y •
11 JUN 19"86
EPA 450/3-86-???
September 1986
AIR EMISSION
STANDARDS - RCRA
Sect 10
3004 (n
Background Technical
Memoranda
-------
WASTE SOLVENT TREATMENT FACILITIES:
DRAFT TECHNICAL NOTE
Prepared for:
u.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering' Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Under:
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3887
Assignment No. 30
PES Project No. 777
Prepared by:
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1905 Chapel Hill Road
Durham, North Carolina 27707
January 1986 -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.
II.
Introduction and Overview
.. ........... ....... ...........
Page
1
Summary of Study Approach and Estimates
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
III.
Key to Location of Specific Information
Developed Under This Assignment.........................
10
Attachment 1 - Draft Nodel Facility Parameters
Attachment 2 - Revised Model Facility Parameters
Attachment 3 - HEM Inputs
Attachment 4 - Chemicals of Concern
Attachment 5 - Incinerator Cost Estimates
Attachment 6 - Preliminary Nationwide Risk Estimates
Attachment 7 - Revised Costs for Fugitive Emission Controls
Attachment 8 - Nationwide Emission and Cost Estimates
Attachment 9 - Draft Impacts fer TSDF with o=ganic waste streams
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - HEM Results for WSTF Model Cases
Appendix C - Additional Documentation
We will be adding memoranda addressing TSDF with organic hazardous
wastes in concentrations greater than 10 percent.
-------
I.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The Emission Standaras ana Engineering Division (ESED) of the
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning ana Stanaards is responsible for
developing regulations unaer the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and its 1984 amendments to control air emissions from
hazardous waste treatment, storage, ana disposal facilities (TSDF). As
part of the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) effort to ban waste solvents
from land disposal, ESED is studying what air pollution regulations are
appropriate for waste solvent treatment facilities (WSTF's). The
purpose of this Technical Note is to present information developed by
Pacific Environmental Services (PES) under an assignment for ESED to
support this study.
Under this assignment, PES reviewea available information on
treatment technologies for waste solvents and aeveloped order-of-
magnituae emission, cost, and health input estimates associated with
air pollution from WSTF's. The scope of these impact analyses was
limited to vapor phase mass transfer treatment technologies (e.g., dis-
tillation, steam stripping) since sufficient information was available
only these techniques.1 The sources of process and fugitive emissions
from these technologies are generically similar. Consequently, the
approach used to evaluate emissions ana controls was a general one, and
not parti cular to a specifi c trea tment techno~ogy. .
A summary of the estimates and the approach to development of the
estimates are summarizea in Section II of this report. Section III
presents a key to when a specific information developed unaer this
assignment is locatea. The detailed basis of the analyses are presented
in Attachments 1-8, as a series of memoranda from PES staff to the ESED
Task Manager.
lIt is also reported that these techniques will be applied to waste
solvents with >1% organic content while other techniques such as bio-
logical treatment will more likely be applied to dilute waste streams.
Since wastes with <1% solvents will not be immediately affected by the
proposed land banning provisions, it was not considerea necessary to
evaluate the impacts associatea with other treatment technologies.
.1
-------
II.
SUMMARY OF STUDY APPROACH AND ESTIMATES
Approach
Vapor phase mass transfer operations separate solvent waste consti-
tuents through volatilization and condensation of the more volatile
components in the waste stream. The approach taken in the estimation
of oraer-of-magnitude emission, cost and health impacts for WSTFls is
shown in Figure 1, and is based on the general similarity of equipment
and operations. That is, the operation of distillation, steam stripping
ana thin-film evaporation all have a common process emission source
and common fugitive emission sources. The common process source is the
co1 umn condenser vent. The fugi tive emi ssi on sources common to these
operations are pumps, valves, flanges, sampling connections, open-
enaea lines or valves, and pressure relief valves.
Order-of-magnitude emission estimates were developed for these.
treatment operations by developing generic parameters for process and
fugitive emissions from a model WSTF facility based on information in
reports provided by ESED, and using juagment to develop best estimates
of parameters. Because insufficient information was available to
characterize the composition of waste solvents beyond total VOC content,
the uncontrolled process emission rate could not be precisely quantified.
Thus, to provide a broad overview of potential emissions (ana costs and
health impacts), estimates were developed of the maximum process emission
rate expected for highly volatile solvents and of a likely, or typical,
process emission rate from a WSTF. Fugitive emissions from the model
WSTF were estima ted' using SOCMI emi ssion factors and the equipment
count specified in the benzene fugitive emission standard model Case A.
This basis was jUdged to be representative of the size and emission
factors for WSTF's.2
Estimates were developed of the range of costs to control process
emissions and the cost to control fugitive emissions from a WSTF model
facility. These estimates were used to estimate the upper- and likely
. .
lower-bound cos~s to control air emissions from WSTF's. Specifically,
order-of-magnitude cost estimates for process emission control were
2The emission factors were not adjusted for the waste stream composition
as was done in the WET model because part of the equipment contacts the
purifiea solvent and the estimates are intenaed to be order-af-magnitude.
2
-------
Figure 1.
Flow Diagram for WSTF Analysis
Characterize Model
Facility
Estimate likely and
upper bound process
emission rates for
Model Fac~lity
Estimate fugitive
emission rate
for Model Facility
Estimate cost of
controlling model facility
process emissions with
condenser, flare, « incinerator
Estimate cost of leak
detection and repair program
for Model Facility
Estimate health impacts due
to Model Facility process
and fugitive emissions
Estimate number of Model
Facilities required to treat
total quantity of solvent waste
Estimate nationwide emission, health, and
cost impacts from expected number of
Model Facilities required to treat solvent waste
~
-------
estimated assuming application of a 95 percent efficient secondary
condenser, flare, or incinerator to the generic model facility condenser
vent. The cost for secondary condenser control was used to estimate
the likely or expected control costs while the average of the cost to
incinerate or flare emissions was used to estimate the upper bound for
per plant proc~ss emission control costs. The cost to operate an
inspection and maintenance program to reduce fugitive emissions was
estimated using the fugitive emission cost algorithm developed by EPA
for. estimating the cost of controlling benzene fugitive emissions.
In estimating likely lower bound and upper bound per plant costs
of control for process emissions, it was necessary to specify moael
emission streams to be treated by a seconaary conaenser, flare, or
incinerator. Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) and toluene were selected
as representative of typical non-halogenated emission streams and
1,1,1-trichloroethane was chosen to represent a typical halogenated
emi~sion stream.
The per plant ranges of emission and cost estimates were projectea
to a nationwiae basis using an estimate of the number of model
facilities requirea to treat an estimated 436 x 106 gallons of waste
solvent per year.3 The number of model facilities was derived from the
estimated average solvent recovery rate (i.e., the volume of solvent
recovered to the volume of waste solvent treated at the facility) ana
the expectea total volume of waste solvent.
In estimating lower bouna, or typical, nationwiae control costs,
it was assumed that all plants would use seconaary conaensers to
control process emissions. In estimating upper-bouna nationwiae costs,
it was assumea that approximately 50 percent of total plants woula
treat halogenatea compounds (ana use incinerators for process emission
control), ana approximately 50 percent would treat non-halogenatea
compounds (.ana use flares for process emi ssi on control).
Oraer-of-magnituae health impacts were estimated for cancer risks
from exposure to air emissions from WSTF's. While cancer risks are not
the only health impacts associated with air emissions from WSTF's, they
are the most available measure of direct health effects associatea with
3The estimate of the quantity of solvent waste to be treated per year
was proviaea by OSW.
4
-------
chronic low-level exposures to organic solvents. The Human Exposure
Model (HEM) was used to calculate the magnitude of risks posed by
WSTF's at both typical and maximum emission rates. In addition, health
impacts were evaluated for a range of unit risk factors (i.e., 2 x
10-7 to 2 x 10-5 cases/ ~g/m3-person). The nationwide annual incidence
was calculated as the average annual incidence considering the projected
number of WSTF's and the range in emission rates, geographic location,
and urban/rural sites expeCted for WSTF's.
Summary of Results
Table 1 presents a summary of the model WSTF parameters and emission
rates, and Table 2 presents the range and average of the per plant
emission control cost. Nationwide emissions and costs are summarized
in Table 3.
The order-of-magnitude health impact analysis showed the emission
controls woula reauce the maximum individual lifetime risk of cancer
from WSTF's operating at the upper-bound emission rate from about 3.7
10-3 to 2.6 x 10-4. The nationwide annual inciaence of cancer in the
population living within 50 km of uncontrolled WSTF's is estimated to
be about 3.4 cases per year assuming the higher risk factor. With the
process and fugitive emission controls evaluated in this study, this
nationwide evidence rate would be reduced to about 0.3 cases per year.
x
Uncertainties in the Analysis
It shoula be recognized that these order-of-magnitude emission,
cost, and risk estimates possess considerable uncertainty. While these
estimates were developed using the best available information, they are
imprecise due to a paucity of specific information on WSTF operations
and inconsistencies in the available information. Considering the lack
of available information, ranges of impact estimates were aeveloped
to bound what the true impacts might be. Juagement was then used to
identify the most likely or "typical" impact estimates within each
range. The value selected as the likely impact estimate within each
range was chosen such that potential error shoula be on the conserva-
tive side, unless other factors indicated that another value within the
range would represent a better estimate.
5
-------
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS AND EMISSION RATES
Item l Va 1 ue
I
General Plant Operation: r
I
Waste solvent reclaimea per year I 8 Gg/yr
Emitting hours for conaenser I 4160 h/y
Emitting hours for fugi ti ve I 8760 h/y
emission sources
I
Conaenser Vent Stream Emission I
Characteri sti cs I
I
Tempera ture. of I 750F
Fl owra te I 26 scfm
VOC Emission rate I
Li ke ly I 7 1 b/ h
upperbouna 75 1 b/h
I
Fugitive Emission I 13.5 Mg/y
Sources
L
6
-------
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF MODEL FACILITY CONTROL COST ESTIMATES
-----------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------------------
Control Device
Emission
Rate, lb/h
Capital Cost, 1985 $
Range Average
Annualized Cost, 1985 $/yr
Range Average
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Condenser Vent
------------
Case 1
Incinerator
7
2,630 to 3,850 3,270
81,000 to 91,000 86,000
NAa 209,000
32 to 75
21,000 to 29,000 25,000
81,000 to 91,000 86, 000
NAa 209,000
1,425 to 1,885
1,660
---
Secondary Condenser
F 1 a re
52,000
NA a
164,100
Case 2
......
----
Secondary Condenser
4,700 to 6,400
5,500
Flare
Incinerator
NAa
43,000
150,900
~~9!!!y~_~our£~!
LDR Program
3.47
NAa
26,960
NAa
11,900
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aOnly average value calc~lated.
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF TYPICAL AND UPPER-BOUND ESTIMATES
OF NATIONWIDE EMISSION AND CONTROL COSTS FOR 95 PLANTS
Control Costsa
l
I Typical
I Uncontrol led
VOC Emlssjons, M9/yr-------f--- 2,550
(tons/yr) I (2,810)
I
Capital Cost, $ I
Annual Cost, $/yr I
Recovery Creait, $/yrb I
Net Annual Cost (with I
recovery credit), "$/yr
I
Controlled
I
I Upper Bound
Controllea Uncontrolled
400T;740
(440) I 06,250)
I
1,010
0,110)
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
. n.a.
2,872,000
1,288,000
0,176,000) c I
112,000 I
L-
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
16,635,000
10,970,000
(429,OOO)C
10,541,000
aAll costs are in June, 1985 $.
bRecovery creaits were estimated assuming a recovered solvent value of $450/Mg.
C(
) indicates a cost credit.
8
-------
The major deficiencies in the available information were:
o Characterization of WSTF's - The number of facilities, the
distribution of production capacities, and typical capacity, and
geographical distribution was not well defined in the available
reports or only a single estimate was available. For example,
the number of facilities treating waste solvents was estimated
to range from about 60 to 400 based on information in various
reports, while production capacity estimates were available
from essentially only two surveys.
o Waste Stream Characterization - Information on specific composition
of waste streams appeared to be highly uncertain because the
original survey data did not include composition by constituent
and subsequent estimates were derived from these data using
several assumptions.
o Emission Rate and Stream Characterization - Very little information
was available on emission stream composition (temperature,
flowrate, and concentrations) and on uncontrolled emission rates.
The available information on emission rates was based on a small
number of tests conducted at unknown operating conditions and
waste streams of unknown composition.
o Unit Risk Factor - Factors have been developed for only three of
the Appendix VII constituents and it is unknown if the range of
factors used is truly representative of the actual range of
factors for all 20 constituents.
Consequently, the emission, cost, and risk estimates developed
reflect judgments on the best estimate of many of the parameters. Such
jUdgments were made on characterization of WSTF's operation, waste stream
composition, the range of possible emission rates, emission stream parame-
ters, and possible range of unit risk factors. The estimates, thus, are
believed to be useful for presenting a broad overview of the potential
impacts of control of air emissions, but not for precisely quantifying
the impacts.
9
-------
I I 1.
KEY TO LOCATION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION DEVELOPED UNDER THIS
ASSIGNMENT
The memoranda prepared under this assignment and included as
attachments to this Technical Note are listed below:
Attachment No.1. Memorandum, Meyer, J. and Fitzsimons, G., Pacific
Environmental Services, to Dimmick, F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB, "Model
Faci 1 i ty Parameters and Draft Control Cost Estima tes," October 21,
1985.
Attachment No.2. Memorandum,
Services, to Dimmick, F.,
Moael Facility Parameters
October 23, 1985.
Meyer, J., Pacific Environmental
U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB, "Revisions to Draft
and Draft Condenser Cost Estimates,"
Attachment No.3. Memorandum, Fitzsimons, G., Pacific Environmental
Services, to Dimmick, F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB, "Revised HEM MOdeling
Inputs for WSTF Model Plants," October 30, 1985.
Attachment No.4. Memorandum, Meyer, J., Pacific Environmental
Services, to Dimmick, F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB, "Chemicals Covered
in Land Banning Action," October 31, 1985. .
Attachment No.5. Memorandum, Meyer, J., Pacific
Services, to Dimmick, F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB,
Cost Estimates and Aaaitional Cost Estimates
Conaenser Control," October 31, 1985.
Envi ronmenta 1
"Revised Incinerator
for Secondary
Attachment No.6. Fitzsimons, G., Pacific Environmental Services,
"Preliminary Estimate Using Moael Plant Approach of Nationwiae
Max. Risk ana Incidence Associated with Air Emissions from WSTF's,"
November 11, 1985.
Attachment No.7. Memorandum, Fitzsimons, G., Pacific Environmental
Services, to Dimmick, F.. U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB, "Revised Costs for
Fugitive Emission Control at a Model WSTF," January 24, 1986.
Attachment No.8. Memorandum, Fitzsimons, G., Pacific Environmental
Services, to Dimmick, F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB, "Estimates of Nation-
wide Emissions and Cost of Control for Waste Solvent Treatment
Facilities (WSTF's)," January 24, 1986.
Table 1 presents a key to where major work outputs and assumptions
are locatea in the attachments.
10
-------
TABLE 1. KEY TO LOCATION OF MAJOR WORK
OUTPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
ITEM
General Model Facility
Characterization
Waste Solvent Reclamation Rate ... D
Operating Hours .................. D
Chemi ca 1 s of Concern.............
Model Chemicals Selected ......... D
Equipment Count (for fugitive
emissi.ons estimate) ............ F
Process Emission Stream
Temperature .................... D
Per Plant VOC Emission Estimates
Uncontrolled and Controlled
Process Emission Rate Range .... D
Uncontrolled and Controlled
Fugitive Emission Rate ......... D
Range of Per Plant Total
Emissions..................... .
Per Plant Control Cost Estimates
Incinerator Control of Process
Emissions ...................... D
Flare Control of Process
Emi ss ions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F
Condenser Control of Process
Emissions ...................... D
Fugitive Emission Control........ D
Range of Total Per Plant Costs
for Process and Fugitive
Con tro 1 s ........................
Estimate of Nationwide Emission
and Cost Impacts
Preliminary Risk Assessment
MOdel Case Inputs to Human
Exposure r~odel (HEM) ...........
Estimate of Maximum Lifetime
Risk and Nationwide Annual
Incidence..................... .
Attachment No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
F
F
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
D
F
F
F
F
F
F
F = Final estimate used.
D = Draft (subject to revision in a latter attachment)
11
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
OCT 2 1 iS8S
DRAFT
M E M 0 RAN DUM
SUBJECT:
TO:
Model Facility Parameters ana Draft Control Cost Estimates
FROM:
Fred Dimmick. SDB
Jan Meyer. PES
Graham FitZsimons. PES
------
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I.
Purpose
The model facility parameters recommended for waste solvent treatment
facilities (WSTF's) and the basis for recommendation of these parameters
are presented in this memorandum. In addition. draft estimates of control
costs are presented for 95 percent control of condenser vent emissions
by an incinerator. a flare. or a condenser and for control of fugitive
emissions using an inspection and maintenance program.
II.
Discussion
A.
Model Facility Parameters
Model facility parameters were developed to characterize emissions
and costs for control of air emissions from WSTF's using distillation
treatment technologies. The analysis is being limited to distillation
technologies because of (1) their greater potential for significant air
emissions and (2) the paucity of information on treatment of highly
aqueous-organic streams and the applicability of previously aeveloped
control requirements to these technologies.
Model facility parameters were aeveloped to characterize both
process and fugitive emissions from distillation treatment technologies
at WSTF's. Process emissions from distillation technologies (these
operations include distillation. steam stripping. thin film evaporation.
ana air stripping) consist mainly of emissions from the condenser v~nt.
Consequently. for the purpose of the cost and emission rate* analyses.
model operating conditions and condenser vent characteristics were
deve 1 oped-. The recommended parameters for process emi ssi ons and the
basis for the recommendations are summarized in Table 1. These parameters
are considered to represent best judgments of reasonable values for the
parameters based on our review of the information provided on WSTF's
ana distillation operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
*This emission rate is the rate per quantity of reclaimed solvent.
Emission rates used to estimate nationwide emissions will be de vel ope a
from these rates using best estimates of recovery rates for concentrated
organic liquias and for aqueous-organic liquidS.
-------
Indus~ry (SOCMI). Since WSTF opera~ions are expec~d ~o be predomi-
nan~ly ba~ch opera~ions. ~he use of SOCMI dis~illation column parameters.
which are continuous operations. is expected to introduce errors of
unknown direction ana magnituae. Furthermore. because of considerable
uncertainty on emission rates from condenser vents from batch operations.
two estimates of emission ra~s are presented in Table 1 to allow
deyelopment of upper and lower bound emission estimates.
. Because of the similarity of equipment and operations. fugitive
emissions from WSTFls were characterized using information developed in
VOC Fugi~ive Emissions in SOCMI and in Benzene Fugitive Emissions
StaRdard. Table 2 summarizes the recommended equipment inventory and
emission factors for WSTFls.
B.
Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were developed for application of a control device
to the condenser vent and for implementation of a fugitive emission
inspection and main~nance program. Cost estimates were developea for
control of the condenser vent stream using a condenser. an incinerator.
or a flare to present the range of control options available to WSTF's.
These cost estima~s were developed using cost algorithms developed in
Distillation Operations in SOCMI and Polymers and Resins. .
Table 3 summarizes the preliminary cost estimates developed for
incinerator or flare control of condenser vent emissions. and Table 4
presents preliminary cost estimates for secondary condenser control of
these emissions. Table 5 presents the estima~d emission reduction.
annualized cos~. and cost effectiveness for a fugitive emission control
program at a WSTF. Appendix A presents the basts for the control cost
estimates for control devices applied to the condenser vent. .
2
-------
TABLE 1.. ~DEL FACILITY:
~ROCESS :~[SS[ONS
,tern
~e~011'I11enaat Ion
Coment S
~as i s
GENEi
-------
Item
Operating Hours
Source Inventory
TABLE f. MODEl FACILITY: FUGITIVE EMISSIONS ESTIMATE
Recommenda t10n
8160 h/yr
Mode 1 Un1t A in
Benzene Fugitive
Emhs ions Standard
(See Attachment 1)
Emission Factors SOCMI Factors
for leaks from (See Attachment 2)
Equipment
Basis
Assumes system is not purged
between ba tches.
Smallest reviewed inventory
aval1able.
SOCMI factors are for fairly
comparable composition
streams.
Commen 15
SOCMI us~s 8160 h/yr field reports
hrs highly variable ( 4000 h/yr to
8160 h/yr).
.
Available information on equipment
counts is poor. GCA TechNote
inventory is for a very small pot
still and is very loosely derived
from SOCMI Case A model unit.
factors w111 overestimate emission
from aqueous~organ1c streams. The
factors could be weighted by
average organic content of streams
but that would require apportionin
the equipment between 2 types of
streams.
s
9
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR WSTF
DISTILLATION VENTS - INCINERATOR AND FLARE CONTROL a
(June 1985 dollars)
S treamb Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6
Item VOC .. 7 lb/h VOC" 82 lb.lh VOC" 7 lb/h VOC .. 82 Ib/h VOC .. 7 lb/h VOC" 82 lb/l
Toluene Toluene Hexane HeJlane Trichloroethane Trl ch1oroethane
Control SystemC,e F1a re Flare Flare F1 are I ncl nera tor I nc1 nera tor
Control costS:
Capita], $ 81.000 81,000 91,000 91,000 758,000 758,000
Operatlngf, $ 39,800 30,000 39,800 30,000 159,000 140,000
Total annual1zed,d,f, $ 52,000 43,000 52.000 43,000 312,000 293,000
Annual emissions, t/yr 14..56 170.56 14.56 170.56 14.56 170.56
a
CoSt estimates are developed using Radian's .0ocumentat1on for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) Incinerator/Flare Cost1n9 A1gorithm..
b. .
Stream characterlstfcs .. 26 scfm at 75. (assumed to consist of VOC and nitrogen).
c
Flare system costs Include f1are stack, f1are tfp, knock out drum, seal, 400 ft length duct work, and 350 ft pipe rack.
It Is not known If the total costs Include a compressor. Incinerator System costs Include combustfon chamber, 150 ft
duct work, .fan, stack, and quench/scrub system. It Is unknown if the system Includes a heat eJlchanger.
d
Based on 4,160 annual operating hours, 15 years 1ffe for f1ares, 10 years life for Incinerators, and 10 percent Interest
ra te s.
e
For cases 1 through 4, lowest size f1ares (i.e., 2 in. dia and 30 ft high) are
size Incinerators (i.e., 1 mJ combusi1on chamber) are required.
f
Calculations for case 5 resulted In negative fuel costs.
required, and for cases 5 and 6, lowest
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR WSTF
DISTILLATION VENTS - CONDENSER CONTROL
Strejlm Case 1 a Case 2 Case 3a Case 4 Ca se Sa Case 6
Item VOC . 7 Ib/h VOC. 82 Ib/h VOC . 7 Ib/h VOC . 82 Ib/h VOC.- 7 Ib/h Vot - 82.lb/h
Toluene Toluene Hexane Hexane Trichloroethane Trt ch loroe thane'
Con tro I Systemc.e Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser
Con tro I cos ts:
Cap1 ta I, S 3.336 b 2.843 b 2.280 b
Total annualized. S 1.631 1.398 1,219
Recovery Credit, S (4.2301 (4,4791 (9211
He t Annua l1zed , S (2.5991 (3.081) 298
Annual Emisston Reduction,
ton/yr 13.83 162 13.83 162 13.83 162
Cost Effecttveness. S/ton (178.50) b (211.61) b 20.46 b
( ) tnd1cates a cred1t.
a Cost estimates were developed using PES' condenser cost algorithm in .Polymers Manufacturing HSPS"; all costs are tn
June 1980 dollars.
b Cost estimates wtll be developed ustng standard cost estimation procedures and vendor data for condenser costs:
-------
TABLE 5.
DRAFT FUGITIVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND CONTROL COST ESTIMATES
~ Wi.R. COHrKOL 8IIISSII)f ~!TAL ;;:.wuz. RECOV81Y ~
;z ~ISS. a=FIC. £UC1'ICN COST C$ :REI:IT Err~!:;:.
:MISSICN~ SDURCES (MqiYR) ,%) (~giYR) (1: (S/YR) (S/YR) (a (S/~'
"'UKi 5EAL.S
LIGHT i.IIiJID 5 a.Z 51 1. J 192 1787 -ca' q.'
~.. .U
i
-------
Aftachment 1
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 277'1
E:PA-450/3-80-032b
June 1 9~
Air
EIS
Benzene Fugitiye
Emissions-
Background
Information for'
Promulgated
Standards
&EPA
.n
n
-------
J'.ttachment 1
Table
2-5. ANNUALIZED MODEL UNIT CONTROL COSTS ANDbSAVINGSa
OF THE BENZENE FUGITIVE EMISSIONS STANDARD
(Thousand May 1979 Do 11 a.rs )
MOdel Uni tC
A B C
Its New Existing New E.thti ng rlew ~JC;Sti n9
installed Capital Cost 16 17 31 32 48 49
Total Annual iUG Cost 10.1 10.2 20.1 20.2 30.l 30.4
Recov.ry Cl'8clit 6.9 6.9 20.5 20.5 33.8 33.8
~et An!\UaliUG Cost or SuingS4 3.2 3.3 (0.40)4. (0.30)4 (3.7)4 (3..4)4
VOe/Yr =-issiop R8c1u~ion 19 Mg 191'19 56 I1g 56 I1g 93 I1g 93 I1g
Benzene/Y~ ~iSSioq Rlductio~ 12 Mg 12 Mg 31 Mg 3lMg 71Mg 71Mg
Cost (Savings) per Mg e 0.17 0.17 (0.007)4 (0.005)4 (0.040)4 (0.036)4
Total ~issions RIdIlC8d
Cost (Savings) per "' Benzen. R8IIuc:8d 0.%7 0.28 (0.013)4 (0.010)4 (0.052)4 (0.048)4
aCostS al"'l fo~ n- and existing uniU and Incluc18 _i taring instnlD8fttS but dO rIOt incluc18
cOSt for COlllPreslOrs because call1reslOrs in tI8!Izen. se,..,ice al"'l not Itnown to exist.
Recov.ry creelits al"'l basld Oft total 8I1ssion ..l'ecIUct1ons (benzene ana oUl.r VOC) ana S3701Mg.
~ stancl&l"II l'eQUires IIIIIIItftly ,... d8t8C~on -and ,..ir p"",.... for ".1 vel and PUIIIIS. aM
equipment sD8C1f1at1ons for presSUI"'I ,..lief d8¥ices. open-enclecl l1n.s. s_ling connections.
, and produ~ aCCU8llatar vas.ls.
~I units 118'1' ttI8 fol1owill9 IllllDers of _n8llts:
PuaIps
Va tv..
Gu ~ 100 167
L ; gilt Liquid 87 ZS4 439
Pressure Relief DeviclS (gal) 3 9 16
Open-encled L j II8S 35 105 175
~ Ii ng Connections 9 26 44
AcCIIDIlatar Vesl.ls 1 2 2.
./
Sever, I ulUllllt10ns al"'l mad. to ClllPllte llllldel unit COlU. For presSUI"'I rel'ief Qevices 75
pereent al"'l aslWll8d alr-eldY controlled in the aDS.nee of tII. stanCIII"II. For tII. 25 p.reent
of PI"'ISSUI"'I rel1ef 4..,ices tllat al"'l uncontrolled. it is asSWlllcl tIIat 75 pereent will be
controlled wit!! a clOlld "ent S1lt. to f1a... and 25 pere~ w;11 be controlled wit!! a
nlpUire 41sk syst81t. For ,..I1ef "alves using nlPUIre 41skS. on.-ftllf w;Jl be controlled
witll blOCk "alvlS and. ane-llalf wi11 be. controlled witll 3-_y "alvlS. For aCCWIIIlatar
"ess.ls. 95 p.rcenT; are.uSU81 aIrelCly controlled in till aosence.of tIIe'stanCIIl"II.
~rs in pa£'If!UIlS1s denote savings.
'Total .issions Inelu- benZlM .and otll.r VOC.
A
5
/tide I Uni t
B
. 15
C
25
2-94
-------
.A.ttachment 2
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-80-033b
June 1982
Air
&EPA
VOC Fugitive
Emissions in
Synthetic
Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing
Industry-
Background
Information fo"r
Promulgated"
Standards
EIS
.:~"-..~"~t~~~~~~;;~~~:~,..;;~~"~~~~T~~~~-;~::~~~9;-::~~~;~1#~*t~ii;:F:'ffi.5;~:~:~~~~;;j=~£{~;~~~~'~\:~~'~f2~~~~f~-~
"_..-"'-~~~:-~~.~~~{~:r~::/~~~-:=-;;;::~~~~;~~~!~:~i:$_":':~~;~~-~'~~:-:':'~:i-.;.;:--=:.~::~~:.!':-::.-:--../..~..~'::;'~~;~,:":'-';~,c..~_::~'-'--;:'!:.:..::~.....::~ .....:~\.!. :.::'. ::.: ...' '.: . :~ :'."'::::~- .--:" ::;....:....:-:~;. :;. .-.'..;.-"-. ."''''''-0..:< :
.'~:>~--"""'-'-""':':-"-'-.:".'-""./"...'--r .~:---... ...-...'.":~'-';'...." :~,-..""..,-"."-'..'" -...," ." . ..' ..
U.~ I>
U!
r
J
-------
Attachment 2
TABLE 3-2. COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS, kg/hr/source
Sou rce AID BID
Pumps - light liquid 0.0494 0.114
- heavy liquid 0.0214 0.021
Valves - gas 0.0056 0.0268
- light liquid 0.0071 0.0109
- heavy liquid 0.00023 0.00023
Compressors 0.228 0.636
Pressure relief devices - gas 0.104 0.16
Fl anges 0.00083 0.00025
Oper-ended lines 0.0017 0.0023
Sampling connections 0.0150 0.0150
3-9
-------
Appendix A.
Summary of Details of Control Cost Estimates
-------
T~'e. z.. P6-rAIl-S OF E:(1\\SSION CONTRoL COST C:;STIMATG S' FOR TSDF DISTILl-p.TION 'EtJTS
~ Go...).,. e... 1 c.~e 2 Go..b e 1. C(f..Ae 4 C~e s c.. QV::> C2. ~
voc.. "7 Ib/h \lOc :: 82-1b/'" \1°C'" 716/h "0 C- tD 2.16/'" \/0 C 7 'b/~ \laC 62.. Ihlt..
t.:r~ "'" To,,,,,-~,,,e To h.",e."'e »e.~o.."'e ~)(.o..l"\e ij I nr.:. I~~
~tA.T' ....
CONTROL '5'ts 16 .M be S'I (7.N CON DlTtofol
tleS'C:~ 't'lolJ..), c~ 3 G". ~ ~b 3 5'. '2. CtG 5 2-S"" ')'2...5""
S" i!:e 2.. i.-v-. . d.: 0. 2. tv... cL", k ~~. cA,.:o.. k 2: w-. . c!;.0\.. J. 3 6 1+'3 '> b 6--1'3
t 11 0 ...- ....~" -ao ~ ~fih 30 f-t ~ '0 (I H- #~'"
i-i (r-C2 15"" I~ I~ I:) (0 10
. ---- .---
CAfl-rA l- (, 0 ::I T S'. .1U N E l '\ 'ij '" :t\
F 0. oJ'..t. JL e--t C1J'.t. ~cd 5:'3,000 S- ~ 000 5''3...000 5" 3 000
~
:x:~ ..., ~ 6, UOO 73 b,ODO
Dv..~ 15,000 'SjOOO 151 000 1 ~ 000 7,000 7...000
p~~ '~/OOO 13,,000 11...000 13",o00 13/000 I .3 J 000
Tot;~ ..<--~ e I, 000 e 1,000 e I, 000 0 I} 000 15"8... 000 15"8...000
-
ANNUA Lrz.G'J) opeRA1"NG- C.05'T s J ~
D~;
o~~ lo..b~ . ,,600 7, ,"0 a 2.'\,000 . 2"1)000
S~csvv I, (00 ,) 100 ~,OClO '-I, OOD
f'I\ ~ t-c. ~o.t\A.c..e ~, 'i00 a/toO ::l ~...ooo ~ 3/°00
IV) o.Nv-... t .It. h Ovv'\. C. e p~ ~, ,+00 ,,~OO '2-~....ooo ~ 3,. 00 0
Ut.-\ ~ hu. :
iii" I.e.c.. t.....: c.;. ~ , ,4,000 It,ooo 1)000 1,000
F~ (r-Jo-Twv-.{ ~) , ~, 000 ~,ooo so."", 0-0 5~ "'b 1 ,) 000 - 8,000
~e",c.J..-... I..U~ +-r~, tJ1:tv ~ 2.. 1,000 1)000
s~~ ~,ooo ~/OOO
4~M.A c.ili ~o,ooo ~o 000
-'
~t-OJun ',300 \»00 4-~ooo 4~OOO
O"J~ he.o-.d 9,~C?q .",000
T c>1;c4 ~ ~C1;'ao6 3£)):>00 1 S"'OI, 000 I "f o} boO
r"",~,
~~~ '0, G.oo 10, Goo l.:t ?/lf 00 I 2~/too
To..'~, ~t.t. e.. ~staJ; ~,t.tOO ~,400 '30,000 30,000
10 'to---t ~eiLl.:~ 5'2. 000 ~a,ooo 88,000 1,\,000 '3\~. 400 '2-(H,~OO
-------
T~le3 .
A Nr-.,JU,At..I '2..6 D
c. O' s -r
p.;,ASES
X-rerT"\
"~~e
A~~~J~
Op..u-....~ L4:,~ ~e '$/h
SV~(~
(V\ o.i.-v t'~~E.. .t 0...10 ~
<::> V.eJ\. \.o...e. o...ct
'-1,/60
I~. OS'
1'5'" 0/" ~ o-p. I~
-0 % ~ ~t'~~
9"<::) % ~ oP'~J~~~""
o.-..c::I. rrv....o..i.-. ~~ e
E\ec.T-(,i~ J ~ /lo~ ~ Rwh
Ncx.X"~ ~I ~ IlO~ &t\.4
~~cJ,...,. It. A~ ~J
5-t:'eQ..""" , ~ Il o'!> 16
C~ ~/\o"!Jlb
I
i /lO'1 ~
"S"1. ';"0
~. ~o
O. '2.."12-
5'". I a
~7. e '\
-------
CONDENSATION SYST~M DESIGN
SUi"W1ARY
Productlon =aoaclty, Gg/yr
Goeratinc nours oer vear
(~le~ emIssion facto~, ~g VOC/Mg proouc~
Em13sion reduc~ion
Cu~le~ emlssion factor, kg VOC/Mg proouct
Inlet temoerature. oec.F
inlet pressure, a~mosaheres .
Inlet "TOLuENE mass fl,:.w rate. Ib/hr
Inlet gas stream volumetric flow rate, acfm
Gas outlet temcerature reQuired for reduction, oeg.~
Coolant tempera~ure selec~ed, deg.F
Deslon heat load. Btu/hr
Coce-for coolant. selected (1 = Freon-502; 2 = Freon-12;
3 = 1/2 ethylene glycol & 1/2 water; 4 = water;
~equired condenser area, so.ft
Selec~ed condenser area. so.ft .
. Hea't excJ"'1anger acialal irmer shell oiarneter, l:'l.
~eng~M of heat exchanger, ft
Numoer of tuoes in heat exchanger
Tube outer diameter. in.
Tube insioe cross-s~ctional area, sq.ft oer tube
Coolant soecific gravity (relative 'to water at 60 deg.F)
Coolant flow in heat exchanger, Bpm
Coolant temperature change, deg.~
Recuired refrigeration capacity, tons of refrigeration
Selected refrigeration capacity, tons of refrigeration
Selected refrigeration capacity, compressor horse cower
Horsepower per ton of refrigeration for coolant te~cerature
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATION
Cacital Costs
-------------
Heat exchanaer
Installed cost per Enviroscience,
Installed cost oer vendors, July
Installed cost, June 1980
December 1979
1'384 (est.)
Refri gerat ie.n
Installed cost oer Enviroscience,
Installed cost oer vendors. June
Installed cost. June 1980 .
December 1979
1980 (est.)
Total Installed Capital Cost,
Annuali:ed Costs
';I.lne 1980
----------------
Operating labor
Maintenance materials & labor
Utilities
Electricity, pumoing
Electricity, refrigeration
Coolant, make-uo
Capital recovery.
Taxes, administration, & insurance
Total annuali:ed cost wlthout recovery
TOLUENE recovery credit
credit
Ne't Annuali:ed Cos't
-------
::;J;'.:}:,E:".:3A7 i ~!'! S"y"STS)! Df::S I ;.3~~
SL-ff!("!~~"{
~!~:~~UC~l~n ~aoac!~y~ Gg/yr'
a~eratino ~ours oer year
rn~et smisslon facto~, Kg VOC/Mg proc~c~
Emlssion reductlon
autls~ emissi~n factor, Kg VOC/~g ~rocuct
:nle~ temcerature, ceg.F
Inlet cressure. atmoseneres
inlet HEXANE m~ss flo~ rate. lbihr
Inlet cas stream vOiumetric" flow rate. acfm
Gas ouilet temcerature reculred for r~duction. deg.F
~oolant temcerature selec~ed, deg.F "
Desien heat load. 9tu/hr
COde-for coolant" selected (1 = Freon-502: 2 = Freon-12:
3 = 1/2 ethylene glycol & 1/2 water; 4= water)
Recuirec condenser area. sc.ft
Selected condenser area~ se.ft
~eat exchancer aC~I.lal ir-mer snell oiarneter. In.
~ength of heat exchanger, ft
Number of tuoes in heat excnanger
Tube outer diameter. in.
Tube inside cross-s~ctlonal area. sc.ft cer tuee
Coolant scecific gravity (relative ~o wa~er at 60 ceg.F)
Coolant flow in heat exchanger, gpm
Coolant temperature cMange, deg.F
Required refrigeration capacity, tons of refrigeratlon
Selected refrigeration capacity, tons of refrigeration
Selected refrigeration capacity, compressor horsecower
Horsecower per ton of refrigeration for coolant temcerature
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATION
Capital Costs
-------------
Heat exchaneer
Installed cost eer Envirosclence. December 1979
Installed cost 6er vendors. Julv 1984 (est.) "
I nst aIled cc.st," June 1'380' -
Refrieeration "
Installed cost eer Enviroscience.
Installed cost eer vendors. June
rnstalled cost." June 1980 .
December 1979
1980 ( es't. )
Total Installed Capital Cost,
Annl.lal i zed Cost s
June 1980
----------------
Ocerat1.ng labor
Maintenance materials & labor
iJt i lit i es
Electricity, ~umcing
Electr.icity, refrigeration
Coolant. mai;(e-'.Ie
Cacital recovery
Taxes, administration, & insurance
Total annualized cost without recovery
HEXANE recovery credit
cr"edit
Net Annualized Cost
(after recovery credit)
HEXANE Emission Reduction,
Mg/yr
Average" Cost Effective~ess,
$/Mg
.~
4 ~ 612:
.. ~ :,;:'
';5. ~~~
0.ilI825
75
1
7.00
2.86
-16.25
':"30
1440
2
1. '37
.:- .;:.a
~._-
:;. '2\68
0.567
56
'2'. 25
0.12100205
1.502
15. "to 5
0.582
0. 1200
NA
0.75
4.436
NA
$296
$258
NA
$2.585
$2~5a5
$2,843
$497
$142
$69
$112
$2
$463
$114
$1.398
($4~479)
($3,081>
:2.5407
($246 )
-------
CCi~DE;~SA7IOi~ SYST~j~ DESIGf\!
S~: :T!f'r!~ ;::; 0,:,
~r,:!duc~ion cao~city~ Gg/yt~
=oerating nours oer year
Inlet emi5sio~ fa~tor. kg ~:OC/I~g ~r~cu~~
~misslon r~cuction
0utle~ ~mlssion factor~ k~ VOC/~g proauct
:nle~ temcerature~ ceg.F
Inle~ ores sure. atmosoneres
:1"llet TRICHLORO mass fl.=,w rat~~ lo/ht'
Inle~ cas stream volumetric flow r~te. acfm
Gas ouElet temcerature required for recuction~ deg.F
Coolant temcerature selected. cea.F
Desion heat load. Btu/hr . -
Code-for coolant. selected (1 = Freon-5~2: 2 = ;reon-12:
3 = 1/2 ethylene glycol & 1/2 water; 4= water')
~ecuired condenser area. 5c.ft
Selected concenser area~ sc.ft
~eat excnanger actual inner snell diameter. In.
~e"g~h of heat exchanger~ ft
Number of tubes in heat exchanaer
Tube outer diameter. in. -
Tube inside cross-s~ctional area, so.ft oer tube
Coolant scecific gravity (relative to water at 60 deg.F)
Coolant flow in heat exchanger, gpm
Coolant temperature change, deg.F
Recuired refrigerati~n capacity, tons of refrigeration
Selected refrigeration capacity, tons of refrigeration
Selected refrigeration cacacity, comcressor horsecower
Horsepower per ton of refrigeration for coolant temperature
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTI~AT!ON
Cacital Costs
-------------
Heat exchanaer
InstalleQ cost cer Enviroscience.
Installed cost cer vendors. Julv
Installea cost,. June 1980 . .
Refri cera~ i.:.n
Installed cost cer Enviroscience.
Installea cost 6er vendors. June.
Installec cost, June 1980 .
December 1979
1984 (es'C.)
Decemcer 1979
1'380 (est.)
T,::o'C a I
Installed Capital
Cost,
June 1'380
Annuallzec Costs
----------------
Ocerating labor
Malntenance materials & labor
Utilities
Electrlcity, pumcing
Electricity: refrigeration
Coolant, maKe-up
Cacital recoverv
Taxes, aaministration, & insurance
Total annualizea cost without recovery
TRICHLORO recovery credit .
creoit
Net Annualized Cost
(after recovery credl'C)
TRICHLORO Emission Reduc~ion,
Mg/yr
Average Cost Effectlveness,
$/Mg
.'""
..:;. ~ biZ!
~. 65
.;~. 0i~
:Z:. 'c-825
75
.!.
7.00
2.25
-17.51
-340
967
2:
L 11
:=:. 29
3. 'Z,68
0.667
56
0.25
'l1. 0!Z10205
1.502
15.45
'ZI.391
0.121806
NA
t21.5
4.436
NA
$2'36
~258
NA
$2,12122
$2,022
$2~280
$437
"'. '...
~... J. .
$69
$75
$2
$--.
...:" .-
$'31
$1.21'3
($'321 )
$298 .
12.5407
$24
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
-------
u ~ I L J 1985
SUBJECT:
Revisions to Draft Model Facility ParalT1eters and Draft
Condenser Cost Estimates
TO:
FROM:
Fred Dimmick, SOB
Jan Meyer t PES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached are revised Tables 1 and 4 presenting model facility
parameters and control condenser cost estimates.
-------
TABLE 1.
MODEL FACILITY:
PROCESS EMISSIONS
Item
Recommendation
Comments
Bas is
GENERAL PLANT
OPERATION:
Was te So I vent
Reclamation
Rate
8000 Metric Tons per
year
Operati ng Hours
4160 per year
Condenser Stream 1(1)
Cases (2)
1(3)
CONDENSER VENT. \
STREAM EMISSION I
CHARACTERISTICS: I
Temperature 1750F
Flowrate 126 scfm
Hexane
To I uene
1,1,1
trichloroethane
VOC Emission Rate (1)
( 2)
(3)
12 lb/hr toluene
7-59 lb/hr hexane
7-75 Ib/hr trich-
loroethane .
'-
I Subjective judgement after
reviewing lY78 EPA Source
Asses sment,
1/30/81 Engineering Science
Memorandum, 2
SOeMI Distillation NSPS BID,
and RTI/Radian site visit
reports.
Intermittent operation:
2 shifts/day x 5 day/wk x
. S2 wk/yr.
Most solvent reclamation plants
appear to be in the range of 2-8000
metric tons/yr. A size at the
large end of this range was chosen
because some model plant parame-
ters (e.g., airflow) are being
based on SOeMI Distillation, and a
/large solvent reclamation facility
is closer to a small SOeMI Oistil-
lation facility.
I
I
I
I
I
RTI/Engineering Science site IRange was about S0-80oF. Hi2hest
visit reports. uSE!$1 was 90°F in ICF report.
SOeMI Distillation NSPS BID, IRange of flowrates reported for all
"Cas~ 5" (page B-15). SOeMI Distillation facilities was
0.005-637 scfm. No correlation of
IPlant size and flowrate possible.
No information found on flowrates
at waste solvent recovery
Ifacilities.
Lower limit based on avg. AP-42 factor USed in GCA Tech-
AP-42 emission factor (1.7g \note.S (Range of AP-42 factor is
VOC/kg reclaimed solvent) 0.26-4.17 g/kg reclaimed solvent).
applied to 8000 metric tons/yr Range of SOCMI Distillation
plant. Upper limit is emission rates reported was 0-3668
emission rate associated with lb/hr, with 78 lb/hr the average.
gas stream at the dew point Example material balance in EPA
of the compound. Source Assessment (page 22) indi-
cate much lower emission factor.
I
I Subjective judgment after
review of references l-S.
I
EPA-600/2-78-o04f, April 1978.
l"Source Assessment:. Reclaiming of Waste Solvents. State of the Art."
2Memorandum. "Development of a Control Technology Guideline (CTG) Document for the Waste Solvent Recovery
Industry," from.L.L- Lloyd of Engineering Science to F.L. Porter of EPA/ESED.
3"Preliminary Assessment of Hazardous Waste Pretreatment as an Air Pollution Control Technique." prepared
Dy RTI fO" EPA/IERL. OctOber 15, 1984.
4"The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model - Phase III Report," prepared. by ICF, Inc. for EPA/OSW. March 1, 1984.
SOraft Technical Note. "Emission Algorithm Development fa,. Pretreatment Operations." prepared by. GCA Corp.
for EPA/ESED/CPB. Ju Iy 1985.
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOH WSTF
t) ISTILLATION VENTS - CONDENSE/{ CONTROL
Stream
Item
Case la
VOC = 7 lb/h
Toluene
Case 2b
VOC = 12 lb./h
Toluene
Case 4b Case 5a Case 6b
VOC = 58.9 lb/h VOC = 7 lb/h VOC = 75 lb/L
Hexane Trichloroethane Trichloroethane
Case 3a
VOC = 7 lb/h
Hexane
Control Systemc.e
Condenser
Control costs:
Cap ita 1. $
Total annualized. $
Recovery Credit. $
Net Annualized. $
Annual Emission Heduction.
ton/yr
Cost Effectiveness. $/ton
( ) indicates a credit.
. Condenser
Condenser
Condenser
Condenser
Condenser
3,336 21,000 2,843 38 .000 2,280 29,OUO
1.631 4,700 1 ,398 8 . 100 1.219 5.500
(4.230) ( 8, 126) (4,479) (41.900) (921) (11 .025 )
(2,599) (3,426) (3,081) (33,800) 298 (5.525)
13.83 23.9 13.83 116.39 13.83 148.99
(187.92) (143.35) (222.78 ) 290.40 21.55 (37.U8)
a
Cost estimates were developed using PES' condenser cost algorithm in "Polymers Manufacturing NSPS"; all costs are in
June 1980 dollars.
b
Cost estimates developed using standard cost estimation procedures and vendor data for condenser costs; all costs are
in 1985 dollars.
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
-------
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Octobe r 30, 1985
TO:
FROM:
Fred Dimmick, SDB
Graham Fitzsimons, PES
SUBJECT:
Revised HEM Modeling Inputs for WSTF Model Plants
-------
- - - -
------
- - - -
- - - - - - - - -
Attached for your review are revised HEM modeling inputs for each of
the uncontrolled and controlled model cases that PES has developed for the
WSTF project. Attachment 1 presents a.key to the various model case inputs
prepared. The inputs for each case are presented in Attachment 2.
The revised inputs were prepared based on our discussions with you
and K.C. Hustvedt concerning the model inputs PES submitted on October
23. The specific changes from the October 23 inputs are: 1) the
controlled and uncontrolled cases for toluene at an uncontrolled emission
rate of 7 lb/h from the condenser vent have been dropped, and 2) methyl
ethyl ketone (at uncontrolled emission rates of 7 and 32 lb/h) has been
substituted for hexane.
Our recommendations for candidate rural and urban locations for
modeling remain the same. These locations correspond to existing
solvent reclamation facility sites. The recommended candidate locations
and the EPA ID numbers of the facilities at those locations are shown
below.
EPA 10 # Plant Location Latitude Longitude Rura 1 /Urban
CAT000646117 Kettleman City, CA 36° 061 20" 1200 OS' 20" R
OKD065438376 Waynoka, OK 36° 321 30" 98 ° 48 1 00" R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------
OHD052324548 Twinsburg, OH 41 ° 27' 30" 81° 291 40" U
NJD002182897 Li nden, NJ 40° 441 30" 74° 16' 10" U
NCD071572036 Greensboro, NC 36 ° 07' 50" 790 56' 10" U
ORD009020231 Beaverton, OR 45° 30' 00" 1220 491 30" U
Please call me if yo~ have any questions on the modeling input~ or
recommended candidate modeling locations.
-------
Attachment 1. KEY TO MODEL CASES
.1 I Uncontrolled I Controlled Case Nos.
I Emission Rate11
Pollutant I lb/h I Case Nos. I Condenser Incinera tor F 1 a re
I I I
MEK 7 1 2 NA 3
32 5 6 NA 10
Toluene 7 1 2 NA 3
l,l,1-Trichloroethane 7 1 2 4 NA
75 7 8 9 NA
lUncontrolled emission rate from the condenser vent. In addition, fugitive emissions
of 3.44 lb/h and 0.88 lb/h were included in the uncontrolled and controlled cases,
respectively. Condenser vent emissions were assumed to occur 4160 hrs/yr and
fugitive emissions were assumed to occur 8760 hrs/yr.
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
HEM INPUTS FOR MODEL CASES
-------
HEM INPUTS fOR MODEL CASE NO.1
Model Case No.1
Condenser Vent Controls: None
fugitive Emission Controls: None
Pollutant: MEK, Toluene, or l,l,l-Trichloroethane
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate: 7 lb/h
Condenser Vent flowrate: 26 scfm
---
.- .- ----
Emission Emission
~1sston Opera t 1 n9 Emission Emission Point Point Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sectional Exit Po 1 n t Ga s
Emission Point. kg/yr Per Year Elevation Diameterl Area Velocity Tempera ture
(tons/yr) m m m2 m/s oK
(ft) (1n) (1n2) ( ft/ s) (of)
----
Condenser Vent 13,209 4,160 6.5 0.0381 0.00114 10.8 297
(14.6) (21. 3) (1.5) (1.77) (35.4) (75)
fugitive Emissions 13.666 8,760 0 293
from Pumps, (15.1) (68)
Va 1 ves, etc.
--------
1
Assumed value to result in an exit velocity of approximately 10
meters per second.
-------
HEM INPUTS FOH MODEL CASE NO.2
Model Case No.2
Condenser Vent Controls: Secondary Condenser (95% eff.)
Fugitive Emission Controls: Leak. Detection and Re~air
Pollutant: MEK, Toluene, or 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate: 7 lb/h
Condenser Vent Flowrate: 26 scfm
. --- - - -~--- -=------.::a...--- _.".&II.;.;;IL..Q --:8'----~.ca._.-u:a- .....--:.:.;.a
Emission Emission
Emission Operating Emission Emission Point Poi nt Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sect ional Exit Point Gas
Emission Point kg/yr Per Year Elevation Oi ameter Area Velocity Temperature
(tons/yr) m m m2 m/s oK
ft in in2) ft/s) 0 F)
Secondary Condenser 660 4,160 6.5 0.U381 0.00114 10.8 293
Vent (0.7) (21.3) (1.5) (1.77) (35.4) (68)
Fugitive Emissions 3,513 8,760 0 293
from Pumps, (3.9) (68)
Valves, etc.
-------
HEM INPUTS FOR 'MODEL CASE NO.3
Model Case No.3
Condenser Vent Controls: Flare (98% eff.)
Fugitive Em1ssion Contro 15: Leak Detection
Pollutant: Toluene or MEK
Uncontrollea Condenser Vent Emission Rate:
Condenser Vent Flowrate: 26 scfm
and Repair
7 lb/h
Em1ssion Emission
Emission Operating Em1ssion Emission Point Point Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sectional Exit Point Gas
Emission Point kglyr Per Year Eleva tion2 Diameter2 Area Velocity 1 Tempera ture2
(tons/yr) m m m2 mls oK
(ft) (1n) ( 1 n2 ) ( ftl s) (oF)
F 1 a re 264 4.160 10 0.0508 0.002 18 811
(0.3) (33) (2) (3.14) (60) 0.000 )
fugitive Emissions 3.513 8.760 0 293
from Pumps. (3.9) (68)
Valves. etc.
-----
Computed based on requirements for maximum flare exit velocity
contained in 50 FR 14941. April 16, 1985, and assuming a gas
heat content of 300 Btu/scf.
2
Assumed' value based on engineering judgement.
-------
HEM INPUTS FOR MODEL CASE NO.4
Moael Case No.4
Condenser Vent Controls: Incinerator (98% eft.)
Fugitive Emission Controls: leak Detection and Repair
Pollutant: 1. 1. I-Trichloroethane
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate: 7 lb/h
Condenser Vent Flowrate: 26 scfm
Emission Emission
Emission Opera t 1 ng Emission Emission Point Point Gas Emission
Ra te Hours Point Point Cross Sect10na I Exit . Point Gas
Em1ssion Point kg/yr Per Year [leva ttonl Diameterl Area Velocity Tempera ture I
J (tons/yr) m m m2 m/s oK
(ft) (1n) ( i n2) (ft/s) (oF)
Inci nera tor 264 4.160 7 0.3048 0.073 7.6 811
(0.3) (23) (12) ( 113) (25) (1,000)
Fugitive Emissions
from Pumps.
Va I vest etc.
3.513
(3.9)
8.760
o
293
(68)
---
-----
Assumed value based on engineering judgement.
-------
HEM INPUTS FOR MODEL CASE NO.5
Model Case No.5
Condenser Vent Controls: None
Fugitive Emission Controls: None
Pollutant: MEK
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate:
Condenser Vent Flowrate: 26 scfm
32 lb/h
Emission Emission
1 Emission Operating Emission Emission Point Point Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sectional Exit Point Gas
Emiss10n Point kg/yr Per Year £leva tlon D1ameter Area Velocl ty Temperature
(tons/yr) m m m2 m/s oK
(ft) (1n) (ln2) ( ftl s) (OF)
-------
Condenser Vent 60.383 4.160 6.5 0.0381 0.00114 10.8 297
(66.6) (21.3) (1'.5) (1.77) (35.4) (75)
Fug1t1ve Emlss10ns
from Pumps,
Valves. etc.
13.666
(15.1)
8.760
o
293
( 68)
-------
HEM INPUTS FOR MODEL CASE NO.6
Mo
-------
HEM INPUTS FOR MODEL CASE NO.7
Mode 1 Ca se No.7
Condenser Vent Controls: None
Fugitive Emission Controls: None
Pollutant: 1,I,I-Trichloroethane
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate:
Condenser Vent Flowrate: 26 scfm
75 lb/h
Emission Emission
Emission Opera t i ng Emission Emissi on Point Point Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sectional Exi t . Poi nt Gas
Emission Point . kg/yr Per Year Elevation Diameter Area Velocity Tempera ture
(tons/yr) m m m2 mls oK
(ft) (1n) ( i n2 ) ( ftl s) '( oF)
Condenser Vent 141,521 4,160 6.5 0.0381 0.00114 10.8 297
(156) (21.3) (1.5) (1. 77) (35.4) ( 75)
Fugitive Emissions 13,666 8,760 0 293
from Pumps, (15.1) (68)
Va lves, etc.
--1
-------
HEM INPUTS fOR MODEL CASE NO.8
Model Case No.8
Condenser Vent'Controls: Secondary Condenser (95% eff.)
fugitive Emission Controls: leak Detection and Repair
Pollutant: 1. 1. I-Trichloroethane '
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate: 75 lb/h
Condenser Vent flowrate: 26 scfm
Emission Emission
Emission Operating Emission Emission Point Point Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sectional Exit Poi nt Gas
Emlssion Polnt 'kg/yr Per Year Elevation Diameter Area Veloclty Temperature
(tons/yr) m m m2 m/s oK
(ft) (in) ( 1 n2 ) ( ftl s) (oF)
-
Secondary Condenser 7.076 4.160 6.5 0.0381 0.00114 10.8 293
Vent (7.8) (21.3) (1.5) 0.77) (35.4) (68)
fugitive Emissions 3.513 8.760 0 293
from Pumps. (3.9) (68)
Va lves. etc.
-----
-------
HEM INPUTS FOR MODEL CASE NO.9
Model Case No.9
Condenser Vent Controls: Incinerator (98% eff.)
Fugitive Emission Controls: Leak Detection and Repair
Poll utant: 1.1.1-Tri chl oroethane
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate: 75 lb/h
Condenser Vent Flowrate: 26 scfm
Em1ssion Emission
Emission Opera t1 ng Em1ssion Em1ssion Po 1 n t Point Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sectional Exit Point Gas
Emission Point kglyr Per Year E levat10n Diameter Area Velocity Temperature
( tons/yr) m m m2 mls oK
(ft) (1n) ( i n2 ) ( ftl s) (oF)
Incinerator 2.830 4.160 7 0.3048 0.073 7.6 811
(3.1) (23) (12) (113) (25) (1. 000 )
Fugitive Emissions 3.513 8.760 0 293
from Pumps. (3.9) (68)
Valve s. e tc.
-----
-------
HEM INPUTS FOR MODEL CASE NO. 10
Model Case No. 10
Condenser Vent Controls: Flare (98% eff.)
'Fugitive Emission Controls: leak Detection and Repair
Pollutant: MEK
Uncontrolled Condenser Vent Emission Rate: 32 lb/h
Condenser Vent Flowrate: 26 scfm
Emission Emission
Emission Operating Emission Emission Point Point Gas Emission
Rate Hours Point Point Cross Sectional Exit Point Gas
Emission Point kg/yr Per Year Eleva tion D1ame ter Area' Velocity Tempera ture
(tons/yr) m m m2 m/s oK
(ft) (1 n) ( 1 n2 ) ( ftl s) (oF)
F 1 a re 1,208 4,160 10 0.0508 0.002 59 811
(1. 33) (33) (2) (3.14) (195) 0,000)
Fugitive Emissions 3,513 8,760 0 293
from Pumps, (J.9) (68)
Valves, etc.
-------
ATTACHMENT 4
-------
M E M 0 RAN DUM
October 31. 1985
TO:
FROM:
Fred Dimmick. SDB
Jan r~eyer. PES
SUBJECT:
Chemicals Covered in Land Banning Action
-------
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
-------
The list of chemicals effected by OSW's land-banning regulation
was inadvertently omitted from the H8~ modeling input parameters
submitted on October 30. 1985. Attached is a list of chemicals likely
to be present in wastes effected by the land-banning/pretreatment
requirements.
cc:
Mike Dusetzina. PAB
-------
P022
U002
. U031
U037
U052
U057
U070
U060
U112
U1l7
U140
U154
U159
U161
U169
U196
U210
U211
U220
U226
U228
U229
U239
CHEMICALS LIKELY TO BE COVERED
BY -ACTION
- carbon aisulfide
- acetone
- n butyl alcohol
- chlorobenzene
- cresols & cresylic acid
- cyclohexanone
- o-aichlorobenzene
methylene chloride
- ethyl aceta te
- ethyl ether
isobutanol
- methanol.
- methyl ethyl ketone
- methyl isobutyl ketone
- n i trobe nzene
- pyridine
- tetrachloroethane
- carbon tetrachloride
- toluene
- 1.1.1-trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
- trichlorofluoromethane
- xylene
- ethyl benzene
- tetrachloroethylene .
1.1.2~trichloro - 1.2.2-trifluoroethane
-------
ATTACHMENT 5
-------
October 31, 1985
TO:
FROM:
Fred Dimmick, SOB
Jan Meyer, PES
SUBJECT:
Revised Incinerator Cost Estimates and Additional Cost
Estimates for Secondary Condenser Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As agreed in recent discussions, we have (1) developed revised
cost estimates for incinerator control of a halogenated compound and
(2) have substituted a methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) model case for the
hexane model case and have developed condenser control cost estimates
. for the new case. Because of concerns regarding the applicability of
the cost estimates developed using the incinerator cost program in the
SOCMla distillation Background Document to small gas streams, cost
estimates were developed using vendor cost information. These revised
cost estimates are presented in Table 1 along with the initial cost
estimates. Table 2 presents the secondary condenser control cost
estimates for the MEK case, and presents corrected cost effectiveness
values for Cases 1 and 5.
After you review these cost estimates, please let us know which
incinerator cost estimates should be used in estimation of nationwide
control cost.
a
SOCMI - Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF roNTROl COST ESTIMATES FOR WSTF
DISTIllATION VENTS. - I NCI NERATOR CONTROL
(June 1985 dollars)
Streamb
October 21, 1985, Estimatea Revi sed Cost Estimateb
Case 5 Case 6 Cas.e 5 Case 6
VOC = 7 1b/h VOC = 82 lb/h VOC = 7 lb/h VOC = 75 1b/h
Trich10roethane Trichloroethane Trichloroethane Trichloroethane
Incinerator Incinerator Incinerator Incinerator
Item
Control SystemC,e
Control costs:
Capital, $
Operatingf,$
758,000 758,000 209,000
159,000 140,000 121,700
312,000 .293,000f 164,100
13.8 148.2 13.8
209,000
Total annua1ized,d$
108,500
150,900
Emission Reduction, t/yr
148.2
aCost estimates are deve10ped using Radian's "Documentation for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Incinerator/flare Costing Algorithm."
bCapital cost estimates were developed using "Report of Fuel Requirements, Capital Cost and Operating
Expense for Catalyt ic Afterburners, II EPA-45013-76-031 (1976) and CE Price Indexes. Natural gas
and electricity costs are estimated using standard procedures and gas cost of $5.08/106 Btu and
electricity cost of $0.0512/kWh.
clncinerator system costs include combustion chamber, 150 ft duct work, fan, stack, and quench/scrub
system. It is unknown if the system includes a heat exchanger.
dBased on 4,160 annual operating hours, 15 years life for flares, 10 years of life for incinerators,
and 10 percent interest rates.
eFor Cases 5 and 6, lowest size incinerators (i.e., 1 m3 combustion chamber) are required.
fCalculations for case 5 resulted in negative fuel costs.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF CONTROL COST ESTIHATES FOR WSTF
DISTillATION VENTS - CONDENSER CONTROL
Strealq Case I a Case 2b Case 3a Case 4b Case 5a Case 6b Case Id,a
Item VDC g 1 Ib/h voe g 12 Ib/h VOC g 1 Ib/h VOC g 32 Ib/h VOC g 1 Ib/h voe g 15 Ib/h voe g 0.1 Ib/h
Toluene Toluene Hethyl Ethyl Hethy I Ethyl Trichloroethane Trichloroethane Hethyl Ethyl
Ketone Ketone Ketone
Control Sys tem Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser
Contro I cost s:
Cap I tal, $ 3..336 21,000 2,091 20,500 2,200 29,000 1,520
Total annualized, $ 1,631 4,100 1,445 6,400 1,219 5,500 924
Recovery Credit, $ (4,230) (0,126) (O,9!j1) (45,525) (921) (11,025) (510)
Net Annualized, $ (2,599) (3,426) (1,513) (39,125) 290 (5,525) 401
Annual Emission Reduction,
ton/yr 13.03 23.9 13.03 63.23 13.03 140.99 0.0
Cost Effectiveness, $/ton (101.92) (143.35) (543.24) (610.11) 21.54 (31.00) 509
( ) Indicates a credl t.
a estimates were developed using PES'
Cost condenser cost algorithm In "Polymers Hanufacturlng "SPS"; all costs are In
June 1900 dollars.
b
Cost estimates developed using standard cost estimation procedures and vendor data for condenser costs; all cost s are
In 1905 dollars.
c
10 be provided later
d
SuppleDlental case to evaluate Impact of approximately one order-of-magnHude change In the primary condenser
flow rate.
-------
ATTACHMENT 6
-------
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE USING MODEL PLANT APPROACH
OF NATIONWIDE MAXIMUM RISK AND INCIDENCE ASSOCIATED
WITH AIR EMISSIONS FROM WSTFs
GIVEN:
o
WSTF Moael Plant Size = 8 Gg per year of Reclaimea Solvent
Proaucea.
o
Amount of spent solvent waste to be handlea =
436.3 million gallons/yr (428 + 8.3 million gallons).
o
Uncontrollea moael plant emissions range from 7 lb/h to
75 lb/h from the conaenser vent plus uncontrollea
fugitive emissions (one rate).
o
Proposed action woula require 95% control of condenser
vent emissions plus fugitive controls.
o
Six candiaate facility locations (4 urban and 2 rural).
o Range for Unit Risk Factor in earlier preliminary risk
assessment for TSDFs was 2 x 10-7 to 2 x 10-5.
SUMMARY OF APPROACH: HEM was usea to calculate max. risk and inciaence
for a plant with 7 lb/h conaenser vent emi$sions and 75 lb/h
conaenser vent emissions at each of the six canaiaate loca-
tipns (fugitive emissions were also included). Max. nation-
wiae uncontrollea risk was assumed to be the highest risk in
any of these moael cases. To aetermine nationwiae uncontrollea
incidence, the total number of 8 Gg/yr production plants
requirea to handle 436.3 million gallons of waste solvent was
estimated. These plants were then assumed to be aistributea
as follows: 1/2 were assumea to have conaenser vent emissions
of 7 lb/h ana be equally spreaa among the six locations. ana
1/2 were assumed to have condenser vent emissions of 75 lb/h
ana also. spreaa equally among the six locations. Nationwiae
inciaence for control lea emissions was similarly calculated
assuming 95% control of conaenser vent emissions plus fugitive
controls (see next page for aetails).
SUMMARY OF RESULTS USING THIS APPROACH:
Uncontrollea1
Controllea1
Max. Inaiviaual Risk
3.7 x 10-5 to
3.7 x 10-3
2.6 x 10-6 to
2.6 x 10-4
Nationwiae Incidences
Per Year
.034 - 3.4
.0028 - .28
1Range basea on range of unit risk factor.
-------
DETAILS ON APPROACH USED FOR ESTIMATI~G I~CIDE~CE AND ~AX RISK:
- .
Incidence
A. Uncontrolled Emissions
1) HE~ was run for uncontrolled condenser vent emissions of
7 lb/h and 75 lb/h at the six candidate locations (plus
uncontrolled fugitives in each case). Twelve dispersion
modeling runs were required for this. The HEM inputs
for these cases were Model Case 1 and ~odel Case 7 in the
Oct. 31. 1985 memo from G. Fitzsimons. to :. Dimmick.
The six candidate locations (where WSTFs are actually
located) are:
Rural
Urban
------------------
---------------
Kettleman City, CA
Waynoka. OK
'l'winsburg, OH
Linden, NJ
Greensboro, ~C
Beaverton. OR
2) In calculating risk and incidence for the cases in Al
above. a range of unit risk factors from 2.0E-07 to
2.0E-O~ was used. This is the same as used by GCA in
previous risk assessments of TSDFs.
3) USing an assumed average solvent recovery rate of 55 ~.
it was estimated that 95 - 8 G~/yrmodel plants would be
necessary to handle 436.3 million gallons of solvent waste
(see Attachment 1).
4) The result of .Al and A2above was ~hat a range of
incidences/yr was calculated for each of 12 model cases
(2 condenser vent emission rates X six locations).
To estimate nationwide incidence. it was assumed that 1/12
of the number of plants calculated in A3 correspond to
each case. and then the number of plants of each case type
~ultiplied by the incidence associated with each case type
~as summed as follows:
Incidence
12
95
Total
Plants Reqd.
x
12
~ (i~~;d::~~ )
£..J mode 1 cas e
Nationwide
II
1
----- X
1-1
-------
B. Con~rolled Emissions
1) HE~ was run at the 6 candidate locations for the control cases
where uncontrolled condenser vent emissions of 7 lb/h and
75 lblh are controlled with a 95% ef~i~:ent secondary
condenser. and fugitive controls are applied. The mode~
plant HEM inputs for these cases were ~odel Case 2 and ~odel
Case 8 in the Oct. 31 memo.
2) To estimate nationwide incidence.
in A2 - A4 above was used.
the same procedure as
I I .
~aximum Risk
The maximum individual risks calculated for any single plant
in IA and 18 above were assumed to be the nationwide maximums.
:;.Jote:
The approach described abov~ to estimate the range in
nationwide risks differs from that used to estimate
nationwide emissions and costs. The range in health
risk estimates calculated using the above approach
represents the range of risks at the midpoint nationwide
emission estimate and not the range of risks at the upper
or lower bound nationwide emission estimate. This
approach was used to minimize the number of estimates
presented.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 - DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF MODEL PLANTS REQUIRED
TO HANDLE 436.3 MILLION GALLONS OF SOLVENT WASTE PER YEAR
Assumpt.ions:
Model Plant Size = 8 Gg Solvent Produced/yr
= 8E+06 kg/yr
Density o£ Reclaimed Solvent = 7 lb/gal = 3.175 kg/gal
Est.imat.e o£ Number o£ Model Plant.s Required:
Mass o£ Vol. o£ Waste Recovery Density o£
1) Recovered = Treat.ed X Rate X Recovered
Solvent (gal) Solvent (kg/gal>
= 436.300.000 gal X Recovery Rate X 3.175 kg/gal
= 1.3853£+09 kg/yr X Recovery Rate
Vol. Solvent Recovered
where: Recovery Rate =
----------------------
Vol. Wast.e Treated
2)
Number o£
8 Gg/yr
Plants Reqd.
Masa of Recovered Solvent
=
-------------------------
8E+06 kg/yr/model plant
1.3853£+09 kg/yr X Recovery Rate
=
--------------------------------
8E+06 kg/yr/model plant
=
173.17 X Recovery Rate
3> Recovery Rate vs. Number o£ Plants is shown in Figure 1.
Besed on a review o£ t.he lit.erature. an overall average
recovery rate o£ .55 (55~> appears reasonable. Using this
recovery rat.e. the .total number o£ plants required to treat
436.3 million gallons o£ solvent waste is 95.
-------
~.~Ju rn ber- of 8 GgJ/Yr P'lo nts Req uired
tI::I Tn:at ~13.3 Millian Gallan:; aT Wa:;tI:
140 I .
I /.SII
- I ........../
1 3u -j m-"- j
I ~' !
I ~/ I
1 ~O l .......IZ'" I
110~ // I
I ./ I
100 J // I
I/'I
1- - - ..r I
Qn ~ /.,/ I
-- I ~ I
aot/ I
70~/' I
SO J I I
70
~
~
..9:
~
l-
.>.
~....
B
Ie
~
Q
o
Z
40
50
Fi gure 1.
60
!i!eccvef"'/ !i!cte (?:)
80
-------
ATTACHMENT 7
-------
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 24, 1986
Revised Costs for Fugitive Emission Control at a Model WSTF
FRO~1:
Graham Fitzsimons, PES
TO:
Fred Dimmick, EPA/SDB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PES' draft estimates of the costs associated with controlling
fugitive emissions from a WSTF model facility were presented in Table 5
of the memorandum to you, "f'1odel Facil ity Parameters and Draft Control
Cost Estimates," dated October 21, 1985. The draft estimates were
prepared using EPA/CPB's LOTUS 1-2-3 costing program for a leak detection
and repair program (LDRP) for pumps, valves, and other potentially
leaking sources.
PES' review of the LOTUS program since those draft estimates were
prepared revealed that the program assumed 10 minutes would be required
for each valve check. Following discussions with you, PES reran the
LOTUS program assuming 2 minutes per valve check, which is consistent
with EPA's approach to costing LDRP's for other standards.
The results of the program assuming 2 minutes per valve are shown
. in Table 1. The only difference from the results presented in the
October 21, 1985, memo is that the annual cost to implement the LDRP
for valves is decreased to $2,378/yr (from $8,413/yr). This decreased
the total annualized cost of control for all fugitive sources evaluated
at the model plant to $11,901 (from $17,936).
-------
Table 1.
Cost. Emission Reduction. and Cost Effectiveness of
. Model Plant Fugitive Emission Controls
atISSION SOURCE
NUIIBER ~ CONTROl E.'ISSION CAPITAL AN.~AIZ.RECaVE.>n' COST
OF BlISS. EFF!C- REDUCTlON CDST :OSi CREDHd ~!"t:..1.
SOURCES (lI!g/YR) (~) (JI!g/YR) (~) (S/YR) (t/Yi() (a it/!!!!;;)
PIJIIP SEALS
LltM I.IGUID
HEAVY LICAIID
COIIIPRESSORS
F'UIN6ES
VALVES
GAS
I.IIIJID
SAFETY /REI..!EF
VALVES
GAS
LIOOID
SAMPLlNG CONNECTIONS
OPEN-ENDED LINES
MONITOR. INSTRtJiIIENT (a, b, e:
TOTAL.
5
o
2.2
0.0
61
o
2'32
o
1.3
0.0
:787
o
590
912
o
0.0
100
0.0
o
o
o
NA
o
0.0
o
0.0
NA
NA
NA
Nil
34
87
1.6
73
59
1.2
3.2
336
2378
5.3
2i
1419
1=
3
o
2.7
0.0
100
2.7
11~1
:.280
. "....
~"
760
9
. .,
....
100
. ?
.. ..
6146
1530
..,=,~
.....,
8~
3S
0.~
1=
,'t ..
v...
2338
SS0
228
G~
.---------------
i'4A
NA
NA
NA
63.,1>CJ
236b
0'"
'''"
.."
,....
-----------------
173
13.~
73a
Ht~
26961
llS01
"-C'''o
.........
-----------------
(a HSSUJIIE 1 INSTRUJIIENT PER PlAHT
(0 CAPITRl R£CCVERY FACTOR IS BASED ON 1"" INTEREST AND 6-YR ~UI~1iIENT t.lFE (CnF~.~:
ie: PlAINTENANCE. TAXES. INSURANCE ~ OF CAPITAl. COST
d Assumes approximately $450/Mg credit for recovery
-------
ATTACHMENT 8
-------
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
SUBJECT:
January 24. "1986
Estimates of Nationwide Emissions and Cost of Control for
Waste Solvent Treatment Facilities (WSTFs)
FROM:
Graham Fitzsimons. PES
TO:
Fred Dimmick. EPA/SDB
-----
-----
-------
- - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
The purpose of this memorandum is to present PES' estimates of the
following nationwide impacts for WSTFs: (1) nationwide uncontrolled
VOC process and fugitive emissions; (2) nationwide VOC emissions with
95 percent process emission control and a leak detection and repair
program for fugitive emission control; and (3) nationwide capital and
annual costs to apply these controls. PES prepared the nationwide
estimates by extrapolating from the most recent emission and cost data
developed for a variety of "model cases." These model cases correspond
to a plant of 8 Gg per year solvent production capacity with a range of
uncontrolled process emission rates and various controls applied to
achieve at least 95 percent control. One uncontrolled or controlled
rate for fugitive emissions was included in each case based on an
assumed equipment count and SOCMI emission factors.
Due to the wide range of emission and cost estimates for the model
cases. lower and upper bound estimates were made for the nationwide
impacts. PES used the following general approach to estimate the lower
and upper bound estimates: First. the number of 8 Gg per year capacity
plants required to treat 436 million gallons per year of solvent
waste was estimated.1 Secondly. from the moael case analysis.
representative lower and upper bound estimates of emissions and costs
on a per plant basis were selected. Finally. the total number of 8 Gg
per year plants was multiplied by the representative per plant estimates
to aerive the nationwide impacts.
The estimated nationwide impacts are presented below. It should
be emphasized that, al though we feel the approach used to estimate the
nationwide .impacts is reasonable given the limited data available. the
impacts presented are highly uncertain. and at best represent order-
of-magnitude estimates.
1Based on information provided by EPA. PES understands that the impacts
are to be estimated for treating 428 million gallons of solvent waste
currently treated by distillation plus an additional 8.3 million
gallons that may be treated by distillation as a result of EPA/OSW's
proposed land banning action.
-------
Estimate of the Total Number of 8 Gg per Year (Solvent Production
Capacity Plants Required
The assumptions and calculations used to estimate the number of
8 Gg per year (proauction capacity) model plants necessary to treat
436 million gallons of solvent waste are presented in Attachment 1.
The key assumption affecting the result is the average recovery factor
assumed.2 Based on a review of available information, an average
recovery factor of 55 percent appears reasonable.3 Using this as an
assumed average recovery rate, the number of 8 Gg per year plants
required to treat 436 million gallons of solvent waste is 95.
Estimates of Lower and Upper Bound Nationwide Emissions
The upper and lower bound estimates of per plant uncontrolled and
controlled condenser vent (process), fugitive, and total emissions are
presented in Table 1. The nationwide estimates of total uncontrolled
and controlled emissions assuming 95 plants are shown in Table 2.
Estimate of Lower Bound Nationwide Control Cost
Of the control techniques costed for application to the model
cases (secondary condensers, flares, and incinerators), secondary
condenser control is the least costly method of controlling process
condenser vent emissions. Therefore, this control technique applied
to process condenser vent emissions, plus fugitive emission controls,
is assumed as the basis of lower bound control cost estimates.
Table 3 presents a summary of cost estimates to apply secondary
condenser control to process condenser vent emissions for the various
cases analyzed.4 As can be seen, there is a large difference in the
estimates prepared using the condenser costing program and those
prepared by hand calculation. Considering that the costs for the
7 lb/h emission rate cases were consistently computed using the cost
program, and that these are the lower cost estimates, it was decided to
use these in developing a lower bound nationwide cost estimate.
Table 4 shows the range and average of per plant estimates of
capital cost, annual cost (before recovery credit), recovery credit,
and net annual cost for the 7 lb/h condenser vent emission cases.
Using the average costs of condenser vent process emission
controls from Table.4, and the cost of fugitive emission controls
2ReCOVery Factor = Volume of Solvent Recovered
Volume of Waste Treated
3A separate memorandum will be submitted on selection of the average
recovery factor.
4This is Table 3 from the October 21 memo with all costs updated to
June 1985 $.
2
-------
Table 1. LOWER AND UPPER BOUND ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL
VOC EMISSIONS FROM A WSTF MODEL PLANT
(8 Gg/y Solvent Production)
Uncontrolled Emissions, Controlled Emissions,
Ng/yr (tons/yr)a Mg/yr (tons/yr)b
Condenser Fugi- Condenser Fugi-
Description VentC t i v es d Total Vent tives Total
Lower Bound Estimate 13.2 13.7 26.9 0.7 3.5 4.2
(Uncontrolled Condenser Vent (14.6) (15.1) (29.6) (0.7) ( 3.9) (4.6)
Emissions = 3.2 kg/h
[7 lb/hJ)
Upp~r Bound Estimate 141. 5 13.7 155.2 7.1 3.5 . 10.6
(Uncontrolled Condenser Vent (156.0) (15.1) (171.1) (7.8) ( 3.9) (11.7)
Emissions = 34 kg/h
[75 lb/hJ)
aAll figures are rounded to the nearest one-tenth.
aAssumed control level is 95% control of condenser vent emissions plus a leak detection
and repair program for fugitive emission control. All figures are rounded to the
nearest one-tenth.
cTo compute condenser vent emissions, 4,160 hours per year of operation was assumed.
dTo compute fugitive emissions, 8,760 hours per year of operation was assumed.
3
-------
Table 2.
LOWER AND UPPER BOUND ESTIMATES OF NATIONWIDE ANNUAL
VOC EMISSIONS FROM 95 WSTF MODEL PLANTS
Description
Nationwide Uncontrolled
Emissions, Mg/yr (tons/yr)a
Nationwide Controlled
Emissions, Mg/yr (tons/yr)a
Lower Bound Estimate
2,550 400
(2,810) (440)
14,740 1,010
(16,250) (1,110)
Upper Bound Estimate
aIncludes condenser vent ana fugitive emissions.
the nearest 10.
All fi~ures are rounded to
4
-------
Table 3. SUMMARY OF CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR WSTF
DISTILLATION VENTS - CONDENSER CONTROL
(June 1985$)
. S trellm Case 14 Case 2b Ca se 3a Ca se 4b Case Sa Case 6b
Item voc .. 7 lb/h VOC.. 12 lb/h VOC .. 7 lb/h VOC .. 32 lb/h VOC.. 7 lb/h voc.. 75 Ib/h
Toluene Toluene Methyl Ethyl 14ethyl Ethyl Tri ch I oroethllne Tri ch loroe thane
Ketone Ke tone
Control System Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Condenser Conclenser
Control costs:
Capital. S 3.850 21.000 3.337 28.500 2.631 29.000
Total annualized. $ 1.885 4.700 1.678 6.400 1.425 5.500
Recovery Credit. S (4.5501 (8.1261 (8.9571 (45.5251 110.077) (11.0251
He t Annual1 zed. S (2.665) (3.426) (7.2791 (39.1251 (8.6521 (5.5251
Annual Emission Reduction.
tOn/yr 13.83 23.9 13.83 63.23 13.83 148.99
Cost Effectiveness. S/tOn (192.701 (143.351 (526.32) (618.77) (625.60) (37.081
( ) ind1C1tes a credit.
aCost estimates were aeveloped using PES' condenser cost algorith8 in .Polymers Manufacturing HSPS.; all costs have been
adjusted to June 1985 dO l1ars.
b
Cost estimates developed using standard cost estimation procedures and vendor datil for condenser costs.
5
-------
Table 4.
RANGE AND AVERAGE OF PER PLANT COSTS TO APPLY SECONDARY
CONDE~SER CONTROL TO 7 lb/h MODEL CASES
Range of Cost
or Credi t
Average Cost
or Credi ta
Capital Cost Range, $
Annual Cost Range, $/yr
2,631 - 3.850
1,425 - 1,885
3,270
1,660
Recovery Credit Range, $/yr
(4.550 - 10,077)
(7.860)
(6.200)
Net Average Annualized
Cost with Recovery Credit, $/yr
Indicates a cost credit.
aRounded to the nearest 10.
6
-------
computea using ESED/CPB's LOTUS 1-2-3 costing program for fugitive
emission controls for pumps, valves, ana leaks, total lower bound
per plant and nationwide control costs are presented in Table 5.
Estimate of Upper Bouna Nationwide Control Cost
Upper bound control costS-were estimated assuming: (1) incinerator
control of condenser vent process emissions for halogenated compounds
(plus fugitive controls); (2) flare control of condenser vent process
emissions for non-halogenated compounds (plus fugitive controls);
and (3) that 20 percent of plants process halogenated compounds and
80 percent process non-halogenated compounds.5
Table 6 presents the range and average of per plant costs computed
by PES to apply incinerator control to process condenser vent emissions
for the model cases involving halogenated compoundS. Table 7 presents
this information for flare controlled cases involving non-halogenated
compounds.
Using the average costs presented in Table 6, Table 8 shows the
estimated cost to apply incinerator control to process conaenser vent
emissions plus fugitives emission control at 19 model plants (20: of 95
total plants). Similarly, Table 9 shows the costs to apply flare
control to process condenser vent emissions plus fugitive controls at
76 plants (80: of 95 total plants).
The upper bound nationwide costs are then computed as the sum of
the tota 1 control cost for 19 plants (Table 8) and the tota 1 control
cost for 76 plants (Table 9). The total upper bound nationwiae cost
of control is shown in Table 10.
Summary of Nationwide Estimates
A summary of lower and upper bound nationwide estimates of emis-
sions and control costs is presented in Table 11.
SPES judgment based on a review of material supplied by K.C. Hustvedt
of ESED/CPB.
7
-------
Table 5.
ESTI~~TE OF LOWER BOUND NATIONWIDE
COST TO APPLY CONTROLS
(June, 1985 $)
Per Plant Cost
Process Fugitive Nationwide
Controla Controlb Total TotalC
Capi tal Cos t, $ 3, 27 ° 26,960 30,230 2,872,000
Annual Cost, $/yr 1,660 11,900 13,560 1,288,000
Recovery Credi t,. $/yr (7,860) (4,520) (12,380) (1,176,000)
Net Annual Cost (with (6,200) 7, 380 1,180 112,000
Recovery Credi t), $/yr
Indicates a cost credi t.
aSource:
See Table 4.
bSource:
Memorandum. Fitzsimons, G., Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., to
Dimmick F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB. January 24, 1986. Revised Costs for
Fugitive Emi~s;on Control at a Model WSTF.
cAssum;ng 95 model plants.
All figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000.
8
-------
Table 6.
RANGE AND AVERAGE OF PER PLANT COSTS TO APPLY
INCINERATOR CONTROL TO MODEL CASES a
Range of Cost
Average Cost
Capital Cost Range, $
Annual Cost Range, $/yr
209,OOOb
151,000-164,000
209,000
158,000
aSource:
Memorandum. Meyer, J., Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
to Dimmick, F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB. October 31, 1985. Revised
Incinerator Cost Estimates and Additional Cost Estimates for
Secondary Condenser Control. .
bCapital cost identical in both cases analyzed.
Table 7.
RANGE AND AVERAGE OF PER PLANT COSTS TO APPLY
FLARE CONTROL TO MODEL CASESa.
Range'of Cost
Average Cost
Capital Cost Range, $
Annual Cost Range, $/yr
81,000-91,000
43,000-52,000
86,000
48,000
aSource: Memorandum. Meyer, J., Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
to Dinunick, F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB. October 21, 1985..
Model Facility Parameters and Draft Control Cost Estimates.
9
-------
Table 8. ESTI~~TE OF COST TO APPLY INCINERATOR PROCESS EMISSION
CONTROL PLUS FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL AT 50% OF THE PLANTSa
(June 1985 $)
Per Plant Costs
Process Fugit ive Cos t to Control
Controlb Controlc Total 48 Plants
Capital Cost, $ 209,000 26.960 235,960 11,326,000
Annual Cost, $/yr 158,000 11,900 169,900 8,155,000
Recove ry Cred it, $/y r (4,520) (4.520) (217,000)
Net Annual Cost, $/yr 158,000 7, 380 165,380 7, 938 , 000
Indicates a cost credit.
a20% of 95 total plants (19 plants) are estimated to treat halogenated compounds.
bSee Table 6.
cSource:
Memorandum. Fitzsimons, G., Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., to
Dimmick F., U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB. January 24,1986. Revised Costs for
Fugitive Emission Control at a Model WSTF.
Table 9. ESTIMATE OF COST TO APPLY FLARE PROCESS EMISSION
CONTROL PLUS FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL AT 50% OF THE PLANTSa
(June 1985 $)
Per Plant Costs
Process Fugit i ve Cost to Control
Controlb Controlc Total 47 Pl ants
Capital Cost~ $ 86.000 26.960 112.960 5,309,000
Annual Cost. $/yr 48,000 11.900 59.900 2.815.000
Recovery Credit. $/yr (4,520) (4.520) (212.000)
Net Annual Cost. $/yr 48.000 7. 380 55.380 2.603,000
Indicates a cost credit.
a80% of 95 total plants (76 plants) are estimated to treat non-halogenated
compounds.
bSee Table 7.
cSource:
Memorandum. Fitzsimons, G.. Pacific Environmental Services. Inc.. to
Dimmick F.. U.S. EPA:ESED:SDB. January 24. 1986. Revised Costs for
Fugitive Emission Control at a Model WSTF.
10
-------
Table 10. ESTIMATE OF UPPER BOUND NATIOmJIDE COST TO
APPLY PROCESS AND FUGITIVE CONTROLS AT 95 PLANTSa
(June 1985 $)
Cost to Control
95 Pl ants
Capital Cost. $
16.635.000
Annual Cost. $/yr
Recovery Credi t. $/yr
10,970,000
(429,000 )
Net Annual Cost. $/yr 10.541.000
Indicates a cost credit.
aComputed from Tables 8 and 9.
Table 11. SUMMARY OF LOWER AND UPPER BOUND ESTIMATES OF
NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS AND CONTROL COSTS
. FOR 95 PLANTS
Lower Bo und Upper Bound
Uncontrolled Controll ed Uncontrolled Controll ed
VOC Emissions,a Mg/yr 2.550 400 14.740 1,010
( to ns /y r) (2.810) (440) (16.250) (1.110)
Control Costsb
Capi tal Cos t. $ n.a. 2.872.000 n.a. 16.635,000
Annua 1 Cos t. $/y r n.a. 1.289.000 n.a. 10.970.000
Recovery Credit. $/y r n.a. (1,176.000)C n.a. ( 4 29 . 000 ) c
Net Annual Cost (with n.a. 113.000 n.a. 10.541.000
recovery credi t). $/yr
aFrom Table 2.
bFrom Tables 5 and 10.
All costs are in June. 1985 $.
C(
Indicates a cost ~redit.
11
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 - DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF MODEL PLANTS REQUIRED
TO HANDLE 436.3 MILLION GALLONS OF SOLVENT WASTE PER YEAR
Asauapt.10na:
Model Plant. S1Z8 a 8 Gg Solvent Produced/yr
a 8E+06 kg/yr
Dena1ty o£ Recla1aed Solvent. a 7 lb/gal ~ 3.175 kg/gal
Est.1mat.e o£ Number o£ Model Plant.s Requ1red:
Ma.. o£ Vol. o£ Waste Recovery Dena1ty o£
1) Recovered. Treat.ed X Rat.e X Recovered
Solvent (gal) Solvent (kg/gal)
. 436.300.000 gal X Recovery Rat.e X 3.17~ kg/gal
. 1.38~3E+09 kg/yr X Recovery Rate
Vol. Solvent Recovered
where: Recovery Rate =
----------------------
Vol. Wast.e Treat.ed
2)
Nuaber o£
8 Gg/yr
Plant.a Reqd.
Maaa o£ Recovered Solvent
a
-------------------------
8E+06 kg/yr/aodel plant
1.3853E+09 kg/yr X Recovery Rate
=
--------------------------------
8£+06 kg/yr/model plant
=
173.17 X Recovery Rate
3) Recovery Rat.e vs. Nuaber o£ Plants 1s shown in Figure 1.
Baaed on a rev1ew o£ t.he lit.erature. an overall average
recovery rate o£ .55 (55~) appears reasonable. Us1ng th1a
recovery rat.e. t.he t.ot.al nuaber o£ plant.s requ1red to treat
436.3 m11110n gallons o£ solvent. waste 1s g~.
-------
~o,Jurnber of 8 Ggj"oYr F'lonts Required
ta Trect ~S.3 Millie" l3ellens ef We~u:
140 I .
I m
I ///1
1 30 ~ -".- i
I ",- !
I ./~ I
1 20 ~ /IT I
I/'I
1 1 0 ~ /-/.u/' I
I ",/ I
1001 // I
1- . .. r I
90i / I
00/ I
70. I
I
~
rt
~
Q.
&..
.:.>-
.....
$
a;)
~
a
a
%
SO
4.0
Fi gure 1.
so
SO
~eccver"'1 Rat: (~)
70
ao
-------
ATTACHMENT 9
-------
June 5, 1986
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Fred Dimmick, SOB
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Steve York, RTI
Draft Calculation of Impacts for Proposed WSTF Standards
Per your -request of 5/20/86, we have developed rough estimates of the
environmental, health, and cost impacts of controlling all TSOF operations
handling waste streams with greater than 10% organics.
The impacts only
account for fugitive emissions; insufficient data are available to estimate
the number of TSDF's handling waste streams with greater than 10% organics
that have process vents, the number of process vents per TSOF if there are
process vents, and the number of process vents with emission controls already
in place.
The first step in estimating impacts was to estimate the number of TSDF's
handling waste streams with greater than 10 percent organics.
Because of the
present lack of detailed waste characterization data, the industry profile was
used to generate a range of the number of TSDF's that potentially manage
greater than 10 percent organic content wastes.
The industry profile contains
information about the types of management methods employed and the waste types
(RCRA codes) managed by facilities that have submitted RCRA Part A
applications.
As a lower bound estimate, the number of facilities with
incinerators was calculated, based on the assumption that incinerators would
be used as treatment for high organic content streams.
The number is
overstated to some extent because solids incineration could not be separated
from liquid incineration.
As an upper bound estimate, the number of
facilities managing organic liquids, pesticides, and 0001 and 0002 wastes was
computed.
Table 1 lists the RCRA codes classified as organic liquid and
1
-------
TABLE 1. RCRA CODES SERVING AS BASIS FOR UPPER BOUND ESTIMATE
Waste type RCRA Waste Code
..
Organic liquids KOll K012 K013 K014 K022
K023 K026 K027 K047 K073
P002 P003 P005 P009 P014
P018 P019 P022 P025 P042
P046 P053 P054 P069 P077
P081 P082 P083 P086 P093
P100 P101 P102 U001 U003
U004 U005 U007 . U008 U009
U012 U015 U021 U022 U028
U031 U037 U051 U052 U053
U055 U056 U083 U085 U086
U088 U089 U090 U091 U092
U096 U098 U099 U100 U101
U102 U103 U104 U105 U106
U107 U108 U109 UllO U111
U1l2 U1l3 U1l5 U1l6 U1l8
U1l9 U122 U124 U125 U133
U140 U149 U150 U152 U153
U155 U162 Ul65 U167 U169
. U170 Ul71 Ul72 U173 U174
U175 U176 Ul77 U178 U179
U180 U186 Ul88 U191 U197
U200 U201 U213 U221 U223
U237
Pesticides 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016
Herbicides 0017 F027 K031 K032 K033
K034 K036 K037 K038 K039
K040 K041 K042 K043 POOl
P004 P007 P008 P020 P021
P034 P035 P037 P038 P039
P040 P041 P043 P044 P045
P047 P048 P049 P050 P051
P057 P058 P059 P060 P066
P067 P070 POll P072 P075
P085 P088 P089 P090 P091
P092 P094 P097 P108 P109
Pll1 P1l3 P1l4 P1l5 P1l6
P1l7 P1l8 P122 U010 UOll
U014 U017 U036 U058 U060
U061 U062 U066 U082 U087
U097 U1l4 U136 U142 U158
U224 U230 U231 U232
Characteristic of 0001
i gnitabil ity
Characteristic of 0002
corrosivity
2
-------
pesticide wastes.
The upper bound estimate double counts some facilities with
incinerators and WSTF's (e.g., P022, U031, U037, U052, U060, Ul12, U140,
U169). The lower and upper bound estimates of-TSDF's handling greate~ than 10 -
percent organic waste streams are 269 and 2,332 facilities.
To estimate
impacts, the midpoint of this range, 1300-facilities, was used.
As you suggested, "per facility" estimates from the WSTF assessment were
used to calculate the national impacts of regulating fugitive VOC emissions
from TSDF's handling greater than 10 percent organic waste streams.
Table 2
presents the nationwide emission and health risk impacts and associated
control costs.
Several uncertainties are apparent in the estimation of impacts of
controlling all TSDF operatons handling waste streams with greater than 10%
organics.
There is little basis for estimating the number of these
facilities, as is evidenced by the range between the upper and lower bound
estimates.
The nationwide impacts are based on "per facility" estimates for
WSTF's, which in turn are based on SOCM! emission factors and the equipment
count specified in the benzene fugitive emission standard model case A.
Fugitive emissions are proportional to the number of pumps, valves, flanges,
sampling connections, etc.- Therefore, the "per facility" estimates of
fugitive emissons and the associated incidence and control costs are only as
good as the benzene fugitive emission standard model case A is representative'
of a TSDF handling greater than 10% organic content wastes.
Also at your request, we have calculated incremental environmental,
health, and cost impacts of using flares/incinerators versus condensers to
control WSTF process emissions.
Table 3 presents these estimates, based on a
prorating analysis as you suggested.
3
-------
TABLE 2. NATIONWIDE IMPACTS
Factor/facil ity
Uncontrolled Controlled
Number of
facilities
Nationwide estimates
Uncontrolled Controlled
Fugitive emissions (Mg/yr)a 13.7 . 3.5 1300
Incidences (cases/yr)b 0.0005 0.0001 1300
Cont ro 1 costc: capital ($) N/A 26,960 1300
annual ($/yr) N/A 7,380 1300
17,810
4,550
0.65
0.13
N/A
N/A
35,000,000
9,600,000
a Attachment 8, Table 1, Lower Bound Estimate.
b Attachment 6, Summary of Results USing this Approach. Nationwide incidences per year for 2 x 10-6
Unit Risk Factor (the midpoint of the range of Unit Risk Factors) were factored by percentage of
nationwide emissions estimated to be fugitive from Attachment 8, Table 1 and by 95 3.2 kg/h WSTF
plants to derive per facility factor. (Note that incidence presented in Attachment 6 was estimated
using 50 percent 3.2 kg/h and 50 percent 34 kg/h plants).
~
c Attachment 8, Table 5.
-------
TABLE 3.
INCREMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONTROLLING WSTF PROCESS VENT EMISSIONS WITH
FLARES/INCINERATORS VERSUS CONDENSERS
.-. ---- - -_.~ =:z:=L..~~ - T -
Nationwide Process Nationwide Incidences Maximum Individual
Emissions (Mg/yr)a per yearC Riskc
Nationwide ' ,
Control Cont ro 1
Technique Uncontrolled Cont roll ed Cost ($/yr)b Uncontrolled Cont roll ed Uncontrolled Controlled
Condensers 1,250 60 (589,000) 0.029 0.015 3.lxl0-4 1.6xl0-5
Flares/incinerators 1,250 25 9,269,000 0.029 0.006 3.lxl0-4 6.2x10-6
Incremental Impact 35 9,858,000 0.009 1.0xl0-5
U'1
(Indicates a cost credit)
a Attachment 8, Table 1, Lower Bound Estimate of uncontrolled condenser vent emissions x 95 WSTF's.
95% control; flares and incinerators achieve 98% control.
b Condenser control cost per plant from Attachment 8, Table 4. Incinerator control cost per plant is lower bound cost
from Attachment 8, Table 6. Flare control cost per plant is lower bound cost from Attachment. 8, Table 7.
Condenser achieves
c Factored from Attachment 6, Summary of Results Using this Approach, using ratios of emissions from Attachment 8, Table
1. Represents condenser vent emissions with 50% of plants sized at lower bound and 50% at upper bound and a Unit Risk
Factor of 2 x 10-6, the midpoint of the range of Unit Risk Factors.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
-------
APPENDIX A - LIST OF REFERENCES
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:'
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
Allen, C., Brant. G., Husband. S.. and Simpson. S.
Site Visit Report
Hazardous Waste Pretreatment for Emissions Control:
Evaluations - Oil & Solvent Process Co., Azusa, CA
May 22. 1985
Field
Allen. C.. Brant. G.. and Simpson, S.
Site Visit Report
Hazardous Waste Pretreatment for Emissions Control:
Evaluations - Environmental Recycling, Durham, N.C.
May 22, 19'85
Field
Allen, C., Brant, G.. and Simpson. S.
Site Visit Report
Hazardous Waste Pretreatment for Emissions Control: Field
Evaluations - Plant A
May 22, 1985
Allen. C.. Brant, G.. and Simpson. S.
Site Visit Report
Hazardous Waste Pretreatment for Emissions Control: Field
Evaluations - Ramic Chemical Corporation. E. Palo Alto. CA
May 22. 1985
Allen, C., Brant, G.. and Simpaon. S.
Site Visit Report,
Hazardous Waste Pretreatment for Emissions
Evaluations - IT Corporation. Martinez. CA
May 22. 1985
Control: Field
Allen, C., Brant. G., and Simpson. S.
Site Visit Report
Hazardous Waste Pretreatment for Emissions Control: Field
Evaluations - Alternate Energy Resources, Inc., Augusta. GA
May 22, 1985 '
Allen,' C.C.. et. al.. Research
Final Report for EPA/ORD
Field Evaluations of Hazardous
Pollution Control Technique
September 1985
Triangle Ins~itute
Waste Pretreatment As An Air
-------
AUTHOR: Allen. C. C.. et. a!.. Research
DOC.TYPE: Final Report for EPA/ORD
TITLE1: , Field Evaluations of Hazardous
TITLE2: Pollution Control Technique
DATE: April 1985
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE-1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
T1TLE2:
DATE:
Triangle Institute
Waste Pretreatment as an Air
Arienti. M.. et. al.. GCA Corporation
Final Report for EPA/OSW
Technical Assessment of Treatment Alternatives for Wastes
Containing Halogenated Organics
October 1984
Balfour. W. D., et. al.. Radian Corporation
Report for EPA/ORD
Evaluation of Air Emissions From Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage. and Disposal Facilities
June 1984
Battye. W.. et. al.. GCA Corporation
Final Report for EPA/OAQPS
Preliminary Source Assessment for Hazardous Waste Air Emissions
From Treatment. Storage. and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
February 1985
Breton. M.. et. al.. GCA Corporation
Draft Final Report for EPA/OSW
Assessment of Air Emissions From Hazardous Waste Treatmt. Storage
and Disposal Facilities-Preliminary National Emissions Estimates
August 1983 .
Engineering Science
Draft Final Report
Supplemental Report on
Alternatives for Waste
September 1984
the Technical Assessment o~ Treatment
Solvents
Fitzsimons. G.. Pacific Environmental Services. Inc.
Memorandum to Project File
Miscellaneous Information Received From EPA/ESED on the
Composition of Wastes Processed at TSD~'s
November 20. 1985
GCA Corp.
Monthly Progress Report No.5
Performance Evaluations of Existing Treatment Systems
September 1985
-------
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLEl:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
Hargate. A., Liberty Solvents and Chemicals Company
Letter to K.C. Hustvedt/EPA .
Corr~ctions to Case Study Prepared' by Engineering Science on
Liberty Solvents
August 30, 1984
ICF Inc.
Report for EPA/OSW
The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model Waste Stream Data Base
July 9. 1984
ICF, Inc.
Report for EPA/OSW
The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model - Phase III Report
March 1, 1984
Lloyd. L.L., Engineering Science
Memorandum to Porter, F.L. .
Development of a Control Technology Guideline
for. the Waste Solvent Recovery Industry
January 30, 1981 .
(CTG) Document
Radian Corporation
Data Vol. for Site 6
Evaluation of Air Emissions From Hazardous Waste Treatmt, Storage
and Disposal Facilities in Support of the RCRA Air Emission RIA
February 21, 1984
Research Triangle Institute
Report for EPA/IERL
Preliminary Assessment of Hazardous
Air Pollution Control Technique
October 15. 1984
Waste Pretreatment as an
Rimpo, T., Radian Corporation
Letter to D. Beck, EPA/CPB
Documentation for the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) Incinerator/Flare Costing Algorithm'
September 9,. 1985
Roeck. D.. et. al., GCA Corporation
Draft Final Report for EPA/OSW
Assessment of Wastes Containing Halogenated Organic Compounds
and Current Disposal Practices
August 1984
-------
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLEl:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
. TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1: .
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLEl:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
T rT L E 2 :
DATE:
Spivey. J.J., et. al.. Research Triangle Institute
Final Report for EPA/IERL/ORD
Preliminary Assessment of Hazardous Waste Pretreatment as an
Air Pollution Control Technique
October 15. 1984
Surprenant, N., et. al., GCA Corporation
Draft Final Report for EPA/OSW
Land Disposal Alternatives for Certain Solvents
January 1984
Turner, M., GCA Corp.
Draft Technical Note
Emission Algorithm Development for Pretreatment Operations
July, 1985
Turner, M., GCA Corporation
Memorandum
Review of OSW WET-Model Emission Estimation Methodology for
Pretreatment
June 24. 1985
U.S. EPA
Source Assessment
Reclaiming of Waste
(EPA-600/2-78-004f)
April 1978
Solvents, State of the Art
U.S. EPA
BID
Benzene Fugitive Emissions - Background Information
Promulgated Standards (EPA-450/3-80-032b)
June 1984
for.
U.S. EPA
BID
VOC Fugitive Emissions
Background Information
November 1980
in Synthetic Organic Chemicals Mfg. Indus.
for Proposed Standards (EPA-450/3-80-033a)
U.S. EPA
BID
VOC Fugitive Emissions
Background Information
June 1982
in Synthetic Organic Chemicals Mfg. Indus.
for Promulgated Stds. (EPA-450/3-~O-033b)
-------
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
AUTHOR:
DOC.TYPE:
TITLE1:
TITLE2:
DATE:
U.S. EPA
BID
Distillation Operations in
Background Information for
December 1983
Synthetic Organic Chemical Mfg.
Proposed Standards (EPA-450/3-83-005a~
U.S. EPA
Federal Register Notice
Equipment Leaks of VOC From SOCMI...;
Operations; . .. and General Provisions
Aprn 16. 1985
Distillation Unit Operatior.
(50 FR 14941)
Wyrick. E.T.. Morflex Chemical Company
Letter to K.C. Hustvedt.EPA
Corrections to Case Study Visit Report for Morflex Chemical.
Greensboro. N.C. by Versar Inc.
June 15. 1984
-------
APPENDIX B
HUMAN EXPOSURE MODEL (HEM) RESULTS FOR WSTF MODEL CASES
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Human Exposure Model Results for Model WSTF Cases
FROM:
Graham Fitzsimons, PES
TO:
Project File
DATE:
November 19,
1985
Attached is the computer printout containing the results of
a preliminary risk assessment usiflg the Human Exposure Model
(HEM) for each of the model cases developed for waste solvent
treatment facilities. A key to the model cases is also attached.
Each model case was run at six locations. On the printout,
the corresponding case number for each location can be found at
the right end of each line.
The area assumed for fugitive emissions (modeled as an area
source) was 5 square meters. The unit risk factor used to
calculate maximum risk and incidence was 2.0E-05. To obtain
results for a risk factor of 2.0E-07, divide the results on the
attached printout by 100.
Attachments
-------
Attachment 1.
KEY TO MODEL CASES
I I I Controlled Case Nos.
I Emission Ra tell Uncontrolled
Pollutant I lb/h I Case Nos. I Condenser Inci nera tor F 1 are
I I I
MEK . 7 1 2 NA 3
32 5 6 NA 10
Toluene 7 1 2 NA 3
l,l,l-Trichloroethane 7 1 2 4 NA
75 7 8 9 NA
lUncontrol1ed emission ra te from the condenser vent.
-------
fo-
WSTF
\ ,
D .:;J
~f;_Q_~_'==--- ? u\~T
Ru.10~
= ----- ---,~~~~I~~~;-;____-----~I7:.-;P'-.
-'-. !'''''f't'~r.n'jJ - " , 11 , .1 1 l ~J
~~~""-'''~''':.. ' r I 1 .~: . '.. - ...- '",,,,,,W':'J)
~,,J tJ~' UJr'
:~"'''''''H'\.I''~'-----'-'---I:-l:------------~i~.l.~.'.. ..-
...........,........;>.. --.{ ~. ~r. -' ...
,,~ 11
~~ rl
~.: fT
"'''----- rl
,,'.'
-----
-.--.- n. -,' - .. -.. ... -- ..- --
. --- .-.--- ---.- ---_!.l.----..----.--..-.... .1l'.~.1!~...
I 1 1 Ij 1111110(' \i I~'
. -- .-. .....0 .___.n. -. ... ..._.&_1 !J. --.-.--'.' ..--- ... .~-~._._.__.l:'i"
I J \II' \1 I, . It. ,; 0--' - -'.
11 J" II \. \."
1 I tI -, '.' d III
.-. . ,---- -'---'-H---'~~-~~~- . ---~::
,- '---'-----'- -,_...l..!--..---~!..~--, ----_It t, II
11 \I 11\' II ;;'.;--- --'--..
ill 1 1 1 u ,; IJ I) U 11111.
I 1 1 1 1 1 'I .I\!'-,
.---.----'.--
.---.. -------
. --- ---
-_u.". ..--..-.--
-- - ,---'-'
.- ..-.L.- ----. _n.__-"'-'--'----- ..._-_.. -- -- .
.. - .._-
.--.---- .-.-.-
.. ----.----------
--.---.--...
_.----_._---:---"
.---
----
-.. -. -- ...
.-. - - .....
.-.-.-- -- --- --.
-- .--..-..---
. ._u- -.--------
---------'
-.-... -.--.---..-u
.---.---- ---..-------..- --.... -.-.-..
.---- - - -.-..-'-' ---.
---.--.. -----.. - --..-. -
- ---.....--'--' .--.- .---_.-.....
*
*
..
..
'.!-:' \ ¥.~(.; .! I.::~LJ.L !;.r~!~~l ~.h_j;,."'1: I. ~~!1 !.t..:.t!:.' !~t.'Hi'~ ;, y ~ !.t.:'~,~=-.I.~.~....J~~ ~.! ~~!~.~~!L.1l1d!.L!_J_..f....!<.
-~_._~
*
.~._~.. ~
.-.----------
..~ --.-.-----.-.---------.------------------------..... .-.
n-_-.--._u-..._.__n._- ..--
. ....- . . --..-- .
...--.---- .-- .-.-.
n_-_- .---- .._- .-....----- ---.-.- - -. . -- -----.-
.-- .._..._~-_.._._-_._._-_.._-_.._------_.
----. ------- ...-.
..-...---_._----_.- .-.. .-...
--.,--.--.- --- -.---.--..-.-.--.- -- -.- .-..----. --.-.-... ----- -.----'.'-- ..-'-'- ---'-
- ..,.......----.
- ----..-.---.--..-.----------
--.-.------- ------...-
---..-.-..-..------------.--. ---------.---,--.-.---.-----..-.----- -.---
-.....-...-----.-----
--------'-'- -.
--.- ._-- .---_.~.--
-~--_._--------
---------------
..-..-. -.,-..--.--
lolL", III .. 101'1
IJ:St.W
111 .. 1'1;"
'" /II< 1 I.IJ,'I1t.1oI ..
,~
J"''''uT IJE\iIU. * FIIU5(1I
uur~UT UEVICE * F005~R
flU. "AMt - ;--j;j;;lilii.-i,l"
l. H f.. M , 8!-;j'.,-z--'i:J,ilia i-~'--~'!J\'-'~;b'~'1 "ti~-_._---------- PI
-------
:IV" AAI" . ~'I":'" ::,,'1;- -...-.
MAAJ'HI" '0".1""': ':-'." r."
- ..._. -~_..,.. ..
LEVI:.L
1
l
3
'ij
~
o
7
t!
q
J 0
II
12
1 j .
111
!~
10
17
Ib
1~
l!l
j!1
~,d?
. .-- -- - .-.
. ......-----.---
Ld..Lt" I.... r I 'J'-.
...,IP'!!, ~J HI; I... .__._..!~~I}~!,LI.!~---
.,.
-- --------.---
..-" ....._.__._..l..___.._L.J~t~~~---_._...
ell'" l.'Hi:.tl'"
..,,,.. o.';dE+"4
1 ,"'211 I. 'J7f.t,'')
.- ..~t~.!!.~-__.___b!!.~t.t"~---_..
1 5 , b IJ V c!. P £ t I')
.n .~!.I ~!! ~ .._._._.!~ ?~.! ~'?__.--...
I1t1,Vt11J ,).3~f.tll')
u1u,vull 1..\7t.tll'>
1 , 1 b II , III}" ~. 1 iI F. + 'J ~
~ ,~'!.'~ II!!~\~ n ...! . H t;.! ~~ -- .---...n ... --
7,~ri".uu.. 1.5'\1:+."
I ~.I ~ II~'.I YJI'l . ._1 . lit,!';' !.!!!:!.-..
3,:!,jllll,IIII./ t'.It1~t"b
..l!..1~.2.'L~_..--_..E.~_.~~t!..~--_.- .... --- _.d'"
71,.7111' ,1'1.1' ('. j I.:+.'~
H!I~!''''''I'''' . "',"t't,t"~O
1'~~,I'tl".t'1J~' t:.(.~r.111)
11ll.\I'!.~I.I:J~iu ~."H,c,!~'_9.
11~,"CII1,11I'" .!.lIhl:+111I
.m' ..11. ~..I.'l~.:u~I \.:\1... -.--.... ..t1 ..!!.~ !;..+'1.!L_--- .-
-....,..... -. _0"
1.~"~.+II~
t . I, \. t." tl.~
';) . .." f t '.' 1
. ~:~~;~ ;:;1---
I, ;1':1: t "I
':). :. ut . It 0'
c. "vt. t'J ,I
I . "\' r t .J Ii
. ? ~~ !! L~~: !_.
~. ,)"f. -,'I
I. Itul.'j.
~ . ',I" r - I. ~
~.""t.-'J~
1 . 'It' t:. -.J f!
':)! "11~ ~~..t_-
~. '>,..L -., ~
1. ,. .Ir -.1 ~
'>."Hr-I.1j
.! . ') III: - 'J"
I . \. \..t. -l ...
IJ. '~t. - 1';1
,II
~--~.
,£ V'V
._._~.._._~._. .-
.-.-- -. ..- -----'---'----'- .
"
((/I
~;,L._._---
... . ...- ..-' -.
.--'
. - .----- ----.... -- ... . - .--- I
,
,
1
.... .-.--.--.....----------.. I
,
I
. ._-.----- ----.
---.---"
..-.--.- -------.---.-...----
..0 .. -.---"
-.-. ..- ...- -.. n
......,-....'---
-'
.-. --- .-n_------""-"'-
.... ..--.------ . - --
.- ----.--..--- -----....... ..----. ---,.--
. - .-....----....--.------....-..--.
.----------.. -
.. - --- 0" u- ..-
I!. ,lql:.-iJ~
UVlL
U:Ur.l; A "1:;" ~f'I.III'" UF
. i !. 'h.'_,'iS .... -'.'----'t--'--~.1 !f.-()~
i! C!.')\JI:-.,j 17~ ';.1111:.-"1
1 1 . 'III t - 01 ~ b ii jj-" i . )\ ~ t 'I;)
II ~.'Jt)l-I',III"',\lIH' 3.7.H.+'I1
. .~ ~,"II!;-!J?__!'!.,!~~.J~.~~'-._.. .. ~.!~~~.L.- ....
15 1.(IVf-u1 51,1vII,OIlV lI.boEttll
... . ~... . ~. II. \11 ~!!~_lJ1_tI!!.!!..I_!1.!!!1,----_..~ ..? ':!~ ~.~L
11 2.S0f-,,8 90,01111,1100 CI.bC!t-.t'll
.._-1!.--__h~.!!.f..:..!!8 11I9.u"U.Ul10 1I.'iIf.t\l1
19 ~.oOE-U" 171,VI1u,OIIU 1I."1E.+Ol
.--.-1r - ._- --t~~f:~}-'~'H~'~~:~ i,~ ~ ~ ~~: ~.b::----'--'---'---- ----
. ".' . - ....'
.-.---.--.-.--.----
. . -. ....... ~ ...
k 1 5" U ~EL
. PI.liJ.;Lj.--,lii,j
. t:~ '- ~\} i;IJ':'-i'
. -.,..-.---."-' -.-..-.--..-..--..--..-..-------
... . ... -...---_u---"
..-_. -.-, .--
.---.--.---.--
-....-..-----
-' ,.. - -..
.--.-.-. . -........
. ,...' -- ..', ~ - --.
- . ... ._---~.._. _._e.... ------_.-
... ..... .." ..-.---.....---.-----.
'".-...--... -.--'-"
.'-"---"-' - ._.-...~_u_-_.._-------
.;o!' ':.r-.~.: ~~)' ~
-------
.--------
p~bE
I 'J~
2
S\j,.I~-"'h'~ ..-;.'" ..:..It- ,-"'--'-'
'''I'" .. U'.jl ,.,)~ .,~... .IJ. I~~.,:,,~!,?..__..
--.--- --- .__u.-
- -.-----.-..--- -_. - --'- -. ---- .--.- - ------ _..- ._- - -_u.
A JIJI!/IL
I-'!:Ul-'Lt. t ":I"IJ~I./~I:. J '''l lI.t""l~
. ---..- ..-...-. .-- .5J70~_- ~.__.---- -"'-,-"-,_u' .--.....-.-....-------' .----_u. u,"''''-'
4.It.+"" (,.I:""~ ~,Ij(o". CArnOObQo117 KflTLEMAN CITV,C...1
2. 4blH I C 1 t!. ~!t.!~':_~.~"1: -.~~\ I:. -U" "'. 7t1t -,'4 t!~'!..,..,-,--£,~'?t..!.,-,.!'.--._._~J.I '.'! '!.I...P-, ~~J.'~L_- -- -QKl)ObSlll~3 7t!~~.!~!:!~~.IQ~._u ~ .- .-.-
2.'1(11:+\:1 S l.b.?t.+1I1.: S.c'&Jt:-,oj ';.'"t-"h 5.J,',t.-"" c!,,>'J(I,v,H' I.S'l~+\,<4 ".':',J1t1 IJ". OHOOS2J211S118 TWIN~tIU~G,UI1 t
._1.~!I.!:"'_!!.! .......-...l2... +11 .1"'" .1.t>1 +") iI.'"'''''' OJt,II. Ntl)lt7157i03b GR~~NSI'II~U,NC t
J. 2'>~ +!" (! 1.lH. tl"!..._.t.~~t..~!~ 4-1t.-~~2~-1," I...Ai'Lt..ll:!!L..~..2?L+ c~~...._..'!,.'..'.J~'.. .... ~~ L......_U_'H!~I~~Ji20231_~~~~~~ l!:L"!.,~.~.--..L_-
0."'''1:.+11' CI 1.'I&Jl."'.I c'.tlrI~..'.," I.~"l-Ij~ ".711:-,:J '11."'.01 ~.'i>Ij~+'I~ ".."..,7 I,"''''. CA111111J0/Jb117 KI:.IH.EMAN CI1Y,C S-
0, e')l:. + " , ( ! b. ~~n ~ "'!.._! .~~t':'~'~.--_.!...~~l~~t_L. .!!~~LL_...-~~ '.\!J~!t._..~. ~~t.t.!t.._.._.. .'! .!L.!~!t~! d" ". m.D~.I~.4.''?~~ ~~H~_.!'!~.!!"IJ'5 ~.1Q.~u_. ';1.. .. ..."--
b,II')t+..a '> "'.i"t.."~ ':\.llr-lI~ t.blt.\I~ I.'~"f.-"J ~,'>"V,l""" 7.I'>r+.I,j OI."t!" ..'I. ()11t)(IS2ji!QSII8 r",pISHU~l>,UH 5
H,bC!:.+'.I. . ---~.~_.c."''t..'d "."'''''-''~ I.lel-II' I.j~t-I'~ li,11'I'.""V "..d~+;'o; '.I. Ie tI.J "JOlliJ21t1i:!1:I91 Lli'4llE,,~,,"J S
tI.'/I/I:+'oI I O.')IIt.OI' I.~.,~..:o.s 1.7r1t.-"~ I.'~l.~-I,J 'II'),""" ,'.IIf,+"" ".,...,.1' 111'. '-C01/71S121'Jo 1>~E.(!'.!tot...') f.o.'-o"t-Ioj 'I.'I>~.-"j ~I,""'1 .,.~It+..J 1'."''1'' ~O". CArnl/uOll0117 Kt,T1LE.Nl6N CITV,C 1
I.e~t+'.,c "V.'P'" I.~,'i+,~ ~'I~ i'~. ;JhDflSi'J2I1SI18 T'd'-!W,U"ili,Ot1 7
1 . 7 '!!; t~ t# . ....... .~r~.._2,..~-,1.!..!.!..L.l. ~It.' 1 j. ~"I: -".\ ,... 1...~ -12~ I "II," '11' '.I""~.! ,., ~ ---1...'1 ',JI)I)IIZ18,!/l97 L Ir.ut.''',: 'J 7
l.h"t+'~ I I.}'>t.",<, ,...lH-',) 3."111:.-113 \.I.J"~-"3 ~IS,\I"" ~.'I"'~+"&J "."'.~ 7Q. '"Cl'(I"IS7c!,'Jt> IOHl:.tNSBlJkU,,~C 7
I . t' I t +, <~ (!:" . " 't. !... '! -- I . ~ l ~ . :'.'~. -. ~. ,! ~~ ~.!'..L.._...~ .~ !.!' :-:': ~ .. ....J.I.~.~\!., ~!..~'_m.'" ~'.~i: ! '!.~ .. .... "," ~ ~ .1 .. I 1 . l,i"'~f' 1J~1!.?'12 H t1~ A ~!;. ~ r "!" I \:!.OI . .7
~.\lII:+\" (I I."'.t.-OI' \.'.)~.-'" I.""t.-OI.I ,."".-,(; ~I,..'''' 1.44t+"e (".","" t'II.~""'. lrlf')(I"btlollf ,i:!.s?~'>4/1 T.'.P;SrIU~r.,OH 2
~.\'~I.+~:' ......~'~._...!..fft..,t j.',d".-') 1.,.d-t.OI "."(!t-",:> le,"I1',"'''' ;..'.}~lt:.'4 l'.'11)"!' '~I,. .:"JIjI1IJ21~2t1'17 LI'.\.!:.r."..J 2
".r'~I:+t'lI I ).,,'It+"\ '.""../-' I.,,"t-li" '."ft.-'", '/15,1"'" '.IIil."J ".'""':~ ","I'''. ',CUI!71S7c!lljo bHI:.!:NStiIlRO,'''C c!
S.lh+'''' n -".) I ~,,'j 1.lIel:.-"" 1 C. 7,',) ,11.0" 2. J~tt " ,t!.1"t."~ ~."Il-\.I~ I..,'"l-'JI, 1.lo~-,.tJ 1~.'OI\I,\I,.t: ,j.l,H+'OI, \'.':11 "'.I!...._--~? tI 811 I~I) I\; '.
1:1. ""t.+\I,, I ':I.~':\tt",' 1...'t,.}'J I."II:-,'&J '.""~.-"(I 41<;.""11 I.hol+',j CI."'J"" I,q'/I'. ".CI)') f! '>721' Sfoo (jwE,t...Srj'J~lI,NC 0
7.'Jt-tltll <'1 . '!.~!.:.~~'! _.I'I,~'L~~~t.!!.....u!.2~t,~.~"~......I..!:'r:~I:... ".)~II,V"t: rI.':tt:J~+' ~ ".111,1.4 ,II". fJ~I)lIoq02u2H ~~~yj:,I:!.ll.J.rj,I.,!~..Q
1..!tll:.+l:l CI 1.1>1:01:.-'11 ".~jt -,.'t- ;>."'1:.-,0'. 1>.1"..',0 'II." ,', S."S'.: <' "."'1111 ",he"). LArllllOOllbl17 r\E.fTLE..,III~ CITV,C 8"
9.2t1E,+'JIJ <,I ,!.~~~~II~ ....! .~H,.=.!':? . t.!'!>.i-.,:,II.J ,\..!\~~~"u . -~(>," II) f,'lIlt"l (".I"J':1 <1'1,'''.''.'. P"'IJII~'j11 ~"". UliUIIS?'52ijSQa 'f'lNS"U~G,OH 8
. - --.--. --- .n...__-_---'--'- -.-.
~-~--~._-_.. .j--_.~~ .- -1.-.--:.' - __~l- : '.... . ~..
.,
... l.~qL...,.
UHL
... t. PEA r ..... -_... .~_. ...-
J ," 't.,~_v II L
. - .....-- ..---...-
t'~ ~,'~ l:~. ...!,.' ~".I:;IJ" I:.
L I ~~. II ":~
1".(.llJt Ill~ '4.. A ~ l:)~
5
(I
1.1
~
C
l
-.---.----. --.-. ----
---.-.- - - .-.---.----...----.--------.--.------- -----.
------------...-----.-- --
------------
- -. ..,--~--_.
, ~.... -.. -...---......----.------.-----.-------.-------
.---------
-------
------- ----..-.------
SU~"MAk'Y . f u~ ;;:i 'f-'----
"I'~' A ur.jl "I'i-. I,IF
. . ,'"
14
.-. - ~\!I',-~" . t::J W:!'J__..pI-'US1IHt
I . &'~l + III jS
1.&''11:+111 I
I.lbt.+\; I l-l1t1 1.lic?l:.-011 J.'I'II:-IIII 'n,1I1I1I l.llIl:.tfi&, 11,011"1 Ib,'i!JI,. CAJOUObllbl17 KETTLE!\IIAN CITY,e 1.\111:-011 ~.3UE-I.II 20,0"" 4.oc~,tlJl ('i.HOi" 71"IIV/l. lJ~Ul)b5"JIt!7b wAY~OKA,OK ~
~! !!!i.1:. +0 !_h~!~:illl -_J..~ot:.-U" I .l~t~~~___l, ~'lU 1~~L~l.!,t!.~L_.__I!..!1.!!,LL.__..~ !,:!,---_OtiQQ~~H!~~~-~!!~!i~~~.OH_--!_.
C.~IE:.+Iii? S.Ol.f.-IIJ 1."';1:.-1111 '.I.it:-Ilil 1c!,711(,.'1I;\I :\.blf+1I4 11.01/1 1.7n-"" c!n,lIiIlJ ~.lIbl:.+I" (II.OOillluu.11(III. UKOlJb511!837b I'oAYNUKA,OK 10
.~. ~OI:.:~!~L,.~.!?.!l~~!'!---~. ~f~-"~__~..t.!'!~ ~'~~. -,-~ I,SI'~.I!L!!..!L_.~ .~3t.!.!!_L__~,I~" lL..._---H'.',.. OHOOS2H!!_~!f.~_~!!'!.!~!'!~!!.I.!ItLJ.~.-
1.1Sl:.t"c! j. 1c!,1110.\l1I1/ 2,071:+(." 11.(1071> 1 jll. I~JD00218i!1!~7 LJ"IDt./It,"'J 10
~! I!?~ +'~~~---..r...~~k~'.~- -.. ~ . ~~~ :-\!~.. ".! !.?!~ :-':~. ----, ~!2t!!.'!~~.J!.~~~!.!! ~. __---Ii t ~f~~i~ _.3 ,~fll! t._--,.!'!~QJ1!.! ~ !1.Ql~ ... !!~~~_NS~~~R I-"!~. 111.._-
~.t1IE-1I1 ~.Olt.-"" I.lljt.-Iltl 7.~Jt-II'> l,j.iO,UIIII tI.13I::tll] Ij.f.lU'~ 0,7". lJ"'OOoo0202Jl tlfAII~kTUN,OR 10
. -..-.... -.-- ..----
-- ---.--.
... ..--..-----.-----.
. - .. ----.-
- -.----.. --- .--.-
. -. ..._-.. -' -.
..--...........-.--- --.-.
... ,---- "_m ---. ... ------- '.. ._..._--!!~t.!!.1.~~~~~ lIo~~_~:.,..?~_u_..,._--_..!.~----Q. .L.L!L~ ~...~. ---- ,-.----
.. ..- . ~-.-'.'.-"
...- . --.-- ..-.--...-.
..-.-. - . -.--..-..-.-.--- ..-.------ ----
--.--....---- -----.-------------------.
. ...-- - --... -. -_. --.--. .-. .
--- --- .--..- ---- -..-.--.----.. ------.-..---.-------.------.-
.-.-...---- ------..-...--..----------.---.-.--.. -..-.-------.- ---...------.-----------. -------------
- .-. --------------.-...--.---..---....----.- -.-.---....--.---..
-.....- .----.--..-_.._- --- .---.-.------ .-..---..----.---.-----
-..' .- .-.-....--.----- .---.----- ---'--.-"'- -.-...---.. -----. u_""-'...-------..- -'--",-.--.,------
.----.. -.---.---..-. --....-.. ....-..- _.,-'..' .--...- -..----.- -.--.
------'-----
. .-. .-----..-----.----..-...--. ----.---. --_....
'--....----..--- -"--_._--'----"-----_._~-'_. -..
.--.. - ----------.---..-..-.-----...-......- ..---.-...-.--
--...-
-.. ...----.--...---.----..- -- .'-'-.'- -..-.--.--.-..- --..-.---..-.--.-...-- -.---.--.-.--.-..- ----- .-... .-
--. .-...-.-. - .
..--..-...-- '---.'-"--'.' .-.----..---..-.--..
..-... ..----..-.u_-----. ---.- .. ---- .---- - ..-.. -...- - .----.---.--..--...- ---.-- '----. ---- h_.___' -----.-.-..-.. -- _.. .-- .--.---..-.-. - ----"..---.--- -- .-.--.--- ---- -..-.--
. --- .-- . -.----". .-.-....-.-.- .-. --
----- ------_. - -.-----....--.- -..---
..------..--.. ._-. - --.-'---.'-.--.--'--'.'-.- ---
-.-..---. -.----.---.
.---.-...-.-.- ---_u..---.
--
- .. -. -. ----_. --- --.--....- -.---------'---. -..-______n.____..------.------. ..- - '-'.-'-'----"---'-.-.-. ----..--..--.--...----- - _.-.
.---..-.-----
- -- - -------.--.-.-----t-----.
----_._~._.-..-.
-------
-.-- .-.---..-...-. --.-
-.--.
SUM,.HI;" j"Ti.,';'-:. ;-I~-'--'--
t,11'1 .. u,', 1 I "I "," uf..~. ~l:l"::.:l.'L-_- ...... - .....m. - . -... '----""-"" .......... .--.-........- -.-.-..-
"'Ab~
I 'JF
2
- --...---.._._'.0__-"-
- '- -.- -.....- .-..
. --. - ...-.
- ,.
,.
,:, ..._~. -
_...__...__._.---_......_........~-~-_!'-- .....L- ~J ... L.._.'
LlH IJ"t
1;.t.IIlt,i1t.t;; I~II. "1::i~.
~. -...- .-- - ...-----
--.._I;!.!~~ . . ~!;!:.I~L.!,:.- c.~~"':;;lJht
CIII"I,;
"'t:.\~l.!:
1:." I"I':;;I,I'!:
. -- ..
A;il,II01. ~tYF: 6 r
1"t.l!!t" U _.1." H ~V"L
5
I"
u
I(
C
t:.
I . tI~t.. \, ~ I l~j~t+;;7'--~:7IL:'-;~ 7 I t: - II ~--~. 'lilt:. ~~'~';;'j,-,~-;j~lIci""'4---"'I):-;' 1'\------ iq:'--i,foiifi~ lzi, ~b -;~H r.StSIJ;U, ~c 7
1, HIt.. 'It: (! . .':'..!!.?~.!1~:!.._-1..~..!; -'14 ~. n.SI: -0' ~ ~. 0 1 t:. -"3 1 . HI) , \I"t! t' ..!!J~~-_2.'-~.~____--_l~_,.__. (JRIJ~q020?..1L~~.~~'!UQ.~l,I~..--L_.-
1.7~l:.i"c ~., t>.<'2t:i.,j I.C/lt.-"I j.~'It:.-\d ~.7o~-I.13 12,")II,'J'1I1 ".Hol+',';) v.;',;) :\.q NJOr.021828'17 LIN[JErj,~:J 7
&,~li;.,b..f!..--..__....1... 'f.llol:.+,,2 I :.!j1t.-)~ ~.~'JI:-iJj j.'lol:-"~ ,.~Vll.U"V I. 'Jilt tli'J o.(1/1~ 23. 1J~IDO,)23241'J1I8 T"H.StJUHG.OH 7
l.ctH..'" .L~~___Y..L.~~~.._1..H t,+~:J n --_" ..".'!! ~..__. .I:>!?'~.. n. .--.!;!.! ~Q~~~!l UI._._~~J 1 b~ "'I\~ ~nY.~ ...--
tI.'illti". I 0.':1111:+111 I.~"~-II~ 1.7/it.-1I~ I.q,'t-".\ ~1'j,II!"! ~.'IE.+;t1J \'.'v"", 17',. "'C.1)f)71S12113b G~tt.NSbI/HIJ,NC r;
tI, 7 cl;. t .. I c.' - ~. 12.t.~!.! '! - Y....~ :!I;..~~!.~_J,l~.t~~J._-~...~'!!;::!L,L__J ..H ~t,ll~l...._.i.,l!1t. t_'."!._. ..--~! ..'~~ >I. --- ..j!! ,--. . tJ.!Ill.l!!!~!!?!I?j 1 ... . ~~ 1\ Y ~ ~ T.1~"!.,!J~--. .~..
1I.021:.i'oI ~'J -.!.'4'1I:.'d S.'H1f-.Jc 1.'~t-,,3 1.~U-"3 1',/!lII,""" 1J.i?~I:+f" 1I.le k.5 '~JonolI828'17 LliHJl,~,"JJ 5
6."')""t~:1 ..... --._.~_..n".jl)t.t"t! r.lll:-u:s J.t\It.-1d I."I>I:.-II~ ",')"\.1,11"" 7.151:.+04 0.""" .~!... UHDO~l~2I1S48 '''lrJSti\.J,~~.!.(JH 5
b.9ht..'" TOOObllb117 o(£f1LEfIo1AN CITV,C
0, ~":>t . I , c. 1 !~ d'!!; tl~~; -- ! . ~ ~~~.: ".~--- J. ~~!,-~ -. t__. I..~~f..- ~~L..- --. ~t> '~'1'.!!..--~ ,-2~!:.!_~j.i?_.__.. _\' ,,!! ~!.II ~....~ 1 ~ "", ._--_~K I) ~~~~Cj H C? '- !!~.!.~j~l~ ~tY.1<.. .- ~ ---
4.lllt."1 .0':-114 '11,01,11' 1.1j4t.ttl(l <".u\"~1 till ,1111('. C"TOOOblloI17 Kt.TTI.Eto\IIN C&TY,C
~,~!.!;tt!II.__.._-_~-L-.!.a.15t.-1JI j.I>!f.-'/!, 1.7ft-illl c!.hOt.-I/'I 'Il,Ij'!U 1.lJlIlt"2 .Ult-II_\ I.~"t-\l" 1.loE-':1I Il,/"'I,'''''! 5.7~~,+,'1I "."11 qq. I~JI)0021621jq7 Lll~llt.N,r'IJ b
7!~'I~.~~'.~_..__..._._...! .J.IOI:+UII ).'.I{)7&!:I7211~b "~I:£NS8UHU NC q
l.jUt.'''' ."">t-IJoS l.uSI:.-"u I.I~t-:'1c 12,7,III,\,IIU 3.t>lltU4 1'.0111 '0. NJI>002181!897 .LINDt.N,IIJ 9
b, dut t" ,I ? --~.t.~~!;~.'! I n.r..~~b!~..J...~";.::~---1~~!~.~!.'!n --~t2~\!J~:'L..'!'>.!l! f..~ vj.. ..!.! !~'!J! ?... n- '? 7/' !l--__H.__i.!~!,1!I~n~~~!!~_l~ !~~.~I,1~~IQ~_.~---- .
o.vlt.+II.' ';)\:-"':1 l.vSt-'I'1 1.<'H-oll '115,(,-/11 I.JIIl:.t..~ 1/.'111"11 <',0011. I\;CD11715720~b GHle.I~S8URO,NC 10
~,2 ~t. H 0 ! ~ ,,~~, .~J! -_..l..~~!t..::~!2___l..!!.~!"::.!!.~. __l.....!!.n ~.(!~.._.-- 'n ~ll.!n'~LJ ,J~~.t~.~.. .... -'.'. '''!'!!. 21 q~"1,- 'n .N.~p'Q.1.1 ~ U ~~.It_.J!~~~!'!~tlU~!!J ~!;.-_.~._--
5,&1t.tUV
-------
Si.i,.,.",,"y ~i);.,-' ;,~: i~' u- .---....-.u---------.------------------------.----------.-.---- .- .. '----...--- -----'-------P/'b~~LiF--Z---
'11,. "" IJ'JJ f Ii i ,I" "t- "."'I~ -"',,
. L:~!.'\,,-
5. "'H t" ,
., . 'P1 t . I, 'J
S. ".It'. .,,,,
':I.".h .',,,
q. d'''~'';I''
II. lot .,")
I~.I')t.,:"
1I.,)~ltl.,.
1I.'>lItt" I
1I.lIult" ,
&4. c\Jt t" ,I
II. 1 c!t.. II.'
q. 00". ..,.;
II . ') ~ t + "11
5. 11I~, + " II
.---.-- .--.... - -_.
..-----1.-...
.'
,)
I"
... t 1'1 l ,-
Llfo:II'"
I '11.1 ,..t 'IL t
,,: I J"~I. ...t...t::.. T
--~..1. P ~I 'i I/'~ t -.-._....!.::!!,.. !~_r -'!:""~-- -(' _! ~...Y..!!.b.._-~_..!L.....JL_k
c
t.
t., .....,. ';)11.- t
. "A ~:.L~_u._.~_'~___- I-'t""l.t
:;') 1.71t'.",. H--~.':di.";j.\' i.,~t-"II' '1.'li~-,)')- I~,I:I\I,V"'; "'.~~N,~"~ 3.
5', 1.7<'t',,<, ~.U'h-"3 1."lt-\"1 ;'~5'1~_I'~ '1'c,II,},II,II' i?t-H+i'li ".""'0 15". "'JUUUlI82t1IH l.1~[)t."',NJ 10
'H(L.-2.!J~~.:~1 1.III~.:::!2.~'.:!.~.:~'1 1!.5"t.-"" -~~!~_II.bi:!t!_~:L__~~~~~~~~'L". u''OOb~IIj8051b ..,AYlIIlJt 0.!.!2.~.\/5._J~.,l:!2.1~.:!.~.. 1..1 "f..+',,, ~~.~:~_-.!!!:.'.L_--_.....t!JIJOU~J82!191 L hl,It;:\I.ciL,L....-
., <'.1!7i'.+O:I 'I.5'H,-,;:I ".""c.-,,') 1."~I-.-'~ 1,')'11.,('0;\1 ~.',III:.+,,5 ".'.III'J 'Ifill. iJHon5l1211')1I8 To'jIIlJSliIJHG,UH II
.~.~~~~~H~__._~A..!~I~I~~,!J~-,.~
1'1I~_', r,AYI,O",II,UK II
-.-" ---. --.-.-------.- .....-.- -. .--.- '___n."_.-_'
. --...----. -----.---'-'---"------'
171>,'"111,.'111'.. _el._~~~.!~~~.
_II. 7'! ...
! .~
II V. ~ H. A, \y,!". .-. - ,--, - - -. -,_.
- .--.,. --.--...----------.---.-..--.--.,-."." ..-.. -..--.-
., ,..--. ,...__n__- -.--. ---... .~_.__.__.._--------_.__.
_. - .-.-------
----.- ._- -----.- ...-
..--------.
.u. ... - .- ..w .. 'W-
..---.-----<---.---.--- -
. --- .u..- ... -."--- '---'-' --------..--.--------.-.--.-,--
.- ...... - -
".. .-. ...-. ..--_u.
.",".... ---.. -- ..------.-.. ..--.------..-- .-.---.--- _._-. -----' ---
..- -.-.-----.-.-----
..----.------.--------
- ---...- . .--.. ---. -...
. -.--.- - _. -
..---------- ,..--....-.. ---..--..---.--
- n.- -._- - - .----'-- __._hO"
-- ---. --- --.
. - --.-----.--.. . ---.'----__".'0'__'__-----------.
-----~-_.
. - _'_h____-
-------
. -.---..__._n -.. -'- --_._-_. -- - --..-- 'n'- .--.
n- -- -. --.
.-.- -... --.-----.- _'0-__- ---,--_._...
.- - -----..- ------.. .----
. -- . -_. -- ------ -
--.. __._n'.- ___._n
. - ---.---- -- .-...--- --. - .-.---------
--.-------
- _.-- .----- ---,
._--_...-..-
- .-+.------.--.. --.-.--- .--' .-.------..-..-
-.---- .--- .-.-.- -.,--., ---- ----- ------.. ---_.-
..-...---..--.--
--. ----..-.._____0-
.._--- n -. ...
"-"-. ..-- -'.---.-'-----
.-- --.-.-.-
.---..-..-------------.-. -0 ------ ------- - .
..------------- --------
.-- -------. ...- '--'.-.-... -"+__--__0____.-
.-- _. - - _.
-.- _0_-----
------------'--------'-------"
----------
~_._-_._------
-_0__0-
.-.. .. --.--
-------
~II',',,,\W Y . ;;,;"~~:~ j",.'-" ..---
'I 1 H ., 'J' i I hi"" I J t .,
1'1'(;1:.
I lIF
2
-.. . ~.- . . .-. -
........---.---- -...- ---....-----'--- ..,..
~,~..'L~t!-....._.- .
.."- ---. ...-_h.
u_.-- . ......- ---""""..
. 'n --" ..... _._--.-- -.
.-..---.---.
-.______n_."..
-- .' "..-. .-- - -_......
.~..._..._..- .n.
, -.I .' ',. -.l
.' . oJ. .', -, ,:" ~
... - -....- --- .
,.
. -
'..U ':~...
L I. I 1 I'"
~ r :!.~.~ ~:'n . ~...~~'~r7..___!! 'l. I :J '"- ti t
, '\'" t' i ~)"
I. OJ, 'l.
"I;,..wu.
t;..A "'-'.J ~l'h' t.
t. ""'AI. "'~.Pf.A 1
(',C lL'L'~L..'!..!1 VAL
S
1'1
u
~
c
l
1.I..tt.,J )':> '<;;'~';;';'-'I~-;j~''::~'I~:;,:;r-:J--~ i'. 71)~:-;;-j---I7;f,";"~~~~~m;.'~'~;;';'t--;:c;--"---;;-=~~ j.~ i~'iL;;iu-ii!!iiici7'LI:jli~N'~-;~r'1"
II. Q~I- t.. 1 ~.~ c:. ~Ut,,~!'_1,._~--.'!')1:. -'!"m_l. Uh -:.:!.L----L...1,r.-='.'.i_.l~,I,l JJ'.I~J.!!.. -~, (~I.--!I~.;. n. . --,-" , tL.. . 1\,.5 .-----~-!J1...!.!.!12.1~C!!!~H__"'1~~~~ I~_I..:!.,L_.~--
I.dltt"e <'1 "f. '! 1I:t'Ii' I."H-d'. j.!dt.-..,\ ~.f)lt-II3 l.j~'I,I"i" t-d 3.llot,-')j ~,~II,),II"I 1.~H't.t"~ 11.',,",\ 23. (jHIJflS"32115118 '''lr'jSl'lU~C;,UH 7
II. 1 ~t. t "I ~ , ... ~,. 1'::!t..t~IL._~.~~t.,~!!~_1..1.~!Li__..L..i:'~~:-='d1---1..j1l!.l!JVL. .'f.JIit..t~'~_..--_.....:1. 'l ,,;, - ..---jg. --.---_nJ,J.~Il!!.II.41Y_l.lI~t;~~ ~~ l~~tt Q~.- 5...._--
~.\I~I:+III ., ".3tlt.tlle' ".111'.-,13 J.olE.-\I.~ 1.111)1:-',3 2,5;10")111) 7.I~t+"4 "."c!I' II~. (IHlJn52321151111 Tloolr.SbUUG,LlH 5
I. l,)t. +" I j'? .. - ~. ~~t.!!1.~.---~_. ~~t.~.I:'..L_~._~~t..~:!.~---- L..~~ -l'~--_I c!,.l~!...\! I.!I~L--_~ .!'~L~J'II ._--_". \/11. ---- .~H ,.-- - '!JIH! \!~1~~!!~L_l.l~~1f.~0,L_~_.... --
1."';>I:,t'ie 1 1.)l)t+lI.'Jt!t-.j) I.",:>t.-.I:.o 1.13t-',71:+1<1 ".11.,70 13". IIIJor,0218l897 Llt,u!:''','.J IU
e. ~"t +,' I :.! ,~~!;+ !'~. --~, ~-~ r. ':~ ~ -- ~,~.,~,:~, "~_no. '? ~!~ ': 1',/,., nll ~,I! IJI~-'-"~ ._-~.t ,?~t !-'-:.~---. ", ~ II 7 '!.----- 1 ~'I. _--1I,!~)f!':)?~~~~~~ -_J~ !~J!!'\.!.~~J!:!':! .1
').:/"'I:tl'" j~) 1.1h..",. \.':»t.-"~ 1.',,1t.-Ij'1 I..I~~-"'" 1",7:"J,II"" '>.j'-lt.+"'1 (I."ilt)~ IS". f,J')oI)218l897 LI,oIulIII,'''J l
S,\".,t'.!.'~ ._...~'L-1....l.!l.l.t!'l' L')lt-"} I.IIIt-'I" 7....c!t-,,~ I.~.I-)II,U"\I 2.j~t:.t"'" (l.f,O"" l~iI. :'JIJI)02Iai!!\97 LI'Wlf04,"J j
'J.'I&lC."" 3') 1."'lt."'" ~.,,~;-_.,~ (\.>\/1:-"'" n."lt-"r; 1<',7:101,""" <'.I')t:+.,'J "."""';! Ibll. 'oIJfll'I021~2897 LINI'Eiol,"J II
b, "lilt t 'I t I '?~ '!t tll! ----I .J. !t~'~.L_.J..!~.1.~~'_L__l-,.~"-_,:-,-~.L___\n~--,.\!.'.!.:L -- ~L11l t :'I1__.__Il. ~~'!L ,U 11 ..---- --_.!"~.t)!.' U~n!!~~___-'!~H~~!!~~jJ I fl/L. '?_--
1.<",t."1 I.5..t:.-"/1 I.'..~_I'"I l,j3l1,,'-"I, tI,'>bf.+I,j h.')I!~&I 1J1ft. u~OOllq\llo.!,U bEAIiERTLlN,UR b
?,~~~t~.~-_.~_. '1.\IIIt.-'/1 I.'t'~t.-Utl 1.<1/1:.-"<1 1.071::-11<1 1,3ju,uUII 1I.i!dt.+Oj 0.110211 Lll". 1,IW0009020c!'s1 tlEAVEWTUN,UR Ii
1.Hl:tlll '<'.1111:+'11 'I.idt-,... 0.01E.-1}'~ ".M~E.'," 'i15,UIIII 7.bot.+IIJ \J.III'~~ 'II'''. 'jCU071S7203b G~!:l"'SbOflO.NC 1
I, c:!'Il till! ~!, :1~~!!L!_l ,~:!_~ -'J'I _!...~bl:.~~~~~~~~.__.~J5,'(J I U'I'I b,J It: +v~ U._!!.!U.~ . __~~~I_. -----9.H09.52g~H~_--!~1~S~~!!~.J!;L~-_!,,_-
S.I"'t..",} 7/1. UR0009020lJI i:lEAVI:.UTUN,UH 10
0, II lit: t '/11 ') ~..~~.~,tJ! L._,!. ~~~~_!..1t)i:.-ull I .(St-\III c!.I~i!.!lJ o.)u~.t..!.!~!Yl__!!_.\!QI L ---.~tl~!. ---po UHU!!.~?~~~~!!~- ~!~~UHGI,Q~.---
~.I7E..\") .1I7f.+,'3 11.(1)\0 bllit. UHOOOQ020231 dEAVE~TON,OR 2
~.I~t+l!iJ --_...!,I.__--'~,!l~M.1-..j&.R.il.-vt 1.0jt;-v" 7.0Il-"5 I.HO.Ollu ~.lAN ClTY,C
II. Sill:. HI} 4: 1 .. '..Ht..~!!j~.~':!LL~..JLli~\!') 0.3>t.-I,5 1.I.:UhlL!!.!L _~~1t.tII3 U..Q.!.!l~.--__l.1.!!.---_JJ~.!I.!il1.lInL_~~~.t:fU!J~.IQ!L ~-
"."lltUO -; c!.ol)~+ul s.en-,," Ii.ot!t-115 't.]IJE-05 ~,5IJO,UI'" ,SU,,] H.'I01] 770. OHD05232115Q8 T\'4INSRU~G,UH 10
II. 7ot. +ut) '), . ~. S~f.!.!!L~.l.!!.t..:.H_.~.2Jt:. -1I2_~~.2lE,.~!LL_~C!.~_'!3l!1!.L-----'!!...QJH~--._._JH--I!~~!H!SlH~5.!tL-_I1!jtlS!t\l~ug!:L_l.-
Q.7St+,ln ') c:!.~7t+1I1 5. 1 H.2~f.',,~ i:',Stlll,I"'" II.I.3f+(J] 0.0012 1:17". Otol(J(l5232I1SI18 T"'I/lJSBU~G,UH J
':'.~I!;!'.!'L__.__- 2..__~.Inltol IJ.S"t-;14 11.41't.-u5 7.1I1I1'-IIS c:!.')VO,UUU J.blll:.+1,3 ,'.01'11\ '100. I).,U052]2Q5116 TWINSBU"G.OH II
1.21Jf.+111 1 'I.IIUE,+II" 1.I\~t-\J/1 2.Sn-,11J 2.7o!~-I)1I liI5,0')" J.Oi!f.+O] 11.(1)0,", 1,2011, 'oICU07157l0]b \8RElNSIWUO,NC 8
b. '~'a: '! "1. < I .. !~ ~~ ~_'.!'~!_.l. d/jl:_~ u':l _~,,:,~I 3 11.711: -113- Ii 1,~.:.'.~X!.~"l.!.~l.~.t.!~~l--- !~~!'--'-'-,I- ._~ ~!.'l~.Q.~~.Hll--~~!!~~~~~-~ I nJ~-
tJ.u5f:t.", I ')."'>:Il:..t\lI, 1.I"t-'I 1,""0. f\jCO()7I~720jb GHEE'~S~OHU.NC b
! . II 'It. ! Ii I' ! -.-- '2..'!.lJ;,! !~~_-1. "~i:.-,'-,tJl~.'L.l, 1.2t. t.tJ ~_--'h_'_.'l. ~\! '! J_...J .~, v'.! ..--.--. ..l!!': /)Qtl5./iJltSJ ()_.-'!~.1~!J..6~ .U.!'..__.L__-
II.S'it.t'lll ').~"t.l/l-, o.lIt-ll~ ~.I'~~-'" '-I..,~I:-II5 ~1'j,(I1'" I.II71:+I'~ 1..(ilI-'lj ~,jUII. NCOu7157j!IIJb GIoIEU~SB()RU,i~C II
11.1 i!t. + "I ~I ~.-'! t, ~1.'.1_--.l,.LlL~!'';!,. -~_. (_\t~-'~:t~ -... J .J 1 ~.~ -'L~. '-- h" ..'H, ~ tJ I! ---~, !!~t. t ~~l_..--- .(!. (I J! f}) _.\, ~ II". h. C ~ IlJ !H!.Cl9C1111__~fJJ\.t.~~jLC; I T hC---.
b.2')ttilJ t.-"j ~.t.4t.-\l.3 c!o,""'U '3.~t!t.+"2 11."""2 .,,3\1;1. U"0005"~837b I'IAYNUKA,OK 5
'" - "'-'-~.'~---- --..----.-----------.------.---..---
----------.-.-..--.----
. ..' . ..-.. ----.. ~..
-.. ~_. -----....--..--.---------
-------------
-----.-
-------
~-... . ..~~--_.
--------
SUM'.111,q Ft)... ",',I~
"I '" .. u.1 I ., I ;,. 'I~
(; lJ"1.,
l.c"t.."1
1 , \' ijt . ,. I
9, III'~_.""
2,40tt:'1
tI,1~lt"'1
9,011:.+'/11
H, en t:. . '" I
tI.b~t.tllli
q.~lIt.lI"
o.VII:.+O/v
5.0~lt"11
II, iJ ~t .', II
'I.I..r..'I\.
II. vOl. + ,j II
J.l,.t..",
. -. - -."U .
---
"~G~
2 uF
2
~! ;'dr: .. d:~ -
"
"
."
.,
.1
'./
,~
"".! "'~.r.._J..~~~:.'!.~t
L/ ~ t. I j -i~
J' i:1l)~ 'I..~. 1 'I'" hi::l~
t.
0\;1'11 AL '-I:.P~.A T
t:. 10"" J :ilW 1:._~.1!.l:..'.!.t.._J.:-'-.!.~ 'V Po L.
~.
"'tW'Ll:.
S
o
w
lJ
c
. -. .. -. "n .. . .- -.. . . .
,1,""'1. (;lIfliOlibllol17 KF.1TL.EM.N ClTY.e
< 1 I . Ij~~ ~III _t.!J!: ~~~I! J. ,,~!~~ '!.~ -.. ...?!~t:>t ~ II ~ . . . _n I~ ~.I! !.. ~~~ !:.~f1' . ~ ". IIIJ" I ?", "I!!' ....- .-- . q! 'J!>Q!t~~ U L- .r(~ U b~ !'!~~-~ U Y ,~ - ..
(I 1.'1j~-1I1 i.o1l::-IIf' l.l'1t.-I'" l.na!:-II/! ql."r.v I.UIIE+"2 (II.""'!! 2'J,"v('. CI\11100bllol17 r(t_1TL~MAIli ClTY,C
~ I .! . l ~t:- ~'!.I}. ~ ~~ :;!!~_. _.1.. LH:~~. - --~.I ~~!;,: li~ . ~ 1 ,~!! \! - J . ?9t, ~I!~ ~ ". ."Ie q i!7, II 'I!l..__- - -. tH !!jHH~~H1L.J\~lJ.Lt.~~!Lt 1.1 t..Cm_....
.jl'~_II" t!b.""" ".to2t:+1I1 (11.1101-\ 1",11"". 0It.+"1 (:1.11,,:,\1111,111'". OllOl'lb511S8j7b .~AYI\IU...A.OI< 2
-------
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
-------
MEMORANDUM
TO:
File, PES Project No. 758
Date:
November 18, 1985
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jan Meyer, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
Recovery Factor Estimate
This memorandum documents the method used to estimate the solvent
recovery factor. This factor is a conversion factor that relates the
volume of waste solvent entering a waste solvent treatment facility to
the volume of recovered solvent exiting the facility. Estimation of
a recovery factor enables determination of the number of model plants
that would be needed to handle the nationwide volume of waste solvent
requiring treatment. The number of model plants is then used to estimate
nationwide emissions of VOC and costs to control these emissions.
Recovery Factor Definition
A.
The recovery factor is defined as the volume of VOC recovered by a
facility per volume of waste solvent entering the facility, and is a
function of tWo parameters: (1) the VOC composition of the waste
stream, and (2) the VOC distillation efficiency of which the facility
is capable. This relationship can be represented as follows:
= ( ::::::~nin) (:::::: ~:t
Volvoc out
Volwaste in
)
where:
recovery factor
= Volvoc out
Vo lwaste in
waste stream VOC composition
=
Volvoc in
Volwaste in
, and
distillation efficiency
=
Vol voc out
Volvoc in
-------
B.. Recovery Factor Determination
1.
Waste Stream VOC Composition
Attachment 1 is a summary of available information on the major
solvent wastes composition. From Attachment 1, the. volume weighted
average composition of FOOI-F005 wastes appears to be about 60 percent
VOC. Barring receipt of information that shows the basis of these
numbers to be faulty, this estimate appears to be the best that can be
developed given the limited information and time available.
2.
Distillation Efficiency
Attachment 2 presents a summary of information on distillation
efficiencies reported in the provided literature sources. Several of .
the case study reports suggest that efficiencies of 80 to 90 percent
are typical of concentrated streams while efficiencies of 50 to 70
percent are expected of dilute or slUdgy streams. The data summarized
in Attachment 2, however, do not support this generalization. The
available data suggest that, regardless of VOC composition, distillation
efficiencies can range up to 99 or 100 percent. The average and median
efficiencies attained are 85 and 90 percent, respectively. Although
the data are believed to be rather uncertain, the best estimate of
typical distillation efficiency is 85 to 90 percent.
C.
Conclusion
To estimate volume of VOC recoverable per volume of waste solvent
entering the facility, the volume weighted average VOC composition of
the waste is multiplied by the distillation efficiency. At the median
distillation efficiency, the recovery factor is approximately 55 percent.
( 0.6 VOCin )x (0.90 VOCout )
wastein VOCin
=
0.55
-------
Attachment 1
WASTE STREAM VOC COMPOSITION
Tot a 1
Amt. Land Avg. VOC Tot al Amount
Disposed Content, %b VOC Land Disposed
106 Gallonsa 106 Gallons
<4.5 31 I <1.4
16.1 63 I 10.14
I
77 . 67 I 81 62.91
<4.5 I 100 <4.5
460.05 I 55 253.05
I I
562 .82 /V01. wted. average I 331. 98
= 59%
round to 60%
(arith. avg. : 66%)
I I
Waste Code
FOOl
F002
F003
F004
F005
Vol. Wted. Avg.
aSource: OSW Summary of March 7, 1985, Top 30 Waste Streams in Land Disposal
(Excluding Injection Wells), by volume.
bSource:
GGA-TR-83-94-G, p. 31.
Not e:
There are several references with different volume estimates for these
categories of wastes.
Frequency Distribution of VaG Concentration
Range Amount I Frequency
I
<30% VOG <4.5 4.5 I 0.8%
<65% VOG 476.15 480.7 85%
<85% VOG 77 . 67 558.3 I 99.2
<100% VOC <4.5 562 . 8 I 100
Avg. 60%
-------
Attachment 2
Summary of Recovery Efficiency Information
I I Dlstl11atl0n I
Facil i ty I Feed Composition. % I Efficiency. % /Recovery Factor. %
(References) I (A) I (B) I (A X B)
Plant A: Thin Film Evap. I 100 I 85 typi ca 1 I 85
(RTI-Field Study)
I I I
Romic (Thin Film Evap.) I 100 I 80 I 80
(RTI-Field Study)
I I l
IT Corp.: Steam S tri pper I <10 I 90 I 9
(RTI-Fiela Study)
I I l
IT Corp.: Air Stripper. I <3 I N. A. (to a tmo s.) I 0
(RTI-Field Study)
I I I
AER. Inc: Steam Stripping I N.A. I 50 to 70 I
(RTI-Field Study)
I I I
Environ. Recycling: I I I
(Thin Film Evap.) 83
(RTI-Field Study) I, I I
Oil & Solvent Recycling: I I I
(Thin Film Evap.) I N.A. I 80-85 I 80
(RTI-Field Study) I I I
Morflex: Dist. Col. I 95 I N.A. I <90
(Versar Report I I I
i ncomp 1 ete)
. I I I
. Plant D: Steam Stri pping I I I
(RTI-Field Studies Report) 18 43 8
I 74 I 100 I 74
I 26 I 92.5 I 25
3 100 3
I I I
Plant D: Dist. Col. I 5 I 99 I 5
(RTI-Field Studies Report) 23 99 23
I I I
Radian Test-Site I 85 (MEK) I 92 I 78
(Thin-Film Evap)
Average I I Avg. = 85: ovoro11 1
<50% VOC I I I
>50% VOC I I I 12% to 15%b
79% to 80%b
I I I
a = miapoint of VOC range x .85
bAverage of recoveries observed for '
range. >50% biased by the majori ty cases wi th
100% VOC feed streams.
-------
MEMO R AN DUM
November 27, 1985
SUBJECT:
Summary of Information on the Number and Treatment Capacities
of Waste Solvent Treatment Facilities (WSTF's)
FROM:
Jan '''eyer, PES
David Cole, PES
TO:
Project 758 File
-----
------
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-----
-----
Information on treatment capacities and number of WSTF's presented
in the references provided by EPA is summarized in Table 1. The only
information on the distribution of treatment capacities was presented
in Reference 1 and the distribution is presented in Table 2.
-------
Table 1.
ESTIMATES OF NUMBER AND TYPICAL CAPACITIES
OF WSTF'S
Typi ca 1
Capaci ty. a
Source Number of WSTF's Gg/yr Commen ts
Engineering Science. 61 4 Estima te projecteCl from survey.
September 1984(1) of National Association of
Solvent Recyclers
4.000 N.A. Monsanto Research Survey of
1978
GCA. February 1985 392 5.5 Number of facilities reporteCl
Con tra ct No. to be from 1984 Westat survey
68-01-6871(2)
OSW Summa ry of 177 N.A. ExcluCles TSDF's incinerating
TSDF information(3) waste solvent streams
aCalculateCl from information presenteCl in each report assuming an average solvent
aensity of 7 lb/gal.
N.A. - Not applicable.
-------
Table 2. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
OF WASTE SOLVENT RECOVERY CAPACITIES
(Source: Reference 1)
Capaci ty
Range Capaci ty
0.000 ga 11 ons Proportion in 0.000 ga 11 ons
of solvent Interna 1 of solvent Cumulative Frequency
per year) (n) (%) per year)
(n) (%)
o - 499 10 34.5 <500 10 34.5
500 - 999 3 10.3 < 1000 13 44.8
1000 - 1499 3 10.3 <1500 16 55.2
1500 - 1999 4 13.8 <2000 20 69.0
2000 - 2499 0 0.0 <2500 20 69.0
2500 - 2999 2 6.9 <3000 22 75.9
3000 - 3499 1 3.4 <3500 23 79.3
3500 - 3999 5 17.2 <4000 28 96.6
4000 - 4499 0 0.0 <4500 28 96.6
4500 - 4999 0 0.0 <5000 28 96.6
5000 - 5499 0 0.0 " <5500 28 96.6
5500 - 5999 1 3.4 <6000 29 100.0
T ota 1 29 100 29 100.0
-------
References
1.
Engineering Science. Supplemental Report on the Technical Assess-
ment of Treatment Alternatives for Waste Solvents. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. September
1984. pp. 4-74 to 4-82.
2.
Battye, W., C. Vought, D. Zimmerman, M. Clowers, ana E. Ryan (GCA
Corporation). Preliminary Source Assessment for Hazaraous Waste
Air Emissions from Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
(TSDF's). Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. February 1985.
Memoranaum from G. Fitzsimons (PES) to Project File. November 20,
1985. Miscellaneous Information on the Composition of Wastes
Processed at WSTF's. .
3.
-------
M E M 0 RAN DUM
November 25, 1985
SUBJECT:
Estimate of Proportion of Waste Solvent Streams Containing
Halogenated Solvents
FROM:
Jan Meyer, PES
TO:
Project #758 File
-----
- - - -
-----
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I.
Purpose
This memorandum presents the basis for the assumption that 20
percent of waste solvent treatment facilities (WSTF's) process halo-
genated solvent wastes and that 80 percent process nonha10genated
sol vent wastes.
II.
Discussion
The assumption that 20 percent of the facilities treating halogenated
solvent wastes was derived from the information presented in Attachment
1.* The fraction of facilities treating halogenated waste solvents was
calculated: . .
fraction
. ha 1.
fraction
halo
=
68
m
= 0.21
Among the treatment categories presented in the table, the fraction
halogenated ranged from 0.24 to 0.13.
Several assumptions were made in use of this factor to estimate
the upper bound control costs. These assumptions were: (1) the
population of TSDF's surveyed included WSTF's, and (2) the distribu-
tion of treatment capacities of WSTF's treating halogenated waste
solvents does not differ significantly from that of WSTF's treating
non halogenated waste solvents. If these assumptions are invalid, it
*This information source was used in lieu of derivation of an estimate
from estimates of volume of halogenated and nonha1ogenated waste
solvent due to significant differences between the estimates
presented in the various studies provided (see draft Technical Note
for list of references) and the estimates of organic liquid waste
being used in this study (429 x 106 gallons and 11.1 x 106 gallons).
-------
is believed that the upper bouna cost estimates at worst will slightly
unaerrepresent the actual upper limit of control costs.
z
-------
Attachment 1
NOV 2 0 1985
:-IEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Information on the Composition of Wastes
Processed at TSDF's
FROM:
Graham Fitzsimons. PES
TO:
Project File
Attached is miscellaneous information on the composition of
wastes processed by hazardous waste treatment. storage. and
disposal facilities (TSDF's). This information was provided to
PES by the Chemical and Petroleum Branch of EPA/ESED for use in
estimating nationwide emissions from waste solvent treatment
facilities (WSTF's).
Attachments
-
-------
Attachment 1
DRAFT
A""""
,-~ '9 '-:::
Number of Facilities Managing Solven~ Wastes
Based on the RIA National Survey of TSD's
'it!(
Response to Ques~ion:
\ total [
634 495 139
20 13 7
12 8 4
5 2 3
o 0 0
2 2 0
1 1 0
68 44 24
13 10 3
10 8 2
28 16 12
8 6 2
547 426 121
55 42 13
426 337 89
11 9 2
o 0 0
55 43 12
to~al awm~itv mana~ed 1886
total Quan~itv disposed 79
bv landf111in-~ 45
bv deep well in1ection 17
bv land trea~men~ 6
in a surface iMPoundment 8
bv -o~her- means 3
total Quantitv treated 380
in ~anks 69 ~
in surface iMPoundmen~s 38 1
bv 1nc:1nera~ion 203 of
bv "o~her- means 62 ,
;
total auan~itv s~ored 1556
in ~anks 231
in containers 1157
in surface impoundmen~s 27
in was~e -,iles 7
bv -o~her" means 185
./
\.I
'1
...
.,.
DOOl
L252 208 224 283 537
59 5 7 17 30
33 4 4 8 17
12 0 2 6 4
6 0 0 1 5
6 0 1 2 3
2 1 0 0 1
312 39 47 91 L35
56 8 8 10 30
28 5 4 11 8
175 21 2S 63 66
54 5 10 7 32
1009 169 179 235 426
176 22 28 37 89
.731 117 127 175 312
16 4 4 2 6
7 0 1 0 6
130 29 27 24 50
nota - see attached lists of -0- and -p- halogensted and nonhalogenated solventsi
sbtl. refers to subtotals for halogenated and for nonhalogenated solventsi
F001,2 refers to total of FOOL & F002i F004,5 refers to total of F004 & 1005;
DOOl has been assumed to be ignitable due to the presence of nonhalogenated
solvents and is assumed to not contain halogenated solvents
------- |