&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Hazardous
Materials Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA 905/4-80-008
Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Solvent
Cleaning Operations in the
State of Illinois
-------
EPA 905-4-80-008
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
From Solvent Cleaning Operations
in the State of Illinois
by
GCA Corporation
Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
Contract No. 68-02-3510
Work Assignment 1
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Air Programs Branch
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA Project Officer: Barry A. Perlmutter
January 1981
p'6tocu:>n
*> South Dej' street
-------
DISCLAIMER
This air pollution report is issued by Region V of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to report air pollution emission
data from solvent cleaning operations in the State of Illinois to a limited
number of readers. Copies are available free of charge and in limited quan-
tities to grantees, selected contractors, and Federal Employees; and, for a
nominal cost, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22161.
This report was furnished to the USEPA-Region V by GCA Corporation,
GCA/Technology Division, 213 Burlington Road, Bedford, Massachusetts, 01730
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3510, Work Assignment 1. This report
has been reviewed by USEPA-Region V and approved for publication. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from GCA Corpora-
tion, GCA/Technology Division. The opinions, findings, and conclusions ex-
pressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the
USEPA. Mention of company, trade, or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the USEPA.
,;ror.:r.ental Protection
-------
ABSTRACT
This report provides data on solvent cleaning equipment and emissions for
nine counties in two urban oxidant nonattainment areas near Chicago and East
St. Louis, Illinois. A telephone survey of over 500 facilities in 12 SIC cate-
gories was performed in a representative sample area to obtain data that was
projected to the nine counties. The purpose of this study is to provide suffi-
cient data for a determination of equivalency between the presumptive norm of
U.S. EPA's solvent metal cleaning CTG document and lEPA's Rule 205(K).
ill.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Figures v
Tables vi
Acknowledgment . ........... viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Data Collection 3
Sources of Data 3
Identification of a Sample Population 3
Telephone Survey of Facilities 4
Surveying SIC 75 5
3. Data Analysis 8
4. Data Validation 72
5. Conclusions 78
Appendix
A. Data Analysis Procedures 79
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Illinois Solvent Cleaning form 6
2 Size distribution of SIC 75 facilities in representative
area 29
3a Size distribution of SIC 34 facilities 32
3b Size distribution of SIC 35 facilities 33
3c Size distribution of SIC 36 facilities 34
3d Size distribution of SIC 37 facilities 35
4 Solvent manufacturer's response 75
5 Solvent manufacturer's response 76
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Completed Telephone Survey ......... 5
2 Regrouping of Walden Categories by SIC 14
3 Summary of County Degreasing Emissions (All Based on Walden
Data EKcept SIC 75 New Source) 16
4 Working Tables - Summary of Questionnaire Data 18
5 Number of Facilities and Number of Degreasing Facilities
Within Each SIC 23
6a Working Table for SIC 75 24
6b Solvent Densities 26
7 Auto Repair Facilities 27
8 SIC 75 Solvent Cleaning Facilities and Equipment 28
9 SIC 75 Solvent Cleaning Emissions 30
10 Number of Facilities in Each County by SIC 31
11 Facility and Emission Projection Factors ..... 36
12 Estimated Facilities and Emissions by County and SIC .... 37
13 Operating Solvent Cleaners 39
14 Actual Emissions 43
15 Exempted Emissions 47
16 AP-42 Emission Factors 51
17 Percentages to Obtain Corrected Emission Factors ...... 52
18 Corrected Emission Factors . 52
19 CTG Presumptive Norm Low Emissions - Excellent Compliance. . 53
vi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
20 CTG Presumptive Norm High Emissions - Poor Compliance 57
21 IEPA Rule Low Emissions - Excellent Compliance 61
22 IEPA Rule High Emissions - Poor Compliance 65
23 Illinois Exempt and Major Control Device Exempt Equipment
and Emissions 69
24 Metal and Non-Metal Cleaners 70
25 Comparison of Allowable Emissions 71
26 Comparison of Facilities by SIC Category 72
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the advice, and efforts of Stephen V. Capone,
Richard Rehm and Mahesh Shah of GCA/Technology Division. The authors thank
Mr. Larry Eastep of Illinois EPA, Division of Water Pollution Control, for
permission to use IEPA facility data. Most importantly, the authors thank
Barry Perlutter, U.S. EPA, Region V, and Dr. John Reed, Illinois EPA, Division
of Air Pollution Control, for their advice and project guidance.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Illinois Rule 205(K)(1)(A) exempts from control solvent cleaners which
emit less than 15 Ib/day or 3 Ib/hr of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The
technical basis for this rule, according to the Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (IEPA), was taken from U.S. EPA guidance, EPA 905/2-78-001
(Regulatory Guidance for Control of VOC Emissions from 15 Categories of
Stationary Sources). The guidance states, in part, that "these regulations
will not apply to sources whose emissions of VOC are not more than 6.8 kg
(15 Ib) in any 1 day, nor more than 1.4 kg (3 Ib) in any 1 hour."
A U.S. EPA proposed action in the Federal Register, 44 FR 38587, states
that: "Although the State indicates that its proposed rule is more restric-
tive than the Control Technique Guideline (CTG) recommendation, data to
justify this position are not included within the SIP nor in the technical
support document. U.S. EPA proposes to approve this provision conditioned
upon a showing by the State that their proposal is indeed more restrictive
than the technically supported RACT in the CTG. Alternatively, U.S. EPA will
accept a showing that the allowable emissions resulting from the State's
proposal are within 5 percent of the emissions which would result from the
adoption of the control requirements technically supported in the CTG."
The rationale for stating that Rule 205(K) was more restrictive, according
to IEPA, was based on IEPA permits as well as on sales information furnished
by the major suppliers of halogenated degreasing solvents. IEPA estimates
that Rule 205(K) will subject to control at least 1000 tons of VOC emissions
which would be exempted under the CTG definition.
An independent estimate made by Booz Allen Hamilton for Region V - U.S.
EPA indicated 77,900 cold cleaners in Illinois as opposed to lEPA's estimate
of 170,000. The Booz Allen estimate was obtained by multiplying the number
of number of estimated cold cleaners in the U.S. by the ratio of plants
expected to use cold cleaning in Illinois to that of the U.S.
The primary purposes of this study are to: (1) resolve the discrepancies
regarding the actual number of cold cleaners operating in two urban nonattain-
ment areas of Illinois (Chicago and East St. Louis) and the associated VOC
emissions; (2) evaluate all solvent cleaning operations in the two study
areas and the associated emissions and; (3) submit documentation sufficient
for a determination of the equivalence of Rule 250(K) and EPA's determination
of RACT for solvent metal cleaners.
-------
Since there is estimated to be in excess of 70,000 pieces of solvent
cleaning equipment in the nine counties whi^h comprise the Chicago and East
St. Louis urban nonattainment air quality control regions, GCA chose to
survey a representative sample area and to project solvent cleaning emissions
for the nine-county area on the basis of data collected in the sample area
as well as existing data from several sources. The sources of existing data
are described in the Data Collection section.
Analysis of the collected data projects emissions for each of 12 Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and for each type of equipment within
8 of the SIC codes. Although data were collected from over 500 facilities,
a breakdown of emissions by equipment type is not possible for four of the
less populated SIC codes. In addition to actual emissions, allowable emis-
sions under lEPA's Rule 205(K) and under the presumptive norm of the USEPA
RACT CTG document are calculated for both poor and excellent compliance
scenarios. The nine counties covered by this study are:
Cook
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Will
Madison
Monroe
St. Claire
Section 2 of this report addresses data collection procedures; including
sources of data, identification of a sample population and performance of a
telephone survey. Section 3 describes the data analysis procedures and pro-
vides the results of this study. Section 4 provides data validation and
conclusions.
-------
SECTION 2
DATA COLLECTION
SOURCES OF DATA
GCA identified several sources of local VOC emission data. lEPA's
computerized permit system, TAS, was a good source of data for facilities
with vapor cleaning equipment. IEPA provided a printout of degreasing
sources on 2 October 1980. A hydrocarbon area source emission inventory
for the nine counties covered by this study was performed by Walden Division
of Abcor during 1977 and 1978. Three outputs from the Walden study were
used. First, the "Final Report on Study of Area Source Hydrocarbon Emissions,"
provided the results of the Walden study. Second, the U.S. EPA Project Officer
supplied about 300 completed questionnaires used in the Walden study. Third,
IEPA officials provided a computer tape with data on 7000 facilities generated
by Walden and submitted to IEPA.
IEPA also provided a computer listing of over 20,000 facilities based
on a Dunn & Bradstreet computer listing. This printout provided the most
complete listing of facilities used in this report. Other sources of data
included a printout of sources provided by the City of Chicago, Department of
Environmental Control, listings from local Chambers of Commerce and the tele-
phone survey described later in this section.
IDENTIFICATION OF A SAMPLE POPULATION
The Walden questionnaires were distributed in a manner which is represen-
tative of all VOC sources in the nine counties. The questionnaires were
reviewed to determine the geographical distribution of facilities with solvent
cleaning operations. GCA's review of Walden1s questionnaires indicated that
more than 70 percent of facilities with solvent cleaning operations are located
in Cook County. The Walden report found that about 77 percent of all VOC
emitting facilities are located in Cook County. This indicates that the geo-
graphical distributions of solvent cleaning facilities and that of VOC emitting
facilities is similar.
GCA's review of existing data also found several other factors which
affect the choice of a representative survey area. First, no one county out-
side of Cook County contains facilities with a sufficient distribution of
SIC codes to be a representative area. Second, calculations based on data in
the Walden report show that less than 3 percent (169 of 7,026) of the VOC
emitting facilities are located in the three counties in the East St. Louis
area. Because the population size is so small, all facilities in the three
counties would have to be surveyed to obtain accurate data.
-------
A representative survey area in Cook County was tentatively chosen based
on Walden questionnaire data. Facilities in SIC codes 34, 35 and 36 were
used as indicators of representativeness. Ur.fortunately, the questionnaire
data yielded only 6 facilities in SIC 34 and 10 facilities in SIC 35 that
were in Cook County and had degreasing emissions. There were numerous
facilities in SIC 36 with degreasing emissions and 10 facilities were found
in the same ZIP code areas as SICs 34 and 35. The ZIP code areas were located
on a map of the Chicago area and the following ZIP codes were chosen on a
geographical basis:
60001 through 60009
60646, 60647, 60650, 60651.
The Illinois EPA, Division of Water Pollution Control computer printout of
business establishments, based on a Dunn & Bradstreet computer listing,
yielded over 650 facilities in the Chicago area (ZIP codes 60646, 60647,
60650, 60651) and over 675 facilities in the Arlington Heights area (ZIP
codes 60001 through 60009). The Walden computer tapes yielded over 100
facilities in the Chicago area most of which had already been identified by
the Dunn & Bradstreet listing.
GCA decided that either the Chicago area or the Arlington area could be
surveyed, but a survey of both areas was beyond the scope of this study. We
chose the Chicago area based on the slightly smaller number of facilities to
be surveyed. As can be seen in Table 1, the number of facilities to be con-
tracted eventually grew to over 700, as facilities in Arlington Heights and
Morton Grove (60053) were contacted to broaden the data base in SIC categories
22, 25, 34, 35, 36 and 37. The data on facilities outside of the representa-
tive area are used to calculate or verify average emissions per facility data
points.
TELEPHONE SURVEY OF FACILITIES
A telephone survey was conducted during the weeks of October 13 and 20.
Lists of facilities in our representative survey area were generated from
sources described above. All the facilities from the generated lists were
called, along with known degreasing facilities from the Walden survey. This
survey used the Illinois Solvent Cleaning form shown in Figure 1.
Table 1 shows the SIC codes which the Walden report indicate were likely
to operate solvent cleaning equipment. Less than 50 of the calls attempted
were outside the representative survey area. Those companies not contacted
include: disconnected phone numbers, no answer, out of business, business
moved out of ZIP code area and wrong telephone numbers. Facilities that
refused to answer were included as completed questionnaires. Table 1 shows
that, of the 504 facilities contacted, only 57 facilities or 11 percent
refused to respond to the questions. The telephone survey produced 504
completed questionnaires of which 103 or 20 percent stated that degreasing
equipment was operated at that facility.
-------
TABLE 1. COMPLETED TELEPHONE SURVEY
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Calls
attempted
22
12
25
26
30
151
170
114
29
26
41
70
716
Company
not
o
contacted
5
7
8
7
8
32
47
46
8
4
12
24
208
Completed
questionnaire
17
5
17
19
22
119
123
64
21
22
29
46
504
Yes
0
0
1
1
3
25
20
16
5
4
4
24
103
No
16
5
15
16
19
73
85
40
12
18
23
22
344
Refused
to answer
1
0
1
2
0
21
18
8
4
0
2
0
57
o
Facilities with disconnected phone numbers, out of business, no answer,
business moved to another ZIP code area and wrong telephone numbers.
SURVEYING SIC 75
Solvent cleaning emissions from automobile repair facilities and gasoline
service stations (SIC 75) were excluded from previous inventories. Therefore,
a new data base had to be established through a telephone survey in our
representative area. A listing was found in the 1980 Chicago yellow pages
and about 70 facilities were identified in our ZIP code areas. GCA contacted
46 of those facilities, the others were either out of business or unwilling
to give us information. This telephone survey provided us with new informa-
tion on solvent cleaning usage in SIC 75 as well as the size and type of
equipment.
-------
ILLINOIS SOLVENT CLEANING SURVEY
COMPANY NAME: __ TEL Nn-_
PLANT ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY: ZIP
PERSON CONTACTED: TITLE:
NATURE OF BUSINESS:
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: NEW SOURCE: YES: NO:
SIC:
Do you operate solvent cleaning or degreasing equipment?
Are materials cleaned metal or non-metal?
How many pieces of cold cleaning equipment are used?
How many pieces of batch (open top) vapor cleaning equipment
are used? Are openings <1.0 m2?
How many pieces of conveyorized vapor cleaning equipment
are used? Is air/vapor interface <2.0 m2?
How many pieces of conveyorized cold cleaning equipment
are used? Is air/vapor interface <2.0 m2?
Figure 1. Illinois Solvent Cleaning form.
-------
ILLINOIS SOLVENT CLEANING SURVEY
Type and amount of solvent used (Gal/Yr) :
page 2
a) Stoddard:
b) 1,1,1-trichloro ethane
(Chlorothene VG):
c) Perchloroethylene:
d) Methylene Chloride:
e) Trichloroethvlene:
f) Other:
Mfg:_
Density of Solvent:
Waste solvent disposal method (if more than one, estimate percent) (Gal/Yr):
a) Vapor recovery:
b) Incinerator:
c) Discharged to
drain or sewage:
d) Carbon Adsorption:
e) Condenser:
f) Hauler:
g) Returned to supplier
or collector:
h) Other (specify):
Operating schedule:
Hrs./Day_
Day/Wk
Wk/Vr
Figure 1 (continued)
-------
SECTION 3
DATA ANALYSIS
The data described in Section 2 was analyzed in detail by GCA. The
Walden Report categorized industries under their own coding system; therefore,
it was necessary for GCA to rearrange these codes into various SICs (see
Table 2). In some cases an adding up of several Walden codes to obtain a
complete SIC was necessary, while in other cases percentages of each code were
taken based on Walden questionnaire results to determine the number of facili-
ties and quantity of emissions within an SIC.
GCA examined the Walden questionnaires in order to determine the percen-
tage of hydrocarbon emissions that are solvent cleaning emissions for each
SIC. This was then applied to the total known hydrocarbon emissions for each
county (obtained from Walden Report, Table 21), producing total solvent clean-
ing emissions. The number of facilities with solvent cleaning was determined
in a similar manner. Based on the Walden survey, the number of facilities
with solvent cleaning was divided by the number of facilities with hydrocarbon
emissions in each SIC. This ratio was then applied to the total number of
known facilities in each county to find the number of facilities with solvent
cleaning emissions (see Table 3).
Data contained in the completed Illinois Solvent Cleaning forms were
transferred to working tables summarizing all data for the sample area.
Under the questionnaire column in Table 4, the letters identify updated
Walden questionnaires and the numbers identify GCA survey forms.
The operating schedule, found in Table 4, was based on the amount of time
that a particular piece of degreasing equipment was utilized, not on the work
schedule of the shop or plant operation. In many instances the shop would
operate their degreasing equipment on a batch feed schedule.
Many factors influence the amount of time that the equipment is running.
The amount of product to be cleaned, the frequency of repairs and the fre-
quency of solvent replacement were factors that GCA considered when estimating
the operating schedule for each surveyed piece of equipment. GCA estimated
operating schedules between 100 days/yr for small machine shops and 250
days/yr for large machine shops and manufacturing facilities. A further
summary sheet was prepared showing the numbers of facilities contacted and the
number with solvent cleaning operations by SIC code as shown in Table 5.
-------
Separate working tables were prepared from GCA's survey of SIC 75 facili-
ties. Table 6a provides the type, number of pieces, and size of solvent
cleaning equipment used in each SIC 75 facility surveyed. Solvent emitted
in gallons per year is based on the amount of solvent bought minus the estimated
quantity hauled. The density of the solvent shown in Table 6b was used to
convert solvent emissions to tons per year. The working tables show that there
are 57 pieces or solvent cleaning equipment in 24 facilities or 2.4 pieces of
equipment per facility. Table 7 provides the number of SIC 75 facilities in
each county based on U.S. Bureau of Census, County Business Patterns, 1977 data.
There are 24 of 46 facilities with solvent cleaning emissions in the survey or
52 percent of facilities operate solvent cleaning equipment. The 52 percent
factor was applied to the total establishments in each county (Table 7) to
obtain the facilities with emissions in Table 8. The number of pieces of
equipment were calculated by using the survey average of 2.4 pieces of equip-
ment per facility with solvent cleaning equipment. Emissions were calculated
with the aid of the graph in Figure 2. The emissions per facility in a given
size range (Table 9) times the number of facilities in that size range
(Table 8) yields SIC 75 emissions in Table 9.
Table 10 shows the number of facilities in each county by SIC category.
Table 11 shows the values GCA used to project the number of facilities with
solvent cleaning equipment in each county and to project solvent cleaning
emissions for each SIC category in each county. The following facility
projection method was used, keeping in mind that Walden Division projected
emissions only from facilities previously listed as sources of hydrcarbons,
while GCA surveyed all of the facilities in 12 SIC categories in a sample
area.
For each SIC category GCA found a different (usually larger) number of
facilities than Walden Division in the sample area. The GCA number divided
by the Walden number is identified as a facilities projection factor. This
factor is used to project the number of additional facilities with solvent
cleaning emissions to the county level. The percent of facilities with solvent
cleaning emissions in each SIC code was calculated as follows:
l , (FPF x NFWSC) + WFWSC
with solvent cleaning = - N -
equipment
where: FPF - Facilities Projection Factor.
NFWSC - New Facilities with Solvent Cleaning Equipment in
sample area.
WFWSC - Walden Facilities with Solvent Cleaning Equipment in
Cook County.
NFCC - Number of Facilities in Cook County from Bureau of
Census data.
-------
An example is given for SIC 28.
From Table 5, Walden found 2 facilities in the sample area while GCA
found 17; this yields a facility projection factor of 8.5. GCA found one
new facility with solvent cleaning equipment in the sample area. Walden
projected 64 facilities with solvent cleaning equipment in Cook County from
Table 3. In Table 10, the number of SIC 28 facilities in Cook County is
484. The formula above yields the following:
(8.5 x 1) + 64
484
The 15 percent value appears in both Tables 11 and 12.
This formula was not used for SIC's 22, 25, and 39. In SIC 22 GCA
found no facilities with solvent cleaning equipment out of the 17 facilities
it contacted; however, one facility refused to answer GCA questions. Walden
projected one facility with solvent cleaning emissions and only five facilities
with hydrocarbon emissions in Cook County. The Bureau of Census counted 49
SIC 22 facilities in Cook County. The formula above yields 2 percent of Cook
County facilities operating solvent cleaning equipment; however, if GCA had
found one facility with solvent cleaning emissions in the sample area, the
value would have been 8 percent. GCA chose five as a reasonable value for
percent of facilities with solvent cleaning equipment.
In SIC 25 GCA found no new facilities in the sample area. For this
reason GCA used Walden's estimate of approximately 40 percent of the facili-
ties having solvent cleaning equipment.
In SIC 39 (Miscellaneous Manufacturing), Walden found 269 facilities of
which 143 were projected to have solvent cleaning emissions. Bureau of Census
found 159 SIC 39 facilities in Cook County. It appears that Walden and
Bureau of Census defined "Miscellaneous" differently. Since Walden projected
53 percent on the basis of their survey and GCA predicts about 14 percent on
the basis of its survey, it seems reasonable that the actual value should lie
between these two values. The formula described above yields a value of
96 percent because of the difference between the Bureau of Census count of
all facilities and Walden's projection. GCA assumed that 30 percent of the
facilities have solvent cleaning emissions.
Table 11 also shows the average emissions per facility projection factors
used by GCA. The first column, "Average Emissions Per Facility from Telephone
Survey," was calculated directly from the telephone survey summary data in
Table 4. This factor refers only to facilities with solvent cleaning equip-
ment. The second column, "Average Emissions Per Facility from Walden Survey,"
was calculated from Walden questionnaires. These values are for comparison
purposes only. GCA projected average emissions per facility using both of
these data sources and the method described in the Preliminary Report for
this study. (See Appendix A).
10
-------
For SIC's 34, 35, 36, and 37, GCA first developed a size distribution
of emissions per facility based on Walden -juestionnaire data. The top graph
in Figures 3a through 3d show the results o2 this effort. The data in the
Walden questionnaires were then updated and validated. The size distribution
changed slightly as can be seen in the middle graph of Figures 3a through 3d.
Finally, the data from new facilities found in the GCA telephone survey were
added to the size distribution, resulting in the bottom graph in the figures
and the average emission per facility estimate shown in Tables 11 and 12.
There was sufficient data available for SIC's 34, 35, 36, 37 and 75 to
follow previously agreed upon procedures. (See Appendix A). For SIC's 22,
25, 28, 30, 33, 38 and 39 there was insufficient data points to develop a size
distribution. The agreed upon procedures called for averaging the emissions
from the surveyed facilities for these SIC categories. However, the large
variability of emissions from these facilities caused serious problems. As can
be seen in Table 11, SIC 30 had an average emission per facility of 0.3 tons/yr
and SIC 39 had an average of 120 tons/yr. In addition, the telephone survey
found no sources in SIC's 22 and 25.
Although there are seven SIC's for which emissions data are insufficient
to accurately predict emissions per facility, less than 25 percent of the
facilities projected to operate solvent cleaning equipment are in SIC cate-'
gories 22, 25, 28, 30, 33, 38 and 39. GCA in conjunction with the EPA project
officer determined that the best estimate of emissions per facility for these
categories would be to average the emissions per facility projections for the
categories with sufficient data. The average emissions of SIC categories 34,
35, 36, 37 and 75 is 11.8 tons/yr/facility. This emission projection was
used for SIC categories 22, 25, 28, 33, 38 and 39. For SIC 30, the data from
Walden Questionnaires and GCA telephone surveys was of lower variability
(standard deviation 2.74) and lower emissions than for other SIC categories.
GCA chose to use the 1.9 tons/yr as the average of the survey and questionnaire
data for SIC 30.
Table 12 presents GCA's estimates of facilities operating solvent
cleaning equipment and solvent cleaning emissions by SIC category and county.
These estimates are based on the factors listed in the left hand columns of
Table 12.
GCA's projection of the number of operating solvent cleaners by SIC and
type of equipment within each county is shown in Table 13. These projections
are based on the average number of pieces of equipment per facility, calculated
from the working tables, times the number of facilities shown in Table 12.
The number of U.S. EPA exempted pieces of equipment was calculated by finding
the percent of equipment which cleaned non-metal products for each SIC. The
number of IEPA exempt equipment was calculated by multiplying the percent of
equipment emitting less than 15 Ib/day or 3 Ib/hr times the number of facilities
shown in Table 12. Both the IEPA and U.S. EPA exempted equipment numbers were
calculated separately for each type of equipment, although only the totals
appear in Table 13.
11
-------
Table 14 shows GCA's projections of solvent cleaning emissions by SIC
category and type of equipment. To obtair these values within each SIC
category, GCA calculated the percent each type of equipment contributed to
the emissions for the sample area. These percentages were then applied to
the emissions values in Table 12. The resulting values in the total column
of Table 14 should be the same as the emission value found in Table 12.
In Table 15 GCA calculated the percent of each type of equipment which
was exempt (not shown) and then multiplied times the actual emissions in
Table 14. The percent of each type of equipment which was exempt was cal-
culated from the working tables.
At this point both actual and exempt emissions data by type of equipment
was available for a calculation of allowable emissions under IEPA Rule 205(K)
and the CTG presumptive norm. Two sets of emission factors were found in
AP-42 for each type of equipment (see Table 16), The relative volatility of
the solvents was the criteria for cold cleaning equipment. Data from our
working tables indicated that all of the solvents used had volatilities greater
than 0.6 psig at 100°F therefore the values of 0.45 for poor compliance and
0.31 for excellent compliance were used as emission factors. The criteria for
vapor cleaning equipment was the cross sectional area of the openings. Our
survey data for open top vapor cleaning equipment indicated that some pieces
of equipment were larger than 1.0 m2 and some smaller than 1.0 m2 in each
SIC (see Table 17). Therefore a weighted average for each SIC would have to
be applied based on the percentage of equipment in each category to obtain a
corrected emission factor. For conveyorized vapor cleaning equipment, our
data indicated that all pieces of equipment had openings smaller than 2.0 m2,
therefore the values of 0.80 for poor compliance and 0.70 for excellent
compliance were used as emission factors. The corrected emission factors
are shown in Table 18.
Allowable emissions are shown in Tables 19 through 22. The values in
these tables were obtained by applying the following formula.
Allowable Emissions = CEF (Actual-Exempted) + Exempted
where: CEF is the corrected emission factor in Table 18.
Actual is the actual emissions in Table 14.
Exempted is the exempted emissions in Table 15.
Allowable emissions by type of equipment could not be calculated for
SIC categories 22, 25, 28 and 30. The values in the total column of Tables 19
through 22 for these SIC categories reflect the average emission reduction
for SIC categories 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 75 of each table.
Tables 23 and 24 summarize the results of GCA's data analysis. Table 23
provides Illinois exempt and major control device exempt equipment and emis-
sions. Columns A and B of Table 23 are derived from Table 13 and 14, respec-
tively. Columns C and D are derived from the working tables and Tables 13,
14 and 17. Columns E and F assume 100 percent of conveyerized degreaser
equipment and emissions are major control device exempt, since the telephone
12
-------
o
survey found no equipment with vapor opening greater than 2.0 m . Table 24
summarizes data in Tables 13 and 14. The number of metal cleaners and amount
of metal cleaning emissions was obtained by subtracting non-metal cleaners
(U.S. EPA exempt) from totals obtained from Tables 13 and 14.
A comparison of allowable emissions for the low and high emissions
scenarios is presented in Table 25. The values in this table are obtained.
from the total emissions for each county in Tables 19 through 22. Allowable
emissions for each urban nonattainment area are totaled separately. The
total emissions allowed by the CTG presumptive norm are compared to the total
emissions allowed by Illinois Rule 205(K) on a percentage of the difference
basis. The following formula was used:
^ -nice IEPA Allowed Emissions - CTG Allowed Emissions .,.
Percent Difference CTG Allowed Emissions X 10°
The Percent Difference values have been calculated in a manner consistent
with September 27, 1979 memorandum on the Five Percent Equivalency Rule from
G.T. Helms, Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD, OAQPS, to J. Divita,
Air Programs Branch, AHMD, Region V. The procedure is quoted below.
"If a State chooses to employ the "5 percent" procedure, we
recommend that it be applied on a CTG category basis by determining
the total emissions allowed by the CTG presumptive norm and com-
paring this to the emissions allowed (including exemptions) by the
State regulation. If there is less than 5 percent difference in
allowable emissions, the EPA will consider that there is "no
substantive difference" between the regulations and will approve
the State regulation. For urbanized nonattainment areas, the
procedure must be applied on an individual control strategy area
basis. Other nonattainment areas (rural) within a State can be
combined for purposes of a showing."
13
-------
TABLE 2. REGROUPING OF WALDEN CATEGORIES BY SICC
SIC
22
i
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Walden
group
No.
3
4
7
8
30
10-15
30
16
29
31
17
18
30
31
31
19
20
21
22
23
24
31
31
32
25
% taken from
that group for
Facilities
100
100
100
100
57
100
29
100
100
12
100
100
14
6
59
100
100
100
100
100
100
6
17
100
100
Emissions
100
100
100
100
12
100
9
100
100
31
100
100
79
3
44
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
19
100
100
Cook Monroe St .
No.
1
4
160
85
110
355
198
160
358
3
52
66
66
1,358
4
27
33
1,422
325
325
324
1
4
329
13
143
2
158
33
94
170
5
TPY No.
1
741
~742
8,200
1,587
1,456
11,243
10,374
1,608
11,982
7
621
628~
5,537
5,537
15,037
51
9,590
535
25,213
7,860
7,860
6,227
16
57
6,300
357
1,392
1
1,749
535
535~
3,395
616
30
TPY No .
2
2
4
4
4
8
3
3
2
2
26
1
1
28
8
8
3
1
4
1
T
2
5
Glair
TPY
101
30
131
73
65
138
39
39
224
224
382
198
22
602
320
320
21
6
27
22
22"
137
16
DuPage Kane
No.
1
"T
12
7
7
26~
12
15
27
10
10
6
~6~
98
1
2
3
104
31
31
21
1
22
1
11
1
13
3
1
9
11
TPY No.
2
564 11
130 7
90 5
784 23
540 12
208 10
748 22
107 1
107 1
715 4
715 4
1,121 68
36 76
594 1
69 2
1,820 147
1,015 20
1,015 20
364 14
17
381 14
1
109 8
0
110 8
69 2
69 2"
440 6
10 7
TPY
514
270
"68
852
490
131
621
12
12
450
450
1,043
154
450
44
1,691
640
640~
2,251
2,251
80
80~
44
~4~4~~
275
29
269 4,041
7 153
20 450 13
304
14
-------
TABLE 2 (continued)
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Wai den
group
No.
3
4
7
8
30
10-15
30
16
29
31-
17
18
30
31
31
19
20
21
22
23
24
31
31
32
25
% taken from
that group for
Facilities
100
100
100
100
57
100
29
100
100
12
100
100
14
6
59
100
100
100
100
100
100
6
17
100
100
Emissions
100
100
100
100
12
100
9
100
100
31
100
100
79
3
44
100
100
100
100
100
100
3
19
100
100
Lake
No.
1
I
5
3
8
14
7
21
3
3
3
3
57
2
1
1
M"
14
14
20
1
21
1
3
1
5
1
I
4
3
7
TPY
291
"29~f
254
38
292"
1,370
84
1,454
35
"35
288
288
976
12
248
28
1,264
410
410
464
11
475
1
30
0
31
28
28"
177
0
177
McHenry
No.
1
3
4"
4
6
10
2
2
3
3
47
1
1
4?
13
13
18
1
1
20
1
4
1
6
1
T
4
3
7
TPY
18
38
56
181
108
289
24
"24
374
374
605
248
36
889
530
530
401
9
24
434
0
58
1
59
36
36"
230
7
237
Mad i soi.
No.
1
1
2
1
3
4
1
T
13
1
T4"
6
6
2
2
2
2
1
T
2
1
3
TPY
51
15
66"
13
30
43
105
To?
226
10
236
150
Tso
16
16
20
20
10
To
.65
0
65
Will
No.
8
2
3
ll
6
5
11
2
1
22
1
1
24"
11
11
6
6
2
3
3
8
1
T
3
3
6
TPY
406
36
34
476
140
80
220
280
280
255
221
27
503
400
400
46
46
14
51
4
69
27
27
170
0
170
Total
No. TPY
3 294
4 741
T 1,035
19,9 10,090
102 ' 2,041
134 1,768
435 13,899
251 13,081
210 2,320
461 15,401
3 7
71 838
74" 845"
87 7,973
87 7,973
1,689 19,685
83 253
33 11,640
44 773
1,849 32,451
428 11,325
428 11,325
408 9,790
4 48
6 92
418 9,930
18 373
174 1,740
8 6
200 2,119
43 771
43" TTT
124 4,889
203 678
5 30
339 5,597
Notes: a. Based on Walden Report Data.
b. No Hydrocarbon emitting facilities.
Abbreviations: TPY - Tons per year of Solvent Cleaning Emissions.
No. - Estimated number of facilities with Solvent Cleaning Emissions.
15
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF COUNTY DECREASING EMISSIONS (ALL BASED ON WALDEN DATA
EXCEPT SIC 75 NEW SOURCE)
% with degreasing
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
No.
facilities
20
42
18
73
67
52
80
85
65
100
53
52
Emissions
0.1
2.4
2.6
4
99
21
76
52
27
70
7.5
Cook
No.
facilities
1
149
64
40
44
739
260
280
103
33
143
412
Monroe
Emissions No.
(ton/yr) facilities
1
270
312
25
5,482
5,295
5,974
3,276
472
375
303
1,191
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emissions
(ton/yr)
0 ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
St.
No.
facilities
0
2
1
2
1
15
6
3
0
1
4
27
Clair
Emissions
(ton/yr)
0
3
4
2
222
126
243
14
0
15
11
75
' DuPage
No.
facilities
0
11
5
7
4
54
25
19
8
3
11
52
Emissions
(ton/yr)
0
19
19
4
708
382
771
198
30
48
34
152
Kane
No. Emissions
facilities (ton/yr)
0
10
4
1
3
76
16
12
5
2
7
30
0
,20
16
0
446
355
486
1,171
22
31
?:,
87
-------
TABLE 3 (continued)
% with degreasing
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
No.
facilities
20
42
18
73
67
52
80
85
65
100
53
52
Emissions
0.1
2.4
2.6
4
99
21
76
52
27
70
7.5
-
Lake
No.
facilities
0
3
4
2
2
32
11
18
3
1
4
33
Emissons
(ton/yr)
0
7
38
1
285
265
312
247
8
20
13
92
McHenry
No.
facilities
0
2
2
1
2
25
10
17
4
1
4
7
Emissions
(ton/yr)
0
1
8
1
370
187
403
226
16
25
18
19
Madison
No.
facilities
0
1
1
0
1
7
5
2
1
1
2
18
Emissions
(ton/yr)
0
2
1
0
104
50
114
8
5
7
5
51
Will
No.
facilities
0
5
2
0
1
12
9
5
5
1
3
26
Emissions
(ton/yr)
0
11
6
0
277
106
304
24
19
19
13
74
Total
No.
facilities
1
183
83
54
58
961
342
355
130
43
180
605
Emissions
(ton/yr)
1
334
400
34
7,893
6,766
8,607
5,164
572
540
i°0
1,741
-------
TABLE 4. WORKING TABLES - SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATA
oo
SIC
30
34
35
36
37
35
37
Question-
naire
No.
A
3
5
.
9
3
A
B
C
D
E
2
A
B
C
A
B
C
Clean
metal or
non-metal
parts
M
M
M
M
N
M
M/N
M
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
No. of
cold
cleaners
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
3
0
1
2
1
>10 ft2
No. of
open top
vapors
cleaners
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
40 ft2
0
18 ft2
1
6 ft2
0
0
0
No. of
conveyorized
vapor cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. of
conveyorized
cold cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emissions
ton/yr
(log)
0.3
6.5
(0.81)
1.2
(0.08)
5.9
(0.77)
0.6
(-0.22)
0.7
(-0.15)
19.5/19.5
(1.6)
23.4
(1.4)
8.6
(0.93)
3.3
(0.52)
1.0
(0)
21.5
(1.3)
22.1
(1.3)
17.5
(1.3)
2.1
(0.3)
9.7
(0.99)
11
(1.0)
Operating Illinois U.S. EPA
schedule exempt exempt
days/yr <15 Ib/day non-metal
100
250
100
200
100 / /
100
250
250
250 - /
200
100
250
250
250
100
250
250
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Question-
naire
SIC No.
35 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
34 1
2
3
Clean
metal or
non-metal
parts
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M "'
M
No. of
cold
cleaners
1
1
5
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
No. of
open top
vapors
cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
9 ft2
No. of
conveyorized
vapor cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
38" wide
openings
each
No. of
conveyorized
cold cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emissions
ton/yr
(log)
0.3
(-0.52)
0.2
(-0.70)
19.3
(1.3)
0.1
(-0.1)
0.2
(-0.70)
0.4
(-0.40)
2.9
(0.46)
0.7
(-0.15)
2.7
(0.43)
1.3
(0.11)
0.8
(-0.1)
0.3
(-0.52)
15.7
(1.2)
0.6
(-0.22)
22.3
(0.35)
0.75
(-0.12)
4.7
5.4
(1.0)
Operating Illinois U.S. EPA
schedule exempt exempt
days/yr <15 Ib/day non-metal
100 /
100 /
250
100 /
100 /
100 /
250
100 /
250
100
100
100 /
250
100 /
100
100 /
300
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
Question-
naire
SIC No.
4
5
7 .
8
9
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
20
39 1
35 2
Clean
metal or
non-metal
parts
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
W
M
No. of
cold
cleaners
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
4
1
1
1
l
55 gr.l
drum
1
301' x 24"
No. of
open top
vapors
cleaners
0
1
10 ft2
0
0
0
2
0
1
no ft2
0
0
0
0
no ft2
0
o
Q
No. of
conveyorized
vapor cleaners
1
9 *~t2
ooen/each
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
No. of
conveyorized
cold cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emissions
ton/yr
(log)
5.5
(0.74)
2.2
(0.34)
2.3
(0.36)
0.34
(-0.47)
1.8
(0.26)
7
(0.85)
6.1
(0.79)
3.4
(0.53)
0.67
(-0.17)
10.8
(1.03)
0.40
(-0.40)
0.59
(-0.23)
1.2
(0.08)
0.19
0.18
(-0.74)
Operating Illinois
schedule exempt
days/yr <15 Ib/day
250
100
100
100 /
100
250
250
100
100 /
250
100 /
250 /
100
100 /
100 /
U.S. EPA
exempt
non-metal
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
SIC
38
39
37
36
35
36
34
Question-
naire
No.
1
2
3
1
]
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
4
6
Clean
metal or
non-metal
parts
N
M
M
M
M/N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
No. of
cold
cleaners
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. of
open top
vapors
cleaners
2
>1.0 m2
2
0
0
2/1
0
0
1
0
1
1
>1.0 m2
1
2
0
1
>1.0 m2
1
>1.0 m2
3
1
>1.0 m2
1
18 ft2
1
12 ft2
No. of
conveyorized
vapor cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. of
conveyorized
cold cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emissions
ton/yr
(log)
19.0
6.3
0.6
50.0
160/160
0.0
2.0
(0.3)
3.6
(0.56)
1.4
(0.15)
1.5
(0.18)
13.9
(1.14)
8.3
(0.92)
18.0
O.26)
0.9
(-0.05)
14.8
(1.17)
34.3
(1.54)
78.1
(1.89)
2.4
(0.38)
11.9
(1.08)
15.8
(1.20)
Operating Illinois U.S. EPA
schedule exempt exempt
days/yr <15 Ib/day non-metal
250 - /
250
100 /
300
300 - -//
- / -
100
250
250
250 /
250
250
250
200 /
250
250
250
250
250 . -
250
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4 (continued)
N5
N3
SIC
38
39
28
33
34
Question-
naire
No.
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
10
15
13
Clean
metal or
non-metal
parts
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
No. of
cold
cleaners
1
0
6
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
No. of
open top
vapors
cleaners
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
No. of
conveyorized
vapor cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. of
conveyorized
cold cleaners
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Emissions
ton/yr
dog)
10.5
15.8
110.8
1.1
0.3
1.3
0.6
2.38
(0.38)
1.77
(0.25)
1.23
0.58
(0.26)
Operating Illinois U.S. EPA
schedule exempt exempt
days/yr <15 Ib/day non-metal
250
250
250
200 /
100 /
150
100 /
100
ICO
100
/
-------
TABLE 5. NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND NUMBER OF DECREASING FACILITIES WITHIN EACH SIC
IV5
SIC
No.
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
No. facilities
contacted
Walden
0
5
2
2
6
56
11
13
8
0
8
No. facilities
w/degreasing
Walden
0
0
0
1
0
18
5
6
4
0
1
No. facilities
contacted TAS
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
9
0
1
1
No. facilities
w/degreasing
TAS
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
6
0
1
1
No. facilities
contacted
Dunn & Brad
17
0
15
17
16
57
108
42
13
21
20
No. facilities
w/degreasing
Dunn & Brad
0
0
1
0
3
3
14
4
1
3
2
Total all three
(Walden & TAS &
D&B) facilities
17
5
17
19
22
119
123
53
21
22
29
-------
TABLE 6a. WORKING TABLE FOR SIC 75
Ni
.p-
Number
facilities
contacted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21-22
Type of
equipment
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
None
None
None
None
None
No. pieces
of equipment
5
1
5
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2-1
1
Sizes of
equipment
gal
20
45
20
25
35
10
25
10
15
5
25
30
5
50-150
15
Solvent
bought
(gal/yr)
1,200
420
1,700
675
300
60
850
120
12
100
120
120
240
55
900
120
Solvent
mfg.a
SK
SK
SK
SK
SK
SK
MS
MS
SK
MS
Solvent
emitted
(gal/yr)
1,056
370
1,496
594
264
60
750
120
12
100
120
120
210
55
792
120
Solvent
emitted
(ton/yr)
5.8
2.0
8.2
3.3
1.5
4.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.2
4.4
0.7
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6a. (continued)
S3
Ln
Number
facilities
contacted
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31-42
43
44
45
46
Type of
equipment
Cold cleaner
None
None
Cold cleaner
None
Cold cleaner
None
Cold cleaner
None
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
Cold cleaner
No. pieces
of equipment
1
-
-
1
-
1
-
1
4
3
10
6
Sizes of
equipment
gal
45
-
-
45
-
-
45
45
each
45
each
45
each
45
each
Solvent
bought
(gal/yr)
250
24
25
50
180
110
180
100
500
2,000
625
1,536
216
Sovlent
SK
Brakeleen
Agitene
DX440
SK
Klensol
SK
Kleenway
SK
SK
SK
SK
Solvent
emitted
(gal/yr)
220
0
0
158
110
158
100
440
1,760
550
1,352
190
Solvent
emitted
(ton/yr)
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
2.4
10
3
7
1
SK = Safety Kleen Solvent (6.5 Ib/gal)
MS = Mineral spirits.
-------
TABLE 6b. SOLVENT DENSITIES
Density (Ib/gal)
Mineral spirits 66 6.3
Toluene 7.3
Methylene chloride 11.1
Perchloroethylene 11.4
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 11.2
Trichloroethylene 12.3
Trichlorotrifluoroethane 13.4
Kerosene 7.0
Unknown solvent 7.5
26
-------
TABLE 7. AUTO REPAIR FACILITIES
County
Cook
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Will
Madison
Monroe
St. Clair
SIC
7538
7539
7538
7539
7538
7539
7538
7539
7538
7539
7538
7539
7538
7539
7538
7539
7538
7539
1-4
354
136
55
14
28
16
38
9
10
-
27
9
25
-
-
-
29
12
5-9
99
96
20
8
6
3
8
4
1
-
6
7
6
-
-
-
4
4
10-19
43
37
2
2
3
-
2
1
1
-
-
1
3
-
-
-
-
2
Number of establishments by employment size
20-49 50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999
10 2 1 -
12 2
3 1 - -
11--
1
1
1
- - - -
1
_
_
_
_ _ _ _
_
_
- - - -
1
- - - -
1000 or more establishments
509
283
81
26
38
20
49
14
13
0
33
17
34
0
0
0
34
18
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, County Business Patterns, 1977
-------
TABLE 8. SIC 75 SOLVENT CLEANING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Ki
00
County
Cook
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Will
Madison
Monroe
St. Clair
Total
Facilities
with
emissions
412
52
30
33
7
26
18
0
27
605
No. of
pieces of
equipment
985
125
72
80
15
60
43
0
65
1,445
No. of facilities in emission ranges
0-1.4
196
25
14
16
3
12
9
0
13
1.4-2.3
39
5
3
3
1
3
2
0
3
2.31-3.6
59
7
4
5
1
4
2
0
4
3.61-5.67
39
5
3
3
1
2
2
0
2
(tons/yr)
5.68-8.5
59
8
5
5
1
4
2
0
4
8.5 ->
20
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
-------
NJ
10
< 9
UJ
cc
< 8
UJ
to _
uj 5
u. 3
o
£ z
m
0.86
.8 2.9 4.3 7
SOLVENT CLEANING EMISSIONS, tons/yr /FACILITY
10
Figure 2. Size distribution of SIC 75 facilities in representative area.
-------
TABLE 9. SIC 75 SOLVENT CLEANING EMISSIONS
to
o
County
Cook
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Will
Madison
Monroe
St. Glair
Total
Total
(tons/yr)
1,191
152
87
92
19
74
51
0
75
1,741
Facilities in Emission ranges (tons/yr)
0-1.4
169
21
12
14
3
10
8
0
11
1.4-2.3
70
9
5
5
2
5
4
0
5
2.3-3.6
171
20
12
15
3
12
6
0
12
3.6-5.67
168
21
13
13
4
9
9
0
9
5.18-8.5
413
56
35
35
7
28
14
0
28
8.5 ->
200
25
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
-------
TABLE 10. NUMBER OF FACILITIES IN EACH COUNTY BY SIC
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Cook
49
264
484
422
302
1,608
1,744
607
156
302
159
792
6,889
Monroe
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
St. Clair
0
0
16
0
12
15
35
9
0
0
6
52
145
DuPage
0
22
46
75
36
183
286
101
16
37
42
107
951
Kane
2
20
28
40
13
77
111
41
4
14
24
58
432
Lake
5
11
35
34
17
69
112
39
7
22
21
63
435
McHenry
0
0
10
25
13
50
81
32
6
8
9
13
247
Madison
0
0
10
4
22
21
28
6
4
0
7
34
136
Will
0
9
24
16
11
41
48
11
6
0
11
50
227
Total
56
326
653
616
426
2,064
2,445
846
199
383
279
1,169
9,462
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, County Business Patterns, 1977.
-------
z
LJ
2
a.
5
o
tu
Z
UJ
z
LJ
i
i-
w
UJ
0.8
BASED ON WALOEN
QUESTIONAIRES
14.8 41.3 75.5
tons/yr/FACILITY
UPDATED WALDEN
QUESTIONAIRES
0.8 16.7 78.5
tons/yr/FACILITY
1.2
NEW FACILITIES ADDED
11.9 tons/yr/FACILITY AVERAGE
5.4
14.2 81.3
ton*/yr/FACILITY
Figure 3a. Size distribution of SIC 34 facilities.
32
-------
NUMBER OF FACILITIES WITH SOLVENT CLEANING EQUIPMENT
CO
to
N
ro
rt
cr >
C o
rt r
£ 3
3 :
o
f-h
CO
S !
CO
Ui
o
H-
(D
CO
2 ħ
fi m
o
? S
m
yj
00
s
"s
-------
NUMBER OF FACILITIES WITH SOLVENT CLEANING EQUIPMENT
UJ
-C-
m
o
CO
N
n>
CO
n-
i-t
H-
o
3
O
H>
CO
M
n
Ml
P>
O
(D
CO
o *
2 S
o en
is
< o
m
5 °
m
o"
IS
air-
m o
(am
c
P
Ul
rğ
*
ot
Ğ
A
-, 0>
§
(A
8.3
/yr/FACll_
-H
-<
to
GJ
UJ
2
s
1
> N t
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ği A ui m ^i oo *£
s
OW
So
oz
il
-------
BASED ON WALDEN
QUESTIONAIRES
1.6
Z
UJ
5.0 10.2
tons/yr/FACILITY
14.2
64
o
UJ
UJ
u
I-
z
UJ
o
at
X
h-
S
CO
UJ
-
UPDATED WALDEN
QUESTIONAIRES
1.7 5.0 10.4 15.3
tont/yr/FACILITY
64
en
UJ
CD
Z
3
Z
6 -
1.6
NEW FACILITIES ADDED
!2.6tons/yr/FACILITY AVERAGE
5.0 10.4 15.3
tons/yr/ FACILITY
64
Figure 3d. Size distribution of SIC 37 facilities.
35
-------
TABLE 11. FACILITY AND EMISSION PROJECTION FACTORS
CO
ON
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
3A-
B -
C -
a
Average Average Method
emissions emissions to obtain Average Percent of total
per facil- per average emissions facilities
ity from facility emissions per with degreasing
telephone from Walden per facility from telephone
survey survey facility used survey
0
0
1.1
0.3
0.73
7.1
5.7
12.2
5.2
13
120.2
2.9
GCA data and
average of 34
2.1
24.5
22.2
2.1
478
35.3
50.7
22.6
16.3
29
18
-
graphs .
, 35, 36
GCA survey and Walden
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
, 37 and 75.
questionnaires .
11.8
11.8
11.8
1.9
11.8
11.9
14.5
17
12.6
11.8
11.8
2.9
0
0
6
5.3
13.6
21
16.3
26.4
23.8
18.2
13.8
52.2
Percent of total
facilities
with degreasing
from Walden
survey
20
42
18
73
67
52
80
85
65
100
53
-
Projected
percent of total
facilities
with degreasing
5
40
15
10
23
47
21
49
68
40
30
52
-------
TABLE 12. ESTIMATED FACILITIES AND EMISSIONS BY COUNTY AND SIC
Co
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Percent
facilities
with
degreasing
5
40
15
10
23
47
21
49
68
40
30
52
Average
emissions
facility
tons/yr
11.8
11.8
11.8
1.9
11.8
11.9
14.5
17
12.6
11.8
11.8
2.9
No.
3
106
72
42
69
756
366
297
106
121
48
412
2,398
Cook
Tons/yr
35
1,250
850
80
814
9,000
5,310
5,049
1,340
1,430
566
1,190
26,914
Monroe
No.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tons/yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
St
No.
0
0
2
0
3
7
7
4
0
0
2
27
52
. Clair
Tons/yr
0
0
24
0
35
83
101
68
0
0
24
75
410
DuPage
No.
0
9
7
7
8
86
60
49
11
15
13
52
317
Tons/yr
0
106
83
13
94
1,020
870
833
139
177
153
152
5,040
Kane
No.
0
8
4
4
3
36
23
20
3
6
7
30
144
Tons/yr
0
94
47
8
35
428
333
340
38
71
83
87
1,564
(continued)
-------
TABLE 12 (continued)
U)
CO
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Percent
facilities
with
de greasing
5
40
15
10
23
47
21
49
68
40
30
52
Average
emissions
facility
tons/yr
11.. 8
11.8
11.8
1.9
11.8
11.9
14.5
17
12.6
11.8
11.8
2.9
No.
0
5
5
3
4
32
24
19
5
9
6
33
145
I^ke
Tons/yr
0
59
59
6
47
381
348
323
63
106
71
92
1,555
McHenry
No.
0
0
0
3
3
23
16
15
5
2
3
7
77
Tons/yr
0
0
0
6
35
274
232
255
63
24
35
19
937
Madison
No.
0
0
0
0
5
10
6
3
3
0
2
18
47
Tons/yr
0
0
0
0
59
119
87
51
38
0
24
51
429
No.
0
4
5
2
3
18
10
5
5
0
3
26
81
Will
Tons/yr
0
47
59
4
35
214
145
85
63
0
35
74
761
Total
No.
3
132
95
61
98
968
512
412
138
153
84
605
3,261
Tons/yr
35
1,556
1,118
117
1,156
11,519
7,426
7,004
1,744
1,808
991
1,740
36,218
-------
TABLE 13. OPERATING SOLVENT CLEANERS0
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
22
25
28
30,
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
No. of
cold
cleaners
-
-
-
-
46
454
384
119
127
60
96
985
-
-
-
-
2
4
7
2
0
0
4
65
No. of
OTV
-
-
-
-
23
514
92
178
0
151
36
0
-
-
-
-
1
5
2
2
0
0
2
0
No. of No. of
CV CC
COOK COUNTY
-
-
-
-
0
91
0
21
0
0
0
0
ST. GLAIR
-
-
-
-
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No . exempted
U.S. EPA
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
60
0
60
12
0
-
-
-
-
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
IEPA
-
-
-
-
46
185
183
39
0
30
0
560
-
-
-
-
2
1
4
1
0
0
0
37
(continued)
39
-------
TABLE 13 (continued)
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
No. of
cold
cleaners
-
-
-
-
5
52
63
20
11
8
26
125
-
-
-
-
2
22
24
8
4
3
14
72
No. of
OTV
-
-
-
-
3
58
15
29
0
19
10
0
-
-
-
-
1
24
6
12
0
8
5
0
No. of
CV
DUPAGE
-
-
-
-
0
10
0
3
0
0
0
0
KANE
-
-
-
-
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
No. of
CC
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. exempted
U.S. EPA
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
9
0
8
3
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
4
0
3
2
0
I EPA
-
-
-
-
5
21
30
7
0
4
0
70
-
-
-
-
2
9
11
3
0
2
0
40
(continued)
40
-------
TABLE 13 (continued)
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
No. of
cold
cleaners
-
-
-
-
3
19
25
7
6
5
12
80
-
-
-
-
2
14
17
6
6
1
6
15
No. of
OTV
-
-
-
-
1
22
6
11
0
11
5
0
-
-
-
-
1
16
4
9
0
3
2
0
No. of
CV
LAKE
-
-
-
-
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
McHENRY
-
-
-
-
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
No. of
cc
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. exempted
U.S. EPA
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
3
0
4
2
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
IEPA
-
-
-
-
3
8
12
2
0
2
0
45
-
-
-
-
2
6
8
2
0
0
0
9
(continued)
41
-------
TABLE 13 (continued)
SIC
code
22
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
3OTV
CV
CC
No. of
cold
cleaners
-
-
-
-
-
3
6
6
1
4
0
4
43
-
-
-
-
2
11
11
2
6
0
6
60
No. of No. of
OTV CV
-
-
-
-
-
2
7
2
2
0
0
2
0
-
-
-
-
1
12
3
3
0
0
2
0
MADISON
-
-
-
-
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
WILL
-
-
-
-
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. of-
CC
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
No . exempted
U.S. EPA
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
I EPA
-
-
-
-
-
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
26
-
-
-
-
2
4
5
1
0
0
0
36
- Open top vapor cleaners.
- Conveyorized
- Conveyorized
vapor
cold
cleaners
cleaners
42
-------
TABLE 14. ACTUAL EMISSIONS0
SIC
code
Cold
cleaners
emissions
(tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
COOK COUNTY
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
-
-
-
-
212
1,260
1,062
858
1,340
572
96
1,190
0
0
0
0
9
12
20
12
0
0
4
75
0
-
-
-
24
143
174
142
139
-
-
-
-
602
5,400
4,248
2,629
0
858
470
0
0
0
0
0
26
50
81
35
0
0
20
0
0
-
-
-
70
612
696
433
0
-
-
-
0
2,340
0
1,565
0
0
0
0
ST. CLAIR
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
21
0
0
0
0
DUPAGE
0
-
-
-
0
265
0
258
0
_
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
35
1,250
850
80
814
9,000
5,310
5,049
1,340
1,430
566
1,190
26,914
0
0
0
0
35
83
101
68
0
0
24
75
317
0
106
83
13
94
1,020
870
833
139
(continued)
43
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
Cold
cleaners
SIC emissions
code (tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
OUTAGE (continued)
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
71
26
152
0
-
-
-
9
60
67
58
38
28
14
87
0
-
-
.
12
53
70
55
63
25
12
92
106
127
0
0
-
-
-
26
257
266
177
0
43
69
0
0
-
-
-
35
229
278
168
0
38
59
0
0
0
0
KANE
0
-
-
-
0
111
0
105
0
0
0
0
LAKE
0
-
-
-
0
99
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
177
153
152
5,040
0
94
47
8
35
428
333
340
38
71
83
87
1,564
0
59
59
6
47
381
348
323
63
63
71
92
1,512
(continued)
44
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
Cold
cleaners
SIC emissions
code (tons/yr)
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
0
0
0
_
9
38
46
43
63
10
6
19
0
0
0
0
15
17
17
9
38
0
4
51
0
-
-
9
30
29
OTV CV
emissions emissions
(tons/yr) (tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
26
165
186
133
0
14
29
0
0
0
0
0
44
71
70
26
0
0
20
0
0
-
-
-
26
128
116
McHENRY
0
0
0
-
0
71
0
79
0
0
0
0
MADISON
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
16
0
0
0
0
WILL
0
-
-
-
0
56
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
6
35
274
232
255
63
24
35
19
924
0
0
0
0
59
119
87
51
38
0
24
51
298
0
47
59
4
35
214
145
(continued)
45
-------
TABLE 14 (continued)
SIC
code
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
14
62
0
6
74
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
45
0
0
29
0
cv
emissions
(tons/yr)
26
0
0
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
85
63
0
35
74
522
OTV - Open top vapor cleaner.
CV - Conveyorized vapor cleaner.
CC - Conveyorized cold cleaner.
46
-------
TABLE 15. EXEMPTED EMISSIONS'
SIC
code
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
OTV CV CC
emissions emissions emissions
(tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
COOK COUNTY - IEPA
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
36
38
39
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
36
38
39
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
30
80
95
25
0
20
0
364
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
3
9
16
5
0
3
0
45
0
40
24
0
0
0
0
0
COOK
578
343
155
ST
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
ST.
11
0
7
0
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COUNTY - U.S. EPA
1,565
0
0
. CLAIR - IEPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLAIR - U.S. EPA
21
0
0
DUPAGE - IEPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
120
119
25
0
20
0
364
2,143
343
155
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
24
32
0
7
3
14
20
5
0
3
0
45
(continued)
47
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
SIC
code
36
38
39
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
36
38
39
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
36
38
39
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
1
4
6
2
0
1
0
26
0
0
0
2
3
7
1
0
1
0
29
0
0
0
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
DUPAGE -
95
42
42
KANE
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
KANE -
57
17
23
LAKE
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
LAKE -
37
15
20
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
U.S. EPA
258
0
0
- IEPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.S. EPA
105
0
0
- IEPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.S. EPA
100
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
353
42
42
1
6
7
2
0
1
0
26
162
17
23
2
5
8
1
0
1
0
29
137
15
20
(continued)
48
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
SIC
code
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
36
38
39
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
36
38
39
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
1
3
4
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
0
0
23
OTV CV
emissions emissions
(tons/yr) (tons/yr)
McHENRY
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
McHEMY -
29
6
10
MADISON
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
MADISON -
6
0
7
WILL -
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
- IEPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.S. EPA
79
0
0
- IEPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.S. EPA
16
0
0
IEPA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
1
4
5
1
0
0
0
6
108
6
10
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
17
22
0
7
1
3
4
1
0
0
0
23
(continued)
49
-------
TABLE 15,(continued)
SIC
code
36
38
39
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
WILL
10
0
10
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
- U.S. EPA
26
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
36
0
10
rt
OTV - Open top vapor cleaner.
CV - Conveyorized vapor cleaner.
CC - Conveyorized cold cleaner.
50
-------
TABLE 16. AP-42 EMISSION FACTORS
Poor compliance
Excellent compliance
Cold cleaners
volatility
<0.6 psi >0.6 psi
at 100°F at 100°F
0.72 0.45
0.17 0.31
Open top
vapor opening
9 o
<1.0 m >1.0 m
0.70 0.55
0.40 0.25
Conveyorized
vapor opening
<2.0 m2 >2.0 m2
0.8 0.50
0.7 0.30
btained from AP-42, p. 4.6-4
-------
TABLE 17. PERCENTAGES TO OBTAIN CORRECTED EMISSION FACTORS
SIC
code
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Cold
% with
volatility
<0.6 psia
at 100°F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cleaners
% with
volatility
>0.6 psia
at 100° f
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Open top vapor Conveyorized
% with % with % with % with
opening opening opening opening
<1.0 m2 >1.0 m2 <2.0 m2 >2.0 m2
100 0
71 29 100 0
80 20
67 33 100 0
-
60 40
100 0
TABLE 18. CORRECTED EMISSION FACTORS
SIC
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Cold
Poor
compliance
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
cleaners
Excellent
compliance
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Open top
Poor
compliance
0.70
0.66
0.67
0.65
-
0.64
0.70
vapor
Excellent
compliance
0.40
0.36
0.37
0.35
-
0.34
0.40
Conveyorized vapor
Poor Excellent
compliance compliance
-
0.80 0.70
_
0.80 0.70
-
-
-
52
-------
TABLE 19. CTG PRESUMPTIVE NORM LOW EMISSIONS
EXCELLENT COMPLIANCE3
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
-
-
-
-
66
340
329
266
415
177
30
369
0
0
0
0
3
4
60
4
0
0
1
23
0
-
-
-
7
44
54
44
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
-
-
-
-
241
1,940
1,570
1,300
0
518
281
0
0
0
0
0
10
18
30
19
0
0
12
0
0
-
-
-
28
220
258
213
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
COOK COUNTY
-
-
-
0
1,640
0
1,565
0
0
0
0
ST. CLAIR
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
21
0
0
0
0
DUPAGE
0
-
-
-
0
186
0
258
(continued)
53
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
-
-
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
16
560
380
36
307
3,970
1,899
3,131
415
695
311
369
12,089
0
0
14
0
13
37
90
44
0
0
13
23
234
0
48
38
6
35
450
312
515
-------
TABLE 19 (continued)
Cold
cleaner
SIC emissions
code (tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
DUPAGE (continued)
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
43
22
8
47
0
-
-
-
3
18
21
18
12
9
4
27
0
-
-
-
4
16
22
17
20
8
4
29
0
64
76
0
0
-
-
-
10
93
98
99
0
26
41
0
0
-
-
-
14
82
103
83
0
23
36
0
0
' 0
0
0
KANE
0
-
-
-
0
78
0
105
0
0
0
0
LAKE
0
-
-
-
0
69
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
86
84
47
1,664
0
45
23
4
13
189
119
222
12
35
45
27
734
0
26
26
3
18
167
125
200
20
41
40
29
695
(continued)
54
-------
TABLE 19 (continued)
Cold
cleaner
SIC emissions
code (tons/yr)
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
0
0
0
-
3
12
14
13
20
3
2
6
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
3
12
0
1
16
0
-
-
-
3
9
9
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
10
59
69
65
0
9
18
0
0
0
0
0
18
26
26
13
0
0
12
0
0
-
-
-
10
46
43
CV CC
emissions emissions
(tons/yr) (tons/yr)
McHENRY
0
0
0
-
0
50
0
79
0
0
0
0
MADISON
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
16
0
0
0
0
WILL
0
-
-
-
0
39
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
2
13
121
83
157
20
12
20
6
434
0
0
0
0
23
53
31
32
12
0
13
16
180
0
18
23
2
13
94
52
(continued)
55
-------
TABLE 19 (continued)
SIC
code
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
WILL (continued)
36
37
38
39
75
Total
4
20
0
2
23
22
0
0
18
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
20
0
20
23
293
a
OTV - Open top vapor cleaner.
CV - Conveyorized vapor cleaner.
CC - Conveyorized cold cleaner.
56
-------
TABLE 20. CTG PRESUMPTIVE NORM HIGH EMISSIONS
POOR COMPLIANCEa
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
-
-
-
-
95
567
478
386
603
257
43
536
0
0
0
0
4
5
9
5
0
0
2
34
0
-
-
-
11
64
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
-
-
-
-
421
3,564
2,846
1,911
0
673
376
0
0
0
0
0
18
33
54
27
0
0
16
0
0
-
-
-
49
404
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
COOK COUNTY
_
-
-
-
0
1,872
0
1,565
0
0
0
0
ST. CLAIR
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
21
0
0
0
0
DUPAGE
0
_
-
-
0
212
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
23
820
560
52
516
6,003
3,324
3,862
603
930
419
536
17,648
0
0
15
0
22
55
63
53
0
0
18
34
260
0
70
55
9
60
680
(continued)
57
-------
TABLE 20 (continued)
Cold
cleaner
SIC emissions
code (tons/yr)
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
78
64
63
32
12
68
0
-
-
-
4
27
30
26
17
13
6
39
0
_
_
_
5
24
32
25
28
11
5
41
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
466
315
0
83
102
0
0
-
-
-
18
170
178
135
0
34
55
0
0
-
-
-
25
151
186
122
0
30
47
0
cv
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
258
0
0
0
0
KANE
0
-
-
-
0
89
0
105
0
0
0
0
LAKE
0
-
-
-
0
79
0
100
0
0
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
544
637
63
115
114
68
2,415
0
64
32
5
22
286
208
266
17
47
61
39
1,047
0
38
38
4
30
254
218
247
28
41
52
41
991
(continued)
58
-------
TABLE 20 (continued)
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
4
17
21
19
28
4
3
9
0
0
0
0
7
8
8
4
17
0
2
23
0
-
-
-
4
14
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
18
109
125
97
0
11
23
0
0
0
0
0
31
47
47
19
0
0
16
0
0
-
-
-
18
84
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
MCHENRY
0
0
0
-
0
57
0
79
0
0
0
0
MADISON
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
16
0
0
0
0
WILL
0
-
-
0
45
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
4
22
183
146
195
28
15
26
9
628
0
0
0
0
38
80
55
39
17
0
18
23
270
0
29
37
3
22
143
(continued)
59
-------
TABLE 20 (continued)
SIC
code
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
WILL (continued)
13
6
28
0
3
33
78
33
0
0
23
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
65
28
0
26
33
477
OTV - Open top vapor cleaner.
CV - Conveyorized vapor cleaner.
CC - Conveyorized cold cleaner.
60
-------
TABLE 21. IEPA RULE LOW EMISSIONS - EXCELLENT COMPLIANCE
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
_
86
446
395
283
415
191
30
620
0
0
0
0
3
4
8
4
0
0
1
60
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
COOK
_
-
-
-
241
1,970
1,587
920
0
292
188
0
ST.
0
0
0
0
10
18
31
12
0
0
8
0
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
COUNTY
_
-
-
-
0
1,638
0
1,096
0
0
0
0
CLAIR
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
15
0
0
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
15
530
360
34
327
4,054
1,982
2,299
415
483
218
620
11,337
0
0
12
0
13
37
39
31
0
0
9
60
201
DUPAGE
22
25
28
30
33
34
0
-
-
-
10
51
0
-
-
-
28
224
0
-
-
-
0
186
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
45
35
5
38
461
(continued)
61
-------
TABLE 21 (continued)
SIC
code
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
65
47
43
24
8
78
0
-
-
-
3
21
25
19
12
9
4
69
0
-
-
-
5
19
27
18
20
8
4
49
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
DUPAGE
260
152
0
36
51
0
0
-
-
-
10
94
99
62
0
15
28
0
0
-
-
-
14
84
103
59
0
13
24
0
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
(continued)
0
181
0
0
0
0
KANE
0
-
-
0
78
0
74
0
0
0
0
LAKE
0
-
-
-
0
69
0
70
0
0
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
325
380
43
60
59
78
1,529
0
42
21
4
13
193
124
145
12
24
32
69
679
0
24
24
2
19
172
130
147
20
21
28
49
636
(continued)
62
-------
TABLE 21 (continued)
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
4
6
6
3
12
0
1
28
0
0
0
-
3
12
17
14
20
3
2
4
0
-
-
-
3
11
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
18
26
25
9
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
-
10
67
68
49
0
5
12
0
0
-
-
-
10
47
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
MADISON
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
11
0
0
0
0
McHENRY
0
0
0
-
0
50
0
55
0
0
0
0
WILL
0
-
-
0
39
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
0
22
54
31
23
12
0
9
28
179
0
0
0
2
13
129
85
118
20
4
14
4
389
0
20
25
2
13
97
(continued)
63
-------
TABLE 21 (continued)
SIC
code
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
WILL (continued)
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
11
5
20
0
2
39
44
16
0
0
12
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
39
20
0
14
39
324
OTV - Open top vapor cleaner.
CV - Conveyorized vapor cleaner.
CC - Conveyorized cold cleaner.
64
-------
TABLE 22. IEPA RULE HIGH EMISSIONS - POOR COMPLIANCE
SIC
code
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
_
-
-
112
611
530
400
603
268
43
736
0
0
0
0
5
6
10
6
0
0
2
47
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
COOK
_
-
-
-
421
3,578
2,854
1,709
0
549
329
0
ST.
0
0
0
0
18
33
55
23
0
0
14
0
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
COUNTY
_
-
-
-
0
1,872
0
1,252
0
0
0
0
CLAIR
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
17
0
0
0
0
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
_
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
22
800
550
51
533
6,061
3,384
3,361
603
817
372
736
17,290
0
0
16
0
23
56
65
46
0
0
16
47
269
DUPAGE
22
25
28
30
33
34
0
-
-
-
12
69
0
-
-
-
49
405
0
-
-
-
0
212
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
69
54
8
61
686
(continued)
65
-------
TABLE 22 (continued)
Cold
cleaner
SIC emissions
code (tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
DUPAGE (continued)
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
87
67
63
34
12
131
0
-
-
-
4
29
33
27
17
13
6
53
0
-
-
7
26
35
25
28
12
5
73
468
281
0
68
89
0
0
-
-
-
18
170
179
115
0
28
48
0
0
-
-
-
25
151
187
109
0
24
41
0
0
206
0
0
0
0
KANE
0
-
-
-
0
89
0
84
0
0
0
0
LAKE
0
-
-
-
0
79
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
555
554
63
102
101
131
2,384
0
62
31
5
22
288
212
226
17
41
54
53
1,011
0
37
37
4
32
256
222
214
28
36
46
73
985
(continued)
66
-------
TABLE 22 (continued)
Cold
cleaner
SIC emissions
code (tons/yr)
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
22
25
28
30
33
34
0
0
0
-
5
19
23
20
28
5
3
12
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
4
17
0
2
44
0
-
-
-
5
15
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
18
109
125
86
0
9
20
0
0
0
0
0
31
47
47
17
0
0
14
0
0
-
-
-
18
85
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
McHENRY
0
0
0
-
0
57
0
63
0
0
0
0
MADISON
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
13
0
0
0
0
WILL
0
-
-
-
0
45
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
0
Total
(tons/yr)
0
0
0
4
23
185
148
169
28
14
23
12
606
0
0
0
0
39
70
55
34
17
0
16
44
275
0
30
39
3
23
145
(continued)
67
-------
TABLE 22 (continued)
SIC
code
Cold
cleaner
emissions
(tons/yr)
OTV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CV
emissions
(tons/yr)
CC
emissions
(tons/yr)
Total
(tons/yr)
35
36
37
38
39
75
Total
15
7
28
0
3
64
WILL (continued)
78
29
0
0
20
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
57
28
0
23
64
505
OTV - Open top vapor cleaner.
CV - Conveyorized vapor cleaner.
CC - Conveyorized cold cleaner.
68
-------
TABLE 23. ILLINOIS EXEMPT AND MAJOR CONTROL DEVICE EXEMPT EQUIPMENT AND EMISSIONS
vo
County
Cook
St. Clair
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Madison
Will
Total
No. of pieces
of equipment
emitting <
15 Ib/day
1043
45
133
67
72
27
35
46
1468
Emissions
from column A
equipment
TPY
678
30
90
43
46
17
23
32
950
No. of pieces
of OTVa
equipment
< 1.0 m2
994
8
93
40
38
25
10
15
1223
Emissions
from column C
equipment
TPY
7530
112
1080
440
430
290
120
180
10182
No. of pieces
of conveyorized
equipment
< 2.0 m2
112
2
13
5
5
4
2
2
144
Emissions
from column E
equipment
TPY
3900
40
520
220
200
150
50
80
5160
OTV - Open top vapor cleaner.
-------
TABLE 24. METAL AND NON-METAL CLEANERS
County
No. of
non-metal
cleaners
Emissions
from
non-metal
cleaners
(tons/yr)
No. of
metal
cleaners
Emissions
from
metal
cleaners
(tons/yr)
Cook
St. Clair
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Madison
Will
Total
132
2
20
9
9
5
3
2
182
2,641
39
437
202
172
124
29
46
3,690
3,245
95
437
201
209
101
81
119
4,488
24,273
371
4,603
1,362
1,383
813
400
715
33,920
70
-------
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS
County
Cook
DuPage
Kane
Lake
McHenry
Will
Total
Madison
St. Glair
Total
High
IEPA
17,290
2,384
1,011
985
606
505
22,781
275
269
544
emissions
CTG
17,648
2,415
1,047
991
628
477
23,206
(-1.8)
270
260
530
(2.6)
Low
IEPA
11,337
1,529
679
636
389
324
14,894
179
201
380
emissions
CTG
12,089
1,664
734
695
434
293
15,909
(-6.4)
180
234
414
(-8.2)
( ) = Percent difference between IEPA and CTG allowable emissions.
71
-------
SECTION 4
DATA VALIDATION
The representativeness of the sample area chosen by GCA, when compared
to the actual distribution of facilities by SIC category in Cook County and
the size distribution of facilities within SIC categories, is an important
consideration in determining the validity of projection factors. Table 26
compares the percent of facilities in SIC categories in Cook County to
categories in the survey area. These two distributions compare very well
with a maximum difference of 3.6 percent for SIC 28. For SIC categories
containing more than 10 percent of Cook County facilities the maximum
difference is 2 percent.
TABLE 26. COMPARISON OF FACILITIES BY SIC CATEGORY
SIC
22
25
28
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
75
o
Bureau of Census
percent of
total for
Cook County
0.7
3.8
7.0
6.1
4.4
23
25
8.8
2.3
4.4
2.3
11
Survey area
percent of
total for
survey area
3.4
1.0
3.4
3.8
4.4
24
24
12
4.4
4.4
5.8
9
Bureau of Census, County Business Patterns, 1977.
72
-------
The size distribution of facilities within SIC categories (based on emis-
sions) was checked in two different ways. n-CA anticipated that most of the
new data collected in the survey area would ba from smaller facilities when
compared to the data collected by Walden. This is born out in the graphs in
Figures 3a through 3d. More importantly, IEPA expected emissions to fit
a log-normal distribution. GCA calculated the logs of emissions per facility
for all facilities in SIC categories 34, 35, 36 and 37 (125 facilities). The_
distribution of the logs of the emissions was found to have a mean of 0.70 (x),
a standard deviation of 0.75 (S) and a sample coefficient of skew of -0.076
(Cs). A coefficient of skew of 0 is a perfect log normal distribution. The
relatively high standard deviation is due to the high variability of emissions
data which caused some difficulties in data analysis.
A Student T test was performed on the logs of emissions for SIC
categories 34, 35, 36 and 37. The Lower (L) and Upper (U) bounds of 90 and
50 percent confidence intervals were calculated using the following equation:
L, U = x ħ S- tn_1; 1_a/2
where - 100 (1 - a) is the confidence level in percent (e.g,, for a = 0.1
the confidence level is 90 percent.
- tn_i. i_a/2 is found in a Student T distribution table.
- x is the sample mean.
- S- is the sample deviation.
x K
- n is the sample size.
The 90 percent confidence levels were calculated using the following
parameters:
n = 125
x = 0.70
S- = 0.75
x
a = 0.1
tn-1; la/2 = t120, 0.95 "
L, U = 0.70 ħ (0.75)(1.658)
L, U = -0.54, 1.94
antilog L, U = 0.29, 87 tons/yr/facility
The 50 percent confidence levels were calculated using the same n, x and
S-. However a was set at 0.50 and t as follows:
73
-------
tn-l; l-a/2 = ti20,0.75 = 0-677
L,U = 0.70 ħ (0.75)(0.677)
L,U = 0.19, 1.21
Antilog L,U = 1.5, 16 tons/yr/facility
Once again the wide intervals calculated are a result of the high vari-
ability in the emissions data.
Another source of variability in the data is the projection factors for
percent of facilities operating solvent cleaning equipment. For SIC categories
34, 35, 36 and 75, more than 50 facilities were contacted in each category.
The projected percent of facilities is not likely to change by more than
ħ 15 percent even if all of the facilities which refused to answer operated
solvent cleaning equipment. For SIC's 28, 30, 33, 37, 38 and 39, between 20
and 50 facilities were contacted in each SIC category. The percent of facili-
ties projected to operate solvent cleaning equipment is also unlikely to vary
by more than ħ 15 percent, although the authors have slightly less confidence
in these projections. For SIC's 22 and 25 larger sample sizes may show
significantly different results.
GCA also attempted to validate pieces of equipment and emissions estimates
with estimates from independent sources of information. GCA contacted six
major manufacturers of solvent and solvent cleaning equipment. Only two
companies responded with sufficiently detailed information to estimate emis-
sions and equipment. Their responses are shown in Figures 4 and 5. These
two companies alone service about 4,000 cold cleaners in Cook County, while
GCA projects about 2,300 cold cleaners in Cook County.
Comparing Walden's projections of solvent cleaning emissions in Table 3
to GCA's projections in Table 14, the results are fairly similar. Walden
projects about 32,000 tons/yr for all nine counties and GCA projects about
36,000 tons/yr. Calculations using CTG emission factors were not attempted
because of the low projection of the numbers of pieces of equipment.
Even though GCA's estimate of pieces of solvent cleaning equipment appears
to be too low, GCA does not anticipate changes in the percent of exempt equip-
ment, if a higher number of equipment per facility projection factor were used.
Consequently, the authors believe the percent difference in allowable emis-
sions would not be strongly affected by a modification of the equipment
per facility projection factors.
74
-------
II
October 16, 1980
THM 80-166
Mr. Malcolm Petroccia
GCA Corporation
Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Dear Mr. Petroccia:
In response to your letter of September 26, 1980 (copy attached)
the following information is submitted.
1) We have five sales branches in the Chicago area that service
Cook County and some surrounding counties. On September 5, 1980
these five branches had 3,852 of our machines leased within
Cook County and 3,919 machines in the surrounding counties for
a total number of 7,771 leased machines. In addition to these
leased machines, we also provide solvent for approximately
870 customer owned machines in the entire multi-county area.
2) For 12 months ending September 18, 1980, the difference between
clean solvent used and spent solvent returned from the five
branches totalled 349,840 gallons. That is an average of
40.5 gallons per machine per year or 0.120 metric ton/year.
3) The density of our solvent at ambient temperatures is 6.5
pounds per gallon.
4) Brochures are enclosed.
a) Form No. 1001
b) Form No. 1077
c) Form No. 1000
Sincerely,
TED MUELLER
Technical Services
THM/keg
Enclosures
655 BIG TIMBER ROAD ELGIN. ILLINOIS 6O12O PHONE 312/697-846O
Figure 4. Solvent manufacturer's response.
S
75
-------
J3aroxi*
REPLY TO.
2001 NORTH JANICE AVENUE
MELROSE PARK, ILLINOIS 80160
AREA CODE 312 450-3900
CABLE BARBLAKE-MLPK
TELEX 26-4701
October 28, 1980
GCA Corporation
Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA 01730
Attention: Ms. Andrea M. Kiddie
Dear Ms. Kiddie,
Enclosed is a list of Solvent Vapor Degreasers and cold solvent units
installed in the Cook County area in 1979. Attached to this list are
catalog pages for each model.
We have also enclosed catalog pages of other models available, but not
installed in Cook County area in 1979.
Since conveyorized vapor degreasers are custom-built for each
application, we do not have catalog pages for them. The exception is
the TH-LLV copy of which is included.
We have noted the few cold solvent units we make. Dimensions of stills
have not been given as stills are always covered, evaporative losses
are very small.
We hope this information is useful and are sorry to have taken so long.
Very truly yours,
JP:aw
I I ! 1 I
/V**- i ' £~ t't-C^lstsUj
Joseph Pokorny fj
BARON-BLAKESLEE
Division of Purex Corporation
MACHINERY SOLVENTS
Figure 5. Solvent manufacturer's response.
76
-------
Baron -J3JaAesJee
SOLVENT CLEANING EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN COOK COUNTY AREA IN 1979.
No. Units
Model
Evap. Area
Solvent
#/hr. est.
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
MSR-120
MSW-480
MLR-120
MLR-480
MLR-216
3LLV
DP4-2430
DPS- 3030
DP5-3042
DP5-30A2
DP6-3636
24"xl4"
44"x28"
24"xl4"
44"x28"
28"x22"
82"x30"
52"x28"
64"x34"
64"x34"
64"x34"
76"x40"
0.22
0.80
0.22
0.80
0.40
1.587
0.94
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.96
Freon 113
113/MeC12
Freon 113
Freon 113
Freon 113
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
1,1,1
TCE
0.5
1.7-2.0
0.5
1.7-2.0
0.85-1.0
1.7-5.0
1.-10.
1.5-10.
1.5-10.
1.5-10.
2. -10.
* Solvent consumption of DP models idling to 2,000 # steel/hr. working.
No. Units Stills Covered Solvent #/hr. est.
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
MRW-60
MRR-10
HRS-60
-X-
-X-
-X-
CVS-18 Flux Remover 1m2
C8S-430 C.B. Stripper 2.8m2
CFH-18 Defluxer 0.74m2
CFH-24 Defluxer 1.16m2
Freon 113
Freon 113
1,1,1
1,1,1
MeC12
Freon 113
Freon 113
0-0.1
0-0.05
0-.5
5.0
5-10.
5.
6-7.
Figure 5 (continued)
77
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS
This report provides data on solvent cleaning equipment and emissions for
nine counties in two urban oxidant nonattainment areas. The object of this
study was to provide sufficient data for a determination of equivalency be-
tween the RACT technically supported in U.S. EPA's Solvent Metal Cleaning CTG
document and Illinois' Rule 205(k). Equivalency is defined by U.S. EPA as
less than a 5 percent difference in allowable emissions under the two rules.
The data contained in this report culminate in a comparison of allowable emis-
sions in Table 25. These data indicate that allowable emissions under
Illinois Rule 205(k) range from 8.2 percent less than emissions allowed by
the CTG guidance to 2.6 percent more than emissions allowed by the CTG. This
means that under one set of assumptions (low emissions, excellent compliance)
the Illinois rule is more stringent than the CTG and under another set of
assumptions (high emissions, poor compliance) the Illinois rule is slightly
less stringent than the CTG.
78
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Two levels of adjustment need to be made to a list of facilities with
known solvent cleaning operations in the survey area. The first level is to
adjust emissions from these facilities due to updated information which may
show a different size distribution than existed previously. The second level
is to adjust the size distribution and sample population size based on a sur-
vey of sources not previously known to operate solvent cleaning equipment.
The Walden report provides VOC emissions from all operations within a
facility. For each SIC category, the percent of total VOC emissions that is
contributed by degreasing operations can be calculated from the data on
Walden's Evaporative Hydrocarbon Questionaire. This calculation is expected
to reduce the number of SIC categories from the 32 reported in the Walden Report
to about 20 categories which are likely to have solvent cleaning operations.
The size distribution of facilities within each SIC category can be cal-
culated from data in the Walden report. Updated information for the survey
area will be used to modify the previous size distributions if they have
changed. In addition to modifying the size distribution, the updated infor-
mation will provide data on size and type of equipment used by facilities in
each SIC category.
The second level of adjustment will account for sources not previously
known to operate solvent cleaning equipment. For each SIC category, the new
sources will be added to the known sources in the survey area creating a new
size distribution and increasing the number of facilities in the survey area
by a calculable percentage. This information would then be used to modify the
population size distribution (all 9 counties) and to increase the total popu-
lation by a calculated percentage.
An example SIC category is shovn graphically to further explain the analy-
sis method.
based on
Walden report
Number of
facilities '
in survey 6
area 4
2
SIC 36
i
t
i
i
i
*-
6.0 6.2 6.9 9.2 31 VQC EmissiOns/facility
(TPY)
79
-------
1
Number of 6
facilities
4
in survey
area 2
t
based on
update of
known sources
6.O 6.2 6.9 9.2 31
Emissions/facility
(TPY)
Number of
facilities
in survey
area
o
4
2
-
%
1
I
1
fc^
based on
new facilities
6 6.5 7 9 35
Emissions/facility
(TPY)
The example numbers shown in the graph represent known numbers of facil-
ities in the survey area categorized under SIC code 36. In the first graph
(previous page) there are 21 facilities with total VOC emissions from solvent
cleaning calculated as follows:
3 x 6.0 TPY + 6 x 6.2 TPY + 3 x 6.9 TPY + 1 x 9.2 TPY + 4 x 31 TPY =
264.3 TPY
The second graph indicates that these same facilities have increased
their emissions based on updated information. The third graph shows that 2
new faciilties were found emitting an average of 5 TPY each. The 2 new sources
represent about a 10 percent increase over the 21 sources found previously.
The number of facilities in each county would be adjusted accordingly. The
total VOC emissions from solvent cleaning are recalculated for the third graph.
2x5+2x6 + 6x6. 5+7
6+5x 35 = 318 TPY
The increase in emisisons in this example is about 20 % over data in the
Walden report and each county's emissions for SIC 36 would be adjusted accord
ingly.
When solvent consumption data is not available CTG emission factors will
be used. Emission reductions will be calculated using both the poor and
excellent compliance emission reduction factors given in the CTG. The data
anlaysis phase will be completed by filling in the tables whose heading are
shown below.
80
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/4-80-008
|3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Solvent
Cleaning Operations in the State of Illinois
5. REPORT DATE
December 21, 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORis) Malcolm W. Petroccia
William K. Glynn
Andrea M. Kiddie
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Division
213 Burlington Road
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3510
Work Assignment 1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
Air Programs Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Mr. Barry A. Perlmutter
16. ABSTRACT "~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~
This report provides data on solvent cleaning equipment and emissions for nine
counties in two urban oxidant nonattainment areas near Chicago and East
St. Louis, Illinois. A telephone survey of over 500 facilities in 12 SIC cate-
gories was performed in a representative sample area to obtain data that was
projected to the nine counties. The purpose of this study is to provide suffi-
cient data for a determination of equivalency between the presumptive norm of
U.S. EPA's solvent metal cleaning CTG document and lEPA's Rule 205(K).
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Solvent Cleaning
Emissions and Controls
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Controls
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds
Stationary Sources
Degreasing
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
None
21. NO. OF PAGES
81
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
None
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |