CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED
EMISSION RATES AND
APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS
FOR EIGHTY PROCESSES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
OFFICE OF GENERAL ENFORCEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA-340/1-78-004
CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED
EMISSION RATES AND
APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS
FOR EIGHTY PROCESSES
by
Peter N, Formica
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Contract No. 68-02-1382
Task Order No. 12
EPA Project Officer: Robert Schell
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1978
-------
STATIONARY SOURCE ENFORCEMENT SERIES
The Stationary Source Enforcement series of reports is issued by the Office
of General Enforcement, Environmental Protection Agency, to assist the
Regional Offices in activities related to enforcement of implementation
plans, new source emission standards, and hazardous emission standards to
be developed under the Clean Air Act. Copies of Stationary Source
Enforcement reports are available - as supplies permit - from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Administration, Library
Services, MD-35, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or may be
obtained, for a nominal cost, from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0
2.0
3.0
I
11
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
External Combustion
Wood Waste Boilers
Boilers .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr
Boilers 10-250 x 106 BTU/hr
Boilers >250 x 106 BTU/hr
Solid Waste Disposal
1
3
6
I - 1-17
1-1 t
1-4
1-8
1-13
11 - 1-14
IV
Open Burning (Agricultural)
Indus trial./Commercial Incinerators
Municipal Incinerators
Jf.yajgor a t ion Losses
Dry Cleaning
Petroleum Refueling of Motor Vehicles
Graphic Arts (Gravuic)
Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
Graphic Arts (Metal Coating)
Graphic Arts (Lithography)
Urapliio A, Lr. (r I n.xorr-pny)
Industrial Surface Coating
Petrolexuu Storage Gasolinei (Breathing)
Petrole.um Storage Gasoline-: (Working)
Petroleum Transfer Gasoline
Petroleum Service Stations
Chenri ca 1. Process Industry
Acrylonitrile
Ammonia (Methanator Plant)
Ammonia ('Regenerator and CO Absorber Plants)
Carbon Blank
Charcoal
Ethylcnc Bichloride
Ethyleno Oxide
Formaldehyde
Paint
Phthalic Anhydride
Polyethylene (High Density)
Polyethylene (Low Density)
Polystyrene
Printing Ink
Synthetic. Fibers (Nylon)
Varnish
Synthetic Resins (Phenolic)
II-l
11-3
11-9
IV - 1-94
1V-1
IV-6
IV-11
IV-16
IV-2 5
IV-35
IV-43
1V-5.3
IV-6 3
IV-76
IV-8.1
1V-86
IV-90
V - 1-68
V-l
V-5
V-9
V-13
V-19
V-23
V-27
V-30
V-34
V-39
V-43
V-47
V-51
V-55
V-5 9
V-62
V-66
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION
VI
Food and Agricultural Industry
PAGE
VI - 1-54
VII
Beer Processing
Cotton Ginning
Deep Fat Frying
Direct Firing of Meats
Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate
Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate
Grain - Drying
Drain - Processing
Grain - Screening and Cleaning
Vegetable Oil Manufacturing
Metallurgical Indus try
VI-1
VI-5
VI-11
VI-16
VI-19
VI-23
VI-27
VI-32
VI-37
VI-42
VI-46
VII - 1-64
VIII
Cast Iron Foundries (Electric Furnace)
Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
Cast Iron Foundries (Core Ovens)
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnace)
Iron and Steel Plants (Scarfing)
Iron and Steel Plants (Sintering)
Iron and Steel Plants (Open-Hearth Furnace)
Primary Copper
Steel Foundries (Secondary)
Ferroalloy
Primary Aluminum
Mineral Products Industry
VII-1
VII-7
VII-14
VII-20
VII-27
VII-31 '
VI1-37
VII-42
VII-49
VIT--S4
VII-60
VIII - 1-58
IX
Asphalt Batching
Asphalt Roofing (Blowing)
Brick and Related Clay Products
Cement Plants
Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
Concrete Batching
Glass Wool Production (Soda Lime)
Gypsum
Mineral Wool
Phosphate Rock (Drying)
Phosphate Rock (Grinding)
Sand and Gravel Processing
Stone Quarrying
Petroleum Industry
Petroleum Refining, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)
Wood Processing
VIII-1
VIII-6
VIII-10
VIII-14
VIII-20
VIII-26
VIII-30
VIII-34
VIII-38
VIII-42
VIII-46
VIII-50
VIII-54
IX - 1-4
IX-1
X - 1-6
XI
Wood Processing (Plywood)
Manufacturing
X-l
XI - 1-3
Automobile Assembly Plant
XI-1
"iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
External Combustion
'Table 1-1
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
Table: I--3A
Table 1-4
Table I-4A
Table 1-5
Table 1-5A
Table 1-6
Table I-6A
Table 1-7
Table I-7A
Table 1-8
Table I-8A
11
Table 11-1
Table T.I-5
Table II-6
Table 11-7
Table II-8
Wood Waste Boilers
Wood Waste Boiler Particulate Emissions 1-1
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Wood
Waste Boilers 1-2
Boilers .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr
Classification and Capacity of Cast Iron and Firctube
Boilers 1-4
Particulate Kri.issions from .3-10 x: 106 BTU/hr Boilers 1-5
ParLiculate Emissions and Limitations from .3-10 x 106
BTU/BoiJers 1-6
Compilation of Control Requirements for Boilers
.3-10 x 106 BTU/hr 1-7
Boilers 10-.150 x 10^_BTU/hr_
Classification and Capacity of Water Tube Boilers 1-8
PartLculate EmiColons from 10-250 x 1Q6 BTU/hr Boilers 1-9
ParticulatG Emissions and Limitations from Boilers
10-250 x 106 BTU/hr 1-10
Compilation of Control Requirements for Boilers
10-250 x 106 B'lU/hr 1-11
BoiJcrs - x.ii.i - iO6 BTIi/lu
Classification and Capacity of Water Tube Boilers 1-13
Particular Emissions from >250 x io6 BTU/hr Boilers 1-14
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Boilers
>250 x 10G BTU/hr 1-15
Compilation of Control Requirements for Boilers
>250 x 10G BTU/hr 1-16
_Soj.id War,te^ Digposal
Open Burning (Ap,rjcultura 1)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Agricultural Burning II-l
Indust ri a 1/C:ommercia l__Ineinerator s_
Particulate Emissions from Industrial/Commercial
Incinerators II-5
States Having Regulations for New and Existing
Sources on a Concentration Basis II-7
Municipal Inc inorators
Particulate Emissions from Municipal Incinerators 11-11
States Having Regulations for New and Existing
Sources on a Concentration Basis 11-13
IV
Table IV-1
Table IV-2
Evaporation Losses
Dcgreasing
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Degreasing Operations IV-3
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Degreasing IV-4
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table IV-3
Table IV-3A
Table IV-5
Table IV-7
Table IV-7A
Table IV-8
Table VI-9
Table IV-9A
Table IV-10
Table IV-11
Table IV-12
Table IV-13
Table IV-13A
Table IV-14
Table IV-15
Table IV-15A
Table IV-16
Table IV-17
Table IV-17A
Table IV-17B
Table IV-18
Table IV-19
Table IV-20
PAGE
Dry Cleaning
Property of Dry Cleaning Solvents IV-7
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Dry Cleaning Using
Synthetic Solvents IV-8
Petroleum Refueling of_Motor Vehicles
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Refueling Vehicle Tanks IV-11
Graphic Arts (Gravure)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type (1968) IV-18
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gravure Printing IV-19
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Rotogravure
Printing IV-23
Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type (1968) IV-27
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Letterpress Publication
Printing IV-29
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Letterpress
Printing IV-33
Graphic Arts (Metal Coating)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Metal Decorating IV-37
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Metal
Decorating IV-41
Graphic Arts (Lithography)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type IV-45
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Web-Offset Printing IV-46
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Web-
Offset Printing IV-51
Graphic Arts (Flexograghy)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type (1968) IV-55
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Flexographic Publication
Printing IV-57
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Flexographic
Printing . IV-61
Industrial Surface Coating^
Solvent Species in Emitted Hydrocarbons IV-64
Examples of Surface Coating and Added Thinner
Formulas on as As-Purchased Basis Having Conforming
Solvent Systems IV-65
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Industrial Surface Coating IV-68
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations for Industrial
Surface Coating IV-74
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Breathing)
Hydrocarbon Breathing Emissions from Gasoline
Storage Tanks IV-78
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations for Breathing
Losses from Storage Tanks IV-79
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table IV-21
Table IV-22
Table IV-23
Table IV-24
Table IV-25
V
Table V-l
Table V-2
Table V-3
Table V-4
Table V-5
Table V~6
Table V-7
Table V-S
Table V-9
Table V-10
Table V-ll
Table V-13
Table V-15
Table V-16
Table V-l7
Table V-18
Table V-19
Petroleum Stora^e Gasoline (Working)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Working Losses
Hydrocarbon Limitations for Working Losses
from Gasoline
Petroleum Transfer GjtsoljLne
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Transfer of Gasoline
Hydrocarbon Limitations from Petroleum Transfer
Petroleum Service Stations^
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Service Stations
Chemical Proc ess Indus try
Acrylonlt r ile_
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Acrylonitrile Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from
AcryloniCrile Manufacture
Ammon la (Methan 3tor
_
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Ammonia Manufacture Using
a Mcthanutor Plant
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Ammonia
Manufacture Using a Methanator i?lant
Ammonia (Hegenator jmd C0_ Abs n rb e.r PI an t )
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Ammonia Manufacture
with Regenator and CO Plant
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Ammonia
Manufac'i-Ui.^ v,iLh Rcguiiator and CO I'laAi:
Carbon Black
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Carbon Black Manufacturing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Carbon
Black Manufacturing
_Charconl_
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Charcoal
Manufacturing
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations
from Charcoal Manufacturing
Ei^xisn5_P i£!ii£si!
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table V-21
Table V-22
Tavle V-23
Table V-25
Table V-26
Table V-26A
Table V-27
Table V-28
Table V-29
Table V-30
Table V-31
Table V-32
Table V-33
Table V-34
VI
Table VI-1
Table VI-2
Table VI-3
Table VI-4
Table VI-5
Table VI-7
Table VI-7A
Table VI-9
Table VI-10
Table VI-11
Polyethylene (High Density)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Manufacture of High
Density Polyethylene
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Manufacture
of High Density Polyethylene
Polyethylene (Low Density)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Manufacture of Low
Density Polyethylene
Polystyrene
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Polystyrene Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Polystyrene
Manufacture
Control Required for Polystyrene Manufacture
Printing Ink
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Printing Ink Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Printing
Ink Manufacture
Synthetic Fibers (Nylon)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Nylon Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Nylon
Manufacture
Varnish
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Varnish Manufacturing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Varnish
Manufac tur in£
Synthetic Resin s (Pheno1ic)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Phenolic Resin Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Phenolic
Resin
Food and Agricultural Industry
Beer Processing
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Beer Processing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Beer
Processing
Cotton Ginning
Particulate Emissions - Machine Picked Cotton
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Cotton
Ginning
Deep Fat Frying
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Deep Fat Frying
Direct Firing of Meats
Particulate Emissions from Direct Firing of Meats
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Direct Firing of Meats
Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
Particulate Emissions from Feed Milling
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Feed
Milling
Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate
Particulate Emissions from Ammonium Sulfate Fertilizer
Manufacture
PAGE
V-44
V-45
V-48
V-52
V-53
V-54
V-56
V-57
V-59
V-61
V-63
V-65
V-66
V-68
VI-2
VI-3
VI-7
VI-10
VI-13
VI-16
VI-17
VI-20
VI-22
VI-23
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
PAGE
Table VI-12
Table VI-15
Table VI-16
Table VI-16A
Table VI-17
Table VI-13
Table VI-19
Table VI-20
Table VI-21
Table VI--22
Table VI-25A
Table VI-25E
Table VI-26
Table V1-2CB
Particulate Emissions and Limitations for Ammonium
Sulfate Production VI-26
Fertilizer — Ammonium Nitrate
Particulate Emissions from Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer
Manufacture VI-28
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Ammonium
Nitrate Fertilizer Manufacture VI-30
Control and Compliance for Ammonium Nitrate Production VI-30
Grain - Drying
Particulate Emissions from Grain Drying VI-34
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Grain
Drying VI-36
Grain - Process ing
Particulate Emissions from Grain Processing VI— 38
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Grain
Processing VI-40
Grain _- Sere em' ng and^ Cleaning
Particulate Emissions from Grain Screening and Cleaning VI-42
Particulate Emir: s Jons and Limitations from Grain
Screening and Cleaning VI-44
Vegetable- Oil Manu f ja c t ure
Particulate Emissions from Soybean Oil Manufacture VI-49
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Soybean Oil Manufacture VI— 50
hydros, ibuu hmisulons and Limitations from Vegcrt-.ah.le
Oil Manufacture VI-52
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Vegetable
Oil Manufacture VI-53
Table VI1-1
Table VII-2
Table VII-3
Table VI1-4
Table VII-5
Table V1I-6
Table VII-7
Table VII-8
Table VII-9
_ _
Can L ijron J?ojjn Jr i cs_ (Elec t r i c Fu rnaces )
Particulate Emissions from Cast Iron Foundries
(Electric Furnaces) VII— 2
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Cast
Iron Foundries (Electric Furnaces) VII-5
Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furna cej^
Particulafe Emis.sioiis from Cast Iron Foundries (Cupolas) VII-9
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Cast Iron
Foundries (Cupolas) VII-12
Cast Iron Foundries (Core Ovens)
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Core Ovens
in Cast Iron Foundries VII-15
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations
from Core Ovens VII-18
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Particulate Emissions from Iron and Steel Plants VII-22
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Electric
Arc Furnaces VII-25
Iron and Steel Plants (Scarfing)
Particulate Emissions from Iron and Steel Scarfing VII-27
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table VII-10
Table VII-11
Table VII-12
Table VII-13
Table VII-14
Table VII-15
Table VII-17
Table VII-18
Table VII-19
Table VII-20
Table VII-21
Table VII-22
VTTI
Table VIII-1
Table VIII-2
Table VIII-3
Table VIII-4
Table VIII-5
Table VIII-6
Table VIII-7
Table VIII-8
Table VIII-9
Table VIII-10
Table VIII-11
Table VIII-12
Partlculate Emissions and Limitations from Iron
and Steel Scarfing
Iron and Steel^ Plants (Sintering)
Sintering Particulate Emissions
Particulate Emissions and Limitations for Sintering
Iron and Steel Plants j(Open-Hearth Furnaces)
Particulate Emissions from Open-Hearth Furnaces
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Open-Hearth
Furnaces
Primary Aluminum
Particulate Emissions from Primary Aluminum Manufacture
Primary Copper
Particulate Emissions from Primary Copper Production
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Primary
Copper Production
Steel Foundries (Secondary)
Particulate Emissions from Steel Foundries
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Steel
Foundries
Ferroalloy
Particulate Emissions from Ferroalloy Production
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Ferroalloy
Production
Mineral Product's Industry
Asphalt Batching
Particulate Emissions from Asphalt Batching
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Asphalt
Batching -
Asphalt Roofing (Blowing)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Asphalt
Roofing Manufacture
Brick and Related Clay Products
Particulate Emissions from Brick Manufacture
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Brick
Manufacture
Cement Plants
Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacture
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from
Cement Manufacture
Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
Particulate Emissions from C6al Cleaning
(Thermal Drying)
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Coal
Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
Concrete Batching
Particulate Emissions from Concrete Batching
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Concrete
Batching
PAGE
VI-29
VI1-33
VII-35
VII-38
VII-40
VII-62
VII-45
VII-47
VII-50
VII-52
VII-56
VII-58
VIII-2
VIII-4
VIII-6
VIII-8
VIII-11
VIII-13
VIII-16
VIII-18
VIII-22
VIII-24
VIII-26
VIII-28
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table VIII-13
Table VI11-14
Table VIII-15
Table VIII-16
Table VII1-17
Table VIII-18
Table VIII-19
Table VIII-20
Table VI1I-21
Table VII1-22
Table VIIT-23
Table VIII-24
Table VIII-25
Table VIII-26
IX
Table IX-1
Table IX-2
X
Table X-l
Table X-2
XI
Glass Wool Production (Soda-Lime^
Partlculate Emissions from Soda-Lime Glass Manufacture
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Soda-
Lime Glass Manufacture
Gypsum
Particulate Emissions from Gypsum Processing
Partlculate Emissions and Limitations from Gypsum
Processing
Mineral Wool
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Mineral Wool Processing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Mineral
Wool Processing
Phosphate Rock (Drying)
Particulate Emissions from Phosphate Rock Drying
Partlculate Emissions and Limitations from Phosphate
Rock Drying
Phosphate .Rock (Grinding)
Partlculate Emissions from Phosphate Hock Grinding
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Phosphate
Rock Grinding
Sand and Gravel Prjocesrinr;
Particulate Emissions from Sand and Gravel Processing
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Sand
and Gravel Processing
Stone 0'i,TTTvying
Particurate. Emissions from Stone Quarrying and
Processing
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Stone
Quarrying and Processing
Petroleum Industry
PAGE
VIII-31
VIII-33
VIII-35
VIII-37
VIII-39
VIII-40
VIII-42
VIII-44
VIII-46
VIII-48
VIII-51
VIII-53
VIII-55
VIII-57
Petrolauiii_JlGifinJjiiq;, Fluid CatalyticCracking Unit (FCCU)
Particulate Emissions from Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Units
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Units
Wood Processing
Wood Processing (Plywood)
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Plywood
Manufacture
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions and
Limitations from Plywood Manufacture
Manufacturing
IX-2
IX-3
Table XI-1
Automobile Assembly^ Plant
Potential Reduction in Air Volume for Treatment
X-2
X-5
XI-1
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
_II Solid Waste Disposal
Municipal Incinerator
Figure II-l Retort Multiple Chamber Incinerator 11-10
Figure II-2 In-Line Multiple Chamber Incinerator 11-10
Industrial/Commercial Incinerators
Figure II-3 Retort Multiple Chamber Incinerators II-4
Figure II-4 In-Line Multiple Chamber Incinerator II-4
IV Evaporation Losses
Petroleum Transfer Gasoline
Figure IV-1 Underground Storage Tank Vapor-Recovery System IV-87
Petroleum Storagc Gasoline (Breathing)
Figure IV-2 Fixed Roof Storage Tank IV-76
Figure IV-3 Double-Deck Floating Roof Storage Tank
(Nor-metallic Seal) IV-77
Figure IV-4 Variable Vapor Storage Tank (Wet-Seal Lifter Type) IV-77
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Working)
Figure IV-5 Variable Vapor Storage Tank (Wet-Seal Lifter Type) IV-82
Figure IV-6 Fixed Roof Storage Tank IV-81
Figure IV-7 Double-Deck Floating Roof Storage Tank
(Nonmetallic Seal) IV-82
Petroleum Refueling of Motor Vehicles
Figure IV-8 Schematic of Vehicle Vapor Containment IV-12
Figure IV-9 Vapor Control Nozzle IV-13
Figure IV-10 Station Modification for Tight Fill Nozzle IV-13
Figure IV-11 Retrofit Adapter for Past Models IV-14
Petroleum Service Stations
Figure IV-12 Present Uncontrolled Service Station of Underground
Tank IV-90
Figure IV-13 Simple Displacement System IV-91
Figure IV-14 On-Site Regeneration System IV-92
Figure IV-15 Refrigeration System IV-92
Figure IV-16 Compression Liquification System IV-93
Graphic Arts (Gravure)
Figure IV-17 Rotogravure Printing Operation IV-16
Figure IV-18 Emission Rates from a Typical Rotogravure Printing
Operation IV-17
Figure IV-19 Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery IV-21
Figure IV-20 Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery IV-21
Figure IV-21 Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process IV-22
Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
Figure IV-22 Web Letterpress, Publication IV-26
Figure IV-23 Web Letterpress, Newspaper IV—26
Figure IV-24 Emission Rates'from Web Offset and Web Letterpress
Employing Heatset Inks IV—28
Figure IV-25 Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery IV—30
xii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
IV-26
IV -27
IV -2 8
IV-29
IV-30
IV-31
IV-32
IV -33
IV-34
IV-35
IV-36
IV-37
IV-38
1V-39
IV-/:0
IV-41
IV-42
IV-43
TV-44
IV-45
IV-46
IV-47
IV-48
IV-49
I.V-50
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
Gr ap hi c Arts _Qjet al^ Co £ t ing)_
Metal Sheet Coating Operation
Metal Sheet Printing and Varnish Overcoating
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
(t. Itho g
Web-Offset, Publication
Emission Rates from Web Offset and Web Letterpress
Employing Heat set Inks
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for lleai" Recovery
Flow Diagran of Adsorption Process
Graplu c Ar ts (Flexography)
Flexogrop1 T}*~-->*~>*»*-. +- ' f -1 I - ,—
nir.cji.n,Q t«^,u.ck-,>,L i-in^s
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Adsorption Process
Ildus
Summary of Emission Rates from Industrial Surface
Coating Operations
Flow Diagram of a Surface Coating Operation
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
Degr easing
Vapor Spray Dcgrc.user
Continuous Vapor Spray Degreaser
Chemie a 1 Process _Industry
Figure
figure
V-l
V-2
Acrylon.i.t.ri] e
Sohio Process for Acrylonilrile Manufacture
Ammgn_in_ Mamif acture P r o c cs s (Me t h ana t or P1 an t)
Ammonia Manufacture Process (Methanator Plant)
PAGE
IV-31
IV-32
IV-35
IV-36
IV-38
IV-39
IV-39
IV-43
IV-44
IV-48
IV-49
IV-49
IV-54
IV-54
IV-SG
IV-58
IV-5 9
IV-60
IV-63
IV-65
IV-71
IV-71
IV-69
IV-1
IV-2
V-l
V-5
Kilt
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
PAGE
Ammonia Manufacture (Regeneratorand CO Absorber Plant)
Figure V-3 Diagram of Ammonia Manufacuting Process (CO Absorber
and Regenerator Plant) V-9
Carbon Black
Figure V-4 Flow Diagram of Channel Process V-13
Figure V-5 Flow Diagram of Oil-Furnace Process V—14
Figure V-6 Flow Diagram of Gas-Furnace Process V-14
Figure V-7 Flow Diagram of Thermal Process V—15
Ethylene Dichloride
Figure V-8 Direct Chlorination Flow Sheet V-23
Figure V-9 Ethylene Dichloride Flow Diagram V-24
Ethylene Oxide
Figure V-10 Ethylene Oxide Manufacture V—27
Formaldehyde
Figure V-ll Formaldehyde Process V-30
Paint
Figure V-12 Paint Manufacture Using Sand Mill for Grinding
Operation V-34
Phthalic Anhydride
Figure V-13 . PJithalic Anhydride Reactions • V-39
Figure V-13A Phthalic Anhydride Manufacturing Process V-39
Polyethylene (High Density )
Figure V-14 High Density Polyethylene Manufacture V-43
Polyethylene (Low Density)
Figure V-15 Low Density Polyethylene Manufacture V-47
Polystyrene
Figure V-16 Polystyrene Manufacture V-51
Varnish
Figure V-17 Typical Varnish Cooking Room V-63
VI Food and Agricultural Industry
Beer Processing
Figure VI-1 Beer Processing VI-1
Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate
Figure VI-2 Process for the Manufacture of Ammonium Nitrate
by Neutralization of Nitric Acid VI-27
Grain - Drying
Figure VI-3 Typical Column Dryer Used in Drying Grain VI-33
Figure VI-4 Typical Rack Dryer Used in Drying Grain VI-33
Grain Processing
Figure VI-5 Flour Milling VI-38
Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate
Figure VI-6 Device for Agglomeration of Ammonium Sulfate Particles
in a Gas Stream, Patent No. 3,410,054 by W. Deiters VI-24
Cotton Ginning
Figure VI-7 Cotton Ginning VI-6
Deep Fat Frying
Figure VI-8 Typical Hydrocarbon Afterburner Emission Control System
for Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions VI-6
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure VI-9
Figure VI-10
Figure
Figure
VI-11
VI-12
Figure VI-13
VII
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
VII-1
VII-2
VII-3
V1I-4
VII-5
VTI-6
VII-7
VI1-8
VII-9
VII-10
Figure VII-11
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
VJ.I-12
VII-13
VII-14
VII-15
Figure VII-20
VIII
Figure
Figure
Figure
VIII-1
VIII-2
V1II-3
Figure VIII-4
Figure VIII-5
Typical Catalytic Oxidizer Hydrocarbon Emission
Control System for Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions
Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
Typical Feed Milling Operation
Vegetable Oil Manufacturing
Continuous Feed Screw Press for Oil Extraction
Continuous Flow Solvent Extraction Process for
Vegetable Oil Manufacture
Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Process
_Me tal 1 ur pical Indu K t r y
£? s t j r cm Foimdr 1 eg (El e ctr ± c Fur na c es )
Process Flow Diagram, Melting Department
Illustration of Electric Arc Furnace
Illustration of Channel Induction Furnace
Ferroalloy
Ferroalloy Process
Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
Illustration of Conventional Line'l Cupola
Cast Iron Fc imclries (Core
,
Process Flow Diagram - Core Making
Iron and Steel Pj^n^t^^(Elecj:rJ-C Arc Furnacjesj_
Flow Diagram of an Iron and Steel Plant
Electric Arc Steel Furnace
b'tccl Fou ridr ic^_ ( S ccond cr'3')
Steel Foundry Process Diagram
Cross Sectional View of an Open-Hearth Furnace
Cast Iron Founurji-e s_(Cup oia Furn a c_e)_
Process Flow Diagram, Melting Department
Iron and S teel Plant s (Sint ering_)_
Sintering Process Flow Diagram
Sinter Cooler
Primary Copper
Copper Smelting
Reverberatory Furnace
Primary Aluminum
Bayer and Combined Process
Mineral Products Industrv
Asphalt j}at^ching_
Flow Diagram for Hot-Mix Asphalt Batch Plant
Brick and Relajl'e d Clay Prod u c t s
Basic Flow Diagram of Brick Manufacturing Process
Cement Plants
Basic Flow Diagram of Portland Cement Manufacturing
Process
Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
Coal Cleaning Process Flow Diagram
Schematic Sketch of Screen-Type, Thermal Coal
Drying Unit
PAGE
VI-14
VI-19
VI-47
Vl-48
VI-49
VII-1
VII-3
VII-3
VII-54
VII-8
VII-14
VII-20
VII-21
VII-49
VII-37
VII-7
VII-31
VII-32
VII-43
VII-44
VII-60
VIII-1
VIII-10
VIII-15
VIII-20
VIII-21
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-7 '
Pigure VIII-8
Figure VIII-9
Figure VIII-10
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-12
Figure VIII-13 ,
Figure VIII-14
IX
Figure IX-1
X
Figure X-l
XI
Schematic Drawing Showing Component Farts of
Flash Drying Unit
Pressure Type Fluid ized -Bed Thermal Coal Dryer
Showing Component Parts and Flow of Coal and
Drying Gases
Glass Wool Production
Soda-Lime Glass Manufacture
Gypsum
Gypsum Products Flow Diagram
Mineral Wool
Flow Diagram of Mineral Wool Process
Phosphate Rock (Drying)
Phosphate Rock Processing
Phosphate Rock (Grinding)
Phosphate Rock Processing
Sand and Gravel Processing
Sand and Gravel Processing Flow Diagram
Stone Quarrying
Flow Diagram for Rock Processing
Petroleum Industry
Petroleum Refining, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
Wood Processing
Wood Processing (Plywood)
Detailed Process Flow Diagram for Veneer and Plywood
Manufacturing
Automobile Assembly
PAGE
VIII-21
VIII-22
VIII-30
VIII-34
VII 1-38
VIII-42
VIII-46
VIII-50
VIII-54
IX-1
X-l
Figure XI-1
Fresh Air Staging
XI-2
xvi
-------
1.0 Summary
This report presents the results of a study whose objective is to provide
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a document suitable for state
agencies to make a first cut assessment of the emission limitation potential
for sources within their jurisdictions. The disbursement of the document is
consistent with the July, 1977 deadline, at which time states must submit
attainment plans for those areas where the current Implementation Plan is
substantially inadequate. The document contains quantitative information for
eighty source, categories which were selected by EPA as those common to many
areas of the U.S. and would potentially benefit most from application of
control devices.
The analysis of the 80 source, categories is restricted to either particulate
matter or hydrocarbon emissions or for a few source categories both pollutants
are considered. These source categories are classified into eleven main areas:
I External Combustion VII Metallurgical Industry
II Solid Waste Disposal VIII Mineral Product Industry
III Internal Combustion IX Petroleum Industry
IV Evaporation Losses X Wood Processing Industry
V Chemical Process Industry XI Manufacturing Industry
VI Food and Agricultural Industry
The eleven main categories are subdivided by particulate and hydrocarbon
emissions according to Table 1.
TABLE i
SOUKCE CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION
r imJMe "jtter HydrpcnrhDne Parr JCU)MI- M.icicr Hydrorarboni Farticuiato Hjtrrr Hye*iDcar
Cxcr-il Co-bunion VI Food and AgrUultur.a VIII Hltierr! Product!
!„, { 1-10 x 10< ttr,",r) Groec,. C»« C^b) ,ocr ,„„„,,,. ,c< r Prot.>.l,., H,o,,l,.« Rock, (r.r)nilre)
'"" / Tn ?nJ BT'L'"'' Cotton Cii.nlr.r Sand «nd fr^cl Proc.r.ol->8
ler« (>.!50 x 10 tri,/hr) Cce., Fj, r,ytnf co(p r»t >rylr.s Stow Quorrylrc
Direct nrtnv; of Meat] Direct Firing of Hrilti
FccC Mllllrir, IX ?ctrolrira Industry
(IxcluJI T A!f..!r,i) Fluid c.
n\r" [''i,Ttp X V'coiJ Troccislng
IcrlJlfi.r - Mlci^to rjyvpod Myvood
Cmln I'nJllni; - Nltr.ito
.uril Cc^usij." Tn^jTiej liitfro.l Cocitiufctton Sun, r.™!,' li'^'l ^ (l rrc> E" ll^r'j u om° * Adse:B;) X AutowobI
1K..I l II...'. >...!> (Dl.i.ll l)u.l Fuel) ' {^r.',,ll,',. k CU-nl-,8)
Cr ilo r in 111 r. (rnnsfcr)
IV !Ajpor.ulon Lonci Vrf.ftnlilo 01) y.im.'.iciui ln| Veritable Oil ««r,u( ,,ctvtlr.t
U" C"V""-« vn „,.,„,„„„:„, I „„„.,,,
hU Art
«pMh Art* (CrivmtO
a^i Irc.n I fiu-v'r li.
(fUctrtc luin.ro)
»)
Cr.i'Mc Aril (Motul Pccorotli-f c.lt' li "„ "o'iuirlc. C.it Iron fo-ni-rlef
In,!Us,r'.l_^r(Jcr Co.tlng (rn,,. n , (Cor. <>,„„,)
Irrn nnci seed flint!
(l.lcctrlc A, c)
Iron .MKl Str. I Pl.lr.t.
r.
Iro.i ..nJ Sic.-l Plnnti
C.is.-llno (U.^rkUp) (slnir
?Mtro).Mitn ll.imffr C(ir.olln« Irvn ..id M"I '. Dotitn
(Open l\ )
t Ch«tc«l Froce«c In^uitry rrtriry r^i'r^r
A^.yh-nJ trllu
Ar-onli (M. ili.Miotor n.nt)
Annunlj (*s.T.."i'r.itor i
C) Al.koiVr) y,n |||,,,.tnl Vrol'ncn
«rhnn Ilkck C.n L>n ni K-V
Pi In try Al.iilnu
Stnl ro.mjr'.!*
lltivicrv nirl.lorlda AHrl|al( Ki'oito^ (81i*wlnt) AiJ-hllt Kooflnt (Blowing)
Til.) !.-n. 0«14t ,rl>.k t ,tl.,u,j clj, fruductl
rnrrilil.'lij><:i! f,... ,n rl u:!«
rtlnllr Anl,.ii!r1di llr;lii|')
r«l,|.cl,yl«n« (l.lfl, d.n.Ity) rr,.irrr,r ILUfMof
folyrlhylcn. (1^ d^nHty) ,.,,„ Wilo, rroduc[ion
Pply.l^roiir (Sodj I Ifne)
'""tl"". llA Cj-n.v..
• yntl.ttlc (Ibctl (.Njrlon) Mlnrrnl Wool
v""l«*. Pl.Lj.^Ijto Rotlj. (3rvlr.k)
-I-
-------
The eighty source categories are assessed according to (1) typical plant
size and associated emissions, (2) applicable control equipment efficiencies
and (3) potential for compliance with New Source Performance. Standards and the
most and least restrictive regulatory limitations. The document presents data
typical of current emissions and control techniques. The document does not
address whether the source categories studied are controlled to either Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) or Reasonably Available Control Technology
(KACT). For some of the source categories, more detail would have been of real
use to agency personnel. However, the intended objective limited the develop-
ment to comparable levels of detail for each of the eighty categories.
-2-
-------
2. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to distribute to
State Agencies a document suitable for assisting agencies in making a first
cut assessment of the emission limitation potential for sources within their
jurisdiction. EPA has required states with designated Air Quality Maintenance
Areas, through ("40 CFR, Part 51) to submit plans that describe how acceptable
air quality will be attained and/or maintained. Much progress has been made
in defining problem areas, especially in and around urban centers, where air
quality levels exceed primary and secondary standards. Special efforts are
under way to increase Federal, State and Local enforcement, and to determine
the extent to which implementation plans can be remedied. EPA is critically
aware that specific and accurate information is necessary to define source
categories to which limited funds and personnel can be applied. EPA is also
aware that a significant gap is growing between level of resources required
to organize and implement state plans and the level of effort states have
available. The lack of suitably trained staff is hampering states from
making timely and accurate submittals to EPA of required data and plans.
EPA hat- previously assisted State Agencies in fulfilling their required
tasks, by supplying them with appropriate reference documents. EPA realizes
that a document which assiscs in prioritizing sources would allow state
agencien to focus their efforts on areas that would be productive. State
agency staff are interested in determining which types of sources emit suffi-
ciently large quantities of pollutants, and could exceed even lenient regu-
lation'-.. This type of information will allow agency staff to pssesp thp
adequacy of Llie uata on file Lo determine euuipliaiict: OL uui.i-cuiujjliauce.
The analysis of the 80 categories considered either particulate matter
or hydrocarbon emissions. These source categories were classified into
eleven main areas:
I External Combustion VII Metallurgical Industry
II Solid Waste Disposal VIII Mineral Products Industry
III Internal Combustion IX Petroleum Industry
IV Evaporation Losses X Wood Processing Industry
V Chemical Process Industry XI Manufacturing Industry
VI Food and Agricultural Industry
For each of the eighty categories, an outline format is used to present
pertinent information and data. The format is identical for each category to
assure uniformity and ease of use. The elements of the format and an explana-
tion of what is contained in each is presented below:
A. Source Category
B. Sub-Category
C. Source Description
D. Emission Rates
E. Control Equipment
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation
Limitation
G, References
-------
Section A_ consists of a one line designation, denoting one of the eleven
categories by Roman numerical and industry group.
Section JJ consists of a one line designation that distinguishes a par-
ticular industry within the major category.
Section C_ consists of a brief description of the process, type of product
manufactured and approximate locations in the process where emissions, in-
cluding fugitive emissions occur. No estimates are made for fugitive emis-
sions because of a lack, of quantitative data. Fugitive emissions are vari-
able on a day to day basis even from one plant. As such, they are not
amenable to accurate estimation. Also, traditional stack techniques for
control are not appropriate for reduction of fugitive emissions. The
description of each sub-category includes information on the type of raw
material used, description of process equipment and a flow diagram of the
process.
Section D consists of a brief discussion of the quantity of particulate
and/or hydrocarbon emissions arising from an average size plant. If data
are available estimates are made for discrete items of equipment in the
plant. Each sub-section contains at least one table that describes the
emissions on a Ibs/ton and Ibs/hr basis for a typical plant. This is done to
simplify future emission calculations for sources that have process weights
different than the ones used. The table for emission rates presents un-
controlled and controlled emissions. Where information for control is not
available for a specific process, a range of control efficiencies is
hypothesized, so a realistic comparison to regulations could be made.
Section 12 consists of a brief discussion of control equipment typically
associated with the process described in Section D. The efficiencies found
in the emission table in Section D, are quoted from available literature.
The equipment and efficiencies listed in Section E do not imply these are
the only types of control possible, or that the control efficiencies listed
are the highest possible. Specification of control efficiencies that depict
best available control require exact definition of stack parameters which
Is Beyond the scope of this task.
Section F_ consists of a brief discussion of where controlled and uncon-
trolled emissions stand with respect to New Source Performance Standards
and Regulatory Limitations. Examples are given of least restrictive and
most restrictive regulations for the size of the process listed in Section
D, The examples given may not necessarily be the most or least restrictive
' in every case, since some states require specification of stack parameters
in order to define an allowable emission. The states used for examples in
the text and tables are therefore qualified as being representative of a
most and a least restrictive limitation. In every Section F, there is at
least one table that presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and
limitations. Surveying this table indicates what level of control is
necessary to meet the quoted limitations. For a majority of the processes,
qualifying remarks and a table are included that specify whether existing
control technology is adequate to meet New Source Performance Standards
where applicable and regulatory limitations.
-4-
-------
Section (» consists of a listing of references that were used to develop
the information presented in the text. Literature references that were
not used but reviewed are also listed. This allows the reviewer a broader
-understanding of the material surveyed.
-5-
-------
3.0 Conclusions and Discussion
The format and inclusion of the seven sections as outlined in the Intro-
duction allows rapid analysis of numerous details. Because the eighty source
categories are distinct and separate from each other, one category can be
removed from the rest of the text without losing or destroying the meaning
of either the category removed or the categories remaining. While this ap-
proach has necessitated repetition of much of the details of the regulation
and reference sections, it is expected to provide maximum utilization of the
document. Updating and revising can be performed relatively easily because
the categories are removable as a unit. Additional categories can be added
without disrupting the page numbering or conclusions drawn from the other
categories.
The analysis of the eleven major industry categories, as listed in
Section 2.0, is based on the application of a six point overview presented
by the following questions.
1. Is the source category commonly found or is it relatively rare?
2. Does th-.1 source category have the potential for a wide range of
process weights?
3. Does one source category consistently exceed regulatory limits
or does the uncontrolled source category operate within all
regulatoiy limits?
4. Are there. New Source 1'erlomance standards which apply to the
subcat-egorios?
5. Is existing control technology sufficiently adequate*, to allow
emissions to meet'regulatory limitations?
6. Does the source category have the potential for fugitive emis-
sion problems?
The frnmnworlc for the analysis of the eleven main industry classifications
is based on the responses to the above six questions.
1. Source categories that are common in all fifty states have universal
interest in terms of the other five questions. Source categories that
are relatively rare could require special treatment tailored specifi-
cally to individual plants and/or regulatory bodies.
2. Source categories that have a wide range of process weights require
extra care when assessing compliance with regulatory limitations.
Many limitations are either unusually restrictive or lenient at the
extremes of the process weight curve.
-6-
-------
3. Source categories that consistently exceed regulatory limitations indicate
that adequate control has not been applied. Source categories that meet
regulatory limits with no control could indicate that a specific regula-
tion should be adopted or tightened to reduce emissions from uncontrolled
sources,
4. The existence of New Source Performance Standards indicates that these
source categories should be reviewed first by agency staff to assure
compliance.
5, If existing control technology is not adequate to meet regulatory limi-
; ! tations, agency staff should investigate the accomplishments of similar
source categories to justify (1) that control technology does not exist
or (2) whether the source category has been deliberately slow in apply-
ing control,
6, Sources that have a fugitive emission potential or problem present a
complicated emission picture to agency staff. Agency staff should
quickly distinguish points within a source that are covered by stack
limitations and which aspects are fugitive. Recommendations for assess-
ment and control of fugitive emissions is beyond the scope of this
task.
Tfie following eleven sections discuss each of the major industry groups as
outlined In Section 1,0, according to the above six point overview;
I Extfci uetl Cumuus11cm
The External Combustion Category covers process heaters and boilers of all
sizes. Boilers of all sizes are common to all fifty states, and are either cast
iron, firetube or four sizes of watertube design. There are five types of coal
fired units. New Source Performance Standards have been promulgated for boilers
larger than 250 x 106 BTU/hr, Coal fired boilers require controls to meet even
lenient limitations. New Mexico is representative of states that require con-
trols for oil fired units. Process heaters were not evaluated because of lack
of appropriate literature.
IT Solid Waste Disposal
The Solid Waste Disposal Category covers sugar cane field burning, agri-
cultural burning, municipal incinerators and Industrial/commercial inciner-
ators. Sugar cane burning was not covered because of lack of data. Agricul-
tural burning data was developed for eighteen states. For these eighteen
states hydrocarbon emissions totaled 146,000 tons. Regulations have been
enacted to control agricultural burning. Municipal Incinerators often have
capacities of 50 tons/day and require controls to comply with regulations.
Industrial/commercial Incinerators normally have capacities of 50 Ibs/hr to
4,000 Ibs/hr and normally require controls to comply with existing regulations.
New Source Performance Standards have been promulgated for incinerators charg-
ing more than 10 tons/day.
-7-
-------
Ill Internal CombustionEngines
The Internal Combustion Engine Category consisted of one sub-category,
diesel and dual fuel engines, Particulate emission data for this category
was quite sketchy so this category was not developed.
IV Evaporation Losses
The category of Evaporation Losses consists of the various phases of gaso-
line storage, handling and marketing, the graphic arts industry and various
phases of industrial surface coating operations. EPA. has promulgated New
Source Performance Standards for storage vessels larger than 40,000 gallons.
Los Angeles Rule 66-type legislation has become relatively common, which
sharply limits the quantities of both reactive and non-reactive hydrocarbons
that can be released form all types of processes. Hydrocarbon regulations are
characterized because they are not based on process weight, thereby requiring
large sources to employ extensive control.
^ ^ Chemical Process Industry
The Chemical Process Industry consists of basic manufacturing processes
that provide other industries with the organic and Inorganic chemicals. The
industry is to be noted because of the wide range of process weight rates.
Varnish manufacture is typical of a small process (0.03 tons/hr) and ethylene
dlchloride is typical of a large process (24 tons/hr). No New Source Per-
foi'wancp Standards have been promulgated for the categories as outlined in
Section 1.0 for tha Chewier 1 pror:^«s Ipdu^tvjps, The catr.yoritiS as described
for the Chemical Process Industry require extensive controls to meet the Los
AngeJes Rule 66 limitation of 3 Ibs/hr. For many of the larger processes,
control technology has not been fully demonstrated,
VI Food and Agricultural Industry
The food and Agricultural Industry consists of the various grain hand-
ling and processing operations, food and beverage preparation and fertilizer
production. The grain handling operations presented the potential for sub-
stantial particulate emissions. The economic value of the grain has warranted
investment in hoods, cyclones and fabric filters. However, a number of the
grain operations can comply with existing regulations even uncontrolled. Food
preparation included direct firing of meat, deep fat frying and vegetable oil
manufacturing. The hydrocarbon emissions from these sources, while not large
compared to those in category IV, do comprise local problems. These types of
sources are usually uncontrolled and often create a substantial odor problem.
In general, they are unregulated in the traditional Ibs/hour basis. The
fertilizer processes quoted have relatively large process weights (15 tons/hr)
and the technology for control is firmly established. Inadequate process data
for diammonium phosphate necessitated not completing this category.
-8-
-------
VII Metallurgical Industry
The Metallurgical Industry consists of the basic processes to produce
iron, steel, copper and aluminum metals. The industry is characterized by
large and varied process weights. Core ovens are representative of a small
process weight of 0.05 tons/hour and sintering represents a large process
of 250 tons/hr. All of the Metallurgical Industry Processes consume large
amounts of energy mostly by burning fuels. This, plus the nature of the
basic reduction processes, produces the potential for large quantites of
particulate emissions. New Source Performance Standards have been promul-
gated for copper smelters. Various states have passed specific and general
process regulations for the industries considered under this category.
Particulate emission limitations are based on concentration, control effi-
ciency, gas volume and process weight rate. All of the sources in this cate-
gory require some sort of control to comply with existing regulations. Ade-
quate control technology does exiot to meet existing state regulations and
for copper smelters to meet New Source Performance Standards.
•VIII Mineral Products Indus try
The Hineral Products In-'.ustry consists of sources that either make or
•use asphalt and cement, coal drying, bricks, glass wool, gypsum, mineral
wool, and phosphate rock grinding. Brick and Related Clay Products is
typical of a smaller process (3 tons/hour) and Stone Quarrying is typical
of a larger process C97 tons/hr). All of these source categories are rela-
tively heavy emitters of particulate matter and all require some control to
meet even lenient regulatory limitations. New Source Performance Standards
hnvf Bee.n pronuiLgaiied for Portland Cement Plants.
DC Petroleum Industry
The Petroleum Industry for this report is comprised of only one source
category, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units CFCCU). FCCU are characterized by
their large energy requirements, high catalyst recirculation rate and poten-
tial for being a large emitter of CO and particulates. FCCU are designed to
process 20,000 to 150,000 barrels/day of fresh crude. FCCU are often equipped
with CO boilers and electrostatic precipitators to reduce emissions. Several
states have specific regulations for controlling FCCU and New Source Per-
formance Standards have been promulgated for FCCU.
X Wood Processing Industry
The Wood Processing Industry contains only one source category, Plywood
Manufacturing. Both hydrocarbon and particulate emissions were assessed.
Plywood manufacturing process weights typically average about 4.0 tons/hour.
The particulate emission regulations require baghouses. The hydrocarbon
emissions can effectively be controlled with an afterburner, and in a few
instances by a condenser, to meet the Los Angeles Rule 66-type legislation.
XI Manufacturing Industry
The Manufacturing Industry for this report includes only one sub-category;
automobile painting. The quantity of solvents emitted from a typical paint line
is large compared to the Rule 66 type regulations. The concentration of hydro-
carbons in the exhaust is fairly low thereby making the cost of scrubbing pro-
hibitive. Recently "staged" air make up has reduced significantly the
volume of air needed to be treated.
-9-
-------
4. Source Category;, I External Combustijm
B. Sub Category; Wood Waste Boilc-rs
C. Source Description;
Wood waste boilers are very similar in design and construction to coal
fired spreader stokers and are commonly found at pulp paper mills. The waste
boilers along with the chemical recovery unit provide the paper pulp plant with
much of its energy requirements. The fuel for a wood waste boiler is tradi-
tionally wet bark and wood refuse originating from the debarking and cleanup
of logs prior to shredding. The moisture content of the refuse can be as high
as 70 to 80 percent. Whenever it exceeds an average of 55 percent, the bark is
either ipressed to remove the excess water or mixed with drier material to pro-
duce a substance that will ignite consistently. Depending upon the power re-
quirements of the boiler and availability of auxiliary fuel, oil or coal can
usually be simultaneously fired. The typical spreader stoker used for bark
burning allows the bark to enter high enough in the fire box to allow evapor-
ation of excessive moisture and permit oxidation of most of the combustible
matter. This is accomplished and aided by rows of nozzles blowing preheated
air tangentlally at various levels. All of the bark passes through this highly
turbulent high temperature gas zone where a large portion of the bark burns
[rapidly, and only the larger particles fall to the grate. C1)1-6""1 Typical
wood waste boilers are six million BTU/hr (1512) x It)6 cal/hr) with larger
units as high as 450 million BTU/hr (113.400 x 106 CP!/!V-). Thin corresponds
to approxi-jncttTy 700 Jb«/!-r (US kg/hr) to 53,000 iWhr (24,040 kg/hr) of
wood waste assuming a heat content of 8,500 BTU/lb (4,718 cal/g).(2)T1~62
D. Emission Rates:
Particulate emissions result from the stack of the waste heat boiler burn-
ing wood and bark. Improper maintenance of the grates especially when using
coal as an auo iliary fuel is a primary reason for excessive emissions. In
addition excessive moisture in the bark will cause poor combustion with re-
sultant smoking. The emission rate per ton of wood burned is expressed as a
range since there arc several variables that can cause emissions of particu-
lates to vary from boiler to boiler and even on the same boiler. Under normal
conditions, the particulate emissions range.between 25-30 Ibs (11.25-13.5 kg)
of particulate per ton of wood burned. Table 1-1 shows the heat input in l(r>
BTU/hr, and 106 cal/hr and the amount of wood consumed, 2H~62
TABLE t-l
WOOD WASTE HOH.KR PAHT1CW.ATE EMISSIONS
Type of
Oocrotion & Control
Wood V,'nste Boiler,
Uacon tro ] led
Wood Waste Boiler
with Cyclone
Wood Raste Boiler
with Scrubber
Hpoj Waste Boil?r
with Electrostatic
pl'eclpiuitor
Wood U.ista Boiler
with fabric Filter
X
Control
o
94
98
99
99.5
JLb£_l>nrt k'1 j>nrt
Ton Wood
25-30*
25-30
25-30
25-30
25-30
M Ton V'ood
12.3-15
12.5-15
12.5-15
12.5-15
12.5-15
. — «j
Tonn/lir k^/ht'
Howl
.35-26.5
.35-26.5
,35-26.5
.35-2*.. 5
.35-26.5
Hoort
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
Heat Input
106 B'riJ/hr
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
lp") cal/hr
1.5-113,400
i>,
1.5-113,400
1.5-113,400
1.5-313,400
1,5-113,400
Emissions
lbs/100 8TU
1.6
0.096
0.032
0.016
0,008
C/10" cal
2.9
0.17
C.058
0.029
0.014
*For thi» calculation, usa 27.5,
1-1
-------
E. Con t rol Equipment;
Cyclones are commonly found on wood waste heat boilers. They can achieve
efficiencies up to 94% under typical wood waste boiler outlet conditions, but
60% to 85% efficiencies are more common, Wet scrubbers can achieve 98% effi-
ciency under normal boiler outlet conditions. However, wet scrubbers require
higher capital investment and higher operating costs than other devices.
Electrostatic precipitators can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% de-
pending on number, size and voltage of the plates. Most modern high effi-
ciency electrostatic precipitators are designed to operate in the 97% to 99%
range. Baghouses often have efficiencies of 99.5 percent but are sensitive
to the high temperatures in boiler exhaust. (**)**"'*
F. New SourcePerformance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): On December 23, 1971 EPA promul-
gated NSPS for fossil-fuel fired steam generators. These standards pertain to
steam generating units greater than 250 million BTU/hr heat input. As such,
some of the wood waste boilers of the larger sizes would be covered by 0.1
pounds/106 BTU heat input limitation.
StateRegulationsfor New and Existing Sourcest Alaska and Florida are
two states which distinguish wood waste boilers from other types of fossil
fuel steam generators. Alaska states its emission limitation as a concentration,
0.15 grains/standard cubic foot. As such this limitation is not directly
comparable to the lbs/106 BTU basis in Table 1-2. Florida's expresses the
limitation for wood waste boilers on a lbs/106 BTU basis as follows:
Boilers >30 x 106 BTU/hr - 0.3 lbs/106 BTU for wood + 0.1 lbs/106
BTU for other fuels
Table 1-2 presents uncontrolled and controlled particulate emissions and
limitations for wood waste boilers.
TABLE 1-2
PARTICULAR EHISSIONS ACT) LIMITATIONS FROM WOOD WASTE BOILERS3
Type of Boiler and Control
Wood Waste Boiler Uncontrolled
Wood Waste Boiler with Cyclone
Hood Wast* Boiler with Scrubber
Wood Waste Boiler with
£ltctro»t«tie Preeipitator
Wood Waste Boiler with T»bric
Filter
Heat Input
106 BTU/hr
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
3 cal/br
1.5-113,400
1. 5-11 3, 400
1.5-113,400
1.5-113,400
1.5-113,400
%
Control
0
85
94
98
99.5
Emissions
lbs/106 BTU
1.6
.24
.096
,032
.008
g/106 cal
2.9
.109
.044
.015
.004
Limitations lbs/106 BTU g/10*1 cal
NSPS* Florida
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
0.3/0.48
0.3/0.48
0.3/0.48
0,3/0,48
0.3/0.48
PotentialSource Compliance and Emission Limitations; For wood waste boilers
to comply with NSPS, 94% control would be necessary, for a wood waste boiler to
comply with a 0.30 lbs/106 BTU limitation, such as Florida's, 81% control
would be necessary.
The .gnylyonment Reporter was used to update the emission regulations.
1-2
-------
G. References:
To develop the information in this section concerning wood waste boilers,
the following references were used:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, April 1974, USEPA.
(2) Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., Washington, D.C., October 1971.
(3) Analysis of Final State_ImpleTaentation Plans, Rules and Regulations^
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248," July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
( 4 ) Background Information for Establi shinent of Hat ional Sta ndards of
Performanco for New Sourc_e^ ^ Indiiserial Size JBoilers, Walden Research
Corporation, EPA Control No. CAP 70-165; Task Order No. 5, June 30, 1971.
1-3
-------
A. Source Category; I External Combustion
B. Sub Category.' Boilers .3-10 x 10G BTU/Hr
C. Source Description;
Boilers in the .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr size range are generally one of two
types utilizing coal, oil, or natural gas. Industry associations have cate-
gorized cast iron and firetube boilers in two classes as outlined in Table 1-3.
TABLE T-3
CLASSIFICATION AND CAPACITY OF CAST IRON AND FIRETUBE BOILERS
Type of Boiler
Cast Iron
Firetube
Size
Ibs steam/hr
6bO-8000
420-25000
kg steam/hr
294.8-3629
190.5-11340
Heat Input
106 BTU/hr
.3-10.0
.3-10.0
10° cal/hr
75.6-2520
75.6-2520
Cast iron boilers arrj. generally noted for their extremely long service-
life, often 50 years. They can be overloaded without harm and can absorb
demand surges in stride. However, they are somewhat expensive for a given
size ana can be operated only in the low pro^sme xMii^e J or space heating
steam. Higher capacity units are constructed by bolting multiple castings
together to provide the desired capacity. The smaller sixes are made for
house-hold installations, with the upper range having been extended to ap-
proximately 8000 Ibs/hr (3600 kg/hr) steam.
Firetube boilers are generally noted for their fast response to moderate
load change and are relatively inexpensive compared to other boiler types
for a given capacity. However, they are inferior to cast iron boilers because
they are more easily damaged during overload conditions and have a longevity
of only about 20 years. Firetube and cast iron boilers are amenable to shop
assembjy, thus simplifying installation. All that is required are hook-ups
for steam outlet, water inlet, flue, fuel, and electrical power. Firetube
boilers are rarely found in domestic sizes but together with cast iron, are
common in schools, institutions, apartment houses, offices, etc. They are
also in increasing use for small industrial applications of space heating and
process steam at moderate pressure.
D. Emission Rates
Particulate emissions result from the stacks of the boilers burning coal,
oil, or natural gas. Improper maintenance can cause excessive smoke and poor
economy of operation. Table I-3A shows the heat input in BTU/hr, the emissions
produced per million BTU and million calories, and the effect of control ef-
ficiency on coal fired units.2.3(1)^-2,3,4(3)9
Many of the coal fired units found in operation have some type of control
equipment installed to lower emission levels of particulates to within pre-
vailing regulations.
1-4
-------
TABLE I-3A
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr BOILERS.
Type of Boiler and Control
Cast iron
Cast iron and dry cyclone
Cast iron and wet scrubber
Cast iron and electric precipitator
Cast iron and fabric filter
Cast iron
Cast iron
Cast iron
Firetube
Firetube and dry cyclone
Firetube and wee scrubber
Firetube and electric precipitator
Firetube and fabric filter
Firetube
Firetube
Firetube
Type of Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
%
Control
0
85
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
0
85
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
Emissions
lbs/10& BTJ input
1.54
0-231
0.031
0.015
0.008
0.108
0.103
0.017
1.54
0.231
0.031
0.015
0.008
0.103
0.103
0.017
g/10° cal input
2.77
0-105
0.056
0.027
0.014
0.195
0.186
0.031
2.77
0,105
0.056
0.027
0.014
0.195
0.186
0.031
E. Control Equipment;
Many of the industrial and commercial applications of cast iron and
firetube boilers have control equipment to reduce particulate emissions.
The four most common methods are:
1. dry cyclone,
2. wet scrubber,
3. electrostatic precipitator, and
4. baghouse.
Dry cyclones can achieve up to 94% efficiency under typical boiler out-
let conditions, but 60% - 85% efficiencies are more common. Wet scrubbers
can achieve 98% efficiency under typical boiler outlet conditions and offer
the advantage of some sulfur dioxide removal. However, wet scrubbers
require higher capital investment and incur higher operating costs than other
control devices. Electrostatic precipitators are the most common control
device for boilers and can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% depending
on number, size and voltage of the plates. Most modern high efficiency elec-
trostatic precipitators are designed to operate in the 97% to 99% range.
Baghouses often have efficiencies of 99.5 percent but are sensitive to the
high temperatures found in boiler exhausts. (2) A"11*
1-5
-------
F. New Source; Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated New Source Performance Standards for fossil fuel fired steam
generators. However, these standards only pertain to steam generating units
greater than 250 million BTU's per hour heat input. As such, boilers of
.3-10 x 106 BTU/hr heat input described in Section D are controlled by
individual state regulations for fossil fuel fired steam generators.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: All fifty states have
regulations pertaining to fuel combustion for steam generators. West
Virginia exempts sources less than 10 x 1QG BTU/hour heat input. Other states
such as Alaska and Maryland express their limitations as a concentration and
as such are not directly comparable to the lbs/106 BTU/hr calculations expressed
in Table 1-4. Connecticut is representative of a restrictive limitation which
does not distinguish boiJers by size. A flat limitation of 0.2 lbs/106 BTU for
existing sources and 0.10 lbs/10G BTU for new sources are the statuatory
limitations. Louisiana is representative of a least restrictive limitation
which docs not distinguish boilers by size, 0.6 lbs/106 BTU. Table 1-4
presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for boilers of
the 0.3-10 x 10b BTJ/hr size range.
TABLE 1-4
rAr.TiciJL.vn i;;iiscio:;s AJH> LIMITATIONS n;n;t .3-10 x io(l ETU/IH r.oiT.E\.->
Tvpe of Boili-r r.nd Control
Cast iron
Cast Iron and dry cyclone
Cast iron ,md wet scrubber
Cast iron and electric precipitator
Cast iron and fabric filter
Cast iron
Cast iron
Cast iron
Firetube
Firetxibe and dry cyclone
Firetube and vet scrubber
Firetube and electric precipitator
Firetubo and fabric filter
Firetube
Flrciube
Firetube
Tucl
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
5!
Control
0
94
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
0
94
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
Emissions
lbf/106 BTU
1 . 54
0.231
0.03]
0.015
0 . 008
0.103
0.103
".017
1 . 5-'<
0.231
0.031
0.015
0 . 008
0 . 108
0.103
0.017
L!i/J06 cal
2.77
0.105
o.oi6
0.027
0.014
0.195
0.1S6
0.031
2.77
0.105
0 . 056
0.027
0.014
0.195
0.186
0.011
Lini rations'* Jls/K'v BTU / f>/iOb cal |
Conn EAU
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
Conn New
0.10/0.18
0.10/0. IE
0.1C/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/OJS
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
Loi:i!,j.ina |
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1. OS
0.6/J .08
0.6/1 .Ob
0.6/1.0?
0.6/J. Oo
0.6/1.03
0.6/1. OR
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1. OS
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03 1
0.6/1. OS
Potential Source^Compliance and Emissions Limitations; There is a wide
range of boiler particulate emissions and the limitation imposed by the least
restrictive to the most restrictive state regulation.. Table I-4A summarizes
the percent control necessary to achieve compliance in states that have
limitations equal to Connecticut's 0.1 lbs/106 BTU and Louisiana's 0.6 Ibs/
106 BTU.
1-6
-------
TABLE I-4A
COMPILATION OF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILERS .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr
Boiler Type
Cast Iron
Firetube
Fuel
Coal
Coal
CciMi-iCticut (new)
94%
94%
Louisiana
61% .
61% '
Table I-4A indicates that 94% control is required for the most restrictive
regulation, and current technology is sufficient to control cast iron coal and
firetube units of the 0.5-10 x 106 BTU/hr size range.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
R. Rp.f firences;
To develop the information presented in this section concerning boilers
.3-10 x 106 BTU/hr the following references were used:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Perfor-
mance for New Sources - Industrial Size Boilers, Walden Research Corpora-
tion, EPA Contract No. CPA70-165, Task Order No. 5, June 30, 1971.
2. Systematic Study of Air Pollution from Intermediate-sized Fossil Fuel
Combustion Equipment, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No.
CPA22-69-85, July, 1971.
3. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Volume 2, Emission Factors for Boilers.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed include:
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, EPA, May, 1973,
6. Combus11 on Engineering, Glen R. Tryling, published by Combustion Engin-
eering, Inc., 277 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017; 1966.
1-7
-------
A* ^ource Category: I External Combustion
B, Sub Category: Boilers 10-250 x 106 BTU/hr
C. Source Pescription:
Boilers in the 10-250 x 106 BTU/hr size range are of the water tube type,
utilizing coal, oil, or natural gas. Water tube boilers comprise the bulk of
industrial and almost half of all the utility boilers. Generally the smallest
industrial boilers are of the firetube design with large water tube boilers
providJng up to 10,000,000 Ibs (4,500,000 kg) per hour of steam. (1)2-3
Industry associations have categorized water tube boilers in four size classes
as outlined in Table 1-5, (1)3~®
TABLE 1-5
CLASSIFICATION AND CAPACITY OF WATER TUBE BOILERS
Boiler
Type
Water tube-1
Water tube-2
Water tube-3
Water tuhe-4
Ty_p_ical Rated Ca
Ibs/hr ~
10000-100000
100001-250000
250001-500000
> 500000
[>ac_it.y Range Steam
"kg/hr"
4536-45359
45359. 6-113338
113398.5-226796
>226796
Source Class
106 BTU/hr
10-250
10-250
>250
>250
Size Input
10G cal/hr
2520-63000
2520-63000
> 63000
> 63000
"Virtually all of the water tube-1 group are packaced units, shop assembled
end shipped in cnc pice- by trailer cr flat car. The "balrnce cf the r.iddlc
capacity range and all of the larger units are field assembled units. Today
almost all of the coal firing units are the field erected water tube design
with gas and/or oil as a possible alternative fuel for any of the categories.
Coal firing is accomplished by one of the following methods: (2)A-14
1. Pulverized
2. Cyclone
3, Overfeed stoker
4, Spreader stoker
5, Underfeed stoker
For industrial size boilers (water tube-1 and water tube-2)
stoker firing is the most common while the larger sizes (water tube-3
and water tube-4) pulverized firing is the most common.
D, Emission Rates:
Particulate emissions result from the stacks of the boilers burning coal,
oil, or natural gas. Improper maintenance or poor startup procedures can
cause excessive smoke and poor economy of operation. Table I-5A shows the type
of boiler and control, type of fuel, the size of the boiler, the percentage of
control that can be expected with a cyclone scrubber, electrostatic precipitator
and fabric filter and the emission rate in pounds per million BTU and grams per
million calories, x1)**""2* 3*14 » C3)11 Other combinations of control equipment are
possible with both higher and lower efficiencies.
1-8
-------
|M»ririniu-ijM;Hi!j!iinii!i ri'"'i in-tin_it, >»'• UTii/hr jyiij.EM
type of IMlrr •»<* Control
Walrt Tnfci-1
Vali-r liilvi
Wau-r Twl.«-l
VaiiT rwl.i-1, Sp»f»KHl|>ll«lur
Iralrr Ttilu-l, D^/.TlInJ wllh V.il-tlc
rnur
WlllH -.iil.i'-J
I'/iU-r Tiiln-J
Valcf Tltl-c^*1
Wain TuI.r.J, (prrndrr (rvtccr, WnJi-rfJi-i-tl
Wslt-f l*i!«'-2» Sp»vnd**r ^tnU-ri llHiJt-rf li i-*l
vllli !:>-£|R>ll.ilM
r HIT
Wsl r 1»I«— ?, P«»vfi (j-i-rf
«.il i lulu-?, I'liht-rlri'il vllh Cyclimr
V.,l i l«il.i--Z. rttlvcrl.-til Vllti Vuit.U-r
Vm , TnU-r rii:\.-i;u-J via, LI. rir»-
« .11 Ir frrrliili.iinf
k'.il r T«lll
nii,iiii nil
Coal*
(!,,/.!«
C^t«
foul*
r^n.|].
CCA)*
Co ill*
Cc^aJ*
C«.nl*
11,11 HI nl Gut
X«>lilu«l UU
nutniMr Oil
Cral"
Cwtl*
Coal*
Uo.il*
r..i.i)«
Cc.nl*
rn.il*
C0.lJ *
Coal«
Co.il*
Co.il*
Cf.il*
C».al*
Coal«
Co.. I*
Cd.ll*
<:«.}!*
i,>ui3 *
Cn.il*
Cu.il*
I
Cmil rnj
n
0
e
0
*s
9*
99
99.5
1)
8!»
9>
99
M.i
D
U
0
0
n
58
99
99. J
0
B^
9H
99
99.5
0
li&
!«
99
»9. S
0
IIS
• w
99
99. i
K«lf.i
TiMTWiiiu
n.iti)
e. !»>
o.inu
J.'il'
o.?M
0.031
0.0)6
O.OOA
0.6f.J
0.091
O.P44T
0.0?]
O.llK
l),{lf,f,
(1,108
l.ii
o.nj
0.031
0,0]«
o.tKm
4.01
o.fi»r>
b.uo.1
O.O'iO
II.02U
C.?n
0.9JO
O.JJ4
».or,j
P.nji
*,'!'.
(I, ?«S
0.699-
o.orio
0.0!!>
(•yin- i-.ii
(i. nil
n.lB't
(1.195
},n
0,105
O.OS6
D.l>29
0,016
P. 70
r. 10^
O.JO'.
c.osj
O.OM
(),«:• r.
{'. 1 1'<
O.l'rt
?.9»
O.lOi
o.nsr.
O.ft.'SI
O.Ol'i
7.?f>
(l.?/^i
0.01'.
O.H7J
O.flKi
11.1?
0,4J?
O.J2J
o.tn
o.o»
K.!'^
n. 3JJ
ft. 1 Ml
o.wo
o.o«
8.1?.
E. Control E^ulgment;
Many of the industrial and commercial applications of water tube boilers
have control equipment to reduce particulate emissions. The four most common
methods are:
1. dry cyclone,
2, wet scrubber,
3. electrostatic precipitator, and
4, baghouse.
Dry cyclones can achieve up to 94% efficiency under typical water tube
boiler outlet conditions, but 60% to 85% efficieicies are more common. Wet
scrubbers can achieve 98% efficiency under typical water tube boiler outlet con-
ditions and offer the advantage of some sulfur dioxide removal. However, wet
scrubbers require higher capital investment and higher operating costs. Electro-
static precipitators are the most common control device for water tube boilers
and can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% depending on number, size and
voltage of the plates. Most modern high efficiency electrostatic precipitators
are designed to operate in the 97% to 99% range. Baghouses often have effi-
ciencies of 99,5 percent butjajje^sensltive to the high temperatures found in
water tube boiler exhaust, C ) "
1-9
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated New Source Performance Standards for fossil fuel fired steam
generators. However, these standards only pertain to steam generating
units greater than 250 million BTU's per hour heat input. As such, boilers
of 10-250 -x. 106 BTU/hr heat input described in Section D are controlled by
individual state regulations for fossil fuel fired steam generators.
State Regulations for New and Existing _S_o,urces_i All fifty states have
regulations pertaining to fuel combustion for steam generators. Florida is
one of the few states that has no numerical limitation for boilers less than
250 x 106 BTU/hr, rather the regulation states to use the latest technology.
Other states such as Alaska and Maryland express their limitations as a concen-
tration and as such are not directly comparable to the lbs/106 BTU calculation
expressed in Table 1-8. Connecticut is representative of a restrictive
limitation which does not distinguish boilers by size. A flat limitation of
0.2 lbs/106 BTU for existing sources and 0.10 lbs/106 BTU for new sources are
the statuatory limitations. Louisiana is representative of a least restrictive
limitation which does not distinguish boilers by size, 0,6 lbs/106 BTU. Washingto;
D.C. is representative of states that have a decreasing limitation for boilers
between 1-10,000 x 1Q6 BTU/hr, 0.13 lbs/106 BTU to 0.02 lbs/106 BTU respectively.
Table 1-6 presents controlled and uncontrolled particulate emissions and
limitations for boilers between 10-250 * 106 BTU/hr.
nissirris ACT I.-.-IITATIONS FBCM mims
io6
Water Tubc-1
Water Tu'.c-l
Katir Tube-l
Valor ViiL-t-l, Sprcndcr Scorer, Undcrfirfd
Water Tuhc-1, Spreader Stoker, UndcrHrcd
with Cyclone
Vater Ti.bc-1, Sj'ic.nifr Sloltcr. Undcrfircd
with Scrubber
Waror TuSe-1, Spreader Stoker, Undcrfired
>ith llrctrc.st.nlc Prccipitator
Watir TUDC-I, Sprr.idcr Stol.cr, Undet fired
with F.-.bric filter
K.ltcr T-Se-1, Overfircd
Water Ti.iic-1, Overfircd vi th Cyclone
Vaccr Tu'c-1, Overfircd with Scrubber
Wilier 7Voc-l, Ovc-rfircd with Clectfo-
static prccir-itator
Water Tu'uc-1, Overflred with F«bric
Filter
Watc-r T.i!ie-2
Wnter ",' \ibe-2
Water lu')i-2
Water Tu'j.i-2, S'.ire.-irfor StoU-r, Uiidorflrcd
Water Tube-?, Sprcnclar Stoker, Undorf iieil
vtlh Cyclone
Witcr TV.ie-2, 5pnC-?, Spreader Stukar, Undcrfired
with C'.cclronntic rroctplt.itor
Watrr 7u:tc-2, Sprc.ider Stoker, UnUcrflrad
wllli 1 j'.»lc Filler
Vntur 7o!)0'2, Ovorfircil vith Cyc\uno
W..trr Tul>c-2t Ovcrrired vllli Rclubtiur
Va.tor T\.'jt-2( Ovorfitcil wllU Elcttro-
stAttc Tieripit.T.pr
V'a-.or T>y'u-2, OvMMrctl w/Fnl>ric Filler
W,Mur luiM— 2, Cvclone
Walne
Kntcr Tu'ic-?, Cyclrulr with Sctu'jbcr
Vfllcr Ti.l>»;- 2, Cvcjo.iic with Kli-ctro-
It.ltlc Prrcl|>lt.icnr
Water Tube-?, Cyclonic wlili Fabric
Filter
Wit or TuSc-2, Tulvcrised
Water T«!)e-2, l\ilvcri^cd with Cyclone
Vattr lutu>-2, rulvorlzcd with SrrubWr
Water Tt.bc-2 Tulvorizcd with lUcctro-
•tntlc Vrocl^Italgr
Water 'luSe-2, Pulvcrllcd with Fabric
Filt.r
Type of >'ucl
i'ltUl'Al £.16
Residual Oil
aistUlatc Oil
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Co.il*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Natural Got
Kr-i4l,lual Oil
ni«tl)liice Oil
Coal*
Coal*
Coil*
Coal*
Conl*
Coal*
C«al*
Conl*
Coal*
Coal*
Conl*
Cunl*
Conl*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Conl*
Coal*
CO»1»
X
'ontrol
0
0
n
0
65
9R
91
90.5
0
35
98
09
99,5
0
0
0
0
«5'
48
14
91.5
0
as
91
99
W.S
n
65
18
99
SO. 5
0
SS
98
99
99.}
Fninr.
l!>s/);/-MU
(1.017
0.103
0.108
1.55
0.233
0.031
0.016
o.nna
4.35
o.r.B]
0.091
O.m,f
0.023
o.ou
n.nc.fi
0.100
1,55
0,233
0,031
0.016
o.nnj
«.03
o.oni
0.001
0.040
o.n:o
6.20
0.010
0.124
0.062
v.tm
*,w
fl.7U
0.099-
0.050
0.02}
nns
I'./IO * c;il
n.nn
n.iRS
0.195
2.79
0.10S
0.056
0.029
n.ou
a. 20
0.102
0.164
0.063
0.041
0,03«
0.119
0.195
2.99
0.105
0.056
0.029
0.014
7.26
0.274
0.014
0.072
ft. 036,
11.17
O.U1
0.221
O.KJ'
0.056
».94
0.317
0.17A
0.090
0.045
• •nu.itii.rs'' ;'»<>«•• r.: ,' ,- ';i • .
0.1/0. iS ' 0.^/0.36 C.6M.05
0.1/0. 18 . 0.2/0 36 0.6/1. OS
0.1/0.16 0.2/0.36 ' 0.6,'I.H
0.1/0.18 ! 0.2/O.J6 • 0.6/1. tj:
D. 1/0. 18
0.1/0.18
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
I
0.6/l.Ca
0.6/l.Ga
O.J/0.18 | 0.2/0.36 i 0.6/:.08
! :
0.1/0.18 ; 0.2/0.36 0.6/l.C.l
0.1/0.18 0.2/0.36 0.6,'I.C:
0.1/0.18 0.2/0.36 O.tH.j:
0.1/0.13 0.2/0.36 0.»/!.C.-
! :
0.1/0.18
0.2/0.36 ' 0.6/l.Cf
0.1/0.18 0.3/0.36 1 0.6/1. <,
0.1/0.18
0. I/O. it
0.1/0.18
0.1/0. It
O.I/O.H
0.1/0. 11
O.l/O.II
0.2/0.36 ' C.6,..;-
0.2/0.36 0.6/1.(-
0.2/0.36 : G.C/:.'.-
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.7/0.36
0.6/1.0:
0.6/l.Oa
0.6/l.Cl
0.6.'!.:-
1 1
0.1/".1»
0, l/'J. 18
o]i/o.i»
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
o.i/o. in
o.i/o. u
0.2*0.}* O.A 1.
0.?/0. 30 ' fi-'- ' - •
0.2/9.U
0.2/0.3*
o.'. i.:-
0.6/1.0-
0.2/0.36
0.:/0.3>
0.2/0.36
0.1/0.16 0.2/0, 3d
0.1/0.18 0.2/0.36
0.1/0,18 1 0.1/0.36
1
0.1/0.18
0.2/0.36
0.1/0.1* ' O.J/O.J6
0.1/0.18
0.1/O.U
0.2/9.36
0.1/O.U
0.1/O.H | O.J/0.36
!
0,1/0.18 0.2/0.36
0.6/1.-J-
0.» I.;*
0^'i. ..<
O.c;l.>
0.4/1.J3
O.o/l.Oa
0.6/1.09
0.e;l.'.S
o.6/:. •
O.fc/l..-
0.6/1.5S
0.6/I.O*
1-10
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations! There is a wide range
of boiler participate emissions and the limitations imposed by the least restric-
tive to the most restrictive state regulations. Table I-6A summarizes the percent
control necessary to achieve compliance with a typical restrictive limitation
(Connecticut's) and with the New Source Performance Standard.
TABLE I-6A
COMPILATION OF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILERS 10-250 * 106 BTU/hr
Boiler Type
Water Tube-1, Spreader
Stoker, Underf i ted
Water Tube-1, Overfired
Water Tube-2, Spreader
Stoker, Underf ired
Water Tube-2 ,» Overfired
Water Tube-2, Cyclonic
Water Tube-2, Pulverized
Fuel
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Conn. (New)
94%
98%
«
94%
98%
98%
98%
Louisiana
61%
87%
61%
85%
90%
88%
*Assume 8.1% ash
Table 1-64 indicates that 98% control is required for the most restric-
tive regulation, and current technology is sufficient to control water tube-1
and water tuBe-2 coal units using coal that contains 8,1% ash.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
1-11
-------
G. References
To develop the information presented in this section concerning boilers,
10-250 x 106 BTU/hr the following references were used.
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Perfor-
mance for New Sources - Industrial Size Boilers, Walden Research Corpor-
ation, EPA Control No. CAP70-165, Task Order No. 5, June 30, 1971.
2- Systematic Study of Air Pollution from Intermediate-sized Fossil Fuel
Combustion Equipment, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No.
CPA22-69-85, July, 1971.
3. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Volume 3, Emission Factors for Boilers.
4. Analys is o f Fin a1 jt ate Implamentation Plans - Rules and Regulations ,
EPA Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed "'nclude:
5- Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, EPA, May, 1973.
6. Combustion Engineering, Glen R. Tryling, published by Combustion Engin-
eering, Inc., 277 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017; 1966.
1-12
-------
A. Source Category; I External Combustion
B. Sub_Catcgory; Boilers >250 x 106 BTU/hr
C. Source Description;
Boilers in the >250 x 10G BTU/hr size range are always of the water tube
type utilizing coal, oil, or natural gas. Water tube boilers of this size
comprise the bulk of industrial boilers and almost all of the utility boilers.
Water tube boilers usually range in size from about 10.000 Ibs steam/hr (4500
kg/hr) to 10,000,000 Ibs steam/hour (4,500,000 kg/hr).0)2-3 Table I-7
categorizes water tube boilers in four size classes in accordance with
with industry associations.
TABLE 1-7
CLASSIFICATION AND CAPACITY OF WATER TUBE BOILERS
Boiler Type
Water tube-1
Water tube-2
Water tube-3
Water tube-4
Typical Rated Capacity Steam
Ibs/hr
10000-100000
100001-250000
250001-500000
>500000
kg/hr
4536-45359
45359. 6-11339B
113398.5-226796
>226796
Source Class Size
10b BTTJ/hr
10-250
20-250
>250
>250
105 cal/hr
2520-63000
2520-63000
>63000
>63000
Virtually all of th°- ™ster t:ubp.-l grm.ip arc packcgai nr^tE, shop assembled
and shipped iu otic pi^ce u> Lrailer or flat car. The balance ot the middle
capacity range and all of the larger units are field assembled units. Today
almost all of the coal firing units are field erected water tube design with
gas and/or oil as a possible operating fuel for any of the categories. Coal
firing is accomplished by 'one of the following methods:( '^~
A. Pulverized
B. Cyclone
C. Overfeed stoker
D. Spreader stoker
E. Underfeed stoker
Coal firing industrial sized boilers (typically water tube-1 and water
tube-2) stoker firing is most common, while the larger coal sizes (typically
water tube-3) pulverized firing is most common. Water tube-4 is typically all
pulverized firing.
D. Emission Rates:
Particulate emissions result from stacks of boilers burning coal, oil, or
natural gas. Improper maintenance can cause excessive smoke and poor economy
of operation. Table I-7A presents emission rates in pounds per million BTU,
type of boiler and control, and a typical control efficiency of a cyclone,
scrubber, electrostatic precipitator and a fabric filter. 0)^-2,3,4(3)20
Other combinations of control equipment are possible with both higher and lower
efficiencies. It should also be noted that coal fired water tube-4 always uses
pulverized firing.
1-13
-------
TABU I-ty
10* BTU/ht..»oii.Bii
Type of Roller and Control
Wa *r Tubc-3
Wa rr Tul'c*3
W.i rr Tube- 3
Wa rr Tulip- 1, Spreader Stoker, UnderMrcd
fired vl th cyclone
Water Tubc-3, Spr ruder Stoker, Under-
fired vltti scmliber
Water Tubc-3, Spreader Stoker, Undcr-
Watcr lube- 3, Spru.idcr Stoker, Under-
fired vilh fabric filter
Water Tubo-3, Over fired
Water Tube-3, Ovcrfl cd vitli Cyclone
Water Tubc-3, Ovci M cd with Be rubber
Wnirr Tube-3, Overff cd vlth electro-
• tflt lc prrctpltatu
Filter
Water Tubc-3, Cyclon c
Water lube-3, Cyclon c with tlcctro-
Water Tubc-3, Pulver led
st«tlc Prcclpf t/itor
Vnler Tube-3, Pulverized vlth Fabric
filter
Water Tubc-4
Water Tubc-4
Water Tubc-4
Water Tu!>e~4, Pulverized
Water lulie-4, Pulverized with Cyclone
Water Tube-4, Pulverized with Scrubber
Water Tube-4, Pulverized with flcctro-
• 'fltlc fr"1:*?*' "t^r
Water Tubc-4, Pulverized vlth fabric
Filter
Type of Fuel
Natural Cau
Rcitdual Oil
Dlltlllate. Oil
Coal*
Coil*
Coil*
Coal
Coal*
Conl*
Co«l«
Coil*
Co«l>
Co/l I •
Prtil *
toai"
Co«l<
Co
Coal*
Coal*
Coil*
Coal*
HMural C..ii
Kciildttnl CUB
nlitlllate Oil
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Cc.il*
Coil*
Control
0
0
0
0
85
98
99.5
0
85
98
99
99. J
0
99.5
0
85
98
99
99.3
0
0
0
0
85
98
n
99.}
lbj/10' BTU
o.nu
0.066
0.108
1.55
0.21)
o.nu
'
0.078
4.0)
o.r.os
0.081
0.040
0.020
ft. 20
0. 930
01 91
* l*<
o.os:
0.031
4.96
0. 7*4
0.099
0.050
O.OJS
0.014
0.0o6
(1.108
4.96
0.744
0.099
0.053
0.025
pioTirr
0.02}
0.1)9
0.194
2.79
0.10}
0.056
'
0.140
7.2}
0.274
0.14C
0.072
0.036
11.16
0> 422
0* 22]
o.n:
0.056
0.337
0.178
0.090
0. 045
0.02}
0.119
0.194
8.9J
0,337
0.178
0.090
0.045
*Allunei 8.IZ
E. Control Equipment;
Many of the industrial and commercial applications of water tube boilers
have control equipment installed to reduce particulate emissions. The four
most common methods are:
1. dry cyclone,
2. wet scrubber,
3. electrostatic precipitator, and
4. baghouse.
Dry cyclones can achieve up to 94% efficiency under typical water tube
boiler outlet conditions, but 60% to 85% efficiencies are more common. Wet
scrubbers can achieve 98% efficiency under typical water tube boiler outlet
conditions and offer the advantage of some sulfur dioxide removal. However,
wet scrubbers require higher capital investment and higher operating costs.
Electrostatic preclpltators are the most common control device for water tube
boilers and can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% depending on number,
size, and voltage of the plates. Most modern high efficiency electrostatic
precipitators are designed to operate in the 97% to 99% range. Baghouses often
have efficiencies of 99.5 percent butjare sensitive to the high temperatures
found in water tube boiler exhaust. ( )
1-14
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)! On December 23, 1971, EPA pro-
mulgated New Source Performance Standards for fossil fuel fired steam gen-
erators. These standards pertain to steam generating units greater than 250
million BTU's per hour heat input. Boilers of greater than 250 x 106 BTU/hr
heat input described in Section D are covered by NSPS of 0.1 lbs/10G BTU heat
input (0.18 g/106 cal) and individual state regulations.
State Regulations for New and ExistingSources; All fifty states have
regulations pertaining to fuel combustion for steam generators. Some states
such as Alaska and Maryland express their limitations as a concentration and
as such are. not directly comparable to the lbs/106 BTU calculation expressed
in Table 1-8. Louisiana is representative of a least restrictive limitation
which does not distinguish boilers by size, 0.6 lbs/106 BTU. New Mexico is
representative of a restrictive limitation both by type of boiler and existing
boiler versus a new boiler. For existing boilers, New Mexico has a variable
emission limitation for boilers (coal) in the 10-1000 x 106 BTU range of 0 56 lbs/106
BTU to 0.135 lbs/106 BTU. For boilers 250 x 106 BTU the limitation is 0.265
lbs/10 BTU. For coal fired boilers installed after July 31, 1977, greater
than 250 x 106 BTU/hr the limitation is 0.05 lbs/106 BTU. For oil fired boilers
installed after July 31, 1977 greater than 1,000,000 x 106 BTU/hr the limitation
is 0.005 lbs/10b BTU. Table 1-8 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions
and limitations for boilers greater than 250 x 106 BTU/hour heat input.
TA!«.r. i -a
y«.RTrCl'l.ATr. EMISSION'S ACT UMTT/.TIOS3 raoy. HMI.IM >2?0 '• HI8 HTU/hr
Type of Holler jird Control
KaK-l Tulic-3
\.'-lrr 1ubr-3
V'attr TnV-3
Vatcr Tu!n'-\ S|Tc.ii— 3, Oveiflrt'd with electro-
static preclpit.iter
Uattr Tvibe-3, Ovrrfircd with Fabric
Vlller
V.itcr Ti.!,e-3, Cycloiilr
Voter Tv.be 3, f>cU"Uc vith Cyrlon«
'Jnler Tu!v-3, Cytloiiic vith Scrub!, cr
*.'atcr Tu'jc-3, C>clonic lith Elcctro-
»t.itJc PiecJl»ltAtor
I'ltir Tuoc-3, Cyclonic with Fabric
Fllttr
Voter Tub"-3, fulveri^rd
M.iter TuSp- 3, I'nlverlicd with Cyclone
V...er TuI>c-3, Pulverized wltli Scrubber
>'nti-r Tubc-3, Tulvetltcd ullh Eluctio-
V.itcr Tube-3, Pulverllcd vith F.brlt
Filter
Water Tuhi-<
U.uer IuW-4
Valor Tv,l>e-'i
Water Tube-'t, 1'ulverlz^d
V.HIT TuVi'-'i, rulvcll.-cd wltli Cyclrru
W.ilor Tn'jr-t, Fulvcrlrrd with Srrub'irt
Wotor lubc-4, Pulvcrlied with tiectro-
btdtlc rrecioltator
Water Tvibe-4, PulvcrUod vltli Fabric
Filter
Natural C.IM
Re.olilu.il Oil
Ulntlllltc Oil
Coal*
Coal*
Cool*
Cool*
Coal
Conl*
Coal*
Coal*
Co«l«
Trial*
Coal*
Conl«
Coal*
Conl*
Conl*
C»3l*
Coal*
foal*
Coil*
Coal*
Natural Cm
RcHlcual Ca»
niEtlllat« Oil
Conl*
Co.!]'
Ce.nl*
Coal*
Coal*
f * j
0
0
n
n.
89
98
9!)
99.;
0
83
96
99
99.1
0
83
98
99
99.3
0
to
98
99.9
0
0
0
0
05
98
«9
«. S
riiljiMo
Jbi'/lO11 ETU
n.nu
o.ot,*
0.10S
1.55
0.333
0.031
0.016
0.078
(.03
o.f.ns
0.081
0.040
0.020
6.20
0.930
o.m
0.002
0.031
4.56
0.71*
0.099
0 050
0.075
O.OU
O.OOS
C.103
4.96
0.744
0.099
O.OiO
0.025
in
r,/ioc cui
0.025
0.1H
0.19'.
2.79
0.105
0.056
0.029
0.140
7.23
0.274
0.146
0.072
0.036
11.16
0.422
0.223
0.112
0.050
8.96
0.337
0.178
0 090
(1.045
O.f)23
0.119
0.194
8. 93
0.337
0.178
0.090
0.043
Lin
nsrs
6.1/0.18
0.1/0/J8
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.13
0.1/0. 18
0.1/0.18
n. l/o. id
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/O.J8
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0,1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
M/0.18
0.1/0,18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.19
0.1/0.18
U.-itiims'1 IbK/in' IITI
New Ilex i CO („„)
0.005/0.009
0.005/0. 001
0.005/0.009
0.05 /0.09
0.03 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.03 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /o.n»
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /U.09
0.05 /0.0»
0.05 /O.OO
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.03 /0.09
0 OS /0.09
0.03 /0.09
0.005/0.009
0.005/0.009
0.005/0.009
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.03 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
/ I'./ JO' cal
Louisiana
0.6/1 .08
0.6/1.05
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0,6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1. 08
0.6/1. OB
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1. OS
0.6/1.08
0,6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1 .08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.01
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1. OS
*A»uxci 8.i: »h
1-15
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Etnljsion LiMtationss There is a wide
range of boiler particulate emissions and the limitations imposed by the least
restrictive to the most restrictive state regulations. Table I-RA summarizes
the percent control necessary to achieve compliance with NSPS and New Mexico's
0,05 lbs/106 BTU limitation according to specific boiler type and fuel.
TABLE I-8A
COMPILATION OF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILERS >250 x IP6 BTU_
Boiler Type
Water Tube-3
Water Tube-3
Water Tube-3, Spreader
Stoker, Underflred
Water Tube-3, Overfired
Water Tube-3, Cyclonic
Water Tube-3, Pulverized
Water Iube-4
Water Tube- 4
Water Tube-4, Pulverized
Fuel
Resid oil
Dist oil
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
lesid oil
Dlst oil
Coal*
NSPS
0%
0%
94%
98%
98%
98%
OZ
0%
98%
New Mexico
(new)
92%
95%
97%
99%
99%
99%.
92%
95%
99%
* Assume 8.1% ash
The existing control technology is adequate to achieve change particulate
limitations of even the most restrictive regulation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
1-16
-------
G. References
To develop the information presented in this section concerning boilers
> 250 x 106 BTU/hr the following references were used:
!• Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Perfor-
mance for New Sources, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. CPA70-
165, Task Order No. 5, June 30, 1971.
2. Systematic Study of Air Pollution from Intermediate-sized Fossil Fuel
Combustion Equipment, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. CPA22-
6~9~-85, July," 1971".
3. jmpact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Volume 3, Emission Factors for Boilers.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed include:
A. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
5- Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, EPA, May, 1973.
6. Combustion Engineering, Glen R. Fryling, published by Combustion Engin-
eering, Inc., 277 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10017; 1966.
1-17
-------
A. Source Category; II Solid Waste Disposal
B. Sub Category: Open Burning (Agricultural)
C. Source Description;
Disposal of agricultural wastes by open burning is imperative because refuse
piles retain horticultural diseases and agricultural pests. Open burning is per-
formed in many areas as a practical means of clearing the land of these wastes.
Open burning is done in open drums or baskets and in large-scale open dumps or
pits.
D. Emission Rates;
Emissions from burning straw and stubble consist of smoke and various gases.
The principal j',ases emitted are hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
and oxides of nitrogen. C1)91 The relatively low temperatures associated with
open burning causes emission of large quantities of unbarned particulates,
carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, and suppress the emissions of nitrogen oxides,
Annual hydrocarbon emissions from agricultural burning are listed by states for
which the data was available. (-1) 5> 9
Table 11-1 presents hydrocarbon emissions from agricultural burning
fpr 1R St^t
-------
E. Control Equipment
Agricultural open burning is an uncontrolled pollution.problem from the
equipment application point of view. Impact from this type of operation can
be minimized by burning on days of appropriate stability and wind direction.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance
Standards have been promulgated for agricultural burning.
State Regulations for Existing Sources: Most states have regulations
prohibiting open burning. However a few states have such liberal exemptions
that open burning can be used to dispose garbage and leaves on properties with
less than four dwelling units. Agricultural burning is not restricted in any
of the states. Some states require farmers to obtain a permit and others
leave the exact timing of the burn up to the discretion of the local air
pollution control officials.
u ?he Environment Reporter was used to develop the information on open
burning restrictions. H
G. References:
Literature uccd to develop the information on open burning of agricultural
wastes includes:
1. George Yamate and John Stockham, An Inventory of Emissions from
Forest Wildfires-, Forest Managed Burns and Agricultrual Burns
II-2
-------
A. Source Category; IISolid Waste Disposal
B. Sub Category: Indus_tria,l/Conimerclal Incinerators
C« Source Description;
Industrial and commercial, incinerators cover a broad range of size and
type of material burned. Industrial and commercial Incinerators are either
single chamber or multiple chamber units capable of burning 50 Ibs/hour to
4,000 Ibs/hour of charged refuse.C1)2'l~2
The combustion of refuse originating from commercial and industrial
establishments that is performed in a multiple chamber incinerator proceeds
in two stages:
1. primary or solid fuel combustion in the ignititon
chamber, and
2. secondary gaseous-phase combustion in the iowndraft
or mixing chamber and in the uppass expansion or
combustion chamber,
The two basic type: of multiple chamber incinerators are:
1. retort incinerator, and
JL. « H.TI J_ in"^ xricxnci" c. u CIT «,
Operational features that distinguish the retort design are:
1. The arrangement of the chambers causes the combustion gases
to flow through 90-degree turns in both lateral and vertical
directions.
2, The return flow of the gases permits the use of a common wall
between the primary and secondary combustion stages.
3. Mixing chambers, flame ports, and curtain wall ports have
length-to-width ratios of 1:1 to 2.4:1.
Operational features that distinguish in-line design are:
1. Flow of the combustion gases is straight through the
incinerator with 90-degree turns only in the vertical
direction.
2. The in-line arrangement is readily adaptable to installations
that require separated spacing of the chambers for operating
and maintenance.
3. All ports and chambers extend across the full width of the
incinerator and are as wide as the ignition chamber. Length-
to-width ratios of the flame port, mixing chamber, and curtain
wall port flow cross sections range from 2:1 to 5:1.
Figures II-3 and II-4 are illustrations of retort multiple chamber incin-
erator and in-line multiple chamber incinerator, respectively.
II-3
-------
Flture IMl Retort Multiple Chamber Inelni>r«tot
•IIIK IMMII
Fluure It-
-------
In multiple chamber Incinerators, gas from the primary chamber flows to a
small secondary mixing chamber where more air is admitted and more complete
oxidation occurs. As much as 300 percent excess air is supplied in order to
promote oxidation of combustibles. Auxiliary burners are sometimes installed
in the mixing chamber to increase the combustion temperature. C1)*437"*452
Single chamber units have capacities of 50 Ibs/hr to 4,000 Ibs/hr and are
often equipped with automatic charging mechanisms, temperature controls, and
movable grate systems.(2)2*1-2
D. Emission Katcu;
Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design have
a pronounced effect on emissions. The method by vrtiich air is supplied to the
combustion chamber has the greatest effect of all design parameters on the
quantity of participate emissions. As underfire air is increased, an increase
in fly-ash emission occurs. Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the
combustion bed and a subsequent release of large quantities of particulates.
Unconbusted paniculate matter and carbon monoxide are emitted for an extended
period after charging of batch-fed units because of interruptions in the com-
bustion process. In continuously-fed units, particulate emissions are deprr.dent
upon grate type. Use of rotary kiln and reciprocating grates causes higher
particulcte emissions than use of rocking or traveling grates. Particulate
emissions: from commercial and industrial incinerators are presented in Table
II-5. C2)?-* 1~3 Pounds per hour emission rates are based on a burning rate of
50 Ibs/hr and 4,000 Ibc/hr.
TABLE I1-5
rARTICULATE HUSSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS
Type of
OporatJon i. Contro.1
Single Chamber, Uncontrolled
Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray
Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Scrubber
Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Electrostatic Precipi tntor
Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Fabric Filter
Multiple Chamber, Uncontrolled
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Mechanical Collector
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Scrubber
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Electrostatic Precipitator
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, nnd
Fabric Filter
%
Control
0
30-80
80-95
90-96
97-99
0
30-80
80-95
90-96
97-99
Emissions
Ibs/ton kc/M ton
15 7.5
10.5-3.0 5.3-1.5
3.0- .8 1.5- .4
1.5- .6 .8- .3
.5- .2 .3- .1
7 3.5
A. 9-1. A 2.5- .7
1.4- .4 .7- .2
.7- .3 .4- .2
.2- .07 .1- .04
Emission Rate
(Based on 50 IbsVhr)
Ibs/hr kg/hr
.38 .17
.26 -.08 .12 -.04
.08 -.02 .04 -.009
.04 -.02 .018-. 009
.01 -.005 .005-. 002
.2
.1 -.04 .05 -.018
.04 -.01 " .018-. 005
.02 -.008 .009-. 004
.005-. 002 .002-. 001
iBased on 4jOOO lbs/hrj_
Ibs/hr kg/hr
30.0 13.6
21.0-6.0 9.5-2.7
6.0-1.6 2.7- .7
3.0-1.2 1.4- .5
1.0- .4 .5- .2
14.0 6.4
9.8-2.8 4.4-1.3
2.8- .8 1.3- .4
1.4- .6 .6- .3
.4- .14 .2- .06
11-5
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Potential control equipment for municipal incinerators vary from a simple
settling chamber to a fabric filter. Seven potential control methods and their
efficiencies are:C1)2-1"4
1. Settling Chamber: 0-30%
2. Settling Chamber: 30-60%
3. Wetted Baffles: 60%
4. Mechanical Collector: 30-80%
5. Scrubber: 80-95%
6. Electrostatic Precipitator: 90-96%
7. Fabric Filter: 97-99%
A settling chamber is least expensive of the control systems used on incin-
erators. It consists of a large refractory-lined chamber where flue gases are
slowed to permit gravity settling of coarse materials. These chambers are
supplemented by sprays to we;~ the walls, and the bottoms are wet (quiescent
ponds) or sluiced (for fly-ash removal) to minimize reentrainment of settled
ash.
The cyclone spins the gases as they move down the length of the unit,
reversing flow, and leaving through an axial exit pipe. Because of the spin,
the larger particles in the gas stream seek the outside of the gas stream, where
they fall along r.Iva w<.i31 to a collection hopper.
Electrostatic precipitators apply separating force to the dust particles
by the interaction of electrical charges placed upon the surface of the dust
particles by which the dust-laden gas passes. Upon entering an ion-filled
space, the dust particles receive a negative electrical charge and are moved
toward the positively charged collecting plates. At predetermined intervals,
the collecting plates are mechanically rapped in order to dislodge the layer of
collected dust. The dust is collected in hoppers located beneath the electrode
section of the precipitator.
Fabric filters are designed with tubes of woven fabric (cotton, wool, nylon,
etc.) hung in frames equipped with shaking or deflating mechanisms for dust
dislodgment. The mechanics of collection on fabric filters are highly compli-
cated and include impingement, diffusion, electrostatics, and direct sieving.
In order to assure satisfactory performance and long bag life, flue gas tem-
peratures are controlled in the range of 250°-550°F. The temperature range
may be more narrow depending upon the fabric and the flue gas composition.
There are many types of scrubbing devices for contacting liquids with gas
streams for the purpose of removing particulate matter and gaseous pollutants.
The three most common are:
1. wetted surfaces, i.e., systems of wetted pipes, baffles,
or walls located in the off-gas duct;
2. devices for contacting the gas with a liquid spray,
either in a spray-filled chamber or in a Venturi;
3. devices for bubbling the gas through a quantity of liquid
(by ducting it below a liquid surface or by blowing it
through impingement trays or through a packed column).
II-6
-------
All of these devices humidify and cool the exhaust and produce a "steam" plume at
the stack under some atmospheric conditions. Application of a higher pressure
drop across a scrubber generally results in a higher degree of particulate removal,
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations ;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for incinerators of more than
10 tons/day charging rate. The limitation is 0.08 grains /standard cubic foot
corrected to 12 percent CC>2, maximum two-hour average.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying charging rates are expressed differently from state to
state. Regulations applicable to new and existing incinerators are listed
according to the basis of the limitation. The limitations are based on
concentration, control efficiency, gas volume and charging rate.
Concen trat ion Basis ; States having regulations for new and
existing incinerators expressed on a concentration basis are
listed in Table II-6.
tx. ii-t
HAVING RI.KUIAnONS JFPSJ'JALAJIP
C.i A ("OM'I .T!ATK':J T./'I
51 Ate
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
leva
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mnr> land
MusriAc.'liui.et ta
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New llaiupshlro
New Jcraoy
Orrfion
Prnnaylvnola
Itluuir Iil.inJ
Vt.ih
Vln-.lnlA
W.i. 1000 Ibs/lir
» 200 Ibj/hr
< 200 Jb»/hr
all tllca typical of
all countrlca
new
existing
new
£ 30 tpni/tlfly (new)
I 30 tous/dfl)' (existing)
> 50 tfn-;/djy
1 50 tons/Jay
cslstlnr, btfoie 1/1/72
> 2000 lbc/hr
I 2000 11.1/hr
> 60,000 lln/hr
i 2000 Ibn/lir (new)
1 1000 Ibs/hr
< 1000 Ibs/hr
> SO tons/day
i 50 tons/day
all ilrea
all alrrs
•11 sires
c 700 lb 2000 ll>a/hr
•11 alrcs
all slios (new)
t 200 lbn/l,r (nev)
all ctti^rs
! 200 Ihs/lir (new)
> 200 Ibn/lir
now sourer.
< 2000 IbD/hr
I 2UOO Ibn/lir
1 200 Ibn/lit
> 200 lUn/Iir (nf«)
> 50 tons/day
nil .lies
1 200 lU/l.r
> 200 ll,s/lir
> 200 ll'i/br (new)
all alrrn
< 2000 IbH/hr
i 1000 fWltr
> 50 limti/d.iy
«11 nlroa
nil n !.•'•«
.Ill »!/..••
llo It.itfon
.3 (r/ic(
.2 tr/sef
.1 tr/scf
.2 cr/scf
.3 jr/acf
.J cr/scf
.1 jr/sef
.15 sr/scf
.08 gr/i.cf
.08 gr/scf
.1 fi/«cf
.06 Er/«cf
.1 tr/scf
.2 gr/sef
.03 jr/scf
.02 cr/scf
0.05 cr/*cf
0.10 Ef/scf
0.20 er/scf
0. )5 fr/icf
0.08 tr/^cf
0.2 cr/tc[
0.2 |r/lcf
O.OJ gr/.cf
0.1 Cr/Bcr
0.3 tr/scf
0.2 cr/tcf
O.I Br/scf
O.J |r/stt
0.1 (r/sef
0.2 tr/.e,f
0.3 ,r/scf
0.3 gr/ncl
0.2 Rr/scf
0.1 er/,cf
O.I cr/se(
0.1 ir/.cf
0.3 »r-/acf
0.2 ci/sc(
0.03 tr/scf
O.I cr/scf
0.3 |.r/«cf
0.2 yr/tcf
O.I cr/icf
O.I nr/icf
0.16 nr/srf
0.08 iir/ncf
0.08 nr/Bcf
O.I* r.r/»cf
O.I r.r/«el
0.09 nr/nef
II-7
-------
Control EfficiencyBasis; Utah, requires processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations
in pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates. The Texas limits are:
103 to I0k acfm - 7.11 Ibs/hr
104 to 105 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 to 106 acfm - 158,00 Ibs/hr
ProcessWeight Hate Basis! Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, Vermont
and Nevada express incinerator limitations in pounds of emission per
pounds of refuse charged. These limitations are listed below:
State Emission Rate Basis
Hawaii .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Wyoming .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
South. Dakota ,.2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Vermont .1 Ibs per 1,000 Ibs dry refuse
Nevada 3.0 Ibs per ton refuse if ^ 2,000
Ibs/hr
Potential Source Compliance andEmissionLimitation; New Source Performance
Standards limit emissions on a concentration basis, so no direct comparison with
emissions in Table II-5 are made.
The Environment Reporter^ was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information on industrial/commercial
incinerators is listed below:
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant: Emission Factors (Second Edition),
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
2, Danielson, J« A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
3, Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration, Volume I,
Arthur D, Little, Inc., Contract No. CPA-22-69-23, March 1970.
The following references were consulted but not used directly to develop
the information on municipal incinerators:
4, Brinkerhoff, Ronald J., Inventory of Intermediat_e~Siz_e_ Incinerators
in the UnitedStates - 1972, Pollution Engineering, November 1973,
5« Air PollutionAspects of Emission Sources; Municipal Incineration,
Air Pollution Control Office, Publication AP-92, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1971.
II-8
-------
A. Source Category; II Solid Waste Disposal
B. Suh Category;, Municipal Incinerators
C. S ource De sc rip t ion;
The combustion of refuse originating from residences and commercial and
industrial establishments is performed in a multiple-chamber incinerator. The
process proceeds in two stages:
1. primary or solid fuel combustion in the ignition
chamber, and
2. secondary gaseous-phase combustion in the downdraft
or mixing chamber and in the uppass expansion or
combustion chamber.
The two basic types of multiple chamber incineratrors are:
1. retort incinerator, and
2. in-line incinerator.
Operational features that distinguish the retort design are;
1. The arrangement of the chambers causes the combustion gases
to flo" through QQ-degreo turns in both lateral and vertical
diiecC lua^,,
2. The return flow of the gases permits the use of a common wall
between the primary and secondary combustion stages.
3. Mixing chambers, flame ports, and curtain wall ports have
length-to-width ratios of 1:1 to 2.4:1.
Operational features that distinguish in-line design are:
1. Flow of the combustion gases is straight through the
incinerator with 90-degree turns only in the vertical
direction.
2. The in-line arrangement is readily adaptable to installations
that require separated spacing of the chambers for operating
and maintenance.
3. All ports and chambers extend across the full width of the
incinerator and are as wide as the ignition chamber. Length-
to-width ratios of the flame port, mixing chamber, and curtain
wall port flow cross sections range from 2:1 to 5:1.
Figures II-l and II-2 are illustrations of retort multiple chamber incin-
erator and in-line multiple chamber incinerator, respectively.
II-9
-------
Uttll. "11 ""
II-l! Retort Multiple Chamber Incinerator
nun CHUICI
Figure TI-2; In-Llne Multiple Chamber Incinerator
11-10
-------
In multiple chamber incinerators, gas from the primary chamber flows to a
small secondary mixing chamber where more air is admitted and more complete
oxidation occurs. As much as 300 percent excess air is supplied in order to
promote oxidation of combustibles. Auxiliary burnerg are sometimes installed
in the mixing chamber to increase the combustion temperature.(1)^37-^52
Multiple chamber units have capacities of 50 tons/day (45.4 MT/day) and are
usually equipped with automatic charging mechanisms, temperature controls, and
movable grate systems.C2)2'1-2
D. Emission Rates;
Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design have
a pronounced effect on emissions. The method by which air is supplied to the
combustion chamber has the greatest effect of all design parameters on the
quantity of particulate emissions. As underfire air is increased, an increase
in fly-ash emission occurs. Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the
combustion bed and a subsequent release of large quantities of particulates.
Uncombu«ted particulate matter and carbon monoxide are emitted for an extended
period after charging of batch-fed units because of interruptions in the com-
bustion process. In continuously-fed units, particulate emissions are dependent
upon grate, type. Use of rotary kiln and reciprocating grates causes higher
particulate emissions than use of rocking or traveling grates. Particulate
emissions from municipal incinerators are presented in Table II-7.(2)2*1-3
Pounds per hour 9^.i.ss:'f>r!. mfps are based on a burning rate of 2 tons/hours
TABLE II-7
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS
Type of
Operation £. Control
Multiple Chamber, Uncontrolled
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Hater Spray
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Mechanical Collector
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Scrubber
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Electrostatic Precipitator
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Fabric Filter
%
Control
0
0
30-80
80-95
90-96
97-99
Emissions
]bs/ton
30
14
9.8-2.8
2.8- .7
1.4- .6
.4- .14
kg/M ton
15
7
4.9-1.4
1.4- .4
.7- .3
.2- .07
Emission Rate
Ibs/hr
60
28
19.6-22.4
5.6- 1.4
2.8- 1.1
.8- .3
kg/br
27.2
12.7
8.9-10.2
2.5- .6
1.3- .5
.4- .14
^Emission rate based on 2 ton/hour burning rate
11-11
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Potential control equipment for municipal incinerators vary from a simple
settling chamber to a fabric filter. Seven potential control methods and their
efficiencies are: 0)2« ^
1. Settling Chamber: 0-30%
2. Settling Chamber: 30-60%
3. Wetted Baffles: 60%
4. Mechanical Collector: 30-80%
5. Scrubber: 80-95%
6. Electrostatic Precipitator: 90-96%
7. Fabric Filter: 97-99%
A settling chamber is least expensive of the control systems used on incin-
erators. It consists of a large refractory-lined chamber where flue gases are
slowed to permit gravity settling of coarse materials. .These chambers are
supplemented by sprays to weL the walls, and the bottoms are wet (quiescent
ponds) or sluiced (for fly-ash removal) to minimize reentrainment of settled
ash.
The cyclone spins the gases as they move down the length of the unit,
reversing flow, and leaving through an axial exit pipe. Because of the spin,
the larger particles in. the gas stream seek the outside of the. gas stream, where
they fall along the wall to a collection hopper.
Electrostatic precipitators apply separating force to the dust particles
by the interaction of electrical charges placed upon the surface of the dust
particles by which the dust.-laden gas passes. Upon entering an ion-filled
space, the dust particles receive a. negative electrical charge and are moved
toward the positively charged collecting plates. At predetermined intervals,
the collecting plates are mechanically rapped in order to dislodge the layer of
collected dust. The dust is collected in hoppers located beneath the electrode
section of the precipitator.
Fabric filters are designed with tubes of woven fabric (cotton, wool, nylon,
etc.) hung in frames equipped with shaking or deflating mechanisms for dust
dislodgment. The mechanics of collection on fabric filters are highly compli-
cated and include impingement, diffusion, electrostatics, and direct sieving.
In order to assure satisfactory performance and long bag life, flue gas tem-
peratures are controlled in the range of 250°-550°F. The temperature range
may be more narrow depending upon the fabric and the flue gas composition.
There are many types of scrubbing devices for contacting liquids with gas
streams for the purpose of removing particulate matter and gaseous pollutants.
The three most common are:
1. wetted surfaces, i.e., systems of wetted pipes, baffles,
or walls located in the off-gas duct;
2. devices for contacting the gas with a liquid spray,
either in a spray-filled chamber or in a Venturi;
3o devices for bubbling the gas through a quantity of liquid
(by ducting it below a liquid surface or by blowing it
through impingement trays or through a packed column)0
11-12
-------
All of these devices hymidify and cool the exhaust and produce a "steam" plume at
the stack under some atmospheric conditions. Application of a higher pressure
drop across a scrubber generally results in a higher degree of particulate re-
movul. C
F . New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for incinerators of more than
10 tons/day charging rate. The limitation is 0.08 grains/standard cubic foot
corrected to 12 percent C02, maximum two-hour average.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying charging rates are expressed differently from state to
state. Regulations applicable to new and existing incinerators are listed
according to the basis of the limitation. The limitations are based on
concentration, control efficiency, gas volume and charging, rate.
Concent ration JBasijs : States having regulations for new and
existing incinerators expressed on a concentration basis are
listed in Table II-8.
A co'.ci'riu.Ml/i:! r.'.sis
Stntc
Alosk*
ArVAnsm
Cil IfornU
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
l-OulfllnnA
HAryliiiii.
htiinadiuflcitti
Minnesota
HUsiaaippt
HUnourt
Montana
KVbraska
Hew Hampshire
Now Jtrnoy
Orrpon
IVnncy Ivitnla
Khitilo lil.iml
t •
Utah
V.rrlnl.i
W.4||.U",l..,,
,^1!!!-?™™
Capnrlly & A£IT
< 200 lbs/1'r
200-1000 lb«/hr
> 1000 IWhr
t 200 lhi./1't
200 Ibk/hr
1 sizes typical of
all countries
w
Istlnr,
w
SO tons/day (nru)
SO tons/day (r>UtIns)
SO tons/day
SO toiiG/d.iv
Istlnc. beloir 1/1/71
2000 Ibs/hr
2000 Ibs/hr
60,000 Ibt/hr
20DO Ibs/lir (noi)
1000 Ibs/hr
1000 Ibs/hr
SO tons/day
SO tons/day
1 slzta
1 ilrci
1 il..'»
200 Ibs/hr
00-2000 Ibs/hr
2000 Ibs/hr
11 sl'.e>
11 slzea (ncu)
200 Ibn/hr (new)
1 clhrrs
200 Ihs/lir (new)
200 Uis/lir
ew sourer*
2000 Ibs/lir
2000 llWI.r
}00 Ibi/lir
200 lb>/hr (nrw)
SO tonu/ilay
11 sizes
200 Ibs/hr
:00 ll.t/hr
200 ll»/hr (new)
11 slrvn
innu Ibn/lil
1000 llm/lir
SO lontt/d.iy
II >!'.<>
II •!.-,-.
II .!*.•«
Us,lt»tlon
.3 er/'-cf
.2 tr/11:'
.1 er/scf
.2 cr/'tt
.3 tr/scf
.3 er/"'
.1 (r/scf
.15 c'/scf
.08 sr/tcf
.0« gr/ncf
.1 er/tcf
.08 r.'/5c'
.1 gr/scf
.2 t,r/scf
O.OB (jr/sct
0.02 gr/»cf
O.OS cr/»cf
0.10 pr/scf
0.20 sr/ict
0.35 r-r/sct
0.08 r,r/scf
0.2 gr/scf
0.2 rT/scf
0.03 sr/,.cf
0.1 tr/»c[
0.3 f.r/i.cf
0.2 er/scf
O.I i;r/»ef
0.2 cr/scf
O.I er/scf
0.2 (r/scf
0.3 «r/ccf
0.3 fr/.cf
0.2 tr/scf
O.I r.r/scf
0.2 f/«cf
0.1 gr/scf
0.3 «r/»ct
0.2 r.i/i.cf
0.08 cr/sct
0.1 tr/.ct
0.3 f.r/scf
0.2 r.r/»cf
O.I cr/scf
O.I Kr/net
0.16 sr/nrt
0.08 r.r/"cf
0.08 nr/«cf
O.I* Kr/*cC
O.I r,r/«tf
O.OS «r/scf
11-13
-------
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses partlculate emission limitations
In pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates. The Texas limits are:
103 to 101* acfm - 7.11 Ibs/hr
101* to 105 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 to 106 acfm - 158.00 Ibs/hr
P^rocess__Weight Rate Basis; Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, Vermont
and Nevada express incinerator limitations in pounds of emission per
pounds of refuse charged. These limitations are listed below;
State Emission Rate Basis
Hawaii .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Wyoming .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
South Dakota .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Vermont .1 Ibs per 1,000 Ibs dry refuse
Nevada 3.0 Ibs per ton refuse if 5 2,000
Ibs/hr
Potential^our^e__CompljLanceT;gnd_ Emission Limitation,; New Source Performance
Standards limit emissions on a concentration basis, so no direct comparison with
emissions in Table II-7 arc cads*
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations,
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information on municipal incinerators is
listed belowj
1. Compilationof Air PollutantEmission Factors (Second Edition),
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
2. Danielson, J. A., Alr Po1lution Engineering Manua1, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
3. Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration, Volume I,
Arthur B. Little, Inc., Contract No, CPA-22-69-23, March 1970.
The following references were consulted but not used directly to develop
the information on municipal incinerators:
4. Brinkerhoff, Ronald J., Inventory of Intermediate-Size Incinerators
intheUnited States - 1972, Pollution Engineering, November 1973.
5. AirPollutionAspects of EmissionSources; MunicipalIncineration,
Air Pollution Control Office, Publication AP-92, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1971.
11-14
-------
A. Source Category t IV Eyaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; _Deg_r_easiing
C. Sourco Pesoriptipn;
Degreasing operations clean the surfaces of manufactured items so that sur-
face Goatlings will adhere. These operations are also used as a final step in the
manufacture of items that are not surface coated. During the fabrication of many
metal products, surfaces are lubricated with oils, greases, or stearates to
facilitate various drawing, forming and machining operations. Lubricants with
dust particles and dirt, must be removed from the metal surface prior to coating
or shipping, (^)20
Solvc-nt degreasers vary in size from simple unheated wash basins to large
heated eonveyorized units in which articles are washed in hot solvent vapors.
Figure IV-49C6)371 presents a typical vapor-spray rlegreaser. Solvent is
vaporized in the left portion of the tank either by electric, steam, or gas
heat. The vapors diffuse and fill that portion of the tank belorf the water-
cooled condenser. At the condenser level, a definite interface between the
vapor and air can be observed from the top of the tank. Solvent condensed at
this level runs into the collection trough and from there to the clean-solvent
receptacle at the right of the tank. Articles to be degreased are lowered in
baskets into the vapor space of the tank. Solvent vapors condense on the
co-r^r ruPi-^l parts, and the hot coadensatc washes oil an--! grcoae from t-hr pnrts.
The contaminated condensate drains back into the heated tank from which it can
be revaporized. When necessary, dirty parts are hand sprayed with hot solvent
by means of a flexible hose and spray puinp to aid in cleaning.
HATER JACKET
VAPOR AREA
»ORK
BOILING LIQUIDI
IMMERSION,
HEATER I
DRAIN
WATER SEPARATOR
— DRAIN
WATER SEPARATOR
STORAGE TANK
OVERFOl* LINE
PUMP SUMP
SPRAY PUMP
Figure IV-49; Vapor~Spray Degreaser
In a continuous vapor-spray degreaser, metal parts are suspended in baskets
from hooks which move through the unit on a monorail. Figure IV-SOC1*)23
presents a diagram of a continuous vapor-spray degreaser. The parts pass through
a vapor zone, followed by a liquid immersion section and then another vapor
zone,
IV-1
-------
rigure IV-50-. Continuous Vapor-Sprny Degreaser
D. Emission Rates;
Degreasing operations use halogenated hydrocarbons. The most common hydro-
carbons used arc tltc follo*-iii^i ( ).
Solvent
Trichloroethylene
1, 1, 1 - Trichloroethane
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Formula
C1HC = CC1
CH-CC1
C1,C = CC1
CICCI
Cl^C - CF3
Boiling Point Boiling Point
- CF2C1
87°C
74°C
120°C
40°C
45.8°C
47.7°C
189°F
165°F
248°F
104°F
114°F
118°F
Because of Los Angeles Rule 66, an estimated 90% of the solvent used in Los
Angeles County is divided equally between perchloroethylene (Cl2C=CCl2) and
1, 1, 1 trichloroethane (CH-CCl-); the remaining 10% is trichloroethylene
(C1HC=CC12). In localities that do not have air pollution control laws restricting
organic solvent emissions, an estimated 90% of the solvent used for degreasing is
trichloroethylene. Most of the remaining 10% of the solvent is the higher boiling
perchloroethylene. Selection of solvent is dictated by the operation's temperature
requirements. Most greases and tars dissolve readily at the 189° boiling point
of trichloroethylene. Perchloroethylene boils at 249°F and is used when higher
temperatures are required or when compliance with air pollution control legislation
is required.<6)872
Solvent emissions from vapor degreasing occur primarily during loading and
unloading of the degreaser. Solvent escapes from the vapor zone and, to a lesser
extent, during idling conditions. Daily emissions of a single spray degreasing
booth may vary from a few pounds to 1300 pounds per day. A typical metal cleaning
operation using a vapor degreaser can clean 200,000 Ibs of metal in one day.'3)8
Table IV-1 presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from de-
greasing operations.
IV-2
-------
TABLE IV-1
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DECREASING OPERATIONS
Type, of
Operation & Control
Dcgrcasing, Uncontrolled
Dcgrcaning, Refrigerated
Cooling Coils
Degreasing, Use of Covers
Degrcasing, Carbon
AdsorptJ on
%
Control
0
30-60
25-40
40-70
Metal Cleaned
Ibs/ton kf,./m ton
1.5 .75
1.0-0.6 0.5-0.3
1.1-0.9 C. 5-0. 05
0.9-0.5 0.5-0.3
Based on 200,000 Ibs of
Metal Cleaned/day (3>B
Ibs/hr kg/hr
6.3 2.3
A. 2-2. 5 1.9-1.1
A. 6-3. 8 2.1-1.7
3.8-2.1 1.7-1.0
E. Control Equipment;
Three methods of control are used to reduce emissions from degraasing
operations in addition to use of nonreactive solvents. These methods include:
1. refrigerated cooling coils,
2. covers, and
3. carbon adsoipLion.
Cooling coils condense solvent vapors before they escape from the top of
the tank. They achieve 30%-40% control. Guillotine-type covers are closed
when the tank is not in use, achieving 25%-40% control. Carbon adsorption sys-
tems are an effective means of control of hydrocarbon emissions from degreas-
ing. A typical carbon adsorption system consists of two vessels filled with
activated carbon, a solvent-laden air inlet, an outlet, a blower, filter, steam
inlet and outlet, a condenser, and a decanter. Bed efficiencies properly main-
tained carbon adsorption systems average about 95%. However the intake effi-
ciency can be much lower, thus bringing total control efficiency to a range of
40 to 70%.
F. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for degreasing operations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources! Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) 'heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solventi. (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
• IV-3
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation,' 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2, unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
• 15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (federal Register,Vol_,J}6, No. 158 - Saturday August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 lbs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and lbs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Colorado specifically limits hydrocarbon emissions from degreasing
operations to 40 Ibs/day and 8 lbs/hr.
Table IV-2 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from degreasing operations.
TABLE IV-2
HYDROCARBON MISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM DECREASING
Type of
Operation & Control
Digressing, Uncontrolled
Degreasing, Refrigerated
Cooling Coil*
Degrtasing,
Use at Covers
Degreaeing,
Carbon Adsorption
X
Control
0
30-60
25-40
40-70
Emissions
Based on 200,000 Ib
Mit,il Cleaned/day
1-j/hr ks/hr
6.3 2,8
4.2-2,5 1.9-1.1
4.6-3.8 2.1-1.7
3.8-a.i 1.7-1.0
Colorado-
!b/hr k'g/hr'
8 3.6
B 3.6
8 3.6
8 3.6
limitations5
Ib/hr kg/hr
3 1.4
3 1.4
3 1.4
3 1.4
IV-4
-------
Potential Smirce Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations" are not based on process weight. Degrcasing operations can use
either complying solvents or covers or carbon adsorption to meet the 3 Ibs/hour
limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References :
Literature used to develop the information in this section on degreasing is
listed below:
(1) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources^ U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970.
(2) Larson, Dennis M. , Activated Carbon Adsorption for Solvent Recovery in
Vapor Depr easing^ Metal Finishing, Volume 72, No. 10, October 1974.
(3) Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques, and_
Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft) , EPA, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June 1974.
(4) Ku^lit-s, T. W. , Source Assessment; Prioritlzation of Air Pollution .from
.
Industrial Surface Coating Operations, Monsanto Research Corporation,
Contract No. 68-02-1320, (Task 14), February 1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(6) Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, Compiled and Edited
by John A. Danielson, May 1973.
IV-5
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Dry Cleaning
C. Source Description;
Dry cleaning is the process of washing fabrics in a nonaqueous solvent.
Two classes of organic solvents are used most frequently by the dry cleaning
industry. These are:
1. petroleum solvents, and
2. chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents
(synthetic solvents).
The process of dry cleaning is performed in three steps. These include:
1. "Washing," fabric is agitated in a solvent bath
and rinsed with clean solvent;
2. "Extraction," excess solvent is removed by
centrifugal force; and
3. "Drying" or "Reclaiming," fabric is tumble
dried with warm air.
Older petroleum solvent equipment employs separate machines for each step,
and synf-h^fT r. r.nlvonV and icvar pr.trol oum solvent equipment carabine the washing
and extraction in one machine, and drying in a separaLe unit. Newer equipment,
including coin-operated machines, combine all three steps in one machine.
Combination washing and extracting machines contain a perforated horizontal
rotating drum enclosed in'a vapor-tight housing. The machine has one door and
is mounted on a flat base solvent tank. These machines slowly agitate the
clothes during the wash cycle, and after the solution is drained, the drum
rotates at high speed to wring solvent from the fabrics.
Machines that perform all three dry cleaning steps have a horizontal rotating
drum which is mounted with one door in a vapor-tight housing. The drum rotates
slowly during the wash cycle. After washing is completed, the solvent returns
to the tank, and the drum rotates at high speed to extract more solvent, which
is also returned to the tank. The drum again rotates slowly while heated air is
blown through the fabrics. The air is recycled to the tumbler through a condens-
er to recover the evaporated solvent. The three-step machine is used only with
synthetic solvents.
In installations where one machine does not perform all three steps, a
separate tumbler is used to dry the fabrics after the extractor. The tumbler
is a revolving perforated cylinder through which air is passed after the air
has been heated by passage through steam heated coils. A few synthetic
solvent tumblers use electrical resistance heating coils instead of steam.
IV-6
-------
In drying tumblers that utilize petroleum solvent, the heated air makes a
single pass through the fabric. Drying tumblers designed for synthetic solvent
are called "reclaimers" or "reclaiming tumblers," and the drying air is recir-
culated in a closed system.
Heated air vaporizes the solvent, and this vapor-laden mixture is carried
through refrigerated coils. Solvent vapor is condensed and decanted from the
water and is returned to the wash machine tank. The air is then recirculated
through the heater to the tumbling fabric. When the concentration of solvent
vapor from the drum drops below its dew point, the air is exhausted to the
atmosphere. This phase of the drying cools the fabric and deodorizes it by
evaporating the final traces of solvent.
D. Emission Rates;
The major source of hydrocarbon emissions from dry cleaning is the tumble
dryer. The amount of solvent vapors emitted to the atmosphere from any one
dry cleaning plant Is dependent upon:
1. the .imount of cleaning performed,
2. the type of equipment used, and
3. the precautions practiced by the
operating personnel.
The petroleum solvent? u=ert Jn Los Apgeles prior to enactment of Rule 66
couLaineu 11 Lo 13 pert-en'<_ by volume of highly reactive components. The
Stoddard solvent and the 140-F solvent used in Los Angeles County are refor-
mulated to contain no more than 7.5% by volume of reactive components. Table
IV-3 lists the physical properties of commonly used dry cleaning solvents.
TABLE IV-3
PROPEHTIES OF DRY CLEANING SOLVENTS
Property
Flash point (TCC), °F
Initial bulling point, °F
Dry end point, °F
API gravity
Specific gravity at 60 °F
Weight, Ib/gal
Paraffin*, volume %
Aromatlca, volume It
Nnphthoneg, volume %
Olodna, volume %
Toluene /ethylbcnioita,
volum. It
Corro.lveneta
Caution
Odor
Color
Coil (average il«t
plant), $/gal
MO-F
1)8.2
3S7, B
J96
47.9
0,789
(..57
45.7 '
1Z. 1
4Z. I
Nona
Flammable
Mild
Water white
O.M
Typical
UO-F,
11 66
14)
366
400
44.0
0.806)
6.604
82. S
7.0
0. 5
Nona
Flammalila
Mild
Water white
O.JO
Sloildnrd
100
.105
350
50.1
0.779
t.49
46. S
11.0
41.9
None
Flammabl*
Sweet
Water white
(1, It
Typical
Stocltl.ird,
R 66
108
316
}56
48. 1
0.788
*. 56
88. }
5.9
o. e
S.O
None
riammabl*
Sweet
Water while
0.«
Porchloro-
ethylcne
Extlngulahei
fire
2SO
254
1.62)
U. 55
Blight on metal
Tonic
Ether like
Colorleia
I.0i
Trichloro-
trifluoro-
ethane
Non-Flamable
117.4
unknown
1.574
13.16
0
non*
Uk« CC1*
Water Whit*
6-10
IV-7
-------
Synthetic solvents for dry cleaning are classed as nonreactlve. Perchloro-
ethylene is used in almost all synthetic plants. Trlchloroethylene, a reactive
solvent, was a major synthetic dry cleaning solvent a few years ago but is no
longer used since perchloroethylene or trichlorotrifluoroethane is preferred.
The average daily emissions to the atmosphere from synthetic dry cleaning
and petroleum dry cleaning plants is as follows:O)879
Synthetic Solvent Dry Cleaning: 38 Ibs/day, 13.6 kg/day
Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning: 875 Ibs/day, 79.4 kg/day
The operators of plants using synthetic solvents conserve the solvent be-
cause of the high cost. A typical small neighborhood synthetic solvent plant
processing 1,500 pounds of textiles in a 5-day week have the following potential
emission rates as outlined in Table IV-3A.
HtngocARBOscxtssroxs nox
TABLE IV- 3A
CLEAN rxc usisc SYNTHETIC SOLVENTS
Typ^ of Operation
IKJ cleaning, usinn separata combination
wa?"nei-eKt ractor and Miparat* Mt-.Hlc-r
reclaimer, including reuse of solvent
recovered fron filter sludge
Dry cleaning, using "hot" tyr* unit
where all three functions are performed
in Base machine
Dry cleaning, using coin-operctcd units
averaging less chars 8 Ibs/lond, per-
forning all three functions in cnc
unit
Hniissions
gal/ H.B/
1,000 Ib3 1,000 Ibs
Fabric Fitl.rls
7.3-11 «9.J-150
3.6- 5.5 30 - 74,8
11 -36 150 -490
1,000 It's
Fabric
65 - 68
22. J- 33.9
66 -222
3bs/4«y kg/day
29, R AS.O 13.5 10.4
14.7- 22,4 6.7-10,2
45.0-147 20.4-66.7
The low cost of petroleum solvents provides little economic incentive to
conserve solvent. The solvent is driven off during the drying of the fabric
in the tumbler. Solvent is also emitted during transfer of wet fabrics from
the washer to the extractor. Normally, fabrics are placed on a drain board in
the washing machine for 3 to 5 minutes before being transferred. Use of
petroleum solvents in similar plants results in emissions of 4 to 7 times more
solvent (by volume) than emissions from synthetic solvent plants.
E. Control Equipment;
Adsorption and condensation systems control synthetic solvent emissions
from modern dry cleaning plants. A water-cooled condenser normally is an in-
tegral part of the closed cycle in the reclaimer tumbler. Up to 95% of the
solvent is recovered from the clothing in the tumbler. Activated carbon ad-
sorption is used where 97%-98% control efficiencies are desired.
IV-8
-------
There are no commercially available control units for solvent recovery for
petroleum-based plants. Two types of petroleum solvents are used that are
formulated so they are non-reactive under Los Angeles County's Rule 66. (1)882
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for the dry cleaning industry.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation; 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more*
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register , Vol. 36. No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
' perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and c^
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
IV-9
-------
Colorado specifica]ly limits hydrocarbon emissions from dry cleaning
operations by requiring at least 85% control. Operations that emit less than
3 Ibs/hr and 15 Ibs/dny uncontrolled are exempt from the Section J regulation;
Also dry cleaning operations can become exempt from Section J by switching
to a non-photochemically reactive, solvent.
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations:: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Typical dry cleaning operations
as described in Section D, by virtue of using conforming synthetic solvents and
equipment that recycles the solvent, will be in compliance with hydrocarbon
regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information on dry cleaning is listed
below:
1. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollutional Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-AO, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, Kay 1973.
2. Compilation of Aj.r Pollutant ^mission Factors, Second Edition,
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, April ~1973.
3« PjrjLorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating
Operations, Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320,
February 1975.
4. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970.
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
IV-10
-------
A. Source Category; TV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category: Petroleum Refueling of Motor Vehicles
C. Source Description;
Refuel ing of vehicle tanks causes a displacement of hydrocarbon vapor laden
air from vehicle tanks to the atmosphere. The amount of vapor displaced is
proportional to the volume of gasoline delivered to the tank. The emissions con-
sist of the more volatile components of gasoline including butanes and pentanes. O )?-
A recent study for the Department of Commerce by the Panel on Automotive Fuels and
Air Pollution (March 1971) showed that the contribution of unburned hydrocarbons
to the atmosphere during refueling operations compared with 1975 exhaust HC
standards of .41 g/mile, is becoming a significant portion of the total. The HC
vapor emissions during vehicle refueling are estimated at .32 g/mile.(2/93
D. Emission Rates:
Hydrocarbon emissions from refueling vehicle tanks are dependent upon:
1. the volume of fuel delivered,
2. ambient temperature, and
3. vapor pressure of gasoline.
Table IV-5 presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from
rpfupling for typical servirp station sizes and classifications. The uncontrolled
emissions from refueling vehicle tanks is 11 lbs/1,000 gallons (1.3 kg/103 liters)
of gasoline delivered.(2'3 A vapor balance system reduces emissions 70%-90% to
1.1-3.3 lbs/1,000 gallons pumped. Secondary processing systems reduce emissions
90% to 1.1 lbs/1,000 gal (.13 kg/103 liters)/3)1*
' TABLE IV-5
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM REFUELING VEHICLE TANKS
Type of
Operation & Control
Major Service Stations, Uncontrolled
Major Service Stations, Vapor Balance
Major Service Stations, Secondary Processing
Independents, Uncontrolled
Independents, Vapor Balance
Independents, Secondary Processing
Rural Stations >2000 gal < 6000 gal/mn, Uncontrolled
Rural Stations >2000 gal < 6000 gal/mn, Vapor Balance
Rural Stations >2000 gal < 6000 gal/mn, Secondary
Processing
Terminals >25,000 gal /day, Uncontrolled
Terminals ->25,000 gal/day, Vapor Balance
Terminals >25,000 gnl/ilay, Secondary Processing
Control
0
70-90(5)1*
90(6)7
0
70-90^)"*
90(6)7
0
70-90(5)4
_Q(6)7
0
70_9C)(5)1*
90(6)7
Enissions
Ibs/
day
5.9
.6-1.8
.6
2.6
.3-. 8
.3
.18
.02-. 05
02
• V*»
.98
.1-.3
.1
kg/
day
2.65
.27-. 81
.27
1.17
.14-. 36
.14
.08
.009-. 02
009
• \j\j y
.44
.05-. 14
.05
IV-11
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Various concepts are possible to appreciably reduce vapor losses during present
refueling of vehicle tanks.(2)91 The two basic concepts for minimizing refueling
losses differ primarily where the displaced vapor is collected. The two basic
approaches are:
1. containment of refueling vapors within vehicle,
2. containment of refueling vapors within station.
Figure IV-8 presents a diagram of the concept for collection, containment, and
ultimate disposal of vehicle refueling losses. This concept has several advantages
and disadvantages. These are listed as follows:
Containment of Refueling Vapors Within Vehicle
Advantages
Requires little modification
of filling station.
Disadvantages
Imposes major task for con-
trol of exhaust emissions.
Cost and complexity rule out
retrofit.
Does not control station
refueling losses.
Figure IV-8; Schematic of Vehicle
• Vapor Containment
IV-12
-------
Figure IV-9 presents a diagram of a vapor control nozzle that would return
displaced vapors from vehicle fuel tank to underground storage tank. Figure
IV-10 presents a diagram of the vapor return and fuel lines that would be
necessary to accoraodate the vapor control nozzle. The nozzle presented in
figure IV-9' Vajnr C
No/.* IP
Figure IV-10; Statj.pn ^lodlfIcatipn
for Tight Fill Nozzle
Figure IV-9 would have to be mated to a newly designed filler neck on vehicle
tanks. Figure 1V-11 presents the adapter arrangement that would be necessary
to utilize this "equal-volume exchange concept" on older vehicles.
IV-13
-------
Figure IV-11; Retrofit Adapter
for Past Models
The "equal-volume exchange concept" as outlined in the above figures also
has its own unique advantages and disadvantages. They are as follows:
Containment of Refueling Vapors Within Station
Advantages Disadvantages
Maintenance of system would Use of adapters would be
be more effective than main- difficult to police, and it
tenance of systems on would complicate attendant's
millions of vehicles. task.
Control of underground tank
breathing and refueling
vapors should be easily
attainable.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for petroleum refueling of motor vehicles.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Several states specifically
regulate hydrocarbon emissions arising from refueling vehicle tanks.
California Bay area is representative of a regulation that requires 90%
control of refueling emissions. Colorado limits the emissions from refueling
to 1.10 lbs/103 gallons of fuel delivered. Recently,'EPA Region I has
promulgated a transportation control plan for the Boston Air Quality Control
Region (Federal Register, June 12, 1975). Part of the plan included vapor
return lines to be installed on gasoline stations to limit refueling
vehicle emissions and station tank refueling emissions.
IV-14
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation; Existing technology
is adequate to meet the 1.10 lbs/1000 gallon imposed by Colorado. A vapor
balance or a secondary processing system operating at 90% control efficiency
is required and has been accomplished on existing sources.
Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References ;
Literature used to develop the information in this section, "Petroleum
Refueling of Motor Vehicles," is listed below:
!• Vehicle Refueling Emission Seminar, API Publication 4222, December
4-5, 1973.
2- Hydrocarbon Vapor Control at Gasoline Service Stations, Barnard R.
McEntire and Ray "sko'ff, APT1C //62202, Presented 66 APCA, Chicago,
Illinois, June 24-28, 1973.
3 • Organic Compou nd Emiss i on Sources Control Techniques and Emission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, June 1974.
4. Batchelder, A. H. , Kline, D.I., Vapor Recovery at Service Stations,
State of California Air Resources Board, April 17, 1974.
5. Callaghan, D. J. , Feldstein M. , The Control of Gasoline Vapor Emissions
at Service Stations, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, San
Francisco, California, for Presentation at the 68th Annual Meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association, Boston, Massachusetts,
June 15-20, 1975.
6. Schneider, Alan M. , Cost Effectiveness of Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Systems, University of California at San Diego, for Presentation at
the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Boston, Massachusetts, June 15-20, 1975.
7 . Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA", "Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
IV-15
-------
A, SourceCategory:IVEvaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Graphic Arts (Gravure)
C. Source Description:
Gravure printing is a type of printing where the image area is recessed
relative to the surface of the image carrier. Ink is picked up in the engraved
area, and excess ink is scraped off the nonimage area with a "doctor blade,"
Ink is transferred directly from the image carrier to the paper or film.
Gravure may be sheet fed or roll fed. Sheet-fed gravure uses either a flat
plate for an image carrier, or a curved plate which is attached to a cylinder.
In roll-fed gravure, or rotogravure, the image is engraved in the cylinder
itself. Rotogravure may he used for coated or uncoated paper, film, foil, and
many combinations thereof. O)2
The ink used in high speed gravure printing contains a relatively large
amount of low-boiling solvent and has a low viscosity. The rotogravure inks
contain approximately 65% highly volatile, aromatic solvent which is not subject
to decomposition in the drying process. Control of solvent vapors around the
ink fountain is desirable to avoid the danger of explosion. For most commercial
operations, the solvent concentration in the exhaust gases ranges between 25%
and 40% of the lower explosive limit.(2)34?
Figurp TV-i /v*) " presents a schematic of a rotogravure printing
operation.(2)349 Rotogravure printing is similar to web-letterpress because
the web is printed on one side at: a time and must be dried after each color is
printed. In publication printing, the web is usually passed through four presses
where four colors are applied to one side of the web. The web Is turned over and
passed through four additional presses for the reverse side printing. For
four-color, two-sided printing, eight presses are employed, and each press will
include a pass over or through a steam drum or hot air dryer where nearly all of
the initial solvent is removed.
w6-5"/5»
INK
SOLVENT
wo.^ A» ^3*-*^vc-f* i r
(AROMATIC «. ESTE.FW
6OU.BXMIM, VEl_l_OW?
-*«
SOLVENT L-ADEM A!R
. or SOL_VENT«
63 IN. WEO .
ONE SIDC PHIMTINO
5O*X, COVERAGE
AIR
AIR
3OOO SCFM
I'CR COL.OR
HEAT
FROM
STtZAM,
HOT
AIR COOL.
yiRurc IV-17! Rotonrnvure Print ing _pperat.l on
IV-1G
-------
A typical rotogravure printing operation as depicted In Figure IV-17
operating under the conditions listed would have hydrocarbon emissions
according to press speed as presented in Figure IV-18.
20
10
I
§ 5
SF
500 1000 1500
PRESS SPEED, FEET/MIN.
2000
r. IV-18! Eniasicn Kates from a Typical Rotogravure frintinj^Operatlon
D. Emission Rates;
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions from rotogravure printing are:
1. hot air dryer,
2. press unit,
3. chill rolls, and
4. ink fountain.
In gravure and printing operations in general the Ink is the major source
of hydrocarbons. Printing inks consist of three major components:
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed
of finely divided organic and inorganic materials,
2. Resins, which bind the pigments to the substrate, are
composed of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
IV-17
-------
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.(2)335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, unsaturates and mixtures
with aromatic content greater than 25% by volume.
B. Normal and isopnraffins, cycloparaffins , mineral spirits
containing less than 15% aromatics.
C. Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol,
isobutanol, glycols, esters, ketones.
D. Trichloroethylenc, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. Nitroparaffins and dimethyl formamide.
F. Miscellaneous
Table IV-7 presents the volume breakdoi^n in hundreds of gallons of solvent
consumed for ink dilution by process and solvent type.C2)338
TABLE IV-7
PRINTING
PfiOCESS
Lithography
Letterpress
Rexography
Gravura
Screen Printing
avu
A
14,972
98
58
10,089
34
a*lJ?BlNTJNG-PBOCtSS_Ahia_S.QL.\£ENT.. TYP E_t>3GB)
SOLVENT TYPE (HUNDRED GALLONS)
Total
25,251
23,941
444
606
24,637
173
49,801
38
52
-JL
16.691
399
10,180
*
12.868
85
40.223 90
J
723
1
12
736
_JL
408
1
170
145
724
_TpTAL_
56,773
094
11,015
47.603
437
116,825
Table IV-7A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in pounds/hour
and kilograms/hour for the typical rotogravure printing operations as depicted in
Figure IV-17. The emissions listed are for a typical operation. These could vary
even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of the ink, the per-
centage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of colors applied and
dryers used, and press speed affect the emissions.
IV-18
-------
TABLE IV-7A
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GRAVURE PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
j/fn.
Rotogravure. Prfating, Coated Paper
Uncontrolled
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, Uncontrolled
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Thermal Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Th'enr.al Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Catalytic Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Catalytic Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Adsorption
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Adsorption
%
Control
0
o
V
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Press Speed
feet/min
1500
1500
±J\J\J
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
±J V W
Emissions
Ibs/hr
15
20
f*\j
1.5-.15
2 -.2
2. 3-. 75
3-1
.15
2
• {>
kg/hr
6.8
q 1
7 . J.
.7-. 07
.9-.1
1.0-.3
1.4-.5
.07
I
• X
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from rotogravure and printing operations in
general, are categorized according to the following:(2)35
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. conventional air pollution control equipment.
1. Process Modification;
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon emissions,
Several methods of drying are being developed which could greatly reduce
hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors will be emitted if conventional inks are used.
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The ink
will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydrocarbon
emissions.
IV-19
-------
Electron beam drying utilizes electron-induced polymerization. The
procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers which
will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultra-Violet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the process.
2. Ink Modification;
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographic operations. A disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers are employed. The
application of microwave drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
Solventless inks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
present equipment without modification. Since lower oven temperatures
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3« Conventional Air Pollution Control Equipmetit:
Exhaust gtTRps frnm p.ravure and printing operations in general are.
treated with con.reiition.al pollution control equipment. The three niair.
types of processes utilized are:
1. thermal combustion,
2. catalytic combustion, and
3. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective gravure vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases are
preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F. Fuel
consumption io dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed and
the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable of
operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure IV-19C1)358
presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired hydro-
carbons from the rotogravure exhaust. The oxidation occurs with a
catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic base or
metal ribbon. Figure IV-20C1)359 is a schematic of a catalytic incin-
erator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95% depending on the
application.
IV-20
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO «*00 T
f
If TO eo
— _..
rAN ( M
1
f
OR
METAL.
DECORATING
OVEN
r^"***"~
TOO TO OOO*I-
^
r
HE.
CXCH*
3
ftT ^
NIGER
BOp TC
1000
AUXIL.
FUE
> iooo*r
TO isoo *r
L.
^
OOO TO (SOOT
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
1
1
1
1
1
OOO TO J T0 STACK
SYSTEM
I
I
TO STACK
O«
PLANT HEATING
SYSTEM
Fi&ure IV-19;
Fluw Diagram for Thermal Cqiabustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO
W600-F
AIR IN
roTo eo
PRESS
DRYER
OR
METAL-
DECORATINS
OVEN
1
f
^
f
)
L
HEAT
*
, 700 TO 9OO *.P
AUXILIARY 1
ruEc. I
1 T
soo 70 900 -r
CATAL.YST-
BED
f^> 9OO~F
/ J
ffif
RESIDENCE
1
i
700 TOI
900 *r i
TO STACK
1 | PL.ANT HEATING
TO STAC K
^ OR
' PUANT
HEATING
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
Figure IV-20; Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including.
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
IV-21
-------
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise distillation is necessary. Figure iv-21^1'360
presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A well designed
bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent before regeneration
is required. The efficiencies of a well designed bed are 99%.
ADSORPTION (SOLVENT-RECOVERY SYSTEM)
EXHAUST AIR
TO
ATMOSPHERE
(SOLVENT
| STEAM PLJJS
1 SOUVE1NT VAPORS
STEAM
FOR RFOSrxlERATION
AND RE.COVERY
Figure IV-21; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Procesj
RECOVERED
SOLVENT
DECANTER
'WATER
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS):
have been promulgated for gravure printing.
No New Source Performance Standards
State .Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations arc patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochcmically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the, atmosphere of non-photoche.mically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
IV-22
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olcfinic or cyclo-
oleflnic type of unsaturatlon: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated piocess
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register,Vol. 36. No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
"perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that.
lii".it the emissions frcr.i handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table IV-8 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from rotogravure printing operations.
TABLE IV-8
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ROTOGRAVURE PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper
Uncontrolled
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, Uncontrolled
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Thermal Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Thermal Combustion
Rotogravure Vrinting, Coated Paper,
with Catalytic Corcbustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Catalytic Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Adsorption
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Adsorption
%
Control
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
f s
99
y 7
Emissions
Ibs/hr
1 'i
X.I
20
1.5-.15
2 -.2
2. 3-. 75
3-1
IS
• "t«*
•>
• *•
kR/hr
f> R
V » O
9 1
7 • X
.7-. 07
.9-.1
1.0-.3
1.4-.5
07
• V *
1
• A
Limitations
Ibs/hr
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
^
ks/hr
1 U
.L. **
1 4
X * *t
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1 it
A. •*
1 L
i . **
IV-23
-------
PotentJal Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Rotogravure printing operations,
even well controlled, could violate the 3 Ibs/hour limitation if the number of
presses and press speed are such that the emissions could average more than
3 Ibs/hr.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
References used in preparation of this summary include the following:
1 • Mr Pol Tut ion Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas ,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3 . Priori za_t icm of Air Pollution From Industrial Surfn ce Coa t inp, Ope rn I ions ,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on gravure printing*
4 . Eva 1 ua tjonq of . JEmis sions and Cont r ol_Te clmolo g ie£ _in_ the Graphic
^L'Li CS. v.]'-na_se_ n.f Web-0~f fset and Metal Decorating ._Y_
. .-__ .__
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5. • Orgji n j c Comj^ Q' ' P d ETI i s s io n Sour c e s , Ern' P si on Con frol __ T e rbni on es and
Entijision Liroil.Hlion Guidelines, EPA, June 1974.
6 • jjy. d r o _c a r b on Po 1 _1 .u tant System St udy . Volume I — Stationary Spurces_,
t-.p, , and Control, October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category: Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
C. Source Des cr ip tj-on !
Letterpress printing is the oldest and most basic form of printing and still
predominates in periodical and newspaper publishing. Approximately 93% of the
nation's newspapers are printed by this process, C1)332 In letterpress printing,
ink is transferred to the paper from the image surface. This surface is raised
relative to the nonprinting surface of the plate. Originally, letterpress was
done with a flatbed image carrier, and the image was hand set type. Currently,
the image is transferred to a mat which can be curved. Then a cylindrical plate
is made from the curved
Letterpress printing currently is accomplished in two similar but different
processes. The composition of the ink and the inclusion of drying are the main
areas where the processes differ. The two types of letterpress printing are:
1. letterpress, publication, and
2. letterpress, newspaper.
1. Letterpress, publi cation uses a paper web that is printed on one side
at a time, and the web is dried after each color is printed. When four
colors V^Q ^I'intsd, ° procfidur" c.illfid "d^'jhlr1. endln^" is pnployrd. The1
web prucebSea LliLough one press and one dryet, is turned over and re-
turned to the same press where it was adjacent to the first pass on the
same cylinder. In this manner, only four presses and four dryers are
required for four-color, two-sided printing. The dryer may be either a
hot air dryer wlic're a minimum of flame impingement occurs, or an all-
flame dryer where direct impingement of the flame on the web occurs.
The composition of the dryer emissions depends on the type of dryer
employed. In the hot air dryer, very little solvent decomposition occurs.
As the amount of flame impingement increases, the quantity of solvent
decomposition also increases.
The exhaust and solvent emission rates shown in Figure IV-22(1)3't5 re-
present one color, two-sided printing. In an actual four-color operation,
four dryers would be manifolded together to a .common exhaust stack.
Letterpress publication ink Is similar in composition to lithographic
ink (heatset - 35% aliphatic solvent) , The composition of hydrocarbon
emissions depends on the type of dryer. O) 3I+7
IV-25
-------
FILTER
do
-AIR
FILTER
rvsvsw .»— •"• SOLVt-IM f I-
">>*^'«3£ft'o ALIPHATIC
SOLVENT
UN. WEB, ISOOFPM
2 SIDES . 1 COLOR
iaO"H» COVERAGE
| ;
! T
a.
iZ
i ^
^
i
OAS 5« ?
i ?! '
Jj'° •
2
r
AIR
(SOO^F)
DRYCR
L^
AIR xr ^
f
•
D
< .
CHILL PRODUCT
or IMITIAL"
SOLVENT
I 11
rS-F AIR H2O
Figure IV-22: Web Letterpress, Publication
Letterpress, newspaper printing operations use oxidative drying inks
which contain little or no solvent. The exhaust gases from these
operations are not a source of hydrocarbon emissions. The only sub-
stances emitted from these operations are ink mist and paper dust.
Figure IV-23C1)31*6 presents a schematic of a letterpress, newspaper
printing process.
ao IN. wr: n
1000
NO KOO/CNT
Figure IV-23; Web Letterpress. Newspaper
IV-26
-------
D, Emission Rates;
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions from letterpress printing are:
1. hot air dryer,
2. press unit, and
3. chill rolls.
In letterpress and printing operations in general, the ink Is the major
source of hydrocarbons. Printing inks consist of three major components:
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed
of finely divided organic and inorganic materials.
2. Resins, which bind the pigments to the substrate, are
composed of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.(2)335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, unsaturates, and mixtures
with aromatic, content greater than 252 by volume.
B. Normal and isoparaffins, cycloparaffins, mineral spirits
containing less than 15% arotnatics.
C.' Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol,
isobutanol, glycols, esters, ketones,
D. Trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. NitroparaffIns and dimethyl formamide.
F. Miscellaneous
Table IV-9 presents the volume breakdown in hundreds of gallons of solvent
consumed for Ink dilution by process and solvent type.(2)338
TABLE IV-9
VOLUME BREAKpOWN OF SOLVENT CQKSUMED FOR INK DILUTION.
ey_PftlN_TIKG PROCESS AND SOLVENT TYPE 11968)
PRINTING
PROCESS
Lithography
Letterpress
Flexography
Grauure
Screen Priming
A
14,972
68
58
10,039
34
SOL VENT TYPE (HUNDRED GALLONS)
B C D E F
23,041
444
606
24,637
173
1R.C91 38
399 52
10.180
12,868
85
723 408
1
'1 170
12
145
TOTAL
56,773
994
11,015
47,608
437
Toul
26.251
49,801
40,223
00
736
724
116,825
IV-27
-------
A typical letterpress printing operation as depicted in Figure IV-22
operating under the conditions listed would have hydrocarbon emissions
according to press speed as presented in Figure IV-24.
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
IWLB OFF.SEIT
--1— •-—I---; ~-t-
— :\VE.B CETJEPPRESS
500 1000 IDOO
PRESS SPEED, FEET/MIN.
2000
Figure IV-24: Emission Rates from Web Offset and Web
Letterpress Employing Heatset Inks
Table IV-9A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in pounds/hour
and kilograms/hour for the typical letterpress printing operations as depicted
in Figure IV-24. The emissions listed are for a typical operation. These could
vary even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of the ink, the
percentage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of colors applied and
dryers used, and press speed affect the hydrocarbon emissions.
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from letterpress and printing operations in
general are categorized according to the following: (2)351*
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. conventional air pollution control equipment.
IV-28
-------
TABLE IV-9A
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LETTERPRESS PUBLICATION PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Letterpress Printing, Noncoatcd
Paper, Uncontrolled
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Noacoated
Paper with Thermal Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Noncoatcd
Paper with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Letterpress Printing, Moncoated
Paper with Adsorption
X
Control
o
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Press Speed
ft/rain
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
Emissions
Ibs/hr
.26
,35
.026-. 0026
.035-. 0035
.039-. 013
,053-. 018
.0026
.0035
kc/hr
.12
,16
.012-. 0012
.016-. 0036
.018-. 006
.024-. 006
,0012
.0016
1. Process Modific.ition;
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon
emissions. Several methods of drying are being developed which could
greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors would be emitted if conventional inks are used.
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The
ink will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydro-
carbon emissions.
Electron be_am drying utilizes electron induced polymerization.
The procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers
which will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultraviolet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the' process. ••
2. Ink Modification;
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographlc operations. A. disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers are employed. The appli-
cation of microwave drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
IV-29
-------
Solventlessinks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
present equipment without modification. Since lower oven temperatures
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3. Conventional Air Pollution Control Equipinent;
Exhaust gases from letterpress and printing operations in general are
treated with conventional pollution control equipment. The three main
types of processes utilized are:
a. thermal combustion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal corobustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective letterpress vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases
are preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F.
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable
of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure
presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
CONTAM i rM ATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO -*OO *F
f
/VIR IN
70 TO eo
rAN (
es
<
1
PRESS
DRYER
OR
METAI_
DECORATING
OVEN
r-*~
TOO TO IOOO «F
V
)
c
HEAT ^
EXCHANGER
1
IOOO TO ISOO »F
AUXILIARY
FUEL.
600 TO IO OR
HEATINJG
SYSTEM
TO STACK
OR
I"»I_ANT MEATiNO
SYSTEM
Figure IV-25; Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
IV-30
-------
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the letterpress exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-26C1)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO ^OO *r
-ANI (
£Z.
1
^ «6OO"F
r- -*- —
PRESS
DRYER
OR
K4ETAL
DECORATlMG
OVEN
1
1
4
V
•>
r
HEAT "*
EXCHANGER
i
roo TO soo -f
AUXILIARY
FUEL
eoo TO 900 -r
TO STACK
\
CATALYST-
BED
£§ 900-F
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
1
\
1
1
1
7OO TO|
OOO •_!=• |
TO STAC;;
•_ OR
PLANT
MEATINQ
SYSTEiVl
I
OR
PLANT HEATING
SYSTE.M
Figure IV-26j_
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possiblities for Heat Recovery
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air» If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-27O)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-de-
signed bed are 99%.
IV-31
-------
ADSORPTION (SOLVENT-RECOVERY SYSTEM)
EXHAUST AIR
ATMOSPHERE
(SOLVENT FREE)
VAPOR
. L-ADENr
AIR
DRYER
OR
OVEN
— »«
1 —
k
1
1
i
r — — •»
i
ACTIVATED CARDOM
ADSORBER
f '
ACTIVATED" cARooixI
ADSORBER
' •* U'-VV PHh.S»is
TOR REG ff ME
AND Recove
i
t
| STEAM PUUS
r SOLVENT VAPORS
4 i
^ •• - - . ,
|
1 CONDEISISETJ
.^.^ RECOVERED
( SOLVENT
^=
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2, unheated photoehemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (^era^J^sist_er,Vo]L._36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
' perebloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-esn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Iba/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66,
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table IV-10 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from letterpress printing operations.
TABLE IV-10
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM LETTERPRESS PRINTING
Type of
Operntlou It Control
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Letterpress Printing, Noneoateil
Paper, Uncontrolled
Letieipreas Printing, Coaled Paper
with Tiu-n.ial Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Therranl Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Koncoated
Paper with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Letterpress Printing, Noncoalcd
Paper with Adsorption
%
Control
n
" «
n
V
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr
26
• i.U
11
• JJ
.026-. 0026
.035-. 0035
.039-. 013
.05 3-. 018
.0026
.0035
kfi/hr
,12
ig
* JLU
.012-. 0012
.016-. 0016
.018-. 006
.024-. 008
.0012
.0016
Liml tat ions
Ibs/hr
3
•i
j
3
3
3
3
3
3
kg/hr
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1,4
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation^; Hydrocarbon emissions
limitations are not based on process weight. Letterpress printing operations as
outlined in Section D, even uncontrolled, will not violate the 3 Ib/hr limitation.
However, it is conceivable to have a number of presses and dryers manifolded
together where control would be necessary to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation.
IV-3 3
-------
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G, References;
The literature used to develop the information on letterpress printing is
as follows:
1. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
•
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on letterpress printing.
4. evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologic?^ in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5. Orc>ani.c_ Compound Emission_ finurcp.fi, _ Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines,, EPA, June 1974.
6« Hydrocarbon Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control, October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-34
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category: Graphic Arts (Metal Coating)
£• Source Description;
Metal Coating Is the printing with ink of an image on a sheet or object.
The Image Is usually applied to coated metal with a lithographic press. Clear
varnish is then applied directly over the wet ink for protection of the printed
image. The entire process involves three operations:
1. application of the undercoating to the bare metal,
2. printing of the image to the dried coating, and
3. application of the clear varnish over the image.
The base coat is roller coated onto the metal and contains 50-80% solvents
by volume. Figure IV-28 is a schematic of a metal coating operation. The base
coat is baked at 350°F—425°F. The quantity of the solvent emitted from the oven
is dependent on the thickness and solvent content of the coating. The ovens are
operated from 10% to 25% of the lower explosive limit.
350°
BO SHEETS
IN. X 35> IN.
EXTRA
SOLVENT
OR REVERJ.E
HOOD
S&|~-
C.OATER
A 4 i
—' AIR
INSIDE
-->,:,£. 1
'« SOLVEN
1 AIR ^C. SOLVENT'
1 . t-^.
p- i
ROON/1
AIR
10,000 scr. vi
, GAS
I A ir-3
OVEN ~
* 37OT "
*
WIC
pr-
^1
AIR
T G^
x,CT
12;-
AT
r
XS
COOLINS
ZONE;
TO OUTSID
(HOT AIR)
ROOM OR
INVERT TO INPUT,
SO MILLIGRAMS /•* i
eSSENTIAi.LY DRY
WEIGHT
RATIOS
~, a XYL.OI. .
3O AL.IPHATIC
Figure IV-28; Metal Sheet Coating Operation
IV-35
-------
The coated sheets are printed with lithographic inks containing very little
if any solvent. The wet inked sheets are coated with a varnish containing 70-80%
solyent and dried in wicket ovens at approximately 320°F. These ovens are oper-
ated at 10% to 25% of the lower explosive limit. Figure IV-29 is a schematic of the
printing and overcoating operations for metal decorating, (i
WAX;
NO SOLVENT
STACK
CO SHEETS/vllN.
IN. X
WATER FOR
FOUNTAIN
SOUUTIGN
HOT AIR
TO OUTSIDE
VARNISH,
SO*/. SOLVENT,
SAIVIE RATIO
AS FIO. -*l
,
£°X. Al-IPHATld SOLVENT
N/lAY BE ADDEO ON PRESS
Figure IV-29; Metal Sheet Printing and Varnish Overcoating
D. Emission Rates;
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions in metal decorating printing
are:
1. surface roller coating
2. oven exhaust, and
3. varnish overcoater operation.
The roller coating and varnish overcoating operations are sequential and
comprise the bulk of the hydrocarbon emissions. The lithographic type inks
used in metal decorating contain little solvent, and their emissions due to
evaporation are insignificant.(2)3 The ovens are heated by oil or natural gas,
and the exhaust contains the products of combustion in addition to the evaporated
solvent.
IV-36
-------
Table IV-11 presents emission rates for the various operations of metal
decorating from the ovens.(2)3 The thickness of the coatings and solvent content
influence the amount of hydrocarbons in the emissions.
. TABLE IV-11
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM METAL DECORATING
Type of
Operation & Control
Metal Decorating, Heated Oven Only
Metal Decorating, Printing Only
Metal Decorating, Printing with
Varnish Application
Metal Decorating, Sizing (Lacquer)
Metal Decorating, Coatings
Metal Decorating, Printing with
Varnish Application, Thermal
Incineration
Metal Decorating, Coatings,
Thermal Incineration
%
Control
0
0
o
0
0
90-99
90-99
Range of Emissions
Ibs/hr
.2-1.0
.2-1.0
4.0- 16.0
6.0- 30.0
A. 0-122.0
.04-1.6
.4-12.2
kg/hr
.09-. 5
.09-. 5
1.8- 7.3
2.7-13.6
1.8-55.3
.02-. 7
.2-5.5
E. Control Equipment:
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from metal decorating are categorized
according to the following:
1. reformulation of solvents, and
2. application of control equipment,
1. Reformulation of Solvents;
The solvents employed in the varnish and lacquer coatings are
usually composed of methyl isobutzl ketone (MIBK), xylol and aliphatic
solvents, all of which can be at least partially removed in the wicket
ovens. The extent of solvent decomposition in the ovens is a function
of the 'variation of temperature due to a variation of the mixing effi-
cieicies of the hot and cold gases in the oven. (1)350 A substitution
of non*-photochejnically reactive solvents or solvents that polymerize
when heated would reduce or eliminate the problem of excessive hydro-
carbon emissions.
2. Application of Control Equipment;
Thermal combustlon incinerates hydrocarbon emissions from the
wicket oven.s in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases are pre-
heated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1400°F,
IV-37
-------
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange
employed and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators
are capable of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to
95%.C1)350 Figure IV-30O)358 is a schematic of a thermal incin-
erator. Thermal combustion is used to incinerate fumes from the
larger metal decorating operations.(2)3 Other types of control
equipment applications are possible but were not summarized in
Table IV-11.
CO rsl T AS/I I f-J AT E. D
AIR OUT
3OO TO -4-OO *F
FAN
TO STACK,
>. OR
PUAfsIT
HEATING
SYSTEM
ING
SYSTEM
Figure IV-30;
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the metal decorating ovens. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-3lO)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
IV-38
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO
F
AIR IK
16 ~ro °°
-AN ( 1 )
PRESS
DRYER
OR
3ECORATI.NK3
OVEN
SS6OOT
V
J
c
HEAT ^
EXCHANGER
1
TOO TO OOO «F
AUXILIARY
FUEL
eoo TO -100 T
V
CATALYST-
BED
tTTj 9O&-F
RESOENCE
1
4
i
i
i
700 TO!
3OO *f~ 1
TO STACK
> OR
PLANT
HEATING
SYSTEM
|
TO STACK
OR
PLANT HEATING
SYSTE1M
Figure IV-31;
F3.0W Diagram for Catalytic Combustioiy Iriclud^ing
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bedt The original bed is regenerated with r.tcnm or hot airk If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise distillation is necessary. Figure IV-32O)360
presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A well designed
bed will adsorb 15% of its own weight of solvent before regeneration
is required. The efficiencies of a well designed bed are 99%.
ADSORPTION (SOLVENT -RECOVCRY SYSTCW)
DRYEH
OR
OVEN
->. LADUN
AIR
I
I I
„ _ _ _ _ _ _„__ _ _ «. ™..
x^cTlVAT£;D CAn.ao>j
__ _—
ADSORSER
STCA/vl PLUS
I SOLJv'ENT VAPORS
CONCCNSER
I .. '
AISO RECOVERY
RCCOVCRE3
SOLVENT
DECANTER
Figure IV-32: Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
IV-39
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for metal decorating.
.State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2, A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, ttichloroethylcnr or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & ]bs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal^Register»Yol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is leso than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
'perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
IV-40
-------
Table IV~12 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from metal decorating operations,
TABLE IV-12
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM METAL DECORATING
Type of
Operation & Control
Metal Decorating, Heated Oven Only
Metal Decorating, Printing Only
Metal Decorating, Printing with
Varnish Application
Metal Decorating, Sizing (Lacquer}
Metal Decorating, Coatings
Metal Decorating, Printing with
Varnish Application, Thermal
Incineration
Metal Decorating, Coatings,
Thcrnal Incineration
%
Control
0
0
0
0
0
90-99
90-99
Emissions
Jbs/hr
.2-1.0
.2-1.0
4.0- 16.0
fi.O- 30.0
4,0-122.0
.04-1.6
.4-12.2
ks/hr
.09-. 5
.09-. 5
1.8- 7.3
2.7-13.6
1.8-55.3
.02-. 7
.2-5.5
Limitations
Ibs/hr
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
kg/hr
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and Emission^ Limi^tat:i.ons: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Metal surface coating, even
well controlled, could violate the 3 Ibs/hour limitation. Metal decorating
operations arc characterized by all being different from each other in terms of:
1. production rate,
2. solvent usage, and
3. control equipment.
The graphic arts printing of metal decorating will not violate the 3 Ibs/hr
limitation.
The Eiiyironment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
IV-41
-------
G. References;
. The literature used to develop the information on metal decorating is
as follows:
1 • Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations ,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on metal decorating.
4. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-OCfnet and Metal Decorating Processes ,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5 . Or&cnic Compoi'vul "ini s sjt or^^nir f^cs_j _ Emi :^s "J on Cnntroj Techni
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B« Sub Category; Graphic Arts (Lithography)
C. Source Description;
Lithography printing is characterized by having the image area on the same
plane as the non-image area. The image area chemically attracts ink while the
non-image area chemically repels ink. The printing image is applied to a
cylinder which transfers the inked image directly to the substrate. This process
is direct lithography. The printing image can also be applied to a cylinder where
the inked image is transferred to a rubber blanket cylinder which in the same
revolution prints the wet inked image onto the substrate. This second process
is called offset lithography. When a web or continuous roll of paper is
employed with the offset process, it is called web-offset printing.O)332
Web-offset printing employs a heatset ink. The web of paper travels through
the presses where it is printed on both sides simultaneously. The wet web is
passed through a dryer Ov400°F) where approximately 60% of the initial solvent
is removed. The web passes over the chill rolls where it is cooled prior to
folding and cutting. Figure IV-SS^1'3142 presents a schematic of a web-offset,
publication process.
s(2UO./HR." .
O?" i>OL_VfIN)"T **•
CXMAUOT
^ r^j^j^ , -MxJ _^
ISOO TO 300o7^.-,
•zc-rM ^^
O.3l_Q.
OL ]
a. or INK
°soLvt:Nr ""
Jf H
COz jLJ
K8 k'
H-UP^ "I INK |j5^ 2X
VENT ^»- — FOUNTAINS A 1 A
IO..S , lSO°.o
Ef<
1
?
1
1
^^ ^VMPENING WATHR
.1 i_rv c» v • ^ISOPRO*'--^
-YSTt-lvl VAI->OR
FILTER
3OO SCrivl
TO BUHNCR
•AIR AT 75°r
6OOO TO ICPOO
SCf-'M
AIR a. SMOKE
.
or*
SOLVE tx!T
WAS i t. t-x a. i
•^ISOPROI'-VNOU '
VAHOR AIR AT 7&T AIR AT 7S°r
'u IV-33: Wtib-OffscL, Publication
IV-43
-------
A typical web-offset printing operation as depicted in Figure VI-33 operating
under the conditions listed would have hydrocarbon emissions according to press
speed as presented in Figure IV-34. (*' 3l45
0.4
z
Ul
o
in
UJ
CC
O
VI
i
UJ
0 • 500 1000 1500 2000
PRESS SPEED, FEET/MIN.
Figure IV-34; Emission Rates from Web^ Offset and Web Letterpress
Employing Heatset Inks
The dryer may be either a hot air dryer where a minimum of flame impingement
occurs or an all flame dryer where direct impingement of the flame on the web
occurs. The composition of the dryer emissions depends on the type of dryer
employed. In the hot air dryer, very little solvent decomposition occurs. As
the amount of flame impingement increases, the quantity of solvent decomposition
also increases.
D. Emission Rates;
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions from web-offset printing are:
1. press,
2. dryer,
3. drill rolls, and
A. ink fountains.
In web-offset printing, the ink and the coating on the paper are the major
sources of hydrocarbons. Printing inks consist of three major components:
IV-44
-------
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed of
finely divided organic and inorganic materials.
2. Resins, which bind the pigments to the substrate, are composed
of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The. solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.^2'335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, unsaturates and mixtures
with aromatic content greater than 25% by volume.
B. Normal and isoparaffins, cycloparaffins, mineral spirits con-
taining less than 15% aromatics.
C. Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol, isobutanol,
glycols, ester ketones.
D. Trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. Nitroparaffins and dimethyl formamide.
F. Miscellaneous.
Table IV-IS^1'339 presents the volume breakdown in hundreds of gallons of
solvent consumed for ink dilution by process and solvent type.
TABIF. IV-13
VOLUME BREAKDOWN OF SOLVr.NT^ONSUMEQ_mB INKJ3JUmQN
BY PRINTING PROCESS AND SOLVENT TYPE (1968)
PRINTING
PROCESS
Lithography
Letterpress
Flexoyrapliy
Gravurc
Screen Piloting
A
14,972
98
58
10,089
34
SOLVENT TYPE (HUNDRED GALLONS)-
D C D E F
23,941
444
606
24,637
173
16.691 38
399 62
10,180
12.868
85
723 408
1
1 170
' 12
145
TOTAL
56,773
994
11,015
47,606
437
Total
25,251
49,801
40,223 90
736
724
116,025
IV-45
-------
Table IV-13A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in
pounds/hour and kilograms/hour for the typical web-offset printing operations
as depicted in Figure IV-34. The emissions listed are for a typical operation.
These could vary even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of
the ink, the percentage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of
colors applied and dryers used, and press speed affect hydrocarbon emissions.
TABLE IV-13A
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM WEB-OFFSET PRINTING
Typo of
Operation & Control
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Wcb-Offsct Printing, Noncoatcd Paper,
Uncontrolled
Wcb-OCEset Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoat.ed Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Adsorption
Z
Control
0
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Press Speed
fect/min
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
•Emissions
Ibs/hr kR/hr
.18 .082
.28 .13
.018-. 0018 .008-. 0008
.028-. 0028 .013-. 0013
.027-. 009 .012-. 004
.042-. 014 .020-. 006
.0018 .0003
.0028 .0013
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from web-offset and printing operations in
general are categori^ed according to the following:
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. application of conventional control equipment.
1. Process Modification:
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon
emissions. Several methods of drying are being developed which could
greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors would be emitted if conventional inks are used.
IV-
-------
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The
ink will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydro-
carbon emissions.
Electron beam drying utilizes electron induced polymerization.
The procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers
which will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultraviolet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the process.
2. Ink Modification;
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographic operations. A disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers are employed. The appli-
cation of microwave drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
Solventless inks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
pr or, first cquipnp.rjt without trodi fi cation. Rinrn loiter ovon tcmpr^ntur^r
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3. Conventional Air Pollution Control Equipment:
Exhaust gases 'from web-offset and printing operations in general are
treated with conventional pollution control equipment. The three main
types of processes utilized are:
a. thermal combustion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective web-offset vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases
are preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F.
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable of
operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure IV
presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
IV-47
-------
CONTAMINATF-D
AIR OUT
3OO TO -*OO T
PAN
r
PRESS
DRYER
OR
METAL.
DECORATING
OVEN
TOO TO
HEAT
EXCHANGER
1000 TO isoo «r
AUXILIARY
FUCL-
OOO TO IfiOO'F
6OO TO tOOO * I
1000 'f
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
OOO TO
r
TO STACK1
I. OR
PUANT
HEATItvlG
SVSTEM
TO STACK
OR
PUANT HEATING
Figure IV-35: Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery^
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the web-offset exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-36O)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. • If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-37^1)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-designed
bed are 99%.
IV-48
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO -«OO *F
F
AIR IN
TO TO WO
•F
™Q
PRESS
DRYER
OR
METAL.
DECOBATIIM®
OVEN
1
«WOOO°F
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
v i i-*.
J
C
HEAT
EXCHANGER
1
TOO TO ' OOO T
AUXILIARY
FUEL,
soo TO eoo -r
^
CATALYST-
BCD
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
1
1
1
VOO TOI
COO *f |
TO STAC
i- O R
PLAINT
HEATING-
SYSTEM
k*» -m-r m.mrm mm ••— •
! i
TO STACK
OR.
PL-ANT HEATING
SYSTt.M
Figure IV-36;
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Posslbllitles for Heat Recovery
AOTIO;M ("SOLVENIT -RECOVERY SYSTE.V.)
EXHAUST A'fH
TO
ATMOSPHERE
(SOL.VENT FREE)
DRYER
OR
OVEN
VAPOR
L.ADCM.
AIR
|
1
|
1
— fc
1
-fc-
1 IP
1
I
1
_ _ _ _ — _ «. __ _ — .
ACTIVATED CARDON
ADSORBER
1 '
ACTIVATED CAROOfsl
ADSORBER
I
~ — 1
v
1
1
1
r
1
L
| STEAM PL.US
VAPORS
;or-j DENSER?
FOR KEiV.FNERATlON!
AND RECOVERY
RECOVERED
SOLVcZNT
OECAfsjTER
••*• WATER
Figure IV-37; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Proc
ess
IV-49
-------
F« New Source Performance Standardsand Regulation Limitations;
NewSourcePerformance Standards(NSPS): No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for web-offset printing.
State ,Regu_latlons__for_Ncw__iand Existing Sources'. Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon ntomf, to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
V
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register,Vol. 36. No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
perchlorocthyletie, benzene, acetone and Cj-cgn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents, Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
IV-50
-------
Table IV-14 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from Web-Offset printing operations.
TABLE IV- 1
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM WEB-OFFSET PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Papar,
Uncontrolled
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Thernal Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Web-Off s'-t Pi-iriMnp, Nono.onted Paper
with Adsorption
%
Control
o
A
V
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr
,18
.28
.018-, 0018
.028-. 0028
.027-. 009
.04 2-. 03,4
.0018
.0028
ks/hr
.082
.13
.008-. 0008
.013-. 0013
.01 2-. 004
.020-. 006
.0008
.0013
Limitation.?
Ibs/hr
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
kg/hr
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and EmissionLimitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight rate. Web-Offset Printing for the
conditions outlined in Section D would meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation uncontrolled,
A number of presses and dryers can be manifolded together where it would be
necessary to utilize some type of control equipment.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
IV-51
-------
G. References;
The literature used to develop the Information on web-offset printing is
as follows:
1. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on web-offset printing.
4. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines, EPA, June 1974.
•
6. Hydrocarbon Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control, October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-52
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category: Graphic Arts ^Flexpgraphy)
C, Source Description :
Flexographic printing is similar to letterpress, where the image area is
raised above the surface of the plate. Ink is transferred directly to the image
area of the plate and directly from the plate to the paper or substrate. When-
ever the plate is made of rubber and alcohol based inks are used, the process
is flexography. The process is always web fed and is used for medium or long
runs on a variety of substrates, including heavy paper, fiberboard, metal, and
plastic foil.
Flexographic processes differ among themselves mainly in the type of ink
used. Most flexographic inks are fluid in consistency and contain about 55%
organic solvent. The solvent may be alcohol or alcohol mixed with aliphatic
hydrocarbons or esters. C2)1*
Flexography printing uses two similar but different processes. The compo-
sition of the ink and the inclusion of drying are the main areas where the
processes differ. The two types of flexographic printing are:
1. flexographic, publication and
2. riexogtapl.lc, newspaper,
Flexographic, jgublication. uses a paper web that is printed on one side
at a time, and the web is dried after each color is printed. When
four colors are printed, a procedure called "double ending" is employed.
The web passes through one press and one dryer, is turned over, and
returns to the same press where it was adjacent to the first pass on the
same cylinder. In this manner, only four presses and four dryers are
required for four-color, two-sided printing. The dryer may be either
a hot air dryer where a minimum of flame impingement occurs, or an all-
flame dryer where direct impingement of the flame on the web occurs. The
composition of the dryer emissions depends on the type of dryer employed.
In the hot air dryer, very little solvent decomposition occurs. As the
amount of flame impingement increases, the quantity of solvent decompo-
sition also increases.
The exhaust and solvent emission rates for flexography would be similar
to letterpress, and a schematic of a typical letterpress operation is
presented in Figure IV-38. O) 3t+6 The exhaust and solvent emission rates
represent one-color, two-sided printing. In a four-color operation,
four dryers would be manifolded together to a common stack. The amount
and composition of the hydrocarbon emissions depend on the ink compo-
sition and the type of dryer. O)
IV-53
-------
EXHAUST
* ;
i *
l T
D.
IZ
w>
FILTERJ
GAS
00
S
riL.TEI=t
INK »"
>oo rpvi
;OI_OR
RAGE
i
PRESS
f
DRYER
'
N AIR A. SMOKE
J
CHIL.L.
KOL
.I_S
PRODUCT
AIR AT 7S°r
11
AIR H^O
Figure IV-38; Flexographlct Publication Process
2. Flexography, newspaper operations use oxidative drying inks which contain
little or no solvent. The exhaust gases from these operations are not a source of
hydrocarbon emissions. The only substances emitted from these operations are ink
mist and paper dust. Figure IV-39C1)346 presents a schematic of flexographic,
newspaper printing process.
aoiN.
1000
IW »
Figure IV-39: Flexographic. Newflpaper process
IV-54
-------
D. Emission Rat_eg_!
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions from flexographic printing are:
1. hot air dryer,
2. press unit, and
3. chill rolls.
In flexography and printing operations in general, the ink is the major
source of hydrocarbons. Printing inks consist of three major components:
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed
of finely divided organic and inorganic materials.
2. Resins, which bind the pigments to the substrate, are
composed of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.(2)335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, unsaturates, and mixtures
with aroinatu: cunl.eul greater than 25% by volume.
B. Normal and isoparaffins, cycloparaffins, mineral spirits
containing less than 15% aromatics.
C. Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol,
isobutanol, glycols, esters, ketones.
D. Trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. Nitroparaffins and dimethyl formamide.
F. Miscellaneous.
Table IV-15 presents the volume breakdown in hundreds of gallons of solvent
consumed for ink dilution by process and solvent type.(2)338
TAiy.E IV-15
VOLUME EF.EAXSOIVM OF SOLVENT COr.iSU.VCK FL? IK* DILUTION
:;v pR:r>T!rjc PROCESS ,A\D SOLVLJ.^V V.VH iijcai
PRINTING SOLVENT TYPt (HUNDRED GALLONS)
r. ABC
Lithosiaj..V/ K.S72 23,941 IC.OTI 38
9
Lcticrprccs 85 444 3'3j
Fl6xo:jiflp!iy £3 60S 10,130
Screen Printing 34 173 85
D C r
38 723
-------
A typical flexographic printing operation as depicted in Figure IV-38
would have hydrocarbon emissions similar to a letterpress operation according
to press speed as presented in Figure IV-AO.
s
K
O
VI
in
0.4
:-? o.a —j-
bj
o
in
0.2
-444-
/' i i
.-\ -..._ .4
i ' i /
0.1
500 IOOO I5OO
PRCSS SPtED. FK1.1/MIN.
?onn
Figure IV-AO; Emission Rates from Web Offset and Web Letterpress
Employing Heatset Inks
Table IV-15A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in pounds/hour
and kilograms/hour for the typical flexographic printing operations as depicted
in Figure IV-38. The emissions listed are for a typical operation. These could
vary even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of the ink, the
percentage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of colors applied and
dryers used, and press speed affect the hydrocarbon emissions.
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from flexographic and printing operations in
general are categorized according to the following: v2'^51*
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. conventional air pollution control equipment
IV-56
-------
TABLE IV-ISA
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM FI.EXOGRAPHIC PUBLICATION PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Flexographlc Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Flexocraphic Printing, Noncoated
Paper, Uncontrolled
FlexographJ c Print. Ing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Flrxo;;raplu c Printin)',, Nonroated
Paper with Thorm.il Combustion
Flexop.rnphic Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Flexographic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Catalytic Combustion
Flexographic Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Flexor.raphic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Adsorption
%
Control
o
V
0
V
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Press Sjieed
f t/min
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
Emissions
Ibs/hr
26
« i,\i
, 35
.026-. 0026
.035-. 0035
.039-. 013
.053-. 018
.0026
.0035
kg/hr
.12
16
• JL U
.012-. 0012
.016-. 0016
.018-. 006
.024-. 006
.0012
.0016
1. Process Modification;
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon
emissions. Several methods of drying are being developed which could
greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors would be emitted if conventional inks are used.
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The
ink will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydro-
carbon emissions.
Electron beam drying utilizes electron induced polymerization.
The procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers
which will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultraviolet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the process.
2. Ink Modification;
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographic operations. A disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers arc employed. The appli-
cation of microwave, drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
IV-57
-------
jolventless inks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
present equipment without modification. Since lower oven temperatures
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3. Conventional Air Pollution Control Equipment;
Exhaust gases from flexographic and printing operations in general are
treated with conventional pollution control equipment. The three main
types of processes utilized are:
a. thermal combusion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective flexographic vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases
are preheated to 60QOF to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F.
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat: exchange employed
and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable
of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure
IV-AlC1)358 presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
AIR OUT
3OO TO «*OO •(="
FAN
7O TO DO
•F
Of*
MET
DECORATING
OVEN
ss
'EfR
R
"AL.
r__.
v
)
^
HEAT ^
EXCHANOEH
1
SOO TO
IOOO TO ISOO -F
AUXlUIARY
FutL'L.
_JOOOT
7
1000 TO ISOC.T!
IOOO TO
TOO TO
1
IOOO 'f
RESIDENICC
CHArviEER
TO ST'.CK
OR
PLANT H^
SYSTEM
TO S
f~ OR
PLAIS1T
HEATIXIO
SYSTEM
Figure IV-41; Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
IV-58
-------
Ca taly t ic cpmbustion causes flameless oxidation of the undeslred
hydrocarbon irom the flexographic exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-42O)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
CONTAMINATES
AIR OUT
300 TO -s-oo *r
TO STACK
>. OR
.•=»l_Ars.'T
Figure IV-42;- Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
PoBsiblities for Heat Recovery
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-43C1)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process, A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-de-
signed bed are 99%.
IV-59
-------
ADSORPTION (OOL-VENT -HECOVERY SYSTflKl)
DRYER
C!K
OVHN
EXHAUST A.r<
TO
VA '-OX 1
i..XO.:.-,, i-.-j, \CTIV-Vrt_D OM3.r>ON
~~ i ,._r 1
i : r—
L_J.L.J- --•
~ L.OW
F
A
WATER
Figure IV-43; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Procei
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for flexographic printing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent uscage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photocbemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A comb illation of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an blcfinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbcnzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 pei cent
IV-60
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photocheraically reactive
3. non-photochemicnlly reactive
Jbs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal RO.RJster»Vol. 36. No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogcnated hydrocarbons,
perchloroethylcne, benzene, acetone and c^-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibc/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned alter both types of regulations.
Table 1V-16 presents the uuconn.i>lled and controlled emissions and limitm JM
from flexographic printing operations.
TABLE 1V-1G
HY_PUOCAUDOH. EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Flexograplitc Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Flexographic Printing, Noncoated
Pnpc^r, Uncontrolled
FlfXc>r,i"
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitationst Hydrocarbon emissions
limitations are not based on process weight. Letterpress printing operations as
outlined in Section D, even uncontrolled, will not violate the 3 Ib/hr limitation.
However, it is conceivable to have a number of presses and dryers manifolded
together where control would be necessary to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The literature used to develop the information on flexographic printing is
as follows:
1. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on flexographic printing.
4. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines, EPA, June 1974.
6. Hydrocarbon Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control. October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-62
-------
A. Source. Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category;Industrial Surface Coating
C. Source Description;
Industrial surface coating operations, excluding those for automobile and
architectural painting, are utilized in the coating of sheet, strip, coil, paper
and paperboard, in treating fabrics, and in finishing appliances, machinery and
furniture. These coating operations produce hydrocarbon emissions, primarily
solvents and resins, and particulate emissions.O)1
Industrial surface coating operations emit .1.3 x 109 kg/year for the
following:
1. major appliance finishing,
2, small appliance finishing,
3. farm machinery finishing,
4, Industrial machinery finishing,
5. commercial machinery finishing,
6. wood furniture finishing,
7. sheet, strip and coil coating,
8. metal furniture finishing,
9. paper and paperboard coating, and
10» fabric treatment.
Sheet, strip and coil coating, paper and paperboard coating, and fabric treat-
ment account for 95% of all emissions considered in this section. C1)"4 Figure
IV-44 summarizes the emission rates from industrial surface coating. The hydro-
carbon species emitted from industrial surface coating operations include solvents
and resins. The solvent species include alcohols, esters, glycol ethers, ketones,
hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons, and nitroparaffins. Table IV-17O)7
summarizes the individual hydrocarbons for each of the above categories.
SHEET, STRIP, AND COIL COATING
39.65%
PAPFR AND PAPERBOARD
COATINC, W.65*
MAJOR
APPLIANCES
2.38%
REMAINDER
2.46%
InduMi./nl St*IT v. i c»* * <'<»Htjnfl_Pl'gratipint
IV-63
-------
TMI1.E IV-17
SOLVENT SI'liCIES IN EMITTED HYDROCARBONS
Alcohols
Methyl alcohol
I'.thyl alcohol
Isopropyl Alcohol
n-Propyl alcohol
n-liutyl alcohol
Bec-Uutyl alcohol
Jsobut-yl alcohol
Methyl isobtityl
citrbinol
Esters
Ethyl acetate
Isopropyl acetate
n-Butyl acetate
r,cc-Dutyl acetate
Amyl acetate
Methyl ijmyl
acetate
Ethylonc glycol
monoothyl other
acctat c
Elhylono
-------
TABU! IV-1.7A
CD TKIHHER. F
G .COHjFQBHlSG. SQLyEMT ...SYSTEMS
Composition of surfacf coattnqi, % vol
coating
Eham«l, air dry
Jjftdjwe) , baking
Euan's 1 , dipping
hcryl ic enamel
Alkyd enarfial
trtnxr, cpoxy
Frsner, tine
ehromate
Primer, vinyl line
Epoxy«i Ij-araide
VBrnlsh, baking
I^cqu r , spraying
Lacquer, hot spray
Lacquer, acrylic
Vinyl , roller coat
Vinyl
Vinyl acrylic
Polyurethane
Stain
Glaze
Kash Coat
Sealer
Toluene rsplaceffi^nt
tnir.n^r
k-7/1
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1,3
1.2
l.a
1.3
o.a
0.9
1,0
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.9
1,1
0.9
0.9
o.»
0.8
'
por fe 1 on
39. 6
42. B
59.0
90.3
49. fl
57.2
«•'
34.0
34.1
35.3
2C.1
H.5
38.2 '
12.
22.00
IS, 2
J1.7
2.1
40.5
12.4
11.7
Volatile fKsrtion
Aliphatic
saturated
93.1
82.1
58. 3
»S, 5
18.0
44. »
10. D
17,5
7.0
16.4
10.0
10. «
91.6
40. «
41.2
SS.S
3:. 5
Aromatic
6.5
11.7
7.2
6.9
7.5
1.9
15,5
7.2
7.5
1».9
1.7
6.6
IB. 5
16. 9
1J.7
14.0
1,4
14.7
7.0
17.5
Mcohol-i
safcuratctf
6.2
10.9
21.8
3.0
12,1
26. 4
11.3
24.3
l.S
10.1
14.7
24.0
Kc tones
80.6
16.5
•aturatvd
11.0
7,5
14, «
J,«
1,7
20.5
56. i
S.I
4,5
ll.D
-©
Q
tout*
Figure IV-45: Floy Blȣr
-------
Stream 2 represents the flow of degreased or scoured products to the surface
coating operation. The type of surface coating operation used depends upon the
product-type coated, coating requirements, and the method of application.
Stream 3 represents the product flow to the drying and curing operation.
Drying and curing methods for three coating operations, and the drying technique
used are as follows:
Product-TypeCategory Drying andCuring Methods
Sheet, Strip and Coil Coating Bake Ovens
Paper and Paperboard Coating Direct Contact Drying;
Evaporative Drying
Fabric Treatment Direct Contact Drying
Stream 4 represents the flow of coated finished products from the surface
coating section of a manufacturing plant.
Stream 5 through 10 represent the flow of degreasing solvent through the
surface coating section of a manufacturing plant. Streams 5 and 6 depict the
flow of solvent into the plant, and the degreasing unit, respectively. Streams
7 and 8 represent the flow of solvent vapors from the degreasing unit through
the fume handling system. Uncontrolled and controlled emissions are represented
by streams 9 and 10, respectively,
Screams 11 through 21 represent the flow of surface coating raw materials
through the plant. Streams 11, 12, 13, and 14 represent the flow of solvent,
pigment, resin and additives to the surface coating blending tank. Stream 15
is the flow of coating to the surface coating unit. For those operations that
use spray painting, stream 16 is the flow of compressed air. Streams 18 and 19
represent the flow of solvents and resins from the surface coating unit through
the fume handling equipment. Uncontrolled and controlled emissions are depicted
by streams 20 and 21, respectively.
Streams 22 through 25 represent the flow of gases through the drying and
curing system. Stream 22 represents the flow of either fuel, steatn, or electri-
cally heated air to the drying and curing operation for forced evaporative drying
and for free evaporative drying. Stream 23 is the flow of gases from the drying
area. Streams 24 and 25 represent uncontrolled and controlled emissions.
Streams 26 through 30 represent the flow of materials through the steam
generation system. Steams 26 and 27 represent the flow of fuel and combustion
air to the boiler. Stream 28 is boiler feed water, and Stream 29 is the steam
produced. Stream 30 represents the flow of combustion gases from the steam
generation system.O)87,89
D. Emission Rates:
The hydrocarbon emissions from industrial surface coating operations contain
solvents and resins, and arise from the three basic surface coating operations
as outlined in Figure IV-45. These operations are:
IV-66
-------
1. degreasing,
2. surface coating, and
3. drying and curing.
Surface coating operations include point source emissions and fugitive emis-
sions. The point source emissions include controlled and uncontrolled emissions
from the degreasing, surface coating, and drying and curing operations. Other
point sources include the degreasing solvent storage tank vent, surface coating
solvent vent, surface coating blending tank vent, and the steam generation stack.
The fugitive emission sources include solvent evaporation losses from degreased,
coated, and dried products. The fugitive emissions include losses from each
piece of processing equipment and from the transfer of organic liquids within the
plant. O)89
Table IV-17BO )227-252 presents uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon
emissions from the following 25 surface coated items:
1. Dyeing 14. Washers
2. Paper Bags 15. Dryers
3. Metal Cans, Excluding Beverage 16. Enameled Plumbing Fixtures
4. Beverage Cans 17. Coated Paper
5. Kraft Paper 18. Printing Paper
6. Duct Work 19. Gutters •
7. Wood Paneling 20. .Paper Boxes
8. Canopies auu Awuiugij 21. Siting
9. Milk Carton Board 22. Metal Doors, Excluding Garage
10. Refrigerators 23. Bedroom Furniture
11. Folding Cartons 24. Filing Cabinets
12. Fencing 25. Oil and Waxed Paper
13. Screening
A tally was included of the total number of units of production for each
item and what a typical plant produces in a year. The emission factor is ex-
pressed in terms of Ibs/unit and grams/unit. Emissions were calculated on a
24-hour production basis except where noted by the asterisks. The emissions
were listed in descending order according to typical plant hourly emission rate.
The emissions listed for the controlled conditions did not include solvent
reformulation or water-based solvent substitution.
E. Control Equipment:
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from industrial surface coating operations
are categorized according to the following:
1. process modification,
2. solvent modification, and
3. application of conventional control equipment.
IV-67
-------
TASXE IV-17B
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING
Type of
Operation & Control
( 1) Dyeing, Uncontrolled
Dyeing, Incineration
Dyeing, Catalytic CosbttSCioo
Dyeing, Carbon Adsorption
( 2) Paper Bags, Uncontrolled
Paper Bags, Incineration
Paper Bags, Catalytic Cosbustion
Paper Ba;s, Carson Adsorption
j ( 3) Metal Cans Excl. Beverage, Uncontrolled
| Metal Cans Excl. Beverage, Incineration
j Kecal Cans Excl. Beverage, Cata. Coab.
j Metal Cans Excl. Beverage, Carbor. Adsorp.
j { 4) Beverage Car.s, Uncontrolled
j Beverage Cans, Incineration
i Beverage Cans, Catalytic Coobustioti
, Beverage Car.s, Carbon Adsorption
( 5} Kraft Paper, Uncontrolled
Kraft Paper, Incineraticn
! Kraft Paper, Catalytic Combustion
: Kraft Paper, Carbon Adsorption
j ( 6) Duct Vfork, Uncontrolled
. Cuct Work, Incineration
!>uct Vork, Catalytic Coaaustion
! Bus" VTcrk, Carbon Adsorption
{ 7) V'osd Paneling, Uncontrolled
Wood Paneling, Incineration
1 l-'ocd Psr-eling, Catalytic Coabustioa
1 Kood paneling. Carbon Absorption
C 8) Csncpies and Avnings, Uncontrolled
Canopies and AvningS, Incineration
Canopies and Avr.ings, Catalytic Combustion
Canoaies and" Awnings, Carbon Adsorption
{ 9) XI Ik Carton Board, Uncontrolled
Milk Carton Board, Incineration
Xllk Carton 3<-srd, Catalytic Conbustion
> MilV, Carton Board, Carbon Adsorption
1"
(10) Eefrigeratrrs, Uncontrolled
Refrigerators, Incineration
Refrigerators, Catalytic Combustion
ae£ri;«rators, Carton Adsorption
(11) Folding Cartons, Uncontrolled
Folding Cartons, Incineration
Folding Cartons, Catalytic Cosbustion
Folding Cartons, Carbon Adsorption
(12) Fencing, Uncontrolled
Fer,;ing, Ir.cir.aration
Fencing, Catalytic Coobustioa
Fencinc, Carbon Adsoratioa
(13) Screening, Uncontrolled
Screening, Catalytic Conbustioa
Screening, Carbon Adsorotion
2
Control
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
55-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
,90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
Total U.S.
Production
Units/Year
4.79xl09
7. 73x10"
ir
3.98x10"
3.74x10'°
1.42xl010
2.60x10*
1. 80x10 9
1.50x10*
5. 54*10*
6.32xl06
1.43xl09
J.SlxlO5
5.77x10*
Typical Plant
Production
Units/Year
1.17>-108
ft
M
l.ZlxlO10
It
4.91.-108
It
. 6.23xl09
3.46x10*
5.20x10*
4.S6xl07
6.00x10"
I*
S.lfixlO7
,i
„
3.01>:10S
ii
9,01xl07
1.
2.21X101*
i,
l.StelO7
Eteissions/Unit
Us/Unit G/Ur.it
a.eoxio-2 3.9Sxio:
a. aoxio-3 do-1*) a.gsxio'do-1)
1.32xlO-2-4.40xlO-J 5.97-1.99
A.40;clO-3-2,64xlO-3 1.99-.SO
6.46V.10"1* 2.93x10-'
, 6.*6xlO-5(10-6) 2.93xlO-2(10-3)
; 9.69xIC~5-3.23xlO-5 4.4CxlO~2-1.47xlO"2
3.23 tlO-5-l,94xlO-5 1.47xlO-2-5.S6xlO"3
l-llxlO"2 5.02
l.HxlO-3(l:102-1.64sl02
9.7xlO-J 4.38
9,7xlO-*(10~5) 4.38xlO-1{10-2)
1.46xlO-3-4. 85x10"" 6.57xlO~1-2.63xlO-1
4.85xlO~'*~2.91xlO-1' 2.19xlO-1-.88xIO~1
2.30 l.OixIO3
2.30xlO-'(10-2) i.04xi02(10!)
S^SxlO-'-l.lSxlQ-1 l.Sbx^-S^xlO1
1.15x10-' -6. 9xlO~2 S^AlO—a-OSxlO1
7.10xlO-3 3.24
7.10xlO-l'(10-5) 3.24xlO-1(10-z)
1 . 07xlO-3-3 . 5 SxlO-4* 4 . 8 fixlO-1 -1 . StxlQ"1
3. 55x1 Or*-!. 13x10"" 1.62x10-' -6. 5xlO~2
1.72X101 7.78xl03
1. 72x10° (10-1) 7.78xl02(101)
2. 58x10° -8. SxlO-1 1.17xl03-3.89xlOz
S.exltrM.AixlO-1 3.89xlOz-1.56xl02
1.70xlO-2 7.86
1.70xlO-3(10-1<) 7. 86x10-' (10-2)
l.SSxKr'-S.SxlCr41 1. 18 -3. 93x10-'
SoxiO-^-S-lxlO-1* 3.93AlQ-1-1.57xlQ-1
Emission Sate
Lbs/Hr Kg/Hr
1175.3 533.1
117.5 -11.8 53.3 - 5.3
176.3 -53.8 60.0 -26.7
58.8 -23.5 26.7 -10.7
S92.3 401.7
89. 2 - 8.9 40.5 - 4.1
133.8 -44.6 60.7 -20.2
44.6 -17.8 20.2 - 8.1
622.2 282.2
62,2 - 6.2 2S.2 - 2.8
93.3 -31.1 42.3 -14.1
31.1 -12.4 14.1 - 5.6
622.2 2S2.2
62- 2 - 6.2 28.2 - 2.6
93.3 -31.1 42.3 -14.1
31.1 -12.4 14.1 - 5.6
434.5 197.1
43.5 - 4.4 19.7 - 2.0
65.2 -21.7 29.6 - 9.9
21.7 - 8.7 9.9 - 3.9
320.6* 145.4*
32.1 - 3.2* 14.5 - 1.5*
48.1 -16.0* 21.8 - 7.3*
16.0 - 6.4* 7.3 - 2.5*
2S2.9** 128. 3**
28.3 - 2.8** 12.8 - 1.3**
42.4 -14.1** 19.2 - 6.4**
14.1 - 8.5** -6.4 - 2.6**
185. G* 83.9*
18.5 - 1.9* 8.4 - .8*
27.8 - 9.3* 12.6 - 4.2*
9.3 - 3.7* 4.2 - 1.7*
90.3 41.0
9.0 - .9 4.1 - .4
13.5 - 4.5 6.2 - 2.1
4.5 - 1.8 2.1 - .S
78.9 35.8
7.9 - .8 3.6 - .4
11.8 - 3.9 5.4 - 1.8
3.9 - 1.6 1.8 - .7
73.0 33.1
11.0 - 3.7 5.0 --1.7
3.7 - 1.5 1.7 - .7
64.9* 29.4*
6.5 - .7* 2.9 - .3*
9.7 - 3.2* 4.4 - 1.5*
3.2 - 1.3* 1.5 - .6*
45.4* 20.6*
4.5 - .5* 2.1 - .2*
6.8 - 2.3* 3.1 - 1.0*
2.3 - .9* 1.0 - .4*
-------
TABU, IV-17_B
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM IXTUSTRIAL SURFACE COATIXC
(continued *
Type of
1 Operation & Control
(14) Washers, Uncontrolled
Mashers, Incineration
' Kasbers, Catalytic Coabustion
• dashers. Carbon Adsorption
i
1 (15) Dryers, Uncontrolled
Eryers, Incineration
Dryers, Catalytic Conbustion
Br*-'ers, Carbor. Adsorption
(16) Enaaeled Fibbing Fixtures, Uncontrolled
Er.a— eled Piunbing Fixtures, Incineration
Er,s=elei Plumbing Futures, Cats. Coab.
Enanel=.Ji Fl.r.bia* Fixtures, Carbon Adsorp.
Coated Paper, Incineration
Coated Paper, Catalytic Combustion
Coated Paper, Carbon Adsorption
{18) Pricti.-.g Paper, faconrrolled
Printing Paper, Incineration
Printing Paper, Catalytic Conbustion
Printing Paper, Carbon Adsorption
(19) Cutters, Uncontrolled
Gutters, Incineration
Cutters, Catalytic Conbustion
Gutters, Carbon Adsorption
(20) ?3?er Boxes, Uncontrolled
Paper 3oxes, Incineration
Paper Sexes, Catalytic Conbustion
Pater Boxes, Carbon Adsorption
(21) Sizing, Uncontrolled
Sizing, Incineration
Sizing, Catalytic Combustion
Sizing, Car'eon Adsorption
(22) Metal Boors Cxcl. Garage Doors, Uncont.
Metal Doors Zxcl. Oarage Doors, Incin,
Met-1 Doors Excl. Garage Doors, Cat. Comb.
Metal Dcors Excl, Garase Doors, Carbon Ads.
(23) Bsdrooa Furniture, Uncontrolled
BetJrocs Furniture, Incineration
Bedrc.cn Furniture, Catalytic Coabustion
Bedrc:n Furniture, Carbon Adsototion
(24) Filing Cabinets, Uncontrolled
Filing Cabinets, Incineration
Filing Cabinets, Catalytic Coabustion
Filing Cabinets, Carbcr. Adsorotion
(25) Oil and Waxed Paper, Uncontrolled
Oil and Waxed Paper, Incineration
Oil. and Waxed Paper, Catalytic Coabuscion
Oil ar.d Kay.ed Paoer, Carbcr. Adsorption
Z
Control
0
90-99
85-95
95-93
0
90-99
85-95
95-58
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-93
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-93
0
90-99
65-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
I Total U.S.
Production
Units/Yer.r
S.llxlO6
3.92xl06
1.40xl07
8, 24x10' '
1.39xl05
I. 07x10' z
11
11
1.09xl010
6.97xl06
1.69xl07
3.77xl06
9.80x10*
n
Typical Flint
Productio-i
Uiitf/Year
3.19xl05
2.31xlOs
6.66xlOs
ii
1.92xlQ9
4.63xl03
6.73X.109
7.08xlQ7
it
1.34xlOs
1.99xl05
5.39xlOu
2.79xl05
Eaissions/unit
Lbs/Unit G/Unit
1.13 5.13xl02
1. 13x10-' (10~2) 5. 13x10' (10°)
1.70x10-* -5. 65xlO~2 7.70xl01-2.57xl01
5 . 65xlQ-z-2 . 26xlO-2 2 . STxlO1-! - OSxIO1
1.52 6.88xl02
1.52x10-' CIO"2) 6.38x10'' (10°)
Z^SxlQ-'^.exlO-2 1.03xlCjL-3.44xl01
7 . 6xlQ-2-3 . OAxlO"2 3 .WxlO1 -1 . 33xlO!
i.AZxlO"1 ^.OlxlO2
4.42xlO-a(10-3} 2.01x10* (10°)
6.61xlO-2-2.21xlO-2 3.02-1.01
2.21:tlO~2-8.84xlO~3 1.01-.40
8.20xlO-6(10-7) 3.71xlO-2(10-3)
I . 23xlO-5 -4 . IxlO-6 5 . 57xlO"? -2 . 23xlO~2
4. IxlO-6 -2.46x10-* 1.85xlO-2-l.llxlO-2
HOxlO"14 6.2xlO-2
i.40xio-s(io-6) e^xio-'ao-11)
2.1xlO~5-7.0xlO-5 9.3xlC-3-3.1xlO-3
7.0xlO-6-4.2xlQ-6 3. IxlO-3-!. 24xlO-3
36.0 1.63X101*
3. 6-. 36 1.63xl03(102)
5.42-1.81 2.45xl03-8.15xl02
1.81-7. 2X10"1 8.15xi02-3.26xl02
3.40xlO~s 1.53xlO"2
3.40xlO-6(10-7) 1.53xlO-3(10-")
5.1xlO-6-1.7xlO-s 2.3DxlO-3-7.65xlO-1*
1.7xlO-6-1.02xlO-6 7.65xlO-l|-3.06xlO-''
2.16xlO-3 9.7SX10-1
2.16xlO-'»(10-5) 9,78xlO-2(10-3)
3.24xlO-!l-1.08xlO-l< 1.47xlO"1-5.9xlO~a
1.03x10-* -6. 48xlO-5 4.89xlO-2-1.96xlO~2
7.30x10-* 3.31xl02
7.30xlO-2(10-3) 3.31xlO*(10°)
1.10xlO-'-3.65xlO-2 4.97xl01-1.67xl01
3.65xlO-J-1.46xlO"2 1.67xlOI-5.68
4.93x10-* 2.24xl02
4.93xlO-2(10-3) 2. 24x10' (103)
7.40xlO-2-2.47xlO-2 3.36xlOl-1.12xlOl
2.47xlO-'-1.48xlO-2 l.lZxlO1-*^
1.63 7.38xlC2
1.63xlO-1 (10-2) 7,3SxlO'(10°)
2.45x10-' -8. 15xlO~2 I.llxl02-3.65xl01
8 . 15xlO-2-3 . 2 SxiO"2 3 . 65x10* -1 . 48x10*
8.50x10-' 3.84x10'
8.50xlO-2(10-3) 3. 84x10° (10-1)
1.28x10-' -4. 25xlO~2 5.76-1.92
4.25xlO-z-2.55xl
-------
1. Process Modification: The three basic processes, degreasing,
surface coating, and drying, can be modified to decrease hydro-
carbon emissions.
Degreasing units can be equipped with cooling coils to condense
solvent vapors before they escape from the top of the tank.
Cooling coils achieve 20% to 40% control. Degreasing tanks can
also be equipped with sliding or guillotine covers which are
closed when the tank is not in use. Covers achieve 40% to 60%
control.(3)°
2. Solvent Modification: Reformulation of solvent-based coatings to
utilize solvents that are exempt from Rule 66-type legislation is
often more complicated and expensive than the ones they are re-
placing. In reformulating surface coating products,' efforts are
made to retain the viscosity and drying characteristics of the
original solvent. O) 15°
Another type of reformulation which reduces emissions of organic
solvents instead of just the "reactive solvents" is the reformu-
lation to water-based coatings. Water differs from organic solvents
in physical properties, particularly its latent heat of vaporization.
Water is a costly solvent to evaporate, and its rate of evaporation
is difficult to control with additives. The films resulting from
watfir-basp.fi solvpnt.s are oft^n less glossy fhar> those from so.lvent-
bascd paints. Water-based coatings tend to rust metal, and they
adhere poorly to surfaces contaminated with oil or dirt.C1)*5*
3. Application of Conventional Control Equipment; Hydrocarbon emissions
from surface coating operations arise in a number of specific emis-
sion points about the plant. These can be collected to one central
point and treated in a conventional solvent removal system. The
three main types of solvent removal systems are:
a. thermal combustion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective surface coating vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The
gases are preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to
1600°F. Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of-heat
exchange employed and the operating temperature. Thermal incin-
erators are capable of operating continuously at efficiencies of
90% to 99%. Figure IV-46(2)358 presents a flow diagram for thermal
combustion.
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the surface coating exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-4?(2)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
1V-70
-------
AIR OUT"
3OO TO «4OO *F
FAN ( I J
AIR IN
70 TO SO
•F
BRvra
OK
OVEN
1
1
t
1
!
p. - —
V .„
) IOOO TO IBOO "F
(- — •"< \ , , , "~ ,^"~i",.t_l,J ~ ~~1
1 ' ' ' \ AUXILIARY i
HEAT FUEL. ! •
CXCH AfJOL'R -™*». -> A
¥ J
IOOO TO ISOO'F !
IOOO TO !
eoo TO poo*r lf°°,*'^, I,
RESIDENCE
700 TO IOOO T CMAMBCR
TO STACK
FI-AMT HEATING
SYSTEM
Figure IV -46: Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO -O *P"
FAN ( 1 )
AIR IN
TO TO OO
•F
J,
DT.VER
OS
1
I
4
i
i
i
5W6OOT
h ••
1
^
J
f
HEAT
EXCHANGER
PL
TOO TO SOO »F
• AUXILIARY
FUCU
eoo TO soo «r
TO STACK
OR
ANT HEATING
SY^TCIwl
^
CATAL.YST-
BEO
RESIDENCE
CMAMEER
*
1
1
700 TOl
»oo *r (
TO STACK
». on
P1.ANT
MEATIMG
SYSTEM
Figure IV^47; Flow Piagram for CatalyticCombustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
IV-71
-------
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-48(2)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-de-
signed bed are 95%-98%. O) llf°
ADSORPTION (SOLVENT-RECOVERY SYSTEM)
EXHAUST AIR
TO
ATMOSPHERE
(SOt-VENT FREE)
DRYER
OR
OVEN
VAPOR
LADEN, t*
AIR
h
I—!-*.
1
1
1
.
i
ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORBCR
r
i
ACTIVATED CARSON
ADSORBER
FOR REG E ME
AND FJECOve
— 1
*
T
I STEAM PS-US
->^m I SOS-VENT VAPORS
t <
I "' J-,
A
T
CONDENSER
_^.j ^ RECOVERED
SOLVENT
y//
JRt. STEAM /// DECANTER
: RATION ///.
:«Y Y///
'WATER
F. New^ojjrce ._Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for the industrial surface coating industry,
State Regulations forNew and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of lule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
IV-72
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
perchloroethylerie, benzene, acetone and c^-csn-paraffins.
For both Apptiaulii E and Rule. 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table IV-18 presents the uncontrolled emission rate for the typical plant
production listed in Table IV-17B and the percent control necessary to meet
the 3 Ibs/hour limitation.
IV-73
-------
fABLE 1V-18
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS_AfTO LIMUAIIONS
FOR INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COAT1NO
Type of Product
1. Dyeing
2. Paper Bags
3. Metal Cans, Excluding Beverage
4. Beverage Cans
5. Kraft Paper
6, Duct Work
7. Wood Paneling
8. Canopies and Awnings
9. Milk Carton Board
10, Refrigerators
11. Folding Cartons
12. Fencing
13, Screening
14. Washers
15, Dryers
16. Enameled tlumblng Fixtures
17. Coated Paper
18, Printing Paper
19, Cutlers
20. 1'ajie r Boxes
21. Sizing
22; Metal Doors, Excluding Garage Poors
23, Bedroom Furniture
24. Filing Cabinets
25. Oil and Waxed Paper
Uncontrolled Emissions
frow Typical 1'lnnt
Ibs/
hour
1175.3
892.3
622.2
622.2
434.5
320.6
282.9
185.0
90.3
78.9
73.0
64.9
45.4
41.1
40.1
33,6
32.2
30,7
28.5
26.1
17.8
16.8
16.8
15.0
2.7
kg/
hour
533.1
404.7
282.2
282,2
197.0
145.4
128.3
83.9
41.0
35,8
33.1
29.4
20.6
18.6
18.2
15.2
14,6
13.9
12.9
11.8
8.1
7.6
7.6
6.8
1.2
2 Control Necessary
to Meet 3 Ibs/tiour
Limitations
99.7
99.7
99.5
99.5
99.3
99.0
98.9
98.3
96.6
96.2
95.9
95.3
93.4
92.7
92.5
91,0
90.7
90,2
89.5
88.5
83.1
82.0
82.0
80.0
0.0
Potential Source Compliance andEmission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Industrial surface coating operations
as outlined in Section D cover a wide variety of process weights and formulations.
The typical oil and waxed paper plant, even uncontrolled, emits less than 3 Ibs/hour,
The typical dyeing, paper bag, metal can, beverage can, and kraft paper plants
require control efficiencies in excess of 99% to meet the 3 Ibs/hour limitation.
Current technology as documented In Section E presents 99% as the highest
efficiency a thermal incinerator could provide. For the processes listed above
that would require efficiencies in excess of 99%, it is doubtful that existing
control technology is adequate to meet the 3 Ib's/hr limitation. The remaining
industries outlined in Section D can be adequately controlled with existing
technology.
The Environ2»ent_R£E2Eter was used to update the emission limitations.
IV-74
-------
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information presented in this section
on industrial surface coating is listed below:
1. Priorization of Sources of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating
Operations, Monsanto Research Corporation, Prepared for National
Environmental Research Center, February 1975.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June 1974.
Literature, reviewed but not used specifically to develop this section on
industrial surface coating includes the following:
4- Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication" Ho." AT-42," April 1973~.
5. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition),
AP-4U, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. tit'A. May 1973.
6. Air PDilution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
7. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
8. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques, and
Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June 1974.
9. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970.
IV-75
-------
A» Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category! Petroleum Storage Gasoline(Breathing)
C» Source Description:
Breathing losses from bulk storage of gasoline occur continuously from fixed
roof tanks. These are constructed in a variety of shapes, but cylinders and
spheres are most common. Steel plate is the material n\ost commonly used, and the
plates are welded together. There are seven basic storage vessel designs;
1, fixed roof,
2. floating roof,
3. covered floating roof,
4« internal floating cover,
5. variable vapor space,
6. low pressure,
7. high pressure.
The ultraflote floating cover design allows a vapor space between the cover
and the liquid. The covered floating roof contains a metal pan equipped with a
seal that floats on the liquid. The internal floating cover is non-metallic
(usually polyurethane) and may not be in contact with the liquid over its entire
surface. The external floating roof is the most widely used single deck pontoon
type of floating roof tank. There are two types of pressure tanks: low pressure
designed LOT i/~3G psirt Had Uijjli pceswure - up to 'ib'j paia. Wreathing Josses
from low pressure tanks are minimal, but filling losses are substantial. Figures
IV-2, 3 and 4 present sketches of fixed roof, floating roof, and variable vapor
space storage vessels.
-PRESSURE-VACUUM
VtNT
GAUGE HATCH,
MANHOLE
• *^y nVA,« «• i- — — - k« _. ^u,,. ..„
Figure IV-2; Fixed Roof Storage Tank
IV-76
-------
j- HATCHES '%v__^ \ «
.WEATHER SHIELD
• HATCHES
LIQUID LEVEL DRAIN
ROOF SEAL
,,«•, (NONMEfALLIC
VEHT OR
METALLIC)
Ss. HOZZLf :r'-5j"T--.-:> ;."',-k-rr_'~ Li^r-r-tT-riajdj
Figure IV-3; Double-Peck Float ing Roof Storage Tank
(Nomnetalllc Seal)
ROOF CENTER SUPPORT
FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM ROOF
GAUGE HATCH
Figure IV-4; Variable Vapor Storage Taok^Qjet^Seal Lif tar
D. Emission Rates!
"Breathing" losses are defined as vapors expelled from a storage vessel
because of the following: 1
1. thermal expansion of existing vapors,
2. expansion caused by barometric pressure changes,
3. increase in the amount of vapor from added vaporization
In the absence of liquid level change.
IV-77
-------
The quantity of these "breathing" losses are affected by a number of factors
including i
1. vapor pressure of gasoline,
2. average temperature of stored gasoline,
3. vessel diameter and construction,
4. color of vessel paint,
5. average wind velocity of area,
6, age of vessel,
Capacities of storage vessels range from a few gallons to 500,000 barrels
(8,0 x 10' liters), but tanks with capacities in excess of 15'0,000 barrels
(2,4 x 107 liters) are rare.C1)626 Typical fixed and floating roof tanks are
48 feet (14.6 m) high and 110 feet (33.5 m) in diameter with a capacity of
67,000 barrels (1.07 x 107 liters) , C2)1*. 3-8 Table IV_19(2)*i ,3-8-k, 39 presents
controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline storage vessels
TABLE IV-19
HYDROCARBON BREATHING EMISSIONS. .FROM GASOLINE STORAGE TANKS
Type of
Operation & Control
Fixed- Roof Old Tank, Uncontrolled
Fixed- Roof New Tank, Uncontrolled
Floatins-Roof Old Tank, Controlled
floating-Roof New Tank, Controlled
Control
0
0
65
85
Emissions Based on 67
X7?/103gal JP-/10 31
air, day
.25 .030
.22 .026
.088 .011
.033 .004
,000 bbl T.iixk
lbs_ k^_
d.iv day
700 320
620 280
250 110
93 42
E. Control Equipment'.
A floating roof tank is essentially a controlled fixed roof tank. However,
vapors that are continuously released from both on a daily and yearly basis amount
to a small percentage of the total volume of liquid stored. The control methods
most commonly used with fixed roof tanks is a vapor recovery system. The Four re-
covery methods are:( ) **«3""7
1. liquid absorption,
2, vapor condensation, and
3, adsorption in activated charcoal
or silica gel,
4, incineration
F. New Source Performance Standards and RegulatlonJLimi^tat^ions;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPSj_; EPA promulgated, in the Friday,
March 8, 1974 Federal Register, a "New Source Performance Standard" for
storage vessels for petroleum liquids. The standard applies to vessels greater
than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) containing petroleum liquids that have a
true vapor pressure greater than 1.5 psia (78 mm Hg), If the vapor pressure
IV-78
-------
is greater than 1.5 psla (78 mm Hg) and less than 11.0 psla (570 mm Hg) a
floating roof or equivalent control is required. If the pressure is greater
than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) a vapor recovery system or equivalent control is
required.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Many states and local
legislatures have regulations covering petroleum storage. These regulations
are similar to Appendix B (Federal Register, August 14, 1971) which requires the
use of pressure tanks, vapor loss control devices and vapor recovery systems.
Some states have specified either an emission rate or a control efficiency
expected. Most states simply have required specific equipment be utilized.
Appendix B states that storage of volatile organic compounds in any
stationary tank greater than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) can be a pressure
tank. If a pressure tank is not possible a floating roof, consisting of a
pontoon type double deck roof, or internal floating cover with seals to close
the space between the roof edge and tank wall may be used. If the vapor
pressure is greater than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) than a vapor recovery system
will be necessary. This will consist of a vapor gathering system and a vapor
disposal system. All gauging and sampling devices must be gas-tight except
when gauging or sampling is taking place.
Table IV-20 presents regulation, requirements and limitations of various
Lank sizes for Baseline storage.
TABLE IV-20
LIMITATIONS FOR EREATUT.--.C LOSSES FROM GASOLINE STORAGE
Slate
Tank Size
(Gallons)
Requirements
Alaba-a
Arizona
California
ColoiaJo
Count ctic'JL
\'-.shing:on,D.C.
I'a.Mll
Illinois
Loulsjana
Maryland
Nevada
Sew Jersey
North Carolina
Oiiio
Oklahoma
Orison
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Texa*
I'rnh
Virginia
Wisconsin
60,000 pressure vessel or floating "<>"- <11.0 psia, >11.0 psia vapor recovery
65,000 pressure vessel or floatinp, roof >2.0 psla
>250 subserved fill unless prcssun: tank, vapor recovery, floating roof
30,000 pressure vessel <11,0 psla, >'.1.0 psla vapor recovery
40,000 floating roof, pontoon dovablu d-.ck or vapor recovery not for facilities before 1972
40,000 floating rooC, pontoon double d ck >1.5 psia <11.0 psla, >11.0 vapor recovery
40,000 pressure vessel or floating r>c' <11.0 psia, >11.0 psla vapor recovery
10,000 float!up riot <12.5 psla, >12.5 psia vapor recovery 85%, vapor disposal prevent emissions
40,000 flcntinp, roof, pontoon double -i^ck if <12.0 psia, >12.0 psia vapor recovery
40,000 floating roof, pontoon double 1 ck <13.0 psla, >13.0 puia vapor recovery
40,000 Healing roof, jontoon couMo d.ck »1.5 psis <11.1 pfia, >11.1 psia vapor recovery
40,000 new, floating roof, pontoon d»iMe deck <11.0 psla >11.0 psia vapor recovery
40,000 flo.'.tlnc roof
250-40,000 iub-ierr,cd fill
65,000 pn-sfuvc vessel, floating roof '-2.5 psla <12.3 psi«, >12.S psla vapor recovery
40,000 floalinp roof double dock SJ.5 psia
function of tank site and vapar pressure
50,000 flo.iilng roof >1.5 psia <)1.C J'iiia, >11.0 psla vnpor recovery
65,000 floating roof, double dock pcitnon, vapor recovery
Kubmrrpril fill
40,000 vapor recovery or cqulvelcnt, ru:w
40,000 v.ippr recovery >ll.O p»la
40,000 vapor recovery >11.0 p»la
40,000 pressure vcsnt'l or vapor rccpvery
>1,000 subnrrr.cd fill
floatinp, ronf, vnpor rcccvrry •'1.5 pil*
'.0,000 pressure vessel, flo.itlnc roof, pontoon double dock, 90S efficiency
40,000 (loatinc roof, pontoun double i.'ick, vapor recovery
1V-79
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Existing vapor recovery
technology is adequate to meet state regulations for storage of gasoline.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References ;
Literature used to develop the information for "Petroleum Storage Gasoline
Breathing Losses" is listed below:
(1) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(2) CompJIation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition) , EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations ,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
C4) API Bulletin on E van gr^tjon^ Loss in tho Pp.trolGUE IndosLi. :y - Cause
and Control, February lrJi9. ~
IV-80
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Petroleum Storage Gasoline(Working)
C, Source Description;
Working losses from the bulk storage of gasoline occur when a storage vessel
is filled and emptied. The storage vessels are constructed in a variety of shapes,
but most common are cylinders and spheres. Steel Plate is the material most
commonly used, and the plates are welded rather than bolted together. The
six basic storage vessel designs are:
1» fixed roof,
2, floating roof,
3. covered floating roof,
4. internal floating cover,
5. variable vapor space, and
6. pressure,
7, fixed pressure.
The floating roof, covered floating roof, and internal floating cover are
similar in configuration because they minimize the vapor space above the liquid.
Figures IV-6, 7, and 8 present fixed roof, floating roof, and variable vapor
space vessel, respectively. (2)**«3-2
^PRESSURE-VACUUM
VtNT
GAUGE NATCH,
KSANHOIE
Figure IV-6; Fixed Roof Storage Tank
1V-81
-------
lEATOEfl SHSELD
• HATCHES
LIQUID LEVEL
ROOF SEAL
(NQNM6TALLIC
VINT OR
METALLIC)
fess=5ip£~:;.-H CUIDCROOS r; ^i-^-r.^jf^
CENTER SUPPORT
MANHOLE
urn*-. --- , i, • ^.^.* _^_-_^t <*js —"i""" j^'^Si-v---
Figure IV-7; Double-Deck Floating Roof Storage Tatik-
(Honmetalllc Seal)
ROOF CENTER SUPPORT
FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM ROOF
GAUGE HATCH
Figure IV-5; Variable Vapor Storage Tank (Wet-Seal Lifter Type)
D. EmissionRates:
Working losses from the bulk storage of gasoline are defined as the vapors
expelled from a vessel as a result of filling, irrespective of the exact mechanism
by which the vapors are produced. Working losses also include the subsequent vapor
release as a result of emptying a storage vessel. The vaporization of the liquid
remaining in a storage vessel after emptying lags behind the expansion of the vapor
space during withdrawal, and the partial pressure of the hydrocarbon vapor drops.
Enough air enters during the withdrawal to maintain total pressure at atmospheric
pressure. When vaporization of the remaining liquid into the new air reaches
equilibrium, the vapor volume exceeds the capacity of the vapor space. This increase
in vapor volume causes some of the vapor to escape.
IV-82
-------
Working losses are a function of the following:
1, loading rate,
2. vessel construction,
3, ambient temperature,
4. vapor pressure of gasoline,
5. type of recovery system,
6, day/night temperature change, and
7. change in atmospheric pressure.
Size and type of vessel construction are fixed parameters once a vessel has
been installed. Capacities of storage vessels range from a few gallons to
500,000 barrels (8.0 x 107 liters) but tanks with capacities in excess of 150,000
barrels (2.4 x 107 liters) are rare.^1)626 Table IV-21C2)4-3-8 presents hydro-
carbon emissions from gasoline working losses.
TABLE IV-21
fflOWOCARJJON EMISSION:, FROM GASOLINE WORKING LOSSES
T>H. or
Eq-lt-.cr.t 4 Co-tr??
Fixed Roof
Uncontrolled
v'artzble Vapor Space
Uncontrolled
Fixed fcoof with
Vapor Recovery
7,
C.--TP!
0
0
• 95
Emissions
Throufihput
1W kr/
1 C3 ?,?. \ IV 1
9.0 1.1
10.2 1.2
.5 .06
Based on 231 x 10
gal/day Ttiirpt
lb=/
hr
86.6
-
4.33
kS/
hr
39.3
-
1.96
Based on 7xl03
Kal/day Throe
Ibs/ kg/
hr hr
-
2.96 1.34
E. Control Equipment:
A floating roof tank is essentially a controlled fixed roof tank. However,
vapors that are released from both during filling and emptying amount to a small
percentage of the total volume of the liquid transferred. The control methods
most commonly used with fixed and floating roof tanks are vapor recovery systems
which collect hydrocarbon vapors from storage vessels and strip the volatiles from
the vented air. The four recovery methods are:
1. liquid absorption,
2. vapor compression,
3. vapor condensation, and
4. adsorption in activated charcoal
or silica gel.
IV-83
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; EPA promulgated, in the Friday,
March 8, 1974 Federal Register, a "New Source Performance Standard" for
storage vessels for petroleum liquids. The standard applies to vessels greater
than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) containing petroleum liquids that have a
true vapor pressure greater than 1.5 psia (78 mm Hg). If the vapor pressure
is greater than 1.5 psia (78 mm Hg) and less than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) a
floating roof or equivalent control is required. If the pressure is greater
than 11.0 psia (5/0 mm Hg) a vapor recovery system or equivalent control is
required.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Many states and local
legislatures have regulations covering working losses from gasoline storage.
These regulations are similar to Appendix B (Federal Register, August 14, 1971)
which requires the use of pressure tanks, vapor loss control devices and vapor
recovery systems. Some states have specified either an emission rate or a control
efficiency expected. Most states simply have required specific types of
equipment be utilized.
Appendix B states that storage of volatile organic compounds in any
stationary tank greater than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) can be a pressure
tank. If a pressure tank is not possible a floating roof, consisting of a
pontoon typt double deck roof, or internal floating cover with seals to close
the space, between the roof edge and tank wall may be used. If the vapor
pressure is sweater than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) than a vapor recovery system
will be necessary. This will consist of a vapor gathering system and a vapor
disposal system. All gauging and sampling devices must be gas-tight except
when gauging or sampling is taking place. The same equipment requirements that
cover storage losses will at least partially cover working losses.
Table IV-22 presents regulation requirements and limitations of various
tank sizes for working losses from gasoline.
IV-84
-------
TABLE1V-22
IIYOROCWBON LIMITATIONS i\llt TOMBING LOSSES fHflX CASOL1K6
State
T-inl. Sit*
(Gallons)
Alaba-a
Arizr-tia
California
ColoraJo
y,i,,°.ir.jton,D.C,
Illinois
Xor:h C.-rt
Chio
Puerto Al(
R-.ifc Isli
Tc/.-.s
Virginia
Viscwslr.
.-.d
60,000
65,000
>2iO
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,DC3
40,000
40,000
250-'.0
65,000
40,000
65,000
40,000
j 40,000
' 4C.OOO
>1,000
40,000
40,000
pressure vessel or iloat;'i3 roof <11,0 ;11.0 psia vapor recovery
p.CiiiUrc ^'c , — .. —„, -- —
ilo.stiu^ roof doubly d^c\. -•) .5 ps
fun^cloii of tank sl^c 2su! v. por pressure
ilciti"; root >1.5 pjl.t <11.0 ptia, >11,0 psla vapor recovery
floating roof, double Jack pontoon, vapor recovaiy
sui;:ivr;;,~1,5 psis
pra^^ure Viis^al, floating roof, pontoon double deck, 90S efficiency
tloatins toot, pcmoon doubla deck., vapar riicovtry
PotenUial Source Cottipl 1ance_ ai;
-------
A, Source Category: IV EvaporationLosses
B, SubCategory; Petroleum Transfer Gasoline
C, Source Description;
After leaving the refinery, gasoline is transferred via pipeline, rail,
ship or barge to intermediate storage terminals and then to regional market-
ing terminals for temporary storage in large quantities. The gasoline is then
pumped into tank trucks that deliver directly to service stations or to "bulk
plants." From "bulk plants" the gasoline is trucked to its final destination,
service stations and ultimately motor vehicle fuel tanks, (I)1*.1*-"*
D. Emission Rates;
Transfer losses of gasoline vapor from tank cars and trucks Is dependent upon:
1. loading method,
2. ambient temperature,
3. loading rate, and
4. vapor pressure of gasoline.
"Splash" loading Is the process of filling a storage tank through a short
filler neck where the gasoline impinges upon the surface of the liquid. The sub-
sequent splashing cause." rrrccss liquid droplets to become temporarily cntrntned,
As the tank tills, the vapor volume above the liquid level is reduced and the vapors
exiting from the vent are completely saturated, "Submerged" loading is the process
of filling a storage tank through a filler neck that extends to the bottom of the
tank. The resulting surface splashing is greatly reduced because the liquid already
in the tank dampens the splashing and excessive movement of the filling liquid.
Consequently, the. vapor volume above the liquid that is exiting through the vent
contains vapors that are less saturated than the equivalent one in "splash"
loading,, (l)^.1*-! ,2 Table IV-23 presents hydrocarbon emissions from the transfer
of gasoline.
TABLE. IV-23
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM TRANSFER OF GASOLINE^1 )'*''»-6
Type of
Equipment & Control
Splash Loading Uncontrolled
Submerged Loading Uncontrolled
Unloading Uncontrolled
Splash Lending, With Vapor Recovery
Submerged Loading, With Vapor Recovery
Unloading, With Vapor Recovery
%
Control
0
67
83
95
98-
99
Emissions Based on 67,000 bbl Tar.k
Ibs/'"
103 Gal
Transferred
12.4
4,1
2,1
.62
.21
.11
kg/
103 Liters
Transferred
1.5
.49
, .25
.074
.025
.013
Ibs/
Pay
34,900
11,500
210* O)1*. 3-8
1,700
580
11
kg/
dav
15 800
5,200
95
790
260
5
*Assumod 100,000 gal/day transferred.
IV-86
-------
E. Control Equipment;
VSubmerged" loading versus "splash" loading involves the structure of the
storage tank rather than a typical "add on" arrangement. There are however four
types of vapor recovery methods that are suitable for the collection of petroleum
liquid vapors during transfer. .These are: O)1*•3~7
1. liquid absorption,
2. vapor compression,
3. vapor condensation, and
A. adsorption in activated charcoal.
In order to control the hydrocarbon vapors that are displaced when filling a
storage tank, one of the above systems could be installed on the vent. However,
it is not necessary for every storage tank to have such a system available.
Instead, a specially designed and constructed delivery truck can dispense
petroleum liquids and collect displaced vapor simultaneously. Figure IV-1 presents
the process diagram whereby the delivery truck returns to the bulk distribution
plant with the vapor the liquid contents replaced. When the tank truck is
subsequently filled, a vapor recovery system at the distribution plant will collect
the resulting vapors. Overall control efficiency for the vapor-tight tank truck
is 93 to 100 percent when compared to uncontrolled "splash" f illing.
VAPOR VENT LINE
MANIFOLD FOR RETURNING VAPORS
TRUCK STORAGE I
COMPARTMENTS
=^ SUBMERGED MLI. P,PE ~--=^r
Figure IV-1; Underground Storage Tank. Vapor-Recovery System
IV-87
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); In the Friday, March 8, 1974 Federal
Register, EPA promulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for storage vessels
for petroleum liquids. The standard applies to tanks greater than 40,000 gallons
(151,412 liters) containing petroleum liquids that have a true vapor pressure of
1.5 psia (78 ran Hg). However, this standard does not apply to transfer of gasoline
but is directly related because of the specification of the type tank required. As
such, the limitation of hydrocarbon emissions from the transfer of gasoline is
controlled by individual state regulations.
State_ Rej;ula.tj_on_s__for New and Existing Sources; Many states and
local legislaLures have regulations covering petroleum transfer. The
majority of regulations follow the Appendix B (Federal Register,
August 14, 1971). Appendix B requires that loading of volatile
organic compounds into any tank, truck or trailer having a capacity
in excess of 200 gallons (760 liters) can be from a loading facility equipped
with a vapor collection and disposal system. The loading facility can be
equipped with a loading arm with a vapor collection adapter,
pneumatic, hydraulic or other mechanical means to force a vapor tight
seal between the adapter and the hatch. A means can be provided to
prevent drainage of liquid organic compounds from the loading device
when it is removed from the hatch, thereby accomplishing complete
drainage before removal. When loading is effected through means other
fhan hatches, all loadir.£ and vapnr liner; can be equipped with fittings
which make vapoi LighL comieetions and which close automatically
when disconnected. The emission limitation will result in 55 to 60 per
cent reduction in volatile emissions from uncontrolled sources in
gasoline marketing and other transfer operations.
Table IV--24 presents requirements, and limitations of typical
states which require control of transfer operations.
TABLE IV-24
HYDROCARBON1 LIMITATIONS FROM PETROLEUM TRANSFER
State
Alabnma
Colorado
Conn ret lent
Wnr.hin('ton, D.C.
Illinois
Inrii.-inn
!-; i:.:-i-snn
Haiyl.u.j
Penii!iylvanJ;i
Puerto Rico
Texas
Virginia
Ihrouglipul'
50,000
7.0,000
30,000
40,000
40,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
Requirement
vapor recovery
vapor recovery
vapor recovery
vapor recovery
vapor recovery
vapor Uf'lit so
vapor I'.covi-i-.'
fj oat iuj; jooT
vapor recovery
vapor recovery
vapor tichL LC
vapor recovery
, limit 1.24 11)8/3000 gal
, disposal 902 efficiency
, disposal prevent, emissions
al
, 95? o.rriei..>ncy
>uid vjpoi te^ovevy
al
IV-88
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing vapor recovery
technology is adequate to meet state regulations for transfer of petroleum liquids.
The tank and special delivery truck arrangement outlined in Section E is consistent
with existing regulations and permits the economy of vapor recovery installation at
only the bulk distribution plant.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information in this section is listed
below:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition),
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
(2) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References Not Used;
(3) Danielson. J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manuel (Second Edition),
AP-40, Research Triangle" Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(4) Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control (Final Technical Report), MSA Research Corporation,
October 20, 1972. •
(5) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent. Emissions
From Stationary Sources, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Air Pollution Control, Administration Publication
No. AP-68, March 1970.
(6) Schneider, Alan M., Cost Effectiveness of Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Systems, For Presentation at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Boston, Massachusetts, June 15-20,
1975.
IV-89
-------
A. Source Category. IV EvaporationLosses
B. Sub Category; Petroleum Service Stations
C. Source Description'.
Hydrocarbon emissions from service stations arise primarily from the following
operations:
1. filling and emptying losses,
2. breathing losses,
3. filling of vehicle tanks.
Except for automobile refueling which is discussed in another section, the losses
arise from the underground tank storage vents. Figure IV-12^1*)^ presents a
typical uncontrolled service station underground storage tank. Filling losses
occur as vapors are expelled from the tank as a result of filling with liquid
Figure IV-1Z; fregfot Uncontrolled Setvi.ee. Stttloa __fog_l|c4»r^i:eund Tank.
gasoline. Losses occur when the vapor space recedes with increasing liquid
level. The pressure inside the tank then exceeds the relief pressure. Emptying
losses occur because the liquid removed during refueling of vehicles causes a
partial vacuum, and ambient air is drawn in through the vent. Enough air enters
during withdrawal to maintain atmospheric pressure in the tank. When vaporization
into the new air reaches equilibrium, the vapor volume exceeds the capacity of the
vapor space. This increase in vapor volume causes the expulsion. Breathing losses
occur through underground storage tank vents by thermal expansion of existing
vapors, expansion caused by barometric pressure changes, and an increase in the
amount of vapor from added vaporization in the absence of liquid level changes.(5)9
^* Emission Rates:
Hydrocarbon emissions from service stations Include the vapor displaced from
the vehicle tank, the liquid spilled in filling the vehicle tank, the breathing
losses of the stored gasoline, and the filling and emptying losses of the under-
ground tank. Table IV-25 presents hydrocarbon emissions from service stations.
IV-90
-------
TABLE IV-25
HYDROC/OTON EMISSIONS TOOK SERVICE STATIONS
4
Typt of
Operation S Control
Vapor toss at Vehicle, Uncontrolled
Vapor Loss at Vehicle with Equal
Volume Balance Systetn
Spillage at Vehicle, Uncontrolled
Storage Breathing Loss, Uncontrolled
Storage Breathing Loss, with Equal
Volume Balance System
Splash Loading, Uncontrolled
Splash Loading, with Equal Volume
Balance Syntctn
Submerged Loading, Uncontrolled
Submerged Loading, with Equal
Volume Balance' System
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unloading, with Equal Volume
Balance System
*
Control
0
70
0
0
90
0
90
0
JO
0
90
Emissions
Iba/
1000 _gal
11, O^1*
3,3 M"
.TOO"
1.0<">"
.io(">"
12. AW*
1.2*0)3
4.lO)»
.4lO>»
M0>3
,21<1>3
kg/
1000 liters
1.33
.13
,08
,12
.012
1.5
.13
.69
.OS
.25
,03
IDS/
Refueling of
6000 sitl tank
66
19,8
A. 2
6.0
.60
74.4
7.44
24.6
2.46
12,6
1.26
W
Refueling of
23,250 liter tank
7.98
2,34
.48
.72
.072
9.0
.90
2.94
.30
1.5
.18
E. Control Equipment: ,
An effective control system for use at a service station underground storage
tank must not only reduce emissions from filling, emptying, and breathing losses
of the undfirground tank, but also must be, amenable to reduction of vehicle
refueling losses.
Figure IV-13; Simple.Displacement System
Figure IV-13 presents a simple displacement system. This system essentially
returns to the underground tank the displaced vapor from the vehicle tank.
However, a problem exists with vehicles that have open vented tanks. The tight
fitting nozzle causes an increase in pressure in the vehicle tank, thus expelling
vapor through the vehicle vent,
IV-91
-------
Alft « TRACE HC
EMERGENCY f§
RELIEf VALVE '
BLOWER
'""\MOTOR
.3. WAY VALVE
1
1
>»-
\.
1
CAIIDO
11
DCD
ADSOF1CINC
DISPENSING NOZZLE
FLAMS ARRESTER
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
Figure IV-14; On-Site Regeneration System
Figure IV-14 presents an cm-site carbon regeneration system. The on-site
regeneration system can effectively collect vapor from even vented vehicle tanks
and effectively reduces filling, emptying, and breathing losses from the under-
ground tanks. Vapors from the vehicle tank are extracted with the aid of an air
pump. These vapors, together with excess vapors from the underground tank, go
through one of two canisters which adsorbs the hydrocarbons and expels the air.
An electric timer is used to close off one canister after several hours of
operation and connects ano'ther pump to it, which evacuates this canister to
28" Hg. Electric heaters raise the carbon temperature to 250°F to improve the
desorption effect. The vapors are cooled in a heat exchanger and bubbled through
the gasoline in the ground tank where they are absorbed. During this time, the
second canister adsorbs vapors from the vehicles. The initial adsorption
efficiency of 99% decreases to 94%, at which time the carbon is regenerated.'1*)
Figure IV-15; Refrigeration System
IV-92
-------
Two refrigeration systems-are under test. The one presented in Figure IV-15
consists of a heat exchanger, a blower with 80 CFM capacity, and a one-ton
refrigeration unit. When pressure builds up during the underground tank filling,
a pressure activated switch starts the blower and refrigeration system, which
reduces the heat exchanger temperature to 40°F. Vapors are pulled through the
heat exchanger by the blower, cooled off, and returned to the ground tank. A
small amount of gasoline vapor is condensed. This reduces the pressure allowing
the unit to shut off. This system has limited effectiveness on warm days when
the heat flux into the unit is large. The use of a vapor recovery pump to extract
vapors from the vehicle filler neck area further complicates matters.(^)11
AIR & TRACE HC
t
2nd
STC.
LIOUIO
REFRIGERANT
VAPOR
Figure IV-16; Compression LiquifIcatlon System
Figure IV-16 presents a scaled-down version of a recovery system used commonly
at large bulk plants. Excess vapor from the vehicle tank or underground storage
tank enters the surge tank through a layer of gasoline which saturates it. The
compressor is started when this tank is nearly filled. It compresses the vapor to
82 psi, raising the temperature to 250°F. The vapors are cooled to 35°F in the
first heat exchanger. The heavy-end hydrocarbon and all water vapors are condensed.
The remaining vapor goes through the second stage of the compressor where, the
pressure is increased to 425 psi and the temperature reaches 275°F. In the second
condenser, an isobaric temperature decrease to 10°F occurs. All hydrocarbons
except traces of methane and ethane are condensed. They are returned to the surge
tank, and the overflow goes to the ground tank. The refrigeration unit maintains
the condensers at their design temperature at all times. It does not cycle on
and off with the compressor. Three pre-production models are now being field-
tested, two at gas stations in San Diego, and a third at a research center.
IV-93
-------
F. New SourcePerformanceStandards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSFS): No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for petroleum losses at service stations.
State Regulations forNew and ExistingSources; Several states and local
governments specifically regulate the emissions from service station operations.
Areas in California and the District of Columbia require 90% control efficiencies.
Colorado limits emissions to 1.10 lbs/103 gallons delivered. Maryland and Massachu-
setts require vapor return rules. In addition to the above states. New Jersey,
Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin regulate automobile refueling operations.
PotentialSource Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing technology is
adequate to meet the 90% control limitations. A vapor balance or a secondary pro-
cessing system operating at 90% control efficiency is required and has been ac-
complished on existing sources.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitation.
G. Literature used to develop the information in this section, "Petroleum
Service Stations," is listed below:
(1) Batcheldar, A. H,, Kline, D. I., Vapor Recovery at Service Stations,
State of California Air Resources Board, April 1974.
(2) Muileiuj, Stuart T/J. , Control of Refue 1. inj*_JEmi5siong_g.tate_Een?:_by
General Mo tor s Corporation, Vehicle Refueling Emissions Seminar,
Sheraton-Anaheim Motor Hotel, Anaheim, California, December 4-5, 1973.
(3) Analysis of Final State ImplementationPlans -Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(4) Hydrocarbon Vapor Control at GasolineServiceStations, Barnard A.
McEntire and Ray Skoff, County of San Diego, California, 66APCA,
June 1973.
(5) Vehicle Refueling Emissions Seminar. API Publication 4222, December 1973.
T.V-94
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Acrylonitrile
C» Source De script ion
Acrylooitrile, CH2CHCN, is produced from propylene and ammonia by the
Sohio process, which is described by the following reaction:
2 CH2 » CHCH3 + 2 NHa + 3 02
ties t
2 CH2 - CHCN 4- 6 H20
Vaporized propylene and ammonia (2:1) are mixed with air and steam and introduced
into a catalytic reactor which operates at 5-30 psig and 750-
950°F (399-510°C). The original catalyst introduced by Sohio was bis-
muth phosphotnolybdate on silica. This has been replaced by the more
efficient antimony-uranium oxide system. The reacted product is withdrawn to a
countercurrent absorber where organic products are absorbed in water and subse-
quentially recovered by distillation. The process flow sheet, shown in Figure
V-l, Illustrates the Sohio process for the manufacture of acrylonitrile.
No alternative raw materials are available for the ammonia and propylene used
in this process. Approximately 1,000 Ibs (454 kg) ammonia, 2,000 Ibs (907 kg)
propylene, and 20,000 Ibs (9,072 kg) air arp rpqulrpd fn produce 1 ton (.9m ton)
of acryloallrilfe. At, ul»e process flow sheet indicate.;,, both hydrogen cyanide and
acetonitrile are produced as by-products. Approximately 150 Ibs (68.0 kg) of hy-
drogen cyanide and 30 Ibs (13.6 kg) of acetonitrile are produced per ton of acry-
lonitrile. A typical plant will produce 274 tons (249 m tons) of acrylonitrile
per day.
Oil CM
HjSO,
Low Soiling Friction
ArryJpnirriJ*
.lin|
t
Figuvu V-l: johio Process forAcrylonitrile Manufapture
V-l
-------
D, Era! ss ion. Ra test
Hydrocarbon emissions from the Sohio process originate from the absorber off
gases and from the flare In the reaction section of the process. The hydrocarbon
emissions for this uncontrolled and controlled process are shown in Table V-l.C1*)
Various percentages of control were calculated as examples to show how much in
reduced emissions is obtained in discrete increments of additional control.
TABLE V^l,
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM .ACRYLQHITRILE MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation 6 Control
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Uncontrolled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off -Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
2 Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emlsslonn* Based on 274 cons/day
JLba/ton
200
40
30
20
10
2
Cks/MT}
100
20
15
10
5
1
Ibs/hr
2280
456
342
228
114
23
kg/hr
1034
207
155
103
52
10
*As oethaoe
E. Con fro 1
1 •* rraen t: :
Incineration of the off-gases is an effective means of controlling hydro-
carbon emissions from the Sohio process for the manufacture of acrylonltrile.
Efficiencies from 80 percent to 100 percent are routinely achiesved with incin-
eration. C'+)9 Controlled hydrocarbon emissions from the manufacture of acryloni-
trile are presented in Table V-l.
Fl
Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) : No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for acrylonitrile manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Very few states have adopted
hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries such as acrylonitrile.
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also Includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from //I type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
V-2
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unrenctive are, saturated
halogenatc-c! hyclruc^rbuuL,, perchloroethyiene, benzene, aceLmu1 aud c^-c^n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-3
-------
Table V-2 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for
acrylonitrile manufacture.
TABLE V-2
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ACRYLONITRILE MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation & Control
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Uncontrolled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off -Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
% Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* Based on
274 tons/day
Ibs/hr
2280
456
342
228
114
23
kg/hr
1034
' 207
155
103
52
10
Limitations'*
Ibs/hr /kg/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Jnheated
8
8
8
8
8
8
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
*As methane
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based oil process weight, and large processes such as acryloni-
trile manufacture require tight control to meet limitations. An acrylonitrile
process producing 274 tons/day requires 99.9% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limi-
tation, and 99.6% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hr limitation. Existing incineration
control technology would be borderline to meet this high control, efficiency
requirement.
The Env iron men t Re p o rte r was used to update the emission limitations,
G. References;
References used in the preparation of this summary include the following:
1. Air Pollution Survey Production of Seven Petrochemicals (Final Report), MSA
Research Corp., EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-12, Modification J, Task I, July 23,
1971.
2. Hedley, W.H., Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes, (Final Re-
port) , Monsanto Research Corp., EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task No. 9, De-
cember, 1973.
3. Pervier, J.W., Barley, R.C., Field, D.E., Friedman, B.M., Morris, R.B.,
Schartz, W.A., Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical
Industry, Vol. I, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255, January, 1974.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract No. 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
5. Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guide-
lines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
Other sources which were reviewed but not used directly to develop this sec-
tion include:
6. The Chemical Marketing Newspaper, Chemical Profiles, Schnell Publishing Co.,
Inc., New York.
V-4
-------
A.. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category : Ammonia (Methanatpr Plant)
C. Source Description;
Ammonia is produced by catalytic reaction of hydrogen, and nitrogen at high
temperatures and pressures. A hydrocarbon feed stream (usually natural gas) is
desulfurizcd, mixed with steam, and catalytically reacted to form carbon monoxide
and hydrogen. Air is introduced into the secondary reactor to supply oxygen and
provide a nitrogen to hydrogen ratio of 1 to 3. The gases enter a two-stage
shift converter where the carbon monoxide reacts with water vapor to form carbon
dioxide and hydrogen, Unreacted CO is converted to Cll^ by a methanator, and the
gas stream is scrubbed to remove carbon dioxide. The gases, mostly nitrogen and
hydrogen in a ratio of 1 to 3, are compressed and passed to the converter where
they react to form ammonia. An average plant will produce 450 tons of ammonia
daily.
The process for the manufacture of ammonia is pictured in the block dia-
gram shown in Figure V-2.
Purge Gas
Air
carbon
C48)
Steal _
Catalytic
CQj,
V
C'(nvnufi(i tutinf froc»»»JM«rh«ftit0r
D. Emissions Rates;
The only source of hydrocarbon emissions from ammonia plants using methanators
to convert carbon raonoxid« to methane is the purge gas which is used to prevent
the accumulation of inert compounds in the system. The controlled and uncontrolled
hydrocarbon emissions from this process are represented in Tnble V-3,(1)5.2-2
Various percentages of control were calculated as examples to show how much in
reduced emissions is obtained in discrp.te increments of additional control.
V-5
-------
TABLEV-3
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM AMMONIA MANUFACTURE USING A METHAMATOR PLANT
Type of Operation
and Control
Methanator, Uncontrolled
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Inclenrator
% Contro]
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* (Based on 450 tons/day)
Ibs/ton
90
18
13,5
9
4.5
.9
kg/m ton
45
9
6.8
4.5
2.8
.45
Ibs/hr
1690
338
253
169
84
17
kg/hr
765
153
115
77
38
8
*As Methane
E. ControlEquipment'
Collection and i?cineratlon of the waste gases from the methanator plant is
the chief means of control of hydrocarbon emissions,(2)9 Efficiencies of 80 per-
cent and greater can normally be achieved by incineration.(2)9 Hydrocarbon emis-
sions from methanator ammonia plants with incinerators are presented in Table
V-3.
F» New Source Performance Standardsand Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have beea promulgated for ammonia manufacture using a methanator plant.
StateRegulations for NewandExisting^Sources: Very few states
have adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries
such as ammonia manufacture using a methanator plant. Currently,
hydrocarbon eromission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from ll type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive solvents. For the •
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
V-6
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketoncs having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, kctones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichlorocthylsne or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types . These limitations are as
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process Ib 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photo chemically reactive. 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal ^Register , Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume-1, ol a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, pcrchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and c^-C5n-
paraf f ins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source, even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table V-4 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for
ammonia manufacturing using a methanator plant.
V-7
-------
TABLE V-4
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AMD LIMITATIONS FROMAMMONJA, MANUFACTURE USING A METHANATOR PLAMT
Type of
Op £ T a t ion & _Contr°l
Methanator, Uncontrolled
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
% Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* (Based on 450 tona/day)
Ibs/hr
1690
338
253
169
84
17
ki;/hr
765
153
115
77
38
8
I.imlt.itiona3 lbs/hr/kp,/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Unheated
8
8
8
8
8
8
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
*As Methane
PotentialPoint Source Complianceand Emission Limitations! Hydrocarbon
emission limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such
as ammonia manufacture using a methanator plant require tight control to meet
limitations. The ammonia manufacture process using a methanator requires 99,8%
control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation and 99.5% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hr
limitation. Existing incinerator technology is borderline for a 450 ton/day
ammonia process to be in compliance with existing regulations,
EmTiroriruent Rcp_pr_tctr was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the discussion on methanator-using ammonia plants
is listed below:
(1) Compilation ofAir PollutantEmission Factors (Second Edition), EPA Publica-
tion No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(2) Organic Compound__Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guide-
lines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implemcnation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation,
The following reference was also consulted but not directly used to develop
the content of this discussion:
(4) Environmental Control in theInorganic Chemical Industry, Noyes Data Corpor-
ation, 1972, Park Ridge, N.J.
V-8
-------
A. Source Category; V. Chemical Process Industry
B« Sub Category; Ammonia (Regenerator & CO Absorber Plant)
C. Source Description;
Ammonia is produced by the catalytic reaction of hydrogen and
nitrogen at high temperatures and pressures. A hydrocarbon feed stream
(usually natural gas) is desulfurized, mixed with steam, and
catalytically reacted to form carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Air is introduced
into the secondary reactor to supply oxygen and provide a nitrogen to hydrogen
ratio of 1 to 3. The gases enter a two-stage shift converter where the car-
bon monoxide reacts with water vapor to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The
gas stream is scrubbed to yield a gas containing less than 1 percent carbon diox-
ide and then passed through a CO scrubber prior to entering the converter. In
the converter, the remaining nitrogen and hdyrogen gases, in a ratio of 1 to 3,
are compressed and reacted to form ammonia.
The ammonia manufacturing process is shown in Figure V-3.
will produce 450 tons per day using this process:
A typical plant
Fur|*
bon
unl
C*t*lyttc
R««ctor
1
r
•*-
C0a. H4 ~+~~
Shift
Co .v«f t«r
t»
co2, i,2T~
AIT, CO
CO;
Scr«bb«r
_
(CO A>io/t
D. Emission Rates:
The only source of hydrocarbon emissions from ammonia plants with CO absorbers
and regeneration systems is the purge gas used to prevent the accumulatation of
inert compounds in the system. The controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emis-
sions from these plants are summarized in Table V-5. (1)5.2-2 Various percent-
ages of control were calculated as examples to show how much in reduced emis-
sions is obtained in discrete increments of additional control.
V-9
-------
TADLE V-5
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM AMMONIA MANUFACTURE WITH REGENERATOK & CO PLANT
Type of
Operation & Control
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst, Uncontrolled
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
2
Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* Based on
450 tons/day
Ibs/
on
90
18
13.5
9
A. 5
.9
kg/
m ton
45
9
6.6
4.5
2.8
.45
Ibs/
hr
1690
338
253
169
84
17
kg/
hr
765
153
115
77
38
8
*As Methane
E. Control Equipment;
Collection and incineration of the purge gas from the plants with CO absorbers
and regeneration systems is the chief means of control of the hydrocarbon emissions
with efficiencies of 80% and greater.(2>9 Hydrocarbon emissions from plants with
CO absorbers and regeneration systems and such control equipment are shown in
Table V-5.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for ammonia manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber
plant.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Very few states
have adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries
such as ammonia manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber plant.
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere, of photocliemically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from //I type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following;
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or kctones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation; 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the. molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketoncs having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
V-10
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
typen. These limitations are as follows:
Process
It heated process
2. unheated photochcmically reactive
3. non-photochemlcally reactLve
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (ZV^.ral_Regi£tor_, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochcmically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents V7hich have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
haloccnated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and c,-csn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values hnve been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and l.mHsifma hnve roeulptions p.-.tLmncd after Appendix B. Some
.states such as Kortli Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned aftt:r both types of regulations.
Table V-6 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for ammonia manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber plant.
TABLE V-6
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AN'P LIMITATIONS FROM AMMONIA MAXIirAC'HIKE WITH RECF.NERATOK AND CO. PLANT
Tvne of OP or it i or and Control
CO absorber** r< grjiei at ion
sy*.t , ur.cont rolled
CO absorber" regeneration
iyst» vllli Incineration
sy&t , vi th i nc i no rat Ion
*N st » with Inc- trr.1 ration
B y 3 : , w i L 1 1 1 r c 1 :•. c r a t i o n
CO absorber1* rf^cii'-rntiun
% Control
0
80
99
1. tn I SKi CHS AliUHCel On 450 tOT>/cl.1V
)b'./hr
169U
338
17
. kR/l.r
765
153
8
Liml tntions3 Ib3/hr
Honccd
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
'Jnbcnt
6
8
8
8
8
3 .
/fcS/hr
cd
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
Kethono
v-ll
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations! Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as ammonia
manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber plant require tight control to
meet limitations. The ammonia process with regenerator and CO absorber plant
producing 450 tons/day requires 99.8% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hour limitation
and 99.5% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Existing control technology
using incinerators is borderline to meet existing state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
References used as sources of information for the discussion on ammonia plants
with CO absorber and regeneration systems include:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA Publication
No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(2) Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guidelines
(Draft). EPA. Emlfisjnn Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations. EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
The following reference was also consulted but not directly used to develop
the material discussed in this section:
(4) Jones, H.R. Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry. Park
Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
V-12
-------
A. Source Category; V. Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Carbon Black
C. Source Description;
Carbon black, frequently referred to as black, is ultrafine soot produced
by the reaction of a hydrocarbon fuel such as oil or gas, or both, with a limited
supply of air at temperatures of 2500 to 3000°F (1370 to 1650°C) . Part of the
fuel is burned to C02, CO, and water, thus generating heat for the combustion of
fresh feed. The unburned carbon is collected as a black, fluffy particle.
Three basic processes are used in the United States for producing this
material. These include:
1. Furnace Process, 91.5 percent of total U.S. production.
2. Channel Process, 0.1 percent of total U.S. production.
3. Thermal Process, 8.4 percent of total U.S. production.
Regardless of the process used, three steps are fundamental to the production
of carbon blacks according to the following:
1. Production of black from feed stock.
2. Separation of black from the gas stream.
3. Final conversion of the black to a marketable product.
In the channel process, natural gas is burned with a limited air supply in long,
low buildings. The flame from this burning impinges on long steel channel sec-
tions that swing continuously over the flame. Carbon black is deposited on the
channels and scraped off -into collecting hoppers. The black is conveyed to
a processing area where grit is removed, lumps are broken into small particles,
and the product is pelletized for packaging. Figure V-4 shows the flow diagram
for the channel process.
5 CHANNEL
Figure V-4; Flow Diagram of Channel Process
The furnace process may be either an oil or a gas process depending on the
primary fuel used to produce the carbon black. In either case, the fuel is in-
V-13
-------
Jected into a reactor with a limited supply of combustion air. The furnace flue
gases carry the hot carbon to a water spray which reduces the temperature of the
gases to 500eF C260°C). Agglomeration and collection of the fine carbon black
particles is accomplished with an electrostatic precipitator, a cyclone and a
fabric filter system in series. Gases are discharged through the stack of the
final collector directly to the atmosphere and the black is carried to the
finishing area by conveyors and processed for packaging. Figure V-5 and V-6
show a flow diagram for the oil and gas furnace processes, respectively. They
are essentially the same except for the different fuels and different furnace
designs.
tvme UN remind
Figure V-5: Flow Diagram of Oil-Furnace Process1
Figure V-6; Flow Diagram of Gas-Furnace Process1
In the thermal black process, natural gas is decomposed by heat in the ab-
sence of air or flame. Cracking units, coolers, carbon collectors, and packaging
devices are the main components of the thermal black plant. In .this cyclic pro-
cess, methane (natural gas) is pyrolyzed or decomposed by passing it over a heated
brick checkerwork at a temperature of 3000°F (1650"C). The decomposition
reaction produces a smoke of thermal carbon plus quantities of hydrogen.
The bricks cool, the carbon smoke is flushed out and carried into a series of cy-
clones, cooling towers, and fabric filter collectors by the spent gas from the
generator. The collected black is transported by screw conveyors to the processing
area. Figure V-7 shows a flow diagram of a thermal black process.
V-14
-------
ElCUM.-V-7__rJFloy_,DiagrM_of Jlicrmal Process^/
A typical carbon black plant will produce 50,000 tons of product annually.
D. Emission Rates;
The discharge of gases directly from the burner house of the channel process, and
from the final collection device in the furnace process, releases large quantities of
hydrocarbons to the atmosphere. Because of the recycling of the. spent: gasps in rhp
thermal pr-cccs, there arc essentially no omissions of hydrocarbons to the atmos-
phere. Table V-7C1)5*3"1 presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emis-
sions from carbon black manufacturing. Various percentages of control were cal-
culated as examples to show how much in reduced emissions is obtained in> discrete
increments of additional control.
TABLE V-7
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM CA^ON BLACK MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation & Control
Channel Process Uncontrolled
Channel Procos with Incinerator
Channel Proceb with Incinerator
Channel Procos with Incinerator
furnace PI-OCPS , Oil, Uncontrolled
Furnnce Procos , Oil, with Incinerator
Kurnace Proccs , Oil, with Incinerator
Furnace. Proceso, Oil, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, Gas, Uncontrolled
Furnace Proceso, Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, Gns, witli Incinerator
Thermal
%
Control
0
85
95
99
0
85
95
99
0
85
95
99
Emissions* Based on
50,000 tona/yr (13 tons/day)
Ibf /fon .
11,500
1,725
575
115
400
60
20
4
1,800
270
90
18
kt?/ro ton
5,750
863
288
58
200
30
10
2
900
' 135
45
9
Negligible
3bs/hr
65,550
9,832
3,277
656
2,280
342
114
22.6
10,260
1,540
513
103
™
kg/hr
29,700
4,460
1,490
300
1,030
155
52
10.4
4,650
700
230
47
' ~
*As nieUinne
V-15
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Gaseous emissions of hydrocarbons from carbon black processes are controlled
by flares, incinerators, and CO boilers. (*)^» ^~* However, 80-100 percent of the
hydrocarbons could be controlled by collection and incineration of the waste
gases, (3)9 Table V-7 presents controlled emission levels for the channel and
furnace processes. Many plants burn the off-gas to comply with CO regulations,
which also destroys the hydrocarbons.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulat ion Jutmitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance
Standards" have been promulgated £or carbon black manufacture.
State Regulationsfor New and Existing Scmrces; Very few states have
adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries, such as
carbon black production. Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are
patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation.
Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic types. These are,
(1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any organic solvent,
(2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by
devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated
drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined
3". r.olvcrtc of t^orc than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3, A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolunej
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1, heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (FederalRegister, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from' the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Cj-c5n-
paraffins.
¥-16
-------
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B, Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table V-8 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations from
carbon black manufacture.
TAW.E V-8
KYDROCARTOS' EMISSIONS. ASP '.IMITATIONS ROX CARBON BLACK MAXWACTl'RISG
Tv**e of Operation & Control
Chamel Process Uncontrolled
Channel Procc-cs vith Tncirt?rato*"
Channel ?r~Ci-*-. \il*S I r.-l -\c~atcr
Furnace Process, Oil, Uncontrolled
Furnace Process ( Oil, with Incinerator
Funacf Pr^rcss, Oil, vith Tncir.^ratrjr
Furnace Process, OH, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, f*as, Uncontrolled
rwrnac^ Process, Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, Gas, with Incinerator
The ml
7, Control
0
85
9S
0
85
95
99
0
85
95
99
Emissions" Knied en 50,000 tor*/hr
U3 tc-ni/^.sy)
Ibs/hr
65,550
9,832
3,277
2,280
3«
iU
22,8
io,?.f>n
1.540
513
303
-
ks;/hr
29,700
4 , 460
1.''90
1,030
155
52
10.4
4,550
700
230
' 47
-
Limitation-
Ibs/br/ks/V
Heatfd
3
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1 4
1.4
IVnhp
8
8
8
8
8
_r
ifci
3.6
3.6
3."
3.6
3.6
8 13.6
8 S.6
8 !?.<>
8 jj.f,
8
3. ft
« '3,6
*As methane
Po^ntial__Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
liml"tatTons~are not based on "process weight, and large processes such as carbon
black manufacturing require tight control to meet limitations. The "Thermal
Process" is the only carbon black manufacturing process that can meet existing
regulations. The "Channel Process" and the "Furnace Process" based on a 50,000
ton/year production are not amenable to existing control technology to reduce
emissions to within allowable limits.
The Environment Rcportor was used to update the emission limitations.
V-17
-------
G. References;
The key sources of information used to develop this section are:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission^factors (Second Edition)„ EPA, April,
1973.
(2) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. Ill—Handbook of Emission Proper-
ties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1,
1971.
(3) Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guide-
lines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mit"re Corporation.
Also consulted but not used to directly develop this section were:
(5) A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part II-Application Areas,
Southern Research Institute, Contract No. CPA 22-69-73, August 25, 1970.
(6) Background Iiifci:",.aLJ uu .Cur SLaLionary Scarce CutuguLlua, Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
V-18
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry:
B. Sub Category : Charcoal
C. Source Description,;
Charcoal is produced by pyrolysls, or destructive distillation of hardwood
in an enclosed retort. The wood is placed in the retort and heated externally
for about 20 hours at 500° to 700°F (260° to 370°C). The retort has air intakes
at the bottom, but their use is limited to the start-up period. The entire
cycle takes 3 hours to 24 hours, the last four being an exothermic reaction.
Approximately four units of hardwood are required to produce one unit of char-
coal.
D. Emission Rates:
During pyrolysis of the hardwood, most of the gases, tars, oils, acids, and
water from the wood are driven off. The tars, oils, and acids are useful by-products,
but economics has made recovery unprofitable, so all these materials are dis-
charged to the atmosphere,
Table V-9 presents particulate and hydrocarbon emissions for plants with and
without a recovery plant, based on an assumed retort capacity of 5 tons. (I)5.1*"1
This Is based on average national emissions. National emissions are calculated
us 1 no 64% capacity from Missouri-type furnaces and 36% capo dry from retort
f ait
TABLE V-9
PARTICULATB AHD HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM CHAXCQAL MANUFACTURING
Type of
Operation & Control
Pyrolysls Without Recovery Plant
Pyrolysia With Recovery Flant
and Afterburner
%
Control
0
99
Particulate Emissions
Ibs/
ton
489
4.9
kg/
M ton
2A5
2.4
IbsT
hr
101
1,C
kg/
hr
45
0.5
X
Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Effil^sicms*
Ibs/
ton
484
4.i
kg/
M ton
242
2.4
Ibs/
hr
100
1.0
kg/
hr
45
0.5
*As Methane
E. Control Equipment;
Hydrocarbon emissions are controlled with an afterburner since unrecovered
by-products are combustible. Combustion of these gases for plant fuel controls
hydrocarbon emissions effectively. Either the burning of these gases as fuel,
or combustion in an afterburner, reduces the emissions to negligible quanti-
ties. (I)5-'4"* Flares can also be used to reduce the hydrocarbon emissions.
V-19
-------
F. New Source Performance S tandardsand Regulation Limitat.ionsi
New Source Performance Standard_s_ (NSPS|; No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for charcoal manufacture.
S t at e Regula t ions for New and ExistLng Sources: Very few states have
adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries such as
charcoal manufacture. Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are
patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation,
Organic solvent uaeage is categorized by three basic types. These are,
(1) heating of articles by direct flarne or baking with any organic solvent,
(2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by
devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated
drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following;
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A Combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule, except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3, A combination of ethylbenzane, ketono-r, having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloioethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
typrc. These limitations l^e as foils owe:
process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1, heated process ]_5 o
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federnl_RejListerJ Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the omission of photochemical]y reactive hydrocarbons to is'lbs/day
and J Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroetliylcne, benzene, acetone and ci-Ccii-"
paraffins. l *>
For both Appendix li and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Moot states have regulations that
limit tb« emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana h.ive regulations patterned alter Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic, solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
¥-20
-------
Partlr.ulate State Regulations for New_and Existing Sources; Particulate emis-
sion regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four regulations that are applicable to charcoal manu-
facture. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware and Washington are representa-
tive of states that express particulate emission limitations in terms
of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic foot for
general processes. The limitations for these three states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
Control Efficiency Basis: Utah requires general process industries
to maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis: Texas axprecncs particulate limitations in terms of
pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet
per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.10 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; The majority of states express
particulate process limitations in terms of pounds per hour as a function
of a specific process weight rate. For new sources with a process
weight of 500 Ibs/hr, the particulate emission limitations range from
the most restrictive, 0.89 Ibs/hr (0.40 kg/hr) for Massachusetts, to
the least restrictive, 1.53 Ibs/hr (0.70 kg/hr) for New Hampshire.
Process Weight Rate jBasis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for particulate emissions in Ibs/hr
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate
of 500 Ibs/hour, New York is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 1.4 Ibs/hr (0.6 kg/hr) and New Jersey is representative of
a less restrictive limitation, 5.5 Ibs/hr (2.5 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate for Specific Sources: Pennsylvania has a particulate
emission regulation specifically for charcoal manufacture. The limitation
is determined by substitution into A=0.76E°-'+2 where E=F*W. F is determined
from Pennsylvania's Table 1 and is 400 Ibs/ton of charcoal. W is the
process weight, which in this case was 500 Ibs/hour. This results with
an allowable emission of 5.3 Ibs/hour.
V-21
-------
Table "V-1Q presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions and
limitations for charcoal manufacture.
TAiu.E.y-io
PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AMU LIMITATION'S FROM CHARCOAL HANITACTDRE
Type of
Operation
fc Control
Pyrolysis Without
Recovery Flant
Pyrolysis With
Recovery Plant
*nd Afterburner
Z
Control
0
99
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 5-Ton Retort)
Ibs/hr kg/hr
101 45
1.0 0.5
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Based on 5-Ton Retort)
Ibs/hr kg/hr
100 45
1.0 0.5
Limitation* 1
(.enfr.il 1'
i_MA_
.»/.«
.9/.4
art J rulntc
KJ
5.5/2.5
5.5/2.5
Pcnfl.
5,3/2,4
5.3/2.4
"Vlir / k^ln
•li-t '.-.V,
UT 85X
Control
12.5/6.3
12.5/6.3
1
H-. or.- r.jrhr'-'.
Heated
3
3
1.4
1.4
I'nhestcd
8
8
,.,
3.6
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation; Charcoal manufacture
using a 5-ton retort would require an afterburner to comply with even the least
restrictive limitations.
The Environment ti
i: wad used to update emission regulations.
G. References ;
Literature used in the development of the information in this section
on charcoal is listed below.
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant jEmission Factors. Second Edition, EPA,
Pub. No. AP-42, April 1973.
2. "Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Adminis tration Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970. — — — — ^-, _
3. Pjriprization of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
References consulted but not directly used to develop this section include:
4. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties. Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
Kay 1, 1971.
5. "Control Techniques for Particulate Pollutants," EPA, Office of Air
Programs Publications No. AP-51, January 1969.
V-22
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Ethylene Bichloride
C. Source Description:
Two processes are used for the production of ethylene dichloride. One is
the direct chlorination of ethylene with chlorine; the other is an oxychlorina-
tion process in which ethylene, hydrogen chloride, and oxygen react to form the
same product.
In the direct chlorination process, ethylene dichloride is produced by
combining ethylene and chloride as described by the following reaction:
C2Ek + C12 -> C2HitCl2
Chlorine and ethylene are fed into a reactor where the reaction takes place under
100-120°F (38-49°C) and 10-20 PSIG. Crude ethylene dichloride emerges from the
reactor in liquid form and is purified by passage through a series of condensers,
separators, and wash towers as shown in the process flow diagram in Figure
V-8.0)EDC-2
r
T
]
->H
•iCP.riiPFX
Sl")S ETHYLENE DIC!1LORI3£
C:1 WATER
WASTE '.W
vov
r.R
1_
-------
In the oxychlorination process, ethylene, oxygen, and hydrochloric acid are
fed to a fixed or fluid bed reactor where the following reaction takes place:
2HC1
H20
Crude ethylene dichloride Is absorbed from the gas stream and the non-condensible
gases are vented to the atmosphere. The crude product is refined in a fin-
ishing system such as the one shown by the flow diagram in Figure V-9^2) Ethyl-
ene Dichloride Flow Diagram,
BATE*
DKAtrrra
I
REACTOR
(.AS
ABSORBER
-a4-
STRIPPER
STORAOP,
PtIRIFtCATJON
KCL ETHYL5SE AIR
V*0: nrhylcne T>ich\or3J1'1 Flow nia^r
Almost all production centers around large plants using a balanced combina-
tion of these two processes. Such plants use the hydrogen chloride recovered when
ethylene dichloride is dehydrohalogenated as feed to the oxychlorination reactor.
The annual production of a typical plant is 208,000 tons.
V-24
-------
D. Emis s ion Rates_:
The quantity of hydrocarbons released to the atmosphere is considerably lower
for the direct chlorination process than for the oxychlorination process. The
major source of emissions from the direct chlorination processes is the gas vented
from the scrubbing column. This gas stream contains small amounts of ethylene,
ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and impurities in the feed. The vent gas
from the oxychlorination process is also a key source of atmospheric emissions.
In both cases, emission rates may vary due to significant differences in product
recovery systems. Ethylene dichloride may also be released by storage tanks.
Controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from typical ethylene dichlor-
ide plants are presented in Table V-ll. (OEDC-3, (2) 2, (3) 9
TABLEJWLj.
HYDROCARBON EMISSIOSS F1UM ET10LF.ME DICHLOHIPE MANUFACTURE
Type of
Eouipnent 4 Control
Direct Chlorination with
Incineration of Vent Gases
Oxychloriiiation with
Incineration of Vent Cases
Storsac
Z
Control
0
80
90
99
0
80
90
99
0
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Rased on 24 tons/hr}
Ibs/ f kg/
Ton of I M Ton oE
Product
5-8
1-1.6
.5-. 8
.05-. 08
50-140
10-28
5-14
Product
2.5-4
.5-, 8
.3-, 4
.03-. 04
25-70 •
5-14
2.5-7
.O.'i-i.i | .25-. 7
1.2
.6
Ibs/
hr
119-190
24-38
12-19
1.2-1.9
1190-3330
240-660
119-333
ke/
hr
60-95
12-19
6-9.5
6-1
600-1670
119-330
60-167
12-33 1 6-16,6
i8.o 14.3
E. Con t r o 1 Equ ipmen t :
No emission control for the ethylene dichloride industry has been demon-
strated. (2) The producers of this chemical use various methods of product recov-
ery and the emissions from each process are different. Possible hydrocarbon emis-
sion control devices would include thermal or catalytic incineration, having con-
trol efficiencies approaching 100 percent. Table V-ll presents emission rates
that could be attained with incineration of vent gases.
F- New Source PerfprmancQ Standards and_ Regulation Limitations ;
New^ Source Per f ormance Standards (NSPS) : No "New Source Performance
Standards" have been promulgated for ethylene dichloride manufacture.
^ for New and Existing Sources; Many states regulate
emissions from ethylene producing plants or other ethylene sources. Alabama,
Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Virginia are
representative of states that have specific regulations for waste gas
disposal. These regulations arc similar to those specified in Appendix B
(Federal Rcgjjsl^r , August:. 14, 3971). Appendix B states that any waste gas
stream containing organic compounds from any ethylcuc producing plant or
other ethylene emission source can be burned at 1300°F for 0.3 seconds or
greater in a direct-flame afterburner or an equally effective device. This
V-25
-------
does not apply to emergency reliefs and vapor blowdown systems. The
emission of organic compounds from a vapor blowdown system or emergency
relief can be burned by a smokeless flarCj or an equally effective control
device. This emission limitation will reduce organic compound emissions
approximately 98%.
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as ethyl-
ene dichloride manufacture require tight control to meet limitations. The use
of afterburners for incineration will meet the limitations specified in Appen-
dix B, .
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
The references used to develop the content of the discussion on dichloro-
ethylene are listed below:
(1) Pervier, V.W., Barley, R.C., Field, D.E., Friedman, B.M., Morris, R.B.,
and Schwartz, W.A., Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the
Petrochemical Industry, Volume II, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255, April, 1974.
(2) Background Informationfor Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sab"Icski , Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Jjranch, November 3, 1972.
(3) Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation
Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
June, 1974.
(4) Analy&is of Final State Implementation Plans —Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
One reference was consulted but not used to develop this section:
(1) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Natioanl Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March, 1970.
V-26
-------
A. Source Category:V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Ethylene Oxide
C. Source Description:
Ethylene oxide is produced by direct oxidation of ethylene. The reaction is
carried out in the vapor phase using either air or high purity oxygen over a silver
catalyst at ^536°F (280°C) and 15 atmospheres pressure as described by the following
equation:
H
x
H H
Ethylene
.
+ 1/2 02 _ARCatalyst^ H - C^-^jC - H
Ethylene Oxide
The air process is an important polluter while emissions from the oxygen process
are negligible. As shown in the flow diagram in Figure V-10, ethylene and air are
combined with recycle gas and fed to a large tubular catalytic reactor where the
conversion reaction takes place. This process includes four major parts:
1. the oxidation reaction of ethylene,
2. the- lecove.i'y front the reactor effluent of ethylena oxide,
3. purging of by-product gases from the recycle stream»
4. purification of ethylene oxide.
The oxidation reaction is the heart of the process.
plant produces 92,500 tons'annually.
A typical ethylene oxide
I VEST TO
I ATKQSFHM
T
PURGE
IMCTOk
WCYCII
''TOM
COOLER
i.o.
AH
V-27
-------
D. Emission Rates:
The purging of the by-product gases from the recycle stream and the purifica-
tion of ethylene oxide product cause hydrocarbon to be released to the atmosphere.
The uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions are shown in Table V-13.^1)2
7AS1.E V-13
ran SSTONS FROM
ETOY1.F.NK OXIDE HANUVM'.'HIIU'.
fy^e of Operation nnd Control
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
UnconlroJlod
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
with Incineration
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
with Incineration
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
with Incineration
Air Oxidation of Etliylene,
with Catalytic Converter
7. Control
0
80
90
99
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
*bu«ed on 92,500 tons produci/yr
(253.4 tonn/dny)
Ibs/ton
392
78.4
39.2
3,92
3.92
kf./mt
196
39.2
19.6
1.96
1,96
)Whr
4140
827
414
21
21
kn/lir
1880
375
188
9.4
9.4
E. Control Equipment:
Both incinerators and catalytic converters have been used to control emissions
from ethylene oxide manufacturing processes. Incinerator efficiency ranges from
8Q-10Q%(2)10 while catalytic converters can reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 99%.^1'
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulations Limitations'.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for ethylene oxide manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Many states regulate
emissions from ethylene producing plants or other ethylene sources. Alabama,
Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Virginia are
representative of states that have specific regulations for waste gas
disposal. These regulations are similar to those specified in Appendix B
(Federa1 Register, August 14, 1971). Appendix B states that any waste gas
stream containing organic compounds from any ethylene producing plant or
other ethylene emission source can be burned at 1300°F for 0.3 seconds or
greater in a direct-flame afterburner or an equally effective device. This
does not apply to emergency reliefs and vapor blowdowri systems. The
emission of organic compounds from a vapor blowdown system or emergency
relief can be burned by a smokeless flaret or an equally effective control
device. This emission limitation will reduce organic compound emissions
approximately 98%.
V-28
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission LimitatiOTIS: Hydrocarbon emissions
are nolTbasecl on process weight, and large processes such as ethylene oxide manu-
facture by air oxidation require tight control to meet limitations. The use of
afterburners for incineration will meet the limitations specified in Appendix B.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
• • Re f e rencc-s :
Literature used to develop the n..i_erial presented in this section is listed
below.
^' Aacjcground Information for Stationary Source Categories. Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
(^) Oi"g'inlc .^Compound Emisr.ion Sources umlssJon Control Techniques and Emission
L tin i ta t ion G a i d o 1 i no a ( Dr al"_t) , EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion, June, 1974.
." 0 Si obaup.lt. R.B.. G.C. Ray. Ronald A. Spinke. "Ethylene Ox1r!<=: Hows Where>
rJ:i-- Future." llydr-c^rbon rrccc33irH~. October, 1970.
(4j A'Taly^J_F of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules, and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
T-.'o additional sources were consulted but not directly used to develop the
•itisioa on ethylene oxide. These were:
' ''! I]£[lLLcLL-T.g^hJli-clUKs for Hyj;^0££rjjmi_and_0r£anic Solvent Emissions from Sta-
iJjl1Ii£>lJL2iiI£i?.- u-s- Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Na-
tional Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68 March,
t",?J.
i''; "Oxides of Ethylene, Propylmie Face Trouble." Chemical and Engineering News.
May 21, 1973. " ~ 6
V-29
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Formaldehyde
C. Source Description;
All of the formaldehyde produced in th.e United States today comes from one
of two processes which use tnethanol as a raw material. One process uses an iron
oxide catalyst (23% of production) and a large excess of air to produce formal-
dehyde as described by the reaction:
CH3OH + 1/2
Iron
Catalyst
C1120 + H20
The second method C77% of production) uses a combined oxidation-dehydration re-
action over a silver catalyst as shown below:
CH3OH + 1/2 02 AS Catalyst^
CH3OH
CH20 + H2
Only about one-eighth as much air is used by the oxidation-dehydration method
which also produces hydrogen as a by-product.
Methanol vapors and air are combined in a 4:1 methanol : oxygen ratio and
heated to approximately 170°F (77°C). The methanol/air mixture is introduced
into a battery of catalytic converters where it passes through the catalyst and
is converted to. formaldehyde. Converter effluent gases are quenched to avoid
dccoiupusinji the loiuialuehyde. Liquid obtained from the quenching priraar> ab-
sorber contains both formaldehyde and unreacted methanol. Some of this so-
called F-M Liquor is recirculated to the absorber and some is purified by the
fractionator to produce a formaldehyde solution that is 37% by weight. This is
the standard formaldehyde product. Figure V-ll shows the flow diagram for this
process. The average plant produces 33,950 tons per year of formaldehyde.
Figure V-il:
Proces s
V-30
-------
D. Emission Rates;
In both methods formaldehyde is absorbed from the gas stream by a water
scrubber, and the inert materials and by-products are vented. The major source
of hydrocarbon emissions is the absorber vcntt and the fractionator vent. The
emission rates for the two formaldehyde-producing processes are shown with and
without control in Table V-15.0)2»3
TABLE V-15
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM FORMALDEHYDE MANUFACTURE
Process and Control Eiulprcent
Iron Oy.lde Catalyst None
Iron Oxide Catalyst Water Scrubber
Silver Catalvst. None
Silver Catalyst Incinerator
1 Control
0
65 (for formaldehyde and
methanol only)
0
95-99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
fbflSPd on 1.9 .toni/hr)
Ibs/ton
50
17.5
10
0.3-0.5
kg/tnt
25
8.8
5
0.05-0.25
Ibs/hr
195
68.3
39
0.4-2.0
kR/ht
88.5
31.0
17.7
0.18-0.91
E. Control Equipment:
Hydrocarbon emissions from the iron oxide process depend on absorber designs.
A water scrubber is the only demonstrated technology and removes 95% of the form-
aldehyde in the iron oxide process vent.O)^ Most of the methanol is removed but
none of tlie uimethyiether is scrubbed. The composition <~«f the absorber vent gasec
originating with the silver catalyst process also varies with absorber design.
Absorption with the silver catalyst is simpler because of lower gas volume, and
nil incinerator is successful at combusting these gases with almost 100% effi-
ciency. Controlled emission rates for botfi. processes are shown in Table V-15.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for formaldehyde manufacture.
State Regulations for New and^ Existing Sources; Very few if any states have
adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific, process industries such as formaldehyde.
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent uscage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochcmic.ally reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from //I type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as 'solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following;
V-31
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unhcated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemical]y reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
haloKc-.nated hydrocarbon^ > perchloroethy] one, benzene, acetone and c^ -csn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic, solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut-, and Ohio have rcgulatjons patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic, solvent regulation which is
patterned iifter both types of regulations.
Table V-1G presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions arid limitations for
formaldehyde manufacture.
TABLE V-16
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM FORMALDEHYDE MANUFACTURE
Process and Control Equipment
Iron Oxide Catalyst None
Iron Oxide Catalyst Water Scrubber
Sliver Catalyst None
Silver Catalyst Incinerator
I Control
0
l>5(for formaldehyde
and methanol only)
0
95-99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on
3.9 tons/hr)
Ibs/hr
195
68.3
39
0.4-2.0
kc/hr
'88.5
31.0
17.7
0.18-0.91
Liraitations'*lbs/hr/kg/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unheated
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
V-32
-------
Potential Source Comp]iance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Reactive hydrocarbon emissions from
formaldehyde manufacture are small considering the size of the process. However,
tight control must be maintained for a 33,950 ton/year process to maintain com-
pliance with state regulations. Formaldehyde manufacture using the iron catalyst
system must maintain 98% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation and 96% control
to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Formaldehyde manufacture using the silver
catalyst must maintain 91% control to meet the 3 Ib/hr limitation and 77% control
to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Existing fume incinerator control technology
is adequate for formaldehyde manufacture to meet existing regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
References used to develop this section include:
(1) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories. Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
(2) Pervier, J.W., R.C. Barley, D.E. Field, B.M. Friedman, R.B. Morris,
W.A. Schwartz. Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petro-
c'ueTiic.- 1 Tnd.^-try, VcJUrrf^n. Air Products and Chcmic.Tlc, Inc.. EPA Con-
tract No. bti-U2~u255. April, 1974.
(3) Hedley, W.H., S.M. Mehta, C.M. Moscowitz, R.B. Reznik, G.A. Richardson,
D.L. Zanders. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes (Final Re-
port) . Monsanto Research Corporation. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task
No. 9. December, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules and Regulations, EPA Con-
tract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Also consulted but not directly used in this section were:
(5) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from Sta-
tionary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Na-
tional Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68. March,
1970.
( 6) Organic Compound Emission Sources Emission Control Techniques and Einission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion, June, 1974.
V-33
-------
A. Source Category; VChemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Paint
C. Source Description;
Paint is a pigmented liquid composition which is converted to an opaque solid
film after application as a thin layer. Although the paint manufacturing process
is simple from a schematic viewpoint, it is a complex process. Paint manufacture
consists of a mixing and dispersing pigment in a vehicle that will allow even
application of the final product. Paint manufacture consists of six physical
operations which are carried out at or near room temperature. These operations
are:
1. mixing pigment with sufficient vehicle to make a paste of proper grind-
ing efficiency
2. grinding the paste on a mill until aggregates are broken down
3. letting down or diluting the ground paste with the remaining materials
4. tinting to required color
5. testing
6. straining, filling, and packaging.
Figure V-12 shows the schematic for a paint manufacturing operation using a sand
mill for the grinding operation.
Figure V-12: Paint Manufacturing_ Using Sand Mjjlj. for Grinding Operation.
Paint manufacturing is still largely a batch process because of the large
number of raw materials and finished products required, many of which must be
custom formulated and procesaed. An average size paint manufacturing plant pro-
duces 3,340 tons of paint per year.
D. Emission Rates;
The two major sources of hydrocarbon emissions in paint manufacturing
are the (1) grinding operation, during which the batch is heated to vapor-
V-34
-------
ize some of the ingredients, and (2) the thinning operation, where solvent
vaporization occurs. Thinning of premixed paint pastes to the required consis-
tency, Involves dilution with aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones,
esters, and other highly volatile materials. The factors effecting emissions
from paint manufacture are types of solvents used, and the mixing temperature.
A. recent estimate of hydrocarbon emissions from paint manufacture is 0.5% of the
weight of the paint emitted as hydrocarbon (1)^-20 emissions and 1-2% of the
solvent lost even under well controlled conditions. (2)5.10-1
Table V-17 shows the controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from
the. paint manufacturing processes. C2)5* 10~2
TABLE V-17
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PAINT MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
uncontrolled
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with Incinerator
% Control
0
80
90
99
Emissions
Chased on 0.4 tons AT)
Ibs/ton
30
6
3
.3
kp /m ton
15
3
1.5
.15
]bs/hr
11.4
2.3
1.1
.11
kg/hr
5.2
1.0
.5
.05
E. Control Equipment:
Methods of controlling hydrocarbon emissions range from changes in paint
formulation to use of extensive pollution control equipment. Some of these meth-
ods include:
1. reformulation of the paint to replace photochemically reactive solvents
with a less photochemically reactive solvent
2. production of water-base coatings
3. condensation and absorption by scrubbing with alkali or acid washes
4. scrubbing and adsorption by activated charcoal or other adsorbents
5, incineration
6. dispersal from high stacks.
Although many of these methods are quite effective, incineration has been accepted
as the one method for elimination of organic compounds and associated odors.
Catalytic oxidation has been employed as a pollution control technique at paint
manufacturing plants.
V-35
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No New Source Performance St
have been promulgated for paint manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources^ Very few if any states
have adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries, siu-h
as paint manufacture. Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations
arc patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation.
Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic types. These are,
(1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any organic solvent,
(2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents
by devices that employ or apply thfi solvent, (also includes air or heated
drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non~photochemically reactivo
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as
solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent:
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, kecones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylcne or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 Ijnvits emissions, of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the omission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 lbs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown t:o be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenatad hydrocarbons, pcrchloroethylc-ne, benzene, acetone and Ci-Ceii—
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source- even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values hnvc been exceeded. Most, states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana hnvc voguJ a I: ions patterned after Appendix 13. Some
Btatos such as North Carolina have an organic, solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-36
-------
Table V-18 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from paint manufacture.
TABLE V-18
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM PAINT MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
uncontrolled
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
will: incinerator
s
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
% Control
0
80
90
99
Emissions
(based on 0,4 tons/hr)
Ibs/hr
11. A
2.3
1.1
.11
kfi/hr
5.2
1.0
.5
.05
Limitations ''Ibs/hr/kg/hr
3
3
3
3
l.A
1.4
1.4.
1.4
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Paint manufacturing processes typically
are not very large on a product output basis compared to other industries and have
relatively low emissions. These two parameters allow paint processes to operate
without extensive control and still be in compliance with state regulations. For
a paint process producing 3340 tons/year, 74% control efficiency must be maintained
to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation, and 30% control efficiency to meet the 8 Ibs/hr
limitation. Existing incinerator control technology is adequate to control hydro-
carbon emissions from paint manufacture.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
V-37
-------
G. References;
References that were used to develop the discussion on paint manufacturing
are listed below:
(1) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from sta-
tionary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68. March, 1970.
(2) Compilation .of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA Publi-
cation No. AP-42~. April, 1973.
(3) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Performance
for New Sources. Paint and Varnish Manufacturing. Walden Research Corpora-
tion. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-165, Task Order No. 4. October, 1971.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules, end Regulations, EPA
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories. Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
Al£_p£l:!_u-^i:::-rL.CG.r-tro1 JL^SluScrinr^and Cost Study of th? P^lnt ar.H V-rtvr.b
us t ry . Air Resources, Inc. hPA Contract No. 66-02-0239. June, 1974.
One source was consulted but not directly used to develop the discussion on
paint manufacturing:
(7) Organic Compound Emission Sources Emission Control Techniques and Emission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, June, 19~74.
V-38
-------
A. Source Category; V. Chemifcal Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Phthalic Anhydride^
C. Source Pp.scrJption:
Phthalic anhydride is produced by the vapor phase oxidation of naphthalene
or o-xylene with excess air in fixed or fluid bed catalytic converters using
some form of vanadium pentoxide as a catalyst. Regardless of which chemical is
used as feedstock, the processes are similar as shown by the following reactions:
0 4- 3H20
Phthalic Anhydride Water
0 + 2H20
+ 3 02
CH3
O-xylene Oxygen
4.5 02
Napthalene
Oxygen Phthalic Anhydride Water
Figure V-13: Phthalic Anhydride Reactions
Figure V-13A illustrates the basic steps involved in the manufacturing process.
Air and a raw material, either o-xylene or napthalene, are fed to the reactor as
a heated vaporized mixture. After the oxidation process takes place, the process
vapors pass through gas coolers and condensers where the anhydride is separated
from the process air stream. The condensed pthalic anhydride is melted and puri-
fied by fractionation and then stored. The average ph.thalic anhydride plant pro-
duces approximately 20,700 tons of finished product yearly.
figure V-13AI Phtbnllr AnhydrideManufacturingProees*
V-39
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The process off gas constitutes the greatest source of hydrocarbon emissions,
This gas consists of large volumes of air contaminated with small quantities of
organic vapors as well as other contaminants. In addition to this source, there
are four minor sources of organic emissions which Include:
1. feed and product storage tanks,
2. process refining vents,
3. flaking and bagging operations,
4. loss of heat transfer medium (Dowtherm A).
The uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions from phthalic anhydride
manufacturing are shown in Table V-19.^1)2
IMLUfclS
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE MANUFACTURING
Type of
Operation and Control
Process Off-Gas, Uncontrolled
Process Off-Gas, Incinerator
Process Off -Gas, Scrubber
% Control
0
99
95
Hydrocarbons {Based on 2.4 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
130
1.3
6
kg/MT
65
.65
3
Ibs/hr
312
3.1
14.4
kg/hr
142
1.9
6.5
1. Control Equipment:
The process off-gas is scrubbed with a water scrubber before
the gas Is released to the atmosphere. Although scrubber efficiencies may aver-
age 95 percent, scrubbers do present several disadvantages:
1. The level of contaminant control needed would require a relatively
expensive multistage scrubber.
2. Treatment and disposition of the scrubbing liquid may be costly.
3. Chemical recovery from a scrubbing solution would be a formidable
operation!
Because of these problems, many phthallc anhydride manufacturers have found It
more attractive to incinerate the off-gases using either direct flame or catalytic
units with resulting efficiencies approaching 99 percent. Controlled emissions
from phthalic anhydride plants are presented in Table V-19.
V-40
-------
p. New SourcePerformance Standards andRegulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance Standards"
have~been promulgated for phthalic anhydride manufacture.
State Regulations forHew and ExistingSources; Alabama, Puerto Rico
and Texas are representative of states that require control of waste gas
disposal emissions to the atmosphere. These regulations are patterned after
Appendix B which requires that the waste gas stream be incinerated at 1300° F
for 0.3 seconds. Appendix B states that a direct-flame afterburner
operating under the above conditions can achieve approximately 98% control.
The Texas regulation specifies certain compounds and certain classes
of compounds that must be burned in a direct-flame incinerator. These
specific carbon compounds are as follows;
Butadine
Isobutylene
Styrene
Isopreno.
Propylene
a-Methyl-Styrene
The specific classes of carbon compounds are as follows*.
Aldehydes Acids
Alcohols Esters
Aromatics Ketones
Ethers Sulfides
Olefins . Branched chain hydrocarbons (eg and above)
Peroxides
Amines
Texas allows sources to petition the Executive Secretary for alternate
means of control. The Executive Secretary can also exempt specific waste
gas streams if the source can show that the waste gas stream will not make a
significant contribution of air contaminants in the atmosphere.
. Source Compliance, and JSmlgsigns Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as phthalic
anhydride require tight control to meet limitations. Incineration of process off
gases from phthalic anhydride manufacture can meet existing state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
V-41
-------
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the discussion on phthalic an-
hydride manufacturing:
(1) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Indistrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
(2) Fawcett, R.L, "Air Pollution Potential of Phthalic Anhydride Manufac-
ture," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, .20(7): (July,
1970).
(3) Hedley, W.H., Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processesf (Final
Report,), Monsanto Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226,
Task No. 9, December, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations^
EPA, Contract 68-01-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
The following reference was consulted but not directly used in the develop-
ment of this section.
(5) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March, 1970.
V-42
-------
A. Source Category: V ChemicalProcessIndustry
B. Sub Category;Polyethylene(High Density)
C* SourceDescription:
Three major processes are used to produce high density polyethylene.
These are based on the types of phases present in the polymerization reactor.
The processes are;
1. solution phase process,
2. slurry phase process, and
3. vapor phase process.
These processes are subdivided according to the physical state of the catalyst.
The two processes that are most widely used today are the Phillips Process and
the Ziegler Process. The net reaction for both of these processes is described as
follows:
nCH2=CH2 + (-CH2CH2-)n, where 400 < n < 4000.
Both processes utilize about 2000 pounds (907 kg) of ethylene feed and about
120 pounds of solvent to produce one ton of polyethylene. The Phillips process
uses a jacketed, agitated tank reactor where the polymerization takes place on a
chromium oxide/ailica-alumina catalyst at 140°C (284°F) and 30 atmospheres pres-
sure. The Ziegler Process carries out the polymerization reaction in a stirred
tank reacfor at 7E>°C (167°F) and five atmospheres pressure on a titanium tetra-
cliloride/triiaobutyl aluninurr. catalyst. Both reactions occur in the liquid phase.
Polymer chain length is controlled by the addition of small amounts of hydrogen or
other telogens. After suitable residence time in the reactor, unreacted monomer,
solvent, waxes, and light gases are separated from the product. The polymer is
then stripped of all solvent, dried, and stored. Figure V-14 summarizes the high
density polyethylene manufacturing process.^2' A typical high density polyethylene
plant will produce 250 tons of product per
g V~?Ai IHp.h_1>«'t>n1ty.Polyethylene MniH'fncturc
V-43
-------
Vi^areV-l*! Ulsh Density Polyethylene Honufacture
D. Emission Rates;
The solvent recovery, polymer stripping, and product conveying operations are
the key sources of hydrocarbon emissions from plants manufacturing high density
polyethylene. These emissions are listed in Table V-21.(1)Table HP-VI
TABLE V-21
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM MANUFACTURE OF HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
Type of Operation and Control
Solvent Recovery, uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, incinerator
Polymer Stripping, uncontrolled
Polymer Stripping, incinerator
%
Control
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 91,250 tons product/yr)
Ib/ton
4,
0.04
18.0
0.18
kg/MT
2
0.02
9.0
0.09
lb/hr
42.0
0.4
187.0
1.9
k^7hr
19.0
.2
90,0
.9
E. Control Equipment;
Various control devices are used at high density polyethylene plants to control
hydrocarbon emissions, including cyclones, bag filters, incinerators, and flares.
The first two devices are used to control particulate emissions from the conveying
system while the latter two are used to reduce the hydrocarbons emitted by the
solvent recovery and polymer stripping operations. The controlled hydrocarbon
emissions from high density polyethylene manufacture are presented in Table V-21.
F. New Source Performance StandardsandRegulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards(NSPS): No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for high density polyethylene manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage Is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from #1 type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined
as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
V-44
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons» alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketoncs having an olefinic or cyclo-
olcfinic type of unsaturotion: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylcne or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
typcc. These limitations are as follows;
Process
1. heated process
2. \inheated photochcroically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal_ Register> Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemical!y reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and ci-cen-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions Irom handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table V-22 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from high density polyethylene manufacture.
TABLE V-22
HYDROCARBONJMISSKfflSAND,LIMITATIONS
FROM MANUFACTURE OF HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
Type of Operation and Control
Solvent Recovery, uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, incinerator
Polymer Stripping, uncontrolled
Polymer Stripping, incinerator
%
Control
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 91,250 tons product /yr)
Ib/hr
42.0
0.4
187.0
1.9
ktfhr
19.0
.2
90.0
.9
Limitations4
Ib/hr / kg/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1,4
1.4
Unhestqdj
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
V-45
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as high
density polyethylene manufacture require tight control to meet limitations. The
solvent recovery unit requires 93% control efficiency to meet: the 3 Ibs/hr limit
and 81% efficiency to meet the 8 Ibs/hr limit. The polymer stripping unit
requires 98% control efficiency to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limit and 96% control ef-
ficiency to meet the 8 Ib/hr limit. Incinerators have proved effective in re-
ducing these types of hydrocarbon emissions by 99%. Existing control technology
is adequate for a 91,250 ton/year high density polyethylene to meet State re-
gulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the material in this section:
(1) Pervier, J. S., R. C. Barley, D. E. Field, B. M. Friedman, R. B. Morris,
W. A. Schwartz. Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemi-
cal Industry, volume II. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0255. April, 1974.
(2) Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques, and Emission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion, June, 1974.
(3) Hedley, W. H. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes (final re-
port). Monsanto Research Corp. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task No. 9,
December, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-46
-------
A. Source Category;
Chemlcal^Proccss .Indus try,
B. Sub Category: Low Density Polyethylene
C. Source Description:
The characterizing variable in the production of low density polyethylene
is pressure, which normally ranges from 10,000 to 30,000 PSIG (42.67 kg/m2), and
can reach levels as high as 45,000 PSIG (64.01 kg/m2). The net reaction of the
ethylene polymerization on a catalytic surface is shown below:
IU
H H
I I
C - C
I I
H H
High Pressure.
Catalyst
(Free Radical Sources)
H H H H
II II
Cmm C* **. f C* f\"&t t \ mm f* mm iP
w \x-*yrlli/ / rt». w W
i I (n"2) I I
H H H H
Wbere n = 400-2,000.
R! and Ry_ represent chain-terminations resulting from the introduction of telogens,
which are specifically chosen to accomplish this end. Although it is not shown
in the reaction products above, low density polyethylene structures are usually
characterized by branched chains.
The polymerization reaction Lakes place in the liquid phase in either an auto-
clave or a tubular type reactor. When the autoclave is used, the temperature is
held at 240°C (464°F) and the pressure ranges from 1,600 to 2,520 atmospheres (1.6
x 107 to 2,5 x 107 kg/m2). Residence time in the reactor is 20 seconds At 1,600
atmospheres (1.6 x 107 kg/m2). The tubular reactor calls for a temperature of 250°C
(482°F) under 1,560 atmospheres (1.6 x 107 kg/m2) pressure and a residence time of
30 seconds. Both reactors consume approximately 2,000 pounds (907 kg) ethylene per
ton of low density polyethylene produced. An average plant will produce 182,500
tons of low density polyethylene per year. After the reaction is complete, the mon-
omer-polymer mix is flasked and unreacted monomer, solvent, and waxes are separated
from the product, which is then extruded and pelletized for handling. The low den-
sity polyethylene manufacturing process flow diagram is shown in Figure V-15.( '
H'i(iu»«i«»t Sr
A»t«*«tt 1
I'imtM /*%.
""••"••it (|)
CSf V
9
.«.«"., i
3^-f
I
"{{•H^M-^
—»—2SJ,,, , 1 ~
—--ra*
,u
*1 »i*eti«i
Bg.u.te V-15s toit Density Polyotliylene Manuf«ctur« Ccontlnuaj)
V-47
-------
T-15; Lou Density Polyethylene Manufacture
D. Emission Rates ;
There are three main sources of hydrocarbon emissions In the production of
low density polyethylene. These are the compressor purge gas, the materials
handling operation, and the gas separation and recovery operation. There are
also some sources of fugitive emissions as well. The hydrocarbon emissions for
low density polyethylene manufacture are summarized in Table V-23^1) »
TAI1.B V-23
HYBROCASBON EHISSIOHS FROH HASUFACTUBE 0? LOW DENSITY POLfETHTOEHl
Type of
Operntlon «nd Control
Compressor Purge, Uncontrolled
Compressor rurc.o, Incinerator
Gas Separation/Recovery,
L'ncontroll«d
GǤ Separation/Recovery,
Incinerator
I
Control
0
99
0
99 .
Hydrocarbon Emissions (Based on 182,500 tons/vr)
Iks/ ion
2
0.02
20
0,20
k?./Kf
1
0.01
10
0.10
iWhr
42
0.42
416
4.16
ke/hr
19
.20
189
l.M
V-48
-------
E. Control Equipment:
The emission control devices used in the manufacture of low density poly-
ethylene include cyclones, bag filters, incinerators, and flares. Cyclones
and filters are used to reduce particulate emissions from product handling opera-
tions while incinerators and flares reduce hydrocarbon emissions from system purge
gases and recovery operations. The controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emis-
sions from low density polyethylene manufacture are shown in Table V-23.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New_Sg_u£ce. Performance Standards (NSPS): No "New Source Performance Standards"
have~been"promulgated for low density polyethylene manufacture.
State Regulat ionsfor New and Existin_g Sources; Alabama, Puerto Rico
and Texas are representative of states that require control of waste
gas disposal emissions to the atmosphere. These regulations are patterned
after Appendix B which requires that the waste stream be incinerated at
1300° F for 0.3 seconds. Appendix B states that a direct flame after-
burner operating under the above conditions can achieve approximately
98% control. The" Texas regulation specifies certain compounds and certain
classes of compounds that must be burned in a direct-flame incinerator.
These specific carbon compounds are as follows:
Butadine
Isobutylene
Styrene
Isoprene
Propylene
a-Methyl-Styrene
*
The specific classes of carbon compounds are as follows:
Aldehydes Esters
Alcohols Ketones
Aroniatics Sulfides
Ethers Branched chain hydrocarbons (eg and above)
Olefins
Peroxides
Amines
Acids
Texas allows sources to petition the Executive Secretary for alternate
means of control. The Executive Secretary can also exempt specific waste
gas streams if the source can show that the waste gas stream will not make
a significant contribution of air contaminants in the atmosphere.
Potent ial Source ComplLane e and_Emissign Limitations; Hydrocarbon
emission limitations are not based on process weight but large processes
such as low density polyethylene can be controlled to meet existing
regulations by application and proper use of direct flame afterburners.
-------
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the discussion on low density
polyethylene.
(1) Pervier, J.W., Barley, R.C., Field, D.E., Friedman, B.M., Morris, R.B.,
and Schwartz, Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petro-
chemical Industry, Volume II, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., EPA
Contract No. 68-02-0255, April, 1974.
'(2) Organic Compound Emission Sources Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(3) Hedley, W.H., Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes,
(Final Report), Monsanto Research Corp., EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226,
Task No, 9, December, 1973.
Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans—Rulen andRegulations,
EPA Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-50
-------
A, Source Category: V _ ChemicalJProcess Industry
B, SubCategory: Polystyrene
C. Source Description:
Several techniques are used for the polymerization of styrene. In
order of decreasing importance they are:
1. solution polymerization
2. suspension polymerization
3. emulsion polymerization
The solution and suspension techniques are the most commonly used.
There are two techniques for the manufacture of the polystyrene and they
consume approximately 2,000 pounds of styrene per ton of polystyrene produced. The
reaction is:
nCH = CH
2
Heat
Catalyst
Styrene
CH CH
2
Polystyrene
The suspension reaction is carried nut bat-chvise 'In a "t
steam/water jacketed reactor, Styrene and pexoride are added to a walex bluj,j;> of
tricalcium phosphate and dodecyl-benzene sulfonate. The temperature is raised to
194°F (90°C) and to 239°F (115°C). six and one-half hours later. The polymer is
produced in the form of small beads and is separated from the suspension after
cooling. The beads are then washed, dried, and extruded.
In the solution technique, styrene and solvent (such as ethylbenzene) are fed
into a series of tubular agitated polymerization reactors. The mixture enters the
first reactor at about 250°F (121°C) and leaves the last one at about 340°F (171°C)
The solvent containing polymer is then pumped into a devolatilizer for removal of
unreacted monomer and solvent which are recycled to feed. The polymer is extruded,
cooled, cut, and conveyed to storage.
Figure V-16 schematically illustrates the polystyrene manufacturing process.
Using these processes, an average plant will produce 47,500 tons of polystyrene
annually.
Solvent
Mineral Oil
Water
L
*
Feed
tfon
Poly-
clon
V-16i Poly«tyr«no
V-51
-------
The feed preparation operation, the reactor vent, and the solvent recovery
operation are three major sources of hydrocarbon emissions from the polystyrene
manufacturing process. The hydrocarbon emissions from these sources are summarized
in Table V-25.0)
TABLE V-25
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM POLYSTYRENE MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Feed Preparation, Uncontrolled
Feed Preparation, Incinerator
Reactor Vent, Uncontrolled
Beactor Vent, Incinerator
Solvent Recovery, Uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, Incinerator
% Control
0
99
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 5,4 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
1.3
.013
6.7
.06
3.7
.037
kg/mt i
.7
.007
3.4
.034
1.9
,019
Ibs/hr
7.0
.070
36.2
.36
19.9
.2
kg/hr
3.2
.032
16.4
.16-
9.0
.090
E. ControlEquipment:
Control in the polystyrene industry is not extensive because reactive hydro-
carbon emissions are not substantial. The utilization of existing technology such
as flares and incinerators could significantly reduce the hydrocarbon emissions
associated with the production of polystyrene. Table ¥-25 shows the reduced hydro-
carbon emissions that could be attained by use of an incinerator or other combustion
device.
F. Hew SourcePerformance Standards and Emission Limitations;
New Source Performance S tandards(NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for polystyrene manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Ejdg^inj^_Sg.urcrcs.; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemlcally
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from #1 type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochcmically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined .as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following;
1» A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyelo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2, A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene;
8 per cent
V-52
-------
3. A combination of cthylbenzcne, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylcne or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photocheinically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federa 1 Regi_n_tcr, Vol. 3G, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) Ijriits the emission of photochemical])7 reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
so]vent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvent:; which have shown to be virtually unreactive arc, saturated
halogcnate.d hydrocarbons, perchloroethylcne, benzene, acetone and Cj-c^n-
paraffin:;.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Chlu huvc iC^vlal'louc pattorncc' after Lor, Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table. V-26 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for
polystyrene manufacture.
TABLE V-26
HYDROCARBON EMTSSTONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM
POLY STY UKNI: "MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Feed 1'rcparation, Uncontrolled
Feed Preparation, IiicinoxMtor
Reactor Vent, Uncontrolled
Reactor Vent, Incinerator
Solvent Recovery, Uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, Incinerator
% Control
0
99
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on
5.4 ton;;/hr)
Ibs/hr kg/hr
7.0 3.2
.070 .032
36.2 16.4
.36 .16
19.9 9.0
.2 .090
-imi tat ions3! b.s/hr/kft/ In-
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unhoat.ed
8
8
8
8
8
8
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
. Limitations : Hydrocarbon emission
Point Source Cojj'P_lig,rLc19- gP^-.
IimTtaTimiirijre""rioT based "on process weight. Polystyrene manufacture is a
relatively small process with an intermediate level of emissions. Table
V-26A presents the percent control required to comply with the 3 Ibs/hour and
8 Ibs/hour limitation.
V-53
-------
TABLE V-26A
CONTROL REQUIRED FOR POLYSTYRENE MANUFACTURE
Process
Description
Feed Preparation
Reactor Vent
Solvent Recovery
% Control Required For
3 Ibs/hr
57%
92%
85%
8 Ibs/hr
0%
67%
60%
Existing incinerator technology is adequate in controlling polystyrene hydro-
carbon emissions to within state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the material in this section:
(1) Pervier, J.W., R.C. Barley, D.E. Field, B.M. Friedman, R.B. Morris, W.A. Schwartz,
Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical Industry, Vol-
ume IV. Products and Chemicals, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255. April,
1974.
(2) Hedley, W.H. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes (Final Re-
port) . Monsanto Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task
No. 9. December, 1973.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules, and Regulations. EPA
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-54
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Printing Ink
C. Source Description;
There are four major classes of printing ink:
1. letterpress,
2. lithographic,
3. flexographic, and
4. rotogravure.
The first two are referred to as oil or paste inks, and the last two are
referred to as solvent inks. These inks vary in physical appearance, composition,
method of application, and drying mechanism. Although flexographic and roto-
gravure inks have many elements in common with paste inks, they differ because of
their very low viscosity and dry by evaporation of highly volatile solvents.
There are three steps in the manufacture of printing inks:
1. cooking the vehicle and adding the dyes,
2. grinding the pigment into the vehicle using a
roller mill, and
3, replacing. wPter in the w^.t pi'pKioar pulp !>y «'i
ink vehicle (commonly known a« the flushing
process),
The ink "varnish" or vehicle is cooked in large kettles at 200° to 600°F
(93° to 315°C) for 8 to 12 hours, similar to the way varnish is made. The
pigment, and vehicle are mixed in dough mixers or large agitated tanks. Grinding
is accomplished in three or five roller mills.
D. Emission^ Rates;
Vehicle preparation by heating is the largest source of hydrocarbon emissions
from ink manufacturing. At 350°F (175°C) the resins, drying oils, petroleum oils
and solvents decompose, and the decomposition products are emitted from the cooking
vessel. The emissions continue throughout the. cooking process, reaching a maximum
just after the maximum temperature has been reached.
The quantity, composition, and rate of emissions from ink manufacturing depend
upon the cooking temperature and time, the ingredients, the method of introducing
additives, the degree of stirring, and the extent of air or inert glass blowing.
The hydrocarbons emitted by printing ink manufacturing processes are presented
in Table V-27.C1)5-14~2
E. Control Ecju_:lpjnent_;
Hydrocarbon emissions from vehicle cooking are reduced by 90% with the use of
scrubbers or condensers followed by afterburners, C1)5* 1'+~1 The controlled hydro-
carbon emissions from printing ink manufacture are presented In Table V-27.
V-55
-------
TABLE V-27
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PRINTING INK MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
General Vehicle Cooking, uncontrolled
General Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and After-
burner
Oil Vehicle Cooking, uncontrolled
Oil Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and Afterburner
Oleoresinous Vehicle Cooking, uncontrolled
Oleoresinous Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and
Afterburner
Cooking of Alkyds, uncontrolled
Cooking of Alkyds with Scrubber and Afterburner
X
Control
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 924 tons/yr)
Ib/ton
120
12
40
4
150
15
160
16
kg/Mr
60
5.4
20
1.8
75
6.8
80
7.3
Ib/hr
12.0
1.2
4.0
.4
15.0
1.5
16.0
1.6
kj>/hr
5.4
.54
1.8
.18
6.8
.68
7.3
.73
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promuJ.gated for printing ink manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
•type legislation. Organic, solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from ill type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
<
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
V-56
-------
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) Units the omission of photochcmically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/lir. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is Icsn than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogcnatcd hydrocarbons, perchlorocthylcne, benzene, acetone and Cj-c5n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
.limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana nncl Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states sucli as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table 7-28 presents the uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions and
limitations rrom printing ink manufacture.
TABLE V-I8
HYDROCARBON EMISSION'S AND LIMITATION'S FROM PRINTING INK MANUFACTURE
Tvpc of Operation and Control
General Vehicle. Cooking, uncontrolled
General Vehicle CoukJnK with Scrubber and Afterburner
Oil Vehicle Cocking, uncontrolled
Oil Vehicle Cooking with Scru'iber and Afterburner
Uleoresinou* \ohlcle Cooklm;, unconl rolled
Oleoresir.nus Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and Afterburner
("ooklnp, of Alk>v!s, uncontrolled
Cooking of AlKyds with Scrubber and Afterburner
I
Control
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Hydrocarbon E-rissions
(based on 92'' tons/yr)
Ib/hr
32.0
1.2
4.0
.4
15.0
1.5
16.0
1.6
kg/hr
5.4
.54
1.8
.18
6.8
.68
7.3
.73
Limitations'4 Ib/hr / kg/hr
Hentcd
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
!.'>
1.4
1.4
].4
1.4
Unhen ed
8
8
8
S
8
8
8
B
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.0
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emisnion
limitations are not based on process weight. Printing ink manufacture controlled
by 90% with a scrubber and afterburner as presented in Table V-28 can meet these
limitations.
V-57
-------
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References:
Literature used to develop the information presented in this section on
printing ink is listed below:
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
Literature reviewed but not used specifically to develop this section
included the following:
3. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual (Second Edition), AP-40
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-58
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Synthetic Fibers (Nylon)
C. Source. Description;
Nylon is a "true" synthetic fiber, produced from the addition and other
polymerization reactions that form long, chain-like molecules.
The actual spinning process is conducted in one of four ways:
1. melt spinning, in which molten polymer is pumped through spinneret jets,
solidifying as it strikes the cool air;
2. dry spinning, in which the polymer is dissolved in an organic
solvent, and the resulting solution is forced through spinnerets;
3. wet spinning, in which the solution is coagulated as it
emerges from the spinneret; and
4. core spinning, the newest method, in which a continuous filament yarn
together with short-length "hard" fibers is introduced onto a spinning
frame so as to form a composite yarn.
The major source of hydrocarbon emissions from the nylon manufacturing pro-
cess is drying of the finished fiber. These uncontrolled and controlled emissions
are shown in Table V-29. C1) 5 -19'1
TABLE V-29
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM NYLON MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Fiber Drying, Uncontrolled
Fiber Drying, Carbon Adsorber'
% Control
0
95
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 134,500 tons/yr)
Ibs/ton
7
0.35
kg/mt
3.5
0.18
Ibs/hr
108
5.4
kg/hr
49
2.4
E. Cont rol Equipment:
Hydrocarbon emissions from the manufacture of nylon are not normally con-
trolled, but emissions can be reduced by 80-95% by adsorption on activated carbon.
Table V-29 shows the controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from nylon
manufacture.
V-59
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards_jNSPgl! No New Source Performance Standards
haveTeen promulgated for synthetic fibers manufacture.
State Emulations for Kcw and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emisIi^rrTiuIations arc, patter^cTTftcr Los AnCcles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useagc is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photoehemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from ill type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemieally
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2, A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, frjchloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2, unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylcne, benzene, acetone and ci-Ccn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-60
-------
Table V~30 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations from
nylon manufacture.
TABLE V-30
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM NYLON MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Fiber Drying, Uncontrolled
Fiber Drying, Carbon Adsorber
% Control
0
95
HyJrocnrbon Emissions
(basid on 334,500 tons/yr)
Ibs/lir
108
5.4
kg/hr
49
2. k
L1»itations3lbG/hr/k£/hr
Heated
3
3
1.36
1.36
11nliMf,f>d
8
8
3.63
3.63
Z°J-gEtiLal__S_ou_rce Coropliance _and Emission Limi tat ions : Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as nylon
manufacture require tight control to meet the limitations. A nylon manufacturing
process producing 134,500 tons/year requires 97% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr
limitation, and 93% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Existing carbon
adyoipl Ion coittiui cechnoiojjy is borderline to accomplish these high control
efficiencies, but a direct flama afterburner could meet existing regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
^ • Ref erg_nc gs :
The following references were used to develop the preceding discussion on
nylon manufacture:
of Air PolIutajiX^Emissior^jactors, (Second Edition) . EPA. Pub*-
^
lication No. AP-42. Aprl, 1973.
(2) Hedley, W.H. Potential Po3 ,lp^fHlM-l£°SLZ£iI££llgmical Processes (Final Report),
Monsanto Research Corporation. EPA Contract No. 63-02-0226, Task No. 9.
December, 1973.
(3) Analyj3_l_s __Qf__Fin_aj^ St_a_te ImplGinentation Plans, Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972", Mitre Corporation.
Another reference consulted but not directly used to develop this discussion
included:
(4) "Man-made Fibers: On the Road to Recovery." Chemical Engineer ing News .
May 31, 1971.
V-61
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Varnish
C. Source Description:
Varnish is a clear coating produced by chemical reactions at elevated
temperatures. Originally, all varnishes were made from naturally occurring
material and were defined as a homogeneous solution of drying oils and resins
in organic solvents. As new resins were developed, the varnishes were clas-
sified on the basis of the resins used. A general definition o£ varnish is an
unpigmented coating consisting of resins, oils, thinners, and dryers, and drys
by evaporation of the solvents and by oxidation and polymerization of the re-
maining constituents.
There are two basic types of varnishes, spirit varnishes and oleoresinous
varnishes. Spirit varnishes are formed by dissolving a resin in a solvent and
drying by evaporation of the solvent. Oleoresinous varnishes are solutions of
both oils and resins which dry by solvent evaporation and by reaction of the non-
volatile liquid portion with oxygen in the air to form a solid film.
The varnish manufacturing process includes the following steps:
1. cooking 4, filtering 7. testing
2. thinning 5. storing 8. paeka£ii,£,
3. mixing 6. aging
The cooking process is the most important step in any varnish-making opera-
tion, for it is during this step that the following processes occur:
1. depolymerization of resins and oils,
2. bodying of natural and synthetic oils,
3. melting of materials,
4. esterification of resins, anhydrides or oils with polyhydric alcohols,
5. isomerization of oils,
6. preparation of alkyl resins,
7, purification of the resins.
Varnish is cooked in open or enclosed gas-fired kettles for periods of
4 to 16 hours at temperatures of 200 to 650°F (93 to 340°C) depending upon the
particular batch being processed. The average plant produces 280 tons of varnish
per year. Figure V-17 shows a typical varnish cooking room.
D. Emission Rates:
The cooking and thinning operations are the major sources of emissions in
the varnish manufacturing process. The average batch starts to release vapors at
about 350°F (177°C) and reaches its maximum rate of release at approximately the
same time the maximum cooking temperature is reached. Obviously, the open kettle
allows the vaporized material to be emitted to the atmosphere more than the closed
kettle operations. The addition of solvents and thinners during the cooking pro-
cess also results in the emission of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, especially
if the thinning procuus is carried out in open tanks. In general, the vapors rc-
lensed by the cookjng and thinning operations include:
V-62
-------
on.* AND
VMKNICM
TO VWKSTC DISPOSAL.
TMINNINO
ROOM
WXTE*
•CRUBBE*
COOUNO
STATION
COOKINO
•TATION
Figure V-17; Typical Varnish Cooking Room
1, low-melting temperature constituents of natural gums,
synthetic acids, and rosins,
2. thermal decomposition and oxidation products volatilized
during bodying of oils, and
3. volatile thinners.
The uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions for varnish manufacturing
are shown in Table V-31. t2")5-10~2
TABLE V-31
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM VARNISH MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation and Control
Mixing and Cooking, uncontrolled
Mixing and Cooking, with incinerator
X Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 280 tons/yr)
ibs/ton
370
3.7
kg/mt
185
1.85
Ibs/hr
11.8
.12 '
kg/hr
5.35
.05
E. Control Equipment;
<•
The varnish industry controls emissions because of economic reasons. Equipment
used by the industry to reduce process emissions include scrubbers, absorbers, ad-
sorbers, and afterburners. Sublimation and solvent reformulation are also practiced.
Incineration of organic gases is one certain method for elimination of organic com-
pounds and their associated odors. Catalytic oxidation has also been used with some
V-63
-------
success In controlling hydrocarbon emissions from varnish-making operations.
Table V-31 shows the controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions for
varnish-making plants.
F. New_ SourcePerformance Standards and Regulation_ Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards(NSPS): No "New Source Performance
Standards" have been promulgated for varnish manufacture.
State_RcguLations_for New andExisting Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from #1 type device) a^d (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following;
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olcfinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsatxiration; 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon pftoms f-o the molrculc except cthylbenzcne:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroetliylene or tolune;
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2, unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3, non--photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federa1 Reg1Ktfir, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown, to be virtually unrcactive are, saturated
lialogenated hydrocarbons, perchlorocthylcne, benzene, acetone and Cj-Cjn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values: have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut, and Ohio have regulations patterned nfter Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana mid Louisiaiui have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states ouch as North Carolina havn an organic uolvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-6/t
-------
Table V-32 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for tarnish manufacture.
TABLEV-32
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM VARNISH MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control % Control
Mixing and Cooking,
Uncontrolled 0
Mixing and Cooking,
with Incinerator 99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 280 tons/hr)
Ibe/hr
11.8
.12
kg/hr
5.35
.05
Limitations'4 Ibs/hr/kg/hr
heat
3
3
ed
1.36
1,36
„ ufihe
8
8
ated ...
3.63
3.63
PotentialSourceCompliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and small processes such as varnish
manufacture, while relatively heavy emitters in general, are fairly small processes.
The typical 280 ton/year varnish manufacturing operation need only maintain 75%
control to maintain compliance with the 3 Ibs/hr limitation. Existing technology
is adequate for varnish manufacture to meet existing emission limitations for a
280 ton/yoor operation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the material in this section:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA. Publica-
tion No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(2) ControlTechniques forHydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from Station-
ary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. National
Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68. March, 1970.
(3) Background Informationfor Establishment ofNational Standards ofPerformance
for New Sources. Paint and Varnish Manufacturing, Walden Research Corporation.
EPA Contract No. EPA 70-165, Task Order No. 4. October, 1971.
(4) Analysis of Final StateImplementation Plans, Rules and Regulations. EPA
Contract 68-02-0248. July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Also consulted but not directly used to develop the foregoing discussion on
varnish-making processes was:
(5) AirPollutionControl Engineering and Cost Study of the Paint and Varnish
Industry. Air Resources, Inc. EEA Contract No. 68-02-0259. June, 1974
V-65
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Synthetic Resins (Phenolic)
C. Source Description;
Phenolic resins find application as molding materials, as laminates, and as
binders in plywood manufacture. Phenolic resins are produced by a condensation
reaction between phenol and formaldehyde in an acid medium. The use of a molar
ratio of slightly less than 1:1 results in linear polymers that can be cross-
linked by the action of hexamethylene tetramirae. The condensation reaction takes
place in a steam-jacketed, stainless steel, or clad kettle. After about 12 hours,
the reaction is arrested by -neutralization of the alkaline catalyst with sulfuric
acid. The reaction is shown below:
Phenol
H
H
,C = 0
NH3
OH
Formaldehyde
Approximately 1800 pounds of phenol and 1500 pounds of 40 percent formalde-
hyde are used per ton of product made. Alternate reactants include meta-cresol,
resorcino.l, and xylenols. Yields are 9Q percent or better, with the average
plant producing six tons per hour.
D. Emission Rates;
The production unit or clad kettle is the primary source of atmospheric pol-
lutants from phenolic resin manufacture. During the polymerization reaction,
pollutants escape through the condenser, vacuum line, sample ports, and vents.
When the reactions become too exothermic, a mixture of the hydrocarbons used in
the production of the resins is vented through the safety blow-offs. Table V-33
presents uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions from synthetic resins
manufacture.
TABLE V-33
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS KROM PHKNOLIC RESIN MANUFACTURE
Type ot
Operation and Control
Production Unit, Uncontrolled
Production Unit, With Flare
0 Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions (Based or\ 52,560 tons/yri
Ihs/ton
7.5
.075
UR/MT
3.8
.038
)bs/hr
45
./45
kc,/hr
20. Al
.20
E» Control Equipment;
Hydrocarbon emissions from the production unit are best controlled by use of
an incinerator or a flare, with efficiencies approaching 99 percent. The con-
trolled and uncontrolled emissions from this source are shown in Table V-33.
V-66
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and RegulationLimitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for synthetic resins manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemieally
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from #1 type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photocheraically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemieally reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-c5n-*
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, If 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeleo Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have on organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-67
-------
Table ¥-34 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations for
phenolic resin manufacture.
TABLE V-3A
HYPROCAflBON EMISSIONS ATO LIMITATIONS FROM PHENOLIC RESIN
Type of
Operation nnd Control
Production Unit, Uncontrolled
Production Unit, with Flare
% Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
_0)ased on 52_,560 tons/yr)
Ibs/hr
45
.45
ka/hr
20,4
.20
tlmitattonn11 Ibs/hr/k
Hnated
3
3
1.36
1.36
Unher
8
8
g/hr
ted
3.63
3.63
Potential Source Compliance and Endssjon Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Phenolic resin manufacture typically
has relatively large process weights and a relatively limited emission. For
phenolic resin manufacture to be in compliance with the 3 Ibs/hr and 8 Ibs/hr
limitation, flare control efficienci.es of 93% and 82% respectively, must be
maintained. Existing control technology is adequate for phenolic resin
manufacture to be in compliance with state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. Refarencos:
low:
The literature used to develop the discussion on phenolic resins is listed be-
(1) Hcj].ejy_1_J^.j^^^otentia 1 Po 11 utanits frojm jglr^gllgSlJ^gl-ZE£££g^!^~JZJ£5^
Report^, Monsanto Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task
No. 9, December, 1973.
(2) Hahn, A.V.G., The Petro chemical Industry, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
New York, 1970.
(3) Hopper^ T.G., Jmpact of New Source Performance _Standar_ds on l?85__National
Emission^ _frpm Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Fina_l_Jtegort^, The Research
Co7poration of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No. 3, Octo-
ber, 1975.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-OZ-U248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Two additional sources were consulted but not directly used to develop the ma-
terial presented in this section.
(5) Fallwell, W.F. "Phenolic, Urea Resins Demand Losing Steam," Chemical, and
Engineering Hews, August 13, 1973.
(6) "Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) and Styrene-Acrylonitrile (SAN)
are Utilizing about 80 Percent of Their Capacity," Chemical and Engineer-
ing_NewR, September 22, 1969.
V-68
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Beer Processing
C. Source Description;
The manufacture of beer from grain is a multiple-step process. From the
time the grain is harvested until the beer manufacturing process is complete
the following events take place at the brewery:
1. melting of barley (softening of barley by
soaking in water followed by kiln drying) ,
2. addition of corn, grit, rice,
3. conversion of starch to maltose by
enzymatic processes,
4. separation of wort (liquid to be fermented)
from giain,
5. hopping (addition of cones of the hop
plant) and boiling of wort,
6. cooling of wort,
7. addition of yeast,
8. fermentation,
9. removal of settled yeast,
10. filtration,
11. ca.vbon;i f-;ion,
12. aging, and
13. packaging.
This process is graphically detailed below:
r
r
MAI TFD
tAI.LtV
4 4 4
CORN CHIT HUE
FILTRATION
)
L
CAahG:. c :os
(OI'TIC'IV)
c
rtncics
MTURIAL
F
StA
co.svt
TO >'.X
FFRXLV-
ni
TOSt
ATMS
(trAUTio:: of
UOJT HO.M
CKAIS
^*~ FaiJCESS
TCAST
V '
rtAST UBITIOK
U~- ^'
SIC
igure
*uci;
_^.
PACK/XI:.:
CWLIXC
r^l
1 -<
VI-1: Beer Procdaoing
VI-l
-------
Most of the beer manufacturing process takes place with the raw or processed
materials in liquid form.
D. Emission Rate;
The manufacture of beer causes carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oxygen, and water
vapor to be discharged into the atmosphere. The hydrocarbon emission rate may
be approximated by assuming that 1 percent by weight of spent grain is emitted
as hydrocarbon. Assuming the grain loses 20 percent of its weight during the
manufacturing process, for every pound of spent grain, 1.25 pounds of raw grain
are required. Therefore, each 1.25 pounds of input discharges 0.01 pounds of
hydrocarbons. Based on the above, hydrocarbon emissions from beer processing
are detailed below:
TABLE VI-1
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM BEER PROCESSING
Type of Operation and Control
Beer Processing, Uncontrolled
Beer Processing, Incineration
. Z
Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions (3)
Ib/ton
2.63
0.0263
kg/ton
1.32
0.0132
^16.1 tons/hour)
Ib/hr
42.3
.42
kg/hr
19.2
.19
E. Control Equipment :
The major hydrocarbon emission is ethyl alcohol and is controlled by incin
eration or absorption.
There is a limited quantity of ethyl alcohol from a typical processing
plant. Incineration is accomplished by introducing ethyl alcohol fumes into a
boiler air supply or by passing the fumes through an afterburner.'2'171"183
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for the beer processing industry.
ysfat-r. T^fliiinHnna for No.w and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations arc patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
.type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochcmically
reactive solvent!? by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochcmically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of. the following t
VI-2
-------
A combination
esters, ether
olcfinic type
A combination
carbon atoms
8 per cent
A combination
hydrocarbon
20 per cent
of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
s or kctoncs having an olefinic or cyclo-
of unsaturation: 5 per cent
of aromatic compounds with eight or more
to the molecule except: ethylbenzene:
of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
tructures,trichloroethylcne or tolunc:
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. Th~sc limitation;; are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochcmically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive .
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Feelera_l_ Re_gji.stj3r_, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemical].)' reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
Vinlngr-v.Ti-oil hydrocarbons s perrhl orocthylonc, benzene, aretone and c^-r.^n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control lias been
demonstrated the regulation-has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
stales such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table VI-2 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for beer processing.
TABLE VI-2
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM BEER PROCESSING
Type of Operation and Control
Beer Processing, Uncontrolled
Boer Processing, Incineration
%
Control
0
97
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 16.1 tons/hour)
Ihs/lir "
42.3
.42
kp,/hr
19.2
.19
Hydrocarbon ],imi tntions
Ibs/lir
Heal ed
3/1.4
3/1.4
kf;/l»r
Unhc.iLcd
8/3.6
8/3.6
VI-3
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations,: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, but large processes such as beer
processing can be controlled with incineration to meet emission limitations as
described in Section D, For beer processing manufacture to meet the 3 Ib/hour limi-
tation, 81% control efficiency must be maintained* Existing control technology
is adequate for beer processing manufacture to be in compliance with state regu-
lations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G, References?
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on beer processing Include
the following:
1. Danielson, J. A., Mr Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition) , EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
3. Impact of NewSource Performance Standardson1985 National Emissions
fromStationary Sources, Volume II, Beer Processing, pp. 4, 6, 7.
4. Analysis of Final_S_tate Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations.
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VI-4
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Cotton Ginning
C. Source Description;
Cotton ginning separates the constituents of freshly harvested cotton. After
harvesting, the cotton is made up of the following materials:
1. cotton fiber,
2. cotton seed,
3. hulls,
4. sticks and stems, and
5. leaf and dirt.C1)22(2)30
The percentage of each of the five material:; to the total varies with the
harvesting method, and '.he ginning process varies depending upon the harvesting
method. O)2-7-2-20 (2>29,39
Until World War li, cotton was picked by hand. After World War II, the cotton
industry Began to mechanize in earnest. Today, most cotton is machine picked.
Cotton picking is comprised of five categories:
1. hand picked,
2. hand snapped,
3. machine picked,
4. machine stripped,
5. machine scrapped.
Cotton ginning is a multistep process and has three major variations as
detailed below:
COTTON PROCESSING
Step
Hand Picked
Machine Picked
^Machine or Hand Snapped
1. Unloading by Suction
Telescope
2. Initial Cleaning in
Separator
3. Drying in Tower
Dryer
4. Cleaning in Multi-cyl-
inder Cleaner
5. Cotton and Seed Sep-
arated in Gin Stand
6. Finished Product
Available
Unloading by Suction
Telescope
Initial Cleaning in
Separator
Drying in Tower Dryer
Boll Removal in "Boll
Trap"
Cleaning in a Multi-
Cylinder Cleaner
Additional Drying in
Tower Dryer
Unloading by Suction
Telescope
Initial Cleaning in
Separator
Boll Removal in "Boll
Trap"
Cleaning by "Airline
Cleaner"
Drying in Tower Dryer
Cleaning in a Multi-
cylinder Cleaner
(cont.)
VI-5
-------
Step
Hand Picked
Machine Picked
Machine or Hand Snapped
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Additional Cleaning in
Multi-cylinder Cleaner
Cotton and Seed Sep-
arated in Gin Stand
Finished Product
Available
Removal of Burrs by
"Burr Machine"
Stick Removal by "Stick
Remover"
Additional Drying in
Tower Dryer
Additional Cleaning in
Multi-cylinder Cleaner
Cotton and Seed Separated
in Gin Stand
Cleaning of Lint Cotton in
Lint Cleaners & Condensers
Finished Product Available
Cotton gin capacity may be as high as 30 bales/hour, and emission controls
equipment may account for 3% to 10% of the facilities purchase price.
D. Emission Rate;
Particulate emissions from the cotton ginning process occur at a multitude of
locations throughout the process. The discharge points are detailed in the following
flow diagram:
ICUA
•UIMMC
.ruria
r"
m i. mr
I
'«;::ir
ru
r*»
MATUVU.T.
l««n.
'""("IK".
ru
•uutivuk
-
MAIN
CLU.1t*
t
•TICK i igi«
tlUI.L-11
)U1K
ClUWI
rwiiouu
HioiAm:
10
t tin
f
MJ. TUT
1
-« —
UT1
n.
*cMt
a.r.n
h
i
ur
CLlAJUU
»n AIK PUCK
VACU^I MX
"""
f
* _,
.rMTICVUTf
1 •ISCHMWE
4""*%~
POT All UIU
CIV ITAMll
-
t
»«M
ru
— r-fc,- n»i.i rent »*tt
»IIi»»KU
T
— • -
yitiute VI-7i Cotton Cinninr.
VI-6
-------
In addition to the discharge points given in the above diagram, particulate
emissions from the. cotton ginning process can also be attributed to:
1. transfer equipment,
2. trash house,
3. incineration of trash, and
4. blown dust from improperly
composted gin trash. 0)3~8
The actual particulate emission rate is a function of many variables including
type of cotton, harvest time, and technique used. Typical emission rates for a
specific gin are detailed in the following table:
TABLE VI-3
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS - MACHINE PICKED,COTTON*.') 3"1*
Type of
Operation 4 Cont.ol
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unloading, Controlled
Multlcylinder Cleaner &
Stick Machine, Uncontrolled
Multlcylindcr Cleaner &
Stick Machine , Controlled
Multicylindcr Cleaner
Uncontrolled
Multicyllnder Cleaner
Controlled
TV3-I, r.l.1. Hi. ,,„:;.. -.11-.!
Trr.-!i Far, C'.r.iroll art
No. 1 Lint Cleaners,
UnconrroJ led
No. 1 Lint Cleaners,
Controlled
No. 2 Lint Cleaners,
Uncontrolled
No. 2 Lint Cleaners,
Controlled
Battery Lint Cleaners,
Uncontrolled
Battery Lint Cleaners,
Controlled
Lint CU-.-.ner Haste,
Uncontrolled
Lint Cleaner Waste
Controlled
%
Control
0
90
0
90
6
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Ih/ton
21.6
2.16
0.56
0.056
0.32
0.032
O.f.i
0.064
55.7
5.57
22.5
2.25
8.4
0.84
10.2
1.02
kg/ton
10.3
1.03
0.28
0.028
o.r>
0.015
0. 3?
0.0)2
27.9
2.79
11.3
1.13
4.2
0.42
5.1
0.51
Ib/bale
5.41
0.54]
0.14
0.014
O.OB
0.008
0.16
0.016
13.92
1.39
3.62
0.562
2.10
0.210
2.55
0.255
kg/bale
2.46
0.246
0.064
0.0064
0.037
0.0037
r.C7.1
0.0073
6.33
0.633
20.55
0.255
0.955
0.0955
1.16
0.116
Ib/hr
54.1
5.4
1.4
0.]
0.8
0.1
3.-S
0
139.
13.9
56.2
5.6
21,0
2.1
25.5
2.6
ks/hr
24.6
2.5
0.6
0.06
0.4
0.04
0.7
0.07
63.3
6.3
25.5
2.6
9.6
1.0
11.6
1.2
Based on 10 bales/hr of lint cotton at 500 Ibs/bale of lint cotton
E. Contrql Egu ipmen.t:
Many types of equipment arc used to control emissions from the cotton ginning
process. Equipment, selected will to some extent depend on whether or not an exist in]
gin is being retrofitted or if a new gin is to be constructed.
Presently at least six (6) types of equipment are used in controlling emissions
from gins, including:
1. settling chambers,
2. large diameter cyclones,
3. small diameter cyclones,
4. filters,
5. baghouses, and
6. screen wire lint cages. ^ )t*~1~'t~5
VI-7
-------
Settling chambers find some use on existing gins but are not recommended
for new gins because of the difficulty of maintaining the chambers and their
relatively large size, f1)1*""1
Large diameter cyclones are no longer used because they are not as ef-
ficient as the small diameter cyclones. The large diameter cyclone has been
used with a degree of success on older gin facilities; however, the small
diameter cyclone is only used to control emissions from the high pressure air
discharges of a gin. Tests on small diameter cyclones show they are about
99% efficient. I1**'2 • 2 »-38
The low pressure air discharges of a gin facility may be controlled using
various types of filters, including in-line filters located in duct work con-
sisting of fine mesh wire screen. Another type of filter is similar to that
just described but instead of a wire mesh as the filtering medium, foam pads
are used. The pressure drop through the foam is quite high, and cleaning of
the foam is difficult,
Baghouses can be used to control particulate emissions from the low
pressure portion of new cotton gins. Installation and maintenance are expensive
however. W-Z-*-*
Lint cages consist of a cage made of wire screen and placed over the low
pressure exhaust system. In-line filters have generally replaced the lint
cages. C1)"-5
Two new systems are being developed. One is for trash handling, the small
diameter trash system, and the monoflow system for handling almost all gin
emissions simultaneously. •
The small diameter trash system reduces the amount of air required in
handling gin trash by about a factor of 10. In reducing the volume of air
used, the amount of air that has to be cleaned is also reduced. C1)1*"5
The monoflow system was developed at the USDA Mesille Park Laboratory.
In the monoflow system, the air follows the cotton through most of the ginning
process. Some of the air is cycled through the system more than once and before
discharge to the atmosphere is cleaned by small-diameter cyclones and in-line
filters. 0)«*-5-«»-6
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for cotton ginning.
jT
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
gypsum production. The four types of regulations are based on;
VI-8
-------
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3, gas volume,
4. process weight,
Concentration Basis ; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry stan-
dard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these five
states are:
Alaska - 0,05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania -* 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains /dry standard cubic foot, when
gas voluaies exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.1A grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
- Control E f f i c iency Basis ; Utah requires gcmcral process industries to
maTntain .......... 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basj-sj Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of -pounds/hour for specific flop rates expressed in actual cub'rc
feet per uiluate. The-. Te^as limit at iuab IGJ. yarliculaLes are as lollowb;
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.11 Ibs/hr
105 - '106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Wcjgbt Rate Basis far New _Sources: Several states have general
process limitations for new sources. For new sources with a process
weight of 5000 Ibs/hr, Illinois is representative of the most
restrictive, 4.2 Ibs/hr (1.9" kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of the least restrictive, 9.4 Ibs/hr (4,3 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate BasijL for Existing Sources: The majority of states,
express particulate process limitations in terms of pounds per hour as
a function of a specific process weight rate. For a process weight
rate, of 5000 Ibs/hr, Colorado is representative of the most restrictive
limitation, 6.3 Ibs/hr (2.9 kg/hr) and Virginia is representative of
the least restrictive limitation, 7.6 Ibs/hr (3.4 kg/hr).
Weigh t_ Rate Ba_sis_ f gr^Sj^ec^ifj-C^ource^; Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina and Tennessee have specific regulations for cotton ginning.
Alabama's restriction for a 10 bale/hour operation is 7.7 Ibs/hr
(3.5 kg/ltr) . Georgia's restriction is 22,1 Ibs/hr (10.0 kg/hr),
Tennessee's restriction is 7.7 Ibs/hr (3.5 kg/hr) and South Carolina's
restriction is 14.4 Ibs/hr (6.5 kg/hr).
Table IV-4 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from cotton ginning,
VI-9
-------
TABLE VT-4
PARTICULATE Effi SS1OMS AND LIMITATIONS
FROM COTTON GINNING
Type of Operation
and Control
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unloadln;;, Controlled
Multicylimler Cleaner &
Stick Machine, fncon-
trollcd
i Kulti cylinder Cleaner t
Stick Machine, Con-
trolled
, llulticyllndcr Cleaner,
Uncontrolled
Multicylinder Cleaner,
Controlled
Trash Kan, Uncontrolled
"rash Fan, Controlled
No. 1 Lint Cleaner,
Uncontrolled
No. 1 Lint Cleaner,
Controlled
So. 2 Lint Cleaner,
Uncontrolled
No. 2 Lint Cleaner,
Controllad
Bactery Lint. Cleaner,
I'rcor.trolled
Battery Lint Cleaner,
Controlled
Lint Cleaner Waste,
Uncontrolled
I.fnr Cleaner Waste,
Controlled
Z
Control
0
90
0
SO
0
W
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
'JO
Emissions
Jbs/hr kp,/hr
54. 1 24.6
5.4 2.5
1.4 0.6
0.1 0.06
o.e 0.4
0.1 0.04
1.6 0.7
0.2 0.07
139. 63.3
13.9 6.3
56.2 25.5
5.6 2.6
21.0 9.6
2.1 1.0
25.5 11.6
2.6 1.2
Lln.lrattona Ibs/hr/kg/hr
N w Sources
1U. I 3.H.
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
«.:!/'.. 9
4. .'/1. 9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/l.S
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
Exist ine, Sources
Col.
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2. 9
Vir.
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
L't.
8.2/2.7
.2/.D9
.1/.05
7.6/3.4
. 7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4 •
7.6/3.4 •
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
6.3/2. 9 7.6/3.4
.2/.09
80.W9.5
8.4/3.8
3.2/1.5
3.8/1.7
Ala.
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
LS>_or;;la
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
7.7/3.5 22.1/:0.0
7.7/3.5
::.u/io.o
7.7/3.5 ;2-M/lC..O
7.7/3..1. ' 12.- '" .'1
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.V3.I>
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.f
22.1/iO.O
22..1/10.C
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
22.1/iO.O
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
22. 1/10. C
:2._-jo.:
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Cotton ginning opera-
tions are different from facility to facility and their emissions depend on the
quality of the harvested cotton. From Table VI-4, it can be concluded that cotton
ginning operations need control to meet existing limitations. The Environmental
Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on cotton ginning
include the following:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Cotton Ginning Industry (Draft) ,
Environmental Engineering, Inc., EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-1A2, Task
Order No. 6, July 15, 1971.
2. Control and Disposal of Cotton-Ginning Wastes. National Center for
Air Pollution Control and Agricultural Engineering Research
Division, Public Health Service Publication #o. 999-AP-31, May 3 and
A, 1966.
VI-10
-------
A. Source Category; VT. Food and Agricultural Industry
B . Sub Category; Deep Fat Frying
C. Source Description:
The food processing industry uses deep fat frying to prepare potato chips,
frcnch fries, doughnuts, seafood, corn chips, extruded products, nut meats,
onion rings, fritters, chicken parts, and Chinese foods. During 1979, total
production of the above items was 7 x 109 pounds . ' *' 2~1+
The deep fat frying industry is divided into five categories according to
the following:
1. snack foods — potato chips, doughnuts, cheese and
corn chips, etc . ,
2. french fried potatoes,
3. seafood,
4. fried pies,
5. poultry parts, onion rings, Chinese
noodles and egg rolls, etc.
Deep fat frying is done in stainless steel vats that hold upwards of 200
cubic feet (^1500 gallons) . The oil in the vat is kept between 350°F and 400°F.
The raw food to be fried is lowered into the vat by a conveyor and the oil is
circulated in the vat with a stirring device or externally mounted pump. A
continuation of the conveyor system removes th.p fried f^orl and transports it to
Lhe packing
Not all foods that arc deep fat fried are cooked to completion by the frying
process. As an example, breaded fish products are cooked long enough to "set"
the breading. The fish itself is raw and must be cooked by the purchaser before
consuming.
The location of the various facilities for the five (5) previously mentioned
processing categories is not necessarily dependent upon population centers. How-
ever, for products that spoil easily, such as potato chips and doughnuts, pro-
cessing facilities are located near areas of high consumption (population centers)
Products that: are stored in a frozen state need not be manufactured near areas of
high consumption. In these cases, the processing facility is located near the
source of raw material.
Of the total yearly production of deep fat fried items, about 50% of the total
is attributed to potato chip and doughnut processing. '-1/ 2~1 Potato chip process-
ing is concentrated primarily in densely populated, industrial areas. About 72%
(1966) of the processing plants arc located in 5 of 9 regions of the United
States: (1)2-5,2-6 (East, North Central, Midwest, Midcentral, and West Coast)
A distribution of the deep fat frying industry by region is presented below:
VI-11
-------
Region
1. New England
2. East
3. North Central
4. Southeast
5. Midwest
6. Mid-central
7. Southwest
8. Rocky Mountain
9. West Coast
Percent of
National Production
8
18
15
8
17
12
8
4
10
The potato chips are cooked in vegetable oil and the type used depends upon
the season of the year. The two major types of oil are cottonseed and sunflower
seed oil. In 1970, approximately 432 x 106 pounds of potato chips^1'2"1* were
produced.
About 73% of doughnut production is consumed in the northeastern portion of
the country.O)2"7 Doughnuts are cooked in either vegetable oil or animal fat.
In 1970, 521 x 106 pounds of doughnuts were produced, and this required the use
of 130 x 106 pounds of oil and lard.
The other 50% of the deep fat fried industry is devoted to the other items
in the five previously mentioned categories. Seafood is usually fried in soy-
bean oil. Whenever animal fats are used for frying, they are generally hydro-
genated and deodorized. O)1-2 During 1970, the consumption of oil and fat from
all items except potato chips and doughnuts was 418 x 106 pounds.
The relative process weights for the five categories as well as oil/fat
types are detailed below: C1)2"1*
Category
Snack Foods -
Potato Chips
Doughnuts
Corn Chips
Total 1970
Production
960 x 106 Ibs
521 x 106 Ibs
155 x 106 Ibs
Type of
Oil/Fat
Ctnsd,Snfl Sd
Veg Oil.Anim Fat
Oil Fat Consumption
as Product Content
432 x 106 Ibs
130 x 106 Ibs
70 x 106 Ibs
French Fried
Potatoes
Seafood
Fried Pies
Poultry Parts,
Onion Rings,
Chinese Noodles,
Egg Rolls, etc.
1800 x 106 Ibs
443 x 106 Ibs
Soybean, Etc.
144 x 106 Ibs
30 x 106 Ibs
250 x 106 Ibs
VI-12
-------
D. Emission Rate;
Little quantitative information has been accumulated on hydrocarbon emissions
from the deep fat frying processes. During the cooking process, distillation of
the oils light ends occurs.^2'7" Particulate emissions consist of smoke from
overheated oil and droplets of oil. Particulate discharges occur during cooking
of high moisture content foods such as potatoes.(*'3~3>^)799-800
The amount and type of emissions from deep fat frying will vary with the equip-
ment used and the raw food to be fried. Raw food varies in moisture content from
about 10 percent for snack foods to a high of about 75 percent for potato chips
and french fries.^3~2>^7" Upon emersion into the hot (350°F to 400°F) oil,
the water in the raw food turns to steam and bubbles through the oil. This pro-
cess causes some of the oil to be "steam distilled ,"'2'^^
Estimated emission rates have been developed by assuning that the emission
rates will be similar to those for the manufacture of vegetable oil. The vegetable
oil emission factor is 38 Ib/ton of oil manufactured.
The amount of oi] absorbed by the various types of fo.id is given in tabular
form at the end of the preceding section. Assuming the hydrocarbon emission rate
of 33 Ibs/ton of vegetable oil, the following emis3ion rates are presented the
various food products^3'4 in Table VI-5.
TABLE VT-5
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DEEP FAT FRYING
Type cf Operation ant!
Control
Sriack Foods
Potato Chips, line on tiro lied
Potato Chips, Controlled
DcufthnuLs, Unconti oiled
Doughnuts, ConLrollcd
Corn Chips, Uncontrolled
Corn Chips, Controlled
Fr Fr Potatoes, Uncontrolled
Fr Fr Potatoes, Controlled
Seafood, Uncontrolled
Seafood, Controlled
%
Control
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
Hydrocarbon Fmissions
Ib/ton
17.1
.2
9.4
.09
17.2
.2
3.0
.03
2.6
.03
kp,/ton
8.6
.09
4.7
.05
8.6
.09
1.5
.02
1.3
.01
Ib/hr
102.6
1.0
4.7
.05
103.2
1.0
18.2
.2
1.9
.02
kg/hr
46.5
.5
2.1
.02
46.8
.5
8.3
.08
.9
.009
Based on
6 short ton/hr
5.4 metric ton/hr
.5 short ton/hr
.45 metric Lon/hr
6 short ton/hr
5.4 metric ton/hr
6 short ton/hr
5.4 metric ton/hr
0.75 short ton/hr
0.68 metric ton/hr
E. Con t r o ,1 E q u I pm en t:
Several types of control devices, either singly or in parallel with each
other, can be used to control hydrocarbon emissions. Equipment normally used,
Includes:
1. Afterburners,
2. Catalytic oxidizers,
3. Scrubbers.
VI-13
-------
The typical afterburner installation controls hydrocarbon emissions by oxi-
dizing the hydrocarbons in a flame and thereby converting the hydrocarbons to
acceptable hydrogen or carbon compounds. One drawback of this type of control
is that fuel must be purchased and burned in the afterburner.O)p5-5 pigure vi-8
shows a typical afterburner control system.
Fu«.l
Cool In?, Air
Mixing
Fuel-Gas
Combustion Chamber
Turbulent Tjtpanslon
Cor»pr*sslon
figure VI-8! Typlca 1 Hydrocarbon_Aft«burner_En 1 flutofl
Control Systcn for Control of. !l.vdrocarbon
rnlsalons
The catalytic oxidizer is similar to an afterburner in that the temperature of
the hydrocarbons is increased. At the proper temperature, the hydrocarbons are
oxidized. The process usually occurs in two steps. The first is to increase the
temperature of the entering hydrocarbons to 600 or BOOT by heating them in a burner
with fossil fuel. After this first heating the second step is to pass them through
a catalyst bed. Upon interacting with the catalyst, the hydrocarbons increase their
temperature and are thus oxidized. Catalytic oxidizers have several disadvantages
including initial cost, high maintenance costs, and generation of new compounds
that may be more troublesome than the original pollutants.'J »P5~3» 5~1*' A typical
catalytic oxidation process is outlined below.
llot Echauat Can
tooled
ItMt
Vl-f i Typlt-ftl fncalyi U o» Ijiat-r HydfocflfU«>ni !>Ji
TyiiTT« for Com rul >i rfyJFocA^.m
VI-1A
-------
Wet scrubbers are only practical for the removal of hydrocarbons that are
dissolved or condensed by the water. A major drawback to scrubbers is the disposal
of the contaminated wash water. This water/oil mixture must be suitably treated
before discharge.O>P5~2)
F. New Source Performance Standards and Emission Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No new source performance standards
have been proposed for the deep fat frying industry.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: No states have adopted regula-
tions to limit emissions from deep fat frying. States that have "odor" and "nui-
sance" regulations could enforce these to control sources with excessive emission.0,.
G. References:
To develop the information in this section concerning deep fat frying hydro-
carbon emissions, the following references were used:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
formance for NP.W Sources, Deep Fat Frying, Walden Research Corporation,
EPA Contract CPA 70-165, Task Order No. 6~, October 1971.
2. Danielson, S. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
3. Eoppei, TauiiiHtv G., Impact ol New Source "erfon,!.-, LJ> e ntraridards o.v 19 "b
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Deep Fat Frying,
pp 1-4, 1-4.
4. ASHRAE Handbook & Product Directory ]975 Equipment, American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., New York,
N. Y., 1975.
VI-15
-------
A. Category: VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Direct Firing of Meats
C. Source Description;
The direct firing of meats is the process of using an open flame to
directly cook meat for human consumption. Charcoal broiling is one example
of direct firing of meats.C1)1
Natural gas, charcoal brickettes, or charcoal are the fuels used to supply
the necessary heat. Some'direct firing of meats also takes place on electric
grills. Some grilling operations use a special technique to simulate the effects
of charcoal using only natural gas as the fuel. In this technique, a bed of
blocks having a consistency similar to pumice are placed between the heat source
and the food to be cooked. The blocks act like charcoal.C5)^
Direct firing of meats does not occur on a continuous basis. In general,
there are two peak periods daily for direct firing of meats,, the first being
lunch time and the second dinner time.O)2
D. Emission Rate;
A typical direct firing operation emits both particulates and hydrocarbons.
The particulace emission rate for a typical Last food restaurant is presented
in Table VI-7, assuming that the restaurant is operated at peak capacity, 12
hours per day, 6 days per week, and 52 weeks yearly. (2)2
TABLE VI-7
fARTICUIATE EMISSIONS FROM DIRECT FIRING 0V MEATS
Type of
Operation & Control
Direct Firing of Meats:
Hardce's Hamburgers, Uncontrolled
Mardee'e Hamburgers, Scrubber
%
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions^3)
,_ (Based on Maximum Grill Capacity)
Ib/ton
NA
HA
kg/ ton
NA
NA
Ih/hr
0.63
0.063
kg/hr
0.29
0.029
Hydrocarbon emissions include methane, CH^, and aldehydes. The .hydrocarbon
emission rate was developed similarly to the particulate rate as shown in Table
VI-7A.
VI-16
-------
TABLE VI-7A
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DIRECT FIRING OF HEATS
Type of
Operation & Control
Direct Firing of Meats
Methane - CH^
Hardee's Hamburgers, Uncontrolled
Hardee'f, Hamburgers, Scrubber
Aldehydes
Hardee's Hamburgers, Uncontrolled
Hardee's Hamburgers, Scrubber
2
Control
0
90
0
57
Hydrocarbon Emissions OH.O*)*
(Based on Maximum Grill Capacity)
Ib/ton
NA
NA
NA
NA
kg/ ton
HA
NA
NA
NA
Ib/hr
1.50
.15
1.5
.6
kg/hr
.7
.07
.7
.3
E. Control Equipment;
Particulate matter has been controlled using a wet scrubber in the grill exhaust
system.(3)
The emission of hydrocarbons can be controlled in several ways. One system
presently being used is the oxidizer/scrubber.(3) Incineration can be employed
successfully, but due to -ffs expense, is seldom used.
F» New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
NewSourcePerformance Standards (HSPS): No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for direct firing of meats.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; No states have adopted par-
ticulate or hydrocarbon regulations specifically for direct firing of meats. How-
ever, states do have the option of enforcing "odor","nuisance" and opacity regulations
to regulate excessive emissions.
G, Re ferenc es;
References used in preparation of this summary on direct firing of meats
include the following;
1. Hopper, Thomas G., Impactof New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources,Volume II, Industrial
Factors, Direct Firing of Meats.
2. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact: of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National EmissionsfromStationary Sourcest Volume II, Emission
Factors, Direct Firingof Meats.
VI-17
-------
3. Final Emission Tests Report. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., Rocky Mount,
North Carolina, Commonwealth Laboratory, Project No. 7A-238-01,
March 18, 1974.
4. Emission Tests Report, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., Rocky Mount, North'
Carolina, Commonwealth Laboratory, Project No. 75-238-01, November
20, 1974.
5. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
VI-18
-------
A. Category: Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
C. Source Description;
The milling of cereal grains in the preparation of animal feeds is a multistep
process. The objective of milling is reduction of whole cereal grain kernels into a
predetermined-sized particle and seed portions. A typical cereal grain seed is
composed of gluten, germ, and bran. (^) *93
Gluten is grain protein. Germ is the seed of the grain, and bran is the outer
skin of the grain. C2)19 3
In preparing the grain for animal feed production, several steps are required.
The grain is first unloaded into storage bins. After being taken from the bins,
the grain is cleaned.
198
The milling operation is accomplished in a hammer mill. As the grain
passes through the hammer mill, it is struck by a multitude of swiftly moving
hammers and plates. After being pulverized, the grain is screened to obtain a
uniform size. Other types of mills are sometimes used, including the attrition
mill and roller mill. (2)198-200,3
After inillU.no., the grain as mixed with other grains and materials to form
a mixture of up to about 50 different components that form the animal f eed. (2) 200~20
Much animal feed is bonded together in tiny pellets. The pellets ensure that
the animal consumes the correct proportion of nutrients. The milling process is
described figuratively in Figure VI-LO.
l "-?-° l
BOX CAP,
w.c"ivn<.
Kli.il :•,-.
n
IIOI'ITI', CAK
VI-19
-------
D, Emission Rate;
Partlculate emissions attributed to milling are primarily a result of hand-
ling raw grain. C1)25* (3) 3-63-3-66 (C2)-225
TABLE VI-9
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FEED MILLING
Type of
Operation & Control
Milling, Uncontrolled
Milling, Hoods &
Cyclones
%
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 5.1 tons/hr)
Ib/ton
3.1
0.31
kg /ton
1.6
.16
Ib/hr
15.8
1.6
kg/hr
7.2
.7
E. Control Equipment;
Control equipment used for reduction or elimination of particulate emissions
during grain milling vary depending on location and type of discharge. Hoods may
be used to collect escaping products during milling operations, while direct
discharges to the atmosphere are controlled via cyclones or fabric filters. O)2**i (2)225
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);
have been promulgated for feed milling.
No New Source Performance Standards
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to feed milling.
The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency, *
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
VI-20
-------
Concent rat ion_ B a _si. s; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0,20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dsefra
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot
New Jersey - 0,02 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic Zoot
Iowa has a regulation specifically for grain processing:
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin has a regulation specifically for grain processing:
Wisconsin - 0.4 Ibs/1000 Iba gab
Control E f f i c i ency B a s i s: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
€as Volume Bagjs!- Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for_ New Spurges; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 10,200 Ibs/hour. For new sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 5.1
Ibs/hr (2.3 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 12.4 Ibs/hr (5.6 kg/hr).
Z£g^gssJj^i£ht_RateJ3a.sis. for Exist inj^ojjrcesj The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 10,200 Ibs/hr, Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 9.9 Ibs/hr (4.5 kg/hr) and Virginia ia
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 12.2 Ibs/hr (5.5 kg/hr)
frot/feed 68*1" C°ntr°lled 3nd Controlled emissions and limitations
VI-21
-------
TABLE VI-10
PAOTI01LATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM FEED HILLING
Type of
Operation & Control
Milling, Uncontrolled
Hilling, Hoods &
Cyclones
Z
Control
0
90
Emissions
(Based on S.I Ibn/hr)
Ibs/hr kR/hr
15.8 7.2
1.6 .7
Limitations Ibs/hr / kg/hr
New Sources
MA
5.1/2.3
5.1/2.3
NH
12.4/5.6
12.4/5.6
Exist in?. Sources
CO
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
Vir.
12.2/5.5
12.2/5.5
UT 85X
2.4/1.1
2.4/1.1
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hood and cyclones
are necessary to control feed milling operations to within existing particulate
limitations
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used in preparation of this summary on feed milling includes the
following:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Grain Handling & Milling Industry (Draft),
Environmental Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists,
Inc., EPA, Contract'No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 4, July 15, 1971.
2. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
3. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules
for Air Pollution Sources, PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0607, July 1973.
4. Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., EPA, Contract No. EHSD 71-36, October 2, 1971.
VI-22
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Fertilizer-Ammonium Sulfate
C. Source De s c rip t ion ;
Ammonium sulfate, (NHi+)2 S04 , is a solid, crystalline salt used primarily as
a fertilizer. It is also used in water treatment, pharmaceuticals , fermentation,
food processing, fireproof ing, and tanning. ^3' Ammonium sulfate is produced
according to the following reaction:
2NH2
(NHi+)2SOi+
The production of ammonium sulfate is usually a by-product of some other
manufacturing process. One of the largest single sources of ammonia for the
manufacture of ammonium sulfate is coke manufacturing. The ammonia is re-
covered by absorption in dilute sulfuric acid. After combining with the
sulfuric acid, the ammonia is recovered as ammonium sulfate.
Ammonium sulfate is recovered during the manufacture of hydrogen cyanide
by the Andrussow process. The. Andrussow process utilizes methane, ammonia, and
air to produce the hydrogen cyanide. Unreactea ammonia from the process i<-. re-
covered by stripping the product stream with sulfuric acid, thus forming amonium
sulfate. ^
D. Emission Rates;
It is assumed that 1% of the ammonium sulfate produced each year ends up
as particulate emissions during the packaging process. (2)11+7
Particulate emission rates are presented in Table VI-11.
TABLE VI-11
1'ARTTCULATE EM] SSIONS JPROM.
AMMONIUM SUM'ATE FERTILIZER MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation d Control
Ammonium Sulfate,
Uncontrolled
Ammonium Sulfate,
Wet Scrubber
%
Control
0
95
Particulate Emissions
Ib/ton
20
1
kf;/ton
10.0
0.5
(bnsed on 17 tons/In-)
Ib/hr
334
16.7
kp./lir
159
7.6
VI-23
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Ammonium sulfate particles in a gas stream are removed with a wet scrubber
or cyclone. (**'*~2 Another method developed specifically for ammonium sulfate
removal is covered by U. S. Patent 3,410,054 and was developed by W. Deiters.
A sketch of the unit is provided below in Figure VI-6.
!RIVER
:NLET
/• PROPELLER FOR ROTATING GAS
DRIVE SHAFT
HORIZONTAL
ROTATING AT 2000
TO 4000 M/M1N
OUTER SHELL
SETTLING CHAMBER
DISCHARGE TUBE
Figure VI-6:
Device for Agglomeration, of Ammonium Sulfate Particles in a
Gas Stream. Patent No. 3,410,054 by W. Deiters
Under suitable conditions, this ammonium sulfate particulate collector discharges
a gas that is completely free of the sulfate. This assumes that the inlet gas is
a dry air — NH_ mixture and finely distributed ammonium sulfate aerosal.C1)17°~172
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for ammonium sulfate manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are
applicable to ammonium sulfate production.
VI-24
-------
The four types of regulations are based on:
1, concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Con c en tration Bag is; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express participate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry stan-
dard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these five
states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0,02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0,10 grains/dry standard.cubi foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control EffAciency _Ba p.'l °* Utah requires g^nev^.i process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour .for specific flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 , - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Pro_cess Weight Rate for_New Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 34,000 Ibs/hr. For new sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
12.3 Ibs/hr (5.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 26.5 Ibs/hour (12.0 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate for Exist ing^..Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hour for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process
weight rate of 34,000 Ibs/hour, Colorado is representative of a
most restrictive limitation, 20.8 Ibs/hr (9.4 kg/hr) and Virginia is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 27.3 Ibs/hr
(12.4 kg/hr).
VI-25
-------
Table VI-12 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions from ammonium sulfate production.
PABTICyiJ.TF. EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR
_AHMONfUH Sl'l.FAJE PRODUCTION
Type of Operation
Affinoniun Sulfate, Uncontrolled
Aanonlua Sulfate, Het Scrubber
Z
0
95
Emissions
(based on 17 tons/hr)
334.
16.7
Kg/nr
159.
7.6
Limit
Kew Sources
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
HH
26.5/12.0
26.5/12.0
itions Ibs/hr/kjj/hr
Exist ina Sources
Col.
20.8/9.4
20.8/9.4
_Vir.
27.3/12.4
27.3/12.4
UT 85% Control
50.1/22.7
" _
PotentialSource Compliance andEmission Limitations; Ammonium sulfate pro-
duction described in Section D, producing 17 tons/hr, requires a control device
such as a wet scrubber to meet current particulate limitations.
The Environmental Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on ammonium sulfate
include the following;
1. Jones, H. R., Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry,
Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
2. Particulate PollutantSystem Study. VolumeI - Mass Emissions. Midwest
Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, August 1, 1971.
3. Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute.
4. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact ofNew Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from StationarySources, Volume II - Emission Factors,
Ammonium Sulfate.
5. VAir Pollution Problems at a Proposed Merseyside Chemical Fertilizer
Plant; A Case Study," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 2, pp. 35-48,
Pergamon Press, 1968.
6. Jones, H. R., Fine Dust and ParticulateRemoval. Pollution Control
Review No. 11, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972. <
VI-26
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B, Sub Category! Fertilizer-Ammonium Nitrate
C» Source Description:
Ammonium nitrate, NH,NO«, is manufactured by neutralizing nitric acid with
liquid or gaseous ammonia. The nitric acid and ammonia are initially mixed in
a neutralizer. The following chemical reaction takes place inside the neutralizer:
HNO_ + NH_
3 3
,»
43
The process is diagrammed in Figure VI-2.
EXIT
(Ml., JilTRo'tr,' ox:DrM
• nT,cx;i:;; O
NKU1 ItALUKK
-WATER
w.iv.wos iwvnK j £a»~
r,;i,s:
II LATOR
A»IO::IH;: KITRATL TO ^^
i-., ^»—
iTOHA%" /»'^i) IJ'f ssA''IN*» *^
Figure VI-2: rroccss for the Hn.nuf«et_ure._qt_Aniaonton Nitrate
By Hcurrallgatlou of' Nitric__Acjld "*" '
The neutralizerfs liquid product is transferred to an evaporator. After evapor-
ation is completed, the ammonium nitrate is dried in a dryer« The by-
products from these two operations, nitrogen oxides, ammonium nitrate, water, and
ammonia are ducted to a wet scrubber.(2)x13-114 Tlie concentrated liquid ammonium
nitrate is turned into solid particles by a process called prilling, which consists
of air cooling liquid droplets of the ammonium nitrate as the droplets descend from
the top of a special tower. The solid particles of ammonium nitrate that collect
at the bottom of the tower are called prills.'5) The prills are dried further in a
dryer which receives its heat input from an oil or gas burner unit.
After the ammonium nitrate is dried, the particles are transferred to a gran-
ulator and then to storage and packaging. Particulate emissions are discharged from
the wet scrubber with the ammonia.
VI-27
-------
D. Emission Rate;
The emission rate of particulate matter from the manufacture of ammonium
nitrate arises from evaporation, prilling, and bagging.
The particulate matter discharged during the manufacturing process and
attributed to the evaporator is about 1 Ib/ton of end product. The largest
single source of particulate matter arising from the manufacturing process
is the dryer. The rate is about 12 Ib/ton of end product.
Some particulate matter is discharged during the bagging of the product.
The amount discharged is about 1 Ib/ton of end product. It can be assumed that
about 1% of all the ammonium nitrate manufactured each year is discharged to
the atmosphere, v1)^"6 The particulate emissions are tabulated below:
TABLE VI-15
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation & Control
Ammonium Nitrate Production
Evaporator, Uncontrolled
Evaporator, Wet Scrubber
Dryer, Uncontrolled •
Dryer, Wet Scrubber
Bagging, Uncontrolled
Bagging, Wet Scrubber
%
Control
0
901
0
901
0
901
Farticulate Emissions
(Based on 365 short ton/day)
Ibs/
Short Ton
10
1
120
12
10
1
kg/
Metric Ton
4.1
.4
49.7
5.0
4.1
.4
Ibs/
hr
152.
15.2
1830.
183.
152.
15.2
kg/
hr
69.
6.9
832.
83.2
69.
6.9
Assumed Value
E. Control Equipment
Control equipment consists of a wet scrubber through which the pollutants in
the gases from the neutralizer, evaporator/dryer, and priller are passed. In
addition to some particulate matter, the scrubber's .discharge also contains am-
monia and nitrogen oxides.
VI-28
-------
F, New Source PerformanceStandards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for the ammonium nitrate fertilizer production,
State Regulations for New andExisting Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates arc expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to ammonium nitrate manufacture. The four types of regulations are
based on:
1, concentration,
2, control efficiency,
3, gas volume, and
4, process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Bas 1 s; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet
per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.60 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific.Sources: Pennsylvania has a
regulation specifically for ammonium nitrate production. For a source
with a process weight rate of 15.2 tons/hour, the maximum allowable
emission is 0.9 Ibs/hr (0.4 kg/hr) from the granulator.
ProcessWeight Rate for New Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a proces weight
rate of 30,420 Ibs/hour. For new sources with this process weight
rate, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
11.2 Ibs/hr (5.1 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a
least restrictive limitation, 24.6 Ibs/hour (11.2 kg/hour).
Prqc_es_s__Wclght Rate Basis_for_ Existing. j,°".rcej.; The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hour for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
VI-29
-------
rate of 30,420 Ibs/hour, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 19.4 Ibs/hour (8.8 kg/hr) and Virginia is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 22.5 Ibs/hour (10.2 kg/hour).
Table VI-16 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions for ammonium nitrate.
TABLS VI-16
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS _ASD LIMITATIONS Fop
AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation
and Control
Ammonium Kitratc
Evaporator, Uncontrolled
Evaporator, Vet Scrubber
Dryer, Uncontrolled
Dryer, Wet Scrubber
Bagging, Uncontrolled
Bagging, Wet Scrubber
Z
Control
0
90
0
90
0
90
Emissions
Ibs/hr/kg/hr
152. /69.
15.2/6.9
1830. /832.
183. /83. 2
152. /69.
15.2/6.9
Limitations
New Sources
HA
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
NH
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
Existing Sources
Col.
19. */8. 8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
Vir.
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
VT 85Z
22.8/10.3
275. ,'125
22.8/10.3
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Table VI-16A presents
the degree of conLrol necessary for ammonium nitrate opprations as described
in Section D to be in compliance with the state regulations listed in Table
VI-16.
TABLE VI-16A
CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE FOR AMMONIUM NITRATE PRODUCTION
Type of Operation
Evaporator
Dryer
Bagging
% Control Necessary
MA
93
99
93
NH
84
99
84
Col.
87
99
87
Vir.
86
99
86
UT
85
85
85
Wet scrubbers are adequate control measures to reduce particulate emissions from
ammonium nitrate particulate operations below the most restrictive limitations. The
Environmental Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
/
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on ammonium nitrate
include the following:
VI-30
-------
1. Emission Standards for the Phosphate Rock Processing Industry, Consulting
Division, Chemical Construction Corporation, EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-156,
July 1971.
2. Jones, H. R., Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry,
Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
3. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards of 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Nitrate Fertilizers,
p. 4, The Research Corporation of New England, EPA, Contract 68-02-1382,
Task //3.
4. Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute.
5. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides from Stationary Sources, U. S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Pollution Control
Administration Publication No. AP-67, March 1970.
6. Air Pollution Problems at a Proposed Merseyside Chemical Fertilizer Plant,
A Case Study, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 2, pp. 35-48, Pergamon Press,
1968.
7. Jones, H. R., Fine Dust and Particulates Removal, Pollution Control
Review, No. 11, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
VI--31
-------
A. Source Category! VI Food and Agricultural Indus.try
B. Sub Category'_: Grain - Drying
C. Source Description;
Handling of grain in preparation for storage and processing is a complex
operation requiring several steps for completion. After the grain is harvested
and before it can be stored, it goes through the following seven-step procedure:
1. unloading from truck, rail, barge, ship,
2. cleaning,
3. drying,
4. turning,
5. blending,
6. separation, and
7. loading.<3>3~61 to 3-62
Grain received directly from the field contains up to 30 percent moisture.
If the moisture level is not properly controlled, the grain will spoil during
storage. To prevent spoilage, the moisture content of corn is lowered to about
15%, and with soybeans is lowered to about 1Q%.(2)3»8 The drying process is time
consuming because a typical dryer removes only about 5% moisture per pass.
Two types of dryers commonly used are the column aad the rack dryer.(2)8™9
Initially, moist grain is fed to the dryer and heated. The grain is moved
to another part of the dryer where it is allowed to cool. After cooling, the
grain is discharged from the dryer. Figure VI-3 presents a column dryer, and
Figure VI-4 presents a rack dryer.C2)8"9 The column dryer recirculates up to 60%
of the exhaust, and this reduces energy consumption and the volume of effluent.(2)6~9
D. Emission Rate;
Particulate emissions from drying grain are dependent upon the type of grain
and its dustiness.C?)20 Particulate is emitted to the atmosphere with the warm
moist exhaust gases. With rccirculation, the total particulate emitted from a
column dryer is less than from a rack dryer performing the same function. In
both cases, the discharges are composed of similar materials but in different
proportions.(2)21
Particulate emissions from drying corn consist of grain dust and the
outer filmy skins of the kernels, called "bee's wings." The bee's wings are
heavy and large compared to the grain dust and make up the majority of the
visible particulate emissions from drying.(2)20 Particulate emissions from
drying soybeans consist of hulls, cracked grain, weed seeds, and field dust.(2)20-21
Table VI-17 presents the emissions from grain drying with column and rack dryers.
VI-32
-------
HOIST GRAIN IN
roR<:r.n AIR
GRAIN RKCKIVINC GARNER
DRY GRAIN Oil
SFCT10N
COOI.KR SUCTION
Figure Vl-3; TYIIlent Column Dryor llBod In Hrylnc r.rnhi
WAKM AIR
1NLL.TS
MOISTURE-LADEN
AIR OUT
BAFFLli
FiRiirc VI-A; Typical Rack Dryer Used in Drying Cm in
VI-33
-------
TAHLE VI-I7
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM GRAIN DRYING
Type of
Operation & Control
Grain Drying, Column
Dryer, Uncontrolled
Grain Drying, Reclr-
culatlng Column-
Dryer
Grain Drying, Rack
Dryer
Z
Control
0
40-93
0
Particulate Emissions
•(Based on 60 tons/hr)--
lb/
ton grain kg/ton
0.3 -0.5 0.15-0.25
0.02-0,3 0.01-0.15
0.5 -0.7 0.25-0.35
.1b/hr kg/hr
20-30 9.1 -13.6
1- 5 0.46- 2.3
30-40 13.6 -18.2
E« Control Equipment;
The emissions from a dryer contain moist air and participates which
agglomerate and form cakes on surfaces. Because drying of grain is a seasonal
operation, control of particulate emissions is accomplished using low-cost
scfpen yysfeino. Sc-ree.ua 11 mi I thr- aizf: of part.ir.lr:.'-, dir.cliargad, which reduces
particulate emissions. The dust-laden exhaust gases are passed through a wire
screen device (24 mesh to 50 mesh) at velocities up to several hundred feet per
minute. Since the screens collect large amounts of dust over a very short time
period, the screens are cleaned automatically with a "vacuum head." Continuous
movement of the vacuum head over the screen allows for the dust build-up to be
continuously removed.
The vacuum's flow rate is about 10% of the dryer discharges. The vacuum
exhaust is cleaned using either a high efficiency cyclone or recycling through
the dryer. 0)03)3-6 7 to 3-68
Systems that concentrate particulate in the area adjacent to the screens
are also in use. Vacuum systems are used to pick up the concentrated particu-
late, but the screens do not require continuous cleaning.
Because of the moisture content of the exhaust gases, fabric filters are
not used.O81)
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for grain drying.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates arc expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to grain
drying. The four types of regulations are based on:
VI-34
-------
I. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a limitations specifically for grain processing.
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin has a limitation specifically for grain processing
Wisconsin - 0.4 lbs/1000 Ibs gas
Control Efficiency Dasis: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis Specifically^ for Grain Drying; Pennsylvania has
a regulation specifically for grain drying. For the 60 tons/hour
process outlined in Section D, an emission rate of 39.3 Ibs/hour (17.8 kg/hr)
is the maximum allowable.
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources^; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process
weight rate of 60 tons/hour. For new sources with this process weight
rate, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
20.0 Ibs/hr (9.1 kh/hr) and Georgia is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 40.0 Ibs/hr (18.1 kg/hour).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of Ibs/
hour for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
VI-35
-------
rate of 60 tons/hour, Wisconsin is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 33.0 Ibs/hour (15.0 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 63.7 Ibs/hr (28.9 kg/hr).
Table VI-18 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions from grain drying.
TABLE VT-18
FARTICUIATE EMISSIONS AMP LIMITATION'S FROM GRAIN DRYING
Type of
Operztlon d Control
Grain Drying, Colunti
Dryer, Uncontrolled
Grain Drying, Recir-
culating Column
Dryer
Grain Dryinc. %ack
Dryer
X
Control
0
40-93
0
Eaissions
Ibs/hr
20-30
1- 5
30-40
kg/nr
9.1 -13.6
.46- 2,3
13.6 -18.2
Limitation* Ibp/hr / kg/hr
1'A
39,3/17,8
39.3/17.8
39.3/17,8
_Kew Sour
MA
20.0/9.1
20. 0/9,1
20.0/9.1
cen
Ccorgia
40.0/18.1
40.0/18.1
40.0/18.1
Existlne bovirrt?s
Via
33.0/15.0
33.0/15,0
33.0/15,0
UT HS,, MI* »
3.0
3.0
3.0
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
PotentialSource Compliance and Emission Limitations; For a 60 ton/hr drying
process described in Section D, a recirculating dryer is required to meet the most
stringent regulation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
^* References:
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on grain drying include
the following:
1. Aften, Paul W., Thimsen, Donald J., "Proposed Design for Grain Elevator
Dust Collection," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
pp 738-742, Vol. 18, No. 11, November 1968.
2. (Draft Copy) B a ck gjro und Info rm a t ion for Est abl i shme n t oj: Na t ion a 1 S t and a r d s
of Performance For New Sources, Grain Handling and Milling Industry, by
Environmental Engineering, Inc., and PEDCO Environmental Specialists,
Inc., July 15, 1971, for EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 4.
3. Technical Cuidelines for Review and Evaluationof Compliance Schedules
for Air Pollution Sources by PEDCO, Environmental Specialists, Inc. ,
Suite 13, Atkinson Square, Cincinnati, OH, 45246, EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607, Tasks, July 1973.
VI-36
-------
A, Source Category;VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Grain Processing
C. Source Description;
Handling of grain In preparation for storage is a multistep operation.
After the grain is harvested, it goes through the following seven-step opera-
tion:
1, unloading - truck, rail, barge, ship,
2. cleaning,
3. drying,
4. turning,
5. blending,
6. separation, and
7. loading.
Several of these are discussed in other sections.
Grain processing includes milling and starch extraction.^' The grain
processing operation consists of the following steps:
1. milling (grinding),
2. separating,
3. mixing, and
4. storage-packaging.
The milling operations reduce grain into endosperm, bran, and germ. The
reduced endosperm becomes flour, and the germ, bran, and remaining endosperm
are used in the manufacture of animal feed. The grinding operation uses large
roller-mills specially designed for grain milling.
During the grinding process, the grain constituents are separated mechanically
so that the endosperm, bran, and germ are stored separately. The milling process
is graphically illustrated in Figure VI-5.
Starch extraction uses dent corn as its basic raw material. The first step
is removal of foreign material, and then the corn is softened by soaking in a
solution of warm water and sulfurdioxide.
Next, the corn is milled into germ and hull components. Then, the mixture
of starch, gluten, and hulls are finely ground and screened. The starch and
gluten are then separated using centrifuges.C2)6'11'6"12 The cornstarch is
further refined and packaged. See Figure VI-5,
D. Emission Rate;
Because of the value of milled grain, little is allowed to escape (during
the milling process) as particulate pollutants, Particulate emissions attrib-
uted to milling are primarily a result of handling raw grains.(l)25C*)3-63-3-66
( 5 ) V— 16 ,
VI-37
-------
UnfAlOl
j
fROPVCf ClttTNOL
i
ICPARAtOR
\
•»«"«
i
(ISC IUAUTOI
1
KOUaU
1
IHCItllC II7AMTOI
r
I
Ttnri.iiw
icvi«i:
FUJI IUAX
r
t i i
tirti:«
t
nminci
J
'
r»iriu
>IOU«
1
MWCIM
, , tWMTI
UDUCItiC 1011.1
<•
(IftU
t
KmriU
ULU
•
nrrt«
I 1
J
rnifiu
-rwu.
f
CCIL1 ML LI
1
•UACHIJC
— $«o«n
^IUX1»
"NlOW
limn
1 '
•nut tiniACi
[1H1C
»
iuut n
t t
umiic UIL
4(1«
1.IVOT
nL
Figure VI-5; Flour Milling
The emissions rates for processing grain and starch extraction are detailed
in Table VI-19.
Starch extraction releases dust at several points in the process, and their
collective emissions are summarized in Table VI-19.
TABLE VI-19
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM GRAIN PROCESSING
Type of
Operation & Control
Milling, Uncontrolled
Milling, Hoods &
Cyclones
Starch Extraction,
Uncontrolled
Starch Extraction,
Centrifugal Gas
Scrubber
%
Control
0
90
0
97
Partlculate Emissions (*)
Ib/ton
3.1
0.31
8
.24
kR/ ton
1.5
.15
3.64<
.11
Ibs/hr
158
15.8
26,400
792
kg/hr
79*
7.9*
12,040**
359**
*Ba«ed on 51 ton/hr. **Based on 3,300 ton/hr.
VI-38
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Control equipment used for reduction or elimination of particulate emissions
during milling vary depending on location and type of discharge.
Hoods are used to collect the escaping product during some milling operations
while direct discharges to the atmosphere are controlled via cyclones.(O24
Starch extraction emission controls are similar to controls used during milling
operations previously discussed. The emission rates given in Table VI-19 use a
centrifugal gas scrubber. (AP-^G-ll ,6-12
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for grain processing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources! Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the grain
processing. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emission limi-
tations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Iowa - 0.15 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Wisconsin - 0.4 lbs/1000 Ibs gas
VI-39
-------
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions*
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 51 tons/hour and 3,300 tons/hour. For a source with a process
weight of 51 tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 22.9 Ibs/hr (10.4 kg/hr) and Georgia is
representative of a lea:-t restrictive limitation, 44.8 Ibs/hr (20.3 kg/hr).
For sources with a process weight of 3300 tons/hr virtually all the
states have a process limitation of 94.1 Ibs/hr (42.7 kg/hr). New Hampshire
and Georgia are typical of states that have particulate limitations
for such large sources.
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources,; The majority of states
express process limitciLions for existing sources in terms of Ibs/hr for
a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of 51
tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
32.5 Ibs/hr (14.7 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 57.2 Ibs/hr (25.9 kg/hr). For a process weight
rate of 3300 tons/hr, Indiana is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 94.1 Ibs/hr (42.7 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 876 Ibs/hr (397 kg/hr).
Table VI-20 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations for
grain processing.
TABLE VI-20
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM GRAIN PROCESSING
Type ol
Operation 4 Control
Milling, Uncontrolled*
Milling, Hoods &
Cyclones*
Starch Extraction,
Uncontrolled**
Starch Extraction,
Centrifugal Gas
Scrubber**
I
Control
0
90
0
97
Emissions
Ibs/hr kg/hr
158 79
15.8 7.9
26,400 12,040
792 359
Limitations Ibs/hr / kg/hr
New
MA
32.0/14.5
32.0/14.5
HH
94.1/42.7
94.1/42.7
GA
44.8/20.3
44.8/20.3
t>
Existins
UT 855!
23.7/24.2
-
3760/1796
-
CO
32.5/14.7
32.5/14.7
Ind.
94.1/42.7
94.1/42.7
Miss.
5?'.2/25.9
57.2/25.9
MISS
876/397
876/397
*B»s«d on 51 coni/hr. **Ba«ed on 3,300 tons/hr.
VI-40
-------
Potential _Soii_rce Conipliance_ and Emission LIinlt_atlonRt For grain processing
operations described in Section D, existing control technology Is marginal
to meet the most stringent limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G, References ;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on grain processing include
the following:
1 . Background Information for Establishment of National Standard of Performance
for New Source- s , Grain Handling & Milling ..iIndurstry__T_(Dr_af t_) , Environmental
Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc. , EPA, Contract
No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 4, July 15, 1971.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant, Emission Factors^ (Revised) , EPA, Publication
No. AP-42, February 1972.
3. First, M. W. , W. Schilling, J. H. Govan , A. H. Quinby, "Control of Odors and
Aerosols from Spent Grain Dryers," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associ
align. Volume 24, Number 7, July 1974.
4* Technical Guide f.Q'c Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Polly t ion Source s , PEDCO, Environmental Specialists," Inc. "," EPA ''"Contract"
No. 68-02-0607, July 1973.
5. Exhaust Gases _frpin Combustion and Industrial Proces_se_s_, Engineering Sciences,
Inc., EPA, Contract No. EHSD71-36, October 2, 1971.
6. Hopper, Thomas G. , Impact of Mew Source Performance Standards on .1935 Nat jonal
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Vol, II, Industrial Factors, Starch.
VI-41
-------
A. Source Category! VI Foodand Agricultural Industry
B. SubCategory; Grain - Screening and Cleaning
C. Source Pe s c ript ion;
Handling of grain in preparation for storage is a multistep operation. After
the grain is harvested, it goes through the following seven steps:
1. unloading - truck, rail, barge, ship,
2. cleaning,
3. drying,
4. turning,
5. blending,
6. separation, and
7. loading.(3)3-61,3-62
Several of these are discussed in other sections of this report.
The cleaning of grain removes foreign objects that are picked up during har-
vesting and handling. The cleaning is done in twd steps. First, the larger
foreign objects are removed by passing the uncleaned grain through coarse screens.
Second, an air aspirator removes chaff, fibers, and dust. The particles of
foreign material are entrained by the aspirator's air stream.C1)7-3 After these
two operationss the grain is graded by passing it through vibrating screens. C1) 7"~5
D. Emission Rate;
The particulate emission rate for cleaning and screening of grain is de-
pendent upon the type of grain being processed, arid to some extent, growing and
harvesting conditions. Typical emission rates for screen, cleaning, and associ-
ated operations are presented in Table VI-21.(2)
TABLE VI-2]
PARTTCULATF, EMISSIONS FROM GRAIN SCREENING AND CLEANING
Type of
Operation & Control
Cleaning, Screening, Uncontrolled
Cleaning, Screening, Controlled
by Cyclones
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unoladlng, Controlled
by Cyclones
%
Control
0
91
0
91
Particulate Emissions (As Grain Dust)(2)
(Based on 300 to 1500 ton/hr)
grain
Ib/ton
5
.45
1-2
.09-. 18
kg/ ton
2.3
.20
.45-.91
.04-. 08
Ib/hr
1500-7500
135- 675
300-3000
27- 270
kg/hr
680-3401
61- 306
136-1360
12- 122
VI-42
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Particulate emissions from cleaning and screening can be controlled by
cyclones or fabric filters. Since stringent control of particulate emissions
from grain handling operations will probably be required in the future, fabric
filters will be used. Fabric filters have an efficiency of 99 percent, while
cyclones are 91 percent efficient.(2)
In a typical collection system, the dust is removed from the processing
area by a special ventilation system. The exhaust of the ventilation system
is passed through a fabric filter system, and the cleaned gases are discharged
to the atmosphere.(^/ ,
F. New Source Performance Standards_ _and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for grain screening and cleaning.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to grain
screening and cleaning. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin, has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Wisconsin - 0.4 lbs/1000 Ibs gas ••
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process' industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
VI-43
-------
Gaa Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate. Basis Specifically for Grain Screening; Pennsylvania
has a regulation specii'icaJ ly for grain screening. For a 300 ton/hour
process outlined in Section D, an emission rate of 91.5 Ibs/hr (41.5 kg/hr)
is the maximum allowable. For a 1500 ton/hour process outlined in
Section D, an emission rate of 180 Ibs/hr (81.6 kg/hr) is the maximum
allowable.
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulare. emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 300 tons/hour and 1500 tons/hour. For sources with a process
weight rate of 300 tons/hour, Massachusetts is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 31.5 Ibs/hr (14.3 kg/hr) and Georgia is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 60.1 Ibs/hr (27.3 kg/hr).
For sources with a process weight rate of 1500 tons/hr„ New Hampshire is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 83.0 Ibs/hr (37.6 kg/hr)
and Georgia is representative of a least restrictive limitation of 85.2
Ibs/hr (36.6 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 300 tons/hr, .Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 43.1 Ibs/hr (19.5 kg/hr) and Mississippi is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 176.9 Ibs/hr (80.2
kg/hr). For a process weight rate of 1500 tons/hr, Indiana is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 85.2 Ibs/hr (38.6 kg/hr)
and Mississippi is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
534 Ibs/hr (242 kg/hr).
Table VI-22 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations
for grain screening and cleaning.
TABLE Vl-22
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM GRAIK SCREENING AND CLEANING
Type of Operation
& Control
Clc-intns i Scrucninp, , Uncontrolled
Cleaning & Screening, Cyclones
Unloading, Uw.or.i rolled
Unloading, Cyclones
Clc;inins 4 Scrvi'nir.e, Uncontrolled
Cleaning; & Scrcining, Cyclones
Unloading, Uncontrolled
UnloAdinc, Cyclones
X
Control
0
91
0
91
0
91
0
91
Emissions
lbs/lir/ks/lir
(based on iOO tons/hr)
1500/680
135/61
300/136
27/12
(haded on ' 500 ton.s/hr)
7500/340-
675/306
3000/1360
?70/122
Limitations lbs/hv/U:-,/hr
New
MA
31.5/14.3
31.5/J4.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
Nil
83/37.6
83/37.6
83/37.6
83/37.6
CA
60.1/27.3
60.1/27.3
60.1/27.3
60.3/27.3
CA
85.2/30.6
85.2/36.6
85.2/36.6
85.2/36.6
Existi-.iR
UT
225/102
225/102
45/20.4
45/20.4
UT
1125/510
1125/510
450/204
450/204
Col .
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
Ind.
85. 2/38. t
85.2/38.6
85.2/38.6
85.2/38.6
Miss.
176.9/80.2
176.S/S0.2
176.9/80.2
176.9/G0.2
Hiss.
5 34/2-', 2
534/242
534/242
534/242
VI-44
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: For the grain
screening and cleaning operation described in Section D, existing control
technology is adequate to meet current limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References!
References used in preparation of this summary on grain cleaning and screening
include the following:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Grain Handling & Milling Industry (Draft),
Environmental Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc.
2. Thimsen, D. S., P. W. Aften, A Proposed Design for Grain Elevator Dust
Collection, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 18,
Number 11, November 1968.
3. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for
Air Pollution Sources, PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. 68-02-0607, July 1973.
VI-45
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category: Vegetable Oil Manufacturing
C. Source Description:
Many types of vegetable oils are manufactured for the food and other industries.
Vegetable oil not consumed by the food industry is used in the manufacture of
paints. C*)6-l^3 j^e major vegetable oils include:
1. soybean,
2. cottonseed,
3. corn,
4. linseed,
5. peanut, and
6, safflower oil
in order of quantities produced yearly.^1'1"2
Processing vegetable seeds into vegetable oil includes;
1. dehulling,
2, disintegration of seed meats,
3, cooking of meats, and
4. oil extraction. (' )"~- »2~5
After the seeds are cleaned, using air separators, screens and magnets, they are
dehulled. The dehulling increases the protein content of oil and the production
capacity. C1)2""5
The insides of the dehulled seeds, the meats, are crushed to allow for easier
processing. The crushing is usually done by a rolling process. The crushed seed
meats present the maximum surface area for the minimum volume to the extraction
process. (02~5
The cooking of the seed meats ruptures the oil cells and removes the liquid
fraction from the seed meats. O)2-5
The actual extraction of the oil is done in several manners depending upon the
type of oil being produced and the particular plant involved. (1)2-6
The oldest extraction process involves pressing the seeds in a screw press or
hydraulic press. Those plants utilizing presses for oil extraction are equipped
with continuous feed screw presses as opposed to the hydraulic press, which cannot
be continuously fed. The screw pressing process is detailed in Figure VI-ll/1)2"8*2
Oil extraction from soybeans utilizes a solvent extraction technique. Today
almost all vegetable oil, with the exception of cottonseed, is recovered by solvent
extraction. Solvent extraction diffuses solvent and oil through the cell walls of
the seed meats. (1)2-10
VI-46
-------
P RETREATED
OILSEED HEAT
C001.INT. WATER
\or. oti, IN
CAKE
i
SCRI:K:IIMC
1
RRI:;D;::C
FILTRATION
1
1
BACCZNC
CRUDE
OIL SIGRACE
Y
t
MEAL
TO OIL REFINING
.Figure VI-11; Continuous Feed Screw Prtsi for Oil Extraction
The solvent extraction process is either continuous or in batches. The two
different types of extraction employed include:
1. percolation extraction and
2. countercurrent extraction.
The usual solvent employed is hexane; however, trichloroethylene IB used in small
batch operations.W2~1°
The solvent is removed from the solvent-oil mixture in a long tube evaporator
and completed in a stripping column. About 90 percent of the solvent is removed
by the tube evaporator, and sparge steam is used in the stripping column to remove
the remainder of the_solvent. A typical solvent extraction process is diagrammed
VI-47
-------
tiEXAM VATOR
PROCESSES KLATS
0& UliPRZjSfci—2
CA2Z
>
F
SOLVENT
CONTACT TAIK
»"*AT< w^
MSCELUNEOUS ^_
EVAPORATOR
S7TM OR SCTKR-
STRlrriNG
COLCK
4
1 --- _ _
OIL TO BE
REF1XCD
T
CAXX TO U
MOWS
fltur< Vl-12i Conclnuoui rieu Solvent Extt«ctioiv_£l4f«»J
For VieetftMa Oil Ktnuf*ctur«
After the solvent has been recovered, the remaining mixture of vegetable
oil, free fatty acids, phosphatides, and other foreign matter is refined. The
refining process includes six steps:
1. Removal of color bodies by absorption in a process
requirinp, continuous mixing of heated oil in dilute
caustic soda.
2. Centrifuging the oil-reagent mixture in refined oil
and soap stock,
3. Secondary refining of oil by mixing the heated oil
with hot water and centrifuging the mixture to
remove remaining soap stock.
A. Vacuum drying of rerefined oil to remove additional
water.
5. Distillation of the volatile contents of the refined,
bleached, and hydrogenated oil.
6. Final processing including interesterif ication and
winterization of
This process is diagrammed in Figure VI-13.(2)10
D. Emission Rate:
Two types of emissions are attributed to the manufacture of vegetable
Particulate discharges occur during:
1. cleaning,
2. delinting,
3. dehulling, and
4. meal grinding
operations. Hydrocarbon emissions occur during removal of the solvent from the
oil-solvent mixture consisting of hexane vapors. C1) 3-1~3"2 Particulate emissions
VI-48
-------
CRUDE OIL
CAUSTIC
SODA SOLUTION
WA'tll
V'.VfER
I I [
pRororno
JL
I* I*if J
.-Koiwnrai*
1IIXKS
*
1IE.\TKR
^
l
CENTRIFUCE
t
_Q]
IliV.TKR
*
!I1XER
i
OIL
liFATER
JSOAPSTOCK
REFINED OIL-
Tlgure VI-13; Crude Veget.ible_Qll. Refining Process
froni the manufacture of soybean oil are presented in Table VI-25.(5)295-296
About 80 percent of the total yearly production of vegetable oil is soybean
oil.C1)1 The processing of soybeans involves eight steps which emit
particulates to the atmosphere.
TABLE VI-25A
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM SOYBEAN OIL MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation and Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture
Hull Toaster, Uncontrolled
Hull Toaster, Cyclone
Flake Roll Aspirator, Uncontrolled
Flake Roll Aspirator, Cyclone
Primary Dehulling, Uncontrolled
Primary Dehulling, Cyclone
Hull Screen 4 Conveyor, Uncontrolled
Hull Screen & Conveyor, Cyclone
Meal Cooler, Uncontrolled
Meal Cooler, Cyclone
Meal Dryer, Uncontrolled
Meal Dryer, Cyclone
White Flake Cooling, Uncontrolled
White Flake Cooling, Cyclone
Forsberg Screens, Uncontrolled
Forsberg Screens, Cyclone
*
Control
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
Total Participate Emissions^3*6"9
(Based on 4.1 ton/hr Oil)
Ib/ton
46.
0.5
69.
0.7
173.
1.7
12.
0.1
102.
1.0
6.
0.06
526.
5.3
12.
0.1
kg/ ton
23.
0.2
34.5
.3
86.5
.9
6.
0.06
51.
0.5
3.
0.03
263.
2.6
6.
'0.06
Ib/hr
188.
1.9
284.
2.8
710.
7.1
49.2
.5
418.
4.2
24.6
.2
2150.
21.5
49.2
.5
kg/hr
85.4
.9
129.
1.3
323.
3.2
22.4
0.2
190.
1.9
11.2
.1
976.
9.8
22.3
.2
*Hopper, T., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume I
VI-49
-------
The total of all particulate emissions from the above sources Is 9.46 Ib/ton
(4.74 kg/ton) of vegetable oil for controlled plants. For uncontrolled plants,
the total for all sources Is 946 Ib/ton (474 kg/ton) of vegetable oil.
Hydrocarbon emissions from newer plants arise from solvent handling operations.
Most operations utilize hexane, and about one-half gallon of hexane per ton of
seed processed is lost as hydrocarbon emissions. The following table details
hydrocarbon emissions from vegetable oil manufacturing.O)2-13
TABLE VI-25B
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SOVBEAN OIL MANUFACTURE
Operation & Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Uncontrolled
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Solvent Extraction
X
Control
0
99*
Hydrocarbon Emissions (2) 2-5
Ib/ton oil
A.I
.04
kg/ton oil
2.1
.02
(based on 4.1 tons/hr)
Jb/hr
16.9
.2
kg/hr
7.7
.09
* Hexane 6.5 Ibs/gal, 1.47 tons seed/ton oil
E. Control Equipment:;
Equipment used to control particulate emissions is separate from and different
from that used to control hydrocarbon emissions.
With the exception of delinting of cottonseeds in the cotton ginning process,
high efficiency cyclones are used to control particulate emissions in seed handling
operations. ^ *' "+-1-4-2 gag filters could be used and would be more efficient but
more costly.<*>*-2~k-3
Control of hexane vapors from solvent recovery operations is important because
of its cost because it poses a fire hazard and is toxic in relative low concentra-
tions . (*'^"^ Pexanc is recovered using condensers and oil absorption units. Any
hexane not recovered through the control equipment is burned in an afterburner.
Hexane may also be collected in carbon absorbing towers, but this method is usually
employed only in older plants.
VI-50
-------
F, New S our ce jer f ormance S t andar ds and Regulation Limi tat ionia t
Kew Source Perfonnance Standards QiSPS) t No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for vegetable oil manufacture,
StatgBojuij.atj.gn s for flew and Bxi_stl"_S_^£HI££S.; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after LOB Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types, '"These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemicnlly
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from 01 type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than '20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an o.lefinie or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule G6 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. Th-ssc limitations are as follows:
s Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive ' 40 8
3. non-phot ochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (ZederalJRe-l^ter, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
19/1) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents vhich have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylcne, benzene, acetone and c,-ccn~
paraffins, . * 5
For both Appendix 13 and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if 'the Ibs/day
and aba/hour values have been exceeded. Most otates have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los AngeJes Rule 66
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states ouch as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
VI-51
-------
Table TT-26 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emission limitations
from vegetable oil manufacturing.
TABLE VT-26
I|M^
VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation
and Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Uncontrolled
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Solvent Extraction
%
Control
0
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr/kg/hr
16.9/7.7
.2/.09
Limitations
Ibs/hr/kg/hr
Heated
3
3
1.4
1.4
Unheated
8
8
3.6
3.6
Reeula t ons
State Regulations for New and Existing Sour ces : Particulate emission regulations
for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state. There
are four types of regulations that are applicable to vegetable oil manufacture. The
four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Cpnc.entration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard
cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these five states are:
Alaska -
Delaware
Pennsylvania -
Pennsylvania -
Washington
Washington
New Jersey -
0»05 grains/standard cubic foot
0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
0,02 grains/standard cubic foot
VI-52
-------
Control Efficiency Basis: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet
per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 lbs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 lbs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 lbs/hr
Process Weight Rate. Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 4.1 tons/hr. For sources with a process weight rate of A.I tons/
hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
4.4 lbs/hr (2.0 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation,10.4 lbs/hr (4.7 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express process limitations for existing sources in terms of lbs/hr
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate «
of 4.1 tons/hr, Florida is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 8.5 lbs/hr (3.9 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 10.7 lbs/hr (4.9 kg/hr).
Table VI-26B presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations
from vegetable oil.
TAI'.l.E VI-26B
PARTICULATE EMISS30XS AND LIMITATIONS FROM
VEGKTABLE OIL MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture
Hull Toaster, Uncontrolled
Hull Toaster, Cyclone
Flake Roll Aspirator, Uncontrolled
Flake Roll Aspirator, Cyclone
Primary Dehulllng, Uncontrolled
Primary Dehulling, Cyclone
Hull Screen & Convjyor, Uncontrolled
Hull Screen & Conveyor, Cyclone
Meal Cooler, Uncontrolled
Meal Cooler, Cyclone
Meal Dryer, Uncontrolled
Meal Dryer, Cyclone
White Flake Cooling, Uncontrolled
White Flake Cooling, Cyclone
Forsberg Screens, Uncontrolled
Forsberg Screens, Cyclone
Z
Control
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
F.-nlssions
based on 4.1 tons/hr
Ib/hr kg/hr
186. 85.3
1.9 .9
284. 129.
2.8 1.3
710. 323.
7.1 3.2
45. 2 22.4
.5 .2
418. 190.
4.2 1.9
24.6 11.2
.3 .1
2150. 976.
21.5 9.8
49.1! 22.3
•> •'
Limitations Ibs/hr/kg/hr
New
MA
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
NH
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
ExlHttns
Florida
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
6.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
• 8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9 '
8.5/3.9
fi.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
6.5/3.9
6.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
Kiss.
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10. 7//,. 9
10.7/4.9
10.7A.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
L'T 85*
28.2/12.8
42.6/19.3
107/48.5
6.8/3.1
62.7/284
3.7/1.7
323. /147
7.4/3.4
VI-53
-------
Compliance and Emission Limitation! Absorption of hexane
vapors is performed to conserve an expensive solvent and reduce the hazards of
explosion. Controlled, a plant producing 4.1 tons/hour vegetable oil meets
current: hydrocarbon restrictions. Existing participate control technology
is adequate to meet current limitations.
The Ivnvironmental Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G . References;
Literature used in preparation of this summary on vegetable oil manufacturing
includes the following:
1. Background Infcrmation for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New "ources, Vegetable Oil Industry (Draft), Environmental
Engineering, Inc., EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 9h,
July 15, 1971.
2. Hopper, T., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources t Volume I.
3. Impact, of rTcw Source rei-formancp. __Stand_;:rds on 1985 M^Hana] Emissions
From Stationary Sources, Volume 11, Emission Factor!;:, Vegetable Gi 1
Manu f a c t ur ing , Marrone.
4. Baumeister, Theodore, Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Hew York, Seventh Edition.
5. Mumma, C. E., T. E. Weast, Larry J. Shannon, Trace Pollutants from
Agricultural Maceria] Processes (Draft), EPA, Contract No. 68-02-1324,
Task No. 2, June 4, 1974.
6 . Priorization of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation Contract No. 68-02-0230, February, 1975.
VI-54
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Cast Iron Foundries (Electric Furnaces)
C. Source Description:
Iron foundries produce iron castings from molten iron through a number of
distinct and interconnected operations which include:
1. raw materials storage and handling,
2. melting,
3. pouring into molds,
4. mold dumping, and
5. casting cleaning.
The process flow in the foundry melting department is shown in Figure
l.AC'1
ADDITIONS
IBIivtl .ON
FUHKACL
eu.unic
Arc
FU9NACE
r
two;.*
LJ^
•1
lir.LDIKC
FCV.SACE
,
n r
i i
!„»
1 lUl:
.
!KI nutuniTH
Mr. ^
VII-1; Process Flow Dlap1ram.Jlalttrig Department
An electric arc. furnace is used in the melting of iron scrap to produce
grey iron. The furnace consists of a refractory lined, cup shaped, steel shell
with a refractory lined roof through which three graphite electrodes are in-
serted. Scrap iron is charged to the furnace and melted, and alloying elements
and fluxes are added as needed. Electric arc furnaces have rapid and accurate
heat control. The high temperatures of the arcs produce dense fumes consisting
of iron and other metal oxides plus organic particulatcs from oil and other
contaminants in the scrap.
VII-1
-------
Core-type electric induction furnaces are used for melting cast iron where high
quality, clean, dry, grease free metal is available for charging. The furnace consists
of a drum-shaped vessel that converts electrical energy into heat by setting up a mag-
netic field when the primary coil of the transformer is energized. Alternating
current is passed through a primary coil with a solid iron core. The molten iron
is contained within a loop that surrounds the primary coil and acts as a secondary
coil. The current flowing through the primary coil induces a current in the loop,
and the electrical resistance of the molten metal creates the heat for melting.
The heated metal circulates to the main furnace chamber and is replaced by cooler
metal. Figures VII-2IV~19and VII-3(2)IV-20 respectively illustrate the electric
arc and the induction furnaces. The average process weight rate for electric
furnaces is 900 Ibs/hr or 3,950 tons per yeari4)Cast Iron Foundry (Furnaces)
D. Emission Rates;
The melting department produces the majority of emissions in. the foundry.
These emissions consist of particulate matter, fumes, smoke, and vaporized metal
oxides. The quantity of these emissions is a function of the quality and com-
position of charge materials and the temperature of the bath. These emissions
are greatest during the melt-down phase of the cycle and less after the melting is
completed. The uncontrolled and controlled particulate emissions from electric
furnaces are presented in Table VII-1.(3)7•™ -1
TABLE VII-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM CAST IRON FOUNDRIES (ELECTRIC FURNACES)
Type of Operation and Control
Electric induction furnace,
uncontrolled
Electric arc furnace,
uncontrolled
Electric arc furnace,
with baghouse
Electric arc furnace,
with electrostatic precipitator
Particulate Emissions (based on 3,950 tons/yr)
% Control
0
0
99
99
Ibs/ton
„. _
1.5
0.015
0.015
kg/rot
«
0.75
0.0075
0.0075
Ibs/hr
— _
0.68
0.0068
0.0068
kR/hr
_w
0.31
0.0031
0.0031
E. Control Equipment;
Baghouses and electrostatic precipitators are used to reduce emissions from
electric arc furnaces by 95 to 99%. C*' Cast Iron Foundry (Furnaces) Elaborate
facilities for cooling the effluent gas stream from the furnace are not needed.
However, a shaking mechanism and compartmentation mus,t be provided for baghouses
while precipitator use may require sprayers or afterburners to heat and humidify
the gases vented to the control device. Generally, pollution control devices
are not used on induction furnaces. Table VII-1 shows the controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from electric furnaces in cast iron foundries.
VII-2
-------
TRANSFORMER
LLEClKCinC
CONTPxOLS
KAINTAI1I
Ff.CPER ARC
CHARGING
IIACHIIJE
CHARGES
TKROUuSI
THIS DCOPv
CIRCUIT
BREAKER
ELECTRODES
CONTROL
PANEL
f| f I-K i H
;/-M-krJ-'r ^R •!
TAPPING SPOUT
SLAG
FLOOR CUT AWAY
TO SHOW TILTING
MECHANISM ,
rigure VII-2; Illustration of Electric Arc_Furnai:a_
Figure VII-3:__ Illustration of Channel Induction Furnace
-------
F« New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
Hew Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8, 1974, EPA pro-
mulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for iron and steel plants. However,
these standards pertain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such, the electric
furnaces described in Section D are controlled by individual state regulations
covering general processes and/or specifically electric furnaces.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources^ Particulate emission regulations
for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state.
There are four types of regulations applicable to electric arc furnaces. The
four types of regulations are based on;
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentrat ion Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are: „
AlpsVa ~ 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington — 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.-02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a limitation specifically for electric furnaces in iron
foundries. The limitation is:
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume jasis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hr for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfra - 38.0 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Iba/hr
Wisconsin and Michigan have regulations specifically for electric
furnaces in iron foundaries. These limitations are expressed in terms
of pounds per 1,000 pounds of flue gas. The limitations are:
VII-4
-------
Wisconsin - .11 lbs/1,000 Ibs flue gas
Michigan - .10 lbs/1,000 Ibs flue gas
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 0.45 tons/hr. For sources with a process weight rate of 0.45
tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 1.3 Ibs/hr (0.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 2.4 Ibs/hr (1.1 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 0.45 tons/hr, Florida is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 2.1 Ibs/hr (1.0 kg/hr) and Missouri is representative of
a least restrictive limitation, 4.1 Ibs/hr (1.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis ..for Specific Scmrceis; Pennsylvania has a
general limitation on iron foundry melting operations. The limitation
in Pennsylvania is determined by the equation:
A = . 76EI/H|- where A = allowable emissions Ibs/hr
E = emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or charging rate,
units/hr.
For the melting operation examined in Section D, melting 900 Ibs/hr,
substitution into the above equation results with an allowable
limitation of 4.46 Ibs/hr. Table VII-2 presents the uncontrolled and
controlled emissions and limitations for electric arc furnaces.
TABLE VII-2
m.VTE I;MTSSIO\_S__ANTI MJITTATIONS FSOM CAST IHON roinoRir.s (ELECTRIC UJRV
Type of Operation and Controls
Eleciric induction furnace,
uncoiu i ollod
Klcct-iir .n c furnace,
unco'itvol 1 cd
Electric arc furn.icc.
with l.jp.huuse
Electiic .ire furnace.
with cJrctrostjtic prcclplrntor
X
Control
0
0
99
99
Particulate
Emissions
(based on
39SO tons/vr)
JWhr
__
0.68
0.0068
0.0068
!'i;/lir
0.31
0.0031
0.0031
.
Limitations (5hbs/hr/kg/hr
Iron Hcneral Process Industries
Melting New Sources Existing Sources Utah
PA
4.46/2.02
4.46/2.02
4.46/2.02
4.46/2.02
MA
J.3/0.6
1.3/0.6
1.3/0.6
1.3/0.6
NH
2. 4/1.1
2.4/1.1
2.4/1.1
2.4/1.1
Florida _.
2.1/1.0
2.1/1.0
2.1/1.0
2.1/1.0
Missouri
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
857, Control
' -/-
.102/.046
V1T-S
-------
Potential Point Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Electric arc
furnaces melting 900 Ibs/hour meet even the most restrictive emission limitations
uncontrolled.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on cast iron foundries
using electric furnaces include the following:
(1) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume I. Text. A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc. EPA Contract No.
CPA 22-69-106. February, 1971.
(2) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume II. Exhibits. A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc. EPA Contract
No. CPA 22-69-106. February, 1971.
(3) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA.
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(4) Hopper. T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 198S National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II. (Final Report). TRC - The
Research Corporation of New England. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task
//3, October 24, 1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans,-Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract No. 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Three sources which were not used directly but which could provide additional
information on cast iron foundries using electric furnaces include:
(6) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume III, Appendix. A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc. EPA Con-
tract No. CPA 22-69-106. February, 1971.
(7) Danielson, J.A. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
(8) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
formance for New Sources. Gray Iron Foundries (Draft). Environmental
Engineering, Inc. and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract
No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 2. March 15, 1971.
VII-6
-------
A, Source Category;
Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category: Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
C. Spur ce Des cr ip t ion :
Cast iron foundries produce iron castings from molten iron through a number
of distinct but interconnected operations which include:
(1) raw materials storage and handling,
(2) melting, and
(3) pouring into molds.
The process flow in the foundry melting department, which is the principal source
of foundry emissions, is shown in Figure VII-4,^2)^""5 Approximately 90% of the
metal poured in cast iron foundries is melted in cupolas, but these are being re-
placed by electric furn.?ces. ^) Cast Iron F°undary (Furnaces)
ur,:.E
ASI3S1ICNS
•SSf
1
1
RCVTRfrRATOHV
AIR
'
1!G
1
;Si
1
t;.icrvic
IKl-CKON
fim
cu*i.et
BUPIMIW:
riu.^ct
1
1
iLrcraic
ACC
rukNMC^
1
run.
Ch/:cct
fOHEH^KTii
'
|
CUKO
rjSMCt
•
Figure VII-11: ProcessFlowDiagram
Molting Department
VII-7
-------
In Its simplest form, the gray iron cupola is a vertical, hollow shaft having
a steel shell lined with refractory brick or backed by a water curtain for temper-
ature control. A charging door located above the bottom of the cupola admits the
charge which consists of alternate layers of coke, iron materials, and flux.
Tuyeres, located near the bottom of the cupola, admit air for combustion. Provi-
sion is made for removing slag and molten iron from openings below the tuyeres,
the iron being tapped from the bottom level and slag skimmed from above the iron.
Figure VII-5 shows a schematic diagram of a conventional lined cupola.(2)IV-16
The average cupola melting rate is 10.6 tons of iron per hour, or 93,000 tons per
year. CO2*7
Skip-noisi roil
Brick Iminq —
Coil iron lining-
Chorging door
C3kJ^ -SIoch
Refroclory lining
Wind boi
Blast duct
-Iron (rough
Topftole (or iron
(slog hole it 180*
opposite)
Sand bed
Door (I of 21
Prop
Conventional cupola
Figure VII-5: Illustration of Conventional Lined Cupola
VII-8
-------
D. Emi s s ion_ Ra t cs ;
As the source of molten iron for the production of castings, the cupola is
the largest source of particulate emissions from cast iron foundries. Cupola
emissions include fume, smoke, and gas as well as particulate matter. Particulate
emissions from cupolas depend on the following:
(1) furnace design,
(2) charging practice,
(3) quantity and quality of charged materials,
(4) quantity of coke used,
(5) melting zone temperature,
(6) volume and rate of combustion air, and
(7) use of techniques such as oxygen enrichment and
fuel injection.
Table VII-3 lists typical particulate emission rates from cupolas. ^5^7< 10~1
TABLE VII-3
PARTICULATK EMISSIONS FROM CAST IRON FOUNDRIES (CUPOLAS)
Type of
Operation & Controls
Cupola Uncontrolled
Cupola with Wet Cap
Cupoln with Impingement Scrubber
Cupola with High-Energy Scrubber
Cupola with Electrostatic Prccipitator
Cupola with Baghouse
%
Control
0
62.9
70.6
95.3
96.5
98.8
Part ' ciilnLii Er.iiisionS
(Based on 93,000 tons/yr)
Ib / ton
17
8
5
0.8
0.6
0.2
kj>/MX
8.5
A
2.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
Ib/hr
180.
85.
53.
8.5
6.4
2.1
ks^/hr
82
39
24
3.9
2.9
1.0
E• Control Equipment:
Because of the widespread use of cupolas for melting, the severity and complexity
of the cupola emissions problem, and the generally high costs of collection equipment
efficient and cost effective control methods and techniques have necessarily been em-
ployed on cupolas more than on any other foundry process. Every known method of
control has been tried with varying degrees of success. Among those collection sys-
tems which have been used are:
(1) wet caps,
(2) dry collectors,
(3) wet collectors,
(A) fabric filters, and
(5) electrostatic precipitators.
VII-9
-------
Wet caps are placed directly on top of cupola stacks and therefore require
no gas-conducting pipes or pressure-increasing blowers. However, due to their
low collection efficiencies, they no longer enjoy the popularity they once did.
Dry collectors such as centrifugal dust collectors remove 70%-80% of the
particulate matter from the gas stream provided that the proportion of smaller
particles is not too high.
High energy venturi scrubbers are capable of removing 95% of the particulate
emissions from cupolas. Variable throat venturi scrubbers are especially useful
for cupola operation because their pressure drop can be adjusted to achieve a
desired efficiency.
Glass fabric filters are often selected as cupola control equipment when
collection efficiencies approaching 99% are needed. Fabric filter units can be
installed to handle more than one cupola if desired.
Electrostatic precipitators, which also reduce particulate emissions by more
than 95%, have been used in very few applications in the United States. This is
due largely to comparatively high capital costs as well as operating and mainten-
ance problems.
Table VII-3 shows both the uncontrolled and controlled particulate emissions
from foundry cupolas.
Fv New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for cupola furnaces.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the cupola
furnace. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
VII-10
-------
Massachusetts, Michigan and Connecticut have regulations specifically
for iron foundry cupolas.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Michigan 0--10 tons/hr
Michigan 10-20 tons/hr -
Michigan over 20 tons/hr-
Connecticut
0.10 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
(production foundry)
0.40 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
(jobbing foundry)
0.40 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
0.25 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
0.15 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
0.8 lbs/1000 Ibs of flue gas or
85% reduction
Control Eff V
requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efiiciency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume I'^qsjis: Texas expresses partlculate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulatres arc as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Kat_g_ Basis _tor^ New and Existing Specific Sources: Several
states have adopted specific regulations for cupola emissions expressed
in terms of pounds/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a
process rate of 10.6 tons/hour, New Hampshire's limitation of 19.8
Ibs/hr (9.0 kg/hr) for new sources is representative of a stringent
limitation. The following states are representative of states that have
limitations for existing cupolas with a 10.6 ton/hr process weight
rate:
New Hampshire
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Oklahoma
Tennessee
24.4 Ibs/hour (11.1 kg/hr)
25.8 Ibs/hour (11.7 kg/hr)
1 Ibs/hour (11.4 kg/hr)
25
24
25
7 Ibfi/hour (11,
1 Ibs/hour (11,
2 kg/hr)
4 kg/hr)
25.1 Ibs/hour (1.1.4 kg/hr)
Pennsylvania does not have a regulation specifically for cupolas, but docs
have one for iron foundry melting. The limitation in Pennsylvania is determined
by the equation:
0.76E0'1'2 where A
E
F
W
Allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
Emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
Process factor, Ibs/unit
Production or charging rate,
units/hr
For a cupola melting 10.6 tons of metal per hour, substitution into the
equation results in an allov/nble emission limitation of 10.6 Ibs/hr (4.8 kg/hr)
Table VII-4 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for cupolas in cast iron foundries.
VIT--21
-------
yii-4
EHISSIOHS AHD 1.IHITAII01I8 FROM CAST HtOH TOUHDRIES C
Type of
Operation &
Control
Cupola,
Uncontrolled
Cupola, with
Wet Cap
Cupola, with
Impingement
Scrubber
Cupola, with
High-Energy
Scrubber
Cupola, with
Electro-
Static
Precipitator
Cupola, with
Baghouse
X
Control
0
52.9
70.6
95.3
96.5
9S.8
Particular
Emissions
(Based on
92,856
tons/yr)
Ib/hr
180
85
53
8.5
6.4
2.1
fal/hr
82
39
24
3.9
2.9
1.0
Limitation*'73 Ib/hr / kg/hr
Iron
Foundries
PA
10/6/4.8
10.6/4.8
10.6/4.8
10.6/4.8
10.6/4,8
10.6/4.8
Cupolas
New Sources
HI!
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
15.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
Existing Sources
GA
25.8/11.7
25.8/11,7
25.8/11.7
25.8/11.7
25,8/11.7
25,8/11.7
NH
24,4/11.1
24.4/11,1
24.4/11.1
24.4/11.3
24.4/11.1
24.4/11.1
CT 352
Control
27/U.8
27/14.8
27/14,8
27/14.8
27/14.8
27/14.8
Potential Source Compliance andEmission Limitations; For the typical
cupola described in Section D, melting 10.6 tons/hour, baghouses, scrubbers,
and electrostatic precipitators are capable of controlling emissions to
meet even the most stringent regulations.
The Enyiroument Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Sources listed below were used to develop the preceding discussion on cupola
furnaces in iron casting foundries:
(1) garticulate Pollutant SystemStudy, Volume HI -HandbookofEmission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA., Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
(2) Systems Analysis of ^Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume II, Exhibits, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(3) Hopper, T. G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, VolumeII (Final Report), TRC - The
Research Corporation of New England, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-1382,
Task #3, October 24, 1975.
(4) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual. j3econdEdition.
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(5) Compilation of Air PollutantEmissionFactors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No, AP-42, April 1973.
VII-12
-------
(6) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume I, Text, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA, Contract
No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(7) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Two sources were not used directly but could provide additional information on
cupolas in cast iron foundries:
(8) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources^ Gray Iron Foundries (Draft), Environmental
Engineering, Inc.. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 2, March 15, 1971.
Systems AnalysJF, of EmiDTions and Emissions Control In the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume III, / -idix, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 22-6S7 ."February 1971.
VII-13
-------
A. Source Category;VII Metallurgical Industry
B, Sub Category; CastIronFoundries (CoreOvens)
C, Source Description;
Cores for iron castings are normally made of silica sand and organic or
inorganic binders. The core making process is illustrated in the flow diagram
in Figure VII-6.(2)IV~15 Sand, core premixes, resins, binders, and other
additives are measured by weight or volume and added to the mixer at appropriate
times In the mixing cycle. The core sand mix is then discharged from the mixer
and transferred to the core machines by conveyor or totebox.
FigureVII-6; Process FlowDiagram -
CoreMaking
VII-14
-------
After forming, those cores that achieve a primary or complete set while in the
core machine require no special handling, while those requiring an oven bake or
gasing are placed on a flat core plate or formed core dryer providing rigid support.
Oil sand cores requiring baking are transferred to gas or oil-fired ovens.
Light oil fractions and moisture in the sand are evaporated, followed by oxidation
and polymerization of the core oil. Baking makes the cores strong enough so that
they can be handled while the mold is being made and will resist erosion and
deformation by metal when the mold is being filled.
There are several types of core ovens in use depending on the size, shape, and
type of core that is needed. The five types of core ovens that find the most wide-
spread use are:
1. shelf ovens,
2. drawer ovens,
3. portable-rack ovens,
4. car ovens, and
5. conveyor ovens.
Most ovens are operated at temperatures between 300° and 400°F (149° and 204°C)
for baking periods ranging from less than an hour to overnight. The weight of
cores baked at any one time may range from less than one hundred pounds to more
than a ton.
D. Emission Rates:
The air contaminants discharged from core ovens consist of organic acids,
aldehydes, hydrocarbon vapors, and particulate matter. -The vapors are the result
of the evaporation of hydrocarbon solvents and the light ends usually present in
core oils. The organic acids and aldehydes are the result of partial oxidation
of the various organic material in the cores.
In general, emission rates are low, especially from small- and medium-sized
ovens operating at 400°F (204°C) or less. Large amounts of emissions can generally
be expected from ovens operated at higher temperatures and from which the cores
baked contain larger than normal amounts of core oils. Tfble VII-5 summarizes the
particulate and hydrocarbon emissions from core ovens.'**'Cz^SlWCore Ovens,Iron Fndry
TABLE VII-5
.PARTICULATE AND HYDRQCARnON F-MTSfi79H«}
CORE OVENS IN CAST IRON FOUNDRIES
Type of
Operation & Control
Core Ovens, Uncontrolled
Core Ovens, With Afterburner
X
Control
0
90
Part
Ib/ton*
3.48
.35
Lculate
kg/MT
1.74
.17
Emissio
"iX/lir '
0.20
.02
ns+
0.10
.01
Hydrocarbon Emissions'1"
16.9
1.69
KK/ru
8.45
0.85
io/nr
1.0
0.05
Kg/nr
0.5
0.02
Ton of Cores Baked
+ Based on Actual Emission Data
VII-15
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Most core ovens are vented directly to the atmosphere through a stack, as
they usually do not require air pollution control equipment. Excessive emissions
from core ovens have been reduced by modifying the composition of the core binders,
and lowering the baking temperatures. When neither of these approaches is feasible,
afterburners are the only control devices that have proved effective. Afterburners
that have been used for controlling emissions from core ovens are predominantly of
the direct flame type. Both controlled and uncontrolled particulate and hydrocarbon
emissions from core ovens are shown in Table VII-5.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for core making in cast iron foundries.
State Regulations for Existing Sources; Particulate emission regulations for
varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state. There
are four types of regulations that are applicable to core making processes. The
four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VII-16
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations in terms of pounds per hour as a function of a
specific process weight rate. For the core oven process described
in Section D, an average process weight of 115 Ibs/hour was used. For
a process weight rate of this size, Massachusetts is representative of
a most restrictive limitation, 0.3 Ibs/hr (0.14 kg/hr) and New Hampshire
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 1.2 Ibs/hr
(.60 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for particulate emissions in Ibs/hr
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of
115 Ibs/hr, New York is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
0.54 Ibs/hr (0.24 kg/hr) and Georgia is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 0.6 Ibs/hr (0.27 kg/hr).
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources for Hydrocarbons;
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from #1 type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photocheraically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
It A cotabination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photocheraically reactive 40 8
3. non~photochemically reactive 3000 450
^
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the. total volume, of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchlorocthylcne, benzene, acetone and Cj-c5n-
paraffins.
VII-17
-------
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 35% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Moct states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling, and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have rcgulatjons patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which ir,
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table VII-6 presents controlled and uncontrolled particulate and hydrocarbon
emissions and limitations from core ovens.
TABLE VII-6
Typo of
Operation
& Control
Core Ovens,
Uncontrolled
Core Ovens,
l'ltK At t = >-b<"-«p»-
%
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 503
tons/yr)
Ibs/nr kg/hr
.20 .10
.02 .01
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Based on 503
tons/yr)
lbs/hr kR/hr
L.O 0.5
.05 0.02
Limitation, ]l>,'hr / Vc/rr |
llcn^ra] Pl'CCCo-;i>o 1
Pdrticulntc. [Hydrocarbon
MA
0.3/1.4
0.3/1. A
Georr^i a
0.6/0..''7
0.6/0.;?
UT £5%
Control
.03/.01
.03/.01
Heated
3
3
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations^ Most core ovens are
vented directly co the atmosphere through a stack and do not require air pollu-
tion control equipment. From Table VII-6, it can be seen that even the most
restrictive limitations can be met without control equipment.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission regulations.
G. References:
The following literature was used to develop the information on core ovens:
(1) jvstcms Analysis p_f Emissions^ and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industrya Volume I, Text, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA, Contract
No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(2) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emission Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume II, Exhibits, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(3) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
VII-18
-------
(4) Hopper, T. G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report),
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England, EPA, Contract No.
68-02-1382, Task #3, October 1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans. Rules, and Regulations.
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(6) Priorization of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research. Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
Two other references were consulted but not directly used to develop this
section on core ovens.
(7) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
(8) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Gray Iron Foundries. (Draft). Environmental
Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 2, March 15, 1971.
VII-19
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B, SubCategory: Iron andSteel Plants (Electric_Arc Furnaces)
C. Source Description;
Iron and steel plants contain a wide range of processes from preparation of
raw materials to production of a semifinished product for sale or further use,
as shown in the iron and steel plant flow diagram in Figure VII-7.'1'2
IRON ORE
CONTINUOUS CASTING
BILLETS
INGOTS
ELECTRIC-ARC
FURNACE
Figure VII-7; Flow Diagram ofan Iron and Steel Plant
The steel refining process removes undesirable elements in the metal by
chemical oxidation-reduction and is the heart of steel plants* processes. This
is accomplished in an open-hearth furnace, an electric furnace, or a EOT, Elec-
tric arc furnaces are used where small quantities of pig iron are available and
where remelting of steel scrap or small heats of special alloys are required.
Normally the furnace charge is 100% steel scrap plus alloying agents and fluxes.
The electric arc furnace is a cylindrical refractory-lined vessel with carbon
electrodes suspended from above. With the electrodes retracted» the roof is rotated
to permit the charge of scrap steel into the furnace. Alloying and slag materials
are added through doors on the side of the furnace. The current Is switched to the
Vll-20
-------
electrodes as they descend into the furnace. The heat generated by the arc that
crosses between the electrodes through the scrap melts the metal. The slag and
melt are poured by tilting the furnace. Figure VII-8 shows the basic elements
of the electric-arc furnace.
SCRAP.
LIMESTONE,
AMD LIME
FURNACE
ROOF
MECHANISM THAT LIFTS
AND PIVOTS ROOF
FURNACE
f~" A
c
I "
5 /ALLOY M
\ AOOIT
±jy
DSLAC
ONS
CHARGING
IIOLTEN
STEEL
DESLAGGING AND TAPPING
Figure VII-8; Electric-rArc Steel Furnace
The electric-arc furnace lends itself to accurate control of temperature and
time of reaction for producing alloys. The furnace is usually charged with cold
steel scrap, but occasionally iron ore pellets or molten metal are charged.
After the addition of the metal, fluxes, and other materials, the operation consists
of three phases:
(1) oxidation of undesirable elements and their removal
as slag;
VII-21
-------
(2) removal of carbon by reaction with oxygen;
(3) addition of materials to bring the alloy within the
desired specifications.
Electric arc furnaces vary in size, with capabilities ranging from 2 to 400
tons per batch. Each batch operation takes 1.5 to 10 hours per cycle, consisting
of:
(1) melt-down;
(2) boiling;
(3) refining;
(4) pouring.(2)21
A typical electric arc furnace will produce 245 tons of refined steel per day, or
89,425 tons annually.C2)4
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emisr.ions generated during electric furnace steel-making originate
from the following:
(1) physical nature of the scrap used;
(2) scrap cleanliness;
(3) nature of the melting operation;
(4) oxy gen 1 an CD ng,;
C5) pouring (tapping).
Host of the emissions originate during charging and refining. These emissions include
iron oxide fumes, sand fines, graphite, and metal dust. Particulate emissions from
electric arc furnaces range from 4 to 30 pounds per ton of iron processed, with 10.6
pounds per ton as the median. (3)247 These emissions are summarized in Table VII-7.
C3)2"7
TABLE VII-7
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
Type of
Operation & Control
Electric Arc Furnace,
Uncontrolled
Electric Arc Furnace,
with Baghouse
Electric Arc Furnace,
with Venturi Scrubber
Electric Arc Furnace,
with Electrostatic
Precipitator
%
Control
0
98-99
94-98
92-98
Particu.late Emissions (Based on 89,425 Tons/yr)
Ib/fon
10.6
0.21-0.11
0.64-0.21
0.85-0.21
ks/MT
5.3
0.11 -0.055
0.32 -0.11
0.43 -0.11
Ib/hr
108
2.14-1.12
6.52-2.14
8.67-2.14
kg/hr
49
0.97-0.51
2.9^-0.97
3.93-0.97
VII-22
-------
E, Control Equipment:
Particulate emissions from electric arc furnaces are captured with a hooding ar-
rangement at the furnace. The partieulates are conveyed to a collection device that
has a high collection efficiency for small particles, fhe four types of hooding
arrangements include:
1. canopy- type hood, and/or building evacuation
2. plenum roof,
3. side-draft hood, and
4, direct furnace roof tap.
Fabric filters are the most commonly used device to remove partieulates. Venturi
scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators are also used. When fabric filters are
used, the hot furnace gas must be cooled by water sprays, radiant coolers, dilution
air, or some combination of these to prevent degradation of the fabric. When a
precipitator is used, the gas is humidified to maximize the efficiency of the pre-
cipitator. The scrubber does not require any special treatment of the exhaust gas.
Removal efficiencies of these devices range from 92 to 99 percent as shown in
Table ¥11-7. CO7'1 3~2
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source _ Performance Standards (NSPS>! On March 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
"He-:-? Source rerfornance Standards" for iron End steel plants in the Federal Register
These standards are for basic oxygen furnaces. As such, electric arc furnaces
described in Section D are controlled by Individual state regulations covering
general processes and/or specifically electric arc furnaces.
State Regulations for New and Existing Spurc^es^; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations applicable to electirc
arc furnaces. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
gpsjg; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains /standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains /standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot
vri-23
-------
Iowa has a limitation specifically for electric furnaces in iron
foundries. The limitation is:
Iowa - .10 grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations for iron and steel plants in general. Their
limitation is expressed in terms of grains/dry standard cubic foot. The
states and limitations are:
Colorado - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Idaho - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hr for specific stack flow rates, expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.0 Ibs/hr
105 - 10G aclm - 158,6 ibs/ht
Process Wejght Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
general process limitations i.or new sources with process weight rates
of 10.2 tons/hour. For process of this size, Illinois is representative
of a most restrictive' limitation, 8.8 Ibs/hr (4.0 kg/hr) and New
Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 19.4
Ibs/hr (8.8 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis fgr_Exis_ting Sources; The majority of states
have adopted general process limitations for existing sources for
a wide range of process weight rates. For a process with a weight
rate of 10.2 tons/hour, Connecticut is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 9.9 Ibs/hr (4.5 kg/hr) and Illinois is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 12.3 Ibs/hr (5.6 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources:
Pennsylvania has a general limitation for iron foundry melting operations.
The limitation in Pennsylvania is determined by the equation:
/ 0
A = ,76E* where A = allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or charging rates,
units/hr
For the typical plant discussed in Section D, refining 10.2 tons per hour,
substitution into the equation will result in an allowable limitation of
VII-24
-------
10.4 Ibs/hr (4.7 kg/hr).
Table VII-8 presents the controlled and uncontrolled emissions and
limitations from electric arc furnaces.
TABLE VII-8
?ARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
Type of
Operation L Control
Electric Arc Furnace,
Uncontrolled
Electric Arc Furnace,
With Baghouse
Electric Arc Furnace,
With Venturi Scrubber
Electric Arc Furnace,
With Electrostatic
Precipitator
I
Control
0
98-99
94-98
92-98
Fartlculate Emissions
(Based on 89.425 tons/vrl
Ibs/hr
108
2.14-1.12
6.52-2.14
8.67-2.14
ks/hr
49
0.97-0.51
2.96-0.97
3.93-0.97
Limitations ^) Ibs/hr/kg/hr
General Process Industries
New Sources
111.
8.8/4.0
8.8/4.0
8.8/4.0
8.8/4.0
Nil
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
Existing Sources
Conn.
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
111.
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
UT 851 Control
16.2/7.4
16.2/7.4
16.2/7.4
16.2/7.4
PA
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing control
technology using either baghouses, venturi scrubbers, or electrostatic
precipitators is adequate to limit emissions from a 10.2 ton/hour electric
arc furnace to current limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission regulations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on electric arc furnaces
in the iron and steel industry are listed below:
1. Background Information for Standards of Performance; Electric Arc Furnace
in the Steel Industry, Volume I; Proposed Standards, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, EPA, 450/2-74-017a, October 1974.
2. Scheuneman, Jean L., M. D. High, W. E. Bye, R. A. Taft, Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-l,
June 1973.
3. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edition, EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
VII-25
-------
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract: 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Several other sources could provide additional useful information on electric
arc furnaces in the iron and steel industry. These include:
6. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA-22-69-104,
May f, 1971.
7. Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards; Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters
and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel
Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants, Volume I, Main Text, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, June 1973.
8. McGannon, H. E., The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, United
States Steel Corporation, 1964.
VIi-26
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Iron and Steel Plants (Scarfing)
C. Source Des cription ;
Scarfing removes surface defects in steel slabs, blooms, ingots,
and billets. Removal is accomplished by the use of oxygen torches which direct jets
of. oxygen at the surface of the hot steel, causing localized melting and subsequent
oxidation of the steel. In addition to the oxygen, a fuel gas is used to elevate
the temperature of a spot on the steel surface so the oxygen and steel will
combine chemically. Scarfing operations are carried out either manually or
mechanically,
The largest tonnage of all conditioned steel is processed by hand scarfing of
cold steel. Mechanical scarfing of hot steel is accomplished with scarfing torches
that pass through the mill. The slabs pass the cutting torches on conveyors at 80 to 1
fpm (.41 m/sec to .16 m/sec) ,. and a cut of about 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) is made on two side
of the slab. The sparks and fumes are blown downward by compressed air toward a
target plate which is continuously sprayed with water.
The scarfing operation is performed on approximately 50% of all steel produced,
or 87.3 x 106 tons per year. (2)C-116
gsion R" tss '
Particulate emissions from scarfing operations are fine iron oxide dust.
The average production rate of steel making plants is 923,000 tons per year, or
105 tons per hour. CO Table A3-A5, (2)IV-2
Approximately 50% of this steel, or 462,000 tons is scarfed annually by each
plant. Particulate emissions from scarfing operations have been estimated at
3.0 Ibs/ton, as shown in Table VII-9.(3)97
TABLE VII-9
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM IRON & STEEL SCARFING
Type of
Operation & Control
Iron & Steel Scarfing
Iron & Steel Scarfing,
with Settling Chamber,
Electrostatic Precipitator,
or High Energy Scrubber
%
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 462,000 Tons/Hr)
Ib/Ton kg/MT Ib/hr ke/hr
3.0 1.5 :,158 71.7
0.30 0.15 16 7.2
VII-27
-------
1, Control Equipment;
Control of particulate emissions from scarfing operations is desirable; only
75% of these operations are controlled.(3)222 Plants utilizing control equipment
use baffled settling chambers, electrostatic precipitators, or high energy
scrubbers. The control efficiency of these devices has been estimated to be
90%.(3)222 The controlled and uncontrolled emissions from scarfing operations are
shown in Table VII-9.
F, NewSource PerformanceStandardsandEmission Limitations!
New SourcePerformanceStandards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for scarfing operations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to scarfing operations. The four types of regulations are based on;
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are':
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations applicable to general operations at iron
and steel plants. Their limitations are expressed in terms of grains/
dry standard cubic foot. The four states and their limitations are:
Colorado - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Idaho - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah required general processes to maintain
e:>X control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
VII-28
-------
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted general
process limitations for new sources with process weight rates of 52.7 tons/hour.
For a process weight rate of this size, Massachusetts is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 22.6 Ibs/hr (10.2 kg/hr) and Georgia is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 45.8 Ibs/hr (20.8 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process 3 imitations for existing sources in terms of pounds
per hour emitted for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process
weight rate of 52.7 tons/hour, Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 41.9 Ibs/hr (19.0 kg/hr) and Mississippi is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 61.7 Ibs/hr (28.0 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Pennsylvania has a
specific limitation for iron aucl steal scarfing. Tliy limitation for
Pennsylvania is determined by the equation:
A = 0.76E0*1*2 where A = allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = emission ind-2x = F*W Ibs/hr
'F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or changing rate units/hr
For the typical plant discussed in Section D, the process weight is
52.7 tons/hour. Substitution into the equation will result in an
allowable emission of 14.6 Ibs/hr (6.6 kg/hr).
Table VII-10 presents particulate emissions and limitations from
scarfing operations.
TABLE VCT-10
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM IRON AND STEEL SCARFING
Type of
Operation & Control
Iron & Steel Scarfing
Iron & Steel Sccrfing,
with Settling Chr.nbcr,
Electrostntlc Prcclpltator,
or High Energy Scrubber
Z
Control
0
90
Particulatc Emissions
(Based on
462,000 Tons/yr)
]bs/hr kR/hr
153 71.7
16 7.2
Limitations V) Ibs/hr / kg/hr
General Process Industries
Scarfing^
f.\
14.6/G.6
14.6/6.6
New Sources
MA
22,6/10.2
22.6/10.2-
• CA
45.8/20.8
45.8/20.8
Fxistl,n.<; Sources
Col.
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
Miss.
61.7/28.0
61.7/28.0
UT 85% Cort
23.7 /10.8
2.4 /'l.l
VII-29
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Uncontrolled
scarfing operations will be in violation of even the least: restrictive
regulations. Application of settling chambers, electrostatic precipitators,
or high energy scrubbers is adequate to control scarfing emissions.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emissions limitations.
G. References;
Literature which provided useful information on the iron and steel scarfing
operation is listed below:
(1) A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part II - Application
Areas, Southern Research Institute, Contract No. CPA 22-69-73, August
25, 1970.
(2) A Systems Study of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry (Final Report),
Battelle Memorial Institute, Contract No. PH 22-68-65, May 15, 1969.
(3) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Mass Emissions, Midwest
Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1, 1971.
(4) Scheuneman, Jean J., M. D. High, W. E. Bye, R. A. Taft, Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-l,
June 1963.
(5) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
(6) McGannon, H. E., The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, United States
Steel Corporation, 1964.
(7) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VII-30
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Cat:e£oryj Iron and Steel Plants (Sintering)
C. Source Description:
Sintering agglomerates iron bearing fines including flue dust, mill scale,
and other iron-ore fines by controlled combustion to produce a burden for a
blast furnace. The sintering process is a continuous operation performed on
interconnected grates that form a slow moving loop. The grates are usually
8-12 feel. (2.44-3.66 m) wide and 90-100 feet (27.43-30.48 m) long and contain
the iron bearing fine and approximately five percent finely divided coke breeze
or anthracite coal. Near the head or feed end of the grate, the bed is ig-
nited on the surface by gas burners. As the grate moves along, air is pulled
down through the mixture by downdraft combustion. As the grates move con-
tinuously over the wind boxes toward the discharge end, the combustion front
in the bed moves progressively downward with sufficient heat and temperature
(about 2400-2700°F [1351-1482°C]) to sinter the fine o*-e particles together
into porous, coherent lumps. Although the sinter bed is stationary with respect
to the moving grates that support it, the bed travels continuously and the com-
bustion is essentially a standing wave from the ignition point to the bottom
of the bed near the discharge end. Figure VII-12 is a schematic flow diagram of
a continuous iron-ore sintering process. Modern sinter plants have capacities
of 1000-6000 tons (9.0 x 105-54.0 x 105 kg) per day of finished sinter.
COKE TO BLAST FURNACE
COKE SUPPLY
^LIMESTONE' SUPPLY
ORE TO BLAST ruRNACE
ORE SUPPLY AND STORAGE
CRUSHER
ORF FINES
PEE FllltS
RU- ROD MILL
BH- BURNER HOOD
HI- HEARTH LAYER
SC- SINTER COCH KR
SSM-SINTER SCREENING HOT
JSC- SINlfR SCREENING COLD
IP- ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIP1TATON
>. c>, c?, , * ,t; t p>,
R-RETURN FINES
C-COKE FINES
L-LIMESTONE FINES
0-ORE FINES
A-ADDITIVES
MIKING DRUM
BINS
P__P_P_P_jp FEEDER SCALES
sc
I " PREHEATED AIR
1, SINTERING ,
1 (
HL
7 RAW
/SINTER MIX
STACK
FAN
Figure VII 12: Sintering Process Flew Diagram
VJJ-31
-------
Once the sinter has left the traveling grate, the sinter is cooled prior to
handling and sizing. FigureVII-13 is a schematic diagram of a shaft type
sinter cooler where the undersized sinter is elutriated with the hot air. After
passing through a dry collection device the sinter is recycled back to the
beginning of the process. Normally 1.5-5.0 pounds (.68-3.4 kg) of cooling air
is required for each pound of sinter cooled.
HOT SINTER IN
UNDER SIZE ELUTRIATED
OUT WITH HOT AIR
HIGH VELOCITY AIR
AIR DISTRIBUTOR
= COLD AIR IN
COLD SINTER DISCHARGE
Figure VII-.13: Sinter Cooler
D. Emission Rates:
Particulate emissions from the sintering process are emitted from the
handling of the raw materials, the combustion of the coke mixed with the ore,
and during the cooling and screening process. Since the handling of the raw
materials is different at each location, no estimates are made for it. Also,
handling of raw materials has many fugitive aspects and as such is not direct-
ly amenable to consistent estimation or traditional stack clean-up technology.
During the sintering operation itself, emissions arise from the combustion
of the moving bed of iron ore and coke. The flue gas is collected in a multi-
plicity of compartments called wind boxes located along the length of the
machine, from which dust-laden air is transported through ducts to dust col-
lection equipment, consisting of a combination of mechanical-electro-
static dry type precipitator. The amount and composition of the particulate
and gaseous emissions depends on several factors, including the type of ore
used, the efficiency of the mixing, the distribution of the unfired sinter on
the grate, and the age and maintenance of the equipment. Typical emissions
values for the sintering operation and the cooling screening operation, their
associated control equipment, and typical process rates are found in Table
VII-11 on the following page.
Under normal conditions, the particulate emissions range from 5-100 pounds
(2.25-45 kg) of particulate per ton of sinter produced, with a mean of around
20 pounds (9 kg) of particulate per ton of sinter. Gas volumes exhausted usually
VII-32
-------
TA8LE.yi.r-lI
SINTERING PARTICULAT.E. .EMISSIONS
Type of Operation
Sintering
Wlndbox uncontrolled
Windbox ujih dry cyclone
Wir.dbox with dry cyrlonp plus
electrostatic precipitator
Vindbox with dry cyclone plus wet
scrubber
Cooling and Cleaning
Discharge uncontrolled
Discharge with dry cyclone
Discharge with dry cyclone plus
electrostatic prcci;>itator
Z
Control
0,0
90.0
95.0
99.8
0.0
90.0
99.5
Effli jiuions
Ibs part/
ton of
sinter
20.
2.0
1.0
.04
22,
2.2
.11
kg part/
metric ton
sinter
9.9
1.0
,50
.02
10.9
1,1
.054
Ibs/hr emission
based on
1000-6000 tons/day
830.0-5000
83.0- 500
*2.0- 250
1.7- 10.2
917.0-5500
92,0- 550
*.6- 27.6
kg/hr emission
bused on
9.0-5,4 x 10 5 kg/day
375.0-2250
37.5- 225
18.8- 113
.8- 4.60
413.0-2475
41,3- 248
2.1- 14.2 .
vary between 100,000 and 450,000 cubic feet per minute (2830-12740 m3/min)
with participate loadings of .5-6,5 grains/standard cubic foot. From 80-90
percent of the total particulate material from f.he sintering process are
greater than 20 microns in size by mass. Because of their size, weight, and
value as potential recyclable material, traditional dry methods of collection
have been utilized.
E.
Control Eciu''-prnei*if"
Three methods of control have been employed in reducing emissions from the
sintering operation and the screening and cooling operations. These methods have
involved the use of electrostatic precipitators, dry cyclones, and wet scrubbers.
The emissions from the sintering operation involves venting the flue gases
collected in the windboxes to the atmosphere, these gases contain the products
of combustion and many of the inert fines from the iron ore. A mechanical
cyclone is used to separate out the larger particles, then a wet scrubber or an
electrostatic precipitator follows to collect the finer particles. A wet
scrubber is more suitable for sintering than an electrostatic precipitator
because the disposal of the wet dust is easier than the dry dust from the
electrostatic precipitator. However, the dry electrostatic precipitator is
easier to expand, is more amenable Lo a cyclic emission, and is less expensive
and easier to operate than a wet system. Tha Installation of one system over
the other is a matter of preference and local energy availability.
The sinter cooling process uses a cyclone to separate the larger fines to
be reagglomerated where the bulk of the process weight is sent to a screening
device. The exhaust from the cyclone is connected to an electrostatic
precipitator to further capture the fines and potentially recycle them.
VII-33
-------
p. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8, 197.4, EPA
promulgated New Source Performance Standards for iron and steel plants.
However, these standards pertain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such,
the sintering operation described in Section D is controlled by individual
state regulations covering either general processes and/or specifically the
sintering process.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to the sintering process. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic foot
for general processes. The limitations for these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations applicable to general operations at iron and
steel plants. Their limitations are expressed in terms of grains/dry
standard cubic foot. The four states and their limitations are:
Colorado - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Idaho - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rate expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
10s - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VII-34
-------
Process Weight: R.i_te__Basj« for New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for new sources with process weight rates of 42 tons/hour
and 250 tons/hour. For sources with a process weight rate of 42 tons/hr,
Illinois is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 18.7 Ibs/hr
(8.5 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 42,9 Ibs/hr (19.5 kg/hr). For a process weight rate of
250 tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 21.5 Ibs/hr (9.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 58.3 Ibs/hr (26,4 kg/hr).
Procesr Wei gut Rate Bagis J:pr^ JExistJng Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources for a wide range
of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of 42 tons/
hour, Connecticut is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
41.9 Ibs/hr ( 19.0 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 51.5 Ibs/hr (23.4 kg/hr). For sources with a
process weight rate of 250 tons/hour, Illinois is representative of a
most restrictive liniitat ion, 61.0 Ibs/hr ( 27.7 kg/hr) and Mississippi
ic representative of a least restrictive limitation, 155.0 Ibs/hr
(70.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate JSapjLG jrpr Specific Sources ; Pennsylvania has a
process regulation specifically for sintering. For a 42 ton/hour process
the limitation is 12.8 Ibs/hr (5.8 kg/hr) and for a 250 ton/hour process the
limitation j~ 27.2 Ibr/hr (12.3 kg.hr). Table VII- 12 presents
uucoui. Lulled auu controlled emissions and limitations for sintering.
TABL.K VI1-12
PARTICULA1T EMISSIONS AND LiMTTAilONS FOR SINTERING
Typp of Opprjilrion
Sin ccri ng
V,'inribo.\ unconcrii] 1 cd
Wir.dbox with dry cyclone
Vindbox with dry c^clo^e plus electro •
Vir.dt'^x viLh ury cyr.lone plus vot
Cooling amj CK-cninj;
D i'jch.U'"^ uu. * nt roll cj
Di scharj'.L' wlL! Jry cyclone-
DiSi'-ii^c witt cry cyclone plu& ulectro-
sL.itii. pvcci) itjur
Sjntoi in;;
1,'indVoN ur.cor.trolled
Vin^oc-M with dry cycloue
Wintlbox vitli dry cyclone, plud olt-cl.ro-
bi.uic precipitator
Vint box with c'.ry cyclone plus wet
scrubber
Cooling ,,nd CKvning
Dit-oharyo. unciMiLrollcd
Di^^h'iVgo viLh dry cyclone
Disch.irge uiili di'y cyclone plus elociro-
staiic prccipltutor
1 Eciss: oas
7,
Control
0 0
90.0
15 0
99 8
0 0
90.0
99.!)
0.0
90.0
Ibs/hr / kg/hr
ia;,cd on 1000 tonAifv
630/375
8V3/.5
i.2/8.8
i.7/,8
9.7/4.3
92/41.3-
',.b/?.l
har.cd Dn 6000 ton/day
5-(iJD/2250
iOO/225
9.S.O ; 350/113
99.8
0.0
90.0
99. i
10.2/4.6
i.K-Cl/2475
JIO/2A8
?.7 «/H.?
Lir.iLaLi.ors1' Ibc/hr / kc,/hr I
?a>c'Ciflc Source
PA
12.8/5.8
12.8/5.8
12.8/5.8
12.8/5.3
12.8/5.8
12.8/5.8
12. 8/5. S
PA
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9 ,
27.2/12.9
2V. 2/12. 9
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9
Ky.ibtir.- Source;
Conn. i N'H
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.0/19.0
41.9/19.0
111.
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
51. 5/23. 1,
51.5/2J.4
51.5/23.4
Miss.
153/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/7C.3
New ^r,nre<= \
111. i Y.-.\ \
18.7/3.5
18.7/8.5
1S.7/P.5
IS. 7/8. 5
1S.7/S.5
18.7/S.5
lfi.7/8.5
M \
21.5/H.8
21.V9.8
21.5/9.S
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
4 '.9/J-;.5
H_'.9/19.5
-'.2. "A". 5
N 1
5S.3/26.4
5S.3/2(..4
58.3/1:6.4
58.3/2C.4
58.3/26.'.
58.3/26.4
58.3/26.4
VII-35
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Current technology
is adequate to control sintering and cooling operations to even the most
restrictive limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
References
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, April, 1974, USEPA.
2. "Wet vs. Dry Gas Cleaning in the Steel Industry," H. C. Henschem, J. of
the Air Pollution Control Association, May, 1968.
3. The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel. U. S. Steel, August, 1964.
4. A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part II - Application
Areas, Southern Research Institute.
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed include:
6. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants, USEPA, January, 1969.
7. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources, EPA-340/l-73-001-a.
8. Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards:
Asphalt Concrete Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary
Lead Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants,
Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Main Text.
VII-36
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Iron and Steel Plants (Open-Hearth Furnace)
C. Source Description:
The opo.n-hearth furnace is the type of unit that produces 90 percent of the
steel made in this country. The open-hearth furnace reduces the impurities present
in scrap and pig iron to the limits specified for the different qualities of steel.
The refining operation is carried out by means of a slag that forms a continuous
layer on the surface of the liquid metal.
Open hearth-furnaces are of two types, depending on the character of the
refractory material that forms the hasin holding the metal. Where the material is
silica sand, the furnace is described as "acid furnace," and where it is dolomite,
it is termed a "basic furnace."
The open-hearth process consists of several stages:
1. tap to st^rt,
2. charging,
3. meltdown,
4. hot-metal addition,
5. ore and lima boil,
6. woirL.Li.J3 (jc.v_rii.j.i*,_,),
7. tapping, and
8. delay.
During the charging period, the raw materials are dumped into the furnace, and the
melting period begins. When the solid material has melted, a charge of molten pig
iron is poured into the open hearth, followed by the ore and lime boil. During the
work period the phosphorus and sulfur are lowered to the specified levels, carbon
is eliminated, and the heat is conditioned for final deoxidation or tapping. At
the end of thin time the furnace is tapped, with the temperature of the melt at
approximately 3000°F (16/i9°C). Figure V1I-10 shows a cross-sectional view of an
open health furnace.(*)*e
Figure VII-10: Cross-sectional View of an Open-Hearth Furnace
VII-37
-------
Open-hearth furnaces vary widely in size, the median being 100-200 tons
capacity. The time required to produce a heat is between 8 and 12 hours. A
typical plant will produce 140,000 tons of steel annually. (3)2**°
D. Emission Rates;
Air contaminants are emitted from an open-hearth furnace throughout the
process or heat, which lasts from 8 to 12 hours. The particulate emissions that
occur in greatest quantities are fumes or oxides of various metal constituents
in the steel alloy. The quantity of particulate emitted depends on the degree
of oxygen lancing that is used. Oxygen lancing reduces both the time needed for
a heat and the fuel consumption. The average rate of particulate emission from
open-hearth furnaces is 17 pounds per ton of material charged, as shown in
Table VII-13.C2)
TABLE VII-13
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM OPEN-HEARTH FURNACES
Type of
Operation & Control
Open-Hearth Furnace,
Uncontrolled
Open-Hearth Furnace,
with Venturi Scrubber
Open-Hearth Furnace,
with Electrostatic
Precipitator
Open-Hearth Furnace,
with Baghouse
Z
Control
0
98-99
98.5
99.9
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 140,000 Tons Steel Annually)
Ib/ton
17
.34-. 17
.26
.017
kR/MT
8.5
.17-. 085
.13
.0085
Ib/hr
270
2.7-1.4
4.1
.3
kE/hr
123
1.2
1.8
.12
E. Control Equipment;
The iron oxide fumes from open-hearth furnaces are hard to collect economically
because of their small particle size, the large volume and high temperature of the
gas emitted, and the low value of the recovered material. However, three types of
collectors are successful in removing iron oxide dust and fume. These are:
1. electrostatic precipitators,
2. high efficiency wet scrubbers, and
3. fabric filters.
Electrostatic precipitators have been reported 98.$ percent efficient, while
maximum removal efficiencies for venturi scrubbers are in the range of 98-99 per-
cent. C1)53 A fabric filter has been shown to be 99.9 percent effective in partic-
ulate removal.'1'53 The application of control on open-hearth furnaces is only
41 percent.(2)221 Table VII-13 shows the controlled and uncontrolled particulate
emissions from open-hearth furnaces.
VII-38
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards andRegulation Limitations;
NewSourcePerformance Standards (NSPS): On torch 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
"New Source Performance Standards" for iron and steel plants. However, these
standards pertain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such, the open-hearth
operations described in Section D are controlled by individual state regulations
covering cither general processes and/or specifically the open-hearth operations.
State Regulations fc>r New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission regu-
lations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the open-
hearth process. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2, control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basts; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic toot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
lew Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations applicable to general operations at iron
and steel plants. Their limitations are expressed in terms of grains/dry
standard cubic foot. The four states and their limitations are:
Colorado - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Idaho - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Gas Volumgjjasis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,00 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10?000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
10J - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process WodRht^RatoJBasjsJfor New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources that have a process weight
rate of 15.9 tons/hr. For sources of this size, Illinois is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 11.1 Ibs/hr (5.0 kg/hr) and New Hampshire
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 25.3 Ibs/hr (11.5 kg/hr).
VII-39
-------
Process WeightRate Basis for Ixisting Sources: The majority of states express
general process limitation's for existing sources in terms of Ibs/hr for a
wide range of process weight rates, for sources with a process weight rate of
15.9 tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a roost restrictive
limitation, 17.3 Ibs/hr (7.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 32.2 Ibs/hr (14.6 kg/hr),,
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specifj^c Sources: Pennsylvania has a
regulation specifically limiting the emissions from steel production.
Pennsylvania's limitation is determined by the equation:
0.76E0*1*2, where A
E
F
W
Allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
Emission index • FXW Ibs/hr
Process factor, Ibs/unit
Production or charging rate units/hour
Table 1 of the Pennsylvania regulations specifcies F for steel production as
40 Ibs/ton of product. For a process weight rate of 15.9 tons/hour, the
maximum allowable emission is 11.4 Ibs/hr (5,2 kg/hr). Table VII-14
presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations for open
hearth operations.
TABUS- VIT-14
>ARTICULATi_gHISSIOHS AHD LIMITATIONS FROM OPEH-BEARTH OPERATIONS
Type of
Operation S Control
Open-Hearth. Furnace, Uncontrolled
Open-Hearth Furnace, with Venturi
Scrubber
Open-Hearth Furnace, with Elec-
trostatic Precipitator
Open- Hearth Furnace, with
Baghouse
X
Control
e
98-99
98.5
99.9
Emissions
(Based on 140,000
tons/yr)
Ib/hr ka/hr
270 123
2.7-1,4 1,2
4.1 1.8
.3 .12
Limitations l*> Ib/hr / ks/hr
Iron &
Steel
PA
11.4/5.2
11.4/5.2
11.4/5.2
11.4/5.2
General Process Industries
New Sources
111.
11.1/5.0
11.1/5.0
11.1/5.0
11.1/5.0
KH
2S.3/11.5
25.3/11.5
25.3/11.5
25.3/11.5
Existing Sources
MA
17.3/7,8
17. 3/7. S
17.3/J.8
17.3/7.8
NH
32.2/14.6
32.2/14.6
32.2/14.6
32,2/14,6
UT 85? Control
40.5/18.5
4Q. 5/18.5
40.5/18.5
40.5/18.5
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; For the size process
described in Section D, a control device capable of 96% control will satisfy
Pennsylvania's restrictions.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following literature was used to develop the information on Open-Hearth
Furnaces;
(1) Scheuneman, Jean J., M. D. High, W. E. Bye, R. A, Taft, Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-l,
June 1963.
VII-40
-------
(2) Part leu late Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Mass Emissions, Midwest
Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1, 1971.
(3) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July~1972, Mitre Corporation.
One source which could provide additional information on open-hearth furnaces
in the iron and steel industry is:
(5) McGannon, H. C., The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, U.S. Steel,
1964.
VII-41
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B • Sub Category; Primary Copper
C* Sour en Description;
Copper mined in the U.S. is from deposits of:
Gornite
Chalcopyrite - CuFcS2
Enargtte - Cu3(As, Sb)Sit
These minerals are of igneous origin and are distributed in massive rock strata
as "porphyry" deposits. These deposits are low in copper content — around 1%
Cu by weight:. The complex chemistry of the ore materials, the low concentration
in the rock, and the strong affinity of copper for sulfur contribute to the
complex series of operations necessary to produce metallic copper from ore.
Copper usually occurs in deposits with other metals such as iron, lead-,
arsenic, tin or mercury. Copper ore is processed by a se: ies of operations
consisting of mining, concentrating, smelting and refining. These steps arc
subdivided as follows:
1. mining (drilling, blasting, loading, handling),
2. concentrating (crushing, grinding, classification,
flotation, dewatering) ,
3. yi.Jic-'j i iii.j (> i.;. :i i nf>5 rev ei 1'ip.rator y sn;c.Icivi£, cu avert ing ),
4. refining (fire refining, electrolytic refining).
Mijnln_g: Most U.S. copper comes from large open-pit mines where the
porphyry deposits are scraped clear of over burden, and blasting
operations loosen the ore. Electric shovels, with bucket capacities
of 15 cubic yards, load trucks which haul the ore to mills that con-
centrate it to 15% to 30% by weight.
Concentration; Sulfide ores are separated from noncopper-bearing
rock by froth flotation. The porphyry is ground to a powder and
slurried. Chemical agents called "frothers" are added to the
slurry while air is Introduced. The "frothers" cause the air
bubbles to rise to the surface with the sulfide ore attached. The
froth is cleared off the surface of the water while the tailings
sink to the bottom. The copper sulfide ore is then washed and
dewatered, upgrading the ore to 15% to 30% by weight of copper. ^•'271 >27?
Smelting: Copper is obtained from copper ores by smelting which
includes the successive operations of:
1. roasting,
2. reverberatory smelting,
3. converting, and
4. fire refining.
VII-42
-------
The steps in the smelting process achieve two types of separations;
1. between the metals and the gangue,
2. between copper and the chemically combined
contaminants, sulfur and iron.
Copper ores are smelted either as they come from the mine or
after grinding and flotation. Smelting transforms the low-
percentage ores into high percentage copper/sulfur concentrate.
The high percentage copper/sulfur concentrate could be smelted
directly or after partial roasting. Roasting removes part of
the sulfur, giving a favorable balance of copper, iron and
sulfur for reverberatory feed. In the reverberatory furnace,
iron present as oxide combines with siliceous flux to form a
slag, leaving a material known as matte, containing copper,
iron, ancLsulfur combined with copper. Figures VII-14 and
VII-15 W27«i>278 present schematics of the copper smelting
process and a typical reverberatory furnace, respectively.
The matte is reduced to copper in the converter in two stages
of blowing air. The first stage eliminates sulfur and forms
iron oxide which is slagged off by the addition of siliceous
flux. The copper sulfide remaining in the converter is re-
duced to metal, and the sulfur is eliminated as S02 in the
"finish" blowing stage. This crude copper undergoes further
refinement by fire refining and is cast into anodes for
electrolytic rellaiag.
TAILINGS
SOj RICH
FLUE GAS
WATER
COPPER ORE
ORE
DRESSING
CONCENTRATE
r
___J
I if
ZINC OR PYR1TIC
CONCENTRATE
AND PLANT REVERTS
ROASTING
REVERBERATORV
FURNACE
SMELTING
MATTE
-*• DUMP SLAG
^ '
in
AIR
QUARTZ
STEAM
MOT FLUE
GAS TO
CONVERTER
-
SLAG
RECYCLE
BLISTER COPPER
fr% ertEr*fB/%*'Wipiy"
DUST COUECTOR
.REFINING
Figure yiI-14: Copper Smelting.
VII-43
-------
DISCHARGE
TO 4
ATMOSPHERE T
V
MUITIPIE
HEARTH
ROASTING
FURNACE
REVERBERATORY
FURNACE
SETTLING DUST
CHAMBER COLLEC1OR
ROASTED
ORE
\ \\\\ \\\ V\l f\\X\ \v\\\W\
VM i
MATTE
SLAG
Figure VII-15: Reverberatory Furnace
jtef_ining_: Molten matte produced in the reverberatory furnace is
transferred in ladles to the converters where air is blown into
the liquid through "tuyeres." The oxidation reactions supply
enough heat to maintain a temperature of 2250°F with no auxiliary
fuel. The sulfur dioxide is carried out with the other flue
gases. Silica flux is added to combine with iron oxide to form
a fluid iron silicate slag. The slag is skimmed from the con-
verter and returned to the reverberatory furnace. Additional matte
is added to the converter and the process repeated until a suitable
charge of copper sulfide has been accumulated. Blowing is con-
tinued without further matte additions until remaining sulfur has
been eliminated. The resulting blister copper is 99% pure. ^2'257-260
D. Emission Rates;
The high temperatures attained in roasting, smelting, and converting cause
volatilization of a number of the trace elements present in copper ores and
concentrates. The raw waste gases from these processes contain not only these
fumes but also dust and sulfur dioxide.
The dust content of the waste gases from roasting operations depends on
the characteristics of the copper concentrates as well as on the volume of air
aspirated by the roasting furnace. Another factor of importance in hearth
furnaces is the extent to which the concentrates remain continuously in suspen-
sion when descending from the upper to the lower hearths. The size and number
of apertures in the hearths has an influence on the creation of dust in the
furnace, and consequently also on the dust content of the waste gased.
VII-44
-------
The reverberatory furnace melts the metal-beaming charge and forms the
matte and slag. The charge is introduced through openings in the side wall
or in the roof. The heavier particles settle below the waste heat boilers
and into the hoppers of the balloon flues or settling chambers. The dust is
then removed to locations where it can be worked back into the system. The
amount of dust will depend upon variables such as the fineness of the charge,
the degree of agitation in charging and working, and specific gravity.(2)25 9~260
The dust content of the gases from the converter depends to a large extent
on the chemical composition of the copper matte. An increase in the operating
temperature of the converter causes higher volatilization of the metals and
consequently higher dust content in the raw gas.(2)260
Emission factors for total particulates from copper smelters are presented
in Table VII-17.
TACLK VII-17
PARTICULAR EMISSIONS FROM
PRIMARY COl'PF.R PRODUCTION
Type of Operation*
and Control
Roasting, Uncontrolled
Roasting, Dust Chambers
Roast 1ni;, Cyrlnne
Roasting, Electrostatic Prer.ipitators
Roasting, Cloth Filters
Smelting, Reverberatory, Uncontrolled
Smelting, Reverberatory , Dust Chambers
Smelting, RevurberaLory, Cyclones
Smelting, Reverberatory, Electrostatic Precipitators
Smelting, Reverberatory, Cloth Filter
Converting, Uncontrolled
Converting, Dust Chambers
Converting, Cyclones
Converting, Electrostatic Precipitators
Converting, Cloth Filters
Refining, Uncontrolled
Refining, Dust Chamber
Refining, Cyclone
Refining, Electrostatic Precipitators
Refining, Cloth Filter
7.
Control
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
F.missions
Ibs/ton
45.
31.5-18.
6.8-2.3
.14
.05
20.
14. -8.
3.-1.
.06
.02
60.
42. -24.
9. -3.
.2
.06
10.
7. -4.
1.5-.5
.03
.01
kg/ton
22.5
15.8-9
34-1.2
.07
.03
10.
7. -4.
1.5-.5
.03
.01
30.
21. -12.
4.5-1.5
.1
.03
5.
3.5
.8-. 3
.015
.05
Emission Rate
(based on 50 tons/hour)
Ibs/hr
2250.
1575. -900.
340. -115.
7.0
2.5
3000.
700. -400.
150. -50.
3.
1.
3000.
2100. -1200.
450. -150.
10.
3.
500.
350. -200.
75. -25.
1.5
.5
kg/hr
1021.
714. -408.
154. -52.
3.2
1.1
454.
318. -181.
68. -23.
1.4
.5
.1361.
953. -544.
204. -6S.
4.5
1.4
227.
159. -9.1
34. -11. 3
.7
.2
* Approximately 4 unic weights of concentrate arc required to produce 1 unit
weight of copper metal. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight
of concentrated ore produced.
E. Control Equipment:
Cloth filters are utilized for secondary dust collection from converter
gases. Depending on the purpose of utilization, the following types of fabrics
are employed:
VII-45
-------
1. cloth woven fi'om natural fibers
(wood, cotton),
2. cloth woven from synthetic fibers
(redon, pan, etc.)
The dust content of the exhausted air is strongly influenced by the air-to-cloth
ratio (ft3 of raw gas per ft2 of filter surface) as well as by the structure
and density of the filter weave. In order to maintain the full nominal rating
of the filter in continuous operation, cleaning of the filter cloth is of greatest
importance. With filters properly maintained, efficiencies up to 99.9% can be
attained.
Centrifugal separators installed on furnaces generally have maximum efficiencies
of 80%-85% and are therefore usually employed for primary removal of coarse dust.
Electrostatic precipitators, usually preceded by mechanical collectors are
applied to control particulates from copper smelting. The equipment is normally
more massive and rugged than counterparts in the power or other industries, and
dust handling techniques are far more positive. Mild steel construction is ac-
commodated by maintaining sufficient gas temperatures to preclude corrosion, with
temperatures ranging from 300° to 650° on converters, and from 600° to 900°F on
roasters. Actual collection efficiency usually ±e in the 98.5% to 99.5% range.(2)27
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations :
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): New source performance standards
have been promulgated by Li-A January 15, 1976 Lor copper smelters. The promul-
gated standards for new and modified primary copper smelters limit emissions of
partlculate matter in gases discharged from dryers to 50 mg/dscm (0.022 grains/
dry standard cubic foot). In addition, the opacity of these gases is limited to
20 percent.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basin; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania •- 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot,
gas volume >300,000 dcfm
Pennsylvania - O.O/i grains/standard cubic foot,
gas volume <300,000 scfm
VIT-46
-------
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
10s - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process WeightRate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for new sources with a prcoess weight rate of 50
tons/hr. For new sources with this process weight rate, Massachusetts
is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 22.8 Ibs/hr (10.3
kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation,44.4 Ibs/hr (20.1 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Bas^sfo£Existing Sources^ The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 50 tons/hour, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 32.3 Ibs/hr (14.7 kg/hr) and Georgia is representative of
a least restrictive limitation, 44.6 Ibs/hr (20.2 kg/hr).
Table VII-18 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions from primary copper manufacure.
TABLE .Vn-18
KSIp^_Ay^tJ
_PRIMAHY COPPER PRODUCTION
Type of Operation*
and Control
Roasting, Uncontrolled
Roasting, Dust Char bcrs
Roastitif,, Cyclones
Roasting, Electrostatic Preeipitater
Roasting, Cloth Filter?
Saielting, Icvcrberatory, Uncontrolled
5nieltiri£r Reverberatory, Dust Chamber
Smelting, RpvDrber.itory, Cyclones
Sselting, Stverhcratory, Electrostatic
Precipitator
Sncltirg, Rcverleratory, Cloth Filter
Converting, Uncontrolled
Converting, Dust Chambers
Converting, Cyclones
Converting, Electrostatic Precipitator
Converting, Cloth Filters
Refining, Uncontrolled
Refining, Dust Chambers
Refining, Cyclones
Refining, Electrostatic Precipitator
Refining, Cloth Filters
%
Control
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
9?. 7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
Lais
(based oi.
Ibs/hr
2250.
1575. -900,
3*0. -11 5,
7,
2.5
1000.
700. -400.
150. -50.
3.
1.
3000.
2100. -1200.
450. -150.
10.
3.
500.
350. -200.
75. -25.
1.5
.5
rions
r>0 tons/hr)
kg/hr
1021.
714. -408.
154. -52.
3.2
1.1
454.
318. -181.
68. -23.
1.4
.5
1361.
953. -544.
204. -68.
4.5
1.4
227.
159, -91.
34. -11. 3
.7
.2
Limitations
New
MA
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10,3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22,8/10.3
22.0/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.3/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
_J
m
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44,4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44,4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44,4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20,1
44.4/20.1
-Hjs/hrJU
Kxlf
CO
32.3/14.7
32. 3/14. 7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.?
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32,3/14.7
32,3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32,3/14.7
32.3/14.7
F/hr
tin;;
[Z GA
44.6/20.2
44.6/20-i
44.6/20,2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20,2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6./20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
IT 65*;
338/153
150/65
450/204
75/34
* Approximately 4 unit weights of cuitcunir.Ue «iire required to produce 1 utut
weight of copper metal, Emission fnctora oxprojmed ,is units pet unit w
oC concentrated ore produced.
VII-47
-------
Existing control technology is adequate to allow a 50 ton/hour plant to meet
the most restrictive limitation.
The Environmental Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
!• Air Pollution Technology and Costs jn Nine Selected Areas, Industrial
^as~Cleaning Institute, Inc. EPA Contract 68-02-0301, September 30,
1972.
2. Participate Po 1 lui'.ant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properlies, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
3. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (Seccnd Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, Mar cl "1975^
References reviewed but not used include:
4. Background Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters (Preliminary Draft),
_S_ectiGns 1 through 3, EnvirouineiiLcj.i. i'i oLi-i.t'MM /V£i-ni>, Office, of Ai_~
and Water Programs, August 1973.
5. Background Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards for
Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters (Preliminary Draft), Sections
6 through 8, EPA, Office of Air and Water Programs, August 1973.
VII-48
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. SubCategory: Steel Foundries (Secondary)
C. Source. Description:
Steel foundries differ from the basic iron and steel plants in that their
primary raw material is scrap steel. Steel foundries produce steel casting;; as
a finished product by melting the scrap and pouring it into molds. The castings
are made for heavy industrial end uses such as bulldozer, frames and locomotive
wheels.
The steel melting operation is accomplished in one of five types of furnaces:
1. direct electric arc
2. electric induction
3. open hearth
4. crucible
4. pneumatic converter (The crucible and pneumatic converter are being phascc1 out'
The basic melting process operations are:
1. furnace charging
2. melting
3. tapping the furnace into a ladle
4. pouring the steel into molds
An integral part of the steel foundry operation is the preparation of casting
molds, and the shakeout and cleaning of these castings. Some common materials
used in molds and cores for hollow casting include sand, oil, clay, and resin.
Shakeout is the operation by which the cool casting is separated from the mold.
The castings are cleaned by shotblasting, and surface defects such as fins are
removed by burning and grinding. A schematic of steel foundry processes is shown
in Figure VII-9.
RV.l
FURf,ACE CHARGING
HELTlnc
TAPPING
TOLD rRi
MXO POURISS
Fi£urti_VII-9; Stcul Jouiidr^JProp.P.Hs nj .IRTJ
F1HISHCO PRODUCT
VII-49
SHAKtWT, CUANING
-------
There are about 400 steel foundries operating In the U.S., with the average
plant producing 133 tons of castings per day or 48,000 tons per. year.O)IV-6
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emissions from the steel foundry include:
1. iron oxide
2. sand fines
3. graphite metallic dust
Factors affecting emissions from the melting process include the quality and
cleanliness of the scrap and the amount of oxygen lancing. Emissions from the
shakeout and cleaning operations vary according to type and efficiency of dust
collection. Particulate emissions from steel foundries are summarized in Table
VII-19.(2)7'13~2
TABLE VII-19
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM STEEL FOUNDRIES
Type of Operation 'and Controls
Electric arc melting,
uncontrolled
Electric arc rcelting,
with electrostatic precipltacor
Electric arc melting,
with baghnuse
Electric arc meltini?, '
vith venturi scrubber
Open hearth melting,
uncontrolled
Open hearth melting,
with electrostatic preclpitator
Open hearth melting,
vith baghouse
Open hearth melting,
with venturi scrubber
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, uncontrolled
Open hearth, oxygen la.iced
melting, with electrostatic
precipitator
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, vith baghouse
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, vith venturi scrubber
Electric induction, uncontrolled
1 Control
0
92-98
98-99
94-98
0
95-98.5
99.9
96-99
0
95-98
99
95-98
0
Particulate Emissions
(based on 48,000 tons/yr)
its /ton
13
1.04-0.26
0.26-0.13
0.78-0.26
11
0.55-0.17
0.011
0.44-.11
10
0.5-0.2
0.10
0.5-0.2
0.1
kR/rat
6.5
0.52-0.13
0.13-0,07
0.39-0.13
5.5
0.28-0.083
0.0055
0. 22-. 055
5
0.25-0.1
0.05
0.25-0,1
0.05
Ibs/hr
71.8
5.74-1.43
1.43-0.72
3.86-1.43
60.7
3.04-0.94
0.061
2.42-0.61
55.2
2.76-1.10
.55
2.76-1.10
0.55
kg/hr
32.6
2.60-0.65
0.65-0.33
1.75-0.65
27.5
1.38-0.43
0.028
1.10-0.28
25.0
1.25-0.50
0.25
1.25-0.50
0.25
E. Control Equipment;
Furnace emissions from steel foundries are controlled by use of one or more
collection devices such as the electrostatic precipitator, baghouse (fabric
filter), and venturi scrubber. The collection efficiencies of these devices
range from 92% to 99.9%, as shown in Table VII-19. Emissions from electric
induction furnaces are not usually controlled. (-07* 13~2
VII-50
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): On March 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
"New Source Performance Standards" for iron and steel plants. However, these
standards pe.rtain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such, the secondary
steel foundries described in Section D arc controlled by individual state regu-
lations covering either general processes and/or specifically secondary steel
foundries.
State 13emulations for New and Existing Sources : Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to .state. There arc four types of regulations that are applicable to
the secondary steel foundries. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. proces.', weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emis-
sion limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfni
Pennsylvania - .02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey _ 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Three states have general regulations for electric arc furnaces. Iowa,
Mississippi and Wisconsin express their limitations in terms of a
concentration. These limitations are. as follows:
Iowa - 0.1 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.11 lbs/1000 Ibs of gas
Mississippi - 0.10 lbs/1000 Ibs of gas
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas express particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitation for particulates are as
follows:
1 - .10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10.000 - 100,000 acfm - 39.00 Ibs/hr
10J - 106 acfm - 158.6 lb«/hr
VII-51
-------
Process Weight Rate Basisfor New Sources: Several states have adopted
process limitations for new sources with process weight rates of 5,5
tons/hour. For processes of this size, Illinois is representative of
a most restrictive limitation, 7.4 Ibs/hr (3.4 kg/hr) and Wyoming is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 12.9 Ibs/hr (5.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Spurcesj The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources for a wide range
of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of 5.5
tons/hr, Connecticut is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
10.4 Ibs/hr (4,7 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 12.9 Ibs/hr (5.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Several states have
adopted regulations concerning jobbing foundries. Some of these
regulations cover only cupola emissions and others specify foundry
operations in general. Georgia, New York, North Carolina and Oklahoma
have similar regulations and all use the same process weight rate curve.
For a foundry with a 5.5 ton/hr process weight rate, the partlculate
limitation is 17,8 Ibs/hr (8.1 kg/hr). New Hampshire limits new
foundries with a 5.5 ton/hr process weight rate to 12.9 Ibs/hr (5.9 kg/hr)
and existing foundries to 15.9 Ibs/hr (7.21 kg/hr). Table VII-20 presents
controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations from steel
foundries.
FARTICTLATE
TABLE VII-20
EMISSION'S ASP LIMITATION'S FROM STEEL FOUNDRIES
Type of
Operation & Controls
Electric arc Belting,
uncontrolled
Electric r.rc melting,
vith electrostatic precipitate!
Electric arc melting,
vith baghouse
Electric arc tceltirg,
with venturi scrubber
Open hearth Belting,
uncontrolled
Open hearth melting,
vith electrostatic precipitotor
Open hearth melting,
Kith ba£,iousc
Open hearth celling,
with venturi scrybber
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, uncontrolled
Open hearth, oxygen lanced melt-
ing with elcctrostntlc
procipitator
Open hearth, oxygen lanced melt-
ing, vith baghouse
Open hearth, oxygon laticcd melt-
ing, vith venturi scrubber
Electric induction,
uncontrolled
% Control
0
92-98
93-99
94-98
0
95-98.5
99.9
96-99
0
95-98
99
95-98
0
Particulate
Emissions
(based on
48,000 ton'S/yr).
Ibs/hr
71.8
5.74-1,43
1.43-0.72
3.86-1.43
60.7
3.04-0.94
0.061
2.42-0.61
55.2
2.76-1.10
.55
2.76-1.10
0.53.
kg/hr
32.6
2.60-0
0.65-0
1.75-0
27.5
1 . 38-0
0.028
1.10-0
25.0
1.25-0
0.25
1.25-0
0,25
/
Limitations 3 Ibs/hr/kg/hr
General Process Industries
New Sources Existlnr r-urc?T <
:ii.
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4 •
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4 '
7.4/3,4
Vy_.
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9'
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
«•
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
Conn.
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4,7
10.4/4.7
Mi<=s.
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.8/5.9
L'T 85Z Control
10.8 /4. 9
10.8 /4.9
10.8 fit. 9
10.8 /4.9
9.2 M.2
9.2 /4.2
9.2 4.2
9.2 /4.2
8.3 /3.8
8.3 73.8
8.3 /3.8
8.3 /3.8
.09 /.04
VII-52
-------
Pofontlal Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Electric arc, open-
hearth, and open-hearth with oxygen lancing as described in Section D, equipped
with, electrostatic precipitators, venturi .scrubbers, or a baghouse, will be
able to comply with even the most restrictive limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G • References :
The following literature was used to develop the information presented for
steel foundries:
1. Exli.'.ust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., EPA, Contract No. EHHD 71-36, October 2, 1971.
2. Compilatjon of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973".
3« Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans _- Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972,'kiLre Corporation.
The following refe^pncpp were consu.1 fefl but not- ns^d direr.tly to develop
the iafoTihciLlon oa steel foundries:
4. Hopper, T. G., Ijnpact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissi ons from __St-at_ionary Sources , Volume II, (Final Report),
TUC - The R"eccarch- Corporation of New England s EPA, Contract No.
68-02-1382, Task No. 3, October 24, 1975.
5 . Particular e Pol] u tan I: System Study, Volume I_ - Mass Emissions,
Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CTA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
VIT-53
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category: Ferroalloy
C, Source Description;
A ferroalloy ds an alloy of iron and one or more other metals used for
deoxidizing molten steels and making alloy steels. There are three major
categories of ferroalloys:
1. silicon-based alloys, including ferrosilicon and
calcium-silicon,
2. manganese-based alloys, including ferromanganese
and silicoir.anganese, and
3. chromium-based alloys, including ferrochromium
and ferrosilicochrome.
Manganese is the most widely used element in ferroalloys, followed by silicon,
chromiur.1, and phosphorous. Figure VII-4 shows a typical flow diagram of
ferroalloy production.( )7
J?4Mi4y ^NPMM
^
CRCSHIKG SCRE, S,K£ S7CIK.GE
Figure- Vtl-A: Ferroalloy Production Process
SHIPutNT
There are four major methods used for the smelting operation needed to produce
ferroalloys and high purity metallic additives for steel making. These are:
1. blast furnace,
2. electric smelting furnace,
3. alumino silico-thermic process, and
4. electrolytic deposition.
VII-54
-------
The choice of process is generally dependent on both the alloy produced and the
availability of furnaces.
Ferromanganese, the principal metallurgical form of manganese, is produced in
either the blast furnace or the electric-arc furnace. The coke-burning blast
furnace is not an efficient smelter for ferroalloys of manganese, chrome, and
silicon. The submerged arc, or the roofed-in open bath electric smelter, can
more effectively complete the reduction of the oxides and is therefore more widely
used than the blast furnace.
Ferromanganese is produced in the blast furnace by carbon reduction of manganese
ore and iron ore in the presence of coke and limestone, Ferromanganese blast
furnaces usually operate at blast temperatures of 1100-1200°F (593-649°C). High
operating efficiencies are favored by the following'.
1. small slag volume,
2. a basic slag,
3. high blast temperatures, and
4. coarse ores.
The majority of ferroalloy furnaces are submerged arc furnaces which are charged
with raw ore, coke, and limestone. Normally three electrodes are used; they protrude
into the furnace charge to a depth of 3 to 5 feet. The major smelting occurs in the
reaction zones surrounding the electrodes.
Simplified reactions illustrating the manufacture of ferroalloys are as
follows:(2)V-13
Heat
Ore Constituents + Reducing Agent -»• Molten Alloy + Furnace Gas
Cr2<>3 + 3C •*• 2Cr + 3CO
MnO + C -+• ' Mn + CO
S102 + 2C -*• ^Si + 2CO
Fe203 + 3C -*• 2FE + 3CO
CaO + 3C •*• CaC_ + CO
*- z
More than 75% of the ferroalloys produced are the products of electric smelting
furnaces. The average annual production of a ferroalloy furnace is 14.800
tons;'2)VI~19 and the average production rate is 6.9 tons/hr. v»)Ferroalloy
D. Emission Rates;
The production of ferroalloys has many dust-producing steps. The dust resulting
from:
it
J.» raw material handling,
2, mix delivery, and
3. crushing and sizing of the
solidified product
can be handled by conventional techniques and is a secondary problem compared to the
furnace emissions,
VII-55
-------
The major pollution problem arises from the ferroalloy furnaces themselves,
especially the blast and electric furnaces.
The furnace emissions vary widely in type and quantity depending on the
particular ferroalloy being produced, the type of furnace used, and the amount of
carbon in the alloy. Furthermore, emission rates will also vary with the nature
of the process, the choice of raw materials, the operating techniques, and main-
tenance practices. Table VII-21 shows the particulate emissions from ferroalloy
production. (3)7,l+-2, (2)II-5-H-6 particulate emissions from the aluminosilico-
thermic process and electrolytic deposition are minimal and are not included in
this discussion.
TABLE VII-21
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
Type of
Operation & Controls
Open Furnace
50% FeSi, Uncontrolled
75% FeSi, Uncontrolled
90% FeSi, Uncontrolled
Silicon Metal, Uncontrolled
Silicon Manganese, Uncontrolled
FeMn
FeCr
Closed Furnace
Fe>'n, Uncontrolled
FeKn, with Scrubber
Open Furnace
•50% FeSi, with Venturi Scrubber
Silicon Metal, with Baghouse
Silicon Manganese, with Baghouse
FeCr, with Baghouse
FeMn, with Venturi Scrubber
%
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99.9
99.9
99
99
99
99.9
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 6.9 tons/hr)
Ib/ton
200
315
565
625
195
-
-
45
.045
.2
6.3
2.0
-
—
ke/MT
100
158
283
313
98
-
-
22.5
.023
.1
3.1
1.0
-
•-
Ib/hr
1380
2180
3910
4325
675
—
-
311
.31
1.4
43.3
13.5
—
••
ke/hr
628
990
1770
1960
306
—
-
141
.14
0.63
19.6
6.1
-
•~
E. Control Equipment:
Several methods are used to control emissions from ferroalloy furnaces.
Emissions from open furnaces in the United States industry are controlled by:
1. wet scrubbers,
2. cloth filters, and
3. electrostatic precipitators.
None of these control devices has been found to be universally suitable for use
on every type of ferroalloy furnace because of variations in the emissions with
furnace type and product produced. Table VII-21 shows the controlled and un-
controlled emissions from the production of various ferroalloys.
VII-56
-------
F. New Source Performance Standardsand Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standard.s (NSPSj^; EPA promulgated New Source
Performance Standards for Ferroalloy Production Tuesday, May 4, 1976 in the
Federal Register. Vol. 41, No. 87. These standards pertain to the exit
stack conditions of the control device used for the submerged electric arc
furnaces. The standard is expressed in terms of kilograms per megawatt
hours or pounds per megawatt hours. There are essentially two standards
depending on the material charged to the furnace. The following two charge
types and limitations express the New Source Performance Standards for
Ferroalloy Production.
Charge Material Limitation
Silicon metal, ferrosilicon, calcium 0.45 kg/MW-hr
silicon, silicomanganese, zirconium (0.99 Ibs/MW-hr)
Highcarbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, 0.23 kg/MW-hr
silicomanganese, calcium carbide (0.51 Ibs/MW-hr)
ferrochrome, silicon, ferromanganese
silicon, or silvery iron
Since the units for the New Source Performance Standards are not the same
as those listed in Section D, no attempt was made to compare emissions and
limitations.
Stale Regulations for New_aqd Existing Sources; Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state, There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the ferro-
alloy industry. The four types of regulations are based on:
" 1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
ConcentratjLon Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general process. The limitations for these four states are;
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
VII-57
-------
Gas Volume Basis! Texas expresses participate emission limitations
in terras of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in
actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for participates
are as follows,
1 - 10,000 acfra - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
process limitations for new sources}with a process weight rate of 6.9
tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate, Illinois is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 6.0 Ibs/hr (2.7 kg/hr)
and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
14,7 Ibs/hr (6.? kg/hr).
ProcessWeightRate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
have adopted process limitations for existing sources for a wide range
of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of
6.9 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 11.9 Ibs/hr ( 5.4 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 14.9 Ibs/hr (6.8 kg/hr).
Process^Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Pennsylvania is the
only state that has a limitation specifically for a ferroalloy
production furnace. The limitation in Pennsylvania is determined by
the equation:
A = 0.76E°"'!:> where A - allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E - emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or charging rate, units/hr
For a typical plant as described in Section D producing 13,800 Ibs/hr,
substitution into this equation results in a maximum allowable emission rate
of 1,03 Ibs/hr. Table 1 from Pennsylvania's regulation specifies
F = 0.3 Ibs/ton of product. This would make Pennsylvania's limitation
the most restrictive. Table ¥11-22 presents controlled and uncontrolled
emissions and limitations from ferroalloy production.
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS AHD LIMITATIONS FROM FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
type of
Operation & Control
Open Furnace
507^ FcSl, Uncontrolled
75Z FcSl, Uncontrolled
90,'. FifSl, Uncontrolled
Silicon Mji.il, Uncontrolled
Silicon Mnnf.ano!.!?, Uncontrolled
Closed Furnace
FcMn» Uncontrolled
FeMn, with Scrubber
Open FUTIUCC
50.1; F»»Si, with Vcnturl
Scrubber
Silicon Ketal atth Baghouae
Silicon J.'jns,incsi5, with
FfiCr, with Eaghause
F.,Mn, with V<_nturJ Scrubber
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
99,9
99,9
99
93
99
99.9
Emissions
(Baie Jb/hr / Up/hr
Ft rtP.il lt>v
PA
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.4?
1.0/.47 1
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0,'. 47
General FTOCPSS Inrii'strtbs
$£\3 Stsurtcs
111.
6.0/2,7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2,7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
Nil
14.7/6.7
14.7/6,7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/0.7
14.7/6.7
14,7/6,7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6,7
14,7/6.7
Existing S'oiirros
Col.
11.1/5,4
11. 9/1. t
11.1/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5,4
11.9/5.4
11.9/i.4
11.9/5.4
ll,9/i.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
;-l- -,, il'T 85? Control
14.9/6.8
l.'c.9/5.8
14,9/6.8
14.9/6,8
14. 9/6. C
14.S/6.8
14. 9/6. f!
14.9/6,8
14,9/6.8
14,9/6.8
14.9/6.8
l'i.9/6.8
208 / 94.2
327 /148
537 /2o6
694 /315
101 / 45.9
46. 7/ 21.2
46. 7/ 21.2
46. 11 21.2
-
-
-
—
Vll-58
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Furnaces used in
ferroalloy production are a significant source of particulate emissions. All
furnaces must be controlled in order to meet the emission limitations. With the
exception of Pennsylvania's ferroalloy limitation, control technology is capable
of meeting the applicable regulations for sources producing silicon metal as
described in Section D. This source would have to be controlled by 99.7% in
order to meet the strictest regulation other than Pennsylvania's ferroalloy
limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
G. References;
The following literature was used to develop the information on ferroalloys;
1. Background Information for Standards of Performance; Electric Submerged
Arc Furnaces for Production of Ferroalloys, Volume I; Proposed Standards,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division, EPA-450/2-74-018a, October
1974.
2. Dealy, James 0., Arthur M. Killin, Engineering and Cost Study of the
Ferroalloy Industry. EPA-450/2-74-008. May 1974.
5. Compilation of Ail Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Contract No. AP-42, April 1973.
4. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest-Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA-22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations.
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Another source which was not used directly but which could provide information
on ferroalloy production is:
6. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. TRW Systems Group, Contract No. CPA-22-69-119,
April 1970.
VII-59
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Primary Aluminum
C. Source Description;
Aluminum production from bauxite ore is a multistep process capable of pro-
ducing large quantities of emissions because of the nature and the size of the
process. Alumina production is categorized into two basic parts:
1. Extraction of alumina from bauxite
2. Electrolytic reduction of alumina to aluminum
Three states, Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia produce all of the U.S. bauxite.
Ninety-four percent of the total bauxite is used for producing alumina and the
rest is for refractories, chemicals, and abrasives. Plants producing alumina from
bauxite are generally located in coastal areas. The aluminum plants are located
in areas of low power costs, because electricity requirements for reduction of
alumina to aluminum are high.
The aluminum-containing minerals are:
Alumite: A white mineral containing 37% alumina KALs(80^)2(OH)5
Aluminum Phosphate Rock: 4% to 20% alumina and small amounts of U3OQ
Aluminous shale and slate: 20% to 24% A1203
Dawsonite: 35% alumina, NaAL(OH)2C03
High-3.1uniina clays: 25% to 35% alumina, consisting mainly of kaolinite
Igneous rocks: 23% to 28% alumina and feldspar
Saprolite: 25% to 36% alumina in deposits of saprolite
Coal ash: Coal ash contains alumina and sulfuric acid
Bauxite: Classified according to degree of hydration of alumina
1. Monohydrate bauxite (A12C>3'H20), boehmite and diaspore
2. Trihydrate bauxite (A12C>3» 3H20), has low silica content known
as gibbsite or hydrargillite
Bauxite ore is treated to refine alumina by one of the following:
1. Bayer process
2. Combination process
The Combination process is used for treating high-silica-content bauxites,
such as those from Arkansas. Figure VII-20 presents a schematic of both the
Bayer process and the Combination process.
Figure VII-20
Bjiyer and Combined Proco;
VII-60
-------
Aluminum metal is manufactured by the Hall-Heroutt process, which involves
the electrolytic reduction of alumina dissolved in a molten salt bath of
cryolite (a complex of NAF.A1F.) and various salt additives:
3 -» 4A1 + 302
Alumina Electrolysis Aluminum Oxygen
The electrolysis is performed in a carbon crucible housed in a steel shell,
known as a "pot." The electrolysis employs the carbon crucible as the
cathode (negative pole) and a carbon mass as the anode (positive pole). The
type of anode configuration used distinguishes the three types of pots:
1. prebaked (PB) ,
2. horizontal stud Soderberg (HSS), and
3. vertical-stud Soderberg (VSS).
The major portion of aluminum produced in the United States (61.9 percent
of 1970 production) is processed in prebaked cells. In this type of pot, the
anode consists of blocks thac are formed from a carbon paste and baked in an
oven prior to their use in the cell. These blocks — typically 14 to 24 per
cell — are attached to metal rods and serve as replaceable anodes. As the
reduction proceeds, the carbon in these blocks is gradually consumed (at a
rate of about 1 inch per day) by reaction with the oxygen by-product.
The second most commonly used furnace (25.5 percent of 1970 production) is
the horizont?" 1-stiirl Sodnrbcrg. This type of cell uses a "continuous" carbon
anode; that is, a mixture of pitch and carbon aggregate called "paste" is
added at the top of the superstructure periodically, and the entire anode
assembly is moved downward as the carbon burns away. The cell anode is contained
by aluminum sheeting and perforated steel channels, through which electrode
connections, called studs, are inserted into the anode paste. As the baking
anode is lowered, the lower row of studs and the bottom channel are removed,
and the flexible electrical connectors are moved to a higher row. One disadvan-
tage of baking the paste in place is that heavy organic materials (tars) are
added to the cell effluent stream. The heavy tars often cause plugging of the
ducts, fans, and control equipment, an effect that seriously limits the choice
of air cleaning equipment.
The vertical-stud Soderberg is similar to the horizontal-stud furnace,
with the exception that the studs are mounted vertically in the cell. The
studs must be raised and replaced periodically, but that is a relatively simple
process. O)?. 1-1-7.1-2
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emissions from aluminum reduction processes come primarily from
the reduction cells and the anode baking furnaces. Large amounts of particulates
are also generated during the calcining of aluminum tiydroxide, but the economic
value of this dust is such that extensive controls have been employed to reduce
emissions to relatively small quantities. Finally, small amounts of particulates
are emitted from the bauxite grinding and materials handling processes.
VII-61
-------
Particulate emissions from reduction cells consist of alumina and carbon
from anode dusting, cryolite, aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite
(Na^Al-F-,), and ferric oxide. Particulates less than 1 micron in diameter
represent the large percentage (35% to 44% by weight) of uncontrolled effluents,
Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for total particulates from
aluminum production are presented in Table VII-15. f1)7* 1~2""7* 1~1*
TABLE VI1-15
PARTICULMH EMISSIONS TROH PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
Type of Operation
and Control
Bauxite Grinding, Uncontrolled
Bauxite Grinding, Spray Tower
Bauxite Grinding, Floating Bed Scrubber
Bauxite Grinding, Quench Tower, Spray Screen
Bauxite Grinding, Precipitator
Calcining, Vncontrolled
z T
Control
0
70
72
8}
98
Emissions (based on 15 tcns/hr)
Its/ton
kg/Mton
Ibs/hr 1 kg/hr
6.0 ! 3.0 90- 40.8
1.8
1.7
1.0
.1
0 200,
Calcl.tirg, Spray Towr ' 70 i 60.
Calcining, Floating Bed Scrubber
Calcining, Quench Tower (Spray Screen)
Calcining, Electrostatic Prcclpnator
Anode 5-i',-.:ng, Uncontrolled
Ancd? 8 iking, Electrostatic Precipltaior
Anode d.ikJng, Self Induced Spr.iy
Preb:i''.vJ Reduction Cell, Uncontrolled
PrebCKr.d R^-Jui.tion Celi, spr.iy "lower
PrtDuKed Rruuccion Cell, Floating Bed Scrubber
Prchakcd p.odi-cticn Cell, Electrostatic Prccipitator
Pretoked ReJucriJii Cell, Multiple Cyclone
Prets'r.eJ Ro-iuctio.i Cell, Fluid Bed Dry Scrubber
Prchi'.ua reduction Cell, Comet! Filter Dry Scrubber
Prcbakcd Reduction Cell, Char.brr Srrubbor
Prib.-iV.pd KoJuctlon Cell, VortJi-al F!DW Fac'ncd Bed
Prcbakeii KeuucLi.on Cell, Dry Aiuryini.i Adsorption
Horizcnt jl-St'"J Soccru^rg Cell, Uncontrolled
Koriz.jntal-;;u!ft Soderbc I'S Cell, Spuy Tover
Horizjncnl-Stud Soderber,-; Coll, Flo.iting Bed Scrubber
Horiuontal-St.'jtl Scdtrtury Cell, hlectr^s tatic Preclpltator
Vcrtlc.il-SUK1. Scuerimrg Cell, I'nconU'oll od
Verti.- Jl-Sr •••! Soderburp Ce]l, Spray Tower
Vcrilcal-SU'.l Sodcrburp, CeJ I, Electrostatic frcclpltator
Vt i lical-StuJ SiHcrburg Cr-il, Multiple Cyclone
\VrtJraJ-S:uJ EoJurLuri; Cull, Dry Ali~:1na Adsorption
Vertlcal-StuJ s.-'derl'ur.1, Cell, ".T.turi Scrubber
Xncrri'-,lk !....i.!ling, Unrontrolled
XaleriJls llardllng, Sprav Tou^r
K-itariila ll.i:.
-------
foreign countries. In this technique, both gaseous and particulate fluorides
are controlled by passing the pot off-gases through the entering alumina feed,
on which the fluorides are absorbed; the technique has an overall control
efficiency of 98 percent. In the aluminum hydroxide calcining, bauxite
grinding, and materials handling operations, various dry dust collection devices
— such as centrifugal collectors, multiple cyclones, or electrostatic pre-
clpitators — and wet scrubbers or both may be used.' / • ""
F. New Source PerformanceStandards and Regulation Limitations!
New SourcePerformanceStandards^(NSPS): EPA has promulgated NSPS for Primary
Aluminum Reduction Plants on January 26, 1976. These standards limit the emissions
of floufides to:
(1) 1 kg/metric ton of aluminum produced for vertical stud Soderberg and
horizontal stud Soderberg plants
(2) 0,95 kg/metric ton of aluminum produced for potroon groups at prebake
plants, and
C3) 0.05 kg/metric ton of aluminum equivalent for anode bake plants.
Eowever these standards to not relate directly to particulate emissions and
as such, are not included in the following analysis.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources.; Five states (Alabama,
Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) have regulations specifically
for aluminum. These five states contain virtually all of the aluminum
producing industry. The regulations for these five states cover total
emissions for each ton of aluminum produced, to specific limitations for
indivdual pieces of process equipment at a specific plant. A description
of the limitations that apply to each of the above states is as follows:
Louisiana
Nevada
Criteria.
baking of carbon anodes and
from the reduction process
(potlines)
reduction process (potlines)
for the Horizontal Stud
Soderberg process
Basic Refractory Division
facility of Basic, Inc., at
Gabbs
Limitation
22 Ibs/ton of aluminum
20 Ibs/ton of aluminum
(avg. three 24 hour periods)
Stack A E - 2.04xlO-t*P
Stack B E - 1.1 xlO"1*?
Stack C E «• 1.41x10 ~3P
Stack D E - 1.48x10-3P
Kiln No. 2 E - 1.633x10-2P
Kiln No. 3 E - 5.5 xlQ -3p
VII-63
-------
Oregon total organic and inorganic 7.0 Ibs/ton of aluminum
particulate matter from plants (monthly avg) 5.0 Ibs/ton of
constructed on or after aluminum (avg annual)
January 1, 1973
total organic and inorganic 13.0 Ibs/ton of aluminum
particulate matter from plants (monthly avg) 10.0 Ibs/ton of
constructed on or before aluminum (annual avg)
January 1, 1973
Washington particulate matter from the 15.0 Ibs/ton of aluminum
'reduction process (pot-lines) (daily basis)
reduced to lowest level (BACT)
but not to exceed
, g°tentj-al Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing control tech-
nology is adequate to control emissions from a 15 ton/hour plant to meet even the
most restrictive emission limitations.
The Environment: Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used in the development of the information in this section
on primary aluminum is listed below,
1. Compilationof Air Pollution Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
References consulted but not directly used to develop this section include:
2. Air PollutionControl in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume I of II,
Sections 1 through 10, Singmaster and Breyer, EPA-450/3-73-Q04A,
July 23, 1973.
3. Profile of an Industry: Aluminum, Metals Week, August 12, 1968.
VII-64
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category: Asphalt Batching
C. Source description;
Hot-mix asphalt plants produce asphalt paving material which consists of an
aggregate of mineral load-bearing material that has been mixed with asphalt cement.
Asphalt batching processes include:
(1) Proportional feeding of cold aggregates,
(2) Heating and drying of the aggregates to predetermined levels of
moisture content, and
(3) Coating with hot asphalt to produce a specific paving mix.
A typical process dr'agrara of an asphalt batching plant is shown in Figure VIII-
•^(2)117 stored sand and aggregate feed into a bucket elevator or cold elevator
which discharges into a rotary drier that may be either gas or oil-fired. The
dried aggregate discharges to the hot elevator which feeds into vibrating screens
for size classification and interim storage. Selected amounts of the sized aggre-
gates are dropped from the storage bins to the weigh hopper. The weighed aggre-
gate is then dropped to the mixer, where the hot asphalt is introduced to produce
the finished product. The final product mixture is discharged in batches or
continuously depending upon the individual plant set-up.
A typical batching plant will produce approximately 657,000 tons (592,000 M tons)
of paving material annually. The typical plant has a capacity of 150 tons (136 M
tons) per hour, and operates at 50 percent on-stream time.'7'13
COlO
AGGJEGATE
I1CVAIOI
HOT
AGG8ECATI
ELEVATOR
COID .
ACGIEGMt
STORAGE
)
n
h
_. . r-
VlltlTING
SCKECNS
1O3TCD HOT
AGGBfGATE
STOkAGE
IIN.S
WEIGH
nom«
MIXEi
HOT MIX
Uucn
'l ^
II
figure VIII-lj Flov Diagram for Hot-Mix Asphalt Batch Plant
D. Emission Rates:
Sources of ^articulate emissions from an asphalt batch plant include:
(1) Rotary dryer,
VIII-1 '
-------
(2) Hot-aggregate elevators,
(3) Vibrating screens, and
(A) Hot-aggregate storage bins, weigh hoppers, mixers, and transfer
points.
(5) Handling of raw materials and fugitive emissions.
The largest process dust emission source is the rotary dryer, which re-
leases approximately 77 percent of the total particulate excluding fugitive
emissions emitted by an asphalt batch plant. (i>) 328 Secondary sources in-
clude materials handling and sizing equipment. Particulate emissions from
asphalt batching plants are summarized in Table VIII-1.
TABLK VIII-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM ASPHALT BATCHING
Type of
Operation & Control
All Process Sources, Uncontrolled
All Process Sources, with Pre-
cleaner
All Process Sources, with High
liif iciency Cyclone
All Process Sources, with Spray
Tower
All Process Sources, with Bag-
house
y,
Control
0
67
96.2
99.1
99.7
Particulate Emissions (Based en 150 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
45.0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.1
kg/MT
22.5
7.5
0,»5
0.20
0.05
lbb/hr
6750
2250
255
60
15
kg/hr
3061
1021
116
27
6.8
E. Control Equipment;
The choice of applicable control equipment ranges from dry mechanical collec-
tors to scrubbers and fabric collectors. Application of electrostatic precipitators
has recently been tried on several plants. Practically all plants use primary dust
collection equipment, such as large diameter cyclone, skimmer, or settling cham-
bers. The chambers are used as classifiers with the collected materials being
returned to the hot aggregate elevator to combine with the dryer aggregate load.
Because there is a high level of contaminants in the air discharge from the
primary collector, the effluent from this device is ducted to a secondary or
tertiary collection device. Fabric collectors are presently in wide use as the
final collection device. Table VIII-1 shows the controlled and uncontrolled par-
ticulate emissions from an asphalt batch plant. (3) 8.1-1+
VIII-2
-------
F. NewSource PerformanceStandards and Regulation Limitations;
NewSource Performance Standards (NSPS):
On March 8, 1974 EPA promulgated New Source Performance Standards for asphalt
batching plants. The promulgated standards limit particulate matter emissions to
90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf) and 20 percent opacity.
State Regulations for Newand Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of general process regulations
that are applicable to the asphalt batching industry. The four types of
regulations are based on;
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Coneent r at ion Basis: Alaska and Hew Jersey are representative of states
that express particulate emission limitations in terms of grains/standard
cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Several states have expressed particulate emission limitations specifically
for asphalt batching. These states and limitations are as follows:
Vermont - 0.07 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Several states have adopted particujate emission limitations for new
sources identical to EPA "New Source Performance Standards." These
states are:
Colorado - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Iowa - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Oregon - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis: Utah requires the asphalt batching industry to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Delaware, Georgia, Idaho,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia have regulations
specifically for asphalt batching and/or light aggregate industries.
These limits are expressed in terms of Ibs/hr for a process weight rate of
150 tons/hour. The following lists the states and the respective
limitations that apply:
VIII-3
-------
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
- 40 Ibs/hour
- 600 Ibs/hr (existing), 189 Ibs/hr (new)
- 53,4 Ibs/hr
- 13.4 Ibs/hr (existing), 6.7 Ibs/hr (new)
- 40 Ibs/hr
- 40 Ibs/hr
- 42 Ibs/hr
- 13.2 Ibs/hr
- 45 Ibs/hr (new), 67 Ibs/hr (existing)
- 51.2 Ibs/hr
- 525,5 Ibs/hr
- 40 Ibs/hr
Gas Volume Bas is; Texas is representative of states that expresses
participate emission limitations in terms of Ibs/hour for specific
stack flow rates in actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limita-
tions for particulates ate as follows:
1-10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10.000-100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105-106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin have regulations for asphalt batching,
which limit the emission of particulates to 0.3 lbs/1000 Ibs of flue gas.
Table VIII-2 presents the particulate emissions and limitations from the
various asphalt batching processes.
TABIE yill-l
fARTICOLATE EMISSIONS ACT) LIKlTATtOSS JROH ASPHALT BATCH TOG
Type o£
Operation & Control
All Sources, Uncontrolled
All Source*, with Precleaner
All Source*, with High Efficiency
Cyclone
All Sources, with Spray To«er
All Sources, with B*ghousa
X
Control
0
67
96.2
99.1
99.7
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 112,500 tons/yr)
Ibs/hr
6750
2250
255
60
15
-Ig/hr _ , --
3061
1021
116
27
6.S
Limitations'- Ibs7fir~7"feg7lir '
AsnhaU Batchin*
New Sources
MA
6.7/3.0
6.7/3.0
6.7/3.0
6.7/3.0
,6.7/3,0
GA
189/8S.7
189/85,7
189/85.7
189/85.7
189/85.7
Existing Sources
New Mex.
£.0/18.1
40/18.1
40/18.1
40/18.1
40/18.1
PA
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limit^ations; Spray towers,
baghouses and electrostatic precipitators are effective in reducing particulate
emissions from asphalt batching. Massachusett's limitation of 6.7 Ibs/hr for
a 150 ton/hour process would require state of the art emission control.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
VIII-4
-------
G. References:
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on asphalt batch plants
is listed below:
(1) Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources, PEDCO - Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607, July, 1973.
(2) Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final Re-
port) , Industrial Gas Cleaning Insitute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0301, Septem-
ber 30, 1972.
(3) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition) , EPA, Publica-
tion No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final Itate Implementation Plans — Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Danielson, J.A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
(6) Friedrich, H.E. , Air Pollution Control Practicies — Hot jlix Asphalt Paving
Batch Plants, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 19,
Number 12, December 1
(7) Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards: Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and
Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingat Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants,
Sewage Treatment Plants, Vol. 1, Main Text, EPA, Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards, June, 1973.
Also consulted but not directly used to develop the discussion on asphalt batch
plants were:
(8) Field Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air Pollution Control, Volume III;
Inspection Procedures for Specific Industries, Pacific Environmental Services,
Inc., EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122, August, 1972.
(9) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission Proper-
ties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1, 1971.
VIII-5
-------
A. Source Category: VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Asphalt Roofing (Blowing)
C. Source Description;
Asphalt blowing is an integral part of the manufacture of asphalt roofing.
The product of the blowing operation is asphalt saturant or coating. When mixed
with mineral filler, it is used to coat the roofing material and provide a base
for the crushed rock surfacing.
Airblowing is mainly a dehydrogenation process: oxygen in the air combines
with, hydrogen in the oil molecules to form water vapor. The progressive loss of
hydrogen results in polymerization or condensation of the asphalt to the desired
consistency. The operation is usually carried out batchwise in horizontal or ver-
tical stills equipped to blanket the charge with water or steam, but it may also
be done continuously. The asphalt is heated to 300° to 400°F (.149° to 204°C) be-
fore the airblowing cycle begins. After 1/2 hour to 16 hours of blowing, the Sat-
urant or coating is transported to a tank or spray area for use. A typical plant
can blow 24 tons of asphalt per hour, or 210,000 tons per year. C1)2"8
D. Emission Rates:
Emissions from asphalt airblowing stills include oxygen, nitrogen, reactive hydro-
carbons, odors, and sulfur. Uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from the blowing
operation are 1.5 pounds per ton of saturated felt produced, or ?. .5 pound? ppr ton
of asphalt blown, as shown in Table VIII- 3
a • 2"1
TABLK VII I- 3
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM AST HALT ROOFING MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Asphalt Blowing, uncontrolled
Asphalt Blowing, with afterburner
% Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions (CH|()
(Based on 210,000 tons/yr)
Ibs/Lon*
2.5
.025
ks>/mt
1.25
.0125
Ibs/hr
60.0
0.60
kg/hr
27.22
0.27
* Ton of Asphalt blown
E. Control Equipment:
Control of emissions from asphalt airblowing stills has been accomplished
by incineration. Essential to effective incineration is direct-flame contact with
the vapors with a minimum retention time of 0.3 second in the combustion zone, and
maintenance of a combustion-chamber temperature of 1200°F (649°C). The un-
controlled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions from asphalt blowing are shown in
Table VIII-3.(2)8.2-1
VIII-6
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards )NSPS) : No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for asphalt roofing manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Very few states have adopted
hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries such as asphalt roofing
manufacture. Currently, hydrocarbon emission control regulations are similar to
the Los Angeles Rule 66- type legislation which has been instituted by many states
and local legislatures. These states include:
Alabama District of Columbia Louisiana Oklahoma
Arizona Illinois Maryland Pennsylvania
California Indiana New York Virginia
Colorado Kentucky North Carolina Wisconsin
Connecticut Ohio Puerto Rico
The limitation requires all solvents which are heated not to exceed 15 Ibs/
day- or 3 Ibs/Kr emission to the atmosphere or be reduced by 85%. Photochemically
Teactive solvents which are not heated are limited to 40 Ibs/day, 8 Ibs/hr or be
reduced 851. C3)90
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic.
types. These arc, (1) hcatir»» of articlr;.q by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemicnlly
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and- (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzcne:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzenc, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune-
20 per cent
6 liiTlitS emissi°ns of hydrocarbons according to the three process
ese limitations are as follows:
T , Process * Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
J.. heated process -^5 Q
2. unhcatcd photocheraically reactive 40 8
3, non-photochemicnlly reactive . 3000 450
VIII-7
-------
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) liwits the omission oFphotpchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/lir. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogcnated hydrocarbons, pcrehlorocthylcne, benzene, acetone and ej-Cgti-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibfi/hour values have been exceeded. Host states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table VIII-4 presents uncontrolled^and controlled emissions and limitations
from asphalt roofing manufacture.
TABLE. VIII-4
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AHP LIMITATIONS FROM ASPHALT ROOFIHG MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Asphalt Blowing, uncontrolled
Asphalt Blowing, with after-
burner
% Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(CHU) (Rased on 210, tons/yr)
Ibs/hr
60.0
0.60
kR/hr
27.22
.27
Limitations''^ /hr/kg/hr
Heated
3
3
1.36
1.36
* Ton of Asphalt blown
PotentialSource Compliance andEmission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Asphalt roofing is a relatively
small emitter, and the typical 24 ton/hour process can be controlled with
current technology. For asphalt roofing manufacture to comply with the
3 Ibs/hour limitation, a control efficiency of 95% must be maintained.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
VIII-8
-------
G. Referencea;
Literature that was used to develop the discussion on asphalt blowing operations
Is listed below:
(1) A Screening Study to Develop Background Information to DeterminetheSignificance
of Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing(Final Report). The Research Triangle Institute.
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 2. December, 1972.
(2) Compilation of Air PollutantEmission Factors.(Second Edition). EPA. Publication
No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(3) TechnicalGuide for Review andEvaluation of Compliance Schedulesfor Air Pollu-
tion Sources. PEDCQ-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-02-
0607. July, 1973.
(4) Analysisof Final StateImplementation Plans-Rulesand Regulations,EPA,Con-
tract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III- Handbook of Emission Properties.
Midwest Research Institi.te. EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. May 1, 1971,
The following sources were also consulted, but did not provide any useful infor-
mation on asphalt blowing operations;
(6) FieldOperations and EnforcementManual for Air Pollution ControlVolumeIII.
Inspection Procedures for Specific Industries. Pacific Environmental Services,
Inc. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122. August, 1972.
(7) Background Information £cr P_rcposied^New Gource_ Standards^ Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and Re-
fineries, Bras s pr Br o n 2 e I_n go t Pr od u ctl on Plant s, Iron and S t eel PI ants. Sew age
Treatment Plants, Volume I,±_ Main Text. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, June, 1973.'
VII1-9
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products_ Industry
B. Sub Category; Brick and Related Clay Products
C. gource Description;
The manufacture of brick and related clay products such as clay pipe, pottery,
and some types of refractory brick involves grinding, screening, and blending of
raw materials, and forming, cutting or shaping, drying or curing, and firing of
the final product.
Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits while most fine clays are
found underground. After mining, the material is crushed to remove stones and
stirred before it passes onto screens where the aggregate is separated by size.
At the start of the forming process, clay is mixed with water. The three
principal processes for forming brick are:
1. stiff-mud,
2, soft-mud, and
3. dry-press processes.
In the stiff-mud process, sufficient water is added to give the clay plasticity
before being forced through a die to form the bricks. When the clay contains too
much water for the stiff-mud process, its moisture content is increased to 20-30%
by addition of water and the bricks are formed in molds by a soft-mud process. In
the dry-press process, the clay is mixed with a small quantity of water and formed
in steel molds by applying a pressure of 500 to 1500 psi (35.2 to 105 kg/cm2).
Before firing, the bricks are dried by heat from the kilns. Tunnel kilns and
periodic kilns are the two types of kilns most commonly used for the six-step firing
operation. Total firing time varies with the type of product; maximum temperatures
of about 2000°F (1093°C) are used in firing common brick.
The brick manufacturing process is illustrated in Figure VIII-2.
typical plant can produce 3.2 tons per hour or 28.000 tons annually.
RELATED PRODUCTS
8-3~2 A
BRICK AND
J • — -•
GLAZING
-
DflriNC
HOT
CASES
*
T
(P!
KILN
IP)
HORACE
mo
SHtPPIKS
figure VIII-2iBaale FloyPlngraa of Brick Manufacturing
("#*' deuoieB • Mjor source of particulato
VIII-10
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The major sources of particulate emissions from brick manufacturing are indi-
cated by a "P" in the flow diagram of Figure VIII-2. These include:
1. crushing and storage,
2. pulverizing,
3. screening,
4. drying,
5. kiln, and
6. storage and shipping operations.
These emissions are summarized in Table VIII-5.
l 3~3
TABLi; VITI-5
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FKOH BRICK MANUFACTURE
Tvpe of Operation and Controls
Drying and Grinding, uncontrolled
Storage, uncontrolled
Gas-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-firud Tunntl kiln, uncontrolled
Gas-fireti Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Drying and Grinding, with Fcbric Filter
Gas-fire-; Tunnel kiln, t-".th scrubb».r
Oil-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Coal-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Gas-tired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Oil-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
t Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
GO
w
97
97
97
97
97
97
Ibs/ton
96
34
0.04
0.6
l.OA
0.11
0.9
].6A
0.96
0"1/
. JM
O.OOJ
0.01S
0.0 3A.
0.003
0.027
0.048A
Particulate
(based on 28,
kp,/M Ton
48
17
0.02
0.3
0.5A
0.05
0.45
0.8A
0.48
O-i 7
. J /
0.0005
0.009
0.01SA
0.0015
0.0135
0.024A
Emissions
000 tons/yr)
Ibs/hr
307.
109.
0.128
1.92
32.
0.35
2.88
51.2
3.07
IfiQ
• u?
O.C032
0.0576
.96
O.OC96
O.OS54
1.54
kg/hr
139.
45.4
.058
.87
15.
.16
1.31
23.2
1.39
fi Q
. qy
.0015
.026
.44
.0044
.039
.70
A « Z Ash in Coal; Assume 10* Ash.
E. Control Equipment;
A variety of control systems may be used to reduce the particulate emissions
from clay manufacture. Although almost any type of particulate control system will
reduce emissions from the materials handling process, good design, and hooding are
essential to capture the emission. Blending, storage, and grinding emissions are
reduced up to 99% using fabric filters while combustion particulates are reduced as
much as 97% with a medium energy scrubber . ^ 5~2 • 3-1 The controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from clay manufacture are shown in Table VIII-5.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No NSPS have been promulgated for
brick manufacturing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
brick manufacturing. The four types of regulations are based on:
VIII-11
-------
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Gas VojLuiue Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
pounds/hour for specific n'-.nck flow rc.tes expressed lr; rtctu.-il
per minute. The Texas limitations for particuiates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfra - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 ' acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rat(E Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
general process limitations for new sources. For new sources with a
process weight rate of 3.2 tons./hour, Massachusettes is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 3.8 Ibs/hr (1.7 kg/hr) and New Hampshire
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 8.8 Ibs/hr (4.0 kg/hr)
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express particulate limitations for a wide range of process weight rates.
For a process weight rate of 3.2 tons/hour Colorado is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 7.4 Ibs/hr (3,4 kg/hr) and New
Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 10.9 Ibs/hr
(4.9 kg/hr).
Table VI.II-6 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions for brick manufacture.
VIII-12
-------
TABLE V711-6
PABTtatiATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROK BRICK MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Controls
Drying and Grinding, uncontrolled
Storage, uncontrolled
Gas-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-£ireJ Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-fired Turn. el kiln, uncontrolled
Gas-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-fired Petiodic kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Drying and Grinding, with Fabric Filter
Storage, with Fabric Filter
Gas-fired Tunntl kiln, with scrubber
Oil-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Coal-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Gas-£irpd Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Oil-fired Periodic kiln, with acrubber
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Z Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
97
97
97
97
97
97
Parti'eulate Emissions
(based on
28^000 tons/yr)
Ibs/hr kfi/hr
307. 139,
109. 45.4
0.128 .058
1.92 .87
32. 15.
0,35 ,16
2.88 1.31
51.2 23.2
3.07 1.39
1.09 ..49
0.0032 ,0015
0.0576 .026'
.96 ,44
Q.OO'je .0044
0.0864 ,039
1.54 -.070
Limitations11 Ibs/hr/kg/hr
New Sources
Col.
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3,4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
Hew Hamp.
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4,9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
UT
85% control
46.1/20.91
16. 3/ 7.39
0.019/.009
0.288/.131
4.8/2.2
0.053/.024
0.432/.196
0.76/.345
—
_-
™ ,
—
»-
—
-.
-
.Exl.Mifl.BJS
HA .
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1,7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
ources
Hew H.ihp,
8.8/9,0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9,0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
Potential Source^Compliance and Emission Limitations; Fabric filters and
scrubbers have been successfully used to limit particulate emissions from brick
manufacturing.
The control technology exists to adequately meet the emission regulations.
The Environ meat Repor t er was used to update the emissions limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the discussion on bricks and related clay products
include the following;
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (SecondEdition). EPA. Publica-
tion No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(2) A Screening StudytoDevelop Background Information to Determinethe Signifi-
cance of Brick and Tile Manufacturing (Final Report). The. Research Triangle
Institute. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 4, December, 1972.
(3) Particulate PollutantSystem Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission Properties
Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. May 1, 1971,
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations. EPA, Con-
tract 68-02-0248, July. 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Hopper, T.G, Impact: of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emis-
sions from Stationary Sources; Volume I.I (Final Report). TRC - The Research
Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No, 68-02-1382, Task No. 3, October,
1975.
References which were not used directly to prepare'this section but which did
contain relative information were:
(6) Danielson, J.A. Air PollutionEngineering Manual, Second Edition. AP-40, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
(7) AirPollution ControlTechnology and Costsin Nine Selected Areas(Final Report)
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0301. September 30,
1972.
VIII-13
-------
A. jkmrce Category: VIII Mineral Predicts Industry
B• Sub Category: Cement Plants
c• aource Description:
Cement is used as an interracdlaLt product for many materials including:
1. concrete,,
2. mortar,
3. concrete block, and
4. concrete pipe.
Raw materials for cement productio i include lime and silica as the principal
components, with alumina and ferric o>,.;c as fluxing components. Approximately
3,200 pounds (1,454.5 kg) of dry raw ri''..err: of the raw material is reduced to
less than 1 percent either before or curing the grinding operation. The dried ma-
terials are then pulverized info -\ powder ar.d fed directly into the upper end of
a rotary kiln. The material rrav.'Ls oo.rnward aLid is dried, decarbonated, and cal-
cined before fusing to form the ciinker, Tie clinker is cooled, mixed with five
percent gypsum by weight, ground to the final product fineness, and stored for
packaging and shipment.
In the wet process, a siuvvy 1 ,> m; di by .idding water to tlni initial grinding
operation. After the materials are mixed, the excess water is removed, and final
adjustments are made to obtain a desired composition. The mixrure is fed to the
kilns as a slurry of 30 to 40 percent moisluv- or as a wet filirate of about 20
percent moisture. The burning, cooling, gyps urn addition, and storage are carried
out as in the dry process,
These two processes are shown scaea Mzic^ily in Figure VII1-3.' ^172 An aver-
age plant will produce 522,000 tons of cement annually. Approximately 58 percent
of U. S. production is bciiu; pred.iCHG. ],'•/ i he -\:ct process, (2) ^ -
VIII-14
-------
DRY PROCESS
w*n« ovtKjH.
* JGKINOINGI
wfT psnrpss [win J
flUMV
-^
MIXING I ]
IUNDING 1
~1 v
^ V
STCHAGt
9ASIN
1.
TO
1KUCIC,
IOX CA« '
Figure VIII-3; Basic Flow Diagram of Portland C«ment Manufacturing Process
D. Emission Rates;
There are six sources of particulate emissions at cement plants:
1. quarrying and crushing,
2. raw material storage,
3. grinding and blending (dry process only),
4. clinker production,
5. finish grinding, and
6. packaging.
The major source of particulate emissions in cement plants is the calcining
kiln. Dust is generated in kiln operations by the following:
1. grinding and tumbling action within the kiln,
2. liberation of gases during calcination, and
3. condensation of material that is volatilized
during passage through the kiln.
The principal secondary sources in the cement industry are dryers and crushers
These emissions are summarized in Table VIII-7.(3)8.6-3, (1)185
VIII-15
-------
PAUTTCULAfE I-:-ns.':TOK5 ?RCr-l CEMENT MANUFACTURE
Xyj> ('.mi.;.)1 > Cy;!'..- ; ios/to,\ _j kf,/MT
' • ' Til
Dry Process: Rllr, Unce ,<_>-o ; ..p. r' i <£'<•> j 1"
Dry Process; Girinde;,-.? ' O'y"_ . ' ,. } ,(g
Uncontrolled 1
Wet Process: Kiln, I'r ?•„•<( • „ L , * - .• ?2& 114
Vfet Process: (Jrindeff ti l':',"c~ ' ,', ,, j .5 ,
Uticontrolloct , j
Dry Process: Kiln, with htUt- i ..„ o 0,,, .. j fiq-26
cyclones
Dry Process: Kiln, wlti: ;'Utc- • ^ , ^ ,. ^ ,-, ; ,. -, _1 ;
trostatLc Prcoip'' Cr.iV
Dry Process: KiJr., vjth •'<•''!.*.-
cyclone S Ulecli v < i ,..: < r '!i!.t- -,' ' , ' '.y- •>•<
Dry Process: Kiln \:i- • i-i, ;[•.!- p, -, ,' 7
16
34-13
2,9- .9
15- .3
.4
cyclone & Ba|r»ousu , , t
Wet Proce £>>',.' Kiln, wiLli Liec- c.. , _ „ r I ^Q_ ,
trostatic Precipitate:' j
Wet Process: Kiln, with UuH,i- ; 1
cyclone & Eicctrostoti-, I "9.3-V8 : ' 24-4 ';
5- ,3
12-2,2
Precipitator • !
Wet Procesr,: K.!lu» vil: , i ' 18
Baghouse ,
Ibs/hr
14,600
5,720
13, '590
954
4,090-1,560
340- 101
1,750- 36
42
590- 31
1,440- 256
21
kp/hr
6,630
2,600
6,170
433
1,860-708
154- 46
795- 16
19
270- 14
654-116
9.4
E. Control Equipment;
The complications of kiln burning and the large volumes of materials handled
have led to the adoption of many control r.y stems for dust collection. Depending
upon the emission, the temperature of the effluents from the plant in question,
and the particulate emission standard?; in the community, the cement industry gen-
erally uses mechanical c.c '.lectors, ,-I"-c tr '.c#l. prec.ipitacors , baghouses, or combi-
nations of these devJees uo ;DV. trol e.^isslons. The controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from cement mtv\:,r HC n..,:e t .'c i-.ho\,n in 'Table VIII-7 ,
F. New SQurce Per f o reuv • .o ;
Lion Limitations:
New^jourcje__]'££ifo^nnanr,c: :i
New Source Performance i~t--.i:-t -
the kiln and clinker coo.rt
Kiln
Clinker Cooler -•
S^tate_ TReau_l_n i._lp_ns_ f_ •_. _^ -.;'/_ . 'i'-
regulations Cor varying p,-; ces'. ,;
from state to store, Tt;ett u-.' i'
to portland cement manufacturing.
r fr.",
ae ; c." low.,,
On December 2':, 1971 EPA promulgated
.'.'ortlaiul Cement Plants. The NSPS for
\, i 5: kg/>-l :on feed)
s.'5 kg/Mi ton feed)
.! k'L-,1"-,. ^5liil!l£^; Particalate emission
.y,; raic-s aro. expressed differently
r :ypcs or regulations that are applicable
The four types of regulations are based on;
-------
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis for Portland Cement; Michigan and New Mexico have
regulations specifically for cement kilns, clinker coolers and materials
handling operations. The limitations for these states and operations
are as follows:
State. Criteria Limitation
Michigan wet or dry kiln 0.25 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
clinker cooler 0.30 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
materials handling 0.15 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
New Mexico kiln 230 mg/m3
Concentration Basis for General Processes; Alaska, Delaware, Washington
and New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis for Portland Cement; Iowa and North Carolina
require portland cement industries to maintain 99.7% control over
uncontrolled emissions.
Control Efficiency: Basis for General Processes; Utah requires industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis for General Processes; Texas expresses particulate
emission limitations in terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates
expressed in actual cubic feet/minute. The Texas limitations for
particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 1,000,000 acfra - 38.00 Ibs/hr
10S - 106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for Portland Cement Plants; Several states have
regulations specifically for portland cement manufacture. These regulations
cover either the entire process or the kiln and cooler separately. The
following lists the state, process and limitation for a 60 ton/hour portland
cement process:
VIII-17
-------
State
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
New Hampshire
New York
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
South Carolina
Virginia
Wisconsin
Process
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
whole process
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln (new)
clinker cooler (new)
whole process
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
whole process
whole process
kiln
clinker cooler
Limitation
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
33.3 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
45..9 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
18 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
34.8 Ibs/hr
21.9 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
42 Ibs/hr
46.3 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
process limitations for sources with a process weight rate of 60 tons/hour.
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 7.3,1
Ibs/hr (10.5 kg/hr) and Maine is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 33.3 Ibs/hr (15.1 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basisi_ for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general process limitations in terms of pounds/hr for a wide
range of process weight rates. For a 60 ton/hr process Connecticut is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 33,3 Ibs/hr (15.1 kg/hr)
and Mississippi is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
63.7 Ibs/hr (28.9 kg/hr). Table VIII-8 presents controlled and uncontrolled
particulate emissions and limitations for portland cement manufacture.
T*nic vin-s
E missions Aim umTAyiM1; mow HMUIT
Type of
C cr.it i^n 4 Control
Dry r oco-,s Kiln,
Unco trolled
Dry V ocr-Ks: (Jrlndern &
Drlc s, Uncontrolled
Vet P ocess. Kl Ln
Unco tiollod
Vet V occb!>: Grinders I
Drli! B, Uncontrolled
Or)- P t«r«s-il Kiln ultn
Hult cyclones
Dry P ocrss: Kiln with
dec robtatic rreclp-
ital r
Dry P ocenil Kiln with
Mult ryclona and r lee-
trot ntlc Preclpitator
Dry P ucrmi! KLln ulih
Hull cyrlnni I ll.iAll.iune
Vac P ocean; Kiln with
Itat r
V«t t ocelli tUn with
Hulcicyclone I Elcc-
croiCACic ?r«clpltiLor
Wtc ProceM) kiln wltn
(<^hou>«
t
;ontrol
a
0
0
0
^l-
B9.3
J7.6-
99.3
18.0-
99.7
J9.7
99.7
19.1-
98.1
>?.«
(Baeod on 60 tonb/lir)
lb,./hr kfjhi
14600 6630
5720 2600
13590 6170
954 433
4090-1560 1860-708
340-101 134-46
1750-36 795-16
42 19
590-31 270-14
1440-254 4J4-1H
31 94
NSPS
I1. nt U il.iu- 1 1«1! ulous"
Pi>nl.inil t
11,,/iir /
lbs/!,r kv.'lir Col,
18.0 3.2
18.0 S.;
18. 0 B.2
18.0 8.2
18.0 8,2
18.0 8.1
H.O ». 2
18.0 B. 2
18.0 9.2
18.0 (.2
18.0 8.Z
13.C/S.2
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
18. 0/8. 2
:e.o/e,2
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
111. 0/8. 2
11.0/9.2
111.078.2
k//lir
1'A
39.11/15. 8
3S.8/15.B
39.6/15.8
39.6/15.8
39.11/15. 8
39.8/15.8
39.8/15.8
39.8/15.8
39. 8/15. t
39.8/15.4
39.8/13.8
Itis/hr / kt/M ton
t».lsrlnR Source*
!Ss,/lir /kfc/M ton
Hni,. , Milne 1 tonn. J
23. 1/10.5
23.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
23. 1/10. 5
23.1/10.5
13.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
23.1/19.5
33.3/li.l
33.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/.1!..!
33. 3/1.'.. 1
33.3/11,1
33.3/li.l
33.3/11.1
33.3/11.1
33.J/1J.1
33.3/11.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/1J.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/11.1
33.3/1].!
1). 1/15.1
MlVHiR
MUs
63.7/2B.9
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63. 7/28. »
(3. 7/21. »
6J.7/2J.*
Ill Cont.
2190,993
858.389
2039 92}
14) 65
VIII-18
-------
PotentialSource Compliance and Emission Limitations! New Source Performance
Standards require 99.9% control over uncontrolled dry process kiln emissions, A dry
kiln with an efficient baghouse could potentially meet this limitation. All of the
states listed In Table VIII-8 will require a baghouse to meet the state regulations,
except Utah.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
G. References:
The literature used to develop the discussion on cement manufacture is
listed below;
(1) Particulate.JPollutant System Study, Volume_III— Handbook of Emission
Pjroflerties. Midwest Research Institute. EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-
104. May 1, 1971.
(2) ParticulatePollution Control Equipment Requirementsofthe Cement
Industry. Supplied by EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division.
(3) Compilation ofAir Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA.
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-RulesandRegulations.
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation,
(5) Establishment of NationalEmission Standards forStationary Sources,
Volume VI. Portland Cement Manufacturing Plants (Final Report). Re-
search Triangle Institute and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Contract No. CPA 70rl64,- Task Order No. 2. September 30, 1970.
(6) Kreichelt, Thomas E., Douglas A. Kemnitz, Stanley T. Cuffee.
Atmospheric Emissions from the Mamifacture_of Portland Cement. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Services
Publication No. 999-AP-17.
Other sources that were consluted but were not directly used in this
section included:
(7) lammartino, Nicholas R. Cement * s Changing Scene. Chemical Engineering,
June 24, 1974.
(8) Background Jnf oj"mation for Proposed New-Source Performance Standards:
Steam Generators, Incinerators, Portland Cement Plants, Nitric Acid
Plants,Sulfuric Acid Plants. Office of Air Programs Technical Report
No, APTC-0711. August, 1971.
(9) Field Operations and EnforcementManual forAir PollutiqnControl,
Volume II; Control Technology andGenera^ Source Inspection. Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122. August, 1972.
(10) TechnicalGuide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for
Air Pollution Sources. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA
Contract Mo, 68-02-0607. July, 1973.
VIII-19
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
C« Source Description:
Thermal drying is the final step in the coal preparation process as shown in
the coal cleaning process diagram in Figure VIII-4.O)213 Thermal drying of coal
is done for one or more of the following reasons:
1. To avoid freezing difficulties and to facilitate handling during
shipment, storage, and transfer;
2. To maintain high pulverizer capacity;
3. To improve the quality of coal used for coking; and
A. To decrease transportation costs.
STACK
INDUCED POUuriON
D°,'.F7 ABATE '.'.CM
fAN
C«U5hE«
W5T
«, ClfANiMG THERMAL
SCREEN CIRCUIT DRYER
r- MOT
-'CASES
PRIMARY
DUST
COLLECTOR
CLEAN COAL
MlE
Tim; Dl«gr«m
All dryers in use are simply contacting devices in which hot flue gases are
air are used to heat the wet coal, evaporate much of the moisture, and transport
the water vapor out of the system. There are several different types of thermal
dryers employed by the coal-cleaning industry. These include:
1. fluidized bed dryer,
2, suspension or flash dryer,
VIII-20
-------
In the fluidlzed bed dryer, which is the most popular, the coal is suspended
in a fluid state above a perforated plate by a rising column of. hot gases, and
the dried coal is discharged from the dryer by an overflow weir. The second most
widely used dryer in coal processing plants is the flash' dryer, wherein hot gases
generated by burning fuel in a furnace are used to transport the coal up a riser.
Highly turbulent contact of the gases and coal particles brings about excellent
drying. Rotary dryers are cylindrical drums in which the coal flows countercur-
rent to the flow of the hot gases. Screen type dryers carry the coal on recipro-
cating screens which accomplish evaporation by passing hot gases through the bed.
In cascade dryers coal cascades through louvers and comes into contact with hot
gases which impart heat for the evaporation of moisture. Schematic drawings of
a screen type unit, a flash-drying unit, and a fluidized-bed unit are shown In
Figures VIII-5 through VIII-7. (5)550,
Tiy>n ViIl-6-8cb<».Uc Jfrtttt i af ttr««a-
Co>q.Erylnq Unit
Exhiuiltin
flKMCt
ef
Mtlc Owing Ch
-------
PulvwUv
>e rXMidl;o4-8f4_T,i»rotl Coil
j.pontr.t ?nrt« ua rim of Ca
~"~
D, Emission Rates;
The thermal dryers are the largest single source of dust and particulates in
coal preparation plants. The crushing, screening, and sizing of coal are minor
sources of particulate emissions. Uncontrolled emissions from thermal dryers range
from 100 - 300 pounds per ton of coal dried as shown in Table VIII-9. (3) All
dryers have cyclones included as an integral part of the design and are used to
recover the product. Additional controls are often added to reduce air pollution
potential, but do not materially affect the recovery of recycleable product.
TABLE yiII-9
PARTICUJLATE EMISSIONS FROM COAL CLEANING (THERMAL DKYINCj
Type of Operation
and Controls
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Uncontrolled
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclones, Uncontrolled
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclones, 10" 6P Scrubber
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclones, 20" iP Scrubber
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclones, 30" AP Scrubber
% Control
0
0
98.0
98.8
99.2
Participate Ftnissions (Bas^d on 64 tonti/I-.r)
Ibs/ton
200
(100-300)
13
(10-25)
0.25
0,15
0.10
kg /MX
181.
11.6
.23
.14
.09
Ibs/hr
12,800.
832.
16.
9.6
6.4
kg/hr
5,806.
377.
7.3
4.4
2.9
E. Control Equipment;
Particulate emissions from thermal dryers are best controlled by a series of
cyclones and scrubbers. Cyclone separators eliminate larger particle sizes and
recover approximately 70 percent of the product. Multiple cyclones will collect
as much as 85 percent of the product. Water sprays following the cyclones will
reduce particulate emissions by 95 percent, whereas the use of a wet scrubber
following cyclones can reduce the emissions by as much as 99.2 percent. The
controlled and uncontrolled emissions are shown in Table VIII-9.
Vlli-22
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);
On January 15, 1976, EPA promulgated New Source Performance Standards for
coal preparation plants. The promulgated standards (Federal Register Jan. 15,
1976) regulate particulate matter emissions from coal preparation and handling
facilities processing more 200 tons/day of bituminous coal. The standard re-
quires that emissions from thermal dryers may not exceed 0.070 g/dscm (0.031
gr/dscf) and 20% opacity that emissions from pneumatic coal cleaning equip-
ment may not exceed 0.040 g/dscm (0.018 gr/dscf) and 10% opacity, and (3)
emissions from coal handling and storage equipment (processing non-bitumi-
nous as well as bituminous coal) may not exceed 20% opacity. For fluidized
bed dryers the 0,031 grains/dry standard cubic foot is equivalent to 0.1
Ibs/ton of processed coal. C )
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are
applicable to the coal cleaning industry. The four types of regulations
are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot. The limitations for these states are:
Alaska - .05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - .20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - .20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - .10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - .02 grains/standard cubic foot
Concentration Basis for^ Coal Cleaning: West Virginia has a regulation
specifically for coal cleaning based on standard cubic feet per minute:
West Virginia - 0.12 grains/standard cubic foot <120,000 cfm
0.10 grains/standard cubic foot >120,000 cfm <245,000 cfm
0.08 grains/standard cubic foot >245,000 cfm <500,000 cfm
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires the coal preparation industry to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled coal drying emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
VIII-23
-------
1-10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000-100,000 acfm - 38.00 lbs.hr
106-106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for Coal Cleaning; Virginia and Pennsylvania
have specific emission limitations for coal drying.dleaning. For the
typical plant examined in Section D that produces 560,000 tons/hr on a
continuous basis, the Virginia limitation is 45 Ibs/hr (20.4 kg/hr). The
limitation in Pennsylvania is determined by the following equation:
.76E-112, where A
E
F
W
Allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
Emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
Process factor, Ibs/unit.
Production or charging rate, units/hr
For the typical coal cleaning plant analyzed in Section D, substitu-
tion into the equation results with an allowable emission of 5.8 Ibs/
hi1 C2.64 kg/hr}, Pennslyvania also restricts coal dryer emissions to
0.02 grains/standard cubic foot C=0.07 Ibs/ton for dryers)/3'1
Process Weight Rate Basisfor New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for sources with a process weight rate of 64 tons/hour.
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 23.5 Ibs/
hr (10.7 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative oi a iea^l
restrictive limitation, 46.9 Ibs/hr (21.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate__Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations in terms of pounds/hour for a wide range
of process weight rates. For a 64 ton/hour process Colorado is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 33.7 Ibs/hr (15.3 kg/hr) and Mississippi
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 66.5 Ibs/hr (30.2 kg/hr).
Table VIII-10 presents the relationship between controlled and uncontrolled
emissions and limitations.
TMii.r. vni-io
EMISSIONS A.ND LIMITATIONS fROM CO,M CLEANING (TIICHMAL DRY INC)
Typ* of Operation
'luldlied Bed Dryer, Uncontrolled
'Juldlzed Brd Dryer, Internal
Cyclonei, Uucoi. trolled
'luldlxtii Bed Dryer, Internal
Cycloniv, 10" iP Scrubber
fluUll«d fifd Dryer, Internal
Cyclon«i. 20" 6P Scrubber
luldlstd B*4 Dryer, Internal
CycloQM, 30" 4P Scnibb«r
X
0
0
96.0
98. «
99.2
64 tons/hour)
lbn/hr
12.800.
132.
16.
9.6
6.4
kg/hr
SSOf,.
377.
7.3
4.4
2.9
Coal Drying
PA
5.8/2.6
5. a/2.6
5.8/2.6
5.8/2.6
5.8/1.6
USPS
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
VA*
45/20.4
45/20.4
45/20.4
Ur.ttntiotH11 Iba/hr/k'-./lir
General I'ro.-os-; Iniuscrics
Nc« Snurcot
MA
23.5/10.7
23.5/10.7
23.3/10.7
45/20.4 23.5/10.7
45/20.4
23.5/10.7
Ml
46.9/2L.3
46.9/21.3
46.9/21.3
46.9/21.3
46.9/21.3
txtstlr.g Source!
Col.
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
^_f!lsAi _
66.5/30.2
66.5/30.1
66,5.30.2
66.5/30.2
66.5/30.2
\T 65! Control
124.8/56.4
•— ~
—
VIII-24
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations;
Pennsylvania's limitation specifically for coal cleaning requires the scrubber
to maintain a 40" AP while NSPS require a 30" AP/3'
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
The following references were utilized in the development of this section on
thermal drying of coal:
(1) Air Pollution Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final Report),
Industrial Gas Cleaning Insitute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0301, September 30,
1972.
(2) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Performance
for New Sources, Coal Cleaning Industry (Draft), Environmental Engineering,
Inc. and Herrick Associates, EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 7,
July 15, 1971.
C3) Memo froTTi Ch.-irlp.r: H, Seaman, Industrial Studies Branch EPA March 4» 1976.
(4) Analysis ofFinal State Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III—Handbook ofEmission Prop-
erties , Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May,
1971.
(6) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report), TRC-The Research
Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No. 3, October,
1975.
Two sources which may contain information relative to thermal drying but
which were not directly used in the preparation of this discussion include:
(7) Field Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air Pollution Control, Volume
III: Inspection Procedures for Specific Industries, Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc., EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122, August, 1972.
(8) Background Information^ for Standards of Performance; Coal Preparation
Plants, Volume I; Proposed Standards, Emissions Standards and Engineering
Division, EPA 45-/2-74-02/a, October, 1974.
VIII-25
-------
A. Sourge Category ; VIT.I Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category: Concrete Batching
C. Source Descr lp t Ion ;
Concrete batching is the process that proportions sand, gravel, and cement
by means of weigh hoppers and conveyors into a mixing receiver. There are three
types of batching plants in use:
1. Wet-batch plants
2. Central mix plants
3, Dry-mix plants
In wet batch plants, sand, aggregates, and cement are mixed in proper propor-
tions and dropped into a transit mix truck. Water is added simultaneously. In
central mix plants, the raw materials are mixed at a central plant and wet con-
crete is delivered to the job site in open trucks. In dry-mix plants, sand, ag-
gregate, and cement are mixed dry; water is added and the concrete is mixed at
the job site. In some cases, the concrete is prepared for on-site building con-
strue t'ion work or for the manufacture of concrete products. An average plant will
produce 65,320 tons of concrete per year . (l)Concrete Batching
D. jEmission JRa_tes:
Particulates are emitted in significant quantities from receiving and con-
veying of conent, sand, and aggregates, and from load-out of the wet concrete. Thr
particuiate emissions consist of cement dust, but some sand and aggregate gravej
dust emissions do occur during batching operations,
Factors affecting the emission rate include:
1. Amount anc} particle size of the materials handled,
2. The type of handling systems used.
Particuiate emissions from an uncontrolled plant are approximately 0.2 Ibs/
cubic yard of concrete. ^ 3-191 fhese emissions are summarized in Table
VIII-11. (2)8- 10-1
TABLE VII1-11
PARTICUIATE EMISSIONS FROM CONCRETE BATCHING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Concrete Batching, Uncontrolled
Concrete Batching, Controlled
%
Control
0
90
Particuiate Emissions
(based on 36 tons/hr.)
Ib/ton
0.1
0.01
kg/rat
0.05
0.005
Ib/hr
3.6
0.4
kg/hr
1.67
0.2
*Assuoes 8 hr/day x 5 day/week x 45 wk/yr • 1800 hr/yr.
VIII-26
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Control techniques for particulates from concrete batching include:
1. Enclosure of dumping and loading areas
2. Enclosure of conveyors and elevators
3. Filters on storage bin vents
4. Use of water sprays.
Wet scrubbers have encountered operational difficulties such as plugged
spray nozzles, corrosion, and waste-water disposal problems. The particulate
emissions for a plant with good control are shown in Table VIII-11.
^' New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No NSPS have been promulgated for
concrete batching operations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are
applicable to concrete batching operations. The four types of regulations
are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington, New Jersey and Penn-
sylvania are representative of states that express general process
particulate emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic
foot and grains/dry standard cubic foot. Iowa has a regulation
specially for concrete batching and limits the emissions to .1
grains/standard cubic foot. The limitations for the other states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot when
gas volume is less than 300,000 dscf
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot when gas
- volume exceed 300,000 dscf.
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
t,
Control Efficiency Basis; Connecticut has a. regulation that limits
emissions from concrete batching to .02 Ibs/cubic yard of concrete or
90% of uncontrolled emissions, whichever is lower. Utah's general
process weight regulation requires 85% control of uncontrolled emissions.
VIII-27
-------
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations for
general processes in terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates
expressed in actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for
particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
.0000 - 100,000 acfm - 38,00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Bar,is for New Sources t Several states have adopted
general process regulations for new sources with a process weight rate of 36
tons/hour. Illinois is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
17.2 Ibs/hr (7.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 41.6 Ibs/hr (18.9 kg/hr).
Process. Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general particulate process limitations in terms of pounds/hour
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of
36 tons/hour Colorado is represeni itive of a most restrictive limitation,
30.7 Ibs/hr (13.9 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 45.2 Ibs/hr (20,5 kg/hr). Table VIII-12 presents
uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations from concrete
batching operations.
TABLE VIII-12
rARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM CONCRETE BATCHING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Concrete Batching, Uncontrolled
Concrete Batching, Controlled
X
Control
0
90
Particulate
Emissions
based on
65,320 torts/yr
Ib/hr kg/hr
3.6 1.7
0.4 0,2
Concrete
Birching
CT 902 Control
.3
Limitations'* Ib/hr/kg/hr
General Processes
New Sources
IL
17.2/7.8
17.2/7.8
. N!J
41.6/18.9
41.6/18.9
Existing Sources
CO
30,7/13.9
30.7/13.9
MJsj^
45.2/20,5
45.2/20.5
UT 85% Cont.
0.5/0.3
Potentlal Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Connecticut with a
specific regulation for concrete batching, and Utah with a general process require-
ment are the only two states in which the batching must have control equipment.
In all other states uncontrolled concrete batching does not exceed existing
limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
VIII-28
-------
G. References;
Literature used to develop-the information on this section of the Mineral
Products Industry (Concrete Batching) is presented below:
1. Hopper. T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources. Volume II (Final Report). TRC - The Re-
search Corporation of New England. EPA Contract 68-02-1382, Task #3, Octo-
ber, 1973.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA Publi-
cation No. AP-42. April, 1973.
3. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources. PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations^ EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
One reference was found to contain related information but was not utilized
in the preparation of the preceding discussion:
5. Services. Inc. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122. August, 1972.
VIII-29
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Glass Wool Production (Soda Lime)
C. Source Description;
Soda lime is one of five types of glass, but it accounts for 90 percent of all
glass produced. At a typical glass plant, glass sand, soda ash, limestone, cullet
(broken glass), and minor ingredients are batch weighed, mixed, and charged to the
glass furnace.
In the furnace, the dry mixture blends with the molten glass and is held in
the molten state at about 2800°F (1538°C) until it acquires the homogeneous char-
acter of glass. The batch is then heat conditioned to eliminate stones and cooled
to 2200°F (1204°C). While still at a yellow-orange temperature, the glass is drawn
from the furnace and worked on forming machines. Figure VIII-8 shows a flow dia-
gram for a soda-lime glass plant.C1)3"168 A typical plant produces 68,000 tons
annually.
Figure VIII-8;' Soda-Lime Glass Manufacture
VIII-30
-------
D . Emission Rates;
Potentially significant sources of atmospheric participate emissions include;
(1) Raw material handling operations,
(2) Glass furnace,
(3) Forming operations.
Of these, the furnace is usually the major source. The rate of particulate
emission is dependent upon the composition of the glass produced, the furnace de-
sign, and operating conditions. The emissions result from both the entrainment
of batch constituents in the combustion air and from vaporization and subsequent
condensation of certain volatile components in the melt. The manufacture of.
soda lime glasses generally presents less of an emission problem than the produc-
tion of specialty glasses. Table VIII-13 shows the particulate emission rate
from soda-lime plants. (2)8' 13-1 >
TABLE VIII-13
PARTJ.CULATE EMISSIONS FROM ?ODA-LIME GLASS MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation & Control
Glass Melting, Uncontrolled
Glass Melting, with
Baghouse
Glass Melting, with Veuturi
Scrubber
7.
Control
0
99
95
Parrtmlpre E
Ibs/ton
2
0.02
0.10
missions (Bgsed on 68.000 tons/vr^
kjr/MT
1
0.01
0.05
iWhr
15.6
0.156
0.78
krr/hr
7.08
0.071
0.35
E. Cont roI Equipment;
Fugitive dust emissions from unloading of raw materials can be effectively
controlled by use of choked feeding and proper enclosures. Vent filters can be
used on bin filling and conveying operations, and weigh hoppers.
Only a few continuously operating control devices are used on the melting fur-
naces. These include wet scrubbers and baghouses. Because the
dust emissions contain particles that.are only a few microns in diameter, cy-
clones and centrifugal scrubbers are not as effective as baghouses in collecting
the particulate matter. Table VIII-13 shows the controlled and uncontrolled par-
ticulate emissions from soda-lime glass manufacture.
VIII-31
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and RegulationLimitations;
Now Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No New Source Performance Standards
have been proposed for soda lime glass manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emissions for
varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state.
There are four types of regulations that are applicable to soda lime glass
manufacture. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general processes to maintain 85%
control efficiency .over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of pounds/hr for specific flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet per
minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.60 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
general process limitations for new sources with a process weight rate
of 7.8 tons/hour. For sources with this process weight rate, Illinois
is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 7.6 Ibs/hr (3.4 kg/hr)
and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
16.2 Ibs/hr (7.3 kg/hr).
Process Wci.ght Rate Basis for_ F.xlsting_Sourcgs; The majority of states
express particulate process limitations in terms of pounds/hr for existing
sources for a wide range of process weight rates. For sources with a
7.8 ton/hr process weight rate, Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 12.8 Ibs/hr (5.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 20.0 Ibs/hr (9.1 kg/hr).
VIII-32
-------
fable VIII-14 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions for soda lime glass manufacture.
TAT.* V'IM-U
E, rM_issii)NS ,
1 "— ' '""• ' • — -"•
~ypc ot
E 'u"1 ro T .oft J> fori t rol
^la^s "Hcira, Uncontrolled
^la*i» "'"H^ng, vlth
IdSJ.ouse
Scrubber
*
Cortcol
0
99
95
r.irticylate r
(T)'ic»l rn ftSjf"
ih..«i,i
15.6
0,156
0.78
j i
hi6»iGnj | ' clLiijn i
0 toiv>/vnl h,mici'«i :<••<• Si
'<'i»'Hi' 1 S'a. j [11,
7,08 j?,26/4.2 JJ4.25/6.47
1 1
0,f?l n. 26/4, 2 U.25/6.&7
0,34 V). 26/4,1 b,25/l>,6?
i r
! 1
inlt.it{iT!
tircv*:
Oi!if .
32,2/14.6
12,2/14.6
3:. 2/14, 6
" 3!.../h.-7(.
, OHsttn-:
"~ Cni."
IS. 11/8. 22
18.i:/.i.22
15.ll/8.i?
,•/;',> ~
'.nuri-i •.»
SB...
4^.53/18.53
43.5J/18.53
'.0.51/18.53
™*
1 I SS" Cr.".trol
2.34/1,06
:. 34/1.06
:.34/i.C5
Potential Source Coinpliance and Emission Limitation; Current and availavle
control technology is adequate for soda lime glass manufacture to achieve
particulate emission limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
Literature used to develop the material on soda-lime glass manufacturing is
listed below:
(1) Technical.Guide _for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
PollutionSources, PEDCO - Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607, July, 1973.
(2) Compilation of Air PollutantEmission Factors, (Second Edition), EPA, Publi-
cation No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(3) A.^creening Study to Develop BackgroundInformation to Determine^ the Signif-
jLcance of Glass Manufacturing_ (Final Report), The Research Triangle Institute,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 3, December, 1972,
(4) Analysisof Final State Implementation Flans- Rulea and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VIII-33
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Gypsum
c* Source Description;
Gypsum, naturally-occurring hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSOi+.Zl^O, is mined in
open pits and underground minus and calcined at nearby plants. The calcination
process involves the conversion of gypsum from calcium sulfate dihydrate
(CaSO^.21120) to calcium sulfate hemihydrate (CaSOi+.l/ZHpO) under controlled tem-
perature conditions. The block flow diagram shown in Figure VIII-9 presents the
steps in the process and the composition of the gypsum.(3)15
GYPSUM
nccK
CAS04-2H20
PARTICIPATE
PARTICIPATE
I INGp HS
"I
CRUSHING^-——-HSCKL'ENINGJ '
PARTICULATE -• [GRINDING!
(PORTLAND
CEMENT
PLASTERS 1
iCEV.ENTSP
r
DRYING
(FREE W-WR
ONLY)
LAND
PLASTtf?
CAS04-?.K2O
1
CALCINING
i
•
STUCCO
CASC.vV.ZO
RETARDi'R
CASQ,-2H20
- PARTICULATE
— '
„
AGRICULTURAL
GYPSUM
CASO^, -2H20
^ PARTICULATE
*" SOX , NOX
BOARD
PRODUCTS
FljuroJ7IJI-9|_ G)'psunJ'rojucte Flow Diagram
The overall operation is essentially a drying operation in which the raw
material is crushed and ground under the influence of hot gases. The dust-laden
gases exit to a collector from which the finished product drops to a bin.
A typical calcining plant will .process 22.5 tons per hour or 197,100 tons per
year. O)Gypsum
V1II-34
-------
D, Emission _Rates_;
Calcining gypsum is devoid of particulate air pollutants because it involves
only low-temperature removal of the water of hydratlort. However, the gases
created by the release of the water of crystalization carry gypsum rock dust and
partially calcined gypsum dust into the atmosphere. Dust emissions do occur from
grinding gypsum before calcining and from mixing of calcined gypsum with filler.
Table VIII-15 presents the particulate emission rates for gypsum processing.(2)8-1
TABLE VIII-15
PARTICULATF EMISSIONS FROM GYPSUM PROCESSING
Tyoe of
Ooeration & Control
Rat; Material Dryer) Uncontrolled
Raw Material Dryer, with Fabric
Filter
Ra*^ Material Dryer, wltti Cyclone
and Electrostatic Precipitator
Primary Grlm'er, Uncontrolled
Primary Grinder, with Fabric
Filter
Priir.ary Grinder, with Cyclone
and Electrostatic Precipitator
Calci.ii;r, Uncontrolled
Calciner, with Fabric Filter
Calciner, with Cyclone and Elee-
tro-.tr,ti,- Prcci?:tcccr
C^uv^./iu^, 'JncGUiAollK.il
Conveying, with fabric Filter
Conveying, with Cyclone and Elec-
trostatic Precipitator
%
Control
0
99,5
99.0
0
99.9
i99.9
0
99.8
»99.9
0
99.8
s-99.9
Particuiacc »issions (Based on 197,000 tons/yr)
Ibs/ton
40
0.2
0.4
1
0,001
__
90
0.1
—
0.7
0.001
""""
kg/MT
20
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.0005
—
45
0.05
—
0.35
0.0005
*"
Ibs/hr
900
4.5
9.0
22.5
0.023
—
2025
2.3
—
15.8
0.023
~~
kg/hr
408
2,04
4.1
10.2
0.010
—
919
1,02
™
7.1
0.010
"""*"*
S, Con t r o 1 Equ ipment;
The most common equipment for the collection of particulate matter is the
electrostatic precipitator. It is also the most expensive and is used in gypsum
plants only when the emissions are too hot to be collected in a baghouse.
Cyclone collectors and baghouses are satisfactory, while wet collectors are
usually avoided because they convert an air pollution problem to a water pollu-
tion problem. Both baghouses and electrostatic precipltators used to collect gyp-
sum, dust have efficiencies ranging from 95 to 99 percent. (3)21* The controlled and
incoutrolled emissions from gypsum manufacture are shown in Table VT1I-15.
F. NgjLj^urcj^JPer_forinance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for gypsum production.
S±ate_Re_gu l.atj.pn s f or New and Exi s t ing S our ces; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
gypsum production. The four types of regulations are based on:
VIII-35
-------
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emis-
sion limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - O.OA grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania *• 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
New Mexico has a regulation specifically for gypsum plants.
New Mexico - 690 mg/m3
Control Efficiency Basis: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour 'for specific flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.-- Ibs/hr
105 - 10G acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted general
process limitations for new sources with a process weight rate of 22.5
tons/hr. For a source with this process weight rate, Illinois is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 13.4 Ibs/hr (6.1 kg/hr) and
New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 33.0
Ibs/hr (15.0 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate_Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express particulate emission limitations for existing sources for a
wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of 22.5
tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
24.7 Ibs/hr (11.2 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 40.7 Ibs/hr (18.5 kg/hr).
Table VIII-16 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions from gypsum manufacturing.
VIII-36
-------
TABLE Vm-16
PARTICUIATE EMISSIONS AKD LIMITATIONS FTOH GYPSUM PROCESSING
Type of
Ooer.ition & Control
Raw Material Pryer, Uncontrolled
R«w Material Dryer, with Fabric
Filter
Raw Material Dryer, with Cyclone
«nd Electrostatic Precipltator
Prloary Grimier, Uncontrolled
Primary Grinder, with Fabric Filter
Primary Grinder, with Cyclone and
Electrostatic Precipitator
Calciner, Uncontrolled
Celelner, with Fabric Filter
Calciner, with Cyclone and Elec-
trostatic Prcclpitator
Conveying, Uncontrolled
Conveying, with Fabric Filter
Conveying, with Cyclone and Elec-
trostatic Precipitmtor
2
Control
0
99,5
99,0
0
99.9
>99.S
0
99,8
»S9,9
0
99.8
»99.9
Particulate Emissions
(Unveil on 197»10n "•ms/hrl
Ibs/hr
900
4,5
9,0
22.5
0.023
2023
2.3
— J
15.8 3
0,023
-—
ka/hr
400
52.04
4.1
10,2
0.010
— -
919
1.02
— , ,1
7.2
0,010
Uir«tion.'» IWhr/Vg/tir - ' -
New Si
111.
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13,4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13,4/6.1
13,4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
o,^rc£
NH
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.3
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
Existing Sources
Col.
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11,2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
NH
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
UT 85% Control
135/61.3
1
3.38/1,53
Mt~—
304/138
2.36/1.07
Potential Source Complaints and^ Emission Limitati.on.8; Current technology is
adequate for all processes of gypsum manufacture to be in compliance with even
the most restrictive limitations.
Current technology is adequate for all processes of gypsum manufacture to be
in compliance with even the most restrictive limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations,
G. References;
Literature used to develop the discussion on gypsum processing is listed be-
low:
(1) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on1985National
Emissions from Stationary So_urces, Volume II (Final Report), TRC - The Re-
search Corporation of New England, EPA Contract 68-02-1382, Task No. 3,
October, 1975.
(2) Compilationof Air Pollutant EmissionFactory (Second Edition), EPA, Publi-
cation No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(3) Screening Study for BackgroundInformation and Signifleant Emissions for
Gypsum Product Manufacturing, Process Research, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-02-
0242, Task 14, May, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-r-Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VIII-37
-------
A. Source Category]VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category: MineralWool
C. Source Description:
Mineral wool was formerly divided into three broad categories:
1) Slag wool
2) Rock wool
3) Glass wool
At the present time, however, a combination of slag and rock constitutes the
cupola charge materials, yielding a product generally classified as mineral
wool, as opposed to glass wool.
Mineral wool is made primarily in cupola furnaces charged with blast fur-
nace slag, silica rock, and coke. The charge is heated to a molten state at
3,000°F (1,650°C) and fed to a blow chamber where steam atomizes the
molten rock into globules that develop long fibrous tails as they are drawn to
the other end of the chamber. A temperature between 150° and 250°F (66° and
121°C) is maintained in the blow chamber. The wool blanket formed is con-
veyed to an oven to cure the binding agent and then to a cooler. A batting oper-
ation normally follows the cooler. The entire mineral wool process is shown
schematically in Figure VIII-10. O) 3t*3
Figure VIII-10; Flow Diagram of
An average plant processes 2.2 tons of mineral wool per hour, or 19,300
tons annually/3' Mineral Wool
D. Emission Rates:
The main sources of hydrocarbon emissions from mineral wool processing are:
1) Blowchambcr
2) Ovens
3) Cooler
VII 1-38
-------
Emissions from the blowchamber consist of fumes, oil vapors, and binding agents
as well as wool fibers. The curing ovens emit similar pollutants except that
no metallurgical fumes are involved. The hydrocarbon emissions from mineral
wool processing are shown in Table VIII-17.(3) Mineral Wool
TABLE VIII-17
HTOROCARBOH EMISSIONS FROM MISE8AL WOOL PROCESSING
Type of Operation
and Control
Blowchamber, uncontrolled
Oven, uncontrolled
Cooler, uncontrolled
Oven, with catalytic afterburner
Oven, with direct-flame afterburner
Z Control
0
0
0
53
57
*Hydrocnrbon Emissions (Rased on 19,300 tons/yr,J
lb/Ton
0,987
0.996
0.041
0.468
0.428
Kg/HT
0.494
0.498
0.021
0.234
0.214
Ib/hr
2.17
2.19
0.090
1.030
0.942
KR/hr
.98
.99
.041
.47
.43
* As HCHO
E. Con trol Equipment :
Incineration of curing-oven emissions has proved to be a practical method
for control of these hydrocarbon emissions. C1)31*7 Both direct-flame and
catalytic afterburners are available, but the former is more satisfactory for
use on mineral wool curing ovens. No demonstrated control has yet been shown
for the blowchamber or the cooler. (3^ Mineral Wool Table VIII-17 shows the
controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from a mineral-wool processing
plant.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) : No New Source Performance Standards
have been -promulgated, for .mineral wool manufacture.
StajLGjlo;;uj ntions for ^QJl^I^J^JltJJIILJgHIlESg.' Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regu] ations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useagc is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemicnlly
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated dryjiig of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1.
2.
A combination of hydrocarbons, .alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having mi olefinic or cyclo-
olcfinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylcne or tolune:
20 per cent
VIII-39
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows;
1.
2.
3.
Process
heated process
unheated photoehcmically reactive
non-photochetnically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Fed (^rnl JRc_gi s t er , Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the omission of phoLochemieally reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr, Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually imreaetive are, saturated
lialogenated hydrocarbons, perehloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-c^n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Ru3e 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values hove been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table ¥111-18 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions for mineral wool manufacture.
TABLE VIIl-ia
HYDROCARBON EM1SSTOHS AHD_tIMITAT'' '*S FRQH MIMESAL HQOL PBOCESSISS
Type of Optratioo
and Control
Blovchaab*r, uncontrolled
Oven, uncontrolled
Cooler, uncontrolled
Oven, with catalytic afterburner
Oven, vith direce-fl-wic afterburner
I Control
0
0
0
53
57
* hviirocoi'bort FfciBSions
i,H,isi'd on 19,300 tons/yr.)
lh'/hr
2. IT
2.19
0.090
1.030
0,942
lj./hr
.98
.99
.041
.47
.43
Limitations* Ib/hr/kr./hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unseated
a
8
S
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
« A* ECHO
Potential Source Compliance and Emission._ Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Mineral wool manufacture is a
relatively small emitter, and for the typical 2.2 ton/hour process the hydro-
carbon emissions are below the limitations even uncontrolled.
Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
VIII-40
-------
G. References:
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on mineral wool is
listed below:
1. Danielson, J. A. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1, 1971.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
3. Hopper. T. G. Impact of New Source[Performance Standards on 1985
National Emi.ssj.ons jrom Stationary Sources. Volume II (Final Report).
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England. EPA Contract No.68-02-1382,
Task No. 3. October, 1975.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
One reference which could provide relative information on the mineral wool
industry is:
5. Preliminary^ Repprt_1972 Census_of ManufacturerSj._Industry Series.
, B.C. U.S. Department ol Coffmierce.
VIII-A1
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Phosphate Rock (Drying)
C. Source Description;
Phosphate rock is found in rich deposits of fluorapatite, with re-
lated minerals as impurities. Phosphate rock preparation involves beneficiation
to remove these impurities, drying to remove moisture, and jgrinding to improve
reactivity. These processes are shown schematically in Figure VIII-11.
(PAIfTICULATl)
3~16l+
NATWAL GAS C* FUH Oil.
(PARTICUIATE)^
STORAGE BINS
Figure VIII-11: Phosphate rock processing.
Usually direct-fired rotary kilns are used to dry phosphate rock. These dryers
burn natural gas or fuel oil and are fired counter^currently,
Approximately 697,000 tons of phosphate rock are dried annually by an average
plant in the United States.(3)Phosphate Rock Processing
D. Emission Rates;
The phosphate rock drying operation is a significan
emissions, which are usually higher when drying pebble
centrate because of the small adherent particles of cla
The uncontrolled emission for the drying operation are s
(1)8.18-1
TABLE VIII-19
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK DRYING
'urce of particulate
i.han when drying con-
id slime on the rock.
wn in Table VIII-19.
Type of Operation
-------
E, Control Equipment;
Control of partlcula,te emissions from phosphate rock dryers is accomplished
with dry cyclones followed by wet scrubbers. This combination of control equip-
ment is successful in reducing emissions by 95 to 99 percent.C1)8«18~1 The con-
trolled and uncontrolled emissions from phosphate rock drying are presented in
Table VIII-19.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for phosphate rock drying.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
phosphate rock drying. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. contro] efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4, process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emis-
sion limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grainc/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states are:
Alaska ' - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when ,
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0,02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 10G acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VIII-43
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 79.6 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
24.5 Ibs/hr (11.1 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 49 Ibs/hr (22.2 kg/hr).
Process Wright Rate BasjLs for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general particulate emission limitations for existing source for
a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of
79.6 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
34.9 Ibs/hr (15.8 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 77 Ibs/hr (34.9 kg/hr).
Table VIII-20 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions from phosphate rock drying.
TABLE VIII-20
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS KROM PHOSPHATE ROCK DRYING
Type of Qperr.tior, and Conr.ro]
Phcsphjtc Rock Drying,
Uncontrolled
Phosphate Hjck Drying, vith
Cyclone, itid Wet Scrubber
X
Cnnrrcl
0
95-99
Particulate Emissions
(based on 697,000 tons/yr)
Ib/hr
1193
59.7-11.9
kg/hr
541
27.1-5.4
Limitations^ Ib/hr/kg/hr
New Sources Existing Sources
M.-.R3
24,i/ll.l
24.5/11.1
TO I Col.
19/22.2
49/22.2
34,9/li.8
34.9/15.8
Miss.
77/34.9
77/34.9
t'T OS* Cont.
179/8i..2
179/81.2
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Cyclones and wet
scrubbers adequately control phosphate rock drying emissiomj to within even the
most restrictive limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References:
The references used to develop the preceding discussion on phosphate rock dry-
ing are listed below:
1. Q£mP_iiS£A°.n_£f_A:lrI Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition) . EPA.
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
2. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources. PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607. July, 1973.
3. Hopper. T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1.985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report).TRC - The Re-
search Corporation~of New England. EPA Contract~NcK 68-02-1382, Task No.
3. October 24, 1975.
VIII-44
-------
4, Analysis of State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July,1972, Mitre Corporation
References which were not directly used for this discussion but which could
provide other information on phosphate rock processing include:
5. jmission Standards for thePhosphate RockProcessing Industry. Consult-
ing Division, Chemical Construction Corporation. EPA Contract CPA 70-156,
July, 1971.
6* Air Pollution Control Technology and CostsinSeven Selected Areas. Indus-
trial Gas Cleaning Institute. EPA Contract No, 68-02-0289. December, 1973.
VIII-45
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Phosphate Rock (Grinding)
C. Source Description;
Phosphate rock is generally found in rich deposits of fluorapatite, with re-
lated materials as impurities. Preparation of phosphate rock involves beneficia-
tion to remove these impurities, drying to remove moisture, and grinding to im-
prove reactivity. These processes are shown schematically in Figure VIII-12.
(2)3-164
(f ARTICULATE)
V
V
WET
V
" NATUKAkOAJ ORfVgl Oil
(PARTICIPATE).
[PHOSPHATE ROCK ,__
GRINDING MlU •"*-' DUST SILO P"*" STO
STORAGE (INS
Figure VIII-12; Phosphate Rock Processing
The grinding operation is usually carried out after the drying step using air-
swept ball mills to grind the material. The ground rock is then stored in large
dust storage silos. Approximately 180,000 tons of phosphate rock are ground by a
typical American plant annually.(s)Phosphate Rock Processing
D. Emission Rates;
Phosphate rock grinders can be a significant source of fine particulate emis-
sions. Table VIII-21 presents the level of particulate emissions from phosphate
grinding operations. t1'8- 1(3-1» (s)Phosphate Rock Processing
TABLE VIII-21
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK GRINDING
Type of Operation and Controls
Phosphate Rock Grlnclinc, Uncontrolled
Phosphate Rock Grinding, with Dry
Cyclones and Fabric Filters
1
Control
0
99.5-
99.9
Participate Emissions
(based on 180,000 tons/yr)
Ib/ton
2.0
0. 01-. 002
kR/mt
1.0
.005-. 001
Ib/hr
41.1
.21-. 04
kR/hr
IS. 6
0. 19-. 018
V11I-46
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Control of emissions from phosphate rock grinding is effectively accomplished
with baghouse collectors, which are successful in removing the extremely fine par-
ticles emitted by the grinders• Combinations of dry cyclones and fabric filters
can reduce emissions by 99.5 to 99.9 percent, as shown in Table VIII-19.
F. New_ Source performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New.SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS); No New Source performance Standards
have been proposed for phosphate rock grinding,
State Regulacipns for New gnd.JExxstjlng_J>gurc_es; Particulate emission
regulations tor varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are lour types of regulations that are applicable
to phosphate rock grinding. The four types of regulations are based on;
1. concentration,
2, control efficiency,
3, gas volume, and
4. process weight,
Concentration Basis'. Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express paitieulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard
cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these four
states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubicfoot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0,02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follOWS!
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 1C6 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VIII-47
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sourcess Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 20.5 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate, Illinois
is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 12,7 Ibs/hr (5.8 kg/hr)
and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
31,0 Ibs/hr (U.I kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general particulate emission limitations for a wide variety of
process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of 20.5
tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
23.4 Ibs/hr (10.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 38.2 Ibs/hr (17.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight RateBasisfor Specific Sources; Pennsylvania has a
regulation that applies to general grinding operations. For the size
process listed in Section D, the limitation for a 20.5 ton/hr process
is 9.5 Ibs/hr (4.3 kg/hr).
Table VIII-22 presents the controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limi-
tations for phosphate rock grinding.
TABLE VIII-22
PARTICUtATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM PHOSPHATE, HOCK
Type of Operation
and Controls
Phosphate Rock Grinding, Un-
controlled
Phosphate Rock Grinding, With
Dry Cyclones and Fabric Fil ters
2
Control
0
99.5-
99.9
Particulate
Emissions
based on
180,000 tons/yr
it/l»r
41,1
.J1-.04
__kfi/hr
18.6
o.io-.me
Limitation:,1* Ib/hr/kg/hr
Grinding
Operations
PennsyJvgBliL....
9.5/4.3
9.5/4.3
General Processes
New Sources
IL
12. 7/5. 8
12.7/5.8
NH
31.0/14.1
31.0/14.1
Existing Sources
CO
23.4/10,6
23.4/10.6
w:
38.2/17.3
38. 2/17. 3
UT 852 Cont
1,5/10.7
1,5/10.7
Potential Source Compliance and Emission^^ LirnitatiTOs: Dry cyclones and fabric
filters currently control phosphate rock grinding operations sufficiently to
meet current regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
VIIT.-48
-------
G, References:
1. Compilation of AirPollutant Emission Factora_iSecond Edition). EPA Publi-
cation No. AP-42. April, 1973.
2. Technical.Guide fqr Reyiey and ftvflliiaft'f.pft of Comp^ian^e Sphedul.es for Air
Pollution Source?. PEDCO-Envlronmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607. July, 1973.
3. Hopper, T.G. Impactof New Source Performance Standards on1985National
IffilSSlQPs from Stationary Sources. Volume, II (Final Report). TRC - The Re-
search Corporation of New England. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No.
3. October 24, 1975.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation plans -Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References which were not directly used for this category discussion but which
could provide other information on phosphate rock processing include:
5. Emission Standards for the Phosphate RockProcessing Industry. Consulting
Division, Chcanical Construction Corporation. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-156.
July, 1971.
6. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven SelectedAreas. Indus-
trial Gas Cleaning Institute. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289, December, 1973.
VIII-49
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B« Sub Category; Sand and Gravel Processing
C. Source Description;
Deposits of sand and gravel, the consolidated granular materials resulting
from the natural disintegration of rock or stone, are found in banks and pits and
in subterranean and subaqueous beds. Depending on the location of the deposit,
the raw materials for sand and gravel plants are either dredged or quarried and
then transferred to crushing and screening equipment. Power shovels, drag-
lines, cableways, suction dredge pumps, or other apparatus may be used to excavate
the materials. Suction pumps, earth movers, barges, and trucks are among the
equipment used to transport the materials to the processing plant.
At the processing plant, the material is washed before further proces-
sing. Depending on the specific market for which the material is being produced,
it is passed through various screens, classifiers, crushers, and then conveyed to
storage and loading facilities. The entire process flow is illustrated schemat-
ically in Figure VIII-13.
Excavation
of
RAW HAttrUl
to ?l*ot **
Cl.t.Uylns
\
CruiMni
VUI-ni S«nd Md Cv«vcl rroct«»ing Flow Quart*
•nd
Tr*n*?ort
Y
Seorlgc
A typical plant will process 80 tons per hour or 144,000 tons per year.'
*Assumes 8 hrs/day x 5 days/week x 45 weeks/yr = 1800 hours/year.
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emission sources in sand and gravel processing include:
(1) Conveying,
(2) Screening,
(3) Crushing,
(4) Storage Operations, all of which can generate significant quantities
of dust.
(1)
VIII-50
-------
Emission rates are affected by;
1. moisture content of processed materials,
2. degree of size reduction required, and
3. type of equipment used for processing.
An additional source of dust is vehicle traffic over unpaved roads or dust-
covered paved roads in the vicinity of sand and gravel processing plants. How-
ever, this type of emission varies from plant to plant and is not amenable to
consistent estimation, so no estimation was made. Table VIII-23 summarizes the
particulate emissions from sand and gravel processing.(2)8-19~1
TABLE VIII-23
tARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING
Type of
Operation Si Control
Sand & Gravel Processing,
Uncontrolled
Sand & Gravel Processing,
with Kfiohnijpp
7»
Control
0
95
Part]
(Basec
Ibs/ton
0.1
0.005
iculate
on 80
kg/MT
0.05
0.0025
Emissic
tons/ho
Ibs/hr
8.0
0.4
>ns
ur)
kg/hr
3.6
0.2
E. Control Equipment;
Generally, control devices are not used in the sand and gravel processing
plant.CO Sana and Gravel'Processing However, a baghouse could be employed to
collect 95 percent of the emissions.(3)3«*2,(l)Sand and Gravel Processing The
controlled and uncontrolled emissions are shown in Table VIII-23.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for sand and gravel processing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to sand and
gravel processing. The four types of regulations are based on*.
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
VIII-51
-------
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these four states
are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of Ibs/hr for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations are:
1 - 1011 acfm - 9,11 Ibs/hr
101' - 105 acfm - 38.00 ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Kate Basis_f_or New_ Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 80 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 24.5 Ibs/hr
(11.1 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 49.0 Ibs/hr (22.2 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basisfor Existing Sojjrces: The majority of states
express particulate process limitations for existing sources in terms
of pounds/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For sources
with a process weight rate of 80 tons/hr, Colorado is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 34.9 Ibs/hr (15.8 kg/hr) and
Mississippi is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 77 Ibs/
hr (34.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis forSpecific Sources; Pennsylvania has a general
limitation for screening, crushing and grinding operations. For a 80
ton/hr process, the particulate limitations is 9.5 Ibs/hr (4.3 kg/hr).
Table VIII-24 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and
limitations for sand and gravel processing.
VIII-52
-------
TABLK VIII-24
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING
Type of
Operation 6 Control
Sand i Gravel Processing,
Uncontrolled
Sand i Gravel Processing,
with Ba^house
Z
Control
0
95
Partlculate PjnlsHlons
(Based on 80 tons/hour)
Ibs/hr ke/hr
8.0 3.6
0.4 0.2
Limitations'1 Ibs/hr/kc/hr
Processing
Operations
Penn.
9.5/4.3
9.5/4.3
Genaral Processes
New Sources
Masa.
24.5/11.1
24.5/11.1
NH
49.0/22.2
49.0/22.2
Existing Sources
Col. Miss. iUT 85X Control
34.9/15.8
34.9/15.8
77/34.9 ",'
77/34.9
0.29/0.13
0.23, M3
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Sand and gravel
processing, even uncontrolled, often meet even the most restrictive emission
limitations. Unless the fugitive aspects of a particular plant cause a problem,
this industry does not rely on extraordinary control measures to maintain
compliance.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used t,o develop the material in this section is listed below:
(1) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report), TRC - The Re-
search Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task #3,
October 24, 1975.
(2) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA Publica-
tion No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(3) Danielson, J.A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V1II-53
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category: Stone Quarrying
C. Source Description;
Raw materials for the manufacture of rock and crushed stone products
are obtained from deposit beds in quarries by drilling and blasting. Open
quarries account for 95 percent of production, but underground quarries
are becoming more common. Secondary breakage is accomplished by mechanical
drop hammers rather than by additional blasting. Primary crushing is often
done at or near the quarry by jaw crushers and gyratories.
The material is moved to processing plants by use of heavy earth-
moving equipment for processing, including crushing, regrinding, screening,
and removal of fines. Extensive use is made of belt conveyors for materials
transfer between various processing operations. In some of the larger, more
efficient plants the stone is drawn out from tunnels under the storage piles.
The equipment is designed to blend the materials as necessary. Figure VIII-14
shows a flow diagram for stone processing.O)V-III-62
Rock from
Mine or Quarry
J'rirBiv
Crusher
*
Scrttninq
»*fltl»rtf
• lt»l.
Secor.d.-.rr
4
Tertiary
Ctusher
Ov4t»|t*tf
1*1.1.
Srrcpnino
and
Sizing
Finished
Product
A typical plant processes 300 tons per hour or 540,000 tons*
annually. (2)Stone Quarrying and Processing
*Assumey 8 hr/day x 5 days/week x 45 weeks./yr. = 1,800 hrs/yr.
D. Emission Rates:
All stone quarrying and processing operations are potential dust
emission sources. These include:
(1) Blasting,
(2) Handling,
(3) Crushing,
(4) Screening,
(5) Conveying,
(6) Loading and transporting,,
(7) Storing.
Stone quarrying by its very nature is a highly visible fugitive oriented
process. The blasting, handling, conveying, loading, transporting and storage
are all potential fugitive emitters. As such these sources of particulate
emissions vary from plant to plant depending on plant layout and housekeeping
facilities. For this section, however only point source emissions were
estimated. VIII-54
-------
Factors affecting point source emissions include:
(1) The amount and type of rock processed,
(2) The method of transfer of the rock,
(3) The moisture content of the raw material,
(4) Type of equipment used,
C5) The degree of enclosure of the transferring, processing,
and storage areas, and
(6) The degree to which control equipment is used on the
process,
(7) Meteorological conditions,
(8) Size reduction performed.
Table VIII-25 shows the emissions from stone handling processes.
TABLE VIII-25
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM STONE QUERYING AND PROCESSING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Primary Crushing, Uncontrolled
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
ir.f, Unc^r.trrUcd
Tertiary Crushing -r.d Scrsan-
ing, Uncontrolled
Recrushing and Screening, Un-
controlled *
Fines Mill, Uncontrolled
Screening, Conveying and Han-
dling
Storage Piles, Uncontrolled
Primary Crushing with Fabric
Filter
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
ing, with Fabric Filter
TeiLiary Crushing and Screen-
ing with Fabric Filter
Recrushing and Screening with
Fabric Filter
Fines Hill with Fabric Filter
Screening, Conveying and Han-
dling with Fabric Filter
Enclosed Storage Pi]es
% Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
Particulate Emissions
CBased on ,300 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
0.5
1.5
6
1
6
2
10
0.005
0.015
0.06
0.05
0.06
kg/MT
0.25
0.74
3
5
3
1
5
0.0025
0.0075
0.03
0.025
0.03
0.02 ; 0.01
Ibs/hr
150.
450.
1800.
300.
1800.
600.
969.
1.5
4.5
18.
15.
18.
6.
kg/hr
68.0
?04.
816.
136.
816.
272.
440.
0.7
2.0
8.2
6.8
8.2
2.7
0.10 ! 0.05 ' 30. : 13.6
•Includes, 20% of stone recrushed
E. Control Equipment;
Dry collection of emissions is preferable where fines are market-
able. Dust emissions from some processing steps are suppressed by
wetting the materials. Where collected dust is salable, ventil-
ation to a baghouse will reduce emissions by 99 percent.(3)7 Wet scrub-
bers would achieve similar results, but cyclones would only be 80 per-
cent efficient. There is no indication that electrostatic precipitators
are used in the industry. The controlled and uncontrolled emissions .
from stone quarrying and processing are shown in Table VIII-25.
VI1I-55
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No new source performance
standards have been promulgated for the stone quarry industry.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to stone quarries. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington, New Jersey
and Pennsylvania are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic feet and
grains/dry standard cubic feet. The limitations for these states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20. grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 graina/ury standard cubic. CuoL
'Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot gas volume >300,000 scfm
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/standard cubic foot, gas volume <300,000 scfm
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries
to maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations
in terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in
actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates
are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.60 Ibs/hr
Process VJeight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particuiate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 300 tons/hour. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
31.5 Ibs/hr (14.3 kg/hr) and Nnw Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 63.0 Ibs/hr (28.6 kg/hr).
VI1I-56
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources^ The majority of states
express particulate emission limitations for existing sources for a wide
range of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate
of 300 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 43.1 Ibs/hr (19.5 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictrive limitation, 177 Ibs/hr (80.3 kg/hr).
Table VIII-26 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and
limitations for stone quarrying.
TABLE VtII-26
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Primary Crushing, Uncontrolled
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
ing, Uncontrolled
Tertiary Crushing and Screen-
ing, Uncontrolled
Recrushing and Screening,
Uncontrolled
Fines Mill, Uncontrolled
Screening, Conveying and
Handling
Storage Piles, Uncontrolled
Primary Crushing with Fabric
Filter
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
ing with Fabric Filter
Tertiary Crushing and Screen-
Ing with Fabric Filter
Recrushing and Screening with
Fabric Filter
Fines Mill with Fabric Filter
Screening, Conveying and Han-
dling with Fabric Filter
Enclosed Storage Piles
%
Control
0
}
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
Parr.iculate Emissions
(Based on
. 300 tonsj^hrj
Ibs/hr kg/hr
150. 68.0
450. 204.
1800. 816.
300. 136.
1600. 816.
600. 272.
969. 440.
1.5 0.7
4.5 2.0
18. 8.2
15.. 6.8
18. «.2
Limitations3 Ibs/lir/kc/hr
Crushing
Operations
PA
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8,3
18.3 /8.3
)8,1 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
••
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
6. 2.7 18.3 /8.3
30. 13.6
18.3 /8.3
General Processes
New Sources
MA
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
NH
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
61.n/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
-
Existing Sources
Col.
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
'I3.1/J9.5
43. 1/19. i
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43. 1/19. S
Miss/
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
UT 852 Control
7.3 /3.3
21.8/9.9
87.2/39.6
72.7/33.0
87.2/31.6
29.1/13.2
145. /66.0
Potential Source Compliance, and Emission Limitations; Fabric filters and
scrubbers are possible control measures to reduce particulate emissions
from stone quarrying operations below the most restrictive limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used uo update emissions limitations.
VIII-57
-------
G. References :
The literature used to develop the preceding discussion on stone quarry-
ing and processing is listed below:
(1) Hopper, T.G. , Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 Na-
tional Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report),
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
1382, Task #3, October, 1974.
(2) Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., EPA Contract No. EIISD 71-36, October 2~ 1971.
(3) Background Information for_ Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Studies Branch, November
3, 1972.
(4) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Second Edition),
EPA Publication No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
One sotirfp. was not" dirpctly usM fo develop this se^Honj but could
provide useful information regarding pollution coiiLi:ol equipment that L0
used in stone quarrying and processing operations.
(6) Danielson, J.A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, (Second Edition),
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
VI1I-58
-------
A. Source Category; IX Petroleum Industry
B. Sub Category; Petroleum Refining, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)
C. Source Description;
Petroleum refineries process crude oil to produce a variety of porducts, most
of which are fuel. These products are differentiated from each other chiefly by
their boiling temperature range. Those fuels boiling at temperatures in the gaso-
line range (200-400°F) (93-204°C) and below command premium prices. Kerosene (350°-
550°F) (1770C-2880C), and distillate fuels (450-600°F) (232°C-316°C) are desirable
for jet and diesel fuels as well as for heating purposes. Those materials above
600°F (316°C) are generally undesirable products, and one objective of refinery
operations is to minimize them. Fluid Catalytic Cracking is the principal process
used to convert high boiling point hydrocarbons into more valuable lower boiling
point material. 0)83
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units consist of a reactor, a regenerator, and a product
separation U'lit as shown in Figure IX-1. (2K18) presh feed and recycled feed are charge*
separately or as a combined feed to the reactor section. The feed is commingled with
hot regenerated catalyst in the reactor where the catalyst-hydrocarbon vapor mixture
is maintained as a fluid! zeO. bed. The combination of catalyst, temperature, and time
cause the hydrocarbon to undergo a cracking reaction which produce products of lower
boiling point than the charge stock.
«ET c*.s
RA«f GASOLINE
STEAtj
LIGHT CYCLE OH —— J
HEAVY CYCLE OIL—.—
BOTTOMS
FEED
ELECTROSTATIC STACK
PREC'I>ITA™
Figure IX-1; Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
A fraction of the combined feed is converted into by-products heavier than the
feed stock, which will not vaporize or leave the surface of the catalyst. The
carbonaceous residue on the catalyst is called coke. A portion of the fluidized
catalyst containing deposits of tar and polymers flows by gravity through a steam
stripper where volatiles are removed prior to reintroduction to the regenerator.
The cracked components are passed through stago. cyclone separators to remove
entrainc.d catalyst and then charged to fractionation equipment. The volatile
matter and much of the steam goes back into the reactor with fresh feed stock.
The coked catalyst bed in the regenerator is contacted with air to burn coke
deposits from the catalyst. The hot regenerated catalyst is then reintroduced to
the reactor.
IX-1
-------
The catalysts used in FCC units are fine powders of synthetic or natural
materials of silica-alumina composition. Recently the use of "molecular sieve
type" catalyst has grown substantially due to improved activity and stability.
The sieve catalysts are synthetic aluminosilicates processed to give special
crystalline structures,
D. Emi s s ion Ra tea i
Partieulate emissions from FCC units arise primarily from the exhaust of the
regenerators and the carbon monoxide boilers if so equipped. Beside the products
of combustion from the coking of the catalyst, there is actual loss of the catalyst
Itself. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units normally range in size from 20,000 bbl/day
(2380 m3/day) to 150,000 bbl/day (17850 m3/day) of feed stock. Data for a 40,000
bbl/day (4760 m3/day) ^ % refinery is representative for units found at smaller
Independent refineries includes the following:
Feed Rate;
Fresh Feed 40,000 bbl/day, 6400 m3/day
Recycle Feed 10,000 bbl/day, 1600 m3/day
Total Feed 50,000 bbl/day
Catalyst Circulation Rate
Carbon Burning Rate 34,000 Ibs/hour, 15,400 kg/hr
Flue Gas SCFM 83,000 SCFM (without CO boiler)
115,000 SCFM (with CO boiler)
8000 m3/day
2,100 tons/hour, 1,905 M tons/hour
Table IX-1 summarizes the emissions from FCC units with and without control.
r»M ninit CH/HTOC oacieiw
,
Tl 14 Cacilytle Cnek'.-.f- t'nls
it.*i 2 *t*K«« ef lm*rajl
2-eiaa.*
jrcie&cft *r, CO fcailt*
ttvlf Cit*l/t C CT«C'*:I| l*r.U
l>f«(I?i!*t»
ty£l<[if» tr£ CO bclUr jnd
0
0
n
12
{"•
ass
no
X)
41
iil**iog Bat
*,e
0.10
».»?
o.ot*
0.10
The emissions listed in Table IX-1 are estimates based on estimates provided
By EPA, Emissions from a single unit can vary from day to day depending upon the
catalyst, the condition of the catalyst and the quality of the crude. (3)
E. Control Equipment:
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units ordinarily require particulate collection equip-
ment to achieve acceptable emissions and reasonable recovery of the catalyst. Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Units usually have two stage internal cyclones. Over the 18-24
month operation period the effectiveness of these cyclones deteriorates substan-
tially due to erosion and the emissions increase. External cyclones will reduce
IX-2
-------
partlculate emissions and produce relatively clear stacks on small ynlts. Larger
units require electrostatic precipitators to provide high particulate removal
efficiencies. Precipitators can be installed either ahead of or after the CO boiler
on FCC units. With the precipitator installation ahead of the CO boiler a flue gas
heat exchanger is necessary to reduce the gas temperature entering the precipitator.
Also, the gas volume, temperature and resistivity of the particles is suitable for
good collection efficiencies. However, the temperature and pressure require rather
expensive materials thereby negating some of the cost benefits. With precipitator
installation after the CO boiler a larger gas volume must be handled because of re-
duced pressure, and the addition of the products of combustion. The temperatures
and pressures allox^ for a less expensive design of mechanical parts. To make up for
less favorable resistivity of the particles, ammonia is injected in the gas stream
to increase collection efficiency.
^• New Source PerformanceStandards and Reguljvtion_JLiinita11 ons_;
New Source Performance Standards.JNS,PS)_: On March 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries, Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Units. The March 8, 1974 Federal Register, section 60.102, limits
particulate matter emissions from coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator to be
not in excess of 1.0 kg/1000 kg (1.0 lb/1000 Ibs), Section 60.106 lists equations
to determine the particulate emission based on coke burning rate, volume of com-
bustion air, and dust loading of the exhaust. It has been calculated that this
value under typical refinery conditions is equivalent to 20.4 lbs/103 bbl of fresh
feed, (t*)^>5 por j-^e 40,000 bbl/day fluid catalytic cracking unit discussed in Sec-
tion D, the 1 •'mi t-.it-ifp IK 3'\ Ibs/hr.
State Regulations for Hey and Existing Sources; Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky,
Wisconsin, and Virginia have identical specific regulations for petroleum re-
fineries equal to the restrictions of the NSPS. For the 40,000 bbl/day refinery
discussed in Section D, the limitation is 34 Ibs/hr,
,l*Ill"kC!-ti-.°E? for Existing General Processes: New York has the most re-
strictive limitation based on a process weight of 9,000,000 Ibs/hr of 95 Ibs/hr
emission, Mississippi process weight table ends at 6,000,000 Ibs/hr with a
limitation of 876 Ibs/hr for the least restrictive limitation. For states without-
specific regulations for fluid catalytic cracking units, the catalyst recirculatlon
rate is the process weight rate. Table IX-2 presents the uncontrolled and controlled
emissions and limitations from fluid catalytic cracking units.
vUh 1 «i»s«* of ItA.-rnal
cytlo.iti
Vl h 1 cor'* e; UEt:nil
*! H J *iaj*» of iE,t«rn*l
tr a?;u*of
flsU C*t«!ysU t**£klcs£ !,'-,! e
iytU.t* t^ C- UU« »,".*
X C
0
u
SI
rri;u^u,
~ ' 's •
« u.«
J« li.t
3« 1J.4
« u.«
— ~T—
_____ ' r s v -\
•t-1—-^—
99 49
«$ *S
n «
n *3
t * : « < < i j : -jj
IU 39?
8?* «>
«H »i
•H J«>
IX-3
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Units are potentially substantial emitters of particulate air pollutants.
Carbon monoxide boilers and electrostatic precipitators have proved to effec-
tively limit particulate emission.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
Literature used to develop the material presented in this section is listed
below:
(1) Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final
Report). Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute EPA Contract No. 68-02-0301.
September, 1972.
(2) Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards; Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Le.ad Smelters, and
Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants,
Sewage Treatment Plants, Volume I, Main Text. EPA OAQPS June, 1973.
T3? Memo f^nm Char lag B. __SerJ™an. Tridijsrr-ial Studies Branch. EPA, March 4, 1976.
(4) Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions From
Stationary SourcesVolume I, Final Report. EPA Contract 68-02-1382. October,
1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Literature reviewed but not used in the development of the emissions or des-
cription was the following:
(6) P_artJ. culate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission Properties.
Midwest Research Institute. EPA Contract No. CPA22-69-104. May, 1971.
(7) Petroleum Refinery Background Information for Establishment of Federal Standards
of Performance for Stationary Sources (Final Report). Prepared for EPA by
Process Research Inc. Task Order No. 9. August, 1971.
(8) Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, Rules and Regulations.
January, 1971.
IX-4
-------
A. Source Category; X Wood Processing
B. Sub Category; Wood Processing (Plywood)
C. Source Description;
In manufacturing plywood, an odd number of veneer plies or veneer and lumber
plies are glued together. The grain directions in any two adjacent plies are
perpendicular to each other. Plywood sheets range in thickness from 1/8 inch to
1 3/16 inches. These thicknesses can be produced by utilizing 3 to 7 plies.
There are five steps in the manufacture of plywood:
1. sawing and debarking of logs,
2. peeling into veneer,
3. drying veneer,
4. assembling veneers, and
5. gluing with a thermosetting resin.
6. Assembled, glued veneers are heated by steam
and pressed.(3)10•3-1
Plywood may be manufactured from almost any type of wood. However, it is
generally limited to specific types because of the difficulty in cutting and
gluing some types.^)6-162,163 ^ flow diagram detailing the manufacture of
plywood is presented in Figure X-l.
A
O
A
O
• Ov;rflo";
c c ^
'Lei rcr.-J,
Cold Coc< or
-olh)
'rom
I
| J
r
<
Co-.d
j
Log ;
u:,,,r, j
Bork
>
A
Stcar.i
Lf.-
Stc>:. inr;
A
Drier K'cs'n '
and Delude
i.'atcr
•
•' 'j'p-i
!""
r
J _
/T7M
/ Jlncr ••.
I lj
V
,cs
A
Atrospheric Emissions
Liquid
Solid Mas IP
O
' Exhaust '
6n;cs
1
ocr !_•! U-r.rcr |
,e | j r
Vonccr
frwt
r-.or
.
lion
1
Plywood Operation
T
L
i
f
I
j
v,i
— ^
^
t '.en
61 u;
61
U'C
Lino
i
^~ |
- GH, -.:„»
recycle /
/I
I
, Pressing [
"
Jiiusablc
'jnccr and
-inshn-
Tfir. end
S,">J-:r :•,;:
0 i<>'b
Figuiv x-1: Dctai Icj Prbcci: Flc-.-i Dijnrjn for V;npcr and Plywood
X-l
-------
D. Emissions Rate;
Emissions from the manufacture of plywood include both particulates and
hydrocarbons. Particulate matter comes primarily from cutting and sanding
operations. Hydrocarbons come primarily from veneer and drying operations,
Most of the particulate is generated during sanding operations of the face
and back sheets of the plywood. 0 )6-163 (3) 10 . 3-1 It is estimated that for
every square foot of plywood produced, sawdust is generated from sanding and
cutting operations at a rate of 0.066 Ibs to 0.132 Ibs (.030 kg to .060 kg).
A portion of this is discharged into the atmosphere as particulate matter, but
much of it may be collected.
Hydrocarbons are discharged primarily from the veneer driers. The hydro-
carbons discharged include:
1. abietic acid,
2. sesquiterpener ,
3. fatty acids,
4. resin -asters, and
5. resin alcohols.
The hydrocarbon discharge of the veneer driers are easily spotted because of
their characteristic blue-haze plume. About 63 percent of the hydrocarbon
eiiiir^Ionn; r^-.-r ro;i icfisibl" , nr.d 37 percent nrn volati les . (6)7^ Typical
particuiate and hydrocarbon emissions are detailed in Table X-l.
TABLE X-l
PARTICUIATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING
Type of
3per. & Control
Sanding/Cutting,
Unconlrollod
Sanding/Cutting,
Baghouso
Veneer Drier,
Uncontrolled
Veneer Drier,
Condenser
2
Control
0
99
Particulace Emissions
Based on 3. GO rons/hr
Ibs/ ton
150-271
1.2-2.7
V-R/M ton
57.5-135
.6-1.4
Ibs/hr
408 - 961
4.1 - 9.6
kR/hr
185-436
1.9-4.4
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Based on 3.60 tons/hr
Ibs/ton
1.0-2.1
.5-1.1
kg/M ton
.50-1.0
.3 - .5
Ibs Air
3.6-7.3
1.8-3.7
kg/hr
1.6-3.3
.8-1.7
E. Control Equipment
Many woodworking facilities contain equipment to control the emission of
particulate matter. The dust from sanding and sawing that escapes into the air
is collected in a hood and is transported through duct-work to a sized cyclone.
Fine dust is controlled with a baghouse filter. (2) 372"~37l+
X-2
-------
Some work has been done to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from veneer dryer
exhausts. One technique, that in a pilot plant operation, was able to remove
up to 50 percent of the hydrocarbon and uses condensation of the gaseous hydro-
carbons as the control technique. (-5)968
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for plywood manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources for Particulates: Particulate
emission regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There arc four types of regulations that are applicable to
the plywood manufacture. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, an^
4. process weight.
Cor^centration Rasis: Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states "re;
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - Q.Q4 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control EffiH.enry Basics: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume TSasin: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Zl^J;Aj^li£lltLJI'lL(LBas^ for Now Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight-
rate of 3.6 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, A.I Ibs/hr
(1.9 kg/hr) and Nc-w Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 9.7 Ibs/hr (4.4 kg/hr).
X~3
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express particulate emission limitations for existing sources for a
wide range of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight
rate of 3.6 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 7.9 Ibs/hr (3.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of
a least rstrictive limitation, 11.9 Ibs/hr (5.4 kg/hr).
Specific Process Regulations for_New and Existing Source^: Two states have
adopted regulations specifically for plywood manufacture. Oregon requires
that sources limit their particulate emissions to 1.0 lbs/1000 ft2 of
plywood or veneer based on 3/8" thickness of finished product. For
particleboard, the limitation is 3.0 lbs/1000 ft2 of particleboard
produced based on 3/4" thickness. For hardboard, the limitation is 1.0
lb/1000 ft2 of hardboard produced based on 1/8" thickness,. Virginia
requires that in the manufacture of general wood products,, that exhausts
be limited to 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations arc patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. Those arc, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemical]-y
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the. first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketoncs having an olefinic or cyc]o —
olcflnic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzcne:
8 per cent
3. A combination oi cthylbenzene, kctones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylcne or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unhcatcd photochemically reactive ' 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive " 3000 450
Appc-ndix B (Federnl Rcgi s t cr, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14 ,
1971) limits the omission of photpchcmically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume, of a water based solvent.
X-4
-------
Solvent:; which have shown to be virtually unrcactive arc, saturated
halogenate-d hydrocarbons, perchlorocthylenc, benzene, acetone and c^-Cr,n-
paraffins.
Tor both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control lias been
demons! rated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the. emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connect:! cut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix )">. Some
stater, such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table X-2 presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions and
limitations from plywood manufacture.
TABLE X-2
PARTICULATE AND HYDROS"BON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM PLYWOOD MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation f. Conrrol
SanJi-s ar: C-utlng
Uncoutro] led
Sanding and Cutting,
Baghouse
Type of
Operation L Control
Venter Dryer,
Uncontrolled
Veneer Dryer, with
Condenser
.
._Cpnjtrol_
0
99
Z
Control
0
50
Varti culattt
Emissions
Ib/hr k£/lir 1
408-961 185-436
4.1-9.6 1.9-4.4
llvilrocrr. Errissa'or.R
Ib/hr kt;/hr
3.6-7.3 1.6-3.3
1.8-3.7 .8-1.7
Parti culnte Limitations 3bs/hr / k^/hr
New
MA
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
NH 1
9.7/4.4
9.7/4.4
Hydroc
Hfiated
ExisnnR
CO
7.9/3.6
7.9/3.6
tirbon LJin
3 1.4
3 1.4
r NH
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
1JT 0,^V
61.2/27.8
61.2/27.8
.tat-ions
Unlicatcd
8
8
3.6
3.6
Potenti_al^_Sourc-p Compl janco arid Emission Limitations; For the typical plywood
manufacturing operation producing 3.6 tons/hour plywood, Table X-2 indicates that
existing control technology is adequate to meet the most restrictive limitations.
The Environmcnrjtegortqr was used to update the emission limitations.
X-5
-------
G. References;
The literature used to develop the preceding discussion on Wood Processing
(Plywood) is listed below:
(1) Baumeister, Theodore, Editor, Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers,
Seventh Edition, 1967.
(2) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(3) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) VanDecar, C. Ted, Plywood Veneer Dryer Control Device, Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 22, Number 12, December 1972.
(6) Task Report: Trace Pollutants from Forest Materials, Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc., EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0232, Task Order
No. 29, June 21, 1974.
(7) Hopppr, Thomas G. , Impact of New Source PerforTrmnrp Standards on 1985
National Emissions Irom Stationary Sources, Volume II, Plywood/Veneer,
Industrial Factors, TRC - The Research Corporation of New England,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task #3, October 1974.
X-6
-------
A. Source Category; XI Manufacturing
B, Sub Category: Automobile Assembly Plant
C. So urce Descript ion:
Hydrocarbon emissions from automobile manufacturing arise in a large part
from painting. The painting of automobiles as they are manufactured is a multi-
step, setniautomated process.
The painting process can be generalized to the following steps;
1, cleaning and degreasing of bare metal,
2. addition of primer coates to bare metal, and
3. addition of finish coats.
The type of paint utilized is not always the same from one type of vehicle
to another. Lacquer-based paints and enamels are the most often used paints. CO8"
The application of the paint to the automobile is usually done on an
assembly line. The primer coats may be added by dipping the parts in a tank
of primer. The finish coats are added by two processes. First, the paint may
be added to the car parts manually as the parts pass through a suitable ventilated
"spray booth." Second, the paint may be added to the car parts automatically
as the parts pass through a suitably ventilated "spray booth. " In between some
coats, the finish may be dried in an oven. CO Figure G
D. Emissj on Ratet
Paint is consumed at a rate of about 3.5 gallons/car in the manufacture of
new automobiles. Assuming that about 60 percent of the 3.5 gallons of paint is
solvent that will evaporate during the painting process, and assuming that each
gallon weighs about 10 pounds, the weight of hydrocarbon emissions per ear is
estimated. C3)1"2
Typical solent emissions from an automobile assembly line using a variety
of painting techniques is detailed in Table XI-1,(5)355
TABLE XI-I
JPOTENTIAL REDUCTIONS IN .AIR, VOLUME FOJLJREATMENT
to hi- Air
(rented, \olume,
Item V.iiiii » ,inlil;ni, ll>/d,i> H fin
I . Slllutiull I.H Ijliei '\ I
f
2. Dispersion l,ict|m't 2 i
3. Dispersion l,ii"t|ucr 2 I
\
4 Dispersion I,ic«|m i S,i
•P
IH.OOU
...is ,in
-------
E, Control Equipment!
Because of the large volumes of make-up air necessary to assure operator
safety on the paint line, vehicle manufacturers have found the cost of control
of the solvent emissions prohibitive. Recently a system has been devised that
stages air from manual stations through to the automated stations as depicted
in Figure XI-1, By reusing the air the overall volume that needs to be treated
can be drastically reduced. Also, energy required to heat make-up air is also
reduced. The solvent emission potential is different from one position to the
next along the assembly line for painting. Selectively picking the areas where
solvent concentrations and quantities are the highest is an effective means to
drastically reduce solvent laden air volumes.(5)a57 Incineration of collected
exhaust effectively reduces the hydrocarbon levels to acceptable levels.
PRESENT SVSTEM (A)
Fresh air Ffesh
Exhaust
Exhaust
STAGING SVSTEM (6)
Frtsh air
Thermal treatment
Figure XI-1; Fresh Air
F. New tSourCIB Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Perforniance_Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been proposed for automobile painting.
State Repu1ations for New and Existing Sources; No regulations have been
passed specifically limiting hydrocarbon emissions from automobile painting.
The Environment Reporterwas used to update the emission limitations.
XI-2.
-------
G. References:
Literature used in the development of the information in this section
on automobile assembly is listed below.
1. jSjickftround Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided
by EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section,
Industrial Studies Branch, November 3, 1972, "Background Information
Needs for Industrial Surface Coatings."
2. Thomas G. Hopper, Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Industrial
Factors, Automobile Assembly Plants.
3. Thomas G. Hopper, Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Emission
Factors, Automobile Assembly Plants.
4. R. E. Roberts, J. B. Roberts, An Engineering Approach to Emission.
Reduction In Automotive Spray Painting, E. I. duPont deNemours
& Co. (Inc.).
5. ''jteducjng Solvent Emigj3J_on.s In Automotive Spray PaintJng, R. E. Roberts
and J. JJ. Roberts, E. I. duPont dc Nemours & Company, Inc. JAPCA,
Ai-L i.j , 1 Ci7(i.
XI-3
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1.
4.
7.
9.
12
15
16
17
a.
18
REPORT NO.
EPA-340/1 -78-004
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Controlled an^Uncontrolle
Applicable Limitations fo
AUTHOR(S)
Peter N. Formica
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME Ars
TRC - The Research Corpor
of New England, Weathersf
. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADC
US Environmental Protect!
Control Programs Developm
Office of Air Quality PI a
Research Triangle Park, r
. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
CPDD Project Officer was
. ABSTRACT
This report contains
hydrocarbon emissions for
U.S. The eighty source c
size and associated emiss
and (3) potential for coir
most and least restrictiv
provide state agencies wi
emission limitation poten
in areas where the curren
must be revised.
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Control
Emission Rates
Emission Limitations
Stationary Sources
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
d Emission Rates and September 1976
r Eighty Processes 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
Project No. 32567
D ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
ation
lelu, Connecticut 00109 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1382 Task #12
NO.
RESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
on Agency M .,
ent Division 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
nning & Standards
C 27711
Mr. Robert Schell
quantitative information on participate matter and
eighty source categories common to many areas of the
ategories are assessed according to (1) typical plant
ions, (2) applicable control equipment efficiencies
pliance with New Source Performance Standards and the
e regulatory limitations. The study objective is to
th information which would allow first cut assessment of
tial for sources within their jurisdictions, particularl
t Implementation Plan is substantially inadequate and
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
y
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS ATI Field/Group
Federal & State 13B
Emissions Regulations
Emission Factors
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 418
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Administration
Library Services Office
MD 35
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA-335
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
..tfcO STjt.
m
\
<3
*
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label;
tear off; and return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, CHECK HERE f~l; tear off label, and return it to the
above address.
PUBLICATION NO. EPA-340/1-78-004
------- |