Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Industry: Background Information for Proposed Standards


                           EPA-450/3-82-022a
Wool Fiberglass Insulation
 Manufacturing Industry -
 Background Information
 for Proposed Standards
     Emission Standards and Engineering Division
    U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

            December 1983

-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available through the Library Services
Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from
the National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         Background Information
                                and Draft
                     Environmental Impact Statement
       for the Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Industry

                              Prepared by:
afc
     R.  Farmer
Director, Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C.  27711
(Date)
I.  The proposed standard of performance would limit emissions of
    particulate matter from new, modified, and reconstructed wool fiber-
    glass insulation manufacturing lines that utilize the rotary spin
    forming process.  Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411),
    as amended, directs the Administrator to establish standards of
    performance for any category of new stationary source of air pollution
    that "... causes or contributes significantly to air pollution which
    may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."

2.  Copies of this document have been sent to the following Federal
    Departments:  Labor, Health and Human Services, Defense, Transportation,
    Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Energy; the National Science
    Foundation; the Council on Environmental Quality; State and Territorial
    Air Pollution Program Administrators; EPA Regional Administrators;
    Local Air Pollution Control Officials; Office of Management and
    Budget; and other interested parties.

3.  The comment period for review of this document is 60 days.  Mr. Robert  L.
    Ajax may be contacted regarding the date of the comment period.

4.  For additional  information contact:

    Mr. Kenneth R.  Durkee
    Industrial Studies Branch  (MO-13)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711

5.  Copies  of this  document may be obtained from:
    U.S. EPA  Library  (MD-35)
    Research  Triangle Park, N.C.
    Telephone:   (919)  541-2777
                                  27711
    National Technical  Information  Service
    5285  Port  Royal  Road
    Springfield,  Va.   22161

-------

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
  1      SUMMARY	    1-1
  1.1    Regulatory Alternatives  	    1-1
  1.2    Environmental Impact .	    1-2
  1.3    Economic Impact	    1"2

  2      INTRODUCTION 	 ..... 	 ...    2-1
  2.1    Background and Authority for Standards  	    2-1
  2.2    Selection of Categories of Stationary Sources  	    2-4
  2.3    Procedure for Development of Standards  of Performance   .    2-6
  2.4    Consideration of Costs	 .  .	    2-8
  2.5    Consideration of Environmental Impacts  	    2-9
  2.6    Impact on Existing Sources	    2-10
  2.7    Revision of Standards of Performance	    2-11

  3      PROCESS DESCRIPTION  .........	 .  .    3-1
  3.1    General	    3-1
  3.2    Processes and Their Emissions	    3-8
  3.3    Baseline Emissions ... 	  .........    3-25
  3.4    References for Chapter 3	    3-31

  4      EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES	    4-1
  4.1    Process Modifications	    4-1
  4.2    Wet  Electrostatic Precipitators	    4-3
  4.3    Wet  Scrubbers	    4-9
  4.4    High Velocity Air Filters	    4-17
  4.5    Thermal Incinerators ..................    4-19
  4.6    Performance  of Emission Control  Systems  	    4-26
  4.7    References for Chapter 4 . .		-    4-44

   5      MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION   .	    5-1
   5.1    Provisions for Modification  and  Reconstruction  	    5-1
   5.2    Application  to Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
         Facilities	    5-3

   6      MODEL  PLANTS AND REGULATORY  ALTERNATIVES  	    6-1
   6.1    Purpose	    6-1
   6.2    Model  Lines   .	    6-1
  .6.3    Model  Plants	    6-7
   6.4    Regulatory Alternatives   	  .....    6-7
   6.5    References for  Chapter  6	    6-14

   7      ENVIRONMENTAL AND  ENERGY  IMPACTS	    7-1.
   7.1    Air Pollution  Impacts	    7"!
   7.2    Water  Pollution  Impacts   	  ...........    7-21
   7.3    Solid  Waste  Disposal  Impacts 	    7-22
   7.4    Energy Impacts	    7-25
   7.5    Other  Environmental  Impacts   	 7-30
   7.6    Other  Environmental  Concerns 	  	    7-30
   7.7    References  for  Chapter 7	    7-32

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section
Page
  8      COSTS	    8-1
  8.1    Cost Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives 	    8-1
  8.2    Other Cost Considerations	    8-26
  8.3    References for Chapter 8	    8-30

  9      ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	    9-1
  9.1    Industry Profile	  .    9-1
  9.2    Economic Impact Analysis 	   9-33
  9.3    Potential Socioeconomic and Inflationary Impacts ....    9-50-
  9.4    References for Chapter 9	    9-53

APPENDIX A:  EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT  .  .    A-l

APPENDIX B:- INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS ....    B-l

APPENDIX C:  SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS
             INSULATION MANUFACTURING 	    C-l
  C.I    Introduction	    C-l
  C.2    Emission Test Data	    C-l

APPENDIX D:  EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS 	    D-l
  D.I    Introduction 	 .....    D-l
  D.2    Selection of Testing and Analytical Methods   	    D-2
  D.3    Sampling Train	    D-l2
  0.4    Sample Collection  	    D-l3
  D.5    Sample Recovery	    D-l5
  D.6    Analysis	    D-16
  D.7    Detailed Analytical Methods	    D-23
  D.8    Continuous Monitoring  	    D-40
  D.9    Performance Test Methods	'. .   .  .    D-40
  D.10   References for Appendix D	    D-42

APPENDIX E:  ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON DEMAND AND PRICE
             DETERMINATION FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS	  .    E-l
  E.I    Demand Determinants  	 ........    E-l
  E.2    Price Determinants 	    E-10
  E.3    References for Appendix E	    E-l6

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                Page

1-1      Environmental and Economic Impacts of Various
         Alternatives Compared to Alternative I (Baseline)
         in the Fifth Year	   1-3

1-2      Matrix of Environmental and Economic Impacts for
         Regulatory Alternatives  .... 	    1-4

3-1      Location of Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing
         Plants	    3-2

3-2      Estimates of the Demand for Wool Fiberglass Insulation
         in 1980 by End Use	    3-3

3-3      Range of Properties of Wool Fiberglass Insulation for
         Various Uses	    3-5

3-4      Summary of Uncontrolled Particulate Emission Data  .  .  .    3-19

3-5      Summary of Uncontrolled Phenol  Emission Data ....  .  .    3-20

3-6      Summary of Uncontrolled Phenolic Compound Emission
         Data . . . '	  .    3-21

3-7      'Summary of Uncontrolled Formaldehyde Emission Data .  .  .    3-22

3-8      Summary of Production Parameters for Uncontrolled
         Emission Data	  .    3-23

3-9      Uncontrolled Emission Levels  for Rotary Spin Lines .  .  .    3-26

3-10     Summary of State Regulations  for a Typical  Rotary Spin
         Fiberglass Line	    3-27

3-11     Emission Controls on Existing Rotary Spin Wool
         Fiberglass Lines	    3-28

3-12     Baseline Emission Levels for  Rotary Spin Lines  	    3-30

4-1      Emission Sources and Control  Methods for Wool Fiberglass
         Insulation Manufacturing 	    4-2

4-2      Summary of Controlled Particulate Matter Emission Data  .    4-28

4-3      Summary of Controlled Phenol  Emission Data  . 	  .    4-30

4-4      Summary of Controlled Phenolic  Compound Emission Data   .    4-32

4-5      Summary of Controlled Formaldehyde Emission Data ....    4-34

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table        '                    .                                  .  £226

4-6      Emission Test Data for Wet Electrostatic Precipitators
         at Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants .  . .     4-36

4-7      Emission Test Data for Venturi Scrubbers at a Wool
         Fiberglass Manufacturing Plant 	    , 4-38

4-8      Emission Test Data for High Velocity Air Filters at
         Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants  ....     4-40

4-9      Emission Test Data for Incinerator at a Wool Fiberglass
         Insulation Manufacturing Plant	   •  4-42

4-10     Summary of Visible Emission Data	•  • •     4~43

6-1      Model  Line Parameters—Rotary Spin	     6-4

6-2      Model  Line Parameters—Flame Attenuation	    6-5

6-3      Model  Plants  (Complete Plants) 	    6-8

6-4      Model  Plants  (Line Addition)  	    6-9

6-5      Rotary Spin  Regulatory Alternatives  and Control  Device
         Configurations	:  .	  6-10

6-6      Flame  Attenuation Regulatory  Alternatives  and  Control
         Device Configurations   	  	    6-11

6-7      Rotary Spin  Emission Levels   	    6-12

6-8      Flame  Attenuation Emission Levels  	    6-12

6-9      Control  Device System Parameters for Rotary Spin Lines  .     6-15

7-1       Regulatory Alternatives  and Control  Device Configura-
         tions  for Impact Analysis of Rotary Spin Lines 	     7-2

 7-2       Regulatory Alternatives  and Control  Device Configura-
          tions  for Impact Analysis of Flame Attenuation Lines .  .     7-3

 7-3       Summary of Particulate Emission Levels for Rotary Spin
          Process	     ^-4

 7-4      Summary of Particulate Emission Levels for Flame


 7-5      Annual Particulate Emissions From Rotary Spin Model
          Lines	     7"6
                                    viii

-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
7-6

7-7

7-8
7-9
7-10a

7-10b

7-lla

7-llb

7-12
7-13

7-14
7-15

7-16

7-17

7-18

7-19

8-1
8-2

Annual Particulate Emissions From Rotary Spin Model
Plants 	 .
Annual Particulate Emissions From Flame Attenuation
Model Line 	
Annual Production for Model Lines and Plants . . . . . .
General Modeling Data 	 	
Summary of Source Data for Rotary Spin and Flame
Attenuation Model Line Additions (Metric) 	
Summary of Source Data for Rotary Spin and Flame
Attenuation Model Line Additions (English) 	 .
Summary of Source Data for Rotary Spin Model Plants
(Metric) 	
Summary of Source Data for Rotary Spin Model Plants
(English) 	
Summary of Maximum TSP Concentration Impacts 	
Solid Waste Impacts for Rotary Spin Model Lines and
Plants 	 	 	 	 	
Solid Waste Impacts for Flame Attenuation Model Line ...
Electrical Energy Requirements of Control Equipment for
Rotary Spin Model Lines and Plants 	 ....
Electrical Energy Requirements of Control Equipment for
Flame Attenuation Model Line 	 	
Natural Gas Demand of Control Equipment on Rotary Spin
Model Lines and Plants 	 	
Total Energy Demand of Control Equipment on a Typical
Rotary Spin Model Line and Plant 	 	
Environmental Impact of Delayed Standard — Emission
Reduction in 1991 	
Summary of Sources of Costing Information 	
Model Line Parameters-- Rotary Spin 	
Page

7-7

7-8
7-9
7-12

7-13

7-14

7-15

7-16
7-19

7-23
7-24

7-26

7-27

7-28

7-29

7-31
8-2
8-3

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table

8-3      Model Line Parameters—Flame Attenuation  .	   8-4

8-4      Control Device System Parameters and Specifications . .   .   8-5

8-5      Model Plant Parameters  	   8-6

8-6      Basis for Estimating Capital and Annualized Costs of
         Fiberglass Lines  	   8-8

8-7      Component Capital Cost Factors as a Function of Control
         Equipment Cost—New Facilities	   8-9

8-8      Capital Costs of Model Fiberglass Lines  	   8-10

8-9      Capital Costs of Model. Fiberglass Plants  	   8-12

8-10     Basis for Estimating Control Equipment Annualized Costs
         for  New Facilities	   8-13

8-11     Annualized Costs of Model  Fiberglass  Lines   	   8-14

8-12     Annualized Costs of Model  Fiberglass  Plants  	   8-16

8-13     Incremental Annualized Costs of Pollution Control Systems
         for  Model Fiberglass  Lines—Rotary  Spin  	   8-17

8-14     Incremental Annualized Costs of Pollution Control Systems
        , With Respect  to  Baseline  for Model  Fiberglass  Lines-
         Flame Attenuation	     8-18

8-15     Incremental Annualized Costs of Pollution Control
         Systems  for Model  Fiberglass PI ants--Rotary  Spin   ...     8-19

8-16     Incremental Emissions  Reduction of  Model  Fiberglass
         Lines—Rotary Spin	     8-20

8-17     Incremental Emissions  Reduction of  Model  Fiberglass
         Lines With  Respect to Baseline—Flame Attenuation . .  .     8-21

8-18      Incremental  Emissions  Reduction  of  Model Fiberglass
          Plants	      8-22

8-19     Average Cost  Effectiveness of  Regulatory Alternatives
         With Respect  to Baseline for Model  Fiberglass  Lines--
          Rotary Spin	      8-23

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Page
8-20     Average,Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives
         With Respect to Baseline for Model Fiberglass Lines--
         Flame Attenuation	 :	     8-24

8-21     Average Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives
         With Respect to Baseline for Model Fiberglass Plants—
         Rotary Spin	' ,  .  .'.'.' .	     8>-25

8-22     Average Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives
         With Respect to Uncontrolled for Model Fiberglass
         Lines—Rotary Spin	    8-27

8-23     Average Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives
         With Respect to Uncontrolled for Model Fiberglass
         Plants—Rotary Spin  .  .	  .    8-28

9-1      Location of Insulation Fiberglass Plants in the United
         States	    9-3

9-2      Estimated Capacity, by Firm, in 1979 and 1980  .....    9-5

9-3      Shipments and Price of Wool  Fiberglass, 1965 to 1981  .  .    9-7

9-4      Estimates of the Demand for  Wool Fiberglass in 1980 by
         End-Use	    9-9

9-5      Shipments and Price of Structural Versus Nonstructural
         Use of Wool Fiberglass, 1965 to 1981	    9-10

9-6      Estimated Employment in Wool Fiberglass, 1965 to  1979   .    9-12

9-7      Value of Imports and Exports	    9-13

9-8      Principal Residential Insulation Applications  	    9-14

9-9      Determinants of the Demand for Wool Fiberglass, 1965  to
         1980	    9-16

9-10     Elasticities of Wool Fiberglass Demand With Respect to
         Price and User-Industry Output  ..... 	    9-18

9-1]     Determinants of the Price of Wool Fiberglass, 1965 to
         1979	    9-19

9-12     Financial Characteristics of Publicly Held Corporations .
         Producing Wool Fiberglass	    9-20

9-13     Growth Projections by Time  Period and by Source   ....    9-23
                                     XI

-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
9-14
9-15
9-16
9-17
Q-lft
9-19
9~9n
&u
9-91
9-22
9-23
9-24
Q_OC
y c.o
9-26
9-27
9-28
9-29
9-30
Assumptions About the Determinants of the Demand for
Wool Fiberglass, 1980 to 1991, Econometric Approach . .
Alternative Forecasts of the Price of Wool Fiberglass .
Forecasts of the Demand for Wool Fiberglass (1980 to
1991) Under High and Low Price Estimates Using Econo-
mptfir TpfhninuP1? 	
Alternative Forecasts of the Demand for Wool Fiberglass,
1980 to 1984, Using Technical Coefficients/Ad Hoc
Tprhni nup*5 	
firnwth Proiertions 1980 to 1991 	
Output, Capacity, and Capacity Utilization, 1980 to
1991 	 	
NPU/ and Fynandpd Plants 1978 to 1981 	
pynien1— f"inn nf NPW PY*nduri"f on Faci Titles 	
Maximum Percent Price Increase of Selected Regulatory
AT t"f»Y*nat'i ves . . . . • 	
Return and Investment of Model Plants and Lines With
Racol-ina Pnl 1 nti nn Fmnnmpni" (Rf>n Alt 1^ 	
After Tax Return on Investment for Selected Regulatory
To<;t<; nf NPW Production Facilities 1983-1988 ......
Wool Fiberglass Revenue Shares and Capacity Shares . . .
Debt to Total Capitalization Ratio for Four Publicly
f)wnpfl Firms 1979 to 1981 	 	
Financial Statistics for Four Publicly Held Wool
Number of Employees for the Four Publicly Held Wool
FT hovnl a"<;t; Firm<; 	 	
Fifth- Year (1988) Annual i zed Costs of Compliance for
Rntarv Sni n Mnrie>l Plants and Lines 	
Page
9-25
9-26
9-27
9-29
9-31
9-32
9-34
9-35
9-37
9-39
9-40
9-42
9-43
9-44
9-45
9-49
9-51
              XI 1

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table

A-l

B-l
C-la
 to
C-12b

C-13a
 to
C-17b

O18a
 to
C-23b

C-24a
 to
C-30b

C-31a
 to
C-36b

C-37a
 to
C-41b

C-42a
 and
C-42b

C-43a
 and
C-43b

C-44a
 to
C-49b

C-50a
 to
C-57b

C-58a
 to
C-63b
Evolution of the Background Information Document  .

Cross-indexed Reference System to Highlight Environ-
mental Impact Portions of the Document  .,.-...
Summary of Test Results—Line A
Summary of Test Results--Line B
Summary of Test Results—Line C
Summary of Test Results—Line D
Summary of Test Results--Line E
Summary of Test Results—Line F
Summary of Test Results--Line G
 Summary  of Test  Results--Line  H
 Summary  of  Test  Results--Line  I
 Summary  of Test  Results—Line  J
 Summary of Test Results--Line K
Page

A-2


B-2

C-21
 to
C-44

C-45
 to
C-54

C-55
 to
C-66

C-67
 to
C-80

C-81
 to
C-92

C-93
 to
C-102

C-103
 to
C-104

C-105
 to
C-106

C-107
 to
C-118

C-119
'to
C-134

C-135
  to,
C-146
                                    XI 11

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Page
C-64a    Summary of Test Results—Line L	     C-147
 to                                                                   to
C-68b                                                                C-156

C-69     Summary of Visible Emissions—Line A	     0-157
 to                                                                   to
C-78                                                                 0-166

C-79     Summary of Visible Emissions—Line B	     0-167
 to                                                                   to
C-81                                             *                   C-169

C-82     Summary of Visible Emissions—Line E  .  ,  •	     0-170
 to                                                                   to
C-88                                                                 C-176

C-89     Summary of Visible Emissions—Line F	     C-177
 to                                                          .to
C-103                                                                C-191

C-104    Summary of Visible Emissions—Line G	     0-192
 to                                                                   to
C-106                                                                C-194

C-107    Summary of Visible Emissions—Line H	     C-195
 to                                                                   to
C-lll                                                                0-199

C-112    Summary of Visible Emissions—Line I	     C-200
 to                                                                   to
C-126                                                   -             C-214

C-127    Summary of Visible Emissions—Line.J  	     C-215
 to                                                                   to
C-141                                                                0-229

C-142    Summary of Visible Emissions—Line K	     0-230
 to                                                                   to  ,
C-159         .                                                       0-247

C-160    Summary of Visible Emissions—Line L	     C-248
 to                                                                   to
C-165                                                                C-253

D-l      Number of Runs	     D-6

E-l      Estimates of the Size of the Retrofit Market,  1970 to
         1991  	     E-3
                                   xiv

-------
Table

E-2



E-3


E-4



E-5
                       LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Estimates of the Demand for Wool Fiberglass for Thermal
Insulation of Residential  Structures Using Technical
Coefficients	

Actual Versus Predicted Values of Wool Fiberglass
Output, 1962 to 1980  	
Goldfarb Forecasts of Total Demand for Wool Fiberglass,
1980 to 1984, Using Technical Coefficients and Ad Hoc
Methods	

Output, Capacity, and Capacity Utilization, 1970 to
1980	
Page



E-5


E-9



E-ll


E-13
                                    xv

-------
                             LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

3-1      Growth in the Wool Fiberglass Industry 1971-1980 ....    3-6

3-2      Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing Process Diagram  	    3-9

3-3      Rotary Spin Process	    3-11

3-4      Flame Attenuation Process  	    3-13

3-5      Cut-Away Side View of Curing Oven and Cooling Section   .    3-15

3-6      Typical Material Balance for Rotary Spin Production
         Line	'.  .    3-17

4-1      Cut-Away Diagram Showing Internal Construction of a
         Typical Wet ESP	    4-4

4-2      Cross-Sectional Top View of a Typical Wet ESP	    4-5

4-3      Cross-Sectional Side View of a Typical Orifice
         Scrubber . . . . •	    4-10

4-4      Cross-Sectional Side View of a Typical Venturi
         Scrubber	    4-11

4-5      Venturi Scrubber Comparative Fractional Efficiency
         Curves	'.	    4-13

4-6      Theoretical Efficiency Curve for a Venturi Scrubber
         Illustrating Effect of Throat Velocity 	    4-15

4-7      Theoretical Efficiency Curve for Venturi Scrubber
         Illustrating Effect of Liquid-To-Gas  Ratios   	    4-16

4-8      High Velocity Air Filter	    4-18

4-9      HVAF Filter Media Filtration Efficiency as a  Function of
         Filter Face Velocity	    4-20

4-10     Typical Effect of Operating Temperature on Effectiveness
         of  Thermal  Incinerator for Destruction of Hydrocarbons
         and Carbon Monoxide	    4-21

4-11     Thermal Incinerator	•  •  •    4-23

4-12     Steps  Required for Successful Incineration of Dilute
         Fumes	    4-24
                                    xvi

-------
                   LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
6-1
6-2
9-1
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
c-n
C-12

Coupled Effects of Time and Temperature on Rate of
Pollutant Oxidation by Thermal Incineration . . . < . .
Total Particulate Emissions for Controlled Wool Fiber-
glass Insulation Manufacturing Lines 	
Total Phenol Emissions for Controlled Wool Fiberglass
Insulation Manufacturing Lines 	
Total Phenolic Compound Emissions for Controlled Wool
Insulation Manufacturing Lines 	
Total Formaldehyde Emissions for Controlled Wool
Insulation Manufacturing Lines 	
Schematic of a Rotary Spin Line Showing Gas Flows . . .
Schematic of a Flame Attenuation Line Showing Gas
Flows . . 	
Location of Wool Fiberglass Plants in the United
States . 	
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line A . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line B . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line C . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line D . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line E . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line F . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Lines G
and H 	 	 	
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line I . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line J . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line K . . .
Schematic Drawing of Sampling Locations for Line L . . .
Controlled Particulate Emission Levels by Line for Wool
Page
4-25
4-29
4-31
4-33
4-35
6-2
6-3
9-4
C-2
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-8
C-9
C-10
c-n
C-12
C-14
C-15

Fiberglass Manufacturing, Including Discarded Data .  .
C-l 6
                          xvi

-------
C-14



C-15



D-l

0-2

D-3
                       LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Controlled Phenol Emission Levels by Line for Wool
Fiberglass Manufacturing, Including Discarded Data . .

Controlled Phenolic Compounds Emission Levels by Line
for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing, Including Discarded
Data	

Controlled Formaldehyde Emission Levels by Line for
Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing, Including Discarded
Data	

Typical Phenol Calibration Curve ..... 	

Typical Standard Chromatogram  	

Typical Formaldehyde Calibration Curve ........
Page


C-17



C-18



C-19

D-31

D-3.5

D-39
                                   xv m

-------
                                T.   SUMMARY

1.1   REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
     Standards of performance for new stationary sources are developed
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.  7411), as amended.
Section 111 requires the establishment of standards of performance for
any new stationary source which ".  .  . causes, or contributes significantly
to,  air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare."  The Act requires standards of performance for such
sources to ". .  . reflect the degree of emission limitation and the
percentage reduction achievable through application of the best
technological system of continuous emission reduction which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, any nqnair
quality health and environmental impact, and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated." .The standards
apply only to stationary sources, the construction, modification, or
reconstruction of which starts after regulations are proposed in the
Federal Register.
     Regulatory alternatives were considered for wool fiberglass insulation
lines utilizing the rotary spin (RS) and the flame attenuation (FA)
forming processes.  These alternatives are presented in Chapter 6.  For
RS lines, Regulatory Alternative 1 would require no additional Federal
regulatory action.  Under this alternative, emissions from forming and
curing are controlled to comply with State regulations, and cooling
emissions are uncontrolled.  This alternative is considered to be the
baseline condition against which the impacts of the other alternatives
are compared.  Regulatory Alternative II represents additional control
of forming emissions over baseline, Alternative III represents additional
                                   1-1

-------
control of forming and curing emissions, and Alternative IV represents
additional control of forming, curing, and cooling emissions.
     For FA lines, Regulatory Alternative I (baseline) represents no
control of forming, curing, or cooling emissions.  Regulatory Alterna-
tives II, III, and IV represent control of curing emissions, curing and
cooling emissions, and forming emissions, respectively.  No growth is
projected for the FA segment of the industry.   Therefore, no environmental
or economic impacts for the fifth year after proposal were calculated
for the FA regulatory alternatives.
1.2  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
     The beneficial and adverse environmental  impacts associated with
each RS regulatory alternative are compared with the baseline in Tables 1-1
and 1-2.  The impacts for Alternatives II, III, and IV are based1on the
wet ESP control option in each case.   Standards of performance based on
either Alternatives II, III, or IV will result in a small-to-large
beneficial impact on air quality.  No impact on water quality or noise
levels will result from any of the alternatives.   A moderate-to-large
adverse impact on solid waste generation will  result from adoption of
Alternatives II, III, and IV.   Energy requirements will increase slightly
over baseline levels under Alternative II and will decrease significantly
under Alternatives III and IV.  A detailed analysis of the environmental
impacts is presented in Chapter 7.
1.3  ECONOMIC IMPACT
     The economic impacts of each regulatory alternative are presented
in Tables 1-1 and 1-2.  For Alternatives II, III, or IV, capital costs
for industry compliance with the proposed standard over the first 5 years
will increase by 5 to 7 percent over baseline capital expenditures.
Fifth-year annualized costs for industry compliance will increase only
slightly over baseline.
     The economic analysis indicates that the proposed standard  could
increase the price of wool fiberglass insulation approximately 1 percent.
This could increase the estimated cost to insulate a 139 m2 (1,500 ft2)
house from $1,496 to $1,510, an increase of $14.   The costs of emission
control equipment required by the alternatives are expected to have only
                                   1-2

-------



















OO
ZS
O
h— 4





Lj_
O
H-*
oo
H~ UJ
o >
-
O LU
1-4 h- 3=
rfEZ J \ -i
o < u.
Z 1-4
o o u_
0 1—
UJ UJ
a a:
a uj i—
z a:
< < z
Q. I— 1
< O '— >
H- O UJ
Z Z
LU c/5 1— 1
S LU 	 1
Z > UJ
O HH 00
o: I—  z -— /
z oc
LU LU
1—

CO
3)
O

^_






OJ
frt
e incre
4_)
V)
3E
^3
f--
O




c
0)
u
4J
Q-

£.
C
O
4J



i.
"S.
S







C
o

o
3
•o
0)
i-

c
o
U»

"s
UJ



•4J
C
u
t.
(U
a.



j.,

•^
U)
c
o




t-

-*v
s
01 J
Ql •""
CC 10
co «5f in

~ d o'
O O 0
o o o
o o o

CM «s- in
|«. r- t—

O CO r- .









§ § §
o o o


f— ^ PO
^— ^r in

vo ••— ^t*
n *a- fl-

co i— en

* ? 7"

q- o 0
f— CM O
r— CM
^ CM
i t


CM CO VO
r— CM CM
r— ' i—
I .1



o r^. co
00 O^ O^

o o o
O fO CO
^ (jo r*««
o CM CM
r~ **" • r~



§o o
in cri
-v *r in
Ol r- r-
i— »—




IJD r- CM
U3 CO , CO





O O O
O CO - GO


O CM CM





O O 0
q- LTI cn
tf *r m
IT =
«
1-1 « ""













oi



10
c
01
"re

>,
C
o

10
»™"
01
s.


u
ra
01
i-
0

tn
10
O)

<0
c
•a
c
to
X
u

4-J
(J
0)
01
•a
c
ro
s
•a

a>
01
c

Is
o
«J
0

>y)

01

01
£_
01
Ul

01

U
01
•a
••v^

y>
01
i-
u
c
'"
01
cz
UJ
10
1-3

-------
     TABLE 1-2.   MATRIX OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
                    FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES .
Regulatory Air
alternative impact
I
II
III
IV
Key: + =
0
+3**
+4**
+4**
Beneficial
Water
impact
0
0
0
0
impact.
Solid
waste
impact
0
-3**
-4**
-4**

Energy Noise
impact impact
0 0
_ 1 *** g
«~
+4'«*
0 = No impact.
Economic
impact
0
_!**
i
_1**
_]**

  - = Adverse impact.
  * = Short-term impact.
 ** = Long-term impact.
*** = Irreversible impact
1 = Negligible impact.
2 = Small impact.
3 = Moderate impact.
4 = Large impact.
                                1-4

-------
a negligible adverse impact on the wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing industry.   Detailed analyses of the costs and the economic
impacts are presented in Chapters 8 and 9.
                                   1-5

-------

-------
                             2.  INTRODUCTION

2.1  BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY FOR STANDARDS
     Before standards of performance are proposed as a Federal regulation,
air pollution control methods available to the affected industry and the
associated costs of installing and maintaining the control equipment are
examined in detail.  Various levels of control based on different
technologies and degrees of efficiency are expressed as regulatory
alternatives.  Each of these alternatives is studied by the EPA as a
prospective basis  for a standard.  The alternatives are investigated in
terms of their impacts on the economics and well-being of the industry,
the impacts on the national economy, and the impacts on the environment.
This document summarizes the information obtained through these studies
so that interested persons will  be able to see the  information considered
by the EPA  in the  development of the proposed standards.
     Standards of  performance for new  stationary sources  are.  established
under Section  111  of the Clean Air Act. (42. U.S.C. 74T1) as amended,
hereafter  referred to as the Act.  Section 111 directs the Administrator
to establish  standards  of  performance  for any category of new stationary
source of  air  pollution which ".  .  . causes,  or contributes significantly
to,  air pollution  which may  reasonably be anticipated to  endanger  public
health or  welfare."
     The  Act requires that standards of performance for  stationary
sources  reflect  "...  the degree  of emission limitation  and  the  percentage
reduction achievable through application of  the  best technological
 system of continuous emission  reduction which (taking  into  consideration
 the  cost of achieving such emission reduction,  any nonair quality health
 and  environmental  impact and energy requirements)  the  Administrator
 determines has been adequately  demonstrated."  The standards  apply only
                                   2-1

-------
to stationary sources, the construction or modification of which commences
after the standards are proposed in the Federal Register.
     The 1977 amendments to the Act altered or added numerous provisions
that apply to the process of establishing standards of performance.
Examples of the effects of the 1977 amendments are:
     1.  EPA is required to review the standards of performance every
4 years and, if appropriate, revise them.
     2.  EPA is authorized to promulgate a standard based on design,
equipment, work practice, or operational procedures when a standard
based on emission levels is not feasible.
     3.  The term "standards of performance" is redefined, and a new
term "technological system of continuous emission reduction" is defined.
The new definitions clarify that the control system must be continuous
and may include a low- or non-polluting process or operation.
     4.  The time, between the proposal and promulgation of a standard
under Section 111 of the Act may be extended to 6 months.
     Standards of performance, by themselves, do not guarantee protection
of health or welfare because they are not designed to achieve any  specific
air quality levels.  Rather, they are designed to reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through application of the best adequately
demonstrated technological system of continuous emission reduction,
taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction,
any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements.
     Congress had several reasons for including these requirements.
First, standards having a degree of uniformity are needed to avoid
situations where some States may attract industries by relaxing standards
relative to other States.  Second, stringent standards enhance the
potential for long-term growth.  Third,  stringent standards may help
achieve long-term cost savings by avoiding the need for more expensive
retrofitting when pollution ceilings may be reduced in the future.
Fourth, certain types of standards for coal-burning sources can adversely
affect the coal market by driving up the price of  low-sulfur coal  or by
effectively excluding certain coals from the reserve base due to their
high untreated pollution potentials.  Congress does not  intend that new
                                   2-2

-------
source performance standards contribute to these problems.   Fifth, the
standard-setting process should create incentives for improving technology.
     Promulgation of standards of performance does not prevent State or
local agencies from adopting more stringent emission limitations for the
same sources.  States are free under Section 116 of the Act to establish
even more stringent emission limits than those established under
Section 111 or than those necessary to attain or maintain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Section 110.  Thus, new
sources may in some cases be subject to State limitations that are more
stringent than standards of performance under Section 111, and prospective
owners and operators of new sources should be aware of this possibility
in planning for such facilities.
     A similar situation may arise when a major emitting facility is to
be constructed in a geographic area that falls under the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality provisions of Part C of the
Act.  These provisions  require, among other things, that major emitting
facilities to be constructed in such areas are to be subject to best
available control technology.  The term "best available control technology"
(BACT), as defined  in the Act, means
      ... an emission  limitation based on the maximum degree of
      reduction of each  pollutant subject to regulation under this
      Act emitted  from or which results from any major emitting
      facility,.which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case
      basis,  taking  into account energy, environmental, and economic
      impacts  and  other  costs,  determines  is achievable  for such
      facility through application of production processes and avail-
      able  methods,  systems,  and techniques,  including fuel cleaning
      or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for
      control  of  each such pollutant.   In  no event shall application
      of "best available control technology"  result  in emissions of
      any pollutants which will  exceed  the  emissions allowed  by  any
      applicable  standard established pursuant to  Sections  111 or  112
      of this Act.   (Section 169(3))
      Although standards of  performance are normally  structured  in terms
 of numerical  emission  limits where  feasible,  alternative  approaches are
 sometimes  necessary.   In  some cases,  physical measurement  of emissions
 from a new source may  be  impractical  or exorbitantly  expensive.
 Section  lll(h)  provides that the  Administrator  may  promulgate a design
 or equipment standard  in  those cases  where it is  not  feasible to  prescribe
                                   2-3

-------
or enforce a standard of performance.   For example, emissions of hydro-
carbons from storage vessels for petroleum liquids are greatest during
tank filling.  The nature of the emissions (i.e., high concentrations
for short periods during filling and low concentrations for longer
periods during storage) and the configuration of storage tanks make
direct emission measurement impractical.  Therefore, a more practical
approach to standards of performance for storage vessels has been equipment.
specification.
     In addition, under Section lll(j) the Administrator may, with the
consent of the Governor of the State in which a source is to be located,
grant a waiver of compliance to permit the source to use an innovative
technological system or systems of continuous emission reduction.  In
order to grant the waiver, the Administrator must find that:  (1) the
proposed system has not been adequately demonstrated; (2) the proposed
system will operate effectively and there is a substantial likelihood
that the system will achieve greater emission reductions than the otherwise
applicable standards require or at least an equivalent reduction at
lower economic, energy, or nonair quality environmental cost; (3) the
proposed system will not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to
public health, welfare, or safety; and  (4) the waiver when combined with
other similar waivers, will not exceed  the number necessary to achieve
conditions (2) and (3) above.  A waiver may have conditions attached to
ensure the source will not prevent attainment of any NAAQS.  Any such
condition will be treated as a performance standard.  Finally, waivers
have definite end dates and may be terminated earlier if the conditions
are not met  or if the system fails to perform as expected.  In such a
case, the source may be given up to 3 years to meet the standards and a
mandatory compliance schedule will be imposed.
2.2  SELECTION OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONARY SOURCES
     Section  111 of the Act directs the Administrator to list categories
of stationary sources.  The Administrator ".  . . shall include a category
of sources in such list if  in his judgment it causes, or contributes
significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
                                   2-4

-------
endanger public health or welfare."  Proposal and promulgation of standards
of performance are to follow.
     Since passage of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, considerable
attention has been given to the development of an approach for assigning
priorities to various source categories.  The approach specifies areas
of  interest by considering the broad strategy of the Agency  for imple-
menting  the Clean Air Act.   Often, these  areas are  pollutants that  are
emitted  by stationary sources  rather than the stationary  sources
themselves.   Source  categories, that emit  these pollutants were  evaluated
and ranked considering  such  factors as:  (1)  the  level  of  emission  control
 (if any) already required by State regulations;  (2) estimated levels  of
 control  that might be required from standards  of performance for  the
 source category; (3) projections of growth  and replacement  of existing
 facilities  for the source category; and (4) the  estimated incremental
 amount of air pollution that could be prevented in a preselected future
 year by standards of performance for the source category.  Sources for
 which new source performance standards were promulgated  or under
 development during  1977, or earlier, were selected using these criteria.
      The Act amendments of August 1977 establish specific criteria to  be
 used  in determining priorities for all source categories not yet listed
 by the  EPA.  These  are:  (1) the  quantity of air pollutant emissions
 which each  such category will emit, or will be  designed  to  emit;  (2) the
 extent  to which each such pollutant may  reasonably be anticipated  to
 endanger public health or welfare; and  (3)  the  mobility  and competitive
  nature  of each  such category  of sources  and the consequent  need  for
  nationally  applicable  new source standards of performance.
       The Administrator is to promulgate standards for these categories
  according to the schedule referred to earlier.
       In some cases, it may not be immediately feasible to  develop standards
  for a source category with a high priority.  This might happen if a
  program of research is needed to develop control techniques or if techniques
  for sampling and measuring emissions require refinement.   In the developing
  of standards,  differences  in the time required to complete the necessary
  investigation  for  different  source categories must also be considered.
  For  example, substantially more time .may  be necessary if .numerous pollutants
                                     2-5

-------
must be investigated from a single source category.  Further, even late
in the development process the schedule for completion of a standard may
change.  For example, inability to obtain emission data from well-controlled
sources in time to pursue the development process  in a systematic fashion
may force a change in scheduling.  Nevertheless, priority ranking is,
and will continue to be, used to establish the order in which projects
are initiated and resources assigned.
     After the source category has been chosen, the types of facilities
within the source category to which the standard will apply must be
determined.  A source category may have several facilities that cause
air pollution, and emissions from these facilities may vary according to
magnitude and control cost.  Economic studies of the source category and
of applicable control technology may show that air pollution control is
better served by applying standards to the more severe pollution sources.
For this reason, and because there is no adequately demonstrated system  .
for controlling emissions from certain facilities, standards often do
not apply to all facilities at a source.  For the  same reasons, the
standards may not apply to all air pollutants emitted.  Thus, although a
source category may be selected to be covered by standards of performance,
not all pollutants or facilities within that source category may be
covered by the standards.
2.3  PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     Standards of performance must:  (1) realistically reflect best
demonstrated control practice; (2) adequately consider the cost, the
                                     T.
nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and the energy require-
ments of such control; (3) be applicable to existing sources that are
modified or reconstructed as well as to new installations; and (4) meet
these conditions for all variations  of operating conditions being considered
anywhere in the country.
     The objective of a program  for  development of standards is to
identify the best technological  system of continuous emission reduction
that has been adequately demonstrated.  The standard-setting process
involves three principal phases  of activity;  (1)  information gathering;
                                   2-6

-------
(2) analysis of the information; and (3) development of the standard of
performance.
     During the information gathering phase, industries are questioned
through telephone surveys, letters of inquiry, and plant visits by EPA
representatives.  Information is also gathered from other sources,
including a literature search.  Based on the information acquired about
the industry, the EPA selects certain plants at which emission tests are
conducted to provide reliable data that characterize the pollutant
emissions from well-controlTed existing facilities.
     In the second phase of a project, the information about the industry
and the pollutants emitted is used in analytical studies.  Hypothetical
"model plants" are defined to provide a common basis for analysis.  The
model plant definitions, national pollutant emission data, and existing
State regulations governing emissions from the source category are then
used in establishing "regulatory alternatives."  These regulatory
alternatives are essentially different levels of emission control.
     The EPA conducts studies to determine the impact of each regulatory
alternative on the economics of the industry and on the national economy,
on the environment, and on energy consumption.  From several alternatives',
the EPA selects the single most plausible regulatory alternative as the
basis for standards of performance for the source category under study.
     In the third phase of a project, the selected regulatory alternative
is translated into performance standards, which, in turn, are written  in
the form of a Federal regulation.  The Federal regulation, when 'applied
to newly constructed plants, will limit emissions to the levels indicated
in the selected regulatory alternative.
     As early as is practical in each standard-setting project, EPA
representatives discuss the possibilities of a standard and the form it
might take with members of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee.  Industry representatives and other interested
parties also participate  in these meetings.
     The information acquired in the project is summarized in the background
information document (BID).  The BID, the proposed standard, and a
preamble explaining the standard are widely circulated to the industry
being considered for control, environmental groups, other government
                                  2-7

-------
agencies, and offices within the EPA.  Through this extensive review
process, the points of view of expert reviewers are taken into consideration
as changes are made to the documentation.
     A "proposal package" is assembled and sent through the offices of
EPA assistant administrators for concurrence before the proposed standard
is officially endorsed by the EPA Administrator.  After being approved
by the EPA Administrator, the preamble and the proposed regulation are
published in the Federal Register.
     As part of the Federal Register announcement of the proposed
regulation, the public is invited to participate in the standard-setting
process.  The EPA invites written comments on the proposal and also
holds a public hearing to discuss the proposed standard with interested
parties.  All public comments are summarized and incorporated into a
second volume of the BID.  All information reviewed and generated in
studies in support of the standard of performance is available to the
public in a "docket" on file in Washington, D.C.
     Comments from the public are evaluated, and the standard of performance
may be altered in response to the comments.
     The significant comments and the EPA's position on the issues
raised are included in the "preamble" of a promulgation package, which
also contains the draft of the final regulation.  The regulation is then
subjected to another round of review and refinement until it is approved
by the EPA Administrator.  After the Administrator signs the regulation,
it is published as a "final rule" in the Federal Register.
2.4  CONSIDERATION OF COSTS
     Section 317 of the Act requires an economic impact assessment with
respect to any standard of performance established under Section 111 of
the Act.  The assessment is required to contain an analysis of:  (1) the
costs of compliance with the regulation, including the extent to which
the cost of compliance varies depending on the effective date of the
regulation and the development of less expensive or more efficient
methods of compliance; (2) the potential inflationary and recessionary
effects of the regulation; (3) the effects the regulation might have on
small business with respect to competition; (4) the effects of the
regulation on consumer costs; and (5) the effects of the regulation on
                                  2-8

-------
energy use.   Section 317 requires that the economic impact assessment be
as extensive as practicable.
     The economic impact of a proposed standard upon an industry is
usually addressed both in absolute terms and by comparison with the
control costs that would be incurred as a result of compliance with
typical, existing State control regulations.  An incremental approach is
taken because both new and existing plants would be required to comply
with State regulations in the absence of a Federal standard of perfor-
mance.  This approach requires a detailed analysis of the economic
impact of the cost differential that would exist between a proposed
standard of performance and the typical State standard.
   .  Air pollutant emissions may cause water pollution problems, and
captured potential air pollutants may pose a solid waste disposal problem.
The total environmental impact of an emission source must, therefore, be
analyzed and the costs determined whenever possible.
     A thorough study of the profitability and price-setting mechanisms
of the industry is essential to the analysis so that an accurate estimate
of potential adverse economic  impacts can be made for proposed standards.
It is also essential to know the capital requirements for pollution
control systems already placed on plants so that the additional capital
requirements necessitated by these Federal standards can be placed in
proper perspective.  Finally,  it is necessary to assess the availability
of capital to provide the additional control equipment needed to meet
the standards of performance.
2.5   CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
      Section 102(2)(C)  of the  National  Environmental Policy Act  (NEPA)
of 1969 requires Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental
impact  statements on proposals for legislation and  other major  Federal
actions significantly affecting  the quality of the  human environment.
The objective  of NEPA is to build into  the  decision-making  process of
Federal agencies a  careful  consideration of all environmental aspects of
proposed  actions.
      In a number of  legal challenges to standards  of performances  for
various  industries,  the United States  Court of Appeals  for  the  District
of Columbia  Circuit  has held that environmental impact  statements  need
                                   2-9

-------
not be prepared by the Agency for proposed actions under Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act.  Essentially, the Court of Appeals has determined
that the best system of emission reduction requires the Administrator to
take into account counterproductive environmental effects of proposed
standards, as well as economic costs to the industry.  On this basis,
therefore, the Courts established a narrow exemption from NEPA for EPA
determinations under Section 111.
     In addition to these judicial determinations, the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA) of 1974 (PL-93-319) specifically
exempted proposed actions under the Clean Air Act from NEPA requirements.
According to Section 7(c)(l), "No action taken under the Clean Air Act
shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969."  (15 U.S.C. 793(c)(l))
     Nevertheless, the Agency has concluded that the preparation of
environmental impact statements could have beneficial effects on certain
regulatory actions.  Consequently, although not legally required to do
so by Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, the EPA has adopted a policy requiring that
environmental impact statements be prepared for various regulatory
actions, including standards of performance developed under Section 111
of the Act.  This voluntary preparation of environmental impact statements,
however, in no way legally subjects the Agency to NEPA requirements.
     To implement this policy, a separate section is included in this
document which is devoted solely to an analysis of the potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed standards.  Both
adverse and beneficial impacts in such areas as air and water pollution,
increased solid waste disposal, and increased energy consumption are
discussed.
2.6  IMPACT ON EXISTING SOURCES
     Section 111 of the Act defines a new source as ".  . .  any stationary
source, the construction or modification of which is commenced ..."
after the proposed standards are published.   An existing source is
redefined as a new source if "modified" or "reconstructed" as defined
in amendments to the General Provisions (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A),
                                  2-10

-------
which were promulgated in the Federal Register on December 16, 1975
(40 FR 58416).
     Promulgation of standards of performance requires States to establish
standards of performance for existing sources in the same industry under
Section 111(d) of the Act if the standard for new sources limits emissions
of a designated pollutant (i.e., a pollutant for which air quality
.criteria have not been issued under Section 108 or which has not been
listed as a hazardous pollutant under Section 112).  If a State does not
act, the EPA must establish such standards.  General procedures for control
of existing sources under Section lll(d) were promulgated on
November 17, 1975, as Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60 (40 FR 53340).
2.7  REVISION OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     Congress was aware that the level of air pollution control achievable
by any industry may improve with technological advances.  Accordingly,
Section 111 of the Act provides that the Administrator ". .  . shall, at
least every 4 years, review and, if appropriate, revise , .  ." the
standards.  Revisions are made to ensure that the standards  continue to
reflect the best systems that become available in the future.  Such
revisions will not be retroactive but will apply to stationary .sources
constructed or modified after the proposal of the revised standards.
                                   2-11

-------

-------
                          3.   PROCESS DESCRIPTION

3.1  GENERAL
3.1.1  Industry Description
     Wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing is a source category under
the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 3296, "Mineral Wool."1
In this process, molten glass is formed into fibers that are bonded with
an organic resin, thus creating a wool-like material that is used as
thermal or acoustical insulation.
     Wool fiberglass insulation is produced by two processes:  flame
attenuation (FA) and rotary spin (RS).  In the FA process, continuous
threads of glass are formed as molten glass flows by gravity from a
furnace.   These threads are then attenuated (i.e., stretched to the point
of breaking) with direct flames and high velocity air to form fibers.  In
the RS process, centrifugal force causes molten glass to pass through
small orifices in a spinner to form fibers that are subsequently broken
into pieces by jets of air.  The FA process was the original method for
forming fibers but contributed less than 20 percent to the total industry
production in 1980.2  The RS process was developed in the 1950's and
dominates the industry today.
     Wool fiberglass is currently produced in the United States by five
companies.  These companies operate 25 plants located in 11 States
(Table 3-1).  One company produces over 50 percent of all wool fiberglass
insulation.3
     Wool fiberglass is used for building (residential and nonresidential)
insulation, pipe insulation, ventilation ducts, appliance and equipment
insulation, automotive insulation, and acoustical ceiling insulation.
Table 3-2 shows the market share of these products for 1980.  The various
                                   3-1

-------
TABLE 3-1.  LOCATION OF WOOL FIBERGLASS
    INSULATION MANUFACTURING PLANTS
State
California
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
West Virginia
Number of
plants
4
3
2
3
1
3
1
4
1
2
1
                     3-2

-------
         TABLE 3-2.   ESTIMATES OF THE DEMAND FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS
                      INSULATION IN 1980 BY END USE4
Demand
End use
Structural
Residential
New houses
Mobile homes
Retrof i t
Total residential
Nonresidential3
Total structural
Nonstructural
Pipe insulation
Air handling
Other
Total nonstructural
Total
10b Mg

3.20
0.54
3.61
7.35
1.98
9.33
0.80
0.59
1.07
2.46.
11.79
10s3 tons

3.53
0.60
3.98
8.11
2.18
10.29
0.88
0.65
1.18
2.71
13.00
Percent of
total demand

27.2
4.6
30.6
62.4
16.8
79.2
si?'
5.0
9.1
20.8
100.00
Includes nonresidential  use of roof insulation.
                                   3-3

-------
products differ primarily in thickness, density,  length,  width,  backing,
fiber diameter, and the composition of the binder (organic compounds used
to hold the fibers together).  Table 3-3 presents ranges  of values for
fiber diameter, product density, and maximum temperature  limits.
3,1.2  Industry Growth
     Growth in wool fiberglass production from 1971 to 1980 is shown in
Figure 3-1.  Growth in the fiberglass insulation market was slow until
the 1970's.  Between 1971 and 1979, residential insulation demand increased
as a result of the 1971 Federal Housing Administration minimum property
standards, the fuel shortage of 1973 and 1974, and the 1977 Federal tax
incentives.  The wool fiberglass industry responded to the demand by
increasing total insulation production from approximately 0.9 xlO6 mega-
grams per year (Mg/yr) (1.0 xlO6 tons per year [tons/yr]) in 1974 to
1.3 xlO6 Mg/yr (1.5 xlO6 tons/yr) in 1979.5,6  However, the recent
recession and poor economic conditions have caused insulation production to
decrease to 1.2 xlO6 Mg/yr (1.4 xlO6 tons/yr) in 1980.5
     Production capacities for wool fiberglass grew rapidly during the
1970's; new plants were built in California and Georgia, and lines were
added to existing plants in Texas, New York, and Indiana.  The utilization
of production capacity in the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry  in  1980
was estimated to be about 72 percent.7  Economic conditions since  1980  have
reduced demand for fiberglass and, thus, reduced utilization of fiberglass
manufacturing  capacity.
     From  1964 to  1974, the  average price of fiberglass  ranged from 53  to
73 cents per  kilogram  (kg)  (24  to  33 cents per pound  [lb]).5,8  The price
in 1980 was $1.19  per  kg ($0.54 per  lb).6
     In the residential building market, wool  fiberglass  insulation is
used in new homes, retrofitting, and mobile homes.  These  uses account
for  over half of  the total wool fiberglass production.4  The  decrease in
the  number of new houses constructed every year  from  1979  to  1981  has
resulted  in a decreased  demand  for wool  fiberglass insulation.9,10 The
number  of  new housing  units  built  in  1982  is  projected to  be  about
1.2  million,  half that of  the  peak level  of 2.4  million  in 1972.9,11
However,  population  growth in  the  prime age categories for household
formation  indicates  a  potential demand for new housing.18   The  home
                                    3-4

-------
TABLE 3-3.  RANGE OF PROPERTIES OF WOOL FIBERGLASS INSULATION
                      FOR VARIOUS USES12-16
        Property
       Range
   Fiber diameter
0.001-0.OT6 mm
(0.00004-0.0006 in.)
   Density of end product
0.0048-0.13 g/cm3
(0.3-8.0 1b/ft3)
                          .-4.3
   Maximum temperature limit
96°-454°C
(205°-850°F)
   aMaximum surface temperature in contact with
    insulation under most favorable conditions.
    There is no low temperature limitation on
    fiberglass products.
                              3-5

-------
 2,500-
11,500-
j1,000•
   500.
      1970
1972
1974
1976
                                                1978
                                                              BUILDING
                                                              INSULATION
                                                              INDUSTRIAL AND
                                                              INSULATION
                                                              PIPE INSULATION
1980
Figure 3-1.   Growth in  the wool  fiberglass  industry 1971-1980.'  5>6,8,17
                                      3-6

-------
building outlook for the next 5 years is dependent on what changes
occur in the inflation rate, long-term interest rates, and general economic
growth.
     Residential retrofitting, primarily in response to high energy
costs, has become a significant source of demand for wool fiberglass
insulation.19  One estimate concludes that as of 1980 there were at least
20 million units likely to add insulation and that demand would level off
in 1983.20
     The mobile home sector has been a growing market for insulation.21
Although mobile home shipments have decreased since the peak levels of
1972 and 1973, the mobile home percentage of the total housing market has
been increasing since 1979 due to the decrease in traditional housing
starts.22  With increased economic growth, greater access to mortgage
financing, and an easing of restrictive zoning laws, mobile home shipments
may increase during the next 5 years at an average annual rate of 5 to
10 percent.22,23
     For the nonresidential building wall insulation market, wool fiberglass
insulation competes with such products as urethane, styrene, and calcium
silicate.24  Roughly one-fifth of the total wool fiberglass insulation
production is used in nonresidential buildings as roof, wall, and ventilation
duct insulation.  Total nonresidential insulation demand began to decrease
in 1979.25  Over the long term, office building and other private
nonresidential construction is expected to increase substantially.26
     Shipments of nonbuilding wool fiberglass insulation were steady from
1976 to 1980 and accounted  for roughly 20 percent of the total wool
fiberglass insulation production in those years.5,6,17  Wool fiberglass
meets approximately 50 percent of the appliance insulation market demand
and about 43 percent of the pipe insulation market.25
     Because building insulation is the main product of the wool  fiberglass
insulation industry, demand will increase when the construction  industry,
and particularly the housing  industry, recovers from its current  slump.""'
The wool fiberglass insulation industry will be hesitant to undertake
significant capacity expansion until demand strains current capacity.3,27
                                    3-7

-------
3.2  PROCESSES AND THEIR EMISSIONS
3.2.1  Process Description
     3.2.1.1  General.  A wool fiberglass production  line consists  of the
following processes:   (1) preparation of molten glass,  (2)  formation of
fibers into a wool fiberglass mat,  (3) curing the binder-coated  fiberglass
mat, (4) cooling the mat, and (5) backing, cutting, and packaging
(Figure 3-2).  The mat is formed on  a conveyor, which then  continues through
the subsequent steps.   Forming, curing, and cooling are the processes
considered in this document.  These  three processes typically  require about
60 meters (m) (200 feet [ft]) of the production conveyor.   Fiberglass
plants typically contain various sizes and types of production lines.
     Two methods of forming  fibers  are used by the industry.   In the RS
,process, centrifugal force causes molten glass to flow  through small holes
in the wall of a rapidly rotating cylinder.  In the FA  process,  molten glass
flows by gravity from  a furnace to  form threads that  are then  attenuated
(stretched to the point of breaking) with air and/or  flame.
     After the fibers  are formed, they are sprayed with a binder and
collected as a mat on  a moving conveyor.  The conveyor  carries the  newly
formed mat through an  oven for curing of the thermosetting  resin and then
through a cooling section.   (Some products do not require curing and/or
cooling.)  The cooled  mat remains on the conveyor for trimming of the uneven
edges.  A backing is then applied with an adhesive to form  a vapor  barrier.
The type of backing used depends on  the product.  The mat-is then cut into
desired widths and lengths and packaged.  The trimmed edge  waste (^8 percent
of final product), along with fibrous dust that develops during  the cutting
and packaging operations, is collected by a cyclone and diverted to a hammer
mill to be chopped into a blowing wool product (loose insulation) or is
recycled to the forming section and used as an admix.28-32
     The air flow rates for  wool fiberglass production  lines vary with
company practice, product, and line size.  For RS lines, the greatest vari-
ation in air flow rates is from company to company.   Typically,  more process
air is used to manufacture light density products than  is used to manufacture
heavy density products.33  In response to the historical increase in energy
costs, newer lines typically use less process air than  older lines.33
                                    3-8

-------
     3.2.1.2  Forming
     3.2.1.2.1  Rotary spin.  The RS process is depicted in Figure 3-3.
A regulated flow of molten glass from a melting furnace enters the center of
a rotating spinner.  There is a linear arrangement of from 2 to 12 spinners
on a single fiberglass line.  The total amount of glass entering all the
spinners on one line (glass pull rate) can range from 0.9 to 5.4 Mg/h  (1 to
6 tons/h).34-37  Centrifugal action forces the molten glass onto the inner
wall of the spinner and through hundreds of small orifices in the spinner
wall to form glass threads.  As the threads of molten glass exit the spinner,
a high velocity air jet or a mixture of air and natural gas flame forces the
threads downward.  This process attenuates the threads to produce glass
fibers.
     After the fibers are formed, they are sprayed with the binder.  The
binder spray ring is usually attached to an open cylinder or "bucket"  below
each spinner (Figure 3-3).  A water overspray sometimes precedes the binder
sprays to cool the glass and minimize volatilization and early polymeriza-
tion of the binder.38  The purpose of the binder is to hold the fibers
together and its composition varies with product type.  Typically, the
binder consists of a solution of phenol-formaldehyde resin, water, urea,
lignin, si lane, and ammonia.  Coloring agents may be added.  Most companies
                                                              /*
purchase the phenol-formaldehyde resin at 50 to 55 percent solids concen--
tration, store it at the plant, and mix it with the other ingredients  as
needed.  The resin dilution operation can be a batch or continuous process.
In the batch process, the resin is diluted with water in vented mixing tanks
and then stored for use.  The continuous mixing process is a closed system
where the binder is diluted automatically on an as-needed basis.
     The fiberglass is pulled onto a conveyor directly below the spinners
by suction air from fans  located under the conveyor.  The forming air  flow
rates range from 566 to 5,660 cubic meters per minute (m3/min) (20,000 to
200,000 actual cubic feet per minute [acfm]).39  The air flow rate depends
on company practice, the product being made, and the size of the line.
Typically, the air flow rate increases with increasing line size.
     The fibers collect on  the  conveyor to form a fiberglass mat.  Each
spinner contributes spun  glass  to the mat, causing the mat to increase in
thickness as  it travels through the forming section (Figure 3-3).  The
                                    3-10

-------
                 LU

                 O

                 CD
                 O
                                                  V)
                                                  (SI
                                                  
-------
thickness of the uncured fiberglass mat is controlled by the glass pull
rate and the conveyor speed.  To produce different products, mat thickness
is usually altered by adjusting the conveyor speed, which ranges from 23
to 116 centimeters per second (cm/s) (45 to 228 feet per minute
[ft/min]).40-43  However, glass pull rate can be altered by changing the
number of spinners in operation.  The final product thickness is achieved
by passing the mat between adjustable rollers immediately preceding the
curing oven.
     The quantity of binder solids sprayed onto the glass fibers is
governed by the type of product being manufactured.  Residential insulation
is approximately 4 percent binder by weight, whereas roofing and appliance
insulation are up to 25 percent binder by weight.  Typically, about
70 percent of the binder applied to the fiberglass remains on the product
(referred to as binder application efficiency); the rest is exhausted
with the forming or curing oven air or remains on the conveyor.44  Quality
control checks are routinely performed by plant personnel to determine
the "loss on ignition" (LOI) of the product.  The LOI check ensures that
the correct weight percent of binder is present in the product.  To
determine the LOI, a sample of the product  is weighed, ignited  and dried
to remove the binder, and reweighed.45
     A process variation has been patented  by one company and consists  of
recirculating air within the forming section.46,47  Recirculation reportedly
decreases the total air.flow rate into pollution control devices and,
thus, decreases the size requirements for the air ducts, fans,  and air
pollution control equipment.
      3.2.1.2.2  Flame attenuation.  The FA  process  is depicted  in Figure  3-4.
Molten glass flows by gravity  from  the melting pots.  Typically, there
are 6 to 28 pots per line.  The  strands formed from the  pots  are directed
by pinch rollers immediately below.  Following the  pinch rollers, a  high
velocity, high temperature  mixture  of air  and gas  flame  impinges  upon  the
fibers at a 90° angle.  The gas  flame/air  stream combination  attenuates
the fibers  and breaks them  into  pieces.   After the  fibers  are  formed,
they  are sprayed with the binder.   The  binder composition  used  in the  FA
process  is  similar to that  used in  the  RS  process.48-51
                                    3-12
-------
                                                                              0)
                                                                              u
                                                                              O

                                                                              Q.

                                                                              c
                                                                              O
                                                                              
   U3
   z
t/1 i—c
00 I— OO
«=C —1 I—
_J LU O
tD S Q-
                              3-13
-------
     Mr, at a flow rate ranging from 2,830 to 5,094 mVmin (100,000 to
180,000 acfm), forces the fibers downward onto the continuously moving   .
conveyor.39  The air flow rate depends on the product being made, the
size of the line, and company practice.  The thickness of the collected
mat depends on the glass pull rate and the speed of the conveyor.  The
glass pull rate can be changed by changing the number of melting pots in
operation on the line.  The final product thickness is achieved by passing
the mat between adjustable rollers immediately preceding the curing oven.
     3.2.1.3  Curing.  After the mat is formed (by either the RS or FA
process), it proceeds on the conveyor to the curing oven (see Figure 3-5).
Rollers located immediately before the oven compress the fiberglass mat
to the desired final thickness.  The clearance between the rollers can be
adjusted for different products.
     The curing oven drives off the moisture remaining on the fibers and
sets the binder.  An oven usually has from four to seven zones.  The
temperature of the oven.varies for each product and ranges from approxi-
mately 175° to 315°C (350° to 600°F).42,52-54  The temperature within'
each zone may also be varied depending on the product.  Fans are used to
draw hot air through the mat within each zone.  The hot air may be recycled
within each zone to conserve energy.  The total air flow exiting the oven
ranges from 85 to 1,415 m3/min (3,000 to 50,000 acfm) for the RS process
and from 283 to 708 m3/min (10,000 to 25,000 acfm) for the FA process.39
The air flow rate depends on the product being made and company practice.
Residence time in the oven is controlled by the speed of the conveyor and
varies with the type of product being produced.
     In the production of pipe insulation, the uncured fiberglass mat is
cut to a specific length, wrapped around a cylindrical mold called a
mandrel, and then cured in either a pipe press or a curing oven.  In the
pipe press operation, mandrels are inserted into perforated casings
within the pipe press in an automated or manual process.  Air at tempera-
tures ranging from 135° to 425°C (275° to 800°F) is forced through the
casing in a pulse to cure the fiberglass mat on the mandrel.54,55
Alternatively, in a continuous curing process for pipe insulation, the
fiberglass-wrapped mandrels are transported by a conveyor through a
typical curing oven.
                                   3-14
-------
                                                        C
                                                        O
                                                         O
                                                         
3-15
-------
     3.2.1.4  Cooling.  After the mat has been cured in the curing oven,
it may be conveyed to a cooling section where ambient air is drawn down
through the mat.  Cooling eliminates "hot spots" in the product that can
cause fires and prevents overheating of the adhesive, which can cause the
backing material to peel off.  The RS cooling air flow rates range from  .
8.5 to 679 mVmin (300 to 24,000 acfrn) while the cooling air flow rate
for FA is about 283 m3/min (10,000 acfm).39  The air flows depend on the
product and company practice.
3.2.2  Material Balance                                                     .
     Figure 3-6 is a schematic diagram of a typical material balance for
an RS production line.  The material balance is based on industry data and
measured emission data.56  Industry data show that a representative material
input rate into forming is three times the production rate, x-  It follows
that the losses from forming, curing, and cooling are 2x,  Emission test
data show that the average ratio of particulate emissions from forming to
particulate emissions from curing is approximately 12:1 and that losses
from cooling may be neglected without loss of accuracy.  Assuming that
both water and particulate matter are lost from forming and curing in the
same ratio (12:1), losses from forming are 1.8x, and the material input
rate into the curing oven is 1.2x-
     Insufficient data are available to estimate a material balance for
FA lines to the extent shown for RS lines.  Industry data show, however,
that the material input rate into forming is higher for FA lines than for
RS lines and is approximately four times the production rate, x-
3.2.3  Process Emissions
     The three emission sources considered in this document, for both RS
and FA production lines, are the forming, curing, and cooling sections.
Emissions are caused by (1)  vaporization of the volatile compounds from
the binder in the forming, curing, and cooling sections and (2) entrainment
of fiberglass particles and  droplets of binder in the process air stream.
The gaseous emissions result from evaporation of the binder and consist
of hydrocarbons, including phenol and formaldehyde.  The particulate  •
emissions are sticky and consist of binder droplets, glass fibers, and
liquid droplets that form when some of the gaseous compounds are cooled
and condensed in the ducts.
                                   3-16
-------
                                      

                                       O
                                       i-
                                       o
                                       d)
                                       u
                                       c
C3
                                       O)
                                      +J
                                       ra
                                       fa
                                       o
                                       I
                                      on
                                       3
                                       CJ)
   3-17
-------
     For a given wool fiberglass line, emission rates may be different
for different products.   Four product groups have been identified that
are representative of the range of emission rates and emission control-
lability expected to occur in the wool fiberglass industry.57  These four
product groups are building insulation, pipe insulation, ductboard, and
heavy density insulation.  The manufacturing processes for these product
groups involve differences in parameters such as the solids content of
the binder, the binder content of the finished'mat (LOI), and the thickness
and density of the mat, all of which cause differences in emission
rates.44,58,59
     It should be noted that most uncontrolled emissions reported in this
document were measured after the emissions had been reduced by process
modifications or after the gas stream had passed through low pressure
drop scrubbers, cyclones, or water sprays in the ductwork.  Measurement
of totally uncontrolled emissions from wool fiberglass insulation manu-
facturing lines is generally not possible.  This is because process
modifications and prohibitive ductwork configurations are used widely in
this industry.
     Nine RS and three FA lines were tested during the production of six
different products.  The six products were:  (1) R-ll building insulation,
(2) R-19 building insulation, (3) pipe insulation, (4) air ductboard,
(5) heavy density insulation, and (6) flexible duct.  A summary of
uncontrolled emissions for particulate matter, phenol, phenolic compounds,
and formaldehyde is  shown in Tables 3-4 to 3-7 for both RS and FA production
lines.  The emissions are given for both the individual sections of the
line (forming, curing, and cooling) as we'll as for the total line.
     The product density and LOI for  each product tested are presented in
Table 3-8 and range  from 8.2 to 118.5  kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3)
(0.5 to 7.4 pounds per cubic foot [lb/ft3]) and from 3.9 to  18 percent,
respectively.  The process conditions  (such as production rate, temperature,
and air flow  rates)  during these tests are deemed confidential by the
manufacturers and are not reported  in Table 3-8.  The operating conditions
encountered during the tests are considered representative of normal
operation  for the production lines  that were tested.60-64
     3.2.3.1  Emissions  From Forming.  Average uncontrolled  particulate
emissions  from the .forming section  on eight RS and three  FA  lines  ranged
                                    3-18
-------












f»
1

(O

IB
S
o
^F*
A.*
^~
to
to

s
LU

LU

^^

3
l— 1
OS
-
Q£




<-O



•3-
, i
CO
LU
_l
03
f2





















u>
£Z
O
S
'e
0)
_
13
O
C
s
a

3)
£
-x.
0)
I— _K


C




c

2
CO

Q
S

ja
1


01
E
\
O)
Jfc




01
^

^




^
0
^,
J3




•^
_s^


oi
•i-
V O
U U
3
o -a


c
o
•^
•-

01

CD







c
^
3
(J


O
i^





t
O>








a
i
g
o



O
^j

ja
r—




t
I1



4) 0)
C Q.

-J +*



XI
+J


*o
1




Q)
C

-J
CO CO
IT) 0*
r—

CO «f
r*^ CM
tO CM
/•« *«




i i i
i i i




i t i
i i i




CSJ
l O 1




l • 1
! o !



1 1 t
I 1 t



1 1 l
1 1 1


<• CO
*J* 1 CO





<3J Q)
-a -a
 OJ
• t •
m i o
m CM



CO CO CO
ce ce ce





<— i— G^

1 1 1
ce ce c£





r» r_ CS1


CD
CM


ro
CO
ro
,—•*




i i t
i i i




iii
i i i




CM CM ,
t •
O t O





O I O



1 1 1
1 1 1



1 1 1
( t 1


I •• 1
I «f 1





0>
•o
o
1 * 1
1 CM l




I • 1
1 CO 1
CO




0>
13
CM
1 • 1
1 ^" 1



CO CO CO
ce ce ce







1 CO CO
ce o o





CM CO CO
-* ca i >-* Q i
3CQ£Q£QO£a.a.acc:cuLL.ce












^j
CJ) 3
c ~a
£ 0)
O '—
0 .0
X
tn O)
3 r—
i— **—
<*• „
01 "
c o
•r- 1 i
3
U
 C
3 ^O
a. -S
o> . —
C 3
E C
fc. *i^
£ a
a.
o 'o.

E II
tO H— t
CL

^
-C O
^ Zi
U (0
« r-

4- C
O •!-

•2 ?
Ul -f-
>» "a

c • '5
Q £>


O i—

"£ i
m
U II
o *-
c T
m a:
o>
u .
o &.
o •
i— S. C
cd ^ o
. 0 " *>

^^ ^
i/r^o wi
W 3 *f~
._>. 0

re 3 '-a
•g si
« ^^
C r—
r- O 1

Owl!
"*"* "S en
.*, ^ r—

c »— ce

o

yi *O


3
cr


>>

W)

(1)
•a
>,
a)

II
































































c
o
4-)
?
S
ftj
OJ
^


M
^




C


Ul
t
4->
4-

11



J t


























































•^
,_
0
Q.

c*
X
CL
W
4-*

t_
0
O.

4J

3
"°


>i
Q.

£-
OJ


S
3 <
















































C

O
Q.
O3
C
_
cx
£

in
O
•+J

O
t.
a.

3
-a
p~
V)

t_
a>
J3
•^
t.
U


o

T3
f.
3
to
s_
CL




U ^





















O

ra

t.
O)
,-C

41
-a
s-
o
(J
OJ
 O
a.
3 CT
"^ C
*'"
3 d.
XI £
« I/)
"c* n
4->
3.1
S-
LO Q.
• •»-»
- O L)
T3_V 3
in
3 O) £Z
Ul "^X. *~
C Oi^*"**

«r— *— ^
m CM o


-o a.
O d) O
e £ u>
in t/> c
QJ a> o
U 3 r—



- OTX:
3-19
-------









o
^**

U)
to

a
— 4
LU
i
LU
Q-
Q
LU
_1
£;
«W
O
o

=3

u_
o
>_
o^


CO

in
co

LU



£





















in
c
c
U)
s
£
*u 8
o-g
*3






i
»^»
t-
O










'§
o
Lu





I
Hi



X









c
s
£
0.
•"•S,




C
O
•«J

.Q
^~



§
^

C
O
1

t
O)
vx
c
o
^

t

s


c
o
£



s
!"

g
ii







x^
ra



j
§



i
u
3
0
0.





c
IP"
CM
co

to
,_!





i i
i i





, ,
' '



i
1 0

1
1 O


t 1
1 1


t 1
1 1



CM
0 i


01
•a
• i
O 1

o
• 1
CO 1





o<

"a
t i
r— 1




UO CO
CC Ce.




,_ r_
i i






< S
C3 f^»


O CO
^- CO





II II
II II





II II
II It



i o i o
i

i i
1 O 1 O


II 11
II II


II II
II II



CM in
O 1 O I


 Ol

•o -a
en co
• i • i
O 1 CO 1




CO CO CO CO
ce.ce, ccce




er> on
TT m 03
o: o£ a a






<< 33
r— r*-.cn«*i^cooot^r"")
ii i ........


ii i ........
1 I O 1 O «— O^-r— r— mO





1 1 1 1 t t f t 1
1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1
000




1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1
1 O> "O O) 1 I i i i i | i
o o o


r—
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
lOOliiiOill)

05
1 "O 1 1 1 1 Ol 1 1 1 I
lOOllliOtlll


r— r— CM
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IIIIOllOlllO

r- ' "^L
1 1 1 1 1 1 OJ 1 \ \ '~-
IIIIOllOlllO



<— f r— «tf-
II 1 1 1 1 .1 .1
1 IOI 1 lOlOlOl



Ol
CM CM
1 1 *O III I O) 1 l
1 IOI I lOlOlOl

o^ocniocn
»— • PO r— «f F— fO 1 CTtCMCMOr—





oT u-T j-

In V ""en "V co o. r- CM ^ ^ '"en
O *~* O CM O r™* | ^* r— »— in O




to t/i t/i v> co co to ^c 
2 c

£^
CJ 3
(0 C

^— •(—
1o o: ra
o u n
4J Ul
en c
tn"T* '*"

3 4-1
S- *r-
4-> C
S|-§
1- .0 >
U O)
01 3 f
oi-o
ro n
s- II
Ol H- »
> co a

4->
O


II
ce
J T






































_J
e
o
O)
c
"a.
(O
.2

C S-
•r— O
o *^-
CL s-
a.
Ol
•i- u
r— 3
i""0
m r-
T3 C
tfl «r-


•M (/)
U ^
O CU
11
4-> U
U V)
3

O
•r- "O
W* 3
a. to
u) 
S -3
3 01 *f


























































•o
CJ
in
3
C
0



£
"o
s
Ul

OJ
u
o
i-
a.
.




-4-)
3
O
1Z

'5
o
a>
M

4-
O

O)
3
>



l/l
(0
OJ
IT*
a>
•o
u
o
u
QJ
at
s_
m
u
'a.
r-*
§
•r^
(J
0)
"O

OJ
c
o
o
+J

O)
c
•5
c
3
U
-*->
at
3

*J



C
o

ja
r— •
LO
O

^/
s
O)
^


CM
S
0)
nj

Ul
a>

n)
>
31









_

































C
O
a.
O)
• c
T3 -r-
O) f—
*j a.
(J ^
o ro
a>
-a o
•M

tO t-
I 0
"O *S-
C CL
3
O 4~»
E* 3
o -a
0 =
x-S
ui tn
c ^-^

or o
a» 2
o a.
0
o at

o

•— 13
5="
3-20
-------








0
1








a
c
u
CD






13
C
O
o
f_>

c
o





O)
3£
ai

c
o
4-1

.a
*~

CO
•X

a
c

c o
•i- o
s- u
" c
to


c
o
4-1

J3


O)
^
D)
^f



c

^
3
U







'c
'g
o




C
O



i1
5
c
o
-M

.a
r™^



cn

O)

u
at oi
c a.

-Q
o
• 3
•a
o
!_
a.
c
^
CM to ro un
- ..it t

fO CM

m PO r*- f*«-

m* fo CD i i "- i

— '—'—'


j i i i i i i
it ii ti i
000




11 II II 1
II II II 1 <*- tJ
000

1— *—
1 1*1 1 1
1 O IO 1 O I O O 1


-a
1 14- 1 t H- .1
1 O 1 O I O 1 O O I



II It II t 1 1 1
II II t 1 1 1 1 t




(I II It 1 1 1 1
II II II II 1 1



*••• co co ro
.i . t • i i i * i
r— | O 1 *— 1 1 1 O 1


*. * *
in ^ cn CM
. i * i .1 i i i
O 1 O 1 O I 1 1 O I
",- ^ V « 0 *

o i in i cn i r*~ o co o
ro r— co f—


OJ JC
 co , cn F— in CM
tn i CM i cr> i o in i— in



CO CO CO CO CO CO V) CO CO CO
or as ce os as ce as as os as

i— r- cn cn »— ;—

ii ii ca ca a i i ca
osas asos oo X os as o


r— •— CM CM ro ro

X O
i^ Ol
M- Nl
II u-
o
a
3
're

c '
0 <.
i— O
3
C IS
"~ Ol
Ol t-
O. Ol

a.
-a
II 01


a. o
u
C 01
o s-
•r- IO
re ai
1 — tj
3 ia
tn i —
e a.


O5 IO
"O U
•f— T3
3
4 ^ . Q)
UI C
•r r- . O
ui i —
** ' *J S
10 c:
c: u •— oj
ro 0 C
*~ ^'-S
10 1 Ol C
o 01: c 3
•r— T- O •
S < — S- 4-1
01 Q. C

U C 10 4J 0
o • u> a.
4J -I- Ol
01 4-1 O 3 Ol
3 IO . 4-1 73 . C
r— 4J *O "—
•-3 . C S- 4J 01 i—
'in vn e T- o 3 4-1 o.
i- C O O w- J3 U E
l/l •»- *r— C3, S- Ol 10
>> H-> Q. * 4J UI
i~~ O) 10 O) ^*v fij
IOC 3C4JC13 O
C"- C -i- U 0 4-1
rO T3 HI i — 3 -t-1 r/j
i— 4-1 CL-O *-, ro S-
j= -i- «J e ja s o
O 3 10 10 C r- -r-

ra c oi tn c a.
U <71 O E O ^^O 3
r— 'I— 10 4-1 l/l • O 4-1
r- 1 4-» •— •— 'O Q. . .O
tOOItOt-t-S-V ET33

O II 3 M ••- J3 . U >>)>il- OT3Q.
U Ol 4-1 O. in IO O
O)*Q £ t. l/l i+— U) c
10 ii s- a. oi oi o
£-11 II Ol • 3 l/l U i —
Ol »-« 4J3i — -t-OU
>Q3OI^IOOrO^&->i
i o z: osjz — i > 4J a. o
to .a u T3 oi <»- taix:
3-21
-------








o
p.
LO
as
2

a
o
H-<
co
CO
s
LU
LU
CD
LU
O
— -i
§
o
u_
o
LU
_J
O
as
•z.
o
o




LL.
O
cm
S
^sj
CO



CO
LU
CO

















in
c
o



£j
U
U
0.




1

cri in r*"* CT*
• * * i i •
ro >— *t i i •—


en co ^ o
• • • i i •
.— O CSJ 1 1 •—

~* ~*


it ii ii i
11 ' ' ' ' ' oo



! ! , ! ! ! ! ! o "°o


1 II*
1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O O
1

01
I i i t en ~a
i o i o i o i o o



it ii ii i i i
ii ii ii i i i



ii ii ii i i i
ii ii ii i i i


O 1 O 1 O I 1 ' 1 O




a a  en co
CO t r— 1 •«!• 1 O O i—
*—

U- JC
0) a) ~
U 3
^* 21
i— I
4J ^
0 11
•+J
,«2-
Ul 1
c ac
u
Ul "B
•S ft
C
-> e
m nj
0}
TO -P

o
u -
*4 O
4J
3
C
Q-'t-
(/I
3 e
O V
u
!_
II a
CO rt
^ 7
u -a



































4J
c

o
Q.
O)
c
CO

o
+J
£_

£-
a.
u
•a
c
VI
^.^
(U
J3
^3
£
U
in
o
•a

. Ul
OJ
i.
Q,

2
aA






4->
g
f
4J
'5
_
!_
01
M
O
a)
.3
>

d
v>
(0
s_
JT
•o
CJ
s-
o
u
a)
i.
OJ
c.
<1>
u
r—
Q.
ra
s
u
•o
o

o
*->

f
c
3
O
0
4->
aj
3

.*>
C
o
J3
in

• 0
^ «^
U)
tn "-x
C CT
•2
« CM
•" °.
>»- O
E a

Ul (/I

U 3
2 *«
Cu =»
- O!











































'
(U
4J
u
5
01
t/>
rd
•a
c
o
a.
o
o
c

c
s
E
a>
4-»
O
o
o
<*-

in
•P
^







































4-J
O
a.
OJ
c
1—
a.
ro
(A
^->
S-
o
t-
CL
jj
U
^
c
•r-
^•^
^
O
(0
i.
a.
u>
OJ
c
o

'u
0

-------
             TABLE 3-8.   SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION PARAMETERS FOR
                      UNCONTROLLED EMISSION DATA71-75
Line
A
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
K
L
Product3
DB
R-19
R-ll
HDI
R-11
R-ll
DB
R-n
PI
PI
DB
R-n
: PI
FD
R-19
Line type
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
FA
FA
FA
FA
RS
Average
product density
kg/m3
65.7
9.3
9.8
118.5
10.4
9.1
65.7
10.6
13.6
76.1
54.5
12.3
12.5
21.5
8.2
lb/ft3
4.1
0.58
0.61
7.4
0.65
0.57
4.1
0.66
0.85
4.75
3.4
0.77
0.78
1.34
0.5
Average
product
LOI, %
15
4.5
4.5
10.6
4.3 •
3.9
14.7
6.0
9.0
—
17.3
6.5
18
15
4.6
 DB = ductboard.  R-19 = R-19 building insulation.  R-ll = R-ll building
 insulation.  PI = pipe insulation.  FD = flexible duct.
.HDI = heavy density insulation.
 RS = rotary spin.  FA = flame attenuation.
                                   3-23
-------
from 3.5 to 87.0 kg/Mg (7.0 to 17.4.0 Ib/ton) for RS and from 24.4 to
44.4 kg/Mg (48.8 to 88.7 Ib/ton) for FA.  The average of the phenolic
compound emissions ranged from 0.9 to 15.1 kg/Mg (1.7 to 30.3  Ib/ton) for
RS and from 3.3 to 16.4 kg/Mg (6.6 to 32.8 Ib/ton) for FA.  Average
formaldehyde emissions ranged from 0.3 to 5.4 kg/Mg (0.7 to 10.9 Ib/ton)
for RS and from 1.8 to 9.4 kg/Mg (3.5 to 18.7 Ib/ton) for FA.  Average
phenol emissions.ranged from 0.5 to 3.6 kg/Mg (1.0 to 7.2 Ib/ton) for RS
and from 1.2 to 5.1 kg/Mg (2.5 to 10.2 Ib/ton) for FA.
     3.2.3.2  Emissions From Curing.  The range of average uncontrolled
curing process emissions for three RS lines was 0.7 to 5.7 kg/Mg (1.4 to
11.3 Ib/ton) for particulate matter, 0.2 to 2.5 kg/Mg (0.3 to  5.0 Ib/ton)
for phenolic compounds, 0.1 to 0.3 kg/Mg (0.2 to 0.7 Ib/ton) for formal-
dehyde, and trace to 0.2 kg/Mg (0.1 to 0.5 Ib/ton) for phenol.  The range
of emissions for two FA lines was 2.3 to 5.7 kg/Mg (4.6 to 11.3 Ib/ton)
for particulate matter, 0.2 to 2.5 kg/Mg (0.4 to 5.0 Ib/ton) for phenolic
compounds, 0.3 to 0.6 kg/Mg (0.7 to 1.1 Ib/ton) for formaldehyde, and
trace to 0.2 kg/Mg (0.1 to 0.4 Ib/ton) for phenol.
     3.2.3.3  Emissions From Cooling Operations.   For the RS cooling
process, the ranges of average uncontrolled emissions for three RS lines
were 0.1 to 0.3 kg/Mg (0.2 to 0.6 Ib/ton), 0 to 0.1 kg/Mg (0 to
0.1 Ib/ton'), 0 to a trace kg/Mg (0 to 0.1 Ib/ton),  and 0 to a  trace kg/Mg
(0 to 0.1 Ib/ton) for particulate matter, phenolic compounds,  formaldehyde,
and phenol, respectively.   Only one FA cooling process was sampled; no
phenol, phenolic compounds, or formaldehyde was measured, and  0.3 kg/Mg
(0.6 Ib/ton) particulate matter was reported.
     3.2.3.4  Emissions From Other Processes.   Emissions were  measured
from the backing operations of three RS lines, where the paper or foil
backing was applied to the fiberglass mat.   Only trace particulate
emissions (0 to 0.1 Ib/ton) were recorded.   No phenolic or formaldehyde
compounds and only a trace of phenol were found.   Emissions from the
trimming, cutting, and packaging operations were not measured  because
fiberglass material from these operations is typically recycled to the
forming section or reprocessed into blowing wool  insulation.
     3.2.3.5  Annual  Emissions Estimates.   Table 3-9 presents  a summary
of uncontrolled emission levels,  in megagrams per year and tons per year,
                                   3-24
-------
for participate matter, phenol, phenolic compounds, and formaldehyde..
These estimates are based on actual uncontrolled emission data applied to
four typical RS line sizes.
3.3  BASELINE EMISSIONS
     The baseline emission level is the level of control that would be
achieved by the industry in the absence of a new source performance
standard (NSPS).  Typically, this level of control reflects the emission
levels required under existing State Implementation Plans (SIP's) and
local regulations.  The baseline is used to evaluate the impacts of
various regulatory alternatives.
     Often the average value of allowable emissions under SIP's are used
to represent baseline.  However, for this study, the average values of .
the allowable emissions under various SIP's are difficult to use with any
confidence to represent baseline for the following reasons.  The test
method developed by the EPA for this study is based on a total catch
analysis (EPA Method 5 filter catch plus total organic carbon analysis of
the impinger catch) whereas the test methods used by the States for
measurement of particulate emissions typically specify only front-half
(filter) catch.  There are no States that utilize a test method identical
to the one developed by the EPA.  In addition, there is a wide variation
in the level of control required by various States, as shown in Table 3-10.
For example, allowable emissions for a typical RS fiberglass line producing
34,000 Mg (38,000 tons) of insulation per year can range from 9.5 to
51.2  kg/h (21 to  113  Ib/h).
      To establish a baseline,  it was assumed that the most widely used
control devices currently  in use would be installed in the future to; meet
SIP's.  To  determine  the most widely used control devices, a tabulation
was made of the existing pollution control, devices applied to RS lines.
Of the 58 known RS lines in this industry, information on control device
applications was  available for  34  lines and  is shown in Table 3-11.  The
most  common device for control  of  forming emissions is a low pressure
drop  wet scrubber.  The most common control  device used on the curing
exhaust gases  is  an incinerator.  The majority of cooling processes  are
uncontrolled.   Therefore,  for  baseline  it is assumed that forming will be
                                    3-25
-------










to
LU
•z.
1— <
1
•z.
a.
to
02
j£
o
OS
fy*
O
U_
to
UJ 'sT
UJ ""^
—1 l/l
c
O -P

to
to s-
5- *^*
uj cn
a
UJ

_i
o
Q£
h-
o
O
•z.


^
cn
i
CO
UJ
cn
1—


















^
1 1 CO
8.8
Sin
in
*""*'







^
II

cn co
****










o o
oc
00
oo"o
*"~ ^i












00
in o
jn









4-* SE V
•a 4-
O '•w'

a.

(0

o
1—

CJ

3
o

o
u,

»—
is

CJ


o


o
u_

r-
o




CJ

CJ




Li.


r—
4^
O
*™
u
c
.a
c



c
u.




4-
c
«t
4-
^-
c
a
*rco^
^. ^
•a- en

in cn
r-~ co
t~u>
^* r"»
CM cn
CM in
CM IO
cn *3-
•"C
o •—
CO O
171 O
CD -3-
CM r-
a> in

CSJ O
10 in
ao CD
,£,?
U3 cn
o cn
cn cn

CO 0
in cn
CM r-
m m


r-* o
CM CO
*f 0*
m o
«f in
**-*
^ ^
CM O
r-* CM
^ tn
^^
CO CO
r— ^"
CO *f
r~™ cs
P«- CO
o o
co in
r— CM

^•^
co in
cn «—
r— CO
^

0)

03O
: r- t-
= (I)
U 4-*
J -f- 4J
4-> ffl
) (Q
a.
«tf CM
in if
co an
"
in ID
o o
in co
P-.CO

*}• CO
p^« in
r-* co


o o
cn in
in ID
«•?
o o

CM r*
m tn
^
*rc£
CO CO
un in

o CM
CO CO
>— X


CM CM
O O
P*. O
CM CO
*«« /

^^
r— O
CO *—
CM CO

^^
cn r-
P"- CO


—
o o
p^ao
o o


r-S
r*» r»-
**^





c
OJ
-C
a.
CO r—
C3 VD
in co
CO CO
/•-N
O i—
*™ c
cn m
*i- cn
^"3
••tf* in
O CO
CO CO

O CO
CM 1C
CM CM
P"^ CO
o o

O CM
r— *f
CO CO
CO CO
o *—
*— CO
CM CM

•3-?
r»» o
CM **•

N_X
^^
<" *r
o o
."•" S
CO O
(C CO
l~" f~"
s*>
^^ s
P^ O
O CM
r— CM
r— r—
^^
cn i—
r— in
CO CO

~
o o
r— in
«3* «f
**-^

p1*. m
r*. o
CM CO


Ul
•o
cz
u a
•r- O
r— CL
o s
c o
CD (J
-d
Q_
1C CM
CO CM
co cn

CO *3-
'"C
in co
r^ co
""^
co m
tf CM
r*. co
^-*

co r^
r»» co
un ID
cn o
0 r-

CM P-»
in m
*~*
r- o
m in

^- tn
O CO
CO CO


^^
tn m
o o
P^O
CM CO
^^

^^
CM O
P^ O
CM CO
^
^^
LO <•
r-- co


-
o o
r^ ccT
o o
. **•*

co m
yD r^-
*«*

OJ

>»
£
-------
         TABLE  3-10.   SUMMARY  OF  STATE  REGULATIONS FOR A TYPICAL
                        ROTARY  SPIN  FIBERGLASS LINE
Production:
Total line air flow:
State
California
Bay Area
SCAQMD0 ,
Glenn Co.
Madera Co.
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Ohiob
• b
Pennsylvania
Texas
West Virginia
38,000 tons/yr
123,000 dscfm
Regulation
E = 4.1 x po.«7c
Table 405(a)
E = 4.1 x P°-67
E = 3.59 x P°-62
0.04 gr/dscf
E = 4.1 x P°-67
E = 4.1 x P°-67
0.1 1b/l,000 Ib gas (=0.05 gr/dscf)
0.02 gr/dscf
0.05 gr/dscf
E = 4.1 x P°-67
0.02 to 0.04 gr/dscf (dependent on
air flow)
E = 0.048 q°-62 (q = acfm)
Table (Reg. 7, Sec. 2.01, Type a)
Equivalent
line emission
limits, lb/ha
49.1
30.4
49.1
38.6
42.2
49,1
49.1
52-7 M!
21.1
52.7
49.1
42.2
112.9
41.4
*kg/h = Ib/h -r 2.205.
 Require best available control technology for new source.
CE = allowable emission rate in Ib/h.
 ,P = process weight rate in tons/h.
 Emission limits shown are based on total catch.
                                    3-27
-------
                TABLE 3-11.   EMISSION CONTROLS ON EXISTING
                     ROTARY SPIN WOOL FIBERGLASS LINES76
Control device
None (uncontrolled)
Low Ap wet scrubber (1.2 kPa/5-in. w. c.)
High Ap wet scrubber (8.7 kPa/35 in. w.c.)
Low temp, incinerator (316°C/600°F)
High temp, incinerator (704°C/1300°F)
HVAFa
Wet ESPb
Subtotal
Information not available
Total0
No. of
Forming
12
11
1
1
0
0
9
34
24
58
process sections
Curing
11
0
1
6
6
4
4
32
24
56
Cooling
15
0
1
1
0
6
2
25
24.
49
?HVAF = high velocity air filter.
 ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
 Some lines do not have curing and/or cooling sections.
                                   3-28
-------
controlled by a low pressure drop scrubber, curing will be controlled by
an incinerator, and cooling will be uncontrolled.
     To estimate the water and energy costs for the scrubber control 1-ing
forming emissions, a pressure drop of 1.2 kilopascals (kPa) (5 in. of water
column [w.c.]) was selected because this is the most common pressure drop
for the scrubbers identified in the survey.  In addition, an efficiency of
50 percent was assumed.  (The average nationwide efficiency for a low
pressure drop scrubber controlling forming emissions cannot be- precisely
determined because there is not enough test data and because the particle
size of fiberglass emissions cannot be measured.)
     A low temperature incinerator was selected to represent average nation-
wide control of curing emissions under the SIP's.  A control efficiency of
zero percent was assumed for a baseline incinerator because low temperature
incinerators are used only to meet opacity limits and are not used to reduce
the mass of emissions.77
     Based on the assumptions stated and using the average uncontrolled
particulate emission data from the EPA test program, the following baseline
emission levels are obtained for all RS line sizes:  13.15 kg/Mg
(26.3 Ib/ton) for forming, 2.5 kg/Mg (5.0 Ib/ton) for curing, and 0.15 kg/Mg
(0.3 Ib/ton) for cooling.  Therefore, the total line baseline emission
limit is 15.8 kg/Mg (31.6 Ib/ton).  (Emission data from Line L were not
used to compute the baseline emission limit because these data were not
available when the baseline was developed.)  Table 3-12 presents annual
baseline emission levels for four different RS line sizes.
     The determination of the baseline emission limit for FA production
lines was based on EPA source test data for the FA line with the highest
uncontrolled emissions.  There is much less variation in typical FA line
size, so only one baseline level is considered.  The baseline emission
levels for forming, curing, and cooling are 44.35 kg/Mg (88.7 Ib/ton),
2.15 kg/Mg (5.3 Ib/ton), and 0.3 kg/Mg (0.6 Ib/ton), respectively.  Thus,
the total baseline emission limit for an FA line is 46.8 kg/Mg (94.6.Ib/ton).
     Nine of the eleven States listed in Table 3-10 regulate visible
emissions from process exhaust stacks (forming, curing, and cooling) to a
level of 520 percent opacity.  The limit in two States is 540 percent.  A
                                   3-29
-------
TABLE 3-12.  BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS FOR ROTARY SPIN LINES
                         (English)
Line production, tons/yr
5,000
20,000
38,000
55,000

Formi
65.8
263.0
499.7
723.3
Parti cul ate
ng Curing
12.5
50.0
95.0
137.5
emissions, tons/yr
Cooling
0.8
3.0
5.7
8.3

Total
79.1
316.0
600.4
.869.1
(Metric)
Line production, Mg/yr
4,500
18,000 -
34,000
50,000

Formi
59.7
238.8
453.7
656.8
Parti cul ate
ng Curing
11.4
45.4
86.3
124.9
emissions, Mg/yr
Cool ing
0.7
2.7
5.2
7.5

Total
71.8
286.9
545.2
789.2
                           3-30
-------
baseline control level of ^20 percent opacity has been selected for

visible emissions from process exhaust stacks (forming, curing, and
cooling).

3.4  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3

 1.  Standard Industrial Classification Manual.  Bureau of the Census.
     Washington, D.C.  1972.  p. 144.

 2.  Confidential reference No. 3-1.

 3.  Standard and Poor's Industry Surveys.  Building-Basic Analysis.
     April 23, 1981.  p. 8134.

 4.  J. Goldfarb.  Owens-Corning Fiberglas.  Merrill, Lynch, Pierce,
     Fenner, and Smith.  September  1981.  p. 5.

 5.  U.S.  Department of Commerce.   Bureau of the Census.  Current  Industrial
     Reports.  Fibrous Glass:  1977.  Washington, D.C.  MA 32J.  August  1978.

 6.  U.S.  Department of Commerce.   Bureau of the Census.  Current  Industrial
     Reports.  Fibrous Glass:  1980.  Washington, D.C.  MA 32J.  June  1981.

 7.  Reference 4, p. 8.

 8.  U.S.  Department of Commerce.   Bureau of the Census.  Current  Industrial
     Reports.  Fibrous Glass:  1972.  Washington, D.C.  MA 32J.  June  1973.

 9.  U.S.  Department of Commerce.   1982.  U.S.  Industrial Outlook  for
     200 Industries With Projections for  1986.  p.  3.

10.  Reference 3, p. B121.

11.  Reference 9, p. 4.                           .

12.  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.  Document  for  Effluent  Limitation
     Guidelines and New Source Performance  Standards  for  the  Insulation
     Fiberglass Manufacturing  Segment of  the Glass  Manufacturing Point
     Source  Category.  NTIS.   PB 238-078.   January  1974.  p.  15.

13.  Letter  and attachments  from Siegfried, J.  N.,  Johns-Manville  Sales-
     Corporation, to Greer,  L. E.,  MRI.   February 6,  1981.  Enclosure
     No. 3.  Proposed  NSPS  definition of  product groups.

14.  Letter  and attachments  from Thomas,  S. H., Owens-Corning  Fiberglas
     Corporation, to Goodwin,  D., EPA/ESED.  April  13,  1981.   Enclosure
     No. 2.  Product definitions.

15.  Letter  and attachment  from Comitz, R.  W.,  CertainTeed Corporation,
     to Greer,  L. E.,  MRI.   July 29, 1981.  Product parameters.
                                    3-31
-------
16.   Letter from Comitz, R.W., CertainTeed Corporation, to Telander, J.,
     EPA/ISB/SDS.  November 19, 1982.  Maximum temperature limits.

17.   U.S.  Department of Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Current  Industrial
     Reports.   Fibrous Glass:  1979.  Washington, D.C.  MA 32J.  July  1930.

18.   Reference 3, p. B122.

19.   Reference 3, p. 8126.

20.   Merrill,  Lynch, Pjerce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.   Institutional  Report.
     The Fiberglass Industry:  Cyclical and Secular  Prospects.
     September 1980.  pp. 14,  15.

21.   Reference 20, p. 16.

22.   Reference 9, p. 6.

23.   Reference 3, p. B125.

24.   Reference 12, p. 22.

25.   Reference 20, p. 17.

26.   Reference 9, p. 7.

27.   Reference 20, pp.  22,  23.

28.   Confidential reference No.  3-2,  p.  13.

29.   Confidential reference No.  3-3,  p.  9.

30.   Confidential reference No.  3-4,  p.  6.

31.   Confidential reference No.  3-5,  p.  A-6.

32.   Confidential reference No.  3-6,  p.  2-6.

33.  Telecon.  Shular,  J.,  MRI,  to Thomas,  S.,  Owens-Corning Fiberglas
     Corporation.   May  25,  1982.   Process information.

34.  Reference 32,  pp.  1-3, 2-3,  3-3, and 4-3.

35.  Reference 28,  p.  6.

36.  Reference 29,  p.  4.

37.  Reference 31,  p.  A-2.

38.  Reference  12,  p.  14.
                                    3-32
-------
39.   Confidential reference No. 3-7.                      -
40.   Reference 32, pp. 1-7, 2-4.
41.   Reference 28, p. 11.
42.   Reference 29, p. 7.
43.   Reference 31, p. A-3.                                 ..
44.   Memo and attachments from  Lang, C. J., MRI,  to Telander, J. ,  EPA/ISB/SDS.
     October 3,  1980.  Trip report:  Knauf Fiber  GlassT  Shelbyville,
     Indiana (August  6,  1980.)  pp. 3-4.
45.   Standard Test Method for  Ignition  Loss of  Cured  Reinforced Resins.
     American Society for Testing  and Materials.   D2584-68.   1981.
     pp. 495-496.
46.   Goutte, R., J. Battigelli, and M.  Barthe,  Controls  for  Use in
     Fiberization Systems Embodying Means  for Suppression of Pollution.
     United States Patent 4,087,267.  Washington,  D.C.   May  2,  1978.
47.   Levecque, M., and J. Battigelli, Method and  Apparatus  for  Suppression
     of Pollution in  Mineral Fiber Manufacture.   United  States
     Patent 4,105,424.   Washington, D.C.   August  8,  1978.
48.  Reference  31, p. A-4.
49.  Reference  32, p. 1-6,  2-5, 4-2.
50.  Reference  29, p. 6.
51.  Reference  28, pp.  8,  9,  10.
52.  Reference  28, p. 12.
53.  Reference  32, pp.  1-8, 2-4,  4-5.
54.  Reference  31, p. A-5.
55.  Reference  32, p. 4-5.
56.  Memo  from  Shular,  J.,  MRI, to Telander,  J. ,  EPA/ISB/SDS.  Material
     balance  for rotary spin production line.   July 30,  1982.
57.  Memo  from  Greer, L., MRI, to Telander,  J., EPA/ISB/SDS.
     October  27, 1980.   Meeting minutes-EPA,  industry, MRI, and Engineering
     Science,   p.  3.
58.   Reference  28,  p. 14.
59.   Reference  32,  p. 1-10.
                                    3-33
-------
60.  Confidential reference No. 3-8, pp. 4,.  19,  16.
61.  Confidential reference No. 3-'9, p.  12.
62.  Confidential reference No. 3-10,  p. 3.
63.  Confidential reference No. 3-11,  pp.  4,  11,  22.
64.  Confidential reference No. 3-12,  pp.  3-5.
65.  Confidential reference No. 3-13.
66.  Confidential reference No. 3-14.
67.  Confidential reference No. 3-15.
68.  Confidential reference No. 3-16.
69.  Confidential reference No. 3-17.
70.  Confidential reference No. 3-18.
71.  Reference.No. 60, pp. 5,  10,  11,  16.
72.  Reference No. 61, pp. 8,  15,  16.
73.  Reference No. 62, pp. 11, 12,  13.
74.  Reference No. 63, pp. 5,  6, 11, 12, 16,  23,  25.
75.  Confidential reference No. 3-19,  p. 6.
76.  Memo from Shular, J., and Sauer,  M.,  MRI to  Project  File  4664-L.
     August 5, 1982.  Control  Devices  for  Rotary  Spin  Lines.
77.  Memo from Greer, L., MRI, to  Telander,  J.,  EPA/ISB/SDS.
     October 28, 1980.  Trip report:   Owens-Corning  Fiberglas,  Newark,
     Ohio (October 7-8, 1980), p.  4.
                                   3-34
-------
                     4.-  EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES

     Emission control devices and techniques applicable to the forming,
curing, and cooling operations in wool fiberglass manufacturing plants
are described in this chapter.  Emission data are presented and discussed
for each control technique.  Additional information on these emission
tests is presented in Appendix C.
     Table 4-1 presents the control techniques and common configurations
used in the wool fiberglass industry to control individual sources or
the combined emissions from.two or more sources on wool fiberglass
lines.
4.1  PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
     Process modifications to the wool fiberglass manufacturing process,
including forming air recirculation, special binder formulations, and
water overspray rings, may affect emission  levels.  These process modifi-
cations may be  used  alone or with add-on control devices to reduce
emissions.  The modifications are integral  parts of the production
process, and  specific details are considered to be confidential by each
company.
4.1.1   Forming  Air Recirculation
      Forming  air  recirculation  is a process modification  in which 'a
portion of the  air exiting  the  forming chamber  is  recirculated  to the
forming section,  and the  remaining air is exhausted to a  control device.1,2
As  discussed  in Chapter 3,  the  use of  forming  air  recirculation reduces
the quantity  of exhaust gas  to  be  treated;  therefore,  the  control device
size can be  reduced.
-------
        TABLE 4-1.   EMISSION SOURCES AND CONTROL METHODS
          FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS INSULATION MANUFACTURING
Emission
sources
Control technology
Forming
Curing
Cooling

Forming + curing

Curing -*• cooling
Wet electrostatic precipitator
Wet scrubber
Process modification
  —forming air recirculation

High velocity air filter
Incinerator
Process modification
  —special binder formulations

High velocity air filter

Wet electrostatic precipitator

High velocity air filter
Wet scrubber
Forming + curing + cooling    Wet electrostatic precipitator
                               4-2
-------
4.1.2  Binder Formulation
     Changing the binder formulation is reported to be a technique that
affects process emissions.3  The type and/or relative proportions of
chemical compounds that make up the binder may be altered to reduce
emissions.   For example, the volatile constituents in the binder may be
reduced, thereby reducing emissions.  Binder formula modifications have
an effect on both the manufacturing process and on the product properties.
Therefore,  manufacturers are unable to select a binder formulation
solely for its effect on emissions.
4.1.3  Water Sprays
     Water overspray rings installed on the forming spinners may affect
emissions.   These sprays are primarily installed to cool the glass
fibers before the binder is applied.  This cooling is reported to reduce
the amount of binder that volatilizes on the hot glass.4
4.2  WET ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
     Wet electrostatic precipitators (wet ESP's) are used on effluent
gas streams containing sticky, condensible pollutants to reduce particulate
emissions.   These devices have been used for over 30 years in various
industrial  applications (e.g., aluminum pot lines and carbon anode
baking furnaces) to control particulate emissions.5  The wool fiberglass
industry has used wet ESP's for at least 10 years.6,7  Seven wet ESP's
are currently installed on wool fiberglass lines.
4.2.1  Control System Description
     Figure 4-1 presents a diagram of a typical wet ESP that is used in
the wool fiberglass industry.   Particle collection in an ESP involves
three steps:  the electrical charging of particles in the gas stream,
the collection of the particles on the collection plates or electrodes,
and the removal of the collected particulate matter.   Electric fields
are established by applying a direct-current voltage across a pair of
electrodes:  a discharge electrode (either a metal rod or plate) and a
collection electrode (a metal  plate).   Figure 4-2 shows a cross-sectional
top view of a wet ESP that has metal rod discharge electrodes.   Particulate
matter and water droplets suspended in the gas stream are electrically
charged by passing through the electric field around each discharge
                                   4-3
-------
 WATER
 SPRAYS
 GAS
INLET
                           WATER SPRAY MANIFOLD
                           AND SPRAY NOZZLES
                                                                    GAS
                                                                   OUTLET
                                                            ISCHARGE
                                                           ELECTRODES
                                            COLLECTION
                                             PLATES
                              SLURRY COLLECTION
                                  CONDUIT
          Figure 4-1.  Cut-away diagram showing  internal
                 construction of a typical  wet ESP.
                                   4-4
-------
                          GAS INLET
  DISCHARGE
  ELECTRODE
OUTLET MIST
ELIMINATION
  BAFFLES
                            GAS OUTLET
                                                      INLET GAS
                                                DISTRIBUTION BAFFLES
                                              ...._ COLLECTION
                                                    PLATES
  Figure 4-2.  Cross-sectional top view of a. typical wet  ESP,
                                 4-5
-------
electrode (the negatively charged electrode).  The negatively charged
particles and droplets then migrate toward the positively charged collection
electrodes.   The particulate matter is separated from the gas stream by
retention on the collection electrode.
     Water sprays located above the electrodes create a continuous film
on the collection plates that washes the collected particulate matter
from the plates.  The slurry formed from washing the collection plates
is continuously removed from the bottom of the wet ESP and transported
to on-site water treatment facilities.
     Some of the water droplets formed in the wet ESP are entrained in
the gas stream flowing past the collection plates.  The last section of
the wet ESP is designed to function as a mist eliminator to remove most
of these droplets by electrostatic precipitation and/or by inertial
separation.
4.2.2  Factors Affecting Performance
     A wet ESP must be designed for specific process conditions.  The
process variables that affect wet ESP performance are:
     1.  Gas flow rate;
     2.  Gas flow distribution;
     3.  Particle size distribution;  and
     4.  Dielectric constant of the particle.
The inlet particulate concentration and the  required outlet particulate
concentration determine the necessary efficiency of the wet ESP for use
in the design calculations.8  Particle resisitivity is  not a property
affecting performance in wet ESP systems.9
     The design parameters that affect wet ESP performance and  ensure
that the design efficiency is achieved are:
     1.  Plate  area (of the collecting electrodes);
     2.  Electrode spacing and configuration; and
     3.  Voltage.
     In addition to these process and design factors, the water flow
rate and quality will also affect wet ESP performance.
     The gas  flow rate  is critical  in sizing the wet ESP collection
plate  area.   Proper design of the ESP (e.g., size of each  compartment
and the number  of compartments) ensures adequate time for  the particles
                                    4-6
-------
to migrate to a collection electrode.   Operation at flow rates in excess of
the design flow rate will reduce the residence time for charging and
collecting the particles and may cause an increase in outlet emissions.10
In contrast, operation with reduced air flows will result in increased
particulate removal efficiency.  Therefore, wet ESP's should be designed
to accomodate the maximum air flow expected from the production process.
     In sizing a wet ESP, the total collection area of the plates must be
increased as the fraction of small particles increases.  Due to the nature
of the gas stream  (saturated with water) and particulate matter (sticky),
particle size data cannot be obtained for wool fiberglass emission sources.
To account for particle  size for a new installation, vendors must base the
design of a wet'ESP on their experience in the wool fiberglass industry and
in other  industries with similar emission characteristics (e.g., carbon
anode baking).  This experience has been gained from pilot- and full-scale
installations.11
     The  required  particle  charging time increases with  decreasing particle
dielectric  constant.   (A perfect  insulator has a  dielectric constant  of  1,
compared  to  6.6  for phenol-formaldehyde  resin and 78 for pure water.)12
Therefore,  the  size of the  wet ESP must  be sufficient  to ensure adequate
particle  charging  time.
     The  specific  collection  area (SCA)  is defined as  the  ratio of  the  total
plate  area  (A)  to  the  gas flow rate  (Q).   For  a given  application,
 collection  efficiency  improves as SCA increases.   However,  the  ESP  also
 becomes  larger and consequently more  expensive  as the  SCA  is  increased.13
      The  collecting surface area  and  gas flow rate have been  specifically
 related to  the overall collection efficiency through the Deutsch-Anderson
 equation, which is used to estimate plate  area:14
           r] = 1 -  exp (-wA/Q)
 where:     n. = collection efficiency
           w = precipitation rate parameter
           A = plate area
           Q = volumetric gas flow rate
 This equation shows that ESP collection efficiency increases with increasing
 plate area relative to  the gas flow rate and with increasing values of the
 precipitation rate parameter.  The precipitation rate parameter is a

                                    4-7
-------
performance parameter that relates gas flow rate, collection plate area,
and particle capture efficiency.  This parameter is a function of the
physical properties of the emissions (e.g., particle size distribution)
and wet.ESP design parameters (e.g., electrode arrangement).  The preci-
pitation rate parameter is determined by tests on pilot units and/or by
operation of a wet ESP on similar emission sources.
     The electrode type, plate spacing, height, and length  influence the
electrostatic forces exerted on the particles and, thus, affect the
collection efficiency.
     The voltage applied to the ESP electrodes must be sufficient to
ensure an adequate electric field strength for charging the particles
while minimizing problems of sparking.15  One vendor of wet ESP's used
in the wool fiberglass industry provides units with automatic voltage
controls that determine the optimum applied voltage for variable particle
concentrations entering the unit.16
     The gas stream should be saturated with water vapor to prevent
evaporation of the collection plate wash water, which could result in
dry zones on the wet  ESP internals.17  These dry areas may  be fouled
with particulate matter, thus reducing collection  efficiency.18  Water
to maintain saturation can be added to the gas stream by spray towers,
low pressure drop  scrubbers, or spray  nozzles  in the ducts  upstream of
the wet  ESP and/or in the  inlet section of the wet ESP.  Saturation of
the gas  stream also lowers the  gas  temperature and the  total  gas volume
to be cleaned, thereby  reducing the size and cost  of the wet  ESP.  The
water flow  rate must  not be too great, however,  or arcing will occur,
causing  a  reduction of  the voltage  and, thus,  a  reduction of  collection
efficiency.  Vendors  typically  optimize water  flow rates and  spray
patterns during the system startup  period.19
     Water  quality is important to  wet ESP performance.20,21  The water
 sprayed into the wet  ESP  and  into the  gas  stream prior  to the wet ESP  is
 typically  recycled water  that  contains particles and  resin  components.
 Inadequate  water  treatment will result in  excessive  particulate  matter
 in  the  spray water that will  plug the  spray  nozzles  and the distribution
 pipes.22,23 To  ensure proper  wet ESP  operation, vendors  of units  used
                                    4-8
-------
in the wool fiberglass industry recommend limiting total solids in the
water to approximately 1 to 2 percent.24,25
     The presence of dust or moisture in an insulator compartment can
lead to arcing, failure of the insulator, and shorting out of the electric
field, all of which affect ESP performance.  Therefore, vendors provide
heated, pressurized compartments to keep the insulators clean and dry.26
4.3  WET SCRUBBERS
     Wet scrubbers have two different functions in the wool fiberglass
industry.  High pressure drop scrubbers are used as primary control devices
to capture particulate emissions.  In addition, low pressure drop scrubbers
are used upstream of other control equipment to collect large particles and
to cool and saturate the gas stream.  Cooling also causes some of the
hydrocarbons in the gas to condense, thus forming liquid droplets which
can then be removed by subsequent particulate control equipment.
4.3.1  Control System Description
     Orifice scrubbers and venturi scrubbers are used as emissions
control devices in the wool fiberglass industry.  A cross-sectional view
of a typical orifice scrubber that is used on wool fiberglass lines is
shown in Figure 4-3.  A cross-sectional view of a typical venturi scrubber
is shown.in Figure 4^4.  The operating principles in both orifice and
venturi scrubbers are the same.  Wet scrubbers in the wool fiberglass
industry use water as a scrubbing liquid.  The scrubbing water and gas
stream flow through a chamber designed to cause collisions between the
suspended particulate matter and water droplets generated by the turbulent
gas flow.  (These collisions occur because the gas stream with the
suspended particulate matter moves at a high velocity relative to the
water droplets.)  As a result of these collisions, the particles become
suspended in the water droplets.  The water droplets laden with particulate
matter are then separated from the gas stream by an inertial separator,
which sharply changes the gas flow direction and causes the suspended
water droplets to impinge on a collecting baffle or wall.
     For a typical wet scrubber, the collection efficiency increases as
the turbulence and the difference in velocity between suspended particles
and water droplets increase.  In both the orifice scrubber and the
                                   4-9
-------
                        GAS OUTLET
IMPINGEMEN
  BAFFLE
                                                                 FIXED TURNING
                                                                     VANES
     Figure 4-3.   Cross-sectional  side, view of a typical orifice scrubber.
                                    4-10
-------
                                            GAS  OUTLET
SCRUBBING
LIQUID
SPRAY
NOZZLES
    THROAT
    SECTION
              FLOODED ELBOW
                                            SLURRY OUTLET
CYCLONIC
SEPARATOR
                                                                     TANGENTIAL
                                                                     INLET DUCT
       Figure 4-4.  Cross-sectional side view of a  typical  venturi  scrubber.
                                       4-11
-------
venturi scrubber, the velocity and turbulence are generated primarily by
forcing the gas through a.flow restriction, which requires an expenditure
of energy and causes a drop in the static pressure of the gas.  As shown
in Figure 4-5, scrubber efficiency increases with pressure drop.  Therefore,
the pressure drop of a scrubber is a convenient indicator of the efficiency
that can be achieved and the energy that will be required for its operation.
Figure 4-5 shows the relationships between pressure drop, particle size,
and removal efficiency.
     Orifice scrubber.  In orifice scrubbers (Figure 4-3), the gas
stream is constricted to increase its velocity.  The gas stream flows
through the outlet of the converging flow channel that is partially
submerged in the scrubbing water-.-  The vessel shape and the curved face
of the turning vanes cause the gas flow to force the water surface
downward, thus agitating the water surface.  The gas flow is then turned
upward by another turning vane.  The turbulent flow of the high velocity
gas stream entrains large quantities of water droplets which collide
with the suspended particulate matter.  The entrained particulate matter
and water droplets are removed by impingement on mist eliminators or the
walls of the scrubber outlet sections.
     Venturi scrubber.  Venturi scrubbers utilize water sprays upstream
of a converging and.diverging "throat" (venturi) (Figure 4-4) to introduce
water into the gas stream.  Water under low pressure may also be introduced
at the throat.  The velocity and turbulence of the gas increase as it
approaches the,throat.  The high gas turbulence atomizes the liquid into
small droplets (the higher the pressure drop, the smaller the droplet)
and increases interaction between the droplets and the particulate
matter.  The wetted particles and droplets are removed from the gas
stream in a cyclone separator that may be followed by other mechanical
means of mist elimination.27  Several variations of the standard venturi
scrubber have been developed to allow the venturi throat dimensions to
be changed as gas flow rates change, thus maintaining a constant efficiency.
4.3.2  Factors Affecting  Performance
     Orifice and venturi wet scrubbers must be designed for the specific
process conditions encountered.  Those process conditions that affect
performance are:
                                   4-12
-------
                  COLLECTION EFFICIENCY VS.  PARTICLE SIZE
    o
    o;
    LU
    a.
     >-
     C_3
     LU

     H—I

     CJ
     u_
     LU
     O
     H-4



     t_3
     O

     O
                        PARTICLE  DIAMETER IN MICROMETERS
Figure 4-5.  Venturi  scrubber comparative fractional efficiency curves.28
                                    4-13
-------
     1.  Gas flow rate,
     2.  Particle size distribution, and
     3.  Inlet particle concentration.
Wet scrubbers are designed for a maximum load and particulate matter
concentration so that outlet emissions during low load conditions will
be less than the design emission rate.29
     The design factors that affect orifice and venturi scrubber performance
and ensure that design efficiency is achieved are:
     1.  Gas velocity in the orifice or venturi throat; and
     2.  Liquid-to-gas (L/G) ratio.
     In addition to these process and design factors, water quality will
also affect scrubber performance.
     The gas flow rate determines the size of the unit.  The gas velocity
past the water droplets is the major factor influencing particulate
matter removal.30  Collection efficiency increases as the velocity in
the throat/orifice increases.31  Theoretical efficiency curves showing
the effect of variable throat velocity for a typical venturi are presented
in Figure 4-6.   The L/G ratio only affects collection efficiency at low
L/G ratios where collection efficiency increases as the L/G ratio and
the pressure drop increase.32-34  However, at very high L/G ratios^
liquid may flood the system and cause efficiency to decrease.   The
effect of the L/G ratio in a typical venturi is shown in Figure 4-7.   As
particles become smaller, the relative difference in velocity between
the particles and the water droplets must be increased to achieve collision.
(Small particles tend to follow gas flow streams around droplets rather
than collide with the water droplets.)
     To account for their inability to obtain particle size data, vendors
design scrubbers based on experience in the industry, prototype testing,
or experience with similar emissions sources.37
     Wet scrubber performance is affected by water quality.  Suspended
solids in the water coat the inside of ducts and pipes, spray nozzles,
and/or internal parts of the scrubber, eventually causing them to become
plugged.38  Wastewater from orifice or venturi scrubbers is typically
reused in the manufacturing process (e.g., in the binder formulation) or
                                   4-14
-------
O
>—i
I—
O
O
O
      0   -
     20
«    40
      60.   -
      80   -
     100
 5,000 cm/s (164 ft/s)

 7,500 cm/s (246 ft/s)

10,000 cm/s (328 ft/s)
                        THROAT VELOCITIES:
                        I             2             3
                     AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE  DIAMETER, urn*
       *The  aerodynamic  particle  diameter  is  the  diameter  of  a  unit  density
        sphere  having  the  same  aerodynamic characteristics as the  actual

        particle.


        •  Figure 4-6.  Theoretical efficiency curve for a  venturi
             scrubber illustrating effect  of throat velocity.35
                                     4-15
-------
            1            2            3
         AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE  DIAMETER, urn
Figure 4-7.  Theoretical  efficiency curve for venturi
scrubber illustrating effect of liquid-to-gas ratios.36
                          4-16
-------
in the control device.   Solids are removed from the water by settling
and screening processes.
4.4  HIGH VELOCITY AIR FILTERS
4.4.1  Control System Description
     High velocity air filters (HVAF's) collect particulate matter by
the impaction of particles on a glass fiber mat.  They are used at some
rotary spin (RS) and flame attenuation (FA) wool fiberglass plants to
control emissions on curing operations or combined curing and cooling
operations.  Figure 4-8 illustrates an HVAF unit typical of that used in
the wool fiberglass industry.  The HVAF includes a motor-driven fan and
a rotating drum filter section.  The vendor-provided HVAF unit includes
a mist eliminator to capture aerosols or droplets that escape from the
filter mat.39,40  The fiberglass filter mat is made specifically for use
in the HVAF.  The vendor recommends a mat that has a specified, constant
thickness  (0.64 centimeter [cm], 0.25 inch [in.]) and density (0.2 kilo-
grams per  cubic meter [kg/m3], 0.04 pound per cubic foot [Ib/ft3]).41
     The emissions from wool fiberglass operations contain both solid
and condensible particulate matter; some of these emissions condense
when the gas  is cooled and form particulate matter (aerosols) that is
also filtered out by the HVAF.42  Cooling of the gas stream is accomplished
using evaporative cooling chambers with air-atomized" or high pressure
water sprays.43  The low viscosity aerosols migrate through the mat and
are then thrown off the mat as larger droplets to be removed from the
gas stream by inertia! separation in the mist eliminator.  The solid
particulate matter and the more viscous aerosols remain in the mat.
When the pressure drop across  the mat increases to a predetermined
level, the mat  is advanced to  expose fresh filter media to the gas
stream.
4.4.2  Factors  Affecting Performance
     Given a  specific filter media, the two parameters that affect the
collection efficiency of the HVAF are the  filter face velocity and the
inlet gas  temperature.
     Filter  face velocity is defined as the ratio of the flow rate of
the  gas  volume  filtered to the area of the exposed filter media.  A high
                                   '4-17
-------
                                    GAS OUTLET
FILTER
MEDIA ON
ROTATING
SUPPORT
DRUM
                  GAS INLET
   MIST
ELIMINATOR
  FILTER MEDIA
   PAY-OUT
   ASSEMBLY
                                                               SPENT MEDIA
                                                                WIND-UP
                                                                ASSEMBLY
                   Figure 4-8.   High velocity air filter.
                                     4-18
-------
filter face velocity is necessary to attain a high collection efficiency.45
As shown in Figure 4-9, within a certain range, an increase in filter
face velocity increases removal efficiency by increasing the particle
momentum.  Above this range, efficiency levels off.  Increased momentum
increases the probability that a particle will impact on the fibers of
the mat rather than remain entrained in the gas stream.  Energy consumption
also increases as filter face velocity increases.
     To maximize collection efficiency, the inlet temperature of the gas
must be below the condensation point of the condensible compounds in the
stream.  The vendor recommends cooling the gas stream, before it enters
the HVAF, to at least 60°C (140°F) to effect condensation.46
     The solid particles and viscous condensible compounds that collect
on the filter mat eventually plug it.47  Periodically, the filter is
advanced to expose fresh media to the exhaust flow.  Automatic advance
of the filter media may be accomplished at either a predetermined time
interval or at a predetermined pressure drop across the filter.  The
collection efficiency of the filter mat increases as the filter becomes
coated and the pressure drop increases.  With the time-operated advance,
if new material is advanced too soon, a large filter area may be "uncaked"
and the collection efficiency will decrease.  The pressure-actuated
advance system operates by sensing differential pressure across the mat
and. advancing the filter approximately one inch at a time until a preset
lower pressure is measured.
4.5  THERMAL INCINERATORS
     A thermal incinerator vaporizes and oxidizes combustible material.
In wool fiberglass manufacturing, thermal incinerators are used to
reduce emissions from curing operations.
     In the wool fiberglass industry, thermal incinerators are operated
in two temperature ranges.  Some thermal incinerators are operated at
approximately 700°C (1300°F) with a residence time of 0.5 seconds to
destroy all organic species (Figure 4-10).49  Others (afterburners) are
operated at about 300°C (600°F), which is not high enough to destroy the
solid and  liquid particulate matter.  However, this temperature is high
                                   4-19
-------
   100
    90
    80


    70
                X  x
LU
60



50


40



30


20



10
                            1
                                      I    i   1
              0.5    1.0     1.5     2.0    2.5   3.0    3.5
             (1.6)  (5.3)  '(4.9)   (.6.6) .(8,2) (9.8.) (11.5)

                  FILTER FACE VELOCITY, m/s  (ft/s)
 Figure  4-9.   HVAF filter media filtration efficiency as a function
                   of filter face velocity.48
                                4-20
-------
     100
      90
£  "
«=c

•£
t—
O  70

u.
o  •

o
3=  en
111  6O
  LU
      HYDROCARBONS.
           ONLY
      SO
                                •HYDROCARBON
                                    +  CO
               850
              (1200)
                            70S
                           0300)
 760
(1400)
 SIS
(1500)
                             TEMPERATURE  °C(°F)
Figure 4-TO.  Typical  effect of operating  temperature on effectiveness of
thermal incinerator for destruction of  hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.5
                                  4-21
-------
enough to vaporize the liquid particulate matter, which will reduce the
opacity of the emissions leaving the stack.50,51
4.5.1  Control System Description
     Thermal incinerators are used to control emissions comprised of
gases or particles that are combustible or that will thermally decompose.
The combustible materials are converted to carbon dioxide (C02) and
water.  In the wool fiberglass industry, thermal incinerators require
auxiliary fuel to achieve effective combustion because the concentration
of combustible pollutants in the gas stream is too dilute to sustain
combustion.52
     As used in the wool fiberglass industry, thermal incinerators
consist of a refractory-lined chamber, one or more burners, temperature
controls, and safety equipment.   Figure 4-11 illustrates a typical
thermal incinerator.   The steps involved in the combustion of a dilute
fume are shown in Figure 4-12.  The contaminated gases are delivered to
the incinerator, mixed thoroughly with the fuel by the burner flames in
the upstream part of the unit, and passed through the remaining part of
the chamber to complete combustion.
4.5.2  Factors Affecting Performance
     The important variables affecting particulate matter combustion in
incinerators are reaction temperature, residence time, and reactant
mixing (turbulence).53  As shown in Figure 4-13, the reaction temperature
and residence time required to destroy particulate matter are interdepen-
dent; a higher temperature allows use of a shorter residence time and
vice versa.
     Temperatures of 650° to 760°C (1200° to 1500°F) are sufficient to
obtain nearly complete oxidation of most organic substances in 0.1 to
0.3 seconds, although destruction of some organic compounds, such as
methane, and the oxidation of carbon monoxide (CO) to C02 require longer
residence times and higher temperatures.58
     The principal requirement regarding temperature is that the auto-
ignition temperature of all species to be burned must be exceeded by
approximately 100 to 200 Celsius degrees (180 to 360 Farenheit degrees).59
This allows for a margin of error to account for nonideal combustion
conditions.  Operation at less than the auto-ignition temperature means
                                   4-22
-------
LU
—I
                                          8-
                                                                                        S-
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        4J
                                                                                        (O
                                                                                        i-
                                                                                        O)
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         c
                                                                                         3
                                                                                         CT>
                                     4-23
-------
u. in    z
O CD LU LU


O ^ ? «  LU
t—i 1— «a: u_  2:
H— «a: o; u_  HI
z:     uu ID  t—
LU LU a. co


ce £ H^ o
                                   LU
                       UJ
                       _i
                       o
   UJ    UJ
          §00
          •f
   u_    o

   u_ o z:
   o 3= o
          co
          s
     _J CO
     UJ ID
                                   CO
             Q O  I— i U_
             UJ >-<  -    Q  ID
                             _1    LU  CD
                             a.   • o
                             D. ce LU
                             =3 t-« LU
                             co «C 'Z.
  T
 LU

 LU LU
 —1 ID
 a. u_
 Q-

 co
i
I

I

cc

5

LU
O

CO
                                             LU
10
0)


I

a>
                                                                                     •o
                                                                                      c
                                                                                      o
                                                                                      
-------
100
   300
   (570)
 425
(800)
 540
(1000)
650
(1200)
 760
(1400)
 370
(1600)
 980
(1800)
 1090
(1990)
                                 TEMPERATURE °C (°F)
         Figure  4-13.  Coupled effects of time and temperature on  rate
               of pollutant  oxidation by  thermal incineration.57
                                         4-25
-------
that combustion .reactions are not initiated; the particles are merely
heated, and some volatilization may occur.  Stack opacities may be
reduced, but recondensation of particulate matter may occur downwind.60
The auto-ignition temperatures for formaldehyde and phenol, which are
components of the fume in the wool fiberglass industry, are 300° and
717°C (570° and 1322°F), respectively.61,62
     The effectiveness with which the fume is mixed with the combustion
products has a major influence on the residence time for a given tempera-
ture.  If a portion of the gas stream is not mixed well with the combustion
gases, that portion may not remain in the incinerator long enough to be
heated to the required temperature or for the oxidation reaction to take
place.
4.6  PERFORMANCE OF EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
     The performance of various control systems that were tested to
develop a data base for this study is discussed in this section.  The
data base on controlled emissions is based on nine tests conducted on
seven wool fiberglass manufacturing lines, which include five RS and two
FA lines.   Some test data have been excluded from the data base because
of process upset conditions, control equipment malfunctions, and procedural
discrepancies with EPA test methods.  The excluded test data and the
reasons for exclusion are presented in Appendix C.  Emission data from
tests performed by local agencies or plant owners are not reported
because the test methods used to develop such data are not comparable
With the test methods used in this study.  However, some data (e.g.,
volumetric flow rates) from these reports were used to broaden the data
base for model plant development (see Chapter 6).
     The lines tested include small, medium, and large RS lines and
small FA lines.  For each test, the operating conditions of the process
and control device are, unless otherwise noted, representative of normal
plant operating conditions.63-69  The production rates of the seven
lines during testing ranged from 455 to 5,900 kilograms per hour (kg/h)
(1,000 to 13,000 pounds per hour [lb/h]) or 1,820 to 47,200 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) (4,000 to 52,000 tons/yr) and from 68 to 100 percent of
design capacity.  Separate tests were performed during the production of
                                   4-26
-------
R-ll building insulation (BI), R-19 BI, ductboard (DB), and heavy density
insulation (HOI).   These products have densities ranging from 8.2 to
118.5 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m3) (0.5 to 7.4 pounds per cubic
foot [Ib/ft3]) and loss on ignition (LOI) values ranging from 3.9 to
18 percent.   These products were identified by the industry as those
that would reflect the range of emissions likely to be generated by wool
fiberglass manufacturing operations.70
     For RS lines, the combinations of operations that were tested were:
forming; forming and curing; forming, curing, and cooling; curing;
curing and cooling; and cooling.  For FA lines, curing and cooling
combined and curing alone were tested.  The air pollution controls
tested on RS lines were:  wet ESP's, wet scrubbers, HVAF's, an incinerator,
process modifications, and combinations of these controls.  On FA lines,
the only air pollution controls tested were HVAF's.
     Data obtained from the EPA testing program for particulate emissions,
phenol, phenolic compounds, and formaldehyde are summarized in Tables 4-2,
4-3, 4-4, and 4-5, respectively.63-69  The data are presented graphically
in  Figures 4-14 through 4-17.  The test and analysis methodologies may
be  found in Appendix D.  Emissions data for each controlled process are
presented in units of mass emissions per unit weight of glass pulled.
(The glass pull rate is the total amount of molten glass entering the
                        *
forming section on one  line.)   In some cases, the values for the operating
conditions are given as a percent of the design values because the
actual test values are  deemed confidential by industry.
     Emissions test results for each control device are discussed in the
following sections.
4.6.1  Wet ESP's
     The data  base contains emissions  data from two wet ESP's, one on
line A and one on  line  D.  Emission data and specific  operating parameters
during each test are  shown in Table 4-6.  The wet  ESP  on  line A controls
emissions from forming  and curing.  It is preceded by  low pressure drop
scrubbers and water sprays on forming  and curing.  This wet ESP is
designed to  use a  continuous  spray of  wash water on the collection
plates.  The  scrubbers  and wash water  sprays were  operating during the
test program.
                                    4-27
-------




«n
j
II
l2-H
(B





g
S
o
u.


W1
1
a.
j
i
1
'g
—t
s
i
|
c
o
u
I
_n

f
1

c
•^
A
g
1



c:
o

£

t
**_



I

g
I1


c
o
.3
s

Cl
£
JC
1


£



f

I1

i
3
1
to
&
.1 fe
*J *J
a. a. a. M u t.
V) V) tO U» -^ 
m <• «r cJ


iiii
iiii

i i i , i
iiii




iiii
iiii


i i i i




1 1 t CM
' ' ' d


111 o




m a> r* o
= us r^ ci ^*


CO C\ CO O
co ri -^ csj

i t i i
i t i t





till
iiii

*/» Wl t/» trt
ae be o= o£
*-
I S g i
*— fM M
<: -e: <: co
                 11
t     m     i
i     t     i     i
                                2

                                c     c
                               •i—     O
                                3  U .--
                                u  ro -o
                                             .
                               *— o    ---in
                                ts i—  a>4-> c
                                u> *— ' c  ra o
                                
                                   O »—  (U U)
                               j= J3 .,- *J -r-
                                O  I-  3 •*-> S
                               4J  re ja  TO QJ
                                (0  U
                                CJ    Ol   r? -o  a. e •<-
                                TO  C  t-  01 O rr-
                               TD  TO  TO     U O -i
                                                  S§
                                  m Q3 vi c x :
                               -< LLJ *
                               t)    ja u x»  a* <*-
                                   4-28
-------
Qirrcjiiiio
                                       cz:]3£>   -
                 -N	h
                                                    —. 93 Is + <  i-.
                                                      Q IA-  >•  irt
                                                                         1/1
                                                                         0)
                                                                         C
                                                                         en


                                                                         •r-
                                                                         S-
                                                                         o
                                                                         42
                                                                         c
                                                                         o
                                                                          re
                                                                          to
                                                                          C
                                                                          t/1
                                                                          
                                                                         .a
                                                                          o
                                                                          o


                                                                         •a
                                                                           )—
s: o o o sc
— 0:0:0:0
_j a. a. a. o
                                                                           i
                                                                         •st
 i_

 =!
 O)
•r-
U.
                         4-29
-------
















«-4
CO
co
t-»4
^*
1 t 1

_l
o
LU
cu
o
LU
I


O
Q£
O
CJ

LU.
O



az
^^
^^
g
CO

.
CO
t



LU


CO
 tn *>• o) v> o
S — — LU ^ LU U_ *"
I* :t £ £ 15 X S = X M



c^oor^f**- iootor»-CT»
*— r~ co o ocncjo




"O *O "T3 O) "*- O) O)
^ 0 rH 0 ' 0 ^ ^ 0




t 1 1 *l 1 CO 1 1 t
1 t I 1 1 . 1 1 1
o


1 1 I 1 1 "3- 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 I • t I I





1 1 I 1 \O 1 •— 1 04
III) 1 • 1
O O O
<*-.
i t i i m i o i •—
i t i t i i
0 0




1 1 1 O t I I csj i
III i 1 1 - i
O



1 1 1 O I 1 1 r— |
III 1 1 I • 1
O




o\ co r-» r- i i i i i
* ,-J i i t t i


^
o en «r» *r i i i i i
• • t . i i i i i
^- o —i o




tiii i t i i f-,
i i i i i i i i
o



i t i i t i i i *r
i i i i i i i i •
o





£«£2 «££:££


F- tn f— ^- ^- cn
i i CQ ca i i ea i t
os a: o z: ce ce a ee a:


— eg >
ro
c
m
u

"a)
.^
(8
a>
^
.ti


c c

(O ••-
4-> m
.5 1
f !
U) •*-
LO c
OJ
T3 -O
0

CU (Q
ra
u
U)
ei •-•
u
a
a. • -
ui JZ C
u o
aJ "ra *J
4J ^->
ro ^«> 3
Sf- tn
»— c
m i o>
3 u «-
O ro "O
.£ s»*n

(TJ t. J3

i. C r~
O "- 1
TJ ••- l[

"i *^i
w o
en
d) l/l .
tn O
OJ >,'f-  *-^» C C O.
4-HLJ T- 0 -
*— O •*" f O> us
3 H- OlJ-> C C C
to *«* C (O O -i— O
O) "- 3 ••— -^ ••-
t- c T3 C i/i u in
0 r- 0) Ul rt) 10
u "2 '3 ^ 'e ^ 's
*j ro A ro cu *-* cu
o °CT> a* C3i 'ra C3i
O •— S C J= C
.— •-- 1 to -r- . Q.-f-

•u ro H- o c to i-
O O) I) O O O
O CT1 (A O
• - r— < -o in t- TJ
in f— t LU cu •!—«*- o
C fO Q£ ^- E .—
i- o - "o w c *o
4-> c s- en o i-
nj . •<— 4-1 c "- *->
•M-OTJ CL C •£ « ==
•o ra to (j o •»- o
o >, c: o e c
o u --> m
(TJ 3333

CU .— U O O (J
ni .a u ~o 
-------
                                                         O-t>:o
                                    cci-_-_--i"I"rco
.SIS'

                                                                      —  zu.
                                                                                               en
                                                                                               q:

                                                                                              °sl
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               3
                                                                                               C.
                                                                                               fO
                                                                        fifg
                                                                      .-<    V)
                                                                         C3
                                                                         Z

                                                                        _ oe *o:
                                                                        • =>Q O
                                                                         £
                                                                                               U5
                                                                                               U5
O
O
"S
                                                                                               c
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               to
                                                                                               e
                                                                                               o
                                                                                               O)
 o
'C
 
                                                  4-31
-------

















ID



&•£)
.io

u s-
o. *•»
§
u



Is

»— o
ra w
21


o
4-1

^~

€

JtC



O)
fg


-0
Q) U
11
£

g
•"Sfc
a


S1
S





O

J"I
S U
0*
0
o

u_
0


cc

^?
•^
=3
CO



*T
UJ
«J
CO


S

I/I
Ifl
OAJ
U 0)
o a.


^

py
a. 13



C Ul

c
o t-

^TJ ^0
o_ a_ o_ « u t- a.
*n wi v» ui •*-  o *a o <; +•>  O) > >
3: ^ S o.e« S 3: 3= =




CM ^> CM Ol 1 CSJ ID O
.... 1 ...
CM CM CO O r— ^r r>»
CM

•a "o ~a at *- o en
r- esj ^- tn i ui csj en

^- -— «T O O C\J PO




till 1 Csj I 1
tiii i
o


CM  r— F- r-
1 1 CD CD 1 1 CD 1
a: as a :c ce ce c=i ce



r— CM fO
<«c

4-1
^




CM



U3

ci




,
I



1
1





CM
O



,_

0



1




1
1


,







1




o




m*
o





QC




I
as




-j

i

0
\-
<«_

41
J=
+J

O
ui
Ul
^
'S
c
ra
u
t,
+J
OJ
§

>
rtj
I_
0)
J=
4J
'5

c c
« .2
£. 4-t
4-> rq
CT 3
C >/>
•^- C
f 3-
WJ -r-
U)
in c
0)
•o -a

4) 19
z o
U)

iC z

u
§. . .
U> JS C
u o
S. 4J —
O (O 4-*
4J o m
m *->'3

OJ^-S
(TJ 1 O)
*3 U "-
U rtJ T3

t. 3
a. a»
GJr—
t- C f—

•2'S.Q-
&

J= 0) r—
4-> JZ r—
e a:
4J O
I/)
(U vi
*J «r- C
(/) O
CJ >>'F-
^ *(O (O
S3
UJ ^™* C C
£ o "~ *2
3 H- Ol4->
ui **^ C ra
(U -.- 3
i- c -a tr
0 r—  (TJ J3 (TJ
u cn aj

4-1 ra 14—
o cn II
*-» s- II

Ul r— | LL.
c ra as
3 4J
t- O
4-1 C
(0 • -F-

O >i

o o *J ra
•*-» U *J
oi u -a t-
S- 4- (I ||
4) F-

	































































U)
O
U
a
t.
a.
ui CD ut
e c c
O 'i- O
vt U U)
1 «1

C J= C
"^ yj S*"g
o c ra t-
o o o
(J-~ §<*-
u> O
•a u» t, -a
0) -F- «*- flj

r"^ QJ Ul F—
O CO
t. cn o t-
4J C -F- 4->
C -.
ra ja u -a -------
                              OJb
orrlno
                                                              C$0   -
          -Hvf
,   gj
' ££':
                                                                           a
                                                                           3E

                                                                           i
                                                                            C3I/1Z
                                                                            sac
                                                                            ZOZ
                                                                        S TTT  T
                                                                                       -o
                                                                                        O)
                2
               •M
                C
                O
                O
                                                                                        o i-^-
                                                                                           •
                                                                                        to'
                                                                                        C
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        CO U
                                                                                        •(- ra
                                                                                        e «»-.
                                                                                        O) =3
                                                                                         1  "'C
                                                                                        T3 "3
                                                                                        c e

                                                                                        O S=
                                                                                        a. o
                U  (O

                O  3
                IT-  10
                l—  C
                O M-
              •  c
                a>  to
                -C  trt
                a. 
                (d  s-
                4->  OJ
                O -Q

                *-.?:
                                                                                           §
                                                                                         OJ

                                                                                         3
                                                                    O LU »— OO 
-------
J 

O O O O

T3 -a -o a*
0*000


iiii
iiii



t i * i
iiii


1111
iiii



iiii
iiii



1 1 1 0
i i i


1 I i O
1 1 1

•<3- ^o ITJ to
o o o o


w m m m

o o o o


IIII
1 t 1 1


.
till
1 1 i 1


(/> V) VI V)
os, en a: oz

>— en
Z I s i
^— CM m
>*-     CI    Ol
                                  It
                            U)
                            »-r-
4-» O -^  O   .
^- o    *«™  w>
 3 h-  cn+-*  c
 M ^-^  c  re  o

 t-  c "5  e:  tn
    O r—  O)  (A

 o  i-  3 -*j  e
•*-»  re ua  re  a>
 «J  o
 u    01  a»  01
    u^-  e  e
r— -f-  1   03 ••-
 re  c: o£ r— »—  i.
                                               C  G
                                              ••-  o
                                o cr»
                                      n  u-
                             c 15 i    ^- "


                             2S     =2
                                    3. ••— *J
                               -O T3  Q. C

                            ~a  re  re     u

                            •*- j=  °  S1 §  !
                             o  u -u  re
                               *J  u •*-»  in
                             ai  re  n  o  r*»  m ^
                   c o
                en o t-

                ••- 0) C

                o *— y
                o e c
                                            u u
                                            xc
               4-34
-------
                                        ar:fr:o
                                                                    OJ
                                                        o"~~|rro:;o
      iu.

      3
      <->u.

     : + 5
      « =


      OS
                                                                                            o o
                                                                                            Sfe
                                                                                    SSS'TTT   T
                                                                                                                 I/)
                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                  c
                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                  o
                              e
                              o
                             •I—
                              in
                              in

                             'e
                              a>
                                                                                                                  O)
                                                                                                                 •a
                                                                                                                  g
                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                                  (0
                                                                                                                 4J
                                                                                                                  o
i-1 ° N
                                       13A31 NOISSIW3
t/>    c™-*
uj t— to en .
H- O CO CO <
-N^ZD LU I  '
UJ Q <-> (,
zo<-
*-^ QC te. LA *_/   —
^1 Q. O. 0.0   CC
                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                  S-
                                                                                                                  3

                                                                                                                  05
                                                           4-35
-------
    TABLE 4-6.   EMISSION TEST DATA FOR WET ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
            AT WOOL FIBERGLASS INSULATION MANUFACTURING PLANTS3
,
Parameter measured
Product*3
Process tested


Parti cul ate matter
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Phenol
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Phenolic compounds
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Formaldehyde
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Inlet gas flow rate,
% of design
Design SCA, m2 per mVmin
ftVacfm
Operating SCA, m3 per nrVmin
(average) ftVacfm
Line production capacity,
% of design
Test
Al
R-ll





47.1
94.2
3.3
6.5
93

1.7
3.4
1.0
1.9
40

15.7
31.4
1.1
2.2
93

1.4
2.8
0.2
0.4
86
82




0.00069
0.21
68-86

A2
R-19
Forming and -
Curing


19.5
39.0
3.9
7.9
" 80-

0.9
1.8
0.9
1.8
1

3.2
6.4
1.2
2.4
62

0.5
1.0
0.3
0.6
42
83
Oftnnct; .

OT c O __.

0.00066
0.20
88-92

A3
DB





40.0
80.0
4:8
9.7
88

3.8
7.7
1.9
3.7
52

11.7
23.4
4.1
8.2
65

2.1
4.2
0.3
0.5
88
78




0.00069
0.21
86-97

D
R-n
Forming,
Curing, and
Cooling

7.7
15.4
1.6
3.2
78

0.5
1.0
'0.4
0.8
22

1.7
3.4
0.6
1.2
65

1.3
2.6
0.3
0.5
76
108
0.00128
0.390
0.00121
0.368
100

 Data may not agree precisely with Appendix C due to numerical rounding
.error.
 R-ll = R-ll building insulation.  R-19 = R-19 building insulation.
 DB = ductboard.
 SCA=specific collection area.
                                    4-36
-------
     The wet ESP on line D controls emissions from forming, curing, and
cooling.  It is preceded by water sprays and low pressure drop scrubbers
on forming and water sprays on curing and cooling.  The forming section'
includes air recirculation, a process modification that reduces the air
flow to the control device relative to the total air flow circulating
through the forming section.   Continuous mist sprays on the inlet to the
wet ESP keep the collection plates wet; there is also a water wash
system, which is operated intermittently to wash the collection plates.
The mist sprays and water wash system were operated normally during the
tests.
     Three emission tests were performed on the wet ESP on line A.  Each
test was on a different product, R-ll BI, R-19 BI, and DB.  On line D,
one test was performed on R-ll BI.  The density and LOI for each of the
products tested are given in Chapter 3, Table 3-8.  During the tests>
the average inlet gas temperatures to the wet ESP's were 33°C (91°F) for
line A and 47°C (117°F) for line D.
     The lower emission level was achieved on line D.  The outlet
particulate level was 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 Ib/ton) on line D and ranged from
3.3 to 4.8 kg/Mg (6.6 to 9.8 Ib/ton) on line A.  The higher ESP efficiency
was on line A.  The efficiency ranged from 80 to 93 percent on line A
and was. 78 percent on line D.
     The wet ESP's on lines A and D also removed phenol, phenolic compounds,
and formaldehyde.  The controlled levels ranged from 0.4 to 1.9 kg/Mg
(0.8 to 3.7 Ib/ton) for phenol, from 0.6 to 4.1 kg/Mg (1.2 to 8.2 Ib/ton)
for phenolic compounds, and from 0.2 to 0.3 kg/Mg (0.4 to 0.6 Ib/ton)
for formaldehyde.  Control efficiencies ranged from 1 to 52 percent for
phenol, 62 to 93 percent for phenolic compounds, and from 42 to 88 percent
for formaldehyde.
4.6.2  Wet scrubbers
     High pressure drop venturi scrubbers were source tested at line L.
Emission data and specific operating parameters during each test are
shown  in Table 4-7.  Forming emissions are controlled by two scrubbers
in parallel (designated as the "25" and "50" scrubbers).  These scrubbers
are preceded by five cyclone separators on the common inlet duct.
Forming air recirculation is also used on this line.  Curing and cooling
                                   4-37
-------
        TABLE 4-7.   EMISSION TEST  DATA  FOR VENTURI  SCRUBBERS AT A
            WOOL  FIBERGLASS INSULATION  MANUFACTURING  PLANT3

Parameter measured
Product
Process tested
Parti cu late matter
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Phenol
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency,^
Phenolic compounds
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Formal dehyde
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %


R-19
Forming

3.5
7.0
1.0
2.0
72

0.5
1.1
0.4
0.7
31

1.3
2.6
0.5
1.0
63 '

0.7
1.4
0.3
0.6
60


R-19
Curing and cooling

0.9
1.7
0.3
0.5
68

0.1
0.2
0.1
* . __
0.2
13

0 . 2
0.4
0.1
0.2
40

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
41
Inlet gas flow rate, % of design

Pressure drop
  kPa
  in. w.c.

Line production capacity, % of design
7.3-8.3
  29-33

    100
                            87
6.8-6.9
  27-28

    102
aData may not agree precisely with Appendix C due to numerical rounding
 error.
 R-19 = R-19 building insulation.
cNot determined due to common scrubber inlet sampling location.
                                   4-38
-------
emissions are ducted together and controlled by a third venturi scrubber.
Water sprays are located in the ductwork from the curing oven to the
scrubber.
     Simultaneous inlet and outlet tests were performed on the forming
scrubbers and on the curing/cooling scrubber.  For the forming scrubbers,
sampling was conducted at the common inlet to both scrubbers and at each
of the two outlets.  Testing was performed during the production of
R-19 BI.  The density and LQI of the product are shown in Chapter 3,
Table 3-8.  During the tests, the pressure drop of the forming scrubbers
ranged from 7.3 to 8.3 kilopascals (kPa)>(29.4 to 33.3 inches of water
column [in. w.c.]), and the pressure drop of the curing/cooling scrubber
ranged from 6.8 to 6.9 kPa (27.3 to 27.6 in. w.c.).
     The outlet particulate level for line L was 1.3 kg/Mg (2.5 Ib/ton),
and the overall scrubber efficiency was 71 percent.  The outlet emission
levels of phenol, phenolic compounds, and formaldehyde were 0.5 kg/Mg
(0.9 Ib/ton), 0.6  kg/Mg (1.2 Ib/ton), and 0.3 kg/Mg (0.7 Ib/ton),
respectively..  Overall scrubber efficiency was 28 percent for phenol,
60 percent  for phenolic compounds, and 58 percent for formaldehyde.
4.6.3  HVAF's
     Emission testing was conducted on HVAF's controlling emissions  from
one RS  line, C, and two FA lines, I and J.  The emissions data and
specific operating parameters during each test are presented in Table 4-8.
     The HVAF on line C controls emissions from curing and cooling.  The
HVAF is  a  vendor-supplied unit that contains a cooling chamber with
water sprays to cool the inlet gases and a demister to capture liquid
droplets that are  entrained  in the exhaust gas. The inlet water sprays
and demister were  operating  during the tests on line C.
     The HVAF on line I controls emissions from curing and cooling.  On
line J,  the HVAF controls emissions from curing alone.  The HVAF's on
lines I  and J are  of company design and construction and use neither
precooling sections nor demisters.
     During the tests, R-ll  BI was produced  on lines C and J and DB  was
produced on line I.  The average inlet gas temperatures to the HVAF's
were 35°C  (95°F) on line C,  67°C (153°F) on  line  I, and 68°C (154°F) on
 1i ne J.
                                    4-39
-------
       TABLE 4-8.   EMISSION TEST DATA FOR HIGH VELOCITY AIR FILTERS
            AT WOOL FIBERGLASS INSULATION MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Parameter measured
Product13
Process tested

Parti cul ate matter
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Phenol
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Phenolic compounds
Inlet, kg/Mg >
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Formaldehyde
Inlet, kg/Mg
Inlet, Ib/ton
Outlet, kg/Mg
Outlet, Ib/ton
Control efficiency, %
Inlet gas flow rate, % of design
HVAF pressure drop, kPa
in. w. c.
Filter advance rate, cm/h
in./h
Cooling spray operation
Line production capacity, % of design

C
R-ll
— Curing
Cooli

3.0
6.0
0.6
1.1
81

0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
12

0.4
0.8
0.2
0.4
55

0.2 v
0.3
0.1
0.2
54
62
5.2
21
15.2
• 6
On
92
Line
I
DB
and —
ng

3.0
6.0
0.6
1.1
80C

0
0.1
0
o.i.
oc

0.4
0.8
0.2
0.5,.
- 19C

0.4
0.8
0.4
0.8,.
Oc
56
2.7
11
71.1
28
Off
99

J
R-ll
Curing


2.2
4.4
1.2
2.5
41

0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0

0.2
0.4.
0.2
0.4
0

0.5
1.0
0.5
1.0
0
69.
2.5-7.5°
10-30°
35:6
14
Off
100
 Data may not agree precisely with Appendix C due to numerical rounding
.error.
 R-H = R-11 building insulation.   DB = ductboard.
 .Based on nonsimultaneous inlet and outlet tests.
 Design pressure drop; actual not recorded due to broken manometer.
                                   4-40
-------
     The outlet particulate emissions level achieved by the HVAF's were
0.2 kg/Mg (0.4 Ib/ton) on line C, 0.6 kg/Mg (1.1 Ib/ton) on line I, and
1.3 kg/Mg (2.6 Ib/ton) on line J.  The corresponding particulate removal
efficiencies were 81 percent on line C, 80 percent on line I, and 41 percent
on line J.                                                  .
     The HVAF on line C was more efficient in removing phenol, phenolic
compounds,  and formaldehyde than the HVAF's on lines I and J.  The HVAF on
line C achieved efficiencies of 17 percent, 57 percent, and 54 percent on
phenol, phenolic compounds, and formaldehyde, respectively.  On line I, the
HVAF controlled 19 percent of the phenolic compounds but achieved no control
on phenol and formaldehyde.  The HVAF on line J achieved no control of these
compounds.
4.6.4  Incinerators
     Emission testing was conducted on an incinerator controlling emissions
from curing on line B.  Emission data and specific operating parameters
during the test are shown in Table 4-9.  Only outlet emissions could be
measured; therefore, no control efficiencies could be determined.
     During the test, HDI was produced on line B.   The incinerator
controlled particulate emissions to a level of 0.2 kg/Mg (0.4 Ib/ton)
and controlled phenol, phenolic compounds, and formaldehyde to zero.
4.6.5  Process Modifications
     Emission tests were performed on line B where process modifications
are a part of the control system.  Emission data for line B are shown in
the summary Tables 4-2 through 4-5.  In addition to process modifications,
low pressure drop scrubbers and cyclones are used to control forming
emissions.   The description of the process modifications is held
confidential by the company.
     During testing, HDI was produced on line B.  The combined controlled
emissions from forming and from the incinerator on curing were 2.0 kg/Mg
(4.0 Ib/ton) of particulate matter, 0.4 kg/Mg (0.7 Ib/ton) of phenol,
0.5 kg/Mg (0.9 Ib/ton) of phenolic compounds, and 0.3 kg/Mg (0.6 Ib/ton)
of formaldehyde.
4.6.6  Visible Emissions Data
     Data obtained from the EPA testing program for visible emissions
are summarized in Table 4-10.  No visible emissions data were obtained
                                   4-41
-------
  TABLE 4-9.  EMISSION TEST DATA FOR INCINERATOR AT A
    WOOL FIBERGLASS  INSULATION MANUFACTURING PLANT3
Parameter measured
 Line B
Product0

Process tested

Particulate matter

  Outlet, kg/Mg
  Outlet, Ib/ton

Phenol

  Outlet, kg/Mg
  Outlet, Ib/ton

Phenolic compounds

  Outlet, kg/Mg
  Outlet, Ib/ton

Formaldehyde

  Outlet, kg/Mg
  Outlet, Ib/ton

Outlet gas flow, % of design
                           .
Outlet gas temperature, °C/°F

Combustion temperature, % of design

Fuel consumption, % of design

Line production capacity,
  % of design
    . HDI

  Curing
     0.2
     0.4
       0
       Q
       0
       0
       0
       0

      79

643/1188

      98

      93

      89
.Inlets not measured because of duct configuration.
 HDI = heavy density insulation.
                         4-42
-------



















o '
CO
CO

^c
I—

a

z
o
H-t
CO
CO
1— 1
yr
LU

LU
_J
03
t-H
CO
1— t
^>

0
^.
on

3jr
gg
••%
t/>


,
o
p—
^J.

LU
—1
oa

h-
































1
r
c
a> re
3 -P
c
•p- :.
E CU
1 4->
co re
01

O 0)
• in
o at
z a:
re
s-
01
re





M
in
4-" CU CU CU
O -P OVp-
3 re -p
a> e s- T-
O)T- a> u
c E > re
re i re a.
Qi CO O


t)w •
o c

• 'E
O 1
z co





p-H
o

4->
C
o
CJ


I

























r>" .



,'• ',: **^
CU
• c
•P"
1

o
CO
m
CM



o
CM




in




o
p™



in





-P
c
Ol
o

o>
a.




.
O)
>
re







CU
u

>
CU
•o


TJ

o
3
TJ
O
S-
o.






CU

i.
3
O
in

in
in

U
o
i-
o.



•p
in
CU


O

0




o





0




*tf"




o







csj
r—
I
co






o
«*•







a.
CO
LU

4
p— •





^>t" P""'
«ej- in



i.
0
•p
• re
a. in i in s-
co in -p- e a)
LU  o -a -P o
 a. 01
v> c a> in c o>
•p- C -P- C

S« S— S» S— t- S—
re- o 3 re o 3
+J 4- o -p 4- u
o o





CO

•3:






oa
o





c .
o

.p
re
3 "O
C C
cu re
-P C3>
-P O) C
re c -P-

eu s- o
E 3 O
re u u

u.





1—4


O CM

o co
CM



O LO
00




o CM




O • LO.
p—
P"


O LO

p^





*^* r*"
1 00
O 1
r—
^—





03 U-J
CO r-
p»"




in
s-
01
.Q " • ,

U- "3
< -P S-
> cU o
3« ^g y)




p- cn
r"*" , P1—
1 1
n* Qg;




*N
C O)
0 S.
•p- «p-
•P S- O)
re 3 c
3 O •!-
C C P-
O> f- - O
-P a. at o
+i as. in c o
re c v

CU t» g— C— P*
E 3 re o re

f~« O
U_ OS





**D „ j

















4
•a
s-
re
o

u
3
-a

u

OQ
a


•
c
o
•p-
-p
re
p—
3
(A
C
•r-

O>
C
•5

pH-
t
Q£

II

en
i
Q£


,
C .
o e
•p- O
-P -p-
re -P
p- re
3 P-
in 3
c in
•p- C

O)
c. >,
•p- 4?
•a -r-
p- in
•p- C
3 cu
^» -a

r™* >^
(•"•• >
i re
Q£ CU
J=
II
U

r— HH
> a
Q£ 1C
re
4-43
-------
for lines C and D because the exhaust gases from these lines are ducted

to stacks shared with other operating processes.  The maximum opacity

(6-min. average) for forming and curing on RS line A was 12 percent for

the test on R-ll BI, 10 percent for the test on R-19 BI, and 29 percent

for the test on DB.  For RS line B, the maximum opacity for forming and

curing for the test on HDI was 5 percent.  The maximum opacities measured

for curing and cooling on FA line I during the production of DB and for

curing on FA line J during the production of R-ll BI were 1 and 4 percent,

respectively.  The maximum opacity observed on RS line L for combined

forming, curing, and cooling emissions was 31 percent.

4.7  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
 1.



 2.




 3.

 4.
Study of RACT on CertainTeed Plant No. 7.  Kansas City—Wyandotte
County Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Section.  Kansas
City, Kansas.  July 1981.  pp.  24, 25, 36, and Figure 1.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Study of CertainTeed Plant No. 7.
Kansas City—Wyandotte County Department of Health, Air Pollution
Control Section.  Kansas City,  Kansas.  August 1981.  pp. Figure 3,
3-10, 7-2.

Reference 1, p. 12; Reference 2, p. 3-7, 4-4, 7-4.

Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Insulation Fiberglass Manu-
facturing Segment of the Glass Manufacturing Point Source Category.
(Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).  NTIS PB-238 078.
January 1974.  pp. 9, 14.
     Electrostatic Precipitator Manual.
     Illinois,  pp. III-97.0, 98.0.
                                    The Mcllvaine Company.  Northbrook,
 6.  Reference 5, pp. 1-2.1, 2.2 and III-91.0.

 7.  Telecon.  Maxwell, W., MRI, to Noll, C. , United McGill Corporation.
     June 1, 1982.  Information on wet ESP's.

 8.  Reference 5, p. VII-2.1.

 9.  Reference 5, p. III-91.0.

10.  Memo and attachments  from Shular, J., MRI, to Telander, J.,  EPA/ISB/SDS.
     May 13, 1982.  Report of visit to MikroPul Corporation,  p.  2.

11.  Reference 10, p. 2.

12.  Reference 5, pp. 11-37.3 and 37.4.
                                   4-44
-------
13.   Bakke, E.   Wet Electrostatic Precipitators for Control of Submicron
     Particles.   Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association.
     25:166.   February 1975.

14.   Wark, K.  and Warner, C. F.  Air Pollution:  Its-Origin and Control.
     Harper and Row, N.Y.  1976.  p. 222.

15.   Reference 5, pp. 1-9, 10 and 11-37.0 to 37.2.

16.   Letter and attachments from Parikh, D., MikroPul Corporation, to
     Shular,  J., MRI.  February 19, 1982.   Information on wet ESP's.

17.   Reference 5, p. III-91.0.

18.   Telecon.   Marker, T., United-McGill Corporation, to Connor,  M.,
     MRI.  December 11,  1980.   Information  on wet ESP's.

19.   Memo from Shular, J., MRI, to Telander, J., EPA/ISB/SDS,  July 6,  1982.
     Minutes of meeting with United McGill  Corporation,  p. 4.

20.   Reference 10, p. 3.
        *~ * •- .,=..

21.   Reference 19, p. 4.

22.   Reference TO, p. 3.

23.   Reference 21, p. 4.

24.   Reference 10, p. 3.

25.   Reference 19, p. 4.

26.   Reference 16, attachments.

27.   Calvert, S.. et al.   (A.P.T.,  Inc.).   Wet  Scrubber  System  Study:
     Volume 1, Scrubber  Handbook.   (Prepared  for U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency)  Research Triangle  Park, N.C.   Publication
     No.  EPA-R2-72-118a.   NTIS  PB  213  016.  July  1972.
                                                     @-
28.   Joy Manufacturing  Company,  Type  "V"  Turbulaire  Variable  Venturi
     Scrubber.   Los  Angeles,  California.   1978.

29.   Scrubber Manual.   The Mcllvaine Company.   Northbook,  Illinois.
     p.  VII-25.

30.   Control Techniques  for Particulate Emissions  from Stationary Sources.
     Volume I.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Research Triangle
     Park, North  Carolina.   EPA-450/3-81-005a.  September 1982.   pp.  4.5-21,
     22.

31.   Reference 30,  pp.  4.5-21,  22  through  4.5-23.
                                    4-45
-------
32.  Reference 29, p. 11-17.

33.  Reference 30, pp. 4.5-21, 22, 24.

34.  American Air Filter Company, Incorporated.  Type N  Roto-clone:
     Model B Hydrostatic Precipitator.  DC-l-277J-Mar-04.   Louisville,
     Kentucky. Undated.

35.  Reference 30, p. 4.5-23.

36.  Reference 30, p. 4.5-24.

37.  Telecon.  Maxwell, W., MRI, with Werle, D., Flex-Kleen Corporation.
     June 22, 1982.  Information on wet scrubbers  in the wool  fiberglass
     industry.

38.  Reference 30, pp. 4.5-44, 45.

39.  Letter and attachments from Brady, J. D. ,  Andersen  2000,  Incorporated,
     to Medepalli, K., MRI.  April 22, 1981.   Information on HEAF's  and
     associated costs,  p. 2.

40.  Telecon.  Corbo, J., Johns-Manville, with  Greer, L., MRI.
     December 9, 1980.  Information on HEAF's  used by Johns-Manville.

41.  Letter from Brady, J. D., Andersen 2000,  Incorporated, to
     Telander, J. A., EPA/ISB/SDS.  April 14,  1982.  Additional  information
     on HEAF's.  p. 4.

42.  Reference .39, p. 1.

43.  Reference 40.

44.  Reference 39, attachments.

45.  High Energy Air Filter® for Reducing Industrial Effluents.   Filtration
     Engineering.  May 1970.  p. 11.

46.  Reference 39, p. 1.

47.  Reference 39, attachments.

48.  Reference 45, p. 13.

49.  Letter and attachments from Thomas, S.  F., Owens-Corning  Fiberglas
     Corporation, to Goodwin, D. R., EPA/ESED.  April 13, 1981.   Response
     to information request.  Enclosure 1.

50.  Reference 49, Enclosure 1.
                                   4-46
-------
51.   Memo and attachments from Greer, L., MRI, to Telander, J.,  EPA/ISB/SDS.
     October 28, 1980.  Report of visit  to Owens-Corning  Fiberglas
     Corporation, Newark, Ohio (October  7-8, 1980).  p. 4.
52.   Rolke, R. W., et al.  Afterburner Systems Study.   Shell  Development
     Company.  Emeryville, California.   August 1972.  pp.  16,  16a,  184.
53.   Reference 52, p. 15.
54.   Reference 52, p. 18b.
55.   Reference 30, p. 4.6-3.
56.   Reference 52, p. 16a.
57.   Reference 52, p. 18a.
58.   Reference 52, p. 18.
59.   Reference 52, p. 18.
60.   Reference 52, .p. 18.
61.   Reference 30, p. 4.6-5.
62.   Toxic  and Hazardous  Industrial  Chemical Safety Manual.   International
     Technical  Information  Institute, Japan  (1975).   pp.  249, 405.
63.   Confidential  reference  4-3.
64.   Confidential  reference  4-4.
65.   Confidential  reference  4-5.
66.   Confidential  reference  4"6.
67.  Confidential  reference  4-7.
68.  Confidential  reference  4-8.
69.  Confidential  reference  4-9.
70.  Memo  from  Greer, L., MRI,  to Telander,  J.,  EPA/ISB/SDS.
     October 27, 1980.   Minutes  of meeting with Knauf,  CertainTeed, and
     Owens-Corning,   p.  3.
                                    4-47
-------
-------
                    5.   MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

     Standards of performance apply to facilities for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction commenced (as defined under 40 CFR 60.2)
after the date of proposal of the standards.  Such facilities are termed
"affected facilities."  Standards of performance are not applicable to
"existing facilities" (i.e., facilities for which construction, modifi-
cation, or reconstruction commenced on or before the date of proposal of
the standards).  An existing facility may become an affected facility and
therefore be subject to standards if the facility undergoes modification
or reconstruction.
     Modification and reconstruction are defined under 40 CFR 60.14 and
60.15, respectively.  These general provisions are summarized in Section 5.1
Section 5.2 discusses the applicability of  these provisions to fiberglass
manufacturing plants.
5.1  PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
5.1.1  Modification
     With certain exceptions,  any physical  or operational change to an
existing facility that would increase the emission rate  to the atmosphere
from that facility of any pollutant covered by the standard would  be
considered a modification within the meaning of  Section  111 of the Clean
Air Act.  The  key to determining if a change is  considered a modification
is whether the total emission  rate to the atmosphere  from the  facility
increased as a result of  the change.  Under the  current  regulations,  an
emission increase from  one  facility may not be offset with a similar
emission decrease at  another facility to avoid becoming  subject  to new
source performance  standards (NSPS).   If an existing  facility  is determined
to be  modified,  all  of  the  emission  sources of that  facility are subject
                                    5-1
-------
to the standards of performance applicable to the pollutant for which the
emission rate increased.  A modification to one existing facility at a
plant will not cause other existing facilities at the same plant to
become subject to the standards.
     Under the regulations, certain physical or operational changes are
not considered to be modifications even though emissions may increase as
a result of the change (see 40 CFR 60.14(e)).  For the most part, these
exceptions are allowed because they account for fluctuations in emissions
that do not cause a facility to become a significant new source of air
pollution.  The exceptions as allowed under 40 CFR 60.14(e) are as follows:
     1.  Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement (e.g., lubrication
of mechanical equipment; replacement of pumps, motors, and piping; cleaning
of pipes and ductwork);
     2.  An increase in the production rate without a capital expenditure,
(as defined in 40 CFR 60.2);
     3.  An increase in the hours of operation;
     4.  Use of an alternative fuel or raw material if, prior to proposal
of the standard, the existing facility was designed to accommodate that
alternate fuel or raw material;
     5.  The addition or use of any system or device whose primary function
is to reduce air pollutants, except when an emission control system is
replaced by a system determined by the EPA to be less environmentally
beneficial; and
     6.  Relocation or change in ownership of the existing facility.
     An owner or operator of an existing facility who is planning a
physical or operational change that may increase the emission rate of a
pollutant to which a standard applies shall notify the appropriate EPA
regional office 60 days prior to the change, as specified  in
40 CFR 60.7(a)(4).
5.1.2  Reconstruction
     An existing facility may become subject to new source performance
standards if  it is reconstructed.  Reconstruction  is defined as  the
replacement of the components of an existing facility to the extent that
(1) the fixed capital cost  of the  new components exceeds 50 percent of
the fixed capital cost  required to construct a comparable  new facility
                                    5-2
-------
and (2) it is technically and economically feasible for the facility to
meet the applicable standards.  Because the EPA considers reconstructed
facilities to constitute new construction rather than modification,
reconstruction determinations are made irrespective of changes in emission
rates.  If the fixed capital cost of routine maintenance, repair, or
replacement met the definition, the facility would be considered
reconstructed.
     The purpose of the reconstruction provisions is to discourage the
perpetuation of an existing facility for the sole purpose of circumventing
a standard that is applicable to new facilities.  Without such a provi-
sion,  all but vestigial components (such as frames, housing, and support
structures) of the existing facility could be replaced without causing
the facility to be considered a "new" facility  subject to NSPS.  If the
facility is determined to be  reconstructed, it  must comply with all of
the provisions of the standards of performance  applicable to that  facility.
   1  If an owner or operator  of an existing facility is planning to
replace components and the  fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new facility,
the owner or  operator must  notify the appropriate EPA  regional office
60 days before the construction of the  replacement commences,  as required
under 40 CFR  60.15(d).
5.2   APPLICATION TO WOOL  FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES
5.2.1   Modification
      Potential modifications  of  fiberglass  manufacturing equipment and
processes  that could  increase the emission  rate might  include:
      1.   Installation of  additional  spinners  in the  forming  section to
 increase  glass pull  rate  beyond  design  capacity or  increase  of line speed
 capability beyond  design  speed to  increase  throughput;
      2.   Increasing  the width of a  production  line  to  manufacture  a wider
 fiberglass mat;  and
      3.   Rebuilding  a curing oven  to obtain greater heat input-or  higher
 curing air flow.                                                     ,
                                    5-3
-------
5.2.2  Reconstruction
     Reconstruction, as defined under 40 CFR 60.15,  might occur if the
components of a forming section, curing oven, or cooling section are
replaced, and if the fixed capital cost of the replacement components
exceeded 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a new affected facility.
Conversion of an existing line from flame attenuation to rotary spin
forming technology would be considered reconstruction.   Reconstruction in
the wool fiberglass industry is expected to occur only in isolated cases.
                                   5-4
-------
               6.   MODEL PLANTS AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

6.1  PURPOSE
     Model lines,  model plants, and regulatory alternatives for wool
fiberglass insulation manufacturing are defined in this chapter.  Model
lines characterize the range of lines that are expected to be constructed
in the future.  Model plants consist of representative combinations of
model lines and of model line additions to existing plants.  Regulatory
alternatives are defined for the model lines.  These model lines, model
plants, and regulatory alternatives are used in subsequent chapters as
the basis for analysis of the environmental, energy, and economic impacts
associated with control of emissions from wool fiberglass  insulation
manufacturing facilities.
6.2  MODEL LINES
     Schematics of rotary spin  (RS) and flame attenuation  (FA)  wool
fiberglass manufacturing lines  are presented in Figures 6-1 and 6-2,
respectively.   (See  Chapter 3  for descriptions of  RS and  FA lines and
Chapter 4 for descriptions of  control  devices and  control  configurations.)
Four RS model line sizes (specialty,  small,  medium, and large)  and  one
FA model  line (small)  have been selected  to  characterize  the  range  of
wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing  lines expected to be constructed,
modified, or  reconstructed  in  the  future.  The RS  and  FA  line sizes and
technical parameters .are presented  in Tables 6-1  and 6-2,  respectively.
The  designations  for line  size are  based  on  annual production capacity
 in megagrams  per  year (Mg/yr)  (tons/yr).   Development  of  model  line
 parameters  utilized  data from  EPA  source  tests,  from the  industry,  and
 from plant  visits.
                                   6-1
-------
          CO LU












CJ
 LU .
C_3 O — 1 *-> CD
>- o oo LU 
c
c
o.
(/)
r-|-^-g >>
1 U U U fO
Soo p
o o S-
3 O ° °.
T^O O O (O
•^ r~ r~ **~
= e c c o
i— *t— *^- *^>
cn co % T
rs H- H- to
CJ OO D-
D- CU
	 k O "t-i j_
1— CD Z 3
z oo en
1— •— i .,-
CJ CD O u_
=1 -------
                                                           :*c
                                                            to

                                                            o
                                                                             o

                                                                             Ed

                                                                             to o
                                                                             to _J
                                                                             UJ U_

                                                                             o to
                                                                             CIS eC
                                                                             ^  CD
                                                                                t
                                                                                            (/)
                                                                                            3

                                                                                            O





















UJ
S
-3 >
U.
o
OS
u.

I
1

O {_j
l_ 1^
o ^
t
;|

A3
§
0
A
O
*^
--•
"uT •£
O S
O -v.
Lrt en
t— S
"""* 0
CJ O
o o
<& **



CD
z
S
1

I :
«^ Q!



























1
1
-J uj
§ <—>
t- 5;
1°
t
1
' •—
' 
§o
'L


's'
u
re
0
o
o
in
0 C
0 '&
r™~ "^^
•*~* en .
O
o o
oo »*
CO i—



cs
>—4
o
0
u

A
1
.'l
. t^^
CO
*
01
c
*r>*
o
J=
u
•r—
' e
o
3
C
*j
(8
CJ
1


to
4-
O
• « 0

Z CD ^
P QC 0 E
H- O Z 22
o H- >— ' -c:
cj to Q. 0
	 a. .to
^_ CD *T*
_ S ^
c_i CD <"** I
3 «c z «»
0 i<£ <=C
O CJ Q>
OS 
-------
              TABLE  6-1.   MODEL  LINE  PARAMETERS—ROTARY  SPIN
Line designation:
1. Line information
Annual production, Mg/yra
tons/yr
Hours/year operation
Products
2. Process information
A. Forming Section
Gas flow rate,c m3/min
acfm
Gas temperature,0 °C
°F
Moisture,0 %
Uncontrol 1 ed.parti cul ate
emissions, kg/Mg
Ib/ton
B. Curing Section
Gas flow rate, nrVmin
acfm
Gas temperature,0 °C
°F
Moisture, %
Uncontrolled .parti cul ate
emissions, kg/Mg
Ib/ton
C. Cooling Section
Gas flow rate,0 m3/min
acfm
Gas temperature,0 °C
°F
Moisture, %
Uncontrolled parti cul ate
emissions ' kg/Mg
1 b/ton
Specialty

4,500
5,000
8 .,000
(PI, SP)b


1,100
40,000
52
125
6
26
52

140
5,000
177
350
6
3
5

140
5,000
38
100
2
0
0
Small

18,000
20,000
8,000
far
{Dl,


2,800
100,000
52
125
6
26
52

1,100
40,000
177
350
6
3
5

280
10,000
38
100
2
0
0
Medi urn

34,000
38,000
8,000
PI, DB,


3,100
110,000
52
125
6
26
52

1,100
40,000
177
350
6
3
5

280
10,000
38
100
2
0
0
Large

50,000
55,000
8,000
HOT ^
nui j


4,100
145,000
52
125
6
26
52

1,100
40,000
177
350
6
3
5

280
10,000
38
100
2
0
0
a Mg/yr = megagrams per year; nrVmin = cubic meters per minute;
   acfm = actual cubic feet per minute; kg/Mg = kilograms per megagram;
hlb/ton = pounds per ton.
 PI = Pipe insulation.  SP = Specialty.  BI = Building insulation.
 DB = Ductboard.  HDI = Heavy density insulation.
".At the exit of each section of the process.
 Average total catch for all line sizes .from EPA test data.  •
 Data less than 0.25 kg/Mg (0.5 Ib/ton) round to zero.
                                    6-4
-------
      TABLE 6-2.   MODEL LINE PARAMETERS—FLAME ATTENUATION
Line designation:
               Small
1.   Line information

    Annual  production, Mg/yra
                       tons/yr
    Hours/year operation,
    Products
2.   Process information
               4,500
               5,000
               8,000 .
(BI, PI, DB, SP, HDI)D
• A.







B.







C.








Forming Section
Gas flow rate,0 nrVmin
acfm
Gas temperature,0 °C •
°F
Moisture, %
Uncontrolled .parti cul ate
emissions, kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Curing Section
Gas flow rate,0 nrVmin
acfm
Gas temperature,0 °C
°F
Moisture, %
Uncontrolled.particulate
emissions, kg/Mg
Ib/ton
Cooling Section
Gas flow rate,0 m3/min
acfm
Gas temperature, °C
op
Moisture, %
Uncontro11eddp|rticulate
emissions, ' kg/Mg
Ib/ton

4,000
140,000
66
150
6
44
89 ,

420
15,000
177
350
6
3
5

140
5,000
38
100
2

1
1
 Mg/yr = megagrams per year.  nrVmin = cubic meters per minute.
  acfm = actual cubic feet per minute.   kg/Mg =  kilograms per
.megagram.   Ib/ton = pounds per ton.
 BI = Building  insulation.  PI = Pipe insulation.  DB = Ductboard.
 SP = Specialty.  HDI = Heavy density insulation.
 .At the exit of each section of the process.
 Based on highest total catch from EPA test data on FA lines.
 kg/Mg equal Ib/ton due to numerical rounding.
                                6-5
-------
     The raw materials for wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing are
molten glass and binder, which typically consists of an aqueous solution
of phenol-formaldehyde resin and other minor constitutents.
     A number of wool fiberglass insulation products are made on RS and FA
lines.  The principal products are building insulation (BI) (includes
residential and nonresidential), heavy density insulation (HDI), ductboard
(DB), and pipe insulation (PI).  With the exception of PI, these products
could all be made by any of the model lines described in Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
Pipe insulation is manufactured (with one exception in the industry) on
lines dedicated to this product and at low production rates, relative to
other products.  A separate model line, termed "specialty," has been
developed to characterize the production of PI.  This model line will also
represent lines that produce other specialty products (such as automobile
or appliance insulation).  Larger pipe or specialty lines that might be
constructed would be represented by one of the other three RS model lines.
     Gas flow rates vary among companies and products.  Gas flow rates for
high density products (e.g., DB and HDI) are lower than flow rates for low
density products (e.g., BI).  The greatest variation in gas flow rates is
from company to company.  The model line gas flow rates presented in
Tables 6-1 and 6-2 were obtained from industry data and EPA source test
reports for existing lines.
     Within each RS line size designation, forming gas flow rates vary
widely.  However, as line production capacity  increases, a nearly linear
increase in forming, gas; flow rate is typical for all lines.  The forming gas
flows selected for the four model line sizes are considered to be typical.
Curing and cooling gas flow rates show no relationship with line production
capacity except for the specialty line.  Therefore, typical curing and
cooling gas flows of 1,100 and 280 cubic meters per minute (m3/min) (40,000
and 10,000 actual cubic feet per minute [acfm]), respectively, were selected
for all three of the largest model line sizes.  These figures are based on
the average gas flows for existing lines ranging in size from small to
large.  A gas flow of 140 m3/min (5,000 acfm) was selected for the specialty
line curing and cooling flows.  There are no known corrosive properties of
the gas stream that require special materials  of construction.
                                  6-6
-------
     Estimates of uncontrolled participate emissions from EPA test data
are given in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 for forming, curing, and cooling.  These
are expressed as kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (pounds per ton [lb/ton])
of glass pulled.
6.3  MODEL PLANTS                                                    .     '
     Two types of RS model plants are defined for wool fiberglass
manufacturing:  (1) complete new plants and (2) single line additions to
existing plants.  Complete model plants were developed from available
information on production capacity and the number of lines at existing
facilities.  The range of production capacity for each size of model
plant is presented in Table 6-3 as well as possible line combinations
that make up each model plant.  Combinations of line sizes were selected
to include the four model line sizes and to cover a wide range of model
plant sizes, environmental impacts, and economic impacts.
     The low air flow rates associated with specialty RS lines may
result in control configurations in which emissions from a specialty line
are ducted with emissions from a larger line to a common control device.
For the medium-sized model plant (Table 6-3), for example, emissions from
the specialty line could be ducted to a control device on one of the two
large lines.
     No new FA plants are expected to be built by the industry.  Table 6-4
presents model plants that represent the addition of single RS or FA
lines (as defined in Tables 6-1 and 6-2) to existing wool fiberglass
manufacturing plants.
6.4  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
     Regulatory alternatives with the associated control device
configurations are presented in Tables 6-5 and 6-6 for RS and FA processes,
respectively.  Emission levels that are used to analyze the relative impacts
of regulatory alternatives are given in Tables 6-7 and 6-8 for RS and FA
processes, respectively.  The emission levels were developed from test data
and measured control device efficiencies.1  In all calculations, it was
assumed that each control device would achieve the same control efficiency
on each combination of emission sources used in the regulatory alternatives.
The test data show no correlation between controlled emissions levels and
                                  6-7
-------
                 TABLE 6-3.  MODEL PLANTS (COMPLETE PLANTS) '
Range of
Model . annual production
plant Plant Plant capacity
No. type size Mg/yr
1 RS S 18,000-
57,000
2 RS M 68,000-
104,000
3 RS L 134,000-
177,000

tons/yr
20,000-
63,000
75,000-
115,000
148,0000-
195,000

Possible j
model line combinations
*1 small
1 large
1 small, 1 medium, and
1 specialty
*2 large and 1 specialty
1 small and 2 medium
1 small and 1 large
*1 small, 1 medium, and
2 large
1 medium and 2 large
. 5 medium and 1
specialty
hRS = rotary spin.
DS = small.
 M = medium.
 L = large.
jMg/yr = megagrams per year.
 Asterisks indicate combinations recommended for economic impact analysis.
                                    6-8
-------
             TABLE  6-4.  MODEL  PLANTS  (LINE ADDITION)
Model
plant No.
4
5
6
7
Li ne
type
RS
RS
R$
FA
Line
designation
Smal 1
Medium
Large
Small
Increased production
, capacity
Mg/yr
18,000
34,000.
50,000
4,500
tons/yr
20,000
38,000
. 55,000
5,000
aRS - rotary spin.
,FA = flame attenuation.
 Mg/yr = megagrams per year.
                               6-9
-------
            TABLE 6-5.   ROTARY SPIN REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES AND
                       CONTROL DEVICE CONFIGURATIONS
Regulatory    	
alternative   Forming
            Control device confiquration(s) on—
                     Curing
                        Cooling
(Baseline)
              5-in. scrubber
                     600°F incinerator
                        Uncontrolled
   II
Wet ESP
35-in. scrubber
 600°F  incinerator
 600°F  incinerator
Uncontrolled
  III
Wet ESP
35-in. scrubber
Wet  ESP
'35-in. scrubber
Uncontrolled
   IV
Wet ESP
35-in. scrubber
Wet  ESP
35-in. scrubber
Wet ESP
35-in. scrubber
                                    6-10
-------
    TABLE 6-6.   FLAME ATTENUATION REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES AND
                  CONTROL DEVICE CONFIGURATIONS
Regulatory
alternative
                     Process
  Forming
  Curing
  Cooling
  I  (Baseline)   Uncontrolled
 II               Uncontrolled
III
 IV
Uncontrolled
HVAF
Uncontrolled
HVAF
HVAF
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
HVAF
Uncontrolled
                               6-11
-------
                  TABLE 6-7.  ROTARY SPIN EMISSION LEVELS
Regulatory
alternative
I (Baseline)
II
III
ivb
Spec
kgTMg3
16
5
3
3
:ialty
lb/tona
32
11
6
6
Smal 1
kg/Mg
-16
5.
3
3
Ib/ton
32
11
6
6
Medium
kg/Mg
16
5
3
3
Ib/ton
32
n
6
6
Large
kg/Mg
16
5
3
3
Ib/ton
32
n
6
6

  w  w       ^ 	 r	  	
-------
the densities of the products.   Therefore, it is assumed that the control
levels shown for the various regulatory alternatives could be achieved
for any product by a properly designed and operated control device.
     The emission levels for the regulatory alternatives are intended to
cover a range from baseline to successively more stringent control so
that a range of potential impacts can be considered in selecting regulatory
alternatives on which to base a new source performance standard (NSPS).
The NSPS will be based on the test data and results of the impact analysis.
Therefore, the numerical standard may not be exactly equal to any particular
emissions level associated with the regulatory alternatives.
     Regulatory Alternative I for both RS and FA is the baseline, the
level of control that would be expected in the absence of a national
standard.  The remaining alternatives represent additional control of
emissions from the wool fiberglass manufacturing process.
     For RS  lines, Regulatory Alternatives I, II, and III are based on
control of forming and curing emissions.  Under'Regulatory Alternative  IV,
cooling emissions are also controlled.  The regulatory alternatives are
based on various combinations of control  devices, which are listed in
Table 6-5.   Other control devices are possible  but  have not been  considered
as  bases for regulatory alternatives.  High velocity air  filter  (HVAF's),
while used  in  the industry to control curing and cooling  emissions, have
not been demonstrated for control of  forming emissions.   Although emissions
data were gathered  from the only forming  sections  having  dedicated
control  devices, these  sections use  recycled process air  which  is not
typical  industry practice.  Thus, data are  not  available  upon which to
base regulatory alternatives employing more than one control  device per
alternative.  (Regulatory Alternative II, while impractical to  implement
for the  above reasons,  is defined so  that environmental  and economic
analyses  can be performed on this level  of  control.)   Similarly,  process
modifications are  not  considered as  a technical  basis  for regulatory
alternatives because they are  not available for industry-wide use.
Therefore,  only wet ESP's and  high  pressure drop wet  scrubbers  are
considered  as bases for the more  stringent  levels  of  control  under the
 regulatory  alternatives.   Control  device system parameters for  the model
                                   6-13
-------
lines are presented in Table 6-9.   These parameters are used in the
evaluation of control device costs in Chapter 8.
     For FA lines, Regulatory Alternative I (baseline) is based on
uncontrolled forming, curing, and cooling.   Regulatory Alternative II is
based on control of curing with an HVAF.  Curing and cooling both are
controlled by HVAF's under Regulatory Alternative III, and forming alone
is controlled by HVAF's under Regulatory Alternative IV.   (Regulatory
Alternative IV, while impractical  to implement because HVAF's have not
been demonstrated on forming emissions, is defined so that environmental
and economic analyses can be performed on this level of control.)  The
HVAF parameters for FA lines are the same as those listed in Table 6-9
for RS lines.
6.5  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
1.  Memo from W. Maxwell and J. Shular, MRI, to J. A. Telander, EPA/ISB/SDS.
    Alternative Control Technologies for Regulatory Alternatives (Amended).
    August 5, 1982.
                                  6-14
-------
    TABLE 6-9.   CONTROL DEVICE SYSTEM PARAMETERS FOR ROTARY SPIN LINES


Parameter3                                                   Specification
Venturi Scrubber

  Water spray rate,
    £/min per m3/min (gpm/1,000 acfm)

  Ap, Pa (in. w.c.)  ,
    Regulatory ATternati ve I
    Regulatory Alternatives II, III, IV

Wet ESP

  Water spray rate,
    £/min per m3/min (gpm/1,000 acfm)

  Ap, Pa (in. w.c.)

  Design efficiency, percent

  Precipitation  rate parameter,, m/min  (ft/min)

  Specific  collection  area,
    m2 per  mVmin  (ft2/!,000  acfm)

 Incinerator

  Residence time,  s

  Operating temperature, °C  (°F)

 HVAF

  Water  spray rate,
     £/min  per mVmin (gpm/1,000 acfm)

  Ap, Pa (in.  w.c.)
   2.0  (15)


  1,245 (5)
 8,710  (35)
   1.3.(10)

    250 (1)

        90

2.37 (7.78)


 0.98 (300)



       0.5

  315 (600)
   2.0 (15)

 6,970 (28)
 a£/min per mVmin = liters per minute per cubic meter per minute.
  .gpm/1,000 acfm = gallons per minute per 1,000 actual cubic feet per
  minute.
  Pa = pascals.
  in. w.c. = inches water column.
  ft/min = feet per minute.
                                    6-15
-------
-------
                  7.  ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS
     An analysis of the environmental and energy impacts of the regulatory
alternatives for the wool fiberglass model lines and plants is presented
in this chapter.  The incremental increase or decrease in air pollution,
water pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption for the
regulatory alternatives as compared to baseline are discussed.  Tables 7-1
and 7-2 present the control device configurations used in the impact
analyses of the regulatory alternatives.  The baseline control level
represents no change from existing regulations.  The regulatory alternatives
are presented in Chapter 6.
7.1  AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
     This section presents an analysis of the air pollution impacts
associated with application of each regulatory alternative on each model
line and model plant.
7.1.1  Primary Air Impacts
     7.1.1.1  Model Line (Plant) Emissions and Emission Reductions.
Uncontrolled emission levels and emission levels associated with each
regulatory alternative are presented in Tables 7-3 and 7-4.  The emission
levels were developed from EPA test data on uncontrolled emissions.
Based on these  levels, annual emissions of particulate matter are given
in Tables 7-5 and 7-6 for  rotary spin (RS) model lines and plants and  in
Table 7-7 for the flame  attenuation (FA) model line.  Tables 7-5 through
7-7 also show the emission reduction below baseline for the control
alternatives for each model line and plant. The annual emissions were
calculated using the production  figures for the model lines and plants
given in Table  7-8.
     As shown in Tables  7-5 and  7-6, annual emissions for  Regulatory
Alternatives II through  IV range from 53 to 264 Mg/yr (58  to 292 tons/yr)

                                   7-1
-------
              TABLE  7-1.   REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES AND  CONTROL  DEVICE CONFIGURATIONS .
                             FOR  IMPACT  ANALYSIS  OF  ROTARY  SPIN LINES
            Reg.
            Alt.
                   Control device configurations
Formi ng
Curing
Cooling
              I


             II



            III



             IV
               a
Wet scrubber
  1.25 kPa (5 in.)

Wet ESPb
Wet scrubber
  8.75 kPa (35 in.)

Wet ESP
Wet scrubber
  8.75 kPa (35 in.)

Wet ESP
Wet scrubber
  8.75 kPa (35 in.)
Incinerator
  316°C (600°F)
      v

Wet ESP
Wet scrubber
  8.75 kPa (35 in.)

Wet ESP
Wet scrubber
  8.75 kPa (35 in.)
Uncontrolled
Wet ESP
Wet scrubber
  8.75 kPa (35 in.)
            ^Baseline.
             ESP = electrostatic  precipitator.
                                                7-2
_
-------
   TABLE 7-2.   REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES AND CONTROL DEVICE CONFIGURATIONS
              FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS OF FLAME ATTENUATION LINES
Regulatory
Alternative
                        Process
  Forming
  Curing
  Cooling
  I  (Baseline)
 II
III
 IV
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
    HVAFa
Uncontrolled
    HVAF
    HVAF
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
    HVAF
Uncontrolled
 *HVAF = high velocity air filter.
                                    7-3
-------
TABLE 7-3.  SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSION  LEVELS
              FOR ROTARY SDTM Di?nrp«:<;a  i
FOR ROTARY SPIN PROCESS'
Regulatory
Alternative
Uncontrolled
I
II
III
IV
Emission
kg/Mg
of glass pulled
29
16
5
3
3
levelb
Ib/ton
of glass pulled
58
32
11
6
6
.Total line (forming, curing, and cooling).
 Emission levels are the same for some
 regulatory alternatives due to numerical
 rounding.  Metric and English units may not
 convert exactly due to independent rounding.
                          7-4
-------
TABLE 7-4.  SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSION LEVELS
           FOR FLAME ATTENUATION PROCESS3 l
Regulatory
Alternative
IC •
II
III
IV
Emission
kg/Mg of
glass pulled
47
45
45
12
levelb
Ib/ton of
glass pulled
95
90
90
24
fTotal line (forming, curing, and cooling).
 Emission levels are the same for some
 regulatory alternatives due to numerical
 rounding.  Metric and English units may not
 convert exactly due to independent rounding.
 Baseline = uncontrolled.
                          7-5
-------
  TABLE 7-5.   ANNUAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM ROTARY SPIN MODEL LINES1
Line designation
Small
Total
Mg/yrb
tons/yr
Emission reduction
below baseline
Mg/yr
tons/yr
Medi urn
Total
Mg/yr
tons/yr
Emission reduction
below baseline
Mg/yr
tons/yr
Large
Total
Mg/yr
tons/yr
Emission reduction
below baseline
Mg/yr
tons/yr

Ia


287
316


—

545
600


_~


788
869


::
Regulatory
II


96
106


191
210

183
201


362
399


264
292


524
577
Alternative
III


55
61


232
255

105 • •
116


440
484


152
168


636
701

IV


53
58


234
258

100
110


445
490


145
160


643
709
Baseline.
Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
rounding.
                                   7-6
-------
  TABLE 7-6.  ANNUAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM ROTARY SPIN MODEL PLANTS1

Plant designation Ta
•1
Total
Mg/yrb 287
tons/yr 316
Emission reduction
below baseline
Mg/yr
tons/yr
2
Total'
Mg/yr 1,648
tons/yr 1,817 .
Emission reduction
below baseline
Mg/yr
tons/yr
3
Total
Mg/yr 2,408
tons/yr 2,654
Emission reduction
below baseline.
Mg/yr
tons/yr
Regulatory
II

96
106


191
210

552
611


1,096
1,206

807
891


1,601
1 ,763
Alternative
III

55
61


232
255

318
351


1,330
1,466

464
513


1,944
2,141

IV

.. 53
58


234
258

303
333 ,


, 1,345
1,484

443
487


1,965
2,167
.Baseline.
 Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
                                    7-7
-------
      TABLE 7-7.   ANNUAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FLAME
                    ATTENUATION MODEL LINE1
Line
designation
Small
Total
Mg/yrb
tons/yr

Ia


215
237
Regulatory Alternative
II III


205 204
226 225 .

IV


54
59
 Emission reduction
 below baseline

   Mg/yr
   tons/yr
10
11
11
12
161
178
Baseline.
Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to
independent rounding.
                              7-8
-------
         TABLE 7-8.   ANNUAL PRODUCTION FOR MODEL LINES AND PLANTS
                                         Production:    Mg/yr
               tons/yr
Rotary spin lines

  Smal 1
  Medi urn
  Large

Rotary spin plants

  No. 1:  1 small line
  No. 2:  2 large and 1 specialty line
  No. 3:  1 small, 1 medium, and 2 large lines

Flame attenuation line

  Small
 18,000
 34,000
 50,000
 18,000
104,500
152,000
  4,500
 20,000
 38,000
 55,000
 20,000
115,000
168,000
  5,000
                                     7-9
-------
for the RS model lines and 53 to 807 Mg/yr (58 to 891 tons/yr) for the
RS model plants.  Baseline emissions are 287 to 788 Mg/yr (316 to
869 tons/yr) for the model lines and 287 to 2,408 Mg/yr (316 to
2,654 tons/yr) for the model plants.  The national impact of Regulatory
Alternatives II through IV on particulate emission reduction below
baseline will range from 7,100 to 11,600 Mg/yr (7,800 to 12,800 tons/yr)
in the fifth year after implementation of the standard.  The fifth-year
national impacts presented in this chapter are based on industry growth
projections (projected numbers of new lines and plants) discussed in
Chapter 9.
     Annual emissions from the FA model line for Regulatory Alternatives II
through IV range from 54 to 205 Mg/yr (59 to 226 tons/yr).   The baseline
emission level for the FA model line is approximately 215 Mg/yr (237 tons/yr).
No fifth-year impacts of the FA regulatory alternatives are presented
because no growth is projected for this segment of the industry.
     In addition to the control of particulate matter, the control
devices used to achieve the regulatory alternatives also reduce phenol
and formaldehyde levels in the effluent gas stream.  Emissions of these
compounds are caused by vaporization and aerosolization of binder in the
forming, curing, and cooling sections of the fiberglass manufacturing
process.  These compounds are removed from the gas stream by absorption
into the water used in the control device or as cooling sprays and by
adsorption onto particles that are collected by the control devices.
     The extent of capture of these pollutants has not been quantified
since some may vaporize from the control device wastewater stream and be
reemitted to the atmosphere.  Therefore, actual net removal efficiencies
are unknown, and no estimates of annual emissions and emission reductions
are given for phenol and formaldehyde.
     7.1.1.2  Dispersion Analysis.  Dispersion modeling was used to
predict the contribution by wool fiberglass insulation production facilities
to the ambient particulate concentration.  The dispersion model used and
the results obtained are discussed in the following subsections.
     7.1.1.2.1  Model description.  The model used in this dispersion
analysis was the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) model in the short-term
mode (ICST).2,3  General modeling data of the ISC model are presented in
                                   7-10
-------
 Table 7-9.   The ISC model  requires input data on sources, meteorology,
 and receptors.   These items are discussed in the following subsections.
    •  Source data.   The three emission sources considered in this document
 for both RS and FA production lines are the forming, curing, and cooling
.sections.   In this modeling effort, emissions were considered to be
 gaseous, i.e.,  as though the particles in the emission streams would not
 settle out.  Because most of the gas streams are saturated with water
 and the particulate matter consists of sticky particles whose size
 distribution cannot be determined, particle settling was not considered
 in the modeling runs.
      The following data are required by the ISC model for each production
 line and regulatory alternative:
      1.  Emission height, in meters (m);
      2.  Exit dimensions, in meters (m);
      3.  Exit velocity, in meters per second (m/s);
      4.  Exit temperature, in kelvins (K); and
      5.  Particulate emission rate, in grams per second (g/s).
      Table 7-10 summarizes the source characteristics of each RS and FA
 model line addition and regulatory alternative (as described in Chapter 6).
 Table 7-11 summarizes the source characteristics of each RS model plant
 and regulatory alternative.
      Meteorological data.  Meteorological data required by the ISC model
 include the following hourly values for an entire year:
      1.  Ambient temperature, K;
      2.  Wind speed, m/s;
      3.  Wind direction to the nearest 10 degrees; and
      4.  Stability class.                           .          .
 Daily morning and afternoon mixing height data are also required and are
 interpolated internally in the ISC model to hourly values.
      Wool  fiberglass insulation facilities were assumed to be located in
 rural areas and, therefore, did not include heat island effects.
      In this study,  1964 climatological data were compared for Kansas City,
 Missouri;  Dayton, Ohio; Atlanta, Georgia; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 Climatological data  from 1964 were used because they are fairly complete
 on an hour-by-hour basis and are considered meteorologically
                                    7-11
-------
                     TABLE 7-9.  GENERAL MODELING DATA4
Type of data
              Description
Meteorological Data

  Geographic terrain


  Setti ng  '

Receptor Data

  Plant boundaries
Source Data

  Pollutant
  Particle size
  Averaging times
  Special considerations
Uniform
Rolling
Valley
Rural
Source(s) may be as close as 30 meters
  (100 feet) from plant boundary
Radial distances of 0.3, 0.8, 1.0 and
  3.0 kilometers (985; 1,640; 2,625;
  3,280; and 9,840 feet) from the center of
  the modeled source(s) based on analysis
  of location of maximum (worst-case)
  ground level concentrations
Particulate (EPA Method 5E)

Unmeasurable
Annual arithmetic and geometric mean
  concentrations
Highest second-highest 24-hour
  concentrations

Downwash of the plume in the wake of
  a nearby building (height = 15 meters
•  [50 feet])
                                   7-12
-------
                  TABLE 7-10a.  SUMMARY OF SOURCE DATA
       FOR ROTARY SPIN AND FLAME ATTENUATION MODEL  LINE ADDITIONS4
                                (Metric)
Case
8


10


12

14

15


17


19

21

22


23


24

25


Line
size +.
typea'b
Medium
RS

Medi urn
RS

Medi urn
RS
Medium
RS
Large
RS

Large
RS

Large
RS
Large
RS
Small
FA

Small
FA

Small
FA
Small
FA

Reg.
Alt.
I


II


III

IV

I


II


III

IV

I


II


III

IV


Stack
No.
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6

1
2
3
1
2
3
4
• 5
6

1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Stack
height,
m
30
30
23
30
30
23
30
23
30

30
30
23
30
30
23
30
23
30

30
30
23
30
30
23
30
30
30
30
23
Stack
dia-
meter,
m
1.8
1.2
0.5
1.8
1.2
0.5
2.0
0.5
2.1

2.0
1.2
0.5
2.0
1.2
0.5
2.1
0.5
2.3

2.1
0.6
0.4
2.1
0.6
0.4
2.1
0.8
2.1
0.6
0.4
Exit
velo-
city,
m/s
19
19
21
19
19
21
20
21
19

21
19
21
21
19
21
22
21
20

19
24
21
19
18
21
19
17
18
24
21
Exit
temp. ,
K
311
533
311
308
533
311
308
311
308

311
533
311
308
533
311
308
311
308

339
450
311
339
333
311
339
333
333
450
311 '
Emis-
sion
rate,
g/s
15.74
2.99
0.18
3.17
2.99
0.18
3.47
0.18
3.47

22.78
4.33
0.26
4.59
4.33
0.26
5.02
0.26
5.02

6.99
0.42
0.05
6. 99
0.09
0.05
6.99
0.09
1.39
0.42
. 0.05
^RS = rotary spin process.   FA = flame attenuation process.
 Source data for RS small line are the same as source data for small model
 plant (Table 7-11).
 Stack number refers to the individual point sources within the model line.
                                    7-13
-------
 TABLE 7-10b.  SUMMARY OF SOURCE DATA FOR ROTARY SPIN AND FLAME ATTENUATION
                           MODEL LINE ADDITIONS4
                                 (English)3
Case
8


10


12

14

15


17


19

21

22


23


24

25


Line
typeb'c
Medium
RS

Medium
RS

Medi urn
RS
Medium
RS
Large
RS

Large
RS

Large
RS *
Large
RS
Small
FA

Small
FA

Small
FA
Small
FA

Reg.
Alt.
I


II


III

IV

I


II


III

IV

I


II


III

IV


Stack
No.3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6

1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6

1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
Stack
height,
ft
100
100
75
100
100
75
100
75
100

100
100
75
100
100
75
100
75
100

100
100
75
100
100
75
100
100
100
100
75
Stack
dia-
meter,
ft
5.9
3.9
1.6
5.9
3.9
1.6
6.6
1.6
6.9

6.6
3.9
1.6
6.6
3.9
1.6
6.9
1.6
7.5

6.9
2.0
1.3
6.9
2.0
1.3
6.9
2.6
6.9
2.0
1.3
Exit
velo-
- city,
ft/s
62
62
69
62
62
69
66
69
62

69
62
69
69
62
69
72
69
66

62
79
69
62
59
69
62
56
59
79
69
Exit
temp. ,
°F
100
500
100
95
500
100
95
100
95

100
500
100
95
500
100
95
100
95

150
350
100
150
140
100
150
140
140
350
100
Emis-
sion
rate,
Ib/h
124.56
23.76
1.44
25.16
23.73
1.43
27.54
1.43
27.54

180.36
34.20
2.16
36.43
34.20
2.16
39.85
2.16
39.85

55.44
3.24
0.36
55.44
0.72
0.36
55.44
0.72
11.16
3.24
0.36
 Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
.rounding.
 RS = rotary spin process.  FA = flame attenuation process.
 Source data for RS small line are the same as source data for small model
 .plant (Table 7-11).
 Stack number refers to the individual point sources within the model line.
                                    7-14
-------
     TABLE 7-lla.
SUMMARY OF  SOURCE DATA FOR  ROTARY SPIN  MODEL PLANTS10
                 (Metric)
Line
Case size
26 Smal 1

28 Smal 1


30 Smal 1
32 Smal 1
33 Medium





35 Medi urn




37 Medium



39 Medi urn
40 Large







42 Large







44 Large




46 Large

Reg. Stack Stack
Alt. No. height, m
I 1
2
3
II 3
4
5
III 3
6
IV 7
I 1,2
3
4,5
6
7,8
9
II 1,2
3
10, 11
12
13,14
15
III 1,2
3
16
17,18
IV 19
20,21
I 1
2
3,4
5
6
7,8
9
10
11,12
II -1
2
3,4
13
14
17,18
15
'16
19,20
III 1
2
3,4
21
22
23,24
IV 25
26
27,28
30
30
23
23
30
30
23
30
30
23
23
30
30
30
30
23
23
30
30
30
30
23
23
30
30
30
30
23
23
23
30
30
30
30
30
30
23
23
23
30
30
30
30
30
30
23
23
23
30
30
30
30
30
30
Stack
diameter, m
1". 7
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.7
1.2
0.5
1.9
2.0
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.4
2.0
1.1
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.4
2.0
1.1
0.5
0.4
1.1
2.1
1.2
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.3
Exit
velocity,
m/s
20
19
21
21
20
19
21
20
20
21
21
19
24
21
20
21
21
19
24
21
20
21
21
22
22
19
20
21
21
21
19
19
19
20
19
21
21
21
21
19
19
19
20
19
21
21
21
21 '
20
20
22
20
19
20
Exit
temp. , K
311
533 •
311
311
308
533
311
308
308
311
311
533
533
311
311
311
311
533 .
533
'308
308
311
311
308
308
308
308
311
311
311
533'
533
533
311
311
311
311
311
311
533
533
533
308
308
- 308
311
311
311
308
308
308
308
308
308
Emission
rate, g/s
8.28
1.58
0.09
0.09
1.67
1.58
0.09
1.83
1.83
0.26
0.02
4.33
0.39
22.78
2.07
0.26
0.02
4.33
0.39
4.59
0.42
0.26
0.02
0.46
5.02
0.46
5.02
0.09
0.18
0.26
1.58
2.99
4.33
8.28
15.74
22.78
0.09
0.18
0.26
1.58 .
2.99
4.33
1.67
3.1.7
4.59
0.09
0.18
0.26
K82
3.47
5.02
1.83
3.47
5.Q2
aSource data for RS small  line are the same as source data for small model plant.
 Stack number refers to the individual point sources within the model plant.
                                          7-15
-------
       TABLE 7-lib.
SUMMARY  OF SOURCE  DATA  FOR  ROTARY SPIN MODEL  PLANTS10
                 (English)3
Lineh Reg. Stack Stack
Case size0 Alt. No. height, ft
26 Small I 1
2
3
28 Small II 3
4
5
30 Small III 3
6
32 Small IV 7
33 Medium I 1,2
3
4,5
6
7,8
9
35 Medium II 1,2
3
10,11
12
13,14
15
37 Medium III 1,2
3
16
17,18
39 Medium IV 19
20,21
40 Large I ' 1
2
3,4
5
6
7,8
9
10
11,12
42 Large II 1
2
3,4
13
14
17,18
15
16
19,20
44 Large III 1
2
3,4
21
22
23,24
46 Large • IV 25
26
27,28
100
100
75
75
100
100
75
100
100
75
75
100
100
100
100
75
75
100
100
100
100
75
75
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
' 100
100
100
100
100
100
75
75
75
100
100
100
100
100
100 .
75
75
75
100
100
100
100
100
100
Stack
diameter, ft
5.6
3.9
1.6
1.6
5.6
3.9
1.6
6.2
6.6
1.6
1.3
3.9
1.3
6.6
3.6
1.6
1.3'
3.9
1.3
6.6
3.6
1.6
1.2
3.6
6.9
3.9
7.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
5.6
5.9
6.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
5.6
5.9
6.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
6.2
6.6
6.9
6.6
6.9
7.5
Exit
velocity,
ft/s
66
62
69
69
66
62
69
66
66
69
69
62
79
69
66
69
69
62
79
69
66
69
69
72
92
62
66
69
69
69
62
62
62
66
62
69
69
69
69
62
62
62
66
62
69
69
69
69
66
66
72
66
62
66
Exit
temp. , °F
100
500
100
100
95
500
100
95
95
100
100
500
500
100
100
100
100
500
500
95
95
100 ,
100
95
95
95
95
100
100
100
500
500
500
100
100
100
100
100
100
500
500
500
98
98
98 •
100
100
100
98
98
98
98
98
98
Emission
rate, Ib/h
65.52
12.60
0.72
0.72
26.28
12.60
0.72
13.26
12.54
2.16
0.14 '
34.20
3.24
.. 180.36
16.56
2.16
0.14
34.20
3.24
36.43
3.33
2.16
0.14
3.65
39.85
3:65
39.85
0.72
1.44
2.16
12.60
23.76
34.20
65.52
124.56
180.36
0.72
1.44
2.16
12.60
23.76
34.20
13.26
25.16
36.43
0.72
1.44
2.16
14.53
27.54
39.85
14.53
27.54
39.85
^Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to  independent numerical rounding.
 Source data for RS small line are the same as source data for small model plant.
 Stack number refers to the individual point sources within the model plant.


                                           7-16
-------
representative.   The selection of these meterological data sets was
based on the geographic concentration of wool fiberglass insulation
plants.   Therefore, the four meteorological data sets chosen for comparison
are considered to be representative of the four greatest concentrations
of wool  fiberglass insulation plants.
     The selection of the meteorological data set ultimately used in the
modeling analysis was based on the comparison of all-stability and
individual-stability wind runs developed for each of the four meteorological
data sets and on a set of preliminary ISC runs carried out with one of
the modeling cases used as input to each of the four meteorological data
sets.  From the comparison of the four data sets, the Dayton, Ohio,
meteorological data set was selected for use in the modeling analysis
for the following  reasons:
     1.   The occurrence of the highest 24-hour total suspended particulate
(TSP) concentration;
     2.   The occurrence of the highest second-highest 24-hour TSP
concentration;
     3.  The negligible influence of calms on concentration maxima;
     4.  The relatively centralized  location of the  station in relation
to many of  the wool fiberglass insulation  plants;
     5.  The specific  geographical association with  six wool fiberglass
insulation  plants  in Ohio and  Indiana; and
     6.  The relatively similar  broad  characteristics of  the joint
frequency distributions with the Kansas  City, Missouri, and Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, data sets.
     Receptor locations.  The  ISC model  calculates  concentration  impacts
for  receptors at  specified  radial distances  from  the center of the
source.   Receptors were  located  at distances  of  300, 500,  800, 1,000,
and  3,000 meters  (985, 1,640,  2,625,  3,280,  and  9,840 feet).   All
receptors were  assumed to be  at  the  same elevation  as plant grade.   The
only terrain  effects  included  in the modeling were  those  implicitly
contained in  the  meteorological  data.
      7.1.1.2.2   Discussion  of  dispersion calculations.  The  ISC  model
was  run using as  input the  Dayton (1964) surface meteorological  data
 set.   Hourly  concentration  impacts  from each of the 24  modeling  cases
                                    7-17
-------
were  calculated  by  the  ISC  model.   Concentrations  were  summed  for each
24-hour  period.   Annual  arithmetic  mean  concentrations  were  then  calculated
by  the model  for each receptor;  there  was  no  attempt  to calculate the
annual geometric mean concentrations,  which are  usually in the range of
75  to 95 percent of the  annual arithmetic:  mean concentrations.
      Concentration  estimates  calculated  by the ISC model  are typically
within a factor  of  2 of  measured ambient concentrations.
      The modeled particulate  matter concentration  impacts can  be  compared
to  the National  Ambient  Air Quality Standards (NAAQS):
           Averaging time
     Annual geometric mean

     24-hour maximum (not to be
       exceeded more than once
       per year)
Standard type
  Primary
  Secondary
  Primary
  Secondary
 Particulate
concentration,
    pg/m3	
      75
      60
     260
     150
     7.1.1.2.3  Annual concentration  impacts.  Maximum annual arithmetic
mean TSP concentrations calculated by the  ISC model are presented  in
Table 7-12 for each of the regulatory alternatives for RS  insulation
model plants and lines.  The maximum  annual arithmetic mean concentrations
for Regulatory Alternatives II through  IV  range  from 0.96  to 2.26  pg/m3
for RS model lines and from 0.51 to 6.95 pg/m3 for RS model plants.
Baseline maximum annual arithmetic mean concentrations are from 5.38 to
6.14 pg/m3 for RS model lines and from  2.83 to 20.37 pg/m3 for RS  model
plants. The highest maximum concentration  occurred for the baseline
Case 40 with an impact of 20.37 pg/m3.   If one  assumes a  pristine
environment and compares these levels with the NAAQS, which are expressed
as geometric mean rather than arithmetic mean, this calculated maximum
is less than 27 percent of the .primary  standard  and less than 34 percent
of the secondary standard.
     7.1.1.2.4  Twenty-four hour maximum concentration impacts.   Maximum
24-hour and highest second-highest 24-hour TSP concentrations calculated
with ISC and the Dayton, Ohio, (1964) meteorological data are also
presented in Table 7-12 for each of the regulatory alternatives for wool
                                   7-18
-------
TABLE 7-12.  SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM TSP CONCENTRATION IMPACTS4












Highest
second-



Line
type
+
Reg.
Case Alt.
8
10
12
14
15
17
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
30
32
33
35
37
39
40
42
44
46
I,
II,
III,
IV,
I,
II,
III,
IV,
I,
II,
HI,
IV,
I,
II,
III,
IV,
I,
II,
HI,
IV,
I,
II,
III,
IV,
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
FA
FA
FA
FA
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS .
RS
RS

Maximum
annual
arithmetic
mean,
ug/m3
5.38
1.79
1.14
0.96
6.14
2.26
1.44
1.09
1.10
0.98
0.93
0.33
2.83
0.94
0.65
0.51
13.44
5.02
3.04
2.41
20.37
6.95
4.55
3.66


Distance
from
source
center to
recep-
tor, m



1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1



1


1
1


1
1
800
800
800
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
800
800
800
,000
800
800
,000
,000
800
800
,000
,000
Maximum
24- hour
average
TSP
concen-
trat i ons ,
ug/m3
78.
24.
15.
13.
68.
28.
14.
12.
17.
16.
16.
4.
41.
13.
7.
7.
142.
63.
30.
26.
233.
89.
48.
41.
18
78
08
39
30
85
35
54
70
31
0.9
03
IT
02
92
07
10
17
28
74
91
87
01
88
highest
Distance 24-hour
from average
source TSP
center to concen-
recep-
tor, m
300
300
300
500
500
300
800
800
300
300
300
500
300
300
300
500
500
300
500
800
500
300
500
500
trations,
ug/m3
49.
18.
9.
7.
48.
23.
11.
9.
13.
12.
11.
3.
25.
9.
5.
4.
104.
50.
23.
20.
172.
73.
34.
30.
04
58
33
84
77
14 .
59
50
91
04
70
55
78
74
23
14
70
78
95
42
37
87
81
97
Distance
from
source
center
to
recep-
tor, m
500
300
300
1,000
500
300
1,000
1,000
300
*. -t_
300
300
300
500
300
500
1,000
500
300
1,000
1,000
500
300
1,000
1,000
                            7-19
-------
fiberglass insulation model plants and lines.  The highest second-highest
24-hour concentrations for Regulatory Alternatives II through IV range
from 9.5 to 23.14 ug/m3 for RS model lines and from 4.14 to 73.87 [jg/m3
for RS model plants.  Baseline highest second-highest 24-hour concentra-
tions are from 48.77 to 49.04 (jg/m3 for model lines and 25.78 to
172.37 ug/m3 for model plants.  The highest second-highest 24-hour
concentration occurred for the baseline Case 40 with an impact of
172.37 ug/m3.  This value is approximately 66 percent of the primary
NAAQS and approximately 115 percent of the secondary NAAQS.
7.1.2  Secondary Air Impacts
     Secondary emissions of air pollutants result from generation of the
energy required to operate the control devices.  Generation of the
electric power required to operate the control devices will result in
particulate, sulfur dioxide (S02), and oxides of nitrogen (NO ) emissions
                                                             /\
from the electric power generator.  Natural gas combusted in incinerators
used to control curing emissions will result in NO  emissions from the
                                                  /\
wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing plant.
     Secondary emissions were calculated assuming that electric power to
the control devices was supplied by a coal-fired power plant.  It was
assumed that the power plant complies with the standards of performance
for electric utility steam generating units.5  The applicable standards
limit particulate emissions to 0.03 Ib/million Btu heat input, S02
emissions to 1.20 Ib/million Btu heat input, and NO  emissions to
                                                   y\
0.60 Ib/million Btu heat input.5  Secondary emissions were calculated
using these emission limits.1  For Regulatory Alternatives II through
IV, the secondary particulate emissions above baseline from the electric
power generator range from 0.06 to 0.34 Mg/yr (0.06 to 0.38 tons/yr) for
RS model lines, 0.16 to 1.23 Mg/yr (0.18 to 1.37 tons/yr) for RS model
plants, and 0.11 to 0.91 Mg/yr (0.12 to 1.00 tons/yr) for the FA model
line.  Secondary emissions of S02 above baseline range from 2.40 to
13.75 Mg/yr (2.64 to 15.16 tons/yr) for RS model lines, 6.45 to 49.54 Mg/yr
(7.11 to 54.62 tons/yr) for RS model plants, and 4.51 to 36.43 Mg/yr
(4.97 to 40.16 tons/yr) for the FA model line.  The secondary NO  emissions
                                                                A
above baseline range from 1.20 to 6.87 Mg/yr (1.33 to 7.58 tons/yr) for
RS model lines, 3.22 to 24.77 Mg/yr (3.56 to 27.31 tons/yr) for RS model
                                   7-20
-------
plants, and 2.25 to 18.22 Mg/yr (2.48 to 20.08 tons/yr) for the FA model
Tine.
     Emissions caused by the generation of energy for the control devices
are small compared to the emission reduction from the model lines and
plants presented in Section 7.1.1 and compared to the total emissions
from the power generator.  For example, a large model line controlled to
emission levels represented by Regulatory Alternative IV would indirectly
increase emissions from a steam generator and would  reduce the net
particulate matter reduction by,less than 1 percent.
7.2  WATER POLLUTION  IMPACTS
     Water pollution  impacts can  result from the application of air
pollution control devices on wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing
lines.   Most  of the devices used  to  control particulate emissions from
fiberglass plants produce aqueous discharges.  Wastewater  from these
control  devices is alkaline (pH >7.0)  and contains phenols, other dissolved
organic  compounds, and  dissolved  and suspended solids.6  Typically,
water  treatment consists of screening  and settling of  the  wastewater to
remove suspended  solids.  At  some facilities, wastewater  is also  flocculated
and filtered.
      For the  wool  fiberglass  insulation manufacturing  industry,  the
effluent guidelines  for best  available technology  for  all  existing
 facilities  allow  no  discharge of process wastewaters into  navigable
waterways.7   Until  this requirement takes  effect in  1984,  existing
 facilities  are allowed to  discharge wastewater  from  advanced  air pollution
 control  devices when the water cannot be  consumed  in the  process.7,8
 Effluent limitations for such discharges  have been specified.7   Pretreat-
 ment requirements at existing facilities  for the discharge of process
 wastewaters into  publicly owned treatment works  (POTW's)  have not been
 specified at this time.
      Standards of performance for new sources (as determined under the
 Clean Water Act)  allow no discharge of process wastewaters into navigable
 waterways.7  Pretreatment standards for new sources allow no discharge
 of  incompatible pollutants (e.g., phenol) into POTW's.  This effectively
 precludes wool fiberglass companies from discharging process wastewaters
                                    7-21
-------
 into POTW's.  Thus,  no  impact  on water  quality  is  expected because by
 1984 both existing and  new  sources  should  produce  zero wastewater
 discharges.
 7.3  SOLID WASTE  DISPOSAL IMPACTS
     Solid wastes from  control  devices  at  wool  fiberglass insulation
 manufacturing plants consist of sludges  and discarded HVAF filters.  In
 this section, the solid waste  impacts of the  regulatory alternatives are
 discussed.
 7.3.1  Solid Waste Quantities  and Characteristics
     Sludges produced by the control devices  consist of glass fiber-resin
 masses in various stages of cure, glass  fibers, phenols and other organic
 compounds, and water.   Solid wastes from HVAF's consist of discarded
 filters and the collected glass fiber-resin masses and condensed resin
 materials.
     Tables 7-13  and 7-14 give  the  quantities of solid waste generated
 and the incremental increase over baseline for  each regulatory alternative.
 The estimates of  solid  waste are based on  the amount of particulate
 matter collected  and do not include the  mass  of water associated with
 the sludges or the mass of the  discarded filter media from HVAF's.   The
 national solid waste increase over  baseline levels in the fifth year
 after proposal will range from  9,400 to  11,600 Mg/yr (10,400 to
 12,800 tons/yr) for RS  Regulatory Alternatives  II through IV.
 7.3.2  Solid Waste Disposal  Methods
     Discarded HVAF filters and control  device  sludges are disposed of
 by landfill ing.    Whether the wastes are  treated before disposal depends
 on disposal costs, State and local  regulations governing disposal,  and
 requirements of the disposal facility.    Treatment methods may include
 bagging of HVAF filters and dewatering and stabilizing of sludges.
 7.3.3  Solid Waste Disposal  Regulations
     Solid wastes from the wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing
 industry presently are not classified as hazardous wastes under the
 regulations adopted to  implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).9  Thus, disposal of these wastes  is governed by Section 4004
of RCRA and by the regulatory requirements of the States.10
                                   7-22
-------


1-1
re
/•Q
[l
^•5
^^
""•*
o
to
LU
z
LU
0
^~
-^.
o_
^f
H-
§

a
LU

i—
^
a.

LU
oo
^^
^^
0
^"1
Q
to

rrt
n
•
1
^^
LU
CQ
^^
'








in
C
O
•p
OJ
s.


£_

^^^
c
o
+J
t-H
1— «
>— 1
2 >>
•r" ,OJ
• -P S
re
r***

0)
•p s-
•— >>
in
£> i
O -P
-p
re >-H

OJ S-
iS -^

i

s-
^^
in
C
o
^""^
_
t— 4
s_

en
S
i
t


1 "O
c o
0 f—
c o
•^ . 1









i— 00
CM ID
ID CM

CO «*•
r-. CO
<*• CM






00 ID .
r— ID
ID CM


0 r—
p- CO
«3- CM



CO O
P- r-
•sj- CM




cn o
CM en




CO 1
to i
CM





cn i
CO 1
CM






O 1
1

(j
i
re
4-J
c

<8 i
C r—  c
-P
*T3 2>i
'i ^
in in
w 
r— C O
U LU
C rr~
•r- -a re
c • -P
•p re cu c
o c cu
c u •-- e
•r- i— 
-------
    TABLE 7-14.  SOLID WASTE IMPACTS FOR FLAME ATTENUATION MODEL LINE* 1
Regulatory Alternative
Line
designation
Small
Total
Incremental0
,T" _____ TT ______ 	 	 TTT --
Mg/yr tons/yr Mg/yr tons/yr Mg/yr

0 10
10

11 11
11 11

12 161
12 161
TW
iv 	
tons/yr

178
178
 Does not include discarded HVAF filters.  Metric and English units may not
.convert exactly due to independent numerical rounding.
^Baseline.
 Incremental over baseline.
                                   7-24
-------
7.4  ENERGY IMPACTS
7.4.1  Energy Consumption of Control Alternatives
     Operation of wet ESP's, scrubbers, and HVAF's to control participate
emissions requires the use of electrical energy.  The electricity is
used to operate fans to move air and pumps to circulate .water in the
control devices.  For wet ESP's, electricity is also used to create the
corona discharge.  Furthermore, incinerators used to control curing
emissions use natural gas as fuel.   ..
     Tables 7-15 and 7-16 show the annual energy demand associated with
each regulatory alternative.  The electrical energy demands are expressed
in terajoules (TO) (1012 J)/yr and 109 Btu/yr.  Table 7-17 shows the
annual natural gas demand associated with Regulatory Alternatives I and
II for RS model lines and plants.  Tables 7-18  shows the total annual
energy demand for each regulatory alternative for a typical RS model
line and plant.
     Comparison of the electrical energy demand of the alternatives
shows that energy consumption varies with the devices used to control
particulate emissions as well as with the plant or line size (gas volume).
That is, for the same line or plant and level of control, a wet ESP uses
less electricity to control emissions than does a venturi scrubber or
HVAF.  Therefore, the application of additional control above the baseline
level may not significantly increase the electrical energy demand of
fiberglass manufacturing facilities.  The impact of RS  Regulatory
Alternatives II through IV on increased national electrical energy
demand in the fifth year after proposal will  range from 120 to 184 TJ/yr
(1.13 xlO11 to  1.74 xlO11 Btu/yr).
     Comparison of the total energy demand of each regulatory alternative
shows that energy consumption for Alternatives  I and  II is greater than
for  Alternatives  III and IV because Alternatives I and  II require the
use  of incinerators  to control particulate emissions  while Alternatives  III
and  IV do not.   Incinerators require energy  in  the form of natural gas
to perform combustion.  Consequently,  the alternatives  that  require the
use  of incinerators will show an  increased energy demand  because of the
natural  gas  requirement.  The  impact of the  regulatory  alternatives on
                                    7-25
-------
     TABLE 7-15.  ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                  FOR ROTARY SPIN MODEL LINES AND PLANTS1
Regulatory Alternative

Model Line,
Small
Total, TJ/yrb
109 Btu/yr
Incremental,0 TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Medium
Total , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Incremental , TJ/yr
109. Btu/yr
Large
Total , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Incremental , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Model Plant
1
Total, TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Incremental , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
2
Total , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Incremental , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
3
Total , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Incremental , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Ia

5.25
4.98
5.61
5.32

6.86
6.50

5.25
4.98

16.01
15.17

24.58
23.30
II

9.41
8.93
4.16
3.95
10.21
9.68
4.60
4.36

13.00
12.33
6.14
5.83

9.41
8.93
4.16
3.95

29.83
28.30
13.82
13.13

45.62
43.27
21.04
19.97
III

11.35
10.77
6.09
5.79
12.15
11.52
6.57
6.23

14.93
14.16
8.09
7.66

11.35
10.77
6.09
5.79

33.66
31.93
17.65
16.76

53.36
50.61
28.84
. 27.31
IV

12.15
11.52
6.89
6.54
• 12.95
12.28
7.34
6.96

15.73
14.92
8.87
8.42

12.15
11.52
6.89
6,54

35.66
33.82
19.65
18.65

56.56
53.64
31.98
30.34
jBaseline.
 Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
.rounding.
"Incremental  over baseline.

                                   7-26
-------
TABLE 7-16.  ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF CONTROL
      EQUIPMENT FOR FLAME ATTENUATION MODEL LINE1
Line
designation
Small



Regulatory
Alternative
Ia
II
III
IV
Energy demand
TJ/yr
0
2.91
3.74
23.53
10s Btu/yr
0
2.76
3.54
22.31
 Baseline.
 Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to
 independent rounding.
                         7-27
-------
          TABLE 7-17.  NATURAL GAS DEMAND OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT ON
                    ROTARY SPIN MODEL LINES AND PLANTS1

Model Lines
Small
Total, 10s m3/yrc
" 106 fWyr
Incremental, 106 m3/yr
106 ftVyr
Medi urn
Total, 106 m3/yr
106 ft3/yr
Incremental, 106 m3/yr
106 ftVyr
Large
Total, 106 m3/yr
106 ft3/yr
Incremental, 10s ms/yr
10s ft3/yr
Model Plants
1
Total, 106 ms/yr
TO6 ft3/yr
'Incremental, 106 m3/yr
106 ftVyr
2
" Total, 106 m3/yr
106 ftVyr
Incremental, 106 m3/yr
10s ftVyr
3
Total, 106 m3/yr
106 ft3/yr
Incremental, 106 m3/yr
10s ft3/yr
Regulatory
Ib

3.0
104

3.0
104

3.0
•104
3.0
104
6.3.,
221
11.8
417
Alternative3
II

3.0
104
0
0

3.0
104
0
0

3.0
104
0
0
3.0
104
0
0
6.3
221
0
0
11.8
417
0
0
.All other regulatory alternatives do not include incinerators.
 Baseline.
 Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 .rounding.
 Incremental over baseline.
                                   7-28
-------
    TABLE  7-18.   TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT ON A TYPICAL
                     ROTARY  SPIN MODEL LINE AND PLANT1
Regulatory Alternative



Ia

II
III
IV

Model Line


Electricity
Natural gas
, TJ/yrb
109 Btu/yr
, TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Total , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Incremental , TJ/yrc
109 Btu/yr
5.
5.
61.
58.
67.
64.
61
32
82
88
43
20
10.
9.
61.
58.
72.
68.
+4.
• +4.
21
68
82
88
03
56
60
36
12.
IT.
0
0
12.
11.
-55.
-52.
15
52

15
52
28
68
12,
12.
0
0
12.
12.
-54.
-51.
95
28

95
28
48
92
Medium Plant


Electricity
Natural gas
, TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
, TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Total , TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
Incremental, TJ/yr
109 Btu/yr
a
b
Baseline.
T 1 A.v. « fa C
IA -j-\f\&\ — in9 c
16.
15.
131.
125.
147.
140.

01
17
37
12
38
29

29.
28.
131.
125.
83
30
37
12
161.20
153.42
+13.82
+13.13

•Kn Cr
33.
31.
0
0
33.
31.
-113.
-108.

66
93

66
93
72
36

35.
33.
0
0
35.
33.
-m.
-106.

66
82

66
82
72
47

       x
 with unrounded final  metric units.   Metric and English units may not
..convert exactly due to independent rounding.
"Incremental  increase or decrease relative to baseline.
                                   7-29
-------
national total energy demand in the fifth year ranges from an increase
of 120 TJ/yr (1.13 xlO11 Btu/yr) for Alternative II to a decrease of up
to 1,280 TJ/yr (1.21 xlO12 Btu/yr) for Alternative III relative to the
baseline.
7.5  OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
     A fiberglass plant generates substantial noise, particularly in the
forming area.  The additional noise introduced by air pollution control
devices will not significantly increase the noise levels.
7.6  OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
7.6.1  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
     As discussed in Section 7.4, the regulatory alternatives will
result in an increase in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment
of energy resources.  However, this increased energy demand for pollution
control is insignificant compared to total line and plant energy demand.
7.6.2  Environmental Impact of Delayed Standard
     Based on the capacity growth projections presented in Chapter 9, a
delay in proposal of the standard from 1983 to 1986 would reduce the
controlled production capacity by 448,000 Mg (494,000 tons).   Table 7-19
summarizes and compares the fifth-year emission reduction of a delayed
standard with the emission reduction that would be achieved in the same
year if the standard were proposed in 1983.  As shown, the emission
reductions in 1991 are decreased from 15,968 to 11,978 Mg (17,601 to
13,203 tons) under Regulatory Alternative II and from 19,614 to 14,713 Mg
(21,620 to 16,218 tons) under Regulatory Alternative IV.
     Since there is no water pollution impact and only negligible energy
consumption impacts associated with the control alternatives, there is
no significant benefit to be obtained from delaying the proposed standards.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be any emerging emission control
technology that could achieve greater emissions reduction or result in
lower costs than that represented by the control devices considered
here.  Consequently, there are no benefits or advantages to delaying the
proposed standards.
                                   7-30
-------
   TABLE 7-19.   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF DELAYED
      STANDARD—EMISSION REDUCTION IN 1991
                                         '
                                          *
Reg.
alt.
II
III
IV
Proposal
Mg/yrb
15,968
19,383
19,614
in 1983
tons/yr
17,601
21,366
21 ,620
Proposal
Mg/yr
11,978
14,541 .
14,713
in 1986
tons/yr
13,203
16,028
, 16,218
 Baseline emissions in 1991 for the two cases are
 24,600 Mg/yr (27,100 tons/yr) and 18,600 Mg/yr
.(20,500 tons/yr).
 English and metric figures may not convert
 exactly due to independent numerical rounding.
                         7-31
-------
7.7  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7

 1.  Sauer, M. and J. Shular, Midwest Research Institute, to Telander,
     J., EPA:ISB.  December 30, 1982.  Memorandum:  Calculations of
     Environmental Impacts.

 2.  Bowers, J., J. Bjorkland, and C. Cheney.  Industrial Source Complex
     (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide.  Volume I.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-450/4-79-030.  December 1979.

 3.  Bowers, J., J. Bjorkland, and C. Cheney.  Industrial Source Complex
     (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide.  Volume II.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-450/4-79-031.  December 1979.

 4.  Gutfreund, P. and M. Dudik.  Dispersion Estimates for Particulate
     Emissions From the Wool Fiberglass Insulation Industry.  Prepared
     under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract  No. 68-02-3582,
     Task 13.  November 12, 1982.

 5.  Environmental Protection Agency General Regulations  on Standards
     of Performance for New Stationary Sources.  Code of  Federal Regulations.
     Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 60, Subpart  Da.  July 1, 1979.
     Environmental Reporter.  January 22, 1982.  pp, 121:1518.11-121:1526.

 6.  Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
     Source Performance Standards for the Insulation Fiberglass Manufac-
     turing Segment of the Glass Manufacturing Point Source Category.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, D.C.  Publication
     No. NTIS  PB 238-078.  January 1974.  p. 33.

 7.  Environmental Protection Agency Effluent Guidelines  and Standards
     for Glass Manufacturing.  Code of Federal Regulations.  Title 40,
     Chapter  I, Subchapter N, Part 426, Subpart A.  July  1, 1981.
     Environmental Reporter.  May 21, 1982.  p. 135:0601.

 8.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended by the Clean Water
     Act of 1977.  33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.   1977.  Environmental Reporter.
     November  19,  1982.  pp. 71:5101-71:5174.

 9.  Environmental Protection Agency Regulations  for Hazardous Waste  .
     Management.   Code of  Federal Regulations.  Title 40, Chapter I,
     Parts 260, 261.  July  1, 1981.  Environmental Reporter.  October 22,
     1982.  pp.  161:1801-161:1871.

10.  Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act  of 1976.  42  U.S.C. 6901 et
     seq.  1976.   Environmental  Reporter.  November  19, 1982.  pp. 71:3101-
     71:3141.
                                    7-32
-------
                                8.  COSTS

8.1  COST ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
     The estimated cost impacts of implementing the regulatory alternatives
.for the new, modified, or reconstructed wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing model lines and plants described in Chapter 6 are presented
in this chapter.  The objective of.this analysis is to quantify the cost
impacts associated with various levels of control of particulate matter.
The economic impact of the regulatory alternatives on wool fiberglass
insulation manufacturers is presented in Chapter 9.
     Capital and annualized costs  are presented for the uncontrolled
production facility and for the pollution control devices for the four
regulatory alternatives.  All costs are reported in January 1982 dollars.
8.1.1  New Facilities
     Capital investment and annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs
were calculated for the wool fiberglass manufacturing,model-lines and plants
for the alternative control methods.  The cost calculations were performed
using  information supplied by industry and  other sources of information.
These  sources are presented in Table 8-1.
     The specifications presented  in Tables 8-2 and 8-3 provide the
bases  for costing the model lines.  Table 8-4 presents typical specifi-
cations for control devices currently used  in the wool fiberglass insulation
manufacturing industry.  These specifications were used to evaluate the
costs  of the control devices.  Table 8-5 presents the specifications
used to evaluate costs of the model plants.
     The model  plants considered  here include the wool fiberglass insulation
production line (forming, curing,  and cooling),  in addition to the
furnace, building,  land, and any  other integral  equipment necessary for
                                    8-1
-------
TABLE 8-1.  SUMMARY OF SOURCES OF COSTING INFORMATION
Cos ted item
Utilities

Capital cost indices
Labor
Capital charges
Capital costs
Wet ESP's
HVAF's
Venturi scrubbers
Incinerators
Water treatment
Auxiliary equipment
(ductwork, stack, etc.)
Production process
Cost factors
Developing
organization
Industry
Bureau of Labor
Statistics
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
GARD, Inc.
Bureau of Labor
Statistics
GARD, Inc.

GARD, Inc.
United McGill Corp.
Andersen 2000, Inc.
GARD, Inc.
GARD, Inc.
Shell Development Co.
EPA
EPA
GARD, Inc.
Industry
GARD, Inc,
Date(s)
1981-
1982
1982
1982
1978
1982
1978

1978
1981
1981
1978
1978
1972
1975
1978
1978
1981-
1982
1978
Reference
1
2
3, 4, 5
6
7
8

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
8
                          8-2
-------
              TABLE 8-2.   MODEL LINE PARAMETERS—ROTARY SPIN
Line designation:
1. Line information
Annual production, Mg/yra
tons/yr
Hours/year operation
Products
2. Process information
A. Forming section
Gas flow rate,0 mVmin
acfm
Gas temperature, °C
°F
Moisture, %
Uncontrolled .parti cul ate
emissions, kg/Mg
Ib/ton
B. Curing section
Gas flow rate,0 m3/min
acfm
Gas temperature,0 °C
°F
Moisture,0 %
Uncontrol 1 ed .parti cul ate
emissions, kg/Mg
Ib/ton
C. Cooling section
Gas flow rate,0 nrVmin
acfm
Gas temperature,0 °C
°F
Moisture, %
Uncontrol 1 ed.parti cul ate
emissions, ' kg/Mg
Ib/ton
a Mg/yr = megagrams per year.
m3/min = cubic meters per minute
Specialty Small

4,500 18,
5,000 20,
8,000 , 8,
/r>T ' *-r»\D
(rl, bPJ


1,100 2,
40,000 100,
52
125
6
26
52

140 1,
5,000 40,
177
<350
6
,,, 3
5

140

000
000
000
(BI,

.-
800
000
52
125
6
26
52

100
000
177
350
6
3
5

280
5,000 10,000
38
100
2

0
0

•
38
TOO
2

0
0


Medi urn Large

34,000 50
38,000 55
8,000 8
PI, DB, HDI)D


3,100 4
110,000 145
52
125 .
6
26
52

1,100 1
40,000 40
177
350
6
3
5

280
10,000 10
38
100
2

0
0



,000
,000
,000




,100
,000
52
125
6
26
52

,100
,000
}27
350
6
3
5

280
,000
38
100
2

0
0

*, r£ ' -
acfm = actual cubic feet per minute.
kg/Mg = kilograms per megagram.
.Ib/ton = pounds per ton.
BI = Building insulation. PI =
HDI = Heavy density insulation.


Pipe insulation.
SP = Specialty.


DB =



Ductboard.





°.At the exit of each section of the*process. •
Average total catch for all line
sizes from EPA test data.
"Data less  than  0.25 kg/Mg (0.5 Ib/tpn)  round to zero.
                                    8-3
-------
      TABLE 8-3.   MODEL LINE PARAMETERS—FLAME ATTENUATION
Line designation:
                                                         Small
1.   Line information

    Annual' production, Mg/yra
                       tons/yr
    Hours/year operation
    Products

2.   Process information

    A.  Forming section
        Gas flow rate,0 mVmin
                        acfm
        Gas temperature,  °C
                 c        °F
        Moisture,  %
        Uncontrol1ed .particulate
          emissions,  kg/Mg
                      Ib/ton
    B.  Curing section

        Gas flow rate,  mVmin
                        acfm
                        C OQ

                          °F
    C.
        Gas temperature,

        Moisture,0 %
        Uncontrol1ed .particulate
          emissions,  kg/Mg
                      Ib/ton
        Cooling section
                                                         4,500
                                                         5,000
                                                         8,000 .
                                          (BI, PI, DB, SP, HDI)D
                                                         4,000
                                                       140,000
                                                            66
                                                           150
                                                             6

                                                            44
                                                            89
   420
15,000
   177
   350
     6

     3
     5
Gas flow rate, mVmin
acfm.
Gas temperature, °C
°F
Moisture,0 %
Uncontro 1 1 eddparti cu 1 ate
emissions, ' kg/Mg
Ib/ton
140
5,000
38
100
2

1
1
  Mg/yr = megagrams per year.
 m3/min = cubic meters per minute.
   acfm = actual cubic feet per minute.
  kg/Mg = kilograms per megagram.
.Ib/ton = pounds per ton.
 BI = Building insulation.  PI = Pipe  insulation.  DB = Ductboard.
 HDI = Heavy density insulation.  SP = Specialty.
 ,At the exit of each section of the process.
 Based on highest total catch from EPA test data on FA lines.
 kg/Mg equal Ib/ton due to numerical rounding.
                               8-4
-------
      TABLE 8-4.   CONTROL DEVICE SYSTEM PARAMETERS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Parameter0
 Specification
Venturi Scrubber

  Water spray rate,
   . 2/min per 1,000 nrVmin (gpm/1,000 acfm)

  Ap, Pa (in. w.c.)
    Regulatory Alternative I      ,
    Regulatory Alternatives II, III

Wet ESP

  Water spray rate,
    2/min per 1,000 nrVmin (gpm/1,000 acfm)

  Ap, Pa (in. w.c.)

  Design efficiency, percent

  Precipitation rate parameter, m/min (ft/min)

  Specific collection area,
    m2 per 1,000 mVmin (ft2/! ,000 acfm)

Incinerator

  Residence time, s

  Operating temperature, °C (°F)
    Regulatory Alternatives I, II
HVAF
  Water spray rate,
    2/min per. 1,000 mVmin (gpm/1,000 acfm)

  Ap, Pa (in. w.c.)
    2.0 (15)


   1,245 (5)
  8,710 (35)
    1.3 (10)

     250 (1)

         90

 2.37 (7.78)


  0.98 (300)



         0.5


   315 (600)
    2.0 (15)

  6,970 (28)
a£/min per 1,000 nrVmin = liters per minute per 1,000 cubic
 minute.
 gpm/1,000 acfm = gallons per minute per 1,000 actual cubic
 minute.
 Pa = pascals.
 in. w.c. =  inches water column.
 ft/min = feet per minute.
meters per

feet per
                                    8-5
-------
                    TABLE 8-5.  MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
Model           Plant
plant  Plant   building,
 No.   typea  103 m2 (ft2)
Plant
land
area,
103 m2
(acres)
Annual production
    capacity
Mg/yr   (tons/yr)
Model line
combination
  1     RS    39 (420,000)   121 (30)    18,000  (20,000)    1 small


  2     RS    56 (600,000)   162 (40)   104,500 (115,000)    2 large and
                                                               1 specialty
        RS    70 (750,000)   202 (50)   152,000 (168,000)
                                1  smal1,
                                  1  medium,
                                  and 2  large
aRS = rotary spin.
                                    8-6
-------
  the production  of wool  fiberglass.   Inclusion  of  the  costs  of these
  items  in the plant  costs  is  necessary  to  estimate properly  the economic
  and capital availability  impacts  of  the regulatory alternatives.   The
  control device  costs  include the  price of the  control  device  itself  as
  well as auxiliary equipment  (such as fans,  ductwork,  stacks,  and  water
  screening) and  the  direct and indirect installation costs.  Further
  explanation of  the  control device costs and their derivation  may  be
  found  in the docket.18                      .
       8.1.1.1  Capital Costs—Model Lines.   Tables 8-6 and 8-7 show the
'•!
--'- basis  and methodology for developing capital cost estimates for uncon-
•— trolled wool fiberglass model  lines  and for the various  control technologies.
       The capital costs  for model  lines (forming,  curing,  and  cooling
  sections) are presented in Table  8-8.  Costs for  uncontrolled model
  lines, each control  system,  and total  model  lines are given.   Also
  included is the "normalized" total capital  cost,  which is calculated by
  dividing the total  cost of the model line by the  line production  capacity.
  Normalized capital  costs  provide  a measure of  the capital investment
  required per unit of production capacity.
       The last two columns in Table 8-8 present percent increases  in  the
  total  model line capital  cost.  These  percent  increases  are calculated
  with respect to:  
-------
          TABLE 8-6.
                BASIS FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED
                  COSTS OF FIBERGLASS LINES3
                    (January 1982 Dollars)
Cost element
                                     Costs, $/Mg ($/ton) of product
                                       (unless noted otherwise)

                                  'Rotary spinFlame attenuation
Capital costs (except pollution
  control equipment)
  Total line (furnace and forming,
    curing, and cooling sections)
  Forming, curing, cooling sections
    only
Building cost
Land cost

Direct Operating Costs
                                 639

                                 513
(580)

(465)
678

540
(615)

(490)
                                 420/m2  (39/ft2)
                                 2.47/m2 (10,0007
                                           acre)
           420/m2   (39/ft2)
           2.47/m2 (10,000/
                      acre)
  1
Labor
          Operator (including
            maintenance)
            (19.7 h/Mg [17.9 h/ton],
            $8.58/h)
                                 169.29  (153.58)   169.29   (153.58)
b. Supervisory
(10 percent of la)
2. Raw material
a. Glass
b. Binder
(1) Home insulation
(2) Pipe insulation
(3) Heavy density
insulation
(4) Ductboard
3. Maintenance (replacement
parts and supplies)
4. Utilities
n a. Electricity
b. Gas
c. Water .
Indirect Operating Costs
5. Overhead (80%[la+lb+3])
6. Taxes (1% of capital cost)
7. Insurance (1% of capital cost)
8. Capital recovery cost
(10.608% of capital cost )
?Based on industry information.
Updated using Chemical Engineering CE
Updated using Chemical Engineering CE
16.93


106

67
86
143

143
28


82
122
1.18

-
-
-
-


Plant
(15.36)


(96)

.(61)
(78)
(130)

(130)
(25)


(74)
(HI)
(1.07)

-
-
-
-


Cost Index
Producer Prices,
16.93

.
106

67
86
143

143
95


95
147
1.17

.—
_„
—
__


(Reference
Industrial
(15.36)


(96)

(61)
(78)
(130)

(130)
(86)


(86)
(133)
(1.06)







4).

 .Chemicals Index (Reference 3).
 Based on Reference 8.
 Based on 10-percent interest for 30-year life.
                                    8-8
-------
        TABLE 8-7.  COMPONENT CAPITAL COST FACTORS AS A FUNCTION
                OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT COST—NEW FACILITIES8

Cost element
Direct costs
1. Purchased equipment
_ _ .
a. Lontro i device
b. Auxiliary equipment
(ductwork, stack, fan

system, etc. ;
c. Instruments and
, 1
controls
, T
d. taxes
r" * u j_
e. rreignt
Purchased equipment cost =1.18 (A+B)
2. Installation direct costs
a. • Foundation and supports
b. Handling and erection
c. Electrical
d. Piping
e. Insulation
f. Painting
Total installation direct costs (2a
through 2f)
Total direct costs (1 plus 2)
Indirect costs
3. Installation indirect costs
a. Engineering and supervision
b. Construction and field expenses
c. Construction fee
d. Startup
e. Performance test
Total installation indirect costs
(3a through 3e)
4. Contingencies
Total indirect costs (3 plus 4)

Wet ESP,
HVAF















Q

0.04Q
0.50Q
0.08Q
0.01Q
0.02Q
0.02Q
0.67Q

1.67Q


0.20Q
0.20Q
0.10Q
0.01Q
0.01Q
0.52Q

0.03Q
0.55Q
Cost factor
Scrubber


A____ _



B_____


01 n fA-uQA
. IU ^M+HJ
Of\"3 /Aj-Q'N
. Uo v."+"J
One /'ftJ.D^
. Us (. H+D )
Q

0.06Q
0.40Q
0.01Q
0.05Q
0.03Q
0.01Q
0.56Q

1.56Q


0.10Q
0.10Q
0.10Q
0.01Q
0.01Q
0.32Q

0.03Q
0.35Q

Incin-
erator















Q

•0.08Q
0.14Q
0. 04Q
0.02Q
0.01Q
0.01Q
0.30Q

T.30Q


0.10Q
0.05Q
0.10Q
0.02Q
0.01Q
0.28Q

0.03Q
0.31Q
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
2.22Q
1.91Q
1.61Q
                                    8-9
-------
                  TABLE  8-8.    CAPITAL  COSTS  OF  MODEL FIBERGLASS  LINES3  18
Percent
increase in costs
Capital costs
'eg. h Uncontrolled
Ait. Control equipment line, $000
RS Small Line
I1
i:
in
IV Scrub. ,
RS Mediua Line
.8
II
III
IV Scrub. ,
SS Large Line
I* '
II '
III
IV Scrub. ,
FA Snail line
-a
*
n
m
:v
Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. ,' Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP

Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub., Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP

Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP. Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP
None
HVAF'
HVAF, HVAF
HVAF
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300
9,300

17,570
17,670
17,670
17.670
17,670
17,670
17,670

25,575
25,575
25,575
25,575
25,575
25,575
25,575
2.450
2,450
2,450
2,450
Control equip- Total,
ment, SOOO^ SOOO
1,017
1,269
2,328
1,295
2,575
1,366
2,702

1,065
1,340
2,454
1,366
2,702
1,437
2.828

1,233
1,589
2,897
1,615
3-, 145
1,637
3,271
0
412
465
1,754
10,317
10,569
11,628
10,595
11,875
10,666
12,002

18,735
19,010
?0,124
19,036
20,372
19,107
20,498

26,808
27,164
28,472
27,190
28,720
27,262
28,346
2,450
2,862
2,915
4,204

Normal izad total
S/Mg
573
587
646
589
660
593
667

551
559
592
560
599
562
' 603

536
543
569
544
574
545
577
544 '
636 .
648
•934
$/ton
518
528
581
530
594
533
600

493
500
530
501
536
503 '
539

487
494
518
494
522
496
524
490
572
583
841
Over
Over base-
i.ncontrolled line
10.9
13.6
25.0
13.9
27.7
14.7
29.1

6.0
7.6
13.9
7.7
15.3
8.1
16.0

4.3
6.2
11.3
6.3
12.3
6.6
12.8
0
16.8
20.0
71.6
0
2.4
12.7
2.7
15.1
3.4
16.3

0
1.5
7.4
1.6
8.7
- 2.0
9.4

0
1.3'
6.2
1.4
7.1
1.7
7.6
0
16.8
20.0
71.6
J*3S -  rotary spin.  FA - flame attenuation.
 Scrtio, * venturi scrubber.  Inc. = incinerator.  HVAF = high velocity air filter.
 £S? * wet electrostatic precipitator.
^January "982 dollars; numbers shown are thousands of dollars.
,'toraaiizsd total is total  capital cost divided by line capacity.
"Baseline.
                                                    8-10
-------
The overall percent capital cost increase over-baseline is typically
greatest for the RS small line and least for the RS medium and large
lines.                     	•   	•	,
     8.1.1.2  Capital Costs—Model Plants.  Table 8-9 presents the
capital costs for the three RS model plants.  The information is presented
in the same format as that used in Table 8-8.  The increase in capital
cost over baseline ranges from 0.8 percent for a high pressure drop wet
scrubber on model plant No. 2 (Regulatory Alternative III) to 5.7 percent
for a wet electrostatic precipitator (ESP) on model plant No. 1 (Regulatory
Alternative IV) with approximately the same range found for all three
model plants.
     8.1.1.3  Annualized Costs—Model Lines.  Table 8-10 shows the basis
for developing annualized cost estimates for the various control technolo-
gies.  Table 8-6 shows the basis for estimating annualized costs of the
model lines.  As shown in Table 8-10, the total annualized cost is the
sum of the annual operation and maintenance costs and the annualized
capital charges.                         ,
     The capital recovery  factors used in this study .are based on an
equipment  life of 10 years (typical of information provided by industry)
and an interest  rate of  10 percent.1  The .10 percent interest rate
should not be considered as the actual cost of borrowing capital because
this  analysis is not intended to be an economic .feasibility study.
Rather, 10 percent was selected as  a typical nominal rate of return on
investment to provide a  basis for calculation of capital recovery charges.
The capital  recovery factors used for the model line and control equipment
are also presented  in Table 8-1.0.
      The total annualized  costs (dollars  per year)  for  uncontrolled wool
fiberglass model  lines,  each control system, and the total annualized
cost  of model lines  and  controls  are presented  in Table 8-11 for the
model  lines.  Percentage increases  in annualized costs  for the model
lines over the  uncontrolled case  and the  baseline case  are also presented.
      The percentage  increase  in annualized  cost over baseline  ranges
from  0.3 percent for a  high pressure drop scrubber  on  forming  and curing
on a  small  and medium RS line  (Regulatory Alternative  III) and a wet  ESP
on forming and curing on a medium RS  line .(Regulatory  Alternative  III)
                                    8-11
-------
                TABLE  8-9.    CAPITAL COSTS  OF  MODEL  FIBERGLASS  PLANTS18
Percent
, increase in costs
Capital costs
Reg.
Alt.
Model
Id
II
III
IV
Model
Id
II
III
IV
Model
Id
II
III
IV
Control equipment3
Plant No. 1
Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP. ESP
Scrub. , Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP
Plant No. 2
Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, E6P
Scrub. , Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP
Plant No. 3
Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub. , Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP
Uncontrolled
plant, $000°
28,280
28,280
28,280
28,280
28,280
28,280
28,280
90,500
90,500
90,500
90,500
90,500
90,500
90,500
127,190
127,190
127,190
127.190
127,190
127,190
127,190
Control equip-
ment, $000°
1,017
1,269
2,328
1,295
2,575
1,366
2,702
3,124
3,948
7,291
3,848
7,662
4,028
7,978
4,548
5,787
10,576
5,891
11,567
6,177 •
12;072
Tota.1,
$000°
29,297
29,549
30,608
29,575
30,355
29,646
30,982
93,624
94,448
97,791
94,348
98,162
94,528
98,478
131,738
132,977
137,766
133,081
138,757
133,367
139,262
Normalized
$/Mg
1,628
1,642
1,700
1,643
1,714
1,647
1,721
896
904
936
903
939
90S
942
867
875
906
876
913
877
916
tota 1 -
$/ton
1,465
1,477
1,530
1,479
1,543
1,482
1,549
814
821
850
320
854
822
856
784
792
820
792
826
794
329
Over
uncontrolled
3.6
4.5
8.2
4.6
9.1
4.8
9.6
3.5
4.4
8.1
4.3
3.5
4.5' •
3.8
3.6
4.5
3.3
4.6
9.1
4.9
9.5
Over
base-
line
0
0.9
4.5
0.9
5.3
1.2
5.6
0
0.9
4.5
0.8 •
4.3
1.0
5.2
0
0.9
4.6
1.0
5.3
1.2
5.7
fScrub. = venturi scrubber.  Inc. = incinerator.  ESP = wet electrostatic pricipitator.
"January 1982 dollars.
^Normalized total Is total capital cost divided by plant capacity.
"Baseline.
                                                8-12
-------
            TABLE 8-10.   BASIS FOR ESTIMATING CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                    ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR NEW FACILITIES8.
                          (January 1982 Dollars)
Cost element
                             Cost factor
Direct operating costs

1.  Utilities
    a. , Electricity?
    b.  P'lant water.
    c.  Natural gas
2.  Operating labor0
    a.  Direct labor5
    b.  Supervision

3.  Maintenance0

    a.  Labor
    b.  Material
4.  Solid waste transfer

Indirect operating costs
5.
6.
Overhead
Capital charges
    Administrative
    Property tax
    a.
    b.
    c.
    d.
    Insurance
    Capital recovery cost*
                             $1.4 x 10-8/J ($0.0517/kWh)
                             $0.18/1,0002 ($0.68/1,000 gal)
                             $0.13/m3 ($3.76/1,000 ft3)
                             $8.58/h (3 shifts/d; 333 d/yc)
                             1.25 h/shift:   wet ESP, HVAFa
                              0.5 h/shift:   incinerator
                                            2,490 Pa (10-in.) scrubber
                                            8,710 Pa (35-in.) scrubber
 2.0 h/shift:
 5.0 h/shift:

15% of 2a
                             $8.58/h (3 shifts/d; 333 d/yrj)
                             0.75 h/shift:  wet ESP, HVAF°
                              Q.5 h/shift:  incinerator
                              1.0 h/shift:  2,490 Pa (10-in.) scrubber
                              1.5 h/shift:  8,710 Pa (35-in.) scrubber

                             100% of 3a

                             $33/Mg ($30/ton)b
80%(2a+2b+3a)
2% of capital cost
1% of capital cost
1% of capital cost
16.275% of capital cost
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS  (total  of  1  through  6)
?Based  on  costs  in  North  Carolina.
 Estimate  based  on  industry  information.
°.Per  unit.
 Labor  hours per unit  for HVAF  assumed  equal  to  those  for  wet  ESP.
eBased  on  10 percent interest for  10-year  life.
                                    8-13
-------
               TABLE 8-11.   ANNUALIZED  COSTS  OF  MODEL  FIBERGLASS  LINES
                                                                                        a 18  19
Annual ized costs
, Uncontrolled
3eg, . line, SOOp
Ait. Control equipment per year"
SS Small tine
I*
II

III

IV Scruo. ,

US Medium Line
I8
II

III

11 Scrub. ,

P.S targe Line
te
II

II!

IV Scrub. ,

FA Snail Line
I*
II
III
IV

Scrub. . Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP. ESP
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP

Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP

Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP

None
HVAF
HVAF. HVAF
HVAF

15,791
15,791
15,791
15,791
15,791
15,791
15,791

30,004
30,004
30,004
30,004
30,004
30,004
30,004

43,426
43,426
43,426
43,426
43,425
43,426
43,426

4,634
4,634
4,684
4,534
Control Total ,
equipment, SOOO per
SOOO per yearc yearc

763
1,120
1,152
823
833
369
364

793
1,179
1.205
383
888
929
929

362
1,352
1,360
1,057
1,043
1,M>3
1,084

0
150
176
797

16,559
16,911
16,943
16,514
16,624
16,660
16,655

30,797
' 31,183
31,209
30,387
30,892
30,933
30,933

44,283
44,778
44,786
44,483
44,469
44,529
44,510

4,684
4,834
4,360
5,481

Percent
increase in costs
Normalized total"
3 per yr
per Mg

920
940
941
923
924
926
925

906 '
917
918
908
909
910
910

836
896
396
890
889
391
890

1,041
1 ,074
1,080
1,218
5 per yr
per ton

828
846 •
347
831
331
333
833

310
821
821
813
813
814
314

SOS
814
814
309
809
810
309

'937
967
972
1,096
Over
Over base-
uncontrolled line

4.9
7. I
7.3
5.2
S. 3
5.5
5.5

2.6
3.9
4.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.1

2.0
3.1
1.7
2.4
2.4
.2.5
2.5

0
3.2
3.3
)7.0

0
2.1
2.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6

0
1.3
1.3
0.3
0,3
0.4
0.4

0
1.1
1.1
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5

0 '
3.2
3.8
17.0
?3S * rotary spin.   FA - flame attenuation.
 Scrub. s venturi scrunber.   Inc. = incinerator.  ESP  = wet electrostatic precipitator-
^January !982 dollars.
 'lorwalized total is total annualiztd cost divided by  line capacity.
 Baseline.
                                                  8-14
-------
to 17.0 percent for an HVAF on forming on a small FA "line (Regulatory
Alternative IV).  The overall percentage increase of annualized cost
over the baseline is typically greatest for:the RS small line and least
for the RS medium and large lines.
     8.1.1.4  Annualized Costs—Model Plants.  Table 8-12 presents the
annualized costs for the three RS model plants.  The information ,is
presented in the- same format as that used for Table 8-11. .The percentage ...
of annualized cost increase over the baseline for the three model plants
ranges from 0.3 percent for a wet ESP on forming and curing on model
plant No. 1 (Regulatory Alternative III) to 2.0 percent for a wet ESP on
forming and a low temperature incinerator on curing on model plant No. 1
(Regulatory Alternative II).          ,
     8.1.1.5  Cost Effectiveness.  Tables 8-13 and 8-14 present a summary
of the incremental annualized costs of pollution control with respect to
both baseline and uncontrolled for the model lines.  Table 8-15 presents
a summary of the incremental annualized pollution control costs for the
model RS plants.
     Tables 8-16 and 8-17 summarize the emissions reduction of each
regulatory alternative relative to both baseline and uncontrolled for
the model lines.  Table 8-18 summarizes the emission reduction of each
regulatory alternative for  the model RS plants.                -
     Tables 8-19 and 8-20 present the average cost effectiveness of each
regulatory alternative relative to baseline for the model RS and FA
lines.  Table 8-21 presents the average cost effectiveness values for
the model RS plants.  The average cost effectiveness over baseline  is
the incremental annualized  cost of control per unit emission reduction
over baseline in dollars per Mg (dollars per ton).
     As  shown in Table 8-19. for the  RS lines,  the average cost  effectiveness
values range from $205/Mg for a high pressure  drop scrubber on  forming
and curing on a medium line (Regulatory Alternative III) to $2,010/Mg
for a wet ESP on forming and a low temperature incinerator on curing on
a small  line (Regulatory Alternative II)  ($185 to $1,830/ton).  As  shown
in Table 8-20 for the FA line, the average cost  effectiveness values
range  from $4,950/Mg  for an HVAF  on  forming  (Regulatory Alternative IV)
to $16,450/Mg for an  HVAF on curing  and cooling  (Regulatory Alternative  III)
                                    8-15
-------
              TABLE 8-12.   ANNUALIZED COSTS  OF  MODEL FIBERGLASS PLANTS18,19
Annual) zed costs
Seg.
Alt.
Model
Id
II

in

IV

Model
td
II

ni

IV

Model
!d
u

in

IV

Control equipment*
Plant Mo. 1
Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub. , Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP. ESP, ESP
Plant Mo. 2
Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP, Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP '
Scrub. , Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP
Plant Mo. 3
Scrub. , Inc.
Scrub. , Inc.
ESP. Inc.
Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP
Scrub. , Scrub. , Scrub.
ESP, ESP, ESP
Uncontro 1 1 ed
Una, SOOO
per year

18,134
18,134
18,184
18,184
18,184
18,184
18,184

95,358
95,358
95,358
95,358
95,358
95,358
95,358

138,832
138,832
138,832
138,332
138,832
138,332
138,832
Control
equipment, ,
5000 per year

768
1,120
1,152
323 .
833
369
964

2,010
3,169
3,249
2,488
2,521
2,603
2,624

3,285
5,003
5,077
3,304
3,320
4,004
3,961
Total ,
5000 oer
year

18,952
19,304
19,336
19,007
19,017
19,053
19,048

97,368
98,527'
98,507
97,846
97,879
97,961
97,982

142,117
143,835
143,909
142,636
142,652
142,336
142.793


Normal izea total "
$ per /r
per Mg

1,053
1,072
1,074
1,056
1,057
1,059
1,058

932
943
944
936
937
937
938

• 935
946
947
938
939
940
.939
S per yr
per ton

948
965
,967
950
951
953
952

347
857
357
851
351
852
852

846
356
857
849
849
850
350
Percent
increase in
Over
uncontrol led

4.2
6.2 .
6.3
4.5
4.6
4.3
4.8

2.1
3.3
3.4
2.6
2.6
2.7 .
2.3

2.4
3.6
3-7
2.7 ,
2.8
2.9
2.9
costs
jver
base-
line

0
1.9
2.0
.0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5

0
1.2
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6

0
' 1.2
1.3
0.4
.0.4
0.5
0.5
?Scrub. » venturi scrubber.   Inc. » incinerator.  ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
^January 1982 dollars.
^NoraiaHzid total !,s total annualized cost divided by plant capacity.
°SaseHne.
                                               8-16
-------
               TABLE 8-13.   INCREMENTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF
   POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL FIBERGLASS LINES—ROTARY SPIN18,19
                             ($000 per year)
Regulatory Alternative

Control device
Forming
Curing
Cooling
Ib
Scrub.
Inc.

H -.___-.
Scrub. ESP
Inc. Inc. .


Scrub. .
Scrub.
	
ESP
ESP
---- TV -
l V
Scrub.
Scrub.
Scrub.


ESP
ESP
ESP
Line designation

Smal 1
  Incremental cost
    above:
      Baseline
      Uncontrolled
Medi urn
  Incremental cost
    above:
      Baseline
      Uncontrolled

Large
  .Incremental cost
    above:
      Baseline
      Uncontrolled
  0     352     384      55
768   1,120   1,152     823
  0     386     412
793   1,179   1,205
  0     490     498
862   1,352   1,360
   90
  883
  195
1,057
           65
          833
   95
  888
         101
         869
136
929
         96
        864
136
929
  181      241      222
1,043    1,103    1,084
^January 1982 dollars.
 Baseline.
 Scrub. = venturi scrubber.
 Inc. = incinerator.
 ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
 — = uncontrolled.
                                     8-17
-------
TABLE 8-14.  INCREMENTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL
 SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE FOR MODEL FIBERGLASS LINES--
                       FLAME ATTENUATION18
                       ($000 per year)


                               Regulatory alternative
                                II      III       IV
    Control device

      Formi ng

      Curing

      Cooling

    Line designation

      Smal 1
        Incremental cost
        above baseline
        (uncontrolled)
                  HVAF
HVAF
 150
HVAF

HVAF




 176
797
    ^January 1982 dollars.
     HVAF = high velocity air filter.
     — = uncontrolled.
                              8-18
-------
 TABLE 8-15.  INCREMENTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
              FOR MODEL FIBERGLASS PLANTS—ROTARY SPIN1*,19
                            ($000 per year)
                                     Regulatory Alternative
                                   II
           III	-.-- IV
Control device

  Forming
  Curing
  Cooling

Model plant
designation

Small   .
  Incremental cost
    above:
      Baseline
      Uncontrolled

Medi urn
  Incremental cost
    above:
      Baseline
      Uncontrolled

Large
  Incremental cost
    above:
       Baseline
       Uncontrolled
                     Scrub.  Scrub.
                        Inc.     Inc.
ESP   Scrub.
Inc.   Scrub,
  0     352     384      55
768   1,120   1,152     823
ESP
ESP
 65
833
                                      Scrub.     ESP
                                      Scrub.     ESP
                                      Scrub.     ESP
                        101
                        869
                                                                         96
                                                                        864
                          0   1,159   1,239     478     511      593     614
                      2,010   3,169   3,249   2,488   2,521    2,603   2,624
                          0   1,718   1,792     535     522     719     676
                      3,285   5,003   5,077   3,820   3,807   4,004   3,961
^January 1982 dollars.
^Baseline.
 Scrub. = venturi scrubber.
 Inc. = incinerator.
 ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
 — = uncontrolled.           ;
                                    8-19
-------
 TABLE 8-16.   INCREMENTAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION OF MODEL FIBERGLASS LINES-
                             ROTARY SPIN18,19
Line designation
                                             Regulatory Alternative
            II
             III
              IV
Smal 1

  Incremental reduction
    over:
      Baseline, Mg/yr
                tons/yr
      Uncontrolled, Mg/yr
                    tons/yr

Medi urn

  Incremental reduction
    over:
      Baseline, Mg/yr
                tons/yr
      Uncontrolled, Mg/yr
                    tons/yr
Large

  Incremental reduction
    over:
      Baseline, Mg/yr
                tons/yr
      Uncontrolled, Mg/yr
                    tons/yr
  0
  0
239
263
  0
  0
453
500
  0
  0

656
723
  191
  210

  429
  473
  362
  399
  815
  899
  524
  578
1,180
1,301
  231
  255

  470
  518
  440
  485

  893
  984
  636
  701

1,292
1,425
  234
  258

  473
  521
  445
  490
  898
  990
  644
  710

1,300
1,433
 Baseline.
                                    8-20
-------
TABLE 8-17.  INCREMENTAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION OF MODEL FIBERGLASS LINES
              WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE—FLAME ATTENUATION18
        Line designation
  Regulatory alternative
Tl~	 Hi         TV"
        Smal 1

        Incremental reduction
          over baseline

            Mg/yr
            Tons/yr
  10
  11
        aBaseline  is uncontrolled.
11
12
161
178
                                   8-21
-------
  TABLE 8-18.  INCREMENTAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION OF MODEL FIBERGLASS PLANTS18,19
                                            Regulatory A1ternative
                                               II
                          III
                          IV
          1
Incremental reduction
  over:
    Baseline, Mg/yr
              tons/yr
    Uncontrolled, Mg/yr
                  tons/yr
    0
    0
  239
  263
  191
  210
  429
  473
  231
  255
 .470
  518
  234
  258
  473
  521
Incremental reduction
  over:
    Baseline, Mg/yr
              tons/yr
    Uncontrolled, Mg/yr
                  tons/yr
0
0
1,372
1,512
1,096
1,208
2,467
2,720
1,330
1 ,466
2,701
2,979
1,347
1,484
2,718
2,996
Incremental  reduction
  over:
    Baseline, Mg/yr
              tons/yr
    Uncontrolled,  Mg/yr
                  tons/yr
    0
    0
2,004
2,209
1,601
1,764
3,604
3,973
1,943
2,142

3,947
4,351
1,967
2,167
3,971
4,376
 Baseline.
                                    8-22
-------
    TABLE 8-19.   AVERAGE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
           WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE FORaMODEL FIBERGLASS LINES-
                            ROTARY SPIN3 18,19   '


                    	'	Regulatory Alternative	
                          II
III
IV
c
Control device
Forming
Curi ng
Cooling
Scrub.
Inc.
ESP
Inc.
Scrub.
Scrub.
ESP
ESP
Scrub.
Scrub,
Scrub.
ESP
ESP
ESP
Line designation

Smal 1
$/Mg
$/ton
Medium
$/Mg
$/ton
Large
$/Mg
$/ton
1,845
1,675

1,065
965

1,935
850
2,010
1,830

1,140
1 ,035

950
860
240
215

205
185

305
280
280
255

215
195

285
260
430
390

305
. 275

375
340
410
370

305
275

345
315
.January 1982 dollars.
 Scrub. = venturi scrubber.
 Inc. = incinerator.
 ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
 — = uncontrolled.
                                    8-23
-------
TABLE 8-20.  AVERAGE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
       WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE FOR MODEL FIBERGLASS LINES-
                        FLAME ATTENUATION3 18
                              Regulatory alternative
      Control device
        Formi ng
        Curing
        Cooling
      Line designation
                               II
           III
            IV
                      HVAF
HVAF
HVAF
HVAF
Small,
$/Mg
$/ton
15,790
14,285
16,450
14,980
4,950
4,490
      ^January 1982 dolllars.
       HVAF = high velocity air filter.
       — = uncontrolled.
                                8-24
-------
    TABLE 8-21.  AVERAGE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
           WITH RESPECT TO BASELINE FOR MODEL FIBERGLASS PLANTS--
                             ROTARY SPINC
                                          18 19
                                    Regulatory Alternative
                          II
                          III
                                     IV
Control device

  Forming           Scrub.      ESP     Scrub.      ESP     Scrub.      ESP
  Curing              Inc.      Inc.    Scrub.      ESP     Scrub.      ESP
  Cooling             —         —        —        —     Scrub.      ESP

Model plant
designation

   1

  $/Mg              1,845     2,010       240       280       430       410
  $/ton             1,675     1,830       215       255       390       370
  $/Mg
  $/ton
1,055
  960
1,130
1,025
360
325
380
345
440
400
455
415
. $/Mg
$/ton
1,075
975
1,120
1,015
275
250
270
245
365
330
345
310
uJanuary 1982 dollars.
 Scrub. = venturi scrubber.
 Inc. = incinerator.
 ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
 — = uncontrolled.
                                    8-25
-------
 ($4,490 to $14,980/ton).   Of the RS lines,  the small  line has  the highest
 overall cost effectiveness values while the medium line has  the lowest
 overall cost effectiveness values.
      Tables 8-22 and 8-23 present the average cost effectiveness of each
 regulatory alternative relative to uncontrolled for the model  RS lines
 and  model  plants.   As shown in Table 8-22  for the  RS  lines,  the average
 cost effectiveness  values range from $805/Mg for a wet  ESP on  forming
 and  curing on a  large line (Regulatory Alternative III) to $3,215/Mg for
 a  low pressure drop scrubber on forming and a low  temperature  incinerator-
 on curing  on a small  line (Regulatory Alternative  I)  ($730 to  $2,920/ton).
 8.1.2  Modified/Reconstructed Faci1ities
      Under the provisions of 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15,  an "existing facility"
 may  become subject  to standards of performance if  it  is deemed modified
 or reconstructed.   In such situations  control  devices may have to be
 installed  for  compliance  with new source performance  standards.
      The cost  for installing a control  system on an existing facility
 may  be  greater than the cost of installing  the control  system  on  a  new
 facility.   Since retrofit costs  are  highly  site-specific  they  are difficult
 to estimate.   The availability of space and  the  configuration  of  existing
 equipment  in the plant are the major  limiting site-specific factors.
 Because capture hoods  used in  this  industry  are  considered a part of the
 process equipment,  the primary increase in cost  of installing  a control .
 system  on  an existing  facility would result  from any increased structural
 support necessary for  the  added  ductwork.  No  significant  increase  in
 control  device capital or  annualized costs would be expected for  a
modified or reconstructed  source.
8.2  OTHER COST CONSIDERATIONS
     In-addition to costs  associated with the  Clean Air Act,  the wool
fiberglass manufacturing  industry may also incur costs as a result of
other Federal rules or regulations.  These impacts are discussed  in this
section.
                                   8-26
-------
    TABLE 8-22.   AVERAGE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
         WITH RESPECT TO UNCONTROLLED FOR MODEL FIBERGLASS LINES--
                             ROTARY SPINa 18,19
                                      Regulatory Alternative
                                    II
                             III	  . —— IV
Control device

  Forming
  Curing
  Cooling

Line designation
Scrub.   Scrub.    ESP   Scrub.    ESP
  Inc.     Inc.    Inc.  Scrub.    ESP
Scrub.
Scrub.
Scrub.
ESP
ESP
ESP
Small
$/Mg
$/ton
Medium
$/Mg
$/ton
Large
$/Mg
$/ton

3
2

1
1

1
1

,215
,920

,750
,585

,315
,190

2
2

1
1

1
1

,610
,370

,445
,310

,145
,040

2
2

1
1

1
1

,685
,435

,480
,340

,155
,045

1,750
1,590

990
895

820
740

1,770
1,610

995
900

805
730

1,835
1,670

1,035
940

850
770

1,825
1,660

1,035
940

835
.755
^January 1982 dollars.
°Base1ine.
 Scrub. = venturi scrubber.
 Inc. = incinerator.
 ESP = wet electrostatic precipitator.
 — = uncontrolled.
                                    8-27
-------
    TABLE 8-23.  AVERAGE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
         WITH RESPECT TO UNCONTROLLED FOR MODEL FIBERGLASS PLANTS—
                           -  ROTARY SPIN3 18,19
Regulatory Alternative

Control device0
Formi ng
Curing
Cooling
Model plant
designation
1
$/Mg
$/ton
2
$/Mg
$/ton
3
$/Mg
$/ton

Ib
Scrub.
Inc.


3
2
.
1
1

1
1


,215
,920

,465
,330

,640
,485

H ______
Scrub.
Inc.


2
2

1
1

1
1


,610
,370

,285
,165

,390
,260
ESP
Inc.


2,685
2,435

1,315
1,195
•«
1,410
1,280
m_ __ _ .TW _ __
• 	 	 iv 	
Scrub.
Scrub.


1,750
1,590

920
835

970
880
ESP
ESP


1,770
1,610

930
845

965
875
Scrub.
Scrub.
Scrub.


1,835
1,670

960
870

1,010
915
ESP
ESP
ESP


1,825
1,660

965
875

995
905
^January 1982 dollars.
 Baseline.
 Scrub. = venturi scrubber.
 Inc. = incinerator.
 ESP'= wet electrostatic precipitator.
 — = uncontrolled.
                                    8-28
-------
8.2.1  Water Pollution Control Act
     The wool fiberglass manufacturing industry is included in the glass
manufacturing point source category for which effluent guideline limitations
have been promulgated (40 CFR 426).20  The standards of performance for
new sources specify zero discharge of process wastewater to navigable
waters.  The wool fiberglass industry currently practices total water
recycle of process water; the water is reused in binder formulation,
duct sprays, forming section sprays, or control device sprays.
     Several of the control devices (wet ESP's, scrubbers) require the
use of water and result in an increase in wastewater volume.   The cost
of treating this water (i.e., screening and settling) to a level suitable
for recycle has been included in the cost analyses.
8.2.2  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
     Waste generated by the manufacture of wool fiberglass insulation or
by air pollution control devices associated with its manufacture is not
currently classified as hazardous or toxic under the provisions of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  However, classification
of the wastes by the various State and local agencies varies widely,
ranging from nonhazardous to hazardous.   A cost for solid waste disposal
pf $30/ton for landfilling has been included in the cost analyses.
8.2.3  Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act
     No data were obtained regarding the cost to the industry of compliance
with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (OSHA).   The
control equipment used in evaluating the impacts of the regulatory
alternatives should result in minimal OSHA-related compliance costs.
The industry's ability to comply with any one of the regulatory alternatives
would, therefore, not be greatly affected by the economic impact of OSHA
regulations.
8.2.4  Resource Requirements Imposed on State, Regional, and Local  Agencies
     The owner or operator of a wool fiberglass insulation facility is
responsible for making application to the State for a permit to construct
and subsequently operate a new installation.  The review of these applica-
tions, and any later enforcement action, would be handled by local,
State, or regional regulatory agencies.   Since it is projected that
30 line additions and 5 plants will become affected facilities through
                                   8-29
-------
1991, that these lines and plants will be distributed through the United
States instead of clustered in one State, and that they will be added  in
States already having wool fiberglass insulation  facilities, the promulga-
tion of standards for wool fiberglass insulation  manufacturing facilities

should not impose major resource requirements on  the regulatory agencies.
8.3  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8
 1.  Confidential reference 8-1.

 2.  U.S.  Department of Labor.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Producer
     Prices and Price Indexes Data for January 1982.  pp. 54, 72, 74,
     75.
 3.

 4.

 5.

 6.




 7.


 8.

 9.
Economic Indicators.  Chemical- Engineering.  89(5):7.  March 8,  1982.

Economic Indicators.  Chemical Engineering.  89(11):7.  May 31,  1982.

Economic Indicators.  Chemical Engineering.  89(12):7.  June 14,  1982.

R. B. Neveril, CARD, Inc.  Capital and Operating Costs of Selected
Air Pollution Control Systems.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/
5-80-002. December 1978.  pp. B-2, B-15, B-17.

U.S. Department of Labor.  Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Employment
and Earnings.  March 1982.  p. 82.
Reference 6.  pp.

Reference 6.  pp.
3-11 through 3-19.

5-1 through 5-8.
10.  Telecon:  K. S. Medepalli, MRI, to T. Marker, United McGill Corporation.
     April 15, 1981.  Information concerning wet ESP costs.

11.  Letter from J. D. Brady, Andersen 2000, Inc., to K. S. Medepalli,
     MRI. April 22, 1981.  Information on HVAF's.

12.  Reference 6.  pp. 5-9 through 5-18.

13.  Reference 6.  pp. 5-31 through 5-39.

14.  R.  W. Rolke, et al., Shell Development Company.  Afterburner Systems
     Study.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle
     Park, N.C.  EPA Publication No. RS-72-062.  August 1972.  p. 174a.

15.  Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  Publication No. EPA 625/1-75-003a.
     January 1975.   pp. 8-1, 8-5, 10-7, 10-13.
                                   8-30
-------
16."   Design of Wastewater Treatment Facilities Major Systems.  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agnecy.   Washington, D.C.  Publication
     No.  EPA 430/9-79-008.  September 1978.  pp. 5-82, 8-8.

17.   Reference 6.   pp. 4-15 through 4-28, 4-47 through 4-75.

18.   Memo from W.  H. Maxwell and J. A. Shular, MRI, to J. A. Telander,
     EPA/ISB/SDS.   Final Tabular Costs.  September 9,  1982.  Tabular costs
     for model wool fiberglass production lines arid plants.

19.   Memo from W.  H. Maxwell, MRI, to J. A. Telander,  EPA/ISB/SDS.  Revised
     Final Tabular Costs.  December 14, 1982.

20.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., Effluent Guidelines and
     Standards for Glass Manufacturing.  40 CFR 426.   Washington,  D.C.
     U.S. Government Printing Office.  January  1974.
                                    8-31
-------
-------
                          9.  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
9.1  INDUSTRY PROFILE
9.1.1  Introduction                                          .
     The wool fiberglass insulation industry is covered under the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 3296, Mineral Wool.1  The fiberglass
category includes that part of the mineral wool classification in which
molten glass is fiberized and chemically bonded with an organic material
(binder) into a wool-like insulating material.  Wool fiberglass currently
comprises about 63 percent of SIC 3296.^^  Textile fiberglass (SIC Code
3229) is not included in this fiberglass source category.
     Wool fiberglass can be used for structural or nonstructural purposes.
Structural uses include the thermal insulation of new residential and non-
residential structures as well as the retrofitting of insulation to
existing structures.  Nonstructural uses are diverse and include pipe
insulation, appliance and other equipment insulation, automotive insula-
tion, acoustical ceiling insulation, and rigid fiberglass ductboard in
air-handling equipment.5  In 1981, about 81 percent of the wool fiberglass
produced was used for the insulation of new and existing structures.  The
remaining 19 percent was used in nonstructural applications.2  Fiberglass
is usually sold in the form of batts and blankets (with or without a vapor
barrier) or is shredded, lubricated, and packaged as blowing wool.
     Wool fiberglass is currently produced by five firms in the United
States, and there are 25 plants in 11 States.6"12  Three of the firms had
99 percent of total U.S. capacity in 1980.13  The industry is oligopolist
tic  in structure, and Owens-Corning Fiberglas is the acknowledged price
leader.13
9.1.2  Firm Characteristics
     9.1.2.1  Ownership.  The five firms that produce all of the wool
fiberglass in the United States are CertainTeed Corporation (CT), Guardian
                                  9-1
-------
 Industries Inc., Knauf Fiber-Glass GmbH, Manville Corporation, and Owens-
 Corning Fiberglas Corporation (OCF).  With the exception of Knauf, the
 firms are publicly held.  (A diversified French industrial group, St.
 Gobain Pont Mousson, owns 54 percent of CertainTeed.)lk
     9.1.2.2  Geographic Location.  Table 9-1 lists plant locations by
 firm.  Figure 9-1 shows that most of the plants are located in the Eastern
 half of the United States.  Five plants are located in the Central States,
 and four in California.
     There are several reasons for this geographic choice of plant loca-
 tion. One reason is that both the glass raw materials and the finished
 products are bulky, so plants tend to be located near sources of supply or
 demand.  Other factors in plant siting include fuel availability (because
 the process is energy-intensive) and State and local environmental regula-
 tions.15-17
     9.1.2.3  Concentration.  The industry was a monopoly from 1938 to
 1949 when OCF held exclusive process patents in glass fiber production.
 In 1949, OCF signed a consent decree permitting other firms to receive
 patent licenses.18
     Four other firms have since entered the industry, but OCF remains the
 dominant firm.  Table 9-2 lists the estimated capacity of each of the four
 firms that produced wool fiberglass throughout 1979 and 1980.  (Guardian
 Industries' plant started up in late 1980.)19' In 1980, OCF had 63 percent
 of total industry capacity, and OCF is currently said to be the only
 producer of wool fiberglass nonresidential roof insulation.20  CertainTeed
 and Manville split most of the remaining capacity, with CT having 20.3 per-
 cent of total  industry capacity and Manville having 15.6 percent of
 capacity.  Knauf had an estimated 1.1 percent of capacity.  The new plant
 by Guardian Industries is estimated to have added only slightly to industry
 capacity.
     9.1.2.4  Vertical and Horizontal Integration.  The three major firms
 in the wool fiberglass industry are both vertically and horizontally in-
tegrated. No information is currently available about Guardian Industries
 or Knauf.
     There is both backward and forward vertical  integration in the three
major firms.  Backward vertical integration occurs when a firm supplies
                                  9-2
-------
      TABLE 9-1.  LOCATION OF INSULATION FIBERGLASS PLANTS
                         IN THE UNITED STATES 6-12
Company/headquarters address
        Plants
Cert;ainTeed Corporation
Valley Forge, Pa.  19482
Athens, Ga.
Chowchilla, Calif.
Kansas City, Kans.
Berlin, N.J.
Mountain Top, Pa.
Guardian Industries, Inc.
43043 W. Nine Mile Road
Northville, Mich.  48167
Albion, Mich.
Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH
240 Elizabeth Street
Shelpyvme,  Ind.  46176
Shelbyville, Ind.'
Manyilie Corporation
Ken-Caryl  Ranch
Denver, Colo.  80217
Corona, Calif.
Willows, Calif.
Winder, Ga.
Richmond,  Ind.
McPherson
Berlin, N
Defiance,
Cleburrie,
                                                          ,  Kans.
                                                          .J.
                                                          Ohio  (3  plants)
                                                          Tex.
                                                 Parkersburg,  W.  Va.
 Owens-Corning  Fiberglas  Corporation
 Fiberglas Tower
 Toledo,  Ohio   43659
 Santa  Clara,  Calif.
 Fairburn,  Ga.
 Kansas CHy,  Kans.
 Barrington,  N.J.
 Delmar,  N.Y.
 Newark,  Ohio
 Waxahachie,  Tex.
                                9-3
-------
                                                               CO


                                                               ro




                                                               CU
                                                              4->
                                                              •r-
                                                               C


                                                               OJ
                                                              -C
                                                               -------
















l—f
CM
ro

O
CO
• ov



a:
<
en
f-^,.
01
r— •
_^
h— 4
„
2»T
Q:
u_

CO

H-
h— i
a.
_
id
cu
IS

t/^

*? J3

U

1C) f—t
U

4J
'ici
IO
o
01
f5 >4
t^ ^^

>»
U
£•&
5 -1
«•_
U B
S.S
ID
o

ai
^ 5
^
•t- ^
.
'C *CT
o. -^
U

in

m

»-H
CO
to

f— 1

o
ro
to


in
to
CM

CM


co
OJ
o


to
in
-1


g
in

;.
m
CM



__,
^


%



-------
its own materials rather than purchasing raw materials on the open market.
Owens-Corning, CT, and Manville all supply their own sand, which is a
major raw material ,22  Forward vertical integration occurs when a firm has
its own retail distribution center.  Wool fiberglass producers have
captive distribution centers that enable them to market products nation-
wide.  CertainTeed, for example, distributes insulation products through
the Cameron Wholesale operation.6
     Horizontal integration occurs when a firm produces more than one type
of product.  CertainTeed and Manville are broad-based companies serving
the construction materials industry.6-.12  CertainTeed, Manville, and
Owens-Corning produce both wool fiberglass (part of SIC 3296) and also
textile fiberglass (SIC 3229).  Wool fiberglass is used for'thermal
insulation, and textile fiberglass is used in plastic reinforcements and
yarns.23
     9.1.2.5  Entry.  Entry into the industry by new firms is inhibited by
the dominant position of the three major manufacturers who have well
established marketing networks, the size of the entry investment in plant
and equipment ($25 million per plant), and the limited availability of
technical and process information to those outside the industry.24
Despite this, Guardian Industries entered the market in late 1980 by
purchasing a flat glass plant from Corning Glass and converting it to
produce wool fiberglass insulation.25
     Knauf, on the other hand, entered the market in the  late-1970's by
purchasing a plant in Indiana from CT.  The plant was available only
because CT was ordered to divest itself of the facility by the courts.26
9.1.3  Industry Characteristics
9-1.3.1  Historical Shipments and Prices in the Total Wool Fiberglass
Market.  Shipments and price trends in wool fiberglass are summarized in
Table 9-3.  The quantity of shipments of wool fiberglass  increased from
475 gigagrans (Gg) (1,046 x 106 pounds (lb)) in 1965 to 1,112 Gg (2,449 x
10^ lb) in 1981, or at an annual compound growth rate of  5.5 percent.
Growth in shipments was more rapid (6.8 percent) in the Seventies.  Output
is cyclical, with downturns occurring  in the recessions of 1970, 1975, and
1980-1981.
     The value of shipments increased more rapidly than the quantity of
shipments between 1965 and 1981.  The  annual compound growth rate  in this
                                  9-6
-------





OJ
.u
CM
OJ
«-i
8
H
g . '
tr>
$

3
•§
LU
CD
3
IX •
'Q
.H.
as
Q.
it
£.

M
z
to
<*?
<*»
LU
£
1

V'
u.
o it-
IS X 1 5 JS ° 0
•O 0) trt *rf
*- B J3 O u. O U
Cv .— .— _j O U 3
K- •-
O QJ W X »— **
tj •- 'o » -S  u
c
0) <4- —
T5 O 4->
e u
•— ^ 3
VI U
0> O *->
i. u- e
8 u,
•o — 
CO*
"" Si*
V U
U *- 0)
••- O A
£ £

It
(

o .
1
(O -
a».









II
to
**
X
II
S

u
g!

}
01
u
IV
i.

^
=
E


hJ
c
u
i
»•»
5-




01
c
«
u
3
4)
91
*
S
•**+.
£
•*
i
0>
g1
f
u
M
0
•v»
Ol
01
B
n
u
M
^
5
'_
«
—< O r>. CM CV^ CJ O CNJ Ov—  cj to  — • T> m  »T — H O 00 r>. V O «•> >r> CO
o> r— — 1 1— t\j cn to t~- CO — • o CO o O e\j u>
 ie> ep >-. us m co vo exwooi1^^ — «o
t-( f-4 *iH »-l
GO ^ O ~* r^.«o*aoco CM\O
ChCMrotc <^t,o«^vr) CMCM^rr^cvi m*^
1 1 1-1 CM *-4 ^4
co«-orni~- LO— lOTro GO en to CM «M IAOI
enr^OMOi t-t^m^CM ejx^emoo •«•
COCAOOO f- in «T o eocoomco icp«rs. cvip
o> CM m GTt»^tn iO^i^-irncM co«— iirtCNjm cnm
ir> LO ir> ID us «3iousioi-~ Goatoioo -«m
eooop ooooo ooo— i— — — <
otcMOiGom oor^encn (^ivcMteot CMIA
n «) vo r~. 01 oS**cocM o—''n«3f^ v o
CM CM CM CM CM «•> CM CM CM f»> "» «T W "T tf»O
ooooo ooooo ooooo oo
i to o f-. co CMinoocotA ^err^cnm>M en en
CMw-im o en »r »r tn «>weo«rco ro«o-
,-< 1 «H — 1 —<.-<•-,« CM CM f-4
ir>— ifnocM GOmr^u> CM — «o
SCM en CM in mmcoor>. en en eo vn GO CM CM
co»>«-9Vin*0 \OGOw4CMm 49*^
leninvo ^-cnoortt^in ocMr».cocM CMIO
CMroaOfN. i-Hf^too^^ ro^Nr^inin Goto
t 1 CM •-« *•* *— « CM CV * 1 1
p- ic in <*> r». m CM en o in enor»«rGO ^*^-
inin»».»rcM ipf*.««en(>. .-i^rinvw CM en
«o»f^ro*»«^«r roeoocoen r^vtoi«)Gn cn«M
<^9^inm iniocoeoeo r^en^MCMCM *^««i
intor^osen o<^CM«n^r Lnvor^eoen o«*<
en en en 9t en en en en en en 9t en en en en e^ ot
i it



i i i


i>i


i i i

0*0 o
«> *Of*.
> i i
GO O\ \O
»^ wM **(
til
ID CO 00
m to to
K
O O) — 1 •—* — «
t— < CO CO CO
te en en en
"^ 'T'Tn
ra x
3 Q UT> O U1
C » 0» O* CT>

£
J3
I/I
U.
o
>t
*rf
^>
S
g-
£
•4^
>,
JS
•s r,i
2 5 m
1 if
W> 0) U
<^ g ai
at *J
E.c a>
&>. 0) €
JI— ^*J *J
x e u-
«--v.— O
° »?»<,=
a>-w 4^
-2 „ -5 g1
 CD 09«-
0>— «*» fl) .
J= «-« (Q f *^
*•»*»•* > *•*
1
«/) •» OJ tl
-^ trt jc a>
« i " e .
!w " — H O
a c
• 3»T-o
ui or o ••
«.«L--^
iS-8L-g
M- O. OJ 3
•gg-ZJ^
"^ i/> 3 QJ
O 5 E .= -°
c oi *^ x «
3 *•> a u
O <0 O «-
Q.*— W O"^
3 en u
U U <1>~
0) •— 'W 3
Q. « C —  Q. •_
*<0 re Off
* « "-t
0) CU II HO
S'MUI _. fc>
« jsca^cn
O) Q> ^
SJ= U. •- C
X J= O
(DO* Q.
x: u . *=
*rf o» O
u
«/> ^»
. - e w
0) 0 I—
u a.
T s ^r
^^ . --
9-7
-------
period was 11.8 percent, and there was no decline in. the value of output
during recessions.
     Wholesale prices (average value of shipments per unit' weight) rose
from $0.526 per kilogram (kg) ($0.239 per Ib) in 1965 to $1.333 per kg
($0.605 per Ib) in 1981, or at an annual compound rate of 6.0 percent per
year.  Prices declined  in 1971 and 1972, but these declines were unrelated
to a business cycle.
     The real price of  wool fiberglass (.the price index of wool fiberglass
divided by the index of the cost of construction) has fallen in most.years
since 1965; 1975, 1980, and 1981 are exceptions.
     9.1.3.2  Historical Shipments and Prices in Structural Versus Non-
structural Markets.  As noted earlier, wool fiberglass can be used for
structural or nonstructural purposes.  -Estimates of the end-uses of wool
fiberglass in 1980 and  their shares of the total are presented in
Table 9-4.
     Table 9-5 tracks the historical behavior of shipments and prices of
structural versus nonstructural insulation between 1965 and 1981.  Infor-
mation on the share of  total shipments and value of shipments used for
structural uses relative to total usage of wool fiberglass are also
given.                                     .
     From this table, one can see that the behavior of output in the two
markets has differed rather dramatically.  The 'structural market, on the
one hand, has been a growth sector.  Shipments grew at an annual compound
rate o?"9.9 percent between 1965 and 1981.  In addition, they rose in
every year except three of the recession years, 1974, 1980, and 1981.
Nonstructural shipments, on the other hand, declined at an annual compound
growth rate of 1.5 percent between 1965 and 1981.  (In recent years,
nonstructural usage has risen from an historical low of 180 Gg (396.4 x
106 Ib) in 1975 to 215  Gg (474.2 x 106 Ib) in 1981.)  As a result of
these divergent trends, the share of output of structural insulation has
grown from about 42 percent of the total market in 1965 to a current high
of about 81 percent.
     The historical trends in the value of shipments do not show the
previous patterns as dramatically as the trends in physical output
because the price of nonstructural insulation has been higher and has also
                                  9-8
-------
TABLE 9-4.   ESTIMATES OF THE DEMAND FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS
                     IN 1980 BY END-USE30
Share
Demand fnprrpnt nf
• End-Use Gg
Structural
Residential
New houses 321
Mobile homes 54
Retrofit of 361
existing houses
Total residential 736
Nonresidential3 197
Total structural 933
Nonstructural
Pipe insulation 79
Air handling 59
Other 107
Total nonstructural 245
Total b 1,178
105 Ib total demand)


706 27.2
120 4.6
795 30.6
1,621 62.4
435 16.8
2,056 79.2

175 6.7
130 5.0
235 9.1
_540 1CL8
2,596 100.0

alncludes nonresident!al use of light-density and heavy-
 density (roof) insulation.
bThe total of 2,596 x 106 Ib is based on preliminary
 estimates of industry output in 1980 by Census.
                            9-9
-------
LU

S3
o

§10
J—crj

gj,
Of
2:  -
   r»
COPJ

cocT
o£t-H
LU CO
> CT»
«a:o

S1-
    ;LO
    vo
   I 
CO   «

.    <"
U. CO
0?   ^^t®^**?   inrricocoen  cnr**cocno  ^-*rr

                 ^. *-• — Q. *—f   to f** en P*» "«j*   to »-< ^er in CM  ro tn co co co  cocc
                 *j o ra —•       p^)popopo«T   T in in to in  toto~	  --'-^

                          t/


                          o
                 > cO co  cn cn

                          CJ -^   OOOOO   OOOOO  OOOOO  OC



                          o.  cn   pof*»encocn   ^TCOCOCMCM  room^o  _
                                   r**. por^om   f**CMCOPO««r  co in CM co cn  in cc
                                   in to to r** h*   r»>* P*» to r-^ co  — .— .-_  —  — *•••

                                   OOOOO   OOOOO

                   to

                     J

                       oj  ^ 40^    en PO in cn to   CM o to cn


                                   iri r«* r^ pZ en
                                   t-*»-4^N^4»-4   *-4 CM CM CM






                             "°	        cnco^  COCM


                             —    ~     ininr**.   TT CM O TT cr,  cr,—^ co CO^H
                         E
                                  to co CM PO —4   to in <—« en CM

                                  CM CM CM CM CM   CM CM PO •
                                                                      §o o *-H CM  ^H m
                                                                      cncM CM PO  CM^H
                                                                   -M •-< CM CM CM  CM CM
                                  CMCMCMCMCM   CM CM CM CM CM


                                  OOOOO   OOOOO
                                  in —4 10 10 m  r-^ooco
                                        cn—HITS  ^o CM tn ^- in  o
                                                                   ro in o to f*»  o . _
                                                                   h*. P*. CO CO CO  O •-*
                                                                   OOOOO  ~*«-i
                                  m co co o 
                                                  tn co rx. CM CM
                                                  10 <—< ID •—< *T
                                                  *-* CM CM m n
                                                                   O  r^.  ^* ei 'V •••4 en   in ^r up f^ PO  PO in
                                  PO to co to CM  v cn in cn to   —i in 5 c\j *r  *r r^
                                  ^r^^into  tocoo^^«-t   POtoocMPo  i—< en
                                                                       4 CM CM CM  CM *—(
                                  F^» O O CO in  po^cn ^-< ^H  r^» —4 r^. .—* «•
                                  cn »-4 CM in co  cnop^^rpo  cnm'flr *-4 to
                                  —H CM CM CM CM  cM^vinin  inr^cnoo
                                  in to f^. co en  o «-^ CM PO ^r

                                  cn cn o*» cn cr*  en ^n o\ cn cn
                                in to P^. co en

                                en cn os cn ff*
                                                                                   en r-*.
                                                                                   to en
                                                                                   en co
                                                                                   O 1-4
                                                                                   CO CO
                                                                                   en en
                                                                                                  en to~H


                                                                                                  PO PO^H
                                                                                                  in CM o

                                                                                                  r_l ^H PO
                                                                                                  *—< en en

                                                                                                  10 rC
                                                                                                  cn PS. o

                                                                                                  cn o P-.
                                                                                           3  or
                                                                                           o *J
                                                                                           CX «J
                                                                                             *J   O O O
                                                                                                  ui o m
                                                                                                  to r^. p^
                                                                                                  en en en
                                                                                                                             id

                                                                                                                            "3
                                                                                                                    o  S    —
                                                                                                                    3  g
                                                                                                                    "
                                                                                                                       O


                                                                                                                       >.
                                                                                                                    >  c     o
                                                                                                                   ••"  (O
                                                                                                                   13  3     
                                                                                                                    a> 4->
                                                                                                                    E  o    —
                                                                                                                   _£_>

                                                                                                                   "io?
                                                                                                              W   SS
                                                                                                                       •—
                                                                                                                   c cn
                                                                                                              o    
                                                                                                                            IS


                                                                                                                            "3
                                                                                                                            Vt

                                                                                                                            C
                                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                                            i
                                                                                                                   >     I
                                                                                                                      t/t cn **-
                                                                                                                       o

                                                                                                                   S'gJ! -
                                                                                 i- E •& '
                                                                           o c aj a.  •*- > •*- K-
                                                                                 «J i
                                                                           in ^-    to c:

                                                                           en u x: «- *" '.
                                                                           ^H 3 *J O C
                                                                                                            HJ    J3 u    TD
                                                       9-10
-------
grown at a more rapid rate than the price of structural insulation.  As
a result, the share of structural insulation measured by value of output
has grown from about 37 percent in 1965 to a high of 68 percent in recent
years.
     The price of nonstructural insulation is.higher than the price of
structural insulation because nonstructural insulation is a heavy density
product.  Heavy-density insulation provides more insulating value per unit
pf thickness than does the light-density material, but heavy density costs
more to produce.  Hence, it sells at a higher price per unit weight than
light density wool fiberglass.36
     9.1.3,3  Employment.  Table 9-6 contains data on the estimated em-
ployment of production workers and all workers from 1965 to 1979, as
Well as the base for these estimates.  Total employment in the wool
fiberglass industry in 1979 was 15,100, with 12,300 employees being
production workers and the remaining 2,800 being nonproduction workers.
 '•"'•'  9.1,3.4  International Trade.  Data on the value of imports and
exports are presented in Table 9-7.  The value of imports sharply in-
creased during 1977 and 1978 and then declined in 1979.  During these two
yjears, housing starts increased and there was a vast increase in retro-
fitting.  Since the industry could not meet the demand, the United States
.had to Import wool fiberglass.  By 1979 the industry had increased capac-
ity.  Overcapacity occurred in 1979 because housing starts decreased in
J.979 and the retrofit market was 1 million units less than its 1977
historical high point.
     Canada, Germany, and Mexico are the major suppliers of wool fiber-  .
glass to the United States.  Canada is also the major market for U.S.
exports..37
     Overall, the imports and exports are not important factors in this
Industry,  Imported fiberglass accounted for less than 1 percent of total
fiberglass sales, and exported fiberglass accounted for approximately
2 percent of total fiberglass sales in 1979.  In the future, imports and
exports are expected to continue to be an insignificant portion of the
wool fiberglass industry.37
     9.1.3.5  Substitutes.  Wool fiberglass competes with rock woo],
cellulose, and polystyrene foam  in the structural' insulation market. The
principal residential applications of insulation materials are shown in
fable 9-8.   In 1976 the structural insulation market was divided as
                                  9-11       .
-------
 TABLE 9-6.   ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT IN WOOL  FIBERGLASS,  1965 TO  1979
Total mineral wool
(SIC 3296)


Year
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Share of wool
fiberglass in
SIC 3296*
0.582
0.612
0.615
0.641
0.658
0.636
0.664
0.646
0.645
0.611
0.602
0.619
0.619
0.627
. 0.628
Number of
production
workers
do3)
12.2
12.9
12.2
11.7
12.4
12.8 -
13.1
14.7
15.5
16.0
14.5
16.6
18.6
19.7
19.6
Total
number of
empl oyees
do3)
15.4
16.1
15.1
14.5
15. ,3
15.8
16.2
18.0
18.7
19.5
18.1
20.3
22.6
24.1
24.1
Total
wool fiberglass
Number of
production
workers
(103)b
7.10
7.89
7.50
7.50
8.16
8.14
8.70
9.50
10.00
9.78
8.73
10.28
11.51 •
12.35
12.31
Total
number of
employees
(10^)c
8.96
9.85
9.29
9.29
10.1
10.0
10.8
11.6
12.1
11.9
10.9
12.6
14.0
15.1
15.1
Annual compound
  growth rates
1965 to 1979
1970 to 1979
1975 to 1979
4.0
4.7
9.0
3.8
4.7
8.5
aValue of shipments in wool fiberglass divided by the value of shipments
 in mineral wool (SIC 3296).
°The share of wool  fiberglass times the number of production workers in
 mineral wool (SIC 3296).
cThe share of wool  fiberglass times the total number of employees in
 mineral wool (SIC 3296).
                                  9-12
-------
  TABLE 9-7.   VALUE OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS ($000) 38'39
Year
Imports5
Exports"
1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980
   413

 1,398

    NA

 7,048

 3,027

    NA
    NAC

 23,599

 23,688

 21,804

 25,480

 24,061d'
almports classification:  Mineral wool includes bulk, faatts,
 blanket, etc.
^Exports classification:  Glass fiber articles for insula-
 tion.
°NA = not available.
^January to September 1980 only.
                           9-13
-------
       TABLE 9-8.  PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL  INSULATION APPLICATIONS1*1?
Locations
Fiber- Rock  Cellu-
glass  wool   lose
Cellular  Vermic-
plastics   ulite
Reflective
 surfaces
New construction
  Roof/ceil ing         X      X
  Walls     •           X      X
  Floors/foundation    X      X
                         X
                         X
                         X
                        X
                        X
Retrofit,
Roof /ceil ing
Walls
Floors/foundation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X




X
                                  9-14
-------
follows:  wool fiberglass--62 percent; rock wool--20 percent; cellu-
1ose--14 percent; formaldeyde foam--l.l percent; and polystyrene--2.9 per-
cent.  Since 1976, wool fiberglass, cellulose, formaldehyde foam, and
polystyrene have increased their market shares slightly.1*1  Although
foam and mineral wool insulation possess desirable properties, their cost
per R-value (insulating ability) is generally higher than that of fiber-
glass.  In addition, cellulose and foam have the disadvantage of being
flammable materials.  Formaldehyde foam has also recently been linked to
health problems.  According to the U.S. Consumer Products-Safety Commis-
sion, formaldehyde foam can'no longer be manufactured after August 10,  .
1982.   It is likely that fiberglass will continue to increase its sub-
stantial share of the structural insulation market because of its low
cost, light weight, low thermal conductivity, and fire resistance.2If
     Fiberglass maintains only a small share of the nonstructural insula-
tion market (appliance, pipe, and  industrial) because of effective compe-
tition from materials such as wood fiberboard, tectum, gypsum, perlite
board, polyurethane, and ceramic insulation materials.  In pipe insulation,
for example, polyurethane has become the dominant insulating material.42
     9.1.3.6  Demand Determinants.  The demand for wool fiberglass is
largely determined by five variables:  (1) the price of wool fiberglass
relative to the total cost of construction; (2) economic  activity in the
industries that use wool fiberglass as ah  insulation material; (3) the
price of all types of  insulation relative  to the price of energy, a factor
which in turn explains the total amount of insulation installed per unit
of output in the  user  industries;  (4) the  price of wool fiberglass relative
to the  prices of  its close substitutes, a  variable which  largely explains
the  percent of  wool fiberglass  installed relative to the  total amount of
insulation installed; and (5) in recent ye'ars, the existence of the income
tax  credit for  the  insulation (or  reinsulation) of existing residential
structures.
     Table 9-9  summarizes historical data  from 1965 to 1980 for three of
the  determinants  as well as the values assumed for a time trend proxy
employed for  the  two remaining determinants.  The proxy variable is  •
included to capture monotonic and  systematic changes in these two determi-
nants.   For example, the time trend captures the increasing amount of
                                   9-15
-------
m
d-
m
 O
 CO
 cn
 in
 to
 sa
 LU
 CO
 o
 u.
 U.
 o
 LU
cr>

LU
                      I
4J     01    
•r-     C     0)
•O    «—  Ol O
 OJ    4-1  C C
 1-  J-  "O  —   -^- in
 TO     c  x 01
t-    —  01 u
                                      0)
                                      CT
                                   *« C
                           «4_  QJ
                            e-e
                           -u  a
                            X  O
                             (U I. 4J 4J 4J~
   •g — 4J U
             «—*  o
                                           ooooo
                                              in *crr*. CM   *Hr
                                                                                     *^  o
                                                                                         »-*
                                                                                      II
                                           O O^ ^O vo ID
                                              in Oco o   «o-*-*

                                                  i     i    t   i   i     i  i  i  i
                                           O •"* ^^«— 4 «—t   ^H O O *"• O
                                                              CM -H   -O-
                                                                     III        1       I


                                           vO r»» C3 GO ro   f^4 r^ vo r*^ c^ ^^ ^o ^^ ^5 i**  cvi



                                           ooooo   oooooooooo  o
                                              O Oio
                                              OJ »— 4^H
in »-4 m in in  ^rofrJO'r>»-tinoOP*.   ro

^4 ^H i-M*—4 rM  ^-tCMCMCM*-**—t*—tCMCMf—I   ^M



   •-< Or-*. CM  cMr-*CMOCMcn»—too^oo   cr>


                                   I  I


^H O om^H  *^


cr» ^3 ^? o% o%  ot r*x r*>>i r*.


in *-o r^» oo CT>  c^ ^H CM f)
                                                                                      i
                                                                                 •8
                                                                                  t/J

                                                                                 M-
                                                                                  O

                                                                                  O)
                                                                                  U


                                                                                 I

                                                                                  OJ
                                                                                  o
                                                                                              4-1  cr.

                                                                                               
-------
insulation used per unit of housing and nonresidential construction from
1965 to 1980.  The determinants directly included in Table 9-9 are
the price of wool  fiberglass relative to the total cost of new construc-
tion, the level of economic activity in the user industries, and a dummy
variable for the income tax credit for the insulation of existing resi-
dential structures.
     The data in Table 9-9 have been used in a formal, econometric analy-
sis of the determinants of the demand for wool fiberglass.  Appendix E
discusses both the logic of the choice of each of these determinants of
demand and also presents the equation used empirically to estimate demand.
The elasticities of demand with respect to price and  user-industry output
that resulted from the analysis reported in Appendix  E are presented in
Table 9-10.
     9.1.3.7  Supply Determinants.  The quantity supplied in any industry
depends in part on technical conditions of product  and input prices.
Since the wool fiberglass  industry  is oligopolistic,  there is no supply
curve; hence,  it  is inappropriate to discuss empirically the determinants
of  supply.1*5   In  the case  of an oligopoly, the analysis focuses on the
determinants of prices that are discretionary.46-48
     9.1.3.8   Price Determinants.   Prices  in the  wool  fiberglass  industry
are determined by three variables:   (1) unit costs  of production,  (2) de-
mand pressures, and (3) discretionary  pricing  strategies of the firms  in
the industry and  especially by OCF,  the acknowledged  price  leader.
     Table  9-11 summarizes the historical  data from 1965 to 1979 for the
first  two determinants:  costs and  demand  pressures.   The optional  pricing
strategies  for firms  are available  from the  economic  literature.45"118
The role  of OCF in setting prices  in  the  wool  fiberglass  industry  is
discussed by Goldfarb.13
     Appendix  E discusses  the  logic of the choice of each of  these determi-
nants,  as well  as alternative  approaches  to  empirical estimates  of the
price  of  wool  fiberglass.
     9.1.3.9  Financial  Characteristics.   Table  9-12 summarizes  selected
financial  statistics  for the  four  publicly held  firms that  produce wool
fiberglass.  Data on  Guardian  Industries  are given only  for 1981  since its
fiberglass  plant  opened in late  1980.
                                   9-17
-------
TABLE 9-10.  ELASTICITIES OF WOOL FIBERGLASS  DEMAND WITH
             RESPECT TO PRICE AND USER-INDUSTRY OUTPUT9
Elasticity of the demand for wool
    fiberglass with respect to:
Estimate of elasticity
Price
'Housing starts
Retrofit market
Nonresidential construction
        -0.567
         0.328
         0.158
       •  0.513
aEquation E-3 in Appendix E.
                           9-18
-------
CM

 en



 CT>

 1—I








 ura



 CTI

 i-H


  A





 S
LU

CO
o
§
 LU

 CJ

 I—i

 0£

 O.


 LU






 LU

 O


 t/5
UJ
             fl*
             f»v5 2*0
                g'S'"1
            5S
               5-5
             fcl
M t,

01 ™

g>


§§

<* E



   cu
               •»- «

               5u
                        «• co r- «r «r  —i i-t in o< os  O-H
                           .-i          •* tv      m  oo«
                         i          i                  iii
                            •  i  i  i    iii
                                             O 9  U9U> Ol   U>
                                                              S
                                                -H  vn 
                           f eoio —<


                           CO O O *v*
                                      «-coo>enif>  v£> O en -a- r-
                        *M ^H CM Cd U)  CO *






                        CM CM CM CM CM  CM CM CM CM CM
                                                                         «r eo«rt

                                                                         cnwpi
                                      m«rw«a-Ln  m to us r-. r-        vo^«•^>
                                                                         ass
                                                                   Kai  en en en
                                                                   25    ~* ^4 »-4
                                                                   Uf
                                                                     4J  0 0 O
                         wn to f-. co en  o—icsjn«-  Lnior>.eoen   as.  uiom

                         enenenenen  enenenenen  enenenenen   c    en en cf
                                            9-19
-------












GO

O
t— 4
r~-
•a;
OS
CD
CU
OS
o
o

o
_J
>» GO
_J GO
t ^ ^C
rH 	 |
_J CD
Of} ft«f
3 UJ
o_ CQ
rH
U_ U.
O
GOO
OO
GO CD
UJ O
J— ^^
00
 O r—
CU c 3 cn
CO) i_
r- £ J= CU
^0 O^ «JJ ^
3 CU -i- •!-
33 CO 2 M-


' >>
C r—
"3 
e o
O 4->
Cjr


CU
CO
i — CO
to O  O i —
cu c S cn
C CU S-
r— £z c" ^j

Z3 CU -r- -i—
03 CO 3 tt-


>>
C i —
0_4->
& O

O

T3
CO
r— CO
tO O "3
CO 4-> O i —
CU t 3 cn
c cu s-
•f~ E -C cu
co cn 4-1 jQ
ZS CU -i— -i—
SQ CO 3 <4-


>•)
C i —
UJ fO
CL4->
B O

o

0
to
n— tO
CO O "3
CU c 3 'en
CO) S-
r~ £ r- flj
f en-4-> ja
Z3 (1) T- •!—
aa co 3 <+-

>^,
C i —

E 0
O -(->
1-
-------




























XJ
cu
3
C

4-J
c
o
u

^
CM

1
cn

UJ
CO

r^




































CO
C

c
o
CJ
i

c

j5
o



4_

1— (/I
in o 03
l/l 4-J Q r—
cu c 2 cn
c cu i-
r- E -C CU
i/i cn4-J jO
3 ^
C r—
-
C r—
fO US
Q.4->
E O

cS "^


Lo
>/>
cu
•r--
t
4-J

s_
cu





T3
in
i— l/l
in o res
l/l 4-J O r—
cu c 3 cn
c cu s-
•r- E -C CU
l/l O14-J J3
3 Q; .p. .,_
DQ in 3 4-


^.^
C i —
03 03
CL4-J
E O
0 4-J
CJ

(J
l/l
r— in
in o 03
in 4-J Q i—
cu c 5 cn
c: cu i-
•r- E JC CU
in cn4J JQ
3 CU -r- T—
03 cn 3S 4-


^^
C i —
03 03
Q.4-J
E C

c_>


^_
(O
cu



un co o CM to CM un co
• ••• •••«
«3- O r»- co co UD to r--.
r-4 1-4 CO CM r-i






co o co t— i cn cn to .— i
• ••a • •<«•
CMOOCMCM 00 <— 1 CO CO
r-4 r-4 r-t






cn (••- cn «* to o co co
1 f a a ••••
O ^O ^ ^" CM f — • ^ tn
CMr-4r-lr-( CMr-4r-lr-4


4-J
C
CU
E
un CM r~. cn ^.j

LO CM cn co cu
r-4 r— I >
e:
in -i—
cu

t& ""^ ^J
l/l M
C C
s= cu s_
O  IO
• t • •
r-i CM cn co
1—4 r-4




^^
4-J
C
CU
o
s_
CU 1 1 1 1
p.






r*^
•
1 1 1 CO
r— 1






CMr-4COCM CMCni-»r-.
i-HUOO1* OCOO-el-
r-l 1 t— 1 1





cniocoo cococoo
• ••• ••*•
cncMOco cocoo*;)-
II <— 4 II




oo cn o T— i oocr>Or-4
r--.f^.coco r-.r--.coco
en cn cn cn cn cn OS cn
i— 1 r-4 <— 1 r-H r-4 i— I rH r-l
-a
c *•
03 i in i 4-J
cu cn m o c:
m i_ — - cu —
-a 4-J o c a. m
CU U CCU SO." 3
c 3 ITSCX inocn j3
CU T3 C O 4-J JC C
Q. O "I 	 • (JO4"- =C
O i- 4- 3 <4- CO
Q_ 4.) -13 <4— O O -i—
 U >
1. ra4-JQ. 3r— 3-r-
4-> r— 3 l/l CLi— 4- TJ
in to J3i — m4-JO 4-J
3 O «3 3 i- in cn
-a s- =o r— o cc
C CU « S CO C O m cnC3
o S- lCL O CO i-CUCOU
f— Q. Q. -1-C---CLOCUE 13
cutJ E T3CU Ecnmx3
4-J O t- E "O O r— rt3 CU C O
«J4-J«u nscnCUO'OEVcui-
>OO 3CUC SCu
•r-ccos- CDincui-4-Jcnino
s_ cno Q-Occin cn
Q-CUr- I'l— ) 14-1/1 O'OCU-'— CUH-C
i_  4-J Q. 3 i— 4-J l/l -I— Q.
•i-r-HC jQQ. in in  "O *4— i*» h— 3 C JQ »— -
CU 4_ r— •(•— 4-J T— CU 'f—  O f— 4-J t3 CU r— O
O4-jjaocnoo3:oci_u o-i—
X JS ••- O CO O V- OC04-J3 OJC
UjCai|_3in3 Q.IT33 E "'•O 33
03 ja o "O cu 4—
9-21
-------
     CertainTeed, Manville, and OCF all  show a lower profit margin on
sales and assets in 1980 and 1981 than for 1978 and 1979.   This is attribu-
table to the depressed conditions in the housing market, which have
reduced capacity utilization.
9.1.4  Growth Projections
     9.1.4.1  Demand Projections
     9.1.4.1.1  Projections of demand:five other studies.  Several projec-
tions of demand for thermal insulation and for wool fiberglass are sum-
marized in Table 9-13.  For the purposes of this analysis, these projec-
tions have the shortcoming of not predicting demand sufficiently far into
the future, but they are helpful in assessing near-term growth in demand.
     Thermal insulation.   Frost and Sullivan, Ltd., provide the most
optimistic estimates of the growth  in thermal insulation.  They foresee an
11 percent annual growth in real output up to 1982  and  then a  tapering off
to slightly less than 7.0  percent  into 1985.52   Hul'l  and  Co. expect  the
demand  for thermal  insulation to increase 7.5 percent annually into  1983.
This strong demand  is seen as  a direct result of continually rising  energy
costs  although moderated somewhat  by  the  current low  level of  new residen-
tial construction.53
     According  to  a recent marketing  study  undertaken by  Business Communi-
cations,  the  insulation  industry should grow  at  an  average annual rate of
6.0  percent  (in  terms of pounds; 7.5  percent  on  a  constant dollar basis)
until  1982, then  level  off as  retrofit  requirements are met  and  new
construction  insulation  standards  are established.54
     Wool fiberglass  insulation.  'As  is evident  from  Table 9-13,  the
growth projections for  wool fiberglass  insulation  do  not  differ  signif-
 icantly from  those for  thermal  insulation because  fiberglass  represents
 approximately 60 percent  of the thermal  insulation industry.
     According to Hull  and Co., wool  fiberglass will  exhibit  a lower
 growth rate than the  industry average (i.e.,  less  than  7.5 percent annu-
 ally)  into 1983.53  While fiberglass will continue to dominate the over-
 all  insulation market,  Hull and Co. foresee the greatest growth in foam
 insulation in exterior residential sheathing  and industrial  roofing
 applications.  Finally, Merrill Lynch expects the  industry to experi-
 ence a resurgence at  a 6 percent annual  pace until 1983, then a flatten-
                                   9-22
-------
          TABLE 9-13.  GROWTH PROJECTIONS BY TIME
            -           PERIOD AND BY SOURCE52"55
             Projected annual    Time
Industry     growth ratea (%)   horizon
                            Source
Thermal
insulation"
 11.0
< 7.0
1980-1982
1983-1985
Frost and
Sullivan, Ltd,
Thermal
insulation15
  7.5
1980-1983    Hull and Co
Thermal
insulation13
  6.0
1979-1982
Business
Communications
Co
Fiberglass
insulation
< 7.5
1980-1983    Hull and Co,
Fiberglass
insulation
  6.0
1980-1984    Merrill Lynch
^Growth rate of real output in physical units.
"Fiberglass represents 60 percent of the thermal  insulation
 market.
                             9-23
-------
 ing  out  of demand.   Capacity utilization  should  rise  from  the  1981  level
 of 66.6  percent  to  almost  94 percent  by 1984.5S                     ;.
      9.'1.4.1.2  Projections  of  demand:  empirical  demand equations.
 Projections of the  growth  in demand for wool  fiberglass have been made  in
 this analysis  using the  empirical  demand  equation  estimated, by econometric
 techniques and reported  in Appendix E.
      To  make these  projections,  assumptions must be made.about the  future
 values of  the  determinants of demand.   The values  assumed  for  the indepen-
 dent variables (determinants) are  in  Table 9-14.   Background data on the
 selection  of two  alternate assumptions  about  the prices for wool fiber-
 glass are  in Table  9-15.   Projections for user-industry activity variables
 and  the  cost of construction  are drawn  from a  single  source, the Whartqn
 Annual Model.56   This has  two advantages.  First,  the variables are
 internally consistent because the model is a  large econometric model of
 the  economy with  an  embedded  input-output system.  This means  that growth
 in user-industry  activities, costs, and prices are internally  consistent
 over the business cycle  and  during longer term growth.  Second, it repre-
 sents a  consensus among  a  large group of  empirically oriented macroecono-
 mists, since other  econometric models such as those by Data Resources and
 Chase Econometrics  reach similar conclusions about future economic con-
 ditions.57  A  possible disadvantage of the Wharton Model is that it
 forecasts  a  pause in the economy in 1986  as part of its stock  adjustment
 process; others may  find it more plausible to assume that housing starts
 continue to  increase in  1986 rather than decline as a result of a "pause"
 that cannot  be forecasted.
     Several exogenous assumptions about the future behavior of the price
of wool  fiberglass are plausible.  Table 9-15 gave four results,  which can
be reduced to  two alternatives.   One is the Goldfarb/Wharton alterna-
tive, in which prices increase 8 to 9 percent a year; this  is called the
"high-price growth"  case.  The other is the Frost  and Sullivan/Trend
Projection alternative,  in which prices grow at their historical  rate of
4.8 percent a year;  this is the  base case that assumes a low growth  in
price increases.
     Table 9-16 presents projections of output from 1980 to 1991  using
Equation E-3 presented in Appendix E and alternative  assumptions  about
                                  9-2.4
-------
o
u_

o
LUU3

QU7



UJ CJ
U-  Q.
a: s
Oi O
LU CJ
O LU

UJ   »


^a
o o

g^
    o

£%
O t-H
H-4
I—   •
Q- co
 00 _J
 oo CD
 *
    UJ
    CO
  I
Oi
LU
                     c
                X    O

               h§ oU
               OI O *••

               U U "1
                  (.  X
                  o. o
                       f^O
                       

 OJ LI

•O 3
                  1_ C

                  C O
                        —45
                       "
                          u
                       Or-.
                       « o>
                  t/l  U
                  3  ID


                  £«
                               *-<4«O CO r^. 00   CO CO CO CO CO   COCO
                               cyiO>co«-trt
                               O CNJ to co — <
                                                              *r r
                                                              oo«
                               CXJOJCSJCMCM
                               CMtCCOCOCO   CO CO CO CO CO   COCO
                               men r*. o en

                               <*H ««r in r-* CD   *-* •
                                                              CM Crt
                                                              ^rm
                                                              mm
                                                     1 ^4 O


                               m«^cot»*.co    co en en co co
                               in en tr> m cO   csj LO csj »— < o   com
                               CNJCSJCMCNJCNJ
                                                              oo
                                              r\j co esj co CM   cv* CM
                                 to en 10 er»   o *-«
                                     SCM o    co m
                                     •H CM    CM m
                                  CM CO CM    CM CM

                                              r-.tnO«rco   in 10
                              ^-i-«t      m
                                                              O CM
                                                              r*^ CO
                               ooooo   ooooo   oo


                               *r co co o O   p-ttn^rotM   en m
                               meninmm   mm— <«s-cp
                               •— t »-^ CO CM »O   OCOO^OO
                               m— H — 4 ^o en   — t CO co en o
                                 §— « CM ro ^r   tnvof^-coen
                                 co co co co   co co co co co
                              o~« en en en en   er> en o^ en en
                                                              O»-*
                                                              en en
                                                              en en
                                                 9-25
-------







en
in
10
in
w
m
I/O
00 ,
3
CD
LU
CO
>— 4
LL.
f
«~J
§
fe
LU
O
rH
oi
d-

LU
t—
fe
I/O
I/O
 SL
•F- C_
r^ S<
t/O
ll
(O r-
4-> U
in
o •*
t. 1C
u. a
r™


a
 C
u c
•r- a
t- £
•4-J (.
CU

Q
C
o -
u c
LU C
C
O 1
i. f
CO L,
K

CT
O
c
>>
^1

r—
S_
i-
QJ
i^i
x>
«
-a
o
^•^



to co co co

rH •^-•<± •<*



LO en r^ o en
rH «Sf LO 1 — CO
CO CM CO ^t" LO
CM CM CM CM CM


t


T
UD CO CO CO

1 t-*4 ^* "^T ^"
»-H

•*
>
i
<
<— i **• LO r-~ co
O CM CO «* LO
> CM CM CM CM CM
1
<


J
p
3 LD 1 — CO CM
J rH CO I^> CO
R


•*•
3
3
_|
LO cn LO co co
.» O CM «3" 4

^•x
ID
^
LO r**» cr ^£> CM
" rH rH C3^ CO Cji
•^ O CM CO LO 1 —
a 
_pl


.a -O xi
S_ O rH CM CO «d-
03 CO CO CO CO CO
cu en en cn cn en
>- rH rH rH rH rH

co co co co. co

*3- «3- «*• T T



OO CO CT> CM CM
r^«* co en rH CM
CM CM CM CO CO






CO CO CO CO CO

«3* ^" ^* ^r ^3"



oo co cn CM CM
rH *3" r^* CM r^^
l>- CO Cn rH CM
CM CM CM CO CO





LO LO tt rH O
co cn cn co co






CM LO CM rH O
co r-- cn en rH
O co <£> cn co
CO CO CO CO «3-





i i i i i






i i i i i





>"t f"» »*"* XI XI
LO 10 f-. oo cn
co co co co co
cn cn cn cn cn
rH rH rH rH rH

CO CO
'




cn id-
CM cn
"d" 1^5
CO CO






co co

*5T "T



cn ^*
CM cn
•st- LO
CO CO





CO «3-
co r-.






oo oo
<£> rH
LO O
^LO





1 1






1 1





X) XI
0 rH
01 cn
cn cn
rH rH

•
OJ
C!
'£
M-
o
c:
o
"u
cz
rri
\&

QJ
t 	
(TJ
Lrt
CU
t^*'
<.
a.
>>
03
i/i
JE
i
c
o •
*,» CVJ

ro LU
cr c
cu o
O 4->
•r- U
^~ .Se
"m
EA
•*
O !«*•*
O X
O 'f-

^ 03 O3
4-> O
S- CU
cu o t-
x: LL. o
h— U-
03 XI
9-26
-------






«•—*
rH
en
en
rH(O
00
O LU '
O «-l
00 Z
rH O
l_
00
00 O
— 1 C£
CSr-

LU S
02 O
*— H Z
LU O
, H
— *J Ijf J
0
O CD
36 Z
g§
oo
O LU
Z r-
•=c «=c
y ^^
LU •— <
£— i H~
oo
LU LU
|»— 1 1 1

n
OO
to §
«C 	 1
0
LU <— 1
0 ?
LU
nr :
CD
• i— <
VO 3=
rH
enyj
• uj
LU Z
— 1 =7
s


I/)
(O
•M 0
3 CO
Q. S_
•M O
3 <4-
0
CO
CO Ul O
(/I  4- 2
 I/I

Q. (_)
•M CO
r- 1 3 i.
0 0
CO M-

'r- (/I CO
4-* *^3 O
C Cn S_
S_ 5- Q.
•!-> -Q -C
r— -I- CD
,_ ^
O S_
i-S
c:
3








f
^»
O
s_
en

*&£
•*^t*





*~^
r-"
O'
j—4
*^-x




,«— v
CD




*»•• **
1

O^

<>^
•VwO



,^M«,
^D
<£>
O
T_l 1








en





(O
CO
vo
un
i









rH en
o un
un ^a-
CM CM




vo o
f**s rH
i-* r-H





1 <0
LO
1







t*H CT>
g^
un «*
CM CM







VO O
rH t— 1
rH rH



•O T3
CO CO
en en
co en f^
un r^ CM
rH rH









Un rH rH
"eC un O
l*v CO CM
un o «a-
CM CO CO




en co co
vo r^ un
t— i co un





rH CO 1*-
co vc> o
rH rH







un un i —
rH CO VO
CM CO "3-
un en CM
CM CM CO







un CM «*
^J" CO ^^
rH CO «*
rH rH rH



CO CO CO
CM CO «*
CO CO 00
en en en
rH rH rH
00
fV.










co
CO

CO




^J«
p^.
VO
I— 1




VO
un








CO
O
CO
•=*•
CO







un
un
rH



CO
un
CO
en
rH
vo un 'd-
CM in o
rH









un o r^-
rH O CO
oo en o
t*** en ^3*
CO CO **




f^- rH Cn
rH rH en
f*» co en
rH t— 1 rH




O O *t
O CO CO








CM rH VO
rH CO rH
CO CO CO
«a- un co
CO CO CO







CO «* O
un,o,«a-
un vo r»*
rH rH rH



CO CO CO
VO f— CO
CO CO CO
en en en
rH rH ^H
un
f^,










VO
CO
r-.
,-j.




o
un
rH
CM




^
in








rH
g
O
*3-







cn
CO
co
rH



CO
en
CO
en
rH
vo vo tit
co un










vo CM r^* r**» p^.
en vo • r^* en vo
CO CM
r™H *5t"
un un




CO CO
co vo
co ^f
CM CM




'III
Un rH
VO *5^"








co vo r*» oo vo
un co un r~. «3-
rH en
CO "Ct*
•4- «d-





T3
c to
VO O 3 CO
in «*• O 4-> rH -si- rH
en o a. rH
1  CO
O  ' —
•r- CO -Q
4-J TJ
«^:r-
3 a>
cr-r- c
LU n: -r-






i
o
i.
Q.

"O

1?

"O
ITS
^
(O
> •
^
3
OO
T3
C

t/1
0
Lu
,_ '
S -
t
IJ

CO «
i_ in

i
j=: en
4->
S CO
O i—
S- JQ
m*
CO
s_
CO.-0
co
<*-•»->
O i.
o

CO CO
Tj
•P i/r

is
VO
r-H

x

^.
•
en

•oj-
^
CM

§

-4-J

rH
00
en
rH
—
•I—

C
TJ
r*i
f—

VO
O
rH
^

rH

CM
CM
VO

CM

3

s
en
c

CO
3

(T3
>
i — «
3 4J
4J t/l
O 
-------
future price increases for wool fiberglass.  In both projections, growth
is higher in the earlier part of the forecast period, particularly 1983
and 1984, than in the second half of the forecast period.  This is largely
because housing starts will be buoyed by a backing of demand and demo-
graphic factors but also because the retrofit market is projected to be
larger in the early 1980's than later in the forecast period.
     The lower growth scenario for price changes to 1991 is more reason-
able for three reasons.  First, the current disinflation in the economy
suggests that unit costs (labor and materials) will rise at a lower rate
than in recent years, hence, the price of wool fiberglass will increase at
a lower rate.  Second, use of the lower price projections preserves the
historical trend in the price of wool fiberglass relative to the cost of
construction, where the trend  in this price term is downward.  Third, use
of the lower price projections results in similar forecasts from 1981 to
1984 to those made by Goldfarb.  As a result, the price changes forecast
under this scenario are taken to represent the base case in the projections
of new sources in Section 9.1.4.3.
     9.1.4.1.5  Projections of demand:  technical coefficients/ad hoc
techniques.  Projections of the demand for wool fiberglass can also be
made from 1980 to 1984 by using technical coefficients and ad hoc tech-
niques.  Goldfarb1s estimates reported in Table E-4 of Appendix E are one
example.  An alternative forecast, which primarily uses Frost and Sullivan
data, is in Table 9-17.  The latter projects a higher rate of growth in
demand than the base case.  However, this was not used in the analysis,
because we believe the projections are unreal istically high.
     9.1.4.1.6.  Growth projections.  The growth projections that seem
most likely to occur are those in the base case of the empirical demand
forecasts (Table 9-16), where  the price of wool fiberglass is assumed to
increase at 4.8 percent a year until 1991.  These forecasts are, therefore,
used as the basis for the projections of the number of new sources  and
replacements of existing sources  in Section 9.1.4.
     •This price forecast is consistent with past experience  in the  industry,
with recent disinflation in the economy (which is  leading econometric fore-
casters to revise price projections for the eighties sharply downward)  and
with past behavior  in the relevant price measure,  i.e., the price of wool
fiberglass divided by the cost of construction.57  These projections of
                                   9-28
-------




1
CO

*~H
o
o
00
2


*•
< -
^Q l/i
an _
LU-*
CD-*
l— I OO
Lt_ LU
— J C"
1^
Q£ LU
^3 r™*
LL.
O
QO
SO
Q ^T
00
LUH-
rc 2H
f^ UJ
t— 4
LJ_ f_^
C3 *~*
c/) LJ-

£s
CJ
LU _J
o; «c
O 0
Ij^ ^_ ^
UJ «I«
H-.LU


3 «S O
£+* »-H
V)»—





2"
•— •
kO
0
^^p



cn




cn



.— •.
^D
V)
fO.
'cn



s
c
3


-*-H
.Q
"'"

CD
•*«^



1




«— ^

^.^ ,



^— .
•^»»





3

to

>-


in O cnr^. cn
in r*. co i^. cn
O CM fo *r o
^H *>H*-4_| CM



co co »n r-. in
tr in to *o cn




^r in in to 10
CM CM CM CM CM



m ««r in *o co
in tn in in tn
in tn in in in
00 CO CO CO CO



CM CM *-* CO CO
CM io co cn o
CM CM CM CM <•
OO OO O



O CM ^r r+* cn
«4 F+. ««4 ^H tC
vo to ^c tn un

»-* »— 4



Itn co f*« cn co
nr ««• CM in co




00 O m vo
o m o co \o
CTl O CM m "V

^4*H*-1 ««4



co *o *r m m
^* ^5* in  XI
T3 V) fll
«0 4J

IO O^""
o -> o

i'S.1iJ?fe
£ S x "3 2
4^ in ^^
4J C
i. •»-
^.
£

"s

*-•
^^
51

-Q
10
O

*— *
1




~
O
o




^»
5






JS
^~
C
o

••B'


,«—K
51
•*»^




2*
^*



a



VI
^>
cn


VI

c
3



in ^ cn co o*»
^r r^ 01 tn CM
CM* CM* CM*'*^^


m m co O *r
PO *V f5 CM CM
<-< CM «*) 10 cn

vo cn m in r-.
r«^ cn cn o CM



in v ^ O» in
PO *t* *ty *^ in




ScocScoco




r^. in CM r-» "^
cocn o cn ca




men in ro CM
10 CO •-* PO in
CM CM PO CO m



cn^H PO»«( o
i— i m ^f in ^o


Oino OO
CM  ^- tn in




m •— i co in CM
«

'




















I
i
i

































-------
demand to 1984 are in agreement with independent estimates through 1984
made by Goldfarb using a different methodology.  A comparison of these two
forecasts is presented in Table 9-18.
     Other scenarios are possible.  One is a lower growth rate obtained
from the empirical equation estimated by econometric techniques but with
the higher price growth scenarios (Alternative 1 in Table 9-16).  In that
case, 1984 demand is 1,474 Gg (3,247 x 106 Ib), and 1991 demand will be
only 2,040 Gg (4,494 x 106 Ib).  The other is a higher growth rate
using technical coefficients and ad hoc techniques, as summarized in
Table 9-17.  In that case, 1984 demand is 1,924 Gg (4,239 x 106 Ib).
Thus, the low-growth-in-demand alternative scenario results in 79 fewer
Gg (173 x 106 Ib) being produced in 1984 than the base case, and the
high-growth-in-demand scenario results in 371 more Gg (819 x 106 Ib)
being produced in 1984 than in the base case.
     9.1.4.2  Capacity Projections.  Capacity projections can be made on
the basis of current and projected output, current and historical capacity
utilization rates, and leadtimes involved in adding new capacity.
     The wool fiberglass industry is estimated to have operated at
66.6 percent of capacity in 1981, a figure considerably below the his-
torical average of 86 percent calculated from the data in Table 9-11.13
This means that initially, as the industry emerges from its current
recession, growth in demand can be met without any additions to capacity.
     The lead time for additions to capacity varies, depending upon
whether it involves adding an additional line to an existing plant (the
lead time is 12 to 18 months) or building an entirely new plant (the lead
time is 24 to 36 months).2tf
     Table 9-19 summarizes capacity projections to 1991.  Capacity is
estimated to be 2,864.Gg (6,309 x 106 Ib) in 1991 compared to 1,632 Gg
(3,595 x 10° Ib) in 1980, implying an annual compound growth rate in
capacity of 5.2 percent over the period.
     9.1.4.3  New Sources.  The number of new sources is comprised of
two components, sources to accommodate growth in demand and sources to
replace old and obsolete facilities.  Table 9-19 presents annual capacity
levels and indicates the growth necessary to fulfill anticipated demand.
Replacement rates are calculated assuming a 40-year plant or line life
                                  9-30
-------












t— 1
cn
cn
t™H

o
o
CO
cn
r- 1

«t
oo
z
o
h— 1
o
UJ
rs
o
£

ac
i—
s
as

CO
1—1
1
cn
UJ
t
CO
££



















O
C
d)
i-
It
*+••
Q
















Q
ja
s_
i,_
T3
i—
O
CD









(U
i/l
(O
CJ
O)
t/)
(O
CO









4->
(!)
i.
o.
— •


X——
o
ja
r—
O
t-H
-, t-




LJ
cn
CD







2*
•—
O

«~ —



^^
CD
CD





^0^.
ja
r~
£>
O
,^_,



^-^
CJ>
CD
.



S_
O)

CM LO cn cn LO
O ^J* CO LO CO







cn r—H LO cn cn
LO ^f O *3" 'd-
1 «-H LO CM CM
i-H CM CM T-H
1 1 1 1




CO CM «3- CM VO
1 LO r-H O LO
1 f-H t-H 1
1 1






LO O LO O LO
cn to CM vo «*•
LO LO CO CM LO
CM CM CM CO CO




cn CM co c5 cn
r>- LO co co o
r-H t-H CM «* LO






t-HCnLOr-Hi-H COLOOr>-.LO LOCM
co LO ^* LO co f*^ t-H CD co ^3" cn LO
cn^rr^cocM cococnoco COCM
LO *^* LO CO ^f LO r*v cn ^^ r*^ T-H ^*
CMCMCMCOCO COCOCO«5J--* LOLO



LO co cn co co ^" r^. <-H cn co co co
r-.t-HLOr--.LO r-»i— (t-HcnLo COLO
t-n I-H r-c co LO LO r-. co cn t-H co «a-
i-H r— 1 t—4 .-H t— 1 t— l<-Ht— 1»— ICM CMCM


OQJOOJO^ 4)
• i—
"O
 CO
i — O) t— 1
cS^a „
S_ (1)
• c/l n3 cz
UJ 3 
X •<- • —
•r- pS Q QJ
T3 CD +->
(1) -M C £
ia. 10 T- ••—
ta. E 4-*
«C -f— CD (/>
4-> CD 0)
CZ t/)
• »f— QJ t|.. ^
LO O I- •
r-H «3- oj n3 to
cn uj to c ~o LO
LJ O r— *
O) CU T- 0 LJ
i — r— OJ r— CO CJ
jQ ja LO r— S_
fl3 rt3 ^J •*"• ^^ O
I— f— co s ja u.
"3 -Q LJ "O 
-------
  TABLE 9-19.   OUTPUT,  CAPACITY,  AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION,  1980  TO  1991
Year
   Shipments5
(Gg)     (IQ^lb)
                                     Capacity"
(Gg)     (106 1b)
Capacity utilization0
     (percent)
1980
1981
I982d
1983°
1984d
1985d
1986d
1987d
1988d
1989d
I990d
1991d
1,190
1,112 '
1,169
1,378
1,553
1,674
1,717
1,811
1,999
2,150
2,333
2,463
2,622
2,449
2,574
3,035
3,420
3,687
3,781
3,990
4,404
4,735
5,140
5,426
1,632
1,668
1,628
1,640
1,655
1,946
1,997
2,107
2,325
2,500
2,714
2,864
3,595
3,675
3,585
3,613
3,646
4,287
4,398
4,640
5,121
5,506
5,977
6,309
72.9
66.6
71.8
84.0
93.8
86.0
86.0
86.0
86.0
86.0
86.0
86.0
aActual data for 1980 and 1981 and estimated demand for wool fiberglass,
 1982 to 1991, using the base case in Table 9-18.
bCapacity for 1980 to 1984 is from Goldfarb.  From 1985 to 1991, it is
 shipments divided by capacity utilization times 100.
cCapacity utilizations from 1980 to 1984 is shipments divided by capacity.
 From 1985 to 1991, capacity utilization is assumed to be at the historical
 average of 86.0 percent.
dForecasts.
                                   9-32
-------
that necessitates a 2.5 percent annual replacement rate.  With the 1982
capacity level of 1,629 Gg (3585.9 x 106 Ibs) per year, 40.7 Gg (89.6 x
106 Ibs) of capacity must be built annually to provide the necessary
replacement capacity.
     Over the 1978 to 1981 period, the ratio of new plants to expansions
at existing sites has been 4:5 (see Table 9-20).  Since no other informa-
tion is available to project the ratio of future new plants to expansions,
the analysis assumes in Section 9.3 below that the 4:5 ratio will continue
for capacity additions in the forecast period.  Table 9-21 is constructed
on the premise that required growth capacity is provided by the 4:5 ratio
of medium-sized plants (105 Gg/yr [231.3 x 106 Ibs]) to medium-sized
lines (34 Gg/yr [74.9 x 106 Ibs]) and replacement units would consist of
medium-sized lines.  This results in an estimate of 3 new plants_and 17
new lines in the 1983-1988 period and 2 new plants plus 13 new lines in
the 1988-1991 period.                                                ,   --
     Because future additions to capacity may include other options
besides medium plants and medium lines* an extreme scenario was examined
that consists of all small plants and all small lines each with an annual
capacity of 18 Gg (39.6 x 106 Ibs).  The 1983-1988 period would then
produce 49 units, 17 of which would be small plants and 32 of which would
be small lines.  The 1988-1991 period would see the construction of 13
small plants and 24 small lines.  This alternate scenario provides the
most severe economic impact that could occur due to the construction of
the projected new capacity.
9.2.  ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
     In the following sections, the potential economic impact of the
regulatory alternatives presented in Chapter 6 are examined.  This analy-
sis includes an examination of the effects on the price, profitability,
and capital availability of control technologies for rotary spin manu-
facturing lines (RS) that are well demonstrated and cost effective.  The
following regulatory alternatives and control device configurations for RS
manufacturing lines satisfy these criteria:         ;
          I  Scrubber-incinerator (Base Case)
        III  Scrubber-scrubber
        III  Wet electrostatic precipitator (ESP)-ESP
         IV  ESP-ESP-ESP
             Scrubber-Scrubber-Scrubber
                                    9-33
-------
  TABLE 9-20.   NEW  AND EXPANDED PLANTS,
               1978 TO 19815'23'60-62
                 Company	
New grass roots plants

  Manv i11e
  CertainTeed, 1979
  Manville, 1979
  Guardian Industries, 1980

Expansions5
                  t'
  Owens-Corning,  1978
  Owens-Corning,  1978
  CertainTeed,  1978
  Manv i He,  1981
 alnc1udes one other expansion that  cannot
  be cited due to  confidentiality.
                   9r34
-------










^)
UJ
KM
t—
^j
t-H
O
Lt_

0
I-H
t—
C_J
•3
0
Q£
O_
3C
UJ
Z

fe

1
(—
§
0
£

•
t— i
CM
1
en


_j

2





.
.
t/>
Ol
e
c
2 in
O) 4->
Z C
(O
OU
^^^
^3
i—

US
o
o
I^M

*—««n
en
CD
"•— •*


^'™^
ja
4-» •—
c:
 '^
Ol
CO






o
•F™

 CO
• c
O 1
[ v tf}
o •
O) CO
*^^ oo
C5 CO
Q.
^
CO
p> .
• CO
H
II

O
i-H
CM

i "S-
•a- co
•
. i— t
vo
«3


•4-> CO ; CM
U ' •: O O
O.
'O ^
P C
- .: T
c c
o =
: C

CU

J -' 13
y 0}
3 '.'. 13
: ••; c
t -. 3
> O


 en , co
: .£) CM CM
VI II
''''-+-*
-'-: JC •'.- ^f|
"jB "~*
":, 0 . inl
"A-:: S!
[ <0 J3 '
II

3> ""J?*
""*" — "'-T— "
in cnlm
o .co Ip
•-H in >-H
-------
The small  flame attenuation (FA) model line is also included in the
analysis.
9.2.1  Maximum Price Increases
     The maximum price increase is the price pass-through that would
occur if the firm passed all control costs associated with the regulatory
alternatives through to the consumer in the form of higher prices.  It is
thus a "worst case" from the point of view of the consumer.
     The maximum price increase is the incremental annualized cost of
control above the baseline for  any regulatory alternative divided by the
revenues generated by that model plant or line.   It is thus assumed
in the analysis that firms will increase operating income to maintain
the preregulatory return on investment after  imposition of any standard.
     Table 9-22 summarizes the  maximum price  increases by regulatory
alternative and by model line and plant size  at each of two levels of
capacity utilization, 86 percent and  70 percent.   The 86 percent capacity
utilization is the historical average for the industry, whereas 66.6 per-
cent is the current level  of capacity utilization.
     As the results in Table 9-22 indicate, all of the maximum price in-
creases for the rotary spin process  are small (less than  1 percent).   In
the case of the small model flame attentuation  line", however,  the maximum
price  increase varies from a  low of  3.43 percent  to a high  of  19.12 percent.
9.2.2   Profitability
     Return on  investment  (ROI) calculations  representing  full  absorption
of all  control  costs  have  customarily been  presented  as  the opposite bound
to the full pass  through of costs to the consumer.  However,  full  absorp-
tion  is a  very unlikely case  in this industry.   Even  though product
 substitution  is  always  a threat should  prices rise too  high,  firms  in  an
 industry dominated  by only a  few  large  companies  have much greater  freedom
 to vary prices upward.   Otherwise,  they can wait  until  growth in  demand
 pushes prices up.  If greater demand does  not materialize, there  is  no
 point  in building a new plant and  thus  no  requirement to accept lower
 rates  of return.
      Table 9-23 presents  the  baseline ROI  calculations  and Table  9-24 the
 effects of full  absorption of control costs for the  regulatory alternatives
 under consideration.   As  in the case of the price increase calculations,
 two levels of capacity utilization are considered.  As  might  be expected,
                                   9-36
-------
O
LU
OO

fe
00
(8
 OO
LU
a:
z a:
t-> rn
LU
Q.
CM
CM

en

UJ
	i
ca
4-> 1
C 0 C
CD 
» C r^
(/) O 4->
ret 1-3
(U O)
1- 0. >»
O 4->
C • O •!-
•i- f-
0)
u
s_
Q. 1
0 C
4.J (O O
C CL'i-
. £y ixS .|_>
o o  -r-
Q. 4-> C i —
§0 4->
4- 3
S .
X 4->
to 
*
en
a;
QC
, COCO
oo oo oo oo oo















"JDCM f~-co cnco cMcn oo
CM CO *^ ^^ CO ^!j" LO ^3* CO CO
OO OO OO OO QO


• *
_Q jfo
3 a
s- s-
o o
00
« * M
UO CL. o <*** CL. Q ,Q
3 00 3 3 , 00 3 3
&. LU i. i. LU i. i.
o o tj y o

a. a. Q. a. a.
"CO OO « "OO OO " "OO
« LU LU • • UJ LU • • LU
jO JO JO JO JO
3" "3 3" "3 3"
1_ Q_ Q- S_ i. Q_ Q_ S_ i. Q_
O<" OOo OOO OO(_> OOO
OOLU UJOO OOUJLUOO OOLU
1— I ^—4 H^ »»H


^- § CU
i— • -p- en

cz < rti /Q
-------
o
o


c\7
CM

en

LU
4J~ 1
c u c
CO  C t—
CO (O CU *r"
10 O 4-J
rO S- 3
cu cu
S- Q. >>
O 4-*
C 0 T-
cu
u
si
Q. 1
0 £=
4-1 ro O
C Q-'f—
CU tO 4->
o o «
1_ N
cu -M if~
CX 4-» C r—
(O CU "|-"
€ U 4->
3 S- 3
E CO
•^ Q. >>
<0 VO -i-
S CO
1 *

"o a
S- £
4-J Q.
C -P-
f^ p
a

fO
c
c
cu
ISI
•t—
oo
cu
_C 4->J3
r— "o.
CU G
T3 S-






r^ o oo CM
CM OO «3- «J- ,
o o o o














CM «*• LO »*
CM CM OO OO
o o o o


•
3
s_
ja Q. ja
3 OO 3
S_ LU i.
o y
Q- dT
"oo oo "
• LU LU •
^a ja
3 " •> 3
S_ Q. 0-1-
o v oo o
OO LU LU OO
*— i ^
t— 1
g
•r*
•o
£











^-t en co r-i
•* oo «3- ir>
0 O O 0














oo CM en «-<
OO OO OO *3"
OO 0 O


•
3
s
i-i Ql .Q
3 OO 3
i. LU S_
o o
Q_ CX?
«>oo oo , •>
• LU UJ •
^3 . -Q
3 »< •« 3
S. Q. Q- i-
ooo oo o
OO LU LU OO
1— 1 ^
h— 1 H-4

cu
en
i—
_l








r-H
CM

^t*

















ro

*
00











LL."

^>
-T-

^
u_

^>
n:



, t
i — i
H-t




1

t

^
03

C/1
1 1
1
cu
tf_
	 i
i 	
CO
•a
o




CM

,
en
r- 1
















CVJ

•
LC
1—1
















U.
e£

3;



^^
,




















CO O
•£ s 9
j^ *r~" ^ **"»•
OB 4J -a
, — , — +J 4- i —
O O- — - C O "^
t. o cu o
4J s_ r~- o cu to
CO • S- 0 •
o cu -r- o
o cu s- a. t- v»
c o ex- —
c T- en
O r— vo en CM en
.,- co co .*
4-j r— • cu en --,
3 CU * — * «"*> i — t OO
i— • -a oo
i — o cu o >> •
O S 4-> 4-> t. T-H
(0 S- T3 3
4_ cu c: 4-
o >> c E «3 o
ja o " ""^
—  >>CO
N co 3 *•" L. en
•r- C7) 4-> 4-> t— 1
r— >> C to

3 3-i- g -0 •'-
C C 0 O. C U
C CO  CO CO •
c .c: ^: i— i- cu >>
co -t-j -4-> o o -c i-
§Q 4- 4J fO
>> to 3 3
i_ _a m co to c:
u E **- cn-i— *
C T3 "- O  S- -— -
xa co co ja i-
co -i- >> u > i — o
-O U Q.I — <£> CO
CU fO to * t/)
S_ CO CLCM (J O "3
(O c IB co -i- %<> co
•r- 0 CT> 1- 	 	 S-
to i — •— 1 O O
cu cu to -t-> en c:

rO n3 &- T- *^*^
CU f* CO "3 <~ ^J" 4-i
S- 33 00 C
o cu c c c -co
c ^: co  > '"3 <•"»• i-
O) »CU
CU CU C£ CU C 4- Q.
O > -£Z O O
.£ o -*->••- cu

Q, "3 O to u I/) O
O CU 3 t)
§10 r-H S T3 i — "3
f= -t- o en
•^ 4J cu a. cu co
x to E cn ja S
CO Svr- Cn 4- -r- -r-
\ S f 4-» • O 4- 4J
rO

o
•r—
-M
fO
4J
C/l
o
SH.
4-J
o
. cu
r—
cu

•I-*
cu
3-
II

a_
oo
LU


i-
cu
4J
•t—
4—

^
*r™
fO
>,
1*^

o
•r- _C
4-> en
fl3 '^"
3 ^=
c
CO II
4-*
fO «C
CO 3=

rC
i — S-
M- > co
t. >
fl3
4-> II
o
s-
II 3
oo o
ja o

































































•
o
4«>
4J
•r—
o.
o
CO
s.

                                         q-38
-------
                                                               >,
                                                              4-1     LU
l-oo
LU  o\   ooicucneocsj

                         (Ocsj^4^^   mr».ror^o«^


                         cr» ^ co <*)   ^-* ^<
                          a> O f- m   r-< —<
                          OJ
                                        a>
                                        X
 QJ QJ - . - QJ
 E =>    '-
S c if  o
 lA 4) jj ^_
   > VI  QJ
     re

                          «o  3 3 u- re  tu
                         *j  c c o -
                                                — * O
                                                o ce
                                          o
                                          kS!
                                         I 4^ <£
                                         :^«s
 S JS


 U i.
 QJ O
4^ **• .
<*- QJ <
< CO i
                                                  g
                                                  o
                                  •= u  >. £
                                     W 4J
                                  Q) Q) —  Ul

                                  ""O  S.4J

                                    •o     u
                                  -o tr 4-1  u

                                  -S'Scl

                                  >ss  >,
                                                           •   C^  o>—


                            f-0^*    S-SiT^J  §•
                            __^J3  i- O    uo  o t> *£ QJ 4->  3

                            S    CVl""'    Jt    "• O •—  C      L. O  U  >
                              «  0)  3 V*      «—*O 0)    U  W
                            *—* S_  E=       01    r«* Q. (/»  QJ  Q)
                                fa    01  •O4^a.ui
                                                                                     i-    vi cnco**-  • 4)
                                                                                     a.   ••» c  • *e it ^ wi
                                                                                   •       c —    C *->    •*-
                                                                                  >*«— «    — J-» 0> -^- V» o
                                                                                  U CO    E "3 -O    O *-* VI
                                                                                          -

                                                                                    •S    5 a     •"    4J'
                                                                                                                      »

                                                                                                                      "a -o'
                                                                    s- a: c 4->
                                                                    QJ    0)   *
                                                                                          O *J •" «3—      *Jul    3X0)
                                                                                          u c  c o    -o O  c ^j    c  re  >
*~*   tj c     fi ** a.*** ow*o   <^f>*    *o   •^-mvixtj^-'





      W* (J       CLO^ *^* ^£ wl    *O O    C3 •"" WO       IO  >  ^ <             ^
 W QJ   ^c* *O  QL flj 3 . *       **~ *t3 ^^  QJO    QJVIQJQJQJQJ  *^
 >OiWt-~    _— .                    _       --


•5    C = C
   •" O _C O





 L ••" *^ 4-» ••"    
-------
      TABLE 9-24.  AFTER TAX RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR SELECTED
                           REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES3
Return on
Model Line
or plant Reg.
RS or FAb Size alt
Plants-RS ,
Snail Id
HI.
IV
Medium Id
III
IV
Large Id
III •
IV
Model Line-FA
Small Id
III
IV
86 percent
Control capacity
equipment0 utilization
Scrub, Inc.
Scrub., Scrub.
ESP, ESP
ESP, ESP, ESP
Scrub., Scrub., Scrub.
Scrub, Inc.
Scrub., Scrub.
ESP, ESP
ESP, ESP, ESP
Scrub., Scrub., Scrub.
Scrub, Inc.
Scrub., Scrub.
ESP, ESP
ESP, ESP, ESP
Scrub., Scrub., Scrub.
Uncontrolled
HVAF, HVAF
HVAF
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.4
5.6
17.9
17.5
16.8
16.7
17.4
18.4
17.9
17.3
17.1
17.9
20.3
13.8
1.6
investment
70 percent
capacity
utilization
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
11.2
10.9
10.5
10.4
10.8
11.5
11.1
10.7
10.6
11.1
12.3
6.0
NAe
aReturn on investment (ROI)  is profits after taxes divided
 by the investment used to generate these profits.  For an  example  of
 how ROI is calculated for model  lines and plants, see Table  9-23.
 Costs of pollution control  (both variable and fixed costs) are
 assumed to be 100 percent even though capacity utilization levels  are
 86 and 70 percent.
°RS = rotary spin  FA = flame attenuation
cScrub. = venturi scrubber  HVAF = high velocity air filter  ESP =  wet
 electrostatic precipitator.  Inc. = Incinerator.
"Regulatory baseline.
eNA * not applicable, because after tax profits are negative.
                                  9-40
-------
 changes in  capacity utilization show a far greater effect  on  ROJ  than
 control cost absorption.
 9-2.3  Capital  Availability
      Having forecasted  the  expected  number of new sources  and estimated
 the costs of new capacity and  the  required abatement  capital, it  is  useful
 to  inquire  whether  the  wool  fiberglass industry will  face  any significant
 difficulties in raising the funds  necessary to  pay for  the abatement
 capital required by the regulatory alternatives.   Despite  the current
 recession and Manville's  asbestos  liability problems, there appears  to be
 little  doubt that the industry can raise  the capital  necessary to comply
 with  the regulatory alternatives.  Since  the distribution  of  new capacity
 across  the  five firms in  the industry cannot reasonably be predicted, the
 focus of this analysis of the  capital  availability must necessarily be at
 the industry level.  However,  the  analysis proceeds by  examining each firm
 individually to assess  its  access  to  additional capital, and  then a
 general  conclusion  is drawn about  the  industry's  ability to finance the
 projected abatement  capital needs.
      Table  9-21 shows that  between 1983 and  1988  the  United States wool
 fiberglass  industry  is projected to add 888.5 Gg  (1,957.0  x 106 Ifa) of
 new capacity due  to  both  demand growth and  replacement.  Table 9-25
 examines for two  cases the  types of plants  and  lines that  the  capacity
 expansion would  require,  as well as the associated costs.  Under Case One
 (best estimate)  3 medium-sized plants  (105  Gg/yr  [231.3 x  106  lb/yr])
 and 17 medium-sized  lines (34  Gg/yr [74.9 x  106 lb/yr]) would  be added.
 These additions  would require  $599 million  in new plant capacity, plus
 $41 million  in  pollution  control equipment capital, for a total of
 $641 million.   Under Case Two  (alternate case) 17  small  plants (18 Gg/yr
 [39.6 x 106 lb/yr])  and  32 small lines (18 Gg/yr  [39.6 x 106  lb/yr])
would be acquired, with  a plant capital cost of $828 million and abatement
capital  costs of $76 million, totalling $904 million.
     Table 9-26.shows that Owens-Corning's share of wool fiberglass
capacity in  1980 was 63.0 percent.   Approximately 75.0 percent of its
revenues were from the  sale  of  wool fiberglass.   In 1981,  it possessed  a
long-term debt to capitalization ratio of 26.8 percent,  the lowest in the
industry.  Table 9-28 shows  that OCF's capital spending  has consistently
                                  9-41
-------
     TABLE 9-25.   COSTS OF NEW PRODUCTION FACILITIES 1983-1988a
          No.
        mediurn
Cases   plants
  No.      No.
small    med i in
plants   lines
        Capital
         costs    Abatement    Total
 No.    without     capital     capital
small   abatement"   costs0      costs
lines   ($ x 1Q6)   ($ x 106)  ($ x 106)
One
Two
3
0
0
17
17
0
0
32
599.4
828.1
41.4
76,4
640.8
904.5
a888.5 Gg (1,957.0 x 106 Ib) of new source capacity is projected to be
 needed-.
^Includes baseline control costs.
cBased on Alternative III (ESP, ESP).
                                   9-42
-------
   TABLE 9-26.   WOOL FIBERGLASS REVENUE SHARES AND CAPACITY  SHARES
Firm
Owens-Corning
CertainTeed
Manv i 11 e
Knauf
Guardian
Share of 1981 revenue
from wool fiberglass (%)a
75
38
28
NAC
NA
1980 share
of capacity (%)b
63.0
20.3
15.6
1.1
d
aTable 9-12.   '
°Table 9-2.
°NA = not available.
"Guardian added one small  plant in  late 1980  that  did  not contribute
 significantly to industry capacity.
                                  9-43
-------














g
o
u_
C*J
Q^ ^H
O 1
U. -
_j
O 0
i
I_ co
CO =>
£JO-


•
f^
CM
cn
UJ
*_j
co
2

























R)
C
a
g
C_5





















cn
:
5
5
_j
i
to
j
3:
^





CU

>
5
.£



in
CD
^-

/]
=3
3
HI
rc


ft
T




a
c
re


*-
c
-^






OO t-< O r-) O
x-s tn to in LO «— H
^0 X
i— i
V*
c
^ ^ o
•r-
CU Nl
•a -r-

En3
4^
4^ o OO ^^ ^" CX

CTJ z: co »d- 
r-) r-H r-H .CMCOCD
OO^J-lTSi— 1 CMCMCMCM
cn o o o o
1— Tt—T " ^rJ*
C

u
s_
ai
^^^

SI
OO O «-4 U3 O
CO r-H CD UD 4->
CM ^3- i— 1 CM n3
"*, "^ "^ "^ .J^
t— 1 r— 1 i"H r— I i —
*O
^
a.
(O
u
o
"*"*
4^
-Q
O)
"O
ja oo o <* E
«c • • s-
2 •«* CM CO CU
OO OO IT3 4->
CM CM CM 1
cn
C
o
i— *
c

0
 in un ir>




r-( i-t
CO CO
cn cn
i— i i— i
0 0
yi 4"
cn cn
r-. r-s
cn cn
r-H *~"

^
CU fl
cn c
cnor— is_ cno«-;4-
t~-cococu r^cococu
cncncn> cncncn;
C

cn
• £; ^
.
^j
cu "
*r C
S ol
O)
1,^ *"^

O
flj
t. eu
cu -c
c
O> i-
cn £
O)
i. ••-
I/I 
C T- N
•i- T3 -r-
«3 (O
"O 3 4-*
CU O *r-
C CL
S  "3
o  o
3
>> (T3 "O
r— O CU
CU CU 4->
4-> J3 JC
"3 cn
> •>•!—
• -r- CU O)
i. r- 3
CLJD
fO CU

14- fB -------





> cnCM
•a c co
O -i 	 -*,
Q ->-i Q
^B O3 ,— (
a: ~-,























i
CO
LO
LO

1
LO
to
to





1
CO
i-H
CO


1
LO
cn
CO



CM IO
a. I-H
cn




a. to
CO





CM CM
o_ cn
co


03
i-H
a.


cn
c:
"03
0£.

i. .-
CO
ex
Q.

e— t
•rr
U -~-
s-to
CO O
E *-H
O X
cO t&
CO ^
1— -
C ^^ (^
•i— -a co
-M o »
LO en
to LO
i-H



LO
LO LO




<"> .
co cn
«* 10
i-H













to
o

*— ^ X
o
0
-Q
<»">• CO
T~E
o s_
i— CO
<*- 4->

_c cn
03 O
O —I


cn
. LO
cn o t-H
CM CO •
«xf LO

• cn
LO O tO
r-. to .
«3- to




^^
• co
i-H rH r~~
i-H CO •
to co


LO
O LO «*f
10 r-H CO


LO
tO tO r-H
CM CO •
r>. CM



°0
^ _ ^^
cn co •
to o




cn
«3- cn
to CM
to









i
*~~*
to
o
T— 1
x «3
4-»
4^. 1
	 . CO
• — > cn Oi.
SI 5
C 4-9
•X CO  nj ia
i ^ ) * t
CO -i—  O


LO
cn
i-H


to
to
CO




CM
•
LO



cn
o



CM
CM
CM




°?
d


a
^-^.
cn
CD
i-H









S^
O
i-H

X

x— ^

X
4-J
s_
CO
4^
<4-
10
(/>
cn
c: c
• f_ fjj
C >i-
s- "O
03 S_
LU ro
. ^3
CD

to
O
i-H

CM
10
CO
t-H




to
1 .
LO
LO
r-H


cn
o
o
CM


CM
r-H
CO
CM



r-H
cn
cn
CM




to
o
CO
CO


03
CM
a.


cn
c
03
ex.

5_
CO
a.
<***

r— . t
(0
•r—
O — »
s-to
co o
E r-H
O X
C_>
^^
I/I 	
•-
>) CO
-a co
;g t^O


cn LO
r-H LO ^);
i-H CM O
r-H

«a- co
CO LO r-H
•— 1 CM r-H
•-H




r-H r-H
• •
CO CO CO
CM «3" «N(-
r-H


oo to
(^x r-H f^»
CM 1^. O
CM


LO CM
 O
f^ ^^
•b^ CO
•—'•a x
O 1- — -
F— CO
l|— 4>J CO
40
^: cn co
in c 1/1
0 5 <


LO «tf-
LO tO

O
CM cn
LO CM
I— 1


LO
O CM
• •
o to
CM r-H


CO
CM CO
«3- ^o
LO

r-H
cn cn
to to
i-H



CM
LO tO
cn r--.
CO



^-
O I--
i — «a-
to









I

o~^
o
I-H
X "3

•(^ 1
— CO
cn t^t
c
•r- o
C— | »
co  !_
•r- CO
0- >



^H
f-



CO
CO
r-H



to
•
LO
n— 1



to
CO
i-H


r--.
CM
CM




co
CO
CM




"5f
CO









o
o
t-H

X

**_*•

03
4->
S.
CO
4^
*o5
in
cn
c: co

c: i —
5- -i-
1 1 f j^
fTJ
z:
to «^
_ ^ __ , _ o • •
fo P** t^ vo px, • ^^ CO
«C o r-- co r-> o co
r-H i-H O r— 1
» «r— 1
-•H -«4
r— ^ r— ^
cn
to •<*•
o * •
03 cn co co co • P^» co
•a: O co o co co LO
CO CM r-H (^

r-H r-H

CO
LO tO
i— 1 • •
  t-H- 	 •• — -CnS.4->
oj — . to C
C£tO X 4-> O •<- O S-
O JQ r-H "CJ *r— QJ
•O r-H-b<» CO C 4-> 4->
c -—--a x co w M-
o x • a. s_ 03
oo S E <»^ i"
<^» O 1- — • CO co
co x,— -T— co r— cn cn
q_ 4-» (/> 03 n3 c

•o co ^: cn co T- co c:
5oocj5««ocSLS


, 	 ,
T3
co
c
=
C_)




























































9-45
-------























•o
> cnes
•o c co
o •< 	 .
aid.

























i —
co co
• •
CO CO IO l-O "*• «3-
co •— i r--
CM
CO MO
i^- .— i LO oo •* i— i r-»
O «-H i-t CO
CM
LO t— 1
 i— 1
A n
CM i-<



"^J







IO~"
^— *» CD
VO i~
-— « o
<£> i-H X
O X
t— 1 X "3 «/»
_t_LA *^_-»
CD • 	 • X  i— 1 	 •• — - cn Q-4->
03 ^-~- VO C
QfVO X 4-> CD -r- o 1-
0 JO t-l T3 ••-  4-»
cn c: — ••« x co 03 M-
C O X _ Q. S- 03
•r- 03 3 e VJ- tO
c ^> o C-— •  ;
C OO3O3OO1O3O1
CO SOOtJ— 1
i-
CO
^
O
("-•

.c
cn
•i™
to

•<~
4-> OO
wi  CO CO
j= o cn _c
| * !••» n«^ ^J)
to s_ «".e
i— i «5 ^
Q- S- E -(->
CO CO -C
-Q -t-> cn
. C Q.-I-
cn 3 co i —
c c c/i to
+J CO C to
03 > •«- -r-
OC. -r-
-t-> 03 <— 1
&. O3 C_3 ^C
co cn
Q. CO O
03 C 4-> •
Q. CM
03 -a =C
r — CO
03 CO Q- CO
•r- +J 0. g
o 03 o 03
1- U S- O
dj T— "o co
E T3 .a
E c cn
0 -r- C «C
C_J -r—
to +J «>
to 4-J 03 CM
- co i- co
>>j>£ cn
T3 O ~O '^
O 03 C
o s- o c
3£ CQ CQ •— <
«3 jQ O T3
9-46
-------
been over $150 million in each of the last four years which, for compari-
son purposes is 150 percent of the industry annual capital needs for the
entire five year period under Case One.  In light of its high bond rating
(A2) and pre-tax coverage ratio of 2.70 in this current recession, Owens-
Corning should easily be capable of raising the capital necessary to
maintain or expand its market share once the recession ends and the
projected demand for fiberglass materializes.
     CertainTeed's share of market capacity in 1980 was 20.3 percent while
38 percent of its revenues were derived from wool fiberglass sales.  Its
33.8 percent ratio of long-term debt to capitalization in 1981 is also
reasonably low.  Although in the last two years CertainTeed's capital
spending has fallen off considerably, this drop is largely due to a fall
in sales, earnings, and cash flow which all should recover if the projected
demand for wool fiberglass materializes.  In a growing market, CertainTeed
should be capable of raising the capital needed to maintain its market
share.                                                    -
     Until Manville's August 1982, announcement of filing for reorganiza-
tion under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, the company's growth pros-
pects were quite strong.  Manville's share of market capacity in 1980 was
15.6 percent while 28 percent of its revenues were derived from the sale
of wool fiberglass.  Its ratio of long-term debt to'capitalization stood
at 36.0 percent in 1981, close to the industry average.  Even in the 1981
recession year, Manvilie spent $86.1 million on new investment.  Its
after-tax earnings, cash flow, and sales are suffering somewhat in this
recession, but without Manvilie's asbestos liabilities the projected
fiberglass industry growth by 1988 would be expected to raise Manville's
fiberglass sales and profits, leaving it in good position to maintain or
expand its capacity share.  However, Manville's future expansion plans in
the wool fiberglass industry depend critically upon the resolution of the
asbestos liability suits against it.  Even if Manvilie is forced out of
business because of these suits, in the growing fiberglass industry
projected for the period 1983-1988, its plants could be sold to existing
firms or new entrants to the industry.
     Guardian and Knauf each share less than five percent of the wool
fiberglass industry capacity, so analysis of their ability to raise
                                  9-47
                                   fit'.
-------
capital for new plant expansion is much less crucial  to the question of
industry capital availability.  Guardian acquired a fiberglass plant in
late 1980, and  its sales, cash flow, and after-tax earnings all  were
comparatively strong in 1981, despite the start of the current recession
in the industry.  Thus, Guardian appears to be in a good position, to
expand its fiberglass market share when the projected industry demand
growth occurs.  Kanuf is privately held by a German family, so its ability
to expand its fiberglass capacity largely depends upon the assets of that
family, which are not known.
     In summary, despite the current recession in the industry, if the
projected growth in the  industry materializes, then all firms in
the industry  (with the possible exception of Manville) should find reas-
onable access to new capital, so the abatement capital needed by the
industry will be available.
9.2.4  Small  Business  Impacts
     The Regulatory  Flexibility Act of  1980  (RFA) requires that differ-  •
ential impacts  of federal regulations upon  small  businesses be identified
and analyzed  if a substantial number of  small  businesses will experience
significant  impacts.   The Small Business Administration (SBA) definition
of a small business  for  Standard  Industrial  Classification (SIC) Code  3296,
Mineral Wool, is 750 employees.73   Table 9-29  shows recent employment
levels for each of the four  publicly held  firms  that manufacture wool
fiberglass insulation.   All  of the  four  firms  have more than  750 employees.
Therefore, none of the firms meets  the  SBA definition  of a small business
and thus  no  regulatory flexibility  analysis  is required.
                                     -\
9.2.5  Summary
     The  impact of the regulatory alternatives on prices, return on
 investment,  and capital  availability  have  been examined.   On  all grounds,
the regulatory  alternatives  for the rotary spin  process are  readily
 affordable.   The maximum price  increases to the  consumer  are  small  (the
 largest  is 0.5  percent at  an 86 percent capacity utilization  rate).   It  is
 unlikely  that the  alternative to  maximum price increases,  namely,  full
 cost  absorption,  will  occur  because the industry is  an oligopoly.
 Even  if  firms absorb the entire  abatement  cost,  the  ROI impacts  will  be
 small.  In  addition, firms  in this industry have reasonable  access to new
 capital,  so  the abatement investment  costs can be raised.
                                   9-48
-------
             TABLE 9-29.  NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR
         THE FOUR PUBLICLY HELD WOOL FIBERGLASS FIRMS74"77
     Firm3
                                              No. of employees
CertainTeed Corporation
Guardian Industries, Inc.
Manville Corporation
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation
 8,400 '
 3,800
27,000
21,800
aKnauf is a privately held,  large German firm with too many
 employees to qualify as a small  business.
                             9-49
-------
9.3   POTENTIAL SOCIOECONOMIC AND INFLATIONARY IMPACTS
     The purpose of Section 9.3 is to address macroeconomic impacts  to
determine whether a detailed regulatory analysis is required under  Execu-
tive Order 12291.  There are three principal  review criteria to aid  in
this determination.
     1.  If additional  annualized costs of compliance, including capital
charges (interest and depreciation), total $100 million (i) within  any  one
of the first 5 years of implementation, or (ii) if applicable,  within any
calendar year up to the date by which the law requires attainment of the
relevant pollution standard;
     2.  If a major increase in the selling price of the product results
for consumers, individual  industries. Federal, State or local  government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
     3.  If significant adverse effects on competition, investment,
productivity, employment,  innovation, or the ability of U.S. firms  to
compete with foreign firms results.
9.3.1  Fifth-Year Annualized Costs   •
     Table 9-30 summarizes the fifth-year annualized costs of compliance
by model plant and line size for the four regulatory alternatives that  are
the most cost effective.  The fifth-year annualized costs vary from a low
of $2,597,000 to a maximum of $4,851,000.
     The sum of projected  fifth-year annualized costs is, therefore,
well below the $100 million which, according to Executive Order 12291,
signifies a major regulation.
9.3.2  Inflationary Impacts
     The small share of wool fiberglass insulation in gross national
product in conjunction with the low maximum price  increases of at most
0.5 percent (at 86 percent capacity utilization) reported  in Section 9.2.1
ensures that the imposition of the regulatory  alternative will  cause an
insignificant increase in the rate of  inflation.
9.3.3  Output Effects
     The effects on the output of wool fiberglass  of the 0.5 percent
maximum price increase can be calculated  using the demand equation  in
Appendix E.
     First, take the base case forecast.  Assuming the entire maximum
price  increase of 0.5 percent is passed on to  the  consumer by  1987, prices

                                  9-50
-------
   TABLE 9-30.   FIFTH-YEAR  (1988) ANNUALIZED COSTS OF  COMPLIANCE
                   FOR  ROTARY  SPIN MODEL PLANTS  AND LINES78- ?9
 Alternative
 Model Plant
and Line Sizea
 Regulatory     Control
Alternative    Equipment13
Total  fifth-year
annualized costs
   above the
  base1inec'bc
     ($000)
All medium model plants
and medium model line
II Id
Scrub., Scrub J
ESP, ESP9
2,863
3,148
                                      ESP,ESP,ESP             4,154
                                      Scrub.,  Scrub.,  Scrub.  3,990
All small model plants
and small model lines

III
IV
Scrub., Scrub.
ESP, ESP
ESP, ESP, ESP
Scrub., Scrub., Scrub
2,597
3,185 :
4,704 .
4,851
aGrowth projections assume 3 new plants and 17 new lines between
 1983 and 1988.
bBaseline 1988 annual i.zed costs for medium plants and  lines equals
 $19,511,000.  Baseline 1988 annualized costs for small plants and
•line equals $15,360,000.
cJanuary 1982 dollars,
dRequires control of emissions from the forming and curing sections.
eRequires control of emissions from the forming, curing and cooling
.sections.
fScrub. =  Scrubber.
9ESP = Wet Electrostatic Precipitator.
                                  9-51
-------
will rise 5.3 percent instead of 4.8 percent in 1987.  This results in
a 1987 level of output of 1,806.3 Gg (3,978.6 x 106 Ib) instead of
1,811.5 Gg (3,990.1 x 106 Ib), a decrease of 5.2 Gg (11.5 x 106 Ib),
or 0.3 percent from what output would have been in the absence of
regulation.
     The implications of a 0.5 percent maximum price increase have also
been calculated for the alternative to the base case.  In that situation,
prices in 1987 would rise 9.9 percent instead of the 9.4 percent forecast
without regulation.  As a result, output in 1987 would be 1,599.9 Gg
(3,524.0 x 106 Ib) instead of 1,604.0 Gg (3,533.0 x 106 Ib), a de-
crease of 4.1 Gg  (9.0 x 106  Ib), or 0.3 percent from what output would
have been in the  absence of  regulation.
9.3.4  Employment  Effects
     The effect of the regulatory alternatives on employment  in the wool
fiberglass  industry  is also  small because output  is  reduced by only 0.3
percent.  Assuming a fixed labor-output ratio  between  1979  and 1987,  total
employment  without any regulation would be  21,106  in  1987.  Under Regula-
tory Alternative  III, it  is  forecast  to be  21,046, or  a reduction of
60  employees or 0.3  percent  from what employment  would have been  in the
absence  of  any regulation.
9.3.5  Other  Impacts
      No  major  impacts are expected  on geographical  regions, local  govern-
ments, competition,  investment  or  productivity.   Therefore, no  significant
macroe'conomic  impacts are likely.
                                   9-52
-------
9.4  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9
 1.  Standard Industrial Classification Manual.  U.S. Department of
     Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Washington, O.C.  1972.  p. 144.

 2.  Current Industrial Report:  Fibrous Glass.  U.S. Department of
     Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Washington, D.C.  Publication No.
     MA-32J.  June, 1982.  p. 2.

 3.  Abrasive, Asbestos, and Miscellaneous Nonrnetallic Mineral Products.
     1977 Census of Manufacturers.  Washington, D.C.  U.S.  Department of
     Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Industry Series MC77-1-32E.
     p. 32E-8.

 4.  Statistics of Industry Groups and Industries.  Annual  Survey of
     Manufacturers.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.
     Washington, D.C.  Publication No. M79 (AS-D).  1978 and 1979.
     pp. 8-25.

 5.  Goldfarb, J.  Owens-Corning Fiberglas.  Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
     Fenner, and Smith.  September, 1981.  p.  7.

 6.  Annual Report of CertainTeed for the Fiscal Year ending  December 31,
     1980.

 7.  Annual Report of Johns-Manvil le for the Fiscal Year ending  December
     31, 1980.

 8.  Annual Report of Owens-Corning Fiberglas  for the Fiscal  Year ending
     December 31, 1980.

 9.  Annual Report of CertainTeed for the fiscal Year ending  December. 31,
     1981.

10.  Annual Report of Guardian  Industries for  the Fiscal Year  ending
     December 31, 1981.

11.  Annual Report of Manville  for the Fiscal  Year ending  December 31,
     1981.

12.  Annual Report of Owens-Corning Fiberglas  for the Fiscal  Year ending
     December 31, 1981.

13.  Reference 5.  p. 8.

14.  Fiberglass Puts Stress on  CertainTeed.  Business Week.  August 6,
     1979.
                                   9-53
-------
15   Memo and attachments from Greer, L., Midwest Research Institute, to
     Telander, J., EPA/ISB.  February 4, 1981.  Report of visit to
     CertainTeed Corporation (Chowchilla, California plant.)

16.  Telecon.  Williams, F. E., U.S. Department of Commerce with Ando, F.,
     JACA.  September 22, 1982.  Factors affecting plant location.

17   ICF  Inc.  Supply Response to Residential Insulation Retrofit Demand.
     U.S. Federal Energy Administration.  National Technical  Information
     Service.  Publication'No. PB-270-445.  June  1977.  p. 7.

18.  Reference 17.  p. 3.
                                                                    K

19.  Reference 10.  p. 16.

20.  Reference 5.  p. 3.

21.  Goldfarb, J.  The Fiberglass  Industry:   Cyclical  and Secular Prospects.
     Merrill  Lynch, Pierce, Fenner  and  Smith.  September, 1980.   p.  21.

22.  Telecon.  Williams,  F. E., U.S.  Department  of  Commerce, with Deardorff,
     K.,  JACA.   April 30,  1981.   Integration  in  wool  fiberglass.

23.  Goldfarfa,  J.  The  Fiberglass  Industry.   Merrill  Lynch,  Pierce,
     Fenner,  and  Smith.   October  6,  1980.  p.  2.

24.  A Primer on Building  Insulation,  Part  II.    Plastics in Building/Con-
     struction.   Technomic Publishing  Company.   Westport, Conn.   August
     1980.   p.  10.

25.  Glass  Industry.  May, 1980.   p. 6.

26.  Glass  Manufacturing Plants.   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.
     Office of Air  Quality Planning and Standards.   Research Triangle
     Park,  N.C.   Publication  No.  EPA-450/3-79-005a.  June 1979.   p.
     8-19.

 27.  Telecon.  Embrey,  6., U.S.  Department  of Commerce, with Ando,  F.,
      JACA.   October 8,  1981.   Shipments of wool  fiberglass,  1962 to 1969.

 28.   Photocopy.  Williams, F. E., U.S. Department of Commerce  to Ando,
          JACA.
September 22, 1982.  Cost of construction, 1915-1978.
 29.  Construction Review. . U.S. Department of Commerce.  Washington, D.C.
      July-August, 1982. p. 52.

 30.  Reference 5.  p. 5.
                                    9-54
-------
 31.   Current  Industrial  Report:   Fibrous Glass.  U.S. Department of
      Commerce.   Washington,  D.C.   1970.   p. 1.

 32.   Current  Industrial  Report:   Fibrous Glass.  U.S. Department of
      Commerce.   Washington,  D.C.   197.1.   p. 1.
 33.   Current  Industrial  Report:   Fibrous Glass,
      Commerce.   Washington,.D.C.   1977.   p.  2.
U.S. Department of
 34.   Current  Industrial  Report:   Fibrous  Glass.   U.S.  Department of
      Commerce.   Washington,  D.C.   1979.   p.  2.

 35.   Current  Industrial  Report:   Fibrous  Glass.   U.S.  Department of
      Commerce.   Washington,  D.C.   1981.   p.  2.

 36.   Reference  5.   p.  4.

 37.   Telecon.   Williams,   F.  E.,  U.S.  Department  of Commerce with
      Deardorff,  K.,  JACA.  April  30,  1981.   U.S.  exports  and imports  of
      wool fiberglass.                 I

 38.   Telecon.   Williams, F.  E., U.S.  Department of  Commerce  with Ando,  F.,
      JACA.  September  17,  1982.   Exports  and  imports,  1975 to 1979.

 39.   Photocopies.  Williams,  F. E., U.S.  Department of Commerce, to
      Deardorf,  K., JACA.   Exports  and  imports, 1977 to 1980.

 40.   Reference  24.   p. 11.            ;  '   .

 41.   Telecon.   Williams, F.  E., U.S.  Department of  Commerce,  with
      Deardorff,  K.,  JACA.  April 30,  1981.  Substitutes for  wool  fiber-
      glass.

 42.   Telecon.   Williams, F.  E., U.S.  Department of  Commerce,  with Ando,
 •     F., JACA.   June 8, 1982.  Substitutes in nonstructural  insulation.

 43.   Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1981.   102d  ed.   U.S.
      Bureau of the Census.  Washington, D.C.  p.  758.

 44.   Frost and Sullivan.  Residential  Energy Construction Building Mater-
      ials and Products Markets.  New York, New York.   Fall,  1981.  p.
      II1-61.

 45.  Mansfield,  E.  Microeconomics:  Theory and Appl ications.  New York,
     W. W. Norton,   1970.  pp. 261-62.

46.  Reference 45, pp. 262-264.

47.   Eckstein, 0. and G.  Fromm.  The Price Equation.   American Economic
     Review.  58:1160-1165.  December  1968.
                                  9-55
-------
48.  Hartman, R., K. Bozdogan, and R. Nadkarni.  The Economic Impacts of    •
     Environmental Regulations on the U.S. Copper Industry.  The Bell
     Journal of Economics.  10:596-600.  Autumn 1979.
49.  Printout from Howe, H., Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates,
     to Ando, F., OACA.  February 1982.  Equation and data for the calcu-
     lation of the user cost of capital, SIC 32, 1947-1991.
50.  Telecon.  Williams, F. E., U.S. Department of Commerce, with Ando,
     F., JACA.  November 15, 1982.   Capacity utilization  in  1973 and
     1974.
51.  Goldfarb, J.  The Fiberglass Industry:  Prospects for Supply and
     Demand.  Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith.   New  York, N.Y.
     December 1977.  p. 3.
52.  Air Conditioning, Heating, and  Refrigeration News.   September 17,
     1979.
53.  Chemical Marketing Reporter.  October  11,  1979.  p.  40.
54.  Chemical and Engineering  News'.  April  1,  1979.   p.  11.
55.  Wall  Street  Transcript.   November  17,  1980.  p.  59664.
56.  Wharton  Econometric Forecasting Associates.  The Wharton Annual  Model:
     Post-Meeting Control  Solution.  Philadelphia;  Pennsylvania.   December
     1981.   pp.  11,  12, 19, 22,  23,  72,  73, 81,  82.
57.  Presentations  by Wharton  and Chase Econometrics.   Conference  of Pennsyl
     vania Economists.  Villanova University.   June  3,  1982.
58.  Reference 46.   pp.  IV-74, 111-65,  111-61.
59.  Reference 44,  p.  IV-78.
60.  Glass Industry.  March,  1978.
61.  Glass Industry.  January, 1978.
62.  Glass Industry.  July, 1980.
63.  Moody's Investors  Service.   Moody's. Industrial  Manual.   New York.
      1982.  pp.  411, 412,  415., 1118, 1119,  3996,  3997,  3998, 4175, 4176.
64.  Arnold Burnhard and  Company.   Value Line Investment Survey.  New
      York.  November 5,  1982.   pp.  862, 872,  881, 889.
 65.  Moody's Investors Service.   Moody's Bond Record.  Vol.  42:  no. 6.
      New York.   June,  1975.  pp. 29, 41.
                                   9-56
-------
66.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Bond Record vol 43:  no. 6.  New
     York.  June, 1976.  pp. 29, 42.
67.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Bond Record vol. 44, no. 6.  New
     York.  June, 1977.  pp. 29, 42.
68.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Bond Record vol. 45, no. 6.  New
     York.  June, 1978.  pp. 29, 42.
69.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Bond Record vol. 46, no. 6.  New
     York.  June, 1979.  pp. 29, 42.
70.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Bond Record vol. 47, no. 6.
     June, 1980.  pp. 31, 44.
71.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Bond Record vol. 48, no. 6.  New
     York.  June, 1981.  pp. 32, 45, 74.
72.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Bond Record vol. 49, no. 6.  New
     York.  June, 1982.  pp. 33, 47, 76, 77.
73.  Telecon.   Canellas A., U.S. Small  Business Administration,  with Ando,
     F.,  JACA.   January 25, 1983.   Size Standards  for SIC 3296.
74.  10-K Report for  CertainTeed for the Fiscal Year ending  December 31,
     1981.
75.  10-K Report for  Guardian  Industries for the Fiscal  Year  ending
     December 31, 1981.
76.  10-K Report for  Manville  for  the Fiscal Year  ending  December 31,
     1981.
77.  10-K Report for  Owens-Corning  Fiberglas for the Fiscal  Year ending
     December 31, 1981.
78.  Maxwell, W. H. & J. A.  Shular, MRI, to  J.  Telander, EPA/ISB,
     September  9, 1982.  Memorandum:  Final  Tabular Costs.             ,
79.  Sauer, M.  M. &  J. A.  Shular,  MRI,  to  J. Telander,  EPA/ISB.   December
     30,  1982.   Memorandum:   Calculations  of Environmental  Impacts.
                                   9-57
-------
-------
                              APPENDIX A.
           EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT

     In the Federal Register of August 21, 1979, fiberglass manufacturing
was major source category number 42 on the Priority List for development
of new source performance standards.  A screening study was initiated in
November 1979 which led to the decision to develop a Background
Information Document (BID) on wool fiberglass insulation manufacturing.
     In August 1980, an effort was begun to obtain the information needed
to develop the BID.  The information gathering included literature
surveys; canvassing of State, regional, and local air pollution control
agencies; plant visits; meetings with industry representatives; contact
with engineering consultants and equipment vendors; and emission source
testing.  Significant events relating to the evolution of the BID are
itemized in Table A-1.
                                   A-l
-------
       TABLE A-l.  EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
Date
           Company ,
consultant, or agency/location
Nature of action
01/07/80     CertainTeed Corp.
               Berlin, N.J.
01/08/80     Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
               Berlin, N.J.
.01/09/80     Owens-Corning Fiberglas  Corp.
               Barrington, N.J.
01/10/80     CertainTeed Corp.
               Chowchilla, Calif.

01/14/80     Owens-Corning Fiberglas  Corp.
               Newark, Ohio
01/15/80     Knauf  Fiber Glass GmbH
               Shelbyville Ind.
01/16/80     Owens-Corning Fiberglas  Corp.
               Anderson, S.C.
04/09/80     PPG  Industries,  Inc.
               Lexington, N.C.

06/04/80     Midwest  Research Institute
               Raleigh, N.C.
06/09/80     Pacific  Environmental Sciences,  Inc.
               Durham, N.C.
 08/06/80      Knauf  Fiber Glass  GmbH
                Shelbyville,  Ind.
 08/28/80      Midwest Research Institute
                Raleigh,  N.C.
 09/09/80     Reichhold Chemicals,  Inc.
                Bremen, Ohio              .

 09/24/80     CertainTeed Corp.               .  •
                Mountain Top,  Pa.
 10/06/80     U.S.  EPA, Midwest Research Institute,
              Engineering Science,  Knauf Fiber Glass
              GmbH-,  CertainTeed Corp.,  Owens-Corning
              Fiberglas Corp.
                Durham, N.C.
                                        .(continued)
                                          Plant visit

                                          Plant visit

                                          Plant visit

                                          Plant visit


                                          Plant visit

                                          Plant visit

                                          Plant visit

                                          Plant visit

                                          Project start date
                                          for new contractor

                                          "Draft Phase I Source
                                          Category Survey
                                          Report—Fiberglass
                                          Manufacturing"
                                          Plant visit

                                          "Development of New
                                          Source Performance
                                          Standards—Interim
                                          Phase—for Fiber-
                                          glass Manufacturing"

                                          Plant visit


                                          Plant vis.it


                                          Meeting to discuss
                                          standard develop-
                                          ment
                                    A-2
-------
                           TABLE  A-l.   (continued)
Date
           Company,
consultant, or agency/location
                                                        Nature of action
 10/07/80

 10/15/80

 10/30/80
 12/21/80
 12/31/80
01/04/81
01/07/81

01/07/81
01/28/81
02/04/81

04/06/81-
04/14/81
04/30/81
05/27/81-
06/01/81
07/07/81-
07/16/81
08/25/81-
08/27/81
  and
09/08/81-
09/11/81
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  Newark, Ohio
Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  Winder, Ga.
Plant/line A, G, H
Plant/line K
Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH
  Shelbyville, Ind.
Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  Denver, Colo.
CertainTeed Corp.
  Blue Bell, Pa.
Plant/line B, C,  E
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  Toledo, Ohio
Plant/line I, J
Plant/line D
CertainTeed Corp.
  Chowchilla, Calif.
Plant/line D

CertainTeed Corp.
  Blue Bell, Pa.
Plant/line G, H, K

Plant/line F, I, J


Plant/line C, E
 Plant  visit

 Plant  visit

 Pretest survey
 Pretest survey
 Section 114
 information request
Pretest survey
Section 114
information request
Pretest survey
Pretest survey
Plant visit

Emission test
Follow up to
Section 114 informa-
tion request

Emission test
Emission test
Emission test
                                                               (continued)
                                   A-3
-------
                          TABLE A-l.  (continued)
Date  '
           Company,
consultant, or agency/location
                                                       Nature  of  action
09/22/81-
09/24/81
   and
10/17/81-
10/19/81

.12/07/81-
12/11/81
02/23/82
 03/12/82



 04/01/82


 04/01/82

 04/14/82

 09/15/82
 09/27/82-
 09/29/82
Plant/line A
Plant/line B

MikroPul Corp. (Summit, N.J.),
  U.S. EPA, Midwest Research Institute

CertainTeed Corp.
  Blue Bell,  Pa.
Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH
  Shelbyville, Ind.
United McGill.Corp. (Columbus, Ohio),
  U.S. EPA, Midwest Research Institute

Andersen 2000, Inc.
  Atlanta, Ga.
CertainTeed Corp.
  Athens,  Ga.
CertainTeed Corp.
  Blue Bell,  Pa.
Guardian  Industries Corp.
  Northville, Mich.
Knauf Fiber Glass  GmbH
  Shelbyville,  Ind.
Manville  Corp.
  Denver,  Colo.
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
  Toledo,  Ohio

 Plant/line L
Emission test
Emission test

Meeting to discuss
control technology

Follow up to
Section 114 informa-
tion requests

Meeting to discuss
control technology
Information request
letter
Plant visit
Draft BID  chapter
mail out
 Emission test
                                     A-4
-------
                              APPENDIX B
             INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS

     This appendix consists of a reference system, cross-indexed with
the October 21, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 37419) containing the Agency
guidelines concerning the preparation of environmental impact statements.
This index can be used to identify sections of the document which contain
data and information germane to any portion of the Federal Register
guidelines.
                                   B-l
-------
          TABLE B-1.   CROSS-INDEXED REFERENCE SYSTEM TO HIGHLIGHT
               ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT
Agency guidelines for preparing
regulatory action environmental
impact statements (39 FR 37419)
Location within the Background
   Information Document
1.  BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF
    REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

    Summary of regulatory alternatives
    Statutory basis for proposing
    standards
    Relationship to other regulatory
    agency actions
    Industry affected by the
    regulatory alternatives
     Specific  processes  affected by
     the regulatory alternatives
 2.   REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

     Control  techniques
The regulatory alternatives from
which standards will be chosen
for proposal are summarized
in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.

The statutory basis for proposing
standards is summarized in
Chapter 2, Section 2.1.

The relationships between EPA
and other regulatory agency
actions are discussed in
Chapters 3 and 8.

A discussion of the industry
affected by the regulatory
alternatives is presented in
Chapter 3, Section 3.1.   Further
details covering the business
and economic nature of the
industry are presented in
Chapter 9, Section 9.1.

The specific processes and
facilities affected by the
regulatory alternatives are
summarized  in  Chapter  1,
Section 1.1.   A detailed  technical
discussion  of  the processes
affected by  the regulatory
alternatives  is presented in
Chapter 3,  Section  3.2.
 The alternative control  techniques
 are discussed in Chapter 4,
 Sections 4.1, 4.2,  4.3,  4.4,  and
 4.5.
                                                                (continued)
                                    B-2
-------
                          TABLE B-l  (continued)
Agency guidelines for preparing
regulatory action environmental
impact statements (39 FR 37419)
                                      Location within the Background
                                         Information Document
    Regulatory alternatives
3.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

Primary impacts directly
attributable to the regulatory
alternatives
    Secondary or induced impacts
4.  OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
                                      The various regulatory alterna-
                                      tives, including "no additional
                                      regulatory action," are defined
                                      in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.   A
                                      summary of the major alternatives
                                      considered is included in
                                      Chapter 1, Section 1.1.
The primary impacts on mass
emissions and ambient air quality
due to the alternative control
systems are discussed in
Chapter 7, Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
7.4, and 7.5.   A matrix
summarizing the environmental
impacts is included in Chapter 1.

Secondary impacts for the various
regulatory alternatives are
discussed in Chapter 7,
Sections 7.1,  7.2, 7.3; 7.4, and
7.5.                 ':•'

A summary of the potential
adverse environmental impacts
associated with the regulatory
alternatives is included in
Chapter 1, Section 1.2, and
Chapter 7.  Potential socio-
economic and inflationary impacts
are discussed in Chapter 9,
Section 9.2.  Irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of
resources are discussed in
Chapter 7, Section 7.6.
                                   B-3
-------
-------
      APPENDIX C.  SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS
                         INSULATION MANUFACTURING

C.I  INTRODUCTION
     This appendix presents the emission test data obtained from wool
fiberglass insulation manufacturing plants.  Nine RS and three FA lines
were tested during the sampling program.  Pollutants measured during all
tests include particulate matter, phenol, phenolic compounds, and
formaldehyde.  In addition, the opacity of visible emissions was recorded
during 11 of the tests.
     The particulate emission data were obtained using a modified EPA
Reference Method 5.   A spectrophotometric method was used for analysis
of the phenolic compounds and formaldehyde and a gas chromatographic
method was used to analyze the phenol.  The visible emissions data were
obtained using Reference Method 9.                            •.',.
C.2  EMISSION TEST DATA
     The following subsections present a brief description of each line
tested, a summary of the emission data obtained, from that line and any
corresponding process parameters, and a discussion of the data excluded
from that line.
     All controlled emissions data are summarized by pollutant in
subsection C.2.13.  The visible emissions data are summarized in
subsection C.2.14.
C,2.1  Line A
     The emission sources tested for line A are shown in the schematic
diagram in Figure C-l.  Three emission tests were performed on line A
because three types of fiberglass insulation are produced on this line:
R-ll building insulation, R-19 building insulation, and ductboard.
                                   C-l
-------
    SAMPLING LOCATION
        WATER-
        SPRAY
                  SCRUBBER
                  SCRUBBER
                  SCRUBBER '
                  SCRUBBER
       WATER SPRAY
                                ROTOCLONE
                                 ROTOCLONE
WATER SPRAY
                               xxxx:
                                                       TO STACK
TO STACK
Figure C-l.   Schematic drawing of sampling  locations  for  Line A.
                          C-2
-------
      The  results  of  the  emission  tests  on  R-ll  on  line  A are contained
 in  Tables  C-la  to C-4b.   (The  tables  designated "a"  present the emission
 data  in English units, and  the tables designated "b"  present the data in
 metric units.)
      During  the R-ll testing,  the wet ESP  inlet gas  flow rate was 82  percent
 of  the design flow rate.  During  Run  1, while the  rotoclone outlet site
 was being  tested,  the isokinetic  sampling  rate  was 73.4 percent;  therefore,
 these data were excluded from  the data  base.
      The results  of  the  emission  tests  on  R-19  on  line  A are contained
 in  Tables  C-5a  to C-8b.   The wet  ESP  inlet gas  flow  rate was 83 percent
 of  design.  -Run No.  1 was sampled at  an isokinetic rate of  83.9 percent
 during the rotoclone testing and, thus, these data were excluded  from
 the data base.
     Tables  C-9a  to  C-12b present the emission  data obtained during the
 production of ductboard  on  line A.  The wet ESP  inlet gas flow rate was
 78 percent of design.  Run  No.  1  was  sampled at  an isokinetic rate of
 112.9 percent during testing of the wet ESP outlet; therefore,  these
 data were  excluded from  the data  base.
 C.2.2 tline  B
     The emission  sources tested  for  Tine  B are  shown in  Figure C-2.
 The results  of  the emission tests are contained  in Tables C-13a to
 C-17b.  The  incinerator  outlet gas flow rate was 79 percent  of the inlet
 design flow  rate  (no inlet sampling was conducted on the  incinerator).
 C.2.3  Line  C
     Figure  C-3 shows the emission sources  tested on line C.   The results
 of the emission tests are presented in Tables C-18a to  C-23b.   The HVAF
 inlet gas  flow  rate was  62 percent of the  design flow rate.    Excessively
 high, opacities,  which indicated improper wet ESP operation,  were  observed
while the wet ESP outlet was sampled  during the  first test run.  Therefore,
 testing of the wet ESP outlet was discontinued and the  outlet  data from
 Run No.  1  were excluded  from the data base.
C.2.4  Line  D
     The emission sources tested  for  line  D are  shown in Figure C-4.
The emission test results are presented in  Tables C-24a to C-30b.  The
wet ESP inlet gas flow rate was 108 percent of design.  Certain data
were excluded from averaging because of sampling procedure deficiencies
                                   C-3
-------
O SAMPLING LOCATION
                                TO STACK
                             MIXING CHAMBER
                CYCLONES
            V
            SCRUBBERS
             WATER
             SPRAY
    FORMING
                                         <3
                                                        TO STACK
WATER<
SPRAY:
   Figure  C-2.   Schematic drawing of sampling locations for Line B.
                             C-4
-------
           o
           o
           C3
          A
^
0
is
oo
2:
C=> nug 	
1 A
o
*-**
.X>- >s,
K-I ac.
o uj
O I—
__i _i
UJ l— I
. > u.
=C O£,
O »-(
t-l <
oo
DC >-
LLt «=C
H- Q;
•a: a.
3 ^)
X*XXX t
»
A

CD
z:
*»-!
O£
tJ
                                                                                                                      C_3


                                                                                                                      Ol
I
 to
 <=
 o
                                                                                                                      (O
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                                      o.
                                                                                                                      en
                                                                                                                      c
                                                                                                                      3
                                                                                                                      nj
                                                                                                                      u
                                             A
o
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                     t/o
PO
 I
o

 a>
 £_
                                                               C-5
-------
r
                        5
                        o

                        CD
                        A
                                                                                                                       
-------
(nonisokinetic conditions, no back half analyses, broken sampling
train, failed leak check) and/or process condition deficiencies (wet ESP
drain malfunctions).  The excluded data are indicated on the data summary
sheets.
C.2.5  Line E
     The emission sources tested for line E are shown in Figure C-5.
The emission test results are presented in Tables C-3la to C-36b.
During the three tests performed on the wet ESP on line E, the unit was
operating between 137 and 154 percent of design inlet air flow; therefore,
all of these data were excluded from the data base.
C.2.6  Line F
     The emission sources tested for line F are shown in the schematic
diagram in Figure C-6.  The emission test results are presented in
Tables C-37a to C-41b.  The emission data obtained from the curing north
location (run 2) were excluded from the data base because the isokinetic
sampling rate was 151.3 percent.   Line F is uncontrolled.
C.2.7  Line G
     Figure C-7 shows a schematic diagram of the sampling locations for
line G.  The emission test results are presented in Tables C-42a and
C-42b.  Line G is uncontrolled.
C.2.8  Lfne H
     Figure C-7 shows the emission sources for line H.  The emission
test results are presented in Tables C-43a and C-43b.  Line H is
uncontrolled.
C.2.9  Line I
     The emission sources tested for line I, an FA process, are shown in
Figure C-8.  Tables C-44a to C-49b present the emission test results
from line I.  The HVAF inlet gas flow rate was not measureable.  The
HVAF outlet data for runs 2, 3,  and 4 were excluded because the data
were obtained while water sprays were operating, which is not a normal
plant operating condition.
C.2.10  Line J
     The emission sources tested for line J, an FA process, are shown in
Figure C-9.  The emission test results are presented in Tables C-50a to
C-57b.  The HVAF inlet gas flow rate was 69 percent of the design flow
                                   C-7
-------
o
o
A
                            •a:  ,
                            a:
                            a.
                                               t>
                                                                              LU
                                                                              s-
                                                                              o
                                                                              c
                                                                              o
                                                                              o
                                                                              o
                                                                              .a.
                                                                               o

                                                                               OT
                                                                              -o
                                                                               o
                                                                               1
                                                                               cu

                                                                               o
                                                                               00
un
 i
o

 o>
<£.
3
.X>
-------
    O   SAMPLING  LOCATION
  TO  STACK
TO STACK
                                   O
Figure C-6.  Schematic drawing of sampling locations  for  Line  F.
                           C-9
-------
P>  SAMPLING LOCATION
 TO STACK
TO STACK
   FORMING
                                  CURING
  Figure  C-7.  Schematic drawing of sampling
        locations for Lines G and H.
                 C-10
-------
    O SAMPLING LOCATION
  TO STACK
  A

D>
                             TO STACK


                              O
                          HIGH VELOCITY
                           AIR FILTER
                          WATERS
                          SPRAY<
TO STACK


 O
       HVAF
      BYPASS
Figure C-8.  Schematic drawing of sampling  locations  for Line I,
                          C-ll
-------
P> SAMPLING LOCATION
TO STACK TO STACK
A A. A L
>
O

o

/ HIGH VELOCITY
V AIR FILTER
WATE
SPRAA
A
o
FORMING
J
f c
k
^ jk
O
CURING
 Figure  C-9.  Schematic drawing of sampling
            locations  for .Line J.
                  C-12
-------
rate.  The HVAF outlet data for runs 1,2, and 3 were excluded because
water sprays were operating during the testing.  During normal plant'
operation the water sprays are off.  Data from the forming west location
(run 1) were excluded from the data base because the isokinetic sampling
rate was 85.7 percent.  Data from the curing west location (run 2) were
excluded from the data base because of a failed leak check.  Data from
the cooling east location (run 1) were excluded from the data base
because the isokinetic sampling rate was 111.9 percent.
C.2.11  Line K
     The emission sources tested for line K, an FA process, are shown in
Figure C-10.  The emission test results are presented in Tables C-58a to
C-63b.  Data from the cooling west location (run 3) were excluded from
the data base because the water rinse was lost.  Line K is uncontrolled.
C.2.12  Line L
     Figure C-ll shows the emission sources tested- on line L.  The
emission test results are presented in Tables C-64a to C-68b.  The inlet
gas flow rate to the curing/cooling scrubber was 87 percent of design.
Because the inlet sampling location for the forming scrubbers was in a
common inlet duct ahead of the forming air recycle duct, it was not
possible to determine how close the inlet gas flow rates to each scrubber
were to the design flow rates.
     Two test runs were voided and data from a third run were excluded
from averaging.  The initial test run on the "25" scrubber outlet was
voided when the sampling train did not pass the final leak check.  The
initial test fun at the forming inlet site was voided in mid-test when
the probe liner broke.  The third test run on the "50" scrubber outlet
was completed with a cracked filter holder.  Although the filter assembly
passed the post-test Teak check, the data from this run were excluded
from the data base because a white residue of unknown origin, which was
not found during any other test runs, was found in the probe rinse
water.  These test runs were repeated so that three valid runs were
obtained at each sampling location.
C.2.13  Summary of Controlled Emission Level Data
     The emission test results are summarized by pollutant and are shown
in Figures C-12, C-13, C-14, and C-15 for particulate matter, phenol,
phenolic compounds, and formaldehyde, respectively.
                                   C-13
-------
     SAMPLING LOCATION
  TO STACK
TO STACK
TO STACK
Figure C-10. Schematic drawing of sampling  locations  for  line  K.
                         C-14
-------
           O  SAMPLING LOCATION
                  D>
        BYPASS
CYCLONES
                  A
                               TO
                             STACK
6
                                                 VENTURI
                                                SCRUBBERS
                                           x

                                           X
                                  AIR
                                RECYCLE
                                                 WATER
                                                SPRAYS
  X

  K
                                       CURING
                        COOLING
      Figure C^-ll.   Schematic  drawing  of sampling  locations  for  Line  L,
                                  C-15
-------
«£l


O '
Ul I
a <
ca i


CO I
 "O
  «e
  ai
 h

S
                              4V-
                                                                                    UJ O CJ
                                                                                    zoo
                                                                                    h-t Oi Ctf
                                                                                    —J O. Q-
                                                                                                cu   •
                                                                                                c  res

                                                                                               i—  03
                                                                                                  •a

                                                                                               -a -o
                                                                                                   cu
                                                                                                 "O

                                                                                                cu  03
                                                                                                >  o
                                                                                                O)  (/)
                                                                                                O  en
                                                                                               •i-  C
                                                                                                m i—


                                                                                               •i-  3


                                                                                                cu *o


                                                                                                
-------
                                                                         --"8!
                                                                         	gfi.
SS5
X UJ
     t—t  »—I t/>
o::::::::::!: ::OD
                                                                            •ca o
                                                                                        I «•
                                                                                           4->
                                                                                        d) ro
                                                                                        C TJ
                                                  CO O
                                                 i— t/1
                                                   TJ
                                                  
                                                    C
                                                  C T-
                                                  O T3
                                                 •f- ZS
                                                  in r—
                                                  in o

                                                  e "-
                                                  0)
                                                     A
                                                 r— cn
                                                  o c
                                                  c •»-
                                                  O) i-
                                                 J= 3
                                                  CL-M
                                                    O
                                                 -O "3
                                                  eu H~
                                                 r~ 3
                                                 r— C
                                                  O 
                                                  C V)
                                                  O t/>
                                                                                         •  s_
                                                                                        on  
-------
 a:: :
           13

         iS£
         §5
a|:D
                                                                                                     -;: w
                                                                                                  ^^ «a; i  oc
             -HV4-
 O
f-

 O)
 c

r—  (C
   ^->
 >,  (O
ja TJ

 w -a
i—  OJ
   s-
 -
                                                                                                                  o  s_
                                                                                                                     =5
                                                                                                                  O 4->
                                                                                                                 •i-  O
                                                                                                                 r—  CO
                                                                                                                  O H-
                                                                                                                  C  3
                                                                                                                  a>  c:
                                                                                                                 J=  (O
                                                                                                                  £X E

                                                                                                                 T3  
-------
00
z z
go
CO LU
*-«cn
                            -Vh
                                                                                            , »-* V)
                                                                                            1  i a:
                                                                                             at
                                                                                             r— CO
                                                                                              .  C£
                                                                                             o:
                                                                                        --s
                   O             f            f*>


                               13A31 NOISSIW3
zoo
>-< o; cc
_j a. a.
                                                                                                         ai
                                                                                                         c
                                                                                                         1— +•>
                                                                                                            T3
                                                                                                         CO O)
                                                                                                        r— T3
                                                                                                         O) S_
                                                                                                         > ns
                                                                                                         0) u
                                                                                                         CO C
                                                                                                         CO -i—
                                                                                                         •i — a


                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                         eu c.
                                                                                                         T3 •!-
                                                                                                         OJ CD
                                                                                                         -o c
                                                                                                         I— »T—
                                                                                                         ra S_
                                                                                                         E 3
                                                                                                         t- -4->
                                                                                                         O (J
                                                                                                        T3
                                                                                                         a>
              o
              s- co
              -i-> CO
              C rd
              O i—
              o ai
                 s_
                 OJ
               • _a
              Lf) •!-
              rH «4-
               I
              O i—
                 O

              2 i
              3
             .O)
              •i—
              u.
                                         C-19
-------
C.2.14  Visible Emission Data
     The visible emission data from the test program are summarized and
presented in Tables C-69 to C-165.
                                    ^_?
-------
TABLE C-la.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
      Sampling Location:  Wet ESP Inlet
Product:

Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, *F
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentrati on , gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Building
(English)
4
09/24/81
96
68
4.94
90.9
95.7
76.066
N/A

20.733
0.273
156.44

4.829
0.064
36.44

0.471
0.006
3.56

0.944
0.012
7.12
Insulation

5
09/24/81
96
85
4.60
88.7
94.3
71 . 674
N/A

22. 938
0.320
140.86

5.496
0. 077
.33.75

0.598
0.008
3.67

0.408
0. 006
2.51

6
09/24/81
96
86
5.18
92.7
97.0
72.968
N/A

8.448
0.116
49.42

3.972
0.054
23.27

0.419
0.006
2.46

0.330
0.005
1.93


__
__
__
4.91
90.8
95.667
73.693
__

17.373
0.236
115.57

4.766
0.065
31.15

0.496
0.007
3.23

0.561
0.008
3.85
                 C-21
-------
               TABLE C-lb.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
                     Sampling  Location:   Wet ESP  Inlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, win
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate natter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, «g/Nm3
Eaission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic conpounds
Mass collected, fag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-11 Building
(Metric)
4
09/24/81
96
68
4.94
32.7
95.7
2.154
N/A

1,345.30
623.72
78.22

313.60
' 145.29
18.22

30.60
14.18
1.78

61.30
28.40
3.56
Insulation

5
09/24/81
96
85
4.60
31.5
94.3
2.030
N/A

1,489.50
732.36
70.43

356.90
175.48
16.88

38.80
19.08
1.84

26.50
13.03
1.26

6
09/24/81
96
86
5.18
33.7
97.0
2.066
N/A

548.60
264.95
24.71

257.90
124.56
11.64

27.20
13.14
1.23

21.40
10.34
0.97

Avg.
--
--
—
4.91
32.6
95.7
2.083
--

1,128.13
540.34
57.79

309.47
148.441
15.58

32.20
15.46
1.62

36.40
17.26
1.93
M/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-22
-------
TABLE C-2a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
      Sampling Location:  Wet ESP Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Building
(English)
4
09/24/81
108
68
3.79
82. 6
96.9
46.591
10

0.573
0.012
6.68

0.188
0.004
2.19

6.120
0.003
1.40

0.043
0.001
0.50
Insulation

5
09/24/81
108
85
5.41
97.3
98.6
46.400
9

0.681
0.015
6.25

0.231
0. 005
2.12

0.249
0.005
2.29

0.039
0.001
0.35

6
09/24/81
108
86
6.15
98.0
98.9
49.085
9

0.738
0.015
6.63

0.242
0.005
2.17

0.213
0.004
1.91

0.045
0.001
0.40

Avg.
~
~
'
5.12
92.6
98.1
47. 359
~

0.664
0.014
6.52

0.220
0.005
2.16

0.194
0.004
1.87

0.042
0.004
0.42
                  C-23
-------
TABLE C-2b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
      Sampling Location:  Wet ESP Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teiaperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Urn3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg •
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-H Buildin£
(Metric)
4
09/24/81
108
68
3.79
28.1
96.9
1.319
10

37.20
28.14
3.34

12.20
9.23
1.10

7.80
5.90
0.70

2.80
2.12
0.25
Insulation

5
09/24/81
108
85
5.41
36.3
98.6
1.314
9

44.20
33.57
3.13

15.00
11.39
1.06

16.20
12.30
1.15

2.50
1.90
0.18

6
09/24/81
108
86
6.15
36.7
98.9
1.390
9

47.90
34.39
3.32

15.70
11.27
1.09

13.80
9.91
0.96

2.90
2.08
0.20

Avg.
—
—
—
5.12
33.70
98.1
1.341
--

43.10
32.03
3.26

14.30
10.63
1.08

12.60
9.37
0.94

2.73
2.03
0.21
                   C-24
-------
                 TABLE C-3a.
                         Sampl
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
ing Location:   Rotoclone
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
.Participate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level,. Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentrati on , gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Building
(English)
4
09/24/81
88
68
3.70
120.50
99.8
79.066
N/A

2.681
0.034
4.99

0.673
0.009
1.25

0.162
0.002
0.30

0.242
0.003
0.45
Insulation

5
09/24/81
88
85
4.54
121.50
100.0
75.084
N/A

2.718
0.036
4.05

0.628
0.008
0.94

0.152
0.002
0.23

0.249
0.003
0.37

6
09/24/81 •
88
86
4.42
120.50
100.9
77.446
N/A

2.293
0.038
4.23

0.742
0.010
1.08

0.143
0.002
0.21

0.231
0.003
0.34

Avg.
— .
—
—
4.22
120.83
100.2
77.199
—

2.564
0.036
4.42

0.681
0.009
1.09

' 0.152
0.002
0.25

0.241
0.003
0.39
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-25
-------
TABLE C-3b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
                            Rotoclone
Product:

Run number:
Date

Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Participate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, ag
Concentration, rag/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
i
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Enission level, kg/Mg
R-11 Building
(Metric)
4
09/24/81
OQ
OO
68
3.70
49.2
99.8
2.239
N/A

174.10
77.60
2.50

43.70
19.48
0.63

10.50
4.68
0.15

15.70
7.00
0.23
Insulation

5
09/24/81
88

85
4.54
49.7
100.0
2.126
N/A

176.50
82.84
2.03

40.80
19.15
0.47

9.90
4.65
0.12

. 16.20
7.60
0.19


6
09/24/81
88

86
4.42
49.2
100.9
2.193
N/A

189.80
86.37
2.12

48.20
21.93
0.54

9.30
4.23
0.11

15.00
6.83
0.17

	 1 Mi 	
Avg.
—
--

"
4.22
49.37
100.2
2.186


180.13
82.27
2.21

44.23
20.19
0.55

9.9
4.52
0.13
-
15.63
7.14
0.20
N/A s Not applicable.
                    C-26
-------
TABLE C-4a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
         Sampling Location:  Cooling
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Bui
(Engl
4
09/24/81
112
68
0.50
90.7
99.9
70.054
N/A

0.496
0.007
0.35

0.005
0.000
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.020
0.000
0.01
Iding Insulation
ish)
5
09/24/81
112
85
0.78
101.0
103.8
72. 904
N/A

0.360
0.005
.0.20

0.005
0. 000
0.00

0.003
0.0
0.00

0.026
0.000
0.01

6
09/24/81
112
86
0.74
105.1
102.8
70.969
N/A

0.322
0.005
0.18

0.008
0.000
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.018
0.000
0.01

Avg.
__
__
__
0.67
98.9
102.2
71.309
__

0.393
0.006
0.24
.
' 0.006
0.000
0.00

0.001
0.0
0.00

0.021
oiooo
0.01
                 C-27
-------
TABLE C-4b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
         Sampling Location:  Cooling
Product:

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, mln
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Voliwe of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Buildi
(Metric)
4
09/24/81
112
68
0.50
32.6
99.9
1.984
N/A

32.20
16.20
0.18

0.30
0.15
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

1.30
0.65
0.01
nq Insulation

5
09/24/81
112
85
0.78
38.4
103.8
2.064
N/A

23.40
11.31
0.10

0.30
0.15
0.00

0.20
0.10
0.00

1.70
0.82
0.01


6
09/24/81
112
86
0.74
40.6
102.8
2.010
N/A

20.90
10.38
0.09

0.50
0.25
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

1.20
0.60
0.01


Avg.
—
--
—
0.67
37.2
102.2
2.019
_-»

25.50
12.63
0.12

0.37
0.18
0.00

0.07
0.03
0.00

1.40
0.69
0.01
N/A = Not applicable. ,
                    C-28
-------
TABLE C-5a.  SUMMARY OF
      Sampling Location:
TEST RESULTS—LINE A
  Wet ESP Inlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °f
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-19 Buil
(Engli
i
09/22/81
144
92
5.20
93.3
94.1
109.521
N/A

14.000
0.128
52.74

1 . 622
0.015
6.11

0.453
0.004
1.71

0.534
0.005
2.01
ding Insulation
sh)
2
09/23/81
96
38
5.57
94.5 .
96.2
75.424
N/A

8. 736
0.116
50. 55

1.260
0.017
7.29

0.410
0.005
2.37

0.279
0.004
1.61

3
09/23/81
96
91
4.60
88. 9
94.4
73.006
N/A

5.285
0.072
30.31

1.010
0.014
5.79

0.297
0.004
1.70

0.143
0.002
0.82
Avg.

__
..
5.12
92.2
94.9
85.984
....

9.340
0.106
44.53

1.297
0.015
6.40

0.387
0.005
1.92

0.319
0.004
1.48

                 C-29
-------
TABLE C-5b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
      Sampling Location:  Wet ESP Inlet
Product:

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isold neti c, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
•Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formal dehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-19 Building
(Metric)
i
09/22/81
144
92
5.20
34.0
94.1
3.101
N/A

909.10
292.52
26.37

105.30
33.88
3.06

29.40
9.46
0.86

34.70
11.17
1.01
Insulation

2
09/23/81
96
88 .
5.57
34.7
96.2
2.136
N/A

567.30
265.06
25.28

81.80
38.22
3.65

26.60
12.43
1.69

18.10
8.46
0.81


3
09/23/81
96
91
4.60
31.6
94.4
2.067
N/A

343.20
165.67
15.16

65.60
31.67
2.90

19.30
9.32
0.85

9.30
4.49
0.41



--
--
— ~
5.12
33.43
94.9
2.435
"

306.80
241 . 083
22.27

84.23
' 34. 59
3.20

25.10
10.40
0.96

20.70
8.04
0.74
N/A ~ Not applicable.
                    C-30
-------
TABLE C-6a.   SUMMARY OF TEST
     Sampling Location:  Wet
RESULTS—LINE A
ESP Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-19 Buildina
(English)
i
09/22/81
144
92
5.48
96.1
96.8
61.833
10

0.930
0.015
6.00

0.308
0.005
1.99

0.188
0. 003
1.21

0.055
0.001
0.36
Insulation

2
09/23/81
108
88
4.17
85.5
98.3
43.388
10

0.853
0.020
7.56

0.179
0.004
1.58

0.151
0. 004
1.34

0.055
0.001
0.49

3
09/23/81
108
91
5.51
94.4 .
97.6
48.098
10

1.156
0.024
10.04

0.400
0.008
3.48

0.333
0.007
2.89

0.119
0.003
1.03

Avg.
__
—
_
5.05
92.0
97.6
51 . 106
—

0.980
0.020
7.87

0.296
0.006
2.35

0.224
0.005
1.81

0.076
0.002
0.63
                 C-31
-------
TABLE C-6b.  SUMMARY OF TEST
     Sampling Location:  Wet
RESULTS—LINE A
ESP Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, mirt
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack tenperture, °C
Isokinatic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Knr5
Emission level, kg/Kg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, rag/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Eaission level, kg/Mg
R-19 Building
(Metric)
i
09/22/81
144
92
5.48
35.6
96.8
1.751
10

60.40
34.42
3.00

20.00
11.40
1.00

12.20
6.95
0.61

3.60
2.05
0.18
Insulation

2
09/23/81
108
88
4.17
29.7
98.3
1.229
10

55.40
45.00
3.78

11.60
9.42
0.79

9.80
7.96
0.67

3.60
2.92
0.25

3
09/23/81
108
91
5.51
34.7
97.6
1.362
10

75.10
55.02
5.02

26,00
19.05
1.74

21.60
15.83
1.45

7.70
5.64
0.52


—
— •
•~
5.05
33.33
97.6
1.447
•••"

63.63
44.82
3.94

19.20
13.29
1.18

14'. 53
10.25
0.91

4.97
3.54
0.32
                    C-32
-------
                  TABLE  C-7a.
                           Samp]
StIMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
ing  Location:   Rotoclone
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Participate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton-
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, tb/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-19 Buil
(Engli
i*
09/22/81
66
92
3.82
121.3
73.4
49.589
N/A

1.440
0. 029
3.58

0.408
0.008
1.01

0.009
0.000
0.02

0.160
0.003
0.40
ding Insulation
sh)
2
09/22/81 .
88
88
3.23
119.9
100.8
79. 165
N/A

2.592
0.033
3.68

0.639
0.008
0.91

0.176
0.002
0.25

0.231
0.003
0.33

3
09/23/81
88
91
4.94
121.3
99.4
78.033
N/A

2.835
0.036
3.97

0.493
0.006
0.69

0.134
0.002
0.19

0.191
0.003
0.27

Avg.
__
—
__
4.09
120.6
100.1
78.599
—

2.714
0.035
3.83

0.566
0.007
0.80

0.155
0.002
0.22

0.211
0.003
0.30
*Data excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                      C-33
-------
                TABLE C-7b.   SUMMARY  OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE A
                        Sampling Location:  Rotoclone
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Voluae of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, rag/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-19 Building
(Metric)
l*
09/22/81
66
92
3.82
49.6
73.4
1.404
N/A

9.350
66.45
1.79

26.50
18.83
0.51

0.60
0.43
0.01

10.40
7.39
0.20
Insulation

2
09/22/81
88
88
3.23
48.8
100.8
2.242
N/A

168.30
74.92
1.84

41.50
18.47
0.46

11.40
5.08
0.13

15.00
6.68
0.17

3
09/23/81
88
91
4.94
49.6
99.4
2.210
N/A

184.10
83.14
1.99

32.00
14.45
0.35

8.70
3.93
0.10

.12.40 '
5.60
0.14

Avg.
—
--
--
4.09
49.2
100.1
2.220
"*"'

176.2
79.03
1.92

36.75
16.46
0.41

10.05
4.51
0.12

13.70
6.14
0.16
*Data excluded from average.
 N/A - Not applicable
                                     C-34
-------
                 TABLE C-8a.  SUMMARY OF TEST
                          Sampling  Location:
RESULTS—LINE A
Cool ing
Product:
Run number: .
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, % "
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-19 Building
(English)
i
09/22/81
140
92
0.84
102.5
101.2
84. 171
N/A

0.445
0.005
0.18

0.119
0.001
0.05

0.005
0.00
0.00

0.046
0.001
0.02
Insulation

2
09/23/81
112
88
0.71
96.7
101.0 .
67.738
N/A

0.437
0.007
0.24

0.006
0.000
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.026
0.000
0.01

3
09/23/81
112
91
0.69
102.3
102.3
66.264
N/A

0.263
0.004
0.14

0.006
0.000
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.028
0.000
0.01

Avg.
-_
~
—
0.75
100.5
101.5
72. 724
--

0.382
0.005
0. 19

0.044
0.000
0.02

0.002
0.000
0.0

0.033
0.000
0.01
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-35
-------
               TABLE C-8b.  SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
                        Sampling  Location:   Cooling
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinttic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate Hatter
Mass collected, nig
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenol ic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Eaission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, «j/Nffl3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-19 Bui1ding_
(Metric)
i
09/22/81
140
92
0.84
39.2
101.2
2.383
N/A

28.90
12.10
0.09

7.70
3.22
0.03

0.30
0.13
0.00

3.00
1.26
0.01
Insulation

2
09/23/81
112
88
0.71
36.0
101.0
1.918
N/A

28.40
14.78
0.12

0.40
0.21
0.00

0.0
0.0
0,0

1.70
0.88
0.01

. 3
09/23/81
112
91
0.69
39.0
102.3
1.876
N/A

17.10
9.09
0.07

0.40
0.21
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

1.80
0.96
0.01

Avg.
—
—
— **•
0.75
38.07
101.5
2.059
--

24.80
11.99
0.09

2.83
1.21
0.01

0.10
0.04
0.0
-r
2.17
1.03
0.01
N/A « Not applicable.
                                   C-36
-------
                TABLE C-9a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
                      Sampling  Location:   Wet ESP  Inlet
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Participate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formal dehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton

1Z
10/17/81
144
86
5.20
91.8
103.0
110.109
N/A

15.951
0.145
47.37

4.991
0.045
14.82

1.874
8.017
5.57

•0.963
0.009
2.86
(English)
22
10/18/81
144
94
5.12
91.0
94.6
105.007
N/A

27.959
0.266
82.99

8.215
0.078
24.39

3.309
0.032
9.82

0.845
0.008
2.51

32
10/18/81
144
' 94
5.31
90.8
96,1
106.145
N/A

29.513
0.278
85.74

8.296
0.078
24.14

2.082
0.020
6.06

2.033
0.019
5.91

4Z
10/19/81
144
97
5.32
89.1
97.2
104.975
N/A

26.120
0.249
73.15

7.809
0.074
21.87

3.313
0.032
9.28

1.109
0.011
3.11

Avg.
—
--
—
5.24
90.7
97.7
106.559
—

24.886
0.235
72.31

7.328
0.069
21.31

2.645
0.025
7.68

1.238
0.012
3.60
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-37
-------
                TABLE C-9b.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
                      Sampling  Location:   Wet ESP  Inlet
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nnr3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, ing
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rog/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg

1Z
10/17/81
144
86
5.20
33.2
103.0
3.118
N/A

1,035.80
331.51
23.69

324.10
103.73
7.41

121.70
38.95
2.79

62.50
20.00
1.43
(Metric)
21
10/18/81
144
94
5.12
32.8
94.6
2.973
N/A

1,815.50
609. 28
41 . 50

533.50
179.04
12.20

214.90
72.12
4.91

54.90
18.43
1.26

3Z
10/18/81
144
94
5.31
32.6
96.1
3.006
N/A

1,916.40
636.26
42.87

538. 70
178.85
12.07

135.20
44.89
3.03

132.00
43.83
1.96

4Z
10/19/81
144
97
5.32
31.7
97.2
2.972
N/A

1,696.10
569.39
36.58

507.10
170.24
10.94

215.10
72.21
4.54

72.00
24.17
1.56

Avg.
~
--
—
5.24
32.6
97.7
3.017
..

1,615.95
536.61
36.16

475.85
157.97
10.66

171.73
57.04
3.84

80.35
26.61
1.55
N/A ~ Not applicable.
                                    C-38
-------
                TABLE C-lOa.   SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS—LINE
                      Sampling Location:   Wet ESP Outlet
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
'Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton

1Z*
10/17/81
144
86
4.89
93.4
112.9
77.541
24.0

2.033
0.026
9.16

1.335
0.017
6.02

0.715
0.009
3.22

0.163
0.002
0.74
(English)
2Z
10/18/81
144
94
3.98
92.1
103.9
78.874
17.0

2.047
0.026
9.20

1.753
0.022
7.88

0.758
0.010
3.41

-. 0. 095
0.001
0.43

3Z
10/18/81
144
94
4.69
91.4
105.4
74.124
13.0

2.218
0.030
9.78

2.181
0.029
9.62

0.890
0.012
3.93

0.139
0.002 '
0.61

4Z
10/19/81
144
97
4.16
87.5
102.5
74. 587
15.0

2.281
0.031
10.08

1.589
0.021
7.03

0.859
0.012
3.80

0.094
0.001
0.42

Avg.
—
—
—
4.28
90.3
103.9
75.862
~

2.182
0,029
9.69

1.841
0.024
8.18

0.836
0.011
3.71

0.109
0.001
0.49
*Data excluded from average.
                                   C-39
-------
TABLE C-IOb.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
      Sampling Location:  Wet ESP Outlet
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, utg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, «g/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg

1Z*
10/17/81
144
86
4.89
34.1
112.9
2.196
24.0

132.00
59.99
4.58

86.70
39.40
3.01

46.40
21.09
1.61

10.60
4.82
0.37
(Metric)
2Z
10/18/81
144
94
3.98
33.4
103.9
2.233
17.0

132.90
59.38
4.60

113.80
50.85
3.94

49.20
21 . 98
1.71

6.20
2.77
0.22

32
10/18/81
144
94
4.69
33.0
105.4
2.099
13.0

144.00
68.46
4.89

141.60
67.32
4.81

57.80
27.48
1.97

9.00
4.28
0.31

42 '
10/19/81
144
97
4.16
30.8
102.5
2.112
15.0

148.10
69.97
5.04

103.20
48.76
3.52

55.80
26.36
1.90

6.10
2.88
0.21

Avg.
~
—
—
4.28
32.4
103.9
2.148
—

141.67
65.94
4.84

119.53
55.64
4.09

54.27
25.27
1.86

7.10
3.31
0.25
"Data excluded from average.
                   C-40
-------
                TABLE C-lla.  SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS"LINE A
                        Sampling  Location:   Rotoclone
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formal dehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton

1Z
10/17/81
132
86
5.04
122.7
95.9
108.756
N/A

7.469
0.069
6.33

1.947
0.018
1.65

0.453
0.004
0.38

0.547
0.005
0.46
(English)
22
10/18/81
132
94
4.39
118.0
100.4
111.267
N/A

3.896
0.035
2.90

2.230
0.020
1.66

0.622
0.006
0.46

0.294
0.003
0.22

32
10/18/81
132
94
4.83
115.7
99.8
109.288
N/A

4.367
0.040
3.25

2.784
0.026
2.07

0.611
0.006
0.46

0.162
0.002
0.12

4Z
10/19/81
132
97
3.94
116.9
97.2
112.175
N/A

5.080
0.045
3.78

2.338
0.021
1.74

0.841
0.008
0.63

0.069
0.001
Q.05

Avg.
—
~
—
4.55
118.3
98.3
110.372
—

5.203
0.047
4.07

2.325
0.021
• 1.78

0.632
0.006
9 148

0.268
0.003
0.21
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-41
-------
                TABLE C-llb.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE
                        Sampling Location:  Rotoclone
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate natter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nni3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, nig/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, ag
Concentration, »g/Nra3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, eg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg

U
10/17/81
132
86
5.04
50.4
95.9
3.080
N/A

485.00
157.16
3.17

126.40
40.96
0.83

29.40
9.53
0.19

35.50
11.50
0.23
(Metric)
2Z
10/18/81
132
94
4.39
47.8
100.4
3.151
N/A

253.00
80.13
1.45

144.80
45.86
0.83

40.40
12.80
0.23

19.10
6.05
0.11

3Z
10/18/81
132
94
4.83
46.5
99.8
3.095
N/A

283.60
91.45
1.63

180.80
58.30
1.04

39.70
12.80
0.23

10.50
3.39
0.06

4Z
10/19/81
132
97
3.94
47.2
97.2
3.176
N/A

329.90
103.64
1.89

151.80
47.69
0.87

54.60
17.15
0.32

4.50
1.41
0.03

Avg.
—
--
—
4.55
4.80
98.3
3.126
—

337.88
108.10
2.04

150.95
48.20
0.89

41.03
13.07
0.24

17.40
5.59
0.11
N/A s Not applicable.
                                    C-42
-------
TABLE C-12a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE A
         Sampling Location:  Cool ing
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton

1Z
10/17/81
140
86
0.70
87.0
99.2
65.347
N/A

0.402
0.006
0.14

0.012
0.000
0.00

0.002
0.000
0.00

0.040
0.001
0.01
(English)
21
10/18/81
140
94
0.59
99.8
101.0
59.262
N/A

0.537
0.009
0.16

0.014
0.000
0.00

0.003
0.000
0.00

0.039
0.001
0.01

3Z
10/18/81
140
94
0.71
100.9
107.6
61.103
N/A

0.678
0.011
0.19

0.014
0.000
0.00

0.002
0.000
0.00

0.049
0.001
0.01

4Z
10/19/81
140
97
1.01
80.8
101.0
68.151
N/A

0.513
0.008
0.15

0.012
0.000
0.00

0.003
0.000
0.00

0.039
0.001
0.01

Avg.
—
—
—
0.75
92.13
102.2
63.46
—

0.533
0.009
0.16

0.013
0.000
0.00

0.003
0.000
0.00

0.042
0.001
0.01
N/A = Not applicable.
                  C-43
-------
                 TABLE C-12b.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE A
                           Sampling Location:  Cooling
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, m1n
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nat3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, sg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, ag
Concentration, tag/Niti3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ag/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg

1Z
10/17/81
140
86
0.70
30.5
99.2
1.850
N/A

26.10
14.08
0.07

0.80
0.43
0.00

0.10
0.05
0.00

2.60
1.40
0.01
(Metric)
22
10/18/81
140
94
0.59
37.7
101.0
1.678
N/A

34.90
20.75
0.08

0.90
0.54
0.00

0.20
0.12
0.00

2.50
1.49
0.01

3Z
10/18/81
140
94
0.71
38.3
107.6
1.730
N/A

44.00
25.38
0.10

0.90
0.52
0.00

0.10
0.06
0.00

3.20
1.85
0.01

4Z
10/19/81
140
97
1.01
27.1
101.0
1.930
N/A

33.30
17.22
0.08

0.80
0.41
0.00

0.20
0.10
0.00

2.50
1.29
0.01

Avg.
~
--
—
0.75
33.4
102.2
1.797
—

34.58
19.36
0.08

0.85
0.48
0.00

0.15
0.08
0.00

2.70
1.51
0.01
N/A « Not applicable.
                                    C-44
-------
                TABLE  C-13a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE B
                   Sampling Location:  Incinerator-Curing
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
IsokinetiCi %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, 
-------
                 TABLE  C-13b.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE B
                    Sampling Location:   Incinerator-Curing
Product: Heavy Density Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, sig/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1*
12/09/81
144
90
8.63
643.6
99.3
3.138
N/A

480.80
152.92
0.61

6.30
2.00
0.01

1.60
0.51
0.00

50.40
16.03
0.07
2
12/10/81
144
90
8.00
641 . 1
98.0
3.306
N/A

. 121.00
36.52
0.16

2.10
0.63
0.01

.1.10
0.33
0.00

14.60
4.41
0.02
3
12/11/81
144
89
8.22
644.0
99.7
3.256
N/A

33.20
10.17
0.05

0.30
0.09
0.00

0.30
0.09
0.00

3.90
1.20
0.00
4
12/11/81
144
89
8.35
643.7
99.1
1259
N/A

29.90
9.16
0.04

0.30
0.09
0.00

0.50
0.15
0.00

3.50
1.07
0.01
Avg.
—
—
—
8.19
642.9
98.9
3.274
--

61.37
18.62
0.08

0.90
0.27
0.00

0.63
0.19
0.00

7.33
2.23
0.01
"Data excluded from average.
 H/A ~ Not applicable.
                                     C-46
-------
                TABLE C-14a.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE B
                     Sampling Location:  Forming Duct A
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Heavy Density
(English)
l
Insulation

2
12/09/81 12/10/81
144
90
7.58
107.3
99.9
63.083
N/A

9.651
0.153
5.85

1.092
0.017
0.66

0.899
0.014
0.55

0.573
0.009
0.35
144
90
7.60
104.9
101.0
58.294
N/A

9.331
0.160
5.63

1.218
0.021
0.74

0.647
0.011
0.39

0.858
0.015
0.52

3
12/11/81
144
89
7.92
106.3
101.4
59.846
N/A

6.349
0.106
3.83

0.809
0.014
0.49

0.305
0.005
0.18

0.250
0.004
0.15

Avg.
~
__
—
7.70
106.2
100.8
60.408


8.225
0.140
5.10

1.013
0.017
0.63

0.601
0.010
0.37

0.546
0.009
0.34
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-47
-------
                TABLE C-14b.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE B
                     Sampling  Location:   Forming Duct  A
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, win
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temparture, °C
Isokir.etic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nra3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Kg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, wg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, «g
Concentration, ag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Heavy Density
(Metric)
i
12/09/81
144
90
7.58
41.8
99.9
1.786
N/A

626.70
350.10
2.93

70.90
39.61
0.33

58.40
32.62
0.28

37.20
20.78
0.18
Insulation

2
12/10/81
144
90
7.60
40.5
101.0
1.651
N/A

605.90
366.29
2.82

79.10
47.82
, 0.35

42.00
25.39
0.20

55.70
33.67
0.26

3
12/11/81
144
89
7.92
41.3
101.4
1.685
N/A

412.30
242.79
1.92

52.50
30.92
0.25

19.80
11.66
0.09

16.20
9.54
0.08

Avg.
—
—
—
7.70
41.2
100.8
1.711
~

548. 30
319.72
2.56

67.50
39.45
0.32

40.07
23.23
0.19

36.37
21.33
0.17
N/A s Not applicable.
                                    C-48
-------
                TABLE  C-15a.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE B
                     Sampling Location:  Forming Duct B
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. ' stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr,
" Concentrati on , gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Heavy Density
(English)
i
12/09/81
144
'90
7.92 - ;
106.7
106.7
59.461
N/A

2.419
0.041
1.49

0.767
0.013
0.47

0.627
0.011
0.39

0.219
0.004
0.14
Insulation

2
12/10/81
144
90
7.57
106.8
107.5
66.120
N/A

2. 747
0.042
1.69

0.790
0.012
0.49

0.431
0.007
0.27

0.234
0.004
0.14

3
12/11/81
144
89
7.86
110.8
108.2
65.246
N/A

2.784
0.043
1.71

0.667
0.010
0.41

0.367
0.006
0.23

0.183
0.003
o.n

Avg.
~
—
—
7.78
108.1
107.5
63.609
~

2.582
0.042
1.63

0.722
0.012
0.46

0.463
0.008
0. 30

0.207
0.003
0.13
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-49
-------
TABLE C-15b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE B
     Sampling Location:  Forming Duct B
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling tine, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, X
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, aig/Nia3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Mm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, »g/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, Btg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Heavy Density
(Metric)
i
Insulation

2
12/09/81 12/10/81
144
90
7.92
41.5
106.7
1.684
N/A

157.10
93.11
0.75

49.80
29.52
0.24

40.70
24.12
0.20

14.20
8.42
0.07
144
90
7.57
41.5
107.5
1.872
N/A

178.40
95.08
0.85

51.30
27.34
0.25

28.00
14.92
0.14

15.20
8.11
0.07

3
12/11/81
144
89
7.86
43.8
108.2
1.848
N/A

180.80
97.65
0.86

43.30
23.39
0.21

23.80 •
12.89
• 0.12

11.90
6.43
0.06

Avg.
--
—
--
7.78
42.3
107.5
1.801
--

172.10
95.28
0.80

48.13
26.75
0.23

30.83
17.31
0.15

13.77
7.65
0.07
N/A » Hot applicable.
                   C-50
-------
                TABLE C-16a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE B
                     Sampling  Location:   Forming Duct  C
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Heavy Density
(English)
i
Insulation

2
12/09/81 12/10/81
144
90
5.55
96.7
106.4
44.874
N/A

6.134
0.137
7.32

0.684
0.015
0.82

0.399
.0.009
0.48

0.336
0.008
0.40
144
90
6.12
97.8
102.0
42.475
N/A

3.500
0.082
4.38

0.465
.0.011
. 0.58

0.265
0.006
0.33

0.373
0.009
0.47

3
12/11/81
144 .
89
5.38
93.6
101.2
42. 277
N/A

3.556
0.084
4.51

0.453
0.012
0.57

0.228
0.005
0.29

0.209
0.005
0.27

Avg.
—
--
-
5.68
96.0
103.2
43.209
—

4.283
0.101
5.40

0.520
0.012
0.66

0.290
0.007
0.37

0.298
0.007
0.38
N/A = Not applicable.
                                    C-51
-------
TABLE C-16b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS--LINE B
     Sampling Location:  Forming Duct C
Product:

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, nin
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate natter
Mass collected, nig
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, »g/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Heavy Density
(Metric)
i
Insulation

2
12/09/81 12/10/81
144
90
5.55
35.9
106.4
1.271
N/A

398.30
312.79
3.66

44.40
34.87
0.41

25.90
20.34
0.24

21.80
17.12 '
0.20
144
90
6.12
36.5
102.0
1.203
N/A

227.30
188.59
2.19

30.20
25.06
0.29

17.20
14.27
0.17

24.20
20.08
0.24


3
12/11/81
144
89
5.38
34.2
101.2
1.197
N/A

230.90
192.47
2.26

29.40
24.51
0.29

14.80
12.34
0.15

13.60
11.34
0.14


Avg.
—
, __
—
5.68
35.5
103.2
1.224
--

285.5
231.28
2.70

34.67
28.144
0.33

19.30
12.32
0.19

19.87
16.18
0.19
N/A « Not applicable.
                   C-52
-------
TABLE C-17a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE B
     Sampling Location:  Mixing Chamber
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, nrin
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, % •• •
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentrati on , gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde ,
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Heavy Density
(English)
i
12/09/81
147
90
7.53
262.6
107.4
80.255
5

2.156
0.027
4.12

0.581
0.007
1.11

0.494
0.006
0.94

'0.334
0.004
0.64
Insulation

2
12/10/81
147 .
90
7.19
262.1
105.2
80. 050
5

2.091
0.026
4.11

0.370
0.005
0.73

0.353
0.004
0.69

0.388
0.005
0.76

3
12/11/81
147
89
6.90
265.6
102.9
77.730
5

1.885
0.024
3.80

0.501
0.006
1.01

0.245
0, 003
0.49

0.251
0.003
0.51

Avg.
"
~
--
7.21
263.4
105.2
79.345
~

1 . 991
0.026
4.01

0. 471
0.006
0.95

0.355
0.005
0.69

0.316
0.004
0.64
                   C-53
-------
TABLE C-17b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE B
     Sampling Location:  Mixing Chamber
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetlc, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nra3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate aatter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, mg/Noi3
Esission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, rag/Mm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Heavy Density
(Metric)
i
12/09/81
147
90
7.53
128.1
107.4 .
2.272
. 5

140.00
61.48
2.06

37. 70
16.55
0.56

32.10
14.10
0.47

21 . 70
9.53
0.32
Insulation .

2
02/10/81
147
90
7.19
127.8
. 105.2
2. 267
5

135 .'80
59.78
2.06

24. 00
10.57
0.37

22.90
10.08
0.35

25.20
11.09
0.38

3
12/11/81
147
89
6.90
129.8
102.9
2.201
5

122.40
55.49 :
_1.90

32.50
14.74
0.51

15.90
7.21
0.25

16.30
7.39
0.26

Avg;
—
—
—
7.21
128.6-
105.2
2.247
--

132.73
58. 92
2.01

31.40
13.95
0.48

23.63
10.46
0.35

21.07
9.34
0.32
                   C-54
-------
TABLE C-l8a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE C
      Sampling Location:  Wet ESP Inlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
R-ll Building Insulation
(English)
1 . Avg.
08/26/81
150
90
7.72
103.0
105.0
63.445
N/A

71 . 598
1 . 1 30
174.00

12.460
0.196
30.28

1 . 380
0.022 '
3.35

4.477
0.071
10.80
N/A = Not applicable.
                      C-55
-------
                    TABLE  C-18b.    SUMMARY  OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE C
                            Sampling Location:   Wet  ESP  Inlet
                          Product:   R-ll Bui 1ding Ircsulation
                                           (Metric)
Run number:
                                                                          1
                   Avg.
Date
Sampling time, min
tsiass pull  rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack  temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate natter
  Mass collected, rag
  Concentration, mg/Nra3
  Emission  level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
  Mass collected, rag
  Concentration, mg/Nm3
  Emission  level, kg/Mg
Phenol
  Mass collected, mg
  Concentration, mg/Nm3
  Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
  Mass collected, ng
  Concentration, mg/Nm3
  Emission level, kg/Mg
08/26/81
     150
      90
    7.72
    39.4
   105.0
   1.796
     N/A
4,649.20
2,582.42
   87.00
  809.10
  449.42
   15.14
   89.60
   •49.77
    1.68

   290.70
   161.47
    5.40
 N/A'» Not appTi cab 1 eT
                                              C-56
-------
                TABLE C-19a.  SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE  C
                       Sampling  Location:  Wet  ESP Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Building Insulation
(English)
i*
08/26/81
. '•"" ' 160
90
6.11
110.5
100.6
107.052
N/A

2.871
0.027
5.16

1.328
0.012
2.38

0.748
0.007
1.34

0.320
0.003
0.58

Avg.
—
•
—

. —
.
—
~

—
—
—

—
— -
—

~
—
--

--
—
"*""
*0ata excluded.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                      C-57
-------
                TABLE C-19b.  SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE  C
                       Sampling  Location:  Wet  ESP Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teraperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average,' %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Building Insulation
(Metric)
1* Avg.
08/26/81
160
90
6.11
43.6
100.6
3.031
N/A

186.40
61.361
2. 58

86.20 , —
28.376
1.19

48. 60
15.999
0.67

20.80
6.847 . ~
0.29
"Data excluded.
 N/A « Not applicable.
                                      C-58
-------
                TABLE  C-20a.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE C
                        Sampling Location:   HVAF Inlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Participate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentrati on , gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-11 Bui
(Engl
i ,
08/26/81
160
90
5.69
94.4
98.0
49.816
N/A

5.202
0.104
4.96

0.818
0.016
0.78

0.367
0.007
0.35

0.271
0.005
0.26
Iding Insulation
ish)
2
08/27/81
160
93
6.05
96.3
97.4
44.472
N/A

7.928
0.178
7.36

0.824
0.019
0.77

0.420
0.010
0.39

0.357
0.008
0.33

3
08/27/81
160
93
8.30
95.3
100.3
461.191
N/A

6.396
0.138
5.77

0.958
0.021
0.86

0.339
0.007
0.31

0.353
0.008
0.32

Avg.
—
'
—
6.68
95.3
98.6
46.826
—

6.509
0.140
6.03

0.867
0.019
0.80

0.375
0.008
0.35

0.327
0.007
0.30
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-59
-------
TABLE C-20b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE C
       Sampling Location:  HVAF Inlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volune
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volune of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate natter
Mass collected, rng
Concentration, ng/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, stg
Concentration, mg/Nffl3
Eaission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Building
(Metric)
i
08/26/81
160
90
5.69
34.7
98.0
1.411
N/A

337.80
238. 97
2.48

53.10
37.56
0.39

23.80
. 16.84
0.18

17.60
12.45
0.13
Insulation

2
08/27/81
160
93
6.05
35.7
97.4
1.259
N/A

514.80
407.94
3:68

53.50
42.39
0.39

27.30
21.63
0.20

23.20
18.38
0.17

3
08/27/81
160
93
8.30
35.2
100.3
1.308
N/A

415.30
316.84
2.89

62.20
47.45
0.43

22.00
16.78
0.16

22.90
17.47
0.16

Avg.
—
—
—
6.68
35.2
98.6
1.326
—

422.63
321.25
3.02

56.27
42.47
0.40

24.37
18.42
0.18

21.23
16.10
0.15
N/A = Not applicable.
                   C-60
-------
                TABLE C-21a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE C
                       Sampling  Location:   HVAF Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Bui
(Engl
i
08/26/81
144
90
5.37
125.3
101.0
68.312
N/A

1.756
0.026
1.25

0.491
0.007
0.35

0.399 -
0.006
0.29

0.194
0.003
0.14
Iding Insulation
ish)
2
08/27/81
••''""• 144
93
6.39
128.9
103.8
67.556
N/A

1.637
0.024
1.10

0.508
0.008
0.34

0.419
0.006
0.28

0.209
0.003
0,14

3
08/27/81
144
93
6.55
129.3
103.0
66.778
N/A

1.532
0.023
1 . 04

0.516
0.008
0.35

0.430
0.006
0.29

0.202
0.003
0.14

Avg.
"
'
--
6.10
127.8
102.6
67.549
—

1.642
0.024
1.13

0.505
0.008
0.35

0.416
0.006
0.29

0.202
0.003
0.14
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-61
-------
TABLE C-21b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE C
       Sampling Location:  HVAF Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teraperture, °C
Iso kinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Ntn3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate Batter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Urn3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, wg/Hra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nin3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-11 Building
(Metric)
7
08/26/81
144
90
5.37
51.8
101.0
1.934
N/A

114.00
58.81
0.63

31.90
16.46
0.18

25.90 '
13.36
0.15

12.60
6.50
0.07
Insulation

2
08/27/71
144
93
6.39
53.8
103.8
1.913
N/A

106.30
55.45
0.55

33.00
17.21
0.17

27.20
14.19
0.14

13.60
7.09
0.07

3
08/27/81
144
93
6.55
54.1
103.0
1.891
N/A

99.50
52.51
0.52

33.50
17.68
0.18

27.90
14.72
0.15

13.10
6.91
0.07

Avg.
~
--
—
6.10
53.2
102.6
1.913
--

106.60
55.59
0.57

32.80
17.12
0.18

27.00
14.09
0.15

13.10
6.84
0.07
N/A * Not applicable.
                   C-62
-------
                TABLE C-22a.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE C
                          Sampling Location:  Cooling
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Bui
(Engl
i
08/26/81
160
90
1.52
219.7
96.1
93.212
N/A

1.676
0.018
0.14

0.211 .
0.002
0.02

0.082
0.001
0.01

0.162
0.002
0.01
Iding Insulation
ish)
2
08/27/81
160
93
2.10
231 . 2
101.6
90.844
N/A

1.756
0.019
0.13

0.185
0.002
0.01

0.077
0.001
0.01

0.253
0.003
0.02

3
08/27/81
160
93
1.67 '
235.1
98.8
103.256
N/A

1 . 797
0.017
0.14

0.171
0.002
0.01

0.045
0.000
0.00

0.239
0.002
0.02

Avg.
—
—
--
' 1.76
228.7
98.8
95.771
—

1.743
0.018
0.14

0.19
, 0.002
0.01

0.068
0.001
0.01

0.218
0.002
0.02
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-63
-------
TABLE C-22b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE C
         Sampling Location:  Cooling
Product:

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formal dthyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
R-ll Buildi
(Metric)
i
08/26/81
160
90
1.52
104.3
96.1
2.639
N/A

108.80
41.13
0.07

13.70
5.18
0.01

5.30
2.00
0.01 ,

10.50
3.97
0.01
ng Insulation

2 .
08/27/81
160
93
2.10
110.7
101.6
2.572
N/A

114.50
44.42
0.07

12.00
4.66
0.01

5.00
1.94
0.01

16.40
6.36
o.oi ;


•3
08/27/81
160
93
1.67
112.8
98.8
2.924
N/A

116.70
39.83
0.07

11.10
3.79
0.01

2.90
0.99
0.00

15.50
5.29
0.01


Avg.
—
--
--
1.76
109.27
98.8
2.712
--

113.33
41.79
0'.07

12.27
4.54
0.01

4.40
1.64
0.01

14.13
5.21
0.01
N/A s Not applicable.
                   C-64
-------
                TABLE  C-23a.   SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS—LINE  C
                          Sampling Location:   Asphalt
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton .
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-11 Bui
(Engl
i
08/26/81
160
90
1.62
101.6
99.7
90.209
N/A

0.953
0.011
0.05

0.009
0.000
0.00

0.083
0.001
0.00

0.002
0.000
0.00
Idincj Insulation
ish)
2
08/27/81
160
93
2.30
92.8
100.4
85.668
N/A

1.178
0.014
0.06

0.012
0.000
0.00

o'.179
0.002
0.01

0.002
0.000
0.00

3
08/27/81
160
93
0.0
98.6
100.0
86.999
N/A

1.016
0.012
0.05

0.011
0.000
0.00

0.069
0.001
0.00

0.002
0.000
0.00
-
Avg.
. ••__"
—
~
1.31
97.67
100.03
87.625
—

1.049
0..012
o;o5

0.011
' 0.000
0. 00

o.no
0.001
• o.oo

0.002
0.000
0.00
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-65
-------
TABLE C-23b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE C
         Sampling Location:  Asphalt
Product:

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Formaldehyde
Hass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
R-ll Building
(Metric)
i
08/26/81
160
90
1.62
38.7
99.7
2.554
N/A

61.90
24.18
0.03

0.06
0.23
0.00

5.40
2.11
0.00

• o.io
0.04
0.00
Insulation

2
08/27/81
160
93
2.30
33.8
100.4
2.426
N/A

76.50
31.47
0.03

0.80
0.33
0.00

11.60
4.77
0.01

0.10
0.04
0.00


3
08/27/81
160
93
0.0
37.0
100.0
2.463
N/A

66.00
26.73
0.03

0.70
0.28
0.00

4.50
1.82
0.00

0.10
0.04
0.00

t
Avg.
—
--
— -
1.31
36.5
100.0
2.481
-~

68.13
27.46
0.03

0.70
0.28
0.00

7.17
2.90
0.00

0.10
0.04
0.00
N/A - Not applicable.
                   C-66
-------





c
o
1 • •
u
H- 3
to T3
LU O /-N
h- J- -C
Q- in
1 1 *i«*
1_L* T™
O r-
Ol
>- C
fV ' 1 i 1
IE o> ^
!"£
ZD C
CO I—*
a.
ro LU
? «
•*
LU
1 t m
CO C




CO
VD





«
1 ,
ea jQ
i-
*3  (A
(0 •!-
O E
en
^D
PO
en






r»»
p^





6J
g



CM
in






LO



in
HI




CO

*z
tn o
tn
tn «—
O
r— «O-
o en
oj ro
2 « '
CO





in co
U3 S
2 o
r-




f^. ID
1-^ CO
2 «
O


eg *—
. r^-
I 2
o





r, s
rt en
c*>



en o
r*«.
ID f^*
2 03
PO



O U3
O
CO CO
2 «
^~


M—
U
IA
•a
T-j"
(1)
tn
* s
en
£ *.
w o
O)
.S 1
j«: 3
S 0
>-i >
:
»
CM «r m
. PO
*— o •—






tn co o
 CM
«r o —





CO CO P*-
en f-
CM O i—
»"


. ^ cvj
^ 0 r-
f—





^c r*. r*.
«* cs ^



o »— <•
. CM
f—



r-^. '—
rn o •—




4- C
u o
V) •*•>
T3 "^
i. -*s. J3
O» t. f-
s- en
articulate matte
Mass collected,
Concentration,
Emission level,
a.
O CM r-
«3 PO , i—
o •
PO • PO
O
CM CO *—
r*. PO co
r— O •
. . m
m o






r-. co co
§CM P^
0
. CM
CO 0





in o in
o rn oo
CO O
. CM
fO 0



m CM en
CM ro en
•ff O
. CM
m o






en co HI
to o •
• • CM
PO O



en «*• r-»
r*. o
, . PO
•er o




PO VD CM
° ° ^
^r o




M- C
u o
V) W
•a -^
jQ ^. .£
trt Ol
henolic compounc
Mass collected,
Concentration,
Emission level ,
Q.
cn o f '
*~. 0 ^ '
o
<• eg *r
o o






r— cn o
CM o en
o o
- 0 °





i— cn co
CM o co
°s =



tn cn CT
5 8 5
f~ O






«r en —
515



CM v cn
to — ^~
cn o
^: o *~'




10 CM PO
CM f— CM
**" ° r^
^ o ^




4- C
u o
tn +J
•a ^^
t- •v. Ji
01 &, -
'henol
Mass collected,
Concentration,
Emission level.

«c cn r-.
~ z <°.
CM • f—
O
tO CM O
r^* o
. CM
— 0






r- .— CO
-- o
CM O





uD O"» CQ
V£J »— PN-
0 O
CM O ^"



•— ' cn •«»•
25°!
CM C5






P^ r— P-
i— 0
CM O



CM cn co
r— i— CTl
U3 O
CM C3




^^ cn o
r— i — cn
CM O
CM O




4~ C
0 O
U) 4-1
TJ \
-feS
:ori»aldehyde
Mass collected
Concentration,
Emission level

                                     §••
C-67
-------
       :=  S
                         .—  CM  *—
                                                                 Sm  f-
                                                                   o  ID
                           U3  J^  r-
             tn
             CM
                                             CM  CO  O
                                i1
     *»    -O
0)    -*J    Gl
                            •o    « *—
                                                                              •O  Q.
                                                                              a;  a.
                                                  g  'S
                                                           I
             C-68
-------
                 TABLE C-25a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE D
                           Sampling  Location:   Forming
Product: R-11 Building Insulation
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F .
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1*
04/13/81
72
106
15.05
124.9
112.7
33.887
N/A

6.617
0.195
10.50

1.782
0.053
2.83

0.534
0.016
0.85

0.959
0. 028
1.52
2*
04/13/81
68
106
15.68
125.9
106.6
55.073
N/A

10.845
0.197
10.24

3.297
0.060
3.11

1.120
0.020
1.06

1.716
0.031
1.62
3
04/13/81
72
106
15.75
127.1
102.2
55.941
N/A

10.948
0.196
10.18

3.428
0.061
3.19

0.999
0.018
0.93

1.745
0.031
1.62
4
04/13/81
72
106
14.29
'124.5
99.7
55. 024
N/A

9.563
0.174
9.12

2.897
0.053
2.76

1.053
0.019
1.00

1.671
0.030
1.59
Avg.
—
• ,
—
15.02
125.8
. 101.0
55.483
— r

10.256
0.185
9.65

3.163
0.057
2.98

1 . 026
0.019
0:97

1.708
0.031
• 1.61
*Data excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                     C-69
-------
                 TABLE C-25b.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE D
                           Sampling  Location:   Forming
Product:
R-ll Building Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teapertura, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nra3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate Batter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nui3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rog/N«3
Emission. level, kg/Hg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level , kg/Mg
l*
04/13/81
72
106
15.05
51.6
112.7
0.960
N/A

429.70
446.86
5.25

115.70
120.32
1.42

. 34.70
36.09
0.43

62.30
64.79
0.76
2*
04/13/81
68
106
15.68
52.1
106.6
1.559
N/A

704. 20
450.61
5.12

214.10
137.00
1.56

72.70
46.52
0.53

111.40
71.28
0.81
3
04/13/81
72
106
15.75
52.8
102.2
1.584
N/A

710.90
447.84
5.09

222. 60
140.23
1.60

64.90
40.88
0.47

113.30
71.37
0.81
4
04/13/81
72
106
14.29
51.4
99.7
1.558
N/A

621 . 00
397.73
4.56-

-188.10
120.47
1.38

68.40
43.81
'0.50

108.50
69.49
0.80
. Avg.
~
—
--
15.02
52.1
101.0
1.571
—

665.95
422. 79
4.83

205.35
130.35
1.49

66.65
42.35
0.49

110.90
70.43
0.81
*0ata excluded from average.
 N/A s Not applicable.
                                     C-70
-------
                                                                                        o  o  o
                                                                                                           o   o  o
                                                                                                                             o  o  o
                                      si    i    I   2
                                                                                                           o   o

                                                                                                           O   0
     o
    •r~

     03
     in
     c
     OJ
     c
Q T3
                                      •—m
                                      ro    in
                               o  r*
                               s  s
                                                                                        O  O  O'
o  o  o

o  o  o
000

odd
                                                 •—   —   «:.
                                       S
                                       d
                                                                                                           o  o  o
                                                                                                                             o  o  o

                                                                                                                             odd
                                      ~    S   S   ^
                                      m    in   »—   r—
                                                                      o  *r  ID
                                                                                        o  o  o

                                                                                       o   o   o

                                                                                       odd
                                                                                        o  o  o
                                                                          o

                                                                          O
                                                                                                           o  o  o
                                                                                                                             o  o  o
                                                                                        o  o  o
                                                                                                           o  o  o

                                                                                                           odd
                                                                                                                             o  o  o
                                                      ^   -x,
                                                      CM   Z
                                                                      s  2
                                                                                        o  o  o
                                                                                                           in  o  o
                                                                                                                             o  o  o
    nj
    CO
                 c

                ,c
2
•*•»
in

H
                                                                      • o>   *-  i—
                                                                           >   —  t-  cr
                                                                                                                   'w   -a
                                                                       C-71
-------
    c
    c
Q -5
UJ -^
|3
 I r—
 I e—
CO  ..
UJ  4->
a:  O
CO  O
UJ  i-
    0)
    co
                           in   CM   m   co   s;   <
                           °   -:   «   -   £   z
                                                           o
                                                           o
                                                                         o  o  o
                                                                         odd
                                                                     o  o  o
                                                                     odd
                                                                                                        o o  o
                                                                                                        odd
                                                          o  m
                                                          01  m

                                                          5  §
                                                                     o  o  o
                                                                     odd
 UJ
I
S
     n)
     y
                                                                                           o  r^  •—
     CO
                                       t
                                                            •a   * *—
                1
                              ^-*    -   u
                      O   O.  V)   I/I
                      IS   «   5  '5
                                           15   i   "o   **
                                                                            at   c
                                                                            *j   o
                                                                            •.      =
                                                                                                          T3   - r—
                                                                                                           O  •*-  OJ
                                                                                                           «  A>  r-
                                                                                                                 •^    x:
                                                                                                                  M    (V
                                                             C-72
-------







c
o
a
^
in
c
cn
c
•a

3
O CD
UJ i—
*y£ f"""
t-H |
— 1 C£
1
CO ..
1- -P
— 1 U
ZD 3
UJ O
O£ £-
a_
1—
to
UJ s~**
in •
U_ CElT-
o c •—
•r— O) i
>- -C C
OS U UJ •
=3 Ca
CO
CL-
IO
. LU
(0
c\j ai
1 C
C_3 •.-
-Q
1 1 1 g:
—1 O
CQ O
,.
C
O
m
u
o
cn
c
•r-
r~"



i ro
i m



S 3
in



m , co
o «r
ro


o •«•



1 	 F—
o m



o o



P- CO
o CM
*



O CSI
£

m ro
O «5T
CM


in o
o o



px o
O 
-— £

T "^
§«d-
o

CM ro
CO O



2 2
£ £


in o
CO U3



§ §!



CM rx
d ui
CO O



r- CO
CO O



CM O
tC CD

CO i—
cn CM



CM CM
cn cn
<-o cn



in ^
*f 1*-
r. CM


03 CO



u_
o


£
3
ro
Of
i-
a> M

-i£ u
s '-5
in C

cn o
> v»

CO i


S
 ro
ro i-
cn a)
>+— ro
° >•

e *»-
o a.
> o
CO CM ro
r>. o
. ro
, <— 0
*r tc cn
O «± r—
. in
CM o


r»>» F— to
cn CM ^j-
• CSI
^— o


in in ro
ro CM cn
in o
. CM



r^. co o
r-. CM ro
r» o
^ d m



F— ro CO
F** CSI U3
-^ O
^ d ^



cn 
g: (j IF-  "~
•a - r—
OJ C 
(J IF- Q)
F- ro
F— fi. C
O 4-> O
(J C -i-
ai ui
m u u>

Z o ul

in ix. co
r— O fx.
•a* o
• o
o o
ro CO *r
•3- O

0 0


co in co
CM o in
ro o
00°


•<(• >jo in
cn o rx,
ro o
• • O
o o



csi rx, co
CM O fx,
^ o
. o
o o



. d
o o



uD  O >
(J 
0) "u 5
cn
aj c fl*
tJ .2 S
0) 
ro
s_
0)
ro 
-------





0
4-3
ro
r-*
3
in
C
I j
a
c
•5
•r-
3
O 03
UJ r—
2Z r™
l-< 1
_j az
i
i
to ••
Hj -P
3 3
tn -a
UJ O
ce t-
a.
UJ
u
U_ Oi'r-
O C t.
•r- +J
>- J= 
P*- Z

CM ^
CO Z


s $
7^ z


i I

cn v^
cn z

CM

a |
cj


1 I
CM

P*.  o
o co cn
CO l/> ^O
1^ «> *"
O CM O
cn ^r- CM
IO O

P*. U3 CM
0 00 ^
cn v


O UT) P«*
P^ PO ^*
0? ft ~

o *3* m
s s -


o m ^t
us «*• 
un r^ i—
•— in

CD co r-«
. t s -

en cn co
to «o *—


O «— C3
10 *r CM


o o «—
10 to in
in cn d


o tn in
cn CM


0 •— 0
in P^ in
p-^ cri d
CO ^~

O 
£.2
-o 'ex
a) a.
•o ro
X 2=
a 2
C-74
-------
                TABLE  C-28a.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE D
                          Sampling Location:  Cooling
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
R-ll Bui
(Engl
1A
04/13/81
147
106
10.37
108.4
96.0
91.931
N/A

8.271
0.090
0.76

1.197
0.013
. 0.11

0.661
0.007
0.06

0.798
0.009
0.07
Iding Insulation
ish)
. . .? -
04/13/81
98
106
10.78
107.6
96.6
64.018
.N/A.

4.361
0.068
0.60

0.853
0.013
0.12

0.467
0.007
0.06

0.467
0. 007
0.06

3
04/13/81
98
106
9.95
107.4
. 99.2
59.656
N/A

3.630
0.06.1
0.49

0.802
0.013
0.11

0.433
0.007
0.06

0.548
0.009
0.07

Avg.
--
' ' '
'
10.37
107.8
97.3
71.868
*

5.421
0.073
0.62

0.951
O'.OIS
0.11

0.520
0.007
0.06

0.604
0.008
0.07
N/A = Not applicable.
                                    C-75
-------
                TABLE  C-28b.   SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS—LINE  0
                          Sampling Location:   Cooling
Product:
Run 'number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack temper-tare, °C
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, X
Parti cul ate natter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, sig/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nni3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, Big
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ing/Mm3 ,
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Building
(Metric)
1A
04/13/81
147
106
10.37
42.4
96.0
2.603
N/A

537. 10
205.89
0.38

77.70
29.79
0.06

42.90
16.45
0.03

51.80
19.86
0.04
Insulation

2
04/13/81
98
106
10.78
42.0
96.6
1.813
N/A

283.20
155.90
0.30

55.40
30.50
0.06

30.30
16.68
0. 03 -

30.30'
16.68
. 0.03

3
04/13/81
98
106
9.95
41.9
99.2
1 . 689
N/A

235.70
139.24
0.25

52.10
30.78
0.06

28.10
16.50
0.03

35.60
21.03
0.04

Avg.
—
«
—
10.37
42.1
97.3
2.035
~

352. 00
167.01
0.31

61.73
30.36
0.06

33.77
16.58
0.03

39.23
19.19
0.04
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-76
-------
                  TABLE C-29a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE D
                             Sampling Location:   Asphalt
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, nrin
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentrati on , gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-.ll Buil
(Engli
1A*
04/13/81
96
106
1.46
85.3
91.3
78.342
N/A

0.3423
0.0043
0.02a

0.003
0.000
0.00

0.003
0.000
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0
ding Insulation
sh)
2
04/13/81
96
106
1.81
90.9
93.6
79.064
N/A

0.516
0.007
0.04

0.009
0.000
.0.00
\
0.009
0.000
0. 00.

0.0
0.0
0.0

3* '
04/13/81
96
106
1.41 ,
88.0
94.8
90.125 ;
N/A •:.

0.2233
0.003a
0.02a

0.005
0.000
0.00

0.005
0.000
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0 •

Avg.
- —
.: —
. --
• 1.81
90.9
93.6
79. 064
--

0.516
0.007
0.04

0.009
0.000
0.00

0.009
0.00
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0
*Data excluded from average.
aValues are  for front-half catch only; insufficient sample for analysis of back-half catch.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                        C-77
-------
                   TABLE  C-29b.   SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  D
                             Sampling Location:   Asphalt
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, win
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/fta3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, »g/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Mm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Buildinq
(Metric)
1A*
Insulation

2
04/13/81 04/13/81
96
106
1.46
29.6
91.3
2.218
N/A

22.203
9.99a
0.01a

0.20
0.09
0.00

0.20
0.090
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0
96
106
1.81
32.7
93.6
2.239
N/A

33.50
14.93
0.02

0.60
0.27
0.00

0.60
0.27
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

3*
04/13/81
96
106
1.41
31.1
94.8
2.532
N/A

14.SOa ! '
5.67a
0.01a

0.30
0.12
0.00 •

0.30
0.12
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0

Avg.
—
~
—
1.81
32.7
93.6
2.239
—

33.50
' 14.93
0.02

0.60
0.27
0.00

0.60
0.27
0.00

0.0
0.0
0.0
*0ata excluded from average.
 Values are for front-half catch only; insufficent sample for analysis of back-half catch.
 N/A s Not applicable.
                                        C-78
-------
                TABLE C-30a.
          Sampling Location:
SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE D
Combined Asphalt, Cooling and Curing
Product: R-ll Building Insulation
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late natter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formal dehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
04/13/81
96
106
8.41
107.8
104.8
60.526
N/A

2.977
0.049
2.13

0.607
0.010
0.43

0.125
0.002
0.09
-v
0.484
0.008
0.35
2
04/13/81
96
106
8.65
107.9
102.6
59.831
N/A

2.459
0.041
1.79

0.588
0.010
0.43

0.226
0.004
0.17

0.348
0.006
0.25
3*
04/13/81
96
106
7.29
106.4
99.1
61.193
N/A

2.227
0.036
1.62

0.590
0.010
0.43

0.174
0.003
0.13

0.465
0.008
0.34
4
04/14/81
96
105
8.01
104.9
97.1
58.720
N/A

2.895
0.049
2.16

0.667
o.on
0.49

0.303
0.005
0.22

0.333
0.006
0.25
Avg.
—
—
—
8.36
106.9
101.5
59. 692
--

2.777
0.046
2.03

0.621
0.010
0.45

0.218
0.004
0.16

0.388
0.007
0.28
*Data excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                    C-79
-------
                TABLE C-30b.
          Sampling  Location:
SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE D
Combined Asphalt, Cooling and Curing
Product: R-ll Buildinq Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling tine, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack temperture, "C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate natter
Mass collected, ing
Concentration, rag/Ha3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nsi3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, sg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Km3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
04/13/81
96
106
8.4-1
42.1
104.8
1.714
N/A

193.30
112.55
1.07

39.40
22.94
0.22

8.10
4.72
0.05

31.40
18.28
0.18
2
04/13/81
96
106
8.65
42.2
102.6
1.694
N/A

159.70
94.06
0.90

38.20
22.50
0.22

14.70
8.66
0.09

22.60
13.31
0.13
3*
04/13/81
96
106
7.29
41.4
99.1
1.733
. N/A

144.60
83.28
0.81

38.30
22.06
0.22

11.30
6.51
0.07

30.20
17.39
0.17
4
04/14/81
96
105
8.01
40.5
97.1
1.663
N/A

188.00
112.83
1.08

43.30
25.99
0.25

19.70
11.82
0.11

21.60
12.96
0.13
Avg.
—
—
—
8.36
41.6
101.5
1.690
--

180.33
106.48
1.02

40.3
23.81
0.23

14.17
8.40
0.08

Z5.20
14.85
0.15
"Data excluded from average.
 N/A s Not applicable.
                                     C-80
-------
                TABLE  C-31a.  SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE  E
           Sampling  Location:  Wet ESP Inlet Without Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard .
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °f
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1*
09/09/81
150
102
4.36
93.7
98.1
72. 834
N/A

7.295
0.100
34.92

2.347
0.032
11.24

0.966
0.013
4.62

0.581
0.008
2.78
2*
09/091/81
100
102
5.81
95.3
102.1
49. 935
N/A

6.160
0.123
42.50

2.255
0.045
15.55

1.050
0.021
7.25

0.619
0.012
4.27
3*
09/10/81
TOO
102
5.57
93.6
97.6
47.051
N/A

7.380
0.157
53.26

2.871
0.061
20.72

1.152
0.025
8.31

0.800
0.017
5.78
4
09/10/81
100
102
5.65
94.1
98 ..1
46.998
N/A

7.183
0.153
51.60

2.626
0.056
18.86

1.160
0.025
8.33

0.630
0.013
4.52
Avg.
' —
«
--
5.65
94.1
98.1
46.998
—

7.183
0.153
51.60

2.626
0.056
18.86

1.160
0.025
8.33

0.630
0.013
4.52
*0ata excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                    C-81
-------
                 TABLE O31b.  SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE E
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teraperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Voluse of gas sampled, Nai3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Eaission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, wg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1*
09/09/81
150
102
4.36
34.3
98.1
2.062
N/A

473.70
229.20
17.46

152.40
73.74
5.62

62.70
30^34
2.31

37.70
18.24
1.39
2*
09/09/81
100
102
5.81
35.2
102.1
1.414
N/A

400.00
282. 29
21.25

146'. 40
103.32
7.78

68.20
48.13
3.63

40.20
28.37
2.14
3*
09/10/81
100
102
5.57
34.2
97.6
1.332
N/A

479.20
358.92
26.63

186.40
139.61
10.36

74.80
56.03
4.16

52.00
38.95
2.89
4
09/10/81
TOO
102
5.65
34.5
98.1
1.331
N/A

466.40
349.72
25.80

170.50
127.85
9.43

75.30
56.46
4.17

40.90
30.67
2.26
Avg.
—
—
--
5.65
34.5
98.1
1.331
—

466.40
349.72
25.80

170.50
1.27.85
9.43

75.30
56.46
4.17

40.90
30.67
2.26
"Data excluded from average.
 N/A * Not applicable.
                                       O82
-------
                TABLE C-32a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  E
             Sampling Location:  Wet ESP Inlet With Water  Sprays
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration,, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
5
09/11/81
100
102
5.08
89.7
95.4
47.755
N/A

69.238
1.450
511.28

15.352
0.321
113.37

2.627
0.055
19.40

3.533
0.074
26.09
6
09/11/81
98
102
6.03
95.3
93.7
43.970
N/A

70.620
1.610
541 . 77

17.313
0.394
132.82

2.647
0.060
20.31

4.374
0.100
33.55
7
09/11/81
100
102
6.45
97.2
93.2
50.253
N/A

102.872
2.050
777.67

25.080
0.499
189.60

3.108
0.062
23.49

6.120
0.122
46.26
Avg.
—
—
~
5.85
, 94.1
94.1
47/326
—

80.910
1.703
610.24

19.248
0.405
145.26

2.794
0.059
21.07

4.676
0.099
35.30
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-83
-------
   TABLE C-32b.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE E
Sampling Location:   Wet ESP Inlet With Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
5
09/11/81
100
102
5.08
32.1
95.4
1.352
N/A

4,496.00
3,317.82
255. 64

996.90
735.66
56.69

170.60
125.89
9.70

229. 40
162.29
13.05
6 '
09/11/81
98
102
'6.03
35.2
93.7
1.245
N/A

4,585.70
3,675.32
270.89

1,124.20
901 . 02
66.41

171.90
137.77
10.16

284.00
227.62
16.78
7
09/11/81
100
102
6.45
36.2
93.2
1.423
N/A

6,680.00
4,684.41
388.84

1,628.60
1,142.07
94. 80

201.80
141.51
11.75

397.40
278.68
23.13
Avg.
—
~
—
5.85
34.5
94.1
1.340
—

5,253.90
3,892.52
305.12

1,249.90
926.25
72.63

181.43
135.06
10.54

303.60
225.20
17.65
N/A = Hot applicable.
                     C-84
-------
   TABLE C-33a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE E
Sampling Location:   Wet ESP Outlet With Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, % •
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
(Engl-
i*
09/11/81
105
102
6.82
100.0
102.3
74.478
~

3.588
0.048
15.05

2.415
0.032
10.13

1.990
0.027
8.34

0.174
0.002
0.73
ish)
2*
09/11/81
102
102
6.86
101.2
98.7
70.257
—

4.198
0.060
18.77

2.704
0.039
12.09

1.939
0.028
8.67

0.311
0.004
1.39

3* Avg.
09/11/81
105
102
7.15
101.3
99.6
74.428
'

4.030
0.054
17.35

2.817
0.038
12.13

2.005
0.027
8.63

0.838
0.011
3.61
*Data excluded.
                     C-85
-------
               TABLE C-33b.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE E
            Sampling Location:   Wet ESP Outlet  With Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run lumber:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack tenperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, ing
Concentration, mg/Ntn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1*
09/11/81
105
102
6.82
37.8
102.3
2.109
—

233.00
110.25
7.53

156.80
74.19
5.07

129.20
61.13
4.17

11.30
5.35
0.37
2*
09/11/81
102
102
6.86
38.5
98.7
' 1.989
—

272.60
136.74
9.39-

175.60
86.08
6.05

125.90
63.15
4.34

20.20
10.13
0.70
3* Avg.
09/11/81
105
102
7.15
38.5
99.6
2.108
— v "*•

261.70
123.91
8. 68

182.90
86.60
6.07 t "

130.20
61.65
4.32

54.40
25.76
1.81
*Data excluded.
                                   C-86
-------
                TABLE C-34a.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE E
                          Sampling Location:  Forming
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formal dehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
09/09/81
144
102
6.56
99.2
99.3
64. 304
N/A

6.385
0.099
20.75

2.655
0.041
8.63

1.500
0.023
4.87

0.631
0.010
2.05
2
09/09/81
95
102
6.26
104.5
101.1
42.806
N/A

4.748
o.m
22.98

1.993
0.047
9.65

0.961
0.022
4.65

0.558
0.013
2.70
3
09/10/81 •
96
102
6.09
104.7
100.8
43.706
N/A

5.737
0.131
27.55

2.472
0.057
11.87

1.184
0.027
5.69

0.772
0.018
3.71
4
09/10/81
96
102
.7.37
105.7
104.5
45.304
N/A

5.733
0.127
26.56

2.495
0.055
11.56 .

1 . 058
0.023
4.90

0.602
0.013
2.79
Avg.
—
—
~
6.57
103.5
101.4
49.030
' —

5.651
0.117
24.46

2.404
0.050
10.43

• 1.176
0.024
5.03

0.641
0.014
2.81
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-87
-------
TABLE C-34b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE E
         Sampling Location:  Forming
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling tine, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ng/Nfa3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, ag/Km3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, Rig/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Km3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
09/09/81
144
102
6.56
37.3
99.3
1.821
N/A

414.60
227.21
10.38

172.40
94.48
4.32

97.40
53.38
: 2.44

41.00
22.47
1.02
2
09/09/81
95
102
6.26
40.3
101.1
1.212
N/A

308.30
253.81
11.49

129.40
106.53
4.83

62.40
51.37
2.33

36.20
29.80
1.35
3
09/10/81
96
102 '
6.09
40.4
100.8
1.238
N/A

372. 50
300.35
13.78

160.50
129.41
5.94

76.90
62.01
2.85

50.10-
40.40
1.86
4
09/10/81
96
102
7.37
40.9
.104.5
1.283
N/A

372.30
289.60
13.28

162.00
126.01
5.78

68.70
53.44
2.45

39.10
30.42
1.40
Avg.
--
~—
"""
6.57
39.7
101.4
1.389
_> —

366.93
267.74
12.23

156.08
114.11
5.22

76.35
55.05
2.52

41.60
30.77
1.41
N/A « Not applicable.
                   C-88
-------
                 TABLE C-3Sa.   SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  E
                           Sampling Location:   Cool ing
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, fnin
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1*
09/09/81
144
102
1 . 76
108.0
143.6
27.916
N/A

0.237
0.009
0.01

0.006
0.000
0.00

0.048
0.002
0.00

0.022
0.001
0.00
2*
09/09/81
144
102
1.90
83. S
164.2
26. 631
N/A

0.347
0.013
0.01

0.008
0.000
0.00

0.046
0.002
0.00

0.035
0.001
0.00
3*
09/10/81
144
102
1.89
'78.8
208.4
21.817
N/A

0.323
0.015
0.01

0.011
0.000
0.00

0.045
0.002
0.00

0.031
0.001
0.00
4*
09/10/81
, .144
.-. 102
1.66
83.4
156.7 •
25. 368
N/A

0.193
0.008
. 0.01

0.011 .
0.000
0.00

0.028
0.001
0.00

0.017
0.001
0.00
Avg.
—
—
—
—
~
—
~
—

, T-

~

~

~
*Data excluded.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                    C-89
-------
                TABLE C-35b.  SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE  E
                          Sampling  Location:  Cooling
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
SaapUng time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teraperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Partlculate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ag/Ka3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Hg
1*
09/09/81
144
102
1.76
42.2
143.6
0.790
N/A

15.40
19.44
0.01

0.40
0.51
0.00

3.10
3.91
0.00

1.40
1.77
0.00
2*
09/09/81
144
102
1.90
28.6
164.2
0.754
N/A

22.50
29.77
0.01

0.50
0.66
0.00

.3.00
3.97
0.00

2.30
3.04
0.00
3*
09/10/81
144
102
1.89
26.0 •
208.4
0.618
N/A

21.00
33.92
0.01

0.70
1.13
0.00

2.90
4.68
0.00

2.00
3.23
, 0.00
4* Avg.
09/10/81
144
102
1.66
28.6
156.7
0.718
N/A

12.50
17.37
0.01

0.70
0.97
0.00

1 . 80
2.50
0.00

1.10
1 . 53
0.00
"Data excluded.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                     C-90
-------
                TABLE C-36a.   SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS—LINE  E
                          Sampling Location:   Asphalt
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formal dehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Al
09/09/81
140
102
1.39 .
64.8
95.0
63.247
N/A

0.336
0.005
0.03

0.049
0.001
0.00

0.091
0.001
0.01

0.014
0.000
0.00
A2
09/09/81
100
102
0.41
65.1
105.9
51.136
N/A

0.286
0.006
0.03

0.035
0.001
0.00

0.089
0.002
0.01

0.017
0.000
oioo
A3
09/10/81 .
100
102
1.60
66.3
105.8
43.497
N/A

0.223
0.005
0.02

0.035
. 0.001
0.00

0.099
0.002
0.01

0.019
0.000
0.00
A4*
09/10/81
100
102
2.11
71.2
110.3
45.326
N/A

0.260
0.006
0.02

0.048
0.001
0.00

0.097
O.Q'02
0.01

0.014
0.000,
0.00
Avg.
—
--
--
1.13
65.4
102.2
52. 527
~~
-
0.285
0.005
0.03

0.040
0.001
0.00

0.093
0.002
0.01

0.017
0.000
0.00
*Data excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                     C-91
-------
                TABLE C-36b.   SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE E
                          Sampling Location:  Asphalt
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run nuaber:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture , °C
Isokinetic, X
Volwae of gas sampled, Nni3
Opacity averaga, %
Parti culata matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Noi3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, isg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
"Concentration, mg/Nut3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Al
09/09/81
140
102
1.39
18.2
95.0
1.791
N/A

21.80
12.15
0.02

3.20
. 1.78
0.00

5.90
3.29
0.01
0.90
0.50
0.00
A2
09/09/81
100
102
0.41
18.4
105.9
1.448
N/A

18.60
12.82
0.02

2.30
1.59
0.00

5.80
4.00
0.01
*v
1.10
0.76
0.00
A3
09/10/81
100
102
1.60
19.1
105.8
1.232
N/A

14.50
11.75
0.01

2.30
1.86
0.00

6.40
5.19
0.01
1.20
0.97
0.00
A4*
09/10/81
100
102
2.11
21.8
110.3
1.283
N/A

16.90
13.14
0.01

3.10
2.41
0.00

6.30
4.90
0.01
0.90
0.70
0.00
Avg.
-
— -
--
1.13
19.375
102.2
1.439
--

18.30
12.24
0.02

2.60
1.74
0.00

6.03
4.16
0.01
1.07
0.74
0.00
"Data excluded from average.
 N/A s Not applicable.
                                     C-92
-------
TABLE C-37a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
      Sampling Location:  Forming North
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-11 Bui
(Engl
i
07/09/81
• 126
98
4.95
134.4
102.4
70.371
10

3.405
0.048
3.54

0.959
0.014:
1.00

0.571
0.008
0.59

0.291
0.004
0.30
Iding Insulation
ish)
2
07/10/81
126
99
5.25
132.4
101.3
66.941
10

2.997
0.045
3.10

0.882
0.013
0.91

0.530
0.008
0.55

0.276
0.004
0.29

3 -
07/10/87
126
100
4.96
139.4
98.5
66.267
10

3.242
0.049
3.43

0.861
0.013
0.91

0,410
0.006
0.43

0.393
0.006
0.42

Avg.
—

--
5.0,5
1.3.5.4
100.7
67.860
—

3.215
0.047;
3.36

0.901
0.013
0.94

0.504
0.007
0.52

0.320
0.005
0.33
                   C-93
-------
TABLE C-37b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
      Sampling Location:  Forming North
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling tins, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack tenperture, °C
Isold netlc, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nnr3
Opacity average, X
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, s?.g
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, »g
Concentration, rag/Urn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ng/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Buildinfl
(Metric)
i
07/09/81
126
98
4.95
56.9
102.4
1.993
10

221.10
110.72
1.77

62.30
31.20
0.50

37.10
18.58
0.30

18.90
9.47
0.15
Insulation

2
07/10/81
126
99
5.25
55.8
101.3
1.896
10

194.60
102.45
V.55

57.30
30.17
0.46

34.40
18.11
0.28

17.90
9.42
0.15

3
07/10/81
126
100
4.96
59.7
98.5
1.876
10

210.50
111 . 94
1.72

55.90
29.73
0.46

26.60
14.15
0.22

25.50
13.56
0.21

Avg.
—
•
—
5.05
57.5
100.7
1.922
--

208.73
108.37
1.68

58.50
30.37
0.47

32.70
16.95
0.27

20.77
10.82
0.17
                   C-94
-------
TABLE C-38a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
     Sampling Location:  Forming Middle
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate,' % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Buildinq
(English)
i
Insulation

2
07/09/81 07/10/81
126
98
4. 06
130.2
99.9
81 . 738
5

2.405
0.029
2.54 ;

0.930
0.011
0.98

0.553
0.007
0.58

0.285
0.004
0.30
126
99
4.22
116.8
99.9
83.629
5

3.343
0.040
3.48

0.907
0.011
0.94

0.530
0.006
0.55

0.363
0.004
0.38

3
07/10/81
123
100
4.65
126.7
100.0
85.428
5

3.459
0.041
3.66

0.872
0.010
0.92

0.445
0.005
0..47

0.356
0.004
0.38

Avg.
'
.
--
4.31
124.6
99.9
83.598
—

3.069
0.037
3.23

0.903
0.011
0.95

0.509
0.006
0.53

0.335
0.004
0.35
                  C-95
-------
TABLE C-38b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
     Sampling Location:  Forming Middle
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack tamperture, °C
Isokinetic, X
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/N«3
i
Emission level , kg/Kg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, rag/Ha3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Foraaldehyde
Mass collected, tng
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-11 Building
(Metric)
i
Insulation

2
07/09/81 07/10/81
126
98
4.06
54.5
99.9
2.314
5

156.20
67.34
1.27

60.40
26.04
0.49

35.90
15.48
0.29

18.50
7.98
0.15
126
99
4.22
47.1
99.9
2.368
5

217.10
91.49
1.74

58.90
24.82
0.47

34.40
14.50
0.28

23. 60
9.95
0.19

3
07/10/81
123
100
4.65
52.6
100.0
2.419
5

224.60
92.65
1.83

56. 60
23.35
0.46

28.90
11.92
0.24

23.10
9.53
0.19

Avg.
—
—
—
4.31
51.4
99.9
2.367
—

199.30
83.83
1.61

58.63
24.74
0.47

33.07
13.97
0.27

21.73
9.15
0.18
                  C-96
-------
TABLE C-39a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
      Sampling Location:  Forming South
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
'Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/tbn
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentrati on , . gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-11 Bull
(Engli
i
07/09/81
126
98
6.48
204.0
107.9
41.416
12

3.551
0.086
3.56

1.167
0, 028
1.17

0.605
0.015
0.61

0.393
0.010
0.39 ,
ding Insulation
sh)
2
07/10/81
.119
99
6^14
164.5
98.7
77.103
11

4.391
0.057
2.66

1.597
0.021
0.97

0.671
0.009
0.41

0.676
0.009
0.41

3
07/10/81
126
100
5.73
203. 2
104.5
48.655
10

3.839
0.079
3.89

0.836
0.017
0.85

0.437
0.009
0.44

0.525
0.011
0.53

Avg.
•
...
—
6.12
190'. 6
103.7
55.725
—

3.927
0.074
3.37

1.200
0.022
1,00

0.571
0.011
0.49

0.531
0.010
0.44
                  C-97
-------
TABLE C-39b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
      Sampling Location:  Forming South
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling tine, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, X
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate natter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Urn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Building
(Metric)
i
07/09/81
126
98
6.48
95.6
107.9
1.173
12

230.60
196.22
1.78

75.80
64.50
0.59

39.30
33.44
0.31

25.50
21.70
0.20
Insulation

2
07/10/81
119
99
6.14
73.6
98.7
2.183
11

285.10
130.31
1.33

103.70
47.40
0.49

43.60
19.93
0.21

43.90
20.07
0.21


07/10/81
126
100
5.73
95.1
104.5
1.378
10

249.30
180.57
1.95

54.30
39.33
0.43

28.40
20.57
0.22

34.10
24.70
0.27


~
""
""
6.12
88.1
103.7
1.578


255.00
169.03
1.69

77.93
50.41
0.50

37.10
24.65
0.25

34.50
22.16
0.23
                    C-98
-------
TABLE C-40a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
  Sampling Location:   Curing/Cooling North
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-11 Bull
(Engli
i
07/09/81
123
98
3.40
208.1
97.7
84.669
26

4.512
0.053
1.43

0.052
0.001
0.02

o.on
0.000
0.00

1.192
0.014
0.38
dincL Insulation
sh)
2*
07/10/81
123
99
3.39
163.0
151.3
83.277
25

3.262
0.039
1.72

0.066
0.001
0.03

0.010
0.000
0.00

1.072
0.013
0.57

3
07/10/81
123
100
2.69
172.3
105.2
67.866
23

1.957
0.029
1.30

0.045
0.001
0.03

0.015
0.000
0.01

1.203
0.018
0.80

Avg.
—

—
3.05
190.2
101.5
76.268
--

3.235
0.041
1.37

0.049
0.001
0.03

o~.cn 3
0.000
0.01

1.198
0.016
0.59
*Data excluded from average.
                  C-99
-------
                TABLE  C-40b.   SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS—LINE  F
                  Sampling Location:  Curing/Cooling North
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack taajpertura, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sanpled, Nnr3
Opacity average, %
Participate matter
Mass collected, tag
Concentration, ing/Nm3
Eiaission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Eaission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nro3
Eaission level , kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nni3
Eiaission level, kg/Mg
R-11 Building
(Metric)
i
Insulation

2*
07/09/81 07/10/81
123
98
3.40
97.8
97.7
2.397
26

293.00
121.95
0.72

3.40
1.42
0.01

0.70
0.29
0.00

77.40
32.22
0.19
123
99
3.39
72.8
151.3
2.358
25

211 . 80
89.63
0.86

4.30
1.82
0.02

0.60
0.25
O-.OO

69.60
29.45
0.29

3
07/10/81
123
100
2.69
78.0
105.2
1.922
23

127.10
66.00
0.65

2.90
1.51
0.02

1.00
0.52
0.01

78.10
40.56
0.40

Avg.
—
—
—
3.05
87.90
101.5
2.160
--

210.05
93.98
0.69

3.15
1.47
0.02

0.85
0.41
0.01

77.75
36.39
0.30
"Data excluded from average.
                                    C-100
-------
TABLE C-41a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
      Sampling Location:  Curing South
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
I so kinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Buil
(Engli
i
07/09/81
120
98
3.01
167.7
91.1
101.481
27

7.380
0.073
3.35

2.321
0.023
1.05

0.266
0.003
0.12

1.980
0.020
0.90
ding Insulation
sh)
2
07/10/81
120
99
3.03
162.7
98.3
110.458
30

7.635
0.069
3.17

2.037
0.018
0.85

0.248
0. 002
0.10

2.994
0.027
1.24

3
07/10/81
120
100
3.39
170.1
98.2
104.919
26

7. 394
0.071
3.05

1.919
0.018
0.79

0.169
0.002
0.07

1.962
0.019
0.81

Avg.
—
--
—
3.14
166.8
95.9
105.619
—

7.470
0.071
3.19

2.092
0.020
0.90

0.228
0.002
0.10

2.312
0.022
0.98
                  C-101
-------
TABLE C-41b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE F
      Sampling Location:  Curing South
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack teraperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate natter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ntg/Ntn3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, sig/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, tag/Mm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Kra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-11 Buildi
(Metric)
i
07/09/81
120
98
3.01
75.4
91.1
2.874
27
/
479.20
166.41
1.68

150.70
52.33
0.53

17.30
6.01
0.06

128.60
44.66
0.45
ng Insulation

2
07/10/81
120
99
3.03
72.6
98.3
3.128
30

495.80
158.18
1.59

132.30
42.21
0.43

16.10
5.14
0.05

194.40
62.02
0.62

3
07/10/81
120
100
3.39
76.7
98.2
2.971
26

480.10
161.26
1.53

124. 60
41.85
0.40

11.00
3.70
0.04

127.40 '
42.79
0.41

Avg.
~
—
--
3.14
74.9
95.9
2.991
—

485.03
161.95
1.60

135.87
- ' 45.46
0.45

14.80
4.95
0.05

150.13
49.82
0.49
                   C-102
-------
TABLE C-42a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE G
         Sampling Location:  Forming

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Product: Pipe
(Engli
i
05/28/81
120
113
4.09
118
94.2
73.110
18

2.787
0.039 •
15.20

1.272
0.018
6.94

0.710
0.010
3.87

0.104
0.002
0.56
Insulation
sh)
2
05/28/81
120
114
4.61
117.2
98.4
77.294
20

2.472
0.033
12.75

0.977
0.013
5.04

0.459
0.006
2.37

0.150
0.002
0.77

3 ,
05/29/81 .
120
104
4.39 •
116.2
101.0
71 . 274
27

2.663
0.038
14.69

1.142
0.016
6.30

0.159
0.010
3.63

0.119
0.002
0.65

Avg.
--
—
—
4.36
117.1
97.9
73.893
—

2.641
0.037
14.21

1.130
0.016
6.09

0.609
0.009
3.29

0.124
0.002
0.66
                  C-103
-------
TABLE C-42b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE G
         Sampling Location:  Forming
Product: Pipe Insulation

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack tesiperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Ncn3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ag/Nm3
Eaission level, kg/Hg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ing/Nsi3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/N0i3
Emission level, kg/Mg
(Metric)
i
05/28/81
120
113
4.09
47.8
94.2
2.070
18

185.80
89.56
7.60

84.80
40.88
3.47

47.30
22.80
1.93

6.90
3.33
0.28

2
05/28/81
120
114
4.61
47.4
98.4
2.189
20

164.80
75.14
6.38

65.10
29.68
2.52

30.60
13.95
1.18

10.00
4.56
0.39

3
05/29/81
120
104
4.39
46.8
101.0
2.018
27

177.50
87.76
7.34

76.10
37.63
3.15

43.90
21.71
1.82

7.90
3.91
0.33

Avg.
--
—
—
4.36
47.3
97.9
2.092
—

176.03
84.15
7.11

75.33
36.06
3.05

40.60
19.49
1.65

8.27
3.93
0.33
                  C-104
-------
                TABLE C-43a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  H
                         Sampling  Location:   Curing
                          Product:   Pipe Insulation
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
05/28/81
160
N/A
2.51
234.1
106.9
91.103
4

3.405
0.038
11.61

1.568
0.018
5.35

0.150
0.002
0.51

0.330
0.004
1.13
2
05/38/81
160
N/A
1.81
237.5
103.0
89.100
3

2.940
0.034
10.41

1.163
0.013
4.12

0.095
0.001
0.33

0.138
0.002
0.49
3
06/01/81
160
N/A
2.27
251.5
109.5
79.813
1

3.254
0.042
10.84

1.256
0.016
4.18

0.123
0.002
0.41

0.191
0.003
0.63
4
06/01/81
160
N/A
2.94
250.4
105.4
77.342
1

3.285
0.044
11.36

1.428
0.019
4.94

0.083
0.001
0.29

0.210
0.003
0.73
5
06/01/81
ISO
N/A
3.07
250.1
102.3
25.103
2

3.447
0.047
12.29

1.647
0, 023
5.87

0.110
0.002
0.39

0.096
0.001
0.34
Avg.
--
—
—
2.52
244.7
105.4
82.492
—

3.266
0.041
11.30

1.412
0.018
4.89

0.112
0.002
0.39

0.193
0.003
0.66
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-105
-------
               TABLE C-43b.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE H
                         Sampling Location:  Curing
Product: Pipe Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, win
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, »g/Nia3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
05/28/81
160
N/A
2.51
112.3
106.9
2.580
4

227.00
87.81
5.81

104.50
40.42
2.67

10.00
3.87
0-26

22.00
8.51
0.56
2
05/28/81
160
N/A
1.81
114.2
103.0
2.523
3

196.00
77.52
5.20

77.50
30.65
2.06

6.30
2.49
0.17

9.20
3.64
0.24
3
06/01/81
160
N/A
2.27
122.0
109.5
2. 260
1

216.90
95.77
5.42

83.70
36.96
2.09

8.20
3.62
0.21

12.70
5.61
0.32
4
06/01/81
160
N/A
2.94
121.3
105.4
2.190
1

219.00
99.79
5.68

95.20
43.38
2.47

5.50
2.51
0.14

14.00
6.38
0.36
5
06/01/81
160
N/A
3.07
12.1.2
102.3
2.127
2

229.80
107.29
6.15

109.80
51.52
2.94

7.30
3.43
0.20

6.40
3.00
0.17
Avg.
—
— -
"""*
2.52
118.2
105.4
2.336


217.74
93. 74
5.65

94.14
40.59
2.45

7.46
3.18
0. 19

12.86
5.43
0.33
N/A s Not applicable.
                                    C-106
-------
TABLE C-44a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
      Sampling Location:  Forming East
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
07/07/81
120
99
6.71
152.6
103.4
56.025
26

3.668
0.066
43.48

1.109
0.020
13.14

. 0.436
0.008
5.17

0.836
0.015
9.91
2
07/07/81
120
95
7.95
147.0
108.1
• 59.242
14

3.905
0.066
51.24

1.361
0.023
17.86

0.504
0.009
6.61

0.930
0.016
12.20
3
07/08/81
120
94
7.85
150.7
102.7
49.235
24

2.462
0.050
30.72

0.759
0.015
9.47

0.306
0.006
3.82

0.610
0.012
7.61
Avg.
—
--
—
7.50
150.1
104.7
54.834
—

3.345
0.061
41.81

1 . 076
0.019
13.49

0.415
0.008
5.20

0.792
0.014
9.91
                   C-107
-------
TABLE C-44b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
      Sampling Location:  Forming East
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, nin
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/07/81
120
99
6.71
67.0
103.4
1 . 586
26

238.20
149.83
21.74

72.00
45.29
6.57

28.30
17.80
2.59

54.30
34.16
4.96
2
07/07/81
120
95
7. 95
63.9
108.1
1.678
14

253.60
150.86
25.62

88.40
52.59
8.93

32.70
19.45
3.31

' 60.40
35.93
6.10
3
07/08/81
120
' 94
7.85
66.0
102.7
1 . 394
24

159.90
114.45
15.36

49.30
35.29
4.74

19.90
14.24
1.91

39.60
28.34
3.81
Avg.
—
--
—
7.50
65.6
104.7
1.553
—

217.23
138.38
20.91

69.90
44.39
6.75

26.97
17.16
2.60

51.43
32.81
4.96
                  C-108
-------
TABLE C-45a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
      Sampling Location:  Forming West
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, % •
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
07/07/81
120
99
6.64
147.2
97.4
56.251
25

3.507
0.062
44.49

0.796
0.014
10.10

0.300
0.005
3.81

0.608
0.011
7.72
2
07/07/81
120
95
6.69
140.5
92.3
62. 576
12

3.728
0.060
51.85

0.742
0.012
10.32

0.345
0. 006
4.80

0.955
0.015
13.28
3
07/08/81
120
. 94
7.35
152.7
103.2
58.277 :
23

3.544 .
0.061
44.35

0.910
0.016
11.39

0.339
0.006
4.24

0.596
0.010
7.46
Avg.
—
—
•' —
6.89
146.8
' 97.6
59.035
--

3.593
0.061
. 46.90

0.816
0.014
10.60

0.328
0.006
4.28

0.720
0.012
9.49
                 C-109
-------
TABLE C-45b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
      Sampling Location:  Forming West
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3.
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/07/81
120
99
6.64
64.0
97.4
1.593
25

227.70
142.65
22.25

51.70
32.39
5.05

• 19.50
12.22
1.91

39.50
24.75
3.86
2
07/07/81
120
95
6.69
60.3
92.3
1.772
12

242.10
136.34
25.93

48. 20
27.14
5.16

22.40
12.62
2.40

62.00
34.92
6.64
3
07/08/81
120
94
7.35
67.1
103.2
1.650
23

230.1
139.14
22.18

59.10
35.74
5.70

22.00
13.30
2.12

38.70
23.40
3.73
Avg.
—
--
—
6.89
63.8
97.6
1 . 672
— —

233.30
139.38
23.45

53.00
31.76
5.30

21.30
12.71
2.14

46.73
27.69
4.74
                   C-110
-------
TABLE C-46a.,  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  I
         Sampling Location:  Cool ing
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Samp 1 i ng ti me , mi n
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
07/07/81
120
99
2.99
246.3
108.3
79.373
N/A

1.106
0.014
0.62

0.009
0.000
0.01

0.008
0.000
0.00

0.114
0.001
0.06
2
07/07/81
120
95
2.96
258. 7
104.3
64.890
N/A

1.060
0.016
0.64

0.009
0.000
0.01

0.008
0.000
0.00

0.148
0.002
0.09
3
07/08/81
120
94
,3.30
256.3
99.4
67.610
N/A

0.972
0.014
0.62

0.009
0.000
0.01

0.011
0.000
0.01

0.131
0.002
0.08
Avg.
—
—
—
3.08
253.8
104.0
70.624
—

1.046
0.015
0.63

0.009
0.000
0.01

0.009
0.000
0.00

0.131
0.002
0.08
N/A = Not applicable.
                  C-lll
-------
TABLE C-46b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
         Sampling Location:  Cooling
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isold nttlc, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, ag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg

Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/07/81
120
99
2.99
119.1
108.3
2.248
N/A

• 71.80
31.88
0.31

0.60
0.27
0.01

0.50
•0.22
0.00


7.40
3.29
0.03
2
• 07/07/81
120
. 95
2.96
126.0
104.3
1.837
N/A

68.70
37.31
0.32

0.60
0.33
0.01

0.50
' 0.27
0.00


9.60
5.21
0.05
3
07/08/81
120
94
3.30
124.6
99.4
1.914
N/A

63.10
32.89
0.31

0.60
0.31
0.01

0.70
0.37
0.00


8.50
4.43
0.04

—
.—
_.
3.08
123.2
104.0
2.000
"

67.87
34.03
0.31

0.60
0.30
0.01

0.57
0.29
0.00
i

8.50
4.31
0.04
N/A s Not applicable.
                  .  C-112
-------
TABLE C-47a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
       Sampling Location:  HVAF Bypass
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg, stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic,- %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/.dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
07/07/81
120
99
2^74
166.1
97.8
95.253
22

2.678
0.028
4.60

0.413
0.004
0.71

0.037
0.000
0.06

0.231
0.002
0.40
2
07/07/81
120
95
2.75
168.1
96.4
93.608
17

5.182
0.055
9.39

0.300
0.003
0.54

0.055
0.001
0.10

0.462
0.005
0.84
3 •
07/08/81
120
94
2.94
166.7
94.3
91.775
• 21

2.057
0.022
3.84

0.263
0.003
0.49

0.042
0.001
0.08

0.259
0.003
0.48
Avg.
• 	
—
—
.. 2.81
167.0
96.2
.93.545
—

3.306
0. 035
5.94

0.325
0.003
0.58

0.045
0.001
0.08

0.317
' 0.003
0.57
                  C-113
-------
TABLE C-47b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
       Sampling Location:  HVAF Bypass
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Ntn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/07/81
120
99
2.74
74.5
97.8
2.697
22

173.90
64.34
2.30

26.80
9.92
0.36

2.40
0.89
0.03

15.00
5.55
0.20
2
07/07/81
120
95
2.75
75.6
96.4
2.651
17

, 336.50
126.68
4.65

19.50
7.34
0.27

3.60
1.36
0.05

30.00
11.29
0.42
3
07/08/81
120
94
2.94
74.8
94.3
2.599
21

133.60
51.30
1.92

17.10
6.57
0.25

2.70
1.04
0.04

16.80
6.45
0.24
Avg.
—
--
--
2.81
75.0
96.2
2.649
"•""*

214.67
80.77
2.96

21.13
7.94
0.29

2.90
1.10
0.04

20.60
7.76
0.29
                   C-114
-------
    TABLE C-48a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
Sampling Location:   HVAF Outlet Without Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate; % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
07/11/81
125
99
3.34
154.4
101.6
'55.691
0

0. 341
0.006
1.36

0.134
0.002
0.54

0.012
0.000
0.05

0.303
0.006
1.21
2
07/11/81
125
- 99
3.24
158.1
. 99.1
53.592
0

0.233
0.004
0.95

0.129
0.002
0.53

0.020
0.000
0.08

0.126
0.002
0.52
3
07/11/81
125
99
3.39
157.7
99.0
54.847
0

0.299
0.006
1.23

0.074
0.001
0.30

0. 020
0.000
0.08

0.120
0.002
0.49
Avg.
—
. —
—
3.32
156.7
99.9
54.710
--

0.291
0.005
1.18

0.112
0.002
0.46

0.017
. 0.000
0.07

0.183
0.003
0.74
                      C-115
-------
    TABLE C-48b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
Sampling Location:  HVAF Outlet Without Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, tag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/11/81
125
99
3.34
68.0
101.6
1.577
0

22.10
13.99
0.68

8.70
5.51
0.27
.
0.80
0.51
0.03

19.70
12.47
0.61
2
07/11/81
125
99
3.24
70.0
99.1
1.517
0

15.10
9.93
0.48

8.40
5.52
0.27

1.30
0.86
0.04

8.20
5.39
0.26
3
07/11/81
125
99
3.39
69.8
99.0
1.553
0

19.40
12.47
0.62

4.80
3.08
0.15

1.30
0.84
0.04

7.80
5.01
0.25
Avg.
—
—
--
3.32
69.3
99.9
1.549
—

18.87
12.13
0.59

7.30
4.70
0.23

1.13
0.74
0.04

11.90
7.62
0.37
                      C-116
-------
                TABLE C-49a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  I
              Sampling Location:   HVAF.Outlet With Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
2*
07/15/81
125
96
5.01
103.2
96.4
62.566
0

1.115
0.018
5.29

o.m
0.002
0.53

0.040
0.001
0.19

0.128
0.002
0.61
3*
07/15/81
125
96
4.78
103.4
96.8
61.461
2

0.847
0.014
4.00

0.112
0.002
0.53

0.020
0.000
0.09

0.139
0.002
0.66
4*
07/15/81
125
96
4.83
100.1 •
98.2
62. '264
3

1.542
0.025
7.19 '••

0.154
0.003
0.72

0.025
0. 000
0.11

0.188 •-•.
0.003
0.88. '
Avg.
_
	 ... --
•'..-.. "
•.
—

—
.--

..

, . „

—

-
*Data excluded.
                                   C-117
-------
  TABLE C-49b.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE I
Sampling Location:   HVAF Outlet With Water Sprays
Product: Ductboard
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack tewperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Parti oil ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
2*
07/15/81
125
96
5.01
39.5
96.4
1.772
0

72.40
40.78
2.65

7.20
4.06
0.27

2.60
1.46
0.10

8.30
4.68
0.31
3*
07/15/81
125
96
4.78
39.7
96.8
1.740
2

55.00
31.54
2.00

7.30
4.19
0.27

1.30
0.75
0.05

9.00
5.16
0.33
4* Avg.
07/15/81
125
96
'4.83
37.8
98.2
1 . 763
3

100.10
" 56.66
3.60

10.00
5.66
0.36

1.60
0.9.1
0.06

12.20
6.91
0>.44
*Data excluded.
                     C-118
-------
TABLE C-50a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
      Sampling Location:  Forming East
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds :'
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
•R-ll Buildinq
'(•English)
"i
Insul

2
07/13/81 07/13/81
120
93.
8.11
155.4
97.5
73.700
.0

1.722
0.023
26.54

0.214
0.003
3,30

0.109
0.002
1.69

0:314
0.004
, . 4.84
120
93
7.86
151.8
95.3
71 . 363
0

1.851
0.026
29.19

0.203
0.003
3.21

0,072
0.001
1.14

0.282
0.004
4.44
ation

3
07/14/81
120
95
8.51
146.5
98.4
73.131
0

2.321
0.032
34.91

0.182
0.003
2.73

0.088
0.001
1.32

0.313
0.004
4.70

4
07/14/81 ' :
120"
95
9.28
149.6
99.9
69.969
0

1.848
, 0.026
27.39

0.248
0.004' ".
3.67

0.074
0.001
1.09

0.243
0.004
3.61 t ,

Avg.
•

—
8.44
150.8
' 97.8
72.041
'

. 1 . 936
0.027
29.51

0.212
0.003
,, 3.23

0.086
0.001
,1.31

0.288
." 0.004
4.40
                  C-119
-------
TABLE C-50b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
      Sampling Location:  Forming East
Product: R-11 Building Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volune
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, X
Particulate natter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg •
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, ing/Mm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/13/81
120
93
8.11
68.6
97.5
2.087
0

111.80
53.46
13.27

13.90
6.65
1.65

7.10
3.40
0.85

20.40
9.75
2.42
2
07/13/81
120
.93
7.86
66.6
95.3
2.021
0

120.20
59.36
14.60

13,20
6.52
1.61

4.70
2.32
0.57

18.30
9.04
2.22
3
07/14/81
120
95
8.51
63.6
98.4
2.071
0

150.70
72.62
17. .46

11.80
5.69
1.37

5.70
2.75
0.66

20.30
9.78
2.35
4
07/14/81
120
95
9.28
65.3
99.9
1.981
0

120.00
60.44
13.70

16.10
8.11
1.84

4.80
2.42
0.54

15.80
7.96
1.81
Avg.
—
«
—
8.44
66.0
97.8
.2.04
--

125.68
61.47
'14.76

13175
6.74
1.62

5.58
2.72
0.66

18.70
9.13
2.20
                   C-120
-------
                TABLE  C-51a.   SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS-1-LINE J
                       Sampling Location:   Forming West
Product: R-T1 Building Insulation 	 	
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, mi n
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
, 1*
07/13/81
120
93
8'. 74
155.2
85.7
58.395
0

2.087
0.036
36.86

0.216
0. 004
3.81

0.. 069
0.001
1.22
1
0.279
0.005
4.92
2
' 07/13/81
120
93
8.60
153.3
97.8
75.562
0

0.668
0.009
10.35

0.254
0.003
3.94

0.105
0.001
1.62

0.317
0.004
4.91
3
07/14/81
120
95.,
8.84
150.3
99.4
73.147,
0

1.645
0.023
24.68

0, 229
0.003 •
3.44 ,•

0.097
0.001
1.46,

0.347
0.005
5.20
4
07/14/81
. 120,
. ;. 95 -
, , 7.59
. 055.6 : .
99.3
. 77.503,;
0 ',

1..514
•..: ,0.020
22:74

0.193
0.003
2.89

. 0,058
0.001 ,
0.88

0.216
0.003
3,24
Avg.
—
.
—
8.34
153.1
98,8
75.404
--

1.276
0.017
19.26

0.225
. .0.003
3.42

0.087
0.001
1.32

0.293
0.004
4.45
*Data excluded from average.
                                    C-121
-------
                TABLE C-51b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
                       Sampling Location:  Forming West
Product: R-ll Building Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling tiae, rain'
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nra3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Ntn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Mm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Urn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1*
07/13/81
120
93
8.74
68.4
85.7
1 . 654
0

135.50
81.77
18.43

14.00
8.45
1.91

4.50
2.72
0.61

18.10
10.92
2.46
2
07/13/81
120
93
8.60
67.4
97.8
2.140
0

43.40
20.24
5.18

16.50
7.70
1.97

6.80
3.17
0.81

20.60
9.61
2.46
3
07/14/81
120
95 •
8.84
65.7
99.4
2.071
•0

106.80
51.45
12.34

14.90
7.18
1.72

6..30
3.04
0.73

22.50
10.84
2.60
4
07/14/81
120
95 '
7.59
68.7
99.3
2.195
«
0

98. 30
44.70
11.37

12.50
5.68
1.45

3.80 ' '
' 1.73
0.44

14.00 •
6.37'
1.62
Avg.
--
--
—
8.34
67.3
98.8
2.135
--

82.83
38.80
9.63

•14.63
6.85
1.71

5.63
2.65
0.66

19.03
8.94
2.23
"Data excluded from average.
                                    C-122
-------
                TABLE C-52a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
            Sampling. Location:   Curing East Without Water Sprays
Product: R-ll Building Insulation
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, bF
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol •
•Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
07/13/81
126
93
3.51
252.7
95.3
68.298
N/A

1.047
0.015.
•1.91

0.154'
0.002
0.28

0.018
0.000
0.03

0.342
0.005
0.62
2
07/13/81
126
93
3.41
250.3
97.7
70.101
N/A

1.272
0.018
2.26
*•
0.160
0.002
0.29

0.009.
0.000
0.02

0.528
0.008
0.94
3
07/14/81
126
95
4.24
249.9
100.7
74.610
N/A

i.no
0.015
1.89

0.139
0.002
0.24

0.009
0.000
0.02

0.257
0.004
0.44
4
07/14/81
126
• ' :95 .
3.30
, 254.7
96.3
67.868
N/A

1.275
0.019
2.27

0.123
0.002
0.22

0.014
O.QOO
0.02

0.114
0.002
0.20
.Avg.
—
~
'' .'•••
; .3.62
•. ,251.9
97.5
70.219


1,176
. ..Q...017
2.08
-,-,,
0.144
0.002
0.258

0.013
0.000
0.02

0.310
. . -0.005
0.55
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-123
-------
                TABLE C-52b.  SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS—LINE J
            Sampling Location:  Curing  East Without Water Sprays
Product: R-ll Building Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3 ,
Opacity average, %
Participate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3 '
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nni3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/13/81
126
93
3.51
122.6
95.3
1 . 934 .
N/A

68.00
35.09
0.96

10.00
5.16
0.14

1.20
0.62
0.02

22.20
11.46
0.31
2
07/13/81
126
93
3.41
121.3
97.7
1.985
N/A

82.60
41.52
1.13

' 10.40
5.23
0.15

0.60
0.30
0.01

34.30
17.24
0.47
3
07/14/81
126
' 95
4.24
121.0
100.7
2.113
N/A

72.10
34.06
0.95

9,00
4.25
0.12

0.60
0:28
0.01

16.70
7.89
0.22
4
07/14/81
126
95
3.30
123.7
96.3
1.922
N/A

82.80
42.99
1.14

8.00
4.15
0.11

0.90
0.47
0.01

. 7.40
3.84
0.10
Avg.
. ' —
— •
—
3.62
122.2
97.5
1.989


76.38
38.42
1.05

9.35
4.70
0.13

0.83
0.42
0.01

20.15
10.11
0.'28
N/A » Not applicable.
                                   C-124
-------
                 TABLE C-53a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
            Sampling Location:   Curing West Without Water Sprays
Product:
R-11 Building Insulation
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
i
07/13/81
126
93
3.57
275.9
100.6
71.380
N/A

1.737
0.024
2.05

0.074
0.001
0.09

0.012
0.000
0.01

0.337
0.005
0.40
2*
07/13/81
126
93
3.60
278.5
100.0
71.965
N/A

3.091
0.043
3.68

0.080
0.001
0.10

. 0.082
0.001
0.10

0.328
0.005
0.39
3
07/14/81
126
95
3.76
268.4
101.4
72.734
N/A

2.233
0.031
2.58

0.125
0.002
0.14

0.062
0.001
0.07

0.400
0.006
0.46'
4
07/14/81,
126
• 95".
' 3.71
269.5
100.1
72. 780
N/A

2.587
1 0. 036
3.03

0.079
' 0.001
0. 09

0.009
0.000
0.01

0.231
0.003
0.27
Avg.

,--
•
3.68
271.3
100.7
72.298
—

2.186
0.030
-' 2.55

0.093
0.001
0.107

0.028
0.000
' 0.03

0.323
0.005
0.38
*Data excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                    C-125
-------
                TABLE C-53b.  SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE  J
            Sampling  Location:   Curing West Without Water  Sprays
Product: R-ll Building Insulation
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture , °C
Isokinetic, X
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
07/13/81
126
93
3.57
135.5
100.6
2.021
N/A

112.80
55.69
.1.03

4.80
2.37
0.05

0.80 .
0.40
0.01

21.90
10.81
0.20
2*
d7/13/81
126
93
3. '60
136.9
100.0
2.038
N/A

200.70
98.28
1.84

5.20
2.55
0.05

5.30
2.60
0.05

21.30
10.43
0.20
3
07/14/81
126
95
3.76
131.3 •
101.4
2.060
N/A

145.00
70.25
1.29

8.10
3^93
0.07

4.00
1.94
0.04

26.00
12.60
0.23
4
07/14/81
126
95
3.71
132.0
100.1
2.063
N/A

168.00
81.25
1.52

5.10
2.47
0.05

0.06
0.29
0.01

15.00
7.25-
0.14
Avg.
--
--

3.68
132.9 ,
100.7
2.048
—

14-T.93
69.06
1.28

6.00
2.9
0.06

1.80
0.88
0.02

20.97
10.2
0.19
"Data excluded from average.
 N/A * Not applicable.
                                    C-126
-------
    TABLE C-54a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
Sampling Location:   HVAF Outlet Without Water Sprays
Product: R-ll Building Insulation
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
1
07/13/81
126
93
3.15
204.5
100.6
61.179
3

0.245
0.004
1.64

0.074
0.001
0.49

0.029
0.001
0.20

0.169
0.003
1.13
2
07/13/81
126
93
3.02
214.2
101.3
61.237
2

0.266
0.004
1.77

0.063
0.001
0.42

0.018
0.000
0.12

0.172
0.003
1.14
3
07/14/81
126
95
3.33
183.8
101.3-
63.483
2

' 0.542
0.009
3.54

0.063
0.001
0.41

0.039
0.001
0.25

0.139
0.002
0.91
4
07/14/81
126
95
3.32
207.0
103.8
62.524
2

0.460
0.007
2.94

0.065 ,
0.001
0.41

0.006
0.000
0.04

0.109
0.002
0.70
Avg.
--
—
—
3.21
202.4
101.8
62.106
—

0.378
0.006
2.47

0.066
0.001
0.4-3

0.023
07-000
0.15

0.147
0.003
0.97
                      C-127
-------
    TABLE C-54b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
Sampling Location:  HVAF Outlet Without Water Sprays
Product:
R-T1 Building Insulation
(Metric)
Run number: -"-
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack tentperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Esiission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level,. kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
i
07/13/81
126
93
3.15
95.8
100.6
1.732
2

15.90
9.16
0.82

4.80
2.77
0.25

1.90
1.09
0.10

11.00
6.34
0.57
2
07/13/81
126
.93
3.02
101.2
101.3
'1.734
#
2

17.30
9.96
0.89

4.10
2.36
0.21

1.20
0.69
0.06

11.20
6.45
0.57
— 3 __,
07/14/81
126
95
3.33
84.3
101.3
1.798
2

35.20
19.54.
1.77

4.10
2.28
0.21

2.50
1.39
0.13

9.00
5.00
0.46
4
07/14/81
126
95
• 3.32
97.2
103.8
1.770
2

29.90
16.85
.1.47

4.20
2.37
0.21

0.40 '
0.23
0.02

7.10
4.00
0.35
Avg.
—
—
.--
3.21
94.6
101.8
1.759
•*•*

24.58
13.88
1.24

4.30
2.45
0.22

1.50
0.85
0.08

9.58
5.45
0.49
                      C-128
-------
  TABLE C-55a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
Sampling Location:   HVAF Outlet With Water Sprays
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass' collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Bui
(Engl
i*
07/15/81
126
91
5.25
148.2
101.6
59.328
2 '

2.121
0.036
14.44

0.059
0.001
0,40

0.017
0.000
'0.12

0.131
0.002
0.87
Iding Insulation
ish)
2*
07/15/81
126
91
4.62
137.5
101.6
64. 468
6

0.485
0.008
3.31

0.049
0.001
0.34

0.008
0.000
0.05

0.126
0.002
0.86

3*
07/16/81
126
91
5.06
142.6
100.5
61.870
2

0.608
0.010
4.19

0.079
0.001
0.54

0.009
0.000
0.06

0.099
0.002
0.68

Avg.
—
—
—
—
~
—
--
—

• ' —
"
'--

	
—
--

—

—

—
—
—
*Data excluded.
                    C-129
-------
  TABLE C-55b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
Sampling Location:  HVAF Outlet With Water Sprays
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Buildi
(Metric)
i*
07/15/81
126
91
5.25
64.6
101.6
1 . 680
2

137.70
81.79
7.22

3.80
2.26
0.20

1.10
0.65
0.06

8.50
5.05
0.44
ng Insulation

2*
07/15/81 '
126
91
4.62
58.6
101.6
1.825
6

31,50
17.22
1.66

3.20
1.75
0.17

0.50
0.27
0.03

8.20
4.48
0.43

3* Avg.
07/16/81
126
91
5.06
61.5
100.5
1.752
2

39.50
22.50
2.10

5.10
2.91
a. 27

0.60
0.34
0.03

6.40
3.65
0.34
"Data excluded from average.
                     C-130
-------
                 TABLE C-56a.   SUMMARY OF  TEST RESULTS—LINE J
              Sampling Location:   Curing  East With Water Sprays
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter .
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level s Ib/ton
Phenol
•Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Building
(English)
i*
07/15/81
126
91
4.09
256.4
111.9
. 72.192
N/A

. 1.092
0.015
1.74

0.166
0.002
0.27

0. 028
0.000
0.04

0.143
0.002
0.23
Insulation

2
07/15/81
126
9'1
4.02
255.6
103.8.
73.074
N/A

1 . 264
0.017
2.18

0.151
0.002
0.26

0.009
0.000
0.02

0.263
0.004
0.45

3
07/16/81
126
91
4.14
253.8
98.1
68.429,
N/A

0.793
0.012
1.45

0.152
0.002
0.28

0.020
0.000
0,. 04

0.142
0.002
0.26

Avg.
—
- ~
—
4.08
254.7
161.0
70.752
—

1.029
0.015
1.82

0.152
0.002
0.27

0.015
0.000
0,03

0.203
0.003
0.36
*Data excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                     C-131
-------
                 TABLE C-56b.   SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
               Sampling Location:   Curing East With Water Sprays
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling tine, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume •
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Mm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, rog
Concentration, mg/Nin3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, rog
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Buildi
(Metric)
i*
07/15/81
126
91
4.09
124.7
111.9
2.044
N/A

70.90
34.61
0.87 ,

10.80
5.27
0.14

1.80
0.88
0.02

9.30
4.54
0.12
ng Insulation

2-
07/15/81
126
91
4.02
124.2
103.8
-2.069
N/A

82.10
39.59
1.09

9.80
4.73
0.13

0.60
0.29
0.01

17.10
8.25
0.23

3
07/16/81
126
91
4.14
123.2
98.1
1.938
N/A

51.50
26.52
0.73

9.90
5.10
0.14

1.30
0.67
0.02

9.20
4.74
0.13

Avg.
—
—
—
4.08
123.7
101.0
2.004
--

66.80
33.06
• 0.91

9.9
4.92
0.14

0.95
0.48
0.02

13.15
6.50
0.18
"Data excluded from average.
 N/A = Not applicable.
                                    C-132
-------
                TABLE C-57a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  J
              Sampling Location:   Curing West With Water  Sprays
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % fay volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-ll Bui
(Engl
i
07/15/81
126
91
3.71
273.8
101.6
73.207
N/A

1.511
0. 021
1.82

0.117
0.002
0.14

0.023
0.000
0.03

0.302
0.004
0.36
Iding Insulation
ish)
2
07/15/81
126
91
3.73
269.7
100.1
75.922
N/A

3.040
0.040
3.72

0.105
0.001
0.13

0.006
0.000
0.01

0.259
0.003
0.32

3
07/16/81
126
91
4.34
258.9
94. 6
71.834
N/A

1;,471
0.021
1.91

0,200
0.003
0.26

0.022
0.000
0.03 •

0.185
0.003
0.24

Avg.
—
—
—
3.93
267.5
98.8
73.654
• • . —

2.007
0.027
2.48

0.141
0.002
0.18

0.017
0.000
0.02

0.249
0.003
0.31
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-133
-------
                TABLE  C-57b.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE J
              Sampling Location:   Curing West With  Water Sprays
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinttic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level , kg/Hg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-ll Building
(Metric)
i
07/15/81
126
91
3.71
134.3
101.6
2.073
N/A

98.10,
47.22
0.91

7.60
' 3.66
0.07

1..50
0.72
' 0.02

19.60
9.44
0.18
Insulation

2
07/15/81
126
91
3.73
132.0
100.1
2.150
N/A

197.40
91.63
1.86

6.80
3.16
0.07

0.40
0.19
0.01

16.80
7.80
0.16

3
07/16/81
126
91
4.34
126.1
94.6
2.034
N/A

95.50
46.85
0.96

13.00
. 6.38
0.13

1.40
0.69
0.02

12.00
• 5.89
0.12

Avg.
—
--
--
3.93
130.8
98.8
2.086
—

130.33
61.90
1.24

9.13
4.40
0.09

1.10
0.532
0.02

16.13
7.71
0.15
N/A = Not applicable.
                                   C-134
-------
TABLE C-58a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K
      Sampling Location:  Forming North
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Uncured
(Engli
IX
05/27/81
144
115
4. .03
156.9
103.1
78.329
29

2.851
0.036
47.35

1.203
0.016
20.23

0.488
0.006
8.11

0.116
0.002
1.92
Pipe Insulation
sh)
2X
.05/28/81
144
120
3.57
140.7
100.2
82.423
"' .' * 3

1.796
0.022
29.43

0.721
0.009
11.81

0.277
0.003
4.54

0.076
0.001
1.24

3X
05/28/81
'144
119
4.04.
144.1 ,
99.8
81.353
1

1 . 628
0.020
26.85

1 . 027
0.013
16.94

0.417
0.005
6.88

0.131
0. 002
2.16

Avg.
'
.
—
3.88
147.2
101.0
80. 702


. 2.092
0.026
• 34.54

0.984
-• 0.012
-16.33

0.394
0.005
6.51

0.107
0.003
1.77
                   C-135
-------
TABLE C-58b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K
      Sampling Location:  Forming North
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teraptrture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, tag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Uncured Pi]3e
(Metric)
IX
05/27/81
144
115
4.03
69.4
103.1
2.218
29

185.10
83.28
23.68

79.10
35.59
10.12

• 31.70
14. 26
.4 4'06

7.50
3.37
0.96
Insulation

2X
05/28/81
'144
120
3.57
60.4
100.2
2.334
3

T16.SO
49.85
14'. 72

46.80
20.01
10.91

18.00
7.70
2.27

4.90
2.10
0.62

3X
05/28/81
144
119
4. 04
62.3
.99.8
2.304
1

105.70
45.79
13.43

66.70
28.89
8.47

27.10
11 . 74 .
3.44

8.50
3.68
1.08

Avg.
--
--
--
3.88
64.03
101.0
2.285
—

135.80
59.64
17.27
1

64.2
28.16
8.17

25.60
11.23
3.26

6.97
3.05
0.89
                  C-136
-------
TABLE ,C-59a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS-LINE- K
      Sampling location:  Forming South
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Uncured
(Engli
IX
05/27/81
144
115
3.63
157.4
98.3
93.246
18

2.675
0.029
45.12

1 . 261
0.014
21.27

0.444
0.005
7.48

0.097
0.001
1.64
Pipe Insulation
sh)
2X
05/28/81
144
120
3.46
140.0
96.3
98. 862
3

1.332
0.014
21.99

0.693
0.007
11.44

0.236
i 0.002
3.89

0.086
0.001
1.42

3X
05/28/81
144
119
3.58
147.5 ..
96.5
98.702
0

1.614 ,„
0.016
26.67

1.004
0.010
16.59.,

0. 299
0.003
4.94 .

0.131
0.001
2.16,,

Avg.
.
-- .
.
3.56
148.3
, 97.0
96.937
	 ! '

r .. . 1 . 874
0.020
31.26

0.986
0.010
', , 15-43

..'.0.326,
0.003
5.44

0.105
, .0.001
1.74
                   C-137
-------
TABLE C-59b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K
      Sampling Location:  Forming South
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, mn
Glass pull rate, X of design ,
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Uncured Pipe
(Metric)
IX
05/27/81
144
115
3.63
69.7
98.3
2. 640
18

173.70
65.65
22. 56

81.90
30.95
10.64
28. 80
10.88
3.74,

6.30
2.38
0.82
Insulation

2X
05/28/81
144
120
3.46
60.0
96.3
2.799
3

86.50
30.83
11 . 00

45.00
16.04
5.72
15.30
5.45
1.95

5.60
2.00
0.71

3X
05/28/81
144
119 .
3.58
64.2
96.5
2.795
0

104.80
37.42
13.34

65.20
23.28
8.30
' 19.40
6.93
2.57

.8.50
3.04
1.08

Avg.
—
--
—
3.56
64.33
97.0
2.745
--

121.67
44.63
15.63

64.03
23.42
8.22
21.17
7.76
2.72

6.80
2.47
0,87
                   C-138
-------
TABLE C-60a.  SUMMARY OF TEST .RESULTS—LINE K
      Sampling Location:  Forming North
Product: Flexible Duct
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °f
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission .level , Ib/ton
1
05/29/81
144
115
4.30
165.7
105.9
73.463
3 ,

2.898
0.040 .
46.72 -

1 . 207
0.016 -.•.
19.46

0.360
0.005
5.81

0.211 -
0.003
3.40
2 .
05/29/81
144
115
3.82
163.1
103.4
72.879
0

2.082
0.029
34.40

•-. - . 0.924
0.013
15.27

0.291
0.004
4.81

0.188
0.003
3.10
3 '
05/30/81
144 -
115
4,48
, 165.1
104.8
72.022
8

1.702
0.024
27.88

0.665
0.009
10.90

0.236
0.003
3.86

0.132
0.002
2.17
Avg; . .
_.
'
.
4.20
164.6
104.7
72. 788
. —

2.227
0:306
36.33

. 0.932
,,0.013
, '". 15.21
,.. ., .•. ..
0..296
. , 0.004
4. 83

0.177
0.003
2.89
                  C-139
-------
TABLE C-60b.  SUMMARY OF TE-ST RESULTS—LINE  K
      Sampling Location:  Forming North
Product: Flexible Duct
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teraperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volua* of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Kg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Eaission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, ng
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, fag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Eaission level, kg/Mg
1
05/29/81
144
115
4.30
74.3
105.9
2.080
3

188.20
90.28
23.36

78.40
37.61
9.73

23.40
11.23
2.91

13.70 '
6.S7
1.70
2
05/29/81
144
115
3.82
72.9
103.4
2.064
0
V ,.,*
135.20
65.38
17.20

60.00
29.01
7.64

18.90
9.14
2.41

12.20
5.90
1.55
3
05/30/81
144
115
4.48
73.9
104.8
2.039
8

110.50
54.07
13.94

43.20
21.14
5.45
•
15.30
7.49
1.93

8.60
4.21
1.09
Avg.
-_,
—
• -- .
4.20
73.7
104.7
2.174
•"*

144.63
69.91
18.17

60.53
29.25
7.61

19.20
9.28
2.43

11.50
5.56
1.45
                   C-140
-------
TABLE C-61a. .SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K
      Sampling Location:  Forming South
Product: Flexible Duct
(English)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, % • ,
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %,
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf ;
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , .Ib/ton
1
05/29/81
144
115
3.34
170.2
101.4
90.60
2

2.823 ,
0.031
46.06

1.169
0.013
19.07

0.345
0.004
5.63

0.189
0.002 ,
3.09
2
05/29/81
144
115.
4.09
.. 158.9
101.3
91 . 046
0

2.093
0. 023
34.19

1 . 050
0.012
17.16

0.350
0.004
5.71

0.219
0.002
3.57
3 • •;•'
. 05/30/81 .
•144
115' "
4.46 •'
165.6
• 100.7
' 91.166
8,

1 . 964 '
0.022
. t
32.43

0.944 .
O.O'IO
15.59

0.288
,0.003
4.76

0.157
0.002
2:59
Avg.
• •_>
'-' .-IT. '
?'*'•*' " ; ' " •- —
•"'• '''••"• 3.96
164.9
101.1
90.937


2.293
Oi025
: 37': 56

1 . 054
" " 0.012
17.27

0.328
0.004
5.37

0.188
0.002
3.08
                  C-141
-------
TABLE C-61b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K.
      Sampling Location:  Forming South
Product: Flexible Duct
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperture , °C
Isokinetic, X
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, X
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, tag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3 •
Emission level , kg/Mg
1
05/29/81
144 '
115
3.34
76.8
101.4
2.565
2

183.30
71.30
23.03

75.90
! 29.52
9.54

22.40
8.71
2.82

12.30
4.78
1.55
2
05/29/81
144
115
4.09
70.5
101.3
2. 578
0

135.90 .
52.60
17.10

68.20
26.40
8.58

22.70
8.79
2.86

14.20
5.50
1.79
3
05/30/81
144
115
4,46
74.2
100.7
2.581
8

127.50
49.29
16.22

61.30
23.70
7.80

18.70
7.23
2.38

10.20
3.94
1.30
Avg. '
— '
—
— -
3.96
73.83
101.1
2.575
~"

148.90
57.73
18.78

68.47
26.54
8.64

'21.27
8.24
2.69

12.23
4.74
1.54
                   C-142
-------
TABLE C-62a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K
       Sampling Location:  Curing-East

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isold netic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton

Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Product: Flexible
(English)
i
Duct

2
05/29/81 05/29/81
160
115
3.99
347.0
97.0
87.319
4 .

3.881
0.044
: 3.18
t

0.407
0.005
0.33

0.062
0.001
0.05

0.408
0.005
0.34
160
115
4.09
351.3
92.9
85.944
5.

3.507
0.041
3.00


0.461
0.005
0.39

0.055
0.001
0.05

0.089
0.001
0.08

3
05/30/81
160
115
4.71
346.9
95.4
89.829
.5

2.906
0.032
2.43


0.519
0.006
0.44

0.051.
0.001
0.04

0.607
0.007
0.51

Avg.
--
—
—
4.26
348.4
95.1
87.697
-

3.431
0.039
2.87


0.462
0.005
0.39

0.056
0.001
0.05
--
0.368
0.004
0.31
                  C-143
-------
r
                             TABLE C-62b.   SUMMARY OF JEST RESULTS—LINE K
                                    Sampling Location:   Curing-East

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, X by volume
Avg. stack temperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Hg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Product: Flexible
(Metric)
i
Duct

2
05/29/81 05/29/81
160
115
3.99
, 175.0 .
97.0
2.473
4

252.00
101.70
1.59

26.40
10.66
0.17

4.00
1.61
0.03

26.50
10.70
0.17
160
.115
4.09
177.4
92.9 >
2.434
5

227.70
93.37
1.50

29.90
12.26
. 0.20

3.60
1.48
0.03

5.80
2.38
0.04

3
05/30/81
160
115
4.71
174.9
95.4
2.544
5

188.70
74.03
1.22

33.70
13.22
0.22

3.30
1.30
0.02

39.40
15.46
0.26

Avg.
—
—
--
4.26
175.8
95. 1
2.484
~

222.80
89.70
1.44

30.00
12.05
0.20

3.63
1.46
, 0.03

23.90
9.51
0.16
                                              C-144
-------
                TABLE C-63a.  SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K
                        Sampling Location:   Curing-West

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled,, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Product: Flexible
(English)
i
Duct

2
05/29/81 05/29/81
160
115
3.74
308. 1
. • 96.3
84. 923
15

6.051
0.071
8.98

1.910
0.023
2.83

0.262
0.003
0.39 '

0.484
0.006
0.72
160
115
3.51
308.0
98.0
94.843
15

6.103
0.064
8.89

2.179
0.023
3.18

0.288
0.003
0.42

0.431
0.005
0.63

3* '
05/30/81
160 ,
1.15
4.31 ; •
295.1 -. •
96.7
94.080 :,..-•;
4 ;

3.581
0.038 :
5.32 <- .

• 1.406
0.015
2.09" .;,

0.254
.0.003 •
0.38

0.590
0.006
0.88-

Avg.
—
---
, 	
3.63
. 308. 1
97.2
89.883
-

. ,6.077
• .0.068
8.94

•2. 045
0,023
. 3.01

0.275
0.003
. • 0.41

.. • 0.458
0.006
0.68
*Data excluded from average.
                                    C-145
-------
TABLE C-63b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE K
       Sampling Location;  Curing-West
Product: Flexible Duct
(Metric)
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design'
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack teaperture, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volurae of gas sampled, Ntn3
Opacity average, £
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Na3
Emission level , kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/H«3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Urn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
1
05/29/81
160
115
3.74
153.4
96.3
2.405
15

392.90
163.04
, 4.49

124.00
51.46
1.42

17.00
7.05
0.20

31.40
13.03
0.36
2
05/29/81
160
115
3.51
153.3
98.0
2. 686
15

396.30
147.25
4.45

141.51
52.58
1.59

18.70
6.95
0.21

28.00
10.40
0.32
3*
05/30/81
160
115
4.31
146.2
96.7
2.664
4 ,

232.50
87.09
2.66

91.30
34.20
1.05

16.50
6.18
0.19

38.30
14.35
0.44
Avg.
--
—
~
3.63
153.4
97.2
2.546
--

394.6
155.15
4.47

132.75
52.02
1.51
.
17.85
7.00
0.21

29.70
11 . 72
•0.34
"Data excluded from average.
                  C-146
-------
TABLE C-64a.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE
 Sampling Location:  Forming Scrubber Inlet
Product: R-19 Building Insulation

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
(English)
1* 2
09/28/82 09/28/82
113
100
13.74
126.0
107.7
40.607
24

1.614
0.040
4.90

0.533
0.013
1 . 62

'0.245
0.006
0.74

0.344
0.008
1 . 04

3
09/28/82
108
100
13.06
127.9
95.3
40.960
22

2.252
0.055
8.06

0.974
0.024
3.48-

0.368
0. 009
1.32

0.483
0.012
1.72

4
09/29/82
108
100
11.43
126.0
106.8
41.314
21

2.446
0.059
7.78

0.881
0.021
2.80

0.361
0.009
1.16
i
0.485
0.012
1.54

Avg.
--
-—
—
12.74
126.6
—
40.960
-

2.104
•0.051
6.91

0.796
0.019
2.63

0.'325
0.008
1.07

0.437
0.011
1.43
*Void test run
                  C-147
-------
TABLE C-64b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE L
 Sampling Location:  Forming Scrubber Inlet
Product: R-19 Buildinq Insulation

Run lumber:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Partlculate matter
Mass collected, rog
Concentration, mg/Nra3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, tag/Urn3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
(Metric)
1* 2
; 09/28/82 09/28/82
113
100
13.74
52.2
107.7
1.15
24

104.70
90.97
2.45

34.'58
30.07
0.81

15.92
13.84
0.37

22.31
19.40
0.52

3
09/28/82
108
100
13.06
53.3
95.3
1.16
22

146.06
125.99
4.03

63.14
54.43
1.74

23.85
20.56
0.66

31.30
26.98
0.86

4
09/29/82
108
TOO
11.43
52.2
106.8
1.17
21

158.64
135.78
3.89

57.15
48.85
1.40

23.39
19.99
0.58

31.48
26.91
0.77

Avg.
—
—
—
12.74
52.6
~
1.16
.

136.47
117.58
3.46

51.62
44.45
T. 32

21.05
18.13
0.54

28.36
24.43
0.72
"Void test run
                 C-148
-------
TABLE C-65a. SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS— LINE
Sampling Location
Product:

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
: Forming "25" Scrubber Out!
R-19 Building Insul
(English)
1* 2
09/28/82 09/28/82
100
100
14.5
126.0
102.6
64.972
22

2.084
0.032
0.92

0.985
0.015
0.44

0.689
0.011
0.30

0.540
0.008
0.24
ation

3
09/29/82
100
100
13.4
124.0
102.9
64.972
21

1 . 564
0.024
0.68

0.902
0.014
0.40.

0.796
0.012
0.34

0.458
0.007
0.20
L
et


4
09/29/82
100
100
14.9
126.0
102.5
63.206
24

1 . 493
0.024
0.66

0.910 .
0.014
,,0.40

0.688
0.011
0.30

0.569
0.009
0.24




Avg.

—
—
14.3
125.3
—
64. 383
--

1.714
0.027
0.75

0.932
0.014
0.41

0.724
0.011
0.31

0.522
0.008
0.23
"Void test run
C-149
-------
  TABLE C-65b.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE L
Sampling Location:   Forming "25" Scrubber Outlet
Product: R-19 Building Insulation

Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °C
Isokinetic, %'
Volume of gas sampled, Nra3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
•Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
(Metric)
1* 2
09/28/82 09/28/82
100
TOO
14.5
52.2
102.6
1.84
22

135.14
73.36
0.46

63.90
34.73
0.22

44.67
24.28
0.15

35.05
19.05
0:12

3
09/29/82
100
100
13.4
51.1
102.9
1.84
21

101.46
55.15
0.34

58.50
31.79
0.2CT

51.62
28.05
0.17'

29.68
16.13
0.10

4
09/29/82
100
100
14.9
52.2 .
102.5
1.79
24

96.80
54.13
0.33

59.04
32.98
0,20

44.65
24.94
0.15

36.88
20.60
0.12

Avg.
—
—
--
14.3
51.8
--
1.82
—

111.13
60.88
0.38

60.48
33.17
0.21

46.98
25.76
0.16

33.87
18.59
0.11
"Void test run . -
                   C-150
-------
                 TABLE C-66a.  SUMMARY  OF TEST RESULTS—LINE  L
               Sampling Location:   Forming "50" Scrubber Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, nrin . .
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cu late matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
-,R-19 Buil
(Engli
i
09/28/82
100
100
14.0
61.7
104.2
54. 732
24

1.410
0.026
1.06

0. 689
0.013
0.52

0.460
0.008
0.34

0.400
0.007
0.30
ding Insu
sh)
2
09/28/82
- , 100
100
15.1
63.3
104.5
56.850
22

1.471
0.026
1.10

0.765
0.013
0.58

0.612
0.011
.0.46

0.461
0.008
0.34
lation

3*
09/29/82
TOO
100
13.8 '
59.4
103.2
58.969
21

2.534
0.043
1.92

0.739
0.0.13
0.56

0.683
0.012
0.52

0.391
0.007
o;so

4
09/29/82
100 .
100
15.1
62.8
102.7
55.085
24

1 . 264 '
0.023
1.44

0.800
0.015 '
0.62 •

0.627
0.011
' 0.48

0.486
0.009
'" '-0.38

Avg.
—
.--.
. —
14.7
62.6
—
55.556
—

1.'382
0.025
1 . 20

0,751 •
0.014
0.57

0.566
0.010
0.43

0.449
0.008
0.34
*0ata excluded from average.
                                   C-151
-------
               TABLE  C-66b.   SUMMARY OF TEST  RESULTS—LINE L
             Sampling Location:  Forming  "50"  Scrubber Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, rain
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, 3. by volume
Avg. stack temperature , °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, rag
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formal dehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, rag/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-19 Building
(Metric)
i
Insul

2
09/28/82 09/28/82
TOO
TOO
14.0
61.7
104.2
1.55
24

91.44
59.12
0.53

44.71
28.85
0.26

29.85
19.26
0'. 17

25.95
16.74
0.15
100
100
15.1
63.3
104.5
1.61
22

95.38
59.20
0.55

49.63
30.83
0.29

39.03
24.24
0.23

29.89
18.57
0.17
ation

3*
09/29/82
100
100
13.8
59.4
103.2
1.67
21

164.33
98.49
0.96

47.91
28.69
0.28

44.28
26.51
0.26

25.39
15.20
0.15

4
09/29/82
100
100
15.1
62.8
102.7
1.56
24

121.80
78.16
0.72

51.89
33.26
0.31

40.66
26.06
0.24

31.54
20.22
0.19

Avg.
—
—
—
14.7
62.6
—
1.57
—

102.87
65.49
0.60

48.74
30.98
0.29

36.51
23.19
0.21

29.13
18.51
0.17
"Data excluded from average.
                                     C-152
-------
  TABLE C-67a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE L
Sampling Location:   Curing/Cooling Scrubber Inlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf^
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
R-19 Building
(English)
1
09/30/82
80
102
10.5
116.1
98.5
50.141
21

4.116
0.082
1.98

0,767
0.015
0.38

0.434
0.009
0.20

0.450
0.009
0.22
Insulation

2
09/30/82
80
102
10.2
115.0
100.8
48.023
22

3.367
0.070
1 . 58 '

0.733
. 0.015
0.34

0.361
0.008
0.16

0.442
0.009
0.20

3 <• •'•
09/30/82
80
102
9i 7
113.0 •-'
96.7 . •-'
45.904
;.' '•__ .• .

.. 3.1 97
0.070
' .- 1:56

0.687
0.015
0.34

0.387
0.008
O.T8

0.454
0.010
0.22 •

Avg.
—
—
-,-
10.1
114.7
..
48.023

o.-.
3.560
O.,074
1.71

0.729
0.015
0,35

0.394
0.008
0,18

0.449
0.009
0.21
                    C-153
-------
  TABLE C-67b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE L
Sampling Location:  Curing/Cooling Scrubber Inlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Particulate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-19 Building
(Metric)
1
09/30/82
80
102
10.5
46.7
98.5
1.42
21

266.92
187.87
0.99

49.76
35.04
0.19

28.15
19.82
0.10

29.19
20.56
0.11
Insulation

2
09/30/82
80
102
10.2
46.1
100.8
1.36
22

218.40
160.78
0.79

47.52
34.94
0.17

23.42
17.22
0.08

28.66
21.07
0.10

3
09/30/82
80
102
9.7
45.0
96.7
1.30
—

207.34
159.50
0.78
'
44.54
34.26
0.17

25.07
19.28
0.09

29.42
22.63
•0.11

Avg.
—
,
—
10.1
45.9
—
1.36
.

230.89
169.38
0.85

47.27
34.75
0.18

25.55
18.77
0.09

29.09
21.42
0.11
                    C-154
-------
   TABLE C-68a.   SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE L
Sampling Location:   Curing/Cooling Scrubber Outlet
Product:
Run number:
Date
Sampling time, min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °F
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, dscf
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Phenol
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level, Ib/ton
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, gr
Concentration, gr/dscf
Emission level , Ib/ton
R-19 Building
(English)
1
09/30/82
100
102
12.7
• 120.0
103.6
55. 085
21

0.746
0.014
0.32

0.311
0.006
0.14

0.272
0.005
0.12

0.172
0.003
0.08
Insulation

2
09/30/82
100
'102
12.9
122.0
97.0
75.918
22

2.045
0.027
0.64

0.780
0.010
0.24

0.588
0.008
0.18

0.446
0.006
0.14

3
09/30/82
100
102
12.3
120. 0
98.4
86.158
- , 	 ;

2.213
0.026
0.66

0.849
0.010
0.26

0.652
0.008
0.20

0.549
0.006
0.16
--
Avg.
—
. • —
- .
: 12.6
120.7
—
72.387
.:' —

1.668
0.022
0.54

0.647
0.009
0.21

0.504
0.007
0.17

0.389
0.005
0.13
                      C-155
-------
   TABLE C-68b.  SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS—LINE L
Sampling Location:   Curing/Cooling Scrubber Outlet
Product:

Run number:
Date
Sampling time," min
Glass pull rate, % of design
Moisture, % by volume
Avg. stack temperature, °C
Isokinetic, %
Volume of gas sampled, Nm3
Opacity average, %
Parti cul ate matter
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenolic compounds
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Phenol
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
Formaldehyde
Mass collected, mg
Concentration, mg/Nm3
Emission level, kg/Mg
R-19 Building
(Metric)
1
09/30/82
100
102
12.7
48.9
103.6
1.56
21

48.40
31.06
0.16

20.18
12.94
0.07

17.67
11.33
0.06

11.18
7.17
0.04
Insulation

2
09/30/82
100
102
12.9
50.0
97.0
2.15
22

132.64
61.69
0.32

50.60 '
23.53
0.12

38.16
17.75
0.09

28.94
13.46
0.07


3
09/30/82
100
102
12.3
48.9
98.4
,2.44
, —

143.56
58.82
0.33

55.05
22.56
0.13

42.27
17.32
0.10

35.60
14.59
0, 08


Avg.


—
12.6
49.3
—
2.05
--

108.20
. 50.52 '
0.27

,41.94
19.68
0.11

32.70
15.47
0.08

24.82
1 1 . 74
0.06
C-156
-------
                TABLE  C-69.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE A
Date	
Type of plant	'  '  '  '  '
Distance from observer to discharge  point   .  .  .
Location of discharge  .:..''	
Height of observation point  	
Height of point of discharge ..........
Direction of observer from discharge point  .  .  .
Description of  background  	
Description of  sky  	
Wind direction  .... 	
Wind velocity	
Color of plume	• .  .  .  .
Duration of observation	18
                           09/22/81
                           Rotary spin
                           1,300 ft at location 1; 1,800 ft at  2
                           Wet ESP outlet          .  :,' .. .'  . '
                           Roof at location  1; ground level at  2
                           100 ft at both  locations
                           SW at both locations              :
                           Blue sky at both  locations    ...  „
                           5% overcast
                           N to S
                           5-10 mph                   ."      .
                           Gray-green
                              min at location  1;  96 rain at  location
          S.et
          No.
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5

            6
            7
            8
            9
           10

           11
           12
           13
           14
           15
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                                   Opacity
                                 Time
Start
                     End
                                      Maximum
                                      in 6  mi'n
            6-rni n
           average
02:55 p.m.
03:01
03:07
03:17
03:23

03:29
03:35
03:41
03:47
04:25

04:31
04:37
04:43
04:49
04:55
                    03:00  p.
                    03:06.
                    03:12
                    .03:22  •
                    03:28

                    03:34
                    03:40
                    03:46
                    03:52
                    04:30

                    04:36
                    04:42
                    04:48
                    04:54
                    05:00
 10
'TO
 10
 TO
 10

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
                             SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
 10
.Id-"'
 10
  9
 10

 10
  8
  8
  8
 10

 10
 10
 10
.  9
 10
16 '
17
18
19
05:01
05:07
05:13"
05:19
05:06
'05:12
05:18
05:24
10
10
10 . .
10
' 10
9
• . JO,
10
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
5
0
(










3.




































































































































































































































































































5 10 .• 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                         C-157
-------
              TABLE  C-70.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  A
         Oate	    09/23/81
         Type of plant	    Rotary spin
         Distance from observer to discharge point   ....    800 ft
         Location of discharge  	    Wet ESP outlet
         Height of observation point	'. .    Ground level
         Height of point of discharge  	    100 ft
         Direction of. observer from discharge point  ....    E
         Description of background	    Blue sky
         Description of sky	    Clear
         Wind direction	    N to S
         Wind velocity	'.    5-10 mph
         Color of plume	    Gray-green
         Duration of observation	•.	    35 rain
                             SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Time
Start
10:30 a.m.
10:36
10:42
10:48
10:59
11:11

End
10:35 a.m.
10:41
10:47
10:53
11 : 04
11:16

Opacity
Maximum 6-min
in 6 min average
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
   so
   45
   40
 -30

£25
>—*
o 20
^
£15

   10
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
                                10
                                             15
                                     SET NUMBER
20
             25
                          30
                                     C-158
-------
                   TABLE G-71.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  A
             Date	•	   09/23/81
             Type of plant	   Rotary spin
             Distance from observer to discharge point  ....   200 ft
             Location of discharge  .  .  .	   Wet ESP outlet
             Height of observation point	  .   Ground leyel
             Height of point of discharge	   loo ft
             Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .   N  "
             Description of  background  ............   Blue sky
             Description of  sky .  .  .	   Clear
             Wind direction	   N to S
             Wind velocity   	   5-lO.raph
             Color of plume	   Gray-green
             Duration of observation  	  .  .   90 rain
                            SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
          Set
          No.
          Time
Start
 End
                                                                 Opacity
Maximum
in 6 rain
 6-min
average
           1
           2
           3
           4
           5

           6
           7
           8
           9
          10

          11
          12
          13
          14
          15
02:10  p.m.
02:16
02:22
02:28
02:34

02:40
02:46
02:52
02:58
03:04

03:10
03:16
03:22
03:28
03:34
02:15 p.m.
02:21
02:27
02:33
02:39

02:45
02:51
02:57
03:03
03:09

03:15
03:21
03:27
-03:33
03:39
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10

  10
  .10
  10
  10
  10

  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
  10

  10
  10
  10
  10
  10

  10
  10
  10
  10
  10
                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
<£.
Q-
O
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0













































































































































































































































































































                                 10            15
                                       SET NUMBER
                                       20
                                 25
                                                                  30
                                       C-159
-------
    TABLE C-72.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE A
Date	   09/24/81
Type of  plant	   Rotary  spin
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....   600 ft
Location of discharge  	   Wet ESP outlet
Height of observation point  	   Ground  level
Height of point of discharge 	   100 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point ....   S
Description of background	   Blue sky
Description of sky	   602 clouds
Wind direction .....'	   NNE
Wind velocity	   5-10 mph  •>
Color of plume	   Gray-green
Duration of observation  	   18 rain
                   SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
Time
Start
09:16 a.m.
09:22
09:35

End
09:21 a.m.
09:27
09:40
Maximum
in 6 min
15
10
10
6-min
average
11
. 10
10
               SUMMARY  O'F VISIBLE EMISSIONS
su
45
40
35
*«
30
M
£2S
o 20
Sis
°10
»
5
0
(







••M





















































•














































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER ,
                            C-160
-------
      TABLE  C-73.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE A
                                                     Rotary spin
                                                     600  ft
Date	
Type of plant	;  '.'.'.'.'.
Distance from observer to discharge point
Location of discharge	  .  ',
Height  of observation  point	!.'.'.'
Height  of point of discharge	',  '.     100 ft
Direction of observer  from discharge  point  .         c
K!£™ °t Background	.'    Blue sk
                      	    40%  -
   Description of sky
   Wind direction
                                                     NNF
                                                     Ef
                  SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10

11
12
13
14
15
                   Time
                                                       Opacity
            Start
                                End
                                             Maximum
                                             in 6 min
                              6-tmn
                              average
         12:06 p.m.
         12:12
         12:18
         12:24
         12:30

         12:36
         12:42
         12:49
         12:55
         01:01

         01:07
         01:13
         01:19
         01:25
         01:31
12:11  p.m.
12:17
12:23
12:29
12:35

12:41
12:47
12:54
01:00
01:06

01:12,
01:18
01:24
01:30
01:36
 10
:15
 10
 15
 15

 15
 15
 15
 15
 10

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
                 SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
10
11
 8
 7
10

11
12
10
10
16
17
18
19
01:37
01:48
01:54
02:00.
01:42
01:53
01:59
02:05
10
•10
10
10
9
6
7
8
50
45
40
5^35
p:25
H-l
o 20
10
5
0
(J



















pM*







































«•••









mm






























MKS





































































••W









^••fl















































































































5 10 15 20 25
SET NUMBER •










3(
                            C-161
-------
               TABLE  C-74.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  A

             Date	•    09/24/81
             Type of plant	    Rotary spin
             Distance from observer to  discharge point   ....    200 ft
             Location of discharge  	    Wet ESP  outlet
             Height of observation point  	    Ground level
             Height of point of discharge 	    TOO ft
             Direction of observer from discharge point  . . '. .    NW
             Description of  background   	    Blue sky
             Description of  sky	    402! clouds
             Wind direction	    NW to SE
             Wind velocity	    0-5 mph
             Color of plume  	    Green-white
             Duration of observation	    108 min
                            SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Time
Start
03:50 p.m.
03:56
04:02
04:08
04:14
04:20
04:26
04:32
04:38
04:49
04:55
05:01
05:17
05:30
05:36
05:42
05:51
06:09

End
03:55 p.m.
04:01
04:07
04:13
04:19
04:25
04:31
04:37
04:43
04: 54
05: 00
- 05:06
05:22
05:35
05:41
05:47
05:56
06:14
Maximum
in 6 min
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
• 10
10
10
10
10
10
6-min
average
9
10
9
9
10
9
9
8
8
8
9
• 9
7
9
8
7
9
9
                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

 5

 0
Q-
O
                                 10
                                           15
                                   SET NUMBER
                                                           20
                                                                        25
                                                                                      30
                                       C-162
-------
      TABLE C-75.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  A
   Date	   10/17/81
   Type of plant	Rotary spin
   Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....   500 ft
   Location of discharge  	   Wet ESP outlet
   Height of observation point  	   Ground level
   Height of point of discharge 	 .:....   200 ft
   Direction of observer from discharge point ....   SW
   Description of background   	 	   Not reported
   Description of sky	  .   100% overcast
   Wind direction	SW to NE
   Wind velocity  	   Not reported
   Color of plume	White
   Duration of observation  	   72 rain
                   SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
                      Time
Start
                    End
                                                        Opacity
                  Maximum
                  i n 6 mi n
           6-min
          average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10

11
12
09:30  a.m.
09:42
09:54
10:06
10:18

10:30
11:20
11:32
11:44
11:56

12:08  p.m.
12:20
09:35  a.m.
09:47
09:59
10:11
10:23
10:35
11:25
11:37
11:49
12:01
      p.m.
12:13
12:25
25
30
25
30
25

35
30
30
30
25

30
20
17
24
25
29
24

29
26
25
25
20

25
16
                  SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
3U
45
40
35
a*
30
ft
£25
G 20
2 15
° 10
5
0
(






MM








«**y


















•M*a

































































r













BHM























































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                              C-163
-------
       TABLE C-76.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  A
   Date	   10/18/81
   Type of plant	   Rotary  spin
   Distance from  observer to discharge  point  ....   500 ft
   Location of discharge  	   Wet ESP outlet
   Height of observation point  	   Ground  level
   Height of point of discharge	   200 ft
   Direction of observer from discharge point ....   SW
   Description of background  	   Not  reported
   Description of sky	802S-100SS clouds
   Wind direction	   NW to SE
   Mind velocity   	 ....   15.30 raph
   Color of plume	White
   Duration of observation  	   72 min
                   SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
          Time
Start
                     End
                                                        Opacity
                  Maximum
                  in 6 min
           6-irnn
          average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10

11
12
08:30  a.m.
08:42
08:54
09:06
09:18

09:30
10:20
10:32
10:44
10:56

11:10
11:22
08:35  a.m.
08:47
08:59
09:11
09:23

09:35
10:25
10:37
10:49
11:01

11:15
11:27
25
25
25
25
30

25
15
15
15
15

15-
20
15
22
22
20
22

20
15
14
12
11

11
15
                  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
bU
45
40
5*35
,30
£25
0 20
§»
10
5
0
(













































































•""









^•B




















































































































































































































) 5 10 IS 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                              C-164
-------
               TABLE  C-77.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE A
             °ate •  •  •	  10/18/81
             Type of plant	  Rotary Sp1n
             Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  500 ft
             Location of discharge  	  wet ESP outlet
             Height  of observation point  	  Ground level
             Height  of point of discharge ...........  200 ft
             Direction of observer from discharge point ....  SW
             Description of background  	  . 	  Not reported
             Description of sky	502S-100% clouds
             Wind direction	  NW to SE
             Hind velocity  	  15.20 mph
             Color of plume	•.	White
             Duration of observation 	  60 min
                            SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
            Time
Start
 End
                                                                    Opacity
             Maximum
             in 6 min
              6-min
             average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10
02:22  p.
02:40
03:06
03:18
04:26

04:38
04:50
05:02
05:16
05:28
02:27 p.
02:45
03:11
02:23
04:31

04:43
04:55
05:07
05:21
05:33
m.
20
20
20
20
15

15
15
15
25
15
17
14
15
15
11

11
12
11
15
12
                          SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
c







•MM








































••«•









•••












•






































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-165
-------
               TABLE C-78.  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  A
             Date	   10/19/81
             Type of plant	   Rotary spin
             Oistanca from observer to discharge point   ....   500 ft
             Location of discharge  	   Wet ESP outlet
             Height of observation point	  .   Ground level
             Height of point of discharge .	   200 ft
             Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   SSW
             Description of background  	   Not reported
             Description of sky	   Clear
             Wind direction	   NW to SE
             Wind velocity	   10 mph
             Color of plume	   White
             Duration of observation  	   60 rain
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.
             Time
Start
 End
                                                                     Opacity
Maximum
in  6  min
 6-nnn
average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
09:48 a..m.
10:00
10:12
10:24-
10:36
09:53 a.m.
10:05
10:17
10:29
10:41
  20
  25
  20
  15
  15
  19
  21
  14
  15
  12
6
7
8
9
10
10:48
11:50
12:01 p.m.
12:25
12:37
10:53
11:55
12:06 p.m.
12:30
12:42 '
15
20
15
25
25
15
13
11
16
15
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
50
45
40
35
** 30
«*
£2S
5 20
gS 15
°10
5
0
(










)





































«•••



















••!••


















MM





















































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                      C-166
-------
          TABLE C-79.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  B
Date	   12/09/81
Type of plant	Rotary spin
Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....   20  ft
Location of discharge  	  .  .   Rectangular mixing chamber stack
Height of observation point   	   15  ft
Height of point of discharge	   30  ft
Direction of observer from discharge point; .  .  .  .   SE
Description of background   	   Not reported
Description of sky	'	80% clouds
Wind direction	NW
Wind velocity	7 mph
Color of plume	White
Duration of observation  	   96 min
                     SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
    Set
    No.
                           Time
                Start
                                End
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                                                            Opacity
                               6-min
                              average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10

11
12
13
14
15

16
12:33
12:39
12:45
12:51
12:47

01:03
01:09
01:15
01:21
01:27

01:33
03:46
04:25
04:35
04:41

04:47
                      p.m.
12:38  p.m.
12:44
12:50
12:56
01:02

01:08
01:14
01:20
01:26
01:32

01:38
03:51
04:30
04:40
04:56

04:52
                   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
45
40
35
30
25
20
10
5
0
0












































































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3(
SET NUMBER
                                  C-167
-------
         TABLE  C-80.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  B
Date	12/10/81
Type of plant	•  •  •  Rotary  spin
Distance from observer to discharge point   ... :.  .20 ft
Location of discharge  	  Rectangular mixing chamber stack
Height of observation .point	15 ft
Height of point of discharge	  . • 30 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .  SE
Description of background   	  Not reported
Description of sky	*» ^™*s
Wind direction	 • •	NU
Wind velocity	  7 raph
Color of plume 	  White
Duration of observation  	  78 rain
                       SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
    Set
    No.
                           Time
Start
                    End
                                                            Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                              6-min
                              average
     1
     2
     3
     4
     5

     6
     7
     8
     9
     10
09:20 a.m.
09:37
10:01
10:08
10:19

10:24
12:30 p.m.
12:44
12:50
12:56
                                         a.m.
09:25
09:42
10:£I6
10:13
10:24
10:29
12:35 p.
12:49
12:55
01:01
                       SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
11
12
13
01:03
01:09
01:15
01 : 08
01:14
01 : 20
5
5
5
5
5
. 5
50

40
35
30
25
20
IS
10
5
0
(






































































) 5






































































































































































































































10 15 - 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                  C-168
-------
              TABLE  C-81.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  B

  Date	12/11/81
  Type of plant	  Rotary  spin
  Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  20 ft
  Location of discharge 	  Rectangular mixing chamber stack
  Height of observation point  ....  	  15 ft
  Height of point of discharge .  .  .	30 ft
  Direction of observer from discharge  point ....  SE
  Description of background  . .  	  Not reported
  Description of sky	•	Overcast
  Wind direction	NW
  Wind velocity	7 mph
  Color of plume	White
  Duration of observation	132 min
                           SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Time
Start
10:14 a.m.
10:20
10:26
10:32
10:38
10:44 ,
10:55
11:01
11:07
11:13
01:20 p.m.
.01:26
01:32
01:38
01:44
01:50
01:56
02:02
02:08
02:14
02:20
02: 26

End
10:19 a.m.
10:25
10:31
10:37
10:43
10:49
11:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
01:25 p.m.
01:31
01:37
01:43
01:49
01:55
02:01
02:07
02:13
02:19
02:25
02:31
Maximum
in 6 min
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6-mi n
average
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
                          SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
o
a.
o
bO
45
40
35
30
25
20
;:
\
i












































































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                      C-169
-------
               TABLE  C-82.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  E
Date	
Type of plant	
Distance from observer to discharge point
Location of discharge  	
Height of observation  point  	
Height of point of discharge 	   150 ft
Direction of observer  from discharge  point ....   SW
Description of background  	   Mot reported
Description of sky	•	   50* clouds
Wind direction	   Westerly
Wind velocity	.•	   10-15 raph
Color of plume	   WMte
Duration of observation   	   '2 min
09/09/81
Rotary  spin
500 ft   .
Wet ESP outlet stack on forming,
  curing, cooling, and asphalt
20 ft
                              SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
Time
Start
11:48 a.m.
03:01 p.m.

End
11:53 a.m.
03:06 p.m.
Maximum
in 6 min
50
60
6-min
average
49
59
                            SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
100
90
60
*« 70
« 60
£40
£30
20
10
0
(










)



































































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                       C-170
-------
                  TABLE C-83.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE E
Date	
Type of plant	 .
Distance from observer to discharge point
Location of discharge  	
Height of  observation point  	 .
Height of  point of discharge 	
Direction  of observer from discharge point
Description of background  	
Description of sky .... 	
Wind direction	•  • •
Hind velocity  	
Color of plume	
Duration of observation  	 .
                                                 09/09/81
                                                 Rotary  spin
                                                 500 ft
                                                 Wet ESP outlet stack on  forming, curing,
                                                   cooling, and asphalt
                                                 20 ft
                                                 150 ft
                                                 SW
                                                 Not reported
                                                 505! clouds
                                                 W
                                                 5-15 mph
                                                 White
                                                 66 min
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
         Set
         No.
                             Time
                   Start
 End
                                                                 Opacity
Maximum
in 6 min
 6-min
average
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5

          6
          7
          8
          9
         10

         11
                   04:50 p.m.
                   04:46
                   05:02
                   05:08
                   05:14

                   05:20
                   06:35
                   06:41
                   06:47
                   06:53

                   06:59
04:55 p.m.
05:01
05:07
05:13
05:19

05:25
06:40
06:46
06:52
06:58

07:04
  65
  60
  58
  50
  50

  60
  60
  70
  70
  70

  70
  61
  60
  60
  50
  46

  53
  56
  68
  70
  70

  69
                            SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
<£.
Q_
O
TOO
 90

 80

 70

 60

 50

 40

 30

 20

 10

  0













































•MM








•MM









MMB








MM


































































































































































































































3 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                         C-171
-------
               TABLE  C-84.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  E
Date	    09/10/81
Type of plant	' •  •    Rotary spin  .
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....    400 ft                  '
Location of discharge  	    Wet ESP outlet stack on forming, curing,
                                                  cooling, and asphalt
                                                Ground level
                                                150 ft
                                                E
Height of- observation  point	
Height of point of discharge 	  .....
Direction of observer  from discharge point ...
Description of background  	    Not reported
Description of sky 	
Wind direction 	
Wind velocity 	
Color of plume .	
Duration of observation   	
                                                U clouds
                                                SM
                                                5-10 mph
                                                White
                                                SO min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
                            Time
               Start
 End
                                                                      Opacity
               Maximum
               in  6 min
              6-min
             average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
               10:57 a.m.
               11:03'
               11:09
               11:15
               11:21
11:02
11:08
11:14
11:20
11:26
a.m.
65
70
65
65
65
60
67
65
62
63
6
7
8
9
10
12:10 p.m.
12:16
12:22
12:28
12:34
12:15 p.m.
12:21
12:27
12:33
12:39
65
70
65
70
75
60
66
62
67
68
                           SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
   100
    90
    30
  * 70
  ^ 60

  Z 50
  J 40
    30
    20
    10
 Q.
                                 10
                                             15
                                         SET NUMBER
                                                          20
                                                                       25
                                                                                   30
                                      C-172
-------
               TABLE  C-85.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  E


Date	    09/10/81
Type of plant	    Rotary spin
Distance from observer to discharge point   ....    500 ft
Location of discharge   	    Wet ESP outlet stack  on  forming,  curing,
                                                    cooling, and asphalt                 .
Height of observation  point   	    Ground level
Height of point of discharge	  150 ft
Direction of observer  from discharge point  .  . . .    SE
Description of background	    Blue sky      ,..„„„        ..  ,.   e*7
Description of sky	    Clear for sets 1-5; 90%  overcast  for  6&7
Wind direction	    SW    '
Mind velocity	    f-}° ™Ph
Color of plume .  . .	    Wnit(;
Duration of observation	    42 rain
                               SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time
Start
02:12 p.m.
02:18
02:24
02: 30
02:36
03:55
04:01

End
02:17 p.m.
02:23
02:29
02:35
. 02:41
04:00 -
04:07

Maximum
in 6 mi
70
70
60
65
65
60
60
Opacity
6-min
n average
66
66
59
63
60
55
56
                             SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
    100

    90

    80

   5 70


   '• 50

  
-------
               TABLE C-86.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE E
Date	
Type of plant  	
Distance from observer to discharge  point
Location of discharge  	
Height of observation  point  	
Height of point of discharge 	
Direction of observer  from discharge  point
Description of background  	
Description of sky 	
Wind direction 	
Wind velocity  	
Color of plume	
Duration of observation   	
09/11/81
Rotary  spin
450 ft
Wet ESP outlet stack on forming, curing,
  cooling, and asphalt
Ground  level
150 ft
S
Not reported
40% clouds
WSW
3-5 raph
White-blue
24 min
                              SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
Time
Start
04:30 p.m.
04:40
04:50
05:00

• End
04:35 p.m.
04:45
04:55
05:05
Maximum
in 6 min
85
85
85
85
6-min
average
81
78
79
77
                            SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
100
90
80
*« 70
« 60
£ SO
i— «
0 40
£30
20
10
0
(












IVBM



















1MB











































































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                       C-174
-------
                 TABLE  C-87.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  E
Date	
Type  of plant	
Distance from observer to discharge point
Location of discharge  .	
Height  of observation point  	
Height  of point of discharge 	
Direction of observer from discharge point
Description of background	  .
Description of sky	
Wind direction ....  	
Wind velocity	  .
Color of plume	
Duration of observation   	
09/11/81
Rotary  spin
300 ft
Wet ESP outlet stack on forming, curing,
  cooling, and asphalt
About 50 ft
150 ft                          .
SE
Blue sky              •        .
Clear
w                 •.
5-10 mph               .        •   .    .
Brownish white
108 min
                            SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
': Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Time
Start.
10:00 a.m.
10:06
10:15
10:21
10:29
10:35
10:45
10:51 '
11:00
11:06
11:15
11:21
11 : 30
11:36
11:45
11:51
12:00 p.m.
12:06

End
10:05 a.m.
10:11
10:20
10:26
10:34
'10:40
-10:50
10:56
1 1 : 05 •
11:11
11 : 20
11 : 26
11:35
11:41
11:50
11 : 56
12:05 p.m.
12:11
Maximum
in 6 min
80
80
85
85
85
85
85
80
85
85
85
85
90
90
85
85
80
85
6-mi n
average
71
- 66
71
75
74
76
73
69
76
76
75
74
80
84
30
80
76
74
                            SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
100
90
80
« 7°
„ 60
£ 50.
o 40
2 30
° 20
10
0
(













[_j


















^™<









__









— i









— • i


























































i









MMMM






























W»









—































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                       C-175
-------
                TABLE  C-88,   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  E
Date	   09/11/81
Type of plant	   Rotary spin
Ofstance from observer to discharge point   ....   1,000 ft
Location of discharge  	   Wet ESP outlet stack on forming,  curing,
                                                   cooling, and asphalt
Height of observation point  	   Ground level
Height of point of discharge 	   160 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   s
Description of background  	   Blue sky
Description of sky	   Clear
Wind direction	   W
Wind velocity   	   5-10 mph
Color of plume	'	   Brownish-white
Duration of observation  	   96 min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
         Set
         No.
                                Time
                     Start
                                         End
                                                                  Opacity
                                                          Maximum
                                                          in 6 min
                               6-imn
                              average
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5

          6
          7
          8
          9
          10

          11
          12
          13
          14
          15

          16
                     01:25 p.m.
                     01:31
                     01:40
                     01:46
                     01:55

                     02:01
                     02:10
                     02:16
                     02:25
                     02:31

                     02:40
                     02:46
                     02:55
                     03:01
                     03:10

                     03:16
01:30 p.m.
01:36
01:45
01:51
02:00

02:06
02:15
02:21
02:30
02:36

02:45
02:51
03:00
03:06
03:15

03:21
 35
 85
 90
 90
 90

 85
 95
100
 90
 90

 85
 85
 85
 90
 85

 80
74
78
83
80
82

80
84
85
84
82

79
79
79
83
74

72
                            SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
   100
    go
    80
 * 70
  « 60
S
    40
    30
    20

    10
    0


—









— "•











































































































































••»



















































































































































D 5 10 .15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                         C-176
-------
      TABLE  C-89.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  F

 Date	'.	   07/09/81
 Type of plant	   Rotary  spin
 Distance from observer to  discharge point   ....   50 ft
 Location of discharge  	   North forming stack
 Height of observation point   	   10 ft
 Height of point of discharge	6 ft above roof
 Direction of  observer from discharge point. ....   £
 Description of  background  .	   Green trees
 Description of  sky 	 . 	   50% clouds
 Wind direction	NE to SW   ,
 Wind velocity	,	10 mph
 Color of plume	Blue-gray
 Duration of observation	'	126 min
Set
No.
                  SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
                      Time
                                                       Opaci ty
            Start
End
Maximum
in 6  min
 6-mtn
average
1 •"
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 •
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
05:15 p.m.
05:21
05:27
05:33
05:39
05:45
05:51
05:57
06:03
06:09
06:15
06:21
06:27
06:33
06:50
06:56
07:02
07:08
07:14
07:20
07:26
05:20 p.m.
05:26
05:32
05:38
05:44
05: 50 '
05:56
06:02
06: 08
06:14
06:20
06:26
06:32
06:38
06: 55
07:01
07:07
07:13
07:19
07:25
07:31
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10'
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
. • 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
                 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
3U
45
40
**35
«30
£25
o 20
^
S15
10
5
0
(












































































































































































































































































































) • ' ' 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                             C-177
-------
                TABLE C-90.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  F


            Date	07/09/81
            Type of plant	Rotary spin
            Distance from  observer to  discharge point   ....  50 ft
            Location of discharge  	  Middle forming  stack
            Height of observation point   	 .  10 ft
            Height of point of discharge  	  6 ft above roof
            Direction of observer from discharge point  . .  . .  E
            Description of background   	  Green trees
            Description of sky	50% clouds
            Wind direction .  . '	NE to SW
            Wind velocity	10 raph
            Color of plume	Blue-gray
            Duration of observation	126 min
                            SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
                                                                Opacity
&«
Sat
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Time
Start
05:15 p.m.
05:21
05:27
05:33
05:39
05:45
05:51
05:57
06:03
06:09
06:15
06:21
06:27
06:33
06:50
06:56
07:02
07:08
07:14
07:20
07:26

End
05:20 p.m.
05:26
05:32
05:38
05:44
05:50
05:56
06:02
06:08
06:14
06:20
06:26
06:32
06:38
06:55
07:01
07:07
07:13
07:19
07:25
• 07:31
Maximum
in ,6 min
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6-min
average
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 •
5
5
5
5
5
5
                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
3U
45
40
35
30
25
20
:












































































































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 . 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                       C-178
-------
    TABLE C-91.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  F

Date	• •  •  07/09/81
Type  of plant	Rotary spin
Distance from observer to discharge  point  ....  30 ft
Location of discharge  	  South forming stack
Height of observation point  	  6 ft
Height of point of discharge	6 ft above roof
Direction of observer from discharge point .  . .  .  u
Description of background  	  Not reported
Description of sky .  	  Not reported
Wind  direction	NE to SW
Wind  velocity	5-10 raph
Color of plume	Blue-gray
Duration of observation   	  126 rain


                 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                     Opacity
Set '
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Time
Start
05:15 p.m.
05:21
05:27
05:33
05:39
05:45
05:51
05:57
06:03
06:09
06:15
06:21
06:27
06:33
06:50
06:56
07:02
07:08
07:14
07:20
07:26

End
05:20 p.m.
05:26
05:32
05:38
05:44
05:50
05:56
06:02
06:08
06:14
06:20
06:26
06:32
06:38
06:55
07:01
07:07 '
07:13
07:19
07:25
07:31
Maximum
in 6 mirt
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
6-min
average
n
10
10
13
13
n
13
13
14
14
15
14
12
14
14
12
10
10
10
10
10
                SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
SU
45
40
35
20
15
5
0
(






















































































MBM








=a









































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 31
SET NUMBER
                            C-179
-------
      TABLE  C-92.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  F


Date	07/09/81
Type of  plant	Rotary spin
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  50 ft
Location of discharge  	  North curing/cooling stack
Height of observation point  	  10 ft
Height of point of discharge 	  10 ft above  roof
Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .  £
Description of background  	  Green trees
Description of sky	50% clouds
Wind direction	NE to SW
Wind velocity	10 mph
Color of plume	Slue-gray
Duration of observation   	  84 min
                   SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
                                                       Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Time
Start
05:28 p.m.
05:45
. 05:51
06:00
06:06
06:18
06:24
06:30
06:36
06:42
06:48
07:01
07:13
07:22

End
05:33 p.m.
05:50
05:56
06:05
06:11
06:23
06:29
06:35
06:41
06:47
06:53
07:06
07:18
07:27
Maximum
in 6 min
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
30
30
6-min
average
26
27
29
27
27
27
26
25
25
25
24
24
25
25
                  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
3U
45
40
35
25
20
10
S
0
(




SB








••••









•MR









•M









•^•1









— 1









MHM









•MM
































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                              C-180
-------
               TABLE C-93.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  F
           Date	   07/09/81
           Type  of plant	• •   Rotary spin
           Distance from  observer to discharge point   ....   50  ft
           Location of discharge  	   South curing  stack
           Height of observation point  	   10  ft
           Height of point of discharge	   10  ft abo've roof
           Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   E
           Description of background  	   Green trees .
           Description of sky	   ?°%4.cl2,, s
           Wind  direction	   «E  to SW
           Wind  velocity	   10  raph
           Color of. plume	•   olue;gr
           Duration of observation  	   a4  rain
                            SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Time
Start
05:28 p.m.
05:45
05:51
06: 00
06:06
06:18
06:24
06:30
06:36
06:42
06:48
07:01
07:13
07:22

End
05:33 p.m.
05:50
05:56
06:05
06:11
06:23
06:29
06:35
06:41
06:47
06:53
07:06
07:18
07:27
Maximum
in 6 min
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
25
30
6-mi n
average
28
29
29
29
29
29
27
27
25
25
26
25
25
25
                           SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
  50

  45

  40
 .,30

£25
*—4
o  20
   10
                                 10
        15
SET NUMBER
                                                             20
                                                                          25
                                                                                        30
                                        C-181
-------
r
                                    TABLE C-94.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  F

                               Date	07/10/81
                               Type of plant	Rotary  spin
                               Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  30 ft
                               Location of discharge  	  North forming stack
                               Height of observation point   	  10 ft
                               Height of point of discharge	6 ft above roof
                               Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  :  E
                               Description of background   	  Green trees
                               Description of sky	50% clouds
                               Wind direction	W to E
                               Wind velocity	2-5 mph
                               Color of plume	Gray
                               Duration of observation  	  120 rain
                                                SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                              Set
                              Ho.
                               1
                               2
                               3
                               4
                               5

                               6
                               7
                               8
                               9
                              10

                              11
                              12
                              13
                              14
                              15
                                                                                      Opacity
                                                    Time
Start
                    End
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
09:30  a.m.
09:36
09:42
09:48
09:54

10:00
10:14
10:20
11:00
11:06

11:12
11:18
11:24
11:30
11:36
09:35  a.m.
09:41
09:47
09:53
09:59

10:05
10:19
10:25*
11:05
11:11

11:17
11:23
11:29
11:35
11:41
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
                               fa-rain
                              average
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
16
17
18
19
20
11:42
01:00 p.m.
01:06
01:12
01:18
11:47
01:05 p.m.
01:11
01:17
01:23
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
                                                SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
                      50

                      45

                      40

                    %«35
                     «30

                    £25
                    »—«
                    o 20


                      10
                                                      10
                         15
                 SET NUMBER
                                                                                  20
                                                                                                25
                                                                                                              30
                                                            C-782
-------
                 TABLE C-95.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  F

          Date	07/10/81
          Type of plant   . . .	Rotary spin
          Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  30 ft
          Location of discharge  	  Middle forming stack
          Height of observation point	.  .  10 ft
          Height of point of discharge	._  6 ft above roof
          Direction of  observer from discharge point .  .  .  .  E
          Description of  background  	  Green trees
          Description of  sky	'•  •  50% clouds
          Wind direction	W to E, N to  S, NE to SE
          Wind velocity  .	2-5 raph
          Color of plume  .  .'	Gray
          Duration of observation  .	120 min


                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
           Set
           No.
                                 Time
                                                                  Opacity
Start
                    End
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5

            6
            7
            8
            9
           10

           11
           12
           13
           14
           15
09:30  a.m.
09:36
09:42
09:48
09:54

10:00
10:14
10:20
11:00
11:06

11:12
11:18
11:24
11:30  .
11:36
09:35  a.m.
09:41
09:47
09:53
09:59  .

10:05
10:19
10:25
11:05
11:11

11:17
11:23
11:29
11:35
11:41
5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5
5

5
5
5
5
5
16
17
18
19
20
11:42
01:00 p.m.
01:06
01:12
01:18
11:47
01:05 p.m.
01:11
01:17
01:23
5
5
5
5
5 .
5
5
5
5
5
                             SUMMARY .OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Q-
O
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(












































































































































































































































































































) 5 '10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                         C-183
-------
r
                                   TABLE C-96.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE F
                            Date	
                            Type of plant	•
                            Distance from observer to discharge point
                            Location of discharge  	
                            Height of observation point  	
                            Height of point of discharge 	
                            Direction of observer from discharge point
                            Description of background  	
                            Description of sky 	
                            Wind direction 	
                            Wind velocity  	
                            Color of plume
                             Duration of observation  	  132 min
07/10/31
Rotary spin
60 ft
South forming stack
6 ft
6 ft above roof
E
Not reported
50%-60% clouds
N to S
0-5 mph
Blue-gray       ,
                                               SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                                                   Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Time
Start
09:30 a.m.
09:36
09:42
09:48
09:54
10:00
10:14
• 10:20
10:26
10:58
11:04
11:10
11:16
11:22
11:28
11:34
11:40
11:46
01:00 p.m.
01:06
01:12
01:18

End
09:35 a.m.
09:41 •
09:47
09:53
09:59
10:05
10:19
10:25
10:31
11:03
11:09
11:15
11:21
11:27
11:33
11:39
11:45
11:51
01:05 p.m.
01:11
01:17
01:23
Maximum
in 6 min
15
15
15
15 .
15
15
15
10
15
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
10
10
10
10
10
10
6-min
average
15
15
15
15
15
15
n
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
                                              SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
su
45
40
35
30
20
IS
5
0
I































































u
r







































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                                          C-184
-------
                TABLE  C-97.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE, F


           Date	07/10/81
           Type of plant   .	Rotary spin
           Distance from  observer to discharge  point  ....   20 ft
           Location of discharge  	   North forming stack
           Height of observation point  .	12 ft
           Height of point of  discharge	'.....   6 ft above roof
           Direction of observer from discharge point . . .  .   w
           Description of background  	   Green trees
           Description of sky	30% clouds
           Wind direction	W to E
           Wind velocity	10 mph
           Color of plume	Gray       •
           Duration of observation	   114 min
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
                                                                  Opacity
  50

  45

  40

^35

 -30


o 20


  10

    5

 """  0
          Set
          No.
           1
           2
           3
           4
           5

           6
           7
           8
           9
           10

           11
           12
           13
           14
           15
                                Time
Start
                    End
                                     Maximum.
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
03:55  p.m.
04:20
04:26
04:32
04:38

04:44
04:50
04:56
05:12   -
05:18

05:24
05:30
05:36
05:42
05:48
04:00  p.m.
04:25
04:31
04:37
04:43

04:49
04:55
05:01
05:17
05:23

05:29
05:35
05:41
05:47
05:53
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
                            SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
lo

10
10
10
10
10
16
17
18
19
05:54
06:05
06:11
06:17
05:59
06:10
06:16 '
06:22
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
                                  10
                          15
                 SET NUMBER
                                                              20
                                                                            25
                                                                                          30
                                        C-185
-------
        TABLE C-98.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  F
Date	07/10/81
Type of plant	  Rotary spin
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  20  ft
Location of discharge  	 ....  Middle forming stack
Height of observation point   	  12  ft
Height of point of discharge	6 ft above roof
Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .  w
Description of  background  	  Green trees
Description of  sky	30% clouds
Wind direction	  W to E
Wind velocity	10  mph
Color of plume	  Gray
Duration of observation  . ,	114 min
                   SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5

  5
  7
  8
  9
 10

 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
          Time
                                                        Qpaci ty
Start
 End
Maximum
in 6 min
 6-min
average
03:55  p.m.
04:20
04:26
04:32
05:38

04:44
04:50
04:56
05:12
05:18

05:24
05:30
05:36
05:42
05:48
04:00  p.
04:25
04:31
04:37
04:43

04:49
04:55
05:01
05:17
05:23

05:29
05:35
05:41
05:47
05:53
                  SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
16
17
18
19
05:54
06:05
06:11
06:17
05:59
06:10
06:16
06:22
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
45
40
M 3S
. 30
£ 25
o 20
2 15
° 10
5
0
C




























































































































































































_


























































































1



















) 5 10 15 20-25 31
SET NUMBER
                              C-186
-------
                TABLE  C-.99.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  F


            Date	 . .	07/10/81
            Type of plant	  •	Rotary spin
            Distance from observer to discharge  point  ....  30 ft
            Location of  discharge  	  South forming  stack
            Height of observation point  	  6 ft
            Height of point of discharge ......:....  6 ft above  roof
            Direction of observer from discharge point . .  .  .  W
            Description  of  background  	  Not reported
            Description  of  sky  .	50% clouds
            Wind direction	N to S
            Wind velocity   ....	5-10 mph
            Color of plume	Blue-gray
            Duration of  observation	114 min


                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
           Set
           No.
                                                                   Opacity
                                 Time
Start
                     End
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5

            6
            7
            8
           "9
           10

           11
           12
           13
           14
           15
03:56  p.m.
04:27
04:33
04:39
04:45

04:51
04:57
05:15
05:21 '
05:27

05:33
05:39
OS: 45
05:54
06:01
04:01  p.m.
04:32
04:38
04:44
04:50

04:56
05:02
05:20
05:26
05:32

05:38
05:44
05:50
05:59
06:05
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
15
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
11
10
10

 6
10
10
10
10
16
17
18
19
06:07 '
06:13
06:19
06:25
06:12
06:18
06:24
06:30
10
10:
10
10
10
10
8
6
                             SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
a*
su
45
40
35
30
20
:
t













































































H=f








_

























































































•••

























































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                         C-187
-------
        TABLE C-100.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE F

Date	07/10/81
Type of plant	Rotary spin
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  no ft
Location of discharge  	  North curing/cooling stack
Height of observation point  .  .  .	1C ft above stack
Height of point of discharge 	  10 ft above roof
Direction of observer from discharge point ....  NE
Description of  background  	  Green trees
Description of  sky 	 ...  20% clouds
Wind direction	  N to S
Wind velocity   	  Not reported
Color of plume	Blue-white
Duration of observation  	  126 min


                   SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
 Set
 No.
                       Time
Start
                     tnd
                                                         Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6-min
                               6-irnn
                              average
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10

 11
 12
 13
 14
 15
09:30 a.m.
09:36
09:42
09:48
10:02

10:16
10:22
10:28
10:58
11:04

11:10
11:18
11:24
11:31
11:37
09:35
09:41
09:47
09:53
10:07

10:21
10i 27
10:33
11:03
11:09

11:15
11:23
11:29
11:36
11:42
35
35
35
35
30

35
35
30
35
30

35
35
30
30
35
                  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
30
30
30
30
30

31
30
28
30
29

31
30
28
29
27
16
17
18
19
20
21
11:43
01:00 p.m.
01:06
01:12
01:18
01:24
11:48
01:05 p.m.
01:11
01:17
01:23
01:29
30
35
35
35
35
35
28
34
31
31
33
32
au
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(




•MB










••M








••••


















































_j









•§••








••M












































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 31
SET NUMBER
                              C-188
-------
                  TABLE C-101.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE F

      Date	   07/10/81
      Type of plant  .  .  .  .	   Rotary spin
      Distance from observer  to discharge point   ....   30 ft
      Location of discharge   .	   North  curing/cooling stack
      Height of observation point	  .   Stack  level
      Height of point of discharge	   10 ft  above roof
      Direction of observer from discharge point  .  .  .  .   w                      - •  .
      Description of background	  .   Green  trees and black background
      Description of sky	   15% clouds
      Wind direction	.'	   H to E
      Wind velocity  .  .  .  .	   10 mph
      Color of plume	  .....   Blue-white
      Duration of observation	   120  min


                             SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
           Set
           No.
                                 Time
                                                                   Opacity
                       Start
                                         End
                  Maximum
                  .in 6 min
           6-min
          average
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5

            6
            7
            8
            9
           10

           11
           12
           13
           14
           15
                    03:55 p.m.
                    04:19
                    04:25
                    04:34
                    04:40

                    04:46
                    04:52
                    04:58
                    05:12
                    05:18

                    05:24
                    05:30
                    05:36
                    05:42
                    05:48
04:00  p.m.
04:24
04:30
04:39
04:45

04:51
04:57
05:03
05:17
05:23

05:29
05:35
05:41
05:47
05:53
25
25
25
25
25

25
25
25
25
25

25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
22

22
23
23
23
23

22
23
23
25
25
16
17
18
19
20
05:54
06:00
06:06
06:12
06:18
05:59
06:05
06:11
06:17
06:23
25
25
25
25
25
24
22
24
24
23
                            SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
o_
o
50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10









































































































































































-


































































































































0 	 5 10 15 20 25 . 3
SET NUMBER
                                        C-189
-------
r
                                   TABLE C-102.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE F

                              Date	  07/10/81
                              Type of plant	  Rotary spin
                              Distance from  observer to discharge point   ....  150 ft
                              Location of discharge  	  South curing stack
                              Height of observation point  	  10 ft above stack
                              Height of point of discharge	  •  10 ft above roof
                              Direction of observer from discharge point  ....  NE
                              Description of background  	  Sreen trees
                              Description of sky	'.  .  202 clouds
                              Wind direction	  N to S
                              Wind velocity	Not reported
                              Color of plume	Blue-white
                              Duration of observation   	  126 min

                                               SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
                             Set
                             No.
                              1
                              2
                              3
                              4
                              5

                              6
                              7
                              8
                              9
                             10

                             11
                             12
                             13
                             H
                             15

                             16
                             17
                             18
                             19
                             20

                             21
                                                                                     Opacity
                                                   Time
Start
                     End
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
09:30 a.m.
09:36
09:42
09:48
10:02

10:16
10:22
10:28
10:58
11:04

11:10
11:19
11:25
11:31
11:37

11:43
01:00 p.m.
01:06
01:12
01:18

01:24
09:35 a.m.
09:41
09:47
09:53
10:07

10:21
10:27
10:33
11:03
11:09

11:15
11:24
11:30
11:36
11:42

11:48
01:05 p.m.
01:11
01:17
01:23

01:29
30
25
30
30
25

25
25
25
25
25

25
25
25
25
25

25
30
30
30
35

30
                               6-nnn
                              average
26
23
26
24
24

24
24
22
24
25

24
23
25
25
24

25
25
25
29
29

29
                   Q.
                   O
                                               SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
bO
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(










































































•••



















MM





























•MM




























I
••M








™"™ '


;'•




























.








































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
                                                            SET  NUMBER
                                                            C-190
-------
                TABLE C-103.  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  F

     Date	   07/10/31
     Type of plant  .  .  .	   Rotary  spin
     Distance from observer :to discharge  point  ....   40 ft                .  •  .
     Location of discharge  .	, •  •   South curing stack
     Height of observation point	......   Stack level   '. •  '
     Height of point of discharge .	   10 ft above-roof       -, • .
     Direction of observer from discharge'point .   . .  .   W
     Description of background  	  ; Green trees and black background
     Description of sky	   15% clouds
     Wind direction	   W to E
     Wind velocity	   10 mP"  '.   .         :     ,
     Color of plume	   Blue-white        ,
     Duration of observation	   120 mm

                           .SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY  -
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Time'
Start
03:55 p.m.
04:19
04: 25
04:34
04": 40 	
04:46
04:52
04: 58 . .
05: 12
05:18
05:24
05:30
05:36
05:42
05:48
05:54
06:00
06:06
• 06:12 •. • •
06:18

End
04:00 p.m.
04: 24
04:' 30
04:39
04:45
04:51
04: 57 '
05:03-
05:17
05:23
05:29
05:35
05:41
05:47
05:53, .
05:59
06:05
06:11
.. 06:17
06:23
Maximum
in 6 min
30
35
35
35
30
35
30
35
30
30
30
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
6-nri n
average
26
30
28
28
26
26
27
27
26
25
25
25
25
25
26
27
25
25
26
27
                            SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
«e
o.
SO
45
40
35
25
20
15
5
0
(


























































































































































•tan






































































*










































































) S 10 15 20 25 31
SET NUMBER
                                        C-191
-------
               TABLE C-104.  SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  G
                 .	  05/28/81
            Type of plant  .	Rotary spin
            Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  250 ft
            Location of discharge  	  Forming stack
            Height  of observation point  	  TOO ft
            Height  of point of discharge	  ISO ft
            Direction of observer from discharge paint . .  .  .  E
            Description of background	•	Not reported
            Description of sky	'	50% clouds
            Wind direction ,	N to S
            Wind velocity	15 raph
            Color of plume 	  White
            Duration of observation  	  50 min
                            SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
            Time
Start
                  End
                                                                   Opacity
                     Maximum
                     in  6 min
              6-min
            average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
12:05
12:11
12:17
12:23
12:29
12:35
p.m.
12:10  p.m.
12:16
12:22
12:28
12:34
12:40
25
25
20
20
20
.2,0
25
20
20
20
20
19
 7
 8
 9
10
12:41
12:47
12:53
12:59
                 12:46
                 12:52
                 12:58
                 01:04
                        15
                        15
                        15
                        15
               15
               15
               15
               15
                          SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
45
40
35
** 30
A
G 20
£ 15
5
0
0
























































mmm



















































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-192
-------
             TABLE C-105.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE G
            Date  .	•  •  •  05/28/81
            Type  of plant  .	  Rotary spin
            Distance from observer to  discharge point   ....  350  ft
            Location of discharge	•  •  Forming stack
            Height of observation point  	  Ground level
            Height of point of discharge	150  ft
            Direction of observer from discharge point  . .  .  .  w
            Description of background-	Not  reported
            Description of sky	Clear
            Wind  direction	N to S      ;,
            Wind  velocity  .  .'	,	5 raph
            Color of plume	White
            Duration of observation  	  60 rain
                            SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
            Time
Start
                End
                                                                    Opacity
                     Maximum
                     in 6 rnin
              6-min
            average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10
04:12  p.
04:18
04:24
04:30
04:36

04:42
04:48
04:54
05:00
05:06
m.
04:17  p.
04:23
04:29
04:35
04:41

04:47
04:53
04:59
05:05
05:11
                        m.
20
20
20
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

20
20
20
20
20
                          SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
50
45
40
^35
,30
£25
1—4
o 20
-------
              TABLE  C-106.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  6
               Date	05/29/81
               Type  of  plant	Rotary spin
               Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....  500 ft
               Location of discharge  	 	  Forming stack
               Height of observation point   	  Ground level
               Height of point of discharge  	  150 ft
               Direction of observer from discharge point ....  SI;
               Description of background   	  Clear sky
               Description of sky	Clear
               Wind  direction	•  S
               Wind  velocity	5 raph
               Color of plume		  •  •  Brown
               Duration of observation  	 . 	  96 min
                          SUMMARY  OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
          Set
          No.
                                Time
Start
 End
                                                                  Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
           6-min
          average
           1
           2
           3
           4
           5

           6
           7
           S
           9
          10

          11
          12
          13
          14
          15

          16
07:15  a.m.
07:21
07:30
07:36
07:45

07:51
08:00   '
08:06
08:15
08:21

08:30
08:36
08:45
08:51
09:00

09:12
07:20  a.m.
07:26
07:35
07:41   '
07:50

07:56
08:05
08:11
08:20
08:26

08:35
08:41
08:50
08:56
09:05

09:17
25
25
25
25
30

30
30
30
35
35

35
30
35
35
30

35
20
22
23
22
24

25
27
28
28
30

29
28
30
30
29

29
                         SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
o.
o
bU
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(













































1HM









•





































HBM












































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                        C-194
-------
               TABLE C-107.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  H
             Date	i	   05/28/81
             Type  of plant	   Rotary spin
             Distance from observer to discharge point   ....   50  ft
             Location of discharge  	   Curing stack
             Height of observation point" .'	   15  ft
             Height of point of discharge .	   Not available
             Direction of observer from discharge point  . . . .   NE
             Description of background  '.	   Black rooftop
             Description of sky	   Clear to 80% clouds
             Wind  direction	   N to W  •
             Wind  velocity	   25 raph
             Color of plume	   Light blue
             Duration of observation   	  	   72 min
                           SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
           Set
           No.
          Time
                                                                   Opacity
Start
                 Maximum
                 in 6 min
           6-min
          average
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5

            6
            7
            8
            9
           10

           n
           12
10:01
10:13
10:26
10:39
10:52

11:05
11:18
11:31
12:17
12:29

12:41
12:52
10:06 a.m.
10:18
10:32
10:44
10:57

11:10
11:23
11:36
12:22
12:34

12:46
12:57
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
 5
id
10

10
10
                          SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
«c
a.
45
40
35
30
20
IS
5
0
I









•MM






































HHM|



























































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 . . •- 3(
SET NUMBER
                                        C-195
-------
     TABLE  C-108.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  H
   Date	   05/28/81
   Type of plant	•   Rotary spin
   Distance from  observer to discharge point  ....   50 ft
   Location of discharge  	   Curing  stack
   Height of observation point  	   Ground level
   Height of point of discharge 	   Not available
   Direction of observer from discharge point ....   W
   Description of background  	   Black rooftop
   Description of sky	   Clear
   Wind direction	   N to W
   Wind velocity	   25 raph
   Color of plume	   Bluish
   Duration of observation  	   84 rain
                SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
                      Time
Start
                    End
                                                        Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-trnn
                              average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
03:12 p.m.
03:24
03:36
03:48
04:00

04:12
04:24
04:36
04:48
05:00
03:17  p.
03:29
03:41
03:53
04:05

04:17
04:29
04:41
04:53
05:05
10
 5
 5
 5
 5

 5
 5
 5
10
10
                SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
3
3
1
0
2

3
1
3
4
3
11
12
13
14
05:12
05:24
05:36
05:48
05:17
05:29
05:41
05:53
10
10
10
10
5
4
3
5
bO
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(


























































































) 5




















10








=

















MM










































•




















































































































15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                              C-196
-------
           TABLE  C-109.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE H
           Date  ........'.	   06/01/81
           Type  of plant	•  •  •   Rotary spin'
           Distance from observer to discharge point   	   50  ft
           Location of discharge  	   Curing stack
           Height of observation point   	   Roof level
           Height of point of discharge	   20  ft
           Direction of observer from discharge point ....   E
           Description of background   .	   Cloudy
           Description of sky	   100% overcast
           Wind  direction	   S
           Wind  velocity	   10  mph
           Color of plume	Bluish
           Duration of observation  	  .  .   114 min
                       SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                              Opac'i ty
50

45

40

35

30


20

15
10
      Set
      No.
       1
       2
       3
       4
       5

       6
       7
       8
       9
       10

       11
       12
       13
       14
       15
                             Time
                  Start
                                      End
                                                       Maximum
                                                       in 6 min
                               6-rain
                              average
                  09:24 a.m.
                  09:30
                  09:36
                  09:42
                  09:54

                  10:00
                  10:06
                  10:12
                  10:24
                  11:30

                  11:36
                  11:42
                  11:54
                  12:00  p.m.
                  12:06
09:29  a.m.
09:35
09:41
09:47
09:59

10:05
10:11
10:17
10:29
11:35

11:41
11:47
11:59
12:05  p.m.
12:11
 0
10
 5
 0
 0

15
 0
 0
10
 0

 0
 0
 0
 5
 5
                      SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
o
2
0
0
0

4
0
0
5
0

0
0
0
1
1
16
17
18
19
12:12
12:24
12:30
12:36
12:17
12:29
12:35
12:41
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
.
                               10
                                            15
                                    SET NUMBER
                                                          20
                                                                        25
                                                                                      30
                                     * 1O7
                                      ~" I :/1
-------
            TABLE  C-110.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE H

            °ate	06/01/81
            Type of plant	Rotary spin
            Distance from observer to discharge point   ....  50  ft  .
            Location of discharge  	  curing  stack
            Height of observation point  	  Roof  level
            Height of point  of discharge 	  20  ft
            Direction of observer from discharge point  ....  $SE
            Description of background  	  Cloudy
            Description of sky  	  Overcast
            Wind direction	5
            Wind velocity	io-i5 mph
            Color of plume	Bluish
            Duration of observation   	  132 min

                       SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
       Set
       No.
          Time
                   Start
                                       End
                                                               Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                                6-min
                               average
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5

       '6
        7
        8
        9
       10

       11
       12
       13
       H
       15

       16
       17
       18
       19
       20

       21
       22
01:30 p.m.
01:36
01:42
01:48
02:00

02:06
02:12
02:18
02:30
02:36

02:42
03:00
03:06
03:12
03:18

03:24
03:36
03:42
03:48
03:54

04:06
04:12
 01:35 p.
 01:41
 01:47
•01:53
 02:05

 02:11
 02:17
 02:23
 02:35
 02:41

 02:47
 03:05
 03:11
 03:17
 03:23

 03:29
 03:41
 03:47
 03:53
 03:59

 04:11
 04:17
 0
 5
 5
 0
 0

 0
 0
 0
 0
 5

10
 0
 0
 0
 5

 5
10
10
 5
 5

 5
 5
SO
45
40
20
10
                      SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
           10            ,15
                 SET NUMBER
                                                         20
                                                                       25
                                                                                     30
                                    C-198
-------
               TABLE  C-m.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE H
              Date	 .  .	06/01/81
              Type of plant	Rotary spin
              Distance from observer to discharge point   ....  50 ft
              Location of discharge  	  	  Curing stack
              Height of observation point  	  Roof level
              Height of point of discharge	50 ft
              Direction of observer from discharge point  ....  $W
              Description of background   	  •  Cloudy
              Description of sky	Overcast
              Wind direction	,	S
              Wind velocity	10-15  mph
              Color of plume	Bluish
              Duration of observation   .	  •  102 min
                         SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
         Set
         No.
                                Time
                  Start
                                       End
                                                                 Opacity
                  Maximum
                  in  6 rain
           6-min
          average
           1
           2
           3
           4
           5

           6
           7
           8
           9
          10

          11
          12
          13
          14
          15

          16
          17
                  05:00 p.m.
                  05:06
                  05:12
                  05:24
                  05:30

                  05:36
                  05:48
                  05:54
                  06:00
                  06:30

                  06:36
                  06:42
                  06:54
                  07:00
                  07:06

                  07:18
                  07:24
05:05  p.ra.
05:11
05:'17
05:29
05:35

05:41
05:53
05:59
06:05
06:35

06:41
06:47
06:59
07:05
07:11

07:23
07:29
 5
 0
 0
15
10

10
 5
10
 5
 5

 5
 5
 5
 5
 5

10
 5
                         SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

 5

 0
o.
o
                                  10            15
                                       SET NUMBER
                                                             20
                                                                           25
                                                                                        30
                                        C-199
-------
r
                                  TABLE C-112.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  I

                               Data	   07/07/81
                               Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
                               Distance from observer to  discharge point   ....   i ^QQ ft
                               Location of discharge  	   East forming stack
                               Height of observation point   	   90 ft
                               Height of point of discharge	   15 ft above roof
                               Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   SSW
                               Description of  background   	   Trees
                               Description of  sky	   5Q% clouds
                               Wind direction	   W to E
                               Mind velocity	   25 raph
                               Color of plume	   Blue-white
                               Duration of observation	   150 min
                                             SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Time
Start
11:11 a.m.
11:17
11 : 23,
11:29
11:35 •
11:41
11 : 47
1 1 : 53
11:59
12:08 p.m.
12:14
12:22
12:28
12:52
01:01
01:09
01:15
01:25
01:31
01:37
01:43
02:08
02:14
02:21
02:29

End '
1T:16 a.m.
11:22
11:28
11:34
11:40
11:46
11:52
11:58
12:04 p.m.
12:13
12:19
12:27
12:33
12:57
01:06
01:14 .
01:20
01:30
01:36
01:42
01:48
02:13
02:19
02:26
02:34

Opacity
Maximum 6-min
in 6 min average
30
30
30
30
35
35
40
40
30
40
30
40
40
35
35
40
30
30
35
40
35
35
35
40
35
27
12
19
26
24
30
27
30
24
22
25
24
28
22
32
29
27
25
28
29
30
28
29
29
31
                                            SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
45
40
30
20
10
5
0
C




••Ml





















"""







	





























••H






























••••



















"•"'








mmm










mnfm







•mi




















—



















—





























•Md









pM.









— J








MOM
























































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER •
C-200
-------
   TABLE  0-113.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE I
                                                07/07/81
Type of plant  ...... ,  ...........  Flame attenuation
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  i 300 ft
Location of discharge  ..............  East forming stack
Height of observation point  ...........  100 ft
Height of point of discharge .  .  '.  ........  15 ft above roof
Direction of observer from discharge point ....  SSW
Description of background  ............  Green trees
Description of sky ................  75% clouds
Wind direction ..................  W to E
Wind velocity  ............. .....  10 mph
Color of plume ..................  Blue-gray
Duration of observation   .............  -ISO min
             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
                                                    Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Time
Start
04:20 p.m.
05:23
05:29
05:35
05:41
05:47
05:53
05:59
06:05
06:11
06:17 •
06:23
06:29
06:35
06:41
06:47
06:53
06:59
07:05
07: 1 1
07:17
07:23
07:29
07:35
07: 41

End
04:25 p.m.
05:28
05:34
05:40
05:46
05:52
05:58
06:04
06:10
06:16
06:22
06:28
06:34
06:40
06:46
06:52
06:58
07:04
- 07:10
07:16
07:22
07:28
07:34
07:40
07:46
Maximum
in 6 min
20
15
20
15
20
15
15
15
15
20
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
15
15
20
20
15
15
6-min
average
15
11
13
12
15
12
15
14
14
14
13
12
13
10
12
12
13
16
17
15
15
16
15
1.4
15
            SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
50
45
40
35
S«
30
n
- 25
5 2°
2: is
° 10
5
0
c








i









IMM









1

•'







•BMi



















mmtut

















































tmaim









__





























MM









MM


















MMI









MM





























MM



















































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                          C-201
-------
     TABLE  C-114.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  I
Date	
Type of plant  	
Distance from observer to discharge point
Location of discharge  	
Height of observation point  	
Height of point of discharge 	
Direction of observer from discharge point
Description of background  	
Description of sky 	
Wind direction 	
Mind velocity  	
Color of plume 	
Duration of observation  	
              SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
07/07/81
Flame attenuation
1 ,300 ft
West forming stack
90 ft
15 ft above roof
SSW
Trees
50% clouds
W to E
25 mph
Blue-white
150 min
                                                     Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Time
Start
11:11 a.m.
11:17
11:23
11:29
11:35
11:41
11:47
11:53
11:59
12:08 p.m.
12:14
12:22
12:28
12:52
01:01
01:09 '
01:15
01:25
01:31
01:37
01:43
02:08
02:14
02:21
02:29

End
11:16 a.m.
11 : 22
11:28
11:34
11:40
11:46
11:52
11:58
12:04 p.m.
12:13
12:19
12:27
12:33
12:57
01:06
01:14
01:20
01:30
01:36
01:42
01:48
02:13
02:19
02:26
02:34
Maximum
in 6 min
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
35
30
30
30
35
40
35
35
40
25
30
35
30
30
35
35
35
35
6-min
average
26
14
18
25
21
26
27
28
23
20
24
24
28
27
29
28
25
26
25
28
27
28
28
27
30
              SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
bU
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

















•MM








PMM








1









•VM


















•MM









— •

















































— I









__«









|—^









•—







































—









MHH









••Ml









••MM









'""-

































































                      10            15
                            SET NUMBER
                                                  20
                                                               25
                                                                             30
                             C-202
-------
   TABLE C-115.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE I
Date	
Type  of plant	
Distance from observer to discharge point
Location of discharge  	
Height of observation point  	
Height of point of discharge 	
Direction of observer from discharge point
Description of background  .	
Description of sky  	
Wind  direction 	
Wind  velocity	  .
Color of plume	
Duration of observation  	
              SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
07/07/81
Flame attenuation
1,300 ft
West forming stack
100 ft
15 ft above roof
SSW
Green trees
75% clouds
W to E
10 mph
Blue-gray
150 rain
                                                     Opaci ty
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Time
Start
04:20 p.m.
05:23
, 05:29
05:35
05:41
05:47
05:53
05:59
06:05
06:11
06:17
06:23
06:29
06:35
06:41
06:47
06:53
06:59
07:05
07:11
07:17
07:23
07:29
07:35
07:41

End
04:25 p.m.
05:28
05:34
05:40
05:46
05:52
05:58
06:04
06:10
06:16
06:22
06:28
06:34
06:40
06:46
06:52
06:58
07:04
07:10
07:16
07:22
07:28
07:34
07:40
. 07:46
Maximum
in 6 min
15
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
6-min
average
15
7
n
10
12
n
12
n
n
12
12
n
10
10
10
10
n
13
14
12
13
14
13
13
13
             SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
50
45
40
^35
.,30
£25
H— »
o 20
10
5
0

















•MM

















••MM








r- i--














































































MMM








MIMH








•MM








•MM)








*""•




































































































































                     10            15
                          SET NUMBER
20
25
30
                          C-203
-------
                  TABLE C-116.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  I
             Date	   07/08/81
             Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
             Distance from  observer to discharge  point  ....   1,300 ft
             Location of discharge	   East forming stack
             Height of observation point  	   90 ft
             Height of point of discharge 	   15 ft above roof
             Direction of observer from discharge point ....   SSE
             Description of background  	   Green trees
             Description of sky	   Clear
             Wind direction	   W to E
             Wind velocity	   10-15 mph
             Color of plume	   Blue-gray
             Duration of observation  	   102 min
            Sat
            No.
                            SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
          Time
Start
                                            End
                  Maximum
                  in 6 min
                                                                    Opacity
           6-min
          ^average
             1
             2
             3
             4
             5

             6
             7
             8
             9
            10

            11
            12
            13
            14
            15

            16
            17
10:33  a.m.
10:39
10:45
10:51
10:57

11:03
11:09
11:15
11:36
11:42

11:48
11:54
12:19  p.m.
12:25
12:31

12:37
12:43
10:38  a.m.
10:44
10:50
10:56
11:02

11:08
11:14
11:20
11:41
11:47

11:53
11:59
12:24  p.m.
12:30
12:36

12:42
12:48
35
30
30
30
35

30
30
30
25
25

25
25
20
25
25

25
20
31
29
24
29
29

28
27
26
21
21

20
20
18
19
21

21
19
                           SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
a.
o
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0




IBM


















































•^•v









••••









••••



















































1 —







































^mm





























































































0 5 10 15 20 25











































3(
                                         SET  NUMBER
                                         C-204
-------
                TABLE C-117.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE I
         Date	•  •    07/08/31
         Type of plant	    Flame attenuation
         Distance from  observer to discharge  point  ....    1,300 ft
         Location of discharge  	  	    West forming stack
         Height of observation point  	  :  90  ft
         Height of point of discharge	    15  ft above roof
         Direction of observer from discharge,point .  . .  .    SSE
         Description of background  	    Green trees
         Description of sky  .	    Clear
         Mind direction	    H to E
         Wind velocity	    10-15 mph
         Color of plume	    Blue-gray
         Duration of observation   	    102 min
                          SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
          Set
          No.
                                                                  Opacity
                                 Time
Start
                    End
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
           1
           2
           3
           4
           5

           6
           7
           8
           9
           10

           11
           12
           13
           14
           15

           16
           17
10:33  a.m.
10:39
10:45
10:51   :
10:57

11:03
11:09
11:15
11:36
11:42

11:48
11:54
12:19  p.m.
12:25
12:31

12:37
12:43
10:38 a.m.
10:44
10:50
10:56
11:02

11:08
11:14
11:20
11:41
11:47

11:53
11:59
12:24  p.m.
12:30
12:36

12:42
12:48
30
30
30
30
30

30
30
30
25
25

25
25
20
25
25

25
20
27
28
22
26
26

26
26
25
22
21

20
20
18
19
20

21
18
  50

  45
  40
 ..30
E25
O  20

   10
                          SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
                                  10
                          15
                 SET NUMBER
                                                              20
                                                                            25
                                                                                          30
                                        C-205
-------
                TABLE C-118.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  I
                                                           07/07/81
           Type of plant  ••••••••  ..........  Flame attenuation   '
           Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  1,300 ft
           Location of discharge  ..............  HVAF bypass curing stack
           Height of observation point  ...... • .....  TOO  ft
           Height of point of discharge ...........  5 ft above roof
           Direction of observer from discharge point ....  SSE
           Description of background  ............  Green trees
           Description of sky ................  50%  clouds
           Wind direction ..................  W to E
           Wind velocity  ..................  15-25 mph
           Color of plume ..................  Gray
           Duration of observation  .............  138  rain
                           SUMMARY  OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                                  Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Time
Start
11:07 a.m.
11:13
11:19
11:25
11:31
11:37
11:43
11:49
11:55
12:01 p.m.
12:07
12:13
12:19
12:25
12:31
12:42
01:13
01:26
01:38
01:46
02:19
02:25
02:31

End
11:12 a.m.
11:18
11:24
11:30
11:36
11:42
11:48
11:54
12:00 p.m.
12:06
12:12
12:18
12:24
12:30
12:36
12:47
01:18
01:31
01:43
01:51
02:24
02:30
02:36
Maximum
in 6 rain
25
25
35
30
30
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
30
35
35
25
20
25
25
20
25
20
6-tnih
average
21
20
20
27
24
23
23
21
19
22
21
22
23
24
28
26
24
15
21
19
17
19
18
                          SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
o
-------
               TABLE C-119,   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE I

          °ate •  •  •	   07/07/81
          Type of plant	   F1ame attenuat1on
          Distance  from observer to discharge  point  ....   -|  JQQ ^
          Location  of discharge  . .	   HVAF bypass curing .stack-
          Height  of observation point  .............   15 ft above stack
          Height  of point of discharge	   5  ft above roof
          Direction of observer from discharge point ....   3
          Description of-background	   Green trees
          Description of sky	   75% ctouds         '
          Wind direction	W  to E
          Wind velocity	   10 mph
          Color of plume	   White-blue
          Duration  of observation	144 ml-n


                           SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
                                                                 Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Time
Start
04:20 p.m.
.05:23
05:33
05:39
05:47
05:53
05:59
06:05
06:12
06:19
06:25
06:31
06:37
06:43
06:49
06:55
07:01
07:07
07:13
07:19
07:25
07:31
07:37
07:43

End
04:25 p.m.
05:28
05:38
05:44
05:52
05:58
06:04
06:10
06:17
'06:24
06:30
06:36
06:42
06:48 :
06:54
07:00
07:06
07:12
07:18
07:24
07:30
07:36
07:42
07:48
Maximum
in 6 min
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
25
20
20
30
25
25
25
20
30
25
25
30
30
25
25
6-min
average
19
13
15
14
17
14
15
13
15
16
17
17
20
19
19
17
16
21
20
18
21
20
19
21 ;
                         SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
6<
C-J
-------
      TABLE C-120.   SUMMARY OF .VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE I
Date	 07/08/81
Type of plant	  Flame attenuation
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  i ,300 ft
Location of discharge  	  HVAF bypass curing stack
Height of observation point  	  90 ft
Height of point of discharge 	  5  ft above roof
Direction of observer frora discharge point ....  SSE
Description of background  	  Green trees
Description of sky	Clear
Wind direction	N  to S
Wind velocity	10-15 mph
Color of plume	Blue-gray
Duration of observation	  42 rain
                      SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Time
Start
11:17 a.m.
11:27
11:33
11:39
11:45
12:02 p.m.
12:08

End
11:22 a.m.
1 1 : 32,
11:38
11:44
11:50
12:07 p.m.
12:13
Maximum
in 6 min
30
30
30
20
30
30
25
6-min
average
22
21
22
1.9
23
21
21
                   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
au
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

























••Ml



















—






























































































































































































































































                        10
        15
SET NUMBER
                                                   20
                                                                 25
                                                 30
                              C-208
-------
TABLE C-121.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE I
Type of plan
Distance frc
Location of
Height of ot
Height of pc
Direction oi
Description
Description
Wind direct i
Wind velocit
Color of pU
Duration of
Set
No. .,
1
2
3
4
5
50
45
40
.30
£25
H-*
o 20
10
5
0
(
f
	 Cl
m observer to discharge point .... 20
servation point . .
int of discharge . .
	 ... 20
	 ' . a
" observer from discharge point .... SW
of background ..... 	 No
of sky 	

,v 	

observation ....
	 80
. . 	 	 NW
. . . 	 	 10
	 	 Gr
. . . 	 	 30
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE
Time




Start
03:04 p.m.
' 04:08
04:27
04: 52
•'05:01
End
03:09 p.m
04:13
04:32
04:57
05:06
/ 1 I/OI
ame attenuation
Oft
ring stack (HVAF without water sprays)
ft . : • •'"/
t reported ' , '
2-100% clouds
to SE -
-15 raph
ay-blue
rain
OPACITY

Opacity
Maximum 6-min
in 6 min average
0
0
5 '
•«.,
5 '
• o
0
0
1
1
0
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS










)




















5










10 15










20










25 30
                    SET NUMBER
                    C-209
-------
              TABLE C-122.  SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  I
  Date	   07/11/81
  Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
  Distance from observer to discharge  point  ....   75 ft
  Location of discharge  	   Curing stack (HVAF without water sprays)
  Height of observation point   	   8 ft
  Height of point of discharge  	   8 ft
  Direction of observer from discharge point ....   ENE
  Description of background  	   Not reported
  Description of sky 	 	   70%-90% clouds
  Wind direction	M to S and S to  N
  Wind velocity	,	   5-10 mph
  Color of plume	None
  Duration of observation	'.  . . .   42 min
                             .SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
                            Time
                                                                      Opacity
Set  No.
Start
End
Maximum
in  6  min
 6-min
average
1 -  7         10:02 a.m.              11:37 a.m.               0              0

All  readings were 0 percent  opacity  during periods of  observation.



                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
SU
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(










J



































































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-210
-------
              TABLE C-.123.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE I
Date	   07/11/81
Type of  plant	•  •   Flame attenuation
Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....   75 ft
Location of discharge  	  ...   Curing  stack (HVAF without water sprays)
Height of observation point   ...........   8 ft
Height of point of discharge	   8 ft   .                   ,
Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .   ENE
Description of background   	 	   Not reported
Description of sky	   50%-803! clouds
Wind direction	'.'	   SW to NE
Wind velocity	   ]°-15 raPh
Color of plume	   N°ne
Duration of observation	   '° rain
                          SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
         Set
         No.
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5

          6
          7
          8
          9
          io

          11
          12
          13
                                Time
                                                                 Opacity
                      Start
                                            End
                  Maximum
                  in  6 min
                       12:30 p.m.
                       12:36
                       12:42
                       12:48
                       12:54

                       01:00
                       01:06
                       01:12
                       01:18
                       02:00

                       02:06
                       02:12
                       02:18
12:35  p.
12:41
12:47
12:53
12:59

01:05
01:11   .
01:17
01:23
02:05

02:11
02:17
02:23
 6-min
average
 50

 45

 40

 35

 30

 25

 20

 15

 10

  5

  0
                         SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
Q-
O
                                10            15
                                      SET NUMBER
                                                             20
                                                                           25
                                                                                           30
                                       C-211
-------
              TABLE  C-124.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS— LINE  I
       .......................   07/1 5/8T
   01rta£tPfr£ observer io'discharga'point' '.  '.  '.  '.   &"  at
                                                     atte"uatio"
                     point
                                                                """
                                  ...   ..
  Height of point of discharge ...........   7 ft ab0ve roof
  Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   SE
                                                           machinery and 9reen trees
  Wind direction ..................   V/NW to E
  Wind velocity  .. .................   0_10 fflph
  Color of plume .  ;  ................   None
  Duration of 'observation  .............   138 min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set No.
Time
Start End
Opacity
Maximum
in 6 min
6-min
average
1 -  23        01:05  p.m.             03:23  p.m.              0              0
All  readings  were 0 percent opacity during periods of  observation.
  so
  45
  40
  35
  30
  25
  20
  15
  10
                          SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Q_
O
                              10
                                   SET NUMBER
                                                      20
                                                                   25
                                                                               30
                                   C-212
-------
              TABLE C-125.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE'EMISSIONS—LINE' I
°ate ••:•	   07/15/81                  '' ,
Type of plant                  	   Flame  attenuation      •         '
Distance from observer to discharge point  .  ...   50 ft
Location of discharge  ...  .  .	   curing stack (HVAF with water sprays)
Height of observation point	   Stack  level                  =>\>'<*y*/
Height of point of discharge	   7 ft above roof            '
Direction of observer from discharge point ....   SSW
Description of background  	   Green  trees
Description of sky	   80% clouds
Wind direction	   W to E
Wind velocity	   0-5 mph
Color of plume	   None
Duration of observation	   84 min
                        SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
        Set
        No.
          Time
                    Start
                                         End
                                                                Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
         1
         2
         3
         4
         5

         6
         7
         8
         9
        10
04:05  p.m.
04:11
04:17
04:23
04:29

04:35
04:41
05:05
05:11
05:17
04:10 p.
04:16
04:22
04:28
04:34

04:40
04:46
05:10
05:16
05:22
                       SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
n
12
13
14
05:23
05:29
05:35
05:41
05:28
05:34
05:40
05:46
5
5
5
5'
4
3
. . 4
" 4
45
40
35
30
20
15
5
0
(























































































































































..




















































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-213
-------
          TABLE  C-126.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE I
Date	   07/15/81
Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....   50  ft
Location of discharge  	   Curing stack (HVAF with water sprays)
Height of observation point   	   Stack level
Height of point of discharge	   7 ft above .roof
Direction of observer from discharge point ....   SSW
Description of background   	   Green trees
Description of sky	   95% clouds
Mind direction	   W to NW
Wind velocity	   0-5 mph
Color of plume	   Gray
Duration of observation  	   42  rain
                           SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
Tinie


Start End
1 07:00 p.m. 07:
2 08:05 08:
3 08:11 08:
4 08:17 08:
5 08:26 08:
6 08:32 08:
7 08:38 08:
so
45
40
.30
£25
o 20
S1S
10
0
(
Opacity^
Maximum 6-min
in 6 min average
05 p.m. 5 1
10 5 ; 4
16 53
22 5 1
31 54
37 5 4
43 51
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS

















E5BE








^mm

















sap








•EB











































































































































































) 5-10 15 20 25 30
SET NUMBER -
                                    C-214
-------
      TABLE  C-127.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  J


Date		   07/13/81
Type  of  plant	   Flame attenuation
Distance from observer  to discharge point  ....   1,300 ft
location of discharge	   East forming stack
Height of observation point  	   Stack level
Height of point of discharge	   20 ft above  roof
Direction of observer from discharge  point . .  .  .   S
Description of background  .......;....   Green trees
Description of sky .	   80% clouds
Mind  direction	   E to W
Wind  velocity  .•	   10-20 mph
Color of plume	   None
Duration of observation	   144 min

                SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
 Set
 No.
                       Time
Start
End
                                                        Opacity
                                    Maximum
                                    in 6 min
 6-min
average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
01:53 p.m.
01:59
02:05
02: 1 1
02:17
02:23
02:29
02:35
02:41
02:47
02:53
02:59
03:05"
03:11
03:17
03:23
03: 29
03:35
03:41
03-: 47
• 03:53
03:59
04:05
04:11
01:58 p.m.
02:04
02:10
02:16
02:22
02:28
02:34
02:40
02:46
02: 52
02:58
03:04
03:10
03:16
03:22
03:28
03:34
03:40
03:46
03:52
03:58
04: 04
04:10
04:16 •
5
5
5
5
5
0
0
0
5
0 ,
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-o
0
0
0
0
                SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
(



















































• i






































) 5




















10
















































































15
SET NUMBER


















































20


















































25










3
                              C-215
-------
              TABLE  C-128.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE J
         Date	    07/13/81
         Type of plant	    Flame attenuation
         Distance from observer to discharge point  ....    45 ft  ,
         Location of discharge  	    East forming stack
         Height of observation point
         Height of point of discharge 	
         Direction of observer from discharge point
         Description of background  	
         Description of sky 	
         Wind direction 	
         Wind velocity  	
         Color of plume 	
         Duration of observation  	
                                          8 ft over stack
                                          20 ft above roof
                                          W
                                          Green trees
                                          90% clouds
                                          WNW
                                          15 mph
                                          None
                                          144 min
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
                            Time
                                                                     Opacity
Set  No.
Start
End
Maximum
in  6  min
  6-mi n
1 average
1 -  24        06:25 p.m.             08:48 p.m.               0              0

All  readings were 0 percent opacity  during  periods of  observation.
                         SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
*«
 «c
 a.
45
40
35
30
20
15
10
5
0
C




























































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20
SET NUMBER










































25











































3(
                                     C-216
-------
     TABLE C-129..   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE J
  Date  . . .  	
  Type  of plant	,
  Distance from observer to discharge
                                   point
                     07/13/81
                     Flame attenuation
                     1,300 ft
                                                           level
                                                           above
                                                                 roof
Location  of discharge	   West fonln-ng stack
Height of observation point - 	
Height of point of discharge 	
Direction of observer from discharge  point  .  .  .
Description, of background	
Description of sky	
Wind direction	  .
Wind 'velocity	
Color of  plume	
Duration  of observation  	
                     Stack
                     20 ft
                     S
                     Green trees
                     80% clouds
                     E to W
                     10-20 mph
                     None
                     144 min
                 SUMMARY  OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.
                     Time
           Start
 End
Maximum
in 6 min
                                                         Opacity
 6-min
average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10

11
12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
           01:53 p.m.
           01:59
           02:05
           02:11
           02:17

           02:23
           02:29
           02:35
           02:41
           02:47

           02:53
           02:59
           03:05
           03:11
           03:17

           03:23
           03:29
           03:35
           03:41
           03:47
           03:53
           03:59
           04:05
           04:11
01:58 p.m.
02:04
02:10
02:16  '
02:22

02:28
02:34
02:40
02:46
02:52

02:58
03:04
03:10
03:16
03:22
03:28
03:34
03:40
03:46
03:52
03:58
04:04
04:10
04:16
   0
   0
   5
   5
   5

   0
   5
   0
   0
   0

   0
   0
   0
   0
   5
   0
   0
   5
   0
   0
   0
   0
   0
   0
                SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
45
40
35
30
20
15
5
0
(












































































































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                              C-217
-------
              TABLE  C-130.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE J
          Date	
          Type of plant	
          Distance from observer to discharge point
          Location of discharge  	
          Height of observation point  	
          Height of point of discharge	
          Direction of observer from discharge point
          Description of background	: .  .
          Description of sky 	
          Wind direction 	
          Wind velocity	
          Color of plume 	
          Duration of observation  	
                                         07/13/81
                                         Flame  attenuation
                                         45 ft
                                         West forming stack
                                         8 ft over stack
                                         20 ft  above roof
                                         w
                                         Green  trees
                                         90? clouds
                                         WNW
                                         15 mph
                                         None
                                         144 min
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
                            Time
                                                                     Opacity
Set  No.
Start
End
Maximum
in  6  min
 6-min
average
1 -  24        06:25 p.m.             08:48 p.m.               0              0

All  readings were 0 percent opacity  during  periods of  observation.



                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
SU
45
40
35
**30
M
£2S
G 20
2 15
°10
5
0
(












































































































































































































































































































3 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                      C-218
-------
            TABLE  C-131.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE'J
Date .  .,	   07/13/81
Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....   1,300 ft
Location of discharge  ...  	   Curing stack  (HVAF without water sprays)
Height  of observation point   	   90 ft above ground
Height  of point of discharge	•  •  •   6 ft above roof
Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .   N
Description of background   ...... 	   Green trees
Description of sky	   90% clouds
Wind direction	   NW to SE
Wind velocity	   15-20 mph
Color of plume	   Blue-gray
Duration of observation  	   42 min
                             SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Time

No. Start End
Opacity
Maximum 6-min
• in 6 min average
1 01:54 p.m. 01:59 p.m. 10 3
2 02:06 02:11 5 3.
3 02:20 02:25 5 , 4
4 02:26 02:31 5 3
5 02:46 02:51 5 4
6 02:52 . 02:57 5 1
7 03:29 03:34 5 3
\
50
45
40
35
**
30
A
£2S
G 20
2 15
° 10
5
0
C
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS

















































•MH









•
MM

















































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 . .... 25 30
SET NUMBER '
                                      0-219
-------
              TABLE C-132.  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS— LINE  J
   Date .......................   07/13/81
   Type of plant  ................. .•   Flame attenuation
   Distance from observer to discharge point  ....   60 ft
   Location of discharge  ..............   Curing stack (HVAF without water sprays)
   Height of observation point  ...........   75 ft above ground
   Height of point of discharge ...........   6 ft above roof
   Direction of observer from discharge point ....   W
   Description of background  . .  ..........   Sreen trees
   Description of sky ................   °verca^
   Wind direction ..................   NW to SE
   Mind velocity  ........ ..  .  - ..... •  •   ^'l5 mph
   Color of plume . . ................   Light gray
   Duration of observation  .............   60 mm
                             SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
 Set
 No.
                         Time
             Start
                End
                      Maximum
                      in 6  min
                                                                      Opacity
             6-min
            average
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
             06:26  p.
             06:35
             06:42
             06:59
             07:11
m.
06:31
06:40
06:47
07:04
07:16
                      p.m.
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
1
1
3
  6
  7
  8
  9
 10
             07:17
             07:32
             07:50
             08:00
             08:08
               07:22
               07:37
               07:55
               08:05
               08:13
                         5
                         5
                         5
                         5
                         5
                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
o
-------
              TABLE  C-133.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  J
Date	
Type  of plant	
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....
Location of discharge  	
Height of observation point  	
Height of point of discharge 	
Direction of observer from discharge point ....
Description of background  	  .  .
Description of sky	•....,
Wind  direction 	
Wind  velocity  	
Color of plume	   None
Duration of observation   .	   138 rain
                                                         07/14/81
                                                         Flame attenuation
                                                         1,300 ft
                                                         East forming stack
                                                         Stack level
                                                         20 ft above roof
                                                         S
                                                         Green trees
                                                         Overcast
                                                         WNW
                                                         10 mph
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                                      Opacity
Set No.
1 - 22
Time
Start
10:00 a.m.

End
12:11 a.m.
Maximum
in 6 min
0
6-min
average
0, .
All  readings were 0 percent  opacity  during periods of  observation  except
for  one 15-second reading of 15 percent  opacity.
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
50
45
40
^35
.30
i±25
<-> 20
-------
              TABLE C-134.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE J
          Data	
          Type of plant	
          Distance from observer to discharge point  . .  .
          Location of discharge  	
          Height of observation point  	
          Height of point of discharge 	
          Direction of observer from discharge point . .  .
          Description of background  	
          Description of sky 	   Slightly overcast
          Wind direction	   W to E
          Wind velocity	   10 mph
          Color of plume	   None
          Duration of observation  	   132 min
                                         07/14/81
                                         Flame attenuation
                                         50 ft
                                         East forming  stack
                                         75 ft
                                         20 ft above roof
                                         W   •
                                         Green trees
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set  No.
                            Time
                                                                     Opacity
Start
End
Maximum
in  6  min
 6-min
average
1-22        02:10 p.m.             04:21 p.m.               0              0

All  readings were  0 percent opacity  during  periods  of observation.



                           SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
45
40
30
20
10
5
0
C









































































































^





























~*














































•





































) 5 10 15 20
SET NUMBER •






































































25










3(
                                     C-222
-------
              TABLE  C-135.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  J
           Oate	   07/14/81
Type of plant
Distance from observer to discharge point  .
Location of discharge  	
Height of observation point  	  ...
Height of point of discharge 	
Direction of observer from discharge point .
Description of background  ...........
Description of sky 	
Wind direction 	
Wind velocity	   10 mph
Color of plume	   None
Duration of observation  	   132 min
                                                          Flame attenuation
                                                          1,300 ft
                                                          West forming stack-
                                                          Stack level
                                                          20  ft above roof
                                                          S
                                                          Green trees
                                                          Overcast
                                                          UNU
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                                      Opacity
Time
Set No. Start End
1 - 22 10:00 a.m. 12:11 a.m.
Maximum 6-min
in 6 min average
0 0
All  readings were 0 percent  opacity during periods of observation  except
for  three  15-second readings of 5  percent opacity.
   50

   45

   40
fT 25

5 20

a! 15
O
   10
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
                               10
                                            15
                                    SET NUMBER
                                             20
                                                          25
                                                                       30
                                    C-223
-------
              TABLE  C-136.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE J
                               	   07/14/81
          .Type of plant	   P1ame attenuation
           Distance from observer to discharge point  ....   50 ft
           Location of discharge  	   west forming stack
           Height of observation point  	   75 ft
           Height of point, of discharge	   20 ft above roof
           Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   W
           Description of background	   Green trees
           Description of sky	   Slightly overcast
           Wind direction	   W to E
           Wind velocity	   10 mph
           Color of plume	   None
           Duration of observation  	   132 min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set  No.
                            Time
                                                                     Opacity
Start
End
 Maximum
.in  6 min
 6-min
average
1 -  22        02:10 p.m.             04:21 p.m.               0       .       0

All  readings were 0 percent opacity  during  periods  of observation.'



                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
45
40
« 3S
. 30
£ 25
o 20
2 15
O
10
5
0
t






































































































































































-





































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-224
-------
              TABLE  C-137.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  J
 Date	   07/14/81
 Type  of plant	   Flame attenuation
 Distance from observer  to discharge point   ...'.   100  ft
 Location of discharge	•	   Curing  stack (HVAF  without water sprays)
 Height of observation point  	   60 ft
 Height of point of discharge	   6 ft above roof
 Direction of observer from discharge point  .  .  .  .   SE
 Description -of background	   Green trees
 Description of sky 	  	   Slight  overcast
 Wind  direction .	   NW to SE
 Wind  velocity	   10 mph
 Color of plume	   Light gray-blue
 Duration of observation	   66 min
                          SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
          Set
          No.
                                Time
Start
                    End
                 Maximum
                 in 6 min
                                                                 Opacity
 6-mi n
average
           1
           2
           3
           4
           5

           6
           7
           8
           9
          10

          11
10:04 a.m.
10:13
10:23
10:42
10:58

11:10
11:16
11:22
11:30
11:37

11:46
10:09 a.m.
10:18
10:28
10:47
11:03

11:15
11:21
11:27
11:35
11:42

11:51
                         SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
•a:
o_
o
50
45
40
'35
30
25
20
15
10
«i
0
(.












































































M«J








































1— •


































































































































5 10 15 20
SET NUMBER




















25











































3(
                                       C-225
-------
              TABLE  C-138.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  J
  Date	   07/u/ai
  Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
  Distance from observer to discharge point   ....   60  ft
  Location of discharge  	   Curing stack (HVAF  without  water sprays)
  Height of observation point  	   75  ft
  Height of point of discharge 	   6 ft above roof
  Direction of observer from discharge point  .  . .  .   W
  Description of background  	   Green trees
  Description of sky 	   Slight overcast
  Wind direction	:  . .  .   W to E
  Wind velocity	   10  mph
  Color of plume	   Light gray
  Duration of observation  	   60  min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
             Time
Start
 End
                                                                      Opacity
             Maximum
             in 6  min
             6-min
            average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
02:10 p.m.
02:16
02:22
02:33
02:39
02:15 p.
02:21
02:27
02:38
02:44
m.
5
5
5
5
5
2
1
2
2
2
6
7
8
9
10
03:07
03:16
03:22
03:42
04: 08
03:12
03:21
03:27
03:47
04:13
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
2
                           SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
  4«
bO
45
40
35
30
20
15
5
0
(

























































































m^mm
) 5









t
•MM









.
10




























































15
SET NUMBER


































































































































20 25 3
                                       C-226
-------
            TABLE C-139.  SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE J
 Date
 Tvoe of plant   ............ . •  '
 Distance from observer to discharge point
                                   .
Height of point of discharge .    ...-.
Direction of observer from discharge point
Description of background
Description of sky
Wind direction ..............
Wind velocity  .............
Color of plume ......
Duration of observation  ......
                                             07/15/81
                                             Flame attenuation
                                             60 ft
                                             Curing stack (HVAF with  water sprays)
                                               6 ft above roof
                                               SE
                                               NE to SW
                                               f.^Vh
                                               u ht
                                               60 rain
                                               bu raln
                            SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
                           Time
             Start


             01:40 p.
             01:50
             02:36
             02:55
             03:01

             03:20
             03:26
             03:32
             03:38
             03:44
 End

01:45  p.m.
01:55
02:41
03:00
03:06

03:25
03:31
03:37
03:43
03:49
Maximum
in  6  min


    5
    5
    5
    5
   10

   10
    5
    5
    5
    5
 6-min
average

    2
    2
    1
    2
    5

    5
    2
    1
    2
    2
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
    50

    45

    .40


   -30
   I 25
   3 20

   J15
    10
                                10
                                           15
                                   SET NUMBER
                                      C-227
-------
               TABLE C-140.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  J
   Date	•	07/15/81
   Type of plant  	  Flame attenuation
   Distance from observer to discharge  point  ....  60 ft
   Location of discharge  	  Curing stack (HVAF with water  sprays)
   Height of observation point  	  75 ft above ground
   Height of point of discharge 	  6 ft above roof
   Direction of observer from discharge point . . .  .  SW
   Description of background  	  Green trees
   Description of sky	755! clouds
   Wind direction	 .  .  w to E
   Wind velocity	.5 raph
   Color of plume	Light gray
   Duration of observation  	  78 min
                        .  SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
          Set
          No.
                                Time
Start
                     End
                                                                 Opacity
                  Maximum
                  in 6 min
           6-mtn
          average
           1
           2
           3
           4
           5

           6
           7
           8
           9
          10

          11
          12
          13
05:25 p.
05:31
05:37
05:43
06:07

06:13
06:22
06:34
07:58
08:05

08:11
08:29
08:40
05:30
05:36
05:42
05:48
06:12

06:18
06:27
06:39
08:03
08:10

08:16
08:34
08:45
10
10
 5
 5
 5

 5
 5
10
10
10

10
10
 5
 6
 5
 5
 5
 5

 5
 5
 6
 5
10

 8
 6
 5
                         SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Ou
o
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
C








••••





































































•^B




























•^•B































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                       C-228
-------
           TABLE  C-141.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE J


Date	07/16/81
Type of plant	,	Flame attenuation
Distance from observer  to discharge point  ....  60 ft                             s
Location of discharge	  .  Curing stack  (HVAF with  water sprays)
Height of observation point ,.	5 ft above stack
Height of point of discharge	  .  5 ft above roof
Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .  SE
Description of background  	  Not reported
Description of sky	10% clouds
Wind direction	WNW
Wind velocity	5-10 mph
Color of plume	  Blue-gray
Duration of observation  	  12 min
                           SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
Time
Start
12:00 p.m.
12:39

End
12:05 p.m.
12:44
Maximum
in 6 min
5
5
6-min
average
• 1
3
50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

,10
                         SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
                              10
                                           15
                                   SET NUMBER
20
             25
                           30
                                    G-229
-------
               TABLE  C-142.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE K
          Date	OS/27/81
          Type  of plant	.Flame  attenuation
          Distance from observer to discharge  point  ....  100 ft
          Location of discharge	•	North  forming stack
          Height of observation point   	  30 ft  above stack top
          Height of point of discharge	  80 ft
          Direction of observer from discharge point ....  NE
          Description of background  	  Substation
          Description of sky 	  Overcast
          Wind  direction	NNE
          Mind  velocity	25 mph
          Color of plume	Light  blue
          Duration of observation  	  48 min
                              SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
 Set
 No.
             Time
Start
                End
                      Maximum
                      in 6  min
                                                                      Opacity
              6-min
             average
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
03:56 p.
04:02
04:17
04:30
05:15 '
m.
04:01  p.m.
04:07
04:22
04:35
05:20
30
35
40
30
35
21
27
29
28
29
  6
  7
  8
05:23
05:33
05:40
               05:28
               05:38
               05:45
                        35
                        35
                        40
               32
               32
               35
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
«
45
40
35
25
20
15
10
5
0
C












-








•SB








••Ml








































































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                      C-230
-------
             TABLE  C-143.  SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE K
           Data	05/27/81
           Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
           Distance from observer to discharge point  ....   80 ft
           Location of discharge  	   South forming  stack
           Height of observation point  .  . .	.'   50 ft
           Height of point of discharge	•   80 ft •
           Direction of observer from discharge point ....   NNE
           Description of background  	   Brown stack
           Description of sky 	   Overcast
           Wind direction	NNE   .
           Wind velocity	  . -   35 mph
           Color of plume	Blue
           Duration of observation	54 min
                            SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
            Time
Start
 End
                                                                    Opacity
            Maximum
            in 6 min
              6-min
             average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
03:56  p.
04:02
04:20
04:30
04:50

05:16
05:24
05:33
05:40
04:01  p.
04:07
04:25
04:35
04:55

05:21
05:29
05:38
05:45
m.
 20
 20 .
 25
 30
 20.

 25
-45
 30
 30
 9
10
15
20
15

19
25
26
26
                          SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
bO
45
40
35
*«
30
-25
n 20
S 15
o
10
5
0
(








MM^

)





































































































'•




























































































































































































• 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-231
-------
              TABLE  C-144..  SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
          Date	  05/28/81
          Type of plant	  Flame attenuation
          Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  loo ft
          Location of discharge  	  North forming stack
          Height of observation point  	  .  30 ft above stack top
          Height of point of discharge  .  .'	  80 ft
          Direction of observer from discharge point ....  NE
          Description of background  	  Substation
          Description of sky 	  50% clouds
          Wind direction	  NNE
          Wind velocity	  20 mph
          Color of plume	  Light blue
          Duration of observation  	  54 min
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
             Time
Start
 End
                                                                      Opacity
Maximum
in  6  min
 6-min
average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
09:30 a.m.
09:50
10:10
10:30
10:45
09:35 a.m.
09:55
10:15
10:35
10:50
    5
    5
    5
    5
    5
   4
   3
   4
   2
   2
6
7
8
9
11:01
11:19
11:43
12:00 p.m.
11:06
11 : 24
11:48
12:05 p.m.
5
5
5
5
2
2
!•
4 '
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
  
-------
             TABLE  C-145.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS— LINE K
                                                        05/28/81
           Type of plant  ..................  name attenuation
           Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  iso ft
           Location of discharge  ...... ........  North forming stack
           Height of observation point  ...........  Ground level
           Height of point of discharge ...........  80 ft
           Direction of observer from discharge point .  .  .  .  NW
           Description of background  .........  •.  .  .  Sky
           Description of sky . : ..............  50% clouds
           Wind direction ..................  NNE
           Wind velocity  ..................  10 mph      '     "
           Color of plume ..................  .  Light blue
           Duration of observation  .............  54 min
                             SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
             Time
Start
                End
                                                                     Opacity
                      Maximum
                      in 6 min
             6-min
           average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
02:30 p.
02:44
03:07
03:20
03:36
m.
02:35  p.
02:49
03:12
03:25
03:41
                        m.
5
5
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
 6
 7
 8
 9
03:50
04:07
04:22
04:37
               03:55
               04:12
               04:27
               04:42
                         5
                         5
                         0
                         0
               0
               1
               0
               0
                           SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
a*
-------
              TABLE  C-146.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
          Date	05/28/81
          Type of plant	Flame attenuation
          01stance-from observer to discharge point  ....  100 ft
          Location of discharge  	  Soutn forming stack
          Height of observation point  	  30 ft above stack top
          Height of point of discharge  	  80 ft
          Direction of observer from discharge point .  . .  ^  NE
          Description of background  	  Stack
          Description of sky 	  50% clouds
          Wind direction	NNE
          Wind velocity	:	20 mph
          Color of plume	Light blue
          Duration of observation  	  60 rain
                            SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
             Time
Start
 End
                                                                    Opacity
                   Maximum
                   in 6  min
             6-min
            average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
09:09  a.m.
09:40
10:00
10:19
10:38
09:14 a.m.
09:45
10:05.
10:24
10:43
                     10
                      5
                     10
                      5
                      5
                5
                3
                3
                3
                3
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
10:53
11:10
11:30
11:50
12:09
10:58
11:15
11:
11
:35
:55
12:14
 5
 5
 5
 5
10
1
2
3
2
5
    50
    45
    40
    35

 *t 30


 o 20
 S 15
                          SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
                               10
                                           15
                                    SET  NUMBER
                                         20
                                                     25
                                                                  30
                                    C-234
-------
             TABLE  C-147.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE K
           Date	05/28/81
           Type  of plant	Flame attenuation
           Distance from observer to discharge point  ....   150 ft
           Location of discharge  	   South forming stack
           Height of observation point  	   Ground level
           Height of point of discharge	80 ft
           Direction of observer from discharge point ....   NW
           Description of background  	   Sky
           Description of sky	50% clouds
           Wind  direction	NNE
           Wind  velocity	10 mph
           Color of plume	Light blue
           Duration of observation	60 min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set  No.
                            Time
Start
End
                                                                     Opacity
Maximum
in  6  min
 6-min
average
 1 -  10       02:38 p.m.             05:24 p.m.               0              0

 Readings  were 0  percent  opacity during all  periods of observation.
    50

    45

    40
   -30

  £25
  (—t
  o 20
  •=C
    10
                           SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
                                10
                                            15
                                     SET  NUMBER
                                          20
                             25
                                                                                  30
                                     C-235
-------
            TABLE C-148.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
Date	05/29/81
Type of plant	Flame attenuation
Distance from observer to discharge  point  ....  65  ft location 1;  70 ft location 2
Location of discharge  	  East curing stack
Height of observation point  	  12  ft both locations
Height of point of discharge 	  30  ft
Direction of observer from discharge point ....  SE
Description of  background  	  .....  Sky
Description of  sky	10£ clouds both locations
Wind direction	SSW
Wind velocity	'	10  mph  location 1; 25 mph location  2
Color of plume	Light blue
Duration of observation  	  78  min  location 1; 24 min location  2
                       SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
      Set
      No.
                            Time
Start
                     End
                                                              Opaci ty
                                      Maximum
                                      in 6 min
                               6-mi n
                              average
       1
       2
       3
       4
       5

       6
       7
       8
       9
      10

      11
      12
      15

      16
      17
12:41  p.
12:52
01:04
01:16
01:28

01:34
01:41
02:30
02:42
02:51

02:57
03:09
03:21
03:33
03:45

03:57
04:04
12:46  p.m.
12:57
01:09
01:21
01:33

01:39
01:46
02:35
02:47
02:56

03:02
03:14
03:26
03:38
03:50

04:02
04:09
 5
10
10
10
10

10
10
 5
10
 5

 0
 5
 5
 5
 5

 0
 0
 5
 8
 7
 5
 7

10
 7
 5
 2
 1

 0
 4
 5
 5
 2

 0
. 0
       Observer moved  to location 2.

                      SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
DU
45
40
«35
.30
£25
o 20
*c
£is
10
:
c




























HUM







































MBW




















MNH





























IBM.




















































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER •
                                    C-236
-------
    TABLE  C-14'9.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
Data	  05/29/81
Type  of plant	  Flame attenuation
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....  75 ft
Location of discharge  	  East curing  stack
Height of observation point	  12 ft
Height of point of discharge	  30 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point ....  SSW
Description of background	•  Brown and blue stack
Description of sky	  80% clouds
Wind  direction	  SSE
Hind  velocity	  10 raph
Color of plume	  Ll9"t
Duration of observation	  54 mm
                    SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Time
Start
05:00 p.m.
06:00

End
05:05 p.m.
06:05
Maximum
in 6 min
10
10
6-min
average
4
3
6
5
7
6
7
8
9 07:54 07:59
7
5
6
5 5
                   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
50
45
40
35
30
20
15
10
5
0









MM
3









__
























































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                               C-237
-------
                TABLE C-150.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
            Date	  05/29/81
            Type of plant	  Flame attenuation
            Distance from observer  to discharge point  ....  90 ft
            Location of discharge  	  West curing stack
            Height of observation point  	  15 ft
            Height of point of discharge	  35 ft
            Direction of observer from discharge point ....  SE
            Description of background  	  Brown stack
            Description of sky	  Clear
            Wind direction	  S to N
            Wind velocity	  10 mph
            Color of plume	White
            Duration of observation  	  66 min
                         SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                                Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Time Maximum
Start End in 6 min
12:40 p.m. 12:45 p.m. 15
15
15
15
15
6-min
average
15
15
15
15
15
           6
           7
           8
           9
          10

          11
03:55
                   04:00
                                      15
                                      15
                                      15
                                      15
                                      15

                                      15
 15
 15
 13
 14
,15

 15
                         SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
  SO

  45

  40
   25
i— i
O 20
•^
s«
   10
                                 10
                        15
                SET NUMBER
                                                            20
                                                                         25
                                                                                       30
                                       C-238
-------
             TABLE C-151.  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
           Date	   05/29/81
           Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
           Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....   60 ft
           Location of discharge  	   West curing stack
           Height of observation point
           Height of point of discharge 	
           Direction of observer from discharge point
           Description of background  	
           Description of sky 	
           Wind direction 	
           W4nd velocity	
           Color of plume
                                          Ground level
                                          30 ft
                                          NW
                                          Brown stack
                                          90% clouds
                                          N to S
                                          5 mph
                                          White
           Duration of observation  	   54 min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.
             Time
Start
 End
                                                                     Opacity
Maximum
in  6  min
 6-mi n
average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
05:45 p.
05:51
05:57
06:03
06:09
05:50 p.
05:56
06:02
06:08
06:14
   15
   15
   15
   15
   15
   12
   14
   15
   15
   15
6
7
8
9
06:15
06:21
07:38
07:44
06:20
06:26
07:43
07:49
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
50
45
35
s-s
„ 30
>- 05
1— "
o 20
S 15
° 10
5
0
(







mam


)







M*d




























































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 , 25 - 3
SET NUMBER
                                       C-239
-------
               TABLE C-152.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE K
Date	   05/29/81
Type of plant	   Flame  attenuation
01stan.ce from observer to discharge  point  ....   80 ft  location 1; 150  ft location 2
Location of discharge  	   North  forming stack
Height of observation point  	   45 ft  location 1; Ground level  location 2
Height of point of discharge 	   80 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point ....   SE location 1; NW location 2
Description of  background  	   Sky
Description of  sky	103! clouds location  1; 30% clouds location 2
Wind direction	SSW
Mind velocity	10 mph
Color of plume	•  Light  blue
Duration of observation  	   30 min location 1; 42  min location 2
                          SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                                                                   Opacity
          Set
          No.
                                 Time
                       Start
                     End
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5

            6a
            7
            8
            9
           10

           n
           12
12:30  p.m.
12:45
01:00
01:14
01:40

02:00
02:14
02:30
02:44
03:00

03:13
04:04
12:35
12:50
01:05
01:19
01:45

02:05
02:19
02:35
02:49
03:05

03:18
04:09
10
10
 5
10
 5

 5
 5
 5
 5
 0

 0
 0
            Observer moved to  location 2.
                          SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
45
40
5*35
-30
£25
1— 4
o 20
10
5
0
C








***









^MH








































__









•^Ml









_J











































*
















































































































































































1 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER •
                                        C-240
-------
             TABLE  C-153.  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE K
          Date	  05/29/81
          Type of plant	Flame attenuation
          Distance from observer  to discharge point  ....  150  ft
          Location of discharge  .  	  North forming stack
          Height of observation point  .  .	  Ground level
          Height of point of discharge	  80 ft
          Direction of observer from discharge point . .  .  .  NW
          Description of background  ..'..'	Sky
          Description of sky	202S-903! clouds
          Wind direction	S to SSW
          Wind velocity	10 mph
          Color of plume	  Not  reported
          Duration of observation  	  54 min
                             SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set  No.
                            Time
             Start
End
                                                                     Opacity
                                                            Maximum
                                                            in 6 min
 6-min
average
1 -  9         05:37 p.m.             07:58 p.m.               0              0

Readings were 0  percent  opacity during all  periods of  observation.
                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
    50

    45

    40

    35

    30
a*
    20
  o
  £15
                                10
                                           15
                                    SET  NUMBER
                                                         20
                                      C-241
-------
              TABLE  C-154.   SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K


 Date	-  .  . .   05/29/81
 Type of plant	   Flame-attenuation
 Distance from observer to discharge  point  ....   80 ft location 1; 150 ft location 2
 Location of discharge  	   South forming stack
 Height of observation point	.-	   45 ft location 1; Ground level  location 2
 Height of point of discharge  	   80 ft
 Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   SE location 1; NW location 2
 Description of background  	   Sky
 Description of sky 	   10% clouds location 1; 30% clouds location 2
 Wind direction	SSU
 Wind velocity	   10 mph
 Color of plume	Light blue
 Duration of observation  . .  .  . '	18 min location 1; 36 rain location 2
                             SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
             Time
Start
                End
                                                                      Opacity
                      Maximum
                      in 6  min
              6-min
             average
 1
 2
 6
 7
 8
 9
12:38 p.
01:07
01:20
01:50
02:07

02:20
02:37
02:51
03:06
m.
12:43 p.m.
01:12
01:25
01:55
02:12

02:25
02:42
02:56
03:11
 5
 5
TO
 5
 5

 5
 0
 5
 5
5
4
3
2
1

1
0
4
1
 Observer moved  to location  2.
                           SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
45
40
35
Vt
. 3(>
j± 25
o 20
I"
10
5
0
C








— «i








•q








—
MM








—








_








MMV

















=5









	


















































































































































































































i 5 10 IS 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-24Z
-------
             TABLE C-155.  SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
           Date	05/29/81
           Type of plant	Flame attenuation
           Distance from observer to discharge point   ....  150 ft
           Location of-discharge	
           Height of observation point  	
           Height of point of discharge .... 	
           Direction of observer from discharge point  . . .
           Description of background  ....  	
           Description of sky 	
           Wind direction ....... 	  S
           Wind velocity	10 raph
           Color of plume	Nat reported
           Duration of observation  	  48 rain
                                                        South forming stack
                                                        Ground level
                                                        80 ft
                                                        NW
                                                        Sky
                                                        20%-90% clouds
                             SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set  No.
                                                                     Opacity
                           Time
               Start
                                        End
Maximum
in  6 mi n
 6-min
average
1 - 8         05:30  p.m.             07:18 p.m.               0              0

Readings were 0 percent  opacity during a.ll  periods  of observation.



                          SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
50
45
40
a*35
.30
E25
o 20
10
5
0










3




































































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER •
                                      C-243
-------
             TABLE  C-156.  SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE K
         Date	  05/30/81
         Type of plant	  Flame attenuation
         Dlstancs from observer .to discharge point   ....  100 ft
         Location of discharge  	  North forming stack
         Height of observation point  	  30 ft above stack top
         Height of point of discharge 	  80 ft
         Direction of observer from discharge point  ....  NE
         Description of background 	  Substation
         Description of sky 	  Overcast
         Wind direction	  S
         Wind velocity	  10 raph
         Color of plume	  Light blue
         Duration of observation  	  60 rain
                            SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
            Time
Start
 End
                                                                    Opacity
Maximum
in 6  min
 6-min
average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
11:31  a.m.
11:46
12:00  p.m.
12:14
12:31

12:45
01:13
01:36
01:51
11:36  a.m.
11:51  -
12:05  p.m.
12:19
12:36

12:50
01:18
01:41
01:56
    5
    5
   10
   10
   10

   10
   10
   10.
   10
   5
   5
   8
  10
  10

  10
  10
  10
  10
                          SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
3U
45
40
30
25
20
10
5
0
(




























•MH















































































































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER •
                                     C-244
-------
             TABLE C-157.  SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE K
           Date	05/30/81
           Type of plant	   Flame attenuation
           Distance from observer  to discharge point  ....   100 ft
           Location of discharge  	   South forming stack
           Height of observation point  .  .	   30 ft above stack top
           Height of point of discharge	30 ft
           Direction of observer from discharge point ....   NE
           Description of background  	   Stack
           Description of sky 	   Overcast
           Wind direction	   S
           Wind velocity	10 mph
           Color of plume	   Light blue
           Duration of observation	54 min
                            SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
            Time
Start
 End
                                                                    Opacity
Maximum
in 6  min
 6-mi n
average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
11:39  a.m.
11:52
12:07  p.m.
12:22
12:37
11:44  a.m.
11:57
12:12  p.m.
12:27
12:42
    5
    5
   10
   10
   10
   5
   5
   9
  10
  10
 6
 7
 8
 9
12:53
01:52
02:07
02:20
12:58
01:57
02:12
02:25
   10
    5
    5
   10
   10
    5
    5
   10
                          SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS
45
40
35
s-s
30
A
£25
5 20
2 15
°10
5
0
C



































•MM





































































































































































































































































5 10 15 20 ,25 3
SET NUMBER
                                     C-245
-------
             TABLE C-158.   SUMMARY-OF  VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE  K
         Date	
         Type  of plant	;-  •  •  •  •
         Distance from observer to discharge point  .  .  .
         Location of discharge  	
         Height of observation point  	
         Height of point of discharge	:  •  •  •  •
         Direction of observer from discharge point  .  .  .
         Description of background  	   ioT cCds°
         Description of sky	   100% clouds
         Wind  direction 	
         Wind  velocity  	
         Color of plume	
         Duration of observation   	
                    05/30/81
                    Flame attenuation
                    75  ft
                    East curing stack
                    Ground level
                    30  ft
                    NE
                    Brown and blue stack
                    SSW
                    10 mph
                    Light blue
                    78 min
                       SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Time
Start
11:12 a.m.
11:25
11:38
11:52
12:05 p.m.
12:18
12:31
12:43
12:56
01:08
01:20
01:46
01:59

End
11:17 a.m.
11:30
11:43
11:57
12:10 p.m.
12:23
12:36
12:48
01:01
01:13
01:25
01:51
02:04
Maximum
'in 6 min
10
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
10
10
10
6-min
average .
4
• 4
5
4
6
6
2
5
4
3
5
10
10
                       SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
   50

   45

   40

   35

*t 30


o 20
2 15
                                10
        15
SET  NUMBER
                                                           20
                                                                        25
                                                                                     30
                                      C-246
-------
           TABLE  C-159.  SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE K
        Date	  05/30/81
        Type  of plant	  Flame attenuation
        Distance from observer to discharge point   ....  60 ft
        Location of discharge  .  .	  west curing stack
        Height of observation point  	  15 ft
        Height of point of discharge 	  30 ft
        Direction of observer from discharge point  ....  SE
        Description of background	  Brown stack
       •Description of sky 	  Overcast
        Wind  direction	  S to N
        Wind  velocity	.........  5 mph
        Color of plume	  White-gray
        Duration of observation   	  84 min
                      SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
      Set
      No.
          Time
                  Start
                                       End
                                                              Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
       1
       2
       3
       4
       5

       6
       7
       8
       9
      10
11:15  a.m.
11:21
11:27
11:33
11:39

11:45
11:51
11:57
12:03
12:09
 11:20 a.m.
 11:26
 11:32
 11:38
•11:44

 11:50
 11:56
 12:02
 12:08
 12:14
10
10
10
 0
 0

 0
 0
 5
 5
 5
10
10
 2
 0
 0

 0
 0
• 4
 5
 5
n
12
13
14
12:15
12:21
12:27
12:33
12:20
12:26
12:32
12:38
5
5
5
5
5
.5
5
5
                     SUMMARY OF VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
50

45
40

35
30
25

20
15
10

 5
 0





























•MM

















































MM




























































































































































































































) 5 10 15 20 25 3
SET NUMBER
                                   C-247
-------
          TABLE  C-160.   SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS-LINE L
                                 09/28/82
                                 Rotary spin
                                 as
                                 Ground
       Data
       T pe of'piant
       dss
       Height of observation point
       Height of point of discharge .....  : •  .....  °u Tl
       Direction of observer from discharge point  ....   *
       Description of background  ............   «V

       HSSSS.S* ::::::: ::::••  :•:•-:   «      ted
       Duration of
                 observation  .............  it* rain
                      SUMMARY  OF AVERAGE OPACITY
                           Time
                                 	Opacity	
                                 Maximum      6-min
                                             average
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5

        6
        7
        8
        9
        10

        n
        12
        13
        14
        15

        16
        17
        18
        19
        20

        21
        22
        23
        24
09:55 a.m.
10:01
10:07
10:15
10:21

10:27
10:33
10:40
10:46
10:52

11:02
11:08
11:14
11:20
11:26

11:32
11:38
 11:44
 11:50
 11:56 a.m.

 12:07
 12:13
 12:19
 12:25
10:00 a:m.
10:06
10:14
10:20
10:26

10:32
10:39
"10:45
•10:51
11:01

11:07
11:13
11:19
11:25
11:31

 It: 37
 11:43
 11:49
 11:55
 12:06 p.m.

 12:12
 12:18
 12:24
 12:30
20
25
25
25
25

25
25
25
25
30

30
35
35
35
35

35
40
 35
 35
 35

 35
 35
 35
 35
n
17
15
16
19

19
19
19
22
23

26
•28
26
30
29

 29
 29
 30
 31
 29

 29
 30
  29
  27
50
45
40
35


25
20
                       SUMMARY OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
                             10
                        15
                SET NUMBER
                                  C-248
-------
    TABLE C-161.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS—LINE L
Date
                                                  09/28/82
                                                         spin
Type of plant	   Rotary
Distance from observer to discharge point  ....   200 ft
Location of discharge  	   Common scrubber stack
Height of observation point	  .   Ground level
Height of point of discharge .............   80 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point ....   S
Description of background	   Blue sky
Description of sky 	 	   Broken clouds
Wind direction	   Not applicable
Wind velocity	   Zero
Color of plume	  .   Not reported
Duration of observation  	   96 rain
                SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
No.
                      Time
            Start
                                 End
                                                        Opaci ty
                                                 Maximum
                                                 in 6 min
                               6-fliin
                              average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10

11
12
13
14
15

16
            02:13 p.m.
            02:19
            02:25
            02:31
            02:37

            02:43
            02:49
            02:55
            03:01
            03:07

            03:25
            03:31
            03:37
            03:43
            03:49

            03:55
 02:18 p.m.
 02:24
 02:30
"02: 36
'02:42

 02:48
 02:54
 03:00
 03:06
 03:24

 03:30
 03:36
 03:42
 03:48
 03:54

 04:00
25
20
30
30
30

25
30
25
30
25

25
30
30
30
25

25
18
17
20
20
24

21
21
21
25
23

21
24
24
26
23

21
                 SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS
45
40
35
30
j 20
£ 15
10
5
0





M








__.








••••1







•«••







••H
















































••Ml








•••9







—







=







•••a







•••••
i







•H













































































































































                       10             15
                             SET  NUMBER.
                                                   20
                                  25
                            30
                            C-249
-------
             TABLE  C-162.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE L
          Data	    09/29/82
          Type of plant	    R°tary spin
          Distance from  observer to discharge point  ....    250 ft
          Location of discharge  	    Common scrubber  stack
          Height of observation point  	    Ground level
          Height of point of discharge 	    °" ft
          Direction of observer from discharge  point . .  .  .    «t
          Description of background  	    Sky
          Description of sky	    clear
          Wind direction	    N to S
          Mind velocity	    l'h-^, fo  \
          Color of plume 	    White  (steam)
          Duration of observation	    13Z mm

                         ' SUMMARY (OF AVERAGE OPACITY

                                                                   Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Time
Start
09:10 a.m. •
09:16
09:22
09:28
09:34

End
09:15 a.m.
09:21
09:27
09:33
09:39
Maximum
in 6 min
30
30
25
25
25
6-min
average
21
15
18
20
16
            6
            7
            8
            9
           10

           11
           12
           13
           14
           15

           16
           17
           18
           19
           20

           21
           22
09:40
09:46
09:52
09:58
10:04

10:12
10:18
10:24
10:30
10:36

10:42
10:48
10:54
11:00
11:06

11:14
11:20
09:45
09:51
09:57
,10:03
10:09

10:17
10:23
10:29
10:35
10:41

10:47
10:53
10:59
 11:
 11:
05
11
 11:19
 11:25
35
35
25
35
35

40
35
30
40
30

40
30
30
30
30

30
30
23
22
17
20
18

21
21
22
21
21

22
22
19
21
21

21
23
  50
  45
  40
 .30
£25
o 20
   10
                           SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
                                  10
                         15
                 SET  NUMBER
                                                              20
                                        C-250
-------
   TABLE. C-163.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  L
Date  	 ........    09/29/82
Type  of plant	    Rotary  spin
Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....    200 ft
Location of discharge  	    Common  scrubber stack
Height of observation point   	    Ground  level
Height of point of discharge	    80 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point .  ;  .  .    SE  '
Description of background   	    Sky
Description of sky	._,...    Broken  clouds
Wind  direction	    SE to NW
Wind  velocity	    0-5 mph
Color of plume	    White
Duration of observation  	  	    84 min
                SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.
                      Time
Start
                     End
                                                        Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                              average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
10

n
12
13
14
01:25  p.m.
01:31
01:37
01:43
01:49

01:56
02:03
02:09
02:15
02:21

02:31
02:37
02:43
02:49
 01:30 p.m.
 01:36
 01:42
 01:48
."01:55

 02:02
 02:08
 02:14
 02:20
 02:30

 02:36
 02:42
 02:48
 02:54
35
35
30
45
35

35
35
30
35
40

30
35
40
30
23
27
23
31
29

25
26
25
20
25

22
21
25
20
                SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
bU
dn
m
*e
30
>- 9%
£ 25
t~> 20
g 15
0 in
c
0
























,'
L















































































«••









_
























































































































































































                      10             IS
                            SET NUMBER
                                      20
                                                                 25
                                                                               30
                            C-251
-------
          TABLE  C-164.   SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS-LINE  L
                                     09/30/82
                                     Rotary spin
                                     200 ft
                                     Common
                                     Ground 1 eve!
                                     80 ft
                                     ESE
       Date	•  •  '
       Type  of plant	,••••••'"'
       Distant from observer to discharge ponnt  ...
       Location of discharge
       Height of observation point
       Height of point of discharge	
       Direction of observer from discharge point ...
       Description of background	
       Description of sky	    N to  S
       Mind direction	    0-5 mph
       Wind velocity	'. ! !. '. '.  '.    White (steam)
       Color of  plume	      „.  .
       Duration  of observation   	  •  	    su ram
                       SUMMARY OF AVERAGE  OPACITY
Opacity
Set
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Time
Start
09:05 a.m.
09:11
09:17
09:23
09:29

End
09:10 a.m.
09:16
09:22
09:28
"09:34
Maximum
in 6 min
35
35
30
35
30
6-min
average
19
24
21
21
20
         6
         7
         8
         9
        10

        11
        12
        13
        14
        15
09:35
09:42
09:48
09:54
10:00

10:06
10:12
10:18
10:24
10:30
09:41
09:47
09:53
09:59
10:05

10:11
10:17
10:23
10:29
10:35
30
30
25
30
25

25
30
30
25
30
20
20
21
22
22

21
21
21
20
24
50

45

40
30
20
15
10
                         SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
                               10
                          15
                  SET  NUMBER
                                     C-252
-------
   TABLE  C-165.   SUMMARY  OF  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS—LINE  L

Date	   09/30/82
Type  of plant	   Rotary spin
Distance from observer to  discharge point  ....   200 ft
Location of discharge	   Common scrubber  stack
Height of observation point	j	   Ground level
Height of point of discharge  	   80 ft
Direction of observer from discharge point ....   ESE
Description of background   	   Sky
Description of sky 	 .....   Broken clouds
Wind  direction	"•  -  •   NE to SW
Wind  velocity	   5-7 mph
Color of plume 	   White (steam)
Duration of observation	   95 ml'n
                SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE  OPACITY
Set
No.
                       Time
Start
                     End
                                                        Opacity
                                     Maximum
                                     in 6 min
                               6-min
                               average
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5

 6
 7
 8
 9
 10

 11
 12
 13
 14
 15

 16
12:00  p.m.
12:06
12:12
12:18
12:24

12:31
12:37
12:43
12:49
12:55

01:08
01:14
01:20
01:26
01:35

01:57
 12:05 p.
 12:11
 12:17
.12:23
.12:30

 12:36
 12:42
 12:48
 12:54
 01:07

 01:13
 01:19
 01:25
 01:34
 01:56

 02:02
30
30
25
30
25

25
25
30
25
25

25
25
-20
30
30

35
22
22
21
22
21

21
21
22
22
22

21
20
19
24
23

28
                SUMMARY  OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
50
AC
A(\
^35
.30
£25
H- t
-------
-------
                                APPENDIX D
                       EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS

D.I  INTRODUCTION
     In the manufacture of wool fiberglass  insulation,  solid and liquid
organic and inorganic particles are generated and emitted to the atmosphere
from various sources in the 'process.  These particles consist of glass
fibers, various resinous phenolic compounds, and other components of
the resin.  Emissions of particles were measured using EPA Method 5
sampling trains and procedures modified for the analysis of pollutants
other  than particul ate matter.
     The modifications were made  as a result of laboratory  and  field
evaluations of  sampling and analytical  procedures for the determination of
the  emissions  of  particulate  matter,  total  organic  carbon,  phenol  and
phenolic  compounds,  and formaldehyde.   Procedures for sample collection
were essentially  the same  as  specified  Method  5,  but sample recovery  and
 analyses  were-modified.   For  the  method development and  standards  develop-
ment testing,  portions of the various liquid samples were analyzed for
 phenol and phenolic  compounds, formaldehyde,  total  organic  carbon
 (TOO, chloroform/ether extractable compounds, as well  as for  particulate
 matter by standard EPA Method 5 gravimetric procedures.
      Several  sample collection procedures  and analytical methods were
 evaluated by literature review and by laboratory and field tests prior
 to the standards development  testing.  The results of these investiga-
 tions led to selection of the analytical and  sampling procedures for
 the  standards  development testing.
                                      D-l
-------
     A total  of 53 separate locations on 11 process lines  at six wool
fiberglass manufacturing plants were sampled during the standards
development testing.  This testing included sampling controlled and
uncontrolled sources and inlets and outlets of emission.control devices.
Opacity observations were made where appropriate.  This Appendix des-
cribes the rationale for selection of the  methods  used, the sampling
train, the sample collection  procedures, and> the analytical methods
used to  generate the test  data-.-
D.2  SELECTION OF TESTING  AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
 D.2.1  Preliminary Review
     "The EPA investigated several candidate sampling and analytical
 procedures for sampling emissions from wool fiberglass manufacturing
 operations.  The  pollutants  of interest were particulate matter, phenol,
 and formaldehyde.  The evaluation consisted of reviewing data and methods
 which had been  used to sample  and  analyze fiberglass  plant emissions and
 of reviewing  other methods which might be applicable.  The conclusion of
 the preliminary reviews was  that the  best method  of sampling  particulate
 matter,  phenol, and  formaldehyde simultaneously was EPA  Method 5  with
  0.1 N NaOH in the impingers.  It was concluded that the  possibility of
  phenol  and formaldehyde sorption by the filtered particulate  matter
  should be investigated and  that the probe and filter assembly should be
  heated to prevent the condensation of phenol.  It was also concluded that,
  during initial  testing,  the impinger  contents should  be analyzed for Total
  Organic Carbon (TOO  by  standard  procedures  to determine  if  more organic
                                       D-2
-------
matter were present in the gas streams than could be accounted for by
phenol and formaldehyde and, if so, whether the organic matter passed
through the filter and collected in the impingers.
      It was necessary to analyze the impinger catch for both phenol
and formaldehyde.  Analysis for formaldehyde by the chromatropic acid
method (Reference 3) seemed to be the best procedure but literature re-
ports indicated possible interferences from phenbl.3  Other methods were
available for the analysis of formaldehyde if required; the most promising
of which was the Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) method.4
Both,  of these methods were evaluated in the laboratory to determine the
most  suitable method prior to the  initiation of field sampling.
      The recommended method of analysis for phenol was Method 510 as
specified in Standard Methods.5  This method was  expected to be relatively
free  from interferences, and  its sensitivity was  adequate.
      The laboratory  evaluation work was conducted concurrently with prep-
arations for field  testing  because no new  or exotic equipment was
 needed  for  the  sampling.   In  the  interest  of simplicity,  standard EPA
Method  5 trains  were  used  for the  majority of the field  evaluations.
Midget  impinger  trains  could  have  been  substituted for  the  collection  of
 phenol  and  formaldehyde had  it  been  found  necessary to  sample  using  two
 different  trains.
 D.2.2  Laboratory  Evaluation  of Analytical Methods
      The  analytical  procedures  were  evaluated  in  the  lab prior to  the
 field testing  program.   The goals  .of this  evaluation  were to:
      1.   Verify detection limits  of  the methods;
                                     D-3
-------
     2.   Generate precision and accuracy  data;
     3.   Determine the nature and magnitude  of  interferences;
     4.   Determine sample stability over  time;
     5.   Evaluate possible interference removal  techniques;  and
     6.   Evaluate phenol and formaldehyde relationships to TOC.
The lab evaluation was conducted by preparing a number of samples  span-
ning the range of concentration expected to result from field sampling.
Interferences were evaluated by-analyzing simulated field samples  con-
taining known but varying  amounts of both phenol and formaldehyde.
D.2.2.1  Phenol
     The method  of analysis  for phenol was a spectrophotometric procedure
using 4-aminoantipyrine.   The  working  range of the method was found to
be 0.5 to 5.0 mg/1 with a  1  cm photometer cell.  Using 4 cm cells, the
detection limit  can  be lowered to 0.2  mg/1.  Formaldehyde interference
was  evaluated  and was not found to occur over  the  range  of  expected
concentrations.   Total  organic carbon  analyses  of  phenol  samples  showed
a linear relationship between measured TOC  and phenol  concentration,
but  the  measured TOC values were higher  than  the  theoretical  values.
D.2.2.2   Formaldehyde
      The recommended analytical procedure for formaldehyde (NIOSH Method
 P&CAM 125)  was the chromotropic acid/spectrophotometric method.   The  method
 was recommended because of its simplicity and sensitivity.   Phenol inter-
 ference was known to occur, but the extent of the interference  and whether
 the interference could be accounted for or removed were not known.
      Analysis of formaldehyde  samples containing varying known amounts of
                                     D-4
-------
phenol showed a definite phenol  interference.  At phenol  to formaldehyde
ratios of greater than 10:1 a negative interference occurred and increased
with increasing phenol/formaldehyde ratio.  At approximately 30:1,  the
interference becomes complete with 'spectrophotometer absorbance of  samples
approaching zero.
     Bromination of the sample,  mentioned in other chromotropic acid
descriptions as a technique for removing phenol interferences, met  with
limited success, and then only .at phenol concentrations less than 20 mg/1.
A bromine (Br2/Br) solution was added to samples containing from 5  to 200
mg/1 phenol, and sodium metabisulfite was added to destroy excess Brg.
This procedure might be developed, but additional method development
work was not considered to be within the scope of work.
     Another method, the phenylhydrazine colorimetric procedure
(Section 6.3.2, Analysis of Organic Air Pollutants, W. Lei the), was
then  evaluated.  Formaldehyde, in the presence of hydrochloric acid
(HC1), will react with phenylhydrazine hydrochloride to produce the
phenylhydrazone of formaldehyde and yield a  pinkish colored solution.
Potassium ferricyanide is  also used and will react with phenol in an  •
alkaline solution and produce a positive  interfering color.  Acidifi-
cation of the  sample  prior to adding the  ferricyanide prevents phenol
interference at phenol concentrations up  to  more than 300 mg/1.
This  method has  a working  range of 1.0 to 10.0 mg/1 formaldehyde using
1 cm  spectrophotometer cells.
      Total  organic carbon  analysis of formaldehyde gave results similar
to  those  for phenol,  i.e., a linear relationship but measured values
                                     D-5
-------
  TABLE D.I



NUMBER OF RUMS
Comparison
Filter
vs.
No Filter
120 °C Filter
vs.
160°C Filter
120°C Filter
vs.
70°C Filter
T«4.^1

A
3
3
3,
3
2

_L-Jl -
16
Source
B
3
3
3
3
3

—
18

C
0
0
1
1
1
1
—
4
Total
6^
6
7
7
6
g
\j
38
         D-6
-------
were higher than theoretical.  No decay was found in samples refrigerated
for up to 20 days.
D.2.2.3  Field Evaluation Program                            '
     The field evaluation program consisted of a total of 38 individual
runs, yielding 19 sets of paired samples.  Table D.I summarizes the sample
collection matrix.  The sources were selected to represent a controlled
emission and two types of uncontrolled discharges.
     The sample collection procedure employed EPA Method 5 type sampling
trains.  Sampling procedures followed those of Method 5 with the following
exceptions:
     1.  All sampling was done at a single point.  A velocity traverse
        was performed and the samples collected at a point of average
        velocity.  Velocities in the stack were relatively uniform
        across the traverses.
     2.  The filter was omitted from one train in one series of compari-
        son runs.
     3.  Impingers 1 and 2 each contained 100 ml of 0.1 N_NaOH.
Sampling trains were leak checked before and after each run, and leakage
rates were noted on the field data sheets.  Initially, stack and sample
train data were recorded every 5 minutes, and appropriate adjustments
were made.  Operating conditions were stable enough that 10-minute data
readings were found to be sufficient.
     Some aspects of the test method were evaluated in the field.  Fil-
ter blinding due to condensed organic material on the filter did not
occur on any of the tested sources, and  there was no evidence of such
                                    D-7
-------
a potential.  However, the maximum weight gain on the filters was only
80 mg.
     Sampling of wet gas streams was of concern.  The tested sources,
while saturated and containing some' water droplets, had.stack tempera-
tures of  about 38°C (100°F).  The  heated probe  and  filter box prevented
any  condensation of water  on  the filter.
0.2.2.4  Analysis  Results  and Conclusions
      As expected,  filtration  temperature  affected the  amount of material
 retained on the filter.   At higher temperatures, less  material  was re-
 tained on the filter.  The effect of temperature was more apparent
 on the uncontrolled sources.
      Phenol, as determined by the 4-aminoantipyrine method, was found in
 the front half (probe rinse  and filter) in all  the runs.  This was not
 expected.  Filtration temperature appeared to  affect the amount of phenol
 deposited  in the  front  half  in the  same way  as  had been observed with
 particulate  matter.
       Because phenol  has sufficient  vapor  pressure at  the  sample temperatures
                                   n
  and concentrations  to  remain gaseous,  the measured phenol  on the  filter
  could have resulted from chemical reaction or from other phenolic com-
  pounds to which the analytical  method responded.  To  confirm the  presence
  of phenol (C6H5OH) on the filter, several front half samples (those con-
  taining more than 10 percent of the total observed phenol) were subjected
  to gas chromatographic analysis.  The front half samples contained no
  detectable  free  phenol.
                                       D-8
-------
     The 4-aminoantipyrine method was known to respond to substituted
phenols, but it was not known before the field test whether* any would
be present.  Since phenolic compounds other than phenol  were present on
the filter, several impinger solutions were analyzed by  the GC technique.
Detailed organic analyses were beyond the scope of work  and were not at-
tempted, but the method employed was sufficiently sensitive for these
confirmations.  On the average, only 46 percent of the phenol measured
by the 4-aminoantipyrine method.was in fact free phenol.  The remainder
of the phenol measured by the colorimetric method was apparently a
mixture of substituted phenolic compounds which reacted in the analyte
to form dyes similar to that formed by phenol.  The absorbance of these
reaction products  depends on what specific compounds are present.
At the  same concentrations, different phenolic compounds will yield
different  results.  Thus, samples containing the same total concentration
of phenolic compounds will yield different results when analyzed by
the 4-aminoantipyrine method and the results will depend on the relative
proportions of  the different compounds present in the sample.
     As mentioned, the data showed  that less phenolics were measured in
the  front  half  at  higher  temperatures.  The data suggested  that either
phenolic compounds were being  liberated from the filter residue by
exposure to  higher temperature or,  more likely,  that more condensible
phenolic matter passed through  the  filter  to be  condensed in  the
impingers.
     The data  showed  that the  4-aminoantipyrine-spectrophotometric
method  measures phenolic  compounds  other  than  phenol  in  the emissions
                                     D-9
-------
from process sources in wool fiberglass plants.  The method is repro-
ducible.  Replicate analyses of 40 samples demonstrated a precision of
+_ 2 percent.
     Problems with the formaldehyde analyses were similar to those en-
countered with phenol.   In  addition, potential problems with sample
stability were observed.  The  temperature effects observed for par-
ticipate and phenol  concentration were not. as  pronounced with formaldehyde.
      Evaluation  of the front haJf/back half catches of formaldehyde
 samples provide  some unexpected results.   Less formaldehyde was measured
 in the stack gas when the filter was removed than when the a  filter was
 in place,   the sampling train without a filter measured, on  the  average,
 about 58 percent of the formaldehyde measured by the train operated with
 a 120°C (248°F) filter.    Formaldehyde is  too volatile to be collected
 as a condensed particle on a  filter.   Formaldehyde was measured in
 filter  extracts and could  have been sorbed onto  the particulate matter,
 or it  could have  resulted  from a reaction  initiated by  the extraction
 process or front a positive interference  in the  analytical method.  The
 method.is reportedly'specific for  formaldehyde so an  interference is
  unlikely.   However, the low concentrations measured (1-8 ppm) and
  relatively small differences  in the comparisons made it difficult to
  draw any firm conclusion.
       Replicate analyses of samples,  field and laboratory spikes, and con-
  trols  were  also  conducted.   The formaldehyde replicates did not  show the
  degree of reproducibility that the phenol  replicates  did.   Recovery of
  field and laboratory spikes  was also poor.   Individual  replicates varied
                                       D-10
-------
as much as 24 percent from the average,  and field spike recoveries ranged
from 21  to 180 percent.   Lab spike recoveries ranged from 27  to 97
percent.  The low concentration increased the relative importance of
analytical variations.  Control samples  showed good reproducibility
which (in conjunction with poor spike recoveries) indicated that the
nature of the samples was changing as they aged.
     The data suggested that little of the measured formaldehyde deposited
in the probe (less than 10 percent) and  that the  effect of the filter
temperature, if there was any effect or trend, followed that of the
particulate matter and phenol  (i.e., at higher temperatures, less
formaldehyde was found on the  filter while at the lower temperatures,
more formaldehyde was measured on the filter).  As previously  mentioned,
formaldehyde is too volatile to condense on the filter at the filtration
temperatures used, so the observed differences stemmed either  from a
reaction occurring on the filter or from sample instability.
     A number of samples were  analyzed for TOC.  The data indicated that
measured phenolics and formaldehyde accounted for only about 2/3 of the
organic carbon in the impingers.  While the TOC is not the total mass
of condensable organic matter  collected, it is representative of the
total condensable matter collected in the impingers.  The non-carbon
component of the condensable (hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) should
be quite constant, and the data indicated close agreement between the
simultaneously collected samples.
     The TOC analyses also indicated that the differences in measured
particulate matter observed as a result of filter temperature variations
are  accounted  for in  the impinger catch and further that the differences
                                    D-ll
-------
observed for phenol and formaldehyde may well  be the result of reactions
among the various organics present.  The total material  collected in the
paired trains was approximately equal while the relative amounts and
types collected at different locations  in the train were not.
     The data showed  that the  quantity  of condensable organic matter is
often greater than the  quantity of filtered particulate matter.  Even if
 the phenol  and  formaldehyde portion of  this organic carbon  were  neglected,
 substantial  amounts  of non-phenolic non-formaldehyde organic  compounds
 were present.   Depending on the, source  and filter temperature,  the amount
 of organic matter passing through the filter  that was not phenol  or
 formaldehyde ranged  from five times the particulate matter collected in
 the front half to one  fifth of the front half catch.
 0.3  SAMPLING TRAIN
      The equipment used  for standards  development  sample collection was
  a modified  EPA  Reference Method  5 train  (40  CFR  Part 60, Appendix A).
  D.3.1   Measurement  of Filtration Temperature
      The physical  state of organic matter  is a function  of temperature,
  pressure,  and concentration and in this sampling program temperature
  is the most critical factor.   The discharge  temperature  of the exhaust
  gas streams tested  ranged from  slightly above ambient to approximately
  700°C  (1300°F), and many of  the  lower temperature gas streams, both
   controlled and  uncontrolled, contained entrained  water droplets.
   Therefore, it was necessary  to  keep the sample  gas temperature above
   105°C  (220°F).
        Filtration temperature  was measured  by insertion of a  temperature
   measuring device into the sample gas  stream directly behind the  filter
                                       D-12
-------
support frit.  Measuring the temperature of the filtered gas obviates
the need for calibration of filter compartment thermocouples and  heaters
and ensures that the sample gas stream is maintained at the selected
temperature.  Temperature regulation can be accomplished manually or
with temperature controllers but in' either case, the temperature  being
controlled is filtration temperature, not compartment or surrounding
air temperature.
D.3.2  Sampling Lines
     Phenol has an affinity for, stainless steel so glass sample lines
were necessary to minimize phenol loss to the probe walls.   This  applies
to the impinger train as well as the probe liner as the majority  of the
phenol and phenolic compounds are collected in the impingers.
D.3.3  Impinger Solution
     The  first two impingers were filled with 100 ml each of a dilute
caustic solution  (0.1 N_ NaOH) for phenol and formaldehyde absorption.
The initial  review of sampling  methods revealed that phenol, while sol-
uble in water, is more  so  in caustic, and most sampling techniques in-
volving collection of phenol in impingers use dilute caustic absorbing
medium.   Analysis of samples collected with three wet impingers in series
showed  typically  less than 1 percent of  the total phenol and formaldehyde
in  the  third  impinger.  The  collection efficiency of a  single impinger
i s  estimated to be  about 90  percent.
D.4  SAMPLE  COLLECTION
     The  sampling procedures described  in Method 5 were used for  sample
collection during the standards development portion  of  the  testing.
Multiple  point isokinetic  sampling  was  done at  sampling points located
                                     D-13
-------
according to EPA Methods 1 and 2 wherever existing ductwork permitted.
Sample gas molecular weight was determined by Orsat analysis of inte-
grated bag samples taken simultaneously with the emission testing.
     In some cases, particularly at control device inlets and in gas mani-
folds, it was  not possible to locate sampling ports the requisite distance
from flow disturbances  or to  sample the  required number of points in the
appropriate  matrix.   In these cases, sampling was  conducted  in locations
and in point matrices as close  as  possible to those specified  in Methods
 1 and 2.   Despite the nearness "of  some sampling locations  to flow distur-
 bances,  velocity profiles were generally uniform and  results are consi-
 dered to be representative.
      The test program usually  involved testing several  process streams
  (usually 4, 5, or 6) simultaneously to quantify the emissions  from vari-
  ous parts of  the manufacturing operation.  In  some cases, it was neces-
  sary to determine emission rates  by difference because some process
  effluents could not  be sampled directly.   In these cases,  a combination
  gas stream  and all but one of  the confluent substreams were sampled
  simultaneously to  allow calculation of the emission  contribution from
  the untestable gas  stream.
       Some modifications to the sampling train  were necessary  at certain
  test locations.  At several  locations the need to perform a vertical  tra-
  verse in a horizontal  duct required a 90° glass adapter between the probe
  liner and  the  filter  holder.  The presence of entrained water droplets
  in a fairly  high velocity gas stream  plugged  the impact  side of the type
  S pi tot tube at two sites.  At these  locations,  velocity head was
                                       D-14
-------
measured using a continuous purge/differential pressure transducer flow
meter.  One source had a gas temperature of 700°C, (1£90°F) and required
an air cooled probe sheath to cool the sample to 120°C (248°F) at
the filter.
     A cyclone precollector was required for. the removal of entrained
droplets at some locations, however none of these locations discharged
directly to the atmosphere.  A low range manometer  (minimum division
0.005 in., 0.13 mm) was required  in a limited number of'cases.

D.5   SAMPLE RECOVERY
      The  sample recovery  techniques of Method 5 were employed
with  modifications  necessary to obtain samples  suitable  for subsequent
 analysis.   In order to analyze  the  front  half catch for  phenol  and  for-
 maldehyde,  it was  necessary  to  first  rinse the  front half components
 with  distilled water.   Any remaining  particulate  matter  was  then  recovered
 with  acetone  rinsing and brushing as  required by  Method 5.  The back
 half sample recovery was performed using  0.1  N  NaOH as the rinse  solution.
 These procedures  are described below.
      At the conclusion of the test run (after the final  leak check),  the
 probe was disconnected from the rest of the train and capped.  Filter and
 impinger inlets and outlets were also capped, and the probe and impinger
 box were returned to the sample recovery  area for cleanup.  All front
 half components were  rinsed three times with distilled water to remove
 water soluble particles.  Probe  liner rinsing was accomplished in a man-
 ner .similar  to that specified by Method 5 except both ends were capped
 and  the probe rotated axially and .oscillated longitudinally  to ensure
                                     D-15
-------
wetting of all internal surfaces.  The probe was not brushed during
water rinsing.
     A minimum of three acetone rinsings and brushings followed the water
rinses.
     The  filter  was  removed  from  the  glass  housing  and placed in a corres-
 pondingly numbered glass  petri  dish.   The  front  half  of the  filter holder
 was first rinsed with distilled water, and the rinse  was  placed  into the
 appropriate probe wash container.  The filter holder  was  then brushed
 and rinsed with acetone into thi appropriate probe wash  container.  The
 contents of the first three impingers were transferred to a graduated
 cylinder  and the volume measured and  noted.  The impingers, back half
 of the filter holder, and connecting  glassware were  rinsed with 0.1 N
 MaOH  into the graduated  cylinder.  The final  volume  was  then measured
 and noted.   The contents of the  graduated  cylinder were  then poured into
 a sample bottle.  All glass sample containers were labeled, identifying
  source,  date of sampling,  type of sample  (i.e.,  front half  probe  rinse,
  back half NaOH), and run number.  Silica  gel  from the fourth  impinger
  was transferred to the original plastic bottle(s) and weighed  on  a tri-
  ple beam balance to  the nearest 0.1  g.  Sample"bottles were narrow mouth
  glass bottles  with Teflon  lined caps.  Liquid levels were marked on  the
   bottles  and the caps taped to prevent sample loss.

   D.6  ANALYSIS
       The following sections  describe the sample handling  and  analytical
   procedures used for the standards development testing.  As previously
   discussed, literature review, laboratory evaluation, and  field evaluation
                                       D-16
-------
evaluation were conducted to develop these sampling and analytical
techniques for the wool fiberglass manufacturing industry.
     Each run generated one water rinse of the front half,  one acetone
front half rinse, one or more filters, and one impinger and rinse sample.
All liquid samples (except acetone rinses) were analyzed for formaldehyde
on-site at the field laboratory.  Analysis for formaldehyde was commenced
immediately after collection of samples to minimize potential degradation
of collected formaldehyde.  At the conclusion of the testing, all samples
were taken by test personnel to,the laboratory for analysis.  Analytical
methods and laboratory procedures are discussed below.
D.6.1  Analysis  for Particulate Matter
D.6.1.1  Probe Rinse - Water
     Distilled water was  used for all rinses  and blanks were run to
determine  a residue concentration.  The volume of the  sample was measured
in  graduated  cylinders.   Aliquots were removed  for phenol  and  formalde-
hyde analysis.   The remaining volume  was  measured  and  transferred to
tared  and  numbered beakers  and  evaporated to  dryness  at ambient  pressure
and temperature  under  a  laboratory  hood.   The beakers  were then  desic-
cated  to  constant weight and  results  were reported to  the  nearest 0.1
mg.
     Constant weight  for tare weighings  is defined as  a difference  of
 no more  than  0.5 mg  between two consecutive weighings  with at  least six"
 hours  of desiccation  between  weighings.   For gross weights, the  allowable
 difference is no more  than 0.5  mg or  no  more than  1  percent of the  dif-
 ference between gross  and tare  weights if the 0.5  mg criterion cannot be
                                     0-17
-------
met.  The averages of the two successive weights are used in  the
calculations.
D.6.1.2  Probe Rinse - Acetone
     Reagent grade acetone was used"for rinses and the procedures for de-
termining  the residue were the same as the water rinses  except that the
total  sample was evaporated  because aliquots were  not  needed for other
 analysis.
 D.6.1.3  Filters
      Prior to sampling, filters were labeled on the back side  near the
 edge, and visually checked for flaws, irregularities,  or pinhole leaks.
 A  series  of glass petri dishes were marked with the same numbers as the
 filters and the respective  filters placed in the dishes.  Each filter/
 petri  dish  was  thereafter handled  as  a  unit.
       The  filter/petri  dish  sets  were  desiccated at  20°C + 5°C
  (68«F ±10°F)  and ambient pressure for at least 24 hours and  weighed at
  six-hour intervals to a constant weight as described  previously.   After
  sample collection, the filters were desiccated and weighed in the same
  manner as  above and results reported to the nearest 0.1 mg.   Filters
  and  dishes were handled only with forceps or with  latex gloves.
        After final weighing,  the  filters were cut  into quarters and the
   quarters were  placed  in  a  sample  bottle  containing 130 ml 0.1 M  NaOH.
   The bottles were  then vigorously  shaken,.and  the contents were allowed
   to settle overnight.   After settling,  aliquots were  withdrawn  and
   analyses for phenol  and formaldehyde were conducted, as described below,
                                        D-18
-------
D.6.1.4  Impinger Solutions
     The volume of the collected sample was again measured, and aliquots
were removed for phenol, formaldehyde, and TOC analyses, as were 200 ml
aliquots for chloroform/ether extractions.  Analytical procedures are des-
cribed in the following section.

D.6.1.4,1  Extractable Organic Compounds (Chloroform/Ether Extraction)
     A 200 ml aliquot of impinger sample was placed in a separatory fun-
nel and acidified with 6 N_ hydrochloric acid to a pH of approximately 2.
Twenty-five ml of reagent  grade chloroform were added to the sample, and
the sample and chloroform  mixture was shaken vigorously for 60 seconds.
The mixture was allowed to settle, and after the chloroform had separated
into a distinct layer, it  was filtered through a layer of  sodium sulfate
(to remove any water) into a previously numbered and tared glass beaker.
This process was repeated  twice more with 25 ml of chloroform each time.
Then, the sodium sulfate was rinsed with 10 ml chloroform, and the rinse
was added to  the tared beaker.
     The 200 ml  sample aliquot was then treated with three 25 ml extrac-
tions of reagent grade diethyl ether, in a similar fashion to the chloro-
form extractions.   Each 25 ml of  ether was added to the tared beaker  con-
taining the  chloroform after being filtered through sodium sulfate.   Fi-
nally, the  sodium  sulfate  was rinsed with  10 ml ether,  and the rinse  was
added  to the beaker.
     The chloroform/ether  mixture contained in the tared  beaker was evapor-
ated at laboratory  temperature to dryness  under a laboratory hood.  After
                                     D-19
-------
evaporation, the beaker was desiccated at 20°C ± 5'C (68°F ±10')  to a
constant weight and results were reported to the nearest 0.1 mg.
0.6.1.4-.2  Total Organic Carbon
     A 25 ml aliquot was placed in a beaker and acidified to a pH of 2
to 3 and warmed at 50°C  (120°F) for 15 minutes to remove  the inorganic
carbon  (dissolved C02  and  carbonates).   A 50  microliter portion was
injected  into  the total  carbon converter of a Beckman TOC analyzer,  and
another was injected into  the inorganic  carbon converter.   Total  organic
 carbon is determined by the difference in peak height  between  the total
 carbon and inorganic carbon.  A total  carbon standard  (potassium acid
 phthalate) and an inorganic carbon standard  (sodium carbonate and bicar-
 bonate) were used for calibration of instrument response.  A detailed
 description of the analytical procedure follows in Section D.7.1.
 0.6.2  Phenol Analysis
       Phenol  analyses  were done by two methods - a gas chromatographic
 method and wet chemical colorimetric  method.  The  wet  chemical procedure
  responds to substituted phenolic compounds such as o-cresol  (CH3C6H4OH)
  as well  as phenol  (C6H5OH), but the response for these other  compounds
  is less than the response for phenol  and is dependent on the specific
  compound  involved.  The  samples were also analyzed on a gas chromatograph
  with  appropriate columns for quantification of free phenol.  These pro-
  cedures  are  described  in the following sections.  Detailed descriptions
  of  the  methods follow  in Sections D.7.2 and D.7.3.
                                       D-20
-------
D.6.2.1  Phenol Analysis (4-Aminoantipyrine Method)
     Depending on the expected concentration and the turbidity  of the
sample, either a 50 ml aliquot of sample, or a lesser sample volume di-
luted to 50 ml, was placed in a beaker and 1.0 ml of 5 percent ammonium
chloride (NfyCl) was added.  The pH was adjusted to 10.0 +_0.2 with 5  N_
HC1, and 1.0 ml of a 2 percent solution of 4-aminoantipyrine was added
and mixed well.  This was followed by addition of 1.0 ml of an 8 percent
solution of potassium ferricyanide.  After 15 minutes, the absorbance
of the  resultant colored  solution was measured  in the spectrophotometer
at a wavelength  of 510  nm in  a 1 cm  cuvette.
     A blank  and series of  standard  solutions which were made  up in 0.1 N
MaOH were  analyzed  in the same manner.   The colored dye was  stable  for a
minimum of one hour.   Standards  ranged  from 0.5 to  5.0 mg/1.
 0.6.2.2  Phenol  Analysis  (Gas Chromatographic Method)
      Impinger catches and a caustic  wash of the filter  were  analyzed  for
 free phenol by gas chromatography.   A Hewlett-Packard 5830A  gas chromato-
 graph  (GC) with a flame ionization detector (FID)  was used to  separate
 and measure phenol  and other phenolic compounds.  This GC/FID was equipped
 with a microprocessor which provided automatic integration of peak areas
 of a chromatogram.  Standards of selected phenols in the range of ex-
 pected concentration were run to provide elution times, relative reten-
 tion,  and  calibration  factors.
                                      D-21
-------
     Typically, 1 microliter of sample was injected  into  the column and
the phenolic compounds eluted at the relative retention times  shown below:
     1.  phenol - 1.00   '
     2.  o-cresol - 2.30
     3.  p-cresol - 2.68
     4.  p-ethylphenol - 4.30
     5.  2,3 dimethyl phenol - 7.38
A  six-foot  glass column 2 mm ID,was used.  The column was packed with
0.1  percent SP-1000 on Carbopack C operated at 225°C (435°F).   SP-1000®
is a brand  name (Supelco Phase) of a  derivative of terephthalic acid
prepared from  Carbowax 20M.  High purity  nitrogen was used as carrier
gas  at a flow  rate of 12 to 20  ml/min.  Use  of a glass column and
on-column  injection  are  necessary to  minimize phenol loss to  metal
parts.  A  column containing 80/100  mesh Tenax® was  also  used.  The Tenax
 column does not separate some of the  substituted phenolics  (i.e., m- and
 p-cresol)  but alleviates some of the  "ghosting"  problems encountered
 with the SP-1000 packing.
 D.6.3  Formaldehyde Analysis (Phenylhydrazine Method)
      Depending on the expected concentration and the turbidity of the
 sample  either  a 15 ml aliquot  of sample, or  a lesser volume diluted  to
 15  ml,  was placed in a 50 ml Erlenmyer flask and acidified with 1.0  ml
 of  6  M_HC1.   One  ml of 5 percent potassium ferricyanide was added, and
 after four minutes, 4 ml of concentrated HC1 were added.  After a five
     Mention of trade names  is  not  an  endorsement by EPA.
                                      D-22
-------
minute wait, 2 ml of 1.4 percent phenylhydrazine hydrochloride were
added and the sample was mixed well.  The resultant phenylhydrazone of
formaldehyde yielded a pinkish color and the absorbance was read at 515
nm in 1 cm cuvettes after 15 minutes.  A blank and series of standards
in the range of  0 to 12.0 mg/1 formaldehyde were analyzed in the same
manner.  Section D.7.4 contains a detailed description of the procedure.
D.6.4  Visual Emissions Observations Method
     Observations of visible  emissions.from discharges to the atmosphere
were made  concurrently  with the emissions  sampling when  appropriate.
These  observations  were made  using  EPA  Method 9  procedures  (40 CFR  Part
 60,  Appendix A).  Opacity readings  were recorded every 15  seconds,  except
 during interruptions  in production  or testing, or when it  was  necessary
 for observers to rest their eyes.   Each observer location  was selected
 to provide both a clear view of the emissions without interference from
 the sun and a line of vision approximately perpendicular to the plume
 direction with  a good background for observation.  Wind shifts at
 times prevented continuous observation and the data sheets so indicate.
 Adverse conditions were  seldom serious enough to preclude making
 sufficient observations  for  each run.
 D.7   DETAILED ANALYTICAL METHODS
       The  following sections  describe  the  instrument  procedures used  for
  analysis  for the  various sample aliquots.
                                      D-23
-------
0,7.1  Total Organic Carbon
0.7.1.1  Principle
     For the determination of total organic carbon, two analyses are per-
formed on successive identical samples, i.e., total carbon and inorganic
carbon.  These  two  analyses  are  run on  separate channels, or sample paths,
of the analyzer.  The  desired quantity  is  the difference between the two
values obtained.   Both analyses  are  based  on conversion of  sample carbon
 into C02 for measurement by a nan-dispersive infrared analyzer.  Results
 of analyses register as peaks on a strip chart recorder.
      The principle differences between operating parameters for the two
 channels involve the combustion tube packing material and temperature.
 In the total carbon channel, a  high temperature  (950°C, 1740°F) furnace
 heats a Hastelloy  combustion tube packed  with cobalt oxide-impregnated
 asbestos  fiber.  The  'oxygen in  the  carrier gas,  the  elevated temperature,
  and the catalytic  effect of the packing result  in oxidation of  both
  organic and inorganic carbonaceous  material to  C02 and  steam.   In  the
  inorganic carbon channel, a low temperature (150°C,  300°F) furnace heats
   a glass tube  containing quartz chips wetted with 85 percent phosphoric
   acid.  The acid liberates C02  and steam  from inorganic carbonates.  The
   operating temperature is  below that required to  oxidize organic matter.
   0.7.1.2   Equipment
        1.   Sample Blender or Homogenizer - Waring type or ultrasonic
        2.   Magnetic Stirrer
        3.   Hypodermic Syringe - 0 to 100   yl capacity
        4.   Total Organic Carbon Analyzer  - Beckman Mod*!  915 with  215B in-
             frared  analyzer
                                        D-24
-------
D.7.1.3  Reagents
     1,  Distilled Water - prepare blank and standard solutions with ear- .
         bon-free water.
     2.  Hydrochloric Acid, HC1, Concentrated
     3.  Total Carbon Stock Solution - dissolve 2.125 g dried potassium
         biphthalate in C02-free water and dilute to 1 liter in a volume-
         tric flask.  This solution contains 1000 mg/1 organic carbon.
     4.  Inorganic Carbon Stock Solution - dissolve 4.404 gm anhydrous
         sodium  carbonate in about 500 ml of C02-free water in a 1 liter
         volumetric flask.  Add 3.497 gm anhydrous sodium bicarbonate to
         the  flask and  dilute  to 1 liter with C02-free water.  This solu-
         tion contains  1000 mg/1 inorganic carbon.
     5.  Oxygen  Gas, C02-free.
 D.7.1.4  Procedure
     The samples collected  in  0.1 N_NaOH often  contained  too much
 inorganic  carbon to  allow repeatable  determinations,  and, therefore,
 a pretreatment  step  was necessary.  The samples were  acidified with
 concentrated HCl to  a  pH of 2.  The acidified  sample  was  warmed  at
 50°C (120°F)  in a water bath for 10 minutes.   The sample  was withdrawn
 from the beaker by means of a  hypodermic  needle, 20  to 50  yl were  injected
 'into the total  carbon port of the analyzer and the peak height was
 measured.   The  procedure was repeated until  three consecutive  peaks  were
 obtained with reproducibility of +_ 10 percent.  Total carbon  was determined
 for a number of samples and then the  procedure was repeated using the
 inorganic channel of the analyzer.
                                     D-25
-------
     Standard carbon solutions  in  the  range  of expected sample concentra-
tion were injected,  and peak heights of these standards and dilution water
blank were recorded.  Peak height was  corrected  for the blank value.
     The carbon concentrations of the  standards  in milligrams per  liter
were plotted against the corrected peak height in millimeters on rectan-
gular coordinate paper.
     The sample concentrations were determined from the corrected peak
heights  of  the samples by  reference to  this calibration curve.
0.7.1.5   Calculation
      The corrected peak height in millimeters (mm)  was calculated by
 deducting the blank correction in the standards  and samples as  follows:
                     Corrected Peak Height,  mm =  A - B
 where:  A - peak height in mm of the  standards  or sample
         B = peak height in mm of the blank
 An appropriate dilution factor was applied when necessary.
 D.7.2   Phenols - Direct Photometric Method
 D.7.2.1 Principle
       Phenol  and other phenolic  compounds react  with 4-aminoantipyrine at
  a PH of 10.0+0.2 in the presence of potassium ferricyanide to  form a
  colored antipyrine dye.   This dye is kept  in  an aqueous solution and the
  absorbance is measured at 510 nm.
       The method requires  initial PH greater than 12 (that of  0.1 N  NaOH)
   so front half water  washes are either diluted 1+1 with 0.1  N. NaOH  or basi-
   fied with  a small  amount of  10 N_ NaOH.
                                       D-26
-------
     The minimum detectable concentration of the method is 0.1  mg/1  in
an undiluted sample.   The detectable concentration varies  due  to sample
turbidity, dilutions, other interfering colors,  and reagent inhibitors.
D.7.2.2  Equipment
     1.  Photometric Equipment
         One of the following, equipped with absorption cells  providing
         light paths of 1 to 5 cm, is required:
         -  Spectrophotdmeter - ,for use at 510 nm.
          -  Filter Photometer - equipped with a green filter  exhibiting
            maximum light transmittance near 510 nm.
     2.  pH Meter
D.7.2.3  Reagents
     Prepare all reagents with  distilled water free of phenols and chlorine.
     I.  Stock  Phenol Solution
         Dissolve  1.00 g phenol in  freshly boiled  and cooled distilled wa-
         ter and dilute to  1,000 ml.  Ordinarily this direct weighing of
          the phenol yields  a  standard  solution.  Freshly made 0.1 N_NaOH
          solution  may be used  to dilute  the  solid  phenol, and thus the
          stock  solution  is  similar  to  the  samples.  The stock is
          refrigerated to extend the useful life.
          However,  if more  accuracy  than  used in  this method is  required,
          standardize as  follows:
         -   To  100  ml  distilled water in  a  500-ml  glass-stoppered conical
            flask,  add 50.0 ml  stock phenol  solution and 10.0 ml 0.1 N_ bro-
            mate-bromide  solution.   Immediately  add 5 ml concentrated
                                     D-27
-------
    HC1 and  swirl  the  stoppered  flask-gently.   If the brown color
    of  free  bromine  does  not persist,  add  10.0-ml portions of
    bromate-bromide  solution until  the color does persist.  Keep
    the flask stoppered and let  stand  for  10 minutes;  then add
    approximately 1  g potassium  iodide (KI).  Usually  four 10-ml
     portions of bromate-bromide  solution are required  if the
     stock phenol solution contains 1,000 mg/1 phenol.
  -  Prepare a blank in exactly the same manner, using distilled
     water and 10.0 ml 0.1 N_ bromate-bromide solution.   Titrate
     the blank and sample with the 0.025 N sodium thiosulfate titrant,
     using starch  solution  as the indicator.
  -  Calculate the concentration of the phenol  solution  as follows:
                        mg/1  phenol = 7.842 (AB-C)
     where:   A = ml  thiosulfate  for blank
              B = ml  bromate-bromide solution'used for  sample divided
                  by  10
              C = ml  thiosulfate  used  for sample
2.  Standard Solution
    Pipette 5 ml  of the 1,000 ppm stock into a 100 ml volumetric flask
    and dilute to the mark with 0.1 N_ MaOH.  The resulting solution
    will contain  .05 mg/1 phenol.
3.  Hydrochloric Acid,  Concentrated
4.  6 N_ Hydrochloric Acid
5.  Ammonium Chloride  Solution
    Dissolve 50  g NfyCl  in  distilled water and dilute  to 1,000  ml.
                                D-28
-------
     6.   Aminoantipyrine Solution
         Dissolve  2.0  g 4-aminoantipyrine  in  distilled water and dilute to
         100  ml.   Prepare  a  fresh  solution on each  day of use.
     7.   Potassium Ferricyanide Solution
         Dissolve  8.0  g K3Fe{CN)e  in distilled  water  and dilute to 100 ml.
         Filter if necessary.   Prepare fresh  each week.
D.7.2.4   Procedure
     Exactly 50 ml of sample or suitably  diluted aliquot were  placed  in  a
250 ml beaker.  The concentration  was kept in the range of  0.1. ppm to 5  ppm
which corresponds to 0.05 mg to 2.5 mg in a 50 ml sample.   Exactly 1  ml  of
the NH4C1 solution was pipetted and the pH adjusted using  the  pH  meter to
pH 10 +_  .2 by adding  the 6 N_ HC1 dropwise.  1 ml of aminoantipyrine
solution and 1 ml  potassium ferricyanide  solution were added to  the
solution; and the solution was  mixed well  after  each addition.  After a
15-minute wait, the solutions were  read by using a 1 cm cell and/or
cuvette  at 510  nm  in  a filter  photometer  or  spectrophotometer.
      A complete set of standard solution  and a  blank were made up each
day  in the 0.5  ppm  to 5 ppm range  by  suitable  dilution of the working
standard solution  brought to 50 ml  with 0.1  N_ NaOH.
D.7.2.5   Calculations
      The sample concentrations were calculated using a linear regression
of absorbance versus  standard  concentration.  Alternatively,  absorbance
 and sample concentrations may  be  plotted  on  linear graph paper,  and  sample
 concentrations determined by  comparing sample absorbance to the  plotted
                                     D-29
-------
absor»ance values and corresponding concentrations.  This concentration
«as corrected by a factor for any diluted samples;  i.e., 1*5  «1u«on .as
multiplied by 10.  A typical calibration curve is shown in  Figure D.I.
0.7.2.6  Quality Control
     Standards  were  run  daily, with 'freshly made up standard solution,
 to ensure linearity  as well  as proper spectrophotometer performance.
 Using linear regression, the daily correlation coefficient,  slope and
 y-intercept were noted.
      In addition, a number of samples were duplicated and  spiked with  a
 Known concentration of  standard solution, which insure no  interferences
 in the  sample  matrix.   Half of these quality control samples were run  as
 spikes  and  the other half  as duplicated  samples.
       Calculated recoveries were determined  from the  following equation
  where the calculated spiked sample concentration  - A,  the unspiked sam-
  ple concentration = B, the spike value - SY,  the  known value  -  KV.
                                   A-B = SV
                            SY x 100 =  Percent  Recovery
                            KV~
   0 7  2.7  Precision and Accuracy
        The precision of this method depends  on the skill of  the  analyst
   and on the interferences present.   Because the "phenol"  value  is based
   on C6H5OH, this method can be regarded only as an  approximation and  as
    representing the minimum amount of phenols present.  Because the result
    varies with  the types of phenols present.
                                        D-30
-------
                      Figure D-l.
     TYPICAL PHENOL CALIBRATION CURVE
              ( 1  cm cuvettes )
   0.60
   0.50
   O.40
OJ
o
OS
QC
O
CO
03
0.30
   0.20
    0.10
                   CONCENTRATION, MG/L
                                             .. 5
                          0-31
-------
D.7.3  Phenol - Gas Liquid Chromatographic Method

0.7.3.1  Principle

     This method describes a direct Aqueous injection procedure for gas

liquid Chromatographic analysis of phenol and substituted phenolic com-

pounds collected in 0.1 N_NaOH.  The method is intended to quantify the

concentration of phenol  (C6H5OH) relative to the concentration of phe-

nolic compounds measured by  the 4-aminoantipyrine  technique.

      A single gas  liquid Chromatographic column  was  used  to  separate phe-

 nolic compounds which was then measured with  a  flame ionization  detector.

 The area of.the resulting peak was measured and compared  with  the peak

 areas of known standards to obtain quantitative results.   The  following

 is the elution order of typical phenolic compounds:
          phenol
          o-cresol
          p-cresol
          p-ethylphenol
          2,3 dimethyl phenol
Absolute Retention
     Mi nutes

      1.67
      2.13
      2.23
      3.09
      3.43
Relative
Retention

  0.54
  0.69
  0.72
  1.00
  1.11
       Differences in operating conditions,  column type,  support size,

  treatment, etc., may modify the relative retention times  of these  com-

  pounds as well as the absolute retention time and sensitivity.

  D.7.3.2  Interferences

       Any other compound which elutes at the same time as the phenolic

  compound of  interest  is an  interference (ghost).
                                       D-32
-------
D.7.3.3  Equipment
     1.  Gas Chromatograph
         A Hewlett-Packard 5830A chromatograph with hydrogen-flame
         ionization detector was used.   This model  is equipped with  an
         integrator/plotter/microprocessor which controls chromatograph
        operation parameters, electronically monitors and evaluates  the
        detector output, plots the chromatogram, and calculates areas of
        observed peaks.
     2.  Column
         Two  types  of  column packings were used for  these analyses.   Six-
         foot .long  by  2 mm  ID glass columns containing 80/100 Tenax® or 0.1
         percent  SP-1000  on Carbopack C were  used.   The Tenax® column
         does not separate  some  of  the substituted phenolic compounds .
          but eliminates  some  of the ghosting  problems found with  the =
          SP-1000.
      3.   Syringe
         A 10  1  syringe was used as minimum injection volume  was  needed  to
         lengthen column life.
      4.   Reagents
          High purity nitrogen was used as the carrier gas.   High  purity  hy-
          drogen and hydrocarbon-free air were'used for  the  flame.  Reagent
                                      D-33
-------
   grade phenolic compounds of the type expected were prepared at 10
   to 100 mg/1  in redistilled deionized water.  Typical compounds are
   o-cresol,  p-cresol,  p-ethylphenol,  and  other substituted phenols.
   As the  analysis  was  performed  to  quantify  phenol, the substituted
   phenolics were used  to check  retention  time and  detector response.
5.  Procedure
    The column is installed on the oven and all gas  lines connected.
    The system is leak-checked according to the operation manual  for
    the unit.  The column is preconditioned for 24 hours at the
    operating temperature.  The following  is  a list of typical
     operating  parameters:
    -  Flow Rates:
    -  Temperature:
                          Nitrogen - 15 to 20 ml/min
                          Hydrogen - 30 ml/min
                          Atr rate - 250 ml/min
                          Injection temperature - 225°C  (435°F)
                          Column temperature  - 225°C  (435°F)
                          FID  temperature  - 250°C  (480°f)
-  Integration/Plotter Settings
   (HP 18850A Terminal):         Area reject - 100.
                                 Slope sensitivity - 0.10
                                 Attenuation - 24 or 25
 The  area reject value  determines the minimum  area for which pro-
 cessor reports a  peak  area.  The slope  sensitivity  is used to
 determine  start  and end points  of peaks.   A typical standard
 chromatogram and resulting  report printout follows  as Figure D.2.
                                  D-34
-------
     .\\g\6a
a, 17
3. Z31
3, 29
a. 37
a. 55
a. 73
,1 . 29
3 35
3.69
•s 33
5.76
6, 19
ia, 33
10. 92
i i .-' * si
i S*i-JFsS
1 is2*-2
- i 'r1 i id
i.^.1;
•iiji
32670
32923
32S63
r —
^ / t-'
^2440
^iSja
(.63 13
5 .
i .
^ .
•3 .
si .
i .
13.
13 .
1 3 ,
S.
sJ .
13.
L-5 .
D .
i*-"
5SJ~
•i ^.
?ac:
ro.'i
s3 Bb
4-&1
5S4-
229
J - T
J:' J
3S6
£39
odfe _
               .33
     =• ia. as
      ta.'ss
                                                        Figure D-2.   Typical
                                                       standard chromatogram.
 3.3S
 3. 7 I

ia. as
- •"- - 'r1

 3 139
 3B62
 2966
 31.23
682*
36 r*-
                            2.6 ia

              r?F,^^
                                                                            D-35
                                                                  L.2S
-------
D.7.2.4  Calculations
     The area count for a known concentration of standard yielded  a cal-
ibration factor.  The area counts resulting from sample injection  were
multiplied by the calibration factor to yield a liquid sample concentra-
tion.  If standard and sample injection volumes are different, a correc-
tion was applied.
D.7.4  Formaldehyde
D.7.4.1  Principle
     The phenylhydrazone of formaldehyde yields  a  red  color  after adding
 potassium  ferricyanide.   This  reaction  is  characteristic  for  formaldehyde
 and is not disturbed by other  homologous  aldehydes.   Acidification of the
 samples before analyses removes the possible phenol  interferences encoun-
 tered in the fiberglass plant emissions.
      The practical  range of the analysis  is in the 0 to 12 mg/1  range.
 Depending on the color  and the clarity of the sample, a detection limit  of
 1 mg/1 can be  achieved  using a 15 ml aliquot of sample.  The detection
 limit will be  altered by dirty or  highly colored  samples, which must be
 diluted to be  analyzed.
 D.7.4.2   Apparatus
           Photometric Equipment
           One of the following, equipped  with absorption  cells  providing
           paths of  1 cm is  required:
          -  Spectrophotometer - for use at 515 nm.
          -  Filter photometer - equipped with an appropriate filter
            exhibiting maximum light transmittance  near 510 nm.
                                       D-36
-------
D.7.4.3  Reagents
     Prepare all standards and reagents with an organic-free grade of
distilled HeO.
     1.  Stock Formaldehyde (CH20) •
         Using freshly distilled H.2Q., make up a 0.1 N_NaOH solution
         approximately 2 liters or more for use in making up the standard
         dilutions.  Carefully pipette 1 ml of a 40 percent (326 g/1)
         formaldehyde solution into a 1 liter volumetric flask 1/2 full of
        0.1 N_ NaOH.  Fill to the mark with the 0.1 N NaOH and store in an
        air-tight  glass bottle under refrigeration.  This solution contains
        326 mg/1 CHaO.                  ,
     2.  Standard  Solution
         Pipette 10 ml  of the  stock  solution  in 90 ml of 0.1 N_ NaOH for
         a  standard with a 30 mg/1 concentration.  This is  the working
         standard.  One ml of  this solution  in  a  15 ml aliquot will  in-
         crease the concentration by 2  mg/1.
     3.  Hydrochloric Acid,  Concentrated
     4.  6  H_ Hydrochloric Acid
      5.  5  Percent Potassium Ferricyanide
         Dissolve  5  g  reagent grade  K3Fe(CN)e into 100 ml  distilled  H20.
      6.   1.4 Percent  Phenylhydrazine Hydrochloride
         Add to 80 ml  distilled H20, 1.4  .phenyl hydrazine  hydrochlo-
          ride and 2 ml  concentrated  HC1.   Dilute to 100  ml  and  filter
          if necessary.   The  solution should only have a  very faint color.
          If it  is dark colored, a hew solution must be prepared.
                                     D-37
-------
D.7.4.4  Procedure
     To 15 ml of sample in a 50 ml Erlenmyer flask, 1 ml  6 N HC1  was added,
mixed well, and allowed to stand for about 2 minutes.  One ml of 5 percent
potassium ferricyanide solution was added and mixed well.  Four ml of
concentrated HC1  and  then 2 ml of 1.4% phenylhydrazine solution were
added  to  this  solution; the solution was mixed  after  each  addition.  The
solutions were allowed to  stand ^or 15 minutes  before reading  absorbance
at 515 ran.   The color has  been shown to  be  stable for at least one  hour
 after reagent addition.
      A complete set of standards were run,  in the 0 to  12 mg/1 range,
 daily by dilution of the 30 mg/1 standard solution.  A  typical calibration
 curve is shown in Figure D.3.
 D.7.4.5  Calculations
       Same  as  phenol.
 D.7.4.6  Quality Control
       Same  as  phenol.
                                       D-38
-------
                      Figure D-3.
   TYPICAL FORMALDEHYDE CALIBRATION CURVE
                  (1 cm cuvettes )
    0.25
    0.20
UJ
o
03
cc
o
CO
CO
0.15
    0.10
    0.05
               IX

                          6      8
                                            10
                   CONCENTRATION, MG/L
                        D-39
-------
 D.8  CONTINUOUS MONITORING
     Many new source performance standards for particulate require trans-
missometer opacity monitors for assuring proper operation and maintenance
of control devices.  Transmissometer measurements are not necessarily
representative of opacity or mass emissions from the exhausts of wool
fiberglass plants and, therefore, continuous opacity monitors are not
recommended  for  this  source.  The effects of variable stack gas tempera-
ture can cause  the  readings of  the  transmissometer  to lack any correlation
with Reference  Method 9  measurements.   For  example,  by  increasing  the
 stack temperature,  the condensible  particulate matter that cause  the
 visible emissions may exist as  a gas which  would not be detected  by  the
 transmissometer but which could recondense and be visible in the  atmos-
 phere.  Reference Method 9 is recommended on a daily basis for monitoring
 the  operation and maintenance of the process control equipment except
 where wet scrubbers  are used for control.  Pressure drop and scrubber
 liquid  flow rate measuring devices  are  recommended  for monitoring the
 operation and  maintenance of wet scrubbers.
       The annualized costs for  either periodic Method 9  readings,  or
  scrubber liquid flow rate and  pressure drop  monitoring  are  estimated
  to be less than $2,500/year.
  D.9  PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS
       Performance Test Method SE^ is recommended for the measurement of
  particulate emissions  from wool fiberglass processes.  Method 5E is a
  modification of Reference Method 5 with changes in the cleanup and
  analyses,  and the use  of the  back  half impingers.
                                       D-40
-------
     The Method 5E samp!ing train is a standard Method 5 probe and filter
followed by four Smith-Greenberg type impingers.  The first two impingers
are filled with 100 ml each of 0.1 j^NaOH.  The third impinger is empty
and the fourth impinger is filled with silica gel  for moisture determina-
tion.  The filter temperature is maintained at 120°C +_ 14°C (248°F,i
25°F).  Train cleanup differs from Method 5, in that the probe and nozzle
are rinsed three times, without brushing, with distilled water before
the acetone rinsing and brushing step, and the impingers are rinsed with
0.1 N_NaOH after transferring the contents to a container for a later
                                                                         4
total organic carbon  (TOO analysis.
      TOC analysis is  performed by injecting pretreated aliquots of back
half  sample into a Beckman type TOC analyzer, and the difference between
the peak height between the total carbon  and inorganic carbon is the
concentration of the  total organic carbon in the back half impinger
solution.
      Particulate  analyses  of  the  front half of  the  sampling train consists
of a  separate dry down for the water  rinse  and  a dry  down of the acetone
rjnse and  filter.  These  separate dry down  concentrations are  added
together for a  total  front half concentration.
      Sampling costs  for a  test  consisting of three  Method 5E runs  is
estimated  to be  about $10,000 to  $14,000.   If  in-plant  personnel are
used to conduct the  tests, the  costs  will be somewhat less.
      Method  9 is  recommended  for  measurement of opacity  from  stacks,
except from  scrubber exhaust  stacks  where condensible particulate
matter combined with water droplets  can  cause  interference with  an
 opacity determination.
                                    D-41
-------
D.10  REFERENCES  FOR APPENDIX D
1.  Review and Evaluation of Emission  Test Methods  for the Fiberglass
    Industry.  Engineering Science Report for USEPA,  Office  of Air Qual-
    ity Planning and Standards,  ESED, EMB,  Research  Triangle Park, NC
    27711.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-2815.  McLean, Virginia.   September
    1980,  15 pp. plus Appendices.
 2.  Method Development and Testing for the Fiberglass Industry - Final
    Method Development Report.   Engineering  Science  Report for USEPA,
    Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards,  ESED, EMB, Research
    Triangle Park,  NC 27711.  EPA Contract  No.  68-02-3541.   McLean,
     Virginia.  April  1981.  35 pp. plus Appendices.
  3,  NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods.  U.S. Department  of Health,  Edu-
     cation  and Welfare, National Institute for Occupational Safety  and
     Health.  NIOSH Publication  No. 75-121.  Cincinnati, Ohio.   1974.
      p.  125-1  to 125-9.
  4.  Leithe, W.   The  Analysis of Air  Pollutants, Ann Arbor-Humphrey Sci-
      ence Publishers.  London.  1970.  pp.  229-231.
  5.  American Public Health Association, American  Water Works Association,
      and Water Pollution Control Federation.  Standard Methods  for  the
      Examination of Water and Wastewater, Fourteenth Edition.   American
      Public Health Association.  Washington, D.C.    1975.   pp.  532-534.
   6.  Proposed.   U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency Method 5E,
      Determination of Particulate Emissions From  Wool  Fiberglass
       Manufacturing Industry, March  1983.
                                              D-42
-------
               APPENDIX E.  ADDITIONAL  INFORMATION ON  DEMAND
                AND PRICE  DETERMINATION FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS

     This technical appendix contains additional information on demand and
price determination for wool fiberglass.
E.I  DEMAND  DETERMINANTS
     The purposes of this discussion are:  (1) to summarize the choice of
each of the  determinants of demand, (2) to provide the results of the
empirical estimates of demand, and (3) to summarize the results of an
alternative  approach to estimating demand, namely, the use of technical
coefficients.                                   .
E.I.I  Determinants of Demand
     The logic for including each of the demand determinants in
Section 9.1.3.6 is discussed here.
     E.I.1.1  Price of Wool Fiberglass  In standard economic analysis,
the demand for an input (in this case wool fiberglass insulation) is
negatively related to its own price.  One of the factors that must be held
constant is  the price of all other substitutes and complements for wool
fiberglass.
     In practice, keeping all other prices constant means that the price
of wool fiberglass must be deflated by either an economy-wide measure of
all prices (such as the wholesale price index) or by an industry-specific
measure for  the cost of all inputs into the end product of the user
industries (here, construction).  The choice made in this study is to use
the composite cost index of all inputs into the construction industry as a
deflator.  This choice is justifiable on empirical  grounds; if the con-
struction industry has a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) pro-
duction function, it also becomes the preferred theoretical choice.
     Table 9-9 tracks the behavior of the price of wool fiberglass rela-
tive to the total cost of construction.   As the numbers in the table show,

                                  E-l
-------
the deflated price of wool  fiberglass has fallen in most years since
1965 (exceptions are 1975,  1980 and 1981).  Demand is negatively related
to the price term.  The correlation between the two variables is high
(r*0.8934).
     E.I.1.2  Output in User Industries.  Table 9-4 provides estimates of
the demand for wool fiberglass by end-use in 1980.  From this table, one
can see that 79 percent of demand was used for the thermal insulation of
residential and nonresidential structures.  New houses  and the retrofit
market together accounted for  almost 58 percent of the  total demand for
insulation  in 1980.
     Table  9-9  summarized the  historical  behavior  of output  in various
user  industries.   Between 1965 and  1981,  output  in  these  industries has
grown, suggesting  that  the  demand  for wool  fiberglass  has  increased.   Data
on housing  starts  and  the retrofit  market are  reviewed  here  since  they
have  been  the major determinants  of demand  in  recent  years.
      Housing  starts are directly  related  to the state of the economy  as a
whole and  to  prevailing interest  rates.   In 1980,  housing starts were
 lower than at  any time since 1966.   Preliminary estimates for 1981 are
 1.103 million  units compared with the 1980 figure of 1.313 million units.1
 This is  primarily the result of the high interest rates that have existed
 in recent years.   The effective rate on conventional mortgages in 1980 was
 12.7 percent.  The effective rate rose to 14.7 percent in 1981.2  The
 monthly cost of purchasing and financing a new home has become so high
 that many home buyers have been priced out of the market.  Therefore,
 there are relatively few housing starts  compared with  the past.
      Historically, the demand for  wool fiberglass has  been  positively
 related to the number  of new  housing starts.   The correlation between the
 two variables  over the period 1962 to 1980  is  low  (r = 0.3620).   The major
 explanation for the  low correlation between housing  starts  and  demand  is
 the retrofit market,  which  has dominated the  wool  fiberglass  insulation
  industry  since the oil  embargo in  1974.3
       There are various estimates of the  size  of the  retrofit  market  as
  Table E-l makes  clear.  The Frost and  Sullivan estimates  have been  used  in
  this  analysis  because they provide a consistent set  of estimates  over the
  historical and forecast periods.
                                     E-2
-------
  TABLE  E-l.   ESTIMATES OF THE  SIZE OF  THE  RETROFIT MARKET,  1970 TO  19913"6
                                 (106 units)
Year
Williams    Owens-Corning   Goldfarb  Frost and Sullivan   JACAa
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981b
1982b
1983b
1984fa
I985b
I986b
I987b
I988b
1989b
I990b
1991b
— «
-
-
-
2.7
2.7
2.7
7.0
5.4
6.2
3.4
-
-

-
•- - _
_ _
2.0
2.5
2.0
6.0
4.9
5.7
5.0 3.4
5.4 3.3
3.4
3.45
3.45
-
-
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.5
2.6
3.0
6.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
3.8
2.9
2.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
•2.5
2.6
3.0
6.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.2
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
aJACA estimates are the Frost and Sullivan series, with linear inter-.
 polations between forecast years; the 1991 retrofit market is assumed
 to be the size of the 1990 market.
bForecasts.
                                  E-3
-------
     The retrofit market has always existed but it became significant
following the 1974 oil  embargo.3  In recent years it has dominated
the wool fiberglass insulation market because of the currently depressed
housing market.  The tendency to retrofit insulation to existing resi-
dential structures has been reinforced by the income tax credit for energy
conservation, a law which became effective in 1977.  The correlation
coefficient between the output of wool fiberglass and the retrofit market
between 1962 and 1980 is 0.9114.
     E.I.1.3  Changing Technical Coefficients.   In recent years, changes
in two  technical coefficients have  increased the  input-output (1-0)
coefficient for wool fiberglass.  These technical coefficients  are:
(1)  the percent of residential  construction  using fiberglass rather  than
its  substitutes  as an  insulation material, and  (2)  the  amount of  total
insulation  used  per  unit of new and retrofitted  residential  structures.
Demand  estimates  for the residential  market  are  presented  in Table  E-2.
   '  The changes in  those  coefficients  are,  in  turn, due to  the operation
of two different price  mechanisms.   For example, the  increasing amount  of
total  insulation used  per  unit  of  each  type  of residential  structure is
due to the increasing  costs of  energy.   Specifically,  the unit  weight of
 insulation used  per  unit  of output is negatively related to  the ratio of
 the price of insulation to the  price of fuels for heating purposes.  In
 residential structures, for example, attic insulation increased from 2
 inches in the fifties, to 4 inches in the sixties and to 6 inches in the
 early  seventies.7  A formal test of the relationship between energy prices
 and pounds of insulation used cannot be made because of the lack  of
 complete input-output (l-O) data and because of the lack of historical
 data on the prices of insulation materials except wool  fiberglass and
 cellulose.8'9  The  increase  in the percentage of wool fiberglass used per
 unit of output may  in part be  due  to decreases  in  the price of wool
 fiberglass relative to the  price of  its  substitutes and  to quality  factors
 that  cannot be  quantitatively measured.
       In the absence of data that  allow the  analyst directly to estimate
 each  technical  coefficient,  a  time trend  can  be utilized  to capture the
  increasing  1-0  coefficients for wool fiberglass.   This  proxy has the
                                     E-4
-------
          TABLE E-2.   ESTIMATES OF THE DEMAND
       FOR WOOL FIBERGLASS FOR THERMAL INSULATION
OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES USING TECHNICAL COEFFICIENTS1'5-
                    New residential  construction
                        except mobile homes



Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Housing
starts
(106
units)
1.469
2.085
2.379
2.058
1.353
1.171
1.548
2.002
2.036
1.760
1.313
Use of
fiber-
glass
(%)
52.7
59.7
54.6
55.6
48.4
53.3
53.4
48.6
60.6
61.8
64.4

Insul

(Kq)
193
213
234
259
283
297
313
348
353
376
408

at ion per
unit
O.b).
425
470
515
570
625
655
690
768
778
.830
900

Total
glass
(Gg)
149
265
304
296
186
186
259
339
436
410
345

demand for fiber-
in new housing9
. (106 Ib)
329.0
584.0
669.0
652.2
409.3
408.8
570.4
747.2
959.9
902.8
761.0
              New construction  of mobile homes
Shipments
in mobile
homes
(106
units)
0.401
0.497
0.576
0.567
0.329
0.213
0.246
0.277
0.276
0.277
0.222

Use of
fiber-
glass-
(*)
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5
87.5


Insul
(Kq).
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48


at ion per
unit
(Ib)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
246


Total
glass
(Gg)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48


demand for fiber-
in mobile homes'3
(105 Ib)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
105.5
(Continued)
                            E-5
-------
                          TABLE  E-2, continued
Retrofit of existing houses



1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Number of
homes retro-
fitted with-
insulation
(106 units)
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
2.5
2.6
3.0
6.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
Use of
fiber-
glass
(%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72.0
Insul
per
(Kg)
64
71
78
86
94
99
104
109
113
116
119
at ion
unit
•Ob)
142
157
172
190
208
218
230
240
250
255
119
Total demand
for fiberglass
in retrofitted
marketd
(Gq)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
387
(10b Ib)
. NAC
NA
. NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
852.1
Total
demand

for wool fiber-
glass for thermal
insul ation of res-
dent ial
(Gg)
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
780
structures8
(10b
NAC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,718.
Ib)










6
aHousing starts times percent using fiberglass times insulation per unit.
bShipments of mobile homes times percent using fiberglass times insula-
 tion per unit.
-------
advantage of capturing changing  1-0 coefficients not only in residential
structural  insulation but also those, if any, in nonresidential structural
insulation  and  in non-structural insulation.  The latter is not available
in either Goldfarb or Frost and  Sullivan, both of which utilize technical
coefficients to forecast residential demand.5'6'13
E.I.2  Empirical Demand Estimates
     The demand for wool fiberglass from 1962 to 1980 can be estimated
from the following equations:
     XWF = A (PIWF/PIC)a (XHSr (XNRC)Y (XRET)6 ePT eu
                           + Y + <5 = 1
                                                              (Eq. E-l)
                                                                 .  E-2)
where
             XWF = the output of wool fiberglass in millions of pounds
            PIWF = the price index of wool fiberglass (1967 = 100)
             PIC = the price index of the cost of construction (1967 =
                   100)
             XHS = the number of housing starts, in millions of units
            XNRC = the value of new nonresidential  construction put
                   in place, in millions of 1972 dollars
            XRET = the number of homes retrofitted, in millions of
                   units
               T = a time trend
A,a,S,Y,<$, and P = parameters to be estimated
               e = the natural  logarithm = 2.718
               u = the error term
     The imposition of the restriction that the sum of the elasticities on
output equals 1 (Eq. E-2) has the major advantage of forcing the equation
to have the desirable long-run property that a 1 percent rise in the
total output of the user-industries, other things being equal, causes'a
1 percent rise in the demand for wool fiberglass.  The changing technical
or input-output coefficients in the use of wool fiberglass over time are,
then captured in the trend term, T.
     The results of the empirical estimate of the equivalent equation in
natural logarithms are:11*
                                  E-7
-------
fin (XWF)  - in (XRET)] = 2.1102 - 0.5667 In (PIWF/PIC)  + 0.3283 [In (XHS)  -
L   V                    (15.13)   (4.95)                 (7-87)
in (XRET)] + 0.5134 [In (XNRC) - In (XRET)] + 0.0288 (T)
            (11.47)                           (
(Eq.  E-3)
    "R2 ^ 0.9983
     F = 2038.68
    SSE - 0.0140
     DW = 2.04
 PERIOD * 1962 to  1980

 Thd numbers in parentheses  in  the equation are the t-statisties;  each
 variable  is significant at  the 1 percent level.  Given the F-statistic,
 the overall explanatory value  of the equation is significant at the one
 percent level as well.  The differences between actual and predicted
 values are present in Table E-3.
      Elasticities are presented in Table 9-10.  For example, the own-price
 elasticity of demand of -0.5667 means that a  1 percent increase in price
 will lead to  a 0.57 percent decrease in demand.   Similarly, a  1 percent
 increase in  the  number of new housing starts  will  lead to  a 0.33 percent
 increase in  the  total  demand  for  wool fiberglass.   If output in all three
 user industries  increases  1 percent, the  demand for wool  fiberglass will
 increase 1 percent because of the restriction imposed on  the user  industry
 output variables.
 E.I.3  Other Empirical  Estimates
      There is an alternative  to the econometric approach  that  has  fre-
 quently been used  to  explain  the sources of changes in  the demand  for wool
 fiberglass.   This  alternative combines user-industry output and  technical
  coefficients to estimate the  demand for wool fiberglass for residential
  structures with ad hoc techniques to estimate all other demand.   This
  approach, which we call "technical coefficients/ad hoc."  has been used
  both by Goldfarb and also by Frost and Sullivan.5'13  For those forecasts
  that use technical coefficients,  Goldfarb forecasts the number of housing
  starts, which is multiplied  by the estimate  of the number of  pounds of
  wool fiberglass used  in a typical  house  to  obtain total wool  fiberglass
                                     E-8
-------
       TABLE E-3.  ACTUAL VERSUS PREDICTED VALUES OF WOOL
                   FIBERGLASS OUTPUT, 1962 TO 1980a
Actual
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975-
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Gg
396
441
426
475
488
471
510
546
539
689
800
880
893
777
942
1,165
1,232
1,296
1,190
106 1b
873.2
971.6
938.2
1,045.7
1,075.6
1,037.5
1,124.3
1,202.7
1,186.3
1,517.2
1,761.9
1,939.0
1,967.5
1,711.9
2,074.0
2,565.7
2,714.4
2,854.7
2,622.1
Predicted
Gg
404
440
430
469
448
478
530
546
561
694
770
882
893
794
920
1,158
1,227
1,315
1,176
106 Ib
890.1
968.2
947.7
1,033.9
986.8
1,053.9
1,167.0
1,202.2
1,236.2
1,529.2
1,696.3
1,942.5
1,967.6
1,748.6
2,026.6
2,550.8
2,703.9
2,896.1
2,590.1
aEquation E-3 in text and Table 9-3.
                            E-9
-------
usage.  In the case of forecasts that use ad hoc techniques (pipes,
equipment, and so forth), Goldfarb does not explain what techniques he
uses to arrive at his projections.
     Table E-4 reproduces Goldfarb's use of technical coefficients and _ad_
hoc techniques to estimate 1980 demand and to forecast demand to 1984.
     The technical coefficient approach has the advantage of spelling out
in detail the assumptions that an analyst makes about several factors for
which product equals demand in a given market, for example, new houses.
These factors are:  the number of housing starts, the percent using
fiberglass, and the unit weight of insulation per unit.
     The technical coefficient/ad hoc approach has,  however, several
disadvantages.  One, there is no explicit role for the price of wool
fiberglass, yet the estimate of prices has  a bearing on demand  (unless
price elasticity  is zero).  The impact of assumptions about  prices on
demand  are shown  in Section 9.3.4, where alternative assumptions  about
future  prices lead to different projections of demand growth from  1980 to
1991.   Two, ad hoc projections  for both the nonresidential  structural
market  and the total  nonstructural market are  unsatisfactory.   It  is
impossible to determine  the origin of the projections and,  therefore,
impossible to devise  a method to  test their validity, yet  these two
markets accounted for 37.6 percent of the total  demand  for wool  fiberglass
in  1980.
E.2  PRICE  DETERMINANTS
      The purposes of  this discussion are:   (1) -to summarize the logic  of
the choice  of each of the determinants  of  price, and (2)  to provide  the
results of  the  attempts  to  estimate  empirical  price equations.
 E.2.1  Determinants  of  Price
      The logic  for including  each of the determinants of price in
 Section 9.1.3.8 is discussed  here.
      E.2.1.1   Materials Price.  The major inputs into  wool fiberglass
 insulation  are the raw materials for glass, the phenolic resin binder, and
 energy, chiefly natural  gas and electricity.15  The materials are generally
 abundant and are readily available.   The raw materials used for the glass
 in the wool fiberglass industry are silica, feldspar, salt cake (sodium
 sulfate), soda ash (sodium carbonate), fluorspar, cryolite, and borax.
 Although there have occasionally been spot shortages of soda ash, they

                                   E-10
-------
CO
an
o

CTl
co
COU,


CD  O
OS  3=
UJ  I—
O3  UJ
    o
—I O
O 3=

io
    «c
Z CO
<=c t—

UJLUja"
O I—I r—
    o
—1 I—ILO
eC U_ O
h- U_ r-H
O LU	•
I— O
    CJ
u_
O _I

CO O
h- HH
CO 2=
eC 3=
CJ) CJ>
LU LU
is: I—
o
l_i_ CD
    •z.
CQ »—I
Oi CO
«=C =3

fc


S
LU

UJ

CQ


T3

03
fS
CU
•a
,_
O3
) *
O
^~.



OO
cu
00
" 3
£T 4*^
o sz >>
•i- CU -M
«s 5. oo
	 •!— C
3 3 CU
LO O"O
£ 0) 1
'i— .£=
r— 00 •!-
O3 CU JZ
£ -r- t.
CU Q. CU
.C J=
U_ li j j
^^ *T"* •?•»
O O
-o
d
(O






c
0
•r- OO
4-> CU
fQ S™
^~~ dJ
3 4-J
OO o
C 3
••- S-

i — OO
E 4-
£ o
cu
£



c cu
CO CO
o c
4- tO
cu -c
Q- o


o -o
c:

cu E
> cu
O) T3
cr>
 4->
as c
cu
S-

cu

1







LO
en
LO
«*
CM

0
^-
LO





LO
CO
CM





O
CO
T— 1




LO
1 —
r— )


LO
LO
O
*%
CM




LO
CO
«stf*





I— <
CM
10

•— <
0
OO
CPi
r-H

^J"
•
t— i
i




o
LO
LO
«v
CM

LO
LO
LO





LO
CO
CM





§
r— 1




O
Cfl
i — i


LO
CM
C31
at
i— 1




i^-
r- 1
^J"





r-4
00
LO
«%
r— 1
r— (
CO
CJ1
r— 1

*d"
•
O
T— 1




LO
CM
CO
A
CM

LO
GT>
LO





LO
CM





O
LO
»— 1




8
CM


O
CO
CM
4%
CM




OO
OO
CO





CM
«=)•
00

I— 1
CM
CO
CJPl
r— 1

«^-
•
LO
r— 1




O
LO
CM
«t
CO

O
LO
LO





o
r-»-
CM





O .
r— <




S
CM


O
0
LO
A
CM




LO
CO
^-





LO
<— I
•t
CM
*co
co
cr>
r— 1

p-s.
t
CO





LO

LO
*
CO

LO
CO






LO
cn
CM





LO
r— 1




LO
CM


O
T-H
CO
*
CM




CM
CTl






00
r— 1
OO
A
CM
'•-
oo
CTl
t— 1
                                                                             "3  CU 4->     CU  O1
                                                                             •r- 3*.     C  E  C
                                                                             4-J  S_  00 -I—  o •'-
                                                                             C   4J «3 r— 4->
                                                                             00 •!-     I	 T-  C
                                                                             cu <»-  oo cjua  cu
                                                                             S-  O 4-J S-  O  O
                                                                                 i-  S-  M- 4-  Q.
                                                                             S-  i-
                                                                             .c
                                                                                     t/l
                                                                                                cU
                                                                             i- -r- -f- Q  C
                                                                             O 4-»  00 S  3
                                                                                 OJ
                   00
        3         CU
        Q  t-  S-  E
                                                                             C ••-     4-
                                                                             cu  s-
                                                                             T3
 00 4->  E C
 (T3     3         O
 o -a  c     cu  t-
 CU C       •  J= 4->
 S_ 03  CO -(->  4->  CU
 O    -C  5-      S-
                                                                                 OO
                                                                                        +-1CUC31
                                                                             4->  C T-    T- -r-
                                                                                 CU     O54-"  CU


                                                                             4->  Q-4-> •>- -O
                                                                             C -f-  S_ oo  
                         - O

                      4-> i.

                       oo oo

                       CU r—

                        I  •!-
                      4-> 4->

                       cn cu
                      •r- 13
                                     -a

                                     as

                                     S
                                     CU
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                     _a
                                     00
                                   • CU
                                  oo 5_

                                  S- 4-J
                                  3 O
               O  4->

               C  CU
               O  T3
               •f—  fr—
               4->  00
               ITS  CU
               f—  S_

               00  O
               C  C
                                                                             u
                                                                             cu
                                                                             o
                                                                             o
        00 JZ  •!-


        CT) S-  00


       •r-  O. LO
        00     4->
        3  00  -r-'

        O  00  c
                                                                                                       4-  CU    -—
                                                                                                       OS-     03
 O
•r—
 C
JC

 cu
                                                                             a>
                                                                             oo
                                                                             3
                                                                             
   > to ja  i_

    03 <+- J3

    'air-  §

    cu  o
                                                                                                s_
                                                                                                cu
                                                                                               J3
                          C      CU «3




                          4-  03 i— CO
                                                                                                CU
 S- -r-
 cu

    o
 oo -i-
T3 4->

 3 i—
            O
       i—     00
        O  to •!-
        Q ~&
            c oo
            3 CO
            O E
            CL o
                                                                                     s-
                                                                                     o
            cu
       13  cn cu
        c  03 r-

        E   o
       Q  03 C
                                                                                                       C
                                                                                                   00  •>-

                                                                                                   CU
                                                                                                   00  SZ
                                                                                                   00  CU
                                                                                                    O) 00
                                                                                                    4-  CO
                                                                                                    CO  S-
                                                                                                   .a  c

                                                                                                   ES
                                                                                                     J3
•/-     CO)
-M 00  CU -S-

1	 tO •!— JZ
 3 C  00 4-1
 to cu  cu o

•f-     C
    o  o s-

 o ^  c ><4-  Q.'f-
4-> C     4->

 oo o  03 t—
 C    T- 3
                                                                                                                                 o      ••-
                                                                                                                             i—  03

                                                                                                                             CO r—
                                                                                                                             CU  3
                                                                                                                             "O
                                                                                                                             CUOJ
                   C +->  ,

                   >  E
                  •—  o

                   s>=

                   O T3  •
                       C t.
                   3  03 CU
                   CU     -IZ

                  r—  00 O

                   c  ns oo
                  •i— -i- 3
                  v	. £_ ,—
                       CU O.
 O    -i-
jQ CO'—


 3 i—  O3
-o •>- -c
    CU
 to (j  oo
 oo     3

r- cT'o.

 S_ ••-  U1
 CU 4-J  CU
                                            -r- T-  O
                                             CO

                                             si o  o
                                                C -I-
                                             OO 03 4->
                                            •r- -f-  03

                                             co a. 3
                                             !Z Q. 00
                                            •r- 03  C
                          •a 4-J  c c
                           i      cu -f-
                          >>T3 T3
                          >  CU •>- CU
                          03 4->  00  *
                          CO  O3  CO •
                          JZ  COQi Q_
                                                                                                                         •i-  C  CU i—
                                                                                                                         <4_  03 -Q  03
                       S-  I r—  S-
                           s-  o  cu
                       co T-  c x:
                       S- «C i—i t—
                                       00

                                       CL
                                       •f™~
                                       Q.

                                       4-
                                       o
                                                                                                                                          "3
                                                                                                                                          3
                                                                                                                                          oo
                                                                                                                                          O)
                                                             o
                                                             4->
                                                             00
                                                             3
 3 3


 3 4-»
 5- ••-
4-J OO
 VI C

4- T3
 O  I

 !Z CO

••- JE

 ^3 i.
f— CU


 c o

    -a

 03 03


 CU 4->  OO

4-» CU  00
                                03 -i—  CU
                               4-> 3  S-
                                O cr o
                               I— cu u_
                                                                           E-ll
-------
have not lasted long.  The binder is produced from benzene and methanol
and is related to the availability of petrochemical  feedstocks.  Neither
natural gas nor electricity have been in short supply.16"28
     Table 9-11 shows that unit material costs in the wool fiberglass
industry rose at an annual compound rate of only 4.3 percent between 1965
and 1979.  There were, however, sharp increases in 1974, 1975, and 1978.
These increases were primarily due to escalating energy prices; the price
of oil, for example, rose 58 percent in 1974, 8.3 percent in 1975, and
40.4 percent in 1979.  (The correlation coefficient between the two
variables is 0.9855.)
     E.2.1.2  Unit Labor Costs.  Table 9-11 shows that unit labor costs
can be estimated both for all employees and for production workers.  In
the case of production workers, unit labor costs can be broken into their
two components:  the wage rate and productivity.  Both types of unit labor
costs rose at an annual compound rate of 3.3 to 3.4 percent per year
between 1965 and 1979.  Wage rates rose at a higher rate of 6.8 percent,
but these increases were partially offset by a rise in productivity of 3.4
percent per year.
     There are high correlations between prices and total unit labor costs
of all employees (r = 0.9573) and the unit labor costs of production
workers (r - 0.9385).  Although the  sharp increases in prices  in  1974 and
1975 were apparently due to  increases in material costs, the declines in
1971 and 1972 were  apparently due to decreases  in unit labor costs.
     E.2.1.3  Unit  Capital Costs.   Data on production capacity are pre-
sented  in Table  E-5.  Although these data are  incomplete over  the histor-
ical period, they do  show a marked  increase  in  capacity due to new plant
construction between  1975 and 1979.  This expansion  in capacity was  a
response to the  pressure  placed on  capacity  in  1973 and 1974 when the
retrofit market  became a  significant additional market due  to  the oil
embargo  and the  rapid  increase  in fuel  prices.
     The  unit  capital costs  reported  in Table  9-11 are  the  user cost of
capital  in  time  t multiplied by the size of  assets  in time  t.  Thus:29

           UKC  =  UCK [(At)/(XWFU)]  = UCKt [(At_! + It)/(XWFU)]     (Eq.  E-4)
                                   E-12
-------





fo
CO
1
CD
CO
O
CO
cn

o
1— ,

o
r-~
cn
r— t
0
H- • 4
[, j
tvj
1— 1
— 1
t—

1—
O
«t
O.

3
>^
-t->
tj

Q.
tO
CJ



•M
•j~
(O
Q.
(O
0











[


"t>
3
CL
4—^
3
O













x*^
I *
 CO CO CO


O t-H CM CO «d-
cn cn cn cn cn
t— 1 1— 1 r— < «— 4 t— 1






LO vo cn
•-H o co
CO CO CO










SLO LO
r-. co
•— 1 LO CO
CM CM CM








co cn o
cn i— i co
#» ft
i— < r— i




CM «^- UD
r— ) t-~ VO
r^ o LO





r~- CM uo
r^x cn <— i
r-H

LO VO P-.
r^« f^*. r*^*
cn cn cn
i— < i— < t— i






^












g










i






<— i

CM




CM
CO
CM
«— 1

CO
cn
«-H






LO
CO
CO










O
CM
•st-
CO*








CO
LO
fi
t-H




LO
LO
CO
CM




cn
CM
1— I

cn
cn
r-H






cn
CM
1--.










cn
LO
CO








CM
CO
ft
t — 1




CM
CM

CM




0
cn

t— i

o
co
cn
i— i































i Ji

J3
£
'o >>
§e -i-
O Q.
(0
(/> O
'c >i •
CD -Q CU
S.-O -Q
•r™ QJ fQ
J= T3 <—
>  4-> II
3 3 
-------
where  UKC = unit capital  costs, in dollars per ton
       UCK = user cost of capital, a percent
         A s assets, in dollars
      XWFU = output of wool fiberglass, in tons
         I » investment, in dollars

The user cost of capital is a Wharton index, which takes explicit account
of the following capital cost terms:  the bond rate, depreciation rate,
the investment tax credit, the effective corporate tax rate, and tax
life.3lf
     Unit capital costs rose 11.9 percent between  1965 and 1979.  The
largest  increases were  in  1974  and  1975; unit capital costs declined in
1971, 1976, and  1977.   With the exception of the period 1976 to 1977,
these changes parallel  price changes  in wool fiberglass.  (The correlation
coefficient between  prices and  unit capital costs  was 0.9714 between 1965
and 1979.)
      E.2.1.4  Demand Pressures.   Demand pressures  play a diminished role
in oligopolies compared with competitive.industries  because price no
longer  responds  instantaneously,  if at  all, to  the difference between
demand  and  supply.   Typical empirical measures  of  temporary demand-supply
disequilibrium  are  capacity utilization,  the ratio of the change  in
unfilled orders  to  sales,  and,  to a lesser  extent, the ratio of  the change
in  inventories  to  sales.35 Therefore,  as one  might  expect, there  is a
very  weak correlation (r  = 0.1794)  between  prices  and the ratio  of  inven-
tories  to sales.35
      E.2.1.5  Pricing Strategies.  The dominant theory  of oligopoly
 pricing indicates a target-return, full-cost  pricing mechanism,  although
 the  range of short-run possibilities  lies between  the extremes  of average
variable cost pricing and average total cost  pricing.36'37   The available
 evidence suggests,  however,  that oligopolies  are unresponsive  to short-run
 demand  pressures (so that, as demand  rises, more of the market  adjustment
 falls on rationing, backlogs of orders, and drawdowns of inventories)  and
 therefore are highly responsive to increases  in "standard"  costs.36 .There-
 fore prices change only if the standard price of  inputs changes or if
 there is technological progress--both of which "permanently"  alter unit
 costs of production.
                                   E-14
-------
     The available evidence suggests that the wool  fiberglass industry
sets prices on the basis of standard costs, not demand pressures.   In this
industry, Owens-Corning is the acknowleged price leader.  (When other
firms in the industry have increased prices but Owens-Corning has  not, the
price increases have not prevailed, that is, the other firms have  with-
drawn their price increases.)  Owens-Corning has raised prices when its
costs increase but it has not raised prices in response to short-run
demand pressures.  For example, during the period between late-1977 and
early-1979 when wool fiberglass was virtually sold-out and there was a
backlog of orders, insulation prices did not increase.32
E.2.2  Empirical Price Equations. A formulation of an empirical price
equation incorporating the above concepts is:38

          -PWFVA = (PWF - UMC) =  A (ULC)a (UKC)6 ey(AlNV/S) eu     (Eq. E-5)
and
                               .a+B = l'-                    (Eq.' E-6)

where          PWFVA = the value added price of wool fiberglass, in dollars
                       per ton
                 PWF = the price of wool fiberglass, in dollars per ton
                 UMC = unit materials costs, in dollars per ton
                 ULC = unit labor costs, in dollars per ton
                 UKC = unit capital costs, in dollars per ton
                 INV = inventories, in dollars
                   S = sales.,  in dollars
        A,a,e, and Y = the parameters to be estimated
                   e = the natural logarithm = 2.718
                   u = the error term.
     The  imposition of the restriction that changes in materials costs are
passed on without a markup is consistent with good theoretical relation-
ships, as well as with empirical evidence.38  The restriction in Equation
E-6 means that, if value added costs rise 1 percent, then prices will rise
one percent, other things being equal.  The coefficient Y captures the mark-
up on costs, if any, due to demand pressures.  Capacity utilization is the
preferred variable to capture demand pressures, but it is not available
for most  of the historical period, hence the use of (AINV/S).  It should
                                 •  E-15
-------
be noted that the mathematical  formulation of Eq. E-5 differs from
Eq, E-l, because one cannot take the log of zero -- a possibility with the
variable ( AINV/S).
     Unfortunately, strong multicollinearity was evident in the price
equation.  It was not possible to make any feasible adjustments that would
retain the theoretical and empirical soundness of the equation.
     For purposes of forecasting future growth, an equation in which
prices are only a function of a time trend was estimated.  The results of
this estimation are presented in Section 9.1.4, where the demand for wool
fiberglass is forecast to 1991.
E.3  REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX E
 1.  U.S.  Council of Economic Advisors.  Economic Report of the President.
     Washington,  D.C.  February 1982.  p. 286. .
 2.  Reference 1.   p. 310.
 3.  Telecon.  Williams,  F. E.  U.S. Department of Commerce with Ando, F.,
     JACA.  March 8, 1982.  Size of retrofit market and role of embargo.
 4.  Letter and attachment from Mayer, S. M.,  Owens-Corning, to Ando, F.,
     JACA.  February 8, 1982.  Owens-Corning estimates of the  size of the
     retrofit market.
 5.  Goldfarb, J.  Owens-Corning Fiberglas.  Merrill  Lynch, Pierce,  Fenner
     and  Smith.   New York, N.Y.  September  1981.  p.  5.
 6.  Frost and Sullivan.  Residential  Energy Conservation Building Mater-
     ials  and Products Markets.  New York,  N.Y.   Publication  No.  A9101B.
     November 1981.  p. I11-61.
 7.  Telecon.  Williams,  F.  E., U.S.  Department  of Commerce with  Ando, F.,
     JACA.  June  8, 1982. Changes  in  attic  insulation over time.
 8.  Producer Prices  and  Price  Indexes.   U.S.  Department of  Labor.   Bureau
     of Labor Statistics. Washington,  D.C.   January, 1980.
 9.  Telecon.   Lasarski,  R.,  U.S.  Department of Labor, with Ando  F.,  JACA.
     February 26,  1982.   Specification  of  BLS  insulation price statistics.
 10.  Survey  of  Current  Business.   United  States Department of Commerce/
     Bureau  of  Economic Analysis.   Washington, D.C.  Volume 62.;  No.  5
     May, 1982.   p. 7.
 11.  Reference  6.   pp.  IV-74,  IV-64,  111-61.
 12.  Statistical  Abstract of the  United  States.   U.S. Bureau  of the
     Census.  Washington, D.C.   102nd  ed.  1981.   p.  758.
 13.  Reference  6.  p.  I11-64.
 14.  Memo from  Ando,  A.,  University of Pennsylvania,  to  Jenkins,  R.,
      EPA/EAB.   March  2,  1982.   Restricted  least squares  and  use of restrict
     options in canned  regression  programs.
                                   E-l 6
-------
15.  The Detailed Input-Output Structure of the U.S. Economy, 1972.  U.S.
     Department of Commerce.  Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Washington,
     D.C.  Publication No. 311-046/362 Volume 11979.
16.  Annual Report of CertainTeed for the Fiscal Year ending  December 31,
     1980.

17.  Annual Report for Johns-Manville for the Fiscal Year ending  December
     31, 1980.

18.  Annual Report for Owens-Corning Fi berg las for the Fiscal Year
     ending December 31, 1980.

19.  10-K Report of CertainTeed for the Fiscal Year ending  December 31,
     1980.

20.  10-K Report of Johns-Manville for the Fiscal Year ending December 31,
     1980.

21.  Annual Report of CertainTeed for the Fiscal Year ending  December 31,
     1980.

22.  Annual Report of Guardian Industries for the Fiscal Year ending
     December 31, 1981.

23.  Annual Report of Manville for the Fiscal Year ending December 31,
     1981.  '  •

24.  Annual Report of Owens-Corning Fiberglas for the Fiscal  Year
     ending December 31, 1981.

25.  10-K Report of CertainTeed for the Fiscal Year ending  December 31,
     1981.

26.  10-K Report of Guardian Industries for the Fiscal Year ending
     December 31, 1981.

27.  10-K Report of Manville'for the Fiscal Year ending December 31,
     1981.

28.  10-K Report of Owens-Corning Fiberglas for the Fiscal  Year ending
     December 31, 1981.

29.  Hartman, R., K. Bozdogan, and R. Nadkarni.  The Economic Impacts of
     Environmental Regulations on the U.S. Copper Industry.   The Bell
     Journal of Economics.  10:596-600.  Autumn 1979.  p. 5991

30.  Telecon.  Williams, F. E., U.S. Department of Commerce, with Ando,
   .  F., JACA.  November 15, 1982.  Capacity Utilization in 1973 and
     1974.

31.  The Fiberglass .Industry:  Prospects for Supply and Demand.  Goldfarb,
     Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith.  New York, N.Y.  December
     1977.  p. 3.

32.  Goldfarb, J.  The Fiberglass Industry:  Cyclical and Secular Pros-
     pects.  Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith.  New  York, N.Y..
     September 1980.  p. 21.

33.  Reference 5.  p. 8.
                                  E-17
-------
34.  Print-out from Howe, H. Director, The Wharton Annual Model to Ando,
     F., JACA.  February 1982.  Equation and data for calculation of user
     cost of capital, SIC 32, 1947 to 1991.
35.  Eckstein 0. and 6. Fromm.  The Price Equation.  American  Economic
     Review.  _58:1160-1165.  December 1968.

36.  Reference 35.  pp. 1164-1165.
37.  Reference 29.  pp. 596-597.
38.  Ando, F. and L. Klein.  The Coal Satellite Model.   Wharton Econometric
     Forecasting Associates.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.   September
     1977.  pp. 64-70.
                                   E-18
-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA 450/3~83-022a
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
                                                            5. REPORT DATE
  Wool Fiberglass  Insulation Manufacturing Industry-
  Background  Information for Proposed  Standards
              6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Office of Air  Quality Planning and  Standards
  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
              10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Director  for  Air Quality Planning  and  Standards
  Office of Air and Radiation
  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
              13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                EPA 200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
  A Standard of  Performance for the control  of emissions  from wool  fiberglass  insulation
  manufacturing  facilities is being proposed under authority of Section 111 of the
  Clean Air Act.   This  standard would  apply to new, modified, or reconstructed  wool
  fiberglass insulation manufacturing  lines that utilize  the rotary spin forming  process
  and that commence  construction on or after the date of  proposal  of the regulation.
  This document  contains background information and environmental  and economic  impact
  assessments of the regulatory alternatives considered in  developing the proposed
  standard.                                                       •
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                          c. COSATI field/Group
  Air  Pollution
  Pollution Control
  Standard of Performance
  Wool  Fiberglass Insulation
  Rotary Spin
 Air Pollution Control
13 B
               >TEMENT
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                                  Unclassified
                           21. NO. OF PAGES
                                 582
 Unlimi ted
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
   Unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4—77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
-------