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 -
------- |