United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
                    Office of Air Quality
                    Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-89-030
August 1989
Air
<>EPA
Alternative Control
Technology  Document
Halogenated Solvent
Cleaners

-------
                          EPA-450/3-89-030
  Alternative Control
Technology Document
 Halogenated Solvent
       Cleaners
       Emissions Standards Division
   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Office of Air and Radiation
    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
          August 1989
                     tJ.S.

-------
            ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DOCUMENTS
This report is issued by the Emission Standards Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, to provide information to state and local air
pollution control agencies.  Mention of trade names or commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.  Copies of this report are available - as
supplies permit - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, or for a nominal fee, from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22161.

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                                 Page

  1.0     INTRODUCTION	1-1

  2.0     SUMMARY	2-1

  3.0     ORGANIC SOLVENT CLEANER CHARACTERISTICS AND EMISSIONS ....  3-1
          3.1  General	3-1
          3.2  Organic Solvent Cleaning Processes 	  3-2
               3.2.1  Open Top Vapor Cleaners	3-3
               3.2.2  In-line Cleaners	3-13
               3.2.3  Hybrid Cleaners	3-20
               3.2.4  Cold Cleaners	3-23
          3.3  Emission Mechanisms and Types	3-25
               3.3.1  Air/Solvent Vapor Interface Losses during
                      Idling (Idling Losses)	3-26
               3.3.2  Workload Related Losses (Workload Losses) ....  3-32
               3.3.3  Other Losses	3-40
          3.4  Typical Emission Scenarios for Vapor Cleaners	3-44
          3.5  References	3-48

  4.0     EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 	  4-1
          4.1  Introduction	4-1
          4.2  Open Top Vapor Cleaners	4-1
               4.2.1  Controls for Interface Emissions  	  4-7
               4.2.2  Controls for Workload Emissions 	  4-35
               4.2.3  Proper Operating and Maintenance Practices.  .  .   .  4-40
          4.3  In-line Cleaners 	  4-47
               4.3.1  Controls for Interface Emissions	4-49
               4.3.2  Control for Workload Emissions	4-52
               4.3.3  Proper Operating and Maintenance Practices.  .  .   .  4-56
          4.4  Cold Cleaners	4-59
          4.5  Integrated Control Strategies	4-60
               4.5.1  Summary of Solvent Loss Reduction Techniques.  .   .  4-60
               4.5.2  Effective Control  Technique Combinations	4-64
          4.6  Alternative Cleaning Agents	4-66
          4.7  References	4-71

  5.0     COST ANALYSIS
          5.1  Introduction	5-1
          5.2  Costing Methodology	5-2
               5.2.1  Model Cleaner Approach	5-3
               5.2.2  Capital Costs	5-4
               5.2.3  Annual Operating Costs	5-9
                                      m

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

          5.3  Open Top Vapor Cleaners	5-10
               5.3.1  Model Cleaner Parameters	5-10
               5.3.2  Model OTVC Cost Evaluation	5-14
          5.4  In-line Cleaners 	  5-25
               5.4.1  Model Cleaner Parameters	5-25
               5.4.2  Cost Evaluation	5-29
          5.5  References	5.35

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES
Number                                                                  Page
 3-1      Summary of Available Tests - Idling OTVC's	3-29
 3-2      Summary of Emission Tests on Working OTVC's 	  3-36
 3-3      Halogenated Solvent Evaporation Rates 	  3-41
 3-4      Example of Operating Schedule Influence on Solvent
          Cleaner Emissions 	  3-47
 4-1      Summary of Solvent Cleaner Control Techniques 	  4-2
 4-2      Summary of Available Tests - Idling OTVC's  	  4-4
 4-3      Summary of Available Tests 0 Working OTVC's 	  4-5
                                                            2
 4-4      Solvent Loss Rate Versus Spraying Practices (Ib/ft /hr)
          Ten 40 Second Cycles per Hour Gensolv/D, 24 Inch Freeboard. .  4-41
 4-5      Summary of Available Tests - In-line Cleaners 	  4-48
 4-6      Available Control Techniques for OTVC Operations	4-61
 4-7      Available Control Techniques for In-Line Operations 	  4-62
 4-8      Available Control Techniques for Cold Cleaners	4-63
 4-9      Effectiveness of Selected OTVC Control Technique
          Combinations	4-65
 4-10     Effectiveness of Selected In-line Cleaner Control  Technique
          Combinations	4-67
 5-1      Capital Costs (1988) Used in Cost Analysis	5-5
 5-2      Summary of Operating Cost Parameters	5-11
 5-3      Model Cleaner Parameters for Open Top Vapor Cleaners	5-15
 5-4      Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness for
          Model OTVC's Using Methylene Chloride (1988 $)	  5-19
 5-5      Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness for
          Model OTVC's Using Perchloroethylene (1988 $) 	  5-20

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number                                                                  Page

 5-6      Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model OTVC's using Trichloroethylene (1988 $) 	  5-21

 5-7      Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model OTVC's using 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1988 $)....  5-22

 5-8      Summary of Retofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model OTVC's using Trichlorotrifluoroethane (1988 $).  .  .  5-23

 5-9      Model Cleaner Parameters for In-Line Cleaners 	  5-26

 5-10     Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model In-Line Cleaners using Methylene Chloride (1988  $).  5-30

 5-11     Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model In-Line Cleaners using Perchloroethylene (1988 $)  .  5-31

 5-12     Summary of Retofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model In-Line Cleaners using Trichloroethylene (1988 $)  .  5-32

 5-13     Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model In-Line Cleaners using 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
          (1988 $)	5-33

 5-14     Summary of Retrofit Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness
          for Model In-Line Cleaners using Trichlorotrifluoroethane
          (1988 $)	5-34
                                       VI

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES
Number                                                                  Page
 3-1      Open-top vapor cleaner	3-4
 3-2      Water Separator with Cooling Coil  	   3-6
 3-3      Two compartment vapor cleaner 	   3-9
 3-4      Two compartment vapor cleaner with offset boiling chamber .  .   3-10
 3-5      Open-top vapor cleaner with lip exhaust 	   3-12
 3-6      Cross-rod conveyorized cleaner	3-15
 3-7      Monorail conveyorized cleaner 	   3-16
 3-8      Mesh belt conveyorized cleaner	3-17
 3-9      Schematic diagram of a conveyorized photoresist stripping
          machine	3-19
 3-10     Vibra cleaner	3-21
 3-11     Ferris wheel cleaner	3-22
 3-12     Carburetor cleaner	3-24
 3-13     OTVC idling emission sources	3-27
 3-14     In-line cleaner emission sources  	   3-31
 3-15     OTVC workload related emission sources  	   3-33
 4-1      Typical OTVC covers	4-8
 4-2      Open top vapor cleaner with freeboard refrigeration  device.  .   4-11
 4-3      Freeboard chiller tests - idling conditions  	   4-13
 4-4      Freeboard chiller tests - working  conditions	4-14
 4-5      Effect of primary condenser temperature on uncontrolled  idle
          and working conditions	4-17
 4-6      Open Top Vapor Cleaner with Increased Freeboard 	   4-21
                                      vn

-------
                                LIST OF FIGURES
Number                                                                  paqe
 4-7      Solvent Loss Rate Versus Freeboard Height for Gensolv/ D
          Under Idle Conditions	4-23
 4-8      Effect of Freeboard Ratio - Working Conditions:  6 OTVC
          Tests	4-24
 4-9      Effect of Wind Speed	4-27
 4-10     Lip Exhaust Effects - Idling Conditions 	  4-29
 4-11     Lip Exhaust Effects - Working Conditions	4-30
 4-12     Enclosed Open Top Vapor Cleaners	4-31
 4-13     Automated Parts Handling System 	  4-37
 4-14     Baffled Monorail In-line Cleaner	4-55
 4-15     Baffled Monorail In-line Cleaner with Superheat Device. .  .   .  4-54
                                       vm

-------
                              1.0  INTRODUCTION

     This document applies to cleaning machines that use halogenated
solvents.  It does not pertain to machines, primarily maintenance cleaners,
that use petroleum distillate type solvents (such as mineral spirits and
Stoddard solvents).
     The use of halogenated solvents to clean or otherwise condition the
surface of metal parts, electronic components, and other nonporous substrates
is well established.  The five commonly used halogenated solvents (methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, trichlorotrifluoroethane, and
1,1,1-trichloroethane) possess the physical characteristics necessary to
handle a variety of industrial cleaning situations.  They can dissolve many
common residues from manufacturing processes,  have little or no flammability,
and can achieve a high degree of cleanliness,  even on very small or intricate
parts.  The popularity of halogenated solvent cleaning is evidenced by the
fact that hundreds of millions of pounds of the five solvents are consumed in
cleaning machines each year.
     However, the Environmental  Protection Agency is concerned about the
widespread use of the five solvents for several reasons.  First, trichloro-
trifluoroethane (CFC-113) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) have been
implicated in depletion of the protective stratospheric ozone layer.  Second,
methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene have shown
evidence of being carcinogens in animals, and likely will be classified by
the Agency as possible or probable human carcinogens.  Finally,
trichloroethylene and some components of solvent blends are photochemically
reactive and contribute to the problem of unacceptably high ground level

                                     1-1

-------
ozone concentrations  in many urban areas across the United States.   For
solvent cleaning operations, these concerns are significant because  the vast
majority of solvent cleaner consumption stems from fugitive loss of  solvent
into the workplace, and from there, into the atmosphere.  Smaller, but still
significant, amounts  of the halogenated solvent consumption ends up  in still
bottoms or cleanout residues that must be disposed of as hazardous waste.
Usually, relatively minor amounts enter industrial wastewaters from
halogenated solvent cleaning operations.
     The Agency has announced its intent to list methylene chloride,
perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene as hazardous air pollutants and
anticipates regulating them under the Clean Air Act.   The Agency also has
promulgated regulations implementing the Montreal  Protocol  on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (53 FR 30566,  August 12, 1988).   At present, the only
affected chemical widely used in halogenated solvent  cleaners is CFC-113.
The regulations call  for CFC-113 production cuts to 50 percent of 1986
production levels by  the year 1998.  However,  data recently analyzed by
atmospheric scientists suggest that the ozone  layer is being  depleted more
rapidly than predictive models indicated.   Therefore,  the Agency anticipates
revisions to the Montreal  Protocol  to further  reduce  environmental  release of
chemicals capable of delivering chlorine or bromine to the  stratosphere and
catalyzing ozone destruction.   Possible revisions  include total  phaseout of
the CFC's currently subject to the  Montreal  Protocol,  plus  addition of TCA,
and possibly other chemicals,  to the list  of covered  chemicals and
restrictions on TCA production.   Beyond this,  the  Administration of EPA has
announced a commitment on  the part  of the  United States  to  totally  phase out
                                     1-2

-------
by the year 2000 chemicals covered by the current Montreal Protocol.
     Regarding photochemically reactive cleaning solvents (VOC), the Clean
Air Act (CAA) identified December 31, 1987, as the latest date for attainment
of the nation ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone.  As of this
writing, many areas of the country are not in attainment with the ozone
NAAQS.  The Agency has proposed to require States that have ozone
nonattainment areas to submit revised State implementation plant (SIP's) that
describe what steps will be taken to attain the standard (52 FR 45044,
November 24, 1987).  This likely means that States will have to place
additional controls on sources of VOC, including cleaning solvents.
     Another recent action is the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA) promulgation of revised permissible exposure limits
(PEL) for hundreds of chemicals, including trichloroethylene and
perchloroethylene (54 FR 2329, January 19, 1989).  The OSHA also is working
on a separate action to revise the PEL for methylene chloride.   The PEL'S for
trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene were revised downward significantly.
     Considering the promulgated and pending actions affecting the five
solvents and their widespread use in cleaning operations, the Agency saw a
need to disseminate emission control information on solvent cleaners.   This
document is intended primarily to inform State and local  air pollution
control agencies and solvent cleaner operators of available techniques to
reduce solvent emissions and of available alternative cleaning technologies
that can often be used to completely eliminate halogenated solvent use.
                                     1-3

-------
                                 2.0  SUMMARY

     Halogenated solvent cleaners commonly employ one of five halogenated
solvents;  1,1,1-trichloroethane  (TCA), trichloroethylene (TCE),
perchloroethylene  (PCE), methylene chloride (MC), and trichlorotrifluoroethane
(CFC-113).  Sometimes blends of  these solvents or blends of halogenated
solvents with small amounts of nonhalogenated solvents are used.  Historically,
hundreds of millions of pounds of the five solvents have been consumed annually
in solvent cleaners.  Most of the consumed solvent ends up in the atmosphere.
     Cleaning machines vary in size from small benchtop models to industrial
cleaners large enough to contain an automobile and in sophistication from
simple tanks containing solvent  to highly automated multi-stage cleaners.
Machines are categorized into three types:  cold cleaners,  open top vapor
cleaners (OTVC's), and in-line or conveyorized cleaners.  Cold cleaners make
use of room temperature liquid solvent for removing soils.   Although many cold
cleaners do not use halogenated  solvent,  some that do are maintenance machines
often called "carburetor cleaners."  They use a solvent mixture containing MC.
Open top vapor cleaners heat the solvent  to boiling and create a solvent vapor
zone within the machine.   Parts to be cleaned are lowered into the cleaner's
vapor zone.  Solvent vapor condenses on cooler parts dissolving and flushing
away soils.  In-line cleaners are enclosed devices distinguished by a conveyor
system to continuously supply a stream of parts for cleaning.   Cold cleaners
and OTVC are batch operated.   In-line cleaners can be vapor cleaners or cold
cleaners; most are vapor cleaners.   Data  on the number of cleaners in use are
scarce.   Using available industry information, it is estimated that there are
                                      2-1

-------
 around 100,000 carburetor cleaners  using MC,  25,000  -  35,000  OTVC,  and several
 thousand in-line cleaners.
      Emissions from solvent  cleaners  originate  from  sources such  as:   diffusion
 or evaporation of solvent from the  air/solvent  vapor interface, evaporation  of
 solvent  from cleaned parts as  they  are withdrawn  from  the cleaner,  equipment
 leaks, and  solvent  storage and transfer  losses.   The majority of  solvent
 consumed in a cleaner is  lost  to the  air, some  is lost to disposal  of  cleanout
 waste  and distillation  residue, and minor amounts may end up in facility
 wastewater.   Generally, the  carburetor cleaners are  small emission  sources.
 Most employ a solvent blend  that forms a water  layer above the liquid  solvent,
 thereby  dramatically  reducing  evaporative loss. In-line cleaners  and OTVC's  are
 more significant  sources.  Regularly  used OTVC's can emit a few tons or less of
 solvent  per year  or  up  to perhaps 30  or 40 tons, depending heavily on the size
 of the machine, the  type of  parts cleaned, hours of operation, design of the
 cleaner, control  equipment employed,  and the operating  practices followed.
 In-line  cleaners  typically emit more  solvent than OTVC's, primarily because of
 the high volume of parts cleaned.   It is common for an  in-line cleaner to emit
more than 20  tons of solvent per year; some have been reported to  emit over
 100 tons per year.
     To  reduce solvent cleaner emissions, and thereby solvent  consumption,  it
 is necessary  first to purchase a cleaner (or retrofit an  existing  cleaner)  with
solvent  saving devices/features and  second to operate and maintain the cleaner
properly.  Tables 2-1 through 2-3  list the hardware  and operating  practices
that have been shown to reduce solvent consumption in OTVC's,  in-line  cleaners,
and cold cleaners, respectively.  Some control  devices  primarily reduce
                                      2-2

-------
                              TABLE 2-1.  AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR OTVC OPERATIONS
      Source of
     Solvent Loss
       Available Control Hardware
                                                            Operating Practices
     Air/Solvent
       Vapor
       Interface
     Workload
rv>
     Fugitive
t


   1.0 FBR (or higher)
   Freeboard refrigeration device
   Reduced primary condenser temperature
   Automated cover
   Enclosed design
   Carbon adsorber
   Reduced air/solvent vapor interface area

   Automated parts handling at 11 fpm or less
   Carbon adsorber
   Hot vapor recycle/superheated vapor
   system
Sump cooling system for downtime
Downtime cover
Closed piping for solvent and waste
solvent transfers
Leakproof connections;  proper materials
of construction for machine parts and gaskets
                                               t  Place machine where there are no drafts
                                                 Close cover during idle periods
t  Rack parts so that solvent drains
   properly
  Conduct spraying at a downward angle
   and within the vapor zone
  Keep workload in vapor zone until
   condensation ceases
  Allow parts to dry within machine
   freeboard area before removal

t  Routine leak inspection and
   maintenance
  Close cover during downtime

-------
                         TABLE  2-2.   AVAILABLE CONTROL  TECHNIQUES  FOR  IN-LINE OPERATIONS
Solvent Loss
 Mechanism
               Machine  Design
                                                                               Operating Practices
Air/Solvent
  Vapor
  Interface*5
Workload
Fugitive
    1.0  freeboard  ratio
    Freeboard  refrigeration device3
    Reduced  primary  condenser temperature3
    Carbon adsorber
    Minimized  openings (clearance between parts
    and  edge of machine opening is less than
    10 cm or 10% of  the width of the opening)
  Conveyor  speed at 11 fpm or less
t  Carbon adsorber
  Hot vapor recycle/superheated vapor
   system
t  Sump cooling system for downtime
t  Downtime cover or flaps
0  Closed piping for solvent and waste
   solvent transfers
t  Leakproof connections; proper materials
   of construction for machine parts and
   gaskets
t  Rack parts so that solvent drains
   properly
t  Conduct spraying at a downward angle
   and within the vapor zonea
  Keep workload in vapor zone until
   condensation ceases
  Allow parts to dry within machine
   before removal

  Routine leak inspection and
   maintenance
t  Cover ports during downtime
 Applies to in-line vapor cleaners,  but  not  in-line cold cleaners.
}Air/solvent interface for in-line  cold  cleaners.

-------
                                TABLE 2-3.  AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR COLD CLEANERS
         Machine Design
   Operating Practices
        Manual cover
        Water cover with internal baffles
        Drainage facility (internal)
  Close machine during idling and downtime
  Drain cleaned parts for at least
   15 seconds before removal
  Conduct spraying only within the confines of
   the cleaner
ro

-------
 air/solvent interface losses  while others  primarily reduce workload related
 losses.   Carbon  adsorbers  will  control  both.   All  control  hardware would not be
 used  on  one machine  as redundant  emission  control  would  result.   However,
 selected combinations of the  available  control  hardware  will  produce low
 emission machines.   Chapter 4 contains  more  information  on control  device
 combinations.  All listed  operating  practices  can  be usefully employed  on  any
 solvent  cleaner.
      Many States  already regulate  solvent  cleaners, either for VOC  control  or
 for toxic pollutant  control.  However,  the machines controlled to  present  State
 standards may be  further improved  by adoption  of some additional control
 measures  described in  this document.  A significant fraction  of existing
 machines  likely are  uncontrolled.  On the other hand, several  equipment
 manufacturers currently  are selling well designed  solvent  cleaners  using the
 listed controls and  some have improved  designs on  the drawing  board or  in
 prototype  stage.
     On existing machines, the amount of control achieved  by  implementing new
 control measures depends on the measures chosen and the degree of control
 already provided on  the  cleaner.  Relative to an uncontrolled case, installing
 a combination of hardware controls and  implementing good operating practices
 can reduce emissions  in excess of 70 percent.  Chapter 4 describes  in more
detail control efficiency estimates for various scenarios.   For new machines,
 it is difficult to pinpoint what an emission rate reflecting good control
 should be; it depends most heavily on the cleaner size,  type of workload, and
working schedule.  However, in the idling mode (no parts throughput), data
obtained by the Agency indicate that OTVC's with controls are able to achieve
                                      2-6

-------
 an  emission  rate  of 0.07  lb/hr/ft2  of air/solvent  interface  area  or  lower.
 Data  on  working mode emission  rates for  OTVC's  and in-line cleaners  show wide
 variation.
      Costs for purchasing,  installing, and operating  control devices  listed  in
 the tables vary widely  according  to the  type of controls  selected and  the
 degree of sophistication.   For instance, the cost  of  a simple mechanical hoist
 operated by  pushbuttons may be less than $1,000, whereas  a completely
 automated, programmable robot  elevator may cost $10,000 or more.   Both devices,
 properly operated,  will reduce workload  emissions  over a  manually  operated
 cleaner.  The more  expensive model,  however, offers convenience,  flexibility,
 and reduced  labor requirements that are not possible with the less expensive
 model.   Costs detailed  in Chapter 5 represent basic equipment needed to
 accomplish the emission reduction objective, not equipment providing additional
 features unrelated  to emission  reduction.  Overall, the cost analysis shows
 many  instances where control can be  applied cost effectively.  Some control
 scenarios show net  annualized  cost  savings when controls  are applied to an
 uncontrolled machine.
     Although this document focuses  on controls for cleaners using one of the
 five common halogenated solvents or  solvent blends containing them, it is
 possible in many instances to  eliminate their use entirely.   In some cases
water based cleaners can replace existing solvent systems.  Additionally,  new
 solvents and blends are being  introduced that do not contain any of the five
halogenated solvents.  Most of these new solvents are being  developed to
replace use of CFC-113,  which  is being phased out.   Some of  them are based on
heavy hydrocarbons,  and some contain different  partially halogenated compounds.
                                      2-7

-------
     Although these alternative cleaning agents exist or will be available in
the future, they may bring with them a different set of disadvantages.  For
example, they have not yet proven to be replacements (for technical reasons) in
all situations currently handled by one of the five solvents, toxicity tests
have not been completed on some of the proposed substitutes, water based
cleaners may be relatively high energy users and may generate large wastewater
streams, and moving to a substitute cleaning agent generally means buying a new
cleaning machine or making expensive modifications to existing equipment.
These considerations must be taken into account in decisions on how best to
reduce emission of the five halogenated solvents.
                                      2-8

-------
         3.0  ORGANIC SOLVENT CLEANER CHARACTERISTICS AND EMISSIONS
3.1  GENERAL

     Organic solvent cleaners use organic solvents, solvent blends, or their
vapors to remove water-Insoluble soils such as grease, oils, waxes, carbon
deposits, fluxes and tars from metal, plastic, fiberglass, printed circuit
boards, and other surfaces.  Organic solvent cleaning is performed prior to
processes such as painting, plating, inspection, repair, assembly, heat
treatment, and machining.  The same type of machine that is used in cleaning
applications can also be used for drying wet parts (by displacing surface
moisture with solvent and evaporating the solvent) and for conditioning the
surface of plastic parts.  Both nonhalogenated and halogenated solvents may
be used in solvent cleaning.  Examples of the nonhalogenated solvents
typically used are mineral spirits, Stoddard solvents, and alcohols.   The
five commonly used halogenated solvents used are methylene chloride (MC),
perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(TCA), and trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113).  These five solvents can be
used alone or in blends which contain two or more halogenated solvents and
sometimes alcohols.
     Organic solvent cleaning does not constitute a distinct industrial
category but rather is an integral part of many major industries.  The five
2-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that use the largest
quantities of halogenated solvents for cleaning are:  SIC 25 (furniture and
                                     3-1

-------
 fixtures), SIC 34 (fabricated metal products), SIC 36 (electric and
 electronic equipment), SIC 37 (transportation equipment) and SIC 39
 (miscellaneous manufacturing industries).   Additional industries that use
 halogenated solvents in cleaning include SIC 20 (food and kindred products),
 SIC 33 (primary metals),  SIC 35 (nonelectric machinery), and SIC 38
 (instruments and clocks).   Nonmanufacturing industries such as railroad,
 bus,  aircraft, and truck  maintenance facilities;  automotive and electric
 tool  repair shops; automobile dealers;  and  service stations (SIC 40,  41,  42,
 45,  49,  55,  and 75,  respectively)  also  use  organic solvent  cleaners.
      This  chapter describes typical  organic solvent  cleaning processes  and
 emissions  from machines using halogenated solvents.   Section 3.2 describes
 the various  types of cleaners.   Section  3.3 identifies emission  mechanisms
 and presents  test data on  cleaner  emission  rates.  Section  3.4 discusses
 typical  emission  scenarios  for  vapor cleaners.

 3.2   ORGANIC  SOLVENT CLEANING PROCESSES

      There are  three basic  types of  solvent cleaning equipment:  open top
 vapor  cleaners  (OTVC's), in-line (cold and  vapor)  cleaners,  and  batch cold
 cleaners.  The  vast  majority of halogenated solvent use  is  in vapor
 cleaning, both  open  top and in-line.  The primary  solvents  used  in batch
 cold cleaners are mineral  spirits,  Stoddard solvents, and alcohols.  Very
 little halogenated solvent  use has been identified in batch cold cleaning.
     In 1987, an estimated  150,000 metric tons (Mg) of halogenated solvents
were used by OTVC's; 50,000 Mg by in-line vapor cleaners; 30,000 Mg by
                                     3-2

-------
 in-line  cold  cleaners;  and  2,000 Mg  by cold cleaners.   Furthermore, an
 estimated  25,000  to  35,000  OTVC's; 2,000 to 3,000  in-line vapor cleaners;
 500  to 1,000  in-line cold cleaners;  and 100,000 cold cleaners were using
 halogenated solvents in 1987.
     A description of OTVC's  is presented in Section 3.2.1.  Section 3.2.2
 presents information on in-line cleaners while Section 3.3.3 describes cold
 cleaners.

 3.2.1 Open TOD Vapor Cleaners

     Open  top vapor  cleaners  are used primarily in metalworking operations
 and  other manufacturing facilities.  They are seldom used for ordinary
 maintenance cleaning because  cold cleaners using petroleum distillate
 solvents can usually perform  this type of cleaning at a lower cost.
 Exceptions include maintenance cleaning of electronic components,  small
 equipment parts,  and aircraft parts, where a high degree of cleanliness  is
 needed.
     A basic OTVC, shown in Figure 3-1, is a tank designed to generate and
 contain solvent vapor.   At least one section of the tank is equipped with a
 heating system that  uses steam, electricity, hot water,  or heat pumps to
 boil liquid solvent.  As the  solvent boils,  dense solvent vapors rise and
displace the air  inside the tank.   The solvent vapors rise to the  level  of
the primary condensing  coils.  Coolant (such as water)  is circulated or
recirculated through the condensing coils to provide continuous condensation
of rising solvent vapors and, thereby, create a controlled vapor zone which
prevents  vapors from escaping the  tank.  Condensing coils generally are
                                     3-3

-------
Condensing Coils
 Temperature
   Indicator

 Cleanout Door
  Solvent Level Sight Glass
                                                                   Freeboard
                                                                    Condensate Trough
                                                                     Water
                                                                   Separator
         Heating Elements


Work Rest and Protective Grate
                 Figure 3-1.   Open  Top Vapor Cleaner
                                                                                 (N
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 (>
                                          3-4

-------
located around the periphery of the inside walls of the cleaner, although in
some equipment they consist of offset coils on one end or side of the
cleaner.
     All machines have covers of varying design to limit solvent losses and
contamination during downtime or idle time.  Additional control of the
solvent vapor is provided by the freeboard, which is that part of the tank
wall extending from the top of the solvent vapor level to the tank lip.  The
freeboard ratio (FBR), or ratio of freeboard height to machine width
(smaller dimension of vapor-air interface area), usually ranges from 0.75 to
1.0, depending on the manufacturer's design.  The freeboard ratio can be as
low as 0.5 on some older machines.  Air currents within an OTVC can cause
excessive solvent emissions.  Increasing the freeboard ratio reduces the
disturbance of the vapor zone due to workplace air currents and slows
solvent diffusion out of the machine.
     Moisture may enter the OTVC on workloads and also and can condense from
ambient air on primary cooling coils or freeboard refrigeration coils along
with solvent vapors.  If allowed to accumulate, water in an OTVC will lead
to higher emissions and may contribute to solvent decomposition and
corrosion in the cleaner.  Therefore,  nearly all vapor cleaners are equipped
with a water separator based on the principle depicted in Figure 3-2.  The
condensed mixture of water and solvent is collected in a trough below the
condenser coils and directed to the water separator.   The water separator is
a simple container in which the water phase (being essentially immiscible
with and less dense than halogenated solvents) separates from liquid
solvent.  The water is directed to disposal while solvent is allowed to
                                     3-5

-------
                                        Cooling System
              Coolant Inlet
  Water Overflow
Solvent Outlet
                                                         Coolant Outlet
Solvent Inlet
                                                    Drain
                 Figure 3-2.  Water Separator with Cooling Coil
                                            3-6

-------
return to the cleaner.  Cooling coils may be used  inside the  separator to
cool condensed  solvent  and enhance solvent/water separation.
     To  further reduce  water contamination or to replace the  water
separator, some manufacturers produce machines using a canister of
desiccant, such as a molecular sieve.  Use of dessicants prevents prolonged
contact  between water and solvent, which can result in removal of water-
soluble  stabilizers or  co-solvents (such as alcohols) from certain solvents
and blends.  Dessicants also prevent corrosion due to hydrolysis of the
solvent.
     During the vapor cleaning operation, solvent vapors condense on the
cooler workload entering the vapor zone.  Condensing solvent dissolves some
contaminants and flushes both dissolved and undissolved soils from the
workload.  Condensed solvent and dissolved or entrained contaminants then
drain back into the sump below.  When the temperature of the workload
reaches  that of the vapor, condensation ceases and the vapor phase cleaning
process  is complete.
     Organic impurities (greases, soils, etc.) cleaned from parts will
accumulate in the solvent sump.  However, they do not appreciably
contaminate the solvent vapors because of their higher boiling points.
Since the solvent vapor remains relatively pure,  solvent can be used for
longer periods  with vapor cleaning than with cold cleaning where the solvent
more quickly becomes contaminated with dissolved and suspended impurities.
Eventually,  accumulated impurities will  compromise the performance or safety
of vapor cleaners.   To avoid these problems,  contaminated solvent is
periodically drained from the machine and replaced with fresh solvent.
                                     3-7

-------
      Alternatively,  a still  adjacent  to the  cleaner  can  be  used to extract
 soils building up in the solvent  sump and  return  clean solvent  to  the
 machine.   The  solvent feed  system to  the still  can include  a  filter to
 remove insolubles such as metal fines.   Using a still can increase the
 useful  life  of solvent and will concentrate  the impurities.   The lower
 volume, concentrated waste  stream from  the still  will be less expensive  to
 properly  dispose  of.   Waste  streams from solvent  cleaning operations are
 considered hazardous wastes  under the EPA's  regulations  implementing the
 Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA).
      Variations in design of vapor cleaners  reflect their many  industrial
 applications.  Workload  characteristics  and  the degree of cleanliness
 required  by  the particular application dictate many additional  features  on
 the basic model.  Additional examples of vapor cleaners are shown  in
 Figures 3-3  and 3-4.   These  figures show OTVC's with two chambers:  one for
 generating the solvent vapor, the  other  for  immersion cleaning or for
 spraying  applications.
     One OTVC design  variation is  an  immersion-vaporspray cycle.  In this
 design, the  workload  is  lowered into  a warm or boiling immersion compartment
 for precleaning.  The  immersion compartment may be equipped  with
 ultrasonics.   In a machine using ultrasonics, high frequency sound  waves are
 used to produce pressure waves in the liquid solvent.  In areas of  low
 pressure within the liquid,  minute vapor pockets are  formed.  These pockets
collapse as  the pressure  in  the zone cycles to high pressure.   The  constant
creation and  collapse of these vapor pockets (called  cavitation) provides a
scrubbing action to aid cleaning.   Ultrasonically  agitated  liquids  often
                                     3-8

-------
    Condensing
       Coils
     Solvent
   Vapor Zone


 Warm Solvent
 Overflow Dam
    Solvent
Boiling Chamber
Freeboard
                                                         Water
                                                        Separator
             Warm Solvent or Ultrasonics
                Immersion Chamber
           Figure 3-3.  Two Compartment Vapor Cleaner
               o
               f^
               o
                                     3-9

-------
             Condensing
                Coils
 Offset Solvent
Boiling Chamber
                                                              Freeboard
                       Solvent     Warm Solvent or Ultrasonics
                    Overflow Dam     Immersion Chamber
      Figure 3-4.  Two Compartment Vapor Cleaner with Offset
                           Boiling Chamber
CM
o
                                   3-10

-------
need to be heated to specific temperatures to achieve optimum cavitation.
After this first stage of cleaning is completed, the workload is cleaned in
a vapor section and then sprayed with solvent.  Many other cleaning cycles
are possible, some of which incorporate non-boiling solvent sections with
vapor sections.  Spraying may not be necessary or desirable for some
applications.
     Another common variation in design is a vapor-spray-vapor cycle.  In
this design, the workload is lowered into the vapor zone where the
condensing solvent performs the preliminary cleaning.  After condensation
ceases, the workload is sprayed with warm solvent.  The pressure of the
spray aids in physical removal of soil.  In some cases, the warm spray may
be cooler than the workload and will  lower the workload temperature
promoting further solvent condensation on the workload.  The spray nozzle
must be below the vapor line to avoid spraying solvent directly to the
atmosphere and directed downward to avoid turbulence at the air/solvent
vapor interface.
     Lip or slot exhausts,  such as shown in Figure 3-5, are designed to
capture solvent vapors escaping from the OTVC and carry them away from the
operating personnel.  These exhaust systems disturb the vapor zone or
enhance diffusion, thereby increasing solvent losses.  The increased losses
can be significant.  In properly designed lip exhaust systems,  the cover
closes below the lip exhaust inlet level.  The effect of lip exhausts is
discussed further in Chapter 4.
     Parts cleaning in an OTVC can be performed either manually or with the
use of an automated parts handling system.   In manual operation,  the
                                    3-11

-------
             Exhaust Outlet

            (to control device

            or to atmosphere)
                                         Lip Exhaust

                                            Inlet
Figure 3-5.  Open Top Vapor Cleaner with Lip Exhaust
oc
in
O5
in
cs
O)
to
                              3-12

-------
attendant must lower the parts basket into the cleaner and remove the basket
once the cleaning has been completed.  An electrically operated parts
handling system can be operated by push buttons or some can be programmed to
cycle parts through the cleaning cycle automatically.  With a hoist, the
speed of part entry and removal can be controlled and will be consistent
from cycle to cycle.

3.2.2  In-line Cleaners

     In-line cleaners (also called conveyorized cleaners) employ automated
load on a continuous basis.  Although in-line cleaners can operate in the
vapor or non-vapor phase, the majority of all in-line machines using
halogenated solvents are vapor cleaners.  A continuous or multiple-batch
loading system greatly reduces manual parts handling associated with open
top vapor cleaning or cold cleaning.  The same cleaning techniques are used
in in-line cleaning but usually on a larger scale than with open top units.
     In-line cleaners are nearly always enclosed, except for parts/
conveyor inlet and exit openings, to help control solvent losses from the
system.  In-line cleaners are used by a broad spectrum of industries but are
most often found in plants where there is a constant stream of parts to be
cleaned, where the advantages of continuous cleaning outweigh the lower
capital cost of the batch loaded OTVC.  Usually, an in-line cleaner is
individually designed for a specific workload and production rate situation,
rather than being an "off the shelf" item.
     There are five main types of in-line cleaners using the halogenated
solvents:  cross-rod, monorail, belt, strip, and printed circuit board
                                    3-13

-------
 processing equipment (photoresist strippers, flux cleaners, and developers).
 While most of these may be used with cold or vaporized solvent, the last two
 are almost always vapor cleaners.  The photoresist strippers are typically
 cold cleaners.
      The cross-rod cleaner (Figure 3-6)  obtains its name from the rods from
 which parts baskets are suspended as they are conveyed through the machine
 by a pair of power-driven chains.  The parts are contained  in pendant
 baskets or, where tumbling of the parts  is desired,  perforated or wire mesh
 cylinders.   These cylinders may be rotated within the  liquid  solvent  and/or
 the vapor zone.   This  type of equipment  lends itself particularly well  to
 handling small  parts that need to be immersed in  solvent  for  satisfactory
 cleaning or which require tumbling to  drain  solvent  from  cavities  and/or to
 remove  metal  chips.
      A  monorail vapor  cleaner (Figure  3-7)  is  usually  chosen when  the parts
 to  be cleaned  are being transported  between  manufacturing operations on a
 monorail  conveyor.  The monorail  cleaner  is  well  suited to automatic
 cleaning  with  solvent  spray and vapor.   It can be of the straight-through
 design  illustrated  or can  incorporate  a u-turn within the machine  so that
 parts exit  through  an opening  parallel to the entrance opening.  The u-turn
monorail  cleaner  benefits  from lower vapor loss because the design
eliminates  the possibility of drafts flowing through the machine.
      Both the belt cleaner  (Figure 3-8) and the strip cleaner are designed
to allow  simple and rapid loading and unloading of parts.  A belt cleaner
conveys parts through a long and narrow boiling chamber in which the parts
are cleaned either by the condensing vapor or by immersion in the solvent
sump.  The strip cleaner is similar to the belt cleaner except that the
                                    3-14

-------
Conveyor
  Path
    Chain
   Supports
      Work /
     Basket'
               Water
               Jacket
Boiling Chamber
                     Figure 3-6.  Cross-rod In-line Cleaner
                                                                                 co
                                                                                 CM

                                                                                 
                                          3-15

-------
Conveyor
  Path
                 Conveyor
                   Path
                              Spray
                              Pump
                                            Boiling
                                           Chamber
                                                            Water
                                                            Jacket
                          Figure 3-7.  Monorail In-line Cleaner
CN
00
to
                                              3-16

-------
Conveyor
  Path
Mesh
 Belt
                                     Boiling
                                    Chamber
                            Figure 3-8.  Mesh Belt In-line Cleaner
                                                                                                 ic
                                                                                                 r-
           oo
           (O

-------
 strip itself is the material  being cleaned.   As  with  the belt cleaner,  the
 material  in a strip cleaner can  be cleaned  by the  condensing  vapor or by
 immersion in the solvent sump.
      Cleaning of printed circuit boards  is  a  common application  of a type of
 mesh  belt cleaner (Figure 3-9).   In the  production of printed circuit
 boards,  solvent-based  photo-processable  resists  can be used.   The  circuit
 pattern  is contained in  an artwork film.  This pattern is reproduced by
 projecting ultraviolet rays through the  artwork  film  onto a copper sheet
 covered with resist.   A  developer (typically  TCA) dissolves the  unexposed
 areas  of  the resist, and thereby,  reveals the circuit  pattern.   The
 resist-covered  board is  then  placed in plating solutions to add  more  metal
 to the circuit  pattern areas.  Next, a photoresist stripper dissolves the
 remaining  resist.   The circuit boards are then put in  an alkaline  etching
 solution  to  remove  all the copper  in the noncircuitry  areas.  The  processing
 is completed  by  passing  the circuit  boards through a wave of molten solder.
     Due  to  the  nature of  the materials being cleaned, photoresist strippers
 use ambient  (room temperature) solvents.  Spraying and brushing may be used
 to enhance cleaning.   Methylene chloride is the solvent most often used  in
 photoresist  stripping; however, the printed circuit board industry has
 largely converted to aqueous and semi-aqueous materials to replace the use
of both TCA  and MC.  The switch to  aqueous systems is  discussed further  in
Chapter 4.
     Circuit board cleaners are used to dissolve and remove flux from the
circuit board after the molten soldering step.  Unlike photoresist
strippers, circuit board cleaners have a heated or boiling sump.   However,
circuit board cleaning occurs in the liquid solvent (not  vapor) phase,
                                    3-18

-------
                                    Exhaust
Work Flow
PC
Board
, 0 0*1 0
n Spray
Nozzles
'
X 8I8
/ ;

O
o

Pump  ^

r^Ll
^H
1
/ /
/ /
/ 1 1 1 1 1
o o o g o p
o o o 6 o o
J 1 1 1 1

/?\


 - - -  - -

o
rn
A A A
o o
^TTT

T

0 0
A o
Exhau

W,

Pump
vn
ff 
Tf\ 

ster Rinse
0 0
3 0
1  1
	 .

/
st Damper
Conveyor
Rollers
g o o o o /
o o
o o or
1
Drying
Area
                 Solvent
 Clean Solvent
(from Distillation
    System)
 To Wastewater
Treatment System
             Figure 3-9.  Schematic Diagram of an In-line Photoresist Stripping
                                          Machine

-------
 although a vapor phase may be present.   Circuit board cleaners commonly use
 chlorofluorocarbons; however, aqueous fluxes and aqueous flux cleaners are
 becoming more widely used in the printed circuit industry as a replacement.
 Again,  this switch is discussed further in Chapter 4.

 3.2.3  Hybrid Cleaners

      As the solvent  cleaning industry has  developed,  specialized  cleaning
 devices that do  not  fit  into the OTVC or in-line  cleaner  categories  have
 emerged.   Among  these cleaners  are  the  vibra, the ferris  wheel, and  the
 carousel  cleaners.
      In the vibra  cleaner (Figure 3-10), soiled parts are fed  through  a
 chute into a pan flooded  with boiling solvent at  the bottom  of the cleaner.
 The pan is connected to  a vibrating spiral elevator.  Both the pan and
 spiral  elevator  vibrate,  causing the  parts to move from the  pan up the
 spiral  to  the  exit chute.  The  cooler parts condense solvent vapor as they
 are vibrated  up  the  spiral and  dry as soon as they leave the vapor zone.
 These cleaners are capable of processing large quantities of small parts.
 Since the  vibrating  action creates considerable noise, the equipment must be
 acoustically  insulated or enclosed in a noise-control booth.
     The ferris wheel cleaner (Figure 3-11) is one of the least expensive
 and smallest hybrid  cleaners.   It is  a vapor cleaner and commonly features
 perforated  parts baskets, as does the cross-rod cleaner.  As a large gear
wheel  rotates, it tumbles the perforated baskets attached to it via smaller
gears,  allowing better contact of the parts with the solvent, and draining
cavities that could  otherwise retain solvent.
                                    3-20

-------
                                              Workload Discharger Chute
Ascending

 Vibrating

 Trough
                                             Distillate Return

                                               for Counter-

                                               flow Wash
   Figure 3-10.  Vibra Cleaner
                                                                 cr
                                                                 in
                                                                 O)
                                                                 <>
                                                                 cs

                                                                 
                        3-21

-------
Work

Basket
                                                Gear to Tumble

                                                   Baskets
          Boiling

         Chamber
      Figure 3-11.  Ferris Wheel Cleaner
(N
oo

-------
     The carousel cleaner is a four-chamber machine which is similar to the
ferris wheel cleaner except that parts travel on a horizontal plane.  The
first chamber is the loading area.  The remaining three chambers are
cleaning units.  All cleaning chambers can contain halogenated solvent
(typically vapor phase with or without immersion sumps), or one chamber can
be used for steam cleaning.  Usually, this type of machine is used to clean
large parts such as airplane wheels.  In operation, a four-arm carousel
carries the parts to be cleaned sequentially through each of the four
chambers.

3.2.4  Cold Cleaners

     Cold cleaners use room temperature liquid solvent for parts cleaning.
Most cold cleaners are small maintenance cleaners or parts washers using
either aliphatic petroleum distillates such as mineral spirits or sometimes
alcohol blends or naphthas.  These are not covered in this document.
     Cold cleaning operations include spraying, flushing, solvent or parts
agitation, wipe cleaning, and immersion.   The only machines using
halogenated solvent in a cold cleaning application (except for non-vapor
in-line cleaning) are of a type called carburetor cleaners.  In these
cleaners, methylene chloride is blended with other solvents and additives to
reduce flammability and increase dissolving power.  A typical carburetor
cleaner is shown in Figure 3-12.  Emissions from these cleaners are
typically well controlled because the cleaning solution used contains water
which forms as a water layer above the solvent mixture in the tank.  The
water layer
                                    3-23

-------
                            Air Motor and

                            Drive Assembly
Basket
                                              "On" and "Off'
                                                  Valve
        Figure 3-12.  Carburetor Cleaner
                                                                tr
                                                                O)
                                                                n
                          3-24

-------
drastically reduces evaporation of methylene chloride.  Although some cold
cleaners have been sold in the past for use with halogenated solvents, no
manufacturer could be located that is currently marketing machines for use
with these solvents, other than those using the carburetor cleaning
solutions.

3.3  EMISSION MECHANISMS AND TYPES

     There are many sources of solvent loss to the atmosphere from an
organic solvent cleaner.  Two significant sources are air/solvent vapor
interface losses and workload related losses.  Air/solvent vapor interface
losses during idling consist of solvent vapor diffusion (or evaporation from
liquid solvent in a cold cleaner) and solvent vapor convection induced by
warm freeboards.  Workload related losses (hereafter called workload losses)
are solvent emissions that are created or increased by the introduction and
extraction of parts during the cleaning process and by spraying of parts
during cleaning (if sprays are used).  Other potentially significant losses
that contribute to the total solvent emissions from a solvent cleaner
include filling/draining losses, wastewater losses, start-up/shutdown
losses, downtime losses, and losses from leaks from the cleaner or
associated equipment.  Diffusion and convection losses are described in
Section 3.3.1, while workload and "other" losses are described in Sections
3.3.2 and 3.3.3, respectively.
                                    3-25

-------
 3-3'!  Air/Solvent Vapor  Interface Losses during Idling (Idling Losses!

      3'3-1-1 Open Top Vapor Cleans   The principal emission sources in
 idling OTVC are shown in Figure 3-13.  These losses can be increased
 dramatically by external factors.
      The main source of idling losses from an OTVC is diffusion.   Diffusion
 is the movement of solvent vapors from the vapor zone to the ambient air
 above.  This occurs because molecules of solvent diffuse from the  high
 concentration in the vapor zone to the lower concentration in the  air.
 Diffusion rates are dependent  on temperature since  molecular activity
 increases at higher temperatures.   An idling machine will  reach a  point
 where an  equilibrium diffusion rate is established.   At  this  point the
 emission  rate will  not  fluctuate greatly  unless  equilibrium  conditions are
 disturbed.
      Additional  losses  can  be  caused  by convection.   The heat of the  boiling
 solvent is  conducted  from  the  boiling  solvent and hot vapor to the walls of
 the solvent  cleaner.  This  heating  of  the walls  creates a convective  flow up
 along  the freeboard carrying solvent  vapor out of the cleaner.  The amount
 of convective  loss depends  on  how warm the freeboard walls become.   If OTVC
 walls are kept close  to  ambient  conditions, convective losses will  be
 minimized.   Some machines have a water jacket around the outside periphery
 of the cleaner to help cool the walls of the machine and reduce the
 convective losses.  However, a water jacket is not necessary on all
machines.   For example,   if adequate cooling of the tank walls is provided by
primary coils in contact with the OTVC walls, a water jacket is not
necessary.
                                    3-26

-------
Retractable
  Cover
 Water
Separator
                                                                                        Air Currents from
                                                                                       Building Ventilation
                                      Freeboard
                                        Area
                                      I      >
                                     Solvent Vapor
                                         Zone
                                                    Air/Solvent Interface
                                   Boiling Solvent 
                1.  Diffusion of Solvent from Air/Solvent Vapor Interface
                2.  Convection of Solvent Vapor up Warm Tank Walls
                3.  Diffusion and Convection Losses Accelerated by Drafts
                   Across Tank Lip (or by Operation of Lip Exhaust Device)
                                                                            _ Primary Condenser
                                                                                   Coils
                                                                                                       cc
                                                                                                       in
                       Figure  3-13.  OTVC Idling  Emission Sources
en
CD

-------
      The diffusion rate equilibrium also can be disturbed if an air flow is
 introduced across the air/solvent vapor interface as the result of room
 drafts or a lip exhaust. Room drafts create turbulence in the interface
 area.  This can cause the air and solvent vapor to mix,  creating a mixture
 that is lighter than the pure solvent vapor and,  therefore,  is more readily
 lost to the atmosphere.   The room drafts also sweep solvent-laden air from
 the freeboard area into  the ambient  air.   This allows  more solvent to
 diffuse into the "fresh  air" in  the  freeboard area.
      Lip (or lateral)  exhausts create similar disturbances across  the
 air/solvent vapor interface of the solvent  cleaner.  The  exhaust  system
 draws in solvent-laden air  from  around  the  top  perimeter  of the solvent
 cleaner to  lower the  solvent concentration  in  the  area where operators are
 working.  As  discussed in Chapter  4,  these  exhausts do not capture all of
 the  vapors  that  escape from the  cleaner.  Tests have shown that even
 properly operated  lip  exhausts can double vapor cleaner diffusion losses.
 Some  lip exhaust  systems include carbon adsorbers to collect the exhausted
 solvent  for reuse; however,  emissions not captured by the lip exhaust remain
 uncontrolled.
      A  summary of the  available  idling emission data for OTVC is presented
 in Table 3-1.  All of  the data were obtained on uncovered machines with no
 refrigerated freeboard devices or lip exhausts.  The emission rates range
 from  0.06 Ib/ft2/nour  to 0.17 lb/ft*/hour.  The variation in emission rates
 for the same solvent can be explained by the varying primary condensing
temperatures during these tests.   Emission rates are lowest in tests where
the primary condensing temperature of the cleaner is lowest.   The use of a
reduced primary condenser temperature as a control  technology is discussed
                                    3-28

-------
                                              TABLE 3-1.   SUMMARY  OF  AVAILABLE  TESTS  -  IDLING  OTVC's
CO
ro
vo




rest *
-1
-2
-3
-
-5
-6
-7




Solvent
Freon-TF
1,1,1-TCA
1,1,1-TCA
1.1,1-TCA
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113



Cleaner.
Size (m )
0.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9




FBR8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7



Cleaner
Make
Delta Sonics
Auto-Sonics
Auto-Sonics
Auto-Sonics
Auto-Sonics
Auto-Sonics
Auto-Sonics

Conditions
Primary
Condenser
Temperature
(oF)
55
50
70
85
40
50
70


Emission
Rate
(Ib/ftVhr)
0.060
0.087
0.120
O.U3
0.062
0.094
0.169




Reference
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
        a
         FBR  =  Freeboard  ratio.

-------
 in more detail  in  Chapter 4.   At  the  mid-range  primary  condensing
 temperature during the tests  (Table 3-1;  Tests  3  and  6),  the  emissions
 ranged from 0.09 lb/ft*/hour  to 0.12  Ib/ft2/hour.

      3.3.1.2  In-line  Cleaners.   The  primary sources  of idling losses from
 in-line vapor  cleaners are  the same as for OTVC's: convection and diffusion.
 These types of losses  are presented in Figure 3-14, and the mechanisms are
 described  in detail  in the  previous section.  No data were available on
 idling losses  from in-line  cleaners.  However, the idling diffusional and
 convective  losses  from these  cleaners would likely be less per unit of
 air/solvent vapor  interface area  than an OTVC since the units are almost
 always  enclosed  and  less  subject  to drafts.

      3-3.1.3  Cold Cleaners.  The source of solvent loss from an idle cold
 cleaner  is  evaporation  from the liquid surface and subsequent diffusion.
 The rate of solvent  loss  is solvent dependent and is affected by room
 drafts.  As with OTVC's,  room drafts can remove solvent laden air from above
 the liquid  surface,  thus  increasing equilibrium evaporation rates from
 quiescent conditions.  However, the only identified type of cold cleaner
 using a halogenated  solvent that  is currently being manufactured is  a'
 carburetor  cleaner, which contains some methylene chloride.   As  mentioned
 previously, these units typically  have water covers.   Since the  solvent  is
heavier than and only slightly soluble in  water,  little  solvent  reaches the
air interface and evaporates.
                                    3-30

-------
                                          Exhaust
                                                                      Exhaust
CO
 I
to
 Parts
Basket

  Inlet
  Port
Condenser 	 ,
Coils




s^V -1
8 X
1 ^^^
1 Vapor ( \
I
_- '_L
Liquid
/^cx:
y~^^
3 ' ;

 i '

                                     1.  Diffusion of solvent from air/solvent vapor interface
                                     2.  Vapor up warm tank walls
                                     3.  Carry-out of liquid solvent on part and subsequent evaporation
                                     4.  Roof vent exhaust (where applicable)
                                    Figure 3-14.  In-line Cleaner Emission Sources
                                                                                                          oc
                                                                                                          
                                                                                                          s

-------
 3.3.2   Workload  Related  Losses  (Workload  Losses!

     Workload  losses  are defined  as all losses that are caused or
 Increased  by the cycling of parts through the solvent cleaner.  During the
 operation  of a solvent cleaner, the losses at the air/solvent vapor
 interface  continue.   However, the rate of these losses will be increased due
 to  the  disturbances caused by the parts cleaning.

     3-3.2.1 Open TOD Vapor Cleaners.  The losses that occur when an OTVC is
 cleaning parts are depicted in Figure 3-15.  The losses during workload
 entry and  cleaning and the losses during workload removal  are shown in the
 figure.
     One of the  causes of the increased losses during solvent cleaner
 operation  is the turbulence in the air/solvent vapor interface that occurs
when parts and parts baskets enter the cleaner.   This loss includes the
 increase in diffusional  and convective losses that occur at the air/solvent
 vapor interface.   The amount of loss depends on  the speed  of the  basket,  as
well as the characteristics of the parts being cleaned.   Part of  this loss
can be the solvent vapor displaced out of the cleaner from a piston-type
effect as the parts are  lowered into the cleaner.   The amount of  loss due to
parts entry is increased as the speed of parts introduction increases.  The
piston effect is  also greater when the parts and  baskets take up  a  larger
percentage of the interface area.   It is generally recommended that
workloads take up no more than 50  percent of the  total  interface  area
although large workloads can be used if the lowering speed is very  slow.
Also, if a large  part is being lowered into a cleaner,  the part can possibly
be angled to limit the amount  of the piston effect.
                                    3-32

-------
                                 Workload
                                 Entering
   Water
   Jacket
CO
CO
CO
Workload
 Exiting
    Water
  Separator
                                     1.  Increased Diffusion and Mixing at Air/Solvent Vapor Interface due to
                                        Piston Effect, Disturbance of Vapor Layer, and Spraying

                                     2.  Vapor Entrainment and Increased Diffusion and Mixing due to Turbulence
                                     3.  Carryout of Solvent on Cleaned Parts
                                 Figure 3-15.  OTVC Workload Related Emission Sources
                           es
                           o>
                           
-------
      Vapor line fluctuation  also  contributes  to  solvent  loss.   Several
 factors  can affect  the amount  of  vapor  line fluctuation.   If very  cold  parts
 or a large quantity of parts are  introduced into the cleaner,   more  heat
 will  be  required to bring  the  parts up  to the temperature  of the solvent
 vapor.   When the heat  is transferred  from the solvent vapor to  the parts,
 the vapor  line  lowers.  As the vapor  line rebuilds and rises back to  its
 original level,  the air/solvent vapor mixture above the layer is displaced
 out of the cleaner.  One manufacturer has determined through testing  that
 solvent  loss rates  begin to increase  substantially when the vapor line  is
 deflected  by more than  2.5 inches.  These test data also indicated that
 solvent  loss rates  are  about twice as high at a deflection of 10 inches as
 they  are at  a deflection of 2.5 inches.4
      During  parts cleaning, additional  losses can occur if sprays are used
 to  aid in  cleaning.  Spraying  from either fixed nozzles or spray wands is
 common.  The sprayed solvent can cause turbulence in the air/solvent vapor
 interface  and vapor  line lowering, thereby increasing emissions.  If the
 spray has  too high  a pressure,  splashing of the solvent against  the parts,
 parts basket, or wall of the cleaner can also increase emissions.   Both of
 these spray  sources  should be mounted so that spraying occurs  only  beneath
 the vapor  zone.
     As parts are removed  from the cleaner,  the air/solvent vapor interface
 again is disturbed.   As with workload entry,  the speed of workload  removal
directly affects the amount of solvent loss.   The effect of parts movement
rate on emission rates is discussed in Chapter 4.  A large portion  of this
loss is vapor entrainment.   If parts are extracted  rapidly, solvent  vapor
will be entrained behind the workload and pulled out of the cleaner  (wake
effect).
                                    3-34

-------
     A final source of loss during workload removal is liquid dragout.  This
 includes liquid pooled in cavities or on flat horizontal surfaces of the
 parts as well as the solvent film remaining on all surfaces of clean parts
 as they leave the cleaner.  If the workload is withdrawn slowly and allowed
 to dwell in the freeboard area (if needed), then the solvent film and much
 of the pooled solvent can evaporate before the workload is withdrawn.  A
 significant portion of this evaporated solvent in the freeboard area will
 sink back into the vapor layer or be condensed on the coils and return to
 the cleaner.  If, however, the workload is withdrawn quickly, most liquid
 solvent will not evaporate from the parts until after they are withdrawn
 from the cleaner.  It is very difficult to remove parts slowly by manual
 operation.  Generally, manually operated cleaners will  have high workload
 losses, and these losses will  dominate other losses from the machine.
     A summary of the available data on working emission rates
 (i.e., diffusion/convection and workload losses combined)  is presented in
                                                     y
 Table 3-2.  The emission rates range from 0.063 Ib/ft /hour to
           2
 0.775 Ib/ft /hour, with most data in the range of about 0.1 to
         2
 0.3 Ib/ft /hr.   The large variability in the data is due to the wide range
 of operating parameters during the tests.   Unlike idling emissions,  which
 are more a factor of the machine design, workload emissions are largely a
 factor of the operating parameters previously discussed in this section.
 The speed of parts movement in many of the tests is unknown.  All  of these
 test were performed using electric hoists  for parts entry  and removal.   Test
results with manually operated machines would be significantly higher
because it is difficult to impossible for  a human operator to consistently
achieve the low workload related losses exhibited by hoists.  As stated
                                    3-35

-------
TABLE 3-2.  SUMMARY  OF  EMISSION TESTS OH WORKING OTVC's
Conditions
Primary
Test Cleaner Cleaner Air Speed Condenser
# Solvent Size (m ) Make (FPM) Temp.( F)
1 1,1,1-TCA 1.8 Oetrex calm
2 1,1,1-TCA 1.8 Detrex 130
3 1,1,1-TCA 1.8 Oetrex 160
4 1,1,1-TCA 1.4 AutoSonics --
5 MC 1.2 Crest --c
6 MC 1.2 Crest --c
7 1.1,1-TCA 0.9 AutoSonics --c
8 1,1,1-TCA 0.9 AutoSonics --c
9 1,1.1-TCA 0.9 AutoSonics --c
10 CFC-113 0.9 AutoSonics --c
11 CFC-113 0.9 AutoSonics --c
12. CFC-113 0.9 AutoSonics --c
13 CFC-113 Branson
H MC blend 0.4 AutoSonics
15 MC 0.4 AutoSonics
16 CFC-113 0.4 AutoSonics
17 MC blend 0.4 AutoSonics
18 1,1,1-TCA 0.4 AutoSonics
19 TCE 0.4 AutoSonics
20 HC blend 0.4 AutoSonics
21 MC 0.4 AutoSonics
22 CFC-113 0.4 AutoSonics
23 MC blend 0.4 AutoSonics
24 1,1,1-TCA 0.4 AutoSonics
25 TCE 0.4 AutoSonics
j^FBR = freeboard ratio.
"Working" emissions include diffusion, convection, and
csolvent transfer losses or downtime losses.
^Information unknown or not available.
_ ^
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30

workload losses

Constant cycling of parts into and out of machine and use of perforated
exit from machine account for elevated emission number.
]_c
c
c
50
70
85
40
50
70
60
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70

as described

metal basket
FBRa
0.75
0.75
0.75,
0.83
0.7?
1.0
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0

in Sections 3.

that retained
Emission
Rate
Ob/ftVhr) Reference
0.099
0.173
0.233
0.063
0.186
0.354
0.100
0.140
0.170
0.090
0.110
0.186
0.775
0.220
0.180
0.165
0.125
0.112
0.080
0.175
0.145
0.132
0.100
0.092
0.065

3.1 and 3.3.

significant
5
5
5
6
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
T
9
9
9

2, but not leaks,

solvent upon

-------
above, the speed of the parts can directly affect the emissions from a
cleaner.  Furthermore, these tests also included a wide range of room air
speeds, which can also affect emission rates.  In contrast, the tests of
idling rates did not include different draft speeds.  Finally, the tests in
Table 3-2 did not include lip exhausts, which would greatly increase
emissions.  A more complete discussion of the effects of operating
parameters on emission rates is presented in Chapter 4.

     3.3.2.2 In-line Cleaners.  The principal sources of workload emissions
from in-line cleaners are presented in Figure 3-14.  Many of the losses are
similar to the losses from OTVC's.  Since in-line systems are automated, the
workload losses are less on a per part basis than in a manually operated
OTVC.  However, due to the large volume of parts cleaned in an in-line
system, overall losses are typically higher from in-line cleaners than from
OTVC's.
     The loss due to turbulence at the air/solvent vapor interface
(air/solvent interface with in-line cold cleaners) caused by part entry and
exit is generally less for in-line cleaners than manually operated OTVC's
because automated parts handling allows better control of the speeds of
parts entry and exit.  However, if the conveyor speed is too high,
considerable turbulence will be generated, and parts may exit the cleaner
wet with solvent.  The piston effect is also lessened since in-line machines
have large air/solvent vapor interfaces (air/solvent interface with in-line
cold cleaners) relative to the size of the parts and baskets.  In general,
States that have solvent cleaner regulations limit the conveyor speed to 11
feet per minute (fpm).
                                    3-37

-------
      Solvent loss due to vapor line fluctuation is not a significant problem
 for in-line vapor cleaners as with OTVC's.   Since there is a constant flow
 of parts into in-line vapor cleaners,  the heat balance of the machine can be
 adjusted to compensate for the constant thermal  shock.   This practice would
 tend to limit vapor line fluctuation in these  machines.
      During parts cleaning,  additional  losses  can occur if spraying is
 employed.   Spraying is done  from either fixed  nozzles,  spray wands  or
 rotating arms.   The solvent  spray can  cause  turbulence  within the cleaner
 and thereby increase emissions,  although the enclosure  around in-line
 machines would  help minimize loss to the atmosphere.  The  configuration of
 entry  and  exit  openings will  influence  the amount  of loss  from turbulence
 inside the machine.   If the  spray pressure is  toe  high, splashing of  the
 solvent against  the parts, parts  basket,  or  wall of the cleaner can also
 increase emissions.   Fixed or  rotating  spray nozzles should be mounted so
 that spraying occurs  only beneath  the vapor  zone.  For  in-line cold
 cleaners,  spraying  should occur only at  a downward angle into the machine
 unless  the  spray  section is  baffled to  effectively shield air/solvent
 interface  from the  effects of  the  spray.  Some manufacturers have developed
 cleaners that have  high pressure  spray zones completely segregated from the
 air/solvent vapor interface.   These machines are discussed in Chapter 4.
     As  parts are removed from the cleaner, more disturbances of the
 air/solvent vapor or air/solvent  interface can occur.   Again, the speed of
 the parts movement can directly affect the amount of solvent loss.   The
effect of part movement rate on emission rates is discussed in Chapter 4.
Again,  the majority of this loss is vapor entrainment.   If parts are
extracted rapidly, solvent vapor will be entrained behind the workload and
pulled out of the cleaner.
                                    3-38

-------
     Another source of loss during part removal is liquid dragout.  This
includes liquid solvent pooled in cavities or on flat horizontal surfaces of
parts as well as the solvent film remaining on all surfaces of clean parts
as they leave the cleaner.  As discussed in Section 3.3.2, the speed of part
removal can affect these losses.  Some in-line cleaners include a drying
tunnel to allow for evaporation of solvent before parts exit the cleaner.
     Many in-line cleaners also have an exhaust system.  This exhaust
system (for an example see Figure 3-14) can increase solvent consumption.
If solvent in the exhaust is not controlled by a carbon adsorber before
being vented to the atmosphere, overall solvent emissions will  increase.

     3.3.2.3  Cold Cleaners.  Workload related losses from cold cleaners are
primarily due to carry-out (and subsequent evaporation) of liquid solvent on
parts being removed from the machine.  Carry-out losses may be  substantially
reduced by allowing longer drainage time,  and by tipping parts  to drain
solvent-filled cavities before removal from the cleaner.
     Other sources of solvent loss during cold cleaning are agitation and
spraying.  Agitation can increase evaporation from the solvent  bath by
increasing the effective air/solvent interface area.   The amount of solvent
loss depends on the rate of agitation.  In the case of carburetor cleaners,
the water layer over the solvent bath minimizes the loss from increased
turbulence.   Spraying can increase solvent evaporation by exposing more
solvent to the air.  The amount of solvent loss from spraying depends on the
spray pressure (which influences turbulence and splashing).
                                    3-39

-------
3.3.3  Other Losses

     In addition to losses attributable to the solvent cleaner when the
machine is idling  (i.e., turned on and ready to operate) or working
(i.e., cleaning a workload), there are several other loss mechanisms that
contribute to overall losses from an organic solvent cleaner.  These include
leaks, start-up losses, filling/draining losses, shutdown/downtime losses,
wastewater losses, distillation losses, and losses due to solvent
decomposition/waste solvent storage.  The magnitude of these losses relative
to total losses is dependent on machine design and integrity and operating
techniques.  For example, poor technique during filling and emptying of the
cleaner can cause spills that could amount to a large portion of overall
losses from an otherwise well operated and maintained machine.   Similarly, a
leak that goes undetected and uncorrected can also be a large source of
emissions.  A brief discussion of these other losses is presented below.

     3.3.3.1  Downtime Losses.  Downtime losses are defined as  solvent  loss
when the heat to the sump is turned off and the machine is not  operated.
The losses are due to evaporation of solvent from the liquid solvent
surface and subsequent diffusion into the ambient air.   These losses can  be
slowed through use of a tight fitting cover during downtime.  However,  even
with covers in place,  the more volatile halogenated solvents will evaporate
at significant rates.   Relative evaporation rates of the halogenated
solvents are presented in Table 3-3.   Equipment vendor estimates of downtime
losses range from 0.03 Ib/ft2/hr to 0.07 Ib/ft2/hr, comparable  to the low
end of idling loss rates.    Losses will  be greatest from machines using
                                    3-40

-------
               TABLE  3-3.   HALOGENATED SOLVENT EVAPORATION RATES

Solvent
TCE
PCE
1,1,1-TCA
MC
CFC-113
Relative
Evaporation Rate
84
39
100
147
170
(CC14 - 100)

Reference 10.
                                3-41

-------
 solvents with a higher vapor pressure, such as MC, CFC-113, or solvent
 blends made with MC or CFC-113.
      3.3.3.2  Lfiiks..  Loss of solvent through leaks can occur continuously
 (depending on where the leak is located),  whether the machine is turned on
 or off.  Leaks can result from manufacturing defects or from machine use.
 They can occur from piping connections,  cracks  in the machine or tank,  and
 gasketed portholes or viewing windows.   Often leaks are difficult to detect
 since the solvent will  evaporate  quickly when it  reaches  the  atmosphere and
 may not leave telltale  drips  or wet  areas.   Since  solvent has  a  low  surface
 tension,  it  can  escape  through cracks that may  not  be  easily  visible.   These
 characteristics  magnify the chance of leaks  becoming  a  serious source of
 solvent loss.  Many  manufacturers leak test  their machines before they  are
 sold,  but  cracks  can occur during shipping.   If not detected and  repaired,
 leaks  can  become  a major  source of solvent loss.

     3-3-3-3   Filling/Draining  Losses.  The loss of solvent during filling
 and emptying  of the  solvent cleaner can be a major contributor to overall
 emissions  if  not  properly performed.   Open handling procedures, such as
 manual  filling or emptying machines using open buckets or drums,  will cause
 significant solvent  loss and operator exposure.   This loss will increase if
 a large amount of splashing occurs during filling.  If solvent is spilled
during  filling or draining, the operator may be  subject to Comprehensive
Environmental Response,  Composition,  and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulations
requiring the notification of all  spills above reportable quantities.
                                    3-42

-------
     3.3.3.4  Wastewater Losses.  Water separators are typically minor
sources of solvent loss on vapor cleaners.  The solvent loss occurs when the
water is decanted from the separator containing a slight amount of solvent
(solvents are slightly soluble in water).  Water separators are used to
recover solvent from the solvent/water mixture that condenses at the primary
chiller or at the refrigerated freeboard device.  Freeboard refrigeration
devices may increase wastewater loss, if not properly designed, since they
condense water vapor from the atmosphere in addition to solvent.  However,
if a separator is correctly designed, operated and maintained, little
solvent will be lost.  Wastewater impacts due to the use of a carbon
adsorber as a control device to recover solvent are discussed in Chapter 4.

     3.3.3.5  Start-up/ Shutdown Losses.  The losses that occur during the
transition time from when a vapor solvent cleaner is turned on or off to the
time when equilibrium is achieved are called start-up and shutdown losses.
     Start-up losses are due to pump out of solvent-laden air within the
machine after the sump heat has been activated and as the solvent vapor
layer is being established.  One estimate of start-up losses from a typical
                                                12
vapor cleaner is 3 gallons of solvent per cycle.    However, the amount of
loss from a cleaner depends on the cleaner size and design.
     Shut-down losses are due to evaporation of hot liquid solvent from the
sump (after the heat has been turned off and the vapor layer has collapsed)
and subsequent diffusion of solvent vapor from the machine.  If not
controlled, shut-down losses will be significant since the solvent in the
machine is near the boiling point at the beginning of the shut-down period.
                                    3-43

-------
      3.3.3.6   Distillation  Losses/Sludge  Disposal.   Losses  occur  when  spent
 solvent  is  regenerated  through  onsite distillation  for  reuse.   Solvent lost
 during this process  stems from  evaporation during transfer  to  and from the
 distillation  unit or, if a  piping  system  is used, from  leaks in the
 equipment.  Solvent  may also evaporate from distillation sludge or spent
 solvent  that  is removed for disposal.

      3.3.3.7   Solvent Decomposition Losses.  Certain solvents  and  blends
 contain  stabilizers  which prevent  the mixture from  turning  acidic  after
 reacting with  water  (where  water/solvent contact occurs).   If  solvent  is not
 properly monitored but  allowed  to  become acidic, the solvent will   have to be
 discarded.  Dangerous fumes (chlorine gas, hydrochloric acid)  can  be emitted
 from  solvent decomposition.   Emissions could occur during handling and
 disposal of the solvent.  This  solvent would be subject to hazardous waste
 guidelines under RCRA.

 3.4  TYPICAL EMISSION SCENARIOS FOR VAPOR CLEANERS

      Idling emission rates  and working emission rates can vary  considerably
 from operation to operation  depending on cleaning machine design,  types of
 solvent,  and operating environment.  If the five halogenated solvents are
 used in identical  machines,  measured idling emission rates  will vary
 somewhat among the solvents.  For example,  CFC-113 and  MC tend  to  have
higher idling losses than  the  others.   However,  machines using  these
solvents are designed to compensate for this,  usually by employing
lower primary condensing temperatures.   Moreover,  working losses from
                                    3-44

-------
identical machines also show differences by solvent, although the order may
be different from that observed in idling emission rate comparisons.  The
emission rate differences due to solvent characteristics appear to be
relatively small and are overshadowed by other factors such as:  the amount
of room draft the cleaner is exposed to, the type of workload cleaned, hours
of operation, and operating practices.  Therefore, no attempt is made in
this document to define emission rates on a solvent specific basis.  The
"typical" emission rates developed in this section are meant to be
representative of cleaners using any one of the five solvents.
     The operating schedule defines the relative amounts of time the machine
spends in the idling, working (i.e., cleaning) and downtime modes.  For
example, a cleaner that is in the working mode for most of the day would
emit more than the same cleaner in the idling mode for most of the day.
This is due to the fact that the working emission rate for a cleaner is
higher than the idling emission rate.
     The relative contribution of each emission type (idling,  workload,
leaks, start-up/shut-down, downtime, etc.) influences the effectiveness  of
control techniques selected to reduce overall emissions, and thereby solvent
consumption, from a cleaner.  If the majority of overall emissions are due
to idling and downtime losses, then control techniques that reduce those
emission types would be relatively more important in determining overall
effectiveness of control.  Conversely, if the machine is in the working  mode
most of the time, then controls that reduce workload emissions would
dominate the overall effectiveness of all controls.
     An example of the variation in solvent cleaner emissions with operating
schedule is shown in Table 3-4 for a hypothetical OTVC.  In-line vapor
                                    3-45

-------
cleaner emissions would vary less with operating schedule compared to an
OTVC since in-line cleaners presumably clean a continuous stream of parts
and, thus, have few idle periods.  The estimates of annual solvent emissions
in Table 3-4 are meant to represent typical, well-run manual operations and
are based on the following parameters:

    An OTVC with no additional controls, some room drafts,  0.75 freeboard
     ratio, and a primary condenser operating at approximately 75F.
    Idling losses of 0.15 Ib/ft2/hr (within the range in Table 3-1)
    Working losses of 0.4 Ib/ft2/hr
    Downtime losses of 0.03 Ib/ft2/hr (from Reference 2)
    OTVC size of 8.6 ft2 (from general vendor information)
    Assumed daily operating schedule A of 2-hour working,  6-hour idling,
     and 16-hour downtime for 250 days per year (24-hour downtime for
     105 days per year)
    Assumed operating schedule B of 12-hour working,  4-hour idling,  and
     8-hour downtime for 250 days per year (24-hour downtime for 105  days
     per year).

     In this example, wastewater losses,  leaks,  start-up/shutdown losses and
solvent/waste solvent transfer losses are not included.   These sources can
be significant,  especially in poorly designed,  maintained or operated
cleaners.
                                    3-46

-------
             TABLE 3-4.  EXAMPLE OF OPERATING SCHEDULE INFLUENCE
                         ON SOLVENT CLEANER EMISSIONS
                                    SolventbEmission Rate (lb/yr)a
Emission Type                    Schedule A                Schedule B
Idling
Workingd
Downtime
TOTAL
2,010 (36%)
1,790 (33%)
1.720 (31%)
5,520 (100%)
1,340 (10%)
10,730 (81%)
1.180 f 9%)
13,250 (100%)
[JBased on OTVC size of 8.6 ft2 (0.8m2).
 Assumes daily operation of 2-hour working,  6-hour idling,  and 16-hour
 downtime.
 Assumes daily operation of 12-hour working,  4-hour idling,  and 8-hour
 .downtime.
 Working losses include idling loss and  workload related  losses (as  described
 in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2,  respectively).
 Other emission sources, such  as leaks and startup/shutdown  losses,  have  not
 been included in this example but could be  significant  sources of solvent
 loss.
                                     3-47

-------
 3.5  REFERENCES
 l'    r^rnndum from Pandullo  R-  F-,  Radian Corporation,  to D.  A.  Beck
      EPA/CPB.   February 15,  1989.   Estimation of nationwide number of  '
      nalogenated solvent cleaners  and  halogenated solvent  usage.

 2.    Letter and attachments  from Delta Sonics to D.A.  Beck,  EPA/CPB
      February  1988.   6  pages.   Estimation  of freon solvent usage  in'open  top
      series Delta Sonics degreasers.

 3.    Cool  It to Cut  Degreasing  Cost.   American Machinist.   November 1982.

 4.    Trip  report.  Pandullo, R.  F., Radian Corporation,  submitted  to
      DA.  Beck,  EPA/CPB,  Research  Triangle Park,  NC.   January  1989.   Summary
      of  visit  to Allied Corporation, Buffalo  Research  Facility.

 5.    Memorandum from Goodrich,  J., Detrex  Corporation, to  L. Schlossberg
      Detrex, Inc.  Degreaser emissions  control test report.

 6.    Trip  report.  Irvin, R., GCA/Technology  Division, submitted to
      D.A.  Beck,  EPA/CPB,  Research  Triangle Park,  NC.   June  14, 1979
      Summary of  visit to  Autosonics, Incorporated.

 7.    Suprenant,  K. S. and D. W. Richards (Dow Chemical Company).  Study to
      Support New Source  Performance Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning
     Operations.  Prepared for  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Research Triangle  Park, NC.  April 1976.  Contract No. 68-02-1329
     Task Order  No.  9.

8.   Letter and  attachments from Polhamus,  R. L, Branson Ultrasonics
     Corporation, to P.  A. Cammer,  Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
     February 10, 1988.   Automated hoist test data.

9.   Reference 4.

10.   American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) .  Cold cleaning with
     halogenated solvents.  Philadelphia,  Pa.  July 1966.  p. 9.

11.   Reference 2.

12.   Trip report.  Miller, S. J., Radian Corporation,  submitted to
     D.A. Beck, EPA/CPB.  October 19,  1988.  Summary of visit to Unique
     Industries, Sun  Valley,  CA.
                                    3-48

-------
                      4.0  EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES

4.1  INTRODUCTION

     As discussed in detail in Chapter 3, there are several significant
sources of solvent loss from cleaners using halogenated solvents.  To
achieve low emissions during solvent cleaning, owners or operators must
consider minimizing loss from each source.  Good control can be achieved
through use of a cleaning machine incorporating solvent saving features and
through implementation of sound operating practices.
     Presented in this chapter are solvent control strategies covering both
machine design and operating practices.  Table 4-1 presents a chapter
outline and lists the control  techniques studied.  For both open top vapor
cleaners (OTVC's) and in-line cleaners, there are separate sections devoted
to diffusion/convection controls, workload related controls, and control  of
other fugitive emission sources.  Following these sections is a discussion
concluding what design elements and operating practices should be
incorporated to achieve a very well controlled solvent cleaning operation.
Finally, the chapter ends with remarks about alternatives to solvent
cleaning with the five common halogenated solvents.

4.2  OPEN TOP VAPOR CLEANERS

     As discussed in Chapter 3, OTVC's utilize a heating system to boil
liquid solvent which creates a solvent vapor zone for cleaning.  The
primary condenser contains the vapor zone within the cleaner.

                                    4-1

-------
          TABLE 4-1.  SUMMARY OF SOLVENT CLEANER CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Cleaner Control Technique                                Reference Section


OTVC:
  Interface Emission Controls;                                  4>2.i

     Covers                                                     4<2.i i
     Freeboard Refrigeration Devices                            4212
     Refrigerated Primary Condensers                            4213
     Increased Freeboard Ratio                                  4214
     Reduced Room Draft/Lip Exhaust Velocities                  4215
     Enclosed Design                                            4216
     Carbon Adsorption                                          4^2 1 7

  Workload Emission Controls;                                   4 2.2

     Mechanically Assisted Parts Handling                       4.2.2.1
     Reduced Parts Movement Speed                               4.2!2!2
     Carbon Adsorption                                          4217
     Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor                        4.2.2.3

  Proper Operating and Maintenance Practices:                    4.2.3

IN-LINE

  Interface Emissions Controls:                                  4.3.1

     Minimize Entrance/Exit Openings                            4.3.1.1
     Carbon Adsorption                                          4.3.1.2
     Freeboard Refrigeration Devices                            4.3.1.3

  Workload Emissions Controls:                                   4.3.2

     Carbon Adsorption                                          4.3.1.2
     Drying Tunnels                                             4.3'.2.l
     Rotating Baskets                                           4.3.2^2
     Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor                        4.3!2Is

  Proper Operating and Maintenance Practices                     4.3.3
                                     4-2

-------
     Standard OTVC models range in size from 2.2 to 48 square feet (0.2 to
4.5 square meters) in air/solvent vapor interface area, although larger
custom made units are in use.  A typical OTVC has a 0.75 freeboard ratio, a
water-cooled primary condenser, a cover used during downtime, and an
external water jacket to cool the cleaner walls (see Figure 3-1).
Applicable control techniques vary according to the size, design,
application, and operation of the OTVC.  In general, the emissions
reduction efficiency of the various control options depends upon the
fraction of time that the OTVC is idling versus processing work since each
control has different effects on these emission mechanisms.
     The control techniques for OTVC's presented in the following sections
include covers, reduced room drafts, refrigerated freeboard devices,
refrigerated primary condensers, raised freeboards, carbon adsorbers,
electric or mechanically assisted parts handling/reduced part movement
speeds, enclosed designs, and selected operating and maintenance practices.
A summary of all OTVC emission test data is presented in Tables 4-2 and
4-3.  Tests on idling machines are included in Table 4-2, while working
machine data are included in Table 4-3.  All idling tests are numbered
using an "I" prefix.  All of these tests were performed by companies that
either manufactured solvent cleaning equipment or sold solvents.  No
standard test methods were used.  Each company established its own test
procedure.  The data and test procedures have been reviewed by EPA and
appear to have given valid, repeatable results.  In some cases, the test
facilities have been visited by EPA personnel.  All OTVC test data in
Table 4-3, unless otherwise mentioned, are from machines employing
automated mechanical systems for parts handling.  In many cases, the speed

                                    4-3

-------
                                                               TABLE 4-2.   SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TESTS - IDLING OTVC's

Test
1-1
1-2
1-3
I-A
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
1-17
1-18
1-19
1-20
Tested
* Control
AFC (PC850F)
BFC (PC850F)
BFC (PCIJ50F)
BFC (PC@70F)
BFC (PC085F)
BFC (PC940F)
BFC (PC850F)
BFC (PC870F)
PC-70 F to 40 P
PC-85 F to 50 F
PC-85 F to 50 F
BFCt.Li.pExh PgSOF
BFC&LlpExh P870F
BFClLlpExh P885F
LIP EXH (PCgSOF)
LIP EXH (PC870F)
LIP EXH (PC885F)
FBR: 0.75->1.0
FBR: 0.75->1.0
Solvent
Freon-TF
Freon-TF
TCA
TCA
TCA
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
CFC-113
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
Cleaner
Size Cleaner
(ft ) Make
3.3
3.2
9.7
9 7
9 7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.7
8.0
8.0
Delta Son Ic 3
Delta Sonic 3
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Auto-Sonlcs
Detrex
Detrex
Baseline
Air
Speed
(fpm) Cover
30 open
30 open
LE OFF none
LE OFF none
LE OFF none
LE OFF none
LE OFF none
LE OFF none
LE OFF none
LE OFF none
LE ON none
LE ON none
LE ON none
LE ON none
LE ON none
LE ON none
LE ON none
calm none
30-100 none
FBR
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.75
0.75
Controlled
Air
Freeboard Emission Speed Freeboard Emission Control
Refrigeration (Ib/ft2/hr) (fpm) Cover FBR Refrigeration (lb/ftZ/hr) Efficiency* Reference
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
off
0.060
0.060
0.087
0.120
0.143
0.062
0.094
0.169
0.169
0.143
0.211
0.171
0.190
0.211
0.171
0.190
0.211
0.051
0.272
30
30
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE ON
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
off
off
open
open
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
AFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
off
off
off
BFC
BFC
BFC
off
off
off
off
off
0.049
0.050
0.040
0.050
0.063
0.055
0.070
0.072
0.062
0.087
0.171
0.040
0.050
0.063
0.087
0.120
0.143
0.054
0.167
18Z
17Z
541
581
56Z
11X
26Z
57X
63X
39Z
19Z
77Z
74Z
70Z
49X
37Z
32Z
-6Z
39Z
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
                                              BFC
                                                                                                                                                         th.
These control efficiency values refer to the percent control of Idling emission (I.e..  diffusion and convection  losses)  only.

-------
                                                                            TABLE 4-3.   SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TESTS - WORKING OTVC's
cn
Baseline
Cleaner
Tested Size Cleaner
Test f Control Solvent (m ) Make
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
AFC TCA
AFC TCA
AFC TCA
AFC TCA
AFC TCE
AFC TCE
AFC(spray loss) Freon TF
BFC
BFC TCA
BFC TCA
BFC TCA
BFC TCA
BFC MC
BFC MC
BFC (P950F) TCA
BFC (P870F) TCA
BFC (P985F) TCA
BFC (P040F) CFC-113
BFC (P850F) CFC-113
BFC (P@70F) CFC-113
(BFCtLlpExh.PgSOF TCA
(BFClLlpExh,Pg70F TCA
(BFClLlpExh,P885F TCA
DWELL TIME Freon TF
HOIST: 11-3 Freon TF
HOIST: 20-10*
(LIP EXH (P650F) TCA
(LIP EXH (P870F) TCA
(LIP EXH (P85F) TCA
PC-70 F to 40 F CFC-113
PC-85 F to 50 F TCA
PC-85 F to 50 F TCA
PC-70 F to 50 F TCA
PC-50 F to 40 F CFC-113
Blpart Ing cover TCA
Blpart ing cover TCA
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.4


0.3

1.8
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.3

0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.8
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
AutoSonlcs


DeltaSonlcs
	
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
AutoSonlcs
Crest
Crest
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
DeltaSonlcs
DeltaSonlcs
Branson
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
Detrex
Detrex
Air
Speed
(fpm)
calm
130
160



calm
calm
30
130
160



LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE ON
LE ON
LE ON
1.0
1.0
1.0
LE ON
LE ON
LE ON
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE ON
LE OFF
LE OFF
30
100
Cover
none
none
none
none


none

none
none
none
none
manual
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Secondary Emission
FBR Chiller (lb/ft /hr)
0.75
0.75
0.75



1.0

0.75
0.75
0.75

0.83
0.75
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.75
0.75
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
0.099
0.173
0.233
0.063
4.30E+06 g/mo
6.20E+06 g/mo
Air
Speed
(fpm)
calm
130
160



0.0093 Ib/ft2/cy

0.099
0.173
0.233
0.063
0.186
0.354
0.100
0.140
0.170
0.090
0.110
0.186
0.219
0.25
0.277
0.014 Ib/cy
0.039 Ib/cy
0.775
0.219
0.25
0.277
0.186
0.160 t
0.277
0.140
0.110
0.099
0.121

calm
130
160



LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
1.0
1.0

LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE OFF
LE ON
LE OFF
LE OFF
30
100
Cover
none
none
none
none


none

none
none
none
none
manual
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
blpart
blpart
Controlled
Secondary Emission Control
FBR Chiller (lb/ft /hr) Efficiency*
0.75
0.75
0.75



1.0

0.75
0.75
0.75

0.83
0.75
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.75
0.75
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
AF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
0
0
0
0
.082
.105
.116
.040
3.60E+06 g/mo
3.50E+06 g/mo
0.0079 Ib/ft2/cy

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

.059
.091
.150
.011
.112
.254
.053
.070
.082
.075
.080
.110
.053
.070
.082
.008 Ib/cyc
.008 Ib/cyc
.555
.100
.140
.160
.090
.100
.219
.100
.090
.061
.071
18X
39X
50X
37X
16X
44X
15X

41X
47Z
36X
82X
40X
28X
47X
50X
52X
17X
27X
41X
76X
72X
70X
46X
SIX
28X
54X
44X
42X
521
38X
21X
29X
18X
38X
41X
Reference
4
4
4
5
6
6
7
8
4
4
4
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
9
2
2
2
2
2





        AFC - Above-Freezing Freeboard Refrlgeratloni BFC  Below-Freezing Freeboard Refrigeration! LE - Lip Exhausti PC  Primary Condenser (e.g.
        primary condenser  temperature was 50 F)i unk   Information unknown or not available.
PCgSOF means the
         *These control efficiency values  refer to percent control of working losses (I.e., diffusion/convection losses plus workload related losses).
          control of  other possible  emission  sources  such as:  leaks, startup/shutdown losses, solvent transfer losses, and downtime losses.
          The  relatively  high  emission rates  were due to the configuration of the parts basket (I.e., a large horizontal surface area) and the
          constant  cycling of  parts  (i.e.,  no time was allowed for the parts/basket to reach the temperature of the solvent vapor).
   They do not reflect

-------
                                                                               TABLE 4-3.  SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TESTS - WORKING OTVC's
CTi
Baseline
Tested
Test 1 Control
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Blpart Ing. cover
Biparting cover
Blprtng cvrlAFC
Blprtng cvrlAFC
Blprtng cvrSAFC
Blprtng cvriAFC
Blprtng cvrlBFC
Blprtng cvrlBFC
Blprtng cvriBFC
Blprtng cvrlBFC
FBR: 0.75->1.0
FBR: 0.75->1.0
FBR: 0.75->1.0
FBR: 0.75->1.0
FBR: 0.75->1.0
FBR: 0.75->1.0
FBR: 1.0->1.25
FBR: 1.0->1.25
FBR: 1.0->1.25
FBR: 1.0->1.25
FBR: 1.0->1.25
FBR: 1.0->1.25
Draft 160 -calm
Draft 130-calm
Solvent
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
TCA
MC blend
MC
CFC-113
MC blend
TCA
TCE
MC blend
MC
CFC-113
MC blend
TCA
TCE
TCA
TCA
Cleaner
Size Cleaner
(n ) Make
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1 .8
1.8
1.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.8
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
Detrex
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
AutoSonlcs
Detrex
Detrex
Air
Speed
(fpm)
130
160
30
100
130
160
30
100
130
160
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
160
130
Cover
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Secondary
FBR Chiller
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.75
0.75
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Emission
Ub/ft /hr)
0.173
0.233
0.099
0.121
0.173
0.233
0.099
0.121
0.173
0.233
0.220
0.180
0.165
0.125
0.112
0.080
0.175
0.145
0.132
0.100
0.092
0.065
0.233
0.173
Air
Speed
(fpm)
130
160
30
100
130
160
30
100
130
160
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Cover
blpart
blpart
blpart
blpart
blpart
blpart
blpart
blpart
blpart
blpart
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Controlled
Secondary
FBR Chiller
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
0.75
none
none
AFC
AFC
AFC
AFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
BFC
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
none
Emission
(Ib/ft /hr)
0.090
0.109
0.054
0.070
0.083
0.105
0.055
0.064
0.080
0.078
0.175
0.145
0.130
0.100
0.090
0.065
0.165
0.135
0.122
0.092
0.083
0.059
0.099
0.099
Control*
Efficiency
48X
53*
45X
42X
52X
55X
44X
47Z
S4X
67X
20X
19X
21X
20X
20X
19X
6X
7X
8X
8X
10X
9X
58X
43*
Reference
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
^
4
         AFC - Above-Free zing Freeboard Refrigeration:  BFC - Below-Freezing Freeboard Refrigeration: LE - Lip Exhaust.

         These control efficiency values  refer  to  percent control of working losses (I.e., diffusion/convection losses plus workload related losses).  They do not reflect
          control of other possible  emission sources  such as:   leaks, startup/shutdown losses, solvent transfer losses, and downtime losses.

-------
of parts movement is unknown; however, it was likely 11 fpm or less in all
cases.  In almost all cases, workloads used for these tests can be
described as inherently producing low carryout losses.  Therefore, emission
rates would likely be higher from machines in regular industrial
applications.  Inferences on control efficiencies that can be drawn from
these data are discussed in the following sections.

4.2.1     Controls for Interface Emissions

4.2.1.1  Covers.  Covers are used on OTVC's to eliminate drafts within the
freeboard and reduce diffusion losses.  Covers can be manually operated,
electrically powered (some powered models are automated to work with the
cleaning cycle).  Some typical covers are presented in Figure 4-1.
Roll-top covers are typically plastic (mylar).  In addition to roll-top
covers, OTVC covers include flat covers made out of mylar or metal.
     Manual  covers are normally provided as standard equipment.   These
covers are intended to reduce OTVC emissions during idle time and periods
of non-use (i.e., downtime).  Manual covers should fit well and should be
operated carefully to ensure that they do not become bent or otherwise
damaged.  If a lip exhaust is used,  the cover should fit between the
solvent vapor and the exhaust inlet.  Manual  covers can be flat-hinged,
sliding, or roll-top.  Hinged covers are not recommended because opening
and closing these covers can disturb the vapor layer and unnecessarily
expose the operator.   If a flat-hinged cover moves too quickly,  it can
cause turbulence that can disturb the air/solvent vapor interface and
increase emissions.   Flat covers that slide horizontally off the machine
reduce the disturbance to the vapor  layer.
                                    4-7

-------
oo
                                                 A. Roll Top Cover

                                                    (manual)
                                            B. Bi Parting Roll Top Cover

                                                    (power)
                                  Figure 4-1.  Typical OTVC Covers
                                                                                                         $
                                                                                                         r-
at
co

-------
     To minimize disturbance of the air/solvent vapor interface,  roll-top
plastic (mylar) covers, canvas curtains, and guillotine (biparting) covers
which close horizontally can be installed.  Biparting covers can be made to
close around the cables holding parts baskets when the basket is inside the
cleaner.  This affords complete enclosure during the cleaning phase.
Powered biparting covers are usually operated by push button control with
an automatic shut-off and are either pneumatically or electrically driven.
The most advanced biparting covers are automated to coordinate cover
movement with the movement of an automated parts handling system.  This
design minimizes the period of time the cover is opened,  only allowing for
part entry and exit from the cleaner.  Powered biparting  covers,  which are
closed during the cleaning cycle, reduce both idling and  working losses due
to diffusion by minimizing air drafts which disturb the air/solvent vapor
interface.  On larger machines, it is generally desirable to have powered
(i.e., mechanically assisted) or automated covers.
     Four tests were available for an automatic cover that was closed
during most of the cleaner operation (Table 4-3, Tests 35, 36, 37,  and 38).
In these tests a biparting roll-top cover that was closed 79 percent of the
time (275 seconds out of the 350 second OTVC cycle) was evaluated.   Without
                                                                  2
the automated cover, working emission rates varied from 0.10 Ib/ft /hr
                                         o
(under calm air conditions) to 0.23 Ib/ft /hr (160 fpm room drafts).  With
an automated cover in use, working emission rates decreased to between 0.06
Ib/ft2/hr (calm) to 0.11 Ib/ft2/hr (160 fpm).  This corresponds to working
loss reductions of 38 percent (calm) to 53 percent (160 fpm).  As expected,
covers are more effective at higher air draft velocity.  The effect of
reduction of room drafts on emissions is discussed in Section 4.2.1.5.
                                    4-9

-------
      4-2.1.2   Freeboard Refrigeration  Devices.   In  all  vapor cleaners,
 solvent vapor created within  the machine  is  prevented  from overflowing
 through use of primary condenser coils.   Freeboard refrigeration  devices
 consist of a second set of cooling  coils  located  above the primary
 condenser coils of the cleaner.   Functionally, the primary condenser coils
 define the upper limit of the vapor zone.  The freeboard refrigeration
 coils chill  the air immediately  above the vapor zone forming  a  cool  air
 blanket.   The cool  air blanket slows solvent diffusion and  creates  a
 temperature  inversion zone within the freeboard which  reduces the mixing  of
 air  and solvent vapors.   Also, the  cool air blanket supports  lower  solvent
 concentrations  than warm air.  Thus, some solvent at the interface  between
 the  solvent  vapor  zone and cool  air blanket will condense  into  the  cleaner.
 Freeboard  refrigeration  devices  have proven to be an effective  control for
 diffusional  losses  from  an OTVC, although their effect is lessened  if  a
 cool  primary  condenser is  present (see Section 4.2.1.3).   A drawing of an
 OTVC  equipped with  a  freeboard refrigeration device is presented in
 Figure  4-2.
      There are  two  types of freeboard refrigeration devices, above-freezing
 and below-freezing.  Above-freezing refrigerated freeboard devices operate
 at a  temperature range around  5C (41F).   Below-freezing refrigerated
 freeboard refrigeration devices operate with refrigerant  temperatures
 usually in the  range of  -20 to -30C (-4F to -22F).   Due to the low
 operating temperatures of  the below-freezing units,  provisions are made for
 a timed defrost cycle  to melt the solvent/water ice that  may form on the
coils.  If allowed to  accumulate on the refrigerant coils,  this ice layer
would compromise heat  transfer efficiency.  The solvent/water mixture which

                                    4-10

-------
Condensing Coils
 Temperature
   Indicator
 Cleanout Door
  Solvent Level Sight Glass
                                                                Freeboard
                                                                 Condensate Trough
                                                                 Water
                                                                Separator
         Heating Elements

Work Rest and Protective Grate
         Figure 4-2.  Open Top Vapor Cleaner with Freeboard
                           Refrigeration Device
                                      4-11

-------
 is melted from the freeboard coils during the defrost cycle drains to a
 trough located below the freeboard refrigerator coils.   To minimize water
 contamination of the solvent,  the melted solvent/water mixture should be
 directed to a second water separator (distinct from the separator employed
 for the condensate from the primary condensing coils)  for removal.   Above-
 freezing freeboard refrigerated devices  condense water  from the air.   The
 condensed water can strip stabilizers  that  are present  in many solvent
 mixtures.   A cleaner equipped  with such  a device may  also benefit from a
 second water separator.
      Theoretically,  a below-freezing chiller  should be  more  efficient  than
 an  above-freezing  chiller since it can achieve lower  freeboard
 temperatures.   Lower freeboard  temperatures establish a cooler, more stable
 inversion  layer which lowers diffusion rates.   However, the  need  to
 periodically  defrost a  below-freezing freeboard  refrigeration device can
 somewhat  offset  the  performance advantage of  below- over  above-freezing
 chillers.
      Twenty-six  tests  from  five sources were  available to evaluate the
 effect  of  freeboard  refrigeration  devices on OTVC's under working (20
 tests)  and  idling  (6  tests) conditions.  Four  tests evaluated above-
 freezing chillers  (AFC's) while  the remainder  evaluated below-freezing
 chillers  (BFC's).  All of the tests under idling conditions evaluated
 BFC's.  Figures  4-3  and 4-4 summarize this data for idling and working
 conditions, respectively.  Test  numbers refer to the tests listed in Tables
4-1 and 4-3.
     For working conditions, control efficiencies ranged from 18 to
50 percent for AFC (Tests 1 through 4).  Three of the four AFC tests showed
at least a 37 percent emission reduction.  Under working conditions
                                    4-12

-------
                 1-2        1-3       1-4               1
                      Test Numbers (these are idling losses)
\-7
         1-8
Figure 4-3. Freeboard Refrigeration Device Tests - Idling Conditions
                                    4-13

-------
       0.40
      0.10
      0.06 -
                           4    9    10   11   12   13    14   15   16   17   18   19   20

                              Test Numbers (1 -4 AFC; 9-20 BFC)
 Uncontrolled and controlled emission rates vary considerably under the
"working" scenario, much more so than under idling conditions (see Figure 4-3.,
especially notice the low variability in the "controlled" data). This is to be
expected because of the major impact on emissions from the workload. Tests
performed by different companies reflect differing workload sizes, shapes, and
cleaning cycles frequencies. A higher emission rate does not necessarily mean
that a cleaner was less well controlled, but likely reflects the influence of a
more demanding workload schedule or the cleaning of a workload more prone to
carry out losses.
                                                                                             i
      Figure 4-4. Freeboard Refrigeration Device Tests - Working Conditions.
                                             4-14

-------
 (Tests 9 through 20),  control  efficiencies  for BFC ranged from 28  to
 82 percent.   The observed 82 percent reduction (Test 12)  should be
 considered atypical.   Freeboard refrigeration  devices primarily reduce
 diffusional  losses.   In a working  OTVC,  losses from solvent  carryout  on
 parts are significant  and usually  greater than diffusional losses, except
 where the machine is  in a very drafty location.   Therefore,  in the more
 likely situation where workload related  losses are significant or  dominate,
 it would be  impossible to achieve  82 percent emission reduction from  a
 device designed  to control  diffusion losses.   Controlled  working emission
 rates for AFC ranged  from 0.04 Ib/ft2/hr to 0.12  Ib/ft2/hr.   For BFC,
 controlled emission rates ranged from 0.01 Ib/ft2/hr to 0.25  Ib/ft2/hr.
      Efficiencies for  BFC under idling conditions  (Tests  1-3  to 1-8)  ranged
 from  11  to 58 percent.   Most notable in  this series  of tests  is that  the
 primary  condensing temperature affects BFC effectiveness  for  CFC-113.  As
 primary  condensing temperature decreases, the  additional  benefit of a BFC
 also  decreases.   This  effect is  not  nearly as  pronounced  with  TCA.  Primary
 condensation  temperature is discussed  further  in the  next section.
 Controlled idling emission  rates with  the use  of a BFC ranged  from
 0.04  Ib/ft2/hr to 0.07  Ib/ft2/hr.
      The  distance between the  solvent  vapor and secondary refrigerated
 freeboard  coils  has been  reported  to affect emission  rate.  An  industry
 contact  stated that this  distance  should be about 4 to 6  inches,11 because
 convection patterns are  unfavorable  if the distance  is outside  this range.
A test showed that increasing  the  separation from 5.5 inches to 7.5 inches
 increased  losses  by 17 percent.  Another contact says the distance should
                    1?
not exceed 8  inches.     Still  another  contact stated that the  freeboard
                                    4-15

-------
 refrigeration device should  be within  4  inches  of the  top  of the solvent
 cleaner,  regardless of the distance  from the  primary condenser.13
 Available test data are insufficient to  determine which distance is  most
 effective.
      Nonetheless,  it is important  that the freeboard refrigeration device
 be  able to  achieve a significant temperature  inversion within the freeboard
 area  (i.e.,  a temperature  less  than  room temperature).  Poorly designed
 freeboard refrigeration devices may  not  be able to establish the  cooler
 temperatures  at the center of  the  freeboard zone.

      4.2.1.3    Refrigerated  Primary  Condenser.  Although a primary
 condenser is  standard  equipment on all OTVC's, t-ie temperature at which
 cooling is provided and  the  design of the coils and coolant flow  have an
 effect on idling losses.   Heat removal to balance the vapor generating heat
 input can be  provided  at various temperatures, through water, chilled
 water, or a direct  expansion refrigerant.  A lower temperature primary
 condenser, generally using a refrigerant as opposed to water, will lower
 diffusion losses.   The  likely reason for this effect is that colder primary
 condenser temperatures, besides condensing solvent vapor,  also act to cool
 the air above the air/solvent vapor  interface, somewhat like a freeboard
 refrigeration device.  This will lower diffusion rates.  The magnitude of
 this effect varies  by  solvent.
     The relationships between emission rate and primary condenser
temperature under idling and working conditions are presented in
Figure 4-5,  for two solvents:  TCA and CFC-113  (Table 4-2; Tests 30
through 34).  A steeper slope indicates a greater sensitivity to primary

                                    4-16

-------
0.20 -
0.19 -
0.18 -
0.17 -
0.16 -
0.15 -
0.14 -
0.13 -
0.12 -
0.11 -
0.10 -
o.oe -
0.08 -
0,07 -
o.oe -
0.06 -
0.04 -
0.03 -
0.02 -
0.01 -
  0 -
TCA (working)
TCA (Idle)
CFC (working)
CFC (kfl)
    30
          35
                40
         T*1
         45
                            50
                                  55
                                       60
                                             65
                                                   70
                                                         75
T-f-T
 80
                                                                     85
                                                                           90
                       Primary Condenser Temperature (F)
 Figure 4-5. Effect of Primary Condenser Temperature on Uncontrolled
                        Idle and Working Conditions
                                                                                   i
                                      4-17

-------
 condenser temperature.   Uncontrolled working  emissions  for TCA ranged from
 0.17 Ib/ft2/hr at 85F  to 0.10 Ib/ft2/hr at 50F.   Thus,  a 41  percent
 reduction in working emissions of TCA can be  obtained by  reducing primary
 condenser temperature from 85F to 50F.   For CFC-113,  uncontrolled  working
 emissions ranged  from 0.19 Ib/ft2/hr at  70F  to  0.09 Ib/ft2/hr at 40F.   In
 the case  of CFC-113,  lowering  the primary condenser temperature from 70F
 to  40 F yields a  52  percent working  emission  reduction.   It  should be noted
 that "working" conditions for  these  test  were  simulated by  introducing a
 water-cooled load using  a programmable hoist.  The  load was  cycled 12 times
 every hour.   This type of setup  would be  expected to simulate  relatively
 mild working conditions.
      Reducing  primary condenser  temperature during  idling has  a  similar
 effect on  emissions  as for  working conditions.  Uncontrolled emissions for
 TCA  range  from 0.14  Ib/ft2/hr  at  85F to  0.09  Ib/ft2/hr at 50F.  This
 corresponds  to  an  idling  loss  reduction of 39  percent associated with
 decreasing  the  primary condenser  temperature from 85F to 50F.  For
 CFC-113, uncontrolled idling emissions ranged  from 0.17  Ib/ft2/hr to
 0.06  Ib/ft /hr  at  40F,  or  a control efficiency of 63 percent under idling
 conditions.
      It is unlikely that  all solvent cleaners  using TCA  and CFC-113 will
 operate their  primary condensers at 85F and 70F,  respectively.  In fact,
 for CFC-113 machines, primary condensation usually is accomplished through
direct expansion refrigeration or chilled water systems  operating at 40 -
60 F.  However, even if primary condenser temperatures for TCA and CFC-113
are at 70 F and 50F, respectively, additional diffusion reduction can
                                    4-18

-------
still be obtained.  Referring to Figure 4-5, the tests show that lowering
the primary condenser temperature for TCA from 70F to 50F reduces working
                         2                 2
emissions from 0.14 Ib/ft /hr to 0.10 Ib/ft /hr; this corresponds to a 29
percent reduction.  Similarly, reducing the primary condenser temperature
on a CFC-113 machine from 50F to 40F will reduce working emissions from
0.11 Ib/ft2/nr to 0.09 Ib/ft2/hr, an 18 percent reduction.
     These tests also examined the effect of the addition of a
below-freezing freeboard refrigeration device onto a machine operating with
a refrigerated primary condenser.  For cleaners using TCA, the addition of
a freeboard refrigeration device to a cleaner with a primary condenser at
50 F still has a significant effect on emissions, reducing emissions by
more than 50 percent.  Very little reduction was obtained by adding a
freeboard refrigeration device to a CFC-113 machine operating at a primary
condenser temperature of 40F.
     One drawback to lowering primary condenser temperature is that it
promotes condensation of ambient water vapor, especially in humid climates.
Therefore, it is imperative that machines employing low temperature
condensation contain adequately sized water separators or dessicant dryers
to minimize water contamination.
     The test results on primary condenser temperatures suggest another
area of concern for water-cooled OTVC's.  Machines using tap water, cooling
tower water, or well water will be subject to seasonal temperature
variations.  During summer months condenser water temperatures may rise
significantly and may cause undesirable diffusion loss increases.  This
effect may be exacerbated by increased ambient drafts from open doors and
windows in warm weather.  Use of chilling or refrigerant systems to control

                                    4-19

-------
 condensing temperatures will  minimize seasonal  variations.

      4-2.1.4  Increased Freeboard Ratio.   The  freeboard  height on  an  OTVC
 is the distance from the the  air/solvent  vapor  interface to the top of the
 tank walls.   The freeboard  zone  serves  to reduce  air/solvent vapor
 interface disturbances  caused by room drafts and  provides a column through
 which diffusing solvent molecules must  migrate  before escaping into the
 ambient air.   Higher freeboards  reduce  diffusional losses by diminishing
 the  effects  of air  currents and  lengthening the diffusion column.  An  OTVC
 with an increased freeboard is presented  in Figure 4-6.
      In discussing  the  adequacy  of freeboard height to reduce  solvent  loss,
 it is  common  to refer to  the  freeboard  ratio.  The freeboard  ratio is  the
 freeboard  height divided  by the  interior  width of the solvent  cleaner.  The
 freeboard  height should be measured from  the established air/solvent vapor
 interface  to  the top of cleaner  walls or  to the bottom of any  opening  in
 the  cleaner walls.   Freeboard width is  the inside width of cleaner walls
 or,  if  irregular, the largest width dimension of the air/solvent vapor
 interface  directly  exposed to the  atmosphere.   The freeboard ratio is used
 in recognition  of the fact that  as cleaner width increases,  susceptibility
 to the  adverse  influence of drafts increases unless the freeboard height is
 proportionally  increased to compensate for the increasing machine width.
Two cleaners of differing size (width) but with identical freeboard ratios
roughly are equally protected from drafts.
     A high freeboard on some machines may make it difficult for an
operator to easily lower parts into the machine, unless  an elevated work
platform is installed.  However,  as discussed  in Section  4.2.2.1, a hoist

                                    4-20

-------
Condensing Coils
 Temperatur^
   Indicator

 Cleanout Door
   Solvent Level Sight Glass
         Heating Elements


Work Rest and Protective Grate
                                                                 Freeboard
                                                                  Condensate Trough
                                                                  Water
                                                                 Separator
 Figure 4-6.  Open Top Vapor Cleaner with Increased Freeboard
                                                                               n
                                                                               (N
                                                                               s
                                      4-21

-------
 can  be  used  on  large  machines  to  overcome  the  problem  of  machine height and
 reduce  workload related  losses.   On  very large machines,  raised freeboards
 may  be  so  tall  as  to  restrict  the ability  to place parts  in  the machine.
 For  these  situations,  slightly lower freeboards might  be  necessary,  but
 special  care should be taken to minimize room  drafts.
      For small  OTVC sizes, the absolute freeboard height  is  an  important
 factor  in  solvent  loss due to  diffusion.   Despite having  a high freeboard
 ratio,  very  small  machines may not have sufficient total  freeboard height
 to prevent accelerated diffusion  losses, even  in calm  environments.
 Industry tests  show that solvent  loss rates can increase  substantially  with
 absolute freeboard heights of  less than approximately  12  inches.14  An
 example  of how  emission rates  can vary as  a function of freeboard height
 are  presented in Figure 4-7.
      Fourteen tests were available to evaluate the effect of an  increased
 freeboard ratio on solvent emissions.  Twelve of the tests evaluated this
 effect under working conditions while two  tests evaluated idling
 conditions.  Emission  reductions were evaluated for:    (a)  raising the
 freeboard ratio from 0.75 to 1.0, (b) raising the freeboard ratio from  1.0
 to 1.25, and (c) raising the freeboard ratio from 0.75 to 1.25.  As
 mentioned previously,  a 0.75 freeboard ratio is representative of baseline
 conditions.  Although  some older machines may have 0.5 freeboard ratio,
 most  vendors currently sell OTVC with freeboard ratios of at least 0.75.
      The available data on the effect of an increased freeboard ratio are
 presented in Table 4-1 (Tests  1-19 and 1-20) and Table 4-2 (Tests 47
 through  58) for idling and working conditions,  respectively.  The data for
working  conditions are presented graphically in Figure 4-8.

                                    4-22

-------
            0.25
            0.20
u

^
c

i
a:
            0.15
ro
to
   0.10

o
co
            0.05
            0.00
                  10                     IS                      20                      25
                  (0-5)                   (0.75)                     (1.0)                    n.25)
                                                           Freeboard in inches
                                                            (Freeboard Ratio)

                               Figure 4-7. Solvent loss rate versus freeboard height for Genesolv

                                                      D under Idle conditions

                             RegbteredTradamMfc ofABeckSiywl Ccvporvton
                                                                                                        30

                                                                                                        (15)

-------
    0.26

    0.24 -

    0.22 -

    0.20 -

    0.18 -

    0.16 -

    0.14 -

    0.12 -

    0,10 -

   0.06

   0.06 -

   0.04

   0.02 -

     0
TESTS 45451
TESTS 46452 + .,

TESTS 47453*...
TESTS 48454 *...

TESTS 48455 *- ,.'~''"*"
                       ^.'*""**-...._

TESTS50456 *	                           ~- -K

                          '"""*	
                                       "*"""->.4f
       0.5
                      0.7
                                     0.8

                                  FREEBOARD RATIO
                                    -i
                                    1.1
                                                   1.3
                                                                  1.5
Figure 4-8.  Effect of Freeboard Ratio - Working Conditions: 6 OTVD Tests
                                          4-24

-------
     Under working conditions, the control efficiencies associated with
raising the freeboard ratio from 0.75 to 1.0 ranged from 19 to 21 percent.
Controlled emission rates at a freeboard ratio of 1.0 ranged from
0.06 Ib/ft2/hr to 0.18 Ib/ft2/hr.  The control efficiencies associated with
raising the freeboard ratio from 1.0 to 1.25 ranged from 6 to 10 percent.
The controlled emission rates at a freeboard ratio of 1.25 ranged from
0.06 Ib/ft2/hr to 0.16 lb/ft2 hr.  Using the above data, the efficiencies
associated with raising the freeboard ratio from 0.75 to 1.25 are
calculated to be approximately 25 percent.
     For idling conditions, data are available to evaluate the effect of
raising the FBR from 0.75 to 1.0.  No data are available for estimating the
efficiencies of an increased freeboard ratio to 1.25 under idling
conditions.  Under idling conditions, the control efficiencies associated
with raising the freeboard ratio from 0.75 to 1.0 were -6 and 39 percent,
based on two tests.  The test with a negative efficiency was conducted
under calm air conditions.  Therefore, the expected reduction in emissions
would be lower than for tests conducted under higher air speed conditions.
However, the negative efficiency result can likely be attributed to
measurement inaccuracies.  In fact, measured losses for uncontrolled and
controlled scenarios were very small and could be considered the same,
within experimental precision.
     Another strategy related to raising the freeboard for emission control
is the design of narrower cleaners.  For the same air/solvent vapor
interface area, a square interface configuration is more susceptible to
room drafts than a long narrow rectangular configuration, especially if the
cleaner can be oriented in the room so that any drafts blow across the
narrower dimension.
                                    4-25

-------
      4-2.1.5   Reduced  Room  Draft/Lin  Exhaust  Velocities.   Air movement over
 an  OTVC  affects  the  solvent emission  rate  by  sweeping  away solvent  vapors
 diffused into  the  freeboard area  and  creating turbulence  in the  freeboard
 area  which will  enhance  solvent diffusion  as  well as solvent vapor  and air
 mixing.
      In  industrial manufacturing  settings, solvent cleaners often are
 operating in high  draft  areas, typically in excess of  130  fpm*.15  Reducing
 room  drafts to calm  conditions (30 fpm or  less) can greatly reduce  emission
 rates.   The available  data  for evaluating  the effect of reduced room draft
 velocity are under working  conditions (see Figure 4-9).  These data are
 from  tests showing the effects of draft velocity on emissions at a constant
 0.75  freeboard ratio (Table 4-3, Tests 59, 60). .The emission rates from
 the tests are 0.23 Ib/ft2/hr at 160 fpm, 0.17 Ib/ft2/hr at  130 fpm,  and 0.1
      2
 Ib/ft /hr at calm conditions.  Reducing room drafts to calm conditions
 corresponds to a 43 percent reduction from working emissions with room
 drafts of 130 fpm and a 58  percent reduction from working emissions  at
 160 fpm.
     A lip exhaust, described in Chapter 3, affects emissions much like air
 speed; it increases mixing and diffusion in the vapor layer.  Tests  have
 shown that a lip exhaust, even when properly operated,  can double solvent
consumption.     If the solvent is not recovered through the use of a carbon
adsorber, overall emissions will  increase.
     Tests have been conducted on the effect of turning off a lip exhaust
on both  idling and working conditions (Table 4-2,  Tests 1-16, 1-17,  and
 1-18 and  Table 4-3, Tests 27, 28,  and 29,  respectively).   The lip exhaust
                                    4-26

-------
0.26
0.24 -
0.22 -
0.20 -
0.18 -
0.16 -
0.14 -
0.12 -
0.10 -
0.06 -
0.06 -
0.04 -
0.02 -
  0
 Uncontrolled
             20       40       60       60      100      120      140      160      160
                         Wind Speed (fpm) ('calm' 30 fpm)
                       Figure 4-9.  Effect of Wind Speed
                                         4-27

-------
was  operated  at the  rate of 90  ft3/min per ft2 of cleaner area; this
corresponds to 900 ft3/nrin for  this particular test.  Based on test data
for  working conditions, the emission rates encountered with a lip exhaust
system  in operation  ranged from 0.22 Ib/ft2/hr (with primary condenser
temperature of 50F) to 0.28 Ib/ft2/hr (with primary condenser temperature
of 85 F).   With the lip exhaust turned off, the emission rates decreased
to 0.10 Ib/ft2/hr (at 50F) and 0.16 Ib/ft2/hr (at 85F).  This corresponds
to a reduction in solvent loss  ranging from 54 percent (at 50F) to
42 percent (at 85F).  The data are presented graphically in Figures 4-10
and  4-11 for  idling and working conditions, respectively.

     4.2.1.6  Enclosed Design.   The enclosed design as a control  option for
OTVC's involves completely enclosing the cleaner, except for a single
opening through which parts enter and leave the enclosure.   The enclosure
typically precludes manual  parts-handling.
     Enclosed design OTVC's reduce idling and workload related losses by
creating a still  air environment inside the machine which limits  solvent
diffusion.  Additionally,  automated loading and unloading of parts at a
controlled rate creates less air turbulence and reduces  solvent carry-out
on cleaned parts.
     Schematics of two variations of enclosed designs are shown in
Figure 4-12.   The enclosed  design with  a horizontal  entry/exit port
(Figure 4-12.A) is not affected by room air drafts.   This design  does not
require a port cover during machine operation.   The enclosed design  with a
                                    4-28

-------
 \//\ Uncontrolled
 i Controlled
M6PC50F
    M 7 PC TOP
Test Number
M8PC85F
Figure 4-10. Lip Exhaust Effects - Idling Conditions
                           4-29

-------
  EZ3 UncontroUtd
  I Controlled
27 (PC@30F)                 28 (PC70F)
            Test Number (these are working losses)
2fl(PC8SF)
Figure 4-11.  Lip Exhaust Effects - Working Conditions
                           4-30

-------
 Loading
  and
Unloading
              Automated
             Parts Handling
               System
Vapor
                        Liquid
                                                                          Sliding
                                                                       S Cover
                                                                       Automated
                                                                     Parts Handling
                                                                        System
                                                    Vapor
                                                             Liquid
      A. Horizontal Port
                                                   B.Vertical Port (with cover)
                Figure 4-12.  Enclosed Open Top Vapor Cleaners
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 
-------
 vertical  entry  and  exit  port  should have a sliding door that will  be  closed
 except when  parts are  being loaded or unloaded.
     Two  data sources  were available to evaluate the control efficiency
 associated with enclosed design OTVC's.17'18  These sources showed that
 uncontrolled OTVC emissions were reduced 42 to 67 percent upon conversion
 to an enclosed design  machine.

     4.2.1.7  Carbon Adsorption.  Carbon adsorption can be employed as a
 control technique in conjunction with a lip exhaust system.  Lip
 exhaust/carbon adsorption systems are most commonly used on large solvent
 cleaners where the  credit from solvent recovery helps to offset the high
 capital equipment cost.  With these systems,  peripheral exhaust ducts
 capture the diffusing  solvent vapors and to some extent solvent evaporating
 from clean parts and directs them through an  activated carbon bed.  The
 solvent vapor molecules are adsorbed onto the activated carbon, removing
 the solvent from the vent stream before discharging to the atmosphere.
     At intervals, when the carbon becomes saturated with  solvent, the bed
 is desorbed, usually with steam, to remove the solvent from the carbon.
The solvent/steam mixture is then condensed and passed through a water
separator, and the recovered solvent is returned to the cleaner.
     The lip exhaust ventilation system should be designed to maximize
solvent capture efficiency and minimize disturbance of the air/solvent
vapor interface.  The percentage of vapor emissions which  are captured by
the lip exhaust system is uncertain.   Several  vendors  have indicated  a lip
exhaust capture efficiency of 40 to 99 percent but no  test data were
provided for justification.19'20'21

                                    4-32

-------
     Proper operation and maintenance procedures are critical to maintain
the control efficiency of carbon adsorption systems.  Examples of operating
procedures which have a negative impact on control efficiency include:  (1)
dampers which do not open and close properly, allowing solvent-laden air to
by-pass the carbon beds; (2) use of carbon that does not meet
specifications, and (3) improper timing of the desorption cycles.
Desorption cycles must be frequent enough to prevent breakthrough of the
carbon beds, but not so frequent to cause excessive energy consumption.
Carbon adsorbers should not be by-passed during the desorption process.  A
dual bed design can be used so that while one bed is being desorbed,
solvent emissions can be routed to the second bed.
     One test was available to evaluate the efficiency of carbon adsorbers
                                  22
for controlling solvent emissions.    This test indicated that a lip
exhaust/carbon adsorber system could control solvent emissions by
65 percent.  However, the test report did not specify whether the baseline
emission rate included lip exhaust.  If the baseline OTVC did have a lip
exhaust, the 65 percent emission reduction overstates the achievable
reduction for a carbon adsorber and lip exhaust installed on an OTVC
without a lip exhaust.  Thus, there is some uncertainty in the validity of
this data point.  Another source indicated that the overall effect of
installing a lip exhaust/carbon adsorber system on an OTVC would be a
                                        23
40 percent reduction in total emissions.    Because of the emission
increase associated with adding a lip-exhaust, the overall effectiveness of
control using carbon adsorption for OTVC's is likely closer to 40 percent
than 65 percent.
                                    4-33

-------
      Depending  upon  the  solvent  mixture  and  the  type  of  objects  being
 cleaned,  adverse  effects may  be  encountered  with carbon  adsorption.  Where
 solvent mixtures  or  stabilizers  are  used, the  solvent vapor  collected  by
 the  exhaust  system may be  richer in  the  more volatile components,  and  the
 recovered  solvent mixture  will not be  identical  to the fresh solvent.
 Also,  some stabilizers or  cosolvents used in solvent mixtures are  water
 soluble.  After desorption, the  steam  used to desorb solvent and
 stabilizers  from the carbon bed  is condensed.  The water soluble components
 remain in the water and are lost, unless recovered by distillation.  Many
 users  are not willing or able to  undertake tasks such as analysis  and
 reformulation of the solvent, and handling toxic or flammable stabilizers.
      In addition, by-products of  uncontrolled solvent degradation, such as
 hydrochloric acid, can be corrosive to the adsorption equipment and/or
 hazardous to operators.  For some solvents or cleaning applications, it may
 be necessary to use special materials of construction for the adsorber,
 such as stainless steel or other  alloys,  or take other measures to prevent
 potential  problems which could lead to solvent degradation and damage to
 the equipment.   One solvent in particular, TCA, is  troublesome when used in
carbon adsorption.  It is heavily stabilized and many of the stabilizers
may be removed during carbon adsorption,  causing solvent breakdown and
equipment corrosion.   Carbon adsorption probably should  not be attempted
with this solvent at  this time.   However, recent studies indicate that
carbon adsorption systems for use with TCA will  be  available in the
future.24
                                    4-34

-------
4.2.2  Controls for Workload Emissions

     4.2.2.1   Mechanically Assisted Parts Handling/Parts Movement Speed.
The method employed for moving parts through the OTVC cleaning cycle has a
direct effect on the magnitude of workload related emissions.  Rapid
movement of parts will increase solvent loss due to carry-out of liquid
solvent and entrainment of solvent vapor, and increased disturbance at the
solvent/air interface.  As mentioned in Chapter 3, workload losses are a
large portion of total working losses (see Chapter 3 for additional
discussion of workload related losses).
     Parts can be moved through the cleaning cycle either by a human
operator or through the use of a mechanical system.  A human operator is
generally unable to move parts at or below the maximum speed of 11 feet per
minute (fpm), as required in many State regulations and recommended in EPA
           or OC 97
guidelines.  '  '    According to one vendor, it is difficult to maintain a
constant speed if a full basket weighs around 10 pounds or more (baskets
                                  28 29
can weigh in excess of 50 pounds).  '    Operator training may have limited
success in lowering the basket movement rate.  However, the speed of the
basket is difficult to judge, and operators will typically return to faster
rates, especially if the load is heavy enough to cause fatigue toward the
end of the workday.    In some industries, operators are paid on a
per-piece basis.  This may be further incentive to move parts more
quickly ^1  Industry estimates of parts movement by typical  human operators
                        32 33
are in excess of 60 fpm.  '     At these speeds,  the working losses would be
much higher,  perhaps by several  times,  than the data presented in Chapter 3
for working losses (reflecting use of hoists).   Use of a mechanical parts
                                    4-35

-------
 handling system can reduce emissions by consistently moving parts into and
 out of the machine at appropriate rates,  thereby eliminating excess losses
 caused by manual  operation.   A parts handling system can be operated by
 push button,  or can be automatic and programmable.   Two typical  parts
 handling systems  are shown in Figure 4-13.   The  first is a  single axis
 hoist that can be operated by a push button,  whereas the second  is a double
 axis programmable parts handling system.
      Although the emission reduction benefit  of  using mechanically assisted
 parts handling is generally  not disputed, there  are  few data  available to
 characterize  the  magnitude of the  benefit.
      One test is  available that simulates the effect  of switching  from a
 human operator to a  system (Table  4-3, Test 26)._ The  test compared  a  hoist
 operated at 20 fpm (to  simulate a  human operator) to  a  hoist  operated  at
 10  fpm.   The  lower speed was  found to reduce working  losses by 28  percent.
 Since human operator  speeds  are generally higher than  20 fpm, the  reduction
 attributable  to the use of a  hoist is likely larger than 28 percent.
      There has  been some concern whether even the present 11  fpm limit  is
 too  high.  At  11  fpm, substantial disturbance of the air/ solvent  vapor
 interface  still occurs.34'35    Further, lowering the hoist speed can allow
 parts  to dry  more  thoroughly prior to removal and create less air
 turbulence during  part entry and exit from the cleaner.  Therefore, working
 losses due to  solvent carryout  and diffusion are minimized.   One
manufacturer  has evaluated the effectiveness of reducing hoist speed
further, particularly as the parts basket moves through the  solvent vapor
layer  (Table 4-3,  Test 25).  During the test,  a variable speed,
programmable hoist was used to lower the hoist speed to 3 fpm as the parts

                                    4-36

-------
        Basket
        Holder
/
                             Moving
                            Mechanical
                              Arm
CO
                                                                            Parts
                                                                           Basket
                                                   Control
                                                    Panel""
                                                            Moving Mechanical Arm
                                                                                     OTVC
                                                                                              Track for
                                                                                              Horizontal
                                                                                              Movement
                                                                  B. Double Axis Design, Programmable
          A. Single Axis Design
                    Figure 4-13.  Automated Parts Handling System
                                                                                                                CT
                                                                                                                CM
                                                                                                                r
                                                                                                                ID
                                                                                                                CM
                                                                                                                en
                                                                                                                ID

-------
basket moved through the solvent vapor.  Decreasing the hoist  speed  from
11 fpm to 3 fpm, resulted in an 81 percent decrease in total working
losses.
     Another advantage of mechanical parts handling is the potential for
precise control of dwell time (i.e., the length of time the part remains  in
the vapor zone).  Proper dwell time decreases emissions by ensuring  that
the parts have reached the solvent temperature prior to removal from the
machine.  If parts have not reached the solvent vapor temperature,
condensation would still occur as parts are withdrawn from the machine and
solvent carry-out losses would increase.  A hoist can also be made to pause
slightly above the air/solvent vapor interface within the freeboard  area as
cleaned parts are being withdrawn.  This reduces carry-out losses by
allowing pooled solvent to drain or evaporate from the parts with much of
the evaporated solvent either sinking back into the vapor zone or being
condensed on cooling coils.  One test measuring the effect of pausing in
the cold air blanket on emission rates indicated that adding a two-minute
dwell above the vapor zone reduced working emissions by 46 percent
(Table 4-3,  Test 24).  This test was run on parts that collected
substantial  amounts of liquid solvent on flat surfaces.  Other types of
workloads that do not collect as much liquid on surfaces would not need as
much time to accomplish adequate drying.
     An additional  benefit of the use of mechanical transport systems is
the ability to reduce worker exposure.   In manual operations,  a person
operating the cleaner will  be near the machine frequently and may have to
bend over the top of the cleaner to lower or extract parts.   Mechanical
parts handling not  only reduces emissions but also allows the operator to

                                    4-38

-------
work farther away from the cleaner.  This has become especially important
since OSHA has lowered the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for PCE to 25
ppm for an eight-hour period and to 50 ppm for TCE and is expected to lower
the PEL for MC in the near future.
     In order to minimize working losses, mechanically assisted parts
handling should be employed while parts are within the solvent vapor,
air/solvent vapor interface, or freeboard area.  Parts on which liquid
solvent has pooled or otherwise been trapped should remain in the freeboard
area just above the air/solvent vapor interface until the liquid solvent
has completely evaporated.  Also, parts baskets should be suspended from
metal chain or cables, not from fiber rope (or any porous material) which
can absorb solvent.

     4.2.2.2  Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor.  Another means of
dramatically reducing carry out of solvent on cleaned parts is by employing
hot vapor recycle or superheated vapor technology.  These two technologies
aim to create zones of superheated solvent vapor within the vapor layer.
Cleaned parts are slowly passed through a superheated zone, warming the
parts and evaporating liquid solvent on parts surfaces before they are
withdrawn from the cleaner.  Solvent vapors heated to approximately
1.5 times the solvent boiling point are used.    Hot vapor recycle and
superheated vapor technologies are relatively new and predominantly used in
conveyorized cleaners, although development work is continuing on OTVC.
Further discussion of these control techniques and their effectiveness is
contained in Section 4.3.2.3.
                                    4-39

-------
 4-2.3   Proper  Operating  and Maintenance  Practices

     Proper  operating  and maintenance practices are critical  to  keeping
 solvent  emissions  at a minimal level; neglect can lead to major  sources  of
 emissions.   The discussion below recommends practices that will  limit
 solvent  loss due to operating and maintenance activities.  No effort was
 made to  quantify the solvent loss reduction associated with these good
 operating and  maintenance practices because effectiveness varies widely,
 depending on current practices.
     Reducing  Drafts.  Emissions due to diffusion and convection can be
 reduced  by covering the OTVC when parts are not being cleaned and by
 reducing room  drafts,  such as through the use of baffles or by reducing
 room ventilation flow  rate near the solvent cleaner.
     Sorav Techniques.   For OTVC's equipped with spray cleaning systems,
 spraying within the vapor zone and at a downward angle helps to control
 excess solvent loss.   Such a practice reduces liquid solvent forced out of
 the OTVC and minimizes turbulence which can increase diffusion losses.
Machines equipped with permanently mounted spray nozzles eliminate the
 possibility  of spraying outside the vapor zone.   With the common use of
 ultrasonics  to enhance cleaning,  the need for solvent sprays on many OTVC
 is minimal and could be eliminated.
     Allied  Corporation tested the effects of spraying location on solvent
 loss rates.   The data  is presented in Table 4-4  for  two primary condenser
temperatures.  The test data show that it is important to spray parts well
below the vapor line.   Solvent losses with spraying  5 inches above the
vapor line are 10 times higher than  losses with  spraying 4 inches below the

                                    4-40

-------
vapor line.  These tests were conducted using a cleaner with a 24 inch
freeboard and ten 40-second spraying cycles per hour.
     Startup/Shutdown Procedures.  A proper start-up practice that reduces
solvent emissions involves starting the condenser coolant flow prior to
turning on the sump heater.  This practice helps condense solvent from the
saturated zone above the liquid solvent before the air is forced out of the
machine as solvent vapors rise.  Conversely, a good shut-down practice
involves allowing the condenser to stay on after the sump heater has been
turned off, until the vapor layer collapses.  Solvent cleaners that operate
on a heat pump design cannot accommodate independent control of heating and
cooling, since heat input and condensation are part of the same
thermodynamic cycle.
     Downtime Losses.  Solvent evaporation during downtime can be
significant, especially so for CFC-113, and methylene chloride.  Use of
covers during downtime will reduce drafts and slow diffusion, but will  not
stop losses completely.  Several techniques can be used to reduce downtime
losses including operating a freeboard refrigeration device, using a sump
cooler to reduce solvent vapor pressure, and pumping solvent out of the
machine to an airtight storage drum.   Among these techniques, cooling the
sump during downtime is reportedly very effective at reducing the solvent
losses due to evaporation.  Sump cooling can be accomplished by two
methods: 1) the liquid solvent can be cooled during downtime by cooling
coils, or 2) the air blanket directly above the liquid solvent can be
cooled by an overlay coil.  One vendor indicated that cooling the sump can
reduce downtime losses by 90 percent.
                                    4-42

-------
     TABLE 4-4.  SOLVENT LOSS RATE VERSUS SPRAYING PRACTICES (LB/FT2/HR)
                TEN 40 SECOND CYCLES PER HOUR GENESOLV  D, 24 INCH FREEBOARD


                                 50 Cooling Water      70 Cooling Water

                                 Loss         %         Loss         %
No Spray                         0.0565        0         0.0837       0


4" Below Vapor                   0.0742       31         0.1173      40


5" Above Vapor                   0.2135      278         0.3010     260


10" Above Vapor                  0.5448      864         0.9484    1033


Source:  Reference 10
                                       4-41

-------
     Workload Introduction/Removal.  Emissions due to the entry and removal
of parts can be reduced with good operating practices.  One such practice
is limiting the rate of introduction of the workload in order to minimize
the turbulence created when the load is lowered into the cleaner.  Limiting
the rate of introduction of the load so that the air/solvent vapor
interface does not fall more than a few inches will prevent excessive pump
out of mixed solvent vapor and air as the vapor layer reestablishes.  As
stated previously, the use of mechanical parts movers can substantially
eliminate these emissions.  Emissions can also be reduced by limiting the
horizontal area of the load to be cleaned to 50 percent or less of the OTVC
air/solvent vapor interface area.  This will mitigate the displacement and
turbulence of solvent vapors as the load is lowered into the cleaner.
However, larger parts baskets could be used without increasing emissions if
the basket speed were reduced when the basket moved through the vapor zone.
     Parts Drainage.  An important operating practice that minimizes
solvent carry-out on cleaned parts is proper racking to avoid solvent
puddles if possible.  Parts with recesses or blind holes should be rotated
or agitated prior to removal from the vapor layer to displace trapped
solvent.  Powered rotating baskets (discussed in 4.3.2.2) can also be used
to limit liquid carry-out effectively.  The cleaning of porous or absorbent
materials, which will carry out excessive quantities of solvent, must be
avoided.  Also, the part being cleaned should be allowed to reach the
solvent vapor temperature prior to removal  from the vapor layer, so that
solvent condensation on the part no longer occurs.
     Leak Detection/Repair.  Solvent emissions can also be controlled by
repairing visible leaks and repairing or replacing cracked gaskets,

                                    4-43

-------
malfunctioning  pumps, water  separators, and steam traps promptly.   Routine
equipment  inspections will help locate leaks or problem areas more  quickly.
Halide detectors  that can be used to  identify leaks are available at a
reasonable cost  ($150 to $500).
      Leaks at welded joints can be avoided if the OTVC vendor tests the
joints prior to  shipping.  The test must be sensitive enough to detect fine
cracks.  A simple water test is not sufficient because high surface tension
of water prevents penetration of small cracks.  Often a dye penetrant is
used.  Machines made with 316L stainless steel walls will  be less prone to
stress cracks.  Pressure fittings, as opposed to threaded connections,  have
also  been reported to reduce leaks.38
      Clean out doors, viewing ports,  or other gasketed machine parts must
be carefully designed and manufactured.  Gasket material  must be nonporous
and resistant to chemical attack of the solvents used.  Ill-fitting gaskets
or use of improper gasketing material  can result in large  solvent losses.
      Solvent Transfer.  Losses during transfer of solvent  into and out  of
the OTVC can be controlled by correct operating practices.   Ideally,
solvent filling, draining,  and transfer operations  should  be by pipe in
closed systems.  Some vendors have systems that allow for  pumping solvent
from  the solvent drum directly into the solvent cleaner.39  This could  cut
down  on spill losses and diffusion associated  with  solvent filling.   If  the
solvent is pumped into the cleaner with little or no splashing,  such as
with  submerged fill  piping,  less solvent  would be lost.   Losses  during
transfer of contaminated solvent or sump  bottoms from the  OTVC sump to
stills or waste solvent storage can be controlled by using leakproof
couples.   Transfer to a vented tank or sealed  containers will  help reduce
emissions.
                                    4-44

-------
     Solvent which has been contaminated with water should either be
purified in a water separator or replaced with fresh solvent.  Water
contained in the solvent enhances diffusion losses (except for CFC-113
solvent).
     Safety Switches.  Control switches are devices used on vapor cleaners
to prevent unsafe conditions such as vapor overflow, solvent decomposition,
and excess solvent consumption.  Common types of control switches include:
(1) vapor level control thermostat; (2) condenser water pressure switch or
flow switch and thermostat (for water cooled machines); (3) sump
thermostat; (4) liquid solvent level control; (5) spray pump control switch
and (6) secondary heater switch.  The first four switches turn off the sump
heat while the fifth turns off the spray when conditions within the machine
exceed proper operating conditions.  The most important switch is the vapor
level control thermostat which turns off sump heat when the solvent vapor
zone rises above the design operating level.  The secondary heater switch,
found on some machines, is activated when introduction of a large load
causes the vapor level to fall.  Secondary heaters reduce solvent loss from
vapor level fluctuation.
     As oils, greases, and other contaminants build up in the solvent, the
boiling point of the mixture increases.  Both the sump thermostat and
liquid solvent level control prevent the solvent from becoming too hot and
decomposing.  The sump thermostat cuts off the heat when the sump
temperature rises significantly above the solvent's boiling point, which
will occur as contamination of solvent increases.  The solvent level
control turns off the heat when the liquid level of the boiling sump drops
nearly to the height of the sump heater coils.  In the case of electrically

                                    4-45

-------
 and corrosive  decomposition  products.   For  steam-heated  units,  or  units
 which  use  a  heat  pump  system,  solvent decomposition  is less  likely because
 these  heat sources  normally  do not  reach  solvent-decomposing temperatures.
     However,  solvent  level  controls can  be useful on machines  using  these
 heat sources,  especially  for the higher boiling solvents, trichloroethylene
 and perch!oroethylene, because low  liquid levels permit  high concentration
 of  soils which can  "bake" onto heating elements, seriously impairing  heat
 transfer and possibly  contributing  to solvent decomposition.  While these
 heat sources cannot reach temperatures where solvent decomposition  is
 rapid, hotter mixtures of solvent and sludges can cause  solvent
 deterioration more quickly than the cooler operating temperatures of
 relatively clean  solvent.  Therefore, a solvent I.evel switch can still
 benefit by signalling  the time for  solvent cleanup.
     The spray pump control  switch  is not used as often as the other safety
 switches, but it can offer a significant benefit.   If the vapor level  drops
 below a specified level,  this control cuts off the spray pump until the
 normal  vapor level is resumed,  and then the spray can be manually
 re-started.  This prevents spraying with an inadequate vapor level, which
 can cause excessive emissions of sprayed solvent.   The spray pump control
 switch sometimes also has a feature which cuts off the spray pump if
 spraying is outside the vapor zone.
     Although the effectiveness of these controls  cannot be  quantified, it
 is expected that these switches will protect against  potentially
significant emissions from upset conditions.
                                    4-46

-------
4.3  IN-LINE CLEANERS

     In-line cleaners can be cold cleaners, vapor cleaners, or a
combination cold/vapor cleaner.  However, the majority using chlorinated/
chlorofluorinated solvents are vapor cleaners.  These cleaners are nearly
always enclosed except for entrance/exit ports and employ a continuous or
multiple-batch loading systems.  Unlike OTVC's which are often
"off-the-shelf" items, they are normally custom-designed for a specific
workload and production rate situation.  In-line cleaners are used in a
broad spectrum of metal working industries, but are most often found in
plants where there is a constant stream of parts to be cleaned, and the
advantages of continuous cleaning outweigh the lower capital cost of a
batch loaded OTVC.
     The control techniques applicable for use with a in-line cleaner vary
according to the machine design and operation.  Presented in this chapter
are the following controls minimizing the entrance/exit openings, carbon
adsorption, freeboard refrigeration devices,  drying tunnels, rotating
baskets, and hot vapor recycle/superheated vapor systems.
     Test data were not available to evaluate the effectiveness of all  the
in-line cleaner control techniques listed above.  Only four tests were
available, three that evaluated the effectiveness of a freeboard
refrigeration device (two below-freezing, one above-freezine) and the other
a carbon adsorber.  These tests are discussed in the relevant subsections
and are summarized in Table 4-5.
                                    4-47

-------
                                        TABLE 4-5.   SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE TESTS - IN-LIME CLEANERS
Tested
Control
AFC
BFC
BFC
CADS
Solvent
GENSOLV DFX
GENSOLV DFX
PCE
TCE
Cleaner
Make
Allied
Allied
Detrex
Blakeslee

Seconday
Chiller
off
off
off
none
Basel ine
Carbon
Adsorber
none
none
none
off
Control l*ri
Emission
(Ib/ft2/hr)
6.2 Ib/hr
6.2 Ib/hr
1.0
1.2
Secondary
Chiller
AFC
BFC
BFC
none
Carbon
Adsorber
none
none
none
on
Emission
(Ib/ft2/hr)
5.7 Ib/hr
1.95 Ib/hr
0.4
0.5
Control
Efficiency
8
69
62
61
   AFC  = above-freezing freeboard refrigeration device
   BFC  = below-freezing freeboard refrigeration device
   CADS = carbon  adsorption system
00

-------
4.3.1  Controls for Interface Emissions

     4.3.1.1   Minimize Entrance/Exit Openings.  Although in-line cleaners
are mostly enclosed by design, additional emission control can be achieved
by minimizing opening areas and covering the openings during non-operating
hours.  A reduction in the area of entrance and exit openings reduces
idling and working losses due to diffusion by minimizing air drafts inside
the cleaner.  Air drafts increase emissions by sweeping away solvent-laden
air near the air/solvent vapor interface and promoting mixing and diffusion
by increasing turbulence in the freeboard area.
     Among in-line cleaners, monorail cleaners tend to have the greatest
diffusion emissions due to drafts through the machine caused by openings at
opposite ends.  In-line machines utilizing U-bend designs eliminate the
problem of air currents flowing through the machine.  Also, many in-line
cleaners, such as monorail cleaners can be constructed so that internal
baffles the effect of air flow through the machine (see Figure 4-14).
     Silhouette openings and hanging flaps decrease the area where
diffusion losses can occur and restrict drafts inside the cleaner, but will
have minimal effect on emissions if the openings are already relatively
small.  When the in-line cleaner is not in use, port covers should be used
to reduce downtime emissions.
     The extent to which reduced entrance/exit opening area affects
emissions is dependent on the total open area.  The relative importance of
use of port covers in overall emission reduction depends on the operating
schedule.  Port covers are most essential when the fraction of the daily
schedule the cleaner spends  in the downtime mode is substantial.

                                    4-49

-------
en
o
                                   Figure 4-14. Baffled Monorail In-line Cleaner

-------
      4.3.1.2  Carbon Adsorption.   Venting  solvent vapor emissions  to a
 carbon adsorption system is a major emission  control  technology for both
 diffusion losses  and workload related  losses  from in-line  vapor cleaners
 and cold cleaners.   Carbon  adsorbers are effective emissions  control
 devices and  can be  cost-effective  since captured  solvent is recycled.   The
 enclosure around  in-line cleaners  makes it  easier to  capture  and duct
 emissions to the  carbon  adsorber,  and  overall  efficiencies are  higher  on
 in-lines than OTVC's.  The  relative degree  of  emissions  control  depends  on
 the cleaner  design,  workload  characteristics,  and the solvent emissions
 capture efficiency.   See Section 4.2.1.7 for more discussion of  control  by
 carbon adsorption.
      The available  test  on  carbon  adsorbers shows  approximately  a 60
 percent emissions reduction efficiency when applied to an in-line cleaner
 (i.e.,  circuit  board  stripper).40   Carbon adsorbers are  used in  both
 conveyorized  vapor  and in-line cold  cleaners in many applications.
 However,  with  some  solvent mixtures, there could  be the  same operating
 problems  described  for OTVC's  in Section 4.2.1.7.

 4.3.1.3   Freeboard  Refrigeration Devices.   The refrigerated freeboard
 device  on a  in-line vapor cleaner  functions in the same way as one on an
 OTVC.   Refrigeration established a cool air layer above the vapor zone
which  inhibits diffusion and solvent-air mixing.  (See Section 4.2.1.2 for
 a more detailed discussion of freeboard refrigeration devices.)
     Only three tests evaluating the effect of freeboard refrigeration
devices on in-line vapor cleaner emissions  were available to EPA.  One of
these tests evaluated an above-freezing chiller and two evaluated

                                    4-51

-------
 below-freezing  chillers  on  an  in-line  circuit  board defluxer.   The  test
 data  indicated  that  a  below-freezing chiller can reduce  in-line emissions
 by  about  60  to  70  percent.  Above-freezing chillers can  achieve about  a  10
 percent emission reduction.41'42

 4.3.2  Control  for Workload Emission?

     4.3.2.1  Drvino Tunnel?.  A drying tunnel is simply an add-on
 enclosure which extends  the exit area of in-line cleaners.  The  tunnel
 reduces carry-out  losses because solvent evaporating from cleaned parts
 exiting the machine may  be contained within the drying tunnel rather than
 being lost to the  atmosphere.  Much of the evaporated solvent in the drying
 tunnel will sink back  into the vapor zone, thereby being recovered.   Or,  if
 the machine is connected to a carbon absorber,  the evaporated solvent in
 the drying tunnel will be drawn into the absorber and recovered.  A drying
 tunnel works well  in conjunction with a carbon adsorber.
     The effectiveness of a drying tunnel  is dependent on several factors.
 Since drying tunnels primarily reduce carry-out emissions,  the
 effectiveness of this device is dependent  on the amount of carry-out before
 installation of the tunnel.   The amount of control  is  also dependent on the
 length of time that the parts are in the drying tunnel.   The length  of time
necessary will depend on the solvent type  and the parts configuration.   If
 sufficient time is  allowed,  essentially all  carry-out  emissions  could be
eliminated (except  for the most intricate  or "solvent  trapping"  types of
parts).
                                    4-52

-------
     A drawback to the use of a drying tunnel as a control device is the
large amount of floor space that is required.  The floor space may not be
available in all plants to add drying tunnels to existing cleaners,
although it can be planned for when new machines are purchased.

4.3.2.2  Rotating Baskets

     Rotating baskets may be used to reduce carry-out emissions from
cross-rod cleaners and ferris wheel cleaners or when cleaning parts that
may trap solvent.  A rotating basket is a perforated or wire mesh cylinder
containing parts to be cleaned that is slowly rotated while proceeding
through the cleaner.  The rotation prevents trapping of liquid solvent on
parts.
     As with drying tunnels, the control effectiveness of rotating baskets
is not easily quantifiable.  The effectiveness is dependent on the workload
shape and the way the parts are loaded into the basket.
     Not all parts are able to be tumbled in baskets without being damaged.
Therefore, rotating baskets are not applicable to all operations.  Also,
rotating baskets are designed into the conveyor and hence are not easily
retrofitted on existing cleaners.

4.3.2.3  Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor

     Hot vapor recycle and superheated vapor are promising, relatively new
technologies.  Vendors are reporting that these technologies have the
                                    4-53

-------
potential to significantly reduce carry-out emissions from both OTVC's and
in-line vapor cleaners.  An in-line cleaner equipped with superheated vapor
is shown  in Figure 4-15.
     Both hot vapor recycle and superheated vapor operate on the same
principle.  These two technologies aim to create zones of superheated
solvent vapor within the vapor layer.  Cleaned parts are slowly passed
through a superheated zone, warming the parts and evaporating liquid
solvent on parts surfaces before they are withdrawn from the cleaner.
Solvent vapor is heated to approximately 1.5 times the solvent boiling
      43
point.    (One contact indicated that solvent vapor is heated to the
highest temperature possible without decomposing the solvent to speed
drying.44)
     The hot vapor recycle process utilizes continuous recirculation of the
solvent vapor.   Solvent vapor is drawn from the vapor zone,  circulated
through a heater, and blown back into the vapor zone through a system of
distribution slots.   In the superheated vapor process,  heating coils placed
at one end of the vapor zone superheat a sector of solvent  vapor through
which cleaned parts  are passed.
     Hot vapor recycle is generally applicable only to in-line vapor
cleaners since some  type of enclosure is necessary for effective
recirculation of solvent vapor.   The movement of vapor creates turbulence
and tends to increase solvent  loss unless the machine is  enclosed  or
baffles are present.   Superheated vapor technology can reportedly  be
applied to both in-line cleaners or OTVC's.   Hot vapor recycle and
superheated vapor have been predominantly used with chlorofluorinated (CFC)
solvents.   The  technologies are  attractive due to potential  savings of

                                    4-54

-------
     WorWoad
tn
in
Air/Solvent
 Interface
                         Figure 4-15. Baffled Monorail In-line Cleaner with Superheat Device

-------
 costly CFC solvents.   Hot vapor recycle  has  been  used  in  one application to
 clean condenser coils  in  a monorail  cleaner  using PCE.
      No test  data  have been provided by  industry  to quantify the  control
 efficiency possible using hot  vapor  recycle  or  superheated  vapor
 technologies.   However, one industry contact claims that  a  90 percent
 reduction  in  carry-out emissions  is  possible.45
      The potential for significant emission  reduction  is  apparent.
 Normally,  cleaned  parts will emerge  from the vapor zone of  a cleaner with  a
 thin  film  of  liquid solvent on  all surfaces, and  possibly pooled  solvent in
 holes  and  crevices.  Much of this liquid solvent  may not evaporate until
 parts  are  out of the machine.   If all solvent film and pooled  solvent  is
 evaporated  prior to leaving  the vapor zone,  large, solvent savings should
 ensue.   The only workload  related losses remaining would be  associated with
 air/solvent vapor  interface  disturbances and vapor entrainment due to the
 speed  of the conveyor.

 4.3.3   Proper Operating and  Maintenance Practices

     Conveyor Speed.   There  are several operating and maintenance practices
 that can significantly reduce solvent emissions from in-line cleaners.   By
 controlling conveyor rates at or below 3.3 m/min  (11 ft/min) absolute
 speed,  solvent emissions due to vapor zone turbulence and carry-out can be
minimized.   The 11 fpm limit should be measured as an absolute rate,  not a
vertical speed (i.e.,  only 11 feet of conveyor should pass any spot in  1
minute).  Conveyor rates can be controlled by the proper gearing of
electric motor drives.
                                    4-56

-------
     Sprav Techniques.  Emissions can be minimized by proper design of
fixed spray systems.  Nozzles should direct spray horizontally or downward
to keep from piercing the vapor layer, or the spray area should be
separated by baffles from the rest of the vapor zone.
     Start-up/Shut-down Procedures.  Losses can be reduced by the following
methods:  (1) starting the condenser water flow prior to turning on the
sump to help condense excess loss as the vapor layer rises; (2) maintaining
the condenser water flow after shut-down of the sump heater until the vapor
layer has collapsed and the liquid solvent has cooled to room temperature;
(3) cooling the sump during downtime or operating cooling coils above the
sump; and (4) covering the entrance and exit ports during downtime.
     Carbon Adsorber Procedures.  For in-line cleaners with carbon
adsorption systems, several operating practices can be employed which help
to reduce emissions.  The practices include (1) not by-passing the carbon
adsorber during the desorption cycle, (2) proper carbon bed regeneration
frequency, so as to prevent solvent breakthrough, (3) leak checks of the
carbon adsorption system,and (4) good steam condensate separations.
     Parts Drainage.  As with OTVC's, an important operating practice that
minimizes solvent carry-out in in-line operations is proper racking to
avoid solvent puddles.  Where pooling of solvent cannot be avoided,
rotating or agitating parts prior to removal from the vapor layer to
displace trapped solvent is necessary.  Rotating baskets (discussed in
Section 4.3.5) can also be used to limit liquid carry-out.  The cleaning of
porous or absorbent materials, which will absorb and carry out excessive
quantities of solvent, must be avoided.  Also, conveyor speed must be
                                    4-57

-------
adjusted so that parts being cleaned are allowed to reach the solvent vapor
temperature prior to removal from the vapor layer, and solvent is not
visible on emerging parts.
     Leak Detection/Repair.  Solvent emissions can also be controlled by
repairing visible leaks and repairing or replacing cracked gaskets,
malfunctioning pumps, water separators, and steam traps promptly.  Routine
equipment inspections (particularly with a halide detector) will help
locate leaks or problem areas more quickly.  Leaks at welded joints can be
avoided if the in-line cleaner vendor tests the joints prior to shipping.
The test must be sensitive enough to detect fine cracks.   A simple water
test is not sufficient because high surface tension of water prevents
penetration of small cracks.  Often a dye penetrant is used.  Machines made
with 316L stainless steel walls will be less prone to stress cracks.
Pressure fittings, as opposed to threaded connections, have also been
reported to reduce leaks.
     Clean out doors, viewing ports, or other gasketed machine parts  must
be carefully designed and manufactured.  Gasket material  must be nonporous
and resistant to chemical attack of the solvents used.  Ill-fitting gaskets
or use of improper gasketing material  can result in large solvent losses.
One test of an in-line cleaner showed that inadequate sealing around  a
viewing door accounted for losses of 2.3 Ibs/hour.46  Sealing the window
with duct tape eliminated these losses.
     Solvent Transfer.   Losses during transfer of solvent into and out of
the in-line cleaner can be controlled by correct operating practices.
Solvent filling and draining should be completed in as closed a system as
possible.   As stated previously,  some vendors have systems that allow for

                                    4-58

-------
 pumping solvent from the solvent  drum directly  into  the  solvent  cleaner.
 This could  cut  down on  spill  losses  and  diffusion  associated with  solvent
 filling.   If the solvent is pumped  into  the  cleaner  with  little  or no
 splashing,  such as  with submerged piping,  less  solvent would be  lost.
 Losses  during transfer  of contaminated solvent  or  sump bottoms from the
 in-line cleaner sump can be controlled by  using leakproof couples.
 Transfer to a vented tank or  sealed  containers will  help  reduce  emissions.
      Safety Switches.   In-line cleaners  should also  have  the appropriate
 safety  switches to  ensure proper  operation.  A complete discussion  of
 safety  switches is  included in Section 4.2.3.

 4.4   COLD CLEANERS

      As discussed in  Chapter 3, carburetor cleaners  are the only type of
 cold  cleaner  currently  manufactured  for  use with a halogenated solvent.
 These machines  are  typically well controlled with a water cover.   The water
 cover substantially  limits evaporation losses since very little solvent
 comes into  contact with  the air.  Many such machines are designed to be
 closed during the cleaning cycle  (as well as during downtime and idling)
 and further reduce diffusion losses due to drafts and splashing of solvent.
 Based on one  available test, water covers can reduce evaporation losses by
 at least 90 percent.     Existing cold cleaners using halogenated solvents
 should employ water covers to control evaporation.
     Simple work practices can limit working losses.   These practices
 include allowing adequate drainage of parts and  flushing  parts  only within
the confines of the cleaner.
                                    4-59

-------
 4.5  INTEGRATED CONTROL STRATEGIES

      This section defines the common  elements  of well-controlled  solvent
 cleaning operations  and gives specific  examples  of  control  technique
 combinations  that constitute  a well-controlled machine.   Since  solvent
 cleaner emissions stem from several sources, a well-controlled  and  operated
 machine will  employ  a  variety of  control measures.  Purchasers  of new
 equipment should seek  equipment that  is designed  to provide these elements
 of  good control.   Owners  and  operators  of existing cleaners can
 substantially reduce solvent  loss  by  retrofitting the listed controls to an
 existing machine.

 4-5-l   Summary  of Solvent  Loss  Reduction Techniques

     The two  main elements of  a well-controlled solvent cleaning  operation
 are a good machine design  and  proper operating practices.  A well-designed
 machine  will  have features to  limit losses from:   (1)  diffusion and
 convection, (2) carryout,  (3)   leaks, (4) downtime, (5) solvent transfer,
 (6) water contamination, and  (7) waste disposal.   Proper operating
 practices involve minimizing or eliminating leaks, air drafts, spills,  and
 solvent  carryout.
     Tables 4-6 through 4-8 summarize the available  control  techniques
covered  in this chapter.  All  of the good operating  practices  can  be
employed in any solvent cleaning operation.   However,  all listed control
hardware would not be employed on  one machine.   There  are several  devices
to control air/solvent vapor interface losses and workload related losses,

                                    4-60

-------
                         TABLE 4-6.  AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR OTVC OPERATIONS
 Source of
Solvent Loss
       Available Control  Hardware
                                                            Operating  Practices
Air/Solvent
  Vapor
  Interface
Workload
Fugitive


t
   1.0 FBR (or higher)
   Freeboard refrigeration device
   Reduced primary condenser temperature
   Automated cover
   Enclosed design
   Carbon adsorber
   Reduced air/solvent  vapor interface area

   Automated parts handling at 11 fpm or less
   Carbon adsorber
   Hot vapor recycle/superheated vapor
   system
Sump cooling system for downtime           ,
Downtime cover
Closed piping for solvent and waste
solvent transfers
Leakproof connections;  proper materials
of construction for machine parts and gaskets
                                                  Place machine where there are no drafts
                                                  Close cover during idle periods
  Rack parts so that solvent drains
   properly
t  Conduct spraying at a downward angle
   and within the vapor zone
  Keep workload in vapor zone until
   condensation ceases
t  Allow parts to dry within machine
   freeboard area before removal

  Routine leak inspection and
   maintenance
t  Close cover during downtime

-------
                         TABLE 4-7.   AVAILABLE  CONTROL  TECHNIQUES FOR IN-LINE OPERATIONS
Solvent  Loss
 Mechanism
              Machine Design
                                                                                Operating  Practices
Air/Solvent
  Vapor
  Interfaceb
Workload
Fugitive
    1.0  freeboard  ratio
    Freeboard  refrigeration device3
    Reduced primary condenser temperature3
    Carbon adsorber
    Minimized  openings (clearance between parts
    and  edge of machine opening is less than
    10 cm or 10% of the width of the opening)
t  Conveyor speed at 11 fpm or less
  Carbon adsorber
  Hot vapor recycle/superheated vapor
   system


a
Sump cooling system for downtime
Downtime cover or flaps
Closed piping for solvent and waste
solvent transfers
Leakproof connections; proper materials
of construction for machine parts and
gaskets
  Rack parts so that solvent drains
   properly
  Conduct spraying at a downward angle
   and within the vapor zonea
  Keep workload in vapor zone until
   condensation ceases
t  Allow parts to dry within machine
   before removal

  Routine leak inspection and
   maintenance
  Cover ports during downtime
3Applies to in-line vapor cleaners,  but not in-line cold  cleaners.
bAir/solvent interface for in-line cold cleaners.

-------
                               TABLE 4-8.   AVAILABLE  CONTROL  TECHNIQUES  FOR COLD  CLEANERS
        Machine Design
   Operating Practices
       Manual cover
     0  Water cover with internal baffles
       Drainage facility (internal)
  Close machine during idling and downtime
  Drain cleaned parts for at least
   15 seconds before removal
  Conduct spraying only within the confines of
   the cleaner
CO

-------
 and  using  them  all would  be  redundant  and expensive.  The goal  of minimum
 solvent  loss  can  be met by selecting appropriate combinations of  interface
 loss  controls and workload loss controls.   In Section 3.5.2, some workable
 combinations  are  described and evaluated.

 4.5.2  Effective  Control  Technique Combinations

     The effectiveness of various control technique combinations  at
 reducing overall  solvent  cleaner emissions depends upon the operating
 schedule and the  specific techniques combined.  As noted in Section 3.5,
 the overall effectiveness of an individual control  technique depends on the
 relative contribution of  each emission type (idling, workload related,
 leaks, downtime,  etc.) to total emissions.  Those techniques that  are
 effective  at reducing the predominant emission type would be most effective
 at reducing overall solvent cleaner emissions.  Furthermore, the combined
 control efficiency of two or more techniques that act on the same emission
 type (e.g., diffusion/convection losses) will  be somewhat less  than the sum
 of the efficiencies for each technique acting alone.  Appendix  A shows the
derivation of a formula that can be used to calculate the overall
efficiency of control  technique combinations.   Two  or more control
techniques acting on different emission types would have additive control
efficiencies when acting  in combination.
     Table 4-9 presents estimates of the overall efficiencies associated
with selected control  technique options employed on uncontrolled machines
described  in Section 3.4.   The control  options include control  technique
combinations and, in the case of in-line cleaners,  some single  control
technique options.  The control technique options shown in
                                    4-64

-------
                   TABLE 4-9.  EFFECTIVENESS OF SELECTED OTVC CONTROL TECHNIQUE COMBINATIONS


                                                              Achievable Reduction (%)
Control Technique
   Combination                                         Schedule Aa                      Schedule B


0    Hoist at 11 fpm                                    40 - 50                           50 - 70
     Freeboard Refrigeration Device (BF)
     1.0 FBR

    Hoist at 11 fpm                                    70 - 80                           70 - 80
     Enclosed Design
     Sump Cooling

    Hoist at 11 fpm                                    30 - 40                           50 - 60
     Automated Cover

t    Hoist at 3 fpm                                     50 - 60                               80
     Freeboard Refrigeration Device (BF)
     1.0 FBR

    Hoist at 3 fpm                                     80 - 90                               90
     Enclosed Design
     Sump Cooling

    Hoist at 3 fpm                                     40 - 50                               80
     Automated Cover


 Schedule A assumes the following: 6 hr/day idling;  2 hr/day working; and 16 hr/day downtime for 250 days/yr
 and 24 hr/day downtime for 105 day/hr.   See Section 3.5 and Appendix B for relative proportion of total
.emissions due to idling, working, and downtime under this schedule.
 Schedule B assumes the following: 4 hr/day idling;  12 hr/day working; and 8 hr/day downtime for 250 days/yrs
 and 24 hr/day downtime for 105 days/yr.
 See Section 3.5 and Appendix B for the  relative proportion of total  emissions due to idling,  working,  and
 downtime under this schedule.

-------
 this table are not meant to be an exhaustive list of the best interactive
 controls; other combinations are possible.   For example, another in-line
 cleaner control option would involve combined hot vapor recycle or
 superheated vapor technology with a reduced primary condenser temperature.
 However, it is not the scope of this document to evaluate all  possible
 control  options.
      Detailed calculations  supporting the overall  efficiencies of control
 technique combinations are  contained in Appendices A  and B.   It  should be
 noted that the estimated  efficiencies assume  that  operating  and  maintenance
 practices are satisfactory.   Improper practices  may constitute a major
 source of cleaner emissions  and  may  override  the reductions  achievable with
 the  listed control  techniques.   If,  for example, a  machine has substantial
 losses due to leaks or filling,  then  the emission  reductions shown in
 Tables 4-9 and  4-10 may not  be realized.

 4.6   ALTERNATIVE  CLEANING AGENTS

      Emissions  of  the  five common halogenated solvents used in cleaning
 operations  can  be  eliminated through  conversion to alternative cleaning
 agents.   Such cleaning agents include water or aqueous-based detergent,
 nonhalogenated  solvent (e.g., terpene-based solutions) emulsion
 formulations, and new cleaning agents being introduced by solvent producers
 that are  partially hydrogenated CFC's or blends of partially hydrogenated
 CFC's and other nonhalogenated solvents.   Many vendors of cleaning
equipment have indicated that there is a significant trend toward
alternative cleaning systems due to concerns about potential  health effects

                                    4-66

-------
             TABLE 4-10.   EFFECTIVENESS  OF  SELECTED IN-LINE  CLEANER  CONTROL  TECHNIQUE  COMBINATIONS



Control Technique
Combination

t
t
t
t

Freeboard Refrigeration Device
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon Adsorption, Sump Cooling
Freeboard Refrigeration Device
Sump Cooling
Hot Vapor Recycle or Superheated Vapor,
Sump Cooling
Freeboard Refrigeration, Hot Vapor
Recycle or Superheated Vapor

Schedule Aa
50
50
65
65
70
70
Achievable Reduction (%)
Schedule Bb
60
60
60
60
70
85
 Schedule A assumes the following:  8 hr/day working;  16 hr/day  downtime  for  260 days/yr
.and 24 hr/day downtime for 105 days/yr.
 Schedule B assumes the following:  16 hr/day working;  8 hr/day  downtime  for  365 days/yr.

-------
and anticipated regulatory constraints associated with the halogenated
solvents.
     Effective alternative cleaning systems are currently being implemented
to replace selected existing halogenated solvent applications.  Several
notable alternative systems are listed below:
         At the General  Dynamics aircraft facility in Texas,  staff
          researchers have tested aqueous and  emulsion cleaners as
          substitutes for several TCE vapor degreasers.   Several  effective
          cleaning agents have been identified and plans  are  underway to
          replace the TCE degreasers.48
         At the US Air Force Aerospace and Meteorology Center in  Ohio,  a
          biodegradable detergent is  now used  injieu  of  a  CFC system to
          clean  navigational  equipment.   At another Air Force  base
          (Vandenburg),  metals parts  are now cleaned with an aqueous  system
          instead of with TCA.49'50
         Rockwell  International  has  evaluated  the  effectiveness of aqueous
          versus  solvent  ultrasonic cleaning at  the  Rocky Flats nuclear
          weapons facility in Colorado.   The aqueous system was found  to be
          more effective  than both  TCE  and  TCA  systems.51
     t    The Torrington  Company  in Walhalla, South  Carolina now uses  an
          aqueous  system  to clean metal  bearings for the automobile
          industry.   Previously,  vapor cleaners with TCA were  used.52
         At AT&T  in  Massachusetts, a terpene based  formulation is being
          used to  clean printed circuit  boards whereas methylene chloride
          had been  used in the past.     Furthermore, General Electric  in
          Waynesboro, Virginia has  converted to an aqueous system  to clean
                                 54
          printed  circuit  boards.
                                   4-68

-------
     Despite the potential for increased substitution, there can be several
disadvantages to alternative systems relative to solvent systems.  These
include:  (1) increased space requirements since alternative systems are
generally larger than comparable solvent systems:  (2) potentially higher
energy usages where alternative systems (particularly aqueous) require
substantial energy to heat the cleaning fluid; (3) longer drying times or
need for a separate dryer to remove water from parts being cleaned; and (4)
increased wastewater discharge from disposal of contaminated cleaning
fluid.  "    Also, if a substitution is made using cleaning agents
containing VOC, the VOC emissions likely will have to be controlled.
     There is some indication, however, that these disadvantages can be
overcome.  One manufacturer has developed an aqueous cleaner that features
a drastically reduced wastewater problem and high cleaning efficiency.
This type of cleaner relies on thorough agitation of a special cleaning
fluid to keep oils in suspension (and not at the fluid surface) during the
cleaning cycle which avoids recontamination of parts as they are extracted
from the cleaner.  Part of the cleaning fluid is continuously pumped to a
separate non-agitated chamber where the oils will separate from the
cleaning fluid and be drawn off by a surface skimmer.  The "freshened"
cleaning fluid can then be recycled to the cleaning tank.
     Still, there are some cleaning problems for which aqueous or
terpene-based systems may not be suitable, usually because the necessary
degree of cleaning cannot be achieved.  Several examples noted by
manufacturers of aqueous and solvent systems include silicon products in
the electronics and medical industries; electronics industry applications
where the circuitry is extremely close to the board (as in newer surface

                                    4-69

-------
mount devices); wax-coated products, and adhesive products.62'63  However,
even more difficult cleaning situations may be handled by newly designed
machines.  Alternate cleaning technologies continue to improve.
     In summary, alternative cleaning systems can replace existing solvent
vapor cleaning systems in many applications.  Compared to solvent systems,
these alternative systems can be economically competitive and can achieve
the same level of cleaning required.  The feasibility of substitution,
however, should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
     The EPA will continue to make available information concerning
alternative cleaning agents as ongoing investigations are completed.   The
Global  Change Division of the Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs
has been investigating alternative cleaning systems as part of
stratospheric ozone depletion and global  warming mitigation efforts.
Several  reports addressing alternative cleaning systems will  be available
in the  near future.
                                    4-70

-------
4.7  REFERENCES

1.   Letter and attachments from Delta Sonics.  February  1988.  6  pages.
     Estimation of Freon Solvent Usage in Open Top DS-Series Delta Sonics
     Degreasers.

2.   Nylen, G. C and H. F. Osterman  (Allied Corporation).  Cool it to Cut
     Degreasing Costs.  Am. Mach.  November 1982.

3.   Suprenant, K. S. and D. W. Richards (Dow Chemical Company).   Study to
     Support New Source Performance  Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning
     Operations.  Prepared for the U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency.
     April 1976.

4.   Memorandum from Goodrich, J., Detrex Corporation to Schlossberg,
     Detrex Corporation.  Degreaser  Emissions Control Test Report.

5.   Trip report to Autosonics, Norristown, Pennsylvania.  Irvin,  R.,
     GCA/Technology Divison, submitted to L. Jones, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  June 14, 1979.

6.   Letter from Fiester, D. W., Sealed Power Corporation to EPA central
     Docket Section, Washington, D.  C.  Comments on Organic Solvent Cleaner
     NSPS.

7.   Reference 1.

8.   Letter from Ryan, E. M. to EPA  Central Docket Section, Washington,
     D.C.  Comments on Organic Solvent Cleaner NSPS.

9.   Letter and attachments from Polhamus,  R.  L.,  Branson Ultrasonics
     Corporation, to P. A. Cammer, Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance.
     February 10, 1988.  Automated hoist test data.

10.  Trip report (amendment) to Allied Corporation, Buffalo Research
     Facility.  Pandullo, R. F., Radian Corporation.   Submitted to
     D. A. Beck, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  January 1989.

11.  Reference 10.

12.  Letter and attachments from Hoffman,  A.,  Ultra-Kool  to D.  A.  Beck,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  December 7,  1987.

13.  Letter and attachments from Halbert,  J.,  Delta Sonics, to D.  A. Beck,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  November, 1987

14.  Reference 10.

15.  Trip report to Delta Sonics, Paramount, California.   Miller,  S. J.,
     Radian Corporation, submitted to D.  A. Beck,  U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.   January 1989.


                                    4-71

-------
 4.7  References (Continued)

 16.  Letter from Barber, J. W., Vic Manufacturing Company, to
      Shumaker, J.  L., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  July 8, 1977.

 17>  Il^TRePort to F1nishin9 Equipment, St. Paul, Minnesota.  Rehm, R.,
      GCA/Technology Division, to George R.,  U.  S. Environmental Protection
      Agency.   September 9,  1980.

 18.  Letter to Tang,  J., GCA/Technology Division, from Sabatka, W.,
      Finishing Equipment,  Inc.   May 4,  1981.  Solvent and labor savings
      from enclosed degreasers.

 19.  Letter and attachments from Arbesman,  P.  H., New Jersey Department of
      Environmental  Protection,  to Goodwin,  D.  R., U.  S.  Environmental
      Protection Agency,  August  21,  1978.  Capture efficiencies of lip
      exhaust  systems.

 20.  Telecon.   Miller,  S. J.,  Radian Corporation, with Franz,  0.,  Phillips
      Manufacturing, July 27,  1987.

 21.   Letter and attachments from Atanley, H., Unique  Industries to Farmer,
      J.  R.,  U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  April  15,  1987.
      Section  114 organic solvent cleaner  vendor  questionnaire  response.

 22.   Reference  3.

 23.   Letter from Ward, R. B., duPont to R. Rehm,  GCA/Technology Division.
      May  3,  1979.  Controlling  OTVC  emissions with carbon  adsorption.

 24.   Letter and attachments from Cemmer,  P.  A.,  Halogenated Solvents
      Industry Alliance,  to  Farmer, J. R., U. S.  Environmental  Protection
      Agency.  June 7, 1989.   Comments at  National Air  Pollution  Control
      Techniques Advisory Committee meeting on draft control techniques
      document.

 25.   Letter and attachments from Sherman, James  M., Scanex, Inc.
      December 29, 1988.  4  pages.  Comments  on issue of solvent  release
      from open  top solvent  cleaning  tanks.

 26.   Trip report to Unique  Industries, Sun Valley, California.
      Miller, S.  J., Radian  Corporation, submitted to D. A. Beck, U. S.
      Environmental Protection Agency.  January 1989.

 27.   Reference  15.

 28.   Reference  25.

29.   Reference  24.

30.   Reference  26.
                                    4-72

-------
4.7  References (Continued)
31.  Telecon.  Miller, S. J., Radian Corporation, with M. Mulcahey,
     Rhode Island Division of Air and Hazardous Materials.  October 5,
     1988.
32.  Reference 25.
33.  Reference 26.
34.  Reference 26.
35.  Reference 30.
36.  Telecon.  Miller, S. J., Radian Corporation, with C., Pennington,
     Detrex Corporation.  November 24, 1987.
37.  Reference 15.
38.  Summary of Meeting between Corpane and U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency.  May 20, 1987.
39.  Reference 25.
40.  Reference 3.
41.  Memorandum from Romig, A.D., Allied Corporation to W.F.  LeBail, Allied
     Corporation, May 19, 1988.  Solvent Reduction Study on CBL Defluxer.
42.  Reference 3.
43.  Reference 35.
44.  Telecon.  Miller, S. J., Radian Corporation, with R. Ramsey,  duPont,
     November 23, 1987.
45.  Reference 40.
46.  Reference 10.
47.  Memorandum from Brown, J.W. and P.R.  Westlin, EPA/EMB to D.A. Beck,
     EPA/CPB, May 22, 1981.  Effect of Water Blanket to Reduce Organic
     Evaporation Rates.
48.  Evanoff, S.P., K. Singer, and H. Wettman, General Dynamics -
     Fort Worth Division.  Alternatives to Chlorinated Solvent Degreasing -
     Testing, Evaluation, and Process Design.  Presented at Industry/EPA
     Meeting on Aqueous Cleaning.  USEPA/OTS, Washington, D.C.
     August 31, 1988.
                                    4-73

-------
4.7  References  (Continued)

49.  Patterson,  K.B., and D.E. Hunt.  U.S. Air Force/Newark Air  Force  Base
     The Cyl-Sonic Cleaner:  Aqueous Ultrasonic Cleaning Using
     Biodegradable Detergents.  Presented at Industry/EPA Meeting on
     Aqueous Cleaning.  USEPA/OTS, Washington, D.C., August 31,  1988.

50.  ICF Consulting Associates and Jacobs Engineering Group,  Incorporated.
     Guide to Solvent Waste Reduction Alternatives.  Prepared for
     California  Department of Health Services.  October 10, 1986.

51.  Reference 49.

52.  Reference 49.

53.  Disposal of Petroferm Terpene Hydrocarbon Wastewater Generated from
     Underbrush  Cleaning of Circuit Pack Assemblies at AT&T's Merrimack
     Valley Works.  Presented at Industry/EPA Meeting on Aqueous Cleaning
     USEPA/OTS, Washington, D.C., August 31, 1988.

54.  Reference 49.

55.  Pandullo, R.F., Radian Corporation.  Summary of July 1, 1987 Visit to
     Finishing Equipment, Incorporated in St. Paul, Minnesota.

56.  Pandullo, R.F., Radian Corporation.  Summary of September 2, 1987
     Visit to Westinghouse Corporation in Orrville, Ohio.

57.  Pandullo, R.F. Radian Corporation.   Summary of October 18,  1988 Visit
     to Delta Industries in Santa Fe Springs, California.

58.  Miller, S.J., Radian Corporation.  Summary of October 18, 1988 Visit
     to Delta Sonics, Incorporated in Paramount,  California.

59.  Reference 25.

60.  Reference 49.

61.  Beck, D.A.,  EPA/OAQPS.  Summary of April 7,  1988 Visit to Bowden
     Industries,  Incorporated in Huntsville, Alabama.

62.  Reference 55.

63.  Reference 49.
                                    4-74

-------
                              5.0  COST ANALYSIS

5.1  INTRODUCTION

     This chapter presents costs and cost effectiveness values of various
control options for emissions of methylene chloride (MC), perchloroethylene
(PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA), and trichloro-
trifluoroethane (CFC-113) from organic solvent cleaners.  Cost analyses are
provided for controlling emissions from open top vapor cleaners (OTVC's) and
in-line (i.e., conveyorized) cleaners.  From available information and as
mentioned in Chapter 4, the only cold cleaner currently manufactured for use
with a halogenated solvent is the carburetor cleaner,  which is generally
well-controlled at baseline with a water cover.  As a result,  no cost analyses
were performed on cold cleaners.
     Since organic solvent cleaners comprise a wide range of equipment types,
sizes, and operating techniques, three model cleaner sizes were chosen, and
two operating schedules were composed to evaluate the potential impacts of
controlling solvent emissions.  The individual technologies for controlling
halogenated solvent emissions from organic solvent cleaners are presented in
Chapter 4.
     Due to the wide variation in solvent cleaner operating schedules, the
most effective control options for a given cleaner may vary.  In Chapter 4,
example options for controlling emissions from OTVC's and in-line cleaners
were presented.  These options represent a collection of effective control
techniques including controls for reducing losses from idling, working, and
                                      5-1

-------
 downtime.   This  chapter presents  cost  analyses  for  each  control  option
 presented  in  Chapter  4.   Costs  were  calculated  for  new cleaners  and  for
 retrofit applications.   However,  only  retrofit  costs  are  presented in this
 chapter.   Cost tables for new control  equipment are included  in  Appendix C-3.
     Section  5.2  presents a description of the  overall cost methodology and
 assumptions.  Sections  5.3 and  5.4 present the  information for OTVC's and
 in-line cleaners, respectively.   These sections present model cleaner
 parameters  as well as cost effectiveness values.  Available capital  cost
 information on all control techniques presented in  Chapter 4 are summarized in
 Appendix C-l.  Annualized costs are  detailed in Appendix C-2.  Appendix C-3
 includes all tables used  in calculating cost effectiveness values for new and
 retrofit cases.

 5.2  COSTING METHODOLOGY

     This section presents a summary of the methodology used to estimate cost
 effectiveness of potential control options.  The methodology outlined in this
 section can be used to determine the cost of other control options using the
 information contained in  the appendices.
     As described in Chapter 4,  a complete control program consists of
 employing well-designed and manufactured equipment plus operating the
equipment to minimize solvent loss.   Aside from the hardware controls costed
here, a number of solvent-saving practices in well controlled solvent cleaners
cannot be readily accounted for in a cost effectiveness calculation.   Examples
                                      5-2

-------
of good operating practices include covering cleaning equipment whenever
possible, properly using solvent sprays, preventing solvent spillage during
solvent transfer, detecting and repairing leaks, proper racking of parts, and
storing waste solvent in closed containers.  Quantifying emission reductions
due to these practices is difficult.  However, some emission reduction is
certain, unless all good operating practices are already rigorously followed .
The costs are also difficult to quantify, but are expected to be minimal,
primarily slightly more labor time to perform the tasks properly.  As a
result, it is anticipated that the cost effectiveness values presented in this
chapter, for hardware controls only, are conservative estimates for situations
where improved operating practices will accrue significant savings.

5.2.1  Model  Cleaner Approach

     Due to the large number of solvent cleaners and the wide variation in
size of these cleaners,  a model solvent cleaner approach was used.   Models
were developed to represent typical organic solvent cleaning operations and
types of machines being sold today.  The models are not intended to represent
all  machines, nor are they intended to represent any specific machine.   Two
operating schedules were selected for each model  cleaner size to illustrate
the effect operating schedule differences have on control  device cost
effectiveness.
     The model  solvent cleaner sizes used in this memorandum were based on the
sizes reported  in vendor responses to a questionnaire sent under
                                      5-3

-------
 Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to six of the largest vendors of
 solvent cleaners and follow-up with these and other vendors.1"22 Sizes used by
 EPA in previous regulatory work under Section 111 of the CAA were also
 considered for inclusion.   Based on air/solvent vapor interface area,  the
 following solvent cleaner  sizes were chosen:
                     OTVC's:         4.5ft2,  16ft2
                     In-line:                38ft2
 The in-line cleaner size,  38  ft2, was used  to represent  both vapor and cold
 in-line cleaners.   Cold  in-line cleaners  are  photoresist  stripping machines
 which  use only MC.   Specific  model  parameters will  be  presented  in subsequent
 portions  of this  chapter.

 5.2.2   Capital  Costs

     Capital costs  include all  the  costs necessary  to design, purchase, and
 install a  particular control  device  or new equipment addition.  A  summary of
 capital costs  used  in this chapter  is presented  in  Table 5-1.  All available
 cost information for these and  other  control devices (described in Chapter  4)
 is  included  in Appendix C-l.
     The basis for estimating control costs was primarily information
 contained  in Section 114 questionnaire responses discussed above.  Additional
 information was obtained through telephone contacts with several other
        23-31
 vendors.       The Section 114 responses included information on model  solvent
 cleaner sizes,  control  equipment costs, and operating requirements for control
equipment.  The costs for the model  solvent cleaners were estimated from the
                                      5-4

-------
            TABLE 5-1.  CAPITAL COSTS (1988) USED IN COST ANALYSIS
                                             Total Installed Capital Costs

                                                    New         Retrofit
Open TOD Vapor Cleaners
        Small OTVC 4.5 ft
2
        Automated Parts Handling
        Below-freezing FRD
        Bi-Parting Cover
        1.0 Freeboard Ratio
        Enclosed Design
        Sump Cool ing
                       1,500 - 2,000  1,500 - 2,000
                           4,500
                           7,900
                             500
                           3,000
                           1,500
 5,400
 8,500
   500
 3,000
 1,500
        Large OTVC 16.0 ft'

        Automated Parts Handling
        Below-freezing FRD
        Bi-Parting Cover
        1.0 Freeboard Ratio
        Enclosed Design
        Sump Cooling
                       3,000 -  3,500  3,000 -  3,500
                           8,600
                          10,200
                             600
                          10,000
                           1,500
10,300
11,300
   600
10,000
 1,500
In-Line Cleaners 38.0 ft

        Below-freezing FRD
        Carbon Adsorber
        Super Heated Vapor
                          14,700
                          61,000
                           3,000
17,700
74,900
 3,000
FRD - Freeboard refrigeration device
                                      5-5

-------
range of costs for cleaners of similar size to the model solvent cleaner
sizes.  Costs were also developed for two additional OTVC sizes (8.6 ft2 and
     2
38 ft ).  These costs are included in Appendix C-l.
     Total installed capital costs reported in the vendor responses were for
retrofit and new control equipment.  Since these costs were reported as
installed, they include sales taxes,  freight,  and installation charges.
Average costs based on all vendor quotes for each model solvent cleaner and
each control  option were calculated.   These average values  were then adjusted
using engineering judgement and the following  considerations:

         The costs received from different vendors often varied for identical
          controls.   In order for model  solvent  cleaner costs  to best
          represent the industry, costs  from larger vendors  were weighted  more
          heavily than the smaller vendor costs.

         Most  manufacturers submitted costs for  some,  but not  all,  model
          solvent cleaner  sizes.   Also,  as  indicated  above,  the  reported costs
          often varied significantly  for  identical  controls.  Consequently,
          there was  the possibility that  taking straight  averages of cost of
          certain controls would  not  make  sense.   For example,  using this
          approach,  the costs  associated  with controls  for larger size
          cleaners were sometimes less than  for smaller cleaners, and retrofit
          costs were  sometimes  less than  new costs.  Costs were  adjusted to
          eliminate  these discrepancies.
                                     5-6

-------
         Some manufacturers responding to the questionnaire do not
          manufacture all the controls for which they provided costs.  Their
          costs, therefore, included purchasing the control from another
          vendor plus a markup.  Costs from these manufacturers were used only
          when they actually retrofitted a significant number of the control
          devices (as reported in the vendor questionnaires and in follow-up
          contacts).  Estimates of operating costs were also adjusted to
          reflect the values obtained from vendors actually supplying the
          controls.

A detailed discussion of the derivation of specific capital costs for each
model cleaner is included in Appendix C-l.  A description of the items costed
for each control technique is listed below:

         automated parts handling:  The costs for an automated parts handling
          system includes a range.   The lower cost in each size range is for a
          push-button hoist capable of moving at a constant 11 fpm.   The
          higher cost is for a push-button hoist capable of moving at 11 fpm,
          except when moving through the air/solvent vapor interface and
          freeboard area, when it moves at 3 fpm.  The system for the small
          OTVC has a 30 Ib capacity and for the large OTVC has a 100 to 200
          Ib. capacity.

         below-freezing freeboard  refrigeration device:  The costs for this
          control technique are based on the costs for units approximately the
                                      5-7

-------
     size of each of the model units listed above.  The costs include the
     coiled tubing that are lowered into the solvent cleaner as well as
     the required compressor for the refrigerant.  [The above-freezing
     freeboard refrigeration devices included 1n Appendix C-l are assumed
     to be water cooled.]

    bi-parting cover:  The costs for a bi-parting cover are based on a
     wide range of vendor quotes as described in Appendix C-l.   The costs
     presented include estimated costs for the bi-parting mylar cover as
     well as the motors to run the covers.

    1.0 freeboard ratio:  The costs for an increased freeboard ratio
     include only the cost of a stainless steel  extension to the
     freeboard.  Any engineering costs would be  incurred only once for
     each model and were, therefore, not included in costs for  individual
     owners and operators.

    enclosed design:  The costs for an enclosed design includes the cost
     to add an enclosure to the top of an open-top vapor cleaner.   The
     enclosure, depicted in Figure 4-b, has a vertical  opening.   The
     costs do not include the costs of an automated parts handling
     system that would be necessary with an enclosed design.

t    sump cool ing:  The costs for sump cooling include  the cost of a coil
     located directly above the solvent sump, as well as the necessary
     compressor.

                                 5-8

-------
         carbon adsorber:  The costs for a carbon adsorption system include
          two activated carbon beds, a blower, and a condenser.

         super-heated vapor:  The costs for a super-heated vapor include the
          cost for heating coils and extenstion to the cleaner at the exit
          area.

     Since all costs are based on a range of vendor quotes, actual costs
experienced by individual machine operators will vary.  However, the costs
presented are considered to be representative of average costs nationwide.
     Capital costs were annualized based on an annual percentage rate of
10 percent and the following equipment lifetimes bajed on vendor
questionnaires:
                    OTVC:          10 years32'33'34
                    In-line:       15 years35'36'37
All controls except carbon adsorbers were assumed to have the same lifetime as
the solvent cleaner.  A carbon adsorber has a reported lifetime of 10 years
                                       38
and was annualized over this life span.

5.2.3  Annual Operating Costs

     Annual operating costs associated with solvent cleaner emission controls
include such items as annualized capital charges, added labor, electricity,
cooling water and steam, floor space, and other miscellaneous costs incurred
due to use of each control.  A summary of the operating cost parameters are
                                      5-9

-------
 included  in  Table  5-2.   Operating  cost  derivations  are  detailed  in
 Appendix  C-2.   Steam  costs  are  calculated  for the steam necessary to  desorb
 carbon  adsorber beds.  Additional  cooling  water  is  also required for  carbon
 adsorption systems to condense  the solvent-laden steam  after desorption.   The
 additional floor space required for each control device is also costed where
 appropriate.  Additional floor  space requirements were  based on manufacturers
 specifications.
      In addition to calculating the increased annual operating costs, a credit
 is calculated for the reduction in  solvent emissions credited to the  control
 device.  A reduction in  emissions  translates into a corresponding reduction in
 solvent consumption, thus saving the operator solvent expense.  The credit is
 calculated using the solvent costs  presented in Table 5-2.

 5.3  OPEN TOP VAPOR CLEANERS

 5.3.1  Model  Cleaner Parameters

     Open top vapor cleaners typically range in size from approximately 4 ft2
 to greater than 50 ft ,   though  the majority of cleaners are less than 20 ft2.
 The model  cleaners used  in this chapter to analyze control costs were selected
 to be representative of  this range.  The two model  sizes are 4.5 ft2 and
     2
 16 ft .  The model  cleaner parameters for OTVC's are presented in Table 5-3.
The parameters are based on industry contacts and EPA studies of the solvent
cleaning industry.
                                     5-10

-------
               TABLE 5-2.  SUMMARY OF OPERATING COST PARAMETERS

Original Quoted
Cost
Year
1988
Cost
Reference
Material

Methylene Chloride
Perchloroethylene
Tri chloroethylene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Tri chlorotri f1uoroethane
                           $0.259/1b
                           $0.31/lb
                           $0.385/1b
                           $0.405/1b
                           $0.90/lb
                              39
                              40
                              41
                              42
                              43
Utility

Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
 $.0713/kWh      1986
$5.65/1000 Ib    1984
$0.08/1000 gal    1980
               $.0780/kWh      44
               $5.98/1000 Ib   45
               $0.099/1000 gal  46
Labor

Operating Labor
Maintenance Labor
$7.87/manhour    1977
$8.66/manhour    1977
              $13.78/manhour   47
              $15.16/manhour   47
Miscellaneous

Additional Space
42/ft'
   1980
55.7/ft'
48
Utilities and labor rates (operating and maintenance) were increased using
Bureau ofQLabor Statistics (BLS) producer price indices.  These are as
follows:
                   4th quarter
    1977
    1980
    1984
    1986
    1988
 62.5
 88.0
103.3
100.0
109.4
Building space costs were increased from 1980 to 1986 dollars using CE plant
cost indices for building.  These are as follows:
                   November 1980 (final)  - 244.7
                   November 1986 (final)  - 304.4
                   November 1986 (prelim) - 324.4
                     50
                     51
                     52
                                     5-11

-------
      As  shown  in Table  5-3,  two  operating  schedules were  evaluated  for each
model  cleaner  size.  These schedules were  selected to  represent  the wide  range
of operating schedules  that  exist  in solvent cleaning  operations and were
detailed  in Chapter 3.
      Based on  correspondence with  industry concerning  characteristics  of
cleaners  manufactured over the last several years, an  OTVC has a freeboard
ratio  of  0.75, a manual cover used in downtime, a primary condenser
temperature of approximately 75F, and the appropriate safety
          40 41 42
switches.  '   '    As discussed  in Section 3.4, uncontrolled emissions were
calculated for losses due to idling, working, and downtime emission  rates.
Uncontrolled emissions from OTVC's were estimated to be 2,890 Ib/year and
6,940 Ib/year  for the small OTVC under schedules A and B,  respectively.
Uncontrolled emissions from the large OTVC were estimated  at 10,300  Ib/year
and 24,700 Ib/year for operating schedules A and B,  respectively.
     No emission reduction credit or control  cost has  been included for use of
the cover during downtime and idle time or for the operation of safety
switches since these are assumed to be  common practice at  baseline.   The
following six control  options were considered as control alternatives:

     t    Control  Option 1:    an automated parts handling  system  operating at
                              11  fpm,  a below-freezing freeboard  refrigeration
                              device,  and  a 1.0 freeboard  ratio;

     t    Control  Option 2:    an  automated parts handling  system  operating at
                              11  fpm, an enclosed  design,  and sump cooling
                              during downtime;

                                    5-12

-------
         Control Option 3:   an automated parts handling system operating at
                              11 fpm, and a bi-parting cover capable of being
                              closed during operation;
          Control Option 4:
an automated parts handling system operating at
3 fpm (when parts are entering/leaving the vapor
zone), a below-freezing freeboard refrigeration
device, and a 1.0 F6R;
          Control Option 5:   an automated parts handling system operating at
                              3 fpm (when parts are entering/leaving the vapor
                              zone), an enclosed design, and sump cooling; and
          Control Option 6:
an automated parts handling system operating at
3 fpm (when parts are entering/leaving the vapor
zone), and a bi-parting cover capable of being
closed during operations;
     Based on the existing test data, ranges of efficiencies for each
individual control device were estimated.  The overall control efficiency was
calculated by summing individual control efficiencies for each device in an
option, weighted according to the amount of time per year that the emissions
of each type (idling, working, downtime) occurred.  The overall efficiency
differs for different operating schedules.  A more complete discussion of
control efficiency derivations is included in Appendix B.
                                     5-13

-------
      The ranges  of efficiencies  for each  control  option  for each operating
 schedule are  summarized  at  the bottom  of  Table  5-3.   It  should  be noted that
 all  reported  efficiencies  include  only the  control of the  three primary
 emission types.   They  do not  account for  leaks, wastewater losses,  or  transfer
 losses which  should  be minimal if  proper  practices are employed.   However,  if
 another  emission  type  is not  controlled (such as  an undetected  leak) and
 becomes  a major  source,  then  the efficiencies reported in  Table 5-3 are
 overstated.   In general, Control Option 5 had the highest  overall  control
 efficiency, ranging  up to 90  percent control.  Control Option 2  was generally
 the  next  most effective, except for  the large OTVC under Schedule  B where
 Control  Option 6  has the second highest efficiency.  Control Options 1  and 3
 generally have the lowest overall  efficiencies.

 5.3.2  Model OTVC Cost Evaluation

     Table 5-4 shows the capital  costs, annualized operating costs, emission
 reduction, solvent recovery credit,  net annualized control  costs, and cost
 effectiveness of  each  of these options for a model OTVC using MC.  Tables 5-5
 through 5-8 summarize  this information for PCE,  TCE,  TCA, and CFC-113,
 respectively.   The tables detailing  these costs (and  presenting the values for
 new OTVC's) are presented in Appendix C-3.
     Generally, the ranking of the cost effectiveness values was independent
of solvent type.   The only variable  among the calculations  for each solvent
was the solvent price  (listed in  Table 5-2).  Therefore,  the higher priced
solvents generate higher solvent  recovery credits  and, therefore, lower net
                                     5-14

-------
                            TABLE 5-3.   MODEL  CLEANER  PARAMETERS  FOR OPEN TOP VAPOR CLEANERS
                    Parameter                                                                   Small - Schedule A


       Working area,  ft                                                                           4.5

       Solvent                                                                                   All

       Operating schedule hr/year
            Idling                                                                              1560
            Working                                                                              520
            Downtime                                                                            6656

       Uncontrolled emission rates Ib/hr
            Idling                                                                              0.675
            Working                                                                             1.800
            Downtime                                                                            0.135

       Uncontrolled emissions8 (Ib/yr)
            Idling                                                                              1050
            Working                                                                              940
 ,           Downtime                                                                             900
          Total                                                                                2890
in

       Control Option      .                     123456
       Controlled emissions  (Ib/yr)         1730-1440        870-580        2020-1730       1440-1160        580-290        1730-1440
            Total

       Emission Reduction                   1160-1440       2020-2310        870-1160       1440-1730       2310-2600       1160-1440


       Uncontrolled emissions based  on 0.75  FBR, cover  in downtime.                                                     Efficiency Range (X)
        Controlled emissions based on the  following:
            Control Option 1:  Automated Parts Handling  System a 11 fpm; Below-freezing FRO; 1.0 FBR                        40 - 50
            Control Option 2:  Automated Parts Handling  System a 11 fpm; Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling                      70 - 80
            Control Option 3:  Automated Parts Handling  System a 11 fpm; Automated Bi-parting Cover                         30 - 40
            Control Option 4:  Automated Parts Handling  System a 3  fpm; Below-freezing FRO; 1.0 FBR                         50 - 60
            Control Option 5:  Automated Parts Handling  System a 3  fpm; Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling                       80 - 90
            Control Option 6:  Automated Parts Handling  System a 3  fpm; Automated Bi-parting Cover                          40 - 50

       cRange based on range of Control Efficiencies
       FRO  -  Freeboard refrigeration  devices
       FBR  -  Freeboard ratio
       NOTE:   All  reported efficiencies are  for control  of idling,  working, and downtime losses only.  They do not account for leaks,
              uastewater  losses,  or transfer  losses which should be minimal if proper practices are employed.

-------
         TABLE  5-3.   MODEL  CLEANER  PARAMETERS  FOR  OPEN  TOP  VAPOR  CLEANERS (Continued)
Parameter
Working area, ft2
Solvent
Operating schedule hr/year
Idling
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emission rates Ib/hr
Idl ing
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emissions0 (Ib/yr)
Idl ing
Working
Downtime
Total
Control Option . 1
Controlled emissions (Ib/yr) 3470-2080
Total0
Emission Reduction 3 A 70 -4860
Uncontrolled emissions based on 0.75 FBR, cover
b
Controlled emissions based on the following:
Control Option 1: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 2: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 3: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 4: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 5: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 6: Automated Parts Handling
cRange based on range of Control Efficiencies
FRO - Freeboard refrigeration devices
FBR - Freeboard ratio
NOTE: Alt reported efficiencies are for control
Small - Schedule B
4.5
All

1560
520
6656

0.675
1.800
0.135

700
5620
620
6940
23456
2080-1390 3470-2770 1390 690 1390
4860-5550 3470-4160 5550 5240 5550
in downtime. Efficiency Range (X)

System a 11 fpm; Below-freezing FRO; 1.0 FBR 50 - 70
System a 11 fpm; Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling 70 - 80
System a 11 fpm; Automated Bi -parting Cover 50 - 60
System a 3 fpm; Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR 80
System a 3 fpm; Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling 90
System a 3 fpm; Automated Bi -parting Cover 80



of idling, working, and downtime losses only. They do not account for leaks.
wastewater losses, or transfer losses which should be minimal  if  proper  practices are employed.

-------
                      TABLE 5-3.  MODEL CLEANER PARAMETERS FOR OPEN TOP VAPOR CLEANERS  (Continued)
tn
Parameter
Working area, ft
Solvent
Operating schedule hr/year
Idl ing
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emission rates Ib/hr
I d I i ng
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emissions (Ib/yr)
Idl ing
Working
Downtime
Total
Control Option .
Controlled emissions (Ib/yr)
Totalc
Emission Reduction






1
6160-5130
4110-5130
Uncontrolled emissions based on 0.75 FBR, cover
Controlled emissions based on the following:
Control Option 1: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 2: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 3: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 4: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 5: Automated Parts Handling
Control Option 6: Automated Parts Handling
Large - Schedule A
16.0
All
1560
520
6656
2.40
6.40
0.48
3740
3330
3200
10270
23456
3080-2050 7190-6160 5730-4110 2050-1030 6160-5130
7190-8210 3080-4110 5130-6160 8210-9240 4110-5130
in downtime. Efficiency Range (X)
System a 11 fpm; Below-freezing FRO; 1.0 FBR 40 - 50
System a 11 fpm; Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling 70 - 80
System ail fpm; Automated Bi -part ing Cover 30 - 40
System a 3 fpm; Below- freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR 50 - 60
System a 3 fpm; Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling 80 - 90
System a 3 fpm; Automated Bi -parting Cover 40 - 50
        Range based on range of Control Efficiencies
       FRD - Freeboard refrigeration devices
       FBR - Freeboard ratio
       NOTE:  All reported efficiencies are for control of idling, working, and downtime losses only.
              wastewater losses, or transfer losses which should be minimal if proper practices are employed.
They do not account for leaks.

-------
                      TABLE 5-3.  MODEL CLEANER PARAMETERS FOR OPEN TOP VAPOR CLEANERS  (Continued)
00
Parameter
Working area, ft
Solvent
Operating schedule hr/year
Idl ing
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emission rates Ib/hr
Idling
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emissions8 (Ib/yr)
Idling
Working
Downtime
Total
Control Strategy . 1 2
Controlled emissions (Ib/yr) 12300-7400 7400-4930
Total
Emission Reduction 12300-17300 17300-19700
"uncontrolled emissions based on 0.75 FBR, cover in downtime.
u
Controlled emissions based on the following:
Control Strategy 1: Automated Parts Handling System a 11 fpm;
Control Strategy 2: Automated Parts Handling System a 11 fpm;
Control Strategy 3: Automated Parts Handling System a 11 fpm;
Control Strategy 4: Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm;
Control Strategy 5: Automated Parts Handling System 9 3 fpm;
Control Strategy 6: Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm;
cRange based on range of Control Efficiencies
FRD - Freeboard refrigeration devices
FBR - Freeboard ratio
NOTE: All reported efficiencies are for control of idling, working
Large - Schedule B
16.0
All

1560
520
6656

2.40
6.40
0.48

2500
19970
2200
24670
3456
12300-9860 4930 2470 4930

12300-14800 19700 22200 19700
Efficiency Range (X)

Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR 50 - 70
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling 70 - 80
Automated Bi-parting Cover 50 - 60
Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR 80
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling 90
Automated Bi-parting Cover 80



, and downtime losses only. They do not account for leaks,
              wastewater  losses,  or transfer  losses  which  should  be  minimal  if  proper  practices  are  employed.

-------
                   Table  5-4.   SUMMARY OF RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR MODEL OTVC's USING METHYLENE CHLORIDE (1988 S)
in

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Control Option
Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Below- freezing FRO; 1.0 FBR
Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling
Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Automated Bi -part ing Cover
Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm
Below-freezing FRO; 1.0 FBR
Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling
Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm;
Automated Bi -part ing Cover
Cleaner Total Total
Size/ Installed Annualized Emission
Operating Capital Cost Cost Reduction
Schedule ($) ($/yr) (Ib/yr)
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
8,180
8,180
15,200
15,200
6,220
6,220
14,700
1,470
10,200
10,220
14,500
14,500
8,680
8,680
15,700
15,700
6,720
6,720
15,200
15,200
10,700
10,700
15,000
15,000
2,200
2,770
3,630
4,200
1.820
1,790
3,740
3,640
2,090
2,200
2,980
3,160
2,300
2,880
3,740
4,310
1,920
1,890
3,8^0
3,750
2,200
2,300
3,080
3,260
1,160- 1,440
3,470- 4,860
4.110- 5,130
12,300-17.300
2,020- 2,310
4,860- 5,550
7,190- 8,210
17,300-19,700
870- 1,160
3,470- 4,160
3,080- 4,110
12,300-14,800
1.440- 1.730
5.550
5.130- 6.160
19,700
2,310- 2,600
6,240
8,210- 9,240
22,200
1,160- 1.440
5,550
4,110- 5,130
19,700
Recovered
Solvent
Credit
<*/yr>
(1.040)-(1.300)
(900)-(1.260)
(1,060)-(1,330)
<3,190)-(4,470)
(520)-(600)
(1.260)-(1.440)
(1.860)-(2,130)
(4.470)-(5,110)
(220)-(300)
(900)-(1,080)
(800)-(1.060)
(3,190)-(3.830)
(370)-(450)
(1.440)
(1,330)-(1,600)
(5,110)
(600)-(670)
(1.620)
(2,130)-(2,390)
(5.750)
(300)-(370)
(1.440)
(1,060)-(1.330)
(5.110)
Net
Annualized
Cost
($/yr)
1,170-900
1,880-1,520
2,570-2,300
(1,010)-(270)
1,300-1,220
530-350
1.880-1,610
(830)-(1460)
1,870-1,790
1.300-1,120
2,180-1,920
(30)-(670)
1.930-1,860
1440
2,410-2,140
(800)
1.320-1,250
270
1,710-1,440
2,000
1,900-1,820
860
2,020-1,750
1,850
Cost
Effectiveness
($/lb)
1.0 - 0.6
0.5 - 0.3
0.6 - 0.4
0.1 -(0.02)
0.6 - 0.5
0.1 - 0.06
0.9 - 0.3
0.2 -(0.05)
2.2 - 1.6
0.4 - 0.3
0.7 - 0.5
0 -(0.1)
1.3 - 1.1
0.3
0.5 - 0.4
(0.04)
0.6 - 0.5
0.04
0.2 - 0.2
0.1
1.6 - 1.3
0.2
0.5 - 0.3
0.1
       FRD  =  freeboard refrigeration device
       OPERATING SCHEDULES:
         Schedule A:  6 hours idling;  2 hours  working;  16 hours  downtime;  5  days/week;  52 weeks/year
         Schedule B:  4 hours idling;  12 hours working; 8 hours  downtime;  5  days/week;  52 weeks/year

-------
                                      Table 5-5.  SUMMARY OF RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR MODEL OTVC's
                                                  USING PERCHLOROETHYLENE (1988 S)

1.

Automated
Control
Parts Handl
Below-freezing FRO; 1


2.


Automated


Parts Handl
Enclosed Design; Sump


3.



4.


Automated
Automated


Automated


Parts Handt
Bi-parting


Parts Handl
Below- freezing FRD; 1


5.


Automated


Parts Handl
Enclosed Design; Sump


6.





Automated
Automated




Parts Handl
Bi-parting


Option
ing System 311 fpm;
.0 FBR


ing System 311 fpm;
Cool ing


ing System 311 fpm;
Cover


ing System 3 3 fpm
.0 FBR


ing System 3 3 fpm;
Cooling


ing System 3 3 fpm;
Cover


Cleaner Total
Size/ Installed
Operating Capital Cost
Schedule ($)
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
8,180
8,180
15,200
15,200
6,220
6,220
14,700
1,470
10,200
10,220
14,500
14,500
8,680
8,680
15,700
15,700
6.720
6,720
15,200
15.200
10,700
10,700
15,000
15,000
Total
Annual) zed Emission
Cost Reduction
(*/yr) (Ib/yr)
2,200
2,770
3,630
4,200
1,820
1,790
3,740
3.640
2,090
2,200
2,980
3,160
2,300
2,880
3,740
4,310
1,920
1,890
3.840
3.750
2.200
2,300
3,080
3,260
1,160- 1,440
3,470- 4,860
4,110- 5,130
12,300-17,300
2,020- 2,310
4,860- 5,550
7,190- 8,210
17,300-19,700
870- 1,160
3,470- 4.160
3,080- 4,110
12,300-14,800
1,440- 1.730
5.550
5,130- 6,160
19,700
2,310- 2,600
6.240
8,210- 9,240
22,200
1,160- 1,440
5,550
4,110- 5,130
19,700
Recovered
Solvent
Credit
<*/yr)
(360)-<450)
(1,080)-(1,500)
(1.270)-<1.590)
(3,820)-(5,350)
(630)-(720)
(1,500)-(1,720)
(2,230)-(2,550)
(5.350)-(6.120)
(270)-(360)
(1,080)-(1.290)
<960)-(1.270)
(3.820)-(4.590)
(450)-(540)
(1720)
(1.590)-(1,910)
(6.120)
(720)-(810)
(1,940)
(2,550)-(2,860)
(6,880)
(360)-(450)
(1.720)
(1,270)-(1,590)
(6,120)
Net
Annual i zed
Cost
(S/yr)
1,850- 1.760
1,700- 1,270
2,360- 2,040
380-(1,150)
1,190- 1,100
280- 70
1,510- 1,190
(1,710)-(2.470)
1,820- 1,740
1,120- 910
2,020- 1.710
(660)-(1.420)
1,860- 1,770
1,160
2,140- 1,830
(1,810)
1,200- 1,120
50
1,290- 970
(3,130)
1,840-1,750
581
1,810-1,490
(2,850)
Cost
Effectiveness
(S/lb)
1.6
0.5
0.6
- 1.2
- 0.3
- 0.4
0.03 -(0.1)
0.6
0.06
0.2
- 0.5
- 0.01
- 0.1
(0.05)-(0.07)
2.2
0.3
0.7
(0.05)
1.3
0
0.4
(0.
0.6
0.
0.2
(0
1.6
0
0.4
(0
- 1.6
- 0.2
- 0.4
-(0.1)
- 1.1
.2
- 0.3
04)
- 0.5
01
- 0.1
.1)
- 1.3
.1
- 0.3
.1)
OPERATING SCHEDULES:
    Schedule A: 6 hours idling; 2 hours working;  16 hours  downtime;  5  days/week;  52  weeks/year
    Schedule B: 4 hours idling; 12 hours working;  8 hours  downtime;  5  days/week;  52  weeks/year

-------
                                       Table 5-6.  SUMMARY OF RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR MODEL OTVC's
                                                   USING TRICHLOROETHYLENE (1988 J)
en
 i
ro

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



Control Option
Automated Parts Handling System 811 fpm;
Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR


Automated Parts Handling System 811 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling


Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Automated Bi -parting Cover


Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm
Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR


Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling


Automated Parts Handling System a 3 fpm;
Automated Bi -part ing Cover


Cleaner
Size/
Operating
Schedule
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
Total
Installed
Capital Cost
(*)
8,180
6.180
15,200
15,200
6,220
6,220
U.700
1,470
10,200
10,220
14,500
14.500
8,680
8,680
15,700
15,700
6.720
6.720
15.200
15.200
10.700
10.700
15.000
15.000
Total
Annuali zed Emission
Cost Reduction
($/yr) (Ib/yr)
2,200
2,770
3,630
4,200
1,820
1,790
3,740
3,640
2,090
2,200
2.980
3,160
2,300
2,880
3,740
4,310
1,920
1,890
3,840
3.750
2.200
2,300
3,080
3.260
1,160- 1,440
3,470- 4,860
4,110- 5,130
12.300-17.300
2,020- 2,310
4,860- 5,550
7,190- 8,210
17,300-19,700
870- 1,160
3,470- 4,160
3,080- 4,110
12,300-14,800
1,440- 1,730
5.550
5,130- 6,160
19,700
2,310- 2.600
6,240
8.210- 9.240
22,200
1,160- 1,440
5.550
4,110- 5,130
19,700
Recovered
Solvent
Credit
(*/yr)
(440)-(560)
(1,340)-<1.870)
(1,580)-(1.980)
(4,750)-(6,650)
(780)-(890)
(1,870)-(2,140)
(2.770)-(3,160)
(6,650)-(7,600)
(330)-(450)
(1,340)-(1,600)
(1,190)-(1.580)
(4,750)-(5,700)
(560) -(670)
(2,140)
(1,980)-(2.370)
(7,600)
(890)-(1,000)
(2.400)
(3,160)-(3,560)
(8,550)
(450)-(560)
(2.UO)
(1.580)-(1,980)
(7,600)
Net
Annualized
Cost
(*/yr)
1.760- 1,650
1,440- 900
2.050- 1,660
(540)-(2,440)
1,040- 930
(80)- (350)
970- 570
(3,000)-(3,950)
1.760- 1,650
860- 600
1.790- 1,400
(1,580)-(2,540)
1,750- 1,640
740
1,760- 1,360
(3.290)
1,030- 920
(510)
680- 280
(4,800)
1,750- 1,640
160
1.500- 1,105
(4.330)
Cost
Effectiveness
($/lb)
1.5 - 1.1
0.4 - 0.2
0.5 - 0.3
(0.04)-(0.14)
0.5 - 0.4
(0.02)-(0.06)
0.1 - 0.07
(0.2)-(0.2)
2.0 - 1.4
0.2 - 0.1
0.6 - 0.3
(0.1)-(0.2)
1.2 - 1.0
0.1
0.3 - 0.2
(0.01)
0.5 - 0.4
(0.1)
0.1 - 0.03
(0.2)
1.5 - 1.1
(0.03)
0.4 - 0.2
(0.2)
      OPERATING SCHEDULES:
          Schedule A: 6 hours idling; 2 hours working;  16 hours  downtime;  5  days/week;  52  weeks/year
          Schedule B: 4 hours idling; 12 hours working;  8 hours  downtime;  5  days/week;  52  weeks/year

-------
                                                        Table 5-7.   SUMMARY OF RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR MODEL OTVC's
                                                                     USING 1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE (1988 $)
ro
ro

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.


for
Control Option
Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR


Automated Parts Handling System 911 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling


Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Automated Bi-parting Cover


Automated Parts Handling System 8 3 fpm
Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR


Automated Parts Handling System 3 3 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling


Automated Parts Handling System 3 3 fpm;
Automated Bi-parting Cover


Cleaner
Size/
Operating
Schedule
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ftZ/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/B
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
Total
Installed
Capital Cost
(J)
8,180
8,180
15,200
15,200
6,220
6,220
14,700
1.470
10,200
10.220
14,500
14,500
8,680
8,680
15,700
15,700
6,720
6,720
15,200
15.200
10,700
10,700
15,000
15,000
Total
Annual ized
Cost
(*/yr)
2.200
2.770
3,630
4,200
1,820
1,790
3,740
3,640
2,090
2,200
2,980
3,160
2,300
2,880
3,740
4,310
1.920
1.890
3,840
3,750
2.200
2,300
3,080
3,260
Emission
Reduction
(Ib/yr)
1,160- 1,440
3,470- 4,860
4,110- 5,130
12.300-17,300
2,020- 2,310
4,860- 5,550
7,190- 8,210
17,300-19,700
870- 1,160
3,470- 4,160
3,080- 4,110
12,300-14,800
1,440- 1,730
5,550
5,130- 6,160
19,700
2,310- 2.600
6.240
8,210- 9,240
22,200
1.160- 1,440
5,550
4,110- 5,130
19,700
Recovered
Solvent
Credit
(*/yr)
(470)-(580)
(1,400)-(1.970)
(1,660)-(2,080)
(4.990)-<6.990)
(820)-(940)
(1.970)-(2.250)
(2,910)-<3.330)
Net
Annual ized
Cost
(/yr)
1.740-1.620
1,370-810
1,970-1.560
(790)-(2.790)
1,000-890
(180)-(460)
820-410
(6,990)-(7,990) (3,350)-(4,340)
(350)-(470)
(1,400)-(1.690)
(1,250)-(1.660)
(4,990)-(5,990) (1
(580)-(700)
(2.250)
(2,080)-(2,500)
(7,600) (3
(940)-(1,050)
(2.530)
(3.330)-<3,740)
(8.990)
(470)-(580)
(2.250)
(1,660)-(2,080)
(7.990)
1.740-1,620
820-510
1,730-1.320
,830)-(2,830)
1,720-1,600
630-350
1,660-1,240
,680)-(4,680)
900-870
(640)
510-100
(5,240)
1,730-1,610
50
1,420-1.000
(4.730)
Cost
Effectiveness
(S/lb)
1.5 - 1.1
0.4 - 0.2
0.5 - 0.3
(0.1) -(0.2)
0.5 - 0.4
(0.04)-(0.1)
0.1 - 0.05
(0.2)-{0.2)
2.0 - 1.4
0.2 - 0.1
0.6 - 0.3
(0.1)-(0.2)
1.2 - 0.9
0.1
0.3 - 0.2
(0.2)
0.4 - 0.3
(0.1)
0.06 - 0.01
(0.2)
1.5 - 1.1
0.01
0.4 - 0.2
(0.2)
      OPERATING SCHEDULES:
          Schedule A: 6 hours  idling; 2 hours working; 16 hours downtime; 5 days/week; 52 weeks/year
          Schedule B: 4 hours  idling; 12 hours working; 8 hours downtime; 5 days/week; 52 weeks/year

-------
                                                    Table 5-8.  SUMMARY OF  RETROFIT  CONTROL  COSTS  AND  COST  EFFECTIVENESS  FOR MODEL  OTVC's
                                                               USING  TRICHLOROTRIFLOUROETHANE  (1988 $)
ro
OJ

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



Control Option
Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Below- freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR


Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling


Automated Parts Handling System 311 fpm;
Automated Bi -part ing Cover


Automated Parts Handling System 3 3 fpm
Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR


Automated Parts Handling System 3 3 fpm;
Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling


Automated Parts Handling System 3 3 fpm;
Automated Bi -parting Cover


Cleaner
Size/
Operating
Schedule
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/B
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
4.5ft2/A
4.5ft2/B
16 ft2/A
16 ft2/B
Total Total
Installed Annualized Emission
Capital Cost Cost Reduction
() ($/yr) (Ib/yr)
8,180
8,180
15,200
15.200
6.220
6,220
14,700
1.470
10,200
10.220
14,500
14,500
8,680
8,680
15.700
15.700
6,720
6,720
15,200
15,200
10.700
10.700
15.000
15.000
2,200
2.770
3.630
4,200
1,820
1,790
3.740
3.640
2.090
2.200
2.980
3.160
2,300
2,880
3.740
4,310
1.920
1,890
3,840
3,750
2.200
2,300
3,080
3.260
1,160- 1,440
3,470- 4,860
4,110- 5,130
12,300-17,300
2,020- 2,310
4,860- 5,550
7,190- 8,210
17.300-19,700
870- 1,160
3,470- 4,160
3,080- 4.110
12,300-14,800
1,440- 1,730
5.550
5,130- 6,160
19,700
2,310- 2,600
6,240
8.210- 9,240
22.200
1.160- 1.440
5.550
4,110- 5,130
19.700
Recovered
Solvent
Credit
(*/yr)
(1,040)-(1.300)
(3,120)-(4.370)
(3,700)-(4,620)
(11,100)-(15.500)
(1,820)-(2,080)
(4.370)-(4,990)
(6.470)-(7,390)
(15,500)-(17.800)
(780)-(1,040)
(3,120)-(3,750)
(2,770)-(3,700)
(11,100)-(13,330)
(1,300)-(1,560)
(4.990)
(4,620)-(5,540)
(17,800)
(2.080)-(2,340)
(5,620)
(7,390)-(8,320)
(20,000)
(1,040)-(1,300)
(4,490)
(3,700)-(4,620)
(17,800)
Net
Annualized
Cost
(S/yr)
1.160-900
(350)-(1,600)
(60)-(990)
(6,890)-(11,300)
0-(260)
(2,580)-(3.200)
(2,730)-(3,660)
(11.900)-(14,100)
1,310-1,050
(920)-(1.550)
210-(720)
(7,940)-(10,200)
1,000-750
(2,120)
(890)-(1,810)
(13,500)
(160)-(420)
(3,730)
(3,S60)-(4,480)
(16,200)
1,160-900
(2,690)
(620)-(1,540)
(14,500)
Cost
Effectiveness
1
(0
(0
(0
0
(0
(0
(0
1
(0
0
(0
0

(0

(0

(0

1

(0

.0 -

!02)

.0 -

.4)-
.7)-
.5 -

.1 -
.6)-
.7 -
(0.

(0.
.1)-
(0.

'(0.
.0 -
(0.

'(0.
0.

6

-(0.2)

(0.
(0 .
(0 .
(0.
0.

(o!

0.
4)

7)"
(0.
6)

7)'
0.
5)

7)"
7)
1)

5)
7)
9

2)

4

3)

2)

5)

6

2)

             freeboard  refrigeration device
       OPERATING  SCHEDULES:
           Schedule A:  6 hours  idling; 2 hours working; 16 hours downtime; 5 days/week; 52 weeks/year
           Schedule B:  4 hours  idling; 12 hours working; 8 hours downtime; 5 days/week; 52 weeks/year

-------
 annualized costs.   As a result,  cost effectiveness values are lower for the
 higher  priced solvents.   The highest priced solvent,  CFC-113,  shows net
 annualized credits  for a larger  number of control  options than with the other
 solvents.   However,  all  solvents have credits  for  at  least some options.  For
 all  control  options  and  all  solvents,  the net  annualized  costs and cost
 effectiveness values are lower for  OTVC's operating at  Schedule B (where there
 is more working  time and less idle  time).   This  is due  to the  added emission
 reduction  at no  additional capital  costs.
     The option  requiring an automated  parts handling system operating  at
 3 fpm (through the vapor zone),  an  enclosed design, and sump cooling  (Control
 Option  5)  is generally the most  cost-effective option for  the  small OTVC
 (Schedule  A  and  B) and the large OTVC  (Schedule A, .only).  The  next most
 cost-effective control option is Control  Option 2, which  is identical to
 Control   Option 5 except  the speed of the  automated parts handling  system when
 parts are  within the  vapor zone  is  11 fpm.  In most instances,  the two control
 options  for  these OTVC's with the highest cost effectiveness values include an
 automated  parts  handling system operating at 11 fpm and either  a
 below-freezing freeboard refrigeration device and 1.0 FBR or a  bi-parting
 cover (Control Options 1 and 3,  respectively).
     The ranking of the control  options changes slightly for a large OTVC
 operating  under Schedule B.   It  is noted that adding controls on these larger
machines operating under a heavier working schedule produce annualized net
credits   in almost all instances,  the exception  being for Control Option 1 (and
only then when the lower end of  the control efficiency range is assumed).  The
highest  net annualized credits for this model  cleaner  are for Control  Option 5
                                     5-24

-------
 (as  with other OTVC models)  and Control  Option  6,  the  use  of a bi-parting
 automated cover in  addition  to an  automated  parts  handling system operating  at
 3  fpm through  the vapor zone.

 5.4   IN-LINE CLEANERS

 5.4.1   Model Cleaner Parameter;
      In-line cleaners are  generally  greater  than 20 ft2  in the air/solvent
 vapor  interface area and can be either vapor or cold cleaning  operations.  In
 order  to examine the impacts of potential emission controls  on both types of
 cleaners,  a model cleaner  with  a solvent air interface of  38 ft2 was selected.
 This model was  used  to  represent both cold and vapor cleaners;  the only
 in-line  cold cleaners encountered during data gathering  use MC  in photoresist
 stripping  operations.   The model cleaner parameters for  in-line'cleaners are
 presented  in Table 5-9.  These  parameters are based on industry contacts and
 EPA studies of  the solvent cleaning  industry.  Two operating schedules were
 examined to evaluate  the range  of conditions that exist  in the cold and vapor
 in-line  cleaner market.  There  is no idling  time in either in-line schedule.
 It is assumed that once the machine  is turned on,  parts will be continuously
 cycled through  the machine until the end of  the shift(s).  If the continuous
 processing were not  required, it is assumed  solvent cleaner operators would
 choose the less expensive OTVC.
     Uncontrolled emissions were calculated  based on the amount of time the
cleaner  is operating and down.   Uncontrolled emissions from the in-line model
cleaner ranged  from 47,100 Ib/year under operating Schedule A to
114,000 Ib/year under Schedule B.

                                     5-25

-------
                                  TABLE 5-9.  MODEL CLEANER PARAMETERS FOR IN-LINE CLEANERS
cn
rv>
Oi
Parameter
Working area, ft
Solvent
Operating schedule he/year
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emission rates (b/hr
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emissions8 (Ib/yr)
Working
Downtime
Total
Control Option . 13
Controlled emissions (Ib/yr) 23600 23600
Totalc
Emission Reduction 23600 23600
Uncontrolled emissions based port covers in downtime.
Controlled emissions based on the following:
Control Option 1: Below-freezing FRD
Control Option 2: Carbon Adsorber
Control Option 3: Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling
Control Option 4: Carbon Adsorption; Sump Cooling
Control Option 5: Super Heated Vapor; Sump Cooling
Control Option 6: Below-freezing FRD; Super Heated Vapor
In- Line - Schedule A
38.0
All
2080
6656
19
1.14
39520
7588
47100
3456
16500 16500 14100 14100
30600 30600 33000 33000
Efficiency (X)
50
50
65
65
70
70
        NOTE
All reported efficiencies are for control of idling, working, and downtime losses only.  They do not account for  leaks
wastewater losses, or transfer losses which should be minimal if proper practices are employed.                        '
        FRD - Freeboard refrigeration devices
        FBR - Freeboard ratio

-------
                           TABLE 5-9.  MODEL CLEANER PARAMETERS FOR  IN-LINE CLEANERS  (Continued)
en

rv>
Parameter
Working area, ft
Solvent
Operating schedule hr/year
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emission rates Ib/hr
Working
Downtime
Uncontrolled emissions8 (Ib/yr)
Working
Downtime
Total
Control Strategy . 123
Controlled emissions (Ib/yr) 45600 45600 45600
Total0
Emission Reduction 68400 68400 68400
Uncontrolled emissions based on 0.75 F8R, port covers in downtime.
Controlled emissions based on the following:
Control Option 1: Below-freezing FRD
Control Option 2: Carbon Adsorber
Control Option 3: Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling
Control Option 4: Carbon Adsorption; Sump Cooling
Control Option 5: Super Heated Vapor; Sump Cooling
Control Option 6: Below-freezing FRD; Super Heated Vapor
In-Line - Schedule B
38.0
All
5824
2912
19
1.14
111000
3320
114000
456
45600 17100 17100
68400 96900 96900
Efficiency (X)
60
60
60
60
85
85
         Range based on range of Control Efficiencies

        NOTE:  All reported efficiencies are for control of idling, working, and downtime losses only.  They do not  account  for  leaks,
               wastewater losses, or transfer losses which should be minimal if proper practices are employed.
        FRD - Freeboard refrigeration devices
        FBR - Freeboard ratio

-------
      When calculating controlled emissions,  no emission reduction or control
 cost was included for limiting the conveyor  speed to 11 fpm since this is
 assumed to be occurring at baseline.   The following five control options were
 considered as control alternatives:
          Control  Option 1:   a below-freezing freeboard refrigeration device;

          Control  Option 2:   a carbon  adsorption  system;

      t    Control  Option 3:   below-freezing  freeboard  refrigeration  device
                              and sump  cooling;

      t    Control  Option 4:   a carbon  adsorption  system and  sump cooling;

          Control  Option 5:   a super-heated  vapor  system and sump cooling; and

      t    Control  Option 6:   a below-freezing freeboard refrigeration device
                              and  super-heated vapor.
Due to the limited downtime in  Schedule B, sump cooling has  a relatively small
effect  on  overall  control  efficiency.  Therefore,  only Control Options 1
through 3  and Control Option  6  are evaluated for this model.
      Efficiencies were calculated based on existing test data.   The
efficiencies are summarized at  the bottom of Table 5-9.  Under Schedule A,
Control Option 5 is the  most  effective, reducing total emissions by
70 percent.  Under Schedule B,  super-heated vapor  (Control Option 3) reduces
emissions by 70 percent, while  the other controls reduce emissions by 60
percent.

                                     5-28

-------
5.4.2  Cost Evaluation

     Table 5-10 presents the capital costs, annual operating costs, emission
reduction, solvent recovery credit, net annualized costs, and cost
effectiveness of retrofitting each of the control options on an in-line
cleaner using MC.  Tables 5-11 through 5-14 summarize this information for
PCE, TCE, TCA, and CFC-113, respectively.  The tables detailing these costs
(and presenting the values for new in-lines) are presented in Appendix C-3.
     As with OTVC's, the only variable among the calculations for each solvent
was the solvent price (listed in Table 5-2).  Therefore, the higher priced
solvents have higher solvent recovery credits and, therefore, lower net
annualized costs.  As a result, cost effectiveness.values are lower for the
higher priced solvents.  The highest priced solvent, CFC-113, shows net
annualized credits for a larger number of control options than with the other
solvents.  For all control options and all solvents, the net annualized costs
and cost effectiveness values are lowest for in-line cleaners operating under
Schedule B.  This effect is caused by achieving additional emission reduction
under the longer operating schedule without incurring additional capital
costs.
     The addition of sump cooling during downtime has only a slight effect on
cost effectiveness values of the same major control without sump cooling.  In
some cases, costs actually increase with the addition of sump cooling.  All
in-line control options, with the exception of a carbon adsorber (Control
Option 2) always provided a net annualized credit.  A credit for Control
Option 2 only occurred for CFC-113 with Schedule B operation.  The highest
credit control for in-lines is the super-heated vapor system with sump cooling
(Control Option 5).
                                     5-29

-------
                                    Table 5-10.   SUMMARY OF RETROFIT  CONTROL  COSTS  AND  COST  EFFECTIVENESS  FOR  MODEL  IN-LINE  CLEANERS
                                                 USING METHYLENE  CHLORIDE  (1988  S)











in
i
00
o
Control Option
1. Below Freezing FRD

2. Carbon Adsorber

3. Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling

4. Carbon Adsorber; Sump Cooling

5. Super Heated Vapor; Sump Cooling

6. Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling

Cleaner
Size/
Operating
Schedule
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
Total
Instal led
Capital Cost
($)
18.500
18.500
80,500
80,500
20,000
20,000
82,000
82,000
5,040
5,040
22,100
22,100
Total
Annual ized
Cost
(S/yr)
3,900
5,200
23,600
36,800
5,100
6,210
25,000
37,800
2.530
3,640
5,230
7,820
Emission
Reduction
(Ib/yr)
23,600
68,400
23,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
33,000
96,900
33.000
96,900
Recovered
Solvent
Credit
(*/yr)
(6.100)
(17.700)
(6,100)
(17,700)
(9.490)
(17,700)
(7,390)
(17,700)
(8,540)
(25.100)
(8.540)
(25.100)
Net
Annual ized
Cost
(*/yr)
(2,200)
(12.500)
17,500
19,100
(2.830)
(11,500)
17,000
20,100
(6,020)
(21,500)
(3,130)
(17.300)
Cost
Effectiveness
($/lb)
(0.1)
(0.2)
0.7
0.3
(0.2)
(0.2)
0.6
0.3
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.2)
OPERATING SCHEDULES:
    Schedule A: 8 hours working; 16 hours downtime;
    Schedule B: 16 hours working; 8 hours downtime;
5 days/week; 52 weeks/year
7 days/week; 52 weeks/year

-------
                       Table 5-11.   SUMMARY  OF  RETROFIT  CONTROL  COSTS  AND  COST  EFFECTIVENESS  FOR  MODEL  IN-LINE  CLEANERS
                                    USING PERCHLOROETHYLENE  (1988  S)
u>

Total Total Recovered Net
Installed Annualized Emission Solvent Annualized
Cleaner Size/ Capital Cost Cost Reduction Credit Cost

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Control Option
Below Freezing FRD

Carbon Adsorber

Below- freezing FRD; Sump Cooling

Carbon Adsorber; Sump Cooling

Super Heated Vapor; Sump Cooling

Below- freezing FRD; Sump Cooling

Operating Schedule ($) ($/yr) (Ib/yr) (S/yr)
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
18.500
18,500
80,500
80,500
20.000
20.000
82,000
82,000
5,040
5,040
22,100
22,100
3.900
5.200
23,600
36,800
5,100
6,210
25,000
37,800
2,530
3.640
5,230
7,820
23,600
68,400
23,600
68.400
30,600
68,400
30,600
68.400
33.000
96.900
33,000
96.900
(7.300)
(21,200)
(7.300)
(21.200)
(9.490)
(21.200)
(9.490)
(21.200)
(10,200)
(30,000)
(10.200)
(30,000)
(*/yr)
(3,400)
(16,000)
16,300
15,600
(4.780)
(15.000)
15,500
16,600
(6,840)
(26,400)
(4,990)
(22,200)
Cost
Effectiveness
(*/lb)
(0.1)
(0.2)
0.7
0.2
(0.2)
(0.2)
0.6
0.2
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.2)
      FRD  =  freeboard refrigeration device
      OPERATING SCHEDULES:
          Schedule A: 8 hours working;  16 hours  downtime;
          Schedule B: 16 hours working;  8 hours  downtime;
5 days/week; 52 weeks/year
7 days/week; 52 weeks/year

-------
                     Table 5-12.  SUMMARY OF RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR MODEL IN-LINE CLEANERS
                                  USING TR1CHLOROETHYLENE (1988 $)

Cleaner Size/
Total Total
Installed Annual ized Emission
Capital Cost Cost Reduction
Control Option Operating Schedule ($)
1. Below Freezing FRO

2. Carbon Adsorber

3. Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling

i>. Carbon Adsorber; Sump Cooling

5. Super Heated Vapor; Sump Cooling
en
co 6. Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling
ro
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
18,500
18,500
80,500
80,500
20,000
20,000
82,000
82,000
5,040
5,040
22,100
22,100
(*/yr)
3,900
5,200
23,600
36,800
5,100
6,210
25.000
37,800
2,530
3,640
5,230
7,820
(Ib/yr)
23,600
68,400
23,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
33,000
96,900
33,000
96,900
Recovered
Solvent
Credit
($/yr)
(9,070)
(26,300)
(9.070)
(26,300)
(11,800)
(26,300)
(11,800)
(26,300)
(12.700)
(37,300)
(12,700)
(37.300)
Net
Annual ized Cost
Cost Effectiveness
(S/yr)
(5.170)
(21.100)
14,500
10.500
(7.080)
(20,100)
13.200
11.500
(9.310)
(33,700)
(7,470)
(29.500)
(S/lb)
(0.2)
(0.3)
0.6
0.2
(0.2)
(0.3)
0.4
0.2
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.2)
(0.3)
OPERATING SCHEDULES:
    Schedule A: 8 hours working; 16 hours downtime;
    Schedule B: 16 hours working; 8 hours downtime;
5 days/week; 52 weeks/year
7 days/week; 52 weeks/year

-------
                     Table 5-13.  SUMMARY OF RETROFIT  CONTROL COSTS AND COST  EFFECTIVENESS FOR MODEL  IN-LINE  CLEANERS
                                  USING 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE (1988 $)

Total Total Recovered
Installed Annual ized Emission Solvent
Cleaner Size/ Capital Cost Cost Reduction Credit
Control Option Operating Schedule (*) (Vyr) (Ib/yr) (t/yr)
1. Below Freezing FRD 38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
2. Carbon Adsorber 38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
3. Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling 38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
it. Carbon Adsorber; Sump Cooling 38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
in
to 5. Super Heated Vapor; Sump Cooling 38 ft2/A
00 38 ft2/B
6. Be low- freezing FRD; Sump Cooling 38 ft2/A
38 ft2/B
18,500
18,500
80,500
80,500
20,000
20,000
82,000
82,000
5,040
5,040
22,100
22,100
3,900
5,200
23,600
36,800
5,100
6,210
25,000
37,800
2,530
3,640
5,230
7,820
23,600
68,400
23,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
33,000
96,900
33,000
96,900
(9.540)
(27.700)
(9.540)
(27,700)
(12,400)
(27.700)
(12.400)
(27.700)
(13.400)
(39,200)
(13,400)
(39,200)
Net
Annual ized Cost
Cost Effectiveness
(*/yr) (S/lb)
(5,640)
(22,500)
14,100
9,090
(7,300)
(21.500)
12,600
10.100
(9,970)
(35,600)
(8,130)
(31,400)
(0.2)
(0.3)
0.6
0.1
(0.2)
(0.3)
0.4
0.2
(0.3)
(0.9)
(0.2)
(0.8)
FRD = freeboard refrigeration device
OPERATING SCHEDULES:
    Schedule A: 8 hours working; 16 hours downtime;
    Schedule B: 16 hours working; 8 hours downtime;
5 days/week; 52 weeks/year
7 days/week; 52 weeks/year

-------
                        Table 5-14.  SUMHARY OF RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR HODEL  IN-LIME CLEANERS
                                     USING TRICHLOROTR1FLOUROETHANE (1988 $)
en
 i
CO

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
?ir
Control Option
Below Freezing FRD

Carbon Adsorber

Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling

Carbon Adsorber; Sump Cooling

Super Heated Vapor; Sump Cooling

Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling
Total Total Recovered
Installed Annuatized Emission Solvent
Cleaner Size/ Capital Cost Cost Reduction Credit
Operating Schedule ($) ($/yr) (Ib/yr) ($/yr)
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
ft2/A
ft2/B
ft2/A
ft2/8
ft2/A
ft2/B
ft2/A
ft2/B
ft2/A
ft2/B
ft2/A
ft2/B
18,500
18,500
80,500
80,500
20,000
20,000
82,000
82.000
5,040
5,040
22,100
22,100
3,900
5,200
23,600
36,800
5,100
6,210
25,000
37,800
2,530
3,640
5,230
7,820
23.600
68,400
23,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
30,600
68,400
33,000
96,900
33,000
96,900
(21.200)
(61,
(21,
(61,
(27,
(61.
(27.
(61.
(29.
(87.
(29.
(87.
500)
200)
500)
690)
500)
600)
500)
700)
200)
700)
200)
Net
Annualized Cost
Cost Effectiveness
(*/yr) (S/lb)
(17.300)
(56.300)
2
(24
(22
(55
(2
(23
(26
(83
(24
(79
,400
,800)
,500)
,300)
,590)
,700)
.300)
.500)
,500)
,400)
(0.7)
(0.8)
0 1
(0.4)
(0.7)
(0.8)
(0.1)
(0.4)
(0.8)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.8)
     OPERATING SCHEDULES:
         Schedule  A:  8 hours working;  16 hours downtime;
         Schedule  B:  16 hours working;  8 hours downtime;
5 days/week; 52 weeks/year
7 days/week; 52 weeks/year

-------
5.5  REFERENCES

1.   Letter and attachments from Philip J. Feig, Branson Ultrasonics
     Corporation, to Jack R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     February 16, 1987.  Section 114 organic solvent cleaner  vendor
     questionnaire response.

2.   Letter and attachments from Algar Saulic, Baron-Blakeslee,  Incorporated
     to Jack R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.   March 9,  1987,
     Section 114 organic solvent cleaner vendor questionnaire response.

3.   Letter and attachments from Henry Stanley, Unique Industries to
     Jack R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  April 15,  1987.
     Section 114 organic solvent cleaner vendor questionnaire response.

4.   Letter and attachments from Joseph Scapelliti, Detrex Corporation, to
     Jack R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  April 15,  1987.
     Section 114 organic solvent cleaner vendor questionnaire response.

5.   Letter and attachments from Robert E. Miller, Westinghouse  Electric
     Corporation, to David A. Beck, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     June 5, 1987.  Section 114 response.

6.   Letter and attachments from Oskar Franz, Phillips Manufacturing Company
     to Jack Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  June 18, 1987.
     Section 114 organic solvent cleaner vendor questionnaire response.

7.   Letter and attachments from Jon Harman,  Branson Cleaning Equipment
     Company,  to Jack R. Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     May 5,  1987.  Follow-up questions to Section 114 vendor questionnaire
     response.

8.   Telephone Conversation.  Beck, David, U. S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, with Joseph Scapelliti, Detrex Corporation.   May 17 - 18, 1987.
     Follow-up questions to Section 114 vendor questionnaire response.

9.   Telephone Conversation.  Pandullo, Rich, Radian Corporation, with
     Henry Stanley,  Unique Industries.  June 4, 1987.  Clarifications to
     Section 114 organic solvent cleaner vendor questionnaire.

10.   Telephone Conversation.  Pandullo, Rich, Radian Corporation, with
     Jon Harman, Branson Cleaning Equipment.   May 29, 1987.  Information on
     freeboard ratios and refrigerated chillers for OTVC's.

11.   Telephone Conversation.  Pandullo, Rich, Radian Corporation, with
     Oskar Franz,  Phillips Manufacturing Company.  May 29,  1987.  Information
     on freeboard ratios and refrigerated chillers for OTVC's.
                                     5-35

-------
 5.5  REFERENCES

 12.   Telephone Conversation.   Lear,  Judith,  Radian  Corporation,  with
      Jim Bennett-Elias,  Baron-Blakeslee.   June  1, 1987.   Follow-up questions
      to  Section 114  vendor questionnaire  response.

 13.   Telephone Conversation.   Lear,  Judith,  Radian  Corporation,  with
      Joe Scapeleti,  Detrex Corporation.   June 3,  1987.  OTVC  - percent  sold
      with refrigerated freeboard  chillers.

 14.   Telephone Conversation.   Lear,  Judith,  Radian  Corporation,  with
      Jim Bennett-Elias,  Baron-Blakeslee.   June  15,  1987.   Follow-up questions
      to  Section 114  vendor questionnaire  response.

 15.   Letter  and attachments from  Algar Saulic,  Baron-Blakeslee,  Incorporated,
      to  Judith Lear,  Radian Corporation.   June  16,  1987.   Section  114 organic
      solvent cleaner  vendor questionnaire  response.

 16.   Telephone Conversation.   Miller, Susan, Radian Corporation, with
      Jon  Harman, Branson.   June 19,  1987.  Follow-up questions to  Section 114
      vendor  questionnaire  response.

 17.   Telephone Conversation.   Miller, Susan, Radian-Corporation, with
      Jon  Harman, Branson.   July 1, 1987.   Follow-up questions to Section 114
      vendor questionnaire  response.

 18.   Telephone  Conversation.   Miller, Susan, Radian Corporation,  with
      Henry Stanley, Unique  Industries.  July 24, 1987.  Clarifications on
      response  to vendor questionnaire.

 19.   Telephone  Conversation.   Miller, Susan, Radian Corporation,  with
      Jon  Harman, Branson.   July 27,  1987.  Follow-up questions to Section 114
      vendor questionnaire  response.

 20.   Telephone  Conversation.   Miller, Susan, Radian Corporation,  with
      Jim  Bennet-Elias, Baron-Blakeslee,  Incorporated.   July 27,  1987.
      Follow-up  questions to Section  114 vendor questionnaire response.

21.  Telephone  Conversation.  Miller, Susan, Radian  Corporation,  with
     Oskar Franz, Phillips Manufacturing.   July 27,  1987.   Clarifications on
      response  to vendor questionnaire.

22.  Telephone  Conversation.  Miller, Susan, Radian  Corporation,  with
     John Tress, Westinghouse.  July 29,  1987.   Follow-up  questions to
     Section 114  vendor questionnaire response.

23.  Telephone Conversation. Beck, D. A.,  U. S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency,  with Joseph Scapelliti,  Detrex Corporation.   Follow-up questions
     to Section 114 vendor questionnaire response.
                                     5-36

-------
5.5  REFERENCES
24.  Telephone Conversation.  Rhodes, L. M., Radian Corporation, with O'Neil,
     Orane, Baron-Blakeshlee.  January 26, 1989.  Information on OTVC costs.
25.  Telephone Conversation.  Rhodes, L. M., Radian Corporation, with
     Selznick, R., Baron-Blakeshlee.  January 26, 1989.  Information on OTVC
     and in-line costs.
26.  Telephone Conversation.  Rhodes, L. M., Radian Corporation, with
     Astrota, J., Baron-Blakeshlee.  January 26, 1989.  Information on OTVC
     and in-line costs.
27.  Telephone Conversation.  Rhodes, L. M., Radian Corporation, with
     Uffer, W., Detrex Corporation.  January 26, 1989.  Information on
     in-line costs.
28.  Telephone Conversation.  Rhodes, L. M., Radian Corporation, with
     Aldridge, J., Scarex Corporation.  January 27, 1989.  Information on
     OTVC and in-line costs.
29.  Telephone Conversation.  Rhodes, L. M., Radian Corporation, with
     Racqiet, D., Phillips.  January 27, 1989.  Information on OTVC and
     in-1ine costs.
30.  Telephone Conversation.  Miller, S. J., Radian Corporation, with
     Gilliam, A., Unique Industries.  February 13, 1989.  Information on
     OTVC and in-line costs.
31.  Telephone Conversation.  Miller, S. J., Radian Corporation, with
     Halbert, J., Delta Sonics.  February 13, 1989.  Information on OTVC and
     in-line costs.
32.  Reference 1.
33.  Reference 2.
34.  Reference 4.
35.  Reference 2.
36.  Reference 3.
37.  Reference 4.
38.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Control Cost Manual.  Research
     Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Publication No. EPA 450/5-87-001A.
     February 1987.  page 4-34.
39.  Chemical Profile, Chemical Marketing Reporter, February 3, 1986.
                                     5-37

-------
5.5  REFERENCES

40.  Chemical Profile, Chemical Marketing Reporter, February 6,  1989.

41.  Chemical Profile, Chemical Marketing Reporter, January 23,  1989.

42.  Chemical Profile, Chemical Marketing Reporter, January 30,  1989.

43.  "Fluorocarbon Solvents" Chemical Products Synopsis, October 1984.

44.  U. S. Department of Energy.  Monthly Energy Review.  Washington, D.C.
     Publication Number DOE/EIA-0035 (86/11).  November 1986.

45.  Memorandum.  May, P. A., Radian Corporation, to Butadiene Source
     Category Concurrence4 File.  Batch Flare Algorithm and TRE Development.
     December 31, 1986.

46.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Organic Solvent Cleaners --
     Background Information for Proposed Standards.  Office of Air Quality
     Planning and Standards.  Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina.
     Publication No. EPA 450/2-78-045a.  October 1979.  page 8-39.

47.  GARD, Inc. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution
     Control Systems.  Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Publication No.
     EPA-450/5-80-002.  1978.  page 3-12.

48.  Reference 46.

49.  BLS Producer Price Index.  All Industiral Commodities.  File 176 Dinlog
     Information Services,  Inc.  February 10, 1989 update.

50.  CE plant cost index for building, Chemical Engineering. May 23, 1981.
     p. 7.

51.  CE plant cost index for building, Chemical Engineering. July 23, 1981.
     p. 7.

52.  CE plant cost index for building, Chemical Engineering.
     January 16, 1989. p. 186.
                                     5-38

-------
      APPENDIX A

DERIVATION OF COMBINED
  EFFICIENCY FORMULA
          A-l

-------
                                  APPENDIX A

     The efficiencies for individual control techniques discussed  in
Chapter 4.0 are based on the single control technique being added  to  a  solvent
cleaner.  When two or more control techniques act upon the same  solvent
emissions (i.e., idling, working), the combined efficiency of these techniques
added to one cleaner is not equivalent to the direct sum of the  individual
efficiencies for each technique.  The combined efficiency of two or more
controls is somewhat less than the additive sum.  This is because  the
additional techniques are essentially controlling only the emissions not
already controlled by the first technique (i.e., the control  techniques are
essentially acting in series).  The derivation of combined efficiency formulas
for two control techniques and three control techniques,  respectively,  are
described below.

Combined Efficiency Formula for Two Control  Techniques

     1.    Let,
               B  = baseline emissions (no control)
               Ej  = removal  efficiency for control  1 only
               E2  = removal  efficiency for control  2 only

     2.    Then,
               BEj  = amount  of baseline emissions reduction using control  1

     3.    B  -  BEj  = amount of baseline emissions remaining after application
                    of control  1

     4.    EgiB  - BEj)  = emission reduction control  2 acting on  remaining
                        emissions

     5.    Total Emission Reduction
                      = BEj  + E2(B -  BEj)
                      - BEj  + BE2 -  BEjE2
                      = B[Ej  +  E2 -  EjE2]

                                      A-2

-------
     6.   The effective removal efficiency (E^pp) of control 1 and control  2
          acting simultaneously on the baseline emissions  (B) is, therefore,
                    EEFF " El + E2 - E1E2
Combined Efficiency formula for Three Control Techniques

     1.   Let,
               B  = baseline emissions (no control)
               E, = removal percent for control 1 only
               E = removal percent for control 2 only
               E3 = removal percent for control 3 only

     2.   Then,
               BE, = amount of baseline emissions reduction using control 1

     3.   B - BE, * amount of emission remaining after application of control  1

     4.   (B - BE,)E2 = amount of emission reduction using control 2

     5.   B - BE, - (BE- - BE,E2) = amount of emission remaining after
                                   application of control 2

     6.   [B - BEj -(BE2 - BE1E2)]E3 = amount of emission reduction using
                                     control 3

     7.   Total Emissions Reduction

               = BEj + (B - BEj)E2 + [B - BEj -(BE2 - BEjE2)]E3

               = BEj + BE2 - BEjE2 + BE3 - BEjE3 - BE2E3 + BEjE^

               = BEj + BE2 + BE3 - BEjEg - BEjE3 - BE2E3 + K^l
                                      A-3

-------
     8.    The  effective  removal  efficiency  (%F)  of  controls  1,  2,  and  3
           acting  on  baseline  emissions  is:

           EEFF =  El  +  E2 +  E3 '    '    '   +  (E1E2E3>

     The two combined  efficiency formulas were used to calculate  the  efficiency
of various OTVC and  in-line cleaner control scenarios listed in Chapter  4  using
the efficiency estimates for  individual techniques.  Table A-l presents  the
range of efficiency  for  individual control techniques.  These efficiency ranges
were based on  data in  Tables  4-2 through 4-4 and reflect only those tests
showing the effectiveness of  control techniques on cleaners with  the  same
characteristics as baseline conditions.  It is assumed that a baseline OTVC has
the following  characteristics:   (1) 0.75 FBR, (2) 70F to 80F primary
condensing temperature for all solvents except MC and CFC, which  have
temperatures around  50F to 60F and (3) 100 fpm room air speed.  A baseline
in-line cleaner is assumed to  have a 1.0 FBR.  The control efficiencies  listed
in Table A-l are  intended to  represent levels that can reasonably be expected
under normal cleaner operating conditions.
     Table A-2 presents the combined control efficiency for the OTVC and
in-line cleaner control scenarios.  An example calculation for OTVC control
scenario (11 fpm  hoist, freeboard refrigeration device - BF, 1.0 FBR) follows:

Idling Emissions

El + E2 -  (E1E2>
0.39 + 0.26 -  (0.39 x 0.26) =  55% (lower end of range)
0.39 + 0.58 -  (0.39 x 0.58) =  74% (upper end of range)

Working Emissions

El + E2 + E3 -  -  -  + 
0.28 + 0.19 + 0.28 - (0.28 x 0.19) - (0.28 x 0.28)  - (0.19 x 0.28) +
     (0.28 x 0.19 x 0.28) = 58%  (lower end of range)
0.28 + 0.21 + 0.52 - (0.28 x 0.21) - (0.28 x 0.52)  - (0.21 x 0.52) +
     (0.28 x 0.21 x 0.52) = 73%  (upper end of range)

                                      A-4

-------
        TABLE A-l.  EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLVENT CLEANER CONTROL TECHNIQUES

                                  Achievable Emission Reduction Efficiency
                                     Idling        Working      Downtime
Control Techniques                  Emissions     Emissions     Emissions


OTVC

o  Hoist 9 11 fpm or less               -              28
o  1.0 FBR                             39           19-21
o  Automated cover                      -           41-48
o  Freeboard refrigeration device
   -  Above freezing                    -           16-50
   -  Below freezing                 26 - 58        28-52
o  Hoist @ 3 fpm or less                -              82
o  1.0 FBR                             39           19-21
o  Sump cooling device                  -              -            90
o  Carbon adsorption                    -              65            -
o  Enclosed design                      -           42-67

In-Line Cleaners

o  Freeboard refrigeration device
   -  Above freezing                                    8
   -  Below freezing                                   60
o  Carbon adsorber                                     60
o  Hot vapor recycle/
        Superheated vapor                              70
o  Sump cooling device                                 -            90
                                     A-5

-------
TABLE A-2.  EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLVENT CLEANER CONTROL TECHNIQUE SCENARIOS
r  .   , T  .  .
Control Techniques
                                      Idling
                                     Emissions
                                       Control Efficiency
 Working
Emissions
                                                              Downtime
                                                             Emissions
OTVC

o  Hoist  9  11  fpm                    55
   Freeboard refrigeration device  (BF)
   1.0  FBR
                                     - 74
o  Hoist 9 11 fpm
   Enclosed design
   2.0 FBR sump cooling

o  Hoist 9 11 fpm
   Automated cover
                                     53-74
                                     41
o  Hoist 9 3 fpm                     55
   Freeboard refrigeration device (BF)
   1.0 FBR
o  Hoist 9 3 fpm
   Enclosed design
   1.0 FBR sump cooling

o  Hoist 9 3 fpm
   Automated cover
In-Line Cleaners

o  Freeboard refrigerationd evice (BF)

o  Carbon adsorption

o  Hot vapor recycle/
     Superheated vapor

o  Freeboard refrigeration device (BF)
     Sump cooling

o  Hot vapor recycle/
     Superheated vapor
     Sump cooling
                                       48


                                       74
                                  53  -  74
                                  41  -  48
  58-73



  66 -  78



  57-62


     go



  91  .  95



  89-91
    60

    60


    70

    60


    70
                                                                 90
                                                                90


                                                                90
                                   A-6

-------
        APPENDIX B

   OVERALL EFFICIENCY OF
SELECTED CONTROL SCENARIOS
            B-l

-------
                                         TABLE B-1.   OVERALL  EFFICIENCY OF OTVC CONTROL SCENARIOS UNDER SCHEDULE A8
CD
 i
ro
Idling X Total Working X Total Downtime % Total
Control b Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
Scenario Reduction Due to Idling Reduction (X) Due to Working Reduction (X) Due to Downtime
1 55-74 36 58 - 73 33 - 31
2 53 - 74C 36 68 - 78 33 90 31
3 1 - 48 36 57 - 62 33 0 31
4 55-74 36 90 33 0 31
5 53 - 74 36 91 - 95 33 90 31
6 41 - 48C 36 89 - 91 33 0 31
"schedule A assumes: 6 hr/day idling, 2 hr/day working, and 16 hr/day downtime for 5 days/wk. 52 wks/yr-
b 24 hr/day downtime for 2 days/wk, 52 wks/yr. '
Control Scenario 1: Automated parts handling a 11 fpm; Below-freezing FRD; 1.0 FBR
Control Scenario 2: Automated parts handling a 11 fpm; Enclosed Design, Sump Cooling
Control Scenario 3: Automated parts handling a 11 fpm; Automated Bi -parting Cover
Control Scenario 4: Automated parts handling a 3 fpm; Below- freezing FRD- 1.0 FBR
Control Scenario 5: Automated parts handling a 3 fpm; Enclosed Design; Sump Cooling
cControl Scenario 6: Automated parts handling a 3 fpm; Automated Bi -parting Cover
Assumes that control efficiency is at least as good on idling emissions as ,i t is on working emissions (where onlv
working emissions control efficiency data are available).
Overall
Emissions
Reduction (X)
40 - 50
70 - 80
30 - 40
50 - 60
80 - 90
40 - 50







-------
                                TABLE B-2.   OVERALL EFFICIENCY OF OTVC CONTROL SCENARIOS UNDER SCHEDULE 8*
Idling
Control . Emissions
X Total
Emissions
Scenario Reduction Due to Idling
1 55
2 53
3 41
4 55
5 53
6 41
- 74
- 74C
- 48C
- 74
- 74C
- 48C
10
10
10
10
10
10
Working
Emissions
Reduction (X)
58 -
68 -
57 -
90
91 -
89 -
73
78
62

95
91
X Total
Emissions
Due to Working
81
81
81
81
81
81
Downtime
Emissions
Reduction (X)
-
90
0
0
90
0
X Total
Emissions
Due to Downtime
9
9
9
9
9
9
Overal I
Emissions
Reduction (X)
50 - 70
70 - 80
50 - 60
80
90
80
a
 Schedule B assumes:
                     6 hr/day idling, 12 hr/day working,  and 8 hr/day downtime for 5 days/wk,  52 wks/yr;
                     24 hr/day downtime for 2 days/wk,  52 wks/yr.
                     Automated parts handling 3 11  fpm;  Below-freezing FRD;  1.0 FBR
                     Automated parts handling 3 11  fpm;  Enclosed Design,  Sump Cooling
                     Automated parts handling 8 11  fpm;  Automated Bi-parting Cover
                     Automated parts handling 3 3 fpm;  Below-freezing FRD;  1.0 FBR
                     Automated parts handling 9 3 fpm;  Enclosed Design;  Sump Cooling
                     Automated parts handling 8 3 fpm;  Automated Bi-parting  Cover
Assumes that control efficiency is at least as good on  idling emissions  as  it is on working emissions (where only
working emissions control efficiency data are available).
 Control Scenario 1:
 Control Scenario 2:
 Control Scenario 3:
 Control Scenario 4:
 Control Scenario 5:
 Control Scenario 6:

-------
                                  TABLE  B-3.  OVERALL EFFICIENCY OF  IN-LINE CLEANER CONTROL SCENARIOS UNDER SCHEDULE A"
oo
Control .
Scenario
1
2
3
4
5
Working
Emissions
Reduction (X)
60
60
70
60
70
X Total
Emissions
Due to Working
84
84
84
84
84
Downtime
Emissions
Reduction (X)
-
-
-
90
90
X Total
Emissions
Due to Downtime
16
16
16
16
16
Overall
Emissions
Reduction (X)
50
50
60
65
70
       Schedule A assumes:  8 hr/day working and 16 hr/day downtime for 5 days/wk,  52 wks/yr;
24 hr/day downtime for 2 days/wk,  52 wks/yr.
Below-freezing FRD
Carbon Adsorption
Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor
Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling
Control Scenario 1:
Control Scenario 2:
Control Scenario 3:
Control Scenario 4:
Control Scenario 5:  Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor;  Sump Cooling

-------
                                  TABLE B-4.   OVERALL EFFICIENCY  OF IN-LINE CLEANER CONTROL SCENARIOS UNDER SCHEDULE B*
03
 I
O1
Working
Control . Emissions
Scenario Reduction (X)
1
2
3
4
5
^Schedule B assumes:
Control Scenario 1:
Control Scenario 2:
Control Scenario 3:
Control Scenario 4:
Control Scenario 5:
60
60
70
60
70
X Total Downtime X Total
Emissions Emissions Emissions
Due to Working Reduction (X) Due to Downtime
97 - 3
97 - 3
97 - 3
97 90 3
97 90 3
Overall
Emissions
Reduction (X)
60
60
70
60
70
16 hr/day working and 8 hr/day downtime for 365 days/yr.
Below-freezing FRD
Carbon Adsorption
Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor
Below-freezing FRD; Sump Cooling
Hot Vapor Recycle/Superheated Vapor; Sump Cooling

-------
       APPENDIX C-l





DERIVATION OF CAPITAL COSTS
            C-l

-------
                    APPENDIX C-l - DERIVATION OF CAPITAL COSTS

 C-l.l  INTRODUCTION

      Table C-l provides a summary of the capital  costs used in determining
 cost effectiveness for open top vapor,  and in-line cleaners.   The costs shown
 in the table represent fourth quarter 1988 costs  and  have been updated from
 the fourth quarter 1986 costs presented in the  remainder of this appendix.
 When deriving capital  costs,  straight averages  of vendor quotes were examined,
 but other considerations also affected  cost choices (as  discussed in
 Section 5.2.3).   A detailed discussion  of assumptions  made  in  calculating
 specific capital  costs for each degreaser follows.  The  sources of this
 information are  discussed in  Chapter 5.
      Capital  costs were annualized  based on an  annual  percentage  rate  of 10
 percent and the  following equipment lifetimes based on vendor  questionnaires:

                    OTVC:           10 years
                    In-line:        15 years

 All  controls  except carbon  adsorbers  were  assumed to have the  same lifetime as
 the  degreaser.  A  carbon  adsorber has a  reported  lifetime of 10 years and was
 annualized  over this life  span.

 C-l.2   OTVC's

     Based  on  vendor quotations and the criteria detailed in Section 5.2.2 of
 the  memorandum, the following base  costs for OTVC's were selected:
4.5 ft2:
8.6 ft2:
16 ft2:
38 ft2:
$ 7,500
$10,000
$11,500
$16,000
Controls where more than one vendor quote was obtained are listed below,  as
well as methodology for selecting each cost.
                                      C-2

-------
TABLE C-l.  CAPITAL COSTS (1988$)

Total Installed Capital Costs ($)

Open Top Vapor Cleaners
Verv Small OTVC 4.5 ft2
Automated Parts Handling
Below-freezing FRD
Above-freezing FRD
Bi -parting Cover
1.0 FBR
Carbon adsorber
Enclosed design
Sump Cool ing
Small OTVC 8.5 ft2
Automated Parts Handling
Below- freezing FRD
Above-freezing FRD
Bi -parting Cover
1.0 FBR
Carbon adsorber
Enclosed design
Sump Cool ing
Medium OTVC 16 ft2
Automated Parts Handling
Below- freezing FRD
Above-freezing FRD
Bi -parting Cover
1.0 FBR
Carbon adsorber
Enclosed design
Sump Cooling
Larae OTVC 38 ft2
Automated Parts Handling
Below- freezing FRD
Above -freezing FRD
Bi -parting Cover
1.0 FBR
Carbon adsorber
Enclosed design
Sump Cooling
New


1,500 - 2,000a
4,500
2,000
7,900
500
28,400
3,000
1,500

1,500 - 2,000
7,600
6,000
9,100
500
28,400
5,000
1,500

3,000 - 3,500
8,600
7,400
10,200
600
42,000
10,000
1,500

3,000 - 3,500
12 500
9,300
12,500
1,200
51,000


Retrofit


1,500 - 2,000
5,400
2,500
8,500
500
29,500
3,000
1,500

1,500 - 2,000
9,100
7,300
10,200
500
29,500
5,000
1,500

3,000 - 3,500
10,300
8,800
11,300
600
43,100
10,000
1,500

3,000 - 3,500
14,700
11,100
14,200
1,200
52,100


                    C-3

-------
                TABLE C-l.  CAPITAL COSTS (1988$) (Continued)
                                      Total Installed Capital Costs  ($)

                                            New              Retrofit
    In-line Cleaners 38 ft2
         Below-freezing FRD               12 500              14,700
         Above-freezing FRD                9,300              11,100
         Carbon adsorber                  61,000              75,000
         Drying tunnel                     6,000               6,000
         Super heated vapor                3,000               3,000


All automated parts handling systems costs include a range.   The lower cost
is a push-button hoist capable of moving at a set speed.   The higher cost is
a push-button hoist capable of moving at two distinct speeds during the
cycle.
                                     C-4

-------
C-l.2.1  Raising Freeboard Ratio from 0.75 To 1.0

     All vendors currently selling OTVC's with a FBR of 0.75 provided cost
estimates for raising the FBR to 1.0.  With the exception of Phillips and
Baron-Blakeslee, the costs included the cost to redesign the equipment;
Phillips and Baron-Blakeslee's costs basically included the sheet metal
enclosure.  Although there may be some redesign cost, it is incurred only once
and is spread out over all the units sold.  Baron-Blakeslee indicated that the
raised freeboard would be a prefabricated unit that would be easy to install.
Since Phillips' costs were rough estimates and Baron-Blakeslee's costs were
based on actual equipment they sell, it was decided that Baron-Blakeslee's
costs were more reliable.  The costs including redesign were not included
since the redesign cost should only be incurred once for each model and not
each time the 1.0 freeboard is requested.  Below are Baron-Blakeslee's cost
                                                                    
estimates.
                                         Retrofit/New Costs
          Model Plant Size          For Increased FBR (.75 to 1.0)
               4.5 ft2                       $  400
               8.6 ft2                       $  450
              16   ft2                       $  550
              38   ft2                       $1,100

C-l.2.2 Covers

C-l.2.2.1 Manual/Mechanically-assisted.  All vendors include at least a manual
cover on all degreasers.  Detrex and Baron-Blakeslee include mechanically
assisted covers on all degreasers.  It was assumed that, at baseline,  all
OTVC's have manual covers.

C-l.2.2.2  Power Covers.  One of the vendors providing power cover costs
(Branson) does not manufacture power covers, nor have they retrofitted another
manufacturers' cover on a regular basis.  Their costs were "best guesses" and
                                      C-5

-------
were eliminated from consideration.  The following information was also
obtained from vendor correspondence:

         Unique and Phillips' power covers are mylar roll  up covers.
          Westinghouse's power cover is a rigid steel top with hinges at the
          back.

     t    According to Phillips a steel roll  up cover would cost roughly 3
          times the mylar cover.

         Baron Blakeslee's power cover is  a  steel  roll  up  cover.
          Baron-Blakeslee's power cover costs are  slightly  more than 2 times
          the mylar equivalent covers  for the 0.4m2 and  0.8m2  degreasers.
          This estimate supports  Phillips'  estimate mentioned  above.

         None of  the  above covers  are capable  of  being  closed during
          degreaser operation.  A cover capable  of  this  is  a bi-parting
          cover.

         Baron Blakeslee  estimates  that  a  bi-parting  cover would cost about 2
          times the cost of a  steel  roll  up cover.

         Detrex estimates  that a bi-parting  cover  would cost  120 to  133% of
          their power  cover listed.

     Cost  Estimate  Approach
                               9
     t    For  the 4.5  and 8.6  ft  degreasers, 6  times  the mylar cover cost and
          2 times the  Baron-Blakeslee  costs were examined.  These values
          should approximate the  costs  of bi-parting steel covers based on the
          Phillips  estimate that  a steel rollup cover  costs 3 times a mylar
          cover, and Baron  Blakeslee's  estimate that a bi-parting cover costs
                                     C-6

-------
          2 times a steel roll up cover.   The following values were obtained.
                                        6x                       2x
                                                                           *
           Deqreaser Size        "Mvlar Equivalent"         Baron-Blakeslee
                                   New     Retrofit
                 4.5 ft2          8,800     10,000             7,000
                 8.6 ft2          8,500     11,200             8,000

                      2         ?
         For the 1.5m  and 3.5m  degreasers, the Detrex estimates were also
          available (though confidential):
                                        6x                       2x
                                                                           *
          Deoreaser Size         "Mylar Equivalent"         Baron-Blakeslee
                                   New     Retrofit
               16 ft2             8,600     12,300            12,000
               38 ft2             6,700     15,900            15,000
     Based on the above information the following costs were selected:

            Degreaser Size                     Rationale:

                p
          4.5 ft                   Based on twice the Baron-Blakeslee cost.
                                   There is only one "mylar equivalent"
               New - $ 7000        supplier in this range (Unique) and
               Ret - $ 7500        Baron-Blakeslee is a much larger vendor.
                                   Although Baron-Blakeslee has no retrofit
                                   cost increase for a power cover, it  was
                                   acknowledged that other manufacturers do.
                9
          8.6 ft                   These costs were selected based on the
                                   criteria listed in Section 2.0.
               New - $ 8,000
               Ret - $ 9,000

 Baron-Blakeslee's rollup cover is self contained and simply attaches to
degreaser, therefore there is no increase to retrofit.  There is no estimate
available as to how this would differ for a bi-parting cover.
                                      C-7

-------
                2
           16  ft                   The lower  "mylar equivalent"  costs  (as
                                   opposed to the smaller cleaners)  are due
                New  - $ 9,000       to only Phillips supplying costs  for covers
                Ret  - $10,000       in these size ranges.  Selected costs are
                                   based on the cost presented above and
                                   consideration of Detrex's costs.
                                   Engineering judgement was used to adjust
                                   costs to ensure that these sizes  do not
                                   cost less than smaller sizes.

          38  ft2
                New  - $11,000
                Ret  - $12,500

C-l.2.3  Refrigerated Freeboard Chillers

     The following above freezing (AF) and below freezing (BF)  chiller costs
were eliminated from consideration because the vendors do not manufacture the
units and have  not purchased a significant amount from other vendors  to
retrofit to their equipment:

                    Branson      - AF & BF
                    Unique       - BF
                                              o
                    Westinghouse - AF on 16 ft  only

     The following costs are recommended based on the  basic  criteria  listed in
Section 2.0 of the memorandum.

                               AF Chiller              BF Chiller
     Deqreaser Size
        4.5 ft2
        8.6 ft2
       16   ft2
       38   ft2
                                      C-8
New
$1,800
5,300
6,500
8,200
Ret
2,200
6,400
7,800
9,800
New
4,000
6,700
7,600
11,000
Ret
4,800
8,000
9,100
13,000

-------
The costs for new chillers were based on vendor quotes.  Retrofit costs for
the chillers were not provided by all vendors.  The costs that were provided
ranged from no increase over new costs to 100% increases.  The larger vendors,
Baron-Blakeslee and Detrex, had lower percent increases.  It was decided to
pick a consistent increase of 20 percent for retrofitting all chillers.
C-l.2.4  Carbon Adsorbers

     Three of the responding OTVC vendors (Baron-Blakeslee, Detrex, and
Phillips) manufacture carbon adsorbers.  These vendors supplied carbon
adsorber costs only for the size OTVC's their company sells.  The costs they
provided ranged widely for comparable size OTVC's.  Because taking a simple
average of the reported data yielded inconsistencies (i.e., costs for small
OTVC's were higher than for large OTVC's), the cost data from each vendor was
extrapolated over the entire range of OTVC sizes.  This adjustment was made to
ensure a logical progression of costs.
     Information provided on retrofit costs was very limited.  The information
available indicated there is a small increase in cost for retrofitting a
carbon adsorber.  The retrofit costs are associated with retrofitting the lip
exhaust.  For estimating retrofit costs, $1,000 was added to the new cost for
each model OTVC.  The new and retrofit carbon adsorber costs are shown below.

             OTVC Size           New Cost              Retrofit Cost
        4.5 ft2, 8.6 ft2         $25,000                  $26,000
             16 ft2              $37,000                  $38,000
             38 ft2              $45,000                  $46,000

C-l.2.5  Automated Parts Handling Systems

     The following quotes were obtained for automated parts handling systems.
It should be noted that hoist costs were dependent on features and not
necessarily the size of the OTVC.
                                      C-9

-------
 Resoonder
 System Cost m   Comments
 Baron-Blakeslee
 Baron-Blakeslee
 Scanex
 Scanex
 Scanex
 Phillips
 Phillips
 Detrex
 Detrex
 Unique
 Delta Sonics
 Delta Sonics
     10,000
     16,000
 4,500 - 5,000
     12,000
18,000 - 25,000
     10,000
     30,000
     15,000
     25,000
      7,500
 1,500 - 2,000
 3,000 - 3,500
programmable, 50 Ib
programmable, 200 Ib
variable speed, Model E
variable speed and position, Model R
variable speed, acceleration, Model S
programmable, 100 Ib
programmable, 200 Ib
programmable, 12 Ib
programmable, 50 Ib
variable speed,  50 Ib
1  direction, 1 & 2 speed, 30 Ib
1  direction, 1 & 2 speed, 100-200 Ib
Although more elaborate and expensive controls can be used, the cost analysis
should include the minimum, reasonable control that can be used to meet a
requirement.  For this reson, Delta Sonics' hoists were assumed to meet the
minimum requirement.  The lower costs in the ranges are for a one-directional
hoist capable of moving up and down at a set speed.  The higher prices are for
a hoist capable of switching from 11 fpm to 3 fpm when a part enters the vapor
zoen and then back to 11 fpm once the part has come back through the zone.
These hoists would be push button operated.
                                              Costs
       OTVC Size

        4.5 ft2
        16 ft2
           Control Strategies
           	1 - 3

                  1,500
                  3,000
               Control  Strategies
                     4  - 6	

                     2,000
                     3,500
                                     C-10

-------
C-1.3   IN-LINE

     Three  companies  provided  costs  for  In-line cleaners  (CC)  having  the
following sizes:

                    Unique:           13  ft2
                    Detrex:           14  ft2
                    Baron-Blakeslee:  24  ft2  (crossrod)
                                          9
                    Baron-Blakeslee:  72  ft   (monorail)

All of  the  above cleaners were used  to calculate costs for the 38 ft  model
cleaner.  When recommending costs, average values were used as a guide, but
not strictly adhered  to.  Based on the vendor quotations, a base cost of
$60,000 was selected.

C-l.3.1  Freeboard Refrigeration Devices

     The only cost data provided for  above freezing (AF) freeboard
refrigeration devices  is from Unique  Industries.  They provided a new cost of
$8,000 and did not report retrofit data.  The non-confidential costs provided
by the CC vendors for  below freezing  (BF) freeboard refrigeration devices
were:
CC Size
13 ft2
24 ft2
72 ft2
New Cost
$12,000
$12,500
$20,000
Based on these cost estimates and the Detrex confidential cost estimate, a
value of 13,000 was selected for the new cost of a BF chiller.  For retrofit
costs it was decided that a consistent increase of 20 percent over new device
costs should be used.  [This approach was also taken in estimating the
                                     C-ll

-------
 retrofit  control  costs  for OTVC's.]   The  new and  retrofit  costs are shown
 below:

AF
BF
New
8,000
13,000
Retrofit
9,600
15,600
Carbon Adsorbers

     Vendor quotes for carbon adsorbers have the following ranges:

                         New -          $40,000 - $100,000
                         Retrofit -     $66,000 - $100,000

The $100,000 quotes are from Unique who has previously stated that they do not
make carbon adsorbers.  The following values were selected using Blakeslee's
costs with some adjustment to take information from Detrex into account.

                         New -           54,000
                         Retrofit -     66,000
                                    C-12

-------
       APPENDIX C-2





DERIVATION OF ANNUAL COSTS
           C-13

-------
                                  APPENDIX C

     Actual costs incurred by individual  plants in the operation of solvent
cleaners will vary.  Table C-2 contains operating requirements which are
typical and should provide a reasonable estimate of operating costs.  The
values were obtained from vendor questionnaires and follow-up
correspondence.  The estimates from the vendors were evaluated based on
similar criteria to those used for the capital  costs.
                                     C-14

-------
            TABLE C-2.  OPERATING PARAMETERS USED IN COST ANALYSIS


                                                 Added               Cooling
                                     Added      Operator   Steam      Water
                       Electricity   Floor 2     Labor    (Ib/lb     (gal/100
                          (hp)    Space (ft*) (hrs/shift) pollutant) Ib Steam)


4.5ft2 OTVC
  Hoist                       .24           ...
  Below-freezing FRD        1.5         6          .1
  Bi-parting cover            .5         -           -         -      -
  1.0 FBR                   -           -           -         -
  Enclosed design           -           -           ...
  Sump cooling                .5         -          .1         -

16.0ft2 OTVC
  Hoist                       .2         4           -         -      -
  Below-freezing FRD        1.5        10          ,1         -      -
  Bi-parting cover          1           -           -
  1.0 FBR                   1          10          ,1
  Enclosed design           -           -           ...
  Sump cooling              1           -          .1         .

38.0ft2 In-line
  Below-freezing FRD        3          15          .1         -      -
  Carbon adsorber           6         100          .5         4     12
  Drying tunnel             -          10           -         -      -
  Super-heated vapor        3           0          .1         -
  Sump Cooling              1.5         0          .1
                                  C-15

-------
CALCULATION OF OPERATING COSTS

     The following equations were used along with values taken from Tables 5-6
and C-2 to obtain the annual operating costs.  It should be noted that
operating labor costs were considered for all control  techniques.  However,
supervisory and maintenance labor, maintenance material, and overhead were
only included for carbon adsorbers since this is the only control technique
that would require a significant amount of added labor and maintenance.

1.   OPERATING LABOR

     Labor rates from 1977 were updated to 4th quarter 1986 using the BLS
Producer Price Index.  Shifts per year were obtained from model  plant
parameters.  Manhours per shift were given in Table C-2.
                      OL = Shifts x Payrate x Hours

                     Where OL = Operating Labor,  ($/yr)
                     Shifts   = Shifts per year
                     Payrate   $/hr in 1988 dollars
                     Hours     Hours of labor per shift.

2.   SUPERVISOR LABOR (FOR CARBON ADSORBERS ONLY)

     Supervisor labor is estimated at 15 percent  of operator labor cost
                     SL - 0.15 x OL

                     Where SL * Supervisor Labor,  ($/yr)

3.   MAINTENANCE LABOR

     Maintenance labor is based on .5 manhours per shift.
                                     C-16

-------
                      ML - Shifts x  Payrate x Hours

                      Where ML * Maintenance
               (Remainder same nomenclature as Operating Labor)

4.   MAINTENANCE MATERIALS (FOR CARBON ADSORBERS ONLY)

     Materials necessary for maintenance are estimated as being equivalent  to
maintenance labor costs.

                      MM  ML

                    Where MM = Maintenance Material Costs, ($/yr)

5.   OVERHEAD  (FOR CARBON ADSORBERS ONLY)

     Overhead  is estimated at 60% of Labor Costs and Maintenance Materials.

                      OH = .6 (OL + ML + SL + MM)

                    Where OH = Overhead Costs, ($/yr)

6.   MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING COSTS

     Includes property tax, insurance, and administration costs.  Is estimated
at 4 percent of Total Capital Costs.

                      MOC = 0.04 x (Total Capital Costs)

                    Where MOC = Miscellaneous Operating Costs

7    UTILITY COSTS

     Annual costs for electricity, steam, and cooling water (where applicable)
were calculated according to the following equations:

                                     C-17

-------
               Electricity Cost - hp x 0.746 kw/hp x hrs/yr x EP

               Where hp - horsepower requirements
                     EP  electricity price ($/kwh) in 1988 dollars

               Steam Cost - SR x POLL x SP

               Where SR - steam requirements (per amount pollutant recovered)
                   POLL  IDS pollutant recovered per year
                     SP - steam price ($/lb) in 1988 dollars

               Cooling
               Water Cost - CWR x POLL x CWP

               Where CWR  = cooling water requirements
                            (per Ib of recovered pollutant)
                   POLL  Ib pollutant recovered per year
                    CWP = cooling water price ($/gal)  in 1988 dollars

8.   ADDED PLANT SPACE COSTS

     The added plant space costs are calculated as shown below and added to
the capital costs of control prior to annualization of the capital costs.

                      PS - Space x SCost

                    Where PS - Plant Space,  $.
                                                  2
                    Space - Space Requirements,  ft  of floor area
                    SCost * Floor Space Cost,
                                     C-18

-------
9.   NET ANNUALIZEC COSTS

     Net annualized costs Include annualized capita] costs, annual operating
cost and credit for recovered solvent.  Capital cost is annualized according
to the following equation.

               AC * Total Capital x Capital Recovery Factor

          Where Capital Recovery Factor is calculated for 10 percent
           discount rate and the following equipment life times:

          All cold cleaner controls - 10 years, CFR = .1627

          All OTVC controls - 10 years, CFR = .1627

          In-line degreaser controls except carbon adsorbers -
          15 years, CFR = .1315

          Carbon adsorbers on in-line degreasers - 10 years,
              CFR = .1627
                                     C-19

-------
SAMPLE CALCULATION (These are in 1986 $)





     The Operating Costs required for a carbon adsorber added on a 38 ft2 Open


Top Vapor Cleaner are shown.





1.   OPERATOR LABOR





                      OL * Shifts x Payrate x Hours
                = 250 ^^- x 7 98  309'5   *-  x '5 hours
                  "u  year  x />yB  194.7  hour  x    shift






                         = $l,563.79/yr







2.   SUPERVISOR LABOR





                      SL * 0.15 (1563.79 $/yr)  = $234.57/yr





3.   MAINTENANCE LABOR





     The calculation is the same as with operator labor, but maintenance  labor


rates are used.






                      ML = 250 Shifts x 8 66 309'5  *-    x   -5  nours
                      ML   "u  year  x a'bt) 194.7 hour    x      shift






                         = $l,720.77/yr





4.   MAINTENANCE MATERIALS





     Equal  to Maintenance Labor,  $l,720.77/yr









                                     C-20

-------
5.   OVERHEAD

                      OH - .6 (1,563.79 + 234.57 + 1,720.77 +1,720.77)

                         - $3,143.94/yr

6.   MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING COSTS

                      HOC = 0.04 x 51,220 - 2,048.80

7.   ANNUALIZED COSTS

     Since the carbon adsorber life is ten years, .1627

                      AC = .1314 x 51,220 = 8,333.49

     Calculational methods for electricity, cooling water,  and steam are also
shown.

           ELECTRICITY:  a 6 hp fan is to be used.


         6 hp X 1.34102 hp  x 150 hrs/yr x *.0713/kwhr

                         = $478.52/yr

STEAM:     From the Gard Manual,  it takes 4 pounds of steam  to  recover 1  pound
          of pollutant from the carbon bed.  The emission reduction  is
          estimated to be 10,661 pounds/year (4,836 kg/yr)  at  52  percent
          control  efficiency

            * Ibs  steam     10,661 Ibs    	$5.39	    _   $22g  85/vp,r
          1 Ib pollutant  x    year     x 1,000 Ibs steam    ~   >ZZ9-8Vyear
                                     C-21

-------
COOLING WATER:  It is reported that it takes  12  gallons  per 100 Ibs  of steam

          (or 12 gallons per 25 pounds pollutant recovered).



            12 gallons         10.661  Ibs        SO.087            fn  ..
                            x              .  	    	  m     $0.44
        25 Ibs  pollutant         year       1,000 gallons
Since it will  take 100 square feet  to  install  the  adsorber,
          Plant Space costs - 100 ft2  x  $42  3fliii
                                            244.7
                                    C-22

-------
            APPENDIX C-3





COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION TABLES
                 C-23

-------
                    06-Apr-89
Snail OTVC (4.5 ft2)-Schedule A  (RETROFIT)


I. VPTTIL COSTS, $
Hoist
Below-freezing FRD
Bl-partlng ocver
1.0 B3R
Enclosed Design
Suvp cooling
Additional plant space
TOM. OPTTH. COSTS
II. AWU*. CfERATDC COSTS. Vyr
Annual 1zed total capital costs
Operating labor
Utilities
o Electricity
rlo Miscellaneous operating costs
.^
Control
Strategy 1

1.500
5.400
0
500
0
0
780
8.180

1.331
358

168
327
Control
Strategy 2

1.500
0
0
0
3.000
1.500
223
6.223

1.012
358

200
249
Control
Strategy 3

1,500
0
8,500
0
0
0
223
10,223

1,663
0

21
409
Control
Strategy 4

2,000
5,400
0
500
0
0
780
8,680

1,412
358

188
347
Control
Strategy 5

2.000
o
0
o
3.000
1.500
223
6.723

1.094
358

200
269
Control
Strategy 6

2,000
8,500



223
10.723

1.745


21
429
   TOT*. *WMLEED COST, Vyr


III.  COST EFFECTWOeSS

       EMISSION FGUCnCN. Ib/yr       1,155

       RECOVERED SOLVENT CREDIT. Vyr
             MC

             TCE
             TCA
             CFC-113
                                            2.204
                                                                     1,819
                                                                                              2.093
                                                                                                                        2,306
                                                                                                                                                 1,921
                                                                                                                                                                           2,195
                                                  1.444
                                                              2.022
                                                                           2,310
                                                                                         866
                                                                                                     1.155
                                                                                                                 1.444
                                                                                                                              1,733
                                                                                                                                          2,310
                                                                                                                                                        2,599
(299)
(358)
(445)
(468)
(1,040)
(374)
(448)
(556)
(585)
- (1,300)
(524) -
(627) -
(778) -
(819) -
(1,819) -
(598)
(716)
(890)
(936)
(2,079)
(224) -
(269) -
(334) -
(351) -
(780) -
(299)
(358)
(445)
(468)
(1,040)
(374) -
(448) -
(556) -
(585) -
(1,300) -
(449)
(537)
(667)
(702)
(1,560)
                                                                                                                                           (598)   -     (673)
                                                                                                                                           (716)   -     (806)
                                                                                                                                           (890)   -   (1.001)
                                                                                                                                           (936)   -   (1,053)
                                                                                                                                         (2,079)   -   (2,339)
                                                                                                                                                                    1,155
  (299)
  (358)
  (445)
  (468)
(1.040)
  (374)
  (448)
  (556)
  (585)
(1.300)
       ttT JMW.EH) COSTS, Vyr
             MC                      1,905
             PCE                     1.8*6
             ICE                     1,760
             TCA                     1.737
             CfC-113                  1.165
1,830
1,757
1.648
1.620
905
1,296
1,193
1,041
1,001
0
-
1,221
1.103
930
884
(260)
1,869 -
1.825
1.760
1.742 -
1,313 -
1.794
1.735
1.648
1.625
1.054
1,932 -
1,858 -
1.750 -
1.721 -
1.006 -
1.857
1.769
1,639
1.604
746
1.322 -
1.205 -
1.031 -
985 -
(159) -
1.248
1.115
920
868
(418)
1.895
1.836
1.750
1,727
1,155
              1,821
              1,747
              1.639
              1,610
               895

-------
                        06-^>r-69
   Snail OWC (4.5 ft2)-Schedule A (flETTOTr)

Oocitrol
Strategy 1
Control
Strategy 2
Control
Strategy 3
Control
Strategy 4
Control
Strategy 5
Control
Strategy 6
COST EFFECTIVENESS, VI b
      C
      PCE
      TO
      TCA
      CFC-113
1.65
1.60
1.52
1.50
1.01
1.27
1.22
1.14
1.12
0.63
0.64
0.59
0.52
0.50
0.00
 0.53
 0.48
 0.40
 0.38
(0.11)
2.16
2.11
2.03
2.01
1.52
1.55
1.50
1.43
1.41
0.91
1.34
1.29
1.21
1.19
0.70
1.07
1.02
0.95
0.93
0.43
 0.57    -
 0.52    -
 0.45    -
 0.43    -
(0.07)   -
 0.48
 0.43
 0.35
 0.33
(0.16)
                                                                                                                                                         1.64
                                                                                                                                                         1.59
                                                                                                                                                         1.51
                                                                                                                                                         1.49
                                                                                                                                                         1.00
                                                                                                                                                                                              1.26
                                                                                                                                                                                              1.21
                                                                                                                                                                                              1.13
                                                                                                                                                                                              1.11
                                                                                                                                                                                              0.62
   Control Strategy 1:
   Control Strategy 2:
   Control Strategy 3:
   Cbntrol Strategy 4:
   Control Strategy 5:
   Cbntrol Strategy 6:
Hoist at 11 fpn, Belowfreeling TO.  1.0 ffiR
Hoist at 11 fpn. Enclosed Dastgn,  Sunp Cool Ing
Hoist at 11 fpn, Bl-oarting Over
Hoist at 3 fpn. Below-freezing TO, 1.0 FBR
Hoist at 3 fpn. Enclosed Design. Sunp Cool Ing
Hoist at 3 fpn, Bl-parting Over
 i
rsj
en

-------
Snail OTVC (4.5 ft2)-Schedule B (RETROFIT)






C")
1
ro
cr>


I. CAPm. COSTS, I
Hoist
Below-freezing FRD
Bl-parting over
1.0 FW
Enclosed Design
Simp cooling
Additional plant space
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. AWJAL CFERATDG COSTS. Vyr
Annual Ized total capital costs
Operating labor
Utilities
Electricity
Miscellaneous operating costs

Control
Strategy 1

1,500
5,400
0
500
0
0
780
a, 180

1.331
717
400
327

Control
Strategy 2

1,500
0
0
0
3.000
1,500
223
6.223

1,012
358
170
249

Control
Strategy 3

1,500
0
8,500
0
0
0
223
10,223

1,663
0
177
409

Control
Strategy 4

2,000
5,400
0
500
0
0
780
6,660

1.412
717
400
347

Control
Strategy 5

2,000
0
0
0
3,000
1,500
223
6,723

1,094
358
170
269

Control
Strategy 6

2,000
0
8,500
0
0
0
223
10,723

1,745
0
127
429
   TOT* MHWLIZED COST, Vyr


III.  COST EFFECTTVBSS

       EHISSICN PEDJCnON, Ib/yr
       2,774
3,468   -    4,855
                                1,789
                                                         2.199
                                                                                   2,876
                         4,855
                                                                            5,549
                                                                                        3.468
                                                                                                     4.162
                                                                                                                  5,549
                                                                                                                               5,549
                                                                                                             1,891
                                                                                                                                           6,242    -   6.242
                                                                                                                                      2,301
                                                                                                                                                                     5,549
                                                                                                                                                                                  5,549
       RECOVERED S1VENT CREDIT. Vyr
             MC                        (898)
             PCE                     (1,075)
             TCE                     (1,335)
             TCA                     (1,405)
             CFO-113                  (3,121)
(1.257)
(1,505)
(1.869)
(1,966)
(4.370)
(1.257) -
(1.505) -
(1,869) -
(1,966) -
(4,370) -
(1,437)
(1,720)
(2.136)
(2,247)
(4,994)
(898) -
(1.075) -
(1,335) -
(1.405) -
(3.121) -
(1.078)
(1.290)
(1.602)
(1,685)
(3,746)
(1.437) -
(1,720) -
(2,136) -
(2,247) -
(4,994) -
(1,437)
(1,720)
(2,136)
(2.247)
(4,994)
(1.617)
(1,935)
(2.403)
(2.528)
(5.618)
- (1.617)
- (1.935)
- (2.403)
- (2,528)
- (5,618)
(1.437)
(1,720)
(2,136)
(2.247)
(4.994)
- (1.437)
- (1.720)
- (2,136)
- (2,247)
- (4,994)
       tCTANUAL IZED COSTS, Vyr
             MC
             PCE
             TCE
             TCA
             CFO-113
1.876 -
1.699 -
1,439 -
1,370 -
1347) -
1,517
1,269
905
808
(1,595)
532
284
(80)
(177)
(2,580)
352
69
(347)
(458)
- (3,205)
1,301
1.124
864
795
(922)
-' 1.121
909
597
514
- (1.546)
1,438
1,155
739
628
(2,118)
- 1.438
- 1,155
739
628
- (2.119)
274 -
(45) -
(513) -
(638) -
(3.728) -
274
(45)
(513)
(638)
(3.728)
864
581
164
53
(2.693)
864
581
164
53
- (2,696)

-------
                       06-Apr-W
   9nall OTVC (4.5 ft2>-Sctedule B  (RETROFIT)

Control
Strategy 1
Control
Strategy 2
Control
Strategy 3
Control
Strategy 4
Control
Strategy 5
Control
Strategy 6
          ODET EFrtCTlVEJCSS, t/lb
 0.54 -
R 0.49 -
TCE 0.41 -
TO 0.39
CTO-113 (0.10) -
0.31
0.26
0.19
0.17
(0.33)
0.11
0.06 -
(0.02) -
(0.04) -
(0.53) -
0.06
0.01
(0.05)
(0.06)
(O.B8)
0.38 -
0.32 -
0.25 -
0.23 -
<0.27> -
0.27
0.22
0.14
0.12
(0.37)
0.26 -
0.21 -
0.13 -
0.11 -
(0.38) -
0.26
0.21
0.13
0.11
(0.38)
0.04
(0.01) -
(0.08) -
(0.10) -
(0.60) -
0.04
(0.01)
(0.08)
(0.10)
(0.60)
0.16 -
0.10 -
0.03 -
0.01 -
(0.49) -
0.16
0.10
0.03
0.01
(0.49)
...
  Control Strategy 1:
  Control Strategy 2:
  Control Strategy 3:
  Control Strategy 4:
  Control Strategy 5:
  Control Strategy 6:
o
 i
re
Hoist at 11 fpn. Below-freezing TO,  1.0 FBR
Hoist at 11 fpn. Enclosed Design. Sunp Cooling
Hoist at 11 fpn. Bl-partlng Over
Hoist at 3 fpn, Below-freezing FfO, 1.0 FBR
Hoist at 3 fpn. Enclosed Design. Sunp Cooling
Hoist at 3 fpn, Bl-parttng Cover

-------
Large OTVC (16.0 ft2)-Schedule A (RETROFIT)








o
1
ro
oc


I. CAPITAL COSTS, $
Hoist
Belor-freezlng FAD
Bl-parting over
.0 FBR
Enclosed Design
Surp cooling
Additional plant space
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. ANitfl creWTDC COSTS, Vyr
Annual Ized total capital costs
Operating labor
Utilities
Electricity
Miscellaneous operating costs

Control
Strategy 1

3,000
10,300
0
600
0
0
1,336
15,236

2,479
358
188
609

Control
Strategy 2

3.000
0
0
0
10,000
1,500
223
14,723

2,395
358
393
589

Control
Strategy 3

3.000
0
11.300
0
0
0
223
14,523

2,363
0
36
581

Control
Strategy 4

3,500
10,300
0
600
0
0
1,336
15.736

2.560
358
188
629

Control
Strategy 5

3,500
0
0
Q
10,000
1,500
223
15,223

2.477
358
393
609

Control
Strategy 6

3,500
0
11,300

0
223
15,023

2,444
0
36
601
   TOTAL AWMLEED OOST,  Vyr


III.  COST EFFEOMieSS

       EMISSION REDJCTKH Ib/yr
       3,634
4,107    -   5.134
                                3,736
                                                          2.980
                                                                                    3,736
                                                                                                             3,837
                          7.187
                                       8,214
                                                                                         3,080
                                                                                                                                       3.081
                                                                                                      4,107
                                                                                                                   5.134
                                                                                                                                6.160
                                                                                                                                             8,214
                                                                                                                                                          9,240
                                                                                                                                                                      4,107
                                                                                                                                                                                    5,134
       RECOVERED 90.VENT CREDIT, Vyr
                 PC                  (1,064)
             PCE                     (1,273)
             TCE                     (1,581)
             TO                     (1,663)
             CFC-113                 (3,696)
(1,330)
(1,592)
(1,977)
(2,079)
(4.621)
(1,861) -
(2,228) -
(2.767) -
(2.911) -
(6,468) -
(2,127)
(2,546)
(3,162)
(3,327)
(7,392)
(798) -
(955) -
(1,186) -
(1.247) -
(2.772) -
(1.064)
(1,273)
(1,581)
(1,663)
(3.696)
(1,330)
(1,591)
(1,976)
(2,079)
(4,620)
- (1,595)
- (1,910)
- (2,372)
- (2,495)
- (5,544)
(2,127) -
(2,546) -
(3,162) -
(3,327) -
(7,392) -
(2,393)
(2,864)
(3,558)
(3,742)
(8,316)
(1,064)
(1,273)
(1.581)
(1.663)
(3,696)
- (1,330)
- (1,591)
- (1,976)
- (2,079)
- (4,620)
                 MC
             ROE
             TCE
             TT>
             CFC-113
                      COSTS, Vyr
2,571 -
2.361
2,053 -
1.971
(62) -
2,305
2,043
1,658
1,555
(986)
1.875 -
1.508 -
969 -
825 -
(2.732) -
1,609
1,190
574
410
(3,656)
2.182 -
2.025
1.794
1.733 -
208 -
1.916
1.707
1.399
1.317
(716)
2,406
2,144
1,759
1,657
(885)
- 2,140
1,826
- 1,364
- 1.241
- (1,809)
1,710
1,291
675
511
(3,555)
- 1,444
973
280
95
- (4,479)
2,018
1,808
1,500
1,418
(615)
- 1.752
- 1,490
1.105
- 1.002
- (1,539)

-------
  Large OIVC (16.0 ft2)-Sdwdule A (RETROFIT)
                                               Cbntrol
                                             Strategy 1
                                                    Control
                                                  Strategy 2
                                            Control
                                          Strategy 3
                                                          Cbntrol
                                                        Strategy 4
                                                                       Control
                                                                     Strategy 5
                                                                                    Control
                                                                                  Strategy 6
          COST EFTBCnYEMiSS,
                    MC
                PCE
                TOE
                TCA
                CfO-113
        Vlb
                     0.63
                     0.57
                     0.50
                     0.48
                    (0.02)
 0.45
 0.40
 0.32
 0.30
(0.19)
 0.26
 0.21
 0.13
 0.11
(0.38)
 0.20
 0.14
 0.07
 0.05
(0.45)
0.71
0.66
0.58
0.56
0.07
 0.47
 0.42
 0.34
 0.32
(0.17)
 0.47
 0.42
 0.34
 0.32
(0.17)
 0.35
 0.30
 0.22
 0.20
(0.29)
 0.21
 0.16
 0.08
 0.06
(0.43)
 0.16
 0.11
 0.03
 0.01
(0.48)
 0.49
 0.44
 0.37
 0.35
(0.15)
 0.34
 0.29
 0.22
 0.20
(0.30)
  Control Strategy 1:
  Control Strategy 2:
  Control Strategy 3:
  Cbntrol Strategy 4:
  Control Strategy 5:
  Control Strategy 6:
Hoist at 11 fpn. Belon-fneezong TO, 1.0 rBR
Hoist at 11 fpn. Enclosed Design. Sunp Cbol Ing
Hoist at 11 fpn, Bl-parttng Over
Hoist at 3 fpn. Beloyfreezfng FTC, 1.0 rBR
Hoist at 3 fpn. Enclosed Design. Sunp Cbol Ing
rblst at 3 fan, Bl-parting  Cover
o
 i
ro

-------
                      06-Apr-89
  Large CflVC (16.0 ft2)-Sohedule B (RETROFIT)
                                               Control
                                             Stratagy 1
                                                                       Control
                                                                     Strategy 2
                                   Control
                                 Strategy 3
                                                Control
                                              Strategy 4
                                                               Control
                                                             Strategy 5
                                                                            Control
                                                                          Strategy 6
    I.   CWITA. COSTS, $

         Hoist
         Below-fneeelng TO
         Bf-partlng cxver
         1.0 ffiR
         Enclosed Design
         Suip cooling
         Additional plant space

     TOTAL C*TWL COSTS
                                             3.000
                                            10.300
                                                 0
                                               600
                                                 0
                                                 0
                                             1.336

                                            15.236
         3,000
            0
            0
            0
        10.000
         1,500
           223

        14.723
                      3.000
                         0
                     11,300
                         0
                         0
                         0
                       223

                     14,523
                                    3,500
                                   10,300
                                        0
                                      600
                                        0
                                        0
                                    1,336

                                   15,736
                                                 3,500
                                                     0
                                                     0
                                                     0
                                                10.000
                                                 1.500
                                                   223

                                                15,223
                                                                3,500
                                                                    0
                                                               11,300
                                                                    0
                                                                    0
                                                                    0
                                                                  223

                                                               15,023
 i
CO
o
II.   HWL OPERATDG COSTS, Vyr

       Annual1zed total capital costs         2,479
       Operating labor                          717
       Utilities
         Electricity                            400
       Miscellaneous operating costs            609

  TOM. AWtfLEED COST, Vyr                 4,204
         2.395
          358

          303
          589

         3,645
                     2,363
                         0

                       218
                       561

                     3,162
                                    2,560
                                      717

                                      400
                                      629

                                    4,306
                                                 2,477
                                                   358

                                                   303
                                                   609

                                                 3.747
                                                                2,444
                                                                   0

                                                                  218
                                                                  601

                                                                3,263
  III.   COST EFFBCTIVeCSS

         MISSION REDUCTION. Ib/yr      12,330

         RECOVERED SO.VENT CREDIT, Vyr
                   MC                   (3.193)
               PCE                      (3.822)
               TO                      (4.747)
               1CA                      (4,994)
               CFC-113                 (11.097)
                                                   17,262
                                                   (4,471)
                                                   (5,351)
                                                   (6,646)
                                                   (6.991)
                                                  (15.536)
                                                                17.262    -    19.726
 (4.471)
 (5.351)
 (6.646)
 (6.991)
(15,536)
 (5,110)
 (6,116)
 (7,595)
 (7,990)
(17.755)
                                                                                           12,330
 (3,193)
 (3,822)
 (4.747)
 (4.994)
(11,097)
                                                                                                         14.796
 (3,832)
 (4,587)
 (5,696)
 (5,992)
(13.316)
                                                                                                                      19.728
 (5,110)
 (6,116)
 (7,595)
 (7,990)
(17,755)
                                                                                                                                    19,728
 (5,110)
 (6.116)
 (7,595)
 (7,990)
(17,755)
                                                                                  22.194
 (5.748)
 (6.880)
 (8.545)
 (8,969)
(19,975)
                                                                                                                                                               22,194
 (5,748)
 (6,880)
 (8,545)
 (8.989)
(19,975)
                                                                                                                                                                            19,728
 (5,110)
 (6,116)
 (7,595)
 (7,990)
(17,755)
                                                                                                                                                                                           19,728
 (5,110)
 (6,116)
 (7,595)
 (7,990)
(17,755)
             AWJH.DH) COSTS, Vyr
                   MC                    1,011    -      (266)        (826)   -    (1,464)         (3?)
               PCE                        382    -    (1,147)      (1,706)   -    (2,470)        (661)
               TCE                        (543)   -    (2,441)      (3,001)   -    (3,950)      (1.585)
               TEA                        (789)   -    (2.787)      (3,346)   -    (4,345)      (1.832)
               CFC-113                  (6.893)   -   (11.331)     (11,891)   -   (14,110)      (7,935)
                                                                                                           (670)
                                                                                                         (1,425)
                                                                                                         (2.535)
                                                                                                         (2,831)
                                                                                                        (10,155)
                                                         (804)
                                                       (1.810)
                                                       (3.290)
                                                       (3.684)
                                                      (13.449)
                                                         (804)
                                                       (1.810)
                                                       (3.290)
                                                       (3.684)
                                                      (13,449)
                                                       (2,002)
                                                       (3,134)
                                                       (4.798)
                                                       (5,242)
                                                      (16,228)
                                                       (2,002)
                                                       (3,134)
                                                       (4.796)
                                                       (5,242)
                                                      (16.228)
                                                       (1.846)
                                                       (2.853)
                                                       (4.332)
                                                       (4.727)
                                                      (14.492)
                                                       (1,846)
                                                       (2,853)
                                                       (4,332)
                                                       (4,727)
                                                      (14.492)

-------
  Large OTVC (16.0 ft2)-Schedule B (RETROFIT)
                                              Cbntrol
                                            Strategy 1
                                                    Control
                                                  Strategy 2
  Cbntrol
Strategy 3
  Control
Strategy 4
  Control
Strategy 5
  Control
Strategy 6
         COST EFTECnVBSS,  Vlb
                   MC                    0.08    -     (0.02)       (0.05)   -     (0.07)      (0.003)   -     (0.05)       (0.04)   -    (0.04)       (0.09)   -     (0.09)       (0.09)   -     (0.09)
               PCE                       0.03    -     (0.07)       (0.10)   -     (0.13)       (0.05)   -     (0.10)       (0.09)   -    (0.09)       (0.14)   -     (0.14)       (0.14)   -     (0.14)
               ICE                      (0.04)   -     (0.14)       (0.17)   -     (0.20)       (0.13)   -     (0.17)       (0.17)   -    (0.17)       (0.22)   -     (0.22)       (0.22)   -     (0.22)
               TCA                      (0.06)   -     (0.16)       (0.19)   -     (0.22)       (0.15)   -     (0.19)       (0.19)   -    (0.19)       (0.24)   -     (0.24)       (0.24)   -     (0.24)
               CFC-113                  (0.56)   -     (0.66)       (0.69)   -     (0.72)       (0.64)   -     (0.69)       (0.68)   -    (0.68)       (0.73)   -     (0.73)       (0.73)   -     (0.73)
  Cbntrol Strategy 1:
  Cbntrol Strategy 2:
  Control Strategy 3:
  Cbntrol Strategy 4:
  Cbntrol Strategy 5:
  Cbntrol Strategy 6:
Hoist at 11 fpn. Belov-freezong HO,  1.0 FER
Hoist at 11 fpn, Enclosed Design. Sunp Cbol Ing
Hoist at 11 fpn, Bl-partlng Cbver
Holst at 3 fpn, Belowfrealrq FTC, 1.0 fBR
Hoist at 3 fpn. Enclosed Design, Sunp CbolIng
Hoist at 3 fpn, Bl-partlng Over
 i
to

-------

In-1 Ire (38.0 f t2) - Schedule A (RETROFIT)
I. CAPITA. COSTS, $
Below-freezing FRD
Carbon Adsorber
Super Heated Vapor
Sunp Cooling
Additional plant space
TOT*. CAPITA. COSTS
II. AfMJA. OFBWTDG COSTS, J/yr
Annual Ized total capital costs
Operating labor
Supervisory labor
Maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Cool Ing Water
Miscellaneous operating costs
TOTAL AWJAl BED COST, $/yr
III. COST ErTECnVEJtSS
EMISSION REDUCTION, Ib/yr
RECOVERED SOLVENT CREDIT, $/yr
MC
PCE
TCE
TCA
CFC-113
Control
Strategy 1

17,700
0
0
0
835
18,535

2,437
358



363


741
3,900

23,554

(6.100)
(7.302)
(9.068)
(9,539)
(21,199)
Control
Strategy 2

0
74,900
0
0
5,569
80.468

13.092
1.791
269
1.971
1.971

726
563
1
3.219
23,604

23,554

(6.100)
(7.302)
(9.068)
(9,539)
(21.199)
Control
Strategy 3

17,700
0
0
1.500
835
20,035

2.635
717



944


801
5.097

30.620

(7,931)
(9,492)
(11.789)
(12.401)
(27.558)
Control
Strategy 4

0
74.900
0
1.500
5.568
81.968

13.289
2,149
269
1.971
1.971

1.307
732
1
3.279
24.969

30,620

(7,931)
(9,492)
(11.789)
(12.401)
(27.558)
Control
Strategy 5

0
0
3,000
1,500
537
5.037

662
717



944


201
2,525

32,976

(8,541)
(10,223)
(12,696)
(13,355)
(29,678)
Control
Strategy 6

17,700

3,000
o
1,372
22,072

2,902
717



726


883
5,228

32.976

(8.541)
(10,223)
(12.696)
(13.355)
(29.678)

-------
In-line (38.0 ft2) - Schedule A (RETROFIT)
fCT AtU/LCED COSTS, Vyr
MC
PCE
TCE
TCA
CFG-113
COST EFFECnVEICSS. J/lb
1C
PCE
TCE
TCA
CFO113
Corrtrol
Strategy 1

(2.200)
(3.402)
(5.166)
(5.639)
(17.299)

(0.09)
(0.14)
(0.22)
(0.24)
(0.73)
Control
Strategy 2

17.503
16.302
14.535
14.064
2.405

0.74
0.69
0.62
0.60
0.10
Control
Strategy 3

(2.834)
(4.395)
(6.692)
(7.304)
(22,461)

(0.09)
(0.14)
(0.22)
(0.24)
(0.73)
Control
Strategy 4

17,038
15,476
13,180
12,567
(2,589)

0.56
0.51
0.43
0.41
(0.08)
Control
Strategy 5

(6.016)
(7.698)
(10,171)
(10,830)
(27,154)

(0.18)
(0.23)
(0.31)
(0.33)
(0.82)
Control
Strategy 6

(3,312)
(4.994)
(7.467)
(8.127)
(24,450)

(0.10)
(0.15)
(0.23)
(0.25)
(0.74)

o
 I
CO
CO
Control  Strategy  1: Below-freeing TO
Control  Strategy  2: Carton Adsorption
Control  Strategy  3: Beloy-Froeelng HO; Su*p Cooling
Control  Strategy  4: Carton Mr'irpttan; Sunp Cooling
Control  Strategy  5: Super Ht*   : Vapor; Sunp Cooling
Control  Strategy  6: Beloc-frearing FfD; Super Heated Vapor

-------

In-line (38.0 ft2) - Schedule B (RETROFIT)
I. CAPn/L COSTS, $
Bel o-f reeling FRO
Carton Adsorber
Super Heated Vapor
Su*p Cooling
Additional plant space
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. AWJAL OPERATDG COSTS. Vyr
Annual Ized total capital costs
Operating labor
Supervisory labor
Kilrrtenanoe labor
Maintenance materials
V Utll Itles
co Electricity
*" Steam
Cool Ing Hater
Miscellaneous operating costs
TOTAL ANilA-EED GOCT, Vyr

III. COST EFFECTMICSS
EMISSION ROUCnON, Ib/yr
RECOVERED SaVEKT CREDIT. Vyr
>c
FCE
TO
TCA
CFC-113
Control
Strategy 1

17.700
0
0
0
835
18,535

2.437
1.003




1,017


741
5,199


68,366

(17,712)
(21,200)
(26,329)
(27.696)
(61,547)
Control
Strategy 2

0
74,900
0
0
5.568
80,468

13,092
5,016
752
5.518
5,518

2,034
1.636
3
3,219
36,788


68,386

(17.712)
(21.200)
(26.329)
(27.695)
(61.547)
Control
Strategy 3

17.700
0
0
1,500
835
20.035

2.635
1.505




1.272


801
6.213


68,386

(17,712)
(21.200)
(26.329)
(27.696)
(61,547)
Control
Strategy 4

0
74,900
0
1.500
5,568
81,968

13.289
5,517
752
5,518
5,518

2.289
1,636
3
3.279
37,801
i

68,386

(17,712)
(21,200)
(26.329)
(27.696)
(61,547)
Control
Strategy 5

0
0
3.000
1.500
537
5,037

662
1,505




1.272


201
3,641


96,880

(25,092)
(30.033)
(37.299)
(39.236)
(87.192)
Control
Strategy 6

17.700
o
3.000
0
1.372
22.072

2.902
2,006




2,034


863
7.825


96.880

(25,092)
(30.033)
(37,299)
(39.236)
(87,192)

-------

Control
In-line (38.0 ft?) - Schedule B (FCTCFIT) Strategy 1
fCT HHH.UH) COSTS. J/yr
1C
PCE
lit
TCft
CFC-113
COST EFFBCTlVBtSS, $/lb
1C
PCE
TEE
TCA
CFC-113

(12,513)
(16,001)
(21,130)
(22.496)
(56.349)

(0.18)
(0.23)
(0.31)
(0.33)
(0.82)
Control
Strategy 2

19,076
15,586
10.459
9.092
(24,760)

0.28
0.23
0.15
0.13
(0.36)
Control
Strategy 3

(11.499)
(14,987)
(20.116)
(21.483)
(55,334)

(0.17)
(0.22)
(0.29)
(0.31)
(0.81)
Cbntrol
Strategy 4

20,089
16.601
11.473
10.106
(23,746)

0.29
0.?4
0.17
0.15
(0.35)
Control
Strategy 5

(21.451)
(26.392)
(33.658)
(35,596)
(83.551)

(0.22)
(0.27)
(0.35)
(0.37)
(0.86)
Cbntrol
Strategy 6

(17.267)
(22.207)
(29.473)
(31,411)
(79,367)

(0.18)
(0.23)
(0.30)
(0.32)
(0.82)
	  	 	 	 	 	
 I
CO
en
Control  Strategy 1: Bel ov-f race Ing TO
Cbntrol  Strata^ 2: Carbon Msorptton
Cbntrol  Strategy 3: Below-Freezing HO; Sunp Cooling
Cbntrol  Strategy 4: Carbon Adsorption; Surp Cooling
Cbntrol  Strategy 5: SMT Heated Vapor; Surf God Ing
Cbntrol  Strategy 6: Below-freezing TO; Super Heated Vapor

-------
               06-Apr-89
01VC (4.5 ft2)- Schedule A


I. CAPITAL COSTS, t
Hoist
Belor-freorfng TO
B1-part1ng over
1.0 FBR
Enclosed Design
StMp cooling
Additional plant space
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. MNJAL OPEWTING COSTS. Vyr
Annual 1zed total capital costs
Operating labor
Utilities
Electricity
Miscellaneous operating costs
Control
Strategy 1

1.500
4.500
0
500
0
0
780
7,280

1,184
358
188
291
Control
Strategy 2

1.500
0
0
0
3000
1.500
223
6,223

1,012
358
200
249
Control
Strategy 3

1.500
0
7,900
0
0
0
223
9,623

1.566
0
21
385
Control
Strategy 4

2,000
4,500
0
500
0
0
783
7,780

1,266
358
188
311
Control
Strategy 5

2,000
0
0
0
3000
1.500
223
6.723

1.094
358
200
269
Control
Strategy 6

2,000
0
7,900
0
0
0
223
10.123

1.647
0
21
405
oo  TOTAL AffUALEED COST,  l/yr


 III.  COST EFFECTIVEfeSS

         EMISSION REOJCnON, Ib/yr
                                       2,022
                                1,155    -    1.444
                                                                  1.819
                                                                                            1,972
                                                                                                                      2,123
                                                           2,022
                                                                                                                                                1.921
                                                                        2,310
                                                                                      866
                                                                                                  1.155
                                                                                                                                                                          2,073
                                                                                                               1,444
                                                                                                                            1.733
                                                                                                                                         2.310
                                                                                                                                                      2.599
                                                                                                                                                                   1.155
                                                                                                                                                                                 1.444
 PEOOVEFED SOLVENT CFEDIT, Vyr
       MC                         (299)
       PCE                        (358)
       TCE                        (445)
       1CA                        (468)
       CFC-113                  (1.040)
(374)
(448)
(556)
(585)
(1.300)
(524)
(627)
(778)
(819)
(1,819)
(598)
(716)
(890)
(936)
- (2,079)
(224) -
(269) -
(334) -
(351) -
(780) -
(299)
(358)
(445)
(468)
(1,040)
(374) -
(448) -
(556) -
(585) -
(1,300) -
(449)
(537)
(667)
(702)
(1,560)
(598) -
(716) -
(890) -
(936) -
(2,079) -
(673)
(806)
(1,001)
(1,053)
(2.339)
(299)
(358)
(445)
(468)
(1,040)
(374)
(44d)
(556)
(585)
- (1.300)
 tT WHJALEED COSTS,  t/yr
       1C
       PCE
       TCE
       1CA
       CFC-113
1.723
1.664 -
1,577
1.554
982
1,648
1.574
1.466
1,437
722
1.296 -
1.193 -
1.041
1.001 -
0 -
1,221
1.103
930
884
(260)
1,747
1.703
1,638 -
1.621 -
1.192 -
1,672
1,613
1,527
1,504
932
1,749 -
1.676
1.567 -
1.538 -
824
1,674
1,586
1,456
1,422
564
1.322 -
1,205 -
1,031 -
985 -
U59) -
1,248
1.115
920
868
(416)
1,774
1.715
1.628
1,605
1.033
1.699
- 1,625
- 1,517
- 1,488
773

-------
    Snail OWC (4.5 ft2>- Schedule A (ten

Control
Strategy 1
Control
Strata^ 2
Control
Strategy 3
Control
Strategy 4
CBntrol
Strategy 5
Control
Strategy 6
           OOST EFHCTlVBtSS, VI b
                 MC                         1.49    -    1.14         0.64    -    0.53         2.02    -     1.45         1.21    -     0.97         0.57    -     0.48         1.54    -     1.18
                 PCE                        1.44    -    1.09         0.59    -    0.48         1.97    -     1.40         1.16    -     0.92         0.52    -     0.43         1.48    -     1.13
                 Ttt                        1.37    -    1.02         0.52    -    0.40         1.89    -     1.32         1.09    -     0.84         0.45    -     0.35         1.41    -     1.05
                 1C*                        1.35    -    1.00         0.50    -    0.38         1.87    -     1.30         1.07    -     0.82         0.43    -     0.33         1.39    -     1.03
                 OFC-113                    0.86    -    0.50         0.00    -    (0.11)        1.38    -     0.81         0.57    -     0.33        (0.07)   -    (0.16)       0.89    -     0.54
   Control Strategy 1: Hoist at 11 fpn.  Below Freezing TO, 1.0 FBR
   Control Strategy 2: Hoist at 11 fpn.  Enclosed Design, Simp Cooling
   Control Strategy 3: Hoist at 11 fpn.  Bl-parting Cover
   Control Strategy 4: Hoist at 3 fpm. RelcM Freezing TO, 1.0 FBR
   Control Strategy 5: Hoist at 3 fpn, Iiclosed Design, Simp Cooling
   Control Strategy 6: Hoist at 3 fpn, Bl-parting  Cover
o
 i
OJ

-------
                      06-*pr-89
   Snail OWC (4.5 ft2)- Sctedule B  (COf)
o
 I


I. CAPITAL COOTS, J
Hoist
Below-freezing TO
B1-part1ng over
1.0 FW
Enclosed Design
Suip ooollng
Additional plant space
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. AWJAL OrBMTING COSTS, Vyr
Annual (zed total capital costs
Operating labor
Utilities
Electricity
Miscellaneous operating costs
Control
Strategy 1

1,500
4.500
0
500
0
0
780
7,280

1,164
717
400
291
Control
Strategy 2

1,500
0
0
0
3000
1.500
223
6,223

1.012
356
170
249
Control
Strategy 3

1,500
0
7,900
0
0
0
223
9,623

1,566
0
127
366
Control
Strategy 4

2,000
4,500
0
500
0
0
780
7,780

1,266
717
400
311
Control
Strategy 5

2,000
0
0
3000
1.500
223
6.723

1.094
358
170
269
Control
Strategy 6

2,000
0
7,900
0
0
0
223
10,123

1.647
0
127
405
g   TOTAL AWJALEED COST. Vyr


 III.  COOT EFFECTIVOESS

        EMISSICN RECUCnCN.  Ib/yr       3,468

        RECOVERED saVENT CREDIT, Vyr
              MC
              FCE
              TCE
              1CA
              CFO-113
                                              2,592
                                                                      1,789
                                                                                               2,078
                                                                                                                        2,693
                                                    4,855
                                                                4.855
                                                                                                                                                 1.891
                                                                            5,549
                                                                                        3.468
                                                                                                     4.162
                                                                                                                                                                          2.179
                                                                                                                 5.549
                                                                                                                              5,549
                                                                                                                                          6.242
                                                                                                                                                       6.242
                                                                                                                                                                   5.549
                                                                                                                                                                                5,549
(898) -
(1,075) -
(1,335) -
(1.405) -
(3,121) -
(1,257)
(1,505)
(1,869)
(1.966)
(4,370)
(1,257) -
(1,505) -
(1,869) -
(1,966) -
(4,370) -
(1,437)
(1,720)
(2,136)
(2,247)
(4,994)
(898)
(1,075)
(1.335)
(1.405)
(3.121)
- (1.078)
- (1,290)
- (1.602)
- (1.685)
- (3,745)
(1.437) -
(1.720) -
(2,136) -
(2,247) -
(4,994) -
(1,437)
(1,720)
(2,136)
(2,247)
(4.994)
(1.617)
(1.935)
(2,403)
(2,528)
(5,618)
- (1.617)
- (1,935)
- (2,403)
- (2,528)
- (5.618)
(1,437) -
(1,720) -
(2,136) -
(2.247) -
(4.994) -
(1.437)
(1,720)
(2,136)
(2,247)
(4,994)
             AmiALEED COSTS. Vyr
               MC
               FCE
               TCE
               TO
               CFC-113
1,694
1,517
1.257
1.187
(529)
- 1,334
- 1.067
723
625
- (1,778)
532
284
(80)
(177)
(2.580)
352
69
(347)
(456)
- (3.205)
1.180
1.003
743
673
(1.043)
1.000
788
475
392
- (1.668)
1.256 -
973 -
557 -
446 -
(2.301) -
1.256
973
557
446
(2,301)
274 -
(45) -
(513) -
(638) -
(3.728) -
274
(45)
(513)
(638)
(3.728)
742
459
43
(68)
(2.815)
742
459
43
(68)
- (2.815)

-------
   Snail OTVC  (4.5 ft2)- Sdiedule B tt).
                                                Cbntrol
                                              Strategy 1
                                                    Cbntrol
                                                  Strategy 2
  Control
Strategy 3
  Control
Strategy 4
  Control
Strategy 5
  Control
Strategy 6
          COST EFftCTIVOESS, VI b
MC
PCE
TO
1C*
CfC-113
0.49 -
0.44 -
0.36 -
0.34 -
(0.15) -
0.27
0.22
0.15
0.13
(0.37)
0.11 -
0.06 -
(0.02) -
(0.04) -
(0.53) -
0.06
0.01
(0.06)
(0.06)
(0.58)
0.34 -
0.29 -
0.21 -
0.19
(0.30) -
0.24
0.19
0.11
0.09
(0.40)
0.23
0.18
0.10
0.08 -
(0.41) -
0.23
0.18
0.10
0.08
(0.41)
0.04 -
(0.01) -
(0.08) -
(0.10) -
(0.60) -
0.04
(0.01)
(0.08)
(0.10)
(0.60)
0.13
0.08 -
0.01
(0.01) -
(0.51) -
0.13
0.06
0.01
(0.01)
(0.51)

  Control Strategy 1:
  Control Strategy 2:
  Control Strategy 3:
  Control Strategy 4:
  Control Strategy 5:
  Control Strategy 6:
Hoist at 11 fan. Below Freezing TO, 1.0 FBR
Hoist at 11 fpn. Enclosed Design, Sunp Cooling
Hoist at 11 fpn. Bl-partlng Cover
Hoist at 3 fpn. Below Freezing FfO, 1.0 FBR
Hoist at 3 fpn, Enclosed Design, Sunp Cooling
Hoist at 3 fpn. Bl-parttng Cover
o
 i
vr

-------
                          06-Apr-69
      Large OTVC (16.0 ft2)- Schedule A
o
 i


i. CAPITAL COSTS, i
Hoist
Bel ow-f reel Ing TO
Bl-partlng ewer
l.OffiR
Enclosed Design
Sup cooling
Additional plant space

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. AMUAL OPERATING COSTS. Vyr
Annual Ized total coital costs
Operating labor
Utilities
Electr Icily
Miscellaneous operating costs
Control
Strategy 1

3.000
8,600
0
600
0
0
1.336

13,536

2,202
358
188
541
Control
Strategy 2

3.000
0
0
0
10000
1,500
2Z3

14,723

2,395
358
393
589
Control
Strategy 3

3,000
0
10,200
 o
0
0
223
0
13.423

2,184
0
36
537
Control
Strategy 4

3,500
8,600
0
600
0
0
1,33(

14.036

2.284
358
188
561
Control
Strategy 5

3.500
0
0
10000
1,500
223

15,223

2.477
358
393
609
Control
Strategy 6

3,500
0
10.200
0
0
0
223

13,923

2,265
0
36
548
   TOTAL AWJAIEED COST,  Vyr                3,290


III.  COST ErTECnVEheSS

       EMISSION RECUCnCN, Ib/yr       4.107    -    5,134

       FECOVEFED SOLVENT  CFEDIT, Vyr
                                                                           3,736
                                                                                                    2.757
                                                                                                                             3,391
                                                                    7.187
                                                                                                                                                       3,837
                                                                                 8.214
                                                                                             3,080
                                                                                                                                                                                 2.850
                                                                                                           4,107
                                                                                                                       5,134
                                                                                                                                    6,160
                                                                                                                                                8.214
                                                                                                                                                             9.240
                                                                                                                                                                          4.107
                                                                                                                                                                                       5,134
PCE
TCE
TCA
CFC-113
(1.064) -
(1.273) -
(1,581) -
(1,663) -
(3,696) -
(1,330)
(1,592)
(1,977)
(2,079)
(4,621)
(1.861) -
(2.228) -
(2,767) -
(2.911) -
(6,468) -
(2.177)
(2,546)
(3.162)
(3,327)
(7,392)
(798) -
(955) -
(1.186) -
(1.247) -
(2,772) -
(1,064)
(1,273)
(1.581)
(1,663)
(3,696)
(1,330) -
(1,591) -
(1,976) -
(2,079) -
(4,620) -
(1,595)
(1,910)
(2,372)
(2,495)
(5,544)
(2.127) -
(2.546) -
(3.162) -
(3,327) -
(7,392) -
(2,393)
(2,864)
(3,558)
(3,742)
(8.316)
(1.064) -
(1.273) -
(1,581) -
(1,663) -
(3.696) -
(1,330)
(1.591)
(1,976)
(2,079)
(4,620)
             rT AtMJALIZED COSTS,  Vyr
                   MC
                   PCE
                   TCE
                   TCA
                   cre-113
2,226
2,017
1,708
1,626
(407)
- 1,960
1,698
- 1.313
- 1,210
- (1,331)
1,875 -
1.508 -
969 -
825 -
(2,732) -
1,609
1,190
574
410
(3,656)
1,959
1.802 -
1.571 -
1,510 -
(15) - 
1,694
1.484
1,176
1,094
(939)
2,061
1.800
1.415
1,312
(1,229)
1,796
- 1,481
- 1,019
896
- (2,153)
1,710
1,291
675
511
O.555 )
1.444
973
280
_ or
- (4,479)
1,786 -
1,576 -
1.268 -
1.186 -
(847) -
1,520
1,258
873
771
(1,771)

-------
Large OTVC (16.0 ft2>- Schedule A HBO
                                            Control
                                          Strategy 1
                                                   Control
                                                 Strategy 2
  Control
Strategy 3
  Control
Strategy 4
  Control
Strategy 5
  Cofrtrol
Strategy 6
        OKT EFFECTIVEKESS. J/lb
MC 0.54 -
FCE 0.49 -
ICE 0.42 -
1C* 0.40 -
OFC-113 (0.10) -
0.38
0.33
0.26
0.24
(0.26)
0.26 -
0.21
0.13
0.11 -
(0.38) -
0.20
0.14
0.07
0.05
(0.45)
0.64 -
0.59
0.51 -
0.49 -
(0.00) -
0.41
0.36
0.29
0.27
(0.23)
0.40
0.35 -
0.28 -
0.26 -
(0.24) -
0.29
0.24
0.17
0.15
(0.35)
0.21 -
0.16
0.08 -
0.06
(0.43) -
0.16
0.11
0.03
0.01
(0.48)
0.43
0.38 -
0.31
0.29 -
(0.21) -
0.30
0.25
0.17
0.15
(0.34)

Control  Strategy 1:
Control  Strategy 2:
Control  Strategy 3:
Cbntrol  Strategy 4:
Cbntrol  Strategy 5:
Cbntrol  Strategy 6:
Hoist at 11 fpn, Bel o*~f racing BO, 1.0 TOR
Hoist at 11 fpn, Enclosed Design.  Sunp Cbollng
Hoist at 11 fpn, Bl-parttng Cover
Hoist at 3 fpn. Below-frearing HO. 1.0 PER
Hoist at 3 fpn. Enclosed Design, Sunp Cool1ng
Hoist at 3 fpn, Bl-partlng Cover

-------
                         06-Apr-89
     Large OTVC  (16.0 ftZ)- Schedule B (NOT)
O
 i


I. CAPITAL COSTS, $
Hoist
Below-freezing FTC
Bl-partlng cover
1.0 FER
Enclosed Design
Sup cooling
Additional plant space

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. AJHJAL OPERATING COSTS, t/yr
Annual (zed total capital costs
Operating labor
Utilities
Electricity
Miscellaneous operating costs
Cbntrol
Strategy 1

3.000
8,600
0
600
0
0
1.336

13.536

2,202
717
400
541
Control
Strategy 2

3,000
0
0
0
10000
1,500
223

14.723

2.395
358
303
589
Control
Strategy 3

3.000
0
10.200
0
0
0
223
0
D.423

2.184
0
218
537
Control
Strategy 4

3.500
8,600
0
600
0
0
1,336

14.036

2,284
717
400
561
Control
Strategy 5

3,500
0
0
10000
1.500
223

15,223

2,477
358
303
609
Cbntrol
Strategy 6

3,500
10,200
0
0
223

13.923

2,265
0
218
557
   TOTAL AWJALEED COST,  t/yr                 3,860


III.  COST EFFECTIVENESS

       EMISSION FEtUGlCN. Ib/yr      12,330

       BFCOVEHED SOLVENT  CREDIT, Vyr
             MC                      (3,193)
             PCE                     (2.848)
             TO                     (4,747)
             1CA                     (4,994)
             CFC-113                (11.097)
                                                                            3,646
                                                                                                       2,939
                                                        17,262
                                                                     17.262
                                                                                   19.72B
                                                                                               12.330
                                                                                                             14,796
                                                                                                                                 3,961
                                                                                                                          19,728   -    19,728
                                                                                                                                                            3,747
                                                                                                                                                                                       3.040
                                                                                                                                                     22,194
                                                                                                                                                                   22,194
19,728
                                                                                                                                                                                              19,728
(4.471)
(5,351)
(6,646)
(6,991)
(15,536)
(4,471) -
(3,988) -
(6.646) -
(6.991) -
(15,536) -
(5.110)
(6,116)
(7,595)
(7,990)
(17,755)
(3.193) -
(2,848) -
(4.747) -
(4.994) -
(11,097) -
(3,832)
(4.587)
(5,696)
(5,992)
(13,316)
(5,110) -
(4,557) -
(7,595) -
(7.990) -
(17,755) -
(5,110)
(6,116)
(7.595)
(7,990)
(17,755)
(5,748)
(5,127)
(8,545)
(8,989)
(19,975)
- (5,748)
- (6,880)
- (8,545)
- (8,939)
- (19,975)
(5.110)
(4,557)
(7,595)
(7,990)
(17,755)
(5,110)
(6.116)
(7,595)
- (7,990)
- (17,755)
            HET ANHJA.EED COOTS, t/yr
PCE
TCE
TCA
CFC-113
666
1.012 -
(887) -
(1.134) -
(7.237) -
(611)
(1.491)
(2.786)
(3.131)
(11,676)
(825) -
(342) -
(3.000) -
(3.345) -
(11,890) -
(1.464)
(2.470)
(3,950)
(4.344)
(14,110)
(255) -
91 .-
(1,808) -
(2.055) -
(8.158) -
(893)
(1.648)
(2.758)
(3,054)
(10,378)
(1.148)
(596)
(3,634)
(4.029)
(13.794)
- (1,148)
(2,155)
- (3,634)
(4,029)
- (13.794)
(2,002)
(1.380)
(4,798)
(5,312)
(16,228)
- (2,002)
- (3,134)
- (4,798)
- (5,32)
- U6.22B)
(2,069)
(1,517)
(4,555)
(4,950)
(14,715)
- (2,069)
(3,076)
- (4,555)
- (4,950)
- (14,715)

-------
  Urge OTVC (16.0 ft2> Schedule B )
                                               Qntrol
                                             Strategy 1
  Cbntrol
Strategy 2
  Cbntrol
Strategy 3
  Control
Strategy 4
  Control
Strategy 5
  Control
Strategy 6
          COST trrtt'l IVBtSS, 1/lb
MC O.OB -
KE 0.08
ICE (0.07) -
TCA (0.09) -
CFC-113 (0.59) -
(0.04)
(0.09)
(0.16)
(0.18)
(0.68)
(0.05) -
(0.02) -
(0.17) -
(0.19) -
(0.69) -
(0.07)
(0.13)
(0.20)
(0.22)
(0.72)
(0.02) -
0.01 -
(0.15) -
(0.17) -
(0.66) -
(0.06)
(0.11)
(0.19)
(0.21)
(0.70)
(0.06) -
(0.03) -
(0.18) -
(0.20) -
(0.70) -
(0.06)
(0.11)
(0.18)
(0.20)
(0.70)
(0.09) -
(0.06) -
(0.22) -
(0.24) -
(0.73) -
(0.09)
(0.14)
(0.22)
(0.24)
(0.73)
(0.10) -
(0.08) -
(0.23) -
(0.25) -
(0.75) -
(0.10)
(0.16)
(0.23)
(0.25)
(0.75)

  Control  Strategy 1: Hoist at 11 fpn,  Bel-frearing TO, 1.0 flBR
  Control  Strategy 2: Hoist at 11 fpn.  Enclosed Design, Snip Cooling
  Cbntrol  Strategy 3: Hoist at 11 fpn,  Bl-partlng Cover
  Cbntrol  Strategy 4: Hoist at 3 fpn, Bela*-f razing FTC, 1.0 FBR
  Control  Strategy 5: Hoist at 3 fpn. Enclosed Design, Sunp Cooling
  Cbntrol  Strategy 6: Hoist at 3 fpn, Bl-partlng Cover
o
 i
oo

-------
	  	
In-line (36.0 ft?) - Schedule A (ten
I. CAPITA. COSTS. J
Belo-f rear Ing FFD
Carton Adsorber
Super Heated Vapor
Suip Cooling
Additional plant space
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
II. AfWJAL OPERATTJG COSTS. Vyr
Annual Ized total capital costs
Operating labor
Supervisory labor
Maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
Utilities
Electricity
Steam
Cool Ing Mater
Miscellaneous operating costs
TOTAL AWJALEED COST. Vyr

III. COST ErTECnVEJCSS
EMISSION REnJCTICN, Ib/yr
FEOWEHED SO. VENT CPEDIT, Vyr
1C
PCE
TCE
TCA
CFC-113
Control
Strategy 1

14,700
0
0
0
835
15,535

2,043
358




363


621
3,386


23,554

(6.100)
(7.302)
(9,068)
(9.539)
(21,199)
Control
Strategy 2

0
61,300
0
0
5,568
66.868

10,879
1,791
269
1,971
1.971

726
563
1
2.675
20,847


23,554

(6.100)
(7,302)
(9.068)
(9.539)
(21.199)
Control
Strategy 3

14,700
0
0
1,500
835
17,035

2,240
717




944


681
4,583


30,620

(7.931)
(9,492)
(11,789)
(12.401)
(27,558)
Control
Strategy 4

0
61,300
0
1.500
5.568
68,366

11,077
2,149
269
1,971
1,971

1,307
732
1
2,735
22,212
i

30,620

(7,931)
(9.492)
(11.789)
(12,401)
(27.558)
Control
Strategy 5

0
0
3,000
1,500
537
5,037

662
717




944


201
2,525


32,976

(8,541)
(10,223)
(12,696)
(13,355)
(29,678)
Control
Strategy 6

14,700
0
3,000
0
1,372
19,072

2,508
717




726


763
4,714


32.976

(8.541)
(10,223)
(12,696)
(13,355)
(29,678)

-------
o
 I

In-line (38.0 ft2) - Schedule A (N)
NET ANHJA.IZED COSTS. Vyr
K:
FCE
TCE
TCA
CFC-113
COST EFFECTIVENESS, Vlb
(C
FCE
TCE
TCA
CFC-113
Cbntrol
Strategy 1

(2,715)
(3.916)
(5.683)
(6,154)
(17,813)

(0.12)
(0.17)
(0.24)
(0.26)
(0.76)
Control
Strategy 2

14,746
13,545
11.779
11.307
(352)

0.63
0.58
0.50
0.48
(0.01)
Cbntrol
Strategy 3

(3,348)
(4,910)
(7,206)
(7,819)
(22.975)

(0.11)
(0.16)
(0.24)
(0.26)
(0.75)
Cbntrol
Strategy 4

14,281
12,720
10,423
9,811
(5,346)

0.47
0.42
0.34
0.32
(0.17)
Control
Strategy 5

(6,016)
(7,698)
(10,171)
(10,830)
(27.154)

(0.18)
(0.23)
(0.31)
(0.33)
(0.82)
Cbntrol
Strategy 6

(3.827)
(5,509)
(7,982)
(8,641)
(24,965)

(0.12)
(0.17)
(0.24)
(0.26)
(0.76)

       Cbntrol Strata^ 1: Belor-freeelng TO
       Control Strata^ 2: Carbon Adsorption
       Control Stratet* 3: Belot-Frostng TO; Su*> Cooling
       Control Stratepy 4: Carbon Adsorption; Sup Cooling
       Control Strategy S: Si^er Haated Vapor; Su*> Gaoling
       Control Strategy 6: Below-freezing FTC; Super Haated Vapor

-------

IrH Ine (38.0 f t2) - Schedule B OOf)
i. arm. COSTS, s
Bel cM-f reccing FTC
Carton Adsorber
Super Heated Vapor
Suiip Cooling
Additional plant space
TOW. CfPUfL COSTS
II. mw. OPEWTDG COSTS. Vyr
Annual Ized total capital costs
Operating labor
Supervisory labor
Maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
o Utll Itles
' Electricity
cr. Steam
Cool Ing Water
Miscellaneous operating costs
TOT* WUA.IZED COST, Vyr
III. COST EFTOTIVENESS
EMISSION REDUCTION, Ib/yr
PECOVEFED SaVENT CFEDIT. Vyr
1C
PCE
IDE
TC*
CFC-1I3
Control
Strategy 1

14.700
0
0
0
635
15.535

2.043
1.003



1,017

621
4.684

68.386

(17,712)
(21.200)
(26.329)
(27.6%)
(61,547)
Control
Strategy 2

0
61,300
0
0
5.566
66*666

10,879
5,016
752
5.518
5.518

2.034
1,636
3
2.675
34.031

68.386

(17,712)
(21.200)
(26.329)
(27,696)
(61,547)
Control
Strategy 3

14.700
0
0
1.500
835
17.035

2,240
1,505



1,272

661
5,699

68,386

(17,712)
(21,200)
(26,329)
(27,696)
(61,547)
Control
Strategy 4

0
61,300
0
1,500
5,568
68.368

11,077
5,517
752
5.518
5.518

2,289
1.636
3
2,735
35,044

68,386

(17,712)
(21,200)
(26,329)
(27,696)
(61,547)
Control
Strategy 5

0
Q
3.000
1,500
537
5,037

662
1.505



1.272

201
3,641

96,880

(25,092)
(30,033)
(37.299)
(39,236)
(87.192)
Control
Strategy 6

14,700
Q
3.000
0
1,372
19,072

2.508
2.006



2.034

763
7,311

96,880

(25.092)
(30.033)
(37,299)
(39,236)
(87,192)

-------

Itv-1 Ine (38.0 ft2> - Schedule B (N3O
NET HHifLHED COSTS. J/yr
MC
PCE
ICE
1CA
CFC-113
OOST EFFECTIVENESS. 1/lb
1C
PCE
ICE
TCA
CR>-113
Control
Strategy 1

(13.028)
(16.515)
(21,644)
(2.012)
(56.863)

(0.19)
(0.24)
(0.32)
(0.34)
(0.83)
Cbntrol
Strategy 2

16,319
12,831
7.703
6.335
(27.516)

0.24
0.19
0.11
0.09
(0.40)
Control
Strategy 3

(12.013)
(15.501)
(20.630)
(21,998)
(55.849)

(0.18)
(0.3)
(0.30)
(0.32)
(0.82)
Cbntrol
Strategy 4

17.332
13,645
6,716
7,348
(26,5CB)

0.25
0.20
0.13
0.11
(0.39)
Control
Stratear 5

(21,451)
(26,392)
(33,668)
(35.596)
(83.551)

(0.22)
(0.27)
(0.35)
(0.37)
(0.86)
Cbntrol
Strategy 6

(17,781)
(22.722)
(29.988)
(31,925)
(79.881)

(0.18)
(0.23)
(0.31)
(0.33)
(0.82)

Control Strategy 1: Below-freezing PRO
Control Strategy 2: Carbon Adsorption
Cbntrol Strategy 3: Belov-Freazlng TO; Siwp Cooling
Control Strateoy 4: Carbon Adsorption; Suip Cooling
Control Strategy 5: Skfwr  Heated Vapor; Sup Cool Ing
Control Strategy 6: Below-freezing TO; Super Heated Vapor

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-450/3-89-030
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
AT fpTn;3 f 1 v^ rtont"rnl Tprhnol OPV Document 
Halogenated Solvent Cleaners
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
Progress Center
3200 E. Chapel Hill Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3816
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Work Assignment Manager: David Beck (919) 541-5421 FTS: 629-5421
16 ABSTRACT
This document contains information on the use and control of halogenated solvents
in solvent cleaning applications. Described are the types of solvent cleaners
manufactured, sources of solvent emissions, methods of controlling solvent emissions,
and the costs associated with installation of control devices.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFIE
Solvent Cleaners
Degreasers
Chlorof luorocarbons
Halogenated Solvents
Emission Control
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19 SECURIT
Release Unlimited Unclassi
RS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Held/Group

Y CLASS (Tim. Report, 21 NO OF CAGES
fied 216
J20 SECURITY CLASS /Tllispugf 22 PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1  (Rev. 4-77v,
                                         < O U 5  E. D 1 T > O N

-------