-------
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>
— «— < ^^
V)
*•>
£
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
)
3
T3
C
c
,r_
-Q
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 ) T-
0 r— Q.
en '
O> 4- 2
) A) C5
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
«— ^
^.^ ,
^— .
•^»»
)
VI
cn
*»^
i/>
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 » 1
C IO •— - CO X
•F— O •%<* S_ 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
)
e
o
ra
o
o
CD
c
CD1
TD
O
cn
C-6
-------
(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
-------
-------