3003 W CASINO RD PAINT HANGAR BOUNDARIES 2023-07-20

LIEGeminus Boeing Project Contract No.EVE-16-2929 Technology Development CEI Project No. 160731 3.3.3 % of LEL Predictions vs Measurements Measured volatile concentrations from hangars 45-04 in Figure 46 indicate 0% LEL 8 hour TWA (time weighted average) values as measured by their instruments. The data for 45-04 measurements is summarized in Figure 47. Max ppm values are also shown and indicate momentary peak values of unknown duration, but reach no more than —100ppm (<1 % of LEL for Heptan-2-one) for normal painting (gun cleaning not included). There is no further measurement data for the 45-04 hangar from Clayton Services. Clearcoat Primer Neudorfer Neudorfer Report 45-04 CFD% Report 8 hour Location of LEL %of LEL TWA PPM Stacker 25 Point Probe 0.02 0 1.8 Stacker 27 Point Probe 0.02 0 1.8 Stacker 23 Point Probe 0.76 0 1.7 8-12"From Wall Point Probe 0.03 0 0.2 Clearcoat Primer Neudorfer Report Neudorfer Momentary Neudorfer Report Equivalent 45-04 CFD CFD% Report Momentary Heptan-2-one Location PPM of LEL Min PPM Peak PPM Peak%of LEL Stacker 25 Point Probe 2.7 0.02 0 48.1 0.44 Stacker 27 Point Probe 2.4 0.02 0 74.5 0.68 Stacker 23 Point Probe 83.1 0.76 0 90 0.82 8-12'From Wall Point Probe 3.2 0.03 0 4.2 0.04 Figure 47: Summary of the 45-04 % of LEL & volatiles PPM measurements taken during various paint mode operations (priming, painting, gun cleaning). 3.4 Airflow and % of LEL Model Validation Summary The airflow only (non-painting) Case 1/Scenario 1 CFD modeling of the 45-04 hangar showed that the CFD model is capable of predicting both the magnitude and character of the airflow around an aircraft during nominal paint mode and fuselage paint mode air supply conditions. Also, the CFD model predicts % of LEL levels (assuming a clear-coat application scenario) that is with peak values measured in the 45-04 during various priming and painting operations. The CFD also does not predict exactly 0 PPM throughout the hangar, which is also consistent with the low PPM measurements relatively near the aircraft. These results are consistent with those from the 45-03 paint hangar analyses as they should be since the building layout and air flow patterns (supplies and exhausts) are very similar. 3.4.1 Estimation of Airflow Accuracy & % LEL Error In the case of the 45-03 CFD analyses a factor of 5x potential error was estimated (actually 4.8x and was rounded up) [2]. Thus, we will utilize the same potential error value with this analysis of the 45-04 since the buildings and airflow designs are similar, the CFD modeling 52