United States Office of Air Quality EPA-450/3-78-120
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards December 1978
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
Summary of Group I Control
Technique Guideline Documents
for Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources
-------
EPA-450/3-78-120
Summary of Group I Control Technique
Guideline Documents for Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources
by
P.R. Peterson, R.R. Sakaida
Pacific Environmental Services
1930 14th Street
Santa Monica, California 90404
Contract No. 68-02-2606
Work Assignment 22
EPA Project Officer. Tom Williams
U.S. Environrnc:::.?.! Prclaclion Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 6060.4
Prepared for
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
December 1978
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or for a nominal fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield,Virginia 22I6I.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Pacific Environmental Services, I930 14th Street, Santa Monica, Cali-
fornia 90U04 in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2606. This document
has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Publication No. EPA-450/ 3-78-120
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 CTG DOCUMENT SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 Surface Coating of Cans 2-3
2.2 Surface Coating of Metal Coils 2-5
2.3 Surface Coating of Fabrics 2-7
2.4 Surface Coating of Paper Products 2-9
2.5 Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty
Trucks 2-11
2.6 Surface Coating of Metal Furniture 2-13
2.7 Surface Coating of Magnet Wire 2-15
2.8 Surface Coating of Large Appliances 2-17
2.9 Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals 2-19
2.10 Bulk Gasoline Plants 2-21
2.11 Gasoline Service Stations - Stage I 2-23
2.12 Fixed-Roof Petroleum Storage Tanks 2-25
2.13 Petroleum Refinery Processes 2-27
2.14 Cutback Asphalt 2-29
2.15 Solvent Metal Cleaning 2-31
3.0 REFERENCES 3-1
m
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amend-
ments, each state in which there is located a designated nonattain-
ment area is required to prepare a revised State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
specified that the SIP revisions for areas designated as not attain-
ing photochemical oxidant standards should contain, as a minimum,
regulations for controlling volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from stationary sources. These regulations must provide for the
implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT).
To assist the states in defining RACT, the EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards has prepared a series of Control
Technique Guideline (CTG) documents. Individual stationary source
categories are addressed by the documents. As of January 1978, CTG
documents have been issued for 15 stationary source categories.
The source categories are:
1. Surface coating of cans
2. Surface coating of metal coils
3. Surface coating of fabrics
4. Surface coating of paper products
5. Surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks
6. Surface coating of metal furniture
7. Surface coating of magnet wire
8. Surface coating of large appliances
'4.' Tank truck gasoline loading terminals
10. Bulk gasoline plants
'lU Gasoline service stations - Stage I control
12. Fixed-roof petroleum storage tanks
13. Miscellaneous refinery sources
14. Cutback asphalt
15. Solvent metal cleaning (degreasing)
For each source category, a CTG document describes the source,
identifies the VOC emission points, discusses the applicable control
1-1
-------
methods, analyzes the costs required to implement the control
methods, and recommends regulations for limiting VOC emissions from
the source. The purpose of this report is to summarize the CTG
documents issued as of January 1978. The summaries are intended
to present an introductory overview of the affected source facil-
ities, the magnitude of the VOC emissions emitted from the facil-
ities, and the recommended VOC emission limits. More complete
information about the recommended control techniques for an individ-
ual source category can be obtained by referring to the specific
CTG document cited at the beginning of each section.
1-2
-------
2.0 CTG DOCUMENT SUMMARY
The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards initiated
the CTG document series in November 1976 by issuing a document which
presents background information on control methods for surface
coating operations.[1] The report describes the principal add-on
equipment for control of VOC emissions, discusses process and mat-
erial changes available for reducing VOC emissions, addresses the
cost aspects of implementing the control methods, and provides
guidance for sampling and analyzing VOC emissions.
Subsequent CTG documents^2"11^ have been issued for specific
source categories. Summaries of these CTG documents issued as of
January 1978, along with the design criteria document for gas-
oline service stations, are presented on the following pages. Any
information not available in the CTG documents was supplemented
.... [13-15]
with input from other sources, where possible.
Cost estimates in the CTG documents were normally developed by
use of model facilities to represent typical operations. Applicable
alternative controls were costed for these model facilities. As
such, these costs, even with the broad ranges provided for several
of the source categories, may not encompass the actual cost incurred
at any specific facility. Stage I control costs for service
stations were taken from Reference 13.
The CTG document summaries which follow include a brief dis-
cussion of the VOC source category and emission control techniques,
as well as a tabular presentation of the following information for
each source category:
Affected Facilities - Types of operations, facilities, or
equipment covered by the CTG
Number of Affected Facilities - A national count of the
operations, facilities, or equipment specified
2-1
-------
VOC Emissions Nationwide - Estimate of annual emissions from
the source category
VOC Emission Range per Facility - Estimate of annual emissions
from a typical facility in the source category
100 Ton/Yr Source Size - The estimated size of a facility
which would emit 100 tons/yr of VOC if uncontrolled.
CTG Emission Limit - VOC emission limits as recommended in
the CTG document
VOC Reduction Per Facility - Percent emission reduction which
can be effected by use of CTG recommended controls
Costs - Values in parenthesis represent net savings
Capital - purchase and installation costs
Annualized - includes operating cost, annualized capital
charges plus tax and interest, less value of
recovered VOC. Only primary heat recovery or fuel
value credit considered
Cost Effectiveness - Cost of control measure per ton
of VOC controlled
2-2
-------
2.1 SURFACE COATING OF CANS
Cans are used as containers for a wide variety of products and
are fabricated in many different sizes, shapes, and styles. As a
result, there are major differences in the coating formulations and
application methods used by can manufacturers depending on the type
of can and the type of product packaged in the can.
Two basic methods are used to fabricate cans. A "three-piece"
can is made from a metal blank and two ends. In a separate operation,
metal sheets are first roll coated with the appropriate exterior and
interior coatings. The cans are then fabricated from the coated sheets.
The can body is formed by slitting the sheets into blanks, rolling the
blanks to form cylinders, and sealing the side seam. A circular end,
also formed from a coated metal sheet, is attached to the can bottom.
The interior of the can may be spray coated before the can is filled
with a product and the can is sealed with the second end piece. A
"two-piece" can is drawn and wall ironed from a shallow cup. After
the can is formed, exterior and interior coatings are applied by
rolling or spraying techniques. The can is then filled with a product,
and the end piece is attached.
The CTG document recommends separate VOC emission limits for the
different steps in the can coating process. All of the limits are based
on substituting lower organic-solvent borne coatings for the convention-
al coating currently being applied. The limits for coating metal sheets,
two-piece can exteriors and interiors, two-piece can end exteriors,
and three-piece can interiors are based on using water-borne coatings.
The limits for three-piece can side seam coatings and end sealing com-
pounds are based on increasing the solids content of conventional
organic-solvent borne coatings.
Although low organic-solvent borne coatings are being used suc-
cessfully on some can coating lines, they are presently not commercially
available for many can coating applications. Also, not all existing
coating application equipment is readily adaptable to using low organic-
solvent borne coatings. Consequently, control of VOC emissions from
some can coating lines may require the use of add-on control equipment
such as incinerators or carbon adsorbers.
2-3
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR COATING OF CANS
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RAN3E
PER
FACILITY
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
Two- and three-piece can surface coatinc lines including the
application areas and the drying ovens.
Estimated to be 46C affected facilities nationwide.
Estimated annual emissions from can coating facilities are 1^0,002
Mg/yr (150,000 ton/yr) which represent about 0.5 percent of the estimate.-!
nationwide VOf erissiors. [14,15]
Typical annual emissions fror can coatinq lines can vary fror 13 Me
(U tons) for end sealing to 24C Me (260 ton) for two-piece can coat-
ing for a plant average of 310 Mg (340 ton).
Typical can coating facilities as represented in the CTG would all
approach or exceed 100 TPY VOC emissions if uncontrolled.
The recommended VOC emission limits are:
a. Sheet coating, two-piece exterior 0.34 kg/1 (2.8 1b/gal)*
b. Two- and three-piece interior 0.51 kg/1 (4.2 lb/gal)*
c. Two-piece end exterior 0.51 kg/1 (4.2 lb/gal)*
d. Three-piece side seam 0.66 kg/1 (5.5 lb/gal)*
e. End seal compound 0.44 kg/1 (3.7 lb/gal)*
The actual percent reduction will vary depending on the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recommended control methods can reduce VOC emis-
sions by 60 to 100 percent.
BASIS: 5,000 scfm facility using thermal or catalytic incinera-
tion with primary heat recovery, or adsorption with recovered solvent
credited at fuel value.
CAPITAL COST: $125,000 - $162,000
ANNUALIZED COST: $42.000 - $71,000
COST EFFECTIVENESS: $135 - $706 per ton VOC I
Coating minus water
2-4
-------
2.2 SURFACE COATING OF METAL COILS
Metal coil coating involves the application of prime and/or top
coatings to any flat metal sheet or strip that comes in rolls or
coils. The type of metals coated include aluminum, aluminum al-
loys, steel, plated steel, steel alloys, zinc, brass, and copper.
The metal is typically cleaned, pretreated, roll coated on one or
both sides, dried, and recoiled during a continuous operation.
After coating, the metal is used within the same plant or delivered
to a customer for fabricating the metal into products.
The CTG document recommends a single emission limit for metal
coil coating operations. The limit is based on incineration of
the VOC emissions from the application of an organic-solvent borne
coating which has a solid content of 25 percent by volume. To
comply with the limit, 90 percent of the solvent vapors emitted
from the coating line must be captured and burned in an after-
burner which has a minimum 90 percent efficiency. This would be
equivalent to a solvent (VOC)-borne coating that contains about 65
percent solids. However, low organic-solvent borne (high solids)
coatings for steel and other metals are not yet commercially avail-
able. Water-borne coatings have been developed for a few metal coil
coating operations (e.g., application of primers and low to medium
gloss, topcoats to aluminum).
2-5
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOP COATING OF METAL COILS
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NU'-'iEEF OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE PER
FACILITY
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
Coil surface coating lines including the application areas, the dr.,- '
ing ovens, and the quench areas. I
1
Estimated to be 180 facilities nationwide. ]
i
Estimated annual emissions frorr coil coating facilities are 3^,031
Mq/yr (33,000 toiyvr), which represent about 0.1 oercent of tr>^ esti-
mated nationwide VOC emissions. [K,15]
Average annual VOC emission for a typical facility is estimated
to be 180 Mg (200 ton).
ft ? 9 2
It is estimated that 2 x 10 IT (2 x 1C ft ) of ceil coate: cc.lc
result in a potential emission of IOC tons of VOC.
The recommended VOC emission limit is 0.31 kg per liter of coating
minus water (2.6 Ib/gal).
The actual percent reduction will vary depending on the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected. Imple-
mentation of the recommended control methods can reduce VOC emissions by I
70 to 98 percent.
BASIS: 15,000 scfm facility using incineration with primary heat
recovery.
Capital cost: ~ $170,000
Annuali zed cost: * $ 70,000
Cost effectiveness: $51 - $94 per ton VOC
2-6
-------
2.3 SURFACE COATING OF FABRICS
Fabric coating involves the application of decorative or
protective coatings to a textile substrate. The CTG definition of
"fabric coating" includes the application of rubber coatings to
fabrics. Coatings are normally applied to a textile substrate
using knife coating or roller coating techniques. For some
specialized coating applications, a dip technique may be used.
Vinyl coating involves the application of topcoats to vinyl
coated fabrics or vinyl sheets. Roller coating and rotogravure
printing techniques are widely used to apply the coatings.
The CTG document recommends separate VOC emission limits for
fabric and vinyl coating. The limits for both types of coating
are based on the installation of add-on control equipment. To
comply with the limits, 90 percent of the VOC solvent vapor emitted
from the coating line must be captured and passed to an afterburner
or a carbon adsorption unit which has a minimum 90 percent effic-
iency. Low organic-solvent borne coatings which meet the limits
are presently not commercially available.
2-7
-------
SlWiAP.Y OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR COATING OF FABRIC AND VINYL
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RAN3E PER
FACILITY
TOO TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
Fabric and vinyl surface coating lines including the application
areas and the drying ovens. Fabric coating includes a1! types cf
coatings applied to fabric. Vinyl coating refers to any printing,
decorative, or protective topcoat applied over vinyl coated fabric or
vinyl sheets.
Estimated to be 130 facilities nationwide.
Estimated annual emission fror fabric coating operations are IC'.C'T
Mc/yr (110,000 ton/yr). [15] The vinyl seanert o* the fatnc ina^str)
err-.ts about 36,00: Mg/yr (40,000 ton/y). VO: fror fabric coatinr rep-
resents about C.£ oercent of the estimated VOC erissiors nationwide.
Average annual VOC emissions are estimated to be 850 Me (940 ton).
Any but the smallest fabric coating facilities should exceed enis-
sions of 100 ton/yr of VOC.
The recommended VOC emission limits are:
a. Fabric coatino 0.35 kg per liter of coating minus water
(2.9 lb/gal)/
b. Vinyl coating 0.45 kg per liter of coating minus water
(3.8 Ib/gal).
The actual percent reduction will vary depending on the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recommended control methods can reduce VOC emis-
sions by 80 to 100 percent.
BASIS: 15,000 scfm facility using incineration with primary heat
recovery or adsorption with recovered solvent credited at fuel value
Capital cost: $150,000 - $320,000
Annualized cost: $ 60,000 - $ 75,000
Cost effectiveness: $34 - $39 cer tor. VfK
2-8
-------
2.4 SURFACE COATING OF PAPER PRODUCTS^
Paper coating involves the application of decorative, protective,
or adhesive coatings to a paper substrate. Affected facilities include
plants manufacturing decorated and glazed paper, adhesive tapes and
labels, book covers, office copier paper, carbon paper, magnetic tapes,
photographic films, and foil gift wrap and packaging.
Coatings are applied to paper using one of three major techniques:
knife coating, reverse roller coating, or rotogravure printing. All
three application techniques require drying of the coating in an oven.
The primary source of VOC emissions during paper coating is the ex-
haust from the drying ovens.
The CTG document recommends a single VOC emission limit for all
paper coating operations. The limit is based on capture and incin-
eration of the VOC solvent vapors emitted from the coating line.
Low organic-solvent borne coatings are being used successfully for
some paper coating applications. However, low organic-solvent borne
coatings are presently not commercially available for all paper
coating applications.
2-9
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR SURFACE COATING OF PAPEP PRODUCTS
ArFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
vo:
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
voc
EMISSION
RANGE PER
FACILITY
TOO TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
Paper surface coating lines including the application areas ana the;
drying ovens. The CTG document applies to manufacturing of adhesive
tapes, adhesive labels, decorated paper, boo^ covers, office copier
paper, carbon paper, typewriter ribbons, and photographic films. j
SIC 2641, Paper Coating and Glazing, had 397 plants ir 1967.
Current estimates for this category are 290 plants nationwide.
Estimated annual emissions are 320,000 Mg/yr (350,00? tor'yr). 0*'
this amount, the manufacture of pressure sensitive tapes and labels i b
estimated to erit 263,000 Mg/yr (230,000 tor,/yr). Em'ssiors fror tr.
coating of paper products represent about 1.2 percent of nationwide VO'
emissions.'- ^
Emissions from typical paper coating lines can vary fror 23 to
450 kg/hr (50 to 1,000 Ib/hr). A plant may have 1 to 20 coating lines
It is estimated that the annual average VOC emission frorr, paper coating
plants is 1,480 Mg (1,630 ton).
Based on the data given, a plant with one large line or two
small lines can exceed 100 ton/yr of VOC emissions.
The recommended VOC emission limit is 0.35 kg per liter
of coating minus water (2.9 Ib/gal).
The actual percent reduction will vary depending or, the sclver.t
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recommended control methods can reduce VOC
emissions by 80 to 99 percent.
BASIS: 15,000 scfm facility using incineration with primary heat
recovery or adsorption with recovered solvent credited at fuel fa! us.
Capital cost: $150,000 - $32C,000
Annualized cost: $ 60,000 - $ 75,000
Cost effectiveness: $34 - $40 per ton VOC
2-10
-------
2.5 SURFACE COATING OF AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS
Automobile and light-duty truck assembly plants receive parts
from a variety of sources and produce finished vehicles for sale to
dealers. Many coating lines are operated throughout an assembly
plant. Coating of the vehicle body and the separate components (e.g.,
chassis, doors, hoods, fenders, and wheels) begins by applying a prime
coat using dip or spray techniques. The coated part is passed through
a solvent flashoff area is then cured in an oven-. A topcoat is
applied in one to three spray applications. Normally, each applica-
tion is followed by a flashoff and bake cycle. After coating, the
parts are sent to other locations in the plant for final assembly of
the vehicle. Coatings which are damaged during assembly are recoated
directly on the vehicle in the final repair area.
The CTG document recommends separate VOC emission limits for prime,
top, and final repair coating operations. The limit for prime coating
is based on using the electrodeposition (EDP) dip technique followed by
spray application of a 25 volume percent solids water-borne "surfacer"
(a supplemental primer). Approximately one-half of the assembly plants
currently use EDP dip coating lines for application of primers. Two
plants are using the water-borne surfacer. The emission limit for
top coating is based on the application of water-borne topcoats. Two
plants are using water borne topcoats which meet the recommended limit.
The emission limit for final repair coating is based on increasing the
solids content of the conventional organic-solvent borne coatings
currently used.
The recommended limits do not apply to the application of sound-
proofing materials or adhesives. Also, the limits are not intended to
apply to commercial automobile refinishers (e.g., body shops and
automobile customizers).
Due to technical and economic considerations, it may be reasonable
to exempt the conversion of existing water-borne dip prime coating
lines to the EDP technique. Also, because of the large expenditures
required to convert to water-borne topcoats, it may be reasonable to
grant some finite period to develop other low organic-solvent borne
coatings which meet the recommended limit.
2-11
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR COATING IN AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK ASSEMBLY PLAN'S
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTE:
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATION ID:
VOC
EMissior;
RANG: PER
FACILITY
TOO TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
Automobile and light-duty truck surface coating lines including tne
application areas, the flashcff areas, and the drying ovens.
The CTG provides no exemptions but notes that it mav net be
reasonable to convert an existing water-borne dip prime coating syster
Identified for the year 1977 to be 47 plants nationwide.
Estimated annual emissions froir, auto and light duty tru:» plants
are 90,000 Mg/yr (100,000 tor'yr). T^Js &bQut 0.3 percent of
estimated VOC erissions natiom.irle . " ' ^ i
Emissions fro?r tyoical coating lines can vary frorr, 270 tc 1 ,B3r i
kg/hr (60C to 4,000 Ib/hr). Average annual emissions are estimated to be !
2,380 Mg (2,620 ton) oer subject plant.
All uncontrolled coating lines at the assembly plants are expected
to emit in excess of 100 tons of VOC per year.
The recommended VOC emission limits are:
a. Prime coating 0.23 kg/1 (1.9 Ib/gal) minus water
b. Top coating 0.34 kg/1 (2.8 Ib/gel) minus water
c. Final repair coating 0.58 kg/1 (4.8 Ib/gal) minus water
The actual percent reduction will vary depending or, the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recommended methods can reduce VOC emissions for:
a. Prime coating - 80 to 93 percent.
b. Top coating - 75 to 92 percent.
c. Final repair coating - not available
BASIS: 30 - 65 units per hour facility with substantial variability
in both existing operations and potentially applicable confol system:.
Capital cost: $6,500,000 - $50,000,000
Annualized cost: , $2,000,000 - $25,000,000
Cost effectiveness: $1,000 - $4,OOC per tor VOC
2-12
-------
2.6 SURFACE COATING OF METAL FURNITURE
Metal furniture coating involves the application of prime and
top coatings to any piece of metal furniture or any metal part
which will be assembled with other metal, wood, fabric, plastic,
or glass parts to form a furniture piece. Most metal furniture
is finished with a single coat. However, some furniture pieces
require a prime coat application. The prime coat is applied by
electrostatic spraying, conventional spraying, dipping, or flow-
coating techniques. The topcoat or a single coat is also applied
by spraying, dipping, or flowcoating techniques.
The CTG document recommends a single emission limit for metal
furniture coating operations. This limit is based on the use of
low organic-solvent borne coatings. These coatings include water
borne, high solids, electrodeposition, and powder coatings. The
limit can also be met by the installation of add-on control equip-
ment. To comply with the limit, 80 percent of the VOC solvent
vapor emitted from the application of conventional coatings must
be destroyed (using an afterburner) or recovered (using a carbon
adsorption unit).
2-13
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR COATING OF METAL FURNITURE
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMEER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
voc
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RAN3E PER
FACILITY
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
Metal furniture surface coating lines including the
application and flashoff areas, and the drying ovens.
Approximately 1,400 facilities would be affected nationally.
Estimated annual emissions are 90,000 Mg/yr (100,000 tor,'
yr)."- -" This represents about 0.3 percent of estimated VOC
missions nationwide. L -*
Estimated average annual VOC emissions are 70 Mg
(80 ton) per facility.
I
For a model dip coating line, a plant coating (with nc primer),
1,500,000 m2 (16,200,000 ft2) of shelving per year would er.it
about 100 ton/yr.
The recommended VOC emission limit is 0.36 kg per liter
of coating minus water (3-0 Ib/gal).
The actual percent reduction will vary depending on the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recommended control methods can reduce VOC
emissions by 50 to 99 percent.
BASIS: A dip coating facility coating 7,OOC,OOC ft1^ of she!, IT. 5
per year converting to water-borne or electrodeposition :
Capital cost: $ 3,000 - $124, OOC
Annualized cost: $11,000 - $ 25,000
Cost effectiveness: $440 - $657 per ton VOC
2-14
-------
2.7 SURFACE COATING OF MAGNET UIRE
Magnet wire coating involves the application of a coating of
electrically insulating varnish or enamel to aluminum or copper
wire. The wire coating must meet rigid specifications of elect-
rical, thermal, and abrasion resistance. Normally, the wire is
both drawn and coated at a plant. The wire is then delivered to
a customer for use in the manufacturing of electrical machinery.
Wire is typically cleaned, coated, dried, and rewound on
spools during a continuous operation. The coating is applied to
the wire by first immersing the wire in a coating bath. Passage
of the wire through a coating die (an orifice) scrapes off excess
coating and leaves a thin film of the desired thickness. The wire
is then passed through an oven to dry the coating. The exhaust
from the oven is the primary source of VOC emissions from the wire
coating line. The CTG notes that most wire coating ovens built
since the early 1960s have internal catalytic incinerators.
The CTG document recommends a single emission limit for wire
coating operations. The limit is based on incineration of VOC
emissions emitted from the wire coating ovens. To comply with
the limit, the afterburner must have a minimum efficiency of 90
percent. An alternative control method is to use low organic-
solvent borne coatings. However, low organic-solvent borne
coatings are presently not commercially available for all wire
coating applications.
2-15
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR COATING OF MAGNET WIRE
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
Wire coating oven.
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
Estimated to be 33 plants nationwide. It is not unusual for a wire
coating plant to have 50 coating ovens.
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
CTG states that there is no way to know how much solvent is actualU
emitted. About 29,500 metric tons (32,500 ton) of solvent are used each
year but much of this is controlled.
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE PER
FACILITY
Emissions from a typical uncontrolled oven will be approximately 12
kg/hr (26 lb/hr). The average annual emissions of VOC per plant are
estimated to be 314 Mg (34C ton).[15]
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG indicates that each of the facilities, if uncontrolled, could
easily exceed 100
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
The recommended VOC emission limit is 0.20 kg per liter of coating
minus water (1.7 lb/gal).
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
The actual percent reduction will vary depending on the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recommended control methods can reduce voi
emissions by 90 percent.
COSTS
BASIS: 10,000 scfm facility controlling VOC by use of incineration
with primary heat recovery.
Capital cost:
Annualized cost:
Cost effectiveness:
Approximately $220,000
$85,000 - $115,000
$105 - $140 per ton VOC
2-16
-------
2.8 SURFACE COATING OF LARGE APPLIANCES
Large appliance coating involves the application of prime and
top coatings to components assembled into large appliances. The
CTG definition of "large appliances" includes doors, cases, lids,
panels, and interior support parts of residential and commercial
washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters,
dishwashers, trash compactors, air conditioners, and other similar
products. Application of prime or single coats to components
may be by dipping, flowcoating, or spraying techniques. Dip coating
is typically used for small parts while flowcoating is used for
large parts. The topcoat is usually applied using spray techniques.
The CTG document recommends a single emission limit for large
appliance coating operations. The limit is based on the use of
low organic-solvent borne coatings. To comply with the limit, the
coatings must contain at least 62 volume percent solids or any
equivalent water-borne coating. The limit can also be met by the
installation of add-on control equipment. To comply with the limit,
80 percent of the VOC solvent emitted from the application of conven-
tional coatings must be destroyed (using an afterburner) or recovered
(using a carbon adsorption unit).
2-17
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR COATING OF LARGE APPLIANCES
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
ATECTED
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EKISSJO',
RANGE PER
FACILITY
TOO TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS*
Large appliance surface coating including the prime, single,
topcoat application areas, the flashoff areas, and the oven.
or
Estimated to be about 270 plants nationwide.
Estimated annual emissions are 42.00C Mg/yr (46,000 ton/yr)^1
which represent about 0.2 percent of estimated nationwide VOC
emissions.
- J
:
The average annual VOC emissions are estimated to be
170 Mg (185 ton).
Extrapolating the model facility data, a plant coatina 221,00
clothes washer cabinets per year would exceed 100 ton/yr emissions
uncontrolled VOC.
'of
The recommended VOC emission limit is 0.34 kg per liter
of coating minus water (2.8 Ib/gal).
The actual percent reduction will vary depending on the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recommended control methods can reduce VOC
emissions by 79 to 95 percent.
BASIS: 768,000 clothes washer cabinets coated per year using
various combinations of control techniques.
Capital cost: $70,000 - $1,250,000
Annualized cost: ($300,000) - $350,000
Cost effectiveness: ($1,050) - $1,180 per ton VOC
($) indicates savings
2-18
-------
2.9 TANK TRUCK GASOLINE LOADING TERMINALS
A "terminal" is defined by the CTG document as a gasoline dis-
tribution facility which has a daily gasoline throughput greater than
76,000 liter/day (20,000 gal/day). The daily gasoline throughput at
a typical size terminal is 950,000 liter/day (250,000 gal/day). Only
the loading of gasoline tank trucks is covered by the CTG document.
Tank trucks are filled at loading racks. These facilities
contain the equipment necessary to meter and to deliver the gaso-
line from the storage tanks to the tank trucks. The equipment in-
cludes pumps, piping, valves, fittings, meters, and loading arm
assemblies. The loading rack may be an elevated structure for
overhead splash fill or submerged fill of tank trucks. The loading
rack may also be a ground level facility for bottom loading of tank
trucks.
The CTG document recommends a single VOC emission limit for
loading of gasoline tank trucks at terminals. To comply with the
limit, an active vapor control system must be installed to condense,
absorb, adsorb, or incinerate the VOC vapors. Control equipment to
fulfill this requirement is presently commercially available. How-
ever, leakage from the vapor control system and tank trucks must be
minimized by a good maintenance and inspection program.
Using the recommended control limits, VOC emissions can be
reduced by 87 to over 97 percent (neglecting any VOC losses due to
leakage) as a function of the concentration of gasoline vapor in
an empty tank truck.
2-19
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT TOR TANK TRUCK GASOLINE LOADING TERMINALS
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE PER
FACILITY
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
Any tank truck loading operations at the primary wholesale outlet
for gasoline which delivers at least 76,000 liter/day (20.00C gal/day).
A facility which delivers under 20,000 gal/day is coverec by the
CTG for bulk plants.
According to the Bureau of Census, there were 1,925 tenrinals in
1972. Current estimates are about 1,600 terminals nationwide.
Estimated annual emissions are 250,000 Mg/yr (275,000 ton'yrr ' "^
which represent about 0.9 percent of estimated VOC emissions nationwide
Without vapor recovery systems, VOC emissions car, range fror C.6 tc
1.4 g/1,000 liters of throughput (5 to 12 lb/1,000 gal). For a typical _
size facility having a throughput of 950,000 liter/day (250, 00: caTaa>)
VOC emissions are estimated to be 200 Mg/yr (220 ton/yr).
For an uncontrolled facility with fixed roof tanks, a 133, 03C liter
/day (35,000 gal/day) plant would result in VOC emission of 10: tor/yr.
For an uncontrolled facility with floating roof tanks, a 454,000 liter/
day (120,000 gal/day) facility would result in VOC emissions of
100 ton/yr.
The recommended emission limit is 80 nig/liter (0.67 lb/1,000 gal)
of gasoline loaded. This limit is based on submerged fill and vapor
recovery/control systems. No leaks in the vapor collection system
during operation is a requirement.
A minimum control of 87 percent is expected for the loading
facility.
BASIS: 250,000 gal/day facility with active vapor control systems.
Capital cost: $140,000 - $195,000
Annualized cost: $ 20,000 - $ 30,000
Cost effectiveness: $120 - 4180 per ton VOC
2-20
-------
2.10 BULK GASOLINE PLANTS^
A "bulk plant" is defined by the CTG document as a gasoline distri-
bution facility having a daily gasoline throughput of 76,000 liter (20,000
gal) or less per day. The daily gasoline throughput at a typical size
bulk plant is 14,000 to 17,000 liter/day (4,000 to 5,000 gal/day).
The VOC losses occur from the storage tanks when temperature in-
duced pressure expels vapor laden air (breathing loss). Losses also occur
during draining and filling of the tanks (working loss). Fugitive losses
can occur from valves, truck hatches, piping, and pump seals. Only the
filling and draining of gasoline tanks and trucks are covered by the CTG
document. Account tank trucks are used to deliver gasoline to bulk plant
customers. The tank trucks are filled at loading racks similar to the
types described for loading tank trucks at terminals (refer to
Section 2.9). A typical bulk plant has one loading rack.
The recommended CTG limit is stated in terms of equipment specifi-
cations and operating procedures. Three levels of increasingly more
effective VOC control alternatives are applicable to bulk plants. The
alternatives are:
Alternative 1 - Submerged filling of tank trucks.
Alternative 2 - Alternative 1 plus a vapor balance (displacement)
system to control VOC emissions from filling of bulk plant storage
tanks. The vapors displaced from the storage tank are transferred
to the tank truck being unloaded. Ultimately, the vapors are
recovered when the tank truck returns to the terminal.
Alternative 3 - Alternative 2 plus a vapor balance system to control
VOC emissions from filling of account tank trucks. The vapors
displaced from the account tank truck are transferred to the
storage tank.
As a minimum requirement, the CTG recommends application of Altern-
ative 2 to all bulk plants. It may not be reasonable to apply Alterna-
tive 3 to some bulk plants. The reason is the costs of installing a
vapor balance system on existing loading racks and tank trucks may be
too high for small, independent bulk plants to continue operation. The
cutoff for potentially severe economic effects is expected to occur for
bulk plants operating at less than 15,000 liter/day (4,000 gal/day) of
gasoline throughput.
2-21
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR BULK GASOLINE PLANTS
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
voc
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE
PER
FACILITY
TOO TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS
A wholesale gasoline distribution facility which he; a ir.axiiru-
daily throughput of 76,000 liters (20,000 gal)' of gasoline
«... J*cl1lt1es whlch ^liver over 20,000 gal/day are covered under
the CTG for terminals. Potentially severe economic hardship may be
encountered by bulk plants which deliver less than 4.00C gal/day.
There were 23,367 bulk plants in 1972 accordino to the
Bureau of Census. Current estimates are about 18,000 bulk
gasoline plants nationwide.
Estimated annual emissions are 150,000 Mg/yr (165,00: ton/yr)
[14,15] which represent about 0.6 percent of estimated VOC
emissions nationwide.
A facility with three storage tanks would have VOC emissions
approximating 4.4 kg/day (20 Ib/day) plus a range of 0.2 to 3 C c'
1,000 liters throughput (2.0 to 25.0 lb/1,003 gel). For a typical
size facility having a throughput of 18,900 liter/day (5,000 gel/
day) average VOC emissions are estimated to be 15 Mg/yr (17 ton'yr).
None.
Emission limits recommended in terms of equipment specification
alternatives:
1. Submerged fill of outgoing tank trucks.
2. Alternative 1 + vapor balance for incoming transfer.
3. Alternative 2 + vapor balance for outgoing transfer.
Emission Reductions Total Plant All Transfer;,
Alternative 1 22 percent 27 percent
Alternative 2 54 percent 64 percent
Alternative 3 77 percent 92 percent
BASIS: 4,000 gal/day throughput using submerged fill
and vapor balance for both incoming and outgoing transfers:
Capital cost: $4,000 - $10,000
Annual ized cost: $ 100 - $ 1,200
Cost effectiveness: $9 - $90 per ton VOC
2-22
-------
2.11 GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS - STAGE I
[12]
No CTG document has been prepared by the EPA for this source
category. However, the EPA document, Design Criteria for Stage I
Vapor Control Systems - Gasoline Service Stations, recommends VOC
emission controls for the transfer of gasoline from delivery trucks
to service station storage tanks. (Recommendations for control of
VOC emissions for the dispensing of gasoline, Stage II vapor control
systems, may be issued in a future EPA document.)
A gasoline service station is a retail gasoline outlet. The
gasoline is normally stored in underground storage tanks. A
typical service station will dispense 110 to 150 m (30,090 to
40,000 gal) of gasoline per month.
The recommended Stage I emission controls are stated in terms
of equipment specifications and operation procedures. These con-
trols consist of submerged fill of the storage tanks, vapor balance
between the vapor space in the delivery tank and the storage tank,
and assurance that the vapor line is connected. A periodic inspec-
tion of the delivery trucks is also recommended. The inspector
should certify that a tank pressurized to 12.7 cm (5 in) of water
will not drop to 5.1 cm (2 in) of water in less than 3 minutes. In
addition, the inspector should check for leaks from transfer lines,
manifolds, and valves.
2-23
-------
SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT FOR GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS - STAGE I
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
voc
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE PER
FACILITY
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS*
Transfer of gasoline from delivery trucks to service station
storage tanks.
No exemptions were noted in the "Design Criteria for Stage I
Vapor Control Systems."
Estimated to be 180,000 retail gasoline service stations
nationwide. There are 240,000 other gasoline dispensing outlets.
For transfer of gasoline to service station storage tanks, VOC
emissions estimated to be 400,000 Mg/yr (440, OOC ton/yr)^14'15-'
which represents about 1.5 percent of estimated VOC emissions
nationwide.
Without vapor controls, VOC emissions are estimated to be
1.4 kg/1,000 liters (11.5 lb/1,000 gal) of throughput. For a typical
facility having a throughput of 151,000 liter/mo (40,000 gal/mo) VOC
emissions would be 2.5 Mg/yr (2.8 ton/yr) for Stage I.
For an uncontrolled facility, a 2,800,000 liter/mo (750, OOC
gal/mo) throughput results in VOC emissions of 100 ton/yr. Very
few service stations will have this size throughput. The enissions
include both Stage I and Stage II losses.
Emission limits recommended in terms of equipment specifications.
Recommended controls are submerged fill of storage tanks, vapor balance
between truck and tank, and a leak free truck and vapor transfer systeir,.
Stage I control can reduce transfer losses by 95+ percent and
total facility losses by 50 percent.
BASIS: Application of submerged fill and vapor balance to a
service station with three tanks.
Capital cost: $600
Annualized cost: ($200) r,,-.
Cost effectiveness: ($110) per ton VOCL JJ
* ($) indicates savings
2-24
-------
2.12 FIXED-ROOF PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS
A fixed-roof petroleum storage tank consists of a cylindrical,
steel shell covered by a cone shaped roof. Fixed-roof storage tanks
are used for storage of gasoline, crude oils, fuel oils, and other
types of petroleum liquids. The tanks are located at refineries, at
terminals, at bulk plants, at tank farms, along pipelines, in oil
production fields, and at other industrial facilities. The CTG
document is applicable to fixed-roof storage tanks having a capacity
greater than 150,000 liters (40,000 gal) and storing petroleum liq-
uids which have a true vapor pressure greater than 10.5 kPa (1.5 psia)
Fixed-roof storage tanks which have capacities less than 1,600,000
liters (420,000 gal) used to store only produced crude oil and conden-
sate prior to lease custody transfer are exempt.
Normally, a tank is equipped with pressure/vacuum relief valves
set to operate at low pressure variations. The valves are designed
to contain within the tank minor fluctuations in the vapor volume.
When pressure inside the tank exceeds the relief pressure, VOC va-
pors are released to the atmosphere. The expansion of vapors in
the tank due to changes in ambient temperature and pressure result
in VOC emissions termed "breathing losses." Additional VOC emissions
termed "working losses" result from vapors emitted from a tank as a
result of filling and emptying operations.
The recommended CTG emission limit is stated in terms of equip-
ment specifications and maintenance requirements. The installation
of internal floating roofs inside fixed-roof tanks is recommended.
Emission reductions of more than 90 percent can be achieved by in-
stalling the internal floating roofs. The CTG document also permits
the use of alternative control equipment of equivalent efficiency.
2-25
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR PETROLEUM
LIQUID STORAGE IN FIXED-ROOF TANKS
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
Fixed-roof storage tanks having a capacity greater than 150,000 liters (4C.OOC
gal or 950 bbl) and storing petroleurr liquids which have a true vapor pressure
greater than 10.5 kPa (1.5 psia). Fixed-roof tanks which have capacities less the'
1,600,000 liters (420,000 gal or 10,000 bbl) used to store produced crude oil and
condensate prior to lease custody transfer are exempt.
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE
PER
FACILITY
TOO TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS*
Estimated for the year 1976 to be 7,300 tanks nationwide.
Estimated annual emissions are 560,000 Mg/yr (616,000 ton/yr) which rep-ess- 1
about 2.1 percent of the estimated VOC emissions nationwide. Emissions of VOC frch
fixed-roof tanks are 4.7 times that from existing floating roof tanks, although in-
total capacity of fixed-roof tank storage is less. H4]
VOC emission ranges for gasoline or crude oil storage assuming 5 to 2C turn-
overs per year and a true vapor pressure of 13.8 to 69 kPa (2.0 tc 10 psia).
S i i e*~
Capacity (gal )
Dimensions
diam. x ht. (ft)
VOC Emissions
Gasoline (Mg/yr)
(ton/yr)
Crude Oil (Mg/yr)
(ton/yr)
Small
420 x 103
50 x 30
12 - 113
13 - 125
7 - 65
8 - 72
Medium
2.3 x 106
100 x 40
52 - 535
57 - 590
28 - 311
30 - 340
Large
6.3 x 106
150 x 48
123 - 1.3E3
135 - 1,490
68 - 796
75 - 875
Variable depending on many parameters Including the type and vapor pressure of
the petroleum liquid stored, schedule of tank filling and emptying, and the |
geographic location of tank. As shown above a medium size tank can easily exceed
100 ton/yr emissions of VOC.
Emission limits recommended in terms of equipment specifications: Installation
of internal floating roofs or alternative equivalent control. Types of alternative
controls are not specified in the CTG document.
VOC emission reduction of 90+ percent can be achieved
internal floating roofs.
by installation of
BASIS: 55,000 bbl (2,310,000 gal) medium size tank with gasoline or crudt oil,
with true vapor pressure range of 14 to 69 kPa (2 to 10 psia) and 5 to 2C turnovers
per- year.
Capital cost: $31,000
Annualized cost: $(70,000) to 2,100
Cost effectiveness: ($123) - $73 per ton VOC
* ($-) indicates savings
2-26
-------
2.13 PETROLEUM REFINERY PROCESSES'-9-'
The CT6 document addresses three VOC emission sources located
at refineries: vacuum producing systems, wastewater separators,
and process unit turnarounds.
Three types of vacuum producing systems may be operated at a
refinery: steam ejectors with contact condensers, steam ejectors
with surface condensers, and mechanical vacuum pumps. If uncon-
trolled, the noncondensable VOC vapors discharged from a final steam
jet ejector stage or a mechanical vacuum pump are released to the
atmosphere.
Wastewater separators are used to separate free oil and settle-
able solids from process water and runoff water collected through-
out the refinery. The oils are skimmed from the surface and are
processed to recover the usable oil. If uncontrolled, VOC emissions
to the atmosphere will occur due to evaporation of volatile
organic compounds contained in the wastewater.
Refinery process units are periodically shutdown and emptied
for internal inspection, maintenance, and repair. The primary source
of VOC emissions during a turnaround results due to depressurizing
a process vessel and venting the vapors to the atmosphere.
The recommended CTG emission limits are stated in terms of
equipment specifications and operating procedures. To control VOC
emissions from vacuum producing systems, the recommended method is
incineration of noncondensable vapors. The vapors can be burned
in flare, or compressed and added to the refinery fuel gas supply.
Recommended control of VOC emissions from wastewater separators
consists of covering the forebay and separator sections. When a
process unit is shut down for a turnaround, the recommended
operating procedure is to vent all vapors to a flare or a vapor
recovery system.
2-27
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR PROCESSES AT PETROLEUM REFINERIES
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
The affected facilities and operations are:
a. Vacuum producing systems (VPS)
b. Wastewater separators (WS)
c. Process unit turnarounds (PUT) - (i.e., shutdown, repair
or inspection, and start up of a process unit)
The CTG provides no exemptions.
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
No estimates of the number of individual facilities are
available. There are approximately 285 refineries nationwide.
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
Estimated annual nationwide emissions from vacuum producing systems
(VPS), wastewater separators (WS), and process unit turnarounds (PUT)
are 730,000 Mg/yr (800,000 ton/vr) which represent about 2.7 percent
F141
of estimated VOC emissions nationwide. L J
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE
PER
FACILITY
The estimated average annual VOC emissions from affected facilities
at a petroleum refinery are 2,560 Mg (2,820 ton). Emission factors used
for estimating uncontrolled, reactive VOC emissions are:
a. VPS - 145 kg/lO.m3
b. WS - 570 kg/10,m,
c. PUT - 860 kg/10 m
( 50 lb/10
(200 lb/10,
(301 lb/10J
bbl ) refinery throughput
bbl) refinery throughput
bbl) refinery throughput
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
The following annual refinery throughputs will result in 100 ton/yr
uncontrolled VOC emissions from each affected facility type:
a. VPS - 627 x 10?m3 (3.9 x
b. WS - 160 x 10>; (1.0 x
c. PUT - 105 x 10 nr (0.67 x
10 bbl
10? bbl)
10° bbl
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
Emission limits recommended in terms of equipment specifications:
a. VPS - incineration of VOC emissions from condensers
b. WS - covering separator forebays
c. PUT - combustion of vapor vented from vessels
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
Implementing the recommended controls can reduce VOC emissions by:
a. VPS - 100 percent
b. WS - 95 percent
c. PUT - 98 percent.
COSTS*
BASIS: A 15,900 m3/day (100
recommended control equipment.
Capital cost $1 ,000:
Annual ized cost $1 ,000:
Cost effectiveness $/ton :
,000 bbl/day)
VPS
24 - 52
( 95) - (89)
(104) - (96)
refinery
W S
63
(310)
( 90)
using the
PUT - 10 units
98
26
5
* ($-) indicates savings
2-28
-------
2.14 CUTBACK ASPHALT^1°^
Cutback asphalt is a base asphalt liquefied with a petroleum
distillate. The distillate used as a diluent can vary from high
volatility naphtha to low volatility fuel oils depending on the
type of asphalt desired. The volatility of the diluent determines
whether the cutback asphalt is rapid, medium, or slow curing as-
phalt. The diluent in cutback asphalt ranges from 13 to 50 percent
by volume and averages 35 percent. Asphalts can also be liquefied
with water as an emulsifying agent. This type of asphalt is termed
"emulsified asphalt." Both cutback and emulsified asphalts are in
common use.
In most applications, cutback asphalt is sprayed directly on
the road surface as a bonding agent or as part of a new surface
layer. It is also mixed with an aggregate for pothole repair and
shoulder work.
Another use of asphalt is as a hot mix which is used for pav-
ing new roads or resurfacing existing roads. In this application
the asphalt is liquefied by melting at high temperatures prior to
mixing with an aggregate to produce the hot mix. Such a use of
asphalt does not require the addition of distillates and therefore
is not a source of VOC.
The CTG document recommends sole use of emulsified asphalt.
Because true emulsified asphalt contains no volatile organic corn--
pounds, substitution of emulsified asphalt for cutback asphalt
reduces VOC emissions by 100 percent. Concerns have been raised
that emulsified asphalt may be unsuitable for use as a penetrating
prime coat, for long term stockpiling, and tor use in cold weather.
However, emulsified asphalt is currently successfully used in the
States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Indiana during winter
conditions.
2-29
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR CUTBACK ASPHALT
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
VOC EMISSION
RANGE PER
FACILITY
100 TON/YR
SOURCE SIZE
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
COSTS*
_ Roadway construction and maintenance operations using asnhalt liqucfi^-l
with petroleum distillates. ' HU-IICJ
No estimates were obtained.
Estimated annual emissions are 655,000 Mg/yr (720,000 ton/yr). This
represents about 2.4 percent of estimated VOC emissions nationwide. H4!
Estimated VOC emissions frorr. cutback asphalt production are:
a. 0.078 kg/kg (ton/ton) of slow cure asphalt.
b. 0.209 kg/kg (ton/ton) of medium cure asphalt.
c. 0.204 kg/kg (ton/ton) of rapid cure asphalt.
Not generally applicable to this source category since the main sources
of emissions are the road surfaces where the asphalt is applied.
Substitute water and nonvolatile emulsifier for petroleum distillate
blending stock.
VOC emission reductions are approximately 100 percent.
BASIS: The major cost associated with control of VOC is the price
difference between cutback and emulsified asphalt. A price differential
of 5 cent/gallon savings to 1 cent/gallon penalty results in a cost ef-
fectiveness range of ($73) - $15 per ton VOC.
* ($) indicates savings
2-30
-------
2.15 SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
Solvent metal cleaning or "degreasing" involves using organic
solvents to clean and to remove oils, greases, and other soils from
metal surfaces. There are three basic types of organic solvent de-
greasers: cold cleaners, open-top vapor degreasers, and conveyorized
degreasers. A cold cleaner consists of a tank containing a non-
boiling organic solvent into which parts are batch loaded for cleaning.
An open-top vapor degreaser consists of a tank containing an organic
solvent heated to its boiling point. Open-top vapor degreasers are
also batch loaded. A conveyorized degreaser allows continuous de-
greasing operations using either nonboiling or boiling organic solv-
ents. Metal parts are loaded continuously into the degreaser by
various types of conveyor systems.
The recommended CTG limits are stated in terms of equipment spec-
ifications and operating procedures. Two detailed control options
are recommended for each type of degreaser. In general, one control
option is based on proper operating procedures and simple, inexpen-
sive control equipment. The second control option includes additional
requirements to improve the effectiveness of the VOC emission control
system. Depending on the control option, recommended control equip-
ment can be as simple as a manually operated tank cover or as complex
as a carbon adsorption system. Recommended operating procedures
include correct operation of equipment to minimize solvent carry-
over, prompt repair of leaking equipment, and proper disposal of
spent solvents. It is recommended that the reader refer to the CTG
document for a complete description of the specific control options.
The CTG document recommends conveyorized degreasers smaller
? 2
than 2.0 m (21.5 ft ) of air/vapor interface should be exempt from
a requirement for a major control device. Also, open-top vapor de-
2 2
greasers smaller than 1.0 m (10.8 ft ) of open area should be
exempt from the application of refrigerated chillers or carbon
adsorbers.
2-31
-------
SUMMARY OF CTG DOCUMENT FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
Three types of solvent degreasers are affected:
a. Cold cleaner: batch loaded, nonboiling solvent decireaser.
b. Open top vapor degreaser: batch load, boiling solvent
degreaser.
c. Conveyorized degreaser: continuously loaded, conveyorized
solvent degreaser, either boiling or nonboiling.
n
Open top vapor degreasers smaller than 1 m of open area are exempt
from the application of refrigerated chillers or carbon adsorbers.
Conveyorized degreasers smaller than 2.0 nr of air/vapor interface
are exempt from a requirement for a major control device.
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
Estimates of the number of solvent degreasers nationwide for the
year 1974 are:
a. Cold cleaners (CC) - 1,220,000.
b. Open top vapor degreasers (OT) - 21,000.
c. Conveyorized degreasers (CD) - 3,700.
VOC
EMISSIONS
NATIONWIDE
Estimates of annual nationwide emissions are:
a. CC - 380,000 Mg/yr (419,000 ton/yr).
b. OT - 200,000 Mg/yr (221,000 ton/yr)
c. CD - 100,000 Mg/yr (110,000 ton/yr) [14]
which represent about 2.5 percent of estimated VOC emissions nationwide.
VOC
EMISSION
RANGE PER
FACILITY
Averaged emission rates per degreaser:
a. CC - 0.3 Mg/yr (0.3 ton/yr).
b. OT - 10 Mg/yr (11 ton/yr}.
c. CD - 27 Mg/yr (30 ton/yr).
100 TON/YR
SOURCE
SIZE
Data indicate that on an average 10 open top degreasers or 4 con-
veyorized degreasers may emit 100 ton/yr.
CTG
EMISSION
LIMIT
The VOC emission limit is recommended in terms of equipment speci-
fications and operation procedures. Required control equipment can be
as simple as a manually operated tank cover or as complex as a carbon
adsorption system depending on the type, size, and design of the
degreaser.
VOC
REDUCTION
PER
FACILITY
The actual percent VOC reduction will vary depending on the control
equipment installed and the operational procedures followed. Recommend-
ed control methods can reduce VOC emissions by:
a. CC - 50 to 53 percent (+ 20 percent).
b. OT - 45 to 60 percent (j^ 15 percent).
c. CD - 25 to 60 percent (+ 10 percent).
_
BASIS: CC of 0.5 m work area using high volatility solvent (a)
and low volatility solvent (b); OT of 1.67 m' work area; and CD of
COSTS *
CC-a
8f-b
CD
Capital Cost
51,000
0.025
0.065
0.3 - 10.3
7.5 - 18
Annualized Cost
$1,000
.0.001.
(0.026)
(0.8) - 0.8
3.7 - 1.5
* ($---) indicates savings
Cost Effectiveness
$/ton VOC
20
(240)
(360) - 220
260 - 260
2-32
-------
3.0 REFERENCES
1. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume I: Control Methods for Surface-Coating Oper-
ations. EPA-450/2-76-028, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November
.1976. OAQPS No. 1.2-067.
2. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper,
Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA-450/2-77-008,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, May 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-073.
3. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
EPA-450/2-77-032, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 1977. OAQPS
No. 1.2-086.
4. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume IV: Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet
Wire. EPA-450/2-77-033, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 1977.
OAQPS No. 1.2-087.
5. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources - Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances.
EPA-450/2-77-034, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 1977. OAQPS No.
1.2-088.
6. Control of Hydrocarbons From Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Ter-
minals. EPA-450/2-77-026, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, October 1977.
OAQPS No. 1.2-082.
7. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Bulk Gasoline
Plants. EPA-450/2-77-035, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December
1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-085.
8. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Storage of Petroleum
Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks. EPA-450/2-77-036, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, December 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-089.
3-1
-------
9. Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater
Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds. EPA-450/2-77-025,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, October 1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-081.
10. Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From Use of Cutback
Asphalt. EPA-450/2-77-037, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December
1977. OAQPS No. 1.2-090.
11 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Solvent Metal
Cleaning. EPA-450/2-77-022, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
November 1977.
12. Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems Gasoline
Service Stations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Of-
fice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions
Standards and Engineering Division, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. November 1975.
13. Cost and Economic Impact Assessment for Alternative Levels of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Economic Analysis Branch, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, June 1978. (Draft)
14. Walsh, R.T., Impact of RACT on Sources of Volatile Organic Com-
pounds, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical and Petro-
leum Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1978 (memo)
15. Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Emissions From Stationary
Sources, EPA-450/2-78-022, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, May 1978.
3-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-78-120
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
of Group I Control Technique Guide! ine Documents
ror Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing
Stationary Sources
REPORT DATE
December 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
.AUTHOR(S)
P. R. Peterson, R. R. Sakaida
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NC
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Pacific Environmental Services
1930 14th Street, Santa Monica, California, 90404
465 Fullerton Avenue, Elmhurst, Illinois, 60126
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2606, Work Assignment 22
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ontrol Programs Development Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer: Tom Williams
ABSTRACT control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents have been prepared by the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards of the U.S. EPA to assist the states in defining
easonably available control technology (RACT) for the control of volatile organic com-
pound emissions from existing stationary sources. This document summarizes those CTGs
issued as of January 1978 including a design criteria document, for gasoline service sto
tions. A description of each source category is provided, along with RACT and costs to
retrofit a model facility.
Source categories included are: surface coating of cans, metal coils, fabric, pa-
per products, automobile and light duty trucks, metal furniture, magnet wire, and large
appliances; gasoline terminals, bulk plants and service stations; fixed roof petroleum
storage tanks; miscellaneous refinery sources; cutback asphalt; and solvent metal
cleaning (degreasing).
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
Control guidelines
Volatile organic chemicals
b IDE NITIF IERS /OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air pollution control
Stationary sources
Reasonably available con-
trol technology
Organic chemical emissionls
COSATi 1 idd 'Group
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Reportj
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1
------- |