EPA-450/2-74-006
SEPTEMBER 1974
SYSTEMS AND COSTS
TO CONTROL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM STATIONARY SOURCES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/2-74-006
SYSTEMS AND COSTS
TO
CONTROL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
FROM
STATIONARY SOURCES
EMISSION STANDARDS AM) ENGINEERING DIMSIOIN
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1974
-------
The EPA-450/2 series of reports is issued by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Waste Management, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, to report technical data of interest
to a limited number of readers. Copies of these reports are available
free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantee;s ,
and non-profit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollu-
tion Technical Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or may be
obtained, for a nominal cost, from the National Technical Information
Service, 525 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Publication No. EPA-450/2-74-006
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Summary 1
Introduction 3
Organic Solvent Usage
Degreasing 5
Dry Cleaning 9
Graphic Arts 13
Surface Coatings 17
Petroleum Refining and Marketing '
Petroleum Refineries 21
Petroleum Product Liquid Storage 23
Gasoline Distribution 26
Petrochemical Manufacture
Carbon Black 32
Acrylonitrile 34
Formaldehyde 36
Ethylene Dichloride 39
n i
-------
TABLES OF EMISSIONS AND ECONOMICS
Page
Table 1 - Hydrocarbon Emissions from Stationary Sources 3
Table 2 - Degreaser Control Costs 7
Table 3 - Solvent Emissions from Typical Dry Cleaning Plant 10
Table 4 - Estimated Emissions from Various Types of Printing 15
Plants
Table 5 - Emissions Control Costs in the Graphic Arts Industry 16
Table 6 - Investments - Floating Roof vs. Fixed Roof Tanks 24
Table 7 - Control Costs for Retrofiting Fixed Roof Tanks to
Covered Floating Roofs 25
Table 8 - Hydrocarbon Emissions from an Uncontrolled Gasoline
Distribution System 27
Table 9 - Control Costs per Service Station Dispensing
25,000 Gal/month of Gasoline 29
Table 10 - Estimated Emissions from a 200 Million Pounds per
Year Acrylonitrile Plant 34
Table 11 - Emissions from an Uncontrolled 100 Million Pounds
Per Year Formaldehyde Plant 37
Table 12 - Emissions from an Uncontrolled 700 Million Pounds
Per Year Ethylene Dichloride Plant 39
IV
-------
SUMMARY
Organic solvent usage has been identified as a major source of hydrocarbon
emissions. However, the technical information necessary to evaluate many of
the emission control systems that could be employed 1n this area, or their
emission control costs, is marginal or completely lacking in most cases. For
example, it is evident that the adoption of water-based coatings would
significantly reduce emissions from industrial surface coatings operations.
However, neither the extent to which water-based coatings could be used in
place of organic solvent-based coatings, nor the costs associated with
converting large surface coating operations to the use of these coatings, is
known. Furthermore, the time tables necessary for industrial conversion are
not known, nor is the impact on small job operators known. The same is true
in the graphic arts industry. While adoption of a regulation patterned
after the LAC-APCD Rule 66, will accelerate development of reformulated
surface coatings and emission control technques for smaller operations such
as degreasing, an assessment at this time of the impact of such a regulation
on the national level is not possible. Consequently, various alternative
regulations, more stringent than Rule 66, will be quite difficult to justify.
Another area of concern is gasoline distribution and marketing. In this
area, while most of the technology is well demonstrated and generally available,
some is still under development. Consequently, control of this source should be
implemented in two phases. Phase I would reduce hydrocarbon emissions by about
55 percent, by controlling emissions during gasoline loading into tank trucks and
trailers and during gasoline deliveries to service stations. Although a number
of problems such as demonstration of safe wintertime operation of vapor recovery
units and adaptability and scale down of these units to small loading racks
remain to be resolved, this should not delay rapid implementation of this phase.
1
-------
Phase II, control of emissions during the refueling of automobiles, would
reduce hydrocarbon emissions by an additional 30 to 35 percent, but is far
more complex than Phase I. Many basic technical problems such as successful
design of a tight-fit gasoline dispensing nozzle, standardization of automobile
fuel tank fill pipes, and establishing the reliability and safety of small
vapor recovery units at gasoline service stations remain to be resolved.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Table 1 summarizes the major stationary sources of hydrocarbon emissions
which have been identified.
Table 1
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Stationary Sources
Source Range of Emissions
Organic Solvents Usage (10 tons/year)
Degreasing 0.6 - 0.9
Dry Cleaning 0.3 - 0.4
Graphic Arts 0.2 - 0.3
Surface Coatings 3.0 - 4.0
Petroleum Refining and Marketing 3.6 - 4.0
Chemical Industries 1.0 - 1.4
Industrial surface coating operations and architectural coating applications,
are estimated to contribute equally to the emissions from surface coatings shown
in Table 1. Petroleum refining and marketing, which represents one of
the largest emission sources, includes three subsource categories. These
are petroleum refining (excluding petroleum storage), petroleum storage
and gasoline distribution and marketing.
A major study is currently in progress to identify emissions and available
control techniques within the petrochemical Industry. Screening studies of 40
petrochemical processes indicate that 30 of these processes emit about 600,000
tons per year of hydrocarbons. In-depth studies have been completed on processes
for the manufacture of carbon black, acrylonitrile, formaldehyde and ethylene
3
-------
dlchloride. The manufacture of these four petrochemicals accounts for about
40 percent of the 600,000 tons per year of hydrocarbon emissions which have
been identified. The emission control systems to limit these emissions and
the costs associated with these systems are reviewed in this report.
-------
DEGREASING
Degreasing is a term broadly applied to the use of various organic solvents
to dissolve and remove grease and soils from metal objects. If the solvent
is near or at room temperature, the process is termed "cold solvent cleaning";
if the solvent 1s maintained at its boiling point, the process is referred
to as "vapor degreasing". Vapor degreaslng accounts for most of the solvent
emissions from this source category.
Most vapor degreasers consist of an open tank equipped with a liquid
heater, a vapor zone above the liquid surface, and a narrow water-cooled
jacket (chiller) near the top of the tank to restrict the vapor zone. A
free board area extends beyond the vapor zone and this also restricts vapor
emissions to some extent. A hood is normally Installed above the degreaser
to collect and discharge the solvent vapors which escape to the atmosphere.
When cool metal objects are lowered into a vapor degreaser, solvent
vapors condense on the metal surfaces until the metal reaches the vapor
temperature. Soils such as dirt, metal cutting fines and grease are washed
off the metal objects by the condensing vapors and drop back into the tank.
Emissions
The vapor escape rate from an open top degreaser is estimated to be
2 2
in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 Ib/hr-ft of open tank area. Vapor emissions
are accelerated by air currents passing over the open or partially open
degreaser, by opening the lid if the degreaser has one, by spraying the
articles with solvent, and moving the articles in and out of the degreaser.
However, there is little data available on various types of degreasers
to estimate typical hydrocarbon emission factors.
-------
Control Systems and Costs ^
Most emission control techniques for degreasers attempt to prevent
hydrocarbon emissions from the tank through improved operating techniques,
rather than control the exhaust gases. This includes instrumentation to
prevent excessive overboil in the degreaser by temperature controllers and
interlock systems to prevent operation of the unit if there is not adequate
coolant flow through the cooler jacket. These techniques have been cited
3
as capable of reducing emissions by about 20 to 30 percent. The use of
a refrigerated cooling jacket is cited as capable of reducing emissions by
about 10 percent and if tank lids are installed, it is estimated that
3
emissions can be reduced by about 50 percent.
The solvents primarily used within the industry are trichloroethylene,
perch!oroethylene and 1,1,1 trichloroethane. The industry prefers tri-
chloroethylene in lieu of 1, 1, 1 trichloroethane. In the presence of
moisture, 1,1,1 trichloroethane can hydrolyze to hydrochloric acid which
can harm the products being degreased.
Emission control costs are summarized in Table 2 for three alternatives.
These costs are based on an open tank vapor degreaser operating 40 hours
per week with uncontrolled emissions of 660 pounds per week of trichloro-
p
ethylene (16.5 Ibs/hr or 0.825 Ibs/hr-ft ). In Case 1, the degreaser
is fitted with temperature control instrumentation and operated according to
-------
procedures recommended by the solvent manufacturer. This reduces solvent
2
emissions to 0.5 Ib/hr-ft and results 1n a net annual savings. In Case 2,
the degreaser is fitted with temperature control instrumentation and refri-
gerated cooling coils around the top of the vessel. This case also shows
a net annual savings due to the value of the recovered solvent. Case 3
is based on the best practical control, carbon adsorption, which achieves
a 90 percent reduction in emissions. Although many existing degreasers
could probably not be adequately vented to capture all of the evaporated
solvent, Case 3 assumes that no ventilation problems exist. It should
be noted however, that not many plants would find it economically feasible
to make the large investment necessary for carbon adsorption (relative to
the basic investment necessary for the degreaser), if other alternatives
to degreasing were available.
Table 2
Degreaser Control Cost
Control Equipment
,3,4
; Cor
plus Good Operation
Case V
Temperature Controls
Case 23'4
Case 1 plus
Case 3^
Carbon
Refrigerated Coils Adsorption
Emissions to ~
Atmosphere Ib/hr-ft
Capital Costa ($)
Net Annual Cost
or (Savings) ($/yr)
0.50
300
(1,428)
0.41
3000
(1,070)
0.08
19,500
620
a The basic degreaser unit cost is about $2,000.
-------
Rules and Regulations
In some State Implementation Plans (SIP's) proposed by the States
and EPA, degreasing operations have been isolated from other organic
solvents usage. A number of SIPs permit only perch!oroethylene or saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons to be used in degreasing. This bans the use of
trichloroethylene, regardless of the control efficiencies that could be
achieved.
-------
DRY CLEANING
Most industrial dry cleaners use either petroleum solvents, which
are referred to as "Stoddard" solvents or, perchloroethylene, which is
referred to as "Perc". Stoddard solvents are flammable mixtures of paraffins,
cycloparaffins, and aromatics, while Perc is a non-flammable chemical.
Solvent consumption is not indicative of the tonnages of fabrics dry-
cleaned by each solvent. Since Stoddard solvent has a value of $0.25 per
gallon and Perc has a value of $1.39 per gallon, economic incentives have
prompted the development of systems for the recovery of Perc, but not for
Stoddard solvents.
Emissions inventory data on dry cleaning operations, with a reasonable
breakdown of fabric tonnages cleaned by each solvent, and the size dis-
tribution of dry cleaning establishments is lacking. Preliminary estimates
indicate a 55/45 split between Perc and Stoddard usage in terms of the
fabric tonnages cleaned, but this has not been validated. It is doubtful
however, if many new plants using Stoddard solvents will be constructed
in the future, since most Stoddard solvents have a minimum flash point of
100°F. For safety reasons, a number of local zoning commissions and
insurance underwriters are prohibiting the use of Stoddard solvents.
In a typical dry cleaning plant using Stoddard solvents, the washer
and drier are usually separate pieces of equipment. The solvent extracted
by centrifuging in the washer is filtered and reclaimed by vacuum distillation.
The muck remaining, which contains unrecovered solvent, is disposed of by
whatever means are available. The solvent remaining in the clothing is
sent to a drier, evaporated and exhausted to the atmosphere.
-------
Dry cleaning plants utilizing perch!oroethylene normally unitize the
cycle by combining the washing and drying in one piece of equipment. While
this may reduce dry cleaning thruput per unit, a greater control over
perch!oroethylene consumption 1s possible. Perchloroethylene extracted
after washing is filtered and recovered by distillation. In addition,
cookers are normally operated to recover solvent from the filter muck.
Emissions
Solvent emissions from a typical uncontrolled industrial dry cleaning
plant with a 50 pound washer handling 500 pounds of fabric per day are
shown in Table 3. The Stoddard plant is a washer-extractor (cold transfer)
type equipped with a regenerative filter and the Perc plant is a conventional
utilized system (dry to dry) equipped with a distillation still, regenerative
filter, cooker and condenser.
Table 3
Solvent Emissions From Typical Dry Cleaning Plants
Solvent Stoddard Perchloroethylene
Emissions to Atmosphere, Ibs/day
Evaporated at Tumbler 95 14
Other Loses, Ibs/day
Retained in Filter Muck 25 22
Retained in Still Residue 5 8
Total Loses, Ibs/day 125 44
10
-------
Control Systems and Costs
The value of Perc makes its recovery economically attractive. A
number of manufacturers offer packaged carbon adsorption systems, which
permit recovery of essentially all the Perc not recovered by condensers
on the distillation still and muck cooker.
A carbon adsorption system for the Perc dry cleaning plant presented
in Table 3 would cost about $1,400. Perc emissions would be reduced by
about 98 percent and the value of the recovered solvent would offset the
annual costs for this equipment. Thus, installation and operations of the
adsorber would impose no increased costs on the dry cleaning plant.
Control of solvent emissions from a dry cleaning plant using Stoddard
solvent is not as straightforward. Carbon adsorption, which could probably
reduce emissions by about 90 percent, appears to be the logical emission
control technique. However, the low value of Stoddard solvent makes the
economics of recovery unattractive except for large plants. In addition,
the physical properties of Stoddard solvents make them more difficult to
adsorb and desorb than Perc. Consequently, carbon adsorption systems
have not been applied to small Stoddard dry cleaning plants of the size
shown in Table 3. For a Stoddard dry cleaning plant about four times the
size of the plant shown in Table 3, one manufacturer has estimated the
o
capital costs for a carbon absorption system to be about $17,000. After
taking credit for the recovered solvent, the annual emission control costs,
based on a one shift operation, would be about $2,100 or approximately
Q
$0.22 per pound of Stoddard solvent recovered.
Substitution of perch!oroethylene for Stoddard solvent may be impractical
at many existing plants because of equipment differences. Perch!oroethylene
11
-------
is corrosive under various conditions and cannot be handled in Stoddard
washers and driers which are designed for non-corrosive solvents. This
means that essentially all of the equipment in a conventional Stoddard
dry cleaning plant might have to be replaced if Perc were substituted.
o
Preliminary estimates of this cost are about $30,000 per plant. Furthermore,
the dry cleaning associations have indicated that perchloroethylene can-
not be used to dry clean all fabrics.
Rules and Regulations
Rule 66 of the LAC-APCD exempts perchloroethylene from control and
allows the use of Stoddard solvent without control if its aromatics content
is less than 8 percent and emissions do not exceed 3000 Ibs. per day.
Variations of this rule appear in many State Implementation Plans and recent
EPA proposals. However, this approach of exempting perchloroethylene and
Stoddard solvents from control, has come under question by the Chemistry
and Physics Laboratory (ORM, NERC, Research Triangle Park, N. C.). Recent data
gathered from smog chamber experiments indicates that both Stoddard solvents
and perchloroethylene are photochemically "reactive."
12
-------
GRAPHIC ARTS
Commercial printing within the graphic arts industry refers to the
following printing processes: lithography; letterpress; gravure; flexography
and screen. The solvents used in the various ink formulations are a source
of hydrocarbon emissions. Heat set inks, such as those used in lithography
and letterpress printing, generally contain 30 to 40 percent solvent.
Gravure, flexographic and screen inks however, generally contain 55 to 75
percent solvent.
Lithography is the fastest growing segment of the commercial printing
industry. The lithographic process transfers ink from an image plate to
a rubber surface, which in turn transfers the ink to the surface being
printed. The non-image area on the image plate is essentially at the same
level as the image area. However, the non-image area is wet by water
only, while the image area is wet by ink. Lithography is widely used
for printing newspapers, magazines, and books. In addition, most all
metal decorating operations have adopted lithography.
In the letterpress printing process, the ink is transferred directly
to the material being printed by the image plate. The image area of the
plate is raised relative to the non-image area and only the image area
is wet with ink. Letterpress printing was the major printing process
employed within the commercial printing industry until recently. In
the last few years, the use of letter press printing has declined, while
the use of lithography has increased. Letterpress printing is still widely
used however, to print newspapers, magazines and periodicals.
Gravure printing is widely used to print newspapers and advertising
13
-------
supplements and catalogs, and various packaging materials such as gift
wrap and labels. In this type of printing, the Image area on the Image
plate 1s recessed relative to the non-Image area. As Ink 1s transferred
to the image plate, it 1s picked up by a "doctor blade". The Image plate
is then used to transfer ink directly to the surface of the material being
printed.
Flexography is essentially a letterpress process employing rubber
image plates. Although the flexographlc process is widely used to print
packaging materials, its major use is 1n the printing of paper-back
"pocket" books. Most all paper-back "pocket" books are now printed by
flexography.
Screen printing represents one of the smallest segments of the printing
industry. It is however, employed extensively 1n the specialized area of
printing paper and cardboard signs, posters, and displays. Although not
normally considered as part of the commercial printing industry, a rapidly
growing application of screen printing 1s 1n the production of microcircuits.
The image area in screen printing, is a fine screen through which ink can
be forced. Non-image areas are produced by coating or impregnating the
screen with a wax to prevent the flow of ink through that portion of the screen.
Emissions
Emissions vary considerably from one printing job to the next and are
dependent on the solvent content of the ink used, press operating speed,
and ink coverage. Presses do not normally operate continuously and may be
idle for considerable periods of time during plate changing, press repair,
and slack periods of work. Although emissions are difficult to estimate,
a range of emissions is presented in Table 4 for the various types of printing
operations.
-------
Table 4
910
Estimated Emissions from Various Types of Printing Plants' '
1970 Percent of
Process Ibs/hr Market Sales
Gravure (Roto) 50 - 250 6.6
Flexography (heatset inks) 2 - 15 4.3
Lithography
Web offset
Metal decorating
Letterpress (heatset inks)
Screen printing
4
4
2
- 25
- 5
- 15
low
51.0
—
35.5
2.6
Control Systems and Costs
Incineration is the most commonly employed control technique for
reducing emissions from commercial printing operations. Although incineration
can be applied to all printing processes, it is more adaptable to those
processes which use ovens to evaporate the solvent from the ink. If the
inks used in the process are free from materials which could poison or form
a coating on the various catalysts employed, both catalytic and thermal incin-
eration is effective.
Adsorption can be employed as an emission control technique to some
extent. Normally, adsorption is practical only where solvent emissions have
not been partially oxidized. Consequently, it is generally not adaptable to
driers or ovens. Most applications of adsorption have been in gravure
printing, where large amounts of solvent are emitted.
15
-------
Emission control costs for reducing ink solvent emissions from
lithographic and letterpress printing operations, based on incineration
of the drying oven off-gases, are summarized 1n Table 5. Although these
costs are considered typical, the wide range of conditions which exist within
the commercial printing industry could result in substantial deviations from
these costs for specific installations. The costs for the web offset
lithographic process and the letterpress process, reflect incineration of
the emissions from one drying oven. The costs for the metal decorating
lithographic process, reflect incineration of the emissions from two ovens.
Table 5
Emissions Control Costs in the Graphic Arts Industry
11
Process
Web Offset Lithography/
Letterpress
Metal Decorating
Lithography
Emissions
(Ibs of carbon/hr)
Gas volume (scfm)
Control Device
Operating time
(hr/yr)
Capital Cost ($)
Annual Cost ($/yr)
5
5,000
Thermal
Incinerator
1,300
31 ,000
13,500
Catalytic
Incinerator
1,820
50,000
12,900
40
10,000
Thermal
Incinerator
4,160
48,000
55,200
Catalytic
Incinerator
4,160
70,000
27,100
Annual Cost per pound
carbon removed (S/lb)
2.08
1.98
0.33
0.16
16
-------
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATINGS
Industrial surface coatings refers to the application of protective or
decorative coatings. Frequently, the coating 1s an organic solvent-based
paint, which is applied by a spray gun 1n a paint spray booth. The freshly
painted surface is then dried in an oven where the solvent which normally
comprises about 60 percent of the paint volume, is evaporated. The size of
paint spray operations ranges from as low as one gallon per day, to as high
as several hundred gallons per day. According to the 1967 Department of
Commerce census, industrial users consume about two-thirds of the paint
manufactured in the United States.
Emissions
Insurance regulations require that paint spray booths be vented to the
atmosphere to prevent the build-up of solvent vapor concentrations within
2
the enclosure to more than 25 percent of the lower explosive limit.
Consequently, paint spray booths are normally ventilated at a rate of
2
100 to 150 fpm per square foot of booth opening. Aerosols resulting from
overspray in the spray booth, are removed by filters and water washers, to
prevent their release to the atmosphere. However, these devices normally
have little effect on solvent vapors. Although paint spray booths are a
source of hydrocarbon emissions, the quantity of these emissions depends
primarly on the degree of overspray within the booth, which can vary from
2
as little as 5 to 10 percent, to as much as 80 to 90 percent. Normally
however, the degree of overspray in the paint spray booth is kept relatively
low and the drying ovens are the major source of hydrocarbon emissions.
Control Systems and Costs
Incineration of the solvent vapors contained in the exhaust gases from
17
-------
the paint spray booths and the drying ovens, is the control technique normally
employed to limit emissions from industrial paint spraying operations. The
costs of incineration are a funciton of the gas volume and small paint spraying
operations would probably experience emission control costs similar to those shown
for the graphic arts industry in the previous section. Many surface
coating operations however, exhaust much larger volumes and the emission
control costs would be greater. For example, the capital cost for an
incinerator on both the paint spray booths and the drying ovens of a large
paint spray line emitting about 45 pounds of solvent per hour, is estimated
12
to be in the range of $400,000. In general however, data to estimate
annualized costs for both large and small paint spray operations are lacking.
Currently, within the domestic paint manufacturing industry, a great
deal of effort is being devoted to the development of new paint formulations
which require limited amounts of hydrocarbon solvents. While some of these
new formulations can be used for certain coating applications, a number
of limitations prevent them from being used for all applications. However,
their use is rapidly increasing within the industry and if faced with the
alternative of incineration, the use of these new formulations is expected
to accelerate.
Water-based paints have been used for many years as architectural
coatings and some manufacturers currently dip-coat and flow-coat parts with
these paints. The use of water-based paints can result in a major decrease
in hydrocarbon solvent emissions. If auto bodies are primed by electrodeposition
for example, where the paint formula is about 90 percent solids and 10 percent
13
water, emissions are reduced by about 90 percent over conventional spraying.
-------
Converting to the electrodeposition process however, requires completely
scrapping existing paint spraying equipment and Involves a large capital
investment in new equipment. Elaborate washing systems and surface
preparation systems are required, in addition to the basic electrodeposition
equipment. Color change is Impractical during assembly-line operation and
the coated surface normally has a dull appearance which does not meet the
gloss standards necessary on many products. Consequently, electrodeposition
can be used only for primer coats 1n most applications.
Although finish coats of high gloss appearance can not be applied by
electrodeposition, the application of water-based paints for finished coatings
by spraying shows promise. The General Motors assembly plant in Los Angeles is
converting to a water-based paint spray system. Complete conversion is
13
expected by August 1974. Since water evaporation rate is critical to the
surface appearance, complex drying ovens and air conditioning equipment are
being installed and as a result, power requirements may increase as much as
50 percent at this plant.
In assessing the technical availability of water-based paint spray
systems for applying finish coats of high gloss appearance, it must be kept
in mind that this General Motors assembly plant in Los Angeles is the first
major installation to attempt the use of water-based paints for finish coats.
Consequently, until the plant has started up and resolved the problems
that may arise, the use of water-based paint spray systems to apply finish
coats must be considered as currently under development for most applications.
Powder coatings are applied by electrostatic spraying of fluidized
bed techniques. The.coated objects are then heated to about 450°F. This
19
-------
melts the powder into a solid surface film. Most powder coatings consist of
various plastics such as vinyls, acrylics, polyesters, epoxies, nylons
and butrates. The application of coatings in this manner reduced hydro-
carbon emissions by more than 90 percent, compared with conventional solvent-
based coatings. One drawback however, is the high baking temperature.
This prevents preliminary assembly of plastic or rubber parts prior to coating.
While most powder coatings lack the weather resistence of conventional paints,
they do excel! on parts which are not exposed to the outdoors and where orange
peel effects are not objectionable. Although powder coatings are finding
use in some specific applications, water-based coating are generally considered
to be more acceptable for wide-spread application than powder coatings
at present. As the technology of powder coatings is developed however,
they are expected to replace both water-based and conventional hydrocarbon
solvent based coatings, as a result of lower investment costs due to a smaller
oven and shorter process line, lower fuel costs for drying and baking,
12
lower labor costs, and lower paint loss because overspray can be recycled.
It is apparent, however, that the surface coatings area definitely needs
a great deal of further study to determine the most feasible methods of
control. Incineration can be viewed as the most straight forward method of
control. The high investment costs for incineration equipment and the
demand for large quantities of fuel however, make it an unattractive choice
in many cases. In general, there is a serious lack of data available on
investments, costs and time required to retrofit in this area, which make
it difficult to develop compliance schedules and determine cost effectiveness.
20
-------
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
General
There are literally hundreds of sources of hydrocarbon emissions
in a modern petroleum refining complex, exclusive of the emissions from
product storage and distribution. Prominent among these sources are waste
water collection and disposal systems, blowdown systems, catalyst regenerators,
compressors, pumps, valves, vacuum jets, asphalt air blowing, and process
heaters and boilers. Although recent efforts have been directed toward
identifying emission levels from a number of these sources, emissions will
vary widely from refinery to refinery. In addition, wide variations are
possible within a specific refinery depending on the mechanical condition
of critical items of equipment, as well as differences in operating conditions.
The emission control systems that could be used to reduce emissions
from many of these sources are well demonstrated and should be an integral
part of any new refinery design and construction. Retrofit of many of these
control systems in existing refineries with a few exceptions, should be
relatively simple and require minimal lead times. However, with the
exception of carbon monoxide boilers, which are primarily used to reduce
carbon monoxide emissions from fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators, the data is not available to estimate installation costs
and control effectiveness of these systems.
Plans for new refinery construction merit careful review and existing
refineries merit careful inspection to determine the adequacy of emission
control equipment and in particular, the maintenance practices of the
operator. For example, the collection and disposal of volatile hydrocarbons
21
-------
emitted from waste-water collection and disposal equipment, can be
accomplished by sealing the sewers and junction boxes and venting the vapors
to an incinerator. Hydrocarbon emissions can be reduced from centrifugal
pumps by the use of mechanical seals rather than soft packing (rubber, leather,
etc.) to prevent leakage. Hydrocarbon emissions from vacuum jets, which
are commonly used on crude oil vacuum distillation towers, can be collected
and incinerated in process heaters and boilers, or sent to sulfur recovery
units if the sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide content of the non-condensibles
is appreciable. These few examples illustrate the need for careful review
and inspection.
22
-------
Petroleum Product Liquid Storage
Evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons from storage tanks occur
in all phases of the petroleum Industry, from production of crude oil
through final storage of finished products in the distribution and
marketing system. As a result of legislative enactments and economic
incentives in some cases, the industry has achieved a reasonable degree
of control over hydrocarbons emissions from storage tanks. Most studies
report that conservation measures are currently practiced on about 75
percent of the liquid hydrocarbon storage capacity in the petroleum
industry. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that national emissions
from petroleum product storage could be reduced by 50 percent 1f present
control practices were extended to the remaining uncontrolled tankage.
Emissions
Hydrocarbon emissions from storage tanks depend essentially on three
basic mechanisms: breathing loss, working loss, and standing storage loss.
Breathing and working losses are associated with cone or fixed roof
tanks, variable vapor space tanks, and low pressure tanks. Standing storage
losses are generally associated with floating roof tanks. The magnitude
of emissions depends on factors such as the physical properties of the
material being stored, climatic conditions, and the size, type, control,
and condition of the storage tank. An addendum to the second edition of
the EPA publication "Compilation of A1r Pollutant Emission Factors",
(AP-42, April 1973), is being published which will provide guidance to
local control agencies in estimating hydrocarbon emissions from various types
of tankage storing numerous products under varying conditions.
23
-------
Control Systems and Costs
The emission control system commonly employed within the Industry to
meet various State and local regulations which Hm1t emissions from hydrocarbon
storage facilities, is the "floating roof" tank. This tank 1s generally
acceptable up to hydrocarbon vapor pressures under actual storage conditions,
of 11.0 - 12.0 psia. Beyond this range, more effective measures are
necessary. These normally consist of pressure tanks equipped with emergency
relief valves, which prevent emissions to the atmosphere under normal
conditions, or vapor recovery systems. Vapor recovery systems may afford
a somewhat higher degree of control than the floating roof, if compressors
are spared. Capital and operating costs for vapor recovery systems are
normally considerably higher than either pressure tanks or "floating
roof" tanks. However, the necessary data to make reasonable cost comparisons
are lacking.
Due to wide-spread adoption of the "floating roof" tank within the
industry, investment costs and costs effectiveness for this type of
liquid hydrocarbon storage will be considered. Investment costs are
presented in Table 6.
Table 6
14
Investments - Floating Roof vs. Fixed Roof Tanks
Cost to Retrofit
Tank Size
Diameter
in feet
20
40
60
90
no
Normal
Capacity
bblsa
1,100
9,000
22,000
54,000
80,000
Fixed
Covered
Floating
Roof
$17,000
$26,000
$42,000
$53,000
Roof to:
Internal
Floating
Cover
$2,800
$6,500
$12,000
$22,000
$40,000
A Cost for New Construction
Floating
roof type vs
External Covered
Pontoon Floating
Floating Roof Roof
+ $20,000
+ $25,000
+ $27,000
n.a.
+ $17,000
+ $23,000
+ $33,000
. Fixed roof
Internal
Floating
Cover
$ 2,800
$ 7,000
+$12,000
+$24,000
--
a 42 gals/bbl
24
-------
Construction considerations usually dictate that internal floating covers
be used for small size tanks and covered floating roofs for intermediate size
tanks. Extremely large tanks usually use the external type of floating roof,
either double-deck or single-deck pontoon.
The emission control costs associated with storing a high volatility
material such as gasoline and a low volatility material such as jet naphtha,
in floating-roof tanks rather than fixed-roof tanks, are shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Control Costs for Retrofitting Fixed Roof Tanks
to Covered Floating Roofs
Product Gasoline Jet Naphtha
Tank Size (103 bbls) 1.1 22 80 1.1 50 80
Investment Floating
vs. Fixed (103$) 2.8 26.0 53.0 2.8 26.0 53.0
Annual 1 zed Cost3
(103$) (0.2) (1.9) (15.0) 0.3 2.4 2.8
Cost per gallon
thruput-
-------
Gasoline Distribution
A typical gasoline distribution pattern consists of delivery by
pipeline, barge, or tanker to Intermediate storage, then by pipeline or
barge to bulk terminals. From the bulk terminal, the gasoline is delivered
by tank truck or trailer to the service station or to a bulk plant and then
by tank truck or trailer to the service station. At the service station,
the gasoline is transferred from the tank trucks into underground storage
tanks which are vented to the atmosphere. Automobiles are refueled from
the underground tanks via the service station pump island.
Emissions
In uncontrolled bulk terminal tank truck loading operations, service
station deliveries and automobile refueling, the vapors displaced by the
gasoline are normally released directly to the atmosphere. The amount of
hydrocarbons which are contained in these vapors Is highly variable depending
on the manner 1n which the tank truck is loaded at the terminal; the amount
of gasoline contained in the vapors carried by the returning truck; the
manner in which the gasoline is delivered to the service station; operator
practice in automobile refueling; and a number of other factors such as
physical properties of the gasoline; geographical and seasonal effects;
and meteorological conditions.
To estimate the emissions and control costs associated with reducing
hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline distribution, a hypothetical gasoline
marketing system has been examined. This consists of: 300 gasoline service
•>"-v
stations each dispensing 250,000 gallons per day and 15 tank trucks equipped
with top loading to service the service stations. Emissions from this
26
-------
distribution and marketing system under normal summer operating conditions
are shown in Table 8.
Table 8
Hydrocarbon Emissions from an Uncontrolled Gasoline
Loading loss
Tank Truck Delivery
Breathing loss
Diurnal Loss
Subtotal
Automobile
Refuel ing
Total
Distribution System3
300 Service Stations15
25,000 gal /month per station
103lbs/yr gals per 103
gals handled
671 1 .44
77 0.17
neg.
748 1 .61
675 1 .44
1,423 3.05
Bulk Terminal16
250,000 gal /day
103lbs/yr gals per 103
gals loaded
520 1.1 Ob
520 1.10
520 1.10
Excludes tankage evaporative losses from bulk plant and terminal
Submerged loading.
Control Systems and Costs
Achieving a substantial reduction in emissions throughout the gasoline
distribution system requires emission controls at gasoline service stations.
This in turn requires vapor recovery during tank truck loading at bulk plants
and terminals. The most "feasible" approach for reducing emissions by 85
to 90 percent is as follows:
27
-------
Phase I (55 percent control-short range):
1. Modify tank trucks and Install the necessary equipment at service
stations to recycle the vapors displaced from the underground storage
tanks at service stations back to the tank truck during gasoline delivery.
2. Install vapor recovery systems to collect and recover the vapors
collected at the service station, as they are displaced from the tank
truck during reloading at bulk plants and terminals.
Phase II (30 to 35 percent control-long range):
1. Install special gasoline dispensing nozzles, hoses and vapor return
lines on the gasoline pumps at the service stations to collect and
return vapors displaced from the automobile fuel tank during refueling,
to the underground storage tanks at the service station.
2. Install vapor recovery equipment on the underground storage tanks at the
service station if necessary, to achieve an overall reduction in emissions
of 90 percent at the service station.
Capital investments, annual costs, and cost effectiveness, on a per
station basis are summarized in Table 9. These estimates are based on
retrofit, since the number of existing service stations and loading racks
far outnumber anticipated new construction.
28
-------
Table 9
Control Costs per Service Station Dispensing15'17'18'19
25,000 Gal/month of Gasoline
Phase I (55 Percent Reduction 1n Emissions)
Investment($)
Emission Reduction
Recycle Vapor
To Tank Truck
1,073
Vapor Recovery Phase I
at Bulk Terminal Total
783 1,856
(lbs/yr)
(gal/yr)
Annual Cost
($/yr)
($/lb recovered)
U/gal pumped)
1,933
372
97
0.05
0.03
1,733
334
70
0.04
0.02
3,666
706
167
0.045
0.055
Phase II (35 Percent Reduction 1n Emissions)
Investment ($)
Emission Reduction
(Ibs/yr)
(gal/yr)
Annual Cost
($/yr)
($/lb recovered)
U/gal pumped)
Carbon
Canister
6,090
2,300
443
1,298
0.56
0.43
Refrigeration-
Condensation
12,678
2,300
443
2,693
1.17
0.89
29
-------
Table 9 (cont.)
Phase I + II (90 Percent Reduction In Emissions
Investment ($)
Emission Reduction
(Ibs/yr)
(gal/yr)
Annual Cost
($/yr)
($/lb recovered)
U/gal pumped)
Carbon Canister
7,946
5,966
1,149
1,465
0.24
0.48
Refrigeration-Condensation
14,534
5,966
1,149
2,860
0.48
0.95
30
-------
The quality of the Phase I investment data and emission control
efficiencies are considered "moderate". Recycle of the vapors displaced
from the underground storage tanks at the service station, to the
tank truck during gasoline delivery, 1s feasible and has been demonstrated.
Vapor recovery systems to collect and recover the vapors displaced from
the tank trucks at bulk terminals during reloading, have proven feasible
during warm weather operations. However, operability and safety in cold
weather conditions are still in question. Nevertheless, Phase I could be
implemented at this time.
The quality of the Phase II data should be considered "questionable".
Investments would be much.lower if a simple displacement vapor collection
and recycle system could be made to work successfully during automotive
refueling, without requiring the installation of vapor recovery facilities.
The use of carbon canisters or refrigeration-condensation techniques, are
two alternative approaches for vapor recovery and vendors of this equipment
are limited. Special vapor collection and return nozzles, to effect a tight-
fit between the gasoline dispensing nozzle and the automobile fuel tank
fill pipe, are required and these are still in the development stage. With
many existing vehicles and available nozzle designs a tight-fit is not
possible because of location or design of the automobile fuel tank fill pipe.
Vacuum-assist, which could be used to overcome some of the disadvantages of
a lack of tight-fit between the nozzle and the automobile fill pipe, has
been identified by the industry as a possible explosive hazard.
31
-------
PETROCHEMICALS
Carbon Black
Most of the carbon black produced 1n the United States Is produced
20
by the furnace process (83 percent). Although the thermal process and
the channel process are also used, they account for only a small amount
20
of the total carbon black production (14 percent and 3 percent, respectively).
The thermal process however, is not a major source of emissions and the
channel process is viewed as obsolete within the industry. Consequently,
the furnace process is of most concern in terms of pollutant emissions.
In this process, natural gas and heavy oil are introduced into a furnace
with a limited amount of air. A combination of cracking and combustion
occurs, which leads to the production of carbon. The hot gases from the
furnace are cooled and passed through bag filters in which the carbon is
collected. The gases are then normally discharged directly to the atmosphere,
although in some cases, the waste gases are combusted before release to
the atmosphere.
Emissions
The production of carbon black by the furnace process can be a major
source of emissions. It has been estimated for example, that about 14,000
pounds per hour of carbon monoxide and 700 pounds per hour of various
hydrocarbons could be emitted to the atmosphere from an uncontrolled carbon
black plant producing 90 million pounds of carbon black a year, using the
, 20
furnace process.
Control Systems and Costs
Waste heat boilers, thermal incinerators or catalytic incinerators
20
could be used to reduce emissions by about 100 percent. Plume burners
32
-------
which are a type of flare, are somewhat less efficient, although they could
20
be used to reduce emissions by about 90 percent. Only one carbon black
plant in the United States uses an Incinerator waste heat boiler, although
20
several are equipped with plume burners.
The most effective emission control technique for a new plant would be
the use of a thermal incinerator or a waste heat boiler. No supplemental
or auxiliary fuel would be required 1n either case. Heat recovered in a
waste heat boiler could be used to preheat the Incoming gas and to generate
the steam necessary to operate the plant. Although flame control could be
difficult in some cases, flameouts could be prevented if adequate burner
controls were provided. For a new 90 million Ibs/yr carbon black plant
using the furnace process, the installation of a waste-heat boiler would
20
increase the capital Investment by about $720,000. However, the waste-
heat boiler would have a net operating savings of $10,500 per year, due
20
to the credit for steam generation.
A plume burner would actually be more costly and less effective.
Although the initial capital Investment would only be increased by about
20
$150,000, the net capital costs would be about $33,000 per year. This is
20
equivalent to an increase of 0.04<£/lb 1n production costs.
33
-------
Acrylonitrile
The use of the Sohio propylene ammoxidation process 1s universal within
pi
the United States for the production of acrylonitrile. Vaporized
propylene and ammonia are mixed with air and steam and Introduced into
a catalytic reactor. The gaseous reaction products are withdrawn and
processed through a countercurrent absorber where the acrylonitrile is
absorbed in water. The gases are then vented directly to the atmosphere
in many cases. The aqueous acrylonitrile solution is fractionated to
recover the acrylonitrile.
Emissions
The production of acrylonitrile can be a major source of emissions of
carbon monoxide and various hydrocarbons. Table 10 summarizes.- the estimated
emissions released to the atmosphere from an uncontrolled acrylonitrile
plant producing 200 million pounds of acrylonitrile per year.
Table 10
21
Estimated Emissions from a 200 Million Pounds per Year Acrylonitrile Plant
Carbon Monoxide 3,000 Ibs/hr
Propane and Propylene 1,400 Ibs/hr
Hydrogen Cyanide 10 Ibs/hr
Acrylonitrile 10 Ibs/hr
Acetonitrile 160 Ibs/hr
Control Systems and Costs
Waste heat boilers, thermal incinerators or catalytic incinerators
21
could be used to reduce hydrocarbon emissions by about 100 percent.
34
-------
Plume burners are generally considered to be less efficient, although it
21
is estimated that they could reduce emissions by about 90 percent. None
of the acrylonitrile plants in the United States currently operate any control
21
equipment to limit emissions. However, waste-heat boilers, thermal incinerators,
catalytic incinerators and plume burners are in use on similar processes
and could be installed at acrylonitrile plants.
A large amount of steam is produced in most acrylonitrile plants, con-
sequently, most of the steam that could be produced in an incinerator-
waste heat boiler used to reduce emissions, would have to be exported.
The heating value of the pollutant concentrations in the waste gases is
normally quite low and a supplemental or auxiliary fuel would have to be
used to achieve complete combustion. This method of emission control for
a typical 200 million Ibs/yr acrylonitrile plant would cost about $115,000,
21
assuming a steam credit of 75<£/thousand pounds. .
Probably the most feasible emission control device is a thermal incinerator.
Although a small amount of supplemental fuel would be required, heat could
be recovered to preheat the propylene, ammonia and combustion air introduced
into the acrylonitrile reactor. An incinerator for a typical 200 million
Ibs/yr acrylonitrile plant could cost about $350,000 initially and would
pi
have a total net annual operating cost of about $135,000.
35
-------
Formaldehyde
All the formaldehyde produced 1n the United States is manufactured by
22
two methods, both of which use methanol as the raw material. The first
uses an iron-oxide catalyst and a large excess of air. The second uses a
silver catalyst and requires only about one-eighth as much air as the
iron-oxide process. In both methods, the formaldehyde is produced in a
reactor and then absorbed from the exit gases by a water scrubber. The
scrubber off-gases are normally vented directly to the atmosphere. The
formaldehyde is marketed as a water solution, although it is purified
before sale.
About 22 percent of the domestic formaldehyde production is based on
22
the iron-oxide process and about 78 percent based on the silver process.
Emissions
The release of the absorber off-gases directly to the atmosphere is
the primary source of emissions associated with the production of formaldehyde.
In a plant using an iron-oxide catalyst, the composition of these off-gases
may vary considerably, depending on the degree to which they are recycled
within the plant. Most of the iron-oxide plants currently operating however,
22
operate with maximum recycle. In a plant using a silver catalyst, the
recycle of absorber off-gases is not general practice, since it offers no
advantages to the operator as it does in a plant using an iron-oxide catalyst.
Estimated emission rates from an uncontrolled formaldehyde plant
producing 100 million Ibs/yr of formaldehyde as a 37 percent aqueous
solution, are presented in Table 11. The emissions from the plant using an
iron-oxide catalyst are based on maximum recycle of the absorber off-gases.
36
-------
Table 11
22
Emissions from an Uncontrolled 100 Million Ibs/yr Formaldehyde Plant
Iron-oxide Catalyst Silver Catalyst
Formaldehyde (Ibs/hr) 5 10
Methanol (Ibs/hr) 20 30
Dimethyl Ether 10
Hydrogen (Ibs/yr) -- 120
Carbon Monoxide (Ibs/hr) -- 60
Control Systems and Costs
Thermal incineration of the absorber off-gases 1s the most feasible
method of reducing emissions from formaldehyde plants which use an Iron-
oxide catalyst. Although some auxiliary fuel 1s required to ensure complete
combustion, there is normally not enough heat released to make steam generation
attractive. A plume burner could be used rather than a thermal Incinerator,
but would be somewhat less efficient 1n reducing emissions. A water scrubber
could also be used to remove about 95 percent of the formaldehyde and
methanol from the absorber off-gases, however, none of the dimethyl ether
22
would be removed.
One iron-oxide formaldehyde plant currently operating 1n the United States,
employs a water scrubber to reduce emissions from the absorber. None however,
use thermal incinerators, although this 1s not due to any technical problems
which might prevent their use. The use of an Incinerator at a 100 mill ion
Ib/yr iron-oxide formaldehyde plant would cost about $44,000 initially and
the operating cost would be about $35,000 per year.
The most feasible method of reducing emissions from formaldehyde plants
which employ a silver catalyst, would be to combust the absorber off-gases
37
-------
in the utility boilers associated with the formaldehyde plant, or chemical
complex. The absorber off-gases from the silver process have a much higher
heating value than those from the 1ron-ox1de process and could be combusted
without auxilliary fuel. However, because of the relatively small volume
of gases the installation of a separate waste-heat boiler 1s not practical.
This approach would cost about $45,000 Initially, to make the necessary
modifications to the utility boilers, but would show a net operating
22
savings of about $3,000 per year.
The use of a plume burner would be less costly initially, requiring
22
an outlay of only about $20,000. However, the net operating cost would
be about $5,500 per year.
38
-------
Ethylene Dichloride
In 1970 about 55 percent of all ethylene dlchlorlde was produced
23
by oxychlorination of ethylene. The remaining 45 percent was produced
23
by chlorlnation of ethylene. However, the ethylene chlorlnation process
is relatively unpolluting compared to the oxychlorination process and
therefore is not of major interest here.
In the oxychlorination process, ethylene, air and hydrochloric
acid are introduced into a reactor. In the presence of a catalyst,
these materials react to yield ethylene dlchlorlde. The ethylene dichloride
is absorbed from the reactor effluent gases and the gases are normally
vented directly to the atmosphere.
There are a number of variations 1n the basic oxychlorination process.
Although one plant uses oxygen rather than air 1n the reactor, the
reaction sections are similar. The ethylene dlchlorlde recovery systems,
however, vary significantly from plant to plant and thus emissions to
the atmosphere vary from plant to plant.
Emissions
Estimated emissions from a typical uncontrolled oxychlorination plant
producing 700 million Ibs/yr of ethylene dichloride are summarized in
Table 12.
Table 12
00
Emissions from an Uncontrolled 700 Million Ib/yr Ethylene Dichloride Plant
Carbon Monoxide 600 Ibs/hr
Methane 500 Ibs/yr
Ethylene 400 Ibs/hr
Ethane 600 Ibs/hr
Ethylene Dichloride 600 Ibs/hr
Ethylene Chloride 500 Ibs/hr
39
-------
Control Systems and Costs
Incineration with or without steam generation or heat recovery,
followed by a water or dilute caustic scrubber would reduce hydrocarbon
po
(and chlorine) emissions by about 100 percent. However, none of the
oxychlorination plants currently operating, use incineration to reduce
emissions. Heat recovery or steam generation from incineration would be
difficult because of the corrosive nature of the hydrochloric acid formed.
The installation of a waste heat boiler and caustic scrubber in a
typical 700 million Ibs/yr plant would cost about $900,000 initially, and
23
the net operating costs would be about $300,000 per year. The use of a
thermal incinerator and scrubber would only cost about $63,000 initially,
23
however, the net operating cost would be about $400,000 per year. It
should be noted that due to the corrosive environment existing in the
waste heat boiler or incinerator, special alloy materials might be required
and these estimated costs could be 1n error by a considerable margin.
40
-------
References
1. Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study; EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-12; MSA
Research Corporation; Evans City, Pennsylvania; Volume 1; October, 1972.
2. Air Pollution Engineering Manual; Second Edition, AP-40; May, 1973.
3. Meeting between EPA and Hooker Chemical Company; E. G. Richardson
(Hooker), J. Wllkenfeld (Hooker), R. K. Burr (EPA), D. P. Armstrong (EPA),
R. C. Clark (EPA), and P. A. Boys (EPA); Durham, North Carolina;
August 6, 1973.
4. E. G. Richardson (Hooker Chemical Company) In telephone conversation to
Paul Boys (EPA), August 8, 1973.
5. D. Larson (V1c) and C. Gorman (V1c); V1c Manufacturing Company; Trip
Report by G. R. Stevens (EPA) on visit to V1c Manufacturing Company,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (August 6, 1971); August 16, 1971.
6. Effect of Environmental Control on Dry Cleaning Plants; Paper presented
at the International Fabricare Institute and Laundry and Cleaners
Allied Trades Association, Incorporated, R. T. Walsh (EPA) and R. K. Burr
(EPA); November 7, 1973.
7. National Institute of Dry Cleaning; Technical Bulletin No. T-472;
Silver Springs, Maryland; June, 1971.
8. Letter from C. Gorman (V1c) to R. K. Burr (EPA); Vic Manufacturing Company;
Minneapolis, Minnesota; June 25, 1973.
9. Evaluation of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic Arts
Industries; EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-72; Graphic Arts Technical
Foundation; August, 1970.
10. Evaluation of Emissions and Control Technologies 1n the Graphic Arts
Industries, Phase II: Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes; EPA
Contract No. 68-02-001; Graphic Arts Technical Foundation; May, 1973.
11. EPA estimates based primarly on A1r Pollution Control Engineering and
Cost Study of the Paint and Varnish Industry; EPA Contract No. 68-02-0259;
Air Resources, Incorporated; (Draft Report).
12. R. K. Anderson and D. N. Hunder; The Economics of Powder Coatings;
Paper No. FC 73-543; Presented at the 1973 SME meeting, Dearborn, Michigan.
13. H. W. Schiller (GM) and N. C. Kachman (GM); General Motors Corporation;
Trip Report by R. B. Atherton (EPA) on visit to the South Gate GM assembly
plant, South Gate, California (July 12, 1973); August 8, 1973.
41
-------
14. Letter from R. K. Burr (EPA) to Mrs. Betty Perkins (Environmental
Improvement Agency, Sante Fe, New Mexico), November 17, 1972.
15. Cost Effectiveness of Methods to Control Vehicle Refueling Emissions;
API Project EF-14; Phase I - Interium Report; April, 1973.
16. Procedures for Estimating Evaporation and Handling Losses; API Publication
4080; July, 1971.
17. R. J. Meyer (Humble); Personal Communication with R. K. Burr (EPA);
Humble Oil and Refining Company, Houston, Texas; November 3, 1971.
18. H. F. Klein (SOCAL); Personal Communication with R'. K. Burr (EPA);
Standard Oil Company of California - Western Operations; San Francico,
California; May 31, 1973.
19. R. A. Nichols (Parker-Hannifin); Personal Communication with R. K. Burr
(EPA); Parker-Hannifin - Fueling Division; Irvin, California, May 22, 1973.
20. Carbon Black Manufacture by the Furnace Process (Draft Report); EPA
Contract No. 68-02-0255; Houdry Division of Air Products and Chemicals,
Incorporated; January, 1973.
21. Acrylonitrile Manufacture (Draft Report); EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255;
Houdry Division of Air Products and Chemicals, Incorporation,
February, 1973.
22. Formaldehyde Production (Draft Report); EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255;
Houdry Division of Air Products and Chemicals, Incorporated, June, 1973.
23. Ethylene Dichloride Manufacture (Draft Report); EPA Contract No.
68-02-0255; Houdry Division of Air Products and Chemicals, Incorporated;
May, 1973.
42
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 RhPORT NO 2.
EPA-450/2-74-006
4 I ITLE AND SUBTITLE
Systems and Costs to Control Hydrocarbon E
from Stationary Sources
7 AliTHORlS)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 277
12 SPONSQRINp AGENCY NAME AND ADDBESS „
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 277
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5 REPORT DATE
7)1551005 ^ptpmhpr 1Q74
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
^ 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
n
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
I 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
Costs associated with techniques for controlling hydrocarbon emissions
from certain important stationary sources are discussed. Sources
discussed include organic solvent usage, petroleum refining and marketing,
and certain petrochemical manufacturing operations.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution control equipment
Hydrocarbons, Petroleum Refining
Coatings Carbon Black
Dry Cleaning Degreasing
13 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
unclassified 47
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
43
------- |