EPA-450/3-76-017
    IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE
  PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ON 1985 NATIONAL EMISSIONS
 FROM STATIONARY  SOURCES
                      by

          The Research Corporation of New England
               129 Silas Deane Highway ,
             Weathersfield, Connecticut 06109

                Contract No. 68-02-1382


           EPA Project Officer: Gary D. McCutchen


                  Prepared for

        U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            Office of Air and Waste Management
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
          Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                   April 1977

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical
data of interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies are available free of
charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit
organizations - in limited quantities - from the Library Services Office  (MD-
35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by The Research
Corporation of New England, Weathersfield, Connecticut 06109, in fulfillment
of Contract No.68-02-1382.  The contents of this report are reproduced herein
as received from The Research Corporation of New England. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product
names is not to be  considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
                    Publication No.  EPA-450/3-76-017
                                     11

-------
                                 FOREWORD
     During 1974, two studies were initiated that ultimately resulted in the
 establishment of priorities for developing and promulgating New Source
 Performance Standards (NSPS) .  The procedures used to determine these
 priorities produced a great deal of information that is believed to be useful
 in the industries involved and, accordingly, is being published in this series
 of reports (EPA-450/3-76-017, EPA-450/3-76-018, EPA-450/3-76-019, and
 EPA-450/3-76-020) .  This information is organized as follows:
     EPA-450/3-76-017 discusses  (1) the mathematical model (Model IV) used
 to determine NSPS impacts over a 10-year period;  (2) the methods used to
 attain input variables; and  (3) the summary tables  which are the heart of
 this study.  Included in the summary tables are data related to (1), emission,
 growth, and replacement rates;  (2) present and future production and
Capacity; (3)  nationwide emissions; and (4) NSPS impact.  These tables
 include information on 13 pollutants and nearly 200 stationary source
 categories.
     EPA-450/3-3-76-018-a,  -b,  -c,  -d, -e, and -fare the calculation sheets,
 showing how the input variables reported in EPA-450/3-76-017 were derived. All
 information sources, assumptions, and calculations are documented and explained.
 The  appropriate worksheets are arranged alphabetically in  the following volumes:
     018-a - Stationary Combustion Sources
     018-b - Chemical Processing Industries
     018-c - Food and Agricultural Industries
     018-d - Mineral Products Industries
    018-e - Metallurgical Industries
    018-f - Miscellaneous Sources (Evaporation Losses,  Petroleum
              Industry, Wood Products  Industry, and Assembly Plants

                                       i i i

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5

6.1
6.2
6.3

7.1
7.2
7.3
 Figures
 5-1
 5-2
                   Title
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
DISCUSSION   .
    Background
    Model IV
    Industrial Factors
    Emission Factors
    Source Categories
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
    Summary of Input/Output Variables
    Summary of Emission Impact Calculations
    Summary of Odor Analysis
ANALYSIS
    Analysis of Results
    Analysis of Procedures
    Overall Assessment of Emission Impact
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
Page
  1
  3
  7
  9
 11
 11
 14
 19
 26
 34
 42
 43
 45
 47
105
105
113
115
118
        Applicability of NSPS to Construction and Modification      17
        Average of State Regulations Applicable to General
           Process Sources  - Particulates                            33

-------
     The 018-a -f series is of interest only to those concerned with the detailed
 calculations used to determine the Model IV input variables.
     EPA-450/3-76-019-a provides additional results and information produced
 during the priority study.  Its major purpose is to describe the computer program
 used to rank all the Model IV input and output variables by pollutant (these rankings
 are reported in 019-b and -c).  In addition, it contains (1) summaries of the
 control systems considered  ''best" for each source, (2) equipment retirement ages,
 and (3) emission trends for each source category.
     EPA-450/3-76-019-b  and  c present the computer-generated ranked data for
 each pollutant.  Ranking  is  from highest to lowest for each of the 21  variables,
 e.g., A (nationwide capacity) and Eu (uncontrolled emission rate). Volume 019-b
 contains ranked data for particulate, nitrogen oxide (NOX) , and sulfur oxide (SOV)
,                                         ^            ^*                ^  •  -  j^
 sources.  In Volume 019-c,  the remaining pollutant sources are ranked:  hydrocarbons,
 carbon monoxide (CO), fluorides, hazardous material, acid mist,  lead, ammonia,
 suJfides, chlorine,  and trace metals.
     EPA-450/3-76-020, the final document in this series, takes the objective
 impact values from  EPA-450/3-76-017, adds subjective judgements, and  uses
 these combined criteria to produce a priority  list for NSPS development. The
 report then calculates nationwide emission  trends over the next 15 years for
 each criteria pollutant (particulate, SOX, NOX, hydrocarbons, and CO) based
 on a series of scenarios (e.g., no NSPS, 20 NSPS per year,  etc.)
    In summary,  documents EPA-450/3-76-017 and 020 present the results of
 this study.  Each stands alone, but they also complement each other, with  020
 building on the results of 017, The remaining documents  (018-a -f and 019-a  -c)
present additional and/or more detailed information derived  from the impact
and priority studies.
                                        IV

-------
Tab!es
5-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
          TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
                     Title
Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Particulates -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Oxides of Nitrogen -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Oxides of Sulfur -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Hydrocarbons -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Carbon Monoxide -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Fluorides -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Hazardous Pollutants -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Acid Mist -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Lead -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Ammonia -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Sulfides -
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
  - Chlorides -
Page
 36

 52

 60

 63

 66

 72

 76

 78

 79

 80

 81

 82

 83
                                  VI

-------
Tables
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-19
6-20
6-21
      TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
                  Titles                               Page
Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
- Trace Metals -                                        84.
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources
 in 1985                                                85
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from The Chemical Process Industry
 in 1985                                                87
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from The Food and Agricultural Industry
 in 1985                                                90
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from The Mineral  Products Industry
 in 1985                                                92
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from The Metallurgical Industry
 in 1985                                                94
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from Evaporation  Loss Sources
 in 1985                                                96
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from The Petroleum Industry in
 1985                                                   98
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from The Wood Products Industry
 in 1985                                                99
                                   vii

-------
Tables
6-22

6-23
6-24
7-1
7-2
 7-3
 7-4
      TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
                 Titles
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 Emissions from Assembly Plants in 1985
Conversion Tables for English to Metric Units
A Summary of Odor Occurrence and Odor Control
 For Various Industrial Categories
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on
 1985 National Emissions From Stationary
 Sources
Summary of Potential Emission Reduction
 Achievable in 1985 Through New Source
 Performance Standards
Sources Characterized by Decreasing Capacity
 and Zero Replacement Rate
 Sources  Characterized  By Decreasing Capacity
 and Zero Replacement Rate   -NSPS Control
 Potential for Designated Pollutants-
Page

100
101

 102
                                                                         106
                                                                         107
                                                                         111
                                                                        112
                                     vm

-------
 1.0
SUMMARY
         Section  111  of  the  Clean Air Act  charges the Administrator  of  the
 Environmental  Protection Agency with the  responsibility of establishing
 Federal  standards of performance for new  stationary sources which may  sig-
 nificantly contribute to air pollution.   These new source performance  stan-
 dards  (NSPS) will reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable
 through  application  of  the  best demonstrated control methods, considering
 cost.  Due to  limited manpower and funding, it is not feasible to set  stan-
 dards  for all  sources simultaneously and, therefore, an overall strategy
 is being developed to delineate the priorities by which such standards should
 be set.  This  strategy will focus attention on those sources for which NSPS
 control would  have the greatest impact on  reducing the quantity of atmospheric
 emissions.  Estimates of the projected differential in emissions with  and
 without anticipated NSPS is to serve as the basis for determining these
 standard-setting priorities.
        The purpose of this document is to present the results of a study
 to develop such estimates for approximately 200 source categories.   These
 "emission impact" calculations have been performed using a generalized pri-
 ority  rating system developed by EPA known as  Model  IV^1^.   The Model  has
 been computerized to permit refinement of data as  new or more up-to-date in-
 formation becomes available.
        The results of this study are presented for the year 1985 and are
 based on the premise that standards for all  200 source categories are pro-
mulgated in the year, 1975.   Our findings indicate  that in 1985, a potential
reduction of nearly  71* million tons of total, pollutants could be realized
                                  -1-

-------
through new source standards.  On a source basis, this potential reduc-
tion in atmospheric emissions ranges from several million tons  of total
pollutants per year to zero.  Of the total 71 million tons, nearly 38% is
attributable to the control of carbon monoxide followed by 23% for control
of SOX.  NSPS controls for oxides of nitrogen were shown to be the least
effective for all the criteria pollutants (7% of the total potential re-
duction).  Controls for all pollutants from stationary combustion sources
would account for the greatest, or 57%, of the total potential  reduction
that could be achieved by NSPS.  These totals, for the most part, are
process emissions since fugitive emissions were generally not included
In our study.  Very little information regarding  fugitive emission rates
are available in the literature.  Of the  total  71 million tons  potential
reduction, nearly 31% is attributable to  the  total control  of open
burning sources.
       The results of.the study presented herein will become an integral
part of the overall strategy plan to establish actual priorities for the
standard setting process.  Since these results only provide an  estimate
of control in preventing atmospheric emissions, they must be considered
along with many other factors in the development of such a strategy plan.
These factors would include, but not be limited to, the availability of
adequate control and test methods, the relationship of standards to the
economy, the availability of fuel and raw materials, energy requirements,
pollutant priorities and geographical distribution of pollution sources.
*AHhough EPA's policy is to use the metric system in all its document-
 ation, certain non-metric units are used in this report both for con-
 venience and to reflect original data.  Readers more familiar with
 metric units may use the conversion factor table on page 101.
                                 - 2 -

-------
2.0     INTRODUCTION

       The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to-establish
a long-range schedule for promulgating new source performance standards
 (NSPS).   In order for these  future NSPS to be most effective, an> overall
strategy or plan  of action is being developed so that priorities for
standard setting  can be established.  This master plan will take into ac-
count the impact  of standards on atmospheric emissions, pollutant priori-
ties, completion  dates of research and development studies on control
technology, availability of test methods, manpower for standards develop-
ment, geographical distribution of sources, effects on ambient air quality
and anticipated economic factors.  The purpose of this document is to
present the results of a program to calculate the impact of NSPS on air
pollutant emissions from sources within the United  States.
       These calculations have been performed using a  generalized priority
rating system known as Model.IV   t which  mathematically expresses  the
differential  in atmospheric emissions  that could be expected  with and with-
out NSPS.  For example,  a maximum emission differential  would be observed
for a source for which a stringent standard of performance  was  technically
feasible, but for which  there were no  existing state emission limitations.
On the other hand, a minimum or zero emission differential  would be ob-
served for a source if a standard of performance representing best  control
technology was  generally equal to existing state regulations.  This  pri-
ority rating system is  applied to approximately  200 source  categories  and
the results are listed in decreasing order of potential  emission reduction
in a later section of the report.
       The Model by which emission impact  is  calculated  uses  1975 capacity
                                   -3-

-------
as the baseline to which estimated growth and obsolescence rates over
the next ten years are applied to obtain the new and modified capacity
that could be regulated by NSPS in the period 1975 to 1985.  The best
available level of control is then applied to this capacity to determine
the level of emissions under NSPS control in 1985.  For comparison,
another set of emission levels is determined for 1985 by applying to this
same new and modified capacity the control levels stipulated by state regu-
lations, or (in the absence of applicable regulations) uncontrolled emis-
sion levels.  Both sets of emission levels represent maximum values based
on capacity.  They are then tempered by a capacity utilization factor to
convert emission levels from operation at capacity to operation at produc-
tion rates anticipated in 1985.  The difference between, the two values of
emission levels represents the control effectiveness of NSPS for a specific
pollutant within a source.  This is the first step in determining the or-
der of standard setting since priority attention should be given to source
categories for which the greatest potential  for emission reduction can be
expected.
       Conclusions drawn from the study and appropriate recommendations
are submitted in Sections 3,0 and 4.0, respectively.
       Section 5.0 of this report presents a detailed description of Model
IV, the factors which comprise it and the calculation procedures, assump-
tions and judgments employed.  Both typical  and unique cases are presented
as well as a discussion of the general reference material used.  A class-
ification of source categories and their known and suspected pollutants is
presented to include subcategorization for those sources where a variety
of processes, techniques or equipment necessitated an independent evalua-
tion.

-------
     Section 6.0 presents, in tabular form, a summary of the results and
 the prime and intermediate variables employed in the Model.  This section
 also includes a discussion of sources for which no control  technology
 has been demonstrated and a description of the control  of odorous emis-
 sions and major U.S.  odor sources.
      In Section 7.0,  an analysis of the applicability of Model  IV is
 made by describing in detail  the effect of the input variables  on the
 ultimate value of emission impact.   Cautions regarding  the  use  and limi-
 tations of the Model  and the input  variables are presented.   Significant
 results are summarized and unusual  or special  cases  are pointed out.
      The three appendices of this report and Volume  EPA-450/3-76-018-a
 through -018-f,  dealing with  the determination  of input variable for cal-
 culation of input of  New Source  Performance  Standards,  should be considered
 an  integral  part of this  study.   Appendix 1  of  this  report  lists  all  data
 sources  used in  the development  of  Model  IV  input factors.  Appendix  2
 summarizes  the industrial  categories  investigated with  a  list of the
 applicable  data  sources  for each  industry.   Appendix  3  presents  a  print-
 out  of  the  computer program developed to  perform  the  calculations.   It is
 coded in  Fortran  IV format for use with a Xerox 530 computer and can be
 easily modified  for any computer  system which uses the same language format.
     EPA-450/3-76-018-a through -018-f are the calculation sheets for each
 source and pollutant evaluated.   They document the data sources, assumptions
 and  calculation procedures employed.  These sheets contain additional
 details regarding historical trends.within the category, plant locations
 and sizes, projections of growth and the potential for change, alternate
sources of data, value and confidence levels of the input variables,
                                  -5-                 .      ••     "  '

-------
alternate control techniques and interrelationships of various
industrial categories.
                                -6-

-------
3.0
CONCLUSIONS
       Based on our application of the EPA Model  IV and the results pbtain-
ed by its use, TRC draws the following conclusions:
       (1)   In our opinion. Model IV provides an adequate basis by which
       to.establish estimates of the effect of new source performance stan-
       dards in preventing atmospheric emissions.  While it is not appli-
       cable to all emission sources, the Model permits an evaluation of
       the vast majority and provides a basis upon which an overall stra-
       tegy for the standard setting process can be developed.
       (2)   If it were possible to adopt new source performance standards
       in 1975 for all  the sources evaluated in this study,  a  potential
       reduction of approximately seventy-one million tons of  pollu-
       tants could be realized in 1985.   Although such a task  is not
       feasible, this result indicates the.need for the development
       of an overall strategy to maximize the effectiveness  of new source
       emission standards.
       (3)   The industrial and emission factors  used in this  study were
       developed specifically for, and are therefore limited to, Model IV
       use.  Because of this limited application, caution must be exercised
       if they are used in any other context.
       (4)   The confidence which can be placed on the calculated value of
       emission impact decreases as the number of years from the baseline
       year (1975) increases.  This is due, primarily, to the  potential
       difference which could occur between predicted and actual growth
       rates.
       (5)   For certain emission sources and pollutants, no control tech-

-------
nology has thus far been demonstrated.  For this reason, proper
application of the Model to determine emission impact could not
be achieved.
(6)   Little or no impact on emissions is  expected  for source
categories which show a decreasing capacity and which are gener-
ally not replacing obsolete facilities.
                           -8-

-------
4.0    RECOMMENDATIONS

       Based on our conclusions and analysis of the results of this study,
we submit the following recommendations:
       (1)   For standard setting, high priority should be given to
       sources with both a rapid growth rate and significant emissions
       since extensive control of the source could be recognized in a
       relatively short time period.  The effect of control efforts will
       be maximized if standards are initiated before a leveling off
       trend occurs.
       (2)   Growth and obsolescence rates, fractional utilization rates
       and  capacities for the majority of source categories should be
       periodically reevaluated to point up any possible changes that
       could result in a greater impact of standards on emissions.  This
       is particularly important for sources which have shown a decreasing
       or abnormal growth rate.
        (3)   A more detailed  investigation should be conducted for those
       sources where  production appears to be-decreasing.  The purpose  of
       this investigation would be to  determine the extent to which ob-
       solete  facilities are  being replaced so that an accurate determina-
                                        V
        tion of emission  impact can be  made.
        (4)    Research and  development  efforts for  control  technology  should
        be  accelerated for  those sources capable of significant emissions
       where no.control  technology has been demonstrated.  This should  be
        accomplished as rapidly as  possible  so that  the standard setting
        process can be initiated.
                                     -9-

-------
(5)   Overall strategies must be refined to take into account the
long-term outlook for the availability and effects of control tech-
niques.  Such refinements should consider:
      (a)   Optional control  methods to be used in the event that
      changes in fuel or raw  material  availability render a single
      control method inadequate.
      (b)   Standards for several pollutants from an emission source
      to preclude the excessive formation of or increase in one
      pollutant by controlling another.
      (c)   Enforcement of proper operating,, maintenance and "good
      housekeeping" practices if these techniques will significantly
      reduce emissions.
      (d)   The geographical  distribution of emission sources and
      the effect of standards on air quality in "high density" areas.
                          -10-

-------
5.0    DISCUSSION
5.1
BACKGROUND
                       .(2)
       The Clean Air ActVr~'  of 1970, building on prior Federal,  state and
local control agency legislation and experience, authorized a national
program of air pollution prevention and control  which  included the follow-
ing major approaches:
       (1)   National  Ambient Air Quality Standards  (Sections 109  and 110).
       Ambient air concentration (receptor/effect) standards  are set by
       EPA for pollutants affecting public health (primary standards) and/
       or welfare (secondary standards).  Air quality criteria documenting
       health and welfare effects are issued by,  EPA  prior to  setting stan-
       dards; the six pollutants for which such  documents  have been  pub-
       lished (particulate matter, SO, NO. hydrocarbons,  photochemical
                                     y\    X
       oxidants, and CO) are commonly called "criteria pollutants."   Stan-
       dards  are attained through EPA-appro.ved state implementation  plans
       designed to achieve and maintain standards on a regional  basis.
       (2)   Emission  Standards for Moving Sources (Sections  202,  211,  and
       231).   EPA prescribes standards  for motor vehicles which  require at
       least  a level  of emission reduction mandated  by Congress, regulate
       fuels  and fuel  additives, and regulate aircraft emissions.  These
       requirements significantly expand prior legislation  authorizing
       motor  vehicle standards and fuel  additive registration.
       (3)   National  Emission Standards for Hazardous  Air  Pollutants
       (Section 112).   Emission standards  are established by  EPA for sta-
       tionary sources  emitting pollutants which "...may cause,  or contri-
                                    -11-

-------
       bute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious ir-
       reversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness."  The standards
       apply to both new and existing sources; enforcement authority may
       be delegated to the States.  These are emission standards rather
       than ambient air standards but they are based on health  effects.
       Present standards regulate asbestos, beryllium and mercury emissions,
       (4)   Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (Section
       111).  These are emission standards, established by EPA, which re-
       flect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the ap-
       plication of the best adequately demonstrated system of  emission
       reduction, taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction.
       They apply only to new or modified sources,with one exception:  if
       the standard is for a "designated" pollutant (i.e., a pollutant
       which is neither a "criteria" nor a "hazardous" pollutant), then a
       separate standard is established for existing sources by State
       agencies (Section llld).
       Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources are  commonly re-
ferred to as new source performance standards  or NSPS.   The first group
for which these standards were proposed covered five source categories:
fossil fuel-fired steam generators (greater than 250 million BTU per hour),
Portland cement plants, municipal incinerators, nitric acid plants and
sulfuric acid plants.   Standards were promulgated on December 23, 1971.  On
March 8, 1974, standards were promulgated for an additional seven categor-
ies:  asphalt concrete plants, petroleum refineries (fluid catalytic crack-
ing regenerators), petroleum storage vessels (greater than 65,000 gallon
capacity), secondary lead smelters and refineries,  brass and bronze ingot
                                 -12-

-------
 production  plants,  iron  and steel  plants  (basic oxygen  furnace)  and sludge
 incinerators.   Standards are presently being  proposed for several  addition-
 al  categories!:   primary  copper,  lead  and  zinc smelters. Others are current-
 ly  under development.
        The  major objective  of new  source  performance standards is  to ob-
 viate  future air pollution  problems rather  than to  correct them  after the
 fact.   The  most practical time,  from  both an  economic and technical  stand-
 point,  to install .pollution control equipment is during the construction
 phase  of a  new  facility.  Add-on systems  or devices are more costly than
 those  incorporated  in the plant  design  and  they may not represent  the ap-
 plication of best technology due to the constraints placed on them by
 existing structures and  process  considerations.  Pollution control  equip-
 ment, designed  as an integral part of a process or operation, is the  most
 effective means  of  reducing  emissions at  the  least possible  expense.   In
 many instances,  proper selection, design  and  incorporation of controls can
 result  in zero  cost or even  a savings for new  plant operations.
        Since NSPS require best demonstrated control technology on  new or
 modified plants,  they have the effect of  preventing significant quantities
 of emissions from rapidly growing industries  and from extensive plant modi-
 fication efforts.   It is an  effective means of minimizing  air quality de-!
 gration,  since  the standards can be reviewed periodically  and modified to
 reflect  advancements in the state-of-the-art of control  technology.  Fu-
 ture plants or plant modifications  would then  be subject to the new stan-
 dard, thus preventing the degradation  that would result  from the  applica-
 tion of  "static" regulations to growing sources.  In addition,  pollutants
which are neither "criteria" nor "hazardous" may be  controlled  for  existing
                                 -13-

-------
sources through application of Section m(d)  of the Clean Air Act.   These
                                                  (3)
pollutants are defined as "designated" pollutants.   '
       Due to limited manpower and funding,  it is not feasible to set
standards on all sources simultaneously and  immediately.   Accordingly,
an overall strategy to delineate priorities  is being developed.  These
priorities are being determined by evaluating  the quantitative impact
of a standard in terms of emission reduction for a  group of sources.
Superimposed upon this are other priority and  timing factors such as
lead times necessary to develop applicable control  methods or test pro-
cedures and manpower availability.
       The purpose of this document is to present the results of a program
to develop the quantitative impact of new source performance standards
(NSPS) on emissions from approximately 200 source categories.  These im-
pact calculations have been performed using a generalized priority rating
system known  as Model  iv"', which mathematically-expresses the differential
in atmospheric emissions that  could be expected with and without NSPS.

5.2    MODEL  IV
       Several models  have been  developed by  the EPA for  the  determination
of priorities over the past few  years.  The first model provided  a compari-
son of source categories based on  total atmospheric emissions  of  all pol-
lutants,  availability  of control  technology,  and other  factors.   The
second model  focused on the need for  individual  priorities  for each  pol-
lutant and  attempted to restrict rating criteria to factors selected from
a generalized strategy for the pollutant.   Impact on emissions was a prime
criterion in  all  cases, but impact was  expressed on a relative scale.   The
third model  attempted  to emphasize impact,  but the  relative scale concept

                                   -14-

-------
 was retained.   Because  impact was expressed  in  a  relative way,  the  model
 did not provide a system amenable to gradual refinement as available in-
 formation was  improved.  Other models developed by EPA have taken into
•account toxicity, exposure,  ambient air concentrations or population
 density. These models  are generally complex and  not amenable to
 modification or refinement in addition to presenting impact on  a
 relative scale.
        Model  IV, which  is developed below, is amenable to data  refinement
 and provides  a quantitative estimate of anticipated impact of standards of
 performance  in preventing atmospheric emissions.
        The additional control potential of new or revised  standards of
 performance  stems from  the application of emission standards that are more
 stringent than those presently applied to construction and modification.
 This potential, for a specified time period, is expressed as
                                  
-------
      Ty. s total emissions in 1*  year assuming no control (tons/yr)
      Tfl = total emissions in baseline year under baseline year regula-
       A                                                              ,
           tions (tons/yr)
      K  = normal fractional utilization rate of existing capacity,
           assumed constant during time interval
      A  = baseline year production capacity (production units/yr)
      B  = production capacity from construction and modification to
           replace obsolete facilities (production units/yr)
      C  = production capacity from construction and modification to in-
           crease output above baseline year capacity  (production units/yr)
      PD ~ construction and modification rate to replace obsolete capacity
       D
           (decimal  fraction of  baseline capacity/yr)
      Pr = construction and modification rate to increase source capa-
       v                                                       '     '
           city (decimal fraction of baseline capacity/yr)
      E<; = allowable emissions under existing regulations  (mass/unit capa-
       O
           city)
      EN = allowable emissions under standards  of  performance  (mass/unit
           capacity)
       E,, = emissions with  no control  (mass/unit capacity)
       For the purpose  of this  study the  ith year is  defined as  1985 and the
jth year,  1975.
       Assuming that capacity lost due  to obsolescence is replaced by con-
struction and modification, as  schematically shown in Figure 5-1, then,
       Ts = Es K (A - B) + Es K (B + C)    .   .    .    .    .     .   . CD
and
                                   -16-

-------
 lo.
 CO
 CD
 £
 O
£
CO

O
c
O
2
a.
                   Applicability of NSPS
             to construction and modification
        CO
        a
        CO
        3

        2
        €/»
     0)  CO
     E K-
     §  «
     a  8
                        Baseline year capacity
         Oj
                             years
       (A-B) = capacity regulated by existing limitations

       (B-t-C) = capacity regulated by NSPS
                          - 17 -

-------
      TN = ES K  (A - B) + EN K (B + C)	(2)
      Ts - TN =  K (B + C) (Es - EN)	•  .   .   (3)
      Values of  B and C are determined as follows:
      (a) If compound growth is assumed,
          B = A  [ (1 + Pg)1 - 1]   .	(4)
          C = A  [ (1 + Pc)1 - 1]	•   (5)
      (b) If simple growth is assumed,
          B = AiPD	(6)
                 D
          C = AiPc	(7)
          where
               i =  elapsed time, years
       In  addition,  the following values may be calculated:
          TA-VA	•   •	.  .  (8)
          TU = EyK  (A  -B) +  EyK  (B +  C)	  .  (9)
       Further  refinement  of  the  Model may be  realized for cases where ES
for new  and  existing plants differ.  In  this case,
          Tc =  KEC   (A -  B)  +  KEC   (B + C)	(10)
            S      S]             b2
       where:
           Ec   =  Ec  for existing  plants
            O-I     O
           Ec   ~  E~  for. new plants
            Op     ^*
       Therefore,
           Ts - TN  » K (B + C)  (E$  - EN)	  (ID

       Section 111 (d)  of the Clean Air Act requires the States to  regulate
                               - 18 -

-------
  designated pollutants from existing installations for sources to which
  NSPS have been applied.  To handle this situation, a slight modification
  to the model is necessary.  T^ TA and T$ are the same as for criteria
  pollutants.  T  is redefined, however, as
TND=
                            (A"B}
        Where:
            Elll(d) = all°wable emissions under State regulations  as  re-
                      quired by Section lll(d)  of the Act.
            TND     = total  emissions  in ith year under Section  lll(d) and
                      NSPS regulations.
        Due to the large  number of calculations  to be performed  and the
 repetitive nature of these  calculations,  the -model has been computerized.
 A printout of the program can  be  found  in Appendix III.
        For the purposes  of  this study,  K, A, Pg  and  PQ are defined as
 industrial  prime  variables.  E$j  E^ EN and'E^  (d) are defined as emis-
 sion prime  variables.  TA,  TU§ T$, TN. TND, B and C  are referred to as
 intermediate  variables.

 5.3     INDUSTRIAL  FACTORS
 5.3.1  Normal  Fractional Utilization - K
       The  variable, K, represents that fraction of total  existing capa-
 city which is brought into service to produce a given output.   By  applying
 this factor to the capacity based values of A,  B and  C,  impact on  emissions
 is determined for actual  production.   The numerical value of  K may be ar-
bitrarily changed to permit a revaluation -of impact  on emissions  at  any
production level, if so desired.   It  is for this reason  that  K exists
                                  -19-

-------
within the Model.
       K was generally deduced from information available in the.litera-
ture by simply dividing production by capacity.  Occasionally, a direct
reference to the value was made.  Although the definition appears to be
relatively straightforward, the actual value can be interpreted several
ways based upon the original definition of the term  capacity.  Industries
generally specify their production capacity in two ways—preferred or
physical/4^  Physical capacity is defined as the maximum production that
would result if an industry pushed its output to the ultimate practical
level.  Preferred capacity, on the other hand, is the maximum quantity of
production that would result considering equipment limitations, normal
operating schedules, maintenance, shutdowns and profits.
       Although the values of K were determined from many data sources
within the literature, several were exceptionally valuable.   The Chemical
Economics Handbook^5' gave production and capacity information for many
source categories as well as breakdowns of various processes or methods
within the category.  A great deal of information necessary to develop K
was obtained from draft and final reports made available by EPA.  In some
cases, Department of Commerce Publications, such as the Census of Manufac-
turers^  ' and the Survey  of Current Business^   , were used.
       Determination of K for source categories that had 'associated pro-
duction  and capacity data was relatively straightforward.  A few source
categories, however, did  not have an  associated production  rate and had  to
be  treated differently.   Field  burning of sugar cane, for example, is  a
"do or don't" situation.   Therefore,  K was set equal to unity for this
type  of  process.  Emission  factors for the  dry cleaning industry were
                                  -20-

-------
developed on a per capita basis with the values of A, B and C being re-
lated to population.  Since population is, in fact, "capacity", K was set
equal to unity.  In general, the majority of manufacturing processes had
a fractional utilization greater than 0.7.  Most were in the 0.8 to 0.9
range.
5.3.2  Production Capacity - A
       The variable, A, is defined as production capacity  in  the base-
line year, 1975.   It is used to derive the values  of new (C)  or replaced
(B) capacity in 1985 (Equations 4 through  7)  and to  define existing  ca-
pacity in 1985 not subject to MSPS (A -  B).   Production  capacity was
generally determined from production data found in the literature for
some year other than 1975.  This value was converted to capacity in  1975
by dividing by fractional utilization, K,  and scaling this value by  Pr  to
                                                                     0
1975.  For those  cases where actual capacity was quoted in the literature,
it was not necessary to divide by K.
       The units  for capacity were selected to be consistent  with  those
used by the specific category and.which  were compatible  with  the other
factors.  In most cases, tons of product or tons of  feed per  year  v/ere
chosen.   However, for the phosphate fertilizer industries, tons  of  P00C
                                                                     2 5
per year was chosen since production and capacity information is commonly
quoted on this basis.   For combustion sources, A was expressed in  BTU's  or
horsepower - years per year.  For incinerators, tons of  refuse handled
annually was specified.   Occasionally, the value of  capacity  was chosen  in
terms of a quantity to which emission or growth factors  could be related.
An example of this is decreasing for which tons of metal cleaned,  not the
                                  -21-

-------
quantity of solvent used, was selected.  Tons of clothes cleaned annually
was chosen as the basis for the dry cleaning analysis.  A growth rate with-
in the industry based on anticipated population trends could then be em-
ployed.
       The most recent production or capacity data available was used so
that extrapolation to the baseline year would result in as realistic a
value as possible.  In nearly all cases, data sources were more recent
than 1967; much data were from the 1970's.  Several sources were excep-
tionally valuable, notably those mentioned previously in the discussion
regarding fractional utilization.  Others included the Chemical Profiles
series^, Particulate Pollutant System Study^ ', EPA control techniques
                                                 (9)
documents and Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Studyv  .
5.3.3  Increase in Industrial Capacity Over 1975 Capacity - PC
       The variable, PC, is defined as the average anticipated growth rate
in source capacity during the period of 1975 to 1985.  It is expressed as
a fraction and is applied to A, production capacity,  to determine C,
(Equations 5 and 7).   It is this value of C to which  NSPS can be applied.
       Pr was determined by several methods, the most general being extra-
        0
polation of historical production or capacity data to the year  19'85.  A
second relatively common approach  was to relate the  anticipated number  of
new  plants and the average new  plant capacity to 1975 capacity  levels.   A
third alternative was  based on  "expert predictions" from sources such as
Department of Commerce,  associated trade  associations,  cognizant industry
personnel or from studies performed by a  number of organizations such as
the  Stanford Research  Institute '5' or the Environmental Protection Agency.
                                  -22-

-------
 For categories whose function is directly related to population,  De-
 partment of Commerce data regarding population trends was  employed to
 determine Pr
            L/«
        A growth rate based on "expert predictions"  or extrapolation of data
 for the ten year period, 1975 to 1985, is subject to the many  biases  which
 could occur during that period.   For example,  availability of  raw materials,
 sudden changes  in demand or consumption patterns  or economic factors  such
 as cost of money and price controls  could alter historical  trends  or  in- -
 validate -"expert predictions".   As a  result, the  impact of  standards  would
 be subsequently altered.
        As  shown in Equations  5 and 7,  PC  may be expressed  as either a
 compound or simple growth  rate.   If the historical.growth pattern -was in- -
 deed compound   in  nature,  the value of PC was calculated by the following
 equation:
       P  »  x-y   /Capacity in year "x"    , n
       PC        ^Capacity in year "y"  " 1'°   '  '   '  '   •   '   •
       where x>y
       If the historical growth pattern was simple in nature, the value of
PC  was calculated by the following equation:
       P   = Capacity in year "x" - Capacity in year "y"
        C             (x-y) Capacity in 1975
(14)
       where x>y
       For the case of simple growth, it is  necessary to relate  the  growth
to the baseline year, 1975, as shown above.   For compound growth,.the, rate
can be applied to any year.
       For the majority of cases,  PC was approximated by a compound  rate
                                  -23-

-------
and based on the most recent data available to preclude major inaccuracies
in the determination of emission impact.
       There were several cases where the anticipated growth rate exceeded
10% annually.  Industries characterized by both a rapid growth rate and
significant emission rates are prime candidates for NSPS since almost
complete control of the source can be recognized in a relatively  short
time period.  Since this rapid growth rate will eventually level  off, the
use of the Model should not be extrapolated too far beyond the baseline
year or an unrealistic value of emission impact could result.  Future
growth rates for these sources should, therefore, be carefully mohi--
tored.
       For several sources such as lead pigment manufacture or ROP triple
superphosphate'production, a continuing downward trend in capacity was
noted.  This characteristic was associated with sources being phased out
due to replacement by more efficient processes, or the demand for whose
product was  declining because of the availability of a better or cheaper
product.  For  the purpose of our study, we assumed that these sources
did not replace obsolete facilities due to the lack of economic incentive.
Accordingly, there would be no new or modified capacity generated between
1975  and  1985  that could be controlled by NSPS.  However, under Section
Hid  of the  Clean Air Act, the States are required to regulate designated
pollutants from existing installations for sources to which  NSPS have  been
applied.   It was necessary, therefore, to determine TS, TND  and  (T$-TND)
for those sources with  decreasing  production  capable of emitting designated
pollutants.  Values  for the year 1985 are  included in Section 6.0, Presenta-
tion  of  Results.   In addition,  values for  each year  between  1975 and 1985
are presented  in  Section 7.0,  Analysis.  This has  been done  since  the  emis-
                               - 24 -

-------
 sion  impact  is greatest in  1976 and diminishes throughout the ten year
 period  due to the decreasing capacity.
        For several other sources, a zero growth rate was observed.  We
 assumed,  however, that obsolete facilities were replaced, thereby permit-
 ting  an emission impact calculation to be performed on the value B, the
 obsolete  production capacity replaced between 1975 and 1985.
 5.3.4  Replacement Rate of  Obsolete Production Capacity - PB
       The variable, PB> is defined as the average rate at which obsolete
 production capacity is replaced during the period 1975 to 1985.  It is
 expressed as a fraction and is applied to A to determine B, (Equations 4
 and 6).   It is this value of B to which NSPS can be applied.  Also, the
 quantity, (A-B), defines the existing production capacity in 1985 to which
 only  State regulations are applicable.
       PB was determined by one of three methods.  One approach was to re-
 late  the  number of known or estimated plant closings and the average exist-
 ing plant capacity to .1975 capacity levels.  A second method was based on
 known equipment lifetime.  For example, if a major piece of production
 equipment had an actual estimated lifetime of 50 years, it would depreciate
 at a  rate of 2% per year on a simple basis.  The third, and most conmon,
 method was to use.depreciation guidelines published by the Internal Revenue
 Service^  '.   The allowance permitted by the IRS is an economic factor used
 for tax collection purposes and generally depreciates equipment and facili-
 ties over a shorter term than their actual  useful life.  We assumed for the
 purpose of this  study, therefore,- that typical  equipment  and facilities
within each source category evaluated had a useful  life equal  to twice
 that allowed by  the IRS.   As a general rule, P  was based on very limited
                                             • B
 data and, as  a result, a great deal  of judgment was necessary.   For this
 reason, Pg was  selected on the basis of straight line depreciation (simple)
to avoid compounding potential  errors.
                                -  25  -

-------
5.4    EMISSION FACTORS

5.4.1  Uncontrolled Emission Factor - Ey
       The variable, Ey, is the emission factor representing a condition of
no control.  It is used to calculate Ty, the uncontrolled emissions in 1985,
the value to which TS and TN may be compared to determine the nationwide
impact on emissions of'regulations in general.  Ey is also employed to de-
velop EM, the NSPS controlled emission factor.  When the efficiency of a
control device is stated, application of this efficiency to Ey  results in
the calculation of EN   Thirdly, Ey replaces the value of E$, the emission
factor representing control to the extent required by State regulations,
when no regulations for a source exist in a given state.
       Ey, in most cases, represents a totally uncontrolled emission factor.
On occasion, however, it represents the controlled emission factor at the
exit of a control device if such a device is integral with the processv- An
example of this would be carbon black manufacture by the furnace process
where  the product-is actually collected by a series of control devices.   If
these  devices were not  functional, the process, could not operate.
       Determination of Ey was relatively straightforward and references  in
the  literature were abundant.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission  Factors,
 AP-42
      (11)
and Air Pollutant Emission Factors
                                  (12)
were major reference
 sources  for this  value.   Uncontrolled  emission  factors  for  particulates were
                                                                         /0\
 determined for many sources  from the Particulate Pollutant  Systems  Study   ;.
 Occasionally,  E..  for a specific process  or operation  was  synthesized  from
 several  independent values  of Ey.   Examples were fossil fuel  fired  boilers,
 gas turbine engines and internal combustion engines where the value of Ey
 was determined by weighting the emission factors for  each fuel  type by the
                                    -26-

-------
fraction of the total heating value supplied by each fuel.  For certain
sources, E^ was synthesized by weighting the emission factors  from dif-
ferent portions of an operation by the fraction of total  capacity  as-
sociated with that operation.  It is for this reason that the value of E..
developed for this study should not be used in any other context or erro-
neous conclusions could result.
       Units for Ey were chosen to be consistent with the units selected
for A, production capacity.  For example, if A were in terms of tons of
product per year, EU wou'id be specified in terms of pounds of emissions
per ton of product.  For those cases where literature quotations for E..
were on a different basis than A, it was necessary to make the proper con-
version.  Generally speaking, emission factors for fugitive emissions were
not included within the study even though for certain sources  fugitive
emissions may be greater than emissions from point sources.   This  is an
area where further study is necessary to quantitatively assess the impor-
tance of this category of sources and to develop methods for emission
control.                                                         --.-..•
5.4.2  Controlled Emission Factor - E..
       The variable, E^, is the emission factor representing the condition
of best control applied to new sources.  It is used to determine T,,, the
emissions that would exist in 1985 if NSPS were applied.   When TN is sub-
tracted from Tg, the quantitative value of emission impact is  determined.
The units of E^ were chosen to be consistent with those selected for E...
       A literature search was conducted to find the best level of control
that could be applied to new or modified construction.  The information
                                   -27

-------
came from a wide variety of references.  In addition to those mentioned
for Ey, which occasionally gave controlled emission factors, the IGCI
surveys^  '   ' and feature articles and process summaries from various
trade magazines such as Chemical Engineering were exceptionally valuable.
The determination of EN was accomplished by one of three methods.  The
first, and most common, was directly from information regarding a well-
controlled plant.  The second method was by applying a stated control
hardware efficiency to the value of Ey.  When no reference to control tech-
niques was made, a transfer of technology from similar processes was assu-
med where it was deemed applicable.
       There were several instances where technology to control a specific
pollutant within a category had not been demonstrated and for which a
transfer of technology was judged not feasible in our opinion due to
technical or economic reasons or for which no control efforts were ever
made due to a low associated point source emission rate.  For those cases,
EN was developed by assuming the anticipated .level of control that would
result if present research and development efforts are successful.  For
those cases where no specific research and development efforts are present-
ly underway, we set EN = 0.0 to determine the maximum hypothetical impact
on emissions if the pollutant were to be completely controlled.  The pur-
pose of this application was to develop a separate listing of source
categories, ranked in order of hypothetical emission impact, from which
priorities for control technology research and development efforts can be
developed.  The'results are weighted towards categories for which there are
no present control efforts (EN = 0.0).  They should not be compared to the
values determined for the majority of cases where control technology has
                                  -28-

-------
 been demonstrated or where a transfer of technology was  judged feasible.
 This listing is therefore presented separately in Tables 6-1  through  6-13.
        The values of EN determined for this  study were based  on present
 levels of control technology as  determined from the literature.   It is
 possible, however,  that nationwide plant surveys  for each category  could
 locate more efficient techniques  for unique  installations which  have  not
 been presented in the literature.   Such an effort was beyond  the scope  of
 this project.   It is  also  recognized  that  advancements in the state-of-the-
 art  of control  technology will occur  and the value of EN will  consequently
 change as time goes  on.
 5.4.3  Controlled Emission  Factor For Designated PolJutants - £,„,,.%
                                                                lll(d)
        The  variable,  E}T|(d), is  the  emission'factor which represents best
 control  applied to designated  pollutants  from existing  plants.   It is  vised
 to determine TND, the  emissions of a  designated pollutant that would  exist
 in 1985 for existing  plants  under  State control and  new  plants under  NSPS.
 Section  lll(d)  of the  Clean  Air Act(2>3) requires  the States to  draft,
 maintain  and enforce  regulations for  the control of  designated pollutants
 from existing  sources  for which NSPS have been set for new sources within
 that category.  As a result, the Model was modified to reflect this situa-
 tion (see Equation 12),  When TNQ  is subtracted from T$,  the quantitative
*For the purpose, of this study the following pollutants  are defined as
designated:   fluorides,  trace  metals, acid mist,  lead, ammonia,  sulfides,
chlorine and odors.

                               -29-

-------
value of emission impact for designated pollutants is determined.   Units
are identical to E^.
       Determination of EI-M/,}) was accomplished in a manner similar to E^
Control techniques or levels, however, differed in that retrofit technology
was necessary for existing plants.  In most cases, we believe that avail-
able control technology for new installations could also be retrofit to
existing installations .  Of course, there would be specific instances at
certain individual plants where this might not be possible due to existing
structures and prohibitive costs.
       Equation  02) was also used to calculate controlled emissions of
"hazardous"  pollutants as defined in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.  How-
ever,  E,-!-!/^ was replaced by EN» since both new and existing sources would
be pontrolled.
5.4.4  Estimated Allowable Emission Under 1975 Regulations - ES
       The variable, E$, is the emission factor which represents the 1975
level  of control required under State, local, regional or Federal regula-
tions.  It is used to determine TS, emissions in 1985 under baseline year
regulations.  When TN is subtracted from T$, the quantitative impact of
NSPS on emissions is calculated.
       To determine the applicable regulations, tabulations were made on a
State  by State, pollutant by pollutant, and source by source (where ap-
plicable) basis.  This was done by updating and augmenting all summary
tables published in Analysis of Final State  Implementation Plans    '  (to
August 1974) by  reviewing all the State regulations  as published in the
Environment  Reporter'    .  Federal regulations for new sources promulgated
under  Section 111 of the Clean Air Act were  also  incorporated.  Ready
access to all regulations was  thereby provided in tabular form.  No effort
was made to  account for anticipated state  regulations beyond  1975.
                                  -30-

-------
       The value of Eg was usually a weighted average of all  existing regu-
lations and/or Ey if no regulations existed.   Weighting was  generally deter-
mined on the basis of production capacity distribution as outlined below.
             . .   N .
       Es=     Y\ES   A.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .(15)
                i  = 1
       where:
        '1
              Regulation in 1th State.
       A*    = Decimal  fraction of total  capacity located in  5th'State.
       1    = Individual  State
       N    = Total  number of States  over which capacity is  distributed
Since the units of Ec and E~  had to  be  the same as those chosen for EM
                    o      oj                                   •      J
and EN, it was necessary to convert the  majority of regulations into the
appropriate units.  For example, a particulate emission regulation in
pounds per hour was converted to pounds  per ton by dividing by the typical
plant size on a tons per hour basis.
       Determination of E$ for particulate emissions from general  processes
required a series of calculations.  For most. States, a process weight curve
constitutes the regulation.  To determine the allowable emissions in pounds
per hour for each State, we first determined the process weight rate in tons
per hour for a typical plant in that State.  This was done by dividing the
production capacity in the State by the number of associated plants.  This
was in  turn converted from an annual rate to an hourly rate by applying the
number  of annual  operating hours.  Since this value was generally in terms
of output capacity, we then  developed a  feed to product ratio which  con-
                                 -31-

-------
verted output to input capacity—the value required by the  process  weight
rate curve. • The allowable emission in pounds per hour from the curve was
divided by the output capacity to obtain ES> in proper units.   When these
calculations had been made for each State of concern, the average value of
Ec was determined as described by Equation (15).  This is a typical example
 w
of EQ determination.  There were many variations and special case situations
    O
too numerous to mention here.  Details of the various calculations for each
industrial category can be found in the appropriate Appendices.
       There were many cases where sources of particulate emissions were
distributed throughout all States and specific  data regarding geographical
distribution was lacking.  For these cases, we  developed a generalized
process weight  rate curve by  linearly averaging the process weight curves
of all the States at each production level.  The  resulting  curve is  pre-
sented in Figure 5-2.  It is  slightly less  stringent  than  the  curve  origi-
nally issued  as the EPA  guideline  and slightly  more stringent  than a curve
generated by  weighting the process weight curves  of the  twenty-five  most
populated States on  the  basis of fractional  population distribution.   Sim-
ilar generalizations  were developed for the particulate, NOX and SOX regu-
lations  for fuel burning sources.
        For hydrocarbon emission.sources, the value.of E$ is related  to the
 reactivity of the  pollutant since different regulations  apply  to reactive
 and non-reactive hydrocarbons.  For the case of reactive emissions,  we
 determined the typical plant size within each state of concern, calculated
 the hourly emission rate and applied the "percent control" regulation, if
 it existed, to determine whether the hourly or "percent control" emission
 regulation was applicable.  After converting the result for each State to
                                -32-

-------
to
 o

                                  :::•::! .r;:| rFV


                                                                                       -33-
                       (clH/SOl)  SHOISSIW3

-------
pounds per ton, a weighting process, as shown in Equation (15) was perform-
ed.  As was the case for general process particulate emission E^ determina-
tion, there were many variations and special case considerations too numer-
ous to mention here.  Details of the various calculations for each source
category can be found in the appropriate Appendices.
       For several cases, State regulations for new sources differed from
existing sources.  Consequently, two values of ES were determined and ap-
plied to the Model as shown in Equation (10).
       Regulations pertaining to visible emissions were not included in the
evaluation of E~ due to the  impracticably of converting stated opacity "levels
to a weight rate of emissions for use in the Model.

5.5    Source Categories
       A list of approximately  '200major industries, processes and opera-
tions within the United States potentially capable of emitting pollutants
into the atmosphere was provided by the EPA.  These source categories were
classified into ten general groups as outlined below for the purpose of
emission impact analysis:
           I  Stationary Combustion Sources
          II  Chemical Process Industry
         III  Food and Agricultural Industry
          IV  Mineral Products Industry
           V  Metallurgical Industry
          VI  Evaporation Loss Sources
         VII  Petroleum Industry
        VIII  Wood Products Industry
                                 -34-

-------
          IX  Assembly Plants
           X  Waste Disposal (Non-Combustion)
Each major group is subdivided into several  associated source  categories.
These subdivisions have been further divided into individual processes,
size constraints and equipment types when an independent emission  impact
analysis was warranted.  These category breakdowns were necessary  when
there was a difference between the level of and/or types of pollutants,
growth rates, process rates or applicable control technology.   The impact
of NSPS on emissions from a specific source, group of sources  or an en-
tire major classification may be reviewed by organizing the list in this
manner.
       The list presented in Table 5-1 identifies by means of X's the
known or suspected pollutants associated with each process and^operation
evaluated, and which are judged to be candidates for NSPS.  Fourteen pollu-
tants have been identified for the purpose of this study.  The list is flex-
ible and it may be'.added to, deleted from, or modified if need be so that
new processes or industries, or those that are being phased out may be
accounted for.
                                   -35-

-------
                            TABLE 5-1.  STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
                                                                                                          M
                                                                                                          W
                                                                              §   8
 I.  STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES

     BOILERS, FOSSIL FUEL
            <0.3 x 106 BTU/hr
            P.3-10 x 106. BTU/hr
            10-250 x 10° BTU/hr
            >250 x 106 BTU/hr
            Hix&d Fuel
                 Coal & Refuse
                 Oil & Refuse
            Wood Waste

     ENGINES, STATIONARY
            Gas Turbines
                 Electric Utility
                 Pipe Line
            Internal Combustion
                 Spark Ignition (Heavy Duty Gas Fired)
                 Diesel and Dual Fuel

     INCINERATORS
            Auto Body
            Conical
            Industrial/Coauaercial
            Municipal
            Tatholcglcal
            Sludge

     MISCELLANEOUS COMBUSTION
            Open Burning
                 Commercial/Industrial
                 Agricultural
            Orchard Heaters
            Combustion of  Waste Crankcase Oil

II.  CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
          X
          X
          X
          X
         X
         X
         X
             X
             X
            X
            X
            X
            X
X
X
X
X
X
X   X
X   X

    X
X   X
X
X
     X
     X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
          X
          X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
             X
             X

             X
             X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
                      X
                      X
X
X
y.
X
X
X
     ACIDS
            Adipic
            DMT/IPA (Nitric Acid Oxidation)
            Hydrochloric
                 By-product
                 Salt
            Hydrofluoric
            Hitric
            Phosphoric
                 Wet Process'
                 Thermal Process
            Sulfuric
    X
    X
X        X
    X
                                                                     X
                                  X
                                  X
     ACRYLOHITRILE
     AMMONIA
            Methanator plant
            Regenerator &  CO-absorber plant

     CARBON BLACK
            Channel process
            Fprnace process
X
X
              X
              X
          X
          X
                                      X
                                      X
             X
             X
                                                          -  36  -

-------
                         TABLE 5-1.  STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION (CONT.)
XI.  CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY (CONT.)


     CHARCOAL

     CHLOR-AIXALI.
           Diaphragm cells
           Kcrcuty  cells

     CRUDE OIL & NG PRODUCTION -  SULFUR RECOVERY

     DETERGENT

     ESSENTIAL OILS

     ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE  (OXYCHLORINATION PROCESS)

     ETHYLENE OXIDE

     EXPLOSIVES
           High
           Low

     FORMAUtEHYUE

     FUEL CONVERSION -.COAL GASIFICATION
           High BTU Gas
           low BTU  Gas

     IEAD PIGMENT

    KALEIC ANHYDRIDE (BENZENE OXIDATION)

     PAINT

    PHTHALIC  ANHYDRIDE
          Naphthalene
          O-xylene

    PRINTING INK

    SOAP

    SODIUM CARBONATE
          Solvay Process
          Natural

    SYNTHETICS
          Fibers
               Acetate
               Dacron
               Nylon
               Viscose Rayon
          Polyethylene
               High Density
               Low Density
          Polypropylene
          Polystyrene
          Polyvinyl Chloride
          8
             8

             x
                       x
                       X
                                         X
                                         X
                                                       X

                                                       X
               X

               X
     X
     X
X
X
                                               X
                                               X
               X

               X
              X
              X
             X
             X
X
X
X
X
X

X
    X

    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
X
X
X
X
X

X
                                                     -37-

-------
                         TABLE 5-1.   STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTATION  (CONT.)
 II.  CHEHICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY CCOHT.)                 g
        	                                           s
      SYNTHETICS
            Resins
                 ABS-SAN
                 Acrylic
                 Alkyd
                 Phenolic
                 Polyester                             X
                 Urea Helamlne
            SBR Rubber                                 X

      VATOUSH

III.  FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

      AGRICULTURAL
            Cotton Ginning                             X
            Fertilizer
                 Affimonium sulfate                       X
                 Diammonium phosphate                   X
                 Granulated triple superphosphate
                      Production
                      Storage                           X
                 Hitrate                               X
                 Normal superphosphate                  X
                 ROP triple superphosphate              X
                 Superphosphoric acid
                      Submerged combustion              X
                      Vacuum Evaporation
            Pesticides
g    S
    EM  8
X
X
X
X

X
X
                                         X

                                         X
    X
    X

    X
    X

    X
    X
                                       X

                                       X
      FOOD
           Animal feed defluorination                  X
           Animal husbandry
           Beer processing                             X
           Canneries
           Castor Lean processing                      X
           Coffee roasting                             X
           Deep fat frying                             X
           'Direct firing of meats                      X
           Feed milling & storage
                Alfalfa dehydrating                    X
                Other                                  X
           Fish processing (fish meal cookers & driers)X
           Grain  handling & processing
                Transfer                               X
                Screening, cleaning                    X
                Drying                                 X,
                Processing                  '           X
           Meat packing
           Heat smoke houses                           X
           Poultry processing
           Rendering
           Starch manufacturing                        X
           Stockyards & Slaughterhouses
           Sugar Cane processing                       X
                 Bagasse burning                        X
                 Field burning                          X
           Vegetable oil manufacturing                 X
           Whiskey processing                          X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X
                                                   X
X.
X
X
                                         X
                                         X
                                         X
                                         X
                                         X
                                         X
                                                   X
                                                   X
      OTHER
            Pharmaceuticals
            Tanneries
                                                          -  38  -

-------
                          TABLE 5-1.  STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION  (CONT.)
IV.  MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

     ASPHALT
           Batching
           Roofing
                Saturator
                Blowing

     CONCRETE
           Batching
           Cement plants (Kilns, clinker coolers)

     MINING
           Sand and gravel
           Stone quarrying & processing
           Lead ore

     PROCESSING
           Brick and related  clay products
           Calcium carbide
           Castable refractory
           Ceramic clay
           Clay end  flyash sintering
                Clay
                Flyash
           Coal cleaning (thermal drying)
           Fiberglas
                Wool processing
                Textile  processing
            Frit .
            Glass
                Soda lime glass
                Opal glass ,
            Gypsum
            Lime
            Mineral wool
            Perlite
            Phosphate rock
                 Calcining
                 Drying
                 Grinding

  V.  METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY

      PRIMARY METALS
            Aluminum smelters
            Coke ovens
                 Bee-hive oven
                 By-product oven
            Copper smelters
            Ferroalloy
             Iron & Steel plants
                 Blast furnace
                 BOF
                 Electric arc furnace
                 Open hearth  furnace
                  Sintering
                  Scarfing
             Lead  smelters
             Zinc smelters
                                                              §
o
BJ
8
 S
 a
•si
                                                                                                        CO
                                                                                                        u
X
X
X
X X
X •--
X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
I
X
X
X
I
X
r x
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X

X



X X X X
XX X
X
X


X
X X X X
X XX
X X
X
X X

X
XXX





X X
XX X
XX X
X
X
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
X X

X
X

                                X
                                X
                                 X
                                 X
                     X
                     X
               X
               X
                                             X
                                             X
                                                           -  39 -

-------
                             TABLE 5-1.  STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION (CONT.)
VT.  METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY (CONT.)

    SECONDARY METALS
          Aluminum production
               Sweat furnace
               Reverb furnace
          Brass 6 Bronze smelting
          Cast Iron foundry
               Core ovens
               Cupola furnace
               Electric furnace
          Copper
               Material handling
               Smelting & refining
          Lead smelter
               Blast furnace
               Pot furnace
               Reverb furnace

          Magnesium smelting
          Steel foundries
          Zinc
               Distillation
               Sweating
                                                            X
                                                            X
                                                            X
                                                            X

                                                            X
                                                            X

                                                            X
                                                            X
                                                            X

                                                            X
                                                            X

                                                            X
                                                            X
x

x

X
X

X
X
  VI.   EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES

       DECREASING

       DRY CLEANING

       GRAPHIC ARTS
            Gravurc
            Flexography
            Lithography
            Letterpress
            Metal  decorating

       PETROLEUM STORAGE S TRANSFER
            Nonpipeline transfer (tank cars, trucks & marine)
            Refueling motor vehicles
            Service stations
            Tank storage

      INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING

      TEXTILE PROCESSING
            Heat Setting/Finishing
            Tcxturizing
            Carpet manufacturing

VII.  PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

      rccu                                                 x
   GASOLINE ADDITIVES
         Sodium Lead Alloy
         Electrolytic

   TCCU AND HCCU

   PROCESS  GAS COMBUSTION

   VACUUM DISTILLATION

   MISC.  POINT SOURCES

   REFINERY FUEL GAS - SULFUR RECOVERY
                                                           X
                                                           X

                                                           X

                                                           X
sf   g
                                                                         X
X

X
                                                                      X

                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                     "X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                      X
                                                                                  S
                              e
                              Si
                                                                                                      51
                                                                                                      •z.
         S   S   en
         S*4   O-  g

             d   I
                                                                                                              u
X
X
X
                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X
                                                 X
                                X
                                X
    X

    X
                                                                        X

                                                                        X

                                                                        X
                                            X

                                            X
                                                        -  40  -

-------
                             TABLE 5-1.  STATIONARY SOORCES OF AIR POLLUTION (CONT.)

VIII.  WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

       WOOD PROCESSING
             Pulpboard
             Plywood

       WOOD PULPING
             Kraft process (sulfate)
             Sulfite
             NSSC

  DC.  ASSEMBLY PLANTS

       AUTOMOBILE

       CABLE COVER PRODUCTION

       CAN MANUFACTURING

       LEAD ACID BATTERY

       TYPE METAL PRODUCTION

    X.  WASTE DISPOSAL (NON-COMBUSTION)

       INDUSTRIAL WASTE HANDLING (LIQUIDS)

       SEWAGE TREATMENT
go
w
X
X
X
X,
X
                                                                                       8
                      8
                                                                                               a
X

X

X

X
                             X

                             X

                          X  X

                             X
                                             §
                                                       X

                                                       X
                                                          -  41 -

-------
 6.0   PRESENTATION OF  RESULTS

      The  impact  of NSPS  on  emissions  from  those  sources presented  in Table  5-1
 has  been  evaluated by means of  Model  IV  through  the  use of equations (1)
 through  (12)  as  presented in Section  5.2.   Using the prime industrial variables
 K, A, PB> PC  and  the  prime  emission variables E$, EU> EN, and Ellld> the in-
 termediate variables  TA, TS, TN, TND, B, and C were  determined.  The quan-
 titative value of emission  impact for criteria pollutants (T- - TM) and
                                                            O    IN
 designated pollutants (Ts - TND) was  then  calculated for 1985.
     Specific reference  is made to the Appendices of this volume for (1) a
 listing of the general reference sources used in this study (2) and a table
 presenting the specific  references used for each source category. EPA-450/3-
 76-018-a through  018-f present  the detailed calculations performed in the
 development of the prime industrial and emission variables for each source
 category.  The following summary outlines the organization of the three
Appendices and volume  018-a through 018-f:
          Appendix 1  Bibliography - lists the title and source of all
                                     references used in this  study
          Appendix 2  Specific References - defines  those references that
                                            were specifically used for  each
                                            industrial  category
          Appendix 3  Model  IV Computer Program
          EPA-450/3-76-018-a  Determination of Input Variables for Stationary
                              Combustion Sources
          EPA-450/3-76-018-b  Determination of Input Variables for the  Chemical
                              Process  Industry
                                -42-

-------
         EPA-450/3-76-018-C  Determination of Input Variables for the Food
                             and Agricultural Industry
         EPA-450/3-76-018-d  Determination of Input Variables for the Mineral
                             Products Industry
         EPA-450/3-76-018-e  Determination of Input Variables for the Metal-
                             lurgical Industry
         EPA-450/3-76-018-f  Determination of Input Variables for Evaporation
                             Loss  Sources
         EPA-450/3-76-018-g  Determination of Input Variables for the Petro-
                             leum  Industry
         EP,A-450/3-76-018-h  Determination of Input Variables for the Wood
                             Products Industry
         EPA-450/3-76-018-i  Determination of Input Variables for Assembly
                             Plants.

6.1  SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
     Tables 6-1 through 6-13 present the prime variables, intermediate
variables,  and values of emission impact for  five criteria pollutants, six
designated pollutants, trace metals and  other hazardous pollutants.   These
tables are summarized as follows:
     Table No.
        6-1
        6-2
        6-3
        6-4
      Table Name
Summary of Input/Output
Variables for Model IV
- Particulates -
Summary of Input/Output
Variable for Model IV
- Oxides of Nitrogen -
Summary of Input/Output
Variables for Model IV
- Oxides of Sulfur -
Summary of Input/Output
Variables for Model IV
- Hydrocarbons -
Page
                                                             52
                                                             60
                                                             63
                                                             66
                                   -43-

-------
         Table No.

           6-5



           6-6



           6-7



           6-8



           6-9



          6-10



          6-11



          6-12



          6-13
       Table Name

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables for Model IV
 - Carbon Monoxide -

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables for Model IV
 - Fluoride Compounds -

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables for Model IV
 - Hazardous  Pollutants -

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables for Model IV
 - Acid Mist  -

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables  for  Model IV
 - Lead -

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables  for  Model  IV
 -  Ammonia  -

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables  for Model  IV
 -  Sulfides -

 Summary of Input/Output
 Variables for Model  IV
 - Chlorine -

Summary of Input/Output
Variables for Model IV
- Trace Metals -
Page
 73
 76
 78
 79
80
-81
B2
83
                                                              84
        For each pollutant, the  results are presented  in order of decreasing

emission impact in tons per year for 1985.  A complete dissolution of sub-

category groups was made so that the results could be presented in this

manner.

       The hypothetical values of impact developed for those sources  where

technology to control a specific pollutant has  not been demonstrated  were

not included in the main listing but rather, were broken out and appear


-------
separately at the bottom of each fable.  As discussed in Section 5.4.2,
these values of emission impact reflect an anticipated level of control
and represent the potential of NSPS to control a pollutant once future
research and development efforts are completed.  The results can be used
to  help develop priorities for.such efforts.
       Emission impact values are presented in terms of tons/yr whereas
the intermediate values of T., TS, I.,, and T^ are in terms of thousands
of tons/yr.  The units for the prime emission variables are defined in the •
tables and are compatible with the units given for the industrial variables
A, B, and C.  The factors necessary to convert from English to metric units
are presented in Table 6-23.  Caution should be exercised when abstracting
Information from the tables to preclude separating a value and the associa-
ted units of that value.  Growth rates (?c) and replacement rates (?B) are
presented as decimal fractions with appropriate notation as to whether
they are simple (S) or compound (C).
6.2    SUMMARY OF EMISSION IMPACT CALCULATIONS
       Summaries of the impact of standards on pollutant emissions are pre-
sented in Tables 6-14 through 6-22 for the processes and operations out-
lined in Table 5-1.* The values are presented categorically to permit ready
access to the results for a specific source, a group of similar sources or
an entire category.  Subtotals are presented where appropriate.  The fac-
tors necessary to convert from English to metric units are presented in
Table 6-23.  The Tables are identified as follows:
* There is no table for Category X sources since odor is the
  only associated pollutant (see pages 47 ff)
                                     -45-

-------
        Table"No.
          6-T4

          6-15

          6-16


          6-17

          6-18

          6-19

          6-20

          6-21

          6-22
              Table Name                Page
 Impact of New Source Performance
 Standards on Emissions From
 Stationary Combustion Sources in 1985   85
 Impact of New Source Performance
 Standards on Emissions From The
 Chemical  Process Industry in 1985       87
 Impact of New Source Performance
 Standards on Emissions From
 The Food  and Agricultural  Industry
 in 1985                                 90
 Impact of New Source Performance
 Standards on Emissions From
 The Mineral  Products Industry in 1985   92
 Impact of New Source Performance
 Standards on Emissions From
 The Metallurgical  Industry  in 1985       94
 Impact of New Source Performance
 Standards on Emissions From
 Evaporation  Loss Sources in  1985       96
 Impact of New Source Performance
 Standards  on  Emissions  From
 The  Petroleum Industry in 1985          98
 Impact of New  Source  Performance
 Standards  on  Emissions  From
The Wood  Products  Industry in 1985      99
 Impact of New Source  Performance
Standards on  Emissions  From
Assembly  Plants in 1985                100
       As previously mentioned, several sources or industrial processes
have shown a decreasing capacity combined with a failure to replace obsolete
facilities.  These sources are noted in the Tables with impact values pre-
sented for those cases with designated pollutants only.  Hypothetical im-
pact values based on anticipated future control levels for certain pollu-
tants are indicated in the Tables; however, the values are not included in
any subtotals or totals for the source categories.
                                  -46-

-------
6.3    SUMMARY OF ODOR ANALYSIS
       The impact of new source performance standards for odorous  emissions
has not been evaluated by Model IV.  Odors are generally treated by means
of nuisance regulations (State Implementation Plans and local  codes) which,
if they exist, do not specify maximum acceptable levels of odor emission at
the source in quantitative terms.  The regulations are generally written
such that the perception of an odor in the community; from a defined source
constitutes a violation of air pollution laws.  Some states have developed
procedures for assessing community odor occurences by means of specified
odor panels.
       Three states  (Connecticut,  Illinois,  and Minnesota) actually limit
source odor levels,  however,  the regulations  only  apply  to a  few selected
sources  or certain stack discharge configurations.   Nine states have regu-
lations  that  require controls for  specific source  categories.  These con-
trols  are normally stated  in  terms of incineration /residence time and
temperature  requirements  or an equivalent method  achieving the best prac-
 tical  level  of control.   Overall,  there  does not  exist a significant body
 of existing regulations directly applicable to odor.  While  legislation has
 addressed itself to odor problems  occuring in the community,  the  definition
 of acceptable source emission rates  is still a problem due to the difficulty
 in choosing and weighting the various parameters  which describe the charac-
 teristics of the odor.
        An odor may  be described by the following four terms:   (1)  odor
 level or concentration, (2)  odor objectionability, (3)  odor intensity,
                                  -47-

-------
and (4)  odor character (smells like).  It has been shown that there are
                                                (19)
relationships between the first three parameters    ,however, the exact
relationship differs for each odorant.  One odor source having the same
odor level as a second may in fact have a higher degree of objection-
ability and possibly a lower intensity level.  This implies that the true
assessment of an odor problem may not always be related strictly to the
odor level but could also include consideration of the qualitative .terms
of objectionability, intensity, and character.  After reviewing the avail-
able literature, we determined that there was a general lack of specific
and definitive data to define the quantitative and qualitative aspects of
emissions from specific sources.  Accordingly, we feel that Model IV cannot
be applied to determine the impact of NSPS on odorous emissions.
       Surveys have been conducted^   ' to assess  the major sources  respon-
sible for community odor complaints  in the U.S.   Complaints  concerning
odor occurrence are registered frequently by municipal  and state  environ-
mental  agencies.   Communities differ from one another  in  the types  of
sources or activities occurring within their bounds, in their geographical/
climatological characteristics, and  in the socio-economic makeup  of their
respective populations;  therefore, we would not  expect  many  areas to
experience the same odor problems.  Notwithstanding  these differences
between communities, there are a number of source categories which
elicit frequent complaints.   These categories, for the  most  part, are
found among the chemical  processing  or food processing  industries.
       The specific sources of odors from many source categories have been
identified and, in many cases, the chemical species responsible for these
odors have also been identified.  Table 6-24 presents  information regarding
specific odor sources, chemical species, quantitative odor emission levels,
                                  - 48 -

-------
and applicable control systems for several  major source categories for
which data was available.
       Odors are not generally caused by a single odorous compound but
rather, a complex mixture of many chemical species.  In addition, many
compounds will produce a detectable odor at concentrations in the parts
per billion (ppb) range.  The choice of a technique to control odorous
emissions must be selected  taking into account the nature of the odorous
substances as well as the operating characteristics of the process produc-
ing the odor.  The control strategies which have been generally applied to
odor reduction are identified as follows:  (1) process change or modifica-
tion,  (2) chemical or thermal oxidation, (3)  adsorption  and (4) source
modifications.
       "Good housekeeping" practices and sanitary measures at slaughtering
plants and the design of proper excess air and zone mixing in recovery fur-
naces  at Kraft pulp mills are examples of process changes or improvements.
These  practices, when properly employed, ensure that the generation of
odorous compounds is kept to a minimum, if not eliminated.  Thermal oxida-
tion,  or incineration, is a widely used method for odor control.  If suffi-
ciently high temperature and residence time are maintained in the incinera-
tor, complete oxidation of all combustible material occurs, thereby elimina-
ting most if not all of the odor causing compounds.  If, however, the tem-
perature is too low or the residence time is  too short, partial oxidation
could  occur and result in.the generation of compounds  potentially more
 odorous  than  the:original species.
       Chemical oxidation methods employing mediums such as sodium hypo-
chlorite and potassium permanganate have been used to  control odors.  This
technique involves a  chemical reaction between the oxidant and the compounds
present  resulting in  oxidation of the odorous material.  The degree of
oxidation and, therefore, the odor reduction  potential, is a function of the
                                I
                                  - 49 -

-------
 concentration of the oxidizirvg solution,  the  stability  of the  odorous  com-
.pounds, and the physical  parameters  governing the  intimate contact  of  the
 two.   Chemical  oxidation  has  been  applied successfully  to inedible  render-
 ing plants and  pulp mills where amine  and sulfide  compounds, respectively,
 are responsible for odor  problems.
        Activated carbon is most often  used when  adsorption is  chosen to
 control a particular odor source.  This technique  is generally applicable
 to a wide range of hydrocarbons and  has also  been  used  to control hydrogen
 sulfide emissions.   If an activated  carbon system  is employed,  the  gas
 stream to be treated must be  relatively free  of  particulate matter  to  pre-
 clude  possible  plugging of the  carbon.  Pretreatment of the exhaust gas
with a scrubber or baghouse may be necessary  to  permit  the use  of an adsor-
ber "system.   Adsorption is particularly suitable when recovery  of solvents
 is  desired.   Many synthetic dry cleaning  establishments,  for example,  re-
 cover  the perch!orethylene cleaning  solvent from the dryer exhaust, since
the high  cost of this  material  would not  permit  these plants to operate
economically unless  recovery was practiced.
        The dilution  of stack gases in  the  free atmosphere  may provide  a
solution  to  some  odor problems.  In  general,  a greater  amount of dilution
will occur for  greater heights  of effluent discharge.  This may be  accom-
plished by discharging through  physically  taller stacks or by increasing
the temperature and  velocity of the  stack  gases.  This means of odor control
does not  prevent  the  discharge  of odorous  compounds but rather uses the
dilution  capabilities  of  the atmosphere to reduce the ground level  concen-
trations  below  the odor threshold.
        It is  evident  that a significant quantity of odorous emissions are
                                   -50-

-------
related to sulfide compounds.   Application of NSPS to sulfides could,
therefore, have a direct bearing on the reduction of odor from a-given
source.  It is also conceivable that measures designed to control  hydro-
carbon emissions may simultaneously reduce odorous emissions.
                                -51-

-------
             TABLE 6-1

           PARTICULATES

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
           FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
OPES BtSHBB
{Agilculturil)
BOILERS
O.i -,•!(> X 106 BTU/HB
BOILER „ ...
> 2SO x XT WH/m w
BOILERS
10 - 250 x lo6 sia/m
GRAIN HAMBtlHG
(Processing)
SKSE 'QUARRXDB AMD
PROCESSDH
ORAHT UAMELIHG
(Transfer)
IHBUSTRIAL/COJ-fi-ERCIAL
DfCIKERATIOif
SUGAR CAHE
(Field Burning).
GRAIN EAKH.IW3
(Screening, Cleaning)
BOILERS
(Wood Haste)
BY-PRODUCT COKE OVENS
LIKE
STEEL POUHERIES
(Secondary)
CAST 3EOH FOUHIRY
(Electric Furnace)
PRIMARY COPPER

K
l.OC
.25-
.S3
.32
.82
.80
.82
.38
1.00
82
58
93
.90
.90
.93
85
^'Ea was.'appl:
(2)ES based
new
Emission Rates
Units
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/lO^TU '
lb/106 ECU
lb/106BTU
Ib/ton
grain
processed
Ib/ton
rock
processed
Ib/ton
grain
transferred
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/acre
burned
b/ton
rain
leaned
b/ton
ood
urned
Ib/ton
coke
>roduced
a/ton
ime
produced
b/ton
teel
>roduced
Ib/ton
ast iron
>roduced
>/ton
opper
reduced
d to both ne1
n existing 11
Eu
17.0
.25
3.11
2.02
6.0
15.5
20.0
6.47
225.0-
6.0
7.5
4.9
03.0
10.4,
4.5
C5.0
and e:
5
Es
17.0
.25
.277
Exis
.100
New
.383
Exist
Hew
2.16
.379
1.94
6.47
225.0
1.61
3.01
4.9
3.4
2.2
4.5
37.9
sting
En
0.00
.048
.05
.127
.05
.155
.20
.065
0.0
-.06
.28
.ta
203
.104
.045
1.22
apacil
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year
PC
.009c
.043c
.0556
.014c
.015c
.033s
.015c
.lie
015s
015c
012c
.010s
05 Oc
073s
.136s
05 Oc

Fb
.OOs
.037s
.050s
.050s
.037s
.050s
.037s
.039s
0.0
037s
050s
-028s
050s
028s
.028s
036s

Industry CaT>acitv\
Units/
Year
6
10 ton
waste
lO^BTU
lO^BTU
lO^TU
6
10 tons
grain
6
10 tons
rock
10 tons
grain
6
-0 tons
waste
6
10 acres
6
10 tons
grain
6
10 tons
wood
106 tohs
coke
6
10 tons
lime
6
10 tons
steel
10 tons
cast
iron
6
10 ton
copper

A
1975
280.0
26471
28011
19534
239.6
1225
239.6
32.6
.6
239.6
62.9
75.5
26.1
29.3
8.1
2.4

B
1985
0.0
9794
14006
9767,
88.7
613
88.7
12.71
0.0
88.7
81.4
21.1
13.1
8.2
2.3
.87

C *
3,985
26.2
13857
19836
2914
38.5
404
38.5
59.97
.1
38.5
0.6
7.5
16.4
21.4
11.0
.83

Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
2380. (
827
225O
1197
212.2
186
190.6
40.1
73
158.2
42.2
172.0
40.0
29.0
16.9
38.8

Is
1985
) 2605. a
1260
2106
1277
246.3
247
221.2
113.8
ea
183.5
160.2
189.2
65.2
50.2
40.0
52.2

Tn
1985
0^
663
1616
856
135.2
156
130.5
25.35
0^
102.8
79.4
129
22.7
26.3
12.5
25.7

Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
2603100
597000
1*90000 -
420581
111000
91100
90700
88450
'84000
80800
80800
596OO
42500
27900
27500
26400
• i:
             -52-

-------
     TABLE  6-1  (Continued)

         PARTICULATES

SUMMARY OF  INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
ASPHALT BATCHING^
WOOD PROCESSING
(Plywood)
SAND AND GRAVEL
EROCESSIHG
DIRECT FIRING
OP MEATS
GLASS PRODUCTION
(Soda Lime Glass)
PRIMARY ALUMINUM
SMELTERS
WHISKEY
VEGETABLE OIL
MANUFACTURING
BRICK AND RELATED
CLAY PRODUCTS
MIXED FUEL BOILERS
(Coal & Refuse)
=
PHOSPHATE ROCK
(Grinding )
AMMONIUM SULFATE
FERTILIZER
CONCRETE BATCHING
IRON & STEEL PLANTS
(Electric Arc)

K
.47
.95
.80
.62
.80
.92
.95
.92
.80
.58
.94
.84
1.0
.90
	
Emission Rates
Units
lb/toa
asphalt
produced
Ib/sct.ft.
plywood
- produced
Ib/ton
sand &
gravel pro.
Ib/unit -yr
Ib/ton
glass
produced
Ib/ton
aluminum
produced
lb/1000 gal.
whiskey
produced
Ib/ton
vegetable oil
produced
Ib/ton
clay product -
s produced
Ib/ton
refuse
burned
Ib/ton
rock
ground
Ib/ton
ammonium sul-
fate produced
Ib/ton
concrete
produced
Ib/ton
steel
produced
Eu
15.0
.132
.10
2445.0
2.00
92.0
43.6
63.0
130.5
366.0
2.0
20.0
.1
28.3 '
Es
.376
-Exist
.169
New
.004
.10
2445.0
1.89
5.82
27.9
8.63
2.77
5.00
.94
2.04
.098
4,49
Jfcis*
1.00
New
En
.045
.0013
.003
195.6
.02
1.80
2.18
.63
1.32
3.66
.002
1.0
.01
.48
Growth Rate
Decimal/Yea?
PC
.050s
.025o
.OOOs
.033s
.028s
.075C
.06s
.027s
.027s
17.3s
.043s
,116c
.OSc
.073s
Fb
.008s
.050s
,050s
.050s
.033s
.035s
•••032s
.028s
.033s
.OOOs
.050s
.045s
.033s •
.028s
Industry Capacity
Units/
Year
6
10 tons
asphalt
106sq..ft
plywood
6
10 tons
sand &
gravel
10 units
106 tons
glass
6
10 tons
aluminum
109 gal
whiskey .
6
10 tons
vegetab-
le oil
6
10 tons
clay
products
10 tons
refuse
6
10 tons
rock
ground
6
10 tons
ammonium
sulfate
106 tons
concrete
6
1O tons
steel
A
1975
1480
22600
1142
:0337
34.4
6.0
1.304
6.5
35.7
.12
25.7
9.3
326.6
36.7
B
1985
118
11300
571
.0168
. 11.4
2.1
.417
1.8
11.8
.0
12.8
4.2
108
10.3
C
1985
740
6330
0
.0111
9.6
6.4
.782
1.8.
9.6
27.0
11.1
18.5
112
26.8
Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
131
43
46
25.5
26.0
16.1
17.28
25.9
. 39.6
0.2
11.4
7.9
16.0
74,2
Ts
1985
15h.3
55
46
34.0
33.3
33.1
27.6
32.9
50.2
39.3,
16.2
23.8
21.5
70.0
Tu
1985
129.3-
32
24
14.5
17.6
17.5
13.0
19.7
37.8
28.9
5.7
13.9
11.8
61.3
Impact
Tou/Yr
Ts-Tu
1985
25000
22600
21700
19500
15.700_
15700
14600
13200
12400
10500
10500
9900
9680
8700
               -53-

-------
     TABLE 6-1  (Continued)

          PARTICULATES

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
          FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY

NITRATE FERTILIZER


COAL CLEAHItB
(Thermal Drying)

' GRAIH HAMDLDK3
(Drying)
!L
BEER FROCESSIHO

FEED HILLING
(Other than Alfalfa
Dehydrating)
MIXED FUEL BOILERS
(Oil and Refuse)

IROH & STEEL PLANTS
(Sintering)


DEEP FAT FRYING


FERROALLOY

SYHHETIC KEsras
1 (Polyester)


f CHARCOAL

CEMEOT FLA8TS <2)
(Kilns, Clinker Coolers)

1
POLYFBOFYLEHE
»
SODIUM CAKBOifATE
(Hrtural)



K

.77


.59

.82

.81


.50


.58


.90


.81


.90

.68


.85

,90


.78

.87

Emission Rates

Units
Ib/ton
ammonium ni-
trate produ-
ced
Ib/ton
coal dryed

Ib/ton
grain dryed
lb/1000 gal
beer
produced
Ib/ton
feed
produced
Ib/ton
refuse
burned
Ib/ton
sinter
produced
Ib/ton
food
processed
Ib/ton

Eu

12.72


19.8

6.0

5.45


20.0


101.5


42.0


11.9


ferroalloy , 456 . 0
produced
Ib/ton
resin
produced

7.0


Ib/ton
charcoal 352 . 0
produced
Ib/ton
cement 301.0
produced i

Ib/ton ;
polypropy- , 3:0
lene
produced
Ib/ton
soda ash

90.0

Es

1.64


.410
Hew
.77

2.09


2.06


5.00


.50


7.13


22.8

k.3.


19.5

1.72
Exist
.64
Hew

2:67

1.16

En

.254


.099

' .06

.27


.1


1.02


.15


0.119


4.56

.35


3.S

.45


'.03

»
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year .

PC

.070c


.029s

.015c

.0700


.0350


1T.3S -


.029s


.043c


.015c

.17c


.043c

.0300


^00

.13c

Fb

.045s


.050s

.Q37s

.040s


.029s


.OOOs


.028s


.028s


.028s

.Otes


.045s

.025s


'.003s

.0*.

Industry Capacity
Units/
Year
6
10 tons
ammonium
nitrate

6
10 tons
coal

6
10 tons
grain
109 gal
beer

10 tons
feed

106 tons
refuse

106 tons
sinter

106 tons
food

106 tons
ferroal-
loy
106 tons
resin

6
10 tons
charcoal

10 tons
cement


10 tons
polypro-
pylene

10 tons
soda ash
*
A
1975

10.5


133

47.9

7.2


21.4


.036


69.6


2.6


1.6

1.02


.8'

103.0


1.6

5.75
B
1985

4.7


66.5

17.7

2.9


6.2


.0


19.5


0.7


0.4

.1(6


.4

25.8


.05

2.59

C
1985

10.2


38.6

7.7

7.0


8.8


6.2


20.2


1.4


0.3

3.9


.4

35.4
Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975

6.6


16.0

15.1

6.1


11.0


0.1


15.7


7.6


16.0

1.4
	
^

6.6
1 	
9502


Is
1985

13.1


18.6

17.5

12.0


15.5


9.1


20.2


11.6


18.6

6.8



Tu
1985

5.1


11.1

10.2

4.7


8.2


1.9


14.0


5.6


12.9

1.3


10.0 4.8
	
7139..3 7134.4


4.9 r.7 \ 6.7 1'.7

^

2.9


t
9.7 ^.7
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985

7900


7500

7400

7300


7300


7200


6200


6000


5600

55*0


5300

5200


5100

^950
               -54-

-------
     TABLE 6-1  (Continued)

         PARTICIPATES

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
COTTON QUOTING
CERAMIC CLAY
SYNTHETIC FIBER
(Dacron)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
(Drying)
PETROLEUM REFDJERY -
FCCU
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION ^'
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
GYPSUM
DIAMMONIUM PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZER
SUGAR CANE
(Bagasse Burning)
ASPHALT ROOFING
'(Saturator)
IRON & STEEL PLANTS
(Scarfing )
STARCH MANUFACTURING
INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINES (Diesel & Dual
Fuel)
PAINT
SECONDARY ALUMINUM
PRODUCTION (Reverb Furnace)
SECONDARY COPPER
(Smelting )

K
1.00
.80
.68
.87
.85
.56
.82
.80
.89 '
.75
.90
.90
.83
.58
.85
.82
.82
Emission Rates
• Units
Ib/bale
cotton
Iti/ton
clay
produced
Ib/ton
dacron
produced
Ib/ton
rock
Ib/bbl
fee'a .
Ib/ton
waste.
Ib/ton" "
PVC produced
Ib/ton
gypsum
produced
Ib/ton
P2 °5
produced
Ib/ton
bagasse
burned
Ib/ton
asphalt
input
Ib/ton
steel
scarfed
Ib/ton
starch
produced
Ib/hp-yr
" Ib/ton
paint
produced
Ib/ton
aluminum
produced
Eu
12.0
175.5
7.0
14.0
.242
19.7
35.0
131.7
82.0
22.0
7.3
3.00'
8.0
5.41
1.00
laS.O
Es
2.09
2. '75
1.58
.34
.066
Exist
7017"
New
4.6
Bf
New
3.18
1.51
3.53
3.7
1.33
'.138
2.00
5.41
1.00
4.8
Ib/ton ;
copper j 84.6 3.47
produced '
En
.48
i.755
.35
.122
.010
.99
.35
.302
1.64
2.2
.073
.030
.020
4.61
.001
.96
.338
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year
PC
.013s
.C42s
.164c
.041s
.042c
.046s
.078c
.006s
.054s
.015s
.025s
.029s
. OISc .
.028s
.026c
.047s
.037c
Pb
.'042s
.033s
.045s
.050s
.031s
.039s
. 0002s
.029s
.045s
.050s
.042s
.028s
•.045s
.020s
.067s
.036s
.035s
Industry Capacity •
Units/
Year
106bales
cotton
10 tons
clay
106 tons
dacron
106 tons
rock
106bbl
feed
106 tons
waste
106 tons
PVC
10 tons
gypsum
6
10 tons
J?2 °5
106 tons
bagasse
10s tons
asphalt
106 tons
steel
scarfed
6
10 tons.
starch
10s
hp-yr
lO6 tons
paint
106 tons
aluminum
6
10 tons
copper
A
1975
10. a
13.9
2.295
43.9
1506
32.5
2.7
15.9'
3.1
7.0
6.3
87.3
4.3
18.0
4.9
1.4 .
B
1985
4.5
4.6
1.03
21.9
467
12.7
.003
4.7
1.4
3.5
•2.6
24.4
1.9
3.6
3.3
C
1.985
1.4
5.8
8.18
18.0
771
14.9
3.1
0.9
1.7
1.0
1.6
25.3
0.8
5.0
1.5
!
0.5 j 0.7
1.8 ! .6
.8
Emissions
1000'Ton/Yr •
Ta
1975
11.3
15.3
1.23
6.5
42.2
41.9
3.6
9.6
4.9
9.7 •
3.8
5.4
3.5
28.2
2.0
2.8
2.6
Ts
1985
12.8
21.7
5.63
9.2
38.1
36.9
7.6
10.2
7.6
11.2
4\7
7.0
4.2 '
36.1
2.7
4.1
3.8
In
1985
8.0
17.5
1.78
5.4
34.4
33.2
4.0
7.5
5.0
8.6
2.3
4.6
.2.0
34.1
0.7
2.3
1.9
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
4800
4100
3850.
3800
3800
3700
3600
2700
2600
2600
2400
2400
2300
2000
2000
ig'oo
1900
              -55-

-------
     TABLE  6-1  (Continued)

         PARTlfcULATES

SUWARY OF  INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY
SECONDARY COPPER
(Material Handling)

SYNTHETIC FIBER
(Hylon)

FEED HJLLEK3
(Alfalfa Dehydrating)

PETROLEUM REFINERY
(Process Gas Combustion)

ASPHALT ROOFING
(Bloving)


MINERAL WOOL


LEAD ACID BATTERY

FLYASH SIKTERING


FBTE

PHOSPHORIC ACID
(Thermal Process)

WOOD PROCESSING
(Pulpboard)

FIBERGLASS
(Textile Processing)

PHOSPHATE ROCK
(Calcining)


PERLITE

AUTO BODY
IHCIKERATIOH



K

.82


.72


.50


.85


.90


.82


.76

.86


.80


.81


.98


Emission Rates

Units
Ib/ton
copper
produced
Ib/ton
nylon
produced
Ib/ton
feed
produced
lb/1000 ft.3
process gas
burned
Ib/ton
asphalt
blown
Ib/ton
mineral wool
produced
Ib/battery
produced
Ib/ton
flyash sin-
ter produced
Ibs/ton
frit
produced
Ib/ton
P2 °5
produced
Ib/ton
pulpboard
produced
Ib/ton
.70 textiles
produced
Ib/ton

Eu

212


15.0


50.0


20.0


4.2


32.4


.13

110.0


17.8


134


.096


84.0


.90 rock 40.0
calcined
Ib/ton
.82

.90
perlite ,21.0
expanded
Ib/auto
2.0

Es

6.64


1.53


2.06


20.0


1.18


4.27


.032

.40


5.80


2.27


.096


2.78


.96


En

.848


.75


.25


3.0


.042


3.63


00013

.11


1.78


.134


.014

Growth Rate
Decimal/Year

PC

.037c


.127c


.035c


.042c


.025s


.0203


.05c

.055s


.037s


.014c


.0150

t
1.46 .122c


.40




Fb

.035s


.045s


.029s


.031s


.042s


.029s


.04s

.033s


.033s


.0453


.0313


063s


.048s ' .050s

	 ! 	
4.35 .84 .036s | .029s
( 	 .'
1.97 .54 .280s .039s

Industry Capacity
Units/
Year-
s'
10 tons
copper

6
10 i'tons
nylon

10 tons
feed

10l2ft3
process
gas
6
10 tons
asphalt

6
10 tons
mineral
wool
106
batteries
106 tons
flyash
sinter
10s tons
frit

106 tons
P2, 05

6
10 tons
pulpboard

106 tons
textile

10 tons
rock

106 tons
perlite

106autos
A
1975

.7


1.715 :


4.1


.226


3.1


8.4


80.0

7.7


.837


1.39


37.2


.5


2.5


0.6

.3
B
1985

.3


.77


1.2


.070


1.3


2.5


32.0

2.5


.276


.626


11.5


.3


1.3


0.2

.1
C
1985

.3


3.95


1.7


.115


0.8


1.7


50.3

5.4


.310


.207


6.0


1.1


1.2


0.2

.8
Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975

2.0


.94


2.1


1.9


1.7


14.8


.97

1.3


1.9


1.27


1.7


0.5


1.1


1.2

.3
Is
1985

2.9


3.12


3.0


2.9


2.1


17.7


1.58

2.3


2.7


1.468


2.0


1.6


1.6


1.6

1.0
Tn
1985

1.5


1.80


1.7


1.6


1.0


16.6


.59

1.3


1.7


.747


1.3


0.9


1.0


1.0

.4
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985

1400


1320


1300


1300


1100


1100


1000

990


940


721


700


670


630


610

600
             -56-

-------
     TABLE 6-1  (Continued)

         PARTICULATES

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES'
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
CARBON BLACK
(Furnace Process)
DETERGENT
GRANULATED TRIFLE SUPER
PBDSPHATE (Storage)
SECONDARY ALUMINUM
(Sweat Furnace)
CLAY SINTERING
MINING AND MTT.T.TTOR
OF IEAD OBE
EXPLOSIVES (High)
GLASS MANUFACTURING
(Opal Glass)
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS
SECONDARY ZINC - (Sweating)
SMOKED MEAT
ANIMAL FEED
DEFLUORINATION
STYRENE BUTADIENE
RUBBER
SECONDARY ZINC
(Distillation)
COFFEE ROASTING

K
.77
.90
.76
.68
.80
.92
.83
.80
.85
jcist
T§§
New
.83
.82
.81
.90
.75
.82
.85
Emission Rates
Units
Ib/ton
carbon
produced
Ib/ton
dryed deter-
gent produced
Ib/ton
PS 05
produced
Ib/ton
aluminum
produced
Ib/ton
clay sinter
produced
Ib/ton
lead mined
Ib/ton
high explosi-
ves produced
Ib/ton
opal glass
produced
Ib/ton
lead
produced
Ib/ton
zinc
produced
Ib/ton
zinc
produced
Ib/ton
meat
produced
Ib/ton
1?2°5
Ib/ton
SBR produced
Ib/ton
zinc
produced
Ib/ton
coffee
roasted
Eu
220
90.0
2.17
33.0
26.0
If. 17
50.4
2.24
790
1665
23.6
.3
625.0
.7
46.0
7.3
Es
3.1
1.50
1.11
7.36
2.41
It.lY
1.55
2.24
3.06
3.860
Exist
2...250
New
3.86
.3
4.57
.7
2.71
.794
En
2.2
.45
.022
1.98
.026
2.09
1.35
.022
1.19
1.67
.872
.1
.063
.12
1.70
.44
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year
PC
.0250
,035c
.042c
.047s
.027s
0
.094c
.028s
0.0
.035C
.039c
.017s
.OOOs
.020c
.0390
0
Pb
.045s
.OOOs
.045s
.036s
.033s
,05s
.045s
.033s
.036s
.036s
.035s
.040s
.040s
.OC6s
.035s
.040s
Industry Ca]
Units/
Year
106 tons
carbon
106 tons
dryed
detergent
106 tons
PS os
106 tons
aluminum
106 tons
clay
sinter
106 tons
lead
106 tons
high ex-;
plosives, i
10S tons
opal
glass
106 tons
lead
106 tons
zinc
106 tons
zinc
106 tons
meat
106 tons
P2 05
10 tons
SBR
106 tons
zinc
106 tons
coffee
A
1975
2.0
2.5
1.2
.3
.7
.622
. 1.8
.5
.765
1.3
.2
3.6
.2
2.3
.38
1.5
sacity
B
1985
.9
0.0
.5
.1
.2
.311
0.8
.2
.275
.47
.07
1.4 '
.1-
.07
.13
.6
C
1985
.6
1.0
.6
.1
.2
0
2.7
.1
O.O
.54
.09
.6
0.0
.5
.18
0.0
Emissions
1000 Tou/Yr
Ta
1975
2.4
1.7
.5
.8
.7
1.2
1.2
' .4
.99
2.1
.31
.4
.4
.6
.42
.5
Ts
1985
3.0
2.4.
.8
1.1
.9
1.2
2.9
.5
1.5
2.29
.45
.5
.4
.8
.62
.5
Tu
1985
2.5
1.9
.3
0.7
.5
.9
2.6
.3
.8
2.04
.26 '
i '
.3
.2
.6
.49
.4
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
500
490
470
460
420
297
290
250
250
240
196
170 •'
160
130
129
90
              -57-

-------
     TABLE 6-1  (Continued)
         PARTICULATES
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV


CATEGORY

CASTABLE REFRACTORY

SOAP
(2)
BRASS t EROHZE SMELTING

SECOHDARX LEAD (2)
(Reverb Furnace)



PATHOLOGICAL INCINERATION

SECONDARY LEAD
(Pot Furnace)
MAGNESHM SMELTING

SECONDARY LEAD
(Blast Furnace)
•

FXSH MEAL PROCESSING


SLUD3E INCINERATION ^

JHIEOFLUORIC ACID
FIBHKJLASS PRODUCTION
(Wool Processing)
IHOH & STEEL PLANTS
(Blast Furnace)

IROH & STEEL PLANTS <2)
(EOF)


K

.60

.90
.80

.66



.34


.68
.62


.68


.81


.50

.98

.70

.90


.90
Emission Rates

Units
Ib/ton
product
Ib/ton
soap produced
Ib/ton
metal
produced
Ib/ton
lead produced


Ib/ton
waste

Ib/ton
lead produced
Ib/ton
magnesium
produced
Ib/ton
lead produced

Ib/ton
fish meal
produced
Ib/ton
dry feed
Ib/ton 10$
BP produced
Ib/ton
wool produced
Ib/ton
pig iron
produced
Ib/ton
steel
produced

Eu

254.0

15.0
70.0

277.0



12.8


1.36
6.78


271.0


.4


119

700

96.0

150.0


51.0

Es

5.32

.724
3.25
Exist
1.20
Jew
6.44
Exist
1.25
Hew
4.6
Ex^st
3.8
Hew

1.36
6.78

4.35
"1725
Hew

.4

5.0
Exist
1.60
New

35

8.64

1.50

.208
Ssist
Hew50

En

4.62

.026
.28

1.05



1.9


.041
.68


1.06


.04


1.60

35

8.64

1.50


.150
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year

PC

.043c

o •
.OOOs

.032c



.026C


.032c
.016s


.032c


0


.25s

.049s

.042C

.029s


.048s

Pb

.033s

.045s
.036s

.024s



.039s


.024s
.035s


.024s


.008s


.033s

.045s

.063s

.028s


.028s
Industry Capacity
Units/
Year
6
10 tons
product
6
10 tons
soap
6
10 tons
metal

106 tons
lead .


106 tons
waste

106 tons
lead
106 tons
magnesium

106 tons
lead

106 ton
fish
meal
106 ton
dry feed
10s tons
10$ HP
106 tons
wool
10 tons
pig iron

106 tons
steel
A
1975

.39

.6
.375

.713



.13


.065
.0175


.148


.4


1.176

.449

1.1

118.7


88.9
B
1985

.13

.2
.135

.171



.05


.016
.006


.036


.03


.388

.20

0.7

33.2


24.9
C
1985

.2

0.0
0.0

.264



.04


.024
.003


.055


O.O


2.94

.22

.6

34.4


42.7
Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975

.8

.2 •
.49

1.6



.1


.03
.05


.2


.07


1.47

7.7

3.3

48.1


8.3
Ts
1985

1.3

.2
.38

1.37



.12.


.04
.056


.204


.06


2.316

11.49

4.9

103.3


10.6
Tu
1985

1.2

.1
.33

1.34



.09 .


.02
.034


.198


.05


2.316

11.49

4.9

103.3


10.6
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
*
90

80 	
50

30



29 .


20
20


6


4


0

0

0

0


0
               -58-

-------
     TABLE 6-1  (Continued)
         PARTICIPATES
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
WOOD PULPING
(Kraft)
WOOD PULPING
(Sulfite)
For those cases where
there was no demonstrated
control technology. . .
(See P. 29)
BOILERS .
<.3 x 10° BTU/HR.
STATIONARY GAS TURBINES
(Electric Utility)
STATIONARY GAS TURBINES
(Pipe Line)
ORCHARD HEATERS

K
.98
.98
.3
.22
.85
1.00
Emission Rates
Units
lb/ton
pulp
produced
pulp
produced
lb/106 BT0
lb/hp-yr.
lb/hp-yr.
Ib/heater-
hr.
Eu
198
21*
.039
3.74
1.18
.007
Es
5.63
3.0
.039
3.74
.1.18
.007
En
5.63
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Growth Rate
Decimal fir
PC
.012c
.012c
.029e
.270s
.11*5 s
.028s
Pb
.031s
.031s
.020s
,020s
.020s
,033s
Indus
Units/
Year
6
10 tons
pulp
6
10 tons
pulp
1012 BTU
106 hp-yr,
106 hp-yr
10°
heater
hrs.
try Caj
A
1975
33.9
2.1*
21*572
»
«
60.0
acity
B
1985
10.5
.71*
1*911*
11
.9
19.8

C •
1985
,K
.3
8131
M
6.1*
16.8
Emissions .
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
93.5
3.53
11*1*
22,3
2.2
.2
Ts
1985
105.1*
3.97
191
82,3
5,4
.3
In
1965
105.1*
3.97
115
17,8
1,8
.1
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
0
0
76300
64500
3600
130
                -59-

-------
           TABLE 6-2
      OXIDES OF NITROGEN
SUMMARY OF  INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY;
STATIONARY QAS TURBINES
(Electric Utility)
BOILERS (2>
> ZSO x 10s BTU/te
HflERNAL COMBUSTION
EJKJIHES (Spark Ignition)
BOILERS
10 - 2SO x 10s BIO/BR
OP£3f BURHUB
(Agricultural)
EXPLOSIVES
(High)
STATIONARY GAS TURBINES
(Gas Pipeline)
MIXED FUEL BOILER
(Coal and Refuse)
IRTERHAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
(Diesel & Dual Fuel)
BOILERS
.3 - 10 x 10s BTU/ffi
CEMEST PLANTS
(Kiln*, Clinker Coolers)
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
IHCINERATOR
EXPLOSIVES (Low)
MUNICIPAL IHCINERATOR
SUGAR CANE
(Field Burning)
^fcn was ap
<2>E8 has
new

K
.22
.58
.58
.32
1.0
83
85
58
.58
25
	 Emission Rates 	
Units
Ib/hp-yr
lb/106 BTU
Ib/hp-yr
lb/106 BTU
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/ton
explosives
produced
Ib/hp-yr
Ib/ton
refuse
Lb/hp-yr
lb/106 BTU
' Ib/ton
90 cement
, Ib/ton
38 waste
burned
Ib/ton
83 explosives
produced
Ib/ton
56 waste
burned
0
0 £
Eu
72.7
.599
230.0
.417
2.0
169.0
60.5
37.5
179.0
.194
2.6
1.87
41.5
3.0
Es
72.7,
.582
Exist
.534
Hew
230,0
.415
Exist
.411
New
2.0
169.0
60.5
35.0
179.0
.194
2.6
1.87
41.5
3.0
En
10.9
.428
131,0
.138
0.0
11.5
9.08
15.0
123.0
.175
1.69
.65
2.91
1.1
Ib/ton
icre burned 30.0 30.0 0.0
Led- to both new and existing capacity
on existing NSPS '.
\
Growth Rate ,
Decimal/Year
Pe
.270s
.065c
087s
.014c
009c
094c
145s
17.3s
028s
043c
06c
.lie
094c
046s
015s

Fb
.020s
.050s
,020s
.050s
000s
045s
020s
0.0s
020s
037s
025s
039s
045s
039s
0.0"

Industry 0 -Daci-tv
Units/
Year
106 hp-yi
1012 BTU
106 hp-yr
1012 BTU
10 tons
waste
g
0 tons
xplosiv-
s
0 hp-yr
O6 tons
refuse
6
10 hp-yr
1012 BTU
6
10 tons
cement
106 tons
waste
106 tons
sxplosiv-
3S
106 tons
rnste
6
10 acres

A
1975
54.0
28011
28,7
19534
280.0
1.8
4.4
.12
18,0
26471
103/0
32.6
.5
32.5
.6

B
1985
11.0
14006
5.7
9767
0.0
.8
.9
0.0
3.6
9794
25.8
12.71
.2
12.7
0

C
1985
146.
19836
25,0
2914
6.2
2.7
6.4
27.0
5.0
3857
35.4
59.97
.8
14.9
.1

Emissions
Ta
1975
433 .:0
4728
1917
1297
280.0
129
113
1.6
932
642
20.5
11.6
8.9
27
9.8

Ts
1985
1601
7605
3585
1483.
306.2
316
277
275
J.193
978
162
32.9
22.0
40
11.2

In
1985
534
8564
2702
929
(1)
0.0
87
118
119
1053
922
36.9
16
6.1
25
(1)
OjO

Impact
Ts-Tn
1985
1060000
1040900
882000
553884
306200
229000
158000
156000
140000
56200
25100
16850
15800
14700
11200

             -60-

-------
     TABLE 6-2  ( Continued)


      OXIDES  OF NITROGEN

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR  MODEL IV

CATEGORY
PETROLEUM REFINERY
(Process Gas Combustion)
NITRIC ACID*2*
(Air Oxidation)

FIBERGLASS
(Textile Processing)

ADIPIC ACID
DMT/TPA '
(Nitric Acid Oxidation)
MIXED FUEL BOILER
(Oil and Refuse)
FIBERGLASS
(Wool Processing)
AUTOBODY INCINERATION
For those cases whese
there was no demonstrated
control technology. . .
(see P. 29)
BOILERS
<.3 x 106 BTU/HR
GLASS MANUFACTURING
(Soda -Lime Glass)

LIME
STEEL FOUNDRY
(Secondary)
BRICK AND RELATED CLAY
PRODUCTS
CERAMIC CLAY

WITKATE FERTILIZER



K
.85
.88

.70

1.0

.85
.58
.70
.'90





30
80

90
90

80
80

77


Emission Rates
Units
lb/106
cubic feet
Ib/ton
100$ acid

Ib/ton
product
Ib/ton
acid
produced
Ib/ton
DMT/TPA
produced
Ib/ton
refuse
Ib/ton
product
Ib/auto





lb/106BTU .
Ib/ton
glass
produced
It/ton
lime
produced
Ib/ton
steel
produced
Ib/ton
product
Ib/ton
product
b/ton
ammonium ni-
rate produ-
ed
Eu
230
52.5

15.3

12.0

13.0
34.5
3.62
.10





.081
5.29

.834
.20

.465
.465

.125


Es
230
22.3
Esist
3.0
New
15.3

12.0

13.0
15.0
3.62
.10





.081
2.04

.834
.20

.465
.465

.125


En
115
2.0

2.87

1.2

1.3
13.8
1.57
.02





.04
o.o

.417
0.0

.233
.233

0.0


Growth Rate
Decimal/Year
PC
.042c
.078c

.122c

.055c

.073c
17.3s
.042c
.280s





029c
028s

05 Oc
073s

027s
042s

07 Oc


Pb
.031s
.OS Os

.063s

.015c

.045s
0.0s
.063s
039s





020s
033s

050s
028s

033s
033s

045s


Industry Ca
Units/
Year
1012
. cu. ft.
106 tons
acid

106 tons
product
106 tons
acid

10 tons
106 tons
refuse
10 tons
)roduct
6
10 auto





lO^BTU
106 tons
glass
6
10 tons
lime
106 tons
steel
106 tons
product
106 tons
product

immonium
itrate

A
1975
.226
11.4

.5

.8

.38
.036
1.1
.3





24572
34.4 i
pacity
B
1985'
.070
5.7

.3

.1

.17
0.0
.7
.1





4914
11.4
i
26.1 ; 13.1
29.3 i 8.2'
t
35.7 | 11.8'
13.9 ;

10.5

4.6

4.7

i
C
1985'
.115
12.8

1.1

.6

.39
6.2
.6
.8





8131
9.6

16.4
21.4

9.6
5.8

10.2


Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
22
112

2.8

5.0

2.1
.2
1.4
.013





299
28

9.8
2.6

6.6
2.6

.5


Ts
1985
33.4
80

8.8

8.6

4.3
27.2
2.1
.030





397
36

16.0
4.6

8.4
3.7

1.0


Tn
1985
24.3
72

2.5

4.7

1.5
25.1
1.2
.017





317
19

10.4
1.9

6.4
2.7

.3


Impact
Ts-Tn
1985
9100
8100

6300

3900

2790
2200
880
30





80000
17100

5600
2700

2000
1000

720


          -61-

-------
     TABLE 6-2  (Continued)
      OXIDES OF NITROGEN
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
BYPRODUCT COKE OVEH
PATHOLOGICAL IHCIHERATOR
OLAES MAHUFACTURIHG
(Opal Olan.)
MEfERAL WOOL
SECOMDAHY LEAD
(Reverb Furnace)
COFFEE ROASTING
SECONDARY 3EiC
(Distillation)
SECOHMRY LEAD
(Blast Furnace)
SEOOMDARY ZIHC
(Sweating)
MAGMESIUH SMELTIHQ

K
.93
..34
.80
.82
.68
.85
.82
.68
.82
.82
Emission Bates
Units
Ib/ton
coke
produced
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/tou
glass
produced
Ib/ton
mineral
wool
Ib/ton
lead
produced
Ib/ton
coffee
roasted
Ib/ton
zinc
produced
Ib/ton
lead
Ib/ton
zinc
Ib/ton
magnesium
produced
Eu
.054
25.0
5.29
.16
5.32
.1
.072
.157
.072
.347
Es
.054
25.0
2.04
.16
.938
.1
.072
.157
.072
.347
En
0.0
0.0
0.0
.08
0.0
.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year.
PC
.010s
.026c
.0280
.020s
.032c
0.0
.039c
.032c
.0390
.016s
Pb
.028s
.039s
.033s
.029s
.024s
.040s
.035s
.024s
.035s
.035s
Industry Ca]
Units/
Year
10 tons
coke
106 tons
waste
3
10 tons
glass
10 tons
mineral
wool ,
10s tons
lead
10 tons
coffee
6
10 tons
zinc
106 tons
lead
106 tons
zinc
10 tons
magnesi-
um
A
1975
75.5
.13
.5
8.4
.71
1.5
.4
.15
.2
.0175
Dacity
B
1985
21.1
.05
.2
2.5
.17
.6
.1
.04
.1
.006
C
1985
7.5
.04
.1
1.7
.26
0
.2
.06
.1
.003
Emissions
1000 Tou/Yr
Ta
1975
1.9
.6
.4
.6
.2
.1
Negli
Hegli
Hegli
Negli
Ts
1985
2.1
.7
.5
.7
.3
.066 '
ible V
ible V
ible V
ible V
Tn
1985
1.4-
.3
.2
.54
.2
.051
alues
alues
ilues
ilues
Impact . .
Ton/Yr
Es-Tn
1985
720
380
230
160
140
15
9
5
5
1
             -62-

-------
          TABLE 6-3

       OXIDES OF SULFUR

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
    .    FOR MODEL.IV  •

CATEGORY
BOILERS ^ 250 x 106 3W/&P
BOILERS 10-250 x 106'
BTU/HR.
COPPER SMELTERS
BOILERS 3. -10 x.lC^TU/BR
PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS .
CEMENT
(Kilns, Clinker Coolers)
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
STATIONARY GAS TURBINES
(Electric Utility)
MIXED FUEL BOILERS
(Coal -And Refuse)
WOOD PULPING (NSSC)
WOOD PULPING (Sulfite)
EXPLOSIVES (High)
MIXED FUEL BOILERS
(Oil And Refuse)
SECONDARY LEAD
(Revert Furnace) :
EXPLOSIVES (Low)
(«E base
new

K
.58
.32
.85, •
.25
.83
.90
.85
Ex.
~.S9
New
.22
.58
.98
.98
.83
.58
.68
.83
on
Emission Rates
Units
lb/106 BTU
lb/106 BTU
Ib/ton
copper
produced \
lb/106 BTU
Ib/ton
zinc
produced
Ib/ton
cement
produced
Ib/ton
lead
produced
lb/hp-yr
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/ton ;
pulp
produced
Ib/ton
pulp-
produced
Ib/tou
explosives
produced
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/ton
lead
produced
Ib/ton
explosives
produced
xisting NSPS
Eu,
1.99
1.83
OOU .
.77
2200
21.7
1320
16.6
224.0
143
126
31.0
20.5
212. C
65.0

Es
1.80
Exist
~~.97~
New
1.79
Exist
1.53
New
2503
Exist
5553"
New,
.77
£200
Exist
•T7981
New
21.7
Ssist
21.0
New
J320
16.6
60.0
143
126
31.0
20.5
202.0
65.0

En
.123
.259
25.0
.207
'33.0
:8.84
•19.8
9,48
44.8
20.0
•20.0
,2.48
4.1
2.12
5.2

rowth Rate
eeimal/Year
PC
055c
014c
03 Oe
043c
035c
03 Oc
0
.27s
17.29s
.012c
.012c
.094c
17.29s
'.032c
,.094c
Pb
.'05s
.O5s
.036s
.037s
.036s
.025s
;036s
..02s
'o.o
.031s
.031s
;045s
0.0
.024s
• .045s

Industry Capacity
Units/
Year
1012 BTU
Id12 BTU
106 tons
copper
1012 BTU
106 tons
zinc
1O6 tons ,
cement •
106 tons
lead
io6
hp-yr
6
.0 tons
waste
6
.0 tons
?ulp
10 tons
>ulp •
6
.0 tons
explosiv-
es
IO6 tons
waste
6
10 tons
lead
6
10 tons
explosiv
es

A •
1975
8011
9534
2.4
6471
1.3
103
.77
54.1
.12
4.18'
2.4
1.8
.036
.7
.5

B
1985
14006
9767
.9
9794
.5
26
.28
10.8'
0
1.30
.7
.8
0
.2
.2

C
1985
19836
2914
.8
13857
.5
35'
0
146..1
27.0'
.53
.3
2.7
6.2 ;
.3
.8

.Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
4622
595
25'6V
2551
1200
1006
1»29
98.8
2.7
293
148
24
.2
49
14

Ts
1985
6870
889
3UOO
887
1520
332
tt
366
472
330
167
58
37
67
34

Tn
1985
8518 . ,
323
1660
219
779
997
278
243
353
220
113
17
7.6
38
9.8

Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
8351900
2566300
171(0000
1670000
7MOOO .
334900
177000
122000
119000
110000
54000 '
41400
29600
29600
24500

                -63-

-------
     TABLE 6-3  (Continued)

       OXIDES OF SULFUR

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
SULFIffilC ACID ^
HEFJHHiY FUEL GAS -
SULFUR RECOVERY
WOOL HILEraa (Kraft)
COAL CLEAHI1K
(Therea! Drying)
CRUDE OIL & NATURAL GAS
PaODOCTIOH - SULFUR
RECOVERY

urn
FIBERGLASS
(Textile Manufacturing)
INTERNAL COHBUSTIOH ENGINES
(Diesel And Dual Fuel)
KUCK AND RELATED
CLAY PRODUCTS

FIBERGLASS
(Wool Processing)

GAS TURBDfE ENGINES
(Pipeline)
ASPHALT BATCHING

SECOHBARY LEAD
(Blast Furnace)


BYPRODUCT COKE OVEtf


K
.64
.66
.SB
.59

50

90
70

58

80


70


85
47


8


95

Emission Rates
Units
Ib/ton
lOOjt H2S04
produced
Ib/ton
sulfur
Input
Ib/ton
pulp
produced
Ib/ton
coal
dryed
Ib/ton
sulfur
Input
Ib/ton
lime
produced
Ib/ton
glass
produced

Ib/hp-yr
Ib/ton
clay product

Ib/ton
glass
produced

Ib/hp-yr
Ib/ton
asphalt
produced
Ib/ton
lead
produced
Ib/ton
coke
produced
Eu
55.0
75.0
5.0
1.34

47.0

1.42
16.2

16.8

1.077


6.5.1


5.27
.0275


48.0


5.7

Es
35.0
Exist
foS~
38.4
3.06
..IT
ExisJ
™~66
Hew

36.0

1.42
16.2

16.8

1.077


6.51


5.27
0275
Exist
0255
Hew

46.6


5.7

En
3.0
20.0
1.6
.33

20.0

.71
.04

14.3

.431


.04


4.38
.014


.48


5.63

Growth Rate
Decimal /rear
PC
.C53c
.04,2c
.0120
.029s

042c

.05c
122c

028s

027s


042C


145s
.05s


032c


.Ols

Pb
.045s
.C3s_
.031s
.05s

.035s

.05s
063s

.O2s

033s


063s


02s
008s


024s


028s

Industry Cacacitv
Units/
Year
10s tons
100*
E2 S04
106 tons
sulfur
10 tons
pulp
106 tons
coal

6 ,
10 tons
6
.ime •
6
10 tons
glass
10s '
p-yr
6
10 tons
clay
product
6
10 tons
glass

106
hp-yr
6
10 tons
asphalt

6
lead

6
10 tons
coke

A
1975
49
3.6
34
133

2.9

26.1
.5

18.0

36


1.1


4.4 •
1480


.148


75.5

B
1985
22
1.1
11
67

1.0

13.1
.3

3.6

12


.7


.9
118


.036


21.1
1
C
1985
33
i.a
4
39

1.5

16.4
1.1

5.0

10


.6


6.4
740


.055


7.5

Emissions
Ta
1975
717
45.2
51
30.2

25.8

16.7
2.9

87.5

15


Ts
1985
486
68.3
57
35

39.0

27.2
9.3

112

19.5


2.5 3.7


9.8 24.1
9.6 ' 13.9


2.3 3.2


200



220

Tn
1985
463
50.7
47
25

29.1

17.8
1.1

106

14


.9


21.3
11.6


1.8


219

Impact
Ts-Tn
1985 .
23100
17500
10600
10200

9900

9400
8200

6200

5500


2800

"
2700
2300

1
1400
|

900
	 /
          -64-

-------
     TABLE 6-3 (Continued)

       OXIDES OF SULFUR

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY
PETROLEUM REFIHERY —
(Process Gas Combustion)

For those cases where
there was no demonstrated
control technology. . .
(See E.29)
PETROLEUM REFUJERY -
FGCU
PRIMARY ALUMINUM
SMELTER

BOILER
< .3 x 106 BTU/HR
IRON & STEEL PLANT
(Sintering )

GLASS PRODUCTION
(Soda Lime Glass)

INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
INCINERATOR


MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR


ORCHARD HEATERS

GLASS PRODUCTION
(Opal Glass)


HYDROFLUORIC ACID

MINERAL WOOL




K
.85






.85

.92

.3'0

.90


.80


.38


.56


L.O


.80


.98

.82


Emission Rates

Units
lb/10S
cubic feet





lb/bbl
feed
Ib/ton
aluminum
produced
lb/106
BTU
Ib/ton
sinter
produced
Ib/ton
glass
produced
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/ton
waste
burned
lb/
heater-hr.

Ib/ton
glass
produced
Ib/ton
100$ acid
Ib/tou
product


Eu
8260






.493

60.0

.107

3.0


4.24


2.38"


3.9


.037


4.24


2.1

.02


Es
2490
New





.493

56.1

.107

3.0


4.24


2.38


3.9


.037


4.24


2.1

.02
i 	

En
28.6






0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


0.0


0.0


0.0


0.0

Growth Rate
Decimal/Year

PC
.042c






.042c

.075C

.0290

.029s


.028s


.lie


.046s


.028s


O.O


0.0,

0.0

, .028s


.049s

.02s


Pb
.031s






.051s

.0353

.020s

.028s


.033s


.O39s


.039s


.033s


.033s


.045s

' .029s


Industry Capacity
, Units/
Year
1012
cu. ft.






106 BEL
6
10 ton
aluminum

lO^BTU
6
10 ton
sinter

lO6 tons
glass

6
10 tons
waste

6
10 tons
waste

106
heater-
hrs.
.6
10 tons
glass

6
10 tons
acid
6
10 tons
product

A
1975
.23






1506

6.0

24572

69.6


34.4


32.6


32.5


60.0


.5


.45

8.4

B
1985
.07






467

2.1

4914

19.5


11.4


12.71


12.7


19.8'


.3


.20

2.5

C
1985
.12






771

6.4

8131

20.2


9.6


59.97


14.9


16.8


.1


.22

1.7 '

Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
239






316

154.8

394

94


58.4


14.7

(
35.5


1.1


.8


.463

.07

Ts
1985
167






477

319.1

525

121.2


74.7


41.9


51.8


1.4


1.0


.689

.08

Tn
1985
167






218

100.6.

316

67.7


39.1


9.0


21.6


.7


.5


.257

.05

Bnpact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
0






259000

218000,

209000

53600


35600


32870


30200


680'


510-


432

30

             -65-

-------
          TABLE 6-4

       .  HYDROCARBONS

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
OPES BURHDtG
(Agricultural)
MDUSraiAL SURFACE
COATIHO
A*»HIA
(Methanator Plant)
AHMOHIA
(Regenerator & CO Absorber)
rEGREASIHQ
PETROLEUM REFINERY
(Mlic. Point Sources)
ETHYLEHE OXIIE
PETROLEUM REFUELOTS
CARBOH BLACK
(Furnace Process)
ERXCLEAHBIQ
PETROLEUM - SERVICE STATIONS
CHARCOAL
GRAPHIC ARTS
(Oravure)
ORAPHIC ARTS
(Flexography)
En was ap

K
1.00
.82
.33
.83
.82
.85
.87
85
77
.00
.85
.85
.88
.88
led
Emission Rates
Units
Ib/ton
waste
burned
Ib/gal
coating
applied
Ib/ton
ammonia
produced
Ib/ton
ammonia
produced
Ib/ton
metal
cleaned
Ib/bbl
refinery
capacity
Ib/ton
ethylene
oxide prod.
Ib/bbl
gasoline
Ib/ton
carbon
produced
Ib/ton
clothes
cleaned
Ib/bbl
gasoline
Ib/ton
charcoal
produced
Ib/ton
ink
consumed
Ib/ton
ink
consumed
o both new a
Eu
20.0
6.55
90.0
90.0
1.5
.586
392.0
.504
7O.O
258
.38
438.0
2300.
4800.
exis
Es
20.0
5.34
90.0
90.0
1.15
.586
392.0
.504,
570.9
258
.23
438.0
2300.
4800.
ng ea
En
0.0
.655
.45
.45
.IS
.293
3.92
.076
..57
9.0
.03
4.4
2.3
48
city
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year
. PC
.009c
.078c
.09c
.09c
.OJ2c
..042c
.0750
035 c
025c
018c
0350
043c
05c
.050

Fb
0.0
.042s
.045s
.0453
.042s
.031s
.045s
031s
045s
.05s
031s
.045s
,045s
.045s

Industrial Caracitv
Units
Year
g
10 tons
waste
10 gal
coating
10 tons
ammonia
6
10 tons
ammonia
. 106tons
metal
10 bbl
capacity
6
10 tons
ethylene
oxide
6 . .
10 bbl
asoline
g
10 tons
carbon
6
10 tons
clothes
106 bbl
gasoline
6
10 tons
charcoal
g
-0 tons
ink
6
10 tons
ink

A
1975
280
867
11.1
11.1
162g
4937
1.7
2950
2.0
2.4
2950
0.8
.117
.051

B
1985
0
.564
5.0
5.0
683
1530
0.8
4927
.9
1.2
915
0.4
.052
.023

. 0
198S
26.2
•971
15.2
15.2
602
2527
1.8.
1195-
.6
.5
1195
0.4
.074
.032

1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
2800
1898
415
415
767
1230
290
632
436
304
287
148
118
108

Ts
1985
3033
4025
982
982
1051
1859
598
888
.558
364
403
226
193
175

Tn
1985
o'1
1460
232
232-
524
1354
164
504
240
160
229
83
65
60

, Impact
Ts-Tn
1985
3062500
2560000
750000
750000
527000
505000
434000
584000
318000
204000
175000
143000
128000
115000

              -66-

-------
     TABLE 6-4 (Continued)

         HYDROCARBONS

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY
SUGAR CANE
(Field Burning)
PETROLEUM REFINERY
(Vacuum Distillation)

BY-PRODUCT COKE OVENS


GRAPHIC ARTS
(Letter Press)

GRAPHIC ARTS
(Lithography)

GRAPHIC ARTS,
(Metal Decorating)


ACRYLONITRILE

CAST IRON FOUNDRY ,
(Core Ovens)

FORMALDEHYDE


PAINT


BEER
AUTOMOBILE ASSEMBLY
PLANT

VEGETABLE OIL



ETHYLEffi! DICHLOHIDE


* 'En was appli



K
1.00

.85

.93'


.88

.88

.88


.90,

.93

.72


.85


.81

.91

.92



.62


d to

Emission Rates

Units
Ib/acre
burned
Ib/bbl
vacuum
distillate

Ib/ton
coke
produced

Ib/ton
ink .
consumed
Ib/ton
ink
consumed
Ib/ton
ink
consumed
Ib/ton
acrylonitrile
produced
Ib/ton
metal cast
Ib/ton
formaldehyde
produced
Ib/ton
paint
produced
Ib/lC^gal
beer
Ib/auto
produced
Ib/ton
oil
produced

Ib/ton
ethylene di-
chloride
produced
both new and

Eu
3OO.O

.13

5.9


1500.

2800.

3700.


330.0

10.5

27.5


30.-0


10.9

21.0

38.0



140. C


xistin,

Es
300.0

.13

5.9


1500.

2500.

3200;


91.0

10.5

22.2


30.0
.

10.9

12.6

37.9



19.6


capac

En
0.0

.0001

„*


15.0

28.0

37.0


.165

1.05

.28


0.3


.109

.42

15.2



.140


•ty
Growth Hate
Decimal/Year

PC
.015s

.042c

.010s


.05c

.056

.05c


.0950

.035s

.094c


.026c


.070c

.029c

.027s



.0900




Pb
0.0

.031s

.028s


.045s

.045s

.045s


.045s

.028s

.045s


.067s


.040s

.040s

.028s



.045s




Industry Cap
Units/
Year
10s
acres
106bbl
vacuum '
distil-
late
10 tons
coke

6
10 tons
ink

106tons
ink

6
10 tons
ink

6
10 tons
acryloni-
trile
6
10 tons
metal
106tons
formalde-
hyde
6
10 tons
paint

109gai
beer
6
10
autos
6
10 tons
oil


6
10 tons
ethylene
dichlori-
de-

A
1975
.6

1846

75.5


.110

.063

.046


.8

23.0

4.2


4.9


7.2

10.6

6.5



3.3
acity
B
1985
0

572

21.1


.05 .

.028

.021


.4

6.4

1.9


3.3


2.9

4.2

1.8



1.5




C
1985
.1

945

-7.5


.069

.040

.029


1.2

8.0

6.1


1.5


7.0

3.5

1.8



4.5



Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
98

102

207


73

69

65


34

112

34


63


32

61

114



20



Ts
1985
112

154

228


118

113

106


84

152

83


82


63

81

Tn
1985
o'1'

70

150


41

39

36


19

88

19


22'.~


20

38

144 j 107
1
1

48 11



Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
112000

83800

77900


77500

73900

69100


65400

63700

63300


60000


43000

42900

37400



36200



             -67-

-------
     TABLE 6-4 (Continued)

         HYDROCARBONS

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY;
FSEHOLKM 1BABSEER -
OASOLDE
FEIEOLEUM STORAGE DIS-
TILLATE OIL (Breathing)
SYNTIETIC EESIH
(Acrylic)
POLYETEZLEXE
(lev Density)
MAL5IC AHHHJRUE
(Benzene Oxidation)
nraECT FEtraB
OF MEATS
rOIfXBTHXLEHE
(High Density)
VARHISII
PHTHALIC AHHYIRIDE
(0-Xylenc)
poLCTBrar. CHLORIDE
SXtfTHEDIC FIBERS
(Hylon)
PETROLEUM TRANSFER
CRUDE OH.
HrarOTW DfK
HOOD FKOCESSIW3
(Plyvoad)

K
.85
1.0(
-.87
.88
Emission Bates
Units
Ib/bbl
gasoline
lb/bbl
distillate
oil
Ib/ton
resin
Ib/ton
polyethylene
produced
; It/ton
1.0 maleio
' anhydride
.62
l.OC
.85
.78
.82
.72
.85
.83
95
Ib/unit-yr
Ib/ton
polyethylene
produced
Ib/ton
varnish
produced
Ib/ton
phthaUc
anhydride
produced '
Ib/ton
PVC produced
Ib/ton
nylon
produced
lb/bbl
crude oil
Ib/ton
ink
produced
lb/ft2
wood
produced
Eu
.116
.593
2ltO
25. 0
172
6136.
50.0
67.9
130.0
17.0
7.0
.084
120.0
.001
Es
.071
.431
36
4.2
1^7
6136.
7.4
34.9
86.6
9.6v
7.0
071
48.0
001
En
.012
.286
e.k
.25 •
' .172
2636.
.5
.679
5.0
.09
.35
.048
12.0
0.0
Growth Kate
Decimal/Year
PC
.035c
.0320
.15Uc
.1650
.09c
.033s
.176c
.0260
.0790
.078c
.127c
.0420
.06c
025c
i
Pb
.042s
.031s
.0^5s
.OOSs
.01*5 s
.05s
0.0
.067s
.020s
O002S
045s
029s
045s
05s
Industry C
Units/
Year
6
10 bbl
gasoline
6
10 bbl
distilla
te oil
106 tons
resin
6
10 tons
polyethy-
A
1975
156
643
.583
4.8
106 tons i
maleio : .23
anhydride j
io6
units
6
10 tons
polyethy-
lene
106tons
varnish
g
10 tons
phthallc
anhydride
6
10 tons
FVC
6
10 tons
nylon
106bbl
crude pil
6
10 tons
ink
6 2
0 ft
ood
1
.0337
1.9
1.3
.4
2.7
1.7
1440
.4
2600
pacity
B
1985
651
199
.262
.3
.10U
.0168
0.0
.9
.1
.005
.77
418
.2
1300
C
1985
632
238
1.86
17.5
.314
.0111
7.6
.4
.5
3.1
4.0
737
.3
330
Emissions
1000 Tnn /YV
Ta
1975
47
139
9.1
9
16.9
64
7.0
19
-14
11
3.1 •
43
8.5
8
Ts
1985
66
190
38.2
41
1(0
85
35.0
25
30
23
14.3
66
14
10
In
1985
34
158
7.2
10
9.3
55
9.6
6.7
12
11
3.0
54
7
4
Impact
Ts-Tn
1985
32400
31700
31000
30900
30700
30300
26300
18100
17900
12000
11300
11300
6900
6200
          -68-

-------
     TABLE  6-4  (Continued)
         HYDROCARBONS
SUWIARY OF  INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY

nKHiP FAT FRYING


POLYSTYRENE

PETROLEUM TRANSFER
JET FUEL
WOOD PULPING
(Kraft Process)

PETROLEUM REFINERY
(Process Gas Combination) ,

INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINES (Diesel &Dual Fuel)
•SYNTHETIC RESINS
(Phenolic)
' • '^
ASPHALT ROOFING
(Blowing)


MINERAL WOOL

SYNTHETIC RESINS
(Urea - Melamine)

PETROLEUM STORAGE
KEROSINE (Breathing)

WHISKEY

FIBERGLASS
(Wool Processing)

SYNTHETIC RESINS
(ABS - SAN)


POLYPROPYLENE




K

.81


.88


.85

.98


.85

.58
.80
•'-

.90


.82


.80


1.00

.95


.70


.80


.78


Emission Rates

Units
Ib/ton
food
processed
Ib/ton
polystyrene
produced
Ib/bbl
jet fuel.
Ib/ton
pulp
produced
lb/103
cu. ft. gas

Ib/hp-yr
Ib/ton
resin
produced
Ib/ton
asphalt
input
Ib/ton
wool
produced
Ib/ton
resin
produced
Ib/bbl
kerosene
lb/103gal
whiskey
produced
Ib/ton
glass
produced
Ib/ton
resin
produced
Ib/ton
polypropylene
produced

Eu

7.75


11.7


.116

4.69


33.0

31.3,
•7.5-'


2.5


2.02


7.5


.593

2.76


3.39


7.5


.7


Es

6.24


4.2


.09

4.69


33.0

31.3
5-76


2.5


2.02


5.76


..435

2.76


3.39


5.76


.59


En

.078


.12


.034

4.24


0.0

30.3
.075


.025


.87


.075


.295

.035


.102


.075


.003

Growth Rate
Decimal/Year

PC

.043e


.075c


.094c

.012c


.042c

028s
.07c


.025s


.020s


.073c


0.0

.06s


.0420


.072C



Pb

.028s


.005s


.042s

.031s


.031s

.020s
.005s


.042s


.029s


.005s


.031s

.032s


.063s


.005s


.15c .003s
i

Industrial Capacity
Unit's/
Year
6
10 tons
food

6
10 tons
polysty-
rene
10 bbl
jet fuel
6
10 tons
pulp

1012
cu'.' ft.
gas
,106
lip-yr
6
10 tons
resin

106tons
asphalt

106tons
wool

106tons
resin

10 bbl
kerosene
109 gal
whiskey

106tons
glass

6
10 tons
resin

10 tons
polypro-
pylene
A
1975

2.6


2.3


146

34


.2

18.0
1.1


3.1


8.4


.74


76

1.3


1.1


.47


1.6

B
1985

.7


.10


61

11


.1

3.6
.05


1.3


2.5


.037


24

.42


.7


.024


.05

C
1985

1.4


2.5


213

4.3


.1 •

5.0
1.04


0.8


1.7


.757


0

.78


.6


.47


4.9

Tilm-l RRinnfi
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975

6.7


4.3


5.6

78


3.2

163
2.5


3.5


7.0


1.7


17

1.7 '


1.3


1.1


.4

Is
1985

10.2


9.0


13.7

88


.4.8

209
4.8


4.4


8.4


3.45


17

2.7


1.9


2.2


1.5

Tn
1985

4.9


4.3


9.5

85


2.2

206
2.4


2.1


6.4


1.6

Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985

5300


4700


4200

3300


2600 .

2500
2480


240O


2000


1806

i
15

1.2

1600

1540

i
.5 1400
i

1.04 1127


.4 1100

             -69-

-------
     TABLE 6-4 (Continued)
         HYDROCARBONS
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEBCRX
SBITHOTC FIBERS
(Acetate)

PEISOLEUM TRASSFER -
AVIATION GAS

TEXTILE PROCESSES!
(Heat Setting & Finishing)

TEXTILE PBOCESSDKJ
(Carpet Manufacturing)
COFFEE BOASriHQ

STYREE-BCrlADIEHE RUBBER

AraoBODx mcraERATioH

LEAD ACID BATTERS PLANT
snniETic RESET
(A^yd)
ZEfC - (Sweat Furnace)

HEAT SMOKEHOUSES

TEXTILE FHOCESSEKS
(Tcxturiilrg)
PETROLEUM TRANSFER -
SPECIAL NAPHTHA

K
.93

.85

.86

.86
.85

.75

.90

76
.68
BZ

81

85
85
Emission Rates
Units
Ib/ton
acetate
produced
Ib/bbl
aviation gas

Ib/ton
textiles
produced
Ib/ton
textiles
produced
Ib/ton
coffee
roasted
Ib/ton
rubber
produced

.b/auto
lb/
>attery
iroduced
Ib/ton
resin
Ib/ton
inc
produced
Ib/ton
eat
moked
b/ton
extiles
reduced
Ib/bbl
special
naphtha
Eu
7.0

.116

10.18

.80
1.1

4.2

1.0

.009
1.71
2.81

.35

4.6
.116
Es
7.0

.090

3.C64

.72
1.1

4.2

1.0

.0068
1.71
2.81

.35

.92
.090
En
.35

.C65

1.486

.04
.OC6

3.1

.46

.0001
.017
.003

.15

.23
.056
Growth Rate
Decimal/year
PC
.0277

.094c

.OSlc

.C63c
0.0

.020c

.28s

.050
.0150
039c

017s

023c
007c
Pb
.045s

.042s

.042s

.042s
.040s

.003s

.039s

.04s
.Ol^S
035s

.04s

042s
042s

Industrial Capacity
Units
Year
6
10 tons
acetate

106bbl
aviation
gas
6
10 tons
textiles

6
10 tons
textiles
6
10 tons
coffee
.
6
10 tons
rubber
106
autos
10s
batteries
106 tons
resin
IC^tons
zinc

6
0 tons
eat

6
.0 tons
extiles
6
0 bbl
pecial
aphtha

A
1975
.43

36

.8

1.8
1.5

2.3

.3

80
.53 -
.2

3.6

.9
18

B
1985
.19

15

.3

.8
.6

.1

.1

32
.239
.1

1.4

.4
7.4

0
1985
.13

52

.9

1.2
0

.5

.8

50
.085
.1

.6

.2
1.3

Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
la
1975
1.4

1.4

1.0

.6
.75

3.6

.1

.2
..31
.2

.5

.3
.7

Ts
1985
1.8

3.3

2.3

1.0
.75

4.4

.5

.3
.36
."3 •

.6

.4
.7

In
1985
.8 •

2.4

1.4

.4
.4

4.2

.3

.1
.17
..1 '

.4

.3
.6

Impact
Ts-Tn
1985
1000

990

850

590
290

240

230

210
187
180

170

170
130

          -70-

-------
      TABLE 6-4  (Continued)

          HYDROCARBONS
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
          FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY

PATHOLOGICAL INCINERATORS


MAGNESIUM' SMELTING " '
, . i i

'PETROLEUM STORAGE ^
AVIATION GAS (Working)

PETROLEUM STORAGE ,
AVIATION GAS (Breathing)


PETROLEUM STORAG^25-
CRUDE OIL (Working)

PETROLEUM STORAGE CRUBE^
OIL (Breathing)

PETROLEUM STORAGE^
GASOLINE (Working)

PETROLEUM STORAGE (2)
GASOLINE (Breathing)


PETROIEUM STORAGE JET (2>
FUEL (Working)

(2)
PETROIEUM STtRAGE JET
FUEL (Breathing)

(21 .
PETROIEUM STORAGE SPECIAL
NAPHTHA (Working)

PETROLEUM STORAGE SPECIAlf2)
NAPHTHA (Breathing)

<2>E base
new



K

.34


.82
.

.85

1.00


.85

1.00


.85

1.00



.85
•
LOO


.85


1.00

. on


Emission Rates

Units
Ib/ton
waste
j i
Ib/ton
magnesium
produced

Ib/bbl
aviation gas

Ib/bbl
aviation
gas

Ib/bbl '
crude oil

Ib/bbl
crude
. ,
Ib/bbl
gasoline

Ib/bbl
gasoline


Ib/bbl
jet fuel

jet fuel

Ib/bbl
special
naphtha
Ib/bbl
special
naphtha.
xisting NSPS


Eu

3.8


3.39


.116

2.85


.084

2.88


.116

2.85



.116

1.4


.116


2.85




Es

3.8
•

3.39

.055
New
Togo"
Exist
1.35
-SSB__
2.06
Exist

SSH 	
.071
Exist
1.56
Exist
.012
Hew
.071
Exist
.29
_New_
Exist

"New
.09
Exist
.65
l7o~~~
Exist
.056
'70yO~
Exist
'J..3U
New
1.34
Exist



En

.04


.003
•'

.055

1.35


.048

1.56


.012

.29



.054

.65


.056


1.30

v'


• Decimal/Y

PC

,026c


.016s


,094e

.og4c


.042c

.042c


.035c

.035c



.0940

.094c


.0070


,007c




Pb

.039s


.035s


.031s

.031s


.031s

.031s


.031s

,031s



.031s.

.031s


,031s


,031s




Industry Capacity
Units/
Year
IO6 tons
waste

10 tons
magnesium

f
10 bbl
aviation
gas
10 bbl
aviation
gas

10 bbl
crude

IO6 bbl
crude

106 bbl
gasoline
•
IO6 bbl
gasoline


IO6 bbl
jet fuel

10 bbl
jet fuel

10S bbl
special
naphtha
IO6 bbl
special
naphtha


A
1975

.13


.018


67

37.0


6000

589


2950.

477



276

124


33-


18.2



B
1975

.05


.006


21

12.0


i860

183


915.

148



86

38 '•


10


5.6



C
1975

.04
•

.003


98

54.0


3054

300


1211

196

1 '

402

-180


2.4


1.3 ,



•RmisslnnK
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1985

.1


.03


2.6

38


181

674


89

355



11

•62


1.3


12.2



Ts
1985

.11


Tn
1985

.05


Negligible
Vail

4.5

71


225

842


72

294



19

114


1.2


12.9



es

4.5

71


225

842


72

294



19

114


1.2


12.9



Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985

60


10


0

0


0

0


0

0



0

'0


0


0



                  -71-

-------
     TABLE 6-4  (Continued!
         HYDROBARBONS
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
For those cases where
there van no demonstrated
control technology...
(Soo F.2J)
INTERNAL COMBUSTIOH EKJINES
(Spark Ignition^
BOILERS* 250 x 10 BTU/HR
ORCHARD JEATEHS
BOILERS .3-10 x lOPBTU/te
BOILERS
10-256 x 10s BTO/te
EtJUJKHAIOflS
EOILERS «.3 x 10s BTU/Hr
ASPHALT BATCHING
MUNICIPAL HfCDtmOTORS
BUCK & RELATED CLAY
PRODUCTS

K
.58
.58
L.OO
.25
.32
33
30
47
56
80
Emission Rates
Units
lb/hp-yr
ib/ioV
Ib/heater-hr
lb/106 BTU
lb/106 BTU
Ib/ton
vaste
>urned
Ib/loSBTU
b/ton
sphalt
roduced
b/ton
waste
)/ton
Lay
roduced
Eu
56.0
.019
9.2
.042
.045
2.88
.019
.167
2.7
.073
Es
56.0
.019
9.2
.042
.045
2.88
.019
.167
2.7
.073
En
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Growth Rate
Decimal/Year
PC
.087s
.035c
.028s
.043c
-014c
lie
029c
050s
046s
027s
Pb
.020s
.050s
.033s
-037s
.050s
.039s
020s
008s
039s
033s

Industry Ca-pacitv
Units/
Year
106
hp-yr
ib* «
106 .
heater
hours
1012 BTU
1012 BTU
6
.0 tons
waste
Id12 BTU
O6 tons
sphalt
0 tons
6
0 tons
lay

A
1975
28.7
28011
60
26471
19534
32.6
24572
1480
32.5
35.7

B
.1985
5.7
14006
19.8
9794
9767
12.7
4914
118
12.7
11.8

C
1985
25.0
19836
16.8
13857
2914
60.0
8131
740
14.9
9.6

Emissions
1000 Ton/YT
Ta
1975
467
154
276
139
141
18
70
58
24.6
1.0

Ts
1985
873
264
353
212
162
51
93
87
35.9
1.3

Tu
1985
373
77
185
88
70
11
56
53
05.0
.7

Impact
Ts-Tn
1985
499000
186000
168000
124000
91300
39800
37200
33700
20900
620

          -72-

-------
          TABLE 6-5

        CARBON MONOXIDE

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
0PM BURNING (Agricultural)
IRON & STEEL PLANT
(EOF)
CARBON BLACK •
(Furnace Process)
AMONIA - (Regenerator &
CO '. absorber )
SUGAR CAKE —
(Meld Burning)
WOOD FULPUJS —
(Kraft Process)
STATIONARY GAS TURBINES
(Electric Utility)
FORMALDEHYDE
MAEEIC ANHYDRIDE
(Benzene Oxidation)
ACRSLOMIEBILE
IRON 8t STEEL PLANT
(Electric Arc Furnace)
INTERNAL •COMSDST1BH'',ENGI!IES
(Diesel and Dual Fuel)
CHARCOAS.
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
(0-xylene Process)
WE* wa

K
.00
.99
.77
.83
1.00
98
.22
.72
1.0
.90
.90
.5
.85
.78
ippl
Emission Rates
Units
Ib/ton
waste
"burned
Ib/ton
steel
produced
Ib/ton .
carbon black
produced
Ib/ton
ammonia
produced
Ib/acre
burned
3-b/ton
pulp
Ib/hp-yr
Ib/ton ' ;
formaldehyde
produced
Ib/ton
maleic
anhydride
Ib/ton
acrylonitri-
le produced
Ib/ton
steel
produced
Ib/hp-yr
Ib/ton
charcoal
produced
Ib/ton
phthalic
anydride pro
:d to both ne
Eu
00.0
39.0
4500.0
200.0
1500. C
. 70
38.6,
135.0
13l)O
360.0
18.0
54.8
320.0
280.
and e
Es
00.0
39.0
4500.0
200.0
1500.0
70
38.6
135.0
13l«)
360.0
18.0
54.S
320.0
280.
1st ing
En
.000
.000
4.5
1.0
0.0
5.0
12.7
1.35
1.3*
:18
4.5
0;0
3.20
.200
:apaci
rowth Rate
ecimal/Year
PC
009c
048s
025 c
09 Oc
015s )
012c •
-270s
.095c:
,09c
.O95c
.073s
.028s
.0430
.079c
f
.Pb
.000
.028s
.045s
.045s
.000
.031s
.020s
.045s
.0^5
.045s
.028s
.020s
.045s
.020

Industrial Capacity
Units/
Year
6
10
tons
waste
6
10
tons
steel
6
10 tons
carbon
black,'
~6
10 tons
ammonia
io6
acres
6
10 tons
pulp
6'
10
hp-yr.
6
10 tons
formalde-
hyde
IO6 tons
•Baleic
anhydrio
10 tons
acryloni
trile
d
10 tons
steel
8
10 hp-yr
6
10 tons
charcoal
6
10 tons
phthalic
anydride

A
1975
280.0
88.9
2.0
11.1
.6
33.9
54.1
4.2
.23
0.8
36.7
18.0
0.8
.4

B
1985
0.0
24.9
0.9
5.0
0
10.5
10.8
1.9
.M*
0.4
10.3
3.6
0.4
;i

C
1985
26.2
42.7
0.6
15.2
.1
4.29
146.1
6.1
.31*
1.2
26.8
5.0
0.4
.5

Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975"
4000;;
560.7
443
921
488
1163
230
205
15*
135
297.3
285
108.1
46

Ts.
1985
15312
229.8
4407 •
181
561
1310
850
502
3(5
333
514.3
365
164.7
98

Tn
1985
0M
094.9
1896
515
0^
839
403
116
85
74
289.1
228
60.5
37

Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
15312300
4130000
2510000
1670000 '
561000
471000
446000,
386000
279800
259000
225000
137000
104000
61200

               -73-

-------
TABLE 6-5 (Continued)
CARBON. MONOXIDE
SUW1ARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
STATIONARY GAS TUHBIHES
(Oas Pipeline)

3HOH & S7H3L FLAOT
(Blast Furnace)
FERROALLOY
ETHYLEfE DICHLOHIIE

SECONDARY LEAD
(Blast Furnaces)
ASPHALT ROOFItn -
(Bloving)
FIBERGLASS
(Textile Processing)
PATHOLOGICAL HKJINERATOR
FIBEKQLASS
(Uaol Processing)

SEOOmSARY 2IHC
(Sweat Furnace)
MAOHESIIM SKELTDK
PETROLEUM RKFUffiRY
FOOU

For those cases where
there was no doaonstrated
control technology. . .
(See P.29)
JjROH & STEEL PLANT
(Sintering)

K

.a

.9C
.9C
.62

.68
.90
.70
.34
.70

.82
.82
.85





90
Emission Rates
Units Eu
•
5 Ib/hp-yr

Ib/ton
> pig iron
used
Ib/ton
ferroalloy
produced
Ib/ton
Ethylene
Bichloride

Ib/ton
lead
produced
Ib/ton
Asphalt
Input
Ib/ton
Textiles
Produced
Ib/ton
waste
Ib/ton
wool
produced
Ib/ton
zinc
produced
Ib/ton
Magnesium
produced
Ib/BEL
Feed





Ib/ton
sinter
processed

29.4

1.75
136. C
16.0

207.0
l.SO
3.50
.
4.1
2.08

.012
.038
13.70





44.0
Es

29.4

1.75
136. C
16. C

207.0
1.50
3.50
4.1
2.08

.012
.058
13.70
Ssiit
.068 " '
tew




44.0
En

9.69

0.00
1.40
.016

12.9
.015
1.55
.04
1.95

.000
.000
.068





0.0
Growth Rate
Becimaiyreai
PC

.145

,029s
.0150
.090c

.032c
.025s
.122c
.026c
.0420

.0390
.016s
.0420





039s

.Fb

s .020s

.028s
.028c
.045s

.024s
.042s
.063s
.0393
.063s

.0353
.0353
.0313





028s

Industrial Oauacitv
Units
Year

io6
hp-yr
6
10 tons
pig iron
6
10 tons
ferro-
alloy
6
10 tons
Ethylene
Bichlori-
de
6
10 tons
lead
6
10 tons
Asphalt
6
10 tons
Textiles
6
10 tons
waste
6
10 tons
wool

6
10 tons
zinc
6
10 tons
Magnes- .
ium
6
10 BEL
Feed





6
10 tons
sinter 6

1975

4.4

: 118.7
1.6
3.3

.148
3.1
0.5
.13
1.1

0.2
.0175
1506





9.6

B
1985

.9

33.2
0.4
1.5

.036
1.3
0.3
.05
0.7

0.1
.006
467





19.5
C
1985

6.4

34.4
0.3
4.5

.055
0.8
1.1
.04
0.6

0.1
.003
771- '





20.2 1
Emissions
Ta
. 1975

54.9

93.5
95.5
16.4

10.4
2.1
0.6
.09
0.8

Heglij
Neglij
8770





378.1 3
	 1 	 1 	 I
Is.
1985

134

120.6
110.8
38.7

14.3
2.7
2.0
.12
1.2

ible Vi
ible T!
6085





777.7

Tn
1985

73 ..7

67.3
69.2
9.0

8.3
1.2
1.0
.06
1.1

lues
Lues
6085





992.2

Impact
Ts-Tn
1985

SSMtt:

53280
41600
29700

6000
1400
990
60
60

1
5
0





786000

    -74-

-------
     TABLE 6-5  (Continued)

        CARBON  MONOXIDE

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINES (Spark Ignition)
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION
wiTT.ma
> 250 x 10 BTU/hr
BOILERS .
10250 x 10° BTU/hr
MINERAL WOOL
BOILERS R
0.3 - 10. x 10° BTU/hr
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
INCINERATORS
BOILERS -
<0.3 x 10° BTU/hr
'BY-PRODUCT COKE OVENS
BRICK & RELATED CLAY
PRODUCTS ' - • .
AUTO BODY
INCINERATORS
CHLOR - ALKALI
(Diaphragm Cell)
SMOKED MEAT
CHLOR - ALKALI
(Mercury Cell)
ORCHARD HEATERS
* ^En was app

K
.58
.56
.58
.32
.82
.25
.38
.30
.93
.80
.90
.95
.81
.95
1.00
Lied
Emission Rates
Units
Ib/hp-yr
It/ton
refuse
lb/106 BTU
lb/106 BTU
It/too
wool
produced
lb/10 BTU
It/ton
waste
processed
lb/10°BIU
It/ton
coke
produced
Ib/ton
clay
Ib/car
burned
Ib/ton
chlorine
produced
Ib/ton
meat
smoked
Ib/ton
chlorine
produced
Ibs/heater-
hr.
bo both new an
Eu
42.8
34.8
.024
.110
94.4
.051
8.97
.026
1.70
0.155
2.50
.158
.600
.158
.004
1 exisl
Es
42.8
34.8
.024
.110
94.4
.051
8.97
.026
1.70
0.155
2.50
.158
.600
.158
.004
bing ca
En
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.000
pacity
Growth Bate
Decimal/Xear
EC
.087s1
.046s
.CSSe
.014c
.020s
.043o
.1100
.029c
.010s
.027s
.280s
.0650
.017s
.065C
.028s

Fb
,020s
.039s
.O50s
.OS Os
.029s
.037s
.039s
.020s
.028s
.033s
.039s
.045s
.040s
.045s
.033s

Tnrhis-hriaT
Units/
Year
LO6 hp-yr.
6
10 tons
refuse
1012BTU
lO-^BTU
10 tons
wool
1B12BTU
10 tons
waste
1012 BTU
6
10 tons .
coke
6
1O tons
clay
10 cars
6
10 tons
chlorine
6
10 tons
meat
smoked _
10 tons
chlorine
106
heater-
hr

A"
1975
28.7'
32.5
28011
.' 19534
8.4
' 26471.
32.6
245 72;
75.5
35.7
.3
9.7
3.6
3.7
60.0

Capacity
B
1985
5.7
12.7
14006'
9767
2.5
9794
12.71
4914
21.1
11.8
.1
4.4
1.4
1.7
19.8

C
1985
25.0
14.9
19836
2914 .
1.7
: 13857
59.97
8131
7.5
9.6
.8
8.5
.6
3.3
16.8

Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
357
317
195
344
326.6
169
55.6.
96
60
2.2
.3
.7
.9
.3
0.1

Ts
1985
667
462
333
395
391.9
257
157. 8".
128
66
2.8
1.3
1.4
1.0
.5
0.2

In
1985
285
193
97
172
230.6
106
33.9
77
43
1.5
.2
.4
.5
.2
0.1

Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tn
1985
381000
269000
236POO
223000
161000
151000
123900
50900
22700
1300
1100
970
500
370
70

             -75-

-------
           TABLE 6-6

           FLUORIDES

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
PRIMARY AU&cmuM SMELTERS
BOILERS >2SO x 10s BTU/m
HYIROFLUORIC ACID
BRICK AHD RELATED CLAY
PRODUCTS
BOILERS 10 -2SO x 10s BTU/HR
CERAMIC CLAY
PQEROLAS - (Textile Process)
CLASS - (Opal Glass)
BOILERS 0.3 - 10 x 10 BOT/H?
FRET MANUFACUJRDXJ
AHIMAL FEED DEFLUORIHATION
IROT AHD STSSI. PLAIIT
(Open Hearth Furnace)
HBttUXi SUPERPHOSPHATE
EtOH AND STEEL FLAMS
(Electric Arc Furnace)
CASHABLE REFRACTORIES
PHOSPHORIC ACID (Wet Process)
DIAMMOSHJM FBOSPBAXB
imrnaz£R


. K
.92
.58
.98
.80
.32
.80
.70
.80
.25
.80
.90
.90
.76
.90
.80
.81
.89


Units
Ib/ton
aluminum
produced
Ib/loSlU
Ib/ton
100$ HF
produced
Ib/ton
slay product
produced
Ib/lO^TU
Ib/ton
clay product
produced
Ib/ton
glass
produced
Ib/ton
glass
produced
lb/10 HOT
Ib/ton
frit
produced
Ib/ton
PgOg
produced
Ib/ton
pig iron
produced
Ib/ton
P2o5
produced
Ib/ton
raw steel
produced
Ib/ton
refractory
produced
Ib/ton
produced
Ib/ton
!fs,
produced

Emission Rates
Eu
46. C
.BOSS:
71.4
1.0
OD322
1.0
8.15
22.1
.ooosa
5.56
219.0
.102
6.9
.069
1.3
2.5 .
.29

Bill
) 3.0
.ores
.29
.30
.0004&
.30
.082
4.42
-
.000216
.334
.44
.005
.50
0044
065
0217 .
.06

i Es
19. C
2.00363
71.4
1.0
C0032S
1.0
8.15
22.1
OIH36.
5.56
59.4
.102
3.1
.021
.exist
0134
new
1.3 .
0339 .
.12

En
2.C
032'
.29
.30
OOOS
.30
.02
4.42
JB2K
.334
.44
N.A.
T.A.
0044
065 .
010!
.06
Srowth Rates
Decinal/yr.
Pe
.075c
t .055c
.049s
.027s
.014c
.042s
.l£Ec
.028s
.043c
.037s
0.0
-.036
s
-.075
c
073s
04,30
.10c
.064£
Pb
.035s
.05s
.045s
.033s
.03s
.033s
.063s
.033s
.037s
.033s
.04s
o
0
.028s
.033s
.045s
.045s
-76-
Industrial GanaG-it.-u-
Units/
Year
IDS
tons
aluminun
lO^BTU
106
tons
100$ HF
106
bons clay
product
lO^BTU
10s
bons clay
product
6
10
•tons
glass
6
10
tons
glass
12
10 BTU
106
tons
frit
io6
tons
P2°5
IO6 tons
pig iron
IO6 tons
P205
6
10
tons raw
steel
io6
tons
efractorj
io6
tons
P2°5
6
10
tons
P 0
2 5

A
197
6.00
•
28011
.45
35.
19534
13.
.5
.456
26471
.837
.200
U8.9
.&A
36.7
.39
9.14
3.14

B
198
2.1
14006
.20
11.8
9767
4.6
.3
.15
9794
.276
.08
0
0
0.3
.13
4.11
1.41

C
1985
6.3
1983
.22
9.6
2914
5.8
1.1
.128
13857
.310
0
1Y.6
fe
6.8
.20
4.57
1.70

Emissions
Ta
197
52.
31.
15.
14.3
1.0
4.45
1.43
4.03
2.67
1.86
5.35
s.sh
99
33
203
125
167

Is
1983
103.
53.
23.
18.1
11.5
7.9
4.68
5.16
4.06
2.55
5.35
1.1*
vr
473
308
326
263

End
1985
13.
17.8
.1
2.6
1.63
2.4
.016
1.03
1.09
.153
3.22
07
076
126
015
126
129

Impact
Ts-Ind
1985
94900
35159
23300
15550
9934
5520
4664,
4127
2974,
2398
2123
1367
f
&
347
290
200
134


-------
     TABLE 6-6  (Continued)

           FLUORIDES

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR  MODEL  IV



CATEGORY

ORAWJT.ATRT) TRTP3VR RtlPTRPHDR-
PHATE (Production)

FIBERGLAS - (Wool Processed)

ROP TRIPIE
SUPEEPHOSPHATE


GRAHULATED TRIPLE SUPERPHOS-
PHATE (Storage)
3UPERPHOSPHORIC ACID
(Submerged Combustion)



SUPERPEOSPHDEIC ACID
(Vacuum Evaporation)

IROH AMD STEEL PLANTS (BOFJ


(1)E based
new



K

.76


.70


.76


.76


.71



.71


.90


on Ei


Emission Eates

Units
Ib/ton
P2°5
produced
Ib/ton
glass
produced
It/ton
P2o5
produced
Xb/tou
P20
produced
Ib/ton
P205
produced

It /ton
P 0
produced

Ib/ton
raw steel
produced

isting NSPS :


Eu

.60


.08


1.0


.026


17.5



.005


.049


or Pa:


Ellld

.20


.001


.20


.012


.01



.0009


.00015


ticul;


Es

.27


.08


.50


.026


.069



.005


.0002
ssist
£0015
new
tes


En

.12


.02


N.A.


.012


H.A.



.0009


.ooau




3rowth Rates
Dacimal/jrr.

PC

.042c


.042c


-.056
c

.0420


0



.0850


.048s





Pi

.045s


.063s


0


.045s


0



.045s


.028s





Industrial Capacity
Units/
Year
106
tons
P2°5
io6
tons
glass
IO6 tons
Pg05 '

IO6
tons
P2°5
IO6 tons.
P2o5 .

6
10
tons
P2°5
Q
10
tons
raw steel



A'
1975

1.18


1.10


.525


1.18


.156



.694


88.9




B
1985

.53


.70


0


.53


0



.312


24.9




C
1985

.60


.60


-.225


.60


0



.875


42.7




Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975

.121


.031


.10


.011


.0038



.001


.008




Ts
1985

.184


.046


.057


.018


.0038



.005


.010




Tnd
1985

.101


. .010


.023


.008


.00055



.0005


.009




Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-TnJ
1985

83


36


3U


9.5


3.3



2.3


1




               -77-

-------
          TABLE 6-7

     HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS(1>2)

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
PESTICIDES
PHARMACEUTICALS
COTOOM OUflmK
OHMR-ALKALI (Mercury Cell)
(1)
Several, source categories e
Horn dangerous to human hee

K
.83
.83
1.0C
.95
dtti
th t
Mission Hates
Units
Ib/ton
pesticides
produced
Ib. mercury/
ton pharma-
ceutlcals
produced
Ib/bale
cotton
Lb. mercury
ton chlorine
produced
g hazardous ;
an what is c
Eu
10.0
.229
.0036
.62
ollut
nnaonl
E112
.100
.04,6
QOOlll
.005
mts a
term
Es
10.0
.229
00063
.006
e inc
d "pa
En
.100
.046
0001
.005
uded
ticu
Growth Hates
Decimal/in-.
PC
.074c
.09c
.01311
.065c
withii
ate m
Pb
.045s
.045s
.OhSs
.045s
Table
tter"
Industrial Capacity
Units/
Year
. 106
tons pes-
ticides
106 tons
pharma-
:ceuticals
106 bales
cotton
:io6
tons
chlorine
6-13 "THAI
A
1975
1.067
.24
10.8
3.74
E MEIA]
B
1985
.480
.108
b.5
1.68
S"
0
1985
1.112
.328
l.!t
3.28

Emissions
1000 Oton/YV
Ta
1975
4.4,28
.0228
.003^
.0089

Ts
1985
9.043
.054,
.0038
.0199

THd
1985
.0904
.011
.0008
.0176

Impact
Ts-Tnd
1985
8953
43
3
2

            -78-

-------
          TABLE 6-8

          ACID MIST

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGOHY
CERAMIC CLAY
SECONDARY ALUMINUM .
(Revert Furnace ) . . •
SULFURIC ACUr1'
ffiOSOCHLORIC ACID
(Byproduct )
LEAD ACID BAITER!
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
(Salt)
SUPERPHOSPHORIC ACID
(Submerged Combustion)
'•"•'E based on exist
new

k
.80
.82
.84
.86
.76
.86
.71
ing I
Emission Rates
Units
Ib/ton clay
produced
Ib/ton
aluminum
produced
Ib/ton
100=4
H2S04
Ib/ton .
100$ HC1
produced
Ib /battery-
produced
Ib/ton
10O# HCL
produced
Ib/ton
P205
SPS
Eu .
19.2.
151.6
2.3
3.0
.04
2.55
.33

Ellld
.634
.152
.15
.50
4E-6
.50
.002

Es
19.2
151.6
1.68
exist
.15
new
3.0
.04
2.55
.33

En
.634
.152
.10
.10
4E-6
.10
IT. A.

Growth Rates
Decijaal/yp .
PC
.O42s
.0466C
.053c
.068C
.05c
.0680
0

Pb
.033s
.036s
.045s
.045s
.04s
.045s
0

Industrial Capacity
Units/
Year
106 tons
clay
io6
tons
aluminum
IO6 tons
100$
HgSO^.
io6
tons 100$
acid
io6
"batteries
IO6
tons 100$
'HC1
IO6 tons
P205

A
1975
13.9
1.4
48.8
2.63
80.0
.26
.156

B
1985
4.6
.5"
21. ,96
1.18
32.0
.12
0

C
1985
5.8
.7
.33 JO
2.45
50.3
.24
0

Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
106.8
87.0
34.4
,3.39
1.22
.29
.0183

Ts
1985
151.3
130.1
15.48
6.55
1.98
.55
.0183

Tnd
1985 .
5.0
.130
4.0
.47
negli-
gible
.045
.00011

Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-End
1985
146300
130000
11480
6085
1980 :
502
18

             -79-

-------
TABLE 6-9
LEAD
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
FOR MODEL IV



CATEOOKT
COttBUSHOH OF WASTE
CRASCCASE OIL

ffiCOHDARr IEAD (1)
(Reverbatory Furnace)
OASOfflS ADDITIVES
(Sodium Lead Alloy)

JJfPS JETAL FROKKTIOSr
SBCOHDARY IEAD(1)
(Blast Furnace)


IEAD PIGJEST
HXHHX} & MTtiLIHG OF IEAD

HUMASSC ISA!) SMBKiilBa

KCOHDAHY IEAD
(Pert Furnace)
BRASS AMD BRONZED
4S*EI/SU*li


CAST HAHUFACTUHIBG

FERROALLOY


CABXE COVER PBOBUCTXOS
OA30LES ADDITIVES
(Electrolytic)
For those cases vhere there
was no deaanstrated control
technology... (See p_29)
IEAD ACID BATTERY PLANTS
E baaed on exi
new



K

.58

.68
.62

1.0
.68


.83
.92
X.
99
ew
68

BO


.81

.90


0.0
1
62 i



.76
ing 1,

[Growth Rate
Emission Rates pecima/year
lit 1 1

Units Eu
Ib/gallon I
oil burned .075

Ib/ton lead
produced 175.
Ib/ton lead
in product 1 88.2
Ib/ton lead
produced 77.3
Ib/ton lead 1
produced '• h.71.0

Ib/ton lead
produced 9.5
Ib/ton '
lead 'mined
Ib/ton
lead
produced
Ib/ton lead
produced
Ib/ton bras
and bronze
produced
Ib/ton lead
in product
Ib/ton
ferroalloy
produced
It/ton lead
produced
b/ton lead
n product


It/battery
.20

37.0
•
,.857

4.6


7.1

.34


.0439
33.2



produced .005
SPS for parkicula :e
f

Bill

.007

0 .66
3.96

15.5
.66


.0095
.10

.056

.026

.018


1.78

0034


0109 .
2.31



0.0 .



3 Es

5 .03

.06
.79
• Hew
10.7.

38.8
2.74
.Bias!
.79
Hew

3.12
.20

.14

.86
.21
.078
New

3.92

.017


0439
4.1 I



005



PC

8,000

" .6

71.009

6 .032
3 H.A.L.117

H.A
.66


H.A
.10

.056

.026

.018

Pb

c 0

c .024s
5 0
1
. -.06
.032c


-.0751
0

0

.032c

0


If. A.

0034


N.A.
.A.



0.0


.085c

.015c


.Otec
.117c



.05c


1 °
.024s


0
.05s

.036s

.024s

.0363


0

.028s


0
0



.04s b


3
Industrial Capacity

Units/
Year
106
gallons
oil
106 ton
lead
106 tons
lead
106 tons
lead
106 tons
lead

10" tons
lead
106 tons
lead
106 tons
lead

106 tons
lead
106 tons
>rass &
bronze
106 tons
lead
6
rroalloy

6"
0 tons
ead
106 tons
lead


106
atteries



A
1975

629

3
.713
.283

.016
.148


.0717
.622

.765

.065

.375


.0555

1.56


.0444
.025



80



B
1985

0

»
0

0
.036


0
.311

.275

.016

.135


0

.44 .


0
0 -



32



e
1985

59

.264
-.195

-.0096
.055


-.038
0

0

.024

0


-.032

.25


-.016
.017



50.3


Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr

Ta
197

6.9

.984
.945

.310
.138


.093
.057

.046

.019

.032


.088

.012


.0097
.032



.152



Is
} 1985

7.6

.865
.294

.124
.104


.044
.057

.048

.026

.0244


.0377

.014


.0063
0099



.25



Tnd
1985

1.4

.219
.108

.050
.046


.0001
.0286

.019

.0008

.0027


.0171

.003


.0016
.0055



0


• Impact
Ton/Yr.

Ts-Tnd
. 1985

6200

646
186

75
V
58


44 . ,.
29 •

29

25

22


21

11


4.8
4.3



250


-80-

-------
         TABLE 6-10

           AMMONIA

SUMMARY OF  INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY
AMMONIA
(Regenerator 'and CO-absorber
Plant)

AMMONIA
(Methanator Plant) . . .
PETROLEUM REFUSER! -
FCCU

DIAMMONIUM PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZES

NITRATE- : FERTILIZER


BY-PRODUCT COKE OVEN'
SODIUM CARBONATE
(Solvay Process)
FETEOIEUM REFINERY
TCCU/HCCU . .,
For those oases where there was
no demonstrated control techno-
logy. . .
(See P. 29)

BEEHIVE COKE- OVEN




K

.83


.83

.85

.-•
.89


.77


.93

,89
.83




.93


, Emission Hates

Units
Ib/ton
ammonia
produced
Ib/ton
ammonia
produced
. Ib/bbl , .
feed
Ib/ton
P2°5
produced
Ib/ton
fertilizer
produced
Ib/ton coke
produced
Ib/ton
soda ash
Ib/bbl
feed .



Ib/ton
coke
produced

Eu

210.0


203. 0

.054


8.0


2.06


.26

7.0
.006




3.1*


Ellld

2.07


2.03

.0011


.08


.041


.002

3.5
.001




0


Es

210.0


203.0

.054


8.0


2.06


.26

7.0
.006




3.it


En

2.07


2.03

.0011


.08


.041


.002

N.A.
N.A.




N.A.'

Growth Rates
Decimal/yr .

PC

.096


.09c

.0422c


.054s


.070


.Ola

0
0




0


Pb

.045s


.045s

.031s


.045s.


,045s


.028s

0
0




0


Industrial Capacity
Units/
Year
106
tons
ammonia
106
tons
ammonia
106 bbl
feed
106
tons
P2°5
106
tons fer-
tiliz.er
10 tons
coke
10 tons
soda ash
10 bbl
feed


6
10
tons
coke
A
1975

11.1


11.1

1506.0


3.14


10.51


75.5

5.0
23t.lt




.5

B
1985

5.0 '


5.0

467.0


1.41


4.73


21.1

0
0




0 .

C
198S

15.18


15.18

771.0


1.70


10.16


7.55

0
0




0

Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
Ta
1975

967.4


935.1

34.56


11.2


8.34


9.1

15.6
.598




.79

Ts
1985

2290


2214

52.26


17.2


16.4


10.0

15.6
.598




.79 '

Tnd
1985

22.58


22.14

1.06


.172


.326


.08

7i8
.01




0

Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tnd
1985

2267000


2192000

51200


17058


16067


99&0

7799
588




790

            -81-

-------
          TABIE 6-11
           SULFIDES
SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV



CATEGORY

BY-PRODUCT COKE OVEN


REFBttHr FUEL GAS -
SULFUR HECOVEHY

HOOD FULEQKl - KRAFT


CHUIE OH. AMD HATtBAL GAS
PHODUCTIOH - SULFUR RECOVER!

CARBOH BLACK
(Furnace Process)

FUEL CONVERSION - COAL GASIFI-
CATION (Low BTU Gas)

Sififi'hEUCC r IBiHS - VISCOSE
RAYCS

FUEL COHVERSIOH - COAL GASIFI-
CATION (High BTU gas)

FISH PROCESSING -(Fish Meal
Cooker* and Dryers)
For those cases where there was
no demonstrated control techno-
logy...
(Sea f.M)

EEiUVE COKE OVEN



K

.93


.66


.98


.50


.77


.5


.90


1.0



.81





.93

Emission Kates

Units
Ib/ton
coke-
produced .
Ib/ton
sulfur
input
Ib/ton
pulp
produced
Ib/ton
sulfur
input
Ib/ton
carbon
produced
lb/106 BTU
gas
produced
Ib/ton
rayon
produced
lb/106 BTU
gas
produced
Ib/ton
meal
produced




Ib/ton coke
produced

Eu

9.4


130.0


18.8


81.0


33.0


.074


55.0


.039



.C68





11.2

Ellld

4.7


0.0


10.0


0.0


.033


HA


8.3


HA



.0006





0

Es

9.4


66.6


12.7


63.0


33.0


.074


55.0


.039



.C68





11.2

En

4.T


0.0


1.2S


0.0


.OfW


.0016


8.3


.0167



.0006





0
Growth Hates
Decimal/yr.

Pe

.Ols

,
.042c


.0120


.042c


.0250


HA


.012s


HA



0.0





0

Pb

.028s


.03s


.031s


.O35s


.045s


0.0


.045s


0.0



.008s





0

Industrial Capacity
Units/
Year
106
tons
coke
• 106
tons
sulfur
106
tons
pulp
106
.tons
sulfur
106
tons
carbon
1012
BTU

106
tons
rayon
1012
BTU

106
tons
meal




10 tons
coke
A
1975

75.5


3.57


33.9


2.87


1.99


0


.645


0



.361





.5
B
1985

21.1


1.07


10.5


1.00


.89


0


.29


0



.029





0
0
1985

7.55


1.82


4.29


1.46


.56


1520


.077


1100



0.0





0
Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
• Ta
1975

330.0


78.0


210.9


45.0


25.0


0


15.9


0



.008





'2.6
Ts
19851

363.0


118.4


237.7


68.2


32.4


28.1


17.9


21.5



.008





£.6
Tnd
1985

182


0.0


124.0


0.0


.032


.61


Z.7


9.14



.C0009





0
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-Tud
1985

181000


118461


113700


68198


32328


27500


15173


12300



8





2600
               -82-

-------
         TABLE 6-12

          CHLORINE

SUMMARY OF INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
         FOR MODEL IV

CATEGORY
CHLOH -ALKALI
(Diaphragm Cell)
CHLOK-ALKALI
(Mercury Cell)
SECONDARY ALUMUfOM
(Revert Furnace)
MUNICIPAL BICIRERATIOH

K
.95
.95
.82
.56

Units
Ib/ton
chlorine
produced
Ib/ton
chlorine
produced
It/ton
aluminum
produced
Ib/ton
waste
"burned
Emission Rates
Eu
77.0
L17.0
76.8
2.75
Ellld
.01
.01
.077
.14
Es
77.0
117.0
76.8
2.75
En
.01
.01
.077
.14
Growth Rates
Decimal/Yr.
PC
.065c
.065c
.0466c
.046s
Pb
.045s
.045s
.056s
.039s
Industrial Capacity
Units/
Year
IDS
tons
chlorine
106
'tons
chlorine
106 tons
aluminum
106
tons
waste
A
1975
9.70
3.74
1.4
32.5
• B
1985
4.37
1.68
.5
12.68
C
1985
8.51
3.28
.7
14.95
Emissions
1000 Ton/Yr
,Ta
1975
354.8
207.9
44.1
25.0
Ts
1985
666.0
390.1
65.9
36.5
Tnd
1985
.09
.03
.066
1.86
Impact
Ton/Yr
Ts-End
1985
665900
390100
65834
34700
             -83-

-------
         TABLE 6-13

        TRACE METALS (2)

SUMMARY OF  INPUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES
        FOR MODEL IV



CATB3OHY
BOILERS .3-10 x 10s BTO/H?

H|OH AMD STEEL FLASE
(Electric Arc Furnace)


BOILERS 10 -230 x 10s BTU/ffi


PETROLEUM RKFIHERY -
FCOJ

FRIT MAHUFACTCREIB


BOILERS >2SO x 10s BTU/Hi^

CD
BRASS AMD BROHZB SMEI.TIBQ


FSTSOI2TO1 REFIKERY - '
TCCU/HCCU .

SLUEOE INCTNERATORSW


XROT ASH STSSL PLAHT
(Open Hearth Furnace)

(1)
IROH AMD STEEL PLANT
(EOF)



PATHOLOGICAL IHCIHERATOBS


IROH AND STEEL PLAHT
(Blut Furnace)
For thoie cases where there was
no demonstrated control techno-
logy. • .
(See P.29)
BOILERS <.3 x 10s BTO/Hi
B based on exist:
new
* 'includes Ao, Be, Cd



K
.25

.90


.32



.85

.80


.58


.80


.85

.50



.9


90




34


.90



.30
ng N!

Mn,

Emission Rates

Units
lb/105
BTU
Ib/ton
raw steel
produced


lb/106
BTU

, Ib/bbl
feed
Ib/ton
frit
produced

lb/106
BTU

Ib/ton brass
a bronze
produced

Ib/bbl
feed
• Ib/ton
dry solid
feed

Ib/ton
tpig iron
produced
Ib/ton
raw steel
produced


Ib/tou
waste

Ib/tou
pig iron
produced



lb/106
BTU
S for partic

HO, Ni and V

Eu
.00224

1.67


.00278



.0312

1.37


.OCB67


42.7


.0022

24.0



.275


1.26




.545


2.63



00195
ulate



Ellld
.00043

.028


00018



.0013

.082


00024


.17


.0001

.26



,0ll(


0038




.082


.026



0.0




Es
.00224
.265
exist
•7059-
new
00053
exist.
.00046
new

.0022

1.374

00024
exist .
H3012
new
1.98
exist.
.73
new
.0022
1.0
exist.
,£&;
new

.018

.0051
exist.
-0038
new
.196
exist .
.162
new

.026



.00195




En
coots

.028


003L8



.0015

.082


OOCL;


.17


W.A.

.26



JT.A.


J3038




082


.026(



0.0



Growth Hates
Decimal/yr .

PC
.043c

.073c


.014c



,04220

.O57s


.055


O.O


0

.25s



-.036
S

048s




026c


.0295



.029c




Fb
.O37s

.028s


.05s



.031s

.033s


.05s


.036s


0

.053s



,0


.028s




.O59s


.028s



.020s




Industrial Capacitv
Units/
Year
1012
BTU
IO6
tons raw
steel


1012
BTU

IO6
bbl
106
tons
frit

io12
BTU

1C6 tons
brass &
bronze

10 bbl
feed
IO6 tons
dry-
solid

10° tons
)ig iron

io6
tons raw
steel


10s tons
waste

io6
tons pig
iron



1012
BTU



A
1975
26471

36.7


19534



1506

.837


28011


.375


a«

1.176



1(8.9


88.9




1302


118.7



24572



B
1985
9794

10.3


9767



467

.276


14O06


.135


0

.388



0


24.9




.0508


33.2



4914



C
1985
13857

26.8


2914



771

.310


19836


0.0


0

2.94



-17.6


42.7




.0381


34.4



8131



Emissions Impact
1000 Ton/Yr Ton/Yr
Ta
1975
7.41

4.38


1.66



1.41

.460


1.95


.297


.219

.294



.396


.204




.0043


1.39



7.19



Ts
1985
11.29

4.14


1.76



2.13

.630


1.86


.230


.219

.ltll(



254


.262




.0051


1.79



9.566



Tnd
1985
2.17

.80


.647



1.26

.038


1.37


.0255


.015

.268



.197


.225




.OO24


1.79



0.0



Ts-Tnft
1985
9124

3335


1116



870

592


1(91


2C6


soh

ll(6



57


37




3


0



9566



             -84-

-------
          TABLE 6-14

IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
 STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES
            IN 1985

CATEGORY
BOTT-.TR, FOSSIL FUEL
<0.3 x 106 BTU/hr
0.3-10 x 106 BTU/hr
10-250 x 106 BTU/hr
> 250 x 106 BTU/hr
Mixed Fuel
Coal & Refuse
Oil & Refuse
Wood Waste
SUBTOTAL
ENGHiES, STATIONARY
•3as Turbines'
Electric Utility
Pipe Line
Internal Combustion
Spark Ignition (Heavy
Duty Gas Fired)
Diesel and Dual Fuel
SUBTOTAL
BTCIHffiATORS
Auto Body
Conical
Inaustrial/Commercial
Municipal
Pathological
Sludge
SUBTOTAL
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Yr
Parti-
culate

76300*
597000
420381
1(90000

10300
7200
80800
1606081


64500*
3600*


2000
*m

600
	
88450
3700
29
'o
92779
HOX

80000*
56200
553884
1040900

156000
2200

1809184


1060000
158000

882000
140000
2240000

SO
Source cl
16850
14700
380*

31580
sox

209000*
1670000
2566300
8351900

119000
29600

12736800


122000
2700


6200
130900 •


aracteris
32870*
30200*



EC

37200*
124000*
91300*
186000*










499000*
2500
2500

230
ed by de
39800*
20900*
60

290
CO

50900*
151000*
223000*
236000*







446000
60600

381000* '
137000
643600 .

1100*
reasing
123900*
269000s
60

60
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.


2974
9934
3515.9




48067










apacity





Hazard.
Pollut .




















ind zero





Acid
Mist




















eplaeeme





Lead




















t rate-





Ammonia


























Sulfides


























Chlorine






















34700


34700
Trace
Metals

9566*
9124
1116
491




10731













3
11(6
11(9
TOTAL



2335298
3551815
99181(50

285500
39000
80800
3.6210863


1628000
221300

882000.
287700
3019000

860

105300
53100.
152
1U6
159558.
               -85-

-------
                                      TABLE 6-U  (Continued)

                                  IMPACT OF NEW  SOURCE PERFORMANCE
                                    STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
                                   STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES
                                               IN  1985

CATEGORY
mSCELLAKEOUS COMBUSTI08
Open Burning
Coozscrclal/Indus trial
Agricultural*1'
Orchard Beaters
Coatuttion of Waste
Crankcase Oil
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tu) Ton/Yr
Parti-
culate


	
2603100
130*

2603100
4303960
-x


Source c
306200


306200
4386964
so,


haracteri

680*


L2867700
EC


zed "by de
3062500
168000*

3062500
3065290
CO


sre^asing c
L5312300
70*

L5312300
L5955960
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.


ipacity a




48067
Hazard.
Pollut .


id zero r





Acid
Mist


splacemen





Lead


t rate —


6200
6200
6200
Ammonia








Sulfides








Chlorine







34700
Trace
Metals







10880
TOTAL




21284100

6200
21290300
40679821
   A case for vhlch there was no demonstrated control technology.
   This value was not  included in any subtotal or total

* 'En was applied to toth new and existing capacity
                                                    -86-

-------
           TABLE 6-15

IMPACT OF  NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS. FROM
 THE  CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY
            IN 1985  -

• CATEGORY
ACIDS
ASlpie
DMT/TPA {Nitric Acid Oxid]
Hydrochloric
By-product
Salt
.Hydrofluoric
Nitric
Phosphoric
Wet Process
	 Thermal Process
Sulfuric
SUBTOTAL
ACRYLONITRILE
AMMONIA
Methanator Plant
Regenerator & CO-atosorber
Plant
CARBON BLACK
Channel Process . -
Furnace Process '
, .. .CHARCOAL
CHLOR-ALKALI
Diaphragm Cells
Mercury Cells
CRUDE OIL & NS PRODUCTION •
SULFUR RECOVERY
DETERGENT
ESSENTIAL OILS
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE ' '
(Oxychlorination Process) •
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Yr
Parti-
eulate






0



721

721





— —Soi
500
5300




490


•V

3900
2790




.' 8100




14790





rce chare









sox






432*




23100
23100





cterized





9900



HC













65400

7500OO
750000

ay decree
318000
143000






36200
CO













259990


1670000

sing caps
2510000
104000

970*
370*



29700
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.






23300


200


23500





city and









Hazard.
Pollut .


















zero rep!




2




Acid
Mist




6085
502





11480
18067





.acement 3









Lead


















ate 	

. „. ...







Ammonia















2192000
2267000











Sulfides



















32328




68198



Chlorine






















665900
390100




Trace
Metals




























TOTAL


3900
2790

6085
502
23300
8100

200
721
34580
80178
324400

2942000
4687000


2860828
252300

665900
390102
78098
490

65900
              -87-

-------
     TABLE 6-15 (Continued)

IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
 THE CHEMICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY
            IN 1985

CATECX5HTC
ETHYLEHE OXIEE
EXPLOSIVES
lilgh
tow
FORMALtEHYIE
FUEL COffVSHSIOlf - COAT,
OASIFICATIOH
ffl£h BTU Gat
Lev BTU C»s
IEAD PI©EHT 1
HALEIC AHHXBRIDE
PAOT
HITHM.IC AUffiOBHE
Hitphthalene
0-xylone
PHEfKHS DTK
SOAP
SOBIUM CARBOHAl-S
Oolv«y Process
Htrtural
SHTTKETICS
Fiber*
Acetate
Dacroa
Mylon
Viscocc Eayoa
Polyethylene
Blfih Deniity
Lou Density
Polypropylene

Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Ir
Farti-
.oulate


290







2000

	 Sot


80

1(950



3850
1320




5100

KOX


229000
15800








roe chari
















sox


41400
24500








cterized
















EC
434000



• 63300




30700
60000

ay decret
17900
6900





1000

11300


26300
3O90O
1100

CO




386000




279800


sing caps
61200















Designated Pollutant Impact
. .CCs-Tni} Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.












.city and















Hazard.
Pollut .












zero rep!















-88-
Acid
Mist












acement 2
















Lead








UU



ate 	
















Ammonia
















,7790












Sulfides






12300
27500















15173





Chlorine





























Trace
Metals





























TOTAL

4,34000 '

270690
U03OC
1A9300

12300
27500
1A
310500
62000


79100
6900
80
7790
1*950


1000
3850
12620
15173

26300
30900
6200


-------
     TABLE  6-15  (Continued)

IMPACT OF NEW  SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
 THE CHEMICAL  PROCESS INDUSTRY
            IN  1985



CATEGORY
Polystyrene
Polyrtnyl chloride
Resins
ABS-SAN
Acrylic
Alkyd
Phenolic
Polyester
Urea-melamine
SEE rubber
SUBTOTAL
VARKISH
TOTAL
*A case
This \
(l)Souro£
calcul
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Yr

Parti-
culate

3600





551*0

130
1951*0

33871
for whic
alue was
characte
HOV
A












259590
i there w
lot inclu
sox
A












98900
as no dem
ed in an
rized by Hecreasin
ations performed for desig
EC

4700
12000

1127
31000
187
2476

1806
2to
121H36
18100
2817636
nstrated
f subtota
5 capacit
lated pol
CO













5299700
control
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr

Fluoride
Cmpds.












23500
technolo]
L or total.
1
/• and zero replace!
ntants only.
Hazard.
Pollut.












2
ar.

ent rate
Acid
Mist












18067





Lead












^





Ammonia












W66790





Sulfides










15173

155^99





Chlorine












1056000




Trace
Metals


















TOTAL


4700
15600

1127
31000
187
2^76
55^0
1806
370
15881*9
18100
11*229599




                   -89-

-------
            TABLE 6-16

 IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
   STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
              IN 1985

CATEGORIC
AGRICULTURAL
Cotton Ginning
Fertilizer
Aasoniua sulfate
Diansuoniuia phosphate
Granulated triple
superphosphate
Production
Storage
Nitrate
Honca! superphosphate
ROP triple aupsrphos-
phate'2)
Superphosphoric acid
Subeerged combustion
Vacuua evaporation
Pesticide*
SUBTOTAL
FOOD
Anlsal feed def luorlautioc
Anieal husbandry
Beer processing
Canneries
Castor bean processing
Coffee roasting
Deep fat frying
Direct firing of seats
Feed Billing & storage
Alfalfa dehydrating
Other
Fish processing (fish
meal cookers & driers)
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tu) Ton/Xr
Parti-
culnte

4600

9900
2600


470
790O






25670

160

7300

... Ini
90
6000
19500

1300
730O
4
!%








720*












ustry no
15*






sox





















longer 63







EC



















43000

Lsts«« .
290
5300
30300




CO





























Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.




134

83
9.5

39^
3>l

3.3
2.3

660

2123











Hazard.
Pollut.

3












8953
8956













Acid
Hist












18


18













Lead .





























\nunonia




17058



16067






33125













Sulfides




























8
Chlorine





























Trace
Metals





























TOTAL


ItSOS

9900
19792

83
480
23S67
391*
31*

21
2
8953
681)29

2283

50300


380
11300
49800

1300
7300
U
                   -90-

-------
      TABLE 6-16  [Continued)

 IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE  PERFORMANCE
   STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
              IN  1985

CATEGORY
Grain handling & process
Transfer
Screening, cleaning
Drying
Processing
Meat packing
Meat smoke-houses
Poultry processing
Rendering
Starch manufacturing
Stockyards & slaughterho
Sugar cane processing
Bagasse burning
Field burning^'
Vegetable oil manufac--
turing
Whiskey processing
SUBTOTAL
OTHER
Pharmaceuticals
Tanneries
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL

(
(
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tu) Ton/Yr
Parti-
culate
ing
90700
80800
7400
111000

170


2300
ises

2600
84OOO
13200
15520
449344




475014
*
A case
This va
0
En was
Source
" calculs
WO
X













11200


11200




11200
or whicl
ue was n
pplied t
haracter
ions per
sox






















there wa
t includ
both ne
zed by d
'ormed fo
EC






170






112000
37400
1540
230000




230000
no demc
d in any
f and exi
creasing
designs
CO






500*






561000


561000




561000
strated
subtotal
ting cai
capacity
ed pollu
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.
















2123




2783-
ontrol t
or total
city
and zero
ants on^
Hazard.
Pollut .


















43

43
8999
chnology

replacemi
Acid
Mist





















18


nt rate;
Lead

























Ammonia





















33125



Sulfides
















8




8



Chlorine

























Trace
Metals

























TOTAL


90700
80800
7400
111000

340


2300


2600
768200
50600
17060
1253675

43

43
13S2l!t7.



                 -91-

-------
           TABLE 6-17

IMPACT OF NEW  SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
  THE MINERAL  PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
            IN 1985

CATEGORY
A3PJ1ALT
Batching
Roofing
Saturator
Bloving
COiKSEIE
Batching
Ceaent plants (Kilns,
clinker coolers, etc.)
Sand and gravel
Stone quarrying and *
processing
Lead Ore
PROCESS ran
Brick and related clay
products
Calclua carbide
Castable refractory
Ceraalo clay
Clay & flyash sintering
Clay
Flyash
Coal cleaning (drying)
Fiberglas
Wool processing
Textile processing
Frit
Glass
Soda line glass
Opal glass
Gypeua
Lias
Mineral vool
Pcrllte
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Ir
Farti-
culate

£5000

240O
1100

9680
5200
21700
91100
89T
12400
	 Soui
90
4100

420
990
7500

0
670
940

15700
250
2700
42500
1100
610
NOX







25100



2000*
ce charac

1000*





880
6300


17100*
230*

5600*
160*

sox

2300





3.34900



55 OO
jerized





10200

2800
8200


35600*
510*

9400
30*

HO

33700*


2400






620*
y decreas







1400







2000

CO




1400






1300*
.ng capac







60
990






161000*

Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.











15550
.ty and 2
290
5520





36
4664
2398


4127




Hazard .
Pollut












ero repla

















Acid
•Mist












cement ra

146300















Lead










29

te— -

















Ammonia






























Sulfides






























Chlorine






























Trace
Metals






















592







TOTAL


27300.

2400
4900

9680
365200
21700
91100
3S6
33450

380
155920

420
990
17700

5176
20324
3930

15700
4377
2700
51900
3100
610
                  -92-

-------
                                 TABLE 6-17 (Continued)

                            IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
                              STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS  FROM
                              THE MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
                                        IN 1985

CATEGORY
Phosphate rock
Calcining
Drying
Grinding
TOTAL
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Yr
Parti-
culate

630
3800
10500
261377
NO
X




32280
sox




373300
EC




5800
CO




2450
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.




32585
Hazard.
Pollut .





Acid
Mist




146300
Lead




29
Ammonia





Sulfides





Chlorine





Trace
Metals




592
TOTAL


630
3800
10500
85^715
A case for which there was no demonstrated control technology.
This value was not included in any subtotal or total.
                                              -93-

-------
          TABLE 6-18

IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
   THE METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY
            IN 1985


CATEGORY:
IE-CAR Y. MEMS
Alualmn ssrelters
Celts Ovens
Be® -hive ovea^ '
By-product oven
Copper tselters
Ferroalloy
Iron & Steel plants
Blast Furnace
BOP
Electric Arc
Open hearth^
Sintering
Scarfing
Lead smelters
Zinc smelters
SUBTOTAL
lEOQStBARY. MEXALS
Altsnlirra production
Sweat furnace
Reverb furnace
Brass & Bronze melting
Cast Iron foundry
Core ovens
Cupola furnace
Electric furnace
Copper
Material handling
Snelting & refining
lead smelter
Blast furnace
Pot furnace
Reverb furnace
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Yr

Parti-
culatc

15700


59600
26400
5600

0
0
8700

6200
2400
250
240
125090


460
1900
SO


	 So
27500

1400
1900

6
20
30
«ox




720*



















tree chari





5*

140*
^X

218000*


900
.-171*0000






53600*

177000
741000
2658900







cterized





1400

29600
HC




77900











77900






63700
>y decre








CO




22700*

41600

53280
4130000
225000

'786000*



4449880 .







sing cap;





6000


Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
l
Fluoride
Cmpds.

94900







1
347
1367




96615







city and








Hazard.
Pollut .
























zero rep.








Acid
Mist




















130000



.acement :








Lead






11







29

1*0




22


ate 	





58
25
646
Ammonia



790*
9960






>




9960
















Sulfides



2600*
181000











181000
















Chlorine




















65834












Trace
Metals








0
37
3335
57




31*29




205












TOTAL


110800


329360
1766UOO •
1*7211

53280
4130038
237382
llffilf
6200
2400
177279
71*121*0
7602811*


460
197734
277

63700

27500

1400
1900

7464
45
30276
                 -94-

-------
                                 TABLE  6-18 (Continued)

                            IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE  PERFORMANCE
                              STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS  FROM
                               THE METALLURGICAL  INDUSTRY
                                         IN 1985

CATEGORY
Magnesium smelting
Steel foundries
Zinc

Distillation
Sweating
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL '
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Yr'
Parti-
culate
20
27900


129
.186
61511
186601.
HOX
1*
2700*

«*
9
5*


sox






31000
2689900'
EC
10




180
63890
11H790
CO
.5




1
6002
4455882
Designated Pollutant In
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
?luoride
Cmpds .







96615:
Hazard.
Pollut.
/








Acid
Mist






130000
130000
Lead






751
791 >
Ammonia







99&0
pact • i
Sulfides







181000

Chlorine






65834
65834

Trace
Metals






205
3631*
TOTAL

31
27900

129

377
359193
Y96200Y;
*A case for which there was no demonstrated control technology.
 This value was not included in any subtotal or total.


G-)source characterized tiy decreasing capacity  and zero replacement.
   rate; calculations performed for designated  pollutants only.
                                               -95-

-------
          TABLE 6-19

IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
    EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES
            IN 1985

CATEQORX
rSGREASIHG
IHY CLEANIHG
GRAPHIC ARTS
Oravura
Flexograpfay
Lithography
Letterpress
Matal Decorating
SUBTOTAL
FEEHOLEUH STORAGE Am)
TRAJCFER
Patroleua - Refueling
PetroleuA - Service
StM lone
Petroleua Storage
Aviation Gasoline
Working
Breathing
Crude Oil
Harking
Breathing
Distillate Oil
Breathing
Gasoline
Working
Breathing
Jet Fuel
Working
Breathing
Kerosene
Breathing
Special Haptha
Working
Breathing
SUBTOTAL
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Tr
Parti-
eulate
































NOX































•
sox
































HC
527000
204000

128000
115000
73900
77500
69100
463500

384000
17SOOO

0
0' .

0
0

31700

0
0

0
0

1600

0 .
0
33300 (£
CO































orage or
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Xr
Fluoride
Cmpds.































iy)
Hazard.
Pollut .
































Acid
Mist
































Lead





















v










Ammonia
































Sulfides
































Chlorine
































Trace
Metals
































TOTAL

































                  -96-

-------
     TABLE 6-19  (Continued)
IMPACT OF  NEW  SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS  ON EMISSIONS FROM
    EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES
            IN 1985


CATEGORY
PETROLEUM STORAGE AND
TRANSFER (CONTINUED)
Petroleum Transfer -
Non Pipeline
Aviation Gasoline
Crude Oil
Gasoline
Jet Fuel
Special Naphtha
SUBTOTAL
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE
COATING ••
TEXTILE PROCESSING
. Heat Setting/Finishing
Texturizing
Carpet manufacturing
TOTAL
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Ir
Parti-
culate

















HO,,
X

















SO
X

















EC





990
11300
32400
' 4200
130
49020
2560000


850
170
590
1*3971(30
CO










[transfer

•





[ Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/5fr
Fluoride
Cmpds.









only)







Hazard.
Pollut .

















Acid
Mist


















Lead. .


















Ammonia


















Sulfides


















Chlorine

















Trace
Metals

















TOTAL 1



















                  -97-

-------
                                                 TABLE 6-20

                                      IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
                                        STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
                                           THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
                                                   IN 1985

CATEGORY
FCCU
OA3QLDS ADDITIVES
Sodlua lead Alloy'1'
Electrolytic '*'
TCCU AHD HCCu'"
FSOCE8S OAS COMBUSTIOH
VACUUM BJSXHjLAIJIQJf
KCSC. KXOT SOURCES
REFItiSaY FUEL OAS -
SULFUR RECOVER!
TOTAL

Parti-
culate
3800


1300



5100
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Tou/Yr
-X



9100



9100
sOx
_259000*


0


17500
17500
EC



2600
83800
505000

591400
CO
0







Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.








Hazard.
Pollut .








Acid
Mist








Lead

186





190
Ammonia
51200

588




51788
Sulfides






118461
118461
Chlorine








Trace
Metals
870

204




1074
TOTAL

55870
186
It
792
13000
83800
505000
135961
794613.
'" Source characterized Tjy decreasing growth and zero replacement rate;
   calculations performed for designated pollutants only.
                                                       -98-

-------
          TABLE 6-21
IMPACT OF  NEW  SOURCE PERFORMANCE
  STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
   THE WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
            IN 1985


CATEGORY
WOOD PROCESSING
Pulpboard
Plywood
SUBTOTAL
WOOD PULPHK
Kraft process (sulfate)
Sulfite
HSSC '
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/Yr

Parti-
culate

700
22600
233 00

0
0


23300
NOX










sox





10600
54000
110000
174600
174600
HC


6200
6200

3300


3300
9500
CO

'



471000


471000
471000
Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr

Fluoride
Cmpds.










Hazard.
Pollut .










Acid
Mist










Lead










Ammonia










Sulfides





113700


113700
113700
Chlorine










Trace
Metals











TOTAL


700
28800
29500

598600
54000
110000
762600
792100
                   -99-

-------
                                              TABLE 6-22

                                   IMPACT OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
                                     STANDARDS ON EMISSIONS FROM
                                            ASSEMBLY PLANTS
                                                IN 1985

CATBSORr
AUTOMOBILE,
CASES COVER M/WJFACTURITO&
CAH MAHUFACUJBUwfa)
IEAD ACID BAKERY
rare issAi, raoHJCTictA)
TOTAL
Criteria Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tn) Ton/rr
Parti-
oulate



1000

1000
BOX






SOjj






EC
42900


210

U3110
CO






Designated Pollutant Impact
(Ts-Tnd) Ton/Yr
Fluoride
Cmpds.






Hazard.
Pollut.






Acid
. Mist



1980

1980
Lead

If. 8
21
1 250*
75
101
Ammonia






Sulfides






Chlorine






Trace
Metals






TOTAL

42900
5
21
3190
Y5
1*6191
    A case for which there .was no demonstrated control technology.
    This value was not included in any mibtotal or total.


Wsource characterized ty decreasing capacity and zero replacement
   rate;  calculations performed for designated pollutants  only.
                                                  -100-

-------
                                 TABLE 6-23
                           CONVERSION TABLES FOR
                          ENGLISH TO METRIC UNITS
To Convert From.
                                   To
                           Multiply By
Tons
Lb
Lb/Ton
Lb/106
          BTU
            3
   Lb/10  Ft
   Lb/106 Ft3
   Lb/Acre
   Lb/Hp-Yr
   Lb/Gal
   Lb/103 Gal
   Lb/BBL
   Lb/Ft2
   Lb/Bale
 Metric Tons
  Kilograms
Kg/Metric Ton
 Kg/106 KCAL
  Kg/103 M3
  Kg/106 M3
  Kg/Hectare
  Kg/KW-Yr
  Kg/Liter
Kg/103 Liter
Kg/103 Liter
    Kg/M2
   Kg/Bale
  .91
  ,45
  .50
 1.80
16.00
16.00
 1.12
  .61
  .12
  .12
 2.85
 4.88
  .45
                                    -101-

-------
                                                            TABLE 6-Z4

                                                 A' SUHWRY OF ODOR OCCURRENCE AND
                                                OOOR CONTROL FOR VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL
                                                     CATEGORIES (17) (18) (19)
      IHOUSTRIAt CATEGORY!
                                 SOORCES OF ODORS
                                                          OCORANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED
                               REPORTED UNCONTROLLED ODOR
                             EMISSION LEVELS (ODOR UNITS)
                                                                                                                          CONTROLS GENERALLY
 CHEHICAL PROCESS INDUSTRY

    Paint Manufacturing
                             Grinding and chinning
                             operations
Aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons, alcohols,
Condensation, adsorption,
and Incineration
Phchallc Anhydride
Kan'uf actur ing
Soap Manufacturing
Synthetic Detergent
Manufacturing
Synthetic Rubber
Manufacturing
Varnish Manufacturing
Viscose Rayon.
Production
Reactor and condenser
off-gas
Raw ueerial shortage
vents. separators,
drying tanks, spray dryers
Spray dryer
Rubber Dryer*
Cookers
Aging tanks
Anhydrides, organic acids
quinones
Fatty acids, amine
compounds
Diaethyliaine

Fatty acids, glycerine
Hydrogen sulfiae
Sodium bisulfide
1,800 - 3,'SOO Afterburner
Condensation, incineration,
chlorine and acid scrubbing
Scrubbing, 95Z efficiency
Waste gas collection and
flare
10,000 - 200,000 Afterburner
Scrubbing 952 efficiency
activated carbon
KCO AKD ACfUCULTUfcAL  IMKfmV


   Alfalfa Dehydrating       Rotary dryer
                                                         Odorous material In
                                                         dust discharge from
                                                         dryer
                                                         Cyclone and fabric filter
                                                         In series
   Coffee Roaatlng
                            Roaste
                                                         Acroleln, alcohols,  organ-
                                                         ic acids, nitrogen and  sul-
                                                         fur compounds
. Fish Heal Processing
Inedible Rendering
livestock Slaughter-
ing
Heat auokehcuscs
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals
Spent Grain Dryers
(Vhlskey and Beer)
Tanneries

Receiving areas, wet
cookers, dry cookers,
dryer*, presses, blood
and feather cookers
Animal pens, storage
areas (decaying animal
flesh and blood)
Smokehouse exhaust
Condeuers, dryers.
Fernmeatlon off-gas
Dryer
Waste and hide storage
Amine compounds, aldehydes
hydrogen sulfide, organic
acids
Ammonia, trlethylaraine, mono-
ethlyamlne, diethylamine, hy
drogen sulfide, mercaptans,
other amine compounds, sulfur
compounds
Amines and sulfur compounds,
ammonia
Aldehydes, organic acids


"Burnt grain" odor, lactic
acid
Ammonia
1,000 - 5,000 Chlorine scrubbers 937.
• efficiency
Dry cookers: 5,000 - Condensen, chlorimtlon scrub-
500,000 bers, afterburner 99* ef-
ficiency
Dry blood cooler: 10,000 -
1,000,000
Drainage of water in animal
pens, proper housekeeping
and sanitation
Precipltator, scrubber and
afterburner
Surface condensors, scrubbers
Scrubbing, cond-.n
-------
                                                  TAOIE 6-24  (Continued)

                                              A SWWARY OF ODOR OCCURRrNCE AND
                                             OOOR CONTROL FOR  VARIOUS  INDUSTRIAL
                                                  CATEGORIES  (17)  (13)  (19)
     INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY	SOURCES OF ODORS
                                                                                       REPORTED UNCONTROLLED ODOR^
                                                         ODORANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED  EMISSION LEVELS (ODOR UNITS)
                                                                                                                         CONTROLS GENERALLY
                                                                                                                               APPLIED	
MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY


   Asphalt Batching Plants   Truck loading of hot nix
                                                         "Asphalt"odor
                                                           Lime-water slurry coating
                                                           of truck
   Asphalt Roofing Kami-     Saturator,  loopers, etc.
     fsecure
                             Air blowing
                                                         Organic sulfur and nitro-
                                                         gen compounds, pheholics
                                                         Sulfur compounds,
                                                         hydrocarbons
                                                           Control along with particu-
                                                           late misti  baghouse,  spray
                                                           scrubber or 2 stage electro-
                                                           Static precipitator

                                                           Scrubbing,  incineration
METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY ,


   Cast Iron Foundry
                             Core oven
Aldehydes, organic acids
solvents
After burner, lover baking tea
perature, modify core binder
composition
        Production
                             Coke oven - charging,
                             unloading, and heat cycle
                                                         Hydrogen sulfide, ammonia,
                                                         phenols
                                                           Incineration and scrubbing
                                                           on charging
EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES
   Synthetic Drycleaning
     Plant
                             Dryers
                                                          Perchlorcethylene =
                                                                                                                    Activated carbon (solvent
                                                                                                                    recovery)
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
Refinery Cracking Units, cataly-
tic reforming units.
•*• catalyst regenerators.
untreated gas stream
leaks

Hydrogen sulfide, organic sul- Waste gas combustion and
fide, mercaptans, phenolic. scrubbing
aldehyde,, organic amines,
aromatic compounds, ammonia

    Sulfur  Recovery Plant     Stack exhaust
                                                          Hydrogen sulfide
                                                                                                                     Incinerator
 WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY


    Kraft Pulp Hills
                             Recovery furnace, lime
                             kiln, direct contact
                             evaporator, blow tank,~
                             multi-effect evaporators
 Hydrogen  sulfide, nethy
 mercaptan, dimethyl dls-
 sulfide,  dimethyl sulfide
Proper process operation
and. control,
                                                                     -  103 -

-------
                                                     TABLE 6-24 (Continued^

                                                A SUWARY OF ODOR OCCURRENCE AND
                                               OOOR CONTROL fOR VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL
                                                     CATEGORIES (17) (18)  (19)
      INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
                                  SOURCES OF ODORS
                                REPORTED UNCONTROLLED ODOR
 ODORANT  SPECIES INDF.NTIFIED  EMISSION LEVELS (ODOR UNITS)*
      CONTROLS GENERALLY
    	APPLIED	
WOO PRODUCTS INDUSTRY (COKT.)


   Kraft Pulp Hills (cone.)
                                                                                                                    Condensation and Incinerator
                                                                                                                    for digester and multi-effect
                                                                                                                    evaporator

                                                                                                                    Black liquor oxidation for
                                                                                                                   > direct contact evaporate
                                                                                                                    and recovery furnace

                                                                                                                    Proper washing of lime mud

                                                                                                                    Alkaline scrubber on kiln
   Plywood Production
                             Veneer Dryers
                                                         Esters, alcohols
                                                         •elds
                    fatty
                                                            Condenser
UASTE HATER TREATMEHT (NOH-COMBUSTIOH)
   Treatment Plant
                             Clatifter, screens,
                             sludge  treating,
                             processes, jcorage
                             ponds
Hydrogen sulflde, ammonia
carbon disulfide, mercaptan,
amines
Proper design, operation and
control of plant, chemical
treatment of water streams,
good housekeeping
* An odor unit represents the number of
 dilutions of fresh air that must be added
 to * sample so that the resulting odor
 perception 1s »t the odor threshold level.
                                                                   -  104  -

-------
7.0    ANALYSIS
.7.1    ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
       Our  findings  indicate that new source performance standards could
have  a significant impact on 1985 national emissions as summarized in
Tables 7-1  and 7-2.   Of  the total 71 million tons  potentially  achievable
through  NSPS, nearly 38% is attributable  to control of carbon  monoxide.
The next greatest contribution  would be 23% for  control of  SOX followed
by hydrocarbons  (16%), all designated pollutants (10%), particulates
 (7.4%) and  lastly NO  (6.6%).   Controls for all  pollutants  from stationary
                     X
combustion  sources  (Category  I) would account  for 57%  of  the total poten-
tial  reduction  that  could  be  achieved by  NSPS.  An additional  20% could  be
realized by controls for all  pollutants from  the Chemical  Process Industry
 (Category II).
        In particular, the  control  of .SOX, particulate  and  NOX from indus-
 trial size boilers  (0.3  to 250 million  BTU per hour)  could have the  effect
 of reducing emissions of these pollutants by 4 million,  1  million, and
 600,000  tons respectively in 1985.  This corresponds to a reduction of 25%
 of the total SO  reduction potentially  achievable by NSPS for all source
                X
 categories, 19% of the total  potential  for particulate and 13% for NOX.
 Such control could be realized by a fuel  switching program combined with
 combustion modification and the use of fuel additives.  However, the fu-
 ture potential of fuel  switching may be  in doubt and alternative approaches
 would have to be considered.   Standards  should  be written  so  as  to pre-
 clude any  increase  in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from all  combustion
 sources—a potential side effect from NOX and particulate  control.  Regu-
                                    -105-

-------
j
S*t

t
M C
»•
.
C
F"
X
t,
a
01
. *a
•H
>M
t-
5
a
' 1
<
•a
a
u
-J
•a u
•H CO
O f-l
< £
H3 U
S3
M .-1
3 &
= &4
3
H
o
3
rH
(i.



o
o


M

sx

§X
u
•H
iJ
.2






CATEGORY
3 *J

J LO
C
5
c3
. PV.
3 en
ts
2 •?
0
H <±>
e co
! S
o
i <~i
i "
l 0
t O
r*
*.»•
to






o
o
e^-i
VO









r*
\o
o
CO
' -...r

o
VO
Ot
m
m
o\
in
H
3065290
O
r«.
r>.
WD
CO
3
?*•
\O
O>
%0
CO
en
••T
O
\0
a\
s
m
•a-
1

&
CO
1
1
STATIONARY qot
o 1 en .
o i _:



CM
•3





_



&
H

1
52
VO
j-
j-
.f
fc


H

CVI



8
CVI


8
^«


CM
UN
VO
I
CVJ
0
o\

UN
CVI
g
crj
en


^j
I
g
to
K)
ciffimcAL PROCI



1
CM
CO












CO

CO
ro







§>



CO
CVI


Q
o

tM
VO
irv
CO
CVJ



8
g
'i
^
s
E-l

a
-^
1
1
c8
I

eg



I
' w

UN













ON
evi
8
CO
VO
•3





®
0?
CO


o


cu

UN

8
ro

8
cy
Cvi
CO.
£
CVI


M
j|
I
g
MUE3AL PRODUC
CM
^



P
J-

VO
CO





v&


8
1

1

g
o


S1





!-?
s
ON

s
03



-a-
S
o
VO
CM


rt
3



^
1
§
woissamsoK
N
O



5?
S




































1
5









i
I
CO
CO
EVAPORATION IO
1-4
•
•-<


1
^*

K^
H








t-1
1
iH

IS
&
UN
§



















'Si
in

8
H

8.
I







B3TROIEUM INDU!
i-i




1












I


















Se



S
8
IR

&


g
S?




1
1
WOOD PRODUCTS :

•-t
•


H
VO
-=t
















g



H















$




0
H





rn
ASSEMBLY PLANT!





r-f
C4
8
3
a
GO
f-l

*"*
' -3-



"R
H

UN
CO ^
1
.S?
u\
© '


01

H



O
UN
UN
s
CM
CM
en-
en
in



CM
VO
in
en*
i-l
g
3
CM
CM
VO
t-1

•»
3
en
en
CO
CM
CM
O
en
CM
m




1
g

-106-

-------
                               TABLE 7-2
                SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EMISSION REDUCTION
                 ACHIEVABLE IN 1985 THROUGH NEW SOURCE
                         PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                              (TONS/YEAR)
POLLUTANT
CARBON MONOXIDE
OXIDES OF SULFUR
HYDROCARBONS
PARTICULATE
OXIDES OF NITROGEN
AMMONIA
CHLORINE
SULFIDES
ACID MIST
FLUORIDE
TRACE METALS
HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS
LEAD
POTENTIAL REDUCTION
      IN 1985
   THROUGH NSPS
    (Tons/Year)
   26,745,992
   16,221,900
   11,301,956
    5,290,223
    4,699,134
    4,561,663
    1,156,534
      568,668
      296,365
      203,550
       16,180
        9,001
        7,355
% OF TOTAL
ACHIEVABLE
REDUCTION

   37.6
   22;8
   15.9
    7.4
    6.6
    6.4
    1.6
     .8
     .4
     .3
     .02
     .01
     .01
                           TOTAL   71,078,521
                                 - 107 -

-------
 lations more stringent than existing NSPS  regulations  for  boilers  rated
 at greater than 250 million BTU per hour have  the  potential, of  reducing
 SOX emissions by 8 million tons (49% of total  achievable)  and NO   emis-
                                                                /\
 sions  by 1  million tons (21% of total) in  1985.  A demonstrated control
 technology employing alkaline scrubbers and combustion modification
 could  effect this reduction.   Such  a substantial reduction  results from
 the large increase in new  capacity  by 1985, not from a large differential
 between ES  and  E...
        The  largest single  reduction  of NO  emissions was from stationary
                                         J\
 gas turbine engines.   By using  water injection, a  reduction of  over 1.2
 million tons  of NOX (26% of total achievable reduction from all NO  sources)
 could  be obtained in  1985.   Evaluation of small boiler units less than 0.3
 million BTU per hour  indicates  that  significant pollutant reduction could
 be  realized if  adequate control methods could  be demonstrated.  An acceler-
 ated research and development effort in this.area would be warranted.  In
 general,  we found that proper operating, maintenance and "good  housekeeping"
 practices are key factors  in keeping  emissions to a minimum.  Chloride
 emissions from  municipal incinerators will  increase in the future due to
 increases in the  general consumer use of PVC plastics.  Additional  con-
 trols for municipal incinerators may  be needed to counter this trend in
 increased chloride emissions.
       Standards of performance to control  hydrocarbon emissions from in-
dustrial surface coating operations should  be given high priority in an
overall strategy program.   We determined that the use of incineration,
carbon adsorption techniques, reformulation to non-reactive solvents or
                                  -108-

-------
electrocoating could reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 2.5 million tons'(22%
of total achievable) in 1985.  This is the largest potential reduction of
hydrocarbons from a single source category.  A reduction in hydrocarbon
emissions in excess of 500,000 tons (4% of total achievable) couTd be re-
alized by applying activated carton adsorption control techniques to de-
greasing units.
       Significant reduction in the emission of hydrocarbons, carbon mon-
oxide and ammonia could be realized with standards for several sources
within the chemical process industry.  Controls for ammonia and hydro-
carbons from synthetic ammonia plants would reduce 1985 emissions of these
two pollutants by 2 and 1 million tons respectively.  Incineration control
for carbon monoxide from the synthetic ammonia plants employing carbon
monoxide absorbers and regenerators could reduce emissions by an additional
1.7 million tons in 1985.  Carbon black manufacture by the furnace process
has the potential for significant emissions of carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbons.  New source performance standards for these pollutants could
achieve a reduction of 2.5 million tons of carbon monoxide and over
300,000 tons of hydrocarbons in 1985.
       Of the 200 source categories  evaluated  in this  study,  20  showed  a
continuing downward trend in production coupled with a failure  to  replace
obsolete capacity.  For the most part, they are being phased out in favor
of new, or more economically attractive processes.  For example, the channel
process for carbon black manufacture is being replaced by the thermal and
furnace processes which have shown higher yields and lower costs.   Castor
bean processing, since 1971, has not been an active industry within the
U.S. and it is not expected to revive
                                     (20)
Table 7-3 presents a summary of.
                                 - 109 -

-------
 these sources.  As discussed in Section 5.3.3, we assumed that obsolete capac-
 ity for  these sources was not replaced due to the lack of economic incentive.
 Since the value of P_ is negative and the value of PD is zero, there is
                    c                         '      D
 no new capacity to which a new source standard would apply.   However,
 under Section m(d)  of the Clean Air Act, the States are responsible for
 drafting, maintaining and enforcing regulations for the control  of
 designated pollutants from existing sources for which NSPS have  been set
 for new sources.  It is possible, therefore, that NSPS for designated
pollutants could be promulgated for a source with a negative growth trend
thereby requiring the States to enforce regulations for existing plants
even though they were becoming  fewer in number.   This possibility was
accounted for in our analysis  and the input and output values were pre-
sented in the appropriate Tables in Section 6.0.   Due to the decline in
existing capacity, the emission impact of a standard would be the greatest
 1n the first year  which, in the case of this.study, is 1976  and  the least
5n the last year 0985},.   As a  result we have presented in Table 7-4
 the values of T$s TNQ and  (T--T..J for each year between 1975 and 1985
for those categories with decreasing capacity which were capable of
emitting a designated pollutant.  Since different rates of decline in
existing,capacity exist for each category, a numerical ranking of
 (T--TN'D) in one year may differ from that in another.  If standards for
any of these source categories  are to be considered, the overall strategy
should look to see in which year and for which categories such standards
would be most effective in reducing nationwide emissions.
       Standards to control open field burning of sugar cane and other
agricultural wastes could have a significant impact on atmospheric emis-
                                - 110 -

-------
                              TABLE  7-3


                      SOURCES  CHARACTERIZED BY

                         DECREASING  CAPACITY

                                 AND

                        ZERO REPLACEMENT RATE
                            *


BEE-HIVE COKE OVENS

CABLE COVER MANUFACTURING

CALCIUM CARBIDE

CAN MANUFACTURING

CARBON BLACK - CHANNEL PROCESS

CAST IRON FOUNDRY - CUPOLA FURNACE

CASTOR BEAN PROCESSING*^

CONICAL INCINERATORS

GASOLINE ADDITIVES - SODIUM LEAD ALLOY

GASOLINE ADDITIVES - ELECTROLYTIC

IRON AND STEEL PLANTS - OPEN HEARTH FURNACE

LEAD PIGMENT MANUFACTURING

NORMAL SUPERPHOSPHATE FERTILIZER

OPEN BURNING - INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL

PETROLEUM REFINERY - TCCU AND HCCU

PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE - NAPHTHALENE  PROCESS

ROP TRIPLE  SUPERPHOSPHATE FERTILIZER

SODA ASH/SODIUM  CARBONATE - SOLVAY  PROCESS

SUPERPHOSPHORIC  ACID  -  SUBMERGED COMBUSTION

TYPE  METAL  MANUFACTURING

^  '  Industry no longer exists  fn the U. S.

                                 - in -

-------
m
CO
en
fH
•*
00
en
fH
en
CO
•H
S
H
£
a
8
Cn
»H
Cn
r*
a
CO
p*
3
>.
r*
Oi
»H
*o
p-
IH
4J
CJ
i

5
lEnieslons or Emisi
Industry/Pollutant
** i"»
 eo
<• n
r^. en tH
C3CD *»
OA CO
O vO
o o  in -*
*o r* en
^ O n o < >*
§§§
ii
ss
«•§"£
H H H
FERTILIZER-NSP
Fluoride
o co
r-» cs
m CM ft
o o eo
en t-i
§<»
CM vO
o o en
co in
en in
o o en
m o
p- r*.
o o -c-
en m
i-H CO
r*. CM en
C3 O •»
m CM
u-i O
r* en in
O O • >• >"
c c c
o o o
88
SS
file
FERTILIZER-ROP TSP
Fluoride
O« IA
ssi
o o <•
•H CM
tH vO
*H o «n
O 0
in o
o* r* in
o o m
• •
o en
-y r*.
O O
eo en
m eo
*H o r-
® ^
r* a*
r-w av
fH O CO
C3 CD
en CM
en *H
rH fH Ch
0 0
4 >*
§§§
O O
o o
ss
•0 1
55^J
GASOLINE ADDITIVE-ELECTROLYTIC
Lead
tn en
eo r-« vo
en O co
CM iH fH
o en
o in en
en CM o
CO rH CM
O co
•H \o m
CO tH CM
r-4 en
p* en -a-
-* fH CM
en eo
co CM r*
*o r* en
•T «H CM
O r-.
r<. eo eo
CM en en
in fH co
CM vO
CM r* m
O\ tH I**
in CM co
r* \o
in -o- IH
VO *» CM
\O CM **
SfH
m -a-
H en en CM co
• • fH • »
m vo P* CM P*.
tH »H o en CM co
N >N

X >i X XXX
c c c see
O 0 0 0 O 0
88 §8
SS SS
•01 -01
to c eo a C o
h* M EH H t-< H
IRON AND STEEL-OPEN HEARTH FURNACE
Fluoride
Trace Metals
«n
a* «H
r> o

«s
P* O
•a- o P*
CD CD 
-------
sions.  If total  prohibition of such practices were  to  be  considered,  the
following reduction in emissions could be realized:
       Pollutant
                  Emi s s i on Re du cti on
                       in 1985
                            (tons/year)
                             2,687,100
                               317,400
                             3/174,500
                            15,873,300
         *0n a per pollutant basis
Parti culate
NO,
Hydrocarbon
Carbon Monoxide
Percent of Total Potential
Nationwide Reduction*
         51%
          7%
         28%
         59%
       For the purpose of this particular analysis we assumed that all acre-
age burned in 1985 would be subject to the regulation not just the increase
in new acreage burned between 1975 and 1985.  Accordingly, the values of
emission impact (Ts - T.,) reduce to just TS for total prohibition (£..=0).
It is recognized that total elimination of such practices may be impractical
due to the lack of viable alternatives; however, the results indicate the
maximum potential reduction achievable through NSPS.
7.2    ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURES
       The results of this, study are presented for the year 1985 and are
based on a datum of 1975.  A re-analysis of emission impact may be conduct-
ed, however, for any baseline year and for any target year with the substi-
tution of proper data for the newly defined ground rules.  In addition, a
re-evaluation of emission impact can be made for a given baseline year by
simply changing one or all of the input variables.  This flexibility per-
mits a rapid redetermination of impact if new or more up-to-date informa-
tion becomes available.
       Although the Model is flexible in terms of the ability to change
input variables and reevaluate emission impact, caution must be exercised
                                 - 113 -

-------
when doing so.  Details for each calculation performed can be found in the
appropriate Appendix and these calculations should be reviewed prior to a
reanalysis to determine the methodology by which each factor was evaluated.
For example, uncontrolled emission factors were, in certain instances, syn-
thesized values determined by weighting-emissions by process type, fuel type
or product mix for specific application to the Model.  Any change to this
variable should be considered within the same context so as not to yield
erroneous results.  Similarly, a change in the value of production capacity,
A, should be made within the same context as it was originally determined.
Many times, A represents the capacity of a specific process  or operation
within a category, not necessarily the capacity of the entire category.
       It must be noted that the extrapolation of Model factors from the
1975 data base to 1985  is subject to the many biases which could occur dur-
ing that time period and that these changes would have a subsequent effect
on the validity of calculated emissions.  Two such factors are particularly
prone to these potential future biases, PC and ES.  For example, PC for a
specific source could be affected by availability of fuel and raw mater-
ials, cost of money, industry and environmental regulations, or competition
from other industries.  A value of E~,  determined from State regulations
weighted by recent or existing capacity,  could change as the geographical
distribution of that capacity changes as  the result of new plant additions.
A similar argument can  be stated  for  the  typical plant size  upon which a
value of E~ is based.   Plant consolidation and advancements  in process or
          O
manufacturing technology have generally resulted in an historic trend to-
wards larger plants.  This  could  result in a changing value  of E<..  In
addition,  State regulations will  be  subject to change  (generally towards
more  stringent levels), interpretation, variance and  lack of enforcement.
                                 - 114 -

-------
7.3    OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF EMISSION IMPACT

       It is recognized that priorities will not and cannot be based solely
on the effect that standards will have in preventing atmospheric emissions.
Development of emission impact is just the first step in determining the
order of standard setting and this broad analysis will be refined into an
overall strategy delineating the priorities by which standards should be
set.  Such refinement is expected to include economic factors such as cost
and availability of capital, availability of fuel  and raw materials,  pol-
lutant and geographical  priorities and other ramifications.
       Timing factors are also a necessary consideration in an overall
strategy plan.  For example, if no control technology exists, effective
standards cannot be imposed.  It is, therefore, necessary to defer the
standard setting process until appropriate control methods and techniques
.have been demonstrated.   An accelerated Research and Development effort for
the control of specific pollutants and sources would become part of the
overall plan of action.   An additional timing factor, availability of appro-
priate test methods, could again defer the standard setting process if test
requirements were necessary to enforce the standard.
       Throughout the study to determine emission  impact, the overall
strategy plan for standard setting was considered.  For example, there
were several instances where an applicable control technology (or trans-
ferable technology) had not been'developed.   By employing hypothetical
values of EN for these cases, the Model  was  used to develop a listing  of
sources, ranked in order of decreasing emission reduction, for which  pri-
orities for research and development efforts for applicable control  tech-
nology could be concentrated.  For these sources,  we feel that plant  surveys
and di.scussions with control device manufacturers  are warranted to locate
the most recent advances in the state-of-the-art or unique installations
                               - 115 -

-------
which have not as yet been presented in the literature.   This should be
done when standards for a specific source are being considered.
       The units of emission factors and capacities were developed to be
compatible with each other and to be consistent with the general  termino-
logy and method of measurement within the category.  For example,  produc-
tion and capacity within the phosphate fertilizer industry are expressed
on the basis of the P^O,- content of the product.  Model  factors were,
therefore, developed in these units.  For other sources, Model  factors
were specified on the basis of either input or output, whichever was the
Industry standard or measured quantity.  Careful attention must be paid to
the units of these various Model factors if they are to be employed in the
overall strategy plan.
       Control technology for the majority of emission sources was based
on the use of a scrubber, baghouse or other mechanical contrivance.  How-
ever, there were several instances where fuel switching, process modifica-
tion, raw material substitution or redesign of process equipment consti-
tuted the best means of control.  Before standards of performance can be
set for a source, the  long term outlook for the availability and effect
of the control method must be evaluated.   In general, there would be no
apparent  problem with  the future availability of a mechanical control device.
However,  an abundant fuel or raw material  supply today  may be essentially
non-existent or too costly at  some  future  date  to  be a  viable control tech-
nique.  Also, control  of one pollutant  could result in  the formation of  or
increase  in another.   A  prime  example  is gas turbine engines for which  NOX
control could result  in  an  increase in  carbon monoxide  emissions.   The  use
of afterburners for control  of  solvent  emissions could  result  in excessive
                                 - 116 -

-------
 NOX formation at high temperatures.  Strategies must, therefore, be refined
 to account for these effects by permitting optional control methods, by re-
 quiring control for more than one pollutant, or by enforcing "good house-
 keeping" practices.
        The environmental  impact of fugitive emissions (i.e., emissions  from
 .processes, storage piles  and other sources which are not captured or treated
 by control systems) has  not been evaluated in this study because of an  almost
 complete lack of emission data.   These  emissions,  since  they often occur at
 ground level, could be expected  to have a  greater  impact on ambient air quality
 near  the stack than actual  stack emissions.   In  addition, the scant data avail-
 able  indicate that fugitive emissions could  greatly exceed,  in terms of mass/
 unit  time, well  controlled  point source emissions.   Accurate environmental
 impact assessment must, therefore,  await compilation  of  fugitive emission
 levels from all  processes and this  should be a high  priority  R & D  objective.
       The geographical distribution of source categories should be con-
sidered within an overall strategy plan.  For example, emissions being
equ,al, should control be placed on a source whose plants  are clustered in
one area of the country or-a source whose plants are widely  distributed?
A similar analysis could be made for groups of sources considering the
superimposition of pollutant emissions  and  their overall  effect  on the deg-
radation of air quality in "high  density" areas.
                                 -117-

-------
                             REFERENCES
                             (Text  Only)

1.      Priorities for the Development of  Standards of Performance. Draft.
       6. W.  Walsh,  Emission Standards and  Engineering  Division, EPA,
       Durham, N.C., November 13,  1973.
2.      The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857  et seq., as amended by the Air
       Quality Act of 1967, PL 90-148, by the Clean Air Amendments of
       1970,  PL 91-604, by Technical  Amendments  to the  Clean Air Act,  PL
       92-157, by PL 93-15, HR 5445,  April  9, 1973; by  PL 93-319, June
       24, 1974)
3.      Federal Register. Volume 39, Number 195,  October 7, 1974; 40 CFR
       Part 60, FRL 237-1
4.      Survey of Current Business. United States Department of Commerce,
       Social and Economic Statistics Administration,  Bureau  of Economic
       Analysis, Volume 54, No. 7, July,  1974.
5.     Chemical Economics-Handbook. Standford Research Institute.
6.     1967 Census  of Manufacturers, Volume II, Industry Statistics,  Part
       1, Major Groups 20  to 28, published by U.S.  Government Printing
       Office, Washington,  D.C.
7.     The Chemical Marketing Newspaper, Chemical Profiles.  Published by
       Schnell Publishing  Company, Inc., N.Y.
8.     Parti culate  Poll Utaht System  Study. Volumes I,  II, III.  Prepared
       for EPA by Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-
       104, May  1,  1971
                                 - 118 -

-------
9.     Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
       Effects, and Control (Final Technical Report).   Prepared for EPA by
                 i
       MSA Research Corporation, October 20, 1972.
10.    Tax Information on Depreciation, 1974 Edition,  Publication 534.
       Prepared by Department of the Treasury, Internal  Revenue Service.
11.    Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition).
       Prepared by EPA, Publication No. AP-42, April,  1973.
12.    Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   TRW Systems Group,  McLean,  Virginia.
       April  1970.  PB-206 924
13.    Air Pollution Control  Technology and Costs in Nine Selected  Areas
       (Final Report).  Prepared for EPA by Industrial  Gas  Cleaning Insti-
       tute,  EPA Contract No.  68-02-0301, September 30,  1972.
14'.    Air "Pollution Control  Technology and Costs in Seven  Selected Areas.
       Prepared for EPA by Industrial  Gas Cleaning Institute,  EPA Contract
       No. 68-02-0289, December, 1973.
15.    Analysis of Final  State Implementation Plans -  Rules  and Regulations.
       Prepared for EPA by the Mitre Corporation, EPA  Contract No.  68-02-
       0249,  July,  1972.
16.    Environment Reporter,  State Air Laws, Volume I  and, II,  Bureau of
       National Affairs,  Inc., Washington, D.C.,  as of August, 1974.
17.    Air Pollution Aspects  of Odorous Compounds.   Prepared for Department
       of Health,  Education,  and Welfare by R.J.  Sullivan,  Litton Systems,
       Inc.   Contract No.  PH-22-68-25,  September, 1969.
18.    Air Pollution. Volume  IH, Stern.  Academic Press,  1968
19.    Air Pollution Aspects  of Odors  (Draft). Environmental Protection
       Agency.   October 8, 1974

                                - 119 -

-------
20.    Background Information for Establishment of National  Standards
       of Performance for New Sources.   Castor Bean Processing.   Prepared
       for EPA by Wai den Research Corporation, EPA Contract  No.  CPA
       70-165, Task Order No. 7, July,  1972.
                                 - 120 -

-------
                 APPENDIX 1
CALCULATION SHEET BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR APPENDIX 4
                  -  121 -

-------
     Due to the limited availability of many of the reference sources,
a cross-reference has been included to facilitate retrieval.  The
number(s) in parentheses following each reference are keyed to the
following list:
            Code Number

             1
             2

                2a
                2b
                2c
                2d
                2e
                2f
                2g
                2h
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            12
            13
            14
       Available through...

APTIC, NTIS, GPO
•EPA - OAQPS Emission Standards and Engin-
eering Division(ESED)-Associated Personnel
EPA,ESED - Gary D. McCutchen
EPA.OAQPS - Joseph J. Sables Id'
EPA,ESED - Eric Noble
EPA,ESED - Fred Porter
EPA,SDAD - William Hamilton
EPA,ESED - Susan Wyatt
EPA,ESED - William King
EPA,ESED - Randy Seiffert
TRC—The Research Corporation of New
England - Thomas G. Hopper
Government documents section of State Library
Technical section of local library
Contractor preparing report
Federal Register
Department of  Commerce
Bookstore - technical section
Publisher
Air Pollution  Control Association
Author(s)
EPA -  Industrial Studies  Branch
EPA -  Compliance Monitoring Section
                                -  122  -

-------
 1.   Background  Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.  Grain Handling & Milling Industry (Draft).
     Environmental Engineering, Inc. and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.
     EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 4.  July 15, 1971.  (2, 6)

 2.   Background  Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.  Vegetable Oil Industry (Draft).
     Environmental Engineering, Inc.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order
     No. 9h.  July 15, 1971.   (2,6)
 3.   Background  Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.  Raw Cane Sugar Industry (Draft).
     Environmental Engineering, Inc.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order
     No. 9c.  July 15, 1971,   (2,6)
4.   Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources,,  Smoked Meat and Fish Industry (Draft).
     Environmental  Engineering, Inc.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task
    Order No. 9b.   July 15, 1971.  (2,6)
5.  Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
    formance for New Sources.  Soap and Detergent Industry (Draft).   Environ-
    mental  Engineering,  Inc.'and PEDCo Environmental  Specialists, Inc.   EPA
    Contract No. CPA 70-142,  Task Order No.  8j   July  15, 1971.  (2,6)
6.  Background Information  for Establishment of National Standards of
    Performance for  New  Sources.   Coffee Roasting  and Processing  Industry
     (Draft).      Environmental  Engineering,  Inc.  and PEDCo Environmental
    Specialists, Inc.  EPA  Contract No. CPA 70-142,  Task Order No. 9f.
    July  15, 1971.   (2,6)
                                 - 123 -

-------
 7.  Background  Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
    formance for New Sources.  Gray Iron Foundries (Draft).  Environmental
    Engineering, Inc. and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.  EPA Contract
    No.  CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 2.  March IS,  1971.  (2, 6)

 8.   Background  Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.   Fish Canning Industry (Draft).  Environ-
    mental  Engineering, Inc.  and  PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.
     EPA Contract No.  CPA 70-142,  Task Order No. 9e.  July  15,  1971.  (2,6)

 9.   Background  Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
     formance  for New  Sources.  Pulp and  Paper  Industry  (Draft).  Environmental
     Engineering, Inc.   EPA Contract No.  CPA 70-142,  Task Order No. 2.
     March 15,  1971.  (2,6)
10.   Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
     formance  for New  Sources. Coal Cleaning Industry  (Draft).  Environmental
     Engineering,  Inc.  and Herrick Associates.   EPA Contract  No.  CPA  70-142,
     Task Order No. 7.   July  15,  1971.  (2,6)
11.   Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.   Cotton Ginning  Industry (Draft).
     Environmental  Engineering,  Inc.   EPA Contract No.  CPA 70-142, Task  Order
     No. 6.  July 15,  1971.    (2,6)
12.   Background Information for  Establishment of National Standards of  Per-
     formance for New Sources.  Fermented Beverage Industry (Draft).   Environ-
     mental Engineering, Inc.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order  No. 9g.
     July 15,  1971.   (2,6)
                                  - 124 -

-------
13.  Background Information for Establishment of National  Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.  Edible Rendering Industry.   Environmental
     Engineering, Inc. and Reynolds, Smith, and Hills.   EPA Contract No.  CPA-
     70-142, Task Order No« 9d.  July 28, 1971.  (1)

14.  Background Information for Establishment of National  Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.  Meat Packing Industry.   Environmental
     Engineering, Inc. and Reynolds, Smith, and Hills.   EPA Contract No.  CPA-
     70-142, Task Order No. 9a.  July 19, 1971.  (1).
15. .A Screening Study to Develop Background Information to Determine the
     Significance of Castable Refractories Manufacturing (Final  Report).
     The Research Triangle Institute.  EPA Contract No.  68-02-0607 Task 1.
     December,.1972.  (1)
16.  A Screening Study to Develop Background Information to Determine the
     Significance of Glass Manufacturing (Final Report).  The  Research
     Triangle Institute.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 3.   December, 1972.  (1)
17.  Establishment of National Emission Standards for Stationary Sources, Volume
     VI.  Portlarid Cement Manufacturing Plants (Final Report).   Research
     Triangle Institute.and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.  Contract No.
     CPA 70-164, Task Order No. 2,,   September 30, 1970.   (1)
18.  A Screening Study to Develop Background Information to Determine the
     Significance of Brick and Tile Manufacturing (Final Report).  The
     Research Triangle Institute.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607,  Task 4.
     December, 1972.  (1)
19.  Establishment of National Emission Standards for Stationary Sources
     Volume II.   Steam Electric Power Generation (Final  Report).   Research
     Triangle Institute and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.  Contract No.
     CPA-70-164, Task Order No. 3,,   September 30, 1970.  (1)
                                 - 125 -

-------
20.  Establishment of National  Emission Standards for Stationary Sources
     Volume IV.  Sulfuric Acid  Plants (Final  Report).  Research Triangle
     Institute and PEDCo Environmental  Specialists, Inc.   Contract No.  CPA
     70-164, Task Order No. 3.   September 30, 1970. (1)
21.  A Screening Study to Develop Background Information  to Determine the
     Significance of Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (Final Report).  The
     Research Triangle Institute.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 2.
     December, 1972.  (1)
21A. Establishment of National  Emission Standards for Stationary Sources
     Volume V.  Nitric Acid Plants (Final Report).  Research Triangle
     Institute and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.   .Contract No.  CPA
     70-164, Task Order No. 3.   September 30, 1970.  (1)

22.  Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.  Industrial Size Boilers.  Walden Research
     Corporation.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-165, Task Order No. 5.  June 30,
     1971.  (1)
23.  Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
     Performance for New Sources.  Castor Bean Processing.  Walden Research
     Corporation.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-165, Task Order No. 7.  July, 1972. (1)
24.  Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
     formance  for New Sources.  Deep Fat Frying.   Walden  Research Corporation.
     EPA  Contract CPA 70-165, Task Order No. 6.  October, 1971.  (1)

25.  Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
     formance  for New Sources.  Paint  and Varnish  Manufacturing.  Walden
     Research  Corporation.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-165,  Task  Order No. 4
     October,  1971. (1)
                                 - 126  -

-------
 26.   Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National  Emissions
      From Stationary Sources (Final  Report).   Research Triangle Institute.
      EPA Contract No.  68-02-0607,  Task Order  No.  15.   May 30,  1974.   (1,6)

 27.   Role of New Source Performance  Standards in  Air  Pollution Control  of
      Criteria Pollutants (Final  Report).   Research Triangle Institute.   EPA
      Contract No. 68-02-0607,  Task Order  No.  9.  November, 1973.   (1,6)

 28.   Comprehensive Study of Specified Air Pollution Sources to Assess the
      Economic Impact of Air Quality  Standards (Final  Report)   FR-41U-649,
      Volume I,   Research Triangle  Insitute.   EPA  Contract No.  68-02-0088.
      August, 1972.   (1,6)

 29.   Background  Information  -  Proposed  New Source  Performance Standards
      for Primary Copper,  Zinc, and Lead Smelters  (Preliminary Draft)
      Sections  1  through  59 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
      Air and Water  Programs, August,  1973. (7)

 30.   Background  Information  -  Proposed New Source  Performance Standards
      for Primary Copper,  Zinc, and Lead Smelters  (Preliminary Draft)
      Sections 6  through 8, EPA, Office of Air and Water Programs, August,
      1973.  (7)

31.  Air Pollution Survey Production  of Seven Petrochemicals (Final Report).
     MSA Research Corporation.   EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-12, Modification I,
     Task I.  July 23, 1971.    (1)

32.  Standards Support Document Stationary Gas Turbines (Draft), EPA,
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, January, 1974.   (2c)

33.  An Investigation of the Best Systems  of Emission  Reduction for Six
                                 -  127 -

-------
     Phosphate Fertilizer Processes (Draft), EPA, Office of Air Quality
     Planning and Standards, April, 1974.  (2d)

34.  Organic Compound Emission Sources Emission Control Techniques and
     Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and
     Engineering Division, June, 1974.  (2)
35.  Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume I of
     II, Sections 1 through 10.  Singmaster and Breyer.  EPA-450/3-73-
     004A.  July 23, 1973.  (1)
36.  Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume II of
     II.  Singmaster and Breyer.  EPA-450/3-73-004B.  July 23, 1973.  (1)

37.  Tax Information on Depreciation, 1974 Edition, Publication 534.  De-
     partment of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service.   (4)
38.  Screening Study for Background Information and Significant Emissions
     From Major Incineration Sources  (Final Report).   Battelle Columbus
     Laboratories.  EPA Contract No.  68-02-0611, Task  Order No. 1.  January
     24, 1974.  (1)
39.  Screening Study to Develop Background  Information to Determine  the
     Significance  of Emissions from Lead  Battery Manufacture.  Vulcan-
     Cincinnati, Inc.  EPA  Contract No.  68-02-0299, Task  Order No.  3.
     December 4, 1972.  (1)
40.  Emission Standards for the Phosphate Rock  Processing Industry.   Consult-
     ing  Division,  Chemical  Construction Corporation.   EPA Contract No. CPA
     70-156.  July, 1971.   (1)
                                  - 128 -

-------
41.  Petroleum Refinery Background Information for Establishment of Federal
     Standards of Performance for Stationary Sources (Final Report).   Prepared
     for EPA by Processes Research, Inc. Task Order No. 9. August 20, 1971.  (i)

42.  Jones, H.R., Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry.
     Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.  (12)
43.  Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final
     Report).  Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-
     0301.  September 30, 1972.  (1)

44.  Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards:  Asphalt
     Concrete Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary
     Lead Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants,
     Iron and Steal Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Main Text.
     EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, June, 1973.  (7)

45.  Faith, W.L., Keyes,  D.B... Clark,  R.L. Industrial  Chemicals, Third
     Edition.  New York.  John Wiley & Sons.   1965.  (5,10)
46.  Danielson, J.A. Air  Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition
     AP-40,  Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.  (i)

47.  Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Mass Emissions.  Midwest
     Research Insitute.   EPA Contract  No. CPA  22-69-104.   May 1, 1971.   (1)
48.  Rarticulate Pollutant System Study, Volume II - Fine  Particle Emissions.
     Midwest Research Institute.  EPA  Contract No. CPA 22-69-104.  August  1,1971. (D
49.  Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
     Properties.  Midwest Research Institute.  EPA Contract No, CPA 22-69-
     104.  May 1, 1971.   (1)
                                                             j)
                                   -  129 -

-------
50.   Background Information for Stationary Source Categories.  Provided by
     EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
     Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.  (2b)
51.  KreicJielt, Thomas E., Robex.^ A. Ta-ft   Air Pollutions-Aspects o,f tepee
     Burne.r.s Used for Disposal of Municipal Refuse.  U.S. Department of
     Health, .Education,;a;nd Welfare.  U.S.. Public Health Service Publication
     No.-'999-AP-28   September, 1.9.66.  (1).
52.  Atmospheric Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Manufacture-.. Cooperative Study
     Project Manufacturing Chemists' Association,  Inc. & Public  Health
     Service.  EPA.  Air Pollution  Control Office  Publication  No.  AP-80.
     January, 1971.   (1)
53.  U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  Smith,  Walter S.,
     Taft,  Robert A.  Atmospheric  Emissions  From Fuel  Oil Combustion.  An
     Inventory Guide.  Public  Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-2.
     November, 1962.   (1)
54.  Scheuneman,.Jean J.,  M.D.  High, W.E.  Bye, R.A.  Taft.  Air Pollution
     Aspects of  the. Iron  and Steel.Industry.  U.S. ..Department  of Health,
     Education and  Welfare.   Public Health Service Publication No.  999-AP-l.
     June,  1963.   (1)
55.  Atmospheric Emissions from Thermal-Process  Phosphoric Acid Manufacture,
     Cooperative Study  Project Manufacturing Chemists' Associaton,  Inc.  and
     Public Health  Service.   U.S.  Department of  Health,  Education,  and Welfare,
     National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No.  AP-48.
     October,  1968.  (1)
                                    - 130 -

-------
56.  Atmospheric Emissions from Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Manufacture.   Co-
     operative Study Project Manufacturing Chemists'  Association,  Inc.  and
     Publich Health Service-.  U.S.  Department of Health, Education,  and Welfare.
     National Air Pollution Control  Administration Publication No. AP-57.
     April, 1970.   (D

57.  Economic Impact of Air Pollution Controls on Gray Iron Foundry  Industry.
     U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.   National  Air Pollution
     Control Administration Publication No. AP-74.  November,  1970.  P-)

58.  Kreichelt,.Thomas E.%  DouglasJL. Kemnitzv, Stanley T. Cuffe.  .Atmos-
     pheric  Emissions from  the Manufacture of'Portland .Cement.  U.S..Depart-
     ment of Health, Education, and Welfare.  Public Health Service Publica-
     tion "No, 999-AP-17.  '1967.    (D,

59.  Atmospheric Emissions  from Petroleum  Refineries.  A Guide for Measurement
     and Control.  U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  Public
     Health  Service Publication No. 763.   1960.   (1)

60.  Atmospheric Emissions  From Nitric Acid Manufacturing Processes.  U.S.
     Department  of Health,  Education, and  Welfare.  Public Health Service
     Publication No. 999-AP-27.  1966.   (D

61.  Air Pollution in the Coffee Roasting  Industry.  U.S. Department of Health,
     Education,  and Welfare, Frank Partee.  Public Health Service Publication
     No. 999-AP-9.  September, 1964.   (Revised 1966)  (D

62.  Systems Study of Air Pollution From Municipal Incineration, Volume II.
     Appendices: Arthur D. Little, Inc.   Contract CPA-22-69-23.  March, 1970. (1)
                                  - 131 -

-------
63.  Report on the Status of Lime/Limestone Wet Scrubbing Systems.  Radian
     Corporation.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-0046.  January,1974. (D.

64.  Systems Study for Control of Emissions Primary Nonferrous Smelting
     Industry, Volume I.  Arthur 6. McKee & Company.  June 1969.  (5)

65.  Systems Study for Control of Emissions Primary Nonferrous Smelting
     Industry, Volume II.  Arthur 6. McKee & Company.  June 1969,   (5)

66.  Systems Study for Control of Emissions Primary Nonferrous Smelting
     Industry, Volume III, Appendices C through G.   Arthur G.  McKee & Company.
     June, 1969.   (5)
67.  Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
     Industry, Volume I. Text.  A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc.  EPA Contract
     No. CPA 22-69-106.  February, 1971.  (1)

68.  Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emission Control in the Iron Foundry
     Industry, Volume II, Exhibits.  A'.T. Kearney & Company, Inc.  EPA Contract
     No. CPA 22-69-106.  February, 1971. (1)
69.  Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
     Industry, Volume III, Appendix.  A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc.  EPA Contract
     No. CPA 22-69-106.  February, 1971.    (D
70.  Development of Methods for the Sampling and Analysis of Particulate and
     Gaseous Fluorides from Stationary Sources (Final Report).  Arthur D. Little,
     Inc.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-0099.  April, 1972.  (1)
                                  -  132  -

-------
71.  Quantitative Analysis of the Gordian Associations, Inc., Report,
    "The Comparative Environmental Impact in 1980 of Fossil Fuel  Space
     Heating Systems Versus Electric Space Heating".  Prepared for American
     Gas Association, Inc. by Institute of Gas Technology.  Project :No.
     HC-4-19.  November, 1972.  (12)
72.  Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Volume II, Waste Gases and
     Particulate Matter, Fifth Edition.  1957.  American Petroleum Institute. (5,12)

73.  .Systematic Study of Air Pollution from Intermediate-Size Fossil-Fuel
     Combustion Equipment (Final Report).  Walden Research Corporation.  EPA
     Contract No. CPA 22-69-85.  July, 1971.  (1)

74.  Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
     Effects, and Control (Final Technical Report).  MSA Research Corporation.
     October 20, 1972.  (1)
75.  Compilation of  Air Pollutant Emission Factors  (Second Edition).   EPA.
     Publication No. AP-42.   April,  1973.   (1)
76.  Pervier, J.W*,  R.C. Barley, D.E.  Field,.  B.M. Friedman,  R.B. Morris,
     W.A.  Schwartz.  Survey  Reports  on Atmospheric  Emissions  from the  Petro-
     chemical ,Industry, Volume  I.  :EPA Contract  No.. 6,8-02-0255.  Janury, 1974. ..
-------
79.  Austin, George T.  The Industrially Significant Organic Chemicals, Part I.
     Chemical Engineering.  Vol. 81, No. 2.  January 21, 1974.  pg.  127-132.   (5)

80.  Austin, George-T.  Industrially Significant Organic Chemicals, Part 5.
     Chemical Engineering.  Vol. 81, No. 9.  April  29, 1974.  pg.  143-150.   (5)

81.  Austin, George T.  Industrially Significant Organic Chemicals, Part 6.
     Chemical Engineering.  Vol. 81, No. 11.  May 27, 1974.  pg.  101-106.   (5)

82.  A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part 1  -  Fundamentals.
     Southern Research Institute.  Contract No. CPA 22-69-73.  August 25, 1970.  (1)

83.  A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part II -  Application
     Areas.  Southern Research Institute.  Contract No. CPA 22-69-73.  August
     25, 1970.   (1)

84.  Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations.
     The Mitre Corporation.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-0249.  July,  1972.  (l)

85.  Systems Study of Air Pollution From Municipal  Incineration, Volume I.
     Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Contract No. CPA-22-69-23,  March, 1970.  (1)

86.  Systems Study of Air Pollution From Municipal  Incineration -  Volume
     III.  Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Contract No. CPA-22-69-23.  March 1970.   (1)
87.  Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology, Volume 1, Fabric Filter Systems
     Study.  National Technical Information Service.  Contract  No.  CPA-22-
     69-38.  December, 1970.   (D

88.  Afterburner Systems Study.  Shell Development  Company.  EPA Contract No.
     EHS-D-71-3.  August, 1972.  d)
                                  - 134 -

-------
89.  Study of Technical and Cost Information for Gas Cleaning Equipment
     in the Lime and Secondary Nonferrous Metallurgical Industries.  In-
     dustrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc.  EPA Contract No. CPA 70-150.
     December, 1970.  (1)

90.  Appendices to Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology - Volume II, Fabric
     Filter Systems Study.  GCA Corporation.  Contract Nb. CPA-22-69-38.  '
     December, 1970.   (1)

91.  Fabric Filter Systems Study.  Final Report - Volume IV, CGA Corporation,
     Contract No. CPA-22-69-38.  (1)

92.  Wet Scrubber System Study, Vol. 1 Scrubber Handbook.   Ambient Purifi-
     cation Technology, Inc.   EPA Contract No.  CPA-70-95.   August, 1972.  (1)

93.  Chemical Process Industries, Third Edition.   Shreve,  R.N.  McGraw-Hill
     Book Company.   1967.  (9,10)

94.  Gamse, R.N. and J. Speyer.  S02 Processing-:  Economic Impact of Sulfur
     Dioxide Pollution Controls.  Chemical Engineering Progress.  Vol. 70,
     No. 6.  June, 1974.  (5)

95.  Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute-  (10)

96.  The Chemical Marketing Newspaper, Chemical Profiles.   Schnell Publish-
     ing Company, Inc.  New York;   (5,10)

97.  Control Techniques for Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants,.  U,S. Department of
     Health, Education, and Welfare.  National  Air Pollution Control Administra-
     tion Publication No. AP-52.  January, 1969.  (D
                                  - 135 -

-------
 98.   Control  Techniques  for Hydrocarbon  and  Organic. Solvent  Emissions  From
      Stationary Sources.   U.S.  Department of Health, Education,  and  Welfare.
                                                                              F
      National Air Pollution Control  Administration  Publication No. AP-68.
      March,  1970.  (D
 99.   Control  Techniques  for Particulate  Air  Pollutants.   EPA.  Office  of
      Air Programs Publication No.  AP-51.  January,  1969.   (1)
100.   Control  Techniques  for Nitrogen Oxides  from Stationary  Sources.  U.S.
      Department of Health, Education and Welfare.  National  Air  Pollution
      Control  Administration Publication  No.  AP-67.   March, 1970.  (1)
101.   Perry, R.H., C.H. Chilton, S.D. Kirkpatrick.  Perry's Chemical  Engineers'
      Handbook.  McGraw-Hill Book Company.  1963.  (9,10)
102.   Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources.
      U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.  National Air Pollution
      Control Administration Publication No.  AP-65.   March, 1970.  (1)

103.   Hawley, G.6.  The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Eighth Edition.
      Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.   1971.    (9,10)
104.   Sawyer, J.W.  Sawyer's Gas Turbine Catalog.  Gas Turbines in Utility
      Power Generation and Gas Turbines in Gas Pipelines-Status Report.  1973.  (12)

105.   Sawyer, J.W., R.C.  Farmer.  Sawyer's Gas Turbine Catalog.  Gas Turbines
      in U.S. Electric Utilities   (12)

106.   Statistical Abstract of the U.S.; 1973 (94th Edition)  U.S. Department
      of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1973. (8)
                                  - 136 -

-------
107.  Control  Techniques for Beryllium Air Pollutants.   EPA.   Publication
      No.  AP-116.  February, 1973.   (D

108.  Control  Techniques for Mercury Emissions from Extraction and Chlor-
      Alkali Plants.  EPA.  Publication No. AP-118.  February, 1973.   (1)

109.  Control  Techniques for Asbestos Air Pollutants.   EPA.   Publication
      No. AP-117.  February, 1973.  (1)

110.  Air Pollution Problems at a. Proposed Merseyside  Chemical Fertilizer
      Plant:  A Case Study.   Atmospheric Environment.   Vol.  2.  pp.  35-48.
      Pergamon Press, 1968.   (5)

111.  Phelps,  A.M.  Air Pollution Aspects of Soap and  Detergent Manufacture.
      Journal  Air Pollution  Control  Association.   Vol.17,  No.  8.   August, 1967.   (11)

112.  Carter,  R.V., B.  Linsky.   Gaseous Emissions from Whiskey Fermentation
      Units*  Atmospheric Environment, Vol.8,  pp. 57-62.   1974.  (5)
113.  Darran, B.R., V.  Frega.  Removing Air Pollutants with  Packed Scrubbers,
      Part I.   Plant Engineering.  July 13, 1972.  (5)
114.  Phillips, M.A.  Investigations Into Levels of Both Airborne Beryllium
      and Beryllium in Coal  at the Hayden Power Plant near Hayden, Colorado.
      Environmental Letters, 5(3).  183-188.  1973.   (5)
115.  World-wide Plastics Boom Seen Continuing.  Hydrocarbon Processing.
      January, 1972.  (5)
116.  The Modern Plastics Barometer.  Modern Plastics.  January, 1972. (5)
                                    - 137 -

-------
117.   Field Operations and Enforcement Manual  for Air Pollution Control,
      Volume I:  Organization and-Basic Procedures.   Pacific Environmental
      Services, Inc.   EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122.   August,  1972.  •(!)

118.   Field Operations and Enforcement Manual  for Air Pollution Control,
      Volume II:  Control Technology and General  Source Inspection.   Pacific
      Environmental  Services, Inc.   EPA Contract  No.  CPA-70-122.   August, 1972.  (1)

119.   Field Operations and Enforcement Manual  for Air Pollution Control Volume
      III:  Inspection Procedures for Specific Industries.   Pacific  Environ-
      mental Services, Inc.  EPA Contract No.  CPA 70-122.  August, 1972.   d)
120.   Lee, R.E.Jr.,  D.J.  vonLehmden.  Tfcace Metal Pollution  in the Environment.
      Journal Air Pollution Control Association.   Vol.  23, No. 10.  October,
      1973.  (ID
121.   Russel, Douglas S.., Aurelio F. Siriani.   Rejection of  Trace  Metals  from
      Coal During Beneficiation by Agglomeration.  Environmental Science  and
      Technology.   Vol.8, No. 1.  January, 1974.   (5)
122.   Akitsune, K., T. Takae.  Pollution Control  Operations:  Abatement of
      Prilling Tower Effluent.  Chemical Engineering Progress.  Vol. 69,
      No. 6.  June, 1973.  (5)

123.   James, 6.R.  Pollution Control Operations:   Stripping  Ammonium Nitrate
      From Vapors.  Chemical Engineering Progress.  Vol. 69, No.  6.   June,
      1973.   (5)

124.   Hamilton,,-William F.  A Survey .of the Economic Impact  of Various Levels
      of Lead Removal'upon Selected Industries.  Ocotber 19,.1973..   (2e)
                                    -  138  -

-------
 125.   Particulate Pollution Control  Equipment Requirements  of the Cement
       Industry.   Supplied by EPA,  Emission Standards  and  Engineering
       Division.   (2)

 126.   Particulate Pollution Control  Equipment for Stationary Fossil Fuel
       Burning  Sources.   Suuplied by  EPA,  Emission Standards  and  Engineering
       Division.  (2)

127.  Pervier»H3.W,, R;C. Bar.ley, D.E. Field, B.M. Friedman, R.B. Morris,
      W.A. Schwartz.   Survey Reports  on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petro-
      chemical  Industry, Volume II.  Air Products and  Chemicals,  Inc.   EPA
      Contract No. 68-02-0255.  April,.1974.  (1)

128.  Pervier,  3.W.,  R.C. Barley, D.E. Field, B.M. Friedman, R.B. Morris,
      W.A. Schwartz.   Survey Reports  on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petro-
      chemical  Industry, Volume III.   Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.  EPA
      Contract No. 68-02-0255.  April, 1974.  (1)

129.  Pervier,  J.W.,  R.C. Barley, D.E. Field, B.M. Friedman, R.B. Morris,
      W.A. Schwartz.   Survey Reports  on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petro-
      chemical  Industry, Volume IV.  Products and Chemicals, Inc.  EPA Contract
      No.  68-02-0255.   April, 1974.  (1)
130.  McGutchen, G.D.  (Personal notes of) EPA.  Emission Standards and
      Engineering Division of OAQPS.   Regarding TNT Explosives Plants.  (2a)

131.  Air Pollution Emission Test.   Engineering-Science, Inc.  EPA Report
      Number 74-SLD-l.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-0225,  Task Order No. 22.
      July, 1974.  <2f)
                                     - 139 -

-------
132.  King, William R.   Control  of Secondary Aluminum Industrial  Emissions
      (Draft).  EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division.  (2g)
T33.  Seiffert, Randy D.  Preliminary Report on Emission Problems and
      Control in the Secondary Aluminum Industry.   EPA, Emission Standards
      and Engineering Division of OAQPS.  February, 1972. (2h)
134.  Aluminum Scrap Consumption and Recovery.  Aluminum Statistical  Review.
      1971.   (5)
135.  Tomany, J.P.  A System for Control of Aluminum Chloride Fumes.   Air
      Pollution Control Association.  Vol. 19, No. 6. June, 1969.
136.  Priority Rating for Sources of Lead Emissions.  Susan Wyatt, EPA.
      Emission Standards and Engineering Division of OAQPS. (2f)
137.  Profile of an Industry:  Aluminum.  Metals Week.  August 12, 1968.  (5)
138.  Supply/Demand Situation for Particulate Control Equipment.  EPA.
      OAQPS.   (2)
139.  Air Pollution Aspects of Odor (Draft).  John 0. Copeland, EPA, Emission
      Standards and Engineering Division of OAQPS.   (2)
140.  Englund, H.M. , W.T. Berry.  Proceedings of the Second International
      Clean Air Congress.  Academic Press.  1971.   (10)
141.  Summer, W.  Odor Pollution of Air, Causes and Control.  CRC Press.  1971.  (10)
                                   - 140 -

-------
142.  Atmospheric Emissions from Hydrochloric Acid Manufacturing Processes.
      Manufacturing Chemists' Association, Inc. and Public Health Service.
      National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-54.
      September, 1969.   (1)

143.  Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Forty-ninth Edition.  Editor Robert
      C. Weast, PhD.  The Chemical Rubber Company.  1968.   (9,10)

144.  Survey of Current Business, United States Department of Commerce, Social
      and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
      Volume 54, No. 7.  July, 1974.   (8)

145.  Jones, H.R.  Fine Dust and Particulates Removal, Pollution Control  Review
      No. 11.  Noyes Data Corporation.   1972. (10)

146.  U.S. Industrial  Outlook, 1974, with Projections to 1980.   U.S.  Depart-
      ment of Commerce, Domestic and International Business Administration.
      October, 1973. (8)

147.  Background Information for Proposed New-Source Performance Standards:
      Steam Generators, Incinerators, Portland Cement Plants, Nitric  Acid
      Plants, Sulfuric Acid Plants.   Office of Air Programs Technical Report
      No. APTD-0711.  August,  1971.   (D

148.  Environment Reporter, State Air Laws, Volume I  and II,   Bureau  of
      National Affairs, Inc.  Washington, D.C.   August,  1974.   (4)

149.  Murthy, Keshava  S.  Characterization  of Sulfur  Recovery in Oil  and  Natural
      Gas Production (Final  Report).   EPA Contract No. 68-02-0611,  Task Order
      No. 7.   August 28, 1974.   (1)
                                   - 141 -

-------
150.  Genco, J.M.,  S.S.  Tarn.   Characterization of Sulfur from Refinery Fuel
      Gas (Final  Report).   EPA Contract No.  68-02-0611,  Task Order No.  4.
      June 28, 1974.    (1)

151.  Hahn, A.V.G., R.   Williams, Jr., H.W.  Zabel.   The  Petrochemical  Industry
      Market and Economics.  McGraw-Hill Book Company.   1970. (10)
152.  Screening Study for Background Information and Significant Emissions for
      Gypsum Product Manufacturing.   Process Research,  Inc.   EPA Contract No.
      68-02-0242,  Task 14.   May, 1973.   (2)

153.  Sullivan, R.J.  (Litton Systems, Inc.)  Air Pollution Aspects of Odorous
      Compounds.   Contract No. PH-22-68-25.   September,  1969. (1)

154.  Air Pollution,  Second Edition, Volume II, Analysis, Monitoring and
      Surveying.   Edited by A.C. Stern.  Academic Press.  1968.   (9,10)

155.  1963 Census of Manufacturers,  Volume II, Industry Statistics, Part 1,
      Major Groups 20 to 28.   U.S. Government Printing Office.  Washington, D.C.  (8)

156.  Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, Rules and Regula-
      tions.  January 7, 1971..   (12)

157.  1967 Census of Mnaufacturers,  Volume II, Industry Statistics, Part 1,
      Major Groups 20 to 28.  U.S.- Government Printing Office.  Washington, D.C.  (8)

158.  Preliminary Report 1972 Census of Manufacturers, Industry Series.
      Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce.  (8)
159.  Osag, T.R., F.L. Bunyard, G.B. Crane.  State Guidelines for Standards
      of Performance for Existing Phosphate Fertilizer Plants (Draft)  EPA.
      OAQPS.  July, 1974.  (2)
                                    - 142 -

-------
 UO.   Varner,  8.,  P.A.  Boys,  W.F.  Hamilton,  G.B.  Crane.   State Guidelines
       for Standards of Performance for Existing Primary  Aluminum Plants
       (Draft)  EPA, OAQPS.   August,  1974.  (2)

 161.   Varner,  B.A., G.B.  Crane.  State Guidelines  for Standards  of  Performance
       for Existing Sulfuric Acid Plants.   EPA, OAQPS.  June,  1974.    (2)

 162.   Leonardos, G.  A  Critical Review of  Regulations for the  Control  of  Odors.
       Journal  of the Air  Pollution Control Association.   May,,1974.   (11)

 163.   Brinkerhoff,  Ronald J.   Inventory of Intermediate-Size  Incinerators  in
       the United States-1972.  Pollution Engineering.  November,  1973.  (5)

 164;   Anderson, C.E.  Chemical Control  of  Odors.   Pollution Engineering.
       August,  1972.  (5)

 165.   Turk, A., R.C. Haring, R.W.  Okey.  Odor Control Technology.  Environ-
       mental Science & Technology.  July,  1972.  (5)

 166.   U.S. Army Modernizes Munitions Plants.   Environmental Sciences & Technology.
       Volume 6, Number 12.  November,  1972. (5)

 167.   Bethea, R.M., B.N. Murthy, D.F. Carey.   Odor Controls for Rendering Plants
       Environmental Science & Technology.   Volume 7, Number 6.  June, 1973.  (5)

 168.   Forsten, Irving.   Pollution Abatement in a Munitions Plant.  Environ-
      mental Science & Technology.   Volume 7, Number 9.   September,  1973.   (5)
169.  DiGiacomo, J.D.   New Approaches to the  Design of Afterburners  for Varnish
      Cookers.   Journal  of the Air Pollution  Control Association.  Volume  23,
      Number 4.  April, 1973,   (11)

170.  VanDecar, C.  Ted.   Plywood  Veneer Dryer- Control  Device,   Journal  of  the
      Air Pollution Control Association.  Volume 22, Number 12.  December,  1972.
                                   - 143 -

-------
171.  Ruse, D., J.C.  Russel,  R.E.  Iverson.   Air  Pollution Abatement on Pri-
      mary Aluminum Potlines:  Effectiveness and Cost.   Journal  of the Air
      Pollution Control  Association.   Volume 23, Number  2.   February, 1973.  (11)

172.  Bethea, R.M.  Solutions for Feedlot Odor Control Problems  -- A  Critical
      Review.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control  Association. Volume  22,
      Number 10.  October, .1972.  (11)
173.  Galeano, S.F., T.W. Tucker, L.  Duncan.  Determination of Sulfur Oxides
      in the Flue Gases of the Pulping Processes.  Journal  of the Air Pol-
      lution Control Association.  Volume 22,.Number 10.  October,  1972.  (11)

174.  Tihansky, Dennis P.  A Cost Analysis of Waste Management  in the Steel
      Industry.   Journal of  the Air Pollution Control Association.   Volume 22,
      Number 5.   May, 1972.  (H)
175.  Sableski, J.J., W.A. Cote.  Air Pollutant Emissions  from  Apartment
      House Incinerators.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association.
      Volume 22,  Number  4.   April, 1972.   (11)
 176.  First, M.W., W. Schilling,  J.H. Govan,  A.H. Quinby.   Control of Odors
      and Aerosols from Spent  Grain  Dryers.   Journal of the Air Pollution
      Control  Association.   Volume 24,  Number 7. July, 1974.   (11)

 177.   Friedrich,  H.E.  Air Pollution Control  Practices  --  Hot-Mix Asphalt
       Paving Batch Plants.   Journal  of  the Air Pollution  Control Association.
       Volume 19,  Number 12.   December,  1969.     dD
 178.   Jones, K.H., J.F. Thomas, D.L. Brink.  Control of Malodors from Kraft
       Recovery Operations by Pyrolysis.  Journal of the Air Pollution  Control
       Association.  Volume 19, Number 7.  July, 1969.   (11)
                                    - 144 -

-------
 179.   Feuss,  O.V.,  F.B.  Flower.  State of the Art:  Design of Apartment
       House Incinerators.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association.
       Volume  19, Number  3.  March, 1969.  (11)

 180.   Benjamin, M., I.B. Douglass, 6.A. Hansen, W.D. Major, A.J. Navarre,
       H.J. Yerger.  A General Description of Commercial Wood Pulping and
       Bleaching Processes.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association.
       Volume  19, Number  3.  March, 1969. (11)

 181.   Thimsen, D.J., P.W. Aften.  A Proposed Design for Grain Elevator Dust
       Collection.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association.  Volume 18,
       Number. 11.  November, 1968. (11)

 182.   Douglass, Irwin B.  Some Chemical  Aspects of Kraft Odor Control.   Journal
       of the Air Pollution Control  Association.  Volume 18, Number 8.   August,
       1968.   (11)

 183.  Moeller, W., K.  Winkler.  The Double Contact Process  for Sulfuric  Acid
      Production.   Journal  of the Air Pollution Control Association,  Volume 18,
      Number 5.  May,  1968.  (U)

 184.  Henschen, H.C.  Wet vs.  Dry Gas Cleaning  in the  Steel  Industry.   Journal
      of Air Pollution Control Association.  Volume 18, Number 5.   May, 1968.  (11)
185.  Wright,  Robert J.   Concepts of Electric Arc Furnace Fume Control.  Journal
      of the Air Pollution  Control  Association.   Volume 18,  Number 3.   March,
      1968.   (ID

186.  Benforado,  D.M., J. Waitkus.   Fume  Control  in Wire Enameling by Direct-
      Flame Incineration.  Journal  of the Air Pollution Control  Association.
      Volume 18,  Number  4.  January,  1968.   (11)
                                  - 145 -

-------
187.  Walther, J.W.,  H.R.  Amberg.   A Positive Air Quality Control Program
      at a New Kraft  Mill.  Journal  of the  Air  Pollution Control Association.
      Volume 20, Number 1.  January, 1970.   (11)
188.  Roberson, James E.  The Effect of Odor Control  on  a Kraft  Mill  Energy
      Balance.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control  Association.   Volume  20,
      Number 6.  June, 1970. (H)
189.  Fawcett, R.L.  Air Pollution Potential of Phthalic Anhydride  Manufacture.
      Journal of the Air Pollution Control  Association.  Volume  20, Number 7.
      July, 1970.  (ID
190.  Venturini, J.L.  Operating Experience with a Large Baghouse in an Elec-
      tric Arc  Furnace Steelmaking Shop.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control
      Association.   Volume  20, Number  12.   December, 1970,    TO
 191.  Semrau,  Konrad T.   Control of Sulfur  Oxide Emissions from Primary
      Copper,  Lead and Zinc,Smelters — A Critical Review.  Journal of the
      Air Pollution  Control  Association.   Volume 21, Number 4.  April, 1971.

 192.  Minnick, L.  John.   Control of Particulate Emissions from  Lime Plants  —
      A Survey.  Journal  of the Air Pollution  Control Association.  Volume  21,
       Number 4.  April, 1971.   TO
 193.   Vandergrift, A.E.,  L.J.  Shannon, E.E. Sallee,  P.6. Gorman, W.R.  Park.
       Particulate Air Pollution in the United  States.   Journal  of  the  Air
       Pollution Control Association.  Volume 21,  Number 6.   June,  1971.  TO

 194.  Cook, C.C., G.R. Swany, J.W. Colpitts.  Operating Experience with the
       Alcoa 398 Process  for Fluoride  Recovery.  Journal of the  Air Pollution
       Control Association.  Volume  21, Number 8.   August,  1971.   TO
                                   - 146 -

-------
 195.   Stockham, John D.   The Composition of Glass Furnace Emissions.
       Journal  of the Air Pollution Control  Association.   Volume 21, Number 11.
       November, 1971.   (11)

 196.   Walther, J.E., H.R.  Ainberg,  H.  Hamby, III.   Pollution Control Opera-
       tions:   Meeting  New Pollution Requirements  At a Paper Mill.   Chemical
       Engineering  Progress.   Volume 69,  Number 6.   June,  1973.    (5)

 197,   Quane, D.E.  Air Pollution Control  Techniques:   Reducing  Air Pollution
       At  Pharmaceutical  Plants.  Chemical Engineering Progress.   Volume 70,
       Number 5.  May,  1974.  (5)

 198.   Cover, A.E., W.C.  Schreiner,  G.T.  Skaperdas.  Coal  Gasification:
       Kellogg's Coal Gasification  Process.  Chemical  Engineering  Progress.
       Volume 69, Number  3.  March,  1973.  (5)

 199.   lammartino, Nicholas R.  Perked-Up Paper  Industry is  Facing  More
       Challenges.  Chemical Engineering.  July  9, 1973.   (5)

 200.   Chopey,  Nicholas P.  Gas-From-Coal:  An Update.  Chemical Engineering.
       March 4, 1974.  (5)

 201.   lammartino, Nicholas R.  Cement's Changing Scene.  Chemical  Engineering.
      June 24,  1974.    (5)

202.  Prescott, James H.   FCC Regeneration Routes Boost Yields, Cut Energy.
      Chemical  Engineering.  September 16, 1974   (5)

203.  Shortages Ahead for Vinyl Acetate Users.   Chemical  and Engineering News.
      March 4,  1974.   (5)
                                   - 147 -

-------
204.  Fallwell, William F.  Phenolic, Urea Resins Demand Losing Steam.
      Chemical and Engineering News.  August 13, 1973.  (5)
205.  Styrene-Butadiene Rubber Capacity (Including Latex) Approaches 4.1
      Billion Pounds.  Chemical and Engineering News.  September 22, 1969.    (5)
206.  Oxides of Ethylene, Propylene Face Trouble.  Chemical and Engineering
      News.  May 21, 1973.  (5)
207.  Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) and Styrene-Acrylonitrile  (SAN)
      are Utilizing about 80% of their Capacity.  Chemical and Engineering
      News.  September 22, 1969.    (5)
208.  Ethylene:  Growth Rate Down.  Chemical and Engineering News.   December  13,
      1971.   (5)
209.  Man-made  Fibers:  On the Road to Recovery.  Chemical and Engineering
      News.  May 31, 1971.  .(5)  .
210.  Stobaugh, R.B., G.C. Ray,  Ronald A.  Spinke.   Ethylene Oxide:   How,
      Where, Who —  Future.  Hydrocarbon  Processing.   October, 1970. (5)

211.  Leprince, Pierre.   Synthetic Fiber  Feedstocks.   Hydrocarbon  Process-
      ing.  July,  1971.    (5)
212.  A Systems Analysis  Study of the Integrated Iron and Steel  Industry
       (Final  Report).   Battelle Memorial  Institute.   Contract  No.  PH 22-68-65.
      May 15,  1969.   (1)
213.  Control  and  Disposal  of Cotton-Ginning Wastes.   National  Center for Air
       Pollution Control  and Agricultural  Engineering Research  Division.
       Public  Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-31.  May 3  and 4, 1966.   (1)
                                    -  148 -

-------
    .   Technical  Guide for Review and  Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for
       Air Pollution Sources.   PEDCO-Environmental  Specialists, Inc.   EPA
       Contract No.  68-02-0607.   July,  1973.   (1)
 215.   Minerals Yearbook.   Bureau of the Mines,  1972.  (4)

 216.   Air Pollution,  Volume III, Second Edition.   Stern.   New York.
       Academic Press.  1968.   (9/10)
 217.   Mechanical Engineering Handbook, Marks, Lionel S., McGraw Hill  Book
       Company, 1972.   (9,10)

 218.   Final Emission Tests Report,  Hardee's Food Systems,  Inc., Rocky Mount,
       North Carolina.  Commonwealth Laboratory.  Project No.  74-238-01.
       March 18, 1974. .(2,6)
219.   Roessler, W.U., A.  Muraszew, R.D. Kopa.   Assessment of the Applica-
      bility of Automotive Emission Control.  EPA Contract No. 650/2-74-051.
      July, 1974.  (1)

220.  McGowin, Charles R.  Stationary Internal Combustion Engines in  the
      United States.  EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-45, Task No. 24.  April, 1973.  (1)
221.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Supplement).  TRW Systems Group.
      Contract No.  CPA 22-69-119.  August, 1970.   (1)

222.  Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   TRW Systems Group.   Contract No. CPA-
      22-69-119.   April,  1970.   (1)

223.  Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and. Bronze Smelting and Refining Industry.
      Brass and Bronze Ingot Institute and National Air Pollution Control
      Administration.  National Air Pollution  Control  Administration Publica-
      tion No. AP-58.  November, 1969.  (D
                                 - 149 -

-------
224.  Electric Arc Steel Furnaces.  Memo from Don R.  Goodwin, Director Emissions
      Standards and Engineering Division, EPA, to G.T.  Helms, Acting Director
      Air Programs Office, Region IV, EPA, November 25, 1974. (2)
225.  Stationary Internal Combustion Engines.  Memo from Stanley R. Cuffe,
      EPA, to Robert L. Duprey, Chief Compliance Monitoring Branch, EPA,
      October 3, 1974.   (14)
226.  Summary Guidelines on Best Available Control for Stationary Sources
      of Particulate.  EPA Industrial Studies Branch, EPA OAQPS, September 17,
      1974.    (13)
                                      \
227.  Steigerwald, B.J., H.B. Coughlin.  EPA, OAQPS News Release - Performance
      Standards for New and Modified Sources as They Affect  the Petroleum
      Industry.  May 10, 1972.   (2)

228.  Screening Study  for  Background  Information  and Significant Emissions from
      Fiber  Glass Manufacturing.  Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc.  EPA  Contract No.
      68-02-0299, Task Order  No.  4.   December 4,  1972.   d)
229.  Mathews, John  C.,  George  W. Weant,  III, Jim J. Kearney.   Screening
      Study  on the Justification  of  Developing  New Source  Performance  Stan-
      dards  for Various  Textile Processing Operations.   EPA  Contract No.  68-
      02-0607-11,  RTI  No.  762-11.  August, 1974.  (1)
230.  Anderson, David.  Emission  Factors for Trace Substances.   EPA-450/2-73-
      001.   December,  1973.  (1)
231.  Air Pollution  from Fuel Combustion in  Stationary Sources.  Processes
      Research,  Inc.   EPA Contract No.  CPA 70-1.  (1)
                                    - 150 -

-------
 232.   National  Emissions  Inventory of Sources  and  Emissions  of Magnesium.
       GCA Corporation.  EPA Contract  No.  68-02-9601.   May, 1973.  (1)
 233.   Robinson, J.M., G.I.  Gruber, W.D.  Lusk,  M.J. Santy.   Engineering and
       Cost Effectiveness  Study of Fluoride Emissions Control, Volume II
       (Final  Report).  Contract No. EHSD 71-14.   January,  1972.  (1)

 234.   Robinson, J.M., G.I.  Gruber, W.D.  Lusk,  M.J. Santy.   Engineering and
       Cost Effectiveness  Study of Fluoride Emissions Control, Volume I,
       (Final  Report).  Contract No. EHSD 71-14.   January,  1972.  (1)

 235.   Dowd, E.J.  Air Pollution Control  Engineering and Cost Study of the
       Paint and Varnish Industry.  Air Resources,  Inc.  Contract  No.  68-02-
       0259.   June,  1974.    (1)

 236.   Exhaust Gases from  Combustion and  Industrial  Processes.   Engineering
       Science,  Inc.   EPA  Contract No. EHSD 71-36.   October 2, 1971.    (D
 237.   Background Information for  Standards of  Performance:   Coal
       Preparation Plants  Volume I:  Proposed Standards.  Emission Standards
       and  Engineering Division.   EPA  45-/2-74-021a.  October,  1974.   G-)

 238.   Background Information for  Standards of  Performance:   Coal Preparation
       Plants, Volume 2:  Test Data Summary,  Emission Standards and Engineer-
       ing Division.  EPA-450/2-74-021b.  October, 1974.  (D

239.  Dealy, James 0., Arthur M.  Kill  in.  Engineering and Cost Study of the
      Ferroalloy Industry.  EPA-450/2-74-008.  May, 1974.  (1)
240.
Background Information for' Standards of Performance:  Electric Submerged
Arc Furnaces for Production of Ferroalloys Volume I:  Proposed Standards.
Emission Standards and Engineering Division.  EPA-450/2-74-018a.
October, 1974.  (1)
                             - 151 -

-------
241.  Background Information for Standards of Performance:   Electric
      submerged Arc Furnaces for Production.of Ferroalloys  Volume 2:
      Test Data Summary.  Emission Standards and Engineering Division.
      450/2-74-018b.  October, 1974.  (1)
EPA
242.  Mason, H.B., A.B. Shimizu.  Definition of the Maximum Stationary
      Source Technology (MSST) Systems Program for NOV.  EPA Contract NO.
                                                     A
      68-02-1318, Task No. 8.  October, 1974.  M

2%43.  Atmospheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry.
      National Council of the Paper Industry for Air & Stream Improvement,
      Inc. and Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA-450/1-73-002.  September,
      1973.   (1),
244.  Secondary Zinc Industry Emission  Control  Problem  Definition Study
      (Final)Part 1  Technical Study. Air  Pollution Control Office-EPA  (1)

245.  Task Report:  Trace Pollutants from Forest  Materials.  Environmental
      Science  and Engineering,  Inc.  EPA Contract No.  68-02-0232, Task
      Order No.  29.   June 21, 1974.  (i)
246.  Combustion Engineering, A Reference Book on  Fuel Burning and Steam
      Generation.  Combustion Engineering, Inc.   New York.  1967.  (9,10)

247.  Mumma, C.E., T.E. Weast,  Larry 0. Shannon.   Trace Pollutants from
      Agricultural Material  Processes  (Draft)  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1324,
      Task No.  2.  June, 4,  1974.   (1)
248.  Gadomsku,  R.R., A.V.  Gimbrone, M.P. David,  W.J.  Green.  Evaluations  of
      Emissions and Control  Technologies in  the Graphic Arts Industries,
      Phase II: Web  Offset and Metal  Decorating  Processes.  EPA Contract  No.
      68-02-0001.  May, 1973. d)
                                   - 152 -

-------
  249.   Ffnal Report on Refuse Combustion in Fossil  Fuel  Steam Generators.
        Battelle.   EPA Contract No.  68-02-0611,  Task No.  9.   September 23,  1974..(1)
  250.   Background  Information for Standards  of  Performance:   Electric Arc
        Furnaces in  the Steel  Industry,  Volume I:  Proposed Standards. -.
        Emission Standards arid Engineering  Division.   EPA-450/2-74-017a.
        October, 1974.   (l)

  251.   Background Information for Standards  of  Performance:   Electric  Arc
        Furnaces in  the  Steel  Industry,  Volume 2:  Test Data Summary.
        Emission Standards and Engineering  Division.   EPA-450/2-74-017b.
        October, 1974.   (1)

 252.   Waste Material Trace Pollutant Study.  Research Triangle Institute.  EPA
        Contract No. 68-02-1324, Task No. 10.  November, 1974.  (2)
 253.  Trace Pollutant Emissions from the Processing of Metallic Ores.
       PEDCo-Environmental  Specialists, Inc.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321,
       Task No. 5.   August,  1974.   (2,6)
 254.   Emission Tests Report, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., Rocky Mount,
       North Carolina.  Commonwealth Laboratory.  Project No. 75-238-01.
       November 20,  1974  (12)

 255.  Brochure on TEPCO Texas Electronic Precipitator Company.  Garland, Texas,  (l)
 256.  Development of  Information for Standards  of Performance for the
      Fossil Fuel  Conversion  Industry (Final Report).  Battelle.  EPA
      Contract No. 68-02-0611, Task No. 7.  October 11, 1974.   (i)
257.  Development of Cost Data for Coal Gasification Processes and Emission
      Control Systems (Final Report).  Battelle.  September 12, 1974. (i)
                                  - 153 -

-------
258.  Emissions from Processes Producing Clean Fuels.  Booz-Allen Applied
      Research.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1358,  March, 1974.  (6)
259.  Evaluation of Coal Conversion Processes to Provide Clean Fuels.
      (Final Report).  The University of Michigan College of Engineering.
      Electric Power Research Institute.  EPRI 206-0-0.  February, 1974.   (6)

260.  Evaluation of Coal Conversion Processes to Provide Clean Fuels, Part
      II.   Electric Power Research Institute.  February, 1974.  ^6^
261.  Prioritization of Sources  of Solvent Emissions from Surface Coating.
      Processes Excluding Architectural and  Automotive Body Painting.
      (Preliminary Draft).  EPA  , OAQPS.  (3)
262.  Telephone conversation  with Mr.  Alan  Scheu,  January 23,  1975.   (Scheu
      produces orchard heaters).  (3)
263.  Telephone conversation  with Jim George, National Weather Service,
      Lakeland, Florida,  January 23,  1975 (3)

264.  Telephone conversation  with Ted Wakai, Air Pollution Control  District,
       County of Ventura,  Ventura.California, January 23, 1975. (3)

265.  Telephone conversation  with Dr. John  Gerber, University of Florida,
       Dean of Dept.  of Fruit  Crop, Gainesville,  Florida, January 23, 1975.  (3)

 266,  Sewage Sludge Incineration.  EPA Task Force.  Office of'Research and
      Monitoring.   March, 1972.   (2)
 267.  Background Information on National Emission Standards for Hazardous
       Air Pollutants — Proposed Amendments to Standards for Asbestos and
       Mercury.  Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-009a.  EPA.  October, 1974.
(1)
                                    - 154 -

-------
 268.   Control  of Air Pollution  from Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge Incinerators.
       EPA.  Office of Air  Programs.   May,  1972. (2)
 269.   Finkelstein,  Harold.   Preliminary Air Pollution Survey of Pesticides,
       A  Literature  Review.   EPA Contract  No.  PH  22-68-25.   October,  1969.  (2)
 270.   Hoar, William S.  General  and  Comparative  Physiology.   Prentice-Hall,
       Inc.  1966.    (10)
 271.   Federal  Register.  Air Programs; Standards of Performance for New
       Stationary  Sources.  March 8,  1974.  Volume 39, Number 47-Part II.
 272.   System Analysis of Air Pollutant Emissions From the Chemical/Plastics
       Industry.   EPA-650/2-74-106.  October 1974.  Foster D. Snell, Inc.
 273.   Federal  Register.  Standards of Performance for New Stationary
       Sources.  December 23, 1971.  Volume 36, Number 247-Part II. (4)
 274.   Preliminary Air Pollution Survey of Hydrogen Sulfide.  A Literature
       Review.   October 1969.  Litton Systems, Inc.  (l)
 275.   Preliminary Air Pollution Survey of Arsenic and its Compounds.   A
       Literature Review.  October 1969.  Litton Systems, Inc. (1)
 276.   Economics of Lead Removal  in Selected Industries. Battelle,. Columbus
       Laboratories.  August 31, 1973.  (1)
 277. . Preferred Standards  Path Analysis on Lead Emissions from Stationary
      Sources.  EPA.  September 14,  1974.   Vol.  1,  2,  and 3. (2f)
278.  Emission Study of Industrial  Sources of Lead  Air Pollutants, 1970.
      W.  E.  Davis & Associates.   EPA Contract No.  68-02-0271.   April  1973. (1)
                                 - 155 -

-------
279.  Personal Correspondence, Iverson (Office of Control Technology, EPA)
      to Jerome Ostrov (Attorney, Air Quality, Noise, and Radiation
      Division, EPA) March 13, 1975.  (12)
280.  Control Techniques for Lead Emissions.  George B, Crane.  EPA
      unpublished.  January 1971. (2f)
281.  Emissions from Cable Covering Facility.  Midwest Research Institute.
      EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228.  June 26-28, 1973. (1)
                                     - 156 -

-------
        APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES USED
 FOR EACH SOURCE CATEGORY
          - 157 -

-------
                                       SPECIFIC REFERENCES FOR
                                        INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
 I.   STATIONARY" COMBUSTION SOURCES
    BOILERS, FOSSIL FUEL
         250  x 10° BTU/hr
         Mixed Fuel
               Coal &  Refuse
               Oil & Refuse
         Wood  Waste
    ENGINES,  STATIONARY
          Gas Turbines
              Electric  Utility
              Pipe Line
          Internal Comtiustion
              Spark  Ignition  (Heavy Duty Gas Fired)
              Diesel and Dual Fuel

     INCINERATORS
          Auto Body
          Conical
          Industrial/Connereial
          Municipal
          Pathological
          Sludge

     M3SCELLAKEOUS COMBUSTION
          Open Burning
              Commercial/Industrial)
              Agricultural         /
          Orchard Heaters
          Combustion  of Vfaste  Crankcase Oil

U.  CHEMICAL PROCESS IHDUSTRY

     ACIDS
          Adipic
          DMT/TPA (Nitric  Acid Oxidation)
          'Hydrochloric
              By-product
              Salt
          Hydrofluoric
          Nitric
          Phosphoric
              Wet Process
              Thermal Process
          Sulfuric

     ACRYLONITRIIE

     AMMONIA
          Methanator plant               \
          Regenerator & CO-a'bsor'ber plant/

     CARBON BLACK
          Channel process
          Furnace process
22,28,73,75,84,97,147,148-



84,148,249

43,48,73,75,84,148,236
32,37,84,104,105,148
32,37,75,84,97,101,104,148

37,50,75,97,100,102
37,50;75,97,100,102,103
37,38,84,148
38,51
75,84,85,97,148,163
62,84,85,97,147,148
37,38,46,75,84,148
44,266,267,268
49,75,99
75,84,97,101,148,156,247,262,263
45,75,76,84,95,100,148
37,84,95,100,127,148

37,42,75,95,96,142
37,42,95,142
37,42,45,75,84,95,141,148
37,45,60,75,84,100,144,147,148

37,42,84,95,148,159,234
37,42,47,84,95,145,148,156   .
20,37,75;84,147,148,161

31,37,50,84,96,148
37,45,75,84,144,148
45,50
37,45,49,50,75,84,96,101,148
                                          -  158  -

-------
                                        SPECIFIC DEFERENCES FOR
                                        'INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
  H.  CHEMICAL .PROCESS INDUSTRY (CONT.)
       CHARCOAL

       CHLOR-ATKALI
            Diaphragm cells  \
            Mercury cells   /

       CRUDE OIL & HG PRODUCTION - SULFUR RECOVERY

       DETERGENT

       ESSENTIAL OILS

       EfHXIENE DICHDORinE (OXTCHLOHINATION PROCESS)

       ETHYLENE 0}OD3

       EXPLOSIVES
            Higl
            Low

       FORMALDEHYDE
High \
      FUEL CONVERSION - COAL GASIFICATION
           High BTO Gas
           Low ECU Gas

      LEAD PIGMENT

      KALBIO AHKi-DEIHE

      PAIOT

      POTKALIC ANHYDRIDE
           Naphthalene
           O-sylene

      ERINTIMJ HCC           •  ,   .

      SOAP

      SODIOM CARBONATE
        •   Solvay Process
      •     NattD?al

      SYNTHETICS
           Fibers
                Acetate
                Dacron
                Nylon,
                Viscose Rayon
           Polyethylene
                High Density \
                Low Density  j
           Polypropylene
           Polystyrene
           Polyvinyl chloride
           Resins  '
                ABS-SAN
                Acrylic
                Aliya
               Phenolic
               Polyester
               Urea Melaraine
           SBR  rubber

      VARNISH

IH.  FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

      AGRICTtr,TtJHAL
           Cotton Ginning
           Fertilizer
                Ammonium sulfate            ~ 159 -
                Diamaonium phosphate
37,75,84,88,93,144,148,236


37,45,52,75,84,108,146,148


37,84,95,148,149

5,50,75,84,148,156



37,50,80,84,96,148

37,50,206,210


37,44,84,93,95,144,147,148,221

37,50,76,84,95,96,148


84,148,256,257,258,259,260

37,84,148,276,278

37,84,95,128,148

25,50,75,84,148,156,222,235


50,76,95
45,50,76,78,84,95,148

37,50,75,84,144,148,156,158

5,37,46,77,84,148
                                              42,45,62,95,96,146
                                              37,45,84,95,96,148,156
                                              37,75,84,95,148,209

                                              37,75,84,95,146,148

                                              34,84,116,128,148
                                              31,75,84,116,129,148
                                              84,116,129,148
                                              75,84,116,129,148

                                              84,103,148,204,207,222,236
                                              37,84,156,272
                                              37,84,148,156,272
                                              84,103,148,204,207,222,236
                                              37,75,84,148,209,272
                                              84,103,148,204,207,222,236
                                              31,75,84,95,129,143,148,151,156

                                              50,75,84,148,156,236



                                              11.37,75,84,148

                                              37,40,49,84,95,148.156
                                              33,37,40,75,77,84,95,143,159

-------
                                    SPECIFIC REFERENCES FOR
                                     INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
HI.  POOD AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY (CONT. )
                Granulated triple .superphosphate
                     Production  »
                     Storage     /
                Nitrate
                Normal superphosphate      1
                HOP triple superphosphate  f
                Superphosphoric acid
                     Submerged combustion.  )
                     Vacuum Evaporation    )
           Pesticides
     FOOD
           Animal feed deflvorination
           Animal husbandry
           Beer processing
           Canneries
           Castor bean processing
           Coffee roasting
           Deep fat frying
           Direct.firing of meats
           Feed milling & storage
                Alfalfa dehydrating I
                Other        * .      /
           Pish processing (fish meal  cookers & driers)
           Grain handling & processing
                Transfer
                Screening, cleaning
                Drying
                Processing
           Meat packing
           Heat smoke houses
           Poultry processing
           Rendering •
           Starch manufacturing
           Stockyards & slaughterhouses
           Sugar cane processing
                Bagasse burning
                Field burning
           Vegetable oil manufacturing
           Whiskey processing
    OTHER
          Pharmaceuticals
          Tanneries
33,37,40,49,75,77,84,95,148,153,159
37,40,42,75,84,95,122,148

95
33,37,77,84,95,(48,159
37,95,84,144,148,269
37,40,50,84,95,148

12,37,75,84,144,148,157

23
6,37,75,84,148
24,37,46,84,144,148
37,50,218,254,255

1,28,37,47,49,50,77,84,148
46,50,75,84,144,148


1,37,47,75,84,144,148,236


4,37,75,84,144,148,158


37,75,84,144,148,236
3,38,75,84,93,101,148
3,75,84,148
2,37,84,103,148,247
12,75,84,112,148,156,236
37,95,144,216,230,270
                                           - 160 -

-------
                                  fiffiCIFIC REIESENCfiS VC/R  .
                                   IHDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
17.  MINERAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

     ASPHALT
          Batching
          Roofing
               Saturator I
               Blowing  >

     CONCRETE
          Batching        .               . -  ,- .
          Cement plants (Kilns,  clinker  coolers)

     MINING
          Sand and gravel
          Stone quarrying & processing
          Lead ore

     PROCESSING
          Brick and related clay products
          Calcium carbide
          Cast able refractory
          Ceramic clay
          Clay and flyash sintering
               Clay
               FJyash
          Coal cleaning (thermal drying)
          Fiterglas
               Wool processing   I
               Textile processing /
          Frit
          (Jlass
               Soda lime glass )
               Opal glass      )
          Gypsum
          Lime
          Mineral Wool
          Perllte
          Phosphate- rock
               Calcining \
               Drying   >
               Grinding j

 V.  MET3ffiLURGICAL IHDUBTRY
     PRIMARY METALS
          Aluminum smelters
          Coke  ovens
               Bee-hive oven
               By-product oven
          Copper, smelters
          Ferroalloy
          Iron  & Steel plants
               Blast  furnace
               BOP
               Electric arc ftirnace
               Open hearth furnace
               Sintering
               Scarfing
 22,43,44,46',49,75,84,92,101,148,177

 31,37,47,75,84,144,148
 37,75,84,146,148,215,217
 17,22,37,58,75,84,125,144,146,147,148,201,215,216
 37,46,47,75,84,144,148,156,215
 37,50,75,84,144,148,215,236
 37,84,148,278,280

 18,22,37,49,75,84,97,144,148
 95
 15,37,75,84,144,148
 18,37,47,49,75,84,93,142,144,148,217

 84,148,215,222,236
 37,75,84,148,222,236,252
 10,22,37,43,47,75,84,101,148,237

 75,84,148,156,228,234

 37,46,75,84,144,148,234

 IC.37,46,75,84,144,148,242
 37,75,84,95,144,148,152,156
 22,37,42,49,50,75,84,148,192,215,242
 37,46,75.84,101,144,148,156,158,
 37,46,75,84,144,148,156,215
37,40,47,75,77,84,95,148
35,37,84,93,148,160

50,97
37,49,50..75,84,148,153
29,30,37,49,75,84,95,148
37,84,148,221,239,240
37,44,47,75,83,84,148,156,212,230,232,234,236,250
                                         -161-

-------
                                     SPECIFIC REFERENCES FOR
                                      •INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
V.   METALLURGICAL INDUSTRY (CONT.)
           lead smelters
           Zinc smelters

     SECONDARY METALS
           Aluminum production
                Sweat  furnace    \
                Reverb furnace   f
           Brass  & Bronze  smelting
           Cast Iron foundry
                Core ovens
               * Cupola furnace
                Electric furnace
           Copper
                Material handling   I
                Smelting Si refining f
           Lead, smelter
                Blast furnace
                Pot  furnace
                Reverb furnace
           Magnesium smelting
           Steel foundries
           Zinc
                 Distillation  \
                 Sweating      /

 VI.   EVAPORATION LOSS SOURCES

      DECREASING

      IRY CLEANING

      GRAPHIC ARTS
            Gravure
            Flexograpny
            Lithography
            Letterpress
            Metal decorating

      PETROLEUM STORAGE &  TRANSFER
            Nonpipeline transfer (tank cars,  trucks & marine;
            Refueling motor vehicles
            Service stations
            Tank storage

       INDUSTRIAL SURFACE  COATING

       TEXTILE PROCESSING
             Heat Setting/Finishing
             Texturizing
             Carpet Manufacturing

VH.   PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

       SCOT

       GASOLTHB ADDITIVES
             Sodium Lead Alloy
             Electrolytic

       KOT AND HCCU

       PROCESS GAS COMBUSTION

       VACUUM DISTILLATION

       MISC. POINT SOURCES

       REFINERY FUEL GAS - SULFUR RECOVERY

                                              -162-
29,30,37,49,75,84,136,148
29,30,37,49,75,84,95,148
37,49,84,89,95,119,132,144,148,214

37,44,75,84,124,148,223


7,37,46,47,50,67,68,75,84,145,148


37,46,47,49,84,89,95,148,155



7,44,46,49,75,77,84,89,95,101,148,155,236

37,75,84,95,101,144,148,222,236   :
37,84,148,222,236

37,49,75,84,95,101,144,148,157,236,244
34,37,46,74,84,96,144,148

37,46,74,75,84,98,106,148
37,50,84,144,148,248
•57,74,84,95,98,148
34,37,75,84,148
37,74,75,84,148
34,37,74,84,148

50,74,75,84,144,156,261
37,144,229



37,41,43,44,49,74,75,84,95,97,148,156


276,277

43,75

44,75,84,148,156,242,246

44,75,84,148

41,75,84,148

37,84,148,150

-------
                                       SPECIFIC REFERENCES FOR
                                         XMDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
     WOOD PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

     WOOD PROCESSING
           Pulpboard
           Plywood

     WOOD' PULPIHG
           Krafb process (sulfate)
           Sulilte
           HSSC
3X.  ASSEMBLY PLANTS

     AUTOMOB31E

     CABIE-COV33R PRODUCTION

     CAN MAHOFACTURHJG

     IEAD ACID BA1TTERY

     JfXPE METAL PRODUCTION

 X.  WASTE'DISPOSAL (HON-COMBUSTION)

     INDUSTRIAL WASTE HANDLING  (LIQUIDS)

     SEWAGE TREATMENT
37,75,84,144,148
37,47,84,101,146,148,156,170,245
9,37,47,75,84,102,144,148,187,196,199,243




37,50,75,84,144,148,155

84,148,276,281

144,276,277

37,39,44,84,148

37,277,278
                                             -163-

-------

-------
   APPENDIX 3
COMPUTER PROGRAM



       FOR



    MODEL IV

-------
       INTEGER L.S
       DIMENSI8N  IRPBt200)/IRPC<200>/ITU(200>/ITA<200)/ITS<200>
       DIMENSI8N  I,TN(200)/ITD(200)/ IRATNG<2/200>/IPLTNT<10/1S)/PK(200>
       DIMENS18N  ES(200)/EN(2CO)/EU(200)/PB<200)/A<200)/PC<200)
      ' DIMENSION  B(200)/C<200)/TU(200)/TA<200>/TS(200)/TN(200)/T'D<200)
       DIMENSION  IEUNITUO/200)/I IUNIT( 10/200 )/ISeuRC (20/200)
       DIMENSION-I5<200)/I6<200>/lALFA<5/8>,IBET'A<4/8>
 DATA L/S/1HL..1HS/
 DATA IALFA/2H  /2HLB/2H/G/2HAL/2H
1           2H  /2HLB/2H/T/2H6N/2H
2           2H L/2H3//2HBA/2HLE/2H
3           2H  /2HL3/2H/C/2HYD/2H
 DATA IBETA/2HE6/2H G/2HAL/2H  /2HE6/2H C/2HFT/2H  /2HE6/2H T/2H8N/.
12HS /2HE1/2H2 /2HBT/2HU /2H£6/2H -B/2HAL/2HE /2HB6/2H B/2HBL/2H
12HE6/2H C/2HYD/2H  /2HE6/2H P/2HU /2H  /
                                          /2HLB/2H/E/2H6  /2HCF/2HT  /
                                          /2HLB/2H/E.2H6  /2HBT/HHU  /
                                          /?HL3/2H/8/2HAR,2HRt:/2HL  /
                                          /2HLB/2H/P/2HRO/2H  U/2HNT/
C««. READING  IN THE NUMBER 8F P8LLUTANTS
      READ  (1/99) Kl
 99   F6RMATU5)
C*» READING  IN TABLE NUMBER AND THE NUMBER 8F SOURCES  8F EACH  P8LLUTANT
 50   READ  (1/100) 11/12
 100  FDRMATf2I5)
C«« READING  IN THE NAME 8F THE P8LLUTANT
      READ  (1/101) 
  101 FBRMAT  (10A2)
      .DB 750  1-1/12
C«» READING  IN THE NAMES SF THE VARI8US S8URCES AND THEIR  RATINb  '
      'READ  (1/102) (IS8URC/ (IRA.TN6(J/ I)/J«l/2>'  '
  102 FORMAT  (20A2/2A2)
C«» READIN3  IN VARI3US 8THER INF8RMATI8N  (EMISSI8NS/PR8D.  CAPACITY ETCO
C«« F6R EACH  8F THE S6URCES
      READ  (1/103) PK(I)/I5U)/ES(I)/EN/  .
     lIRPB/AU )
 103  F6RMAT(F7.0/I3»'iF10.0/Al/F10«0/Al/l3/Eli.O)
      IF (PK(l).EQ.O) G8 T8 750
C«« DECIDING  WHETHER T8 USE SIMPLE 8R C8MP8UND GR8WTH  T8 CALCULATE
C«* PROD. CAPACITY FR8M C6NSTRUCT18N AND M8DIFICATI8N
      IF (IRPB(I)-EO.S) 66 T8 '80 '
      B(n«<(l«0+PBU»**10-1.0>*AU>
      G8 T8 81
 80   B(I)*10«A*C(!))»EU(I)*PK(I)/2.0E6
      IF (ES(I).EQ.O.O) ES(I)»EU(I)
      TA(I)>(A(I)*ES(I)*PK(I))/2OE6
      TStI)«((PK(I)«ES{I))*(A(I)+C(I)))/2.0E3
      IF «TS(I)iXL
      TN(I)«TN{I>«XL
C«« ROUNDING 8FF THE T8TAL EMISSI8NS
   20
      ITU(I)«TU(I)+0.5
      ITACI)>TA(I)+0«5
      ITS « 10«ITD(1)
      63  TO 91
   68 ITDU)«TDU)/100+0.5
      TD(I) • ITD(I)
      TD(I) « 100.-TDU)
      G3  TO 91
   89 ITD(I)«TD( 1 1/1000+0. 5
      TDU) « ITO(I)
      TDU) « 1000.«TD(I)
      G8  T« 91
   90 ITO(I) « TD(I)/10000fO'5
      TDU) * ITDtl)
      TD(I) • 10000. «TD(I)
 91   18.15(1)
      09  1 J>l/5
  1
  2
  3
  1
  5
  6
  7

  8
  9 .
  10
  11
  12
  13
  1*
  15
  16
  17
  18
  19
  20
  21
  22
  23
  24
  25
  26
  27
  28
  29
  30
  31
  32
  33
  34
  35
  36
  3?
 38
  39
 40
 41
 42
 43
 44
 45
 46
 47
 48
 49
 50
•'si.-
 52
 53
• 54
 55
 56
 57
 58.
  59
  60
 6d
  62
 63
  64
  65
  66
  67
  68
  69
  70
  71
  72
  73
  74
  75
  76
  77
  78
  79
 80
 61
 82
 83
 84
 85
  86
  87
  88
                                       - 166 -

-------
93

2
750
93
C«« OBTAINING THE ACTUAL UNITS 8F TOTAL EMISSIONS AND EMISSION RATES
C»» FRQM THE VARIOUS C8DE NUMBERS THAT HERE READ IN AS SUBSTITUTE FOR
C»« THE UNITS
      IEUNIT{J.r>-IALFAU/18>
      I9«16(I>
      06 2 J«l»4
      IlUNIT(J/I)«IBETA(j;i9)
      CONTINUE
      1*1
      K6-1
      K5«l
C*« PRINTING 6UT THE RESULTS IN A TABULAR FORM
 322  WRITE(3/300> II
  300 FORMAT <1H1//15X»5HTABLE/I3/20X/3«HPRI9RITY RATING SYSTEM:  1975-1
     1985//4X»5/5X/3H(3)/5X/3H{'»>/3X/3H<5>/'(X/3H<6)/15X/3H<7>/
     430X,l4HEMISSI8N RATES/5X/12HGR8WTH RATES/43X/9H£MISSI8.NS/
     514X*8HEM1SSI8N/7X/13HALL6WA8LE   UNC8NT/2X/ 12HDECIMAL/YEAR/2X/
     628HINDUSTRY CAPACITY/PRODUCTION/ 10X/ 14H1000 TBNS/YEAR/SX/
     79HTBNS/YEAR)
      WRITE (3*301)
  301 FORMAT UX/8HRATIN3 K*6X/5HUNITS/8X»1HE*7X* 1HE/7X/ IHE^SX/ 1HP/6X
     JlHP»7X*5HUNITS»5X/lHA/5X/lHB»5X/lHC*'t(7X»lHT)*6X*'tHT  -T/
     229X/ 1 HS» 7X* 1HN/ 7X* 1 HU.. 5X/ 1 HB/ 6X/ 1 HCt 37X/ 1HU* 7X* 1 HA/ 7X/ 1HS* 7X/ 1HN/
     36X'1HS  N)
      WRITE (3/302)  ( IPLTNTU/K)/ J«l» 103
  302 FORMAT (1X/10A2)
     • I«K5
 323  WRITE .(3/303)  I IS8URC( J/ I)» J-l/203
  303 FORMAT (/1X/20A2)
      IF (PK(I). £0-0.0) G3 T8 330
      IF (A(I).GE.IOOO. .3R. B(I).GE.1000. .OR. C< I > -GE- 1000- > G8 TO 305
      WRITE (3*30*8U),Cm,TUU)/TA,TS(I>/TN A(I 1+0.5
      IB « B(I)+0«5
      1C - C(I)+0.5
      WRITE  (3/306)  CIRATNGej/H/J.l/SJjFKdJ/UEUNITtJ.I)/
     1J*1<5)/  ES(I)/EN(I)/EU(I)/PB(I )/IRPBU)/PC(l O/IRPCU >/
     .1(IIUNIT(J/I)/J'1/'H*IA/IB/IC/TUCI )/TA{ I )/TS( lit TN( I ),TD< I )
  306 FORMAT UX,2A2»F5.2/3X/5A2< 3F8.3o2(F6.3/ Al j/S
     13F8«0/F7tO/F11.0)
 330  K5-K5+1
      I«I+1
      IF (I'GT.12) 68 TO 32t
      K7»15*K6
      IF- (K5.GT.K7)  GO T8 327
      CO TO  323
 327  K6-K6+1
      GO TO  322
 32*  K»K+1
      IF (K.GT.K1) GO T8 359
      GO TO  50
 359  CALL EXIT
      END
 89
 90
 91
 92
 93
•9*
 95
 96
 97
 98
 99
 100
 101
 102
 103
 104
 105
 106
 107
 108
 109
 110
 111
 112
 113
 114
'US'
 116
 117
 118
 119
 120
 121
 122
 123
"124
 135
.126
 1?7
 128
 129
 130
 131
 132
 133
 134
 135
 136
 137
 138
 139
 140
 141
 142
 143
 144
 145
 146
 147
 148
                                      -  167 -

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(f lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
EPA 450/3-76-017

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources
7, AUTHOR(S)
Thomas G. Hopper
William A. Marrone
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AN
TRC - The Research Corporal
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADD
EPA-Of f ice of Air Quality I
Emission Standards and EngD
Research Triangle Park, NC

D ADDRESS
tion of New England
06109
RESS
'lanning and Standards
Lneering Division
27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
April 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2AC129
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1382
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final: 7/74 - 7/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA - OAQPS
10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 	 ~ 	 — 	 —
Project Officer for this Report is
G. D. McCutchen, Mail Drop 13, Ext. 271
The purpose of this document is to present the results of a study to determine the
impact of new source performance standards on nationwide emissions. The work pre-
sented covers 14 potential pollutants from approximately 200 source categories for
the year 1985. The results are being used by EPA as input to the development of an
overall standard setting strategy. The report contains information regarding con-
trolled and uncontrolled emission factors, State emission limitations, industrial
capacity, utilization, growth and retirement rates. The results of this study have
been published as three volumes which encompass ten separate documents. This docu-
ment contains the main text and Apendices I through III of Volume I. All input/
output variables and results are summarized and tabulated in this volume.
 17.
                                  KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                   DESCRIPTORS
                                                 b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                             c.  COSATI Field/Group
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution Control
  Industrial Processes
  Combustion
  Regulations
  Economic Factors
Priorities
Chemical
 Industry
Paper
 Industry
Petroleum
 Industry
Metal
 Industry
Agricultural
Mineral
Flyash
Exhaust
 Gases
  Unlimited
                                                 19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                                   Unclassified
                            21. NO. OF PAGES
                                 178
                                                 2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                   Unclassified
                            22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                               •U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-7^0-110/302  REGION NO. 4
                                            -  168 -

-------