pollution prevention in the finishing of furniture · 0 futon maker plugs into electrostatic...
TRANSCRIPT
POLLUTION PREVENTION IN THE FINISHING OF WOOD FURNITURE
. A RESOURCE MANUAL AND GUIDE
--
Report 25-1
. -
October 1993
Prepared by:
Common weaith of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Waste Reduction Assistance Program
.
A RESOURCE MANUAL AND GUIDE
POLLUTION PREVENTION IN THE FINISHING OF WOOD FURNITURE
Prepared by:
Common wealth of Virginia Department o f En vironmen fa/ Quality Waste Reduction Assistance Program
IJ
Report 25-1
October 7 993
INTRODUCTION
VIRGINIA INTERAGENCY MULTIMEDIA POLLUTION PREVENTION PROJECT
In July 1990, the Virginia Waste Minimization Program (now the Virginia Waste Reduction Assistance Program) received notice of a grant of $299,970 from the Environmental Protection Agency to establish the Interagency Multimedia Pollution Prevention (IMPP) project team and to conduct associated program activities. Under the three year grant, staff from the Department of Waste Management, the Department of Air Pollution Control and the State Water Control Board, now integrated as the Department of Environmental Quality, have worked cooperatively in coordinating their pollution prevention activities to prevent the shifting of releases from one environmental medium (Le., land, water or air) to another.
Under the grant, each of the participating agencies designated an individual to "champion" and facilitate the incorporation of pollution prevention strategies and the recognition of multimedia impacts into agency decision making. These internal champions have worked with industry, academia, state and local governments to reduce wastes, dis'charges to waters, and emissions to air. The project team has also developed outreach materials, including this reference manual.
This manual was developed by the IMPP project team as a tool for both state agency and industry personnel. It is intended to be used as a guide for regulators, wood furniture finishers and others t o assist them in identifying cross-media impacts or losses associated with wood furniture finishing, and in arriving a t technically and economically feasible pollution prevention options for implementation.
The Virginia Waste Reduction Assistance Program has taken the lead in coordinating activities pursued under the grant. Services offered by the program include access to the following resources: a hard copy library consisting of publications, case studies, and other materials regarding multimedia pollution prevention strategies; electronic databases; an engineer available for telephone consultations; customized research tailored to client needs; on-site audits and site-specific recommendations; and workshops designed to meet the needs of targeted groups.
For more information, please contact:
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Waste Reduction Assistance Program
P.O. Box 10009 Richmond, Virginia 23240-0009
18041 762-4235
I
DISCLAIMER
The statements and conclusions presented in this manual are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This guide is intended to offer information and guidance to the regulatory community, providers of non- regulatory technical assistance, and wood furniture finishers in identifying opportunities and options for pollution prevention. Compliance with environmental, occupational safety, and health laws is the sole responsibility of each business. All legal and regulatory references within this document are intended only for informational purposes and are not reliable sources of legal reference. Businesses should contact the appropriate legal and regulatory authorities for current regulatory requirements as well as their interpretation and implementation. Mention of any product, process or service in this reference manual is solely for educational purposes and should not be regarded as an endorsement by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia, the authors of the overview, nor any organization contributing to this manual are in any way responsible for practices or procedures implemented by individual firms.
PREFACE
The process of wood furniture finishing (WFF) may result in was tes tha t adversely impact the environment and human health. The goal of pollution prevention is to reduce these losses or was tes at their source or, preferably, to eliminate the source. This does not mean eliminating t h e finishing process; rather, it means finding alternative methods by which to finish furniture.
Furniture finishers have significantly reduced their hazardous waste s t reams over t h e past ten years. One of t h e most notable areas of reduction has involved solvent waste associated with operations such a s line cleaning and defect stripping. As the price of solvents has increased along with disposal costs and potential liability for improper disposal, furniture finishers have decreased solvent waste. Maintenance personnel have been trained to use solvent sparingly; spent solvent often is distilled for reuse on the premises. Spray guns have been dedicated to deliver only one coating (e.g., cherry stain), thus eliminating the need for frequent line and gun cleaning. Improvements in operations have decreased the number of defects and the need to strip and refinish entire pieces of furniture.
Wood furniture finishers will face stricter air emissions standards a s a result of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. As this report goes to press, regulatory negotiations are underway to develop: (1 1 Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by finishers in areas of non-attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, and (2) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Virginia air toxics provisions are now defined a s "major sources" under the CAA Amendments and will be required to meet NESHAPs by no later than November 1997. (This deadline may be extended by six years if a facility makes an enforceable commitment under an early reduction agreement.) NESHAPs for existing sources, due by November 1 994, will be based upon Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT); CTGs, due by November 1993, will identify Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT).
Many finishers previously exempted from -
All wood furniture finishers can Drofit bv reducina the loss of materials to the environment throuqh Dollution Drevention. Accounting for materials usage and costs, identifying process and operating losses, deriving options to prevent these losses, and evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of option implementation are sensible strategies for cutting costs and achieving multimedia regulatory compliance. They are also excellent approaches for identifying Total Quality Management and Re-engineering measures, which could lead to increased prof itability . From a regulatory perspective, pollution prevention provides for the most cost-effective means of environmental protection in most cases.
- Businesses engaged in wood furniture finishing, defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "category" for CAA regulation, fall under nine Standard Industrial Classification codes a s follows: 2434, 25 1 1, 25 1 2, 25 1 7, 25 1 9, 2521, 253 1, 2541, and 2599. "Subcategories" for specific regulations (CTGs and NESHAPs) may be designated based on finishing processes, depending on the outcome of regulatory
... I l l
negotiations. Six sub-categories have been identified under regulatory negotiations between EPA, finishers, coatings formulators, and other stakeholders. These subcategories are: dipping, roll/curtain coating, painting, spraying (long sequence), spraying (short sequence), and laminating. Thus, emissions limitations may be closely linked with general finishing methods. Alternatively, the WFF category may be regulated a s a whole.
For finishers, identifying pollution prevention opportunities is relatively easy; however, implementing options requires commitment backed by resources. Deriving a full menu of options, that is, options beyond good operating practices and gun conversions with quick paybacks, may be more difficult. Because EPA is in a "standard-setting" mode, some industry stakeholders have been reluctant t o publicize pilot successes of some promising coating technologies or to make significant capital investments until federal regulations are finalized. Some emerging options may be of use only for limited applications. Some may have high up-front costs and, therefore, may be economically feasible only for high-volume finishers. Some have a "high-tech ring", such as "ultraviolet-cured coatings." When MACT and RACT emissions levels are established, however, promising techniques and products will emerge for many finishers, both large and small.
Overall, emissions limitations specified under NESHAPs and CTGs will be attained by implementing options consistent with the practice of pollution prevention. For example, MACT will most likely be se t in the form of a performance-based standard, such a s an emissions limitation on pounds of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) per pound of coating solids applied. Compliance will likely be achieved through t h e use of a reformulated or alternative coating (which in many cases may require the purchase of new application and process equipment). Reformulation, equipment modifications, and process changes are clearly pollution prevention options. To implement such options successfully, however, finishers will have to work with their coating suppliers and equipment vendors. Finishers may also have the opportunity to achieve equivalent emissions limitations through the use of add-on controls.
This manual provides up-to-date information on pollution prevention in the WFF industry. Anyone who wants to perform a pollution prevention assessment as well as design and implement a pollution prevention program at a WFF operation can do so with the resources provided.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction
Virginia Interagency Multimedia Pollution Prevention Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I ..
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Ovepie w
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1 . Pollution Prevention Primer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A . Pollution Prevention: What It Means ......................... 3 B . Performing a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment (Audit) . . . . 4 C . Establishing a Pollution Prevention Program .................... 6
II . Wood Furniture Manufacturing and Finishing Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
111 . Wood Furniture Manufacturing in Virginia .......................... 9
A . Toxics Release Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B . Losses Not Covered by the Toxics Release Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C . 33/50 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D . Source Reduction Activities and Identification Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
IV . Wood Furniture Finishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A . Process Flow. Losses and Coating Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 General Process Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Function of Coatings/Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
B . Application Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Spray Gun Techniques and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
V
C. Coatings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Composition and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Reformulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Attachments
Appendk A: List of Vendors
0 Equipment Manufacturers and Dealers 0 Coating Formulators and Suppliers
Appendix B: Articles
0 Getting the Most from Water-based Finishes 0 Futon Maker Plugs into Electrostatic Finishing System 0 Loewenstein VOC Dip Continues
Vacuum Coating Eliminates Waste, Emissions 0 Going Green the Hard Way 0 Three-Dimensional Finishing of Wood Furniture
Safe Handling of UV/EB Curable Materials
Appendix C: Reports
Pollution Prevention Options in Wood Manufacturing: A Bibliographic Report
0 Solvents - The Alternatives
Pollution Prevention Options (Chapter 3.0) excerpted from A Guide to Pollution Prevention for Wood Furniture Finishing
Decision Making /Prioritization (Chapter 4.0) excerpted from A Guide to Pollution Prevention for Wood Furniture Finishing
0 A Primer for Financial Analysis of Pollution Prevention Projects
vi
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page Tables
1 Typical Wood Furniture Manufacturing Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 WFM Profile in Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12 3 WFM Facilities in Virginia by SIC Codes and Employee Ranges . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Virginia WFM TRI Release. Transfer. and On-Site Management Data . . . . . . . . 13
5 Source Reduction Activities as Reported Under TRI 19
6 Source Reduction Identification Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Typical Wood Furniture Finishing Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8 Liquid Coating Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9 VOC and Solids Content of Commercial Coatings .................... 35
Fiaures
1 Pollution Prevention Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Wood Furniture Typical Process Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Geographic Distribution of WFM Employment . ...................... 10
4 WFM Profile in Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5 WFM Facilities by Employee Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6 WFM Distribution of Releases. Onsite Management. and Offsite Transfers . . . . 15
7 WFM TRI Releases/Offsite Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8 WFM Share of Reported Air Emissions for Selected TRI Chemicals . . . . . . . . . 17
9 Fate of WFM TRI Offsite Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10 Basic Process Schematic of Conventional Spray Finishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
vii
OVERVIEW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Source reduction is the primary aim of any pollution prevention program. The practice of pollution prevention includes gaining commitment to analyze operations and consider options, identifying opportunities, deriving options, assessing options from both technical and economic perspectives, implementing options, measuring success, building upon success, and reviewing operations for additional opportunities. Companies take loss or waste reduction initiatives for a number of reasons, such as expected efficiency gains, improvements in worker health and safety, and benefits to their public image. Adoption of a pollution prevention philosophy requires no up-front costs. It is hoped that firms will perform pollution prevention opportunity assessments'of their operations and implement options evaluated to have favorable paybacks. In Virginia, there is no requirement that firms practice pollution prevention; it is strictly voluntary.
Although there is no one "right way" to reduce environmental losses, wood furniture finishers have a number of options:
Institute inventory trackina and f ull-cost accountina measures. Perform materials accounting. Identify disposal volumes, costs, and sources for all solid waste, both hazardous and non-hazardous. Evaluate costs of ancillary operations, such as rag laundering and booth cleaning.
Embrace a Dollution Drevention DhilosoDhv as part of an ongoing quality management program. Develop a training program for both current and new employees.
DeveloD a sDecial trainina Droaram for sDrav aun ooerators; focus on spray techniques and optimal equipment settings.
Contact vour eauiDment vendor(s1. Consider conversion of conventional spray guns/systems to those offering greater transfer efficiencies.
Consider sDrav aun dedication to reduce solvent usage or waste. Evaluate the purchase of batch distillation equipment and/or spray gun cleaning units.
Contact vour coatina sumlierts). Seek information on alternative coatings.
Reach out t o customers and retailers for feedback on product changes or modifications.
Read trade oublications for information on new technologies.
Contact the Waste Reduction Assistance Proaram if you need help at: P. 0. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009 (804) 762-4235
1
. . . - . . - . . .
GLOSSARY
CAA:
CTGs:
DEQ:
EPA:
HAP:
HVLP:
. MACT:
MEK:
MIBK:
NESHAPs:
P O W :
RACT:
SIC:
E:
TRI:
voc:
WFF:
WFM:
Clean Air Act
Control Techniques Guidelines
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Air Pollutant
High Volume - Low Pressure
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
Reasonably Available Control Technology
Standard Industrial Classification
Transfer Efficiency
Toxic Release Inventory
Volatile Organic Compound
Wood Furniture Finishing
Wood Furniture Manufacturing
2
I. POLLUTION PREVENTION PRIMER
A. Pollution Prevention: What It Means
With the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the U.S. Congress reaffirmed the
hazardous waste reduction policy set forth a s a national objective in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The
Pollution Prevention Act includes an order of preference for waste management
techniques: reduce; reuse or recycle; treat; dispose. Most environmental regulations focus on the treatment or disposal of waste and are often referred to as "end-of-pipe." The Pollution Prevention Act sought to narrow the policy-making focus and management practices toward t h e most preferable option -- source reduction or non-generation of waste. At the same time, t he Act made a monumental leap: it established a national policy for all waste streams without regard to environmental media (e.g., air, water or land).
All was tes are environmental losses, and any environmental loss is an opportunity for pollution prevention. There are losses to air (emissions), losses to water (discharges), and losses to land (solid/hazardous/industrial wastes). To environmental policymakers, "pollution prevention" means an action that reduces was te a t its source; the term "source reduction" is synonymous with "pollution prevention."
The Pollution Prevention Act defines "source reduction" as:
(i) any practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous substance [...I entering any waste stream or otherwise released to t h e environment [...I prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and (ii) reduces hazards to public health and the environment.'
According to EPA policy, pollution prevention is considered a "first priority within an environmental management hierarchy that includes: 1 )prevention, 2) recycling, 3) treatment, and 4) disposal or release." This hierarchy "should be viewed as establishing a set of preferences, rather than an absolute judgement that prevention is always t h e
desirable option." Although EPA's definition of pollution prevention excludes recycling unless it is "in-process" and environmentally sound, EPA does recognize that "recycling
3
conducted in an environmentally sound manner shares many of the advantages of
prevention. "
Voluntary pollution prevention is an attractive alternative to traditional "command
and control" regulation. Paybacks provide incentives for businesses to continue to
identify pollution prevention opportunities and implement options, which then serve as
examples for other companies to follow.
The adoption of prevention as the preferred means of environmental management
represents a fundamental shift in popular thinking. Far from a new idea, pollution
prevention has recently become the foundation for worldwide environmental management
policies and strategies. It is hoped that the wide practice of voluntary pollution prevention
will eliminate the need for increasingly stringent "command and control" environmental
regulation.
B. Performing a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment (Audit)
In an industrial setting, pollution prevention must be an ongoing process and
requires teamwork and open minds. Performing a thorough pollution prevention
assessment necessitates that people disregard, a t least temporarily, many old rules,
traditions, and preconceived notions. It is important for any auditor, or auditing team, to
make a concerted effort t o take a "fresh look" at operations. New ideas must be
welcomed and creative thinking encouraged.
Figure 1 presents the cycle of pollution prevention. An assessment encompasses
six principal steps: selling the concept of source reduction and gaining commitment to
move forward; identifying sources of waste or opportunities for pollution prevention;
deriving options to reduce or eliminate the wastes identified; assessing these options for
technical and financial feasibility; implementing .the feasible options; and sustaining the
pollution prevention program. Any waste represents an opportunity for prevention.
Pollution prevention options cover four broad categories: housekeeping and good
operating practices; materials substitution; process redesign, including equipment
modification; and product redesign. The illustration on page 5 outlines the pollution
prevention assessment or audit process.
4
Figure 1 Pollution Prevention Cycle
Options
n ASSeSS
3. Derive Options
Options u
5
. . . . . . - . . . . . . - _I_ ~ . -
Pollution Prevention Audit Guide
Form Team and Prepare for Inspection
Conduct Inspection, Observation, Survey
Develop Simple Process Flow Diagram (PFD) Define Boundaries
Focus on Function and Sequence
Perform Materials Accounting
Develop Detailed Process Flow Diagram
Verify Process Flow Diagram
fBy this point all inputs, intermediate losses, and outputs should have been identified. Remember, every loss is an opportunity for pollution prevention./
Prioritize Losses/Opportunities
Develop Options Brainstorm Research
Think Creatively
Perform Feasibility Analysis Technical Feasibility Economic Feasibility
Develop Implementation Plan
Provide Means for Measuring Progress
Implement Plan
Sustain and Expand Program Through Periodic Review
C. Establishing a Pollution Prevention Program
Performing a pollution prevention opportunity assessment and establishing a formal pollution prevention program are related; however, program establishment is
6
much broader than an assessment . Establishing a program involves adopting a pollution prevention philosophy, which can lead t o cost savings and increased
efficiency company-wide. Firms can capitalize on innovation and success (and learn
from failures) through pollution prevention technology transfer and techniques
communication. In many cases, companies integrate pollution prevention activities
with ongoing quality management programs.
A successful pollution prevention program incorporates: 0
0
0
0
* o 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Management support and a written company-wide policy Compatible goals and objectives An approved budget Organization and planning A team of committed individuals representing all departments A leader to "champion" the cause Assessment and reassessment of the program Recognition of successes and failures Education and training Adequate inventory tracking True cost allocation to waste generating activities Recognition and incentives for a job well done Measurement and accountability Means of involving vendors and deaiers/customers Periodic third-party or independent audits
To suggest that any firm can easily jump into a pollution prevention program
would be misleading, however. Depending on business or corporate culture, doing
pollution prevention will require employees to change behavior. The principal
challenge may be overcoming inertia. Other challenges and barriers to pollution
prevention may involve technical limitations, a lack of technical information, t he fear
of impacting product quality, insufficient capital, economic infeasibility, and permitting
burdens. Recognizing these potential challenges is a n important step in overcoming
them.
. 11. WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING AND FINISHING LOSSES
Finishing is a term used to describe the application of protective and/or
decorative coatings t o products. Wood furni ture finishing (WFF) is a process within
7
t h e wood furniture manufacturing (WFM) process, as indicated by Figure 2. WFM is
captured by the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) sys t em under portions of
SIC Code 25 (Furniture and Fixtures) and a portion of SIC Code 24 (Lumber and Wood
Products, except F ~ r n i t u r e ) . ~
Coatings, such as stains or lacquers, are typically delivered to assembled wood
items in spray booths by means of solvent blends that act as "carriers". Solvents
used in finishing contribute to ground-level ozone ( the principal component of smog)
and, depending on exposure, may present health and safety problems for those
working closely with t h e materials and for t h e public at large.
Solvents are not t h e only environmental losses or wastes attributable to WFM.
Oth i r losses typically associated with WFM are listed in Table 1.
8
Figure 2
Rough
,Per
Wood Furniture Typical Process Flow-
Wood Furniture
From "A Guide to Pollution Prevention for Wood Furniture Finishing." Dambek et ai. 1992.
Table 1 Typical WFM Losses4
Solid Wastes
0 Sawdust, wood scraps, sanding dust and spent sandpaper Packing materials Boiler ash
0 Empty containers, maintenance materials and' off-specification materials Spray booth solids or liquids and filters Spray gun cleaning solutions Stripping solids Dip tank solids Spills and adsorbent materials Wiping rags
Air Emissions
Solvents from coating, cleaning and stripping operations Wood dust Boiler combustion gases Glues
Water Discharges
0 Boiler and cooling tower blowdown 0 Waterwall spray booth blowdown
Air compressor condensate Rag washwater
111. WOOD FURNITURE MANUFACTURING IN VIRGINIA
The WFM industry consists of three major product or market segments, each
represented by a national trade association. The segments are residential wood
furniture, office/institutional wood furniture, and kitchen cabinets. Figure 3 presents
a geographic distribution of WFM employment in Virginia.
9
Figure 3 Geographic Distribution of WFM Employment
Source: Virginia Employment Commission Data for 1991,4th Quarter (See Table 2 for more information). Prepared by Ecomaps Program, Department of Environmental Quality, July 1993.
Table 2 and Figure 4 detail by SIC code the distribution of facilities and
employees within the WFM industry in Virginia. Wood kitchen cabinets and wood
household furniture (SIC Codes 2434, 251 1 and 251 2) account for approximately 87
percent of the facilities and 95 percent of all employees. There are almost twice as
many wood kitchen cabinet shops as there are wood household furniture operations.
One category, unupholstered wood household furniture (SIC Code 251 1 1, accounts
for approximately 77 percent of all employees in the industry.
Table 3 is a matrix of WFM facilities and employee ranges based on Virginia
EmpJoyment Commission data for 1991. Wood kitchen cabinet facilities (SIC Code
2434) represent by far the largest number of "small shop" operations. Figure 5 is a
histogram of WFM facilities by employee ranges. This displays further the distribution
of small shops within the industry.
10
Table 2
2434
WFM Profile in Virginia
Wood Kitchen Cabinets 55 11
SIC 1 Description 1 Percent of I Percent of
251 1
25 12
Code 1 1 Facilities" 1
Wood Household Furniture, Except Upholstered . 27 77
Wood Household Furniture, Upholstered 5 7
Employeesb
Household Furniture, Not Elsewhere Classified
Wood Office Furniture
4 1
1 +
2531
2541
2517
Public Building and Related Furniture 2 1
Wood Office and Store Fixtures, Partitions, 7 1 Shelving, and Lockers
2519
2599
552 1
Furniture and Fixtures, Not Bsewhere Classified 2 1
I o Wood Televisions, Radios, Phonographs, and Sewins Machine Cabinets
Qn ................................................................
0
Source: Virginia Employment Commission, Data for 1991 - 4th Quarter. a Based on 284 facilities (of 305) reporting data for period. bBased on 22,134 employees for reporting facilities. . Less than 1 percent.
Figure 4 WFM Profile in Virginia
............ .............
.............
......
......
............. ......................... 1 " 2434 2511 2512 2541 Other
SIC Codes Data from Table 2 See Table 2 for SIC Code descriptions
Table 3 WFM Facilities in Virginia by SIC Codes and Employee Ranges
Employee Ranges
Source: Vtrginia Employment Commission, Data for 1991 - 4th Quarter. NR' indicates facilities not reporting data for 4th Quarter.
Figure WFM Facilities by Employee Ranges
1201 1
...................................................... 2 100 i! - 5 80 ........................................... - a
........................................... f 6 0
2 20 - 0
13 ................................ % a
n W
1-4 5-19 20-99 100-249250-499 500+ Employee Range for Single-Facility Establishments
Data from Table 3
12
A. Toxics Release Inventory
Table 4 presents a raw data summary of the 1991 Virginia Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) by chemical for t h e WFM industry. This summary was generated from
reports filed by wood furniture manufacturers under Section 313 of t h e Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Manufacturing facilities t ha t
(a) have 10 or more full-time equivalent employees (b) use at least 10,000
pounds of any of t h e approximately 300 listed TRI chemicals must file TRI reports.
Chemical
Table 4 Total TRI Release, Transfer, and Onsite Management Figures in Pounds
Fugitive StadcAir POTW' Onsite Offsite Onsite Offsite Offsii Total Air Energy Energy Recycle Recycle Treat
Acetone 52.902 725,488 556 0 33,888 11.01 2 42.967 82 866,895
I D E H F 11,687 46,746 0 0 0 0 0 0 58,433
Dic hloromethane 32,000 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 32,000
Ethylbenzene
Glycol Ethers I 0 10,194 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,194
2,683 98,678 0 0 0 550 0 0 101,911
' Publicly owned treatment works. Di(2-ethy1exyl)phthalate Methyl Ethyl Ketone ' Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Hydrochloric Acid
Isopropyl Alcohol
Source: 1991 Virginia Toxics Release Inventory. Note: This table excludes: (1 direct transfers to disposal because the quantity reported is negligible; (2) discharges t o water bodies because t h e quantity reported is zero; and (3,) releases to land because the quantity reported is zero. See Figure 8 for more information.
20,069
250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
675 19.394 0 0 0 0 0 0
13
I
!
Methanol 142,991 1,672,000 78 1 0 23,952 3,640 13,422 21 1,856,807
MEK' 68,138 81 8,509 528 0 64.7 1 4 2,218 14,621 22 968,750
MlBK'
N-butyl Alcohol
57,601 330,468 0 0 37,053 0 1,695 0 426.8 17
15,778 428,796 522 0 3,710 1,430 70 11 450,317
Styrene
Toluene
0 12.200 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,200
193,322 2,239,401 358 30 111,714 11.950 78,168 10 2.634.953
Xylenes
Total
79,952 1,014,181 802 0 50,972 80 1 13,151 138 1 ,159,997
657.979 7.41 6.055 3.547 30 326.003 31,601 164.094 284 8,599,593
Forty-one WFM facilities, or approximately 15 percent of the WFM facility
population, filed Virginia TRI reports for 1991. At least 35 of these facilities
employed more than 100 people, and 34 of the reporting facilities classified their
operations as falling under SIC Code 251 1. SIC Codes 251 1 (wood household
furniture, except upholstered) and 2434 (wood kitchen cabinets) accounted
respectively for approximately 95 percent and 4 percent of the TRI releases and
transfers reported for the industry. Based on analysis, TRI reports for 1991
accounted for about 75 percent of WFM employment in Virginia.
It is generally assumed that large scale manufacturing operations contribute to
the majority of losses within a given manufacturing sector. Therefore, an observer
of th'e data might suspect that the TRI for WFM in Virginia, having captured 75
percent of employment, would account for the majority of environmental losses of TRI
chemicals across the industry. In this case, 15 percent of WFM facilities would
account for approximately 75 percent of the environmental releases. However, large
scale operations tend to be more controlled than smaller scale operations, which often
escape regulatory scrutiny or are exempt from regulation altogether. Although crude
in precision, due to data comparability and measurement issues, an unpublished rough
comparison of National Paint and Coatings Association data and national TRI data for
1989 suggests that TRI data covered only 40 percent of wood furniture finishing's
TRI chemical releases and transfers. The coverage of TRI data for entire
manufacturing sectors may be an area worthy of further research. However,
regardless of its coverage of total releases and transfers, TRI provides a general profile
of the chemical nature and loss media across the WFM industry.
By far the most significant toxic losses associated with wood furniture
manufacturing are air emissions from wood furniture finishing. Figure 6 shows that
about 94 percent of the TRI releases from WFM were to the air. Figure 7, developed
from Table 4, shows the distribution of air releases and offsite transfers by TRI
chemical. Referring to Figure 7, stack emissions are releases to air through confined
air streams, such as spray booth hoods. Fugitive emissions are air releases not
14
. - . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - _ _ - . - . -
emitted through a confined air stream.
example of a fugitive emission.
Evaporation from open containers is a n
With t h e exception of acetone, the top six released TRI chemicals have been
designated as HAPS under t h e CAA of 1990. Toluene, methanol, xylenes, methyl
ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone account for approximately 82 percent of air
emissions for the industry. Figure 8 shows selected TRI chemical air releases from
wood furniture manufacturers relative to TRI air releases from all TRI reporters. In
Virginia, WFM reporters account for more than 20 percent of reported air releases of toluene, xylenes, and methyl isobutyl ketone.
Figure WFM Distribution of Releases, Unsite Management, and Offsite Transfers
Air Emissions 93.9% \
Offsite Recycling 0.4%
Recycling 1.9%
As indicated by Figure 6, TRI reporters transferred offsite approximately 6
percent of their TRI chemicals. Further, only about 16 tons, a negligible quantity in
comparison to total releases and transfers, were reported a s managed or recycled on
site. Three facilities indicated that they were engaged in onsite recycling activities of TRI chemicals. One facility reported t h e recovery of approximately 14,000 pounds
of chemicals through solvents/organics batch still distillation. Another facility reported
15
the recycling of approximately 13,000 pounds by some other means of
solvents/organics recovery. The third facility reported t h e recycling of approximately
4,000 pounds of TRI .chemicals by an unidentified reuse or recovery method. Figure
9 indicates t h e fate of offsite transfers as reported under TRI by wood furniture
manufacturers.
Figure WFM TRI Air Releases/Offsite Transfers
Percent Total Reported WFM Releaseflransfers
......................... ..............
......................... ..............
....................... ..............
....................... ..............
...............
Source: 1991 Vrginia T W fWeas@ lfP”Itoty
B. Losses Not Covered by the Toxics Release Inventory
Important WFF waste s t reams are not covered by TRI reporting requirements.
For example, TRI data do not reflect offsite disposal of spray .booth filters and
overspray solids. The need to dispose of spray booth filters results from solids
overspray, which is dependent on transfer efficiency. Transfer efficiency indicates the
ratio of solids adhesion to a target substrate versus the total amount of solids
sprayed. As transfer efficiency increases, overspray decreases. For conventional film- building coatings, transfer efficiency and solvent emissions are inversely proportional.
Therefore, increasing transfer efficiency is a
16
. . . . . - - . . . . . . -. .
Figure WFM Share of Reported Air Emissions for Selected TRI Chemicals
5% 6% 11% 94% 89% 85
Acetone Methanol Methyl Ethyl Ketone
26% aD 74%
2% 21%
79
Methyl isobutyl Ketone Toluene Xylenes
I WWFM Reporters All TRI Reporters I
FigUre9 Fate of WFM TRI Offsite Transfers
Other Reuse/Recoverv 15% SolvenVOrrranic Recovery 28%
/ Energy Recovery 39%
17
. . . - - . . . - . . .. . . . . - . , .
source reduction measure from both air emission and solid waste perspectives. Spray
booth filters, which are generally made of paper, and overspray may be disposed of as a characteristic hazardous waste, depending o n ignitability. This waste s t ream is not associated with a TRI chemical and is not reported under TRI as a result, yet it is
a significant WFF waste stream.
Another source of loss from finishing is rags used for wiping stains into and
from furniture. Since these rags, or contaminated wipers, are generally sen t to a
commercial laundry to be washed for reuse, they are not solid wastes and are, therefore, not hazardous wastes. They are also not reported under TRI but are a significant waste stream for many finishers.
Finally, it should be noted that many coatings contain hazardous or toxic substances that are neither TRI chemicals, Hazardous Air Pollutants or VOCs for which NESHAPs and CTGs will be established, nor priority or nofi-conventional
pollutants under t h e Clean Water Act.
C. 33/50 Program
The 33/50 Program was initiated by former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly
in 1990 and is part of EPA’s broad initiative to encourage voluntary pollution
prevention. The program targets 17 high-volume usage TRI chemicals, all of which
are Hazardous Air Pollutants under t he Clean Air Act, with the goal of achieving a 33 percent reduction in releases by the end of 1992 and a 50 percent reduction in
releases by the end of 1995. To date, more than 1,100 companies nationwide have
made voluntary reduction commitments. Based o n 1991 TRI data, t h e 33% national reduction goal from the 1988 baseline has been met.’ Among the 33/50 chemicals are four chemicals used extensively in wood furniture finishing: toluene, xylenes,
methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone. .
Three wood furniture finishers are 33/50 participants in Virginia. They are: Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (Thomasville Furniture industries); Bassett Furniture
Industries, Inc.; and Masco Industries, Inc. (parent company of Merillat Industries).
18
D. Source Reduction Activities and Identification Methods
Eleven facilities, or about 25 percent of WFM TRI reporters, reported that they
had undertaken source reduction activities for TRI chemicals in 1991. Tables 5 and
6 present t h e aggregate frequency of the source reduction activities and identification
methods reported on 1991 TRI forms. Table 5 reveals that improved application
techniques and the modification of spray systems or equipment w e r e t h e most
frequent types of source reduction activities. According to the data presented in
Table 6, participative t eam management and vendor assis tance were t h e most
frequent methods of identifying source reduction identification opportunities. Some
facilities reported multiple activities and methods.
Table 5 Source Reduction Activities as Reported Under TRI
Source Reduction Activity -
Made c h a n g e b ) in operating practices
Instituted clearinghouse to exchange materials that would otherwise be discarded
Improved procedures for loading, unloading and transfer operations
Substituted raw materials
Modified equipment, layout, or piping
Performed other process modifications
Modified spray sys tems or equipment
Substituted coating materials used
Improved application techniques
Modified design or composition of product
Frequency
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
4
1
19
Table 6
Internal Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments
Participative t eam management
Employee Recommendation (Independent of a formal company program)
Trade Association/lndustry Technical Assistance Program
-
Source Reduction Identification Methods
1
5
1
2
Identification Method Reported 1 Frequency II
Other 4
Vendor Assistance I 7 II
IV. WOOD FURNITURE FINISHING
The purpose of furniture finishing is to provide a specific final appearance and
protection that meets the tastes and needs of the end user or customer. Furniture
may be painted, stained, printed, upholstered and/or overlaid with plastic, vinyl, or wood veneer. Wood furniture can be classified as high, medium or low quality. Quality traditionally has been "closely correlated with t h e number of finishing
operations performed on t h e piece. A low end piece might undergo 6 to 12 finishing
operations, while a high end piece could require 130 or m o ~ e ] . " ~ The cost of materials or coatings, labor and equipment are key factors in any finishing function.
High quality and priced wood furniture consists of very fine and expensive wood whose natural appearance has been carefully enhanced in a traditional, labor
intensive manner. In contrast, progressive, lower end, mass-produced furniture may
consist of particleboard or fiberboard whose surface has been smoothed by a n ultra-
violet curable filler and printed to resemble natural wood grain. The latter finishing
method represents technological innovation through the refinement of embossing,
engraving and printing techniques, which evolved from the desire to reduce veneer
20
costs and to produce low-cost furniture in the 1960's. One industry expert suggests
that manufacturing furniture at moderate prices and in large volume "with most of the
aesthetics and durability of very expensive furniture" is "a testimony to the ingenuity
of our major furniture manufacturers." This feat has been accomplished "through the
remarkable rate of development of new materials, methods, and machines over recent
ye a rs . ' The remainder of this overview focuses on pollution prevention opportunities
and options associated with the manual air-spray finishing of wood furniture using
conventional, organic solvent-based lacquers and equipment. This finishing system
represents a level of "no control" with regard to air emissions, other than particulate
capture by spray booth filters. All other coating systems can be viewed as
improvements over this "no control" system. New levels or control techniques have
been the result of innovative manufacturing, made possible by coatings research and
improved application technology.
Capturing the essence of conventional finishing, one author notes:
Furniture finishing, as it relates to high quality residential furniture, involves a process which may consist of 30-35 steps. The process may include application of various kinds of stains, fillers, glazes, sealers, wash coats, and top coats which are used to achieve a specific and distinctive final appearance. It is this appearance that the furniture maker isselling, and the process used to achieve this look is crucial.'
One path to pollution prevention in finishing is to reduce the number of coating
steps required to achieve a specific appearance and protective quality. A major
challenge is the fear that the elimination of any inputs or ste.ps may compromise
quality. Another path to pollution prevention is to ascertain the level of quality factors
necessary for specific products in particular market segments and to modify finishing
requirements accordingly. Both of these paths are related to competitiveness.
Potential emissions reduction or control techniques,' other than step reductions
based solely on quality needs, include:
21
Coating Reformulation
Higher solids coatings 0 Waterborne coatings 0 Reactive or conversion coatings 0 Ultraviolet radiation or electron beam cured coatings 0 Unicarb” coating system
Increased Transfer Efficiency
0 Airless spraying 0 Air-assisted airless spraying 0 High-volume low-pressure spraying 0 Electrostatic spraying
Dipping 0 Roll coating 0 Curtain coating 0 Automated sensing and spraying
Improved Spray Booth and Oven Design
0 Mobile zone technology 0 Air curtain 0 Air recirculation
Add-on Control Technologies
0 Recuperative thermal incineration 0 Regenerative thermal incineration
Fixed bed catalytic incineration Fluidized bed catalytic incineration Carbon adsorption Ultraviolet/activated oxygen oxidation
Only coating reformulation and increased transfer efficiency meet the definition of
source reduction.
A presentation of the process flow losses and coating functions for
conventional spray finishing of traditional household furniture follows. The final
sections of this overview include discussions of application techniques/options and
coatings/reformulation issues. Source reduction options are addressed in further detail
in A Guide to Pollution Prevention for Wood Furniture Finishing, a chapter of which
22
‘ f . -.
.-
is excerpted in Appendix C. For information on the financial aspects of pollution
prevention, see A Primer for Financial Analysis o f Pollution Prevention Projects, also in Appendix C.
A. Process Flow, Losses and Coating Functions
General Process Flow. Table 7 presents a conventional WFF schedule. The
process is relatively simple: there is one motion mode of loading and unloading a piece (e.g., on and off a conveyor); there are three motion or application modes of spraying, sanding, and wiping/brushing; and, there is one non-motion mode of drying
tha? is accelerated or controlled by ovens. Note that out of t h e 399 minutes in t he
schedule, 342 minutes, or 8 6 % of t h e time, is accounted for under t h e operation
"drying." This table identifies two essential concerns in manufacturing: production
time and labor. -
Figure 10 illustrates t h e schedule presented in Table 7 in t h e form of a hybrid
process flow diagram that depicts the WFF process in its simplest form. The inputs,
intermediate losses and outputs account for t h e general materials used during a WFF
operation.
Losses. The term "loss" refers t o any emission, discharge, spill, release, leak
or waste. Any loss represents a n opportunity for pollution prevention. Of all finishing
losses, air toxics emissions predominate. Air losses are concentrated in four particular
areas: spray booths, flashoff (e.g., natural drying), ovens, and clean-up or ancillary
operations." Examples of ancillary operations are line flushing, gun cleaning and
coating preparation (these are not indicated in Table 7 or Figure 10). In addition, spills
and leaks of coatings and/or solvent are likely to occur from time to time. Air
emissions may also result from faulty pumps, seals and unsealed containers.
Approximately 70 percent of volatile organic compound (VOC) losses occur in spray
booths. Conventional topcoating and staining respectively account for 35 to 40 percent and 26 to 32 percent of VOC losses."
23
Table 7
Typical Wood Furniture Finishing Schedule12
Operation Time Allowed (Minutes) Number of Persons Per ODeration
Load 5.0 1
Spray Uniform Stain 1.5 2
Dry 20.0 0
Spray Washcoat 1.5 2
Dry 20.0 0
Sant Lightly 1.5 4
Spray Filler 1.5 2
Flashoff Filler 2.0 0
Wipe Filler 4.0 8
Dry 45.0 0
Spray Sealer 1.5 2
Dry 30.0 0
Sand 3.0 7
Spray Sealer 1.5 2
Dry 30.0 0
Sand 3.0 7
Spray Glaze 1.5 2
Wipe and Brush 5.0 13
Dry 60.0 0
Distress 2.0 4
Spray Lacquer 1.5 2
Dry 45.0 0
Spray Lacquer 1.5 2
Dry: 75.0 0
Unload 5.0 1
Return to Load 15.0 0
TOTAL 399.0 63
24
Figure lo Basic Process Schematic of Conventional Spray Finishing
Substrate
T I Rags Coating
Particulates
Substrate to Nex-t ++ Sequence
I Sandpaper
Finishing also results in solid wastes. Rags used to wipe furniture, and materials used to clean up spills, are sources of emissions and may enter t he solid
waste s t ream carrying hazardous constituents. Spent solvents result from line
flushing, equipment and spray booth cleaning, and furniture stripping. In addition,
empty containers and spray booth filters are generated as wastes. Water losses (Le., discharges to sewer or water treatment works) occur at the few facilities that still use
water-wall spray booths.
. Function of Coatinas/Steos. Table 8 on the following page, taken from a 1978
study, provides an overview of t h e functions of liquid ~ 0 a t i n g s . l ~
25
Table 8
Stains (sap, body, shading, padding, spatter)
Was hcoat
Liquid Coating Functions
Gives color uniformity; develops wood grains, character
Seals wood surface; pievents subsequent unwanted staining from penetrating filler coat
Finish I Purpose
Filler
Sealer
Glaze
Fills large pores in wood
Seals the wood for application of subsequent coats
Penetrates and adheres to sealer
Wiping Stain I Gives color uniformity and texture
Toacoats I Provides deep, clear, durable final finish
B. Application Techniques
YO Solids
3-5
6
40
60
15-1 8
30-40
21 -27
The coating process involves t h e application of material to a substrate.
Coatings may be applied by brushing, wiping, spraying, rolling, curtain coating or dipping. A manufacturer's selection of any particular method depends, among other
things, on production rate, application efficiency, quality and equipment price. Each
application technique has advantages and disadvantages. For example, spray gun
application provides a finer, uniform quality finish in much less time than brush
application, but a spray gun system costs much more than a brush. In t h e scheme
of manufacturing, t he search for t h e most efficient application method is a key to low- cost production of any particular coated product.
As pointed out in t he preface, federal air emissions s tandards and guidelines
may be issued for WFF operations based on coating application process. While a firm's SIC code classification has been considered a good indicator of the finishing
process utilized, it is not always an accurate indicator. The size of t h e operation is
26
an equally important indicator of process, as demonstrated by t h e following example.
SIC Code 2434 covers all wood kitchen cabinet establishments. Some highly-
capitalized, mass-production establishments finish kitchen cabinets by flat-line coating
techniques before component parts are assembled. In contrast, small shop
operations finish kitchen cabinets by manual spray-gun application after t h e
components have been assembled.
Spray-gun application requires the lowest 'up-front capital costs and, not
surprisingly, is the principal finishing method employed by most establishments. Used
pervasively in t he manufacture of residential wood furniture (SIC Code 251 11, spray-
gun application of liquid coatings is associated with t h e highest emissions of air pollutants. Many types of spray gun sys tems have been developed over t h e years.
Increased transfer efficiency and associated loss reductions, along with acceptable
film builds and gun speeds, are the primary advancements offered by newer
generation gun systems. Transfer efficiency is a term used to describe the amount
of sprayed coating solids tha t remain on a furniture piece. As transfer efficiency
increases, solvent losses and overspray solids decrease. Spray sys tems tha t offer increased transfer efficiency over conventional air spraying are airless, air-assisted airless, hig h-volume low-pressure (HVLP) and electrostatic systems.
Although there is controversy over which spray guns give t h e highest transfer
efficiency, EPA assumes a transfer efficiency of 25 percent for conventional airspray
and 40 percent for both airless and air-assisted airless spray. Although there is no
consensus within EPA on HVLP, EPA Region IX (San Francisco) considers transfer
efficiency for HVLP to be 65 percent or g r e a t e ~ . ' ~
A simple formula to calculate the amount of coating saved by switching to a system that offer greater transfer efficiency, provided that coating formulas and
thickness applied are equal, is:
27
V s a v d = V m e n t (1 - TE,,,entTTEne,) where
V-cd
T E current
current T E m w
= Volume of coating saved by using method with higher TE
= Transfer efficiency of current application method
= Volume of coating utilized with current method
= Transfer efficiency of n e w method with higher TE
ExamDle Assume a small finishing operation utilizes 5,000 gallons of coatings
annually at a n average cost of $10 per gallon and achieves a transfer efficiency of 40
percent. Material savings realized by utilizing coating equipment with a TE of 60
percent is calculated a s follows:
V,,, = (5,000 gallons) (1 - .40/.60) = 5,000 gallons - 3,333 gallons
= 1,667 gallons.
At a n average price of $10 per gallon, saving 1,667 gallons of coatings annually
decreases yearly expenses or operating costs by $1 6,667. For information on how
to calculate t h e payback period or for costing and financial analysis techniques concerning pollution prevention, refer to Appendix C.
Smav Gun Techniaues and EauiDment. Substantial loss reduction has been
achieved by improving spray-gun techniques and equipment. A recent s tudy conducted by t h e Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Center reaffirmed
tha t properly trained operators who practice efficient spray techniques keep VOC
emissions and materials consumption at optimum level^.'^ Both introductory and
ongoing training are important. Areas of focus should be spray techniques, coating
content and optimal equipment settings (including the use of variable fluid tips and air caps). Given proper operation, HVLP spray systems provide substantial transfer
efficiency improvements over conventional air spray systems. In fact, HVLP systems are t h e "low hanging fruit" in pollution prevention equipment for t he industry.
28
Not all HVLP systems are alike, however. HVLP guns most commonly utilized
by wood finishers are conventional air spray guns that have been modified with a
venturi to spray low pressure, compressed air. These guns provide substantial
savings over conventional air spray. However, one spray gun manufacturer has
developed an industrial turbine-powered HVLP system that has demonstrated a
significantly higher transfer efficiency than conventional compressed-air powered
HVLP systems and operates on about one third of 'the electrical power. Materials
savings reportedly range between 20 to 40 percent over HVLP systems powered by
compressed air. In addition, the industrial turbine HVLP system reportedly can spray
high solids coatings at rates comparable to airless systems.''
C. Coatings
Coatings are generally either liquid or powder compositions that are applied to
substrates. Coating systems include the coating, the application method, and the
drying or curing process. Coating chemistry, along with desired build and appearance,
are the primary determinants for the technical feasibility of any particular application
method. The drying or curing process is dependent on the coating's constituents.
Organic solvents contribute to level of hydrocarbons in ambient air and, thus,
to the formation of ground-level ozone. Air regulations have been an important factor
in coatings research since EPA set national ambient air quality standards for
photochemical oxidants and hydrocarbons in 1974. These standards, along with a
Los Angeles rule passed in 1966, "encouraged the development of high-solids and
water-based finishes to replace solvent-based finishes" for industrial coating
operation^.'^ Extensive research in electrostatic powder coating and radiation-cured
coatings ensued for commercial applications. Solvents serve two functions: they act
to dissolve and dilute resin systems, and, based on their evaporation rates, allow for
control of drying times. Solvents used in conventional coatings typically have been
alcohols, ketones, ester solvents, glycol ethers, aliphatic solvents and aromatic
solvents.
29
Organic solvent, nitrocellulose-based lacquers are highly utilized in the U.S.
wood furniture industry for one main reason: they provide finishes that meet both
customer demands and manufacturing needs (ease of application and repairability).
In addition, no federal guidelines or regulations on coating emissions standards have
been developed for WFF from the time that draft guidelines were issued in 1979.
Although state and local regulations have required wood finishers in some areas of the
United States to utilize "compliant" coatings and/or have contained restrictions on
application methods, the majority of furniture manufacturers have been reluctant to
modify coatings and finishing processes substantially at existing facilities.'*
Consequently, there has been little competitive pressure for finishers to experiment
and make investments in innovative finishing techniques that would also reduce
environmental losses. Further, finishers who reduced their environmental losses might
ultimately subject themselves and other finishers to stricter standards.
When assessing the benefits of alternative coating systems, it is important to
consider tradeoffs between environmental losses and toxicities across all media, along
with potential impact to worker health and safety. Epoxy resins, styrene, acrylates
and poiyisocyanates are substances associated with alternative or low-VOC coatings.
The relative human health and environmental risk of using these substances compared
to conventional solvents is unknown. Many of the radiation-cured, reactive coatings
cure very rapidly and emit very little or no chemicals at and after application.
ComDosition and Classification. Coatings may be classified as primers, sealers,
topcoats, or color coats. Primers may be either pigmented or clear and are applied
directly to the substrate followed by intermediate steps, then one or more topcoats.
Sealers are intermediate coats of 12 to 18 percent weight solids content.
Conventional liquid coatings consist of binders (resins), pigments, organic solvents
(active, latent, and diluent), and additives. Non-pigmented stains often consist of
dyes dissolved in methanol and are generally 1 to 5 percent solids. Conventional
lacquer topcoats are nitrocellulose-based, solution coatings of 18 to 24 percent solids.
High solids coatings contain less solvent than low solids coatings per unit volume.
f
30
Coatings may be also be divided into those that dry by solvent loss (lacquers
or non-conversion coatings) or cure and chemically cross-link to form a reaction
product (conversion coatings). Curing is affected by a catalyst or, in the case of ultra-
violet (UV) radiation-cured coatings, a photo-initiator. The catalyst is either present
”in the can as delivered” for slow curing, pre-catalyzed coatings or added near
application time for faster curing coatings.
Non-conversion coatings are said to be thermoplastic, because they flow above
a given transition temperature but retain their chemical composition when cooled and
solidified. Conversion coatings, on the other hand, are often harder and said to be
thermosetting. When some thermosetting resins are exposed to heat in the presence
of a catalyst, they tend chemically to cross-link. After solidification, the reaction
product is relatively stable when exposed to heat. Lacquers have a relatively high
degree of plasticity and are generally easier to rework or repair than conversion
coatings.
Liquid coatings come as solutions, dispersions, or emulsions. Coatings with the
binder in solution (e.g., nitrocellulose) have been applied traditionally by conventional
air spraying with a volume of solvent five to eight times that of the coating. When
nitrocellulose resins are dissolved in a volatile solvent, their molecules are loosely
intertwined and in constant motion. As solvent evaporates, the polymer molecules
draw closer to each other and, after sufficient evaporation, the film will be dry and
hard.
-
*
Coatings in which the binder is dispersed (e.g., waterborne coatings) are lower
in viscosity and can be sprayed at higher concentrations. When polymers are
dispersed (as opposed to dissolved) in a volatile liquid, the polymer particles (each
particle containing many molecutes that are closely packed) float freely in the medium.
In the case of aqueous coatings, as the water medium evaporates, the particles move
closer together until sufficient water is evaporated and the particles touch. If the
particles are soft enough, they will coalesce. If high gloss is desired, the polymers
must flow sufficiently to cover pigment particles and to form smooth films. High-
molecular weight polymers reduce flow after coalescence and gloss as a result.”
31
The majority of liquid wood furniture coatings used in the United States today
are alkyd-modified, nitrocellulose-based lacquers utilized by the residential wood
furniture segment. An acid-catalyzed conversion coating, "usually a urea-
formaldehyde or melamine-formaldehyde prepolymer in a mixture with an alkyd resin
that serves as a plasticizer", is applied predominantly by kitchen cabinet and office
furniture manufacturers. An even smaller volume of polyurethane coatings and
unsaturated polyesterhnsaturated polyacrylate (UPENPA) coatings are utilized.
Polyurethane and UPENPA coatings are used much more frequently in Europe and
Japan than nitrocellulose lacquers." This is largely attributed to the furniture design
and the high-volume, capital-intensive finishing processes employed by European and
Japanese furniture manufacturers.
In 1980, the solvent content of wood furniture finishes ranged from
approximately 50 to 97 percent by weight and varied according to the required film
build, aesthetic requirements, and drying characteristics.21 According to a 1986
study, the solids content for nitrocellulose coatings ranged from 8 to 30 percent.
Solids contents of 60-100 percent were achieved with acrylic and polymer
coatings.22 However, these have not proven useful for wood coatings. According
to a 1985 study, most of the water-based coatings available had a VOC content of
up to 7 percent and were based on water-reducible acrylic resins, although some
water-reducible nitrocellulose film formulations had been developed.23 Solvents used
in waterborne coatings have typically been alcohols, glycols and glycol
Most recently, success has been reported with a "high performance, two-part,
chemically cured, water reducible, fast drying" epoxy/amine wood coating system
with less than 0.1 Ib/gal V O C S . ~ ~
Reformulation. If there is one general category of pollution prevention options
with significant source reduction potential for the WFF industry, beyond good
housekeeping and other quick payback options such as spray-gun conversion, it is
coating reformulation. Finishers and coating formulators must take into account the
32
following factors: appearance, productivity, environmental regulations, cost-
effectiveness and durability.26
Efforts were made as early as 1978 t o reduce hydrocarbon emissions by using
waterborne finishes in WFF. A cooperative test program involving coating
manufacturers and furniture finishers generated data suggesting that t h e use of such
finishes could result in hydrocarbon emission reductions of between 26 to 94 percent
over t h e use of conventional finishes. However, t h e program study concluded:
None of the reduced hydrocarbon finish system products evaluated were commercially acceptable to the furniture manufacturers because of grain raising, hardness, lack of depth or sheen, and inadequate smoothness . Furthermore, none of the waterborne systems were as resistant as
* conventional finishes to household chemicals or printing (loss or transfer of finish materials by direct contact with another object s u c h as a packing ~ a r t o n ) . ~ ’
The s tudy recommended that efforts be made t o improve the performance of
waterborne and low-solvent finishes to the point of commercial acceptability.
Since 1980, the acceptability of waterborne coatings has improved
Waterborne coatings have long been thought t o be acceptable for low- end products. Waterborne coatings have been used successfully on wood furniture
for children and on futon frames. Their use in higher-end, medium-to-high quality
products is expanding slowly. Office and institutional furniture, including chairs and
cases, can be finished with full waterborne systems, although the technology is stili
developing (see articles in Appendix A). More frequently, however, waterborne
coatings have been targeted selectively at coatings/steps with t h e greatest emissions:
stains, sealers, and topcoats. A system that utilizes conventional coatings on s o m e
s t eps and waterborne coatings on others is referred to as a hybrid waterborne system.
Although water-based coatings cost between 25-509’0 more than conventional
coatings on a per gallon basis, overall benefits often outweigh t h e increased cost.
Advantages to these coatings are higher transfer efficiencies, reduced VOC emissions,
reduced employee exposure to VOC vapors, and a decrease in fire hazard. In addition,
savings are attributed to the reduction or elimination of organic solvent used for line flushing and cleaning. Further, costs associated with s p e n t solvent disposal are
33
reduced or eliminated. One major disadvantage is tha t the finish is often less soluble
due to its higher molecular weight and more difficult to repair than conventional
finishes as a result. In addition, to provide acceptable print resistance, water-based
finishing generally requires line reconfiguration or adjustment, often with oven
additions, to ensure proper drying. Management of water-based coating was te s (e.g.,
line flush) also is a consideration. For example, surfactants and emulsifiers in
waterborne wastes can disrupt t h e operation of POTWs by killing bacteria that are
necessary for wastewater treatment.
Waterborne coatings have been used successfully by wood furniture
manufacturers in Virginia. Vaughan Furniture in Galax produced a line of pine
childr'en's furniture by utilizing a full waterborne system in the late 1980s. The line
retailed successfully for several years. American Furniture in Martinsville is finishing
chairs with a hybrid waterborne system. Another furniture manufacturer, in addition
to having produced acceptable finishes in trial runs with the Unicarb" system, is utilizing water-based stains in s o m e instances. Virginia Correctional Enterprises has
been utilizing a full waterborne system to manufacture institutional furniture at the
Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt since 1991 .29
-
Table 9, developed from information in the unofficial "Draft CTGs for Wood
Furniture Coating Operations" (October 1991), presents a summary of t h e VOC and
solids content of commercially available coatings. Note that t h e coatings offering the
most substantial VOC reductions appear to be waterborne, polyester (styrene), and
radiation- (ultraviolet or electron beam) cured coatings.
Challenaes. This section examines conventional liquid coatings chemistry, in
a n effort to present some of t h e challenges of reformulation to t h e non-specialist. The
main challenge of liquid coating reformulation, assuming that t h e continued use of the
spray gun as the primary application tool is desirable, is to identify and develop a resin
sys tem that c a n be delivered and "cured" with significantly lower levels of VOCs. The
finish, to be acceptable, must meet customer demands. In addition, multimedia
impacts and toxicities of alternatives must be assessed. As noted earlier, the finishing of high quality wood involves enhancing t h e appearance of its natural grain.
34
Table 9
Approximate VOC and Solids Content of Commercial Coatings
7
Formulation VOC Content Solids Content (Ibs/gal less water) Percent by Volume
Nitrocellulose
Acid-Catalyzed
6 16
5.1 - 5.8 18 - 26 Waterborne
Polyurethane
Polyester (Acrylic)
Polyester (Styrene)
~~
I 1.3 - 2.3 I 26 - 30 3.4 30 - 60 3.0 30 - 50 -- 100
UV or EB Cured 0 - 3.1 56 - 100
- The search for coatings that offer reduced environmental losses has followed
three main routes: (1 1 the formulation of organic solvent-based coatings with higher
solids content; (2) t h e development of alternative resin/solvent systems (e.g., water- based emulsions); and (3) t h e elimination of volatile solvents altogether. increasing
the solids content of conventional nitrocellulose formulations has been limited because as t h e solids content rises, viscosity increases and inhibits deliverability. Waterborne
coatings research has aimed toward increased solids content, more positive dry and
harder, smoother films. Powder coatings, though of little to no use in wood finishing,
have eliminated solvents altogether. New-generation, multi-component reactive liquid
coatings utilize small amounts, if any, of volatile solvent. When combined or catalyzed, t h e components react at varying speeds depending on the particular
chemistry. These latter coatings are being used by s o m e wood finishers and will
probably see greater use in the future.
Coating sys tems are dependent on resins and additives. Resins, or binders, are grouped into certain overlapping classes such as cellulosics, acrylics, vinyls, alkyds,
and polyesters. Plasticizers are additives tha t are incorporated into conventional
35
coatings to increase workability or flexibility. According to one source, "plasticizers
are used to reduce processing temperatures, improve impact resistance, increase
flexibility and resistance to cracking, and improve light and heat stability." "For a
plasticizer to be effective with any poiymeric material, the two must be intimately
mixed." The source states further:
Because of structural differences among resins, a plasticizer for one resin may not be compatible with another or, if compatible, may provide little or no plasticizing action. Presence or absence of functional groups in the resin, polarity of the groups present, steric hindrance, and molecular weight are factors in the acceptance or rejection of a plasticizer by a resin ... Plastification takes place at amorphous regions or crystal imperfect ions . 30
Conventional wood furniture and kitchen cabinet coatings, including
nitrocellulose and acid-cataiyzed coatings, are based on alkyd resins. According to
1975 data from the National Paint and Coatings Association Data Bank Program,
these resins were the most prevalent synthetic coating resins of the time, constituting
about 35% of all resins utilized in organic coatings. According to one source:
There are many polymeric materials and reactive function materials (e.g., nitrocellulose, urea-formaldehyde resins, melamine-formaldehyde resins, phenolic resins, chlorinated rubber, synthetics latexes, chlorinated paraffin, epoxy resins, polyisocyanates, silicones, reactive monomers, cellulose acetobutyrate, phenolic varnishes, polyamides, natural resins, and monobasic acids) with which suitably designed alkyds are modified and used to impart improved and/or special film forming properties.
The use of alkyds with nitrocellulose in lacquers resulted in remarkable growth of nitrocellulose lacquers. Compatibility of alkyds with nitrocellulose extends up to 55% oil modification. However, the best compatibility is with short-oil alkyds that have a higher degree of polarity from ester and excess hydroxyl groups. Alkyds modified with short chain acids, such as those from coconut oil and castor oil, are widely used in furniture-grade lacquers. The latter contain hydroxyl groups in the long fatty acid chain, [that] impart excellent compatibility, flexibility, and adhesion. The upgrading effect of the alkyd in improving the gloss, adhesion, durability, cold-check resistance, and build of nitrocellulose lacquers is well known in the field of organic coatings.
.
36
. . . . . .. . . - . .... . . . . ..
With relevance to finishes for kitchen cabinets, the report goes on to state:
The short-oil alkyd resins containing 38-45 % phthalic anhydride contain a higher proportion of hydroxyl groups[,] which provide compatibility and reactive sites with alkylated urea-formaldehyde and melamine- formaldehyde resins ... When superior adhesion and impact resistance is required, the alkyd is based on dehydrated castor oil. The short-oil drying alkyds combined with urea resins and an acidic catalyst are used in force-dry wood furniture finishes with excellent resistance properties .3'
Nitrocellulose (cellulose nitrate) is relatively hard. Alkyd resins provide a
plasficizing effect, in addition to their primary functions of providing build and gloss.
Cellulose nitrate is desirable in lacquers for its "solubility; viscosity; compatibility with
plasticizers, resins, and pigments; and Cellulose nitrate is
manufactured in a wide range of viscosities, depending on its use. It is put through
a digestion process to provide a sufficient viscosity for lacquer usage. There are three
commercial grades of nitrocellulose, each with different nitrogen ranges and
thermoplasticities: RS-type (1 1.8-1 2.2% N), AS-type (1 1.3-1 1.7940N) and SS-type
(10.9-1 1.2% N). The RS-type is the least thermoplastic, is compatible with many
synthetic resins, and is the most widely used in coatings. "Cellulose nitrate, even
with its high degree of crystallinity and high melting point, accepts large amounts of
plasticizers because i ts melting point is easily depressed Cellulose nitrate is about three times as costly as alkyd resins.
Alternative coatings are based on four resin systems: unsaturated polyesters,
polyurethanes, epoxies and acrylics. Based upon the fact that cellulose nitrate is
compatible with many plasticizers and resins, including acrylics, polyesters and vinyls,
nitrocellulose might be relied upon for alternative coatings. Nitrocellulose would
provide workability properties that finishers relish. The use of application technology
such as industrial turbine HVLP spraying would allow for the delivery of high-solids,
reformulated nitrocellulose coatings to wood furniture.
37
Another area of research is plasticizer technology, which could be used to make
thermosetting resins more forgiving and easier to repair. It has been noted that:
As there is no sharp distinction between thermoplastic and thermosetting resins, there is no discontinuity in plasticizer technology between them. A resin that is highly cross-linked with many primary valence bonds is rigid, insoluble, and infusible; as such, it cannot be plasticized, but plasticizer can be added prior to extensive ~ ross - l i nk ing .~~
Since plasticizers attach and operate at amorphous regions or crystal imperfections
with a resin, increased plasticizer content might limit or slow down cross-linking, thus
reducing hardness.
* The use of organic solvents and synthetic resins came about largely from the
search to find cost-competitive alternatives to natural resins and solvents, many of
which themselves were hazardous or toxic. The future of alternative coatings and
reformulation, driven by environmental regulation and market demand, depends largely
on research and experimentation by the chemical industry, resin producers, coating
formulators and furniture finishers. Retailers and consumers also have a role to play
in demanding and purchasing furniture that is finished by alternative means that are
less damaging to the environment.
38
V. CONCLUSION
Reducing and controlling WFF releases is a regulatory goal. A pollution
prevention approach benefits both the regulatory and industrial communities. From
a regulatory perspective, firms that practice pollution prevention often decrease their
use of toxic materials while reducing waste a t t h e source. From an industrial
perspective, recognizing that corporate environmental programs compete with other
programs for investment capital, operating funds and human resources, t h e pollution
prevention assessment process ultimately provides a way for firms to identify and t o
implement loss reduction options tha t meet, and may often exceed, performance-
based standards set by regulations. In most cases, voluntary identification / targeting
of losses for reduction is preferable to "command and control" regulation.
Source reduction involves good operating practices, s u c h as ensuring that
containers of volatile substances are properly sealed, and educating employees about
t he cost of waste. Other examples of good operating practices include minimizing
clean-up solvent wastes through gun dedication or batch scheduling and reducing
packaging waste through the bulk purchasing and s torage of materials that are used
in high volumes. Maintaining "just-in-time" inventories for materials that are used in
low volume reduces t h e potential for expiration and subsequent management needs.
Source reduction may also involve experimenting with and eventually using
alternative, low-VOC coatings and solvents as they develop. Increasing transfer
efficiency and/or reducing t h e number of application steps needed to achieve a desired
look or build of a finish are other source reduction strategies. These approaches may
include using coatings tha t serve multiple functions and selecting substrates that may
not require steps s u c h as washcoating and filling. Reducing application s t eps also entails improving transfer efficiency or decreasing overspray. These actions result in achieving a proper build with a reduced volume of materials utilized and wasted.
Reducing application steps can cu t production time and bring about decreases in energy usage, air emissions and overspray was te . Improving transfer efficiency saves
money.
39
- ~~~ ~~~
Industrial turbine HVLP spraying appears to offer substantial transfer efficiency
improvements over both airless and compressed-air, low pressure spraying systems.
However, merely increasing transfer efficiency may not move firms toward compliance
with emerging federal regulatory standards, as these s tandards are likely to be set in
terms of "in t h e can" measures. Should this be t h e case, combining industrial turbine
HVLP spray technology with compliant coatings (e.g., high solids or waterborne) may
result in significant source reduction at a relatively low cost. This technology may
allow for t h e delivery of coatings that were previously considered to be undeliverable.
Recommendations t o finishers pursuing pollution prevention activities are a s
foliows: m The potential of loss reduction through operator training should not be
underestimated. Both introductory and ongoing training are important.
Areas of focus should be spray techniques, coating content and optimal
equipment settings.
Recognize the connection between pollution prevention and both total quality and operations management. Pollution prevention is often integrated with a total quality management scheme. All firms should
have s o m e type of quality management, with the degree and focus
varying from firm t o firm.
Work with coatings suppliers and equipment vendors to reduce losses and to develop alternative coating systems for your particular products. High solids, water-based, powder or UV-curable coatings may hold
promise for your operations. HVLP and electrostatic spraying may also
be appropriate. Establish cooperative relationships with retailers to develop t h e market
for "greener" furniture (i.e., furniture manufactured in a manner less
damaging t o t h e environment).
40
In summary, loss reduction techniques will emerge for existing facilities as CTGs and NESHAPs are established. Out of necessity, "new source" facilities will use
alternative coating systems, because these systems will allow for competitive, low-
cost production and will meet t h e stringent emissions limitations generally imposed
on such facilities. As manufacturing technology and regulatory requirements evolve,
all wood furniture manufacturers should examine their current finishing processes with
the primary goal of exploring options that reduce environmental losses and improve
manufacturing efficiency .
41
,/- :.
REFERENCES
Dambek, P.J., Heltzer, J.M., Kelly, K.D., L‘Annunziata, M., and Smith, T.M. A Guide to Pollution Prevention for Wood Furniture Finishing. Med ford, MA: Tufts University, Department of Civil Engineering, November 1992.
Gunn, Thomas G. Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage: Becoming a World Class Manufacturer. New York: Harper Collins, 1987.
Hunt, Gary and Schecter, Roger. Minimization of Hazardous Waste Generation. In Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, ed. Harry Freeman. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Pojasek, Robert B. September 1991. For Pollution Prevention: Be Descriptive, Not Prescriptive. Chemical Engineering.
Pojasek, Robert and Cali, Lawrence. Summer 1991. Contrasting Approaches to Pollution Prevention Auditing. Pollution Prevention Review, Volume 1 , Number 3.
University of Tennessee Center for Industrial Services and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. In Living Color: Painting Challenges for the SO’S - -A
October 8, 1991. ~t National Waste Reduction Teleconference for Industrial Painting Operations. Broad cast .-.-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Facility Pollution Prevention Guide (EPA/GOO/R- 92/008). May 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System (PIES) Database. 1993. Selected Case Studies.
Walton, Mary. The Deming Management Method. New York: Putnam Publishing, 1986.
And sources otherwise cited in endnotes.
42
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9.
10.
11.
12.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 under the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, P.L. 101-508, Sections 6601 -661 0; 42 USC 13 101 e t seq.
I bid.
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 1987. The SIC system was developed by the U.S. Government as a means of categorizing U.S.. businesses, and measuring and comparing economic activity in and across product segments. SIC codes divide all economic activity into ten major categories (specified by two digit codes), with each line of business being further categorized by suffix codes.
"Waste Minimization for Furniture Manufacturers," Frank Sheffield, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; presented a t the Mississippi Technical Assistance Program Conference, Tupelo, Mississippi, 1 7 January 1 990.
U.S. EPA, 7997 Toxics Releaselnventory, EPA 745-R-93-003, May 1993, p. 243.
Noordwyk, H. Van, Reducing Emissions from the Wood Furniture Industry with Waterborne Coatings, EPA 600/2-80-160, July 1980, p. 4.
Riedell, Andrew W., Facility Manager, PPG Industries, Greensboro, NC, What's Ahead for Wood Finishes.
Ross, Vincent (Ross Associates, Asheville, NC) "Waste Reduction - Pollution Prevention in the Furniture Industry," presented a t Pollution Prevention: Waste Reduction for Industrial Air Toxic Emissions Conference, April 24-25, 1989, Greensboro, NC. Italics added for emphasis.
Most of these techniques are discussed in unofficial Draft CTGs cited a t 10 and in Joint Industries Steering Committee comments: An Evaluation o f VOC Emissions Control Technologies for the Wood Furniture and Cabinet Industries. American Furniture Manufacturers Association, High Point, NC, January 1 992.
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Wood Furniture 'Coating Operations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC: October 1 99 1.
Control o f Volatile, 4-20.
Noordwyk, H. Van, opcit., p. 6. from Technical Paper, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, MS75-25 1. 1 2.
43
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Noordwyk, H. Van, opcit., p. 8 from "Surface Coating in t h e Wood Furniture Industry," 20 October 1978, Foster D. Sneel Division, Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Florham Park, N J .
Noordwyk 1980, 6.
Transfer Efficiency and VOC Emissions of Spray Gun and Coating Technologies in Wood Finishing, Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Center, 1 992.
Heltter, J .M. (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) and M.H. Bunnell (PresidentKEO, CAN-AM Engineered Products, Livonia, Michigan). Teleconference, July 21 , 1993. Also s e e company literature.
Hochberg, Seymore (E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company). 1979. Industrial Coatings, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Vol. 6. NY: John Wilev & Sons, 435.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.-
44-
A summary of existing wood furniture coating regulations identified eight areas with restrictions: Illinois, New Jersey, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York City, the Bay Area (San Francisco and environs), the South Coast Air Quality District (Los Angeles and environs), and San Diego County. Memorandum from Midwest Research Institute (Cary, NC) to Karen Catlett, U.S. EPA (Research Triangle Park, NC). Work Assignment No. 34, ESD Project No. 89/13, March 6, 1990.
Hochberg, 427.
Control of Volatile, 2- 1 5.
Noordwyk, 1980, 7.
Kohl, Jerome et at. Managing and Recycling Solvents in the Furniture Industry. Pollution Prevention Program, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, May 1986, p. 33.
McHenry, Ron. Wood Furniture Coating: Summary Report for Technical Support in Development of a Revised Ozone State Implementation Plan for Memphis, Tennessee. (EPA 68-02-3887). June 1985, 1-3.
McBath, Audrey. Revisions to Emission Factors for AP-42 Organic Source Categories. (EPA 68-02-2583; EPA-45013-78-108) October 1978, p. 33. And Kohl et at., Appendix F.
Huang, Eddy W., et at., "Development of Ultra-Low VOC Wood Furniture Coatings," for EPA Pollution Prevention Conference on Low and No-VOC Coating Technologies, San Diego, CA, May 25-27, 1993.
APPENDIX A
LIST OF VENDORS’
This is not an exhaustive list of vendors. For more names, check publications such as the Thomas Register. This listing is for information purposes only and does not constitute any endorsement by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, either expressed or implied, of any product or service offered by or through a listed entity.
FINISHING EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS AND VENDORS
Accuspray 26881 Cannon Road Cleveland, OH 44146 (800) 321 -5992
Air Power, Inc. P.O. Box 41 165 Raleigh, Inc. 27629 (91 9) 828-91 74
Derda, Inc. 1195 West Bertrand Road Niles, MI 49120 (61 6) 683-6666
Devilbiss Company 300 Phillips Avenue Toledo, OH 43692 (41 9) 891 -21 69
American Machine Corp. E 8t R Supply Company, Inc. 1683 Blake Ave. 1095 Route 1 IO, Unit E Los Angeles, CA 90031 Farmingdale, NY 1 1735 (21 3) 221-7070 (51 6) 752-3510
Apollo Sprayers Int’l. 10200 Hemstead Highway Houston, TX 77092 (71 3) 680-9558
Bin ks Man u f act u r i n g Company 5575 Spalding Drive Norcross, GA 30092 (404) 447-5600
Black Bros. Company 131 5 Baker Road High Point, NC 27263 (919) 431-9145
CAN-AM Engineered Products 30850 Industrial Road Livonia, MI 481 50 (800) 229-7551
Delle Vedove USA 6031 Harris Technology Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28269 (704) 598-0020
European Woodworking Machinery P.O. Box 550 Franklinton, NC 27525-0550 (91 9) 494-51 97
Fuji Industrial Spray Equip. 65 Martin Ross Ave. #5 Toronto, CANADA (41 6) 650-1 430
Fusion UV Curing Systems 7600 Standish Place Rockville, MD 20855 (30 1 ) 25 1 -0300
Graco, Inc. 4050 Olson Memorial Parkway Minneapolis, MN 55440 (800) 367-4023
High Point Pneumatics Box 5802 High Point, NC 27262-5802 (91 9) 889-841 6
COATING FORMULATORS AND SUPPLIERS
Abilene Research & Dev. P.O. Box 294 Hewlett, NY 11 557 (51 6) 791-6943
Adhesive Coatings Co. 2755 Campus Dr., Suite 125 San Mateo, CA 94403
AEXCEL Corporation 7373 Production Drive Mentor, OH 44061-0780 (21 6) 974-3800
Akzo-Reliance, Inc. 1431 Progress Street High Point, NC 27261 (919) 841-51 11
Ameron Corporation P.O. Box 192610 Little Rock, AR 72219-2610 (501) 455-4500
Amity Finishing Products P.O. Box 107 Sun Prairie, WI 53590 (608) 837-8484
Aquaday Int'l Ltd. 131 5 S. Evergreen Arlington Heights, IL 60005 (708) 956-851 1
Avery-Decorative Films Div.
Schererville, IN 46375 / 650 West 67th Place
(21 9) 322-5030
C.E. Bradley Laboratories P.O. Box 811 Brattleboro, VT 05301 (802) 257-7971
Cardinal Industrial Finishes 1329 Potrero Avenue South El Monte, CA 91733 (81 8) 444-9274
Compliance Coatings, Inc. P.O. Box 12471 St. Louis, MO. 63132 (31 4) 429-1 300
Crown Metro, Inc. P.O. Box 5857 Greenville, SC 29606 (803) 299-1 331
Duckback Products, Inc. 2644 Hegan Lane, P.O. Box 980 Chico, CA 95927 (91 6) 343-3261
Fuller Company, H.B. 3200 Labore Road Vadnais Heights, MN 551 10 (612) 481-9558
Glidden Coatings & Resins Div. SCM Corporation 925 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, OH 441 15 (21 6) 344-8000
Guardsman Chemicals, Inc. 2147 Brevard Road High Point, NC 27261-1029 (91 9) 889-6344
Hood Products, Inc. P.O. Box 220 Tennent, NJ 07763 (908) 247-2 1 77
Hydrocote Co. P.O. Box 140 Tennent, NJ 07763 (908) 257-4344
James B. Day & Company Day Lane Carpentersville, IL 601 10 (708) 428-2651
Lawrence McFadden Company 7434 State Road Philadelphia, PA 191 36 (21 5) 624-6333
Lilly Company (The) P.O. Box 2358 High Point, NC 27261 (91 9) 889-21 57
PPG Industries 7601 Business Park Drive Greensboro, NC 27409 (91 9) 668-3780
Pratt & Lambert 40 Sonwil Drive Buffalo, NY 14225 (800) 888-1 849
Reneer Films Corporation Old Hickory Road Auburn, PA 17922 (71 7) 366-1 051
Sherwin- W i I lia ms Company 101 Prospect Avenue Cleveland, OH 441 15 (21 6) 566-2902
d/(..1cw 14 Aveon Street p%.e m?&-'-/3 Snyder Brothers
Toccoa, GA 30577 (706) 886-681 1 pdk&- -
Spruance Southern Old Highway 52 South Winston Salem, NC 27107 (91 9) 764-0940
Star Bronze Company P.O. Box 2206 Alliance, OH 44601 (21 6) 823-1 550
UCB Radcure, Inc. 3519 Westwood Farms Drive Louisville, Kentucky (502) 49 1 - 1 885
U.S. Cellulose 520 Parott San Jose, CA (408) 295-01 04
United Gilsonite Labs P.O. Box 70 Scranton, PA 18501 -0070 (7 1 7) 344- 1 202
Vanex, Inc. 1700 South Shawnee St. Vernon, IL 62864 (618) 244-1413
Valspar Corporation 1647 English Road High Point, NC 27262 (91 9) 887-4600
Velco Inc. (Woodtex) 3900 W. First Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 (503) 342-5738