EPA-450/2-77-033
December 1977
(OAQPS No. 1.2-087)
MAGNET WIRE
COATING
AP-42 Section
4.2.2.51
Reference Number
1
GUIDELINE SERIES
CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC EMISSIONS
FROM EXISTING
STATIONARY SOURCES
VOLUME IV: SURFACE
COATING FOR INSULATION
OF MAGNET WIRE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/2-77-033
(OAQPS No. 1.2-087)
CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING
STATIONARY SOURCES
VOLUME IV: SURFACE COATING
FOR INSULATION OF MAGNET WIRE
Emissions Standards and Engineering Division
Chemical and Petroleum Branch
( .S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
OH ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Deeemher 1977
-------
OAQPS GUIDELINE SERIES
The guideline series of reports is being issued by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to provide information to state and local
air pollution control agencies; for example, to provide guidance on the
acquisition and processing of air quality data and on the planning and
analysis requisite lor the maintenance of air quality. Reports published in
this series will be available - as supplies permit - from the Library Services
Office (MD-35) .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a nominal fee, from the National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/2-77-033
(OAQPS No. 1.2-087)
-------
PREFACE
This report is one of a continuing series designed to assist State
and local jurisdictions in the development of air pollution control
regulations for volatile organic compounds (VOC) which contribute to the
formation of photochemical nxidants. This report deals with VOC emissions
from wire coating ovens.
Below are provided emission limitations that represent the presumptive
norm that can be achieved through the application of reasonably available
control technology (RACT). Reasonable available control technology is
defined as the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable
of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility. It may require
technology that has been applied to similar, but not necessarily identical
source categories. It must be cautioned that the limits reported in this
Preface are based on capabilities and problems which are general to the
industry, but may not be applicable to every plant.
The most common control technique used for wire coating ovens is
incineration. Essentially, all solvent emissions from the oven can be
directed to an incinerator with a combustion efficiency of at least 90
percent, This efficiency is reasonable to attain. Thermal incinerators
have an efficiency range from 90 to 99 percent, Catalytic oxidizers have
an efficiency range of 90 to 95 percent if not fouled.
-------
Low polluting coatings are beginning to be used in the wire coating
industry. It is reasonable to exempt an oven from the incineration
requirement if the coatings used contain less than the recommended
limitation given below for low solvent coatings.
Affected Facility Recommended Limitation for
Low Solvent Coatings
kg solvent per Ibs solvent per
liter of coating gallon of coating
(minus water) (minus water)
Wire Coating Oven 0.20 1.7
This emission limit can be met with high-solids coatings having greater
than 77 percent solids by volume. Powder coatings and hot melt coatings
will both achieve this. This emission limit can also be met with a water-
borne coating which contains 29 volume percent solids, 8 volume percent organic
solvent, and 63 volume percent water. A water-borne emulsion with no organic
solvent would, of course,meet the recommended limit.
Approximately the same amount of solvent will be emitted from a low
solvent coating meeting the above limitation as from an equal volume of
solids applied as a conventional coating with 90 percent incineration of
solvent emissions from the conventional coating.
Many wire enameling ovens already have incinerators which reduce
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Because of the number of sources
already controlled, national emissions from wire enameling is not so great as
from some other sources. But a wire enameling plant with only a few
uncontrolled ovens could easily exceed 91 Mg/year (100 tons/year) of VOC
IV
-------
emissions. Thus, a wire enameling plant can be a significant source in
a local area.
-------
SUMMARY
Wire enameling is the process of insulating electrical wire by
applying varnish or enamel. Organic solvent is driven off in the wire
drying oven. Incineration, either thermal or catalytic, is the most common
way to control these solvent emissions. Control efficiencies of 90
to 95 percent are typical. Because of the high oven temperatures and
high solvent concentrations in the exhaust, this is a favorable situation
for heat recovery. The fuel value of the waste solvent may be used to
supply much of the heating requirements of the oven.
VI
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR METRIC UNITS
Equivalent
Metric Unit Metric Name English Unit
Kg kilogram (103grams) 2.2046 Ib
liter liter 0.0353 ft3
dscm dry standard cubic meter 35.31 ft
scmm standard cubic meter per min. 35.31 ft /min
Mg megagram (10 grams) 2,204.6 Ib
metric ton metric ton (10 grams) 2,204.6 Ib
In keeping with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy,metric
units are used in this report. These units may be converted to common
English units by using the above conversion factors.
Temperature in degrees Celsius (C°) can be converted to temperature
in degrees Farenheit (°F) by the following formula:
t°f = 1.8 (t° ) + 32
t° = temperature in degrees Farenheit
t° = temperature in degrees Celsius or degrees Centigrade
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE , , ill
SUMMARY . . . , vi
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR METRIC UNITS vii
1.0 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS 1-1
1.1 General Discussion 1-1
1.2 Processes and Affected Facility 1-1
1.2.1 Process, 1-1
1,2.2 Types of Emissions 1-5
1,3 References 1-7
2.0 APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMISSION REDUCTION 2-1
2.1 Incineration (Combustion Systems) . , ..... 2-1
2.2 Carbon Adsorption 2-7
2.3 Low Solvent Coatings , . . 2-7
2.4 References 2-9
3.0 COST ANALYSIS 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.1.1 Purpose , 3-1
3.1.2 Scope 3-1
3.1.3 Use of Model Emission Points 3-2
3.1,4 Basis for Capital and Annualized
Cost. Estimates 3-2
3.2 Control of Solvent Emissions from Wire
Coating Operations 3-4
3.2.1 Model Cost Parameters 3-4
3.2.2 Control Cost 3-4
3.2.3 Cost Effectiveness 3-8
3.3 References 3-11
4.0 ADVERSE AND BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF APPLYING TECHNOLOGY 4-1
4,1 Beneficial Effects 4-1
viii
-------
4.2 Adverse Effects . , 4-1
4.3 References. , 4-2
5.0 MONITORING TECHNIQUES AND ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS. .......... 5-1
5.1 References. , , , . , . . 5-2
-------
1.0 SOURCES AND TYPES 3F EMISSIONS
1.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Magnet wire coating is the process of applying a coating of electrically
insulating varnish or enamel to aluminum or copper wire for use in
electrical machinery, """ho wire is called magnet wire because, in such
equipment as electrical motors, generators and transformers, this wire
carries an electncrtl current which creates an electromagnetic field. The
wire coating must rnee: rigid specifications of electrical, thermal and
abrasion resistance.
Magnet wire is usually coated in large plants which both draw and
insulate the wire. Tne wire is then sold to manufacturers of electrical
equipment. There are approximately 30 enameling plants in the United States.
These are located in several States including New York, Connecticut, Illinois,
Virginia, Massacnusetts, North Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana. The largest
geographical concentration of wire coaters is Fort Wayne, Indiana. Several
companies have wire enameling plants there.
1.2 PROCESSES AND AFFECTED FACILITY
1.2.1 Processes
Figure 1 shows a typical wire coating operation. The wire is unwound
from spools and passed through an annealing furnace. Annealing softens
the wire to make it -nore pliable for its trip over the pulley network and also
acts as a cleaning chamber to burn off oil and dirt left from previous
operations.
1 -1
-------
Q)
C
O
o
(D
-------
The wire is then ready for coating. There are several variations on
the method of application. Typically, at the coating applicator the
wire passes through a bath of coating and picks up a thick layer of coating.
The wire then is drawn vertically through an orifice or coating die as
shown in Figure 2. The die scrapes off excess coating and leaves a thin
film of the desired thickness.
After the wire passes through the coating die, it is routed through
the oven where the coating dries and cures. The exhaust from the oven is
the most important solvent emission source in the wire coating plant.
Most coating ovens consist of two zones. Wire enters at the drying
zone which is held at about 200°C. The second or curing zone and the
temperature here is around 430°C.
At some plants there is a noticeable solvent odor near the coating
applicator indicating incomplete capture. In others, solvent from the
coating bath appears to be drawn into the oven by its indraft. At any rate,
the solvent emissions from the applicator are low compared to the principal
emission source, the drying oven.
The exhausts from typical ovens range from 11 dry standard cubic meters
(dscm) per minute to 42 dscm per minute with the average being around 28.
The solvent concentration in the exhaust will typically range fromlOto 25
percent of the LEL (lower explosive limit). This would be equivalent to
about 12 kg solvent per hour emissions from the oven. Each oven usually
operates three shifts per day for seven days a week. It is not unusual for
a wire coating plant to have 50 coating ovens. An uncontrolled plant could
easily emit more than 90 f-lg (megagratns) per year of solvent which would make
it a significant source of VOC emissions.
1-3
-------
TO DRYING OVEN
I
1
COATED
WIRE
COATING
DIE
EXCESS
COATING
FROM COATING BATH
Figure 2. Wire coating die.
1-4
-------
After a wire passes through the oven and the coating is cured, it
again passes through the coating applicator and oven to receive another
layer of coating. This may be repeated four to 12 times so that the wire
receives a thick coating of many layers. After a final pass through the oven,
the wire is wound on a spool for shipment to the customer.
1.2.2 Types of Emissions
The organic solvent content of wire coatings range from 67 to 85 percent
by weight. Coating resins include the following compounds:
Polyester amide imide
Polyester
Polyurethane
Epoxy
Polyvinyl formal
Polyimide
In addition to solvent, from 10 to 25 percent of the coating resins may
be volatilized in the drying ovens and emitted with oven exhaust. Most
of the volatilized resin condenses in the atmosphere to form a particulate,
but some breaks down to form VOC.
Coating resins may be dissolved in a variety of solvents. Cresylic
acid and various cresols are major solvents. Xylene and mixtures of Co - C1?
aromatics are widely used also. The following solvents are used to some
degree.
Cresylic acid Hi-Flash naptha
Xylene Methyl ethyl ketone
Alcohols N-methyl pyrrolidine
Cresols, meta para Ortho cresol
Diacetone alcohol Phenol
Toluene
1-5
-------
Cresols have a strong disagreeable odor which is usually noticeable
inside a wire coating plant. This odor has been one incentive for many
operators to install combustion systems to avoid complaints.
1-6
-------
1.3 REFERENCES
1. Johnson, W. L., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Report of Trip to Westinghouse Wire Division
Plant in Abingdon, Virginia. Report dated February 10, 1977.
1-7
-------
2.0 APPLICABLE SYSTEMS OF EMISSION REDUCTION
2.1 INCINERATION (COMBUSTION SYSTEMS)
Incineration is the most common technique used to control emissions
from wire coating ovens. Since these ovens operate at high temperature
(greater than 350°Cj and have moderate to high solvent loads (10 to 25
percent LEL) they provide a favorable situation for incinerator. Because
the oven exhaust is relatively hot, little additional fuel is needed to
reach the solvent combustion temperature. Furthermore, the fuel value of
the exhausted solvent may be high enough that little extra fuel is required
to heat the oven. Combustion systems have been variously referred to as
incinerators, afterburners and oxidizers. For further details on the theory
of incineration, see Chapter 3 of "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume I: Control Methods for Surface-
Coating Operations."
The four basic types of incinerators are:
Internal catalytic
External catalytic
Internal thermal
External thermal
Figure 3 shows a diagram of an internal catalytic incineration. (This
drawing is simplified for illustrative purpose; most ovens have two drying
zones.) The catalyst is built as an integral part of the oven. Hot
solvent-laden air from the drying chamber is circulated past the catalyst;
combustion of solvents takes place in the presence of the catalyst at 260°C
2-1
-------
EXHAUST
SOLVENT
EVAPORATION'
ZONE
WIRE
COATING
DIE
RECIRCULATING
FAN
FRESH AIR
CATALYTIC
ELEMENT
BURNER
Figure 3. Wire coating oven with internal catalyst.
2-2
-------
to 320°C. If the hot air from the drying chamber is in this temperature
range, the oven operation may be self substainiruj. If not, a supplementary
burner (electric or gas-fired) is used to raise the solvent-laden gases to
the combustion temperature. The gases leave the catalyst at 450°C, and
are recirculated back through the curing zone.
Internal catalytic incinerators were first introduced in the late
1950's. All major wire oven designers now incorporate metal catalysts into
their new ovens. A representative of one major manufacturer stated that
2
every wire oven built by his firm since 1960 has had an internal catalyst.
There are three reasons why internal catalysts are so popular:
1. The internal catalyst burns solvent fumes and recirculates the
heat back into the wire drying zone. Fuel otherwise needed to operate
the oven is eliminated or greatly reduced.
2. Since the gases are cleaned and recirculated within the oven,
less makeup air is required. This results in further energy savings.
3. Catalysts are reported to be to 95 percent efficient in destroying
3 4
solvents. ' However, others report that catalysts are only 75 to 90 percent
efficiency, since efficiency drops off as the catalyst gets dirty. Air
pollution control has been of secondary importance to wire coaters; energy
conservation is most important because of resultant cost savings.
An oven equipped with an external catalyst is shown in Figure 4. This
type of modification is usually made to older wire coating ovens that do
not have an internal catalyst. The external catalyst system is added primarily
for pollution control since the heat is not as easily recovered.
2-3
-------
HOT CLEAN
EXHAUST
WIRE
COATING
OVEN
Figure 4. Wire coating oven with add on catalytic incinerator.
2-4
-------
A serious impediment to the future use of catalytic incinerators
as air pollution devices for wire coating ovens is that some of the newer
wire coatings, primarily polyester amide-imides, act as a catalyst poison.
Ordinarily, a wire coating catalyst can be used for 10,000 hours, but some
o
coatings reduce the useful life to as little as 60 hours. However,
experimental catalysts are being developed which reportedly operate for
9
3,000 hours and possibly much longer using amide-imide coatings.
Polyester amide-imide coatings have superior temperature resistance
and allow electrical equipment to operate at higher temperatures, a very
desirable quality. Wire coating plants which convert to these coatings will
be unable to use catalytic incinerators and will likely use thermal
incinerators for air pollution control.
A simplified drawing of an internal thermal incinerator (oxidizer) is
shown in Figure 5. Solvent-laden gases from the drying zone are drawn past
the thermal oxidizer where they are combusted with 98 percent efficiency.
The hot clean gases are then recirculated back to the drying zone. This
type of incinerator has not been popular with wire coaters, reportedly
because of high fuel usage.
External thermal incinerators are used mainly for air pollution control
Usually the discharge from 10 to 15 wire ovens are manifolded to each
incinerator such that the total volume is 250 to 450 dscm per minute.
Usually the inlet to the incinerator is preheated by contact with the
incinerator exhaust gases (primary heat exchange). Secondary heat recovery
systems are also employed on many large existing installations, principally
II 12
for space heating. '
2-5
-------
EXHAUST
SOLVENT
EVAPORATION
ZONE
WIRE
RECIRCULATING
FAN
FRESH AIR
OXIDIZER
BURNER
COATING DIE
Figure 5. Wire coating oven with internal
thermal oxidizer.
2-6
-------
2.2 CARBON ADSORPTION
Carbon adsorption is not used as a control method in this industry
for several reasons:
}. Wire ovens exhaust at 200°C to 380°C. The gases would have to
be cooled to 38°C before adsorption would be effective.
2. Resins volatilized in the oven would tend to foul the carbon bed
and create maintenance problems unless (or even if) prefilters were employed.
3. Since collected solvent mixtures would not be reused in the process,
the recovery credit is relatively small.
2.3 LOW SOLVENT COATINGS
Low solvent coatings offer only a potential alternate way of reducing
solvent emissions. Unfortunately, low solvent coatings have not yet been
developed with the properties that will meet all wire coating needs.
Water-borne wire coatings, the most advanced low solvent technology,
are being used in small quantities. One plant reportedly coats 10 percent
of its production with water-borne coatings. These however, are not
available with properties suitable for all wire coating applications. High
temperature resistance is not as good with water-borne wire coatings.
Powder coatings have been applied to wire on an experimental basis.
A powder coating line at the Westinghouse Wire Division plant (Abingdon,
Virginia) was featured in Products Finishing magazine in February 1975.
Westinghouse has been experimenting with powder coatings since 1967. Powder
coating applications have been limited for the following reasons:
2-7
-------
1. Epoxy powders are the main type available; unfortunately,
the upper temperature range for an epoxy coating is only 130°C whereas
many types of electrical equipment must operate at temperatures up to
14
220°C.
2. Powder can be used only on larger diameter wires. For finer wire,
the powder particle approaches the wire diameter and will not adhere well
to the wire.
Several other types of low solvent wire coatings are in the experimental
stage. Hot melt coatings, which are applied as a molten mass and have no
15
solvents, have reportedly been used successfully in Europe. Ultraviolet
cured coatings are now available for specialized systems. Electrodeposition
coatings are theoretically possible, but once a layer of coating is applied
to the wire, the surface is insulated against further electrodeposition.
Thus, thick films cannot be built up.
2-8
-------
2.4 REFERENCES
1. "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume I: Control Methods for Surface-Coating Operations,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 45-/2-76-028, November 1976.
2. Richards, R.D., General Electric Industrial Heating Business Department,
Shellyville, Indiana. Telephone conversation with W. L. Johnson, EPA
on April 20, 1977.
3. Ruff, R.J., Catalyst Application to Continuous Strip Ovens, Wire and
Wire Products, October 1959.
4. Bolduck, M.J., and Severs, R.K., A Modified Total Combustion Analyzer
for Use in Source Testing Air Pollution, Air Engineering, August 1965.
5. Spires, E.T., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Abingdon, Virginia.
Letter to W.L. Johnson, EPA. Dated November 1, 1977.
6. Ruff, R.J., Catalytic Combustion in Wire Enameling. Wire, October 1951,
Page 936-940.
7. Brewer, Gerald L,, Air Correction Division of UOP, Darien, Connecticut.
Telephone conversation with W.L. Johnson, EPA on April 18, 1977.
8. Ibid
9. Brewer, Gerald L., Air Correction Division of UOP, Darien, Connecticut.
Letter to W.L. Johnson, EPA, dated October 19, 1977.
10. Acrometal Products, Inc., Bulletin DTOO-874.
11. Johnson, W.L., Environmental Protection Agency, trip report on
Westinghouse Wire Division plant in Abingdon, Va. Report dated
February 10, 1977.
12. Kloppenburg, W.B., Springborn Laboratories, Inc. Report of trip to
Chicago Magnet Wire in Elk Grove Village, Illinois,Dated April 9, 1976.
13. Powder Coating Used as Insulation for Magnet Wire, Products Finishing,
February 1975, pages 94-95.
14. Op. Cit. Johnson, Febraury 10, 1977.
15. Owen, Jim, Sales Manager, Michigan Oven Company, Romulus, Michigan.
Telephone conversation with W.L. Johnson, EPA on April 20, 1977.
2-9
-------
3-0 COST ANALYSIS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to present estimated costs for control
of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from wire coating lines at
existing magnet wire coating plants.
3.1.2 Scope
Estimates of capital and annualized costs are presented for controlling
solvent emissions from drying ovens of existing magnet wire coating lines using
external (add-on) catalytic and thermal incinerators. Control costs are
developed for four model sizes - one, five, 10 and 15 ovens per incinerator.
Each oven is medium size with emission exhausts averaging 28 dscm per minute
and production averaging 690 Mg per year of wire coated. Incinerators are
costed with and without solvent heat recovery. Cost effectiveness ratios
(annualized costs per megagram of solvent emissions controlled) are shown for
the single and multiple model oven configurations.
Most wire coating ovens built since the early 1960's have built-in
1 2
(internal) incinerators. ' Since this report is concerned with
existing facilities, control costs of internal catalytic and thermal
incinerators are not included. Other techniques, such as carbon adsorption,
are not costed since they are not used as control methods in the wire coating
industry (see sections 2.2 and 2.3).
3-1
-------
3.1.3 Use of Model Emission Points
Wire coating plants vary considerably as to the number and type of
ovens; the size, type and speed of wire processed; the types of coatings
applied; and the number of ovens per incinerator. ' ' ' ' Since an actual
plant is likely to have significantly different control costs than another
actual plant and the wide variety of installations reduces the applicability
of a model plant, the use of model emission points becomes a necessity.
Therefore, the cost analyses in this chapter are based on model emission
points - single and multiple drying oven models. The technical parameters
used for the model ovens have been selected to represent typical operating
conditions at actual wire coating plants and are listed in Table 3-1.
Although model oven control costs may differ with actual costs incurred,
they are the most convenient means of comparing the relative costs of control
options.
3.1.4 Bases for Capital and Annualized Cost Estimates
Capital cost estimates represent the total investment required to
purchase and install a particular control system. Cost estimates were
obtained from EPA contractor reports, equipment vendors and plant installa-
tions. Retrofit installations are assumed. Costs for research and
development, production losses during installation and start-up, and
other highly variable costs are not included in the estimates. All capital
costs reflect second quarter 1977 dollars.
Annualized control cost estimates include operating labor, maintenance,
utilities, and annualized capital charges. Reduced fuel (utility) costs are
based on 35-501 primary heat recovery for the incinerators with heat exchangers.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED IN
DEVELOPING CONTROL COSTSa
I. VOC Emission Rate: 12 Kg/hr.
II. VOC Concentration: 15% LEL
III. Average Exhaust Flowrate 28 dscm/min. (990 dscfm)
IV. Exhaust Temperatures:
Catalytic Incineration: 260° C to 450°C (500°F to 842°F)
Thermal Incineration: 760°C (1400°F)
V. Incineration Residence Time: 0.5 sec.
VI. VOC Control Efficiencies:
Catalytic Incineration: 90%
Thermal Incineration: 90%
VII. Heat Recovery Efficiencies:0
Catalytic: 35-45% (Primary)
Thermal: 35-50% (Primary)
VIII. Operating Factor: 7000 hours/year
IX. Average Densities:
Solvent: 0.882 Kg/liter (7.36 Ib/gal.)
Coatings: 1.138 Kg/liter (9.5 Ib/gal.)
X. Ratio of Uncontrolled Solvent Emissions to
Wire Production:e
Average Uncontrolled Solvent Emissions _ 10.9 Kg
Average Wire Production 100 Kg
Except as noted, values are taken from Chapter 2.
bEPA estimate.
cReferences 7 and 10.
Reference 3.
Reference 9.
3-3
-------
The annualized capital charges are sub-divided into capital recovery
costs (depreciation and interest costs) and costs for property taxes,
insurance and administration. Depreciation and interest costs have been
computed using a capital recovery factor based on a 10 year depreciation
life of the control equipment and an interest rate of 10% per annum. Costs
for property taxes, insurance and administration are computed at 4% of
the capital costs. All annualized costs are for one year periods commencing
with the second quarter of 1977.
3.2 CONTROL OF SOLVENT EMISSIONS FROM WIRE COATING OPERATIONS
3.2.1 Model Cost Parameters
Control costs have been developed for four model sizes using each of
the following incineration devices: catalytic incinerator without heat
exchanger; catalytic incinerator with heat exchanger; thermal incinerator
without heat exchanger; and thermal incinerator with heat exchanger. All
incinerators are external (add-on) units. Table 3-2 presents the cost
parameters for each of the four model sizes. These parameters are based
upon studies of the wire coating industry by contractors and the EPA.
3.2.2 Control Costs
Table 3-3 presents control costs for the single oven model (one oven
per incinerator) using four different external control devices: catalytic
incinerator with and without heat exchanger, and thermal incinerator with
and without heat exchanger. Similarly, Tables 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 present
control costs of the four control devices for the 5-oven, 10-oven and
15-oven models. Very high installation costs (75-90% of equipment costs) have
been allowed for all multiple oven models to provide for additional costs of
3-4
-------
Table 3-2. COST PARAMETERS USED IN COMPUTING ANNUALIZED COSTS
I
en
Model
I
II
III
IV
Number of
Ovens per
Incinerator
1
5
10
15
Emission Flowrates
Before Control
dsnr/min.
28
140
280
420
(dscfm)
(990)
(4950)
(9900)
(14850)
Average Wire
Production
Mg/Yr.
690
3,450
6,900
10,350
(1000 Ib/yr.)
(1520)
(7600)
(15,200)
(22,800)
Chapter 2.
Average wire production from References 8, 9, and 11; actual wire production will vary and depends on the
size and speed of the wire, the number of wires per oven and the number of passes through the oven.
-------
Table 3-3.
CONTROL COSTS FOR MODEL I (one oven per incinerator;
28 dsm /min. emission flowrate before control)
Installed Casual Cost ($000)
Direct Operating Cost ($000/yr)
Annualized Capital Charges ($000/yr)
Total Annual ized Cost {SOOO/yr)03
Solvent Emissions Controlled (Mg/yr) e
Cost per Mq Emissions Controlled (S/Hg)
Table 3-4
n
External Catalytic Incinerator
with Heat Exchanger
60.0
5.4
12.2
17.6
75.6
Without H. E.
39.6
12.2
8.0
20.2
75.6
235 265
i
External Thermal Incinerator
With Heat Exchanger
50.0
10.3
10.1
Without H.E.
30.0
24.5
6.1
20.4 ! 30.6
!
75.6 75.6
270
405
CONTROL COSTS FOR MODEL II (Five ovens per incinerator;
140 dsm3/min. emission flowrate before control)
Installed Capital Cost ($000)h
Direct Operating Cost ($000/yr)
Annualized Capital Charges (S000/yr)c
Total Annualized Cost (S000/yr)d
Solvent Emissions Controlled (Mg/yr)
rf
Cost per Hg Emissions Controlled .($/Hg )'
External Catalytic
With Heat Exchanger
140.0
22.5
28.4
50.9
378.0
135
. Incinerator^
Without H.E.
105.0
45.0
21.3
66.3
378.0
175
External Thermal
With Heat Exchanger
135.0
40.0
27.4
67.4
378.0
180
ncinerator
Without H.E.
100.0
80.0
20.3
100.3
378.0
265
References 2, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13; high installation costs (65% to 70? of purchased equipment costs) have been allowed.
Average annual operating and maintenance costs per References 7 and 10, assuming the use of natural gas and electric
energy. The multiple oven model costs have been compared with References 14 and 15.
Capital recovery costs (using capital recovery factor with 105, interest rate and 10 year equipment life) plus 4% of capital
costs for property taxes, insurance and administration.
Sum of Direct Operating Cost and Annualized Capital Charges.
'Product of Uncontrolled VOC Emission Rate times Operating Factor Times Control Efficiency.
Total Annualized Cost divided by the Solvent Emissions Controlled.
sCatalysts assumed to have normal replacement lives and will not become prematurely poisoned by metallic coatings.
Average installed capital costs per References 10, 14, 15, and 16; very high installation costs (75% to 90% of purchased
equipment costs) have been allowed to provide for additional costs of ducting, controls, lines, auxiliary equipment and
some supporting structures.
-------
,.
o
4-J
t_
QJ
II
I- 0
l/> S-
c o
QJ 4-
Q XI
O CJ
r 4-J
D~« ^
* 4 O
4 L
IU C
o o
O '"
yr in
(X '"
£ o
00 -
t- ^
1>O '»"
O E;
> H
O ^
Cf^ "O
t~
CD CO
CJ CvJ
in
i
m .
CJ
a
1
7)
p
QJ
±
U
tr:
1
c:
a
X
LU
.
"
t t
.
^
0 0 r
co Ln uj
O O kO
OO*3-
CM r-« *d~
CM
O O ir
Ln r If"
r^ co r--
O O -£
to O u
OJ
u
! 1
J^ i
O "v-^ »
C3 O
C> C)
ty> C )
O in <.
CJ O
CJ r
rj CD
4-> t:
CX *->
o i-
OJ
XJ Ci.
QJ O
u
4~> QJ
t: -*~
C15
r - tO O
co m -^
r r-- c\j
IO CJ
*^ to o
r VT> LO f
r- r- r~ |
in o
10 IQ in
» , IT> r
3 UD O
> in ia i^">
r ao LO '"
[
1
! ,--.
aj ^:>
^ ; ^ ?"-
3 XJ en -Tj
D ac c.;
Z> S-. ----- r
*> >> <
o aj k
^ C? i 4-'
u CD r r:
y> *» o c;>
T3 4-'
j m 6 (
O CJ <.-
t-* X3 c: i-i
CJ 0
rx M -r-- f
nj i/i U(
_> r- l/l
rO T- f n
o T f :-
OJ C L.I
r- -'C *-» «'
r C~ . :-
*O r OJ
C -»-* *- - '-'
c: o o CP
tf ] cy> ^ >
S_
o
i-
QJ
U O
C t-
t.:
i.. o
OJ U
o,
OJ
t/5 --
i.^ O
> "S
0 XI
i-n oj
- nj
l~
» O
LU
O C
E. '"
ID:' tn
LU E
QJ
I C
O £:
_J°K
O in
cr! XJ
K^
O CM
CJ *3"
UJ
1
r^
£1
I
-
V--
3
y
c
o
tz
i
QJ
c:
t-
x
LL
01
_;
'
*'
^
<3
"(0
lj-
,
c>
cl ° "^ '^ ?>
o o jar g r- ui
C\J OJ OJ i OJ
0
° ° °I °I n
in oo 10 f^ * "^
oj en VD U3 - «d-
n i r i 1
o
° ° ^ "^ s
O r^. O 10 L^
LO r- ID l£ ^- ^
0 |
I
CD o en o\ ' «*
n
uo LT> co oo r- m
r CO <.Q i * CD
prj r^ r_ r
1
^ '
1 CJt
Ol O' 2C .
1 t. ! "S ^
O XJ C7» XI
x: "v* § ^ ^
CD ~^ *-* ^^, X> O
CD CD O OJ V-
CJ CD 10 O r- 4J
*x> cj cu o c:
^ > CJ> V> O O
J- 1, 0
4J AJ -4 *
o in CJ in o c,
(JO 0 CJ 0
l_J r CJ *-
, . n\ m in
rts en 4-> X) c: *n
+_> c: -i- QJ o £
-,- r- fX fvj **- E
cx -»_> «j *- in LU
*O rtj O *" V)
CJ S_
QJ -o :> ir: ^"
xj o- OJ L: L»J
QJ O 1st t^ t-
. -r- *a; 4> cu
^.. <_» ^- c; o-
»O CJ nj « QJ
*-> QJ n rtl > 4-*
C -r- C O O O
v-* o -^: t t/o cj
1
I
1
03
r- TJ
CX C, XJ
«o i/i c:
CJ 1TJ fO
»-«*- CJ 4-»
X- 0 U C
4J * ~i CJ
O »« tn cx B
cr cx oo
*O" O C~V >i
m oj o o its
en -i- f^ r^
f ro in x
t- c: oj C^ 5
ra QJ E
4-> K VI "
«3 CX >, 4-» in
c i JQ m o>
n o c:
«~ cr xj o -r-
O OJ OJ >
>» c c:
OJ t. O O 0 *
in rj c. vi -r- in
>> *r~ O rO O
OJ O O- r 1-
^j ,__ r_ i|__ ^ ^3 (--
4- f 4-» O
cn xi t? UJ OJ ) CJ
c: c cr s- c
E O 4-» C71
VI i +-> 4-* E Cn-r~
ny m s~- o s- jc o
OJ O CX t3
- CJ 4-» >,XJ
O C in in QJ t_
»~ OJ OJ Q> E QJ **-
t_ V- E O > O
XT Q> OJ v- CJ
«y o* c xj xi 10 4->
CXI T-~ 5- flj r V)
r-» o r 4J o
_C Vt 4-> i O XJ CJ
. *n 4-* CD O O C C
cj 3: vt u. 4-> «
c: x: o c: * - c:
OJ I- 3z
4- to c: .c: 4J tn X3 »f-
O 4-> +J r QJ -»- rtj
JL-CJOfdrOCXVlin "
OJ fO!L-4->CDV)rUOV.
oj v> o_ in E *- H~
W1QJ >>- (13 OJLiJr- in
VI CJ 1 -r- 4J 4J CJ XJ
o OJ > G xj +-* cz c d »"-
O>OXJQ; OJCJQJ>
O> JZ O) *- 4-> i - OJ CD V-
U *- "t3 *--
OJO4-Jaj c o_c o t-
4JO-r-CJ i- QJXJ
C CX C to CX QJ
"ra'aj 32^-^^*^ i/>§
E^ cn5^ ^LUXJ E"M<~
tJEEcz^c:^ OJOO^d
QJ 13-CJ^» > OJ » OJ GJ
Cn > * * in «f >
nj p V> -»J +J r V) O <\J > 13
j-cxo ro o O-M cjtis-
oj *- u >, i- j- o .c: 4->
CX 4-> 4-J CJ -M X) XJ in
Or >» t- fX C XI QJ QJ x
r» t-aio o QJ p, men
i F; QJ O- o M :a «~- 4~> c
rti > o " 4-> c: -t tn rj c; Q
ft) CJ> 4-J (/> O ^1 i r ru CX
CJOJ* O-in C: O 4-» 4-» CJ^FS
>C «3O 13 5V- O rtl >CTO
-C OJ CJ U IX) CX 1 CJ-
-------
ducting, controls, lines, auxiliary equipment and some supporting structures;
while high installation costs (65% to 70% of equipment costs) have been
allowed for the single oven model. Wherever possible, the cost estimates
have been compared with industry costs.2,8,11,12,13,14,15,16 But, it is
recognized that control costs of actual installations may vary from the
estimates.
The solvent emissions controlled per year are determined as the un-
controlled VOC emission rate times the operating factor times the control
efficiency. For example, the single oven model solvent emissions controlled
are calculated as (12 Kg/hr) (7000 hrs/yr) (.90) = 75,600 Kg/Yr. The cost
per Mg of controlled emissions is the total annualized cost divided by the
solvent emissions controlled, or $17,600/75.6 Mg = $235 per Mg for the single
oven model using catalytic incineration with heat recovery.
As evidenced by the estimates, the catalytic incinerators, both with
and without heat exchangers, have lower operating costs than the corresponding
thermal devices. The catalysts cause combustion to occur at lower temperatures,
thus requiring less fuel than the thermal devices. These costs assume that
the catalysts will have normal replacement lives and will not become pre-
maturely poisoned by metallic coatings (see Section 2.1). Also, for each
model size, the incinerators with heat exchangers have higher capital costs
and lower operating costs than those without heat exchangers. This relation-
ship is due to the additional capital cost of the heat exchangers (and
auxiliary equipment) and the resulting fuel savings obtained from 35 to 50%
primary heat recovery.
3.2.3 Cost Effectiveness
Figure 3-1 graphically depicts the estimated cost-effectiveness of the
four external control devices for the four model sizes. For the convenience
-------
Figure 3-1. Cost-effectiveness of VOC Emission Control
of Wire Coating Ovens
400
oo
I
O)
O
CO
c
O
I
LO
f>
300
28
75.6
690
SYMBOLS:
External thermal incinerator without heat exchanger
External thermal incinerator with heat exchanger
External catalytic incinerator without heat exchanger
External catalytic incinerator with heat exchanger
280
Average Emission Flowrate (dsm /min.)
378.0 756.0
Average Emissions Controlled (Mg/yr.)
3,450 6,900
Average Wire Production (Mg wire coated/yr.)
420
1,134.0
10,350
-------
of the user, several different measures (average emission flowrates,
average emissions controlled, and average wire production) have been
plotted on the horizontal axis.
It should be noted from the cost-effectiveness curves that, for all
model sizes, the external catalytic incinerator with heat exchanger is
the most cost effective device. Also, control costs per Mg of controlled
emissions are lower for multiple oven models and appear to level off at
the 10 and 15 oven models. Thus, the lowest cost emission control system
is the 15-oven catalytic incinerator with heat exchanger; the costs of this
system are estimated to be $105 per Mg of emissions controlled. If a
catalyst cannot be used because of poisoning or other reason, then the
lowest cost system is the 15-oven thermal incinerator with heat recovery,
at an estimated cost of $145 per Mg of emissions controlled. The highest
cost device is the single-oven model thermal incinerator without heat
exchanger at an estimated cost of $405 per Mg of emissions controlled.
3-10
-------
3.3 REFERENCES
1. G. L. Brewer, Air Correction Division of UOP, Darien, Conn. Letter
to W. L. Johnson, U.S. EPA, dated April 19, 1977.
2. R. D. Richards, General Electric Industrial Heating Business Dept.,
Shelbyville, Indiana. Telephone conversation with W. L. Johnson,
U.S. EPA, on April 20, 1977. Memo to file by R. A. Quaney, U.S. EPA
dated August 31, 1977.
3. General Electric Wire Enameling Systems Bulletin GEA-10402, June 1977.
4. Kloppenburg, W. B., Springborn Labs. Report of Trip to Chicago Magnet
Wire in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, dated April 9, 1976.
5. Kloppenburg, W. B., Springborn Labs. Report of trip to General Electric
Co., Schenectady, New York, dated April 6, 1976.
6. Johnson, W. L., U.S. EPA. Report of trip to Westinghouse Wire Division
Plant, Abingdon, Virginia, dated February 10, 1977.
7. Kinkley, M. L. and Neveril, R. B., Capital and Operating Costs of
Selected Air Pollution Control Systems. Prepared by GARD, Inc. Niles,
111. for U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-02-2072, dated May, 1976.
8. Wire Coating Emission Control Costs, Section VIII. Interim Report
prepared for U.S. EPA by Springborn Labs., Enfield, Conn., dated
November 12, 1976.
9. Wire Coating Organic Emissions Estimates, Chapter IV. Interim Report
prepared for EPA by Springborn Labs, Enfield, Conn., dated January 13, 1977.
10. Fuel Requirements, Capital Cost and Operating Expense For Catalytic
and Thermal Afterburners. Report prepared for U.S. EPA by CE Air
Preheater, Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Stamford, Conn., Contract
No. 68-02-1473, dated September, 1976.
11. Owens, J., Michigan Oven, Romulus, Michigan. Memo to file by R. H.
Schippers, U.S. EPA, dated August, 1977.
12. Kloppenburg, W. B., Springborn Labs. Report of trip to Rea Magnet
Wire Co., Ft. Wayne, Ind., dated March 17, 1976.
13. Kloppenburg, W. B., Springborn Labs. Report of trip to Phelps Dodge
Magnet Wire Co., Fort Wayne, Ind., dated April 7, 1976.
3-11
-------
14. E. T. Spires, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Abingdon, Va. Letter to
W. L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated November
1, 1977. Memo to file by R. A. Quaney, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, dated December 1, 1977.
15. J. L. Phillips, Essex Group, Inc., Ft. Wayne Ind. Letter to W. L.
Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated November 2, 1977.
Memo to file by R. A. Quaney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
dated December 6, 1977.
16. G. L. Brewer, Air Correction Division of U.O.P., Darien, Conn.;
letter to W. L. Johnson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
dated October 19, 1977. S. Olson, Air Correction Division of U.O.P.,
Darien, Conn.; memo to file by R. A. Quaney, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, dated November 29, 1977.
3-12
-------
4.0 ADVERSE AND BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF APPLYING TECHNOLOGY
4.1 BENEFICIAL EFFECTS
About 29,500 metric tons of solvents are used in the insulation varnishes,
including wire coatings, each year. Much of this is now burned within drying
ovens sincemost wire coating ovens installed since 1960 have internal
catalytic incinerators. This type of oven has grown in popularity because
it utilizes the heat of combustion of the exhaust gases, eliminates
malodors and avoids buildup of flammable resins in the stack. However,
the catalysts in many of these catalytic incinerators may have been poisoned
or have lost reactivity. Also, some older ovens have no controls at all ,
so there is no way to know how much solvent is actually emitted.
Unquestionably, however, uniform application of control restrictions would
effect a reduction in emissions.
4.2 ADVERSE EFFECTS
Wire coating ovens are generally built with a catalyst within the
oven thereby taking advantage of the heat of combustion of the coating
solvent to reduce fuel requirements. Where an external afterburner must
be retrofitted, however, the oven system may not be designed to benefit
by the heat made available. Conseqaently, the fuel requirements for
operating the line would increase.
4-1
-------
4.3 REFERENCES
1. "Sources and Consumption of Chemical Raw Materials in Paints and Coatings
by Type and End Use," 1974. Prepared for National Paint and Coatings
Association, Incorporated by Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,
California.
4-2
-------
5.0 MONITORING TECHNIQUES AND ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS
The suggested emission limitations will probably be met with an
incinerator. Wire ovens are enclosed and hooding should be designed to
capture and direct essentially all solvent to the incinerator. The main
problem of the control official is determining that the incinerator is
operating correctly. A measurement of combustion efficiency across the
incinerator could be required when the unit is installed. (One test may
be adequate when several identical units are installed.)
A thermal incinerator which shows a high combustion efficiency will
probably continue to perform well if operated under the same temperature
conditions. Normally, a temperature indicator reading in the combustion
chamber is sufficient to monitor proper operation. For catalytic incinerators,
the temperature rise across the catalyst bed should be measured during the
test for combustion efficiency. This temperature rise reflects the activity
of the catalyst.
Wire oven catalysts normally have a finite life of 6,000 to 14,000
hours. The plant should be required to replace catalysts after 10,000 hours
of operation unless the plant can document that the catalysts will operate
longer. Catalysts which are exposed to polyester amide imide coatings may
become deactivated in as little as 60 hours. Thermal incinerators should
be required to control coatings which poison catalysts. Catalyst performance
can be monitored by temperature indicator.
There are several techniques for testing the efficiency across an incin-
erator. For a more detailed discussion of organic compound test methods, see
Chapter 5, "Approaches to Determination of Total Nonmethane Hydrocarbons",
in Volume I of this series.
5-1
-------
5.11 REFERENCES
1. "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources -
Volume I: Control Methods for Surface-Coating Operations," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA 450/2-76-028, November 1976.
5-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
°WAN°450/2-77-033
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources - Volume IV: Surface Coating for
Insulation of Magnet Wire
5. REPORT DATE
December 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
9 Pt HF (JRMING ORGANIZATION NAML AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771]
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
OAQPS No. 1 .2.087
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report provides guidance for development of regulations to limit
emissions of volatile organic compounds from magnet wire coating operations,
Coating operations and control technology are described. Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) is described for the industry.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Magnet Wire
Wire Enameling
Emission Limits
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Organic Vapors
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
42
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
General Services Division (MD-28)
Office of Administration
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA-335
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Return this sheet if you do NOT wish to receive this material fll
or if change of address is needed [ |. (Indicate change, including
ZIP code.)
PUBLICATION NO. EPA-450/2-77-033
(OAQPS No. 1.2-087)
------- |