16 1 16 3 Pag e 2 DRAFT 11/5/9 7 p:\n801\dbase\ne w aer\manmec h lin.xl s

Reductio n Techniaue s C filters, VS R VS R

VS R VS R

VS R VS R

VS R (70% ) VS R VS R VS R VS R Therma l Oxidize r (25 % Control) , VS R (72% )

VS R (50% )

VS R (90% ) MAC T Emission s (tov ) 21. 0 25. 4 , 3. 8 1. 5 41. 3 2. 8 3. 4 11. 8 8. 8 140. 0 350. 5 10. 9 4. 7 7. 4 10. 1 1. 2 1. 0 4. 0 64. 7 2. 5 35. 5 6. 7 18. 5 3. 4 27. 7 2. 4 29. 9 11. 7 4. 6 4. 6 14. 2 157. 7 175. 6 110. 7 35. 8 155. 1 19. 3 5. 7 154. 2Noncorrosio n - Resistan t Mechanica l Applicatio n DRAF T 11/5/9 7

Ran k 6 8 6 9 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 9 6 0 8 1 8 2 8 3 8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 8 8 8 9 9 0 9 1 9 2 9 3 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 9 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 6 Plan t Nam e Retterbus h Injectio n Molde d Fiberglas s Corp

. Fibr e Bod y Industries , Inc

. Comtec h Antenn a Systems , Inc

. Eckle r Industrie s Do wChemica l (Russellville , AR ) Fleetwoo d (Fontan a - formerl y Gol d Shield ) Continenta l Campe r Co. , Inc

. Baj a Products Ltd

. (Salisbury ) To m Smit h Fiberglass , Inc

. A

. R

. E. , Inc

. (Moun t Eaton ) Murph y Body Co

. Aqu a Bat h Co. , Inc

. 20t h Centur

y Fiberglass , Inc

. (Plan t Four ) Fiberglas s Forms , Inc

. Piedmon t Fiberglass , Inc

. Clar k Manufacturin g Universa l Rundl e Corp

. (Unio n Point) Plasti c Composite s Corp

. A- 1 Fiberglass , Inc

. Covermaster , Inc

. Syntechnic s Allianc e Equipmen t Co

. America n Technolog y & Researc h Ind. , Inc

. Florid a Lin e o

f Astatula , Inc

. Fiberglas s Spedalties , Inc

. Sea l Reinforce d Fiberglas s Phi l Carte r System , Inc

. Mr

. Tubs , Inc

. Kohte r Co

. Plas-Tech , Ltd

. Jaso n International , Inc

. (N

. Littl e Rock , AR ) Fleetwoo d (Gol d Shiel d Fiberglass , Decatur) Plasti-Fab , Inc

. Millenniu m Products , Inc

. Lun d Industries , inc

. Gla s Master , Inc

. (Plan t #1 ) Gla s Master , Inc

. (Plan t #2 ) GP M Industries , Inc

. Michian a Fiberglass , Inc

. Resi n (toy) 2 2 25 0 16 6 2 8 2 0 68 4 18 5 10 0 3 4 98 7 11 5 45 0 9 5 12 0 12 0 66 1 1,41 0 5 0 39 5 13 1 51 3 

## llllll l 2 13 1 7 7 9 4 6 13 7 55 0 4 0 8 7 1,06 3 9 2 83 4 49 3 17 3 17 3 17 3 5 5 %HA P

nea t resin olu s 37. 0 37. 0 37. 0 37. 0 37. 0 37. 8 38. 0 47. 5 44. 0 38. 5 39. 5 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 2 40. 3 40. 7 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 Resi n

Emission s (toy) 1. 8 20. 6 13. 7 2. 3 1. 7 57. 7 15. 6 8. 5 2. 9 84. 9 10. 1 40. 2 8. 5 10. 7 10. 7 59. 0 125. 9 4. 5 35. 3 11. 7 45. 8 21. 4 0. 2 11. 7 6. 9 0. 8 4. 1 12. 2 49. 1 3. 6 7. 7 95. 3 8. 3 75. 8 45. 2 15. 8 15. 8 15. 8 5. 0 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton * 16 5 16 5 16 5 16 5 16 5 16 9 17 0 17 0 17 0 17 2 17 6 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 18 0 18 2 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 Reductio n Techniaue s

VS R (75% ) Som e VS R MAC T Emission s (tov ) 1. 2 14. 0 9. 3 1. 5 1. 1 38. 3 10. 3 5. 6 1. 9 55. 3 6. 4 25. 2 5. 3 6. 7 6. 7 37. 0 79. 0 2. 8 22. 1 7. 3 28. 7 13. 4 0. 1 7. 3 4. 3 0. 5 2. 6 7. 7 30. 8 2. 2 4. 8 59. 5 5. 2 46. 7 27. 6 9. 7 9. 7 9. 7 3. 1 Pag e 3Noncorrosio n - Resistan t Mechanica l Applicatio n DRAF T 11/5/9 7



# W S) Ran k

10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 12 1 12 2 12 3 12 4 12 5 12 6 12 7 12 8 12 9 13 0 13 1 13 2 13 3 13 4 13 5 13 6 13 7 13 8 13 9 14 0 14 1 14 2 14 3 14 4 14 5 Plan t Nam e Delt a Fiberglas s & Environmenta l Products , In c Kruege r International , Inc

. Fiberglas s Plu s Recreationa l industries , Inc

. C & KFiberglas s Plastics , Inc

. Aer o Transportatio n Products Olympi c Fiberglas s Industries , Inc

. Fiberglas s Industries , Inc

. Northwest Bodies , Inc

. Standar d Glas , Inc

. Electric-Glass , Inc

. Globa l Glass , Inc

. Elmore Truc k

Accessories , Inc

. Fiberglas s & Plasti c Fab. , Inc

. Holida y Ramble r Corp. , Plan t 3 6 an d 3 7 E D Industries , Inc

. (Sportsma n Picku p Covers ) Mirad e Recreatio n Co

. McClari n Plastics , Inc

. S

. R

. Smith , Inc

. Elje r Plumbingwar e (Wilson ) Chanc e Operations , Inc

. Fiberdome , Inc

. (Plan t #1 ) Assodate d Plastics , Inc

. Glasg o Plastics , Inc

. Lee r Midwes t Aqu a Glas s Corp

. (Klamat h Falls ) Jaso n Industries , Inc

. (Elkhart , IN ) Image s Product s Cor p Armorcast Product s Co

. Americ h Corp

. (Charlotte , NC ) Arrowhea d Plasti c Engineering , Inc

. Aqu a Glas s Corp

. (Adamsville ) Specialty Plastic s Assodates , In c Marqui s Corp

. Monarc h Plastic , Inc

. Gorman-Rup p Co

. Mile s Fiberglas s & Plastics , Inc

. Beave r Moto r Coache s Simon-Telelect , Inc

. Evelands , Inc

. Resi n (tov) 19 9 25 2 3 7 10 2 54 7 38 4 3 6 14 7 12 5 32 0 27 6 3 5 5 5 70 0 41 2 7 5 11 7 12 3 69 9 2 9 10 0 16 1 69 9 60 0 69 9 24 0 10 9 12 9 6 3 7 0 10,14 3 84 1 10 5 4 4 3 5 7 0 18 2 3 3 5 9 %HA P

nea t resi n olu s 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 41. 0 41. 5 42. 0 42. 0 42. 0 42. 0 42. 0 42. 0 43, 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43, 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 43. 0 44. 0 44. 0 44. 0 44. 0 44. 1 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 Resi n

Emission s (tov ) 18. 2 23. 1 3. 3 9. 3 50. 1 35. 2 3. 3 13. 6 11. 7 30. 0 25. 9 3. 3 5. 1 65. 6 39. 5 7. 2 11. 2 11. 9 67. 1 2. 8 9. 6 15. 5 67. 1 57. 6 67. 1 23. 0 10. 5 12. 3 6. 1 6. 7 973. 5 82. 6 10. 3 4. 3 3. 4 6. 9 18. 2 3. 3 6. 0 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ' 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 5 18 7 18 7 18 7 18 7 18 7 18 7 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 2 19 6 19 6 19 6 19 6 19 7 20 1 20 1 20 1 Reductio n Techniaue s

CB I MAC T Emission s (tev ) 11. 1 14. 1 2. 0 5. 7 30. 6 .21. 5 2. 0 8. 2 7. 0 17. 9 15. 5 2. 0 3. 1 39. 2 23. 0 4. 2 6. 5 6. 9 39. 1 1. 6 5. 6 9. 0 39. 1 33. 6 39. 1 13. 4 6. 1 7. 2 3. 5 3. 9 568. 0 47. 1 5. 9 2. 5 2. 0 3. 9 10. 2 1. 8 3. 3 Pag e 4Noncorrosio n - Resistan t Mechanica l Applicatio n DRAF T 11/5/9 7

Ran k 14 6 14 7 14 8 14 9 15 0 15 1 15 2 15 3 15 4 15 5 15 6 15 7 15 8 15 9 16 0 16 1 16 2 16 3 16 4 16 5 16 6 16 7 16 8 16 9 17 0 17 1 17 2 17 3 17 4 17 5 17 6 Plan t Nam e Melche r Manufacturin g Co. , Inc

. Fiberglas s Engineerin g Corp

. Arro wDynamics , Inc

. Peterso n Products Trai l Wagons , Inc

. Pilling s SR P Prodeli n Corp

. (Catawb a Facility) McClur e Industries , Inc

. Brunne l Product

s o f Florida , Inc

. Countr y Coach , Inc

. KB KIndustries , Inc

. Elje r Manufacturin g (Valdosta ) Baj a Product

s (Tucson , AZ)
- Fibe r Pad , Inc

. Attba r Plastics , Inc

. Nordi c Fiberglass , Inc

. (Warren ) Nordi c Fiberglass , Inc

. (Devil s Lake ) Pear l Baths , Inc

. Oasi s Industries , Inc

. Spac e Tables , Inc

. Fiberglas s Systems , Inc

. Ultra/Gla s o

f Lakevilt e Sunrise Fiberglas s Corp

. Kivett-s , Inc

. Plasti c Developmen t Co

. Amtec h Corp

. Accurate Glass , Inc

. Larso n Co

. Grea t Lakes Plastic s Corp

. Dasc o Pro , Inc

. Universal-Rundl e Corp

. (Ne wCastle )

Total :

Legend : Assumed value s - N o dat a provide d fixtsrt^Sosra J^CTFloo r - A'' ' Resi n (tov) 13 4 7 5 3 4 2 3 3 2 3 9 16 1 14 0 6 3 9 9 58 2 36 3 5 5 9 5 50 0 24 6 31 6 32 5 14 5 1 2 23 5 15 4 3 6 4 3 14 0 4 7 11 4 1 1 30 6 1 5 3,58 5 90,33 3 %HA P

nea t resi n DIU S 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 9 46. 0 47. 0 47. 5 48. 0 48. 0 48. 5 48. 5 48. 7 49. 0 49. 0 49. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 55. 0 60. 2 Resi n

Emission s (tov ) 13. 5 7. 5 3. 4 2. 3 3. 2 3. 9 16. 2 14. 1 6. 3 10. 1 59. 8 38. 1 5. 9 10. 2 53. 6 26. 7 34. 2 35. 3 15. 9 1. 3 25. 7 17. 2 4. 0 4. 8 15. 6 5. 2 12. 7 1. 2 34. 2 1. 8 481. 7 7099. 1 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 5 20 5 21 0 21 2 21 4 21 4 21 7 21 7 21 7 21 9 21 9 21 9 22 3 22 3 22 3 22 3 22 3 22 3 22 3 22 3 24 6 26 9 Reductio n Techniaue s MAC T Emission s (toy) 7. 5 4. 2 1. 9 1. 3 1. 8 2. 2 9. 0 7. 8 3. 5 5. 5 32. 6 20. 3 3. 1 5. 3 28. 0 13. 8 17. 7 18. 2 8. 1 0. 7 13. 2 8. 6 2. 0 2. 4 7. 8 2. 6 6. 4 0. 6 17. 1 0. 8 200. 8 4689. 4

Pag e 5Noncorrosio n - Resistan t Filamen t Windin g DRAF T 11/5/9 7



## W Ran K

i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 DRAF T Importan t Nptes ; Th e averag e emission s factor s use d i n thi s sprea d shee t to calculate emission s shoul d not b e use d t o determin e actua l emission s a t a spedfi c fadlity

. A fadlity' s specifi c emission s show n i n thi s sprea d shee t may no t represen t th e fadlity' s actua l emission s an d shoul d therefor e no t b e used

. Thi s databas e onl y contain s fadlitie s fo r whic h th e Administrato r ha s information

. Othe r fadlitie s tha t shoul d b e par t o f thi s databas e ar e likel y t o exis t

Corrosio n Resistan t

Plan t .Nam e Wate r Heate r Innovations , Inc

. Velasc o Scal e Co

. (Plastic s Div. ) Beldin g Tan k

Technolog y (F.K.A

. D & R Fabrication , Inc. ) Bridgewate r Protectiv e Coatings Mes a Fiberglass , Inc

. Industria l Fiberglas s Spedalties , Inc

. Xeno n Co. , Inc

. Beetl e Plastics , Inc

. Rave n Industries , Inc

. (Siou x Falls ) Ameron , Inc

. (Burkburnett ) Fowle r Manufacturing , Inc

. Owens-Cornin g (Auburndale) Owens-Cornin g (Moun t Union ) Owens-Cornin g Fibergla s (Conroe ) Owens-Cornin g Tank

s (Valparaiso ) Re d Ewald , Inc

. Rubbe r & Plasti c Applicator s Bittne r Industries , Inc

. Xerxe s Corp

. (Anaheim ) An-Co r Industria l Plastics , Inc

. Appalachia n Plastics , Inc

. Xerxe s Corp

. (Avon ) Ershigs , Inc

. (Wilson ) Fibre x Corp

. Simon-Telelec t Inc

. Smit h Fiberglas s Products , Inc

. (Uttl e Rock ) Smit h Fiberglas s Products , Inc

. (Wichita ) AB C Industries , Inc

. (Gran d Junction , CO ) AB C Industries , Inc

. (Wallace , ID ) Resi n itea* ) 51. 0 13. 0 86. 0 9. 7 75. 0 16. 5 30. 0 177. 3 21. 2 2. 5 86. 0 86. 0 86. 0 86. 0 86. 0 294. 7 146. 0 23. 0 %HA P

nea t resi n plu s 45. 5 38. 7 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 42. 0 42. 0 42. 2 42. 7 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 86. 0 45. 0 86. 0 45. 0 100. 0 45, 0 86. 0 45. 0 86. 0 45. 0 86. 0 .45. 0 65. 0 45. 0 86. 0 45. 0 86. 0 45. 0 36. 0 30. 0 45. 0

.

45, 0 Resi n

Emisssion s (ley ) 2. 6 1. 0 7. 1 0. 8 6. 2 1. 4 2. 6 15. 4 1. 9 0. 2 8. 0 8. 0 8. 0 8. 0 8. 0 27. 3 13. 5 2. 1 8. 0 8. 0 9. 3 8. 0 8. 0 8. 0 6. 0 8. 0 8. 0 3. 3 2. 8 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 10 3 15 9 

### 16 5 16 5 16 5 17 3 17 3 17 4 17 6 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 18 5 Floor :

Reductio n Technique s VS R 16 5

MAC T Emission s Oey ] 2. 6 1. 0 7. 1 0. 8 6. 2 1. 4 2. 5 14. 6 1. 7 0. 2 7. 1 7. 1 7. 1 7. 1 7. 1 24. 3 12. 0 1. 9 7. 1 7. 1 8. 3 7. 1 7. 1 7. 1 5. 4 7. 1 7. 1 3. 0 2. 5 Page lNoncorrosio n - Resistan t Filamen t Windin g DRAFT 11/5/9 7



## t o Ran k

3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2

Ran k 1 coirwto n Res|8f.-.n l

Plan t Nam e AB C Industries , Inc

. (Winon a Lake , IN ) Internationa l Pape r (Hampton , SC ) Nova Group , Inc

. Internationa l Reinforce d Plastic s GP I Corp

. Specialt y Plastics , Inc

. Ershigs , Inc

. (Bellingham ) Ecowate r System s Hasting s Group , inc.-Viate c (Belding ) Diamon d Fiberglas s Fabricators , Inc

. MF G Justi n Tanks , Inc

. Owens-Comin g Fibergla s (Bakersfield ) Fibercast Co

. Total : Leaeri d Assume d values-n o dat a provide d • . -

&RAFT

ImDortan t Notes ; Resi n (tov ) %HA P

neat resin Diu s 45. 0 45. 0 86. 0 45. 0 52. 0 16. 3 131. 5 35. 0 153. 0 122. 0 178. 0 254. 0 153. 3 86. 0 83. 0 3604. 0 45. 1

46. 0 46. 0 47. 0 47. 6 48. 0 48. 5 49. 0 49. 0 50. 0 52. 0 Resi n

Emisssion s 

### im 4. 2 8. 0 4. 8 1. 5 12. 5 3. 4 15. 0 12. 1 17. 8 25. 6 15. 5 8. 9 8. 9 337. 3 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 18 5 18 5 18 6 18 9 18 9 19 4 19 6 19 8 20 0 20 2 20 2 20 6 21 4 Reductio n Techniaue s

Th e averag e emission s factors use d i n thi s sprea d shee t to calculat e emission s shoul d no t b e use d t o determin e actua l emission s a t a spedfi c fadlity

. A fadlity' s specifi c emission s show n i n thi s sprea d shee t may not represen t th e fadlity' s actua l emission s an d shoul d therefore not b e used

. Thi s databas e onl y contain s fadlitie s fo r whic h th e Administrato r ha s information

. Othe r fadlitie s tha t shoul d b e par t of thi s databas e ar e likel y t o exist

.
EXISTIN G Non-Corrosio n Resistan t

Plan t Nam e Shakespeare Co

.
Leoen d Assume d value s - n o dat a provide d Resi n (toy) 739. 4 %HA P

neat resin olu s 33. 0 Resi n

Emisssion s (tex l 50. 3 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 13 6 Reductio n Techniaue s MAC T Emission s (tov) 3. 7 7. 1 4. 3 1. 3 10. 8 2. 9 12. 6 10. 1 14. 7 21. 0 12. 6 7. 1 6. 8 295. 7

Pag e 2Corrosion-Resistan t Manua l Applicatio n

Ran k 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 mtVFT

',"<'' * '

ImDortan t Notes : Th e averag e emission s factor s use d i n thi s sprea d shee t to calculat e emission s shoul d no t b e use d t o detennin e actua l emission s a t s p:\n801\dbase\ne w i

i spedfi c fadlity

. A fadlity' s specifi c emission s show n i n thi s sprea d shee t ma y no t represen t th e fadlity' s actua l emission s an d shoul d therefor e no t b e used

. Thi s databas e onl y contain s fadlitie s fo rwhic h th e Administrato rha s infomnation

. Otiie rfadlitie s tha t shoul d b e par t o f thi s databas e ar e likel y t o exis t
EXISTIN G SOURCE S Corrosio n Resistan t Product s - Mechanica l

Plan t Nam e Hasbrouc k

Plastics , Inc

. Willia m Kreysle r & Associates , Inc

. An-Co r Industria l Plastics , Inc

. Yanke e Plasti c Co

. Fibrenetlcs , Inc

. Accr a Industries , Inc

. Pacifi c Tank , Ltd

. KeameyAVester n Powe rProduct s Velasc o Scal e Co

. (Plastic s Div. ) Magnu m Plastics , Inc

. Bridgewate rProtectiv e Coating s HEMC O Corp

. Mes a Fiberglass , Inc

. Hartzel l Fan , Inc

. (Bld g 275 ) Delt a Fiberglas s Structures , Inc

. Beetl e Plastics , Inc

. LaVatle y Constructio n Co

. (Biloxi ) LaValle y Industries , Inc

. (Vancouver ) Ershlgs , Inc

. (Bellingham ) Smit h Fiberglas s Products , Inc

. (Litti e Rock ) Picken' s Plastics , Inc

. Owens-Comin g (Moun t Union ) Owens-Cornin g Tank s (Valparaiso ) Owens-Cornin g (Auburndale ) Owens-Comin g Fibergla s (Conroe ) Xerxe s Corp

. (Lakeland ) Xerxe s Corp

. (Williamsport ) Xerxe s Corp

. (Tipton ) Xerxe s Corp

. (Anaheim ) Resi n (toy ) 5 0 4 5 13 3 2 3 1 0 7 7 7 0 18 6 1 2 3 1 9 3 5 2 4 4 0 29 5 2 4 13 4 4 1 5 9 % HA P

nea t resi n DIU S 45. 3 35. 5 53. 0 40. 0 50. 0 35. 0 35. 9 38. 0 38. 7 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 8 41. 0 41. 0 43. 0 43. 1 45, 0 7 8 45. 0 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 45. 0

45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 7 8 45. 0 7 8 45, 0 7 8 45. 0 7 8 45. 0 Resi n Emission s ItEi Q 2. 7 2. 6 8. 5 1. 5 0. 8 6. 0 5. 6 15. 8 0. 1 2. 0 1. 7 3. 1 2. 1 3. 7 27. 0 2. 2 12. 9 3. 9 5. 9 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 7. 8 Emission s

pe rTo n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 10 9 11 6 12 7 

# m 16 4 15 6 16 0 170 17 3 17 9 17 9 17 9 17 9 18 2 18 3 18 3 19 2 19 2 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 Floor :

Reductio n Technique s Pressure-Fe d Rolle r VS R Pressure-Fe d Rolle r VS R VS R aeAmanmec h

13 1

MAC T Emission s (toy ) 2. 7 2. 6 8. 5 1. 5 0. 6 5. 0 4. 6 12. 2 0. 1 1. 5 1. 2 2. 3 1. 6 2. 6 19. 3 1. 6 8. 8 2. 7 3. 8 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 5. 1 DRAF T 11/5/9 7 in.xl s

Page lCorrosion-Resistant Manua l Applicatio n DRAF T 11/5/9 7 p:\n801\dbase\ne

waeiAmanmec h lin.xl s

Ran K 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 plan t Nam e Xerxe s Corp

. (Avon ) Appalachia n Plastics , Inc

. Beldin g Tan k

Technolog y (F.KA

. D & R Fabrication , Inc. ) Xerxe s Corp

. (Seguin ) MF G - Molde d Fibe r Glas s Co

. (Unio n City ) Ershigs , Inc

. (Wilson ) Rave n Industries , Inc

. (Siou x Falls ) F.E

. Meyers No n Metalli c Resources , Inc

. Nov a Group , Inc

. Hasbrouc k

Plastics , Inc

. Re d Ewald , Inc

. GP I Corp

. Bradle y Spedalt'e s Corp

. Hasting s Reinforce d Plastic s - Viate c (Hastings ) Parkso n Aeratio n & Fibergla s Corp. , Inc

. Ne wEnglan d Plasti c Coate d Products , Inc

. Diamon d Fiberglas s Fabricators , Inc

. Spear s Fabricatio n H & R Industries , inc

. MF G Justi n Tanks , Inc

. Owens-Cornin g Fibergla s (Bakersfield ) Ashwort h Plasti c Products I

. M

. Penna , Inc

. An-Co r Industria l Plastics , Inc

. Beden-Baug h Products , Inc

.
Total :
Legend : Assume d value s - N o dat a provide d Resi n (tov ) 7 8 4 0 7 8 7 8 52 0 1 8 7 8 7 7 10 3 4 7 1 3 10 5 12 9 2 6 14 8 2 5 1 7 7 6 1 9 8 6 17 5 7 8 7 8 1 5 4 4 8 7 4,30 6 %HA P

nea t resin DIU S 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 1 45. 3 45. 5 46. 0 46. 0 46. 2 46. 3 46. 7 47. 0 47. 0 48. 0 48. 7 50. 0 50. 0 50. 0 53. 0 56. 9 Resi n

Emission s (tov) 7. 8 4. 0 7. 8 7. 8 52. 2 1. 8 7. 8 7. 7 10. 3 4. 7 1. 3 10. 7 13. 2 2. 7 15. 3 2. 6 1. 8 8. 0 2. 0 9. 2 19. 1 8. 7 8. 7 1. 6 5. 2 11. 1 419. 7 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 2 20 3 20 5 20 5 20 6 20 7 20 8 21 0 21 0 21 4 21 7 22 3 22 3 22 3 23 7 25 4 Reductio n

Techniaue s MAC T Emission s (toy) 5. 1 2. 6 5. 1 5. 1 34. 1 1. 2 5. 1 5. 0 6. 7 3. 1 0. 8 6. 9 8. 4 1. 7 9. 7 1. 7 1. 1 5. 0 1. 2 5. 6 11. 5 5. 1 5. 1 1. 0 2. 9 5. 7
280. 9

Pag e 2Corrosion-Resistan t Manua l Applicatio n

b 4 Ren K

i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 Plan t Nam e EXISTIN G SOURCE S Corrosio n Resistan t Product s - Manua l

Flbrenetlcs , Inc

. Shenandoa h Fiberglas s Product s Co

. Micro-Fab , Inc

. Velasc o Scal e Co

. (Plastic s Div. ) Resolit e Hartzel l Fan , Inc

. (Bld g 275 ) Magnu m Plastics , Inc

. Composite s USA , Inc

. Beetl e Plastics , Inc

. Industria l Linings , Inc

. LaValle y Constructio n Co

. (Biloxi ) LaValley Industries , Inc

. (Vancouver ) Hasting s Reinforce d Plastics-Viate c (Hastings ) Ershigs , Inc

. (Bellingham ) Smit h Fiberglas s Products , Inc

. (Litti e Rock ) Fibergrate Corp

. Picken' s Plastics , Inc

. Owens-Cornin g (Moun t Union ) Owens-Cornin g Tank

s (Valparaiso ) Xerxe s Corp

. (Avon ) Rubbe r & Plasti c Applicators Appalachia n Plastics , Inc

. Beldin g Tan k

Technolog y (F.KA

. D & R Fabrication , Inc. ) Fibercast Co

. FibrexCorp

. Ershigs , Inc

. (Wilson ) Rave n Industries , Inc

. (Siou x Falls ) AB C Industries , Inc

. (Gran d Junction , CO ) AB C Industries , Inc

. (Winon a Lake , IN ) Bittne r Industries , Inc

. Peterso n Products AB C Industries , Inc

. (Wallace , ID ) Internationa l Reinforce d Plastic s Nova Group , Inc

. Parkso n Aeratio n & Fibergla s Corp. , Inc

. Resi n (tov)

2 3 8 6 8 8 1 3 6 1 8 8 3 3 3 5 3 1 13 4 4 1 11 0 4 7 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 2 2 4 6 6 7 4 6 3 9 4 6 3 6 4 5 2 3 2 3 3 0 4 9 5 3 %HA P

neat resi n Dius

50. 0 50. 0 35. 0 38. 7 39. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 41. 0 42. 0 43. 0 43. 1 44. 4 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 45. 0 46. 0 46. 0 46. 3 Resi n

Emission s (tov)

0. 9 3. 6 4. 7 0. 8 3. 6 0. 5 0. 5 2. 0 2. 2 2. 0 8. 9 2. 7 7. 5 3. 3 3. 2 3. 2 3. 2 3. 2 3. 2 3. 2 3. 2 1. 5 3. 2 4. 6 3. 2 2. 7 3. 2 2. 5 3. 1 1. 6 1. 6 2. 1 3. 4 0. 4 0. 2 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton )

7 6 8 5 10 8 11 9 12 0 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 6 12 9 13 2 13 2 13 7 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 13 8 14 1 14 2 14 2 D:\n801\dbase\ne w aer\manmec h

Reductio n Technique s Floo r

VS R Vac

. Baggin g MAC T Emission s (tov) 10 8

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

. 2. 5 2. 5 2. 5 2. 5 2. 5 2. 5 2. 5 2. 5 1. 2 2. 5 3. 6 2. 5 2. 1 2. 5 1. 9 2. 4 1. 2 1. 2 1. 6 2. 6 0. 3 0. 2 DRAFT 11/5/9 7 in.xl s

Pag e 3Corrosion-Resistan t Manua l Applicatio n DRAF T 11/5/9 7 p:\n801\dbase\ne w aetAmanmec h lin.xl s

Ran K 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 

# I Plan t Nam e

NewEnglan d Plasti c Coate d Products , Inc

. MF G Justi n Tanks , Inc

. Ashwort h Plasti c Product s I

. M

. Penna , Inc

. Beden-Baug h Products , Inc

.
Total : MNWnd ; Assumed value s - N o dat a provide d Resi n (toy) 2 17 5 4 5 2 1 0 1,75 3 %HA P

nea t resin olu s 46. 7 48. 7 50. 0 50. 0 56. 9 Resi n

Emission s (tov ) 0. 1 13. 1 3. 5 0. 1 0. 8 116. 5 Emission s

pe r To n Resi n (lbs/ton ) 14 4 150 15 4 15 4 17 5 Reductio n

Techniaue s MAC T Emission s (tov) 0. 1 9. 5 2. 5 0. 1 0. 5 S3. 3

^ ^

Pag e 4

# O^^sw^^ E P.3 7



# u.

U.S

. EP A
Keit h W
. Barnet

t Environmental

Engineer Organic Chemical s Grou

p (MD-13 ) Researc h Triangl e Park

, N C 2771 1 ^- E-mail : bamettkeith@uyiM«ititfM8g r e <S >a

- * "S 0
(919 ) 541-560 5 Fax : (919 ) 541-347 0 \Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Ine

.

Projec t No

. N80 1 • Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P

Tabl e 1 : Compariso n o f th e Differen t Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s MAC

T Mode l Equations

. 

# I 2n d Orde r Polynomial : y = rrvx' • mp

t + b ( b = 0 ) y = m , x (%HAP) * • m , x (%HAP ) y « • c x m , x (%HAP ) + c , x m , HA P emitte d HA P emitted increase s a s % HA P increases

.

no t equa l t o zer o a

t zer o % HAP

. N o
Powe r y = mx

- + b ( n = constant , b = 0 ) y = m , x (%HAP) " y = c x m , x (%HAP*- ' HA P emitted HA P emitted increases a s % HA P Increases

.

equa l t o zer o a

t zer o % HAP

. Ye s
Linea r y = m

x + b ( b = constant

) y = m , x (%HAP ) + b y = cxm . + c,xb/(%HAP ) HA P emitted HA P emitte d decrease s a s % HA P increases

.

equa l to Infinit

y a t zer o % HAP

. N o
Linea r y = m

x + b (b°0 ) y = m , x (%HAP ) y = c.xm , HA P emitted HA P emitte d remain s constan t a s % HA P increases

.

equal s a constan t a

t zer o % HAP

. N o

Not e 1 : Th e equation s show n abov e are possibl e equation s t o b e use d i n a MAC T mode l point valu e syste m designe d t o accuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credits t o th e variou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha t a facilit y coul d chos e t o mee

t th e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin g emissions

. Not e 2 : Criteri a fo r acceptability : 1. ) equatio n mus t produc e zero emission s @ 0 % HA P content an d 2. ) increasin g emission s wit h increasin g HA P content , whe n expressin g emission s i n Ib s HAP/to n resi n ari d lb

s HAP/lb s Availabl e HAP

. Not e 3 : Equation s fo r Emission s a s Ib s HAP/lb s Availabl e HA P obtaine d b y dividin g Equation s fo r Emission s a s Ib s HAP/to n Resi n b y % HAP/100

. Not e 4 : Discussio n assume s constan t resi n tonnage

. Tabl e 2 : Compariso n o f th e MAC T Mode l Result s Obtaine d fro m th e 2n d Orde r Polynomia l Equation , Powe r Equatio n an d Linea r Equatio n ( b a 0 ) Compare d

t o th e MAC T Mode l Result s Obtaine d fro m th e Linea r Equatio n wher e b = constan t fo r Manua l an d Mechanica l Resi n Applications

. !B^!l£Sgg & mlc«fie« P

0. 0 S. O 10. 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 30 0 v '3 5 0 ~ „ 4 0 0 45. 0 50. 0 vmmmm

2ndprdr£ply a Ibs.rto n 0 5 1 3 2 3 3 7 5 4 7 3 ^9 6 * 12 1 15 0 18 1 &PM N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 72 % 21 % 5 % ',0 % « 0 % 1 % 4 % t&mmhBM'.APesmm&mmmm&mm l^?tklLI«wer , K 0 3 1 0 2 1 3 5 5 2 7 1 «894 W 119 ' 14 6 17 7 mom N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 66 % 17 % 2 % J-,2% ?

" 3% * 1 % 1 % liMftoa r >y~9&*t > 0 1 5 30 4 5 6 0 7 5 9 0 10 4 11 9 13 4 14 9 i*&m &xwk N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 109 % 52 % 25 % -.9 % 1 '2%

. 10 % 16 % tWpearslbgjn g JDsjto n 0 0 0 0 1 7 4 4 7 0 •v"i96 ' i) 12 2 > 14 8 17 4 

## mm* N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N7 A N/ A N/ A ?N/ A -N/A ' N/ A N/ A m^ateJ-^rtfJlMocharilca l ge^.^ppljca.Boa t >jMBKiii,an a ^

. t£n3pnr£pj y lbs/to n 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 5

* 140,f i 220 1 31 5 42 5 %'BIf f N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 200 % 27 % 0% ' 1% ' 3 % 9 % Bes t Flt.Ppwei j lbs/to n 0 0 2 9 2 3 4 7 8 4 ^13 9 21 5 31 6 44 6 ,%_DIM

. N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 200 % 200 % 38 % tn'hM

' 4%' » 3 % 14 % BUInaaiKb-ip K lbs/tor i 0 2 6 5 2 7 9 10 5 13 1 15 7 '18 3 _\ f 210 % 23 6 26 2 '°ADIf

f N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 200 % 200 % 93 % ,27%.! , 6% V 26 % 39 % >Unear.(b^,»),
- Itsiftor l 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 ,14 0 W22 3 30 6 38 9 3WBW

. N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A r'N/ A iHIA N/ A N/ A Tt

Tabl e 3 : Compariso n o f th e MAC T Mode l Result s Obtaine d fro m th e 2n d Orde r Polynomia l Equation , Powe r Equatio n an d Linea r Equatio n ( b = 0 ) Compare d

t o th e MAC T Mode l Result s Obtaine d fro m th e Linea r Equatio n wher e b = constan t fo r Filamen t Windin g an d Gel Coa t Applications

. Rtrtl n or-G C HA P Conten t •*t r HAP>» » 0. 0 5. 0 10. 0 15. 0 20. 0 25. 0 3 0 0
•= * V3 5 0 r

„ a,v*o<* rJ*. , & iC4 5 0>f , 50. 0 ,%'

' *H v*BuFllamentWindlngrAppll;aUcn ) 2n d Or d •Pol' , • lb..ito n 0 1 4 30 4 7 6 6 8 6 10 8 13, 1 i ,1*15 5 , t ,182*5 20 9 iVJMIt j N/ A 200 % 148 % 45 % 18 % 6 % 1 % ;;i% « r-^1%; ^ »1%<- i 0 % .Powe r lbs/to n 0 1 0 2 6 4 3 6 3 8 4 10 6 ^130*fe , -1544 < jf180* 3 20 6 (n-* » rt piff * N/ A 200 % 141 % 37 % 13 % 4 % 0 % n%~ 5; * '.2 % rtiw* 1 % Linear ; l b ../to n 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 80 10 0 11 9 •4*139- ' 416 9 -TV179. ; 19 9 thj.OI J •PAH A N/ A 200 % 160 % 67 % 36 % 21 % '12 % ••Sev- E y i % «as v 4 % LWiiWicgn n fcLlnoar,(b = ff). IjEs/ton , 0 0 4 3 0 5 5 8 1 10 6 #132/ « <?-157f t 5&183. B 20 8 iV.DIff i N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A ?N/;A ? •NI.A4 JM7.A- S N/ A rw ^ m «:,'^••'••-^^>^ ! ^ W i Smm -_ : •.•^••••r^r'-^ii 2n d Ord'Pol y lEsTton " 0 1 3 3 7 7 4 12 2 18 2 25 5 339J * 43 5 54 4 66 4 •MBi " N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 83 % 22 % 5 % £0 % '

. -0, % 2 % 6 % n^mmmwixmmmps^mmm lb s to n 0 9 3 2 6 9 11 9 18 0 25 3 E338, « /43 3

. 54 0 65 8 » iPJS i N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 81 % 20 % 4 % "*£0% g t- f 0 % 1 2 % 5 % Jbsftq n

0 5 2 104 15 5 20 7 25 9 31 1 i?36H r : 4i s 46 6 51 8 tfffi'H

. N/ A 200 % 200 % 200 % 122 % 55 % 25 % : f vt-i

' 5 % 13 % 19 % lbs/to n

0 0 0 0 5 0 14 7 24 3 *133 9 '

' 43 5 53 2 62 8 •fi.Dllf
N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A I N /,As

. «N/A" * N/ A N/ A
Not e 5 : Percen t Differenc e (% Diff. ) i s define d a s {[|( a - b) | / (0. 5 x (a+b)) ] x 100)

. Not e 6 : Bolde d an d shaded emissio n an d percen t differenc e value s ar e value s withi n th e HA P conten t rang e teste d b y th e Composit e Fabricator

s Associatio n (CFA)

.P.3 9

j Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc

. Projec t No

. N80 1 - Reinforce d Plasti c / Composite s NESHA P Analysi s fo r Best Fi t Powe r Equatio n Subject t o Certai n Condition s

Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MACT Mode l fo r Manua l & Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n

35 0

.. .

30 0

25 0

20 0

• s 10 0 Manua l • Best Fi t Linea r Eqn

.

y = 5.228585x-87.10270 7 Mechanica l - Ber t Fi t linea r Eqn

. y = 16.583264

X - 440.21984 2

Manua l - Best Fi t Powe r Eqn

. y = 0.171520x rm2 " Mechanica l • Ber t Fi t Powe r Eqn

. y = 0.001300x""*"'' "

Manua l - Constraine d Powe r Eqn

. y = 0.027860x

JaM M Mechanica l - Constraine d Powe r Eqn

. y = 0.014655x" 61M0 0

Th e equation s show n a n possibl e equation s t o b e use d t i • MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d t o accuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credit s to th e variou s emissio n reduction technique s tha t a facSt y coul d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. In e equation s show n shoul d ne t b e USM I fo r predictin g emissions

.

Resi n Monome r Conten t ( % HAP )

Hanoi-Best n Unea r Eqn

. » Actua l Mechanica l

——Mechanical
- Best R t Unea r Eqn

. - Manua l - constraine d Powe r Eon

.

- Manual

. Bes

t F a Powe r Eon

. • Constraine d Bes t F U Powe r Ea r

Eon

.

Targe t Cel l St d [Erro rof Y-Estimat e - Manua l St d Erro ro f Y-Estimat e - Mech

. Su m o f St d Errors o f Y Estimat e Valu e (lbs/ton ) 24.9 4 34.5 3 59.4 7 %o f Averag e Changin g Cell s

CF A Emissio n Coefficien t m o f y = mx n - Manua l 21.8 4 Exponen t n of y = mx n - Manua l 17.4 2 Coefficien t m of y = mx n - Mech

. N/ A Exponen t n o f y = mxn-Mech

. (unitless ) 0.02786 0 2.25500 0 0.01465 5 2.61500 0

Constrain t Descriptio n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 lb s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d to 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAP/to n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d to 0. 1 Ib s HAPAo n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAPAo n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d t o 0. 1 Ib s HAPAo n Resi n Manua l < = Mech

. Rounde d to 0. 1 Ib s HAPAo n Resi n Coefficien t m o f y = mx n - Manua l > 0 Exponen t n of y - mx n - Manua l > 0 Coefficien t m o f y = mx n - Mechanica l > 0 Exponen t n of y = mx n - Mechanica l > 0 St d Errors o f Y-Estimat e - Manua l > 0 St d Enor s o f Y-Estimat e - Mechanica l > 0 Constrain t TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E i TRU E 1 TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E TRU E %HA P

0.0 1 0. 1 0.2 5 0. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0

4 5 5 0 Manua l

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 3 0. 6 1. 0 1. 6 2. 2 3. 0 4. 0 5. 0 12. 5 23. 9 39. 6 59. 7

148. 9 188. 9 Linea r

Manua l 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 17. 5 43. 6 69. 8

148. 2 174. 3 Powe r

Mechanica l 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 3 0. 6 1. 0 1. 6 2. 4 3. 4 4. 6 6. 0 17. 4 37. 0 66. 3 106. 8

308. 4 406. 2 Linea r

Mechanica l 0. 0 a o a o 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 a o o. o a o a o o o o. o 57. 3

306. 0 389. 0

1 : Th e analysi s attempt s to generat e th e best fi t powe requatio n (by minimizin g th e standard errors ) subjec t t o th e constrain t tha t mechanica l emission s are greate rtha n o requa l t o manua l emission s whe n rounde d t o 1 decima l plac e (th e neares t tenth)

. Note 2 : Shade d Area s represen t concentration s withi n th e resi n monome rconten t rang e teste d b y th e CFA

.



# 13$o



### Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Manua l Resi n Applicatio n

20 0

18 0

-= - 16 0 ( 0 o 

### a: c

C L < X C O



### . g
c o c o 'c o C O 

### E U J Q

. < X ~o
• a o 14 0

12 0

10 0

e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d
a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d t o .uratel y reflec t emissio n reduction , credit s t o th e ou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha t a facilit y I d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. Th e uation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin g issions

. if f

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0



### Resi n Monome rConten t ( % HAP ) 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

o X 0.04 1 in./1 5 min./5 0 fp m 0.08 8 in./15min./5 0 fp m

- Linea r( b = 0 ) O

- 0.04 1 in./1 5 min./10 0 fp m 0.08 8 in./15min./10 0 fp m

- Linea r( b = constant ) A O 0.04 1 in./3 0 min./5 0 fp m 0.08 8 in./3 0 min./5 0 fp m

• Powe r( n = constant ) X +

—- — 0.04 1 in./30min./100fp m

0.08 8 in./3 0 min./10 0 fp m

- 2n d Orde rPolynomia lC L

45 0

40 0

35 0

30 0

25 0 ( 0 Q ) Ct C

< 

## x

C O

C O 

### c o S 20 0 C O C O 

### E L U Q

. < X "c > 7 3 O 15 0

10 0 

## Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n

.inear(f r = Q ) 5.242706 X 

# 5 h e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d
n a MAC T mode ! poin t value , syste m designe d t o accuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credit s t o th e variou s emissio n reductio n technique s that ; a

. facilit y ^oul d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard. ' Th e quation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin j / ,

. 7 .' /



# o

<4 -

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0



### Resi n Monome r Conten t (% HAP )

a X 0.04 0 inV1 5 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in./1 5 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. O

- 0.04 0 in./1 5 min./ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in/1 5 min./ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. A O 0.04 0 in./3 0 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in./3 0 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. X + 0.04 0 in./3 0 min./ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in./3 0 min./ 4 Ib s pe rmin

.

- 2n d Orde rPolynomia l

## Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Filamen t Windin g Applicatio n

25 0

Th e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d i n a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d t o accuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credit s t o th e variou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha t a facilit y coul d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin g emissions

.

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0



### Resi n Monome r Conten t ( % HAP ) 3 5 4 0 4 5

• 7 3 degrees/ 6 inche s Linea r( b = constant ) 7 3 degrees/3 3 inche s A 8 5 degrees/ 6 inche s

• Powe r( n = constant ) —- — - 2n d Orde rPolynomia l X 8 5 degrees/3 3 inche s Linea r( b = 0 ) 5 0C O

( 0

C D 

### c o
C L 

### < X 70 0

60 0

50 0

40 0
( O 

### e o l o
« 30 0 

### E L U Q

. < X 0 ) T J O 20 0

10 0 

## Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Ge l Coa t Applicatio n

Unea r ( b = 0 ) i = 10.366197 x

Linea r ( b = ponstapt ) 19.250357X-334.63671 4

•owe r ( n = constant ) y = 0.436189 x 1.87087 2

i e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d
a MAC T mode ! poin t valu e syste m designe d t o ccuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credit s t o th e ariou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha t a facilit y could , choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo r predictin g emissions

. ^ •*<* -

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0



### Ge l Coa t Monome r Conten t ( % HAP )

a 0.01 8 in./10min/ 2 lb s pe rmin

. X 0.02 4 in./. O min/ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. Linea r( b = 0 ) O 0.01 8 in./1 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.02 4 in/1 0 min/4 Ib s pe rmin

. Linea r( b = constant ) O 0.01 8 in./2 0 min/2 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.02 4 in/2 0 min/ 2 Ib s pe rmin

.

• Powe r( n = constant ) X 0.01 8 in/2 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. + 0.02 4 in/2 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

.

- —- 2n d Orde rPolynomia l

## Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Manua l Resi n Applicatio n

0.25 0

Q

. < X J 2 0.20 0 J O J H
> < C O j £ 0.15 0
< X C O
t o

. 2 0.10 0 C O C O E L U C L < E 0.050 0

" O o

0.00 0 tea r ( b = 0 ) I 0.00382 1 x

Linea r ( b = constant ) / = 0.002963 X + 0.03330 3

Powe r ( n = constant ) y = 0.008576 X,0.77321 4

2n d Orde r Polynomia l y = -0.000074X 2 •

+ 0.006851 x

i e equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d I a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d t o accuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credit s t o th e ariou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha t a facilit y )ul d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul dno t b e use dfor

predictin g ••missions

.

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0

Resi n Monome rConten t ( % HAP ) 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

a X 0.04 1 inV15minV50fp m 0.08 8 in./1 5 min./5 0 fp m O

- 0.04 1 in./15min./100fp m 0.08 8 in./1 5 min./10 0 fp m A O 0.04 1 in./3 0 min./5 0 fp m 0.08 8 in/3 0 min./5 0 fp m X + 0.04 1 in./30min./100fp m 0.08 8 in/3 0 min./10 0 fp m

- 2n d Orde rPolynomia l

## Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Mechanica l Resi n Applicatio n

0.50 0

f£ 0.45 0
< X

. 2 0.40 0 

### i 2 

### _n c o CO > < CO A C L < X

C O
( 0 c o "c o C O 

### E L U Q

_ < X "5 3

• o o 0.35 0

0.30 0

0.25 0

0.20 0

0.15 0

0.10 0

0.05 0

0.00 0 Uin-gpr(b-O ) / = 0.006632 x

Linea r f b = constant ) y = 0.014973x-0.32379 4

'owe r ( n = constant ) y = 0.000065x 225781 2

2n d Orde r Polynomia l y- = 0.000220X 2 -0.001987 x equations;show n ar e p c - . use d
a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d t o ;uratel y reflec t emissio n • reductio n credit s t o th e iou s emissio n reductio n technique s tha t a facilit y jl d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. Th e lation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo rpredictin g issions

. / ' ' /A /} 

## 'A /

%

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

Resi n Monome r Conten t ( % HAP )

D X 0.04 0 in/1 5 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in./1 5 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. o

- 0.04 0 in/1 5 min./ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in./1 5 min./ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. A O 0.04 0 in./3 0 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in/3 0 min./ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. X + 0.04 0 in./3 0 min./ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.08 0 in./3 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

.

- 2n d Orde r Polynomia l

## Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Filamen t Windin g Applicatio n

0.25 0

0.00 0 

### 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 Resi n Monome r Conten t ( % HAP ) 4 0 4 5 5 0



### 7 3 degrees/ 6 inche s Linea r( b = 0 ) o 7 3 degrees/3 3 inche s Linea r( b = constant ) 8 5 degrees/ 6 inche s x 8 5 degrees/3 3 inche s Powe r( n = constant ) 2n d Orde rPolynomia l

## Reinforce d Plastic/Composite s MAC T Mode l fo r Ge l Coa t Applicatio n

9 o OC c Q

. < X
V) c

. 0 "5 > c o E L U Q

. < X

"3 o 0.70 0

0.60 0

0.50 0

0.40 0

0.30 0

0.20 0

0.10 0

0.00 0 ear(f r = Q )

= 0.013708 x

inea r ( b = constant ) y = 0.011951 x + 0.06617 0

Powe r ( n = constant ) y = 0.021809x 0

- 87087 2

2n d Orde r Polynomia l

= -0.000047X 2 + 0.015496 x 

# A

The equation s show n ar e possibl e equation s t o b e use d
a MAC T mode l poin t valu e syste m designe d t o accuratel y reflec t emissio n reductio n credits ' t o th e /ariou s emissio n reductio n techniques

. tha t a facilit y x>ul d choos e t o mee t th e MAC T standard

. Th e equation s show n shoul d no t b e use d fo rpredictin g amissions

.

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5

Ge l Coa t Monome r Conten t ( % HAP ) 4 0 4 5

D 0.01 8 in/1 0 min/ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. o 0.01 8 in./1 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. X 0.02 4 in./1 0 min/ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. - 0.02 4 in./1 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. Linea r( b = 0 ) Linea r( b = constant ) 0.01 8 in./2 0 min/ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. x 0.01 8 in./2 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

. 0.02 4 in./2 0 min/ 2 Ib s pe rmin

. + 0.02 4 in./2 0 min/ 4 Ib s pe rmin

.

• Powe r( n = constant ) —- —- 2n d Orde rPolynomia l ^ *

5 0