United States     Office of Air Quality       EPA-450/3-85-029a
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards      December 1985
Agency        Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
Magnetic Tape        Draft
Manufacturing        EIS
Industry —
Background
Information For
Proposed
Standards

-------
                       EPA-450/3-85-029a
       Magnetic Tape
Manufacturing Industry -
 Background Information
 for Proposed Standards
     Emission Standards and Engineering Division
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Air and Radiation
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

            December 1985

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

-------
                       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           Background Information
                                  and Draft
                       Environmental Impact Statement
                for the Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry
                                Prepared by:
Mtk R. Farmer      ^                                        (Mite)'
Director, Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C.  27711

1.  The proposed standards of performance would  limit emissions of  volatile
    organic compounds  (VOC's) from new. modified, and reconstructed
    facilities that  manufacture magnetic tape.   Section  111  of the  Clean
    A1r Act (42 U.S.C. 7411), as amended, directs the Administrator to
    establish standards of performance for any category  of new stationary
    source of air pollution that ". . . causes or contributes significantly
    to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to  endanger public
    health or welfare."

2.  Copies of this document have been sent to the following  Federal
    Departments:  Labor. Health and Human Services, Defense,
    Transportation,  Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior; the National
    Science Foundation; the Council on Environmental Quality; State and
    Territorial Air  Pollution Program Administrators; EPA Regional
    Administrators;  Association of Local A1r Pollution Control Officials;
    Office of Management and Budget; and other Interested parties.

3.  The comment period for review of this document is 75 days from  the date
    of publication of the proposed standard 1n the Federal Register.
    Mr. Gilbert H. Wood may be contacted at (919) 541-bb/b regarding the
    date of the comment period.

4.  For additional information contact:

    Mr. James C. Berry
    Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD-13)
    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Research Triangle Park, N.C.  27711
    Telephone:  (919) 541-5671

5.  Copies of this document may be obtained from:

    U. S. EPA Library (MD-35)
    Research Triangle Park, N.C.  27711
    Telephone:  (919) 541-2777

    National Technical Information Service
    5285 Port Royal  Road
    Springfield, Va.  22161
                                     111

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                      Page
List of Figures	viii
List of Tables	 ix
CHAPTER 1     SUMMARY	 1-1
      1.1     Regulatory Alternatives	 1-1
      1.2     Environmental Impact	 1-2
      1.3     Economic Impacts	 1-5
CHAPTER 2     INTRODUCTION	 2-1
      2.1     Background and Authority for Standards	 2-1
      2.2     Selection of Categories of Stationary Sources	 2-4
      2.3     Procedure for Development of Standards of
              Performance	 2-5
      2.4     Consideration of Costs	 2-7
      2,5     Consideration of Environmental Impacts	 2-7
      2.6     Impact on Existing Sources	 2-8
      2.7     Revision of Standards of Performance	 2-9
CHAPTER 3     THE MAGNETIC TAPE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY PROCESSES
              AND POLLUTANT EMISSIONS	 3-1
      3.1     General	 3-1
      3.2     Processes and Their Emissions	 3-2
      3.3     Baseline	 3-7
      3.4     References for Chapter 3	 3-23
CHAPTER 4     EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES	 4-1
      4.1     Introduction	 4-1
      4.2     Control Systems	 4-1
      4.3     VOC Emission Capture Systems	 4-20
                                        v

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)
                                                                      Page
      4.4     VOC Emission Capture Systems and Control Devices
              Combined	,	 4-25
      4.5     References for Chapter 4	 4-25
CHAPTER 5     MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION	 5-1
      5.1     Provisions for Modification and Reconstruction	5-1
      5.2     Application to Magnetic Tape Manufacturing
              Facilities	 5-3
      5.3     References for Chapter 5	 5-6
CHAPTER 6     MODEL LINES AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES	 6-1
      6.1     General	 6-1
      6.2     Model Lines	 6-1
      6.3     Model Line Parameters	 6-2
      6.4     Regulatory Alternatives	 6-6
      6.5     References for Chapter 6	 6-22
CHAPTER 7     ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS	 7-1
      7.1     Air Pollution Impacts	 7-1
      7.2     Water Pollution Impacts	 7-4
      7.3     Solid Waste Impacts	 7-5
      7.4     Energy Impacts	 7-6
      7.5     Other Environmental Impacts	 7-7
      7.6     Other Environmental Concerns	 7-7
      7.7     References for Chapter 7	 7-25
CHAPTER 8     COSTS	 8-1
      8.1     Cost Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives	 8-1
      8.2     Other Cost Considerations	 8-5
                                       VI

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
                                                                      Page
      8.3     References for Chapter 8	8-49
CHAPTER 9     ECONOMIC ANALYSIS	9-1
      9.1     Industry Profile	9-1
      9.2     Economic Impact Analysis	9-26
      9.3     Sodo-Economic Impact Assessment	9-45
      9.4     References for Chapter 9	9-47
APPENDIX A    EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT	A-l
APPENDIX B    INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS	B-l
APPENDIX C    EMISSION SOURCE TEST DATA	 C-l
      C.I     Data from EPA-Sponsored Tests on Carbon Adsorber
              Recovery Efficiencies	 C-l
      C.2     Data from Industry on Carbon Adsorber Recovery
              Efficiencies	C-2
      C.3     Data from State Compliance Tests	 C-3
      C.4     Data from EPA-Sponsored Tests for Related
              Industries	C-3
APPENDIX D    EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING	D-l
      D.I     Emission Measurement Test Program and Methods	D-l
      D.2     Performance Test Methods	0-7
      D.3     Monitoring Systems and Devices	D-15
      D.4     Test Method List and References	 D-19
APPENDIX E    ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS OF THE CONTROL
              OPTIONS	E-l
APPENDIX F    REVISED IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OF SOLVENT STORAGE
              TANKS	 F-l
              References for Appendix F	 F-17
                                    Vll

-------
                              LIST OF FIGURES
                                                                      Page
Figure 3-1    Annual Shipments of Blank Magnetic Tape	 3-9
Figure 3-2    Schematic Drawing of Magnetic Tape Coating Plant	3-10
Figure-3-3    Coating Head Configurations	 3-11
Figure 3-4    Metering-Type Coating Heads	 3-12
Figure 3-5    Air Flotation Drying Oven	 3-13
Figure 4-1    Diagrammatic Sketch of a Two-Unit, Fixed-Bed
              Adsorber	 4-4
Figure 4-2    Fluidized-Bed Carbon Adsorption System	 4-8
Figure 4-3    Schematic of Condensation System Using Nitrogen	 4-12
Figure 4-4    Flow Diagram of Condensation System Using An Air
              Atmosphere in the Drying Oven	 4-14
Figure 4-5    Diagram of Conservation Vent	 4-19
Figure 4-6    Schematic of Total Enclosure Ventilation System	 4-22
Figure 4-7    Schematics of Room Ventilation Systems	 4-23
Figure 6-1    Schematic of Coating Operation with VOC Capture
              Device and Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorption System	 6-9
                                    Vlll

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1     Matrix of Environmental and Economic Impacts of
              Regulatory Alternatives	 1-3
Table 3-1     Magnetic Tape Product Parameters	 3-14
Table 3-2     Plants Coating Magnetic Tape	 3-16
Table 3-3     Selected Coating Mix Properties	 3-18
Table 3-4     State Regulations on Emissions of Volatile Organic
              Compounds from the Magnetic Tape Coating  Industry	 3-19
Table 4-1     Control Devices Used on Coating Operations	 4-2
Table 4-2     Process Parameters for Magnetic Tape Plants Controlled
              by Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorbers	 4-5
Table 6-1     Land and Utility Requirements for Model Lines	 6-10
Table 6-2     Model Solvent Storage Tank Parameters	 6-12
Table 6-3     Model Mix Room Parameters	 6-13
Table 6-4     Model Coating Operation Parameters for Carbon Adsorber
              or Incinerator Control Options	 6-14
Table 6-5     Model Coating Operation Parameters for Condensers
              Recovering Cyclohexanone	 6-15
Table 6-6     Model Coating Operation Parameters for Condensers
              Recovering Solvent Mixtures	 6-16
Table 6-7     Control Options for Solvent Storage Tanks	 6-17
Table 6-8     Control Options for Coating Mix Room	 6-18
Table 6-9     Control Options for Coating Operations	 6-19
Table 6-10    Regulatory Alternatives and Control Device
              Configurations for Impact Analysis	 6-20
Table 6-11    Basis of Overall Control Level for Regulatory
              Alternatives	 6-21
                                      IX

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (continued)
                                                                      Page
Table 7-1     Regulatory Alternatives and Control Device
              Configurations for Impact Analysis	 7-9
Table 7-2     Annual VOC Emission Levels for Model Magnetic Tape
              Coating Lines	 7-10
Table 7-3     Annual VOC Emission Reduction Below Baseline for
              Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-11
Table 7-4     Estimated 1990 National VOC Emissions from Magnetic
              Tape Coating Lines	 7-12
Table 7-5     Annual Wastewater Discharges for the Control Equipment
              for Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-13
Table 7-6     Annual Waterborne VOC Emissions from the Control
              Equipment for Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-14
Table 7-7     Estimated 1990 National Wastewater Discharges from
              Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-15
Table 7-8     Estimated 1990 National Waterborne VOC Emissions from
              Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-16
Table 7-9     Solid Waste  Impacts of the Regulatory Alternatives on
              the Model Line	 7-17
Table 7-10    Estimated 1990 National Solid Waste  Impacts	 7-18
Table 7-11    Annual Electrical Energy Requirements for the Control
              Equipment of Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-19
Table 7-12    Annual Natural Gas Requirements for  the Control
              Equipment of Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-20
Table 7-13    Annual Steam Requirements for the Control Equipment
              for Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-21
Table 7-14    Total Annual Energy Demand of Control Equipment for
              Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 7-22
Table 7-15    Estimated 1990 National Energy Requirements for
              Magnetic Tape  Coating Lines	 7-24
Table 8-1     Model Solvent  Storage Tank Parameters	 8-6
Table 8-2     Model Mix Room Parameters	 8-7
                                       x

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

                                                                      Page

Table 8-3     Model Coating Operation Parameters for Carbon
              Adsorber or Incinerator Control Options	8-8

Table 8-4     Model Coating Operations Parameters for Condensers
              Recovering Cyclohexanone	 8-10

Table 8-5     Model Coating Operation Parameters for Condensers
              Recovering Solvent Mixtures	 8-12

Table 8-6     Bases for Estimating Capital and Annual1zed Costs
              of Magnetic Tape Coating Model Lines	 8-14

Table 8-7     Capital and Annual1zed Costs of Solvent Storage
              Tanks (Control Option I—Uncontrolled)	 8-16

Table 8-8     Capital and Annual1zed Costs of Model Mix Rooms
              and Coating Operations (Control Option 1—
              Uncontrol 1 ed)	 8-17

Table 8-9     Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and
              Annual 1zed Costs per Unit Area of Tape Coated, for
              Model Solvent Storage Tank Control Options	 8-19

Table 8-10    Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and
              Annual1zed Costs per Unit Area of Tape Coated, for
              Model Mix Room Control Options	 8-22

Table 8-11    Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and Annualized
              Costs per Unit Area of Tape Coated, for Model Coating
              Operations Using Carbon Adsorbers or Incinerators	 8-25

Table 8-12    Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and Annualized
              Costs per Unit Area of Tape Coated, for Model Coating
              Operations Using Condensers	 8-27

Table 8-13    Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and Annualized
              Costs per Unit Area of Tape Coated, for Research Model
              Lines for Each Regulatory Alternative	 8-28

Table 8-14    Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and Annualized
              Costs per Unit Area of Tape Coated, for Small Model
              Lines for Each Regulatory Alternative	 8-30

Table 8-15    Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and Annualized
              Costs per Unit Area of Tape Coated, for Typical  Model
              Lines for Each Regulatory Alternative	 8-32
                                     XI

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 8-16    Average Cost Effectiveness of Control Options with
              Respect to Uncontrolled Baseline (I) for Model
              Solvent Storage Tanks	 8-36

Table 8-17    Incremental Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory
              Alternatives for Model Solvent Storage Tanks	8-37

Table 8-18    Average Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives
              with Respect to Uncontrolled Baseline (I) for Model
              Mix Rooms	 8-39

Table 8-19    Incremental Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory
              Alternatives for Model Mix Room	 8-40

Table 8-20    Average Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives
              with Respect to Uncontrolled Baseline (I) for Model
              Coating Operations	 8-42

Table 8-21    Average Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives
              with Respect to Controlled Baseline  (IV) for Model
              Coating Operations  	 8-43

Table 8-22    Incremental Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory
              Alternatives for Model Coating Operations	 8-44

Table 8-23    Average and Incremental Cost Effectiveness of
              Regulatory Alternatives for Research Model Lines	8-45

Table 8-24    Average and Incremental Cost Effectiveness of
              Regulatory Alternatives for Small Model Lines	8-46

Table 8-25    Average and Incremental Cost Effectiveness of
              Regulatory Alternatives for Typical  Model Lines	8-47

Table 9-1     Market Shares of Producers of Finished Computer
              Recording Media with Facilities  in the U. S.
              (1981)	 9-4

Table 9-2     Estimated Total Value and Percent of U. S. Production
              of Blank Tape and Finished Audio, Video, and  Computer
              Recording Media Products, 1980 and 1981	9-7

Table 9-3     U. S.  Value of Finished Computer Recording Media	9-9

Table 9-4     Quantity and Retail Sales of Blank Audio Tape	 9-10

Table 9-5     Quantity and Retail Sales of Blank and Prerecorded
              Video  Tape	 9-11

                                     xii

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (continued)
                                                                      Page
Table 9-6     World Production of Magnetic Tape by Geographic
              Region	9-12

Table 9-7     Estimated World Production of Finished Flexible Disks
              by Geographical Area, 1979-1982	 9-14

Table 9-8     Sales of Computers by Major Categories	 9-15

Table 9-9     Shipments of Audio Equipment	 9-17

Table 9-10    Distributors' Prices of Selected Finished Magnetic
              Tape Products	9-20

Table 9-11    Derived Retail Prices of Blank Audio and Video
              Tape	9-23

Table 9-12    Growth of Finished Computer Storage Media by Type	 9-25

Table 9-13    Key Financial Statistics for Magnetic Tape Producing
              Companies	 9-27

Table 9-14    Preregulatlon Production Costs for Magnetic Tape
              Facilities by Size of Production Line	 9-34

Table 9-15    Regulatory Alternatives and Control Device
              Configurations	 9-36

Table 9-16    Total and Incremental Capital and Annual 1 zed Costs
              Associated with the Coating Operation, Mix Room, and
              Solvent Storage Tank Regulatory Alternatives for Small
              Model Plants	9-38

Table 9-17    Total and Incremental Capital and Annual 1zed Costs
              Associated with the Coating Operation, Mix Room, and
              Solvent Storage Tank Regulatory Alternatives for Typical
              Model Plants	9-39

Table 9-18    Maximum Percent Cost Increases for the Manufacturers
              of Coated Web Associated with the Coating Operation,
              Mix Room, and Solvent Storage Tank Regulatory
              Alternatives	 9-41

Table 9-19    Retail Price Increases for Audio Tape Products for
              the Coating Operation, Mix Room, and Solvent Storage
              Tank Regulatory Alternatives	 9-42
                                    Kill

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

                                                                      Page

Table 9-20    Retail Price Increases for Video Tape Products for
              the Coating Operation, Mix Room, and Solvent Storage
              Tank Regulatory Alternatives	9-43

Table 9-21    Retail Price Increases for Computer Recording Media
              Products for the Coating Operation, Mix Room, and
              Solvent Storage Tank Regulatory Alternatives	9-44

Table A-l     Evolution of the Background Information Document	A-2

Table B-l     Cross-Indexed Reference System to Highlight
              Environmental Impact Portions of the Document	 B-2

Table C-l     Adsorption Mode Data—Plant 2	 C-5

Table C-2     Summarized Carbon Adsorber VOC Removal
              Data—Plant 2	 C-7

Table C-3     Adsorption Mode Data—Plant 3	 C-8

Table C-4     Summary of Carbon Adsorber VOC Removal
              Data—Plant 3 	 C-10

Table C-5     Carbon Adsorber Operating Parameters for
              IBM Facility	 C-ll

Table C-6     Summary of Carbon Adsorber Efficiencies for IBM
              Facility in 1982	 C-12

Table C-7     Carbon Adsorber Operating Parameters for
              3M Facility 	 C-13

Table C-8     Summary of Carbon Adsorber Recovery Efficiencies
              for 3M Facility	 C-14

Table C-9     Calculation of the Amount of Solvent Applied During
              Compliance Test At Allied Media Technology	 C-15

Table C-10   Calculations of Amount of Solvent Recovered During
              Compliance Test at Allied Media Technology	 C-16

Table C-ll   Summary of Coating Line Operations at PSTL
              Faci 1 ity	 C-17

Table E-l     Control Option Configurations and Control Levels for
              Solvent Storage Tanks for Impact Analysis	 E-2
                                     XIV

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (continued)
                                                                      Page
Table E-2     Control Option Configurations and Control Levels for
              Mix Equipment for Impact Analysis	 E-3
Table E-3     Control Option Configurations and Control Levels for
              Coating Operation for Impact Analysis	 E-4
Table E-4     Summary of Annual VOC Emission Levels	 E-5
Table E-5     Estimated 1990 National VOC Emissions	 E-6
Table E-6     Annual Wastewater Discharges	 E-7
Table E-7     Annual Waterborne VOC Emissions	 E-8
Table E-8     Estimated 1990 National Wastewater Discharges	 E-9
Table E-9     Estimated 1990 National Waterborne VOC Emissions	 E-10
Table E-10    Annual Solid Waste Impacts	 E-ll
Table E-ll    National 1990 Solid Waste Impacts	 E-12
Table E-12    Annual Electrical Energy Requirements	 E-13
Table E-13    Annual Natural Gas Requirements for the Control
              Equipment of Model Magnetic Tape Coating Operations	 E-14
Table E-14    Annual Steam Requirements	 E-15
Table E-15    Total Annual Energy Demand	 E-16
Table E-16    Estimated National 1990 Energy Demand	 E-17
Table E-17    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              the Generation of Electrical Energy for the Control
              of Mix Equipment	 E-18
Table E-18    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              the Generation of Electrical Energy for the Control of
              Coating Operations	 E-19
Table E-19    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              the Generation of Electrical Energy for Control of
              Model Magnetic Tape Coating Lines	 E-20
Table E-20    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              the Combustion of Natural Gas for Control of Coating
              Operations and Line	 E-21
                                    xv

-------
                         LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table E-21    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              Steam Generation for Control of Solvent Storage
              Tanks	 E-22

Table E-22    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              Steam Generation for Control of Mix Equipment	 E-23

Table E-23    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              Steam Generation for Control of Coating Operation	 E-24

Table E-24    Summary of Annual Secondary Pollutant Emissions from
              Steam Generation for Control of Model Magnetic Tape
              Coating Lines	 E-25

Tible F-l     Model Solvent Storage Tank Parameters	 F-3
                                          ..*

Table F-2     Control Options for Solvent Storage Tanks	 F-4

Table F-3     Summary of Annual Storage Tank VOC Emission Levels	 F-5

Table F-4     Estimated 1990 Nationwide Storage Tank
              VOC Emissions	 F-6

Table F-5     Amount of Value of Recovered Solvents for
              Model Solvent Storage Tanks	 F-7

Table F-6     Capital Costs of Conservation Vents for Control
              of Solvent Storage Tanks	 F-9

Table F-7     Capital Costs of Pressure Relief Valves for
              Control of Solvent Storage Tanks	 F-10

Table F-8     Conservation Vent Annualized Costs for Control
              of Solvent Storage Tanks	 F-ll

Table F-9     Pressure Relief Valve Annual1zed Costs for
              Control of Solvent Storage Tanks	 F-12

Table F-10    Installed Capital and Annualized Costs, and Costs per
              Unit Area of Tape Coated, for Model Solvent Storage
              Tank Control Options	 F-13

Table F-ll    Average Cost Effectiveness  of Control Options with
              Respect to Baseline for Model Solvent Storage Tanks	F-15

Table F-12    Incremental Cost Effectiveness of Control Options
              for Model Solvent Storage Tanks	 F-16
                                    xvi

-------
                                1.  SUMMARY

1.1  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

     This background Information document (BID) supports proposal of the
new source performance standards for limiting emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) from the magnetic tape coating Industry.  The development
of standards of performance for new, modified, or reconstructed stationary
sources of air pollution were dictated by Section 111 of the Clean A1r Act
(42 USC 7411).  The sources of the VOC emissions are the solvent storage
tanks, coating mix preparation equipment, and coating operation.  The
regulatory alternatives considered are presented in Chapter 6.  Regulatory
Alternatives I and IV represent the baselines, the levels of control that
would be experienced in the absence of an NSPS, for plants located in ozone
attainment and nonattainment areas, respectively.  The remaining
alternatives represent additional control of emissions from the solvent
storage tanks, coating mix equipment, and coating operation in the magnetic
tape coating process.

     Alternative I represents uncontrolled solvent storage tanks, mix
preparation equipment, and coating operations in magnetic tape coating
plants and is the level of control presently required of plants located in
ozone attainment areas.  Alternative IV represents an overall control level
of 75 percent of the total emissions from the line and corresponds to the
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) requirement of 0.35 kg of VOC per liter
of coating (2.9 Ib VOC per gallon of coating) for existing paper coating
facilities and is based on application of reasonably available control
technology (RACT) to magnetic tape coating processes.  The 75 percent
control level of Alternative IV can be achieved by capturing all drying
oven emissions and by venting all of these emissions to a control device
that achieves 95 percent VOC control.

     Alternatives II and III represent control levels achievable from
control of storage tanks and mix room equipment only.  Alternative II
represents the estimated control level achievable by venting each storage
tank to the atmosphere through conservation vents and by placing sealed
covers on the individual pieces of equipment in the mix room and venting
the emissions from each of these to the atmosphere through conservation
vents.  This represents an overall control level of 4 percent of the total
emissions from the line.  The level of control represented by
Alternative III is achievable by installing conservation vents on the
storage tanks and by placing domed covers on the individual mix equipment
and venting the emissions to a control device that 1s 95 percent efficient.


                                    1-1

-------
This results 1n a 9 percent line control efficiency.  The option of
controlling solvent storage tank emissions by venting the tanks to a
control device was not evaluated 1n conjunction with the other emission
sources because of the high costs that would be associated with
installation of this system.

     Regulatory Alternatives V, VIII, and X are based on control of only
the solvent storage tanks with conservation vents and control of the
coating operation (appHcation/flashoff area and drying oven).
Alternative V is based on an overall VOC reduction of 78 percent.  The
control system for this alternative can be achieved by capturing
approximately 95 percent of all VOC emissions from the coating operation
and by venting all of these emissions through a control device that
achieves a 95 percent control efficiency.  Alternatives VIII and X are
based on essentially complete capture of all emissions from the coating
operation and control of these emissions by a 95 and 98 percent efficient
control device, respectively.  This results in an 83 percent control level
for Alternative VIII and a 85 percent control level for Alternative X.

     Regulatory Alternatives VI, VII, IX, and XIA through XIV represent
various combinations of control levels achievable by control of solvent
storage tanks and of both the mix room equipment and the coating
operation.  The control levels are the sum of the control levels for the
respective combinations of Alternatives II and III with IV, V, VIII, and X.

1.2  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

     The primary environmental pollutant from the magnetic tape coating
industry is the emission of VOC from the solvent storage tanks, mix
preparation equipment, and coating operation.  Emissions of VOC can
potentially cause an air pollution problem because they are precursors to
the formation of ozone and oxygenated organic aerosols (photochemical
smog).

     An overview of the potential environmental impacts that could result
from the implementation of the regulatory alternatives is presented in
Table  1-1.  The impacts summarized in Table 1-1 are for fixed-bed carbon
adsorbers, the most common control device in the magnetic tape coating
industry.  The impacts for other control devices are presented in
Chapters 7 and 8 and Appendix E.  The estimated effects shown in this table
are based on comparisons between the regulatory alternatives and
baseline.  For Regulatory Alternatives  II and III, baseline is Alter-
native I.  For Regulatory Alternatives V through XIV, baseline is
Alternative IV.  The impacts represent changes above or below the baseline
regulatory alternative.  Detailed analyses of the environmental and energy
impacts associated with each alternative are discussed in Chapter 7.

     Nationwide VOC emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed magnetic
tape coating lines were estimated for the years 1985 to 1990.  It is
projected that 21 new magnetic tape coating lines will be constructed by
1990.   Under Regulatory Alternative  I,  in 1990, emissions from new lines
                                     1-2

-------
TABLE 1-1.  MATRIX OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
      IMPACTS  OF  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES8•*
Administrative
action
Alternative I
0 percent control
Alternative II
4 percent control
Alternative III
9 percent control
Alternative IV
75 percent control
Alternative V
78 percent control
Alternative VI
79 percent control
Alternative VII
82 percent control
Alternative VIII
83 percent control
Alternative IX
84 percent control
Alternative X
85 percent control
Alternative XIA
87 percent control
Alternative XIB
87 percent control
Alternative XII
89 percent control
Alternative XIII
93 percent control
A1r
impact
(**)
0
+1
+2
0
+1
+1
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+2
+3
+3
Solid
Water waste.
impact0 Impact0
(*) (*)
0
0
0
0
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
0
_1
-1
0
-1
0
0
-1
0
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
+2
-1
-1
+2
-I
Energy
Impact
(***A
0
0
-2
0
-1
0
-1
-2
-2
-4
-2
-2
-4
-2
Noise Economic
impact Impact
(-) (*)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+1
-1
0
+1
+1
+1
+1
+1
-4
+2
+2
-3
+2
(continued)
                       1-3

-------
                         TABLE 1-1.  (continued)
                                         Solid
                         A1r     Water    waste.  Energy  Noise   Economic
                        Impact   Impact    impact   impact  impact   impact
                         (**)      (*)       (*)    (***)     (-)      (*)
Administrative
action
Alternative XIV
94 percent control
                          +3
-4
-4
Delayed standard
aBaseline is Alternative I for Alternatives  II  and  III.  Baseline  is
 Alternative IV for Alternatives V through XIV.
"The impacts presented are for fixed-bed  carbon  adsorbers, the most common
 control device in the magnetic tape  coating industry.
KEY
  -f-Benefidal impact              0~No  impact
  -Adverse impact                 I—Negligible  impact
  *Short-term impact              2—Small impact
 **Long-term impact               3—Moderate impact
***Irreversible impact            4—Large impact
                                    1-4

-------
would reduce emissions from new lines to 2,040 Mg (2,250 tons) 1n 1990.
The most stringent level of control, Alternative XIV, would reduce VOC
emissions 1n 1990 to 480 Mg (540 tons).  The Incremental Impact of Alter-
native XIV on the baseline control case (Alternative IV) would be to reduce
nationwide VOC emissions from magnetic tape coating lines by an additional
76 percent in 1990.

     Table 1-1 Indicates that the regulatory alternatives are likely to
cause negligible to moderate adverse impacts 1n terms of water quality and
solid waste generation.  The operation of fixed-bed carbon absorbers
produces wastewater containing dissolved organlcs.  There are no wastewater
discharges from fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers, incinerators, or condensa-
tion systems.  At most lines in this industry, the wastewater is currently
discharged to publicly owned treatment works.  Nationwide in 1990, the
total quantity of wastewater produced under Alternative IV would be
approximately 17 million liters (5 million gallons).  The implementation of
Regulatory Alternative XIII would cause the greatest Increase 1n
wastewater, 25 percent, compared to Alternative IV.  The operation of
fixed-bed and fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers generates some solid waste 1n
the form of waste carbon.  The total quantities of solid waste
(fluidized-bed) generated on a national basis in the year 1990 under
Alternative IV would be approximately 20 Mg (22 tons) and under
Alternative XIII would be approximately 21 Mg (23 tons).

     The VOC emission control equipment 1n the magnetic tape coating
industry utilizes energy in the forms of electricity, natural gas, and fuel
oil.  The amount of energy required increases with increasing levels of VOC
control.  Under Regulatory Alternative IV, in 1990, new magnetic tape
coating lines would require 119 terajoules (TJ) (113 billion Btu) of energy
to operate VOC emission control devices.  This is assuming that only carbon
adsorbers are installed to recover solvent emissions.  Regulatory
Alternative XIV (Incinerator) would require the largest amount of energy,
183 TJ (173 billion Btu).

     The noise levels attributable to air pollution control equipment are
not a significant problem in the magnetic tape coating industry.  Motors
and solvent laden air fans are responsible for the majority of the noise 1n
VOC control systems.  Only negligible increases in noise levels occur as a
result of Increasingly stricter regulatory alternatives.

1.3  ECONOMIC IMPACTS

     The economic impacts of each regulatory alternative are presented in
Table 1-1.  Cumulative capital control costs over the first 5 years would
be $19 million under Alternative XIII compared to $18 million for control
under the baseline, Alternative IV.  Fifth year annualized costs under
Alternative XIII would amount to $85,600 compared with the annual 1 zed cost
of $846,000 for the baseline alternative.  This is assuming only fixed-bed
carbon adsorbers are installed.

     The economic analyses Indicate that the worst-case maximum price
impact is 1.03 percent for Regulatory Alternative XIV.   The regulatory


                                    1-5

-------
alternatives would have little or no Impact on the Industry's growth rate
and structure.  Detailed analyses of the costs and the economic Impacts are
presented 1n Chapters 8 and 9.
                                     1-6

-------
                              2. INTRODUCTION

2.1  BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY FOR STANDARDS

     Before standards of performance are proposed as a Federal regulation,
air pollution control methods available to the affected industry and the
associated costs of installing and maintaining the control equipment are
examined in detail.  Various levels of control based on different
technologies and degrees of efficiency are expressed as regulatory
alternatives.  Each of these alternatives is studied by the EPA as a
prospective basis for a standard.  The alternatives are investigated 1n
terms of their impacts on the economics and well-being of the industry, the
Impacts on the national economy, and the impacts on the environment.  This
document summarizes the Information obtained through these studies so that
interested persons will be able to see the information considered by the
EPA in the development of the proposed standards.

     Standards of performance for new stationary sources are established
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) as amended,
hereafter referred to as the Act.  Section 111 directs the Administrator to
establish standards of performance for any category of new stationary
source of air pollution which "... causes, or contributes significantly
to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare."

     The Act requires that standards of performance for stationary sources
reflect "... the degree of emission limitation and the percentage
reduction achievable through application of the best technological system
of continuous emission reduction which (taking Into consideration the cost
of achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines
has been adequately demonstrated."  The standards apply only to stationary
sources, the construction or modification of which commences after the
standards are proposed in the Federal Register.

     The 1977 amendments to the Act altered or added numerous provisions
that apply to the process of establishing standards of performance.
Examples of the effects of the 1977 amendments are:

     1.  EPA is required to review the standards of performance every
4 years and, if appropriate, revise them.
                                    2-1

-------
     2.  EPA is authorized to promulgate a standard based on design,
equipment, work practice, or operational procedures when a standard based
on emission levels is not feasible.

     3.  The term "standards of performance" is redefined, and a new term
"technological system of continuous emission reduction" is defined.  The
new definitions clarify that the control system must be continuous and may
include a low- or nonpolluting process or operation.

     4.  The time between the proposal and promulgation of a standard under
Section 111 of the Act may be extended to 6 months.

     Standards of performance, by themselves, do not guarantee protection
of health or welfare because they are not designed to achieve any specific
air quality levels.  Rather, they are designed to reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through application of the best adequately
demonstrated technological system of continuous emission reduction, taking
into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, any
ncnair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements.

     Congress had several reasons for including these requirements.  First,
standards having a degree of uniformity are needed to avoid situations
where some States may attract industries by relaxing standards relative to
other States.  Second, stringent standards enhance the potential for long-
term growth.  Third, stringent standards may help achieve long-term cost
savings by avoiding the need for more expensive retrofitting when pollution
ceilings may be reduced in the future.  Fourth, certain types of standards
for coal-burning sources can adversely affect the coal market by driving up
the price of low-sulfur coal or by effectively excluding certain coals from
the reserve base due to their high untreated pollution potentials.
Congress does not intend that new source performance standards contribute
to these problems.  Fifth, the standard-setting process should create
incentives for improving technology.

     Promulgation of standards of performance does not prevent State or
local agencies from'adopting more stringent emission limitations for the
same sources.  States are free under Section 116 of the Act to establish
even more stringent emission limits than those established under
Section 111 or than those necessary to attain or maintain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under Section 110.  Thus, new sources
may  in some cases be subject to State limitations that are more stringent
than standards of performance under Section 111, and prospective owners and
operators of new sources should be aware of this possibility in planning
for such facilities.

     A similar situation may arise when a major emitting facility is to be
constructed in a geographic area that falls under the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality provisions of Part C of the Act.
These provisions require, among other things, that major emitting
facilities to be constructed in such areas are to be subject to best
                                     2-2

-------
available control technology.  The term "best available control technology"
(BACT), as defined 1n the Act, means

     ... an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of
     reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this Act
     emitted from or which results from any major emitting facility,
     which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking
     into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and
     other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through
     application of production processes and available methods,
     systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or
     innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such
     pollutant.  In no event shall application of "best available
     control technology" result in emissions of any pollutants which
     will exceed the emissions allowed by any applicable standard
     established pursuant to Sections 111 or 112 of this Act.
     (Section 169(3))

     Although standards of performance are normally structured in terms of
numerical emission limits where feasible, alternative approaches are
sometimes necessary.  In some cases, physical measurement of emissions from
a new source may be impractical or exorbitantly expensive.  Section lll(h)
provides that the Administrator may promulgate a design or equipment
standard in those cases where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
standard of performance.  For example, emissions of hydrocarbons from
storage vessels for petroleum liquids are greatest during tank filling.
The nature of the emissions (I.e., high concentrations for short periods
during filling and low concentrations for longer periods during storage)
and the configuration of storage tanks make direct emission measurement
impractical.  Therefore, a more practical approach to standards of
performance for storage vessels has been equipment specification.

     In addition, under Section lll(j) the Administrator may, with the
consent of the Governor of the State in which a source is to be located,
grant a waiver of compliance to permit the source to use an innovative
technological system or systems of continuous emission reduction.  In
order to grant the waiver, the Administrator must find that:  (1) the
proposed system has not been adequately demonstrated; (2) the proposed
system will operate effectively and there is a substantial likelihood
that the system will achieve greater emission reductions than the otherwise
applicable standards require or at least an equivalent reduction at
lower economic, energy, or nonair quality environmental cost; (3) the
proposed system will not cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to
public health, welfare, or safety; and (4) the waiver when combined with
other similar waivers, will not exceed the number necessary to achieve
conditions (2) and (3) above.  A waiver may have conditions attached to
ensure the source will not prevent attainment of any NAAQS.  Any such
condition will be treated as a performance standard.  Finally, waivers
have definite end dates and may be terminated earlier If the conditions
are not met or if the system fails to perform as expected.  In such a
                                    2-3

-------
case, the source may be given up to 3 years to meet the standards and a
mandatory compliance schedule will be imposed.

2.2  SELECTION OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONARY SOURCES

     Section 111 of the Act directs the Administrator to list categories of
stationary sources.  The Administrator "... shall include a category of
sources in such list if in his judgment it causes, or contributes
significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare."  Proposal and promulgation of standards
of performance are to follow.

     Since passage of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, considerable
attention has been given to the development of an approach for assigning
priorities to various source categories.  The approach specifies areas of
interest by considering the broad strategy of the Agency for implementing
the Clean Air Act.  Often, these areas are pollutants that are emitted by
stationary sources rather than the stationary sources themselves.  Source
categories that emit these pollutants were evaluated and ranked considering
such factors as: (1) the level of emission control (if any) already
required by State regulations; (2) estimated levels of control that might
be required from standards of performance for the source category; (3)
projections of growth and replacement of existing facilities for the source
category; and (4) the estimated incremental amount of air pollution that
could be prevented in a preselected future year by standards of performance
for the source category.  Sources for which new source performance
standards were promulgated or under development during 1977, or earlier,
were selected using these criteria.

     The Act amendments of August 1977 establish specific criteria to be
used in determining priorities for all source categories not yet listed by
the EPA.  These are: (1) the quantity of air pollutant emissions which each
such category will emit, or will be designed to emit; (2) the extent to
which each such pollutant may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare; and  (3) the mobility and competitive nature of each such
category of sources and the consequent need for nationally applicable new
source standards of performance.

     The Administrator  is to promulgate standards for these categories
according to the schedule referred to earlier.

     In some cases, it may not be immediately feasible to develop standards
for a source category with a high priority.  This might happen if a
program of research is  needed to develop control techniques or if techniques
for sampling and measuring emissions require refinement.  In the developing
of standards, differences in the time required to complete the necessary
investigation for different source categories must also be considered.
For example, substantially more time may be necessary if numerous pollutants
must be investigated from a single source category.  Further, even late
in the development process, the schedule for completion of a standard may
change.  For example,  inability to obtain emission data from we11-controlled
sources in time to pursue the development process in a systematic fashion


                                     2-4

-------
may force a change 1n scheduling.  Nevertheless, priority ranking 1s, and
will continue to be, used to establish the order 1n which projects are
Initiated and resources assigned.

     After the source category has been chosen, the types of facilities
within the source category to which the standard will apply must be
determined.  A source category may have several facilities that cause air
pollution, and emissions from these facilities may vary according to
magnitude and control cost.  Economic studies of the source category and of
applicable control technology may show that air pollution control is better
served by applying standards to the more severe pollution sources.  For
this reason, and because there is no adequately demonstrated system for
controlling emissions from certain facilities, standards often do not apply
to all facilities at a source.  For the same reasons, the standards may not
apply to all air pollutants emitted.  Thus, although a source category may
be selected to be covered by standards of performance, not all pollutants
or facilities within that source category may be covered by the
standards.

2.3  PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

     Standards of performance must: (1) realistically reflect best
demonstrated control practice; (2) adequately consider the cost, the nonair
quality health and environmental Impacts, and the energy requirements of
such control; (3) be applicable to existing sources that are modified or
reconstructed as well as to new Installations; and (4) meet these
conditions for all variations of operating conditions being considered
anywhere In the country.

     The objective of a program for development of standards is to identify
the best technological system of continuous emission reduction that has
been adequately demonstrated.  The standard-setting process involves three
principal phases of activity:  (1) information gathering; (2) analysis of
the information; and (3) development of the standard of performance.

     During the Information gathering phase, industries are questioned
through telephone surveys, letters of inquiry, and plant visits by EPA
representatives.  Information is also gathered from other sources,
including a literature search.  Based on the Information acquired about the
industry, the EPA selects certain plants at which emission tests are
conducted to provide reliable data that characterize the pollutant
emissions from we11-controlled existing facilities.

     In the second phase of a project, the information about the industry
and the pollutants emitted is used in analytical studies.  Hypothetical
"model plants" are defined to provide a common basis for analysis.  The
model plant definitions, national pollutant emission data, and existing
State regulations governing emissions from the source category are then
used in establishing "regulatory alternatives."  These regulatory
alternatives are essentially different levels of emission control.
                                    2-5

-------
     The EPA conducts studies to determine the Impact of each regulatory
alternative on the economics of the Industry and on the national economy,
on the environment, and on energy consumption.  From several alternatives,
the EPA selects the single most plausible regulatory alternative as the
basis for standards of performance for the source category under study.

     In the third phase of a project, the selected regulatory alternative
is translated into performance standards, which, in turn, are written in
the form of a Federal regulation.  The Federal regulation, when applied to
newly constructed plants, will limit emissions to the levels Indicated in
the selected regulatory alternative.

     As early as is practical in each standard-setting project, EPA
representatives discuss the possibilities of a standard and the form it
might take with members of the National Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee.  Industry representatives and other Interested parties
also participate in these meetings.

     The information acquired 1n the project is summarized 1n the
background information document (BID).  The BID, the proposed standard, and
a preamble explaining the standard are widely circulated to the Industry
being considered for control, environmental groups, other government
agencies, and offices within the EPA.  Through this extensive review
process, the points of view of expert reviewers are taken into
consideration as changes are made to the documentation.

     A  "proposal package" 1s assembled and sent through the offices of EPA
assistant administrators for concurrence before the proposed standard is
officially endorsed by the EPA Administrator.  After being approved by the
EPA Administrator, the preamble and the proposed regulation are published
in the  Federal Register.

     As part of the Federal Register announcement of the proposed
regulation, the public is invited to participate in the standard-setting
process.  The EPA  invites written comments on the proposal and also holds a
public  hearing to  discuss the proposed standard with Interested parties.
All public comments are summarized and incorporated into a second volume of
the BID.  All information reviewed and generated in studies in support of
the standard of performance is available to the public in a "docket" on
file  in Washington, D.C.

      Comments from the public are evaluated, and the standard of
performance may be altered in response to the comments.

      The significant comments and the EPA's position on the issues raised
are included in the "preamble" of a promulgation package, which also
contains the draft of the final regulation.  The regulation is then
subjected to another round of review and refinement until it is approved by
the EPA Administrator.  After the Administrator signs the regulation, 1t is
published as a "final rule" in the Federal Register.
                                     2-6

-------
2.4  CONSIDERATION OF COSTS

     Section 317 of the Act requires an economic Impact assessment with
respect to any standard of performance established under Section 111 of the
Act.  The assessment 1s required to contain an analysis of:  (1) the costs
of compliance with the regulation, Including the extent to which the cost
of compliance varies depending on the effective date of the regulation and
the development of less expensive or more efficient methods of compliance;
(2) the potential inflationary and recessionary effects of the regulation;
(3) the effects the regulation might have on small business with respect to
competition; (4) the effects of the regulation on consumer costs; and
(5) the effects of the regulation on energy use.  Section 317 requires that
the economic impact assessment be as extensive as practicable.

     The economic impact of a proposed standard upon an industry is usually
addressed both 1n absolute terms and by comparison with the control costs
that would be incurred as a result of compliance with typical, existing
State control regulations.  An incremental approach is taken because both
new and existing plants would be required to comply with State regulations
1n the absence of a Federal standard of performance.  This approach
requires a detailed analysis of the economic impact of the cost
differential that would exist between a proposed standard of performance
and the typical State standard.

     A1r pollutant emissions may cause water pollution problems, and
captured potential air pollutants may pose a solid waste disposal
problem.  The total environmental impact of an emission source must,
therefore, be analyzed and the costs determined whenever possible.

     A thorough study of the profitability and price-setting mechanisms of
the industry is essential to the analysis so that an accurate estimate of
potential adverse economic impacts can be made for proposed standards.  It
is also essential to know the capital requirements for pollution control
systems already placed on plants so that the additional capital
requirements necessitated by these Federal standards can be placed in
proper perspective.  Finally, it is necessary to assess the availability of
capital to provide the additional control equipment needed to meet the
standards of performance.

2.5  CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

     Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 requires Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental impact
statements on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.  The
objective of NEPA Is to build into the decision-making process of Federal
agencies a careful consideration of all environmental aspects of proposed
actions.

     In a number of legal challenges to standards of performance for
various industries, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
                                    2-7

-------
of Columbia Circuit has held that environmental Impact statements need not
be prepared by the Agency for proposed actions under Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act.  Essentially, the Court of Appeals has determined that the
best system of emission reduction requires the Administrator to take into
account counterproductive environmental effects of proposed standards, as
well as economic costs to the industry.  On this basis, therefore, the
Courts established a narrow exemption from NEPA for EPA determinations
under Section 111.

     In addition to these judicial determinations, the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA) of 1974 (PL-93-319) specifically
exempted proposed actions under the Clean Air Act from NEPA requirements.
According to Section 7(c)(l), "No action taken under the Clean Air Act
shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969."  (15 U.S.C. 793(c)(l))

     Nevertheless, the Agency has concluded that the preparation of
environmental impact statements could have beneficial effects on certain
regulatory actions.  Consequently, although not legally required to do so
by Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, the EPA has adopted a policy requiring that
environmental impact statements be prepared for various regulatory actions,
including standards of performance developed under Section 111 of the
Act.  This voluntary preparation of environmental impact statements,
however, in no way legally subjects the Agency to NEPA requirements.

     To implement this policy, a separate section is included in this
document which is devoted solely to an analysis of the potential
environmental impacts associated with the proposed standards.  Both adverse
and beneficial impacts in such areas as air and water pollution, increased
solid waste disposal, and increased energy consumption are discussed.

2.6  IMPACT ON EXISTING SOURCES

     Section  111 of the Act defines a new source as ". . . any stationary
source, the construction or modification of which is commenced ..." after
the proposed  standards are published.  An existing source is redefined as a
new source if "modified" or "reconstructed" as defined in amendments to the
General Provisions (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A), which were promulgated in
the Federal Register on December  16, 1975 (40  FR 58416).

     Promulgation of standards of performance  requires States to establish
standards of  performance for existing sources  in the same industry under
Section lll(d) of the Act if the  standard for  new sources limits emissions
of a designated pollutant (i.e.,  a pollutant for which air quality criteria
have not been issued under Section 108 or which has not been listed as a
hazardous pollutant under Section 112).   If a  State does not act, the EPA
must establish such standards.  General procedures for control of existing
sources under Section  lll(d) were promulgated  on November 17, 1975, as
Subpart B of  40 CFR Part 60  (40 FR 53340).
                                     2-8

-------
2.7  REVISION OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

     Congress was aware that the level of air pollution control achievable
by any Industry may Improve with technological advances.  Accordingly,
Section 111 of the Act provides that the Administrator ". . . shall, at
least every 4 years, review and, 1f appropriate, revise ..." the
standards.  Revisions are made to ensure that the standards continue to
reflect the best systems that become available 1n the future.  Such
revisions will not be retroactive but will apply to stationary sources
constructed or modified after the proposal of the revised standards.
                                    2-9

-------
                3.   THE MAGNETIC TAPE  MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
                     PROCESSES AND POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
3.1  GENERAL
     This chapter describes the magnetic tape coating industry, the
processes used in this industry, the sources of pollutant emissions, and
the factors affecting emissions.

3.1.1  Industry Description

     The magnetic tape coating industry is included in two Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) codes:  3679, "Electronic Components Not
Elsewhere Classified," and 3573, "Electronic Computing Equipment."  In the
manufacturing process, a mixture of magnetic particles, resins, and
solvents is coated on a thin plastic film.  The emissions of concern are
volatile organic compounds (VOC) that result primarily from the
vaporization of solvents in the storage tanks, in the coating mix
preparation area, 1n the coating application/flashoff area, and in the
drying oven.  The drying oven is the largest emission source.

     Magnetic tape is used for audio and video recording and computer
information storage.  Other uses of magnetic tape include magnetic cards,
credit cards, bank transfer ribbons, instrumentation tape, and dictation
tape.  Table 3-1 presents a summary of the physical parameters of products
in the three major magnetic tape categories.

     Table 3-2 presents the names and locations of the domestic plants that
coat magnetic tape and the type of tape produced.  There are 30 plants,
representing 24 companies, in 15 States.  Unlike many manufacturing
processes, magnetic tape coating is not restricted to select regions of the
country by raw material or market requirements.  California, with
11 plants, has the largest population.  Seventeen (56 percent) of the
plants coat only one major type of product, eleven (37 percent) coat two
major types, and two (7 percent) coat thr^e major types.  Each plant
contains from one to seven coating lines.   Other related activities that
may take place at these plants include audio tape prerecording, record
production, and production of plastic cassette reels.

3.1.2  Industry Growth

     The magnetic tape recording industry began in the late 1940's with
reel-to-reel audio tape recorders.  Commercial industrial development of


                                    3-1

-------
video and computer tape began 1n the 1950's, and indlvidua] home use of
these products has increased greatly since the mid-1970's.   Magnetic tape
production from 1976 to 1981 is shown in Figure 3-1.  In 1981, the. total
quantity of magnetic tape shipped was approximately 736,000,000 m
(-7,925,000,000 ft ), of which 50 percent was audio tape, 31 percent was
computer tape, and 19 percent was video and instrumentation tape.   For
further details of the historical growth in this industry, see
Section 9.1.

     Of the three major magnetic tape categories, computer and video tape
products are expected to experience the most rapid growth and audio tape
products are expected to experience almost negligible growth. ~ .  Flexible
disk |a]es are expected to increase from 30 to 45 percent through
1990. ~   Two estimates of increased video tape production, based on
consumption of plastic film, projec^ an average annual growth of
-25 percent through the decade.  »

3.2  PROCESSES AND THEIR EMISSIONS

3.2.1  Process Descriptions

     The process for manufacturing magnetic tape consists of mixing the
coating ingredients (including the solvents), conditioning the base film,
applying the coating to the base film, orienting the magnetic particles,
removing the solvents by evaporation in a drying oven, and finishing the
tape by calendering, rewinding, slitting, testing, and packaging.  The
magnetic particles are bonded to the tape by a permanent coating.  Solvents
are added to the coating mix to reduce viscosity and increase flow
properties, allowing the coating to be applied more uniformly.  The
solvents must subsequently be removed.  In some cases, removal of the
solvent causes the coating to harden; other coatings are chemically
reactive and cure through polymerization of the resin oligomers.
Figure 3-2 presents a schematic of a magnetic tape coating line.  The VOC
emissions are produced primarily during coating and drying of the tape and
in lesser amounts during solvent storage, mix preparation, and cleaning of
the equipment.

     3.2.1.1  Raw Materials.  Magnetic tape has two components, the
magnetic coating and the base support or web to which this coating is
applied.  Several types of base films have been used, but polyester is the
most common type currently used because it has the best combination of
chemical and mechanical properties, availability, and cost.    Polyester
film can be used with any magnetic tape coating formulation.  The thickness
of the base film varies with the product, ranging from 5.1 to 192 urn (0.20
to 7.50 mils). »  *    The width of the film ranges from 7.6 to 122 cm  (3
to 48  in.).

     The exact composition of the coating may vary slightly with the
desired end use of the magnetic tape and the desired quality of
reproduction.  However, the basic components (magnetic particles, binder,
solvents) are the same for all types of tape.  Table 3-3 presents coating
composition ranges by both weight and volume.


                                     3-2

-------
     Four types of magnetic particles are used in magnetic tape:
oxides, doped iron oxides, chromium dioxide, and metajjic particles that
usually consist of elemental iron, cobalt, or nickel.    The magnetic
particles normally make up about 10 to 39 percent (by weight) of the
coating mix. 5»

     The binder (resin or cross-linker) is an organic polymer that holds
the magnetic material together in a flexible matrix that adheres to the
base film.  Most coating mixes^contain thermoset binders, particularly
polyurethanes and polyvinyls.    Jbecoating mix normally contains about 2
to 20 percent (by weight) binder.  »

     Solvents are used to dissolve the binder polymers and to provide a
fluid medium for the dispersion of particles in the coating mix.    The
major solvents used in the coating mix are tetrahydrofuran (THF), methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), toluene, and cyclo-
hexanone.   Various combinations of up to five of the solvents may be
used.   Factors affecting solvent selection are toxicity, availability,
cost, ease of solvent recovery after u^e^desired rate of evaporation, and
effect on solvent recovery equipment.  » l  The solvent in the coating mix
ranges from 50 to 85 percent (by weight).   The evaporation of these
solvents is the primary source of the VOC emissions from the coating
facilities.

     Other coating components include:  (1) dispersants (1 to 5 percent by
weight), to aid in deagglomeration of the magnetic particles;
(2) conductive pigments (1 to 4 percent by weight), to prevent the buildup
of static charge; (3) lubricants (less than 2 percent by weight), to
minimize head-tape friction, and thus, wear on the tape; and
(4) miscellaneous additives (1 to 3 percent by weight), such as
abrasives for cleaning the head or fungicides to control mildew.

     3.2.1.2  Storage of Solvent.  Generally, small tanks are used to store
solvents used in the production of tape.  These tanks may be horizontal or
vertical and are sometimes below ground.  The tanks operate at atmospheric
pressure or slightly above atmospheric pressure.  Typically, there are from
5 to 12 tanks ranging in capacity from 3,800 liters (1,000 gal) to
75,700 liters (20,000 gal) at a plant.  '*

     3.2.1.3  Preparation of Coating Mix.  The coating mix preparation room
is separate from the coating line.  One room may contain the mix
preparation equipment for all the lines at the plant.  One set of mix
equipment can be used for more than one line or product.  The number of
pieces of mix equipment serving a line or product varies widely.

     The coating mix can be prepared on a batch or a continuous basis.
The process begins with the blendiog of the components in low shear
mixers.  The mix is then transferred to a series of mills (ball, high
speed, colloid, small media, or roll), where the dispersing action of
beads, combined with the high shearing forces of the centrifugal mixing
action, thoroughly disperse the aggregates of magnetic particles without
reducing particle size.  The final step in the process is polishing


                                    3-3

-------
where the conductive carbon black is added.  The completed mix is then
continuously filtered 1n holding tanks.  "    Table 3-3 presents the range
of values for selected properties of coating mixes used in the industry.

     3.2.1.4  Conditioning.  Prior to the application of the coating mix,
the web must be prepared.  Some precision products, such as videotape, have
a nonmagnetic coating on the back of the tape (backcoating) that provides a
conductive surface that minimi^s^tatic buildup, enhances handling, and
increases abrasion resistance.  »    Backcoating is done prior to
application of the magnetic coating, using the same solvents and the same
equipment as are used in coating the tape with the magnetic material.
The thickness of the backcoat generally ranges from 1.0 to 1.5 ym (0.04 to
0.06 mils).

     As the web is unwound, it can be cleaned by wet or dry methods.  It is
then^assed over rollers, which may be heated, to remove wrinkles from the
web.

     3.2.1.5  Coating.  In the coater, the web passes over a backup or
support roll while the coating mix is applied either by another roll or by
extrusion under pressure through a narrow slot in a die.  The layer of wet
coating mix applied ranges in thickness from 2.4 to 63.5 ym (0.09 to
2.5 mils).   The amount of coating mix applied by a coater is precisely
measured and controlled.

     There are four types of coaters used for production of all types of
magnetic tape:  extrusion (slot die), gravure, knife, and reverse roll
(3-roll and 4-roll).    Figures 3-3 and 3-4 present schematic drawings of
these coaters.  Coaters range from 7.6 to 122 cm (3 to 48 in.) in width and
operate at speeds ranging from^S to 198 meters per minute (m/min)  (175 to
650 feet per minute [ft/m1n]).   Extrusion and gravure coaters apply
coatings uniformly at speeds in the higher end of the range.  Knife coaters
are not typically used in the manufacture of precision products such as
computer tape.  Reverse roll co,|te.r,s are used In tape manufacturing when
thicker coatings are required.   »    The range of coating mix viscosity
that can be applied varies with the type of coater.

     Immediately following the coater, the web is guided through an
orientation field consisting of an electromagnet or permanent magnet, which
aligns the individual magnetic particles 1n the direction of the intended
recording.  Webs from wh|^h3flexible disks are produced do not go through
the orientation process.   »

     High performance tapes require clean working conditions, especially in
the coating application and oven areas, where dirt and unclean work areas
may  lead to poor tape quality.

     3.2.1.6  Drying.  The coated web  then passes through a drying  oven,
where the solvents in the coating mix  evaporate.  Figure 3-5 presents a
schematic of an air flotation oven, the type of oven typically used 1n
                                     3-4

-------
this Industry.  In this oven, the web is supported on both sides by jets of
drying air and never touches any metal, thus reducing abrasion and
deformation and eliminating the need for reorientatlon of the magnetic
particles after drying.  Ovens range from 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft) in width
and 12.2 to 30.5 m (40 to 100 ft) in length.  »    Oven temperatures range
from 36° to 132°C (97° to 270°F).

     The airflow within the oven is countercurrent to the direction the web
is traveling.  The air is conditioned before entering the oven to remove
dust particles and to adjust the temperature and humidity.  Air from other
parts of the coating line may be used, and the air may be recirculated
within the oven.  The airflow rate in the oven is adjusted so that the
solvent concentration is maintained between 10 and 40 percent of the lower
explosive limit (LEL) of the solvent/air mixture for the particular solvent
or solvent mix used.   Total individual oven exhaust flow rates range from
1.2 to -5.7 standard m /s (2,500 to 12,000 standard cubic feet per minute
[scfm]).   The higher airflows include some air from the coater that is
routed through the oven.  Airflow rates vary with the line size, solvent
evaporation rates, and company practice.

     3.2.1.7  Finishing Processes.  The dry coated web is passed between
several calendering rolls that compact the coating and smooth the surface
finish.  »  »    The amount of calendering perform^ varies with the
product, and not all products require compressing.    The final dry coating
thickness on the web ranges from 1.0 to^O.8 ym (0.04 to 0.4 mils)
depending on the product specification.

     Nondestructive quality testing is performed on up to 100 percent of
the final product.  The percentage of tape tested increases as the level of
precision required in the final product increases.  The web may then be
slit into the desired tape widths by means of a rotary shearing
operation.  Flexible disks are ngj: slit; instead, dies are used to punch
the disks from the finished web.    The final product is then packaged.
Some plants ship the coated webs in bulk to other facilities for slitting
and packaging.

3.2.2  Uncontrolled VOC Emissions

     3.2.2.1  Sources of Emissions and Factors Affecting Emissions.  The
VOC emissions are released from several points in the production of
magnetic tape.  These sources are identified in Figure 3-2.  The potential
uncontrolled VOC emissions from a facility are no less than the total
amount of solvent used in the coatings and in cleanup of the coater and the
ancillary equipment.  All of the solvent from the coating operations will
evaporate.  Information on total solvent use in coatings in 1979 at 16
magnetic tape facilities shows that annual uncontrolled VOC emissions from
coating operations at individual facilties ranged from 230 to 4,630 Mg (253
to 5,100 tons).  The estimated average annual uncontrolled emissions rate
from these facilities was 1,673 Mg (1,844 tons) per year. 9  Factors
affecting the rate and location of VOC emissions are discussed below.
                                    3-5

-------
     Emissions from outdoor solvent storage tanks result from both working
losses and breathing losses due to diurnal temperature changes.  The VOC
emissions depend on the tank size, solvent vapor pressure, number of volume
turnovers, and temperature.

     In the coating preparation room, VOC's are emitted from the individual
mixers and holding tanks, from the transfer of the coating mix between
equipment, and from intermittent activities such as changing the filters in
the holding tanks.  The emissions will be intermittent or continuous,
depending on whether the method of preparation is batch or continuous.
There are no VOC emissions from mills that are permanently sealed and
operate under pressure.

     Emissions from the coating area come from the evaporative loss of
solvent around the coating head and from the exposed web as it travels from
the coater to the oven entrance.  The magnitude of these losses is a
function of line width and speed, coating thickness, volatility of the
solvent(s), temperature, distance between coater and oven, and air
turbulence in the coating area.

     In the drying oven, the rate of evaporation of the solvents is
affected by the temperature, airflow rate and direction, and the line
speed.  The airflow rate is adjusted to keep the VOC level below the LEL.

     Of the total VOC emissions from the mix preparation room and the
coating operation (coater head and drying oven), approximately 10 percent
are emitted from the mix room and approximately 90 percent from the coating
line.    Of the total VOC emissions from the coating operation,
approximately 10 percent are emitted frgip the application/flashoff area and
approximately 90 percent from the oven.    Because the oven evaporates all
of the solvent f^om the coating, there are no VOC emissions from the steps
after the oven.

     Information on 15 facilities in 1979 shows that the amount of solvent
used for cleaning of coating equipment varied from 0 to 18 percent of the
total solvent used at the plants; the average was 6 percent.    Much of
this solvent stays in the liquid phase and can be reused or is disposed in
accordance with solid waste and water quality regulations.

     3.2.2.2  Total Industry Uncontrolled Emissions.  All the solvent used
in the coating of magnetic tape is volatilized and, if not recovered or
destroyed, could be released to the atmosphere.  Thus, potential total
industry uncontrolled emissions from coating operations are approxi-
mately equal to the total amount of solvent used by the industry in the
coating operation.  Data on total solvent use in coatings in 1979 at
16 facilities were used to estimate an average solvent use of 1,672 Mg
(1,844 tons) per facility.  Multiplying the average use value by the
number of operating facilities using significant amounts of solvents  in
1979 (21) resulted in an estimated 35,100 Mg (38,700 tons) of potentially
uncondoned VOC emissions from magnetic tape coating operations nation-
wide.
                                     3-6

-------
3.3  BASELINE

     The baseline emission level represents the level of control that 1s
expected without a new source performance standard.  Typically, this level
of control reflects the emission levels required under existing State
regulations.  The baseline 1s used to evaluate the Impacts of the
regulatory alternatives to be selected for analysis.

3.3.1  Existing Emission limits

     Table 3-4 summarizes the State and local regulations applicable to VOC
emissions from magnetic tape coating plants.  Eleven States (with 16
plants) limit VOC emissions to 0.35 kg/a (2.9 Ib/gal) of coating applied,
excluding water.  This level of control is required by an existing Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document.    One State and two of California's
air quality districts (with a total of seven plants) limit VOC emissions to
0.12 kg/a (1.0 Ib/gal) of coating.  For 15 States, the National Ambient A1r
Quality Standard for ozone is the only applicable regulation.  Of the 35
States without existing magnetic tape coating plants, 18 have applicable
emission limits of 0.35 kg/ft (2.9 Ib/gal) of coating applied, excluding
water.  Ten of these have exemptions for sources using or emitting less
than a specified amount of coating or VOC's.

     An examination of attainment and nonattainment area policies show that
the majority of magnetic tape facilities will be subject to regulations no
more stringent than that required by the CTG document.

3.3.2  Determination of Baseline Level

     Because there are few State or local regulations that require controls
on storage tanks less than or equal to 76 m  (20,000 gal) or coating
preparation equipment, the baseline level for these sources is no control
(0 percent) on all new plants.

     Two baseline levels were established for the coating operation
(application/flashoff area and oven) based on existing State and local
regulations.  Some State regulations for ozone attainment areas would allow
small new coating operations to be uncontrolled.  Also, despite the
potential for net credits resulting from solvent recovery, there are
existing plants that do not control emissions from this source.  Therefore,
an uncontrolled (0 percent reduction) baseline was established.

     Existing State and local regulations and the positive economics of
solvent recovery necessitated the establishment of a second baseline level
of control for the coating operation.  Emissions from coating operations in
ozone nonattainment areas are limited to 0.35 kilograms of VOC emitted per
liter of coating applied (2.9 pounds of VOC emitted per gallon of coating
applied).  Assuming a typical coating composition of 0.72 kilogram of VOC
per liter of coating (6 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating) [3.5 kilograms
of VOC per liter of solids (29 pounds of VOC per gallon of solids)], a
baseline level equivalent to an 83 percent reduction of VOC emissions from
an uncontrolled coating operation was established.


                                    3-7

-------
   ft2
    7 ..  0.065
u. o
O ~H
          0.074
    6 -•  0.056
    5 -'  0.046
    4 "  0.037
    3  "  0.028
        '  0.019
       --  0.009
                                                                    AUDIO
                                                            VIDEO AND
                                                            INSTRUMENTATION
                                       1	1-
                 1976       1977
1978


 YEAR
1979        1980       1981
        Figure 3-1.   Annual  shipments of  blank  magnetic tape.
                                                                      3-5,47
                                        3-S

-------
                                                    C
                                                    (0
                                                    o>
                                                    (0
                                                    o
                                                    o

                                                    0)
                                                    CL
                                                    03
                                                    (U
                                                    c
                                                    CD

                                                    i
                                                    o>
                                                    c
                                                    • I—

                                                    (0

                                                    TD
                                                    03

                                                    O>
                                                    -c
                                                    u
                                                    CO
                                                    CSJ
                                                     I
                                                    <•*•>

                                                     01


                                                     01
3-9

-------
           COATING KNIFE
                            COATING MIX
TURN ROLL
                                  SLOT DIE
                ft:
                                             f
                                                          WEB
     WEB
                     SUPPORT ROLL
            SUPPORT
            CHANNEL

        FLOATING KNIFE COATER         EXTRUSION  (SLOT DIE)  COATER
               Figure 3-3.  Coating head configurations,
                                 3-10

-------
                       RUBBER  ROLL
                     ENGRAVED
                      ROLL
                    COATING PAN
                                                  WEB


                                         DOCTOR BLADE
                       GRAVURE COATER
        DOCTOR
        ROLL
BACKING
  ROLL
                                    METERING
                                      ROLL
                                  BACKING
                                    ROLL
                          TRANSFER
                          ROLL
                                 TRANSFE
                                   ROLL
         COATING PAN
                                                  WEB
                                       COATING
                                         PAN
FOUR-ROLL REVERSE-ROLL COATER     THREE-ROLL REVERSE-ROLL COATER
            Figure  3-4.  Metering-type coating  heads.
                                3-11

-------
«=c
h-


I—
00
                                                                       00
                                                                       J-
                                                                         c
                                                                         
                                                                        T3
                                                                         i
                                                                        n

                                                                        at
                                                                        s_
                                                                        ^
                                                                        cr>
                                       3-12

-------
























eg
• 1 1
1—
UJ

^£
eg
^£
a.
i^
H~
a
o
eg
a_

UJ
a.
t—
o
^H
1—
UJ
i

i— i
i
CO
Ijj
03
^
^_
a







s*
•r—

id
O
0
CO








3
n

n
T

•o
3





3
n
n
j>
!•
£
C7)
C
CO
1

















a

,f_
s





a
S







d

E





a

-t




c
•r-











l|_



g





















CO  CM CM «d- in in
• • • • • • • «— i in
*— 1 CM CM O «-• t-H r-t . .
o o




1 1 1
I-HO ^"r»»o CMcn oo en
• in in • • co» ••
CO CM CM in CO CO
CO «— 1 CO CO .-1

-Q J2
in «a- in co in co in in in in in in CM in
• r-tCMCMCM ,-H,— 1 CMCM CMCM CM
f\ •••• •• •• •• •
o o co in o o oo oo o




ja .a
COVO^CMCOCO CO CO ^^f 'Sf'^' «— 1^
i— i • • oo co o •• •• •• in*
CO VO i— 1 CM CO CO VO VO VO VO VO
1 1 1
o o o vo i o o m in o CM ooo o o
o en in • o o CM oo o CM o o •* o o
«3- CM«-IO CMOCMOO ^T *rcnvo in co
• •«» « ««*«!
CM r* o oo co co CM t-i
1 1 1
CM oovocMi incocno o en o «a- o CM en
co oo^« cn^vorv. VOCM vo r*-. «— i vo ^-
r»» o •-< o CM in t— i in CM »— i r-. in

CM CO CM CM i-H
"ai
OJ
CO l-
co o> •
,-..4J -0 < CO 1 x->
r- 4-> T- co co >— > a. r^. • co i— -MI— +->
aiws-'OJ^ ca id ca.a;c S- oo uj -4-> «T-idcococco
fHi_cot_id'i- 2:0 i i 4-> i- 1— o •—
o ididU~o cot. co coino id>i-id
bJ d) • (_) U OCOCO CO CO ' — CO «^«— t CT •« > CO >
Z O- C (JCO i-iCO^ E ^ C O) ^ C O ••- 00 -r-
Ct 4-> id(d4->J3 =3-«->U CO U U E J- U i— C i- -O CTM- CT
UJ O-M-UCD'i-  t-
=ia) — CT> a> cr> ai ^ oo a. o -t->o.cn coo.cg coco a.
d. aj ••- •>-  CO









^-^
-o
3
c
•r—
^^
C
0
u






















































3-13

-------
























S-*
cu
C!

, t
c
o
(J


^
.
1
CO
1 1 t
1
CD

h-










































CO
CO
cu
c
o
JC
I—









en
id
o
o
>_
S-
o

0
•r—




d
E






en
•r-
•M
0
O
CU
3


0
*i



d
E
~3,





o
in
A
cn
J-
JE
•o
•^
^^


.
c
•r-







P>
E






o
in
«
en
j-
JC
^_>
cn
c
cu
"*

Jj






E


























CM
O




tjQ
•
lj*
•
^^
CO


CM ~H uo ir> ir>
r*n • •
• O O
o






1-4 If) r-» CO CO
IT) CM • i— 1 «-H
2




OO OO O O CM CO
too OO cntor^CM
c^ «~* \o CM co o ^r r*^
• «* «t •«
^r co •— i •— i



cy»uo covo cno^fCM
O«sT 00*O •— 1 CM ^T CM
UOCTV i— ICO i— ICOr-ICM
r-4 i- J-
o o





..,
1—
HI CU -(->
a a •<- cu
LU Id X 3 d
2: -i-> ai u id
r^ £_ ^>
O -4-» 0.-— -i- O X
LUC03ldO'r- S- Id
Q id S- O -M CU E
i—* o "o fr- "o id E id
> -O id i— O) E 3CO 4->
id a ai co i co or cu
^oo"i:or> c> co
Z S- i— O
< CQ 0 CJ
CO

















to
JC
-M
en
c
cu

i.
cu
0
JC
CO

o
4-*
C
•<-
en
c
•r—
^_>
if
• o
CO
•^ O
CO 4J
•^"
TD *-
O
J- -r-
id *-
i— Q.
3
U CU
i- a.
. -i- id
C O -(->
•f—
^H O i—
O CO jQ
. i-
o cu a.
•»-> i-
II CU JC
E CO
•i- ••- O
E -0 •!->
* * fl^ T3
S. i- CU
cu id co

cu c
E cu co

S- T- CU
u en cu
•r- ^.
E o
cu cu
u 3 en
r— i.
E 
-------
                 TABLE 3-2.   PLANTS COATING MAGNETIC TAPEa
Facility/location
                                                 Type of tape
AudioVideoComputerOtherD
A1 abama
  Sony, Dothan                        x
  Ampex, Opelika                      x

Arizona
  IBM, Tucson

California
  Los Angeles Area
    Certron, Anaheim                  x
    American Video Tape, Gardena
    Spectrotape, Colton               x

  Bay Area
    Precision Media, Sunnyvale
    Verbatim, Sunnyvale
    Xidex, Sunnyvale
    Ampex, Redwood City               x
      (research facility)
    Memorex, Santa Clara
    Tandy Magnetic Media,             x
      Santa Clara
  Ventura County
    3M, Camarillo
  San Diego County
    Spin Physics (Kodak),
      San Diego (research facility)

Colorado
  IBM, Boulder
  Brown Disk Manufacturing,
    Colorado Springs
Connecticut
  Capitol Magnetic Products,          x
    Glenbrook
  Columbia Magnetics, Danbury         x

Georgia
  Columbia Magnetics, CarrolIton      x

Illinois
  TRI, Cary
  Wabash DataTech, Huntley
            x
            x
            X
            X
                      X
                      X
                      X
                      X


                      X
                      X

                      X
                      X

                      X
                                                               (continued)
                                    3-15

-------
                          TABLE 3-2.   (continued)
Facility/location
                                                 Type of tape
AudioVideoComputerOtherb
Maryland
  Malco Plastics, Garrison

Massachusetts
  BASF Systems, Bedford

Minnesota
  3M, Hutchinson

New Jersey
  3M, Freehold

P nnsylvania
"  Pfizer, Eastonc
     (research facility)

South Dakota
  Syncom, Mitchell

Tennessee
  NCR, Morristown

Texas
  Tandy Magnetics, Ft. Worth
  Graham Magnetics, Graham
                      x
                      x
    of September 1984.
"Includes bank transfer ribbons, mag cards, credit card tape, and other
 types of magnetic tape.
cUses atypical coating formulations for research on magnetic particles.
                                    3-16

-------
               TABLE 3-3.  SELECTED COATING MIX PROPERTIES
Parameter
Unit
Range
Solids

VOC

Density of coating

Density of coating solids
Resins/Binder
Magnetic particles
Density of magnetic material

Viscosity
% by weight              15-50
% by volume              10-26
% by weight              50-85
% by volume              74-90
kg/1                     1.0-1.2
Ib/gal                   8-10
kg/1                     1.2-4.0
Ib/gal                   23-33
% by weight of solids    15-21
% by weight of solids    66-78
kg/1                     1.2-4.8
Ib/gal                   10-40
Pa«s                     2.7-5.0
lbf«s/ft                 0.06-0.10
                                    3-17

-------
      TABLE  3-4.   STATE  REGULATIONS ON  EMISSIONS OF  VOLATILE ORGANIC
          COMPOUNDS FROM THE MAGNETIC TAPE COATING  INDUSTRY
State
    Regulation
kg/a  Ib/gal  NAAQSa
          Comments
Alabama*

Alaska

Arizona*
A,kansasc

California*-
  Bay Area
  San Diego
    County
  SCAQMDa

  Ventura Co.

Colorado*

Connecticut*

Delawarec


Floridac
0.35   2.9
0.36   3.0


0.12   1.0
0.265  2.2
0.12   1.0
0.265  2.2

0.120  1.0

0.35   2.9

0.35   2.9

0.35   2.9


0.35   2.9
                      Emission limit of 40 Ib/day, if
                      in excess of emission limit,
                      85 percent reduction required.
                      Applies to organic emissions that
                      have been heat cured, heat
                      polymerized or baked.  Applicable
                      in Pima County.b
VOC emissions resulting from
cleaning of coating line
equipment are exempted.

0.265 for low solvent technology;
0.12 for add-on controls; for
exemptions for sources emitting
<6.5 kg/day (14.3 Ib/day).
Sources emitting <40 Ib/day are
exempted.

Sources emitting <15 Ib/day and
<3 Ib/h are exempted.
Georgia*
Hawaii
Idaho
0.35 2.9
X
X
                                                                (continued)
                                    3-18

-------
                         TABLE  3-4.   (continued)
Regulation
State
Illinois*
Indiana0
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky0
kg/i
0.35
0.35



Ib/gal NAAQS0
2.9
2.9
X
X

Comments




Affected facility must not dis-
Louisiana0

Mainec
Maryland*

Massachusetts*

Michigan0


Minnesota*

Mississippi

Missouri0



Montana

Nebraska

Nevada
0.35   2.9
0.35   2.9

0.35   2.9

0.35   2.9
0.35   2.9
                x

                x
                X

                X

                X
charge >155£ by weight of VOC
compounds net input into facil-
ity; facility is exempted if
coating is <2.9 Ib/gal VOC  (less
water).

Sources emitting <100 Ib/d  are
exempted.

For surface coating of paper:
controlled through Maine Air
Emission Licensing Mechanism.
State requires Best Practical
Treatment with at least 90%
control.
Sources emitting <100 Ib/d or
<2,000 Ib/month are exempted.
Sources emitting <100 tons/yr in
Kansas City or <50 tons/yr in St.
Louis are exempted.
                                                               (continued)
                                   3-19

-------
                          TABLE  3-4.   (continued)
State
                       Regulation
kg/a  Ib/gal   NAAQSC
                         Comments
New Hampshire0


New Jersey*

New Mexico

New York
North Carolina0

nrth Dakota

Ohioc


Oklahoma
Oregon0
Pennsylvania*


Rhode Island0
South Carolina0

South Dakota*
Tennessee*



Texas*
0.35   2.9


0.35   2.9


0.35   2.9
0.35   2.9


0.35   2.9
0.35

0.35


0.35

0.35
2.9

2.9


2.9

2.9
0.35   2.9
0.35   2.9
               Sources emitting <100 tons/yr are
               exempted.
               In metropolitan New York City,
               sources using <5.0 gal/day of
               coating are exempted; in upstate
               New York, sources using <30.0
               gal/day are exempted.
               Coating lines using <3 gallons of
               coating per day are exempted.
               No discharge of more than
               3,000 Ib of organics in 1 day or
               more than 450 Ib in 1 hour, 90%
               reduction by incineration, 85%
               reduction by adsorption or any
               process of equivalent relia-
               bility and effectiveness.
For existing sources only.  State
requires BACT for new sources.
               For existing sources, State
               requires BACT; RACT or LAER for
               new sources.

               Applicable for fort Worth facil-
               ity only.  Emissions limits are
               determined regionally.
                                                               (continued)
                                   3-20

-------
                         TABLE  3-4.   (continued)
Regulation
State
Utahc
Vermont0
Virginia0
kg/a
0.35
0.35
0.35
Ib/gal NAAQS0
2.9
2.9
2.9
Comments


Sources emitting up



to
Washington0
West Virginia

Wisconsin0


Wyomi ng
0.35   2.9
0.35   2.9
7.3 tons/yr, 40 lb/d, and 8 Ib/h
are exempted.

Uncontrolled emissions allowed if
VOC from coater, dryer, and
flashoff area <600 Ib in any
given 24-h period.
From a paper coating line or from
each fabric coating applicator.
*States with existing magnetic tape coating facilities.
!*NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard for hydrocarbons only.
"Control required of captured emissions.
°State regulations on emissions of volatile organic compounds from the
 surface coating of paper and fabric.
dSouth Coast Air Quality Management District.
                                    3-21

-------
3.4  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3

 1.  Memorandum and attachment from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape
     Project File.  June 22, 1984.  Summary of nonconfldentlal Information
     on U.S. magnetic tape coating facilities.

 2.  Perry, R. H., and Nishimura, A. A., Magnetic Tape.  In:  Kirk-Othmer
     Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Third Edition, Volume 14.  New
     York, John Wiley and Sons.  1981.  pp. 732-733.

 3.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Current
     Industrial Reports.  Selected Electronic and Associated Products,
     Including Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus:  1981.  Washington,
     D.C.  MA-36N.   November 1982.  p. 11.

 4.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Current
     Industrial  Reports.  Selected Electronic and Associated Products,
     Including Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus:  1980.  Washington,
     D.C.  MA-36N.   October 1981.  p. 13.

 5.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Current
     Industrial  Reports.  Selected Electronic and Associated Products,
     Including Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus:  1978.  Washington,
     D.C.  MA-36N.   January 1980.  p. 12.

 6.  U.S. Markets-Data Processing and Software.  Electronics.
     55(1):128-129.  January 1982.

 7.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Meyer, M., Magnetic Media
     Information Services.  December 8, 1983.  Information on magnetic
     media growth.

 8.  Information Processing Means Growth for Office Supplies.  Purchasing
     World.  25:70.  November 1981.

 9.  Magnetic Media-What's Available-What's in Store.  Computerworld.
     16(8):67.  February 1982.

10.  Du Pont Unveils a Unit to Make Film for Video.  Chemical Week.
     129(12):9.  September 16, 1981.

11.  Consumer Video Tape Expected to Help Double PET Film Market.  Plastics
     World.  40(3)-.11.  March 1982.

12.  Reference 2,  p. 734.

13.  Du Pont Mylar® price list.  June 1, 1982.

14.  Reference 2,  p. 737.

15.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Perry, R., Ampex Corp.  May  19,
     1983.  Information on typical coating mix formulations.


                                    3-22

-------
16.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Hudson, J., E. I. du Pont de
     Nemours and Company, Inc.  May 19, 1983.  Information on typical
     coating mix formulation.

17.  Reference 2, pp. 740-741.

18.  Letter and attachments from Petersen, J., Pfizer, Inc., to Johnson,
     W., EPA:CPB.  October 31, 1983.  Comments on Draft BID Chapters 3-6 of
     "Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry, Processes and Pollutant
     Emissions."

19.  Reference 2, p. 743.

20.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Cannon, T., V1c Manufacturing
     Company.  February 15, 1983.  Information on the design of carbon
     adsorption systems.

21.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Mays, I., Columbia Magnetics.
     August 17, 1983.  Information on mix room, storage tanks, and coater
     head total enclosures.

22.  Telecon.  Meyer, J., MRI, with Wood, B., Alabama Department of
     Environmental Management.  August 22, 1983.  Information on number and
     size of storage tanks at Ampex Corp. facility in Opellka, Alabama.

23.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Peterson, A., Ampex Corp.
     August 30, 1983.  Information on ventilation of storage tanks.

24.  Telecon.  Larson, J., MRI, with Carlson, A., Graham Magnetics.
     January 20, 1984.  Information on coating facility.

25.  Memorandum and attachments from Buzenberg, R., DPRA, to Johnson, W.,
     EPA:CPB, and B. Short, EPA:EMB.  p. 2.  November 30, 1981.  Report on
     site visit to IBM, Boulder, Colorado.

26.  Letter and attachments from Certron Corp., to Farmer, J., EPArESED.
     May 25, 1983.  p. 3.  Response to Section 114 information request from
     Certron, Anaheim, California.

27.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Waxmonsky, J., Moorehouse
     Industries, Inc.  August 24, 1983.  Information on mix room
     equipment.

28.  Reference 2, pp. 743-747.

29.  Memorandum from Meyer, J., MRI, to Johnson, W., EPA:CPB.  March 10,
     1983.  p. 2.  Report on site visit to Columbia Magnetic Products,
     Carrollton, Georgia.

30.  Memorandum and attachments from Beall, C., MRI, to Johnson, W.,
     EPA:CPB.  March 22, 1983.  p. 3.  Report on site visit to Ampex Corp.,
     Opellka, Alabama.


                                    3-23

-------
31.  Telecon.  Meyer, J., with Missbach, F., Representative of
     Netzsch-Feinmahltechnix GmbH.  August 25, 1983.   Information on mix
     room equipment.

32.  Letter from Petersen, A., Ampex Corp., to Meyer, J., MRI.  March 9,
     1983.  Information on Ampex Corp., Opelika, Alabama, facility.

33.  Zink, S., Coating processes.  In:  Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of
     Chemical Technology, Third Edition, Volume 6.  New York, John Wiley
     and Sons, 1979.  pp. 388-389.

34.  Reference 2, pp. 746-747.

35.  Letter and attachments from Harris, T., Tandy Magnetic Media, to
     wyatt, S., EPArCPB.  October 28, 1983.  Comments on draft BID Chapters
     3-6 of "Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry, Processes and Pollutant
     Emissions."

36.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Heinfeld, S., Passavant Corp.
     July 11, 1983.  Information on drying ovens.

37.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Whitmore, G., Egan Leesona Corp.
     July 11, 1983.  Information on drying ovens.

38.  Reference 26, p. 4.

39.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     April 29, 1983.  Estimate of total uncontrolled emissions from the
     magnetic tape coating industry.

49.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Distribution of emissions between mix preparation area
     and the coating line.

41.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Distribution of Emissions Between Coating Application/
     Flashoff Area and Drying Oven.

42.  Reference 29, p. 6.

43.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     August 25, 1983.  Solvent use in cleaning of coating line equipment.

44.  Memorandum and attachments from Buzenberg, R., DPRA, to Johnson, W.,
     EPArCPB, and B. Short, EPArEMB.  p. 2.  February 1, 1982.  Report on
     site visit to 3M Co., St. Paul, Minnesota.

45.  U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  Control of Volatile Organic
     Emissions from Existing  Stationary Sources-Volume I:  Control Methods
     for Surface-Coating  Operations.  EPA-450/2-76-028.  November 1976.
                                    3-24

-------
46.  Memorandum from Glanvllle, J.t MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     October 19, 1984.  State regulations for solvent storage tanks.

47.  U.S. Department of Commerce.  Bureau of the Census.  Current
     Industrial Reports.  Selected Electronic and Associated Products,
     Including Telephone and Telegraph Apparatus:  1976.  Washington,
     D.C.  MA-36N.  August 1977.  p. 18.

48.  Reference 2, p. 745.

49.  Broemel, C. A.  A Study of the World Magnetic Tape Industry.  ICI
     Americas, Inc.  Undated,  pp. 57, 59.

50.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     March 7, 1983.  Audio and video magnetic tape product
     specifications.

51.  6CA Corp.  Status Summary of State's Group I VOC RACT Regulations as
     of June 1, 1981; 2nd Interim Report.  Prepared for U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  EPA Contract
     No. 68-02-3510.  Task No. 8.  July 1981.  183 pp.

52.  Telecon.  Meyer, J., MRI, with Reese, D., Pima County (Arizona) Health
     Dept.  April 13, 1983.  Information on State VOC standard.

53.  California Bay Area Air Quality Management District.  Regulation 8—
     Organic Compounds, Rule 12—Paper, Fabric and Film Coating.  March 17,
     1982.  pp. 8-12-1 to 8-12-4.

54.  Environment Reporter.  State A1r Laws, Volumes 1, 2, and 3.
     Washington, D.C.  The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
                                    3-25

-------
                      4.  EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES

4.1  INTRODUCTION

     Emissions from magnetic tape coating plants result from evaporation of
solvent from solvent storage, coating mix preparation, coating application,
and the curing of the coating in the ovens.  A complete air pollution
control system for a magnetic tape manufacturing plant consists of a VOC
capture or containment system and an emission control device.  This chapter
describes the technology available for capture and control of emissions
from all of the sources mentioned above and the expected levels of control
achievable.

4.2  CONTROL SYSTEMS

     Table 4-1 presents control devices currently used to control the
coating operation emissions.  The add-on technologies used to control VOC
emissions are absorption, adsorption, condensation, and incineration.  The
theory and principles of these control systems are discussed briefly.  The
design and operation of the systems are presented with emphasis on factors
that affect their use by the magnetic tape industry.  Absorption systems
are not discussed even though one is operated by a magnetic tape plant.
This older system reportedly achieves a lower removal efficiency (85 to
95 percent) than do other types of control devices. »

4.2.1  Adsorption

     Carbon adsorption has been used for 50 years by many industries to
recover a variety of organics from solvent laden air (SLA) streams.   This
technology reduces VOC emissions by adsorbing the organic compounds from
the SLA onto the activated carbon bed.  The organics are subsequently
desorbed and recovered.  The exhausts from more than one coating operation
are commonly vented to the same carbon adsorber.  There are two general
types of adsorption systems, fixed-bed and fluidized-bed systems.

     4.2.1.1  Fixed-Bed Carbon Adsorbers.  For most of the 50 years that
carbon has been used as a commercial  adsorbant, it has been available
only in a fixed-bed process.  The typical thickness of a carbon bed
within a vertical or horizontal metal vessel  is 15 to 76 centimeters (6
to 30 inches).   The SLA is fed beneath the bed, and the organics are
adsorbed as the air passes up through the bed.  The SLA can also be fed
with a downward flow to minimize bed lifting. »   Most fixed-bed
adsorbers have multiple beds to allow simultaneous adsorption and
                                 4-1

-------
TABLE  4-1.   CONTROL  DEVICES  USED ON COATING OPERATIONS7
Control device
Carbon adsorber
—fixed-bed
— fluidized-bed
Condenser system
Incinerator
—production linesa
—research lines
Absorber
Noneb
No. of
control devices

14
3
2

5
2
1
9
Percentage

38.9
8.3
5.6

13.9
5.6
2.7
25.0
aOne company will change to a carbon adsorber in the
 near future.
'•'Companies with plans to install a control device in
 the near future are included in this category.
                        4-2

-------
desorptlon and, thus, continuous operation.  Figure 4-1 1s a schematic of a
two-unit fixed-bed adsorber.  When the VOC concentration in the air
discharge from a bed starts to Increase, or at a preset time Interval, the
Inlet SLA 1s routed to a different carbon bed, and the nearly saturated bed
1s regenerated.  Regeneration 1s usually accomplished using low pressure
steam.  The steam heats the bed to desorb the solvents and acts as a
nonflammable carrier gas.  Typical steam requirements range from 4 to 9 kg
of steam per kg of recovered solvent (4 to 9 pounds of steam per pound of
recovered solvent). »   After regeneration, the carbon bed is dried and
cooled to improve the ability of the carbon to adsorb organic compounds.
The mixture of steam and organic vapors exhaust from the adsorber and 1s
condensed in a heat exchanger; the condensate is routed to a decanter (see
Figure 4-1).  In the decanter, the solvent floats on the organic-soluble
water layer.  Both water and organlcs are drawn off to storage or further
treatment.

     The parameters considered 1n the design of a fixed-bed carbon
adsorption system are:

      1.  Type of solvent(s);
      2.  SLA inlet concentration;
      3.  SLA flow rate;
      4.  Temperature of the inlet SLA;
      5.  Relative humidity of the inlet SLA;
      6.  Type and amount of carbon;
      7.  Superficial bed velocity;
      8.  Bed pressure drop;
      9.  Cycle time;
     10.  Degree of regeneration of the carbon bed;
     11.  Pressure and temperature of steam; and
     12.  Condenser water outlet temperature.

     The first five parameters are characteristics of the production
process.  The next three are design parameters for the adsorber.  The
remaining parameters are operating variables that affect the performance of
the adsorber.  Table 4-2 presents process parameters representative of
several magnetic tape plants presently controlled by carbon adsorbers.

     The SLA discharge from the oven must be cooled to below approximately
38°C (100°F) to optimize adsorption.  A minimum of 20 to 40 percent
relative humidity should be achieved, especially if ketones are to be
adsorbed, because the heat dissipated b^ evaporation of water helps prevent
heat buildup and subsequent bed fires.    Filtration equipment may also be
required if there is particulate matter in the dryer exhaust.  Particulate
matter will coat the carbon and plug the voids between carbon particles,
decreasing adsorbtivity and increasing pressure drop.

     Major problems encountered in the operation of fixed-bed carbon
adsorption systems in the magnetic tape industry include fouling of beds,
corrosion, and bed fires.  Carbon beds foul when the carbon cannot be
regenerated with normal steam temperature and pressure.  Fouling reduces
adsorbtion and requires early replacement of the carbon.  Carbon beds


                                 4-3

-------
            Q

            =J
            o-
            LU
            co
            «t
         Q.
         O
               I
  a
  z
  O
-mm
            ec.
            •f.
            o



                       S-
                       OJ
                       .a
T3
03

T3
Ol
XI


•a
0)
X
O
<
     1-1 CO
     z a:
     = O
     to
     a
      O
      m
      ce
                               i
                               O
                               (O

                               <4-
                               O

                               -C
                               0
                               +•>
                               O)
                               -i£
                               CO

                               O

                               +J
                               
-------
             TABLE 4-2.  PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR MAGNETIC TAPE
             PLANTS  CONTROLLED  BY  FIXED-BED  CARBON ADSORBERS


Parameters _ Range _ Typical range

SLA flow rate                   1.4 to 9.3 m3/s            2.4 to 4.7 m3/s
                               (3,000 to                  (5,000 to
                                19,800 scfm)3              10,000 scfm)

SLA inlet concen-              50 to 7,000                <2,500
  tratlon,
SLA temperature                21 to 93°C                 27° to 49°C
                               (70° to 200°F)             (80° to 120°F)

SLA relative humidity          30 to 55 percent           N/AC


am3/s = Cubic meters per second at standard conditions.
 scfm = Standard cubic feet per minute where standard conditions are as
 defined 1n 40 CFR 60.2 (I.e.. 20°C [68°F] and 101.3 kPa [29.92 in. Hg]).
DppmV = Parts per million by volume.
CN/A = Not applicable.
                                 4-5

-------
can be fouled by high boiling compounds, high molecular weight compounds,
and compounds that may polymerize or oxidize on the carbon particles.    In
the magnetic tape Industry, carbon life has been reported to vary from
6 months to 7 years.  »

     Corrosion can be a problem in fixed-bed carbon adsorption systems used
to recover ketones because of the formation of acidic compounds in the wet
steam.  Ketones are commonly used at magnetic tape coating plants;
corrosion can be avoided by the use of corrosion-resistant materials.
Additional problems with ketones include plugging of the carbon bed by
oxidation of the ketones.  The oxidation reaction products of cyclohexanone
are solids, which can rapidly plug the carbon adsorption system and cause
corresponding loss 1n activity.

     Adsorption is an exothermic phenomenon; typically, 465 to 700
kllojoules (kJ) (200 to 300 British thermal units [Btu]) are generated per
kg (pound) of solvent adsorbed.    If sufficient air is not present to
carry this heat off, the bed may overheat, resulting in poor adsorption
 *nd, in extreme cases, bed fires.    Fires are predominantly associated
with adsorption of ketone solvents and are more likely to occur after
addition of fresh carbon.

     Solvents recovered by an adsorber may be purified by distillation and
reused in the mix formulation.  Typical purification systems consist of a
decanter and several distillation columns.  Caustic drying systems may also
be used to remove water from the solvent.  The materials of construction of
the distillation system are a function of the types of solvents to be
recovered.  If ketones are present, expensive corrosion-resistant materials
are required.  The complexity and the recovery efficiency of the
distillation system will vary with the amount of water in the recovered
solvent, the number of solvent components, the desired purity of the
recovered solvents, and line operations.

     Long-term average VOC control efficiencies of 95 percent are
achievable with well-designed and -operated fixed-bed adsorbers.
Magnetic tape manufacturers operate 14 fixed-bed carbon adsorption units.
Most were built during the last 5 to 7 years.  Two of these were tested by
EPA and are described below.

     Plant A installed its system in 1980 to recover toluene and
tetrahydrofuran (THF) from a tape coating operation.  The system consists
of three beds and a purification section.  The design flow for the
adsorption unit is 6.3 cubic meters per second (m /s) (13,400 standard
cubic feet per minute  [scfm]).    Solvent concentrations in the inlet
stream range from 50 to over 2,400 parts per million by volume (ppmV),
depending og the number of coating lines operating, line speed, and coating
thickness.    Outlet solvent concentrations vary from near 0 to 100 ppmV,
depending upon adsorption-desorption cycle timing.  The EPA test measured
average VOC removal efficiency at 99.9 percent, using a gas chromatograph
with flame-ionization detector.
                                 4-6

-------
     Plant B installed its adsorber 1n 1975 to recover solvent from two
coating lines.  The adsorber was redesigned 1n 1978.  The solvent used at
the plant 1s a mixture of toluene, THF, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl
isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and cyclohexanone.    The recovery section consists
of three pairs of fixed carbon beds and a purification system.  Only two
pairs of beds are operated at any gjven time while the third pair is either
down for maintenance or on standby.    The design flow rate for the
adsorber units is 9.7 m /s at 27°C (20,600 actual cubic feet per minute
[acfm] at 80°F) with Inlet solvent concentrations ranging from 2,000 to
5,000 ppmV depending on the line speed, number of lines in operation, and
the type of magnetic tape being produced.  Outlet concentrations from the
beds varied from 35 to 3,50 ppmV.    The efficiencies of the beds ranged
from 91 to 98 percent.    The efficiency varied with the age of the
carbon.    Solvent vapor concentrations were measured using the same
procedure used for Plant A.

     4.2.1.2  Fluidized-Bed Carbon Adsorbers.  In flu1dized-bed systems,
adsorption and desorptlon are carried out continuously in the same
vessel.  Figure 4-2 presents a flow diagram of a flu1dized-bed carbon
adsorber.  The system consists of a multistage, countercurrent, fluidlzed-
bed adsorption section; a pressure-sealing section; and a desorptlon
section.  Nitrogen gas 1s used as a carrier to remove the solvent vapors
from the desorptlon section.  The pressure-sealing section prevents air
from entering the mixture of solvent and nitrogen vapors.  The regenerated
carbon  1s carried by air from the bottom to the top of the column.

     The SLA is introduced into the bottom of the adsorption section of the
column and passes upward countercurrent to the flow of carbon particles.
Adsorption occurs on each tray as the carbon is fluidized by the SLA.  The
carbon falls down the column through a system of overflow weirs.  Below the
last tray, the carbon falls to the desorptlon section where indirect
heating desorbs the organic compounds from the carbon; hot nitrogen gas
passes through the bed countercurrent to the carbon flow and removes the
organic compounds.  The desorption temperature is normally around 121°C
(250°F) but can be raised to 260°C (500°F) to remove buildup of high-
boiling materials.  The desorption section is maintained continuously at
the temperature required to volatilize the adsorbed compounds.    The
solvent and nitrogen mixture is directed to a condenser where the solvent
can be recovered for reuse.  The nitrogen is sent through the "secondary
adsorber" (top layer of carbon in the desorptlon section), which removes
residual solvent from the nitrogen, and is then recycled.

     The microspherical particles of carbon used in a fluidized-bed are
formed by spray-drying molten petroleum pitch.  The carbon particles are
easily fluidized and have strong attrition resistance.    The adsorptive
properties of carbon made this way are similar to those of other activated
carbons.

     The parameters considered in design of a fluidized-bed carbon adsorber
system are:
                                 4-7

-------
                                          CLEAN  AIR
ADSORPTION
 SECTION
DESORPTION
  SECTION
(SHELL-AND-
 TUBE HEAT
EXCHANGER)
                                                                   PRESSURE-SEALING
                                                                       SECTION
                                                        MIXTURE OF SOLVENT
                                                        AND NITROGEN VAPORS
                                                                    4
       AIR  LIFT        AIR LIFT NOZZLE
        BLOWER        FOR CARBON RECYCLE
                                                       	 ->  CARBON FLOW
         Figure 4-2.    Fluidized-bed  carbon adsorption  system.
                                        4-8

-------
      1.  Type of solvent(s);
      2.  SLA Inlet concentration;
      3.  SLA flow rate;
      4.  Temperature of the Inlet SLA;
      5.  Relative humidity of the inlet SLA;
      6.  Superficial bed velocity;
      7.  Bed pressure drop;
      8.  Rate of carbon flow;
      9.  Degree of regeneration of the carbon (bed); and
     10.  Condenser water outlet temperature.

The first five parameters are characteristics of the production process.
The next two are design parameters for the adsorber.  The next three are
operating parameters.  The rate of carbon flow is set by the operator to
achieve desired control efficiency.  Just as with the fixed-bed, the dryer
exhaust gas (the SLA) must be cooled before it reaches the adsorber in
order to optimize the carbon's adsorbability.  Pressure drop per stage
normally ranges from 1 to 2 kilopascals (kPa) (4 to 8 in. water), with six
to eight stages required, depending on the application.  The pressure drop
across the entire bed is 6 to 16 kPa (24 to 64 in. water).  The gas
velocity through the adsorption section is as high as 1 m/s (200 fpm),
which is two to four times that used in fixed bed adsorbers.  For a given
flow rate, this high gas velocity reduces the cross-sectional area of the
bed.23

     The primary problem that may occur with operation of fluidized-bed
adsorbers is fouling of the carbon.  The same factors that affect fouling
of carbon in fixed-bed adsorbers also affect the carbon used in fluidized-
bed adsorbers.  Corrosion is generally not a problem in fluidized-bed
adsorbers; because stripping is by nitrogen rather than steam, the water
content of the recovered solvent is low, typically 5 percent or less.  The
only water present in the recovered solvent is that which was adsorbed from
the SLA.  Thus, generally, the carbon adsorber need not be made of
expensive corrosion-resistant materials.  Bed fires are generally not a
problem in fluidized-bed adsorbers because the relatively high superficial
velocities and the intimate contact between the SLA and activated carbon
eliminate the possibility of hot spot formation.   However, hot spots can
form, depending on the solvents adsorbed, if the bed is shut down before
being completely stripped.  Shutdowns resulting from mechanical problems
could create conditions leading to potential bed fires.

     A distillation system may not be required for a fluldized-bed
adsorption system because of the low water content of the recovered solvent
(less than 5 percent water by weight).     Cleanup can be as simple as
drying by the addition of caustic soda.  Of the three facilities 1n this
industry using a fluidized-bed system,  two facilities dry with caustic
soda, and one distills the recovered solvent.

     Fluidized-bed systems are new to this industry.  Consequently, only
limited test data are available.  At one facility, the design efficiency is
96 to 98 percent for SLA concentrations of 2,000 ppmV.     The actual
efficiency is somewhat less (93 to 94 percent) because of lower inlet


                                 4-9

-------
concentrations (200 to 2,000 ppmV), contamination of the carbon with
benzole add, and varying SLA operating conditions.  *

     4.2.1.3  Disposable-Canister Unit Carbon Adsorber.  In this system, a
prefabricated canister containing activated carbon is connected to the
emission source vent.  The principle of operation is the same as that of a
fixed-bed carbon adsorber except that there is no regeneration of spent
carbon.  Rather, the canister and contents are removed for disposal, and a
new canister is installed.  The actual useful life depends on the size of
the canister and the type and amount of vapors to which the carbon is
exposed.

     As with other fixed-bed systems, bed overheating can be a problem if
these systems are used to recover ketones.  Overheating can be circumvented
by keeping the carbon damp.    However, keeping the carbon damp reduces the
effectiveness of carbon adsorption; consequently, a larger unit must be
provided than would be Indicated from the design calculations involving
adsorption rates on dry carbon.

     Disposable canisters are used for flows generally less than 0.05 m/s
(100 acfm) with low organic loading.  They can be used to control emissions
from solvent storage tanks and mix room equipment, which have inherently
low flow rates and solvent concentrations.  Although no magnetic tape line
1s known to use canisters in this manner, they have been used to control
solvent storage tank and reactor vessel emissions in other Industries.

4.2.2  Condensers

     Condensers recover VOC emissions by cooling the SLA below the dew
point of the solvent (or solvent mixture) and collecting the droplets of
solvents.  The temperature reduction necessary to condense the solvent
vapor depends on the vapor pressure of the solvents in the gas stream.  Two
types of commercially available condensation systems have been used to
recover VOC from drying ovens at magnetic tape plants.  These systems
differ  (1) in the design and operation of the drying oven (I.e., use of
nitrogen or air in the oven) and (2) in the method of cooling the SLA
(i.e.,  liquid nitrogen or refrigeration).

     4.2.2.1  Condensation System Using Nitrogen Atmosphere.  Figure 4-3
presents a flow diagram of a condensation system that uses a nitrogen-
blanketed drying oven and a nitrogen-cooled heat exchanger.  The inerting
curtains shown in Figure 4-3 prevent both airflow into the oven and VOC
flow from the oven.  Fume collection hoods may also be located near the
ovens and curtains to capture any gases escaping from these areas.

     Nitrogen is used in the drying oven to permit operation with high
solvent vapor concentrations without danger of explosion.  The nitrogen
recycled through the oven is monitored and operated to maintain solvent
vapor concentrations of 10 to 30 percent, by volume.    The higher the
solvent concentration, the smaller the auxiliary equipment required and
                                4-10

-------
=> oj  O.
o-z  o.
      So
   _ «l
                           o
                           UJ

                           d

                           o
                                                                        • (->
                                                                        lo
                                                                        l=»
                                                                        I   ,
                                                                                          O


                                                                                         •P
                                                                                         •r-

                                                                                          C


                                                                                          O>
                                                                                          
                                                                                          CO
c
o
                                                                                         10
                                                                                         10
                                                                                         O)
                                                                                         •o
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         <*-
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         (O
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         co
                                                                                         CO
                                                                                          I
                                                                          i
                             4-11

-------
the less the makeup nitrogen required.  This allows economical solvent
recovery.

     Solvents are recovered by sending a bleed stream of approximately
1 percent of the recycle flow through a shell-and-tube condenser.    The
liquid nitrogen is on the tube side, and the solvent-laden nitrogen passes
over the outside of the tube^surfaces.  Vapors condense on the tubes and
drain to a collection tank.    The nitrogen that vaporizes in the heat
exchanger is directed to the oven and inertlng curtains.  To avoid solvent
condensation in the oven and to maintain the product cure rate, the
temperature in the oven must be substantially above the dew point of the
solvent vapor.

     This nitrogen-blanketed system is water-free; hence, the cost of a
distillation system may be avoided, especially if the coating uses a single
solvent.    One magnetic tape plant now uses this type of condenser, and at
least one Other manufacturer is considering purchase of this type of
system.  •

     The parameters considered in the design and operation of an inert gas
condensation system are:

     1.  Type of solvent(s);
     2.  Temperature of the solvent-laden nitrogen bleed stream;
     3.  Solvent-laden nitrogen flow rate; and
     4.  Concentration of VOC in nitrogen.

The first two parameters are characteristics of the production process.
The remaining parameters are design characteristics of the condenser.

     The primary operating problem anticipated with this condenser design
1s the possibility of air leaking into the oven and loss of an inert
atmosphere.  If air leakage occurred, an explosion hazard might exist;
therefore, it is necessary to maintain the system at a slight positive
pressure.  Because of the inert atmosphere and low water content, corrosion
is not a problem; therefore, no special materials of construction are
requ i red.

     The only practical way to determine overall efficiency of this type of
system is by measuring the solvent used at the coater and the solvent
recovered.  There are no exhaust stacks (the nitrogen is recirculated), and
all emissions are fugitive from the ends of the oven.

     4.2.2.2  Condensation System Using An Air Atmosphere.  Figure 4-4
presents a flow diagram of this system in which SLA is drawn from a
tightly sealed drying oven through a counterflow heat exchanger.  There,
the SLA is cooled to reduce the heat load on the refrigerated condenser.
The solvent and water formed by the refrigerated condenser are stored
for further processing.    The cooled solvent-free air is then blown
back through the heat exchanger for preheating before being returned to
the oven.  Drying ovens used with this system must be relatively tight,
i.e., have minimum air leakage and be equipped with solvent vapor


                                4-12

-------
z: a:
                                                                                                                 c


                                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                 O O

                                                                                                                 4-> en
                                                                                                                 10 c
                                                                                                                  0)
                                                                                                                 10 ^:
                                                                                                                •i- a.
                                                                                                                 O +->
                                                                                                                r— ro
                                                                                                                U-
                                                                                                                    i-
                                                                                                                    •r—
                                                                                                                  • fO
                                                                                                                    (O
                                                                                                                 
                                                           4-13

-------
concentration monitoring devices.  Typically, these ovens are designed to
operate at 40 to 50 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL), 9^ solvent
concentrations of <0.5 percent (by volume) for typical solvents.

     The condensate contains small amounts of water from the water vapor in
the oven exhaust.  Solvent purification can be accomplished by caustic
drying or by distillation, depending on the solvent purity
specifications.    One magnetic tape plant presently uses this type of
condenser to recover cyclohexanone from the SLA.

     The factors important in the design and operation of a condenser using
a counterflow heat exchanger are:

     1.  Type of solvent(s);
     2.  SLA flow rate;
     3.  Temperature of the SLA at the heat exchanger inlet;
     4.  SLA concentration in the oven exhaust;
     5.  Temperature of the refrigerated air returned to the heat
f \changer; and
     6.  Operating temperature of the refrigeration coil.

The first four parameters are characteristics of the production process.
The remaining parameters are operating variables that may affect the
performance of the condenser.

     This condensation system requires careful control of the evaporators
when high water vapor concentrations are present in the SLA to prevent
freezing.  Corrosion problems are not expected for this system if the water
content of the recovered solvent is less than 5 percent.  Consequently,
recovery of ketones or solvent mixtures containing ketones does not require
the use of special construction materials if the device is properly
operated.

4.2.3  Incinerators

     Incineration is the combustion of organic compounds by exposure to
high temperatures in the presence of air within a combustion chamber;
carbon dioxide and water are the products of combustion.  Incinerators are
used to control VOC emissions at several magnetic tape plants (see
Table 4-1).  They are selected if recovery of solvents is not economically
feasible or practical such a«»oat small lines and research lines using a
variety of solvent mixtures.     Incinerators used in this industry may be
of thermal or catalytic design and may use primary or secondary heat
recovery to reduce energy consumption.

     4.2.3.1  Thermal Incinerators.  Thermal incinerators are usually
refractory-lined combustion chambers with a burner located at one end.   In
these units, part of the SLA is  passed through the burner along with an
auxiliary fuel.  The combustion  gases exiting the burner blend with the
by-passed SLA and combust the solvents in the SLA.  With most solvents,
complete destruction is obtained  in 0.75 seconds at temperatures of 870°C
 (1600°F).  •"


                                 4-14

-------
     Factors Important 1n Incinerator design and operation include:

      1.  Type and concentration of VOC;
      2.  SLA flow rate;
      3.  SLA temperature at incinerator inlet;
      4.  Burner type;
      5.  Efficiency of flame contact (mixing);
      6.  Residence time;
      7.  Auxiliary fuel firing rate;
      8.  Amount of excess air;
      9.  Firebox temperature; and
     10.  Preheat temperature.

The first three parameters are characteristics of the production process.
The next three parameters are characteristics of the design of the
incinerator.  The auxiliary fuel firing rate is determined by the type and
concentration of VOC, the SLA flow rate, firebox temperature, and the
preheat temperature.  The last four parameters are operating variables that
may affect the performance of the incinerator.  With well-designed and
-operated incinerators, ^(^destruction efficiencies of 98 percent or
better can be achieved.  »

     At magnetic tape plants using thermal incinerators for control of VOC
emissions, a typical VOC concentration is ~2,500 ppmV of solvents such as
MEK, MIBK, toluene, and cyclohexanone.  The SLA flows typically range from
1.4 to 4.7 m3/s (-3,000 to 10,000 scfm). • 3

     4.2.3.2  Catalytic Incinerators.  Catalytic incinerators use a
catalyst to promote the oxidation rate of VOC.  The SLA is preheated by a
burner or heat exchanger and then brought into contact with the catalyst
bed where oxidation occurs.  Common catalysts used are platinum or other
noble metals on alumina pellets or honeycomb support.  Catalytic
incinerators can achieve destruction efficiencies similar to those of
thermal incinerators while operating much cooler, i.e., 400° to 540°C (750°
to 1000°F).  Thus, catalytic incinerators can operate with significantly
lower energy costs than can thermal incinerators.    Construction materials
may also be less expensive because of the lower operating temperatures.

     Factors important in the design and operation of a catalytic
incinerator include the factors affecting thermal incinerators as well as
the operating temperature range of the catalyst.  The operating temperature
range for the catalyst sets the upper VOC concentration that can be
incinerated.  For most catalysts on alumina, exposure to temperatures
greater than about 700°C (1300°F) severely reduces catalyst activity.45
Consequently, the heating value of the inlet stream must be limited.
Typically, inlet VOC concentrations must be less than 25 percent of the
LEL.  The possibility of catalyst poisoning is also a limiting factor in
the use of catalytic incineration.

     4.2.3.3  Heat Recovery.  Heat recovery offers a means of reducing
the energy consumption of the incinerator or another process in the
plant.  Primary heat recovery refers to the transfer of heat from the


                                4-15

-------
hot Incinerator effluent to a relatively cool incinerator inlet VOC
stream.  Secondary heat recovery refers to exchange of heat from the
incinerator to any other process.

     Plants using primary and secondary heat recovery with typical thermal
efficiencies can achieve overall heat recoveries of 70 to 80 percent.
Actual overall energy savings obtained will vary with the VOC concentration
in the oven exhaust, the incinerator operating temperature, and the ability
of the plant to incorporate primary and secondary heat recovery.

     4.2.4  Flare Systems

     Flares are a method of controlling VOC emissions by thermal
destruction.  Although flares are a proven technology that is used for
controlling a wide range of gaseous emissions in other industries, flares
are not presently used in the magnetic tape coating industry.  A brief
description of flare technology, factors affecting performance, and the
potential of flares as a VOC control method for ovens, mix preparation
equipment, and solvent storage tanks are discussed in this section.

     4.2.4.1  Operating Principles.  Flaring is an open combustion process
in which the oxygen required for combustion is provided by the air around
the flame.  Good combustion in a flare is governed by flame temperature,
residence time of components in the combustion zone, turbulent mixing of
the components to complete the oxidatjoji reaction, and the amount of oxygen
available for free radical formation.

     There are two types of flares:  ground level flares and elevated
flares.  In an elevated flare system, process off-gases are sent to the
flare  through the collection heater.  The off-gases entering the heater can
vary widely in volumetric flow rate, moisture content, VOC concentration,
and heat value.  They can be used for almost any VOC stream and can handle
fluctuations in VOC concentration, flow rate, and inerts content.

     The VOC stream enters at the base of the flame where it is heated by
already burning fuel and pilot burners at the flare tip.  If the gas has
sufficient oxygen and residence time in the flame zone, it can be
completely oxidized.  The high volume of fuel flow in a flare requires more
combustion air at a faster rate than simple gas diffusion can supply, so
flare  designers add steam or forced air injection nozzles to increase gas
turbulence in the flame boundary zones and, thus, draw in more combustion
air and improve combustion efficiency.  Steam injection promotes smokeless
flare  operation by minimizing the cracking reactions that form carbon, but
it also causes increased noise and cost.  Typically 0.15 to 0.5 kg of steam
per kg of flare gas (0.15 to 0.5 Ib of steam per Ib of flare gas) is
required; with air-assisted flares, steam is not required.  Air assist is
rarely used on large flares because airflow is difficult to control when
the gas flow is intermittent.  Gases with heating values of below about
18 MJ/scjy  (500 Btu/scf) may be flared smoke free with steam or air
assist.
                                 4-16

-------
     Ground flares are usually enclosed and have multiple burner heads that
are staged to operate based on the quantity of gas released to the flare.
The energy of the flared gas Itself (because of the high nozzle pressure
drop) is usually adequate to provide the mixing necessary for smokeless
operation and air or steam assist is not required.  A fence or other
enclosure reduces noise and light from the flare and provides some wind
protection.  Ground flares are less numerous and have less capacity than
elevated flares.  Typically they are used to burn gas "continuously" while
steam-assisted elevated flares are used to dispose of large amounts of gas
released intermittently.

     4.2.4.2  Design Factors.  The factors important in the design and
operation of a flare are:

     1.  Flamrnability limits of the gases flared;
     2.  Auto-ignition temperatures of the gases;
     3.  Heating values of the gases;
     4.  Density of the gases; and
     5.  Efficiency of flame contact (mixing).

     4.2.4.3  Control Efficiency.  After reviewing the results of several
studies, the EPA has concluded that 98 percent combustion efficiency can be
achieved by steam-assisted flares burning gases with exit flow velocities
less than 19 m/s (63 ft/sec) and with heat contents over 11 MJ/scm (300
Btu/scf) and by flares operated without assist with exit flow velocities
less than 18 m/s (60 ft/sec) and burning gases with heat contents over 8
MJ/scm (200 Btu/scf).

4.2.5  Conservation Vents and Pressure Relief Valves

     Conservation vents have long been used to minimize tank Josses from a
variety of industries including magnetic tape manufacturers.       These
vents are valves that are permanently attached to the outside of sealed,
vapor-tight vessels.  These valves open when either positive or negative
pressure within a vessel exceeds predetermined values.  These pressure and
vacuum settings are achieved by weights inside the vent.  Conservation
vents reduce VOC emissions that would occur because of cyclic changes in
the temperature of the liquid inside a vessel.  These losses are called
breathing losses.

     Figure 4-5 presents a diagram of a conservation vent.   The vessel
pressure is applied to the underside of the pressure pallet and the top
side of the vacuum pallet.  As long as the vessel pressure  remains
within the valve pressure and vacuum settings, the pallet remains in
contact with the seat rings, and no venting or breathing takes place.
The pressure pallet lifts from its seat ring when the vessel pressure
reaches the valve pressure setting and allows the excess pressure to
vent to the atmosphere.  As the vessel pressure drops below the valve
setting, the pressure pallet returns to the closed position.  For a
negative pressure (vacuum), the vacuum pallet lifts from its seat ring
when the vessel vacuum reaches the valve vacuum setting, allowing air to
flow into the vessel to relieve the excess vacuum condition.  The vacuum


                                4-17

-------
                                        CJ
                                        CQ

                                        LoJ
                                        to
                                        to
                                                                                         c
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         
-------
pallet returns to Us normal position as the vessel vacuum drops below the
valve vacuum setting.    Conservation vents will not prevent the tank from
venting when 1t is filled (working losses) because the internal pressure
will exceed the set pressure on the valve.

     The amount of VOC emission reduction achieved by conservation vents
depends on the solvent vapor pressure, the diurnal temperature change, the
tank size, and the vent pressure and vacuum settings.  Breathing and
working losses from solvent storage tanks can be estimated, using emission
equations developed by the American Petroleum Institute.    Assuming a
yearly average diurnal temperature change of 11°C (20°F) and the model
storage tank parameters, these equations yield estimates for breathing
losses of 17 to 85 percent of the total annual emissions from solvent
storage tanks.    Conservation vents set at 0.215 kPa (1/2 ounce) vacuum
and 17.2 kPa (2.5 psig) pressure control all5$f the breathing losses, for
an average overall efficiency of 50 percent.

     A pressure relief valve operates in a manner similar to that of the
conservation vent.  These valves operate at higher pressures achieved by
internal springs, not weights, and usually do not have any vacuum
settings.  The pressure relief valves control all of the breathing losses
and much of the working losses.  Based on the average vapor pressures of
the solvents in this industry and a pressure setting of 103 kPa (15 psig),
a control efficiency of 90 percent was calculated for pressure relief
valves.

4.3  VOC EMISSION CAPTURE SYSTEMS

     Although some web coaters sweep VOC from the coating room to the
atmosphere as part of a ventilation program to minimize worker exposure,
many others use a capture system to gather emissions from storage tanks,
mix preparation equipment, coating operations, and miscellaneous other
sources to deliver them to emission control devices.  If a source is
enclosed, total capture may be achieved.  Otherwise, the ratio of VOC
emitted to VOC delivered to the control device, or "capture efficiency," is
a function of the design and the specifics of the operation.  This section
contains a description of capture systems used on solvent storage tanks,
mix rooms, coaters, and drying ovens and identifies factors that affect
their performance.

4.3.1  Capture of Emissions From Solvent Storage Tanks

     The VOC emissions from solvent storage tanks in this industry can be
100 percent captured if the tanks are sealed and the conservation vents are
vented to the control device.  At least six magnetic tape coating plants
control VOC emissions from solvent storage tanks by venting into the carbon
adsorber that serves the coating operation.

4.3.2  Capture of Emissions From Mix Rooms

     The VOC emissions from equipment in the mix room may be captured to
varying degrees by a room ventilation system, by covering all mix tanks


                                4-19

-------
(using pressure-tight covers) and venting to the control device, or by
ventilation hoods.

     Room ventilation systems evacuate air from the room or rooms in which
the coating mix is prepared.  Ideally, the air exhausted by this type
ventilation system may be used as oven make-up air and then sent to a
control device.  Presently, it is more often discharged directly to the
atmosphere.  Three plants^are known to vent the room air to the atmosphere,
oven, or control device.

     By tightly covering, sealing, and venting the mix equipment (I.e.,
premixers, holding tanks), effective capture of emissions can be achieved
with a minimum airflow rate.  Forced ventilation of tanks, however, can
affect the composition of the coating mix; thus, use of such systems
requires regular monitoring of the coating mix composition.    The SLA
discharged from the room or mix equipment can be used as part of the oven
make-up air or sent to the control device.  Seven plants are known to cap
and vent mix equipment through the oven or directly to a control
Device.    Two plants have completely sealed the tanks and control
emissions by conservation vents that are exhausted to the atmosphere.
Three plant's partially cover the top of the tanks with plastic to reduce
emissions.

     The least effective method of capturing fugitive VOC emissions in the
mix room 1s the use of local ventilation near sources of VOC.  Collection
hoods may be placed under ojr suspended over mixers, holding tanks, sinks,
and filter changing areas.    Separation distances for this equipment can
be as great as 3 m (10 ft).  To achieve good capture velocities, large
airflow rates must be used.  Two plants use hoods over the mix equipment
and vent to the control device.

4.3.3  Capture of Emissions From Coating Operations

     4.3.3.1  Coating Application/Flashoff Capture System.  Total
enclosures, room ventilation, partial enclosures, local point ventilation,
and overhead hoods are used to capture fugitive emissions from the
coater.  Total enclosures and room ventilation are typically used at new
plants because of the Improved product quality control that can be achieved
by controlling the quality of the air which enters the system.

     The most effective emission capture system is a total enclosure.
If total enclosures are maintained at a negative pressure, containment
is complete because the draft would cause inflow of air through any
opening in the enclosure, such as the slit where the film enters.
magnetic tape plants have installed total enclosures on coating lines.
Two types of total enclosures are used by the magnetic tape industry.
One type encloses the entire applicator area, allowing access through
doors to the application system.  The second type is a smaller,
tight-fitting structure around the equipment only.  Figure 4-6
illustrates one design of a total enclosure.  Typically, ventilation
rates are adjusted to avoid concentrations that exceed either the
                                 4-20

-------
COATING MIX
                        _Q
COATER
(REVERSE;
 ROLL)
    O
   UNWIND
                                                       OVEN
                                                                               TO CONTROL
                                                                                 DEVICE
REWIND
             Figure  4-6.   Schematic  of total  enclosure ventilation system.
                                            4-21

-------
threshold limit value for occupational exposures or 25 percent of the
LEL.    At some plants the SLA from the coater head and web enclosure is
directed to the drying oven.  This reuse of the air reduces the total
airflow rate to the control system.  At other plants, the exhaust is sent
directly to the control device.  Total enclosures have been used at some
plants for up to 12 years.

     In many web coating industries such as magnetic tape, publication
rotogravure, and pressure sensitive tapes and labels, the coating room
serves as a "total enclosure."  At least two magnetic tape plants control
the room ventilation air.    In such a case, the coating room ventilation
air may be directed to a control device [see Figure 4-7(a)].  The cost of
such a control scheme can be significantly reduced by recycling the bulk of
the coating room ventilation air and withdrawing only a portion for
delivery to the control device.  For example, as shown in Figure 4-7(b),
perhaps only 10 percent of the coating room ventilation air need be
directed to the control device; the rest is recirculated.  This
dramatically reduces the size and cost of the^control equipment required.
1 -,e coating room ventilation air may also be used as oven makeup air,
thereby enriching it and further minimizing the total air volume delivered
to the control device.  Obviously, it is advantageous to withdraw the air
richest in organics to the oven to minimize organic build-up in the
workroom areas.  This might be accomplished by situating a hood as shown in
Figure 4-7(c).

     At least one plant has both the total enclosure and the room
ventilation ducted to the control device.  Each coater enclosure is
operated at slight negative pressure.  The air is pulled from the enclosure
by a fan and exhausted to the SLA duct.  The air into the coating room that
houses the total coater enclosure is drawn from the room by fans.  The
coating room air is vented directly into the oven room and eventually used
as oven make-up air.  The air from the oven is ducted to the SLA.

     A less effective method of confining VOC emissions is partial
enclosure of the coating application/flashoff area.  A wide range of
capture efficiencies are achievable depending on the design of the partial
enclosure and the airflow velocities.  For a given design, the larger the
air velocity, the higher the capture efficiency.  However, the cost of the
system and control device  (if applicable) are very dependent on the airflow
rate, and it becomes uneconomical to operate with large flow rates and high
capture efficiencies.

     Partial enclosure systems observed at magnetic tape plants consist of
flexible vinyl strips hung around the coating application/flashoff area to
form a curtain.  With these systems, some confinement of fugitive emissions
is  achieved while ease of access is maintained.  The VOC emissions are
removed |£om inside the enclosure by overhead hoods or point ventilation
systems.    The fugitive emissions so contained can be vented through the
drying oven and into the control device although many plants discharge
these emissions directly to the atmosphere.
                                 4-22

-------
 
-------
     Point ventilation systems may also be used to capture fugitive
emissions from the coater.  These systems locate air intake ducts as close
to the fugitive emission source as possible.  Overall capture efficiencies
achieved by point ventilation systems are low because of the relatively
small areas they influence.  The SLA from the point ventilation system may
also be routed to the drying ovens and then to the control device.

     At a few plants, fugitive emissions from the coater and the wet web
are unconfined by curtains and are captured by ventilation hoods.  These
hoods can be located above or below the coater and wet web.  Overhead hoods
may be suspended 0.3 to 1.5 m (1 to 5 ft) above the coater.  Collection
hoods (fjoor sweeps) may be placed 1 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) under the coater
and web.   To achieve good capture, large airflow rates must be used with
either of these hood systems.  Capture efficiencies achieved by these hoods
can be low because the distance between the hood opening and the emission
source allows turbulence to disperse the emissions.

     4.3.3.2  Drying Oven Ventilation.  Well-ventilated ovens are designed
to rperate at a slightly negative pressure.  The oven is sealed to prevent
any  loss of VOC vapor to the room air.  The area of web entry and exit
openings is minimized with no substantial pressure differentials across
these openings.

4.4  VOC EMISSION CAPTURE SYSTEMS AND CONTROL DEVICES COMBINED

     The installation of a total enclosure around the coater and
application/flashoff area and the ventilation of the enclosure and oven
to control device can achieve a theoretical control efficiency ranging
from 95 to 98 percent.  The 95 percent is achieved by using a carbon
adsorber or condenser; the 98 percent is achieved by using an
incinerator.  Based on the data presented below, the documented
efficiencies of a total enclosure and carbon adsorber range from 93 to
95 percent.

     Actual efficiencies may be lower because enclosure doors are opened
occasionally during coating operations, and slits must be provided in the
enclosure to allow the web to enter.  Drying ovens also have openings to
allow the web to pass through and have doors that are opened to observe the
web during drying.

     There are nine magnetic^tape plants that use this type of VOC emission
capture and control system.    Two magnetic tape industry representatives
have stated that coating operation VOC emission reductions of 95 percent
have been achieved using a total enclosure and carbon adsorber.

     Control efficiency information was also obtained from another
industry similar to the magnetic tape industry.  The pressure sensitive
tape and label (PSTL) industry is an  industry in which solvent-based
coatings are applied to a continuous web of back material with coating
                                 4-24

-------
and drying processes and VOC capture and control systems very similar to
those used In the coating of magnetic tape.  Typical coatings used in the
PSTL industry contain the same weight percent VOC as typical coatings in
the magnetic tape Industry.  The same types of coating applicators and
drying ovens are used 1n both Industries.  The most common control device
in both Industries is a fixed-bed carbon adsorber.  At one plant tested in
the PSTL Industry, the building in which the coaters are located is sealed
tightly enough to allow a slight negative pressure 1n the work area
relative to the outdoors.  The drying ovens operate at a slight negative
pressure relative to the room, and the oven make-up air is pulled directly
from the coater work area.  There are also hoods that are located over the
coaters and are vented to the drying ovens.  This is a fully enclosed,
tight system in which air flows from outdoors into the building, then into
the oven, and then to a fixed-bed carbon adsorber.  This PSTL facility has
demonstrated a 4-week overajl VOC emission reduction of 93 percent based on
a liquid material balance.

4.5  LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY

     The use of low-solvent coatings such as high solids coatings and
waterborne coatings instead of solvent borne coatings 1s another method of
reducing VOC emissions.  Research in the areas of low-solvent coatings for
magnetic tape continues; however, these technologies are not used 1n any
existing commercial facilities, and no new facilities that incorporate
these technologies are planned.  ~    Conceivably, solvent usage may be
reduced through the use of reduced solvent coatings in conjunction with an
electron-beam curing process.  One vendor predicts that electron-beam
curing will eliminate the need for solvent in coatings within the next 2 to
3 years; however, others are less definite about the potential growth of
this technology.  »    Therefore, coalings involving organic solvents are
expected to continue for many years.

     A change to either of the two types of low-solvent coatings would
result in a decreased airflow through the drying oven.  High solids
coatings would require less air than conventional coatings to dilute the
small amount of solvent to 25 percent of the LEL.  The amount of air
necessary to dry a waterborne coating depends on the air temperature and
relative humidity that is needed to assure product quality; it 1s unlikely
that a waterborne coating would require a higher airflow rate than a
conventional solvent borne coating.    For the solvents used in this
Industry, the air volume required to evaporate 3.8 liters («,) (1 gal) of
solvent to 25 percent of the LEL ranges from about 230 m  (8,000 ft ) to
about 320 nT (11,300 ft3).    At 82°C (180°F), the amount of air needed to
evaporate 3.8 «. (1 gal) of water to a relative humidity of 25 percent and
7 percent is about 54 m  (1,900 ft ) and 300 m3 (10,700 ft3),
respectively.    Thus, because airflow rate is the major design parameter,
a fixed-bed carbon adsorber used to control emissions from a line applying
low-solvent coatings would be no larger than that for solvent borne lines.
                                4-25

-------
4.6  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4

 1.  Telecon.  Thorneloe,  S., MRI, with Fischer, G., Memorex Corp.  May 17,
     1983.  Information on control devices at Memorex, Santa Clara,
     California, facility.

 2.  Telecon, Meyer, J., MRI, with Fischer, G., Memorex Corp.  May 23,
     1983.  Information on absorber at Memorex, Santa Clara, California,
     facility.

 3.  Meyer, W.  Solvent Broke.  Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc., Cincinnati,
     Ohio.  (Presented at TAPPI Test/PAP Synth. Conf., Boston, October 7-9,
     1974.)  pp. 109-115.

 4.  Neveril, R. B., GARD, Inc.  Capital and Operating Costs of Selected
     Air Pollution Control Systems.  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  EPA Publication No.
     EPA-450/5-80-002.  December 1978.  P. 5-41.

 5.  Stern, A.  Air Pollution.  Third Edition.  Volume IV.  Engineering
     Control of Air Pollution.  New York, Academic Press,  p. 343.

 6.  Letter and attachment from Forbes, R., Eastman-Kodak, to Johnson, W.,
     EPA:CPB.  September 26, 1984.  Comments on draft BID of Magnetic Tape
     Manufacturing Industry.

 7.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     April 5, 1984.  Information on control devices used by magnetic tape
     coating facilities.

 8.  Radian Corporation.  Full-Scale Carbon Adsorption Applications
     Study:  Draft Plant Test Report—Plant 3.  Prepared for U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  EPA Contract No.
     68-03-3038.  August 19, 1982.  p. 29.

 9.  Stunkard, C.  Solvent Recovery From Low Concentration Emissions.
     Calgon Carbon Corp.  Undated,  p. 6-9.

10.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Control of Volatile Organic
     Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources—Volume I:  Control Methods
     for Surface-Coating Operations.  EPA-450/2-76-028.  Research Triangle
     Park, North Carolina.  November 1976.  p. 33.

11.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Typical process parameters for magnetic tape coating
     facilities using fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.

12.  Reference 3, p. 111.

13.  Memorandum from Buzenberg, R., DPRA, to Johnson, W., EPA:CPB, and
     Short, R., EPA:EAB.  February 1, 1982.  Attachment 1, p. 3.  Report of
     site visit to 3-M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.


                                4-26

-------
14.  Reference 8, p. 25.

15.  Reference 10, p. 34.

16.  Reference 3, p. 115.

17.  Crane, G.  Carbon Adsorption for VOC Control.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  January
     1982.  p. 23.

18.  Radian Corporation.  Full-Scale Carbon Adsorption Applications
     Study:  Draft Plant Test Report-Plant 2.  Prepared for U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Cincinnati, Ohio.  EPA Contract No.
     68-03-3038.  July 30, 1982.  p. 27.

19.  Reference 18, p. 3.

20.  Reference 18, p. 5.

21.  Reference 18, pp. 21-22.

22.  Reference 18, p. 5.

23.  Basdekis, H., IT Envlroscience.  Emission Control Options for the
     Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry.  Control Device
     Evaluation, Carbon Adsorption.  Prepared for U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  EPA
     Contract No. 68-02-2577.  February 1980.  pp. 11-25 to 11-26.

24.  Golba, N., and Mason, J.  Solvent Recovery Using Fluidized Bed Carbon
     Adsorption.  Union Carbide Corporation, Tonawanda, New York.
     (Presented at the Water-Borne and Higher Sol Ids Coating Symposium.
     New Orleans.  February 17-19, 1982.)  18 p.

25.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Pfeiffer, R., Union Carbide Corp.
     August 22, 1983.  Information on cost of fluid-bed carbon adsorbers.

26.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Pfeiffer, R., Union Carbide Corp.
     September 8, 1983.  Information on use of caustic drying with
     fluid-bed carbon adsorbers.

27.  Memorandum from Meyer, J., MRI, to Johnson, W., EPA:CPB.  March 10,
     1983.  Report of site visit to Columbia Magnetic Products Division of
     CBS-Records, Carroll ton, Georgia.

28.  Letter and attachment from Bancroft, W., Union Carbide Corp., to
     Thorneloe, S., MRI.  November 10, 1983.  Comments on draft BID
     Chapters 3-6 of Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry, Process and
     Pollutant Emissions.
                                4-27

-------
29.  Letter and attachments from Wetzel, J., Calgon Carbon Corp., to Beall,
     C.t MRI.  February 13, 1984.  Information on Calgon VentSorb® unit.

30.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Byron, B., Tigg Corp.  February 8,
     1984.  Information on disposable-canister carbon adsorption system.

31.  Rothchild, R.  Curing Coatings With an Inert Gas Solvent System.
     Journal of Coatings Technology.  53(675):53-56.  April 1981.

32.  Nikityn, J.  Inert Atmosphere Solvent Recovery.  Reprinted from the
     Journal of Industrial Fabrics.  Volume 1, Number 4.  Spring 1983.

33.  Erikson, D., IT Enviroscience.  Emission Control Options for the
     Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry-Control Device
     Evaluation, Condensation.  Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  EPA Contract No.
     68-02-2577.  July 1980.  p. II-l.

0 ».  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Reiman, Airco Industrial Gases.
     May 18, 1983.  Information on Airco condensation system for solvent
     recovery.

35.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Liston, S., Bay Area Air Quality
     Management District.  December 22, 1982.  Information on Allied Media
     Technology.

36.  Telecon.  Duletsky, B., MRI, to Morneault, J., Opus Computer
     Resources.  December 9, 1983.  Information on magnetic tape coating
     facility.

37.  Telecon, Beall, C., MRI, with Rieman, D., Airco Industrial Gases.
     February 15, 1984.  Information on Airco condensation system.

38.  Letter and attachment from Harris, T., Tandy Magnetic Media, to Wyatt,
     S., EPA:CPB.  October 28, 1983.  Comments on draft BID Chapters 3-6 of
     Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Industry, Process and Pollutant
     Emissions.

39.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Memering, L., United Air
     Specialists.  May 4, 1983.  Information on the Kon-den-Solver® system
     for VOC recovery.

40.  Telecon.  Meyer, J., MRI, with Harper, S., Verbatim Corp.  March  3,
     1983.   Information  on VOC control  system at Verbatim, Sunnyvale,
     California, plant.

41.  Memorandum from Mascone, D.,  EPA:CPB, to Farmer, J., EPA:CPB.
     June  11,  1980.  Thermal  incinerator performance for NSPS.

42.  Memorandum from Mascone, D.,  EPArCPB, to Farmer, J., EPArCPB.
     July  22,  1980.  Thermal  incinerator performance for NSPS, Addendum.
                                 4-28

-------
43.  Memorandum and attachment from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape
     Project File.  August 1, 1983.  Summary of confidential process and
     line data.

44.  Reference 10, p. 51.

45.  Reference 10, p. 54.

46.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Pressure-Sensitive Tape and
     Label Surface Coating Industry-Background Information for Proposed
     Standards.  EPA-450/3-80-003a.  Research Triangle Park, North
     Carolina.  September 1980.  p. 4-18.

47.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  VOC Emissions From Petroleum
     Refinery Wastewater Systems—Background Information for Proposed
     Standards.  Preliminary Draft.  Research Triangle Park, North
     Carolina.  July 1984.  pp. 4-25 to 4-32.

48.  Letter and attachment from Crist, W., W. F. Crist Company, Inc., to
     Beall, C., MRI.  February 6, 1984.  Pollution and Gas Control
     Equipment Bulletin CP-6003-B.  p. 55.

49.  Memorandum and attachments from Meyer, J., MRI, to Johnson, W.,
     EPA:CPB.  October 7, 1983.  p. 4.  Report on site visit to BASF
     Systems Corp., Bedford, Massachusetts.

50.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., with Harper, S., Verbatim Corp.  February 2,
     1984.  Information on storage tank ventilation.

51.  Reference 48, p. 52.

52.  Danielson, J.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  Second Edition.
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North
     Carolina.  Publication No. AP-40.  May 1973.  pp. 638-642.

53.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     October 19, 1984.  Conservation vent control efficiency.

54.  Memorandum and attachments from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape
     Project File.  April 5, 1984.  Summary of emission capture systems
     used at magnetic tape coating facilities.

55.  Telecon.  Meyer, J., MRI, with Petersen, A., Ampex Corp.  April 8,
     1983.  Information on Ampex Corp., Opelika, plant VOC control
     system.

56.  Letter and attachment from Lazartic, J., Taylor, and Patel, Certron
     Corp., to Farmer, J., EPA:ESED.  May 25, 1983.  Response to
     Section 114 information request.
                                4-29

-------
57.  Perry, R.f and Nlshimura,  A.   Magnetic Tape.   In:   Kirk-Othmer:
     Encyclopedia of Chemical  Technology.   Volume  14.   Third Edition.  New
     York, John Wiley & Sons,  Inc.   1981.   p.  743.

58.  Reference 13, attachment  1, p. 2.

59.  Telecon.  Meyer, J., MRI,  with Perry, R., Ampex Corp.  July 1, 1983.
     Information on coaters, coatings,  and process modifications.

60.  Memorandum from Buzenberg, R., DPRA,  to Johnson,  W., EPArCPB, and
     Short, R., EPA:EAB.  February  1, 1982.  p. 2.  Report of site visit to
     Memorex Corp., Santa Clara, California.

61.  Telecon.  Glanville, J.,  MRI,  with Menezes, T., Energy Sciences
     Corp.  August 22, 1983.  Information on electron-beam curing.

62.  Telecon.  Glanville, J.,  MRI,  with Laskin, L., DeSoto, Inc.
     August 29, 1983.  Information  on electron-beam curing.

o3.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI,  with Daniels, S., Overly, Inc.  August 8,
     1985.  Information on drying ovens for waterborne and solvent borne
     coatings.

64.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     September 20, 1985.  Oven airflow requirements for solvent borne and
     waterborne coatings.
                                4-30

-------
                    5.  MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

     Standards of performance apply to facilities for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction commenced (as defined under 40 CFR 60.2)
after the date of proposal of the standards.  Such facilities are termed
"affected facilities."  Standards of performance are not applicable to
"existing facilities" (I.e., facilities for which construction, modifi-
cation, or reconstruction commenced on or before the date of proposal of
the standards).  An existing facility may become an affected facility and,
therefore, be subject to the standard of performance 1f the facility
undergoes modification or reconstruction.

     Modification and reconstruction are defined under 40 CFR 60.14 and
60.15, respectively.  These general provisions are summarized in
Section 5.1.  Section 5.2 discusses the applicability of these provisions
to magnetic tape manufacturing facilities.

5.1  PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION

5.1.1  Modification

     With certain exceptions, any physical or operational change to an
existing facility that would increase the emission rate to the atmosphere
from that facility of any pollutant covered by the standard would be
considered a modification within the meaning of Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act.  The key to determining if a change is considered a modification
is whether actual emissions to the atmosphere from the facility have
increased on a mass per time basis (kg/h [lb/h]) as a result of the
change.  Changes in emission rate may be determined by the use of emission
factors, by material balances, by continuous monitoring data, or by manual
emission tests in cases where the use of emission factors does not clearly
demonstrate that emissions do or do not increase.  Under the current
regulations, an emission increase from one facility may not be offset with
a similar emission decrease at another facility to avoid becoming subject
to new source performance standards (NSPS).  If an existing facility is
determined to be modified, it becomes an affected facility, subject to the
standards of performance for the pollutant or pollutants that have
increased due to modification.  All emissions, not just the incremental
increase 1n emissions, of the pollutants that have increased from the
facility must be in compliance with the applicable standards.  A
modification to one existing facility at a plant will not cause other
existing facilities at the same plant to become subject to the standards.
                                    5-1

-------
     Under the regulations, certain physical or operational changes are not
considered to be modifications even though emissions may increase as a
result of the change (see 40 CFR 60.14(e)).  For the most part, these
exceptions are allowed because they account for fluctuations 1n emissions
that do not cause a facility to become a significant new source of air
pollution.  The exceptions as allowed under 40 CFR 60.14(e) are as
follows:

     1.  Routine maintenance, repair, and replacement (e.g., lubrication of
mechanical equipment; replacement of pumps, motors, and piping; cleaning of
equipment);

     2.  An increase in the hours of operation;

     3.  Use of an alternative fuel or raw material if, prior to proposal
of the standard, the existing facility was designed to accommodate that
alternate fuel or raw material;

     4.  The addition or use of any system or device whose primary
function is to reduce air pollutants, except when an emission control
system is replaced by a system determined by the EPA to be less environ-
mentally beneficial;

     5.  Relocation or change in ownership of the existing facility; and

     6.  An increase in the production rate without a capital
expenditure.  A capital expenditure is defined in 40 CFR 60.2 as an
expenditure for a physical or operational change to an existing facility
which exceeds the product of (1) the applicable "annual asset guideline
repair allowance percentage" specified in the latest edition of Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) Publication 534 and (2) the existing facility's basis
(fixed capital cost), as defined by Section 1012 of the Internal Revenue
Code.  However, the total expenditure for a physical or operational change
to an existing facility must not be reduced by any "excluded additions" as
defined in IRS Publication 534, as would be done for tax purposes.  For the
magnetic tape industry, the asset guideline repair allowance is 15 percent
as defined under Asset Guideline Class 26.2—Manufacture of Converted
Paper, Paperboard, and Pulp Products, which includes paper coating.

     An owner or operator of an existing facility who is planning a
physical or operational change that may increase the emission rate of a
pollutant to which a standard applies shall notify the appropriate EPA
regional office 60 days prior to the change, as specified in
40 CFR 60.7(a)(4).

5.1.2  Reconstruction

     An existing facility may become subject to NSPS if it is recon-
structed.  Reconstruction is defined as the replacement of the components
of an existing facility to the extent that  (1) the fixed capital cost of
the  new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost required to
construct a comparable new facility, and (2) it is technically and


                                     5-2

-------
economically feasible for the facility to meet the applicable standards.
Because the EPA considers reconstructed facilities to constitute new
construction rather than modification, reconstruction determinations are
made Irrespective of changes 1n emission rates.

     The purpose of the reconstruction provisions 1s to discourage the
perpetuation of an existing facility for the sole purpose of circumventing
a standard that 1s applicable to new facilities.  Without such a provi-
sion, all but vestigial components (such as frames, housing, and support
structures) of the existing facility could be replaced without causing the
facility to be considered a "new" facility subject to NSPS.  If the
facility is determined to be reconstructed, it must comply with all of the
provisions of the standards of performance applicable to that facility.

     If an owner or operator of an existing facility is planning to replace
components, and the fixed capital cost of the new components exceeds
50 percent of the fixed capital cost of a comparable new facility, the
owner or operator must notify the appropriate EPA regional office 60 days
before the construction of the replacement commences, as required under
40 CFR 60.15(d).

5.2  APPLICATION TO MAGNETIC TAPE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

5.2.1  Modification

     5.2.1.1  Solvent Storage Tanks.  Few, if any, changes in the physical
configuration of storage tanks that would increase emissions are anti-
cipated.  Because replacement of frames, housings, and supporting
structures would not increase emissions from a storage tank, such replace-
ment would not constitute a modification.  Increasing emissions by
increasing solvent throughput would not be considered a modification
because no capital expenditure would be associated with the Increased
throughput.  The addition of a tank to a coating line without a corre-
sponding increase in line solvent use would not be a modification because
the VOC emissions from such an addition would only Increase overall
emissions from the coating line by <0.05 percent.  Thus, few, 1f any,
modifications of solvent storage tanks are expected.

     5.2.1.2  Coating Mix Preparation Equipment.  No changes in the
physical configuration of coating mix preparation equipment that would
increase emissions are expected.  Mixers, mills, and tanks are used
indefinitely and2repaired as needed except for replacement to achieve
process changes.   These repairs would not result in increased VOC
emissions.  The addition of pieces of mix equipment without a corre-
sponding increase in solvent use would not be considered a modification.
Such an addition might change the relative emissions from the mix room
and coating operation, but the total emissions from the coating line
would not increase.  The addition of mix equipment with increased through-
put for increased production may be considered a modification, depending on
the capital cost of such an addition.
                                    5-3

-------
     Because of the large variations 1n the types,  sizes,  and, thus, cost
of mix room equipment used in the magnetic tape coating industry, it would
be necessary to determine if the capital cost of any modification to the
mix room is greater than 15 percent of the existing facility's capital cost
on a case-by-case basis.

     Operational changes that might increase VOC emissions would be a
change in the length of time required to prepare coating mixtures or a
change in the raw materials.  A change in processing time would not
constitute a modification, however, because it would be an increase in
hours of operation, which is exempted under 40 CFR 60.14(e) from modifi-
cation determinations.  A change in raw materials processed would only be
considered a modification if the mix equipment were not designed to
accommodate the new raw materials before proposal of the standard.  For
example, if the new raw materials chemically react with the materials used
to construct the mix equipment, it could be considered that the mix
equipment was not designed to accommodate the new raw materials.  However,
the same coating mix preparation equipment is used to prepare the known
ran< 3 of commercial coatings for audio, video, and computer tape
prc.-jcts.   Thus, modifications of coating mix equipment are not
expected.

     5.2.1.3  Coating Operation.  Potential modifications of magnetic
tape coating operations and processes include changes to increase produc-
tion and changes in the method of applying the magnetic coating mixture to
the plastic film.  Changes in the application method could increase the VOC
emission rate of the coating operation if the new method applied thicker
coatings or coatings with a higher solvent content.  If these changes can
be accomplished with the existing coater, these changes would not be
considered modifications.  If these changes require the installation of a
new coater, the cost may be large enough to be considered a modification.
However, the trend in this industry is towards thinner coatings.

     Production increases can also increase the VOC emission rate from a
coating operation.  The productivity of a magnetic tape coating operation
is determined by the web width, the line speed, the hours of operation, and
the efficiency of scheduling.  Production increases can be accomplished by
two methods.  In the first method, the operation of the existing equipment
is pushed to its capacity by removal of bottlenecks, more efficient
scheduling, and increasing the hours of operation.  When no more capacity
can be achieved in this manner, new coating operations are built or
existing operations are upgraded.  Most of the production increases (and
the associated emission increases) from the first method are specifically
exempted from NSPS compliance under 40 CFR 60.14(e).  Most of the equipment
modifications in the second method involve totally new sources or
investments so  large as to qualify as reconstruction.  Specific examples of
production equipment changes are discussed below with emphasis on the few
cases where the modification clause might apply.

     5.2.1.3.1  Changes in web width.  Changes in the width of web would
increase both production and emissions.  The maximum web width that any
given coating line can accommodate is an integral part of the basic


                                     5-4

-------
design of the system.  Web width cannot be Increased significantly
(<2.5 cm [<1 Inch]) beyond this maximum without Installing essentially all
new equipment.  It 1s, therefore, unlikely that such a modification would
be made.

     5.2.1.3.2  Changes 1n line speed.  An Increase in maximum line speed
is the most likely change that could constitute a modification.  The
maximum line speed for a given facility depends on both the basic design of
the coating line and on the specifications for each product.  The factors
that might constitute a Hne speed limitation include:

     1.  A limitation on the available power and/or speed of the motors
that drive the web;

     2.  Drying limitations based either on the amount of heat available or
on residence time in the oven;

     3.  A limitation on air circulation in the drying oven that causes the
lower explosive limit (LEL) to be exceeded; and

     4.  A limitation on the maximum speed at which a smooth coating can be
achieved with a given coating head or at which the line can be operated
without shutdowns.

     Any equipment changes made to increase production rate (such as
larger/faster drive motors, larger ovens, higher capacity boilers for the
ovens, higher capacity oven air circulating blowers, or LEL sensors with
alarm/shutdown capacity) would result in increased emissions.  Thus, the
facility could come under the modification provisions provided the capital
cost is greater than 15 percent of initial capital cost of the existing
facility and, therefore, is a capital expenditure according to the
definition in 40 CFR 60.2.  The cost of increasing the line speed ranges
from 2 to427 percent of the fixed capital cost of an existing
facility. "   In general, the cost required to double the line speed of a
26-inch line will result in a capital cost greater than 15 percent of the
basis and, thus, will cause the facility to become subject to the
modification provisions.

     5.2.1.3.3  Raw material changes.  Many changes in coating mixture
specifications (such as percent VOC or coating thickness) could also result
in increased VOC emissions.  Such changes would only be considered
modifications if the coating operation equipment were not designed to
accommodate use of that coating mix.

     5.2.1.3.4  Changes in the hours available for operation and/or
scheduling efficiency.  A typical magnetic tape coating operation operates
from approximately 100 to 168 hours per week. •   Significant increases in
production and emissions could result from extending the working hours, but
this is specifically exempted under the modification clause.

     Even during the hours of operation, a coating operation may be shut
down to change products.  Each time a change 1s made in the type of tape


                                    5-5

-------
to be coated on a given line, time must be allowed to clean up the
equipment and to reset the controls to the new product specifications.
Thus, careful scheduling can increase production, which will result in
increased VOC emissions.  The careful scheduling of production would not be
considered a modification if that production rate increase can be
accomplished without a capital expenditure.

     5.2.2  Reconstruction

     Reconstruction, as defined under 40 CFR 60.15, might occur if the
components of a magnetic tape manufacturing facility (i.e., storage
tanks, mix equipment, coating operation, and other miscellaneous sources)
are replaced and if the fixed capital costs of the replacement components
exceed 50 percent of the fixed capital costs of a comparable new facility.

     Only under catastrophic circumstances (e.g., total destruction of the
storage tank by fire, or explosion, or collapse of the roof) would a
facility possibly become subject to the NSPS reconstruction provision due
to physical changes in the solvent storage tank; however, this cost
relative to that of the entire facility may not be large enough.  Because
associated support structures (frames, housing, etc.) are not part of a
tank, replacement of such structures would not constitute reconstruction.

     Replacement of mix preparation equipment may occasionally incur
sufficient expense to qualify as reconstruction of the entire facility if
the replacement is extensive in a large mix room.  Replacement of single
components in a coating operation (i.e., a change in coating applicator or
drying oven) occurs only rarely.  However, the replacement of the entire
coater could be sufficiently expensive to qualify as a reconstruction. » °
Some of the equipment changes discussed in Section 5.2.1.3 may incur
sufficient cost to qualify as reconstructions.  Any change of equipment to
increase web width significantly would probably require such extensive
equipment replacement that it would be considered a reconstruction.  Such
changes are unlikely since the plant probably could install a new coating
operation for approximately the same expenditure.  Similarly, equipment
changes to increase line speed significantly could be costly enough to
require a reconstruction determination.  However, it is very unlikely that
the line speed would be increased to a speed such that the capital cost
would be greater than 50 percent of the existing facility's fixed capital
cost.  Increasing the line speed to highest known existing speed of 1,000
feet per minute represents only 27 percent of the capital cost of an
existing facility.  »   Reconstruction in the magnetic tape manufacturing
industry is expected to occur only in isolated cases, if at all.

5.3  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5

  1.  U.S. Department of the Treasury.  Internal Revenue Service.
     Depreciation.  Publication 534.  Revised November 1983.  p. 22.

  2.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Waxmonsky, J., Moorehouse
     Industries, Inc.  July 29, 1983.  Information on mix room equipment.
                                     5-6

-------
 3.   Telecon.   Meyer,  J.,  MRI,  with Mlssbach,  F.,  Netzsch-Fe1nmahltechn1x
     GmbH.   August 25, 1983.   Information on mix room equipment,  processes,
     and prices.

 4.   Telecon.   Glanvllle,  J., MRI,  with Nellson, D.,  Passavant Corp.
     September 12, 1984.   Information on cost  to Increase line speed.

 5.   Telecon.   Glanvllle,  J., MRI,  with Baskin,  M.,  Egan Leesona  Corp.
     September 12, 1984.   Information on cost  to increase line speed.

 6.   Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic  Tape Project File.
     October 8, 1984.   Capital  costs for modifications to magnetic tape
     coating facilities.

 7.   Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project  File.
     June 22,  1984.  Summary of nonconfidentlal  information on U.S.
     magnetic  tape coating facilities.

 8.   Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project  File.
     August 1, 1983.  Summary of confidential  Information on U.S.  magnetic
     tape coating facilities.

 9.   Telecon.   Glanvllle,  J., MRI,  with Helnfeld,  S., Passavant Corp.
     July 11,  1983.  Information on drying ovens and  coating operations.

10.   Telecon.   Glanville,  J., MRI,  with Whltmore,  G., Egan Leesona Corp.
     July 11,  1983.  Information on drying ovens and  coating operations.
                                    5-7

-------
                6.  MODEL LINES AND REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

6.1  GENERAL

     The purpose of this chapter 1s to define the model lines and to
present the regulatory alternatives that can be applied to them.  Model
lines are parametric descriptions of typical lines that will be encountered
in new, modified, or reconstructed plants.  For this study, parametric
descriptions of typical lines are presented for the solvent storage tanks,
the coating mix preparation room (mix room), and the magnetic tape coating
operation.  For systems that have more than one coating operation in
series, each coating operation will be considered a single unit
operation.  A model line consists of the combination of model solvent
storage tanks, a model mix room, and a model coating operation.  Model line
parameters are defined for lines of three different sizes and represent
control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from newly constructed
magnetic tape coating plants by add-on control systems, such as fixed-bed
carbon adsorbers.  Model lines representing the use of process
modifications, such as waterborne coatings, are not analyzed because the
use of such process modifications 1s not demonstrated at the commercial
level.  (See Chapter 3 for descriptions of solvent storage, coating mix
preparation, and tape coating operations and Chapter 4 for descriptions of
control devices and control configurations.)

     The regulatory alternatives represent various courses of action that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could take in controlling
VOC emissions from magnetic tape manufacturing plants.  The environmental,
energy, and economic impacts associated with the application of the
alternatives to each of the model lines are presented in subsequent
chapters.

6.2  MODEL LINES

     Three model line sizes (research, small, and typical) have been
selected to characterize the manufacturing and research coating lines
expected to be constructed, modified, or reconstructed in the near future.
Figure 6-1 presents a schematic of a typical controlled plant with solvent
storage tanks, coating mix preparation equipment, and a coating operation.
Model solvent storage tanks are defined as the number and size of tanks
required to supply solvent to the model mix room to be used in the coating
preparation.  Throughout this chapter, model storage tank refers to these
groups of tanks, not individual tanks.  A model mix room is defined as
the mix equipment (I.e., mills, mixers, polishing tanks, and holding


                                    6-1

-------
tanks) required to supply coating to the magnetic tape coating operation.
A model coating operation is defined as the combination of a coating
application/flashoff area, a drying oven, and the necessary ancillary
equipment.  The model coating operation is defined as a single coating
operation because new plants are expected to be constructed with one
coating operation plus sufficient space to add additional coating
operations in the future, and existing plants are expected to expand
capacity by addition of only one coating operation at a time.

     Separate model lines are not specified for production of audio, video,
and computer tape products because (1) any coating line can be used to
produce all types of tape products and (2) the range of solvent content of
coatings, coating thickness, and oven exhaust rates observed does not vary
with the type of tape being produced.   Thus, VOC emissions do not vary as
a function of product type, and separate model lines are not required to
evaluate the control equipment costs and cost effectiveness of the
regulatory alternatives.

     The control of VOC emissions from the model storage tank and model mix
room is based on either the use of equipment designed to reduce breathing
(thermal) losses or diffusion losses of solvent, or the use of VOC capture
devices combined with solvent recovery systems.  Model coating operations
are assumed to be controlled by solvent vapor capture devices combined with
a solvent recovery system (carbon adsorber or condenser) or a solvent
destruction device (incinerator).

     Land and utility requirements for the model lines are shown in
Table 6-1.  Additional building area is required for slitting, packaging,
and testing the magnetic tape as well as for administrative offices and
laboratory facilities.

     Utilities for the model lines consist of electricity, steam, water,
and natural gas.  The lines use electricity to operate the motors for the
mixers, mills, pumps, coating lines, and fans.  In the model lines, the
ovens are assumed to be indirectly heated by steam produced by a natural
gas-fired boiler.  Carbon adsorbers use steam for regeneration of the
carbon beds and water for cooling and condensing the steam.  Incinerators
used for some of the regulatory alternatives are assumed to use natural
gas.

6.3  MODEL LINE PARAMETERS

     The model line parameters are given separately for the model storage
tank, model mix room, and the model coating operations in Tables 6-2
through 6-6.  The model line parameters are based on specific information
from magnetic tape plants and general information from various industry
contacts.

     The raw materials used in magnetic tape manufacturing are polyester
film, solvents, magnetic particles, binder (generally polyurethanes),
dispersants, lubricants, conductive pigments, and miscellaneous additives.
                                     6-2

-------
     The major design parameters for the model lines are the production
rate, hours of operation, coating solvent content, and coating thickness.
Combined, these parameters determine the potential uncontrolled VOC
emission rate from the solvent storage tanks, the mix room, and the coating
operation.  These parameters, and others, also determine the design
specifications of the control device for the model line.  The basis of the
assumed parameters is discussed below.

6.3.1  Solvent Storage Tanks

     The model storage tanks described in Table 6-2 are defined as the size
and number of tanks required to supply solvent to the model mix room.  The
number of storage tanks is the same as the number of different solvents
used in the industry.  The sizes of the storage tanks are based on the most
common sizes used in the industry.  Uncontrolled VOC emission levels are
based on equations developed by the American Petroleum Institute.
Emissions may be controlled by installing conservation vents, by ducting
the emissions to a disposable canister carbon adsorber, or by ducting the
emissions to the same carbon adsorber controlling emissions from the
coating operation.  The conservation vents have an average control
efficiency of 35 percent and the adsorption control methods would reduce
emissions by 95 percent.

6.3.2  Mix Room Equipment

     The model mix rooms described in Table 6-3 are defined as the total
mix equipment (mills, mixers, polishing tanks, and holding tanks) that
supplies coating to the model coating operations.  The assumed number of
mills, mixers, polishing tanks, and holding tanks (see Table 6-3) is based
on a reasonable minimum number of equipment items that could be used per
coating operation.  Because considerable variation in equipment used for
coating mix preparation exists among magnetic tape lines, the assumed model
mix room equipment represents only one scenario of possible combinations of
equipment used in this area.  The ventilation rate of the equipment is
based on test data from one company.   Uncontrolled VOC emission levels for
the model mix rooms are based on calculated solvent usage for the model
coating operations.  (The coating formulation is discussed under coating
operation because of the effect of solvent concentration and composition on
the design parameters of the control device.)

     Emissions from mix equipment may be controlled by sealing this
equipment with covers.  To prevent excessive pressure buildup, these covers
would be equipped with conservation vents.  Sealing mix equipment with this
type of cover would reduce emissions from mix equipment by at least
40 percent.

     A more stringent level of control could be achieved through a
combination of sealed covers, ductwork, and a carbon adsorber.  The sealed
cover and ductwork would capture the emissions and route them to a carbon
adsorber that prevents their release to the atmosphere.  Such a system
would reduce emissions from mix equipment by 95 percent.
                                    6-3

-------
6.3.3  Coating Operation

     The model coating operation parameters are defined in Tables 6-4 to
6-6.  The basis of the parameters 1s discussed below.

     6.3.3.1  Capture and Control Device Application.  The VOC capture
devices used on the coating application/flashoff area of the coating
operation at magnetic tape lines are (in order of decreasing capture
efficiency) total enclosures, partial enclosures, and exhaust hood venti-
lation systems (see Chapter 4 for descriptions and discussion).

     The control devices used on the coating operation are primarily carbon
adsorbers, incinerators, and condensers.  Carbon adsorbers and incinerators
are used to control VOC emissions from the drying oven and varying amounts
of the application/flashoff area emissions (depending on the type of
fugitive emission capture device).  There are two types of condensers
presently in use in this industry, one using an air atmosphere (System 1 in
Tables 6-5 and 6-6) and one using an Inert (nitrogen) atmosphere (System 2
in Tables 6-5 and 6-6).  Both systems are currently used to control
emissions only from drying ovens, although systems could be designed to
allow^control of the application/flashoff area in addition to the drying
oven.   Oven ventilation rates and solvent formulations at lines utilizing
condensers are significantly different from those used at plants with
carbon adsorbers or incinerators to achieve cost-effective control.
Therefore, model coating operation parameters are provided for carbon
adsorbers/incinerators and for the two condensers.

     6.3.3.2  Size.  Three sizes of model tape coating lines have been
developed:  (1) 0.15-m-wide (6-1nch-wide) coater for research, which is
operated for approximately 2,000 hours per year and may use a blend of any
of five solvents used by the industry; (2) a 0.15-m-wide (6-inch-wide)
coater for tape production, which is operated for approximately 6,000 hours
per year; and (3) a 0.66-m-wide (26-inch-w1de) coater for tape production,
which is also operated for approximately 6,000 hours per year.  The various
model sizes were selected to characterize manufacturing and research
coating lines expected to be constructed, modified, or reconstructed in the
near future.  The line speeds are typical for new coaters of these sizes.
Other web widths and line speeds are now used, but they are not considered
representative of new research or manufacturing lines.

     6.3.3.3  Coating Thickness and Formulation.  The thickness of the wet
coating is the average of the values reported by the industry.  The
percent VOC in the coating and the coating density are representative
values of coating formulations used to produce audio, video, and computer
tape products.  The solvent mixture of tetrahydrofuran (THF), toluene, and
cyclohexanone was selected to be the coating formulation for small and
typical model coating operations controlled by carbon adsorbers or
incinerators because (1) these devices are used primarily to control VOC
emissions at lines using a mixture of several solvents and (2) the
majority of the known coating formulations with multiple solvents contain
THF, toluene, and from one to three ketones.  Cyclohexanone was selected
as the ketone used by the model line because it is commonly used and


                                     6-4

-------
results 1n slightly greater operating costs due to carbon bed fouling.  For
the research model line, five solvents (THF, toluene, cyclohexanone, methyl
ethyl ketone, and methyl Isobutyl ketone) were selected for use in the
coating formulations.

     Two coating solvent formulations for condenser control systems are
used 1n the analysis of control costs:  (1) 100 percent cyclohexanone and
(2) the solvent mixtures used for the carbon adsorber controlled model
lines.  Existing magnetic tape coating plants using condensation solvent
recovery systems use 100 percent cyclohexanone as the coating solvent
base.  Therefore, to estimate control costs representative of those
incurred by industry, 100 percent cyclohexanone was selected as the solvent
for one group of model lines with condenser (Table 6-4).  To consider the
possibility of future situations where the use of other solvents may be
necessary and to allow comparison of costs with those incurred using a
carbon adsorber to recover blends of solvents, the solvent mixtures used
for the carbon adsorber model lines are also used to characterize costs for
model lines with condensers (Table 6-6).

     6.3.3.4  Coating Application/Flashoff Area and Drying Oven Ventilation
Rates.  The ventilation rates for drying ovens were calculated using the
procedures specified in the design manual Ovens and Furnaces.   For model
coating operations using carbon adsorbers or incinerators, the drying oven
exhaust rate was calculated for the solvent mixture and for usage rates
assuming operation of the oven at 25 percent of the lower explosive limit
(LEL) of the solvents.  Even though modern ovens can be designed to operate
safely at 50 percent of the LEL, the higher dilution factor (lower
percentage of the LEL) was selected for the model coating operation
parameters because (1) many plants operate drying ovens at around
25 percent of the LEL, (2) it maximizes air flow rates and costs, and (3) a
rough cost analysis Indicated that worst-case control costs (i.e.,
incinerator controlled coating operation) were only approximately $600 per
ton at 25 percent of the LEL.  The calculated ventilation rates are within
the range of oven ventilation rates reported by the magnetic tape
manufacturing industry.

     For model coating operations using condensers, the drying oven exhaust
rate was calculated for the solvent usage rate assuming  (1) operation of
the oven at 40 percent of the LEL for the condenser using air atmosphere
(System 1 in Tables 6-4 and 6-5) and (2) operation of the oven at
10 percent by volume VOC for the condenser using inert (nitrogen)
atmosphere (System 2 in Tables 6-4 and 6-5).  These solvent vapor
concentrations are representative of the operating conditions for ovens
controlled by the two types of condensers used in this industry.  Higher
solvent vapor concentrations are used by the two condensers to reduce
operating costs and increase solvent recovery efficiency.

     Ventilation rates for the coating application/flashoff area are
given for total and partial enclosures.  The ventilation rates for the
total enclosures are based on flow rates used by the industry in
comparable-sized total enclosures.  The ventilation rates for the partial
enclosures are calculated using the ACGIH recommended calculation procedure


                                    6-5

-------
for booth hoods (i.e., hood with one open face).6  These flow rates are
similar to ventilation rates reported by the industry for hoods.  For
carbon adsorber, condenser, and incinerator control devices, it is
assumed  that the effluent from the total and partial enclosures (when
applicable) is directed into the oven and, therefore, eventually vented
through the control device.  This is the approach used in many existing
plants in the magnetic tape coating industry.

     6.3.3.5  Uncontrolled Emission Rate.  The uncontrolled VOC emission
rates for the model coating operations are the potential emissions
resulting from evaporation of the total solvent usage required for the
production rates specified for the model coating operation.  The
uncontrolled VOC emission levels do not include VOC emissions that result
from cleaning of equipment.  Solvent used for cleaning represents
approximately 6 percent of the total solvent usage by a magnetic tape
manufacturing plant.   Most of this solvent stays in the liquid phase and
can be reused or disposed of in accordance with applicable solid waste and
water quality regulations.   Thus, equipment cleaning will increase the
emission levels by much less than 6 percent.

6.4  REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

     A set of control options was developed for each of the three emission
sources (solvent storage tanks, mix room, and coating operation), and these
options are presented in Tables 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9.  These control options
represent the various emission control levels that are achievable based on
available emission control techniques.

     Because there are no magnetic tape plants with only one coating line
and at which only the coating application/flashoff area and the drying oven
emissions are controlled, no emission test data are available from this
industry on control levels for individual emission sources.  Engineering
judgment, statements from industry representatives, and test data from
related industries support the percent control levels assigned to the
control options.  Control option 2A for the coating operation (see
Table 6-9), has a control efficiency of 87 percent that is based on the use
of a partial enclosure that captures at least 50 percent of the VOC
emissions from the coating application/flashoff area.  Partial enclosures
have been measured to achieve capture efficiencies of greater than
80 percent on flexible vinyl coating and pr|n^jng operations and
publication rotogravure coating operations. •    Partial enclosures on
magnetic tape coating operations should be capable of achieving similar
capture efficiencies.  For coating operation control option 3A, the
control efficiency of 93 percent is based on the use of a total enclosure
and a carbon adsorber to capture and control emissions.  At a pressure-
sensitive tape and label plant (PSTL) with a room ventilation system
around the coater  (a type of total enclosure) and a fixed-bed carbon
adsorber, a control efficiency of^93 percent was determined by a 4-week
liquid solvent material balance.    Because of the strong similarities in
processes and in the capture and control systems, it is judged that a
magnetic tape line would be able to achieve a control efficiency similar to
that achieved by the tested PSTL plant.


                                     6-6

-------
     The control options 1n Tables 6-7, 6-8, and 6-9 were combined to form
the regulatory alternatives for a magnetic tape coating line.  The
regulatory alternatives with the associated emission capture and control
device configurations are presented 1n Table 6-10.  The regulatory alter-
natives Include only the conservation vent control options for solvent
storage tanks.  Although considerable research effort 1s ongoing 1n
development of waterborne coatings and electron-beam-cured resins, which
can be applied without the use of solvents, neHher of these technologies
has been demonstrated at the commercial level.  »    Therefore, the
regulatory alternatives are based only on add-on controls.

     For the analysis of the control levels achievable, it is assumed that
90 percent of the emissions are from the coaling operation and that less
than 10 percent are from the mix equipment.    Emission test data from two
magnetic tape plants and estimates from manufacturers were used to
apportion emissions from the coating operation.  These data and estimates
indicate that the oven is the source of 90 percent of the emissions from
the coating operation.and the application area is the source of the
remaining 10 percent.

     The control levels assigned to the regulatory alternatives are
calculated using the estimated emission rates, capture device efficiencies,
and control device efficiencies.  Because of uncertainties in the effi-
ciencies of capture devices and the apportionment of emissions between the
oven and the appHcation/flashoff area, the level of control has been
reduced by 2 to 3 percent from the calculated theoretical value.  The
control level of the storage tanks is included 1n the calculation of
overall line efficiency; however, the effect on the control level is lost
when the numbers are rounded to the nearest whole percent.

     Table 6-11 presents a summary of the assumptions and methods used to
calculate the control efficiencies for the control of either the mix room
or the coating operation; the control levels for the remaining regulatory
alternatives are the sum of the control levels for the respective
combinations of these two emission sources.  The emission levels for the
regulatory alternatives are intended to cover a range from baseline to
successively more stringent control so that a range of potential impacts
can be considered in selecting regulatory alternatives on which to base a
new source performance standard (NSPS).

     Regulatory Alternatives I and IV represent the baselines, the levels
of control that would be experienced in the absence of an NSPS, for plants
located in ozone attainment and nonattainment areas, respectively.
Regulatory Alternatives V, VIII, and X are based on control of only the
coating operation (application/flashoff area and drying oven) and storage
tanks.  Regulatory Alternatives II and III are based on control of
emissions from the mix room equipment and storage tanks only.  Regulatory
Alternatives VI, VII, IX, and XIA through XIV represent various combina-
tions of control levels achievable by control of the storage tanks, mix
room equipment, and the coating operation.
                                    6-7

-------
     Alternative I represents uncontrolled storage tanks, mix rooms, and
coating operations in magnetic tape coating lines and is the level of
control presently required of plants located in ozone attainment areas.
Alternative IV corresponds to the Control Techniques Guideline (CTG)
requirement of 0.35 kg VOC/liter of coating (2.9 Ib VOC per gallon of
coating) for existing paper coating plants (this category includes magnetic
tape coating) and is based on application of reasonably available  control
technology (RACT) to magnetic tape coating lines.  The 75 percent control
level of Alternative IV can be achieved by capturing all drying oven
emissions and by venting all of these emissions to a control device that
achieves 95 percent VOC control.

     Alternatives II and III represent control levels achievable from
control of mix room equipment alone.  Alternative II represents the
estimated control level achievable by placing sealed, vapor-tight covers on
the  individual mills, mixers, and holding tanks and venting each of these
to the atmosphere through conservation vents.  This^ control approach is
used in at least two magnetic tape coating plants.  »    The level of
control represented by Alternative III is achievable by placing sealed
covers on the individual equipment and venting the emissions to a control
device that is 95 percent efficient.  At least seven magnetic tape coating
plants are knoyn ^ control emissions from the mix preparation equipment by
this approach.

     Alternative V is based on control of all emissions from the drying
oven and part of the emissions from the application/flashoff area.  This
control level can be achieved by capturing approximately 95 percent of all
VOC  emissions from the coating operation (application/flashoff area and
drying oven) and by venting all of these emissions through a control device
that achieves 95 percent control efficiency.  This combination results in
an overall level of control of about 78 percent.  The required capture
efficiency can be achieved by use of a partial enclosure to collect
emissions from the coating application/flashoff area in addition to use of
an efficient oven ventilation system.

     Alternatives VIII and X are based on essentially complete capture of
all  emissions from the coating operation (approximately 90 percent of
total  emissions from the coating operation and the mix room) and control
of these emissions by either a 95 or 98 percent efficient control
device.  This configuration results in an 83 percent control level for
Alternative VIII  (95 percent control of approximately 90 percent of the
emissions).  Similarly, for Alternative X the 85 percent level of control
results from using the same capture efficiencies as in Alternative VIII and
a 98 percent control efficiency.  Complete capture of coating operation
(application/flashoff area and drying oven) emissions can be achieved by
use  of a total enclosure around the coating operation.
                                     6-8

-------
o
CO
               LU
               O
               CO
                                      o
                                      CD
                                      C£. O
                                      «=C LU
                                      c_> CQ
                                         o
                                         00
                                         OL Q
                                          CQ
                             o         o
                       O
                       o
                       X
                I*             I
             o         o
                                                                                          LU
                                                                                          >•
                                                                                          O
                                                                                                         to
                                                                                                         z:
                                                                                                         C£
                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                     I— _J SE
                                                                                                     «c a. o «
                                                                                                     o Q. .-.
                                                                        <_>  d)
                                                                        O  +J
                                                                        >  CO
                                                                            >>
                                                                        ^:  to
                                                                        •t->
                                                                        •i-  C
                                                                         S  O
                                                                            •r-
                                                                         c  •»->
                                                                         o  o-
                                                                        •i-  S-
                                                                        •M  O
                                                                         ro  CO
                                                                         S-  -0
                                                                         QJ  n3
                                                                         Q.
                                                                         O  C.
                                                                            O
                                                                         cn JD
                                                                         c  s-
                                                                        •r-  (O
                                                                        -»->  o
                                                                          O-
                                                                                                                                                 •i-  ro
                                                                            6-9

-------
TABLE 6-1.  LAND AND UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL LINES3
                                                           21
Line designation: Research
Land requirements
m „
(ft2)
Utility requirements
Electricity— coating operation:
TJ/yra
(kWh/yr) (2
Electricity—mix room:
TJ/yr
(kWh/yr)
Electricity— carbon adsorber:
(coating operation)
TJ/yr
(kWh/yr) (4.
Electricity— carbon adsorber:
(mix room)
TJ/yr
(kWh/yr)
Electricity— carbon adsorber:
(storage tanks)
TJ/yr
(kWh/yr)
Electricity— condenser :b
(nitrogen atmosphere)
TJ/yr
(kWh/yr)
Electricity— condenser :b
(air atmosphere)
TJ/yr
(kWh/yr)
Electricity— incinerator:
TJ/yr
(kWh/yr) (1

560
(6,000)


0.72
.0 xlO5)

0.043
(12,040)


0.02
40 xlO3)

ii
4 xlO
(100)

•7
2 xlO
0.066


N/A
(N/A)


N/A
(N/A)

0.005
.3 xlO3)
Small

560
(6,000)


2.1
(6.0 xlO5)

0.133
(37,040)


0.05
(1.32 xlO*)

q
2 xlO
(450)

«7
4 xlO
0.11


N/A
(N/A)


N/A
(N/A)

0.01
(3.9 xlO3)
Typical

560
(6,000)


4.3
(1.2 xlO6)

1.33
(370,370)


0.5
(1.32 xlO5)

•a
2.2 xlO
(600)

c
3 xlO-6
0.95


0.28
(77,680)


3.8
(1.05 xlO6)

0.14
(3.9 xio")
                                                         (continued)
                             6-10

-------
                          TABLE  6-1.   (continued)
Line designation:
Steam— ovens:
Tons/yrc
(1,000 Ib/yr)
Steam— carbon adsorber:
(coating operation)
Tons/yrc
(1,000 Ib/yr)
Steam— carbon adsorber:
(mix room)
Tons/yrc
(1,000 Ib/yr)
Steam— carbon adsorber:
(storage tanks)
Tons/yr
(1,000 Ib/yr)
Cooling water— carbon adsorber:
(coating operation)
m3/yr
(1,000 gal/yr)
Cooling water— carbon adsorber:
(mix room)
m /yr
(1,000 gal/yr)
Cooling water— carbon adsorber:
(|torage tanks)
m /yr
(1,000 gal/yr)
Natural gas — incinerator:
TJ^r 3
(10* ft3/yr)
Research

340
(740)

90
(200)


11
(24)


0.146
(0.320)


90
(24)

11.4
(3)

0.015
(0.004)

0.50
(0.772)
Small

1,010
(2,220)

270
(600)


29
(64)


0.182
(0.400)


270
(72)

30.3
(8)

0.182
(0.048)

1.75
(2.316)
Typical

1,010
(2,220)

2,550
(5,600)


284
(624)


1.55
(3.4)


2,550
(672)

284
(75)

1.56
(0.413)

15.0
(23.16)
      Terajoules = 1012 joule = 2.78 xlO'7 kWh.
  ondensation systems cannot be designed for research and small size
 lines.
cMetric ton = 1,000 kilograms.
                                   6-11

-------
            TABLE  6-2.  MODEL SOLVENT STORAGE TANK PARAMETERS
Line designation;	Research	Saall	Typical
Solvent usage. «3/yr (gal/yr)          23             70              700
                                   (6.130)       (18.400)        (184,000)
No. of different solvents used          53                3
No. of storage tanks                    53                3
Capacity of each tank. •' (gal)         4              4               40
                                   (1.000)        (1.000)         (10.000)
Emissions, Mg/yr (tons/yr)           0.03           0.05             0.39
                                    (0.03)         (0.05)           (0.43)
                                   6-12

-------
                   TABLE 6-3.   MODEL MIX ROOM PARAMETERS
Line designation:
1. Line information
Line speed, m/s
Operating h/yr

Web width, m (in.)
(ft/m1n)

Research
0.15
(6)
1.3
(250)
2,000
Small
0.15
(6)
1.3
(250)
6,000
Typical
0.66
(26)
2.5
(500)
6,000
Ref
3
3
4
2. Mix room Information
Coating prepared
Solvent used, m
, m3/d (gal/d)
/day (gal/d)
0.13
(35)
0.11
(30)
0.26
(70)
0.21
(55)
2.6
(675)
2.1
(550)
5
5
   Equipment, number of
     Mixers                                      222
     M1llsa                                      1       1       1
     Holding tanks                               122
     Polishing tanks                             122

   Equipment ventilation rate per 1tem,b
     m3/h                                      5.7     5.7     5.7
     (acfh)                                   (200)   (200)   (200)

   Uncontrolled VOC emissions,
     Mg/yr                                     2.7     7.3      71      5
     (tons/yr)                                   3       8      78


aVOC emissions from working losses in sealed mills will be pushed Into the
 next tank and subsequently controlled by that tank's control device.

bFor systems purging tanks and ducting emissions to control device.
                                   6-13

-------
         TABLE 6-4.   MODEL COATING OPERATION PARAMETERS FOR CARBON
                   ADSORBER OR  INCINERATOR CONTROL  OPTIONS
Line designation:
1. Line' information
Web width, m (in.)

Line speed, m/s (ft/min)

Operating h/yr
2. Process information
Research

0.15
(6)
1.3
(250)
2,000

Coating thickness, wet, \ima (mil) 25

Coating formulation:
% VOC, weight
% VOC, volume.
Density, kg/nr (Ib/gal)

Solvent mixture






(1)

63
80
1,200
(10)
Tetrahydrof uran
Methyl ethyl
ketone
Methyl isobutyl
ketone
Toluene
Cyclohexanone
Small

0.15
(6)
1.3
(250)
6,000

25
(1)

63
80
1,200
(10)
Tetrahydro-
furan (40*)
Toluene (40$)
Cyclohexanone
(20?)


Typical

0.66
(26)
2.5
(500)
6,000

25
(1)

63
80
1,200
(10)
Tetrahydro-
furan (40*)
Toluene (40*)
Cyclohexanone
(20*)


Ref.

22

22



22


22
22
22

See
text





Coating head area ventilation^
Partial enclosure, m /s

(ft Vmln) 0.15
(310)
Total enclosure, m /s (ffVmin) 0.14

Oven ventilation rate:
m/s, actual
standard0
(ft/min), actual
standard
Oven temperature, K (°F)

Carbon adsorber inlet
temperature, K (*F)

Incinerator heat exchanger
temperature, K (*F)

Solvent concentration in
exhaust: % LEL
ppmV
Uncontrolled VOC emissions
coating operation, Mg/yr

(300)

0.28
0.26
(600)
(550)
355
(180)

311
(100)
inlet
344
160

25
-2,500
from
(tons/yr ) 23
(25)
0.15
(310)
0.14
(300)

0.28
0.26
(600)
(550)
355
(180)

311
(100)

344
160

25
-2,500

68
(75)
0.25
(525)
0.24
(500)

2.8
2.6
(6,000)
(5,500)
355
(180)

311
(100)

344
160

25
-2,500

635
(700)
24




24



25


25





25


23

. ym = micrometer.
°mil = 0.001 inch.
 Standard conditions are 20°C (68°F) and  1 atmosphere pressure.
                                      6-14

-------
        TABLE 6-5.  MODEL  COATING OPERATION  PARAMETERS  FOR  CONDENSERS
                              RECOVERING  CYCLOHEXANONE

Line designation:                      Research3            Small8          Typical    Ref.
1. Line information
Web width, m (in.)

Line speed, m/s (ft/min)

Operating h/yr
2. Process information K
Coating thickness, wet, ym (mil)

Coating formulation:
% VOC, weight
% VOC, volume.
Density, kg/nT (Ib/gal)

Solvent mixture

Coating head area ventilation*
Partial enclosure, m/s (ft/min)
3 3
Total enclosure, m/s (ft /min)


0.66
(26)
2.5
(500)
6,000

25
(1)

63
80
1,200
(10)
Cyclohexanone
(100$)
0.25
(525)
0.24
(500)

22

22



22


22
22
22

See
text
24



    Oven ventilation rate:
      System 1
        mVs, actual                                                          1.75       24
        standard                                                               1.6
        (ffVmin), actual                                                    (3,700)
        standard"                                                            (3,400)
      System 2e
        mVs, actual                                                          1.65       24
        standard                                                              1.42
        (ft3/min), actual                                                    3,500
        standard                                                             (3,000)

    Oven temperature, K  CF)                                                   180       25
                                                                             (355)

    Control  device inlet temperature,  K  (°F)                                    160       25
                                                                             (344)

    Solvent  concentration in exhaust:
      System 1:  % LEL                                                          40       26
                ppmV                                                       -4,000
      System 2:  $ vol. solvent                                                 10       27
                nitrogen
                atmosphere

    Uncontrolled VOC emissions from  coating
      operation, Mg/yr (tons/yr)                                                635       23
                                                                             (700)

^Condensers  cannot be sized for research and small lines.
%m * micrometer.
•mi |  = 0.001  inches.
 Standard conditions are 20°C (68°F) and 1 atmosphere pressure.
 Volume sent to condensation module; system cannot be designed for the research and small
 coating operations.
                                          6-15

-------
       TABLE  6-6.  MODEL COATING OPERATION  PARAMETERS FOR  CONDENSERS
                          RECOVERING  SOLVENT  MIXTURES
Line designation: Research3 Small9
1. Line information
Web width, m (in.)

Line speed, m/s (ft/min)

Operating h/yr
2. Process information .
Coating thickness, wet, ym (mil)

Coating formulation:
% VOC, weight
% VOC, volume.
Density, kg/nr (Ib/gal )

Solvent mixture




Coating head area ventilation.
Partial enclosure, m /s (ft /min)
•t -t
Total enclosure, nr/s (ft/min)

Oven ventilation rate:
System 1
m/s, actual
standard
(ft/min), actual
standard
System 2e
m/s, actual
standard
(ft3/min), actual
standard
Oven temperature, K (°F)

Control device inlet temperature, K (*F)

Solvent concentration in exhaust:
System 1: % LEL
ppmV
System 2: % vol. solvent
n i trogen
atmosphere
Uncontrolled VOC emissions from coating
operation, Mg/yr (tons/yr)

^Condensers cannot be sized for research and small lines.
pm = micrometer.
>il = 0.001 inches.
Typical

0.66
(26)
2.5
(500)
6,000

25
(1)

63
80
1,200
(10)
Tetrahydro-
furan (402)
Toluene (40$)
Cyclohexanone
(20%)
0.25
(525)
0.24
(500)

1.75
1.6
(3,700)
(3,400)

1.65
1.42
3,500
(3,000)
180
(355)
160
(344)

40
-4,000
10



635
(700)



Ref.

22

22



22


22
22
22

See
text



24




24




24



25

25


26

27



23




^Standard conditions are 20°C (68*F) and 1  atmosphere pressure.
9Volume sent to condensation module; systems cannot be designed for the research and small
 coating operations.
                                        6-16

-------
 TABLE  6-7.   CONTROL OPTIONS  FOR SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*
Control
option
1
2
3A
Control device
None
Conservation vents
Separate fixed-bed carbon
Overall VOC
control,3 %
0
35b
95
               adsorber on storage tank
               emissions alone

38             Common fixed-bed carbon              95
               adsorber on combined storage
               tank and coating operation emissions

*These control options have been revised.  See Table F-2
 in Appendix F.
aOf emissions from solvent storage tanks only, not the
 entire line.
"Average control efficiency based on model line
 solvents and tank sizes.
                        6-17

-------
             TABLE 6-8.  CONTROL OPTIONS FOR COATING MIX ROOM
Control           Control device                               Overall VOC
option	Mixers  Mi11sa  Tanks	control,b %

  I            None                                                   0

  2            Vapor tight covers and conservation ventsc            40

  3A           Vapor tight covers ducted to a separate               95
               fixed-bed carbon adsorber on mix room
               emissions alone

  3B           Vapor tight covers ducted to a common                 95
               fixed-bed carbon adsorber on combined
               mix room and coating operation emissions


j*For mills other than sealed and pressurized sand mills.
"Of emissions from mix room only, not from entire line.
cThe equipment has no areas that are directly open to the air.  This may
 be achieved by use of packing glands, tight covers, or lids on the
 equipment.
                                   6-18

-------
            TABLE 6-9.  CONTROL OPTIONS FOR COATING OPERATIONS
Control
option
1A
IB

2A
2B
3A
3B
4
Emission capture
system
Coating area Drying ovena
None
None

Partial enclosure
Partial enclosure
Total enclosure
Total enclosure
Total enclosure
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Control device
None
Carbon adsorber
condenser
Carbon adsorber
Condenser0
Carbon adsorber
Condenser0 »d
Incinerator
Overall VOC
control,15 %
0
or 83

87
87
93
93
95
aAssumed to be well designed oven with no losses to room; always vented to
 the control device in controlled plants.
"Of emissions from coating operation only, not the entire line.
^Condenser 1 used to control effluent from enclosure and from oven.
"Condenser 2 used to control effluent from nitrogen-purged total enclosure
 and effluent from drying oven with nitrogen atmosphere.
                                   6-19

-------






t— 1
oo

1


^^
h-

Q_

C£
O
U-
c/1
o
t 	
f^r
|
CD
&" 1
U_
o
UJ

^>
UJ
/— »


o
OL
O
O
a
^^
UJ


I
ae:
UJ
_J
•*
>-
O
Sc
• J
_J
C£f
^lj
a:



0
i— i
i
VO
UJ
_J
CO
JS







8

i
c
4)
>
O













4)
0

4)
•o
o
c
4-
3














i
o
t-
10
i
£
O
0) Ol
c c
3 —
a 10
10 0
o O

c
O

in
in
•—
6
LU












at
£
•A
A
0
4-
c
O
0



c
5

0

4)
a.
3)
H
 01 to ^
r«. i- p. oo oo oo oooo oo 03 o> o\







cccccc cc c
OOOOOO OO 0

cccccc cc c

C C C C CO C CO C CO
OO O O O • O e O • O e o •> e
in mo in mo ma in o wo too o mo o
IO 0) (O 4) W 4) *O 0) *O 4) ID 4) IO ID ID TO 4) IO IOO) IQ
mm m m m me in me inc
cccc cc cc cc cc o> cc cc 4> cc 0)
O 4) O 4) OO) 9.4) $4) S® c 00) Q® c 04) c
ccccccc cc cc cc cc o cc cc o cc o
OQO*oOioO « >> « >2>22
cc cc c ccccc
OO OO O OOOOO
~ .g ~ ~ "> — in — in in

IOIO (Off) (O (OlOlOIOlO
cc cc c ccccc
ccccc c c c c cc c cc c
OQioOO O Q Q  ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 3*> > >> >
0§ §00§§S§§§§§
4-4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- 4-4- 4-
IDIO ID IO 4)4>4>4- 4) 4- IO 4) IOIO 4- lolo ^O
JCCCC c C 4- C 4-4- C 4-4- 4-
Q Q O*OO *o OO OO 10 OO O
2Z2Q- 2 O. >— 2 t— 1— O. t— 1— I—






4>4> 4)0) 0) 4)4)4)4)4}
4-4- 4-4- 4- 4-4-4-4-4;.
CC CC C CCCCC
4)0) 4)4) 4) 0)4)4>0>4>
\\ \\ v xx^xx
4)4) 0)4) 4) 4)4)4)4)4)
CC CC C CCCCC
4)4)4)4)4) 4) 4) 0) 0) 4)4) 4) 4)4) 4)
illii 1 I i 1 II 1 <§<§ <§






_r> ~ - x - - - - "
— — — — > >• =» >• — XX X XX X
4)
4)
a.
in

s O)
4- c
ID —
4-
C IO
0) O
g,0
• C 4)
m 4- c

c c
— -c S
4- C
ffl '« *•
u) 2
— U)
— c c
O 0) O
u > .-
+- O t/>
§(/>
Q) —
c >-
(D >•
O E
•— a —
> CO
4) **- C
X) 4-
4- C
— CO
O 4) O •
c 3 in
4- — O C
C >•- 4- 0
O t. .-
O 4) T) in
4> in
4) 13 in —
f C 3 £
4- ID 0)
C
O 4) 4) 6
4- C X5 S
3 C O
"S 8SU
4- — -0 X
C 0 10 —
4) • C E
> c 0) c
4) O 4)
m > — .0 £
>- O 10 c 4-
IO 4- ID
* £ 0 o c
— O 4- O
10 C 13 H.
*• -0 4)
4) r> C
E T3 O) 1 4)
O C l_ -a .O
O ID 3 4) C
c a. x o
0) I — in
O C C M- T3
4-34) ID
m O) 4)
v>OO.cc
4) — C 4- O
m o 4- ^
in c — *-* c
0 0) C IO ID
0 § S Zxj
c c c Si 4>
•C T3 1
4- 4- 4- 4) T3
— c c — 4)
X 4) 4) — X
3 3 O —
C 	 C •«-
4) **- **- 4-
> t- •«- C 4)
O 4) 4) O 4-
0 10

4) O O 4) 10
C C S_ £> O.
O)4- 4- 4)
— c c — m
in o O —
4) O O — ID
"O X
O O "^
— 4- 4- U) .O
4) -0 -0 O ~
f 4) m ._ >«
m in in A
4) 3 3 in
£, ._ (_
— CM e O
O o)
4- C C C
4) 4) E O
•o in i/) o —
0) c c o 4-
E 4) 4) C ID
3 T3 13 C
in c c x 4)
m o o — a.
< 00 X 0
0 ^ O 13
6-20

-------
 TABLE 6-11.  BASIS OF OVERALL  CONTROL  LEVEL FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
Percent of
emissions captured3
Reg.
Alt.
I
II
III
IV
V
VIII
X
Mix roomb
0
100
100
0
0
0
0
Coating
operations0
0
0
0
90
95
100
100
Control
device
efficiency,
percent
0
60
95
95
95
95
98
Percent overall
VOC control
0
4
9
75d
78d
83d
85d
aPercent of total emissions within each area that is captured and sent to
 a control device.
"About 10 percent of the combined emissions from the mix room and coating
 operation are from the mix room equipment.
cAbout 90 percent of the combined emissions from the mix room and coating
 operation are from the coating operation (application/flashoff area and
 drying oven).
"Represents the calculated value that has been rounded and reduced by
 2 to 3 percent to account for uncertainties in capture efficiency of
 emissions from the application/flashoff area and drying oven.
                                   6-21

-------
6.5  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6

 1.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Comparison of the coatings and processes used to
     manufacture three different types of magnetic tape products.

 2.  Danielson, J. A.  A1r Pollution Engineering Manual.  Second edition.
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North
     Carolina.  Publication AP-40.  May 1973.  pp. 638-642.

 3.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Mays, I., Columbia Magnetics.
     August 17, 1983.  Additional information on processes and costs at
     this facility.

 4.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Reiman, D., Airco Industrial Gases.
     February 15, 1984.  Information on Airco solvent recovery system.

 5.  Ovens and Furnaces 1973.  NFPA No. 86A.  Boston.  National Fire
     Prevention Association.  1973.  p. 54.

 6.  American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienlsts (ACGIH).
     Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice.  14th
     Edition.  Ann Arbor, Edwards Brothers, Inc.  1976.  pp. 4-4 through
     4-5.

 7.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     August 25, 1983.  Solvent use in cleaning of coating line equipment.

 8.  Memorandum and attachments from Buzenberg, R., DPRA, to Johnson, W.,
     EPAcCPB, and B. Short, EPA.  Attachment 1, p. 2.  February 1, 1982.
     Report on site visit to 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

 9.  Publication Rotogravure—Background Information for Proposed
     Standards.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Research
     Triangle  Park, North Carolina.  Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-031a.
     October 1980.  p. C-34.

10.  Flexible Vinyl Coating and Printing—Background Information for
     Proposed Standards.  Preliminary Draft.  U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
     August 1981.  p. C-6.

11.  Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Industry—Background
     Information for Proposed Standards.  U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Publication
     No.  EPA-450/3-80-003a.  September 1980.  pp. C-7, C-8.

12.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Laskin, L., Desoto, Inc.
     August 29, 1983.   Information on electron beam cure resins.
                                    6-22

-------
13.  Telecon.  Glanville, J.t MRI, with Menezes, T., Energy Sciences
     Corporation.  August 22, 1983.  Information on electron beam curing
     ovens.

14.  Memorandum from Beall, C.t MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Distribution of emissions between coating mix
     preparation area and the coating line.

15.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Distribution of emissions between coating application/
     flashoff area and drying oven.

16.  Memorandum from Meyer, J., MRI, to Johnson, W., EPArCPB.  October 7,
     1983.  Trip report, BASF Systems in Bedford, Massachusetts.

17.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Miller, K., 3M Company.  May 22,
     1984.  Information on control systems at the Camarlllo, California,
     facility.

18.  Memorandum from Meyer, J., to Johnson, W., EPArCPB.  March 10, 1983.
     Trip report, Columbia Magnetic Products in Carroll ton, Georgia.

19.  Letter and attachments from Lusk, L., IBM Corp., to Farmer, J.,
     EPA:ESED.  June 28, 1983.  Response to magnetic tape manufacturing
     facility information request.

20.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Summary of emission capture systems used at magnetic
     tape coating facilities.

21.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     October 15, 1984.  Revised Calculation of Utility Requirements for
     Control Devices.

22.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Summary of nonconfidential information on U.S.
     magnetic tape coating facilities.

23.  Memorandum from Meyer, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 10, 1983.  Uncontrolled VOC emission rates for model plants.

24.  Memorandum from Meyer, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 13, 1983.  Calculation of oven and coating head area ventilation
     rates for preliminary model plants.

25.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Typical process parameters for magnetic tape coating
     facilities using fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.

26.  Telecon.  Thorneloe, S., MRI, with Memering, L., United Air
     Specialists.  May 4, 1983.  Information on the Kon-den-Solver  system
     for VOC recovery.


                                    6-23

-------
27.  Rothchild, R. D.  Curing Coatings With an Inert-Gas Solvent System.
     Journal of Coatings Technology.  53(675):53-56.  April 1981.
                                    6-24

-------
                    7.  ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS

     An analysis of the environmental and energy impacts of the regulatory
alternatives for the magnetic tape coating model lines (combined solvent
storage tanks, mix preparation equipment, and coating operation) is
presented in this chapter.  (Appendix E presents the environmental and
energy impacts for each of the three emission sources.)  The incremental
increase or decrease in air pollution, water pollution, solid waste
generation, and energy consumption for the regulatory alternatives compared
to baseline are discussed.  Thase impacts are examined for individual lines
and nationwide.  Baseline I (0 percent control) represents uncontrolled
plants and is the level of control that 1s presently required of plants
that emit less than 227 Mg (250 tons) of volatile organic compound (VOC)
per year and are located in ozone attainment areas.  Baseline IV
(75 percent control) represents the level of control that is required of
all plants in nonattainment areas for ozone and of plants that emit 227 Mg
(250 tons) or more and are located in ozone attainment areas.  Table 7-1
presents the regulatory alternatives and control device configurations used
in the impact analyses.

7.1  AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS

     Volatile organic compounds are emitted from several points in the
production of magnetic tape.  The drying oven used to evaporate the solvent
and cure the resin is the largest single source of VOC emissions.  Fugitive
VOC emissions are emitted from around the coating application/flashoff
area.  Volatile organic compound emissions also occur in the mix room
during solvent handling and coating formulation activities and from solvent
storage tanks.  In an uncontrolled line, the entire amount of solvent used
is vented to the atmosphere.  The VOC emissions can be controlled by use of
add-on control equipment such as carbon adsorbers, incinerators, and
condensers.  Carbon adsorber and condenser control systems recover solvent
for reuse in coating mix formulations.

7.1.1  Primary Air Pollution Impacts

     The annual VOC emission levels associated with application of each
regulatory alternative on each model line are presented in Table 7-2.
The annual emissions were calculated using the model storage tank, mix
room, and coating operation parameters given in Chapter 6.  The annual
uncontrolled VOC emissions (Regulatory Alternative I), are 25 Mg (28 tons),
75 Mg (83 tons), and 706 Mg (778 tons) for the research, small, and
typical model lines, respectively.  The annual VOC emissions for Regulatory
                                    7-1

-------
Alternatives II through XIV range from 2 to 24 Mg (2 to 27 tons) for the
research model line, 5 to 73 Mg (5 to 80 tons) for the small model line,
and 42 to 678 Mg (47 to 747 tons) for the typical model line.  The annual
VOC emission Incremental reduction below uncontrolled (Regulatory
Alternative I) and below controlled (Regulatory Alternative IV) baselines
are given in Table 7-3.

     Table 7-4 presents the estimated national VOC emissions from new
magnetic tape coating lines from 1985 to 1990.  These emission estimates
are calculated based on predicted industry growth for the first 5 years
that the standards will be in effect.  In 1990, a projected 21 new magnetic
tape coating lines would have the potential to emit approximately 8,170 Mg
(9,000 tons) per year of uncontrolled VOC.  These new lines will have
solvent usages equivalent to 1 research line, 5 small lines, and 11 typical
sized lines.  (Refer to Chapter 9 for a discussion of the growth
projections.)  The controlled baseline Regulatory Alternative IV would
lower VOC emissions to 2,040 Mg (2,250 tons) per year.  The most stringent
level of the proposed NSPS, Alternative XIV, would reduce VOC emissions  in
1990 to 480 Mg (530 tons) per year.

     The primary impact of a VOC emission reduction in this industry is  a
potential decline in ambient VOC levels and, thus, a reduction in ozone  and
photochemical smog formation.  For plants 1n rural areas or areas of low
ambient nitrogen oxide and ozone concentrations, the primary environmental
impact is the prevention of transport of VOC's in the atmosphere to
locations where ozone and photochemical smog are problems.

7.1.2  Secondary Air Pollution Impacts

     Secondary emissions of air pollutants result from generation of the
energy required to operate the control devices.  Electrical energy 1s
needed primarily to operate the motors and fans used to capture and
convey gases to different sections of the control system.  Generation of
the electric power required to operate carbon adsorbers, incinerators,
and condensers will result in particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxide
(SOX), and nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions.  The combustion of natural

gas in incinerators will result in PM, NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions.  The combustion of fuel oil in the boiler used to produce
steam for the fixed-bed carbon adsorption system will also result 1n PM,
SOX, and NOX emissions.

     Secondary emissions were calculated assuming that electric power to
the control device was  supplied by a coal-fired power plant.  It was
assumed that the thermal efficiency of the electric generator was 33 percent.
For all types of power  plants and all ages of plants, the estimated
emissions per Btu of heat input in 1990 are approximately equal to the
current^ew source performance standards (NSPS) for coal-fired power
plants.   Therefore, the secondary emissions were calculated using the
NSPS values.   The applicable standards limit PM emissions to 15 kg/TJ*
                     .12
 *TJ  =  terajoules  =  10    joules.


                                     7-2

-------
(0.03 lb/106 Btu) of heat Input, SOX emissions to 520 kg/TJ (1.20 lb/106 Btu)

of heat Input, and NOX emissions to 260 kg/TJ (0.60 lb/106 Btu) of
heat Input.3  The annual secondary pollutant emission levels from
electrical energy generation associated with application of each regulatory
alternative on each model line are presented 1n Appendix E.  (See
Section 7.4 for electrical energy requirements for each alternative.)
Annual emissions of PM range from 0.01 to 0.5 kg (0.03 to 1 Ib) for
research lines, 0.06 to 2 kg (0.14 to 4 Ib) for small lines, and 0.08 to
160 kg (0.18 to 310 Ib) for typical lines.  The annual SOX emissions range

from 0.5 to 40 kg (1 to 90 Ib) for research lines, 3 to 80 kg (6 to 180 Ib)
for small lines, and 3 to 5,470 kg (7 to 11,960 Ib) for typical lines.  The
annual NOX emissions range from 0.3 to 20 kg (0.6 to 40 Ib) for research

lines, 1 to 40 kg (3 to 80 Ib) for small lines, and 2 to 2,740 kg (4 to
5,980 Ib) for typical lines.

     The combustion of natural gas as supplemental fuel 1n Incinerator
control devices results in secondary air pollutants.  Assuming the
incinerator generates pollutants at a rate comparable to that of an
Industrial process boiler, the secondary emissions were calculated using
emission rates of 7 kg/TJ (0.016 lb/10  Btu) of heat input for PM, 12 kg/TJ
(0.028 lb/106 Btu) for CO, and 123 kg/TJ (0.285 lb/106 Btu) for NOX.   The

annual secondary emissions for Regulatory Alternatives X, XII, and XIV
(I.e., the only alternatives that require the combustion of natural gas)
for each model line are in Appendix E.  (See Section 7.4 for natural gas
requirements for these alternatives.)

     The major secondary air pollution impacts for fixed-bed carbon
adsorption systems are the emissions from the boiler used to produce
steam.  The steam is used to strip the carbon bed of adsorbed VOC at a
ratio of 4 kilograms of steam per kilogram recovered solvent (4 Ib steam/lb
solvent).  Assuming that the model plants use fuel oil containing
1.5 percent sulfur by weight and that the thermal efficiency of the boiler
is 80 percent, estimates can be made of the levels of secondary
emissions.  For PM, the emission rate is 50 kg/TJ (0.12 Ib/ 10  Btu) of
heat Input; for SOX, it 1s 690 kg/TJ (1.6 lb/10  Btu); and for NOX, 1t is
170 kg/TJ (0.4 lb/106 Btu).5  The secondary emissions for those regulatory
alternatives that require the generation of steam are presented 1n
Appendix E.  (See Section 7.4 for steam requirements for each
alternative.)  Annual emissions of PM range from 2 to 20 kg (4 to 30 Ib)
for research lines, 5 to 40 kg (10 to 100 Ib) for small lines, and 40 to
710 kg (100 to 1,610 Ib) for typical lines.  The annual SOX emissions range

from 20 to 220 kg (50 to 450 Ib) for research lines, 60 to 610 kg (130 to
1,330 Ib) for small lines, and 580 to 9,620 kg (1,280 to 21,160 Ib) for
typical lines.  The annual NOX emissions range from 5 to 50 kg (10 to
110 Ib) for research lines, 20 to 150 kg (30 to 340 Ib) for small lines,
and 150 to 2,400 kg (330 to 5,360 Ib) for typical lines.
                                    7-3

-------
     The magnitude of the secondary pollutants generated by the operation
of the control system is much smaller than the magnitude of solvent
emissions being recovered.  For the worst case, a typical line with a
condenser (air atmosphere) controlling emissions from the coating operation
and a fixed-bed carbon adsorber controlling emissions from the mix room,
18 Mg (20 tons) of secondary pollutants are emitted annually, while VOC
emissions are reduced from 706 to 57 Mg (778 to 62 tons) annually.

7.2  WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS

     There are no wastewater effluents from an uncontrolled magnetic tape
coating line.  Wastewater problems arise, however, from the use of fixed-
bed carbon adsorbers.  Flu1d1zed-bed carbon adsorbers, incinerators, and
condensers have no wastewater discharges.

     In a fixed-bed carbon adsorption system, water 1s used to produce
steam, which is then used to strip adsorbed solvent from the carbon beds.
Upon completion of the stripping operation, the solvent-steam vapors are
condensed and fed to a decanter where the water insoluble organic layer
separates from the water and water soluble organic layer.  The wastewater
discharged after the solvent has been decanted poses a potential adverse
environmental impact resulting from possible organic contamination of the
water.  Trace concentrations of solvent may become fixed 1n the water
during the operation of the condensation stage, even though the solvent is
considered immiscible 1n water.

7.2.1  Line Wastewater Emissions

     For the typical line, the water phase from the decanter was assumed to
be processed 1n a stripper column to remove the dissolved organlcs.  Based
on typical stripper column design, the aqueous bottoms from the stripper
column contains 100 ppm VOC. ~   Because this is the level most plants are
required to meet, the cost of a more efficient stripper column was not
Included.  If State or local regulations require further reduced levels of
waterborne VOC's, they can be cost effectively achieved.   The potential
Impacts of the organics are further lessened because of the availability of
an ample number of water pollution control technologies.  These treatment
technologies include recycling the condensate Into the steam-generating
system, which could allow a reduction of solvent discharge.    The effects
on boiler life are undetermined.  Other control options are aqueous-phase
carbon adsorption, activated sludge treatment, and oxidation of the
organics.  »

     Table 7-5 presents the annual wastewater discharges associated with
each model line and regulatory alternative requiring fixed-bed carbon
adsorber control.  Wastewater containing solvent from research and small
lines is disposed of as hazardous waste.  As shown, annual wastewater
discharges for a typical  line range from 1,590,000 to 1,980,000 liters
(420,000 to 520,000 gal).  The annual waterborne VOC emissions associated
with each regulatory alternative are presented 1n Table 7-6.
                                     7-4

-------
7.2.2.  National Wastewater Impacts

     The national wastewater discharges in the fifth year after implementa-
tion of the standard, 1990, are presented in Table 7-7.  In calculating
these totals, it was assumed that every line using a solvent-borne coating
technology employed fixed-bed carbon adsorption controls.  Because of this
assumption, the figures given represent a worst-case situation for
wastewater discharges.

     In 1990, magnetic tape coating lines controlled to the Alternative IV
level would discharge approximately 17,490,000 liters (4,620,000 gal) of
wastewater per year.  The largest increase in wastewater occurs under
Alternative XIB which would result in approximately 20,570,000 liters
(5,390,000 gal) of wastewater discharges annually.

     The amount of VOC being emitted 1n these national wastewater
discharges would be relatively small.  In 1990, under Regulatory
Alternative IV, the wastewater streams of fixed-bed carbon adsorber control
systems would contain about 1,740 kg (3,830 Ib) of VOC.  Increasing the
required control level to Alternative XIII would increase the quantity of
VOC discharged in wastewater streams to 2,200 kg (4,730 Ib) per year.
These Impacts are based on the assumptions that all new plants would use a
fixed-bed carbon adsorber and all wastewater is discharged with no process
recycle and reuse or treatment.  Table 7-8 illustrates the impacts of VOC
in the control system wastewater discharges.

7.3  SOLID WASTE IMPACTS

7.3.1  Line Impacts

     The only solid waste impacts from the add-on control systems comes
from carbon adsorption units.  The activated carbon in these units
gradually degrades during normal operation.  The efficiency of the carbon
eventually drops to a level such that replacement is necessary, thereby
creating a solid waste load.  The average carbon life was estimated to be
5 years foi^f jxed-bed carbon adsorbers and 1 year for fluid1zed-bed carbon
adsorbers.  "    The amount of waste generated annually for various size
lines for each of the regulatory alternatives 1s presented 1n Table 7-9.
Annual solid waste disposal impacts range from 9 to 85 kg (20 to 188 Ib)
for a research line, 9 to 85 kg (20 to 188 Ib) for a small line, and 58 to
1,880 kg (117 to 4,120 Ib) for a typical line.  Three alternatives are
available for handling the waste carbon material:  (1) landfllling the
carbon, (2) reactivating the carbon and reusing it in the adsorber, and (3)
using the carbon as fuel.  Landfilling is simple and efficient because the
technology for the operation is considered common practice.  No environ-
mental problems would occur if the landfill site has been properly
constructed.  If the site is not secured by a lining of some type (either
natural or artificial), possible soil leaching could occur.  The leachate
may contain traces of organlcs which have been left on the carbon as
residues.  Transmission of this leachate into ground and surface waters
would represent a potential environmental impact.
                                    7-5

-------
     The second, and most common, alternative for handling the waste carbon
material does not create any significant amount of solid waste.  Most of
the carbon 1s reactivated and reused in the carbon adsorber.  Disposal of
waste carbon represents only 5 to 10 percent of the carbon used.  Disposal
of this waste by landfllUng poses minimal environmental problems provided
the landfill site is properly constructed.

     The third method involves selling the waste carbon as a fuel.  The
physical and chemical structure of the carbon in combination with the
hydrocarbon residues make the waste a fuel product similar to other solid
fuels such as coal.  Potential users of this fuel include industrial and
small utility boilers.  Because activated carbon generally contains very
little sulfur, furnace S02 emissions resulting from combustion would be
negligible.  Particulate and NOX emissions from the burning of activated

carbon would be comparable to those of coal-fired operations.  However, the
use of this disposal method would be limited because of the small
quantities of carbon generated by lines in this industry.

     7.3.2  National Solid Waste Impacts

     The estimated national solid waste impacts attributable to each
regulatory alternative are presented in Table 7-10.  It was assumed that
all new magnetic tape coating lines used fixed-bed carbon adsorption
control systems.  None of the regulatory alternatives will have a
significant Impact on baseline solid waste generation.  In 1990, lines
controlled to the level of Alternative IV would generate approximately
8,170 kg (17,970 Ib) per year of waste carbon.  The same lines controlled
to the  level of Alternative XIII would generate about 9,730 kg (21,370 Ib)
of waste carbon.

7.4  ENERGY IMPACTS

     The air emission control equipment for the magnetic tape coating
industry utilizes two forms of energy:  electrical energy and fossil fuel
energy.  Electrical energy is used  in the carbon adsorber, Incinerator, and
condensation control systems.  The  electrical energy is required to operate
fans, cooling tower pumps and fans, boiler support systems, and all control
system  instrumentation.  Fuel oil is used in steam generation for fixed-bed
carbon  adsorption units and natural gas is used for supplemental fuel in
incineration units.  Electrical energy and steam are also required for the
distillation systems used to separate and purify recovered solvents from
typical sized lines.

     7.4.1  Electricity and Fossil  Fuel Impacts

     The annual electricity consumption calculated for each model line and
regulatory  alternative is presented in Table 7-11.  Table 7-12 shows the
annual  natural  gas demand for incinerators associated with Regulatory
Alternatives X, XII, and XIV.  Incinerators may use primary or secondary
heat recovery to reduce energy consumption.  A heat recovery factor of
35 percent  was  used  in the energy analysis.  Table 7-13 shows the annual
                                     7-6

-------
steam demand for each model plant and regulatory alternative.  The total
annual energy demand and Incremental Increase or decrease over baseline for
each regulatory alternative is presented 1n Table 7-14.

     Comparison of the total energy demand of each regulatory alternative
shows that energy consumption does not Increase significantly with
increased VOC control, except for regulatory alternatives requiring
incinerators.

7.4.2  National Energy Impacts

     The 1990 national energy impacts from the installation of emission
control technologies in the magnetic tape coating industry are presented in
Table 7-15.  If all magnetic tape coating lines were controlled by carbon
adsorption to the Alternative XIII level, an incremental energy demand of
approximately 15,280 GJ (14,570 xlO  Btu) is projected compared to baseline
(Regulatory Alternative IV).  The worst-case energy situation would occur
1f incinerators were used to control all new magnetic tape coating
operations and carbon adsorbers were used to control mix equipment.  This
would require 182,590 GJ (172,790 xlO  Btu) of energy compared to baseline
(Regulatory Alternative IV), which would require 119,400 GJ (113,170
xlO  Btu) for carbon adsorber control.

7.5  OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

     The Impact of Increased noise levels 1s not a significant problem with
the emission control systems used in the magnetic tape coating Industry.
No noticeable increases 1n noise levels occur as a result of increasingly
stricter regulatory alternatives.  Fans and motors, present 1n the majority
of the systems, are responsible for the bulk of the noise in the control
operations.

7.6  OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

7.6.1  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

     As discussed in Section 7.4, the regulatory alternatives will result
in an increase 1n the Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy
resources.  However, this increased energy demand for pollution control by
carbon adsorption systems, condensers, and Incinerators 1s Insignificant
compared to the total line energy demand.  Model line energy demands are
presented in Table 6-1.

7.6.2  Environmental Impact of Delayed Standard

     Because the water pollution and energy impacts are small, there is
no significant benefit to be obtained from delaying the proposed
standards.  Furthermore, there does not appear to be any emerging emission
control technology that achieves greater emissions reduction or that
achieves an emission reduction equal to that of the regulatory alternatives
at a lower cost than those represented by the control devices considered
                                    7-7

-------
here.  Consequently, there are no benefits or advantages to delaying the
proposed standards.
                                     7-8

-------






00
*— *
00

— 1
z
**
1—
n
^r
t—i
O
u_

00
z
l~4
I —
=3
CD
1—4
ti
O
LlJ
O
HH
^^
UJ
a
	 i

a:
O

z

OO
UJ

^B*
(—1
|
UJ

_J
**
a:
o
i —
§
_-j
=D
CD
UJ
a:

>
»— i

•^^

UJ
g






g


la
(.
0
a













8

*
0

4-
<§

















c

ra
0
Q.
O
en
0 c

3 £

ID U
O

C
O
in
in
Ul









O)
S
M
^

8
4-

0





__
ID

o
ra
Coat i ni






g

c.
X
JF





*
10
C
ID
4-
S,
wl
ID
L.
O
(O




a
0





ttH
•*-
o
in
to
—
LL.







g
X
aE




V
<



o ^ o* tfr oo o* *^ i** ^ IA r» f*» o* fi ^
r*» f*» r^ oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o* o*






bbbbob bo o


m wo in ma mo in o too 100 o «io O
no  > ^ > > > ^ ^ > > 3^^ >

§ s §§§§§§§§§§§

0)  tf> tf>U> «> tOO U)
Jccc c c c c c cc c cc c
38288888888888





000
cccm m in in m m mm m 0 00 o 00000
C.C. C.C. l_ C.C.C.C.C.
O0OO 0 0 0 O O 00 0 00 0
J> > c c > > c > c> > >> >
5355S853535335




— — — < OJ — — >.
— — — — >• ? >• >• — XX X XX X
..1
0 4-
l_ 
— mo
~o 00 c
c. > — 0
4- o in JC
c m 4-
0 o>—
0 - i b
c >. -*-
TOO U.
O E X
"> c. O -o
0 «- C. C
•O 4-0
4- c a.
— c O a.
O 0 o <
C. 3
4- - O c
8 •* 7
0 13 m u.
£ C 3
4- a 0
u • —
O o 0 in a
4- C. JO C ID
•W ( f\ L^
3 L. U r^
0 o v> m 0
4- — TO in 0
c o a — co
* o * o * •
m > — jo E x)
>> O « c. Q 0
10 4- a o m
— O 4- >
ID I. -O X V)
ET3 O> 1 C
5 C C. TJ 0 0
O a 3 O x: 0
U Q. X 4- n
O _
O c- c >•- i_ o
4- 3 O O >
80J0 •*- ID
O -C £
0— t. 4- C.
(/) O ^~ Q} (A
O 0 C ID L. C
— ** O ID
0 S S »io"f"
C C_ t. .O ID 0
M. «*- O)
-c -a c to
4- 4- 4- 0 O t-
— c c — 25 o
X O 0 — C. 4-
3 3 o 
•o 	 I —
0 O O 0 TO O
c L. c. jo 0 m
O)4- 4- X
— c c — — c.
moo — *• O
000— i-
TO X 0
O O 4- m
— 4- 4- U) ID C
— c t- o
0 TO TO O ID —
X O 0 — O.4-
m m m 0 a.
O 3 3 in in O
o^^i^o
4- C. L. **• l_
0 0 E A4-
•o m m o *~ c
0 c c O O
E 0 0 L. >- O
3 TO TO JO
in c c x 0


-------
                TABLE 7-2.   ANNUAL VOC EMISSION LEVELS FOR
                   MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINES3*
Emission level
Research
Reg. Alt.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XIA
XIB
XII
XIII
XIV
Mg
25
24
23
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
Tons
28
27
25
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
Small
Mg
75
72
68
19
16
16
14
13
12
11
10
10
8
5
4
Tons
83
80
76
21
18
17
15
14
13
12
11
11
9
6
5
Typical
Mg
706
678
642
176
155
148
127
120
113
106
92
92
78
49
42
Tons
778
747
708
194
171
163
140
132
124
117
101
101
86
54
47
Emissions from solvent storage, preparation of coating mix,  and coating
 and drying of magnetic tape.
^Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
*The control options and environmental  impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-3 for these revisions.  The
 changes are very small and would change the values in this table only
 slightly, if it all.
                                    7-10

-------

JO
id
CO
LU
1—4
— 1
O
z
1— 1
o
LU
a.
i— *
0
_j
LU
O
i
O
LU
LU
1— 1
_J
LU
CD
1
III
ULJ
aa
o
P
rs
LU
01
O
i— i
to
s
o
o
_J
z
*
1
LU
CQ
1—




Id
o
•f*
o.
H"




_
Id
A





.C
(J
id
0)





:>
i— i




u
1— i


*— *



o
IM-I


•o
I— I



U
1—4

^»
O

o>
3C

C
o

ff
c
o

s

c
*~

si?
01
o
t
^—
0

£


O>4->
2<
1 1


1 1


s s


1 1
1 1

1 1

OO ^s


CO ^^
i i
i i
i i

^^ oo

»-! CNJ


-f^r^i^r^
o«— t«—i«— i
CVJCVJCMCNJCMCMCMCMCMCVICMCM
O>
    OO
    CSICM
             CMCM(\JC\JCVIC\JCvlCMCM
             i—i  i—i           <:   co  >—i  KH   >
         H^  HH  ^H   ^4£      H^   HM  h"l  >>"H   I^H
                                                      0)
                                                      {X
                                                      id
                                                      4->

                                                      2!

                                                      *
                                                      E
                                                      O)
                                                         o»
                                                         -        >-•
                                                      O) 3
                                                      c o
                                                      1- i_
 o  c
 O  (I)
   •o
•o  c
 C  (U

 •"g-

 xl
•r* «r-

 eo
 a>+»

^-  -
 s-  a>
 id  >
 a. c
 0)  O
 j-  o
 a.
   -»->

 J8


 ?&
 o  e
4-»
 01  01
   •»->
•M -r-
 C  C
 0)  3
 >
                  J=



                  C
                                                                     O)  01

                                                                     

               "Soj
                J=
                -* C
   •r- C id
   •M Id


    C    ^


    cu en e
                                                                 < 2  f
                                                                     to  a)
    s-
    o

    id
   r—
    =1

    (U
   a:
                                                         i—      -a
                                                         •»->       a;
  • •»->
«-^ c
r- O
 O (J
 i. C
•M "3
 C
 O t/t
 O n-
 c  id

I'D i^

    o>
• s- c
 o id

"-€
 01
-M (U
 U J=
 idh-
    01

"id  O
+J ^~
 C  01
 o 01 a>
 01 T- O1
   i— id
 e o>jD
 o c
 J- UJ -C3
14-    (U
   •a r-
 01 C r—


 O    J-
•r- O -M
 01 T- C
 01 »_ o
                                                               C  (U
                                                               0)  >
                                                               O n-

                                                               is
                                                               a. c

                                                              LO  d)
                                                             • r^ +•)
                                                            a;^-'^
                                                            c     
 id
JO S-

-o£
  01
      C 
      TD    O^.
      C i.T-

      id o
         y-  •>

      01    >>
      C CO r-?

      O  I  -!->
 Q.T3 i-
 O  C r-
    id 01

 O eg >,



 c    o
 O    *
                      7-11

-------
          TABLE 7-4.   ESTIMATED 1990 NATIONAL VOC EMISSIONS FROM
                      MAGNETIC TAPE COATING  LINES3*
Reg.
Alt.
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XIA
XIB
XII
XIII
XIV
Research13
Mg
25
24
23
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
Tons
28
27
25
7
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
2
2
Small5
Mg
375
360
340
95
80
80
70
65
60
55
50
50
40
25
20
Tons
415
400
380
105
90
85
75
70
65
60
55
55
45
30
25
Typical6
Mg
7,766
7,458
7,062
1,936
1,705
1,628
1,397
1,320
1,243
1,166
1,012
1,012
858
539
462
Tons
8,558
8,217
7,788
2,134
1,881
1,793
1,540
1,452
1,364
1,287
1,111
1,111
946
594
517
Total b
Mg
8,170
7,840
7,420
2,040
1,790
1,710
1,470
1,390
1,310
1,220
1,060
1,060
900
570
480
Tons
9,000
8,640
8,190
2,250
1,980
1,880
1,620
1,530
1,430
1,350
1,170
1,170
990
630
540
aBased on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small lines, and 11 typical
 sized lines.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
*The control options and environmental Impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 through F-4 for the revisions.  The
 changes are very small and would change the values in this table only
 slightly, if at all.
                                    7-12

-------
TABLE 7-5.  ANNUAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FOR THE CONTROL
   EQUIPMENT FOR MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINES3'1*
Reg.
AH.b
IIId
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
IXd
XIA
XIB
XIBd
XIII
XIIId
XIVd

10J i
0
1,590
1,670
1,590
1,670
1,780
1,790
0
1,780
1,870
0
1,980
0
0
Typical0
105 gal
0
420
440
420
440
470
470
0
470
490
0
520
0
0
aWastewater containing solvent from research and small
 lines Is disposed as hazardous waste.
bRegulatory alternatives that include fixed-bed carbon
 adsorbers.
cMetric and English units may not convert exactly due
 to independent rounding.
dWastewater containing solvent from control of mix room
 only is disposed as hazardous waste.
                           7-13

-------
    TABLE  7-6.  ANNUAL WATERBORNE  VOC  EMISSIONS  FROM THE .
CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINESa»b»
Reg.
Alt.c
III6
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
IXe
XIA
XIB
XIBe
XIII
XIII6
XIVe
Typical d
kg
0
158
170
158
170
177
190
0
177
190
0
200
0
0

Ib
0
348
370
348
370
390
410
0
390
410
0
430
0
0
 aWastewater from stripper  column  of  distillation  system
  contains 100 ppm VOC.
 bWastewater containing  solvent from  research  and  small  lines
  is disposed as hazardous  waste.
 cRegulatory alternatives that include fixed-bed carbon
  .adsorbers.
 dMetric and English  units  may not convert exactly due to
  independent rounding.
 eWastewater containing  solvent from  control of mix room is
  disposed as hazardous  waste.
                              7-14

-------
      TABLE 7-7.  ESTIMATED 1990 NATIONAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FROM
                       MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINESa
Reg. Alt.b
IIId
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
IXd
XIA
XIB
XIBd
XIII
XIIId
XIVd
103 liters0
0
17,490
18,370
17,490
18,370
19,580
17,690
0
19,580
20,570
0
21,780
0
0
103 galc
0
4,620
4,840
4,620
4,840
5,170
4,620
0
5,170
5,390
0
5,720
0
0
aWastewater containing solvent from research and small lines 1s disposed
.as hazardous waste.
"Regulatory alternatives that Include fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
GMetr1c and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
dWastewater containing solvent from control  of mix room only is disposed
 as hazardous waste.
                                    7-15

-------
       TABLE 7-8.   ESTIMATED 1990 NATIONAL WATERBORNE.VOC EMISSIONS
                   FROM MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINESa'b
Reg. Alt.c
III6
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
IXe
XIA
XIB
XIBe
XIII
XIII6
XIVe
kgd
0
1,740
1,870
1,740
1,870
1,950
2,090
0
1,950
2,090
0
2,200
0
0
lbd
0
3,830
4,070
3,830
4,070
4,290
4,510
0
4,290
4,510
0
4,730
0
0
aWastewater from stripper column of distillation system contains 100 ppm
 VOC.
"Wastewater containing solvent from research and small  lines is disposed
 as hazardous waste.
^Regulatory alternatives that include fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
dMetric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
eWastewater containing solvent from control of mix room is disposed as
 hazardous waste.
                                    7-16

-------
      TABLE 7-9.  SOLID WASTE IMPACTS OF THE REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
                            ON THE  MODEL LINES3
Reg.
Alt.
Ill
IVb
ivc
vb
Vc
VIb
VIC
VIIb
VIIC
VIIIb
VIIIC
IXb
IXC
XIAb
XIAC
XIBb
XIBC
XIIIb
XIIIC
XIV
Research
kg
9
71
0
73
0
71
0
73
0
76
0
80
0
76
0
82
0
85
0
9
1b
20
156
0
160
0
156
0
160
0
170
0
176
0
168
0
180
0
188
0
20
Small
kg
9
71
0
73
0
71
0
73
0
76
0
80
0
76
0
82
0
85
0
9
Ib
20
156
0
160
0
156
0
160
0
170
0
176
0
168
0
180
0
188
0
20
Typical
kg
58
704
1,820
727
1,820
704
1,820
727
1,820
780
1,820
762
1,878
775
1,820
788
1,878
838
1,878
58
Ib
117
1,548
4,000
1,600
4,000
1,548
4,000
1,600
4,000
1,700
4,000
1,665
4,130
1,730
4,000
1,730
4,130
1,840
4,130
117
aCarbon wastes from alternatives requiring the operation of carbon
 adsorbers.
DFixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
GFlu1d1zed-bed carbon adsorbers on typical sized lines only.


                                    7-17

-------
TABLE 7-10.
Reg. Alt.
Ill
IVb
IVC
vb
Vc
VIb
VIC
VIIb
VIIC
VIIIb
VIIIC
IXb
IXC
XIAb
XIAC
XIBb
XIBC
XIIIb
XIIIC
XIV
ESTIMATED 1990 NATIONAL SOLID WASTE
kg
690
8,170
20,020
8,430
20,020
8,170
20,020
8,430
20,020
9,040
20,020
8,860
20,660
8,980
20,020
9,160
20,660
9,730
20,660
690
IMPACTS3
Ib
1,410
17,960
44,000
18,560
44,000
17,960
44,000
18,560
44,000
19,660
44,000
19,370
45,430
20,040
44,000
20,110
45,430
21,370
45,430
1,410
aCarbon waste from alternatives requiring carbon
 adsorbers.
bFixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
cFluidized-bed carbon adsorbers on typical sized lines
 only.
                           7-18

-------




1—
z
1,1
ULt
E
i«M
or
UJ
Q
Q£
i—
z
o
o
UJ
-1- co
r- uj
of 25
t » 1
U-
ffm
VI q5*
^~ *"4
Z. L_
s§
Q£
HH ^j
ig
Q£
^ ^
CD *""*
(^ £""*
z ?g
LU ^£
y
•_J ^~*
5^1
1 , j
1!
UJ°

_j
=D
z
2C
*t


•
*— 4
T— *
f
^^
UJ
CO
*~














15
u
*
=i
CO
IO
0

3




•*_
P^B
id

•5?



•M
CO
?3




U
C9






jrt
jC
u
(U
(/>
•S


^m
.j
CO

o
I— 1


D
•-3
CD


c
o
•r-ld
-t-> O>
id u
i- i-

O. 0)
o -o
c"p
t- t

id c
o o
5_j 
<


(U
QL








S !°. ||g||ggg

CO CO

SI rHOOoOOoOQ
1 •»-iOOo*~<0OO^^
o csiin^-oom^co »"* >~<
CO* CO*



0} \ m ^o i ^ i i co ix>
o •-< ' '





c i • ^ i in i i <— i «— i
z




o» i m in | 10 i i *r in
C 1 CO ^H | ,-! 1 |
o •
Z 0



<_>
O O O <£ U- CM  > 1— I t-4 1— 1
1— 1 1— 1 1— 4
» " *-« X X
1— 1 1— 1 >
^> ^ * •> 1— 4
« 00 CD HH
•> • H- 1 1-4 t— 1 H- 1 1— 1
3» > > X X X 1-1
X
1— 1 » • * « « « >
>-4>-«3»>>XXX •>-»
I-HKHI— 11—41— II— 1»— II— It— IXX




0)
i.
•»->
*c
1 •
c co
° §
_i___\ •r—
4>j .—
id co
VI <*
C • i-
 3 CO
c cr  0) (U C
E -0 T-
0> C X i—
-U OJ T-
o ff*- E i™1™
^S 1} *^"~
c -^ R v. co
O 03 -M
i- O C J-
•4-> -M,^ O O
id i u
i- tt) o -^
(U 3 rH O O
O> T3 x -t-* *-
^- ^>OO "^ ^
U- r— «g- <1J CO
fc. O °I 3 J-
*O C3
J- X $- $-
T- QJ || GJ O
Id ^Q *4—
1 4-> ni I-
C J- r— O XJ
O (U ~3 t/) (D
T- • > O "O C
id o o ° T-
co +J o 
O T- CO O J3
<_) 0 >, a)
c id i — i- ••-»
II >— • E zj O O
o «t- c
U. II CO T-t C
o£ •+-> a* id
0 -r-o, J_ 0
• «z c o id
^. HH ^ <— 1 (/)
O) co E
.0 .OJT J- 4-> 
O 33 -r- O) CO
l/» ^-> i— CO S >>
"o to CD d) 53 to
id >> c •— j_
 -M
t- iTU fCf C^ I— t3
id .c -i- co
(_> O. U O >, C
I/I t~ C7> 0)
u o J~ u s- "a
S -M (DC
< +3 <1J 0 C O
<_> id z CD uj o
id .a OTD ai
7-19

-------
       TABLE 7-12.  ANNUAL NATURAL GAS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL
              EQUIPMENT OF MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINES


                    Research5            Smallb              Typicalb
   Alt.a         ~GJ10* Btu     ~~GJ10* Btu       GJ10* Btu


X, XII. XIV      500      470       1,500     1,420      15,000     14,200


^Regulatory alternatives that require the combustion of natural gas.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
                                    7-20

-------
   TABLE 7-13.  ANNUAL STEAM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR
                     MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINES
Reg.
Alt.
Ill
IVb
IVC
Vb
vc
VIb
VIc
VIIb
VIIC
VIIIb
VIIIC
IXb
IXC
XIAb
XIAC
XIBb
XIBC
XIIIb
XIIIC
XIV
Research3
GJ
26
190
—
200
—
190
--
200
—
220
-—
220
—
220
—
230
—
240
—
26
10° Btu
25
180
—
190
—
180
—
190
—
210
—
210
—
210
—
220
—
230
—
25
Small3
GJ
70
580
—
600
—
580
—
600
—
650
—
650
—
650
—
680
—
720
—
70
10° Btu
67
550
—
570
—
550
—
570
—
610
--
620
--
610
—
640
—
680
—
67
Typical3
GJ
690
10,040
4,640
10,290
4,640
10,040
4,640
10,290
4,640
10,680
4,640
10,730
5,330
10,680
4,640
10,980
5,330
11,360
5,330
690
10° Btu
650
9,520
4,400
9,760
4,400
9,520
4,400
9,760
4,400
10,130
4,400
10,170
5,050
10,130
4,400
10,410
5,050
10,780
5,050
650
aMetr1c and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
"For fixed-bed carbon adsorber.  Typical plant Includes distillation
 requirements.
cFor condensation system distillation requirements.
                                    7-21

-------
TABLE 7-14.  TOTAL ANNUAL ENERGY DEMAND OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT
            FOR MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING  LIMES
Reg.
Alt.
Ic
II
IIId
ive
ivf
IV9
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
IX
X
XIA
XIA
XIA
Coating operation
control device
None
None
None
CA
RF
H2
CA
RF
CA
RF
N2
CA
RF
CA
RF
N2
CA
RF
N2
INC
CA
RF
N2
b
Research,

Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
GJ
0
0
0
26
26
209
~
—
217
8
~
209
0
—
—
217
8
—
232
23
0
—
235
26
—
—
505
296
232
23
—
-
10" Btu
0
0
0
25
25
198
::
--
206
8
—
198
0
~
—
206
8
~
220
22
0
—
223
25
—
—
474
276
220
22
-
--
Small" „
GJ
0
0
0
72
72
626
-
	
653
27
—
626
0
—
—
653
27
—
695
69
0
—
698
72
—
—
1,514
888
695
69
—
--
10" Btu
0
0
0
68
68
594
::
	
620
23
--
494
0
—
—
620
23
—
660
66
0
—
663
69
—
—
1,433
839
660
66
—
-
Typical" ,
GJ
0
0
0
689
689
10.540
8.420
4.940
10.800
260
8.420
0
10.540
0
8,420
0
4.940
0
10.800
260
8,420
0
11,180
640
8,420
0
4,940
0
11,234
694
9,109
689
5,630
690
15,140
4,600
11,184
644
8,420
0
4,941
0
10" Btu
0
0
0
654
654
10,000
7,990
4,690
10,240
240
7,990
0
10.000
0
7.990
0
4,690
0
10,240
240
7,990
0
10,650
650
7,990
0
4,690
0
10,653
653
8,644
654
5,340
650
14,333
4,333
10,608
608
7,990
0
4,690
0
                                                               (continued)
                              7-22

-------
                                        TABLE  7-14.    (continued)
Reg.
Alt.
XIB

XIB

XII '

XIII

XIII

XIII

XIV

Coating operation
control device
CA

RF

INC

CA

RF

N.
£.
INC

b
Research,

Total energy
Increnental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Increnental
Total energy
Incremental
Total energy
Increnental
Total energy
Increnental
GJ
243
34
—
—
505
296
258
49
—
—
—
~
531
322
10" Btu
231
33
—
—
474
276
245
47
—
—
—
—
499
301
Small" .
GJ
725
99
—
—
1.514
888
765
139
—
—
—
—
1.586
960
10V Btu
688
94
—
—
1.433
839
728
134
—
~
—
—
1.502
908
Typical" ,
GJ
11.484
944
9.109
689
15,140
4,600
11,873
1,333
9,109
689
5,630
690
15,829
5.289
10" Btu
10.893
893
8,644
654
14,333
4.333
11.262
1,262
8.644
654
5,340
650
14,987
4,987
  CA * Carbon adsorber.
  RF * Condensation-air  refrigeration system.
  N  • Condensation-nitrogen atmosphere system.
 INC « Incinerator.
 Metric  and English units  nay not convert exactly due to Independent rounding.
*JBasel1ne for Alternatives II and III.
 Energy  requirements are for carbon adsorber used to control  nix  roon enlsslons.
'Baseline for Alternatives V through XIV with CA or INC control.
 Baseline for Alternatives V through XIV with RF control.
'Baseline for Alternatives V through XIV with N  control.
                                                        7-23

-------
         TABLE 7-15.   EST
IMATED 1990  NATIONAL ENERGY  REQUIREMENTS FOR
MAGNETIC  TAPE COATING LINES
Reg.
AH.
I
I
IIIC
IV
IV
IV
V
V
VI
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
IX
X
XIA
XIA
XIA
XIB
XIB
XII
XIII
XIII
XIII
XIV
Coating operation
control device
None
None
None
CA
RF
M2
CA
RF
CA
RF
M2
CA
RF
CA
RF
H2
CA
RF
M2
INC
CA
RF
M2
CA
RF
INC
CA
RF
M2
INC
Electrical
GJ
0
0
32
5.870
41.580
3.300
5.870
41.580
5.870
41.580
3,300
5.870
41.580
5.870
41.580
3,300
5.880
41,580
3.300
1,610
5,870
41,580
3,300
5,880
41,580
1.610
5,880
41,580
3,300
1.620
10" Btu
0
0
30
5,520
39,490
3,190
5,520
39,490
5.520
39.490
3.190
5.520
39,490
5.520
39,490
3,190
5,530
39,490
3,190
1,500
5.520
39,490
3,190
5,530
39,490
1,500
5,530
39,490
3,190
1,510
Natural gas
GJ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
173.000
0
0
0
0
0
173,000
0
0
0
173,000
10" Btu
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
163.770
0
0
0
0
0
163,770
0
0
0
163,770
Stea* .
GJ
0
0
7,970
113.530
51.050
51.050
116.390
51.050
113.530
51.050
51.050
116,390
51.050
120.950
51,050
51,050
121.500
58.630
58.630
0
120.950
51,050
51,050
124.410
58.630
0
128.800
58.630
58.630
7.970
10" Btu
0
0
7,510
107.650
48,400
48.400
110.400
48,400
107.650
48.400
48,400
110,400
48,400
114,690
48.400
48.400
115.180
55.550
55.580
0
114.690
48.400
48.400
117,930
55,580
0
122,210
55,580
55,580
7,510
Total .
GJ
0
0
8.000
119.400
92.630
54.350
122,260
92,630
119.400
92.630
54,350
122.260
92.630
126.820
92,630
54,350
127,380
100,210
61.930
174.610
126.820
92.630
54.350
130.290
100.210
174.610
134.680
100.210
61,930
182,590
10" Btu
0
0
7,540
113,170
87,890
51.590
115,920
87.890
113.170
87.890
51.590
115.920
87.890
120.210
87.890
51.590
120.710
95,040
58,770
165.270
120,210
87,890
51,590
123.460
95,070
165,270
127,740
95,070
58,770
172.790
  CA * Carbon adsorber.
  RF > Condensation-air refrigeration systea.
  N  ' Condensation-nitrogen atmosphere system.
bINC * Incinerator.
 Metric and English units My not convert exactly due to Independent rounding.
 Energy requirements are for carbon adsorber used to control mix room emissions.
                                                7-24

-------
7.7  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7

 1.  The Final Set of Analysis of Alternative New Source Performance
     Standards for New Coal-Fired Power Plants.  June 1979.  ICF Inc.,
     Washington, D. C.  p. C-III-3C.

 2.  Memorandum from Glanvllle, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     October 22, 1984.  Revised calculation of environmental and energy
     Impacts.

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

 4.  Compilation of A1r Pollution Emission Factors.  3rd Edition.  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North
     Carolina.  Publication No. 999-AP-42.  April 1981.  pp. 1.4-1 -
     1.4-3.

 5.  Reference 4.  pp. 1.3-1 - 1.3-5.

 6.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Sontag, D., Amcec.  September 11,
     1984.  Information on steam strippers.

 7.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Erickson, A., Glitch, Inc.
     September 20, 1984.  Information on steam strippers.

 8.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Schweitzer, P., Chempro Corp.
     September 14, 1984.  Information on steam strippers.

 9.  Memorandum from Beall, C., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     October 19, 1985.  Cost of steam stripper with increased efficiency.

10.  IT Enviroscience.  Assessment of the Impact of Untreated Steam
     Condensate from Planned Vapor-Phase Carbon Adsorption Systems 1n
     Selected Industries.  Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  EPA Contract No.
     68-03-2568.  Undated.

11.  Lusk, L., IBM, to Farmer, J., EPA:ESED.  June 28, 1983.  Response to
     Section 114 information request on the IBM facility in Tucson,
     Arizona.

12.  Telecon.  Glanvllle, J., MRI, with Mason, J., Union Carbide.
     September 10, 1984.  Information fluid1zed-bed carbon adsorbers.

13.  Lee, J., 3M Company, to Farmer, J., EPA:ESED.  October 24,  1983.
     Response to Section 114 information request on the 3M facility in
     Camarnio, California.
                                    7-25

-------
14.  Memorandum from 61anville,  J.,  MRI,  to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     October 15, 1984.   Revised  wastewater calculations and  summary.
                                    7-26

-------
                                 8.  COSTS

8.1  COST ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

     The estimated cost Impacts of Implementing the regulatory alternatives
for the model lines described in Chapter 6 are presented in this chapter.
The objective of this analysis is to quantify the cost impacts associated
with various levels of control of VOC emissions.  The economic impact of
the regulatory alternatives on magnetic tape manufacturers is presented in
Chapter 9.

     Capital and annualized costs are presented for the uncontrolled line
and for the pollution control devices for the regulatory alternatives.  All
costs are reported in March 1983 dollars.

8.1.1  New Lines

     Three model line sizes (research, small, and typical) were selected to
characterize the manufacturing and research operations expected to be
constructed, modified, or reconstructed in the near future.  A model line
is defined as the combination of a model coating operation, a model mix
room, and model solvent storage tanks.  Model solvent storage tanks are
defined as the number and size of tanks required to supply solvent to the
model mix room to be used in coating preparation.  (Throughout this
chapter, model storage tank refers to these groups of tanks, not individual
tanks.)  A model mix room is defined as the mix equipment (i.e., mills,
mixers, and holding tanks) required to supply coating to the magnetic tape
coating operation.  A model coating operation is defined as the combination
of a coating application/flashoff area, a drying oven, and the necessary
ancillary equipment.

     The model solvent storage tank parameters, model mix room parameters,
and model coating operation parameters for carbon adsorbers (or
incinerators), condensers recovering cyclohexanone alone, and for
condensers recovering solvent mixtures are presented in Tables 8-1 through
8-5.  Table 8-6 shows the bases used for developing the capital and
annualized cost estimates for the uncontrolled magnetic tape model lines
and for the various control devices.

     8.1.1.1  Capital and Annualized Costs of Model Lines.  Tables 8-7 and
8-8 present the capital and annualized cost estimates for the uncontrolled
model storage tanks and the model mix rooms and coating operations.  The
installed capital costs for uncontrolled storage tanks are based on


                                    8-1

-------
equations from the EPA document, VOC Emissions From Volatile (Jrganic Liquid
Storage Tanks—Background Information for Proposed Standards.   The
installed capital costs for the mix room equipment are based on vendor
data.  These cost estimates include the mixers, mills, holding tanks, and
polishing tanks.  The installed capital costs for the uncontrolled coating
operation include the coater, associated oven, web unwinders and rewinders,
and other ancillary equipment and are based on industry and vendor data.
Building and land costs were also included in the capital cost estimates
for model mix rooms and coating operations.

     The annualized costs for solvent storage tanks are composed of
maintenance and inspection fees, taxes, insurance, administration, and the
annual capital charge.  The annual capital charge is the cost associated
with recovering the initial capital investment over the depreciable life of
the equipment.  The annual capital charge is calculated by multiplying the
total installed capital cost by the capital recovery factor.  The capital
recovery factor is based on the depreciable life of the equipment and a 10
percent interest rate.

     The annualized costs for the magnetic tape mix room and coating
operation are composed of the sum of the annual operating and maintenance
costs, plus the annualized capital charge.  The operating costs include
operating labor, supervision, raw materials, utilities, overhead, taxes,
administration, and insurance.  The land cost is not included in the
capital recovery charge, instead it is multiplied by the interest rate to
obtain the annual interest charge on the money invested in the land.

     Tables 8-9 through 8-12 present the estimated total installed capital
and annualized costs and annualized cost per unit area of tape coated for
each of the model storage tank, mix room, and coating operation control
device options.  For comparison, the uncontrolled capital and annualized
costs are also presented in the tables.

     The control device capital costs include the control device itself, as
well as auxiliary equipment such as ductwork, enclosures, and stacks, and
the direct and indirect installation charges.  The capital costs of
pressure relief valves, conservation vents, fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers,
disposable-canister carbon adsorbers, and condensers were obtained from
vendor data.  The fluidized-bed carbon adsorber and condensers can only be
designed for the typical size model lines.  The research and small line
fixed-bed carbon adsorber capital costs are based on equations in an EPA
study performed by GARD, Inc.,  and were verified by vendor quotes.   The
typical model line fixed-bed carbon adsorber capital cost is based on
vendor and industry data.  Incinerator capital costs were determined using
the GARO manual.  The capital cost of enclosures was determined from
industry data.  The ductwork costs were obtained from the GARD manual and
Richardson's Engineering Manual. ~

     The annualized control device costs are composed of annual operating,
maintenance, and capital recovery charges.  A charge was included for
solvent waste removal based on  discussions with solvent brokers regarding
liquid waste removal charges.   Credits for solvents recovered are based


                                    8-2

-------
on recoveries of 90 percent of the potentially recoverable solvent.  This
allows for a 10 percent loss of solvent in distillation and dehydration
systems.  Only the typical size lines recover solvents.  Based on industry
and vendor data, 60 percent of the market value of the solvents was used to
determine the credit.  A credit was also given when conservation vents are
used to reduce solvent emissions.  In the case of incinerators, a heat
recovery factor of 35 percent was allowed.

     Tables 8-13 through 8-15 present the installed capital and annualized
costs for each regulatory alternative for the research, small, and typical
lines (combined storage tanks, mix room, and coating operation).  The only
control device evaluated for the solvent storage tank is the conservation
vent since it is the most commonly used control device for storage tanks.

     As shown in Table 8-13 through 8-15, the total annual 1zed cost per
unit area of tape coated decreases with increasing line size.  This is
because for a proportionately small increase in capital cost, a greater
amount of tape can be coated, while the annualized costs remain propor-
tionally the same.  For the typical line, there is a large credit for
solvent recovery, which further reduces the annualized cost per unit
area.

     8.1.1.2  Cost Effectiveness.  The cost-effectiveness value is the
annual cost to control one ton of VOC pollutant.  The average cost-
effectiveness value is the annualized cost per ton of pollutant required
to implement a control system achieving greater VOC reduction than that
which is most commonly being used presently (baseline).  The average cost
effectiveness of an alternative was determined by dividing the incremental
annualized control system cost by the incremental annual VOC reduction.
The incremental annual cost is the difference in the net annualized cost
of the alternative compared to baseline.  The incremental VOC reduction is
the difference in the VOC reduction of the alternative compared to
baseline.

     The incremental cost effectiveness is a measure of the additional
annual cost required to achieve the next higher level of emission
reduction.  The incremental cost effectiveness was calculated by dividing
the incremental increase in the annual control device cost by the
incremental emission reduction.

     Table 8-16 presents the average cost-effectiveness values for each
model solvent storage tank control option with respect to the uncontrolled
baseline.  The incremental cost-effectiveness values of the control  options
for model solvent storage tanks are shown in Table 8-17.  As shown in Table
8-17, the incremental cost effectiveness ranges from $700/Mg ($670/ton) for
conservation vent controlling emissions from a typical model line storage
tank to $472,500/Mg ($420,000/ton) for a separate disposable carbon
adsorber controlling emissions from small model storage tanks.  [NOTE:  The
control options and costs for the solvent storage tanks have been
revised.  The new data are presented in Appendix FJ.
                                    8-3

-------
     Table 8-18 presents the average cost effectiveness for each model mix
room regulatory alternative with respect to the uncontrolled baseline.
The Incremental cost effectiveness of the regulatory alternative for model
mix rooms 1s shown 1n Table 8-19.  As shown In Table 8-19, the Incremental
cost-effectiveness values range from -$740/Mg (-$670/ton) for conservation
vents controlling emissions from a typical model mix room to $6,900/Mg
($6,200/ton) for a common carbon adsorber controlling emissions from a
research model mix room.

     The average cost effectiveness of each regulatory alternative with
respect to the uncontrolled baseline for model coating operations 1s
presented in Table 8-20.  Because some new plants may be located in ozone
nonattalnment areas, the average cost effectiveness of each regulatory
alternative for coating operations has. also been calculated with respect
to Alternative IV, the controlled baseline based on the State
implementation plans.  These values are shown in Table 8-21.

     The incremental cost effectiveness of each regulatory alternative for
the model coating operation is shown 1n Table 8-22.  The incremental cost
effectiveness ranges from -$600/Mg (-$540/ton) for a condenser controlling
emissions from a typical model coating operation using cyclohexanone to
$18,100/Mg  ($16,300/ton) for an incinerator controlling emissions from a
research model coating operation.

     Tables 8-23, 8-24, and 8-25 present the average cost effectiveness
for each regulatory alternative with respect to uncontrolled (I) and
controlled  (IV) baselines for the research, small, and typical model
lines, respectively.  The incremental cost effectiveness for the
regulatory alternatives is also presented in these tables.  For
incremental cost-effectiveness calculations, the same types of control
devices were compared to each other.  In cases where matching control
devices did not occur, the fixed-bed carbon adsorber values for the
alternative with lower emission reduction were used.

     8.1.2  Modif 1 ed/Reconstructed FaCi1i t i es

     Under  the provisions of 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15, an "existing
facility" may become subject to standards of performance if it is deemed
modified or reconstructed.  In such situations, control devices may have
to be  installed for compliance with new source performance standards.

     The cost for installing a control system on an existing facility may
be greater  than the cost of installing the control system on a new
facility.   Because retrofit costs are highly site-specific, they are
difficult to estimate.  The availability of space and the configuration of
existing equipment in the plant are the major limiting site-specific
factors.
                                    8-4

-------
8.2  OTHER COST CONSIDERATIONS

     In addition to costs associated with the Clean A1r Act, the magnetic
tape coating Industry may also Incur costs as a result of other Federal
rules or regulations.  These Impacts are discussed in this section.

8.2.1  Costs Associated with Increased Water Pollution and Solid Waste
       Disposal

     Wastewater disposal problems arise from the use of fixed-bed carbon
adsorption solvent recovery systems.  Dissolved solvents 1n the condensate
from the carbon adsorber represent the primary potential water pollutant.
Based on typical stripper column design, the aqueous bottoms from the
stripper column contains 100 ppm VOC. ~   This wastewater 1s usually
disposed of in a municipal sewer system.  The actual amount of any
surcharges would be determined by local regulations.  In any event, it is
unlikely that such charges would be significant.  The capital and annual
costs of the stripper column with a wastewater VOC concentration of about
100 ppm have been Included in the cost calculations for the typical
line.

     Solid waste consists of the spent carbon used in carbon adsorption
systems.  The carbon from fixed-bed and fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers is
usually sold back to processors, reactivated, and then sold again to the
original purchaser or to other carbon adsorber operators; therefore, there
are no solid waste disposal costs associated with these systems.  The cost
of disposing of the carbon from the disposable canisters in a secure
landfill was included in the annual cost.

8.2.2  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

     The liquid solvent wastes generated by the air pollution control
devices associated with the magnetic tape industry are classified as
hazardous or toxic under the provisions of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).  Charges for removal by solvent reclaimers were
included in the annual operating costs.

8.2.3  Resource Requirements Imposed on State, Regional, and Local
   '    Agencies

     The owner or operator of a magnetic tape coating plant is responsible
for making application to the State for a permit to construct and sub-
sequently to operate a new installation.  The review of these applications,
and any later enforcement action, would be handled by local, State, or
regional regulatory agencies.  Because it is expected that these plants
will be distributed throughout the United States instead of clustered in
one State and that they will be added primarily in States already having
magnetic tape coating plants, the promulgation of standards for magnetic
tape coating plants should not impose major resource requirements on the
regulatory agencies.  Any costs incurred are not expected to limit the
financial ability of these plants to comply with the proposed NSPS.
                                   8-5

-------
            TABLE 8-1.  MODEL SOLVENT STORAGE TANK PARAMETERS
Line designation:
Solvent usage, m /yr

(gaVyr)
No. of different solvents used
No. of storage tanks
Capacity of each tank

, m3 (gal)
Research
23
(6,130)
5
5
4
(1,000)
Small
70
(18,400)
3
3
4
(1,000)
Typical
700
(184,000)
3
3
40
(10,000)
Emissions, Mg/yr (ton/yr)          0.03 (0.04)     0.05 (0.05)    0.39 (0.43)
                                    8-6

-------
                   TABLE 8-2.  MODEL MIX  ROOM PARAMETERS
Line
1.


2.




designation:
Line Information
Web width, m (1n.)
Line speed, m/s, (ft/min)
Operating, h/yr
Mix room Information
Coating prepared, m3/d (gal/d)
Solvent used, m3/d (gal/d)
Equipment, number of:
Mixers
M1llsa
Holding tanks
Polishing tanks
Equipment ventilation rate
per tank, m3/h (acfh)b
Uncontrolled VOC emissions,
Mg/yr (tons/yr)
Research
0.15 (6)
1.3 (250)
2,000
0.13 (35)
0.11 (30)
2
1
1
1
5.7 (200)
2.7 (3)
Small
0.15 (6)
1.3 (250)
6,000
0.26 (70)
0.21 (55)
2
1
2
2
5.7 (200)
7.3 (8)
Typical
0.66 (26)
2.5 (500)
6,000
2.6 (675)
2.1 (550)
2
1
2
2
5.7 (200)
71 (78)
Inhere are no VOC emissions from the sealed mills.
"For systems purging tanks and ducting emissions to control  device.
                                   8-7

-------

oo



,
Q_
O
_J
O
C£
O
O
1
LU
~"
-j



_^
0
0£
LU
S
O
00
0
o
PO
LJUI
o
-^
2^
y~^

*y%
*G
1 t 1

UJ
c£

rt


o
,
Irf"
s
UJ
f^

CD

.
^,
O
V""/
.
!Ti
~™
t^
^s
^~


ro
i
00
1
_J
•a*
r^
•""""


Id
o
•^
Q.

}_.







r"™
1
00












u
id
CO
Crt
CO
0£




























*•
C
O

-M
id

•r—
CO


CO
c
'^™
to'o'o

•*•••' *
to to
to LO

O CVJ





to"o"o
— 'in o
CM O
10 — ' •

• oo
o •









to'o'o
	 'LO O
CM O
LO 	 •
.-1 CM
• CO
o •



















c
•r-
E

^— ^ i|^
• **™X
C C
O M- to S-
•1- — '•*». >>

id E -c
E •
i- «"O «
o -C co o>
(4- -p CO C
c -o Q.T-
•i- -r- «/) 4->
2 id
CO CO $-
c: J3 c 0)
•i- O) -i- Q.
_J 3 — 1 O


r-I
 CO <•"••
s— to O<-< O%«>^ C^«
CM^—- t- O O O O
LO " T3 ^ •«• C CM

•i^ ^
id c co co
j- id c -C
•M V- CO O
CO 3 3 •—
1— M- •— O
O >>



»— 1 CO O O 1 ^~^<— » CO **~*
^* u">co^ll'8o o o c§
LO • T3 <* ^- C CM
CM CM >»^-" 	 >
r- *J




i-l CO O O C /— *r— ^-.r- ^^^-^^— .
^^ CM*-* i_ O ^: O -M O O O
LO • 3CM-MCVJ3CMCVJCM
CM »-l M 	 'CO — 'jQ *-* — '^-^
O O
J- r— CD > C T- C C C
>, -CO O CO O
-E ^ +J i— •»-> 3 C
id o> co >> co i— «j
s- :e .* .c .* o x
4J ^J t— CO
CO CO J=
J- Z 0
13
>lj
o


J3
^•K
•r*
E
'

id
E ^
• "cd
•4-> CD
CO ^*
c 3 c ^
O «• O — '
•i- to i- CO
•4-> (/I 4-> ro $_
Id CO Id 4-> E 3
E C r— JC 	 4->
t ^ 3 O» O> X
O (J S ••" -^ •«"
M- i- C CO E
c x: o 5 •
T- 4-> M- >, 4->
• •M C
 C C O  >
CO •!- T- P» C 1—
O -M -(-> CO O
o id id's* a oo
t- o o
a. o o


CM
LO
CM
LO
NMM*

LO
CM
O





o"
CO
*«^

LO
f^
•
O







o"
CO

LO
«— 1
•
O









«X"H^
CO C
•!-> -i-
id E
s- \
m
t"~ i_i
O M-
•i— ^— ^
•M
id 10
•r-ro
-t-> E
C
CO »
> CO
$-
id 3
CO (/)
s- o
Id r—
u
-o c
id a>
a>
.C i—
id
Ol-t-
C -P
•r- {_
•M Id
id Q-
o
o



o"
g
*u*^

^f
CM
O





o"

«M-^

^f
«— 1
•
O







o*

s~x
^f
^— 1
•
o










^
c
•r"
E
m
^_1
M-
i/)
^»n^
CO
E
•1
CO
J-
3
CO
O
(—
0
c
CO


-0 3 C
j- -4-> id
r— «J O 4->
id -a id «/i
3 C
4-> id •
O -(->'—«
id 1/1 c
E
to • — .
\ -M
ro (4—
E —

*
CO
id
s-

c
o
•r—
^)
id
r*~
•f-v
•+J
c
CO

a)
>
o



•a
CO
3
3
•"
J
™
3



































































8-8

-------












0)
c
i
£


,
CO
1
00
UJ
_J
CO
<
































"*
u
&
h-


Id
E
t/>




U
fe

— 1
<— 1
CO

o"
o
t— (
1— 1
<— 1
CO





LL.
o
>—'
v^

«
0)
$-

Id
$-
0)
t
OJ
•M

•4-*
a;
^™
c
•r-

J_
d)
^
^
O
•o
id
0
J-
id
o



o"
vo
rH
^^
^t*
^f
CO
§
«-H
**""
^f
"^f
CO

o"
.—1
^r
"^
CO












•M
^^

"t"} **^
id
QJ •«
f~ QJ
^_.
^_ ^J
2 Id
id J-
s- a;
i- a»
U -M
c
»— i



in o
^ S
*
CM
{


in o
CM O
in
e\T
(



in o

CM
t







_i
UJ >
-1!.
>« a.


• •
-M
00
«
-C
X
O)
c
•r-

C
o
•r-
4J
id
i.

c

c
•1—
•M
id
o
u

E
e
M— *^^»
s-

O «A
i- C
00 O
00 +J

i*"'
(!) t-
^k
CJ *^x
O O)
^* ?L

^D *

-------







LU
O
ii 1
o
o
o
1— 1
G£
LU
^>
O
t- ^
LU

jjj
CO
LU
0
o
o
C£
O
LU

OO
ad
LU
LU
^
Q.
o
1— 1
§
LU
Q-
o

CJ3
«c.
H-t
t—

•a
O)
c
!j
VD O O
CSJ OO
^-*LO O

to to
to ^f
• LO
O •
CSJ




to" 0*0
^— 'LO O
CSJ O
L0« 	 "
•-I to
• f"*1*
O CO
t
i— i






to"o o
— 'IO O
CSJ O
IO « — • *
•-I CM

O CM
,—1












^^
a
tf—
E

^J
_r-^x^_
• N««X
0 i-  C
C -O Q.T-
•r- .r- 4O +J
2 id
0) CD V.
c .a c ai
i- OJ •>- Q.
-I 3-JO


t— i
«— 1 CO O O O (U^-N. O LO
— • »OOOO>-*C^< O CM
CM»— ' OO VOIO
LO • C O — •«— '
CM «-H Id f-H
X — ' ^ LO
—• ^ LO
OJ ,-lr-l
^ • •
O O 0
73
u




*-• CO O O O Q) *~*> O O
**- «OCOO»-«C*« O «-H
CM^ — ' O O CO CO
LO •> C O ^^
CM i— 1 Id •— 1
X — ' *!• LO
 Id »r—  CJ> -(-> ""^n •>
QJ *^*» D^ E OJ
5 •• -Q 0) E -M
C C r- >OJid
O • O — ' • i. $-
•r- «n i- oj id ai zj
+J 01 -M m L- OJS-COC
id o)id4->a>E 3 5- rs o o
E c i— ^: E ^*« -4-> id  •— i-
J- ^^ 3 C7> 3 Cn X O (_> -M
O OE-^i— ^£ i- TDr-C«d
M- -r- C O> O E ld(JO)i—
C J=O2>« O)C T-
• ••*-> c id c
^^ ^7) ^^ ^_^ t_ ^ »^™ ^y CW i^^ *^~ ^J
co C C O O 01 > c id -i-> >

U -M -l-> CU O -M O id C
o id id1** >e o oo id i— 0.01
t- o o o >
Q. U O O O


CNJ
LO tO O O
r^» • CD CD
*— 1 " •>
CO CO
— _-"- 	 -•







00 ^f^ CD ^^
• • CO CO
o o^* — •











oo to o o*
• • CO CO
o o^ —

















•a
"T3
r- J-
id id
3 -a
TJ •*-> C

id id co
3-0 •
U id c
** « ""-^
E (/) C*l
Q} ^^* -^J
^Jm '|
(/) ^ *»H^
>>
OO




^
u
c
r—
4->
C
O
u



























































8-10

-------

























•~-
fli
2»
c
i
8



*

£fl
LlJ
2
































"id
u
o.

l_









f—
^~
g
00










0
Id
0)
CO
o>



























• •
o
•r™
•4-*
id
•r-
CO
— 1 •> «• *-^
CO CO
— '*-' in
to
CO





-

x**^
o
CO
^"^

ur>
in
CO






o"
00
i— i
1 — '
in
in
CO

















•o «—
J- o
•— id — '
id "o
"O 3 C ^
T7 4-> Id
J- 0 -fJ
i— id id co 
CJ 4J C «d
(i) id co •!— s_
OQ E (U
• \ Q.
§^ ^ §
XJro (^H ^^
co E ^
>> c
(/> O)
o



*— *
0
VO
,_^


*^"
«^"
CO







^MS
O
VO
^^

^
<^
OO






o"
VC
i-H
^^
^r
^f
ro




U_
o

^/

«t
2!
13
4_>
t5
«-
(U
Q.
s
•M

-M
O)

"c
••~
CD
O
•r"
O)
T3
,_
g
4-^
c
0
o



o o o
** 8 <~l
«,
^f
I










O 0 O
^ O »— 1
•1
"?f
i








o o o

^
t











• •
•M
3
id
-C
X +>

•r- i— OJ
o s-
C CO C OJ
O (U f
•r- . en Q.
•»-> — 1 i— O CO
Id UJ > O I- O
$ 	 1 E > 4-> E
+J Q. v- 4J
C >« Q->« C Id
OJ
c •• • *
O < CO
0
•»-> § §
C 4-> •!->
OJ 00 CO
^ ^) ^)
•— 00 00
o
00



o"
o
^^

in
CO
VO







,^«*
in
f*-

00
VO








in
CS4
CO
CVJ






en
c
-M
id
o
(J
E
o
J-
M- *~*
i.
CO >»
c —
O CO
•r- C
CO O
CO 4->
•g v_x
(U i-

O en
> z:

a; c
r- O

2§
•M t-
c a>
o a.
0 O
c







O*
c
•r—
• \
id
o
u
id
E
CO
C
id

-C
s-
id
0)

2
ai
s-
o
(4-
• 73


S.S
CO C
o (d
id co
r-i a;
i >
T3 CO
C >>
id co

^~^t t A
u_ a>
O 1 	
00 =3
VO T3
	 O

• O
>>o C
i— O O

0 ^ 4J
a> id
 co -a
GO 4-> C C
O) GO O O
• *~ >* '^ O
l_ (J OO -t->
O) C -r- O


II T- T3 E «
II i— C 3 *.
i— a. id •— o»
E t- O. -M O Q.
3- E < 00 > O

-------





*
ex.
2
x

\—
LLJ
O
00
C3

ry

>
O
1 i |

LA*
00
ac.
UJ
UJ
0
o


a:
|J-
L/^
S
1 i |
1 	
111

1

£}
t— «
^
LU
Q_
O
t r\
^_>

^
8

^

a
^~


to
i
i
CO

tl 1
1
OQ

^"





"id
o
a.

i—








r-"
1
OO











.£
0
Is
S
(U
<2























« *
c.
o

•4-«*
id
c
o>
•r"
CU

cu
c
'Jj
to'o'o
CM O O
^-'in o
**••* •
tp tf>
• in
0 •
CM






to'o'o
^-'in o
CM O
U^ Si— ** *
<— H lO
• f^x
O CM
^








to o o
— 'in o
CM O
in — •>
«-t CM
• ^^
O CM
•
r-l













C
•r—
E

T£
c c
o •<- co *-

4^ E ^^
id E -C
E
i- «t3 •
O .C CU 0>
4- -M CO C
C -O Q.T-
•1- •!- Vt +J
3 id
CD (U J-
i- cu i- a.
—1 3 — 1 O


rH
r-t
"-^
in
CM









^
•+~s
in
CM











f^
*^*
in
CM










.a
^
E


id
3.

cu
31
0 •>
•i- VI
4-> CU


K1 CT>
(/) f*
a> M-
CJ -M
O *^
S- 0
a- o


CM
CO O O O C *~**~+ CU ^->
voooo'-i idx*« c>e
CM^ — ' i- O O O O
« 3 <• ^r c CM
,-1 M_ « — — id *-"
2X
a> cu
T3 C J=
>> cu o
c™ ™ ^ ^«^
-fc- -J ^^
id i — o
t- 0 >>
-M 1— O
cu


CO O O O* C s-**~* CO *~s
UD oo o — i e*3 c>«
CM 	 1- 0 0 O O
«• 3 *S- T C CM
^H M 	 -^ (O *-*
O X
U CU CU
1 11
id i— o
S- 0 >>
•»-» »— 0
cu




CO O O O C x**s CU x-*sr-"
toooo^H id»« c>« >>
CM^ t- a oo +>
« 3 CM ••-> CM 3
f— ( (4- ^-^ CU ^—'^3
o ^ o
i- (/)
•O r- T-
>> >»
£ J= I—
(d -M >>
I- CU i=
4J 4->
CU r- d)
^5
cu
s:






^-.
"id
O'
"X^
.. ^D
o C^
•i- (U
-M co i.
id -M CU E 3
c— .C E ^ -M

S *^~ ^~ ^ •?-•
C cu o E
o u > *
*4— ^> -^
*• «-M C
O^C«^ CJ *^ CD
C ^D C3 t/^ ^
•r- > > C i—
-l_) CU O
3**°































/**^*^^*x—«t
000
CM CM CM

(U CU CU
c c c
O 0) O
•M 3 C
CU r- (d
^£ O X
1— CU
o
>.
0





























o in
SCM
in
*-_-"~_-"

^s- in
CM CM
• •
o o




-

O*ON
O ^H
CO CO
<**^*f^^

• C4_
t % *J
•t~* H—
*o ^-^ 
r— ""*»•»
-M ^^ E »
£jPO QJ
CU E •>••->
« i- i-
d) £_ (/) C
J- 3 0 0
Id CO c — -c—
O O -M
TJ i— C id
id o a> r—
GJ C *^
J= CU r- -M
id c
O^^~ "f" O
C  >
•I- 4-> i-
ca H- ex a;
o >
0 0



in to o o
F^ • O O
• i— i ^« ^r
»-H *• •
CO CO
*-*








oo to o"o"
»— 1 f-H c>^ ^~
• • CO CO
o o^ —












OO tjO f™^ f^
• • co co
o o^^*—


















TJ
•— T3
id (-
•a -M TJ
J. 0 C
r— 
3J C * trt
4-» id— ^
o •»-> c
id v—
< E

E tO ro
CU ^^ 4™*
4^0 \^
to E — '
00




T3
CO
c
f—
c
o
U































































8-12

-------

























^
cu
c
• *
t:

(j



#
in
i
CO

UJ
^j
rn
<



























Id
0
Q.

*~







^_
P-"
id
E
oo










u
J-
id
cu
«/>
cu
a:




























c
o
•r—
 Cd
i- CJ 4-> «
r- Id  C Id
cu id «/»•«- s-
oa E cu
• *••*. a.
§trt <*> E
^* 4^ CU
I/TE ^ -|J
>» c
00 CU
0


o"

**^

5
CO






^•^
o
^o
T-H
**w^

^f
^f
CO






o*

1— 1
x«x

^J1
^f
CO






^_.
L^
o
^

ft
2!
3
id
i-
cu
a.

(JJ
-M

_!_>
O)
c
•••
cu
u
•r-
CU
•a

r*»
e
c
o
o


o
^r











o
^f












o


















• •
•M
I/I
i
-C
X
cu

c
•r-

c
_o

-M _J
id uj
J — 1
4->
c ^^
8..
8^
E
4-> CU
C -(->
cu v>
i— 00
o
oo


oo o*
S1"1 °
«l **l~*
*sT
< in
CO
to






*****
o o in
§»*H ^«*
Xh^X
•t
'T 00
I to








o o in
Si-H CM
*•••*
ft
^- CO
1 CM









o>
c
5
o
(J
E
2
*4— **" ^
-^ J-
C en >>
CU C ""^
> O «/l
r- CU i- C
O J- l/l 0
t/l C CU 10 +J
CU -C -r- ^^
• en o. E
r— O Irt CU »-
> 0 I- 0 >,
E > ••-> E 0 <.
a. i- -M o o>
a.*« c id > s:
T3 *
.. O) C
CO ^^ C3
£ O 4^
(D SN. UJ
•P -M J-
00 C CU
>> O O.
00 (JO
C






o>
•r-
•M
Id
0
U
00
C
id

r~
U
5^
(O
cu

cu
t-
cu
J-
o
• TQ
S c
3 O>
t/t t-
00 
J= O
0. C
I/I C
o id
•§
id co
£s
^H CU
1 >
•o co
id v*

u. cu
o r—
CO 3

s_x Q
E
• O
>>° c
r—'o O
C CM i-
O 4->
cu id
<=C J- oo
id c
E CU
• CU «/» "O
I/I 4-> C C
CU CM O O
• JC >»T- U
J_ (J OO -M
cu c T- o
+J f- O "O -(->
CU -M C
§t— 1 O 4-> •
O CU CJ C VI
i.(D r— Q> C
(J • JD T3 00 O
T- o «d $- i-
E O id cu +4
n T- TJ e «d
II r- C 3 i-
i— Q. id i— cu
E f- Q.-M O O.
3- E «t 00 > O
« J3 0 -0 CU
8-13

-------

co
UJ
z
~

j^Jt
UJ
a
o
CD
K-H
1—
O
o

UJ
a.
^f
h-

CJ
i— i
i—
UJ
CD
U_
0
CO
I—
CO
o
o

a
UJ
f-j
t— i
	 i
^^
~^
•y
Id
^£

Q
^
_j
«j;
1—
i — i
a.
•^c
C_J
CD
HH
1—
J5
t—
co
UJ
0
u.

co
UJ
co
^£
CO
.
IO
1
CO
UJ
CO
*"

-a
at
•r-
U
(U
CX

^
•r-
C
3
(U
CX

t
id
r—
r—
O


*
t?
O
CJ






































c
E
(U

dj
10
o

id
8
o
^
^•f
o
•
?-H
in"
CM
i-H
^•n^
fx
r*
u)
•
O
^^

CO
CO
CO
*





















en
•+•*
0
o

at
I—
5
oo
c
•r—

c
id

a>
CD
j^
00 O
4-> 4->
M CO
o
O 4-»
c
i""~ CU
4-> •—
•r- 0
Q CO

t-H























•-«
I-H
0 00
J3 - O

OO | * **
O 00 4-> x^,
U O C 4-»
O 0) 00
"O E O*>
0) 4-> CX O-
I— C T- «—»
r- 0) 3 4J -M
id E cr c oo
4-> o. dJ dj o
00 »^ c 1 *****
C 3 -0 CX 440
•r- cr  oo 4J ja
^_^

-O 01 JC 0) E O 4-> O
C  U Q.-O 00 U
•r- E »- "O t- <1J T3 O
OJ 4-> CX C 00 CTi— r- ldOJr—
CD • £ •!— — . 1- d) C I/) r— 4->
3 •— 1 v- 3 X-N 3 00 «i- C Id OO
— 4-> crio ex id T- 4-> c
at co x: t- oo M-
J=4->>-% • O) O O) EI C
-^ 1 §. S *]i! ^ g.^ •£ 7 3
CQ. id oo GO >-, a> oo
-r-T-4->^:4-> O) OIT3 OOJ3 O
2 3 oo o oo E **" id ^ •••™
ccroi-o---4-> coo
3O)U3O4-> COOOC 00
— ' CX OOO-I--OO) 4J
c^^c^cn§"£'id<0t— o
OOOr-Oi— CSJ-r-ldOOCld O
•r- Id r— ••— r— •— '4J (J C O T-
3 4-> JC (d 4-> (T3  CT
C t« i- oo f— oo oo *o QJ c id id/ •§>™
a) at 3 c at c o^— -JD o o ex 4->
E CX CX-i- CX-r- O 1 (J «d
CX O O 4-> T3 -O "O $•
H- E E •— o> oo at c at c at
3cnooo>idcONatjaid a
CT C O O C 4-* *r~ O "'""" CD 1 O
Of T™ ^ "^ •t'™ O ^3 "U O "C3 """™
4-* 4->4->r— TD-'— t-d)lO 4->
X id X X Id — "r- C 3 4-> X 4-» O
•r— O T- t— O 3 Id r— i— *r— O Ol
•E CJ SI •£ CJ CO _ 1 Ll_ Z U- 1— t.
•i—
eg









pT~s^^^~.<~.x-»^-s
«4- Id *« l— i— .-— *C

CM •»-»"<*. -TO O LO 4->
O If) if) CD "tf ""*•» *^*»
• CO UT> • • • ^»
O • • CM CNJ r-t CM
NM^**"}* ••£)• *-u'*'- -**^i |-*| 	 1
'fe^Ntarf' «-| -
** C7> O) O)
f EoV.--S.-E
•^- CM IT) O 00 Ot *O ' —
O CM «— : CM ««• CM CO O
f-» O «— ' «— I "W U> CO t— (







in
^H
^••^
| *
00
o
o

r— '
id
3
C
id
j_
o
13
•^
a>
CX
o

5 c1
43 8
id
li %^
o at oo
»« -o o "id c
If) C i— i- O
'-> E at o t. ja
•--• •— •— >> a> i.
•r- J3 O 4J id
>«Q -4- Id 0
j- i. i— E
i-t O id ^> •• ^D
s_ooT-atoo o ate
4->>atooc 4->ooidcn
idi~4->atat atc>o
1- O) > > C T- -r- t.
t-OtCXEr— i— CD 00 4-> 4->
ocx3 oo idato-i-
J3 O co 3 a. co •£ac
-------























•o
flj
U/
C
^
8




.^
ii
00
UJ
1
<

'































(U
•r™
U
O.
00

1 *
•T"
C
3

S_
0)
O.

V.
id
r~
o
•o

+2
00
o
CJ








































c
i
(U

$_
id
0.

[ *
c
i
0)
U
id
r—
Q.
Oi
$-
0>£
CJ •
CJ" in
id- -
c $- 
(U O •»->
-M -Q t-
c id id
•i- _l Q.
id i i
z 1 1





^.
CO (0
+) X*^N O)
(4- ja
r- 0
x*^^D O
£ O O O
3 O O «
j<: -O.-H
*1**^1-H VI "^X,
^J* ^*^ rH ^"
IjO ^" ^^ ^^
o c\j in «-i
• • ^^ •
O on • o
" ^^*
1 ^*) M
Z ^ cn^

f-H T-l LO CO
O«-H «0
• • t"*«» •
O O«-H 0





































to
-J^
+J 10
•r- ^^
CJ •
 Id
•I- UJ CO GO 3E
4-> 1 1 1 1
=31111
0

























U
•M
C
at
a%~*
•r- 4J
3 C
>> o-a>
s-  -i- cr
i- i—O)
(U
O. O>r-
3 CO
00 •!- $-
-M -P
• id c
D> O O
C U (J

+-> 4-> $- V-
id in o o
$_ o <*- <*-
(U CJ
^^ x^x ^^ ^^
O 4-* r— \O Uf>
oo id ^j" ^"*"
^ o 4^ r^ c\j
O <~N O •<— • •
4-> Q.i-4 VO
in £ M r— id t— < >— 1
3 O « CJ «•— •« —
00 C/>-^ CJ -M
•M i- T- if- 4J -M
(/) QJ O r*" f* O 00 00
o -c .a id id o o
CJ -t^ Id 4^ CJ ^^ O CJ
r — T- C\J
O>U- CX«»- «• — >> >>
c o a> id o i- $-
i- CJ O C (U *« C ^ O > >
(cs CD *o ^™ *^ *^~ o o
i- CO C O — '-M O CJ
a> ^-^ a; id a> 4->
(US- 0> 3 T" •!- T-
S— (U ^D X 00 E i""1 fi
•oo id i— I-H  ^)
1 1
o o
• CNJ r— 1
id
-M i- $-
id o o


^> 4»^ 4^
S- OO 00
00 S- S-
3 CU (U
"O 4-> 4->
C C C
•r— t— T—

•a -i-> 4->
c c c
• id cu cu
en (j CJ
E S- i- »-
o at ai
C T3 Q. Q.
•r- C
a; o o
 t— I »-(
E
3 C C C
r- O O O
o
> -a "a -o
II (/) 00 00
> OO QQ CO

8-15

-------





r~
CO
z
£E

«
o
to
1 —
I , 1 r ~*

1 LjJ
^T" __J
... ~J.
CO
1 1 ct

co S
o -^
Qri
UJ z
	 . o
— ' p
1°
^0
< z
s
t—
t— 1
CL.


•
1
CO
1 1 1
J
CQ
i
'





















(U
N
CO
O)
c
_j









p—
Id
u
0.


1—
"id
to




.E
CJ
s-
. i
LOll CO •
•til Lf\ 4
n ^^
r^ll




Oil LO in
O CM C\J
LOll VO T-H
HI ^^
CM It
*"~M|
^^

















CO
CO ^->
O CO
u o
0
"O
QJ O"
r- C
r~~ *r~"
CO (d +-> QJ
4-> 4-> Id U C
CO CO J- CO
o c a) 
O (U O
i— r— 4-> QJ
(d id +J tr <^
•M 4-> O •!- CO
•i- O QJ H ^H CO Wl t-H
M| M M M| •*
ii n ni


Oil Or- E -M
CO TJ CO tO
o > t_)
C U S. CO
•t- c aj ^-> a
co +J id > u uj
-M id 4- O QJ NJ
U J- 3 O i- I-H
O) QJ CO QJ •!- _l
i- a. c j- -a <
r- O •!- C Z3
•a r— M- z
+^ * id 21
i — CJ CO 4J i — — < • * • 1 —
• «
CO sT
8-16

-------























^^^
__
m
yt*


t t
C
O



oo
1
oo

UJ
_J
s*
r^
*










































CO
N
•i—
CO

CO

•r™













r—
id
o.




r—
r—
i
oo










4C
u
id
CO
00
CO
C£









































[ *
C
CO
E
CO
r—
CO

.(_>
(/)
cS
jQ U
to CM vo r-~|| m
»-i co *r o m
co «o co o cr>
« . M ftll *
a\ co *t oo] oo
CM CO *3" CTi O
CO m|| rH
«— i




VD CM l^~ COII in
»-l CO O VO O
moo *f\\ t^.
« . . «J
CM in !*•» co CM
•-H CM *» CO CM
r-< COll I-.
<— 1
Ijy






m >-H vo coil oo
i^ in co OM oo
•«3- CT> LT> CM VO
... J «
CM «• -
r-i CM|| vo













^^
^•^
00
-p
00
•a o
^-N O
00
-Mr- CO
co id «
O -P TJ
O T- -"—
QL 00
id U co
-P O
«r- 0)_ 4J O
CX O 00 CO
id o r— I—
O *c>^ O tJ (^
CM -P O
(^. s^x >^ "^ {_J
O S- Q. 00
c co id -P a
^ O > O O UJ
t-l •>- O CO IvJ
• 	 4-> U oj_ i_ i— (
id co o -r- —i
CO J- J- T3 -H O <£
M < CJ*-"!- r-
O
t • • • | —


*
m
10
*
in
i— i
,— i













































































CO
•r—
00 $_
-p id
co cu
0 >>
0 « 1
c o
C Id CM
0 i.
•r- 3 i-
•P <*- O
id o *4—
I— T3 -P
id >> co
-P -C CO
oo id j_
c s. co
•r™ 4^ i >
CO C
•P -P •!—
 i — «— t
0 0
0) -P C
$- o
•O CO T3
C C CO
•r- O CO
c id
C7> id CQ
C X
•^- ^^
TI3 ^C •
3 o • -a
i— i— CU C
u u c id
C >> 0 •—
•r- (J C
Id C7>
«(*- X C
CO O CO -r-
C J= -0
•r- T3 O 3
r- C r— i—
CO U U
0>r— >, X
c .a o cu
-p en OI-P
id C c oo
O — .r- O •
o oo oo o -a
33 C
M- r— Id
O C C id r-
CO CO -P
-P -C JC •«- C
oo 2 2 O. O
o id
O -P 4-> O -P
00 OO 00
T3 O O T3 CO
CO O  -P -i- CU
•d id T3
r— PS C p— 3
id id i—
+-> S S -P O
o id id o x
r- a: c*: i— uu
id JQ u T3 a>
8-17

-------








-t
OO
o
1—4
LU
Q.
O
CO
1— 1
h-
O
O
— i o£
^ I-**
Z
— t O
LU O
a z
o ra
z: i
i
LU r-H
O
00 O
H- 1-1
00 I—
0 0-
0 O
a —i
LU O
M Of.
>- CJ
z —
^£
^c

a
z
^C

«j

N
•r—
tt\
v>
a>
• fM
_J


























































p-H
id
o
>^
^






—
id






U
c
id
00
(U
f^









































^
c
E
(U

a>
-M
OO
o
0

«T «— i o CT> «— i in
O C7> O O CT>  «-« o o r*- en
co r^ o CM o co
CM «— i in i— i o
V* • "
CM CO



vo o o m r«> co
vo o o oo oo co
vo *^ co P^ oo ^3*
co vo O «— i in r*^
in t— i vo CM ^t cj»
V» (T» CM CM
«l
T-<


•— t CM o co in «— i
^r ^~ o in co r^
r— 1 CO O O Is* CM
«— i in o >— i in co
m r-i vo CM •sr o>
v»  4->

4-> -M O O
c id u oo u
E i — C7> OO "O
Q. Id C O (U
•r- 4->ld -I- O r—
3 00 0} ^3 ^"
00 CT C C i— TD Id
+J  •!- T- •!- C 4->
OO l — 3 Id OO
O E E .£3 i— C
O O O O> M-
o o c c c
•— V. $_ -r- 0 0 i—
id -P E E id
4-> X X Id E E 4->
•i— M— i- O O O O
a s s o o c_> i—
id

e
1— 1
-Q U J3 (J
000^3*4* oo co o o oo
CMOCoin vovo OLO^J"
r>.ocMC7> r^»r~» oo vo en
V^3 ^^ CO ^^ ''If ^t" ^^ P**" C^
CM •— It— 1 ^T CMCM OO «— It— 1
^-1 CM CM in
^^ «» •» «
O O 0
»-H t— 1 i— 1
*


O CO CO COCO O O Is*
CMOCM VOVO OLOCO
VO CT» «— 1 T ^ "O" r>- CTl
CM»— I'd- CMCM CO «— 1 OO
r-i •-) CO

1— 1 I— 1


O «T CM CM CM O O OB
vo CM ^r cr> CT» m oo ^rn
i— I CM CM »-l t— 1 ^T 00 COJ
oo ^ ' — i vo vo «~* in co|
CM OO i-H <3-H
«/» co ^rll
^n




























(/)
4_)
(/)
o
CJ
a
C >, >, 00
•i- J- r- 4-> -M
•*-> o id (u •!— o
id &. (/> i- u u >(U id (0 t *r-
o s- ai  -(-> 0 ^3i-T- O Q. 3 Cldldi — i — -4->ld
O J3 O CO 3 •r-_IQ.-r-LUOO-M
QJ td i i id id i i +•) i i o
s- —i i i a: s i i ID i i i—
•r—

»
CM

o r^. vo
o a* «-<
O CO CO
•«. VO C7>
S- CO CM
n >-i
•< ^^
D
-H
A


r*x vo
co in
VO CM
CO r-l
t-H
fjf^



<-* in
vo r>*
oo «a-
O CM"
CO •-!














^
C7>
c
id o
t- -Q
a) (d
Our—
o
ara

O C 00
id 4->
E C oo
3  O
4-> C
oo ai T- i —
o .c id id
0 4-> E 4->
•r—
O1 »4- "O O-
c o c td
•r- Id 0
^^ ^p
id o «>n-
$- CO >> O

a. o ^e
O "O 00 t— 1
id -i->-^
-M O) >
U ^= t- 00
(U S- (U (U
s- a) a. x
•r- > 3 id
T3 O 00 1—
c

4
co
*_^
•a
d)

P
c
o
o



































































8-18

-------





*
r-
pS
0*£
^•^ Vv
**"V
DUALIZED
ONTROL C
z tj
< ^
z "*
^^ r
^UJ
ii
0 i_
UJ 2
^0
2E ^*
==_j
lj
h—
gS
— 1 ...
^ol

z •"
1-1 u_

^*
• ^J.
^^ Ml
| ^y»
00 ^f
^^
LiJ i
_J '
p**) .^
^ ^
h™ •
^^
1 1 1

u.



















o
•t—
a.
o
"o
$-
-M
C§







Q
C  id O
0 X 0 to
•i- T3
14- id



o> id
 J3 C J-
id id o QJ
S_ 
C/> T- -O
•o id


c
o
J _>
^^ ^^
(Q ^\
c
o


TJ
0)
"o
0
1





















E
0>

*f~

^J
(/)
O
o

s*"** ^~**
oo on OOOOB ooro «•>•-<
^D ***** CD II CD ^D CD 1 I**** f**1 ^5 W'
u?>^F en r^^ r-il .0 «o
«•> M| «•> H O • o •
CM r-i ooll CM  oo us
oo oil o o r*» P--| en oo  ^r cnll r*> oo io| • o • •
•>•> •41 •>•> HI o • o o
CM OO O CM 1^- Ol O •—•'
rH CO lOll «^ i-l| ^--





oo on o o o OB vo^" cr> co"
OO O O lf> •— 1 ^"1 CM CM CM O
10 r>. CM II r^ co i ol • o o o
A •» «4| * «« CD * • *
CM ^H «* CM OOl O OO
^H ^"H || IjO ^i^ ^*^ —
j >* j >«
LT> z inll r*. z z r**! • o z
CM" CM] CM esall CD
^ £1 ~ ** —
CM
M-
•+-> u
to D> ' 	
•r— C OC
O O Id 3^
E •OEM- TJOT3E
T3«/>CU OJtOOJ <1) (J (U S- ••»>.
CJ ^^ | * tsj v/ 4^ 4J |sj NO} "\&
i— C jx^* i — Id >> JCk ^™ Q} r— •
Id 4-^ (/) ^^ (d 4^ C/9 CD Id t- Id 4*^ ^3
4-* V- 3 ^O 3 Id 3 to C}
to O) r- O C <0 >— -«» C C O 4->
C O^ O3 C CTi) O ^* C <^* C O *O
•^* (O S» 4^ r* (tf r~ r— ((3 •r~ (0 O
g" ^ ^* ^j (^ j^ | * ^3 (^ gr g (j
O r— O C 3 4-» i— OC r-3 r-QJ
t- (O +^ O "O O t$ 4-* O S— O *O (0 4^ <^O 1— 4->OOOO|— 4-»i- 4->MOI r-
 \— ii i t— iiii I— Q. t— to id id
d) E
C£ • • • • 00
«-H C\4

O CD Ol
o o ol
ur> o inl
r»Tir> CMl
« oo ol





O O OB
oo on
i« o inj
r>» i— i col





0< OJ
V* *A


to en
0 C
o •<-

i— 3
id i—
4J O
•r- C
Q. 'r-
Id — -
O

"O to 0}
O> -* 4->
i — C t/)
r- Id >>
id 4-> to *-~-
4-> -^
W» 0) •— S_
C O) O O
•r— id ^- ^ r—
i. 4J 4-> Id
i— O C O 4->
id 4-> O 3 O
4-> OO C_) -O 1—
Oil 1
h- 1 1 1


^•y
•o
3
•r-
C
O
o


















































8-19

-------














TJ
0}
•r-
c
0
u
^—^

(Tv
00
LU
1
GO
1—








































O
•i—
O
o
o
i-
c
o
o








TJ CO
C  03 C J-
(0 (O O (U
s- GO .a _a
id o s- s-
Q. O. id O
(U co u to
OO i- TJ
TJ id


c
0
-M w
> •*•*
CO >
C
O
o



TJ
a>
r—
o
c
o
u






















E
CU
-M


-M
CO
0
°

O O O OH O> 00 IT) "d-
SO O i-l i-« »-l T-H
I-H r-J • o • o
T-TlO voll CD* CD






*^™s *•— ^
o o in mil co rx co CM
SO i— » i— III i— 4 i— 1 i— 1 i— 1
r^s i— i *ta • o • o
• • MI CD • f""i •
i"™4 *d" VO II CD *"^





O O m mil CM m voir>
§^H i-l 0> UO 0 0 O
CM i r-j o o o o
«-< «-HH O O O •
^rf Wl ^"^ CM/






0 < < Oil <0^" <
S^^^-O ^t O \
Z Z (O O O Z
« M! • •
1-1 ^H|| 0 0^

*-* E
oj ,
+J -** CO «
C J-^-' TJ
cu a> r— cu
> OP< O -»->
co i— E s- id
4-> O -t-> ^>> -l-> O
CO CO CO -fc*- C O
0 00
U i- OQJ U cd
o «• cu
TJ EM- TJ TJ TJ $-
ai co co a) cu cu id
N -* -P -M N •!-> N
•f— C CO 'r- >r- Id "r— 4->
r— (O >5 -Q r— O i — •!— *~*
Id -4-> CO  TJ id id a.' —
r— OCCU-M r- i— i—
id-MOS-o •>- -MCOE O
O 1 1 1 1 O C O O 	 . -r-
1— 1 1 1 1 1—3 1— O -t* Q
>)
• • • |—
CO
OO O| OOOOi
o o ol o o o ol
CM o CM! i-ii-4coo>l
• * «l . « i «B
oo m col vo in o|
CM CM IT>| 
(J -i- C
TJ CU

id c — co i —
-(->  0
•r- C CO CO
CX i- 0
id — o J-
0 0
E TJ E H-
TJ  cu cu co  N JX -M -4->
1— C CO •!- C CO •!-
^^ Id ^) r~~ Id ^) l*>
(d -4-> CO /^^ Id •!-> CO O)
4J -s<: 3 -a
CO CU •— J- C CU i— ~-»
CCT>OO CCT)O-4->
•r-idi-Si — id id $- T— i—
S_ -(_) +J rO S_4->TJid
i—oco-t-> >— oca»-t->
id i * o 3 o fd i * o f o
4-> OO (_> TJ t— -M OO <_> CJ H-
Oil 1 O 1 1 1 1
1— 1 1 1 1— 1 1 1 1

* *

T?
O)
c
r~
c
o
0



















































8-20

-------

































s~*
ni



t ^
C






fi\
i
-y.
WJ
. .
j



•






















































(/)
C
o

o
0

1—
2

c
o
o






















•o "^
C CO C J_
O XJ O 0)

E -Q j_ j_
O co id o
o x o  T" "O
•o 
(Cj %
^ "^
oj <«
(/)
c
o
o





-o
CO

f^
o

•M
C
o
o

— ^

























E
CO
-M
•r-

•P
CO
O
0


»-l CO
CO O
0 0
• *
o o














s~~*.
it CO
CO O
0 O

o o








er~~*t
00 CM
38

o o










,«•— V
00 CM
r-l O
o o
• *
o o



^— *,
CM
-P

|--> "^^
1/1 -^
o^-'
u
CM
O) E
C "*"^
•i— -f-^.
^>
?*"«
co -o
CX CO
O -P
id
•a o
CO U
N
•c- id
Id 2
3 id
C -P
id •!-
c
r"™ "7
id
•p s-
O CO
(— a.

•


^.^^
o o
* ^^
^^ •
0













x— s,
CM CM

O •
0
— '







^••MS
CO O
o o
00
0 O

0 0










^
"x^
z









HE
CO
-p
1/1
>t
t/) *
TJ
i— CO
O -P
s- id
-P O
C 0
o
u id
CO
-a s.
aj id
N

id CN
3 3 -P
C 4-
c s_ —

0 0 ^-> 3
jj O U3 -P O
c >> *^ x:
>> (J C CO -^^ -P • -P
r- cu x: .p «*- c
C CO -r- -P l*_ ^^ T- *O
0 J- 0 ^. 1
Id T- O • C CM U.
CO <4_ 4J c -r- i-i
J^ C <4- C T- ^ -o
C O CO v- CM C
id T- CM «— i *— N id
i ^ 1} ^™ rrt r~H ^^_-* j^
id O C ^-- »— «• -r- CM
CO S- i- T- x^ C E 1
o»a> -PCX c -i- ~-»u_
id ex id id -r- E -P
J_ O •— O E"^t- 
O ^- v> ^ ±> CO
^J O> *r* CO -P **- O r—
W) C -P 14- OX)
•i- co E o in id
cu-p -i-o o in - — h-
x: id -as- in CM *~*
-P O M- CM 	 • CO
o id — x—. c co
O CO C T3 • C "~
$- x: o co c T- in
4- 4-> > T- CM •
TO id in » — -a
co E co oo in — co
c o co = — u co
O i- id II — • i-
•^ C}_ *~) \ * || • ^
CO C — i •— » CO
CO CO • CO ^-N CN t
•r- C CO > <-x CM 4J
EO CO r— CM -|->14_ C
CO «r- 3 O 4-> M- CO
CO CO CO <4- u> CO
<_) CO S- 
O T- $_ 
>E-OOO^-I x co
CO C <4_ ^H X >
co id x O id
x: <_) c in • x:
•p o >> co in • in
> i. > • r^ r^ co
CO CO -i- CM CO CO -S*
•— CO >O>»-H 	 — • C
o x: o — - «
J_ -|_> (J -P CM CM -4_>
4-> CO •!— CM E E
C CO V. TD E CO
O 3 CO m u> O> •
Or— -MS-ui O O idCO
CX'CU O «— 1 «— 1 i-C
i_ i-CO «-• X X OO
Q) 00 CU > - X -P'.-
X) .^ X> r— CO ^" ^ COCO
i-CS-O4-> VD CO CO i-
o id o co f~ • • • s_ >
CO4->CO CO i— < ^" •«*• OCO
T3 -Oi-> .—1 CO CO S-S-
id co id o
cr><4-c co co co coco
C Id C O V -I— -I- 4J CO
O i- O CO -r- CO CO
J3 O -Q 4-» -l-> >> >> >) OX:
$_4J$-T-ld r— r— r— • U -P
ldCOIdT3> i — i — i — •— <
o 0 a> $- id id id*— >-o $-
>id«t-
• C04->CO C C C C\
co-p -Q cu o id id idx:cou_
•— oo E i i- U c
Xl-i-O-Old T3 T3 T3OOX
idcs-cu s- co co coo •!-•>-
(jid<4_xooo ^ •*•* -PO-p-a
•r-O -i-CULL. id«id*id»CXC
i — 1 CO <4_ 3 O • — • O • — ' O VO O CO
CX CO C r— (J **~* O ^~» (J ^-" CX
CXf— O CU id • • S- S- r— CX
Id *"^ »r~ E ^ -P CO 10 ^s 10 ^> 10 **"^ O ^C
i0coid cs-co — co-v.a>x:i_

oo-r- >ox:id id idcc-i-
ZCXECU'i-i-CX O O -i-O
co cu .c: 4-> ai co i — 01 — o»— EO
|| -r- 4->ldCXO<0Ol0Ol0 O
•OCJ O» E-P *•!-> »+->OCO«-<
*^ CZJ ^"^ Q} ^3 ^^ ^3 ^^ ^5 ^J ^5 ^O -^T 1
**^n, ^t ^> ^Zt ^C ^^ (O I1™™ ^iijr*! 	 fc-_-* | 	 N_^^-« [j_
8-21

-------



1 1 1

1 —
t— 1
=3
ct:
i.j
UJ
Q.
00
LS\
*r I
I*™!*
"*
r^j •"•
i&
^ — i
rf O
**• o:
s|
gl
1— 1
LU Z
|§
5 Q:
^- o
O1*-

?5 *--*-^
^
LU ' —
I
ear *"^
1
1
CO

j^



~_.
[

OO

1 1 1
	 1

Sr
j*
1












CO
0)
•r-
-P
,
J_
o
.(->
(d
5
(U
ce:







.0
T3 •—.
C  X 0 O
<£ TJ
td

OJ *
•pS c^
"-* * loE *
2 o $— "t
^""* ^* fy o[j jr
S* ^ ^ rt
12- "~ -Q
*

^^^
CO
i-
HH (L)
M o
O

TJ
OJ
2
1—4 -P
C
o
u
c
ID






















E
0)
•p
•r-

P
CO
O


V** ^^ ^^^
oo OH o o o on co CM en — •
O O O O O If) UO| CM t-l O O
« * Hi * HI rH f^ f^ <~^
•- OO ^TB — • 	
CO COll rH ,-l||
CO ^r^ ^r^ V^




oo ON o o o OB «r rH to o
OO O O O If) U0| CM CM O rH
^•oo r^» coorHCT>I • • • •
ft 9t HI * * HI CM O rH O
«sr to  oo CM io| — —
COOO •— 1 rH»-H CM|
*r> rH|l V* V»



^**k x—s
OO O|l O O O Ol r-. rH 00 CM
OO O OVOOOOONrHr-H CM O
T rv rH co in oo LO| « « o o
•«•> H * iHfrHO* *
«a- CM r» oo ooN — ' o o
CO OOll rH ^Hl 1 I
tr> V»  •


o <: OH o . O 0-^.^^OB rH rH ^^
^- -z. ^r ^x>-z.-as. 008 • « z
* H • HI »— i o
«3- f\\ OO OO — '
CO COll rH rH||



CM
4->
-p5^. e
CO -fc*- d>
•p o co
CO CD 0) <» >>
O C -P O» E co *
0 •(- C C ^ T3
T3 OJ -r- -W- r—  d) »r- QJ OL) (J tiJ cd
O) Z3 -P NZ3-P-P N N
i— cr co T- cr en •!- -r- id n- +J
r^ Q) >•> r1™ (D ^> r^ r" • CD f"^ *r~ x~s
cd co '-~- id co (U id 5- cd Cr*
•PE -^ 3E -o rscdurj-p
COOr—S- C O r— ^v, C C l*-
COOO COO-P C-PC S--«v

^ 4^ H^J (tj -4-* "^ (O C O +*—*
Ur-XCO-P •— XCOJ-P r- 3 r-
S- cd *r~ O 13 O cd *r™ O S« O Id cd +JCN'
cd-PSOTJr— +JSCJOI— -Pi- -P COE r—
OJOII 1 Ollll O (L> O O ^>i i —
COI— II 1 |— III! (—0.1— O-fcJ-cd
O) E
o; • • • • oo
rH CM
^^
o o on
sg sj
OO^T" ool
co  rH||




88 81
LO rH B
CO «3- CM|
co cnU



§^ §1
"I* ^J
CO COB
CO 00 II






-p
CO O)
8 £
-o
"id r-
•PO O
•r- 4J C
a. c •<-
id a) ^— '
u E
o. E
T3 f- O)
O) 3 -P
i— cr co
r- >
cd co ^-^
•P E -^
CO 0 r- i-
c o o o
•r- 4- i- 3 r-
-p -P 
-------














^^
3
=J
C
•r-
C
O
o
^•^

o
t-H
1
00
UJ
?































CO
CO
*r~
4->
s
s-
01
>>
a
4-*










J3
C CO C CO
§-Q 0 t-
1 JQ CO
TJ *- -0
O CO id J-
O X (J O
X— »•!- CO
<*_ -o
id

a^__ •**
flj *™
CO.J2 ° CO
^"^^XJ £?

^^
1-4 CO
1— 1 >
0
•^mmf



^— >,
-o
a>
^2
o
o
c

















E
CO
•r-

1 *
CO
o
0

o o o oil I-H if) vo in
o o o of to o o o
00 VO ^ OOjl • • • O
• • «j| o o o •
lOt-< f^-H 	 O




OOOOH I-H O UO VO
§O O O t-H I-H VO O
^* ^S" *"Of| * * * *
« * H i-H O O O
IO CM CO 	 — '
«-H CM OOII



O O O O|| T-H ^f ^" ^
O^O^II ^"O O O
CO CO CM *^ II * * * VO
in CM ^aH — ' i o

V* V» 	





o ^.•^o •* o *•-.
00 Z Z 00 • • Z
• H o o
10 If) ^^
— i --H||
^^
4-
•M •*>.
CO -**•
O ^"^
o
CO CM
4-> CD E
c c ^. id
CO T- -«• i — CO
> -M O i-

4-> O V. • 4->
 CO CO "O C 4-> •— >
O C Q. CO O T-CM
UO) S- O4->UC4->
E O id 3 M-
^O J^L ^E ^™ '^_l ^J T^l ^s^
CO 'r- CO CO U CO I- "W-
N3-P-M N NCO*-'
•r^ CT CO «r- »i— Id *f~ Q.
r— CO >") -Q r~ CO *^ CM
id co co id i- *d 4-> E
SE T3 3 Id 3 CO \
o • — *. c c o-**
COO-M C4-> C (J
 T3 Id C E "O
r— X C CO 4-> r— 3 r— COCO r—
Id-r-Oi-O « id4->4-> id
4-> SI C_) C_) 1— 4->S- -MCOid U
o i i i i o a> o >> o T-
1— 1 1 1 1 1— O- h- CO O Q
^h
. . . 1-1
oo
OO O| O O O ON CM ^7
C7t VTtl OO ^f ^1
oo ml v» i v»
^/^ ^^^



oo on ooooi CMOT'
oo oH ooooi oo o
CT> VO IOH OO CM CFl ^f • •
* « «iH •» • • 9m f"> f™>
^J- VO r-H| rH VO OO t— (J ^—s
CT* OO OO | CO CM *™^|
4y^  ^y^


8f^ » i H l"l f-^ g i f™^ H ^^ f\j
o o 0 o ^r o ^fl *-~ i o
o\ t— i on oo oo vo ioj • •
•••« «fl • ««|oo
CT> CTtl 00 CM vol
oo oo| v» i .'^^oj CM o
CT> Z CTMl OO 3Z 'Z, OOH • •
VTk CTtU CO coll
OO OOH t^ 4i^
"
•M *>>»
CO -fc»-
O 	
4-> O
CO Di CO CM
8 -^ "c cP*^
T3 CO -i- -t*
•—3 > 4->
Id r— CO i — IdC
-MO O 4-> O t. •
•r-4->C CO+J CO CO'O
Q. C i- O C O. CO
Id CO ^— ' O CO I- O 4->
O E E O id
O.E -o a. E <+- -DO
TD «r- CO CO -r- CO CO O
OJ 3 4-> N34->4-> N
r- cr co -i- cr co M- -^ id
r— CO >> i— CO >>J3 i— CO
tO (rt *»*"•* ^O ^^ ^^ (O ^_
CO O r— i_ CO"— ^s. C
COOO COO4-> C -M
•r-i_i_3r— Id i- i- T- i— Id-r-
4-> 4-> id -M T3 Id C
r— X C O 4-> r-XCC04-> 1—3
id *^ o zi O id T- o w o id
•M2TOT3I— -MaECJOt— -Mi-
Oil 1 O 1 1 1 1 O CO
1— 1 1 1 1— 1 1 1 1 1— Q.

* • •

-o
CO
=3
•r-
£
O
O
















































8-23

-------





































*****
TJ
O)
g
•i—
C
O
u
N™X


•
O
t—l
1
CO

LU
_J
m
^^
r—






















































CO
01

•i—
I *
id
c
i-
QJ

j—
**
>,
S-
c

10
r—
^3
01
O)
ai















JQ
•o -— •
C Ol C CO
§-O O i-
1 -Q  id J_
X 0 O
•••^•r- CO
<+- TJ
Id






-
Q**
pj f— ****^
**— 0 ^ *"
i 	 < ^ ^ O rt»
™* *»* ^ *^ Js
R^_ -Q
(^ J™
^J\ W O A
Vj >r— WI
""'•o "2
IW





X*™*
CO
s-
i-i o»
i— i >
O
o



^^
TJ
(U
l~~
|—
O
s-
I-H 4J
O
0
c

NH**


























E
CD

*r—
4-^
(/•)
0
CJ



^^
<— 1 f— 1
*-"! r— 4
• o
o •
1 O
1











^•x
en oo


o •
o










s*-^
VO If)
O ID
• O
O 0
1 •
0
*^s





<^
*«*Nfc
z
















id
r— 
o s-
i. id
-M
C -M x— >
O T-CM
(J C 4->
3 M-
"T3 """"s
-
N d) — •
•r- Q.
r^ c-j
id -u E
3 CO ^
c o-e-
c u
id •>
§^j
0}
Id 4-> 4->
4-> CO (C
o >> o
H- co U




(D ^— >
f ^""K f"
•(-> Ji: — .
i. •*+* c
>> 0 C T-
£1 <+- T- E
TJ * O
flJ QJ 'i C3 VO ^•^
r— 00 *O ^ C

"o '> >) CU ^ ^ E
-M TJ C 4-> «4- E •»->
C 0) -^. >>« H-
O r— -r- O • +•>
O O O -»-> C C>_ o
S- i- C i- O

J- C K- CSJ tf> — •
id O O O» i-l CS1 x-s
O C — ^-' 4->
C C T- ^-» *-* <4-
0 C 0 Q. C 4-> ->x

• +^ *r* 4-^ O E *^« C
>) Id 4-> Id CO '-•v • T-
r— $- cd r— Ol 4-> C
C _ •!- CSJ
0 CL Q) i- E ^H
O Q. 4-> O O CSJ 	
E O CO i- IO i-l .— N
O O> T- «4- CSJ — ' .
O C O» TJ — -— * C
l_ •!— C = **-* • 'f—
-M f- C TJ • C
Xld -M O O) C T- ID
•i- O «d > T- esj
E o o TJ «d tr> — -
o , id II — •
4->4-> +-> -Q J3 -M II < — i
CO C — *-*
EE O4-> • O) X-^ > ^-» 
S- J- (1) 00 r— IN ^_> >4_
C Q. Q) CO M- u>
CO CO -r- •>— 1. «> O
CCTJ3 l.«o O t— 1
OO r- CT TJO O t—l X
•i-i- -i- CU C <4_ ^H X
co co 3 id x o
co oo _Q E c in •
T- T- o >>  o» 1-1 — ' — •
<_J O X O 	
OOTJ-r- O4-> c" «
>> CE Ol-r-cvj £ E
id i- TJ E
Q} Q) i— *| QJ irt to
-C.C O4->J-m OO
4-*4J O> C O O t— 1 ,— 1
C r— <0 ^H X X
CO CO T- O > •> X
r— 3 TJ f • r— CO ^f ^T
O' — 34-> O-t-> VO OO OO
S- CL r— C COC • • •
4-> O O O) t— 1 *3- ^J-
CE»CU i-> t-H CO CO
O O J- -r- »O
o o oi ECOM-C co co co
1- J3 4-> O  00 -I-
O)XOO>4-'i--l->4-> >, >, >,
^•i-COO 4->'i-ld r— i — i —
J-ETJ 4->idTJ> i— •— i— «
o id r— r— c o> s. id id id* — •
COOl ld3V-S- o ••-  c c c c: >,
d) .QCLI.I — OJO id id id ^»
r- cE$- >> t- a> ai cuo
O i- i*- TJOOJ-COO 4-> 4-> 4JO
•r- id TJOJOOCULL- id «id «idO
r— (jcoa>r— O-M3 O' — 'O' — 'O "
CL C X3 i — id i — O *•-* O «— » O VO
CLTJ oiidi — i — id«« t- $- — '
id Q) *r— TJ 4^ id 3 > 4-* flJ id >•) id >) id ^~°*
JD co QJ co 4-> cr> cs-ai — ^ a» -••. a) ^:
OTJ'i-T-T-a)i_>Ojcid id idc
za>E<4- E -r-s-a. o o -i-
X  £= 4-> U CD Cn E -t-> «4-> «4->O
^. co(^t55zS'id(^ ^-(^ i^t^ i2-
Zld JQ O TJ 
-------
u_
o
j o
i— 1 1— i
<<
=3 Q£
Z LU
z a.
< 0

O CD
z z

*"7*
00

LU
_J
CQ
1—




ncinerator







-o C
i JS
i b
S-8
5 "
I 8











£
jjj
O

g
8
1
a
(
!
u_





c 'S
8 =
5 S




















X



U^-t
M




O





0
2





^
s




°>




%




^


..
>
+»
ITS
c
t-
V
<•
£
o
19
1
S



1



3
8818 §8f|8 5" 83 8818
Sag r^, fi m ] in <2 *— * CO CO P*«
CM*O to in I *^ r*. *n O «r-
S S S »
•0 1> ^
•" '•" 'S "~
i " is **
g fe S fe
O >4- U •«-



888 88818 ? 8 S 8818
ot CM T-* in CM CM! en m ^ . en f-^j to i
CMf-«<*> tO |(O. CM CM^-4l<*> I
^ *H S  O-*-* 4-* ~O 4
SC U C C
cn o* o v cn
Re e 4-» C7» u a c
•f-O.CC CL -i-
•i- -g •*- 0* -r- 4- •*- T3
3 5 3 > 4-» O 33
4-» CT >— CTi — 10 4V CT «—
IACUU So u 4-toi «  (A ••- T- 4-* CLVi/t O
US Q. >, U g. >> 4 r-<«.t U
"T3 T3 3 4-» 01 *x» ^
•o o» >— S CT r— -x^ c *4~ o.*y*t^ "^ o> i— 5 (
« = e ^ .s = e « ^ g ^ o . ^ .s s ^ .5 ,
•fi 15*J4J5 '~'Jo'*J"S'0 ^-""' """ S -— 4J**to •— .
| g<3<3,2 I<3<3
? i? ac S v i? z
-< t— *
^ «-i .-i
} -' 9



14-
<3 "3
8 h
5 u g
I Z g. u
; s 5 %
? 0 S « "-.
: S. S '"'-
31- 0 u 14-
O ^
-> e *4- -p o» •**
o 5 « c — '
D « £ .S £ . >, ^j ^~ ^ s
E"i«_ | ^ o~.
j -»-> T? 
-------
























CD
C
•r—
.|-.»

o
o
*~'

i— i
i— »
i
00
LU
_J
00
1—


































i-
o
1

•I-
c





-o t
i t-


5 "
•5 §
C f
ID
U









C
5
&
R)
g
•e
3
•o
_2
i







fS
8 -
5 2



























X


J


>




a







"2





»_,
3




a






S




r-*






i
0
-4 ao m ip
0 u» « tM S
U» «JJ 
10 SI ^ o ^ en
CM .-H ^- .-»
r-»

888 888

• * * • * *
5O ^ 00 ^9" CM
co  in  a vi 4-* e M-
*j rtj is +•» (O w
'*- t- 4-> VI t- 4J -M
Q. 01 \A O <1> i/l -i-
» u a. >» -a
u o w> o M d
•O C7I i — S OI ' — •*•
at c o M c o -M
io| •*-> O O O 3DOI-
*^| C 1 1 1 C 1 1 1
OJ t-i t t 1 < 1 1 1

8 ^1 S S 3 5-
• CM CM • O ^
,-4 c»> **-• m o
en in *-^<

J^
O CO U3 OCnO?
* •— 1 CM * O i
in o ""-^  O U> O
n • • en o o
* ^^ CM * . .
t~+ ft ***" 00 O O
m i-t ^^
O
£j

o o in* o CM Z*
SCO Cf> O f^ *-*
• • CO * O
• 1-1 CM * O .
cn n *-* o o
r*
T^

8 S3S 8SS
T • O * •
• •-< C\J • o O
^ in

r*

o ao 5-" ^ <
S "^ °I ^ z"
a> <•? 2i
3

•^






•5
.c " i;
i! §
S °
U 4-
g1 ° j:
•1— I/I *—+
4-» O 
«*- «» x -—x
-^, •— mo
c «4- in • w» in

-2 ^ CM P? **- cn
.w ^O ^-< — O •— '
U -M CM OKM
••- TJ CM e vi e

&^- in a J- o
a, «/i o ^^ *-4
D. 4-> i-H X t. X
>i a» ij vi x o
*C -r- C7I O (O CO CO
O 4-» C . . IA .
«» o+j e^c'i'r-m
C 0 <5 -r- -0
o o "a (A »*> a* (A
«A 0) •*- U
. lA > U 3 >» >» >>

^a/a-o-o^ra-o^
tQCClAC
•i-aitnC ccaic
a. o i— «A c i —
% 14- C'2'^'S'S >U
O Of U *J 4-» 4-»
4-> C lA (O  o
Z O <0 T3 U U -^ U

-------










r*
^"*
I— Q£
t/^ UJ
O CO
tJ ^E
LU
0 0
LLJ ^Z
r*s t-/
HH V«/
^H C?
z S
^~* _-
.«£, C/J
O C/>
— ff ""^
< 0
HH
-•—
t/O 
^Tj 13

r^* ^^
UJ

























(d
a>


c
o
u
c
0)
o
4J>
•i—









1 CU
o cu
r— O rH
U C rH
5^ z; . 	 .
^^ *w ^^
O X >
»«x CU
^




1

(J t-l"»
C^gS
•—^ id
X
cu






^0
C rH
CU rH
r— rH
CQ >






•O
cn
cu >
r— rH
CQ




• •
CU
•r™

(O
c
£_
cu

^£

>^
^
o

id

•J
cr»
cu
a:














E
CU

•r-
,f_>
CO
o
o
O O

« «
^f p^.
ss
CM
0 000
S Sgg
«) •» •« *
CM IO rH CO
a> r~. cr> CM
CO O rH ^T
CO rH

o <-H cr> o i^ CM
o • • o vo vo
VTl rH CM CM • O
X (V) «_x "O •
CM CM 1 O
•a- co i
OO CM 	 •
o
rH



^-™S ^^N
O O
§8
« «
^T CO
*r co
VO Px.
CM
o o o o
o o o o
^- rH 1^ CM
r^ 10 oo oo
r^ r*^ oo r^
CO 0 rH CO
•t «t 1
CO rH
rH
O CM CTV O  • O
« CO «• — «O •
 1
o
rH


^^ »*"^
88
T VO
•I *
»a- CM
<* o
VOrH
CM rH
SO O O
000
O T CM ^J
1^. CO O\ CM
*T co r*. vo
r*. o CM co
r. « |
CO rH
rH
O ^T CT> O ^" CM
O • • O CM CM
CM rH CM CM • O
r. CO 	 ' »O •
VO CO 1 O
IO 00 1
O^ 1 Si™-^
ft
o
rH








x—x
V-

^
| * r~
CJ O
3 S-
•M XJ •!-> CU •*->
c c co c
ai en cu T3 -t-> o
tC E -M CO U
•r- O. C O
•r- -o T- a; o vi-
33 3 > O
4-* err— CP <-"" en
co a» o cu o c -i-> . — .
O C CO •!- CO CM
O O>M- C -»-> O 4->
C 	 OS- id CJ M-
<— i- -r- O U •*>.
id 4-^ E co ^-^ E v^- cu en *^^
4->idCU -MidCU CL C *— '
•r— IH [ * CO &• 4-) 4^ O *r~
O-CUV) OCUCO-r- 4-> V^M
id o >^ cj *^ >> ^ r— *^-s id E
u o co o co cu «N i-cu ~->
-O TJ 3 4-> CU •"&•
*^3 CO-^^ flJ t^^^** ^^% £3 ^^ CL ^^
CUCO NCO4-> C"^. OC
i 	 i-J_i— T-T-l_-r-r- (d-fcr CU
r-*" 4-) ^ * (rj r*~ 4-) 4-) X) Id '*'-•' r— ' E
i — id (didccU4-> i — (da.
(d4->OOO 3OO1-O «*M 3-r-
OCOOOI— CCJOOh- 4->E C3
•r-ciii ciiii O"^ ccr
O-rH III < 1 1 1 1 1— t*- < CU
^J
1— 1 • • • •
^_
o
J*s
u
cu
o
en * •<—
C CU <4-
•r- i. V»_
4-> O CU
 id
-o • r—
0 •• E r-
E E CU -r-
CU 4-> 4->
( — 4J CO tO
I— CO >, T-
(d >> to -o
co co (d
C «r-
T3 O ^= C
C T- 4-> O
(d 4->
Id O TJ
^1 i— 4J CU
O 3 CO
S- O T3 Id
«d i. cu -Q
CU -i- i-
CO CJ r— »
cu a. co
$_ CM a. 4->
z id c
cu cu
.c a. a> >
4-> O JQ •—
o o
li_ i— 4J CO
O 1 O •
T3 C (d T3 •
CU CU C CU CU s-~-
N co id u i- CM
•i- O U (d CU 4->
CO I — > V)_
CJ CU U- O
CU i. IL_ CJ  CO JE J- rH
CO O CO
co T- r— id u- x
C (J r- O
O E C M- IO
•r- cu cu "*••» cu r-.
4-> 4-> C CO CO
Id CO r— O 3 	 '
i_ >,  i- IN
a. 4-> id E
O V- S- O i-
CU (d «r- O  X
"O >^ (d *r-
T3 C ^T r— T3 ^T
cu o 4-> c en cu oo
C CJ T- O C J-
cn 5 -i- o ^r
•i- C CO 4-> CO
co  C id co
cu en o o cu co
•a o cu •!- o 4-> T-
i- > co id
a» 4-> -r- w i- u >,
_Q »r- +J »r- CU •»-• i —
C (d E > TJ •—
4-> C CU O C id
O CU i- -r- 3
C JE CU C CU C
C (— 4-> CU i- CU C
(d i — > 3 3 (d
CJ )«+- r— > 4-> CU
CU C S- O U C 4->
4-> o o c a) cu (d
CO -I— 4->r~CU>(JO
>>4J (d O -r- J_ CJ
CO Id r— i_ r— 4-> CU
s- 3 4-> (d (d a.  en cu
-CCLCUOOOJOS-
l— o a: c_>(— z CT» 
-------
•t
o
LU
O
LU
0.
(—
O
2

i —
i— 1 1-
3£
o!p
{- I?
a "*
LU .,_
"j o
I1*
^ _j
•^ «_J
a= 3
0*
is


Q llj
LU ^
M ~
_J — '
<§
^5
*~ UJ
CL02
c5 °^
^^
Q |J~
LU
— J
I

| —



I-H



CO
r— 1
CO
LU
_J
CQ

*~
CO
X IB ^


= t?
CO UL

3


g

>-4


^



>



i-1


.-.

-

at
4-*
(Q
1



J*
£
fCt
^
O)







4-1
4-*

3
O O O O O Ol
oo V cJ » 
*

I
3
o
s
cn
3
—
8


^,
O O O O < <| O
*> * • * 1 *>
co ^ CM cn 1 m
a • - a 1 3
888^8^
Ol ^ U> Z t*1 Z
• • • •
s s a s




§o o
o o
CO CM CM

§o o
0 g
ro CM CM
^ ro

888
rofM tor


§0 0
0 C^
ro CM ^~

o o o
goo
* •> *
CO CM CM


888
CO P-- CO
co CM ^r
ft CO

o o o
CO OJ CM
88^
CO r~. =c

CO CM


§0 «*
.s.^
n CM.

co r- z
ro CM




O O Ol
S 9 CM
1

mi
CM J

1

^881
-1


ill

o o o
s°s


^88
Z f 
l~
10
I
8


§


o
a
CO
to
1 i
5
<0



°:ssS'sS|5?
--.-e°sjss

cn o * r-* to CM] o co
- tO CM CM CM Ol ^ CO
^ -*** •—]«>•—


SS23S SJCC
tO <^-' •— • "—I lO — *


»-i o* r^ ^T to CM] fo co
. to *-• r-< CM o hn r-.
to tn ^ o d o|S" tn

cn o*rs. ^T to cMJcoc'i*
.to>-4«-tCMoror^.
m in -^ o o oj •— * u>


. @ i— i f_4 CM ol tn f^.
in <-< o o ol «— < m
.
sfl^ailEia


in •— ^ *v — <1 in — -


co o" Is* ^H* to c^l «3 co*
oroi-ii-i CM ol TT v
r^* in 1-1 d o ol eg in
m *— ' -"--1 *--H in >— ^

So cn •-• co CM] m ro
ntf --i *«t CM ol ^ ^~
in •— * -^- ^-1 in ^
CM^
H-
*-*
C*J
11°
co" ^-i
CO

co oT
CO ^<

8^8
^ * CO
CO


o o o
in"
CO
o o o
CO
CO

8^8
m z co
in
CO

g
in"
CO

o
g
to


8


in
CO
o
s
ro
CO

8
CO
m
CO

0 <£ <| 0
S^S 3
" 1 "
CO CO
CO 1 CO
^88
Z CM CO

CM


< 0 C

8


CM


o

CO CO
0 CM
co d

cn co
ro d


as
co o


to co*
O CM
co d

cn CM
CM d


co d



cn CM
CM O
So
i-i

.4 CD



o

IIHI I









_
°*4J
J^
oj 5 "^ •**
g R
4-* Wl
Wl
4-* l/t *C
£ - i






4->

v, & S e § g
.,- 4-> Ol U
- 3 <« C 4-»




4^ & Jt O W* -^ C
w> *o c O >, c 9
84-» fl (A Ifl
C C 4-* C 4-1
O O* O '—
r— ••— g 01 «F- o (i



v» e
c

I

tA
Vt

2

i/t C
~i8

SO
V 'f-
^


*o
U
s o "c
OJ U 0









<4-

tfl
I/I
8
C7»
C *
•*- w>
Rll s -g


o a o



4-'&C'>4^t-CT'*-
^ro*^(D(O^*n3 *Jf0T~fO(O+J(O
•i- t_ 3 ^ J- C t. M^31-t-Ct-4^
- t- e i—
0 g- " tJ §•
"S §
M C O C C
•2 £ C S •£
ID n> x •-  -p "ffl
x •— d» 4-»
f ? V
1 1 1

3


fc c 2
a. o
o — a*
•a "Jo S*
o* t- i_
NO) O
•»- a. 4-*
i— O tn
S CD 3 4->
i .£ e g -
 >  (O
ID 
8
(0
1


8-28

-------



















•o
d)
g
•r™
_[_>
C
O
o
^-^

•
CO
,— 1
1
00
LU
OQ
| —



































I>
>^

CO^
X O i-
*-* IL.
a>
•-,£«?
s £T
x of ••-
OO IX.


x




§°
al?
^ IT


«
«°-.
00 & S



<
»-*
x



X









..
s
t>
4-*
rO
E
41
4->
S

>>
fe
2
*3
Z1
ac










s
4-»
I
O O O Q O O Q OOOOOOOO r-o'^rr^'tf>?3leMro' OOO
•! «1 «i '"^i *i ^ •> •> •> «i ^» ^» •> io in CM o o ol to in * •
oo v 4 1 ^ CO i— <
CM rH •* U) 1 1^.
^-1 *-<

|||§|§j§ alsslll 1 ^.s-^Sobs §§§
OO^CMCOCM^^aO *-"COCMCO i-t *— ' ' *— ' *— ' 1 3 »— ' fO
o oo t-* (M roio^-ttn co tn
cd CM in «S iv.
r-T «-*"


• •••••I* **•• *|* o in r—t o o ol *~* u*> * *
°leo^25&*~lfn S m
1 J \

8838338 88888S8I8 ^S^^^Sl^S 888
og •or CM to in <-• cf» <-i co CM ^* CM rni to to ^^- *— ' <-H to *— * in CM
CM *"* *-* •* to 1 r^ ~^
» *
i-« •-*

||§|§§j| alsslsl 1 sssssijsc |||
oo'«rcsiincM*-tin •-< co 
* •
•-^ •-*
—x .— * -^-j *— »
8ooo*co Q OQQQ4Q 41 O f^> o ot ^ to culm co o < Q
000^.00 OOOO^O^O -I^X«-HCMO^O(S 0^.0
o oo •—* CM co to ^4 in 1 co in
S PO in «> 1 r-,
• *
r+ «-•













CM^*
4->
H-
^


it •* CM
e BE
s 2 ^
s a s a *•
4-> |/| +J w» * *
(/I (/I Wl t/l
•o >» *- >» «— +J j->
•<-*V>O -MutOiA M
£t- C f_ O O
r- +J 4* •— 4->V U U
e PC € o c 4->
w*Zlt-o o. i- e o c o« s

*3tflC 3>>r- tfl -4-> W>
tn So cue cD"cu^%c*o 1o "c 2, "c
UCC4->C-«^ 4ACC4->C4-» 0* C +J C 4-t
ogio o qi o «— *- Q. o r— o
r-.r-i d Q' *-> CT tf)+>CXOl-Mf-C7>t- +J C7I t- -4-> CTt
'o. oi o- o oi b Saio-oaioo-^ N« o o a> o
30. a» 4^ a. -*^ ua.af4->a.*->4«*x3 •»- a. *j uo. •*-*
OvtOvi Ot/iOv>w r— O vi Ovt
g "P S S "° w S "5 C
•Q O> O 4-> C7> ••-> u) O* O •!-> CT> O -*J "^*. 3C7> O •*-* 4* CT> O +^
 C C p C NCOC
^ .r- t 5 -i- «» i— ••- ••- C eu -r- i_ a» •— ^- e -^- C a> ^- .»  -M > fl f— 4-» > 4_> > T) (OK}4_> >(Q r— 4-> >
Ifl fl X f— «J r— *Jfl  QtOXf—
tnux^>o<^ ^- cc5i 1 | I | CI1I
t-< I 1 1 1 1 I < 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 i O 1 I I i  en
s ~ ~.
u> " S
ro


| SS
• ^ o
9 -


0 esj S~
O (\J m
,C "S
CO


8 189
O . .

















, 	 ,
CM
4->
M-
•W-
CM
e
v^.
-w-
*i_
s
(_
5
4-1
c
3
(_
a»
a.
4->

8
(O ro
4-> 4J
.2 ,2
1 1
i i






5
u_
t-
X *"
fe .1
•8 4J
10 >
§ £
•e s
S J
4->
^ °
(V U-
iC -x
a. 1
. 5-
01 vt
£ 4J C
*• g -
5*3
-o § J.
Q> ^.
f— 4J "O
I ! §
•M 4> CM
S e d.
=; « 8 s
§ ™ - i
e o 2! *~
i. m o. oo
t- i/i
X CU g
5 ° « 'S
O gt U)
4-1 «r- £ >
4-» 4J a>
S S o u
»*- u "c £
a* •*- 
Qj v> Oi ^
cjo e « «
O -i- CC\J 4-»
O I/I H~ ^ (U
t-< a* -i- en
t -C e = « ro
to 4^ is -a o t.
o •— < o
0* tn t_> > x 4J
i— r— O fO V>
ja o =- vi m

1 — 4-» Of CM C
§x: 4-> f-H a;
4-» C ~— ' >
*~ v> SCsj *O

coa.. vtn i_
•p- i vi a o
«*- "- 6 4-» fc. ^5 **_
 *o
5* w «) r- t. .^ c
•2 "S 5 "5 u "*
fa;-jgc:e^a»r-vj
"S652"c'°'s.$
OOj^M-fOvjc-M
^^Og-O^rOO
&~o o ra (ti 13 ^~
>> fl> -f- •— > o> o
&-O t/l 4J J_
I V» VI 0) ro 4-»
S IS "8 a -S 5 8 S
— X 
-------
UJ
oc

O 0£
(_> UJ
 < n
    o
 a LU
 I— UJ
  r«- Z
    i r<- (x.   t-t
             §01
         ,-8
ot in in co

s s "-" a
                          00 CO r^
                          O CO
            .81  8
             Ol  CM
 8 8 8 i 8 81 8
 cn in in z to oj in

 s a" ^   »-i is
 o o o < o o
           o
 388'
                  8
                                   5    R

V*

•M
8

IQ
4^
'5.
(O
U
•o

8
c
0
5
t.
 z «>J r*J

                         J" in ^ 05      H
                                            s      d *. ^ i s sh a
                                                   OOOOOO
                                                                      O
                                                                                i *—   ^- O <
                         O O O
                         S?S2
§O O 01
Q O Ol
CO CM *->
                                                   8888^8:
                                                   in co  z CM
                         rH  U) >»4 ^*
                         *-*  t-l    ^~


                         i-t





                         8§8|888



                         S  B ""    Si"
                         O O O < O

                         S S S aS1 S
    :,s\ s
                                             8
                 r-. vo in *w to vl Is* ^
                 o in ^ o ^* ol m o

                 Cf» V O CD  .  . Cf»  -
                 •* -*-•   -*-* o ol •«• ^

                                                                                                                  S       ""
                                            3S
                                             *  *
                                            CO CM
                                                                   IPSC      83.8
                                                                               r«. z r

                                                            C- o p] in -^      CM"






                                                    r-.o'*-*^eMin1roin'      o o <
                                                     8    S3
                                                     °!    -d
                                                   888SS8S  S      "2^.". °S8°'      8S
O O
39
                                                                                II
                                                                                a
                                                                                                                  s
                                                                                         o    
                                                           8 R
                                                                 4-MU

                                                                 S ^
                               4-» a.
                               (A O
                           m  x <—  
c

*j
fc


^
s

1
g
(0





C
O

1o
fc
g-
C7>
C



*
tft

*5

Of
S1

tfl
s «
£ g _

8
e
o»
jj

Wf

O
[_.
g
(J
"8
N






C
O

'•5
&
&
Ol
c
'is


H
«/>
1


  (—
                                                                                 I  I  I
                                                                   8-30

-------
T3

 01
  I

00
         cu


     Hi?
      5  feS
      »-«  p. i
      X  0>  -r-
      285
      x  S   i
                                                >  O  O  O O  O O

                                                i  S  S  S? S  S S
                       ioa r- op   i-i r». CM
                             fl    to CM
                                                       §0 T ^ 1

                                                       O f** r* i
                                                                   S8hS     S88
                                                                                      88
Cn S 5? f- fv. Of S     S CO S O 8 CM i-J CO     UT   •   •   •  O  ol  •  rs.


co co i-^ r-T V *J| co     «-T in r* en •-*    VI co        *-'     •*— o  o] m  «r

   800^-      MC^^^           OQ                     *-4    —'
         ^•i      1 ^     r*                   I r>»
 *                   *       .                      *.
,-4               | ^     _«                    ^4
88888 81 8     888888 8|
en in in r»» 10 ol * 10 r-il O     (-4 in *->• en (M
   »    « ft   I 01     ~* ~*    VCM
         f-i      I ^f     •*-
                                                       to --«.    --*    *-j    >-»
                                                         .q>>-  o o
                              ss
                                        co     ^  tn  t
                                        a     s-1
                          o o o

                          K CO S i
                                                       O ^* T-I ^ CM

                                                       ^ -. •*. °. 8
                                           IS
                                                     .-I  to •-!     CO

                                                3     d  °  S.  °  S  S\~.  £      888
88888 81 |     888888 81 8     ". S      .  ^ s,  . a


   8co i** en to »~n «-•     --< m «-H (O CM    col »-»                  ~*  ~~*  ~
   SB    C*)«n|cO     r-tr^    5FCM        O
                                                                                     — o ol ui
                                                                                           -
                                                                                      83
                                                                                      CO CM
                     8;
                   s     a
                                            S
                     COcors.rv.«(-i]r^      -H  U>

                     8"     3         S      C-
                                                                            SW
                                                                o in Q o co     O
                                                                  • O O   • r-.     r»-
                                                                           !.       *
                                                                            ^r     CM
                                                                            «-    tn
8888^8
01 in in f^ z o


8* 8* "• S
CM         cr    ^  o
w»  vo   c  u
O    4-*  X>      -^0.

                          O    i/> O    1/1 ~Q  4->
                                                                                                                                        u>     U-


                                                                                                                                                 S.
                                                                                                                                        8     2
                                                                                                                                              X  O
                                                                                                                                  S  o§
                                                                                                                <"
                                                                                                             co
                                                                                                             •»-  f
                                                                                                             H- ••-
                                                                                                             Of U_

                                                                                                             ^^

                                                                                                             S fe
                                                                                                              -
                                                                                                           . -r-

                                                                                                          ^ «

                                                                                                          •s E
                                                                                                                   o.  .  o (_
                                                                                                                      (rt  «-i O
                                                                                                                   B 4-»  X 4-
                                                                                                                   o «/)

                                                                                                                   8 83 2

                                                                                                                   « o.»- S
                                                                                                             U  J3
                                                                                                          **  O  r

                                                                                                          21  ft
                                                                                                                            -

                                                                                                                   e  13  u  §

                                                                                                                -   «•  =  ra  °
                                                                                                                ».8  o  
-------
o
LU
1—

O
LU
Q.

l~
| !
O

Q. >->
 OC
O LU
Q— *•
^^,
LU
IVI >-
i— i ac
—1 O
< H-
•y — •>

LU LU
i— l l— l
=3 —1
Z LU










:>



;>



s











..
aJ
•^
(O
c
fc
^



5
10
1











3T
u_


u
rf
V
3
-™-

U.



Nitrogen
single)6
*•**

va
g1?-
i S



O
5
ii^.


s
i
u_


































e
V
4-*
3
o o
ss
SR

CM"
O o
° S

I 8
CM

88
SS
lO m

CM
o o
CM"

11
S 3?

4-
4->
S
V, |
• 5

o c c
^ .2 i
ITJ 4-> C
•5. fcl
3 §• "•
•o o» c

l — 4-»
£35
C 1 1
t-t 1 t
*
o o o o
S8S8
CM OO


O O < O
03 ^ ^
CM £
_T

8858
CM O Z O
8 8* -
to
•
~4
0 0 < <
oo* cn
CM cn


is!!
00 CM
CM O

•^


8855
 •» -H



CNJ Z Z Z

s"



#

a
S B
«/i
>» •—
ut O
•- 4J
2 E §
» = ^J °
•c 8 £, -c
4-» C 4-
O r—
a> -f- o a
fO  «• co *™*
rx CO *-* to'
to cn oo


•W r-l
1-4
§OOO
S 8 S
O 05 OO
cn r-i
•
o o o o
5 5 *

V *-!


8 888
-.
 ^
^








S
a

1 1
V» C C 4-»
. .2 i cw
> ^rt ^4J Q. g
O 0> D" O
(J Q. 
« ~ 'B 2 1
4J *IO lO X t-
V i YT i

o o o o
Q o p o
^ eo CM <—«
W V
i

O < O O
S i* CM cn
•-i" cn



8 ?. 8 8
to z CM cn
'8* R
^- cn
i

S< < 0
•^* _» o
00 CO
S 55


o < < o
S z- z- S
cn CM
i



cn x. z *r
3 S
v cn


!!Ǥ
W CSJ
i
Z CM CM CP
S "


< o o c

^-1
CM
1


Illl





^

*s
S 2,
w>

w» *O

2 a 8°^
4->  U CU
C 4-* >
s a-g o
C 4-*
•2-5 « b
4-> t- O> M-
(0 4J (O
fc g bs
&° tt|

C p C 4-
J** X 3 1
Z f') C.
Illl

1
U)
M
•-I
°
^
a
^4*
^
§
S
(-4

^J
(O
cn
o

s
CM
3
*
t-4
"™*

8
CM
^

O
3
•>
^4
8
a

^"
o
S

in
o
•-1"
^^
1 §


r-«
*-4



















4J
[

cn  . . ol • cn
^H CM 0 0 0 -CM .
m ^ ~ o|cn CM^



CM o m CM CM CM] in CM
• cn CM o o o ^ CM
I-H . . . . o| . cn
m CM o o o - i-j •
•^-- •«*^ ol  > ITJ
•53553
« i i s :
1—
O O O
88 S
CM" o*
in  *
•*-* (A
tf> **
C 4-
— O
82 2
4-> (D (t
§01 C
U §" I/
^ o.§ -
.2 = 25
•5 IS x ^
§355
5 i : :
.
o
s"


S
5
00


8
S



!
™


CM
?




8
"1
U)
«-^



S
m

1
s


g

o
CM


II


















»



, 	
3
I
I

§1
0 CD


cn CM
~. s
°0



CM i— 1
3°
o



LO in
?d


tf CM
~8
?0



^_^
d|



SI
°1

CO S
O O


cn to
cS 8

C3 C3



Z




' '
I4_

^
CM
^


JC
S










!

8^32

-------
o
LU


S
o

LU
Q.



U_
O


LU
                          0£ LU
                          LU >
                          O. 1-4
                          «/> a:
                          O LU
M >•
HH QC
—I O
 < to
    LU
 a ^

 < z
    o

 (/) LU
00
O Ll_


Q (/>
LU LU
IV) 'Z.
                             LU
                          a
< Q-
H- >•
HH I—
a.
      tO
^  V OO CO     1  O


5s          IS



O  O O O <  eg   i- Q>


                     *"  " i fe i  § b
                                                                                           Jg
                                                                           issil-
                                                                         8888^^
                                                                          -
                                                                         o o o o < < o
                                               00 •-• «O <•
                                               S°°   5
8 8
"* °i
3 5
\o co
8
CNJ
S3

§§
o
JO -<

I

s
f>4
8
^-
S
O
8
<*>
3*

8

(O

<
z


8

                        *  •  •          I  *      **4 CM O C3
                       S310            !Q      «-    -
                       °               I *-*   -r^
                                                                                  S§s?S
                                                                                  =5 °L' °l
                                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                                        Ch
                                                                                                                                        O
                                                                                                         ^   do
                                                                                                         CO      "-'
                                                                  -     »
                                                                                                                                8
O    CM r*


°i    0°

5      S
                                                                                                 o < S]§    ?l








                                                                                        i^   I  3    °1






                                                                                              I   *    o  .
                                                                                                CM      o
                                                                                              I  in      *—'
                                                                                                                             88
                                                                                 8   S5S
                                                                                 (M   O O

                                                                                 s?   °'e
                                                                                                              o»   "
                                                                                                              S8
                                                                                                                           < « «i «    <
                                                                                                     •a
                                                      8    R

                                                      H    -



                                                      I  8 II
                                                         8W» ^C ••
                                                         >t C <
                     0.

                     8
                             iA O  - iA
                       O  Of    O <—    t-       Q.
                     ..f-jiv-r-ooio       o

                     4-> m  ••- «  Q 4-> ^         ~o
                     i/)U3t-t-Cfc.4^       41

                     u O.4I-M  a. u -^ 4
                       O      aio-4-i^.
                     NCpCCOC4-»
                     •r- —  C 5 -^ C 4i —  ^
                                                                      II
                                                                        3
                                                                        at
                                                                        81


                                                                        5

                                                                        g   _
                                                                        >   (O

                                                                        5   Lo
                                                                                               4-> 1
                                                                                               O 1
                                                                                              fO  W X P-  +>
                                                                                              3  Q -i-  O  O
                                                                                              C  O Z Wl  »—

                                                                                              5  !  !   !   !
                                                                                    8-33

-------

















f
c
•^
o
u

*
ir>
i
00
LU
	 I
CD
 c
Z VI



CO
OJ *~*
2 el
•M «—
•f .O
Z


x §5
"Si
i—* LL.

X <_><_>
LL. < —



VI
1
•M
§
*;
<:

>•
o
m
I







E

5 'is .2-
•s. fc s
W Q. <1>
U 0
-0 CJi §
 o
4-»

4-*
7; aj
(- en
1 1

4-» 01 § •!->
Is
i — m
0 0
1/1 u
i i

e g -
x 3 5
SS 3
! i i

f^. CO CO CM r»-
* 1

8

S


•-'
a
s
~
Gt
§
R*
CM
fj
cn
8

,— t
ft i-*
8888838
3? a * s 
ff E U > "C "o

O 4» O • — (-
- T- e « -f o  -M fc. CT> **-
4-J (TJ -f- BJ (D -M (O
oJjcroSiob-f
° Ott*1no'Ut»'S
•a € e TJ
 -f f
nj m x i — (OXf-o *j

C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
o w> CM en CM CMJ^T CM
cocncnooolfi co
. . • o| . ch
ftCM^OOO -CM
en ^ ^ jcn ^


.cnftooolCM CM
fi * . . • ol > cn
"> Si° S° 0- S ^;
^ *-^


^_ ^__ __^
en o f** c^J ^ <^1 CP> CM
• Cn fi O O Ol^- CM

*~* *-. oj en CM^




rn £i° S° o|5n c£

^ in r** c^* CM CMI en CM
. . . . . ol • cn
fl CM O O O .fi
co *— ii oj en CM
CM CO m CM CM Ojl r*» CM
ft cn CM o o o] en o
CMCMOOO J CM •
en •*— • •*-* oj en en


. cn en o o o to co
fi . . , ol • cn
tn CM o o o . fi .
•*-* -^- oj en CM



^.S^SSflsg
en CM O O O •] fi •



en  en o O O en O
flCMOOO 'JCM

CM
•M
>4-


~s
jr


tt
8
cj>
c *
•M ^
Oj C +•»
O -i- IV
-o "So m
S fc fe
^ ° "

c c o c
c ••- i_ a> •—
(O +> > (0
m x r— -M
*- o •*- Q O
•O O X «" t—
•Ml 1 1 )
O 1 1 1 I
f-
*
o o o
goo
cs o"
^- cn
o
8


o o o
o o o
• •
CM O
f3 7

CM*
a
i


838
cn oo fi
ss's
•-H 1

8
"I
3

i

S3 °
CO fl
to" o
lO CM
1
S
to"

§o o
S 2
CO O
fl CM
85.8
in z fi
a"
fi
?
a"
f<

o o o
So o
fl f»
S en^
^H

o
a
en"



338
CM f> fl
a a
i
8
O
a"
i


O O C5
SO O
r*. «— i
CM C7t
in en
|
CM
fl

838
in ft fi
m o
O en

8
In







v»





>/>
1
C -M
.2 „
15 S1
i fc b
O *rt
S cn 5 4-»
.s .5 e s -
— -M > TJ

SO -f O O
o z c/5 t—
5 : i : :

o cn
°1


?0



^ en
- o
?0



fi O
'"^

r-t fi
°8
?0
3°
o


VO CM
". S
?0



If) ^~
1 O
1



*r en*
° C3


dd




, 	 ,
CM
4-*
S
CM
g

-**•
-= .
S
t,
nf

c


-------
***
                 ^r^cor-^to*H|CM    in >-i to <-t to
                                                            CO CM TO* CM. CMpfit CM
                                                    „,'

                                                    8
                                                        CO CM CO CM CMpO CM    O O Ol O  TO Cft





                                                            *"*  —f^ —•    tn TO  I eo    *—'
                                                                          ••H     I *-«
                     co f»-

                     ~
                ?5c3S*H  M
                                    8888888
                                    o    c\j
                                                          §r-l O*CM CO* CM C^W ^
                                                           . o» TO o o or* co
                                                          «-<  •  •  . . ol » en
                                                 s    ^ssssilss    888
                                                                                 i »2

                                                                                 cC Yd
                                                                                 S    "
                                                                                      8  N c\j

                                                                                      "\  o°.
                                                                                      s   '  e
                        §01 o   o o o <

                        O  O   O Q0<
                    J f*v Ol ^   ^ TO ^H C
                ^r   i w   TO co   r*. CM   o
             «O TO   I**     I CO   O     V     *
                 88888818    888888:


                   S<. en co o o c3P3 oo    o O o
                                                          •-J CM o c> o  .KM  .
                                                    in    en *— '   *— -  OK*) CM
                                                                    »
                   §o o o o e
                   sssss
                                       §O O <
                                       o o <
                                    )<-4inoD«
                     » o * H ~
                O O O O O O
                ««• en c\i o^
                                      oo  ui     CM
                                           ~
                                    ^fm*^iomcMf^
                                                    in
                                                    CM
                                                                        CM    oo o
                                                                        >-*    <-t CO
                                                          CM 00 f*. CM CM CMli-l CM    O O O
                                                          -0,-OOgKg    ggO


                                                                     sri    as"
                                                        SIA csj *H esj CNJT^ N   O O O
                                                        oi^OOO^tO   SSS


                                                      rH CVI O O O ^H ™   ™ **•
                               S
                                        « CM S
                                      CO  r^. CM   r-.
                                          ^"     CO
O   -V to eg en CM CSJMO 

                                                                                 8 n. 8
                                                                                     CM    o
                                                                                 O  CO
                                                                                 o  o
                                                                                 CM  o
                                                                                      o  csj
                                                                                      o  TO
                                                                                      in   •

                    S   R
              t;  a.
              s  c ^
              s  &


              ^«
                                           S   R
                                 g     ^   to

                                 £     Sm §
                              WCC-MC^-M*"     fl>C       +*
                  ;^£g  -

                  iff5  |
                                                                        Sfc   .
                                                                        °&   t:
                                                                        * cn o +>
                                                                                  j»     «
                                                                                   C     4->
                                                                                  3     =


                                                                                   I1     fc
                                   8 fc I fe fe S fe £     8 b       fe


                                     OMOMV     •— O       W»
                                   •a   a     e    ~o     eno-^*cno4->'   >4->   > -a       «  IO
                                   lOflXf— flX«— «i+J    IQ   X  <—   *J    (O 
                                                                                                  • Ct    •      . *> O S 
-------










•K
00
^^
z
^£
H-
LU
2$
°£
i— i O
1— h-
a. oo
rt
U—
_l Z
O LU
C£ >
1— —1
Z O
O OO
o
_u
Lu LU
O a
o
oo z:
oo
\j J ^^
z: o
LU U_
>
1— H >— s
f^m P*H
CJ ^^
LU
Lu LU
LU z
LU *— «
__i
H"* LU
^O ^O
CD ^C
O CO

LU O
CD LU
^C _J
LU O
•
a. o. id o
r— O> CO O CO
O OO 'i— "O
S— TJ id
•p
c
o
o

c
o
-P to
id -P
> c
i. CU
cu >
CO
c
o
o









































s-

VO O O O O
•—CM CM
CM CM
s^x








*^* x1"1^
O CT» O» O O
O CM CM Q O
O* O O ^" "fl"
r^ o o CM CM
CM CM
N^*







X"'S ^ *^
Oi-Ht-H O O
^•i-l ,-H O O
co o o CT» cyv
CD CO cTcO
»— 'CO CO












0 <
S-
^^
x^ ^ l»
4A C
o
• -p

co c v*
o o *^
O T-
E tj ^*
CJ 3 ^^
•P T3 V»
to > 4- «
to to
c to
t— O ^
o *•— c
s. co a)
C t- •!-
O E -P
U 0) U
T30/sT«f-
0) O >>M-
N > *^ 0)
•r" CO
r— r— C +J
id id o co
3 3 -P O
C C— '0
c c
id id s- cu
-c >> en
O ^~ ^™* ^^  i—
co (— u- J
^^
(/)
c
o
J->
NHn'
J (
S- J-
^^ ^^
^^ ^*fc ^^""*
«/* O) C
z o
« -p

CO C V*
o o —
O i-
•P O>
E (J £
CU 3 ^
•P T3 <««»
co CU
>>t-
to to
c to
i— O 
C V- T-
0 E -P
ocu o
TJ CJ lu
CU o 4-
N > CU
•^
^™ r~~ ^J
id id to
33 O
c c u
c c
id id cu
O^
i— i— Id r—
id id S- id
•P -P CU (J
O O > T-
H- I— < Q.
• • • H-


•
CO
o ^^00"
O CO «T O O
00 • • O f*»
_. r~\ f~\ f. ^
•» ^J JJ •» OT

"iiM^r
J
S- S-
>^ >1J
^^ *^^ ^^
tv> en c
Z O
• -p
+»••-*
to c > l-
01 to
c to
r— O CU
O T- C
t- co a>
-P CO >
C i- i-
O E -P
(J CU O
cu
"O CJ vui
CO O v»-
N > CU
•r~
•— i— -P
id id co
ii 8
c c
id id ai
en
r- r- Id
id id S-
•P -P CU
o o >
H-h- <





C
^Q ^U «^~
CO >
r- JQ ^H
2 Id 1
Lu
-P -P
c to -a
• o o c
>> o u id
*C CO CO CM
o t- u i
id ••— LU
to >
J* C CO CO
co ~o a)
Id «r- r—
•P -P •— JD
id o id
/1IC t i
W W W r—
cn co -P
id o. c a>
t- o o cu
0 0 00
•P O)
CO C r—
•r- Id •
CU -P -P XJ
jc id c cu
•P O CO CO
0 E t-
§cu >
CU S- CO
i- JC U i-
K- -P C
•r- C
CO E CO
CO CU CO
OS- JC X)
*r- Vu, -P
CO CO
to co v. >
•r- C O Id
E o vu, . .c

CO CO C CO
CJ to S- O .*
o i- id i— c
> E id id
CO to .p
CO i- C
JC CJ CU O CU
+j o ja^- cn
> 4. -P id
co o id s.
r— CU CO i_ O
O JC T3 CU -P
$- 4-> Id O. to
•P O
c to c .p
O 3 O Cn C
o i— ja c cu
a. • i- T- >
co to co u id o
ja j^ JQ o to
*- c v- x> o
o id o co s-
CO -P to J3 CU O
•O T3 1 JC V|_ .
id cu id -a -P co
cn co co c
c id c x vu. 4-> o
O i- O T- O CO -r-
JQ O JQ vu, O IO
t- -P J- r— O T-
id co id c o >
O O Q S- TO CU
CO E -P C $-
j- jc "u E c id
0) -P CU O O CU
•P JQ O O CO CO
CO E 1 C CU
"1- O TJ CO i- O JC
C S- OJ JZ O •<- -P
Id H- X -P H- 4J
O i- Q. 4.
1 co vu, i_ TO o O
CO C O CO M_
>— O CU M- i- •—
ja »^ E •p~ o LU
id co id to 3 i-
co co co 4-> CT-P x
O -r- to CO C i-
O. E CU O t- O -0
to co jc ^ JC JC JC Q.
 J3 I— -P (— «t
id jQ U -K
8-36

-------










OO
UJ
1— 1
(—
^^
z
OL
UJ
i

•^
O
5
=3 *
CD 00
LjU V
G£ 21
U. 1—
o
UJ
OO CD
OO «*
Z O
:> oo
1—4
tz
UJ UJ
u. >
U 	 1
UJ O
oo
00 —1
O UJ
O 0
-si
^c

z o
uj u_
•E
UJ
o
zz
l>-l


^
f— 1
1
oo

UJ
_J
CQ
2














(U
u
•r-
tt>
•o

^_
Q
•M
O
U
"g
id
(/)


[ t
id
c
(U
4J
id

c3
2

3
s
0£

^
J^
5

o





_Q
O

^£
o

oo





id
•
u
c
ID
^
^
f)







































S-
(U
+J
Qj
g£
id
t-
id
Q-
"O x^x x"^ "O *""*• x1 s "Q
O «3 CO OO O r-« O C3 O O
*Q r-1 T-H OO O CSJ CO O O O
o oo oo r>. a\ o o if> oo r*
• ••*•» ««««»«i •»
if^ fi f~^ oo ^O ^3T f^ CO '"H CO ^f
•*—* t~~~ CO >— 'OO *G
CO CO rH »-H
^^x ^w**




^^ _, 	 ^^ ^^
Svooooo o^r>.ooo o
r-H i— 1 OO O CSJ CO O O O
ir> oo ir> o  o o T co r«.
W •••!« «•««« «•
r»- oocsjo ^roooco in
*^_-~* i^^ ^^ ^-—^t*~- ify
KT "*• i-l fH





X— « ^-» ^^ ^^
O »-l i-l OO O VO OO O O O
*a- t-i 1-1 oo o 1-1 1— i o o o
co o o en en c\joom«-< «— i
• • «* •••i*
OO OO O O CSJ i-l
	 CO CO — 'i— 1 »-H








y—^ ^_^
c c
o o
-M -M
v» ^T"
*~ j ^ j
c c
r^ O C7> f"~ O O) ••"" '
Q -r- z o T- z o
i- Crt -•>. J- Ut ^ I.

C T- C -r- C
O E 0 E 0
U O> t/1 U 0) V) U
I/) >»O> N>>>OJ N
'T- -•*. > ••- 	 . > -I-
i — i — t/) 'r- i — i— (/>•!- i —
id idC+-> ididc-t-> id
3 3OL> 33OO 3
C C -U  O) C
C C — ' <4- C C > — <*- C
id id M- ids-id(4- idt.
I- CU >>J-<1» >>
r— J-i— >> •— ^r— >, r— -^
id >> id --» -i-> id w id ">~«..4-> <&*/*
-»-> • — -t->cnt/) -i_> ^_> cr> i/i -M
O *^ O ^ O 0*0x0 O«
-t-> -M (J ^j^^(j -4->-l->
i— +J i— C I— i— O i— C^r— •— O
idC CEC-MC CE
O) 
t- J- -»-> s- cu i- t.>>s_a)S- id &->>
id O>C C r—CCC -r-C
«/> i— i «/> i— i i— < td »-H »— ii— i Q.I— i
CU E >)
O£* • • OO « « • I—I •


• • •
i— < CSJ CO
TJ
(U
3
c
•^
-M
c
0
u
^





































































8-37

-------







































-a
cu
c
•i—
4->
c
o
o
^—*'


•
r**
t— 4
i
CO

UJ
—1
CD
r-



































CU
U
T-
^
cu
•o

^—
o
1-

c
0
0

"O

rd

(/)
CU
^
•r-
_!.->
cd
c
s-
O)
-p

Id

>)

a
"«
i—
3
OI
cu

U

^J
"^^
t^r
^j
1
o









xi

{__)
^•^
^£
o

^O










rd
O
C
=3

>














































$-
cu
i
t
00 VD
CNJ CM

0 0













,-— i%
«3" LO
t-H rH
• •
o o



















c
o
>
-S^i
O T£.

•t
i— C
id o
4-* •»—
C 4->
cu u
CU T3
S- CU
U i-
c
H- 4
,




^-^
0 0
o o

• »
o oo
CM rH










jr**^
O O
o o
00 O\

^" rH
CM CM
*•—••'










^^^
O O
o r>.
t"s, ^O
SM^












^— ^
C
O

""x^
v»
x^^c

t

^^

«
t/1
(/)
cu
c
(U

•^
^_>
o
cu
J£-
CU
CO
o
o

1 —
id

c
cu
§
^
o
c
I-H
.





4-> C
TD O ^> rd *r*
cu co .a j:
I. r- +J CM
rd rd T3 rH
a. c cu cu i
E O S- •— > Li_
O J3 CU •— O
u v- .a o .a TJ
id S- J- rd C
<— -> O O 4-> rd
> to c +->
C_> I- TJ O CO CM
	 CU rd CJ O 1
4-> O Ll_
CO CO C CO
-M f- • o -*: cu co
C C^-sJ3 C 0 CU
cu id > i- rd T- i—
> U CJ rd 4J > J3
1 	 O CU rd
C CU CU -O r—
O i — to "O O)
•i- .O 4-» CU rd r— CU
-M (O C -Q $- O CU
rd CO CU 1 O V- OO
^ O ^ ^3 4^ 4^
4- a. cu to c
cu to c x o •
CO •!- O •!- r- O T3
C T3 T- <4_ CU CU
O 4-> 13 i— CO
O rd rd rd O rd -r-
> E 4-> >
>,>,$->> C CU
_a xi cu us o cu s-
to 4-> e
-a T3 c -a cu c
cu cu o cu xj i- cu
r— i— O r— CU (J CU
r— r— r- $_ C XI
o o >> o id T-
*- i- X3 i- CX CU
4J 4-> 4-> E CU >
C C -0 C O -C rd
O O CU O (J 4-> .C
O O r- O
i— ^-* $_ CO
CO CO O CO «t O -^
\s \s ^ >^ f_l t^_ c
C C 4J C 1 • rd
rd rdCidU CUCU4->
4J 4-> O 4^ — ' J- C
U rd O CU
CU CU CU C i—O)
O) cn  CU C O
O *OrdOrd X)O4->
+J 00 4-> -t-> -(-» J- l-'r-CO
CO J^ CO CO CU O 4->
c cu a. co rd 4-*
4-> rd 4-> O>4-> O XJ i- C
C4->CldC (O CU CU
cu cu s- cu cn a. >
>a>>o>c cor-
i— oir- 4-> i— i- O O
O JD cn cn
co S- co co rd S- C
O r- O (d -r- J_
i— 4-> •— CU n- O O4-»O
CUtOCUTJCU (O M— •
^3 T3 C3 ^O CU ^3 ^3 CO
§4-> O E O -C CU O to C
C E E 4J X) 4J 0
CU O 1 CU CO T-
1~ ^ 4- 4-^ ^ E ^3 ^ O to
Or— O OO CU4-> CU
CU CUS-CU >M-OCt-
O)r — O> rd O) CO CJ rd
cajca.cc*— Cc— Q;
rt3 "X3 ^rJ ^E ^3 C3 C5 CD ^^ ^^
x:ox:ox:'r-coSi-ccu
ueouot04->E4->ox:
CO C O C t- 4->
i— -O i— x—vr— •!- CU O O 4->
rdO)rd O Q. S-
4-> i— 4-> CJ 4-> CU J- OO
Cr-CIC COi- M_
OJOCUOOCUCnOM- Or-
ES-E^ — 'EC M- M-OLJ-
CU4->CU CU -i- 4-> (/> S-
S-C$-$-J-i— rd4JT34JX
UOUCUOi— >COCUC«r-
•r- C •>- i- «i- i. CU O i- O C
3 O 4J to 3 CU
cu cucocucctvo'cua.
-c o -c -o -c o o -c cu -c a.
t— +jf— cdl— UCJI— $-r-
-------












CO
LU
> ,f\
*+ S2
II
LU ^
|_ X
-"5r
rf
l-l ^
H-°°
CJ ^
LU S
u_y
u_ H
LU ^
s
H-Pf
cot
o S
oR
l«J
— =>
o =
«£ Q
2P
LU t—
<&
L— '
UJ
^_
oo* «3
	 1 LLJ
^^ ^v
i CJ»
00 —
z
1 —
LU £
— ' 5
oa •*

^
03 <0
C **• —
V. cu co
CU 4-> C 4-
ij i«« ivf n o>
£E 2ES
<0~g.i3c3
>i 
0
(_>






































s_
cu
-t->

(O
i.
10
ex



X^ *"^
O CO O
s^ s
*>r» *— '
i— i •
CM g
,

v» "c"
o
• 4->
4-> • *•«.
CO C V»
80 « —
T-
EtJ £
CU 3 ""v.
4-> "O V»
CO CU
>> »- "
co co
c co
i— O CU
O i- C
j- co cu
4-> CO >
C i- f-
O E •*->
(J CU U
^t<4-
N > "^ (U
•r- CO
•— i— C •!->
(0 10 O CO
sses
C C
10 10 t- CU
JZ >> O>
O i— i 	 -* (0
t- <0 10 en s-
<0 -M -l-> 3E CU i—
CU O O > i—
CO 1— 1— < <0
CU E
(X. • • • CO

• •
rH CM
(J »—» x^
O 00 O
— ' LO
CM
• CO ^-^
CM •
•^ 8
CO





O CO* O*
§- g
• CO •
CM • CM
CM r-. —
8
t— i
•
CO


oco" o*
Q*-' O
^ LO
• r«. i
1— 1 • •«- ••
1 CM
0
o
LO
1








>,
^. —
«/» c
o
• 4->
+J « ^^
CO C «O
O 0 	
O T-
• t; *
CU 3 ^^
•M -O V»
CO CU
>> t-
CO CO
C CO
r- O CU
O T- C
i. co cu
•M CO >
C T- 1-
0 E 4->
U CU U
^-^ CU
•oo s- i*-
CU 0 >,M-
N > "*+. CU
^- CO
r- i— C 4->
10 10 O CO
3 3 -M O
C C 	 0
C C
(0 10 i- CU
>> O>
•— r- ^ «0 ^~
<0 (0 O) V- (0
•M 4-> 2 CU O
O O > T-
t— i— < a
. . . £

•
CO
U *~* s-*
o *t o
or-. Q
r*. --^ LO
• i
o\ r**. -— '
co to
1 O
8
i




o^* o*
o r> o
»-•> — ^r
•t **^x
or-
CO «5 O
LO




o£7 o"
§00 r>.
— ' to
•> 1
O CO — '
CM CM
1 O
^r
r~.
i







•o
^> ^_^

v=» c
o
• 4->
+J • -X.
co c «/>
O O «~«
O f-
•M a>
E U £
CU 3 •*-.
•M -O V»
CO CU
>»J-
CO CO
C CO
•55 S
U CO CU
4-> CO >
c: «i- i-
O E -4->
U CU U
*-^ CU
-o c_) i- «*-
CUO >>»4-
N > •*>. CU
"•- CO
r— r- C -4->
10 10 O CO
3 3 •«-> O
c c^o
c c
(0 (0 S. CU
>> 0>
1— ^- ^ (0
(0 10 O> S-
4-> 4-> Z CU
o o >
(—1— <
• • •





O)
cu c
J=. n-
4-> 4->
10
S 8
-o cu
CU -C
i— 4-*
"o «»-
i- 0
4,^
o "o
(J I- •
4-> CO
C C 4->
O O C
T- O CU
« +> >
>> 10 »- i—
r— $- O O
C 0) «4- CO
o a.
o -a -a
E CU CU
§O> i- t-
C f- CU
J- t- 3 >
•M CT O
X <0 CU (J
t- 0 J- CU
E 0 • i-
CO 4->
CU CU CU it) CU
JC J= > -C -C
4J 4-> N- 4-> 4->
4J
§E 10 CU <*_
O C > O
l_ J- 1- O
M- «4- CU -Q CU
4-> <0 3
CO CO i — r—
C C 10 4-> 10
O O CO >
i- t- >! O
CO CO l_ O CU
CO CO O -C
•i- i- 4-> CU 4->
E E  -M
<_> C_> O> CU
o o cu -a cu
> > J- 3
i— T3
CU CU CU O
.C -C to i- 4-J
4J 4-> CU 4-> •!-
jz c. -a
co co +J o cu
1—3 O i-
o >— J- o
i- a. o i—
4J (4-10 4->
C E 4-> CU
O O J- C C
U O CU CU
J- J3 E <0
i- i- CU
cu x o i- to
_a i- co o cu
$- E ~G C 4->
O <0-i- (0
co cu u
T3 -C C O> -r-
 O -c -a
X) 4-i C
C E i- -r-
O O <0 V.
J3 J- O O « CU
10 ^v*-%2
O CO CU CU O <0
C JD I- i— >
•Q O 1 <0 <0
CU •«- TD CU
^ CO CU CO C >
I CO X 4-> O f-
"O »i— -i- to T- 4->
CU E <*- O 4-> <0
X CU O (0 O>
•r- CU S- CU
<4- <-> E CU CU C
o  CO 1— O 
-------






1
X
I-H
z:
i

o
w.
^~
C£
0

^^
ts\
UJ
>
.

i
CO
1 1 1
1

§
1










cu
u
•r-
cu
•a
o
c
0
u
•a
c
id
CO
cu

•i—
•p
c
i-
a>
1—
id
>i
s-
0

1C
1—
CJ
CU
C£


•N^
•— O
5 >*
1 O

*-'_
X t-i
*— i



•^v.
»*•%
!_^ ^^
| >
CO O

I-H HH
HH I-H
>— >



id
•
u
•-^
^**s
1—4
^>
C_)
*~ *
1—4
I-H

































s_
cu
4J
GJ
£•
id
s-
id
a.

O
CO
A
T-l






o
^^
•t
s









o
CM
|











r~
o
^.
4_>
c
o
u

•^
0)
N
,_
id
^y
C
c

^4y^
4^
O «

r- 0
Id U
.(->
(U (U
-C E •!->
u a) 01

r_
id
23
c
c
id
Id
^^
O

r~
id
c
cu

0)
o
c
I-H

•


















































^-^,
V-
^
CO
c
0

SH^X
i-
«^|
m
z:

c"
o
-M
O
23
•^
2








^— ^,
0
/v\
CO
iO
%,^x

8
"^



^"X
8
CM
•1
i£.

0
0

IO



^_^
o
CM
1
8
CO
1




'l?
o
•M
^

O^
^sr
'"s^
4A

•»
CO
CO

•r-
^J
o
cu
*4—
cu
•M
CO
O
O
,^
id
-M
C
cu
gr
CU
a i—
C r—
l-H Id
E
• CO


•
CM
TJ
0
CO
•»
CO






o
o
CM
•t
CM









8
CO
m
f-H










r^
o
j_
•M
C
O
CJ

•o
cu
.N
,_
cd
3
C
C
«d
id
•4_>
o

, 	
id

cu
s
(U
U
C
1-^

•


























































s_
v»

44
^M>
CO
O
U

CU
•(->
CO
5?








^•^
uo
**^
VO
•
**




^•x
LO

^O
^r'








^.^
CO

^.
CM









C
O

CO
CO
•r-
E
CU

c^
o
>
^~
id
23
c
f*
id
id
-M
O

, 	
id
•!->
C
cu


5
c


9


















































^•^
t-
^
CO
c
o
4->
XH^
s-
-^
Ol
s:

c
o
»l—
-t->
o

T3









^^
O
to
•^ II-*

CO
^



x~%
o
o
00

s

o
o
CO
in




s

1




^*
O
^

CJ>

^s^
^1

«
CO
CO
(U
C
0)
.^
I >
u

CO
o
o
r_
id
c
cu
e
cu
o
c
I-H

4




                                   CU
                                   3
                                    O
                                    o
8-40

-------


































yi— ^
-o
OJ
"^
E
T-
E
O
O
XH*'


•
2
i
CO

UJ
1

J*







































s
•^

OJ

^_
g
-M
E
o
u

E
id



o

id

3
O1





•*-
^-^j
5>"
1 O
o —

1— 1
X •-<






^^
Sa
LJ ^"^
i >
IV) O


1— I h— 1
1-^ 1— 1
t— 1





id

*
U
— • J
V« X

t— 1
^^
^•^
S

>— 1
1— 1






































S-.
OJ
-p
d)
£
id
t.
id
o.
^"^ «•"""»
O CO O
O ft ft
•» *— •-
OO Gl
T-I CO O

1






x*^* X""s
858
o^ >-**' Csj
•1 •»
O Cft ""^
in co — -

o
o
CO

rH





s*^ ^"^
8 X S
00 *— ' *O
1
o oo —
OJ OO
I O
"<^
"Y







E
O

"^^
 co v*
E T-
o e «
O O) to

-rj O *~* OJ
OJ O J- E
N > >> OJ
T— ^^ ^
I— 1— CO T-
id id E -t->
3 300
E E -M OJ
^~ *•" ^^ tl 	
id S- id u-
>> J_ OJ
r— °^*^ r— >^
4-> •(-» O> CO
O « OS 0

CO «
•— 0 r- E r-
id o id o id
E E C. -M E
OJ OJ i }~  01 OJ i-
E > -M
•O i- id
O> r- E O
J- i— O O
•d O T-
ti- 4-> OJ
-M Id JC
O E > -M
O O $-
O O OJ 14-
.(-> ^-^ CO O
<: o E
•o o co o •—
OJ 1 i— O O
S- CD id S-
id — ' >, +j
Q. i. J3 E
E S- OJ O

O -Q S- OJ
J- O i— J-
*-* O CO i— O
> to T3 O **-
O T3 Id J-
— -Id -(-> T3
E E OJ
4-> E 0 O $-
E O -Q O t-
O) J2 i- 3
> $_ id co tr
id o E  •»-> jQ T-
id id ix
> J- T3 •!-•(->
S- id QJ E id
OJ Q. X -C
CO OJ T-I — 4->
E CO <4- OJ
o -o oj
o id id o >
>»>»>, ua
JD jQ -Q O Id
4^
-O -O • T3 -M
OJ ^y ^^™x OU TJ ^fl
i— i— > i— OJ O
r— I— <_) r- i. O
o o — ' o id
s- s- i- Q. a;
4J .(-> +J ^ E O
E E E E O T-
O O OJ O O >
O O > O OJ
CO VI C CO <
0 0 -2 § f "o
O O -M O C_> 1-
J_ S_ id $- 	 -M
> E
X • X S- X E O
T- » 	 »•!- OJ T- O O
E • E en E T-
U E 4-> i—
<— E r— O r— Id Id
OJ 13 OJ O OJ i. +->
-O 	 O T3 OJ E
§o >> o a. gj
co E J3 E 0 E
§01
s- -a i- 01 s-
O O O QJ O C O
(4— 1- 14— i — 14- -i— E
T— 4-> -i-
aj x aj o QJ id
O)T- O> S- O) O OJ
E E E 4-> E (J -C
id id E id +->
jc r— x: o -c aj
o a) u o u -c s_
"O -M O •
i— o i— co i— 14- aj
id E id E id E E
-M 4-> O -M O OJ O
E-OEOES- j_r—
QJ QJ OJ i- cu U— id id
E ^~ E E
OJ r— OJ X OJ to tOE
t. O i- T- i. E 4->O
US-OEOO tO-r-
E -U E E T- O -4->
•i- E T- i— i- co . o id
o aj to *-* i.
OJ O OJ TU QJ *^" ^> OJ OJ
*~ E *"" O *™ E f 1 <~ f^
h- 3 H- E 1— OJ — 1— O
id _a o -a
8-41

-------







0
t—
1—
1,1
ULJ
Q_
t/>

OS

j
!_,
3z
t/0 O
LU •-*
> |—
~<
Hr G£
<^ iii
Z Q-
Q£ O
LU
	 I Z
«a: i-H
ct: o
00
i—
<-i
— 1 LU

ID Q
LU S
««*
u. o
o u.

(/> *~*
(/> 1— 1
UJ 	 •

j , 1 1 , 1

:> Z
I-H 1— 1
O LU
LU 
Lu  =3
 *a>
•£


3
S

£



ia
l.
adsorbe
§
.Q
t.
8







X


^
>



>




.,






i_
5
fe
•o
nj
§
•e
8
T3
£
TJ
S
u_

~
*






^
*-•















j_
-M
g
IQ
O.
o o J? o S
S ffi IS eg 2
en * —
21
i
.-. _
S S! to R S
c\T "^ ' *L*
S


o CM co ^o ^r
Csj IO Lrt r-l .-*
*  | |



— -s -— *
a ~" ' ~
1


8 ~§|8 8 SC 8S 8 SSSg
S •»— ' (o *"" 3


§O ^-1 O o"
ffiSSS

10


8 Spl
a\


S-* *-*.
§*!^ *~* S S
in ir> CNJ .-«

in
0


O i-tCOOO O CIO O O O O «-• O O
O Csl CVJ O O O tO f^- 

O CT» »— i O O O <£> CM O O O r-v i—i o O
ST— t CM O O O tO *O ^O CO O CSJ CO O Cn
•^^ co >5 -^ •— * co rv o tn \3n *•* *— *
ri" r-T ,-T oo *^ ' oT '**'
m »—• ^- m

» . .

Ct-O CiA C U 01
^t/)t/i [/i at
S i 2 *» o *e '-M S 'e 3 £
"u4**^^ "c4*^. ^ "'V ** "^ i!
"s -x y ^ t ^-^8«> t u^y^t
N V* ~> "NV U N V* > C  "^ O
•r- CT -r- O ••— O* Of


cocc8° cSec" 8-3 coic8S
ra°fl-2 (/> -M "O H> I i— •Mi/i-tJ'O d> 3C wl -M V> +J ^ ai y
i O  >^~. ^~ O >» O  X. 'T"! O 3>i O  ""»*
j; i- u> i^- u < v? to ^ ^ ^ ir ^ *rf oJ ^MH-L.<^
«••• Js«* • ^»

i-J cJ c»i
0)
l_
3
S
'o
s
t
a
^•^
«
1
4-*
ID
1

5
>>
2
S
3.
S
£
*
~S
3
Q>
•g
C
(Q
U
!
i



» lO X
«I "
lO •!-
S * * .
••- O O »rt
•-* u u +>
^ S «u S
-S 8 £ 4
§t- O
C 
•0 01 <1> 8
S -? § 2
J= "* X §  en o **-
(A tft 4-> C r— O
Of C iA >•- U
1- _O >» -M >i 0>
4» 4^ "* O •—
-C rtJ C O >* *O
*> t- o o >
(u -i~ at cj
o 8" ID 5 -o ^
en 3 c  S °>
S £ S S* *
§o» •— * c
•r- CJ >> U_
o a»  t- IO
"S § S  c a*
u S i wt
I o «+_ (j Of
s s « " r •£

S 81-51 S1
^s ^ u e 01 c
j^^o^ "a(jt/^aC°d^
8-42

-------








o

h-
t_ i
UJ
Q_
l/>
UJ
OH

(-
H^
.-H
^Z
> i-i
I— ^
^t ^y
§ 'Jj
S ^™
)__ O
— ' CD


!_!
||
Id
UJ ^
Q* 2


1 1 ^,
o
(/> ^~
^x-*
UJ -j.
z M
> *"""
1— 4 . .
i UJ
o ,_,
LL — '
Ljl LtJ
UJ ^^
. m
t/t Q
^* In 1
••J
1
CD^
< £:
UJ ^~
> O
^




CM
1
CO
III
I_LJ
_j
OQ
^
t—























.;
(Q
1
«

U
O
+•
i
£
•e

a

E
TC

•£
t.
1















"U

i*I
•g
s
u
c
w "O
ill1
VI



t-
2

u
c




X






n
•g |
•? fe
7 wi
N tO
T3 C
•X O
3 -e
u. g

£3
*












t.
&
"S fe
1 1

X C
u- ^
Q
U



«
g







,,
































v
3
2
2
o o o o
O r^ ^00
r^ «^ 10 M
S 2 *~*




IS S3
5i"3 ' ^
1



o5§§ §2.§ §S a§
»" ^. f" 5 o? ~. ~" 5 IT 5 3
»-^ psj *— ' »— « OO *^^ O f** s— '
^H
8
CM


o o" o ^

of co ' •i-
1





8S S3
CM ^ in ur>
* i i
** in ^-*
fH CSJ
t

O CM O O O GO O O O O O

• 00 * " * CO •— ' " 1 1
f) .  (T vS trt O ^
8 ; S ^ 85^ 85^



ft £ ft £ ft •-
I/I VI VI VI V> Wt Wl
c wi c m c ui
v-o&i ^- o d* ^- o cu
0 ••= C 0 •" C 0 •»= C
£ t/> > **W> ^J SJ >
S '5 TJ S 'i jv § '5 "I*
•S8'-*'t ^8^^,t ^8^-»lt
,M>^«* «^>^0* ^N^^O*


S3 C O 3 3 C O 3 3 C O
c o u c c o a ccou
S Si« S S Jt« i Sii«
*5 •— •— i- S" f— •— (- S1 P-I •— •— s_ S1
 ^ at
 *— 1 oo_ai> —1 o o tj» >
VI 1— h- X ^ *O| h- h-XJ

r-J C\j CO

'oT
1
u
£
t_
to
t
s.
* 1
S £
•r- >
15
•2 e
< ^
>,
2dt
>
Oi v
A f_

* a>

3
a, S
-O 4-*
l/t
O f
C C


TJ la
1 1
fcii
•eg" x
S-a£ «


= ^ fe .5
O U M- +J
ja t. to
« % 3 SO 8 ^
g ° 8* «, €
:= "S •- 5 5 s
^ * f S £ S
IO iu
gX <4- 4J 77
••- O W» V «
-o *-  I/I 4-> C J= 4-»
•f- C V> •»- 0
(-4-* O >1 4-> r— M-
«3 -*- M * (J O
at c 4-> o >,
jc C ra c u u at
•*-* at t. o 3
&•— Q. 4-» -C O "3
< O 
**-, r—
>i en =) c -a at
&+J 4-» H- T)
m ID u 4> « o
•S = 8 £ 3 S ~
-S jf fe z<^ S |

JD VI TJJ > 4-* 4-»
^ « I S S 8 ^
C C O> i— ^ J_
e -r- -t- u >v u

v> -o o a: at
vi «> t- PC
S-o at o at
J5 «*- JC M to
€~O 4-» O
at 4-> «M 7 i/i
•8 e 1 1 « ° s
ff -S u 4= § 4 '-5
5 8 C g- £ e .£


u t- c j= at 3
o at ai o > •—
•p 4-» Tl JC i — i— (O
* to c 4-* u o >
i ai u u- u ai
•g _c o i( to >
N u at at ii £
•^ c CT» w> a» IQ
,3 t •*•* 4} .£ <" e
LL. U- Z J3 C/) OO rf
i ja u -o at >^.
8-43

-------


to
^y
0
h-f
g
LU
Q.
0
O
z
(— I
H—
o
o
1
LU
a
o
x
fy
O
LL.
CO
LU

t—
•x.
LU

«t

^_
CtL
O
5

to
LU
&•
Lu
O
CO
z
LU
>
I— i
0
LU
LU-
LU
LU
CO
o
0
_l
LU
S
a:
z





•c
•X,
;>

"°fe
Irt
s
'g -»"•
8 5
M
^
c
1-4
>



u
I
s
"o
e





"V
1 £
i 1
M IO
.1 s
3 f
u. 3





t.
is

"aT
c
(A



i— t
>?


^
^j




^




_,
=>



S
s

£
*


S











&.
01
i
e
s
o 01 S1 o o"
O (O r^ 00 f4
uS — iTS u?
S ' ^


O txi t-» O O
s ffl a 2 s

«p "^



O (*) O O S*
S "d 85
f*l

'"^ e-a S"
§ s> s « s
S~ ~-
1


**^ *••* ^"» ^^ >"•» rf— *
§ 2 ^ if § 5 ~ f§ s 2 5. §i
S 32* S 23 S S£
»— • *«* i-t

o oo o? o o1
* 1 1
O *— '
CM


o in S" o o"
SCM N f^> r^
*—• in ui
* i i
•j*


^^ *-»
§& M 9 S
CM CD O O»
in u> ~>4 x^-
a ^


O O> «-< O O O iO 10 O O O CO CM O O
t-T eO* ^-T CM *^ ' ^T -^

§CT» *— • O O O *** C*) O O O tO CO <3 O
" *""'' S ^ O • *"' O <*} O CM CM LO O
^r ^-T ^r ^r **^ r-r ' -i-
v^ V

oo\«-»oo o «OCM"OC? o iv.^7oc?
S*^oafi9 ° m to jo co o CMoaocn
-~-- OO 
fe I

"s**y "sy isyii
•S *r * • o> -^ *r > . .^ *? * » a*
'«S''oS ^ 'iaS'iaS 'fl o ^ o ^.
3O3'^4-»** 3O 3-^*J 3U 3.^4-***
c c ** ^» «n e c •*-» <-^ w» c c 4-> ^*» «t

,_"£{— ^J ^? i— S f— 1/1 r-^lrt^-> lot-cmco » IQL.CIOC:
4J Wl -M O4^S 4-*!/k -M 3 4-> V 4-> 4^V1 -M O -M $
SC E +> C > C CC *J C !* *Nfc C C C +•* C >
^ Of O "*-* 5 -i— ^*« S r— 01 O ^* w 'i— V? 5 ^— V O ^* V *r*
f BOtt'^ 6 +•* C BO • *^- C *-• *— ' BO 8 *r» B 4-*
u aC8Mt-5uo «£. «Mfc.«u •— t 5 £o» 5 w> *~ 5 u
vfcUt*.xx ^-J C'c>tU-J^'^O«*-i* ul U^S>b-S-^GH-

«-< CM 01

^
£
3
o
tl
15
4J

a.
»

.>
«
E
1
&
1o
3
S1
Ctf
5
5
~S
*
3
1!

g
U
•o
•a

c
^~
—
8 x
. 1 *
S * .5
•S€ IS
•" fe 8
S S «

"— C «rt
S " £
•^ 3 1
•O «l *"
.C X O W
u . '5 S fc
SB X >
Of C7> 4f O
s s £| a
y c 8 u o
4-* O
•>- » M 01
fe i« £83
14- 0 I— 10
= c -a >
•8 21 t? - IS «
&••-••- -p ^
+•» o at » 4-»
•s s e s s e.
01 U $ 4-»
T3 fSM-> 3
at o * £ *o S
^ ^ || g 3
gc •— ^ -a
CT> u >, *
S-r- ^— • (.
M ID C LL. U
» -8 t °5 *,
fe «£ £« g

w» O £ •£ •*- Of
^ i « a. ° IS
c 3 .t g .5 .«
J fc g, ig e -o
fe S £ S £ -
°| «| S S

A O >i W)  O» » >
•O O 3 i— -O ^
•r> t (O O> C 
-------
TABLE 8-23. AVERAGE AND INCREMENTAL COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES FOR RESEARCH MODEL LINES
Coating Annual ized
Storage Mix . operation control Emission Cost effectiveness, J/Mg (Vton)
Reg. tanks"* room" Capture, device reduction. Average"
5
b
0»
C
"a*
s

*
1
*o
§
u
L.
1
CJ
1
S
cj
4-*
*«
«

CO CO  lA Q Q 1 O 8 $3 § &
U3 f-« CM i-t CM 00 •-* €Q V • O
|||||S||||§|§S||||
CM CM ^ »O i-i <*» IA (*) «-i U)
8 »88588f§888f

^^888888S8S88S88§§
§ii?iiiiiii§i§ii

O'— 'v— 'CMCMCM(MCSICMCMCMCMrg4N CM CM CM CM
oSK^ooo-oo.*™*^^^**-,
r*CM<"iuir-iou>Vr^cou3<->oico(i_ j_ u- o o j_ <(i_ g u i g u
O O O O UJ O UJ UJ OOUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ
VI I/I I/I Vt {/I
a* & O v V a»Q»4iDOa>o»OD4i5o5
S S i § § § § § .i. i g § i i g i .1 .1
 >< X
rolled by conservation vents (CV).
ed by covers with conservation vents or fixed-bed carbon adsorber (Fi-CA).
captured by partial enclosure (PE) or total enclosure (TE). Coating operation emissions controlled by separate fixed-bed carbon adsorber
, or fixed-bed carbon adsorber controlling emissions from both the mix rood and coating operation (Coanon).
compared to uncontrolled baseline (I) and controlled baseline (IV).
ned from lowest annual ized control device cost for regulatory alternative with equivalent emission reduction.
ts for solvent storage tanks have been revised. See Tables F-2 and F-6 through F-10 in Appendix f for these revisions.
c - . « 5 8
82 g a & u
*J »-« C -M -O
(AC •—> at a> c
§o > -o  ••*• o •!-» i/i w»
•— V* (A 4J U -r- C
•€ V> C ID 4* O
•3 ••- o (_**-•*-»••-
o e •«- o* i- w -M
•r- V tfl C 01 O Q.
ex c e c «/i "— i —
# £ 5 a. •- o .TJ o
o 4f o en ^— ^ or o* c
zcj»5£ t. -^ O (Q 0) U
» »- 4-» 1 U. t.
8-45

-------
o
UJ
z1
"J-11
0£.\
   >
   i—i


  ,<
LU '
 «t
I

;>-
c>J
oa
<
             3



             b
            §  >
            -
            >
        i 8 -S  8
            S 2
          S 2

<


<
i
o.
e>
0
0
I
fc

s
z

-<
•* ^ CS * oooo
I 1 < U> O O O
• TO OS (M
in
^ O CO CO CO (*^ CO O f** O
^ p o •
1 CM •-< •-»
^^SSS-SS.^-^

i (M^m^TTuirs.into
 (fl C/l
oi5a>(i>4iaiaj55ai
§ i § S § § § i -X §


<-H M

0
s
(O
8
v>4
O
^r
f>
s
m
2
O
S

o
3
5
UJ




a>
o o o o o
"l T*
zia xi


fc
1
1
fe
U
"8
•d by separate fixed-t
o
Coating operation emissions contr

£
O
c5
£
j5
91
15
£
u
tion emission
u
+•>





"^*
0
c
o
4-»
ID
&
o»
c
4-1
-o
i
X
5
5
4-*
J=
2
c
0
E
?
arbon adsorber control!

"4-
o
I
V
7






>
C
1
5
2
•o
ntrolled baseline (I) ai
3
compared to ur
effectiveness
0>
o>
01
,*




reduction.
0
alternatives with equivalent em's
g
s
«
annual ized control devi
4J
8
•o
V
c
l_
oj
tu
cremental c
iT"*




for these revisions.
u_
1
£
*
c
o
,— 1
u,
f
2
^
4-»
*o
1
u.
•o
§
U-
$
VI
?
s
V
J3
S
£
«O
t~
S
"'
c
fe
0
u
I
£
o
0
§
0»
t—
*
                                                8-46

-------

















UJ ._
7 (/>
^Z
~~,
h--1
^UJ
1 1 lij
"- ca
-i
Is
_l °-
gt
tlo
UJ11-
ft
= >
l-1^.
£«
<1
o£
s<
>>-
"^o
«;§
^0
£
^|j_
2°

t5
«£•
"fc

4-»
8
0



















's.
«
t-
Sf
«c









C g
o •*-
•» U
w> 3
W t-


Annuallzed
control
device


"|
I ?
S Jt
.
3
s-
43
X S
£ g
01 *


S S
en
iO
£
8
b
£





S

41
C
Ol
!3
CD





41
"o»
a
CO




•£
I
fe,
"Si
X

V*
4-*
Ut
8



"o
g
0
i:
S

e

I
(Q


§p^*r» cu*»-«a- m O^Si

t*> . . . .
i oo P*. o cn
(S o ^r to
i •-< it
i

<<<<<<: «e S ^ 1* ^£a£«roC
g § | ..L 5 5 5 5 V -X 3 -^ 5 5 V 5 V £ 2 J. 3 g
	 ui^: . . . . E iz s: c s s ...
OO OOO O O UJ UJ O OO OUJUJuJUJLULiJO OO
I/I (A 1A i/l i/> i/t t/t

So-^-iooooooSooooooSo-^-^-^-



IS5llll5SSS55SS35355S3
MHHH^H-.H-^ =>>>>^-,1-,H-,h-lt-.K-l222
> > > >
§ § § § 1
tO to P*» UT> O



1 i


O O O O O
•*-• «^» * 1 1
S S **^ o o

f) 1 1
*-•





S 9 S 7 S
^, I1 2i ~^
§ g S 7 S
CM






tn tft if> w» m
s s s a 21
u> in * >0 «3


o o o o o
1 i-l r-*
1
uc c
m S.
£ £ . S V
z z M -i 3
4> V
O O UJ UJ uT

5 5 w a v
•i- -i- 0 0 0



U 0 
-------
•a
(U
o
o
in
CM
CO
ca




l_
§

j*
0
5
w
I/I
s
5
>
+J
y
£
%

+*
3
U

















C
0
V
e





N O
3 0
1°




Jj

S 2
S S





X
X



s
s
c
c/



a















.,
01

1
<
















.
I

ij
"S





at
u
at
•o




1.
£
f
^



n


2



»
JS
g


0>
S
u
*«
•*->
I
*







>"
*-->
a*
_c^
'a!
s
CO




t-H
a*
c
"o>
8
ca










^^
£,
>
S
*"**
fe

z



V*
VI






*0
(.
g



"o
(-
4->
§
O


*0
t-
4-t
c
0

^J
*
888SSS8888S8
®Joolo— ~~ ?o
o g 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 o &

*»^H m <-H to cn «
t i i




§00000000000
Ot
S S .i 3 S ^ -i- 3 S £ £ c'
zzu.u_C_><-><->Ot->0

SS2SSI5ESM3S2
X X X X X





























cS
^c
V
s
a
&
s
s
t/)
.»
+J
c
fe
^i
.
o
1
!

o
B
<»
i

*>
5
u
=
8
X
U


2
•M
O
w»
«l

-Q w>
u e
11
M s
< s
ivo"1,


































s

u_
(-
_2
b
•o
TJ
s
«
m
u

•?
«c
0
1
I
•2
re
1
8

"

C
a>
>
^


"8
8
•g
8

1

i
1
X
f

fc
•e
o
(/i
•g
c
5
g

"S
-o
•1-
^
«*-
01
s
a
0*
trt

$
•o
e
•s
8

t>
fc.
1
o>
c
5
<3

*^+
y
'— *

£
3
_0
1
"S
^
u
t
3
5
i
'w
3
r3
Q-

^»
-o
jjj


0
0
S
e

g

1
.=
S
J
c
u
I


g
X
e
at

^
J

5

w>
|

iA

*
C
2
«
8
t-
5
t.
O
^
fD
§
€
*
^,
at
•S
"at
$
.a
"S
»—
2
•o
c
(a
"
1
S
•°
2
2
•g
0
§
o
4-*
fe


8
8
S
.>
-i 0
g£

fl
2 t.
&$
%<
4-*
3

4-*
g
.^
^
U>
8
•>
•S
r—
2
4-»
g
at

§

S
at
1
•&
3
U
C


u
£
%
f
s
at
2
•a
t
a
s
0
£
i

at
-
sf
t- u
1 °
*- 1
1 1
Of c
f O
S'i S
o at >
1o fc ° c
's o *^. c
^o — o g
m .c -Q at
U 4-> C JC
2 * S "u


•* w S* c1
u E 'u u
M- -«J > >
"4- »— O O
at n o u
i » £ S

u or at
•— o c c
||1I
Ig ||
U 1 4-» +J
u£ %.sws










(A
C
•2
.£
£
t.
Ot
I/I
M
JJ

»*-
u_
X
i
&
*
c


s
u_
£.
3
£
^
+>
to
1
U-
•o
g

«rt
^
>
"o
u


c
o
*a.
0
3

§

5
l
.c
h-
                                              8-48

-------
8.3  REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8

 1.  VOC Emissions from Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Tanks—Background
     Information for Proposed Standards.  Preliminary Draft.  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.
     Publication No. EPA-450/3-81-003a.  June 1983.

 2.  R. B. Neveril, GARD, Inc.  Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air
     Pollution Control Systems.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     Research Triangle Park, N.C.  EPA Publication No. EPA-450/ 5-80-002.
     December 1978.  p. 5-45.

 3.  Richardson Engineering Services, Inc.  Process Plant Construction
     Estimating Standards.  1983-1984 Edition.  Volumes 1 and 3.

 4.  Memorandum from Glanville, J., MRI, to Magnetic Tape Project File.
     June 22, 1984.  Ductwork cost methodology.

 5.  Reference 2, pp. 4-15 - 4-28.

 6.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Sontag, D., Amcec.  September 11,
     1984.  Information on steam strippers.

 7.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI, with Erickson, A., Glitch, Inc.
     September 20, 1984.  Information on steam strippers.

 8.  Telecon.  Beall, C., MRI, with Schweitzer, P., Chempro Corp.
     September 14, 1984.  Information on steam strippers.

 9.  Reference 1, pp. 8-3 and 8-19.

10.  Reference 2, p. 3-11.

11.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI with Rotar, F., Netzsch, Inc.   November
     8, 1983.  Information on mix room installation costs.

12.  Telecon.  Glanville, J., MRI with Neilson, D., Passavant
     Corporation.  November 8, 1983.  Information on installation costs for
     magnetic tape coating operations.

13.  Peters, M. S., and Timmerhaus, K. D.   Plant Design and Economics for
     Chemical Engineers.  New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.   1980.   p. 172.

14.  U.S. Department of Labor.  Bureau of  Labor Statistics.  Employment and
     Earnings.  April 1983.   p. 130.

15.  Reference 2, p. 3-12.

16.  U.S. Department of Labor.  Bureau of  Labor Statistics.  Producer
     Prices and Price Indexes Data for March 1983.   p.  74.
                                   8-49

-------
17.  Memo and attachments from Beall,  C.,  MRI,  to Johnson,  W.,  EPArCPB.
     Revised Final  Tabular Cost.   March 15,  1985.  Costs for model  storage
     tanks, model  mix rooms,  and  model  coating  operations for the magnetic
     tape manufacturing industry.
                                   8-50

-------
                         9.0  ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
9.1  INDUSTRY PROFILE

9.1.1  Introduction

     The magnetic tape industry is included in two Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes: SIC 3573, "Electronic Computer Equipment"
and SIC 3679, "Electronic Components Not Elsewhere Classified".
Magnetic tape is produced by coating thin plastic film with a mixture
of magnetic particles, resins, and solvents.  There are three main
categories of magnetic tape products:  computer, audio, and video.
Within each of these categories there are a large number of final
products.  A summary of these products and their physical parameters
was presented earlier in Table 3.1.  In the following subsections  the
various types and use of magnetic tape products are again briefly
presented and summarized.

     9.1.1.1  Computer.  The most important computer recording media
products are reel tapes (1.3 cm [1/2 in. wide]), flexible (floppy)
disks, digital cassettes, digital cartridges, magnetic cards, and
instrumentation tape.  Reel tape is generally the least expensive  form.
It is only used on large-to-medium sized computers.  Flexible disks
with diameters of 13.3 cm (5-1/4 in.), 20.3 cm (8 in.), and 8.9 cm
(3-1/2 in.) are the most recent development in computer recording  media
and have become quickly accepted because of their relatively low cost
and rapid access time.  They are generally used on minicomputer or
microcomputers as well as word processors.  Digital cassettes and
cartridges are also used in minicomputers but their use is not as
widespread as the flexible disks.  Magnetic cards were originally  used
as a replacement for punched paper cards and their use expanded when
the magnetic card was adopted for word processing equipment.1
However, the use of magnetic cards for word processing is now declining,
due to the more common usage of flexible disks and it is expected  to
disappear altogether.  Instrumentation or analog tape was developed in
the U.S. and is used primarily by governmental agencies for the monitor-
ing of telemetry and geophysical events.2

     9.1.1.2  Audio.  The three major types of audio tape in order of
value of sales are cassettes, 8-track, and open reel.  The major
formats of 8-track cartridges and cassettes are prerecorded, blank, and
institutional, which are used for broadcasting purposes.  Most of  the
                                  9-1

-------
cassette tapes are sold as unrecorded or blank  tapes,  whereas  most  of
the 8-track cartridges are sold as prerecorded  tapes.   Open  reel  tape
is sold in various size reels.  One additional  format  of open  reel
tapes is mastering tape, which is used by music and  voice recording
studios for original  sound recording and can later be  used for further
sound duplication on disks, cassettes, or cartridges.   Another minor
use of audio tape is its use for sound tracks for TV productions  and
the movie industry.3

     9.1.1.3  Video.  The video tape market, including the consumer and
commercial sector, is relatively new.  Although some video products
appeared in the market in the mid-70's, domestically produced  video
tapes were not available until 1977.  There are two  major types of
video cassette tapes for the consumer market: one type for use in the
Video Home System (VMS) recorder and one for the Betamax recorder.   The
VMS format is the more popular of the two.  The two  systems  are not
compatible. The consumer video market originally consisted of  blank
cassettes only, but during the past few years a prerecorded  market  has
developed.  In the commercial market, the major tape formats are
broadcasting tape and closed circuit TV (CCTV)  tape.4

9.1.2  Market Structure

     9.1.2.1  Identification of Companies and Market Share.   The
magnetic tape industry consists of firms that coat blank tape  only, as
well as those that make some of their own coated blank tape but also
purchase coated blank tape which they then package into finished
products.  There are also firms that do not coat any tape but  purchase
all they need for their finished products.  The companies that coat
magnetic tape in the United States are listed in Table 3-2.   This table
presents the company name, location, and type of tape  produced.  There
are 29 facilities, representing 23 companies in 15 states.  California
has the largest number of facilities (10), representing 34 percent  of
the U.S. industry.  However, on a worldwide basis it is estimated that
there are 180 companies that produce magnetic tape products.5  These
firms vary widely in size, ownership, product specialization,  and
integration, and include companies that produce rigid  disks, which are
not included in the NSPS.   In  1981, 11 companies accounted for 76
percent of worldwide industry  sales.  Total worldwide  sales is divided
among Japanese firms, representing 47 percent of total sales,  American
firms with 33 percent and European companies with the  remaining 20
percent. 6

     9.1.2.1.1  Computer recording media.   In the United States computer
recording media market, three  large multinationals dominate the market:
IBM, 3M, and Memorex  (a division of Burroughs).  These three companies
make a variety of computer media products.   In addition, Verbatim
Corporation is also a major manufacturer, although much smaller than
the other three firms.

     In  1982, the flexible disk market was dominated by  IBM, Verbatim,
and 3M.   In 1983, the  four largest producers are expected to be Verbatim,
                                  9-2

-------
3M, IBM, and Memorex (including its disk production in Japan) in terms
of total production of flexible disks and tape used in flexible disks.7

     In the 20.3-cm (8-in.) flexible disk market, 3M had the largest
share of the world market (36 percent) in 1981 in terms of the quantity
of blank magnetic tape produced.  The company with the next largest
share of this market is IBM with 20 percent, followed by Verbatim with
15 percent. The remaining share of this market is held by foreign
firms.

     However, in terms of the quantity of finished flexible disks
produced, IBM has the greatest share of the world market (20 percent)
as well as the U.S. market (26 percent) in 1981.  In addition to IBM,
the major producers are Verbatim and 3M.  The market shares of the
companies in this market are shown in Table 9-1.8  Syncom, a privately
owned company, also manufactures flexible disks.  Xidex began manufac-
turing flexible disks in 1981, and distribution began toward the end of
1982.9 TRI, also privately held, began to manufacture flexible disks
in 1983.10  The remaining companies in the market are foreign pro-
ducers with 21 percent of the world market.11

     In the 13.3-cm (5-1/4-in.) miniflexible disk market, a similar
situation exists: 3M has the largest share, 48 percent, of the world
market for blank magnetic tape used in mini disks followed by Verbatim
with 23 percent.  However, in terms of production of minidisks Verbatim
produces the greatest number of minidisks with 23 percent of the world
market and 30 percent of the U.S. market.  The other companies with
significant shares of this market are presented in Table 9-1.8  In
addition to these companies there are two new companies that either
began producing flexible disks after 1981 or plan to produce them in
the next few years.  Brown Disk Manufacturing Company, incorporated in
1981, manufactured and sold between $10 and $20 million of miniflexible
disks in 1983.12Memron Co., a newly formed company that packages
5-1/4-in., 8-in., and microflexible disks, plans to begin manufacturing
flexible disks in 1985 or 1986.13 Foreign companies share the remain-
ing 21 percent of the market.11

     The 8.9 cm (3-1/2 in.) microflexible disk market is a recently
emerging market.  At the present time there is not a standard size
micro disk but a variety of sizes ranging from 3 in. to 3-1/2 in.  The
major manufacturer is Sony Corp. of Japan but Verbatim and Dysan were
expected to begin production of microdisks in 1983.ll*

     For 1.3-cm (1/2-in.) computer tapes, 3M and Memorex have nearly
equal  shares, 21 percent, of the world market.  Market shares of other
major U.S. producers are shown in Table 9-1.  The remaining 11 percent
of the market is held by companies located in Japan, France and the
United Kingdom.15

     The data cassette and cartridge market is very  small  compared to
the other segments of the computer recording media market.  This market
is dominated by two U.S. producers, 3M and Verbatim, although there is
some production by European and Japanese firms.16

                                  9-3

-------
     Two other magnetic tape products are instrumentation tape and
magnetic cards.  Instrumentation tape is the product of a single
manufacturer, the Ampex Corp.  Magnetic cards are supplied mainly by
IBM, but Memorex and Graham Magnetics are also suppliers.17

     9.1.2.1.2  Audio tape.  In the audio tape market, the leading
manufacturer is ~W.  Three other large companies in the audio market in
decreasing order of sales are BASF, Sony, and Tandy Magnetics.  Two
other companies are subsidiaries of large multiproduct companies.  They
are Capitol Industries, a subsidiary of EMI (a British company), and
Columbia Magnetics, a division of CBS.  Smaller companies in the market
include Ampex and Certron Corp.  Ampex (1982 sales of $488 million) is
a division of Signal and manufactures open reel and mastering tapes.
Certron's main business is the design, development, and manufacture of
audio magnetic tape products (blank audio cassette tape and 8-track
tape).  It is a relatively small company with 1982 sales of $23 million.1^
The remaining company, Spectrotape, is privately owned and no informa-
tion is available about their operations.

     9.1.2.1.3  Video tape.  The major video tape producers are 3M and
Sony.  In its annual report, 3M claims to be the world leader in the
commercial video tape market.19  One source reports that 3M has 12
percent of the commercial domestic market.20  Ampex is another major
producer.  Tandy and BASF also produce video tape, and the remaining
two producers are privately held corporations (Spectrotape and American
Video Tape).  Additional market share information is not available.

     9.1.2.2  Integration.  Many of the larger companies in this
industry exhibit considerable vertical integration.  Companies such as
3M, BASF, Memorex, Tandy, IBM, and Sony produce magnetic tape, package
it into finished products (cassettes, tapes, disks, etc.), and sell
electronic equipment using the tape.  For some of these firms, specific-
ally IBM, Tandy, and Sony, these finished products are produced mainly
to support their primary business, which is manufacturing and selling
electronic equipment such as computers, stereo equipment, and video
recorders.  3M is vertically integrated backward because it produces
its own base film and solvents.  It holds a unique position in the
industry in that it is the largest producer of coated magnetic tape
which is used in its own products and also sold to major competitors,
such as Dysan and IBM, who in turn produce their own finished products.21

     In the computer recording media segment, the smaller companies,
such as Verbatim, Wabash DataTech, and Graham Magnetics, exhibit very
little vertical  integration.  They purchase raw materials from suppliers
and sell  the finished product mainly to original  equipment manufacturers
(OEM) or directly to end users.  Typically, OEM's are manufacturers of
microcomputer and minicomputer systems, manufacturers of word processors,
and software publishers.  The finished tape is sold under their own
brand name or private label.

     There could be a potential problem for smaller manufacturers if
the disk drive manufacturers integrate backward.   This might be possible


                                  9-5

-------
because the computer industry is a high growth industry and  one oppor-
tunity for growth lies in satisfying the growing  need  for additional
storage capacity.  Therefore, it is possible that OEM's would choose  to
expand by entering the magnetic media market.22   However, the OEM's
represent a significant portion of each of the smaller manufacturer's
sales; for example, Verbatim sells 52 percent of  their product to
OEM's 23>21+  If the OEM's should decide to integrate backward by
producing their own tape, the size of the potential  market could be
significantly reduced.  However, Verbatim is now  paying greater atten-
tion to the development of its own brand sales,  so its dependence  on
sales to OEM's will diminish.25

     In terms of horizontal  integration, there are several companies
that can be considered as horizontally integrated if a narrow definition
of the term is used, namely, companies that manufacture more than  one
type of storage media.  Wabash DataTech, for example,  manufactures
computer tape, 20.3-cm (8-in.) flexible disks, and 13.3-cm (5-1/4-in.)
disks.  Each of these products serve the same function of storing
information, although different hardware is required for each product.
Other companies, such as Verbatim, IBM, Memorex,  and 3M, also make
several types of storage media.  If a broader definition of  horizontal
integration is used (i.e., companies that provide alternate  products
that serve the same need as magnetic media), then companies  such as
CBS and Sony must also be included.  Sony manufactures video cassette
recorders and televisions, both products that serve the same need  of
providing entertainment.  Similarly, CBS through  its subsidiary Colum-
bia Magnetics manufactures audio tape as well as  making records and
films.  Again, these are alternate products that  satisfy a need for
entertainment.

9.1.3  Total Supply

     9.1.3.1  Domestic Supply.  Production information concerning  the
magnetic tape industry is difficult to obtain and of uncertain accuracy
due to the relative newness of the industry, rapid technological
innovations in the product field, and the secretive nature of the
industry.  The U.S. Department of Commerce compiles production data  for
the magnetic tape industry.  However, the information cannot be used  in
the analysis because it is not certain as to the  type of production
data that are represented in the various categories, which implies that
double counting may have occurred.26  The most reliable source of
data is Magnetic Media Information Services.  Its estimates  of the U.S.
value of magnetic tape products in the three major categories are shown
in Table 9-2. The total value of blank tape coated in the U.S. in 1981
was approximately $1.6 billion, and the value of finished goods was
$1.8 billion.27  The largest segment is the computer recording media
market.  It shows significant real growth in the value of blank tape  in
1981 compared to 1980 of 21 percent.  The video tape market  has grown
much faster than the computer recording media market in the  same
period, experiencing a 97 percent real growth rate.  The audio tape
market meanwhile has declined in real terms.
                                  9-6

-------
     TABLE 9-2.  ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE AND PERCENT OF U.S.  PRODUCTION
                 OF BLANK TAPE AND FINISHED AUDIO, VIDEO AND COMPUTER
                        RECORDING MEDIA PRODUCTS,  1980 and  198127
Magnetic
Tape
Product
Audio tape
(Percent of
Total)
Video tape
(Percent of
Total)
Computer
recording
media
(Percent of
Total )
Total
Blank
1980
$ Millions
317.58
(26.4)
277.56
(23.1)
608.33
(50.5)
1,203.47
(100.0)
Unrecorded
1981
$Mi 1 1 i on
307.11
(19.3)
547.62
(34.4)
736.69
(46.3)
1,592.42
(100.0)
Tape
Real
growth
(percent)
-3.3
97.3
21.1
32.2
Finished Tape Products
1981
$ Million^
363.48
(20.3)
685.44
(38.4)
736.69
(41.3)
1,785.61
(100.0)
31980 values have been adjusted to reflect  1980 production  levels  valued
 at 1981 prices.

bReflects the additional  cost  and value  added  of packaging  audio and
 video tape (e.g., cassettes).
                                   9-7

-------
     Table 9-3 shows the value of the major types of computer recording
media for 1981 and 1982.  Although the overall  growth rate is not  as
great from 1981 to 1982 as it was from 1980 to  1981, the flexible  disk
market, particularly the 13.3-cm (5-1/4-in.) flexible disk, has shown
very significant growth (85 percent).  The flexible disk is'considered
to be the single most rapidly growing medium of any kind in the magnetic
tape industry and such growth is expected to continue.28

     Computer tape (1.3 cm [1/2 in.]) was manufactured by 11 companies
in 1981, 7 of these companies being American, with facilities in the
United States and elsewhere.  American producers not only dominate the
computer tape industry, but the United States is also the largest
single market for computer tape.  The computer  tape segment experienced
growth through 1981 but declined during 1982.29  Data cassettes and
cartridges are a small but growing part of the  computer recording  media
market.  Instrumentation tape, which is made by the Ampex Corp., is not
expected to experience any real growth.16' 17

     Merchandising Magazine provides information concerning the various
formats of audio and video products.  However,  the shipments and sales
data are based on industry-wide estimates rather than the actual output
from individual firms in the industry.  Information regarding blank
(unrecorded) audio shipments and sales is shown in Table 9-4.  In  the
audio tape market during the 1977 to 1982 period, only the cassette
segment showed growth.  Both open reel and 8-track tape have been
declining for several years because of the growing popularity of
cassette players.  The audio tape market is a mature market, which
accounts for its moderate growth.

     Information pertaining to blank and prerecorded video tape is
provided in Table 9-5.  The growth rate for both of these markets  has
been very great, exceeding 50 percent per year.  It is also evident
that the VHS format has a significantly larger  share of the market,
approximately 70 percent, than the Betamax format with 30 percent.
Since it began in 1977, the video tape market has also grown to a
considerable size.  It is a new industry and the market is unsaturated,
which explains its considerable growth.

     9.1.3.2  Foreign Trade.   It is important to recognize that the
magnetic tape market is an international market.  Although the United
States is a major producer of magnetic tape products and the most
important consumer of these products, Japan and, to a lesser extent
Europe, play a very large role in the magnetic tape market.  Worldwide,
the total value of coated tape is $4.8 billion, with the largest
segment being the video tape market.  The video tape market is the
largest of the three markets (audio, video, and computer recording
media) due in part to the great number of foreign, particularly Japan-
ese, producers in this market. 31

     In Table 9-6 the percentage shares of the major production regions
are compared for each magnetic tape category on a yardage basis and a
value basis.  The United States produces the greatest share of computer


                                 9-8

-------
       TABLE 9-3.  U.S. VALUE OF FINISHED COMPUTER RECORDING MEDIA 30
      	(Nominal Dollars)	

                        	1981	1982 (Estimate)
                                     Percent              Percent    Real
                           Value       to       Value       to      growth
                        ($ millions)  total  ($ millions)  total   (percent)3
13.3-cm (5-1/4-in.)
flexible disks
20.3-cm (8-in.) flexible
disks
Computer tape
Data cartridges
Data cassettes
Instrumentation tape
Total
101
187

358
36
11
11
704
14.3
26.5

50.9
5.1
1.6
1.6
100.0
198
247

328
40
12
10
835
23.7
29.6

39.3
4.8
1.4
1.2
100.0
85.0
24.6

-13.6
4.8
2.9
-14.2
11.9
aAdjusted for inflation by the GNP price deflator (1972 = 100).
                                   9-9

-------







<
t— t
o
LU
s

CD
z
H- 1
O
cc.
o
y°
££-<
r~~^
Of. f-H
LU OO
t— cr>
Z5 i-H
CL. 	
^r
CO •
O 00
•
Q ^5
LU
x: LU ^-~
oo :E +j
i— i 1— C
== CU
i— i Z (J
Lu i— i (_
O)
U_ 00 Q.
O LU ^-^
»— <
oo I—
o: •-•
LU _J
O •—•
330
Q 
<4- J*
O E

CU TD

fO ^
.C O
00 3




co
.*
to
•r—
0

^-^.
•
C
1
«*
^
I-H
|
Lft
t*^.*

E
O
1
CO
•
CO
1— <


o -*
E
CU
c_ •
re oo
.C •
oo •=>



4->
<4- J^
0 E

CU T3

(0 11
s§







1
1
cu
o.
IO
t—

t_
a>
-t->
3
a.
E
0
CJ



<*- ••->
o ^:
E
OJ
c_ •
IO OO
JC •
oo 3



•4->
<4- ^
0 E

CD -a
i_ i —
a) t-
JH O
oo •*




















OOOVOi-HCT^OlO 1 tj IO
CVJ rH CM r-l ,-H 0
1— 1





VO«d-OO^r*.OOlf> 1 0 llWrH
•-• rn CM 1 r~- CM














OOOVOCXiCMVOO^ 1 o IO
CO i— 1 i— I i— I O
i-H








co^-ir>iooir>r-» i o i 1 at I-H
CM rH r-l ,-H | r*. CM










1 CO CO 1 VO CO OO «* CM I-H| CTl
CM I-H CM i-H r-l V I CD









1 r-l O 1 i-H r-l CO i-H CM i-H 1 W i-H
CM«-H CSJ i— I •— I i— I v CO i— i








to
J= 0
CJ -r-
CU 4-> to
JD h- CU -
• IO C CX .
a. -w o> t- o
_ •«- IO (OO« <_J
E 0-0 0 2100
•r- t-ox CDc c:
*J O CUJ=i-
O)ZCQ>,QJ io«t «- >, a: o o
>COr-1Q^3CQcrJ CU
•r™ JC
r— IO
u c
IO -r-
«*- M-
§o
v>
u • c
"*- tO •!-
c
+j C +j
3 -r- •!-
0.*-
•M co
3 ai •(->
O CO C.
O CU
L. _C >
•r- 4-> C
CU O
JC t- 0
4-> O
<»- -a
 O 3
IO i— CO
4-> •(->
to u E
1- 3 O
cu -o t-
> 0 «l-
O (-
O. CU
cu a.
^a cu 10
J= 4J
>»4J
IO tft
E c cu
•r- CO
to 10
a> -a -c
•r- CU O
C T3 t_
IO 3 3
a.!— a.
§u
C +J
O ••— 3
.O
CU CO
E ••- CU
o a.
to to 10
CU -(->
e ••-
o t- +->
*| JL > /M •
*^— +-* fQ "
co co
10 3 U r—
CU O J2
(_ U +J IO
IO O r—
f f— g- 
4-» cu cu ic
CD t- O
-S£ O T3 •(->
t- <«- O
IO • C
ECO.
•r- I— • IO
• O CO +J
CO -o O +-> » t_ «£
I— r- uV Q.Z
IO X) U
9-4

-------

























IT)
oo
CM
CO


(O
LU
Q-
cj^
i—

0
1 — 1
Q
c£

\^
ZE
 U
a. c o 10 <-
S c t- u eu
0 « 01 Q,
0 — •







CM
CO
cn








. — in
•r- Ol •-»

_|j (O C3
CU in O
ce • —




in  O
ce »^

J3 -0
VI O) -— ^
-W 0.0
•r- 0.0

-3 •** *- -
1/1






00

cn






^- t/1

1or2!o'
4J IO O
CU  O




rs -o
in cu -^^
4-> O.O
•r- O.O
C -r- O

Wt








i*»
cn
•""*






r- I/I
(O r— O
4J 10 O
O) l/l O
OC — -


in o> ^*^
*j S.O
i- O.O
5^£
in








«s- CM ro

ro cn m
1 CM



cn CM oo

•a- o co

CM «• CM
IO VO <-H
in



«• r-. o
«a- vo r-.
 CM
-i O CM

00 OO O
CM ^H
CM
1C CM ^"
t^. -H CM
If) CO CO
r- «• CM
CO r~ co

**
cn ^- «»•
VO 00 r-H
co oo r~
1— 1 f-H
CM


en oo CM

in in r-i

cn CM cn
ro
*•*
VO O O
CO O O
cn CM vo

ro o> r^
O CM
CM


§o o
o o
O i-* O
VO VO (*™
in



§o o
o o
0 O O

O —< CM
CM "• ro
CM


o in r»-
o en oo
O oo ro
«3- -H O
«^i ^^ r^.
CO
*"»

o o o
o m *r
O CM OO
O CM CO
o ft ro
CM

4) flJ
*» CU JK:
4-> <- U
0) ro
t/1 C L.
O l/» O> *J
i- 

en
ro
VO




oo
r-


un
CM


m
CM
•— *

en
CM
vo
**

ro
en
ro
•s
VO
CM
CM
t— 1
oo

cn

**
^
S
^T
^f
CM


cn
in
CM

fm4
in
«t
IO
CO

•,

ro
CM


O
o
^4
o"
(— *

4r%


O
o
o

CO

CM


CM
00
CM
VO
ro
^^
«*

O
tn
0
m
VO
*t
CM




re*
IO
o












^.
^
[J
V)
3
•o
c


CU

Jj

c
^
I/I
1

J_

r—
(O
3

"J
**••
-Q
C

§
"-
^*
2(
0.
3
O

ie
3
O

01

m
S

i *
1/1
cu

Ol
"a.
a.
3
VI
1
>>
4J
I/I

^3
C
•f"
C
o

T3 Ol
01 Nl
tn ••-
ro 
JD
•o
S! <5
fO "^
i/) *
"5 w
in ID

?^
a c

c 
-------













GO
CO

1
CO
CO

l/J
Cfj
ft
rt*
UJ
9j
o
1 1 1
o

^^
o
Ul
o
8
OH

D_

O
SS
i^^

z
CQ
U.
O
l/o,
UJ
— 1
oo

^j
 0) QJ

O IO C-
t_ t- 0)
01 ^

•— in

15 — o"
*•» 10 o
a> in o




A "O
in cu - — *
4-> CLO
••- Q.O
C t- O

in



'S — o~
4J IO O
£ "S


a -o
in Q)~-
£§:§
5S£
in

^ ai— ~
10 — O
•u <0 O
03 in o
oS ^


JQ t3
I/I 0) -"^
+J O.O
ifs

f— in
" Q.O
•^ Q.O
e-- o
in

i— in
t- 01 	
IO r— O
4-1 ^


A T>
in  CM

CO CM
«• cn


ri 0
cn «s-
IO CM

co ro
in cn
,-H ro
4A


r*»- vo
O ^H
CM CM
CM IO
rH CM



CO »— 1
in en
o in
CO r**
CM CO
i-H CM


•-H 0
10 in
ro co
« •
en r^
o ^r
CM 00
^^ *~*

O r^
cn 10


CO 03
CM CO
O CM
10 en

ft! §
O IO
CO CM
1^ O
** "~

£ §
in «^
«»• in


§ §
o o

m o
•a- in
v»


§ §
o in

CO CM

i i



o o
O o
CM <-l

a
*~
o
ai
•o
5
ie

CD
in

10
vo


T— 1
ro
on

r-t
in
in



ro
CM
ra-
ce
ro



cn
n-
cn
O


,_<
£
IO
CM
O
IO

CM


IO

CO
in

CM
vo
* t
m

v»

IO
cn
cn


8
o
•t
in
CM
**

§
in

in

o
o
o
A
CM


O
o
o
CO








fO
o
ro c-
• •
cn ro
CM in


00 0

CM cn

ro ro
—< cn
.-1 CM




O O
10 m
cn in
M •»
—• «a-



^ *^
CM O
f» CM
S S
fl CM


ro en
«• CM
10 in
~H CO
IO CM
CM CO
10 en
« •!
cn cn
10 ro


CO CO
CM CM
1 °.
•-• CM

<-i cn
in co
CM r->
10 en


IO CM
o in
cn CM
"-"


i i
i i




i i
i i



u u





u u


sJ
X> 10
01 *->
O 0)
u t>  Ol z
oi co a>
a.
IO

CM
in


00
i«*
CM


O

4^-



O
«— 4
in

icT



CO
CM
en
en
ro
*»


CM
•-4
m
S
l/>
*
s
CM


<—*
m

CO

o
cn
CO
m
J»

CO
in
rH
A
CM


1
1




§
OJ
•»
I— f







u








•0
o









*
X,
c

V)
3
•a

,—
OJ

*j

c:
•^
U1
y-
(0
3

>
-a
c

^
3
ei.
3
O

IO
3

U
IO
c
%
u.
JZ

ol
~s

'a. oo
o. r*»
3 0\
(/» t-4
? =
in c
3 10
•0 Cn
C 01
c in
o ai
• ex
-O 

-------
















CO
1 1 1
ULJ
Q.
^
t
( ) ^^
I-H
(— ir
UJ O
en to
et UJ ^-^
s: a: +J
U. O O)
O i— i U
3= C-
Z Q. O)
o 
L. C


o
•r-
*7^
-3
i^r






a>
a.
ro
^
 X> -r-
3 t. -a
Q. O O)
E 0 E
o ai
0 «-




o
O)
-o

>


o

v>*
3







o o^
• •
CO O
CO «3-



CM LO
• •
CM LO
CO 00




O CM
LO CO
CM CM


CTi 00
• •
r**1* oo
*— i i— i





O^ t~~i
• •
CO IO
CO CO




r^ un
• •
0 0
OO 00







*3- CM
• •
vo •*
CM CM



00 00
Q 4
CO i-H
CM CM

• OO OO
^C CTi CTi
• r— I i— I
•
ID
vo co r- r-» r^ •-<
• • • • • •
vo o <* co LO LO
"* "* ^ ^



O CM l*~ CO i-H
» • • • •
«3- «S- CO O O 1
i-H t-H




LO i-H CO  i-H 00
co r-v CM LO ^r co
LO LO i-H


1^^ ^j* ^^ ^^  r^> oo co
• • • • • •
co r-. oo LO co i-i
CO CO i-H ^H i-H i— 1




00 CM •* CO i-H
• • • • •
I-H i— i r^. co o i
i— 1 I-H







CM I-H «a- en o oo
• • • • • •
CT> O^ CO uO i—* O
LD  CM «* LO co
CM CO CM CM CM i-H
TJ
i— I O i— 1 O <*- rH O
CO OO QJ CO OO O CO CO
c en en r^ en en en en
IXJ i-H 1-H O •""• «~* +J "^ * ^
Q. C_ «/)
ro 3 
•-3 U) O£
9-12

-------
recording media (80 percent of the market) but is surpassed by Japan in
the production of audio and video tape.  The Japanese hold approximately
60 percent of the video tape market but Japanese production appears to
be declining. 31  The Japanese share of coated audio tape also fell
but its share on a value basis remained constant.  Japanese producers
are apparently losing their market share of video tape as more companies
enter the market, but are able to keep audio prices high despite their
loss of market share on a yardage basis.39

     Table 9-7 shows the total production of flexible disks by major
producing regions.  Although the United States produces the majority of
flexible disks, the U.S. has lost considerable market share to Japan
between 1979 and 1982.  It is estimated that the Japanese produced  only
4 percent of the total supply of flexible disks in 1979 compared with
22 percent in 1982.  The market for flexible disks in Japan has been
very small, but as word processors become more common in Japan it is
expected that flexible disk usage will grow very rapidly.  It is
expected that Japanese production of flexible disks will increase to
meet the growing demand both in Japan and in other markets.  Although
the United States is presently a large exporter of flexible disks,  by
1985 it is predicted that the U.S. will be an importer with most of the
imports being mini flexible and microflexible disks produced in Japan. ko

9.1.4  Total Demand

     9.1.4.1  Demand by End Use.  The data processing industry has
experienced exceptional growth in recent years.  Because of the link
between computers and storage devices, the demand for magnetic media
products follows computer sales.  The trends in sales related to
computer capacity are of particular importance because such trends
dictate media requirements. Over the last 5 years, sales of mainframe
computers have been losing their market share to minisystems and
microsystems.  This trend is apparent in Table 9-8, which shows the
sales of different types of computers from 1979 to 1980.  This increase
in growth of the minicomputers and microcomputers has influenced the
growth rate of products servicing these markets.  The use of flexible
disks for small computers and for word processors has increased drama-
tically since their introduction by IBM in 1973.t|1  Flexible disks
were readily accepted because of their low cost and rapid access time.
This trend will be strengthened by the introduction of the personal
computers, which are basically microcomputers and are used by small
businesses as well as in households.  The large computers still dominate
the market in terms of dollar sales but their growth rate is signifi-
cantly less than the other categories.  Although the computer tape
market is a very large market with considerable demand, it is a mature
market that is expected to reach a peak in demand by 1983-84 followed
by a rapid decline starting in 1987 as a new generation of tape products
enter the market.  These new products will include new types of computer
tape, which will  have higher capacity than the current format, together
with new drives on which to use them. "***
                                  9-13

-------
    TABLE 9-7.  ESTIMATED WORLD PRODUCTION OF FINISHED FLEXIBLE DISKS
                          BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, 1979-1982 "*2
   	(Million Units)	
                                                                 1982
                                  1979      1980      1981    (Estimate)
United States
  (Percent of World)
   43        78       124        183
 (91.4)     (85.7)     (78.0)     (71.7)
Japan
  (Percent of World)
    2         9        26         56
  (4.3)      (9.9)    (16.4)     (22.0)
Europe
  (Percent of World)
    2         4         9         16
  (4.3)      (4.4)     (5.6)      (6.3)
World (Total)
   47        91       158        255
(100.0)    (100.0)   (100.0)    (100.0)
By Size of Disk
   5-1/4 in.
     (Percent of World)
   11        25        67        140
 (23.4)     (27.5)    (42.4)     (54.9)
   8 in..
     (Percent of World)
   36        66        91        115
 (76.6)     (72.5)    (57.6)     (45.1)
Total
   47
91
158
255
                                    9-14

-------
           TABLE 9-8.   SALES OF  COMPUTERS  BY MAJOR CATEGORIES43
                                 (Nominal  dollars)
1979
Computer
category
Mainframes
Minicomputers
Microcomputers
Word Processors
Total
(Million)
$13,312
6,916
416
538
$21,182
Share of
market
(percent)
62.8
32.7
2.0
2.5
100.0
1980
(Million)
$15,148
8,840
769
881
$25,638
Share of
market
(percent)
59.1
34.5
3.0
3.4
100.0
Real growth3
(percent)
4.1
16.9
69.2
49.8
Adjusted for inflation  by  the  6NP price deflator (1972 = 100).
                                   9-15

-------
     In the audio equipment market,  of the three  major  products  (cas-
sette, 8-track, and open reel),  only cassette equipment has  shown  an
increase in demand during the 1978 to 1982 period as  shown  in  Table
9-9.  Cassette players continue  to be popular in  all  formats with
portable tape units having the largest share of the market.  Sales of
8-track equipment have declined  significantly due to  the increasing
popularity of the cassette players.   The open reel players  are found
only in the more sophisticated tape  decks and have also declined  in
sales.

     As expected, the demand for blank audio cassette tapes  is much
greater than either open reel or 8-track tape, as was shown  in Table
9-4. There are two types of audio cassette tape:   premium and  promo-
tional or low budget cassette tapes.  The promotional tape  is  generally
marketed for the teenage population, but as this  teenage population
declines in size, so have the sales  of promotional tape. As a result,
there is greater demand for premium  tape; this trend  is expected  to
continue.45  Other reasons for the greater popularity of premium
tapes are consumer dissatisfaction with low budget tapes and a general
increase in the income of people who purchase more expensive high
fidelity equipment.

     The demand for video tape has changed considerably in  recent years
with the availability of consumer video cassette  recorders  (VCR's)
beginning in 1976.  Between 1978 and 1982, the number of VCR's shipped
by manufacturers increased fivefold  from approximately  400  thousand
units in 1978 to more than 2 million in 1982.33  The  demand  for  video
tapes has been growing dramatically  following the trend of  rising
purchases of VCR's.  The greatest demand is for the VHS format,  with
approximately 70 percent of the market, as compared to  30 percent for
the Beta format.146 It was estimated  that in 1977  approximately 56
percent of video tape manufacturer sales went to  the  consumer  market,
27 percent to video duplicators, 11  percent to governmental  agencies,
and 6 percent to large industrial customers.47 Although a  more
recent distribution of sales is not  available, present  sales to  the
consumer market probably make up 80  percent of the market and  sales  to
duplicators 20 percent.48

     9.1.4.2  Elasticity of Demand.   Magnetic tape products  and  the
hardware (computer equipment, and audio or video  recorders)  are  compli-
mentary products whose demand is derived from the desire or final
demand for information storage and entertainment  services.   However,
the demand for magnetic tape is also dependent upon the price  and
availability of the hardware.

     Demand for commercial computer  tape is likely to be quite inelastic,
reflecting the relatively fixed number of large computers with tape
drives.  Tape represents only a small portion of  the  cost of the
computer output and therefore the amount of tape  used is less  sensitive
to price than the availability of the hardware.  Also,  there are few
alternative products that can be used.  This situation  is similar for
specially designed flexible disks required by many of the smaller
                                9-16

-------
             TABLE 9-9.  SHIPMENTS OF AUDIO EQUIPMENT33
                              (No. of units; 103)

Cassette equipment
Automotive
Tape decks
Compact high
fidelity
Portable tape
Units
Total
8-Track equipment
Automotive
Tape decks
Compact high
fidelity
Portable tape
units
Total
Open reel equipment
Tape decks
1978

2,955
440
383
14,579
18,357

4,700
95
3,741
1,598
10,134

115
1979

3,580
495
1,308
19,141
24,524

4,300
72
2,765
1,157
8,294

108
1980

3,913
545
1,470
22,411
28,339

3,096
68
2,242
955
6,361

103
1981

4,228
634
1,501
27,226
33,589

2,638
60
1,877
867
5,442

90
1982

4,576
707
1,648
27,346
34,277

2,012
49
1,158
704
3,923

80
Compound
annual
growth
rate
(percent)




16.9




-21.1

- 8.7
Total  all  equipment  28,606   32,926   34,803   39,121    38,280     7.6
                                   9-17

-------
computers.  Rigid disks are an alternative storage media  in  many
situations but flexible disks have similar capabilities at  less cost.

     The demand for commercial audio tape (i.e.,  mastering  tape)  and
video tape (i.e., broadcasting tape) is also likely to be inelastic.
However, the consumer market for video products is growing  rapidly  and
therefore will play a more important role in determining  elasticity of
demand.

     For all three segments of the magnetic tape  industry,  demand for
consumer magnetic tape products is more elastic than demand  for com-
mercial magnetic tape products.  This situation exists for  two  reasons:
(1) consumer magnetic tape products, such as video games, video movies,
computer games, and audio cassettes, are luxury items, not  necessities;
and (2) there are a variety of substitute products for these items  such
as records, commercial or cable TV, radio, and movie theatres.  Therefore,
the consumer has other options to choose from or  can refrain altogether
from purchasing magnetic tape products.

     9.1.4.3  Substitutes and New Technologies.  Substitutions  in all
segments of the magnetic tape industry are made on the basis of the
characteristics of either the hardware or various magnetic  tape products.
Once a hardware decision has been made, no substitutions  among  tape
products are possible; the magnetic tape product  is dictated by the
hardware drive unit.  However, hardware choices themselves  are  some-
times dictated by a preference of one type of magnetic tape product
over another on the basis of handling, physical storage  requirements,
storage capacity, and cost.   In the video market, substitutions also
exist as a result of competition with movies and  television.  This
market is relatively new so it can be expected that new  technologies
will be emerging.

     New technologies are continuously emerging in the computer and
video industry.  In the computer industry, there is a trend to  increase
the storage capacity of the established sizes of flexible disks and to
decrease the size of the flexible disk drives.t*9  Another important
development is the microflexible disk which is expected  to  be a major
factor in the overall flexible media field beginning in  1983 or 1984.50

     There are many new technologies that are in various  stages of
development in the computer media industry.  Two of these alternate
technologies are important because they may be a threat  to  the  magnetic
media industry in the future:51

      1.  Optical mass storage systems.  These systems use laser
          technology and have storage densities approximately 1,000
          times greater than magnetic media.  There are  still major
          hardware and software problems to be resolved  before  they can
          be available for general use.

      2.  Semiconductor memories.  Random access memories (RAM)  provide
          extremely fast access time, about a million times faster  than
                                  9-18

-------
          magnetic media.  However, the storage capability is signifi-
          cantly less than presently available magnetic media, and the
          cost is much higher.

     In the video market, one new development is the video disk player,
which uses optics for storage and play.  Current demand for the video
disk player is not known, but one source estimates that by 1988, 18
million homes in the U.S. will have video disk players as compared to
13 million homes which will have video tape recorders. 52

9.1.5  Prices

     Prices for various magnetic tape products vary significantly
because they are not homogeneous products.  The prices vary according
to the market, quantity purchased, and quality as well as according to
distribution outlet (manufacturer, distributor, or retailer).  Table
9-10 shows the wholesale or distributor price for a variety of magnetic
tape products for 1983.  These prices were obtained by directly contact-
ing several distributors.  Manufacturers' prices are not available due
to the secretive nature of the industry.  There are a considerable
number of products, so only selected products under each category are
included.  These prices are for products from a variety of manufactur-
ers.  The prices for magnetic tape products are generally similar from
one manufacturer to another although there are regional price differ-
ences.  Price differences for the same product can generally be attrib-
uted to quality differences or to specialized product specifications.
There are some audio tapes, for example, which can be used for a
variety of purposes and others that are specifically manufactured for a
particular use such as high fidelity recording.  Although these are
wholesale prices, the high price that is listed can be used as an
approximate retail price for many of the products because of price
cutting at the retail level.

     In the computer segment of the industry, product quality is of
critical importance.  Any flaw in the product could result in stored
information being lost or data being misinterpreted.  As a result, the
user could incur a very significant expense.  A company with a poor
reputation for quality would find it difficult to compete.  Therefore,
an unusual relationship exists between price and quality in that
quality is of paramount importance.  Price is of less importance than
quality to both equipment suppliers and end users.25  However, there
is significant price competition in the computer recording media
industry, particularly in the flexible disk market.  For example,
prices for 13.3-cm (5-1/4-in.) miniflexible disks fell in 1982 compared
to 1981 as a result of a large increase in production of the miniflex-
ible disk.  This relieved competitive pressures on pricing for the
20.3-cm (8-in.) disk.  Prices for 20.3-cm (8-in.) flexible disks have
remained stable.  Prices for 1.3-cm (1/2-in.) reel tape have been
stable because it is a relatively mature market.  Data cassettes and
data cartridges are expected to experience increased demand which will
cause prices to rise but after 1987 these products will probably
decline in use.53
                                  9-19

-------
         TABLE 9-10.  DISTRIBUTORS' PRICES OF SELECTED FINISHED
                               MAGNETIC TAPE PRODUCTS3» 54~56
	(1983)	

                                                 Range of prices ($/Unit)
                                                 	(nominal)	
                                                      Low       Hi gh


Audio
Open Reel
     18-cm  (7-in.) Plastic reel; 549-m (1,800-ft);    10.10     11.95
         EE  Format

     27-cm  (10-1/2-in.) Metal reel; 1,097-m          26.50     32.65
         3,600-ft); EE Format

     18-cm  (7-in.) Plastic reel; 366-m                5.85      6.75
         (1,200-ft); backcoated

     27-cm  (10-1/2-in.) Metal reel; 762-m            16.40     18.28
         (2,500-ft); backcoated

8-Track

    46 minutes                                        2.03      2.32
    60 minutes                                        2.27      2.52
    90 minutes                                        2.56      2.74


Cassettes

    46 minutes; metal                                 2.69      5.25
    60 minutes; metal                                 2.96      5.83
    60 minutes; normal bias                           1.10      2.59
    90 minutes; normal bias                           1.52      4.39
    120 minutes; normal bias                           1.96      4.11
Video
VMS
T30: 1 h running time
T60: 2 h running time
T90: 3 h running time
T120: 4 h running time


7.20
8.17
9.03
9.69


10.15
11.92
13.05
14.85
                                                                 continued
                                   9-20

-------
                          TABLE 9-10.  Continued
                                                 Range of prices ($/Unit)
                                                 	(nominal)	
                                                      Low       Hi gh
Beta
L250: 1 h running time
L500: 2 h running time
L750: 3 h running time

5.53
7.68
9.34

8.77
11.66
14.10
Computer

Floppy Disks

    20.3 cm (8-in.) single sided                                3.60
    20.3 cm (8-in.) double sided                                4.20
    13.34 cm (5-1/4-in.) single sided                 2.60      3.38
    13.34 cm (5-1/4-in.) double sided                 3.70      4.20

Data Cassettes

    10 minutes                                                  1.55
    15 minutes                                                  1.70
    90 minutes                                                  3.93


aThe products listed include some but not all  of the magnetic tape
 products within each category.  These products represent a variety of
 manufacturers  and a range of quality specifications.   Generally, the
 low end of the price range represents a lower quality  product while the
 high end represents a higher quality or a more specialized product.  If
 a range of prices is not available (i.e., only price data for one
 manufacturer and one product type is known),  then a single price  (high)
 is shown.
                                  9-21

-------
     Competition in the magnetic media industry is  very  strong.   Retail
prices of audio and video products are shown in Table 9-11.   These
prices are derived from industry estimates of total  retail  sales  and
number of units shipped shown in two earlier tables  (Tables  9-4 and
9-5). They are average prices representing a variety of  products  within
each category; they do not represent the prices of  any particular
brand.  Prices for cassettes and 8-track show little movement during
the 1977 to 1982 period while open reel  prices have  increased. Over  a
long period of time, strong price competition would  cause the overall
trend in prices to be relatively stable, although specific product
prices may fluctuate significantly in the short term. These fluctua-
tions are mainly a result of price wars  and/or the  entry of new products.

     Particularly in the audio segment there is extensive price competi-
tion from suppliers from Japan and Hong  Kong in the  lower quality
promotional tape products. *7 These suppliers reduce their prices of
the lower quality tape in order to maintain sales volume and their
market share.58  Price increases that have occurred  are  a result  of
inflationary pressures.  For one company, Certron,  the prices of  its
promotional audio cassettes declined during 1982 due to  foreign compe-
tition but prices increased for its higher quality  products.5^

      In the video market, an unusual situation occurred  through  1981  in
that although demand for video tape far exceeded supply, prices at the
retail level declined.  Despite the higher prices that retailers  could
get for videotapes, prices were evidently discounted to  increase  the
physical volume of video tape and recorders sold in  order to enhance
the future growth in the demand and sales of video  tape  products.
However, by 1982 prices appeared to be leveling off, although some
companies with new factories lowered prices in order to  enter the
market.60  The supply problem in 1982 was less severe, but price
cutting at the retail level still occurred, particularly for lower
quality tape.  One manufacturer felt that June 1982 retail prices,
which ranged from $12 to $15 per tape, represented  the lowest level  to
which prices would fall.46

     The price situation of video tape is most likely related to  the
supply and demand characteristics of video cassette recorders.  Since
the introduction of VCR's in the late 1970's, sales have been increasing
significantly.  However, by 1982 an oversupply of VCR's  occurred  which
was attributed to the flood of Japanese imports and the  recession.
This  situation resulted in significant price reductions  for VCR's.61
Therefore, the price cutting for tape products that occurred in  1982 is
a reasonable reaction to the pricing situation of VCR's.

9.1.6  Growth Projections

      9.1.6.1  Projected Product Demand.  The U.S. magnetic tape manufac-
turing industry should experience significant growth over the 5 years.
There will be different rates of growth, however, within each segment
of the industry (audio, video, and computer).
                                  9-22

-------
   TABLE 9-11.  DERIVED RETAIL PRICES OF BLANK AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPE3
                                Nominal ($/Unit)

Audio tape
Cassette
Open reel
8-Track
Video tape
Beta
VHS
1977 1978

1.62 2.55
3.42 6.28
2.08 2.41

b 15.00
b 20.00
1979

1.96
7.89
1.81

16.00
19.00
1980

2.23
8.44
1.88

15.00
18.00
1981

2.38
8.74
1.57

13.68
16.23
1982

2.38
8.47
1.63

13.00
15.00
aNominal prices were derived from Tables 9-4 and 9-5 by dividing reported
 retail sales by the total number of units shipped.
bNot available.
                                   9-23

-------
     The projected growth rates for the various computer storage media
products are shown in Table 9-12.  It should be noted  that  these growth
projections are based upon the opinions of various  experts  and  there-
fore, some degree of uncertainty should be attached to these  growth
estimates. All categories show significant growth except for  cassettes,
which show a decline.  As expected, flexible disks, in particular  the
13.3-cm (5-1/4-in.) disk, are projected to show the largest growth
during the 5-year period from 1980 to 1985.  Their  share of the market
should increase to the point where flexible disk sales will represent
more than half of the market.  The growth rate for  computer tape in  the
1980's is expected to be only moderate because mainframe computers have
been losing their share of the market to the minicomputers  and  micro-
computers.  The overall real growth in volume for the  computer  media
market should be substantial, approximately 20 to 25 percent  on an
annual basis.

     The audio tape market is a mature market with  only the cassette
segment showing moderate growth.  The 8-track and open reel markets
have been declining over the years, as shown on Table  9-4.  The cause
of this decline is primarily competition from cassette tapes, which  are
equal in quality, competitively priced, and more compact.  Because the
overall growth in the audio equipment market has been  small (see Table
9-9), the overall real growth of the audio tape market will probably be
relatively small.

     The video media market is still in the early stages of development
and has experienced tremendous growth in recent years.  From  1978  to
1982, there was a 50 percent annual growth rate in  the number of VCR
units shipped.  Therefore, an equivalent increase in demand for video
tapes during this period might be expected.  It is  expected that high
growth will continue throughout the decade.  However,  the growth rate
for future sales is likely to decline as the market matures.   Different
sources of data provide a variety of estimates of growth rates  for
blank video tape.  Most of these estimates range from  25 to 40  percent
per year. 63~67 These estimates are based mostly on unit sales
increases, so they are expressed in real terms.  A  conservative estimate
of the growth in volume for this market is approximately 25 percent per
year.

      9.1.6.2  Projected New Sources.  An estimate of the number of
new sources in the magnetic tape industry was made  based upon informa-
tion  from 20 of the 29 plants in the industry.  These  plants  provided
estimates of their expansion plans between 1984 and 1989.  Fifteen
plants (75 percent) responded that they planned to  build at least  one
new line.  The total number of new lines projected  by  the 15  plants was
20, or an average of 1.3 new lines per plant.  In order to project the
total new lines industry wide, these factors can be applied to  the 29
plants in the industry.   If it is assumed that 75 percent, or 22
plants, would each be adding 1.3 new lines, then there would  be a  total
of 28 new lines by 1989.  Of the 28 new lines, 7 lines are expected to
be constructed in  1984, before proposal of the NSPS.  These lines  are
subtracted from the projected 28 new lines resulting in a projection of
                                  9-24

-------




CvJ
cC

uu
o.
^_
(—
>-
co

c
LU
^~
j^
UJ
CD

1 1 1
—I
«-y"t
<



(O
i— CU

T3 0) <0
c t_ t_
3
o r- _c
Q. 
E 3 3C
o c o
0 C J-
(O CD






m
oo
CT>
I—I






 (u

-C ITS Q.
oo E -^-


^-^
c
0
-r~
s
v=^







o
00
C7^
1




<4_ ^-^
0 4J
4_> c
CO CO CO
«- _^£ (_)
ra t- u
JT IO CO
oo E a.



•r—
•r-
«^




tn


t-n *a-
• •
o co
r^ i-i

l~~ * O O Cft
• • • • •
CM r-- in m CM
r-l CO 1 OO CM




l*~ m 1^- r-l O
• • • • •
rj r? vo o
<* m o
r-H
m ^-Icn
• • 1 «
vo cnkn
00 CO KM
m CM no

m CT> m t>~. ID
oo m o oo co
s s - * i
n
i-^
^>


oo m ^ GO o
* * • ^^
S SI CM CO 0


CM mK.
* • [ •
r-i r^- ho
"*tf* CM frO
O f~ <£> o CO
• • • • •
OO OO CO CM CM
jo u> r-i CM fi:
CO r-l u,
^J

X— N. ^-— ^
c c
•r- -r—
CM ^-7 g,
^. ^^ c -n
r-l W r-H .,_ .~
>— Jk£ 1 CO t.
v) in oo i — 4-> j_>
E •. 	 -^- « *j t_
U TD 4J CO ro
„ E E O vt o
CO CO O O 4-> V)
r-i JD CO CO "3 0 "«0
OJ XCOCD^ 10 .tf 3;
Q. 
f— i
•o
S
1 0
00
CT>
r-l
CO
^C
t %
•4M
f—


"S
•»->
o
ai

(O
x>
a>
(O
(^
CO
4J
4^

T3
CO
M

«J
en
r™
4^
<0
9-25

-------
21 new lines to be regulated under the proposed  NSPS.   Based  upon
industry information, six (27 percent) of the new lines will  be  6  in.
in width, eight (40 percent) will  be in the 12 or 13 in. range,  and
seven (33 percent) will  be in the  20 to 26 in. range.   It  is  estimated
that 1 (5 percent) of the new lines will  be used for research and  20
(95 percent) of the new lines will produce primarily video and computer
recording media products.  Due to  the very small growth rate  anticipated
for the audio tape market, no new  lines are expected to be used  for
audio tape production.

     9.1.6.3  Reconstruction and Modification of Sources.   No major
additions to the equipment or changes in the process that  would  be
subject to regulation by the proposed NSPS are projected for  the
next 5 years.  It is very difficult to estimate  the actual useful  life,
and therefore the need for replacement of magnetic tape coating  equip-
ment.  Most of the existing equipment in the magnetic tape coating
industry is less than 15 years old, but some lines are 30 years  old  and
are still operating.  Similar process equipment  in other web  coating
industries has a life span of 20 to 30 years, but 50-year-old equipment
is still in operation. 68-72 Generally, owners tend to maintain and
repair existing lines rather than  replace entire lines.  For  these
reasons, no modification and reconstruction is projected for  the next 5
years.  Definitions of reconstruction and modification are discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 5.

9.1.7  Financial Profile

     Financial information for the years 1980 through 1982 for most  of
the companies in the magnetic media industry is  presented  in  Table
9-13.  There are an additional 6 companies that  do not appear in this
table because no information is available.  These 6 companies are all
privately held and are as follows:  American Video Tape, Spectrotape,
Syncom, TRI, Brown Disk Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Malco Plastics
Co.

     Some of the companies listed  in Table 9-13  did not provide  data
regarding their tape producing subsidiaries.  In these cases, financial
data for the parent company are presented.  All  of the companies, large
and small, show a strong financial position as evidenced by their
return on sales ratio (operating profit/revenues) and return  on  invest-
ment ratio (operating profit/assets).  Although  1982 was not  as  profit-
able as previous years for many of these companies, their financial
position is still strong.
9.2    ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

9.2.1  Introduction

     The following sections examine the economic impact of the proposed
magnetic tape New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) on the audio,
video, and computer recording media products markets.  Model plants are
                                  9-26

-------

o
in
I
OO
UJ
r— 1

Q.
O
CJ
CD
O
Q
O
o:
o.

UJ
_i
O.
cX
r—

O
i — i
UJ
U3
^C
^
o:
o
u_

oo
C_3
1 — 1


GO
t — i
I—

| —
GO


O
z:
> — i
u.
UJ
00
1
1
01

UJ
— 1
OQ
«=c


u
i •
a>
c
01
£
n
a
o
o

c
Be
t- O
01 U
u


^g
C
*"*
IO
JJ
Q.
O



U.


*°











X
Ol
I















"0,0 _--
0)00 C
L. -um O
1- -0 j-^
3SES
O e-»- v»
U


*•— »
«n
|
^
%"— *
* "
Q £ ^> "^
u •*« * o
t_ **^»
O "0 a<£ •—
^-  U
m f^-.
en o
CO *-•
i^TrC




u^ ^
»^ 

0)
QC



IACOCM 0>COCO
*—* o ^* eo »^ o*
n «• ^r iO<* CM
CM CW CM



o o o o o o
CM 9^ O) OO r^ CO
10 t** vo *o vo *o
vH v^ *^



O-O- U Ch UO -« t— » ^"
«• Ch 10
*-« — < Ift CO
CM" CM




C> CM u u f*> r>. u en to
CO •—•**} W CM
r*. O en cwo
m ^ r^> *-H
r-Tr-T




CM o en r>« vo «-<
fO ^- »rt CO CO CM
^^ *-H i^» O r*» co
»— t OJ i-^ VO VO <*
•. •> *
ro f^j ro




pocnm r~vam
CD PO CM cn to CJT*
CM «T u» o cn r*.

CM ^-t O CM<-4O CM —* O
CT* cn 01 cn o> cn o> CT> cn


01
t_ o» 
 *— £ «» O Ol «rt
Of U ,O tfl
Of Q. *t



VOCM CO
l^O O




VO^- — *
CM ro cn




OO u
CM CM






u ••* *o
w «






m o r—
CM «• rn








com in
*r eo o


CM ^4 O
CO CO CO
cncn en




o> -~*
c -^. cu *J
— 47 3 c
*>•»- C 01
a <*- 01 o
u o > <.
a; t. ot 01
0.0. t. a.



r- >O»H
X VO CO




m v m
in ^ vo




MOO
vo vo






om o
vo r^






— CO -4
mm in








1^—00
in 1^1 cn


CM «-* O
CO CO CO
en cncn




0>^ £•
•»- u 
-------























•o
o>
3

£
C
o
tj


•
r-l
0>
UJ
_J
CQ























c
o
«/>



«-
N
u-
o.



ce.
z


X
Q)
C_
O
E
O)







CO
"™^



u
•"•
L>
•»-
01
c
C71
E
nj
.c
!f
«>











?



£
v»
•*if
c
0
£
1^

~
c
o
~
^
5
. id
C 1. <-
8£<3'=r
o
O O> .<= r—

 CO
|
^~

3:
**
*™-'
o •
t/> • • CX
i-HoT
*• o
L. OJ —
O -D r— —
— ro£ iE
m 13 i-
o"~o ^
H-

?
^
^~
IE











VJ Ch CO



in oo
^ CO


VO f^. CO
CO Crt O^
in ^ CM
^ CM O

co ro co

c*j r*. ^>
VO CM CM
CAJ ro CM
m ^ ro
CO CO CO

CO ^- ^>
vo in CM
CO O O

^ CO CM




O 0 0
^C O CO

CO O CM
^T ^ ^Q"
CO CM CM


Ol CO CO
t*^ vo C3
P«- O CO
cr> «• co






m m r-»
O CM CM

CM *-* O
CO CO CO




VI
OJ
3
c
OJ
or
u en o»
• *
*-« CM

m in



CM ro o
^ro 2
m ^ ^



CO CM ^>
o>co vo
^•co ^


•&•&
I/) ^-1 O r-l •-* I*1
<• vo in <• ^
in ^ r** in co
r-H r-l CM i-l





CM O* O O O O
CO CO CS C5 CO
in co co vo CM
r^ r-t Ch CM r-H
r** vo in



co vo r-.
CM vo co






CM O VO
O CO CO
r-t «— 1
OJ — • O CM **H O
CO CO CO CO CO CO
cr* 01 01 01 o> 01
VI
(~ 
I/I tO O

3 O) 4J r— J-» t.
C Q. C Q. "- O
>— E *0 00)
OJ ^ Xl
o vo in

in o\
in r*.
Oi PS.
V CO


rs.*^ P-^
00 P^ CO
r* vo co

CO CO CO

O in in
co vo vo
CO CO CO
CO CO CO

P-* ^ r-.
CO Ol ^>
CM co m
"1* ^
*t- ^ co




o o o
r-* Px. r-l
<3- O CO
I/) r-H GO
CM 01 vo
co CM CM


in P^. co
co in vo
CO CM 0\
CM CM ^H






Ol VO <9-
CO CM CM
CO CO CO
CO CO CO






vt
•M
0)
VI
vt
u •«* o

CM CO
r-* i— 1




co in in
in co co




CM«O- r-
CVJ O CO



com vo
r-t P»» ^1







^H in co
CO r-l r-*
CM CM CM





CM «a- co
r-l VO CNJ






in 01 co
^r r*«« co

CM r-* O
CO CO CO
Ch 01 Oi




c -^ ai 4->
'f- 4J 3 C
4-> -r- C OJ
(Q If- OJ VJ
t- O > t_
OJ fc- 0) GU
c§"CL u-3
0»-H CO







mo CM
^•CM CM




r^. vo vo
CMO CO



cOr^. in
•—•• m co







vmfo
^ r-* <— 1
CM CM CM





in in co
CO Ol «W-
r-l CM CNJ






«— i o\ vn
O Ol vO
CO CO CM
CM r^ C3
CO CO CO
oS 01 01




O> -"""1
f— 4_) I/I C
4_> f— 44 QJ
«*»- 
 ai
a. o. 
-------

















"O
cu
3
c
c:
0
CO



CO
1
CT>
uu
— 1
CQ
*t
1—
































a.
£
X
1
•o
C



















C
—
X

^™^
i •
"O >> u *"""
a c c c
L- J-> l_ ~ O
"SJ^'E
'B'O ex
4J VI •• O
o c E — «*
h- O C *J • — •
C 3— »
O
•^
Z
jP

**



c
o
£


J^

_
1
£
•1-
*

• —





c
o
~
•*-
z:

V*



















«*m
CO CO CO
Q\ r»» in




rj-in a*
r^ co to





CM en O
«-^co






^H CO ^H
m co o
co m in





0 O O O O 0
^* CO O O O fO
O O 00 CO Ol CO
to in o co to in

=3 3 0) -U »—
C C Q, C CL
A)  >t— E rtj
01 0)
Q£  O ••* O rv u

*-* m ro co





O O O OO 0
^ co in -v CM •-*
^H m co «-•* CM \o
O ^t ^- m^- o
,-t ,-1 _* m in m








^ to r-*. to in co
co o O r^vo O
CM CM ••* CM CO »-^
•v co (M CM cn ^*







CM —1 O CM r-t O




OJ
X

•*-*
U) (Ll
•*J C. (A
C«£ «J
0 CU tn
i_ Ji wi
Q. <

•»cor*
CM CM CM




oco m
cor- co





r-ir> u
CM ^
•^1 CM





coo >o
10 CM CO





•9T.IA
in i"*- en










in CD — .
O co m
C\J —. -H








CM ^^ O
CO CO CO
ch cn cn







en —
c -^ 01 *>
•^ *> 3 c
*J -^- C 0)
(O 1- o> U
t- o > t-
Ol U 01 OI

c? -.^

COO 0
CM CM




CK.-K9-
^4 «— *





^* o> o
co r-
•-« CM





V 00 O
co CM m
CM





«-co ^r
00 -" CO
<-H CM CM










in CM r-
^r «*• cn
CO CO CM








CO OO CO
en cn en







eft "^
c -^ -u
19 C 0) O
I- O l/l t-
Ol L. VI Ol
CL O. m Q.
o • —




























+*
c
cu
(*) E
oo cn
cn tfj
^4 VI
Q,
r^ ex
fa
OJ
^ *-
O O


O > jo
O <0 3 <0
irt ft. CX-^
m • to 10
U • "•» >
•o M it u C
o •
4>O 00 «*- a;
cno O O c •—
c " • • ••- ^
(O *— * «— * »— * 
• * » C  =) 3 15

tl.
O OH

ti ja u

















•
I/)
4_>
u
3
L.
ex
&
ID
4J
o
Ot
•s
">
^
o
o
i

o
c
.
>,

*c
o


u
L.
a/
4J
3
ex
§
(J

V)
Qj

u
c

^
9-29

-------
developed to represent facilities in these three markets and used to
compute the impact of the compliance costs on the industry.

       Section 9.2.3 presents an analysis of the market conditions for
each of the three magnetic tape markets.  Model  plant parameters are
developed in Section 9.2.4 and baseline costs explained.  Section 9.2.5
discusses the selection of regulatory alternatives to be included in
the analysis.  In Section 9.2.6 estimates of the economic impacts of
the NSPS are provided for each of the three markets.  The final  Section
9.2.7 discusses the ability of firms to afford the necessary capital
expenditures associated with the NSPS.

9.2.2  Summary

     An NSPS regulation will increase the capital and operating  costs
for new facilities in the magnetic tape industry relative to existing
magnetic tape production facilities because additional control  equip-
ment will have to be installed.  As a result, certain changes can be
expected in the three magnetic tape markets (audio, video, and  computer
recording media products).

     Little or no growth is forecast for the audio tape market  (as
discussed in Section 9.1.6.), so it can be assumed that additional
lines will not be added at existing facilities nor will new facilities
be built.  Therefore, the proposed NSPS will not affect the audio tape
market.  However, in the event that a new source enters the market,
production costs are likely to increase from less than 1 percent
to 2.69 percent depending upon the size of the operation and type of
installed control device.  At the retail level these additional  produc-
tion costs are likely to boost product prices from 0.2 percent  to 0.5
percent if all costs are passed forward.  These increases are minimal
and would have little impact on production, consumption, or employment
in the industry.

     The video tape market, however, is growing at a significant rate;
21 new lines for the production of both video and computer recording
media products are expected over the next 5 years.  Because foreign
competition is a major factor in this market, it is expected that most
of the compliance costs will be absorbed by the industry.  Production
cost increases as a result of the NSPS would range from 0 to 0.5
percent depending upon the regulatory alternative selected, the size of
the line and the initial baseline.  When added to other production and
marketing costs including a reasonable profit margin, the impact of the
NSPS on retail prices is negligible, ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 percent.

     The computer recording media market is also in a high growth stage
but foreign competition is not significant at present.  Therefore,
manufacturers are expected to pass along most or all of the cost
increases to the consumer.  The increases in production costs range
from 0 to 0.27 percent depending upon the regulatory alternative and
the size of the line.  The additional production costs are likely to
have no impact on retail prices.  Foreign competition will become
                                9-30

-------
significant by the mid-to-late 1980's, forcing manufacturers to start
absorbing the control costs.91 Again, because the costs are relatively
small, production, consumption, and employment should not be affected.

      In summary, the costs of compliance for all regulatory alternatives
appear to be feasible without any significant adverse economic impact
on most firms in the magnetic tape industry.  Most new capacity is
likely to be added by well established existing firms in the industry,
which are less likely to suffer from financial hardship in complying
with  the standard.

9.2.3 Market Analysis

      The impacts of the proposed NSPS can be judged by examining the
effects on the individual markets for magnetic tape products.  The
three types of magnetic tape products exist in different markets,
implying that the audio, video and computer recording media markets
will  behave in different ways as a result of the NSPS.  Different types
of market impacts are evaluated in this analysis.  One is the effect on
costs at the manufacturing level and the resultant effect on consumers
due to a retail price change.  Another type of impact is the effect on
the quantity of magnetic tape products produced and consumed in the
U.S.  In a competitive industry, an increase in prices would result in
some  degree of decreased demand depending upon the price elasticity of
demand. Therefore, output and consumption will be affected to a greater
or lesser degree as a result of a change in prices and the demand
elasticities of the product.  Also, the additional costs that magnetic
tape  plant facilities will incur to implement the NSPS may influence
companies' decisions to build new plants or increase production by
adding additional lines.  If new plant investment or increased produc-
tion  is curtailed, industry employment will  fall below what it would
have  been without the regulation. The following subsections describe
the impacts that will occur in each of the three magnetic tape markets.

      9.2.3.1  Audio tape market.  The audio tape market has experienced
little growth since 1977.Except for audio cassettes, most segments of
this market have not grown or have declined.  Minimal  growth, together
with  strong foreign competition, particularly from Japan, is expected
to discourage any additional  production lines or new facilities for the
production of audio tape in the foreseeable future.

      9.2.3.2  Video tape market.  In contrast, the video tape market is
growing at a rapid rate; it is anticipated that new lines will  have to
be built to meet the growing demand.  The proposed NSPS will  impose
additional  costs on companies that build new lines,  costs that will
either be passed forward to the consumer or absorbed by the company,
depending upon market conditions.  These costs can be measured by
computing the annualized costs of the NSPS as a percent of total  costs.
The results of this computatioa are discussed in Section 9.2.6.2.

     The video tape market is characterized  by significant foreign
competition.  In 1981,  close to 60 percent of total  worldwide video


                                9-31

-------
tape production was Japanese.31   It is unlikely,  then,  that  U.S.
producers would pass the control  costs forward  in the  form of  a price
increase because they would lose  their share of the world market.
Since foreign companies will  not  be affected by the NSPS or  a  comparable
regulation, it can be expected that U.S.  companies will  either absorb
the compliance costs or delay their entry into  the market until such
time that the price of tape products increases  sufficiently  to cover
the costs of compliance. Due to the increasing  demand  in the market,
prices will probably remain high  during the next  few years and firms
will likely proceed with expansion plans  while  absorbing some  of the
compliance costs.  The impact of  absorbing the  compliance costs is not
significant and is discussed in Section 9.2.6.2.   If some domestic
companies do delay their expansion plans, then  it can  be expected  that
foreign companies will increase production to fill the gap.  This
increase in imports would result  in a negative  effect  on U.S.  balance
of payments.  In this situation there would be  a  slight reduction  in
the quantity produced in the U.S. but little impact on worldwide
consumption of video tape products.

     9.2.3.3  Computer recording  media market.   The computer recording
media market is also experiencing significant growth,  particularly the
flexible disk segment of the market.  In  order  to meet the anticipated
demand, additional lines will have to be built  and compliance  costs
either passed forward or absorbed.  The computer  recording media market
is different than the video tape  market in that foreign competition
does not now play as large a role.  Most computer tape is  produced in
the U.S., and at the present time, the U.S. is  also the major  producer
of flexible disks.  Since the U.S. has a major share of the  market and
demand is relatively inelastic, it is expected  that a small  price
increase could be passed forward  to consumers without  any  significant
impact on the quantity sold.

     In contrast to the current situation of little foreign  competition,
by the mid-to-late 1980's Japan is expected to capture a significant
share (approximately 25 percent)  of the flexible  disk  market.  91
Therefore, it is more likely that a greater proportion of  the  compliance
costs are likely to be absorbed by domestic producers as new facilities
are built because of increased foreign competition.  It is  unlikely
that expansion plans would be delayed because:  (1) such a  delay would
result in further erosion of the market position  of domestic producers,
and (2) the costs are not significant.  A delay on the part  of domestic
producers to expand would result  in foreign companies increasing  their
production, leading to greater importation by the U.S.

9.2.4  Baseline Parameters

     9.2.4.1  Model Plant Parameters.  In order to evaluate the impacts
of the proposed standard on each of the three markets, it  is helpful  to
develop models of typical facilities  in the magnetic tape industry and
evaluate the impact on them.  The model plants incorporate  representa-
tive characteristics of expected new  lines.  Although there are three
distinct markets in the magnetic tape industry, the manufacturing
                                9-32

-------
process is the same for audio, video, and computer recording media
products and one coating line can be used to produce all  types of tape
products.  However, there are differences in the sizes of coating lines
that are used in the industry.  In addition, the cost of manufacturing
audio, video, and computer recording media products does vary with the
product because of differences in raw material costs and costs of
quality control procedures. These differences in costs are discussed in
the following section.

     Three model line sizes (research, small, and typical) have been
selected to characterize the small and typical manufacturing lines and
the research coating operations expected to be constructed in the near
future.  Production costs are given in Table 9-14.  Further details of
the model plants are provided in Chapter 6.

     In actuality, plants produce various combinations of magnetic
tape products.  For example, some plants manufacture all  three prod-
ucts (audio, video, and computer recording media) while others manufac-
ture different types of computer recording media products (i.e., reel
tape, flexible disks, etc.).  Clearly it is not possible to develop
models for all possible combinations.  Therefore, to simplify the
analysis, three model lines are used, and it is assumed that each line
produces a different product (audio tape, video tape, and flexible
disks).

     Each product line is also specified by size (small and typical).
The research line is not included in the analysis because it is used
for experimental purposes rather than for the production of marketable
products.  It can be expected that because the additional costs necessi-
tated by the NSPS for a research line are relatively small, they will
be absorbed by the company.  Therefore, a total of six model plants are
included in the analysis (i.e., small and typical lines for each of the
three products).

     9.2.4.2  Cost Estimation.  In order to measure the impacts of the
standard on the model lines it is necessary to determine the preregula-
tion as well as the post regulation costs on a model  line basis.  The
cost figure used represents the cost of the coated tape at the comple-
tion of the coating process.  Further processing of the tape into
finished products (i.e., cassettes, reel  tapes, flexible  disks, etc.)
requires additional manufacturing, marketing, and administrative costs.
These costs do not affect the baseline process so the cost figure used
represents only the value of the intermediate product at  the end of the
coating line.

     It was very difficult to obtain financial information from manu-
facturing facilities because of the secretive nature of the industry.
However, estimates of the cost per square meter to produce good quality
audio tape were obtained from industry sources and averaged in order to
present one representative cost figure.
                               9-33

-------





UJ
^"*
t— 1
1

z
o
HH
1—
O
~"^
O
0
en
CL.

U_
0

UJ
IVI
H- 1
c/)

^—
CD

oo
UJ
HH
1—
1 — 1
1
1 — 1
o

lj-
LU
Q.
^
^«

O
t— 4
>—
UJ
z
CD
^£
2:

rv*
o
u.

oo
t—
00
o
0

z
o
1— 1
h-
o
"*"*
Q
O
OH
r\

•^
O
i— i
h-

ml|J
13
CS
UJ
o:
UJ
a:
Q-

•
^~
i— <
1
CT>

LU
I
OQ
^
h-






03
•r_
•^j
Q)
g

0)
c
•r™
XJ
L.
o
0
(U


t.
CO
1 \
^
CL
E
O
o

jQ
O)
C
•r™
r— •

r—
fo
o
•r~
Q.
>^
h-



*0
(U
C
•p.
r—

,—
r.










^3
OJ

•r—
i—

r—


O

T3
3
^£








fc
h-



03
CD
C
•r-
,—

r—
i__
ro
«S





















O O CM CM
O O uf> «J-
m o • •
* *> ^ Q
r^* f"*^
CO O
oo o
A A
«tf- m
co r-.
co
o
o
o
A
o
o

•I
r~.
in
i— i





O O CM CM
in o in «*
r- o • •
«t «H ^j^ cO
CO O
00 O
^* in
A A
co r«.
co
o
o
o
*
o
m
r-.
•t
in
t— i





o o vo t-i
o o CM CM
LO O • •
•> •> CM O
r*^ co
co o
00 O
«t «l
^r in
cO r>.
co
0
o
o
A
O
in
r-.
A
CO
r--




O O VO r-H
LO O CM CM
r~- o • •
« •> CM O
co o
00 O
^j- in
* »
co r>.
co
0
0
o
•t
in
f»s.
00
A
r-.





O O CM CM
o o in «*
m o tf o
f» « • •
r- o o o
co o
00 O
A ft
«fl- UD
cO i^*
CO
o
0
o
A
o
in

«
in







O O CM CM
LO O LT> «3"
r^- o ^" o
* «* • •
CO O O O
00 O
^r LO
*i «
co r»»
co
o
o
o
M
ir>
r*s.
m
A
r-l





ifM.
O
o +*
+J CO CO
30. «
CL 03 t/}
+•) 4-^ 4^
3 CM  CM_ •*-> ^ "««»
03 03 £ f- -D-t*»-V> i —
3 O 4-> 03
CO in 4->
C O O
«t O I—



«
C- X
03 •!-
• CO «/>

03 C
0) t- 03

O. | >
£_
0) to t_
Q. C- CO •
3 JC CO
to O -M i —
t- -C 03 jQ
3 C- (0
O O -l->
JZ O (/)
O CO CO
O • JZ J=
O VO O 4->
0 C
« ••!- c:
VO O) •!—
4->  3 > C
(U c -i- 5
••-> T- ««- O
3 E JZ
C • (/>
•i- C- CO
E CO i— OJ
Q. Q. C.
£- E (O
Ol 4-> <€
o. co x oo
ai D 
+-> <4- 3
Ol O o 03
«•- o u. •>
in
0 ,—
in « • ro
CM CO ~O 3
CX 0) 4->
•• «3 X? O
CO 4-> (- 03
CX 03
03 O) (j OJ
4-> X) f) -C
•i- -r- 1—
 •
2 o •!- co CD
c o c

O 1 <1> 3 T3
c vo -o O c
•r- CM -i- • to 3
1 (/> CO O
VO c >, t-
•• JZ -r- t?
CO 4J i — 4-> O
••CO  +J
CO -i- ^3 r— 3
C r— r- -O V
•r- C nj C 3
r— r— O E 
r— -r- r- CO r~ n3
E ^ *i | * jj
(/) 4-> C (/)
**— C QJ CO
t- t. O O -O 3
O O -i- r—
<4- M- • JZ <»- (O
C 4-> C >
C C i- TJ O
O O 1 -i- O T>
•r- T- CM S CO
§j »
3
O O O. (- O.
•r- •>- 4-» TO <4- E
•r- T- JZ CO
O O 4-> Ol O
CO CO JZ T- C
O. Q-"O 4-> 4-> *r-
(/>(/> CO 03

C C 3 O £ OJ
O O  <•- O O
•r- V- «/) <4- C
4-> 4-> 03 T3 C CO
O O fl> -r- C.
3 3 «« in 0)
TJ T3 -r- 3 4J «»-
O O cn  tO O -r-
Q. Q. I— ( T- O Q
03 JO O T> 
9-34

-------
     The preregulation cost per square foot to produce coated tape are
shown in Table 9-14.  Video and computer tapes are more expensive to
produce than audio tape because of higher raw material costs and more
stringent quality control standards.  Confidential industry sources
estimate that the cost to produce video tape is about five times that
of audio tape and the cost to produce computer recording media is about
twice that of video tape.

     The cost per square foot is then multiplied by the coating line
output.  Assuming that 1.3 cm (1/2 in.) of film on both sides is
discarded, then for example, 12.7 cm (five in.) rather than 15.2 cm
(six in.) is used for tape width on the small line.  These baseline
parameters are shown in Table 9-14.

9.2.5  Selection of Regulatory Alternatives

     The regulatory alternatives presented in Chapter 6 provide for
increasing levels of control for the coating and mix room areas.
Alternatives II and III control only the mix room while the remaining
alternatives control either the coating operation alone or the coating
and mix room.  The regulatory alternatives are summarized in Table
9-15.  All regulatory alternatives include the same level of control  of
emissions from the solvent storage tanks except for the baseline
alternatives (I and IV).  Although 14 alternatives are presented, in
effect many more options would have to be evaluated if all of the
control device options for each alternative were included in the
analysis.  For example, for Regulatory Alternative VIII, four possible
control technologies can be used for the typical  plant:  fixed-bed
carbon adsorbers; fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers; condensation system
(solvent blend); and condensation system (cyclohexanone only).  For
several other regulatory alternatives there are also multiple options.
Rather than examining all the options, only the common fixed-bed carbon
adsorber is evaluated for those alternatives where multiple options
exist because it is the system most often used and the general  applic-
ability of condensation systems is uncertain. It  should also be noted
that the compliance costs do not vary with the type of tape produced
because the manufacturing process is the same for each product.  The
compliance costs vary with the level  of pollution control, the type of
control device, and the size of the coating line.

     The volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations in States with
magnetic tape coating facilities vary from requiring no control  in
ozone attainment areas to a required level  of control  in nonattainment
areas for ozone.  Therefore,  two baseline levels  for the coating
operation are provided:   Regulatory Alternative I provides for no
controls and Alternative IV provides the necessary controls to meet the
VOC requirement in ozone nonattainment  areas.  Most facilities  in the
industry are known to have installed at least the level  of control
associated with Baseline Alternative IV because the control  devices
offer the added benefit  of recovering solvents.  Therefore,  because of
the economic incentive of recovering solvents for reuse,  most  new
facilities could be expected  to install  control devices  as well.
                               9-35

-------












OO
z
o
HH
t—

on
~^
CD
i— i
U.
f^_
o
o
I , I
UJ
o

^>
UJ
Q

	 1
O
ec.
t—
^^
o
o

o
z
00
>
»— 1
h-
—
Q*
O
H-

Ol C
> 0
0 0

c
o
•r~
4_>
A3
t_
Ol
ex
o

CT
Ol C
O -1-

> re
Ol O
-o o
"o

I *
c
0 E
0 0
o
t_

X
•r—
z:




c
C Ol
o >
IO
<-
0)
Q.
O <»-
Ol 1-
i_ cn o
3 C J=
+J •(— tO
Q. -M IO
(O IO i —
O O U.
O
c
o
•i—
in
in
E E
UJ O
O
c.
X
•1™
£




0>-P
0? S:






0 «d-




















01 O)
C (=
z z


01

J^—
10
>

t_
Ol
J=

O) IO
C Ol
£ &

01 O)
c c
o o











^^
?
Ol Ol
C ; >

Ol
c
"ai
in
CO
-_~
1— 1
1— 1 I-H


Cf> UT>
r*^




E
<- Ol
0 -M
(/)
t. >*
Oi in
JO
t- c
o o
(/> -r-
TD -(->
(O IO
I/)
C C
O Ol
Ol JO -O
C I- C
O IO O
zoo

t-
01
JO
t_
o
VI
TJ
IO

c
o
JO Ol
C- C
10 O
0 Z

Ol
C V)
O Ol










Ol 0)
c c
o o
z z


TD
01
c
Ol

•x^
•o
0) Ol
> c
8 £
c
•r-
to
<2
<*»*
I— *
^•H ^>
»— 1 I—I


00
PN*




E
C- 01
0 4->
in
«- >>
Ol to
r\
1- C
o o
(/) *l^
^3 4^
IO IO
to
c c
O Ol
JO -O
C- C
IO O
0 0












Ol
c
£


in
Ol

•
t—
o
c
01

r—
(Q
•r™
4-*
L
(V
a.








a>
c
*







>


CTv
r*^»




E
t. ai
0 -M
«
Ol V>
JO
t. C
o o
«/> •!-
XJ 4J
10 ia
(^
c c
o ai
jo -a
c_ c
IO O
O 0


Ol
>>
r™"
03
>

t.
0)
-C

*TJ
Ol
L.
CO


in
Ol










Ol
c
o
z


•a
Ol
c
Ol
>>
«*«^
•D
2!
01
>>
o
0






f-H
>


CM
00




E
L. Ol
o +•>
M

Ol M
rt
c_ c
0 _0

•o +J
IO IO
tn
c c
O Ol
JO -0
(- C
at o
O 0


a>

fH>
(O
>

t.
a*
f*
i *
IO
ai
00


in
Ol

•
r—
O
C
Ol

^w
ia
•r*
1 »
C_
IO
a.


lo
c
Ol
^f
*«»^
1

o
o





1— 1
I-H
•y


co
CO




E
t. C)
O4->
U)

Ol (A
JO
(-C
°.°

*^J4^
(O fO
(X)
cc
OOI
JD^7
L« C
38












Ol
c



(/)
Ol



•
pw»
0
c
Ol

f^
IO
4^
o
1—








Ol
c





1— H
1— 1
1— 1
>


^J.
00




E
LM fl)
0 4->

t. >*
Oi tn
JO
t_ c
0 0

TJ -P
IO IO
to
C C
O Ol
JO TO
c_ c
IO O
0 0

c_
Ol
JO

o
in

IO

c
o

t_
3


in
Ol










Ol
c
o



ai
c
01

x^
0)
Ol

o
o






X
•-H


u> r^.
CO 00




E
t- Ol
O +J
i/)
«. >>
0)  t-
4-> ^O **

c- in
Ol C C
c o 01
•r— JO "O
0 (- C
C IO O
i-, o 0


Ol

f~
10
^

t-
ai
JZ

Ol IO
C 01
£ 0%


I/I tO
Ol Oi



• *
r— r—
O 0
c c
Ol Ol

l~— l~—
UJ lO
4J ^>
o o
h— h—


"S
c
0)
5>
'S^
-o
O)
Ol Oi
c >
o o
Z 0





^f
1— 1
X X


f^
00




E

O 4->

^ ^»
a> m

c_ c
0 0

^3 "^
fCf t)
V)
c c
O Ol
JO T3
t- C
3 S

C_
Ol
JO
c_
o
vt

to

c
o
JO

3


V)
Ol

•
r<—
O
c
ai

PI.
10
•r-
1 »
t_
IO
Q.


"S
C
ai
^>
*x»^
T3
Ol
Ol
>
O
o





CO
I-H
X


 CM *3-
00 O> C7)




E
C- Ol
0 +*
in

Ol  c
•r- JO TJ •*—
O t- C O
C ID O C
i— i O O i— i

L. t_
01 Ol Ol
> JO JO
r— C. L.
10 O O
> m in
TD T3
C- IO IO
Ol
J= C C
•MO O
IO JO JO
Ol t- (_
C- IO to
CO O O


to tn in
01 01 ai



• • •
r~ ^*- t—
00 0
c c c
01 O) a>

r~- r^ r^~
IO IO IO
4-> 4-> 4->

h™ H~ ^


T3 TJ -O
Ol Ol Ol
C C C
01 oi a>
> > ^
*^* "^N, ^^fc
•a -o -a
oi cu oi
t_ t_ c_
ai oi ai
> > >
50 o
0 0




HH
I-H I-H >
»-H H-4 HH
XX X
9-36

-------
Therefore, the baseline level of control used in the analysis is
Regulatory Alternative IV.  However, for the regulatory alternatives
that control only the mix room and solvent storage tanks (II and III)
the baseline used for comparison is Regulatory Alternative I (no
control).

     Tables 9-16 and 9-17 provide the total capital and total annualized
control costs and the incremental capital and annualized control costs
for each regulatory alternative for the small and typical  model  plants.
The incremental cost is the difference between each regulatory alterna-
tive and the baseline. (See Tables 8-14 and 8-15 for baseline costs).
For some regulatory alternatives the incremental cost of moving  to
higher levels of control may be negative, reflecting the existence of
lower annualized costs for those alternatives which remove a larger
proportion of the pollutant than that represented by the baseline.
Where such negative incremental costs do occur in the tables they can
be attributed to the increased profits from the recovery of solvents
which in turn reduce the total and annualized costs.  For those  cases
where the annualized control costs are less than the baseline, the
incremental costs are assumed to be zero even though costs could have
decreased.

9.2.6  Economic Impact Estimates

     Compliance costs will either be passed forward or absorbed  by the
industry depending upon market conditions.  The percentage change of
the cost increase is computed by dividing the incremental  annualized
costs of each regulatory alternative by the pre-NSPS total costs for
each model line size.  These pre-NSPS costs are shown in Table 9-14.
The incremental cost is the difference between the annualized cost of
each regulatory alternative and the baseline annualized costs.  This
computation permits an analysis of the impact of each regulatory
alternative compared to the present level of control.  The result
represents the percentage changes in cost caused by the various  regula-
tory alternatives.  Table 9-18 presents the results of the cost  increase
calculations for the three product types.

     The cost analysis can be carried one step further by examining the
impact on retail prices.  This analysis shows the effects of the
standards, if any, on the consumer prices of magnetic tape products.
The maximum consumer impact can be calculated by using the largest cost
increase for each product and computing the impact on the retail prices
shown in Table 9-11.  The results of these calculations are shown in
Tables 9-19 through 9-21.  For example, the largest cost increase for
flexible disks is 0.27 percent.  Therefore, the increase in cost per
square meter of coated tape is $4.52 (cost to produce flexible disks) x
0.27 percent, or $0.026.  Using a single-sided 13.3-cm (5-1/4 in.)
flexible disk as the representative product, there are 0.0139 m2 of
tape per unit.  The total increase in cost for the flexible disk is
0.0139 x $0.026, or $0.00017.  This amount is added to the high  retail
price of the disk to arrive at the post control retail price of  $3.38,
as shown in Table 9-21. The following three sections discuss the
                                9-37

-------
A
Z
o
1— 1
•a; co
QC. \-
LU Z
Q. <
O _J
0.
CD
Z _|
h- Q

•a: >->
h—H ^— »
t— 5 ^t
o z
co a;
CO LU
eC | —
co <:
1 t
CO >-
o a:
0 O
LU _J
i — i CD
—1 LU
< ex.
Z ixi
z z
1
Q
Z LU
—i a:
<: o
i— i—
I— l CO
0-
^C h—
0 Z
LU
_l >


LU
l
CQ
^t
H-













V)
4-*
(/)
O
O

•o

N
•r-
r_
— 1 Q



r.»
*o  (/J
0 0
\— 0




(O CQ

C CO
CO C
CO i^
t- CO
(J tO
*— 1 _Q

^_
i
o o
H- 0


to
CO

t .^.
0 4->

4->
CO i—
O£ fO

o





v^-






o o o
o o
•-I O
A A
• i-l CO
1 CM
•4^-





o o o o
o o o o
en co en o
00 I""- i— i ^~
CM CM LO f^
u •"• •" ^




o









o o o
0 O
1— 1 ^0
A A
If) f^
CO

IX)



o o o o
o o o o
en o LO LO
«*• O CM (0
O i-H «=S- CO

«*
	 	 . CQ
CO
CO C
C •!-
•r- r—
^ CO
co vi
(/) (Q
(O CQ
CQ 	
N 	 i— i
I-H I-H >
I-H 1— * I-H I-H

O O O O
o o o o
t-H CM r-» oo
CM ,-1 *J-
1




















o o o o
o o o o
•-i oo r-. oo
en LO i-» i— i
^^ ^^ ^^ 00





o o o o
o o o o
1** •-< 00 r-l
co LO CM r»
i— i i— i
















o o o o
o o o o
CM <0 CO V0
LO I-H en co
«* ^- ^- LO











I-H
I-H H- 1
t— 1 I— 1 I-H
> > > >

O O O O O
o o o o o
CM <0 <3- r-4 CM
CM en co ^* oo
i— i i— i




















o o o o o
o o o o o
CM IO ^- i-H CM
en i0 o t-4 LO
r-- en oo oo en





o o o o o
o o o o o
r-» .-« CM *± CM
IO 00 rH CO CM
en CM t-i o
i— i















o o o o o
o o o o o
CM *0 r**» en r^
CM *j- r^ en oo
*3- CO LO ^- CO












^ CQ l~~*
X I-H 1— 1 1— 1
>-H X X X X

0
o
CO
t0





















o
o
00
CO
oo
f».





o
o
oo
,_,
CM
















o
0
CO
00
LO
**










I-H
*-H
>-H
X

o
o
**
CM
^^




















o
o

en
1— 1
00





o
0

^J.
co
1— 1















o
0
CM
1— 1

LO











^>
HH
X
9-38

-------


z
o
1— 1
I — oo
< h-
C£ Z
LU *f
O 	 1
O Q-
o 	 i
Z LU
I-H Q
1— O

O
0 —1

LU O
3T »-H
1— CL.
3^-
3: i-
i—
3 O
r f
LJLa
Q
LU OO
(— LU

O 1—
0 -
0 Ce:
o
Q I—
LU «C
IVI 	 1
*— * Z3
i c r^

t— _l
Z O
LU OO
LU C3
C£ Z
o  C
§ )H
C. 
O (A
C TJ
f— 4 Q

«rt
10 r—
O 
C O)
-o 
/o c 
0 0
1— u







^_
 r—
t- 0)
O CO
C TO
*~H ^**


I/I
4J i—

O 4->
O C 0)
Ol C


CL c n
,>
o -tJ

fQ CT
r- t-
3 Ol

CC. fO












O






OO





o
C3
CO
in
CM
*<=>





















o






CX)




o
o
in
i>^
(£>
0
co

5-
c
JH
O)
(0
A3
CO
— '
»— 1

o




^^





0 0
o o
i-H CO
•k #*
0 0
CM CO
1





<
000
o o o
f^ ^H CO
in 
•t 9i
in r^*
CO






O 0 O
000
vo I-H in
CM m i^
r^ o -el-
O t-H  r*. m
10 m >a-









0 0 O
o o o
O t-« I-H
o m m
CM CM




















o o o
o o o
in vo  >

o
o
o
CO
CO
1



















0
o
CO
,-J.










o
0
CM
CO
CM




















O
0

m
r**.
vo








1— 1
1— 1
>

0
o
VO
en
CO
i



















0
o
CM
CO
CO









o
o
»••-
in





















o
o
CM
CO
in
(£>










i— i

o
o
VO
I-H
o
1— 1



















o
o

en
r--
CM









0
O
f^
CO

CM
A
r-l
1
















O
o
00
CO
10
CO
CO









X

0
o
co
CO
CM
1



















o
o
in
en
i— i









0
o
CO
CM
co




















o
o
00
en
f*^
> r-
CM i-t
l~- CO
1 I— 1



















0 0
O 0
I-H in
in en
0 0
r-H CO









O o
0 0
en •— i
CM CM
co .3-
CM
M
1—*
|
















O O
0 0

O LO
CO 0
vo 
-------
significance of the cost and retail  price increases  for each  of  the
three magnetic tape markets as well  as other market  impacts.

     9.2.6.1  Audio Tape Market.   Little growth is anticipated in  the
audio tape market.No new 1ines  or  plants are expected to  be built in
this market during the next 5 years.  The NSPS will  not affect produc-
tion and consumption of audio tape products or increase retail prices;
the cost increases shown in Table 9-18 and retail  price increases  shown
in Table 9-19 would occur only if new facilities were built.  These
small increases would have little effect, as they would most  likely be
absorbed by the industry.

     9.2.6.2  Video Tape Market.   As a result of the NSPS,  new facil-
ities will be faced with the cost increases shown in Table  9-18.  If
the plants pass forward the costs of the NSPS, then  consumers will pay
slightly more for a video cassette,  as shown in Table 9-20.  However,
due to the great number of foreign firms in the video tape  market, it
is unlikely that the costs can be passed forward. More likely they
will be absorbed by the industry.  Since the production cost  increases
range from 0 to 0.54 percent and  since there are at  present variations
in costs among the firms in the industry, the NSPS should not cause
greater differences in the cost structure than those that already  exist
between established and new firms or between domestic and foreign
firms.  In other words, the existing differences in  cost structures
will not widen.  An additional 21 new production lines for  video and
computer recording media products are expected over  the next  5 years.
This forecast should not change as a result of the NSPS because  the
impacts are very small.  Nor will the NSPS cause a change in  production
or consumption of video tape products.

     9.2.6.3  Computer Recording Media Market.  Since foreign competi-
tion does not play as prominent a role in this market, it can be
expected that initially cost increases will be passed forward completely
as argued above in Section 9.2.3.3.   A 0.27 percent  increase  in  manufac-
turing costs for coated tape will probably have no effect on  retail
prices, as shown in Table 9-21.  The NSPS will have  no effect on the
expansion plans of these firms.  An additional 21 production  lines for
video and computer recording media products are forecasted  over  the
next 5 years.  However, by the mid-or-late 1980's, Japanese competition
will become significant in the flexible disk market.  At that time the
U.S. industry will either have to absorb the compliance costs or delay
their expansion plans.  The industry is not likely to choose the second
option because it would result in loss of market share.  Maintaining or
increasing market share is crucial in this highly competitive industry.
The  industry can be expected to absorb the costs, which will  have
little impact because the costs are relatively small.  There will  also
be little impact on the production or consumption of computer recording
media products.

9.2.7  Capital Availability

     The  remaining issue to be discussed is the manufacturers'  ability
to  raise  capital in order to purchase the necessary pollution control

                                9-40

-------

**TT" (M
I— OO
i— i LU
3 >
i— i
Q H-
LU 
(O C
O CU
•r- U
ex t.

^— f-i
%M^


x«x
4,^
i— C
>— CU

r— C


fO C
O (1)
•r™ tj
ex t-
>> cu
(— ex
**-^>



*^-x
+J
r— C
•— 
cu
^) ^
t_ -1-
O 4->

10 C
r- !~
3 CU
41 , 	
Ql^ |Q


CM CO i-HVOCOLO^S-LOCOO^^-
CMO OOOCMOOCMOtO
ooooooooooooo











cr> LO t-H «y
«-H tD LT) CO
• • • •
ooooooooooooo








<£>oo *a-OT«d-CM'ovooocyi
«* i— 1 OCOi— ICMCMCMr-H«3-^O
Oi-HOOOOOfHOOrHOCM
















I-H 1— 1
1— 1 H- 1 I-H ^ QQ *— * *~H >
I-H »— 1 1— 1 I-H 1— 1 X I-H 1— 1 1—4 |M| I-H
MI— i>2>>>i— IXXXXXX





cu
o

CU Ol
.c c:
«4J
"O (O
t- O
IO O
e« .
O J= 01
o
•O 4-> 3
CU O T3
(/) CU O
(/) ^— L_
ro  O) O

o o c
O C -r-
•^
cu cu
.C 4-> ex

O 4->
<•- 0
o cu
CU -C
i — loO 4->
•— cu
1^ C
4_) •*-"•
(O 4-i
4-> CU O)
00 >
c (O c
O CU O
•i- I_ O
4-> 0
ex c 
o o
cu o
-c: 4-> t.
4-> c. ex
cu
C O O5
0 I- C
CU -r-
~o cxjc
CO oo
oo E >r-
/— ^ c: »p—
•^ tf—
CO X
C- ro O)
(0 E JC

oo 0)
C .C 4->
O 4-> O
•i- C
(O C **
i— CU >>
3 «/> i —
o cu c
i— 1- O
>o ex
O CU oo
t- 00
cu cu
OO >j O
cu cu o
1— 4-> ex
ro
9-41

-------
        TABLE 9-19.   RETAIL PRICE  INCREASES FOR  AUDIO  TAPE  PRODUCTS
                     FOR THE COATING OPERATION,  MIX  ROOM,AND  SOLVENT
                          STORAGE  TANK REGULATORY  ALTERNATIVES
                                   Open  reel
       Cassette
                                 18-cm (7-in.)
                                 plastic  reel
                                366m (1,200 ft)

                             Low price   High  price
       90 minute
Low price   High price
Cost/m2
(Cost/ft2 )
Highest cost increase
Retail price
(price range/unit) 5t*~56
m2 of tape/unit
(ft2 of tape/unit)
Increase in price3 »b
(m2)
(Increase in price)
(ft2)
Increase in pricec
(unit)
New retail price
(Including cost
increase)
Percent increase
in price
$0.452
($0.042)
2.69%
$5.85
2.32
(24.96)
$0.012
($0.00113)
$0.028
$5.88
0.5
$0.452
($0.042)
2.69%
$6.75
2.32
(24.96)
$0.012
($0.00113)
$0.028
$6.78
0.4
$0.452
($0.042)
2.69%
$1.52
0.51
(5.5)
$0.012
($0.00113)
$0.006
$1.53
0.7
$0.452
($0.042)
2.69%
$4.39
0.51
(5.5)
$0.012
($0.00113)
$0.006
$4.40
0.2
aThe increase in price (m2)  is the same for all  products  because the
 highest cost increase for all products represents the same Regulatory
 Alternative XIV.
''Increase in price (m2) = Highest cost increase  x Cost/m2.
clncrease in price (unit) = Increase in price (m2) x m2 of  tape/unit.
                                   9-42

-------
        TABLE 9-20.  RETAIL  PRICE  INCREASES FOR  VIDEO TAPE PRODUCTS
                     FOR THE COATING OPERATION,  MIX ROOM AND SOLVENT
                          STORAGE  TANK REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
                               4 hr. VHS cassette
              6 hr. VHS cassette
                              Low price   High price  Low price   High price
Cost/m2
(Cost/ft2)
Highest cost increase
Retail price
(price range/unit) s^-se
m2 of tape/unit
(ft2 of tape/unit)
Increase in price3''5
$2.26
($0.21)
0.54%
$9.69
3.058
(32.92)
$0.012
$2.26
($0.21)
0.54%
$14.85
3.058
(32.92)
$0.012
$2.26
($0.21)
0.54%
$8.17
1.51
(16.25)
$0.012
$2.26
($0.21)
0.54%
$11.92
1.51
(16.25)
$0.012
(Increase in price)
  (ft2)
Increase in price0
  (unit)
New retail  price
  (Including cost
  increase)
Percent increase
  in price
                             ($0.00113)  ($0.00113)  ($0.00113)  ($0.00113)
                              $0.037
                              $9.73
                               0.4
 $0.037
$14.89
  0.3
$0.018
$8.19
 0.2
 $0.018
$11.94
  0.2
aThe increase in price (m2) is the same for all  products  because the
 highest cost increase for all products represents the  same Regulatory
 Alternative XIV.
^Increase in price (m2) = Highest cost increase  x Cost/m2.
clncrease in price (unit) = Increase in price (m2) x m2 of  tape/unit.
                                   9-43

-------
equipment.  Debt financing is usually the preferred method to finance
pollution control equipment, so it is helpful  to look at the industry's
current levels of debt in comparison with the capital costs of the
NSPS.

     Many of the companies in the industry are large, multinational
companies such as IBM, BASF, Memorex, Sony, 3M, and others.  These
companies each have a minimum of several  hundred million dollars of
long-term debt.  Even the most costly regulatory alternative, approxi-
mately $368,000 per company, as shown in  Table 9-16 would not increase
these companies' debt by more than one percent each.  Also, medium-sized
companies, such as Dysan, Xidex, Verbatim, and Certron Corp., are not
likely to experience serious capital availability problems.


9.3    SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

       The previous section has described how the magnetic tape produc-
ing segment of the national economy might be affected by the NSPS.  In
this section the scope of the analysis is expanded so that the probabil-
ity of broader economic effects might be  assessed.  Among the issues
examined are those related to employment, regional effects, and the
potential for adverse impacts upon small  businesses.

9.3.1  Executive Order 12291

     This section addresses those tests of macroeconomic impact pre-
sented in Executive Order 12291 to determine whether or not a detailed
regulatory analysis is required; that is, whether this regulation can
be expected to produce any of the following impacts:

     1.  An annual effect on the economy  of $100 million or more as
         measured by the fifth year annualized control cost;

     2.  A major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual
         industries; Federal, State, or local  government agencies; or
         geographic regions; and

     3.  Significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
         investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of
         U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enter-
         prised in domestic or export markets.

     9.3.1.1  Fifth Year Annualized Control Costs.  It is projected
that there will be 21 new lines constructed during the next 5 years for
the manufacture of video and computer recording media products.
Assuming that the most costly regulatory  alternative is chosen, the
total fifth year annualized costs are approximately $2.2 million.
Clearly this figure is well below the $100 million level.

     9.3.1.2  Price Increases.  As calculated in Section 9.2.6, no
major cost or price increases will result from the standard.  The


                                9-45

-------
largest cost increase associated with the greatest  level  of control  is
0.54 percent for the manufacture of video tape which  would  cause  a 0.4
percent retail  that the most costly regulatory alternative  is  chosen,
the total fifth year annualized costs are approximately  $2.2 million.
Clearly this figure is well  below the $100 million  level.

     9.3.1.2  Price Increases.  As calculated in Section  9.2.6, no
major cost or price increases will result from the  standard.  The
largest cost increase associated with the greatest  level  of control  is
0.54 percent for the manufacture of video tape which  would  cause  a 0.4
percent retail  price increase at most.  There will  be no  effect of the
standard on audio tape prices.

     9.3.1.3  Regional Effects, Employment and Productivity.  The 29
facilities of the magnetic tape industry are located  in  15  States, with
34 percent of the industry in California.  No adverse impacts  are
expected in any State as a result of the regulation.   Also, the minimal
impacts of the standard are not expected to effect  employment  levels or
productivity in the industry.

9.3.2  Regulatory Flexibility Act

     The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires  that the
economic impact assessment determine whether the regulation is likely
to have a significant impact on small businesses and  whether a substan-
tial number of small businesses will experience significant impacts.
Both measures must be met to require an analysis; that is,  there  must
be both significant impact and a substantial number of small businesses.
If either measure is not met, then no analysis is required. The  EPA
defines a "substantial number" of small businesses  in an  industry as 20
percent of the total number of firms in the industry, and defines
"significant impact" as meeting at least one of these three tests: 1)
prices for small entities rise 5 percent or more, assuming  costs  are
not passed onto consumers; (2) annualized investment  costs  for pollution
control are greater than 20 percent of total capital  spending; or (3)
costs as a percent of sales for small firms are ten percent greater
than costs as a percent of sales for large firms.

     The Small Business Administration (SBA) definition  of  a small
business for SIC codes 3573 and 3679 is a firm that employs 500 persons
or less.  Of the 23 companies in the magnetic tape  industry, 17 can be
considered medium or large businesses.  The other 6 are  privately
owned and little information is available concerning  their  operations,
but five of them could possibly be considered small businesses.   It
should be noted that the distinction between large  and small plants or
firms is likely to be related to the number of lines  in  the facility,
not the size of the lines.  A small plant may have  a  large  line while a
large plant could have several small lines.  Therefore,  a small  firm
that has a large line may be able to take advantage of the  lower  costs
of controls that are associated with some of the regulatory alternatives
for the larger line.
                               9-46

-------
       Growth in the industry is expected to take the form of existing
companies adding additional lines as opposed to new companies entering
the industry.  The economic impact analysis (Section 9.2) has shown that
there will be minimal adverse impacts on the existing companies in the
magnetic tape industry as a result of the NSPS.  If new (i.e., small)
companies enter the industry it is likely that they will be affected by
the NSPS to a greater degree than larger companies, because of the
greater relative capital requirements and the higher control costs per
unit of product for a small company.  However, a significant impact is
not anticipated.
9.4    REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 9

 1.  Broemel, C.A.  A Study of the World Magnetic Tape Industry.
     Prepared for ICI Americas Inc. 1978.  pp. 9-20.

 2.  Reference 1, pp. 66-67.

 3.  Reference 1, pp. 28-38.

 4.  Reference 1, pp. 51-65.

 5.  Magnetic Media Information Services.  The Survey of the Magnetic
     Media Industry for the year 1981.  Volume One.   Data Recording
     Media.  June 1983.  p. 23.

 6.  Reference 5, p. 10.

 7.  Reference 5, p. 69.

 8.  Reference 5, pp. 61-65.

 9.  Form 10-K of Xidex Corp. for Fiscal  Year Ending June 30, 1982.  p.  4.

10.  Telecon.  Morneault, J., Marketing Manager,  TRI, with Nissen,  J.,
     JACA Corp., June 2, 1983.  Product line  of company  and general
     market conditions.

11.  Reference 5, p. 64.

12.  Reference 5, p. 57, 64.

13.  Reference 5, p. 210.

14.  Reference 5, pp. 51, 345.

15.  Reference 5, pp. 55-60.

16.  Reference 5, pp. 78-80.

17.  Reference 5, p. 111.


                               9-47

-------
18.  Annual  Report of Certron Corp. for Fiscal  Year Ending October 31,
     1982.  pp.  1-2.

19.  Annual  Report of 3M for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 1982.  p. 19.

20.  New York Times.  March 1, 1982.  pp. D1-D4.

21.  Reference 5, p. 62.

22.  Santa Clara Consulting Group.  Magnetic Media:  What's Available.
     What's In Store.  Computerworld.  jj6(8):8.  February 22, 1982.

23.  Form 10-K of Verbatim Corp. for Fiscal  Year Ending July 2, 1982.
     p. 3.

24.  Form 10-K of Dysan Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending October 30, 1982.
     p. 4.

25.  Reference 5, pp. 68, 157, 240.

26.  Telecon.  C. Beall, MRI with S. Pope, Bureau of Census, Department
     of Commerce.  February 17, 1983.  Magnetic tape production data.

27.  Reference 5, pp. 27, 29.

28.  Reference 5, p. 48.

29.  Reference 5, pp. 56-59.

30.  Reference 5, pp. 57, 64, 80, 112.

31.  Reference 5, p. 29.

32.  Five Year Tables:  Home and Auto Electronics.  Merchandising
     Magazine.  March 1983.  p. 30.

33.  Five Year Tables:  Home and Auto Electronics.  Merchandising
     Magazine.  March 1982.  pp. 24-30.

34.  Electronic Highlights.  Merchandising Magazine.  March 1980.  p. 53.

35.  Electronic Highlights.  Merchandising Magazine.  March 1979.  p. 69.

36.  Reference 32, p. 34.

37.  Reference 33, p. 30.

38.  Electronic Highlights.  Merchandising Magazine.  March 1981.  p. 36.

39.  Reference 5, pp. 39-40.

40.  Reference 5, pp. 423-424.


                                9-48

-------
41.  Reference 1, p. 18.
42.  Reference 5, pp. 70.
43.  Reference 22, p. 7.
44.  Reference 5, pp. 428-432.
45.  Reference 1, p. 37.
46.  Video-Tape Retail  Pricing More Stable?  Mart Magazine.  June 1982.
     p. 13.
47.  Reference 1, p. 62.
48.  Video cassette sales.  Mart Magazine.  June 1982.  p. 13.
49.  Reference 5, p. 360.
50.  Reference 5, p. 50.
51.  Reference 22, p. 9.
52.  DuPont Sets Up A Joint Venture for Tape.  Chemical Week.  128(1).-18.
     January 7, 1981.
53.  Reference 5, pp. 411-414, 432-434.
54.  1983 Winter/Spring Wholesale Catalog.  EXSELL Marketing, Cary,
     North Carolina.
55.  Wholesale Blank Video Tape Price List.  Schwartz Bros., Lanham,
     Maryland.  Effective June 20, 1983.
56.  Dealer Price List  for Computer Software and Accessory Products.
     Schwartz Bros., Lanham, Maryland.  Effective March 1, 1983.
57.  Reference 18 ,p. 9.
58.  Reference 18, p. 18.
59.  Reference 18, p. 22.
60.  Video-Tape Outlook Good for Fall Sales.  Mart Magazine.  August
     1982. pp. 23, 30.
61.  Home-Video Price Cutting Spurs Sales Boom but Eliminates Profit.
     The Wall  Street Journal.  February 4, 1983.  p. 26.
62.  Reference 22, p. 7.
63.  Reference 52, p. 17.
                                9-49

-------
64.  Countering the video glut.   Financial  World.  October 1,  1982.   p. 42.

65.  Video tape heads for 35 to 40 percent  gain: TDK.  Mart Magazine.
     January 1981.  p. 7.

66.  Shortages boom this year in video tape.  Mart Magazine.  January
     1982. p. 24.

67.  Video tape outlook good for fall  sales.  Mart Magazine.  August
     1982. p. 32.

68.  Telecon.  J. Glanville, MRI with  C. Price, Proctor and Schwartz.
     August 2, 1983.  Fabric coating equipment.

69.  Telecon.  J. Glanville, MRI with  A. Leach, Indev, Inc.  August 2,
     1983.  Fabric coating equipment.

70.  Telecon.  J. Glanville, MRI with  W. Dodgen, Louis P. Batson, Inc.
     August 2, 1983.  Fabric coating equipment.

71.  Telecon.  J. Glanville, MRI with  T. Herman, Sherman Machinery,
     Inc. August 3, 1983.  Fabric coating equipment.

72.  Telecon.  J. Glanville, MRI with  Sheffe, Lydon Brothers Corp.
     August 8, 1983.  Fabric coating equipment.

73.  Annual Report for The Signal Companies, Inc. for Fiscal Year ending
     December 31, 1982.

74.  Moody's Investors Service.  Moody's Industrial Manual.  New York.
     1982.  pp. 985-986.

75.  Reference 74, p. 2257.

76.  Annual Report for Certron Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending October 31,
     1982.

77.  Annual Report for CBS for Fiscal  Year Ending December 31, 1982.

78.  Annual Report for Dysan Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending October 30,
     1982.

79.  Annual Report for Carlisle Corp.  for Fiscal Year Ending December
     31, 1982.

80.  Annual Report for IBM Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending December 31,
     1982.

81.  Annual Report for Burroughs Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending December
     31, 1982.

82.  Annual Report for NCR Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending December 31,
     1982.

                                9-50

-------
83.  Annual Report for Pfizer Inc. for Fiscal Year Ending December 31,
     1982.

84.  Reference 74, p. 4397.

85.  Annual Report for Tandy Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
     1982.

86.  Annual Report for 3M Co. for Fiscal Year Ending December 31,
     1982.

87.  Annual Report for Verbatim Corp. for Fiscal Year Ending July 2,
     1982.

88.  Annual Report for Kearney-National Inc. for Fiscal Year Ending
     December 31, 1982.

89.  Standard & Poor's Corporation.  Standard Corporation Descriptions,
     New York, 1982, p. 9062-9063.

90.  Reference 5, pp. 122, 175-176, 198, 225.

91.  Reference 5, pp. 424-429.
                               9-51

-------
APPENDIX A—EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT

-------
                                 APPENDIX A
              EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT

     The purpose of this study was to develop a basis for supporting
proposed new source performance standards (NSPS) for the magnetic tape
coating industry.  To accomplish the objectives of this program technical
data were acquired on the following aspects of the magnetic tape coating
industry:  (1) solvent storage tanks, mix preparation equipment, and
coating operations; (2) the release and controllability of organic
emissions into the atmosphere by these sources; and (3) the types and costs
of demonstrated emission control technologies.  The bulk of the information
was gathered from the following sources:

       Open technical literature
       Canvassing of State, regional, and local air pollution control
       agencies
       Plant visits
       Meetings with industry representatives
       Contact with engineering consultants and equipment vendors
       Emission source testing data

Significant events relating to the evolution of the BID are itemized in
Table A-l.
                                    A-l

-------
       TABLE A-l.  EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
Date
    Company,  consultant,
     or agency/location
     Nature of action
9/24/81      IBM Corp.
             Boulder, Colo.

10/28/81     Memorex Company
             Santa Clara, Calif.

11/6/81      3M Company (St. Paul, Minn.),
             U.S. EPA, and Development,
             Planning, and Research
             Associates, Inc.
11/19/81
12/16/81
2/19/82
3/26/82
7/30/82
8/19/82
11/16/82
Sony Magnetic Products, Inc.
Dothan, Ala.
Sony Magnetic Products, Inc.
Dothan, Ala.
Tandy Magnetic
Forth Worth, Tex.
Capitol Magnetic Products
Glenbrook, Conn.
Plant No. 2
Plant No. 3
Midwest Research Institute
 1/10/83
 1/27/83


 1/28/83
Raleigh, N.C.

U.S. EPA
Columbia Magnetic Products
CarrolIton, Ga.

Ampex
Opelika, Ala.
                                  Plant visit
                                  Plant visit
                                  Meeting to discuss
                                  magnetic tape production
                                  and pollution control
                                  technology

                                  Meeting to discuss
                                  proposed plant visit

                                  Plant visit
Plant visit


Plant visit


Emission test

Emission test

Project start date for
new contractor

Memo authorizing Phase II
"Draft Development of New
Source Performance
Standards for Magnetic
Tape Coating Industry"

Plant visit


Plant visit
                                                                (continued)
                                     A-2

-------
                          TABLE A-l.   (continued)
Date
Company, consultant,
 or agency/location
Nature of action
3/18/83      American Video Tape
             Gardena, Calif.

             BASF Systems Corp.
             Bedford, Mass.

             Certron Corp.
             Anaheim, Calif.

             IBM Corp.
             Tucson, Ariz.

             3M Company
             St. Paul, Minn.

             Sony
             Dothan, Ala.

             Spectrotape
             Loma Linda, Calif.

             Syncom
             Mitchell, S.D.

             Verbatim Corp.
             Sunnyvale, Calif.

8/3/83       Precision Media
             Sunnyvale, Calif.

8/5/83       BASF Systems Corp.
             Bedford, Mass.

9/13/83      Mailed to industry members,
             selected equipment vendors,
             and consultants

11/14/83     Spectrotape
             Loma Linda, Calif.

11/21/83     American Video Tape
             Gardena, Calif.
                              Section 114 information
                              request
                              Request for information
                              Plant visit
                              Request for comment on
                              draft BID Chapters  3,  4,  5,
                              and 6

                              Follow-up to Section 114
                              information request

                              Follow-up to Section 114
                              information request
                                                               (continuedj
                                    A-3

-------
                          TABE A-l.  (continued)
Date
Company, consultant,
 or agency/location
Nature of action
11/21/83     Precision Media
             Sunnyvale, Calif.

4/26/84      IBM Corp.
             Boulder, Colo.
             Graham Magnetics
             Graham, Tex.

             Capitol Magnetic Products
             Glenbrook, Conn.

             Tandy Magnetic Media Company
             Santa Clara, Calif.

             Opus Computer Resources
             Cleveland, Ohio

6/29/84      3M Company
             Camarillo, Calif.

7/2/84       Memorex Company
             Santa Clara, Calif.

7/2/84       Mailed to members of the
             Working Group

8/2/84       Columbia Magnetic Products
             CarrolIton, Ga.

8/29/84      U. S. EPA and Industry
             representatives

11/84        Mailed to members of Steering
             Committee

3/85         Mailed to members of Red Border
             review
                              Follow-up to request for
                              information

                              Section 114 information
                              request:  mix rooms and
                              solvent storage tanks
                              Plant visit
                              Plant visit
                              Working Group mailout
                              Plant visit
                              NAPCTAC Meeting
                              Steering Committee mailout
                              Red Border review
                                    A-4

-------
APPENDIX B--INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS

-------
                                 APPENDIX B
                INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS

     This appendix consists of a reference system which 1s 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-l.   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
Chapter 3.

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.
                                                               (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 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—EMISSION SOURCE TEST DATA

-------
                                 APPENDIX C
                         Emission Source Test Data

     The emission source test data presented here were obtained from
(1) EPA-sponsored testing, (2) magnetic tape Industry data on carbon
adsorbers, (3) State compliance tests, and (4) EPA-sponsored testing for a
related Industry.  The following sections discuss these data.

C.I  DATA FROM EPA-SPONSORED TESTS ON CARBON ADSORBER RECOVERY
     EFFICIENCIES

     Tests were conducted at two magnetic tape coating plants to determine
the solvent recovery efficiencies of the fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.  At
Plant 2, the carbon adsorption system recovers a mixture of toluene and
tetrahydrofuran (THF) solvent from the tape coating process.  The system
features three annular carbon beds and processes 4.6 normal cubic meters
per second (Nm /s) (9,800 standard cubic feet per minute [scfm]) of
solvent-laden air (SLA).  The three beds repetitively undergo adsorption
and desorptlon 1n a staggered sequence that is controlled by a timer.  The
adsorption period 1s set at 64 minutes per bed, and desorptlon is set at 32
minutes per bed.  The cycle does not include a bed cooldown period after
the desorptlon period.  A continuous distillation train separates solvent
that is removed from the beds during steam desorptlon into toluene-and THF-
rich fractions.

     During the 3-week test period, a hydrocarbon analyzer semicontlnuously
monitored the inlet and outlet solvent concentrations.  The analyzer data
were digitized and input to an onsite computerized data acquisition
system.  Table C-l presents the operating conditions encountered during the
tests.  Table C-2 presents a summary of the results of the tests.  The
inlet toluene/THF concentration averaged 1,230 parts per million by volume
(ppmv), which corresponds to an inlet solvent mass rate of 70.5 kilograms
per hour (kg/h) (156 pounds per hour [lb/h]).  Inlet concentrations varied
from about 50 to over 2,400 ppmv, depending on the number of operating
coating lines, the coating speed, and the coating thickness.  The time-
averaged outlet concentrations from Beds 1, 2, and 3 were 5.2, 2.2, and
2.4 ppmv, respectively, which correspond to outlet solvent mass rates of
0.15, 0.071, and 0.078 kg/h (0.33, 0.16, and 0.17 Ib/h), respectively.
Therefore, average system volatile organic compound (VOC) removal
efficiencies were 99.8, 99.9, and 99.9 percent for Beds 1, 2, and 3,
respectively, based on solvent mass rates.  Outlet solvent concentrations
varied from near 0 to over 100 ppmv, depending primarily upon cycle
timing.  Laboratory analysis Indicated that bed carbon adsorption capacity


                                    C-l

-------
was significantly below virgin carbon capacity levels.  However, the
reduced adsorption capacity apparently did not severely affect system
performance, as indicated by the bed VOC removal levels approaching
100 percent.

     Plant 3 manufactures magnetic tape by coating a polyester film or web
with ground magnetic iron oxide slurried with a solvent formulation of
primarily THF and toluene with small amounts of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK),
methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and cyclohexanone.  The carbon adsorption
system recovers the solvent driven off during the coating process.  The
system, which has been operational since 1978, processes 9.4 Mm /s
(19,800 scfm) of SLA.  The system features three pairs of annular carbon
beds, with two pairs on-line and one pair maintained as a spare.  The two
on-line pairs operate on a 90-minute timed adsorption/regeneration cycle.
The system processes SLA with an approximate inlet solvent concentration of
2,000 or 5,000 ppmv, depending on the type of magnetic tape being
produced.  The system is regenerated by low-pressure steam desorption and
ambient air cooldown.  A batch distillation train separates solvent that is
removed from the beds during steam desorption into component fractions.

     During the 2-week test period, hydrocarbon analyzers
semicontinuously monitored the inlet and outlet solvent concentrations.
The analyzer data were digitized and input to an onsite computerized data
acquisition system.  Table C-3 presents a summary of the operating
parameters encountered during the tests.  Table C-4 presents a summary of
the results of the VOC sampling.  The data show VOC removal efficiencies
ranging from 91 to 98 percent.  The measured VOC removal efficiency for
each bed was generally based on an average of 10 cycles of adsorption and
regeneration.  The carbon in Beds 3A and 3B had been in service for only
1 to 2 weeks at the time of the testing.  These beds had substantially
better VOC reduction performance than did Beds 1A, IB, and 2A, which all
contained carbon with up to 5 months of service.

C.2  DATA FROM INDUSTRY ON CARBON ADSORBER RECOVERY EFFICIENCIES

     A two-bed fixed-bed carbon adsorption system installed in 1980
controls the VOC emissions from the magnetic tape coating operation at the
IBM Corporation facility in Tucson, Arizona.  Table C-5 presents a summary
of the normal operating parameters of this system.  Table C-6 presents a
summary of the monthly average VOC control efficiencies for 1982.  Control
efficiencies ranged from 94 to 99 percent.

     The 3M Company facility in Camarillo, California, coats computer tape
and disks.  Two separate fixed-bed carbon adsorbers, one with four beds and
one with two beds, control VOC emissions.  The systems were installed in
1975 and 1979.  Table C-7 presents the actual operating parameters of these
systems.  Table C-8 presents a summary of the monthly average control
device efficiencies for a 12-month period.  Monthly average control
efficiencies ranged from 89 to 97 percent.
                                     C-2

-------
C.3  DATA FROM STATE COMPLIANCE TESTS

     The Allied Media Technology facility 1n Sunnyvale, California,
operated two coating lines that produced video and computer tape products.
A nitrogen condensation system controlled oven VOC emissions.  The control
device recovery efficiency was determined by conducting a 3-hour liquid
solvent material balance on February 25, 1983.  The amount of solvent
applied was calculated from the operating parameters of both lines.  Table
C-9 presents a summary of these data.  The total amount of solvent applied
during the test period was 110.2 kg (242.9 Ib).  The amount of solvent
recovered was calculated from the weight of the solvent drum after
collection, minus the weight of the drum and the weight of the solvent in
the drum before collection during the test.  These data are presented in
Table C-10.  The total amount of solvent recovered during the test was
102.5 kg (226.0 Ib).  The solvent recovery efficiency of this coating
operation VOC control system was 93.0 percent (102.5 kg * 110.2 kg)
(226.0 Ib * 243.0 Ib).

C.4  DATA FROM ERA-SPONSORED TESTS FOR RELATED INDUSTRIES

     The EPA conducted tests at plants in the pressure-sensitive tape and
label (PSTL) industry.  This 1s an industry with coating and control
processes very similar to those used in the magnetic tape manufacturing
industry.  In both industries, a solvent-based coating is applied to a
continuous supporting web.  Fixed-bed carbon adsorbers are the most
commonly used control device in both industries, and similar total
enclosures around the coating application/flashoff area are used to capture
fugitive VOC emissions.  The following paragraphs describe relevant test
data from the PSTL industry.

     One PSTL facility was examined over a 4-week period (January 15, 1979,
to February 9, 1979).  The facility consists of four adhesive coating lines
controlled by a single carbon adsorption system.  There are three lines
that are each 71-centimeters (cm) (28-inches) wide, and one line that is
144-cm (56-inches) wide.  The plant operation is characterized by many
short runs at slow line speeds.  Table C-ll summarizes the operations of
each line and the total system.  This facility is an example of a hard to
control facility because slow coating lines are the most difficult to
control (e.g., they have the greatest potential  for fugitive solvent
emissions).

     During the 4-week test period, the controlled facility used 28.7 m3
(7,589 gallons) of solvents in its adhesive formulations and recovered
226.7 m  (7,065 gallons) from the carbon adsorption facility.  This
represents an overall VOC control of 93.1 percent.  The system performed
140 separate runs and used the following solvents:  toluene, acetone,
hexane, ethyl acetate, MEK, rubber solvent, heptane, mixed solvents,
recovered pro lam solvents, xylene, ethyl alcohol, and isopropanol.

     The makeup air for the ovens is pulled directly from the work area.
The building that houses the coaters is tight enough to allow a slight
negative pressure in the work area as compared to the outside of the


                                    C-3

-------
 building.  Also, there  is a slight negative pressure in the coater ovens
 with  respect to the room air.  With a fully enclosed, tight system, the
 overall  result is that  all makeup air flows into the building, through the
 oven,  and  out to the carbon adsorption system.  Therefore, essentially
•100 percent of all solvent emissions are captured.  The facility also uses
 hoods over the coater areas to capture fugitive solvent emissions near the
 coating  applicator.  Ductwork directs hood gases into the drying oven.
                                     C-4

-------

















C\J
t—
Q.
H-
^^
O
LU
O
0
z
o
t— 1
Q_
a:
o
a


^
i
0
III
LJLJ
_j
QQ

l"~

































(U
C7>
C
(0
a:











<























j-
O)
0)
E£
(Q
10
a.




x_%
c
l| ,^«s
o c
w *s
IS"
O*CT>
1-1 T
0^
*?r Lrt ^^^
^^
^** rt\ W
^~ ^Lx*^^
"e
^L
M «
E CM
2s
•
^J-

'E'-P
c^» "•
o *g
<>> 0 £
QJ ^^ *+«•
3 «»rv.
c ^> "*3*
^ ^"^
<3- ^C."-*.
«3 «T_ E
S «•
CM
• O
^




•^*
a>

[c >,

•^
c u
0 ^
E "aJ

JC  10
c a» i-
ai -i-> u
*~ i- 4- -— -
O) i- CO
§Q) °^3
a. ai
1(1 CO
C JZ
O =£  «/) C/) O
a. i-
S- -l-> -I-) J=
O O) CL) -(->
CO r— r— **™^
T3 C C
<£ t— i t— i
J3
u_
«L>
(_
C

g;
(U
•^
4-*

O
<5J
>
S
Q
•»
00

u.
c
(^


ai
5»
r™*
o
CO
4->
O)

c
•-H



^*
^Q
t^
Q
°?
*^
^rt
Nfc«X

_c
c^^
-^
o^
CO
•



^
^^
^>
•-
\o
S.

c^
y5
j
r*-















cr>
c
•f—
"S
o


4->
•
r~*
o
CO
-!->
w-x
N» x ^* *X!!J ^3
Lf"* f 5
CJ **j ~^
«> 3
^ ^
1 i







— -« °
g "t- *^-
j2| ^ ?» o
»— o d- ^ "^

" 00
co ° JL,
1—1






^
CL> t»
O (0
O
U i-
ai
>- -M
•r- <4- 0. O)

t- "O $- <0
a> >, s_
£ - £ £ s
10 T3 3 3 O
^^ •!— -4_> ^J 1 	
E (0 (0 l+_
0) 3 J- i.
i_ x: a» - — . a> J-
3 Q. Ol O.  cj E "^3 E <"HS i ^
10 ^fc (y *r^ Q^ <^i flj
a» -M •!-
^l (Q ^ CO ^ CO f.-
E i — ^-^  t-o) oo oa> o
r— O O O 4-> O
•M -M O O *- O«0U

*™^ •
°^3 • jy. -y_
^" •s_-x ^~*S

£ td *0
-^ T/ ^
S3 S
1— 1 • •
, «— < O
g ^ o
t • •
o o


? 7 ?
• • •
^^ S 3! 5
Q_ • • •
•r- *r— «r-
O
<£> CM O ^O
*^ ^" CO
* £ £ 5
"3" J^ -^j -^:
LO 0 0
• • »
r-H ^H O
















CL Q. Q.
O O O
Tj "^^ ^O

a» a»  a»
i- J- S- S-
a. a. a.
s-
O) «-H CM CO
^
O ^3 T^ ^3
i— a) a» 
-------






















Ol

c
c
o
o


1
(_)

UJ
	 1
CQ
1—













































01
O5
Id
O£














Ol
3
~~

O>
^J
^*i




























^
01
4-*
 ^u*
3 3
O O

.-) CM

-a TD
Ol (U
CO CQ
*&
M-
o
to
o
o
vO
LO
O
O
oo
LO

CO
•o""
1=

VO
CM
LO
CM





v»-
O
co
0
s
LO


-£.
1=
Z

vO
CM

















Ol
^>
id


3
O

y-

^_>
Ol
r~-
^_>
3
O

CO

TD
Ol
CO
.a .
i .
UH
1
.^
r—
TO
cd
O)
Ol
3
'o
4->
CO
cd
>
a
0.
co
»H









CL
Q.

CM
L^











C.
O
'^3
id
s-
4_>
c
(U
o
c
o
u

4->
C
01
>
f^
o
CO

^j
O)
^«
[ *
3
O

•—1

T^
Ol
CQ
o .a
1 i 1 1
L^_ UB
"T~ — T~
J^ .^-
K~ H~
^O "ij
c c
(& (O
Ol O)
c c
Ol O)
3 3
"o 'o
•M •»->
CO CO
id id
> >,
g. g.
Q. Q.
co CM
LO CM
1 1
0 0









i 1
a. a.

CM ^r
CO CM











c c
O 0
4J '-M
cd cd
s- i-
-M -!->
C C
QJ O)
 >
r_ ^_
0 0
CO CO

•M +->
Ol 0)
t — r—
-M •(->
3 3
O O

CM CO

^3 *C3
Ol Ol
CQ CQ
^
-Q


^
r^.
ri
1
1-
-^.
5^

CM
rf\
1
CO
O
C3






^
_Q
r—
•
O


u>
-Jb

uo
r—
o









O)

id
^»

5
Q
r—
i|

-M
C
O)
>
r—
o
CO

.4^
Ol

1 *
3
O

i— 1

TO
Ol
CQ


•"~^*
^
^
1^
"^
0

^_
o>
-^
^H
t^
•
T— 1







5
-Q
1
•
f^

^:
i*

r— 1
fs^
O
•
o









O)

cd
s.

^
o

• )

+->
c
Ol
>
I—
0
CO

I *
Ol
^«
+J
3
O

CM

"0
Ol
CQ



^
-Q
l»^
LO
»— 1
1
0

-C
o>
-*
.— 1
•
0
1
o







-C
JD
r—
t— 1
O


en
^^

CO
"""^
o









01

cd
s-

31
o

L[

| *
c
CU
>
^—
o
CO

4^
Ol

1 *
3
O

co

T3
Ol
CQ



(j
*+••
O)
^7~*
o
o
»— 1 --^>
s §
r-~ .
^^ CM
(_> ^
o
CT>
1
LO
CM









v»—
Ol
U_ <4_
o ••
VO Ol
O^ ^^
	 LO
co
o
VO
CO


















>J
4_>
.^
TJ
•1—
E
01 3
S- J=
3
-t-> Ol
id >
J- -r-
Ol +->
a. cd
E r—
Ol Ol
-U J-

-M -M
Ol Ol
i — i —
•4-> -M
3 3
O O

























u_
1—

T3
C
cd
O)
c
Ol
3
"o
"^
^^
0

O)
S-

X
'i

4_>
C
CU
u
^.
Ol
CL

Ol
^—
o
E

• o
Ol LO
r~ '^^» •
r^ O Ol
cd LO 3
0 r—
•r— td td
r— > •
a. co c
a. oi c 2
id E en o
3 i- C
4-> CO CO J*
O CO O) C
z < a ra
cd .a o -o


-M
o
c
-M
CO
•i—
TD
1
_
C
"^"
S-
"°

CO
CD
C
'o
o
o
TD
(U
JD
s-
o
<4_
__
£
3
o-
Ol
S-
o>
T3



C
o
CL
S-
0
CO
T3
id
ai

^
<4-
o

c
o
•r—
| *
S-
o
a.

01
^^ •
4_> x*^*
•o
Ol O
TD  u
Ol vi_
C-6

-------





CM

h-
<
_J
Q_
1

UJ
0£
O
0
"^
0£
UJ
CQ
0£
O
 C
en o  i- i-
> >4-
< <4-
QJ
4->
C
O) »-«.
> *JZ
O^J^
° Co
Si^T
* ^
ID —tf ^**
s- 2 en
ai K n
<


id
+* •
C 0
(U C
> o
f™" *^™
O -M ->
 °-
o c °-
0)
QJ o
en c
c o
id u
Q£


id
••-> ••
C C
(U O
> T-
f"— 4->
o id >
01 1. E
-M Q.
CU C Q.
cn OJ
id u
i. C
 o
 O\
^f • • •
z a> a> cj>


^_ ^ •»— ^
^-s '£?  -M -M
 a>
4J !*J 4J
333
O O O

•4-> <— 1 CM CO
0)
•— T3 T3 -0
C CD OJ O)
i— i CQ CQ CQ
















•
U.
3T
i^
r"~
TJ
id
(U
C
rt J
u/
3
O
4J

M-
O
O)
3
.(->
X
•r-
E
t
(U
o
J_
(U
Q.
O)

O
in
^^^
^N,
O
in
id a)
co ^
id (d
o
"S^
01 £X
01 a.
a) id
c
0.-P
X O
uj z
(d -Q
C-7

-------











co
I—
o.
1

s
o
o
z
0
1— 1
1
h™ •
Q_
8
O
CO
o
I (J
U-l
CQ
"~






























CU

C
£








cu
cu
Cn
2
cu

t^M
CO (J
\ CO
IO
z °
* ~* — '
«< CO «
^ cn_r o
z * cxj
IX^ ^j
ijf> ZlJ
* ^
oo oo
.—i

1=
t3 ^

oo •
CO O
cn"



J3
CO .(->
CU U
_o o
r—  Id
c cu •>-
CU -M O
r— Id -r-
(~ *4— ****>
O) V- CO
•03 cu ~o
o o o. cu
E r™ 3 -Q
If- CO
C -C
o < < cn
•r- _J _l 3
-M CO CO O
0. S-
i- -U -U -C
O CU CU -M
CO i — i — »— '
•o c c
^ 1— 1 h-H

E
CO t|_
~>* u
Zg

CSJ •
T*0^
r^ /^
cn S-
• M
00 00

^_
u
CO
o
LO
VO
oo
CO
"E
3C
CO
o
^






cu
1 1
(d
i-

J
o
r—
M-

^_>
cu
(^^
4.}
o
o

CQ
CO
^^
<^
CO

T3
CU
CO


CO **~
K> <"
z o
in

(v. " O
T* *?
CSJ CD
VOOO
• f***1
2«

"E"
M-
O
CO

0
T— 1
o
2 -o.
CO

z;
co
^






CU O)
Id id
^_ ^_

3 3
0 0
r~ (—
«i 'I

^j ^j
cu cu
l^~ ^~
^J -M
ID "7
o o

CO CQ
CM r-l
**•»>, "^NV
"^ *tf
C\l ^H

-0 T3
CU CU
CO CQ

^
o
O
VO

v— *
C_)
o
CM
CO
|
CM




o
»— 1
00
t->
CM













CO

3
1 *
id
i-
cu
a.
E
CU


CO
id
cn

4_>
a>

'c
»— t



^

i
CM









O
CO










>,
4->
•o
•r-
E
3
J*


•r-
•4**
id
r^
cu
^-

&
id
O"J

^_>
cu

c


^
o
CM
cn

x— '
o
CO
CO
i
CM




o
CO
O
vo
CM












CU
S-
™y
^>
id
S-
ai
QL
E
CU
-M

(/>
id
cn

•M

^—
4->
3
0





0







^

t
C
•1—
00
LO
1 — '
(d
a.
•^
^









CQ

^«s^
^£
.— 1

Q.
O
i-
^^

CU
t-
3
CO
CO
cu
i-
a.

-^
cu
CQ





U







O

c
LO
—
(d
a.
-^
CO
,-H









CQ
CM
^*^
<^
CM

O.
O
l-
-a

cu
s-
3
CO
CO
cu
i.
a.

•o
cu
CQ





U







xT1

c
o>
CO

id
Q.

cn
*
o








CQ
CO
*^^

-------

















^_^
-o

u 










c
•f—
E
§> ^
O ^
1—4 •
x^. CM
CO
.c



CO












(U <4-
(U C
-(-> 0
« 1 *
»» ^™*
^^
2 £
O 3
r— CO
M- C
0
1- U
(U

2 i.
(U
s- c
ai & *-+

'o c "id
o  •
f*^ id c
a. s. s
"3*8
-(-> O J«i
O i— C
•z.\^--=>
-o
id
-C
-o
(U

t__
a>
-i_>
0
a)
^
i—
.
c
a>
id
3
0
r-—

(U
s-
o
o
id

s-
o
^~
4->
0
I/)
o
0

a>
i-

^
•
(/> a.
^ o
O J-
id ^D
i *
CO O)
i_
CD 3
C -(->
i ^ ^— S^
co ai ai
•r- Q.+J
x e a>
LU • a» g
CO -4-) ff
c id
• o e
0) -i- 0 >,
r— CO i- .Q
.a c <4-
id a» -a
r— 4-> T3 Ol
•r- X  id E
 -M
O +-> CO OJ
z to uj a
id ^3 o -a 
-------














CO

1—
"3£
1
Q.
1

^£
f-
^C
O
—1
^
o
^t
LU
Q£

CJ
O
>
ac
LU
CQ
Q£
O
CO
a
^c

•z.
o
S
S
u.
o
>_
OS
^^
j|
23
CO


^!
'

LU
— J
CO
1—

























^^
x:
^x»
.Q
^

^
**s^
^ t O)
fZ i_^
v *
>*•
^0
8-2
<" id
fll ^™
UJ
O) ^
t- ,_
> **~
< to
to
id
E












id

a.

SB
S5
I *
10
CT> . i
(O ^*
« fc-
cu v

rf C
•* o
o





4->
CU
C
1— 1














\u
2 "°"*e
rtj CU
XL ^
$-•—
3 3 O
O XJ O






C"
O
CU C 4J
•— T- Q.
4J J- 5-
330
O XJ tO
•T'i
W
id







t %
0)
r—
C




^
•M O> S
CU C O
r- ^- XJ
•(-> t. i—
330
O XJ O
U
O
"a) c**j
•— -r- CX
4-> i- J-
330
O XJ to
XJ
id


cu

1— 1


1 C
C ^0
U -M CU
c id >
0 S- CU
O -M r-







D) C
4-> C O

•M CX Id
3 E 0
O Id O
CO r—
O
^3-
O^




VO
un
CM
+*^S

U?
f-l
f-H





CM
un
i-H
x^x

CTt
VO





**"^
vo
CM
CO
CO

^-4





^^
^f
""


^
o
rH





un
cn
CM
CM




g
^J







XJ

^j
r-l

XJ

CQ
O CO CT> CO Un r-l VO O CM
'tf'^'CMr-iunr^vocovo r—
^y\ Oi ^ji ^y^ o> ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ cu
c
c
1 O
CU (/)
> J-
Cfii-i coco o r^ co co un «*- ex
CM cn un CM rr I-H CM cn vo cu +->
CM CM CO VO CM r-l CM 	 r-H JT C
SM*">««* Nl.^'^iH*' ^MX *- ,-^u ," *-|_|-* ^_> (^
CM r—
'd- CM o un cn co t-i . un «*- ex
o co vo co o un o r^ o
i— 1 r-l rH CM «— 1 r-l tO -t->
t)
C O>
cu c
3 «r-
•M • XJ
cor-.vouncMr^cMCMrv +j c  o
cMcor^^-«-iununTtco c •<- o o
rH CM rH ^ CM -^^rH -^^rH O 4-> 1- Id
X^Xntf* *-_-"-_-• «^^X ^^ x^^ CJ T" | %
vo cn -o T- «
OOOOCMVO «CT> «Un J. CXJ T3
uncoooocn vo oo ••-> oo 3
rH CM Id CJ O
6 "id r- fl"
CU E Id O

I % O $—
**— %x**s *~m^**—^ s^* ^^* "» ***^+ *, C O CD
OO 'if rH Tf pv 00 VO CO CM " C C
f«.cococovoununri-.co cu i- «r-
CMuncovotr>cMuncMun c  r— >,
CO i — >
x> > cu id
c  cu
Id r— CU .C
r—
CM rH VO Un *d- ^- CM rH VO U- C Id
O^rHVO^OrHVOO XI OC
^•UnVOrH^-CM^rrHCO 1 — -I— O -C
rH M_ Id +> t-
O i- id 2
•!-> $-
a» c 4J xj
s. cu c cu
3 U CU -M
O^fM-COCOCOCM'SfrH 4-> CO id
cnrHCMcoun-d-cocovo x oc c
CMrHCOrH rH rH •!— OO T-
E O E
+J  . 4_>
C i— CO • tO C
CU C r- to -* O
O • T- C *=. CU O
Sooouncoooo j-c T-^JCU
f«.coococncovorH cu o -c c 2 to
cnco corn CM or>- CMO ati- cn s o id
rH^fcMuncMun cuidxii— i
r— r— un rH CQ
O 3 O) O^ CM
£ EE C C '1 *|
1- »r- «r- O O XJ
_c .c.c x: x:ooi-t_ c
3 o> 3 cn cn 3 cji 3 CT> un 
id > 4J -M CU CU tO
r— Id Id O O XJ
VI O i- I- T- T- CU
id to cu w > > xi
4- O. OL V. S-
* XJ-MOOCUCUC
»«- XJ CU C tO tO i-
• * to CU 4-> -M
XJ XJ OCU CU COCOOCCC
QQ *^C ifl^ i^£ QQ ^^ (^ £3 C ^3 ^3 ^3
rH CM CMCO CO J- O. XtXtXt
CX E XJ XJ i- S- J-
xj XJ XJXJ xj xocucuididid
CO CU CUCU CU LUOCQCQ O CJ C_>
CQ CQ CD CQ CQ id XI O "O CU V^-
C-10

-------









K-
H-l
t-*
O
u_
CO
HH
o
U.
UJ
\~~
UJ
i
p^*

CO
t— 1
i
1 1 1
Q.
O
UJ
CO
o
a
o
CO
o
•
in
o
UJ
1
CO
jS


















a>
3

"id
id
3

^f








-

Kt id id
E J- i—
CU CU
ai §• *-
4—* (1) ^5
(^ i-"*
l— E 4-> *J
3 id 2 cu cu
0 C £ •— r-
•— -i- -r- C C
M- E X i- -i-
o id
< Z 3E < <
—I _J _l
to 01 oo
o"
8
•t
CO
co

CO
CM
n
r-H O f».
U3 CM  C «
id o cu
i- E en
•M S-
c • id
CU  C
0 CO O
•M -— E "- J-
cu id 3 •— id
r- U E U
C •!- T- C
•r- Q. X O r—
>) (^ ^^ (^
*t j— y j. 4^>
—i «o o






























OJ
• r—
CU -Q
r— id
JQ U
id i-
^- r—
•r- Q.
Id O.
> id
id
4-> O

II
II

^c *^^
z z
•d ja
C-ll

-------
TABLE C-6.  SUMMARY OF CARBON ADSORBER
 EFFICIENCIES  FOR  IBM  FACILITY  IN  1982
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Control
device
efficiency, %
94.2
94.2
95. Oa
95. Oa
98.3
99.0
98.6
98.7
99.1
99.4
98.5
97.7
Estimated.
                    C-12

-------













>"
H-
hH
_l
I— 1
<_>


UJ
1
I —



















*-
ai co
J3 0)
S- 3
O-—
 id
•o >
id
CM
^—
o •
J3 O
J_ Z
id
0





ai 
JD O)
i- =i
O " —

id
r~t
Jo
fez
o















S-
(1)
-M
a»


fc;
id
Q_





O
O <-»
O O
• o
CO »-l





LO
VO
O 1 LO LO
• oo o cj r«s
•* OO LO t— 1 CO




^-^
8
o •— «.
• o
10 ^
r-l r-4



LO O
UD O
O 1 O CM
• OO o O •
c» ^r LO ^r ^-i





— ^ >»
U- -M >
fc 	 ^ -1 • f^
^-^ W fc-i
^-^ 1- Q.
6 o E
C 03.
o -c =
10 • O
s_^ (U O> *r~
i_ > 4J
(/) 3 ••" id
--X 4-> 4-> J.
u« (rt (rt xj
E J- r- C
a» a>  ai ^ o
id 4-> o
t- •
E 4J 4J 4-> r— E
? 3 a; » id
rf" 5" cf CT rf" 1— ^
!j 3 3 S1^21
OO 00 00 00
o*
8
•t
o
C\J





CM
fv
o
§•
o*




^.^
8
o
•1
S



o
CO
o
«t
oo a>
f-l C\J






JD
•+-S
 C
a> o
<4- ^D
•r- i-
i— (O
o
c
O i—
jQ id
* 1 1
*- -r*

-------
     TABLE C-8.  SUMMARY OF CARBON ADSORBER RECOVERY
              EFFICIENCIES FOR 3M FACILITY*
                    Control device       Control device
Month                  No. 1, %             No.  2,  %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
94
96
97
96
95
94
92
90
91
90
90
89
96
96
96
95
95
94
94
93
93
91
91
90
aControl device efficiency data are at end of
 adsorption cycle, which has the lowest efficiency at
 this point.
                            C-14

-------












CD
=3
a
a
uu
k
^1
\g o
-J l_
^r
1 1 1""*

,_ SI
1°
si LiJ

^ 	 i
, t , ^C
^£
U- ^_
z ^
1
o
?

1 1 1
1
CQ


•^
o




t—4
•
*ar








UO
CM
*~J
o




i— i
•
CO



^— ^
1—
•r-
E
^~ '
E

„
01
cri
(U
C

U

.c
•t-1
O)
c
•>~
Id
o


^i^
g
<— 1




oo
•
0









*~**
8
CM




O
•




X"~V
C
•r-
E
"^
<4-
-— '
01

E

*
•o
(1)

C
tr~
Id
5

if>
CM
CM
«— 1



t— 1
•
r-l
OO








LO*
CM
CM
t— 1



•— 1
•
i~H
OO







*"*•
c
•r-
V^
E
O

•1
^
^J
TJ
•r-
S
cn
c
•r-
1d

id
r—
3
cs
^
o
M-
CD
C
•r—
Id
cS
in"
p*^
o
o
C£^



OO
o
•
o







*-^
1C
o
o
Q



oo
o
*
o


CM
-M

^^
_Q
f_

CM

O^
«^

«t
(U
CD
id
01
3
O>

•'•
id
o
o

^•^
LO
OO
^



00
CO
•
o








^^
LO
oo
^



oo
CO
•
o


"id
CD

f\
r—
*~*
^
•*^
2*

ft
>^
1 *
•r—
0^
C
a>
•a
^_>
c
a>
^
o



vo"
2»



CO
•
oo
*^









x-^t
^
^



(X^
•
tf%










^— «
^
•"-^J-*

o>


«
QJ
01
3
^j
C
O)
^
o
C-15

-------
 TABLE C-10.   CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF  SOLVENT  RECOVERED  DURING
           COMPLIANCE TEST AT ALLIED  MEDIA  TECHNOLOGY
                                                  Value
Parameter                                      kg      (Ib)

Total weight of drum and collected             118     (260)
  solvent

Drum tare weight                               12.5    (27.6)

Weight of solvent collected before             3       (6.6)
  time of test

Total solvent recovered                        105.5   (232.6)
                               C-16

-------





t—
HH
	 1
O
u_
00
Q.
1—

to
o
H- 1
t—
1 i 1
Q.
O
UJ
z
*"J
CO
z
t— 1
o
o
u_
o
1
<3£.
oo


'
»— 1
1— 1
1

LU
—1
*-














"id
•M
(2












O)
i
i
(U

_!



















CO








CM






i— 1


























9
r-l


t-H CO" «*•
l^> CM CM
O




•-I OO CO
r*» CM CM
• NM**
o





i-l ST CO

o




CM tO in
«a- to CM
• *~*
r-l













CO
E C

• i-
4-> U-
•o o

5^ »-
c o>
SC. f
IJ Z
*^^»
coco
CM •

^^*

CM lf>
CM «
• CM
O 
E
•1
1

00

(U
c
r— *C*
•r—
0) E

id -u
1- (4-
CL) — '
^
CO
s



CM

Id
(U
^
co OI-H O»
CM O CO CO
r^ co P** in
CO CM OO f^-
CM lO CM » —
.^c
co o o r>>

CM tO CO



r^. CM co CM
*»f 1O CM ^J"
l*«. CM CO r-l
9t «* * •
CO 00 ^ i—»





10 r-. i-i CM
i-l CO «— »
1~H ^MX
—


o o o cy»
IO i-l CO CM
r>> •— i vo i— i
•1 « •! «
CM oo to ^r
rH CM i— 1 	 '
*•— X







id
O)


^_)
c
(U
,2
o
CO * —
s*~* r~
i— .a id

,2




























*
T3
o
•r™
$-
O)
Q.

•!->
(U
-M

1
1
•a-
D>
,^
^
3
-o
-^
Ql
^
-J
co
id
0)

C-17

-------
APPENDIX D - EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING

-------
              APPENDIX D - EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING

     This appendix describes the measurement method experience that was
gained during the emission testing portion of this study, recommended per-
formance test procedures, and potential continuous monitoring procedures.
The purposes of these descriptions are to define the methodologies used to
collect the data, to recomriend potential procedures to demonstrate com-
pliance with a new source performance standard, and to discuss alternatives
for monitoring either emissions or process parameters to indicate continued
compliance with that standard.

D.I  EMISSION MEASUREMENT TEST PROGRAM AND METHODS

     No emission source testing in the magnetic tape industry was
conducted by the Emission Standards and Engineering Division (ESED) of
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the background
support study for the new source performance standard for this industry.
However, testing had been conducted earlier by ESED/EPA in similar surface
coating industries, and similar test procedures would be applicable for
the magnetic tape industry.

D.I.I  Coating Analysis Testing

     Coating samples were received from three magnetic tape manufacturers,
and analyzed using EPA Reference Method 24.  All samples were high-solvent
coatings; no low-solvent or waterborne coatings were available.   Prelimi-
nary analysis indicates that Method 24 is applicable to these coatings,
although specialized techniques and equipment nay be needed.   [More
details will be provided later when method development and analyses are
completed.]

     Extensive analysis of coating samples from other surface coating
industries has been done.  Coating samples were received from paint and
ink manufacturers and users in the following industries:  automobile and
light-duty truck, metal  coil, can, large appliances, pressure-sensitive
tapes and labels, and flexible vinyl  coating.   The coatings types included
high-solvent, high-solids, waterborne, and solvent-waterborne coatings.
These sample coatings encompassed the range of coatings expected  in the
respective industries.   All the samples were analyzed using EPA Reference
Method 24.

     The analysis results generally compared well  with the manufacturers'
formulation data.  Because the expected composition of magnetic tape
coatings is similar to the coatings tested,  Method 24 should  be applicable
to the magnetic tape industry.

                                   D-l

-------
D.I.2  Emission Source Testing Programs

     Although no magnetic tape plants were tested,  emission  tests  for
volatile organic compounds (VOC)  were conducted at  several plants  in
similar coating industries:  automobile and light-duty  truck,  metal  coil,
can, pressure-sensitive tapes and labels,  publication  rotogravure,  and
flexible vinyl coating.  Because  similar test procedures  would be  appli-
cable to the magnetic tape industry,  details of these  test programs in
other industries are discussed below.

     For each individual facility that was tested,  the test  procedures
and approaches varied somewhat due to different data needs and plant
design configurations.  In general,  the purpose of  the testing programs
was to characterize the VOC emissions to the atmosphere and  the control
efficiency of the vapor capture and processing systems, as well as the
overall solvent usage, end distribution, and material  balance throughout
the entire coating process.   The  field testing was  usually much more
comprehensive than the performance test procedures  specified in the
applicable regulations for these  industries in order to evaluate various
testing approaches and methods and to gather useful auxiliary information
to better understand the process  operation.

D.I.3  Stack Emission Testing Conducted

     D.I.3.1  Testing Locations.   Gas streams that  were tested for VOC
concentrations and flow rate included: inlets and outlets of vapor proces-
sing devices; uncontrolled exhaust streams venting  directly  to the atmos-
phere; intermediate process streams such as hood exhausts and drying oven
exhausts venting to other process units.  From the  concentration and flow
rate results, the VOC mass emissions or mass flow rate in each stream
could be calculated.  Not all of these streams were tested at each plant.
The streams selected for sampling at a particular plant depended on the
data needs of that particular industry testing program.  These gas streams
were usually in vents that were suitable for conventional EPA stack
emission measurement techniques,  and these measurement approaches are
described in this section.

     If there were emissions that were not collected and vented through
stacks suitable for conventional  testing, then ambient VOC survey tech-
niques had to be adopted. (An example would be open doorways.)  These non-
conventional measurement techniques are described in a later section, D.I.5.

     0.1.3.2  Flow Measurements.   During ESED/EPA's field testing programs,
Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, and 4 were used to determine the volumetric
flow rate of the gas streams being sampled.  Because all the stacks or
ducts  that were tested  had diameters of at least 12 inches,  Methods 1 and
2 were applicable, and  alternative flow rate measurement techniques were
not required.  The volumetric flow rates were determined on either a dry
or wet basis, depending on whether the corresponding VOC concentration
method used for that  site measured VOC concentrations under actual
conditions (wet basis)  or dry conditions.
                                   D-2

-------
     Reference Method 1 was used to select the sampling site along  the
duct or stack, and to determine the number of sampling points on  the
cross-sectional area inside the duct.   Method 2 was  used to measure gas
velocity.  This method is based on the use of an S-type pi tot tube  to
traverse the duct cross-section to calculate an average gas velocity.  To
determine the gas stream molecular weight and density, as required  for
Method 2, the fixed gases composition  and moisture content are needed.
The fixed gas composition (02, C02, CO, N2) was usually determined  by an
Orsat analysis procedure detailed in Method 3.  Sometimes,  however, the
molecular weight of the vent gases was assumed to be the same as  ambient
air.  This was a valid assumption when no combustion sources were involved
and the hydrocarbon concentrations in  the stream were low.   Gas streain
moisture was measured following Method 4, or with a  wet bulb/dry  bulb
approach.  The less precise wet bulb/dry bulb technique was acceptable
because the moisture value was not usually a crucial parameter in these
tests.  Also, the moisture content was not expected  to differ from
ambient conditions unless combustion sources were involved.  The  moisture
content is used to adjust the molecular weight in a  calculation step in
Method 2, and to adjust the flow rates to a dry basis if needed.   Using
the duct area, the gas volumetric flow rate was then calculated.

     If the flow rate in a vent were suspected to be unsteady and vary
significantly during a test run, then  Method 2 was modified to give an
indication of the continuous flow rate.  The pi tot tube was left  in the
duct at a single representative sampling point so that any changes  in the
flow rate could be monitored.

     D.I.3.3  Concentration Measurements.  The VOC concentration  in each
stack was determined using one or more of the following methods:

          0 Reference Method 25 (M25)
          0 Flame lonization Analyzer  (FIA)
              0 Reference Method 25A (M25A)
              0 Modified calibration procedures following a more  general
                method detailed in an  EPA guideline  document (GENERAL FIA)
              0 Continuous measurements using direct extraction (CONT/FIA)
              0 Time integrated bag samples (BAG/FIA)
          0 Reference Method 18 - Gas  Chromatograph  (GC) with flame ioniza-
            tion detector
              0 Time integrated bag samples (BAG/GO
              0 Grab flask or syringe  samples (GRAB/GO

It should be noted that at the time of the testing,  many of these methods
had not been finalized, so preliminary versions were followed.  However,
the later changes to these methods were not significant and would not have
affected the test results.  Usually, two of the VOC  measurement procedures
were run simultaneously.  This was done in order to  characterize  the emis-
sions in more detail, as well as to aid in selecting an appropriate test
method.

     The direct extraction FIA method  was used at sites which were  con-
venient and not in hazardous areas. The direct FIA  had the advantage that,
with continuous measurements, minor process variations could be noted.


                                   D-3

-------
Also, once it was set up,  it was  relatively  inexpensive  to  run  it  for  a
long time period, and thus,  changes in emissions  due  to  process variations
could be easily noted.

     The other methods could be used at any  sampling  location,  including
sites in explosive atmospheres or remote locations.   When the time-
integrated sampling methods  were  used (M25,  BAG/FIA,  BAG/GC), the  sample
was collected for a 45- to 60-minute time period.   Because  of its  complex
analysis procedure, the Method 25 samples had to  be analyzed later in  the
laboratory.  The integrated  bag samples, however,  were analyzed as soon as
possible (within 24 hours) on-site by either a FIA or GC method.

     The FIA's were usually  calibrated with  propane,  although sometimes
they were also calibrated with the solvent being  used in the coating pro-
cess, (GENERAL FIA).  The GC's were calibrated with each component that was
known to be in the solvent mixture being used.

     The results from the different FIA sampling  approaches should be
equivalent, provided they are compared for the same time periods.   The
Method 25 results differed somewhat from the results  of  the FIA.   The
differences were probably due to the fact that the Method 25 procedure
measures all carbon atoms equally, while the FIA  detector has a varying
response ratio for different organic compounds.  The  difference in results
would be most pronounced when a multi-component solvent  mixture is used.

     The results from the two GC sampling approaches  would  necessarily be
different because of the different sampling time  periods.   The  results
from a GC analysis are reported as concentrations for each  individual
compound, and thus cannot be compared directly to the FIA  results.  The FIA
is calibrated with one compound and the total hydrocarbon concentration is
reported as one number on the basis of that compound. Also,  the FIA
detector has a varying response ratio to different organic  compounds,  so
again the difference in results between the GC and FIA would be most pro-
nounced when a multi-component solvent mixture is used.

D.I.4  Liquid Solvent Material Balance Testing Conducted

     The EPA did not directly conduct any long-term liquid  solvent material
balance tests; however, detailed records were obtained  from three plants  in
two industries and EPA reviewed their procedures.  In all  cases, the vapor
recovery device was a carbon absorber.  The solvent used by the plant  was
compared to the solvent recovered (usually on a weekly  or monthly basis),
in order to obtain an overall control efficiency, combining capture and
recovery efficiencies.  At one plant in the pressure-sensitive  tapes and
labels industry, the amount of solvent recovered was  determined by reading
the level in the solvent recovery tank at the carbon  adsorber.   The
amount of solvent used was determined from plant purchasing,  inventory,  and
production records.  At two plants in the publication rotogravure industry,
in-line meters measured the amount of solvent directed  to  each  printing
line and the recovered solvent returned to the solvent  storage  tank.
                                  D-4

-------
D.I.5  Ambient Surveys and Fugitive Emission Characterization

     Ambient measurements were conducted during some test series.   Open
doorways were monitored periodically to estimate the mass flux of  VOC
into and out of the coating area.  The flow rate through doorways  was
measured with a hand-held velometer (6 to 9 points were sampled per
doorway).  Concentration was measured with a portable combustible  gas
detector which generally conformed to Reference Method 21 specifications.

     Ambient VOC concentration levels in the coating area were measured
periodically during the testing period.  The surveys were conducted
throughout the room at various heights (1, 5, and 8 feet from  floor).

     Surveys were also made of the VOC concentrations and flow rates into
hood intakes above coating or embossing operations, in order to estimate
and characterize the fugitive VOC's which were drawn into the  hooding
exhaust stack.  VOC concentration and flow measurements were made  at
representative spots around the perimeter of intake hoods as close to
the intake as the physical equipment setup permitted.

     Eight-hour exposure sampling was conducted during some test programs.
Following a NIOSH ambient sampling procedure, ambient air samples  were
drawn through carbon tubes.  Analysis consisted of extraction  in carbon
disulfide and liquid analysis by gas chromatograph for speciation  of the
solvent components used in the coatings.

D.I.6  Solvent Sample Analysis

     Some plants mix their coatings on-site from raw materials.  Samples
of the solvent (or mixture of solvents) were obtained and analyzed for
speciation by direct injection into a gas chromatograph.   The  results
froi.i these analyses indicated whether the solvent (or solvent  mixture)
being used matched the plant's formulation data.

     Samples of recovered solvent from carbon adsorbers were also  obtained
and analyzed in order to compare the composition  of the recovered  solvent
to that of the new solvent.

D.I.7  Wastewater Sample Analysis

     If the solvents being used were miscible in  water, then the recovered
solvent from a steam-generated carbon adsorber is mixed with water and is
separated in a distillation step.  Wastewater samples were collected from
various points in the carbon adsorption/distillation system.   The  water
samples were analyzed for compound speciation and total  organic  carbon
using standard laboratory water analysis procedures.

     The results from this determination were used to characterize the
operation of the carbon adsorber and applied to the solvent material
balance calculations.
                                  D-5

-------
D.I.8  Product Sample Analysis

     Product samples were collected and  analyzed  for  residual  solvent
content in two industries.  The results  from this determination were
applied to the solvent material  balance  calculations.

     In the pressure sensitive  tapes and labels industry,  final tape
samples were collected and analyzed for  residual  solvent,  using ASTM
F 151-72 "Standard Test Method  for Residual  Solvents  in  Flexible  Barrier
Material."  This method only provided an index for comparing  solvent
levels and was inappropriate for the true measurement of the  mass of
residual solvent.

     In the flexible vinyl printing and  coating industry,  product samples
of the vinyl wall covering were obtained before and after the embosser
and analyzed for solvent content.   The test  procedure was  an  adaptation
pf NIOSH ambient carbon tube measurement techniques.   The product samples
were put in a heated container  and air was drawn  across  the container  and
then through a carbon tube, which collected  the organics.   The carbon
tubes were analyzed for compound speciation  by a  gas  chromatograph,  in
the same manner as ambient sample carbon tubes.   This product sampling
and analysis was a preliminary  test procedure. The results were  in  a
lower range than expected, but  there is  no way to independently verify
the results.
                                  D-6

-------
D.2  PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS

     Many different approaches, test methods, and test procedures can be
used to characterize volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from indus-
trial surface coating facilities.  The particular combination of measure-
ment methods and procedures to be used depends upon the format of the
standard and test procedures specified in the applicable regulation.

     General testing approaches are:

     1.  Analysis of coatings.
     2.  Direct measurement of emissions to the atmosphere from stacks.
     3.  Determination of vapor processing device efficiency.
     4.  Determination of vapor capture system efficiency.
     5.  Determination of overall control efficiency based on liquid  sol-
         vent material balance.
     6.  Survey of fugitive emissions.

D.2.1  Performance Testing of Coatings

     D.2.1.1  Analysis of Coatings

          Recommended Method.  EPA Reference Method 24 is the recommended
method for the analysis of coatings.  This method combines several  American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard methods to determine the
volatile matter content, water content, density, volume solids,  and weight
solids of inks and related surface coatings.  These parameter values  are
combined to calculate the VOC content of a coating in the units  specified
in the applicable regulation.

          Reference Method 24A is similar in principle to Method 24,  but
some of the analytical steps are slightly different and the results would
differ.  It was developed specifically for publication rotogravure  printing
inks and contains specific analytical  steps which were already widely used
in that industry.  Thus, Reference Method 24A is not recommended for
analysis of magnetic tape coatings.

          Volatile Matter Content (Wv).  The total  volatile content of a
coating is determined by using ASTM D 2369-81, "Standard Test Method  for
Volatile Content of Coatings."  This procedure is applied to both aqueous
and nonaqueous coatings.  The result from this procedure is the  volatile
content of a coating as a weight fraction.

          Water Content(Uw).  There are two acceptable procedures for
determining the water content of a coating:   (1)  ASTM D 3792-80,  "Standard
Test Method for Water Content of Water-Reducible Paints by Direct Injec-
tion into a Gas Chromatograph," and (2) ASTM D 4017-81,  "Standard Test
Method for Water in Paints and Paint Materials by the Karl  Fischer  Titra-
tion Method." This procedure is applied only to aqueous coatings.   The
result is the water content as a weight fraction.

          Organic Content (W0).  The volatile organic content of a  coating
(as a weight fraction) is not determined directly.   Instead,  it  is  deter-

                                  D-7

-------
mined indirectly by subtraction from the total  volatile  content  and  the
water content values.
                              "0  =  "V ~ "W

          Solids Content (Ws).   The solids content of  a  coating  (as  a
weight fraction) is also determined indirectly  using the previously  deter-
mined values:
                      Ws  =  1  - Wv  =  1 - W0  - Ww

          Volume Solids (Vs).   There is no reliable, accurate analytical
procedure that is generally applicable to determine the  volume solids  of
a coating.  Instead, the solids content (as a volume fraction) is  calcu-
lated using the manufacturer's  formulation data.

          Coating Density (Dc).  The density of coating  is determined
using the procedure in ASTM D 1475-60 (Reapproved 1980), "Standard Test
Method for Density of Paint, Varnish, Lacquer,  and Related Products."

          Cost.  The estimated cost of analysis per coating sample is:
$50 for the total volatile matter content procedure; $100 for the  water
content determination; and $25 for the density  determination.  Because
the testing equipment is standard laboratory apparatus,  no additional
purchasing costs are expected.

          Adjustments.  If non-photochemically  reactive  solvents are used
in the coatings, then standard gas chromatographic techniques may  be used
to identify and quantify these solvents.  The results  of Reference
Method 24 may be adjusted to subtract these solvents from the measured VOC
content.

     D.2.1.2  Sampling and Handling of Coatings.  For  Method 24 analysis  of
a coating, a 1-liter sample should be obtained and placed in a 1-liter con-
tainer.  The head-space in the container should be as  small as possible  so
that organics in the coating do not evaporate and escape detection.   The
coating sample should be taken at a place that is representative of  the
coating being applied.  Alternatively, the coating may be sampled  in the
mixing or storage area while separate records are kept of dilution solvent
being added at the coating heads.  Some magnetic tape  coatings have  a
component (usually a resin) that cause the coating to  "set" within a short
time period.  Samples of these coatings need to be taken before the  "set-
ting agent" has been added.

     The coating sample should be protected from direct sunlight,  extreme
heat or cold, and agitation.  There is no limitation given in Method 24
for the length of time between sampling and analysis.

     D.2.1.3  Weighted Average VOC Content of Coatings.   If a plant uses
all low-solvent coatings (as specified in the applicable regulation),  then
each coating simply  needs to be analyzed following Method 24.  However,  if
a plant uses a combination of low and high-solvent coatings, the weighted
average VOC content  of all the coatings used over a specified time period
needs to be  determined.  Depending on the format of the standard,  the
average is weighted  by the volume or mass of coating solids.  In addition

                                  D-8

-------
to the Method 24 or manufacturer's formulation information, the amount (as
a weight) of each coating used must be determined.  The EPA has no inde-
pendent test procedure to determine the amount of coating used, and instead
it is recommended that plant inventory and usage records be relied upon.
Host plants already keep detailed records of amounts of coatings used.
Thus, no additional effort or cost is expected to be required to attain
coating usage.  If a plant keeps its inventory records on a volume basis,
then the density of the coating needs to be determined to convert the
inventory to a mass basis.

D.2.2  Stack Emission Testing

     D.2.2.1  Testing Locations.  Stack emission testing techniques would
be needed to measure the VOC concentration and gas flow rate in stacks and
ducts such as:  inlets and outlets of vapor processing devices; exhaust
streams from mixing equipment and/or storage tanks; uncontrolled exhaust
streams venting directly to the atmosphere; intermediate process streams
such as hood exhausts and drying oven exhausts venting to other process
units.  The particular streams to be measured depends upon the applicable
regulation.

     D.2.2.2  Use of Test Results.  The results from the VOC concentration
Measurement and flow rate measurement can be combined and used in many
ways.  If a regulation is on a concentration basis, then only VOC concen-
tration measurement is needed and the result can be used directly.  If the
regulation is on a mass emission basis (i.e., mass emitted per unit of
production; or mass emitted per unit of time), then the concentration and
flow rate results are combined to calculate the mass flow rate.  If the
regulation is on an efficiency basis, then mass flow rate is determined for
each of the streams being compared and the efficiency is calculated straight-
forwardly.

     The performance test procedure in the applicable regulation will
define the test length and the conditions under which testing is acceptable,
as well as the way the reference test method measurements are combined to
attain the final result.

     D.2.2.3  Overall  Control  Efficiency.   Performance test methods and
procedures are used to determine the overall  control efficiency of the
add-on pollution control system.  The add-on control system is composed of
two parts:  a vapor capture system, and a vapor processing device (carbon
adsorber, condenser, or incinerator).  The control  efficiency of each
component is deternined separately and the overall  control  efficiency  is
the product of the capture system and processing device efficiencies.
(Mote:   This measured overall  control efficiency will  not reflect control
or emission reductions due to process and operational  changes.)

     D.2.2.4  Processing Device Efficiency.   The three types of processing
devices that are expected to be used in the magnetic tape industry are
carbon adsorbers,  condensers,  and incinerators.   The test procedure to
determine efficiency is the same for each  control  technology.
                                  D-9

-------
     To determine the efficiency of the emission processing device, the VOC
mass flow rate in the inlet and outlet gas streams must be determined.  To
determine the mass of VOC in a gas stream, both the concentration and flow
rate must be measured.  The recommended methods and the reason for their
selection are discussed later in sections D.2.2.7 and D.2.2.8.

     D.2.2.5  Capture System Efficiency.  The efficiency of the vapor
capture system is defined as the ratio of the mass of gaseous VOC emissions
directed to the vapor processing device to the total mass of gaseous VOC
emissions from the magnetic tape coating line.  The mass of VOC in each
applicable vent is determined by measuring the concentration and the flow
rate using standard EPA test methods.  The recommended methods and the
reason for their selection are discussed later in sections D.2.2.7 and
D.2.2.8.

     In order to determine capture efficiency, all fugitive VOC emissions
from the coating area must be captured and vented through stacks suitable
for testing.  Furthermore, the coating line being tested should be isolated
from any fugitive VOC emissions originating from other sources.  All doors
and other openings through which fugitive VOC emissions might escape would
be closed.

     One way to isolate the coating line from other VOC emission sources
and to capture and vent all fugitive emissions from the coating line is to
construct a temporary enclosure with a separate vent around those portions
of the coating line (e.g. flashoff area) where fugitive emissions normally
occur.  The temporary enclosure should be ventilated at a rate proportional
to that of the building in which the enclosure is housed in order to
duplicate closely the normal emissions profile.  Although this method of
measuring capture efficiency may not produce conditions identical to normal
operation, the rate of generation of "fugitive" emissions within the
temporary enclosure will tend to be lower than without the enclosure.  The
enclosure walls will reduce cross drafts resulting in a conservatively high
estimate of capture efficiency.

     Instead of requiring a performance test, a regulation may require a
specific equipment configuration in order to ensure a high capture
efficiency.  For example, the applicable regulation may specify a total
enclosure around the coater or sealed lids and a closed venting system for
coating mix equipment.  To ensure that these equipment specifications are
met, visible inspections or Method 21 leak detection surveys can be
conducted.  However, ESED/EPA has no experience using Method 21 for
detecting such leaks in the surface coating industries, and thus cannot
recommend a leak concentration level to be used in evaluating the
performance of various pieces of capture equipment.

     D.2.2.6  Stack Emission Testing - Time and Cost.  The length of a
performance test is specified in the applicable regulation and is selected
to be representative for the industry and process being tested.  The  length
of a perfomance test should be selected to be long enough so to account for
variability in emissions due to up and down operation times, routine
process problems, and different products.  Also, the performance test time
period should correspond to the cycles of the emission control device.
                                    D-10

-------
     Coating line operations are intermittent;  there are often long
time periods between runs for cleanup,  setup,  and color matching,  so
the total length of a performance test  could vary from plant to plant.
In general, a performance test would consist of three to six runs,  each
lasting from 1/2 to 3 hours.  It is estimated that for most operations,
the field testing could probably be completed in 2 to 3 days (i.e.,  two
or three 8-hour work shifts) with an extra day  for setup,  instrument
preparation, and cleanup.

     The cost of the testing varies with the length of the test and the
number of vents to be tested:   inlet, outlet,  intermediate process,  and
fugitive vents.  The cost to measure VOC concentration and flow rate is
estimated at $6,000 to $10,000 per vent, excluding travel  expenses.

     D.2.2.7  Details on Gas Volumetric Flow Measurement Method.

          Recommended methods.  Reference Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C,  2D,
3 and 4 are recommended as appropriate  for determination of the volume-
tric flow rate of gas streams.

          Large stacks with steady flow.  Methods 1 and 2  are used in
stacks with steady flow and with diameters greater than 12 inches.
Reference Method 1 is used to select the sampling site, and Reference
Method 2 measures the volumetric flow rate using a S-type pitot tube
velocity traverse technique.  Methods 3 and 4  provide fixed gases  analy-
sis and moisture content, which are used to determine the gas stream
molecular weight and density in Method  2.   The  results are in units  of
standard cubic meters per hour.

     Small ducts.  If the duct is small (less  than 12 inches diameters)
then alternative flow measurement techniques will be needed using  Method
2A, Method 2D, or Methods 2C and 1A. Method 2A uses an in-line turbine
meter to continuously and directly measure the  volumetric  flow. Method 2D
uses rotameters, orifice plates, anemometers,  or other volume rate or
pressure drop measuring devices to continuously measure the flowrate.
Methods 1A and 2C (in combination) modify  Methods 1 and 2  and use  a  small
standard pitot tube traverse technique  to  measure the flow in small  ducts,
and apply when the flow is constant and continuous.

          Unsteady flow.  If the flow in a large duct (greater than  12
inches diameter) is not steady or continuous,  then Method  2 may be modified
to continuously monitor the changing flow  rate  in the stack.   A continuous
1-point pitot tube measurement is made  at  a representative location  in  the
stack.  For small ducts with unsteady flow, continuous measurement with
Method 2A or 2D is recommended.

          Adjustment for moisture.  The results do not need to be  adjusted
to dry conditions (using Method 4 for moisture) if the VOC concentrations
are measured in the gas stream under actual conditions; that is, if  the
VOC concentrations are reported as parts of VOC per million parts  of
actual (wet) volume (ppmv).  If the concentrations are measured on a dry
basis (gas chromatographic techniques or Method 25) then the volumetric
flow rate must correspondingly be adjusted to  a dry basis.


                                  D-ll

-------
     D.2.2.8  Details on VOC  Concentration  Measurement Method.

          Method 25A.  The recommended VOC  measurement method  is  Reference
Method 25A, "Determination of Total  Gaseous Organic  Concentration Using  A
Flame lonization Analyzer" (FIA).   This method was selected  because  it
measures the expected solvent emissions accurately,  is practical  for long-
term, intermittent testing, and provides a  continuous  record of VOC  concen-
tration.  A continuous record is valuable because of coating line and
control device fluctuations.   Measurements  that are  not  continuous may not
give a representative indication of emissions.  The  coating  lines in this
industry may operate intermittently, and the vent concentrations  may vary
significantly.  Continuous measurements and records  are  easier to use for
intermittent processes, and the short-term  variations  in concentration can
be noted.  The continuous records are averaged or integrated as necessary
to obtain an average result for the measurement period.

     Method 25A applies to the measurement  of total  gaseous  organic  concen-
tration of vapors consisting of alkanes, and/or arenes  (aromatic  hydro-
carbons).  The instrument is calibrated in  terms of  propane  or another
appropriate organic compound.  A sample is  extracted from the  source
through a heated sample line and glass fiber filter  and  routed to a  flame
ionization analyzer (FIA).  (Provisions are included for eliminating the
heated sampling line and glass fiber filter under some  sampling condi-
tions.) Results are reported as concentration equivalents of the  calibra-
tion gas organic constitutent or organic carbon.

     Instrument calibration is based on a single reference compound.  For
the magnetic tape industry, the recommended calibration  compound  is  propane
or butane.  (However, if only one compound  is used  as  the sole solvent at  a
plant, then that solvent could be used as the calibration compound.)  As a
result, the sample concentration measurements are on the basis of that
reference compound and are not necessarily  true hydrocarbon  concentrations.
The response of an FIA is proportional to carbon content for similiar com-
pounds.  Thus, on a carbon number basis, measured concentrations  based on
the reference compound are close to the true hydrocarbon concentrations.
Also, any minor biases in the FIA concentration results  are  less  signifi-
cant if the results will be used in an efficiency calculation  --  both
inlet and outlet measurements are made and  compared -- and biases in each
measurement will tend to cancel out.  For calculation  of emissions  on a
mass basis, results would be nearly equivalent using either the  concentra-
tion and molecular weight based on a reference gas  or  the true concentra-
tion and true average molecular weight of the hydrocarbons.

     The advantage of using a single component calibration is  that  costly
and time consuming chromatographic techniques are  not  required to isolate
and quantify the individual compounds present.  Also,  propane  and butane
calibration gases are readily available in  the concentration ranges needed
for this industry.

     The solvents commonly used in coatings in this industry are methyl -
ethylketone (MEK), methyl-iso-butyl ketone  (MIBK),  toluene,  cyclohexanone,
and tetrahydrofuran  (THF).  Most plants use a mixture  of different  com-
pounds for  solvent.  Since the solvent mixtures may vary from  day-to-day


                                  D-12

-------
and from plant-to-plant, there is no; standard solvent mixture  to  use  for
calibration.   Also, the individual  compounds in the mixture will  evaporate
and be controlled at different rates,  so the gaseous VOC  mix in the
exhaust stream is not the same mix as  the original  multi-component liquid
solvent.  Furthermore, if incineration is used, any semi-destructed
gaseous compounds at the incinerator outlet will  be different  from the
compounds in the original solvent mixture.   Thus, there  is  no  advantage
in calibrating the FIA with the mixture of solvents being used.

     The analysis technique using an FIA measures total  hydrocarbons
including methane and ethane,  which are considered non-photochemically
reactive, and thus not VOC's.   Due to  the coating solvent composition,
little methane or ethane is expected in the gas streams  so  chromatogra-
phic analysis is not needed nor recommended to adjust the hydrocarbon
results to a nonmethane, nonethane basis.

          Other Methods.  Three other  VOC concentration  measurement
methods were considered (and rejected) for this application:   Method  18,
Method 25B, and Method 25.

          Method 18.  Gas chromatograph (GC) analysis on  integrated bag
samples following Method 18 was considered because results  would  be on
the basis of true hydrocarbon  concentrations for each compound in the
solvent mixture.  However, the BAG/GC  sample technique is not  a continuous
measurement and would be cumbersome and impractical because of the length
of the testing.  Also, it would be costly and time consuming to calibrate
for each compound, and there is little advantage or extra accuracy gained
from the GC approach.

          Method 25B.  Method  25B,  "Determination of Total  Gaseous Organic
Concentration Using a Nondispersive Infrared Analyzer,"  is  identical  to
Method 25A except that a different instrument is used.   Method 25B applies
to the measurement of total gaseous organic concentration of vapor con-
sisting primarily of alkanes.   The sample is extracted as described in
Method 25A and is analyzed with a nondispersive infrared  analyzer (NDIR).
Method 25B was not selected because NDIR analyzers  do not respond as  well
as FIA's to all of the solvents used in this industry.   Also,  NDIR's  are
not sensitive in low concentration ranges (<50 ppmv),  and the  outlet
concentrations from incinerators and carbon adsorbers are expected to
often be below 50 ppmv.

          Method 25.  Method 25, "Determination of Total  Gaseous  Non-
methane Organics Content" was  also considered.   A 30- to  60-minute inte-
grated sample is collected in  a sample train, and the train is returned
to the laboratory for analysis.  The collected organics  are converted in
several analytical steps to methane and the number of carbon atoms (less
methane in the original sample) is measured.  Results are reported as
organic carbon equivalent concentration.  The Method 25  procedure is  not
recommended for this industry  because  it is awkward to use  for long test
periods and it takes integrated samples instead of continuously sampling
and recording the concentration.  Concentration variations  would  be
masked with Method 25 time-integrated  sample.  Also,  Method 25 is not
                                 D-13

-------
sensitive in low concentration ranges  (<50 ppmv).   However,  Method 25  has
the advantage that it counts each carbon atom in each compound and does
not have a varying response ratio for  different compounds.

D.2.3  Liquid Solvent Material Balance

     If a plant's vapor processing device recovers solvent  (such  as carbon
adsorption or condenser systems)  then  a liquid solvent material  balance
approach can be used to determine the  efficiency of the vapor control
system.  This is done by comparing the solvent used versus  the solvent
recovered.  These values may be obtained from a plant's inventory records.
The EPA has no test procedure to  independently verify the plant's account-
ing records.  However, it is recommended that the plant set up and submit
to the enforcement agency its proposed inventory accounting and record-
keeping system prior to any performance testing.

     For this performance testing approach, the averaging time (perform-
ance test time period) usually needs to be 1 week to 1 month.  This longer
averaging period allows for a representative variety of coatings  and tape
products, as well as reducing the impact of short-term variations due  to
process upsets, solvent spills, and variable amounts of solvent in use in
the process.

     The volume of solvent recovered may be determined by measuring the
level of solvent in the recovered solvent storage tank.  The storage tank
should have an accurate, easily readable level indicator.  To improve  the
precision of the volume measurement, it is recommended that the recovered
solvent tank have a relatively small diameter, so that small changes in
volume result in greater changes in tank level.  Alternatively, the solvent
recovered may be measured directly by  using a liquid volume meter in the
solvent return line.  Adjustments to the amount of solvent  recovered may be
needed to match the format of the applicable regulation. For example, if
the regulation applies to only certain-unit operations in a plant, then  the
contributions of other VOC sources must be subtracted from  the total amount
of solvent recovered.

     The volume of solvent used may be determined from plant inventory and
purchasing records or by measuring the level in the solvent storage tank.
Alternatively, a liquid volume meter can be used to measure the amount of
solvent drawn off from the solvent storage tank.  Adjustments to the amount
of solvent used may be needed to match the format of the applicable regula-
tion.  For example, the regulation may apply to only certain unit operations
in a plant, or to only solvent applied at the coater not to solvent used
for cleanup.
                                  D-14

-------
D.3  MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES

     The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that the emission control
system is being properly operated and maintained after the performance
test.  One can either directly monitor the regulated pollutant,  or instead,
monitor an operational parameter of the emission control  system.   The  aim
is to select a relatively inexpensive and simple method that will  indicate
that the facility is in continual compliance with the standard.

     The three types of vapor processing devices that are expected to  be
used in the magnetic tape industry are carbon adsorbers,  condensers, and
incinerators.  Possible monitoring approaches and philosophy for each
part of the VOC control system are discussed below.

D.3.1  Monitoring of Vapor Processing Devices

     D.3.1.1  Monitoring in Units of Efficiency.  There are presently  no
demonstrated continuous monitoring systems commercially available which
monitor vapor processor operation in the units of efficiency.  This moni-
toring would require measuring not only inlet and exhaust VOC concentra-
tions, but also inlet and exhaust volumetric flow rates.   An overall cost
for a complete monitoring system is difficult to estimate due to the
number of component combinations possible.  The purchase  and installation
cost of an entire monitoring system (including VOC concentration monitors,
flow measurement devices, recording devices, and automatic data  reduction)
is estimated to be $25,000.  Operating costs are estimated at $25,000  per
year.  Thus, monitoring in the units of efficiency is not recommended  due
to the potentially high cost and lack of a demonstrated monitoring system.

     D.3.1.2  Monitoring in Units of Mass Emitted.  Monitoring in units of
mass of VOC emitted would require concentration and flow  measurements  only
at the exhaust location, as discussed above.  This type of monitoring
system has not been commercially demonstrated.  The cost  is estimated  at
$12,500 for purchase and installation plus $12,500 annually for  operation,
maintenance, calibration, and data reduction.

     D.3.1.3  Monitoring of Exhaust VOC Concentration. Monitoring equip-
ment is commercially available, however, to monitor the operational or
process variables associated with vapor control  system operation.   The
variable which would yield the best indication of system  operation is  VOC
concentration at the processor outlet.  Extremely accurate measurements
would not be required because the purpose of the monitoring is not to
determine the exact outlet emissions but rather to indicate operational and
maintenance practices' regarding the vapor processor.   Thus, the  accuracy of
a FIA (Method 25A) type instrument is not needed, and less accurate, less
costly instruments which use different detection principles are  acceptable.
Monitors for this type of continuous VOC measurements, including a continu-
ous recorder, typically cost about $6,000 to purchase and install,  and
$6,000 annually to calibrate, operate, maintain, and reduce the  data.   To
achieve representative VOC concentration measurements at  the processor
outlet, the concentration monitoring device should be installed  in the
exhaust vent at least two equivalent stack diameters  from the exit point,
and protected from any interferences due to wind, weather, or other processes.


                                  D-15

-------
     The EPA does not currently have any experience  with  continuous
monitoring of VOC exhaust concentration of vapor processing  units  in  the
magnetic tape industry.   Therefore,  performance specifications  for the  sens-
ing instruments cannot be recommended at this time.   Examples of  such
specifications that were developed for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
continuous instrument systems can be found in Appendix B  of  40  CFR 60.

     D.3.1.4  Monitoring of Process  Parameters.  For some vapor processing
systems, there may be another process parameter besides the  exhaust VOC
concentration which is an accurate indicator of system operation.  Because
control system design is constantly  changing and being upgraded in this
industry, all acceptable process parameters for all  systems  cannot be
specified.  Substituting the monitoring of vapor processing  system process
parameters for the monitoring of exhaust VOC concentration is valid and
acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the value  of the process param-
eter is an indicator of proper operation of the vapor processing  system.
However, a disadvantage of parameter monitoring alone is  that the correla-
tion of the parameters with the numerical emission limit  is  not exact.
Monitoring of any such parameters would have to be approved  by  enforcement
officials on a caseby-case basis.   Parameter monitoring  equipment would
typically cost about $3,000 plus $3,000 annually to  operate, maintain,
periodically calibrate, and reduce the data into the desired format.
Temperature monitoring equipment is  somewhat less expensive. The cost  of
purchasing and installing an accurate temperature measurement device  and
recorder is estimated at $1,500.  Operating costs, including maintenance,
calibration, and data reduction, would be about $1,500 annually.

     D.3.1.5  Monitoring of Carbon Adsorbers.  For carbon adsorption
vapor processing devices, the preferred monitoring approach  is  the use  of
a continuous VOC exhaust concentration monitor.  However, as discussed
above, no such general monitor has been demonstrated for  the many dif-
ferent organic compounds encountered in this industry.  Alternatively,
the carbon bed temperature (after regeneration and completion of  any
cooling cycles), and the amount of steam used to regenerate the bed  have
been identified as indicators of product recovery efficiency.   Tempera-
ture monitors and steam flow meters which indicate the quantity of steam
used over a period of time are available.

     D.3.1.6  Monitoring of Condensers.  For condenser devices, the
temperature of the exhaust stream has been identified as  an indicator of
product recovery efficiency, and condenser temperature monitors are
available.

     D.3.1.7  Monitoring of Incinerators.  For incineration devices,  the
exhaust concentration is quite low and  is difficult to measure  accurately
with the  inexpensive VOC monitors.   Instead, the firebox temperature has
been identified and demonstrated to  be  a process parameter which  reflects
level of  emissions from the device.   Thus, temperature monitoring is the
recommended monitoring approach for  incineration control  devices.  Since
a temperature monitor is usually included as a standard feature for
incinerators, it is expected that this monitoring requirement will not
incur  additional costs to  the plant.
                                  D-16

-------
     D.3.1.8  Use of Monitoring Data.  The use of monitoring data is the
same regardless of whether the VOC outlet concentration or an operational
parameter is selected to be monitored.  The monitoring system should be
installed and operating properly before the first performance test.   Con-
tinual surveillance is achieved by comparing the monitored value of the
concentration or parameter to the value which occurred during the last
successful performance test, or alternatively, to a preselected value
which is indicative of good operation.  It is important to note that a
high monitoring value does not positively confirm that the facility is
out of compliance; instead, it indicates that the emission control  system
or the coating process is operating in a different manner than during the
last successful performance test.

     The averaging time for monitoring purposes should be related to the
time period for the performance test.

D.3.2  Monitoring of Vapor Capture Systems

     U.S.2.1  Monitoring i n Urnts of Efficiency.  Monitoring the vapor
capture system in the units of efficiency would be a difficult and costly
procedure.  This monitoring approach would require measuring the VOC con-
centration and volumetric flow rate in the inlet to the vapor processing
device and in each fugitive VOC vent and then combining the results to
calculate an efficiency for each time period.  Such a monitoring system has
not been commercially demonstrated.  The purchase and installation of an
entire monitoring system is estimated at $12,500 per stack, with an addi-
tional $12,500 per stack per year for operation, maintenance, calibration,
and data reduction.  Thus, monitoring in the units of efficiency is not
recommended.

     D.3.2.2  Monitoring of Flow Rates.  As an alternative, an operational
parameter could be monitored instead.  The key to a good capture system is
maintaining proper flow rates in each vent.  Monitoring equipment is commer-
cially available which could monitor these flow rate parameters.  Flow rate
monitoring equipment for each vent would typically cost about $3,000 plus
$3,000 annually to operate, maintain, periodically calibrate, and reduce
the data into the desired format.  The monitored flow rate values are then
compared to the monitored value during the last successful  performance
test.

     Proper flow rates and air distribution in a vapor capture system could
also be ensured by an inspection and maintenance program,  which generally
would not create any additional cost burden for a plant.   In that case, the
additional value of information provided by flow rate monitors would proba-
bly be minimal.  Routine visual inspections of the fan's  operation would
indicate whether or not capture efficiencies remain at the performance test
level, and no formal  monitoring of the air distribution system would be
required.

     If a total enclosure is specified in the applicable  regulation  to
ensure proper capture, then the proper operation of the total enclosure can
                                  D-17

-------
be monitored.   Examples of monitoring devices  include  VOC  concentration
detectors inside the enclosure,  pressure sensors  inside  the  enclosure,
flow rate meters in ducts, and fan amperage meters.

D.3.3  Monitoring of Overall  Control  System Efficiency on  a  Liquid  Basis

     If a plant uses a vapor  recovery control  device,  the  efficiency  of
the overall plant control  (combined vapor capture and  vapor  recovery
systems) can be monitored using a liquid material  balance.   The amount of
solvent used is compared to the amount of solvent recovered.  (These
amounts may need to be adjusted to match the format of the applicable
regulation.)  These values are obtained from a plant's inventory records.
For this monitoring approach, the averaging time  or monitoring period
usually needs to be 1 week to 1 month.  This longer averaging period  is
necessary to coordinate with  a plant's inventory  accounting  system  and to
eliminate short-term variations due to process upsets, solvent spills,
and variable amounts of solvent in use in the process.

     Because most plants already keep good solvent usage and inventory
records, no additional cost to the plant would be incurred for this
monitoring approach.

D.3.4  Monitoring of Coatings

     If a plant elects to use low-solvent content coatings in lieu  of
control devices, then the VOC content of the coatings  should be monitored.
There is no simplified way to do this.  Instead,  the recommended monitor-
ing procedure is the same as  the performance test:  the  plant must  keep
records of the VOC content and amount of each coating  used and calculate
the weighted average VOC content over the time period  specified in  the
regulation.  As an alternative, the plant could set up a sampling program
so that random samples of coatings would be analyzed using Reference  Method
24.
                                  D-18

-------
D.4  TEST METHOD LIST AND REFERENCES

     The EPA testing methods that are  mentioned  in  this Appendix are listed
below with their complete title and reference.

D.4.1  Reference Methods in Appendix A -  40  CFR  60

     Method 1  - Sample and Velocity Traverses for  Stationary  Sources.
     Method 2  - Determination of Stack Gas  Velocity  and Volumetric
                 Flow Rate (Type S Pi tot  Tube).
     Method 2A - Direct Measurement of Gas Volume Through Pipes and
                 Small Ducts.
     Method 3  - Gas Analysis  for Carbon  Dioxide, Excess Air,  and  Dry
                 Molecular Weight.
     Method 4  - Determination of Moisture in Stack Gases.
     Method 18 - Measurement of Gaseous Organic  Compound Emissions by
                 Gas Chromatography.
     Method 21 - Determination of Volatile Organic  Compound  Leaks.
     Method 24 - Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water Content,
                 Density, Volume Solids,  and Weight Solids of  Surface
                 Coatings.
     Method 24A- Determination of Volatile Matter Content and  Density  of
                 Printing Inks and Related Coatings.
     Method 25 - Determination of Total Gaseous  Nonmethane Organic
                 Emissions as  Carbon.
     Method 25A- Determination of Total Gaseous  Organic Concentration
                 Using a Flame lonization Analyzer.
     Method 25B- Determination of Total Gaseous  Organic Concentration
                 Using a Nondispersive Infrared  Analyzer.

D.4.2  Proposed Methods for Appendix A -  40  CFR  60

     Method 1A  - Sample and Velocity  Traverses  for Stationary Sources
                  With Small Stacks or Ducts (Proposed on 10/21/83, 48 FR
                  48955).

     Method 2C  - Determination of Stack  Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow
                  Rate From Small Stacks  and Ducts  (Standard Pitot Tube)
                  (Proposed on 10/21/83,  48  FR 48956).

     Method 2D  - Measurement  of Gas Volume  Flow Rates in Small Pipes  and
                  Ducts (Proposed on 10/21/83, 48 FR  48957).

D.4.3  Other Methods

     0 General Measurement of  Total Gaseous  Organic Compound Emissions
       Using a Flame lonization Analyzer, in "Measurement of Volatile
       Organic Compounds Supplement 1," OAQPS Guideline Series, EPA
       Report No.  450/3-82-019, July  1982.
                                  D-19

-------
APPENDIX E--ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS OF THE CONTROL OPTIONS

-------
                                 APPENDIX E
                          ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY
                       IMPACTS OF THE CONTROL OPTIONS

     The environmental and energy impacts of the control options for the
individual emission sources at the magnetic tape coating model lines
(solvent storage tanks, mix preparation equipment, and coating operation)
are presented in this Appendix.  The assumptions used to calculate these
impacts were presented in Chapter 7.  The environmental and energy impacts
of the regulatory alternatives that result from combining the impacts of
the various storage tank, mix equipment, and coating operation control
options also were presented in Chapter 7.

     Tables E-l through E-3 present the control option configurations and
control levels for the three emission sources: storage tanks, mix
equipment, and coating operation, respectively.  Table E-4 presents the
annual VOC emission levels, and Table E-5 presents the 1990 estimated
national annual VOC emissions for all possible control options for each
emission source.  Tables E-6 through E-9 present the annual wastewater
discharges, annual waterborne VOC emissions, and the 1990 estimated
national wastewater and waterborne VOC emissions, respectively.  The annual
and estimated 1990 national annual solid waste impacts for the three
emission sources are presented in Tables E-10 and E-ll.

     Tables E-12 through E-15 present the annual electrical energy, natural
gas, steam, and total energy requirements for the emission sources.  The
1990 national annual energy demand is presented in Table E-16.  Tables E-17
and E-18 present the annual secondary pollutants resulting from the
generation of electrical energy for the mix equipment and coating
operation.  The requirements for storage tanks were negligible.  The
secondary pollutants from the magnetic tape coating line are presented in
Table E-19.  The annual secondary pollutants from the combustion of natural
gas for the coating operation and line are presented in Table E-20.  There
are no control options requiring the use of natural gas (i.e.,
incinerators) for the storage tanks and mix equipment.  The annual
secondary pollutants from steam generation are presented in Tables E-21
through E-24 for the storage tanks, mix equipment, coating operation, and
line.
                                    E-l

-------
     TABLE E-l.  CONTROL OPTION CONFIGURATIONS AND CONTROL LEVELS FOR
                SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS*


Control                                                       Overall  VOC
option        Control device                                  control,3  %


    1         None                                                0

    2         Conservation vents                                 35b

    3A        Separate fixed-bed carbon adsorber on storage      95
              storage tank emissions alone

    3B        Common fixed-bed carbon adsorber on                95
              combined storage tank and coating
              operation emissions


j*0f emissions from solvent storage tanks only, not from entire line.
bAverage control efficiency based on model line solvents and tank sizes.
*The control options for solvent storage tanks have been revised.  See
 Table F-2 in Appendix F.
                                     E-2

-------
     TABLE E-2.  CONTROL OPTION CONFIGURATIONS AND CONTROL LEVELS FOR
                     MIX  EQUIPMENT FOR  IMPACT ANALYSIS


Control                     Control device                     Overall  VOC
option             MixersMills4Tanks             control,D  %

  1                None                                            0

  2                Vapor tight covers with conservation           40
                   ventsc

  3A               Vapor tight covers ducted to a                 95
                   separate fixed-bed carbon adsorber
                   on mix room emissions alone

  3B               Vapor tight covers ducted to a                 95
                   common fixed-bed carbon adsorber
                   on combined mix room and coating
                   operation emissions


jjFor mills other than sealed and pressurized sand mills.
"Of emissions from mix room only, not from entire line.
cThe equipment has no areas that are directly open to the air.  This may
 be achieved by use of packing glands,  tight covers,  or lids on the
 equipment.
                                    E-3

-------
       TABLE E-3.  CONTROL OPTION CONFIGURATIONS AND CONTROL LEVELS
                FOR COATING OPERATIONS FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS
Control
option
1A
(baseline)
IB
(baseline)
2A
2B
3A
3B
4
Emission capture
Coating area
None
None
Partial enclosure
Partial enclosure
Total enclosure
Total enclosure
Total enclosure
system


Drying Overall VOC
ovena Control device control, %
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
Carbon adsorber or
condenser
Carbon adsorber
Condenser0
Carbon adsorber
Condenser0***
Incinerator
0
83
87
87
93
93
95
aAssumed to be well designed oven with no losses to room; always vented to
 the control device in controlled plants.
"Of emissions from coating operation only, not the entire line.
^Condenser A used to control effluent from enclosure and from oven.
"Condenser B used to control effluent from nitrogen purged total
 enclosure and effluent from drying oven with nitrogen atmosphere.
                                    E-4

-------
             TABLE  E-4.   SUMMARY OF ANNUAL VOC EMISSION LEVELS
Emission level3
Control
option

Mg
Research
ton
Small
Mg

ton
Typical
Mg

ton
SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*
1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
3B

1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4
0.03
0.02
0.002
0.002

2.7
1.6
0.14
0.14

23
4
3
3
2
2
1
0.03
0.02
0.002
0.002

3.0
1.8
0.15
0.15

25
4
3
3
2
2
1
0.05
0.03
0.002
0.002
MIX EQUIPMENT
7.3
4.4
0.36
0.36
COATING OPERATION
68
12
9
9
5
5
4
0.05
0.03
0.002
0.002

8
4.8
0.4
0.4

75
13
10
10
5
5
4
0.39
0.25
0.02
0.02

70.7
42.4
3.5
3.5

635
108
83
83
44
44
32
0.43
0.28
0.02
0.02

78.0
46.8
3.9
3.9

700
119
91
91
49
49
35
aMetr1c and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
*The control options and environmental impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-3 1n Appendix F for these
 revisions.
                                    E-5

-------
           TABLE E-5.  ESTIMATED 1990 NATIONAL VOC EMISSIONS3'5
Control
option

1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
3B
Research
Mg

0.03
0.02
0.002
0.002

2.7
1.6
0.14
0.14
ton

0.03
0.02
0.002
0.002

3.0
1.8
0.15
0.15
Small
Mg
SOLVENT
0.25
0.15
0.01
0.01
MIX
37
22
2
2
ton
Typical
Mg
ton
Total
Mg
ton
STORAGE TANKS*
0.25 4
0.15 2
0.01 0
0.01 0
EQUIPMENT
40
24
2
2
.29
.75
.22
.22

778
468
39
39
4.73
3.08
0.22
0.22

858
515
43
43
4.57
2.92
0.23
0.23

820
490
40
40
5.01
3.25
0.23
0.23

900
540
40
40
COATING OPERATION
1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4
23
4
3
3
2
2
1
25
4
3
3
2
2
1
340
60
45
45
25
25
20
375 6,
65 1,
50
50
25
25
20
985
188
913
913
484
484
352
7,700
1,309
1,001
1,001
539
539
385
7,350
1,250
960
960
510
510
370
8,100
1,380
1,050
1,050
570
570
410
aBased on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small lines, and 11 typical
 sized lines.
bMetric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
*The control options and environmental impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 through F-4 for these revisions.
                                    E-6

-------
                TABLE E-6.   ANNUAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES3'6
Control
option

1
2
3
4A
4B

1
2
3Ad
3B
Research0
10J A 10°

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

gal
SOLVENT
0
0
0
0
0
MIX
0
0
0
0
Small0
10° £ 10"
STORAGE TANKS*
0
0
0
0
0
EQUIPMENT
0
0
0
0

gal

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
Typical
10° A 10*

0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
200

gal

0
0
0
0
0.5

0
0
0
50
COATING OPERATION
1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4
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
1,590
1,670
0
1,780
0
0
0
420
440
0
470
0
0
?Wastewater results from the operation of fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
DMetric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
cWastewater containing solvent from research and small lines is disposed
 as hazardous waste.
 Wastewater containing solvent is disposed as hazardous waste.
*The control options and environmental impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-12 for these revisions.
                                    E-7

-------
              TABLE E-7.  ANNUAL WATERBORNE VOC EMISSIONS3'6
Control
option


Research0
kg
Ib
Emission level0
Small d
kg


Ib


kg

Typical
Ib
SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*
1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3Ae
3B

1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MIX EQUIPMENT
0
0
0
0
COATING OPERATION
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
0.1

0
0
0
20

0
160
170
0
180
0
0
0
0
0
0.2

0
0
0
40

0
350
370
0
390
0
0
aWaterborne VOC emissions result from the operation of fixed-bed carbon
 adsorbers.
"Wastewater from stripper column of distillation system contains
 100 ppm VOC.
cMetric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
 Wastewater containing solvent from research and small lines is disposed
 as hazardous waste.
eWastewater containing solvent is disposed as hazardous waste.
*The control options and environmental impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-12 for these revisions.
                                    E-8

-------
     TABLE E-8.   ESTIMATED 1990 NATIONAL WASTEWATER
                      DISCHARGESa»b
Control
option

1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A"
38

1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4
103 *c
SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*
0
0
0
11
MIX EQUIPMENT
0
0
0
2,200
COATING OPERATION
0
17,490
18,370
0
19,580
0
0
103 galc

0
0
0
3.3

0
0
0
550

0
4,620
4,840
0
5,170
0
0
aWastewater results from the operation of fixed-bed
.carbon adsorbers.
"Based on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small
 lines, and 11 typical sized lines.
cMetric and English units may not convert exactly due
 to independent rounding.
dWastewater containing solvent is disposed
 as hazardous waste.
*The control options and environmental impacts for
 solvent storage tanks have been revised.  See
 Tables F-2 and F-12 for these revisions.
                        E-9

-------
   TABLE E-9.  ESTIMATED 1990 NATIONAL WATERBORNE VOC
                      EMISSIONS3'6
Control
option

1
2
3A
38

1
2
3Ae
3B

1A
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
4
Emission level0
lb°
SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*
0
0
0
1
MIX EQUIPMENT
0
0
0
220
COATING OPERATION
0
1,800
1,900
0
2,000
0
0

kgd

0
0
0
2

0
0
0
470

0
3,800
4,100
0
4,300
0
0
aWaterborne VOC emissions result from the operation of
 fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
"Based on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small
 lines, and 11 typical sized lines.
cMetric and English units may not convert exactly due
 to independent rounding.
dWastewater from stripper column of distillation system
 contains 100 ppm VOC.
eWastewater containing solvent is disposed as hazardous
 waste.
*The control options and environmental impacts for
 solvent storage tanks have been  revised.  See
 Tables F-2 and F-12 for these revisions.
                        E-10

-------
                 TABLE E-10.  ANNUAL SOLID WASTE  IMPACTS3
Control
option

1
2
3AC
3Bd

1
2
3A
38
Research
Kg

0
0
90
0

0
0
9
9
Ib
SOLVENT
0
0
190
0
MIX
0
0
20
20
Small b
kg
STORAGE TANKS*
0
0
150
0
EQUIPMENT
0
0
9
9
Typical b
Ib

0
0
320
0

0
0
20
20
kg

0
0
980
0

0
0
58
58
Ib

0
0
2,150
0

0
0
120
120
COATING OPERATION
1A
IB6
lBf
2Ae
2Bf
3Ae
3Bf
4
0
71
0
73
0
76
0
0
0
160
0
160
0
170
0
0
0
71
0
73
0
76
0
0
0
160
0
160
0
170
0
0
0
700
1,820
730
1,820
780
1,820
0
0
1,550
4,000
1,600
4,000
1,700
4,000
0
aSolid waste results from the operation of fixed-bed and fluidized-bed
 carbon adsorbers.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
^Disposable canister carbon adsorber.
Negligible.
^For fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
fFor fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers only on typical sized line.
*The control options and environmental  impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-13 for these revisions.
                                    E-ll

-------
          TABLE E-ll.   ESTIMATED NATIONAL 1990
                  SOLID WASTE IMPACTS3
Control
option

1
2
3AC
3Bd

1
2
3A
3B

1A
IB6
lBf
2Ae
2Bf
3Ae
3Bf
4
Mgb
SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*
0
0
12
0
MIX EQUIPMENT
0
0
0.7
0.7
COATING OPERATION
0
8.2
20.0
8.4
20.0
9.0
20.0
0
Tonb

0
0
13
0

0
0
0.7
0.7

0
9.0
22.0
9.3
22.0
9.9
22.0
0
aSo1id waste results from the operation of fixed-bed
 and fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to
 independent rounding.
^Disposable canister carbon adsorber.
Negligible.
f.For fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
'For fluidized-bed carbon adsorbers only on
 typical sized line.
*The control options and environmental impacts for
 solvent storage tanks have been revised.  See
 Tables F-2 and F-13 for these revisions.
                        E-12

-------
             TABLE  E-12.   ANNUAL ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Control
option

1
2
3A
3B
Control
device3

None
CV
CAd
CAd
Research
GJC

0
0
0
0
10° BtU
SOLVENT STORAGE
0
0
0
0
Smal
GJC 10
TANKS
0
0
0
0
lb
b Btu

0
0
0
0
Typical
GJC 10°

0
0
0
0
b
Btu

0
0
0
0
MIX EQUIPMENT
1
2
3A
3B
None
CV
CA
CA
0
0
0.367
0.367
0
0
0.348
0.348
0
0
1.6
1.6
0
0
1.5
1.5
0
0
2.1
2.1
0
0
2.0
2.0
COATING OPERATION6
1A
IB
IB
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
38
4
None
CA
RF
N2
CA
RF
CA
RF
N2
INC
0
16
N/Af
N/A
16
N/A
16
N/A
N/A
5
0
15
N/A
N/A
15
N/A
15
N/A
N/A
4
0
48
N/A
N/A
48
N/A
48
N/A
N/A
14
0
46
N/A
N/A
46
N/A
46
N/A
N/A
13
0
505
3,780 3,
301
505
3,780 3,
505
3,780 3,
301
140
0
479
590
286
479
590
479
590
286
133
aCV = conservation vent; CA = carbon adsorber;  RF  =  condensation—air
 refrigeration system; N2 = condensation—nitrogen purged  system;
 INC = incinerator.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly  due  to independent
 rounding.
<;GJ = Gigajoules or 10  joules;  one joule =  0.948  xlO   Btu.
Negligible.
^Condensation systems cannot be  designed for research  and  small  lines.
fN/A = Not  applicable.
                                   E-13

-------
   TABLE E-13.   ANNUAL NATURAL GAS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTROL EQUIPMENT
                 OF MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING OPERATIONS


Control             Researchb             Small b             Typical b
                 "
option3          "GJ^   10° Btu        GJC   10° Btu       GJ1     10° Btu
                  500       470      1,500     1,420    15,000     14,200
j^Only control option requiring the combustion of natural gas.
^Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
                                    E-14

-------
                   TABLE E-14.  ANNUAL STEAM REQUIREMENTS
Control
option
Control
device3
Research
GJ 10° Btu
Small b
GJ 10° Btu
Typical b
GJ 10° Btu
                           SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*

1         None           0000          00
2CV             0000          00
3A        CA             0000          00
3B        CA          0.26     0.25     0.44     0.42       3.78      3.60

                               MIX EQUIPMENT

1         None           0000          00
2CV             0000          00
3A        CA            26       25       70       67        687       652
38        CA            26       25       70       67        687       652

                             COATING  OPERATION0
1A
IB.
lBd
lBd
2A^
2Bd
3((A
3Bd
3Bd
4
None
CA
RF
N2
CA
RF
CA
RF
N2
INC
0
193
N/Ae
N/A
201
N/A
216
N/A
N/A
0
0
183
N/A
N/A
191
N/A
205
N/A
N/A
0
0
578
N/A
N/A
605
N/A
647
N/A
N/A
0
0
548
N/A
N/A
574
N/A
614
N/A
N/A
0
0
10,040
4,640
4,640
10,290
4,640
10,678
4,640
4,640
0
0
9,520
4,400
4,400
9,760
4,400
10,129
4,400
4,400
0
aCV = conservation vents; CA = carbon adsorber; RF = condensation—air
 refrigeration system; N2 = condensation—nitrogen purged system;
 INC = incinerator.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
^Condensation systems cannot be designed for research and small lines.
dSteam requirements for condensation distillation system on typical
 lines.
eN/A - Not applicable.
*The control options and environmental impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-14 for these revisions.
                                    E-15

-------
                  TABLE E-15.   TOTAL ANNUAL ENERGY  DEMAND
Control
option
Control
devicea
Research
GJ
10° BtU
Small b
GJ 10°
Typical6
Btu
GJ
10° BtU
SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS*
1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
3B
None
CV
CA
CA

None
CV
CA
CA
0
0
0
0.26

0
0
26
26
0
0
0
0.25
MIX
0
0
25
25
0
0
0
0.44 0
EQUIPMENT
0
0
72
72
0
0
0
.42

0
0
69
69
0
0
0
3.78

0
0
689
689
0
0
0
3.60

0
0
654
654
COATING OPERATION0
1A
IB
IB
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
3B
4
None
CA
RF
N2
CA
RF
CA
RF
N2
INC
0
209
N/Ad
N/A
217
N/A
232
N/A
N/A
505
0
198
N/A
N/A
206
N/A
220
N/A
N/A
474
0
626
N/A
N/A
653
N/A
695
N/A
N/A
1,510 1,
0
594
N/A
N/A
620
N/A
659
N/A
N/A
430
0
10,500
8,420
4,940
10,800
8,420
11,180
8,420
4,950
15,140
0
10,000
7,990
4,690
10,240
7,990
10,610
7,990
4,690
14,330
aCV = conservation vents;  CA =  carbon adsorber;  RF  =  condensation—air
 refrigeration system;  N2  = condensation—nitrogen  purged  system;
 INC = incinerator.
"Metric and English units  may not  convert  exactly due to independent
 rounding.
^Condensation systems cannot be designed for  research and  small  lines.
dNot applicable.
*The control options and environmental  impacts for  solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-14  for these revisions.
                                    E-16

-------

















a
z

CO












•°to
cr

r—
id

•M
 p
— 1 O
o
to



oooo oooo
CO CO







OOOO OOCMCM
CO CO









Oj g
O ^> ^ ^ O > *^ ^










< OQ  CO C7> O CT> "> O
»-IOOLOCnOOCMCOLOCO
cor-»— (Lor^.or^'— 110
i— lOOLOt-tOOCMOOLOCO
1— 1 t— 1 T— 1 r- 1


oooooooooo
ijO co F^* cr* co o^ co r*** T*H
CO^OCOCM^Of^.^OCOiO
v^H i— 1 i— ( r— (



^O ^^ C? C? ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ C^ f^
^!f d? C3 C^ C3 C^ C3 ^^

o ^T ^* »™H ^F »—* ^* ^~
T— 1 «— ( t— (



oooooooooo
TLOLOCOLOCOUOLO
Looo^rocnoo
COi— 1«— I^O»— IO«— It— 1
t-ILOLO«-ILOCMlf)lO
i—4 t— 1 «— t




OOOOOOOOOO
p**»
41
CO
(0
,— t




oooooooooo
8
•t
CO
1^^
t— <




oooooooooo
t-HCT>LOt-HOri'— ICTlLOCO
LO Sf t— 1 LO ^f LO «3" t— 1 LO
LOCTvCOlOO1>Uf>CT«CO«-4
CO CO CO




OOOOOOOOOO
i— ICOCM«— ICO»-IOOCM'-I
OOLOCOOOLOOOLOCOVO
io^-icoLO^Htr>r-ico<— i
^if' ^J1 *^f






%
O ^ LJL. CM«^ Lt. ^ Uu o*Z










t-t.— lr-l.-HCMCMCOCOCO*3-








• A
E •
CO CO
cu
c $-
o
•r- C
4-> CU
id 
i- T- id

CO O T3 E CO
C J-> C CO
Q} (tf »r~ ^>
•o »- -o c
C CO O C CU
O C +J id >
C^ *^™ r*™*
O CO jC O
II C 3 O to
•r- ~O i-
u_ a t-
ce: u >> cu o
r— CO <4-
••><_) •!-> CU
i- z o i- to
a> t-H id jj •
jQ X J- O CO
i_ .« cu o « c
tQ
•1-
T3 4-> i- "O -i— CO
id to cu cu T-
>> > C r— >
c to c en id co
O O •!- -M $_
-O ~O O CO C
$- CO CU CU CU
id cn-M "O E co
O 4- 0 C CU
a c cu o -c
II O. -Q S- 4->
>) '1—
 > i-
o cu E o c o
en c cu *t-
• •* O CO C
CO i- 4-> id "O *3°
-M 4-> •!— L> C i— I
C -r- C id 1
CU C 3 CO U.
> 1 E co
1 JC CU C "U
c c co j-> o c
O O T- co i— id
•i- -i- r- >,.»-»
•+-> 4-> en co Q.CM
id id c o i
> CO LU C U_
i. C O •—
CU CO T3 T- O 00
tO -0 C -U 1- CU
c c id id 4J •—
O O CO C JQ
o o u c o id
•r- CO (J 1—
ii u 4- -a
4-> C CU CU
> CM CO O JC CU
O Z S C_> h- CO
id J3 U *
1-17

-------
     TABLE E-17.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM
     THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR CONTROL OF MIX  EQUIPMENT
Emission levels
Control
option

1
2
3A
38

1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
3B
Control
device3
Research
None
CV
CA
CA
Small
None
CV
CA
CA
Typical
None
CV
CA
CA

kg

0
0
0.01
0.01

0
0
0.06
0.06

0
0
0.08
0.08
PM~
Ib

0
0
0.03
0.03

0
0
0.14
0.14

0
0
0.18
0.18
SC
kg

0
0
0.4
0.4

0
0
2
2

0
0
3
3
H
Ib

0
0
1
1

0
0
5
5

0
0
7
7
NO
kg

0
0
0.3
0.3

0
0
1
1

0
0
2
2
V
X Ib

0
0
0.60
0.60

0
0
3
3

0
0
4
4
j*CV = conservation vent; CA = carbon adsorber.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
CPM = particulate matter.
                                    E-18

-------
     TABLE £-18.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT  EMISSIONS  FROM
   THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FOR CONTROL  OF  COATING OPERATIONS
Emission levels
Control
option
1A
IB, 2A, 3A
4
1A
IB, 2A, 3A
4

1A
IB, 2A, 3A
IB, 2B, 3B
IB, 3B
4
Control
device3
Researchc
None
CA
INC
Small0
None
CA
INC
TypicaJ
None
CA
RF
N2
INC
PM
Kg
0
0.4
0.2
0
2
0.4

0
20
150
10
4
Ib
0
1
0.4
0
4
1

0
40
330
30
10
kg
0
20
40
0
80
20

0
790
5,930
470
220
S0x
Ib
0
50
10
0
170
50

0
1,740
13,050
1,040
480
NO,,
kg
0
10
4
0
40
10

0
400
2,970
240
110
Ib
0
30
10
0
80
20

0
870
6,530
520
240
aCA = carbon adsorber;  RF  = condensation—air refrigeration system;
 N2 = condensation—nitrogen purged system; INC = incinerator.
 Metric and English  units  may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
Condensation systems cannot be designed for research and small lines.
                                   E-19

-------
        TABLE  E-19.   SUMMARY OF  ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT  EMISSIONS
             FROM THE  GENERATION  OF ELECTRICAL  ENERGY  FOR CONTROL
                      OF MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE  COATING LINES
Control option
Coating
operation
control
device"
Emission levels
PM SO
kg Ib kg Ib

NO
"Kg 	 X~TB
IV, V,  VI,
  IXB,  XII
X, XII
XIV
VII, VIII, XIA, IX,
IV, V, VI,  VII
  XIB, XI I I
X, XII
XIV
     VIM, XIA, IX,
Research

None
None
None
CA

INC
INC

Small'

None
None
None
CA

INC
INC
   0
   0
0.01
 0.4

 0.2
 0.2
   0
   0
0.06
   2

 0.4
 0.4
   0
   0
0.03
   1

 0.4
 0.4
   0
   0
0.14
   4

   1
   1
  0
  0
0.4
 30

 40
 10
  0
  0
  2
 80

 20
 20
  0
  0
  1
 60

 10
 20
  0
  0
  5
170

 50
 50
  0
  0
0.3
 10

  4
  4
  0
  0
  1
 40

 10
 10
   0
   0
0.60
  30

  10
  10
   0
   0
   3
  80

  20
  30
1
II .
Ill6
IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XIA
IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XIA
IV, VI , VIII, XIA
IX, XIB, XIII
IX, XIB, XIII
IX, XIII
X, XII
XIV
None
None
None
CA
RF
N-
c2
RF
N-
INC
INC
0
0
0.08
20
150
10
20
150
10
4
4
0
0
0.18
40
330
30
40
330
30
10
10
0
0
3
790
5,930
480
790
5,930
480
210
210
0
0
7
1,740
13,050
1,050
1,740
13,050
1,050
470
470
0
0
2
400
2,970
240
400
2,970
240
110
110
0
0
4
870
6,530
530
870
6,530
530
240
240
     regulatory alternatives and corresponding control device configurations for coating
blines are presented in Table 6-10.
  CA = Carbon  adsorber.
  RF = condensation-air refrigeration system.
  N_ = condensation-nitrogen atmosphere system.
  INC = Incinerator.
^Metric and English units may not convert exactly  due to independent  rounding.
  Condensation  systems cannot be designed for research and small  lines.
eEnergy requirements are for carbon adsorbers used to control mix equipment emissions.
                                           E-20

-------
   TABLE E-20.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM THE
   COMBUSTION OF NATURAL GAS FOR CONTROL OF COATING OPERATIONS AND LINEa
Emission levels0
Control PM CO
option" kg Ib kg Ib
Research
4 4 10 4 10
Small
N0y
kg Ib

60 130

                    10        20        20        40        180        400

                                  Typical

                   100       230       180       400      1,840      4,050
aThe coating operation and line have the same requirements because there
 are no control options requiring natural gas for mix equipment and
 storage tanks.
"Only regulatory alternative requiring the combustion of natural gas.
GMetric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
                                    E-21

-------
       TABLE E-21.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
        FROM STEAM GENERATION  FOR CONTROL OF SOLVENT STORAGE  TANKS*
Emission levels3
Control
option

1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
38
PM
kg
-
0
0
0
0.017

0
0
0
0.03

0
0
0
0.2
SOV
Ib

0
0
0
0.038

0
0
0
0.06

0
0
0
0.5
kg " Ib
Research
0
0
0
0.22
Small
0
0
0
0.4
Typical
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0.49

0
0
0
0.8

0
0
0
7
NOV
kg

0
0
0
0.05

0
0
0
0.1

0
0
0
0.9
Ib

0
0
0
0.12

0
0
0
0.2

0
0
0
2
Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
*The control options and environmental  Impacts for solvent storage tanks
 have been revised.  See Tables F-2 and F-15 for these revisions.
                                    E-22

-------
        TABLE  E-22.   SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  SECONDARY  POLLUTANT  EMISSIONS
            FROM STEAM GENERATION  FOR  CONTROL OF MIX  EQUIPMENT
Emission levels4
Control
option

1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
3B

1
2
3A
3B
PM
kg

0
0
2
2

0
0
4
4

0
0
40
40
SO,,
Ib

0
0
4
4

0
0
10
10

0
0
100
100
kg
Research
0
0
20
20
Small
0
0
60
60
Typical
0
0
580
580
Ib

0
0
50
50

0
0
130
130

0
0
1,280
1,280
NO,,
kg

0
0
4
4

0
0
10
10

0
0
150
150
Ib

0
0
10
10

0
0
30
30

0
0
330
330
aMetr1c and English units may not convert exactly due  to  independent
 rounding.
                                   E-23

-------
       TABLE £-23.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT  EMISSIONS
          FROM STEAM GENERATION FOR CONTROL OF COATING  OPERATION
Emission levels
Control
option

1A
IB
2A
3A
4

1A
IB
2A
3A
4

1A
IB
IB
IB
2A
2B
3A
3B
38
4
Control
device*
Research0
None
CA
CA
CA
INC
Small0
None
CA
CA
CA
INC
Typical
None
CA
RF
N2
CA
RF
CA
RF
N2
INC

kg

0
10
10
10
0

0
40
40
40
0

0
650
300
300
660
300
690
300
300
0
PM
Ib

0
30
30
30
0

0
80
90
90
0

0
1,430
660
660
1,460
660
1,520
660
660
0
SO,,
kg

0
160
170
180
0

0
490
510
540
0

0
8,490
3,930
3,930
8,700
3,930
9,040
3,930
3,930
0
Ib

0
360
370
400
0

0
1,070
1,130
1,200
0

0
18,680
8,640
8,640
19,150
8,640
19,880
8,640
8,640
0
NOV
kg

0
40
40
40
0

0
120
130
140
0

0
2,160
1,000
1,000
2,200
1,000
2,300
1,000
1,000
0
Ib

0
90
100
100
0

0
270
290
310
0

0
4,760
2,200
2,200
4,880
2,200
5,060
2,200
2,200
0
aCA = carbon adsorber;  RF = condensation—air refrigeration system;
 N2 = condensation—nitrogen purged system; INC = incinerator.
bMetric and English  units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
Condensation systems cannot be designed for research and small lines.
                                   E-24

-------
TABLE E-24.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM
STEAM GENERATION FOR CONTROL OF MODEL MAGNETIC TAPE COATING LINES
Emission levels
Control
option*

III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XIA
XIB
XIII
XIV

III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
XIA
XIB
XIII
XIV

III
IVC
IVd
V
vd
PM
kg

2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2

4
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
4

40
650
300
660
300
Ib

4
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
4

10
80
90
80
90
90
90
90
100
100
10

100
1,430
660
1,460
660
so,.
kg
Research
20
160
170
160
170
190
190
190
200
200
20
Small
60
490
510
490
510
550
550
550
570
600
60
Typical
580
8,490
3,930
8,700
3,930
" Ib

50
350
370
350
370
410
410
410
430
450
50

130
1,080
1,120
1,080
1,120
1,220
1,220
1,220
1,260
1,330
130

1,280
18,680
8,640
19,150
8,640
kg

4
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
50
50
4

10
120
130
120
130
140
140
140
140
150
10

140
2,160
1,000
2,200
1,000
NOV
X Ib

10
90
90
90
90
100
100
100
110
120
10

30
270
280
270
280
300
310
300
320
340
30

320
4,760
2,200
4,880
2,200
                                                          (continued)
                              E-25

-------
                         TABLE E-24.   (continued)
                                Emission levels
Control
option*
VIc
VId
VII*;
VIId
VIIlJ
VIIId
IXC
IXd
XIA^
XIAd
XIBC
XIBC
i4
XIIId
XIV
PM
kg
650
300
660
300
690
300
690
340
690
300
710
340
740
340
40
Ib
1,430
660
1,460
660
1,520
660
1,520
760
1,520
660
1,560
760
1,620
760
100
kg
8,490
3,930
8,700
3,930
9,040
3,930
9,070
4,500
9,040
3,930
9,290
4,500
9,620
4,500
580
so*
Ib
18,680
8,640
19,150
8,640
19,880
8,640
19,960
9,910
19,880
8,640
20,430
9,910
21,160
9,910
1,280
f
kg
2,160
1,000
2,220
1,000
2,300
1,000
2,310
1,140
2,300
1,000
2,360
1,140
2,450
1,140
140
1\Jy
X Ib
4,760
2,200
4,880
2,200
5,060
2,200
5,080
2,520
5,060
2,200
5,200
2,520
5,390
2,520
320
aThe regulatory alternatives and corresponding control  device configura-
 tions for coating lines are presented in Table 6-10.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due  to independent
 rounding.
cFor fixed-bed carbon adsorber.   Typical line includes  distillation
 requirements.
dFor condensation system distillation requirements.
                                    E-26

-------
APPENDIX F—IMPACTS  FOR  CONTROL OF SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS

-------
                                 APPENDIX F

                IMPACTS FOR CONTROL OF SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS

     The control options and the environmental and cost Impacts for control
of solvent storage tanks that were presented in Chapters 6 through 8 and
Appendix E have been revised.  These revisions were not integrated into
those chapters.  Instead, they are presented in this appendix.

     The model storage tank parameters are presented 1n Table F-l.  The
control options for storage tanks are presented 1n Table F-2.  Control
option 1 (baseline) 1s an uncontrolled storage tank.  Control option 2
requires installation of a conservation vent set at 17.2 kPa (2.5 psig)
pressure and 0.215 kPa (0.5 ounces) vacuum on a properly designed tank.  At
this setting, all breathing emissions are eliminated, but working losses
are uncontrolled.  This option results in an average control efficiency of
50 percent for the model solvents and tank sizes.  Installation of a
pressure relief valve set at 103 kPa (15 psig) (control option 3), which
would eliminate all breathing losses and approximately 80 percent of the
working losses, results 1n an average control efficiency of 90 percent.
The installation of a 103 kPa (15 psig) pressure relief valve requires the
use of a tank of different design from the atmospheric tanks used at lower
pressure.  Thus, the control system using either the pressure relief valve
or the conservation vent consists of the valve plus the tank.  Control
options 4A and 4B require the venting of all tank emissions to a separate,
disposable carbon adsorption system and to a carbon adsorber controlling
coating operation emissions, respectively.

     Tables F-3 and F-4 present the annual VOC emission levels and the 1990
estimated national VOC emission levels for the model storage tanks (group
of tanks), respectively.  The amount and value of recovered solvent are
presented in Table F-5.  The capital and annual 1zed costs of conservation
vents for control of solvent storage tank emissions are presented in
Tables F-6 and F-7.  Because a similar type of tank is used for both the
baseline and conservation vent options, the only cost elements considered
for control option 2 are the vent itself and the solvent that is prevented
from escaping.

     For control option 3 (the installation of a pressure relief valve),
the cost of the entire control system of valve plus tank must be compared
to the cost of the vent and tank control system of control option 2
(installation of a conservation vent).  The Installed costs for the two
types of tanks for various sizes are presented in Table F-8.  Within the
                                    F-l

-------
accuracy of these estimates, the two types of tanks for control options 2
and 3 cost the same.   There is a difference of a few hundred dollars in
the cost of the two types of vents.  However, in comparing the control
systems (vent plus tank), the cost of the vents is within the variability
of the tank cost estimates.  Thus, there is no capital cost increase for
installing a pressure vessel system compared to a conservation vent/
atmospheric tank system.  Therefore, the only factor considered in the
annualized costs of pressure relief valves for control of solvent storage
tanks is the value of the solvent that is prevented from escaping.  The
annualized costs are a net credit ranging from $31/yr for the research
model plant to $793/yr for the typical model plant (see Table F-5).

     The capital and annualized costs for control option 4A (separate,
disposable carbon adsorber) are presented in Tables F-8a and F-8b,
respectively.  The capital and annualized costs for control option 48
(common carbon adsorber) are presented in Tables F-8c and F-8d,
respectively.

     Table F-9 summarizes the total installed capital and annualized costs
for the storage tank control options and also presents the annualized cost
per unit area of tape coated.  Tables F-10 and F-ll present the average and
incremental cost effectiveness of the solvent storage tank control options,
respectively.

     There are no wastewater discharges, waterborne VOC emissions, energy
requirements, or secondary pollutants for the conservation vent or pressure
relief valve control options.  The wastewater, solid waste, energy
requirements, and secondary air pollutant emissions for control options 4A
and 4B are presented in Tables F-12 through F-15.
                                     F-2

-------
            TABLE  F-l.   MODEL  SOLVENT  STORAGE  TANK PARAMETERS
Line designation:
Solvent usage, m3/yr

(gal/yr)
No. of different solvents used
No. of storage tanks
Capacity of each tank

, m3 (gal)
Research
23
(6,130)
5
5
4
(1,000)
Small
70
(18,400)
3
3
4
(1,000)
Typical
700
(184,000)
3
3
40
(10,000)
Emissions, Mg/yr (ton/yr)         0.027 (0.03)  0.045 (0.05)   0.69 (0.76)
                                    F-3

-------
           TABLE  F-2.   CONTROL OPTIONS FOR SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS
Control                                                        Overall VOC
option   Control device                                        control,3 %
   1      None                                                         0

   2      Conservation vent, 17.2 kPa (2.5 psig)                      65b

   3      Pressure relief valve, 103 kPa (15 psig)                    90b

  4A     Separate fixed-bed carbon adsorber on storage               95
         tank emissions alone

  4B     Common fixed-bed carbon adsorber on combined                95
         storage tank and coating operation emissions


*0f emissions from solvent storage tanks only, not the entire line.
"Average control efficiency based on model line solvents and tank sizes.
                                     F-4

-------
      TABLE F-3.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL STORAGE TANK VOC EMISSION LEVELS
Emission level
Control
option
1
2
3
4A
4B
Research
Mg
0.027
0.009
0.003
0.002
0.002

ton
0.03
0.011
0.003
0.002
0.002
Small
Mg
0.045
0.016
0.005
0.002
0.002

ton
0.05
0.018
0.005
0.002
0.002

Mg
0.69
0.24
0.07
0.03
0.03
Typjcal
ton
0.76
0.27
0.08
0.04
0.04
aMetr1c and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
                                    F-5

-------
   TABLE F-4.   ESTIMATED  1990 NATIONWIDE STORAGE TANK VOC  EMISSIONS3*6
Control
option
1
2
3
4A
4B
Research
Mg
0.027
0.009
0.003
0.002
0.002
ton
0.03
0.011
0.003
0.002
0.002
Small
Mg
0.22
0.080
0.025
0.01
0.01
ton
0.25
0.090
0.025
0.01
0.01
Typical
Mg
7.59
2.64
0.77
0.33
0.33
ton
8.36
2.97
0.88
0.44
0.44
Total
Mg
7.84
2.73
0.80
0.34
0.34
ton
8.64
3.07
0.91
0.45
0.45
aBased on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small  lines, and
 11 typical sized lines.
bMetric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
                                    F-6

-------



1
UJ
O
h-
O
UJ
Q£
u_

>
z
i
<
•
to
UJ
5


|If£
o «, « *•
•5 o
° j.  Tp 4) at c

3s|m
^ j. g i &w
5 £ 15 •£ .! *

. ,—
i ^

si s«
S Is -2
i "° • "
£ O ™ 4r^ W C


S
Of »-
s-s
•*-» Q
(/) O
^


I

i-
^

in
 Ok
in m n n 01 10
O O O O *O fN.
o o o o o o
1 1 fc
§ § 1
'•s 5 «,
e 2 ^ s
§ S £ *

.c
^ s .y
8 | ft
CO O2 K—
m
<


s


s
.,
z
01
"RS
*-*
rt in
ss
o o
*

^
o o
0 S
s
O O
I*.
"i
Ts
g 2


3

< ^r ^ qj <
z «> ~« z

1 1 1 1 1

z z z z z
< in r-4 fx. <
- «• 3 5 -
< ^, « ^
"1112
« "U. a-<^
Ro 4 4 4 ^r n
 *
°. ° < < < ffi S
° S "^ ° 2-
^ < ^ < g
Z i* Z Z* *

^ ^ ^
CM CM tO oo o o vo f-»
° S, ° S, ° 2. ° 2. oo
O in tn in u>
CM n o> to ^ tn CM c*) oi to
O CD  r-
oo oo o o oo oo
2! ^
a/o ««. it. v-
3 > UL. Ll_ tZ U-
s 5 <: <: « <

^ J=
g o »— « o
8 ft i « ft

-------
            TABLE  F-6.   CAPITAL  COSTS  OF  CONSERVATION VENTS  FOR
                     CONTROL OF  SOLVENT STORAGE  TANKS3
Line size
Cost Item
1. Valves5
• Price per 2-in. valve = $313 (1983 $)
• No. of valves
• Cost, $
• Purchased equipment, $: (1.18) (cost)
• Total Installed cost, $: (1.50) x
(purchased equipment)
Research


5
1,565
1,847
2,770
Small


3
939
1,108
1,662
Typical


3
939
1,108
1,662
^Conservation vent set at 17.2 kPa (2.5 psig).
"Cast aluminum body and 316 stainless steel  internals.
                                    F-9

-------
    TABLE F-7.  ANNUALIZED COSTS OF CONSERVATION VENTS  FOR CONTROL OF
                          SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS3
Line size
Cost item
1. Labor
2. Utilities
3. Maintenance
Research
0
0
0
Small
0
0
0
Typical
0
0
0
4.  Indirect costs


5.
6.

7.
• Overhead, $ .
• Capital charge0, $
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS, $
Credit from solvent
"saved," $c
Net, $
0
562
562
23

539
0
337
337
38

299
0
337
337
576

-239
^Conservation vent set at 17.2 kPa (2.5 pslg).
"20.275 percent of total installed capital cost.
cSee Table F-5.
                                    F-10

-------
     TABLE F-8.   INSTALLED COSTS -OF ATMOSPHERIC TANKS AND
                       PRESSURE TANKS1'
Tank volume,
m (gal)
14.3 (3,780)
15.9 (4,200)
23.8 (6,300)
31.8 (8,400)
33.4 (8,820)
39.7 (10,500)
47.7 (12,600)
63.6 (16,800)
79.5 (21,000)
Atmospheric
tank
(API 12FJ
cost, $*>
9,144
9,843
12,229
15,179
14,921
16,385
18,715
22,126
26,660
Pressure
tank
(ASME code)
cost, $c
8,600
9,100
10,200
13,500
14,300
16,000
18,500
23,700
28,600
aAll costs are for installed tanks, ready for piping, and
 have an accuracy of ±25 percent.
DAmerican Petroleum Institute design tanks, supported by
 sandfilled ring-type foundations.
GAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers code tank, with
 a maximum working pressure in excess of 103 kPa (15 psi)
 and supported by two saddles.
                              F-ll

-------
         TABLE  F-8a.   CAPITAL COSTS OF  CARBON  ADSORBER,FOR  CONTROL
                   OF SOLVENT STORAGE  TANKS—SEPARATE
Cost
1.


































2.
item
Ductwork from storage tanks to
disposable-canister carbon adsorber
• Pipe diameter, cm (in.)
• Length, m (ft)
• No.
—Flanges
—Bolts and gaskets (sets of 4)
—Elbows
—Dampers
—Pipe supports (6-m[20-ft] high)
• Cost, $
—Pipe
—Flanges
—Bolts and gaskets
—Elbows
—Dampers (x 1.44 for 1983 $)
(x 1.18 for purchased equipment)
— Pipe supports
-Total
• Manhours to install, h
—Pipe
—Flanges
—Bolts and gaskets
—Elbows
--Dampers
—Pipe supports
—Total manhours
—Labor cost @ $19.60/h, $
• Total direct costs, $
• Overhead @ $11.76/h, $
• Administration, 10% of direct
costs, $
• Taxes, 5% of material costs, $
• Total indirect costs, $
• Total installed cost, $
Total installed cost, $a


Research


10 (4)
91 (300)

80
160
15
5
15

2,340
1,840
1,380
175
4,720

2,115
12,570

36
152
272
57
6
9.4
532.4
10,435
23,005
6,261

2,300
628
9,189
32,194
32,194
Line size
Small


10 (4)
55 (180)

48
96
9
3
9

1,404
1,104
828
105
2,832

1,269
7,542

21.6
91.2
163.2
34.2
3.6
5.6
319.4
6,260
13,802
3,756

1,380
377
5,513
19,315
19,315

Typical


10 (4)
55 (180)

48
96
5
3
9

1,404
1,104
828
105
2,832

1,269
7,542

21.6
91.2
163.2
34.2
3.6
5.6
319.4
6,260
13,802
3,756

1,380
377
5,513
19,315
19,315
*The  disposable-canister carbon  adsorber  is considered an  annualized  cost.
                                   F-12

-------
             TABLE F-8b.  CARBON ADSORBER ANNUALIZED COSTS  FOR
                 CONTROL OF SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS—SEPARATE
Line size
Research
1.
2.
3.






4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Labor
Utilities
Disposable-canister carbon adsorber
• Emissions, Mg (ton)/yr
• Saturation capacity, kg (Ib) VOC/
kg (Ib) carbon
• Carbon required, kg (lb)/yr
• Capacity of drums, kg (Ib) carbon/
drum
• No. of drums per year
• Total installed cost of 91 kg
(200 Ib) drum, $: ($1,235 ea)
• Total installed cost of 182 kg
(400 Ib) drum, $: ($2,517 ea)
Maintenance
Indirect costs
• Overhead, $
• Capital charges9, $
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS, $
Disposal cost, $: ($71/drum)
Net, $
0
0
0.027
(0.03)
0.31
(0.31)
88
(194)
91
(200)
0.97
1,198
N/A
0
0
6,527
7.725
69
7,794
Small
0
0
0.045
(0.05)
0.31
(0.31)
147
(323)
91
(200)
1.61
1,988
N/A
0
0
3,916
5.904
114
6,018
Typical
0
0
0.69
(0.76)
0.40
(0.40)
1,727
(3,800)
182
(400)
9.5
N/Ab
23,912
0
0
3,916
27,828-
674
28,502
1*20.275 percent of total  installed capital  costs.
bNot applicable.
                                    F-13

-------
         TABLE F-6c.  CAPITAL COSTS OF CARBON ADSORBER FOR CONTROL
                     OF SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS—COMMON
Cost
1.





































2.
item
Ductwork from storage tanks to
carbon adsorber
• Pipe diameter, cm (in.)
• Length, m (ft)
• No.
—Flanges
—Bolts and gaskets (sets of 4)
—Elbows
—Tees
—Dampers
—Pipe supports (6-m[20-ft] high)
• Cost, $
—Pipe
—Flanges
—Bolts and gaskets
—Elbows
—Tees
—Dampers (x 1.44 for 1983 $)
(x 1.18 for purchased equipment)
—Pipe supports
—Total
• Manhours to install, h
—Pipe
—Flanges
--Bolts and gaskets (set of 4)
— Elbows
—Tees
—Dampers
—Pipe support
—Total manhours
—Labor cost @ $19.60/h, $
• Total direct costs, $
• Overhead (P $11.76/h, $
• Administration, 10% of direct
costs, $
• Taxes, 5% of material costs, $
• Total indirect costs, $
• Total installed cost, $
Total installed cost, $a


Research


10 (4)
122 (400)

60
120
2
4
5
33

3,122
1,379
1,036
23
102
4,720

4,653
15,035

48
114
204
7.6
22.8
6
20.7
423.1
8,293
23,328
4,976
2,333

752
8,061
31,389
31,389
Line size
Small


10 (4)
110 (360)

48
96
2
2
3
30

2,810
1,104
828
23
51
2,832

4,230
11,878

43.2
91
163
7.6
11.4
3.6
19
338.8
6,640
18,518
3,984
1,852

594
6,430
24,948
24,948

Typical


10 (4)
110 (360)

48
96
2
2
3
30

2,810
1,104
828
23
51
2,832

4,230
11,878

43.2
91
163
7.6
11.4
3.6
19
338.8
6,640
18,518
3,984
1,852

594
6,430
24,948
24,948
aCarbon adsorber capital  cost above that of the coating operation is
 negligible.
                                    F-14

-------
        TABLE  F-8d.   CARBON ADSORBER ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR CONTROL OF
                       SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS—COMMON
                                                     Line size
                                           Research       Small    Typical
1.  Operating Labor

    • Labor (L)a, $                               000
    • Supervision, $:  (0.15)(L)                  000

2.  Utilities
    • Steam, $: (4 kg/kg VOC)(kg VOC/yr)          2           3         48
                ($17.5/10  kg) [(4 Ib/lb VOC)
                (Ib VOC/yr)($7.95/10  lb)]
    • Electricity, $                              000
    • Water, $: (1 liter per min/1 kg steam)      0           0       «   0
                (kg steam/yr)(60 min/h)
                ($0.033/1,000 liter)
                [(12 gal per min/100 lb steam)
                (lb steam/yr)(60 min/h)
                ($0.124/1,000 gal)]
    • Total, $                                    2           3         48

3.  Raw Materials       .
    • Carbon replacement0                         000

4.  Maintenance

5.
6.
7.
8.
• Labor0
• Material0
Indirect costs
• Overhead, $c .
• Capital chargesd, $a
• Total, $
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS, $
Solvent disposal charge8
Net, $
0
0
0
6,364
6,364
6.366
2
6,368
0
0
0
5,058
5,058
5,061
3
5,064
0
0
0
5,058
5,058
5,106
-454
4,652
aNo additional operating labor would result from increased size of carbon
 adsorber.
"Increase above that of coating operation negligible.
^80 percent of sum of operating, supervisory, and maintenance labor.
d20.275 percent of total installed capital  cost.
eNegative value indicates a credit for recovery and reuse of solvent.
                                    F-15

-------
o o

O —I
UJ O
   <->
O I—
  is
t— o:
 o
O I—
O 

h— a:
   UJ
   a.
c «/£
O | O 5*
ll»o
O „ o in
* ID
4) ID
4> — in
4- JO C l_
ID ID O 4)
i. in £ a
Q. Q. 10 O
4> in u in
«rt — .a
T3 10
in
c „.
.2 £ „_ ^ m o)
Op U) *™ 2? >?

* * loo in
Jt U >"C
ID
O
§ ~
— ID O)
4- -a, —
o in 3 in
> 4- ex
t- C CM
4> 4> «in
in > r>» •
c — CM
s -
I
_
o
j
§
u
5



















£
in
3
8881
in ^ o\ \
CM — r«i
--IOO-
v» »•» 1



8881
in CM t^-
CM CM T
•— • ro ^f 1
w v^ 1



8°8|
if\ \f\
A *
CM CM
w 5




888
tf\ OO tO
...
CM CM in
•— •—



ii o a
8^8
T<*


+-
u
3
•o
8 ?
0
— 3
ID —
4- O
a. —
ID ^
U
•a in 4)
4) -* 4-
— c m
— ID >>
ID 4- in
4-

c o>O
— ID U —
j: i. 4- ID
o — o e 4-
t_ 10 4- 5 O
ID 4-  t- 1 1 1

88°8
f"^ ^ ^-
2° 2



88°. S
r~.t\ *.
CM r» O
tn —
w*



8OOO
ro r**
p^ 1 «

S* S*





8S8§

. .
CM JO
**



1

CM* CM*
«A *^
1



y_
c
>
in —
S 8
Q
M t»
o
•O E *•
4> in a>
N -* 4- 4-
— c in —
— ID >.jQ
ID 4- U) 4)
3 -0
C 4) — X
c 01 o-t-
IO ID L. • 	
— O C 4) 4-
10 4- O (- O
4- OO 1-
O 1 1 1 1
1- 1 t 1 1
*
                                                              8'
                                                                      8°SS
                                                                                   o ii
                                               ID
                                               0)

                                               L.
                                               

                                               u    in

                                               o>    in
                                               a
                                               0
— e —
tO ^\i. (D
3 -W- 3
C C
c-O c
ID - <0
•o
ID 4- ID
4- ID 4-
000
1— 0 I—
• •
.
•^
4)
4-
IO
O
u
10
(U —
t_ —
ID ID
                                              F-16

-------
(U

















U)


Q.
O

X
l_
3




















































§?/i
1 « a 0
t5 o tfi
- ^




4) ID
4) — in
•i- .a c <-
10 ID O 4>
t. IB £ £
a. Q. ID o
4) in o m
 — n
•o ID





^ "J ^S-^*
in *"" > S.
« ® oo.n

*"*



§ ~
•- ID O)
« in x  +• Q.
L. c CM
S4> »in
> r« •

O ^^
cS


•a
4)

O
u



c
o





























1
in
8


III
ae mm
CM CM m
•» «A







m
oo »r-
CM — «fr







8°8
CM CM
00 00
CM CM









8""«
W» M






O
O c
o —
•o
— 3
ID —
•t- O
— C
<0 ^
U
•o in S
4>.* +-
— cm
— O
— ID U —
t. +- «
ID! ID +- O o
0 -t- CO Ol-
—1 O 1 1 1
aj H i . i
H! .

M
188881
-.~7 ".1
tom o 1
OT 1




























































U
+-
c
4>
>
U) —
•1- O
in in
8 c.

ibJI
— c in —
— ID >-n
ID -i- m 4)
3 •O
C 4) — X
C O)O -t-
ID IO 1, 	
t- +- -a 10
— O c «+-
«J -t- Q I- O
^f i i i
•


fo
o
o








o








in
O
0







r-
5
o







00

o
o








ID
*
ID
•»-


3

U
£

8
u
O)
c
•«

10
I.

§•

•o
4)
N
._ .
IO
3
C
C
ID
15
1


8







^^
-_
8
o







o
^
ii







8
\^
o







c7

°,
0

























^
^1
+•
*4-

"^
M
-U-
coated ,


it
o S






^^^

.
0 S







CM
o §
? o







S s
^5 ^2
o •
1 ^p
^1





<

z









^.
c
3

4)
n

•f-
U)
O
u

1

tn ^.

_ w
o +-

c -w-
O "^
O

? *
N -W-

3 4)
C +-
C ID
ID O
U
lo 10
€ 2
H ID























•
>.

C
0
in
•^
ID
•1-
4)
O
ID
L.
O
•t-
m
4)
j=
•(-

c.


in
c
O

in
v>
1

g

4>
f
•f-
l/>

O
i

c
O
0
t-
5
u
8
13
ID

C
S

ID
U

U
• 4>
4) V
— in
.0 ._
ID C
U ID
= Not app 1 i
isposable-c
< "°
Z 10*1

^
4)
•°
•^J

X
u
H-

i
4)
f
^~

>*
JO
1

"o
L.
O
u

4)
t_
ID

S

i-
ID
U
4)
Q.
O

O
C
•1-

u

4)
j:
+-

§
L.
H—

in
8
in
in
1

8
>
4)



m
3
Q.

m
_*
c
10
-1-

4)
D>
IO
O

in
4)

§
s^>
emissions
8
3









































































.
t.
bon adsorbe
ID
U

o
•t-
ID
>
4>
in
c
O
U

l_
u.
•t-
c
4)
U

4>
^

M-
o
o
c
4)

U
%^.
4)

O

-1-
IO
_
.^
•H
in

10

§

•o
U1
ID
r>

%
4>
in
3
4)

•o
c
10

l_
4>

O
(j
4)


c
4)
"o
in
i_
O


in

1

u
4)
ID
in
4)
ID
I
ID
I
U




•

• «-»
• ~- L.
•— * *** >«
*-^ L. X.
^* 8
o 8 -
^5 ^5 y3
^5 * ^^

N ^ j=

• je x •-
« x c e
I- C —
4) — E 0
£ E to
O. O — '
8 1 - ^

ID • C
C — CM
4) — ,-
J= CM X
+- CM — 4r
— X M-
o x -t-

c •*• *"
•— * ^^ £
en ~^ — a.
Q. Q. •*. O
ID M- Q
o o in
in o m <—
4) in CM —
CM — •
§ ~~ 5
t- • c
«*- c — in
— CM
: in *^
•o in ^-*
4) *"•* II
> II —
(D II —
in •— •—
= -cv
— CV 4-
•t-CM +. i,
• t *Vo

•5*0 o 2
"> — "x *
t_ jfc ^*
^ in "in
• p*« (•*«•
c CN »o rn

> ""^, ^.
._ CM CM
of* e E
E
-t- in i/>
— "> O O
-o o — —
4> — X X
U X
U * . >-

— ID IO ID
— 3 3 3
4) C C C
l_ C C c
ID ID 10
4)
3 4> 4) 4)
il> +- +- -t-
V> ID ID ID
4) O O O
L. O O O
a.
(0 ID 10
13 4) 4) 4)
C l_ I- 1_
IO ID ID ID
in — — —
•(- ID ID ID
C -t- +- 4-
4, ^ 0 0
-a 4> x-
                                        F-17

-------






o
u»

I—
o
LU
Q.
LU
a:
3:
i— i
3

Z GO
O ^
l— i ^y
H- LU
1— 1 Q
1 — O
OS
LU
LU OS
Lu O
Lj_l Uv

1— LU
GO Z
O I-"
O — 1
LU
LU GO
CD <
Q?
1 l 1




O
1— 1
1
Lu

LU
i
CQ
[



















in
c
0
4-
a.
O
"o
I












ill!
Q S to O
O . u m
*• o

4> ID
4) — in
4- A c u
ID <0 5 »
t. in jo &
«o o i_ u
a. Q. ra o
4> in o in
CO — J3
•o 10



f .. * IO Ol
g«8i«
« - - ro °-

L- L. ? ^^ ^^
a. * ~~ C



§
— 10 O)
+- «a_ —
10 in a in
> 4- a.
t- C CM
in > r- •
c — CM
s ~









































4)
(Q
I
 — '
tO CM -- ' — — •













U L. "u

in in in
c c c
o o o
4-4-4-
u u o
1- 1- l_ l_ l_ l_
xx?'- xx— x"x-«
««O)c w»oic <«o>e
.^4? .ZO ,:EO
4^«X 4^.x 4-"'«X
8§S 8§^ 8§^
0 — 0 — U —
4- O> 4- O) 4- Ol
§0 Z E 0 I E 0 Z
3X 4)3X 4)3X
4— 13 ^A 4— ^ w^ 4— 'o W9
in 4> in 4> in 4)
in in in in in in
cm c in cm
— O4) — O4> — O4>
O — c o — c O — c
t- i_ 01 
4-in> +-in> 4-m>

OE4- OE4- OS4-
O  4)
•DO-*- T3O>«- -0 O *-
4) O **- 4) O **- 4> O **-
N > O N > fl) N^4>
•_ .^ •— .
— — 4- __4_ __4_
iDioin (DiDin iDioin
33O 33O 33O
ecu ecu ecu
c c c c c c
 IDID4) IDID4)
£^ O) O) O)
U — — IO — — ID — — — ID
U ID ID 1- 1010 L. IOIDID I.
ID4-4- 4) — 4- V 4) U4-4- 4>
4) O O > — O O * •— OO >


• • •
•— CM ro
8
"O c
4) o
£> U
1
X •*-
•^ 'O
ID
i i
<0 3
in o~
4>
4) U
JZ
4— 4-
ID
>• JZ
£t 4-
^ >
1 1
4- 4-
§in
O
0
SO) O
t- U
(O —
in >
J£ C 4>
CO "O

4-4- —
ID O
4) l_ <-
O>4> 4-
10 O. c
I- O O
O U
4- O)
me —
— ID
4) 4- 4-
£. ID C
4- o a>
S^ §
« u
U J= U
**• +• C
in g
CO 4)
0 u j=
in
in in i_
— c o
1.2 -
in 4>
8 m Z
— ID
ID in
4) U
CO 4>
4- o a
in o
— 4) in
O J= T3
1-4- IO
4-
§m c
3 O
o — .0
a. t_
U 10
4) in u
n .*
1- C T3
O ID 4)
in v £>
T3 1 •
ID n> -a 4>
en 4) c
C ID X O
O 1- 	
.OO •*- IO
I- 4-
ID in c c
o o O
41 E-
l- £ 64-
4) 4- O ID
4- 01-
 u c
O C U O —
— O O *• 4-
ja •- in 10
10 m T3 in o
in m ID 4- u
o — in
0. E C O 4)
in 4) O u r:
13 U t- 4)
O «o -c •*-
< > o l— o
ID A U
F-18

-------
•^ rt\ <•••. y-s
1
CO S
^ o
z

1—
LU 0

^ i
"IS

i — +-
y ft_
UJ O
!^> _,
— 1 o
co +: *>.
UJ S
__ L£
o
2£

i>V*
\7
O
LL_

-
^E
UJ
1 1 1
a:
o
2j"
i i


.
r— 1
T- 1
t
U-

UJ L,
m ID
^s" E
^^ (O
*~" C
(D
Q.




rn Q Q O Q
^ O O O O
« • • s *
*O O O in m
i*"i i^
%«*'



| 88 l§
i>T oo min

Kl JO


^» ^
in o O S «•
O O in —

1 J,







O OOCM OO
in O • O O
• O « «
O — Ot-
row








j*H
L.
>,

(O
C
O

L. L.

"X^ ^
W9 O)
jr
A
-f- A
8 §
o —
4- *•»
§o c
3 O
4- TJ 4-
in «> x
XL. W»
«> *"
c
o -5 f
L. tO X
4- in v*
§s -
4> in
in

N •>• 4>

ID ID 4-
33 0
C C 4)
C C >*-
(O ID •*-
4)

ID ID 4-
4-4- 10
O O O
4-4- 0
ID ID ID
4-4- 4-
c c c

O 4> O 4)
t- L. L. L.
ID O O O —
4) C c c —
V) - — - ID
(2 • • • V)


( •
— CM
d> *— • ^™*
? 88 §1
in o O in r»
tnr-
•» •>
C^ fmm
***


^ ^
SCM ^ O O
Q Q Q O
O O O O ^
 in
in
TJ -o 4>
4) O c
N > 4)

ID ID 4-
33 0
c c 4>
c c >»-
(D ID -*-

_ _ _
ID ID 4-
^ ^ 8
4-4- 0
ID ID ID
4-4- 4-
c c c

L. L. U ID
0 O O O
C C C —

• • • \—


•
K\
 O CM m
CM ^- K1>O




*x ^-.
Sf** O\ O O
— — •* o>
in • • CM oo
1 OO • «
*- MCM
| |
^^







O in O> OO
*»• •* •» K\O>
CM • • ir\v
1 O O 1 J^








*"^«
^

X
m
c
O
t
l_ L.

\ \
** 0)
Z

4- »
§C
Q
4- -~
SO c
« 3 O
4- TJ 4-
in 4) x
XL. «
10 ^

L. 'in x
4- in w»
c —
O E
o 4) in
in

u >• 

ID ID 4-
4-4- 10
O O O
4-4- O
ID ID ID
4-4- 4-
c c c
4) 4) 4)
L. L. L.
O 0 O
C C C

• • •




O
-H
O TJ -4-
4- 4> O O
L. 4-
TJ ID —
4) Q. TJ O
L. E 4> O) L.
ID O L. C 4-
Q. O W — C
5 -~ g — 0
O — O O
O) O L. L.
— — • 4- O
— 10 *^ C • *-
o) Q. < o in
O 0  4>
Q. •- " in ID —
in — > 3
• ID l_ ID O"
CM Q- 4) •*- 4)
— a £> in 4) u
ID to O — 4-
Q. O in 4- 4) IO
Ji •— TJ ID L, J=
•^ ID £ 4-
CM 4-0)
• • C L. 4)
!*• >• O L. 3 >
^ Q. t. zi m 25
10 L. 4) ID
U O <~
> 10 in 0.4-
U 4) L. TJ 10
> 4) ID X O
- — 4- JS 0
in ID m c
4- > — O -O 4)
C C 25 4) O
4> 4- ID L. — —
> 4) O ID — >
— 0 O 4)
C — 4) U. TJ
O 4) — TJ 4-
— L. J3 4) C —
4- ID JD O O
ID O m 1 O l_
> L. O TJ 4-
L. 3 o. 4> in c
4> in in x j£ o
in in — — co
c 4> TJ ><- «)
O t- H 	
O O. ID ID ID
4) 4-
X X X X O) C


4> 4) > 4) 4) 4- L.
— — O — f— U) 0
O O - O > O — •-
I. L, HI t-O: L. 4)
4- 4-4-4-E4-TJ4)
C C C C C O -C
O O4)O -OE4-
O o > O in O
4) O i-
in incin>in4-o
.* ^ o J« — ^ *-
C C — C ID C TJ
ID ID4-ID>IO4)4>
4- 4- ID 4- 4- t- t_
> t- ID ID
4) 4) L. 4) (D 4> 0.
D) • O) 4) O) — O) € 10
bcoob2b°jQ
4-IO4-O4- 4-^1-
io4-in in4)in^o
x L. O in
4-4)4-^4-34- 1 TJ
cuic cmcOio
4)lD4)TJ4)in4)— •
>(->«>> c
— O 	 L.— C O
S4- O— OttOO^l
in in o 10 in — L.
<- X 4- ID
— -1 	 H 	 J3— ID 0
4> c a) c o> o L.
E4)T3 OT3TJTJ 4)T3
>ooO4>oa.o>
E— E 6— EOJ3*
o in — ia>
L, in i_ jc i- o L. O>TJ c
O OcOi_OcTJ4) CD O 0) (O -*-

CECOC COCO
ID iDlDIDiniD O —
^*^.c t_.C.a£.C 4) E4-
OOOOOCOX:EID
Z 4- 10 4- O <-
— Z) — in — H 	 O4>
ID -~ 10 iui*''<"i'
4>— 4)— 4)O4)inin —
t-OL.Oi-4-L.C4-4-
OL.oinoiooomiD
C4-C c c— OO
— c 	 	 — in o o
O 4) 4) U)
4)O4)TJ4)TJ4)— 0)4)
JCC.CO.CO.CE.C.C
1— 3 h- E 1— El— 4)1-4-
ro .O O TJ 
-------
  TABLE F-12.  SOLVENT STORAGE TANK WASTEWATER DSICHARGES AND
                  WATERBORNE VOC EMISSIONS3'5
Control
option
Annual
103 i
(typical I1ne)c Estimated
103 gal
103 i
1990 National
103 gal
Wastewater Discharges
1
2
3
4A
4B

1
2
3
4A
4B
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.5
Waterborne VOC
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0
0
0
22
Emissions6
0
0
0
0
2.2
0
0
0
0
5.5

0
0
0
0
4.0
aWastewater and waterborne VOC emissions result from the
 operation of fixed-bed carbon adsorbers.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to
 independent rounding.
cWastewater containing solvent from research and small lines
 is disposed as hazardous waste.
dBased on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small lines, and
 11 typical sized lines.
eWastewater from stripper column of distillation system
 contains 100 ppm VOC.
                              F-20

-------
          TABLE  F-13.   SOLVENT STORAGE TANK SOLID WASTE IMPACTSa«b
Control
option
1
2 -
3
4AC
4Bd


1
2
3
4AC
4Bd
Annual Solid Waste Impacts
Research Smal 1
kg Ib kg Ib
0000
0000
0000
90 190 150 320 1
0000
Estimated National 1990 Solid Waste Impacts6
Mg Ton
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 22
0 0
Typical
kg
0
0
0
,730
0








Ib
0
0
0
3,800
0







aSo!1d waste results from the operation of fixed-bed and flu1d1zed-bed
 carbon adsorbers.
"Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to Independent
 rounding.
^Disposable canister carbon adsorber.
Negligible.
eBased on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small lines, and 11
 typical sized lines.
                                    F-21

-------
           TABLE  F-14.   SOLVENT  STORAGE  TANK ENERGY  REQUIREMENTS3
Annual steam and total energy requirements'*
Control
option
1
2
3
4AC
4Bd
Research
GJ
0
0
0
0
0.26
106 Btu
0
0
0
0
0.25
Smal
GJ
0
0
0
0
0.44
1
106 Btu
0
0
0
0
0.42
Typical
GJ 10 6
0
0
0
0
6.70 6.

Btu
0
0
0
0
35
                  Estimated National  1990 Energy Demandb»c

1
2
3
4A
4B
GJ
0
0
0
0
76
10° Btu
0
0
0
0
72
aMetric and English units may not convert exactly due to independent
 rounding.
"There are no electrical energy and natural gas requirements for the
 storage tank control options.
cBased on the equivalent of 1 research line, 5 small lines, and 11  typical
sized lines.
                                    F-22

-------
  TABLE F-15.  SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SECONDARY POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
   FROM STEAM GENERATION FOR CONTROL OF SOLVENT STORAGE TANKS

Control
option

1
2
3
4A
4B

K
PM~
kg

0
0
0
0
0.017
lb

0
0
0
0
0.038
Emission 1eve1sa
SO,,
kg
Research
0
0
0
0
0.22
NOV
Ib

0
0
0
0
0.49
kg

0
0
0
0
0.05
lb

0
0
0
0
0.12
                             Small
1
2
3
4A
4B
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
0.06
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0.2
                            Typical
1
2
3
4A
4B
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
1.4
0
0
0
0
3
Metric and English units may not convert exactly due to
 independent  rounding.
DPM = particulate matter.
                              F-23

-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX F

1.  Letter and attachments from Dabney, 0., Jr., D. A. Associates, to
    Berry, J., EPArCPB.  January 15, 1985.  Cost of atmospheric tanks and
    pressure vessels.

2.  Memo and attachments from Beall, C., MRI, to Johnson, W., EPArCPB.
    Revised final tabular cost.  March 15, 1985.  Costs for model storage
    tanks, model mix rooms, and model coating operations for the magnetic
    tape manufacturing Industry.
                                    F-24

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please n tiJ Instructions 1.111 the ret rrsc hcfc/rt <
1  BtPORT NO
   EPA-450/3-85-029a
4 TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
  Magnetic Tape  Manufacturing Industry -
  Background  Information for Proposed  Standards
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                             3. RfcCIPIENT'S ACCFSSION NO.
             5 REPORT DATE
                December 1985
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.
                                                               68-02-3817
12. SPONSORING AGENCY,NAME AND AD.DRESS .  _.    .   ,
  DAA  for  Air Quality Planning  and  Standards
  Office of Air and Radiation
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27/11
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
               Draft
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

               EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
  . >*DO I ri/-M- I
   Standards of Performance  for the control of VOC  emissions from magnetic  tape coating
   lines  are being proposed  under the authority of  Section 111 of the  Clean Air Act.
   These  standards would apply to all new,modified,  and reconstructed  magnetic tape
   coating  lines using at  least 38 cubic meters of  solvent per year  in the  production of
   magnetic tape.  This document contains background information and environmental and
   economic impact assessments of the regulatory  alternatives considered in developing
   the proposed standards.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
   Air Pollution
   Pollution Control
   Standards of Performance
   Volatile Organic  Compounds
   Magnetic Tape
   Web coating
                                               b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution  Control
                           c. COSATI I'jcld/Group
13B
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
   Unlimited
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
                                                 Unclassified
                           21. NO. OF PAGES
                             319
                                               20 SECURITY CLASS (Tins page/
                                                 Unclassified
                                                                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION 's OBSOLETE

-------
-------






































•o

•— <*
o
(A
01


^_
o
^

^
0
r
^>
*a
£*
"4-


(Q


^


g^

•^<
"^
5
i~



01
£
•o
i

•^
S.


»—
"!
^,
rn
^
51
o

IA

X

B
C
Ol

"o
(A
^
1*-
o

-M

IA
C

41
£
1
5.
fc
2
1
"4-
o
^J
C



3

•— C
s.™

•o
U) 
° 0

•i- ni
iA -C
£ "
X g
B vr>

| g

(A Q.
i-
4A

(0
C

^— l-

O*i O
A Of

f*1 **
CO O
u
.
J

*
1
'o.
JJ
£

O
lA

H-
0
i-
^
c
O
— *
fe,

z
*
5

fe
•-

C
s

o.
eg

$


at
"a.
3
E
IA
+J
solven
^
s.
§
8
£

O

-£•

S
o
— *
£,
•&
X

•"
-
t
%
t.



^^
15

;2
m
03
'e
"ol
•*
s
0.

,_
Ot

1


o
>t

IA
s
"°T



















C-
































ai
fc
•&


10
*
•"
s
.5.


£
%
u
•A

S
(.
**-
%
>
T3
IT
^J
§
>
(A
L.


C


01

*J
^G
£
j^a





e
^
•"
8
en


10
Z?
S.
3?

a*
2
e
o
•o
C

2
C
Ol

>
o
01

>
Of


fe


O)
J=

e
2
\i



































































J2
c
ai

o
(A
at

t.
0
•o
O)
(A
3

s


^

IQ
at

^~
in
r-*
4




f













n








































r









^
t
O
(A
•o
£
5
fe
U
ai
ti

£
U

Ol


Si
^
*
v»
'w*
'e

S
V*
U-
0
IA
3


>
at
-C
i —
ra
4-*
s

t-
-8
£
8
1
^_
contro
T)

(O

>t
4-«
I/I

£
C
o
It
£
•°
^
to

*A
T
B
fc*

••- at
IA 3
C X
|'5
'o **
- £
•S4
(- O
ai 
at s_


at <—.
> r-
(0  -^
f J3

B in
2^-
y*~ *~*























































i.
V
•e
o
*i
c
^
i_
 U  i
21 <*
J3
*
F-8

-------

CD
z
>— 1
1—
< to
O LU
0 >
1— 1
LU |—
3: <
(— z
o:
QC LU
0 h-
U 	 1
^f
00
I— >-
0 CtL
•=> o
Q I—
0 <
Q£ '
Q- =>
iS

Q 	 1
s: o
o to
0
Q
o: z
0 — i
<_> s:
«z
1— H M
LU O
CJ i— i
"-• I—
a: <
CX ry
LU
—1 Q-
h-. O
^£
1—
LU
Qi


•
i— 1
CVJ
1
cn

LU
i
CD
<^
1—

O)
*j
OJ
(/I
CO
IO
o

(O
[ *
to
a





















t/)
^X
(/)
*r-
O

O)
1—
JO
•^"
X
ai
r-M
1 i






















-o
— « a>
• -o

E -i- to
O 1 1
1 ^- Q}
CO — i—
• r-H O
CO 1 3
•— I LO O
	 o













^J
*— . 4)
• -o

E -^'to
0 1 1
1 «*• a>
CO -^r—
• i— 1 O>
CO 1 C
•— 1 Lf) -r-
•> — to
































CO
OJ
+^
3
C
•r—
E

O
en



(U
u
•1—
L.
a.

f~
a>
>r.
"^




(U
o

^
a.

2
O
_J



0)
o
•t«
g
Q.

JC

t^.
or




CD
U

^_
Q.
^
• ^
O
	 1



























^^
CO
i—4
^-N S* ^^ OJ r-H ^~
C\JCMf^OO ^HQOrH O O CO
ID «^~ CVJ O> CO CO O O O O*t O
• ••• ••• • • • •
^j-ooco ocoo o o co o
-t^- -fe^ ^^- X^^1 •fg^- ^^- -t^- ^/>
>— ^* *^_^-



^— s.
CO P*"-*
f-H t— 1
^-^ fc* ^ *~ ^ OsJ rH O
CMcsjr^o t— i LO r- 1 o o o
LO^d-CMCSJ Oi-HO O O CM O
• ••* ••• • • • •
^ o o ^ o o o o o ^~ o
•fc^-  CM f-H O
CMCMI^OO f-HLjOr-H O O 00
LO^-CMCO O f-H O O O CO O
• ••• ••• • • • •
«a-oooo ooo o o co o
i/) -b*)* •b^- ^^* -b1^ ^)- •b1^- CO
•- ^ v_^



^— ^
co r^
f-H «-H
-^ *% ^1- *-^ CVI i— I O
cvicvir-«.o i— t 10 I-H o o o
LO«3-CV1V£> Oi-HO O O VO O
• ••• ••• • • • •
*3-OOCVI OOO O O CVJ O
b^- &^- -b^- Nfc^ isfy 4& ^&- CO
^— ^ "^-^

^-^
tD Q)
LO CO
1  c
 « *-^ ••-
ai -i— ' — « to ai o
t. C -P (11 O (I) •»->
O 3 -i-O •>- O OJCOO)
c — . 4-> e •!- »- -r- ooco
•r- Ol -r- 3 t- Q. C- v- O  C — . d. Q. t_ <1)
-(-> QJ c 3 ai c a. cr> t.
^"^ O *^ ^ QJ *O *^ 'r^ r~* *^ C O
CXI O 5— fl j * QJ >rv -« V^H ^J
4J Q. CU (T3 <1) CO a) *~* (O 3 -r-
^O-^J O -P <»- CO (O • — - CO 4-> pi— P t-
E "^-* CO r™* *f~ O *O ^"^ ^J CM (ij -^ CU O C CX
^^. | ^ Q} *r— e Cj«. cj) OJ t- [ % CD C ^ C CV
•PCOJC«3CXO<^ 4-EO«»-t_3 i— IOC
co o en .p — • P o — c • — o * — 3: — t- T-
O O *P- 
CO

CD o» .^ — ,
C_ CO •
O 3 0»

•t- co La
*~* to
•P O -P
CO J3
O E tt>
O 3 JC
C 4J
+J
CO O) C

f p—
C7) 	 C
•r- S
JC O
• JC
OJ -P CO
JC 'I-

3 t-
OJ • ~». (O
CO >  • •*- co
•i— CM o d)
co p E , (-
P (0 -^
O c +J E •—
3 t- CO (O
-O 0) O X 3
O -P O -P
l~ i— '~~* O

E
i— >> O) — 'CD
r— t- CO JC
(O o at 
Ol-r- >
CD at ecu
E Q£ P «r- 3:
(O CO O
CO O> O  to i n o
-< «-"••-
fO Cy-jD O
9-44