United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
11/
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-84-118 Nov. 1985
Project Summary
Control of Industrial VOC
Emissions by Catalytic
Incineration
Michael A. Palazzolo
This two-phase study was part of a
comprehensive assessment of the
performance, suitability, and costs of
various technologies to control the
emission of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including the use of catalytic
incineration. In Phase 1, information
was assembled from the literature on
the use and cost of using catalytic
incineration for VOC control. Phase 2
was a testing program (involving eight
industrial catalytic incinerators) designed
to increase the catalytic incinerator
performance data base.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in nine separate volumes (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
The emission of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from industrial plants
significantly increases ambient levels of
photochemical oxidants, ozone, and
smog. Control of industrial VOC emis-
sions, therefore, can result in substantial
environmental benefits. Catalytic incin-
eration has been evaluated as an indus-
trial VOC control technology. This study
was part of a comprehensive assessment
of the performance, suitability, and costs
of various VOC control technologies.
Objectives of the program were two-fold:
(1) to provide an overview of how catalytic
incineration is applied to control industrial
VOC emissions and to assess the overall
performance typically achieved in various
applications, and (2) to gather actual
performance data through an EPA-
sponsored testing program on operating
industrial catalytic incinerators.
These objectives were met in two
phases. In Phase 1, information was
assembled from the literature on the use
and cost of using catalytic incineration for
VOC control. This work involved: (1) a
review of current and developing catalytic
incineration technology, (2) an assess-
ment of the overall performance of
catalytic incinerators, (3) a review of
applications where catalytic incinerators
are used, (4) a comparative analysis of
catalytic incineration with other compet-
ing VOC controls, (5) an examination of
available methods for testing emissions
from catalytic incinerators, and (6) an
assessment of the need for additional
performance test data.
Based on the recommendations of
Volume 1 of this report (prepared follow-
ing Phase 1), that additional performance
test data were needed to more fully
characterize catalytic incinerators. Phase
2 was initiated. Phase 2, designed to
increase the catalytic incinerator perform-
ance data base by testing eight catalytic
incinerators at industrial sites, included
site identification and selection, test plan
development, and performance data
collection.
The output from Phase 2 consisted of a
series of reports documenting the per-
formance of eight catalytic incinerators at
six industrial sites. Performance was
measured at several process conditions
at each site visited. The results of Phase 2
are presented in Volume 2 (the final
report) and in Volumes 3 through 8 (test
reports on the individual sites).
This Summary is divided into two parts,
reflecting the work under Phases 1 and 2
(emissions control by catalytic incinera-
-------
tion and catalytic incinerator perform-
ance, respectively).
Phase 1. Control of Industrial
VOC Emissions by Catalytic
Incineration
This portion of the Summary describes
the technology, performance, and current
usage and applications; compares cataly-
tic incineration with other VOC control
alternatives; discusses test methods; and
indicates a need for additional test data.
Technology Description
The destruction of VOCs in an incinera-
tor involves high temperature oxidation
(burning) of the VOCs to carbon dioxide
and water. Conventional thermal incin-
erators typically use a supplementary fuel
(e.g., fuel oil or natural gas) to heat the
VOC-containing waste gas to the required
oxidation temperature, which depends on
the VOCs being oxidized, mixing and
residence time, and the desired destruc-
tion efficiency.
Catalytic incinerators are similar to
thermal incinerators; however, a catalyst
bed is incorporated into the design. The
catalyst allows the oxidation reaction to
proceed at a lower temperature. In some
applications, catalytic incinerators can be
designed with flue gas heat recovery
systems so that no supplemental fuel is
required for self-sustaining operation.
However, most catalytic incinerators
require some supplementary fuel to
maintain incinerator operating tempera-
tures during periods when the process is
running at reduced capacity.
The catalyst bed usually consists of a
precious metal deposited on a metal or
ceramic catalyst support. Platinum and
palladium alloys are the most common
catalysts; however, other precious (and
some nonprecious) metals are used.
Common types of catalyst bed geometries
are ribbons, pellets, rods, and honeycombs.
Both catalyst formulation and substrate
configuration are considered proprietary
by catalyst manufacturers.
Although not required for operation,
many catalytic incinerators incorporate
some method of recovering (reclaiming)
heat from the hot exhaust exiting the
catalyst bed. Recuperative heat exchangers
preheat the VOC-containing waste gas
and/or combustion air prior to the
catalyst bed; the hot exhaust gases exit
the catalyst bed. Recycle heat recovery
systems return a fraction of the hot
exhaust gases to the VOC emitting
process. Another way to recover heat is
to duct the hot incinerator exhaust to a
waste heat boiler to produce hot water or
steam. Heat recovery systems may use
combinations of these schemes and may
integrate the system into the overall plant
energy recovery system.
Catalytic incineration is a relatively
mature VOC control technology, with
about 10 vendors supplying the market.
Although refinements in design are
continually occurring, no major new
design advances were identified.
Performance
The performance of a catalytic incinera-
tor is affected by variables including:
operating temperature, space velocity,
VOC concentration and species, catalyst
characteristics, the presence of poisons
or masking agents, and a heat recovery
system. Of these, operating temperature
is a major factor affecting VOC destruction
efficiency. Higher operating temperatures
result in greater VOC destruction; how-
ever, supplemental fuel usage is generally
increased. The optimum operating tem-
perature provides adequate VOC destruc-
tion at minimum fuel cost. Most catalytic
incinerators operate in the temperature
range of 700 to 1100 °F (370 to 590 °C).
An analysis of available test data
indicates that catalytic incinerators can
achieve VOC destruction efficiencies
greater than 95 percent and VOC outlet
concentrations less than 200 ppm. Some
units achieve efficiencies greater than 98
percent. A few applications with relatively
high inlet concentrations have obtained
efficiencies of greater than 99 percent.
Typically, however, the incinerator is
operated at lower temperatures to reduce
supplemental fuel use while still providing
adequate VOC destruction.
Current Usage and
Applications
Catalytic incinerators are used in a
number of VOC pollution control applica-
tions: an estimated 500 to 2000 units are
in service. Current applications can be
categorized in three broad process areas:
solvent evaporation, organic chemical
manufacturing, and miscellaneous.
Solvent evaporation comprises the
most catalytic incinerator applications,
including metal coating (can, coil, wire,
auto/truck, furniture, small parts), paper
coating (adhesive coating, rotogravure
printing, flexography printing), and fabric
coating. These operations generally
produce waste gas streams with VOC
concentrations of up to 25 percent of the
lower explosive limit (LEL), the VOC
concentration at which an explosion can
occur after an initiating spark or flame.
The two principal VOC emitters are
application stations and ovens/dryers. In
many processes, the oven exhaust
includes solvent vapors captured during
solvent application. Approximately 60
percent of the plants identified as using
catalytic incinerators are solvent coating
operations.
The second group of processes includes
.a variety of organic chemical manufactur-
ing processes. Air oxidation processes
used in petrochemical manufacture are
frequently suitable for control with
catalytic incinerators. To date, VOC
emission streams from the production of
ethylene oxide, acrylonitrile, formalde-
hyde, ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride
monomer, and maelic anhydride have
been controlled with catalytic incinera-
tors. Waste gas streams from organic
chemical manufacturing processes vary
greatly depending on the specific chemi-
cal being produced and the type of
process. VOC concentrations show
considerable variation, from 5 to over
100 percent LEL. The number of catalytic
incinerators used in the control of organic
chemical processes is considerably small-
er compared to solvent evaporation pro-
cesses. Of the plants identified as using
catalytic incinerators, about 15 percent
are organic chemical manufacturing
plants.
The third group, miscellaneous pro-
cesses, includes a wide variety of
industrial VOC emitting processes.
Catalytic incinerators are being, or have
been, applied to varnish cooking, catalyst
regeneration, foundry core ovens, textile
manufacturing, kraft pulping, plywood
veneering, filter paper processing, and
gasoline vapor emission control. This
third group comprises about 25 percent
of the plants identified as using catalytic
incinerators.
Comparison with Other VOC
Control Alternatives
Catalytic incineration is one of several
available VOC control technologies,
including carbon adsorption, absorption,
condensation, thermal incineration, and
process modifications which reduce
uncontrolled VOC emissions. Although
each of these technologies is suitable for
specific processes, only incineration and
adsorption are generally applicable to a
wide variety of VOC emitting processes.
In most applications, catalytic incinera-
tion competes directly with thermal
incineration and carbon adsorption as the
most cost effective control technique. A
direct comparison of these three control
alternatives provides useful information
concerning the relative advantages and
disadvantages of each.
-------
Concerning VOC destruction efficiency,
catalytic incineration, thermal incinera-
tion, and carbon adsorption all can
potentially achieve VOC removal efficien-
cies greater than 95 percent. Because
thermal incinerators can be operated at
extremely high temperatures (up to
2000°F— 1090°C—with proper construc-
tion), the ultimate potential efficiency of
thermal incineration is somewhat higher
than either catalytic incineration and
carbon adsorption. However, all of these
technologies are typically designed and
operated to achieve lower than ultimate
VOC destruction due to cost constraints.
Where extremely high VOC removal
efficiencies and/or extremely low VOC
outlet concentrations are required,
thermal incinerators may be preferred.
Energy use variations between the
three technologies are significant. Ther-
mal incineration is the highest energy
user due to the high supplemental fuel
required to preheat the VOC waste gas
stream to oxidation temperature. If hot
water or steam is required, coincident
with incinerator operation, a waste heat
boiler may be used to recover much of this
heat. Catalytic incinerators require signifi-
cantly less fuel than thermal incinerators
in most applications. Compared to a
thermal incinerator achieving similar
VOC destruction, a catalytic incinerator
can reduce supplemental fuel by 25 to
100 percent, depending on the types and
amounts of heat recovery employed. This
reduction is due to the lower operating
temperature required to sustain catalytic
oxidation. Carbon adsorption systems are
potentially the lowest energy users and,
in fact, usually provide a net energy
credit, because of the energy credit
realized in the recovery of VOCs. The
recovered VOCs may be either used as a
fuel or recycled for reuse.
The ability of each technology to meet
the site-specific needs of a given applica-
tion differs widely for the three technolo-
gies. Carbon adsorption systems are
generally the least flexible, requiring: (a)
waste gas temperatures of 100°F (38°C)
or less, (b) low levels of waste gas
particles, and (c) reasonably consistent
waste gas VOC compositions. Considera-
tions (a) and (b) are necessary to prevent
damaging or masking the carbon beds;
constraint (c) ensures that the adsorbed
VOCs can be separated and recycled. Use
of waste gas coolers, waste gas filters,
and complex VOC distillation systems can
alleviate these considerations (at higher
costs).
Catalytic incinerators are more tolerant
of waste gas impurities; however, poisons
(e.g., phosphorus, bismuth, lead, arsenic,
antimony, and mercury) must be avoided.
Catalyst deactivating agents (e.g., sulfur,
halogens, zinc, iron, tin, and silicon) may
be tolerated for short periods. Particles in
the waste gas stream can be tolerated at
low levels; however, erosion of the
catalyst is accelerated. Sticky substances
which mask the catalyst must be avoided
unless the catalyst is frequently cleaned.
Since thermal incinerators have limited
constraints associated with waste gas
characteristics, they are ideal for applica-
tions involving the treatment of multiple
streams from different processes.
Both thermal and catalytic incinerators
are well suited to retrofit applications
where size and space are at a premium.
Catalytic incinerators, somewhat smaller
and lighter than thermal incinerators,
have a slight advantage in this regard.
Operation and maintenance require-
ments also vary considerably among the
three technologies. Carbon adsorption
systems are comparatively complex and
generally have the highest operation and
maintenance requirements. Both cataly-
tic incineration and thermal incineration
have roughly similar operation and
maintenance requirements.
The cost of applying any of the three
technologies varies greatly depending
on the process. A cost analysis of eight
VOC emission sources indicates catalytic
incineration is the most economical for
processes with low waste gas VOC
concentrations, and that carbon adsorp-
tion is the most economical for processes
with high waste gas VOC concentrations.
However, many processes with high
waste gas VOC concentrations are
unsuitable for control with carbon
adsorption due to either high waste gas
temperatures or the difficulty in separa-
tion and recovery of the VOC after
adsorption. In these cases, thermal and
catalytic incineration are directly compet-
itive. In the range of VOC concentrations
from 15 to 25 percent LEL, costs of both
incineration techniques are similar.
Thermal incineration is generally the
lower cost option at the upper end of this
range, and catalytic incineration is
generally the lower cost option at the
lower end of the range.
The primary reason for the lower cost
and energy requirements of catalytic
incineration compared to thermal incin-
eration is the reduced supplemental fuel
use. A relatively new type of thermal
incinerator, now available, reportedly
uses considerably less fuel through the
use of regenerative heat exchange.
Depending on overall costs, this reduction
in fuel use can result in thermal incinera-
tion's being cost competitive at VOC
concentration levels of less than 15
percent LEL.
The costs of carbon adsorption are very
sensitive to the economic value of the
recovered VOC. Relatively expensive
VOCs can make carbon adsorption cost
effective for sources with relatively low
VOC concentrations.
To summarize, catalytic incineration is
well suited to VOC control problems with
the following characteristics:
— destruction efficiencies of 95 per-
cent or higher;
— VOC concentrations of 20 percent
LEL or less;
— high temperature waste gases;
— mixtures of VOCs where separation/
recovery would be difficult for
carbon adsorption systems;
— VOCs of relatively low economic
value;
— little or no poisons, masking agents,
or particles; and
— retrofits where small size and light
weight are critical.
Test Methods
For an overall assessment of the per-
formance of catalytic incineration in a
given application, both process/incinera-
tor characterization and emission mea-
surements are required. Process/incin-
erator measurements collected include
temperatures, pressures, flow rates, and
fuel use. Emission measurements include
VOC concentrations and gas flow rates in
the inlet and outlet of the incinerator.
A variety of VOC measurement methods
are available. To ensure that data are
collected using standardized and accep-
ted procedures, EPA reference methods
were recommended. A combination of
Method 25A and draft Method 18
provides several advantages. Method
25A, utilizing a flame ionization analyzer
(FIA), could be run continuously over
several days to allow the effect of process
fluctuations to be assessed. A disadvan-
tage of Method 25A is the lack of
compound specific VOC concentration
information (the FIA gives only a relative
concentration with respect to a calibration
gas). Method 18 involves gas chromato-
graphic analysis which provides com-
pound specific concentrations.
Need for Test Data
The information data base collected
prior to the current testing program was
judged deficient in several respects.
Available data had been collected with
varying test procedures and were lacking
in documentation. Most emission data
were collected with the sole objective of
determining compliance with emission
-------
standards. For this reason, other factors
pertinent to catalytic incineration per-
formance (e.g., fuel use) were neither
measured nor recorded.
It was recommended at the conclusion
of Phase 1 of this study that a comprehen-
sive testing program be initiated to test in
the field a variety of operating catalytic
incinerators. The remainder of this
Summary discusses results of the tests
that were initiated as a result of this
recommendation.
Phase 2. Performance of
Catalytic Incinerators at
Industrial Sites
This portion of the Summary describes
test site selection criteria, the testing
approach and methods, and test results.
Test Site Selection Criteria
The catalytic incinerator tests examined
catalytic incinerator performance from
two perspectives: (1) how well the
technology performed when applied to
industries that typically use catalytic
incineration, and (2) how incinerator
performance relates to a variety of
process variables.
During Phase 1 of this study, 149 sites
using catalytic incinerators were identi-
fied. These sites formed the basis of the
site selection task. (Note: This list of
plants is a random compilation of sites
based on available data. As such, the
relative number of plants identified in any
industrial sector may be biased due to the
availability of information in that sector.)
Of the 149 sites identified, 86 (58
percent) represent four industries: metal
can coating, magnet wire production,
organic chemical manufacturing, and
printing. To test at least one incinerator in
each of these four major industries using
catalytic incineration, 8 to 10 plants were
contacted in each category. Industry
participation in the test program was
strictly voluntary; several factors (eco-
nomic and operational) resulted in
several plants being tested in some areas
and none in others. Catalytic incinerators
were ultimately tested in four industries:
metal can coating, coil coating, magnet
wire production, and graphic arts printing.
Testing Approach and Methods
Evaluating the performance of indus-
trial catalytic incinerators consisted of (1)
developing plant-specific test plans and
test methods to characterize incinerator
performance, and (2) several days of
comprehensive on-site testing for each
incinerator. Testing focused on simul-
taneously monitoring inlet and outlet
VOC concentrations and measuring
incinerator operating conditions.
The primary test method used to
measure incinerator destruction efficien-
cy was EPA Method 25A. Draft EPA
Method 18 was also used as an auxiliary
method to determine destruction efficien-
cies and to speciate components in the
gas stream. Samples of the incinerator
inlet and outlet gas streams were drawn
continuously from the stack through a
heated probe, pump, and Teflon" umbilical
to a mobile laboratory for analysis.
Results of Testing
Eight catalytic incinerators were tested
at six industrial sites between November
1982 and March 1983. All eight were
used to control VOC emissions from
solvent evaporation processes. In these
processes, pigments, inks, or resins
dissolved in organic solvents are applied
to metal or paper surfaces. The solvents
are then driven off the surfaces in drying
ovens, and the oven exhaust is ducted to
a catalytic incinerator for solvent destruc-
tion. Incinerators at can coating, coil
coating, magnet wire, and graphic arts
printing plants were tested.
Incinerator performance was charac-
terized in terms of destruction efficiency,
outlet solvent concentration, and energy
usage. Inlet and outlet solvent concentra-
tions were monitored with hydrocarbon
analyzers during a nomimal 1-week test
at each site. Incinerator design and
operating data (e.g., operating tempera-
ture, solvent type, and catalyst volume
and age) were collected on each incin-
erator to document the operating condi-
tions during the test. Waste gas charac-
teristics and design and operating
parameters for each incinerator are
shown in Table 1.
Performance data collected during
typical plant operation are summarized in
Table 2. Four of the eight incinerators
showed destruction efficiencies in excess
of 90 percent under typical plant and
incinerator operating conditions. These
incinerators were applied in can coating,
coil coating, and graphic arts printing.
Destruction efficiencies for each incin-
erator generally varied over a narrow
range for different coatings or inks.
A fifth incinerator showed slightly
lower efficiencies, between 88 and 94
percent. This incinerator was also applied
in can coating.
The three remaining incinerators all
showed comparatively low destruction
efficiencies of about 80 percent. The low-
er efficiencies at two of these sites are
attributed to the catalyst condition. One
catalyst bed was fouled or deactivated by
high temperature operation or material
masking, and the other appears to have
been deactivated by normal catalyst
aging. The lower efficiency at the third
site is due to a lower solvent-laden air
(SLA) residence time. This incinerator,
which was much older, had a SLA
residence time approximately half that of
the newer incinerators tested.
Two of the three incinerators that
showed comparatively low destruction
efficiencies were applied in the graphic
arts printing industry, and the third was
applied to a magnet wire coating line.
Outlet total hydrocarbon (THC) concen-
trations based on EPA Method 25A
ranged widely for the eight incinerators,
from 46 to 1590 ppmv carbon. However,
measured outlet concentrations were
below 350 ppmv for six of the eight
incinerators.
Energy usage for most of the incinera-
tors ranged from 78 to 268 kJ/Nm3(2.1 to
7.2 Btu/scf) of waste gas treated. One
incinerator had an estimated energy
usage of 782 kJ/Nm3 (21 Btu/scf).
Comparison of destruction efficiencies
measured according to Method 25A and
Method 18 showed good agreement.
At several test sites, the incinerator
operating temperature was varied to
observe the effect of temperature on
performance. As expected, destruction
efficiency increased with increasing
operating temperature. However, the
relative effect of temperature on destruc-
tion efficiency varied widely for the
different incinerators. Of five incinerators
for which the temperature was varied,
two showed a fairly small effect of
temperature and three showed a com-
paratively large effect. The largest
increase in efficiency for a temperature
rise of 14°C (25°F) was 2.5 percent, from
84.0 to 86.5 percent.
Inlet concentration as measured by
Method 25A was also observed to have
an effect on destruction efficiency. For
similar catalyst bed inlet temperatures,
destruction efficiency increased with
increasing inlet concentration. Inlet
concentrations generally varied.for
different coatings and coating rates. The
effect of inlet concentration was found to
be greatest for incinerators operating at
efficiencies below 85 percent.
-------
Table 1. Waste Gas Characteristics and Incinerator Design and Operating Parameters
Plant ID
(Incinerator No 1 Process
Plant C- 1 127)
Plant C-1 128)
Plant C-4
Plant C-2
Plant C-3 1201
Plant C-3 121)
Plant C-5
Plant C-6
Can
coating
Can
coating
Can
Coating
Graphic
arts
printing
Graphic
arts
printing
Graphic
arts
printing
Magnet
wire
Coil
coating
Waste Gas Waste Gas
Flowrate* Temperature
Nm*s Iscfml °C (°F)
36 (7600f 121
3 2 167801" 89
2 52 IS33OI 164
09 {2000) 127
126 12660) 177
220 14670) 178
0 28 (603) 233
533 I113OO) 143
1250)
(190)
(327)
1260)
(350)
(352)
(451)
(290)
Mafor
Solvents
Identihecf
Toluene,
xylenes.
ethyl
benzenes
MIBK.
xylenes*
methyl ethyl
benzenes
MIBK.
ce/lusolve.
xylenes.
ethylbenzene*
C12toC18
hydrocarbons
C12toC18
hydrocarbons
C12 to C18
hydrocarbons
Phenol,
cresots
MEK,
toluene*
Average
Temperatures' Catalyst Bed
Catalyst Inlet/Outlet Pressure Drop
°C m kPa fH&l
363/396
316/410
332/393
493/438
372/379
353/412
393/507
285/427
1685/745) 0 60
(600/770) 0.57
(630/740) 042
(920/820 f 2 5
(701/713) 025
(667/774) 0 25
(740/945) 0 17
(545/800) 0 42
(24)
(23)
(1.7)
(10)
(10)
(10)
fO 7)
(17)
SLA
Catalyst Residence
Age Time
Catalyst months sec
Ceramic 8 003
honeycomb
Ceramic 23/
-------
Table 2. Summary of Performance Data for Typical 0
Plant ID Coatings Hours of
(Incinerator No.j° Process Tested Data0
Plant C-1 (27)
Plant C-1 (28)
Plant C-1 (28)
Plant C-4
Plant C-2
Plant C-3 (20)
Plant C-3 (21)
Plant C-5
Plant C-6
Can
coating
Can
coating
Can
coating
Can
coating
Graphic
arts
printing
Graphic
arts
printing
Graphic
arts
printing
Magnet wire
Coil coating
1
3
7
2
1
1
5
1
5
27.6
7.8
26.0
13.0
23.0
5.5
7.2
13.8
27.0
Operating Conditions3
Method 25A Concentrations"
Inlet, ppmv
4000-5810
2840-7760
2270-5755
5480-7560
1020
1240
1370-4030
8720
6220-12.860*
Outlet, ppmv
181-275
173-321
46-341
385-687
169
241
90-165
1590
272-305
Destruction
Efficiency
%e
95.4-96.4
93.4-95.9
96.3-98.6
(91.7-93.4f
88.7/94.0
81.2
80.1
93.4-95.9
80.6
96.5-97.5
Average
Energy Usage'
kJ/Nm (Btu/scfJ Heat Recovery, %
270
230
230
260
780
160
80
240
150
(7.2)
(6.1)
(6.1)
(6.9)
(21)
(4.3)'
(2. If
(6.4 f
(3.9)
39a
46g
46a
None
None
36'
66,
None
31s
"For steady state incinerator and coating process operating conditions.
hTests conducted between November 1982 and March 1983.
cCollected at typical incinerator operating temperature (see Table 1).
aFor the incinerator inlet/outlet gas streams. The range of values represents the range of average concentrations measured during monitoring periods
for the different coatings tested. Monitoring periods generally exceeded 1 hour, ranging up to about 14 hours. Method 25A results for different
monitoring periods are summarized in the Site Test Reports, ppmv = parts per million by volume carbon, quantitated against propane standards.
"For all except Plant C- 1:
Destruction efficiency =l^J^Lx 100%, where
M = VOCmass flowrate =
V moles C
12° C x rnoles gas , O m* gas
sec
10s moles gas mole C 0.024m3
V = VOC concentration, ppmv (in or out)
Q - gas flowrate, Nm3/sec (in or out)
For Plant C- 1;
Destruction efficiency =V'"~ V°M* 100%.
V,n
'For fuel gas required to heat waste gas to catalyst bed inlet temperature.
9By recycling incinerator outlet gas to drying oven; represents percent recovery of heat generated by natural gas and fuel combustion in the incin-
erator.
^Values for one of the seven coatings tested. This solvent formulation apparently had a greater percentage of MIBK and a higher average solvent
molecular weight than the others.
'Based on waste gas temperature and catalyst bed inlet temperature.
'By recuperative heat exchange; represents percent recovery of heat required to raise the waste gas temperature to the catalyst bed inlet temperature.
*For gas stream from exhaust oven.
. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1985/646-116/20717
-------
M. Palazzolo is with Radian Corporation, Durham, NC 27705.
P. J. Chappell is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report consists of nine volumes, entitled "Control of Industrial VOC
Emissions by Catalytic Incineration:"
"Volume 1. Assessment of Catalytic Incineration and Competing Controls,"
(Order No. PB 84-225 762; Cost: $16.95)
"Volume 2. Final Report on Catalytic Incinerator Performance at Six Industrial
Sites,"(Order No. PB 84-225 770; Cost: $11.95).
"Volume 3. Catalytic Incinerator Performance at Industrial Site C-1," (Order
No. PB 84-225 788; Cost: $16.95)
"Volume 4. Catalytic Incinerator Performance at Industrial Site C-2," (Order
No. PB 84-225 796; Cost: $11.95)
"Volume 5. Catalytic Incinerator Performance at Industrial Site C-3," (Order
No. PB 86-103 199; Cost: $16.95)
"Volume 6. Catalytic Incinerator Performance at Industrial Site C-4," (Order
No. PB 84-225 812; Cost: $11.95)
"Volume 7. Catalytic Incinerator Performance at Industrial Site C-5," (Order
No. PB 86-103 173; Cost: $11.95)
"Volume 8. Catalytic Incinerator Performance at Industrial Site C-6," (Order
No. PB 86-103 181; Cost: $16.95)
"Volume9. Quality Assurance." (Order No. PB 84-225 846; Cost: $16.95)
The above reports will be available only from: (costs subject to change)
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-84/118
Q000529 PS
U S ?NVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5 LIEHARY
230 S DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO IL 60604
------- |