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!iisi!
-------
                                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                                IV26
 Figure  IV-24       Emission Rates'from Web Offset and Web Letterpress
                      Employing Heatset Inks                                  IV28
 Figure  IV-25       Flow Diagram  for Thermal Combustion Including
                      Possibilities for Heat Recovery                         IV30
                                          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                      V14
Figure V-6         Flow Diagram  of Gas-Furnace  Process                      V-14
Figure V-7         Flow Diagram  of Thermal Process                          V15
                   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                              V27
                   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 rt >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  Chtcl Frocec 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. 014t            ,rl>.k t ,tl.,u,j clj, fruductl
                 rnrrilil.'lij><:i!             f,... ,n rl u:!

                 rtlnllr Anl,.ii!r1di           llr;lii|')
                 rl,|.cl,yln (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
ltctrottie Preeipitator
Wood Waste Boiler with Tbric
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

-------
                             |Mririniu-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, SpfKHl|>lllur
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 Spvnd**r ^tnU-ri llHiJt-rf li i-*l
vllli !:>-|R>ll.ilM
r HIT
Wsl r 1I ?, Pvfi (j-i-rf
.il i lulu-?, I'liht-rlri'il vllh Cyclimr
V.,l i lil.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 Tlll
nii,iiii nil
Coal*

(!,,/.!
C^t
foul*
r^n.|].

CCA)*
Co ill*

Cc^aJ*

C.nl*
11,11 HI nl Gut
X>lilul 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
Klf.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.fir>
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 Fbric
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
nitl)liice Oil
Coal*
Coal*
Coil*
Coal*

Conl*
Coal*
Cal*
Conl*

Coal*
Coal*
Conl*
Cunl*
Conl*

Coal*

Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Conl*

Coal*

CO1
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

sttlc 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*
Col

Coil*
Col>
Co/l I 
Prtil *
toai"
Col<
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 PiecJlltAtor
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*

Col

Trial*
Coal*
Conl
Coal*

Conl*

Conl*
C3l*
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
     *Auxci 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>rtot
              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 250-550F.  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.
Uncombuted 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 250-550F.  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 & AIT
< 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,lttlon
.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
    87C
    74C
   120C
    40C
   45.8C
   47.7C
189F
165F
248F
104F
114F
118F
    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 249F 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 ilt
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/4y 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 600F  to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.  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-








">>*^'3ft'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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.
        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.Sis
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 350F425F. 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 320F. 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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to  1400F,
                                     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^RegisterYol. 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 Ov400F)  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 75r
                                                                   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 7Sr
                            '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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.
        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
WOOOF
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 7Sr
                                                              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 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.
        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.RJsterVol. 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* * <'
-------
                                       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
Ehaml, air dry
Jjftdjwe) , baking
Euan's 1 , dipping
hcryl ic enamel
Alkyd enarfial
trtnxr, cpoxy
Frsner, tine
ehromate
Primer, vinyl line
Epoxyi 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 Blr
-------
    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
aeri;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^AlOa-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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to
        1600F.  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 Environ2ent_RE2Eter 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 diMe 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 pla
40,000    vapor recovery >11.0 pla
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|c4r^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 250F  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 40F.  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 250F.  The vapors are cooled  to 35F 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 275F.   In the second
condenser, an isobaric temperature decrease to 10F 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-
950F (399-510C).  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, ule 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 frocJMrhftit0r
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 & _Contrl
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 PlansRules 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
Rctor
1
r
*-
C0a. H4 ~+~~
Shift
Co .vf tr
t
co2, i,2T~
AIT, CO
CO;
Scrbbr
                              _
                              (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_Regitor_,  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 3000F (1370 to 1650C) .   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 C260C).  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 3000F (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.  IllHandbook 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  700F  (260  to  370C).   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
100-120F (38-49C) 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 1300F 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 ^536F (280C) 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
*bued 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 1300F 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;^0rjjmi_and_0ranic Solvent  Emissions  from Sta-
    iJjl1Ii>lJL2iiIi?.-  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 170F (77C).  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)23
                                         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_pl:!_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 PlansRules 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 140C (284F) and 30 atmospheres pres-
sure.   The Ziegler Process carries out the polymerization reaction in  a stirred
tank reacfor at 7E>C (167F) 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 240C (464F) 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 250C
(482F) 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(iuit Sr
              At*tt  1
              I'imtM /*%.
             """it (|)
                CSf V
                  9
              ..".,  i
                           3^-f
                                   I
                         "{{H^M-^
                         2SJ,,, , 1 ~
                         --ra*
           ,u
           *1  i*etii
                   Bg.u.te V-15s  toit Density Polyotliylene Manufctur   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'ncontrolld
G 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_uce. 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 PlansRulen 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
194F (90C) and to 239F (115C). 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 250F  (121C) and  leaves the  last one at about 340F (171C)
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 Polytyrno
                                      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 600F
(93 to 315C) 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 350F (175C) 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
L1itations3lbG/hr/k/hr
Heated
3
3
1.36
1.36
11nliMf,f>d
8
8
3.63
3.63
     ZJ-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-lSLZiIllgmical 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.   paekaii,,
    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  650F (93  to 340C)  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 350F (177C)  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-ZEg^!^~JZJ5^
     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 PlansRules 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;/lr
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.
ln.

'""("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,- ni.i rent *tt
IIiKU



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 350F and 400F.
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 (350F to 400F) 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
Corpr*sslon
                          figure VI-8!  Typlca 1 Hydrocarbon_Aftburner_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).

     Zg^gssJj^iht_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"  Cntrlled 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
                                                              AIO::IH;: KITRATL TO ^^
                                                              i-.,	^
                                                              iTOHA%" /'^i) IJ'f ssA''IN* *^
                        Figure VI-2:  rroccss for the Hn.nufet_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)38  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)89

    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


icvii:


FUJI IUAX




r


t i i
tirti:

t
nminci
J
'
ririu
>IOU
1

MWCIM
, , tWMTI
UDUCItiC 1011.1
<
(IftU

t
KmriU


ULU

nrrt

I 1
J

rnifiu
-rwu.

f
CCIL1 ML LI
1
UACHIJC


 $on
^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**

            *Baed 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

    *Bsd on 51 coni/hr.  **Baed 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& UliPRZjSfci2
     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 Exttctioiv_l4fJ
                                   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_^HIS.;  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   -
005 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 Fundary (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  400F (149 and 204C)
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 400F (204C) 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:eoryj   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 2400-2700F [1351-1482C]) 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 3000F (16/i9C).  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 W27i>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  2250F 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 900F 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^sfoExisting 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
5nieltirir 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 /Vi-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
   Fiurti_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 1100-1200F (593-649C).  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; FSi, 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


  , gtentj-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 Toer
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 400F (.149  to  204C) 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 1200F (649C).   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 emissins 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 2000F (1093C) 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 Cment 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|rousu , , 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 trs-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
Vt t ocelli tUn with
Hulcicyclone I Elcc-
croiCACic ?rclpltiLor
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 11! 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
CU5hE
                                                        W5T
                                                  ,  ClfANiMG   THERMAL
                                                SCREEN  CIRCUIT     DRYER
                                                                     r- MOT
                                                                    -'CASES
                                                                      PRIMARY
                                                                      DUST
                                                                     COLLECTOR
                                     CLEAN COAL
                                       MlE
                                                    Tim; Dlgrm
    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 ttra-
                                                  Co>q.Erylnq Unit
                                    Exhiuiltin
                                     flKMCt
                                   ef
                                    Mtlc Owing Ch
-------
                      PulvwUv
                                       >e rXMidl;o4-8f4_T,irotl 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
fluUlld fifd Dryer, Internal
Cycloni. 20" 6P Scrubber
luldlstd B*4 Dryer, Internal
CycloQM, 30" 4P Scnibbr



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 PlansRules and Regulations, EPA,
     Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.

(5)  Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume IIIHandbook 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 2800F (1538C) until it acquires the  homogeneous char-
acter of glass.  The  batch is then heat conditioned to eliminate stones and cooled
to 2200F (1204C).  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)'icl rn ftSjf"
ih..i,i
15.6

0,156
0.78

	 j i
hi6iGnj | ' 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.

     Sate_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
Rw 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 19710n "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
	
	 Uirtion.' 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
3,000F (1,650C) 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 250F (66 and
121C) 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)818~1  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.  QmP_iiSA.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/lr
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 Snd Md Cvvcl rrocting 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 PlansRules 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

*fltlrtf
 ltl.
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 (200-400F) (93-204C) and below command premium prices.   Kerosene (350-
550F) (1770C-2880C), and distillate fuels (450-600F)  (232C-316C) are desirable
for jet and diesel fuels as well as for heating purposes.   Those materials above
600F (316C) 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

                  RAf 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.
                                      rM 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 CTC'*:I| l*r.U
l>f(I?i!*t
tyl<[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 is* of ItA.-rnal
cytlo.iti
Vl h 1 cor'* e; UEt:nil

*! H J *iaj* of iE,trn*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. __SerJan.  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)103-1

    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^lilltLJI'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

-------