CO2 Spray Development Activities John Inks and Rick Osterman 26 May 1999 DOD Low VOC Coatings Application Workshop ATS LO Maintainability TIM Oklahoma City, Air Logistics Center Rick Osterman 7 October 1998 N

Equipment Development Activities Equipment Roadmap Benefit Comparisons Equipment Progress Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Internal Funding (1998) Air Force Funding (1999) Conclusions

Equipment Development Equipment Roadmap 1998 1999 3Qtr 4Qtr 1Qtr 2Qtr 3Qtr 4Qtr High Volume Low Pressure (HVLP) Plural Component Spray (PCS) Equipment Down Select Site 4 Dem/Val & Process Specs Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Convergent Spray Technology (CST) Go/No-Go Process Spec Program Phases Baseline Equipment Development Dem/Val

Equipment Environmental Benefits In Addition to Reformulating Coatings to Reduce or Eliminate Hazmats, NGC Is Evaluating Spray Equipment for Further Benefits Carbon Dioxide Spray (CO2) Applicable to Primers, Topcoats and Specialty Coatings VOC and HAP Reduction Solvent Reduction Cost, Cycle Time, and Film Quality Benefits

Carbon Dioxide Spray Reasons for NGC Consideration Environmentally Friendly Reduced VOC Emissions Higher Transfer Efficiency Higher Coating Rates Minimal Solvent Disposal Improved Performance, Quality, Repeatability Quicker Curing Improved Film Smoothness Similar to a Class A Car Finish Cost Reduction Reduced Process Flow & Labor Less Over-Spray

High Volume Low Pressure Diagram Base 1 QT Pressure Pot 1 QT Pressure Pot Manual Weigh & Mix B Catalyst Features and Benefits/Draw Backs Manual Proportioning Utilizes HVLP Spray Guns Single Component (Batch) Design Work Life Limitation C Thinner

Supercritical CO2 Diagram Base CO2 Manual Weigh & Mixing B Catalyst Pressure = 1500 PSI Admixed Coating C Thinner HEAT HEAT Features and Benefits/Draw Backs Maximum VOC Reduction Utilizes Airless Spray Gun Single Component (Batch) Design Work Life Limitation

Unicarb CO2 Spray System Diagram Blend Supercritical CO2 with Standard Coating Solvents Reduces Solvent Content Improves Coating Finish Union Carbide Patented and Licensed Technology

Unicarb CO2 Spray Spray Pattern

ATS LO Maintainability TIM CO2 Spray Process Advantage, Mandate and Cost Advantages VOC Reduction Improved Flexibility Improved Film Finish Reduced Cure Times Faster Coating Build Mandatory For High VOC Materials Low Flexibility Coatings ROM Costs $160K to $320K Can Operate 2 - 4 Spray Guns From Each Unit

CO2 Equipment Development Activities Internal Funding (1998) Mil Spec Topcoat Air Force Funding (1999) Program Baseline Primer and Developmental Conductive and Topcoat Developmental Primer and Topcoat Developmental Topcoats Developmental Waterborne Primer N

1998 CO2 Coating Evaluations Objective Evaluate Supercritical Fluid CO2 Coating Technology for Application of MIL-SPEC Qualified Paint Systems 1998 Project Goals Reformulate a Mil-C-85285 Qualified Topcoat For Use in UNICARBÒ Coating Application System Perform Testing & Evaluation of Coated Panels to Selective MIL-C-85285 Requirements Obtain Sponsorship by Northrop Grumman Programs to Develop, Validate and Transition-to-Production the CO2 Paint Technology Identify DoD/Industry Partners for CRAD and CRADA Opportunities

1998 Project Plan UNICARBÒ Problem / Need Statement Long Term Benefits Environmental Regulations Continue to Lower Allowable VOC Content. This Requirement Is Usually Achieved by Reducing Organic Solvent Content, But Low VOC Coatings Have Poor Surface Finish Quality. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide is Currently Used as a Solvent in Automotive Paint Formulations Producing a Class A Surface Finish. Long Term Benefits Reduce Paint Cure Times Improve Finish Quality and Paint Application Rate 50% VOC Reduction for Paints and Primers Objective Milestones and Products Reformulate a Mil-Spec Qualified Paint System to Use CO2 and Demonstrate Effectiveness 1 2 3 Approach / Tasks 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Reformulate Hentzen Coatings’ MIL-C-85285, Gray Flat Topcoat for Use With Unicarb CO2 Paint System Spray Coating on Test Panels at Union Carbide Conduct Coating Performance Testing at NGC for Comparison to HVLP Spray Coatings 1) Complete Reformulation and Delivery of Paint System to Union Carbide 2) Application of Paint Using CO2 Spray System 3) Complete Coating Performance Testing

1998 Progress Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) Requested Hentzen Coatings, Inc. to Reformulate Their Mil-C-85285 Flat Gray Topcoat for Use in UNICARBÒ Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Paint System Hentzen, In Cooperation With NGC Produced the New Coating in Four Weeks Test Panels Were Sprayed at Union Carbide One Week Later Morphology Was Smooth and Continuous Unaided Visual Appearance of Coated Panels Was Excellent (No Orange Peel) Coating Performance Tests Completed

Test Results CO2 Coated Panels Met the Following Specification Requirements Adhesion Gloss Surface Roughness Heat Resistance Solvent Rub Hiding Power Low Temperature Flex on Four Inch Mandrel

Summary Exceeded Initial Coating Formulation/Application Goals Test Results Are Positive Warranting Further Evaluation NGC Procured Laboratory CO2 Spray Unit New Unit Will Be Tested to Certify Compliance South Coast Air Quality Management District Requirements Minimum 65%Transfer Efficiency or Equivalence to HVLP

1999 Project Plan Problem / Need Statement Long Term Benefits Environmental Regulations Continue to Lower Allowable VOC Content Current Coating Processes are Time & Labor Intensive Long Term Benefits Reduce Coating Process Time Improve Finish Quality and Paint Application Rate Significant VOC & Emission Reduction Objective Milestones and Products Evaluate Candidate Paint Systems to Use CO2 and Demonstrate Effectiveness 1 2 3 Approach / Tasks 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Obtain Paint Samples from Various Suppliers Spray Paint Samples at Union Carbide Conduct Coating Performance Evaluation at NGC for Comparison to HVLP Spray Applied Coatings 1) Complete Phase I Coating & Spray Development 2) Complete Phase II Coating & Spray Development 2) Complete Equipment Demonstration & Validation

Primer, Conductive, and Topcoat CO2 Baseline Coating Evaluation (24 - 25 August ‘98) at UCC Sprayed 3 Coatings Courtauld’s Polyurethane Primer In-House Formulation Conductive Coating In-House Formulation Topcoat Added Small Amounts of Solvents to Coatings MAK and EEP Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable VOC’S Were Reduced Over Baseline Coatings Coating Cure Rates Were Reduced Primer Dry Hard Time Decreased From 3 Hrs to 2 Hrs Test Panels Were Sprayed for Physical Property Testing

High Solids Primer and Topcoat CO2 Coating Evaluation (19 - 23 April ‘99) at UCC Sprayed 2 Coatings US Paint’s High Solids Primer US Paint’s High Solids Topcoat Added Small Amounts of Solvents to Coatings MAK and EEP Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable VOC’S Were Reduced Over Baseline Coatings Coating Cure Rates Were Reduced Primer Dry-to-Touch Decreased 50% Test Panels Were Sprayed

More Topcoats CO2 Coating Evaluation (20 - 22 May ‘99) at UCC Sprayed 2 Coatings Hentzen’s Moisture Curing Topcoat Dexter’s Polyurethane Topcoat Hentzen Topcoat Results Added Small Amounts of MAK Solvent to Coating Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable VOC Was Reduced Coating Cure Rate Reduced 50% Dexter Topcoat Panels Results Required Mixture of Solvents to Meet Film Spray Stds.

Waterborne Primer CO2 Coating Evaluation (25 May ‘99) at UCC Sprayed 1 Coating Spraylat’s Waterborne Primer No Solvents Were Added to Coatings Sprayed As Supplied Film Spray Properties Were Acceptable Spray Panels Were Coated for Evaluation Added Salt Spray Test Panels CO2 Interaction Could Change Coating pH Which Could Affect Corrosion Inhibitors

Conclusions Coating Reformulation is Not The Only Means of Meeting VOC Reduction Requirements CO2 Cure Rate Acceleration Factor Dependent Upon Coating Being Evaluated Not All Commercial Coatings Are Applicable to CO2 Spray Keys to Reformulating for CO2 Formulation Stability Solvent Selection Film Build Compatibility Equipment Design Single Batch Mix Versus Continuos Plural Mixing Cold Versus Hot Circulating

Conclusions Continued CO2 Spray Has Added Benefits Over Reformulation Cost Reduction Reduced Touch Labor and Less Material Cycle Time Reduction Spray Process Finish Quality Improvements Must Evaluate Each Use of CO2 Against Need and Benefits Subsequent Sessions Will Include Cost Analyses Equipment Development is More Capital Intensive Than Reformulation for HVLP Spray Additional Costs Should Be Offset Recurring Savings