United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Control Technology
Center
Resoerch Triangle Park NC 27711
B*-400/3-ft7-02
1987
EVALUATION OF EMISSION
SOURCES AT A WAFERBC
MANUFACTURING PLANT
control ;j technology center
-------
EPA-450/3-87-021
EVALUATION OF EMISSION SOURCES AT
A WAFERBOARD MANUFACTURING PLANT
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
SPONSORED BY:
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
September 1987
-------
NOTICE
This report was prepared by Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park,
NC. It has been reviewed for technical accuracy by the Emission Standards
and Engineering Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
and the Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory of the Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended
to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report was prepared for the Control Technology Center by
John H.E. Stelling III of Radian Corporation. The EPA project officer was
Leslie B. Evans of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Also
serving on the EPA project team was Robert E. Rosensteel of the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Process Description 2-1
2.1 Waferboard Manufacturing 2-1
2.2 Olathe Plant 2-1
2.2.1 Process Operations 2-6
2.2.2 Emissions Controls 2-11
2.2.3 Other Controls 2-13
3.0 Complaints 3-1
4.0 Test Reports and Modeling 4-1
4.1 Emission Tests 4-1
4.2 .ISCST Model Results 4-3
5.0 Formaldehyde 5-1
6.0 Summary of Inspection 6-1
APPENDIX A Safety Data on Materials at Olathe Plant A-l
APPENDIX B NIOSH P&CAM 125 Method for Formaldehyde B-l
APPENDIX C Modeling Results C-l
i n
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Regional Distribution of Waferboard Plants 2-2
2-2 Site in Colorado 2-7
2-3 Waferboard Process Flow Diagram 2-8
2-4 Flow Diagram of Konus Hot Oil System 2-10
4-1 Location of Maximum Concentration Receptors 4-6
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
Page
2-1 Waferboard Plants 2_3
2-2 Chronology of Wafer Dryer Emissions Controls 2-12
4-1 VOC Test Results: June 1986 4.2
4-2 Comparison of Dryer Tests
5-1 Results of Jet-Tube Dryer Tests
5-2
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SCOPE
The Control Technology Center (CTC) was established by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development and the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards to assist State and local air pollution
control agencies in the implementation of their air toxics and other pollution
control programs. Three levels of assistance can be accessed through the
CTC. First, a CTC HOTLINE has been established to provide telephone assistance
on matters relating to air pollution control technology. Second, more in-
depth engineering assistance can be provided when appropriate. Third, the
CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of technical guidance
documents, development of personal computer software, and presentation of
workshops on control technology matters.
This document reports the results of direct engineering assistance
provided by the CTC for the State of Colorado. The scope of the assistance
was determined by the specific needs of the State, and the findings presented
in this report may not be applicable to other facilities and operations which
were not visited. Also, control technology presented in this document is not
necessarily endorsed by EPA for establishment of the basis for regulations,
since the decision of whether or not to regulate a source category and the
selection of the technology on which to base regulations are responsibilities
of the individual State or local authorities. This document is, however,
intended to provide technical information which may assist in making such
decisions.
1.2 OVERVIEW
The State of Colorado Department of Health has received complaints of
eye and lung irritation from residents near the waferboard manufacturing plant
near Olathe, Colorado. The State requested assistance from the CTC in
determining possible emission sources within the plant and assessing potential
controls for those emissions. This report summarizes the results of a site
1-1
-------
visit and the review of the plant operations and test reports. The State of
Colorado has also requested an investigation by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Several activities have been conducted during the course of this
investigation. Data gathering involved collection of test reports, PSD
applications and other information on waferboard manufacturing operations.
States where waferboard is manufactured were contacted to establish controls
used for various operations. A site inspection was made to examine operations
first-hand and to verify controls in-place. In addition, the State of Colorado
offices were visited to discuss the extent of complaints, the stack tests
conducted and the results of modeling.
This report is organized into several sections. After this introduction,
Section 2.0 presents waferboard processing in general and some specific data
on the Olathe, Colorado, plant. A historical perspective of the complaints
about the waferboard plant is given in Section 3.0. The test reports and
modeling are discussed in Section 4.0, with Section 5.0 focussing on information
on formaldehyde specifically. Finally, Section 6.0 gives the summary of the
inspection at the plant. Appendices to the report contain various data
gathered during this investigation:
Appendix A Safety Data on Materials at Olathe Plant
Appendix B NIOSH P&CAM 125 Method for Formaldehyde
Appendix C Modeling Results
1-2
-------
2.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
2.1 WAFERBOARD MANUFACTURING
Wafer-board was invented in 1961 as an alternative to plywood and
particleboard in the construction industry. Its properties are in many ways
superior to particleboard, while being more economical than plywood.
Waferboard is comprised of thin, dried wood flakes bonded together with
polymeric materials. Phenol-formaldehyde resins were used initially in
waferboard manufacture. Other alternatives are used today, primarily
methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI).
The first waferboard plant in the United States was built in 1971 in
Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Today, the industry has expanded somewhat to include
more than 31 operating units in 14 states and provinces in the United States
and Canada. Figure 2-1 illustrates the national distribution of waferboard
plants. Most plants are situated in remote areas where there is an abundant
supply of relatively inexpensive timber. Table 2-1 presents a listing of most
waferboard plants with production rates, press and dryer specifications, and
particulate matter controls used. Production rates depend upon the number of
platens in each press and how many press/dryer trains are in use. While most
plants use pine as the primary wood species in production of waferboard, other
species such as aspen are also used at varying weight percentages in the
product board.
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation operates several waferboard plants in
Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, Maine and Colorado. The company also
plans to construct another plant in California but is currently in litigation
over PSD permits. There are two Louisiana-Pacific sites in Colorado, Olathe
and Kremmling.
2.2 OLATHE PLANT
On October 23, 1983, Louisiana-Pacific applied for permits to construct a
waferboard plant in southern Colorado. These permits were granted on
September 17, 1984. The plant was started up in the fall of 1984. As seen in
2-1
-------
ro
i
ro
Figure 2-1. Regional Distribution of Waferboard Plants
tr
in
I
-------
TABLE 2-1. WAFERBOARD PLANTS
ro
i
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Plant/Location
Great Lakes Forest
Thunder Bay. Ont.
Tempi e-Eastex
Claremont, NH
Northwood
Chatham, N.B.
We Id wood
Longlac, Ont.
Normac-Peron
Lasalre, Que.
Potl ach
Bemldjl, MN
Potl ach
Cook, MN
Wafer Board
Grandmere, Que.
Georgia-Pacific
Dryer
1 - 1053
1 - 135-62S
2 - 1242T
1 - 1038T
1 - 1242T
4 - 1038T
4 - 1038T
2 - 1240T
2 - 1250T
Press
8 x 20-10
4 x 16-16
8 x 24-11
4 x 16-24
8 x 16-6
Unknown
Unknown
8 x 16-12
8 x 16-16
Capacity
Tons/ day
250
160
330
240
120
320
320
240
320
Controls
on Wafer Dryer
Dropout box + secondary
36" cyclones
Dropout box + multlclone
Dropout box + one single
secondary cyclone
Dropout box + fan skimmer
to single cyclone
Primary single cyclone
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone
Primary cyclone for each
dryer
Single cyclone each dryer
Woodland, ME
10. Grant Waferboard
Englehart, Ont.
2 - 1248T
8 x 16-14
280
both connect Into same
secondary cyclone
Primary single cyclone
-------
TABLE 2-1. WAFERBOARD PLANTS (Continued)
ro
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Plant/Location
Blandln Wood
Grand Rapids, MN
Weyerhaueser
Grayling, MI
Weldwood
Slave Lake, Alb.
Northwood
Bem1dj1, MN
Louisiana-Pacific
Houlton, ME
Martin
LeMoyen, LA
Waferboard Corp.
T1mm1ns, Ont.
Panofor Inc.
Val D'or, Que.
J. M. Huber Co.
Dryer
4 - 1240T
4 - 1248T
1 - 1040T
2 - 1248T
2 - 1248T
3 - 1250T
1 - 1248T
2 - 1248T
2 - 1248T
Capacity
Press Tons/day
8 x 28-6 210
8 x 24-16 480
4 x 16-24 240
8 x 24-14 420
8 x 16-12 240
8 x 16-16 320
8 x 16-6 120
8 x 16-12 240
8 x 16-12 240
Controls
on Wafer Dryer
Primary single cyclone +
secondary cyclone
Dual primary 1n parallel +
secondary mult Id one, EFB
Primary cyclone only
Dropout box + dual cyclone
+ dual tertiary cyclones
Primary dual cyclones +
secondary multlclone
Primary single cyclone on
each dryer
Primary single cyclone
Primary single cyclone
Primary single cyclone +
Easton, ME
20. Pelican Mills
Edson, Alb.
2 - 1260T
8 x 24-12
360
4 secondary cyclones 1n
parallei
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multiclone
-------
TABLE 2-1. WAFERBOARD PLANTS (Concluded)
ro
i
en
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Plant/Location
MacMlllan-Bloedel
Hudson Bay* Sas.
Louisiana-Pacific
Chllco, ID
Louisiana-Pacific
Kremmling, CO
Louisiana-Pacific
Mont rose/ CO
Louisiana-Pacific
CorMgan* TX
Louisiana-Pacific
Urania, LA
Louisiana-Pacific
Two Harbors, MN
Georgia-Pacific
Grenada, MS
Highland Forest
Inverness, Scotland
McMlllan-Bloedel
Thunderbay, Ont.
Dryer
1 - 1248T
1 - 1260T
1 - 1260T
1 - 1260T
2 - 1260T
1 - 1260T
1 - 1260T
4 - 1260T
1 - 1260T
2 - 1260T
Press
4 x 16-18
8 x 16-8
8 x 16-8
8 x 16-8
4 x 16-21
4 x 16-18
8 x 16-8
8 x 24-16
8 x 16-8
4 x 24-16
Capacity
Tons/ day
180
160
160
160
210
180
160
480
160
240
Controls
on Wafer Dryer
Primary single cyclone
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone, EFB
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone, EFB
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone, EFB
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclones
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone
Primary single cyclone +
secondary multlclone
-------
Figure 2-2, the Louisiana-Pacific site is near Olathe, Colorado, near Highway
50 just inside the Montrose County line. The plant is a net consumer of
water. There are no discharges to the Uncompahgre River nearby. Unlike other
waferboard plants that use primarily pine, the Olathe facility uses aspen cut
from the local private lands.
2.2.1 Process Operations
The waferboard process at the Olathe plant is similar to other facilities
except in the amount of aspen used in wafer production. At Olathe, aspen is
used almost exclusively. The plant uses a single train process with one
triple-pass dryer and a single press line. As seen in Table 2-1, the Olathe
plant is a relatively small waferboard facility, producing approximately
160 tons per day.
Figure 2-3 presents the basic flow diagram for the waferboard process at
the Olathe plant. Trees are trucked to the facility and maintained in the
stockpile area. The logs are cut using a slasher saw to approximately
100 inches in length and then placed into hot ponds. Hot ponds are maintained
at between 80 and 100°F and are used to pre-treat logs prior to waferizing,
particularly during the winter when logs are frozen. From hot ponds, the logs
are moved into the mill where they are debarked and trimmed in fixed slasher
saws to 33 inches. Bark and slasher saw trims are used in the Konus energy
recovery system.
The short logs are sliced into thin wafers (i.e., waferized) about 1-1/2
by 3 inches, and 0.028 inch thick. The wet wafers are stored in an
intermediate bin before being fed to the rotary dryer. The 12-foot diameter
drum dryer is 60 feet long and employs three passes to dry the wafers from
about 30-40 percent moisture to 4-10 percent, depending on the resin used in
bonding the wafers into a board. Dry wafers are collected using a cyclone and
further classified in a rotary drum screen. Sized dry wafers are stored in a
bin for use in the board line. Fines from the dryer are used to fuel the
dryer.
The wafer dryer has never operated above the nominal design capacity of
96,000 tons per year (based on 4 percent moisture). Hourly adjustments are
made to regulate dryer operation. The McConnel burner on the dryer uses a
constant air-to-fuel ratio based on the 4.6 Ibs of fuel (undersized dry
2-6
-------
ro
Grind Jyn^M i
1-Hr-
Figure 2-2. Site in Colorado
a.
t-
8
S
-------
IN*
i
00
Stacks Slasher Saws »*« «-«""» Debarking
Stack •* (Q)-
Cuts Waferizing
Cyclone
Heat Multiclones
en
Press and Shuttle
Figure 2-3. Waferboard Process Flow Diagram
-------
wafers) per revolution on the rotary feeders from the undersize collection bin
to the burner. Diesel fuel (No. 1 and No. 2) can be used as a back-up to the
dry material during start-up of the dryer. The bulk of the dryer air does not
enter through the burner. Even so, an inlet dryer temperature of up to
1,750°F (1,100 to 1,600°F typically) is achieved. The mass throughput of the
dryer does not necessarily affect wafer temperature. Removing moisture from
the wafers yields a Ir.igh moisture content of the outlet gas. As a result, the
dryer air is unsuited to be used as combustion air elsewhere in the facility.
Two blenders are used to mix MDI resin with wafers; one blender for core
material and one for surface material. Resinated wafers are sent to bins
above formers on the board line. Prior to spreading out the bottom surface
layer,a mold release compound is sprayed on the screen. Then as the screen
moves toward the press, the core layer of the waferboard is spread on the
bottom surface layer. A top surface layer is added next. Surface layers are
placed independently to allow some alignment of the wafers for improvement of
appearance and properties. After the top surface layer of the material is
placed on the screen, a different top surface mold release is sprayed onto the
board. Over 1,500 pounds per day of release agents are used in the Olathe
waferboard plant. According to the results of some laboratory testing by the
State of Colorado, some heavy aldehydes are released from the thermal
decomposition of the release agents.
Sixteen-foot sections or mats, eight feet in width, are roughly formed by
trimming with a traveling saw. Saw trims are used to supplement the fuel to
the rotary dryer. Formed mats are accumulated in the loader; when all eight
panels are ready they are shuttled into the press.
The press forms eight 8 x 16 panels at once. The press cycle varies with
the board thickness. When pressing the 7/16-inch boards, a 4 minute 8 second
cycle time is used. Platens are maintained at between 185 and 200°C. Pressed
panels are shuttled out of the press into an unloader. Each panel is trimmed
and cut to produce four 4x8 sheets. Panels are stacked and palletized for
shipment. Trims are used as fuel in the wafer dryer.
The Olathe plant employs a Konus heat recovery system as shown in
Figure 2-4. Bark and sawdust from slasher cuts fuel the firebox of the Konus
2-9
-------
Bypass Vent
Wet Bark,
Slasher Cuttings
rs>
t—«
O
Hot Oil
Economizer
Multiclones
*V Baghouses
Konus Burner System
Landfill •*-
Note: Hot oil provides heat to the press, tanks, buildings, and hot ponds.
Figure 2-4. Flow Diagram of Konus Hot Oil System
m
(M
1
-------
system. The burner operates at high excess air levels to ensure complete
combustion. An automatic damper controls the pressure to 1 inch H20 to
maintain optimum conditions. Heat from the firebox and economizer is
transferred to a hot oil system. Hot oil supplies the heat requirements of
many operations throughout the plant. Hot oil is used in the hot ponds, in
process tanks, and in the press. The hot oil system also provides building
heat in the winter. .
2.2.2 Emissions Controls
As with the industry, the emission controls at the Olathe waferboard
plant have been designed to abate particulate matter emissions and visible
emissions or opacity. At Olathe, the two press vents are uncontrolled. The
press is shrouded by siding material. Steam and any other press emissions are
drawn out of the enclosure by two roof-mounted axial exhaust fans. The fans
discharge at roof level.
The wafer dryer and the Konus system are both controlled for particulate
matter and opacity. As mentioned earlier, the Konus system burns bark and
dust from slasher saws to produce heat used throughout the facility.
Emissions are controlled using a series of multiclones followed by two
parallel baghouses. Konus has provided such systems for other waferboard and
wood processing operations. Early in production, the Olathe plant experienced
fires in the baghouses caused by burning embers not caught in the multiclones.
The carryover of embers to the baghouses was due to a shift in particle size
distribution from that expected by Konus engineers. This may have been the
result of the high percentage of aspen used at Olathe compared to pine at
other facilities. Modifications to the existing system have corrected this
particular problem.
The wafer dryer uses a number of control measures to reduce particulate
matter emissions and opacity. The measures taken have brought the source into
compliance with both particulate matter process weight rate and opacity
requirements of the State of Colorado. Table 2-2 traces the history of
emissions control improvement for the wafer dryer. The current control
includes 1) a primary cyclone to remove product wafers, 2) secondary
multiclones to reduce particulate matter emissions further, 3) in-duct burner
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-2. CHRONOLOGY OF WAFER DRYER EMISSIONS CONTROLS
Date
Device (Addition)
Comment
xx/84 Cyclone/multiclone
10/85 EFB/increased stack height
6/86 Axial fan in stack
11/86 In-duct burner before EFB
2/87 Voltage controls for EFB
Did not meet participate matter
Did not meet opacity
Did not meet opacity
Met participate matter
Improved ionizer reliability
Met opacity
Improved control of individual beds
2-12
-------
to raise gas temperature, 4) electrified filter bed to reduce particulate
matter emissions below grain loading requirements, and 5) an axial fan to
improve ionizer performance.
2.2.3 Other Controls
As part of the investigation, agencies at States where waferboard plants
are operating were contacted to determine the controls in use. In addition,
the latest supplements of the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse were reviewed to
determine what, if any, control technology determinations have been made for
waferboard plants. The controls used throughout the industry were designed
for particulate matter reductions. Controls at veneer plants were also
considered. For example, one veneer plant in Oregon uses a wet ESP to control
predominantly visible emissions (opacity). Organic emissions were not the
issue in developing the control strategy.
The contacts made included Minnesota, Maine, Louisiana and the Canadian
province of Ontario. In terms of coverage, these four contacts represented 15
operating units. In Minnesota, multiclones and electrified fluid beds (EFB's)
are used. One scrubber is also in use. Tall stacks were recommended to meet
the State concentration requirements of 1 percent of the TLV concentrations.
Only one unit in Minnesota has nearby neighbors. In Maine, all units are
relatively isolated. No states have requested tests to quantify formaldehyde
emissions. Also, there has been no experience with odor-related problems.
The controls and BACT determinations have focused on particulate matter and
opacity abatement. The facilities in Louisiana are also isolated. While
there have been no complaints against them, the facilities have had trouble
with particulate matter emissions. As in the United States, the emphasis in
Canada is on particulate matter emissions. According to local contacts, there
has been no real source testing.
A review of the Control Technology Determinations from the BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse showed again the emphasis on particulate matter and visible
emissions (opacity) from waferboard plants. Three determinations have been
made relative to the dryer and combustion sources:
J. M. Huber Company Easton, ME
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Houlton, ME
Georgia-Pacific Corporation Dudley, NC
2-13
-------
The controls comprising these BACT determinations consist of high efficiency
cyclones and cyclones combined with an ESP. Up to 99.92 percent efficiency
for reducing particulate matter emissions as high as 99.9 percent have been
established as BACT for a wafer dryer. The basis of this high efficiency was
not reported.
2-14
-------
3.0 COMPLAINTS
The State of Colorado states that since the plant was constructed there
have been complaints concerning the plant's operation. The Olathe waferboard
plant is in a sparsely populated district. The area is open giving good
visibility for long distances. There are no other industrial manufacturing
facilities in the immediate vicinity.
The first complaints were received by the State in September 1984, when
the plant started up. During the first two years, perhaps five to six calls
were received monthly. The complaints appeared to increase with the publicity
given to the problem. As the control equipment was improved, the complaints
gradually decreased. However, in the more recent past, residents close to the
plant have been complaining up to six times per month. There are no obvious
patterns to complaints. State personnel observed that perhaps most complaints
come during the winter months (November to March) when the cold weather
adversely impacts the downwash from the stacks.
The initial complaints concerned particulate emissions. There was a
clearly evident plume from the wafer dryer stack and, during the initial
operation of the plant, the controls on the Konus heat recovery system
experienced several breakdowns. The Konus system employs multiclones and
baghouses to control emissions. Initially, some burning particles were not
collected in the multiclones, resulting in fires in the baghouses. During
this period, the baghouses were often bypassed, resulting in a dark smoke
plume. Konus engineers corrected the particle sizing from the firebox. Now,
the only smoke emitted from the Konus system is during startups and
unexpected, uncontrolled shutdowns. One such incident was observed during the
site investigation. The majority of the smoke stopped after approximately one
hour.
There have been several improvements to the particulate matter control
system on the wafer dryer stack. Photographs taken during the initial
operation showed a dark visible plume trailing miles into the distance. A
primary cyclone and multiclones were designed to reduce particulate matter
3-1
-------
below the required levels but failed to meet the State's requirements. The
electrified filter bed (EFB) added in October 1985 reduced the grain loading
sufficiently to meet the regulations, but it was not until November 1986 that
the opacity was reduced to below the regulated level. This was done by adding
an axial fan to improve ionizer efficiency and an in-duct burner to increase
stack temperature.
Complaints of eye and lung irritation have persisted since the plant
started up. The odors have been characterized as burning, acrid aromas. The
local State agent describes the odor as having a sweet, astringent quality.
The residents who have issued complaints have seen medical personnel regarding
the complaints, but as of the date of the site investigation no doctors have
cited the plant as the cause of the irritations. The State has conducted some
ambient sampling, but the results have been inconclusive.
Finally, there continue to be complaints of noise from the plant. In
late 1984, the State received the first complaints of smog (smoke from the
Konus system) and noise. This area is relatively free of industry and thus
the plant does contribute more to the noise of the area. Since the terrain is
open, sound carries great distances. This could be contributing to the
complaints of noise.
3-2
-------
4.0 TEST REPORTS AND MODELING
4.1 EMISSION TESTS
Two series of emissions tests have been conducted by Interpoll Inc.
(Circle Pines, Minnesota), at the Olathe waferboard plant in Colorado:
12-14 March 1985 and 18-20 June 1986. Both series of tests involved the major
sources at the facility: the Konus system, the wafer dryer and the two press
vents. The pollutants of concern included particulate matter, total
non-methane VOC, and certain specific compounds (formaldehyde, MDI, HCN,
phenol). For combustion sources (i.e., Konus burner and McConnel burner of
the wafer dryer), "other criteria pollutants (CO, NOX, S02) were also measured
that demonstrated proper combustion efficiency. Since the focus of the
complaints is eye and lung irritation, only emissions of VOC and toxics such
as formaldehyde will be addressed in this section.
Table 4-1 presents the results of the most recent organic emissions tests
at the Olathe plant. The highest concentration of VOC emissions is produced
by the wafer dryer. The difference between the wafer dryer and press
emissions is noted in the evaluation of formaldehyde emissions. As shown in
Table 4-1, the formaldehyde concentration from the wafer dryer is two orders
of magnitude greater than press emissions. It is recommended, however, that
additional testing be conducted to determine the species emitted from the
press. The total organic emissions from this source are of equal magnitude to
the wafer dryer and the decomposition products of the release agents may be
heavy aldehydes. Determination of the specific species emitted is important
since, based on modeling results, the nearest homes are most likely impacted
by press emissions.
Emissions of MDI were determined using NIOSH Method P&CAM 142. NIOSH
methods measure concentrations of gases related to ambient or workplace air.
All of the results of MDI testing at the Olathe plant were at or below the
detection limit of the method. As a result, the actual concentration of MDI
is unknown. The conservative assumption is that all concentrations are
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. VOC TEST RESULTS: JUNE 1986a
Pollutant
VOC
Formaldehyde
MDI
Wafer Drver
ppm g/s
420 2.53
71,5 1.08
<0.01 <0.002
East Press Vent
ppm g/s
120 1.15
0.65 0.016
<0.01 <0.003
West Press Vent
ppm g/s
240 1.73
1.1 0.019
<0.01 <0.002
.Data taken during operation of plant after conversion to MDI resin.
Concentration in ppm as CH..
Concentration in ppm, dry.
4-2
-------
equivalent to the detection limit. Actual concentrations are at or below
these tabulated values.
Formaldehyde was measured using NIOSH Method P&CAM 125. The analytical
technique is visible absorption spectrophotometry. This method, given in
Appendix B, uses impingers to collect the sample. Color is developed using a
chromotropic acid/sulfuric acid solution and the working range is 0.02 to
0.4 ppm in air. A similar method was used in early EPA studies of emissions
from air oxidation processes (including the manufacture of formaldehyde).
More recently, however, EPA has been considering ion chromatography and
high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) as better methods for formaldehyde.
There are no EPA reference methods for formaldehyde in stack gases.
Formaldehyde emissions from the wafer dryer are compared for two sets of
conditions. In Table 4-2, the results of the two sets of dryer tests are
given, with some pertinent process data. The second test has almost twice the
formaldehyde emissions as the test from the previous year. Along with the
higher mass throughput in the June 1986 test, there is an associated increase
in gas flow rate. The exit moisture content of both gas and wafer are lower
than in the early test, and the outlet gas temperature was reduced, either
through the higher gas flow rate or the increased transfer of heat to the
wafers. An important result of the comparison of these tests is the obvious
change in emission rate. This indicates a potential for reducing formaldehyde
emissions through control of wafer dryer operating conditions. Some
laboratory testing of particle drying included in Appendix D shows there may
be potential control of formaldehyde emissions through variation of drying
temperature and time. Another possible alternative to controlling
formaldehyde emissions suggested by this laboratory work is the use of
different wood species. This laboratory paper is discussed in Section 5.0 on
formaldehyde.
4.2 ISCST MODEL RESULTS
The 1981 version of the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST)
model was used by the Colorado Department of Health to estimate the impacts of
particulate matter, formaldehyde and MDI emissions from the Olathe plant.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-2. COMPARISON OF DRYER TESTS
March 1985
June 1986
Total non-methane organics, ppm CH
Formaldehyde, ppm (dry)
Formaldehyde, Ib/hr
Gas Stream
Flow rate, acfm
Water content, % volume
Stack temperature, °F
Inlet temperature, °F
Outlet temperature, . F
Wafer
Feed belt speed, %
Inlet moisture, %
Outlet moisture, %
Production Rate, tons/day
413
45
4.4
42,700
23.8
234
160
261
50
46.6
5.9
N/A'
1
420
71
3.5
47,700
17. 0
212
130
244
67
ND
37
N/A
1
ND = Not Determined
N/A = Not Available
4-4
-------
Data inputs used in the modeling effort came from the most recent testing at
the plant. The meteorological data were for the five-year period 1977 through
1981 sited at Grand Junction, Colorado. Grand Junction and Olathe lie in two
different troughs where prevailing air movements are oriented differently. To
accommodate this difference, the wind rose was effectively rotated to
implement the Grand Junction meteorological data at the Olathe site.
The complete results of the modeling are given in Appendix C, along with
a summary memorandum by Alan Dresser of the Colorado Department of Health.
The modeling results have been reviewed and appear to be valid. The pollutant
of concern is formaldehyde. The modeling results show that a maximum 1-hour
concentration of 62 ug/m is possible in the vicinity of the plant.
Figure 4-1 shows the plant and the location of the maximum average
concentration receptors. The 8-hour and 24-hour maximum average
concentrations for formaldehyde, both above 15 ug/m , occur at this same
receptor.
Examining the maximum formaldehyde concentration, the majority of the
impact results from the wafer dryer. The press vents contribute only
0.8 ug/m to the total maximum concentration. For MDI concentrations,
90 percent of the modeled impact is related to the press vents. It is
important to note, however, the model used the results of the latest tests
which were values at the detection limit of the analytical method. The MDI
values, therefore, do not necessarily represent actual emissions measurements.
4-5
-------
n
n
1. Baghouse #1
2. Baghouse #2
3. Konus Stack
4. Dryer Stack
5. West Press Vent
6. East Press Vent
Formaldehyde
8 hr/24 hr
Figure 4-1. Location of Maximum Concentration Receptors
4-6
-------
5.0 FORMALDEHYDE
From the preceding section, emissions of formaldehyde are noted as the
largest VOC constituent identified that has a local impact. At the Olathe
plant, there are three potential sources of formaldehyde emissions: the Konus
burner, the press vents and the wafer dryer. Both combustion sources (Konus
burner and McConnel burner) operate efficiently, leaving little potential for
formaldehyde emissions. The resin change from phenol-formaldehyde to MDI
should result in lower overall formaldehyde emissions. Furthermore, during
the site visit there were no noticeable odors in the gases vented from the
press area. The wafer dryer, however, has the highest emissions of
formaldehyde of any of the sources considering both source tests.
Wood decomposition has been a traditional source of organic chemicals.
For example, the main source of methanol was formerly destructive distillation
of wood. Likewise, wood decomposition can yield other organic compounds such
as acetic acid and formaldehyde. In 1928, Freudenberg identified formaldehyde
as a by-product of wood hydrolysis. And by 1947, Kratzl found formaldehyde
was released in the alkaline hydrolysis of spruce lignin sulfonates.
Formaldehyde can also be evolved from the polysaccharides in the thermolysis
of wood. Acids naturally present in the wood convert the polysaccharides to
oxymethylfurfural, an unstable compound which decomposes to formaldehyde and
furfural. The transformation is promoted by the separation of aliphatic acids
(especially acetic acid) from the wood. In addition, formaldehyde can also be
produced from methanol in the wood decomposition process.
In a paper by Marutsky and Roffael, formaldehyde emissions from wood
drying are examined. Test data on drying three types of wood using two
techniques were gathered and compared. Pine, spruce and beech were studied
using pressing and jet-tube drying. Jet-tube drying is most analogous to the
wafer drying operation at Olathe.
The jet-tube dryer operated with an entry temperature of 536°F and an
exit temperature of 284°F. Wood chips were dried to a final moisture content
of 3 to 4 percent. Table 5-1 presents the results of these tests with an
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1. RESULTS OF JET-TUBE DRYER TESTS
Wood Type
Beech
Spruce
Pine
Moisture
Before
31
32
50
Content, %
After
4
3
4
Formaldehyde
mg/mj (STP)
4.8
5.9
6.5
Concentration
ppm, dry*
5.6
6.9
7.6
Concentrations estimated using 842 ppm = 1 mg/liter.
Note: Reference article included in Appendix D.
5-2
-------
approximated ppm value for comparison to the Olathe tests. The results show
that formaldehyde emissions vary with the type of wood being dried. The
thermal conditions during the laboratory studies were not as severe as those
encountered in the Olathe wafer dryer. This might account for the
significantly lower emissions.
Data from the press drying show remarkable increases in formaldehyde
emissions with temperature. For beech drying, there is a four- to six-fold
increase in the amount of formaldehyde released when the platen temperature is
raised from 160°C to 220°C. The other woods showed similar, though less
dramatic, increases. These results indicate 1) the potential for large
increases in emissions with temperature and with time, 2) the potential for
emissions from waferboard press operations, and 3) the potential for reduction
of wafer dryer emissions by varying operating conditions.
The article provided insufficient information to generate an emission
factor to compare these tests with the Olathe results. The translated article
was provided to the Colorado agency under separate cover.
5-3
-------
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF INSPECTION
The waferboard facility at Olathe, Colorado, was inspected on 8 April
1987. The operations, emissions and controls at the facility were reviewed
with plant personnel,.a corporate environmental contact and State agency
representatives. The physical plant was inspected while the plant was running
to observe normal plant practices.
The facility is a clean operation, even considering its age. The entire
process is well conceived mechanically and sufficiently instrumented to
provide good fundamental process control. The process is largely enclosed,
but must be accessed directly at times. Paraffin wax is added to the
MDI/wafer mix transferred to the forming hoppers. This operation involves
opening the enclosed conveyor belt to pour the paraffin wax onto the
resin/wafer mix. The highest potential exposure to MDI emissions in the plant
occur during this operation. Operators use breathing air lines when conveyors
are opened each hour to apply the gallon or more of the wax material to the
MDI/wafer mix on the transfer belts.
The facility uses MDI as the polymer binder for the wood wafers.
According to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, MOI is a known
irritant. (See Appendix A.) The facility has had three complaints in the
last year from workers in the blender area. These systems are now enclosed
and there have been no complaints in the last two months. Louisiana-Pacific
has conducted an in-house health and safety audit of the entire facility, but
the results have not been released. As an added note, the substitution of MDI
for phenol-formaldehyde resins has reduced fugitive dust emissions in the plant,
In Section 2.0, the emissions controls were discussed. The focus of
these controls has been on particulate matter and opacity, since these are the
only regulated pollutants. The facility now employs controls that achieve
compliance with the particulate matter and opacity regulations. The question
of VOC, predominantly aldehyde, control has been examined by
Louisiana-Pacific's environmental contact. Various techniques have been
considered, including bubble cap column, packed column, and venturi scrubbers.
These techniques are effective in removing aldehydes from the vent streams,
6-1
-------
but they may not be effective on all VOC constituents vented. Furthermore,
while these techniques may be technically feasible in removing some VOC from
vent gases, there may be structural constraints on installing a scrubber on
the roof of the manufacturing building near the stacks. Another potential
problem associated with wet scrubbing at this site is the availability of
water and treatment of wastewater for discharge. The facility currently does
not have any water discharges and additional permitting would be required.
The absorbed aldehydes, particularly formaldehyde, would create polluted water
effluents which may be unacceptable for the site. Further treatment may be
possible, however. For example, the undesired pollutant could potentially be
stripped from scrubbing fluid and then incinerated. This approach involves
additional processing and equipment and, therefore, may not be practical when
considering costs.
Other VOC control altenatives include carbon adsorption and condensation.
Louisiana-Pacific investigated the potential for using carbon adsorption.
Manufacturers could not recommend a reasonable carbon adsorption system, but
did recommend wet scrubbing or incineration. Because the vented gases are
relatively high volume, low concentration streams, these other classical VOC
control techniques are also difficult and costly to apply.
Possible control alternatives for the dryer are not evident from a review
of existing controls at other waferboard facilities. Based on the examination
of formaldehyde test results on three types of wood, perhaps substitution of
raw material (that is, change of wood species) would reduce emissions.
Another option indicated by test results is variation of dryer operating
conditions. Changing dryer conditions appeared to shift emissions during the
two tests at the Olathe facility, althoug reductions based on these changes
have not been completely verified or quantified. Use of a water scrubber is
another possible control alternative. Formaldehyde is readily absorbed into
water, but the water would have to be treated before discharge to the nearest
surface waters. Water is a valuable resource in Colorado and its use as a
scrubbing fluid creates another issue in the State.
Caustic scrubbers have been successfully used to reduce formaldehyde
emissions from other industrial sources. The formaldehyde reacts rapidly with
the caustic to form sodium formate, reducing formaldehyde concentrations in
6-2
-------
air to near zero concentrations. The sodium formate solution must be treated
in a wastewater treatment system before discharge to surface waters or
municipal systems. The scrubber solution could alternately be disposed of by
incineration. This would permit use of a closed scrubber system with periodic
removal of contaminated solution.
6-3
-------
APPENDIX A
SAFETY DATA ON MATERIALS
AT OLATHE PLANT
A-l
-------
00
£ **FORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37XX* PAGE 01 OF 06
o
X*FORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 375CX*
KXFORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37XXX
**FORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37%XX
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
FISHER SCIENTIFIC EMERGENCY CONTACTS DATE: 04/19/86
CHEMICAL DIVISION GASTON L. PILLORI PO NBR: N/A
1 REAGENT LANE .- (201) 796-7100 ACCT: 681055-01
FAIR LAWN NJ 07410 INDEX: N/A
(201) 796-7100 CAT NO'- F79
THE INFORMATION BELOU IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE AND REPRESENTS THE BEST
INFORMATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US. HOWEVER, WE MAKE NO WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH INFORMATION, AND WE ASSUME NO LIABILITY RESULTING FROM ITS USE. USERS
SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE
INFORMATION FOR THEIR PARTICULAR PURPOSES.
SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION
CAS-NUMBER 50-00-0
SUBSTANCE: KXFORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37X**
TRADE NAMES/SYNONYMS: FORMALIN; FORMIC ALDEHYDE; FORMOL; METHANAL;
METHYL ALDEHYDE; METHYLENE GLYCOLJMETHYLENE OXIDE;
TETRAOXYMETHYLENE; OXQMETHANE; OXYMETHYLENE; F-79;
F-79-P
CHEMICAL FAMILY--
ALDEHYDE, ALIPHATIC
MOLECULAR FORMULA: C-H2-0 MOL WT: 30.03
CEPCLA RATINGS (SCALE 0-3): HEALTH=2 FIRE=2 REACTIVITY=0 PERSISTENCES
COMPONENTS AND CONTAMINANTS
PERCENT: 37 COMPONENT-. FORMALDEHYDE
PERCENT: 15 COMPONENT: METHANOL
PERCENT: 48 COMPONENT: WATER
-OTHER CONTAMINANTS: NONE
EXPOSURE LIMITS:
FORMALDEHYDE-' 3 PPM OSHA CEILING;
2 PPM ACGIH CEILING (BUT SEE NOTICE OF INTENDED CHANGE TO 1 PPM
WITH ADDITION OF SUSPECT HUMAN CARCINOGEN RATING)
PHYSICAL DATA
•
"DESCRIPTION: COLORLESS LIQUID WITH A PUNGENT ODOR.
A-2
-------
x*FORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37X*x PAGE 02 OF 06
BOILING POINT: 214 F (101 C) SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1.08 PH-' 2.8 - 4.0
SOLUBILITY IN WATER: MISCIBLE
SOLVENT SOLUBILITY: SOLUBLE IN ALCOHOL, AND ACETONE ODOR THRESHOLD: i.o PPM
VAPOR DENSITY: 1.04
FIRE AND EXPLOSION DATA
MOD!RATE FIRE°AND EXPLOSION HAZARD WHEN EXPOSED TO HEAT OR FLAME.
VAPOR-AIR MIXTURES ARE EXPLOSIVE ABOVE FLASH POINT.
REACTION OF FORMALDEHYDE WITH NITROGEN DIOXIDE. NITROMETHANE, PERCHLORIC ACID
AND ANILINE, OR PEROXYFORMIC ACID YIELDS EXPLOSIVE COMPOUNDS.
FLASH POINT: 130 F (54 C) UPPER EXPLOSION LIMIT:
LOWER EXPLOSION LIMIT: 7% AUTOIGNITION TEMP.: 806 F (430 C)
FLAMMABILITY CLASS(OSHA): II
FlkEFIGHTING MEDIA:
DRY CHEMICAL, CARBON DIOXIDE, WATER SPRAY OR FOAM
(1984 EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK, DOT P 5800.3).
FOR LARGER FIRES, USE WATER SPRAY, FOG OR ALCOHOL FOAM
(1984 EMERGENCY RESPONSE GUIDEBOOK, DOT P 5800.3).
MOVEFCONTAINER FROM FIRE AREA IF POSSIBLE. DO NOT GET WATER INSIDE CONTAINER.
COOL FIRE-EXPOSED CONTAINERS WITH WATER FROM SIDE UNTIL WELL AFTER FIRE IS
OUT. WITHDRAW IMMEDIATELY IN CASE OF RISING SOUND FROM VENTING SAFETY DEVICE
OR ANY DISCOLORATION OF STORAGE TANK DUE TO FIRE (1984 EMERGENCY RESPONSE
GUIDEBOOK, DOT P 5800.3).
EXTINGUISH ONLY IF FLOW CAN BE STOPPED; USE WATER IN FLOODING AMOUNTS AS FOG,
SOLID STREAMS MAY NOT BE EFFECTIVE. COOL CONTAINERS WITH FLOODING
QUNATITIES OF WATER; APPLY FROM AS FAR A DISTANCE AS POSSIBLE. AVOID BREATHING
HAZARDOUS VAPORS OR DUSTS, KEEP UPWIND (BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES, EMERGENCY
HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, 1981).
ALCOHOL FOAM (NFPA FIRE PROTECTION GUIDE ON HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, EIGHTH
EDITION).
STOP FLOW OF GAS (NFPA FIRE PROTECTION GUIDE ON HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, EIGHTH
EDITION).
TRANSPORTATION DATA
A-3
-------
XHFORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37*** PAGE 03 OF 06
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAZARD CLASSIFICATION 49CFR172.101:
ORM-A
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LABELING REQUIREMENTS 49CFR172.101 AND 172.402:
NOME
TOXICITY
36 MG/KG ORAL-WOMAN LDLO; 8 PPM INHALATION-HUMAN TCLO; 800 MG/KG ORAL-RAT
LD50; 590 MG/KG INHALATION-RAT LC50; 270 MG/KG SKIN-RABBIT LD50; MUTAGENIC
DATA (RTECS); REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS DATA (RTECS); DEFINITE ANIMAL CARCINOGEN
(IARC); INDEFINITE HUMAN CARCINOGEN (IARC, NTP). FORMALDEHYDE HAS CAUSED
S<3UAMOS CELL CARCINOMAS OF THE NASAL CAVATIES IN RATS. THE EVIDENCE FOR
CARCINOGESICITY IN HUMANS IS INADEQUATE.
FORMALDEHYDE IS AN EYE, MUCOUS MEMBRANE, AND SKIN IRRITANT. IT IS ALSO A
SKIN AND RESPIRATORY SENSITIZER.
HEALTH EFFECTS AND FIRST AID
INHALATION:
TOXIC/IRRITANT. 100 PPM (FORMALDEHYDE) IMMEDIATELY DANGEROUS TO LIFE OR HEALTH
ACUTE EXPOSURE- FORMALDEHYDE IN VAPORS OR MIST AT CONCENTRATIONS OF 1 PPM
CAUSE MUCOUS MEMBRANE AND RESPIRATORY TRACT IRRITATION WITH TEARING AND
MILD TINGLING SENSATIONS IN THE NOSE AND THROAT. HIGH CONCENTRATIONS MAY
CAUSE COUGH, HEADACHE, NAUSEA, WEAKNESS, PALPITATION, DYSPNEA, BURNING OF
THE NOSE AND THROAT, BRONCHITIS, PULMONARY EDEMA, PNEUMONITIS AND DEATH.
CHRONIC EXPOSURE- MAY CAUSE MUCOUS MEMBRANE IRRITATION. THERE IS EVIDENCE
THAT SUGGESTS THAT CHRONIC FORMALDEHYDE INHALATION MAY PROMOTE THE
FORMATION OF SQUAMOUS CELL NASAL CARCINOMAS, AND MAY CAUSE CIRRHOSIS OF
THE LIVER AND C.iRONIC HEART DISEASE. SEE HUMAN AND ANIMAL CARCINOGENIC AND
ANIMAL MUTAGENIC, REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS, AND TUMORIGENIC REFERENCES IN
TOXICITY SECTION. FORMALDEHYDE CAUSES RESPIRATORY TRACT SENSITIZATIQN.
FIRST AID- REMOVE FROM EXPOSURE AREA TO FRESH AIR IMMEDIATELY. IF BREATHING
HAS STOPPED, PERFORM ARTIFICIAL RESPIRATION. KEEP AFFECTED PERSON WARM AND
AT REST. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION.
SKIN CONTACT:
IRRITANT.
ACUTE EXPOSURE- MAY CAUSE IRRITATION. SENSITIZATION DERMATITIS MAY OCCUR IN
PREVIOUSLY EXPOSED WORKERS. LESIONS MAY OCCUR DUE TO A SUDDEN ECZEMATOUS
REACTION ON THE EYELIDS, FACE, NECK, SCROTUM, AND FLEXOR SURFACE OF THE
WHICH MAY COME ONLY A FEW DAYS AFTER EXPOSURE. ECZEMATOUS REACTIONS MAY
ALSO OCCUR AFTER A NUMBER OF YEARS ON THE HANDS, WRISTS, FOREARMS, AND
PARTS OF THE BODY THAT ARE EXPOSED TO FRICTION FROM CLOTHING. SHRINKING OF
THE MUCOUS MEMBRANES, AND NECROSIS MAY OCCUR.
CHRONIC EXPOSURE- REPEATED OR PROLONGED CONTACT MAY CAUSE HARDENING AND
CRACKING OF THE SKIN, AND SENSITIZATION DERMATITIS.
FIRST AID- REMOVE CONTAMINATED CLOTHING AND SHOES IMMEDIATELY. WASH AFFECTED
AREA WITH SOAP OR MILD DETERGENT AND LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER UNTIL NO
EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL REMAINS (APPROXIMATELY 15-20 MINUTES). GET MEDICAL
ATTENTION.
A-4
-------
*MFORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37X**
PAGE (K OF 06
EYE CONTACT'•
IRACUTETEXPOSURE- FORMALDEHYDE VAPORS OR MISTS MAY CAUSE IRRITATION AND MILD
LACRIMATION CONCENTRATIONS OF 10 PPM CAN BE WITHSTOOD FOR ONLY A FEW
MINUTES AND CAUSES PROFUSE LACRIMATION IN ALL SUBJECTS. OCCULAR DAMAGE HAS
BEEN STATED TO RESULT WITH EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE VAPORS. SOLUTIONS OF
25-^% SPLASHED IN THE EYES MAY CAUSE BURNS, SEVERE INJURY AND CORNEAL
DAMAGE.
CHRONIC EXPOSURE- MAY CAUSE CONJUNCTIVITIS.
FIRST AID- WASH EYES IMMEDIATELY WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER, OCCASIONALLY
LIFTING UPPER AND LOWER LIDS, UNTIL NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL REMAINS
(APPROXIMATELY 15-20 MINUTES). GET MEDICAL ATTENTION.
TNGESTION:
T°ACUTEREXPOSURE- MAY CAUSE BURNING IN THE MOUTH AND ESOPHAGUS, NAUSEA AND
VOMITING? SEVERE ABDOMINAL PAIN. DIARRHEA. VERTIGO, ANURIA, UNCONSCIOUS-
NESS, JAUNDICE, ALBUMINURIA, HEMATURIA, ACIDOSIS,AND CONVULSIONS LIVER
AND KIDNEY DAMAGE MAY OCCUR. DEATH OCCURS FROM CIRCULATORY FAILURE. A MEAN
FATAL DOSE IS ABOUT 2 OUNCES (60 76) OF 37% SOLUTION.
FIRST AID- IF VICTIM IS CONSCIOUS AND NOT CONVULSIVE, IMMEDIATELY GIVE 2
* GLASSES OF WATER, AND INDUCE VOMITING BY TOUCHING FINGER TO BACK OF
THROAT. FROM SITTING POSITION, HEAD MUST BE LOWER THAN HIPS TO PREVENT
ASPIRATION. KEEP PATIENT WARM AND AT REST. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION
IMMEDIATELY.
TO
REACTIVITY
STABLEVATYORDINARY PRESSURES UP TO THE BOILING POINT. 101 C. A POWERFUL
REDUCING AGENT, ESPECIALLY IN THE PRESCENCE OF ALKALI. REACTS VIOLENTLY WITH
STRONG CXIDIZERS; REACTS WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID FORMING BISCCHLOROMETHYL>
ETHER, A POTENT CARCINOGEN.
INCOMPATIBILITIES:
FORMALDEHYDE
NITROMETHANE: FORMS EXPLOSIVE COMPOUND.
PEROXYFORMIC ACID: FORMS EXPLOSIVE COMPOUND. Tll^DCtcc
MAGNESIUM CARBONATE: EXPLOSIVE REACTION DUE TO PRESSURE INCREASE.
NITROGEN DIOXIDE: EXPLOSIVE REACTION IN THE REGION OF 180 C.
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE: VIOLENT REACTION.
STRONG OXIDIZERS: VIOLENT REACTION. „..,-„
-HYDROCHLORIC ACID: FORMS HIGHLY TOXIC BISCCHLOROMETHYL) ETHER.
DECOMPOSITION:
COMBUSTION MAY RELEASE TOXIC OXIDES OF CARBON.
HAZARDOUSAPOLYMER1ZATION WIL NOT OCCUR FOR THE MATERIAL WITHOUT A COPOLYMER.
A-5
-------
KKFORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 373C*X
CONDITIONS TO AVOID
PAGE 05 OF 06
MAY BE IGNITED BY HEAT OR FLAMES. CONTAINER MAY EXPLODE IN HEAT OF FIRE.
VAPOR EXPLOSION HAZARD INDOORS.
1 X X X X X X X X X i
SPILL AND LEAK PROCEDURES
OCCUPATIONAL SPILL:
SHUT OFF IGNITION SOURCES. PROVIDE VENTILATION AND WEAR PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT.
DO NOT TOUCH SPILLED MATERIAL. STOP LEAK IF YOU CAN DO IT WITHOUT RISK. USE
WATER SPRAY TO REDUCE VAPORS. FOR SMALL SPILLS TAKE UP WITH SAND OR OTHER
ABSORBENT MATERIAL AND PLACE INTO CONTAINERS FOR LATER DISPOSAL. CLOSE
CONTAINERS AND LABEL "COMBUSTIBLE AND CANCER HAZARD". FOR LARGER SPILLS, DIKE
AS CLOSE TO THE SOURCE OF THE SPILL AS IS PRACTICAL AND EFFECTIVE IN ORDER TO
REDUCE THE AREA CONTAMINATED AND THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL SPILLED. NO SMOKING,
FLAMES OR FLARES IN HAZARD AREA. KEEP UNNECESSARY PEOPLE AWAY; ISOLATE HAZARD
AREA AND DENY ENTRY. KEEP OUT OF SEWERS AND WATER SOURCES.
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
VENTILATION:
PROVIDE LOCAL EXHAUST VENTILATION SYSTEM TO MEET PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS.
RESPIRATOR:
EXPOSURE LIMIT TO 30 PPM- CHEMICAL CARTRIDGE RESPIRATOR WITH AN ACID GAS
CARTRIDGE AND A FULL FACEPIECE.
GAS MASK WITH AN ACID GAS CANISTER (CHIN-STYLE, FRONT-, OR
BACK-MOUNTED CANISTER).
SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS WITH A FULL FACEPIECE.
> 30 PPM INCLUDING IDLH CONCENTRATION TO 100 PPM- TYPE 'C' SUPPLIED-AIR
RESPIRATOR WITH A FULL FACEPIECE OPERATED IN
PRESSURE-DEMAND OR OTHER POSITIVE PRESSURE
OR CONTINUOUS FLOW MODE.
FIREFIGHTING- SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS WITH A FULL FACEPIECE OPERAT-
ED IN PRESSURE-DEMAND OR OTHER POSITIVE PRESSURE MODE.
CLOTHING:
WEAR IMPERVIOUS CLOTHING IF THERE IS REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF CONTACT WITH
SOLUTION.
-GLOVES:
UEAR IMPERVIOUS GLOVES IF THERE IS REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF CONTACT WITH
SOLUTION.
EYE PROTECTION:
EMPLOYEE MUST WEAR SPLASH-PROOF OR DUST-PROOF SAFETY GOGGLES TO PREVENT THIS
SUBSTANCE FROM CONTACTING THE EYES. DO NOT WEAR CONTACT LENSES WHEN WORKING
WITH CHEMICALS.
•
•
AUTHORIZED - ALLIED FISHER SCIENTIFIC
A-6
-------
xxFORMALDEHYDE SOLUTION, 37%** PAGE 06 OF 06
CREATION DATE: 01/14/85 REVISION DATE' 08/13/85
-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION-
THE INrORMATION BELOW IS BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE AND REPRESENTS THE BEST
INFORMATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US. HOWEVER, WE MAKE NO WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH INFORMATION, AND WE ASSUME NO LIABILITY RESULTING FROM ITS USE. USERS
SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE
INFORMATION FOR THEIK PARTICULAR PURPOSES.
A-7
-------
SURFACTANTS, INC.
48 Liberty St
MatuclM*. N. J. OM40
(201) 549-3151
HI PA Designation 704
Of Cut! CM H»J»«0
4. tllHtUC
!• raCM
t • MOM MATC
0 • iMSICMf ICAMT
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
Section 1. Identity of Maleridi
H«OOUC<
Mold Release
. .
Ornnriotarv
CASMUMMH
MGUIATI*
IM M*2AMKXM HMSII 0 MUMM*
This material contains no hazardous chemicals
as established by the Hazard Communication
Standard (29CFR1910.1200)
Section 2. Hazard Specifications
.^..HAtA.WU.
1 ItlOSIVf IfATIfllAi
TCS
O'KMtB
rtUMIAMl
HO
X
X
X
r
x
X
x
»«"*•*'•'•'•»-
IVf MA1AHO
MMOOUCKVf tO«W
intm TOIM
»ON*TtO»
•u
Y
MO
X
X
x
x
j;
x
J?
1M" None established •*• -^*
•*• tthe established"- ••—
-rAH«.^«^
-M.- 1 n~~*,rr Q
0 •HtQftfc
tot regulated
<•>« HMAaa
-------
Section 4. Emergency Response Da'.a
,-.
(tfOWMW
*H*»
MO'
,UM-,A«ur»
•Munr
MklMUMMM
MKTMMUAIMM
~o.~n~r.
tniM^a.M.Uk(M Not flammable or combustible
None
IftlrlHM MAZ4MM
None
FMSI MOMfcAlUAkS
Eyes - wash with water for 15 minutes. Get medical aid if
irritation persists.
Mil's 10 M 1AMM
Mop t.'p and water washdown. -Sewer drain - biodegradable detergent
WAJU OHfntfi. MCTNOO
Check any federal, state & local regulations.
Section 5. Physical Hazard Data
I/I.. . <* [MAMMMr •» -C
u*f N/A •» IMCTMOOUMO None
STAIU Y Freezing
uN»f*au
CONttfttNA TO AVO0
UAV occm .. .
None known
MU. Nor OCCVM y
«..«*" roAvo"1 Acids
Section 6. Health Hazard Data
possible eye irritation if this product splashes,
f
-------
-•S. DEPARTMENT C* LABOR
Occupa^ona! Safety and Health Administration
f 3frtl Ao0ro'«« «. . ,^
OTMgH uouias mtlM
_SECTIONm.pHYSlCAL DATA
immj^i_SIMILAR TQijfATER
(Continued on rtv«rM iid«}
Form OSHA-20
A-10
-------
SECTION Vt . PCACTIVITY DATA
CC-MOITION5 TO AVOIQ"
! XX
NONE
HAZARDOUS
"O'-vveaizATioN
• ——-— ^ ^ |^vv i i j p.
I CONUI I IONS TO A VOlO '
NONE
CPE
MAV occua
_ —
WH.U NOT OCCUR
OSHA-20
A-ll
-------
Jim \Jjaiier research carp.
10301 NINTH STREET NORTH
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33702
(813) 576-4171
Contact: Dr. E. K. Moss
ER - 350
PAGE 1 OF 3
PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION
NAME:
ER - 3SO .
CHEMICAL NAME/SYNONYM; PROPRIETARY EMULSION IN WATER
CHEMICAL FAMILY: Mmu*£ FORMULA: N/A
C.A.S. NUMBER: MIXTURE o.O.T. HAZARD CLASS ID. NO:.
D.O.T. SHIPPING NAME:.
LABEL REQUIREMENTS:,
WARNINGS AND_PRECAUTIONS
THIS PRODUCT DOES NOT CONTAIN .ANY HAZARDOUS. COMPONENTS.
HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
INGREDIENT
CJLS. NO.
%
HAZARD
EXPOSURE LIMITS
ISSUE DATE: Npyfi^ei 11. J?4ti
REVISION DATE: None
A-12
-------
PAGE 2 OF 3
EMgRGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES
EYE rOMTACT; Flush with water for 15 minutes. Get nu
SKIN CONTACT: Wash with aoM and water.
INHALATION: Move to fresh air.
INGESTION: Get m*Al**l aid.
PHYSICAL DATA
APPEARANCE: : Tan liouid emulsion
BOILING POINT: 212*P MELTING POINT; ND PH ( s%) 6.0 - s.o
SPECIFIC GRAVITY- 0.9S gm/nl 8 77*F VAPOR PRESSURE: K.D.
SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Dispersible
OTHER: None
FIRE AND EXPLOSION
FLASH POINT; Above 200*1? METHOD". PMCC
NFPA DESIGNATION: HEALTH: 1__ PtR& 1 REACTIVITY:
o
FLAMMABLE LIMITS: LgU N.D. UgL: N.D.
EXTINGUISHING MgDIA; Carbon Dioxide. Foaa
SPECIAL FIREFIGHTING PROCEDURES: Use NIOSH a-poroved respirators and protective
clothing.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS: None
OCCUPATIONAL CONTROL
EYE PROTeCTIQM; Safety glasses. Eye bath available.
SKIN PROTECTION: Gloves. Safety shower available.
Organic vapor canister mask in vapors
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: concentrations.
VENTILATION: General fneehanicall ventilation satisfactory.
A-13
-------
PAGE 3 OF 3
HEALTH DATA
HUMAN EXPOSURE; Priaary routes of exposure are cue and skin contact. ACUTE
OVEREXPOSURE: EYE - May cause inflammation. SKIN - Prolonged contact may cause
inflammation. INHALATION: No Data.. INGESTION; May cause vomiting.
TOXICITY: It has not been determined if exposure to this product aggravates any
existing medical conditions or if there are anv target orgtn effects.
REACTIVITY
STABILITY:__§table HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION:'
MATERIALS TO AVOID: Strong reducing agents or AlVall.
CONDITIONS TO AVOID; None
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: flhmail NO . co
SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES
ACTION IN CASE OF RELEASE OR SPILL: Contain spill. Soafc up with absorbant aateri
and Tenove to containers for disposal.
WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD; Dispose of in accordance with local, state and federal
EPA, regulations.
A-14
-------
Occupational Health Guideline for
Methylene Bisphenyl Isocyanate (MDI)
INTRODUCTION
This guideline is intended as a source of information for
employees, employers, physicians, industrial hygiemsts,
and other occupational health professionals who may
have a need for such information. It does not attempt to
present all data; rather, it presents pertinent information
and data in summary form.
SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATION
• Formula: NCOC.H.CH, C J^NCO
• Synonyms: MDI; 4,4-diphenylmethane diisocyanate;
methylene bis (4-phenyl isocyanate); 4,4-
diisocyantodiphenylmethane
• Appearance and odor: White to light-yellow flakes
with no odor.
PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT (PEL)
The current OSHA standard for methylene bisphenyl
isocyanate is a ceiling level of 0.02 part of methylene
bisphenyl isocyanate per million parts of air (ppm). This
may also be expressed as 0.2 milligram of methylene
bisphenyl isocyanate per cubic meter of air (mg/m»).
HEALTH HAZARD INFORMATION
• Routes of exposwc
Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate can affect the body if it
is inhaled or if it comes in contact with the eyes or skin.
It can also affect the body if it is swallowed.
• Effects of oTerexpowM
/. Short-term £rpo«
-------
pulmonary edema. Exposure of humans to high concen-
trations causes cough, dyspnea, increased secretions,
and chest pain. Isocyanates cause pulmonary sensitiza-
tion in susceptible individuals; should this occur, further
exposure should be avoided, since extremely low levels
of exposure may trigger an asthmatic episode; cross
sensitization to unrelated materials probably does not
occur. The liquid in contact with the eye may cause an
irritation.
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
• Physical data
1. Molecular weight: 250.25
2. Boiling point (760 mm Hg): 172 C (341.6 F)
3. Specific gravity (water = I): 1.27
4. Vapor density (air = 1 at boiling point of methy-
lene bisphenyl isocyanate): 8.6
5. Melting point: 37 C (98.6 F)
6. Vapor pressure at 20 C (68 F): 0.05 mm Hg
7. Solubility in water, g/100 g water at 20 C (68 F):
0.2
8. Evaporation rate (butyl acetate = 1): Not applica-
ble
• Reactivity
1. Conditions contributing to instability: Tempera-
tures above 37.8 C (100 F)
2. Incompatibilities: Avoid contact with strong alka-
lies, acids, and alcohol.
3. Hazardous decomposition products: Toxic gases
and vapors (such as oxides of nitrogen and carbon
monoxide) may be released in a fire involving methy-
lene bisphenyl isocyanate.
4. Special precautions: Liquid methylene bisphenyl
isocyanate will attack some forms of plastics, rubber,
and coatings.
• Flammability
1. Flash point: 202 C (395.6 F) (open cup)
2. Autoignition temperature: 240 C (464 F)
3. Flammable limits in air, % by volume: Not appli-
cable
4. Extinguishant: Carbon dioxide, dry chemical, or
inert gas. For large fires, water in the form of spray
should be used.
• Warning properties
I; Odor Threshold: No quantitative information is
available.
2; Irritation Levels: By analogy to TDI, which,
according to Grant, causes irritation of the eyes and
nose beginning at 0.05 ppm to 0.1 ppm, MDI is assumed
to produce eye and nose irritation at the same levels.
3; Evaluation of Warning Properties: MDI is treated
as a material with poor warning properties, for the
purposes of this guideline. By analogy with TDI, MDI
is assumed to produce eye and nose irritation within
several times the permissible exposure limit, but the
permissible exposure is a ceiling concentration.
MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT
PROCEDURES
• Ceiling Evaluation
Measurements to determine employee ceiling exposure
are best taken during periods of maximum expected
airborne concentrations of methylene bisphenyl iso-
cyanate. Each measurement should consist of a fifteen
(15) minute sample or senes of consecutive samples
totalling fifteen (15) minutes in the employee's breath-
ing zone (air that would most nearly represent that
inhaled by the employee). A minimum of three (3)
measurements should be taken on one work shift and
the highest of all measurements taken is an estimate of
the employee's exposure.
• Method
At the time of publication of this guideline, no measure-
ment method for methylene bisphenyl isocyanate had
been published by NIOSH.
RESPIRATORS
• Good industrial hygiene practices recommend that
engineering controls be used to reduce environmental
concentrations to the permissible exposure level. How-
ever, there are some exceptions where respirators may
be used to control exposure. Respirators may be used
when engineering and work practice controls are not
technically feasible, when such controls are in the
process of being installed, or when they fail and need to
be supplemented. Respirators may also be used for
operations which require entry into tanks or closed
vessels, and in emergency situations. If the use of
respirators is necessary, the only respirators permitted
are those that have been approved by the Mine Safety
and Health Administration (formerly Mining Enforce-
ment and Safety Administration) or by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
• In addition to respirator selection, a complete respira-
tory protection program should be instituted which
includes regular training, maintenance, inspection,
cleaning, and evaluation.
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
• Employees should be provided with and required to
use impervious clothing, gloves, face shields (eight-inch
minimum), and other appropriate protective clothing
necessary to prevent skin contact with solid methylene
bisphenyl isocyanate or liquids containing methylene
bisphenyl isocyanate, where skin contact may occur.
• If employees' clothing may have become contaminat-
ed with methylene bisphenyl isocyanate, employees
should change into uncontammated clothing before
leaving the work premises.
• Clothing contaminated with methylene bisphenyl iso-
cyanate should be placed in closed containers for stor-
age until it can be discarded or until provision is made
for the removal of methylene bisphenyl isocyanate from
2 M«thyl«n« Blaprt«nyl Isocyanat* (MOI)
S«pt«fnb«r 1378
A-16
-------
the clothing. If the clothing is to be laundered or
otherwise cleaned to remove the methylene bisphenyl
isocyanate, the person performing the operation should
be informed of methylene bisphenyl isocyanate's haz-
ardous properties.
• Non-impervious clothing which becomes contami-
nated with methylene bisphenyl isocyanate should be
removed promptly and not reworn until the methylene
bisphenyl isocyanate is removed from the clothing.
• Employees should be provided with and required to
use dust- and splash-proof safety goggles where there is
any possibility of solid methylene bispheny! isocyanate
or liquids containing methylene bisphenyl isocyanate
contacting the eyes.
SANITATION
• Skin that becomes wet with methylene bisphenyl
isocyanate should be promptly washed or showered
with soap or mild detergent and water to remove any
methylene bisphenyl isocyanate.
• Employees who handle solid methylene bisphenyl
isocyanate or liquids containing methylene bisphenyl
isocyanate should wash their hands thoroughly with
soap or mild detergent and water before eating, smok-
ing, or using toilet facilities.
COMMON OPERATIONS AND CONTROLS
The following list includes some common operations in
which exposure to methylene bisphenyl isocyanate may
occur and control methods which may be effective in
each case:
Operation
Liberation during in
place spraying of
urethane foams
Liberation during in
place molding of
urethane foams
Liberation during
application of
polyisocyanate lacquer
sealant finishes
Liberation during shake-
out and core knock-out
operations at foundries
using MDI-oii-base-no-
bake binding systems
Liberation during
manufacture of lacquer
Liberation during
production of
component chemicals
for foam systems
Controls
Local exhaust
ventilation; respiratory
protective equipment
Local exhaust
ventilation: dilution
ventilation
Local exhaust
ventilation; respiratory
protective equipment
Local exhaust
ventilation; respiratory
protective equipment
Process enclosure;
local exhaust ventilation
Local exhaust
ventilation; process
enclosure
Operation
Liberation dunng
casting of high-density
polyurethane
elastomers
Liberation following
combustion of urethane
foams in fires or thermal
decomposition to
salvage metal inserts
Liberation of unreacted
vapor dunng cutting and
fabricating of
polyurethane foams
Liberation during curing
process; during flame
lamination of fabrics
Controls
Process enclosure;
local exhaust ventilatior
Air-supply respiratory
protective equipment or
local exhaust ventilation
Local exhaust
ventilation; respiratory
protective equipment
Process enclosure;
local ventilation
EMERGENCY FIRST AID PROCEDURES
In the event of an emergency, institute first aid proce-
dures and send for first aid or medical assistance.
• Eyt Exposure
If methylene bisphenyl isocyanate or liquids containing
methylene bisphenyl isocyanate get into the eyes, wash
eyes immediately with large amounts of water, lifting
the lower and upper lids occasionally. If irritation
persists after washing, get medical attention. Contact
lenses should not be worn when working with this
chemical.
• Skia Expocure
If methylene bisphenyl isocyanate or liquids containing
methylene bisphenyl isocyanate get on the skin, imme-
diately wash the contaminated skin using soap or mild
detergent and water. If methylene bisphenyl isocyanate
or liquids containing methylene bisphenyl isocyanate
soak through the clothing, remove the clothing immedi-
ately and wash the skin using soap or mild detergent
and water. Get medical attention promptly.
• Breathing
If a person breathes in large amounts of methylene
bisphenyl isocyanate. move the exposed person to fresh
air at once. If breathing has stopped, perform artificial
respiration. Keep the affected person warm and at rest.
Get medical attention as soon as possible.
• Swallowing
When methylene bisphenyl isocyanate or liquids con-
taining methylene bisphenyi isocyanate have been swal-
lowed and the person is conscious, give the person large
quantities of water immediately. After ihe water has
been swallowed, try to get the person to vomit by
having him touch the back of his throat with his finger.
Do not make an unconscious person vomit. Get medical
attention immediately.
• Reseat
Move the affected person from the hazardous exposure.
If the exposed person has been overcome, notify some-
S*pt«mb«r 197»
Methylene Blsprwnyl Isocyanatc (MOt) 3
A-17
-------
one else and put into effect the established emergency
rescue procedures. Do not become a casualty. Under-
stand the facility's emergency rescue procedures and
know the locations of rescue equipment before the need
arises.
SPILL, LEAK, AND DISPOSAL
PROCEDURES
• Persons not wearing protective equipment and cloth-
ing should be restricted from areas of spills or leaks until
cleanup has been completed.
• If methylene bisphenyl isocyanate is spilled or leaked,
the following steps should be taken:
1. Ventilate area of spill or leak.
2. For small quantities, absorb on paper towels. Evapo-
rate in a safe place (such as a fume hood). Allow
sufficient time for evaporating vapors to completely
clear the hood ductwork. Bum the paper in a suitable
location away from combustible materials. Large quan-
tities can be collected and atomized in a suitable com-
bustion chamber equipped with an appropriate effluent
gas cleaning device.
• Waste disposal methods:
Methylene bisphenyl isocyanate may be disposed of:
1. By absorbing it in vermiculite, dry sand, earth or a
similar material and disposing in a secured sanitary
landfill.
2. By atomizing in a suitable combustion chamber
equipped with an appropriate effluent gas cleaning
device.
REFERENCES
• American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists: "Methylene Bisphenyl Isocyanate." Docu-
mentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Substances in
Workroom Air (3rd ed.. 2nd printing), Cincinnati, 1974
• American Industrial Hygiene Association: "Toluene-
2,4-Diisocyanate," Hygienic Guide Series, Detroit.
Michigan, 1967.
• Grant, W. M.: Toxicology of the Eye (2nd ed.), C. C.
Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. 1974.
• International Labour Office: Encyclopedia of Occupa-
tional Health and Safety, McGraw-Hill, New York.
1971.
• Key, M. M.: "Occupational Dermatitis from Plas-
tics," Journal of Medicine of the Association of Geor-
£/a,57.-421-424, September 1968.
• Konzen, R. B., et al.: "Human Response to Low
Concentrations of p. p-Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate
(MDI)," American Industrial Hygiene Association Jour-
nal. 27:121-127, 1966.
• Lapp, N. L.: "Physical Changes in Diagnostic Aids tn
Isocyanate Exposure," American Industrial Hygiene As-
sociation Journal. 32:378-382, 1971.
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare: Criteria for a Recommended Standard ....
Occupational Exposure to Toluene Diisocyanate. HSM
73-11022, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1973.
• Rye, W. A.: "Human Responses to Isocyanate Expo-
sure," Journal of Occupational Medicine. 15:306-307. 197
• Woolrich, P. F., and Rye, W. A.: "Urethanes -
Engineering, Medical Control and Toxicologic Consid-
erations," Journal of Occupational Medicine. 11:184-190,
1969.
4 Ntotnyton* BisplMnyl l«ocyanat« (MOI)
S*pt«mb«r 197S
A-18
-------
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION FOR METHYLENE BISPHENYL ISOCYANATE (MDI)
Condition
Vapor or Particulate
Concentration
1 ppm(10mg/mj)orless
Minimum Respiratory Protection*
Required Above 0.02 ppm
Any supplied-air respirator with a full facepiece, helmet, or hood.
Any self-contained breathing apparatus with a full facepiece.
10 ppm (100 mg/m1) or less
Greater than 10 ppm (100
mg/m») or entry and escape
from unknown
concentrations
A Type C supplied-air respirator with a full facepiece operated in pressure-
demand or other positive pressure mode or with a full facepiece, helmet, or hood
operated in continuous-flow mode.
Self-contained breathing apparatus with a full facepiece operated in pressure-
demand or other positive pressure mode.
A combination respirator which includes a Type C supplied-air respirator with a
full facepiece operated in pressure-demand or other positive pressure or continu-
ous-flow mode and an auxiliary self-contained breathing apparatus operated in
pressure-demand or other positive pressure mode.
Fire Fighting
Self-contained breathing apparatus with a full facepiece operated in pressure-
demand or other positive pressure mode.
Escap0 Any gas mask providing protection against organic vapors and particulates.
Any escape self-contained breathing apparatus.
•Onty NIOSH-approv«d or MSHA-approved equipment should be used.
A-19
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
NIOSH PiCAM 125
METHOD FOR FORMALDEHYDE
B-l
-------
FORMULA
N.W. = 30.03
FORMALDEHYDE
METHOD: 3500
ISSUED: 2/15/84
OSHA: 3 pom; C 5 ppm; P 10 ppm
NIOSH: lowest feasible level [1]
AC6IH: C 2 ppm
(1 ppm s 1.23 mg/ms * MTP
PROPERTIES: gas; BP -19.5 °C;
vapor density 1.067 (air = 1.00);
explosive range 7 to 73 I v/v in air
SYNONYMS: methanal; CAS *SO-00-0; formalin (aqueous 30 to 501 w/v HOC).
SAMPLING
MEASUREMENT
SAMPLER: FILTER + IMPINGERS
(1-um PTFE membrane and 2
impiflgers, each with 20 mL It
sodium bisulfite solution)
FLOW RATE: 0.2 to 1 L/min
VOL-MIN: 2 L 9 1 ppm
-MAX: 100 L
SHIPMENT: transfer samples to
bottles before shipping
SAMPLE STABILITY: 30 days 9 25 °C
BLANKS: 2 to 10 field blanks per set
ACCURACY
RANGE STUDIED: 100 to 600 yg per sample [2]
BIAS: none identified
OVERALL PRECISION (sr): 0.09 [2]
!TECHNIQUE: VISIBLE ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETRY
iANALYTE: formaldehyde
JSAMPLE WDRKUP: note liquid volume; remove 4-mL
• aliquot
!ANALYSIS: color development (chromotropic acid *
! sulfuric acid); absorbance 9 580 ran
I
JCALIBRATION: solutions of formaldehyde in
• distilled water
i
!RANGE: 2 to 40 yg per sample
i
ESTIMATED 100: 0.5 W3 per sample [2,3]
i
iPRECISION (sr): 0.03 [2]
APPLICABILITY: The working range is 0.02 to 0.4 ppm (0.025 to 0.5 mg/m») for an 80-L air
sample. Thls is the most sensitive formeldehyde method in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical
Met,.od t.nd is able to measure ceiling levels as low as 0.1 ppm (15-L sample) It is also
preferred for the determination of formaldehyde in area samples at all concentrations due to
it* simplicity.
INTERFERENCES: Phenols, in 8-fold excess over formaldehyde, produce a -101 to -201 bias [4]
Ethanol and higher H.H. alcohols, olefins, aromatic hydrocarbons [5] and cyclohexanone also
produce small negative interferences [41. Little interference is seen from other aldehyde [4]
OTHER METHODS: This method was originally adapted fro» the Intersociety Camittec [6] and
designated PtCAM 125 [4]. For personal samples or where interferences to this method are
present, use Method 2502.
2/15/84
3500-1
B-2
-------
FORMALDEHYDE
METHOD: 3500
REAGENTS:
1. Chromotropic acid.lt. Dilute 0.10 g
4,5-dihydroxy-2,7-naphthalene
disulfonic acid disodium salt to
10 ml with distilled water. Filter.
Store in brown bottle. Prepare
fresh weekly.
2. Sulfuric acid, 96V*
3. Formaldehyde stock solution.
1 mg/mL (See APPENDIX).
4. Formalin solution, 371.*
5. Distilled, deionized water.
6. Sulfuric acid, 0.02 N, aqueous.
7. Sodium hydroxide. 0.01 N, aqueous.
8. Sodium sulfite, 1.13 N, aqueous.
9. Sodium bisulfite, 11. Dissolve 1 g
in distilled water. Dilute to
100 ml. Prepare fresh weekly.
*See Special Precautions.
EQUIPMENT:
1. Sampler: 37-fl» filter cassette with 37-mn
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane filter, 1-
to 3-j*i pore size followed by two midget
impingers; inert, flexible tubing for
cassette-to-impinger connection.
2. Personal sampling pump, 0.2 to 1 L/min, with
flexible connecting tubing.
3. Bottles, screw-
-------
METHOD: 3500 FORMALDEHYDE
CALIBRATION AND QUALITY CONTROL:
7. Prepare a calibration stock solution by dilution of 1 ml of 1 mg/mL formaldehyde stock
solution to 100 mL with It sodium bisulfite solution.
8. Pipet, e.g., 0, 0.1. 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0 and 2.0 mL calibration stock solution into 25-mL
glass-stoppered flasks.
9. Add 11 sodium bisulfite solution to bring the volume of each working standard to 4 mL.
NOTE: These working standards contain approximately 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 20 pg
formaldehyde. Use the exact values based on standardization of the formaldehyde
stock solution.
10. Analyze together with samples and blanks (steps 12 through 15.
11. Prepare calibration graph (absorbance vs. pg formaldehyde/4 ml).
MEASUREMENT:
12. Add 0.1 mL 11 chrcmotropic acid to the flask and mix.
13. Add 6 mL cone. J^SOj slowly to the flask. Replace the stopper gently. Gently swirl
the solution to mix.
CAUTION: Exothermic reaction.
14. Heat the solution to 95 °C for 15 min. Cool the solution to room temperature.
NOTE: Use caution due to the corrosive nature of hot suIfuric acid and the possible
pressure buildup within the flask.
15.' Read sample absorbance at 580 nm in a 1-on cuvette.
NOTE: If absorbance is greater than the highest standard, take a smaller aliquot, dilute to
4 mL with 11 sodium bisulfite solution, and analyze.
CALCULATIONS:
16. Calculate the mass, pg, of formaldehyde in each front impinger (Hf), back impinger
(Mfc) and average blank impinger (Ng). use the appropriate aliquot factor (e.g.,
4 mL aliquot/original volume from step 6) and the total sample volume noted in step 5.
NOTE: Discard the sample if the mass found in the backup impinger exceeds 1/3 the mass
found in the front impinger. Collection efficiency is <0.95 for each impinger.
17. Calculate the concentration, C (mg/m3), of formaldehyde in the air volume sampled, V (L):
EVALUATION OF THE METHOD:
The method was checked for . pproducibility by having three different analysts in three
different laboratories analyze standard samples containing between 1 and 20 pg formaldehyde.
The results agreed within ± 51 [6]. This method was independently compared with the
2,4.-dinitropheny1hydrazin»coatedsilica gel method of Beasley et al. over the range of 0.8 to
2.2 ppm formaldehyde [8] and was found to give approximately 251 lower concentrations.In
another study comparing this method, P4CAH 318 [7], and the method of Beasley, et al., all
three methods were found to be statistically equivalent under laboratory test conditions and
loadings from 8.2 to 22.4 pg per sample of formaldehyde [9].
2/15/84 3500-3
B-4
-------
FORMALDEHYDE _ _ __ - METHOD: 3500
REFERENCES:
[1] MIOSH Current Intelligence Bulletin 34. "Formaldehyde: Evidence of Carcinogenicity," U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Publ. (NIOSH) (MIOSH) Publication Mo. 81-111
(1981).
[2] Formaldehyde. Mo. S327 Failure Report, NIOSH/OSHA Standards Completion Program Contract
Report (1976).
[3] User check, Southern Research Institute, NIOSH Sequence *3500 (unpublished.
November 10. 1963).
[4] NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods. 2nd ed., V.I, P4CAH 125, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Publ. (NIOSH) 77-157-A (1977).
[5] Sleva, S .F. Determination of Formaldehyde: Chromotropic Acid Method, PHS Publication
999_AP-11, H-l (1965).
[6a] "Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis," Method 111, Intersociety Coimittee for a Manual of
Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC,
194-198 (1972).
[6b] M.Katz, ed., "Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis," 2nd ed., Intersociety Committee on
Methods of Air Sampling and Analysis, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC,
Method 116, 303-307 (1977).
[7] NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed.. V.6. P4CAN 318, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Publ. (NIOSH) 80-125 (1980)
[8] Beasley, R. K., C. E. Hoffmann, H. L. Reupoel and 0. W. Worley. Anal. Chem. . 52,
1110-1114 (1980).
[9] Kennedy, E. R., 0. L. Smith, M. Bolyard and R. Hornung. Further Adventures in
Formaldehyde Sampling and Analysis, Poster Session at 1982 American Industrial Hygiene
Conference, Cincinnati, OH (1982).
METHOD REVISED BY: Eugene R. Kennedy, Ph.D., NIOSH/OPSE.
APPENDIX:
PREPARATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF FORMALDEHYDE STOCK SOLUTION (ca. 1 mg/mL)
Dilute 2.7 ml 371 formalin solution to 1 L with distilled, deionized water. Standardize as
follows:
Place 5.0 mL 1.13 H sodium sulfite solution in a 50-mL beaker, stirred with a magnetic
stirrer. Adjust pH to betwt..? 7 and 9 with base or acid. Record the pH. Pipet 10.0 mL stock
formaldehyde solution into the beaker. The pH should now be about 12. Titrate the solution
back to its original pH with 0.02 N sulfuric acid. (1 mL of 0.02 N sulfuric acid = 0.600 mg
HOC; about 17 mL acid needed.) Calculate the concentration, C^ (mg/mL), of the stock
formaldehyde solution:
where: 30.0 = 30.0 g/equivalent of formaldehyde
Na « normality of sulfuric acid
Va • volume of acid (mL) used for titration
Mfc = normality of NaOH
Vb = volume of NaOH (mL) used for back titration
Vs = volume of HCHO stock solution (10.0 mL).
2/15/84 3500-4
B-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
MODELING RESULTS
C-l
-------
Colorado Department of Health
Air Pollution Control Division
INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION
TO: Cathy Rhodes
FROM.-A. Dresser
DATE: March 19, 1987
SUBJECT: Additional L-P Olathe
Modeling
The ISCST dispersion model was used to estimate the impacts of TSP and
formaldehyde based on the revised emission rates you provide. The impact of
MOI was obtained by scaling the results of an earlier analysis (memo to Jim
Geier dated August/20, 1987). Five years of hourly meteorological data
(1977-81) from Grand Junction was used in the modeling. Concentrations were
calculated at 39 receptor locations. The overall modeling procedure that was
followed is similar to that outlined in a November 21, 1985 memo to you. That
memo described the PSD modeling done for Olathe.
The stack parameters and emission rates used are given below.
Konus _ Wafer Dryer West Vent East Vent
Stack H-t(m)
Gas Temp. (K°)
Exit Vel. (m/s)
Stack Dia (m)
TSP (g/s)
formaldehyde (g/s)
MDI (g/s)
Results are given in Table 1. The annual TSP concentration was scaled up from
the 24-hour concentration using a factor of 0.25.
TABLE 1
22.9
511
29.8
0.8
0.09
0.0
0.0
30.5
373
19.3
1.2
2.26
1.35
0.0025
19.8
305
9.4
1.6
0.54
0.02
0.0038
19.8
307
12.4
1.6
0.53
0.02
0.0038
Maximum Impacts Due to the L-P Olathe Facility
Pollutant
Formaldehyde
TSP
MOI
Averaging Time
1-hour
8-hour
24-hour
1-hour
24-hour
Annual
1-hour
8-hour
24-hour
annual
Date
1 2/23/81
(hr. 4)
6/07/77
(hrs. 9-16)
5/06/77
7/26/77
(hr. 22)
5/06/77
1977
8/01 /81
(hr. 24)
9/29/78
(hrs. 17-24)
7/25/77
1978
Receptor
18
8
8
20
8
20
20
20
12
Concentration
(ug/ml)
62.0
27.4
15.0
403.3
38.8
9.7
2.76
0.55
0.23
0.04
A0:tb
04690/pg 105/
C-2
-------
^-'£21;
- >
uiO
..^
^
/
-ttfr^f
/
9
2
O LP
\ 1 I
1 ,r<
> \ ^
\G.
w-
\d
)\6
4
-i- L, n
J v!
* >
\ £
'
^.
1^-'
I
i
1
i
u;
«Z r«a3251
•#
^ xi
J^?'^
•&r}
ut-;
%»^r-.
-' V
/>-/
C-3
-------
FIGURE 4-2 Wind Frequency Distribution Plot for
Grand Junction, Colorado
(1977-1981)
C-4
-------
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC OLATHE
CALdH.»TF. (CONCF.NTRATIONsi , DEPOSIT IONs2)
»FCFPT».R GRID SYSTE»« (RECT ANGULARal OR 3, POLARS2 OH U)
"1SCPF.TF wECFPTHR SYSTEM (RECT ANGULARsJ .POL AR = ?)
TF"VATN ELEVATIONS ARF READ ( VESai ,M.lsO )
CALCULATIONS A«»fc WHITTFN TO TAPE (YESsl. NQsOl
LTST ALL INPUT DATA ( M0»0, YESsl .MET DATA ALSOs21
CO^PHTF AVERAGE CONCtNTRATION (OR TOTAL DEPOSITION)
*ITH THfe FOLLOWING TIME PERIODS!
HOURLY (YES=« .N'OsO)
(YESsl. NOso)
4-HOHR (YESsl. NOaOl
(..HOUR (YFSsI .NOsO)
(YtSs1.MO=0)
PPIMT
T*»LF(S) (YESsl.NOso)
THP FilLLUv^lNG TYPES UF TABLES r.MOSfc TIME PERIODS ARE
BY IS«(71 THROUGH ISW(1«)t
D*TLY TABLES fYtSst.NQsO)
HIGHEST t. SECOND HIGHEST TABLES (YE3«l,NQsO)
MAXIMUM SO TABLES (YE3«1,NO«0)
..rTrprp, -iGTrr L f£T* tuftit "fTHfir (Ppf-pppcrs?rci3-rrr»ffn=2i - -
^i r-Ai .ii»'tl, ".iPTTur fPii.sn.oP. "Ot-t »=ltUP. MQOE 2=2. UR. MQPE 3s3)
ul.jii PCC'FUE t»P(iNF.NT VALUtS (DEF AULTS^l .USER ENT£RS»2,3)
Vgi'TTCfiU POT. TE"P. GRADIENT VALUES (DEFAULTSsl .USER ENTER3=2.3)
SCALF EMISSION RATES FOR ALL SOURCES (NOaO,YE3>0)
F-RI'GPAM CALCULATES FINAL PLUME RISE ONLY (YES*l,NOs2)
PPOGPAC AOJUSTS ALL STACK HEIGHTS FOR DO*NWA3H (YES»2.NQsl)
pMor.PAM uses BUOYANCY INDUCED DISPERSION (YEs=i.Nos2)
Cr)^CFN^»ATIIl^3 DURING CALM PERIODS SET a o (YESsl. N0s2)
Prti. DEFAULT OPTION CHOSEN (YESsl. NQa2)
TYPF OF PULLUT»NT TO BE MODELLED (1=302. 2=OTHER)
CH05FM (isYESf2aNO)
14111 HFR »'*•' I'iPUT SOtlHCFS
inifhFp HF sci'ipch GROUPS (so. ALL SOURCES)
TI'E Pfcfion INT6KVAL TO HE PRINTED (=0,ALL INTERVALS)
M^^PP OF Y (rf»N(;E) r;pio VALUF.S
• M MFC
LUMC»L UNIT 'in^HF.R OF MfeTEOHQLUGICAL OAJA
DECAY C'lEFFICIF.NT FOR PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL DEPLETION
?IIWF»CE STATION NO.
tfcAB OF SURFACE DATA
UPPF.p AIR ?TATTON NO.
Y£AW nF HPPtw *I» DATA
ALLOCATED DATA STORAGE
UATA STORAGE FOR THI3 PROBLEM RUN
ISW(l) s
ISW(2) s
ISM(3) s
ISW(U) a
ISW(5) a
ISM(6) >
ISK(7) s
ISW(8) a
ISWO) =
ISW(IO) =
ISM(ll) s
I3M(12) a
ISN(13) =
I3H(14) a
ISM(IS) a
ISh(lb) s
ISWd?) a
ISN(IB) s
ISWCfJI =
ISM(20) a
I3W(2l) s
ISM(22) a
ISW(23) s
I3M(2a) a
ISW(25) s
ISM26) »
ISW(27) s
ISW(28) a
IS" (29) a
ISN(30) s
NSOURC s
NGROUP s
IPERD =
NXPNTS a
»rVPMT<» r
IMET a
DECAY =0
133 *
I3Y a
IUS *
IUY s
LIMIT s
M1MIT s
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
t
0
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
9
.0
23066
Bl
23066
at
43500 WORDS
1480 WORDS
C-5
-------
•*« LOUISIANA-PACIFIC OLATHF
***
**» METEOROLOGICAL DAVS TO BE PROCESSED ***
0
1
t
1*4
• I
tPf
»Ef
<
1 t
1
>
101
)NC
> (
IF
FIR!
IT
T>
we
>UC
>H
F]
F1
rn
Ml
NO !
IPf
EC
I C
Al
rEG
OR
IE
S
*•
*
i
1
(METEPS/SEC)
1.51. 3.09. 5.14, B.23. 10.AC.
-------
*** NINO PROFILE EXPONENTS ***
STABILITY
CATEGORY
A
H
C
n
F.
F
.70000E-OI
.70AOOE-01
. I5'»f'0t+00
MIND
2
70000E-01
70000E-01
lOOOOEtOO
ISOOOEtOO
35000EtOO
SSOOOEtOO
SPEED CATEGORY
3
.70000E-01
.70000E-OJ
.IQOOOEtOO
.ISOOflEtOO
.35000EtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
4
.70000E-OI
.70000E-OI
.lOOOOFtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.35000E+00
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-OI
.IOOOOE+00
.1SOOOE+00
.SSOOOEtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
.70000E-01
.70000E-01
.lOOOOEtOO
.ISOOOEtOO
.JSOOOEtOO
.SSOOOEtOO
*** VERTICAL POTENTIAL TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS ***
(DEGREES KELVIM PER METFR)
o
i
—i
ST4HILITY
CATEGORY
A
H
C
0
E
f
.0
.0
.0
.0
»IND SPEED CATEGORY
,351'OOE-OI
.0
.0
.0
.0
.20000E-01
.35000E-01
."
.0
.0
.0
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-OI
.0
.0
.0
.0
.20000F-01
.3SOOOE-OI
.0
.0
.0
.0
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
.0
.0
.0
.0
.20000E-01
.3SOOOE-01
-------
*** LOUISIANA-PACIFIC ULATHE
o
I
00
•** X,Y COORDINATES OF DISCRETE RECEPTORS ***
(METERS)
500.0,
125.0,
1 flS.O,
3JO.O,
215.0,
«25.0,
2IS.C.
0.0)
175.0)
0.0)
1 ?0.0)
75.0)
1*0. C)
•1?5.0)
-AO.'i)
( 55.0,
( 150.0,
( 185.0,
( 1Q5.0,
( -375.0,
( -290.0,
( o.o,
( 100.0,
260.0). 890.0, 1542.0). ( -1926.0, 2140.0), -1391.0, -562.0).
50.0). 60.0, 160.0). ( -225.0, 210.0), -240.0, 0.0).
-150.0). 120.0, 100.0). ( 0.0, 210.0). 0.0, -2,40.0).
65.0). 170.0, 120.0). ( 0.0, 260.0), 235.0, 0.0).
1HO.O). -285.0, 270.0). ( -345.0, 270.0), -335.0, 75.0).
0.0). -120.0, -165.0). ( -180.0, -90.0), -165.0, -175.0).
-290.0). -70.0, 270.0). ( -80.0, 315.0). 90.0, -195.0),
-2«0.0). 275.0, -65.0). ( 220.0, -1850.0),
-------
«•• LOUISIANA-PACIFIC QUATHE
***
VO
- V -
HOT.
* ELEVATION HEIGHTS IN METERS *
* FOR THE DISCRETE RECEPTOR POINTS *
- X -
HGT.
- X -
HGT.
S00..1
•1^26.11
150. n
-24 (..rt
120.0
-S30.0
O.t»
-175.0
-J35.0
-120.0
-21^.0
- P 0 . 0
IOO.C
n.o
2140.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
1 20.0
260.0
1*0.0
75.0
-165.0
-1 ?5.0
315.0
-?40.0
12.10203
0.0
6.09601
0.0
6.006CI
0.0
12.10203
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
-1391.0
60.0
185.0
0.0
195.0
235.0
-285.0
-425.0
-180.0
0.0
90.0
275.0
260.0
-562.0
160.0
0.0
210.0
65.0
0.0
270.0
180. 0
-90.0
-290.0
-195.0
-65.0
12,19203
12.19203
6.09601
6.09601
6,09601
12.19203
12.19203
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
890.0
125.0
-225.0
185.0
0.0
170.0
-285.0
-345.0
-290.0
-165.0
-70.0
230.0
220.0
1542.0
175.0
210.0
-150.0
-240.0
120.0
75.0
270.0
0.0
-175.0
270.0
-60.0
-1850.0
18.28802
6.09601
0.0
6.09601
0.0
12.19203
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.09601
0.0
-------
»•• LI'IIJSIANA-PACIFIC OLATHE
***
*•* SOURCE DATA ***
MMSSIOlj HAU TEMP.
IVEsO.I TVPE*0
I • (i;P*«S/SbC) (DEG.K)i
v * Mr ittP 1VPt»2 BASE VERT. DIM
sniil-ft- P K PAP1. (GRAf'S/SEC) , X V ELEV. HEIGHT TYPEs|
••!•• i't-K f f CMS. •!»£•* *tTER«*2 (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS) (METERS)
loo o o.o
? it C «i O.I3500E+01
s o o o 0.2AOOOE-01
4 u 0 n 0.?OOOOE-0
CAI M mniRs (s|) FUR DAV 1
CALM HOU»S («l) FUR DAV
CAL* HOIWS (si) FOR OAY
f n u kjni ID o t f t \ f f\o ff\ A v
CALM MOUIO l«II rtlK DAT
CALM HOURS (*i) FOR DAY
CALM HOURS (sl) FOR DAV
CALM HOURS (s|) FOR DAV
i fALM HOU»S (sl) FOR 0»V
|__i f* A 1 M MriilDtt f si 1 f(\Q AAV
£~ CALM H(JU"3 1*1 1 rut* D*T
^~^ •• A i u unnoc / v i % f no ft A v
CALM HUU"5 l*| 1 rUK PAY
CALM HOURS (*1) FOR DAV
CALM HllliKS ( = 1) FOR OAY
CALM HOIIPS (*l) FOR DAY
CALM HOURS (*l) FUR DAY
CALM HOllPS (sl) FOR OAY
CALM HOUKS ( = 1) FOR O'Y
CALM HOURS ( = 1) FOR DAY
CALM HOllPS («l) FUR 0»Y
CALM HOURS (»l) FliR 0»Y
CALM HUUPS (*l) FUR OAV
CALM HOURS ( = n FUR OAV
TAL* HOURS (s|) FdR DAY
CALM HOUKS (=1) FOR 0«Y
CALM HduWS ( = 1 ) FliR 0»Y
CALM HOUPS (sl) FUR OAY
CALM HUMPS (=1) FUR OAY
CALM HllUPS ( = 1) FDH OAY
2
4
6
«
10
II
1 2
1 C
1*
3
14
IS
16
17
• A
1 9
19
?0
21
2J
25
?fc
?7
2fl
?9
JO
31
32
1
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
o
Q
0
0
II
0
0
0
a
0
c
0
0
1
-IA.O
-30.0
3.0
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(I
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 •
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
«5.
5.
3.
-5.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.0
1 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
t
fl
0
0
1
22.90
JO. 50
19.80
19.00
000
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
511.00
373.00
307.00
EXIT VEL,
TYPEsfl
(M/SEC)|
HORZ.DIM
TYPEst.2
(METERS)
DIAMETER
TYPEsfl
(METERS)
29.80
19.10
12.40
305.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.40
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
I
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0.80
1.20
1.60
1.60
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
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
0
1
BLOC. BLDG. BLOC.
HEIGHT LENGTH WIDTH
TVPEeO TYPE=0 TYPEsQ
(METERS) (METERS) (METERS)
19.00 4|.50 41.50
19.80 41.50 41.50
19.00 41.50 41.50
19.80 41.50 41.50
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
-------
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC OLATME
***
- V -
o
* 365-OAY AVERAGE CONCtNTRATION (MICHOGRAMS/CUBIC METER)
* FROM ALL SOURCES *
* FOR THE DISCRETE RECEPTOR POINTS *
- X -
CON.
- V -
CON. '
sno.o
-19,»h.O
150.0
-?«0.t
110.0
-110.!)
«.«
-175. ,1
-115.0
-i?o.«
-?15.0
-*0.fl
100.0
0.0
2140.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
120.0
2*0.0
180.0
75.0
-105.0
-t?5.0
115.0
-2«0.0
0.5J9?9
A. 19410
0.29165
o.insia
0.20905
0.56681
0.16918
0.7644?
0. 18716
0.15809
0.25861
0.251C7
0.2'JMO
55.0
•1191.0
60.0
185.0
0.0
195.0
215.0
1 -285.0
-425.0
•160.0
0.0
90.0
275.0
260.0
•562.0
160.0
0.0
210.0
65.0
0.0
270.0
180.0
-90.0
-290.0
-195.0
-65.0
0.22094
0.14141
0.15672
0.57262
0.28595
0.10642
0.71246
0.73672
0.60913
0.32212
0.19336
0.29268
0.31865
890.0
125.0
•225.0
185.0
0.0
170.0
-285.0
•345.0
-290.0
-165.0
•70.0
210.0
220.0
1542.0
175.0
210.0
•1SO.O
•240.0
120.0
75.0
270.0
0.0
•175.0
270.0
•60.0
•1850.0
0.05920
0.15921
0.72647
0.74174
0.223SO
0.294U4
0.51967
0.89fe69
0.26876
0.23288
0.23618
0.49563
0.09470
-------
•** LOUISIANA-PACIFIC QLATHE
o
I
- x -
• HIGHEST 1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICRQGRAMS/CUBIC METER)
* FROM ALL SOURCES *
* FOK THE DISCRETE RECEPTOR POINTS *
- Y -
CON.
(DAY,HOUR)
- Y -
CON.
(DAY.HOUR)
500.0
090.0
-1 391 .0
150.0
-?25.0
1 65.0
120.0
0.0
|95.0
0 0
V . '
-285 0
C ** * • **
-215.0
-355.0
-I8o!o
-215.0
-70.0
on n
' *J . V
110.0
220.0
0.0
1542.0
-562.0
50.0
210.0
0.0
I 00.0
-240.0
65.0
260.0
75.0
f •* % •«•
270.0
75.0
Oil
•
-90.0
-125.0
270.0
-195.0
-240.0
-1850.0
24.28
18.07
12.98
39.83
24.83
34.12
03.01
18.23
45.03
3«.99
18.37
22.49
17.59
19.49
32.68
24.21
17.41
20.32
17.91
9.74
(236,16)
(185,24)
(161, 4)
(323, 1)
(284, 3)
(233,11)
((A8, 20)
(164, 4)
(186,17)
(232,21)
(211, 4)
(284. 3)
(177,21)
(108, 3)
(229,24)
U36, 1)
(176,22)
(174,23)
(221,16)
(156, 9)
55.0
-1926.0
125.0
60.0
-240.0
185.0
0.0
-330.0
170.0
235.0
-375.0
-345.0
-425.0
-120.0
-165.0
0.0
-80.0
230.0
275.0
260.0
2140.0
175.0
160.0
0.0
-150.0
210.0
120.0
120.0
0.0
180.0
270.0
180.0
-165.0
-175.0
-290.0
315.0
-60.0
-65.0
42.02
7.28
50.70
39.39
27.07
28.13
37.95
16.88
54.36
41.07
16.05
16.13
14.64
26.68
23.69
15.99
16.45
29.66
19.37
(159.20)
(284. 3)
(273.21)
(235.20)
(232. 1)
(214.18)
(163.20)
(213,11)
(357, 4)
(218.16)
(195.23)
(163. 8)
(189.24)
(262,20)
(208.22)
(205.18)
(176,22)
(159,17)
(174.16)
-------
*** LOUISIANA-PACIFIC OLATHE
***
o
I
* SECOND HIGHEST
CON.
1-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAHS/CUBIC METER)
* FROM ALL SOURCES *
* FOR THE DISCRETE RECEPTOR POINTS *
(DAY,HOUR)
- X -
- Y -
CON.
(DAY,HOUR)
600.0
l»9o.i)
-1)91 .1
150.0
-?25.o
|AS.O
1 20.0
0.0
195.0
0.0
-2*5.0
-2*5.0
-3JS.O
-290.0
-tflo.o
-?15.0
-70.0
90.0
100.0
220.0
0.0
1542.0
-562.0
50.0
210.0
A.O
100. 0
•200.0
65.0
260.0
75.0
270.0
75.0
0.0
-90.0
-125.0
270.0
-195.0
-200.0
-1850.0
21.19
M. 66
11.59
35.03
19.08
33.91
37.65
17.72
43.96
36.64
in. 15
17.66
17.10
19.47
31.82
23. S6
lfc.30
20.20
17. 6«
7.20
(187,21)
( 80,23)
(230, 1)
(108,16)
(177,10)
(218,16)
(171.20)
(115,19)
(158,15)
(267,20)
(266. 2)
(177,10)
(190, 1)
(232, I)
( 3«, 4)
(296,23)
(177,22)
(111,23)
(203.18)
(281,15)
55.0
-1926.0
125.0
60.0
-210.0
185.0
0.0
-330.0
170.0
235.0
-375.0
-3«5.0
-425.0
-120.0
-165.0
0.0
-80.0
230.0
275.0
260.0
21«0.0
175.0
160.0
0.0
-150.0
210.0
120.0
120.0
0.0
180.0
270.0
180.0
-165.0
-175.0
-290.0
315.0
-60.0
-65.0
37.96
5.98
33.35
35.58
26.81
27.44
35.92
15.89
48.63
40.14
15.73
15.76
14.57
25.26
22.67
15.78
15.22
29.40
19.24
(271,17)
(182, 4)
(184.24)
(116.15)
(102, 4)
(154.22)
(260. S)
(246. 8)
(357. 3)
(229.17)
(240. 1)
(209.24)
(206.12)
( 69.23)
(171.23)
(193.24)
(125.17)
(185.16)
(159.14)
-------
*»• LOUISIANA-PACIFIC OLATHE
O
i
- It -
* HIGHEST 24-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICROGRAMS/CUBIC METER)
* FROM ALL SOURCES *
* FOR THE DISCRETE RECEPTOR POINTS *
CON.
(DAV.PEft }
- X ~
- V -
CON.
(DAY,PER )
500.0
*9<1.0
-1191. A
150.0
-22^. fl
185.0
1 21. A
0.0
1 95.0
0.0
•295. 0
.>4S. A
• ^ •
-515.0
-29o.o
•1 80.0
-215.0
• 70.0
90.0
100.0
220.0
0.0
1512.0
•562.0
50.0
210.0
0.0
100.0
•240.0
65.0
260.0
75.0
270.0
75.0
0.0
•40.0
•125.0
270.0
-195.0
•240.0
•1850.0
3.15
0.79 C
1.12 C
4.45 C
1.99 C
4.28
3.20 C
2.36
5.68 C
5.59
3.66 C
4.01 C
2.13
2.20 .
3.36 C
2.06
2.22
2.89
2.34
0.98 C
(229, 1)
(185, I)
( 94, 1)
(150, t)
(243, 1)
(131, 1)
( 92, t)
(33U, 1)
(158, 1)
( 56, 1)
( 42, I)
(243, t)
(190, h
f20«, 1)
( 38, 1)
(207, 1)
(125, 1)
(137, 1)
(137, 1)
( 87, 1)
55.0
•1926.0
125.0
60.0
-240.0
185.0
0.0
•330.0
170.0
235.0
-375.0
-345.0
•425.0
-120.0
-165.0
0.0
-80.0
230.0
275.0
260.0 i
2140.0 I
175.0
160.0
0.0
-150.0
210.0
120.0
120.0
0.0
180.0
270.0
180.0
-165.0
-175.0
•290.0
315.0 \
-60.0 <
-65.0 2
>.48 C
>.91
.34
.**
.05
.31
.14
.18 C
.15 C
.89
.33
.94
.52 C
.47
.95 C
.73
J.23
1.29
1.28
( 92. 1)
(241. 1)
(163, 1)
(116. 1)
(208. 1)
(164. 1)
( 56. t)
( 42. 1)
(357. 1)
(171. 1)
(210,
(277,
( 42.
(259.
(124.
(334,
(125.
(155.
(155.
-------
*** LOUISIANA-PACIFIC OL*THf
***
O
i
- X -
* SECOND HIGHtST 24-HOUR AVERAGE CONCENTRATION (MICRQGRAM3/CUBIC METER)
* FROM ALL SOURCES *
* FOR THE DISCRETE RECEPTOR POINTS *
CON.
(OAV.PER )
- X -
- V -
CON.
(DAY,PER )
soo.o
*90.0
-1391.0
150.0
-225.0
14S.O
120.0
fl.A
195.0
0.0
-?f«5.0
-2*15.0
-JJ5.1
.PQO . 0
-1 Ad .0
-215.0
• 70. A
90.0
100.0
220.0
0.0
1542.0
-56?. 0
50. C
210.0
0.0
100.0
-240.0
65.0
?f>0.0
75.0
270.0
75.0
().0
** • v
-40.0
-125.0
270.0
-195.0
-240.0
-1850.0
5. It
0.63
1.03
2.87
3.«6
d. 07
5.09
1.87
3.64
5.57
2.71
J.79
1.94
1 .06
2.«0
1.89
2.09
2.30
2.34
0.95
C
C
C
C
C
C
(171,
( 31,
(306,
(253,
(205,
( «3,
(357,
(137,
(230,
( «5,
(321,
(205,
(321,
(246,
(207,
(336.
(241,
(111.
(334,
(334.
55.0
-1926.0
125.0
60.0
-240.0
165.0
0.0
-330.0
170.0
235.0
-375.0
-345.0
-425.0
-120.0
-165.0
0.0
-80.0
230.0
275.0
260
2140
175
160
0
-150
210
120
120
0
160
270
180
-165
-175
-290
315
. -60
-65
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
0
2
2
1
5
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
1
1
1
2
3
2
.26
.as _
.92 C
;39
.97
.17
.82
.33
.90 C
.75
.26
.19
.17
.23 C
.70 C
.60
.20
.80
.39
(140,
(254,
(273.
(104.
(254.
(165.
( 85.
(271.
(156.
(229,
(206.
(205.
(301.
(245,
(245,
(137,
.(281,
(160,
(160.
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
U
U
i)
1)
1)
1)
1)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-87-021
I. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Evaluation of Emission Sources at a Waferboard
Manufacturing Plant
5. REPORT DATE
September 1987
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection .Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A State pollution control agency requested' assistance from EPA's Control Technology
Center (CTC) in determining possible emission sources within the plant and assessing
potential controls for those emissions. This report summarizes the results of a
site visit and the review of the plant operations and test reports.
Data gathering involved collection of test reports, permit applications and other
information on waferboard manufacturing operations. States where waferboard is
manufactured were contacted to establish controls used for various operations. A
site inspection was made to examine operations first-hand and to verify controls
in-place. In addition, one State office was visited to discuss the extent of
complaints, stack tests conducted, and results of emission dispersion modeling.
As the control equipment at the plant has improved since its construction in 1983,
complaints have gradually decreased. It appears that substitution of another wood
species for aspen which is currently predominantly used would reduce emissions.
Another potential option for reduction of emissions is a variation of the dryer
operating conditions. Use of a water or caustic scrubber is another potential
control mechanism.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Air Pollution
Pollution Control
Volatile Organic Compounds
Air Toxics
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
78
20. SECURITY CLASS (nils page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |