Outreach
MnTAP provided input to SBAP on a letter that went out to 100 FRP shops promoting the project and the opportunity for site visits. SBAP and MnTAP conducted additional promotion throughout the project using the Crosslink newsletter and SOURCE newsletter, respectively.

Phone Contact
Over the two-year project period, approximately 32 phone contacts were made with FRP shops discussing pollution prevention technologies and opportunities, lining up site visits, promoting the loan/grant programs, interns, and Demo Days, and addressing regulatory compliance needs.

Site Visits
Outreach efforts and phone calls resulted in 22 site visits conducted over the two years. Site visits addressed issues ranging from pollution prevention technology opportunities to air permit questions. Potential student intern projects were also identified as a result of site visits.

Student Interns
Site visits provided the opportunity to scope out student intern projects for the summer period. MnTAP supported two student interns during the course of the project:

Technology Demonstrations – Demo Days
MnTAP worked with SBAP to plan and hold a very successful event on August 8, 2001, FRP Demo Days, which combined seminars, resource booths, and technology demonstrations. Over 170 people attended the event, including 50% fiberglass fabricators (representing 33 different shops), 22% vendors, 14% consultants, and 14% business assistance programs. Seminar topics ranged from regulatory compliance to current technologies such as VEC closed mold used at Larson-Glastron. Technology demonstrations included Light RTM closed mold and non-atomizing resin application guns.

MnTAP’s primary roles with this event included brochure development, vendor and attendee registration, promoting the event to fiberglass shops and vendors, assistance with program development, and soliciting speakers and participants for demonstrations.

This event helped fulfill one of MnTAP’s strategic goals of technology diffusion which involves actually showing and demonstrating specific technologies to shop people. Hands on demonstrations help prove that the technology can work in a shop setting to improve efficiency, reduce waste, and cut costs.

Description of Technology Applications
MnTAP worked closely with three companies over the two-year period on five technologies that resulted in significant fiberglass process improvements. The benefits included more efficient use of raw materials, reduction of both styrene emissions and cured resin solid waste, and cost savings from less use of raw materials and less waste to dispose of in landfills. The five technologies are discussed briefly below:

Closed Mold—Light Resin Transfer Molding (RTM)
Light RTM is a closed mold process that significantly reduces styrene emissions, improves productivity and quality, and optimizes material use. It is a technique that allows the typical open molder an opportunity to do closed molding with minimal training and expense. Phoenix has demonstrated that a large fraction of current open molded parts can be done by conventional and Light RTM. In fact, Phoenix has converted to 60% closed molding, one-quarter of which is Light RTM. Activities using closed mold have resulted in 80,000 pounds fewer styrene emissions (20,000 pound reduction using Light RTM) over the 2000 and 2001 production years.

Controlled Spray – Laser Touch^®
Laser Touch^® is a tool that can improve spray technique, increasing the efficiency of material use and reducing waste, assuming a thorough controlled spray training program is in place. Mounted on a spray gun, the Laser Touch^® unit has two laser beams that converge into one beam when the gun is properly positioned. Improved accuracy and consistency ensures material placement, maximizing transfer efficiency, and resulting in less waste produced. Fiberglas Fabricators found that they could reduce solid waste from open molding by nearly 28% if the tool was used in conjunction with controlled spray training. This translated to a potential savings of $23,700 in materials and decrease in landfill wastes of 20%.

Raw Material Monitoring
These units are capable of giving the spray operator real time information on materials added to the mold during processing. With the help of the SBAP loan program, Fiberglas Fabricators purchased Technology for Manufacturer (TFM) raw material monitoring equipment. Real time information allowed Fiberglas Fabricators to reduce the average "over weightage" of their parts, which has reduced materials consumed by 20,000 pounds per year. This saves them $10,000 and reduces styrene emissions by 2,000 pounds per year due to less resin consumed.

Non-Atomized Application—Magnum Venus Fluid Impingement Technology (FIT)
FIT is a non-atomized application method that can reduce styrene emissions by 50% or more compared to conventional equipment. The resin or gelcoat exits the gun in two low-pressure streams which cross each other, creating a fan pattern. The application equipment can employ either internal or external mix, and chopped glass can be mixed into the fan pattern as it is applied. Coupled with the use of low styrene resins, Sunrise Fiberglass has reduced emissions by 16,000 pounds per year, down 43 percent from 1999 levels of 36,000.

At Fiberglas Fabricators, FIT was demonstrated to be effective in reducing styrene emissions in gelcoating applications. Reduced overspray led to a significant material savings of 5%, and styrene emissions during gelcoating were reduced by 35% as a result of nonatomized spray.

Low Styrene Resins (LSR)
Low styrene resins contain 38% or less styrene on a weight basis compared to conventional resins. The LSR have a higher viscosity than conventional resins (making roll out more difficult over reinforcing material) and are more sensitive to temperature fluctuations (requiring improved temperature control). The cost of low-styrene resins is comparable to conventional resins. Composite Fabricators Association (CFA) developed emissions factors that show a decrease in styrene content from 42 to 38% will reduce styrene emissions by 16% (just from resin change) when non-atomized equipment is used.

Documented Results
The table below summarizes results from the five technology applications at the three companies.

Company

Annual Styrene

Reductions (lbs)

Annual Cost

Savings ($)

Method

Fiberglas Fabricators
LeCenter

1,000

17.7 tons scrap

2,000

46,000

3,400

$23,700

2,600

10,000

2,000

3,000

Controlled Spray/Laser Touch^® (raw materials)
Laser Touch^{® (}FRP solid waste)

Raw material monitors – less part to part variance, material savings

Resin FIT (permit fee savings)

Gel coat FIT (material savings)

Sunrise Fiberglass
Wyoming

16,000

27,850

Fluid impingement technology and low styrene resin (cost to comply)

Phoenix*
Crookston

10,000

30,000

12,500

37,500

Light RTM closed molding (material savings from over-spray elimination)

Conventional RTM closed molding

TOTAL

108,400 pounds styrene
17.7 tons FRP scrap

$ 119,150

Project results in case study format will be disseminated to the fiberglass shops in January 2002 at the end of the project. A letter will be sent to the shops with case studies enclosed, promoting the technologies, the intern program and available grant and loan programs. Phone follow-up to promote technical assistance and site visits will wrap up the effort.

Discussion
More efficient manufacturing technologies will naturally result in environmental improvements in any industry sector. Installation of new, more efficient technologies in the fiber reinforced plastics industry significantly reduced styrene emissions and cut costs for most of the shops MnTAP worked with. Cost savings resulted from more efficient use of material, reduced fees associated with pollutants released to the environment, less FRP solid waste going to the landfill, and productivity and quality enhancements to the manufacturing process.

Installation of the five technologies in three fiberglass shops resulted in a reduction of 108,400 pounds of styrene emissions and 17.7 tons of landfill waste, and a cost savings of $119,150. Additional reductions and cost savings can be expected if these technologies are implemented at other sites.

Estimating 100 open mold fiberglass shops in Minnesota, if these technologies were implemented to varying degrees, the potential for additional styrene reductions and cost savings would be great. The Minnesota FRP industry consumes 56 million pounds of raw materials annually. The average resin content in the laminate is 35%, with an average styrene content of 42%. The typical industry scrap rate is 15% of purchased raw materials. An estimated 3.1 million pounds of styrene is emitted from the FRP industry each year.

50% Implementation

100% Implementation

Reductions
(lbs)

Cost Savings
($)

Reductions
(lbs)

Cost Savings
($)

Notes

Light RTM

Styrene
Raw Material

1,150,000
1,700,000

850,000

2,300,000
3,400,000

1,700,000

Material savings

Controlled Spray

Styrene
Raw Material

75,500
1,260,000

2,000
630,000
65,000

151,000
2,520,000

4,000
1,260,000
130,000

Fee savings
Material savings
Avoided landfill costs

Raw Material Monitor

Styrene
Raw Material

30,000
600,000

300,000

60,000
1,200,000

600,000

Lower resin consumption 2% reduction in materials applied

Non Atomized Resin/ Gelcoat

Styrene
Raw Material

650,000
825,000

16,500
650,000

1,300,000
1,650,000

33,000
1,300,000

50% reduction; fee savings
Material savings

Low Styrene Resin

Styrene

405,000

10,000

810,000

20,000

Moved from 42% to 38% styrene content in resin

Note:

These columns cannot be summed up to get a total reduction or cost savings because technologies are implemented independently.

Assumption:

Production stays at current levels.