United Staes
Environmantal Protactkxi
OflfcaafAJrQustty
Pfcning and Standanta
Ranch Tifcw** P3* NC 27711
EPA-450/3-90-020
September 1990
Air
S EPA CONTROL OF VOC EMISSIONS
FROM POLYSTYRENE FOAM
MANUFACTURING
control
technology center
-------
-..5^
•*-—
,V*
-------
EPA-450/3-90-020
CONTROL OF VOC EMISSIONS FROM
POLYSTYRENE FOAM MANUFACTURING
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CENTER
SPONSORED BY:
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 46268
August 1990
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12tn Moor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
EPA-450/3-90-020
CONTROL OF VOC EMISSIONS FROM
POLYSTYRENE FOAM MANUFACTURING
by
C.J. Bagley
J.S. McLean
M.B. Stockton
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4378
Work Assignment Manager
David Beck
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for:
Control Technology Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing
document was prepared for EPA's Control Technology Center (CTC) by C. Bagley,
J. McLean, and M. Stockton of Radian Corporation. The work assignment manager
was David Beck of the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS). Also participating on the project team was Bob Hendriks, Air and
Energy Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL).
iii
-------
PREFACE
The purpose of this document is to provide technical information to
States on estimating and controlling volatile organic compounds (VOC)
emissions from the manufacture of polystyrene foam (PSF). This document
addresses the expandable polystyrene bead industry, and the extruded
polystyrene foam and sheet industries.
The Control Technology Center (CTC) was established by EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) to provide technical assistance to State and Local air
pollution control agencies. Three levels of assistance can be accessed
through the CTC. First, a CTC HOTLINE has been established to provide
telephone assistance on matters relating to air pollution control technology.
Second, more in-depth engineering assistance can be provided when appropriate.
Third, the CTC can provide technical guidance through publication of technical
guidance documents, development of personal computer software, and
presentation of workshops on control technology matters.
The technical guidance projects, such as this information document,
focus on topics of national or regional interest that are identified through
contact with State and Local agencies. In this case the CTC undertook the
investigation of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and their control
for the production of polystyrene foam. The document includes descriptions of
the production processes used, associated emissions, available controls, and
estimated costs for applying controls.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Ease
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 CONCLUSIONS 2-1
2.1 Industry Characterization 2-1
2.2 VOC Emissions 2-2
2.3 VOC Emissions Controls 2-2
2.4 Control Cost Estimates 2-3
3.0 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE 3-1
3.1 End Products 3-1
3.2 Major Manufacturers of PSF 3-4
3.3 Economics of the PSF Industry 3-7
4.0 POLYSTYRENE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES 4-1
4.1 Process History and Overview 4-1
4.2 Extruded Polystyrene Foam Sheet 4-1
4.3 Extruded Polystyrene Foam Board 4-4
4.4 Expandable Polystyrene 4-4
4.5 Polystyrene Loose Fill Packaging 4-8
5.0 PROCESS EMISSIONS 5-1
5.1 Process Emissions Overview 5-1
5.2 Emissions Sources 5-2
5.3 VOC Emission Rates 5-7
5.4 National VOC Emission Estimates 5-10
5.5 State Regulations 5-12
6.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 6-1
6.1 Capture Systems 6-1
6.2 Add-On Control s 6-3
6.3 Alternate Blowing Agents 6-10
-------
7.0 CONTROL COSTS 7-1
7.1 Cost Assumptions 7-1
7.2 Control Costs 7-4
7.3 Effect of Capture Efficiency on Costs 7-7
7.4 Use of Existing Boilers 7-14
Appendices
A. Companies Involved in Manufacturing of PS Foam Products
B. Calculation of VOC Emission Estimates for Polystyrene
Foam Blowing
C. Cost Effectiveness Figures for Model Facilities
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
4-1 Flow diagram of a typical polystyrene foam sheet
manufacturing process 4-3
4-2 Flow diagram of a typical polystyrene foal board
manufacturing process 4-5
4-3 Flow diagram of a typical EPS bead process 4-6
4-4 EPS batch pre-expander 4-7
5-1 Average and maximum percent pentane losses at
manufacturing emissions points for EPS facilities 5-3
6-1 Carbon adsorber system process flow diagram 6-8
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
3-1 Domestic consumption of polystyrene foam by end uses 3-3
3-2 Estimated U. S. production of polystyrene resins 3-5
3-3 Distribution of PSF producers by state 3-8
5-1 Pentane loss analysis for EPS bead products 5-4
5-2 Summary of VOC emission sources and example distribution
in polystyrene extrusion products 5-6
5-3 Model plants - PSF sheet 5-8
5-4 Model pi ants - EPS bead products 5-9
5-5 Estimated national VOC emissions from PSF facilities 5-11
6-1 Evaluation factors for alternate polystyrene foam blowing
agents 6-13
6-2 Alternative blowing agents 6-14
7-1 Control by carbon adsorption 7-4
7-2 Control by thermal incineration 7-5
7-3 Duct cost 7-7
viii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to conduct a survey of the polystyrene
foam (PSF) manufacturing industry to characterize the industry, define the
nature and scope of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from this
source category, identify potential controls for reducing VOC emissions,
and develop cost estimates for VOC capture and control technologies. The
study includes an estimate of total industry VOC emissions and the
geographic distribution of industry facilities. A process overview and
descriptions of three separate manufacturing processes used for polystyrene
foam products are presented in this report, and process emission points are
identified. The report also includes a review of demonstrated and
potential emission control options that have been identified for reducing
VOC emissions from this source category. The estimates of VOC emissions
are not based on empirical data, but were calculated based on figures and
assumptions from industry and government reports. Cost estimates for
capture and control of VOC emissions have been developed according to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual, 1990.
Many previous studies of this source category have focused primarily
on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) rather than VOC emissions. However, with the
adoption of the Montreal Protocol (40 CFR Part 82) in August 1988, which
restricts the production and consumption of a number of fully halogenated
CFCs, the use of hydrocarbons and soft CFCs as blowing agents in the
polystyrene foam manufacturing process has increased.
This increased use of hydrocarbon blowing agents will likely result in
increased VOC emissions from this source category nationwide. With the
continued and increasing ozone non-attainment problems facing many U.S.
metropolitan areas, EPA is evaluating the potential for reducing emissions
from all sources of VOC. In 1988, 101 urban areas in the United States
1-1
-------
were classified as non-attainment areas for ozone. It is estimated that
over 170 polystyrene foam manufacturing plants are located in non-
attainment areas. National annual VOC emissions from this source category
are estimated at 25,000 short tons per year. Approximately 68 percent of
source facilities identified in this report are located in ozone non-
attainment areas. Therefore, the PSF industry represents a source of VOC
emissions which may be affecting local air quality in many urban areas of
the United States.
1-2
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS
The major findings of this study are presented below. The conclusions
can be categorized into three groups: 1) industry characterization, 2) VOC
emissions and emission controls, and 3) control cost estimates. In
general, due to the eventual phaseout of CFCs, it is expected that VOC
emissions from this source category will increase over time unless emission
control equipment is installed or alternative blowing agents are used.
Add-on controls such as carbon adsorption and incineration have been
demonstrated for this industry. In addition, some existing facilities have
successfully switched from hydrocarbon blowing agents to
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) blowing agents. HCFCs have only a fraction
of the ozone depletion potential of CFCs and are, for the present,
considered an environmentally acceptable alternative to both hydrocarbon
and CFC blowing agents. The PSF industry, however, considers the
regulatory status of HCFCs uncertain, and other alternatives are being
actively investigated.
2.1 INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
• Polystyrene foam manufacturing consists of three separate
processes for producing foam sheet, foam board, and expandable
beads. Initial estimates indicate that the expandable bead
process results in the greatest VOC emissions during processing,
followed by foam sheet production. Extruded foam board is still
primarily manufactured using CFCs as the blowing agent, and,
therefore, VOC emissions are negligible;
• The polystyrene foam blowing industry is made up of many
companies of widely varying sizes which purchase polystyrene or
expandable polystyrene beads (EPS) and manufacture specialty foam
products. These plants are spread geographically throughout the
United States, and plants are located in 37 states;
2-1
-------
• Polystyrene foam can be blown with a number of different blowing
agents. Until the late 1980s, CFCs were the blowing agent of
choice for extruded PSF products. Due to an eventual phaseout of
fully halogenated CFCs, the industry is switching to HCFCs and
hydrocarbons as alternative blowing agents. The EPS process
continues to primarily use pentane as the blowing agent, while
isopentane and n-butane are used occasionally.
2.2 VOC EMISSIONS
• National VOC emissions from polystyrene foam blowing in 1988 are
estimated at 25,000 short tons per year;
• There are three general classes of emissions from polystyrene
foam: manufacturing emissions; prompt foam cell losses, which
are losses that typically occur during storage and shipping; and
banked emissions, which are losses that occur through slow
diffusion of blowing agents out of the foam over the life of the
product. This report focuses on emissions during manufacturing,
because they are significant and controllable. Less attention is
given to emissions during storage and shipping. Banked emissions
are characterized to some extent, but discussion is limited
because no controls for banked emissions have been identified
(except, of course, for manufacturing with alternate blowing
agents);
• Exhaust streams from individual plants are typically
characterized by high flow rates and low VOC concentrations due
to OSHA regulations for minimizing worker exposure to pentane and
ventilation systems design requirements to ensure that
concentrations remain below 25 percent of the Lower Explosive
Limit (LEL) to minimize fire and explosion hazards.
2.3 VOC EMISSIONS CONTROLS
• Incineration is a demonstrated and readily available add-on
control technology for reducing VOC emissions from polystyrene
foam blowing. Incineration can reduce captured VOC emissions by
98+ percent; however, the cost per ton of VOC removed can be
relatively high due to the large exhaust flow rates and low VOC
concentrations characteristic of the exhaust stream. PSF plants
that have successfully incinerated emissions generally have
2-2
-------
ducted the exhaust to existing boilers or other existing
combustion devices, and have thereby eliminated the major capital
expenses;
• Carbon adsorption also has been demonstrated as a VOC emissions
control device for the PSF manufacturing industry. However, the
VOC removal efficiencies are expected to be somewhat lower than
removal efficiencies which can be achieved using incineration;
• Use of alternate blowing agents such as chlorodifluoromethane
(HCFC-22), and tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-134a) in place of CFC and
hydrocarbon blowing agents, or C02 in combination with
hydrocarbons is increasing as a means of VOC and CFC emission
reduction, particularly for sheet extrusion processes. Cost and
availability of the alternate blowing agents are still
problematic, although a significant portion of the PSF sheet
extrusion industry has recently switched to using primarily
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) as a blowing agent.
2.4 CONTROL COST ESTIMATES
Control costs have been estimated for PSF sheet and EPS bead processes
for small, medium, and large capacity facilities. Carbon adsorption and
thermal incineration are considered as control options. The resultant cost
effectiveness figures are as follows:
Carbon Adsorption Thermal Incineration
Cost ($/ton of Cost ($/ton of
pollutant removed)
Process
EPS Bead
PSF Sheet
Foam Product
Capacity (ton/vr)
pollutant removed)
1,500
3,000
4,500
3,
2,
300
010
1,
5,
000
000
10,500
1,405
6,790
2,190
1,290
6,950
5,020
4,405
11,100
5,055
4,050
2-3
-------
3.0 INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
Polystyrene foam (PSF) products are manufactured by one of two basic
processes, extrusion or expandable bead blowing. Both of these
manufacturing processes are described in detail in Section 4.0. Foam
extrusion and expandable polystyrene (EPS) bead blowing each produce
distinct end products, and involve distinct populations of manufacturing
companies. This section of the report describes the products manufactured
from PSF, the companies that produce PS and finished PSF products, and
recent market trends.
3.1 END PRODUCTS
In general, PSF products are used for various packaging and/or
insulation purposes. The density, strength, formability, and insulating
qualities of PSF make it an ideal material for the familiar packing
"peanuts," hamburger boxes, and hot or cold drink cups. A 1988 estimate of
end uses for polystyrene resin indicates that extruded foam board products
account for 11 percent, single service extruded sheet products account for
25 percent, all other sheet 22 percent, and EPS products account for
41 percent of total U.S. PSF production (approximately 1354 million Ib/yr).
Total PSF production in turn accounts for approximately 26 percent of total
polystyrene use.*
3.1.1 Extruded Products - Boardstock and Sheet
Extruded PSF products include those made from foam board and foam
sheet. Market figures for 1988 from the Journal of Modern Plastics
indicate that about 60 percent of PSF products are extruded.2 The vast
majority of PSF board is used as insulation material in commercial and
residential construction. Foam board is somewhat higher than fibrous glass
in insulating efficiency and comparable in cost in dollars per R-factor
(heat-resistance factor), and is also practical in certain construction
designs where traditional insulating materials are not.
3-1
-------
Extruded PSF insulation has high resistance to moisture and to
freeze/thaw damage and, consequently, retains its insulating quality longer
than other foam insulation materials. It is particularly well suited to
insulating around building foundations.^ Some PSF board is laminated with
facing materials that increase the board's moisture resistance and retain
the insulating capabilities (i.e., the blowing agent) longer.
Foam sheet products are used largely for packaging, most notably for
food packaging and single service packaging. The most familiar examples of
foam sheet products are fast food containers, meat and produce trays used
in grocery stores, and disposable plates. Table 3-1 lists the major end
uses of PS foam board and sheet and presents total U.S. consumption of
polystyrene foam products in 1987 and 1988.
3.1.2 Expandable Bead Products
Expandable polystyrene (EPS) beads are primarily used for foam board
and sheet, foam packaging parts, and foam cups and containers as shown in
Table 3-1. Most EPS beads are sold in bulk to foam processing companies
who expand the beads to the required density and mold them in "steam chest"
molds. About half the PSF insulating board is produced from the extruded
process and half from the blown bead process. Physical properties such as
thermal retention and dimensional stability are about equivalent at
comparable densities.^ However, EPS insulation board is considerably less
expensive than extruded PS board or polyurethane board. Blown bead
insulation board is used primarily in large commercial roofing applications
and exterior wall systems.
PSF packaging materials include loose fill, such as "shells" and
"peanuts," as well as molded shapes such as those that protect audio
equipment during shipping. Loose fill, or dunnage, is manufactured with a
combination of extrusion and EPS operations.
3.1.3 Substitute and Competing Products
For most extruded and expandable bead PSF products there are
competing products. However, there are trade-offs in performance, such as
insulation properties for heat retention, and environmental concerns such
as recyclability to be considered. For example, PSF sheet is used for fast
food packaging primarily by McDonald's Corporation. Other fast food
operations, such as Wendy's, Arby's, and Burger King use various plastic or
jkb.028 3"2
-------
TABLE 3-1. DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM BY END USES5
Extruded Foam
1987 1988
(mill. Ibs.) (mill. Ibs.)
Board
Sheet
Single Service Containers
Stock Food Trays
Egg Cartons
Other Foamed Sheet
Subtotal Sheet
Total Extruded Polystyrene
Expandable Beads
Building and Construction3
Cups and Containers
Packaging
Loose Fill
Other EPS Products
Total EPS Bead Products
142
285
188
80
61
614
756
173
160
80
42
68
523
147
344
190
80
35
649
796
170
166
106
60
56
558
3Figures include construction uses other than insulation board,
such as wall and ceiling coverings and concrete filler.
3-3
-------
foil laminated paper products for wrapping food; the cost is approximately
equivalent for all of these wrapping options. Different companies choose
different wraps, based on effectiveness, perceived attractiveness, or
consumer appeal.^ Egg cartons are manufactured from PSF sheet or from
paper. Recent aggressive marketing by the paper industry has resulted in
increased competition between paper and PSF sheet manufacturers of egg
cartons. Recently, PSF waste disposal has become an important issue.
Concern over landfill ing and harm caused to marine mammals have received a
certain amount of consumer attention and could affect competition.
Industry is beginning recycling efforts for PSF products.
Foam insulating materials have become popular in construction since
the early 1970s. However, polyurethane/polyisocyanurate and other products
such as phenolic and fibrous glass board are still more commonly used than
PSF for this purpose. Because of its superior moisture resistance, PSF
insulation board has advantages over other insulation boards for below
grade insulation.
3.2 MAJOR MANUFACTURERS OF PSF
3.2.1 Polystyrene Producers
Polystyrene is the raw material for extruded PSF products. About 20
to 25 percent of polystyrene resin produced is used in foam products.
Relatively few large chemical companies produce the polystyrene polymer.
Most extruded PSF products are also manufactured by these large polystyrene
producers. Blowing agent is incorporated into the polystyrene as it is
extruded. Expanded polystyrene products, however, are made from
polystyrene beads, which contain an inactive blowing agent. These beads
are usually produced by the large chemical companies, but they are expanded
and molded at different facilities, as described in the following section.
Table 3-2 lists the major U. S. producers of polystyrene resin and the
estimates from three sources of their respective annual capacities for
polystyrene production. Note that these figures for polystyrene production
include resin used for some products other than foam products.
3.2.2 Foam Blowers
In some cases, PSF products are manufactured by the PS producing
companies. However, most PSF facilities do not produce PS. These
companies purchase PS and EPS beads as raw materials from PS producing
jkb.028 3"4
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATED U. S. PRODUCTION OF POLYSTYRENE RESINS
Company
A & E Plastics
American Petrofina, Inc.
American Polymers, Inc.
Amoco Corporation
ARCO Chemical Company
BASF Corporation
Chevron
Dart Container Corporation
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
General Electric-Huntsman Corp.
Goodson Polymers, Inc.
Huntsman Chemical Corporation
Kama Corporation
Directory of
Chemical
Producers
Plant Location 1989*
City of Industry, California
Calumet City, Illinois
Carville, Louisiana
Windsor, New Jersey
Oxford, Massachusetts
Joliet, Illinois
Decatur, Alabama
Torrance, California
Willow Springs, Illinois
Monaca, Pennsylvania
Painesville, Ohio
South Brunswick, New Jersey
Marietta, Ohio
Owensboro, Kentucky
Gales Ferry, Connecticut
Ironton, Ohio
Joliet, Illinois
Midland, Michigan
Pevely, Missouri
Torrance, California
Selkirk, New York
Troy, Ohio
Belpre, Ohio
Chesapeake, Virginia
Peru, Illinois
Rome, Georgia
Hazleton, Pennsylvania
200
180
135
106
203
30
77
545
180
480
70
100
200
210
400
120
200
70
110
300
400
378 d
45
35
Chemical
Marketing
Reporter
June, 1988"
55
200
170
140
80
210
25
75
560
70
220
440
70
130
200
215
400
120
150
80
300
400
250
33
35
Mannsville
Chemical Products
Synopsis
April, 1988'
200
340
100
70
260
35
85
560
70
175
440
65
100
200
335
100
200
100
78
320
445
220
40
37
Average of
Available
Data
55
200
230
125
85
260
207
30
79
555
70
192
453
68
110
200
208
378
113
183
85
89
307
415
283
39
36
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2. (Continued)
Company
Mobil Corporation
Monsanto Company
Polysar Group
Scott Paper Company
(Plant formerly owned by
Texstyrene)
Tenneco, Inc.
Vititek
TOTAL:
Plant Location
Holyoke, Massachusetts
Joliet, Illinois
Santa Ana, California
Addyston, Ohio
Akron, Ohio
Copley, Ohio
Decatur, Alabama
Leominster, Massachusetts
Springfield, Massachusetts
Fort Worth, Texas
City of Industry, California
Delano, California
Directory of
Chemical
Producers
19891
80
365
70
300*
120
140
180
180
90
55
Chemical
Marketing
Reporter
June, 1988"
80
360
60
210
84
70
126
210
100
55
5
Marmsville
Chemical Products
Synopsis
April, 1988C
80
360
60
300
140
70
180
300
120
55
5
Averagt of
Available
Data
80
362
63
270
102
140
93
162
230
103
55
5
6329
' SRI estimates as of January 1, 1989. SRI International. Directory of Chemical Producers. 1989. p. 900-901.
" Chemical Profile. Chemical Marketing Reporter. June 20, 1988. p. 74-75.
' Based on announced capacities and trade estimates. Mannsville Chemical Products Corporation. Chemical Products
Synopsis! Polystyrene. April, 1988.
" 150 million pounds of capacity on standby.
' Plant is leased to Polysar, Inc.
Note: These production figures include resin used for some products other than foam products.
3-6
-------
companies. This is especially true in the case of EPS beads. Those PSF
facilities which purchase rather than produce PS for use in foam
manufacturing tend to be smaller facilities and may specialize in custom
molding such as foam packing for appliances. These foam blowing companies
are more difficult to count and characterize, since they are so varied and
are not tracked by economic analyses of the industry, as are the large
chemical companies.
Several trade associations represent these various foam blowing
companies and suppliers. The largest and most widely recognized
association is the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI). SPI represents
hundreds of companies from all parts of the plastics industry; PS and PSF
are the focus of only one of many divisions within SPI. The Foodservice
and Packaging Institute, formerly the Single Service Institute, is an
example of a specialized association serving plastic foam producers almost
exclusively. There are also trade associations for the packaging industry
that represent the PSF sheet producers in particular.
The number of PSF producers was estimated by compiling trade
association membership lists, listings in the Thomas Register, and another
published list of foam blowing companies. Table 3-3 gives the number of
foam blowing companies located in each State that are listed in at least
one of the table's references. The three references used to compile this
table show very little overlap;.therefore, it is difficult to gauge the
completeness of this list. Appendix A lists many of these companies and
their locations. Foam product manufacturers tend to cluster around urban
areas and manufacturing centers where packaging material is in demand.
Over two-thirds of the PSF manufacturing facilities listed in Appendix A
are located in ozone non-attainment areas.
3.3 ECONOMICS OF THE PSF INDUSTRY
Available analysis of the PSF industry focuses on the production of
PS and EPS beads. In the late 1980s, current journal articles note a surge
in the demand for and production of PSF in general.10'11 The surge has
been constrained by a shortage in the PS supply, and complicated by
aggressive competition from the polyurethane foam and paper industries.
The trade journal Modern Plastics predicted a stabilization of the
PSF market during 1989. Growth has been at about 2 percent in 1989
following an average growth of 3.5 percent per year from 1978 to 1987. For
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-3. DISTRIBUTION OF PSF PRODUCERS BY STATE
Sheet, Film, Board, and Block Producer^,-
Including Foam Blowers and Extruders ''
State
Al abama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Number of
Facilities
2
1
7
23
4
7
6
11
1
1
12
5
2
1
4
3
12
14
3
State
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Number of
Facilities
14
9
2
1
9
1
14
4
14
I
19
2
2
3
8
4
6
5
==
TOTAL
237
3-8
-------
1989 to 1992, average PSF industry growth is predicted to be 3 to 4 percent
per year. Four key U.S. producers plan to increase production of EPS beads
in order to meet predicted demand. This increased production capacity is
expected to stabilize the PS market further.12
The price of polystyrene resin determines the price of finished PSF
products. Resin price, in turn, is dependent upon the price of benzene and
ethylene, the major raw materials used to produce PS. Prices of these raw
materials were predicted to rise early in 1989.13 However, efforts by
major producers to restrain rising costs of PS are likely to be effective;
the producers are concerned that higher PS prices would cause a switch to
competing products.
3-9
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Chemical Profile." Chemical Marketing Reporter, June 20:52, 1989.
2. "Resin Report 1989." Journal of Modern Plastics, January, 1989.
3. Foundation Design Handbook: Volume 1. Undercurrent Design Research.
Underground Space Center, University of Minnesota. No date.
4. Personal Communication with R. B. Coughanour, Private Consultant.
Reviewer Comments on Draft Report, May 15, 1990.
5. See reference 2.
6. Wert, K. P., T. P. Nelson, and J. D. Quass. Final Report, Control
Technology Overview Report: CFC Emissions From Rigid Foam
Manufacturing. EPA 68-02-3994, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1987.
7. Society of the Plastics Industry. Membership Directory, 1989.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Process Profiles
for Environmental Use: Chapter 10. Prepared by Radian Corporation,
1987.
9. Thomas Register of American Manufacturers. Thomas Publishing
Company, New York, 1988.
10. See reference 2.
11. See reference 1.
12. "McDonald's Pullout: CFC Issue Hits Home." Modern Plastics, 1987.
13. See reference 2.
3-10
-------
4.0 POLYSTYRENE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
4.1 PROCESS HISTORY AND OVERVIEW
The three primary forms of PSF are extruded sheet, extruded board, and
molded EPS. The production of PSF has been developed through a number of
processes over the last 45 years. The oldest commercially available form
is PSF board, first marketed by the Dow Chemical Company around 1943 under
the trade name Styrofoam™. Foam sheet was introduced in the mid 1960s,
and immediately found widespread use in the packaging industry.
Polystyrene is foamed through the use of physical blowing agents.
Physical blowing agents are gases or liquids which are soluble in the
molten polymer under pressure. Upon depressurization, the blowing agent
volatilizes, causing the polymer to foam through the formation of gas
cells.
Initially, PSF was produced with volatile hydrocarbon blowing agents
such as n-pentane, isopentane, and n-butane. These blowing agents pose a
safety risk due to their highly flammable nature, and began to gradually be
replaced with nonflammable CFCs. Recent regulations prompted by widespread
concern over depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer due to the use of
CFCs have caused some major producers of PSF to reevaluate their commitment
to the use of CFC-11 and CFC-12, and investigate a return to hydrocarbon
blowing agents or other alternatives such as HCFC-22. Currently, extrusion
and EPS bead molding account for virtually all PSF product manufacturing.
These two processes and their respective blowing agents are described in
detail below.
4.2 EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM SHEET
The formation of PSF sheet is an extrusion process, commonly using two
extruders in series or one extruder with two sections. The process
produces foam sheets 1 to 7 mm thick, with densities of 32 to 160 kg/m3 (2
to 10 Ibs/ft.3)1 A typical extruded PSF foam sheet manufacturing process
4-1
-------
flow diagram is shown in Figure 4-1. Polystyrene pellets are mixed with a
small amount (0.2 to 2 percent) of powdered nucleating agent such as talc,
or a combination of citric acid and bicarbonate of soda.2 This mixture is
fed into the primary extruder. The extruder is heated to provide an
increasing temperature profile along its length, so that the polystyrene
melts. The blowing agent is injected as a liquid, under high pressure,
into the primary extruder where it mixes with the molten polystyrene. A
screen is used to remove impurities from the molten polystyrene before it
enters the secondary extruder. The secondary extruder introduces a cooling
profile that increases the mixture's viscosity and gives it enough strength
to contain the blowing agent as it expands. As the viscous polystyrene mix
leaves the secondary extruder through a die, it foams and partially
solidifies. The blowing agent bubbles attach to the nucleating agent, and
a cellular structure is formed.
An annular extrusion die is used in extruded polystyrene sheet
production, resulting in a tubular form. Foaming initiates near the die
outlet where the pressure rapidly decreases, allowing the blowing agent to
volatilize. As the foamed polystyrene passes through the die, compressed
air is applied, forming a skin on the outer surfaces. Additional foaming
occurs outside the die as the polystyrene tube passes over a forming
mandrel, which determines the final circumference of the foam tube. At the
end of the mandrel, the tube is slit lengthwise, flattened out, and an
S-wrap, or sheet wrapping unit, winds the sheet into a roll. The PSF sheet
is then stored for two to five days. During this time, a portion of the
blowing agent diffuses out of the foam cells and is replaced with air.
This results in an optimum ratio of air to blowing agent within the foam
cells, which will allow for postexpansion of the PSF during reheating,
before thermoforming.
Thermoforming is a process in which the extruded PSF sheet is
reheated, then pressed between the two halves of a metal mold to form the
desired end product such as fast food containers. After thermoforming, the
molded shape is trimmed, sometimes printed, and packaged. Resulting scraps
are ground and sent to scrap storage silos. This scrap is introduced into
the primary extruder with virgin polystyrene. Polystyrene scrap typically
makes up 35 percent of the total polystyrene fed to the primary extruder.
4-2
-------
Virgin Polystyrene Resin
Reclaimed
Resin
B3
Blowing Agent Storage
Screen
Primary
Formed
Product
Polystyrene
Foam Sheet
Printing A/O
Packaging
Product
Storage
r
S i
Sales
Transport
Air
Scrap Grinder
Potential VOC Recovery Points
A Outside and Inside Extruded Bubble
B Repelletizer Extruder Vent
C Exhaust from Pneumatic Transfer of
Reground Scrap Foam to Silos
Note:
1 Capture system is not existing.
Need to be developed.
4-1 Scrap Resin
_T Repelletizer
(optional)
Figure 4-1. Flow Diagram of a Typical Polystyrene Foam Sheet
Manufacturing Process
-------
4.3 EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM BOARD
Polystyrene foam board ranges from 1.25 to 15 cm thick, with densities
of 21 to 66 kg/m3 (1.3 to 4 lbs/ft3). The extrusion of PS foam boards is
identical to that of PS foam sheets, with the exception that a simple slit
aperture die is used instead of an annular die so that board is extruded as
slabs rather than a tube. Following cooling of the PS board, it is trimmed
to size and packaged. A typical PSF board manufacturing process flow
diagram is shown in Figure 4-2. Some board is laminated with facing
materials that act as a vapor barrier or aid in the retention of low
conductivity gas.*
4.4 EXPANDABLE POLYSTYRENE (EPS)
Expandable polystyrene is produced from spherical polystyrene beads
which have been impregnated with a volatile hydrocarbon such as pentane.
The polystyrene beads are produced by polymerizing styrene in a water
suspension and adding a volatile liquid such as pentane as a blowing agent.
The beads typically contain five to seven percent by weight of the blowing
agent. Prior to use the beads are stored at ambient temperatures in
cartons with vapor barrier plastic liners to inhibit premature diffusion of
the blowing agent from the beads.5
A typical EPS bead manufacturing process flow diagram is shown in
Figure 4-3. Normally, the beads are expanded in one step and molded in
another. Expansion is promoted by exposing the beads to a continuous flow
of steam or hot air at temperatures of 212°F to 220°F within a process unit
called a pre-expander. Batch and continuous processes are common. A
typical EPS batch pre-expander process is shown in Figure 4-4. The
transfer of heat vaporizes the volatile hydrocarbon trapped in the
polystyrene matrix; the volatiles are released from the matrix causing the
beads to foam and expand. This is the stage where the density of the raw
beads is brought to approximately the density required for molding. The
amount of expansion is controlled by steam pressure and temperature, and
the bead feed rate.6 This process is generally performed in a continuous
mode.
Following the expansion process, the excess moisture acquired during
steaming is eliminated with hot air, and the beads are transported to
storage silos constructed of large mesh bags, where they are allowed to
cool.7 The beads are allowed to age for 4 to 24 hours, during which time a
4-4
-------
en
Virgin Polystyrene Resin
Reclaimed
Resin
Primary
Secondary
Extruder
Scrap Sheet
Flow
Screen
Blowing Agent Storage
A«
Slit Die
Transport Air
Formed
Product
Scrap Grinder
Scrap Resins
Storage Silos
Vx
- Sales
J7_
Scrap Resin
Repelletlzer
(optionaQ
Potential CFG Recovery Points
A Outside and Inside Extruded Bubble
B Repelletizer Extruder Vent
C Exhaust from Pneumatic Transfer of
Reground Scrap Foam to Silos
Note:
1 CFC capture system is not existing.
Need to be developed.
Figure 4-2. Flow Diagram of a Typical Polystyrene Foam Board
Manufacturing Process
-------
Beads
Steam
-Xl
Pre-
Expander
Fabrication
Warehouse
Shipping
Aging
Dryer
(Screener)
Prepuff
Aging
Molding
-Steam
Figure 4-3. Flow Diagram of a Typical EPS Bead Process
-------
Steam Outlet
Outlet Opening
for Pro-Expanded
Beads
Hopper for
Expandable Beads
Position for Electric Eye
(density control)
Perforated Bottom Plate
Steam Inlet
Figure 4-4. EPS Batch Pre-expander
4-7
-------
portion of the remaining trapped volatile compounds evaporates, and is
replaced with air that diffuses into the beads. Air may be pumped through
the beads to accelerate the aging process. There are three types of
molding: shape, block, and cup molding.8
In shape molding, a premeasured amount of expanded beads is fed to a
preheated split cavity mold. The beads are exposed to steam through small
holes in the mold. The beads undergo further expansion, become soft and
molten due to the transfer of heat from the steam, and fuse together under
these conditions to form a single polymer mass. Following the expansion
and fusing process, the mold and PSF part are cooled by circulating water
through the mold. The mold is then opened, and the molded part is ejected
by compressed air, mechanical pins, or manually. Shape-molded polystyrene
foam products have densities ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 lb/ft3.9
In block molding, pre-expanded beads are molded into large blocks of
densities from 0.8 to 1.0 lb/ft3.10 Following cooling and intermediate
storage, the blocks are sliced into sheets or custom fabricated shapes.
Cup molding uses smaller beads and lower blowing agent content than
block or shape molding. Small beads are used to accommodate the thin walls
of the cup molds. Cup density is over 3.5 lb/ft3.11 Cups are molded at a
moderate temperature; the final product is packaged in plastic and boxed
for shipping.
4.5 POLYSTYRENE LOOSE FILL PACKAGING
Polystyrene loose fill packaging is manufactured with a combination of
extrusion and bead expansion. The following process description is taken
from the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Staff Report for
Proposed Rule 1175.
Recycled and new polystyrene are mixed with a nucleating agent and
melted, as for extrusion. The blowing agent is injected under pressure,
and the viscous mix is extruded, foaming as the blowing agent evaporates,
and forming hollow strands as it exits through the die. The hollow strands
are cut into 3/4-inch pieces. The strands are then steamed for further
expansion, as are EPS beads. Intermediate aging follows, and then the
strands are further steam expanded, dried in ovens, and aged. The density
of loose fill is about 0.2 lb/ft3.12
4-8
-------
REFERENCES
1. Styrene Polymers. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopaedia of Chemical
Technology, 3rd ed. Volume 16. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., eds, 1979.
pp. 148-245.
2. See reference 1.
3. See reference 1.
4. See reference 3, Section 3.
5. Personal Communication with R. B. Coughanour, Private Consultant.
Reviewer Comments on Draft Report, May 15, 1990.
6. See reference 4, Section 3.
7. Wiman, J. V. "Expandable Polystyrene Molding." Modern Plastics
Encyclopedia, 1981-1982. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 1981
p. 296.
8. Tsitsopoulos, L. and M. Mills. Staff Report, Proposed Rule 1175:
Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular
Products (Foam). South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule
Development Division. September, 1989.
9. See reference 8.
10. See reference 8.
11. See reference 8.
12. See reference 8.
4-9
-------
5.0 PROCESS EMISSIONS
5.1 PROCESS EMISSIONS OVERVIEW
For processes using hydrocarbon blowing agents, VOC emissions are
known to occur at various phases of PSF manufacture and use. There are
three general classes of emissions: manufacturing emissions, prompt foam
cell loss, and banked emissions. Manufacturing emissions are the loss of
blowing agent during processes prior to storage of the final product.
Emissions from extrusion, thermoforming, and scrap grinding during PSF
sheet manufacturing, and pre-expanding and molding emissions during EPS
manufacturing are examples of manufacturing emissions. Prompt foam cell
losses occur in the first one to two months following manufacture, either
during storage and shipping, or consumer use. Banked emissions are
associated with PSF boardstock production and, therefore, are limited
primarily to CFC-12 emissions. Banked emissions result when a portion of
the blowing agent sealed in the closed cell structure of the boardstock
slowly diffuses out of the foam over a long period of time. Generally,
this occurs during consumer use of the product. The half-life of CFC-12 in
PSF board, for instance, is estimated to be anywhere from 40 to 200 years.
In addition to the three general classes of emissions discussed above,
manufacturing losses can be further classified as fugitive or point source
emissions. Point source emissions originate from a single location such as
a process vent or exhaust stack. Fugitive emissions originate from larger,
more general areas such as storage warehouses.
The manufacturing processes described in Section 4.0 afford different
opportunities for blowing agents to escape. Industry-generated data exist
on points of emissions during manufacturing and the percentage of blowing
agent lost at each of these points. Characterization of VOC emissions from
the EPS bead process was developed from an industry study based on emission
measurements from 20 to 25 plants.1 The emissions profile for the
5-1
-------
extrusion process is based on blowing agent emissions data from several
producers, and on dialogue with representatives from major extrusion
companies.
5.2 EMISSIONS SOURCES
5.2.1 Expandable Beads
As described in Section 4.0, EPS beads are produced by injecting
pentane into polystyrene resin. The beads are expanded, and molded or cut
in a separate process, usually at a different facility.
Manufacturing emissions of VOC occur primarily during expanding
(blowing) and molding. Pentane emissions are also known to occur during
bead impregnation.2 In some cases, bead impregnation occurs during the
styrene polymerization process. These particular emissions are addressed
by proposed Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources:
Propylene, Polyethylene, Polystyrene, and Poly(ethylene terephthalate)
Manufacturing Industry [52 FR 36678, September 30, 1987].3 However, a
small number of companies inject pentane into polystyrene resin. Emissions
that may occur during this process are not covered by the NSPS; this report
addresses only those EPS emissions that occur as part of the expansion and
molding processes. There are several points of emission during the
expanding and molding process. Figure 5-1 shows points of manufacturing
emissions and the percentage of total blowing agent (pentane) emitted at
each point.
Total weight percent of pentane in raw beads is from 6 to 7.5 percent.
This is the optimal concentration of blowing agent; less would prevent
expansion to desired densities, and more would not significantly improve
the product. Pentane concentrations can be lowered by using it in
combination with other blowing agents, such as C02. Alternative blowing
agents and blowing agent combinations are discussed in Section 6.3.
Pentane loss analysis figures from an industry study demonstrate that EPS
bead pentane is lost primarily during expansion and molding. Additional
significant losses occur during storage and shipping, and fall in the
category of prompt foam cell losses (see Table 5-1). The end product will
typically have an average pentane weight of less than
two percent.
5-2
-------
Raw Bead Storage
(initial pentane content
of 6.0 weight %1
Expander
13% (avg)
23% (max)
Second 24 hours
after molding
Warehouse
Shipping
15% Remaining In
Parts - after 48 hours
Aging
19% (avg)
37% (max)
15% (avg) \pirst24hoursaftermolding
30% (max) /
Prepuff
Aging
14% (ava)
31% (max)
Molding
From: Cauqhanour. R.B. The Pentane Issue. Presented at 16th Annual SPI Expanded
Polystyrene Division Conference: March 17.1988. San Diego. California.
Figure 5-1. Average and Maximum Percent Pentane Losses at Manufacturing
Emissions Points for EPS Facilities
-------
TABLE 5-1. PENTANE LOSS ANALYSIS FOR EPS BEAD PRODUCTS^
(Percent of Original Pentane Blowing Agent)
Average
Range
% Lost
During
Expansion
24
10-44
% Lost During
24 Hrs. Storage
of Prepuff
19
5-37
% Lost
During
Molding
14
4-31
% Lost
1st 24 Hours
after
Molding
15
5-30
% Lost
2nd 24 Hours
after
Molding
13
3-23
Average % pentane left in molded product after 48 hours = 15%.
-------
5.2.2 Extruded PSF Boardstock
Extruded PSF board depends, to some extent, upon its blowing agent
content for its insulating properties. Extruded board is blown primarily
with CFC blowing agents. Only about 15 percent of the blowing agent is
emitted during the manufacturing process.5 Emissions occur primarily as
the foam leaves the extruders. The remainder is emitted gradually over
several years as banked emissions.6 As blowing agent is lost and replaced
by air, the board loses some insulating value; however, even when all
blowing agent is replaced by air, PSF board is still an effective
insulation.
To a large degree, the thickness of the board determines the rate of
emissions; the thicker the board, the slower the emissions rate.
Because the percent blowing agent lost during manufacture is substantially
lower for extruded board than for extruded sheet or EPS products(15 percent
versus 50 to 80 percent), and because the blowing agent used in extruded
board is usually CFCs, emissions from extruded board are not significant
relative to sheet and EPS emissions. Therefore, the extruded board process
will not be considered further in this report. If, due to regulatory
action, the extruded board industry moves towards hydrocarbon blowing
agents, emissions from this process will need to be reexamined.
5.2.3 Extruded PSF Sheet
The PSF sheet manufacturing process is similar to the board process;
however, more of the blowing agent is emitted during processing. Table
5-2 shows the approximate percentage losses of blowing agent during
manufacturing, storage, and use. Approximately 50 percent of the blowing
agent is emitted during manufacture. Emissions will vary depending upon
the diffusion rate of the particular blowing agent being used, as well as
the product being thermoformed. Different product sizes and shapes require
different mold configurations; the amount of scrap sheet generated during
thermoforming varies according to the mold configuration. Since
significant emission control can be achieved during the scrap reclaim
process, the amount of scrap generated (and, hence, the product type)
ultimately effects the blowing agent emissions. The most significant
manufacturing emissions occur during scrap grinding and re-extrusion of
jkb.028 5"5
-------
TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF VOC EMISSION SOURCES AND EXAMPLE ,,
DISTRIBUTION IN POLYSTYRENE EXTRUSION PRODUCTS11
Percent3 Percent4
From From
Extruded Extruded
Emission Source Sheet Boardstock
Manufacturing Losses
Extrusion
Intermediate Storage
Thermoforming
Scrap Grinding/re-extrusion
Prompt Foam Cell Losses
(within 1-2 months)
Banked Emissions
10 10
5 5
5
30
50 1
0 84
100.0 100.0
aThese estimates may vary among producers based
on blowing agent content and process conditions.
5-6
-------
recycled sheet. Minor losses occur during extrusion and thermoforming as
the foam is heated. Prompt foam cell losses are also significant; about 50
percent of the blowing agent is lost within two months after manufacture.
There are virtually no banked emissions in PSF sheet.7' 8> 9> 10
5.3 VOC EMISSION RATES
This section presents estimates of VOC emission rates and
concentrations for "typical" EPS and sheet manufacturing plants. These
estimates are based on the assumptions noted on Tables 5-3 and 5-4. They
are not based on actual emissions measurements. Total VOC emissions at any
particular manufacturing facility will vary significantly based on the
facility size, process, and type of foam products produced. However, the
emission estimates presented here can provide some guidelines on emissions
as a function of plant production. Calculations of emissions estimates are
shown in Appendix B.
5.3.1 Model Plants
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present production and material usage
characteristics for small, medium, and large plants producing
PSF sheet and EPS bead products, respectively. The emission rates were
calculated assuming a 50 weeks per year, 7 days per week, and 24 hours per
day production schedule. The annual production volumes, figures, and
emission rates are based on the references and additional assumptions given
in each table.
5.3.2 PSF Sheet
The total manufacturing emissions losses from the model sheet plants
consist exclusively of pentane, which is assumed to comprise 4.8 weight
percent of the product. Manufacturing losses are assumed to be 50 percent
of the total VOC content. Pentane losses for small, medium, and large
facilities are calculated to be 24, 95, and 252 tons per year,
respectively. The overall production pentane loss is 45 pounds of pentane
per ton of polystyrene foam production. The total plant production exhaust
flow ranges from 3805 to 31,395 scfm to maintain an exhaust VOC
concentration at 200 ppmv.
5.3.3 EPS Beads
The total manufacturing emission losses from the model EPS bead plants
consist exclusively of pentane, which is assumed to comprise six weight
percent of the product. Manufacturing losses are assumed to be 60 percent
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-3. MODEL PLANTS - PSF SHEET
Plant Size
Annual Production, tons/yr
Small
l,000a
Medium
5,000b
Large
10,500b
Production Emissions. Ib/vr (tpv)c
Pentane 48,000 (24) 190,000 (95) 504,000 (252)
Total Plant Production
Exhaust Flow (scfm)d 3805 15,400 32,400
aBased on assumption that small facility represents 20 percent the capacity of a
.medium-size facility.
DAnnual production rates based on model facility in Reference 4 (Section 3) and
Reference 9.
cAssumes use of pentane at 4.8 wt. percent of product, and 50 percent loss during
manufacturing (Reference 6.1). Does not include prompt foam cell losses.
Standard cubic feet per minute. Based on a waste stream concentration of
200 ppm.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-4. MODEL PLANTS - EPS BEAD PRODUCTS
Plant Size Small Medium Large
Annual Production, tons/yra 1,500 3,000 4,500
Production Emissions. lb/vr (tov)b
Pentane 110,000 (55) 216,000 (108) 326,999 (163)
Total Plant Production
Exhaust Flow (scfm)d 3,570 7,020 10.600
aBased on range of annual production rates given for model facilities in
.Reference 4 (Section 3). .
"Assumes use of pentane at 6 wt. percent of beads, and 60 percent loss during
manufacturing (Reference 1). Actual losses may range between 50 and 85 percent
(Reference 11). Does not include storage losses.
cStandard cubic feet per minute. Based on a waste stream concentration of
200 ppm.
5-9
-------
of the total VOC content. Pentane losses for small, medium, and large
facilities are calculated to be 55, 108, and 163 tons per year,
respectively. The overall production loss is 72 pounds of pentane per ton
of production. The total plant production exhaust flow ranges from 3750 to
10,598 scfm to maintain an exhaust pentane concentration of 200 ppmv.
5.3.5 Summary
Based on the emission rates calculated for each of the model
facilities, the EPS bead facilities produce the largest amount of VOC
emissions (72 pounds VOC/ton of production), while extruded sheet
manufacturing VOC losses are approximately 45 pounds per ton of production.
Losses are based on the assumptions noted in Tables 5-3 and 5-4.. Actual
percent losses will vary depending on processing and product
characteristics.
In addition to manufacturing losses modeled here, PSF sheet and EPS
bead products continue to lose blowing agent after processing. Industry
testing has indicated that some of these losses, particularly in bead
products, occur in the first 24 to 48 hours following manufacturing, while
other products retain some blowing agent for up to two months.12'13
Based on the emission losses calculated from the model facilities, losses
from the model PSF sheet facilities are approximately 62 percent as great
as the losses from the EPS bead model facilities.
5.4 NATIONAL VOC EMISSION ESTIMATES
Most of the previous research on emissions from polystyrene foam
blowing has focused on chlorofluorocarbon emissions. Since the Montreal
Protocol (40 CFR Part 82) was passed in August 1988 restricting the
production and consumption of a number of fully halogenated CFCs, the
polystyrene foam industry has focused most of its research efforts on
developing alternative blowing agents. These alternatives include, but are
not limited to, HCFC-22, HFC-134a, HCFC-142b, hydrocarbons, and blends of
these chemicals together, and with carbon dioxide.
The industry is currently in a state of transition concerning which
compounds to use as blowing agents, and different segments of the industry
are moving in different directions. In this report, estimates of national
VOC emissions from the use of hydrocarbons as blowing agents were
calculated based on production data from the literature and from the
industry trade associations. The estimates of national VOC emissions
presented in Table 5-5 are based on blowing agent usage patterns reported
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-5. ESTIMATED NATIONAL VOC EMISSIONS FROM PSF FACILITIES
Process
EPS Foam Beads
PS Foam Sheet
% of Industry
Using HC for
Blowing Agent
100%d
65%b
Total 1988
Production
(Ibs/yr)
5.58 x 108
6.5 x 108
Amount HC .
Used for Blowing0
(Ibs blowing agent/
Ibs product)
0.06
0.048
Amount Blowing
Agent Lost During Emissions
Processing0 (tons/yr)
85% 14,230
50% 5.062
TOTAL: 19,292
en
i
^Source: Journal of Modern Plastics, 1989. .
DSource: "Control Technology Overview Report: CFC Emissions from Rigid Manufacturing. Prepared
by Radian Corporation for the U.S. EPA, September 1987.
Emissions from EPS foam beads and PS foam sheet include manufacturing emissions and short-term
.storage emissions.
dSource: Modern Plastics, October 1987.
-------
for the industry during 1987 and 1988. Calculations of estimates are
included in Appendix B. A discussion of alternate blowing agents and their
current status is included in Section 6.0 of this report.
5.4.1 EPS Beads
Based on review of the literature and contacts with industry, it
appears that hydrocarbons are used exclusively as the foam blowing agent
for producing foam beads.^ It is estimated that approximately six pounds
of blowing agent are used per 100 pounds of foam beads produced.^
Eighty-five percent of the hydrocarbon blowing agent is emitted during
processing and storage, resulting in estimated annual VOC emissions of
approximately 14,200 tons.
5.4.2 PS Foam Sheet
Manufacturers of foam sheet are currently moving away from the use of
CFC-12 as a blowing agent. Recent estimates indicate that 60 to 70 percent
of the foam sheet that is produced is blown with hydrocarbons, primarily
pentane.^ Combinations of C02 and pentane are also being used
successfully. (See Section 6.3 for further discussion.) Approximately
50 percent of the blowing agent is emitted during processing, and the
remaining 50 percent is lost during storage or over the first one to two
months of product life. National manufacturing losses of hydrocarbons from
foam blowing of PS sheet are estimated at 5062 tons per year. Delayed
losses occurring during storage, shipment, and use are also estimated at
5062 tons per year.
5.5 STATE REGULATIONS
Regulation of PSF manufacturing varies from state to state. Many have
regulations and permitting programs addressing VOC emissions in general;
existing regulations pertaining specifically to PSF manufacturing are
described below.
5.5.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) of California
has adopted Rule 1175 [Control of Emissions From the Manufacture of
Polymeric Cellular Products (Foam)]. The rule limits VOC, CFC, and
methylene chloride emissions from EPS, PSF extrusion, polyurethane, and
other polymer foam facilities. Rule 1175 requires the control of
manufacturing emissions, and does not differentiate between fugitive and
5-12
-------
non-fugitive emissions. For EPS bead, the total uncontrolled emissions,
including the residual blowing agent in the manufactured product, must not
exceed 2.4 pounds/100 pounds of raw material processed. This would mean,
for example, for a product with six percent blowing agent, at least
60 percent of the blowing agent must be controlled during processing and
storage. Extrusion facilities must reduce emissions by 40 percent in 1991
and 100 percent in 1994 (over 1988 baseline emissions). If compliance is
not demonstrated in due time, capture and control devices must be installed
to achieve at least 90 percent and 95 percent efficiency, respectively.
Compliance with the SCAQMD rule may be achieved by using alternative
blowing agents that are exempt from the rule, such as HCFC-22, HCFC-123,
HFC-134a, and HCFC-142b.
As discussed in previous sections, some emissions occur from the final
products after the manufacturing process. These emissions are higher
during the first few days following manufacturing than at other times. If
total emissions exceed the above-cited cutoffs or if the final product, 15
minutes after manufacture, contains more than 1.8 percent blowing agent,
Rule 1175 requires the storage of the foam products and capture of vented
emissions in order to reduce the post manufacturing losses. The final
product must be stored for 48 hours (24 hours if processing less than
800,000 pounds per year). EPS facilities processing less than 200 pounds
per day are exempt from the total regulation.
5.5.2 Kern County. California
Polystyrene foam manufacturing has been regulated in Kern County,
California since December 1988 under Rule 414.4. Rule 414.4 bans the use
of any VOC, CFC-11, or CFC-12 as a blowing agent if no emission
collection/control systems are operated. Alternatively, a facility may
install a collection system on controllable VOC emission sources;
controllable sources are defined as fluff silos or bins, reclaim extruders,
and reclaim die hood exhausts. Collection systems must meet the
requirements of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists, and the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National
Association Guidelines, and must be vented to a combustion device achieving
at least 95 weight percent control efficiency. Additionally, Rule 414.4
requires any VOC blowing agent storage tank with greater than 200 gallons
5-13
-------
capacity to be equipped with a collection and control device or to be
sufficiently pressurized to prevent the release of VOC emissions.
5.5.3 Illinois
The Illinois State regulation controls sources processing plastic foam
scrap or "fluff" from the manufacture of foam containers and packaging
material to form resin pellets, if uncontrolled VOC emissions exceed 100
tons per year. These sources must operate in compliance with RACT, which
requires an emission capture and control system achieving at least an
81 percent reduction in uncontrolled VOC emissions. Emissions from the
extrusion process are not regulated.
5-14
-------
REFERENCES
1. Coughanour, R. B. The Pentane Issue. Presented at 16th Annual SPI
Expanded Polystyrene Division Conference; March 17, 1988; San Diego,
California.
2. Nelson, T., Radian Corporation, Memorandum to D. Beck, U.S. EPA.
Trip Report. February 13, 1990.
3. Telecon. McLean, J., Radian Corporation with Roy, S., U.S. EPA,
OAQPS, March 21, 1990. Conversation regarding bead impregnation
emissions.
4. See reference 1.
5. See reference 6, Section 3.
6. See reference 6, Section 3.
7. Letter from Charles Krutchen, Mobil Corporation, to Susan R. Wyatt,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 9, 1990.
8. Letter from Theresa Sathue, Mobil Corporation, to Susan R. Wyatt,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 6, 1990.
9. Letter from Val W. Fisher, Amoco Foam Products Company, to Susan R.
Wyatt, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 7, 1990.
10. Telecon. McLean, J., Radian Corporation, with Cooper, D., Dow
Chemical Corporation, June 6, 1990. Conversation regarding PSF sheet
extrusion.
11. See reference 7
12. See reference 1.
13. Telecon. McLean, J., Radian Corporation with Krutchen, C., Mobil
Chemical Company, July 6, 1990. Conversation regarding banked
emissions.
14. See reference 12, Section 3.
15. See reference 8, Section 3.
16. See reference 8, Section 3.
5-15
-------
6.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
This chapter discusses VOC emission capture and control techniques
which have been applied to the PSF industry. The demonstrated controls
discussed include incineration and carbon adsorption; some potential non-
demonstrated control techniques are also discussed briefly.
Overall efficiency and costs of VOC control depend largely upon
characteristics of the emission points involved, and the efficiencies of
capture and control devices. The cost of air pollution control devices
increases as the flow rate of air requiring treatment increases, primarily
because higher flow rates require larger control devices. It follows that
low flow, high concentration streams are desirable for achieving reasonable
cost effectiveness. Low flow and high concentration are achieved through
good capture device efficiency and design.1 In addition, as discussed in
Section 5, "Process Emissions", VOC concentrations should be maintained in
the capture and delivery systems at or below 25 percent of the lower
explosive limit (LEL) (3500 ppm for pentane), due to safety considerations.
A related concern is worker exposure to VOC emissions. Capture device
design as well as work area ventilation systems effect ambient VOC levels,
which must be maintained below the threshold limit value (TLV) (600 ppm for
pentane). Ideally, a capture system would optimize collection efficiency,
waste stream concentration, and flow rate to maintain safety standards and
minimize costs.
6.1 CAPTURE SYSTEMS
There are three general classes of capture devices: local, general,
and complete enclosure.2 Each type can achieve ranges of collection
efficiencies and flow rates depending on factors such as the number and
types of emission sources to which each device is applied, the proximity to
the emission source, and the amount of worker traffic in the area. Capture
efficiencies are difficult to measure, and can be very site specific.3
6-1
-------
6.1.1 Local and General Capture Devices
Local capture devices consist of hoods or intake ports located near a
single source to collect emissions. The collection efficiency and exhaust
flow rate for local capture devices are affected by air turbulence in the
immediate vicinity, the design capture velocity, and the amount of air
inflow, or dilution, to the emissions stream.4 General capture devices
collect emissions from more than a single source. A single vacuum hood
collecting emissions from several extruders is an example of a general
device.
6.1.2 Total Enclosure Capture Devices
It may be possible to enclose limited areas of a process completely,
and vent all the area emissions to a control device. Capture efficiency
for complete enclosure can be close to 100 percent.5 Enclosure might be
possible for areas where personnel traffic is at a minimum. Areas where
automated equipment such as extruders, scrap grinders, or thermoformers are
located would be suited to total enclosure capture devices. It may be
possible to apply total enclosure devices to storage areas. Partial
enclosures, such as customized or extended hoods, are feasible in more
situations than total enclosure, and can be expected to achieve greater
capture efficiencies than local or general devices, though not as great as
total enclosure.
6.1.3 Cascading of Capture Devices
Cascading is a concept in which VOC collection devices are arranged in
a series such that VOC is moved from an area of lower capture efficiency to
an area of higher capture efficiency. The benefit of cascading is that the
same mass of air is used to collect VOC from more than one area, resulting
in an increased VOC concentration. This results in an overall increase in
VOC capture efficiency, and consequently, VOC control efficiency.
Cascading may also reduce the amount of air required to capture VOC
emissions, and thus the size, capital cost, and annual operating cost, of
pollution control equipment.
It is important that the air be moved from an area of lower collection
efficiency to an area of equal or higher collection efficiency. Thus, air
collected by a general or local collection device could be used as make-up
air for a completely closed area. One example of this concept would be the
use of air collected by a general collection device in a thermoforming area
6-2
-------
as the air supply for a pneumatic conveyer system transporting PSF scrap
to storage silos.
6.1.4 Current Industry Practice
Because most PSF facilities are only now being considered for
regulation, there are no well established conventions for VOC capture.
State environmental agencies indicate that both local and total enclosure
capture devices have been used in the EPS industry.6 Other facilities plan
to use room-type enclosures for control of VOC emissions from pre-expansion
operations and/or molding operations. The room enclosures will be
ventilated to maintain the TLV of 600 ppm; exhaust will be vented to
control devices. Local capture devices can also be used to deliver
emissions to existing boilers.7 Hoods can be attached directly to the pre-
expanders and fluidized bed driers, and vented to control devices.
Data on the capture efficiencies of these various systems are not
available, primarily because of the difficulty of measurement. Generally
speaking, engineering estimates put capture efficiencies for devices other
than total enclosure at approximately 75 percent under optimal conditions,
while efficiencies as low as 30 percent have been measured.8 Operators of
the facilities with total enclosure estimate capture efficiencies at close
to 100 percent; however, no data are available to verify this estimate.9
The SCAQMD's Amended Rule 1175 (see Section 5.0) requires a capture
efficiency of 95 percent for VOC emissions. Some industry contacts feel
that total enclosure of the most significant emission points (i.e., pre-
expanders, molders, and extruders) is necessary in order to achieve
95 percent capture efficiency.^
6.2 ADD-ON CONTROLS
Add-on control devices may be divided into three general groups:
incineration, adsorption systems, and alternate technologies. Of the add-
on control technologies evaluated in this report, incineration and carbon
adsorption are the only demonstrated and readily available technologies for
controlling VOC emissions from polystyrene foam blowing facilities.
Information on the possible alternate technologies is provided with a
discussion of the potential advantages and disadvantages. Cost
effectiveness figures for carbon adsorption and thermal incineration
controls are estimated in Section 7.0. Control of emissions through the
use of alternate blowing agents is discussed in Section 6.6.3.
6-3
-------
6.2.1 Incineration
The use of incineration has been demonstrated for controlling VOC
emissions from polystyrene foam manufacturing facilities. Several States
have issued permits allowing incineration of VOC emissions at EPS
facilities**'*^ an£j industry contacts report incineration for VOC
control.13,14 Recently, an EPS facility has been issued a permit by the
SCAQMD to install cogeneration boilers, but has not initiated construction
or installation.
Two types of incinerators are available, thermal and catalytic.
Thermal incineration involves the oxidation of organic vapors to carbon
dioxide and water. The exhaust stream is incinerated in a combustion
chamber at temperatures in the range of approximately 1600'F (870°C).
Catalytic incinerators use a catalyst bed to oxidize the organic vapors and
operate at lower temperatures of 750* to 1000'F (400* to 540*C). Important
incineration design factors are residence time, gas stream flow rate,
operating temperature, and waste gas heat content.
The heat content of an exhaust stream is important in determining
auxiliary fuel and air requirements. Exhaust streams with heat contents of
20 to 50 Btu/scf, corresponding to 40 to 100 percent of the LEL, must be
diluted with excess air or auxiliary fuel to meet insurance companies'
safety regulations for flammable gases.^ Streams with 13 to 20 Btu/scf
correspond to 25 to 40 percent of the LEL. For example, a VOC stream
containing 3500 ppmv of pentane (25 percent of LEL) has a heating value of
approximately 13 Btu/scf.
Pollutant streams with heat contents less than 50 Btu/scf require
auxiliary fuel to maintain combustion temperatures.^ Although pollutant
streams with heat contents ranging from 50 to 100 Btu/scf have sufficient
heat content to support combustion, auxiliary fuel may be needed for flame
stability. When the heat content of a VOC stream is greater than 100
Btu/scf, the stream possesses sufficient heat content to support combustion
alone and may even be considered for use as a fuel gas or boiler feed gas.
Thermal incinerators used to control VOC emissions at PSF facilities
will generally require supplemental fuel. Heat recovery equipment is
nearly always used with incinerators applied to low VOC concentration
streams to reduce the amount of supplemental fuel required. The amount of
heat recovery achievable can be up to 95 percent.17 Heat recovery can be
6-4
-------
accomplished using a non-contact heat exchanger system. An example of a
non-contact heat recovery device is a tube and shell heat exchanger. This
*
type of heat exchanger consists of a bundle of parallel tubes inside a
cylindrical shell. The hot incinerator flue gases flow through the heat
exchanger on the shell side. The vapor stream to be incinerated flows
through the heat exchanger on the tube side and absorbs heat from the hot
flue gases through the walls of the tubing, thereby increasing its heat
content and reducing the need for auxiliary fuel. Generally, the more
energy efficient incinerators have lower operating costs due to the reduced
fuel consumption, but a higher initial capital cost resulting from the
addition of heat exchange equipment.
Regenerative thermal incineration is currently used to control VOC
emissions at several major PSF facilities. These systems use direct heat
exchangers constructed of ceramic materials that can tolerate the high
temperatures needed to achieve ignition of the waste stream. The ignited
gases react in the combustion chamber and subsequently pass through another
ceramic bed, heating it to the combustion chamber outlet temperature. The
flow is periodically reversed to continually feed the inlet stream to the
hot bed.18 Energy recovery efficiency can be as high as 95 percent;
associate capital costs are high, but generally are offset by a decreased
need for auxiliary fuels.19
For the expected range of VOC concentration levels encountered in PSF
manufacturing (600-3500 ppmv), thermal incinerators can achieve 99 percent
or greater VOC destruction, while catalytic incinerators are capable of
achieving up to 95 percent VOC destruction.20
Some EPS manufacturing facilities have existing boilers in place to
provide steam in the pre-expansion and molding steps. VOC emissions could
possibly be vented to existing boilers for incineration. The benefit of
using existing boilers for emissions control is a reduction in capital and
operating costs. The only capital investments involved are the capture
systems ductwork, and fans and boiler modifications required to direct
emissions to the boiler. Where applicable, use of existing boilers would
be the most effective control option (see Section 7.3).
In general, however, existing boilers are designed for steam
production, not for VOC control. Emission capture devices must be designed
based upon these existing boiler operating parameters, such as fuel firing
rates, temperature, and pressure. When a new boiler or other incineration
6-5
-------
device is to be purchased, the operating and design parameters can be
calculated to fit facility needs and a suitable device can be constructed.
•
The design effort is considerably more labor intensive when capture devices
must be designed to meet the existing design and operating parameters of
existing boilers.21 Existing boilers may not be able to control all the
emissions from a facility, and an additional incineration device may be
required. The capital costs associated with the use of existing boilers
for control devices are discussed in Section 7.0, "Control Costs". The
incineration of chlorinated compounds can produce combustion products such
as hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids, and may require the use of
corrosion-resistant materials and tail gas scrubbers. This would
significantly increase the projected control costs.
6.2.2 Adsorption
Adsorption is a mass-transfer operation involving interaction between
gaseous and solid phase components. The gas phase (adsorbate) is captured
on the solid phase (adsorbent) surface by physical or chemical adsorption
mechanisms. Physical adsorption occurs when intermolecular van der Waals
forces attract and hold the gas molecules to the solid surface.
Chemisorption occurs when a chemical bond forms between the gas and solid
phase molecules. A physically adsorbed molecule can readily be removed
from the adsorbent under suitable temperature and pressure conditions,
while the removal of a chemisorbed component is much more difficult.
The most commonly used industrial adsorption systems are based on the
use of activated carbon as the adsorbent. Carbon adsorption devices have
been designed and installed for the successful control of VOC emissions in
PSF facilities.22 Activated carbon is effective in capturing certain
organic vapors, including pentane, by the physical adsorption mechanism.
In addition, the adsorbate may be vaporized for recovery by steam
regeneration of the carbon bed.
The design of a carbon adsorption system depends on the chemical
characteristics of the VOC being recovered, the physical properties of the
inlet stream (temperature, pressure, and volumetric flow rate), and the
physical properties of the adsorbent. The mass flow of VOC from the gas
phase to the surface of the adsorbent, or rate of capture, is directly
proportional to the difference between the VOC concentration in the gas
phase and the adsorption potential of the solid surface. In addition,
capture rate is dependent on the adsorbent bed volume, the surface area of
6-6
-------
adsorbent available to capture VOC, and the rate of diffusion of VOC
through the gas film at the gas and solid phase interface. Physical
adsorption is an exothermic operation that is most efficient within a
relatively narrow range of temperature and pressure. A schematic diagram
of a typical fixed bed, regenerative carbon adsorption system is shown in
Figure 6-1.
Vapors entering the adsorber stage of the system are passed through
the porous activated carbon bed. Adsorption of the vapors occurs in the
bed until the activated carbon is sufficiently saturated with VOC to result
in VOC breakthrough. At this point, the VOC-laden air stream typically is
routed to an alternate bed while the saturated bed is regenerated, usually
with steam. Therefore, most carbon adsorption systems will consist of at
least two carbon beds.
For the expected range of VOC concentration levels encountered in PSF
manufacturing (600 to 3500 ppmv), carbon adsorption devices can achieve up
to 99 percent removal efficiency.23 Polymerization of styrene on the
carbon is a concern because it would quickly deactivate the bed. However,
the styrene content in vent streams from PSF facilities is expected to
occur at trace levels. Additionally, carbon adsorption systems have been
successfully operating at facilities where styrene concentrations are
higher than those expected in PSF manufacturing. There has been no
indication that styrene is polymerizing on the bed at these facilities.
Another design consideration for those instances where a mixture of pentane
and CFC is used is the difference in equilibrium adsorptive capacities of
pentane and CFC compounds. At a partial pressure of
0.0002 psia, the equilibrium adsorptive capacity of virgin carbon for
pentane is 12 pounds per 100 pounds of carbon, while the equilibrium
adsorptive capacity of CFC-12 is only 7 pounds per 100 pounds of carbon,
making the removal of CFC-12 the limiting design criteria.
6.2.3 Alternate Technologies
Three technologies have been identified that may serve as alternatives
to carbon adsorption and incineration. The discussion of solvent scrubbers
and refrigeration technologies is taken directly from SCAQMD's Staff Report
on Proposed Rule 1175.2* None of these technologies has been proven
commercially in the PSF industry.
Solvent Scrubbers. In the scrubber, the pentane in emissions
streams is absorbed by a counter-current flowing solvent. The
6-7
-------
00
Vent Stream
Filter Blower
Heat Exchanger
(optional)
Ambient
Air Intake
for Cooling/Drying
OH
Filter Blower
3$$
Steam .
-C*l-
Carbon
Absorber
i
Carbon
Absorber
Exhaust
Vent
Aqueous Phase to
Disposal or
Treatment
Decanter
Condenser
Organic Phase to Recovery
Figure 6-1. Carbon Adsorber System Process Flow Diagram
3
-------
pentane is stripped from the solvent and recovered. The solvent
circulates back to the scrubber. Minimum size would be for 5000
cfm of air. Capital costs are relatively high. A large plant
could have multiple small scrubbers with only one stripper and
possibly save on large ductwork costs.
Refrigeration. The emissions stream containing pentane is
refrigerated to condense the pentane. This approach is
economically practical where relatively low air flow and high
pentane concentrations are possible. As the concentration of
pentane decreases, the amount of energy required to condense out
the pentane increases (because lower temperatures are necessary).
Since many of the contaminated air streams in the PSF industry
have low concentrations, high operating costs will usually make a
refrigeration control system impractical. However, there are
selected instances where this technology would be appropriate.
Snil Biofiltration. Soil biofiltration is a promising alternative
technology for removing VOCs such as propane, butane, pentane, and
styrene from contaminated air streams. The contaminated air stream is
passed through a soil bed, and the VOC is adsorbed to the soil
colloids. Soil bacteria oxidize the VOCs aerobically, producing C02
and water. The bacteria regenerate themselves and the oxidation
process renews the soil's adsorptive capacity. Approximately 10
square feet of land is required to treat each cfm of contaminated
air.25, 26
Soil biofiltration test results have indicated that a VOC removal
efficiency of greater than 90 percent is possible.27 Biofiltration
beds are known to be operating successfully in at least one commercial
facility, where pentane and propane are being removed,
and are currently being tested in several other facilities.
Biofiltration offers several advantages over other pollution control
alternatives, including:
• A low capital cost and minimal operating costs;
• No fuel or oxidants are required;
• No secondary pollutants are generated; and
• Bed operation is safe both for the environment and the
workers.2**
6-9
-------
The major disadvantage to soil biofiltration is the large land area
required for high VOC removal efficiency.
6.3 ALTERNATE BLOWING AGENTS
The PSF industry uses a variety of blowing agents including both
hydrocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons. In PSF sheet production, the most
commonly used hydrocarbon blowing agent is pentane and the most commonly
used chlorofluorocarbons have been CFC-11 and CFC-12. Until recently,
polystyrene boardstock products were blown almost exclusively with CFC-12
because it provides board with superior insulating quality. Expandable
polystyrene beads are blown exclusively with hydrocarbons. Recent
widespread concern over depletion of the earth's ozone layer due to CFC
emissions and the eventual total phaseout of CFCs has prompted major
producers of PSF sheet and board to reevaluate their commitment to the use
of CFC. Additional concerns over air pollution caused by VOC emissions
have caused similar evaluations regarding the use of such hydrocarbon
blowing agents as pentane. The ideal alternative blowing agent would
minimize the threat to the ozone layer and the quantity of VOC emissions,
and have the chemical and physical properties required for each of the
various end products. This is particularly important for polystyrene
boardstock products that depend upon the low thermal conductivity of CFCs
for superior insulating properties.
6.3.1 Processing Considerations
The blowing agent for polystyrene foam should be chemically stable
under the operating conditions present during polystyrene manufacturing.
For purposes of consistent product quality, it is essential that the
blowing agent not react with any of the foam ingredients. It is equally
important that the blowing agent is not easily thermally decomposed to
retain foam integrity during the processing steps.29
To be effective as a blowing agent for extruded use, a compound must
have an appropriate vapor pressure in the molten resin at the point of
extrusion. In most cases, this vapor pressure should be at least 670 psia
at extrusion temperature. This limits blowing agents for most resins to
those with boiling points from -40°C to +50*C (-40°F to +122*F). If the
boiling point is too low, the blowing agent would not be an easily
compressed vapor; therefore, it would be difficult to meter into the
extruder. Conversely, if the boiling point is too high, the vapor bubbles
will expand too slowly or not at all.
6-10
-------
Because extruded polystyrene foam production requires the presence of
a blowing agent, the permeability of the blowing agent through the polymer
is an important factor. Permeability is a function of the blowing agent's
diffusivity through the polymer, its solubility in the polymer, aging
characteristics, and rate of air infusion. If either the diffusivity or
the solubility is too high, thermoforming will be difficult, because there
will not be enough blowing agent retained in the foam cells. High
solubility and/or diffusivity would also make potential substitutes
unsuitable for manufacture of polystyrene insulating boardstock. If the
blowing agent escapes through the foam cells, the valuable insulating
properties would be lost. In fact, because most of the blowing agent
should be retained in the foam for the entire life of the product
(i.e., 20 years or more), diffusion rates should be very small to ensure
long-term product performance. There is a controversy within the foam
insulation board industry as to the relative longevity of insulating
characteristics for the different foam products.
The quantity of blowing agent required to make a given foam is a
function of the agent's molecular weight and gas efficiency.30 For a
blowing agent, the gas efficiency equals the actual contribution to cell
volume divided by the total volume of gas required. The efficiency is a
measure of the amount of blowing agent used that actually contributes to
product expansion. A good blowing agent for polystyrene foam should have a
gas efficiency greater than 90 percent.
Blowing agents for EPS foam should have a high enough molecular weight
not to vaporize at ambient air pressure during aging and storage of
impregnated beads. At the same time, the molecular weight must be low
enough to vaporize during bead expansion. Pentane is the only blowing
agent that satisfies both of these conditions.
Fire hazards are associated with using hydrocarbon blowing agents.
However, the flammability of the foam product is more a function of the
flammability of the polymer than that of the blowing agent trapped in the
foam cells.31 Although it is certainly preferable that a blowing agent be
nonflammable, it is possible to manufacture foams safely with a flammable
blowing agent, such as pentane, given proper equipment and sufficiently
trained personnel. This is supported by the fact that some major producers
of thermoformable PSF sheet and virtually all producers of EPS beads use
hydrocarbons as their primary blowing agents. Dilution of flammable
6-11
-------
emissions with adequate ventilation is the primary safety precaution taken.
6.3.2 Product Considerations
Most PSF sheet is used for packaging or serving food products. Meat
trays, egg cartons, hamburger shells, and disposable plates are examples of
this application. Because some blowing agent is retained in the final foam
product and these products come in direct contact with food stuffs, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must approve any new chemical which
would be used as a blowing agent. Prior to such approval, a candidate
substitute blowing agent has to undergo extensive toxicity testing, and
even a slight degree of toxicity would jeopardize FDA acceptance of a
potential alternative compound.3^
Polystyrene foam boardstock is used primarily as an insulating
material for residential and commercial structures. In these applications,
polystyrene boardstock has the advantage of high insulating quality (per
thickness) due to the CFC vapor trapped in the cells. An alternative
blowing agent with lower insulating capability (i.e., higher thermal
conductivity) could be used, but the material's competitive advantage would
be lessened in the building materials market. Thus, an optimum substitute
would possess insulating qualities similar to or better than those of
CFC-12. For use in the construction industry, the product must meet
flammability standards. The use of hydrocarbons as blowing agents may
cause problems in this respect.
6.3.3 Available Alternatives
Although PSF products have traditionally been produced with CFC-11,
CFC-12, or hydrocarbon blowing agents, four alternative HCFCs exist as
potential replacements. These are HCFC-22, HCFC-124, HFC-134a, and
HCFC-142b. HCFC, the so-called "soft CFC", and HFC are not fully
halogenated and consequently have significantly less ozone depletion
potential. Characteristics of these alternatives are presented in
Table 6-1. Table 6-2 shows blowing agent alternatives by end product.
HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b are currently commercially available, and HCFC-22 is
now being used in many extruded PSF sheet facilities. The Foodservice and
Packaging Institute recently announced that, in response to the Montreal
Protocol, HCFC-22 has completely replaced CFC-11 and CFC-12 in extruded PSF
sheet for the food packaging industry. It is used either alone or in
combination with about 30 percent pentane in sheet extrusion.33 The
HCFC-124 and HFC-134a blowing agents are expected to be commercially
6-12
-------
TABLE 6-1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR SOFT CFC POLYSTYRENE FOAM BLOWING AGENTS34
at
Factors
Reactivity with Ingredients
Stability
Boiling Point, ll'C (*F)
Solvent Power
Gas Efficiency (% of theory)
Molecular Weight
Quantity for 0.08 g/cm3 (5 lb/ft3)
Foam (parts/100 parts resin)
Thermal Conductivity W/m-°C
(Btu/hr-ft-°F)
Diffusivity Through Polymer
Toxicity
Flammabilitya
Ozone Depletion Factor
Commercial Production
FDA Approval
CFC-12
None
Stable
-29.8
(-21.6)
Low
90+
120.9
5
0.0097
(0.0056)
Low
Low
Non-
flammable
1.0
Yes
Yes
Alternative CFC Blowina Aaents
HCFC-22
None
Stable
-40.8
(-41.4)
Low
Low
86.5
NA
0.0105
(0.0061)
High
Low
Non-
flammable
0.05
Yes
Yes
HCFC-124
None
Stable
-11
(12.2)
Low
90
136.5
6
0.0102
(0.0059)
Low
Incomplete
Non-
f 1 ammabl e
0.02
In
devel opment
Not assessed
HFC-134a
None
Stable
-26.3
(-15.3)
Low
95
102.0
4.2
0.0083
(0.0048)
Low
Incomplete
Non-
flammable
No chlorine
In
development
Not assessed
HCFC-142b
None
Stable
-9.2
(15.4)
Moderate
80
100.5
5
0.0111
(0.0064)
Moderate
Low
Slightly
flammable
0.06
Yes
Yes
NA - Not available
*These estimates are made qualitatively relative to CFC-12.
"Not included in ozone depletion estimate because compound contains no chlorine.
-------
TABLE 6-2. ALTERNATIVE BLOWING AGENTS BY END PRODUCT38
End Product
Current Blowing Agent Alternative Blowing Agent
Extruded Polystyrene
Loose Fill Packaging
Expandable
Polystyrene (EPS)
VOC (Pentane, Butane) HCFC-22, HCFC-142b,
CFC-12 HFC-134a, C02/VOC
combination
VOC (Pentane, Butane) HCFC-22, HCFC-142b,
CFC-11, CFC-12 HFC-134a
Pentane
C02/VOC combination
6-14
-------
available by mid-1992.36 performance of these two alternatives is not
fully proven, nor are they approved for food packaging uses.37
The use of HCFCs and HFCs as PSF blowing agents could theoretically
eliminate VOC emissions from the industry. However, as discussed above,
product quality and performance would be affected. In addition, the
availability of alternative blowing agents has been questionable in the
recent past. Suppliers of soft CFCs are apparently hesitant to commit to
HCFC production in light of their uncertain regulatory status.
For extruded PSF board, HCFC-142b is an acceptable alternative and is
currently used by at least one major board producer.38 The HCFC-142b is
combined with approximately 25 percent pentane for foam board blowing
purposes. However, there is reportedly an availability problem with
HCFC-142b.39 HFC-134a is also a viable alternative for extruded PSF board.
Fripp Fibre Foams has developed a foam product using HFC-134a that compares
favorably to foam blown with HCFC-22, and requires smaller amounts of
blowing agent per product unit than does HCFC-22. However, HFC-134a costs
approximately three to five times as much as HCFC-22.40
N-pentane (CsH^) is the primary hydrocarbon blowing agent currently
in use. Isopentane and n-butane are alternatives to this blowing agent
that have been used sparingly. Other hydrocarbons do not exhibit the same
suitable characteristics required of blowing agents. Butane (C^g) and
lower molecular weight hydrocarbons exist as gases at room temperature and
are difficult to handle and meter during processing. Hexane (C5Hi4) and
higher molecular weight hydrocarbons have higher boiling points and lower
vapor pressures.
Blends of hydrocarbons and soft CFC offer promising options to the PSF
industry for reducing VOC and CFC emissions. Maintaining a certain
percentage of hydrocarbon in blowing agents may help to preserve product
quality; the soft CFCs appear to be an improvement for both stratospheric
and ground-level ozone concerns.41 Current industry developments indicate
that soft CFC-VOC combinations are viable blowing agent alternatives due to
their costs, availability, and relative environmental acceptability.
However, uncertainty concerning the regulatory status of soft CFCs is still
a significant barrier to their further use.
Combinations of C02 and pentane are used successfully in sheet
extrusion. Because of C02's high diffusion rate, fugitive pentane
emissions are reduced and a greater proportion of pentane is lost during
6-15
-------
the reclaim process where it can be more effectively controlled. Industry
data indicate that pentane emissions can be reduced by 35 percent when
pentane blowing agent is replaced with 25 percent CC^-42
C02 is also used in the manufacture of expandable beads, reducing the
amount of pentane needed as a blowing agent (low pentane beads).^ The use
of low pentane beads (<6.5 percent pentane) has been mandated by the State
of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division in several compliance schedules.*4 The compliance schedules
require low pentane beads with no greater than 5.35 percent pentane to be
phased in by July, 1991. A major disadvantage to the use of C02 as a
blowing agent in expandable beads is its extremely fugitive nature,
requiring EPS bead products to be reblown after pre-expansion.45
Due to the resource constraints of this study, alternate blowing
agents are not included in the model facility cost estimates in
Section 7.0; however, they are clearly a feasible control option for some
PSF facilities. (No instances were found of EPS bead processes using
blowing agents other than 100 percent pentane.) Some estimates of the
costs associated with switching blowing agents are available through
industry contacts. The Foodservice and Packaging Institute estimates that
switching from CFC-11 or CFC-12 to HCFC-22 incurs capital costs of about
$100,000 for an average size facility.46 An Institute representative also
cited a United Nations Environmental Programme report estimating capital
costs of $50,000 per plant for switching blowing agents. Within the PSF
food packaging industry, egg carton production is considerably more complex
than other processes, and would probably incur the higher estimated
costs.45 A large sheet facility reports having switched from pentane to
HCFC-22 as their primary blowing agent at a cost of $60,000, including lost
production, operator training, and time spent by researchers.48 However,
this facility reports that the cost of HCFC-22 is approximately five to six
times that of pentane.
6-16
-------
REFERENCES
1. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polymeric Coating of
Supporting Substrates - Background Information for Proposed
Standards. EPA-450/3-85-022a. Office Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April 1987.
2. See reference 1.
3. Telecon. Lynch, S., Radian Corporation with Erwin, T., Radian
Corporation. March 14, 1990. Conversation regarding capture
efficiency.
4. See reference 1.
5. Nelson, T., Radian Corp. Memorandum to D. Beck, U.S. EPA. Trip
Report, February 13, 1990.
6. Telecon. Bagley, C., Radian Corporation with Tsitsopoulos, L.,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, California. November
30, 1989. Conversation concerning controls.
7. Telecon. Bagley, C., Radian Corporation, with Osterwald, A., Dart
Container Corporation. November 30, 1989. Conversation concerning
controls.
8. See reference 3.
9. See reference 5.
10. See reference 5.
11. Telecon. Bagley, C., Radian Corporation with Bay, P., Texas Air
Control Board. October 11, 1989. Conversation regarding add-on
controls.
12. See reference 6.
13. See reference 7.
14. Telecon. Bagley, C. Radian Corporation with Sardari, A.,
Whitehorse Technologies. November 11, 1989. Conversation
concerning add-on controls.
15. Blackburn, J. W., Control Device Evaluation: Thermal Oxidation.
Report 1 in Organic Chemical Manufacturing Volume 4: Combustion
Control Devices. EPA 450/3-80-026. December, 1980.
16. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory Handbook: Control Technologies for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication No. EPA/625/6-86-014. September, 1986.
17. See reference 16.
6-17
-------
18. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Control Cost Manual. EPA-450/3-90-006.
January 1990.
19. See reference 18.
20. See reference 16.
21. See reference 7.
22. See reference 14.
23. See reference 16.
24. See reference 8, Section 4.
25. Krutchen, Or. Charles, Mobil Chemical Company. Personal
communication with Ooanie McLean, Radian Corporation. May 30, 1990.
26. Bohn, Hinrich, University of Arizona. Written communication to
Ms. Susan R. Wyatt, U. S. EPA. May 22, 1990.
27. See reference 23
28. See reference 24
29. Written communication with J. G. Burk (consultant). September 25,
1986.
30. See reference 11.
31. Personal communication with Mobil Chemical Company, Plastics
Division, September 26, 1986.
32. See reference 7.
33. Telecon. McLean, J., Radian Corp. with Sherman, N., Foodservice and
Packaging Institute. March 13, 1990. Conversation regarding
blowing agents.
34. See reference 4, Section 3.
35. See reference 4, Section 3.
36. See reference 4, Section 3
37. United Nations Environmental Programme. Flexible and Rigid Foams
Technical Options Report. June 30, 1989.
38. See reference 33.
39. Telecon. McLean, J., Radian Corp. with Arnold, S., Dow Chemical.
December 22, 1989. Conversation regarding blowing agents.
6-18
-------
40. See reference 33.
41. See reference 4, Section 3.
42. See reference 23.
43. Chemical Marketing Reporter, "Expandable Polystyrene Improved, BASF
Reports." April 2, 1990, Page 5.
44. State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division. Amendment to Permit Nos. 3079-122-9949 and
3079-122-10340.
45. Coughanour, Robert, Private Consultant. Personal communication with
Joanie McLean, Radian Corporation. May 16, 1990.
46. Telecon. McLean, 0., Radian Corp. with Sherman, N., Food Service
and Packaging Institute. March 13, 1990. Conversation regarding
the publication: United Nations Environmental Programme, Technical
Options to Reduce Chiorof1uorocarbons in Rigid Plastic Foam
Products, 1989.
47. See reference 23.
48. See reference 5.
6-19
-------
7.0 CONTROL COSTS
This chapter presents costs for controlling VOC emissions from the EPS
bead and PSF sheet model plants presented in Section 5.0, "Process
Emissions". Control costs for PSF extruded board facilities were not
developed because these facilities predominately use CFCs or HCFCs, not
hydrocarbons (VOC). The annual production rates of the model facilities
are based on model facilities developed in the California South Coast Air
Quality Management District Proposed Rule 1175 and a Society of Plastics
Industry conference paper.1»2»3 /\ small, medium, and large model facility
for each process is included (1,500, 3,000, 4,500 tpy for ESP; 1,000,
5,000, 10,500 tpy for extruded sheet).
Thermal incineration and carbon adsorption are the VOC control
technologies for which costs are presented. Three general groups of
control devices were discussed in detail in Section 6.0, "Emissions Control
Techniques": incineration, adsorption systems, and alternate technologies.
7.1 COST ASSUMPTIONS
Thermal incineration and carbon adsorption costs were estimated using
the methods presented in the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-006, January 1990).4
Different costing procedures may produce different results. Industry
reports of the cost effectiveness of these control technologies vary
widely, and illustrate the fact that many capital and operating costs are
plant-specific. Installed ductwork costs were estimated using the method
of Vatavuk and Neveril.^ Installed fan costs for the capture system were
estimated using the Richardson Estimating Standards.6 Each model plant was
estimated to require 3000 feet of 1/8-inch thick carbon steel ductwork for
routing captured emissions to the control device. Actual ductwork
construction and length will vary on a plant-to-plant basis. The
feasibility and costs of venting VOC emissions to existing boilers are also
7-1
-------
discussed. The costs presented in this report are study-level cost
estimates of ±30 percent accuracy, as applied to the model facilities. All
costs are in 1988 dollars.
The VOC losses resulting from storage of finished products were not
considered in the cost analyses. It is assumed that only those VOC losses
occurring during production are controlled. Storage losses were not
addressed because individual facilities will have a wide range of storage
configurations that a limited number of model plants cannot accurately
address. High capture efficiency may be achieved in storage facilities
where, for example, total enclosure is possible, or where the exhaust
stream can be cascaded or recirculated. However, under less optimal
conditions, higher flow rates and lower capture efficiencies would be
expected in storage areas. Therefore, the overall cost effectiveness of
controlling storage losses is expected to be high relative to the amount of
emission reduction achieved.
In many cases, preliminary engineering work is required to design the
capture and control systems. For purposes of these cost estimates,
engineering costs are estimated at 30 percent of the purchased equipment
costs.^ The amount of engineering time required will depend on the
availability of information, as well as the size and layout of the
facility. Large facilities may have staff engineers to perform preliminary
design efforts, while small facilities may have to hire outside engineering
firms.
Capture efficiencies in the range of 50 to 75 percent are believed to
be representative of capture efficiency corresponding to a well-designed
capture system. It might be possible to achieve up to 100 percent capture
efficiency for those cases where VOCs can be piped directly from the
emission source to a control device. Costs for the three PSF sheet model
facilities assume 100 percent capture of scrap/repelletizing emissions
based on hard piping the emissions directly to the control device (i.e.,
carbon absorption or thermal incineration). Cost for the three EPS model
facilities assumes 60 percent capture efficiency of manufacturing
emissions. Additional cost analyses were prepared for the EPS model
facilities using 50 and 75 percent capture efficiencies. These additional
analyses provided a general indication of the impact of capture efficiency
on cost effectiveness of capture and control..
7-2
-------
Where hoods are used as the primary capture device, an efficiency as
high as 75 percent or higher may be achieved. As described in Section 6.0,
different processes afford different opportunities for capturing emissions.
Capture efficiencies of 75 percent and higher are more likely for certain
emissions points, such as scrap grinding units, than for less easily
contained processes, such as molding lines or thermoforming units. Actual
capture efficiency will depend on the hood design. Capture efficiencies of
75 percent or more will be obtained only in those cases where the hood is
designed for a specific application.8
Additionally, accurate estimates of variables such as pollutant
concentration and required air flow rates must be determined. Any change
occurring in these variables after the hood has been installed can
drastically reduce hood efficiency.9 It is desirable to achieve the
highest capture efficiency possible. A higher capture efficiency will
produce a lower waste gas stream flow rate because less air is required to
pull the same amount of pollutant into the capture and control system. A
lower air flow rate results in a less expensive control system.
Thermal incineration costs are based on installing units equipped with
a heat exchanger rated at 70 percent heat recovery. An estimate of 70
percent heat recovery is used since it is the highest heat recovery
considered reasonable by the OAQPS Control Cost Manual.10 The destruction
efficiency is assumed to be 98 percent, corresponding to an incineration
temperature of 1600°F and a nominal residence time of 0.75 seconds.11
Carbon adsorption efficiency is assumed to be an average of
90 percent over the lifetime of the carbon bed. Short term carbon
adsorption may be 95 percent or higher, but a more realistic time weighted
average is 90 percent. Annualized costs of carbon adsorption include
recovery credits. These credits are based on reuse for the PSF sheet model
plants and use as fuel in process steam boilers in the EPS bead model
plants. It is assumed that the VOC will not be disposed of as hazardous
waste. Disposal costs can range from $0.15 to $0.50 per pound, not
including transportation, which may vary with geographic location.12
Finally, all model plants are assumed to operate on an 8400 hours per
year schedule (50 weeks per year, 7 days per week, 24 hours per day). Many
small PSF facilities, particularly small EPS bead facilities, do not
operate continuously. Again, the variety of actual existing operating
7-3
-------
conditions cannot all be reflected in these cost estimates. All other
assumptions are stated in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual and are not
discussed in this document.
An additional consideration is the control of emissions at facilities
where VOC/CFC or VOC/HCFC mixtures are used as blowing agents. The costs
reported here reflect the control of VOC emissions only. Halogenated
compounds such as CFCs and HCFCs can produce combustion products such as
hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids, and may require the use of corrosion-
resistant materials and additional flue gas treatment. In carbon
adsorption, a larger bed volume may be required to achieve the same removal
efficiency when a mixture of blowing agents is used, since the adsorptive
capacity of carbon is typically less for halogenated compounds compared to
pentane. These considerations can cause significant increases in control
costs.
7.2 CONTROL COSTS
Tables 7-1 and 7-2 present emission reductions and cost estimates for
applying carbon adsorption and thermal incineration VOC control devices to
the EPS and PSF sheet model facilities. As discussed earlier, these costs
assume 100 percent capture of scrap/repelletizing emissions from the PSF
sheet model plants and 60 percent capture of manufacturing emissions from
the EPS model plants. These tables indicate that carbon adsorption may be
more cost effective than thermal incineration. The estimated annual costs
of incineration are significantly higher than carbon adsorption. For the
model facilities, the annualized costs of thermal incineration range from
approximately 1.7 to 3.4 times those of carbon adsorption. The waste gas
heat content ranges from approximately 5 to 9 BTU per pound. Therefore,
large amounts of auxiliary fuel are required to operate the incinerator to
achieve effective VOC reductions. This accounts for a major portion of the
annualized costs of thermal incineration.
The cost effectiveness of thermal incineration with 70 percent heat
recovery ranges from $4,405 to $6,950 per ton for the model EPS facilities
and from $4,050 to $11,100 per ton for the model PSF sheet facilities.
The cost effectiveness of carbon adsorption is estimated to be $1,405,
$2,010, and $3,330 per ton for the large, medium, and small model EPS
7-4
-------
TABLE 7-1. CONTROL BY CARBON ADSORPTION
BA Manufacturing
Plant
Type
EPS
PSF
Sheet
Plant
Size
(ton/yr)
1,500
3,000
4,500
1,000
5,000
10,500
Blowing Agent (BA) Used
Amount
Type
Pent one
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
X
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.8
4.8
4.8
(tons/yr)
90
180
270
48
240
504
Releases
X of BA Amount
Released
60
60
60
55
55
55
(ton/yr)
54
108
162
26
132
276
Overall
Overall BA Captured* BA Reduction"
Amount X Amount
X
36
36
36
35
35
35
(ton/yr)
32 32
65 32
97 32
17 32
84 32
176 32
(tpy)
29
58.
87
15
76
158
Total
Capital
Investment'
246,030
344,190
414,060
283,020
640.060
971.214
Total'
Annual i zed
Cost
96,470'
116,580'
122,300*
101,790*
166,320*
204,120*
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
3,330
2,010
1,405
6,790
2.190
1.290
'Assumes 60 percent capture of manufacturing emissions from EPS model plants and 100 percent capture of scrap grinding/repelletizing Missions from PSF sheet
model plants. Scrap grinding/repelletizing emissions are estimated to be 35 percent of the blowing agent content (See Table 5-2).
'Assumes 90 percent recovery of captured emissions.
'1988 dollars.
'Includes recovery credit for use of recovered pentane as fuel in process steam boiler.
'Includes recovery credit for reuse of pentane in manufacturing process.
-------
TABLE 7-2. CONTROL BY THERMAL INCINERATION
BA Manufacturing
Plant
Type
EPS
PSF
Sheet
Plant
Size
(ton/yr)
1.500
3,000
4.500
1,000
5,000
10,500
Blowing Agent (BA) Used
Amount
Type X
Pentane 6.0
Pentane 6.0
Pentane 6.0
Pentane 4.8
Pentane 4.8
Pentane 4.8
(tons/yr)
90
180
270
48
240
503
Releases
X of BA Amount
Released
60
60
60
55
55
55
(ton/yr)
54
108
162
26
132
276
Overall BA Captured*
Amount
X
36
36
36
35
35
35
(ton/yr)
32
65
97
17
84
176
Overall
BA Reduction"
X Amount
(toy)
32 31.4
32 63.7
32 95.1
34 16
34 82
34 172
Total
Capital
Investment'
433,715
534,990
609,600
437,219
779.740
1,037.600
Total
Annual i zed
Cost'
218,230
319,890
418,950
177,550
414,510
696,795
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
6.950
5.020
4,405
11,100
5,055
4,050
•Assumes 60 percent capture of manufacturing emissions from EPS model plants and 100 percent capture of scrap grinding/repelletizing emissions from PSF model
plants. Scrap grinding/repelletizing emissions are estimated to be 35 percent of the blowing agent content. (See Table 5-2)
"Assumes 98 percent destruction of captured emissions.
'1988 dollars.
-------
plants, respectively. Cost effectiveness for the large, medium, and small
model PSF sheet plants are $1,290, $2,190, and $6,790 per ton,
respectively.
As facilities decrease in size, the cost effectiveness ratio
increases, since the amount of VOC controlled decreases faster than the
annualized costs. Additionally, some facilities may have a capital worth
approximately equal to or less than the capital investment required to
purchase control equipment.13 Therefore, it is important to consider
annualized costs and the total capital investment in addition to the cost
effectiveness when determining whether controls should be required.
7.3 EFFECT OF CAPTURE EFFICIENCY ON COSTS
The cost effectiveness of the control technologies evaluated vary with
the capture efficiency associated with the different process operations.
While the capture efficiency for each operation may be dependent upon the
physical arrangement of equipment and mechanisms of emissions release, an
overall plant-wide capture efficiency was used in the calculations
performed in this study.
Capture efficiency is a function of the capture device inlet velocity
(face velocity) and the degree to which an emission source is enclosed by
the capture device. Capture efficiency is increased when the face velocity
or the degree of enclosure is increased. There are two ways to increase
the face velocity or the degree of enclosure and, therefore, the capture
efficiency: by increasing the air flow into the capture system, or by
decreasing the area between and perpendicular to the emission source and
the capture device (face area). In complete enclosure, the face area is
zero because the emission source is inside the collection device.
The costs of control devices are directly affected by increases in the
amount of gas to be treated. The resulting increase in capital and
annualized costs is likely to outweigh any increase in capture efficiency.
Therefore, the net result will be an increase in the cost effectiveness
ratio.
The face area may be decreased by moving the capture device inlet,
such as a hood, closer to the VOC emission source. The face area
decreases, but the volumetric flow rate of the air into the capture system
7-7
-------
remains constant. Since the same volume of air enters the capture system
through a smaller area, the face velocity, and correspondingly the capture
efficiency, increases. The cost effectiveness ratio decreases because more
VOC is captured at the same capital operating costs. However, it may not
be possible to install new hoods or move existing hoods closer to equipment
in existing facilities due to space limitations. Fully enclosing the
emission will increase capture efficiency but is more expensive and may be
technically difficult.
Carbon adsorption and thermal incineration costs are presented for
capture efficiencies of 50 and 75 percent for the model EPS facilities in
Tables 7-3 through 7-6. The cost effectiveness ratios for the EPS model
facilities at 50, 60, and 75 percent capture efficiencies are summarized in
Table 7-7. For each model facility the percent difference in cost
effectiveness between 50 and 75 percent capture efficiencies range from 27
to 32 percent for carbon adsorption, and 34 to 35 percent for thermal
incineration. The range of percent differences in cost effectiveness is
wider for carbon adsorption than for thermal incineration. There are two
main factors which account for the percent difference in costs of carbon
adsorption control at various control efficiencies. These factors
are amount of VOC controlled and the capital cost of the capture/control
system. A higher capture efficiency will require more carbon to adsorb the
additional VOC. More carbon requires a larger carbon adsorber unit and a
correspondingly larger capital investment. However, the increase in
capital cost is more than offset by the additional recovery of blowing
agent, and the net result is a lower cost effectiveness ratio.
The amount of VOC controlled is the primary factor affecting the cost
of thermal incineration. The percent difference in cost effectiveness is,
therefore, almost unaffected by facility size. Although slight differences
in auxiliary fuel requirements do occur with differences in capture
efficiency, the effect on capital cost if negligible.
The cost analysis indicates that, for EPS facilities ranging from 1500
to 4,500 tpy, carbon adsorption may be more cost effective than thermal
incineration at capture efficiencies of 50, 60, and 75 percent. For both
carbon adsorption and thermal incineration, the higher the capture
efficiency, the better the cost effectiveness ratio. A similar analysis of
PSF sheet extrusion is expected to show the same results, since the same
7-8
-------
TABLE 7-3. EPS MODEL FACILITIES CONTROL BY CARBON ADSORPTION AT 50 PERCENT CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Plant
Type
EPS
Plant
Size
(ton/yr)
1,500
3,000
4,500
Blowing Agent (BA) Used
Amount
Type
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
X (tons/yr)
6.0 90
6.0 180
6.0 270
BA Manufacturing
Releases
X of BA Amount
Released (ton/yr)
60 54
60 108
60 162
Overall BA Captured*
Amount
X (ton/yr)
30 27
30 54
30 81
Overall
BA Reduction"
X Amount
(tpy)
15 27
15 49
15 73
Total
Capital
Investment'
241,000
336,950
399,100
Total
Annuali zed
Cost'
95,970*
116.150*
121,500*
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
4,000
2,370
1,665
'Assumes 50 percent capture of manufacturing emissions.
'Assumes 90 percent recovery of captured emissions.
C1988 dollars.
'included recovery credit for use of recovered pentane as fuel in process steam boiler.
-------
TABLE 7-4. EPS MODEL FACILITIES CONTROL BY THERMAL INCINERATION AT 50 PERCENT CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Plant
Type
EPS
Plant
Size
(ton/yr)
1.500
3,000
4,500
Blowing Agent (BA) Used
Amount
Type
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
X (tons/yr)
6.0 90
6.0 180
6.0 270
BA Manufacturing
Releases
X of BA Amount
Released (ton/yr)
60 54
60 108
60 162
Overall BA Captured*
Amount
X (ton/yr)
30 27
30 54
30 81
Overall
BA Reduction*
X Amount
(tpy)
29 26.5
29 52.9
29 79.4
Total
Capital
Investment'
432.170
532.980
607,250
Total
Annual ized
Cost'
218,240
320,130
419,450
Cost
Effectiveness
(Vton)
8,235
6,050
5,280
'Assumes 60 percent capture of manufacturing emissions.
"Assumes 98 percent destruction of captured emissions.
C1988 dollars.
-------
TABLE 7-5. EPS MODEL FACILITIES CONTROL BY CARBON ADSORPTION AT 75 PERCENT CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Plant
Type
EPS
Plant
Size
(ton/yr)
1,500
3,000
4,500
Blowing Agent (BA) Used
Amount
Type
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
X (tons/yr)
6.0 90
6.0 180
6.0 270
BA Manufacturing
Releases
X of BA Amount
Released (ton/yr)
60 54
60 108
60 162
Overall BA Captured*
Amount
X (ton/yr)
45 41
45 81
45 122
Overall
BA Reduction"
X Amount
(tpy)
41 37
41 73
41 110
Total
Capital
Investment'
262,630
369,440
476,740
Total
Annual ized
Cost'
100,630
123,300
133,840
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton>
2,720
1.690
1,220
'Assumes 75 percent capture of manufacturing emissions.
'Assumes 90 percent recovery of captured emissions.
'1988 dollars.
-------
TABLE 7-6. EPS MODEL FACILITIES CONTROL BY THERMAL INCINERATION AT 75 PERCEMT CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
Plant
Type
EPS
Plant
Size
(ton/yr)
1,500
3,000
4,500
Blowing >
Type
Pentane
Pentane
Pentane
igent (BA) Used
Amount
X (tons/yr)
6.0 90
6.0 180
6.0 270
BA Manufacturing
Releases
X of BA Amount
Released (ton/yr)
60 54
60 108
60 162
Overall BA Captured*
Amount
X (ton/yr)
45 41
45 81
45 122
Overall
BA Reduction"
X Amount
(tpy)
0.44 40.2
0.44 79.4
0.44 119.6
Total
Capital
Investment'
432,140
532,940
607,210
Total
Annual! zed
Cost'
216,210
316,080
413.370
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
5,380
3,980
3,460
'Assumes 75 percent capture of manufacturing emissions.
"Assumes 98 percent destruction of captured emissions.
'1988 dollars.
-------
TABLE 7-7. COST EFFECTIVENESS ($/TON) AT 50, 60, AND 75 PERCENT
CAPTURE EFFICIENCIES - EPS MODEL FACILITIES
Plant
Size
(tons/yr)
1,500
3,000
4,500
Carbon Adsorption
Capture Efficiency
50 60 75
4,000 3,330 2,720
2,370 2,010 1,690
1,665 1,405 1,220
Thermal Incineration
Capture Efficiency
50 60 75
8,235 6,925 5,380
6,050 5,000 3,980
5,280 4,385 3,460
7-13
-------
driving forces would affect capture efficiencies and cost effectiveness.
However, the use of existing boilers as VOC controls may have substantial
effects on the thermal incineration cost effectiveness figures.
7.4 USE OF EXISTING BOILERS
Most EPS facilities will have existing boilers for process steam
production. If it is feasible to use existing boilers as VOC controls, the
only required capital investments involved are the ductwork, fans, dampers,
and controls required to capture the emissions and vent them to the boiler.
The estimated annualized costs of installing 3000 feet of ductwork and
a single fan meeting the air flow requirements for each of the EPS model
facilities are presented in Table 7-8. Capital costs were estimated using
the method of Vatavuk and Neveril for the ductwork and the Richardson
Estimating Standards for the fan requirements.14' 15 Capital cost factors
from the OAQPS Control Cost Manual were then applied to estimate the annual
costs.16 As discussed above, capture device design and installation are
site specific, and cost data are not available; therefore, costs for
capture devices (i.e., hoods or enclosures) are not included in these
figures.
The total annualized costs for ductwork range from 23 to 39 percent of
the total annualized costs required to apply carbon adsorption to the model
EPS facilities. Thus, substantial savings may be obtainable if existing
boilers can be used as control devices. The feasibility and cost
effectiveness of using existing boilers as control devices are difficult to
assess. This will depend on the capacity and number of the existing
boilers, required fuel to air ratio, and the operating temperature. In
some facilities, these limitations may preclude the use of existing boilers
as control devices. However, where this control strategy is feasible,
higher VOC destruction efficiencies may be obtained compared to carbon
adsorption, depending on design constraints.
7-14
-------
TABLE 7-8. ESTIMATED DUCT COST - 3000 FEET
Plant
Type
EPS
Plant
Size
(ton/yr)
1,500
3,000
4,500
Total
Investment
Cost ($)
200,840
291,220
364,650
Total
Annuallzed
Cost ($)
47,100
71,595
92,860
7-15
-------
REFERENCES
1. Tsitsopoulas, L. and M. Mills. Staff Report, Proposed Rule 1175:
Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular
Products (Foam). South Coast Air Quality Management District; Rule
Development Division, September 1989.
2. Telecon. Bagley, C., Radian Corporation with Tsitsopoulas, L., South
Coast Air Quality Management District, California, November 30, 1989.
Conversation concerning controls.
3. Coughanour, R. B. The Pentane Issue. Presented at 16th Annual SPI
Expanded Polystyrene Division Conference; March 17, 1988; San Diego,
California.
4. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Control Cost Manual. EPA-450/3-90-006.
January 1990.
5. Vatavuk, W. M., and R. Neveril, "Estimating Costs of Air Pollution
Control Systems, Part IV: Estimating the Size and Cost of Ductwork,"
Chemical Engineering. December 29, 1980, pp. 71-73.
6. The Richardson Rapid System Process Plant Construction estimating
Standards, Volume 4: Process Equipment, Richardson Engineering
Services, Inc. 1988 Section 100-110.
7. Vatavuk, W. M. and R. Neveril, "Estimating Costs of Air Pollution
Control Systems, Part II: Factors for Estimating Capital and
Operating Costs", Chemical Engineering, November 3, 1980, pp. 157-
162.
8. Telecon. Lynch, S., Radian Corporation with Erwin, T., Radian
Corporation. March 14, 1990. Conversation regarding capture
efficiencies.
9. See reference 8.
10. See reference 4.
11. See reference 4.
12. Telecon. Bagley, C., Radian Corporation with Henderson, G., GSX,
Inc. March 21, 1990. Conversation regarding waste disposal costs.
13. Personal communication with R. B. Coughanour, Private Consultant.
May 16, 1990.
14. See Reference 5.
15. See Reference 6.
16. See Reference 4.
7-16
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF PS FOAM PRODXTS
Company Name Location
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF PS FOAM PRODUCTS
EPS Beads PS Sheet PS Board
Company Name
Location
EPS Beads PS Sheet PS Board
Accurate Foam Co.
Advance Foam Plastics, Inc.
Alrlite Plastics Co.
Alamo Foam, Inc.
Albany International
Alcoa Building Products, Inc.
All American Enterprises
Allied Foam Products, Inc.
All-Pak, Inc.
Alsco Arco Building Products
American Excelsior Co.
American Foam Products
Amoco
Amoco
Amoco
Amoco
Amotex Plastics
Amxco, Inc.
ARCO Chemical Company
Argent Corp.
Arkansas Plastics
Arvron, Inc.
Ashland Chemical Co.
Astrofoam Molding Co., Inc.
Atlas Industries
BASF Corp.
Berstoff Corp.
Bird, Inc., Vinyl Products
Burnett Associates, Ltd.
Burton Packaging Co., Inc.
Cellofoam/Southeastern
Cell ox Corporation
Cellular Packaging Co.
Century Insulation Mfg., Co.
Chemtech International Co.
Chestnut Ridge Foam, Inc.
Cincinnati Foam Products, Inc.
Commodore Plastics
CONPROCO Corp.
Contour Products
Corrugated Paper Products, Inc.
La Porte, IN
Denver, CO
Omaha, NB
San Antonio, TX
Agawam, MA
Pittsburgh, PA
Albuquerque, NM
Gainesville, GA
Pittsburgh, PA
Akron, OH
Arlington, TX
Painsville, OH
Beech Island, SC
Chippawa Falls, WI
Lamirada, CA
Winchester, VA
Nashville. TN
Arlington, TX
Newtown Sq., PA
Novi, MI
Sulphur Springs, AR
Grand Rapids, MI
Dublin, OH
Chetsworth. CA
Ayer, MA
Parsippany, NJ
Charlotte, NC
Bardstown, KY
Syracuse, NY
Maspeth, NY
Conyers, GA
Reedsburg, WI
Auburn, WA
Union, MS
Houston, TX
Latrobe, PA
Cincinnati, OH
Hoi comb, NY
Concord, NH
Kansas City, KS
Amityville. NY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF PS FOAM PRODUCTS
Company Name
Location
EPS Beads PS Sheet PS Board
Crystal X Corporation
Custom Pack Inc.
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Dart Container Corporation
Davis Core and Pad Co.
Delta Foam Products Co.
Denver Plastics, Inc.
Dipak Manf. Co., Inc.
Diversified Foam, Inc.
Diversified Plastics Corp.
Diversifoam Products Inc.
Dixie/Marathon
Dixie/Marathon
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Dow Chemical Co., USA
Drew Foam Companies, Inc.
Drew Foam Division
Dyplest Foam Insulation, Ind.
Dyr elite Corporation
EFP Corp.
Epallon Foam Corp.
EPS Molding, Inc.
E. R. Carpenter
Erie Foam Products, Inc.
Expanded Plastics, Inc.
Falcon Manf., Inc.
Flextron Industries, Inc.
Florida Pak
Darby, PA
Malvern. PA
Corona, CA
Horse Cave, KY
Lavonia, GA
Leola, PA
Lodi, CA
Mason, MI
Plant City. FL
Tumwater, WA
Waxahachie, TX
Cave Spring, GA
Los Angeles, CA
Hudson, CO
Westport, NY
Yadkinville, NC
Nixa, MO
New Brighton, MN
Baltimore, MD
St. Louis, MO
Allyn's Point, CT
Carteret, NJ
Hanging Rock, OH
Joliet. IL
Magnolia, AR
Midland, MI
Pevely, MO
Seattle. UA
Torrance, CA
Monti cello, AR
Denver, CO
Miami, FL
New Bedford, MA
Elkhart, IN
Azusa, CA
Houston, TX
Fogelsville, PA
Erie, PA
Fenton, MI
Byron Center, MI
Aston, PA
Ocala, FL
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
X
X
X
XXX
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF PS FOAM PRODUCTS
Company Name
Foam Fabricators. Inc.
Foam Fabricators, Inc.
Foam Fabricators, Inc.
Foam Fabricators, Inc.
Foam Fabricators, Inc.
Foam Fabricators, Inc.
Foam Fabricators, Inc.
Foam Holders and Specialties
Foam Packaging, Ltd.
Foam Plastics of New England
Foam Products Corp.
Foamcor Packaging
Foamfab, Inc.
Foam-Lite Plastics, Inc.
FPI
Free-Flow Packaging Corp.
French Creek Products
Frostee Foam, Inc.
Genpak
Genpak
Genpak
Genpak
Genpak
Georgia Foam, Inc.
Geotech Systems Corp.
Gil man Brothers Co.
Glendale Plastics
Gotham Chicago Corp.
Handi-Kup Co.
Hastings Plastics Co.
Holland Industries, Inc.
Hydra-Matic Packing Co.
H. Muehl stein and Co.,Inc
Industrial Rubber & Plastics Co.
Insulaire, Inc.
Insulated Building Systems, Inc.
Insulation Corp. of America
Insulation Technology Inc.
Insul -Board, Inc.
International Polymers Corp.
Inter-pac Packaging Corp.
Location EPS Beads PS Sheet PS Board
Bloomsburg, PA
Compton, CA
El Dorado Springs. MO
Erie. PA
Mel rose Park, IL
New Albany, IN
St. Louis, MO
Cerrltos, CA XX
Harrison, NY XX
Prospect, CT XX
Maryland Heights, MO X X X
Langhorne, PA XX
Mansfield, MA XX
Knoxville, TN X X
Vicksburg, MS
Redwood City, CA
Royersford, PA XX
Antioch, IL
Long view, TX
Los Angeles, CA
Manchaug, MA
Middletown, NY
Montgomery, AL
Gainesville, GA X
Sterling. VA *
Oilman, CT XXX
Ludlow, MA
Chicago, IL
Corte Madera, CA
Santa Monica, CA X
Gil man, IA
Bethayres, PA XX
Greenwich, CT X
, Haverhill. MA XX
Gainesville, GA X
Sterling, VA X
Allentown, PA X X
Bridgewater, MA X X
Erie, PA *
Allentown. PA X
Memphis, TN XX
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF PS FOAM PRODUCTS
Company Name
Location
EPS Beads PS Sheet
PS Board
X
Jacobs Plastics, Inc.
James Global Service
Kalamazoo Plastics
Kaneka America Corp.
Keyes F1bre/Dolco
Keyes Fibre/Do!co
Keyes Flbre/Dolco
Keyes Flbre/Dolco
Keyes Flbre/Dolco
Kohler-General Corp.
Lakeside Plastics. Inc.
LexFoam Manf., Inc.
LI foam
Lin Manf. Company
Llnpac (Florida Container)
Llnpac (Florida Container)
MacDonald Plastics
Majeskl. H., Co., Inc.
Mars Cup Company, Inc.
Master Containers, Inc.
Matrix Applications Co.
Merryweather Foam, Inc.
Merryweather Foam, Inc.
Michigan Foam Products, Inc.
Mid-America Industries
Mobil Chemical Co.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Moldtek, Inc.
Monsanto Company
MTC America, Inc.
Netherland Rubber Co.
North Brothers Company
NPS Corp.
Nyman
Olsonite Corporation
Owens-Illinois
Adrian. MI
Salinas, CA
Kalamazoo, MI
New York, NY
Dallas, TX
Decatur, IN
Lawrencevllle, GA
Pico Rivera. CA
Wenatchee WA
Sheboygen Falls, WI
Oshkosh, WI
Lexington, KY
Baltimore. MD
Clinton, OK
Seabrlng, FL
Wilson. NC
New Baltimore. MI
Aston, PA
Huntington Station, NY
Mulberry. FL
Pasco. WA
Barberton, OH
Sylacauga, AL
Grand Rapids, MI
Mead. NE
Bakersfield, CA
Canandaigua, NY
Covlngton, GA
Frankfurt, IL
Stamford, CT
Temple, TX
Rome, GA
St. Louis, MO
New York, NY
Cincinnati, OH
Atlanta. GA
Perryville, MO
E. Providence, RI
Detroit, MI
Toledo, OH
X
X
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF PS FOAM PRODUCTS
»«»««««««»««•*«»*»«««»«»«*«**»»**
Company Name
Pacific Molded Foam
Packaging Alternatives Corp.
Packaging Concepts
Packaging Industries Group, Inc.
Packateers, Inc.
PacTuCo
Pac-Lite Products. Inc.
Pelafoam, Inc.
Petersen, H.K., Inc.
Pioneer Plastics
Plasteel Corporation
Plastic Holders. Inc.
Plastica Company, Inc.
Plastifoam
Plastlllte Corporation
PI asti -Kraft Corporation
Plastronic Packaging Corp.
Plastronlc Packaging Corp.
Plastronic Packaging Corp.
Plastronic Packaging Corp.
Plastronic Packaging Corp.
Plastronic Packaging Corp.
Plymouth Foam Products
Polly foam Corp.
Poly Foam Inc.
Poly Holding Corp. •
Preferred Plastics, Inc.
Primex Plastics Corp.
Radva Plastics Corp.
Rector Insulations
Reliable Plastics, Inc.
Rempac Foam Corp.
Republic Packaging Corp.
Robin II, Inc.
Scott Polymers, Inc.
SF Products, Inc.
SF Products, Inc.
SF Products, Inc.
Shelmark Industries, Inc.
Silvatrim Corp. of America
Snow Foam Products
Location EPS Beads
Long Beach, CA X
Fountain Valley, CA X
Zanesvllle, OH
Hyannls, MA
Edgemont, PA X
Goleta. CA X
Marine City, MI X
Richmond, CA
Falrview Park, OH X
Bedford, CA
Inkster, MI
Little Rock, AR X
Hatfield, PA
Rockville, CT
Omaha, NB
Ozona, FL
El Paso, TX
Grand Prairie, TX
Minneapolis, MN
Sparta, WI
Stevens ville, MI X
St. Charles, IL
Plymouth, WI
Northbridge. MA X
Lester Prairie, HN X
Haskell, NJ
Putnam, CT
West Carson, CA
Norristown, PA
Mt. Vernon, NY
Dunellen, NJ X
Clifton, NJ X
Chicago, IL X
Markesan, WI X
Fort Worth, TX X
Jackson, MS
Memphis. TN
N. Kansas City, HO
Columbus, OH
S. Plainfield, NJ
El Monte, CA
»B»SMK9BV«»KKZnS*BK«s:BaB
PS Sheet PS Board
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OR PS FOAM PRODXTS
Company Name
Stall man Company
Stanark Plastics, Inc.
Stanga Enterprises, Inc.
Styro-Molders Corp.
Sweetheart Plastics, Inc.
Sweetheart Plastics, Inc.
Sweetheart Plastics, Inc.
Sweetheart Plastics, Inc.
Sweetheart Plastics, Inc.
Sweetheart Plastics, Inc.
Tech Pak, Inc.
Tekmold, Inc.
Tempo Plastic Co.
Tex Styrene
Thermal Foams, Inc.
Therma-Tru Corp.
Thompson Industries
Topper Plastics, Inc.
Toyad Corporation
TRI Manf. and Sales Co.
Tri -State Foam Products, Inc.
Tuscarora Plastics, Inc.
T.H.E.M. of New Jersey
UC Industries, Inc.
UC Industries, Inc.
UC Industries, Inc.
United Foam Plastics Corp.
United Foam Plastics Corp.
United Foam Plastics Corp.
United Foam Plastics Corp.
United Foam Plastics Corp.
United Foam Plastics Corp.
U.S. Mineral Products Co.
Virginia Design Packaging Corp.
Western Foampak
Western Foampak
Western Foampak
Western Foampak
Western Insulfoam Corp.
W11 shire Foam Products, Inc.
W.R. Grace & Co.
W.R. Grace & Co.
Location EPS Beads PS Sheet PS Board
Providence, RI
Little Rock, AR X
T1tusv1lle, FL XX
Colorado Springs, CO X X
Chicago, IL
Conyers, GA
Dallas, TX
Los Angeles, CA
Owlngs Mills, MD
Wilmington, MA
Peabody, MA X
Muskegon, MI X
Bur bank, CA X
New Brighton. MN
Buffalo, NY XX
Toledo. OH X
Phoenix, AZ
Co vine. CA X
Latrobe. PA
Lebanon, OH XXX
Martinsville, VA X
New Brighton, PA XX
Mount Laurel, NJ XX
Parsippany, NJ XX
Rockford, IL
Tal Image, OH
Bridgeport, PA X
Fairburn. GA X
Georgetown, MA X
Klssimmee, FL X
Pawcatuck, CT X
Somerset. NJ X
Stanhope, NJ
Suffolk, VA X
Greensboro, NC
Malverne, AR
Oelwein, IA
Yakima, WA
Kent, WA *
Carson, CA
Indianapolis, IN
Reading, PA
Sources listed on following page
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPANIES INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING OF PS FOAM PRODUCTS
Company Name Location EPS Beads PS Sheet PS Board
Sources:
1. Society of the Plastics Industry. 1989 Membership Directory.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental Use.
U.S. EPA. ORO. Cincinnati. O.H., 1987.
3. Thomas Register of American Manufacturers: Products and Services. Thomas Publishing
Company, New York. N.Y., 1988.
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
CALCULATION OF VOC EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR POLYSTYRENE FOAM BLOWING
1. EPS FOAM BEADS
ASSUME: a) Beads are blown exclusively with VOCs (no CFCs) (Reference 2a)
INPUTS: a) 1988 Production: 5.58E+08 pounds (Reference 1)
b) Amount of VOC used for blowing: 6X of product weight (Reference 3)
c) VOC lost during processing: 85X
VOC EMISSIONS - 14.229 tons/year
2. PS FOAM SHEET
ASSUME: a) 60-70 X of all foam sheet Is blown with VOC 65% (Reference 2b)
INPUTS: a) 1988 Production: 6.5E+08 pounds (Reference 1)
b) Amount VOC used for blowing: 4.8X of product weight (Reference 3)
c) VOC lost during processing: 50% (Reference 3)
d) VOC lost over 1-2 months: SOX (Reference 3)
VOC PROCESS EMISSIONS: 5062 tons/year
VOC LOST OVER 1-2 MONTHS: 5062 tons/year
TOTAL: 10,124 tons/year
SUMMARY OF VOC EMISSION ESTIMATES
Process Emissions (TPY)
EPS Beads 14,229
Foam Sheet Blowing 10,124
24,353
B-l
-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
1. 1988 Production Numbers: "Resin Report 1989". Journal of Modern Plastics, January. 1989.
2. Percent of VOC vs CFCs used for blowing of different products:
a) EPS Beads - "CFC Issue Hits Home". Modern Plastics. October, 1987.
b) Foam Sheet - "Control Technology Overview Report: CFC Emissions From
Rigid Foam Manufacturing." Prepared by Radian Corporation for
the U. S. EPA. September 1987.
3. Percent of emissions occuring during processing and during curing:
a) Letter from Charles Krutchen. Mobil Corporation, to Susan R. Wyatt,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 9, 1990.
b) Telecon. McLean J., Radian Corporation with Cooper, D., Dow Chemical
Corporation, June 6, 1990. Conversation regarding PSF sheet extrusion.
c) Letter from Val W. Fisher. Amoco Foam Products Company to Susan R. Wyatt,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 7, 1990.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C-1. EPS BEAD PRODUCTION MODEL FACILITY (1500 TPY CAPACITY)
r>
i
CARBON ADSORPTION COST ESTIMATION
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Adsorption Time (hrs) *
Desorption Time (hrs) *
Number of Beds Adsorbing *
Number of Beds Desorbing «
Total Number of Beds *
Carbon Requirement (Ibs) *
Superficial Bed Vel. (ft/min) =
Carbon Bed Diameter (ft) -
Carbon Bed Length (ft) =
Carbon Bed Surface Area (ftA2)
INSTALLED COST
Carbon Cost ($) *
Vessel Cost ($) =
Additional Duct Length (ft) -
Additional Duct ($) =
Total Equipment Cost (S) =
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($)
Installation Direct Costs ($) =
Total Direct Costs($) =
3.569
180,000
60
60
90
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone. HU Working Cap.
(Ibs/hr) (ppm) (lb/lb of C)
7 175 72 0.045
12
1.5
2
1
3
2,777
100
4.77
5.73
121
5,554
11.343
1,000
36,852
114,466
135,070
40,521
175,591
THERMAL INCINERATION COST ANALYSIS
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
Blowing Agent
Pentane
3.569
180.000
60
60
98
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone.
(Ibs/hr) (PPM)
Heat of
Combustion
(BTU/lb)
Incinerator Operating Temperature (F)
Fractional Energy Recovery *
Preheater Inlet Temperature (F) «
Preheater Outlet Temperature (F) -
Flue Gas Outlet Temperature (F) «
Auxilliary Fuel Requirements (scfm) •
Total Flow Rate *
INSTALLED COST
Equipment Cost ($) * 165,491
Additional Duct Length (ft) - 1,000
Additional Duct ($) = 36,852
Total Equipment Cost ($) = 202,343
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($) = 238,765
Installation Direct Costs ($) - 71,630
Total Direct Costs ($) = 310,395
Total Indirect Costs ($) = 121,770
Total Capital Investment ($) * 432,165
175
1.600
0.70
77
1.143
534
47
3,615
72
-------
Total Indirect Costs (*) « 68,886
Total Capital Investment ($) * 244,477
ANNUAL COSTS
Steam Requirement (Ibs/year) - 204,120
Steam Cost (S/1000 Ibs) - 6.00
Steam Costs ($/year) « 1,225
Cooling Water Req. (gal/yr) - 700,132
Cooling Water Cost (S/1000 gal) « 0.20
Cooling Water Cost ($/yr) » 140
MF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) - 51,730
OF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) * 2,236
CW Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 13,738
Total Elec. Req. (Kw-hr/yr) = 67,703
Electricity Cost ($/Kw-hr) * 0.06
Electricity Cost ($/yr) « 4,062
Carbon Replacement Cost (S) « 1,619
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) « 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) * 15
Operating Labor Cost <$/yr) • 9,056
Maintenace Labor & Mat. ($/yr) - 19,924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) - 36,026
Equipment Life (yrs) = 10
Interest Rate (X) * 10
Capital Recovery Factor * 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) * 38,548
Taxes, Insurance, G&A ($) * 27,167
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) = 101,741
Recovery Credit Based on Reuse
Recovered Solvent (lb/yr) 58.320
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) = 0.35
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) = 20,412
ANNUAL COSTS
Power Fan Elc. (kW-hr/yr) 107,674
Electricity Cost ($/kW-hr) 0.06
Electricity Cost ($) « 6.460
Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (scfm) • 47
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($/scf) » 0.0033
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($) - 77,471
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) 604
Labor Cost (*/hr) « 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) 9,056
Maintenance Labor t Mat. ($/yr) » 19,924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) - 112,911
Equipment Life (yrs) * 10
interest Rate (X) - 10
Capital Recovery Factor » 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) - 70,333
Taxes, Insurance, G&A (*) * 34,675
TOTAL ANNUAL IZED COST (*) 217,918
Controlled emissions (tpy) 32
Cost effectiveness ($/ton) 6,863
-------
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace No. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovered Solvent (gal/yr) * 8,331
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent (S/gal) * 1.00
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) * 8,331
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace Natural Gas
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 58,320
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) = 0.049
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) * 2,842
Controlled Emissions (tpy) 29
Cost effectiveness($/ton) 2,789
(based on recovery value)
Cost effectiveness($/ton) 3,203
(based on fuel value-No. 2 Fuel Oil)
Cost effectfveness($/ton) 3,392
(based on fuel value-Natural Gas)
-------
APPENDIX C-2. EPS BEAD PRODUCTION MODEL FACILITY (3000 TPY CAPACITY)
CARBON ADSORPTION COST ESTIMATION
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Adsorption Time (hrs) *
Desorption Time (hrs) «
Number of Beds Adsorbing «
Number of Beds Desorbing '
Total Number of Beds *
Carbon Requirement (Ibs) =
Superficial Bed Vel. (ft/min) =
Carbon Bed Diameter (ft) *
Carbon Bed Length (ft) =
Carbon Bed Surface Area (ftA2)
INSTALLED COST
Carbon Cost (*) -
Vessel Cost ($) =
Additional Duct Length (ft) *
Additional Duct ($) =
Total Equipment Cost ($) =
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($)
installation Direct Costs (() =
Total Direct Costs($) =
7,024
360,000
60
60
90
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone. MU Working Cap.
12
1.5
2
1
3
5,554
100
6.69
5.76
191
11.109
16,142
1,000
53,525
160,206
189,044
56,713
245,757
THERMAL INCINERATION COST ANALYSIS
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
(Ibs/hr) (ppm) (Ib/lb of C)
14 178 72 0.045
Blowing Agent
Pentane
7.024
360,000
60
60
98
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone.
(Ibs/hr) (ppm)
MU
Heat of
Combustion
(BTU/lb)
14
Incinerator Operating Temperature (F)
Fractional Energy Recovery *
Preheater Inlet Temperature (F) «
Preheater Outlet Temperature (F) «
Flue Gas Outlet Temperature (F) »
AuxHilary Fuel Requirements (scfrn) •
Total Flow Rate «
INSTALLED COST
Equipment Cost ($) =
Additional Duct Length (ft) *
Additional Duct ($) =
Total Equipment Cost ($) =
Total Purchased Equip. Cost (S)
Installation Direct Costs ($) -
Total Direct Costs ($) =
Total Indirect Costs ($) =
Total Capital Investment ($) «
196,017
1,000
53,525
249,542
294,459
88,338
382,797
150,174
532,972
178
1.600
0.70
77
1,143
534
92
7.116
72
-------
Total Indirect Costs ($) =
Total Capital Investment ($)
96.412
342,169
01
ANNUAL COSTS
Steam Requirement (Ibs/year) « 408,240
Steam Cost (J/1000 Ibs) - 6.00
Steam Costs ($/year) * 2,449
Cooling Water Req. (gal/yr) - 1,400,263
Cooling Water Cost (S/1000 gal) = 0.20
Cooling Water Cost ($/yr) - 280
MF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 103,282
DF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) - 4,537
CW Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) » 27,475
Total Elec. Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 135,294
Electricity Cost ($/Kw-hr) * 0.06
Electricity Cost ($/yr) « 8,118
Carbon Replacement Cost ($) * 3.238
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) - 604
Labor Cost (S/hr) > 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) * 9,056
Maintenace Labor & Mat. (J/yr) « 19.924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) « 43,065
Equipment Life (yrs) = 10
Interest Rate (X) * 10
Capital Recovery Factor * 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) = 53,207
Taxes, Insurance, G&A ($) = 31,075
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) = 127.347
Recovery Credit Based on Reuse
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 116,640
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) = 0.35
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) = 40,824
ANNUAL COSTS
Power Fan Elc. (kW-hr/yr) 211.928
Electricity Cost ($/kW-hr) 0.06
Electricity Cost ($) - 12,716
Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (scfm) - 92
Auxiliary Fuel Cost (t/scf) « 0.0033
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($) * 152.344
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) « 15
Operating Labor Cost (i/yr) 9,056
Maintenance Labor & Mat. ($/yr) - 19,924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) « 194,040
Equipment Life (yrs) > 10
Interest Rate (X) * 10
Capital Recovery Factor * 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) » 86,739
Taxes, Insurance, G&A ($) * 38,707
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) 319,485
Controlled emissions (tpy) 64
Cost effectiveness (S/ton) 5,031
-------
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace Mo. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovered Solvent (gal/yr) - 16,663
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/gal) « 1.00
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) - 16,663
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace Natural Gas
Recovered Solvent
-------
APPENDIX C-3. EPS BEAD PRODUCTION MODEL FACILITY (4500 TPY CAPACITY)
CARBON ADSORPTION COST ESTIMATION
DESIGN BASIS
Max 1mm Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Adsorption Time (hrs) *
Desorption Time (hrs) *
<~> Number of Beds Adsorbing «
•^ Number of Beds Desorbing -
Total Number of Beds *
Carbon Requirement (Ibs) *
Superficial Bed Vel. (ft/min) =
Carbon Bed Diameter (ft) «
Carbon Bed Length (ft) =
Carbon Bed Surface Area (ft"2)
INSTALLED COST
Carbon Cost ($) «
Vessel Cost ($) *
Additional Duct Length (ft) *
Additional Duct ($) *
Total Equipment Cost ($) -
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($)
Installation Direct Costs ($) =
Total Direct Costs($) =
Total indirect Costs ($) -
10.593
540,000
60
60
90
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone. HU Working Cap.
(Ibs/hr) (ppm) (Ib/lb of C)
21 177 72 0.045
12
1.5
2
1
3
8,331
100
6.66
7.95
236
16,663
19,013
1,000
67,097
192,142
226,728
68,018
294,746
115,631
THERMAL INCINERATION COST ANALYSIS
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
Blowing Agent
Pentane
10,593
540,000
60
60
98
Avg. Heat of
Loading Gas Cone. MU Combustion
(Ibs/hr) (ppm) (BTU/lb)
72 9
21
Incinerator Operating Temperature (F)
Fractional Energy Recovery *
Preheater Inlet Temperature (F) «
Preheater Outlet Temperature (F) •
Flue Gas Outlet Temperature (F) •
Auxilliary Fuel Requirements (scfm) «
Total Flow Rate «
INSTALLED COST
Equipment Cost ($) *
Additional Duct Length (ft) =
Additional Duct ($) =
Total Equipment Cost ($) *
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($)
Installation Direct Costs ($) =
Total Direct Costs ($) =
Total Indirect Costs ($) =
Total Capital Investment ($) =
ANNUAL COSTS
217.220
1.000
67,097
284,317
335,494
100,648
436,142
171,102
607,244
177
1,600
0.70
77
1,143
534
138
10.731
-------
Total Capital Investment ($)
410,377
ANNUAL COSTS
Steam Requirement (Ibs/year) * 612,360
Steam Cost (S/1000 Ibs) - 6.00
Steam Costs ($/year) « 3,674
Cooling Water Req. (gal/yr) » 2,100,395
Cooling Water Cost (S/1000 gal) - 0.20
Cooling Water Cost ($/yr) - 420
MF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) - 16,618
DF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 735
CW Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) » 41,213
Total Elec. Req. (Kw-hr/yr) - 58,565
Electricity Cost ($/Kw-hr) * 0.06
Electricity Cost (*/yr) - 3,514
Carbon Replacement Cost (S) - 4,857
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) « 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) « 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) * 9,056
Maintenace Labor t Mat. (S/yr) « 19,924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) - 41,445
Equipment Life (yrs) * 10
Interest Rate (X) * 10
Capital Recovery Factor • 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs (*/yr> = 63,068
Taxes, Insurance, G&A ($) = 33,803
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) * 138,316
Recovery Credit Based on Reuse
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 174.960
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) * 0.35
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr> = 61,236
Power Fan Elc. (kW-hr/yr) 319,602
Electricity Cost ($/kW-hr) 0.06
Electricity Cost ($) « 19,176
Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (scfm) - 138
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($/scf) - 0.0033
Auxiliary Fuel Cost <$) * 229,815
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) * 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) 9,056
Maintenance Labor t Mat. ($/yr) - 19,924
Total Direct Costs (S/yr) - 277,971
Equipment Life (yrs) * 10
Interest Rate (X) = 10
Capital Recovery Factor * 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) « 98,826
Taxes, Insurance, G&A (S) - 41,678
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST (S) 418.475
Controlled emissions (tpy) 95
Cost effectiveness ($/ton) 4,393
-------
o
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace No. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovered Solvent (gal/yr) * 24,994
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent (*/gal> * 1.00
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) « 24,994
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace Natural Gas
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 174,960
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent (*/lb) « 0.049
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) * 8,526
Controlled Emissions (tpy) 87
Cost effectivenessCS/ton) 881
(based on recovery value)
Cost effectiveness($/ton) 1,295
(based on fuel value-No. 2 Fuel Oil)
Cost effectiveness($/ton) 1,484
(based on fuel value-Natural Gas)
-------
APPENDIX C-4. PSF SHEET PRODUCTION MODEL FACILITY (1000 TPY CAPACITY)
o
I
CARBON ADSORPTION COST ESTIMATION
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Adsorption Time (hrs) «
Desorption Time (hrs) *
Number of Beds Adsorbing *
Number of Beds Desorbing «
Total Number of Beds «
Carbon Requirement (Ibs) «
Superficial Bed Vel. (ft/min) =
Carbon Bed Diameter (ft) *
Carbon Bed Length (ft) *
Carbon Bed Surface Area (ft'2)
INSTALLED COST
Carbon Cost ($) »
Vessel Cost ($) *
Additional Duct Length (ft) =
Additional Duct ($) »
Total Equipment Cost ($) =
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($)
Installation Direct Costs ($) -
Total Direct Costs($) =
3,000
96,000
60
60
90
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone. Working Cap.
(Ibs/hr) (ppm) MW (Ib/lb of C)
16
1.5
2
1
3
1,975
90
4.61
5.32
110
3,950
10,519
1.000
33,471
104,723
123,574
37,072
160,646
111 72
0.045
THERMAL INCINERATION COST ANALYSIS
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
3,000
96,000
60
60
98
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Incinerator Operating Temperature (F)
Fractional Energy Recovery «
Preheater Inlet Temperature (F) *
Preheater Outlet Temperature (F) *
Flue Gas Outlet Temperature (F) »
Auxilliary Fuel Requirements (scfm) «
Total Flow Rate *
INSTALLED COST
Equipment Cost ($) -
Additional Duct Length (ft) *
Additional Duct ($) *
Total Equipment Cost ($) *
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($) =
Installation Direct Costs ($) =
Total Direct Costs (() =
Total Indirect Costs ($) =
Total Capital Investment ($) «
Avg.
Loading
(Ibs/hr)
Gas Cone.
(PP«)
Heat of
Combustion
(BTU/lb)
158,466
1,000
33,660
192,126
226,709
68,013
294,721
115,621
410.343
111 72
1,600
0.70
77
1,143
534
40
3,039
T avg. • 1372
C(77) • 0.24
C(T)« 0.29
Avg. C • 0.26
-------
Total Indirect Costs ($) =
Total Capital Investment ($) =
63,023
223,668
O
ANNUAL COSTS
Steam Requirement (Ibs/year) « 108.864
Steam Cost ($/1000 Ibs) - 6.00
Steam Costs ($/year) - 653
Cooling Water Req. (gal/yr) « 373.404
Cooling Water Cost (S/1000 gal) = 0.20
Cooling Water Cost (*/yr) « 75
MF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 30,659
OF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) - 841
CW Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) - 7,327
Total Elec. Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 38,827
Electricity Cost ($/Kw-hr) = 0.06
Electricity Cost (S/yr) « 2.330
Carbon Replacement Cost ($) * 1,151
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) - 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) * 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) = 9,056
Maintenace Labor t Mat. (S/yr) « 19,924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) « 33,189
Equipment Life (yrs> = 10
Interest Rate (X) * 10
Capital Recovery Factor « 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs (S/yr) = 35,519
Taxes, Insurance, G&A ($) = 26,335
TOTAL ANNUAL IZED COST ($) = 95,043
Recovery Credit Based on Reuse
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 31,104
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) = 0.35
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) = 10,886
ANNUAL COSTS
Power Fan Elc. (kW-hr/yr) 90,522
Electricity Cost (S/kW-hr) 0.06
Electricity Cost <$> « 5,431
Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (scfm) - 40
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($/scf) » 0.0033
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($) * 66,454
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) « 15
Operating Labor Cost (S/yr) 9.056
Maintenance Labor I Mat. (S/yr) * 19,924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) « 100.865
Equipment Life (yrs) - 10
Interest Rate (X) - 10
Capital Recovery Factor » 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) * 66,781
Taxes, Insurance, G&A (S) ' 33,802
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) 201,448
Controlled emissions (tpy) 17
Cost effectiveness (Vton) 11,896
-------
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace No. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovered Solvent (8«l/y> " *«*43
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent (i/gal) « 1.00
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) * 4,443
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace Natural Gas
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 31,104
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) « 0.049
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) « 1,516
Controlled Emissions (tpy) 16
Cost effectivenessCS/ton) 5,411
(based on recovery value)
Cost effectiveness($/ton) 5,826
(based on fuel value-No. 2 Fuel Oil)
o cost effectfveness(*/ton) 6,014
^ (based on fuel value-Natural Gas)
-------
APPENDIX C-5. PSF SHEET PRODUCTION MODEL FACILITY (5000 TPY CAPACITY)
CARBON ADSORPTION COST ESTIMATION
DESIGN BASIS
THERMAL INCINERATION COST ANALYSIS
DESIGN BASIS
Maxim* Total Flow (cfm) 15,426
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year) 480,000
Production Losses (X) 60
Capture Efficiency (X) 60
Control Efficiency (X) 90
Maximum Total Flow (cfm) 15,426
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year) 480,000
Production Losses (X) 60
Capture Efficiency (X) 60
Control Efficiency (X) 98
n
i
u>
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Adsorption Time (hrs) =
Desorption Time (hrs) *
Number of Beds Adsorbing «
Number of Beds Desorbing *
Total Number of Beds =
Carbon Requirement (Ibs) =
Superficial Bed Vel. (ft/min) =
Carbon Bed Diameter (ft) >
Carbon Bed Length (ft) =
Carbon Bed Surface Area (ft"2)
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone. Working Cap.
(Ibs/hr) (ppni) MW (Ib/lb of C)
19
16
1.5
2
1
3
9,874
90
4.88
17.56
306
108 72
0.045
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Incinerator Operating Temperature (F)
Fractional Energy Recovery *
Preheater Inlet Temperature (F) •
Preheater Outlet Temperature (F) *
Flue Gas Outlet Temperature (F) -
Auxilliary Fuel Requirements (scfm) «
Total Flow Rate «
INSTALLED COST
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone.
(Ibs/hr) (ppM) MW
19
Heat of
Combustion
(BTU/lb)
T avg.
C<77)
C(T)«
1372
0.24
0.29
108 72
1,600
0.70
77
1,143
534
206
15,632
Avg. C • 0.26
INSTALLED COST
Carbon Cost ($) « 19,749
Vessel Cost ($) = 23,301
Additional Duct Length (ft) = 1,000
Additional Duct ($) * 82,539
Total Equipment Cost ($) = 227,232
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($) * 268,133
Installation Direct Costs ($) = 80,440
Total Direct Costs(S) = 348,573
Equipment Cost ($) = 238,637
Additional Duct Length (ft) = 1,000
Additional Duct ($) = 83,112
Total Equipment Cost ($) = 321,749
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($) = 379,664
Installation Direct Costs ($) - 113,899
Total Direct Costs ($) = 493,563
Total Indirect Costs ($) = 193,629
Total Capital Investment ($) = 687,192
-------
Total Indirect Costs (*) •
Total Capital Investment ($>
136,748
485,321
ANNUAL COSTS
Steam Requirement (Ibs/year) « 544,320
Steam Cost ($/1000 Ibs) « 6.00
Steam Costs ($/year) « 3,266
Cooling Water Req. (gal/yr) - 1,867,018
Cooling Water Cost (S/1000 gal) - 0.20
Cooling Water Cost ($/yr) » 373
MF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 24,187
OF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) * 652
CW Electricity Req. (Kn-hr/yr> = 36,633
Total Elec. Req. (Kw-hr/yr) = 61,473
Electricity Cost ($/ICw-hr) * 0.06
Electricity Cost ($/yr) - 3,688
o Carbon Replacement Cost ($) * 5,757
I
** Operating Labor (hrs/yr) • 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) * 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) * 9,056
Maintenace Labor I Mat. (S/yr) * 19,924
Total Direct Costs (S/yr) * 42,064
Equipment Life (yrs) = 10
Interest Rate (X) = 10
Capital Recovery Factor * 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) = 74,576
Taxes, Insurance, G&A (S) = 36,801
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) = 153,441
Recovery Credit Based on Reuse
Recovered Solvent «lb/yr> 155,520
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) = 0.35
Seus® Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) = 54,432
ANNUAL COSTS
Power Fan Elc. (kW-hr/yr) 465.546
Electricity Cost ($/kW-hr) 0.06
Electricity Cost {$) « 27,933
Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (scfm) « 206
Auxiliary Fuel Cost <»/scf) - 0.0033
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($) « 342.095
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) « 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) 9,056
Maintenance Labor t Mat. ($/yr) « 19.924
Total Direct Costs <$/yr) « 399,008
Equipment Life (yrs) * 10
Interest Rate (X) - 10
Capital Recovery Factor « 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) « 111,837
Taxes, Insurance, GtA ($) - 44,876
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) 555,721
Controlled emissions (tpy) 85
Cost effectiveness (S/ton) 6,563
-------
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace No. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovered Solvent (gal/yr) - 22,217
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/gal) > 1.00
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) > 22.217
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace Natural Gas
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 155,520
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/lb) - 0.049
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/yr) = 7,579
Controlled Emissions (tpy) 78
••s«xxx*s*«aBMZKz**s*«xssa*s:csscssEKX3:xs:s:caxxxcsx
Cost effectivenessCS/ton) 1,273
(based on recovery value)
Cost effectivenessCS/ton) 1,688
(based on fuel value-No. 2 Fuel Oil)
n Cost effectiveness($/ton) 1,876
,L (based on fuel value-Natural Gas)
-------
APPENDIX C-6. PSF SHEET PRODUCTION MODEL FACILITY (10,500 TPY CAPACITY)
n
CARBON ADSORPTION COST ESTIMATION
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Adsorption Time (hrs) «
Desorption Time (hrs) *
Number of Beds Adsorbing *
Number of Beds Desorbing *
Total Number of Beds *
Carbon Requirement (Ibs) =
Superficial Bed Vel. (ft/min) "
Carbon Bed Diameter (ft) «
Carbon Bed Length (ft) =
Carbon Bed Surface Area (ft*2)
INSTALLED COST
Carbon Cost ($) *
Vessel Cost ($) =
Additional Duct Length (ft) *
Additional Duct ($) *
Total Equipment Cost ($) =
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($)
Installation Direct Costs ($) -
Total Direct Costs($> =
32.352
1.008.000
60
60
90
Avg.
Loading Gas Cone. Working Cap.
(Ibs/hr) (ppm) MU (Ib/lb of C)
39
16
1.5
2
1
3
20,736
90
4.88
36.78
602
41,472
39,391
1,000
124,502
357,990
422,428
126,728
549,157
108 72
0.045
THERMAL INCINERATION COST ANALYSIS
DESIGN BASIS
Maximum Total Flow (cfm)
Total Solvent Usage (Ibs/year)
Production Losses (X)
Capture Efficiency (X)
Control Efficiency (X)
32.352
1,008,000
60
60
98
Blowing Agent
Pentane
Incinerator Operating Temperature (F)
Fractional Energy Recovery *
Preheater Inlet Temperature (F) •
Preheater Outlet Temperature (F) «
Flue Gas Outlet Temperature (F) •
Auxilliary Fuel Requirements (scfm) *
Total Flow Rate «
INSTALLED COST
Equipment Cost ($) =
Additional Duct Length (ft) *
Additional Duct ($> *
Total Equipment Cost ($) *
Total Purchased Equip. Cost ($) *
Installation Direct Costs ($) «
Total Direct Costs ($) =
Total Indirect Costs ($) =
Total Capital Investment ($) =
Avg. Heat of T avg. • 1372
Loading Gas Cone. Combustion C(77) « 0.24
(Ibs/hr) (ppM) MU (BTU/lb) C(T)- 0.29
39
287,177
1,000
125.439
412,615
486,886
146,066
632,952
248,312
881,263
108 72
1,600
0.70
77
1,143
534
431
32,783
Avg. C • 0.26
-------
Total Indirect Costs ($) =
Total Capital Investment ($)
215,438
764.595
ANNUAL COSTS
Steam Requirement (Ibs/year) * 1,143,072
Steam Cost (J/1000 Ibs) - 6.00
Steam Costs ($/year) « 6,858
Cooling Water Req. (gal/yr) * 3,920,737
Cooling Water Cost (J/1000 gal) - 0.20
Cooling Water Cost (S/yr) « 784
MF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) « 50,726
OF Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) * 1,369
CW Electricity Req. (Kw-hr/yr) » 76,930
Total Elec. Req. (Kw-hr/yr) = 129,026
Electricity Cost ($/Kw-hr) = 0.06
Electricity Cost (S/yr) * 7,742
o Carbon Replacement Cost ($) * 12,089
>—•
^ Operating Labor (hrs/yr) * 604
Labor Cost ($/hr) « 15
Operating Labor Cost <$/yr) « 9,056
Maintenace Labor & Hat. ($/yr) * 19,924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) * 56,453
Equipment Life (yrs) = 10
Interest Rate (X) = 10
Capital Recovery Factor « 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs ($/yr) = 115,178
Taxes, Insurance, G&A ($) - 47,972
TOTAL ANNUAL I ZED COST ($) = 219,603
Recovery Credit Based on Reuse
Recovered Solvent (Ib/yr) 326,592
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent (S/lb) = 0.35
Reuse Value of Rec. Solvent <$/yr) = 114,30?
ANNUAL COSTS
Power Fan Elc. (kW-hr/yr) 976,352
Electricity Cost ($/kU-hr) 0.06
Electricity Cost ($) - 58,581
Auxiliary Fuel Consumption (scfm) * 431
Auxiliary Fuel Cost (S/scf) « 0.0033
Auxiliary Fuel Cost ($) * 717,418
Operating Labor (hrs/yr) 604
Labor Cost (S/hr) * 15
Operating Labor Cost ($/yr) 9,056
Maintenance Labor I Mat. ($/yr) - 19.924
Total Direct Costs ($/yr) « 804,979
Equipment Life (yrs) « 10
Interest Rate (X) * 10
Capital Recovery Factor * 0.163
Capital Recovery Costs (i/yr) - 143,422
Taxes, Insurance, G&A ($) - 52,639
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($) 1,001,039
Controlled emissions (tpy) 178
Cost effectiveness ($/ton) 5,630
-------
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace No. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovered Solvent (gal/yr) * 46.656
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent ($/gal) * 1.00
Fuel Value of Rec. Solvent <$/yr) - 46,656
Recovery Credit Based on Fuel Use to Replace Natural Gas
Recovered Solvent 645
(based on recovery value)
Cost effectivenessCS/ton) 1,059
(based on fuel value-No. 2 Fuel Oil)
o Cost effectiveness($/ton) 1,247
»- (based on fuel value-Natural Gas)
oo
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
450/3-90-020
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Control fo VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam
Manufacturing
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, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1990
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4378
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Work Assignment Manager: David Beck, (919) 541-5421
16. ABSTRACT
This document contains information on polystyrene
associated emissions of volatile organic compounds
and cost estimates for emission control.
foam manufacturing processes,
, emission control methods,
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFI
Polystyrene Foam
Volatile organic compounds
Foam blowing
Emission control
Expanded polystyrene
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURI
Release Unlimited 20. SECURI
ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS ATI Field/Group
TY CLASS (Tins Report} 21. NO. OF, PAGES
4-J'yit-J,' JT "•'•' '*'•', ;''T >,..", " i i& I.1
3311'ied ' liu ,,
TY CLASS fTliispage't: ' • '•*' .' 2'2 PRICE;
EPA Form 2220-1 (R»v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
-------
|