NOTICE OF FILING
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF LISA FREDEON BEHALF OF THE
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1
PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE DIAGRAM

Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5Development of Emission Factors for Polyethylene Processing
Exhibit 6
Development of Emission Factors for Polyamide Processing
Exhibit 7
Dev&opment of Emission Factors for Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate
Exhibit B
Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Organic
Compounds Evolved During Thermal Processing of
All Other Plastics Product
Source
Injection Molding Machines

ORIGINAL

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

THE MATTER OF:

)

RE C E ~VE ID

CLERK’S OFFICE

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

)

JUtd

EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE

)

R 05-20

005

PERMITTING

REQUIREMENTS

)

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

FOR PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING)

POllutIon

Control ~oarci

OPERATIONS

)

(35 Iii. Admin. Code 201.146)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn

Clerk of the Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(VIA

HAND

DELIVERY)

(PERSONS ON ATTACHED

SERVICE LIST)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 16,

2005,

I filed with the Office of the Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and nine copies each of 1) PREFILED

TESTIMONY OF LISA FREDE ON BEHALF OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL

OF ILLINOIS; 2) PREFILED TESTIMONY OF LYNNE R. HARRIS

ON BEHALF OF THE

SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC., and 3) PREFIILED TESTIMONY OF

PATRICIA F. SHARKEY ON

BEHALF OF THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF

ILLINOIS, copies of which~are

hereby served upon you.

Dated:

June 16, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS

One of its

Attorneys

Patricia F. Sharkey

Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP

190 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois

60603-344 1

(312) 782-0600

THIS DOCUMENTHAS BEEN PRINTEDON RECYCLED PAPER

RECE

WED

CLERK’S OFFICE

Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn

Clerk of the Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(Hand Delivery)

Matthew Dunn, Chief

Division of Environmental Enforcement

Office of the Attorney General

188

West Randolph Street,

20th

Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(U.S. Mail)

Donald Sutton

Manager, Permit Section

Division ofAir Pollution

Bureau of Air

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(U.S. Mail)

Charles E.

Matoesian

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(U.S. Mail and E-Mail)

Office of Legal Services

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois

62702-127 1

(U.S. Mail)

as indicated above, by delivery, e-mail and/or by depositii~ sai~l

documents in the United States

Mail, postage prepaid, in

Chicago, Illinois on

June 16, 200~

(

f~atricia

F. Sharkey

Patricia F. Sharkey

Mayer,

Brown, Rowe &

Maw LLP

190 South

LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois

60603-3441

(312) 782-0600

ORIGiNAL

JUN

162005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

PnIIut(on Control 6oard

Patricia F. Sharkey, an attorney, hereby certify that I have serv&Vthe following

documents:

1) Prefiled Testimony ofLisa Frede on Behalf ofthe Chemical Industry Council of

Illinois;

Prefiled Testimony ofLynne R. Harris on Behalf of The Society of the Plastics

Industry, Inc.

and 3) Prefiled Testimony of Patricia F. Sharkey on Behalfof the Chemical

Industry Council of Illinois

upon:

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

REcV~D

IN THE MATTER OF:

CLERKS

OFFICE

urci

ia’~i4L

JUN16

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE

)

STATE

ILLINOIS

PERMITTING

REQUIREMENTS

)

PQlI~t,~~

Control Soarci

FOR PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING)

R 05-20

OPERATIONS

)

(35

Iii. Admin. Code 201.146)

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF LISA FREDE

ON BEHALF OF THE

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS

My name is Lisa Frede, and I am the Director of Regulatory Affairs for the

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

(“CICI”), a not-for-profit Illinois corporation.

CICI

is pleased to be the proponent ofthe rulemaking proposal in

this proceeding.

I would like to

begin by giving you an overview of CICI and its membership and

then briefly discuss the significance ofthis proposed rulemaking to our members.

CICI is a statewide trade association representing the chemical industry in

Illinois.

CICI has offices in Des Plaines and Springfield, Illinois.

We have

198 member

companies with over

54,

000 employees employed in

745

manufacturing facilities and

975

wholesale and distribution facilities in Illinois.

One ofCICI’s functions is to represent its member companies in the formation of

public policies and programs which

are mutually beneficial

to the citizens of Illinois and

the chemical industry.

In this capacity, CICI monitors statewide legislation and

regulations in Illinois,

including environmental permitting programs,

and provides

information and makes recommendations to its

membership.

CICI also

often advocates

on behalf of its membership for more cost effective and

efficient regulatory

requirements.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Chemical manufacturers in Illinois produce a wide array of products from

plastics, pesticides and industrial chemicals to lifesaving medicines and household

products.

Workers directly employed in the chemical industry represent 7.3

ofthe

state’s manufacturing work force and have an average wage over $60,000 per year.

The

chemical industry

generates an additional 296,000 jobs in Illinois at industry suppliers,

manufacturers, transporters, trade and business services companies, and construction

companies.

The proposal in

this proceeding will amend the Board’s regulations governing

state air pollution control permits

exempt plastic injection molding

operations from the

state construction and operation permitting procedures.

CICI

is proposing this

amendment to clarify the Board’s regulations and achieve efficiencies and cost savings

forits plastic injection

molding company members in Illinois and for the State permitting

program.

As will be discussed by another witness in this proceeding, the emissions from

plastic injection molding machines

are extremely low

—

on the order of a few tenths of a

ton of volatile organic emissions per year.

This is on the order of

—

and in

fact less than

—

the 0.1

lb/ hour or

0.44 tons per year that defines an “insignificant

activity” under the

Board’s major source regulations at 35

Ill. Adm. Code 201.210 (a)(2) and(3).

These emission levels are also on the order of

—

or less than

—

the emissions

recognized to be associated with other categories of emission sources that are currently

exempt from state permitting under Section 201.146.

In fact, the emission factors

accepted by Illinois EPA and other regulators across the country for determining

emissions from plastic injection

molding operations are the same as those that are used

-2-

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

for plastic extrusion

—

a process which is exempted from Illinois state permitting in

Section 201.146(cc) and defined as an “insignificant activity” in

Section 201.210(a)(5).

While many owners and operators believe that “plastic injection molding” is

a form of

extrusion covered under the existing categorical exemption, the adoption ofthe specific

language proposed in

this rulemaking is designed to resolve

any question.

Here’s what this amendment will do:

•

It will appropriately regulate the insignificant level ofemissions generated by

plastic injection molding operations by treating those operations in

the same

fashion as other operations with similarly low levels of emissions.

•

It will reduce unwarranted permitting costs to plastic injection molding businesses

across Illinois.

•

It will also relieve owners and operators ofplastic injection molding operations

from the risk ofenforcement actions based upon differences in interpretation of

existing categorical exemptions.

•

Finally, it will allow Illinois EPA to allocate its permitting and enforcement

resources to more significant emission sources.

What this amendment will not do:

•

It will not relieve affected emission units from any applicable requirement other

than state construction and operating permitting.

Thus, for example, a plastic

injection molder

—

like any

other exempt emission source under Section 201.146

—

remains subject to the generic volatile organic matter emissions limit of

lb/hour

found in the Board’s rules at 35

Ill.

Admin. Code 215.301.

•

It will not result in

an increase in

emissions and will not have an impact on air

quality in

Illinois.

Because this is

only an exemption from procedural

requirements, it will not affect emissions to the environment.

Prior to proposing this regulatory

amendment, CICI’s Executive Director, Mark

Biel, had several discussions with Don Sutton, the Manager of the Illinois

EPA Permit

Section, about adding a categorical exemption to

the list of existing categorical

exemptions in

35 Ill. Admin.

Code

201.146

for plastic injection molding and associated

resin handling and

storage activities.

Mr. Sutton agreed that this is a category of

-3-

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

insignificant emission sources for which a permit exemption is

consistent with other

categorical exemptions in Section

201.146.

He also agreed that relieving the State ofthe

burden of permitting these insignificant sources would be beneficial

to the State.

CICI believes that reducing the permitting burden on the Agency is in the interest

ofits members.

Agency resources should be focused on significant emission sources.

the pending rulemaking proceeding, R05-19, Mr. Sutton testified that the Agency still

hasn’t issued 30 of the Title V major source permits that were due to be issued back in

1997.

Transcript, pp. 29-30, April

12,

2005 Hearing, IPCB Docket R05-19.

In addition,

CICI

is aware that many of its members have Title V permit renewals and permit

revisions that have been pending before the Agency for several years.

Mr. Sutton

testified that while IEPA issues roughly

1,900 air permits a year, it has at any time a

backlog of 900 to

1,000 permit applications.

Id., p. 31.

Yet the Agency is required to

spend its resources on a host of construction and operating permits for very minor

emission sources.

The transcript of the R05-19 April

12, 2005 hearing reveals that 70

ofthe Agency’s construction permits

are issued formodifications

involving no emission

increase or increases of less than

ton.

Id. p.

12.

At the same time, 95

of the actual

emissions

emitted in Illinois are emitted by the top

ofthe State’s major sources.

p. 53.

Permitting very small emission sources, while large emission source applications

are backlogged isn’t a good use oftax dollars, it isn’t good for the environment, and it

isn’t good forregulated businesses.

That burden will be significantly reduced when the rulemaking in R05-19

adopted.

However, because that rulemaking

only exempts insignificant emission sources

facilities with other significant or non-exempt emission sources,

it does not relieve the

-4-

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ON

RECYCLED PAPER

Agency from permitting a plastic injection molding facility thathas no other emission

sources.

This is an anomalywith no rationale in terms ofemissions orthe

environment

when itcomes to plastic injection

molding.

Given

the limitation in the proposal in

R05-19,

the adoption ofa clear categorical exemption forplastic

injection

molding

operations in this rulemaking proceeding will harmonize

the

Board’s

regulatory approach

for a category recognized

all to emit at levels that

do not

warrant separate state

permitting.

CICI

would

like to thankthe Board

for

its consideration

this proposal, and I

would

happy

answer

any questions

you

may have.

Date:

lit.!

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Frede

Director

Regulatory Attain

Chemical IndustryCouncil ofIllinois

-5-

Tins

DOCUMENT

IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED

PAPER

ORIGINAL

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

RECE1YC

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

CLERK’S

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS TO

)

JUN

2C~5

EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE

)

STATE

tLLMU~

PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS

)

pollution

ContrOl eQaro

FOR PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING)

1405-20

OPERATIONS

)

(35

IlL

Admin.

Code

201.146)

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF LYNNE R.

HARRIS

ON BEHALF OF THE

SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC.

My name is Lynne It

Harris, and

am the Vice President, Science and

Technology, for The Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc. (“SF1”), a not-for-profit

501(c)6

trade association headquartered in Washington D.C., predominantly serving

members across the United States.

have been employed by

SPI for over

14 years. My

current work focuses on science and technology, environment, health and safety,

and

codes and standards forthe plastics industry. My educational background includes a

Bachelor ofScience and Masters of Engineering in chemical engineering. My

publications include co-authorship on a paper for the development ofemission factors for

the extrusion processing ofpolyethylene resin.t I have worked

in and around the plastics

industry for over

years.

I have been asked by the Chemical Industry Council

of Illinois (CICI) to provide

an overview ofthe plastics

injection molding industry,

a description ofthe plastic

injection molding

process, and

a discussion of the types and volumes of emissions

generated during the plastic injection molding process for various resins.

The Society ofthe Plastics Industry: Who Are We?

Let me begi.n by describing SF!

and the work it performs on behalf ofits

members. Founded in

1937. The Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc.,

is the trade

association representing one of the largest manufacturing industries in the United States.

SPIs members represent the entire plastics industry supply chain, including processors,

machinery and equipment manufacturers and raw materials suppliers. The

U.S. plastics

industry employs

1.4 million workers and provides more than $310 billion

annual

shipments.

SF1 represents the entire plastics industry and has more than

1000 members.

SF1

has been involved in the development of state and federal environmental

regulations

affecting the plastics industry for decades.

will be discussing,

SF1 has

also

coordinated a number studies ofemissions generated by theextrusion processing of

thermoplastics.

BackEround on the Plastic injection MoldinE industry

My testimony today is focused on plastic injection molding (“PIM”), a category

of plastic product manufacturing. There are over 7,700 NM facilities in the United States

and

approximately 500 operating in Illinois.2’3 These facilities range in size from small

facilities with

a few machines and less than 20 employees to larger facilities with dozens

ofmachines employing over

a hundred employees.2’4 The trade publication

Plastics News

surveys the NM industry annually and publishes an annual listing ofover 600 PIM

companies in North America. That listing indicates the top NM companies

responding to

the survey with annual sales ranging from approximately

$100,000 to $1.5 billion, with

median annual sales on the order of $10 million. The components produced in NM

processes are generally small plastic components used in

a multitude ofproducts. For

example. NM products include knobs and handles used in the automotive industry and

hole plugs used in household appliances. NM products tend to be molded to meet

specific needs in customized molds and made with resins meeting the temperature,

strength and durability specifications required for a specific use. As a result, PIM

machines are generally dedicated to molding specific component parts and cannot be

used to

produce other parts without physical modification of the equipment.

Description of PIM Equipment and Process

The PIM process essentially involves forcing molten plastic into a mold cavity.

This takes place in several

steps. A diagram of a standard NM machine, attached to my

pre.filed testimony, depicts the components of the PIM process.

Exhibil 1.

As can be seen

from that diagram, the essential

components are a hopper

from which pelletized resin is

fed into the extruder screw, a heated

extruderbarrel which

melts the resin as it is

advanced by the extruder screw under pressure, and a die head through which the molten

resin

injected into a mold cavity.

Note that the fundamental piece ofequipment involved in this process is a heated

screw extruder. The

equipment that

is required to extrude resin into molds in the PIM

process is the same as that which is required to

extruderesin into a continuous strand

except that the resin is injected into an enclosed mold at theend of the process rather than

simply conforming to the shape ofthe extrusion die. A PIM machine is essentially a non-

continuous extruder. As

I will discuss later, this is why the emission

factors developed for

extrusion processes are appropriate for the P1M process.

Plastic

injection molding machines, like other types ofextruders, vary in size. A

small

PIM machine may

have a throughput of 10 pounds per hour, while a

large machine

may process as much as 200 pounds per hour. These numbers are derived based on a

typical injection capacity of4

100 ounces and typical tonnage of50

to 600

tons.

Injection capacity can go

around 400 ounces and tonnage can go

to around

10,000

tons.5

These data are consistent with product information compiled from several

equipment manufacturers, as illustrated

i.n

Exhibit 2.

Very large PIM machines can

process over 1,000 pounds per hour. PIM machines of all sizes are

in use

in illinois and

across the United States. 1-lowever, the

most commonly used machines in the PIM

industry have an average daily throughput of less than 100 pounds per hour.

The five most commonly used plastic resins in the

PIM industry according to the

2005 survey ofNorth American injection molders by

Plastics News2

are polypropylene

(PP), acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polycarbonate (PC), high density

polyethylene (HDPE) and nylon ~po!yaniide,

PA).

Emissions from Extrusion Processes

Until 1995, little quantitative information was publicly available regardin.g

emissions from thermoplastic extrusion processes. While it was assumed that any volatile

organic, particulate or hazardous air emissions were very low, emission

factors simply

did not exist. To fill

this gap, SPI sponsored a number ofstudies published between

1995

and 2002 to

develop emission factors for a range of plastic resins. The studies were

intended to provide emission factors for processors who needed Title V permits under the

Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

The SN-sponsored studies were conducted at an independenttesting

laboratory

operated by

Battelle in Columbus,

Ohio.

Studies were conducted

using a strand extrudcr

with

1.5-inch single screw and fitted with an eight-strand die for commonly used resins.

Resins with basic additives were provided by a number ofsuppliers

and tested as

aggregates; the resins tested were PP. PC, PE, PA and ethylene-vinyl acetate and

ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer (EVAJEMA).

The extruder system was chosen as the process likely to overestimate emissions.

As a continuous

system, it was anticipated to mimic extrusion processes and overestimate

closed mold operations, such as injection molding. This assumption was supported by

two-year study that found extrusion processes generated a higher level ofemissions than

injection molding.6 Emissions

from the die head ofthe extruder system were captured

and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOC; volatile organic material or VOM in

Illinois), particulate

matter(PM-b), and a variety ofhazardous air pollutants (RAPs).

The SN sponsored studies ofthe commonly

used resins PP

PS, PE and PA are

attached to my pre-filed testimony as

Exhibits 3

—6 and will be referred to herein as the

“SPI Studies.”

The EVA/EMA

study

(Exhibit

7) is provided for informational purposes.

A study on ABS. conducted at the same laboratory as the SPI

Studies, is also provided for

informational

purposes.

Exhibit 8.

That study was not conducted under

SPI auspices, and

thus

I have limited knowledge ofthe conditions under which it was

performed.

The above-mentioned studies form the basis for the plastics industry’s

understanding ofemissions

from these processes and are recognized

by industry and

regulatory authorities, as defining emission factors for both simple extrusion and the

extrusion process utilized

in PIM.

What these studies demonstrate is that extrusion processing of different resins

under various operating conditions produces different types and amounts ofemissions.

Exhibit

9 attached to my

pre-filed testimony

is a chart summarizing the emission factors

developed in the SPI Studies for each of the emissions ofinterest for the resins studied.

The information in this chart was compiled from information contained in each of the SPI

Studies

to make it easier to review this data in this proceeding.

As can be seen from this chart, the emissions ofinterest

include VOM, PM

and a

variety ofHAPs.

The type and volume of emissions varies from a high ofapproximately 0.4

lb of

VOM per

ton ofresin processed to

a low of approximately 0.1

lb per ton of resin

processed.

HAPs ranged from a high of approximately 0.3

lb per ton of resin processed to

a low of approximately 0.02 lb per thousand tons ofresin processed. Particulate

emissions ranged from a high of approximately

0.5

lb PM per ton ofresin

processed to

low ofapproximately 0.02

lb PM per ton of resin processed for the commonly used

resins.

Exhibit 10

Based on the emission factors developed

in the SPI Studies and the

capacity of

PIM machines, across the range from small

to large P1M machines discussed above, one

canobtain an overviewofthe annual volume of emissions associated with PIM

processes.

Exhibit II

to my pre-filed testimony is a chart showing the estimated volume

ofVOM, PM and HAP emissions in tons

per year,

associated with the various types of

resins studied by SN.

As can be seen from this chart, the emissions range

from

a high of

0.2 tons per year ofVOM to a low of 0.002 tons per year VOM. HAP

emissions range

from 0.1

tons

per year to 0.0004 thousandths ofa ton per year. PM emissions range

from

0.2 tons per year to

0.0004 tons per year.

That concludes my pre-filed testimony describing the NM industry, PIM process

and types and volumes of emissions associated with the processing ofvarious resins.

appreciate the opportunity to testify and am available to answer any questions the Board

or other participants in this proceeding may have.

Resp

ctfully

tyi~eR. Harris

On~ehalf

The Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc.

‘Barlow, A.; Contos,

V.; Hoidren, WI.

W.; Garrison,

P.;

Harris,

L.; Janke,

8. (1996).

Development of

emission

factors

for

polyethylene processing. 1

Air & Waste Manage.

Assoc.,

46,

569-580.

2002

Economic Census, Manufacturing Industry Series, All Other Plastics Product

Manufacturing: 2002.

US Census Bureau,

ECO2-3 11-326199

(RV). December 2004; p. 2.

‘SPI Plastics

Data Source.

(2001). State-by-State Guide to Resin and Equipment,

p. A-2.

Survey ofNorth

American Injection Molders.

Plastics News.

April I

1,2005.

Rosato,

D.V., Rosato,

DV. and

Rosato,

M.G. (2000).

Injection Molding Handbook 3~

ed.

Boston:

Kiuwer Academic

P.ublishers.

p. 28.

‘Forrest, Mi., Jolly, A.M.,

HoLding, SR.,

and Richards, Si.

(1995).

Emissions from Processing

Thernioplastics.

Anna/sof Occupational Hygiene, 39(l),

35-53.

Pre-Filed Testimony ofLynne Harris

IPCB

Rulemaking Docket R05-20

EXHIBITS

Plastic Injection Molding Machine Diagram,

Injection

Molding Handbook,

3rd

Edition, 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Plastic

Injection Molding Equipment Manufacturer Product Information.

Adams, K.; Bankston,

J.; Barlow, A.;

Holdren, M.; Meyer,

J.; Marchesani, V.

(1999)

“Development of Emission Factors

for Polypropylene Processing,”

J. Air

Waste Manage. Assoc.,

49,

49-56.

Rhodes, V.; Kriek, G.;

Lazear, N.; Kasakevich,

3.;

Martinko, M.; Heggs,

R.P.;

Holdren, M.W.; Wisbith, A.S.; Keigley, G.W.; Williams, J.D.; Chuang, J.C.;

Satola, JR. (2002) “Development ofEmission Factors for Polycarbonate

Processing”

J. Air

Waste Manage. Assoc.,

52,

781-788.

Barlow,

A.; Contos, D.;

Hoidren, M.; Garrison, P.; Harris, L.; Janke, B

(1996)

“Development of Emission Factors for Polyethylene Processing” I

Air

Water

Manage. Assoc., 46,

569-580.

Kriek, G.; Lazear, N.; Rhodes,

V.; Barnes,

3.;

Bollmeier,

J.; Chuarig,

3.;

Holdren,

M.; Wisbith, A.; Hayward, J.;

Pietrzyk, D. (2001) “Development of Emission

Factors

for Polyamide Processing,” I

Air

Waste Manage.

Assoc., 51,

1001-

1008.

Barlow,

A.; Moss, P.; Parker, E.;

Schroer, T.; Holdren, M.; Adams,

(1997)

“Development of Emission Factors for Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate and Ethylene-

Methyl Acrylate

Copolymer Processing,”

J. Air

Waste Manage. Assoc.,

47,

1111-1118.

Contos, D.A.; Hoidren,

M.W.;

Smith, D.L.;

Brooke, R.C.;

Rhodes, V.L.; Rainey,

M.L.

(1995)

“Sampling and

Analysis of Volatile Organic

Compounds Evolved

During

Thermal Processing of Acrylonitrile Butadiene

Styrene

Composite

Resins,”

J. Air

Waste Manage. Assoc.,

45,

686-694.

SPI Studies Emission Factor Summary Chart.

10.

Estimated Emissions Using a Range of Emission Factors and Throughputs.

11.

Overview ofEstimated Emissions.

THis

DOCUMENT HAS

BEEN PRINThD ON RECYCLED

PAPER

EXHIBIT

PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING MACHINE DIAGRAM

Fig. 2-2

In-line reciprocating screw unit with hydraulic

drive schematic.

Source:

InjectionMolding Handbook,

Edition, 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

EXHIBIT 2

PLASTIC

INJECTION

MOLDING

EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER

PRODUCT INFORMATION

(1)

(2)

Maximum

Cycle

Maximum

Equipment

Shot Weight

Time

Throughput

Manufacturer

Model

Tonnage

(oz)

(sec)

(Ib/hr)

A-i

0.47

0.95

1.95

110

6.02

165

10.59

330

31.4

141

(3)

A-2

990

352

100

815

1100

362

100

815

B

B-i

28

1.7

25

15

40

2.8

25

25

55

7

25

63

90

9.3

25

84

110

9.3

25

84

120

 12.7

30

95

140

 12.7

30

95

165

 12.7

30

95

220

 20.1

45

101

B

8-2

85

5

25

45

120

 10.7

25

96

170

 14.7

35

95

230

 25.4

50

114

300

40.3

113

400

59.2

100

133

500

89.6

100

202

C-i

3.76

5.04

80

 11.9

25

107

130

 11.9

25

107

280

34

50

153

G-2

150

28

50

126

200

C

C-3

100

171

550

105

100

236

NOTES:

(1)

Typical

cycle

time is from 10 to

100 seconds for injection

molding machines with

typical injection

capacity of

100 ounces and typical

tonnage of 50 to

600 tons.

References:

Typical cycle times

Chemical Engineering Department, University

Connecticut

w-ww .enpr.uconn.edulchecilpolymer/inimoldhtm

Typical

injection capacity and

tonnage

Rosato,

Rosato and

Rosato.

Injection

Molding Handbook 2000; page 28.

3rd edition.

Boston, Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

(2)

Max.

Throughput

(lb

hr)

Max.

Shot Weight (oz

cycle)

16 oz

cycle

cycle time

(sec)

3600 sect hr

(3)

Injection molding

machines outside

the typical injection capacity and tonnage ranges.

Exhibit

TECHNICAL

PAPER

I$SN

104

7-3289

Air & Waste Manage. .lssoc. 49:49-56

c~rcht

999

Waste Maiagameni Assa,at,o,

Devebpment of Emission

Factors for Polypropylene

Processing

Ken Adams

The

Society of the Plastics Industry,

Inc., Washington,

District of Columbia

John Bankston

Aristech

Chemical Corporation,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Anthony Barlow

Quantum Chemical Company, Cincinnati, Ohio

Michael W.

Holdren

Battelie,

Columbus,

Ohio

Jeff Meyer

Amoco Polymers,

Inc., Alpharetta, Georgia

Vince

J. Marchesani

Monte/I North America, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware

ABSTRACF

Emission factors for selected volatile organic compounds

and particulate emissions

were developed during extru-

sion

of commercial

grades of

propylene homopolymers

and copolymers with

ethylene. A

small

commercial ex-

truder

was

used.

Polymer

melt

temperatures

ranged

from

400

605

°F.However,

temperatures

excess

510 °Ffor

polypropylene

are considered extreme.

Temperatures

as high

as 605

are only used

for very

specialized

applications,

for

example, melt-blown fi-

bers,

Therefore,

use of this

data

should

matched

with the

resin manufacturers’

recommendations.

An emission factor was calculated

for each substance

measured and reported as pounds released

to the atrno-

sphere

per million

pounds

polymer processed (ppm

(wtlwt)l.

Based on

production

volumes, these emission

factors

can

be used

processors to estimate emission

quantities

from

polypropylene extrusion

operations

that are

similar to

the resins

and the conditions

used

In this study.

NTRODUCrION

The Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90) man-

dated the

reduction of various pollutants

released to the

atmosphere.

Consequently, companies are being faced

with

the

task of

establishing an

“emissions Inventory”

for thechemicals released or generated in their processes.

The chemicalstargeted are those that either produce vola-

tile organic compounds

(VOCs) and/or compounds that

are on the

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)

list of 189

hazardous air pollutants

(HAl’s). Tale V of the

amended Clean Air Actestablishes apermit program for

emission sourcesto ensure an eventuaL reduction In emis-

sions. When

applying for

a state operating permit, pro-

cessingcompanies arefirst required toestablish abaseline

of their potential emissions.’

In response

to theneeds of the plastics Industry, the

Societyof the Plastics industry,lnc.

(SF1) organized astudy

determine the emission

factors

for extrusion

ho-

mopolymer and copolymeT of polypropylene. Sponsored

by tenmajor resin producers, the study was performed at

Battelle, an independent research laboiatory. This work

follows

a previous SPI/Battelle study on the emissions

IMPLICATIONS

This study

provides quantItative emissions

data that

were

collected during extrusion of homopolymers

and copoly-

mers

of propylene. These

data

are directly

to pro-

duction volumes

and

can

used

reference

poInts

estimate emissions from similar polypropy4ene resins ex-

truded on similar

equipment.

Volume

January

1999

JotnW

of the Ak

8 ~~sfe

ManagementAssociat’on

Adams eta!.

polyethylene2

and was

performed

con)unction

with

emission studies on

ethylene-vinyl acetate andethylene-

methyl acrylate copolymers.3

A review of the literature reveals that thermo-oxida-

tion studies havebeenperformed on polypropylene.” The

primary concerns aboutthese previous emissions dataare

that they were generated using static, small-scale,6 or oth-

erwise

unspecified

procedures.”5

These procedures may

not adequately simulate the temperatureand oxygen ex-

posure conditions typically encountered in the extrusion

process. That Is, in most extruders, the polymer melt con-

tinuously flowsthroughthe system, limiting the residence

time in theheated zones. This contrastswith static proce-

dures, in which thepolymermay be exposed to theequiva-

lent temperature,

but

for an

effectively

longer period of

time,

thus resulting In an exaggerated thermal exposure.

In a similar way, the concern

overoxygen

the indus-

trial extrusion process is minimized as theextruder screw

design forces entrapped

air back along the barrel during

theinitial compression andmelting process. The air exits

the system

via the hopper; consequently, hot polymer is

only briefly in

contact with oxygen when

extruded

through the die. Again, this is in contrast to statictesting,

in which hot polymer may be exposed to air for extended

periods of

time.

view of these concerns,

the acairacy

of data obtained from

these

procedures may

limited

when used

to predict emissions generated by polypropy-

lene processors.

As an alternative to small-scale static technology,

better approach is to measure emissions directly from the

extrusion

process. Since the type and quantity

of emis-

sions are often influenced

operational

param-

eters,

the

ideal situation

study each

process

under the specificoperat-

ing

conditions

con-

cern. Parameters that can

alter

the

nature

the

emissions

include

ex-

truder sizeand type, melt

temperatureand rate, the

air-exposed

surface

volume

ratio

the

extrudate,

the

cooling

rate of the extrudate, and

theshear effect from the

extruder

screw.

Other

variables

the

material(s)

being

ex-

truded can aLso influence

emissions. These include

resin

type,

age

the

resin,

additive package,

and

any additional

materials

added

to the resin prior to

extrusion. Ifa processor

uses

recycled

materials,

the thermal history

is also an impor-

tant

factor.

In view

of these

variables, a considerable

task would

be to devise and conduct emission

measurement studies

for all

major extrusion applications.

Therefore,

SPI’s ob-

jectivein this work was to develop baseline emission fac-

tors

for polypropylene processing under

conditions

that

would

provide reasonable reference data for

processors

involved in

similar extrusion operations.

The fiveresin

types evaluated were a reactorgrade ho-

mopolymer, acontrolled rheologyhomopolymerwith and

without antistat,

a random

copolymer,

and a reactor im-

pactcopolymer. The samples used were

mixtures of com-

mercial resins

from the sponsoring

companies.

The

test

matrix used was designed to

provide emissions data

function of theirresin type and typical melt temperature(s).

This infomiation

is provided in Table 1, together with the

average additive content

of the resin

mixtures.

These

are

typical additives normally found in polypropylene.

A small commercial extruder wasequipped with a 1.5-

in.

screw and fitted with

eight-strand die.

The emis-

sions

were measured over a 30-mm. period and were re-

lated to theweight of resin extruded. The emission factor

for each substance measured is reported as pounds evolved

the atmosphere per million

pounds

of polymer pro-

cessed Ippmiwt/wt).

Processors using similar equip-

ment

can

use

these

emission

factors

reference

points

to assist

estimating emissions for their spe-

cific process.

11W~1.

Polypropylene emission

test

runs; resin characterislics additive concentration and

nell

temperature.

Rise

No.

Suqutase

Ruin 1$.

Mill Flow Rat.

(yb

mhn~

230

CC)

Number at Resins

In Compoille

Mill Temp

(‘fl

Average

MdltIv.

Cencelltrallon (ppm)

Controlled

Rheology

30—35

ItO

Antioxidant

 1,700

Homopolyner

510

PA

1,000

Non

Antistat

605

Controlled

Rheology

30-35

490

Mlioxidant

1,700

Honopolyner

3.400

with

Asrtistat

PA’

2,500

Reactor

Grade

3—7

490

Antloxidanl

1,700

Homopolyner

570

Reactor Impact

 3-10

505

AntIoxidant

2.500

Copolymer

 PA’ 1,500

15-20w1EPR

B

Random Copolymer

3—7

510

Antioxidant

 2,000

34*1

Ethylene

PA’ 2,200

SIiWAB

3.000

trocass aid

‘Antistat

~AstinG

ofVie

Air

Waste

Mgnege-nent

Association

\,tkime

January

990

Adams

et a!.

Thesubstances targeted for monitoring included par~

ticuLate

matter, VOCs, light hydrocarbons (ethane, ethyl-

ene, and propylene),

aldehydes (formaldehyde, acrolein,

acetaldehyde,

and propionaldehyde),

ketones

(acetone

andmethyl ethyl ketone), and organic adds (formic, ace-

tic, and acrylic acid).

These are the analytes

of interest,

either because they are on the I-lAPs

list, as stated earlier,

or they ate

the expected thermal and thermo-oxidative

breakdown products of the polymers tested.

EXPERIMENTAL

In the following section, briefdescriptions of theextrudet,

the entrainment tone, arid sampling

manifolds are pro-

vided.

Details of thesampling methods, procedures, and

analytical instrumentation are providedelsewhere,”2

ExperimentaL

Process Conditions

An 11PM Corporation 15-hp unvented extrude was used

process the

polypropylene test

sample

mixtures

Battelle.

The extruder was equipped with

a 1.5-in, single

screw (L/D ratio of 30:1) and fitted with

an eight-strand

die (FIgures 1 and 2). Extruded resin strands were allowed

to flow into

a stainless steel drum located directly under

the die head (Figure 2). Processingconditions, shown in

Table

2, were

selected to

be representative of commercial

processing applications. The order of the polypropylene

emissions test runs is listed in Table

Capture and Collection of Emissions

Emissions released

at the die

head

were

separately col-

lected

for

mm.

during the extrusion runs

(Table

3).

Emissions from the hopper were

excluded from

analysis

since previousemission

studies

showed their contribution to be

insignificant

(less than

the total).2

Thbje

shows

the

sampling

strategy and overall

analyticalscheme employed for

the polypropylene test runs.

Die

Head Emissions

Emissions

released

at the die

head

during

extrusion

were

captured at the point of release

continuous

flow of

clean

air.

portion

this

air

flow

was

subsequently

sampled

downstreamis described in the

following

paragraphs.

The

emissions

were initially

cap-

hired

in a stainless steel enclo-

sure surrounding the die head

(FIgure

3). The air stream was

FIgure 1.

Extruder sfrand die head used in polypropylene

omissions

tesung

program.

immediately drawn through a divergent nozzle entrain-

ment cone, which provideda sheath of clean air between

the die head emission

flow and

the walls of the carrIer

duct. This minimized interaction of the hot exhaust with

the cooler duct walls.

The total

air

flow employed

for capturing die

head

emissions

was set at 700 L/mln.

This

was composed

thedie head entrainment flow at 525

L/mmn, the sheath

flow at L/min, and 75

LImin of residual air flow that was

made up from room air drawing into the open bottom of

thestainless steel die head enclosure. This residual air flow

was used

to facilitate effective capture of emissions from

FIgure 2.

View

the

ex’ruder

system

a’~d

the various

sarnphng locations,

aw~

To Eahet

..—

Glass iUbli~g

HEM-Filtered

100

LPM

pen

sygvI~ar

Sampling

Alr.tnaatsed tajnsd.,

Ercils_alepn

Wtt

DMrg.

“~

30 Later

nn~a

EaSelol.

SMeib

flow

Hopper

lOI.PM

enttrM

100LPM

Die

Aaaln

-a—-Mall

Thm

rehire Probe

reRan

Extoadet,

cr6.5.

More.,

15In

ç’Ei*Uelnlnt

Mr flow

525

LPM

Extrud

Exvuder

25 salon

B_re’

Contain

(Heeling Zone.

txtrrsdets

blnjdela

Lt&3)

COa*ainer

Purge

£Xtl’lJd3ie

LPI&‘to Vera)

Vokjme

January1990

Journal

the

Air

Waste

Managenionr

ASSOCISf*Dn

Adams et at

labl.

Resin

throughput and

key flow paranlelers during

the polypropylene extrusion runs.

tastRdnNe.

Extruder Conditions

Resin

Type

Controlled

Reactor

Random

rheology

grade

impact

copolyner

po~rner

hornopotymer

t~ntpoiymec

honopoiymsc

h~tropolymer

hwmpotymei

CopotylNi

(3-6*1

El)

(with antislat)

(15—20

itit

EPA)

Melt

Flow

Rate

MFR

30-35

MER 30-35

MFR 30.35

MFR

30-35

MFR 3-7

MFR

3.7

MFR

3-10

MFR-3-7

Average

Die Head

400

510

605

490

570

505

510

Melt

Teriw

(‘F)

Zone3’lenpf°F)

428

488

558

471

497

643

496

49?

Zone 2 TeTIp

(‘F)

403

430

469

320

369

436

369

Zone

1 Trp

(‘F)

382

318

315

308

312

313

390

306

PressuTefpsig)

750

250

490

200

Resin Throughput

12.1/

9.29/

9.23/

7.58/

53.8/

41.9/

39.5/

23.6/

Qb,th4/(gen/min)

91.6

70.3

69.8

57.4

40?

317

299

179

R01oSgeed(r~n)

Run Duraiioi

(mm)

AIr Flout

Totel Manifold

Flow (Urn

in)

700

FlowaatetnloSh.,ath

boo

ioo

ice

100

190

190

Flow Rate

Into

Entrainment

525

525

525

Area, (tjnnin)

Flowftate

Through

Hopper

ft/mm)

Flow

Through Tuhes br

0.5

Carbonyls (Limin)

FlowThmoughTubeslot

Orgatic

Adds (L/min)

Flow

Into Canisters (L/mnin)

0.16

0,16

0.16

FSThrcegh4O2THC

Analyzer (1mm)

Flow Thraugh

Filter

I-Iolder

((Jrnln)15

Tabi. 3.

Analytical scheme for polypropylene test runs.

Substances Monitored

Organic

Acids

Aldehydes/

Ketones

Parliwiate

VOCs

Heavy Hydrocarbon

Light F~’drocarbon

Collection

Media

KOH Impregnated Filler

ONPH

Tube

Glass

Fiber Filter

SUMMA

Canister

Analytical

Method

Desorpllon With

Dilute

H1SO, and Analysis by

Ion EAttusiOn

Chrorretographyfliv

Desorption

With

Acetonitrile an

Analysis

HPLC

Gravimetric

Modified TO-14

HP-i

Fused Silica Capilla&j

A120,/Na2804

Column

Capillary Column

GC/MS

)

GC/11Dj

GC/FIO

Sampling

LocatIon

Manifold

Meli

Temp (‘F)

Run

No.

Number of

Samples Analyzed

400

510

605

490

570

505

Journal

the

Air &

Waste

Managernonl Assoc,ahon

Votst~e

Jaauety 1990

Adams

et

a!.

the polymer. These flowsare depicted

in Fig-

ures

2 and

Anorifice plate and control valve

connected to a magnahelic gauge were used to

set the flow at each location.

A calibrated mass

flow meter was used before and after the test

runs to

verify thesettings. The flow setpolnts

were within ÷/-3

of the stated values.

Die head emissions

were transported

the 700-L/min

air flow to a sampling poInt

ft downstream of the die head using 4~inch-

diameter glass tubing.

The location for this

sampling

point (Figure 2)

was based on pre-

vious studies

performed at Battelle that in-

volved

design,

engineering,

implernenta-

tion,

and

proof-of-principle stages for the

pilot plant

system.1”1

Two

separate

sampling

manifolds were

used at thesampling location;

one for collect-

trig gases

and vapors andthe

other

for collect-

tag particulates

(Figure 4).

For

gases

and va-

pors,

10-L/min substream

was

diverted

from

the main emission

entrainment stream using

a 0.5-inch stainless steel

tube (0.425

inch i.dj wrapped

with

heating

tape and maintained at

50 °C.VOCs and

oxygenates

were sampled from this manifold. Similarly,

particulates were sampled Isokinetically from a separate

15-L/min substream using a 0.25-inch stainless unheated

steel probe (0.1375 In. i.d.)

Two different methods were used

to measure VOC

emissions. One was the Beckman 402 Hydrocarbon Ana-

lyzer,

which continually analyzedthe air emission

stream

throughout the run and provided a direct reading of all

VOC substances responding to

the flame ionization de-

tector. The other method used an evacuated canister for

sample collection and gas chromatography for

analysis.

With this method, total VOCs were determined by sum-

ming up the heavy hydrocarbon (containing

a carbon

number ranging from C3 through C14)

and light hydro-

carbon (containing

a carbon number ranging from

through C3) results.

The total VOCs determined with

the 402

Analyzer

are in general agreement with the VOC values obtained

by summing up

thelight

and heavy hydrocarbons spe-

cies from the two GC methods. The 402 Analyzer results

are consistently higher.

The data obtained with

the CC

speciatlon

method

more closely resembles the TO-12

method, which is frequently used to measure source emis-

sions of VOCs. Information on the TO-12 method

and

the CC speciatlon method (TO-14) can be obtained from

the literature.’

This

study did not

include

any measurements

emissions from the drum collection area,

as all commer-

cial extrusion processes quench the molten resin shortly

after it exits the die.

Emissions from the extrudate in the

collection

drum were prevented

from

entering the die

head entrainment area by drawing air from the drum at

20 L/min and venting to

theexhaust duct. Several back-

ground

samples were taken, and smoke tubes were em-

ployed

to confirm that the discharge from the entrain-

ment

area was not contributing

material

the sam-

pling

manifold.

VALIDATION OP THE ANALYTICAL METhOD

The purpose of the manifold spiking experiments was to

determine the collection and recovery efficiencies of the

canister,

acid,

and carbonyl collectIon methods. During

the first spiking experiment,

all threecollection methods

were evaluated.2 Dining

the second spiking experiment.

collection/recovery efficiencies were determined only for

the canister sampling method. The results from the two

spiking experiments

are summarized

in Table 4. The

analytes measured by thespiking eicperiments arelisted

column one.

Column

two

shows the method used.

Column three shows the calculated concentrations of the

spiked compounds in the air stream of themanifold. The

concentrations foundfrom duplicate sampling and analy-

ses, corrected for background levels,

are

shown in the next

two columns. Finally, the average percent recovered

given

the last column.

The results from the first experiment are summarized

in Table 4 to showrecoveries of the manifold spiked com-

pounds. The three organic acids were spiked

at a nominal

air concentration

of about 0.6 to

0.8

pm/L. Recoveries

using the KOH-coated filters ranged

from

107 to

122.

Icul

Flow

toe

I.fl.

Ah-CuieS.d

Imlo*4e.~

—

IOU Jet

Flgur. 3.

\new

emission entrainment area.

Volume

J*CUflY

1999

Journal

the

Waste

Menageme,tAssocietton

Adams eta).

Formaldehyde (1.63 pm/L) served as the surrogate for the

aldehyde/ketone

species,

and the DNPI1 cartridgemethod

showed a recovery of 130.

Deuterated

benzene

(0.092

pm/L) served as the representative compound for the can-

ister collection method. The amount recovered was 95.

During the second experiment, additional recovery

data wasobtained for the canister method

using an expanded list of compounds. The

additional compounds

Included deuterated

benzene

for comparlson with

the first ex-

periment as

well

as benzene, methyl

acry-

late,

deuterated methyl acrylate, and vinyl

acetate. The expected spike level

of these

five species wasnominally 0.24 pm/L. Mass

ions from the mass spectrometric detector

that were specificfor each compound were

used

calculating recovery efficiencies,

since the five specieswere not well-resolved

with

the analytical column

(i.e., the two

methyl

aci-ylates were seen as one peak when

monItoring the flame

ionization detector).

POLYPROPYLENE

EMISSION FACTOR

RESULTS

Theextrusion

test run results from the eight

polypropylene resin mixtures are shown In

Table 5.

This shows theaverage die head melt tempera-

ture for each run and provides emission

values

pg/g

for the target speciesin

the following categories: particu-

late matter,

VOCs, and oxygenated specles—aldehydes,

ketones, and organicacids. The concentrations are directly

translatable to

pounds of material generated per million

pounds of resin processed at that extrusion temperature.

Figure S shows a bar graph of the just-mentioned emis-

sion categories by test run.

Emissions plotted include par-

ticulate matter,

VOCs as measured

by the Beckman 402

Analyzer, VOCs as measured by the gas chromatographic

speciatlon methods (e.g..

light and heavy hydrocarbon

methods), and, finally, the sum of the oxygenate species—

aldehydes,

ketones, and organic acids.

Examination of the five different resin mixtures ex-

truded at a similar

temperature (500

0?)

that is, Test Runs

Z, 4, 5,

7, and 8 show thecontrolled rheology homopoly-

mer samples

(2 and 4) generate the highest

concentra-

tion of particulates and VOCs. Figure 5 clearly demon-

stratesthe effect of melt

temperature (400 to 600 °F)on

emissions from a single resin type. Test Runs

2,and 3

show, as

expected, that emissions of all

species increase

with Increasing extrusion temperature;

Test

Runs

S and 6

show similar behavior, but to a lesser extent. Note that

these data may not be extrapolated to the higher tem-

peratures used for the melt spinning

process.

Individual organic acid emissions ranged from

less

than the detection level

6.6 pglg).

Formic and acetic

acid concentration varied by

factors of 20 and

15,

respec-

tively, overthe eight runs, but the relative levels of for-

mic and aceticacid were similar (within a factor of 2) from

test run to

test run. Acrylic acid emissions, if any,

were

below the detectionlimits of the equipment. Test Runs 3

Tale

ResultsIcon spiking experiments.

An.iyte

Method

Spike

 flecav

Level

(i’w’)

Sell

ety (pç’L)

8012

Avenge

Recoveved’

Formic

Acid

 ROll (liters

Fint

Experiment’

0.71

0.987

0.733

122

lB

AceticAcid

 XCII

tillers

0.77

1.023

 0.640

 121*12

AcrylicAcid

 KOilfifters

 0.59

 0.687

 0.567

 107~11

Fornaidehyde

 ONPII Caitddge

 1.63

 2.20

 2.03

 130±5

Benzene-;

Canister

 0.092

 0.~8

 0.~6

95

2

eenzene-d6

Canister

Benigne

Canister

Second Experiment’

0.24

0.27

0.22

0.25

0.22

103±4

103

Methyl Aciyiaie-d~

Canister

Methyl Acrylale

 Canister

0.25

0.26

0.25

 0.25

0.24

0.23

100±4

95

Vinylftcetate

 Canister

 0.24

 0.26

 0.25

 115.6

‘Relative

error

is the

relative percent diterence:

tie absolute

difference

the

Iwo sanples

multiplied by

103

and

then Oivkled

bytheir avenue.

FIgure

Sampkng manifolds for erthsions generated In die

head.

~wna)

the

At & Wsste

Manegen,elt

Asoc~n

Vokjnie4g

Janu.ry

1999

Adams eta?.

and 4 showed the highest levels of organic acids. The to-

tal organic acid emission values for these runs were 10.6

and 10.9 pg/g,

respectively.

Figure 5 graphically shows

the total

oxygenates detected.

Even at the highest

melt

temperatures employed

in this study, the oxygenates con-

tributed less than

of thetotal VOCs emitted.

The individual cathonyl species ranged in

emission

values from less than the detection level

to 26.9

l’g/g- All

eight species were resolved. Acetone was the most pre-

dominant component

followed by formaldehyde and ac-

etaldehyde. Test Runs 3, 4, and 6 showed the highest level

of total carbonyl species. Thetotal carbonyl content from

these runs were 73.8,

14.9,

and 21.8 pg/g, respectively.

Note that the

EPA Is proposing to revise its definition

of VOCs for purposes of preparing state implementation

plans

(511’s) to attain the national ambient air quality stan-

dards

(NAAQS) for ozone under

Title

I of the CAAA9O

and for thefederal implementation plan for the Chicago

ozone nonattainment area. The proposed revision would

add acetone to

the List of compounds

excluded from the

table

5. Sunmary

polypropylene extrusion

emissions

forgeneric resin grades (moJgl.

definition of VOC on the basis that

these compounds have

negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation.0

Thesignificance of this data becomes apparent when

placed

in the context of the 1990

CAAA9O definition

“major” source for VOC emissions. Categorization of an

emission source as a major source subjects it to more shin-

gent permitting

requirements. The definition

of a ma)or

source varies with the severity of the ozone nonattainment

situation

of the area wherethe source is located. Thecur-

rent VOCemission limits

are

10 tons/yr for an emission

source within an

extreme ozone nonattainment classifi-

cation, 25

tons/yr

for a source in the severe classification,

and 50 tons/yr

for a source in

the serious classification.

Currently, the only extreme nonattainment area in the

United States

is the Los Angeles

area.

The utility of this

datacan

be illustrated in

the fol-

lowing examples. Based con the emissions data developed

in this effort,

a processor

with

equipment similar

to that

used

this study can extrude annually up to 24.4 mil-

lion

pounds of controlled rheology polypropylene at a

TesiflunNo.

1

2

3

‘7

Extrgder

CorSitlons

Resin

Type

Controlled

Reactor

Random

telogy

rheology

grade

impact

copolynw

homopoiymer

h~opolynw

homopolymer

(with antislat)

t~mopolymer

homopoiymer

copoiymer

(15—20

 EPRj

(3-6*1

El)

Melt

A~?age

Die

400

510

605

490

570

505

510

Melt Temp (0F)

Particulate Matter

30.3

68.4

653

ISO

17.3

218

34.5

27.9

VOte

Beckman 402-

TI-IC0

104

177

819

191

33.4

202

80.3

59.4

Heasyllydrocarbores

79.1

175

587

104

24.6

127

65.1

29.8

light

Hydrocarbons

Ethene

0.90

1.39

4.65

0.78

0.07

0,37

0.02

0.08

EU~iene

0.38

1.44

1.36

0.50

0.03

0.05

0.02

0.05

Propylene

021

0.80

13.9

0.70

0.12

2.24

0.06

0.26

Aldehydes

Formaldehyde0

0.74

128

19,1

1.30

0,17

705

0.18

0.09

Acroleln0

0.01

005

0.81

0.14

0.01

0.10

cOOl

0.01

Acelaldehyde0

0.46

0.54

15.8

0.53

0,09

5.63

0.20

0.08

Prcptonaldchyde0

0.05

0.07

1.60

3.31

0.02

0.97

0.95

0.02

Butyraidehyde

0,78

1.05

3.32

0.92

0.04

0.38

0.08

0.01

Benzaldehyde

0.12

0.14

5.21

0.51

0.08

0.86

0.02

0.08

lietonee

Acetone

9.66

12.6

26.9

9.36

0.15

2.82

0.31

0.18

Methyl Ethyl Ketone0

0.19

0.24

9.62

0.26

0.07

5.23

0,04

0.04

Orginic Acids

FormicAcid

059

1,43

 3,98

 5.98

02

 1.19

0.2

 0.31

Acetic Acid

1,10

1.25

6.60

 4.90

0.2

 2.64

 0.25

 0.52

Acrylic

Acid

0.08

cOOS

0.08

0,08

0.08

11-IC

Total

hydrocarbons

(methane is not

included).tHazardoLs air pollutants (l-~Ps).

Note:

The emission values are averages Iron

duplicate was,

general,

lie differences were ~+/-15.

Volume 49

January1999

Journal

rho

At&

Waste ManagenirtAssociafó,

Adams etal.

~jtiLL.L

FIgure 5.

Uar graph showing

the

particulates.

VOCs obtained with

the

402

Ma~’zer,

VOCs obtained by

speciation

and oxygenated

organic species tiactors ri 1JQ/g).

melt temperature of 600 °For

1,156

million

pounds of

reactor grade homo polypropylene at a melt temperature

of 500

‘F without exceeding the

10-ton/yr lImit for an

extreme ozone nonattainment area.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon

the results of this

study, the following

six

conclusions aremade:

(1)

For the resins studied, the majoremission

com-

ponents were particulatematter and VOCs. Much

lower amounts

were found of the oxygenated

species—aldehydes, ketones, andorganic acids.

(2)

Emission

rates are directly correlatable with

the

melt temperature.

(3)

Although

the collection and

MS speciatlon of

VOCs most closely follows

the EPA procedures

fTO-12and T044) for measuring VOCs, the more

conservative

approach using the Beckman 402

Analyzer,

which yields higher

VOCs values,

should

be employed.

(4)

The data providespolypropylene processors with

baseline for estimating the VOCs generated by

the resins they handle on a daily basis under pro-

cessing

conditions similar

to those used

in this

study and at the maximum melt temperatures re-

ported.

The following weightsof each

resin

can

processed without exceeding the 10-ton limit

of an

“extreme”ozone nonattaininent area: 24.4

million pounds of controlled

rheologypolypropy-

leneat 600 ‘F,

99.0

million pounds of reactorgrade

homopolymer at 570°F,249.1 mIllion pounds of re-

actor impact copolymer at SOS ‘F, and 336.7 mil-

lion pounds of random copolymer at 510 ‘F.

(5)

In some cases,

the emission

factors determined

this study may overestimate” or under esti-

mate emissions from a particular

process. Profes-

sionat judgement and conservative measures

must

be exercised as necessary when using the

data for estimating emission quantities.

(6)

Ibis study was not designed to meet the needs

of industrial

hygienists.

However,

this

type of

apparatus can be used at different extrusion con-

ditions

to gather data on

other types of extrudates

such

as fiber, film, or sheet.

,s’,a,.,~...

.‘,:ss..’s

REFERENCES

Sherman,

L.M.

‘clean-air

miles challenge processo~,’

plastics

Technol.

199$,

41,2,

83.86.

Barlow,

A.; contos, D.;

Hoidren,

M.;

Garrison,

P.; Harris. I..; Janke,

‘Development of emIssion factors

for polyethylene processing.’

Air &

Waste Manage.

,4ssoc.

1996,

46,

569.580.

Bateelle Final Report

to the Society

the

Plastics Industry.

‘Sam.

pling and

analysis

emissions

evolved during thermal

processing

ethylene-vinyl acetate

and

ethylene methyl

acrytate resin

coenpos.

Ites,’ March 1995.

t1oft

A.;

Jacobson,

S. ‘Thermal oxidation of

poLypropylene close

Industrial

processing conditions,’

I. Applied Polj,,n. Sri.

1952, 27, 2,539.

Patti, 5K.;

Ocanthos,

‘Volatile emissionis during

thermoptastics

processing—A Review,’

Advances

in Polyns. Technol.

1995,

14, 67.

Hoff, A.; Jacobsson,

‘Themso.oxiclattve

degradation ot low density

polyethylene close to industrial processing condition,?

Applied

Ptilrn.

51.

1981, 26, 3,409-3,423.

Hughes, 1W.; Boland, R.F.;

Rlnaldl, G.M.

Source

Assessment:

Plastic

Processing,

staee

the

Are. Monsanto Research Corporation. March

1978,

EPA-600/2.75/004c,

2748.

‘Air

facility

subsystem

source classification

codes

and

emission

tac’

tor listing

for criteria

air pollutants,’

EPA. March

1990.

EPA 450/4’

90/003.

compendIum

of Methods For

The

Detemninatlon of

Toxic

Organic

compounds

Ambient

Air,

13.5.

Environmental Proeection Agency,

June 1988.

Available

from NTIS as P890427374.

10.

Fed..Rqist.

1994,

59, 189,

49,877.

II.

Forrest, Mj.;Jolly, AM.;

Holding, SR.;

Richards.

5.J.

‘Emissionsfrom

processing

therrrsoplastics,’Annals

occupational

li)slene.

0995,39.

35-53.

12.

Battelle

Final Report

the society of the

PLastics Industry, ‘Sam.

pIling

and

analysIs

emissions

during

thermal

processing

polypro-

pylene resin mixtures,’ April

4995.

Aboutth•

Authors

Anthony

Barlow, Ph.D.,

Is a product steward for Quantum

ChemIcal

Company.

John

Bankston

supervisor

product

regulatien

Arlstect, Chemical Corporation.

Michael Hoidrer,

is a

senior research

scientist at

Battelle

Memorial

Institute.

Virsce Marchesani,

Ph.D.. is director

of health and

environ-

mental affairs forMontell

North America. Jeffrey Meyer, Ph.D..

manager

of polymer

physics and

testing

atAmoco Poly-

mers.

Inc. ken

Adams

(corresponding

author) is assistant

technical director for the Society

the Plastics Industry,

Inc.,

1 BOl

K St.,

NW, Suite 600K,

Washington.

DC 20006.

Journal

rhe 4k &

Waste

Management Association

Vakn,e 49

,Mnuary 1999

Exhibit

TECHNICAl. PAPER

ISSN

1047.32891. .4ir&

Waste

Manose.

.4ssoc.

52.781-788

C0O9T5~i4

2002

M S

‘flaate

Managwrent

Ass~Sator~

Development of Emission

Factors

for Polycarbonate Processing

Verne L. Rhodes

Product Regulatory Services,

Inc.,

GulfBreeze,

Florida

George

Kriek and

Nelson Lazear

Bayer Corporation,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Jean Kasakevich

The Dow Chemical Company Midland, Michigan

Marie Martinko

The Society of the Plastics Industry,

Inc.,

Washington, DC

R.P. Heggs,

M.W. Hoidren, A.S.

Wisbith,

(LW. Keigley. J.D. Williams, J.C. Chuang,

and J.R.

Satola

Baltelle, Columbus,

Ohio

ABSTRACT

Emission factors for selected volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) and particulate emissions were

developed while

processing eight commercial grades of polycarbonate (PC)

and

one grade of

PClacrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene

(ABS)

blend.

small commercial-type

extruder wasused,

and

the

extrusion

temperature

was held

constant at 304

‘C.

emission

factor

was

calculated

for

each substance

measured and is reported as pounds released

theatmo•

sphere/million pounds

polymer

resin

processed (ppm

(wt/wt)l.

Scaled to

production volumes,

these emission

factors can

used

processors to

estimate emission

quantities from similar PC processing operations.

INTRO

DUCflON

The

Clean Air Act Amendments

1990

(CAM)

man-

dated the reduction of various pollutants

released

the

atmosphere. Asa result, companies are faced with the task

of establishing

“emissions inventory”

for the chemi-

cals

generated and

released

their production processes.

The chemicals

targeted

are those considered

volatile or’

ganic compounds (VOCs)

and those that are on the U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency’s

(EPA)

current

list

188

hazardous air pollutants.

Title

of the

CAAA

establishes a

permit

program

for

emission

sources to

ensure

an eventual

reduction in

these

chemical emis-

sions. When applying for astate operating permit, pro-

cessing companies are required to

establish

a baseline

of their potential

emissions.1

In response

to the needs of the plastics industry, the

Society

of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SI’!) organized astudy

to determine the emission

factors for

extruding polycar-

bonate

(PC)

homopolymers,

copolymers,

and blends.

category

from

each company.

The resins were

mixed

thoroughly to

provide

four

composite

samples.

resin

extruder and exhaust deliv-

ery system were used

to generate and

capture

emissions produced

during

the

extrusion

the composite resins. This

facility

had

been

de-

signed

to perform

safety evaluations of emissions produced

during plastic processing under controlled laboratory

con-

ditions modelling Industrial practice)

The study design consisted

of two

phases:

1) develop-

ment

and validation

gaseous

emission sample

collec-

tion

and

analysismethod,

and

2) collection

and

analysisof

VOCs emitted from the extrusion

each composite resin.

EXPERIMnTAL

METHODS

Extiusion

Facility and Collection Methods

Resin Extrusion

Facility.

The

resin

extrusion

facility

Battelle was used to generate and capture

VOCs produced

during

the

extrusion

of ABS

resins. The

resin

extrusion

equipment

was isolated from the rest of the facility in

room equipped with

a separate air handling system hous-

ing

two

extrusion

lines

in separate

isolation

enclosures

maintained

at a negative

pressure relative to the

rest

the

facility. The isolation

enclosures were constructed

prefabricated

insulated

panels

which

ensured

that

the

noise

levels in the generation

area

did

not exceed

80 dB.

The design

of the

facility allowed the system

operator

maintain conditions within

specified

limits

and to col-

lect, analyze, and

report the conditions in real time dur-

ing each test.

The

emissions that evolved

during

thermal

process-

ing of resins were captured in a stainless-steel enclosure

FIgu,. 1.

Delivery

system

and sampling locations.

surrounding

thedie head of a

1.5-in,

15-hp plastic

extruder

(11PM

Corporation).

Fitted

with

eight strand

die, the

extnider

capable

of a production

rate over

lbs/hr

throughput and 80(YF (maximum) barrel temperatures

for

the three heat zones. The thermal

processing

involved the

extrusion

of each composite under

conditions considered

suitablefor the ABS resins.

The emissions were entrained with pre-conditioned air

(high

efficiency

particulate

aerosol-filtered)

using a

Battelle-developed

divergent

nozzle

entrainment cone

with

flow through a three-inch diameter glass

sampling

manifold

(Figure

1).

The

cone provided a

sheath

of clean

air between the

exhaust

emissions

and the

walls

of the

carrier

duct,

minimizing

interaction

of the effluent with

the duct wails.

The

delivery system

was designed

with

multiple

sam-

pling ports at various distances from the extruder to deter-

mine the component’s concentration at chosen locations.

Figure

a schematic diagram of the sampling port loca-

tions. Sampling port two was used for sampling in this pro-

gram based on results from previousindustrial studies which

involved design, engineering, implementation, and testing

of the plastic extrusion and delivery system laboratory.

Composite Sample Preparation Process. The composite res-

ins were prepared

using a

Patterson-Kelly twin

shell, 3

ft5

blender to mix

lbs of each resin

type from each corn-

patty to form

150 lbs of each composite. A composite of the

(Sampling LocatIon

#3)

Air-Entrained EmIssions

Well of Divergent

tiothe

Inlet

P,.lot.t.d

Steel Co.,.

Ealtlnlon

Entrainment

Box

HEPA

Orifice

control

Fitter

pins

valves

525 LPM

76 IPIl

(Room Air)

Volume

September1995

Journal of the Air &

Waste Management Association

687

Contos,

Hoidren,

Smith,

Brooke, Rhodes, and Rairiey

extruder

purging

resin, styrene-acrylonitrile

(SAN)

resin,

was also preparedfrom equal parts of

Tyril® 880 SAN from

Dow, and LustranT!~31-2060 SAN

from Monsanto. Table

shows

the tour composite categories, the resins used from

each

company,

and

the

extruder conditions for

the com-

posite sample collection

in Phase

Sample

Loading Process.

Resin

was hand-poured

into

dryer hopper mounted on the extruder.

During the extru-

sion process the plastic extrudate passed through the ex-

haust

entrainment section into a

55-gal steel drum where

it cooled

and was weighed. The

resin processing

rate was

determinedby weighing the amount ofresin extruded dur-

ing a

measured time interval.

Canister Preparation Method.

The canisters used to col-

lect emission

samples

were cleaned and evaluated follow-

ing

the

Compendium

Method

TO-IA’

procedure

recommended by the

Quality

Assurance

(QA)

Division of

the

U.S.

EPA.

The

6-L canisters

were cleaned

placing

them in a 50C

oven,

evacuating

them to a

pressure less

than

125 mm of 1-1g. and filling each canister five times to

at least 4 pslg, using humidified ultra-high purity air as the

flush gas- A final canister vacuum

0.10mm of Hgor less

was

achieved by

using

mechanical pump. One out

every eight canisters was filled with humidified ultra-high

purity air

and

its

contents

analyzed

(QC) measure.

Tabi. I.

Phase

extruder operating conditions.

quality

control

Resin:

Auto

Camp

Cenetal

Molding

Cot-np

Pipe

Camp

Retrig

Camp

General

Molding

Camp

Duplicate

Run

Duration (min)

Total Flow CUmin):

700

Carrier Flow

(Ljrnin):

525

Sheath

Flow (L/mh):

100

ScrewSpeed(rprn):

Die Pressure

(psi):

1500

2000

20CC

2000

Output(Ibsmr):

48.4

51.7

45.0

50.6

51.4

Temperatures

(F):

Zone

340

351

355

353

350

Zone~

398

400

403

402

400

Zone 3

448

449

452

4-49

Die

452

450

452

450

Melt

455

443

445

463

440

NOTES

Camp

Cn’iposite

resin

Autonotive composite

resin

(auto):

Lustran® SF Elite-1~0.

Magnum®

342EZ,

CycoJac®

oor 6300,

General molding

(GM)

composite:

Magnum®

9010,

Cycotac®

3PM 5600.

Lustran® Ultra MCX.

Retrigeratio~

co-nposite (Relrig): Magnum®

9043 white, Cyoniac® N24

while.

Lustren® 723

white.

Pipe

composite (Pipe):

Magnum®

960

black.

Cyclolac®

LOG.

Lustran®

756.

Magnum®

Trademarl~ol

he Dow Chemical Company

Cyclolac’&Tradenavk

of General Electric

COrDO&iV.

t.usllan® Trademark

Monsanto

Chemical

Company

Canister

and Filter Sample

Collection

Method.

heated

manifold constructed from

1/2

in stainless steel tubing was

used

for the collection

filter and

canister samples.

The

manifold (see Figure

2) consIsted of a 90

degreeelbow which

protruded Into the main exhaust glass manifold

at sampling

position

2-The n~anifoidw~s

attached

using a

4-in

stoppet

The

sto,pper was s~alS

th~

3-in diameter glass manifold

using’ glass fibertape. Directly below the stopper was a 3/8.

in port with a stainless steel filter holdet During thevalida.

tion

phase, this sampling port was used

collect the

GOt

filter sample as well as to obtain

direct canister samples

determine Ifmanifold losses were occurring.

Four 1/4-in ports

and one 3/8-in port were

positioned at the lower end of the

manifold.

filter

holder was connected to the

3/8-in port

with a flexible 1/4-in heated

line attached

to the exit

end.

Another flexible 1/4-in heated line was attached directly

one

of the 1/4-in

ports. These two heated

flexible lines

were

used for canister sample collections. TheBeckman 402 VOC

analyzer’s heated

line wasattached to one of the other 1/4-.

In ports. One of the remaining two ports was sealed and

the

other

was

attached to a

mass flow meter and

pump which

maintained aflow

L/min through the sampling inani-

fold. The

entire manifold, including

filter holders and flex-

ible

lines

used

for canister

sampling,

was

heated using

heating

tapes and

rheostats.

All

temperature

zones

were

monitored by thermocouples

andmaintained

at a

constant

temperature of IZCIC ±

20’C.

Eachcanister

sample

was collected

attaching the can-

Ister to

Its

respective port and slowly opening the manual

valve to allow the

differential

pressure

between the exit

ex-

haust and the evacuated

canister to causeflow into the can-

ister. Once the canister had reached ambient pressure the

valve was closed

and

the canister

was

removed.

Filter

samples were collected by placing a

pre-weighed

rum diaqjiter

glass

fiber

filter in-line preceding one

of the

6-L canisters

shown

irs

Figure 2. A

6-L volume

was passed through

the filter during the

I-mm

collection

period

in which the fanister valve was

opened. In addi-

tion,

a glass fiber fflfr’r sample wascollected at the 3/8-in

port directly below the manifold rubber stopper at a flow

rate of

Llmin

for

6 mm,

resulting

a sampled vol-

ume of 60 liters.

Analysis

Methods

tn-Line Volatile

Organic

Compound

Analyzer.

Beckman 402

In-line continuousmonitoring PLO system was used to mea-

sure the VOC content of the exhaust as shown

in FIgure

This instrument

wasin

place during thesampling periodat

sampling

location

(shown

Fig)i~~

1). The total VOCde-

termination was made by assuminà

an equal response

(per

carbon) for each emitted speciesdetected ~y the in-line

system.

By using

the

reference calibration

standard,

ben-

zene, a total concentration value In the exhaust stream was

calculated

units

parts

per million carbon

(ppmC)

888

Journal of the Air &

Waste Management Association

Votunie

September1995

Contos, Ho/dren,

Smith,

Brooke, Rhodes, andRainey

~g/in3.

accurately measuring

the

exhaust

flow, theemis-

sion values

were

calculated

in units of

itg/sec.

The

continu-

ous in-line monitor pfbvided

record of the

variability of

the VOCin the exhaust.

This

method

also served

as a com-

parison

to thecanister VOC measurements made by theGC/

PID/MSD system.

GC/FID/MSD Analysts

Method.

The

canister samples were

analyzed forVOCi ‘using an automated gaschroinatographic

system

utilizing a Hewlett-Packard Model

5880 GC

and par-

allel

flame

ionization

and

mass selective detectors,

A modi-

fied

Nutech Model

320

controller regulated thetemperature

of theSupelco

two-phase preconcenti-atlon trap, which

con-

tained

a bed of Carbopack

B and

Carbosieve

S-Ill

adsorbent.

six-port valve

was

used to facilitate sample collection and

injection.

For this study, each canister was heated to 120°C

just before analysis.

40 cc sample from each canister was

then

transferred to

the

trap, which was initially held at

temperature

of 25°C,followed

by desorption

220°C.

Analytes were chromatographically resolved on a Hewlett-

PackardHP-i fused silica capillary column

(50 mx 0.32mm

i.d.,lMm

film

thickn~s).Optimal

analytical

results

were

achieved by temperature prygrammlng the CX oven from

50°Cto 200°C

at 8°C/mth.The

column exit flow wassplit to

direct

one-third of the flow to the MSL) and the

remaining

flow through

the FIt).

The

VOCs were

identified using the

MSD and were quantified using the FIt).

The MSD was operated in the full scan positive ion mode

so that

all the

masses

between

and

250

daltons were

scanned and recorded. This mode is ideal for analyzing un-

known compounds,

because

provides a complete mass

spectrum

for each GC peak.

The

mass spectrometer’s elec-

tron multiplier was

set at 2200

Major components (those withapproximate signal-to-

noise

ratio

greater

than

10:1)

were

identified

both

manual interpretation

and by matching the mass spectra

from the samples to

the

National Institute

of Standards

and Technology (NIST) mass spectral

library,

using the MS)

data system

librarysearch function. Thetarget analytes de-

tected in the canistersamples were the following:

1) acrylonithle,

2) 1,3-butadiene, 3) 4-vinyI-1.cyclohexene,4~ethylbenzene,

5)styrene, 6)isopropylbenzene, 7)

propylben,zene, 8) methyl

styrene, 9) acetophenone-and

10) 2-phenyl-1-propanol.

Phase

Development

and Validation

Sample

Collection and Analysis Method

Phase

involved the design,

setup,

and

validation

the

canister collection and analysis method for the deterrnina-

tion of VOCs in

exhaust generated by the extrusion of ABS

resins.

Compounds used in these experiments were theten

target analytes

fisted above, as

well

as benzene and

three

deuterated

species:

ethylbenzene-d,0,

styrene-d5,

and

acetophenone-d3.

Initial experiments focused on determin-

ing

the storage

and recovery

of these target

species, which

were spiked

into

the canisters.

Subsequent

test

runs were

performed

with

the extrusion

of Dow’s Magnum®

342EZ

ABS

automotive resin to determine:

1) if

gaseous specieswere

lost

the

sampling

manifold

through aerosol

formation,

and 2) if gaseous species released in theextrusion

zone were

efficientlyrecovered’at

the

sampling location-

Phase

Canister Recovery

Test.

canister.splldng experi-

ment was

performed

confirm the elution and recovery

the target

analytes

from6-L

canisters

using theGC/FID/MSD

system.

1/1000

dilution

of the target

analytes

was pré-

pared by injecting

1zL of each liquid

Into a

10 mL volu-

metric flask half

filled

with

methanol.

The

flask was then

filled to the markwith

methanol. A

6-Lcanlster was cleaned

and

evacuated.

The

canister

was

spiked

with

~xLof the

diluted mixture and

then

filled

psig

with

humidified

zero air. The canister was

analyzed using the GCIFID/MSD

system to

identify and confirm

each

analyte.

Compound

recovery

was determined by comparing the calculated can-

ister

concentrations with

the

experimental

values based

upon

the

analysis of a diluted

mixture

from a calibration cylinder

that also containedthe target compounds.

Phase 1: Gaseous Species andAerosol

Formation.

The

extruder

was cleaned of residual resin by purging

with Dow’s 1~ril®

880

SAN resin for approximately one hour prior to the test

run

of the

Magnum® 342EZ

ABS automotive resin.

Both

canisterand glass fiber filter samples were collected during

the

test

run. The filter samples were used

determine If

analytes were being lost through aerosol forthation within

the entrainment andmanifold

regions

Canisterand Filter Sample

Collection.

Canister samples

with

and

without in-line

glass

Extrude,

Mass

Flow

Meter

s-Ut.,

8.okman

Canlea..

402

VOC

Analyzer

Elgurs 2.

Sampling

manifold.

V~urne

September1995

Journal of the AirS

Waste ManagementAssociation

889

Gontos, Holdren, Smith, Brooke, Rhodes, and Rainey

fiber filters were collected and

analyzed. Duplicate

sets of

samples

were

taken approximately 15

mIn-

utes

after thE

extrusion

process was initiated

and

again

approximately 30 minutes

after

the

process

began. Ten canister samples were

collected, includ-

ing

a sample

from

the

port

closest to the

manifold

inlet,

and

background

sample

collected

prior to

thestart

of the extrusion process-

Five filter samples

were collected, Including

an additional glass

fiber

filter sample collected at the port closest to the mani-

fold inlet, representing a 60-L total volume,

Canister and Filter Sample Analysis

The canister samples were

analyzedwIthin

24 hours

using

the GC/FID/MSD method described above.

The filter samples

were extracted by sonicatlon

methylene

chloride and

were analyzed by

MS.The filter extractionprocedure Involved placing

the

filter in a

6-dr vial

with a

PTFE

lined

cap.

The

filter

was spiked

wIth

liL of

at ‘east one

the

following as a recoverystandard:

2000

ppm

styrene-

d3,

2000

ppm

acetophenone-d3,

2000

ppm

ethylbenzene-d10,

representing a concentration

200 ppmin the

final extract

volume. Ten mLof me-

thylene chloride were

added

to each vial:

The vials

were capped

and

shaken

by hand

several

times. Each

vial

was sonicated

forthree minutes In one

minute

intervals,

venting

the cap

as- necessary,

Each filter

was rinsed with approxlrnately’-~

mL of

methylene

chloride

and placed in a separate vial. The remain-

ing solution

was evaporated

to approximately I mL

and

transferred

niL Chromoflex tube,

and

rinsed with an additional

mL of

niethylenc chlo-

ride. The contents ofthe Chromoflex tube were

con-

centrated under

nitrogen

to approximately 0-2 niL,

final volume, The concentration of the

Internal

stan-

dard, toluene4

was 100

ppm in each

extract.

The

filter extracts

were analyzed by electron im-

pact (El) CC!MS on a Finnigan MAT 5100

Series

CXI

MS System using

Finnigan

MAT Automated

GCIMS/

DS Software Version S~S.

Phase!:Manifold

Spiking Test.

A spiking experiment with a

calibration cylinder was conducted to determine if the gas-

eous emissions

released from

the- extrusion of Magnum®

342EZ In the entrainment area were being

adequately re-

covered

the

sampling locations.

calibration cylinder

containing the target compounds

was prepared and a mea-

sured flow introduced into the entrainment area.

Preparation

ofSurrogate Spiking Cylinder

A mixture containing the deuterated and native spe-

des

was prepared in

high

pressure cylinder.

The

target analytes were obtained as gases or

neat liquids

(~99

purity)

from Matheson or Aldrich Chemical

Company.

A 15.7-I. compressed gas cylinder mixture

was prepared by

injecting

ML of each liquid and

cc of 1,3-butadiene gas into the cylinder, which had

been previously

flushed with high-purity

nitrogen

gas and

evacuated.

After injection of the compounds,

the cylinder was pressurized to

1000

psig

with

ultra

high-purity nitrogen (Matheson), Identification and

elution order determination ofthe components were

performed

with the GC/FIIJIMSD

by matching

the

mass spectrum acquired for each component to the

NIST mass

spectral

library using the

MSD

data sys-

tern

search function, The calibration

cylinder

was

used

with a

dual

mass

flow control

assembly and

humidifiedzero air to provide dilute

mixtures

tocali-

brate the GC/HD/MSD system.

Sample

Collection

andAnalysis

The

high pressure cylinder with the

spiking mix-

ture was connected

to the entrainment area with a

section of 1/8-in O.D, stainless steel tubing.

The flow

through

the

tubing

was maintained

10 L/min

with a

mass flow controllerattached to the exit end

of the cylinder

regulator, Air flow in the entrain-

ment zonewas maintained at 700 L/min. Five can-

istersamples were collectedduring thisexperiment.

Duplicate

canister

samples

were

taken approxi-

mately

minutes after

manifold equilibration and

again approximately30 minutes after equilibration.

One canister sample

was taken from the sampling

port

at the entrance

to the sampling manIfold to

determine ifmanifold

losses were

occurring. A

single

glass fiber

filter sample

was

collected

for

sIx min-

utes

a flow

rate of

L/min

this

same sam-

pling port. The canister

samples

were analyzed by

GCIFID/MSD. The

filtersample

was

extracted and

analyzed by GC/MS.

Phase

Sampling and Analysis

Composite

RSns

Phase 2 involved processing the

four ABS composite resins

using

the conditions

shown

in Table

1. The general mold-

ing composite resin

was

processed

twice

to determine

day-

to-day variability of emission levels. For each testrun, four

canister samples were collected,

Two

samples were collected

In duplicate,

15 minutes after the extrusion operation was

initiated,

The

remaining

two

samples

were collected

minutes

later.

RESULTS AND

DISCUSSION

The

results

from the

Phase

method

validation study

are

discussed

first and

include the canister recovery

test run,

the

filter

analyses, and the

spiked fume

recovery test

run-

Secondly, the

results

are presented

from the

Phase

2 sam’

pling and

analysis of an

air blank,

SAN composite

resins,

and four ABS composite resins, The Phase 2 results focused

the following:

identifying and quantifying YOCs

590

Journal of

the Air &

Waste Management AssocIation

Volunie

September 1995

Contos,

Ho/diet,

Smith,

Srooke,

Rhodes, and Rainey

the

exhaust and

2) comparing the in4ine

continuous RD

monitor tothe GO speciation methodology (Gd/FID/MSD),

VOC

Recovery from

the

Canister

The

canister-spiking

experiment

was conducted

as part of

the

initial

phase of the

validation

program to confirm the

elution order of

the target compounds and to

assess the sta-

bility of these species

in the canisters, The liquid spiked into

the canister

resulted in calculated concentrations ranging from

0.4

to 0.5 MgIL for each target compound. A detectIon level

of 0.01 gsgfL

was obtained with

this analytical

method. The

experimental concentrations

in the canister were determined

using the response factors calculated from direct GC analyses

of the diluted

mixtures

the calIbration cylinder. danistér

recoveriesranged from

112

for ethylbenzene to

171

for

acetophenone, with an

average recovery of

136.

The el-

evated

values may

attributed

errors in

preparIng the

original methanol solution

or In

spiking S jiL Into the canis-

test The

results demonstrate

that

all

the

compounds,

with

the exception

of 2-phenyl-1-propanol, are well resolved

and

amenable to canister

analyses.

The compound 2-phenyl-1-

propanol

was

not

detected In

the spiked canister. No further

work

was

done

with this

compound.

FilterAnalysis Tests

Prior to

analyzing the sample

filters, an extraction blank

and filter blanks were analyzed to validate the extraction

method. The

two

filter blanks

and

the

methylene chlo-

ride blank were spiked

with

deuterated recovery standards,

extracted and

concentrited

described

the

experi-

mental section.

The peak

area

for

each

deuterated

standard

was

deter-

mined

Integrating

the ion

trace for the

base peak of

each standard: styrene-d8 at

mfz

112,

acetophenone-d3 at

m/z 110,

and ethylbenzene-d10

at m/z 98. The

expected

con-

centratIon

of the

spiked

standards In the final

extract

was

200

ppm

for

each

species. Approximately

of styrene

was

lost in the

extraction procedure

and

an additional

was lost on the filter for a

total recovery of 50.

A compari-

son

of the peak

areas foracetophenone-d3

and

ethylbenzene-

d10

In the filter blanks

versus the methylene

chloride blank

shows a similar trend for these compounds.

Based on the

instrument response

(or the 200 ppm sty-

rene-d5

standard,

the instrument

detection

limit was esti-

mated

ppm

for

styrene. Assuming that

of the

styrene-d8 was recovered, the estimated detection limit (or

thespiked filter was 20 ppm or 4 gg/filter.

The recovery of

styrene-d8 from the sample

filters ex-

posed to

ABS resin fumes was

5 to

15,

which is lower than

the results

for

the unexposed spiked

filters.

Based

this

observation, we estimatethe method detection limit for the

exposed filters

200

ppm or

jig/filter

(or each

target

analyte. A second extraction

of the sample

filter

with

metha-

nol did not

result in an increase in recovery

No target analytes

were found in

the filter extracts dur-

ingany of the ABS testruns. Based upon the results from

the ABS

auto

resin,

which showed

gaseous styrene

con-

centrations of 68.1

jig/L, the fraction of this

amount that

could

have

been

on.the

filter

but below

the

40 jig/filter

detection level is

less than

one percent. These results indi-

cate

that

the

glass

fiber

filters did not

collect

a signifi-

cant

amount

of the

target analytes

aerosols

from

the process emissions.

Manifold

Spiking Test

The

results from

the GC/FID/MSD analysis of the

five

can-

ister

samples collected

during

the manifold

spiking

experi

ment are sumrn~

jizedIn Table 2.

Two

of the four

compounds

were

deuterated ethylbenzene

and

styrene;

the

remaining

two compounds, benzeneand

4-vinyl-1-cyclohexene, were

cylinder

components not present in

the gaseous emissions

from the automotive test

resin.

The

calculated spiking

con-

centrations

are listed

first, followed

by each of the

canister

results.

All

concentration levels

were significantly above the

detection level of 0.01 jxg/L (signal to noise ratio of

to 1).

Individual recoveryvalues for

the four compounds are also

shown for each canister sample. The values from the canis-

ter collected

at the entrance of the manifold did not differ

from the

values from

the remaining

four canisters

collected

near the

manifold’s

exit.

Excellent

recovery

the

four

analytes

through

the manifold

was achieved.

Average re-

covery

and percent relative

standard deviation

(96 RSD)val-

ues

were:

benzene,

114

4-vlnyl-1-cyclohexene,

lOó±3;ethylbenzene-d10,

115±16;

andstyrene4 89±

11.

tabI.

2. Calculated spiking concentration

and percent recoveries of analytes found in canisters during the fume entrainment spiking experiment.

Compound

Calculated

Spiking

Conc.

pg/l~

Can 91-070

Direct

ypt

Can 88-007

(15

rn/n)

pg’L

Can 91-017

(Oup.,

15rn/n)

jigist

Can 91-601

(30

mit,)

p94.

Can 91-025

(Dup.,

30mm)

pg/l~

benzene

4-vinyl-1-cyclohexene

ethyitjenze-*e~d,0

Sty

rena-cl5

0.07

0.06

0.07

0.08

106

101

tt~

117

107

145

96

114

107

101

84

117

107

120

99

117

107

78

not detected (0.01

pg&).

Oup.

Duplicate.

Volume 45

September1995

Journal ofthe As 8 Waste Management Association

601

Contos, Ho/dren,

Smith, Smoke,

Rhodes, and Rainey

Air Blank and

SAN

Purging

Resin Tests

An air sample

(blank)

collected from the manifold prior to

extrusion

of the resiris

resulted

very low levels of the

following target anatytes:styrene,

1.82 p.g/L; ethylbenzene,

0.63 jig/L;

acrylonitrile,

0.23

~xg/L;isopropylbenzene,

0.09

gg/L; n-propylbenzene,

0.05 jig/L

and

acetophenone,

0.01 gg/L.

Noother target analytes were detected.

The

SAN purging

resin

was extruded

and samples col-

lected

between the composite resin

tests. Seven of the nine

target

analytes

were

detected.

Listed

below

are

the

target

analytes,

mean

levels detected,

and

RSD:

acrylonitrIle

2.79

Rg/L±12,

ethylbenzene 5.36 ~ig/lSl6,

styrene

18.7

ggfL±12.6,

isopropylbenzene 0.71

~ig/L±0.18,

n-propylbenzene

0.485

~gfL±1S.5,

methyl

styrene

0.235 isgfl±87.

and

acetophenone

0.365

zg/1.±31.

The

SAN purge samplesdid not indicate

anysignificant carryover

from the previously

extruded composite resin.

ABS Composite

Resin Tests

Table

sununarlzes tise results

analyzing

the

gaseous emis-

sions

from the processing

four ABS composite resins.

For

each

composite

resin, there are

four data points

(e.g.,

four

canister

samples).

The

mean concentration

for each of the

nine target compounds is shown, along with

the

total

of the

nine

species,

the total of

all

identified and unidentified

species,

and

finally,

the

total

VOCs determined

by the

Beckman

402

analyzer. Values

less

than

0.01 g~L

were listed

asnot detected.

Percent relative standardtieviatlon

(96

RSD)

values axe also reported.

The

following observations

were made.

First, 1,3-butadi-

erie was found

only in the pipe

and automotive composite

exhaust

levels

of0.97

and GAS jig/L, respectively. All other

target analytes were detected in the emissions

ftom all

four

Table

Concentration

detected in the emissions of extruded ABS

composite

resins.

Compound

Auto

~ig.Q

pg.t

GM-fl

pgt

PIPE

jz94.

ReINg

~zg’L

1,3-bt$adiene

0.48

0,97

acrylonitrile

3.00

3.84

4.33

4.74

5.67

4-vinyl-1-dyctohexene

0.26

1.09

0.90

6.50

1.51

ethylbenzene

14.40

5.21

4.45

33.70

7.61

styrene

68.10

86.00

89.90

196.00

85.60

iscpropylbenzene

1.72

1,89

.1.49

10.80

1.39

n-propylbenzene

1.24

1.09

0.92

5.15

0.93

methylstyrene

0.07

11,50

7.46

30.40

2.27

acelophenone

1,45

8.87

5.16

35.10

2.33

Total of target

90.72

119.5

94.61

323.4

107.3

analytes (GCIFID)

Total

VOCs

129

103

318

126

by CC/rio

Total VOCs by

104

120

105

285

123

402

anatyzer

Not detected (cOOl poJL)

composite resins, except for 2-phenyl-l-propanol, which

mentioned

earlier, was

not

amenableto the canister method-

ology. The

pipe

composite

emissions

contained the highest

level

of all the detectable target analytes except for aciyloni-

nile, which was slightly higher in the refrigeration compos-

ite resin exhaust.

The sum of the concentrations of the nine identified tar-

get species accounts for over 90

of the total concentration

determined by the Gd/RD spedation methodology. In addi-

tion to the target analytes,

the composite

fumes contained

six

tentatively identified

compounds,

and

p-xylene,

o-xylene,

benzaldehyde,

1-methyl-2-Isopropylbenzene,

p-ethylst-yrene, and 1-methylene-4-Isopropylene

cyclohex-

ane.

The

i-methylene-4-isopmopytene

cyclohexarte was

present at significant

levels In

the general molding

and

re-

frigeration composite fumes. This

compound

was

present

at le*ls

approxImately

20-30

the

styrene

concentra-

tion, based on the relativechrorrsatographic response.

FIgure

shows a representative chromatogram from

one

of the GC/MSD

analyses

of the general molding composite

resin exhaust. The

assigned chromatographic peak nunsbers

correspondto the target

analytes

and

tentatively

identified

compounds detected.

The

results

Table 3 also indicate that the

concentration

levels

detected

the

exhaust

the

in-line

Beckman

402

analyzer compared

very favorably with those values found

with

the

CC/RD methodology. In all cases

the

differences In

reported

concentrations

were

less than

1096. SInce oxygen-

ated

compounds will give a lower FIT) responsethan benzene

(whichwas

used

calthrEe

the

Beckman analyzer), a

com-

pound responseadjustment should be

made to the reported

oxygenated species In

order to more

fairly compose the total

concentrations reported by the two

methods.

Howevei

since

the

oxygenated fraction

each CC run

was minor

(i.e.,

to 10),

oxygenated

responsead~us1mnent

would

not Mg-

nificantly change

the total GC speciation results.

Results from

the continuous in-line VOd analyzer were also

useful in de-

termining

that the

emission

and entrainment

of the

fumes

were stable

throughout the collectIon period. The

coritinu-

ous

YOC analyzer

was also used dining the validation

phase

of the program to demonstratethat no concentration gradi-

ents were occurring

at sampling locations I and 2

(FIgure

or atthe inlet and

outlet

of the sampling manifold (Figure

2).

The precision values (96

RSD)

for the data in Table

3 for

each measured component

ranged from less than 1

to ap-

proximately 59.

For

most

components,the

precision was

better

than

10.

consider

these

values

to be very ac-

ceptable.

The

main

contribution to sample variability

was

the fact that canister samples were collected at various time

Intervalsover a

30-mm

test period.

Finally, using the concentration data in Table 3 and the

extruder

operating

conditions shown

Table

emIs-

sion

factors

have

been

derived

for the

various species,

terms of

micrograms

VOC emitted

per

gram

692

Journal

the

Waste

Management

Association

Volume 45

September

1995

Cantos,

1-lo/dren,

Smith, Brooke, Rhodes,

and Rainey

Phase

2 involved

col-

lecting

and

analyzing

samples from tests which

included

four composite

resins, one replicate resin,

an aim blank, and

two SAN

purge blanks.

All

target

analytes

were

detected,

except

for

2-phenyl-1-

propanol.

Pipe and auto-

motive composite fumes

were the only composites

to generate 1,3-bütadiene,

with

emission

factors

1.99 and

0.93

~‘g/g, re-

spectively.The pipe com-

posite

fume

yielded

the

highest emission factor

for

styrene

402

~sgIg

and

the

highesttotal VOC

emission

factors

deter-

mined

Gd/FID

and

the continuous

VOC

analyzer at 653

and

544

~‘g/g,respectively.

Also,

the

trends In the

level of

the target analytes detected by the 402 analyzer were con-

sistent withthe

trends

seen in the canister analyses.

The duplicate

analyses of the

composite fume

samples

were

reproducible

with

precision for most of the

target

analytes between 196

and

20.

The general

molding repli-

cate

run

showed

day-to-day variability of approximately

RSl)

for the

target analytes.

The

range of the RSI)

for

the

replicate and

duplicates

was considered acceptable.

FIgure

GC/MSD

chromatogram ol

a canister sample duting the extrusion of

general molding

composite resin.

processed resin. Table

shows these results forthe

four

composite resins. Mean values of the target analytes were

also calculated

fox the

two

general molding resin

test runs.

The precision

(

RSt)) values indicate

that day-to-day

vari-

ability In resin processing was less than 20

for most

of the

target analytes.

SUMMARY

OF STtJDY

FINDtNGS

Emission

levels were determined

for the process of ex-

truding ABS composite resins. Fourcomposite resins were

tested, representing automotive, general moldings,

pipe,

and refrigeration applications.

A method validation was

performed In

Phase

1. This

involved the verification of the mecovery

target

analytes

spiked

Into

a sampling

canister.

All target analytes

were

detected except for

2-phenyl-I

—propanol, which could not

be determinedusingthis method. An average recovery of

1369~

for the

canister spike was found. The elevated re-

covery may be attributed to the use of a methanol solution

spike analytes

into the canister (e.g., possibly evaporation

of methanolduring standard preparation procedures) or the

small volume used in spiking. Although this is

a standard

technique for preparation of spiked canisters,

may not

have been optimal forthese compounds. The recovery of

surrogate compounds spiked into

the exhaust generated

during the extrusion process

was

also determined.

This

involved the Introduction of

a surrogate gas

mixture

from

compressed cylinder

into the

entrainment area

the

extrijder while the extrusion

of Magnum® 342EZ

ABS

au-

tomotive resin

was being

performed.

An excellent

aver-

age recovery of 106

was obtained for the

four surrogate

compounds, indicating

that this method of collection and

analysis was acceptable.

ThbIe

ABS

composite

resin emission factors.

Compthid

Auto

~u91p

GM (R)

P9/P

Mean

RSO

Pipe

pg/p

Refrig

pp/g

1,3-butadiene

0.93

rid

1.99

acrylonitrile

574

7.79

7.3

±8.77

9,75

10.4

4-vin~4-1-cyctobexene

0.50

1.61

1.78±135

13.4

2.76

elhylberizene

27.6

6.02

8.68±

10.7

69.20

13.9

slyrene

130

126

140±

142

402

156

isopropyibenzene

3.29

2,68

3,03±

16.2

22.2

2.55

n-propylbenzene

2.37

1.65

1.80±

11.7

10.6

1,70

methyl

styrene

1.29

1a43

17.0

29-4

62,41

4.16

acetophenone

2.78

9,29

12.6

36.9

72.1

4.25

Total VOCSbVGCIflD

190

185

65’

231

TotatVOCsby4O2

199

189

544

Analyzer

NOTES

rid

not

detected (0.01

~tg&).

850

Percent relathie standard

deviation.

General

molding

Refrig.

Refrigeration.

(8)

Replicale.

VOC

—

Voratite Organic Compounds found

in each resin

sample.

Campons Name

j.3.5u,sdkne

Ao~Ionilrik

4.VLsiyt.t.CyclGlitzttit

Ethylbeiuone

p-XyIciw

St~tr,e

o.Xytcne

hopeopylbcnele

Benzatdehyde

n-P

mpylbcnz

Mtihyt

m,vbt

J-McthyI-2.koptOpy~beflenc

AtcIopAenone

l.MclhyIcne4.isopzopyttnt cyciohtac

tiled

IriahQ.

Peak

tic.

_______________

l.eE+O

Bert?

“

8’

It-

~.eC+?

e.øE+Ojn~±

Time

(mtn.)

Vol~,p~

September1995

Journa/

the Air & Waste Management Association

093

‘1

Cantos, Hoidren,

Smith,

Broake, Rhodes, and Rainey

In addition to the

target analytes

the composite

fumes

contained

six

tentatively

identified

compounds:

in.

and

p-xØene,

o-xylene,

benzaklèhyde,

l-methyl-2-isopropytb@izene,

p.eth)1sty1~le,and

1-methylene-4-isopropytene cyclohexane.

The1-methylene-41sopropylene cyclohexane was present at

significant

levels

the

fumes

from

the

general

molding

and

refrigeration composite resins.

Plastic Fumes

program

Phases

through

Sattelle tnte~m

Reports

to Plastic Technology Division,

General

Electric

Corn.

pany.

June,

1984.

Winberry, W.T,Jr.; Murphy,

NT.;

Rlggin,

R. M.’

Method TO-ic; In

Compendium

Methods

for the Detenninah’on

of Toxic O~onic

Com-

pounds in AmbientAir;

lJ.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency.

Re-

Triangle

Park,

NC,

1988. Available

from NTIS

as P890.127374

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Battelle researchers ML B. N.

Smith,

Mr.

G.W.

Keigley,

Ms.

Schrock,

Mr.

Frye,

and

Mr.

Smoker

for

their technical expertise and dedication

the sampling

design

and collection

and analysis of the

emission samples.

addition,

would

like

thank

Mr.

FLC.

Brooke

Plastics,

Mr.

Rhodes

Monsanto Chemical, and Dr. M.

Rainey of Dow Chemi-

cal Company fortheir help in designing

the experiments

and sponsoring the

study.

REFERENCES

Splcer,

C.W.; Hoidren, MW.;

Miller, 5.5.;

SmIth, DL.; Smith,

R.N.;

Kuhlman,

R.;

Hughes, 0.

Aircraft Emissions characterization:

TF4I.A2,

T30-P703,

TF3O~PJ09Engines;

Report

ESL-TR-87-27;

‘l~’ndaJl

APR,

FL,

March

1988. Available from

N11S

as ADAI9ZOS3.

Spicer,

C.W.; Hoidren, MW.; Mil!er,

E.;

SmIth, 0.

L.;

Hughes,

Abtraftmmissions

characterization,

Report ESL.TR.87-63;

1)’ndatl

APR,

Fl., March

1988. Available from

NTIs

A0A197864.

About the Authors

A. Cantos, MS.,

Principal

Research

Scien-

tist

in the

Health Division at

Batelle

Memorial Insti-

tute.

Hoidren,

M.S.,

Senior

Research

Scientist and

Smith,

B.S.,

a Researcher

the

Environmental Systems

and Technology Division

at Battelie Memorial Institute, 505 King Avenue,

Co-

lurnbus,

Ohio 43201.

Brooke, MS.,

is Man-

ager

Product Safety and Regulatory Affairs at GE

Plastics,

Parfrersburg,

West Virginia. M.

Rainey,

Ph.D.,

is Manager

Health,

Environmental

and

Regulatory Affairs at

Dow

Plastics,

Dow Chemical

Company,

Midland,

Michigan.

L. Rhodes,

M.S.,

Is Manager of Product

Safety at MonsantoCompany,

St. Louis,

Missouri.

International

Specialty Conference

Contineaous

ComplianCe

lUlonitoring

Under

the

Clean

Air

Act

A me

n elm e nfl

OctoberZ5-27,

1995

Hyatt

Regency

Hotel

Chicago,

Ilflnos

For conference information contact:

Debbie Fair, A&WMA registrar,

(41Z) 232-3444.

For exhibition information

contact:

Hans Brouwers,

EPM Environmental,

Inc.,

(708) 255-4494.

—

Am & WA&sn

MANAGEMENT

Siwcr

2907

694

Journal

of the

Air A

Waste

Management

Association

voume 45

Septenibef

1995

EXHIBIT 9

SPI

STUDIES EMISSION

FACTOR SUMMARY

CHART

(1)

(2)

(3)

VOM

HAP

Study

Resin

(ug/g)

(lb/ton)

(uglg)

(lb/ton)

(ug/g)

(lb/ton)

polyethylene

LOPE

500 F

0.07

0.39

0,0008

0.06

June

1996

LOPE

-600

157

0.31

0.0420

242

0.48

LLDPE -355 F

0.02

0.12

0.0002

0.00

LLDPE-395 F

0.02

0.07

0.0001

0.04

LLDPE ~450F

0.03

0.27

0.0005

0,05

LLDPE -500

0.04

0.45

0.0009

0.12

I-lOPE -380 F

0.04

0.15

0.0003

0.04

HOPE

430

0.06

0.15

0.0003

0,05

polypropylene

homopolymer -400

104

0,21

1.4

0.0028

0.06

Jan 1999

horno~olymer-510F

177

0.35

2.3

0.0046

0.14

(4)

hornopolymer -605 F

819

1.64

0.0940

653

1.31

honiopolymer-490F

191

0.38

5.5

0,0110

150

0.30

homopolynier -490

0,07

0.35

0.0007

0.03

homopolynier -570

202

0.40

0.0380

218

0.44

copolynier-505 F

0.16

1.4

0,0028

0.07

copolynier- 510

0.12

0.23

0,0005

0.06

polyamide

general

nylon 66

0.10

0.00000

104

0,21

July2001

general nylon

0.13

0.01

0.00002

0.05

general

nylon

0.10

aoi

0.00002

0.04

copolynier

nylon

66/6

122

0.24

0.01

0.00002

0.01

copolymer nylon

86/6

154

0.31

0.01

0.00002

0.01

EPOM toughened nylon

137

0.27

0.32

0.00064

0.13

EPOM toughened nylon

133

0.27

0.29

0.00058

0,13

toughened nylon 6

171

0,34

2.9

0.00580

0,05

toughened nylon 6

158

0.32

2.8

0.00560

0,05

(5)

nylon

0.11

0.01

0.00002

115

0.23

(5)

copolyrner nylon 66/6

0,12

0.01

0.00002

0,18

(5)

copolymer nylon

86/6

101

0.20

0.01

0.00002

0.11

(5)

copolymer nylon

6616

102

0.20

0.01

0.00002

0.15

polycarbonate

food

contact grade

0.08

0.062

8,5

0.02

July

2002

food contact grade

0.07

0.064

0.02

compact disc grade

0.04

0.044

0.03

compact disc grade

0.05

0.048

0,03

stabilized grade

0.08

0.086

0.06

UV stabilized grade

0.08

0.098

0,06

radiation stabilized grade

0.14

0.116

0.02

radiation stabilized grade

0.12

0.116

0,01

impactmodifiedgrade

116

0,23

114

0.228

0.04

impact modified grade

109

0.22

115

0.230

0.04

(5)

ignition

resistantgrade

0.04

0.014

0.02

(5)

ignition

resistantgrade

0.04

0.018

0.02

radiation stabilized grade

0.03

0.5

0.001

0.05

radiation stabilized grade

0.03

0.6

0.001

0,05

branched polymer

0.02

0.6

0.001

0,06

branched polymer

0.02

0.72

0.001

0.07

copolymer

119

0.24

139

0.278

139

0.28

copolymer

115

0.23

118

0.236

139

0,28

NOTES:

(1)

VOM

volatile organic material

(Illinois

EPA term for volatile organic matter

VOC)

June

1996

andJan.

1999 studies

utilized a Beckman 402 in-line FID

system.

July

2001

study utilized a VIG Industries Model 20

total

analyzer with

HFID,

July 2002

study utilized a Fisons

MD 800 OC system

with

FID and MSD detectors.

(2)

HAP

hazardous

air pollutant

(3)

particulate matter

(4)

All

emission factors determined for this material are considered ‘outliers” and not

relevant

since material was processed at

extremetemperature (605

F) for evaluation

purposes only.

(5)

Contained flame

retardant additive.

EXHIBIT

ESTIMATED EMISSIONS

USING A RANGE OF EMISSION FACTORS

AND THROUGHPUTS

Volatile Organic

Material

(VOM)

Emissions

Low Emission Factor, Low Throughput

10 lb resin / hour

ton resin / 2,000 lb resin

0.1

lb VOM / ton resin

0.00050

lb VOM / hr

0.00050

VOM

ton

VOM / 2,000

lb VOM

8,760 hr / yr

0.002

ton VOM

High Emission Factor, High Throughput

200

resin

/ hour

ton resin / 2,000

resin

0.4

lb VOM / ton resin

0.04

lb VOM /

0.04

VOM /

ton

VOM / 2,000 lb

VOM

8,760 hr

Q.Z

ton VOM / yr

Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Emissions

Low Emission Factor, Low Throughput

10Th

resin

/ hour

ton

resin

/ 2,000

resin

0.00002

lb HAP /

ton

resin

0.0000001

HAP /

0.0000001

lb HAP /

ton

HAP / 2,000

lb HAP x

8,760 hr / yr

0.0000004

ton

iiAP7’S~r

High Emission Factor, High Throughput

200

resin

/ hour

ton resin /2,000

resin

0.3

lb HAP / ton resin

0.03

HAP / hr

0.03 lb HAP / hr

ton

HAP

/2,000 lb HAP

8,760 hr /

b’.I’ibnHAP

Particulate

Matter (PM) Emissions

Low Enussion Factor, Low Throughput

resin

/ hour

ton

resin / 2,000

resin

0.02

lb PM / ton

resin

0.0001

lb PM /

0.0001 IbPM/hr

tonPM/2,000IbPM

8,760hr/yr

0.0004tonPM/yr

High Emission Factor, High Throughput

200

resin

/ hour

ton

resin /

2,000

resin

0.5

PM /

ton resin

0.05

lb PM / hr

0.05 lb PM/hr

tonPM/2,000

lb PM

8,760 hr/yr

0.2tonpMlyr

Abbreviations:

hour,

pound,

year

EXHIBIT

OVERVIEW

ESTIMATED

EMISSIONS

Volatile Organic

Material

(VOM) Emissions

Low

Emission Factor, Low Throughput

0.002

ton

VOM / yr

Huh Emiàion Facthr, High Throughput

0.2tonVOMIyr

Hazardous

Air Pollutant

(HAP) Emissions

Low Emission Factor, Low Throughput

0.0000004

ton

HAP / yr

High Emission Factor, High Throughput

0.lton

HAP/yr

Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions

0.0004

ton PM

High Emisskk?~itor,kigh

Throughpia

0.2ton PM/yr

Abbreviations:

hour,

pound2

year

Pre-Filed Testimony of Lynne Harris

IPCB Rulemaking Docket R05-20

ATTACHMENTS

2002 Economic Census, Manufacturing Industry Series,

“All

Other Plastics

Product Manufacturing: 2002.,”

US Census Bureau, ECO2-311-326199 (RV),

December 2004; page

17.

“State-by-State Guide to Resin and Equipment,” p.

A-2;

SPI Plastics Data Source

(2001).

“2005 Survey of

North

American Injection

Molders,”

Plastics News,

April

11,

2005.

Rosato, D.V. & Rosato,

M.G.

(2000).

Injection Molding Handbook.

New

York:

Springer.

Forrest, M.J., Jolly, AM., Holding, SR., and

Richards, S.J.

(1995).

“Emissions

from

Processing Thermoplastics,”

Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 39(1),

35-53.

Txis DOCUMENT HAS

BEEN

PRINTED ON REC’a’LEDPAPER

All

Other

Plastics

Product

Attachment

Manufacturing:

2002

I—

U.S-

Department of

Secretary

ECO2.31i.326199 (R~

Theodore W. Kassinger,

Deputy Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration

Kathleen

Cooper,

Under Secretary for

Economic

Affairs

U.S. CENSUS

BUREAU

Charles

Louis Kincarnion,

Director

2002 Economic Census

Manufacturing

Industry

Series

Commerce

Donald

Evans,

Table

Industry Statistics for Selected States:

2002

(States

that

are adscloeur,

orw’th teas

than

500 employees eye

rtot

thowro.

Data beats or,

Sri.

2002

Economic

Census,

For

irtfOm,auor,

On conadenbatity ptoteclion,

nontampkn9 ant,,

asplanation

Inns, and geogra#itcal d.tirili,oq~,an

note at end ot table.

For thlOrlneticrl on

geograptIlo area,

followed

sea Appendix 0

For meaning

otebbrerialrona

and

symbols. see

introductory

test)

Industry and

geographic area

ea°

employees

Prod~iionwodsers

Value

added

l$t,om)

Total

cost ot

materie~s

($1,000)

Total

valtia of

sfvpniento

$1,000)

capital

expendi-

lures

($1,000)

0’

Total

em-

ploy-

ees

lumber3

Payroe

($1,000)

Ntnter5

Hours

(1,000)

Wages

(81,0001

326199.

All

other

plastics product

manufacturing

On’tadStetea

Mabame

A,lzona

Ailtanses

Calitona

Colorado

Corwsect,cut

Delaware

motile

Georgia

Idaho

7847

—

116

958

107

121

323

174

—

3944

417

486

278

691

176

5532

44414

3187

5292

1019

8460

10627

793

035

063

164

655

180

5t7

131

452

1410

428

102755

Ill

254

34537

249033

306606

20572

378

110

686

3654

4475

32817

2 359

4256

725

6588

8222

620

748

ens

575

7486

8979

65856

4735

6423

1451

3047

16592

1284

9680220

119

951

93944

90735

610

289

330

112967

18022

162000

204949

14532

40852050

366

45’

396

890

450

061

3727

912

250

541

408988

92039

69t853

846010

85094

32073072

421

412

292

355

372

944

752

523

161

926

322050

95736

444788

760686

47652

72893593

767

656

885

637

816 945

480

958

415

310

731

429

87392

1134559

1610592

131562

‘3304805

‘46

400

‘29

074

‘35

120

‘221

274

‘13

605

‘35809

‘2651

‘35569

73926

‘5965

tint,

h~ana

Iowa

Kansas

Icantucloy

Louisiana

Maine

Marytand

Maassctyusatls

Michigan.

464

307

—

221

544

278

167

110

327

36 900

26206

5840

229

9556

483

002

5374

12004

47852

196

294

806725

555553

191

542

272472

43952

30397

179343

359145

1512041

222

19957

5054

5124

7844

047

829

3981

9179

37294

832

40377

9937

10368

15166

2 598

674

6669

18433

74292

747

687

551043

118631

133

764

191542

24351

023

05962

230916

989305

407

828

2158144

421161

836

174

711725

97937

139

361

626430

1212499

4139076

663

953

1604529

370519

441

878

699870

102613

72847

332619

752006

3417495

126

262

3742476

797750

072 437

‘473)72

198

176

2)2

784

954062

‘968748

7566035

‘225

963

‘180435

‘30886

‘96

656

‘95553

‘10

711

‘7823

‘101178

‘81708

253682

sennesota

Jeasiaaippi

1,6150

Nebraska

Nevada

MacHampshire

Mewjersey

NawYork

Norlh Carolina

ordo

214

153

275

366

200

556

105

137

15$

116

332

12714

3228

518

2916

5334

3478

15699

16043

335

46458

413828

86868

331

139

83892

37595

118457

479886

509127

394

177

1378382

9717

2635

8 984

2315

1087

2676

11681

12439

596

36127

19405

4814

894

4624

2220

5247

23471

24625

20405

71554

263549

59711

214

515

55606

26613

73570

283863

312257

261

858

937429

1060337

257038

790

699

196149

106992

225541

1106566

1240383

233

995

3602023

681428

245623

717

162

165662

88302

177007

931449

851

795

893

643

3230617

1704648

500953

525

397

358587

93445

401

450

2047579

2083415

116

060

7015962

‘02754

‘26954

‘128 440

‘38235

‘14328

‘15753

‘65942

‘68633

‘112

‘44

‘376195

Oklahoma

0,agori

Pennsylvania

Rhodelaland

SouthCe,olina

SouIhDaIooIa

Tennessee

lexaa

VIaPI

Vennont

Vl~lnla

Wss3Ir’gtc.’

WeatvirgirO

Wisconsin

¶00

356

lOt

164

414

—

128

—

268

210

lOS

165

143

2822

3953

DOt

2518

758.8

643

777

20499

2117

1288

11409

6060

‘56

778

64314

120480

837 069

81679

244275

15 949

376

788

585673

61108

41643

401659

192410

64310

541253

1875

3033

249

1947

8022

529

170

16607

1683

1024

6148

4610

1554

13221

3659

6053

050

3994

12073

096

196

30958

3300

2055

17287

9273

3075

25015

47649

74303

553

702

50989

159581

193

250

206

399929

41485

26316

253403

523489

34440

358

429

287905

326824

164

607

173778

774202

446

052 699

1483531

150311

110512

1194230

583751

160900

3296314

205628

223511

605

380

108188

803494

312

987

169

1535039

100436

73596

794682

435073

135

tel

093

113

494424

546859

757

245

264123

1376227

57296

018

4t0

3029012

247156

189985

1991282

1014162

304459

2366012

‘20333

‘13970

‘172

785

‘15536

‘73385

‘I

588

‘149

730

‘117965

7565

‘7929

‘47297

‘34450

‘10005

‘114

027

‘Some

payroll

and

sales

data

for

stoat

slngjaeatabishmenr

co’rpanies

with

20 employees

(atoll

carted by

lntusli’y)

were

oblalned from

adtsinlslratlva

records

other

govarnInleno

agencies railer thail

1mm

census regort loins, These

data were

then

used in conitinellon with Ioduelry averages

to estirnale

statrst.cs

for mesa

small establisfvnenta.

This tecteMque

was also

used

thea

small number

other

eatabllaiwnents whoae

repotla wera

005

recereed

the

linle

data

were lebudated.

108014619 symbols

are

shown

where

eslimated

data eccouni

for ‘0

percent

or more

the

Sgures shown:

1-10

to II percent. 2-20 to

percent;3-30 to 39

percanL 4-40 to 49 perce’t 5—SO

peccant; 6-60 to 69

percent; 7-70)079 percent; 8-80

to 89

percent; 9-00 perCent ormore.

‘Includes establishmentsdin

payroll at any

timedurirtg lIe year.

‘Number of

ençtoyeea figures

reprewnt aveisge number

prodtshlon wolirars

for

pay petted

that

wick,dea the

12th

March,

May, August.

and

November

pIus

other employees lot

payroll

penod that

inctudes the

12th

ot March.

‘Jolt:

The

date

in this

able

based

on lie 2002 E~,ornic

Censua.

malnietn confldertstfty,

ha Census

Ouresix suppresses data

to protect ele

Identity

ott any

busa’.se

orindavidual.

The

carlsue results in

this tabs. contactnontempeng snort.

Data

userswIno create

their own eflrr’eXeI using data

from k,iertcan FsttFirldet tables

shouldcite the Census

Bureau as tine source 00the ovigniet

data only.

For explanation of

lemon,

see Apperda A.

Fortull tecitnical documentation. see

Appendix

For geographical detriitlons.

see Appondis

All

Other Plastics Product Mfg

Manufacturing

—

Industry Series

U.S.

Census

Bureau.

2002 EconomiC Census

Attachment

Source

ht~

Sue

nnd

mpact

Pln~ticsIndUstry

State-by-State

Guide

Resin

and

Equipment

Prepared for

SPI by

Probe

Economics.

nc.

L.cuipn~ei’t

StntIstic~Anriu?’ii

nod Qurterly

Reporis

Plastics End-Market

Snapshots

Financial Management

Surveys

358

Saw

Mill

River Road

P0.

Box

660

Miliwood,

10546

Phone 914 .923.4505

October

12, 2001

www.

plasticsdatasource

org

2flIji

(tie

Sectee9

tl~tile

;octic;s

lriclu~,tr~,

.rc

Afl

riqhtt~

reserved.

Catalog

rio.

tkU3~14$

Plastks Data

List of Tables

Table

Number

~it

ion

Combined Resin

Ranking by State

Combined Machine Ranking by State

Combined

Facility Ranking by Slate

Resin Consumption. Millions of Pounds

A-2

Facilities

A-2

A-3

Machines

A-3

Comparisons with

Employment Data

FACILITIES

Film

Blow

 Rotationai

 Sheet

 Pipe

 Profile

 InjectIon

 Comnpo.

State

 Moldleo

 Moidlo

 Extnjslon

 Extrusion

 Extrusion

 Motdfn

 undln

 Other

 Total

US.

Total

 1,188

302

 1,281

326

802

 7,727

703

577

12906

(iS.

Total

Includln

 P.R.

 1,191

Alabama

Alaska

MA

MA

NA

WA

Arizona

Arkansas

Catirornia

Colorado

7

7

8

4

11

ii~

2

3

 ¶60

Connecticut

10

15

2

6

190

Ii

20

255

Delaware

2

1

4

I

2

10

3

3

26

Distnct ofColumbia

NA

NA

NA

MA

WA

NA

MA

NA

Florida

44

7

31

37

323

16

23

4g9

Georgia

3~3

Hawaii

3

I

I

NA

NA

2

1

0

Idaho

ttltnoi,

Indiana

38

IS

47

6

35

326

40

21

529

Iowa

 Kansas

Kentucky

26

1

29

7

6

127

216

Louisiana

¶6

NA

9

3

3

24

12

4

71

Maine

3

1

2

NA

3

26

3

5

43

Maryland

15

2

7

I

3

60

7

1

96

Massadtiuseus

38

6

4g

5

22

260

33

41

454

Midligan

47

tO

40

4

52

633

30

10

826

MInnesota

29

20

32

8

20

182

~5

2

308

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

 ‘1

N

0

NA

NA

12

NA

0

13

Nebraska

Nevada

NewHampsh,re

New Jersey

New Mexico

3

N

0

NA

7

N

0

Ii

New York

55

10

46

 ‘12

31

354

27

17

552

North Caro~na

34

II

47

10

218

407

Notlh Dakota

1

1

1

1

NA

10

NA

0

14

Ohio

Oklahoma

Il

Oregon

Pennaylvana

58

ii

58

19

40

357

39

21

603

Rhodelsland

2

I

ii

1

5

58

4

8

88

South Carotina

SouthDakota

1

2

4

NA

NA

18

NA

0

25

Tennessee

25

4

30

3

23

Ill

18

8

282

Texas

Utah

jig

vermont

2

NA

5

NA

1

23

1

6

38

Virginia

14

2

30

4

 ‘18

62

9

17

156

Washington

16

6

17

5

I~

90

5

4

154

Westvirginia

Wisconsin

iroming

Puerto Rico

Source:

Townsendrapneli

Corn, inc.

PLASTICS

~&.

SPECiAL

REPORT

2005

sUrvey of North American

injectionmoiders

—

Total sales:

$30.3 oil/iou

(656

companies)

Top 10 moh~&i:

Other

645

SO.6 billIon

molders ranked

31.6

68.4

Total plants: 1,377

Total presses: 29,911

Top

1110 molders’ markets & materials

Top five end

markets

AUtomotive

Consumer products

Eleetneal/eleetroruos

Medical/pharmaceutical

Containers/closures

Top live

materials

1. Polypropylene

2.ABS

‘Polycarbonate

HOPE

Nylon

Sour~:flug

,‘

Metes

 BerxraI ioMiislret category excb4.d

21305

pmcnsa~

raiskia~a.,.

Thermotoirning-Feb. 2/

Pipe,

pro

file &

tubing-June 21)

Rotornolding-Aug.

Fl/rn &

sheetrnanumcluring-Sept.

12.

Blow

molding-Nov

Market Ba/a ftook-Dec

Top plant sites & in-house services

Top

three

plant locations

 aton)

100

120

140

100

189

200

thy,.

co.r~iat

 did riot

—

-L

T1ON

-I

-f

-t

-c

Plastics News

Injection

Molders

Page

1 of 23

.3

I

 ;i lId 0 S

5th,

~ec~r~h

S~n~

 Ii ~

Ii’.

News/Ha

0~ort

Reslnpdcing

Rflng&tls

Resin Sahctor

FYI cha

Its

Catn~dsc

Lint’s

cSretsoiy

Proditl

MWS

Pmcessor tward

K 2004

Contntus

Abottus

Sit

map

EVENTS

Execitive

Fotum

Encounters

SERVICES

Rankings

lists

8,erryfi~s~~qsS,Qjp..

Evansville,

Neweil Rubbermaid ~nc.

(P)

Atlanta.

Qw~n&iilftpis1flc~

Toledo, OH

Nyoro Inc.

Clinton, MA

DQQQrQ8

.njQLoojiQflaLt!L

Concord.

Ontario

~IA?!I...I~

nAjgomOtj~LeC~rp,.

Warren. MI

Lop~)._gSiDra

(P)

Glenview,

~.Qg.rp~

Pendleton, IN

Marina Donnelly

Corp.

Holland, Ml

Sieriel-Robert Inc.

Louis,

fl.

Rochester, Ml

L~cks

Enternrises Inc.

Grand

Rapids. MI

Meridian Automotive Systems

Inc.

Dearborn,

YcoAtw~

Fraser,

~S~yY~stJcLt,1&

Northville,

,Iic

k.fle.reiQpvrcb.asej~nkings

INJECTION

MOLDERS

Ranked

by sales of injection molded products in most

recent full fiscal year

Originally published April

11, 2005,

in Plastics

News.

Some data

may

have

been updated.

Rank

Company

“

cql!i.o~.&A~cntac

Troy, Ml

Qsi~LGca

(P)

Troy, Ml

Visteon

Corn.

(P)

Van Buren Township,

~gaC~n.

(P7

Southfleld,

ei~.atQc

dPro~u,~j.~J~

Dearborn.

Top InjectIon

molding official

Charles

Becker

Acting

CEO

Kevin

Heigel

Business line

executive

Tom

Burke

VP.

North American

mfg.

operations

Lou

Salvatore

President, interiors &

electrical

Julie Brown

Chairwoman & CEO

Injection

molding sales

(millions

1,441.00

1,100.00

764.00

eosooE

591.20

573.00

400.0O~’

371.00

300.00

260.00

Ira

Boots

CEO &

President

Joseph Gaul

CEO

Michael

McDaniel

& GM,

closures &

specialty

products

Brian Jones

CEO

Alan

Power

CEO &

President

James Davis

CEO &

President

James

Farrell

Chairman

& CEO

George Sloan

President

Carlos

Mazzorln

Chairman & CEO

David

Adams

CEO

Anton Letica

President

Richard Lacks Jr.

CEO

President

H. II. Wacaser

CEO &

President

Michael

Alexander

CFO &VP

Tim Nelson

COO &

President

CiassMed

ads

Subscllbe

E~mall

products ~

E&caleiøu

~‘

____________

Lit

spodlght

PM M

Conned

Listrentai

Stosy

repiltIts

http://www.p1asticsnews.com/subscriber/rankings/Iistrank.htmI?mOde~ifli

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

2 of 23

Neaton Auto Products ManW~iuring

Masayukl Furugori

276.00

President

Eaton, OH

Iren~...Thcflnlislnc.

Earl Payton

27000E

Chino,

CEO

Precise Technglgqv Inc.

John Weeks

284.00

North Versailles,

Chairman

CEO

Tyco Plastics &AdhesivesGrotj~

Terry Sutter

26000E

Princeton,

President,

Tyco Plastics &

Adhesives Group

c.?tcAn~n1.esjpg.m.c.

Fred Keller

250.00

Grand

Rapids,

Chairman,

CEO

Pres.

Summit PoIyrner~Jn~.

James Haas

Portage,

President

Clifford Croiey

240.00

Salem,

CEO &

President

Philip

j~tjosCorp.

Robert Cervenka

208.00

Hudson,

Chairman

Am~icaPack

?gingCQrQ.

Torn

Linton

207.00

Raleigh, tIC

CEO &

President

Mack Group

inc.

Don Kendall

202.00

Arlington.

CEO &

President

P~sUe~mnium

Auto ~xtocior

LLc

Victor Schneider

Troy,

Vice President

 Port

.p?a~lc~gJn.glnc.

Jack

Watts

196.00

San

Jose,

Chairman

CEO

Fle~-N-GatePl~jjç~Groijp

Shahid

Khan

195001

Warren,

President

~Loi~Qci~ain_Qflr.kig.

John McKernan

City

industry,

CEO &

President

N)i~1nc~

Chain Sandhu

190.00

Livonia,

CEO

flleftEi~Jta.QiqupJ.flc..

Greg Botner

Portage,

CEO

&i~rGrgupjnc~

(P)

Carl

Slebel

180.001

Crystal

Lake,

CEO

President

Peter Bemis

Sheboygan

Fails,

Executive

Sioriiite.

QQrp.

David Stone

Townsend,

President

Doug Ramsdaie

170001

Chicago,

CEO

Jim

Brost

167.00

Walworth, WI

President

~apfl.Mo.kL&fQQ

Iflo.

Doug Batliner

165.00

New Albany,

President

~ppaE~c~g~ng

Greg Toft

165001

Fullerton, CA

President

luocerware Corp.

(F)

Glenn Drake

16500E

Orlando,

Group President, North

America

MP!L1nthI~Jr1e~JnP,

Ron Embree

180.00

Dallas, TX

President

United

~stics

Group

Joe.

Richard Harris

160.00

Wesimont, IL

COO

lastekindu

tries

Joseph

Prlschak

Erie,

CEO

Carlisle

Engineered Products Inc.

Kevin Early

154.00

Crestline,

President

ADAC

Plastics

Inc.

Jim Teets

153.00

Grand

Rapids,

COO & President

Inc. (~)

Maurice Beauchamp

151.60

St. Oaniien,

Quebec

Dir, of operations

http://www.plasticsnews.com/subscriber/rankings/listrank.html’?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

3 of 23

JQneafiatiEnflering.~oiJ&

Craig

Jones

145.10

Louisville,

CEO

Tech

Group Inc.

Harold Faig

145.00

Scottsdale,

CEO

President

SarrianiotiveBlut~/ater

nc.

Andrew Rldgway.

145001

Marysville,

President

crn~n&st~ons

(F)

John

Schulze

129.00

Cleveland,

CEO

President

ABC

Group Inc.

Claude Elgner

120.00

Toronto, Ontario

Executive

Solo

Cupjp.

Anil

Shah

120 00E

Highland Park,

Sr.

operations

caer.ion

Th.c&noiogiesjnc.

(Pt

Bill Beckman

113.00

Grand Rapids, MI

President

KerLGrQMR!.oc~

Richard Hofmann

110001

Lancaster,

CEO

& President

fLe~ege_n.MoØjcA

P.to4uc~o

Mark Dorris

110.001

Gailaway, TN

President

Applie

4.Te.cfl~p4uct~

Raymond I..angton

105.00

Radnor,

CEO

Victor

Piaitjcs

lop.

Michael

Tnjon

102.50

Victor,

CEO &

President

QQErQs~cttQ.QJrLc~.

Marlene Messlri

101.60

Lindstrom,

President

Atlanti~~P

lastic~

Molded

Products

John

Geary

100.00

VP &

Henderson, KY

acd~QelasjLQsgnatlcn5,I

Chuck

Villa

100.00

Greer,

COO

President

tcsflflhfnankln.g.

Don

Wellington

100.00

Asheboro,

President

sonickan

et,.N&rit,Arnedca

jnc~

Russell Wooten

100.001

Shelbyvilie.

Injection molding

mgr.

Co rflin

to~ai.E!aEc&Co~

Anthony Catenaccl

99.00

Fraser,

President

flarpbeaujnc.

Mart Mason

99.00

Baraboo,

manufacturing

Ilercon.IdctstriesJcic~.

Rick

Legate

98.60

Stoney Creek,

Ontario

COO

President

Surnrtj~(ndsjstdes

(P)

James Swartwout

96.00

Torrance,

President

ThsyFJ~jps

qrp..

Roland Beck

96.00

Elbridge.

President

E!~.t1c~nJnQ

John Clementi

95.001

Leominster,

President

Cro~.rifi_søQn

Jim Adams

90.00

Watertown, CT

VP operations

Nyloncraft Inc.

Jim

Krzyzewski

90.00

Mishawaka, IN

President

AadQy~t.1n

~vs

tne

Nick Bogdanos

90.001

Troy,

COO & President

S!g~n

Cipp.ures

Glenn Paulson

90.001

Downers Grove,

President

 lQjedroflics

Inc

Paul Nazzaro

85.00

Clinton,

President

Leggett

Plati

Inc.

(F)

Jim IJkena

85.00

Carthage,

President, Plastics

Group

Eoginecre4Flistic Components

n

Robert Alexander

85.001

Mattawan, Mi

Vice

President,

Alcoa

GDnspid~t~d

Meicc Plastic

UMsion

Steve Norman

84.00

Bryson City, NC

operations

http://www .plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.Mml?modeinj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

4 of23

Dave Spotts

81.00

Toledo,

General

rnfg.

manager

Carson Industries

LLC

Richard Gordinler

80.00

G~ndora,

CEO &

President

SonocQ.CrelliftlnternatipflQj

Bob Puechi

80.00

Chathani,

Division VP

Eillelflp.

Rick Renjilian

79.00

Hebron,

operations

Kyowa America Corp.

Suinito Furuya

79.00

Costa Mesa,

President

Mavco

Plastics Inc.

Timothy Hoeter

78.00

Sterling Heights, MI

President

Ejj~iasiiCor.

Hoop Roche

77.80

Cony,

Chairman

P~ki~g~°

Doug Wait

75.00

Wiles,

Plant manager

Thermoj~p~

John

Bonham

75.00

Hopkins,

CEO

President

Re~auli~p.

Oliver Kaestner

75,001

Leesburg, VA

VP production

W~t

Pharmaceutical

Services Inc.

IP)

Bob

Hargesheimer

75.001

Lionville, PA

President,

Device

Group

.1.5.

Farpthane

Corp.

Andrew GreenIee

74.00

Sterling

Heights,

CEO

& President

Wil~ectfjQ.&tic..~e.SfLes

Curtis Zamec

74.00

Harrisburg, NC

Chairman, CEO &

Pres.

Leon

Plasticsj~ç.

Torn Pykosz

72.50

Grand

Rapids, Ml

President

c~LEiast~h

Randy Herman

71.20

Newburyport.

President

Jet Plastica

urjcsjpc.

James Spierer

Hatfield, PA

President

Evco

Plastics

Dale Evans

68.00

DeForest, WI

President

ReissM.gnufacturjcgjac.

Carl Reiss

66.00

Englishtown, NJ

President

VaijpQftjflp. q

Joe Jahn

65.40

Seattle,

CEO & President

100

~W..Pja

stics

ri.c.

Brenan RiehI

65.30

Bethel, VT

CEO & President

101

emamPlas.tJc~Ltd.

Walter Raghunathan

6500E

Rexdale, Ontario

operations

102

!Sx

lndviithts.

Inc

Hermilo

MartInez

60.00

Hayward, CA

Manufacturing manager

102

nQ~.P..L0Q~

Scott Ambrose

 6000E

Burlington,

Ontario

COO &

President

102

crgk~?.aØf,c

c.~p.

(F)

Bob Clark

Atlanta, GA

Sr.

dir, of operations

102

Ferlos

Inc.

isto

Hantila

6000E

Fort Worth,

President

106

_PineRSLPI3stjps

Tim

Erdmann

56.00

St. Ciair, Mi

President

107

 QQwan

~jastics

LLC

William Dessul

55.00

Providence,

President

107

Fawn

nØu~ es

John Franzone

55.00

Timonium,

CEO

107

Ho.tf~i.FJ.~s

~c.s

Corn.

Robert

Hotter

55.00

South Eigin, IL

President

107

U.SSan

Qqrp.

Philip Mengel

5500E

Newnan,GA

CEO

111

grgii~~red

Plastic

Pjodu.cts

ftc,

Gerald

Edwards

51.001

Ypsilanti,

CEO

http://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.html?modeinj

6R 6/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Pages of 23

112

~gji~ilPIstinc.

TreasaSpringelt

5000k

New Brighton, MN

President

113

GQ~i~yMoldG~Jfl~.

Ron Ricotta

50.00

Rochester,

President

113

Piastipaic Industries

Inc.

Normand Tanguay

50.00

La Praire, Quebec

President

113

EirnpAnlericas

Joe

O’Brien

Vicksburg, MI

General

Manager

113

Nuhtam~kiAmericas

Kaile Tanhuanpaa

DeSoto, KS

Executive VP, Americas

117

Arkay Industries Inc.

Kevin Kuhnash

49.20

West Chester, OH

Co-CEO & President

118

pA. Inc.

Kenji Kanil

49.00

Chariestown,

COO

& President

118

OEM/Erie lii.

Don Cunningham

49.00

Erie,

 President

120

inLec

GrQjJp mc,

Steve

Perlman

46.00

Palatine, IL

President

121

Ncafl9~c~Kaging

Jerry

Rodeli

45.00

Chicago,

operations

121

Rost~Ameriças

Tommy Neal

45.00

Minden,

COO

121

 Industn’alCo r$ainefl

Ltd

Morton Arshlnoff

45001

Toronto, Ontario

President

124

UEEJnc.

Lelan Jamison

44.00

Stillwater, MN

General Manager

125

John Johnson

42.00

l4arborcreek, PA

President

125

AM.E

Irt~qs

Rick Bessefte

42001

Harrison

Township,

Vice President

127

~.ngiae~@~.fjg~us.Jn

I~U&

Ron McGee

41.30

Hazelwood, MO

Dir, tech, services

128

M ~

Ms LoveD

40.00

Paso,

Dir,

sales

& marketing

128

MoLø.:R~tQ~l.~!LCsJfl.Q

Mark Goyette

40.001

Piausburg.

Molding manager

128

øjng

.c.Qrp.

Joseph Anscher

40001

Farrningdale,

President

128

Reiam

$ssex

KeIth Everson

40.001

Sussex, WI

President

132

Kc4t.E~t~rpsise.L!.nc~

A,J.

Kolier

Iii

39.00

Fenton,

President

132

Loncq.1nc~:P

Payltosh Chakrabartl

39.00

Waverly, NE

CEO

& President

132

Q.RQ

a.sUc~

Kimball

Bradley

39.00

Oneida,

COO & President, Reunion

Industries

Inc.

132

Trioon

lndustiies tnc,

John Wielder

39.00

Lisle,

VP internal operations

138

Dinesol PIasti~

Inc.

Ken Leonard

38.001

Niles, OH

Vice President

137

Spartech

industries

George Abd

37.90

Clayton, Mo

CEO & President

138

~J~sJ~çfl

Corp.

Dennis

Frandsen

37.00

Rush City,

CEO

139

~..Ujanc~f.r~ci~to

riPIast)c.s..Q.Qjp.

Bradley

Scott

36.00

Rochester.

President

139

Capson1c.~cgi~p

LLc

Dale White

36.00

Elgin, IL

COO

141

F~sleyQustomPlastics

Inc. r

Steven

Olson

35.00

Easley,

VP sales

& engineering

141

orp..

Mike Watts

35.00

Rogers,

CEO

http://www.plasticsnews.comlsubsCriber/t’ailkings/liStrarik.html?lflodeiflj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page 6 of 23

141

tSfldePIas~,U~.

Glenn

Coates

35.00

Windsor,

Ontario

President

141

Mid-Spujh Lndustries Inc.

Ted Cochls

35.00

Annville,

President

141

Eixieyalchrslnc.

Ian

MacLeod

35.00

Plymouth, MA

Vice President

141

MarylanØ

Plastics

Inc.

Alien Penrod

Federalsburg,

President

147

Enoinee~yolyrners.çg~Q.

Jeff Fackier

34.00

Mora, MN

Vice President

147

Mar-Sal

Inc.

Scott Balogh

34.00

Chagrin

Falls,

President

149

Enpias (U.S.A.)

Inc.

Daisuke Yokata

33.00

Marietta,

President

149

Prooress

Plastic Prodjjcts

Todd Young

33.00

BeiIevtJe,

President

151

Libralterplast~r~incS

Alan

Barr

32.10

Walled Lake, Mi

President

152

~ur-floPj~stics

& Engineering

Inc.

James Marshall

31.00

Warren, Mi

CEO

153

lnnatechkLQ

John Palmer

30.00

Rochester,

Sales & marketing

mgr.

154

~MA.&a~ti.cs

oc.

Mark Atchison

30.00

Corona,

CEO & President

154

Hi-I

ith&siics

cc.

Douglas Bennett

30.00

Cambridge.

President

154

Horn

Pta~

AsifRlzvi

30.00

Whitby, Ontario

President

154

.$kt~.v.Lban±J.asiIcs,.CQ.

W.S.

Baxter

30.00

Elgin, IL

President

154

ct.in.d~td~jnc.

Dennis

Frampton

3000E

Meadville,

President

154

w~!.Plasiic.~jnc.

Vern DeWItt

3000E

Fairport,

President

160

United

Southern

tndustriffl~~.

Todd Bennett

28.50

Forest City,

President

161

yjh..plasticsin.c.

Anton Mudde

28,00

Midland, Ontario

CEO

161

Fabrik

Molded

Plastics

Inc.

Keith Wagner

28.00

McHenry, IL

General Manager

161

~raber-Roggjpç

Geoff

Engelsteln

28.00

Cranford,

President

161

P11

Ennineered Plastics

Inc.

Kurt Nerva

28.00

Clinton Township,

President

161

Iran

nailechnoloS.Jna

Gerrit

Vreeken

28.00”

New Baltimore,

President

161

Industrial

Molding Corp.

Calvin Leach

2800E

Lubbock,

General

Manager

167

Black

River ~

Peter

Mytnyk

27.00

Port Huron,

COO

168

Malors Plastics

Inc.

Tim

McConnell

26.70

Omaha, NE

President

169

Midwest Plastic

Compon~~

Peter Thompson

26.50

Minneapolis,

President

170

Eric

Kirkman

26.00

Hot Springs, AR

CEO & President

170

Mav&Scofieldlric~dln.

Rick Scofleid

26.00

Fowierville,

President

172

Cartb.upl~lnc.

PeterClrleiio

25.00

Kennebunk.

CEO & President

172

Lnj~~ctro

Lou Pollak

25.00

Plainfield,

President

http ://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection MoJders

Page

7 of23

172

Sheoherd

Productsjjx.

T. Breclcenridge

25,00

Brampton,

Ontario

President

172

~..QjairPlasflçsC.

WillIam

Lianos

25.00

Chesterfield, MI

President

172

IgtS.Qal

Fred Blesecker

25.00

Boyertown, PA

President

112

Universal

PIastic.MoId

(UPMUnc.

Wayne Oxford

25.00

Baldwin

Park, CA

CEO

172

Vincent Industrial

Plstilric.

James Vincent

25,00

Henderson, KY

CEO & President

172

QrgothaiQaflastiln.

Alan Chapel

2500E

Grand Haven, Ml

President

172

MQi~.ProductsCo.

John Reichwein

Jr.

2500E

Haltom

City,

President

181

DeRoval

Plastics

Grguo

Andrew Adams

24.50

Powell,

Dir. of operations

182

Ianp.yaivenjQIQc.J~crnQ1ogi~

Inc.

Robert Janeczko

24.00

West Des Moines, IA

CEO & President

182

~rgd~~jict~..

Mark Stephens

24.00

Ironwood,

Vice President

182

 MQi~arna

tic Inc.

Raymond Matenfant

24.00

Penndel,

President

182

S~BZ&QIQ..

Damlan Macatuso

24.00

Torrlngton. CT

VP & GM

182

Lrostej_$gGIj~ç.

Tom Sloane

24.00

Lake Geneva,

President

181

a ice .analcci &.Ecgne~.ungjnc.

Marty Sweerln

23.50

Anoka, MN

Secretary & Treasurer

188

Scftnij...~t~ngreYinQQc.Th

Eileen

Halter

23.00

Ottoville,

CEO

188

p~c.ialty,h4an~fect~reriLnc.

John Lucas

23.00

Indianapolis,

CEO

188

QTAf.tc.cP,C.om.

Aifredo Bonetto

2300E

Anaheim, CA

Sr. Vice President

191

Ag?$

Plastics

In c.

Cynthia Alt

22,90

Grand

Rapids, MI

Chairman

192

S~ci~enackesis

i~n

S.y~m U.S.A

r’.c.

Troy Buset

22.30

Marysville, MI

Molding manager

193

P.IA.corp

Ray

Seeley

22.00

Oxford,

CEO

193

.QMflflaj1ip~

Aron Yngve

22.00

River Falls, WI

Executive VP

193

faicpriPtasti~jflc.

Jay

Bender

2200E

Brookings, SD

COO

196

$tuft.IQcb!~pjpgie

Gene

StuU Sr.

21.90

Somerset,

CEO & President

197

AICLigptin.g& Plastics

nc,

Dan Weber

21.10

Geneva,

Plant manager

198

JunQtnc.

Archle Olson

21.00

Anoka, MN

President

198

rQo nj~ctb

n~9S~i0Q

Inc

Jack

Williams

Chino,

CEO

200

nellyCustpm

Sam

Wagner

20MG

Alexandria,

Dir- of advanced

manufacturing

200

Rodney Sparrow

20.00

Leorninster. MA

President

200

$~.nm~na-~S.Cl

.~.nøosure

Systems

PhIl Sorensen

20.00

Turtle Lake, WI

Operations manager

200

Tpra.S.mL,Jn~y.stries

hc.

Steve Good

20.00

Clayton, OH

President

200

Trae

Steve Boeder

20.00

Dane. WI

Plant manager

http ://www,plasticsnews.ComlsubsCriber/rankings/Iistrank.htnhl?mOdrnini

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

8 of 23

200

Perry Brady

00E

Mansfield,

Plant manager

200

MacDonald’s, Industrial Products

Rod Adams

2000E

Grand Rapids, Ml

President

200

Norland Plastics Co.

Dennis Veiiiquette

2000E

Haysviille,

Plant manager

208

Piasoros Inc.

Norman Dusenberry

19.90

McHenry,

Vice President

209

~ai~r.Eiaiti

Inc.

Joseph Bergen

19.80

Middlefield, OH

CEO

210

Master

Molded

Products

Corn.

James Weinhart

19.50

Elgin, IL

President

211

Me.c.er.arpupJnc.

u

Tony Lesenskyj

15.50

Lawrenceville, NJ

President

212

Wis

~an~iin?iast~t~

Inc.

Fred WIse

16.20

St. Cliaries, IL

President

213

J.~iw

E..~iEQMpJthng..In?.

Joe

Kavalauslcas

18.00

Dayton.

Vice President

213

.c.hemjecflh.Ia?1.ics

cc,

Ragnar Korthase

18.00

Elgin,

President

213

P..flflyJ~taJN&c

urinalac.

MIchael Quig

18.00

Norridge,

President

213

~ygi&t~rg~ms.Jnc.

R. Scott White

San DIego, CA

operations

213

CarolJ~a

Pr.~j~jQaHastics

Brian Tauber

Asheboro,

President

213

YQiicEfli~rp

Ls~aJnc.

Steve yolk

Turiock, CA

VP operations

219

E.erflc.t.in~.

Craig Ferriot

17.25

Akron,

Dir.

molding

& finishing

div.

220

Mic~tth;.

Gary

Rheude

17.00

Goodland,

President

220

Px~Qis&u_S?..uitlaast..Lnc.

Richard

Averette

17.00

Myrtle

Beach,

President

222

t1EIccLM.Qd~B&IQQJ..1Qc..

Gerald Cox

16.50

Louisville,

President

222

Cict

E1e~ta..Eru~ts.lnp,

David Greenlee

1650E

Circievilte,

President

224

M~iQiiPSQ~M~t~

Bruce Bet

llngton

16.00

Odessa,

CEO

224

Qegalb MgI~dfIaatics

co,

RIck Walters

16.00

Buder,

VP operations

224

.S.bjffaay~r..pta~iics..cQrp.

Karl

Schiffmayer

16.00

Algonquin, IL

President

227

Qe.cetuUiaMic.Erc~uc

sinc.

John Kussman

15,60

North Vernon, IN

President

226

GSWaui~q

jng,..Products

Dennis Nykoliatton

Baffle, Ontario

President

229

.LM&Pi?stic~

Bob

Leonard

15.30

Greeneville,

President

230

Capt

e1~t1s.ticsJ.n

Dennis Eckels

15.00

Piscataway, NJ

VP manufacturing

230

ceritpv

FaQtics

i.n.ç~

Barry Grant

15.00

Baldwin,

President

230

E-SpiasticPcciductsinc.

Peter

Keddle

15.00

Waterford,

President

230

En.gineeredPlasticQQmponentslnc.

Reza Kargarzadefl

15.00

Grinnell,

President

230

Kurz

ascfl.J.nc,

ChrIs Elchmann

15.00

Dayton, OH

Dir, of sales

230

~p~gj~j4oith~inc.

J.D. Schimmelpfennig

15.00

Mount Pleasant,

President

http://www.plasticsncws.comlsubscribcr/rankings/Iistrank.html?modeinj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page 9 of 23

230

Ei?~iicraiiMf~CQJn.

Edwin

Ingram

15.00

Atbertvilie, AL

President

230

y~nture

Plastics

Inc.

Steve Trapp

15.00

Newton Falls, OH

& GM

230

We~rflflstics

Steven Nichols

15.00

PortJand, TN

President

& GM

230

Urp~ritP

lastics

Inc

Norman

Oberto

Lakevilie, MN

President

230

N~KM.anuf~cturipg

Technologies

Inc.

Annen Kassouni

1500E

Grand Rapids, MI

Vice President

241

Fergu~sgn.Fr.ed.ijctio

nc,

Scott Ferguson Sr.

14.80

McPherson,

VP operations

241

Madan

Plastics ~flc.

Michael

Madan

14.80

Cranford, NJ

General Manager

243

Advenhj.QPI&..MoId. Ip;,

Ken Desrosiers

14.50

Rochester, NY

President

243

ElQinJlq!d~flasj~csirw.

Todd Farwell

14.50

Elgin.

Dir, of operations

243

Kam Plasfics ~ro

Peter Prouty

14.50

Holland,

President

243

~iak~I~Qw

Dennis Mitchell

14,50

Harbor

City, CA

President

243

Syracuse

Plastics LLC

Thomas Falcon.

14.50

Liverpool,

President

243

Medway Plastics Cca

Thomas Hutchinson

Long

Beach,

President

249

Prj~eraPlailri.c.

Noel Cuellar

14.40

Zeeland, Ml

President

250

PaL4Jfi~tjc&jn~.

Charlie Hicklln

14.30

Marion,

VP operations

251

Palm

Plastics

Ltd.

Jeffrey Owen

14.20

Morenci,

President

251

ZapJtPiSIc.$jn~.

Robert Zappa

14.20

Phillipsburg,

VP &

253

Tribar Manufacturing

LLC

Robert

Bretz

14.10

Whitmore Lake, Ml

President

254

C-Plastics Coro.

Gordon CurtIs

14.00

Leominster,

CEO

254

Fencer

Drives

Erik Nadeau

14.00

Manheim,

Plant manager

254

Hilco

Technologies

Dan Tallaferro

14.00

Grand

Rapids,

Vice

President

254

Matrix

Inc.

John

Harker

14.00

East Providence,

President

254

Molding International

Engineering

Inc.

Gregg Hughes

14.00

Temecula,

President

254

Spectrum

Plastics M.cidjng

Ed Flaherty

14.00

Ansonia, CT

engineering

254

Akron Porcelain & Plastics Co,

Crawford

Smith

Akron,

Oil

Plant manager

254

D&M Plastics Corp

Stephen Motisi

Burlington,

President

254

William

Wilson

South Plainfield,

President

254

F&ichJAQswtJnc.

Yutaka Kiyuu

Arden,

President

254

Wi~tPlaicPr~t~jSC

Robert

Luce

Sheridan,

President

265

Ha s~n

P1as

cs_Corn.

David Watermann

13.50

Elgin,

President

265

PJesLhecMq~dj.ng...u’

John Klmberlin

13.50

Ontario,

Engineer

http ://www .plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.html?modeinj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

10 of23

267

Tim Osterman

13.20

Elk River,

CEO

& President

268

Anchor Tool and

Plas~cjpc.

Ron Rogers

13.00

Minneapolis,

President

268

~nesis

Plastics

Eng,

LLC

James Gladden

13.00

Scottsburg,

CEO

President

268

Multi-Plastics

Inc.

Charles Johnston

13.00

Saegertown,

Operations manager

268

Po~ymec

Technoiog~es

Jeff Keller

13.00

Whitewater, WI

VP operations

& GM

268

River City Plastic

Howard Ross

13.00

Three

Rivers, Ml

President

268

Truc PrecisLon e~stic~LLc

Jim Kempf

13,00

Lancaster,

Vice President

288

.~iQ.Pia.s~cs_1nc~

Robert King

1300E

Orange,

Vice

President

268

Plastronics Pius Inc.

Jay Horan

1300E

East Troy,

Divisional Vice President

276

Toocraft Pre~sionMolders

Inc.

Oscar Musltano

12.50

Warminster,

President

276

S&W

Plastics LLC

Dave Presler

Eden Prairie,

COO

278

Rent Inc

Rocky Monison

12.00

Upland, CA

Dir, of operations

278

A_crpte&hjouIhwesl

Inc.

Thomas

Houdeshell

12.00

Kerrville, TX

VP &

278

Custom

Pi.asticsJmorna

Viona

Ltd..

Peter Harrison

12.00

Cobourg, Ontario

President

278

F~reitstcs..Jnc~

Ted

Mucclo

12.00

Milwaukee, WI

President

278

PQ!yceL$Jrtictur.aLF.Qarn

lop.

Ayman Sawaged

12.00

Somerville,

Dir,

operations

278

~yn!~cJepb9p~gjQs

nc~

Paul Tolley

12.00

Pavilion,

President

278

AitS

Inc..

Mike Marzetta

1200E

Liberty Lake, WA

President

278

&tis

c..ElaQti.cs..in

Diane

Mlxson

1200E

Anaheim, CA

President

278

A$KLehig.hVa1i~y

Andy Vartanian

Philadelphia,

President

278

Ecipse Mold ln~

Steve

Craprotta

Clinton Township,

278

ha.ttip~n.ccrp~

Doug Johnson

1200E

North Ridgevilie, OH

VP & COO

278

eLe~i~~icsj.np,.

Ronald

Richey

Columbia

City.

CEO & President

278

South

Plastics

Inc..

Austin Drinkall

Mishawaka,

CEO

291

M’Le.tlectEjflerjxise.s..LLQ

Matt Kness

11.50

Yorktown, NY

General Manager

292

Stalpwail

Inc.

Maureen Steinwall

11.30

Coon Rapids.

President

293

Hicks

Plastics

Co.jQg~

Tim Hicks

11.00

Macomb Township,

General Manager

293

Pioneer

Plastics

inc.

Edward

Knapp

11.00

Dixon, KY

President

293

Protomold

Co.

Inc.

Bradley Cleveland

11.00

Maple Plain,

CEO & President

293

Sun

Plastics Inc.

George Gemberling

11.00

Elk Grove Village.

President

& owner

293

Accent Plastics

Inc.

Thomas Prldonoff

11,00E

Corona,

President

http ://www.plasticsnews.cont’subscriber/rankings/Iistrank.html?modeinj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

11 of 23

293

Anderson Tethnoiopies

Glenn Anderson

oo~

Gmnd

Haven,

President

293

Bardot

Plastics

Inc.

J. Lee Boucher

Easton.

President

300

Mikino Plastics

Inc.

Kelly Goodsel

10.70

Corry,

CEO & President

301

Hi-Tech MpId

& Tool

Inc.

Krlstensen Sr.

10.50

Pittsfield,

President

301

Tn-Star Plastics

Inc.

Keith Johnson

10.50

Anaheim, CA

Vice President

303

Pierson

industries

Inc.

Theodore Pierson

10.40

Denville,

President

304

Pasbc

Solutions

Inc.

Robert Tennyson

10,30

South Bend,

CEO

304

Stoesser-Gordon Piasti~

Bob Stoesser

10.30

Santa

Rosa, CA

President

308

4E.bidustr

es.!n~

John Argitis

10.10

Sturbridge, MA

President

306

H.ecne

.o.~nt~rpdses

Nadine Hamelln

10.10

Boucherville, Quebec

President

306

?ciyrn.c.r.coovens

Inc.

Jack Bertsch

10.10

Orchard

Park, NY

President

306

arc

Inc.

Mark Nelson

10.10

West St. Paul,

President

310

Autoiimi.Manr~lactwri.ngG.rpJ..np.

Robert

Bedrosian

10.00k

Milan, MI

CEO &

President

310

QQsIgP.fi_a.st’ps.!n.Q

John NepperJr.

10.00k

Omaha,

President

312

PjsJQStar

Plastics

Inc.

Roger Storch

10.00

Lexington,

General Manager

312

Cajy.Er.cd.s~.ct&C~jnc.

Frank

Haas

10.00

Hutchins,

President

312

Q~ntwy

PSLQP!p

Don Brothers

10.00

New Waterford,

Chairman & CEO

312

~pgideefPIQ~,Lics_Qorp~

Deb Bristoll

10.00

Menomonee

Falls, WI

President

312

~~tCnsipn~jpJd_1gg

RIck

Wieclnski

10.00

Avilla, IN

General

Manager

312

Ei~tQc.~.n

Inc.

Jim Nurmi

10.00

Oconomowoc, WI

President

312

Qwintex.Cotp

Dorothea

Christiansen

10.00

Nampa, ID

President

312

Spir4lnc.

Robert

Morissette

10.00

Andover, MA

operations

312

.~tcatfcrd_EL~shc..CQn1pcn~oIs_cQrp,

Gil KIlmer

10.00

Stratford, Ontario

VP sales &

marketing

312

Tailor Made Products

John Wilde

10.00

Elroy, WI

CEO

& President

312

TPcQus.P!p.ducts.Co

Kathleen

HIavin

10,00

Avon Lake,

President

312

~_aQfleLW

Qud~p.la lics .LLQ

Brig

Vanderwoude

10.00

Milan, IL

President

312

~&.cePJasU.c~

Ipç.

Russell Smith

10,00E

Pittsburgh,

President

312

csnIecp~ict~

bc.

Peter Varhegyl

1000E

Elk Grove Village,

CEO

& President

312

ClajrsQfl.Pj$stics

Steve NIlson

Ocala,

Dir. of operations &

engineering

312

Ciassjc_Mp.td

naQ2.Joc

Larry Caldrone

1000E

Schilier Park,

President

312

Fox y.aI~oy

McI.ding.inc.

Don Haag

1000E

PIano,

President

http://www.plasticsnews.com/subscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

12 of 23

312

!flfiflitMiding.Asarn~ij~

1000E

Mount Vernon,

NA.

312

Ed Hahn

.j000E

St.

Charles,

Dir. of manufacturing

312

Orcoon

Preci5ion) Industries

Inc. Øba

Jim Borg

10,00E

Eahlecta

President

Eugene. OR

312

Performance

Engineered

Products

Inc.

Carl

Dlspenzlere

1000E

Pomona,

President

312

Pliant Plastics Corn.

Bill Klungle

1000E

Muskegon,

General

Manager

312

Sipco

Molding Technologies

ChrIs Adams

1000E

Meadville,

Operations

manager

312

Raymond

Kallnowski

Shelby Township,

CEO

336

Wgri~Qiass

Plastics

Inc.

Steve Buchenroth

9.98

Russells Point, OH

President

337

Accurate

Molded Piastic~ji~ç.

Dale Meyer

9.80

Coeur

d’PJene,

President

338

Plastic Masters

Inc.

Robert Orlaske

g50E

New Buffalo, Mi

CFO

339

Midtec Inc.

of America

Tom Burnholz

9.20

McPherson,

Dir.of manufacturing

340

E~~less

lnie~io.ftMgldinoLLC

Scott

Taylor

9.10

Gardena,

President

341

Cun’ier

Plastics

Inc.

John Currler

9,00

Auburn.

President

341

j~~gjndusflies

Inc

Don

Overman

9,00

Guttenberg, IA

Vice President

341

ironwood

Industries

Inc.

Robert Grala

9.00

Libertyvilie,

President

341

Nordon Inc.

Terry Donovan

9.00

Rochester,

CEO

President

341

 Perry

Machine

Die Inc.

David

Berry

9.00

Perry,

Vice President

341

Plastic Molding

Technology Inc.

Charles Sholtis

9.00

El Paso,

CEO

341

Putnam

Precision Molding Inc.

Jeanne Zesut

9.00

Putnam, CT

341

Precimold

Inc.

Gunter Weiss

900

Candiac, Quebec

President

341

.EFI.AiancQct,L.W

c

Dan Lewis

900E

Sherman,

General Manager

341

.EiLrj!iQld~d_pLe.$ticsInc.

Jim Peters

g,00E

Evansville, IN

President

341

iSg~yfJastjcs,lr~c.

D. Andrew

Templeton

900E

Lakeview, OH

President

341

Pot

tab...Qcrp.

Richard Gill

900E

Sheboygan. WI

CEO

353

EdliQnvaseaSAdeCV

lsmael Gomez

8.90

Garcia, Nuevo Leon

President

Amtec..M

c!d..Et.c..ducts

WIlliam Plzzo

8.50

Rockford, IL

VP operations

354

HoE!~stics_M~qujactp.rpg,cp.

Jon Lawlis

8.50

Richmond, CA

President

354

!nteral~&EIasliq~.!rtp,

Stanley Isenstein

8.50

Lexington,

President

354

T.KAB~sIictc.crr..,

Michael

L. Cherry Sr.

8,50

Winchester, TN

CEO & President

3s~ FLS,P

astics Corp.

Ronald Stambersky

850E

Oldcastle,

Ontario

President

354

In fin~

ic.s

LL(..

John

Van Bosch

850E

Ventura,

Chairman & CEO

http://www .plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/Iistrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

of 23

360

21st

Century FlasticsCorp.

Greg

Dobie

8.40

Pottervilie,

VP operations

360

£~&PGTlric.

Samuel

Pierson

8.40

Manchester, CT

President

360

iniection

Technology

Ccw.

Carl

Morris

8,40

Arden,

President

363

Van Norman

Molding LLC

Rich Andre

8.30

Bridgeview,

Sales manager

M~derri

Plastics

Corn.

John

Eb.rhardt

8.20

Benton Harbor, Ml

Dir. of manufacturing

365

Acromatic Plastics

Inc.

Peter Crlscl

8.00

Leominster, MA

President

365

Cystciii

Plastics Inc.

8.00

Elk Grove Village, IL

NA.

365

East Coast Plastics

inc.

R.D.

Trank

8.00

Fort Lauderdale, FL

President

365

Hard~ia.M

~m1acMinaC~rp..

Henry W,

Harding

Jr.

8.00

Rome,

President

365

Techoo

Plastics

lndu.s~ri~sc.

Roberto Tous

8.00

Ar~asco,

President

365

NLPI?

ipJyI.oIdingJpc.

Murray Anderson

8.00

Anaheim, CA

Dir, sales

marketing

365

WLM,Qid

(rjg Co.

McKeown

5.00

Portage,

President

365

WJWn..PIa~.tics

SALL P

HeInz

Dierselhuis

8.00

Peachtree City, GA

Dir, of operations

365

Intsg.r1ty.Eias~1oainc,

Michael Frey

8.oo’

Denver,

operations

365

Grant

as iç~

Inc.

Bruce Curtis

500E

Brookline,

Plant manager

365

emprg~ucti.onaa.stic&ipc~

Koby Loosen

800E

Corona,

Vice President

365

Rockor~dPritrc.

Wayne Rasher

800E

Loves

Park,

General Manager

365

iio~

Barbara Roberts

8,00E

Santa

Rosa, CA

President

378

K&BM

c~dedErodjjc~D~

HE. Kuhns

7.90

Brookville, OH

President

379

ft~$iApJrs,.kLC_

Britt Murphey

7.80

Mishawaka,

President & owner

379

C~prpci..r~1a

 nufacturing Inc.

Mike Edwards

7.80

Lubbock,

Vice President

381

Precision

~q.oj?spdqc

t.!nc.

J. Greg Best

7.67

DeGraff, OH

President

382

Crescent

industries

no,

Eric Paules

7.50

New Freedom, PA

Operations manager

382

Lslipqtiy~,P

stics

(tic,,

Tim Curnutt

7.50

Vista,

President

382

J.rJnQPJes.cQ~P.

Keith

Kinnear

7.50

Kenton, OH

President

382

~4o

~djng.Qprp..,Qf

&r~ieJica

Miguel

Barba

7.50

Pacoima, CA

Molding

manager

382

eirnJingV.eJLbp.?Ia~tLcs.

Ln..c.,

William Deimling

Amelia,

CEO

& President

387

 rnperiaj,Cu.sjom Moi~ingIn C.

dbaJCM

Robert

King

7.40

~I~jiçs_

President

Rogers. MN

388

WaasLPJe.stics

Inc.,.

Robert Lange

7.30

Medford,

CEO

& President

389

EPP learn

Inc

d.~,a~.rnpi.re

i..r.i.,cision

Neal

ElIl

7.10

Plastics

President

Rochester,

390

Acrn-~ncon

Plastics

LLC

Jeff Wyche

7.00

http://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.html?moder=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

InjectionMolders

Page

14 of23

Chino, CA

President

390

Aliance-Carohria

George Lewis

7.00

Arden,

President

390

m,a

ion

Ie~la~orp,

Harry Smith

7.00

Aurora,

President

390

g~ighj.PIa~c~

Joe Vest

7.00

Greensboro, NC

VP manufacturing

390

CeLCb

a$~ics1ac~

Barry Hart

7.00

Englewood, CO

President

390

Eng~aQeyingjNu~r.i.e,s

in ç.

Dean Vandeberg

7.00

Verona, WI

President

390

GiobaiPiastics

Inc.

.J.R. Spltznogie

7.00

Indianapolis,

President

390

escor

las

Cow..

Darrell

McNaIr

7.00

Mesopotarnia, OH

President

390

Rqlc.p

inc.

Chip Greene

7.00

Kasota, MN

VP operations

390

Tech NH

Inc.

Greg Gardner

7.00

Merrimack,

General Manager

390

AQQuIe.QSysInms

Inc.

Larry

Sternal

Elk Grove Village,

VP manufacturing

390

PLtI.kIaustrl~Jnc.

Isaac

Klrbawy

700E

Canton, OH

Process engineer

390

(n.s

IQdh,JatQcna!iQn.e

1r.c~

David Butt

700E

Cary, IL

President

390

Mastercr?ft.C.Q~.

Arie

Rawlings

Phoenix, AZ

CEO & President

390

Molnr~iJy..iE,tas

ti~LtC.o.,.joc.

Keith Ruby

700E

Dundee,

President

390

Neal Onderdonk

Rochester,

President

406

gn,duQPlastt~lnç,

Mark Diiilio

6.90

K’rtiand, OH

President

407

~(eniatustri~.LLQ

William Renick

6.85

Kenosha, WI

Exec.

VP operations

408

M~.Etes~cs

Molding

Larry Byrd

6.80

Addison, TX

President

409

Fr~pJ~J.i.n a~E~c.

Tom Murray

6.70

Franklin, IN

Operations manager

409

otexCp,rp.

John Weaver

6.70

Sarasota, FL

Secretary & Treasurer

411

Patrick Brandstatter

6.60

Bridgman, Mi

Vice President

412

5p.a

Mc.MetErcsWcisjnc..

Ronald Kessler

6.50

Youngstown,

CEO

President

412

HJ..Pt~stics

Paul Aimburg

6.50

Lincoln,

President

412

1ntc2aItdi.PJp.~~i.cs

Richard McKenney

Hudson,

President

412

~iaskie.chnQ!pgy..c.iroiapJnc

Greg Davis

650E

Santa Ana, CA

Plant manager

416

t~1v.e~.,C.o

Thomas Dolan

6.45

Hillsborough,

President

417

Qiyar~.1fi.Qd.Men

ufactw.dr,afr,c,..

Sreemukh Sanne

6,40

Pearl, MS

President

418

Res-Tech

Corp.

John Schmidt

6.30

Clinton,

President

419

Higb.t.a.nd,Jpiec.(i.on..M

iding

Inc.

Jerry

Collins

6.20

Salamanca, NY

President

419

lIe;

Plastics

Corp.

G. Freimuth

6.20

St. Charles,

President

419

I~çn

e~nMqduIarMol~ingtnc..

Rodney Hillsman

Titusviiiie, FL

CEO

http://www.plasticsnews.com/subscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

of 23

422

Uk~~~..~4oldin&Tooling

Tom Beddoe

6.10

Anderson, SC

President

422

MC. Tietj Plastics

Inc.

Michael Tletz

6.10

Eigin,

President

424

Y~Itfiastic~soLp.

Edward Venner

6.00

Largo,

CEO

President

425

James Stewart

6.00

Twinsburg,

President

425

~QSQch

Coro,

ChrIs Rapackl

6.00

Mount Laurel,

Vice

President

425

HQmpFirey..Un.e.Jnc,

Melvin Ellis

6.00

Milwaukie,

President

425

 sIriaiMoId~dProductsC.ojnc.

Lee Benson

6.00

Palatine,

President

425

.EI~stIc5...Mp.l~in.gCQ...

Ron Strauser

6.00

St. Louis,

President

425

 .Eqisrcpr~Ppjtce.L

USA

Phil

Miller

6.00

Reno,

Production manager

425

e.~iSo

coJe~opIogy.

!.nc.

6,00

Arden Hills, MN

NA,

425

.EutoPestfld

Harald Zacharias

600E

Endeavor,

President

425

E~P_lijdusjrjQs.lnc.

Anthony

Nardi

600E

Morrison,

operations

425

\?~nguard..!Iesti.c~

Corp.,

Lawrence

Budnick Jr.

6,00E

Southington. CT

CEO

435

.Pxfl.e-F14s~tInc...

Dave Kailna

5.90

Ramsey,

CEO

436

.ê~dyan.iege..ManutacturJng

Co p.

Wanda

Rea

5.80

Friendship, TN

President

437

EHtePlasticProductsI~~..

Robert Mandevllle

5.60

Shelby Township,

President

437

~~pro~~y.ne

P~$ticsInc.

Ronald Brown

5.60

Ontario,

President

437

Part Inc.

Dennis Denton

5.60

Clover,

President

437

VeflpiasCgritajners

Inc.

Thomas

McCain

5.60

Little Rock, AR

President

441

MJci.p rtM.gjdh,gjnc.,

C.W. Johnson

5.50

Bloomington, MN

Co-President

441

F1ILq.Eu~.iecb.noiQgyJnC.

Kathy

Bodor

5.50

Ontario,

President

441

$.&L PIa~ti~Iqc.

John Bungert

5.50

Nazareth,

President

441

W etmpr~Laj.4..p1~tiacp.

Fred

Crocker

5.50

Latrobe, PA

President

441

HyTeri Pias~c ln~

Craig

Helnselman

550E

Milford, NH

General Manager

441

~nights~c.ge~Jastics

mc,

DavId

Platt

550E

Fremont, CA

President

447

8R~eRid.g.Q.Indu~j1~sjnc.

Mary Sane

5.40

Winchester,

President

448

Arn.PrpC ustom.Mo~ng

Malcolm

Kidd

5.20

Leeds, Al..

General

Manager

448

Precision Pies

c.&~ie.Co.,.

George

Bailey

5.20

Ithaca,

Vice President

450

A&~.PIesIic~ifl.c.

John Vlnka

5.00

Elgin, IL

Vice President

450

AlaMme

PJes.Iics.l.nc.

Perry

Greer

5,00

Birmingham,

General Manager

450

 Hamiitpn Machine

~ Mold

Inc.

Tim

Locke

5.00

Holland, Ml

Engineering manager

http://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

16 of23

450

lndystript Tool

Plastic$Jjiç.

Nell Johnson

5.00

St.

Croix

Fails,

President

450

tocan Industries

Inc.

Ronald Miller

5.00

Los Angeles,

Vice President

450

Bgrn~IpgI&

Plastics

Inc.

Miio Hennemann

5.00

Aimena,

President

450

~portsmen’s

Plastics Inc.

Hank

Llsciotti

5.00

Leominster,

Vice President

450

Terhorst Manutac~g!~ginc~

Ron Martin

5.00

Minot. ND

Molding

supervisor

450

Wonder Molded

Products Inc.

Fred Dickman

5.00

Crystal

Lake,

President

450

Northeast Mold

& Plastics In.

Ron Bodeau

5.00

Giastonbury, CT

Production

manager

450

Ujckmarr

Plastics Division

Marco Pierobon

500E

Sterling

Heights, Ml

Vice

President

450

eritfrecision MouIng.L~ct

TIm Barrie

500E

Peterborough, Ontario

President

450

C!~a.P!estics_Inc

Olan Long

500E

Canal Winchester, OH

CEO

450

Betrn.Seactrprecisio

ol~Inn.Qo.

Warren Avis

500E

Riviera Beach, FL

President

450

Pris

m~l.aSicsInc.

Bill Johnson

500E

New

Richmond, Wi

Sales manager

450

IeiiyHQFt?

atLcs

no.

George Douglas

500E

Jacksonville,

General

Manager

450

Ip~KenToo

&..~ngLn~flgiflc...

Bruce Carmichael

500E

Muncie,

General Manager

467

A!!

e.sjEjasticsinc

Errol Westergaard

4,80

Antioch,

President

468

A Øvanced Plastics cprp.

Charles

Worswlck

4.80

Warren,

Plant

manager

468

DimaticD

ndlooiC

Scott Drvoi

4.60

Omaha,

President

468

jpbnspn.Pre.cisipp

l.nc,

RIchard St. Onge

4.60

Amherst,

President

468

roiluiLPiastics

Jerry Plath

4.60

Opelika, AL

President

& owner

472

L.ffjnity.,QtsttQpiMplding

Todd Cook

4.50

Mendon, Ml

Owner

& operations

mgr.

472

 Qpurbon

aslic,.!p.c.

Rick Green

4.50

Bourbon,

President

472

.Qranhtt~tatQ.fJa

John Calianan

4.50

Londonderry, NH

President

472

IEM

Plastics

Jnc~

Dennis Waiters

4.50

Wixom.

Operations manager

472

4jcoieLPjasficajnc.

Robert Macintosh

4.50

Mountain, WI

& COO

472

~jperiQLP

?sti.cs

nc.~

Ed Grimm

4.50

Plain City,

product development

472

Matrix

TooL.!nc

Dave Lewis

Sr.

4.50’

Fairview. PA

President

472

Industries

John Doster

450E

South Bend,

President

480

Carl

WJ~.e

w.eI.t..!S

precjp.rjngJ.n

Carl Newell

4.40

Glendale, CA

President

481

Champion

injecflon

Molding

Ln.c

Bo Campbell

4.28

Warren,

Plant

manager

482

Pena M~ld.e~

 Ps.o~uctsIr~c.

Daniel

Hidding

4.21

Arlington

Heights,

CEO

453

Itiermold Corp.

Ronald

Farley

4,20

Canastota. NY

President

454

~te.rng,M.e.ac~fecturingCQjn_c,

Dennis Wrzesinski

4.10

http://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

17 of 23

South Lancaster, MA

President

485

Eltis

vrgttPIsstics Mfg,.lnc.

Dave Schmitt

4.08

Butier,

Plant manager

486

L~S..P sJ~ion.MoiriIng.lnc.

Roger Michalski

Watervilhle, MN

COO

487

D&l.roojinig&

Fla~tjcp

lommy Dement

4,00

Jacksonville,

President

487

Ei~.P

pclts.

Chris Smolar

4.00

Carlstadt,

Plant manager

487

F!y~eJoot

&P~c..C

M. Haddock

4.00

Bridgeport, CT

Operations manager

487

E~c.t~as

Joseph

Glzara

4.00

Douglassville, PA

President

487

5JCPlaspcMolcJjrigInc.

Steve Streff

4.00

Monroe, WI

President

487

aI.araManuteciuring

BIas Aicala

400E

Pacoima,

Plant

manager

487

Qeysjar..Pr.Q

u.i,tslnler.natiqnallnc.

Doug Goodman

Phoenix, AZ

President

487

Pr~rnicrMo!d~d

E.Ia~tLca.Go.

Rick Cauweis

400E

Leland, NC

Plant manager

487

Reiiawdndustdes

Waiter Eberhardt

400E

Hartland, WI

President

496

~

Annette Crandall

3.83

Lawrence, Mi

President

497

Cut.tom. .PLesticainc.

LInn Derlckson

3.80

Ontarid,

President

497

Hap,~.,ipc.

Larry

Skalonz

3.80

Baraboo,

Plant

manager

497

Ray

Seward

3.80

Abingdon, MD

President

497

Quasbnictlcpi.corp.

Duane Savliie

3.80

Lodi,

Plant manager

497

Per’formançePiastics Ltd.

Tom

Mendel

380E

Cincinnati,

President

502

~~pIastiç~LLC

Rod

Roth

3.66

Hiilsboro, OR

President

503

A&AGIq~Undu~

rj~tn~

Steven Kovens

3.60

Cockeysville, MD

Exeoitive VP

503

John Den

Hartog

3.60

Hospers,

President

503

Su.nbait

Plastics Inc.

John Anseiml

3.60

Frisco,

President & owner

506

onrlocfll,Isstics

Vein Meurer

3.50

Brea, CA

Vice President

506

D~MatftasticsInc.

David

Kabbal

3.50

San Diego, CA

President

506

I,~dusj4ajPlasAiçProduct~Jnc.

George

Thome

3.50

Miami Lakes,

CEO

506

Elastics

One. Inc.,

David Wallenborn

3.50

Roanoke, VA

CEO

& President

506

Joe Kelly

350E

Clinton,

CEO

511

HorvathCo

LLC

T. Horvath

3.44

Scottsdale, AZ

N.A.

512

&~s.~cLe

0,0.

QJg.co

Inc.

Dave Fry

3.40

Muncie,

Molding manager

513

Sonohte

Plastics

Corp.

Peter Lawrence

3.30

Gloucester,

President

514

~Mt~nterpri~eiinc,

Dave Salomone

3.20

Cummirig, GA

Plant manager

514

My.c~

PiaslLca

in.ç.

Edward

Snider

3.20

Jacksonville,

President

http://www.plasticsnews.Com/subscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

18 of 23

514

Nate~cb..Plasticsinc~nc.

Thomas

Nagier

3.20

Ronkonkoma, NY

President

517

Action Mold

& Tool 0g.

Bill

Hail

3.10

Anaheim,

CEO

517

Astar

Inc.

Sidney Mooro Jr.

3.10

South Bend.

CEO

517

Holzmeyer Die

& Mold

Mfcj.

Corp.

Alan

Holzmeyer

3.10

Princeton, IN

President

517

Mother LodtPlag~~

Mitch

Young

3.10

Sonora,

General Manager

521

B.M.P.

Injection

Larry

Harden

3.00

Riverside, CA

President

521

Dirn?nsion

Moiding.çorp.

Mike Stigllanese

3.00

Addison,

President

521

Frarn Trak

industries

Inc.

Al Santelil

Jr.

3.00

Middlesex,

Owner

521

~org.tKv

Jnduflie

Inc.

Mall Koket

3.00

Erie. PA

President

521

HarUegQM

e.n,vfactutipg±no.

Tony

Hartiage

3.00

Buckner,

Sales & engineering

521

iiQftman.Manuac~v.riogJnc.

 Larry

Hoffman

3.00

Concord,

President

521

M,P,&intqrneiboneLtnc,

Bernard

Gheibendorf

3.00

North Miami,

President

521

S.flape

Global

echnoiogy

Bob Crane

3.00

Sanford, ME

Engineering

521

V,.nita0.Plasllc.Moi0~cs no.

W.C. Hoge Jr.

3.00

Jackson,

Owner

521

c~ic.rri

$etyic.e

lat.

Mlnoo

Seifoddini

3,00E

Lake Geneva, WI

President

521

Magn~.4_Mpjgtng

Dave Pedrottl

300E

Pittsfield, MA

President

521

Anthony King

Oiney,

President

521

~Ri

y.~LYa,lley.~

a.~IiciLnc~

Harold

McCracken

300E

Elkart,

President

534

YIsjpn.TechnicaLMpiqli~

Anthony Brodeur

2.95

Manchester,

President

535

ME$.,EIas.tJ.c.s

David Nickolenko

2.80

Marlborough,

Generai

Manager

536

kim rico S

Jeff Mosey

2.71

New AJbany,

Sales

manager

537

g!WLQ..PIasticIJnc..

Shane ErwIn

2.70

Riverside,

Sales manager

537

Pta

~.ch1n.c.

Michael

Hendrickson

2.70

Corvaliis, OR

President

& owner

537

Pracisio.n.Motd

& Too

Inc..

Mark

Longbrake

2.70

Kissimmee, FL

Vice President

537

Mesie.rmQMInginc.

Raymond Steinhart

270E

Joliet,

Vice President

541

Accurate

Molded

Products

Inc.

Howard

Devlne Sr.

2.50

Warwick,

President

541

King~1QmEIastics~gfp,,

Gabriel Hostalet

2.50

Skokie,

President

541

Miprophor

Peter Keightley-Pugh

2.50

Wiilits,

Manager, custom

division

541

StLetek

Inc.

Richard Salvo

2.50

Lowell,

Engineering

manager

541

Tact Pia$tlcsjnp.

Glen Smith

2.50

Shelby, NC

President

541

Woodland

Plastics Corp.

Lee Sinderson

2.50

Addison,

President

http ://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mOdeini

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

of 23

541

Stelray Plastic Products Inc.

Larry Saffran

2 50E

Ansonia, CT

President

546

Derby Plastics

Ltd.

Thomas

Derby

2.45

Neenah, WI

President

549

Oscoda Plastics Inc.

Mark Welles

2.40

Oscoda, Ml

Plant manager

549

Spoona

Plastics

LLC

Dean Lail

2.40

Asheboro. NC

President

551

Hope

n~i..st.Le~

inc..

John Hourenagie

2.30

Madisonville, TN

CEO

551

Soath

rn.2t.asIic..~Pu~k?1QQ..

Frank Noce

2.30

Ormond Beach, FL

Owner

551

I,e,.c.h

a:EIe.sticaln

Steve BariiIa

2.30

Lehigilton, PA

President

551

~p.e~.PJ?s.!Jca_&JpoIing.Inc..

Tom O’connor

230E

Garland, TX

President

555

.Qe

tr.gi’l..Mo!ded Pr9tcItjn.q.

Craig Johnson

2.20

Ira Township,

Operations manager

555

.t~yte.carb.Qorp~

Frank

Cooley

2.20

Vero

Beach, FL

President

557

EEtastJcs,~roup

Inc.

Marcus

Turner

2.10

Falconer, NY

President

557

~.P,Qo~ppc~ut~.4fl4e~co

~AfiqCY.

Marco

Castlila

2.10

Jiutepec,

Morelos

Subdirector

559

AuIe.cti.Eiast~c.s

Charles

Beck

2,04

Auburn, NY

President

560

Quake

gstrIe~JnQ

Ron Pierrlna

2.00~

Beigrade,

Vice President

561

A&D

Plastics

Inc.

Jerry Jagacki

2.00

Plymouth, Mi

General

Manager

561

Hugft$IQrr.tElastics

Robert Wilson

2.00

Bishop,

Owner

561

Latin American

in4yjjries

LLC

Olivia Benitez

2.00

Grand Rapids, MI

President

561

.M.icrom.oWn~.

Ron

Peterson

2.00

Riverside,

General Manager

561

~oitfrecsiojigngEn.ee~jn,g,Inc.

Peter

Minaskanian

2.00

Simi Valley, CA

President

561

Noble

Pia~iica.Jn;.

Melissa Rogers

2.00

Lafayette,

President

561

.Ei~sttca

Q.rsi.up

Buzz Brockway

2.00

Lawrencevlile, GA

Operations manager

561

Richard

PIa~ti~Qg~

David Buck

2.00

Laurel, MS

President

561

S’JcQP.ro~uQta..!.nc,.

Brenda Rupert

2.00

Blue Springs,

President

561

S~.!n’a~c&Q&.

Ken Mease

2.00

Selinsgrove. PA

CEO

561

$inicon

Plastics

David Alien

2.00

Pittsfield,

President

561

$teflarPlasfts

Inc.

Fred Smith

2.00

San Marcos,

President

561

Plastics

c.,.

Scott Haws

200E

Yorkville,

Owner

574

Chenango YffyJp~ag)ggi~fl.c.

Uoyd Baker

iSO

Sherburne, NY

CEO

575

Accu.1..ecb

Piestics

William Byer

1.80

Batesville,

President

575

Lio.ao

Plastics

James Prior

1.80

Ontario,

President

575

Poly-JecI

Inc.

Larry

Thibeauit

1.80

Amherst,

President

http://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/listrank.htmt?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

InjectionMolders

Page

20 of23

575

Ath~ancedMolding

Clair Havens

Ontario,

Owner

575

MasIEj4~ersInc.

Will Smetana

Orangeburg,

President

580

Pias-Tech Molding

Design

mc,

Klmn,

Hunt

1.77

Brirnfield,

General

Manager

581

Eclipse

Mpnufacturin~Qo.

Robert Hinman

1.75

Lake Zurich,

President

581

~~Qjn~Q5trislflç~

John Szalan

1.75

Bridgeport,

President

581

 Weoco

Plastics In.

Waldo Parmeiee

1.75

Middlefield, CT

President

584

~ilon

Plastic

Product.s Inc.

Richard

Keich

1.70

Xenia, OH

President

584

MasI~.riQ~L~ndMiIn

Frederick Stermer

1.70

York, PA

President

586

G.A

M..~ngineQrLng

Skip Glatt

1.68

Bensenville,

President

587

Aim

er.ccesaingijx.

Jacqueline Jones

1.60

Longmont, CO

President

587

#~rM

cciinaln~.

Tim

Dailey

1.60

Denver, CO

President

589

A~1df~tetflj~ctioftMoid.sjn

Jim Jarrett

1.50

Clinton

Township,

President

589

Clifford

Basque

1.50

Leominster,

President

589

Eo~r.f~qcqsLLAd,.

Mark Fox

1.50

Fenton, MO

President

589

ion.~y.?tastIc~.to.c..

Edward

Maloney

1,50

Meadville, PA

President

589

OnQW?y FlasUc~

Inc

Joe Peterfeso

1.50

Edon, OH

President

589

PearL

s.tprn.f.Igstic

QIding

Ken Grimes

1,50

Owynneville,

Owner

589

EKLPeeIc Pjaslics Inc.

Dave Anthony

1,50

Colorado Springs, CO

President

589

Eyr~mic.Elas

i~.!.n

James Newman

1.50

Cleveland,

President

589

f~DMolders Inc.

Gregory Brown

1.50

Austin. TX

President

589

T.elcEnterprise!nc

Thomas Kerr

1.50

Hartselle, AL

Vice President

589

Aø.yan.cedlngtnaoctngj

MQtøing

Donaid

Furness

lechnology Inc.

President

Riverside,

589

R&D Plastics

Inc.

Dennis Weaver

Arden,

President

601

Bailer Plastics

Inc.

W.A. Messina

1.45

Kissimmee, FL

CEO

& President

601

Precision McIded

Plastics

Ted VanVoorhis

1.45

Upland, CA

President

603

Acvtek

Inc.

Terry Stebblns

1.40

Odessa,

Production manager

603

ic.lnjactton.~4QNe

rj.. Inc.

Greg

Knopr

1.40

Fertile, IA

President

603

ES..M.ccet.~.ngin~.eftn.a.!nc.

Jeff Lange

1.40

Post Fails,

President

603

SummiR

MoIØ ng.&gpgiuee

ing..ln

Charles

Rothe

1,40

Madisonville, KY

President

& co-owner

603

$ynte

ftQevelop.menL&

Mfgjnc.

Bob Hobbs

1,40

Chino, CA

CEO

& President

608

Norti.c lnc,

Coleman

HardIng

1.35

Oriskany, NY

President

http://www.plasticsnews.com/subscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page 21

of 23

609

Anaencaflfredsionproducis

Mark Bannister

1.30

Huntsville, AL

President

609

Qato

Pmasjics..jnc,

James O’Brien

1.30

Miami. FL

President

611

!ktFr~cispn.Jns~ru,ment.QQJ.nc.

Thomas Wliks

1.27

Union

Bridge, MD

President

612

AyannaPiasljcs &

EogIrie~rinQinc.

Scott

Redmond

1.25

Largo,

General

Manager

612

YeniYr~

1.Pi.v

~io

n~GLbsop..Qo.vmy

Ben Cottreil

1.25

_inc.

Marketing

Yorkvilie,

614

Qyn.a_Tec.h..C

rp.

Terry Weisch

1.20

Largo. FL

President

614

Hoffman

~.c1siQn...F.Ias.li~a.lac.

Joseph Beivliie

Blackwood. NJ

Plant manager

616

id-ArnericaP~sticCo.

Eric

Erdmann

Forreston, IL

President

617

~dj~anla.gaf.1ast.iQ.Er.o,.uc.t1..w.c

WaynneFroman

1.10

Manchester,

operations

618

Earle Segrest

1,06

Lenoir

City,

CEO

President

619

All-State.

P~asti.cs,Inc

Patrick Minyard

1.05

City

Industry, CA

President

620

~ngran

Inc..

David Poiewski

1,00

Lawrenceburg,

VP manufacturing

620

g.~a~~!ai.n

~I.astI.c.M

cldlng..LLQ

Joseph Schabel

1.00

Fargo,

Plant manager

620

!vlQlded

FIa.s~ic.CornppnentsInc.

Marcel

Coutu

1.00

Woonsocket,

General Manager

620

Proj4gltinc.,

Randal Herr

1.00

Riverside, CA

620

IKC&!~.EIas1Lcs

Brian Chambers

1.00

Wyoming, Mi

General Manager

620

)L~MQLdIn.giflc.

Ben Veitien

1.00

Longmont, CO

President

620

Y~n.tt~rai,LQai~!Qn

Mg~d.i~gJnc

Richard Sloane

1.00

Ventura,

President

620

P~.calurflasiics

Inc.

Doug Jackson

100E

Decatur, TN

Vice President

620

rennQ~InjactiQiThlQJ.øi.ng.QQ~i~c

Hayden

Black

i ,00E

Gallatin.

President

629

.Mito..E.Ias lics

Manfred Toil

0.90

Saugus, CA

Owner

630

AWe Plqsticslnc

Tobin Post

0.87

La Vernia, TX

Plant manager

631

Lec.is!Ofl.MQ.!dad.PrQcLvcts

Naum Royberg

0.85

San Antonio, TX

CEO

632

Qyna.mi.c

ol~ing

Inc.

Rick Haack

Loveland, CO

VP & GM

633

chesapeam~e..~!asllc

Ma.nsfaclurJngJac.,

Mark

McGrath

0.78

Lusby.

Co-owner

634

Ae.g

!asl1csorc~

Tom McNamee

0.75

Deer

Park, NY

President

634

Darryl

Crowe

0.75

St.

Petersburg,

General

Manager

636

pg~~pm

dc.Q..Piasflcsjnc.

Nick Trees

0.70

Anaheim. CA

President

636

Ron Westburg

0.70

Laguna

Hills,

President

636

Sxa.~l.,L~

Tom Cairns

0.70

Lemoncove, CA

Owner

639

Simplprnatic Man.utacWrJn~

Co.

David Hahn

0.65

Chicago,

Assistant

http://www.plasticsnews.com/subscriber/rankings/listraxik.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page 22 of 23

640

~flØe~Qflflsticsi!B.

Steve Anderson

0.62

Girard. PA

President

641

Port City Custom Plastics

Brenda Adams

0.60

Muskegon, Mi

Plant

manager

642

Jerrico Tool

Inc.

Jeremy Peirick

0.50

Alden,

Molding manager

642

Plastics

USA

inc.

Jerry Covington

o~E

West Melbourne,

President

644

HPI Molding

A.J,

Diliard

0.48

Elgin,

Owner

645

Wolf Mold Inc.

Randy Carruthers

0.40

Hayden,

IC)

Executive VP

646

Rix Products

Rick Rldeout

0.39

Evansville,

Owner

647

Q&D Pmasticsj.oc.

Don Siezak

0.38

Forest Grove, OR

President

648

o nCo.

Christopher Robson

0.30

Girard,

President

649

~iaciLe.cti.Sn!e~.~CaJjfo.rS.ud

John Catalano

0.25

Walnut,

Business manager

650

Rfiø..Qe.øw..

Fia~tLcsJ...LQ

Kelly Kadinger

0.23

Menomonie, WI

President

651

Mp.&erri_M.pjdrig.tnc~.

Ted Graham

0.18

Jupiter, FL

President

652

W~L Enterprises

Inc

Wayne Lenhart

0.16

ClIfton, KS

President

653

Mit~ect,nc.

Dick Merritt

0.15

Santee, CA

President

654

QentennJaLMpI~ioa.L.LC

Val

Kopke

0.12

Hastings.

operations

655

Pj~~4.i~~d

CsncQpts.QLC.Q.n

octicut

John

Harris

0.10

Inc.

General Manager

Manchester, CT

(P)=Publiciy

Held

N.A~Not

available

All information was provided by the

companies, except where otherwise

indicated.

Midpoint of a company-provided

range

—

Company-provided

estimate

Epjastjcs News

and

industry estimates. These

figures were

not

provided by the

company.

CURRENCY

NOTE: MI

Canadian sales figures have been

converted

to U.S. dollars using

the

average

annual exchange rate for the 12

months of each company’s

fiscal

year.

For

fiscal

years that correspond

to calendar-year 2004

the following average

annual

rate was

used:

CS1=USSO.77.

All companies’ fiscal

years correspond the calendar-year 2004

unless otherwise noted,

Plastech

Engineered Products

Inc.

agreed March25 to acquire

the

assets

of Andover

industries,

which was in

Chapter

backruptcy

protection.

Decoma

international

Inc.’s publidy

held parent, Magna

International Inc.,

has

taken the

company

private, effective March 6.

2005. Magna plans to combine

the

Decoma

Injection

molding

business

with

its

Magna Donnelly

Corp. and operate the

firms jointly under the

Magna

Donnelly name.

Home

Products

International

Inc. was

acquired

by equity firm

Storage Acquisition

Co.

LLC

November 2004

and

taken

private.

d) Tupperware

Corp.’s

data reflects

recent

layoffs;

the

company

is continuing to

curtail

U.S.

manufacturing

operations.

Moll

Industries

Inc. acquired Textron

Inc.’s

mnteSys

Technologies

Inc. unit and

Formec SA

CV’s Monterrey,

Mexico, business, early

this year. Also

reflected

Moll’s listing is

its

acquisition of

Creative Plastic Molders

Inc.

In May 2004.

f) Carlisle Cos. Inc.

has

put

its

Carlisle

Engineered

Products

Inc. unit up for sale,

g) Switzerland-based

Sarna Polymer Holding

Inc.

has put its Sarnamotive

auto supply group

up for sale.

including Sarnamotive

Blue Water

Inc. Also,

Sarnamotive

Blue Water will close

its

Lexington,

Mich., injection molding

site

the end

of July.

Ii)

Atlantis Plastics

Molded

Products

Division’s data includes

its

purchase of LaVanture

Plastics

November 2004, which included

injection molder Molded

Designs Technology

Inc.

i) Jarden Plastic

Solutions

previously was

listed

as Unimark Plastics,

http://www.plasticsnewscom/subscriber/rankings/listrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Plastics News

Injection Molders

Page

23 of 23

CalsonicKansei North

America

Inc.

previously was listed as Kantus Corp.

Sales for parent

CalsonlcXansei Corp.

are for the

fiscal year ended

March 31, 2004.

Nyloncraft Inc.’s listing includes certain assets of Autornold of America

Inc., which

acquired Oct

29, 2004.

Injectronics

Inc.’s listing includes

its

May 2004

purchase of Giireath

Inc.

Leggett & Platt Inc. acquired

Canadian injection molders

Conestogo Plastics Inc.

and

Shepherd

Products Inc.

in December 2004.

n) Alcoa

Inc. signed

a letter of intent

to hilly acquire AFL Automotive from joint venture partner

Fujikura

Ltd.

ofJapan.

Engineered

Piastic Components is

part ofthe

AFL auto business,

o) Pflklngton plc’s corporate sales are for the fiscal year ended March

31, 2004.

p) Wilbert Plastic Services previously was listed

as Morton Custom Plastics Inc.

q) Newly

listed Vaupeli

Inc. acquired

previously listed

SciTech

Plastics

Group

LLC

in May

2004.

Easley Custom Plastics

inc.

previously was

listed

as McKechnie Plastic

Components, which

was

bought by

equity

group CII

industries

Inc.

in May 2004.

Libralter Plastics

Inc.’s

data includes the operations of Alpine Plastics Inc.

The

firms

recently were consolidated on the basis of common ownership.

t) Parker

Hannifin Corp. acquired

Webster Plastics

Inc.’s parent, Acadia Elastomers

Corp.,

November 2004.

LMT-MercerGroup

Inc. data

indudes certain

assests of Hariville Plastics Inc., which LMT

acquired

in February 2004

v) Duo Plastics

Inc.

was acquired

May

2004

and

now operates

Imperial Plastics

Inc.

w) Kam Plastics Corp.,

previously Karn Industries

LLC,

Is now partly employee-owned.

x) True Precision

Plastics LLC previously was

listed as MPC

Industries LLC

Plastronics Plus Inc. previously was

ranked under the name

of parent

Newcor Inc.

z) In January 2005,

UT1 Corp. changed

its name to Accetlent Inc. and

is moving

its

headquarters to the

Boston area.

aa) Previously listed Plastic Components Inc.

was

acquired by Hampson Corp. in

July 2004.

bb) Pent Custom Molding previously was listed as Pent Plastics

Inc.

cc)Advanced

Plastics

Inc. was acquired in August 2004 and

now operates

as EPI Advanced

LLC,

dd) Acorn-Gencon Plastics

LLC acquired

Dart

Plastics

Engineering

Inc.

last year.

ee)

Humphrey Line

Inc. previously

was

listed under parent Molded

Container

Corp.. which

consolidated into

its

Humphrey division.

(I) Molding Services of Illinois

Inc. previously

was

listed as

Molding Systems

Corp.

gg) Hope Industries

Inc. previously was

listed as Rauschert Injection

Molding

Inc.

hh) Gator Plastics

Inc.

previously

was

listed

as Disposable

Plastics.

Ii)

Stacktech Systems

California Ltd.

previously was

listed

as Fairway Molds

Inc.

Back

Search

Abojit

Cojjte.ct,.us

I Prsmi.um

utenL$. acc~~

p9lEcLQ~

Wsbaite

technicaHnforma~~n

Privacy

oolicv

cram

Communications Inc.

All

rights

reserved,

Ter.mt&

For

Information about

this

web

site

contact ~

http://www.plasticsnews.comlsubscriber/rankings/Iistrank.html?mode=inj

6/16/2005

Attachment

INJECTION

MOLDING

HANDBOOK

THIRD

EDITION

EDITED

DoMinick

R0SAT0,

DONALD

ROSATO,

Ps-iD.

MARLENE

ROSATO,

‘1*

Kiuwer Academic Publishers

l3oston/Dordrecht/London

Distributors

for

North, Central

and South

Amedca

Xluwer Academic Publishers

101

Philip Drive

A.ssinippiPark

Norwefl, Massachusetts 02061

USA

‘Iblephone

(781) 871-6600

Fax

(781)

8714528

E-Mail

kluwer@wkap.com

Distributors

for all other

counthes

Icluwer Academic Publishers Group

Distribution

Centre

Post Office

Box

322

3300 AR Dordrecht, THE NETHERLANDS

Thlephone

78 6392 392

Fax

31 78

6546

474

E-Mail

corderdept@wkap.nl

Electronic

Services chttp-i/www.wkapal

Library ofCongress

Cataloging-In-PublIcatIon Data

Injection moldinghandbook /

Dominick

V. Rosato,

Donald V. Rosat

Marlene U

Rosata

—

3rd

ed.

cm.

ISBN

0-7923-8619-1

Injection molding ofp~astics—Handbook;manuals, etc.

Rosato,

DOUIIIIICk

11.

Rosato, Donald V.

III.

Rosato, Marlene 0.

tP1I5oi5S

2000

668.4’12—dc2l

99-049946

All

rights

reserved.

pan of

this publication

may

be reproduced,

stored ina retrieval system or transmitted in

any

form or by any means,

mechanical, photo-copying, recording,or otherwise, without the prior

written permission

the publisher, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101

!hilip

Drive,

Assinippi Park, Norwell, Massachusetts 02061

This

students

edition for

sale only hi

the

Republic

oiCTha

Distubuted by

9-lBaPublidtgCo.,Ud.

Injection

Molding Machines

Introduction

The

injection

molding machine

(1MM)

one of the most

significant and rational form-

ing

methods

existing

for

processing plastic

materials.

A major

part in this

development

has

been

by the

forward-thinking machinery

industry, which has

been

quick to seize on in-

novations

and

incorporate

them into

plastic

molded products. The most recent examples

are

the all-electric and hybrid IMMs. A major

focus continuesto be on finding more rational

means of

processing the endless new plastics

that

are

developed

and also

produce

more

cost-efficient

products.

A simplified

general

layout for an

11MM is shown in Figs.

2-1

and

1-3.

For

years so-called

product

innovation

was

the

only

rich source

new

developments,

such asreducing the number ofmolded prod-

uct components by making them able to per-

form

a variety of

functions

taking

full

use of material’s

attributes.

recent

years,

however,

process innovation

has

also

been

moving into the forefront (Fig. 1-16). Thelat-

ter

includes

all

the

means

that

help

tighten

the

manufacturing process, reorganizing

arid

optimizing it.

All activity is targeted

for

the

most

efficient

application of production

materials,

principle

which

must

run

right

through

the

entire process

from

plastic ma-

terials

the

finished product (Fig.

1-15 and

Chap. 4).

Even

though modem

1MM with

all

its in-

geniousmicroprocessor control technology is

in principle

suited

perform flexible

tasks,

nevertheless

takes

whole

series of

pe-

ripheral

auxiliary

equipment to

guarantee

the

necessary

degree of

flexibility,

examples in-

clude

(1)

raw

material

supply

systems;

(2)

mold

transport

facilities; (3)

mold preheat-

ing banks; (4) mold-changing

devices,

includ-

ing rapid clamping

and coupling equipment;

(5)

plasticizer-cylinder-changing devices;

(6)

molded-product

handling

equipment,

par-

ticularly

robots

with

interchangeable

arms

allowing adaptation to

various

types of pro-

duction;

and

(7)

transport

systems

for fin-

ished

products

and

handling equipment

pass molded products on

to subsequentpro-

duction stages

There

are different types and capacities of

IMlyls

meet

different

product

and

cost—

production requirements. The types

are

prin-

cipally

horizontal

single

clamping

units

with reciprocating

and

two-stage plasticators.

They

range

injection

capacity

(shot

size)

from

less

than

ounce

least

400

(usually

from

100

oz)

and

clamp

tonnage

least

10,000

tons

(usual

from

600

tons).

Other

factors

when

specifying

1MM

include

clamp

stroke,

clamping

speed,

maximum

daylight,

clear-

ances between tie rods,

plasticating capacity,

injection pressure, injection speed, and soon,

as reviewed in this chapter and Chap. 4.

The

Ann.

occtip.

Hug.,

Vol.

39.

No.

pp.

35—53,

995

 Elsevier Science Lid

ergamon

Bntish

 Occupanonal Hygiene Society

Printed

Great Britain

0003—4878/95

59.50-,-

0.00

0003—.4878(94)0O100—6

Attachment

EMISSIONS FROM PROCESSING THERMOPLASTICS

Forrest, A.

Jolly.

R. Holding

and

Richards

Rapra

Technology Ltd, Shawbury, Shrewsbury,

Shropshire SY4

4NR.

U.K.

(Received

1994

and

in finalform

August

1994)

Abstract—A 2-year study has

been carried

out into

the emissions

produced

during

the processing of

thermoplastic materials. One of themain

reasons for the inception of the work was the perceived need

the

plastics processing industry

and material

suppliers

for data in

order to

comply

with

recent

work-place

legislation.

Very

few

data

obtained

under

‘real

life’

situations

were

available

for

consultation

prior to

the start

of this study. The principal objective

of the

project therefore

was

determine the effect that

the

processing of thermoplastics

had on the workplace environment

the

collection both of qualitative and of quantitative chemical data. During

the study a wide range of bulk

commercial

thermoplastic

materials

were

covered,

including

polyvinyl chloride

(PVC),

Nylon

acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene

(ABS),

high

impact

polystyrene (HIPS),

low density

polyethylene

(LDPE) and high density polyethylene

(HIDPE). In order to investigate the effect the type of process

had on

the emissions

produced

two principal fabrication

methods

were studied,

namely

injection

moulding

and extrusion-based

processes.

A wide range of species was detected in

each process environment,

being possible

detect the

relevant monomer(s)

in some cases. However, none

of the situations studied were found to generate a

high level of process fume.The concentrations of the speciesdetected were found to be in therange 0—2

mg m ~

under standard processing conditions and up to

10mg m3

during purging operations. In

none of the situations studied wasany individual chemical species found at a concentration above the

present occupational exposure limit. Thedata obtained shows that a higher level of fume is generated

extrusion-based

processes

than

those involving

injection

moulding.

Emissions data were obtained both by personal exposure monitoring and from a number of static

monitors

positioned

around

the

process equipment.

This

revealed

the

important

effect

that

the

monitoring position

had on

the data generated and theneed to employ an effective sampling strategy

representative

data

was

obtained.

The

results

obtained

also

showed

how

the

choice

sampling

adsorbent could influence

the data

obtained.

Tenax

has

been found

be a satisfactory

general-purpose

adsorbent material

for

this

type of study.

—

INTRODUCTION

Legislation concerned with the management

of health and safety in

the workplace has

been a major consideration for all concerned in

recent

years. It was perceived possible

that

employees

working in

the thermoplastics industry

could

exposed

to a

health

hazard

since

it was

known

that

volatile

chemical

species

were

associated

with

the

.1.

various fabrication processes employed. Although

a number ofstudies concerned with

the characterization

of the species produced when thermoplastic materials are heated

to elevated temperatures have been undertaken

the laboratory

(Shmuilovich

et a!.,

1981;

Hoff and Jacobsson,

1981;

Lum and

Kelleher,

1979)

only a

few workers have

attempted

collect data from

actual workplace situations.

Studies which are available in the literature include the investigation

by Williamson

and Kavanagh

(1987) into

vinylchloride monomer

and other contaminants

PVC

welding

fumes,

and

the

measurement

the

depolymerization

products

the

polyacetal, pol~amideand polymethacr~lateindustries (Vainiotalo and

Pfaffli,

1989).

In addition,

Shaposhnikov

cii.

(1975) determined the volatile

products

during

the

processing of a

limited

number of polypropylene,

PVC

(polyvinylchloride)

and

ABS

Forrest

a!.

(acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene)

plastics

and

Lemmen

a!.

(1989)

have

published

data

the species produced

during

the processing

of PVC.

An important contribution to

this area is

work programme that

was carried

out

by Hoff

et a!.

(1982) in

which both laboratory

and process site data

were collected on a

number

of thermoplastic materials.

order

satisfy

the

demand

for

comprehensive

up-to-date

~real life’

thermoplastic

processing emissions

data,

this

2-year project

was

undertaken.

During

its

lifetime

different

thermoplastic—process

combinations

were

evaluated.

The

principal objective was to determine the effect that the processing

of thermoplastics had

the workplace environment by

the compilation both ofqualitative and quantitative

emissions

data.

was

anticipated

that

the

emissions produced

for

given

process

would

be mainly

dependent

the

material

concerned.

Therefore during

this

study a wide range of important commercial thermoplastics

was covered,

was

also

expected

that

in addition

to material

type

a number

of other

factors

would

play

important

role.

The

opportunity

was

therefore

taken

investigate

the

effect

of the

type

of process

used on

the

emissions

produced.

Other

important

aspects

the study

were

likely

any findings concerning

the effect

ventilation,

the

relation

the

monitoring

position

relative

the

process

and

the

location

of the activity

within the production

site.

From

subjective

point

view

the

act

purging

thermoplastic

processing

machine

results in a much greater

concentration

of fume

emission

than that

which

produced

under

standard

processing

conditions.

Part

the

study

was

aimed

obtaining a better understanding

of the contribution

made

by this aspect ofthe process.

The

principal

sampling

technique

used

throughout

this

study

was

based

adsorbent

tubes

which

were

subsequently

analysed

thermal

desorption

gas

chromatography—mass

spectrometry

(GC—MS).

This

analytical

method

already

used

extensively

provide

environmental

data

(HSE,

1987,

1989

and

1992).

The

principal limitation

ofthis

method

is the

specificivity

of the adsorbents

used, with no

adsorbents

being regarded as completely universal in performance. Sampling methods

which use adsorbent tubes with a subsequent solvent desorption

stage prior

to analysis

were

also used and a secondary objective ofthis

project was a limited comparison of the

two

types of analysis technique.

Although

some

specific techniques

were

employed

for certain

species

(e.g.

liquid

bubblers for hydrogen

cyanide)

was

not an

aim

of this

project

to carry

out

a wide

range

specific

analytical

techniques

for

species

such

aldehydes,

etc.

consequence,

species

which were present at a very low concentration, and for which the

thermal desorption

techniques

used

were

not

the

most effective

method

of sampling,

may have

remained undetected. This could

obviously be

of importance

for substances

which have a very

low occupational

exposure limit. It should

be pointed out therefore

that

the

scope

this

project

did

not

extent

full

exposure

assessment

of the

thermoplastic

processing situations

under

study.

SAMPLING

STRATEGY

The

sampling

strategy

used

collect

atmospheric

samples

can

have

a dramatic

effect on

the data produced.

An important

facet of this

study was

the development ofa

sampling

strategy which would provide the

best opportunity

collect

representative

Emissions

from

processing

thermoplastics

data

the

specific

situations

interest. The

salient points

of the

sampling strategy

used

collect

samples

are

follows:

(a)

where

there was

chance to obtain

representative

personal

exposure

data this

was

carried

out. However, if no operator

was associated

with any given process

for

a significant

period

a static

monitor

was

placed

the

position

where

the

operative

would

normally be situated.

Such

samples

are from

hereon referred

using the

term

‘static-operator’;

(b)

in the majority of the monitoring situations an attempt

was made to investigate

the

effect

that

purging

the machine

had onthe

emissions

produced;

(c)

all static

monitors

were

placed approximately

1.5

m from the

floor, and at the

following distances

from

the

process:

Background

monitors:

4—6

m, and

Process

(Machine)

monitors:

0.5—3

(d)

the

monitoring

positions

chosen

stainless

steel

tubes

packed

with

one

the

following,

Tenax,

Chromosorb

Poropak,

were

employed.

addition

glass NIOSH type tubes packed with charcoal were

used for plastics

where

monomers

might

present

for which

there

were

established

solvent

desorption

based methods;

(e)

evaluate

reproducibility

duplicate

determinations

were

carried

out

selected monitoring positions

during certain monitoring

situations. Examples

of these

determinations are shown

the data

tables; and

(f)

where

liquid

bubblers

were

used

for

the

determination

hydrogen

cyanide,

they were

placed

either side

of the

process machine at a distance

approximately

1.5

SUMMARY

THE

SITUATIONS

STUDIED

(1)

Material:

Acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene,

ABS

Process:

Injection

moulding

Environment:

(2)

Material: High

impact polystyrene,

HIPS

Process:

Injection

moulding

Environment:

(3)

Material: HIPS

Process:

Sheet extrusion

Environment:

(4)

Material: High

density polyethylene,

HDPE

Process:

Blow

moulding

Environment:

(5)

Material: Low density polyethylene,

LDPE

Process:

Blown

film

Environment:

(6)

Material:

low density

polyethylene—linear low

density polyethylene

blend,

LDPE-LLDPE

Process:

Blown

film

Environment:

(7)

Material:

Nylon

M. J. Forrest at a!.

Process:

Extrusion

Environment

(8)

Material:

Polypropylene

Process:

Tape extrusion

Environment:

(9)

Material: PVC

(rigid)

Process:

Injection

moulding

Environment:

(10)

Material:

PVC

(plasticisedi

Process:

Cable extrusion

Environment:

(11)

Material:

SAN

Process:

Injection

moulding

Environment:

Environment key

Work

area

where

number

of different materials

were being

processed

nearby.

Work

area

where the

majority

or all

of the

nearby machines

were processing the

same

material

the

one being

studied.

Experimental

process

area

where

there

were

little

other

processes

taking

place

nearby.

SAMPLING

AND

ANALYSIS

A measure

of the total

volatile

organic compounds

present

was obtained

at each

sampling

point

using

thermal

desorption

tubes

packed

with

150

adsorbent.

Samples

were obtained

a flow rate of

100

ml min1,

with

the sample size varying

from

151.

The contents ofthe adsorbent tubes were desorbed at 250°Cusing an SKC thermal

desorption

unit with subsequent analysis of the desorbed

species by a Finnigan

1050

CC—MS

instrument.

liquid

carbon

dioxide

on-column

cold focus

technique

was

employed

using

SGE

CTS-CLO2

system

with

Chrompak

Sil

5C8

x 0.32

mm capillary column

heated

at 40°Cfor

initially and then at

5°C

min~ to

250°C.Mass

spectral

data

were obtained

scanning

the

range

35—450

atomic mass units every 2s~

The Chromatogram peak assignments were obtained using

the

Finnigan

National

Bureau

of Standards

Library, with

manual

searching of the

Royal Society of Chemistry Library and the National Institute of Health/Environmen-

tal Protection Agency Libraries where appropriate. Quantification data were obtained

calibrating withdecane

standards

over the range

0.02—1

pg.

Where appropriate,

specific sampling for the monomers styrene and

acrylonitrile

was carried

out at each sampling point using NOISH type charcoal tubes

(100/50 mg).

The sampling rate was

100 ml min

and

the sample size varied from

10 to

1. The

contents of the tubes was desorbed using carbon disulphide and the amounts of styrene

and

acrylonitrile

obtained

using

the

analysis

methods

MDHS

No.

and

No.

respectively.

The sampling of hydrogen

cyanide present during the processing ofABS and

SAN

was determined in each case using two liquid bubblers, filled with

10 ml oW.

m NaOH

solution.

The

amount

of hydrogen

cyanide

was

then

determined

analysing

the

Emissions

from processing

thermop~astics

contents

the

bubblers

100

aliquots

using

a Waters ion chromatograph

fitted

with a Waters IC

Pak

HC Anion Column.

KOH mobile phase was used at

flow rate of2 ml

with conductivity detection. Calibration curves were produced

using

potassium cyanide

standards in

the

range

1—50

ppm.

During this

study

spot measurements

for the species hydrogen cyanide. formalde-

hyde

and hydrogen

chloride

were carried

out

using

Draeger and

Gastech

tubes.

RESULTS

AND

DISCUSSION

The

data

obtained

using

thermal

desorption,

solvent

desorption

and

specific

techniques

have,

for

convenience,

been

segregated

according

polymer

type.

To produce tables that were of a manageable

size the thermal desorption data have

been

edited

remove

species

of which

the concentrations

were

below

0.1

0.01

depending on the situation. Also, the term not detected (nd) indicates that the

species

was

not

detected above the systems

detection limit, which

was approximately

i0~

mg m3.

(1)

Acrvlonitrile-butadiene-stvrene

(ABS)

Thermal

desorption

results.

The

thermal

desorption

results

obtained

for

this

material using Tenax are shown in Table

1. It can be seen that a wide range of different

chemical

species

and

varying

concentrations

was

observed.

expected,

the

concentrations

all

species

were

higher

during

purging,

but

what

had

not

been

anticipated

was

the

relatively high concentrations of many species in the background,

the

differences

between

the

background

and

the

monitoring

positions

the

injection moulder being quite

small.

was

possible

detect the monomers

styrene and acrylonitrile

(2-propenitrile),

and a

modifier

(cd-methyl styrene) which had been added at

the polymerization stage.

Butadiene

was

not

detected

and

this

thought

due

its

low

residual

concentration

the polymer as a consequence of its

highly volatile

nature.

Solvent

desorption

results.

Charcoal

tubes

with

solvent desorptions

were

used

monitor

both for acrylonitrile and

for styrene.

The determinations

were carried out

both

under

standard

processing

conditions

and

during

purging.

none

the

monitoring

positions

was

styrene detected

above

the method

detection limit

of 0.4

mg m3

(101. sample of air), or acrylonitrile above the method

detection limit of 2.2

mg m3

(20

1. sample of air). Both

of these species were detected by the method based

thermal

desorption

because

of its

lower detection limit.

Determination of hydrogen cyanide.

The emissions produced were monitored for the

presence

of hydrogen

cyanide

using

both

specific

detection tubes

(Draeger)

and

ion

chromatography.

Spot

measurements

were

taken

using

Draeger

tubes

during

the

period

that

the

injection

moulder

was operating

under standard

conditions

and

during

the

purging

operation.

The measurements during standard

conditions were taken in

the area that

the operator

occupied and

this

was approximately

1.5—2

from

the nozzle.

During

purging, measurements were taken in

the fume directly

10—15 cm) above the purge

J. Forrest

al.

Table

Emissions

data obtained

ABS during

injection moulding

process using

Tenax

ABS—injection

moulding

Adsorbent,

Tenax; Melt

temperature.

245C

Tube

static—background

Tube 2 static—operator’machine

Tube

operator

Tube

4 static—machine

(purging)

Concentration

Compound

Tube

1mg m3)

Tube

mg m3)

Tube

me m~°)

Tube

Imgm3)

2-Propenenitrile

rid

0.02

Hydrocarbon

(~—C5—C~j

0.01

Trichloromethane

0_Ui

0.01

0.02

1.1.1-Trichloroethane

0.01

Benzene

0_Ui

0.01

Trichloroethene

0.01

0.01

0.01

Unknown

0.01

Alcohol

(—~C5)

0.01

0.03

0.01

Toluene

0.02

0.03

Hydrocarbon

(~—C8—C10)

0.01

Unknown

0.01

Xvlene isomers

0.03

0.02

0.01

Styrene

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.20

Hydrocarbon

(~—C10—C1)

0.01

0.02

0.04

Alcohol (-~C,)?

0.01

0.02

Benzene,

methyl,

ethyl

isomers

0.01

0.03

Benzene,

propyl isomer

0.01

rid

Unknown

0.03

Benzene,

trimethyl

isomers

0.02

0.01

Alpha

methyl

styrene

0.01

0.30

Benzene,

ethenyl, methyl

isomers

0.01

0.22

lBenzene, dichloroisomer

0.01

Acetophenone

0.01

rid

Benzene,

diethyl

isomer

0.01

Unknown

0.01

Hydrocarbon

(—C12—C14)

0.04

0.06

0.04

0.07

Benrene, ethyl,

diniethyl isomers

0.01

Benzene,

methyl.

diethyl isomers

0.01

OUt

rid

Naphthalene,

tetrahydro isomer

0.01

rid

Benzene, ethyl,

methylethyl

isomer

0.01

Siloxane

0.01

0,01

rid

Unknown

rid

0.01

Naphihalene,

tetrahvdro.

methyl

isomers

0.01

BHT

0.01

Alcohol (‘--C12)?

0.01

rid

nd=not

detected.

waste and in

the same operator position

as that

used during normal operation.

It was

not

possible to detect hydrogen cyanide above the detection limit ofthe Draeger tube (2

ppm)

any

occasion.

Direct

analysis

ion-chromatography of the contents of the sampling

bubblers

did not reveal any peaks at an elution time

which corresponded to that of the cyanide

ion.

No hydrogen cyanide was therefore detectable by this method, the detection limit

of which was calculated as being approximately

0.5

ppm

of the airborne species.

Emissions

from

processing thermoplastics

Determination

offorinaldehyde.

The emissions present under standard processing

conditions

and during

processing

were examined

for the

presence of formaldehyde.

using

Draeger

tubes

having a

detection

limit of 0.2

ppm.

Using

the same sampling

strategy as for the determination of hydrogen cyanide,

no formaldehyde

was detected

above the detection limit.

(2)

High

impact polystyrene

(HIPS)

Thermal desorption results.

For the sheet extrusion study

(Table 2) monitoring was

only undertaken

using Tenax adsorbent tubes, and while a range of different chemical

species were

identified they

were

all

at comparatively low

levels. The species detected

Table

Emissions

data obtained

HIPS

during

a sheet

extrusion

process

using Tenax

HIPS—sheet extrusion

Adsorbent.

Tenax;

Melt

temperature.

193°C

Tube

static—background

Tube

2 operator

Tube

3 static—machine

(1)

Tube 4 static—machine

(2)

Concentration

Tube

Tube 4

Compound

(mg m’3)

(mg m3)

(mg m’3)

(mg m3)

Acrylonitrile

rid

0.01

Methyl

propenoic

acid,

methyl ester

0.01

0.07

Toluene

0.01

0.05

Ethenyl

cyclohexene

0.01

0.14

Xylene

isomers

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.38

Styrene

0.03

0.13

0.05

1.48

Hydrocarbon

(“-C8—C10)

0.01

0.02

Propyl

berizene isomers

0.01

0.13

Alpha methyl

styrene

0.01

0.10

Ethenyl

dimethyl

cyclohexene

0.01

0.20

0.01

Acetophenone

0.01

0.02

Propenyl

benzene

isomers

0.01

0.02

Hydrocarbon

(—.-C10—C12)

0,01

0.02

0.01

nd=not

detected.

were primarily aromatic in nature, styrene being one of the most prominent. The data

produced

during

this study

illustrated

well

how

the

position

of a

process within

workplace can effect the concentration

of the species detected around it. The monitor

positioned

between

the process

and

the adjacent sidewall of the work area (Static—

Machine

2) recorded higher concentrations

of species than the

one

positioned on

the

other side of the process which was open

(Static—Machine

1). For this

work owing to

work schedules it was not

possible

to monitor

during

a purging operation.

With

the injection

moulding

of HIPS

both

Tenax

and

Chromosorb

adsorbent

tubes were used (Tables 3 and 4). A wider range of chemical species

were observed and

significantly

higher

concentrations

than

for

the

sheet

extrusion.

However,

the

background

concentrations

most

species

were

not

much

lower

than

the

monitoring positions adjacent to the process. A comparison of the data from the two

types

of ‘adsorbent

gave

generally

similar

results.

Purging

was

monitored

with

both

tube

types and

significantly

higher levels of most

species

were found.

‘4,

a,.

-ii

.1.

Forrest

eta!.

Table

Emissions

data obtained

HIPS during

an injection moulding

process

using

Tenax

HIPS—injection

moulding

Adsorbent.

Tenax;

Melt

temperature.

225°C

Tube

static—machine/operator

Tube

static—background

Tube

operator

Tube

static—machine

(purge area)

Concentration

Compound

Tube

(mg m~3)

(standard)

Tube

(mg m3)

(standard)

Tube

(mg m3)

(standard)

Tube

(mg m3)

(purge)

Dichloromethane

0.36

0.25

0.36

0.27

Toluene

0.31

0.28

0.25

0.32

Alcohol

(C5)

0.33

0.30

0.22

0.46

Hydrocarbon

(—C7)

0.13

0.1

Xylene

1.60

0.66

0.49

0.40

Hydrocarbon

(—C9)

0.1

0.12

0.1

Propylbenzene

0.1

0.38

0.1

Benzene,

ethyl,

methyl

isomer

0.21

0.18

0.1

Benzene,

ethyl,

methyl

isomer

0.12

0.10

0.1

Benzene,

trimethyl

isomer

0.31

0.28

0.13

0.12

Benzene, dichloro

isomer

0.65

0.46

0.78

0.50

Benzene.

trimethyl

isomer

0.1

0.25

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(—C10)

0.42

0.25

0.21

0.17

Hydrocarbon

(—C11)

0.66

0.47

0.33

0.21

Hydrocarbon

(—C12)

0.62

0.38

0.21

0.12

Hydrocarbon

(~-‘C13)

0.15

0.1

nd=not

detected.

Solvent

desorption

results.

Charcoal

adsorbeiit

tubes

with

subsequent

solvent

desorption

were used

to monitor

for styrene during

the injection moulding

of HIPS.

Determinations

were

carried

out

both

under

standard

processing

conditions

and

during

purging.

styrene

was

detected

above

the

method

detection

limit

of 0.4

(10

1. sample of air) in any monitoring position. As in the case of the ABS data,

it was

possible

to detect the presence of styrene using the thermal desorption technique

because of the greater

sensitivity

of the method.

(3) High

density

polyethylene

(HDPE)

High density polyethylene was studied only with

regard to

a single blow moulding

situation.

The results

obtained

using

the thermal desorption

GC—MS

technique are

shown in Table

Since

blow moulding is a process that inherentlyproduces little fume,

possibly

not

surprising

that

very

low

concentrations

of species

were

detected.

Simple

hydrocarbons

and

toluene

very

low

concentration

were

all

that

was

observed. The fact that

the process was being carried out in

very clean environment

with few other processes

operating

at the time helped to minimize the concentration

species found.

Purging

was not carried

out during the study

period with this

process

and so it

was

not

possible

study

its effect

the emissions

produced.

Emissions

From

processing

thermoplastics

Table 4. Emissions

data

obtained

HIPS during

injection

moulding

process

using

Chromosorb

HIPS—injection

moulding

Adsorbent.

Chromosorb;

Melt

temperature, 225C

Tube

static—machine/operator

Tube

2 static—background

Tube

operator

Tube

4 static—machine

(purge area)

Tube

Concentration

Tube

1mg m3)

(mg m3)

Compound

(standard)

(purge)

Acetone

0.17

0.16

0.1

Dichloromethane

1.23

0.87

0.33

0.80

Unknown

0.11

0.14

0.1

0.11

1,1,1

Trichloroethane

0.43

0.34

0.19

Benzene

0.1

0.16

0.1

Methyl

methacrylate

0.1

0.15

0.1

Toluene

0.40

0.69

0.29

0.17

Alcohol

(C5)

0.41

0.59

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(—C9)

0.16

0.17

0.1

Xylene

1.30

0.99

0.48

0.59

Hydrocarbon

(—C10)

0.12

0.37

0.1

Propylbenzene

0.13

0.1

Benzene, ethyl,

methyl isomer

0.22

0.21

0.10

0.1

Benzene, ethyl, methyl

isomer

0.1

0.10

0.1

Benzene,

trimethyl isomer

0.35

0.31

0.27

Benzene, dichioro

isomer

0.75

0.83

0.76

0.21

Hydrocarbon

(—C11)

0.37

0.83

0.31

0.1

Benzene.

trimethyl

isomer

0.13

0.12

0.10

Hydrocarbon

(—C12)

0.38

0.1

0.33

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(—C13)

0.23

0.18

0.1

nd=not

detected.

Table

Emissions

data obtained

HDPE during a blow

moulding

process using Tenax

HDPE—blow

moulding

AdsorbenI, Tenax; Melt

temperature,

210°C

Tube

static—background

Tube

2 static—machine

(1)

Tube

3 static—machine

(2)

Tube

4 operator

Compound

Tube

(mg

m”3)

Concentration

Tube

(mg m’3)

(mg m3)

Tube

(mg m’3)

Hydrocarbon

(—C5—C7)

0.01

Toluene

0.01

0,01

0.01

Hydrocarbon

(—C5—C10)

0.01

Hydrocarbon

(—C10—C12)

0.01

Hydrocarbon

(—C12—C14)

0.01

0.03

M. J.

Forrest era?.

(4)

Nylon

Nylon 6 used in an extrusion process was

studied on one

occasion with

both Teriax

and

Chromosorb

tubes.

Various

chemical

species

were

observed

relatively

high

concentrations

(including

the

background).

Similar

results

were

obtained

for

both

types

tube (Tables

6 and

7).

Table

6. Emissions

data obtained on

Nylon

6 during

extrusion

process

using Chromosorb

Nylon

6—extrusion

Adsorbent,

Chrornosorb; Melt

temperature.

276°C

Tube

operator

Tube

2 static—machine

(purge)

Tube

3 static—background

(purge)

Tube

4 static—machine

Tube

static—background

Tube

Concentration

Tube

(mg m3)

(mg m’3)

(mg

m’3)

(mg m3)

Compound

(standard)

(purge)

(standard)

Chiorodifluoromethane

0.86

Ethane,

1-chloro-1,

1-difluoro-

0.24

Acetone

0.1

0.76

0.1

Dichloromethane

0.1

1.04

0.1

Benzene

0.1

0.31

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(.—C6—C8)

0.1

0.18

0.91

0.1

Methyl

methacrylate

0.35

0.45

0.1

Toluene

0.1

0.12

0.84

0.1

Butane,

1-chioro, 3-methyl-

0.11

Xylene

0.1

0.52

0.1

a-Methyl styrene

0.1

0,84

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(—C9—C,,)

0.1

0.27

0.tl

0.1

not detected.

this

occasion,

the

background

environment

well

the

airborne

species

which were close to the process were monitored

during purging and, interestingly,

the

concentrations

of most chemical

species

the background

were considerably higher

than those near to

the process. This apparently anomalous

situation

thought

due to the fact that

other working practices,

such as product

testing, were being carried

out

the close vacinity

and

species from

these

(e.g.

solvents)

could

have

made a

significant

contribution.

(5)

Polypropylene

The fumes

emitted

during

the tape extrusion of polypropylene were

studied

using

both

Tenax

and

Chromosorb

(Tables

and

9).

this

occasion

there

was

perceptable draught in the vicinity ofthe process and

monitoring

was undertaken

both

upwind and downwind

investigate its

eflèct

the collected

data.

The background

was

monitored

both during

purging

and

during standard

processing conditions.

The chemical

species observed included mostly hydrocarbons and some

aromatics

but at

comparatively

high levels. Not surprisingly,

the levels offume found downwind

were significantly

higher than

those

detected

upwind.

In this case

the effect of purging

did

not

appear to

dramatic

with

some

the

processes.

The

relationship

Emissions

from processing

thermoplastics

Table

Emissions data obtained

Nylon

6 during

extrusion

process

using Tenax

Nylon 6—extrusion

Adsorbent,

Tenat

Melt temperature, 276~C

Tube

1 operator

Tube

2 static—machine

(purge)

Tube

static—background

(purge)

Tube

4 static—machine

Tube

static—background

Tube

Concentration

Tube

(mg m3)

Compound

(standard)

(purge)

(standard)

Acetone

0.1

0.22

Dichloromethane

0.1

0.13

0.53

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(.-~C5--C-)

0.1

0.16

0.71

0.1

Toluene

0.1

0.19

0.59

0.t

0.1

Xylene

0.1

3.22

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(~~Cs~Cin)

0.1

0.65

3.40

0.1

0.68

a-Methyl styrene

0.1

0.63

7.67

0.1

0.39

Benzene,

methyl

(1-

rnethylethyl)-

‘

0.14

1.69

0.1

Benzene, methyl,

propyl

isomer

0.10

Benzene.

methyl, prop~lisomer

0.1!

Benzene,

(1,1-dimethyl,

ethyl)-

0.12

Benzene,

1 -methyl-4-

(methylethyl)-

0.12

Benzene,

(1-ethylpropyl)-

0.12

Hydrocarbon

(-~C9—C11)

0.1

1.58

5.80

0.1

0.57

Naphthalene,

1,2,3,4-

tetrahydro-

0.13

Hydrocarbon

(—C10.--C13)

0.1

0.55

0.16

0.86

BHT

0.28

not detected.

between

the

Tenax and Chromosorb

tube results

were generally as

reported

for other

plastics—process combinations.

(6)

Polyvinylchloride

(PVC)

Thermal

desorption

results.

The

injection

moulding

unplasticised

PVC

was

monitored

using

both

Tenax

and

Chromosorb

adsorbent

tubes;

while

the

cable

extrusion

of plasticized

PVC

was monitored

using Tenax

and Poropak.

For

the

injection

moulding

work,

comparatively

high

concentrations

wide

variety

chemical

species

were

observed

(Tables

and

11)

and

once

again

the

background during purging showed concentrations

of some species higher

than those

obtained close to

the process itself. From

the data it can

seen that

the background

environment

during

purging

altered compared

that

which

existed during normal

operating

conditions.

The

monomer

type

species

found,

although

not

thought

originate

from

the

study

compound,

could

originate

from

additives

PVC

compounds being processed nearby. The purging operation

was found to enhance

the

concentrations

of species found, which

expected.

For

the

cable

extrusion

study the

range

and concentrations

of species observed

were

both

relatively

small

(Table

12).

Although

some

process

fume

was

apparent

Forrest

a?.

Table

8. Emissions data obtained on polypropylene during

a tape extrusion

process using

Tenax

Polypropylene—tape extrusion

Adsorbent, Tenax;

Melt temperature.

240C

Tube

static—-background

Tube

2 static—machine/operator

(upwind side

of die)

Tube

3 static—machineioperator

(downwind side

of die)

Tube

static—machine/operator

(purging)

Tube

static—background

(purging)

Concentration

Tube

(mg m3)

(mg m~)

(mgrn~)

(mg rn3)

Compound

(standard)

(purge)

Hydrocarbon

(~C5—C,)

0.48

0.22

1.65

0.27

0.23

Xylene

0.37

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(~~C6~~Cg)

0.37

0.74

0.35

0.1

a-Methyl styrene

0.16

0.1

0.11

Hydrocarbon

(—C,—C9)

0.58

0.46

1.79

1.05

0.79

Hydrocarbon

(—C8—C10)

0.73

0.67

2.98

0.32

0.17

Hydrocarbon

(—C9—C11)

1.49

1.04

5.24

0.1

0.23

Hydrocarbon

(—~C10--C12)

0.89

0.44

2.68

0.1

0.14

Hydrocarbon

(~~-C31—C~3)

1.43

0.97

5.38

0.1

0.87

Hydrocarbon

(—.C11--C14)

2.27

0.15

6.69

0.1

0.23

Hydrocarbon

(—~C13—C55)

0.88

0.52

1.70

0.1

nd=not

detected.

Table

9. Emissions

data obtained on

polypropylene during a tape extrusion

process using Chromosorb

Polypropylene—tape

extrusion

Adsorbent, Chromosorb;

Melt

temperature,

240°C

Tube

static—background

Tube

2 static—machine/operator

(upwind side

of die)

Tube

3 static—machine/operator

(downwind

side

of die)

Tube

static—machine/operator

(purging)

Tube

static—background

(purging)

Concentration

Tube

(rng m3)

(mg rn3)

(mg m3)

(mg rn3)

Compound

(standard)

(purge)

Hydrocarbon

(—~C5—C1)

0.1

0.15

0.57

0.1

0.25

Hydrocarbon

(—.C5—C8)

0.1

0.32

2.16

0.47

0.55

Hydrocarbon

(—.~C,—C9)

0.17

0.58

0.92

0.1

Xylene

0.14

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(-~~C8—C10)

0.1

0.44

0.66

0.1

0.66

a-Methyl styrene

0.1

0.10

Hydrocarbon

(-~C9--C11)

0.1

1.11

2.63

0.1

2.45

Hydrocarbon

(—~C10--C,2)

0.1

0.14

1.27

0.1

0.36

Hydrocarbon

(-.C11--C13)

0.1

0.12

0.25

0.1

1.09

Hydrocarbon

(—C12—C15)

0.11

0.10

0.1

1.56

I3enzene, alkyl

derivative

0.1

0.40

nd=not

detected.

Emissions

from

processing

therrnoplastics

Table

10.

Emissions

data obtained on

PVC during an

injection moulding

process

using Tenax

PVC—injection

moulding

Adsorbent.

Tenax;

Melt

temperature.

180°C

Tube

static—operator

Tube

2 static—machine

Tube

static—background

Tube

4 static—machine

(purge)

Tube

static—background

(purge)

Tube

Concentration

Tube

(mg m3)

(mgm3)

(mg m3)

Compound

(standard)

(purge)

Dichioromethane

0.1

1.72

1.13

Ethyl

acetate

0.60

0.84

0.68

0.64

Ethene.

trichloro-

0.1

0.13

0.12

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(—C5--C8)

0.1

0.10

0.12

1.17

Toluene

0.1

0.24

0.16

Benzene, chloro-

0.43

0.42

0.55

0.24

0.11

Xylene

0.1

0.60

1.26

Cyclic

alkene

(C10

H16)

0.1

0.15

0.14

0.12

0.10

a-Methyl styrene

3,44

2.30

Benzene,

alkyl

derivative

0.15

Hydrocarbon

(—C10--C11)

0.85

0.80

1.03

1.65

244

Benzene, methyl,

propyl

isomer

0.51

Hydrocarbon

(—~C13—C13)

0.1

0.31

0.17

0.16

0.14

nd=not

detected

during

the

standard

operating

conditions,

the

injection

moulding

study,

the

material still does not appear to have made a significant impact on the species detected

its

immediate

vicinity,

similar data

being

recorded

for the

background.

only

during purging that the concentrations ofthe species detected rise markedly compared

those in the background. This study also demonstrated

(as others

did in this project)

how the position

of a monitor in relation to a process can have a profound

effect on the

data collected. The Poropak adsorbent was found to

give similar

results

to Tenax on

this occasion.

vinyichloride monomer

was

detected on either

occasion and this

thought to

due to

its

low

residual concentration

the

resins.

Determination

hydrogen

chloride.

The

emissions

present

during

the

cable

extrusion processing of plasticized PVC

were

analysed for hydrogen chloride

using

Gastec tube (detection

limit 0.2 ppm). Measurements were taken at

‘—

0.2 and

‘-~

0.04

from the

die with no hydrogen chloride being detected in either case. A further reading

was

taken at 0A

m above

the

purge

waste,

the fume that was given off, but again no

hydrogen chloride

was

detected.

(7)

Low density polyethylene and

low density polyethylene—linear

iow

density

polyethylene

blend

The blown

film processing ofthese two

materials was studied in two quite different

environments.

The

data

obtained

for

the

LDPE—LLDPE

blend

using

Tenax

and

Chromosorb

tubes (Tables 13 and 14) were more complex, which was in part due to the

-I,

Emissions from processing thermoplastics

4 /

Table

10. Emissions data obtained on

PVC during an injection

moulding process using Tenax

PVC—injection moulding

Adsorbent,

Tenax;

Melt temperature,

180°C

Tube

static—operator

Tube

2 static—machine

Tube

static—background

Tube

static—machine (purge)

Tube

5 static—background

(purge)

Concentration

Compound

Tube

(mam3)

(standard)

Tube

(mgm3)

(standard)

Tube

(mgm3)

(standard)

Tube

(mgm3)

(purge)

Tube

(mgm3)

(purge)

Dichioromethane

0.1

1.72

1.13

Ethyl acetate

0.60

0.84

0.68

0.64

Ethene, trichloro-

0.1

0.13

0.12

0.10

0.1

Hydrocarbon

(‘~~C5—C8)

0.1

0.12

1.17

Toluene

0.1

0.24

0.16

Benzene, chloro-

0.43.

0.42

0.55

0.24

0.11

Xylene

0.1

0.60

1.26

Cyclic

alkene

(C10~

H16)

0.1

0.15

0.14

0.12

0.10

a-Methyl styrene

3.44

2.30

Benzene,

alkyl

derivative

0.15

Hydrocarbon

(—~C10—C12)

0.85

0.80

1.03

1.65

2:44

Benzene, methyl, propyl

isomer

0.51

Hydrocarbon

(~-.~C11—C13)

0.1

0.31

0.17

0.16

0.14

nd=not

detected.

during

the

standard

operating

conditions,

the

injection

moulding

study,

the

material still does not appear to have made a significant impact on the species detected

its immediate vicinity, similar data being recorded for the

background.

only

during purging that the concentrations ofthe species detected rise markedly compared

to those in thebackground. This study also demonstrated (as others did in this project)

how the position of a monitor in relation to a process can have a profound effect on the

data collected. The Poropak adsorbent was found to

give similar results to Tenax on

this

occasion.

No vinyichioride monomer was detected on either

occasion and

this is thought to

be due to

its low

residual concentration in the resins.

Determination

hydrogen

chloride.

The

emissions

present

during

the

cable

extrusion processing of plasticized PVC were

analysed for hydrogen

chloride using a

Gastec tube (detection limit 0.2 ppm). Measurements were taken at

0.2 and

‘-~

0.04 m

from the die with no hydrogen chloride being detected in either case. A further reading

was taken at 0.1

m above the purge waste, in the fume that was given off, but again no

hydrogen

chloride was detected.

(7) Low density polyethylene and

low

density polyethylene—linear low

density

polyethylene

blend

The blown film processing of these two materials was studied in two quite different

environments.

The

data

obtained for

the

LDPE—LLDPE

blend

using

Tenax

and

Chromosorb tubes

(Tables 13 and 14) were more complex, which was in part due to the

M. J. Forrest

et al.

Table

11. Emissions data obtained on

PVC during

an injection

moulding

process using

Chromosorb

PVC—injection moulding

Adsorbent.

Chromosorb; Melt

temperature, 180°C

Tube

static—operator

Tube

static—machine

Tube

static—background

Tube

static—machine

(purge)

Tube

static—background

(purge)

Concentration

Compound

Tube

(mgm3)

(standard)

Tube

(mgm3)

(standard)

Tube

(mgm3)

(standard)

Tube 4

(mgm3)

(purge)

Tube

(mgm3)

(purge)

Acetone

0.1

0.17

0.15

Dichloromethane

0.1

10.61

9.48

Ethyl acetate

1.51

1.23

1.27

0.77

1.19

Ethene, trichloro

0.24

0.15

0.17

Methyl methacrylate

0.1

0.13

0.27

0.41

Hydrocarbon (~~C7—C9)

0.10

0.1

0.21

0.1

0.20

Toluene

0.1

0.10

0.1

0.29

0.33

Benzene, chloro-

0.59

0.46

0.54

0.17

0.43

Xylene

0.1

0.10

Cyclic

hydrocarbon (alkene) C10~H16

0.79

0.52

0.37

0.1

0.32

a-Methyl styrene

0.1

0.47

0.62

Hydrocarbon (-..~C10—C17)

0.68

0.32

0.86

0.1

0.65

Benzene, butenyl

isomer

0.1

0.19

Benzene, butenyl

isomer

0.10

not detected.

fact that it was being processed

in a manufacturing environment and not, as with the

LDPE

(Table

15),

experimental

test

site.

With

the

blend,

larger

range

chemical species were detected and the concentrations-found were higher. The presence

ofcertain known monomeric species (i.e. methyl methacrylate and a-methyl styrene)in

thiS data is surprising given that the types ofpolymers that these species are normally

associated with were not obviously in evidence at the site, but the co.ncentrations found

are relatively low

and so they could originate from another source.

For

LDPE,

only Tenax

tubes

were

used

and

relatively low

concentrations

of a

limited

range of chemical

species

were

observed.

With this material the opportunity

was taken to obtain more than one backgroundmeasurement in order to obtain a fuller

characterization.

Unlike certain

other situations

purging

was

not

found to

increase

significantly

the

concentrations

species

detected

for

this

process.

This

was

corroborated

the

effect

seen

at the

time

where it

was apparent

that

little

or no

enhancement either

in the amount of visual fume or in

process odour resulted from

carrying out

the purge operation.

Both of these

situations

demonstrated that

the relationship

between the

species

detected near the process itself and those found in the background

complex.

(8)

Styrene acrylonitrile

(SAN)

A very limited study ofthis material was carried out, with

only the concentration of

hydrogen

cyanide

the process fume being determined.

Spot

measurements

were

taken

using

Draeger

tubes

both

during

standard

Table

12. Emissions data obtained

PVC during

cable

extrusion

process using Tenax

and

Poropak

PVC—cable extrusion

Adsorbents,

Tenax and

Poropak

Melt

temperature, 140°C(standard conditions),

180°C(purging)

Tube

I static machine/operator

(l)—Teuax

Tube

static machine/operator (2)—Tenax

Tube

static machine/operator*

(purging)—Tenax

Tube 4

static background—Tenax

Tube

static hackground—Tenax

Tube 6

static machine/operator (2)—Poropak

Concentration

Compound

Tube

(mg

Tube

(mg m

Tube

(mg

Tube

(mg

Tube

(mg

Tube

(mg

1,1,1

Trichloroethane

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.03

Toluene

0.18

0.01

0.03

0.10

0.04

0.01

Xylene isomers

0.03

0.01

0.32

0.02

0.04

Hydrocarbon (~C8—C10)

0.57

0.03

0.17

0.31

0.21

0.22

Benzene,

trimethyl isomers

0.05

0.01

0.05

-0.05

Benzene,

ethyldimethyl isomer

0.01

0.05

0.01

0.0!

0.01

Hydrocarbon (~C9—C11)

0.43

0.17

1.00

0.28

0.44

0.64

Hydrocarbon

(“~‘C10—C17)

0.09

0.04

0.99

0.05

0.07

0.03

Hydrocarbon (‘~C11—C13)

0.01

0.96

0.04

0.01

0.07

*Different extrusion

line.

M. J. Forrest

al.

Table

13. Emissions data obtained

a LDPE—LLDPE

blend

during

blown

film

process using Tenax

LDPE—LLDPE—blown film

Adsorbent,

Tenax;

Melt temperature,

190°C

Tube

static—machine

Tube

2 static—operator

Tube

static—background

nd=not

detected.

Table

14. Emissions data obtained

a LDPE—LLDPE blend

during

blown

film process using Chromosorb

LDPE-LLDPE—blown

film

Adsorbent.

Chromosorb; Melt temperature,

190°C

Tube

static—machine

Tube

static—operator

Tube

static—background

Concentration

Compound

Tube

(mg

Tube

(mg m

Tube

(mg

Acetone

0.1

0.12

Hydrocarbon

(‘—~C5—C8)

0.77

1.29

0.13

Unknown

0.12

0.21

0.1

Methyl methacrylate

0.1

0.20

Styrene

0.1

0.14

Xylene isomer

0.14

0.38

Hydrocarbon (~~C9—C12)

2.31

2.10

0.1

Benzaldehyde

0.21

0.47

a-Methyl styrene

0.59

0.45

Benzene, trimethyl isomer

0.17

Acetophenone

0.59

1.02

Benzene. methyl,

propvl

isomer

0.10

Concentration

Compound

Tube

(mg

ri~

Tube

(mg m3)

Tube

(mg m3)

Hexane

0.1

0.14

Hydrocarbon (.~C5)

0.1

0.15

0.1

Xylene isomer

0.1

0.12

a-Methyl styrene

0.89

1.16

1.11

Benzeae, trimethyl isomer

0.16

0.13

Hydrocarbon

(-..C10--C1,)

3.93

2.16

3.14

Benzene, trimethyl isomer

0.31

0.1

Benzene, ethyl, dimethyl isomer

0.1

0.12

0.1

Aliphatic aldehyde

(‘..~C10)

0.32

0.34

0.30

Benzene, dimethyl,

pentyl

isomer

0.12

0.1

Aliphatic aldehyde

(~-.~C11)

0.69

0.39

Hydrocarbon (~C11—C13)

0.50

0.23

1.61

Aliphatic

aldehyde

(~C12)

0.12

Hydrocarbon (‘-.~C12—C14)

0.10

0.90

nd=aot

detected.

Table

15.

Emissions data obtained

on LDPE during

blown

film

process using Tenax

LDPE—blown film

Adsorbent, Tenax

Melt temperature,

180°C

Tube

operator—Tenax

Tube

2 operator—Tenax

Tube

static machine—Tenax

Tube 4

static machine—Tenax

Tube

static background

(1)—Tenax

Tube

static background (1)—Tenax

Tube

static background (2)—Tenax

Tube

static machine

(purging)—Tenax

Tube

Tube 2

Tube 3

Concentration

Tube

Tube 7

Tube

Compound

(mg m3)

(tug m3)

(ing m3)

(mg

m3)

Hydrocarbon (~C5)

0.01

0.0!

0.03

Trichloromethane

0.01

0.0!

1,1,1

Trichloroethane

0.01

0.0!

0.01

Hydrocarbon (“.-C6--C8)

0.01

0.0!

Toluene

0.11

0.07

0.01

0.0!

0.01

Hydrocarbon (‘~-C9--C11)

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.02

Xylene

isomer

0.01

0.0!

0.01

Hydrocarbon (~C10—C12)

0.01

0.02

Hydrocarbon

(-~-C11--C13)

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.0!

not detected.

(.11

N~GN~

;~_;~

-~t~r:.~

Forrest

et a!.

operating conditions

and during purging.

The measurements in standard conditions

were taken in the region that the operator occupied

(approximately

1.5—2

m from the

nozzle).

During purging measurements

were taken

10—15

cm above

the purge waste

and

in the same

operator position

as that

used

during normal operation. In

neither

instance

was

it possible

detect hydrogen

cyanide

above the detection limit

of the

tubes

(2 ppm).

Direct analysis by ion chromatography ofthe contents ofthe sampling bub-ble-rs did

not

result

any peaks

being

found at an

elution

time

which

corresponded

the

cyanide ion. No hydrogen cyanide was detectable by this method, the detection limit of

which

was calculated as being approximately

0.5

ppm of the airborne species.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions that can be drawn from this

study are:

(a)

none of the situations

studied were found to generate a

high

level of process

fume. All the individual chemical species detected, were found to be present at

concentrations

significantly

below the

corresponding

present

occupational

exposure

limits

(where such limits exist), even during

purging operations.

(b)

In general, a higher level ofemissions is generated by extrusion-based processes

than by

those

involving injection

moulding.

(c)

Purging

operations

result

concentrations

species

higher

than

those

generated

in standard

processing conditions

and

can also

effect the

type of

species found.

(d)

The position that monitoring is carried out relative to the process being studied

can

have

significant

effect

the

results

obtained.

However,

many

situations the background concentrations of volatiles was found to

be similar

to those found in monitoring positions very close to the process.

(e)

The use of thermal desorption with gas chromatography—mass spectrometry

(GC—MS) analysis has been shown to

be an effective technique for the study of

thermoplastic

fume.

Some

advantages

over

solvent desorption, particularly

with regard to

sensitivity, have been demonstrated.

(f)

Tenax has been shown to be a satisfactory general purpose adsorbent material

for this

type of study,

with Chromosorb

and Poropak possibly offering some

advantages

within

the

low

molecular weight—high

volatility

region

(e.g.

the

HIPS

injection moulding

data).

REFERENCES

Edgerley,

(1980)

Plastics

and

Rubber

Institute,

Health

and

Safety

the

Plastics

and

Rubber

Industries,

Conference, Warwick,

pp.

11.1—11.10.

Hoff,

and

Jacobssoa,

(1981)

Thermo-oxidative

degradation

low-density

polyethylene

industrial

processing conditions.

J. App!.

Polymer

Sci.

26,

3409—3423.

Hoff,

A.,

Jacobsson,

S.,

Pfaffli,

P., Zittiag A.

and Frostling, H.

(1982) Degradation products of plastics—

polyethylene and styrene containing thermoplastics—analytical, occupational and toxicological aspects.

Scand. J.

Wk Environ. HIth

Supplement

1—60.

HSE

(1987)

MDHS

60.

Mixed

hydrocarbons

(C3

C10)

air.

Health and

Safety Executive. HMSO,

London.

HSE

(1989)

MDHS

66.

Mixed

hydrocarbons

(C5

C10)

air.

Health and

Safety Executive. HMSO,

London.

HSE (1992) MDHS 72. Volatile organic compounds in air.

Health and Safety Executive. HMSO, London.

Emissions

from processing thermoplastics

Lemmen. T. H., Conroy, G. M. and Bautista, P.

A. (1989)

Odor and

PVC:

Identification and quantification

of volatiles in clear polyvinyichioride processing.

Vinyl

Technol.

11,

133—136.

Lum,

and Kelleher, P. 0.

(1-979)

Polym.

Preprints

20,

No. 2, 608—613.

Shaposhnikov,

Yu. K.,

K.isarov,

V. M., Saltanova, V. B.. Novokovskaya, M.

I. and Kirillova. E.

I. (1975)

Determination ofvolatile

products

in processing of polypropylene,

PVC and ABS plastics

Plast.

*Iassv.

No.

5, 37—38.

Shmuilovich,

S. M., Konstantinova, F. I. and Lazaris, A. Ya.

(1981) Study of gaseous emissions from PVC

resins.

Plast.

Massy.

No.6, 48—49.

Vainiotalo, S. and Pfaffii, P. (1989) Measurement ofdepolymerisation products in the polyacetal. polyamide

and polymethyl methacrylate industry.

Am. md.

Hyg.

Ass. J.

50,

396—399.

Williamson, J. and Kavanagh,

(1987) Vinyl chloride monomer and other contaminants in PVC welding

fumes.

Am. i.

Hyg.

Ass. J.

48,

432—436.

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

B~MRU

flR~GINAL

~K~E

IN THE MATTER OF:

‘1

)

iUN162005

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

)

EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE

poflutlon

Control Board

PERMITTING

REQUIREMENTS

)

FOR PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING)

R 05-20

OPERATIONS

)

(35 Iii. Admin. Code 201.146)

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA F. SHARKEY

ON BEHALF OF THE

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS

My name is Patricia F. Sharkey and I am an

attorney with the law firm of Mayer,

Brown Rowe& Maw representing the Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

in this

proceeding. I am testifying in this proceeding for the limited purpose of providing the Board

with publicly available information derived from our legal research pertaining to other states’

permit exemptions for plastic injection molding operations.

While we have not done an exhaustive

search of all

state’s regulations, we can say

that plastic injection molding operations are expressly exempted from state air pollution

control permitting by a number of states, including Michigan, Ohio and Texas..

The amendatory language proposed by CICI in this proceeding was based on the

permit exemption language

contained in the Michigan Department ofEnvironmental

Quality’s (“MDEQ”) regulations which states:

“Rule 286. The requirement of R336.1201(1) to obtain

a permit to

install does not apply to any

of the following:

(b) Plastic

injection, compression, and transfermolding equipment and

associated plastic resin, handling, storage, and drying equipment.”

This Documents is Printed on Recycled Paper

The Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part I, Chap.

106,

Subchapter

Rule 106.394 is even briefer, simply stating:

“Equipment used for compression molding and injection molding

of plastics is permitted by rule.”

Ohio Administrative Code 3745-31-03(A)(1)(k) creates a “permanent

exemption” from state permits to install for:

“Equipment used for injection molding ofresins where no more than

one million pounds of resins (thermoplastic orthermosetting) per

rolling twelve-month period are used in

injection machines at the

facility.”

The Ohio rules also provide for a

discretionary exemption for

equipment used for injection molding ofresin where the facility does not

qualify for the exemption under paragraph (A)(1)(k) and “the facility uses no

thermoset resins and no more than six million pounds of thermoplastic resins

(e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, and polyvinyl chloride,

etc.) per rolling twelve-month period in injection machines

at the facility.”

Copies of the Michigan, Ohio,

and Texas regulations are attached hereto as Exhibits

through

3 respectively. Iowa is

also considering such an exemption. See attached

announcement. Exhibit 4.

PIM operations are also effectively exempted in many other states by virtue ofthe

fact that the level of emissions attributable to PIM operations and/or PIM facilities fall

beneath

de minimis

emission exemption levels contained in those states regulations

and

such

exemptions are not limited emission units

at otherwise permitted facilities. Examples of

This Documents is Printed on Recycled Paper

states with such

de minimis

exemptions include the other Region

U.S. EPA states:

Wisconsin, Indiana, and Minnesota.

Indiana employs a

tiered

system

which

only

emissions

units

with

potential

emit (PTh) of 25

tons

per

year are required to

obtain

full state

construction

and

operating

permits.

Units

with

a PTh of

10 to

tons

are required to be registered with

IDEM, but do

not require permits.

Section

2-1.1-3(d)(4)(e)(1) of the IDEM regulations

exemptsfrom both minor source

permitting

and

registration

any

new

emission unit or modification

at the

following PTE

levels:

1)10 tons per year ofPM1O, S02,

NOx or VOC,

tons

PM,

hydrogen

sulfide,

total

reduced

sulfur,

reduced

sulfur

compounds,

fluorides,

VOC,

the

unit

required

use

air

pollution

control equipment to comply with the applicable VOC provisions;

3) 25 tons of CO;

4) 2/lOths of a ton of lead; and

ton of any hazardous air pollutant (HAP).

Chapter

7007

the

Minnesota

Pollution

Control

Agency’s

(MPCA)

regulations

governs air permitting in Minnesota.. Under Part 7007.1300(3)(I) emission units with

a PTE

of less

than

the

following

levels qualify

“insignificant

activities”

and

are exempt

from

permit requirements:

2 tons per year of CO, and

ton

per

year

NOx,

SO2,

PM,

PM-b,

VOC

(including

hazardous

air

pollutant-containing VOCs).

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, Section 406.03

(1) of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’

air

pollution

control

regulations

states

that

construction

permit

required

prior

This Documents is Printed on Recycled Paper

commencing

“construction,

reconstruction,

replacement,

relocation

modification”

certain specified categories of equipment, activities and

operaltions. Section 406.03(2) states

that,

addition

the

categorical

exemptions,

construction

permit

required

the

maximum

theoretical emissions

from

the

source,

meaning

the

facility

whole,

not

exceed any ofthe following levels:

9.0

lbs per hour for SO2

and CO (which translates to -P40 tons per year);

5.7 lbs per hour for PM, NOx or VOC (which translates to

—25 tons per

year);

3.4 lbs per hour for PM1O (which translates

to -45 tons per year);

0.b3 lbs per hour for lead (which translates to

—1

ton per year); and

various emission rates listed for specified hazardous air contaminants.

Our point in referencing these other states regulations is to provide the Board with

some perspective on the exemption CICI is proposing in this proceeding.

PIM machines

with the potential

to emit in the range of 0.0022

to 0.22

tons per year ofVOM, 0.00022 and

0.18 tons per year ofHAPs and 0.0088

to 0.088 tons of PM per year, under conservative

assumptions, are very minor emission sources. In recognition of this fact, statepermitting

not required for these machines in many other states, including Illinois neighboring states in

U.S. EPA Region 5.

While CICI has provided testimony on the level of emissions generated by PIM

processes, it is important that the Board recognize that this proposal will not result in any

increase in emissions

to the environment. If exempted, PIM processes, like every other

category of emission sources exempted under 35

Ill. Adm. Code 201.146,

will remain

subject to all applicable regulations, as expressly stated in that section:

“...The permitting exemptions in this Section do not relieve the owner

or operator of any

source from any obligation to comply with any

other applicable requirements, including the obligation to obtain a

This Documents is Printed on Recycled Paper

permit pursuant to Sections 9.1(d) and 39.5 of the Act, Sections

165,

173,

and 502 ofthe Clean Air Act or any other applicable permit or

registration requirements.”

On behalf ofCICI, I would like to thank the Board for its

consideration of this

testimony and this proposed exemption and would be happy to respond to any questions the

Board or other members ofthe interested public may have.

Re~petfully submitted,

Patri~ia

F. Sharkey

On Behalf of the

Chemical Industry Council of Illinois

This Documents is Printed on Recycled Paper

Exhibit

MICHIGAN DEQ

R336.1286

Permit to install exemptions; plastic processing equipment.

Rule

286.

The requirement of R

336.1201(1) to

obtain

permit

install

does not

apply to any of the following:

(a)

Plastic

extrusion, rotocasting,

and pultrusion

equipment and associated plastic

resin handling, storage, and drying equipment.

(b)

Plastic

injection, compression,

and transfer molding

equipment and associated

plastic resin handling, storage, and drying equipment.

(c)

Plastic blow molding equipment and associated plastic

resin handling,

storage,

and drying equipment if the blowing gas is

1 or more ofthe following gasses:

(i)

Air.

(ii)

Nitrogen.

(iii)

Oxygen.

(iv)

Carbon dioxide.

(v)

Helium.

(vi)

Neon.

(vii)

Argon.

(viii)

Krypton.

(ix)

Xenon.

(d)

Plastic thermoforming equipment.

(e)

Reaction

injection

molding

(open

closed

mold)

and

slabstock/casting

equipment.

Histoty:

1993 MR

11, Eff. Nov.

18,

1993;

1995 MR

7, Eff. July26,

1995;

1997 MR 5, Eff. June

15,

1997.

CHDBO1

1268502.1

29-Mar-05

09:59

Exhibit 2

OfflO EPA

3745-31-03

Permit to install exemptions.

(A) A permit to install

as required by rule 3745-31-02 of the Administrative Code must

be obtained for the installation or modification of a new air contaminant source

unless exempted from the requirements as follows:

(1) Permanent exemptions:

The following exemptions do not apply to a combination of common emissions

units that are a major stationary source or majormodification, or to emissions

units that the National Emissions Standards forHazardous AirPollutants

applies

(except for 40 CFR Part 61,

subpart M, asbestos removal activities), or to

emissions units that the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard

applies, or to emissions units that the “New Source Performance Standards”

applies (except for 40 CFR Part 60, subpart AAA, residential wood heaters).

(k) Equipment used for injection molding of resins where no more than one

million pounds ofresins (thermoplastic or thermosetting) per rolling twelvemonth

period are used in injection machines at the facility.

(m) Compression molding presses used forthe curing of plastic products that

qualify for the de minimis exemption under rule 3745-15-05 of the

Administrative Code. This type of press uses a thermosetting resin and

involves a chemical reaction, usually involving heat, that converts the

material (e.g., polyesters, polyurethanes, epoxy resins, etc.) to a solid,

insoluble state using a hardening or curing operation.

(4) Permit-by-rule exemptions

The following air contaminant sources are exempt from the requirementto

obtain

a permit to install. These exemptions are valid only as long as the owner

or operator collects and maintains the records described foreach air contaminant

source exempted under this rule and these records are retained in the owner or

operator’s files for a period of not less than five years

and are made available to

the director or any authorized representative of the director for review during

normal business hours:

(b) Equipment used for injection and compression

molding of resins where:

(i) The facility does not qualify for the exemption under paragraph

(A)(1)(k) or (A)(b)(m) of rule 3745-31-03 of the Administrative Code;

and

(ii) The facility uses no more than

1000 pounds of volatile organic

compound in external mold release agents and flatting spray per rolling

CHDBOI

1268502.1

29-Mar-05 09:59

twelve-month period; and

(a) The facility uses no thermoset resins and no more than

six million

pounds of thermoplastic resins (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene,

polycarbonate, and polyvinyl chloride, etc.) per rolling twelvemonth

period in injection machines

at the facility (this type of

molding operation involves materials that soften and melt upon

heating or pressurization heating with no chemical-change and no

permanentchange in physical properties. It does not involve

curing, thermosetting or cross-linking.); or

(b)

The facility uses no thermoplastic resins and no more than five

hundred thousand pounds ofthermoset resins (e.g., polyesters,

polyurethanes, epoxy resins, etc.) per rolling twelve-month period

in injection and compression molding machines at the facility

(these types of molding operations use a thermoset resin

and

involve a chemical reaction, usually involving heat, that converts

the material (e.g., polyesters, polyurethanes, epoxy resins, etc.) to a

solid, insoluble state using a hardening or curing operation.); or

(iii) No more than three tons per year of volatile organic compounds are

emitted,

including volatile organic compounds from external mold

release agents and flatting spray, per rolling twelve-month period from

injection and compression molding machines at the facility calculated

by using emission factors approved by the Ohio EPA; and

(iv) The facility maintains monthly records that contain the rolling twelvemonth

usage ofthermoplastic resins, thermosetting resins and volatile

organic compounds in external mold release agents and flatting spray

used in all injection and compression molding machines at the facility,

and the Ohio EPA approved emission factors used to calculate the

emissions.

CHDBO1

1268502.1

29-Mar-05 09:59

Texas Administrative Code

k’ Ii,

6(7~

Page

1 of

Prey

Rule

Texas Administrative Code

Next Rule

TITLE

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

PART 1

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

CHAPTER 106

PERMITS

RULE

SUBCHAPTER

PLASTICS AND

RUBBER

RULE §106.394

Plastic Compression

and Injection Molding

Equipment used for compression molding and injection molding of plastics

is permitted by rule.

Source Note:

The provisions of this

106.394 adopted to be effective March

14,

1997,

22 TexReg

2439; amended tobe effective September4, 2000, 25

TexReg

8653

Next Page

 Previous Page

List of Titles

Back to

 List

IIOIIE I

TtXA~KGl~TE~

TXII~~DHI~I~111ATiVE

CODE

OPEN

~IEE1I~GS

HELl

hup://info.sos.state.tx.us/p1s/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl~R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_...

3/31/2005

~~Ié(ty

Update on “Indoor Sources” and “Permit it or Exempt it” statement

January 18, 2005

The Iowa Department of

Natural Resources (IDNR) is formally withdrawing the

“Permit

it orExempt it” statement (“Requirements for

Small Source Permitting and Exemptions,”

revision date

August

2004). IDNR will resume its past practice ofonly requiring

permits for indoor sources whenneeded to limit the facility’s

potential emissions to

reduce its regulatory

burden (when those units were required to be permitted due to major

sourcepermitting

requirements), or

 iftheIDNRbelieves that the facility is trying to

circumventpermitting requirements.

IDNR, companyrepresentatives, the

 Iowa Department ofEconomic Development

(IDED), University ofNorthern Iowa (UNI) Emissions Assistance Program, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, met in a Work Group on January

10 to

12,

2005,

to develop a new plan for addressing air pollution sources whose emissions are not

directly vented to the outside (also known as “indoor” sources).

This new plan includes:

Withdrawing the “Permit it or Exempt

it” statement and its February 28, 2005

implementation deadline and in it’s place resuming the Department’s past practice

for the regulatory treatment ofthese sources,

Pursuing EPA approval for DNR’s past practice of only requiring permits for

indoor sources when as mentioned above this is needed to either limit a facility’s

potential emissions to reduce its regulatory burden, or if the Department believes

facility is trying to circumvent permitting requirements,

Allowing the use of exemptions currently in DNR administrative rule to be

available for sources which are covered under a MACT, NESHAPS or NSPS or

other applicable federal standard,•

Adopting a list of “trivial” activities not needing a permit into DNR’s

administrative rules, and

Developing a more

extensive list ofexemptions from the requirement to

get

construction permits.

These exemptions will be proposed in two rulemakings.

The Work Group is completing development ofdraft administrative rules to exempt

activities or equipment types from air construction permitting.

These exemptions will

have thresholds necessary to assure protection ofair quality.

The first set ofexemptions

will be introduced to the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) in March 2005.

DNR will also include a list of “Trivial Activities” for which permits are not required.

To provide industry

and the public with an opportunity to help develop these rules, a first

draft ofthe rules will be posted on the DNR website (www.iowacleanair.com), and

distributed through the “Air-tech” list server February

7th,

2005.

The WorkGroup will consider comments sent to the Departmentbefore the rule is taken

backto the EPC on April 2005 for formal consideration and public comment.

Final

action on the rule is expectedin July, 2005.

Each ofthe activities listed below will be

addressed in the first rulemaking.

However, these exemptions will not apply to all sizes

and types of this equipment, except to the extent that an adequatejustification for

rulemaking canbe developed.

Those under development include:

Welding and brazing,

Storage & mixing offlammable materials,

Powder coating operations,

Conveying ofwet grain,

Research and development,

Saw Dust with pollution control,

 Spray aerosols,

Direct fired heating,

Phosphatizing,

10. Pressurized storage

tanks, and

11. Refrigeration systems.

“Trivial Activities” include the following:

1.

 Cafeterias, kitchens, and other facilities used forpreparing

food orbeverages

primarily for

consumption at the source.

2.

 Consumer use of office

equipment and products, not including printers or

businesses primarilyinvolved inphotographic reproduction.

3.

 Janitorial servicesand consumeruse ofjanitorial products.

4.

 Internal combustion enginesused forlawn

care, landscaping, and grounds-

keeping purposes.

Laundry

 activities, not includingdry-cleaning and steam boilers.

6.

 Bathroomvent emissions, includingtoilet vent emissions.

7.

 Blacksmith forges.

8.

 Plant maintenance andupkeep activities, and repair or maintenance

shop

activities (e.g.,

grounds-keeping, general repairs,

cleaning, painting, welding,

plumbing, re-tarring roofs,

installing insulation, and paving parking

lots)

provided these activities are not conducted as part of a manufacturing process,

are not related to the source’s primarybusiness activity,

and not otherwise

triggering a permit modification.

Cleaning and painting activities qualify if

they are not subject to VOC or HAP control requirements.

Air compressors and vacuum pumps, including hand tools.

10. Batteries and battery charging stations, except at battery manufacturing plants.

11.

Storage tanks, reservoirs, pumping and handling equipment of any size, and

equipmentused to mix and package soaps, detergents, surfactants, waxes,

glycerin, vegetable oils,

greases, animal fats,

sweetener, corn syrup, and

aqueous salt or caustic

solutions, provided appropriate lids and covers

are

utilized and no organic solvent has beenmixed with suchmaterials.

12. Equipment used exclusively to

slaughter animals, but not including other

equipment at slaughterhouses, such as rendering cookers, boilers, heating

plants, incinerators, and electrical power generating equipment.

13. Vents from continuous emissions monitors and other analyzers.

14. Natural gas pressure regulator vents, excluding venting at oil and gas

production facilities.

15.

Equipment used for surface coating by brush or roller, painting, and dipping

operations, except those that will emit VOC or HAP.

16. Hydraulic and hydrostatic testing equipment.

17. Environmental chambers not using HAP

 gasses.

18.

Shock chambers and humidity chambers, and solar simulators.

19. Fugitive dust emissions related to movement ofpassenger vehicles on

unpaved road surfaces, provided the emissions are not counted for

applicability purposes and any fugitive dust control plan or its

equivalent is

submitted as required by the department.

20. Process water filtration systems and demineralizers, demineralized water

tanks, and demineralizer vents.

21. Boiler water treatment operations, not including cooling towers.

22. Oxygen scavenging (de-aeration) ofwater.

23. Fire suppression systems.

24. Emergency road flares.

25.

Steam vents and safety relief valves, steam leaks, and steam sterilizers.

26. Steam sterilizers.

27. Recycling centers.

The workgroup will meet again in July 2005 to prepare technical justifications

to support

a second exemption rulemaking.

The following equipment, activities, and processes have

beensuggested to be considered for the second exemption rulemaking:

Product labeling, coating operations, aqueous cleaning systems, small parts

washers, steam cleaning, small electric heat transfer furnaces, laser, electric,

plasma, and gaseous fuel cutting, dry cleaners, cooling towers, polymer mixing,

plastic inection molders, spray application of water based glue, hand held

applicators for

ot metal adhesive, equipment for used for surface coating, ozone

generators, saltbaths, drop hammers, extruders, wet grain and cokeproducts

handling, spray aerosols and trigger sprayers used for cleaning, pressurized

refrigerant storage tanks, paved roads, and possible vehicle maintenance

activities.

Ifyou would like additional information on this please contact the following individuals

at the DNR:

Jim McGraw, Supervisor, Air Quality Bureau at 515/242-5167 or

Christine Spackman, BusinessAssistance Coordinator at 515/281-7276.