Bob Lacovara, president of consultancy Convergent Composites, led a presentation about ways composites firms can reduce emissions and thereby improve the quality and safety of their facilities. He presented an overview of technology available to make that happen, and how it can be applied to different processes. “Environmentally friendly materials translate to low styrene materials, styrene alternatives and additives such as styrene suppressants,” he said.

The emissions from fiber reinforced plastics processors can be major sources of volatile emissions, including styrene, the volatile component of polyester resin and gelcoat; and acetone, a solvent used to clean tools and other surfaces contaminated with resin.

Some discussion during the presentation was about the potential for converting open molding into close molding, which sometimes is a possibility and other times isn’t cost effective because of production cost and volume, Lacovara said.

The benefits of reducing volatile emission are numerous:

• Fewer emissions implies better raw materials use, improving the bottom line
• Less concern about Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations related to worker exposure to chemicals, especially styrene
• Less concern about regulation of air pollutants as a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards
• Reduced disposal cost of spent solvents as hazardous waste
• Reduced risk of fires caused by high concentrations of chemicals in the workplace

Lacovara said no single option is likely to replace the plant-wide use of solvent or completely eliminate the source of volatile emissions, so it’s best for composites companies to examine alternatives that combine several options.

When considering a substitute, firms should keep in mind the following:

• Do the new materials pose a worker health or safety risk?
• How much employee training will be required for successfully implementing a substitute?
• What experience have others in the industry had with the alternative technology?
• What regulations need to be considered?
• What will the effect be on product quality and production levels?
• Will a new waste stream be created? If so, how will it be handled?

During a presentation at COMPOSITES 2010, Kirsten Dangaran, Ph.D., a research scientist at the Ohio BioProducts Innovation Center at The Ohio State University, shared results of a recent survey of 160 architects in Ohio. Nearly 90 percent of them reported their clients were interested in using bio-based, sustainable products.

She and Bob Moffit, a product manager for Ashland Performance Materials, spoke to attendees about the value proposition of eco-friendly composites, providing insight on how composites firms can position those products to resonate with green consumers and green builders.

“People are willing to pay more for green products, but those products must work,” Moffit said. “Also, at some point, you have to market it, and don’t sell just the green aspects—sell the performance aspects, too.” Green building initiatives and eco-friendly organizations can help companies market green products, he said.

Their key messages:

• LEED is a strong driver for use of rapidly renewable building materials.
• Architects and consumers are motivated by energy savings and environmental stewardship.
• There is a huge opportunity, with price-premium potential, for composites manufacturers.
• Don’t sacrifice performance to simply “go green.”

The accumulation of suspended, combustible sugar dust can spark an explosion, as it did in February 2008 at the Imperial Sugar Company in Port Wentworth, Ga., killing 13 people, injuring 40 others and causing a series of secondary explosions that spread through adjacent buildings.

Still, many composites industry professionals—even ones well trained in the safety routines of their facilities—are unaware of the hazards of dust, said Perry Bennett, Health, Safety and Environmental director at Molded Fiber Glass Companies. He spoke to COMPOSITES 2010 attendees about mitigating and controlling combustible dusts in FRP processes.

Bennett warned attendees that regulatory agencies are getting more serious about the topic. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will soon release changes to its principal dust document, “NFPA 654, Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids,” and Bennett recommended that composites professionals realize they can be cited for noncompliance with NFPA 654.

Part of the problem with regulating dust explosions is the confusion about which dusts can explode and under what conditions, Bennett pointed out. Even how much dust is a hazard is still unknown. (A large number of solid substances become explosive when in the form of a fine dust, OSHA says. These substances include organic materials, such as grain, sugar, wood, and coal; synthetic organics, such as plastics, dyes, foams, pharmaceuticals, and chemicals; and combustible metals, such as aluminum, magnesium, zinc, and iron.)

Generally speaking, the smaller the dust particle, the bigger the hazard. According to OSHA, an often-used rule of thumb is that dust of 420 microns particle size (40 mesh sieve) may serve as the fuel in a dust explosion. As a frame of reference, normal table sugar ranges from about 850 microns to 150 microns, with the bulk of sugar between 350 and 450 microns.

During his presentation, Bennett provided tips and methods for mitigating and controlling dust within facilities. Repeated points throughout his presentation include: Test your own dust with equipment that’s currently on the market. And because layers as thin as 1/32 of an inch (0.8 millimeters) or 1/16 of an inch (1.6 millimeters) can be problematic, “if you see dust, don’t ignore it. Instead, clean it, and examine where it’s coming from,” he said. Also, seal all openings in equipment to prevent the release of dusts into the work environment, he said. “The point is, stay on top of this issue before it lands on top of you.”

In a Composites 2010 education session titled The Key to Reducing Emissions and Improving Quality, Lacovara will present an overview of the technology available to reduce emissions and how it can be applied to different processes. The session will help manufacturers make decisions based on what’s required, what’s possible and what’s achievable. “In terms of equipment, we’ll be talking about low emissions equipment, what’s state-of-the-art, what’s current technology, what’s the best available, and the same with processes,” he says. “We’ll talk about the current most environmentally friendly materials we have available. That translates to low styrene materials, styrene alternatives, and additives such as styrene suppressants.”

The discussion about lowering emissions is bound to raise questions about open and closed molding processes. Lacovara is prepared to talk about when each of these processes makes the most sense. “Some of our discussion will move into what’s the potential for converting open molding into close molding. In some cases, there’s a distinct possibility of converting, in others, it’s not cost effective.”

One example is the tub and shower segment, which Lacovara says would be hard pressed to optimize closed molding technologies given its cost of production and volumes. “On the other hand, for a lot of major boat components such as hulls decks, vacuum infusion does become more viable,” he says.

“Low HAP resins get you down in the 32 percent range,” he says. “In order to effectively handle those materials, you wet out the glass fiber differently than with high-styrene resins. The wet out procedure and the roll out procedure need to be a little different.”

Using different resins may require employee training to be successful. “If you walked into a shop and substituted this low HAP resin, the workers would say ‘This doesn’t wet out,’” he says. “So there needs to be some retraining to wet out properly.”

Incorporating styrene suppressants also requires some skill and training. “The very first question that will come up is, ‘What about secondary bonding?’” he says. “The background is that styrene suppressants are essentially a wax film that shields the styrene from evaporating.” In certain circumstances, the suppressant can affect the bond with the secondary layer of laminate. “There were some notable failures that led to delaminations,” Lacovara says. “In order to use styrene suppressants, you have to change the timing of your laminate schedule and put procedures in place.”