45O377016
CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED
EMISSION RATES AND
APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS
FOR EIGHTY PROCESSES
Project Officer: Robert Schell
EPA Contract 68-02-1382 Task Order #12
Prepared for
The Control Programs Development Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711
By Peter N. Formica
Program Manager
TRC Project No. 32567
September 1976
125 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield
Connecticut 06109
tel: (203) 563-1431
-------
Thin rp.porf: was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
TRC • - The Research Ccrp-ration of Mr;: Er.3lr.nd, !-J::th?rcf i?1.0 , Cc:i':/"j-
ticut, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task 12. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from the
contractor. The opinions, findings> and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of company or product nnir.es is not to
be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0
2.0
3.0
I
II
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
External Combustion
Wood Waste Boilers
Boilers .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr
Boilers 10-250 x 106 BTU/hr
Boilers >250 x 106 BTU/hr
Solid Waste Disposal
1
3
6
T «
1-1
1-4
1-8
1-13
II -
1-17
• 1-14
IV
V
Open Burning (Agricultural)
Industrial/Commercial Incinerators
Municipal Incinerators
Evaporation Losses
Degreesing
Dry Cleaning
Petroleum Refueling of Motor Vehicles
Graphic Arts (Gravure)
Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
Graphic Arts (Metal Coating)
Graphic Arts (Lithography)
Graphic. Aits (F.i.p.xnrrrDphy)
Industrial Surface Coating
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Breathing)
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Working)
Petroleum Transfer Gasoline
Petroleum Service Stations
jChemica].___Prpcess Industry
Acrylonitrile
Ammonia (Methanator Plant)
Ammonia (Regenerator and CO Absorber Plants)
Carbon Black
Charcoal
Ethylene Bichloride
Ethylene Oxide
Formaldehyde
Paint
Phthalic Anhydride
Polyethylene (High Density)
Polyethylene (Low Density)
Polystyrene
Printing Ink
Synthetic Fibers (Nylon)
Varnish
Synthetic Resins (Phenolic)
II-l
II-3
11-9
IV - 1-94
IV-1
IV-6
IV-11
IV-16
IV-25
IV-35
IV-43
IV-53
IV-6 3
IV-76
IV-81
1V-86
IV-90
V - 1-68
V-l
V-5
V-9
V-13
V-19
V-23
V-27
V-30
V-34
V-39
V-43
V-47
V-51
V-55
V-59
V-62
V-66
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION
VI
Food and Agricultural Industry
PAGE
VI - 1-54
VII
Beer Processing
Cotton Ginning
Deep Fat Frying
Direct Firing of Meats
Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate
Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate
Grain - Drying
Drain - Processing
Grain - Screening and Cleaning
Vegetable Oil Manufacturing
Metallurgical Industry :
VI-1
VI-5
VI-11
VI-16
VI-19
VI-23
VI-27
VI-32
VI-37
VI-42
VI-46
VII - 1-64
VIII
Cast Iron Foundries (Electric Furnace)
Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
Cast Iron Foundries (Core Ovens)
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnace)
Iron and Steel Plants (Scarfing)
Iron and Steel Plants (Sintering)
Iron and Steel Plants (Open-Hearth Furnace)
Primary Copper
Steel Foundries (Secondary)
Ferroalloy
Primary Aluminum
Mineral Products Industry
VII-1
VII-7
VII-14
VII-20
VII-27
VII-31 '
VII-37
VII-42
VII-49
VT.I-54
VII-60
VIII - 1-58
IX
Asphalt Batching
Asphalt Roofing (Blowing)
Brick and Related Clay Products
Cement Plants
Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
Concrete Batching
Glass Wool Production (Soda Lime)
Gypsum
Mineral Wool
Phosphate Rock (Drying)
Phosphate Rock (Grinding)
Sand and Gravel Processing
Stone Quarrying
Petroleum Industry
VIII-1
VIII-6
VIII-10
VIII-14
VIII-20
VIII-26
VIII-30
VIII-34
VIII-38
VIII-42
VIII-46
VIII-50
VIII-54
IX - 1-4
Petroleum Refining, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (F.CCU)
Wood Processing
IX-1
X - 1-6
XI
Wood Processing (Plywood)
Manufacturing
X-l
XI - 1-3
Automobile Assembly Plant
XI-1
'iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
External Combustion
'Table 1-1
Table 1-2
Table 1-3
Table I-3A
Table 1-4
Table I-4A
Table 1-5
Table I-5A
Table 1-6
Table I-6A
Table 1-7
Table I-7A
Table 1-8
Table I-8A
II
Table II-l
Table II-5
Table II-6
Table II-7
Table II-8
IV
Wood Waste 13 oilers
Wood Waste Boiler Particulate Emissions
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Wood
Waste Boilers
Boilers .3-10 x 1Q6 BTU/br
Classif ication and Capacity of Cast Iron and Firetube
Boilers
Particulate Emissions from .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr Boilers
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from .3-10
BTU/Boilers
Compilation of Control Requirements for Boilers
.3-10 x IQ6 BTU/hr
Boilers 10-^50 x ip6 BTU/hr
Classification and Capacity of Water Tube Boilers
Particulate Emissions from 10-250 x 1Q6 BTU/hr Boilers
Particulata Emissions and Limitations from Boilers
10-250 x 106 BTU/hr
Compilation of Control Requirements for Boilers
10-250 x 10
Boiler* >250
Classification and Capacity of Water Tube Boilers
Particulate Emissions from >250 x 1Q6 BTU/hr Boilers
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Boilers
>250 x ip6 BTU/hr
Compilation of Control Requirements for Boilers
>250 x io6 BTU/hr
Solid Waste Disposal
6 BTU/hr
106_B_Tli/hr_
Open Burning (Agricultural)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Agricultural Burning
Industrial/Commercial Incinerators
Particulate Emissions from Industrial/Commercial
Incinerators
States Having Regulations for New and Existing
Sources on a Concentration Basis
Municipal Incinerator^
Particulate Emissions from Municipal Incinerators
States Having Regulations for New and Existing
Sources on a Concentration Basis
Evaporation Losses
Table IV-1
Table IV-2
Degreasing
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Degreasing Operations
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Degreasing
1-1
1-2
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
II-l
II-5
II-7
11-11
11-13
IV-3
IV-A
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table IV-3
Table IV-3A
Table IV-5
Table IV-7
Table IV-7A
Table IV-8
Table VI-9
Table IV-9A
Table IV-10
Table IV-11
Table IV-12
Table IV-13
Table IV-13A
Table IV-14
Table IV-15
Table IV-15A
Table IV-16
Table IV-17
Table IV-17A
Table IV-17B
Table IV-18
Table IV-19
Table IV-20
PAGE
Dry Cleaning
Property of Dry Cleaning Solvents IV-7
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Dry Cleaning Using
Synthetic Solvents IV-8
Petroleum Refueling of Motor Vehicles
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Refueling Vehicle Tanks IV-11
Graphic Arts (Gravure)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type (1968) IV-18
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gravure Printing .. IV-19
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Rotogravure
Printing IV-23
Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type (1968) IV-27
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Letterpress Publication
Printing IV-29
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Letterpress
Printing IV-33
Graphic Arts (Metal Coating)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Metal Decorating IV-37
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Metal
Decorating IV-41
Graphic Arts (Lithography)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type IV-45
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Web-Offset Printing IV-46
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Web-
Offset Printing IV-51
Graphic Arts (Flexography)
Volume Breakdown of Solvent Consumed for Ink Dilution
by Printing Process and Solvent Type (1968) IV-55
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Flexographic Publication
Printing IV-57
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Flexographic
Printing . IV-61
Industrial Surface Coating
Solvent Species in Emitted Hydrocarbons IV-64
Examples of Surface Coating and Added Thinner
Formulas on as As-Purchased Basis Having Conforming
Solvent Systems IV-65
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Industrial Surface Coating IV-68
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations for Industrial
Surface Coating IV-74
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Breathing)
Hydrocarbon Breathing Emissions from Gasoline
Storage Tanks IV-78
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations for Breathing
Losses from Storage Tanks IV-79
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table IV-21
Table IV-22
Table IV-23
Table IV-24
Table IV-25
V
Table V-l
Table V-2
Table V-3
Table V-4
Table V-5
Table V-6
Table V-7
Table V-8
Table V-9
Table V-10
Table V-ll
Table V-13
Table V-15
Table V-16
Table V-17
Table V-18
Table V-19
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Working)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Gasoline Working Losses
Hydrocarbon Limitations for Working Losses
from Gasoline
Petroleum Transfer Gasoline
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Transfer of Gasoline
Hydrocarbon Limitations from Petroleum Transfer
Petroleum Service Stations
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Service Stations
Chemical Process Industry
Acrylonitrlle
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Acrylonitrile Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from
Acrylonitrile Manufacture
Ammonia (Methanator Plant)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Ammonia Manufacture Using
a Methanator Plant
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Ammonia
Manufacture Using a Methanator i'lant
Ammonia (Regenator and CO Absorber Plant)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Ammonia Manufacture
with Regenator and CO Plant
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Ammonia
Manuf ac'ciuo with P^egenator and CO rlarii:
Carbon Black
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Carbon Black Manufacturing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Carbon
Black Manufacturing
Charcoal
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Charcoal
Manufacturing
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations
from Charcoal Manufacturing
Ethylene Bichloride
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Ethylene Bichloride
Manufacture
Ethyle.ne Oxide
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Ethylene Oxide Manufacture
by Air Oxidation
Formaldehyde
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Formaldehyde Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from
Formaldehyde Manufacture
Paint
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Paint Manufacturing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations' from Paint
Manufacturing
Phthalic Anhydride
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Phthalic Anhydride
Manufacture
PAGE
IV-83
IV-85
IV-86
IV-88
IV-91
V-2
V-4
V-6
V-8
V-10
V-1J.
V-15
V-17
V-19
V-2 2
V-2 5
V-28
V-31
V-32
V-35
V-3 7
V-40
vit
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table V-21
Table V-22
Tavle V-23
Table V-25
Table V-26
Table V-26A
Table V-27
Table V-28
Table V-29
Table V-30
Table V-31
Table V-32
Table V-33
Table V-34
VI
Table VI-1
Table VI-2
Table VI-3
Table Vl-4
Table VI-5
Table VI-7
Table VI-7A
Table VI-9
Table VI-10
Table VI-11
Polyethylene (High Density)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Manufacture of High
Density Polyethylene
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Manufacture
of High Density Polyethylene
Polyethylene (Low Density)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Manufacture of Low
Density Polyethylene
Polystyrene
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Polystyrene Manufacture .
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Polystyrene
Manufacture
Control Required for Polystyrene Manufacture
Printing Ink
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Printing Ink Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Printing
Ink Manufacture
Synthetic Fibers .(Nylon)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Nylon Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Nylon
Manufacture
Varnish
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Varnish Manufacturing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Varnish
Manufactur ing
Synthetic Resins (Phenolic)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Phenolic Resin Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Phenolic
Resin
Food and Agricultural Industry
Beer Processing
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Beer Processing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Beer
Processing
Cotton Ginning
Particulate Emissions - Machine Picked Cotton
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Cotton
Ginning
Deep Fat Frying
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Deep Fat Frying
Direct Firing of Meats
Particulate Emissions from Direct Firing of Meats
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Direct Firing of Meats
Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
Particulate Emissions from Feed Milling
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Feed
Milling
Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate
Particulate Emissions from Ammonium Sulfate Fertilizer
Manufacture
PAGE
V-44
V-45
V-48
V-52
V-53
V-54
V-56
V-57
V-59
V-61
V-63
V-65
V-66
V-68
VI-2
VI-3
VI-7
VI-10
VI-13
VI-16
VI-17
VI-20
VI-22
VI-2 3
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
PAGE
Table VI-12
Table VI-15
Table VI-16
Table VI-16A
Table VI-17
Table VI-18
Table VI-19
Table VI-20
Table VI-21
Table VI-22
Table VI-25A
Table VI-25B
Table VX-26
Table VI-2GB
VII
Table VI1-1
Table VII-2
Table VII-3
Table VII-4
Table VII-5
Table VII-6
Table VII-7
Table VII-8
Table VII-9
Particulate Emissions and Limitations for Ammonium
Sulfate Production
Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate
Particulate Emissions from Ammonium Nitrate Fertilizer
Manufacture
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Ammonium
Nitrate Fertilizer Manufacture
Control and Compliance for Ammonium Nitrate Production
Grain. - Drying
Particulate Emissions from Grain Drying
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Grain
Drying
Grain - Processing
Particulate Emissions
Particulate Emissions
Processing
Grain - Screening and_ Cleaning
Particulate Emissions from Grain Screening and Cleaning
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Grain
Screening and Cleaning
Vegetable Oil Manufacture
Particulate Emissions from Soybean Oil Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Soybean Oil Manufacture
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Vegetable,
Oil Manufacture
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Vegetable
Oil Manufacture
Metallurgical Industry
from Grain Processing
and Limitations from Grain
VI-26
VI-28
VI-30
VI-30
VI-34
VI-36
VI-38
VI-40
VI-42
VI-44
VI-49
VI-50
VI-52
VI-53
Cast Iron Foundries (Electric Furnaces)
Particulate Emissions from Cast Iron Foundries
(Electric Furnaces) VII-2
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Cast
Iron Foundries (Electric Furnaces) VII-5
Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
Particulate Emissions from Cast Iron Foundries (Cupolas) VII-9
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Cast Iron
Foundries (Cupolas) VII-12
Cast Iron Foundries (Core Ovens)
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Core Ovens
in Cast Iron Foundries VII-15
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations
from Core Ovens VII-18
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Particulate Emissions from Iron and Steel Plants VII—22
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Electric
Arc Furnaces ' VII-25
Iron and Steel Plants (Scarfing)
Particulate Emissions from Iron and Steel Scarfing VII-27
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table VII-10
Table VII-11
Table VII-12
'Table VII-13
Table VII-14
Table VII-15
Table VII-17
Table VII-18
Table VII-19
Table VII-20
Table VII-21
Table VII-22
PAGE
Partlculate Emissions and Limitations from Iron
and Steel Scarfing VI-29
Iron and Steel Plants (Sintering)
Sintering Particulate Emissions VII-33
Particulate Emissions and Limitations for Sintering VII-35
Iron and Steel Plants j(Open-Hearth Furnaces)
Particulate Emissions from Open-Hearth Furnaces VII-38
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Open-Hearth
Furnaces VII-40
Primary Aluminum
Particulate Emissions from Primary Aluminum Manufacture VII-62
Primary Copper
Particulate Emissions from Primary Copper Production VII-45
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Primary
Copper Production VII-47
Steel Foundries (Secondary)
Particulate Emissions from Steel Foundries VII-50
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Steel
Foundries VII-52
Ferroalloy
Particulate Emissions from Ferroalloy Production VII—56
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Ferroalloy
Production VII-58
vi. TT
Mineral Products Industry
Table VIII-1
Table VIII-2
Table VIII-3
Table VIII-4
Table VIII-5
Table VIII-6
Table VIII-7
Table VIII-8
Table VIII-9
Table VIII-10
Table VIII-11
Table VIII-12
Asphalt Batching
Particulate Emissions from Asphalt Batching VIII-2
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Asphalt
Batching VIII-4
Asphalt Roofing (Blowing)
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Asphalt Roofing Manufacture VIII-6
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Asphalt
Roofing Manufacture VIII-8
Brick and Related Clay Products
Particulate Emissions from Brick Manufacture VIII-11
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Brick
Manufacture VIII-13
Cement Plants
Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacture VIII-16
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from
Cement Manufacture VIII-18
Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
Particulate Emissions from Coal Cleaning
(Thermal Drying) VIII-22
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Coal
Cleaning (Thermal Drying) VIII-24
Concrete Batching
Particulate Emissions from Concrete Batching VIII-26
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Concrete
Batching VIII-28
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
II
Solid Waste Disposal
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
IV
II-l
II-2
II-3
II-4
Figure IV-1
Figure
Figure
IV-2
IV-3
Figure IV-4
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
IV-5
IV-6
IV-7
IV-8
IV-9
IV-10
IV-11
Figure IV-12
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
IV-13
IV-14
IV-15
IV-16
IV-17
IV-18
IV-19
IV-20
IV-21
IV-2 2
IV-23
IV-24
Municipal Incinerator
Retort Multiple Chamber Incinerator
In-Line Multiple Chamber Incinerator
Industrial/Commercial Incinerators
Retort Multiple Chamber Incinerators
In-Line Multiple Chamber Incinerator
Evaporation Losses
Figure IV-25
Petroleum Transfer Gasoline
Underground Storage Tank Vapor-Recovery System
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Breathing)
Fixed Roof Storage Tank
Double-Deck Floating Roof Storage Tank
(Nor.metallic Seal)
Variable Va^ior Storage Tank (Wet-Seal Lifter Type)
Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Working)
Variable Vapor Storage Tank (Wet-Seal Lifter Type)
Fixed Roof Storage Tank
Double-Deck Floating Roof Storage Tank
(Nonmetallic Seal)
Petroleum Refueling of Motor Vehicles
Schematic of Vehicle Vapor ContainnninU
Vapor Control Nozzle
Station Modification for Tight Fill Nozzle
Retrofit Adapter for Past Models
Petroleum Service Stations
Present Uncontrolled Service Station of Underground
Tank
Simple Displacement System
On-Site Regeneration System
Refrigeration System
Compression Liquification System
Graphic Arts (Gravure)
Rotogravure Printing Operation
Emission Rates from a Typical Rotogravure Printing
Operation
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
Web Letterpress, Publication
Web Letterpress, Newspaper
Emission Rates.'from Web Offset and Web Letterpress
Employing Heatset Inks
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
PAGE
11-10
11-10
II-4
II-4
IV-8 7
IV-7 6
IV-77
IV-7 7
IV-8 2
IV-61
IV-8 2
IV-12
IV-13
IV-13
IV-14
IV-90
IV-91
IV-9 2
IV-9 2
IV-93
IV-16
IV-17
IV-21
IV-21
IV-2 2
IV-2 6
IV-26
IV-2 8
IV-30
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table VIII-13
Table VI11-14
Table VIII-15
Table VI11-16
Table VIII-17
Table VIII-18
Table VIII-19
Table VIII-20
Table VIII-21
Table V1II-22
Table VIII-23
Table VIII-24
Table VIII-25
Table VIII-26
IX
Table IX-1
Table IX-2
X
Table X-l
Table X-2
XI
Glass Wool Production (Soda-Lime)
Particulate Emissions from Soda-Lime Glass Manufacture
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Soda-
Lime Glass Manufacture
Gypsum
Particulate Emissions from Gypsum Processing
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Gypsum
Processing
Mineral Wool
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Mineral Wool Processing
Hydrocarbon Emissions and Limitations from Mineral
Wool Processing
Phosphate Rock (Prying)
Particulate Emissions from Phosphate Rock. Drying
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Phosphate
Rock Drying
Phosphate Bock (Grin<3ing)
Particulate Emissions from Phosphate Rock Grinding
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Phosphate
Rock Grinding
Sand and Gravel Processing
Particulate Emissions from Sand and Gravel Processing
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Sand
and Gravel Processing
Stone Ounrr-.ri.rig;
Particulate Emissions from Stone Quarrying and
Processing
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Stone
Quarrying and Processing
Petroleum Indus_try_
PAGE
VIII-31
VIII-33
VIII-35
VIII-37
VIII-39
VIII-40
VIII-42
VIII-44
VIII-46
VIII-48
VIII-51
VIII-53
VIII-55
VIII-57
Petroleum Refining, Fluid Catalytic .C£acl-^Lntq_Unit (FCCU)
Particulate Emissions from Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Units IX-2
Particulate Emissions and Limitations from Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Units IX-3
Wood Processing
Wood Processing (Plywood)
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions from Plywood
Manufacture
Particulate and Hydrocarbon Emissions and
Limitations from Plywood Manufacture
Manuf a ctur ing_
Table XI-1
Automobile Assembly Plant
Potential Reduction in Air Volume for Treatment
X-2
X-5
XI-1
xi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure IV-26
Figure IV-27
Figure IV-28
Figure IV-29
Figure IV-30
Figure IV-31
Figure IV-32
Figure IV-33
.Figure IV-34
Figure IV-35
Figure IV-36
Figure IV-37
Figure IV-38
Figure IV-39
Figure IV-40
Figure IV-41
Figure IV-42
Figure IV-43
Figure IV-44
Figure IV-45
Figure IV-46
Figure IV-47
Figure IV-48
Figure IV-49
Figure T.V-50
V
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
Graphic Arts (Metal Coating)
Metal Sheet Coating Operation
Metal Sheet Printing and Varnish Overcoating
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
Graphic Arts (Lithography)
Web-Offset, Publication
Emission Rates from Web Offset and Web Letterpress
Employing Heatset Inks
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
Graphic Arts (Flexography)
Flexographic, Publication Process
Flexographic, Newspaper Process
Emission Kates from Web O.f.fsp.f. nnd Wp.h T.p.ti-prpress
Employing Hsatcst Inks
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Adsorption Process
Industrial Surface Coating
Summary of Emission Rates from Industrial Surface
Coating Operations
Flow Diagram of a Surface Coating Operation
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
Degreasing
Vapor Spray Degreaser
Continuous Vapor Spray Degreaser
Chemical Process Industry
Figure V-l
Figure V-2
Acrylonitrile
Sohio Process for Acrylonitrile Manufacture
Ammonia Manufacture Process (Methanator Plant)
Ammonia Manufacture Process (Methanator Plant)
PAGE
IV-31
IV-32
IV-35
IV-36
IV-38
IV-39
IV-39
IV-43
IV-44
IV-48
IV-49
IV-49
IV-54
IV-54
IV- 5 S
IV-58
IV-59
IV-60
IV-63
IV-65
IV-71
IV-71
IV-69
IV-1
IV-2
V-l
V-5
xiii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure V-3
Figure V-4
Figure V-5
'Figure V-6
Figure V-7
Figure V-8
Figure V-9
Figure V-10
Figure V-ll
Figure V-12
Figure V-13
Figure V-13A
Figure V-14
Figure V-15
Figure V-16
Figure V-17
VI
Figure VI-1
Figure VI-2
Figure VI-3
Figure VI-4
Figure VI-5
Figure VI-6
Figure VI-7
Figure VI-8
Ammonia Manufacture (Regenerator and CO Absorber Plant)
Diagram of Ammonia Manufacuting Process (CO Absorber .
and Regenerator Plant)
Carbon Black
Flow Diagram of Channel Process
Flow Diagram of Oil-Furnace Process
Flow Diagram of Gas-Furnace Process
Flow Diagram of Thermal Process
Ethylene Dichloride
Direct Chlorination Flow Sheet
Ethylene Dichloride Flow Diagram
Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene Oxide Manufacture
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde Process
Paint
Paint Manufacture Using Sand Mill for Grinding
Operation
Phthalic Anhydride
Ehthalic Anhydride Reactions
Phthalic Anhydride Manufacturing Process
Polyethylene (High Density)
High Density Polyethylene Manufacture
Polyethylene (Low Density)
Low Density Polyethylene Manufacture.
Polystyrene
Polystyrene Manufacture
Varnish
Typical Varnish Cooking Room
Food and Agricultural Industry
Beer Processing
Beer Processing
Fertilizer - Ammonium Nitrate
Process for the Manufacture of Ammonium Nitrate
by Neutralization of Nitric Acid
Grain - Drying
Typical Column Dryer Used in Drying Grain
Typical Rack Dryer Used in Drying Grain
Grain Processing
Flour Milling
Fertilizer - Ammonium Sulfate
Device for Agglomeration of Ammonium Sulfate Particles
in a Gas Stream, Patent No. 3,410,054 by W. Deiters
Cotton Ginning
Cotton Ginning
Deep Fat Frying
Typical Hydrocarbon Afterburner Emission Control System
for Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions
PAGE
V-9
V-13
V-14
V-14
V-15
V-23
V-24
V-27
V-30
V-34
V-39
V-39
V-43
V-4 7
V-51
V-63
VI-1
VI-27
VI-33
VI-33
VI-38
VI-24
VI-6
VI-6
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure VI-9
Figure VI-10
Figure VI-11
Figure VI-12
Figure VI-13
VII
Typical Catalytic Oxidizer Hydrocarbon Emission
Control System for Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions
Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
Typical Feed Milling Operation
Vegetable. Oil Manufacturing
Continuous Feed Screw Press for Oil Extraction
Continuous Flow Solvent Extraction Process for
Vegetable Oil Manufacture
Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Process
Metallurgical Industry
Figure VII-1
Figure VII-2
Figure VII-3
Figure V1I-4
Figure VII-5
Figure VII-6
Figure VII-7
Figure VII-8
Figure VII-9
Figure VII-10
Figure VII-11
Figure VII-12
Figure VII-13
Figure VII-14
Figure VII-15
Figure VII-20
VIII
Figure VIII-1
Figure VIII-2
Figure VIII-3
Cast Iron Foundries (Electric Furnaces)
Process Flow Diagram, Melting Department
Illustration of Electric Arc Furnace
Illustration of Channel Induction Furnace
Ferroalloy
Ferroalloy Process
Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
Illustration of Conventional Lined Cupola
Cast Iron Foundries (Core Ovens)
Process Flow Diagram - Core Making
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Flow Diagram of .an Iron and Steel Plant
Electric Arc Steel Furnace
btcel 1'ouncirjLCG (.beconctmy.
Steel Foundry Process Diagram
Cross Sectional View of an Open-Hearth Furnace
Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
Process Flow Diagram, Melting Department
Iron and Steel Plants (Sintern'.ng)
Sintering Process Flow Diagram
Sinter Cooler
Primary Copjaer
Copper Smelting
Reverberatory Furnace
Primary Aluminum
Bayer and Combined Process
Mineral Products Industry
Asphalt Ratchiiig
Flow Diagram for Hot-Mix Asphalt Batch Plant
Brick and Related Clay Products
Basic Flow Diagram of Brick Manufacturing Process
Cement Plants
Basic Flow Diagram of Portland Cement Manufacturi
Figure VIII-4
Figure VIII-5
Process
Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
Coal Cleaning Process Flow Diagram
Schematic Sketch, of Screen-Type, Thermal Coal
Drying Unit
PAGE
VI-14
VI-19
VI-47
VI-48
VI-49
VII-1
VII-3
VII-3
VII-54
VII-8
VII-14
VII-20
VII-21
VII-49
VII-37
VII-7
VII-31
VII-32
VII-43
VII-44
VII-60
VIII-1
VIII-10
VIII-15
-VIII-20
VIII-21
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure VIII-6
Figure VIII-7 '
figure VIII-8
Figure VIII-9
Figure VIII-10
Figure VIII-11
Figure VIII-12
Figure VIII-13
Figure VIII-14
IX
Figure IX-1
X
Figure X-l
XI
Schematic Drawing Showing Component Farts of
Flash Drying Unit
Pressure Type Fluidized-Bed Thermal Coal Dryer
Showing Component Parts and Flow of Coal and
Drying Gases
Glass Wool Production
Soda-Lime Glass Manufacture
Gypsum
Gypsum Products Flow Diagram
Mineral Wool
Flow Diagram of Mineral Wool Process
Phosphate Rock (Drying)
Phosphate Rock Processing
Phosphate Rock (Grinding)
Phosphate Rock Processing
Sand and Gravel Processing
Sand and Gravel Processing Flow Diagram
Stone Quarrying
Flow Diagram for Rock Processing
Petroleum Industry
Petroleum Refining, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
Wood Processing^
Wood Processing (Plywood)
Detailed Process Flow Diagram for Veneer and Plywood
Manufacturing
Automobile Assembly
PAGE
VIII-21
VIII-22
VIII-30
VIII-34
VIII-38
VIII-42
VIII-46
VIII-50
VIII-54
IX-1
X-l
Figure XI-1
Fresh Air Staging
XI-2
xvi
-------
1.0 Summary
This report presents the results of a study whose objective is to provide
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a document suitable for state
agencies to make a first cut assessment of the emission limitation potential
for sources within their jurisdictions. The disbursement of the document is
consistent with the July, 1977 deadline, at which time states must submit
attainment plans for those areas where the current Implementation Plan is
substantially inadequate. The document contains quantitative, information for
eighty source categories which were selected by EPA as those common to many
areas of the U.S. and would potentially benefit most from application of
control devices. . . .••
The analysis of the 80 source categories is restricted to either particulate
matter or hydrocarbon emissions or for a few source categories both pollutants
are considered. These source categories are classified into eleven main areas:
I External Combustion VII Metalurgical Industry
II Solid Waste Disposal VIII Mineral Product Industry
III Internal Combustion IX Petroleum Industry
IV Evaporation Losses X Wood Processing Industry
V Chemical Process Industry XI Manufacturing Industry
VI Food and Agricultural Industry
The eleven main categories are subdivided by particulate and hydrocarbon
emissions according to Table 1.
TABLE i
SOURCE CATEGORY CI.ASS1FICATION
Partlculato Hatter Hydrocarbons
VIII Mineral Product.
Industry (Centlnucd)
Phonpliate Rocks (Grinding)
Sand ftnd Cravcl Procur.aing
Stone Qunrrylnc
IX Petrol?
fluid Catalytic Cracklr.g fnlta
I External Cor.buotlon
Botleri C-oed Veatc
t 1 / ' fU'lO *lfl' F7l'/h''
Bel lent (>250 x 10° BTU/hi)
II Solid '..Miitf DL5roi.nl
C?cn Burnlr.f, (•V.rUulti.Tal)
Suzir Cinr (Held Burning)
Incinerator
III Intern..: Cral>u:;t Icn
Inurrjl Coz-'ju&i len r.n£(n«9
pKi.il fc Una: Vuel)
IV Evtpor.it Ion Lokic*
Hydrocarbon.
Pctroleun Refinery
("rocevs Cat Coab)
(Diesel A Uu*l Fuel)
De,t.aBlns
Dry Clp..nl j
Cr.iphfc Ar b (Klcxograpliy) \
CrapMc Ar s (Cr.ivure)
Crov^lc Ar ft (I,J tho^r^phy)
CrapMc Ar s (.Letter Press)
Cra;>:iJc Ar t (Motul nccoratlnjt
Fitroluun Refuellne *
Petrj.'tfu-. SUTJJ'.P
Cjsoiino (P.rc.iililns)
Caiioltne (k'orktrij;)
V Chentctl Procea* Industry
Carbon BUck
CtlATCOtt
Acrylonltrllu
Ar.-vtnl,. (Mctti.inotor TUnt)
CO AlibOi^-r)
Ch.m-o.tl
ttlwic.rt.> MrMortile
rttty I T.* Oxide
rorc-ildt-'hyilc
Pa 1 lit
Polycttiyluno (lil Eh dcn«lty)
Polyethylene (lov density)
Printing Ink
Syntlivllc ril^eti Oiyloo)
V-mitnh
VI Pood nnd Agricultural
Industry
Seer Proccsfllr.g
Cotton Cltmlr.c
Dee.. Fat Frylnp
Feed Mllllnp/
(CxeluiJIni* Alfnlfa)
Pertlliicr - DinKfionlus
Crnln li.inJlinc - Nltr.ito
Cr.-ln llanJllnfi (Prylnp.)
Cr.iln ('...ndllrp. (rrrccsklnp.)
Cr.iin ll.-u-.dllnp,
(Sfnx-nlnr. A C.c.-mlnp.)
Cr.itti l(.inrth V'utnocM)
Prln;iry Aluminum
Stcvl roiinJr!i-i (Secondary)
VIII Hlm-ml I'roductH
Auplmlt iv.itclilnf;
Brick I Rcl.nrd Cljy Produett
CCBI.-III n.inttf
Co.il i"!f.n.h>R CThcro*!
Dry in,;)
fivicrrir ILiirMnf
Cl.i.-M U'ool Production
(Sd.tj l.lnc) .
Klucrnl Wt>ol
Phonptijiio RocU Orylnti)
Bc(-r Processing
Det-p Tot Frying
8
Vtf.ttublfl Oil Kanufiictutlng
C«t-t Iron Foun
-------
The eighty source categories are assessed according to (1) typical plant
size and associated emissions, (2) applicable control equipment efficiencies
and ("3) potential for compliance with New Source Performance Standards and the
most and least restrictive regulatory limitations. The document presents data
typical of current emissions and control techniques. The document does not
address whether the source categories studied are controlled to either Best
Available Control Technology CBACT) or Reasonably Available Control Technology
CRACT). For some of the source categories, more detail would have been of real
use to agency personnel. However, the intended objective limited the develop-
.ment to comparable levels of detail for each of the eighty categories.
-2-
-------
2. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to distribute to
State Agencies a document suitable for assisting agencies in making a first
cut assessment of the emission limitation potential for sources within their
Jurisdiction. ..EPA has required states with designated Air Quality Maintenance
Areas, through (40 CFR, Part 51) to submit plans that describe how acceptable
air quality will be attained and/or maintained. Much progress has been made
in defining problem areas, especially in and around urban centers, where air
quality levels exceed primary and secondary standards. Special efforts are
under way to increase Federal, State and Local enforcement, and to determine
the extent to which implementation plans can be remedied. EPA is critically
aware that specific and accurate information is necessary to define source
categories to which limited funds and personnel can be applied. EPA is also
aware that a significant gap is growing between level of resources required
to organize and implement state plans and the level of effort states have
available. The lack of suitably trained staff is hampering states from
making timely and accurate submittals to EPA of required data and plans.
EPA has previously assisted State Agencies in fulfilling their required
tasks, by supplying them with appropriate reference documents. EPA realizes
that a document which, assists in prioritizing sources would allow state
agencies to focus their efforts on areas that would be productive. State
agency staff are interested in determining which types of sources emit suffi-
ciently large quantities of pollutants, and could exceed even lenient regu-
lations. T!iis type of information will allow agency straff to assess the
adequacy ol tlie data on file to determine compliance oil ticm—compliance.
The analysis of the 80 categories considered either particulate matter
or hydrocarbon emissions. These source categories were classified into
eleven main areas:
I External Combustion VII Metallurgical Industry
I.I Solid Waste Disposal VIII Mineral Products Industry
I'll Internal Combustion IX Petroleum .Industry
TV Evaporation Losses X Wood Processing Industry
V Chemical Process Industry XI Manufacturing Industry
VI Food and Agricultural Industry
For each of the eighty categories, an outline format is used to present
pertinent information and data. The format is identical for each category to
assure uniformity and ease of use. The elements of the format and an explana-
tion of what is contained in each is presented below:
A. Source Category
B. Sub-Category
C. Source Description
D. Emission Rates
E. Control Equipment
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation
Limitation
G, References
-3-
-------
Section A_ consists of a one line designation, denoting one of the .eleven
categories by Roman numerical and industry group.
Section !J consists of a one line designation that distinguishes a par-
ticular industry within the major category.
Section C_ consists of a brief description of the process, type of product
manufactured and approximate locations in the process where emissions, in-
cluding fugitive emissions occur. No estimates are made for fugitive emis-
sions because of a lack, of quantitative data. Fugitive emissions are vari-
able on a day to day basis even from one plant. As such, they are not
amenable to accurate estimation. Also, traditional stack techniques for
control are not appropriate for reduction of fugitive emissions. The
description of each sub-category includes information on the type of raw
material used, description of process equipment and a flow diagram of the
process.
Section D^ consists of a brief discussion of the quantity of particulate
and/or hydrocarbon emissions arising from an average size plant. If data
are available estimates are made for discrete items of equipment in the
plant. Each sub-section contains at least one table that describes the
emissions on a Ibs/ton and Ibs/hr basis for a typical plant. This is done to
simplify future emission calculations for sources that have process weights
different than the ones used. The table for emission rates presents un-
controlled and controlled emissions. Where information for control is not
available, for a specific process, a range of control efficiencies is
hypothesized, so a realistic comparison to regulations could be made.
Section E_ consists of a brief discussion of control equipment typically
associated with the process described in Section D. The efficiencies found
in the emission table in Section D, are quoted from available literature.
The equipment and efficiencies listed in Section E do not imply these are
the only types of control possible, or that the control efficiencies listed
are the highest possible. Specification of control efficiencies that'depict
best available control require exact definition of stack parameters which
is Beyond the scope of this task.
Section F_ consists of a brief discussion of where controlled and uncon-
trolled emissions stand with respect to New Source Performance Standards
and Regulatory Limitations. Examples are given of least restrictive and
-most restrictive regulations for the size of the process listed in Section
D, The examples given may not necessarily be the most or least restrictive
• in every case, since some states require specification of stack parameters
in order to define an allowable emission. The states used for examples in
the text and tables are therefore qualified as being representative of a
most and a least restrictive limitation. In every Section F, there is at
least one table that presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and
limitations. Surveying this table indicates what'level of control is
necessary to meet the quoted limitations. For a majority of the processes,
qualifying remarks and a table are included that specify whether existing
control technology is adequate to meet New Source Performance Standards
where applicable and regulatory limitations.
-4-
-------
Section £ consists of a listing of references that were used to develop
the information presented in the text. Literature references that were
not used but reviewed are also listed. This allows the reviewer a broader
-understanding of the material surveyed.
-5-
-------
3.0 Conclusions and Discussion
The format and inclusion of the seven sections as outlined in the Intro-
duction allows rapid analysis of numerous details. Because the eighty source
categories are distinct and separate from each other, one category can be
removed from the rest of the text without losing or destroying the meaning
of either the category removed or the categories remaining. While this ap-
proach has necessitated repetition of much of the details of the regulation
and reference sections, it is expected to provide maximum utilization of the
document. Updating and revising can be performed relatively easily because
the categories are removable as a unit. Additional categories can be added
without disrupting the page numbering or conclusions drawn from the other
categories.
The analysis of the eleven major industry categories, as listed in
Section 2.0, is based on the application of a six point overview presented
by the following questions.
1. Is the source category commonly found or is it relatively rare?
2. Does the source category have the potential for a wide range of
process weights?
3. Does one source category consistentl}' exceed regulatory limits
or does the uncontrolled source category operate within all
regulatory limits?
4. Are there New Source 1'erformance Standards which apply to the
subcalegorias?
5. Is existing control technology sufficiently adequate to allow
emissions to meet 'regulatory limitations?
6. Does the source category have the potential for fugitive emis-
sion piroblems?
The framework for the analysis of the eleven main industry classifications
is based on the responses to the above six questions.
1. Source, categories that are common in all fifty states have universal
interest in terms of the other five questions. Source categories that
are relatively rare could require special treatment tailored specifi-
cally to individual plants and/or regulatory bodies.
2. Source categories that have a wide range of process weights require
extra care when assessing compliance with regulatory limitations.
Many limitations are either unusually restrictive or lenient at the
extremes of the process weight curve.
-6-
-------
3. Source categories that consistently exceed regulatory limitations indicate
that adequate control has not been applied. Source categories that meet
regulatory limits with no control could indicate that a specific regula-
tion should be adopted or tightened to reduce emissions from uncontrolled
sources.
4. The existence of New Source Performance Standards indicates that these
source categories should be reviewed first by agency staff to assure
compliance.
5, If existing control technology is not adequate to meet regulatory limi-
'." '• tations, agency staff should investigate the accomplishments of similar
source categories to justify (.1) that control technology does not exist
or (2) whether the source category has been deliberately slow in apply-
ing control.
6, Sources that have a fugitive emission potential or problem present a
complicated emission picture to agency staff. Agency staff should
quickly distinguish points within a source that are covered by stack
limitations and which, aspects are fugitive. Recommendations for assess-
ment and cortrol of fugitive emissions is beyond the scope of this
task.
The following eleven sections discuss each of the major industry groups as
outlined in Section 1.0, according to the above six point overview:
I External Combustion.
The External Combustion Category covers process heaters and boilers of all
sizes. Boilers-of all sizes are common to all fifty states, and are either cast
iron, firetube or four sizes of watertube design. There are five types of coal
fired units. New Source Performance Standards have been promulgated for boilers
larger than 250 x 106 BTU/hr. Coal fired boilers require controls to meet even
lenient limitations. New Mexico is representative of states that require con-
trols for oil fired units. Process heaters were not evaluated because of lack
of appropriate literature,
II Solid Waste Disposal
The Solid Waste Disposal Category covers sugar cane field burning, agri-
cultural burning, municipal incinerators and industrial/commercial inciner-
ators. Sugar cane burning was not covered because of lack of data. Agricul-
tural burning data was developed for eighteen states. For these eighteen
states hydrocarbon emissions totaled 146,000 tons. Regulations have been
enacted to control agricultural burning. Municipal incinerators often have
capacities of 50 tons/day and require controls to comply with regulations.
Industrial/commercial incinerators normally have capacities of 50 Ibs/hr to
4,000 Ibs/hr and normally require controls to comply with existing regulations.
New Source Performance Standards have been promulgated for incinerators charg-
ing more than 10 tons/day.
-7-
-------
Ill Internal Combustion Engines
The internal Combustion Engine Category consisted of one sub-category,
diesel and dual fuel engines. Particulate emission data for this category
was quite sketchy so this category was not developed.
IV Evaporation Losses
The category of Evaporation Losses consists of the various phases of gaso-
line storage, handling and marketing, the graphic arts industry and various
phases of industrial surface coating operations. EPA has promulgated New
Source Performance Standards for storage vessels larger than 40,000 gallons.
Los Angeles Rule 66-type legislation has become relatively common, which
sharply limits the quantities of both reactive and non-reactive hydrocarbons
that can be released form all types of processes. Hydrocarbon regulations are
characterized because they are not based on process weight, thereby requiring
large sources to employ extensive control.
'V '" Chemical Process Industry
The Chemical Process Industry consists of basic manufacturing processes
that provide other industries with the organic and inorganic chemicals. The
industry is to be noted because of the wide range of process weight rates.
Varnish manufacture is typical of a small process (0.03 tons/hr) and ethylene
dichlorlde is typical of a large process (24 tons/hr). No New Source Per-
formance Standards have been promulgated for the categories as outlined in
S'ection 1.0 for tha Chcniicr.l Process Industvip.s. The categories as described
for the Chemical Process Industry require extensive controls to meet the Los
Angeles Rule 66 limitation of 3 Ibs/hr. For many of the larger processes,
control technology has not been fully demonstrated.
•VI Food and Agricultural Industry
The Food and Agricultural Industry consists of the various grain hand-
ling and processing operations, food and beverage preparation and fertilizer
production. The grain handling operations presented the potential for sub-
stantial particulate emissions. The economic value of the grain has warranted
investment in hoods, cyclones and fabric filters. However, a number of the
grain operations can comply with existing regulations even uncontrolled. Food
preparation included direct firing of meat, deep fat frying and vegetable oil
manufacturing. The hydrocarbon emissions from these sources, while not large
compared to those in category IV, do comprise local problems. These types of
sources are usually uncontrolled and often create a substantial odor problem.
In general, they are unregulated in the traditional Ibs/hour basis. The
fertilizer processes quoted have relatively large process weights (15 tons/hr)
and the technology for control is firmly established. Inadequate process data
for diammonium phosphate necessitated not completing this category.
—8—
-------
VII Metallurgical Industry
The Metallurgical Industry consists of the basic processes to produce
iron, steel, copper and aluminum metals. The industry is characterized by
large and varied process weights. Core ovens are representative of a small
process weight of 0.05 tons/hour and sintering represents a large process
of 250 tons/hr. All of the Metallurgical Industry Processes consume large
amounts of energy mostly by burning fuels. This, plus the nature of the
basic reduction processes, produces the potential for large quantites of
particulate emissions. New Source Performance Standards have been promul-
gated for copper smelters. Various states have passed specific and general
process regulations for the industries considered under this category.
Particulate emission limitations are based on concentration, control ef.fi- :
ciency, gas volume and process weight rate. All of the sources in this cate-
gory require some sort of control to comply with existing regulations. Ade-
quate control technology does exist to meet existing state regulations and
for copper smelters to meet New Source Performance Standards.
'VIIT - Mineral Products Industry
The/Mineral Products Industry consists of sources that either make or
-use asphalt and cement, coal drying, bricks, glass wool, gypsum, mineral
Wool, and phosphate rock grinding. Brick and Related Clay Products is
typical of a smaller process C3 tons/hour) and Stone Quarrying is typical
of a larger process O7 tons/hr). All of these source categories are rela-
tively heavy emitters of particulate matter and all require some control to
meet even lenient regulatory- limitations. New Source Performance Standards
have. Been'promulgated for Portland Cement Plants.
IX Petroleum Industry
The Petroleum Industry for this report is comprised of only one source
category, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU). FCCU are characterized by
their large energy requirements, high catalyst recirculation rate and poten-
tial for being a large emitter of CO and particulates. FCCU are designed to
process 20,000 to 150,000 barrels/day of fresh crude. FCCU are often equipped
with CO boilers and electrostatic precipitators to reduce emissions. Several
states have specific regulations for controlling FCCU and New Source Per-
formance Standards have been promulgated for FCCU.
X Wood Process ing Indus try
The Wood Processing Industry contains only one source category, Plywood
Manufacturing. Both hydrocarbon and particulate emissions were assessed.
Plywood manufacturing process weights typically average about 4.0 tons/hour.
The particulate emission regulations require baghouses. The hydrocarbon
emissions can effectively be controlled with an afterburner, and in a few
instances by a condenser, to meet the Los Angeles Rule 66-type legislation.
XI Manufacturing Industry
The Manufacturing Industry for this report includes only one sub-category;
automobile painting. The quantity of solvents emitted from a typical paint line
is large compared to the Rule 66 type regulations. The concentration of hydro-
carbons in the exhaust is fairly low thereby making the cost of scrubbing pro-
hibitive. Recently "staged" air make up has reduced significantly the
volume of air needed to be treated.
-9-
-------
A. Source Category; I External Combustion
B. Sub Category: Wood Waste Boilers
C, Source Description;
Wood waste boilers are very similar in design and construction to coal
fired spreader stokers and are commonly found at pulp paper mills. The waste
boilers along with the chemical recovery unit provide the paper pulp plant with
much of its energy requirements. The fuel for a wood waste boiler is tradi-
tionally wet bark and wood refuse originating from the debarking and cleanup
of logs prior to shredding. The moisture content of the refuse can be as high
as 70 to 80 percent. Whenever it exceeds an average of 55 percent, the bark is
either pressed to remove the excess water or mixed with drier material to pro-
duce a substance that will ignite consistently. Depending upon the power re-
quirements of the boiler and availability of auxiliary fuel, oil or coal can
usually be simultaneously fired. The typical spreader stoker used for bark
burning allows the bark to enter high enough in the fire box to allow evapor-
ation of excessive moisture and permit oxidation of most of the combustible
matter. This is accomplished and aided by rows of nozzles blowing preheated
air tangentially at various levels. All of the bark passes through this highly
; turbulent high temperature gas zone where a large portion, of the bark burns
(rapidly, and only the larger particles fall to the grate. C1)1'6 1 Typical
wood waste boilers are six million BTU/hr (1512) x 106 cal/hr) with larger
units as high as 450 million BTU/hr (113.400 x. 106 cal/hr). ThJs corresponds
to approximately 700 Jbs/hr (315 kg/hr) to 53,0.00 Ibs/hr (24,040 kg/hr) of
wood waste assuming a heat content of 8,500 BTU/lb (4,718 cal/g). (2) n~62
D. Emission Rates:
Particulate emissions result from the stack of the waste heat boiler burn-
ing wood and bark. Improper maintenance of the grates especially when using
coal as an auxiliary fuel is a primary reason for excessive emissions. In
addition excessive moisture in the bark will cause poor combustion with re-
sultant smoking. The emission rate per ton of wood burned is expressed as a
range since there are several variables that can cause emissions of particu-
lates to vary from boiler to boiler and even on the same boiler. Under normal
conditions, the particulate emissions range between 25-30 Ibs (11.25-13.5 kg)
of particulate per ton of wood burned. Table 1-1 shows the heat input in 106
BTU/hr, and 106 cal/hr and the amount of wood consumed. 211~62
TABLE 1-1
WOOD VMSTE BOILER PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
K>3erntion & Control
— r
Wood Waste Boiler,
UnconiroJled
Wood Waste Boiler
witli Cyclone
Wood Waste Boiler
Kith Scrubber
Wood Waste Boile.r
with lUectrostatic
• pvecipltiitor
Wood Waste lioilcr
with Fabric Filter
7.
Control
0
9/(
98
99
99.5
Ibs part k?, n.irt
Ton Wood
25-30*
25-30
25-30
25-30
25-30
M Ton Wood
12.5-15
12.5-15
12.5-15
12.5-15
12.5-15
Tons 'iir k}-/hr
Wood
.35-26.5
.35-26. i
. 35-26. 5
.35-2*. 5
.35-2?,. 5
Wood
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
317.5-24090
Heat Input
10b BTU/hr
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
10 9 cal/hr
1.5-113,400
,.
1.5-113,400
1.5-113,400
1.5-113,400
1.5-113,400
Emissions
lbs/10" BTU
1.6
0.096
0.032
0.016
0.008
C./IO13 cal
2.9
0.17
C.058
0.029
0.014
*For this calculation, uso 27.5.
1-1
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Cyclones are commonly found on wood waste heat boilers. They can achieve
efficiencies up to 94% under typical wood waste boiler outlet conditions, but
60% to 85% efficiencies are more common. Wet scrubbers can achieve 98% effi-
ciency under normal boiler outlet conditions. However, wet scrubbers require
higher capital investment and higher operating costs than other devices.
Electrostatic precipitators can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% de-
pending on number, size and voltage of the plates. Most modern high effi-
ciency electrostatic precipitators are designed to operate in the 97% to 99%
range. Baghouses often have efficiencies of 99.5 percent but are sensitive
to the high temperatures in boiler exhaust. ('t)1*-tt
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On December 23, 1971 EPA promul-
gated NSPS for fossil-fuel fired steam generators. These standards pertain to
steam generating units greater than 250 million BTU/hr heat input. As such,
some of the wood waste boilers of the larger sizes would be covered by 0.1
pounds/106 BTU heat input limitation.,
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Alaska and Florida are
two states which distinguish wood waste boilers from other types of fossil
fuel steam generators. Alaska states its emission limitation as a concentration,
0.15 grains/.standard cubic foot. As such this limitation is not directly
comparable to the lbs/106 BTU basis in Table 1-2. Florida's expresses the
limitation for wood waste boilers on a lbs/106 BTU basis as follows:
Boilers >30 x 106 BTU/hr - 0.3 lbs/106 BTU for wood + 0.1 lbs/106
BTU for other fuels
Table 1-2 presents uncontrolled and controlled particulate emissions and
limitations for wood waste boilers.
TABLE 1-2
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM WOOD WASTE BOILERS3
Type of Boiler and Control
Wood Waste Boiler Uncontrolled
Wood Waste Boiler with Cyclone
Wood Waste Boiler with Scrubber
Wood Haste Boiler with
Electrostatic Precipitator
Wood Waste Boiler with Fabric
Filter
Heat Input
106 BTU/hr
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
6-450
9 cal/hr
1.5-113,400
i. 5-113, 400
1.5-113,400
1.5-113,400
L. 5-113,400
%
Control
0
85
94
98
99.5
Emissions
lbs/100 BTU
1.6
.24
.096
.032
.008
^g/106 cal
2.9 •
.109
.044
.015
.004
Limitations lbs/10" BTU g/10" cal
NSPS* Florida
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
O.I/. 18
0.3/0.48
0.3/0.48
0.3/0.48
0.3/0.48
0.3/0.48
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; For wood waste boilers
to comply with NSPS, 94% control would be necessary. For a wood waste boiler to
comply with a 0.30 lbs/106 BTU limitation, such as Florida's, 81% control
would be necessary.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission regulations.
1-2
-------
G. References:
To develop the information in this section concerning wood waste boilers,
the following references were used:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, April 1974, USEPA.
(2.) Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., Washington, D.C., October 1971.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248,"July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
("4) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources - Industrial Size Boilers, Walden Research
Corporation, EPA Control No. CAP 70-165; Task Order No. 5, June 30, 1971.
1-3
-------
A. Source Category; I External Combustion
B. Sub Category; Boilers .3-10 x 106 BTU/Hr
C. Source Description;
Boilers in the .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr size range are generally one of two
types utilizing coal, oil, or natural gas. Industry associations have cate-
gorized cast iron and firetube boilers in two classes as outlined in Table 1-3,
TABLE 1-3
CLASSIFICATION A.ND CAPACITY OF CAST IRON AND FIRETUBE BOILERS
Type of Boiler
Cast Iron
Firetube
Size
Ibs steam/hr
650-8000
420-25000
kg steam/hr
294.8-3629
190.5-11340
Heat Input
106 BTU/hr
.3-10.0
.3-10.0
10G cal/hr
75.6-2520
75.6-2520
Cast iron boilers are. generally noted for their extremely long service.
life, often 50 years. They can be overloaded, without harm and can absorb
demand surges in. stride. However, they are somewhat expensive for a given
sj.2e and can be operated only in the low prcysux'e ran^e i or space heating
steam. Higher capacity units are constructed by bolting multiple castings
together to provide the desired capacity. The smaller six,es are made for
house-hold installations, with the upper range having been extended to ap-
proximately 8000 Ibs/hr (3600 kg/hr) steam.
Firetube boilers are generally noted for their fast response to moderate
load change and are relatively inexpensive compared to other boiler types
for a given capacity. However, they are inferior to cast iron boilers because
they are more easily damaged during overload conditions and have a longevity
of only about 20 years. Firetube and cast iron boilers are amenable to shop
assembly, thus simplifying installation. All that is required are hook-ups
for steam outlet, water inlet, flue, fuel, and electrical power. Firetube
boilers are rarely found in domestic sizes but together with cast iron, are
common in schools, institutions, apartment houses, offices, etc. They are
also in increasing use for small industrial applications of space heating and
process steam at moderate pressure.
D. Emission Rates
Particulate emissions result from the stacks of the boilers burning coal,
oil, or natural gas. Improper maintenance can cause excessive smoke and poor
economy of operation. Table I-3A shows the heat input in BTU/hr, the emissions
produced per million BTU and million calories, and the effect of control ef-
ficiency on coal fired units.2,3(1)lt-2, 3,t(3)9
Many of the coal fired units found in operation have some type of control
equipment installed to lower emission levels of particulates to within pre-
vailing regulations.
1-4
-------
TABLE I-3A
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr BOILERS
Type of Boiler and Control
Cast iron
Cast iron and dry cyclone
Cast iron and wet scrubber
Cast iron and electric precipitator
Cast iron and fabric filter
Cast iron
Cast iron
Cast iron
Firetube
Firetube and dry cyclone
Firetube and wet scrubber
Firetube and electric precipitator
Firetube and fabric filter
Firetube
Firetube
Firetube
Type of Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
pistillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
%
Control
0
85
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
0
85
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
Emissions
lbs/10& BTU input
1.54
0-231
0-031
0.015
0.008
0.108
0.103
0.017
1.54
0.231
0.031
0.015
0.008
0.108
0.103
0.017
g/10G cal input
2.77
0-105
0.056
0.027
0.014
0.195
0.186
0.031
2.77
0,105
0.056
0 . 027
0.014
0.195
0.186
0-031
E. Control Equipment:
Many- of the industrial and commercial applications of cast iron and
firetube boilers have control equipment to reduce particulate emissions.
The four most common methods are:
1. dry cyclone,
2. wet scrubber,
3. electrostatic precipitator, and
4. baghouse.
Dry cyclones can achieve up to 94% efficiency under typical boiler out-
let conditions, but 60% - 85% efficiencies are more common. Wet scrubbers
can achieve 98% efficiency under typical boiler outlet conditions and offer
the advantage of some sulfur dioxide removal. However, wet scrubbers
require higher capital investment and incur higher operating costs than other
control devices. Electrostatic precipitators are the most common control
device for boilers and can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% depending
on number, size and voltage of the plates. Most modern high efficiency elec-
trostatic precipitators are designed to operate in the 97% to 99% range.
Baghouses often have efficiencies of 99.5 percent but are sensitive to the
high temperatures found in boiler exhausts. (2) A"*1*
1-5
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated New Source Performance Standards for fossil fuel fired steam
generators. However, these standards only pertain to steam generating units
greater than 250 million BTU's per hour heat input. As such, boilers of
.3-10 x 106 BTU/hr heat input described in Section D are controlled by
individual state regulations for fossil fuel fired steam generators.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: All fifty states have
regulations pertaining to fuel combustion for steam generators. West
Virginia exempts sources less than 10 * 106 BTU/hour heat input. Other states
such as Alaska and Maryland express their limitations as a concentration and
as such are not directly comparable to the lbs/106 BTU/hr calculations expressed
in Table 1-4. Connecticut is representative of a restrictive limitation which
does not distinguish boilers by size. A flat limitation of 0.2 lbs/106 BTU for
existing sources and 0.10 lbs/106 BTU for new sources are the statuatory
limitations. Louisiana is representative of a least restrictive limitation
which docs not distinguish boilers by size, 0.6 lbs/106 BTU. Table 1-4
presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for boilers of
the 0.3-10 x 106 BTU/hr size range.
TABLF. 1-4
rAr.TiciiL.yri; IMISSIO::S ANI) LIMITATIONS rural .3-30 * ioh E™i;/iir BOII.EJH
Tvpo of Boiler and Control
Cast iron
Cast iron and dry cyclone
Cast iron-.md wet scrubber
Cast iron a:id electric precipitator
Cast iron and fabric filter
Cast iron
Cast iron
Cast iron
Firetube
Firetuba and dry cyclone
Firetube and wet scrubber
Firetube and electric precipitator
Fire-tuba and fabric filter
Firetube
Firetube
Firetube
Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Natural gas
%
Control
0
94
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
0
94
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
Emissions
Ibsr/lO5 BTU
1.54
0.231
0.031
0.015
0.008
0.108
0.103
•1.017
1.54
0.231
0.031
0.015
0.008
0 . 108
0.103
0.017
B/106 cal
2.77
0..105
0.056
0.027
0.014
0.195
0.186
0.031
2.77
0.105
0.056
0.027
0.014
0.195
0.186
0.031
Limitations'* Jls/UV- BTU / p/lO" cal
Conn Exu
0.2/0.36
0 2/0.36
0 2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
Conn Nt?u- I Louisiana
0.10/0.18
0.10/0. IS
0.1C/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.13
0.10/0.18
O.iO/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.10/0.18
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1 .03
0.6/1 .08
0.6/1 .08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.05
0.6/1 .08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1. OS
0.6/1.05
0.6/1.03
0.6/1. OS
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; There is a wide
range of boiler particulate emissions and the limitation imposed by the least
restrictive to the most restrictive state regulation.. Table I-4A summarizes
the percent control necessary to achieve compliance in states that have
limitations equal to Connecticut's 0.1 lbs/106 BTU and Louisiana's 0.6 Ibs/
106 BTU.
1-6
-------
TABLE I-4A
COMPILATION OF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILERS .3-10 x 106 BTU/hr
Boiler Type
Cast Iron
Firetube
Fuel
Coal
Coal
Connecticut (new)
94%
94%
Louisiana
61% .
61% '
Table I-4A indicates that 94% control is required for the most restrictive
regulation, and current technology is sufficient to control cast iron coal and
firetube units of the 0.5-10 x 106 BTU/hr size range.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
R. Rp.ffirenr.es:
To develop the information presented in this section concerning boilers
.3-10 x 106 BTU/hr the following references were used:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Perfor-
mance for New Sources - Industrial Size Boilers, Walden Research Corpora-
tion, EPA Contract No. CPA70-165, Task Order No. 5, June 30, 1971.
2. Systematic Study of Air Pollution from Intermediate-sized Fossil Fuel
Combustion Equipment, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No.
CPA22-69-85, July, 1971.
3. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Volume 2, Emission Factors for Boilers.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed include:
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, EPA, May, 1973,
6. Combustion Engineering, Glen R. Tryling, published by Combustion Engin-
eering, Inc., 277 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017; 1966.
1-7
-------
A. Source Category: I External Combustion
B. Sub Category: Boilers 10-250 x 106 BTU/hr
C. Source Description;
Boilers in the 10-250 x 106 BTU/hr size range are of the water tube type,
utilizing coal, oil, or natural gas. Water tube boilers comprise the bulk of
industrial and almost half of all the utility boilers. Generally the smallest
industrial boilers are of the firetube design with large water tube boilers
providing up to 10,000,000 Ibs (4,500,000 kg) per hour of steam. C1)2"3
Industry associations have categorized water tube boilers in four size classes
as outlined in Table 1-5. C1)3"* . .
TABLE 1-5
CLASSIFICATION AND CAPACITY OF WATER TUBE BOILERS
Boiler
Type
Water tube-1
Water tube-2
Water tube~3
Water tube-4
Typical Rated Ca
Ibs/hr
10000-100000
100001-250000
250001-500000
>500000
pacity Range Steam
kg/hr
4536-45359
45359.6-113398
113398.5-226796
>226796
Source Class
106 BTU/hr
10-250
10-250
>250
>250
Size Input
106 cal/hr
2520-63000
2520-63000
>63000
>63000
Virtually all of the water tube-1 group are packaged units, shop assembled
c.nd shipped in one piece by trailer cr flat car. The br.lrncc. of the middle
capacity range and all of the larger units are field assembled units. Today
almost all of the coal firing units are the field erected water tube design
with gas and/or oil as a possible alternative fuel for any of the categories.
Coal firing is accomplished by one of the following methods: (2)A~llf
1. Pulverized
2. Cyclone
3. Overfeed stoker
4. Spreader stoker
5. Underfeed stoker
For industrial size boilers (water tube-1 and water tube-2)
stoker firing is the most common while the larger sizes (water tube-3
and water tube-4) pulverized firing is the most common.
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emissions result from the stacks of the boilers burning coal,
oil, or natural gas. Improper maintenance or poor startup procedures can
cause excessive smoke and poor economy of operation. Table I-5A shows the type
of boiler and control, type of fuel, the size of the boiler, the percentage of
control that can be expected with a cyclone scrubber, electrostatic precipitator
and fabric filter and. the emission rate in pounds per million BTU and grams per
million calories. C1)^"2* 3*1* > C3)1! Other combinations of control equipment are
possible with both higher and lower efficiencies.
1-8
-------
TA.H.E »->*
ii.AvOHijffmis i'i!''M in-nn x in'' HTII/I.I- ii
Type of lit* Her nnrf Ctmtrot
Wnlfi Tiilif J
W.ilcr Tul.is-1
W.iu-r Twl.c-1
WflH-r Tuiit-J, Spreader IltciHr, Undcrf lrc«l
ti'.itrr Y»itip-)t 5|HT.itU
mu-r
Valvi •Mil-t-2
Vnltr Tuln-2
V'nU-r Tulip- V
Wnlt-r TuIw-J, Sprvndcr St«!:i:r, Undt-rf (rt-d
vlth Cyclone
Vnlev Tul.c-?, Sprc-nder !>tokt'.rt Undcrf (rrd
vlllt ::cnil.l>[-r
vj|t> Kleri roulnl Ir. 1'riM: Ipl into)
Vfltpi- T«Si-?t Spi-fAdcv Siohcr, I'ntk-rf J red
Vairr Tul>e-2, Ovcrfln*d
K.iler Tul-<—?, Ovcrf f ri'd with Cyclone
Wiiicr Tulii-2, Ovc-rf Jred wfth Srt-uM>ri
Wnlrr TuSe-2, Ovi-rflred v/.ili rjcciro-
Glntfc 1'rrcJpI Uiior
Wnler TnSt-7, Overrircil v/V.ihric FJlu-.r
(.'.Her TiiSr-?, Cyrliinlc \/ltli Cyclone
V:ili-r Tulii-?, Cyr)miU wllli Srruliln-r
K.itt-i- T\I?K— 2, Cyrlci-.fc with l:lcctro-
mnllc Vri'Cli'llviloi
VlllcT
W.ilcv YuNi— ?, Tulvci-ir-ril
W.il.T lulu— ?, I'ulvi-rlr.cd vlth CyeJonr
Rl.illr I'rrr Ipl I .itor
WnliT Tiil-i— I, Vulvi-rliid wllh I'.il.rlc
VI HIT
Tyi'O of Ttn-l
,...,„„.„, ,.„.,
i:>t,l(i>i.>) oil
|]||:I ID.HC 01)
Co.i 1 *
Cd.ll*
Co.il*
Co.il*
Co ,il*
Con 1 *
Co.il*
Coo)*
-<>,i 1 *
ll.ilnl.-il C.is
Kl-::lilu:.l Ull
l)ll;rl)lnlr Oil
C«nl«
Co.il*
Co.il*
t
Co!il«
Coa 1 *
Co.ll*
Cool*
Coil)*
Co.i 1 *
Co.il*
Coal*
Co^.J*
Co.il*
Co.i 1 «
l.i.;il*
Co.il*
Co.il*
X
Cnnl ro)
0
0
0
0
85
9B
99
99.5
0
115
9ft
99
99.5
0
0
0
Q
65
98
99
90. 5
0
0!.
9fl
99
99.5
Ii5
9fl
9'J
99.5
0
f*
90
99
99.5
K.ralr.'il.nl-i
)l,7/r(i'ri;iu
0,0)7
0. Ill)
0.10U
).55
0.733
0.031
0.0)6
O.OOR
o.'t.r.s
0.091
0.!"iS
O.OJ3
0.0) «
O.Of.fi
0.108
1 *>i
0.233
0.031
O.OK.
n oo8
'..03
O.ftOS
b.oo.i
O.O'iO
(I.02CI
0.930
O.J^'i
0.062
0.031
'i . '.lft
0.7U
fi . o 9 y •
0.0.'iO
0.025
l';/lllr' r:il
0.01)
0. II;'.
0.1 9S
?.7D
O.J05
0.016
0.029
0.01/1
n.?o
t'.Jfl!
0. )6A
0.0!13
O.O'il
(l.U.'C
('. ) )'J
o.ifir.
0.105
o.ox,
O.OJ9
o.oi'i
O.^VA
0.01.',
0.07?
0.03d'
11.17
0.22:i
0.112
o.o:,6
R,9't
0.337
0» J 7(1
0.090
o.o.', :,
nnh
E. Control Equipment!
Many of the industrial and commercial applications of water tube boilers
have control equipment to reduce particulate emissions. The four most common
methods are:
1. dry cyclone,
2. wet scrubber,
3. electrostatic precipitator, and
4, baghouse.
Dry cyclones can achieve up to 94% efficiency under typical water tube
boiler outlet conditions, but 60% to 85% efficieicies are more common. Wet
scrubbers can achieve 98% efficiency under typical water tube boiler outlet com
ditions and offer the advantage of some sulfur dioxide removal. However, wet
scrubbers require higher capital investment and higher operating costs. Electro-
static precipitators are the most common control device for water tube boilers
and can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% depending on number, size and
voltage of the plates. Most modern high efficiency electrostatic precipitators
are designed to operate in the 97% to 99% range. Baghouses often have effi-
ciencies of 99.5 percent but,are. sensitive to the high temperatures found in
water tube boiler exhaust. C ) ~
1-9
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated New Source Performance Standards for fossil fuel fired steam
generators. However, these standards only pertain to steam generating
units greater than 250 million BTU's per hour heat input. As such, boilers
of 10-250 -x 106 BTU/hr heat input described in Section D are controlled by
individual state regulations for fossil fuel fired steam generators.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; All fifty states have
regulations pertaining to fuel combustion for steam generators. Florida is
one of the few states that has no numerical limitation for boilers less than
250 x 106 BTU/hr, rather the regulation states to use the latest technology.
Other states such as Alaska and Maryland express their limitations as a concen-
tration and as such are not directly comparable to the lbs/106 BTU calculation
expressed in Table 1-8. Connecticut is representative of a restrictive
limitation which does not distinguish boilers by size. A flat limitation of
0.2 lbs/106 BTU for existing sources and 0.10 lbs/106 BTU for new sources are
the statuatory limitations. Louisiana is representative of a least restrictive
limitation which does not distinguish boilers by size, 0.6 lbs/106 BTU. Washington,
D.C. is representative of states that have a decreasing limitation for boilers
between 1-10,000 x iQ6 BTU/hr, 0.13 lbs/106 BTU to 0.02 lbs/106 BTU respectively.
Table 1-6 presents controlled and uncontrolled particulate emissions and
limitations for boilers between 10-250 * ID6 BTU/hr.
TABU; j-6
yAH.Tic:i.ATr EMISSION'S ASH i.:.'!iTATitv:r. rsr.:i nonr.ns !f-:so » lo6 nTC/r.*
Vatcr Tu!ie-l
Water Tul-t-l
Water Tnbe-1
Wnier Tutfc-l, Spreader Stoker, Undcrfircd
Water Tuhc-l, Spreader Stoker, Undcrfircd
with Cyclone
Water Tubc-1, 5;»icarfi*r Stoker, Undcrfircd
wiih Scrubber
Voter TuSe-1. Spreader Stoker, Undcrfircd
vlth Illoctrcst.it ic Prccipicator
Watnr Tuuc-1, Sprr.idcr Stoker, Undcrfircd
with Fabric Filter
Kilter TuV-1, Overfired
Water Tube- I, Ovcrfired with Cyclone
Water Tu!:c-l, Ovcrfired with Scrubber
Water Tubc-1, Ovcrfired uith Electro-
static precipitator
Water Tubc-1, Ovcrfired with Fabric
Fl Itcr
Waitr Tiibc-2
Wotpr T\ibc-2
Wai or TnSi-2
Water Tube- 2, S;» render Stoker, Undcrfircd
Water Tube-2, Spreader Stoker, Undorf ived
vi*h Cyclone
Water Tube-2, Spreader Stoker, Undcrfircd
with Scrubber
Water Tuse-2, Spreader Stoker, Underfircd
Water 7ul»c- 2, Sprc.'iJcr Stoker, Undcrfircd
viili Fo.u-lc Filler
W.itcr 7i:!*c-2, 0\vrf ired
Water TviSi—2, Owrffrcil with Cyclone
Water Tubc-2, Ovcrfired with Scrubhcr
Wator Tube-2, Ovo.rfircd with Elect ro-
s:.it Ic ProrlpJ inter
Water Tn!ii-?, Ovrrftrod w/Fabric Filter
W.Mcr Tui . b.6/;.v
0,1/0.18 i 0.2/0.36 , 0.6/1.0:
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
o.i/a.u
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.2/0.36
0.6/I.OD
0.2/0.36 i 0.6/1. Co
0.2/0.36 , 0. ».'!.':<
o.2/o.)6 • o. •'..•;.
0.2/3.30 0. '.':.,-
0, 2/0. 36
O.A'l.Is
0.2/0.36 0.6/l.C-
1
0.2/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.1/0. IS 0.2/0.36
O.t/l.W
O.i.. !.;•.••
O.f. •!....<
fl.1/0.18 0.2/0.36 1 O.o/l.;,-
0.1/0.18 0.2/0.36
0.1/0.18 | 0.2/0.36
0.6/J.Oi
0.6/l.CS
0.1/0.18 0.2/0.36
0.1/0.18 ' 0.2/0.36
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.3/0.36
0.2/0.36
0.1/0. IB 0.2/0.36
i
O.l/O.U 0.2/0.36
0.6/l.Oi
O.o/l.'.r
0.6/! . . -
0.6/1.-..-
0.4/l.St
0.6/i.oa
C.I*
-10-
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: There is a wide range
of boiler participate emissions and the limitations imposed by the least restric-
tive to the most restrictive state regulations. Table 1-6A summarizes the percent
control necessary to achieve compliance with a typical restrictive limitation
(Connecticut's) and with the New Source Performance Standard.
TABLE I-6A
COMPILATION OF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILERS 10-250 x 1Q6 BTU/hr
Boiler Type
Water Tube-1, Spreader
Stoker, Underfire.d
Water Tube-1, Overfired
Water Tube-2, Spreader
Stoker, Underfired
Water Tube-2, Overfired
Water Tube-2, Cyclonic
Water Tube-2, Pulverized
Fuel
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Conn. (New)
94%
98%
•
94%
98%
98%
98%
Louisiana
61%
87%
61%
85%
90%
88%
*Assume 8.1% ash
Table I-6A indicates that 98% control is required for the most restric-
tive regulation, and current technology is sufficient to control water tube-1
and water tu5e-2 coal units using coal that contains 8.1% ash.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
1-11
-------
G. References
To develop the information presented in this section concerning boilers,
10-250 x 105 BTU/hr the following references were used.
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Perfor-
mance for New Sources - Industrial Size Boilers, Walden Research Corpor-
ation, EPA Control No. CAP70-165, Task Order No. 5, June 30, 1971.
2. Systematic Study of Air Pollution from Intermediate-sized Fossil Fuel
Combustion Equipment, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No.
CPA22-69-85, July, 1971.
3. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Volume 3, Emission Factors for Boilers.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed include:
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, EPA, May, 1973.
6. Combustion Engineering, Glen R. Tryling, published by Combustion Engin-
eering, Inc., 277 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017; 1966.
1-12
-------
A. Source Category; I External Combustion
B . Sub_Category: Boilers >250 x 106 BTU/hr
C. Source Description;
Boilers in the >250 x 106 BTU/hr size range are always of the water tube
type utilizing coal, oil, or natural gas. Water tube boilers of this size
comprise the bulk of industrial boilers and almost all of the utility boilers.
Water tube boilers usually range in size from about 10.000 Ibs steam/hr (4500
kg/hr) to 10,000,000 Ibs steam/hour (4,500,000 kg/hr) . t1'2"3 Table 1-7
categorizes water tube boilers in four size classes in accordance with
with industry associations. , .
TABLE 1-7
CLASSIFICATION AND CAPACITY OF WATER TUBE BOILERS
Boiler Type
Water tube-1
Water tube-2
Water tube-3
Water tube-4
Typical Rated Capacity Steam
Ibs/hr
10000--100000
100001-250000
250001-500000
>500000
kg/hr
4536-45359
45359. 6-113398
'113398.5-226796
>226796
Source Class Size
10b BTU/hr
10-250
20-250
>250
>250
10b cal/hr
2520-63000
2520-63000
>63000
>63000
Virtually all of the water tubf.-l group are packaged units, shop assembled
and shipped in one piece by trailer or flat car. The balance of the middle
capacity range and all of the larger units are field assembled units. Today
almost all of the coal firing units are field erected water tube design with
gas and/or oil as a possible operating fuel for any of the categories. Coal
firing is accomplished by 'one of the following methods:*- )A-11*
A. Pulverized
B. Cyclone
C. Overfeed stoker
D. Spreader stoker
E. Underfeed stoker
Coal firing industrial sized boilers (typically water tube-1 and water
tube-2) stoker firing is most common, while the larger coal sizes (typically
water tube-3) pulverized firing is most common. Water tube-4 is typically all
pulverized firing.
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emissions result from stacks of boilers burning coal, oil, or
natural gas. Improper maintenance can cause excessive smoke and poor economy
of operation. Table I-7A presents emission rates in pounds per million BTU,
type of boiler and control, and a typical control efficiency of a cyclone,
scrubber, electrostatic precipitator and a fabric filter. O) ^-2, 3,4(3) 20
Other combinations of control equipment are possible with both higher and lower
efficiencies. It should also be noted that coal fired water tube-4 always uses
pulverized firing.
1-13
-------
TAnut r-?A
f. tMtssinNS iron >;>o x 10* nru/hr BOH.BH
Type of Roller and Control
W« c Tube- 3
Wa r Tube-3
Wn e Tube-3
Wa r Tultr-3, Spreader Stoker* Vnderfircd
ft cd wl Ih cyclone
W.itc Tubc-3. Spr«ndor Stoker, Under-
fl cd with scrubber
W*tr Tube- 3, Spronder Stoker, Under-
fl ed with (tlcctrofltatlc prcclpttator
Watc Tubc-3, Spre.idcr Stoker, Undor-
Wa c Tub.'- 3, OVIT fired
Wa e Tubc-3, Over fired with Cyclone
Wn c Tubc-3, Over ft red with scrubber
Wn c Tubc-3, Ovcrffrcd with elcctro-
t tic precf pltatur
W.i e Tubc-3, Over fired vlth Fabric
1 ter
Va c Tube-; 3, Cyclonic
Vn e Tube 3, Cyclonic with Cyclone
Wn c Tuhfi-3, Cyclonic with Scrubber
Wa c Tubc-3, Cyclonic with Electro-
I tic free I pita tor
V.-. c Tiibr-3, Cyclonic vlth Fabric
1 tcr
Wn e Tuhc-3, Pulverised
W.i c Tubc-3, Pulverized with Cyclone
Wa c Tubc-3, Pulverized with Eluctro-
t tic Prcclpitntor
Wa c Tubc-3, Pulverized with Fabric
1 trr
WA c Tube-4
Wa c Tube- *
Wn e Tube- ft
W.i c Tube-4, Pulverised
Wn c Tube- 4, Pulverized with Cyclone
Wa c Tube- 4, Pulverized vlth Scrubber
W.i c Tube-4, Pulvcrlicd with Elcctro-
• i;ntfc Prrclr •''"tor
W.itcr Tubc-4, 1'ulvcrlicd vlth Fabric
Filter
Type of Furl
Natural Can
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Coal*
Coal*
COAl*
Coal*
Coal
Coal*
Conl*
Coal*
Coil*
Co«l«
Conl*
Cool*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Cool*
HMural C.19
Hcsldunl Cos
nistlllfltc Oil
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Ccal*
Coal*
Control
0
0
A
0
65
99
99
99*5
0
85
98
99
99.5
0
85
98
9}
99. 5
0
85
98
99
99.5
0
0
0
0
85
93
99
99.5
Fntsnlon*
II»/10C BTU
o.nu
0.066
0.108
1.55
0.23)
0.0)1
0.016
0*178
(.0)
o.r.05
0.081
0.040
0.020
6.20
0.9M
0.124
0.06:
0.031
4.96
0.7U
0.099
0.050
0.025
o.nu
0.066
0.103
(.96
O.W
0.099
0.050
0.025
E/10' cal
0.025
0.119
0.194
2.19
0.105
0.056
0.029
0, 140
7.25
0.271
0.146
0.072
0.036
11.16
0.42Z
0.22)
o.n:
0.056
8.98
0.337
0 178
0.090
O.OS5
0.025
0.119
0.194
8.93
0.337
0.178
0.090
0.045
•Aajunci 6.11 ash
E. Control Equipment;
Many of the industrial and commercial applications of .water tube boilers
have control equipment installed to reduce particulate emissions. The four
most common methods are:
1. dry cyclone,
2. wet scrubber,
3. electrostatic precipitator, and
4. baghouse.
Dry cyclones can achieve up to 94% efficiency under typical water tube
boiler outlet conditions, but 60% to 85% efficiencies are more common. Wet
scrubbers can achieve 98% efficiency under typical water tube Boiler outlet
conditions and offer the advantage of some sulfur dioxide removal. However,
wet scrubbers require higher capital investment and higher operating costs.
Electrostatic precipitators are the most common control device for water tube
boilers and can attain efficiencies of more than 99.5% depending on number,
size, and voltage of the plates. Most modern high efficiency electrostatic
precipitators are designed to operate in the 97% to 99% range. Baghouses often
have efficiencies of 99.5 percent but ..are sensitive to the high temperatures
found in water tube boiler exhaust. ( ) ~
1-14
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On December 23, 1971, EPA pro-
mulgated New Source Performance Standards for fossil fuel fired steam gen-
erators'. These standards pertain to steam generating units greater than 250
million BTU's per hour heat input. Boilers of greater than 250 x 10b BTU/hr
heat input described in Section D are covered by NSPS of 0.1 lbs/106 BTU heat
input (0.18 g/106 cal) and individual state regulations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources_; All fifty states have
regulations pertaining to fuel combustion for steam generators. Some states
such as Alaska and Maryland express their limitations as a concentration and
as such are not directly comparable to. the lbs/106 BTU calculation expressed
in Table 1-8. Louisiana is representative of a least restrictive limitation
which does not distinguish boilers by size, 0.6 lbs/106 BTU. New Mexico is
representative of a restrictive limitation both by type of boiler and existing
boiler versus a new boiler. For existing boilers, New Mexico has a variable
emission limitation for boilers (coal) in the 10-1000 x 106 BTU range of 0.56 lbs/106
BTU to 0.135 lbs/106 BTU. For boilers 250 x 106 BTU the limitation is 0.265
lbs/10 BTU. For coal fired boilers installed after July 31, 1977, greater
than 250 x 106 BTU/hr the limitation is 0.05 lbs/106 BTU. For oil fired boilers
installed after July 31, 1977 greater than 1,000,000 x 106 BTU/hr the limitation
is 0.005 lbs/106 BTU. Table 1-8 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions
and limitations for boilers greater than 250 x 106 BTU/hour heat input.
PAKTICUIA.TT. EMISSIONS ACT LIMITATIONS F30V. 1I011.EHS >2?0 T. 10s llTU/hr
Type of Holler anil Control
Vat or Tuhc-3
Water Tubc-3
Water Tti!>c-3
Water Tubc-3, Spreader Stoker, Undcrflrcd
Water Tubc-3, spreader sti>kcr, undrr-
flrcd with cyclone
Water Tube- 3, Spreader Stoker, Under-
fli-cd with Kcruli'jcr
'.•'otor Tul'O-3, Sprc.-.dcr Stoker, Undcr-
firrd vlth electrostatic preclpltator
Vi.lcr Tubc-3. Spreader Stoker, UnOcr-
f!re25
0.119
0.194
2.79
0.105
0.056
0.029
0.140
7.25
0.274
0.146
0.072
0.036
11.16
0.422
0.223
0.112
0.056
8.98
0.337
0.178
0.090
0.045
0.025
0.119
0.194
8.93
0.337
0.170
0.090
0.045
Llnltntionfl'1 llm/lO' HTM / n/JO'1 c:i 1
HSl'S
0. 1/0. 16
0.1/0/18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.13
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/O.J8
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.16
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0,1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.16
f. 1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
0.1/0.18
New Kcjiico (ncu)
0.005/0.009
0.005/0. 009
0.005/0.009
0.05 /0.09
0,05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05'/n.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.'09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.005/0.009
0.005/0.009
0.005/0.009
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 /0.09
0.05 70.09
0.05 70.09
Louisiana
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.C8
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.03
0.6/1.09
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
0.6/1.08
8,IS
1-15
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; There is a wide
range of boiler participate emissions and the limitations imposed by the least
restrictive to the most restrictive state regulations. Table I-8A summarizes
the percent control necessary to achieve compliance with NSPS and New Mexico's
G>05 lbs/106 BTU limitation according to specific boiler type and fuel.
TABLE I-8A
COMPILATION OF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILERS >250 x 106 BTU
Boiler Type
Water Tube-3
Water Tube-3
Water Tube-3, Spreader
Stoker, Underfired
Water Tube-3, Overfired
Water Tube-3, Cyclonic
Water Tube-3, Pulverized
Water Tube-4
Water Tube- A
Water Tube- A, Pulverized
Fuel
Resid oil
Dist oil
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Coal*
Resid oil
Dist oil
Coal*
NSPS
0%
0%
9A%
98%
98%
98%
0%
0%
98%
New Mexico
(new)
92%
95%
97%
99%
99%
99%-
92%
95%
99%
*Assume 8.1% ash
The existing control technology is adequate to achieve change particulate
limitations of even the most restrictive regulation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
1-16
-------
G. References .
To develop the information presented in this section concerning boilers
> 250 x 106 BTU/hr the following references were used:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Perfor-
mance for New Sources, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. CPA70-
165, Task .Order No. 5~, June 30, 1971.
2. Systematic Study of Air Pollution from Intermediate-sized Fossil Fuel
Combustion Equipment, Walden Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. CPA22-
69-85, July," 1971.
3. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Volume 3, Emission Factors for Boilers.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed include:
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre "Corporation.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, EPA, May, 1973.
6. Combustion Engineering, Glen R. Fryling, published by Combustion Engin-
eering, Inc., 277 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10017; 1966.
1-17
-------
A. Source Category; II Solid Waste Disposal
B. Sub Category: Open Burning (Agricultural)
C. Source Description;
Disposal of agricultural wastes by open burning is imperative because refuse
piles retain horticultural diseases and agricultural pests. Open burning is per-
formed in many areas as a practical means of clearing the land of these wastes.
Open burning is done in open drums or baskets and in large-scale open dumps or
pits.
D. Emission Rates:
Emissions from burning straw and stubble consist of smoke and various gases.
The principal gases emitted are hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
and oxides of nitrogen. C1)91 The relatively low temperatures associated with
open burning causes emission of large quantities of unbarned particulates,
carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, and suppress the emissions of nitrogen oxides,
Annual hydrocarbon emissions from agricultural burning are listed by states for
which the data was available. C1) 5> 9
Table II-l presents hydrocarbon emissions from agricultural burning
8 states i
TABLli II-l
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM AGRICULTURAL BURNING
State
Alabama
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mississippi
Nevada
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Vermont
Washington
Number of Acres
Burned
89,000
762,862
210
265,000
974,406
108,000
11,849
600,000
350,000
36,400
1,500
340,170
1,950
341,185
264,170
78,791
100
140,801
tons/
Acre Burned
2
3
10
7
1
12
2
1
6
1
5
2
3
2
2
8
3
2
Ibs Emission/
ton Refuse
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
kg Emission/
M ton Refuse
12
12 •
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
tons/
Year
2,136
27,463
25
22,260
11,693
15,552
284
7,200
25,200
437
90
8,164
70
8,188
6,340
7,564
4
3,379
M tons/
Year
1,937
24,909
23
20,190
10,606
14,106
258
6,530
22,856
396
82
7,405
63
7,427
5,750
6,861
4
3,065
II-l
-------
E. Control Equipment
Agricultural open burning is an uncontrolled pollution.problem from the
equipment application point of view. Impact from this type of operation can
be minimized by burning on days of appropriate stability and wind direction.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance
Standards have been promulgated for agricultural burning. ......
State Regulations for Existing Sources; Most states have regulations
prohibiting open burning. However a few states have such liberal exemptions
that open burning can be used to dispose garbage and leaves on properties with
less than four dwelling units. Agricultural burning is not restricted in any
of the states. Some states require farmers to obtain a permit and others
leave the exact timing of the burn up to the discretion of the local air
pollution control officials.
The Environment Reporter was used to develop the information on open
burning restrictions. p
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information on open burning of agricultural
wastes includes:
1. George Yamate and John Stockham, An Inventory of Emissions from
Forest Wildfires-, Forest Managed Burns and Agricultrual Burns
II-2
-------
A. Source Category; II Solid Waste Disposal
B. Sub Category; Industrial/Commercial Incinerators
C. Source Description;
Industrial and commercial incinerators cover a broad range of size and
type of material burned. Industrial and commercial incinerators are either
single chamber or multiple chamber units capable of burning 50 Ibs/hour to
4,000 Ibs/hour of charged refuse.O)2-1-2
The combustion of refuse originating from commercial and industrial
establishments that is performed in a multiple chamber incinerator proceeds
in two stages:
1. primary or solid fuel combustion ±n the ignititon
chamber, and
2. secondary gaseous-phase combustion in the downdraft
or mixing chamber and in the uppass expansion or
combustion chamber.
The two basic type: of multiple chamber incinerators are:
1. retort incinerator, and
t. e in** lj.nc j-ncxnciTsit or *
Operational features that distinguish the retort design are:
1. The arrangement of the chambers causes the combustion gases
to flow through 90-degree turns in both lateral and vertical
directions.
2. The return flow of the gases permits the use of a common wall
between the primary and secondary combustion stages.
3. Mixing chambers, flame ports, and curtain wall ports have
length-to-width ratios of 1:1 to 2.4:1.
Operational features that distinguish in-line design are:
1. Flow of the combustion gases is straight through the
incinerator with 90-degree turns only in the vertical
direction.
2. The in-line arrangement is readily adaptable to installations
that require separated spacing of the chambers for operating
and maintenance.
3. All ports and chambers extend across the full width of the
incinerator and are as wide as the ignition chamber. Length-
to-width ratios of the flame port, mixing chamber, and curtain
wall port flow cross sections range from 2:1 to 5:1.
Figures II-3 and II-4 are illustrations of retort multiple chamber incin-
erator and in-line multiple chamber incinerator, respectively.
II-3
-------
Figure 11-31 Retort Multiple Chamber Inclnnrator
Figure II-4; In-Line Multiple Chamber Incinerator
II-4
-------
In multiple chamber incinerators, gas from the primary chamber flows to a
small secondary mixing chamber where more air is admitted and more complete
oxidation occurs. As much as 300 percent excess air is supplied in order to
promote oxidation of combustibles. Auxiliary burners are sometimes installed
in the mixing chamber to increase the combustion temperature, v. )
Single chamber units have capacities of 50 Ibs/hr to 4,000 Ibs/hr and are
often equipped with automatic charging mechanisms, temperature controls, and
movable grate systems.C2)2'l~2
D. Emission Rates:
Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design have
a pronounced effect on emissions. The method by which air is supplied to the
combustion chamber has the greatest, effect of all design parameters on the
quantity of particulate emissions. As underfire air is increased, an increase
in fly-ash emission occurs. Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the
combustion bed and a subsequent release of large quantities of particulates.
Unconbusted particulate matter and carbon monoxide are emitted for an extended
period after charging of batch-fed units because of interruptions in the com-
bustion process. In continuously-fed units, particulate emissions are dependent
upon grate type. Use of rotary kiln and reciprocating grates causes higher
particulate emissions than use of rocking or traveling grates. Particulate
emissions: from commercial and industrial incinerators are presented in Table
H_5. (2)2.1-3 pounds per hour emission rates are based on a burning rate of
50 Ibs/hr and .'},OCO Ibs/hr.
TABLE II-S
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS
Type of
Operation £•• Control
Single Chamber, Uncontrolled
• Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spryy
Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Scrubber
Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Electrostatic Precipicator
Single Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Fabric Filter
Multiple Chamber, Uncontrolled
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Mechanical Collector
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Scrubber
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, Water Spray, and
Electrostatic Precipitator
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber, .Water Spray, and
Fabric Filter
%
Control
0
30-80
80-95
90-96
97-99
0
30-80
80-95
90-96
97-99
Emissions
Ibs/ton kc/M ton
15 7.5
10.5-3.0 5.3-1.5
3.0- .8 1.5- .4
1.5- .6 .8- .3
.5- .2 .3- .1
7 3.5
4.9-1.4 2.5- .7
1.4- .4 .7- .2
.7- .3 .4- .2
.2- .07 .1- .04
Emission Rate
(Based on 50 lbs_/hr)
Ibs/hr kfi/hr
.38 .17
.26 -.08 .12 -.04
.08 -.02 .04 -.009
.04 -.02 .018-. 009
.01 -.005 .005-. 002
.2 .
.1 -.04 .05 -.018
.
.04 -.01 " .018-. 005
.02 -.008 .009-. 004
.005-. 002 .002-. 001
(Based on 4^000 ]bs/hrj_
Ibs/hr kg/hr
30.0 13.6
21.0-6.0 9.5-2.7
6.0-1.6 2.7- .7
3.0-1.2 1.4- .5
1.0- .4 .5- .2
14.0 6.4
9.8-2.8 4.4-1.3
2.8- .8 1.3- .4
1.4- .6 .6- .3
.4- .14 .2- .06
II-5.
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Potential control equipment for municipal incinerators vary from a simple
settling chamber to a fabric filter. Seven potential control methods and their
efficiencies are: C1)2*1"1*
1. Settling Chamber: 0-30%
2. Settling Chamber: 30-60%
3. Wetted Baffles: 60%
4. Mechanical Collector: 30-80%
5. Scrubber: 80-95%
6. Electrostatic Precipitator: 90-96%
7. Fabric Filter: 97-99%
A settling chamber is least expensive of the control systems used on incin-
erators. It consists of a large refractory-lined chamber where flue gases are
slowed to permit gravity settling of coarse materials. These chambers are
supplemented by sprays to we;- the walls, and the bottoms are wet (quiescent
ponds) or sluiced Cfor fly-ash removal) to minimize reentrainment of settled
ash.
The cyclone spins the gases as they move down the length of the unit,
reversing flow, and leaving through, an axial exit pipe. Because of the spin,
the larger particles in the gas stream seek the outside of the gas stream, where
they fall along the wall to a collection hopper.
Electrostatic precipitators apply separating force to the dust particles
by the interaction of electrical charges placed upon the surface of the dust
particles by which the dust-laden gas passes. Upon entering an ion-filled
space, the dust particles receive a negative electrical charge and are moved
toward the positively charged collecting plates. At predetermined intervals,
the collecting plates are mechanically rapped in order to dislodge the layer of
collected dust. The dust is collected in hoppers located beneath the electrode
section of the precipitator.
Fabric filters are designed with tubes of woven fabric (cotton, wool, nylon,
etc.) hung in frames equipped with shaking or deflating mechanisms for dust
dislodgment. The mechanics of collection on fabric filters are highly compli-
cated and include impingement, diffusion, electrostatics, and direct sieving.
In order to assure satisfactory performance and long bag life, flue gas tem-
peratures are controlled in the range of 250°-550°F. The temperature range
may be more narrow depending upon the fabric and the flue gas composition.
There are many types of scrubbing devices for contacting liquids with gas
streams for the purpose of removing particulate matter and gaseous pollutants.
The three most common are:
1. wetted surfaces, i.e., systems of wetted pipes, baffles,
or walls located in the off-gas duct;
2. devices for contacting the gas with a liquid spray,
either in a spray-filled chamber or in a Venturi;
3. devices for bubbling the gas through a quantity of liquid
(by ducting it below a liquid surface or by blowing it
through impingement trays or through a packed column).
II-6
-------
All of these devices humidify and cool the exhaust and produce a "steam" plume at
the stack under some atmospheric conditions. Application of a higher pressure
drop across a scrubber generally results in a higher degree of particulate removal.
(2}VII-17-VII-'t8
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for incinerators of more than
10 tons/day charging rate. The limitation is 0.08 grains/standard cubic foot
corrected to 12 percent CC>2, maximum two-hour average.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying charging rates are expressed differently from state to
state. Regulations applicable to new and existing incinerators are listed
according to the basis of the limitation. The limitations are based on
concentration, control efficiency, gas volume and charging rate.
Concentration Basis; States having regulations for new and
existing incinerators expressed on a concentration basis are
listed in Table II-6.
STATES HAVI;1C RKCUl.ATlOi.'S. rOB_,'.T.U_AllD.EXLS1U;C_SPUKC£S
ON JV CONf'r.'TiLATK'.N IV.SIT.
Slate
Alack*
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
t'lorlda
Georgia
Illinois
lova
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mnrylnud
Hu.tuncliui.vtt6
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Khiulo Ul.inJ
Ul.th
Vlrr.lnl.1
W;,Mh!ll>Mi.n
W.ishlni'.l.in, 11. C,
Capacity & Age
i ZOO Ibs/hr
200-1000 ll>s/hr
1000 !bs/hr
200 Ibs/hr
200 Ibs/hr
a 1 sizes typical of
all countries
w
1st Ing
w
50 tons/tiny (new)
SO tons/Jay (existing)
SO tons/day
SO tons/uay
Istlng before 1/1/72
2000 Ibo/hr
2000 ll>s/hr
60,000 Ibs/hr
2000 Ibs/hr (new)
1000 Ibs/hr
1000 Ibs/hr
SO tons/day
SO tons/day
1 sizes
1 alros
11 slr.es
200 Its/lit
00-2000 Ibs/hr
2000 Ibs/hr
11 ali.es
11 ntzcs (new)
200 Ibr./l.r (new)
11 others
200 Ibs/hr (new)
200 Ibr./hr
ew sources
2000 )bn/hr
2000 Ibs/hr
200 Ibo/lir
200 Ibs/hr (new)
SO tons/tiny
11 sizes
200 ll.s/hr
200 Ihn/lir
2 f)0 lb>/hr (new)
11 ulren
2000 Ibs/hr
2000 IhK/hr
SO tonw/day
II Blrvi
11 »!«••
II Hi /OH
.lo.lt.ition
.1 gr/scf
.2 sr/scf
.1 gr/scf
.2 cr/scf
.3 tr/scf
.3 gr/scf
.1 gr/scf
.15 tr/Rc»
.08 gr/scf
.08 gr/scf
.1 tr/scf
.08 tr/scf
.1 sr/scf
.2 gr/scf
.OS gr/scf
0.02 cr/sct
O.OS gr/scf
0.10 gr/tcf
0.20 gr/scf
0.1S gr/scf
0.08 gr/scf
0.2 gr/scf
0.2 gr/scf
O.OJ gr/scf
O.I cr/5Cf
0.3 gr/scC
0.2 gr/icf
O.I r.r/scf
0.2 gr/scf
0.1 gr/scf
0.2 gr/scf
0.3 gr/ccf
0.3 gr/scf
0.2 fr/.cf
O.I tr/scf
0.2 gr/tcf
0.1 S'/scf
0.3 gr/scf
0.2 gr/scf
0.03 gr/scf
O.I gr/scf
0.3 f.r/scf
0.2 gr/ccf
O.I gr/scf
0.1 Itr/aef
0.16 nr/srf
0.00 t'.r/scf
0.08 K'/scf
O.ll r,r/»cf
O.I r.r/ncf
0.09 v.rl ncf
II-7
-------
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations
in pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates. The Texas limits are:
103 to 101* acfm - 7.11 Ibs/hr
104 to 105 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 to 106 acfm - 158.00 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis; Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, Vermont
and Nevada express incinerator limitations in pounds of emission per
pounds of refuse charged. These limitations are listed below;
State Emission Rate Basis
Hawaii .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Wyoming .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
South Dakota ..2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Vermont .1 Ibs per 1,000 Ibs dry refuse
Nevada 3.0 Ibs per ton refuse if -* 2,000
Ibs/hr
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation; New Source Performance
Standards limit emissions on a concentration basis, so no direct comparison with
emissions in Table II-5 are made.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information on industrial/commercial
incinerators is listed below:
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition),
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
2. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
3. Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration, Volume I,
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Contract No. CPA-22-69-23, March 1970.
The following references were consulted but not used directly to develop
the information on municipal incinerators:
A. Brinkerhoff, Ronald J., Inventory of Intermediate-Size Incinerators
in the United States - 1972. Pollution Engineering, November 1973.
5. Air Pollution Aspects of Emission Sources; Municipal Incineration,
Air Pollution Control Office, Publication AP-92, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1971.
II-8
-------
A. Source Category; II Solid Waste Disposal
B. Sub Category; Municipal Incinerators
C. Source Description;
The combustion of refuse originating from residences and commercial and
industrial establishments is performed in a multiple-chamber incinerator. The
process proceeds in two stages:
1. primary or solid fuel combustion in the ignition
chamber, and
2. secondary gaseous-phase combustion in the downdraft
or mixing chamber and in the uppass expansion or
combustion chamber.
The two basic types of multiple chamber incinerators are:
1. retort incinerator, and
2. in-line incinerator.
Operational features that distinguish the retort design are:
1. The arrangement of the chambers causes the combustion gases
to flow through 90-degree turns in both lateral and vertical
directions,
2. The return flow of the gases permits the use of a common wall
between the primary and secondary combustion stages.
3. Mixing chambers, flame ports, and curtain wall ports have
length-to-width ratios of 1:1 to 2.4:1.
Operational features that distinguish in-line design are:
1. Flow of the combustion gases is straight through the
incinerator with 90-degree turns only in the vertical
direction.
2. The in-line arrangement is readily adaptable to installations
that require separated spacing of the chambers for operating
and maintenance.
3. All ports and chambers extend across the full width of the
incinerator and are as wide as the ignition chamber. Length-
to-width ratios of the flame port, mixing chamber, and curtain
wall port flow cross sections range from 2:1 to 5:1.
Figures II-l and II-2 are illustrations of retort multiple chamber incin-
erator and in-line multiple chamber incinerator, respectively.
II-9
-------
Figure II-l! Retort Multiple Chamber Incinerator
•HIM CMNH
Figure T.I-2; In-Llne Multiple Chamber Incinerator
11-10
-------
In multiple chamber incinerators, gas from the primary chamber flows to a
small secondary mixing chamber where more air is admitted and more complete
oxidation occurs. As much as 300 percent excess air is supplied in order to
promote oxidation of combustibles. Auxiliary burners are sometimes installed
in the mixing chamber to increase the combustion temperature. O)1*37-1*52
Multiple chamber units have capacities of 50 tons/day (45.A MX/day) and are
usually equipped with automatic charging mechanisms, temperature controls, and
movable grate systems.C2)2*1-2
D. Eroission Rates;
Operating conditions, refuse composition, and basic incinerator design have
a pronounced effect on emissions. The method by which air is supplied to the
combustion chamber has the greatest effect of all design parameters on the
quantity of particulate emissions. As underfire air is increased, an increase
in fly-ash emission occurs. Erratic refuse charging causes a disruption of the
combustion bed and a subsequent release of large quantities of particulates.
Uncombusted particulate matter and carbon monoxide are emitted for an extended
period after charging of batch-fed units because of. interruptions in the com-
bustion process. In continuously-fed units, particulate emissions are dependent
upon grate, type. Use of rotary kiln and reciprocating grates causes higher
particulate emissions than use of rocking or traveling grates. Particulate
emissions from municipal incinerators are presented in Table II-7.(2)2**~3
Pounds per hour emission rates are based on a burning rate of 2 tons/hour^
TABLE 11-7
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM MUNICIPAL'INCINERATORS
Type of
Operation & Control
Multiple; Chamber, Uncontrolled
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Mechanical Collector
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Scrubber
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Electrostatic Precipitator
Multiple Chamber, with Settling
Chamber and Water Spray,
Fabric Filter
%
Control
0
o
30-80
80-95
90-96
97-99
Emissions
Ibs/ton
30
14
9.8-2.8
2.8- .7
1.4- .6
.4- .14
kg/M ton
15
7
4.9-1.4
1.4- .4
.7- .3
.2- .07
Emission Rate
Ibs/hr
60
28
19.6-22.4
5.6- 1.4
2.8- 1.1
.8- .3
kp,/hr
27.2
12.7
8.9-10.2
2.5- .6
1.3- .5
.4- .14
^Emission rate based on 2 ton/hour burning rate
11-11
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Potential control equipment for municipal incinerators vary from a simple
settling chamber to a fabric filter. Seven potential control methods and their
efficiencies are: (1) 2• i~1*
1. Settling Chamber: 0-30%
2. Settling Chamber: 30-60%
3. Wetted Baffles: 60%
4. Mechanical Collector: 30-80% .: . :
5. Scrubber: 80-95%
6. Electrostatic Precipitator: 90-96%
7. Fabric Filter: 97-99%
A settling chamber is least expensive of the control systems used on incin-
erators. It consists of a large refractory-lined chamber where flue gases are
slowed to permit gravity settling of coarse materials. These chambers are
supplemented by sprays to weL the walls, and the bottoms are wet (quiescent
ponds) or sluiced (for fly-ash removal) to minimize reentrainment of settled
ash.
The cyclone spins the gases as they move down the length of the unit,
reversing flow, and leaving through an axial exit pipe. Because of the spin,
the larger particles in the gas stream seek the outside of the gas stream, where
they fall along the wall to a collection hopper.
Electrostatic precipitators apply separating force to the dust particles
by the interaction of electrical charges placed upon the surface of the dust
particles by which the dust-laden gas passes. Upon entering an ion-filled
space, the dust particles receive a negative electrical charge and are moved
toward the positively charged collecting plates. At predetermined intervals,
the collecting plates are mechanically rapped in order to dislodge the layer of
collected dust. The dust is collected in hoppers located beneath the electrode
section of the precipitator.
Fabric filters are designed with tubes of woven fabric (cotton, wool, nylon,
etc.) hung in frames equipped with shaking or deflating mechanisms for dust
dislodgment. The mechanics of collection on fabric filters are highly compli-
cated and include impingement, diffusion, electrostatics, and direct sieving.
In order to assure satisfactory performance and long bag life, flue gas tem-
peratures are controlled in the range of 250°-550°F. The temperature range
may be more narrow depending upon the fabric and the flue gas composition.
There are many types of scrubbing devices for contacting liquids with gas
streams for the purpose of removing particulate matter and gaseous pollutants.
The three most common are:
1. wetted surfaces, i.e., systems of wetted pipes, baffles,
or walls located in the off-gas duct;
2. devices for contacting the gas with a liquid spray,
either in a spray-filled chamber or in a Venturi;
3o devices for bubbling the gas through a quantity of liquid
(by ducting it below a liquid surface or by blowing it
through impingement trays or through a packed column)0
11-12
-------
All of these devices hymidify and cool the exhaust and produce a "steam" plume at
the stack under some atmospheric conditions. Application of a higher pressure
drop across a scrubber generally results in a higher degree of particulate re-
moval.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; On December 23, 1971, EPA
promulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for incinerators of more .than
10 tons/day charging rate. The limitation is 0.08 grains/standard cubic foot
corrected to 12 percent C02, maximum two-hour average.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying charging rates are expressed differently from state to
state. Regulations applicable to new and existing incinerators are listed
according to the basis of the limitation. The limitations are based on
concentration, control efficiency, gas volume and charging, rate.
Concent rjation Basis; States having regulations for new and
existing incinerators expressed on a concentration basis are
listed in Table II-8.
TABIE 11-8
o":< A cn.'.T.r.rni;.Yn"::
State
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Hnrylmiit
hassaehusct lu
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Orepon
lYnnsylvmila
Kliml>< Isl.nul
• •
Utah
Vlrr.lnl.l
U.mlilnnlnn
U.mhliiKliin, II. C.
Capacity & Ago
< 200 Ibs/lir
200-2000 lbs/hr
> 1000 Ibs/hr
t 200 Ibs/hr
< 200 Ibs/hr
all sizes typical of .
all countries
new
existing
new
* 50 tons/day (new)
- 50 tons/day (existing)
* 50 tons/day
i 50 tons/day
existing butore 1/1/72
> 2000 Ibs/hr
1 2000 Ibs/hr
> 60,000 Ibs/hr
I 2000 Ibs/hr (new)
1 1000 Ibs/hr
< 1000 Ibs/hr
> 50 tons/day
1 50 ions/day
all slie.i
all size*
• 11 bli.09
< 200 Ibs/hr
200-2000 Ibs/hr
> 2000 Ibs/hr
. all alr.cs
all sizes (new)
2 200 Ibs/hr (new)
all others
5 200 Ibs/hr (new)
> 200 Ibs/hr
new sources
< 2000 Ibs/hr
i 2000 Ibs/hr
I 200 Ibs/hr
> 200 Iba/hr (new)
> 50 tcns/d.ly
oil sizes
1 200 Ibs/hr
> 200 Ibs/hr
> 200 Ibs/hr (new)
all itlri-n
< 2000 lb»/hr
1 .1000 lh»/hr
> >0 1 iinn/day
all Klrvn
nil «!.-,•«
.ill alO'll
Llml.tnlton
.J cr/scf
.2 tr/acf
.1 er/scf
.2 Er/scf
.3 tr/scf
.3 gr/scf
0.1 Br/scf
0.15 Cr/«cf
0.08 er/scf
0.09 &r/=cf
O.I gr/scf
0.08 r.r/scf
0.1 gr/scf
0.2 gr/scf
0.08 gr/scf
0.02 gr/scf
0.05 gr/scf
0.10 r.r/scf
0.20 r.r/scf
0.35 r.r/scf
0.08 Er/FCf
0.2 gr/scf
0.2 f.r/scf
0.03 gr/ccf
O.I gr/scf
0.3 gr/ccf
0.2 gr/sef
0.1 ur/scf
0.2 gr/scf
O.I gr/ccf
0.2 gr/scf
0.3 gr/tcf
0.3 itr/scf
0.2 gr/scf
O.I r.r/scf
0.2 cr/scf
0.1. gr/scf
0.3 nr/ccf
0.2 gr/scf
0.08 er/scf
0.1 gr/scj
0.3 f.r/scf
0.2 cr/acf
O.I gr/.cf
O.I nr/acf
0.16 cr/r.rl
0.08 c.r/scf
0.08 nr/Kcf
O.It f.r/«cC
O.I p.r/scf
0.0.1 nr/rcf
11-13
-------
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations
in pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates. The Texas limits are:
103 to 101* acfm - 7.11 Ibs/hr
101* to 105 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 to 106 acfm - 158.00 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate. Basis; Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, Vermont
and Nevada express incinerator limitations in pounds of emission per
pounds of refuse charged. These limitations are listed below:
State Emission Rate Basis
Hawaii .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Wyoming .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
South Dakota .2 Ibs per 100 Ibs refuse
Vermont .1 Ibs per 1,000 Ibs dry refuse
Nevada 3.0 Ibs per ton refuse if < 2,000
Ibs/hr
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation; New Source Performance
Standards limit emissions on a concentration basis, so no direct comparison with
emissions in Table II-7 are ir.^ds.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information on municipal incinerators is
listed below:
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition),
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
2. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
3. Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration, Volume I,
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Contract No. CPA-22-69-23, March 1970.
The following references were consulted but not used directly to develop
the information on municipal incinerators:
4. Brinkerhoff, Ronald J., Inventory of Intermediate-Size Incinerators
in the United States - 1972. Pollution Engineering, November 1973.
5. Air Pollution Aspects of Emission Sources; Municipal Incineration,
Air Pollution Control Office, Publication AP-92, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1971.
11-14
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category: Degreasing
C. Source Description;
Degreasing operations clean the surfaces of manufactured items so that sur-
face coatings will adhere. These operations are also used as a final step in the
manufacture of items that are not surface coated. During the fabrication of many
metal products, surfaces are lubricated with oils, greases, or stearates to
facilitate various drawing, forming and machining operations. Lubricants with
dust particles and dirt, must be removed from the metal surface prior to coating
or shipping.^)20
Solvent degreasers vary in size from simple unheated wash basins to large
heated conveyorized units in which articles are washed in hot solvent vapors.
Figure IV-49(.6)871 presents a typical vapor-spray H.egreaser. Solvent is
vaporized in the left portion of the tank either by electric, steam, or gas
heat. The vapors diffuse and fill that portion of the tank below the water-
cooled condenser. At the condenser level, a definite interface between the
vapor and air can be observed from the top of the. tank. Solvent condensed at
this level runs into the collection trough and from there to the clean-solvent
receptacle at the right of the tank. Articles to be degreased are lowered in
baskets into the vapor space of the tank. Solvent vapors condense on the
cooler metal parts, and the hot condensate washes oil and grease fmm thr. ports.
The contaminated condensate drains back into the heated tank from which it can
be revaporized. When necessary, dirty parts are hand sprayed with hot solvent
by means of a flexible hose and spray pump to aid in cleaning.
r-
WATER JACKET— [
VAPOR AREA
BOILING LIQUIOI
IMMERSION, r
HEATER I~*L
nnmi
^ — ~~— ••
aS
____
— • —
—
r ia
iFn$i?~
Jk
^_._j_j
^--•V
tf"
FINNED COIL
CONDENSER
1 CONDENSATE
"/COLLECTOR
NAUR SEPARATOR
* — DRAIN
STORAGE TANK
OVERFOL* LINE
-j— PUMP SUMP '
g)-SPRAY PUMP
Figure IV-49; Vapor-Spray Degreaser
In a continuous vapor-spray degreaser, metal parts are suspended in baskets
from hooks which move through the unit on a monorail. Figure IV-SOC1*)23
presents a diagram of a continuous vapor-spray degreaser. The parts pass through
a vapor zone, followed by a liquid immersion section and then another vapor
zone.
IV-1
-------
IV-50! Continuous Vapor-Spray Oogreaser
D. Emission Rates;
Degreasing operations use halogenated hydrocarbons. The most common hydro-
carbons -used are tn.c following: ()_
Solvent
Trichloroethylene
1, 1, 1 - Trichloroethane
Perchloroethylene
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Formula
C1HC = CG1?
CH CC1
CUC = CC1
CH,C17
cnc -
ClpC - CF Cl
Boiling Point Boiling Point
87°C 189°F
74°C 165°F
120°C 248°F
40°C 104°F
45.8°C 114°F
47.7°C 118°F
Because of Los Angeles Rule 66, an estimated 90% of the solvent use.d in Los
Angeles County is divided equally between perchloroethylene CC12C=CC12) and
1, 1, 1 trichloroethane (CH CC1 ); the remaining 10% is trichloroethylene
(C1HC=CC1-). In localities that do not have air pollution control laws restricting
organic solvent emissions, an estimated 90% of the solvent used for degreasing is
trichloroethylene. Most of the remaining 10% of the solvent is the higher boiling
perchloroethylene. Selection of solvent is dictated by the operation's temperature
requirements. Most greases and tars dissolve readily at the 189° boiling point
of trichloroethylene. Perchloroethylene boils at 249°F and is used when higher
temperatures are required or when compliance with air pollution control legislation
is required.(6)872
Solvent emissions from vapor degreasing occur primarily during loading and
unloading of the degreaser. Solvent escapes from the vapor zone and, to a lesser
extent, during idling conditions. Daily emissions of a single spray degreasing
booth may vary from a few pounds to 1300 pounds per day. A typical metal cleaning
operation using a vapor degreaser can clean 200,000 Ibs of metal in one day.v3)8
Table IV-1 presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from de-
greasing operations.
IV-2
-------
TABLE IV-1
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DECREASING OPERATIONS
Type of
Operation & Control
Dcgreasing, Uncontrolled
Dcgreasing, Refrigerated
Cooling Coils
Degreasing, Use of Covers
Degreasing, Carbon
Adsorption
%
Control
0
30-60
25-40
40-70
Metal Cleaned
Ibs/ton kf.;./ra ton
1.5 .75
1.0-0.6 0.5-0.3
1.1-0.9 0.5-0.05
0.9-0.5 0.5-0.3
Based on 200,000 Ibs of
Metal Cleaned/day(3>8
Ibs/hr k
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3, non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register,Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 56 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Colorado specifically limits hydrocarbon emissions from degreasing
operations to 40 Ibs/day and 8 Ibs/hr.
Table IV-2 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from degreasing operations.
TABLE IV-2
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM DEGREASING
Type of
Operation & Control
Decreasing, Uncontrolled
Degreasing, Refrigerated
Cooling Coils
Degreasing,
Use of Covers
Degreasing,
Carbon Adsorption
*
Control
0
30-60
25-40
40-70
Emissions
Based on 200,000 Ib
Mstul Cleaned/day
Ib/hr kR/hr
6.3 2.8
4.2-2.5 J. 9-1.1
4.6-3.8 2.1-1.7
3.8-2.1 1.7-1.0
Colorado-
Ib/hr kg/hr
8 3.6
8 3.6
8 3.6
8 3.6
Limitations1
Ib/hr kg/hr
3 1.4
3 1.4
3 1.4
3 1.4
IV-4
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations arc not based on process weight. Degrcasing operations can use
either complying solvents or covers or carbon adsorption to meet the 3 Ibs/hour
limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
Literature used to develop the information in this section on degreasing is
listed below:
(1) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970.
(2) Larson, Dennis M., Activated Carbon Adsorption for Solvent Recovery in
Vapor Degreasing, Metal Finishing, Volume 72, No. 10, October 1974.
(3) Oy.ganic__Cgnip_oundEmission Sources, Emission Control Techniques, and
Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June 1974.
(4) I-Iuglies, T. W. , Source Assessment: Prioritization of Air Pollution from
Industrial Surface Coating Operations, Monsanto Research Corporation,
Contract No. 68~-02-1320, (Task 14), February 1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation".
Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, Compiled and Edited
by John A. Danielson, May 1973.
IV-5
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Dry Cleaning
C. Source Description;
Dry cleaning is the process of washing fabrics in a nonaqueous solvent.
Two classes of organic solvents are used most frequently by the dry cleaning
industry. These are:
1. petroleum solvents, and
2. chlorinated hydrocarbon solvent.0,
(synthetic solvents).
The process of dry cleaning is performed in three steps. These include:
1. "Washing," fabric is agitated in a solvent bath
and rinsed with clean solvent;
2. "Extraction," excess solvent is removed by
centrifugal force; and
3. "Drying" or "Reclaiming," fabric is tumble
dried with warm air.
Older petroleum solvent equipment employs separate, machines for each step,
and r.ynf.h.^M r. r.nlvnnt" and ric'.-.'o.r pp.troT fy.rn solvent equipment combine the washing
and extraction in one machine, and drying in a separate unit. Hewet equipment,
including coin-operated machines, combine all three steps in one machine.
Combination washing and extracting machines contain a perforated horizontal
rotating drum enclosed in'a vapor-tight housing. The machine has one door and
is mounted on a flat base solvent tank. These machines slowly agitate the
clothes during the wash cycle, and after the solution is drained, the drum
rotates at high speed to wring solvent from the fabrics.
Machines that perform all three dry cleaning steps have a horizontal rotating
drum which is mounted with one door in a vapor-tight housing. The drum rotates
slowly during the wash cycle. After washing is completed, the solvent returns
to the tank, and the drum rotates at high speed to extract more solvent, which
is also returned to the tank. The drum again rotates slowly while heated air is
blown through the fabrics. The air is recycled to the tumbler through a condens-
er to recover the evaporated solvent. The three-step machine is used only with
synthetic solvents.
In installations where one machine does not perform all three steps, a
separate tumbler is used to dry the fabrics after the extractor. The tumbler
is a revolving perforated cylinder through which air is passed after the air
has been heated by passage, through steam heated coils. A few synthetic
solvent tumblers use electrical resistance heating coils instead of steam.
IV-6
-------
In drying tumblers that utilize petroleum solvent, the heated air makes a
single pass through the fabric. Drying tumblers designed for synthetic solvent
are called "reclaimers" or "reclaiming tumblers," and the drying air is recir-
culated in a closed system.
Heated air vaporizes the solvent, and this vapor-laden mixture is carried
through refrigerated coils. Solvent vapor is condensed and decanted from the
water and is returned to the wash machine tank. The air is then recirculated
.through the heater to the tumbling fabric. When the concentration of solvent
vapor from the drum drops below its dew point, the air is exhausted to the
atmosphere. This phase of the drying cools the fabric and deodorizes it by
evaporating the final traces of solvent.
D. Emission Rates;
The major source of hydrocarbon emissions from dry cleaning is the tumble
dryer. The amount of solvent vapors emitted to the atmosphere from any one
dry cleaning plant is dependent upon:
1. the .imount of cleaning performed,
2. the type of equipment used, and
3. the precautions practiced by the
operating personnel.
The petroleum solvents used jn Los Angeles prior to enactment of Rule 66
conLaineu 11 i_o 13 percent: by volume of highly reactive components. The
Stoddard solvent and the 140-F solvent used in Los Angeles County are refor-
mulated to contain no more than 7.5% by volume of reactive components. Table
IV-3 lists the physical properties of commonly used dry cleaning solvents.
TABLE IV-3
PROPERTIES OF DRY CLEANING SOLVENTS
Property
Flaoh point (TCC). °F
Initial boiling point, OF
Dry end point, °F
API gravity
Specific gravity »t 60 °F
Weight, Ib/gal
Paraffins, volume %
Arotnatlcf, volume %
Naphthcnci, volume %
Olcfinn, volume %
Toluene/ ethylbcnacne.
volume %
Corrotlveneii
Caution
Odor
Color
Colt (average «Ue
plant), $/gal
HO-F
U8. Z
357.8
396
47.9
0.789
6.57
45.7 '
12.1
42. Z
None
Flammable
Mild
Water white
0,29
Typical
HO-F,
R 66
143
366
400
44.0
0.8063
6.604
82. S
7.0
0.5
None
Flammable
Mild
Water white
0.50
Sloildard
100
305
350
50.1
0.779
t.49
46.5
11.6
41.9
None
Flammabln
Sweet
Water white
o, ;.R
Typical
Stock! .-u d.
R 66
108
316
356
48.1
0.788
6.56
88.3
5.9
0.8
$.0
None
Flnmmiible
Sweet
Water white
0,29
Pcrchloro-
ethylcne
Extingulvne*
fire
250
254
1.623
13.55
Slight on metal
Toxic
Ether Ilka
Colorleit
2. OS
Trichloro-
trifluoro-
ethane
Non-Flainnable
117.4
unknown
1.574
13.16
0
none
Like CCli,
Water White
8-10
IV-7
-------
Synthetic solvents for dry cleaning are classed as nonreactive. Perchloro-
ethy.lenc is used in almost all synthetic plants. Trichloroethylene, a reactive
solvent, was a major synthetic dry cleaning solvent a few years ago but is no
longer used since perchloroethylene or trichlorotrifluoroethane is preferred.
The average daily emissions to the atmosphere from synthetic dry cleaning
and petroleum dry cleaning plants is as follows:C1)879
Synthetic Solvent Dry Cleaning: 38 Ibs/day, 13.6 kg/day
Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning: 875 Ibs/day, 79.4 kg/day
The operators of plants using synthetic solvents conserve the solvent be-
cause of the high cost. A typical small neighborhood synthetic solvent plant
processing 1,500 pounds of textiles in a 5-day week have the following potential
emission rates as outlined in Table IV-3A.
TABLE IV-3A
HYDROCARBON' EMISSIONS FROM DRY CLEANIN'C L'SINC SYNTHETIC SOLVENTS
Type of Operation
waph<.-r-e.x'.rnct.or and Huparate tumbler
reclaimer, including reuse of solvc-nL
recovered fron filter sludge
Dry cleaning, using "hot" type unit
where all tiirec functions are performed
In sane machine
Dry clowning, using coin-operated units
averaging less than 8 Ibs/load, per-
forming ell three functions In one
unit
gal/
1,000 Ib3
Fabric
7.3-11
3.6- 5.5
11 -36
ll'S/
1,000 Ibs
Fabric
99.3-150
30 - 74.8
l.M) -490
Emissions
kr,/
1,000 Ibs
Fabric
45 - 68
22.2- 33.9
68 -222
]bs/dav kg/day
29. B- .'.5.0 13.5-20.4
14.7- 22.4 6.7-10.2
45.0-147 20.4-66.7
The low cost of petroleum solvents provides little economic incentive to
conserve solvent. The solvent is driven off during the drying of the fabric
in the tumbler. Solvent is also emitted during transfer of wet fabrics from
the washer to the extractor. Normally, fabrics are placed on a drain board in
the washing machine for 3 to 5 minutes before being transferred. Use of
petroleum solvents in similar plants results in emissions of 4 to 7 times more
solvent (by volume) than emissions from synthetic solvent plants.
E. Control Equipment;
Adsorption and condensation systems control synthetic solvent emissions
from modern dry cleaning plants. A water-cooled condenser normally is an in-
tegral part of the closed cycle in the reclaimer tumbler. Up to 95% of the
solvent is recovered from the clothing in the tumbler. Activated carbon ad-
sorption is used where 97%-98% control efficiencies are desired.
IV-8
-------
There are no commercially available control units for solvent recovery for
petroleum-based plants. Two types of petroleum solvents are used that are
formulated so they are non-reactive under Los Angeles County's Rule 66.C1)882
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for the dry cleaning industry.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
. heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/clay & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register .Vol. 36. No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
'perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulationa.
IV-9
-------
Colorado specifically limits hydrocarbon emissions from dry cleaning
operations by requiring at least 85% control. Operations that emit less than
3 Ibs/hr and 15 Ibs/d.iy uncontrolled are exempt from the Section J regulation;
Also dry cleaning operations can become exempt from Section J by switching
to a non-photochemic:ally reactive, solvent.
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Typical dry cleaning operations
as described in Section D, by virtue of using conforming synthetic solvents and
equipment that recycles the solvent, will be in compliance with hydrocarbon
regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information on dry cleaning is listed
below:
1. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollutional Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
2- Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edition,
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, April ~1973.
3• Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating
Operations, Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320,
February 1975.
4. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970.
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
IV-10
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category: Petroleum Refueling of Motor .Vehicles
C. Source Description;
Refueling of vehicle tanks causes a displacement of hydrocarbon vapor laden
air from vehicle tanks to the atmosphere. The amount of vapor displaced is
proportional to the volume of gasoline delivered to the tank. The emissions con-
sist of the more volatile components of gasoline including butanes and pentanes. O)?-
A recent study for the Department of Commerce by the Panel on Automotive Fuels and •
Air Pollution (March 1971) showed that the contribution of unburned hydrocarbons
to the atmosphere during refueling operations compared with 1975 exhaust HC
standards of .41 g/mile, is becoming a significant portion of the total. The HC
vapor emissions during vehicle refueling are estimated at .32 g/mile.(2)^3
D. Emission Rates:
Hydrocarbon emissions from refueling vehicle tanks are dependent upon:
1. the volume of fuel delivered,
2. ambient temperature, and
3. vapor pressure of gasoline.
Table IV-5 presents controlled and un
ing for typical service station si
emissions from refueling vehicle tanks i
of gasoline delivered.'2'3 A vapor balari
1.1-3.3 lbs/1,000 gallons pumped. Secondary
90% to 1.1 lbs/1,000 gal (-13 kg/103 liters).^)4
essing
irbpn emissions from
The uncontrolled
'(1.3 kg/103 liters)
emissions 70%-90% to
systems reduce emissions
' TABLE IV-5
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM REFUELING VEHICLE TANKS
Type of
Operation & Control
Major Service Stations, Uncontrolled
Major Service Stations, Vapor Balance
Major Service Stations, Secondary Processing
Independents, Uncontrolled
Independents, Vapor Balance
Independents, Secondary Processing
Rural Stations >2000 gal < 6000 gal/mn, Uncontrolled
Rural Stations >2000 gal < 6000 gal/mn, Vapor Balance
Rural Stations >2000 gal < 6000 gal/mn, Secondary
Processing
Terminals >25,000 gal/day, Uncontrolled
Terminals '--25,000 gal/day, Vapor Balance
Terminals >25,000 gal/ilay, Secondary Processing
%
Control
0
7(l-90(5)'4
90(6)7
0
70-90(5)1*
90(6)7
0
70^90(5)u
90<6)7
0
70-90<5)1*
90(6>7
Enissions
ljr/
w
*y
5.9
.6-1.8
.6
2.6
.3-. 8
.3
.18
.02-. 05
.02
.98
.1-.3
.1
kg/
day
2.65
.27-. 81
.27
1.17
.14-. 36
.14
.08
.009-. 02
.009
.44
.05-. 14
.05
IV-11
-------
E. Control Equipment:
Various concepts are possible to appreciably reduce vapor losses during present
refueling of vehicle tanks.(2)91 The two basic concepts for minimizing refueling
losses differ primarily where the displaced vapor is collected. The two basic
approaches are:
1. containment of refueling vapors within vehicle,
2. containment of refueling vapors within station.
Figure IV-8 presents a diagram of the concept for collection, containment, and
ultimate disposal of vehicle refueling losses. This concept has several advantages
and disadvantages. These are listed as follows:
Containment of Refueling Vapors Within Vehicle
Advantages
Requires little modification
of filling station.
Disadvantages
Imposes major task for con-
trol of exhaust emissions.
Cost and complexity rule out
retrofit.
Does not control station
refueling losses.
. v
IClkOWl ^/-»y: _ ,1 \
—- " — ->
Figure IV-8; Schematic of Vehicle
• Vapor Containment
IV-12
-------
Figure IV-9 presents a diagram of'a vapor control nozzle that would return
displaced vapors from vehicle fuel tank to underground storage tank. Figure
IV-10 presents a diagram of the vapor return and fuel lines that would be
necessary to accomodate the vapor control nozzle. The nozzle presented in
Figure IV-9: Vapor'Control Hoxvi
Figure IV-10; Station Modification
for Tight Fill Nozzle
Figure IV-9 would have to be mated to a newly designed filler neck on vehicle
tanks. Figure IV-11 presents the adapter arrangement that would be necessary
to utilize this "equal-volume exchange concept" on older vehicles.
IV-13
-------
Figure IV-11; Retrofit Adapter
for Past Models
The "equal-volume exchange concept" as outlined in the above figures also
has its own unique advantages and disadvantages. They_are as follows:
Containment of Refueling Vapors Within Station
Advantages Disadvantages
Maintenance of system would
be more effective than main-
tenance of systems on
millions of vehicles.
Control of underground tank
breathing and refueling
vapors should be easily
attainable.
Use of adapters would be
difficult to police, and it
would complicate attendant's
task.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for petroleum refueling of motor vehicles.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Several states specifically
regulate hydrocarbon emissions arising from refueling vehicle tanks.
California Bay area is representative of a regulation that requires 90%
control of refueling emissions. Colorado limits the emissions from refueling
to 1.10 lbs/103 gallons of fuel delivered. Recently,• EPA Region I has
promulgated a transportation control plan for the Boston Air Quality Control
Region (Federal Register, June 12, 1975). Part of the plan included vapor
return lines to be installed on gasoline stations to limit refueling
vehicle emissions and station tank refueling emissions.
IV-14
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation; Existing technology
is adequate to meet the 1.10 lbs/1000 gallon imposed by Colorado. A vapor
balance or a secondary processing system operating at 90% control efficiency
is required and has been accomplished on existing sources.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information in this section, "Petroleum
Refueling of Motor Vehicles," is listed below:
1. Vehicle Refueling Emission Seminar, API Publication 4222, December
4-5, 1973.
2. Hydrocarbon Vapor Control at Gasoline Service Stations, Barnard R.
McEntire and RayHkoff, APT1C #62202, Presented 66 APCA, Chicago,
Illinois, June 24-28, 1973.
3. Organic Compound Emission Sources Control Techniques jind Emission
limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, June 1974.
4. Batchelder, A. H., Kline, D.I., Vapor Recovery at Service Stations,
State of California Air Resources Board, April 17, 1974.
5. Callaghan, D. J., Feldstein M., The Control of Gasoline Vapor Emissions
at Service Stations, Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, San
Francisco, California, for Presentation at the 68th Annual Meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association, Boston, Massachusetts,
June 15-20, 1975.
6. Schneider, Alan M., Cost Effectiveness of Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Systems, University of California at San Diego, for Presentation at
the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Boston, Massachusetts, June 15-20, 1975.
7• Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations.
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
IV-15
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Graphic Arts (Gravure)
C. Source Description:
Gravure printing is a type of printing where the image area is recessed
relative to the surface of the image carrier. Ink is picked up in the engraved
area, and excess ink is scraped off the nonimage area with a "doctor blade."
Ink is transferred directly from the image carrier to the paper or. film.
Gravure may be sheet fed or roll fed. Sheet-fed gravure uses either a flat
plate for an image carrier, or a curved plate which is attached to a cylinder.
In roll-fed gravure, or rotogravure, the image is engraved in the cylinder
itself. Rotogravure may be used for coated or uncoated paper, film, foil, and
many combinations thereof.O)2
The ink used in high speed gravure printing contains a relatively large
amount of low-boiling solvent and has a low viscosity. The rotogravure inks
contain approximately 65% highly volatile, aromatic solvent which is not subject
to decomposition in the drying process. Control of solvent vapors around the
ink fountain is desirable to avoid the danger of explosion. For most commercial
operations, the solvent concentration in the exhaust gases ranges between 25%
and 40% of the lower explosive limit.'2'3t+7
Figure TV-1'/*. O 3i| VJ presents a schematic of a rotogravure printing
operation. (2) 3l49 Rotogravure printing is similar to web-letterpress because
the web is printed on one side at a time and must be dried after each color is
printed. In publication printing, the web is usually passed through four presses
where four colors are applied to one side of the web. The web is turned over and
passed through four additional presses for the reverse side printing. For
four-color, two-sided printing, eight presses are employed, and each press will
include a pass over or through a steam drum or hot air dryer where nearly all of
the initial solvent is removed.
SOLVENT LADEN AIR
"591-B./MIN. OF SOLVENT'
GRAl/UnE INK
»eS"/i SOLVENT .
( AROMATIC a. ESTERM
eOLB/MIN. YELLOW?
63 IN. WEEJ .IS
ONE SIDE PRINTING
SO-/J, COVERAGE
PRODUCT
**-
MEAT
F ROM
AIR F'ti=l COLOR STC/iM.
MOT WA.TER
OR
MOT AIR
Flf.urp. IV-17; Rotogravure Printing Operation
IV-16
AIR COO-
WATER
-------
A typical rotogravure printing operation as depicted in Figure IV-17
operating under the conditions listed would have hydrocarbon emissions
according to press speed as presented in Figure IV-18.O)351
IOOOO
*>00
1000
1500
2000
PRESS SPEED, FEET/MIN.
Figure IV-18: Enjgston Rates from a Typical Rotogravure PrintlnK Operation
D. Emission Rates:
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions from rotogravure printing are:
1. hot air dryer,
2. press unit,
3. chill rolls, and
4. ink fountain.
In gravure and printing operations in general the ink is the major source
of hydrocarbons. Printing inks consist of three major components:
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed
of finely divided organic and inorganic materials.
2. Resins, which bind the pigments to the substrate, are
composed of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
IV-17
-------
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.(2)335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, unsaturates and mixtures
with aromatic content greater than 25% by volume.
B. Normal and isoparaffins, cycloparaffins, mineral spirits
containing less than 15% aromatics.
C. Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butariol,
isobutanol, glycols, esters, ketones.
D. Trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. Nitroparaffins and dimethyl formamide.
F. Miscellaneous
Table IV-7 presents the volume breakdown in hundreds of gallons of solvent
consumed for ink dilution by process and solvent type.C2)338
TABLE IV-7
PRINTING
PliOCESS
Lithography
Letterpress
Flexography
Gravura
Screen Printing
BXJ
A
14,972
98
58
10,089
34
OWN OF SOLVENT CONSUMED EQfUJMK DILUTI
IIiMG-P.RO.C£SS_AN£l_S.QL.V£iMI...TY.P£_il!
SOLVENT TYPE (HUNDRED GALLONS)
BCD E
23,941 16,691 38 723
444 399 52
60G 10,180 - 1
24,637 12,868 - 12
173 85 -
3.5S)
F
408
1
170
-
145
Total
25,251 49,801 40,223
90
735
724
_TOTAL_
56,773
994
11,015
47.606
437
116,825
Table IV-7A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in pounds/hour
and kilograms/hour for the typical rotogravure printing operations as depicted in
Figure IV-17. The emissions listed are for a typical operation. These could vary
even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of the ink, the per-
centage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of colors applied and
dryers used, and press speed affect the emissions.
IV-18
-------
TABLE IV-7A
HYDROCARBON-EMISSIONS FROM GRAVURE PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper
Uncontrolled
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, Uncontrolled .
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Thermal Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Thermal Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Catalytic Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Catalytic Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Adsorption
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Adsorption
%
Control
n
V
n
w
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
* 7
Press Speed
feet/min
i con
j. j\j\j
1500
A-/ V w
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
J»M/UW
Emissions
Ibs/hr
15
±J
20
m*\J -
1.5-.15
2 -.2
2. 3-. 75
3-1
.15
• *•/
2
• *•
kg/hr
6.8
9 1
7 » JL
.7-. 07
.9-.1
1.0-.3
1.4-.5
.07
1
• JU
E. Control Eq'-iipmcnt;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from rotogravure and printing operations in
general, are categorized according to the following:()
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. conventional air pollution control equipment.
1. Process Modification;
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon emissions,
Several methods of drying are being developed which could greatly reduce
hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors will be emitted if conventional inks are used.
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The ink
will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydrocarbon
emissions.
IV-19
-------
Electron beam drying utilizes electron- induced polymerization. The
procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers which
will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultra-Violet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the process.
2. Ink Modification-
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographic operations. A disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers are employed. The
application of microwave drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
Solventless inks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
present equipment without modification. Since lower oven temperatures
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3 . Conv entional Air Pollution Control Equipment :
Exhaust grises from gravure and printing operations in general are.
treated with conventional pollution control equipment. The three main
types of processes utilized are:
1. thermal combustion,
2. catalytic combustion, and
3. adsorption.
Thermal comb us tion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective gravure vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases are
preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F. Fuel
consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed and
the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable of
operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure IV-19^1)358
presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired hydro-
carbons from the rotogravure exhaust. The oxidation occurs with a
catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic base or
metal ribbon. Figure IV-20C1)359 is a schematic of a catalytic incin-
erator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95% depending on the
application.
IV-20
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO -4-OO T
f
/MR IN
70 TO so
PAIM fl)
PRESS
DRYER
OR
METAL.
DECORATING
OVEN
1
|
1
!
v_
, ....J mon Tn
EXCHANGER FUEL.
T ' io°
^OO TO POO'F
TOO TO IOOO •!•' <
TO STACK
PUANT HEATING
SYSTEM
ISOO T
_ ^
, ' f
i T
O TO ISOO'F j
(ESIDENCE ' t-
^HAMBER c
Figure IV-19: Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
RI_ANT
HEATIfMO
SYSTEM
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
30O TO -
-------
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise distillation is necessary. Figure I
presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A well designed
bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent before regeneration
is required. The efficiencies of a well designed bed are 99%.
ADSORPTIOM (SOL-VENT- RECOVERY SYSTEM)
EXHAUST AIR
TO
ATMOSPHERE
(SOL.VENT FREE)
| STEA.V1 PL.US
I SOUVE.-MT VAPORS
RECOVERED
LOW PRESSURE STEAtvt
FOR REXiSNERATION
AND RECOVERY
Figure IV-21; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
WATER
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);
have been promulgated for gravure printing.
No New Source Performance Standards
State Regulations forNew and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the, atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
IV-22
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
' . carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register.Vol. 36. No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission, of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
'perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and C!-c5n-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions fror.i handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table IV-8 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from rotogravure printing operations.
TABLE IV-8
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ROTOGRAVURE PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper
Uncontrolled
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
. Paper, Uncontrolled
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Thermal Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Thermal Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Catalytic Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Catalytic Combustion
Rotogravure Printing, Coated Paper,
with Adsorption
Rotogravure Printing, Non-Coated
Paper, with Adsorption
%
Control
n
\J
o
\J
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
y *
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr
1 '5
j..'
20
ff\J
1.5-.15
2 -.2
2.3-.7S
3-1
15
• •*••*
.2
• <(•
kg/hr
6 8
u . o
O I
* • J.
.7-. 07
.9-.1
1.0-.3
1.4-.5
07
• w •
.1
• A
Limitations
Ibs/hr
•»
j
3
^
3
3
3
3
3
J
3
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Rotogravure printing operations,
even well controlled, could violate the 3 Ibs/hour limitation if the number of
presses and press speed are such that the emissions could average more than
3 Ibs/hr.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
References used in preparation of this summary include the following:
1 • Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Info_rmat_ion for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J, Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Prioriantion of Air Pollution. From Industrial Surface Coating Operations ,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 19~75.
The. fo.llovj.ing references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on gravure printing.
^ • EvaJUia tions of .Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries> Phase II: Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
.. Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
•*• 'Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control TerbnJones and
Emission Limitation Guidelines, EPA, June 1974.
6. Hydrocarbon Pollutant^ System Study. Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control, October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-24
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Graphic Arts (Letterpress)
C. Source Description:
Letterpress printing is the oldest and most basic form of printing and still
predominates in periodical and newspaper publishing. Approximately 93% of the
nation's newspapers are printed by this process. C1) 332 In letterpress printing,
ink is transferred to the paper from the image surface. This surface is raised
relative to the nonprinting surface of the plate. Originally, letterpress was
done with a flatbed image carrier, and the image was hand set type. Currently,
the image is transferred to a mat which can be curved. Then a cylindrical plate
is made from the curved mat.v2)5
Letterpress printing currently is accomplished in two similar but different
processes. The composition of the ink and the inclusion of drying are the main
areas where the processes differ. The two types of letterpress printing are:
1. letterpress, publication, and
2. letterpress, newspaper.
1. Letterpress, publication uses a paper web that is printed on one side
at a time, and the web is dried after each color is printed. When four
colors ?.re prir.tsd. ? procedure called "double ending" is employed. The
web processes through one press and one dryer, is turned over and re-
turned to the same press where it was adjacent to the first pass on the
same cylinder. In this manner, only four presses and four dryers are
required for four-color, two-sided printing. The dryer may be either a
hot air dryer whe're a minimum of flame impingement occurs, or an all-
flame dryer where direct impingement of the flame on the web occurs.
The composition of the dryer emissions depends on the type of dryer
employed. In the hot air dryer, very little solvent decomposition occurs
As the amount of flame impingement increases, the quantity of solvent
decomposition also increases.
The exhaust and solvent emission rates shown in Figure IV-ZZO)345 re-
present one color, two-sided printing. In an actual four-color operation,
four dryers would be manifolded together to a .common exhaust stack.
Letterpress publication ink is similar in composition to lithographic
ink (heatset - 35% aliphatic solvent) . The composition of hydrocarbon
emissions depends on the type of dryer. O)
IV-25
-------
PXMAUST Jf>;
7DOO SCFM go
I|S*SS»33'V<, ALIPHATIC
SOLVENT
38 IN. WEB, ISOOfPM
2 SIDES . 1 COLOR
ISO"Vo COVERAGE
2L.B./
i
•VIR*
f _
^
N -
t
n
i
UT
ERh
GAS
I-
/
*
DF
2>*C
J["
?w
2^ •
7i- i
\IR
JOT)
^YCR
>o°r
PF
2
o
i
IUTEF
1
»
• • • -,'•-..
b
^ AIR 0. SMOKE
1
CHILL. PRODLK:T ^
0°" riwi_l_S pi_us -400/.
OT INITIAL-
SOLVENT
1 7
0.
3>-
iZ
AIR AT 7S»r
1 U
AIR H2O
n
Figure IV-22; Web Letterpress, Publication
Letterpress, newspaper printing operations use oxidative drying inks
which contain little or no solvent. The exhaust gases from these
operations are not a source of hydrocarbon emissions. The only sub-
stances emitted from these operations are ink mist and paper dust.
Figure IV-23C1)31*6 presents a schematic of a letterpress, newspaper
printing process.
30 IN. wrr*
1000
INK • *.fl L.B. /H«..
•£<•/. OIL
I»V» CAA&ON
NO SOUVCIMT
Figure IV-23; Web Letterpress. Newspaper
IV-26
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions from letterpress printing are:
1. hot air dryer,
2. press unit, and
3. chill rolls.
In letterpress and printing operations in general, the ink is the major
source of hydrocarbons. Printing inks consist of three major., components:
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed
of finely divided organic and inorganic materials.
2. Resins, which bind the pigments to the substrate, are
composed of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.(2)335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, unsaturates, and mixtures
with aromatic content greater than 25% by volume.
B. Normal and isoparaffins, cycloparaffins, mineral spirits
containing less than 15% aromatics.
C.' Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol,
isobutanol, glycols, esters, ketones.
D. Trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. Nitroparaffins and dimethyl formamide.
F. Miscellaneous
Table IV-9 presents the volume breakdown in hundreds of gallons of solvent
consumed for ink dilution by process and solvent type.(2)338
TABLE IV-9
VOLUME BREAKDOWN OF SOLVENT CONSUMED FOR INK DILUTION
BY PRINTING PROCESS AND SOLVENT TYPE (1968)
PRINTING
PROCESS
Lithography
Letterpress
Flexography
Gravure
Screen Printing
A
14,972
98
58
10,039
34
SOLVENT TYPE (HUNDRED GALLONS)
B CD E
23,941
444
606
24,637
173
1fi,G91 38 723
399 52
10,180 - "1
12,868 - 12
85 -
F
408
1
170
-.
145
TOTAL
58,773
994
11,015
47,600
437
Total
25.251 49,801 40,223 90
736
724
116,825
IV-27
-------
A typical letterpress printing operation as depicted in Figure IV-22
operating under the conditions listed would have hydrocarbon emissions
according to press speed as presented in Figure IV-24.
500 IOOC 1500
PRESS SPEED, FEET/MIN.
2COO
Figure IV-2A; Emission Rates from Web Offset and Web
Letterpress Employing Heatset Inks
Table IV-9A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in pounds/hour
and kilograms/hour for the typical letterpress printing operations as depicted
in Figure IV-24. The emissions listed are for a typical operation. These could
vary even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of the ink, the
percentage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of colors applied and
dryers used, and press speed affect the hydrocarbon emissions.
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from letterpress and printing operations in
general are categorized according to the following: (2)35lf
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. conventional air pollution control equipment.
IV-28
-------
TABLE IV-9A
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM LETTERPRESS PUBLICATION PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper, Uncontrolled
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Noiicoated
Paper with Thermal Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Adsorption
%
Control
o
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Press Speed
ft/min
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500'
1500
1500
Emissions
Ibs/hr
.26
.35
.026-. 0026
.035-. 0035
.039-. 013
' .053-. 018
.0026
.0035
kc/hr
.12
.16
.012-. 0012
.016-. 0016
.018-. 006
.024-. 006
.0012
.0016
1. Process Modification:
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon
emissions. Several methods of drying are being developed which could
greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors would be emitted if conventional inks are used.
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The
ink will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydro-
carbon emissions.
Electron beam drying utilizes electron induced polymerization.
The procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers
which will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultraviolet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the' process.
2. Ink Modification;
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographic operations. A disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers are employed. The appli-
cation of microwave drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
IV-29
-------
Solventless inks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
present equipment without modification. Since lower oven temperatures
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3. Conventional Air Pollution Control Equipment;
Exhaust gases from letterpress and printing operations in general are
treated with conventional pollution control equipment. The three main
types of processes utilized are: .
a. thermal combustion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective letterpress vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases
are preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F.
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable
of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure
IV-25C1)358 presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO ^OO *F
/MR IN
fO TO BO
PAN I
C:
i
PR
OR
C
ME
DECOF
OV
")
4
ESS
rER
>R
TAL.
BATING
'EN
^-
_, ^
r
TOO TO IOOO »F
V.
(
HE
EXCH/a
1
)
AT ^
>NGER
, .
600 TO
IOOO
AUXIL.
FUE
lOOO'F
TO ISOO • F
ARY
:i_
~1
IOOO TO ISOO'F
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
1
1
i
t
i
i
i
IOOO TO I
isoo *r_ |
TO
^ OR
PLANT
HEATING
SYSTEM
TO STACK
OR
PL.ANT HEATING
SYSTEM
Figure IV-25; Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including^
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
IV-30
-------
Catalytic combustion causes flanieless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the letterpress exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-26C1)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO ^00 «r
FAN
70 TO 00
•F
1
ESS
YER
3R
TAL_
BATING
/EN
SS60OT
| -«
V
)
(
HEAT ^
EXCHANGER
1
TOO TO SOO *F
AUXILIARY
FUEL-
eoo TO 900 -r
*
CATAL.YST-
BED
J|j3 900-F
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
1
\
1
1
1
700 TOl
OOO -F |
TO STAC;;,
*• OR
PLANT
HEATINQ
SYSTEiVl
|
TO STACK
OR
PLANT HEATING
SYSTEM
Figure IV-26:
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possiblities for Heat Recovery
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air0 If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-ZyO)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-de-
signed bed are 99%.
IV-31
-------
ADSORPTION (SOLVENT-RECOVERY SYSTEM) .
EXHAUST AIR
TO
ATMOSPHERE
(SOLVENT FREE)
DRYER
OR
OVEN
VAPOR
UADEN, ».
AIR !
if
i i
i
.
r— — ••
ACTIVATED CARBON
1
t
1
• | STEAM P
1 SOLVENT
ADSORBER ! (
f
ACTIVATED CARQON
"~ ADSORBER
•*'•"• L'-IA'V PHiLSto
FOR REGEfsli
AND RE COVE
1
1 CC
URE STEAM
tRATION
:RY
1_US
VAPORS
1NDENSER
RECOVERED
1 SOLVENT
2?/
/// DECANTER
Figure IV-27; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
•WATER
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for letterpress printing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
IV-32
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. imheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
AO 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal_Register,YoJL_J6, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
'perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and ci-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
.states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table IV-10 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
f-rom letterpress printing operations.
TABLE IV-10
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM LETTERPRESS PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Letterpress Prtncing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper, Uncontrolled
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with The.rr.inl Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Thermal Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Catalytic Combustion
Letterpress Printing, .Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Letterpress Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Adsorption
%
Control
• ,
0
. u
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr
9fi
• • AD
35
• JJ
.026-. 0026
.035-. 0035
.039-. 013
.05 3-. 018
.0026
.0035
kR/hr
1 9
• J.£
16
* JLU
.012-. 0012
.016-. 0016
.018-. 006
.024-. 008
.0012
.0016
Limitations
Ibs/hr
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
3
kg/hr
1L
. *t
1 4
JL« *T
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emissions
limitations are not based on process weight. Letterpress printing operations as
outlined in Section D, even uncontrolled, will not violate the 3 Ib/hr limitation.
However, it is conceivable to have a number of presses and dryers manifolded
together where control would be necessary to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation.
IV-3 3
-------
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The literature used to develop the information on letterpress printing is
as follows: • .
1. . Air Pollution Control Technology and. Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
•
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on letterpress printing.
4. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines; EPA, June 1974.
6. Hydrocarbon Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control, October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-34
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category! GraphJc Arts (Metal Coating)
C. Source Description;
Metal Coating is the printing with ink of an image on a sheet or object.
The image is usually applied to coated metal with a lithographic press. Clear
varnish is then applied directly over the wet ink for protection of the printed
image. The entire process involves three operations:
1. application of the undercoating to the bare metal,
2. printing of the image to the dried coating, and
3. application of the clear varnish over the image.
TFie base coat is roller coated onto the metal and contains 50-80% solvents
.By volume. Figure IV-28 is a schematic of a metal coating operation. The base
coat is baked at 350°F-425°F. The quantity of the solvent emitted from the oven
is dependent on the thickness and solvent content of the coating. The ovens are
operated from 10% to 25% of the lower explosive limit.
BO SHEETS /MIM.
2S
HOOD
2&U-F
COATER
APR C. SOLVENT' |
2.2OL.S. /
ROOtvl
AIR
L*—
lfc.|B
'MINI.
i
IO.OOO SCF.V1
1 GAS
19 *•
V A irj
t— -«*—
OVEN 1 ;>_
37O°f
COOL.H-43
ZONE
L.ACO.IJER , INSIDE
OR REVERSE
SIDE , 7O"/o SOL-VENT
ROOM OR
OUTSIDE AIR
ir-JVERT
TO INPUT,
-WB)
2O Mll_l_IGRAMS /-* IN.2
ESSErMTIA^I_Y DRV
TO OUTSIDE
(HOT AIR)
AIR
GAS
WCIGHT
R/-TIOS
XYUOt.
a a
Figure IV-28: Metal Sheet Coating Operation
IV-35
-------
The coated sheets are printed with lithographic inks containing very little
if any solvent. The wet inked sheets are coated with a varnish containing 70-80%
solyent and dried in wicket ovens at approximately 320°F. These ovens are operr-
ated at 10% to 25% of the lower explosive limit. Figure IV-29 is a schematic of the
printing and overcoating operations for metal decorating. (^
6O SHEETS/fvlllsl.
as IN. x as IN.
70°F 0.39 1_B
WAX!
NO SOLVENT
K~M .
OOM
AIR
>-
.-•lOOOSCFM
OVEN
320-F
O—
ROOM OR
OUTSIDE AIR
WATER FOR
FOUNTAIN
SOLUTION
WICKET
1 PRE-
HEAT
rj-ox
VARNISH,
, SOLVENT,
f SAME RATIO $ "
AS FIG. -4-1
Ala
-STACK
STACK
12 MILLIGRAMS /-4-IN.'
ESSENTIALLY DRY
HOT AIR
TO OUTSIDE
ii^*rx .
S«Vo ALIPHATIC SOLVENT
MAY BE ADDED ON PRESS!
Figure IV-29: tletal Sheet Printing and Varnish Overcoating
D. Emission Rates;
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions in metal decorating printing
are:
1. surface roller coating
2. oven exhaust, and
3. varnish overcoater operation.
The roller coating and varnish overcoating operations are sequential and
comprise the bulk of the hydrocarbon emissions. The lithographic type inks
used in metal decorating contain little solvent, and their emissions due to
evaporation are insignificant.(2)3 The ovens are heated by oil or natural gas,
and the exhaust contains the products of combustion in addition to the evaporated
solvent.
IV-36
-------
Table IV-11 presents emission rates for the various operations of metal
decorating from the ovens.(2)3 The thickness of the coatings and solvent content
influence the amount of hydrocarbons in the emissions.
. TABLE IV-11
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM METAL DECORATING
Type of
Operation & Control
Metal Decorating, Heated Oven Only
Metal Decorating, Printing Only
Metal. Decorating, Printing with
Varnish Application
Metal Decorating, Sizing (Lacquer)
Metal Decorating, Coatings
Metal Decorating, Printing with
Varnish Application, Thermal
Incineration
Metal Decorating, Coatings,
Thermal Incineration
%
Control
0
0
0
0
0
90-99
90-99
Range of Emissions
Ibs/hr
.2-1.0
.2-1.0
4.0- 16.0
6.0- 30.0
4.0-122.0
.04-1.6
.4-12.2
kg/hr
.09-. 5
.09-. 5
1.8- 7.3
2.7-13.6
1.8-55.3
.02-. 7
.2-5.5
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from metal decorating are categorized
according to the following:
1. reformulation of solvents, and
2. application of control equipment.
1. Reformulation of Solvents;
The solvents employed in the varnish and lacquer coatings are
usually composed of methyl isobutzl ketone (MIBK), xylol and aliphatic
solvents, all of which can be at least partially removed in the wicket
ovens. The extent of solvent decomposition in the ovens is a function
pf the 'variation of temperature due to a variation of the mixing effi-
cieicies of the hot and cold gases in the oven. (1)350 ^ substitution
of noiv-photochemically reactive solvents or solvents that polymerize
when heated would reduce or eliminate the problem of excessive hydro-
carbon emissions.
2. Application of Control Equipment;
Thermal combustion incinerates hydrocarbon emissions from the
wicket ovens in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases are pre-
heated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1400°F.
IV-37
-------
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange
employed and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators
are capable of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to
95%. C1)350 Figure IV-30O)358 is a schematic of a thermal incin-
erator. Thermal combustion is used to incinerate fumes from the
larger metal decorating operations.(2)3 Other types of control
equipment applications are possible but were not summarized in
Table IV-11.
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO 4-OO *F
FAN
TO .STACKS
|» OR
P1_ANT
HEATIfsIG
SYSTEM
TO STACK
OR
PL. ANT ML.ATIIMG
SYSTEM
Figure IV-30;
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the metal decorating ovens. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-3lO)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
IV-38
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO -4OO *r
'/<) TO S>0
^
PRESS
DRYER
OR
DECORATING
OVEN
— r.
v
j
HEAT
EXCHANGER
7OO TO 9OO «F
AUXILIARY
FUEL-
SCO TO :JOO -F
1
V
CATALYST
BEO
(?fl
RESIDENCE
1
1
1
1
700 TO !
?oo •<-• i
TO STACK
>. OR
PI_AMT
HEATIMG
SYSTEM
I
_ _j
TO STACK
OR
PL.ANT H1TATING
SYSTEM
Figure IV-31;
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Includirig
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed"'is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam, or hot airt If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise distillation is necessary. Figure IV-32C1)360
presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A well designed
bed will adsorb 15% of its own weight of solvent before regeneration
is required. 'The efficiencies of a well designed bed are 99%.
'ADSORPTION (SOLVENT -RECOVERY SYSTEM)
EXHAUST Al»
TO
. ATMOSPHERE
(SOUVENfT FREE)
DRV
O
ov
1 —
'ER
R
EN
•tm. UADE'IM,
AIR
r-
f-
1
1
0. XsCTIVATEU CARBON
' . '
ADSORBER •
f-"
'"[ACTIVATED CARSON
r
"~ ADSORBclR
i
1
^^-^ 1
Ll
row
AND RECOVERY
STC.AM PLJUS
I SOLVENT VAPORS
CONC-ENSER
j
RECOVERED
SOLVENT
L—'
DEC/iJslTER
WATER
Figure IV-32; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
IV-39
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for metal decorating.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketonec having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylche. or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
• Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register*Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3'lbs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-Csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated -the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
.states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
IV-40
-------
Table IV-12 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from metal decorating operations.
TABLE IV-12
HYDROCARBON EMISSION'S AND LIMITATIONS FROM KETAL DECORATING
Type of
Operation & Control
Metal Decorating, Heated Oven Only
Metal Decorating, Printing Only
Metal Decorating, Printing with
Vnrnish Application
Mfital Decorating, Sizing (Lacquer)
Metal Decorating, Coatings
Metal Decorating, Printing with
Varnish Application, Thermal
Incineration
Metal Decorating, Coatings,
Thermal Incineration
%
Control
0
0
0
0
0
90-99
90-99
Emissions
Ihs/hr
.2-1.0
.2-1.0
4.0- 16.0.
6.0- 30.0
4.0-122.0
.04-1.6
.4-12.2
kR/hr
.09-. 5
.09-. 5
1.8- 7.3
2.7-13.6
1.8-55.3
.02-. 7
.2-5.5
Limitations •
Ibs/hr
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
kg/hr
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Metal surface coating, even
well controlled, could violate the 3 Ibs/hour limitation. Metal decorating
operations arc characterized by all being different from each other in terms of:
1. production rate,
2. solvent usage, and
3. control equipment.
The graphic arts printing of metal decorating will not violate the 3 Ibs/hr
limitation.
The Environment Repj)rj:er_ was used to update the emission limitations.
IV-41
-------
G. References;
. The literature used to develop the Information on metal decorating is
as follows: .
1. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 19,72.
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on metal decorating.
A. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-Offnet and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
• , %
5. Orgchie Compound Emission_Sourc:e_s_v ffiij.ss_ipn Cnnt.ro]. Techniqj\cc, _and
Emission Limitation Guidelines, EPA, .June 19/4.
6. Hydrocarbon Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control, October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-42
-------
A. Source Category: IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Graphic Arts (Lithography)
C. Source Description;
Lithography printing is characterized by having the image area on the same
plane as the non-image area. The image area chemically attracts ink while the
non-image area chemically repels ink. The printing image is applied to a
cylinder which transfers the inked image directly to the substrate. This process
is direct lithography. The printing image can also be applied to a cylinder where
the inked image is transferred to a rubber blanket cylinder which in the same
revolution prints the wet inked image onto the substrate. This second process
is called offset lithography. When a web or continuous roll of paper is
employed with the offset process, it is called web-offset printing.(*'332
Web-offset printing employs a heatset ink. The web of paper travels through
the presses where it is printed on both sides simultaneously. The wet web is
passed through a dryer (^400°F) where approximately 60% of the initial solvent
is removed. The web passes over the chill rolls wttere it is cooled prior to
folding and cutting. Figure IV-SS'1'31*2 presents a schematic of a web-offset,
publication process.
FILTER I
300 scnvi
TO BURNER,
al.2L-B.XHR.
or SOLVENT
EXHAUST
(£00 TO .3000('-}-.
SCFM ^-^
-AIR AT 75°F
f'^
FILTER
& 351-3. /MR.
-~3Z>°/0 ALIPHATIC '
SOLVENT
1
H-UP^ {_ ir
VENT ta~ — FOUN"
.VEBJOOOrPM
ioi:s . iso0.-!,
EH
>5
i RVEf
OO"F
5O FJ
C3 —
r. (5
tr f*
— — {*— - )R
L.
6OOO TO OOOO
SCFM
AIR a. SMOKC
| CHILL
•(ROLLS
WATER >
ISOPROPANOI
O.3 LS . / L&J.*"or INK
WATER &.
*• ISOPROPANJCL,
VAPOR
PRODUCT
PLUS •'VO'Vo
OF INITIAL
SOLVENT
AIR AT
AIR AT 7S°F
Figure IV-33; Web-Offset. Publication
IV-43
-------
A typical web-offset printing operation as depicted in Figure VI-33 operating
under the conditions listed would have hydrocarbon emissions according to press
speed as presented in Figure IV-34. O)3l*5
0.4
I 0.3
i
O
in
0.2
IS
O
-------
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed of
finely divided organic and inorganic materials.
2. Resins, which bind the pigments to the substrate, are composed
of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.'2'335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, unsaturates and mixtures
with aromatic content greater than 25% by volume.
B. Normal and isoparaffins, cycloparaffins, mineral spirits con-
taining less than 15% aromatics.
C. Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol, isobutanol,
glycols, ester ketones.
D. Trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. Nitroparaffins and dimethyl formamide.
F. Miscellaneous.
Table IV-IS^1'339 presents the volume breakdown in hundreds of gallons of
solvent consumed for ink dilution by process and solvent type.
TAIU.F. IV-13
PRINTING
PROCESS
Lithography
Letterpress
Flexography
Gravure
Screen Printing
BY F
A
14,972
98
58
10,089
34
BY PRINTING .PROCESS AND SOLVENT TYPE (1968)
SOLVENT TYPE (HUNDRED GALLONS)-
B
23,941
444
606
24,637
173
C
16,691
399
10,180
12,868
85
D
38
52
E
723
1
12
F
408
1
170
145
TOTAL
56,773
994
11,015
47,606
437
Total
25,251 49,801 40,223 90
736
724
116,825
IV-45
-------
Table IV-13A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in
pounds/hour and kilograms/hour for the typical web-offset printing operations
as depicted in Figure IV-34. The emissions listed are for a typical operation.
These could vary even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of
the ink, the percentage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of
colors applied and dryers used, and press speed affect hydrocarbon emissions.
TABLE IV-13A
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM WEB-OFFSET PRINTING
Typo of
Operation & Control
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combu-tion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper .
with Catalytic Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Adsorption
%
Control
o
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Press Speed
fect/min
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
•Emissions
Ibs/hr kR/hr
.18 .082
.28 .13
.018-. 0018 .008-. 0008
.028-. 0028 .013-. 0013
.027-. 009 .012-. 004
.042-. 014 .020-. 006
.0018 .0003
.0028 .0013
E« Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from web-offset and printing operations in
general are categorized according to the following:
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. application of conventional control equipment.
1. Process Modification:
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon
emissions. Several methods of drying are being developed which could
greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors would be emitted if conventional inks are used.
IV-46
-------
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The
ink will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydro-
carbon emissions.
Electron beam drying utilizes electron induced polymerization.
The procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers
which will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultraviolet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the process.
2. Ink Modification;
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographic operations. A disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers are employed. The appli-
cation of microwave drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
Solventless inks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
pror.orst: equipment without rcodif i r.nti on. Sine?. 1 ewer ovp.rs tcmpo.T-.-jt-.urp.r
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3. Conventional Air Pollution Control Equipment;
Exhaust gases 'from web-offset and printing operations in general are
treated with conventional pollution control equipment. The three main
types of processes utilized are:
a. thermal combustion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective web-offset vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases
are preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F.
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable of
operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure IV
presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
IV-47
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
300 TO -4.00 *r
FAN
->
M
T
RESS .
OR
ETAL.
5RATING
3VEN
[~! "
V
J
r
HEAT ^
EXCHANGER
<
1000 TO isoo »r
AUXIUIARY |
FUEL. i
} 1
6OO TO IOOO • r
TOO TO IOOO «F
OOO TO ISOO'F
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
1
1
OOO TO 1
500 -F__ |
TO STACl*
t_ PR!
PUANT
HEATIMG
SYSTEM
TO STACK
PLANT
SYSTEM
Figure IV-35; Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the web-offset exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-36C1)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. • If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-37^1)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-designed
bed are 99%.
IV-48
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO
F
AIR IN
7O TO ttO
•F
X— ^
"AN ( | 1
J
f
DRYER
OR
DECORATING
OVEN
1
4
1
Figure
V --
f'6OO~1* ^ 7OO TO ' OOO "F
1 — _* ( ~o -|
EXCHANGER — — — — | f
7 1 .
' CATAL.YST- 1
BED 1
t»OO°F 7OO TOl T
SOO *F 1
RESIDENCE
TO STACK
| •- OB.
! PL-ANT HEATING
_j SYSTc.M
IV-36: Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
TO STAC
OR
PL.ANT
HEATING'
SYSTEM
(SOLVENT -RECOVERY SYSTCN/.1
EXHAUST A'R
TO
ATMOSPHERE
(SOL.VENT FRE
i
DR\
O
OV
'ER
R
=-N
•
VAPOR
-(«. L-ADEN,
J
|
1
1
— *-
1
1
1
ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORBER
1 '
ACTIVATED CARBOfNl
ADSORSER
t-
/
1
1
v
I
1
1
_J
\
r
| STEAM PL.US
I SO1-VENT VAPORS
CONiDEMSElP?
FOR REi-ir.
AND RECOVERY
RECOVERED
SOL.VE:MT
DECANTER
••*• WATER
Figure IV-37; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
IV-49
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for web-offset printing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
V
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process • 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register,Vol. 36. No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
'perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation lias been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
IV-50
-------
Table IV-1A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from Web-Offset printing operations.
TABLE IV-14
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM WEB-OFFSET PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Papar,
Uncontrolled
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Web-Off set Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Noncoated Paper
with Catalytic. Combustion
Web-Offset Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Web-Offset T>rinr.inp. , Nonconted Paper
with Adcorpticr.
%
Control
o
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr
.18
.28
.018-. 0018
.028-. 0028
.027-. 009
.04 2-. 014
.0018
.0028
kR/hr
.082
.13
.008-. 0008
.013-. 0013
.012-. 004 .
.020-. 006
• .0008
.0013
Limitations
Ibs/hr
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
kg/hr
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight rate. Web-Offset Printing for the
conditions outlined in Section D would meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation uncontrolled,
A number of presses and dryers can be manifolded together where it would be
necessary to utilize some type of control equipment.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
IV-51
-------
G. References;
The literature used to develop the information on web-offset printing is
as follows:
1. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on web-offset printing.
A. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines, EPA, June 1974.
6. Hydrocarbon Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control, October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-52
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Graphic Arts (Flexography)
C. Source Description;
Flexographic printing is similar to letterpress, where the image area is
raised above the surface of the plate. Ink is transferred directly to the image
area of the plate and directly from the plate to the paper or substrate. When-
ever the plate is made of rubber and alcohol based inks are used, the process
is flexography. The process is always web fed and is used for medium or long
runs on a variety of substrates, including heavy paper, fiberboard, metal, and
plastic foil.
Flexographic processes differ among themselves mainly in the type of ink
used. Most flexographic inks are fluid in consistency and contain about 55%
organic solvent. The solvent may be alcohol or alcohol mixed with aliphatic
hydrocarbons or esters. C2)1*
Flexography printing uses two similar but different processes. The compo-
sition of the ink and the inclusion of drying are the main areas where the
processes differ. The two types of flexographic printing are:
1. flexographic, publication and
2. Ilexograph.ic, newspaper e
1. Flexographic, publication uses a paper web that is printed on one side
at a time, and the web is dried after each color is printed. When
four colors are printed, a procedure called "double ending" is employed.
The web passes through one press and one dryer, is turned over, and
returns to the same press where it was adjacent to the first pass on the
same cylinder. In this manner, only four presses and four dryers are
required for four-color, two-sided printing. The dryer may be either
a hot air dryer where a minimum of flame impingement occurs, or an all-
flame dryer where direct impingement of the flame on the web occurs. The
composition of the dryer emissions depends on the type of dryer employed.
In the hot air dryer, very little solvent decomposition occurs. As the
amount .of flame impingement increases, the quantity of solvent decompo-
sition also increases.
The exhaust and solvent emission rates for flexography would be similar
to letterpress, and a schematic of a typical letterpress operation is
presented in Figure IV-38. O) 346 The exhaust ancj solvent emission rates
represent one-color, two-sided printing. In a four-color operation,
four dryers would be manifolded together to a common stack. The amount
and composition of the hydrocarbon emissions depend on the ink compo-
sition and the type of dryer. O)
IV-53
-------
FIL.TER
cTQ
-^+ AIR
FILTER
7000 SCFM Tc
3aiN.WEB, ISOOrPM
2 SIDES , i COLJDR
ISO°^» COVERAGE
i
A
i
i
0.
1
rf .
1
T
K
2
N
J
i
i
/
u
i IP ~^
i P=
M" -
AIR
(SCOT)
, v AIR a. SMOKE
i ,
DRYER ^ CHIl_l_ PRODUCT ^
I I II
AIR AT 7S°r AIR H2O
Figure IV-38; Flexographlc, Publication Process
2. Flexography, newspaper operations use oxidative drying inks which contain
little or no solvent. The exhaust gases from these operations are 'not a source of
hydrocarbon emissions. The only substances emitted from these operations are ink
mist and paper dust. Figure IV-39C1)3146 presents a schematic of flexographic,
newspaper printing process.
1000 rp.vi
IXK
*>" PRODUCT
VEISTTIt-ATINO
AIR TO PRESSROOM
Figure IV-39; Flexographic, Newspaper Process
IV-54
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The major points of hydrocarbon emissions from flexographic printing are:
1. hot air dryer,
2. press unit, and
3. chill rolls.
. In flexography and printing operations in general, the ink is the major
source of hydrocarbons. Printing inks consist of three major components:
1. Pigments, which produce the desired colors, are composed
of finely divided organic and inorganic materials.
2. Resins, which bind the. pigments to the substrate, are
composed of organic resins and polymers.
3. Solvents, which dissolve or disperse the resins and pigments,
are usually composed of organic compounds. The solvent is
removed from the ink and emitted to the atmosphere during the
drying process.
The solvents used in ink dilution are classified into five general categories
according to the chemical composition.^2^335
A. Benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzerie, unsaturates, and mixtures
with aromatic concent greater than 25% by volume.
B. Normal and isoparaffins, cycloparaffins, mineral spirits
containing less than 15% aromatics.
C. Methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropanol, butanol,
isobutanol, glycols, esters, ketones.
D. Trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, methylene chloride.
E. Nitroparaffins and dimethyl foraamide.
F. Miscellaneous.
Table IV-15 presents the volume breakdown in hundreds of gallons of solvent
consumed for ink dilution by process and solvent type.C2)338
TAIIT.E IV-15
•VOLUME BREAKDOWN OF SOLVENT CONSUMED FOP: INK DIUJTIOiN
PRINTING
PROCESS
Lithography
Lotlor.-jrcis
Fle.xoijrnphy
Gravu.-e
Screen Printing
r-Y PRINTING PROCESS AND SGLVif.MT TV.1.1- (1SC3)
SOLVENT TYPc (HUNDRED GALLONS)
A B C D E r
14.S72 23,941 16.C01 38 723 4C2
fiS 4s4 3'93 52 ,. - 1
E3 60S 10,130 - 1 '.73
10.C2S 24.637 12,&>3 - 11'
34 '.73 85 - - Ki
_TOTAL_
6S.773
S04
11,015
47.606
437
25,2a1 43.S01 40,723 ' 90
110,325
IV-55
-------
A typical flexographlc printing operation as depicted in Figure IV-38
would have hydrocarbon emissions similar to a letterpress operation according
to press speed as presented in Figure IV-40.
z'
U)
o
in
o
in
«
0.4
1000 1500
E£D, FFJKT/MIN.
?onn
Figure IV-40: Emission Rates from Web Offset and Web Letterpress
Employing Heatset Inks
Table IV-15A presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions in pounds/hour
and kilograms/hour for the typical flexographic printing operations as depicted
in Figure IV-38. The emissions listed are for a typical operation. These could
vary even with the same equipment. The exact solvent structure of the ink, the
percentage of the web that is covered with ink, the number of colors applied and
dryers used, and press speed affect the hydrocarbon emissions.
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from flexographic and printing operations in
general are categorized according to the following: (2) 35t*
1. process modification,
2. ink modification, and
3. conventional air pollution control equipment
IV-56
-------
TABLE IV-ISA
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM FI.EXOORAP1I1C PUBLICATION PRINTING
Type of
Operation & Control
Flexogrnphic Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Flexographic Printing, Noncoated
Paper, Uncontrolled
Flexographic Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Flcxographic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Thermal Combustion
Flexographic Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Flcxographic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Catalytic Combustion
Flexographic Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Flexo^raphic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Adsorption
%
Control
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Press Speed
ft/min
i sno
X JUV
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
Emissions
Ibs/hr
9A
• AO
IS
• JJ
.026-. 0026
.035-. 0035
.039-. 013
.053-. 018
.0026
.0035
kg/hr
1 9
. X£
1 (l
. J.U
.012-. 0012
.016-. 0016
.018-. 006
.024-. 006
.0012
.0016
1. Process Modification;
Modification of the drying process would decrease hydrocarbon
emissions. Several methods of drying are being developed which could
greatly reduce hydrocarbon emissions:
Microwave drying increases the temperature of the ink by application
of electromagnetic energy. Since fuel is not directly consumed, the
oven exhaust will not contain combustion products. However, solvent
vapors would be emitted if conventional inks are used.
Infrared drying causes a free radical polymerization mechanism
to occur which utilizes a nonvolatile monomer-based ink. The
ink will not contain a volatile solvent, thus eliminating hydro-
carbon emissions.
Electron beam drying utilizes electron induced polymerization.
The procedure requires inks composed of monomers or prepolymers
which will solidify when induced by the beam.
Ultraviolet drying utilizes light between 2400 to 3600 angstroms to
activate monomer-based inks that polymerize rapidly. Hydrocarbons
are eliminated, but the monomer-based inks are more expensive, the
inks are not readily removed during paper reclamation, and ozone is
produced in the process.
2. Ink Modification!
Aqueous inks are used in some flexographic operations. A disadvantage
of an aqueous system is the relatively high latent heat of water. This
limits press speeds when conventional dryers are employed. The appli-
cation of microwave drying has enabled press speeds to increase.
IV-57
-------
Solventless inks are dried by thermally induced polymerization which
appreciably reduces hydrocarbon emissions. The ink can be adapted to
present equipment without modification. Since lower oven temperatures
can be used, press speeds can be increased.
3. Conventional Air Pollution Control Equipment;
Exhaust gases from flexographic and printing operations in general are
treated with conventional pollution control equipment. The three main
types of processes utilized are:
a. thermal combusion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective flexographic vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The gases
are preheated to 60QOF to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to 1600°F.
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
and the operating temperature. Thermal incinerators are capable
of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%. Figure
IV-41C1)358 presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
CONTAX.vllMAT tlD
AIR OUT
30O TO «*00 °F
7O TO 90
«F
"AN ( )
t i
PKESS
DRYER
OR
DECORATING
OVE M
1
1
i
1
1
1
7OO TO IOOO «F
y_
f
0
I
HEAT ^
EXCHAMOiiR
•\
1
IOOO TO ISOO 'F
AUXlUIARY ]
- u.Er.L~ ... I
1 l
7 1
SOO TO IQOO'F
OOO TO I.SOOT j
IOOO TO 1
'.£,00 'F- |
RESIDENCE
CMAN/lEER
TO ST.fc.CK
C'R
ANT HEATING
SYSTEM
TO STAC<
•a- OR
PUAIMT
SYSTEM
Figure IV -41 ;
Flow Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
IV-58
-------
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the flexographic exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-42O)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
COM TA MIK AT E O
AIR OUT
300 TO --,00 T
CO TO I
TO STACK
>. OR
PL. ANT
HEATING
SYSTEM
Pl.Ar.JT HEA
SVETE1.V!
Figure IV-42;- Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possiblities for Heat Recovery
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-43\*)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-de-
signed bed are 99%.
IV-59
-------
ADSORPTION (SOL-VENT -RECOVERY SYSTCM)
CXHAUST
TO
A: Ft
(S.OL.VENT
VAPO;
Airs
ACTIVATl-XJ CAR3ON
DRYER
Ori
OVEN
1 ' i
L_J.,J -------------- -I
• " [ACTIVATED CAR.L2.ON1
-
[""
1-
- L.OW PRiT.S-3>UR£
FOR REl5£.t*£RA
AxiD RECOVERY
WATER
Figure IV-43; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Proc
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for flexographic printing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an blefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
IV-60
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochcraically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive
Ibs/day & Ibs/bour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix E (Federal Register»yol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchernically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
' perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and ci-csn-paraf fins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
.states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table IV-16 presents the unconLuolled
from flexographic printing operations.
and
id emissions and limitations
TABLE TV-16
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
Type o£
Operation & Control
Flexographic Printing, Coated Paper,
Uncontrolled
Flcxographic Printing, Noncoated
Paper, Uncontrolled
Flexojjraphic Printing, Coated Paper
with Thermal Combustion
Flexographic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Thermal Combustion
Flexographic Printing, Coated Paper
with Catalytic Combustion
Flexocraphic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Catalytic Combustion
Flexographic Printing, Coated Paper
with Adsorption
Flexographic Printing, Noncoated
Paper with Adsorption
%
Control
o
90-99
90-99
85-95
85-95
99
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr
26
• (fcw
QC
• JJ
.026-. 0026
.035-. 0035
.039-. 013 -
.053-. 018
.0026
.0035
kg/hr
17
• A*
1 £
. 10
.012-. 0012
.016-. 0016
.018-. 006
.024-. 008
.0012
.0016
Limitations
Ibs/hr
•t
j •
3
3
3
3
3
3
kg/hr
1 L
j.. •*
1 IL
JL« **
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
IV-61
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emissions
limitations are not based on process weight. Letterpress printing operations as
outlined in Section D, even uncontrolled, will not violate the 3 Ib/hr limitation.
However, it is conceivable to have a number of presses and dryers manifolded
together where control would be necessary to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The literature used to develop the information on flexographic printing is
as follows:
1. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Priorization of Air Pollution From Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
The following references were consulted but not used to directly develop
the information on flexographic printing.
4. Evaluations of Emissions and Control Technologies in the Graphic
Arts Industries, Phase II; Web-Offset and Metal Decorating Processes,
R. R. Gadomski, A. V. Gimbrone, Mary P. David, and W. J. Green,
Contract No. 68-02-0001, May 1973.
5. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines, EPA, June 1974.
6. Hydrocarbon Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control. October 20, 1972, MSA Research Corporation.
IV-62
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Industrial Surface Coating
C. Source Description;
Industrial surface coating operations, excluding those for automobile and
architectural painting, are utilized in the coating of sheet, strip, coil, paper
and paperboard, in treating fabrics, and in finishing appliances, machinery and
furniture. These coating operations produce hydrocarbon emissions, primarily
solvents and resins, and particulate emissions. t1' 1
Industrial surface coating operations emit 1.3 x 10 9 kg/year for the
following:
1. major appliance finishing,
2. small appliance finishing,
3. farm machinery finishing,
4. industrial machinery finishing,
5. commercial machinery finishing,
6. wood furniture finishing,
7. sheet, strip and coil coating,
8. metal furniture finishing,
9. paper and paperboard coating, and
10, fabric treatment.
Sheet, strip and coil coating, paper and paperboard coating, and fabric treat-
ment account for 95% of all emissions considered in this section. C1)1* Figure
IV-44 summarizes the emission rates from industrial surface coating. The hydro-
carbon species emitted frotn industrial surface coating operations include solvents
and resins. The solvent species include alcohols, esters, glycol ethers, ketones,
hydrocarbons, halogenated hydrocarbons, and nitroparaffins. Table IV-17C1)7
summarizes the individual hydrocarbons for each of the above categories.
SHEET. STRIP, AND COIL COATING
PAPFK AND PAPCRBOARD
COATING '19.65%
MAJOR
APPLIANCES
— 2. JS%
REMAINDER
2.46%
rii'.uru
Siinim.'ii'y uC tolr.slon Kates from
Induslrf .il Si-rvici's CciatinR Operations
IV-63
-------
TABLE IV-17
SOLVENT SPKCIKS IN EMITTED HYDROCARBONS
Alcohols
Methyl alcohol
Kthyl alcohol
Isopropyl alcohol
n-Propyl alcohol
n-Butyl alcohol
Boc-Uutyl alcoliol
Isobutyl alcohol
Methyl isobtityl
c.irbino)
Ketones
Acetone
Mothyl ethyl kctonc
Mctliyl isobutyl
kctonc
Methyl isoamyl
ketonc
Diisobutyl kotone
Cyclnhexanone
Diacetone nlcohol
Isophorone
Esters
Ethyl acetate
Isopropyl acetate
n-Dutyl acetate
sec-Butyl acetate
Amyl acetate
Methyl aroyl
acetate
Ethyl cue glycol
monoethyl ether
acetate
Klhylnno cilycol
monobutyl fthei
acetate
Hyclrociirbons
Aliphatic:
Hexiine
Heptane
VMiP naphtha
(typical)
Mineral spirits
(typical)
Aromatic:
Benzene
Toluene
Xyleno (mixed)
High flash
a roma t i c
naphtha
(typical)
Clycol others
Cthylene glycol
monomethyl cthnr
Ethyleno qlycol
monocthyl ether
Ethyleni; glycol
Monobutyl ether
Dicthylcne glycol
monoc.thyl ether
Diethylone glycol
monomethyl ether
Diethylcnc glyeol
monobutyl ether
Halogcnated
hydrocarbons
Carbon tetra-
chloridc
Trichlorocthylene
Pcrchloroethylene
Ni troparaffins
Nitroethanc
Nitropropane
sec-Nitropropane
There are a number of different surface coating formulations. The Paints
and Allied Products industry contains 24 general formulations, and these are
presented in Table IV-17A. (-0^ In determining the emission factors for each
type, the surface coating formulations used for that product were weighted
according to the amount of paint consumed by that product.
Surface coating operations consist of three basic operations as depicted in
Figure IV-45:
1. degreasing,
2. surface coating, and
3. drying and curing.
In Figure IV-45, streams 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent the flow of products through
the plant. Stream 1 represents the input of uncoated products to the surface
coating system. For sheet strip, coil coating, and fabric treatment, the product
is degreased using halogenated hydrocarbons. Paper and paperboard are not degreased
prior to surface coating since these are not lubricated for machining and handling
purposes.
IV-64
-------
TABT.E IV-17A
BXAHPLES_QE._. SURFACE COATING AND ADDED T
AS-PURCIIASKD DASIS HAVING CONFORMING SOLVENT SYSTEMS
.FORMULAS ON AJ3
Composition of surface coatinqn, I vol
Type of surface
coating
Enamel, air dry
Endmol, baking
Enamel, dipping
Acrylic enamel
Alkyd enamel
Primer, cpoxy
Princr, zinc
chromate
Princr, vinyl zinc
chrornflle
Epoxy-p.-»l/amide
Varnish, baking
Lacc.u-21 , spraying
Lacquer, acrylic
Vinyl , roller coat
vinyl
vinyl Acrylic
Polyurethane
Stain
Glaze
Wash Coat
Sealer
Toluene replacement
thinner
Height,
ki/1
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.3
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
c . s
Kon volatile
portion
39.6
42.8
59.0
30.3
47.2
49.0
57.2
37.8
34.0
34.7
35.3
26.1
16.5
38.2 '
12.
22.00
15.2
31.7
2.6
40.9
12.4
11.7
Volatile portion
Aliphatic
saturated
93.5
82.1
58.2
92.5
18.0
4(.8
80.0
17.5
7.0
16.4
10.0
80.6
91.6
40.6
41.2
55.5
::.=
Aromatic
6.5
11.7
7.2
6.9
7.5
8.9
15.9
7.2
7.9
19.9
1.7
6.8
IB. 5
18.9
19.7
14.0
8.4
14.7
7.0
17.5
T.r.
Alcohols
saturated
6.2
10.9
21.8
3.0
12.8
26.4
21.3
24.3
3.5
10.8
14.7
24.0
Xctoncs
80'. 6
16.5
60.0
34.5
97.0
23.2
17.2
42.0
43.5
81.1
84.9
13.9
0.1
13.7
19.1
Estere
saturated
1.7
12.5
. 16.8
28.8
19.2
45.1
14.8
26.0
15.1
66.4
15.7
18.0
9.0
12.0
Ethers
saturated
18.0
7.5
14.6
1.0
1.7
20.5
56.5
5.1
4.5
le.o
RfASir.; $CLV;K?\ (D
sio»<,c; ww J— *•*
BOIUR
Figure IV-45; Flow ninp.ram of a Surface Coating Operation
IV-65
-------
Stream 2 represents the flow of degreased or scoured products to the surface
coating operation. The type of surface coating operation used depends upon the
product-type coated, coating requirements, and the method of application.
Stream 3 represents the product flow to the drying and curing operation.
Drying and curing methods for three coating operations •, and the drying technique
used are as follows:
Product-Type Category Drying and Curing Methods
Sheet, Strip and Coil Coating Bake Ovens :
Paper and Paperboard Coating Direct Contact Drying;
Evaporative Drying
Fabric Treatment Direct Contact Drying
Stream 4 represents the flow of coated finished products from the surface
coating section of a manufacturing plant.
Stream 5 through 10 represent the flow of degreasing solvent through the
surface coating section of a manufacturing plant. Streams 5 and 6 depict the
flow of solvent into the plant, and the degreasing unit, respectively. Streams
7 and 8 represent the flow of solvent vapors from the degreasing unit through
the fume handling system. Uncontrolled and controlled emissions are represented
by streams 9 and 10, respectively.
Streams 11 through 21 represent the flow of surface coating raw materials
through the plant. Streams 11, 12, 13, and 14 represent the flow of solvent,
pigment, resin and additives to the surface coating blending tank. Stream 15
is the flow of coating to the surface coating unit. For those operations that
use spray painting, stream 16 is the flow of compressed air. Streams 18 and 19
represent the flow of 'solvents and resins from the surface coating unit through
the fume handling equipment. Uncontrolled and controlled emissions are depicted
by streams 20 and 21, respectively.
Streams 22 through 25 represent the flow of gases through the drying and
curing system. Stream 22 represents the flow of either fuel, steam, or electri-
cally heated air to the drying and curing operation for forced evaporative drying
and for free evaporative drying. Stream 23 is the flow of gases from the drying
area. Streams 24 and 25 represent uncontrolled and controlled emissions.
Streams 26 through 30 represent the flow of materials through the steam
generation system. Steams 26 and 27 represent the flow of fuel and combustion
air to the boiler. Stream 28 is boiler feed water, and Stream 29 is the steam
produced. Stream 30 represents the flow of combustion gases from the steam
generation system.C1)^7*^9
D. Emis s ion Ra te s;
The hydrocarbon emissions from industrial surface coating operations contain
solvents and resins, and arise from the three basic surface coating operations
as outlined in Figure IV-45. These operations are:
IV-66
-------
1. degreasing,
2. surface coating, arid
3. drying and curing.
Surface coating operations include point source emissions and fugitive emis-
sions. The point source emissions include controlled and uncontrolled emissions
from the degreasing, surface coating, and drying and curing operations. Other
point sources include the degreasing solvent storage tank vent, surface coating
solvent vent, surface coating blending tank vent, and the steam generation stack.
The fugitive emission sources include solvent evaporation losses from degreased,
coated, and dried products. The fugitive emissions include losses from each
piece of processing equipment and from the transfer of organic liquids within the
plant. (089
Table IV-17BC1)227"252 presents uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon
emissions from the following 25 surface coated items:
1. Dyeing . 14. Washers
2. Paper Bags 15. Dryers
3. Metal Cans, Excluding Beverage 16. Enameled Plumbing Fixtures
4. Beverage Cans 17.. Coated Paper
5. Kraft Paper 18. Printing Paper
6. Duct Work 19. Gutters
7. Wood Paneling 20. Paper Boxes
8. Canopies auu Awuiuy^ 21. Siting
9. Milk Carton Board 22. Metal Doors, Excluding Garage
10. Refrigerators 23. Bedroom Furniture
11. Folding Cartons 24. Filing Cabinets
12. Fencing 25. Oil and Waxed Paper
13. Screening
A tally was included of the total number of units of production for each
item and what a typical plant produces in a year. The emission factor is ex-
pressed in terms of Ibs/unit and grams/unit. Emissions were calculated on a
24-hour production basis except where noted by the asterisks. The emissions
were listed in descending order according to typical plant hourly emission rate.
The emissions listed for the controlled conditions did not include solvent
reformulation or water-based solvent substitution.
E. Control Equipment;
Control of hydrocarbon emissions from industrial surface coating operations
are categorized according to the following:
1. process modification,
2. solvent modification, and
3. application of conventional control equipment.
IV-67
-------
TABLE IV-17B '
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS F30M INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING
Type of
Operation & Control
( 1) Dyeing, Uncontrolled
Dyeing, Incineration
Dyeing, Catalytic Co- bust ion
Dveir.z, Carbon Adsorption
( 2) Paper Bags, Uncontrolled
Paper Bags, Incineration
Paper Bags, Catalytic Combustion
Paoer Bass, Carbon Adsorption
( 3) Metal Cans Excl. Beverage, Uncontrolled
Metal Cans Excl. Beverage, Incineration
Ketal Cans Excl. Severage, Cat a. Coab.
Metal Cans Excl. Beverage. Carbon Adsorp.
( 4) Beverage Cans, Uncontrolled
Beverage Cans, Incineration
! Beverage Cans, Catalytic Combustion
[ Bfcveraze Cans, Carbon Adsorption
( 5) Kraft Paper, Uncontrolled
Kraft Paper, Incineration
Kraft Paper, Catalytic Combustion
| ( 6) Duct Work, Uncontrolled
i Duct Work, Incineration
Duct Vork, Catalytic Conbustion
1 Dv:ct Vcrk, Carbon Adsorption
1 { 7) Wood Paneling, Uncontrolled
'. Wood Paneling, Incineration
! Wood Par.elir.g, Catalytic Combustion
: Vood Paneling, Carbon Adsorption
( 8) Cancpies and Awnings, Uncontrolled
Canopies and Awnings', Incineration
Canopies and Awnings, Catalytic Coabustion
Canooies and Awnings, Carbon Adsorption
( 9) Milk Carton Board, Uncontrolled
Milk Carton Board, Incineration
Milk Carton Board, Catalytic Conbustion
i Milk Carton Board, Carbon Adsorotion
i
(10) Refrigerators, Uncontrolled
Refrigerators, Incineration •
Refrigerators, Catalytic Combustion
Refrijerators, Carbon Adsorption
(11) Folding Cartons, Uncontrolled
Folding Cartons, Incineration
Folding Cartons, Catalytic Combustion
Folding Cartons, Carbon Adsorption
(12) Fencing, Uncontrolled
Fencing, Incineration
Fencing, Catalytic Coabustion
Fencir.e, Carbon Adsorption
(13) Screening, Uncontrolled
Screening, Incineration
Screening,. Catalytic Combustion
Screening, Carbon Adsorotion
Z
Control
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
.90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
Total U.S.
Production
Units/Year
4.79xl09
7. 73x10' '
11
3.98xlOu
3.74x10'°
1.42xl010
2.60xl06
II
1. 80x10 9
l.SOxlO6
II
5.54xlOs
II
S
6.32xl06
II
II
1.43xl09
S.SlxlO5
II
II
5.77xl08
ii
ii
Typical Plant
Production
Units/Year
1.17y.l08
II
1.21xl010
II
II
4.91xl09
. 6. 23x10 9
3.46x10°
5.20x10"*
II
4.86xl07
6.00x10"
II
8.16xl07
3.0b:105
9.01xl07
Ii
2.21x10"
l.jfcxlO7
Emissions/Unit
Lbs/Unit G/Ur.it
8.80xlO-2 3.9SX101
8. 80xlO-3 (10-") 3. 98x10° (10-1)
1.32xlO~2-4.40xlO~3 5.97-1.99
4.40:<10-3-2.64xlO-3 1.99-.SO
6.45x10-" 2.93xlO-J
6.46xlO-5(10-6) 2.93xlO-2(10-3)
9. 69xlO-5-3. 23xlO-5 4.40xlO-2-1.47xlO-2
3 . 23 clO-5-l . 94xlO~5 1 .47xlO-2-5 . S6xlO"3
l.llxlO"2 5.02
i.iixio-3(io-") 5.02xio-'uo-2)
1 . 67xlO-3-5 . 55x10"" 7 . 5x10"' -2 . SxlO"1
5.55xlO-"-3.33xlO-" 2.5xlO~1-1.0xlO-1
l.llxlO-2 5.02
l.llxlO-3(10-") 5.02xlO-1(10-2)
1 . 67xlO-3-5 . 55x10-" 7 . 53x10"' -2 . SxlO"1
5. 55x10-" -3. 33x10-" 2.5xHT1-1.0xlO-1
l.lxlO-2 4.99
l.lxlO-2(10-3) 4.99xlO-1(10~2)
1. 65xlO-3-5. 5x10-" 7.49xlO-1-2.50xlO-1
5. 5x10-" -3. 3x10-" 2.50xlO-1-1.0xlO-1
3.60x10' 1.63x10"
3. 60x10° (ID'1) 1.63xl03(10")
5.4-1.8 2.46xl03-8.2xl02
1.8-1.08 8.2xl02-3.28xl02
1.70xlO-2 7.86
1.70xlO-3(10-") 7.86xlO-1(10-2)
2.55xlQ-3-8.50xlO-" 1.18-3.93x10-'
8 . 50xlO-"-5 . lxlO~" 3 . 93X10"1 -1 . 57x10"'
1.80x10' 8.17xl03
1. 80x10° CIO"1) 8.17xl02(101)
2.70-9.0x10-' 1.23xl03-4.09xl02
9 . OxlO-1 -5 . 4x10"' 4 . 09>:102-1 . 64xl02
9.7xlO-3 4.38
9.7xlO-"(10~5) 4.38xlO-1(10-2)
1.46xlO-3-4. 85x10"" 6.57xlO-1-2.63xlQ-1
4.85xlO-"-2.SlxlO-" 2.19xlO-1-.88xiO~1
2.30 l.OixlO3
2. 30x10-' (10-2) 1.04xl02(10!)
3.45xlO-'-1.15xlO-' 1.56xl02-5.2xl01
1 . 15x10"' -6 . 9xlO"2 5 . 2xlO: -2 .OSxlO1
7.10xlO-3 3.24
7.10xlO-"(10-s) 3.24xlO-1(10-2)
1.07xlO-3-3. 55x10-" 4.86xlO-1-1.62xlO-1
3 . 55xlO-"-2 . 13x10'" 1 . 62x10"' -6 . 5xlO~2
1.72x10' 7.78xl03
1.72xlO°(10-') 7.78xl02(10')
2 . 58x10° -8 .6x10-' 1 . 17xl03-3 . S9xl02
8. 6x10-' -3. 44x10"' 3 .89xl02-1.56xl02
1.70xlO-2 7.86
1.70xlO-3(10-") 7. 86x10-' (10-2)
2.55xlO-3-8.5xlO-" 1.18-3.93x10-'
8 . 5xlO~" -5 . 1x10-" 3 .93X10-1-! . 57X10"1
Emission Rate
Lbs/Hr Kg/Kr
1175.3 533.1
117.5 -11.8 53.3 - 5.3
176.3 -53.8 80.0 -26.7
58.8 -23.5 26.7 -10.7
892.3 404.7
89.2 - 8.9 4C.5 - 4.1
133.8 -44.6 60.7 -20.2
44.6 -17.8 20.2 - 8.1
622.2 282.2
62.2 - 6.2 28.2 - 2.3
93.3 -31.1 42.3 -14.1
31.1 -12.4 14.1 - 5.6
622.2 . 282. 2
62.2 - 6.2 28.2 - 2.6
93.3 -31.1 42.3 -14.1
31.1 -12.4 14.1 - 5.6
434.5 197.1
43.5 - 4.4 19.7 - 2.0
65.2 -21.7 29.6 - 9.9
21.7 - 8.7 9.9 - 3.9
320.6* 145.4*
32.1 - 3.2* 14.5 - 1.5*
48.1 -16.0* 21.8 - 7.3*
16.0 - 6.4* 7.3 - 2.5*
282. 9** 128.3**
28.3 - 2.8** 12.8 - 1.3**
42.4 -14.1** 19.2 - 6.4**
14.1 - 8.5** 6.4 - 2.6**
185.0* 83.9*
18.5 - 1.9* 8.4 - .8*
27.8 - 9.3* 12.6 - 4.2*
9.3 - 3.7* 4.2 - 1.7*
90.3 41.0
9.0 - .9 4.1 - .4
13.5 - 4.5 6.2 - 2.1
4.5 - 1.8 2.1 - .8
78.9 35.8
7.9 - .8 3.6 - .4
11.8 - 3.9 5.4 - 1.8
3.9 - 1.6 1.8 - .7
73.0 33.1
7.3 - .7 3.3 - .3
11.0 - 3.7 5.0 —1.7
3.7 - 1.5 1.7 - .7
64.9* 29.4*
6.5 - .7* 2.9 - .3*
9.7 - 3.2* 4.4 - 1.5*
3.2 - 1.3* 1.5 - .6*
45.4* 20.6*
.4.5 - .5* 2.1 - .2*
6.8 - 2.3* 3.1 - 1.0*
2.3 - .9* 1.0 - .4*
-------
TA1U.F. IV-l^B
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING
(continued)
1 Type of
• Operation & Control
(14) Washers, Uncontrolled
Washers, Incineration
Washers, Catalytic Combustion
! Washers, Carbon Adsorption
(15) Dryers, Uncontrolled
Dryers, Incineration
Dryers, Catalytic Conbustion
Drvers, Carbon Adsorption
(16) Ensneled Plunbing Fixtures, Uncontrolled
j Ir.a=eled Plumbing Fixtures, Incineration
Enameled ?lu-bing Futures, Cata. Conb.
Enaneled Plunbinj Fixtures, Carbon Adsorp.
(17) Coated Paper, Uncontrolled
Coated Paper, Incineration
Coated Paper, Catalytic Conbustion
Coated Paper, Carbon Adsorption
(18) Prir.ti-g Paper, Uncontrolled
Printing Paper, Incineration
Printing Paper, Catalytic Conbustion
Printing Paper, Carbon Adsorption
(19) Gutters, Uncontrolled
Gutters, Incineration
Cutters, Catalytic Conbustion
Gutters, Carbon Adsorption
Paper Boxes, Incineration
Paper Boxes, Catalytic Conbustion
• Paier Boxes, Carbon Adsorption
(21) Sizing, Uncontrolled
Sizing, Incineration
Sizing, Catalytic Conbustion
Sizing, Carbon Adsorption
(22) Metal Doors Excl. Garage Doors, Uncont.
Xetal Doors Excl. Garage Doors, Incin.
Metal Doors Excl. Garage Doors, Cat. Comb.
Metal Doors Excl. Garaee Doors, Carbon Ads.
(23) Bedroco Furniture, Uncontrolled
Bedroco Furniture, Incineration
Bedroca Furniture, Catalytic Cocbustion
Sedroon Furniture, Carbon Adsorotion
(24) Filing Cabinets, Uncontrolled
Filing Cabinets, Incineration
Filing Cabinets, Catalytic Coabustion
Filing Cabinets, Carbon Adsorotion
(25) Oil and Waxed Paper, Uncontrolled
Oil and Waxed Paper, Incineration
Oil and Waxed Paper, Catalytic Conbustion
Oil and Waxed Paoer, Carbon Adsorption
%
Control
0
90-99
85-95
95-93
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-93
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
0
90-99
85-95
95-98
Total U.S.
Production
Units/Yesr
S.llxlO6
3.92xl06 .
1.40xl07
1.89xlOn
8.24xlOu
tl
1.39xl05
II
II
II
1.09xl010
II
6.97xl06
1.69xl07
II
3.77xl06
II
II
It
9.80xl08
M
it
Typical Plint
Production
Units/Year
3.19xl05
it
2.31xl05
6.C>6xl05 ..
II
3.44xl09
1.92xl09
ir
4.63xl03
M
7.08xl07
II
1.34xl05
1.99xl05
5.39X101*
It
2.79xl05
it
Emissions/Unit
Lbs/Unit G/Unit
1.13 5.13xl02
1. 13x10-' (10-2) 5.13xl01(10°)
1 . 70x10-' -5 . 65xlO-2 7 .70x10' -2 . 57x10'
5 . 65xlO-2-2 . 26xlO-2 2 . 57x10'-! - 03x10'
1.52 6.88xl02
1. 52x10-' (ID"2) 6.38x10'' (10°)
2.28xlO-'-7.6xlO-2 1.03xl02-3. 44x10*
7 . 6xlO-2-3 . 04xlO-2 3 .44x10' -1 . 33x10'
4.42x10-' 2-OlxlO2
4.42xlO-2(10-3) 2.01xlO'(10°)
6.63xlO-2-2.21xlO-2 3.02-1.01
2.21:<10-2-8.84xlO"3 1.01-.40
8.20xlO"5 3.71x10-'
8.20xlO-6(10-7) 3.71xiO-2(10-3)
1 . 23xlO-5-4 . IxlO-6 5 . 57xlO-2-2 . 23xlO~2
4.1xlO-6-2.46xlO~6 1.66xlO"2-l.nxlO-2
1.40x10-'* • 6.2xlO~2
1. 40xlO-5 (10-6) 6. 2x10-3 (lO-1*)
2. 1x10-5-7. OxlO-G 9.3xlO-3-3.1xlO-3
7 . OxlO-6-4 . 2xlO~6 3 . IxlO-3 -1 . 24xlQ-3
36.0 1.63X101*
3. 6-. 36 1.63xl03(102)
5.42-1.81 2.45xl03-8.15xl02
1.81-7. 2x10-' 8.15xl02-3.26xl02
e- _j
3.40xlO-6(10-7) 1. 53x10-3 (10-1*)
5.1xlO-6-1.7xlO-6 2. 30x10-3-7. 65X10-"1
1 . 7xlO-6^l . 02xlO-6 7 . 65X10-11 -3 . 06X1Q-11
2.16xlO-3 9.78x10-'
2.16xlO-'t(10-5) 9.78xlO-2(10-3)
3 . 24X10-1* -1 . OSxlO-11 1 . 47x10-' -5 . 9xlQ-2
1.0SxlO-u-5.48xlO-5 4.89xlO-2-1.96xlO~2
7.30x10-' 3.31xl02
7.30xlO-2(10-3) 3.31xlO'(10°)
1.10xlO"'-3.65xlO-2 4. 97x10' -1.67x10'
3.65xlO-2-1.46xlO~2 1.67xlO!-5.68
4.93x10-' 2.24xl02
4.93xlO-2(10-3) 2.24xlO'(10°)
7.40xlO-2-2.47xlO-2 3.36xlO'-1.12xlO'
2.47xlO-2-1.48xlO-2 1.12xlO'-4.5
1.63 7.38xlC2
1. 63x10-' (10-2)' 7.38x!0'(10°)
2.45xlO-'-8.15xlO-2 I.llxl02-3.65xl0'
8 .15xlO-2-3 . 25xlO~2 3 . 65x10' -1 .48x10'
8.50x10-' 3.34x10'
8.50xlO-2(10-3) 3.84xlO°(10-1)
1.28x10-' -4. 25xlO-2 5.76-1.92
4. 25xlO-2-2. 55xlO-2 1.92-.77
Emission Rate
Lbs/Hr Ks/Kr
41.1 18.6
4.1 - .4 1.9 - .2
6.2 - 2.1 2.8 - .9
2.1 - .8 .9 - .4
40.1 18.2
4.0 - .4 1.3 - .2
6.0 - 2.0 2.7 - .9
2.0 - .8 .9 - .4
33.6 15.2
3.4 - .3 1.5 - .2
5.0 - 1.7 2.3 - .8
1.7 - .7 .S - .3
32.2 14.6
3.2 - .3 1.5 - .15
4.8 - 1.6 2.2 - .7
1.6 - .6 .7 - .3 !
30.7 13.9
3.1 - .31 1.4 - .1
4.6 - 1.5 2.1 - .7
1.5 - .6 .7 - .3
28.5* 12.9*
2.9 - .3* 1.3 - .13*
4.3 - 1.4* 1.9 - .6 *
1.4 - .6* .6 - .3 *
2.6 - .3 1.2 - .1
3.9 - 1.3 1.8 - .6
1.3 - .5 .6 - .2
17.8 8.1
.1.8 - .2 .8 - .08
2.7 - .9 1.2 - .4
.9 - .4 .4 - .2
16.8* 7.6*
1.7 - .2* .8 - .03*
2.5 - .8* 1.1 - .4 *
.8 - .3* .4 - .2 *
16.8* 7.6*
! 1.7 - .2* .8 - .08*
2.5 - .8* 1.1 - .4 *
.8 - .3* .4 - .2 *
15.0* 6.8*
1.5 - .2* .7 - .07*
2.3 - .8* 1.0 - .3 *
.8 - .3* .3 - .1 *
2.71 1.23
.3 - .03 .1 - .01
.40- .13 .2 - .C6
.13- .05 .06- .02
M
<
O\
VO
* Based on 2 shifts/cay. ** Based on 1 shift/day.
-------
1. Process Modification; The three basic processes, degreasing,
surface coating, and drying, can be modified to decrease hydro-
carbon emissions.
Degreasing units can be equipped with cooling coils to condense
solvent vapors before they escape from the top of the tank.
Cooling coils achieve 20% to 40% control. Degreasing tanks can
also be equipped with sliding or guillotine covers which are
closed when the tank is not in use. Covers achieve 40% to 60%
control.(3>8
2. Solvent Modification; Reformulation of solvent-based coatings to
utilize solvents that are exempt from Rule 66-type legislation is
often more complicated and expensive than the ones they are re-
placing. In reformulating surface coating products,' efforts are
made to retain the viscosity and drying characteristics of the
original solvent. O) 15°
Another type of reformulation which reduces emissions of organic
solvents instead of just the "reactive, solvents" is the reformu-
lation to water-based coatings. Water differs from organic solvents
in physical properties, particularly its latent heat of vaporization.
Water is a costly solvent to evaporate, and its rate of evaporation
is difficult to control with additives. The films resulting from
water-based solvents are often less glossy than those from solvent-
based paints. Water-based coatings tend to rust metal, and they
adhere poorly to surfaces contaminated with oil or dirt.O)151
3. Application of Conventional Control Equipment; Hydrocarbon emissions
from surface coating operations arise in a number of specific emis-
sion points about the plant. These can be collected to one central
point and treated in a conventional solvent removal system. The
three main types of solvent removal systems are:
a. thermal combustion,
b. catalytic combustion, and
c. adsorption.
Thermal combustion incinerates the hydrocarbon emissions from the
collective surface coating vents in a gas or oil fired flame. The
gases are preheated to 600°F to 900°F and incinerated at 1200°F to
1600°F. Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of• heat
exchange employed and the operating temperature. Thermal incin-
erators are capable of operating continuously at efficiencies of
90% to 99%. Figure IV-46(2)358 presents a flow diagram for thermal
combustion.
Catalytic combustion causes flameless oxidation of the undesired
hydrocarbon from the surface coating exhaust. The oxidation occurs
with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
base or metal ribbon. Figure IV-4?(2)359 is a schematic of a
catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
depending on the application.
IV-70
-------
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO -*OO *F
FAN ( I )
AIR IN
TO TO 90
• F
I
DRYER
OR
OVHN
^
)
HEAT ^
IOOO TO I5OO «F
AUXILIARY
FUEL
1
n
1
V I
eoo TO IOOO*F
TOO TO IOOO *F
OOO TO ISOO'F
RESIDENCE
CHAMBER
i
i
OOO TO 1
ISOO *F |
TO STACK
-•>• OR
PLANT HEATING
SYSTEM
Figure IV-46; Flovz Diagram for Thermal Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
CONTAMINATED
AIR OUT
3OO TO -. 9OO *F
TO STACK
CATALYST-
BED
jjjjj QOO-F
RESIDENCE
CHAN^EER
~~\
1
1
1
1
700 TOl
soo -r |
TO STACK
>. OR
PL.ANT
HEATING
SYSTEM
I
_|
OR
PUANT HEATING
SYSTEM
Figure IV-4 7;
Flow Diagram for Catalytic Combustion Including
Possibilities for Heat Recovery
IV-71
-------
Adsorption is the removal of hydrocarbons from a gas stream by
means of an activated bed of carbon. When the adsorptive capacity
of. the bed is reached, the gas stream is diverted to an alternate
bed. The original bed is regenerated with steam or hot air. If
hydrocarbon solvent is not miscible in water, it can be recovered
by decantation; otherwise, distillation is necessary. Figure
IV-48(2)360 presents a flow diagram for an adsorption process. A
well-designed bed will absorb 15% of its own weight of solvent
before regeneration is required. The efficiencies of a well-de-
signed bed are 95%-98%. O) llt°
ADSORPTION (SOLVENT-RECOVERY .SYSTEM)
EXHAUST ,AIR
TO
ATMOSPHERE
(SOLVENT FREE)
DRYER
OR
OVEN
L.ADE
AIR
SI,
1
V
1
1
1
— C~
r —
I
->
ACTIVATED CARBON)
ADSORBER
1
ACTIVATED CARSON
ADSORBER
1
fl
T
1
~ >._!
-1
I
j STEAM PLUS
I SOLVENT VAPORS
FOR REGENERATION
AND RECOVERY
Figure IV-48; Flow Diagram of Adsorption Process
RECOVERED
SOL-VENT
DECANTER
WATER
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for the industrial surface coating industry.
State .Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic process
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any
organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive
solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or
heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents
of more than 20% by volume of the following:
IV-72
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene: 8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or toluene:
20 per cent
.Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Regieter Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14, 1971)
limits the emission of photchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day and
3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the solvent
is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent. Solvents which
have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated halogenated hydrocarbons,
perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and cj-csn-paraffins.
For both Appendix E and Rule fi6 type legislation if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hr values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
.states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table IV-18 presents the uncontrolled emission rate for the typical plant
production listed in Table IV-17B and the percent control necessary to meet
the 3 Ibs/hour limitation.
IV-73
-------
TABLE IV-18
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
FOR INDUSTRIAL SURFACE COATING
Type of Product
. 1. Dyeing
2. Paper Bags
3. Metal Cans, Excluding Beverage
4. Beverage Cans
5. Kraft Paper
6. Duct Work
7. Wood Paneling
8. Canopies and Awnings
9. Milk Carton Board
10. Refrigerators
11. Folding Cartons
12. Fencing
13. Screening
14. Washers
15. Dryers
16. Enameled Plumbing Fixtures
17. Coated Paper
18. Printing Paper
19. Gutters
20. 1'aper Boxes
21. Sizing
22; Metal Doors, Excluding Garage Doors
23. Bedroom Furniture
24. Filing Cabinets
25. Oil and Waxed Paper
Uncontrolled Emissions
from Typical Plant
Ibs/
hour
1175.3
892.3
622.2
622.2
434.5
320.6
282.9
185.0
90.3
78.9
73.0
64.9
45.4
41.1
40.1
33.6
32.2
30.7
28.5
26.1
17.8
16.8
. 16.8
15.0
2.7
kg/
hour
533.1
404.7
282.2
282.2
197.0
145.4
128.3
83.9
41.0
35.8
33.1
29.4
20.6
18.6
18.2
15.2
14.6
13.9
12.9
11.8
8.1
7.6
7.6
6.8
1.2
% Control Necessary
to Meet 3 Ibs/hour
Limitations
99.7
99.7
99.5
99.5
99.3
99.0
98.9
98.3
96.6
96.2
95.9
95.3
93.4
92.7
92.5
91.0
90.7
90.2
89.5
88.5
83.1
82.0
82.0
80.0
0.0
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Industrial surface coating operations
as outlined in Section D cover a wide variety of process weights and formulations.
The typical oil and waxed paper plant, even uncontrolled, emits less than 3 Ibs/hour.
The typical dyeing, paper bag, metal can, beverage can, and kraft paper plants
require control efficiencies in excess of 99% to meet the 3 Ibs/hour limitation.
Current technology as documented in Section E presents 99% as the highest
efficiency a thermal incinerator could provide. For the processes listed above
that would require efficiencies in excess of 99%, it is doubtful that existing
control technology is adequate to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation. The remaining
industries outlined in Section D can be adequately controlled with existing
technology.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
IV-74
-------
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information presented in this section
on industrial surface coating is listed below:
1. Priorization of^Sources of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating
Operations, Monsanto Research Corporation, Prepared for National
Environmental Research Center, February 1975.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
3. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques and
Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June 1974.
Literature reviewed but not used specifically to develop this section on
industrial surface coating includes the following:
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication" No." AF-42," April 1973~.
5. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition),
AP-4G, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. fctA. May 1973.
6. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973..
7. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
8. Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques, and
Emission Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June 1974.
9. Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970.
IV-75
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Suh Category; Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Breathing)
C. Source Description;
Breathing losses from bulk storage of gasoline occur continuously from fixed
roof tanks. These are constructed in a variety of shapes, but cylinders and
spheres are most common. Steel plate is the material most commonly used, and the
plates are welded together. There are seven basic storage vessel designs:
1. fixed roof,
2. floating roof,
3. covered floating roof,
4. internal floating cover,
5. variable vapor space,
6. low pressure,
7. high pressure.
The ultraflote floating cover design allows a vapor space between the cover
and the liquid. The covered floating roof contains a metal pan equipped with a
seal that floats on the liquid. The internal floating cover is non-metallic
(usually polyurethane) and may not be in contact with the liquid over its entire
surface. The external floating roof is the most widely used single deck pontoon
type of floating roof tank. There are two types of pressure tanks: low pressure
designed iur 17-30 ptsta mid iiJL&h pressure - up to 265 psia. Breathing losses
from low pressure tanks are minimal, but filling losses are substantial. Figures
IV^-2, 3 and 4 present sketches of fixed roof, floating roof, and variable vapor
space storage -vessels.
/PRESSURE-VACUUM
VENT
GAUGE HATCH,
MANHOLE
r^ NOZZLE •;•. v~frurrf.^-^r^r^^=^"
Figure IV-2; Fixed Roof Storage Tank
IV-76
-------
tf
. WEATHER SHIELD
• HATCHES
LIQUID LEVEL "RAIN
VENT
ROOF SEAL
(NONMETALLIC
OR
METALLIC)
5^g=^'-"gpgjg; GUIDE RODS ^lg^g,|;i-g^g^=9^gg
Kv^HfrH^ L-r^gr-^-^^Vrl jvj^fv?; fyV^Scr^^'
• " ~— ' —V M,'-' ^' "^ '
TANK /^
SHELL •
HINGED CENTER SUPPORT
MANHOLE
-4
Figure IV-3; Double-Peck Floating Roof Storage Tank
(Nonmetalllc Seal)
ROOF CENTER SUPPORT
FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM ROOF
GAUGE HATCH
Figure IV-4: Variable Vapor Storage Tank CWet-Seal Lifter Type)
D. Emission Rates;
"Breathing" losses are defined as vapors expelled from a storage vessel
because of the following: C1*) 9
1. thermal expansion of existing vapors,
2. expansion caused by barometric pressure changes,
3. increase in the amount of vapor from added vaporization
in the absence of liquid level change.
IV-77
-------
The quantity of these "breathing" losses are affected by a number of factors,
including:
1. vapor pressure of gasoline,
2. average temperature of stored gasoline,
3. vessel diameter and construction,
4. color of vessel paint,
5. average wind velocity of area,
6, age of vessel.
Capacities of storage vessels range from a few gallons to 500,000 barrels
(8.0 x 107 liters}, but tanks with capacities in excess of 150,000 barrels
(2.4 x 107 liters) are rare.O)526 Typical fixed and floating roof tanks are
48 feet (14.6 m) high and 110 feet f33.5 m) in diameter with a capacity of
67,000 barrels (.1.07 x 107 liters) . C2)4-3-8 Table IV-19(2)4 .3-8-4 . 39 presents
controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline storage vessels.
TABLE IV-19
HYDROCARBON BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE STORAGE TANKS
Type of
Operation & Control
Fixed- Roof Old Tank, Uncontrolled
Fixed- Roof New Tank, Uncontrolled
Floating- Roof Old Tank, Controlled
Floating- Roof New Tank, Controlled
%
Control
0
0
65
85
Emissions
/i n^ •.'
j.,,../J-U !><:
.25
.22
.088
.033
Based on 67
kg , _q
day
.030
.026
.011
.004
,000 bbl T,-ak
Ibs kg
day day
. 700 3^0
620 280
250 110
93 42
E. Control Equipment;
A floating roof tank is essentially a controlled fixed roof tank. However,
vapors that are continuously released from both on a daily and yearly basis amount
to a small percentage of the total volume of liquid stored. The control methods
most
covery
commonly used with fixed roof tanks is a vapor recovery system. The Four re-
:y methods are:(2) 4.3'7
1. liquid absorption,
2. vapor condensation, and
3. adsorption in activated charcoal
or silica gel,
4. incineration
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);EPA promulgated, in the Friday,
March 8, 1974 Federal Register, a "New Source Performance Standard" for
storage vessels for petroleum liquids. The standard applies to vessels greater
than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) containing petroleum liquids that have a
true vapor pressure greater than 1.5 psia (78 mm Hg). If the vapor pressure
IV-78
-------
Is greater than 1.5 psia (78 mm Hg) and less than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) a
floating roof or equivalent control is required. If the pressure is greater
than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) a vapor recovery system or equivalent control is
required.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Many states and local
legislatures have regulations covering petroleum storage. These regulations
are similar to Appendix B (Federal Register, August 14, 1971) which requires the
use of pressure tanks, vapor loss control devices and vapor recovery systems.
Some states have specified either an emission rate or a control efficiency
expected. Most states simply have required specific equipment be utilized.
Appendix B states that storage of volatile organic, compounds in any
stationary tank greater than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) can be a pressure
tank. If a pressure tank is not possible a floating roof, consisting of a
pontoon type double deck roof, or internal floating cover with seals to close
the space between the roof edge and tank wall may be used. If the vapor
pressure is greater than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) than a vapor recovery system
will be necessary. This will consist of a vapor gathering system and a vapor
disposal system. All gauging and sampling devices must be gas-tight except
when gauging or sampling is taking place.
Table IV-20 presents regulation requirements and limitations of various
tank sizes for gasoline storage.
TABLE IV-20
HYDROCARBON LIMITATIONS FOR BKEATHriC LOSSES FROM GASOLINE STORAGE
Slate
Tank Size
(Gallons)
Requi.rcrr.cnts
Al.ibnr.a
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
'.\'.ishing:on,D.C.
l-av.ili
Illinois
Indiana
K-jnr.as
Kor.lucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Xass.ic!msotts
V.ir.r.csoia
Nevada
New .Jersey
Xorth Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Orcjon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Texas
I't.ih
Virginia
Wisconsin
60,000 pressure vessel or floating roo! <11.0 psia, >11.0 psta vapor recovery
65,000 pressure vessel or floating rool: >2.0 psia
>250 submerged fill unless pressure tank, vapor recovery, floating rcof
40,000 pressure vessel <11.0 psia, >:.i.O psia vapor recovery
40,000 flouting roof, pontoon double dock or vapor recovery not for facilities before 1972
40,000 floating roof, pontoon double d ..ck >1.5 psia <11.0 psia, >11.0 vapor recovery
40,000 pressure vessel or floating ncf <11.0 psia, >11.0 psia vapor recovery
40,000 floating roof <12.5 psla, >12,5 psia vapor recovery $5%, vapor disposal prevent emissions
40,000 floating roof, pontoon double d^ck if <12.0 psia, >12.0 psia vapor recovery
40,000 floating roof, pontoon double d/ck <13,0 psia, >13.0 puia vapor recovery
40,000 floating roof, pontoon double d;-ck >1.5 psia <11.1 psia, >11.1 psla vapor recovery
40,000 new, floating roof, pontoon douMo deck <11.0 psia >11.0 psia vapor recovery
40,000 floating roof
250-40,000 submersed fill
65,000 pressure vessel, floating roof :-2.5 psla <12.5 psia, >12.5 paia vapor recovery
40,000 floating roof double dock >1.5 psla
function of tank size and vapjr pressure
50,000 flon.ting roof >1.5 psia <11.C juila, >11.0 psia vapor recovery
65,000 flouting roof, double dock pontoon, vapor recovery
- submerged fill
40,000 vapor recovery or equivalent, new
40,000 vapor recovery >11.0 psla
40,000 vapor recovery >11.0 psia
40,000 pressure vessel or vapor recovery
>1,000 submerged fill
floating roof, vapor recovery >1.5 psla
40,000 pressure ver.ncl, flontlnc roof, pontoon double deck, 90!C efficiency
40,000 floating roof, pontoon double- ti^ck, vapor recovery
IV-79
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Existing vapor recovery
technology is adequate to meet state regulations for storage of gasoline.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References: ••••'•
Literature used to develop the information for "Petroleum Storage Gasoline
Breathing Losses" is listed below:
(1) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(2) Complication of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition) , EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
C4) API Bulletin on 'Eyap;JraH_op_'_Lpss in thg Petroleum Indus Lry - Cause
and Control. February 12i§. *
IV-80
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Petroleum Storage Gasoline (Working)
C. Source Description;
Working losses from the bulk storage of gasoline occur when a storage vessel
is filled and emptied. The storage vessels are constructed in a variety of shapes,
but most common are cylinders and spheres. Steel Plate is the material most
commonly used, and the plates are welded rather than bolted together. The
six basic storage vessel designs are:
1. fixed roof,
2. floating roof, .
3. covered floating roof,
4. internal floating cover,
5. variable vapor space, and
6. pressure,
7. fixed pressure.
The floating roof, covered floating roof, and internal floating cover are
similar in configuration because they minimize the vapor space above the liquid.
Figures IV-6, 7, and 8 present fixed roof, floating roof, and variable vapor
space vessel, respectively. (2)'*.3~2
, PRESSURE-VACUUM
VENT
GAUGE HATCH,
MANHOLE
Figure IV-6; Fixed Roof Storage Tank
IV-81
-------
.WEATHER SHIELD
HATCHES
LIQUID LEVEL DRAIH
ROOF SEAL
(NONMETALLIC
VENT OR
METALLIC)
gglS£i GUIDE ROOS
HINGED CENTER SUPPORT
MANHOLE
Figure IV-7; Double-Deck Floating Roof Storage Tank
(Nonmetallic Seal)
ROOF CENTER SUPPORT
FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGM ROOF
GAUGE HATCH
: NOZZLE =^=^^=S==^=^:-
Figure IV-5; Variable Vapor Storage Tank CWet—Seal Lifter Type)
D. Emission Rates;
Working losses from the bulk storage of gasoline are defined as the vapors
expelled from a vessel as a result of filling, irrespective of the exact mechanism
by which the vapors are produced. Working losses also include the subsequent vapor
release as a result of emptying a storage vessel. The vaporization of the liquid
remaining in a storage vessel after emptying lags behind the expansion of the vapor
space during withdrawal, and the partial pressure of the hydrocarbon vapor drops.
Enough air enters during the withdrawal to maintain total pressure at atmospheric
pressure. When vaporization of the remaining liquid into the new air reaches
equilibrium, the vapor volume exceeds the capacity of the vapor space. This increase
in vapor volume causes some of the vapor to escape. CO9
IV-82
-------
Working losses are a function, of the following:
1, loading rate,
2. vessel construction,
3, ambient temperature,
4.. vapor pressure of gasoline,
5. type of recovery system,
6. day/night temperature change, and ..... ;
7. change in atmospheric pressure.
Size and type of vessel construction are fixed parameters once a vessel has
been installed. Capacities of storage vessels range from a few gallons to
500,000 barrels (8.0 x 107 liters) but tanks with capacities in excess of 150,000
barrels (2.4 x 107 liters) are rare. (1)626 Tabie IV-21C2)4 • S-8 presents hydro-
carbon emissions from gasoline working losses.
TABLE IV-21
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM GASOLINE WORKING LOSSES
Type of
Equii,T.-.crit i Ccr.tn.1.
Fixed Roof
Uncontrolled
Variable Vapor Space
Uncontrolled
Fixed Roof with
Vnpor Recovery
C.-:-.trol
0
0
• 95
Emissions
Throughput
1W fcs/
lO'r.al. 1031
9.0 1.1
10.2 1.2
.5 .06
Based on 231 x It?
Eal/dav Tdrpt
ibsf
hr
86.6
-
A. 33
1--S/
hr
39.3
-
1.96
Based on 7x10 i
gal/day Thrpt
Ibs/ kg/
hr hr
-
2.96 1.34
E. Control Equipment;
A floating roof tank is essentially a controlled fixed roof tank. However,
.vapors that are released from both during filling and emptying amount to a small
percentage of the total volume of the liquid transferred. The control methods
most commonly used with fixed and floating roof tanks are vapor recovery systems
which collect hydrocarbon vapors from storage vessels and strip the volatiles from
the vented air. The four recovery methods are: C2)*4- 3~7
1. liquid absorption,
2. vapor compression,
3. vapor condensation, and
4. adsorption in activated charcoal
or silica gel.
IV-83
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);EPA promulgated, in the Friday,
March 8, 1974 Federal Register, a "New Source Performance Standard" for
storage vessels for petroleum liquids. The standard applies to vessels greater
than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) containing petroleum liquids that have a
true vapor pressure greater than 1.5 psia (78 mm Hg). If the vapor pressure
'is greater than 1.5 psia (78 mm Hg) and less than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) a
floating roof or equivalent control is required. If the pressure is greater
than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) a vapor recovery system or equivalent control is
required.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Many states and local
legislatures have regulations covering xrorking losses from gasoline storage.
These regulations are similar to Appendix B (Federal Register, August 14, 1971)
which requires the use of pressure tanks, vapor loss control devices and vapor
recovery systems. Some states have specified either an emission rate or a control
efficiency expected. Most states simply have required specific types of
equipment be utilized.
Appendix B states that storage of volatile organic compounds in any
stationary tank greater than 40,000 gallons (151,412 liters) can be a pressure
tank. If a pressure tank is not possible a floating roof, consisting of a
pontoon typt double deck roof, or internal floating cover with seals to close
the space between the roof edge and tank wall may be used. If the vapor
pressure is' greater than 11.0 psia (570 mm Hg) than a vapor recovery system
will be necessary. This will consist of a vapor gathering system and a vapor
disposal system. All gauging and sampling devices must be gas-tight except
when gauging or sampling is taking place. The same equipment requirements that
cover storage losses will at least partially cover working losses.
Table IV-22 presents regulation requirements and limitations of various
tank sizes for working losses from gasoline.
IV-84
-------
TABLE 1V-22
HYDROCARBON LIMITATION'S fM KORKIXC I.HSSI'.S FROM GASOLINE
State
Alabar.a
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Washinston.D.C.
!:.2w.-.ii
Illinois
Ir.dlcna
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
::CVKC.I
Sew Jersey
North Carolina
Ohio
Cklaho-a
Tennsylvr.nia
Puerto Xico
Rhoie Island
Tex.-.s
'Jean
Virginia
Wisconsin
PotenLJa.1
Tan!-. Size
(Gallons)
60,000
65,000
>250
-*U ,UUU
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,003
40,000
40,000
40,000
250-'.0,000
65,000
40,000
_
50 , 000
65,000
40 000
40^000
40,000
40,000
>1,COO
_
40,000
40,000
Source •
Uecjuirenents
pressure vessel or floating roof <11.0 psia, >11.0 psia vapor recovery
pressure Vi-.ssal or floati.i^ roof >2.0 pt;ia
subr.erjjed fill unless prv ;rjre Lank, vapor recovery, floating roof
plossure vessel ^ll.u p:, j •' , ^n.u psia vjpcr >ccc.ijr\, j.^-. i!):./j".o ;.•**
floating roof, pontoon dc:.ble deck or vapor recovery not for facilities before 1972
floatin; roof, pontoon eVi'.Ue deck >1.5 psia <11.0 pr.ia, >11.0 v^por recovery
proKOur.: vessel or floa-.i:!;-. root' <11.0 pr.ia, >11.0 psia vapor recovery . .
floatlni; roof <12.5 paia, '•'.-. 5 psia vapor recovery £5;:, vjsor d:.ipcsal prevent e-issicns
floatip.;; roof, pontoon dcubla duck if <12.0 psio, >12.0 psia vapor recovery
floating roof, pontoon double dec!: <13.0 psia, >13.0 p.^ia vapor recovery
floating roof, pontoon double deck >1,5 psia <11.1 p:;ia, >11.1 psia vapnr recovery
nev, floatlnR roof, pontoon double deck <11.0 psia >11.0 psia vapor recovery
fioatir.j roof
subaorjod fill
pressure vessel, floatir.; ri.-of >2.5 psia <12.5 psia, >12.5 psia vapor recovery
llo.itins roof double cecV. >1.5 psia
function of tan".; size ar.c! vr.por pressure
floating roof >1.5 psia <11.0 psia, >11.0 psia vapor recovery
floating roof, double deck pontoon, vapor recovery
sunsersc-d fill
vapor recovery >11.0 psia
vapor recovery >11.0 psio
pressure vessel or vapor recovery
sub-erjeJ fill
floating roof, vapor recovery >1.5 psia
pressure vessel, floating roof, pontoon double deck, 90X efficiency
Cornp.liance snd Emissions Limitations: Existing va^ui i.t;c
technology is adequate to meet state regulations for storage and working losses
of gasoline.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information presented in this section is listed
below:
(1) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manuel, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(2) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
(^) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(A) API Bulletin on Evaporation Loss in the Petroleum Industry - Causes and
Control, February 1959. ~~
IV-85
-------
A. Source Category; IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category; Petroleum Transfer Gasoline
C. Source Description;
After leaving the refinery, gasoline is transferred via pipeline, rail,
ship or barge to intermediate storage terminals and then to regional market-
ing terminals for temporary storage in large quantities. The gasoline is then
pumped into tank trucks that deliver directly to service stations or to "bulk'
plants." From "bulk plants" the gasoline is trucked to its final destination,
service stations and ultimately motor vehicle fuel tanks. (1)l+«tt~1
D. Emission Rates;
Transfer losses of gasoline vapor from tank cars and trucks is dependent upon:
1. loading method,
2. ambient temperature,
3. loading rate, and
4, vapor pressure of gasoline.
"Splash" loading is the process of filling a storage tank through a short
filler neck where the gasoline impinges upon the surface of the liquid. The sub-
sequent: splashing causes cc-ccess liquid droplets to b see-so temporarily entrained.
As the tank fills, the vapor volume above the liquid level is reduced and the vapors
exiting from the vent are completely saturated. "Submerged" loading is the process
of filling a storage tank through a filler neck that extends to the bottom of the
tank. The resulting surface splashing is greatly reduced because the liquid already
in the tank dampens the splashing and excessive movement of the filling liquid.
Consequently, the vapor volume above the liquid that is exiting through the vent
contains va.pors that are less saturated than the equivalent one in "splash"
loadingo O)l+«'+-l >2 Table IV-23 presents hydrocarbon emissions from the transfer
of gasoline.
TABLE IV-23
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM TRANSFER OF GASOLINE^)"*>4-
Type of
Equipment & Control
Splash Loading Uncontrolled
Submerged Loading Uncontrolled
Unloading Uncontrolled
Splash Loading, With Vapor Recovery
Submerged Loading, With Vapor Recovery
Unloading, With Vapor Recovery
%
Control
0
67
83
95
98-
99
Emissions Based on 67,000 bbl Tank
Ibs/
103 Gal
Transferred
12.4
4.1
2.1
.62
.21
.11
kg/
103 Liters
Transferred
1.5
.49
.25
.074
.025
.013
Ibs/
Day
34,900
11,500
210*O)'».3-8
1,700
580
11
kg/
dav
15,800
5 200
95
790
260
5
*Assun:ed 100,000 gal/day transferred.
IV-86
-------
E. Control Equipment;
'.'Submerged" loading versus "splash" loading involves the structure of the
storage tank rather than a typical "add on" arrangement. There are however four
types of vapor recovery methods that are suitable for the collection of petroleum
liquid vapors during transfer. These are: C1)4'3""7
1. liquid absorption,
2. vapor compression,
3. vapor condensation, and
4. adsorption in activated charcoal.
In order to control the hydrocarbon vapors that are displaced when filling a
storage tank, one of the above systems could be installed on the vent. However,
it is not necessary for every storage tank to have such a system available.
Instead, a specially designed and constructed delivery truck can dispense
petroleum liquids and collect displaced vapor simultaneously. Figure IV-1 presents
the process diagram whereby the delivery truck returns to the bulk distribution
plant with the vapor the liquid contents replaced. When the tank truck is
subsequently filled, a vapor recovery system at the distribution plant will collect
the resulting vapors. Overall control efficiency for the vapor-tight tank truck
is 93 to 100 percent when compared to uncontrolled "splash" filling.
VAPOR VENT LINE
MANIFOLD FOR RETURNING VAPORS
TRUCK STORAGE I
COMPARTMENTS
I I t t 1 1 I I t I I t 1 I STORAGE
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..,,
Figure IV-1; Underground Storage Tank. Vapor-Recovery System
IV-87
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards arid Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); In the Friday, March 8, 1974 Federal
Register, EPA promulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for storage vessels
for petroleum liquids. The standard applies to tanks greater than 40,000 gallons
(151,412 liters) containing petroleum liquids that have a true vapor pressure of
1.5 psia (.78 nm Hg). However, this standard does not apply to transfer of gasoline
but is directly related because of the specification of the type tank required. As
such, the limitation of hydrocarbon emissions from the transfer of gasoline is
controlled by individual state regulations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Many states and
local legislatures have regulations covering petroleum transfer. The
majority of regulations follow the Appendix B (Federal Register,
August 14, 1971). Appendix B requires that loading of volatile
organic compounds into any tank, truck or trailer having a capacity
in excess of 200 gallons (760 liters) can be from a loading facility equipped
with a vapor collection and disposal system. The loading facility can be
equipped with a loading arm with a vapor collection adapter,
pneumatic, hydraulic or other mechanical means to force a vapor tight
seal between the adapter and the hatch. A means can be provided to
prevent drainage of liquid organic compounds from the loading device
when it is removed from the hatch, thereby accomplishing complete
drainage before removal. When loading is effected through means other
*"han hatches, all load ing st!.d vapor lines car. be equipped with fittings
which make vapoi tight connections and which close automatically
when disconnected. The emission limitation will result in 55 to 60 per
cent reduction in volatile emissions from uncontrolled sources in
gasoline marketing and other transfer operations.
Table IV--24 presents requirements, and limitations of typical
states which require control of transfer operations.
TABLE IV-2A
HYDROCARBON LIMITATIONS FROM PETROLEUM TRANSFER
State
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Washington, D.C.
Illinois
Indiana
!.!M:;.KJ.-:n.n
Maryliii.o
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Texas
Virginia
Throughput
gallons/day
50,000
20,000
10,000
40,000
40,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
Requirement
vapor recovery
vapor recovery, limit 1.24 lbs/1000 gal
vapor recovery
vapor recovery, disposal 907. efficiency
vapor recovery, disposal prevent emissions
vapor tight seal
vapor vocuvei-y, 952 efficioncv
floatiiij; ioof a.id vapor vccovevy
vapor rccovcrv
vjipor recovery
vapor tight seal
vapor recovery
IV-88
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing vapor recovery
technology is adequate to meet state regulations for transfer of petroleum liquids.
The tank and special delivery truck arrangement outlined in Section E is consistent
with existing regulations and permits the economy of vapor recovery installation at
only the bulk distribution plant.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information in this section is listed
below:'
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition),
EPA, Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
(2) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References Not Used;
(3) Danielson. J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manuel (Second Edition),
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(4) Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study, Volume I - Stationary Sources,
Effects, and Control (Final Technical Report), MSA Research Corporation,
October 20, 1972. •
(5) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions
From Stationary Sources, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Air Pollution Control, Administration Publication
No. AP-68, March 1970.
(6) Schneider, Alan M., Cost Effectiveness of Gasoline Vapor Recovery
Systems, For Presentation at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Boston, Massachusetts, June 15-20,
1975.
IV-89
-------
A. Source Category: IV Evaporation Losses
B. Sub Category: Petroleum Service Stations
C. Source Description:
Hydrocarbon emissions from service stations arise primarily from the following
operations:
1. filling and emptying losses, . . . •
2. breathing losses,
3. filling of vehicle tanks.
Except for automobile refueling which is discussed in another section, the losses
arise from the underground tank storage vents. Figure IV-12C1*)93 presents a
typical uncontrolled service station underground storage tank. Filling losses
occur as vapors are expelled from the tank as a result of filling with liquid
I
! ' _L [STpSl,
1 , H'H^i
,.n»^'A,^.---"-'-x
^•z&'&V-^Sl
:-v< Ui!!^
'^•JJ
Figure IV-12; Present Uncontrolled Service Station for Underground Tank.
gasoline. Losses occur when the vapor space recedes with increasing liquid
level. The pressure inside the tank then exceeds the relief pressure. Emptying
losses occur because the liquid removed during refueling of vehicles causes a
partial vacuum, and ambient air is drawn in through the vent. Enough air enters
during withdrawal to maintain atmospheric pressure in the tank. When vaporization
into the new air reaches equilibrium, the vapor volume exceeds the capacity of the
vapor space. This increase in vapor volume causes the expulsion. Breathing losses
occur through underground storage tank vents by thermal expansion of existing
vapors, expansion caused by barometric pressure changes, and an increase in the
amount of vapor from added vaporization in the absence of liquid level changes. (5)9
D. Emission Rates:
Hydrocarbon emissions from service stations include the vapor displaced from
the vehicle tank, the liquid spilled in filling the vehicle tank, the breathing
losses of the stored gasoline, and the filling and emptying losses of the under-
ground tank. Table 1V-25 presents hydrocarbon emissions from service stations.
IV--90
-------
TABLE IV-25
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SERVICE STATIONS
\
Type of
Operation & Control
Vapor Loss at Vehicle, Uncontrolled
Vapor Loss at Vehicle with Equal
Volume Balance System
Spillage at Vehicle, Uncontrolled
Storage Breathing Loss, Uncontrolled
Storage Breathing Lons, with Equal
Volume Balance System
Splash Loading, Uncontrolled
Splash Loading, with Equal Volume
Balance System
Submerged Loading, Uncontrolled
Submerged Loading, with Equal
Volume Balance' System
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unloading, with Equal Volume
Balance System
*
Control
0
70
0
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Emissions
Ibs/
1000 gil
11. O^5"
3,3 CO"
.7(")*
LOCO"
.lo(*)"
12.4O3
1.24(1)3
4.1(1)3
.41(1)3
2.1(1)3
.21(1)3
kg/
1000 liters
1.33
.13
.08
. .12
.012
1.5
.13
.49
.05
.25
.03
Ibs/
Refueling of
6000 cnl tank
66
19.8 .
4.2
6.0
.60
74.4
7.44
24.6
2.46
12.6
1.26
kg/
Refueling of
23,250 liter tank
7.98
2.34
.48
.72
.072
9.0
.90
2.94 .
.30
1.5
.18
E. Control Equipment;
An effective control system for use at a service station underground storage
tank must not only reduce emissions from filling, emptying, and breathing losses
of the. underground tank, but also, must be. amenable to reduction of vehicle
refueling losses.
Figure IV-13: Simple Displacement System
Figure IV-13 presents a simple displacement system. This system essentially
returns to the underground tank the displaced vapor from the vehicle tank.
However, a problem exists with vehicles that have open vented tanks. The tight
fitting nozzle causes an increase in pressure in the vehicle tank, thus expelling
vapor through the vehicle vent.C*)7
IV-91
-------
AIR » TRACE HC
EMERGENCY f?
RELIEF VALVE '
DISPENSING NOZZLE
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
FLAME ARRESTER
Figure IV-14; On-Site Regeneration System
Figure IV-14 presents an on-site carbon regeneration system. The on-site
regeneration system can effectively collect vapor from even vented vehicle tanks
and effectively reduces 'filling, emptying, and breathing losses from the under-
ground tanks. Vapors from the vehicle tank are extracted with the aid of an air
pump. These vapors, together with excess vapors from the underground tank, go
through one of two canisters which adsorbs the hydrocarbons and expels the air.
An electric timer is used to close off one canister after several hours of
operation and connects ano'ther pump to it, which evacuates this canister to
28" Hg. Electric heaters raise the carbon temperature to 250°F to improve the
desorption effect. The vapors are cooled in a heat exchanger and bubbled through
the gasoline in the ground tank where they are absorbed. During this time, the
second canister adsorbs vapors from the vehicles. The initial adsorption
efficiency of 99% decreases to 94%, at which time the carbon is regenerated.^10
Figure IV-15; Refrigeration System
IV-92
-------
Two refrigeration systems. are under test. The one presented in Figure IV-15
consists of a heat exchanger, a blower with 80 CFM capacity, and a one-ton
refrigeration unit. When pressure builds up during the underground tank filling,
a pressure activated switch starts the blower and refrigeration system, which
reduces the heat exchanger temperature to 40°F. Vapors are pulled through the
heat exchanger by the blower, cooled off, and returned to the ground tank. A
small amount of gasoline vapor is condensed. This reduces the pressure allowing
the unit to shut off. This system has limited effectiveness on warm days when
the heat flux into the unit is large. The use of a vapor recovery pump to extract
vapors from the vehicle filler neck area further complicates matters. (^
1 1
AIR 8. TRACE KC
FUEL
SUFfLY I
TRUCK I
VA?3S
SURCE
TANK
CONDENSER! iccwotx-SER
n o '
VAPOR T VAPOR
COWPP.ESSOR ICOV.PRESSOB
-LIQUID
-REFRIGERANT
• VAPOR
Figure IV-16; Compression Liquif Icatlon System
Figure IV-16 presents a scaled-down version of a recovery system used commonly
at large bulk plants. Excess vapor from the vehicle tank or underground storage
tank enters the surge tank through a layer of gasoline which saturates it. The
compressor is started when this tank is nearly filled. It compresses the vapor to
82 psi, raising the temperature to 250°F. The vapors are cooled to 35°F in the
first heat exchanger. The heavy-end hydrocarbon and all water vapors are condensed.
The remaining vapor goes through the second stage of the compressor where, the
pressure is increased to 425 psi and the temperature reaches 275°F. In the second
condenser, an isobaric temperature decrease to 10°F occurs. All hydrocarbons
except traces of methane and ethane are condensed. They are returned to the surge
tank, and the overflow goes to the ground tank. The refrigeration unit maintains
the condensers at their design temperature at all times. It does not cycle on
and off with the compressor. Three pre-production models are now being field-
tested, two at gas stations in San Diego, and a third at a research center.
IV-93
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for petroleum losses at service stations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Several states and local
governments specifically regulate the emissions from service station operations.
Areas in California and the District of Columbia require 90% control efficiencies.
Colorado limits emissions to 1.10 lbs/103 gallons delivered. Maryland and Massachu-
setts require vapor return rules. In addition to the above states, New Jersey,
Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin regulate automobile refueling operations.
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing technology is
adequate to meet the 90% control limitations. A vapor balance or a secondary pro-
cessing system operating at 90% control efficiency is required and has been ac-
complished on existing sources.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitation.
G. Literature used to develop the information in this section, "Petroleum
Service Stations," is listed below:
(1) Batcheldar, A. H., Kline, D. I., Vapor Recovery at Service Stations,
State of California Air Resources Board, April 1974.
(2) Miirteiio, Stuart W. , Control of Refueling Emissions Statement: by
General Motors Corporation, Vehicle Refueling Emissions Seminar,
Sheraton-Anaheim Motor Hotel, Anaheim, California, December 4-5, 1973.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract'68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(4) Hydrocarbon Vapor Control at Gasoline Service Stations, Barnard A.
McEntire and Ray Skoff, County of San Diego, California, 66APCA,
June 1973.
(5) Vehicle Refueling Emissions Seminar, API Publication 4222, December 1973.
IV-94
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Acrylonitrile
C. Source Description
Acrylonitrile, CH2CHCN, is produced from propylene and ammonia by the
Sohio process, which is described by the following reaction:
2 CH2 = CHCH3 + 2 NH3
3 Q2 Cajjaljrst^ 2 CR
^ Heat ^
CHCN + 6 H20
Vaporized propylene and ammonia (2:1) are mixed with air and steam and introduced
into a catalytic reactor which operates at 5-30 psig and 750-
950°F (399-510°C). The original catalyst introduced by Sohio was bis-
muth phosphomolybdate on silica. This has been replaced by the more
efficient antimony-uranium oxide system. The reacted product is withdrawn to a
countercurrent absorber where organic products are absorbed in water and subse-
quentially recovered by distillation. The process flow sheet, shown in Figure
V-l, illustrates the Sohio process for the manufacture of acrylonitrile.
No alternative raw materials are available for the ammonia and propylene used
in this process. Approximately 1,000 Ibs (454 kg) ammonia, 2,000 Ibs (907 kg)
propylene, and 20,000 Ibs (9,072 kg) air are required to produce 1 ton (.9m ton)
of acryloniLrile. As Llie process flow sheet indicates, both hydrogen cyanide and
acetonitrile are produced as by-products. Approximately 150 Ibs (68.0 kg) of hy-
drogen cyanide and 30 Ibs (13.6 kg) of acetonitrile are produced per ton of acry-
lonitrile. A typical plant will produce 274 tons (249 m tons) of acrylonitrile
per day.
Off Coi
Pro-
pylenr
H2SO,
II20 Low Boiling Fraction
I i
AcrylooltrJle
(Nil,), SO,
Solutloa
HjO AcicooltliU
Figure V-l; Sohio Process for Acrylonitrile Manufacture
v-i
-------
D. Emission Rates;
Hydrocarbon emissions from the Sohio process originate from the absorber off
gases and from the flare in the reaction section of the process. The hydrocarbon
emissions for this uncontrolled and controlled process are shown in Table V-l.C1*)
Various percentages of control were calculated as examples to show how much in
reduced emissions is obtained in discrete increments of additional control.
• . • TABLE V-l.
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM ACRYI.ONITRILE MANUFACTURE . .
Type of Operation & Control
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Uncontrolled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off -Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, with Incinerator
% Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* Based on 274 tons/day
Ibs/ton
200
40
30
20
10
2
(kg/MT)
100
20
15
10
5
1
Ibs/hr
2280
456
342
228
114
23
ks/hr
1034
207
155
103
52
10
*As methane
E. Control
Incineration of the off-gases is an effective means of controlling hydro-
carbon emissions from the Sohio process for the manufacture of acrylonitrile.
Efficiencies from 80 percent to 100 percent are routinely achieved with incin-
eration. C'+) 9 Controlled hydrocarbon emissions from the manufacture of acryloni-
trile are presented in Table V-l.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) : No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for acrylonitrile manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Very few states have adopted
hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries such as acrylonitrile.
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from //I type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
V-2
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent .
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 300G 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenateci hydrocarbons, pcrchloroethylene, benzene, ace Lout- and cj-c5n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have, regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-3
-------
Table V-2 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for
acrylonitrile manufacture.
TABLE V-2 •
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ACRYLONITRILE MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation & Control
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Uncontrolled
Absorber Off -Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
Absorber Off-Gases to Flare, Controlled
% Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* Baaed on
274 tons/day
Ibs/hr
2280
456
. 342
228
114
23
kg/hr
1034
' 207
155
103
52
10
Limitations4
lbs/hr/kp,/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Jnheated
8
8
8
8
8
8
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
*As methane
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based oa process weight, and large processes such as acryloni-
trile manufacture require tight control to meet limitations. An acrylonitrile
process producing 274 tons/day requires 99.9% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limi-
tation, and 99.6% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hr limitation. Existing.incineration
control technology would be borderline to meet this high control efficiency
requirement.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
References used in the preparation of this summary include the following:
1. Air Pollution Survey Production of Seven Petrochemicals (Final Report), MSA
Research Corp., EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-12, Modification J, Task I, July 23,
1971.
2. Hedley, W.H., Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes, (Final Re-
port) , Monsanto Research Corp., EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task No. 9, De-
cember, 1973.
3. Pervier, J.W., Barley, R.C., Field, D.E., Friedman, B.M., Morris, R.B.,
Schartz, W.A., Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical
Industry. Vol. I, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255, January, 1974.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract No. 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
5. Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guide-
lines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
Other sources which were reviewed but not used directly to develop this sec-
tion include:
6. The Chemical Marketing Newspaper, Chemical Profiles, Schnell Publishing Co.,
Inc., New York.
V-4
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Ammonia (Methanator Plant)
C. Source. Description;
Ammonia is produced by catalytic reaction of hydrogen and nitrogen at high
temperatures and pressures. A hydrocarbon feed stream (usually natural gas) is
desulfurized, mixed with steam, and catalytically reacted to form carbon monoxide
and hydrogen. Air is introduced into the secondary reactor to supply oxygen and
provide a nitrogen to hydrogen ratio of 1 to 3. The gases enter a two-stage
shift converter where the carbon monoxide reacts with water vapor to form carbon
dioxide and hydrogen. Unreacted CO is converted to CH^ by a methanator, and the
gas stream is scrubbed to remove carbon dioxide. The gases, mostly nitrogen and.
hydrogen in a ratio of 1 to 3, are compressed and passed to the converter where
they react to form ammonia. An'average plant will produce 450 tons of ammonia
daily.
The process for the manufacture of ammonia is pictured in the block dia-
gram shown in Figure V-2.
Purge Gas
Mr
carbon
(Natural
fiaa)
Steam —
Catalytic
C02,
ShUt
Cc-nverter
C02. H2, Air (N2)
Scrubber
Converter
(High Pressure)
Figure V-2: tanonla >l«nii(i.<,cur.tnp ProceKU (Methanator Plant)
D. Emissions Rates:
The only source of hydrocarbon emissions from ammonia plants using methanators
to convert carbon monoxide to methane is the purge gas which is used to prevent
the accumulation of inert compounds in the system. The controlled and uncontrolled
hydrocarbon emissions from this process are represented in Tsb.le V-3.(*)5.2-2
Various percentages of control were calculated as examples to show how much in
reduced emissions is obtained in discrete increments of additional control.
V-5
-------
TABLE V-3
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM AMMONIA MANUFACTURE USING A METHANATOR PLANT
Type of Operation
and Control
Methanator, Uncontrolled
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incienrator
% Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* (Based on 450 tons/day)
Ibs/ton
90
18
13.5
9
4.5
.9
kg/m ton
45
9
6.8
4.5
2.8
.45
Ibs/hr
1690
338
253
169
84
17
kg/hr
765
153.
115
'77
38
8
*As Methane
E» Control Equipment:
Collection and incineration of the waste gases from the methanator plant is
the chief means of control of hydrocarbon emissions.(2)9 Efficiencies of 80 per-
cent and greater can normally be achieved by incineration.(2)9 Hydrocarbon emis-
sions from methanator ammonia plants with incinerators are presented in Table
V-3.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source. Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for ammonia manufacture using a methanator plant.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Very few states
have adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries
such as ammonia manufacture using a methanator plant. Currently,
hydrocarbon emmission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from #1 type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-^photochemically reactive solvents. For the '
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
V-6
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent :
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as folluv/3:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photo chemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if 1:he
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume, of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and c1-c5n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table V-4 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for
ammonia -manufacturing using a methanator plant.
V-7
-------
TABLE V-4
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM AMMONIA MANUFACTURE USING A METHANATOR PLANT
Type of
Operation & Control
Methanator, Uncontrolled
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator wtth Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
Methanator with Incinerator
% Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* (Based on 450 tons/day)
Ibs/hr
1690
338
253
169
84
17
kc,/hr
765
153
115
77
38 .
8
Limitations01 Ibs/hr/kR/hr
Heat
3
3
3
3
3
3
ed
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Unhentcd
8
8
8
8
8
8
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
*As Methane
Potential Point Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon
emission limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such
as ammonia manufacture using a methanator plant require tight control to meet
limitations. The ammonia manufacture process using a methanator requires 99.8%
control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation and 99.5% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hr
limitation. Existing incinerator technology is borderline for a 450 ton/day
ammonia process to be in compliance with existing regulations.
Environment Reportc-r was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the discussion on methanator-using ammonia plants
is listed below:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA Publica-
tion No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(2) Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guide-
lines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implemcnation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
The following reference was also consulted but not directly used to develop
the content of this discussion:
(4) Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry, Noyes Data Corpor-
ation, 1972, Park Ridge, N.J.
V-8
-------
A. Source Category; V. Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Ammonia (Regenerator & CO Absorber Plant)
C. Source Description;
Ammonia is produced by the catalytic reaction of hydrogen and
nitrogen at high temperatures and pressures. A hydrocarbon feed stream
(usually natural gas) is desulfurized, mixed with steam, and
catalytically reacted to form carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Air is introduced
into the secondary reactor to supply oxygen and provide a nitrogen to hydrogen
ratio of 1 to 3. The gases enter a two-stage shift converter where the car-
bon monoxide reacts with water vapor to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The
gas stream is scrubbed to yield a gas containing less than 1 percent carbon diox-
ide and then passed through a CO scrubber prior to entering the converter. In
the converter, the remaining nitrogen and hdyrogen gases, in a ratio of 1 to 3,
are compressed and reacted to form ammonia.
The ammonia manufacturing process is shown in Figure V-3.
will produce 450 tons per day using this process:
A typical plant
Purge Ct«
Air (H2)
Hydro-
c*rbon
Catalytic
JU«ctor
•J.
COj. H2 *~~"
Shift
Co:.v«rc«r
">«. iizT~
Air, CO
COj
Scrubb.r
I JS—
CO. HI,
Air
CO
Scrubber
Air (S,>,
.ftisttf
D. Emission Rates;
The only source of hydrocarbon emissions from ammonia plants with CO absorbers
and regeneration systems is the purge gas used to prevent the accumulatation of
inert compounds in the system. The controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emis-
sions from these plants are summarized in Table V-5. (1)5.2-2 Various percent-
ages of control were calculated as examples to show how much in reduced emis-
sions is obtained in discrete increments of additional control.
V-9
-------
TABLE V-5
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM AMMONIA MANUFACTURE WITH REGENERATOR & CO PLANT
Type of '
Operation & Control
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst, Uncontrolled
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incinerf4tion
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
CO Absorber & Regeneration Syst with Incineration
%
Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
Emissions* Based on
450 tons/day
Ibs/
on
90
18
13.5
9
4.5
.9
kg/.
m ton
45
9
6.8
4.5
2.8
.45
Ibs/
hr
1690
338
253
169
84
17
kg/
hr
765
153
115
77
38
8
*As Methane
E. Control Equipment;
Collection and incineration of the purge gas from the plants with CO absorbers
and regeneration systems is the chief means of control of the hydrocarbon emissions
with efficiencies of 80% and greater.(2)9 Hydrocarbon emissions from plants with
CO absorbers and regeneration systems and such control equipment are shown in
Table V-5.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for ammonia manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber
plant.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Very few states
have adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries
such as ammonia manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber plant.
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule. 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baldng with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochemical.!}' reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from //I type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of vmsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule, except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
V-10
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive.
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Cn-Cgn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have rcculations pat. tamed after Appendix B. Some
states auch as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table V-6 .presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for ammonia manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber plant.
TABLE V-6
HYDROCARBON' EMISSIONS ANT) LIMITATIONS FROM AMMONIA MANUFACTURE WITH RECF.NERATOil AND CO PLANT
Tvoe of Oner.it ton and Control
CO absorber1* regeneration
sy.st, uncontrolled
CO absorber1" rejjencration
»VBt, with Incineration
CO absorber1* rejcr.erait on
svst, with Incineration
CO absorber1* regeneration
pvst, with incineration
CO ntsorbcr1* regeneration
syst, with Incineration
CO absorber1* regcn'-'ratl'jn
X Control
0
80
85
90
95
99
(.missions "liasod rn 450 tons/d.iv
lbr,/hr
1690
338
253
169
84
17
kR/hr
765
153
115
77
,
38
8
Limitations* Ibs/hr/kR/hr
He.iced
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Unheated
8
8
8
8
8
3 .
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
•*As Methane
V-ll
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as ammonia
manufacture using a regenerator and CO absorber plant require tight control to
meet limitations. The ammonia process with regenerator and CO absorber plant
producing 450 tons/day requires 99.8% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hour limitation
and 99.5% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Existing control technology
using incinerators is borderline to meet existing state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
References used as sources of information for the discussion on ammonia plants
with CO absorber and regeneration systems include:
(!) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA Publication
No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(2) Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guidelines
(Draft). EPA. Emission Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations. EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
The following reference was also consulted but not directly used to develop
the material discussed in this section:
(4) Jones, H.R. Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry. Park
Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
V-12
-------
A. Source Category; V. Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Carbon Black
C. Source Description:
Carbon black, frequently referred to as black, is ultrafine soot produced
by the reaction of a hydrocarbon fuel such as oil or gas, or both, with a limited
supply of air at temperatures of 2500 to 3000°F (1370 to 1650°C). Part of the
fuel is burned to C02, CO, and water, thus generating heat for the combustion of
fresh feed. The unburned carbon is collected as a black, fluffy particle.
Three basic processes are used in the United States for producing this
material. These include:
1. Furnace Process, 91.5 percent of total U.S. production.
2. Channel Process, 0.1 percent of total U.S. production.
3. Thermal Process, 8.4 percent of total U.S. production.
Regardless of the process used, three steps are fundamental to the production
of carbon blacks according to the following:
1. Production of black from feed stock.
2. Separation of black from the gas stream.
3. . Final conversion of the black to a marketable product.
In the channel process, natural gas is burned with a limited air supply in long,
low buildings. The flame from this burning impinges on long steel channel sec-
tions that swing continuously over the flame. Carbon black is deposited on the
channels and scraped off .into collecting hoppers. The black is conveyed to
a processing area where grit is removed, lumps are broken into small particles,
and the product is pelletized for packaging. Figure V-4 shows the flow diagram
for the channel process.
8CHANNEL
Figure V-4: Flow Diagram of Channel Process
The furnace process may be either an oil or a gas process depending on the
primary fuel used to produce the carbon black. In either case, the fuel is in-
V-13
-------
Jected into a reactor with a limited supply of combustion air. The furnace flue
gases carry the hot carbon to a water spray which reduces the temperature of the
gases to 500°F (260°C). Agglomeration and collection of the fine carbon black
particles is accompiished with an electrostatic precipitator, a cyclone and a
fabric filter system in series. Gases are discharged through the stack of the
final collector directly to the atmosphere and the black is carried to the
finishing area by conveyors and processed for packaging. Figure V-5 and V-6
show a flow diagram for the oil and gas furnace processes, respectively. They
are essentially the same except for the different fuels and different furnace
designs.
Figure V-5; Flow Diagram of Oil-Furnace Process1
Figure V-6: Flow Diagram of Gas-Furnace Process1
In the thermal black process, natural gas is decomposed by heat in the ab-
sence of air or flame. Cracking units, coolers, carbon collectors, and packaging
devices are the main components of the thermal black plant. In .this cyclic pro-
cess, methane (natural gas) is pyrolyzed or decomposed by passing it over a heated
brick checkerwork at a temperature of 3000°F (1650°C). The decomposition
reaction produces a smoke of thermal carbon plus quantities of hydrogen.
The bricks cool, the carbon smoke is flushed out and carried into a series of cy-
clones, cooling towers, and fabric filter collectors by the spent gas from the
generator. The collected black is transported by screw conveyors to the processing
area. Figure V-7 shows a flow diagram of a thermal black process.
V-14
-------
Figaro. V-7 - FlQvJDia£.raa-g?_S).eriiaI Process^
A typical carbon black plant will produce 50,000 tons of product annually.
D. Emission Rates;
The discharge of gases directly from the burner house of the channel process, and
from the final collection device in the furnace process, releases large quantities of
hydrocarbons to the atmosphere. Because of the recycling of the spent gasps In th<=.
thermal process, there are essentially no emissions cf hydrocarbons to" the atmos-
phere. Table V-7(1)b«3~1 presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emis-
sions from carbon black manufacturing. Various percentages of control were cal-
culated as examples to show how much in reduced emissions is obtained indiscrete
increments of additional control.
TABLE V-7
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM CAHROS BLACK MANUFACTURING
Tyoe of Operation & Control ..
Channel Process Uncontrolled
Channel Process with Incinerator
Ctiannel Process with Incinerator
Channel Process with Incinerator
Furnace Process Oil, Uncontrolled
Furnace Process Oil, with Incinerator
Furnace Process Oil, with Incinerator
Furnace Process Oil, with Incinerator
Furnace Process Gas, Uncontrolled
Furnace Process Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process Gas, with Incinerator
Thenr.nl
%
Control
0
85
95
99
0-
35
95
99
0
85
95
99
Emissions* Based on
50,000 tdns/yr (13 tons/day)
IbWf.on .
11,500
1,725
575
115
400
60
20
4
1,800
270
90
18
kp,/n ton
5,750
863
288
58
200
30
10
2
900
' 135
45
9
' .Negligible
Ibs/hr
65,550
9,832
3,277
656
2,280
342
114
22.6
10,260
1,540
513
103
-
kg/hr
29,700
4,460
1,490
300
1,030
155
52
10.4
4,650
700
230
47
• -
*Aa methane
V-15
-------
E. Control Equipment:
Gaseous emissions of hydrocarbons from carbon black processes are controlled
by flares, incinerators, and CO boilers.C1)5-3-1 However, 80-100 percent of the
hydrocarbons could be controlled by collection and incineration of the waste
gases. C3)9 Table V-7 presents controlled emission levels for the channel and
furnace processes. Many plants burn the off-gas to comply with CO regulations,
which also destroys the hydrocarbons.
.F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
IJew Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance
Standards" have been promulgated for carbon black manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Very few states have
adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries, such as
carbon black production. Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are
patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation.
Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic types. These are,
(1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any organic solvent,
(2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by
devices that employ or apply the solvent, -(also includes air or heated
drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined
SP. r.o.l.vcvntc of more than 20% by volume of the follov?ing:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive. 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register. Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from- the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Cj-Ccn-
paraffins.
V-16
-------
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana arid Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations. •....•
Table V-8 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations from
carbon black manufacture.
TABLE V-8
HYDROCARBON' EMISSIONS AMD LIMITATIONS FROM CAMPS' BLACK MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation & Control
Channel Process Uncontrolled
Channel Process Vlth Incinerator
Channel Prcccs" vtth Incinerator
Funace P:oc»ss, Oil, Uncontrolled
Furnace Process, Oil, with Incinerator
Funace Process, Oil, vlth Incinerator
Furnace Process, OJ1, vlth Incinerator
Furnace Process, Has, Uncontrolled
I'urnacc Process, Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, Gas, with Incinerator
Furnace Process, Gas, with Incinerator
Them.il.
7. Control
0
85
95
0
85
95
99
0
85
95
99
Emissions* Rased on 50,000 tor.s/hr
(13 tons/dny)
Ibs/hr
65,550
9,832
3,277
2,280
342
11A
22.8
10,260
1,5-'.0
513
103
-
kt;/hr
29,700
1,460
1,'iDO
1,030
155
52
10.4
4,650
700
230
' 47
-
Limitations*
lWhr/kc./hr
Heate.d
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unho.i tnd
8
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
2 i
3.6
3.6
8 13.6
B
8
a
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
1,6
3.6
*As methane
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as carbon
black manufacturing require tight control to meet limitations. The "Thermal
Process" is the only carbon black manufacturing process that can meet existing
regulations. The "Channel Process" and the "Furnace Process" based on a 50,000
ton/year production are not amenable to existing control technology to reduce
emissions to within'allowable limits.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
V-17
-------
G. References:
The key sources of information used to develop this section are:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA, April,
1973.
(2) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. Ill — Handbook of Emission Proper- .
ties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1,
1971.
(3) Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation Guide-
lines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Also consulted but not used to directly develop this section were:
(5) A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part II-Application Areas,
Southern Research Institute, Contract No. CPA 22-69-73, August 25, 1970.
(G) Background I'lifonnaLlua fui: Stationary Source Cutt-guiics . Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
V-18
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Charcoal
C. Source Description;
Charcoal is produced by pyrolysis, or destructive distillation of hardwood
in an enclosed retort. The wood is placed in the retort and heated externally
for about 20 hours at 500° to 700°F (260° to 370°C). The retort has air intakes
at the bottom, but their use is limited to the start-up period. The entire
cycle takes 3 hours to 24 hours, the last four being an exothermic reaction.
Approximately four units of hardwood are required to produce one unit of char-
coal.
D. Emission Rates:
During pyrolysis of the hardwood, most of the gases, tars, oils, acids, and
water from the wood are driven off. The tars, oils, and acids are useful by-products,
but economics has made recovery unprofitable, so all these materials are dis-
charged to the atmosphere.
Table V-9 presents particulate and hydrocarbon emissions for plants with and
without a recovery plant, based on an assumed retort capacity of 5 tons. C1)5.1*"1
This is based on average national emissions. National emissions are calculated
using 64% capacity from Missouri-type furnaces and 36% capacity from retort
furnaces.
TABLE V-9
PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM CHARCOAL MANUFACTURING
Type of
Operation fi Control
Pyrolysis Without Recovery Plant
Pyrolysis With Recovery Plant
and Afterburner
X
Control
0
99
Pnrticulate Emissions
Ibs/
ton
489
A.f)
KB/
M ton
245
2.4
Ibs/
hr
101
l.C
kg/
hr
45
0.5
X
Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions*
Ibs/
ton
484
4.8
kg/
M ton
242
2.4
Ibs/
hr
100
1.0
kg/
hr
45
0.5
*As Methane
E. Control Equipment;
Hydrocarbon emissions are controlled with an afterburner since unrecovered
by-products are combustible. Combustion of these gases for plant fuel controls
hydrocarbon emissions effectively. Either the burning of these gases as fuel,
or combustion in an afterburner, reduces the emissions to negligible quanti-
ties. O)S**4"1 Flares can also be used to reduce the hydrocarbon emissions.
V-19
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for charcoal manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Very few states have
adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries such as
charcoal manufacture. Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are
patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation.
Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic types. These are,
(1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any organic solvent,
(2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by
devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated
drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from //I type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive . 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and c^-c^n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-20
-------
Particulate State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emis-
sion regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four regulations that are applicable to charcoal manu-
facture. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware and Washington are representa-
tive of states that express particulate emission limitations in terms
of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic foot for
general processes. The limitations for these three states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries
to maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate limitations in terms of
pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet
per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.10 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; The majority of states express
particulate process limitations in terms of pounds per hour as a function
of a specific process weight rate. For new sources with a process
weight of 500 Ibs/hr, the particulate emission limitations range from
the most restrictive, 0.89 Ibs/hr (0.40 kg/hr) for Massachusetts, to
the least restrictive, 1.53 Ibs/hr (0.70 kg/hr) for New Hampshire.
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for particulate emissions in Ibs/hr
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate
of 500 Ibs/hour, New York is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 1.4 Ibs/hr (0.6 kg/hr) and New Jersey is representative of
a less restrictive limitation, 5.5 Ibs/hr (2.5 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate for Specific Sources; Pennsylvania has a particulate
emission regulation specifically for charcoal manufacture. The limitation
is determined by substitution into A=0.76E°«I+2 where E=FxW. F is determined
from Pennsylvania's Table 1 and is 400 Ibs/ton of charcoal. W is the
process weight, which in this case was 500 Ibs/hour. This results with
an allowable emission of 5.3 Ibs/hour.
V-21
-------
Table V-IQ presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions and
limitations for charcoal manufacture.
TA1I1.E V-10
PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AMU LIMITATIONS FROM CHARCOAL MANUFACTURE
1
Type of
Operation
& Control
Pyrolysis Without
Recovery Plant
Pyrolysis With
Recovery Plant
and Afterburner
Z
Control
0
99
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 5-Ton Retort)
Ibs/hr kR/hr
101 45
1.0 0.5
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Based on 5-Ton Retort)
Ibo/hr kR/hr
ion AS
1.0 O.S
Limitations )hs/lir / k;;/!ir
CcRcr.'il 1': ttiji-ssrs
Pnrt 1 dilate
MA
.9/.4
.9/.4
NJ
5.5/2.5
5.5/2.5
Pcnn.
5.3/2.4
5.3/2.4
UT 853!
Control
12.5/6.3
12.5/6.3
- - • —
l1.vcri>r.irS->n
Heated
3
3
1.4
1.4
Untu
8
8
ated
3.6
3.6
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation; Charcoal manufacture
using a 5-ton retort would require an afterburner to comply with even the least
restrictive limitations.
The linv.Jr;f'l-i_ameni_ Reporter was used to update emission regulations.
G. References:
———————— /
Literature used in the development of the information in this section
on charcoal is listed below.
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second Edition, EPA,
Pub. No. AP-42, April 1973.
2. "Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March 1970.
3. Priorization of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
References consulted but not directly used to develop this section include:
4. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties. Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
5.. "Control Techniques for Particulate Pollutants," EPA, Office of Air
Programs Publications No. AP-51, January 1969.
V-22
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Ethylene Dichloride
C. Source Description:
Two processes are used for the production of ethylene dichloride. One is
the direct chlorination of ethylene with chlorine; the other is. an oxychlorina-
tion process in which ethylene, hydrogen chloride, and oxygen react to form the
same product. • .
In the direct chlorination process, ethylene dichloride is produced by
combining ethylene and chloride as described by the following reaction:
Chlorine and ethylene are fed into a reactor where the reaction takes place under
100-120°F (38-A9°C) and 10-20 PSIG. Crude ethylene dichloride emerges from the
reactor in liquid form and is purified by passage through a series of condensers,
separators, and wash towers as shown in the process flow diagram in Figure
V-8.0)EDC-2
"IT
CKLOSINS
JSEFRICF.HANT
SI"'.\RATnR
r..v;svic
CS WATER
VASTE WATEH „_
CBU1K miVLENE IUC!!LORI3E
^,f>7. CAUSTIC
>l
Til
w
CAJiSTJK
_ — ^* •a.2**-^ r-1' ••' o
F;:IS_
TOV'KR
./
r:iYLi:xF, DICHLORIPE
USF.TTL
I1F.AVY
t
I TAR
iiv::?.o--
CViMNS
j[igure V-8: Direct Chlorination Flow Sheet
V-23
-------
In the oxychlorination process, ethylene, oxygen, and hydrochloric acid are
fed to a fixed or fluid, bed reactor where the following reaction takes place:
2HC1
H20
Crude ethylene dichloride is absorbed from the gas stream and the non-condensible
gases are vented to the atmosphere. The crude product is refined in a fin-
ishing system such as the one shown by the flow diagram in Figure V-9(2) Ethyl-
ene Dichloride Flow Diagram.
VMTR
TO ATMOSPHERE
DKCAIITKR
REACTOR
; i A A
KCL ETHYLENE AIR
1
ABSORBER
STRIPPER
STORAGE
PURIFICATION'
Figure V-9; F.thylone
e ?]ou niasram
Almost all production centers around large plants using a balanced combina-
tion of these two processes. Such plants use the hydrogen chloride recovered when
ethylene dichloride is dehydrohalogenated as feed to the oxychlorination reactor.
The annual production of a typical plant is 208,000 tons.
V-24
-------
D. Emission Rates.:
The quantity of hydrocarbons released to the atmosphere is considerably lower
for the direct chlorination process than for the .oxychlorination process. The
major source of emissions from the direct chlorination processes is the gas vented
from the scrubbing column. This gas stream contains small amounts of ethylene,
ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride, and impurities in the feed. The vent gas
from the oxychlorination process is also a key source of atmospheric emissions.
In both cases, emission rates may vary due to significant differences in product
recovery systems. Ethylene dichloride may also be released by storage tanks.
Controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from typical ethylene dichlor-
ide plants are presented in Table V-ll. (OEDC-3, (2) 2, (3) 9
TABLE V-ll
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM ETHYLEHE DICHLORIDE MANUFACTURE
Type of
Equipment & Control
Direct Chlorination with
Incineration of Vent Cases
Oxychlorination with
Incineration of Vent Cases
Storage
%
Control
0
80
90
99
0
80
90
99
0
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Based on 24 tons/hr)
Ibs/
Ton of
kg/
H Ton of
Product ! Product
5-8
1-1.6
.5-. 8
.05-. 08
50-140
10-28
5-14
.Ui-I.A
1.2
2.5-4
.5-. 8
.3-. 4
.03-. 04
25-70 •
5-14
2.5-7
.25-. 7
.6
Ibs/
hr
119-190
24-38
12-19
1.2-1.9
1190-3330
240-660
119-333
12-33
28.0
kg/
hr
60-95
12-19
6-9.5
.6-1
600-1670
119-330
60-167
6-16.6
14.3
E. Control Equipment:
No emission control for the ethylene dichloride industry has been demon-
strated; (2) The producers of this chemical use various methods of product recov-
ery and the emissions from each process are different. Possible hydrocarbon emis-
sion control devices would include thermal or catalytic incineration, having con-
trol efficiencies approaching 100 percent. Table V-ll presents emission rates
that could be attained with incineration of vent gases.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance
Standards" have been promulgated for ethylene dichloride manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Many state9 regulate
emissions from ethylene producing plants or other ethylene sources. Alabama,
Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Virginia are
representative of states that have specific regulations for waste gas
disposal. These regulation* are similar to those specified in Appendix B
(Federal Register, August 14, 1971). Appendix B states that any waste gas
stream containing organic compounds from any ethylene producing plant or
other ethylene emission source can be burned at 1300°F for 0.3 seconds or
greater in a direct-flame afterburner or an equally effective device. This
V-25
-------
does not apply to emergency reliefs and vapor blowdown systems. The
emission of organic compounds from a vapor blowdown system or emergency
relief can be burned by a smokeless flare, or an equally effective control
device. This emission limitation will reduce organic compound emissions
approximately 98%.
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as ethyl-
ene dichloride manufacture require tight control to meet limitations. The use
of afterburners for incineration will meet the limitations specified in Appen-
dix B, .
The Environment 'Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References:
The references used to develop the content of the discussion on dichloro-
ethylene are listed below:
(1) Pervier, V.W., Barley, R.C., Field, D.E., Friedman, B.M., Morris, R.B.,
and Schwartz, W.A., Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the
Petrochemical Industry, Volume II, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255, April, 1974.
(2) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Scibleski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
(3) Organic Compound Emission Control Techniques and Emission Limitation
Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
June, 1974.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans — Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract "68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
One reference was consulted but not used to develop this section:
(1) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Natioanl Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March, 1970.
V-26
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Ethylene Oxide
C. Source Description:
Ethylene oxide is produced by direct oxidation of ethylene. The reaction is
carried but in the vapor phase using either air or high purity oxygen over a silver
catalyst at ^536°F (280°C) and 15 atmospheres pressure as described by the following
equation: .....
11 TJ U U
ri n n ti
£ = q + 1/2 02 Ag Catalyst. H - C^c'- H
H H '• •<.()••
Ethylene
Ethylene Oxide
The air process is an important polluter while emissions from the oxygen process
are negligible. As shown in the flow diagram in Figure V-10, ethylene and air are
combined with recycle gas and fed to a large tubular catalytic reactor where the
conversion reaction takes place. This process includes four major parts:
1. the oxidation reaction of ethylene,
2. thfc recovery from the reactor effluent of ethylenc oxide,
3. purging of by-product gases from the recycle stream>
4. purification of ethylene oxide.
The oxidation reaction is the heart of the process,
plant produces 92,500 tons'annually.
A typical ethylene oxide
VEST TO
i ATMOSPHERE
STORAGE
PURGE .
ABSORBER
PURGE
REACTOR
PURGE
1.0.
SOLUTION
PURIFICATION
»Aut. V-lOi tthyUn. OxU. K.m.f.c...,f
V-27
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The purging of the by-product gases from the recycle stream and the purifica-
tion of ethylene oxide product cause hydrocarbon to be released to the atmosphere.
The uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions are shown in Table V-IS
TAB7.E V-13
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM
ETHYI.F.NE OXIDE MANUFACTUKI! liY AI.K "oXIPATTON
Type of Operation and Control
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
Uncontrolled
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
with Incineration
Air Oxidation of Kthylene,
with Incineration
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
with Incineration
Air Oxidation of Ethylene,
with Catalytic Converter
7, Control
0
80
90
99
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
*based on 92,500 tons product/yr
(253.4 tons/dny)
Ibs/ton
392
78.4
39.2
3.92
3.92
kg /'"t
196
39.2
19.6
1.96
1.96
).bB/hr
4140
827
414
21
. 21
kp,/hr
1880
375
188
9.4
9.4
E. Control Equipment;
Both incinerators and catalytic converters have been used to control emissions
from ethylene oxide manufacturing processes. Incinerator efficiency ranges from
80-100%(2)10 while catalytic converters can reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 99%.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulations Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for ethylene oxide manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Many states regulate
emissions from ethylene producing plants or other ethylene sources. Alabama,
Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Virginia are
representative of states that have specific regulations for waste gas
disposal. These regulations are similar to those specified in Appendix B
(Federal Register, August 14, 1971). Appendix B states that any waste gas
stream containing organic compounds from any ethylene producing plant or
other ethylene emission source can be burned at 1300°F for 0.3 seconds or
greater in a direct-flame afterburner or an equally effective device. This
does not apply to emergency reliefs and vapor blowdowri systems. The
emission of organic compounds from a vapor blowdown system or emergency
relief can be burned by a smokeless flaret or an equally effective control
device. This emission limitation will reduce organic compound emissions
approximately 98%.
V-28
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emissions
are not based on process weight, and large processes such as ethylene oxide manu-
facture by air oxidation require tight control to meet limitations. The use of
afterburners for incineration will meet the limitations specified in Appendix B.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the material presented in this section is listed
below.
(1) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories. Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
(2) Organic Compound Emission Sources Emission Control Techniques and Emission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion, June, 1974.
(3) Stobaugh. R.B., G.C. Ray. Ronald A. Spinke. "Ethylene Oxide: Hows Where,
Who—Future." Hydrocarbon Processing. October, 1970.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules, and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Two additional sources were consulted but not directly used to develop the
discussion on ethylene oxide. These were:
(5) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent: Emissions from Sta-
tionary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.Na^
tional Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68. March.
1970.
(6) "Oxides of Ethylene, Propylone Face^Trouble." ' Chemical and 'Engineering News.
May 21, 1973. " "~
V-29
-------
D. Emission Rates;
In both methods formaldehyde is absorbed from the gas stream by a water
scrubber, and the inert materials and by-products are vented. The major source
of hydrocarbon emissions is the absorber vent and the fractionator vent. The
emission rates for the two formaldehyde-producing processes are shown with and
without control in Table V-lS.t1)2*3
TABLE V-15
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM FORMALDEHYDE MANUFACTURE
Process and Control Equipment
Iron Oxide Catalyst None
Iron Oxide Catalyst Water Scrubber
Silver Catalyst None
Silver Catalyst Incinerator
Z Control
0
65 (for formaldehyde and
methanol only)
0
95-99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on T.9 .tons/hr)
Ib's/ton
50
17.5
10
0.1-0.5
ks/mt
25
8.8
5
0.05-0.25
Ibs/hr I
195
68.3
39
0.4-2.0
kg/hi
88.5
31.0
17.7
0.18-0.91
E. Control Equipment:
Hydrocarbon emissions from the iron oxide process depend on absorber designs.
A water scrubber is the only demonstrated technology and removes 95% of the form-
aldehyde in the iron oxide process vent.O)3 Most of the methanol is removed but
none of tiie dimethylether is scrubbed. The composition of the absorber vent gases
originating with the silver catalyst process also varies with absorber design.
Absorption with, the silver catalyst is simpler because of lower gas volume, and
an incinerator is successful at combusting these gases with almost 100% effi-
ciency. Controlled emission rates for both, processes are shown in Table V-15.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for formaldehyde manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Very few if any states have
adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries such as formaldehyde.
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. Thcr.e are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochcmically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from //I type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochcmically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as 'solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
V-3.1
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Formaldehyde
C. Source Description;
All of the formaldehyde produced in the United States today comes from one
of two processes which use methanol as a raw material. One process uses an iron
oxide catalyst (23% of production) and a large excess of air to produce formal-
dehyde as described by the reaction:
CH3OH + 1/2 02
C1I2°
The second method C77% of production), uses a combined oxidation-dehydration re-
action over a silver catalyst as shown below:
CH3OH + 1/2 02 AE Catalyst-^ CH2Q + ^Q
CHsOH - »• CH20 + H£
Only about one-eighth as much air is used by the oxidation-dehydration method
which also produces hydrogen as a by-product.
Methanol vapors and air are combined in a 4:1 methanol: oxygen ratio and
heated to approximately 170°F (77°C). The methariol/air mixture is introduced
into a battery of catalytic converters where it passes through the catalyst and
is converted to formaldehyde. Converter effluent gases are quenched to avoid
decomposing the formaldehyde. Liquid obtained from the quenching primary ab-
sorber contains both formaldehyde and unreacted methanol. Some of this so-
called F-M Liquor is recirculated to the absorber and some is purified by the
fractionator to produce a formaldehyde solution that is 37% by weight. This is
the standard formaldehyde product. Figure V-ll shows the flow diagram for this
process. The average plant produces 33,950 tons per year of formaldehyde.
Figure V--11; Formaldehyde Process
V-30
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3.. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unhcated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive :.
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photpchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3'lbs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
haloj;enated hydrocarbons, perchleroethylcnc, benzene, acetone and Cj--C5ii-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut: and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table V-16 presents uncontrolled and. controlled emissions and limitations for
formaldehyde manufacture.
TABLE V-16
. HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AMD LIMITATIONS FROM FORMALDEHYDE MANUFACTURE
Process and Control Equipment
Iron Oxide Catalyst None
Iron OxiUe Catalyst Water Scrubber
Silver Catalyst None
Silver Catalyst Incinerator
2 Control
0
•65 (for formaldehyde
and methanol only)
0
95-99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on
3.9 tons/hr)
Ibs/hr
195
68.3
39
0.4-2.0
kr,/nr
'88.5
31.0
17.7
0.18-0.91
Limitntlonsl|lbs/hr/kg/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unlieatcd
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
V-32
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Reactive hydrocarbon emissions from
formaldehyde manufacture are small considering the size of the process. However,
tight control must be maintained for a 33,950 ton/year process to maintain com-
pliance with state regulations. Formaldehyde manufacture using the iron catalyst
system must maintain 98% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation and 96% control
to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Formaldehyde manufacture using the silver
catalyst must maintain 91% control to meet the 3 Ib/hr limitation and 77% control
to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Existing fume incinerator control technology
is adequate for formaldehyde manufacture to meet existing regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
References used to develop this section include:
(1) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories. Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
(2) Pervier, J.W., R.C. Barley, D.E.. Field, B.M. Friedman, R.B. Morris,
W.A. Schwartz. Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petro-
cu&mic.-q Irv.1iir.try, Volume II. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.. EPA Con-
tract No. b«-U^-02iib. April, 1974.
(3) Hedley, W.H., S.M. Mehta, C.M. Moscowitz, R.B. Reznik, G.A. Richardson,
D.L. Zanders. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes (Final Re-
port) . Monsanto Research Corporation. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task
No. 9. December, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules and Regulations, EPA Con-
tract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Also consulted but not directly used in this section were:
(5) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from Sta-
tionary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Na-
tional Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68. March,
1970.
(6) Organic Compound Emission Sources Emission Control Techniques and Emission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion, June, 1974.
V-33
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Paint
C. Source Description;
Paint is a pigmented liquid composition which is converted to an opaque solid
film after application as a thin layer. Although the paint manufacturing process
is simple from a schematic viewpoint, it is a complex process. Paint manufacture
consists of a mixing and dispersing pigment in a vehicle that, will allow even .
application of the final product. Paint manufacture consists of six physical
operations which are carried out at or near room temperature. These operations
are:
1. mixing pigment with sufficient vehicle to make a paste of proper grind-
ing efficiency
2. grinding the paste on a mill until aggregates are broken down
3. letting down or diluting the ground paste with the remaining materials
A. tinting to required color
5. testing
6. straining, filling, and packaging.
Figure V-12 shows the schematic for a paint manufacturing operation using a sand
mill for the grinding operation.
rr
•\
•ME-MIK
TANK
EL
PKC-MIX
TANK
V V
Figure V-12; Paint Manufacturing Using Sand Mill for Grinding Operation
Paint manufacturing is still largely a batch process because of the large
number of raw materials and finished products required, many of which must be
custom formulated and processed. An average size paint manufacturing plant pro-
duces 3,340 tons of paint per year.
D. Emission Rates;
The two major sources of hydrocarbon emissions in paint manufacturing
are the (1) grinding operation, during which the batch is heated to vapor-
V-34
-------
ize some of the ingredients, and (2) the thinning operation, where solvent
vaporization occurs. Thinning of premixed paint pastes to the required consis-
tency, involves dilution with aliphatic or aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones,
esters, and other highly volatile materials. The factors effecting emissions
from paint manufacture are types of solvents used, and the mixing temperature.
A recent estimate of hydrocarbon emissions from paint manufacture is 0.5% of the
weight of the paint emitted as hydrocarbon C1)1*-20 emissions and 1-2% of the
solvent lost even under well controlled conditions. (2)5.10-1
Table V-17 shows the controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from
the paint manufacturing processes, C2)5«10~2
TABLE V-17
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PAINT MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
uncontrolled
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
% Control
0
80
90
99
Emissions
Chased on 0.4 tons/for)
Ibs/ton
30
6
3
.3
kg /m ton
15
3
1.5
.15
lbs/hr
11.4
2.3
1.1
.11
kg/hr
5.2
1.0
.5
.05
E. Control Equipment;
Methods of controlling hydrocarbon emissions range from changes in paint
formulation to use of extensive pollution control equipment. Some of these meth-
ods include:
1. reformulation of the paint to replace photochemically reactive solvents
with a less photochemically reactive solvent
2. production of water-base coatings
3. condensation and absorption by scrubbing with alkali or acid washes
4. scrubbing and adsorption by activated charcoal or other adsorbents
5. incineration
6. dispersal from high stacks.
Although many of these methods are quite effective, incineration has been accepted
as the one method for elimination of organic compounds and associated odors.
Catalytic oxidation has been employed as a pollution control technique at paint
manufacturing plants.(3)37
V-35
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Sta
have been promulgated for paint manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Very few if any staton
have adopted hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries, suoh
as paint manufacture. Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations
are.patterned after Los.Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation.
Organic solvent.useage is categorized by three basic types. These, are.,
(1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with any organic solvent.
(2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents
by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated
drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal from #1 type
device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactivo
solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as
solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except'ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene,, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions, of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photocheraically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive • 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation, if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unrcactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Cj-Ccn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source.even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values hnvc been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana luivc. regulations patterned after Appendix 13. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-36
-------
Table V-18 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from paint manufacture.
TABLE V-18
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM PAINT MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
uncontrolled
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
f*
Mix tank, Grinding, Storage,
with incinerator
% Control
0
80
90
99
Emissions
(based on 0,4 tons/hr^
Ibs/hr
11.4
2.3
1.1
.11
kfi/hr
5.2
1.0.
.5
.05
Limitations11 Ibs/hr /kg/hr
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4,
1.4
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Paint manufacturing processes typically
are not very large on a product output basis compared to other industries and have
relatively low emissions. These two parameters allow paint processes to operate
without extensive control and still be in compliance with state regulations. For
a paint process producing 3340 tons/year, 74% control efficiency must be maintained
to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limitation, and 30% control efficiency to meet the 8 Ibs/hr
limitation. Existing incinerator control technology is adequate to control hydro-
carbon emissions from paint manufacture.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
V-37
-------
G. References;
References that were used to develop the discussion on paint manufacturing
are listed below:
(1) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from sta-
tionary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68. March, 1970.
(2) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA Publi-
cation No. AP-42'. April, 1973.
(3) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Performance
for New Sources. Paint and Varnish Manufacturing. Walden Research Corpora-
tion. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-165, Task Order No. 4. October, 1971.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules, end Regulations, EPA
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories. Provided by EPA,
Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial Studies
Branch, November 3, 1972.
(6) Air_ro 11utio.i>_.ControlEngineeringjind Cost Study of the P^int ar.H Vrrt^.r.h
Industry. Air Resources, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0259. June, 1974.
One source was consulted but not directly used to develop the discussion on
paint manufacturing:
(7) Organic Compound Emissibn Sources Emission Control Techniques and Emission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, June, 1974.
V-38
-------
A. Source Category: V. Chemi6al ProcessIndustry
B. Sub Category: Phthalic Anhydride
C. Source Description:
Phthalic anhydride is produced by the vapor phase oxidation of naphthalene
or o-xylene with excess air in fixed or fluid bed catalytic converters using
some form of vanadium pentoxide as a catalyst. Regardless of which chemical is
used as feedstock, the processes are similar as shown by the following reactions:
3H0
Phthalic Anhydride Water
2H20
+ 3 02
CH3
O-xylene Oxygen
+4.5 02
Napthalene
Oxygen Phthalic Anhydride Water
Figure V-13: Phthalic Anhydride Reactions
Figure V-13A illustrates the basic steps involved in the manufacturing process.
Air and a raw material, either o-xylene or napthalene, are fed to the reactor as
a heated vaporized mixture. After the oxidation process takes place, the process
vapors pass through gas coolers and condensers where the anhydride is separated
from the process air stream. The condensed pthalic anhydride is melted and puri-
fied by fractionation and then stored. The average phthalic arhydride plant pro-
duces approximately 20,700 tons of finished product yearly.
Figure V-13A; Phthallr Anhydride Manufacturing Process
V-39
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The process off gas constitutes the greatest source of hydrocarbon emissions,
This gas consists of large volumes of air contaminated with small quantities of
organic vapors as well as other contaminants. In addition to this source, there
are four minor sources of organic emissions which include:
1. feed and product storage tanks.
2. process refining vents,
3. flaking and bagging operations,
4. loss of heat transfer medium (Dowtherm A).
The uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions from phthalic anhydride
manufacturing are shown in Table V-19.0)2
TABLE V-19
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE MANUFACTURING
Type of
Operation and Control
'Process Off-Gas, Uncontrolled
Process Off-Gas, Incinerator
Process Off -Gas, Scrubber
% Control
0
99
95
Hydrocarbons (Based on 2.4 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
130
1.3
6
kg/MT
65
.65
3
Ibs/hr
312
3.1
14.4
kg/hr
142
1.9
6.5
E. Control Equipment:
The process off-gas is scrubbed.with a water scrubber before
the gas is released to the atmosphere. Although scrubber efficiencies may aver-
age 95 percent, scrubbers do present several disadvantages:
1. The level of contaminant control needed would require a relatively
expensive multistage scrubber.
2. Treatment and disposition of the scrubbing liquid may be costly.
3. Chemical recovery from a scrubbing solution would be a formidable
operation.
Because of these problems, many phthalic anhydride manufacturers have found it
more attractive to incinerate the off-gases using either direct flame or catalytic
units with resulting efficiencies approaching 99 percent. Controlled emissions
from phthalic anhydride plants are presented in Table V-19.
V-AO
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for phthalic anhydride manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Alabama, Puerto Rico
and Texas are representative of states that require control of waste gas
disposal emissions to the atmosphere. These regulations are patterned after
Appendix B which requires that the waste gas stream be incinerated at 1300^ F
for 0.3 seconds. Appendix B states that a direct-flame afterburner
operating under the above conditions can achieve approximately 98% control.
The Texas regulation specifies certain compounds and certain classes
of compounds that must be burned in a direct-flame incinerator. These
specific carbon compounds are as follows:
Butadine
Isobutylene
Styrene
Isoprene.
Propylene
a-Methyl-Styrene
The specific classes of carbon compounds are as follows:
Aldehydes Acids
Alcohols Esters
Aromatics Ketones
Ethers Sulfides
Olefins . Branched chain hydrocarbons (CB and above)
Peroxides
Amines
Texas allows sources to petition the Executive Secretary for alternate
means of control. The Executive Secretary can also exempt specific waste
gas streams if the source can show that the waste gas stream will not make a
significant contribution of air contaminants in the atmosphere.
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as phthalic
anhydride require tight control to meet limitations. Incineration of process off
gases from phthalic anhydride manufacture can meet existing state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
V-41
-------
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the discussion on phthalic an-
hydride manufacturing:
(1) Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Indistrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
(2) Fawcett, R.L, "Air Pollution Potential of Phthalic Anhydride Manufac-
ture," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 20(7); (July,
1970).
(3) Hedley, W.H., Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes, (Final
Report), Monsanto Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226,
Task No. 9, December, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248i July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
The following reference was consulted but not directly used in the develop-
ment of this section.
(5) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from
Stationary Sources, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
National Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68,
March, 1970.
V-42
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Polyethylene (High Density)
C. Source Description;
Three major processes are used to produce high density polyethylene.
These are based on the types of phases present in the polymerization reactor.
The processes are:
1. solution phase process,
2. slurry phase process, and
3. vapor phase process.
These processes are subdivided according to the physical state of the catalyst.
The two processes that are most widely used today are the Phillips Process and
the Ziegler Process. The net reaction for both of these processes is described as
follows:
nCH2=CH2 ->• (-CH2CH2-)n, where 400 < n. < 4000.
Bot'h processes utilize about 2000 pounds (907 kg) of ethylene feed and about
120 pounds of solvent to produce one ton of polyethylene. The Phillips process
uses a jacketed, agitated tank reactor where the polymerization takes place on a
chromium oxide/silica-alumina catalyst at 140°C (284°F) and 30 atmospheres pres-
sure. The Ziegler Process carries out the polymerization reaction in a stirred
tank reactor at 75°C (167°F) and five atmospheres pressure on a titanium tetra-
chloride/triisobutyl aluninun catalyst. Both reactions occur in the liquid phase.
Polymer chain length is controlled by the addition of small amounts of hydrogen or
other telogens. After suitable residence time in the reactor, unreacted monomer,
solvent, waxes, and light gases are separated from the product. The polymer is
then stripped of all solvent, dried, and stored. Figure V-14 summarizes the high
density polyethylene manufacturing process.(2) A typical high density polyethylene
plant will produce 250 tons of product per day.(2)10
Flf.uro V-1.V. 1H p.h TVnnU.y Polyothylrno Hnnufncfurc
V-43"
-------
t
ST*IP?1N'C fc DaYIIJC
S=k
fc ncucwc
*»- AJEA
Flp.ure V-»! High Density Polyethylene Manufacture
D. Emission Rates:
The solvent recovery, polymer stripping, and product conveying operations are
the key sources of hydrocarbon emissions from plants manufacturing high density
polyethylene. These emissions are listed in Table v-21.O)Table HP-VI
TABLE V-21
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM MANUFACTURE OF HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
Type of Operation and Control
Solvent Recovery, uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, incinerator
Polymer Stripping, uncontrolled
Polymer Stripping, incinerator
%
Control
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 91,250 tons product/yr)
Ib/ton
4.
0.04
18.0
0.18
kg/MT
2
0.02
9.0
0.09
Ib/hr
42.0
0.4
187.0.
1.9
kg/hr
19.0
.2
90.0
.9
E. Control Equipment;
Various control devices are used at high density polyethylene plants to control
hydrocarbon emissions, including cyclones, bag filters, incinerators, and flares.
The first two devices are used to control particulate emissions from the conveying
system while the latter two are used to reduce the hydrocarbons emitted by the
solvent recovery and polymer stripping operations. The controlled hydrocarbon
emissions from high density polyethylene manufacture are presented in Table V-21.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for high density polyethylene manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined
as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
V-44
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having nn olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
typcc. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photochemically reactive :
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Cj-c5n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table V-22 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from high density polyethylene manufacture.
TABLE V-22
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
FROM MANUFACTURE OF HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
Type of Operation and Control
Solvent Recovery, uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, incinerator
Polymer Stripping, uncontrolled
Polymer Stripping, incinerator
%
Control
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 91,250 tons product/yr)
Ib/hr
42.0
0.4
187.0
1.9
kg/hr
19.0
.2
90.0
.9
Limitations'*
Ib/hr / kg/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unheated
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
V-45
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as high
density polyethylene manufacture require tight control to meet limitations. The
solvent recovery unit requires 93% control efficiency to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limit
and 81% efficiency to meet the 8 Ibs/hr limit. The polymer stripping unit
requires 98% control efficiency to meet the 3 Ibs/hr limit and 96% control ef-
ficiency to meet the 8 Ib/hr limit. Incinerators have proved effective in re-
ducing these types of hydrocarbon emissions by 99%. Existing control technology
is adequate for a 91,250 ton/year high density polyethylene to meet State re-
gulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the material in this section:
(1) Pervier, J. S., R. C. Barley, D. E. Field, B. M. Friedman, R. B. Morris,
W. A. Schwartz. Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemi-
cal Industry, volume II. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0255. April, 1974.
(2) Organic Compound Emission Sources, Emission Control Techniques, and Emission
Limitation Guidelines (Draft), EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion, June, 1974.
(3) Hedley, W. H. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes (final re-
port). Monsanto Research Corp. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task No. 9,
December, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-46
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Low Density Polyethylene
C. . Source Description:
The characterizing variable in the production of low density polyethylene
is pressure, which normally ranges from 10,000 to 30,000 PSIG (42.67 kg/m2), and
can reach levels as high as 45,000 PSIG (64.01 kg/m2). The net reaction of the
ethylene polymerization on a catalytic surface is shown below:
H H
I I
C = C
I I
H H
High Pressure.
Catalyst?
(Free Radical Sources)
H H
I I
C - C -
I I
H H
Wbere n
H H
I I
5 \ ™" """
I I
H H
400-2,000.
R! and R£ represent chain-terminations resulting from the introduction of telogens,
which are specifically chosen to accomplish this end. Although it is not shown
in the reaction products above, low density polyethylene structures are usually
characterized by branched chains.
The polymerization reaction takes place in the liquid phase in either an auto-
clave or a tubular type reactor. When the autoclave is used, the temperature is
held at 240°C (464°F) and the pressure ranges from 1,600 to 2,520 atmospheres (1.6
x 107 to 2.5 x 107 kg/m2). Residence time in the reactor is 20 seconds at 1,600
atmospheres (1.6 x 107 kg/m2). The tubular reactor calls for a temperature of 250°C
(482°F) under 1,560 atmospheres (1.6 x 107 kg/m2) pressure and a residence time of
30 seconds. Both reactors consume approximately 2,000 pounds (907 kg) ethylene per
ton of low density polyethylene produced. An average plant will produce 182,500
tons of low density polyethylene per year. After the reaction is complete, the mon-
omer-polymer mix is flasked and unreacted monomer, solvent, and waxes are separated
from the product, which is then extruded and pelletized for handling. The low den-
sity polyethylene manufacturing process flow diagram is shown in Figure V-15.' '
„_, 9
»-«ii.t£ 1^ fi\
,,,,,-9
(».u jj
.v;:,'.v.^ ©
(<3f. Y
Vs^
..,„,. ?
1
«;.':;,V,T« LT
, "-V. .rs
i
.I-.T
n
J
j «"•».'••
L"?--.v.v
-
-------
Mtft\t S»l
r.tf-f'.Y »rj:ii
c.i t« CB-ni'-.t
^ft« |t,eii.*«t*.:rf(H»Ti«-V
«n-
• Mt^
(fKTKt(fU.11'tl>'I\
ne"-.»-« »' Q
|»ym* ,f'T
VA*>«Wf
fou«(il
fV*'T'Vl f
fMtoiK-j: •
ftasaj
j
""T
CVf.osCI
(Wl «)
Y
j
rcv^tti 4
*-»,«tl •U.-M.
(yA»o*-u)
figure V-15; Lov Density Polyethylene Manufacture
D. Emission Rates;
There are three main sources of hydrocarbon emissions in the production of
low density polyethylene. These are the compressor purge gas, the materials
handling operation, and the gas separation and recovery operation. There are
also some sources of fugitive emissions as well. The hydrocarbon emissions for
low density polyethylene manufacture are summarized in Table V-23^1)>(2)10
TABLE V-23
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM MANUFACTURE OF LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
Type of
Operation and Control
Compressor Purge, Uncontrolled
Compressor Furp.e, Incinerator
Gas Separation/Recovery,
Uncontrolled
Gas Separation/Recovery,
Incinerator
X
Control
0
99
0
99 -
Hydrocarbon Kralssions (Based on 182,500 tons/yr)
Ihs/Lon
2
0.02
20
0.20
kR/hT
1
0.01
10
0.10
Ibs/hr
42
0.42
416
4.16
kR/hr
19
.20
169
1.89
V-A8
-------
E. Control Equipment;
The emission control devices used in the manufacture of low density poly-
ethylene include cyclones, bag filters, incinerators, and flares. Cyclones
and filters are used to reduce particulate emissions from product handling opera-
tions while incinerators and flares reduce hydrocarbon emissions from system purge
gases and recovery operations. The controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emis-
sions from low density polyethylene manufacture are shown in Table V-23.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations: •
New_Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No "New Source Performance Standards"
have~been~promulgated for low density polyethylene manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Alabama, Puerto Rico
and Texas are representative of states that require control of waste
gas disposal emissions to'the atmosphere. These regulations are patterned
after Appendix B which requires that the waste stream be incinerated at
1300° F for 0.3 seconds. Appendix B states that a direct flame after-
burner operating under the above conditions can achieve approximately
98% control. The Texas regulation specifies certain compounds and certain
classes of compounds that must be burned in a direct-flame incinerator.
These specific carbon compounds are as follows:
Butadine
Isobutylene
Styrene
Isoprene
Propylene
a-Methyl-Styrene
The specific classes of carbon compounds are as follows:
Aldehydes Esters
Alcohols Ketones
Aromatics Sulfides
Ethers Branched chain hydrocarbons (CQ and above)
Olefins
Peroxides
Amines
Acids
Texas allows sources to petition the Executive Secretary for alternate
means of control. The Executive Secretary can also exempt specific waste
gas streams if the source can show that the waste gas stream will not make
a significant contribution of air contaminants in the atmosphere.
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon
emission limitations are not based on process weight but large processes
such as low density polyethylene can be controlled to meet existing
regulations by application and proper use of direct flame afterburners.
V-49
-------
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References:
The following references were used to develop the discussion on low density
polyethylene. ...
(1) Pervier, J.W. , Barley, R.C., Field, D.E., Friedman, B.M. , Morris, R.B.,
and Schwartz, Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petro-
chemical Industry, Volume II, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., EPA
Contract No. 68-02-0255, April, 1974.
••'(2) Organic Compound Emission Sources Emission Control Techniques ^
Emission Limitaf.'.on Guidelines (Draft) , EPA, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, June, 1974.
(3) Hedley, W.H. , Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes,
(Final Report) , Monsanto Research Corp., EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226,
Task No. 9, December, 1973.
Analysis cf Final State Implementation Plans — Rules and Regulations,
EPA Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-50
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Polystyrene
C. Source Description:
Several techniques are used for the polymerization of styrene, In
order of decreasing importance they are:
1. solution polymerization
2. suspension polymerization
3. emulsion polymerization
The solution and suspension techniques are the most commonly used.
There are two techniques for the manufacture of the polystyrene and they
consume approximately 2,000 pounds of styrene per ton of polystyrene produced. The
reaction is:
nCH = CH
2
Heat
Catalyst
CH CH
2
n
Polystyrene
The suspension reactirm is carried nut batrchwise i.n a sMrred ^ nitrogen-purged.
stea^/vater'jacketed reactor, Styrene. and pexoride are adued Lo a water &lui.i:> of
tricalcium phosphate and dodecyl-benzene sulfonate. The temperature is raised to
194°F C90°C) and to 239°F (115°C).. six and one-half hours later. The polymer is
produced in the. form of small beads and is separated from the suspension after
cooling. The beads are then washed, dried, and extruded.
In the solution technique, styrene and solvent (such as ethylbenzene) are fed
into a series of tubular agitated polymerization reactors. The mixture enters the
first reactor at about 250°F (121°C) and leaves the last one at about 340°F (171"C)
The solvent containing polymer is then pumped into a devolatilizer for removal of
unreacted monomer and solvent which are recycled to feed. The polymer is extruded,
cooled, cut, and conveyed to storage.
Figure V-16 schematically illustrates the polystyrene manufacturing process.
Using these processes, an average plant will produce 47,500 tons of polystyrene
annually.
Solvent
Mineral Oil
Water
Rubhe
•J
Feed
Prepara-
tion
Polymer
Drying
Vtai
•intrusion
Ftltur* V-161 Polystyrene Mnnufactura
V-51
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The feed preparation operation, the reactor vent, and the solvent recovery
operation are three major sources of hydrocarbon emissions from the polystyrene
manufacturing process. The hydrocarbon emissions from these sources are summarized
in Table V-25.0)
TABLE V-25
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM POLYSTYRENE MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Feed Preparation, Uncontrolled
Feed Preparation, Incinerator
Reactor Vent, Uncontrolled
Reactor Vent, Incinerator
Solvent Recovery, Uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, Incinerator
% Control
0
99
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 5.4 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
1.3
.013
6.7
.06
3.7
.037
kg /rat
.7
.007
3.4
.034
1.9
.019
Ibs/hr
7.0
.070
36.2
.36
19.9
.2
kg/hr
3.2
.032
16.4
.16"
9.0 .
.090
E. Control Equipment;
Control in the polystyrene industry is not extensive because reactive hydro-
carbon emissions are not substantial. The utilization of existing technology such
as flares and incinerators could significantly reduce the hydrocarbon emissions
associated with the production of polystyrene. Table V-25 shows the reduced hydro-
carbon emissions that could be attained by use of an incinerator or other combustion
device.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Emission Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for polystyrene manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations'are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useagc is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemicnlly
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochcmically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketoncs having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
V-52
-------
3. A combination of ethylbenzcne, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures,trichloroethylcne or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photochemically reactive
3. non-photocheinically reactive ;
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylcne, benzene, acetone and Cj-c5n-
paraff im;.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
ComiecLicul. and Ohio hiive regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned alter Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table Y-26 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations for
polystyrene manufacture.
TABLE V-26
HYDROCARnON EHISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM
POLY s TY'RKNK "MAN UFACTU RK
Type o£ Operation and Control
Feed Preparation, Uncontrolled
Feed Preparation, Incinerator
Reactor Vent, Uncontrolled
Reactor Vent, Incinerator
Solvent Recovery, Uncontrolled
Solvent Recovery, Incinerator
% Control
0
99
0
99
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on
5.4 tonH/hr)
Ibs/hr kp/hr
7.0 3.2
.070 .032
36.2 16.4
.36 .16
19.9 9.0
.2 .090
, imitations3 Ibs/hr /kft/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unhented
8
8
8
8
8
8
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
Point Source. Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Polystyrene manufacture is a
relatively sma.ll process with an intermediate level of emissions. Table
V-26A presents the percent: control required to comply with the 3 Ibs/hour and
8 Ibs/hour limitation.
V-53
-------
TABLE V-26A
CONTROL REQUIRED FOR POLYSTYRENE MANUFACTURE
Process
Description
Feed Preparation
Reactor Vent
Solvent Recovery
% Control Required For
3 Ibs/hr
57%
92% .
85%
8 Ibs/hr
0%
67%
60%
Existing incinerator technology is adequate in controlling polystyrene hydro-
carbon emissions to within state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the material in this section:
(1) Pervier, J.W., R.C. Barley, D.E. Field, B.M. Friedman, R.B. Morris, W.A." Schwartz,
Survey Reports on Atmospheric Emissions from the Petrochemical Industry, Vol-
ume IV. Products and Chemicals, Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0255. April,
1974.
(2) Hedley, W.H. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes (Final Re-
port) . Monsanto Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task
No. 9. December, 1973.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules, and Regulations. EPA
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-54
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Printing Ink
C. Source Description;
There are four major classes of printing ink:
1. letterpress,
2. lithographic, •
3. flexographic, and
4. rotogravure.
The first two are referred to as oil or paste inks, and the last two are
referred to as solvent inks. These inks vary in physical appearance, composition,
method of application, and drying mechanism. Although flexographic and roto-
gravure inks have many elements in common with paste inks, they differ because of
their very low viscosity and dry by evaporation of highly volatile solvents.
There are three steps in the manufacture of printing inks:
1. cooking the vehicle and adding the dyes,
2. grinding the pigment into the vehicle using a
roller mill, and
3r replacing vPte.r in the wftt p~'.£,i'0'=-iif pulp i>y n<\
ink vehicle (commonly known as the flushing
process).
The ink "varnish" or vehicle is cooked in large kettles at 200° to 600°F
(93° to 315°C) for 8 to 12 hours, similar to the way varnish is made. The
pigment and vehicle are mixed in dough mixers or large agitated tanks. Grinding
is accomplished in three or five roller mills.
D. End s s ion R.a t es:
Vehicle preparation by heating is the largest source of hydrocarbon emissions
from ink manufacturing. At 350°F (175°C) the resins, drying oils, petroleum oils
and solvents decompose, and the decomposition products are emitted from the cooking
vessel. The emissions continue throughout the. cooking process, reaching a maximum
just after the maximum temperature has been reached.
The quantity, composition, and rate of emissions from ink manufacturing depend
upon the cooking temperature and time, the ingredients, the method of introducing
additives, the degree of stirring, and the extent of air or inert glass blowing.
The hydrocarbons emitted by printing ink manufacturing processes are presented
in Table V-27.C1)5'14~2
E. Control Equipment;
Hydrocarbon emissions from vehicle cooking are reduced by 90% with the use of
scrubbers or condensers followed by afterburners.O)5t1'*~1 The controlled hydro-
carbon emissions from printing ink manufacture are presented in Table V-27.
V-55
-------
TABLE V-27
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PRINTING INK MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
General Vehicle Cooking, uncontrolled
General Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and After-
burner
Oil Vehicle Cooking, uncontrolled
Oil Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and Afterburner
Oleoresinous Vehicle Cooking, uncontrolled
Oleoresinous Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and
Afterburner
Cooking of Alkyds, uncontrolled
Cooking of Alkyds with Scrubber and Afterburner
%
Control
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 924 tons/yr)
Ib/ton
120
12
40
4
150
15
160
16
ks/MT
60
5.4
20
1.8
75
6.8
80
7.3
Ib/hr
12.0
1.2
4.0
.4
15.0
1.5
16.0
1.6
kfi/hr
5.4
.54
1.8
.18
6.8
.68
7.3
.73
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for printing ink manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
•type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the. atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures,trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
<
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
V-56
-------
Process
1. heated process
2. unheated photocheinically reactive
3. non-pliotocheinically reactive :
Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
15 3
40 8
3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of pliotpchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from-the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreaetive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and c^-Cjn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has bee.n
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states sue!) as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table. V-28 presents the uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions and
limitations from printing ink manufacture.
TABLE V-:8
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FKOM PRINTING INK MANUFACTURE
Tvpo of Operntlon nntl Control
General Vehicle Cooking, uncontrolled
General Vehicle CookJnfc with Scrubber and Afterburner
01! Vehicle Cookir.p,. uncontrolled
Oil Vehicle Cooklnj; with Scrubber and Afterburner
Olcoresinous Vehicle Cookinj;, uncontrolled
Oleoresinnus Vehicle Cooking with Scrubber and Afterburner
Cooklnp. of Alkyils, uncontrolled
Cooking of Alkyds with Scrubber and Afterburner
7.
Control
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(bar.ed on 924 lons/yr)
Ib/hr
32.0
1.2
4.0
.4
15.0
1.5
16.0
1.6
ki:/hr
5.4
.54
1.8
.18
6.8
.68
7.3
.73
Limitations'1 Ih/hr / kg/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Vnhea^ed
8
8
8
S
8
8
8
8
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
Pote.ntial Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emiseion
limitations are not based on process weight. Printing ink manufacture controlled
by 90% with a scrubber and afterburner as presented in Table V-28 can meet these
limitations.
V-57
-------
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the information presented in this section on
printing ink is listed below:
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
2. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
Literature reviewed but not used specifically to develop this section
included the following:
3. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual (Second Edition), AP-AO
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V-58
-------
A. Source Category; V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Synthetic Fibers (Nylon)
C. Source Description;
Nylon is a "true" synthetic fiber, produced from the addition and other
polymerization reactions that form long, chain-like molecules.
The actual spinning process is conducted in one of four ways:
1. melt spinning, in which molten polymer is pumped through spinneret jets,
solidifying as it strikes the cool air;
2. dry spinning, in which the polymer is dissolved in an organic
solvent, and the resulting solution is forced through spinnerets;
3. wet spinning, in which the solution is coagulated as it
emerges from the spinneret; and
A. core spinning, the newest method, in which a continuous filament yarn
together with short-length "hard" fibers is introduced onto a spinning
frame so as to form a composite yarn.
D. Emission
The major source of hydrocarbon emissions from the nylon manufacturing pro-
cess is drying of the finished fiber. These uncontrolled and controlled emissions
are shown in Table .V-29. (]0 5 i 19"J •
TABLE V-29
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM NYLON MANUFACTURK
Type of Operation .and Control
Fiber Drying, Uncontrolled
Fiber Drying, Carbon Adsorber*
% Control
0
95
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 134,500 tons/yr)
Ibs/ton
7
0.35
kg/mt
3.5
0.18
Ibs/hr
108
5.4
kg/hr
49
2.4
E. Control Equipment:
Hydrocarbon emissions from the manufacture of nylon are not normally con-
trolled, but emissions can be reduced by 80-95% by adsorption on activated carbon.
Table V-29 shows the controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from nylon
manufacture.
V-59
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for synthetic fibers manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are. patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useagc is categorized by three basic
types * These 'are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene-
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, f.rjchloroethylene or tolune-
20 par cent
and 3 w
T?6 ^i11 — emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
These limitations are as follows:
T , Pr°cess Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process ^5 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive . 3000 450
(Federal Raster, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14
P e"?SSi0n ?f Phot.°ch^«lly reactive hydrocarbons to is'lbs/day
-*« **
demomtrirS ?,Ppendix1B ™« Rule 66 ^ legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/dav
Smii ±°em'V ^ ***» ***<***• M°st Btates have regulations th2
Coniecticur IT* ,r°m handli»8 and use of o'fianic solvents. Alabama,
Sd?ani 1 Tand.0hl° hfve regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix 13. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations. .
V-60
-------
Table V-30 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations from
nylon manufacture.
TABLE V-30
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM NYLON MANUFACTURE
Typp of Operation and Control
Fiber Drying, Uncontrolled
Fiber Drying, Carbon Adsorber
% Control
0
95
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(bas-jd on 134,500 tons/yr)
Ibs/lir
108
5.4
kc/hr
49
2.4
Limitations3lbs/hr/kR/hr
llentcd
3
3
1.36
1.36
Dnhp.at&cl
8
8
3.63
3.63
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and large processes such as nylon
manufacture require tight control to meet the limitations. A nylon manufacturing
process producing 134,500 tons/year requires 97% control to meet the 3 Ibs/hr
limitation, and 93% control to meet the 8 Ibs/hour limitation. Existing carbon
adsorption control technology is borderline to accomplish these high control
efficiencies, but a direct flama afterburner could meet existing regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
The following references were used to develop the preceding discussion on
nylon manufacture:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA. Pub<-
lication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(2) Hedley, W.H. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes (Final Report).
Monsanto Research Corporation. EPA Contract No. .63-02-0226, Task No. 9.
December, 1973.
(3) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972", Mitre Corporation.
Another reference consulted but not directly used to develop this discussion
included:
(4) "Man-made Fibers: On the Road to Recovery." Chemical Engineering News.
May 31, 1971.
V-61
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category: Varnish
C. Source Description;
Varnish is a clear coating produced by chemical reactions at elevated
temperatures. Originally, all varnishes were made from naturally occurring
material and were defined as a homogeneous solution of drying oils and resins
in organic solvents. As new resins were developed, the varnishes were clas-
sified on the basis of the resins used. A general definition of varnish is an
unpigmented coating consisting of resins, oils, thinners, and dryers, and drys
by evaporation of the solvents and by oxidation and polymerization of the re-
maining constituents.
There are two basic types of varnishes, spirit varnishes and oleoresinous
varnishes. Spirit varnishes are formed by dissolving a resin in a solvent and
drying by evaporation of the solvent. Oleoresinous varnishes are solutions of
both oils and resins which dry by solvent evaporation and by reaction of the non-
volatile liquid portion with oxygen in the air to form a solid film.
The varnish manufacturing process includes the following steps:
1. cooking 4. filtering 7. testing
2. thinning : 5. storing 8. paeka£ii.;£
3. mixing 6. aging
The cooking process is the most important step in any varnish-making opera-
tion, for it is during this step that the following processes occur:
1. depolymerization of resins and oils,
2. bodying of natural and synthetic oils,
3. melting of materials,
4. esterification of resins, anhydrides or oils with polyhydric alcohols,
5. isomerization of oils,
6. preparation of alkyl resins,
7. purification of the resins.
Varnish is cooked in open or enclosed gas-fired kettles for periods of
4 to 16 hours at temperatures of 200 to 650°F (93 to 340°C) depending upon the
particular batch being processed. The average, plant produces 280 tons of varnish
per year. Figure V-17 shows a typical varnish cooking room.
D. Emission Rates;
The cooking and thinning operations are the major sources of emissions in
the varnish manufacturing process. The average batch starts to release vapors at
about 350°F (177°C) and reaches its maximum rate of release at approximately the
same time the maximum cooking temperature is reached. Obviously, the open kettle
allows the vaporized material to be emitted to the atmosphere more than the closed
kettle operations. The addition of solvents and thinners during the cooking pro-
cess also results in the emission of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, especially
if the thinning process is carried out in open tanks. In general, the vapors re-
leased by the cooidng and thinning operations include:
V-62
-------
RECYCLE
ItJMP
^MAKEuf*
WATEH
Y
OILS AND
VARNISH
TO WVSTE DISPOSAL.
TMINNINO
ROOM
WATER
SCRUBBER
COOLING
STATION
COOKINO
STATION
Figure V-17; Typical Varnish Cooking Room
1, low-melting temperature constituents of natural gums,
synthetic acids, and rosins,
2. thermal decomposition and oxidation products vulatili^ed
during bodying of oils, and
3. volatile thinners.
The uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions for varnish manufacturing
are shown in Table V-31. C2") 5-10~2
TABLE V-31
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM VARNISH MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation and Control
Mixing and Cooking, uncontrolled
Mixing and Cooking, with incinerator
% Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 280 tons/yr)
Ibs/ton
370
3.7
kg/nit
185
1.85
Ibs /lu-
ll. 8
.12 '
ku/hr
5.35
.05
E. Control Equipment;
<•
The varnish industry controls emissions because of economic reasons. Equipment
used by the industry to reduce process emissions include scrubbers, absorbers, ad-
sorbers, and afterburners. Sublimation and solvent reformulation are also practiced.
Incineration of organic gases is one certain method for elimination of organic com-
pounds and their associated odors. Catalytic oxidation has also been used with some
V-63
-------
success in controlling hydrocarbon emissions from varnish-making operations.
Table V-31 shows the controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions for
varnish-making plants.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No "New Source Performance
Standards" have been promulgated for varnish manufacture.
. State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having'an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 .per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon rrtnmp to the-, molecule except cthylbensene:
8 pei Cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures,trichloroeuhylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photocheraically reactive 40 8
3. non--photochemically reactive • 3000 450
Appendix B (Feden:al Registp.r, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unrcactive are, saturated
halogp.nated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Ci-Ccn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation,' if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and .Ibs/hour values; have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the. emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana find Louisiana IK.IVC regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-64
-------
Table V-32 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for -varnish manufacture.
TABLE V-32
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM VARNISH MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control % Control
Mixing and Cooking,
Uncontrolled 0
. Mixing and Cooking,
with Incinerator 99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 280 tons/hr)
Ibs/hr
11.8
.12
kp,/hr
5.35
.05
Limitations'* Ibs/hr/kp./hr
heated
3
3
1.36
1,36
unheated
8
8
3.63
3.63
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, and small processes such as varnish
manufacture, while relatively heavy emitters in general, are fairly small processes.
The typical 280 ton/year varnish manufacturing operation need only maintain 75%
control to maintain compliance with the 3 Ibs/hr limitation. Existing technology
is adequate for varnish manufacture to meet existing emission limitations for a
280 ton/yonr operation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following references were used to develop the material in this section:
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA. Publica-
tion No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(2) Control Techniques for Hydrocarbon and Organic Solvent Emissions from Station-
ary Sources. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. National
Air Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-68. March, 1970.
(3) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Performance
for New Sources. Paint and Varnish Manufacturing, Walden Research Corporation.
EPA Contract No. EPA 70-165, Task Order No. 4. October, 1971.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules and Regulations. EPA
Contract 68-02-0248. July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Also consulted but not directly used to develop the foregoing discussion on
varnish-making processes was:
(5) Air Pollution Control Engineering and Cost Study of the Paint and Varnish
Industry. Air Resources, Inc. EEA Contract No. 68-02-0259. June, 1974
V-65
-------
A. Source Category: V Chemical Process Industry
B. Sub Category; Synthetic Resins (Phenolic)
C. Source Description:
Phenolic resins find application as molding materials, as laminates, and as
binders in plywood manufacture. Phenolic resins are produced by a condensation
.reaction between phenol and formaldehyde in an acid medium. The use. of a molar
ratio of slightly less than 1:1 results in linear polymers that can be cross-
linked by the action of hexamethylene tetramime. The condensation reaction takes
place in a steam-jacketed, stainless steel, or clad kettle. After about 12 hours,
the reaction is arrested by neutralization of the alkaline catalyst with sulfuric
acid. The reaction is shown below:
OH
H
H
.C = 0
H?SOi»
NH3
CH2
-
Phenol
Phenolic resin
Formaldehyde
Approximately 1800 pounds of phenol and 1500 pounds of 40 percent formalde-
hyde are used per ton of product made. Alternate reactants include meta-cresol,
resorcino.l, and xylenols. Yields are 90 percent or better, with the• average
plant producing six tons per hour.
,D. Emission Rates;
The.production unit or clad kettle is the primary source of atmospheric pol-
lutants from phenolic resin manufacture. During the polymerization reaction,
pollutants escape through the condenser, vacuum line, sample ports, and vents.
When the reactions become too exothermic, a mixture of the hydrocarbons used in
the production of the resins is vented through the safety blow-offs. Table V-33
presents uncontrolled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions from synthetic resins
manufacture.
TABLE V-33
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS VKOM PHENOLIC RESIN MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation and Confrol
Production Unit, Uncontrolled
Production Unit, With Flare
0 Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions (Based on 52^560 tons/yr)
Iha/con
7.5
.075
kR/MT
3.8
.038
Iba/hr
45
.AS
ks/hr
20.41
.20
E. Control Equipment:
Hydrocarbon emissions from the production unit are best controlled by use of
an incinerator or a flare, with efficiencies approaching 99 percent. The con-
trolled and uncontrolled emissions from this source are shown in Table V-33.
V-66
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No "New Source Performance Standards"
have been promulgated for synthetic resins manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photo chemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
. . hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolurie:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photocheraically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Cj-c5n-"
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if'the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
V-67
-------
Table V-34 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations for
phenolic resin manufacture.
TABLE v-34
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM PHENOLIC RESIN
Type of
Operation ,ind Control
Production Unit, Uncontrolled
Production Unit, with Flare
% Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(Based on 52,560 tons/yr)
Ibs/hr
45
.45
•kR/hr •
20.4
.20..
Limitation:!11 Ibs/hr/kc/hr
Heated
3
3
'1.36
1.36
Unhen te>r\
: s
8
3.63
3.63
Potential Source Compliance and Emission. Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Phenolic resin manufacture typically
has relatively large process weights and a relatively limited emission. For
phenolic resin manufacture t-o be in compliance with the 3 Ibs/hr and 8 Ibs/hr
limitation, flare control efficiencies of 93% and 82% respectively, must be
maintained. Existing control technology is adequate for phenolic resin
manufacture to be in compliance with state regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References:
low:
The literature used to develop the discussion on phenolic resins is listed be-
(1) Hedley, W.H. , Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes^ (Final
'Report), Monsanto Research Corporation, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0226, Task
No. 9, December, 1973.
(2) Hahn, A.V.G., The Petrochemical Industry, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,
New York, 1970.
(3) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions fro'm~s't:ationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report), The Research
Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No. 3, Octo-
ber, 1975.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Two additional sources were consulted but not directly used to develop the ma-
terial presented in this section.
(5) Fallwell, W.F. "Phenolic, Urea Resins Demand Losing Steam," Chemical and
Engineering News, August 13, 1973.
(6) "Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) and Styrene-Acrylonitrile (SAN)
are Utilizing about 80 Percent of Their Capacity," Chemical and Engineer-
ing News, September 22, 1969.
V-68
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category: Rccr Processing
C. Source Description:
The manufacture of beer from grain is a multiple-step process. From the
time the grain is harvested until the beer manufacturing process is complete
the following events take place at the brewery:
1. melting of barley (softening of barley by
soaking in water followed by kiln drying) ,
2. addition of corn, grit, rice,
3. conversion of starch to maltose by
enzymatic processes,
4. separation of wort (liquid to be fermented)
from girain,
5. hopping (addition of cones of the hop
plant) and boiling of wort,
6. cooling of wort,
7. addition of yeast,
8. fermentation,
9. removal of settled yeast,
10. filtration,
11. cfivbona r.:i on.,
12. aging, and
13. packaging.(2)&-5-1
This process is graphically detailed below:
S t.M.CH
COSVK.IS10S
TO MALTOSE
ntxtsr
AT1<:S
1
SL'PAKATIO:: OP
WIST 1'I.OX
CHAIN
YEAST
YtAST a:r.noK
>— VtA:!'3
HOP
CONT.S
y
HEAT ADD1TK
r
KOiTISO
PROCESS
\
t
c«>i,;sc
n
Figure VI-1: Beer Processing
VI-1
-------
Most of the beer manufacturing process takes place with the raw or processed
materials in liquid form.
D. Emission Rate;
The manufacture of beer causes carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oxygen, and water
vapor to be discharged into the atmosphere. The hydrocarbon emission rate may
be approximated by assuming that 1 percent by weight of spent grain is emitted
as hydrocarbon. Assuming the grain loses 20 percent of its weight during the
manufacturing process, for every pound of spent grain, 1.25 pounds of raw grain
are required. Therefore, each 1.25 pounds of input discharges 0.01 pounds of
hydrocarbons. Based on the above, hydrocarbon emissions from beer processing
are detailed below:
TABLE VI-1
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM BEER PROCESSING
Type of Operation and Control.
Beer Processing, Uncontrolled
Beer Processing, Incineration
. %
Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions (J)
Ib/ton
2.63
0.0263
kg/ton
1.32
0.0132
(16.1 tons/hour)
Ib/hr
42.3
.42
kg/hr
19.2
.19
E. Control Equipment:
The major hydrocarbon emission is ethyl alcohol and is controlled by incin-
eration or absorption.
There is a limited quantity of ethyl alcohol from a typical processing
plant. Incineration is accomplished by introducing ethyl alcohol fumes into a
boiler air supply or by passing the fumes through an afterburner.'2'171"183
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for the beer processing industry.
State Kcpulotions for New and ExlRtliig_Sour_ces: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
•type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvent;; by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from ill type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochcmically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
VI-2
-------
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbcnzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent • .
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limit at ions are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive v 3000 . 450
Appendix B
j^, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
bfilogr-n.ii;ccl hydrocarbons j pcrchlorocthylene, benzene, acetone and c^-Cr,n-
paraff ins .
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, -if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation- has been met by the source even if the Ibs/dny
and Ibs/liou): values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut, and Ohio have, regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana luive regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after botli types of regulations.
Table VI- 2 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for beer processing.
TABLE VI-2
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM BEER PROCESSING
Type, of Operation and Control
Beer Processing, Uncontrolled
Beer Processing, Incineration
%
Control
0
97
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(based on 16.1 tons/hour)
n-rsyiu-
42.3
.42
kR/hi-
19.2
.19
Hydrocarbon Limitations
IbK/hr
Heai-.fd
3/1. /•
3/1.4
kf;/lnr
Unit o;i Led
8/3.6
8/3.6
VI -3
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight, but large processes such as beer
processing can be controlled with incineration to meet emission limitations as
described in Section D. For beer processing manufacture to meet the 3 Ib/hour limi-
tation, 81% control efficiency must be maintained. Existing control technology
is adequate for beer processing manufacture to be in compliance with state regu-
lations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on beer processing include
the following:
1. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
3. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions
from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Beer Processing, pp. 4, 6, 7.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VI-4
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Cotton Ginning
C. Source Description:
Cotton ginning separates the constituents of freshly harvested cotton. After
harvesting, the cotton is made up of the following materials:
1. cotton fiber, ... :
2. cotton seed,
3. hulls,
4. sticks and stems, and
5. leaf and dirt.C1)22C2)30
The percentage of each of the five material;.; to the total varies with the
harvesting method, and ':he ginning process varies depending upon the harvesting
method.(1^2-7-2-20 (2)29,39
Until World War li, cotton was picked by hand. After World War II, the cotton
industry Began to mechanize in earnest. Today, most cotton is machine .picked.
Cotton picking is comprised of five categories:
1. hand picked,
2. hand snapped,
3. machine picked,
4. machine stripped,
5. machine scrapped.
Cotton ginning is a multistep process and has three major variations as
detailed below:
COTTON PROCESSING
Step
Hand Picked
Machine Picked
Machine or Hand Snapped
Unloading by Suction
Telescope
Initial Cleaning in
Separator
Drying in Tower
Dryer
Cleaning in Multi-cyl-
inder Cleaner
Cotton and Seed Sep-
arated in Gin Stand
Finished Product
Available
Unloading by Suction
Telescope
Initial Cleaning in
Separator
Drying in Tower Dryer
Boll Removal in "Boll
Trap"
Cleaning in a Multi-
Cylinder Cleaner
Additional Drying in
Tower Dryer
Unloading by Suction
Telescope
Initial Cleaning in
Separator
Boll Removal in "Boll
Trap"
Cleaning by "Airline
Cleaner"
Drying in Tower Dryer
Cleaning in a Multi-
cylinder Cleaner
(cont.)
VI-5
-------
Step
Hand Picked
Machine Picked
Machine or Hand Snapped
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Additional Cleaning in
Multi-cylinder Cleaner
Cotton and Seed Sep-
arated in Gin Stand
Finished Product
Available
Removal of Burrs by
"Burr Machine"
Stick Removal by "Stick
Remover"
Additional Drying in
Tower Dryer
Additional.cleaning in
Multi-cylinder Cleaner
Cotton and Seed Separated
in Gin Stand
Cleaning of Lint Cotton in
Lint Cleaners & Condensers
Finished Product Available
Cotton gin capacity may be as high as 30 bales /hour, and emission controls
equipment may account for 3% to 10% of the facilities purchase price.
D. Emission Rate ;
Particulate emissions from the cotton ginning process occur at a multitude of
locations throughout the process. The discharge points are detailed in the following
flow diagram:
PART tun ATI:
• ItljjIAKCC
»M
r.VKTin'i.wr.
limni.
r.»
'""(Stt!.
,„
tUTRIIVUR
-*—
FICKC3 COTTON
K.VTN
CUA.1KR
{
IT)
I i IUM
UCAht*
JUI»
CLU.1CR
—^1 p»u. Tiu\r
idl.l. TMf
f
»-
wmcroR
r.:.:iM»
SI
a-iM K
1
X
R
mn AIR UKir.R
it
UOT
'"•"'
I
X
*
All liRIU
C1H 1TASD1
runcvuit
T
,„
All i illf
^ir_ Liar
CUAKIU
, 1
-
VA'IIH H»l
FA.1
| PARTI CULATK
fAX
mi.r ix'ii'i A:;D
FAITICfLAT
1 OIICU\K-X
r*i
f .fSi"
T
ouuciui;»
fM
MLU IHtM
— •- COTTOX lALtl
Figure VI-7; Cotton Cinntnf.
VI-6
-------
In addition to the discharge points given in the above diagram, participate
emissions from the cotton ginning process can also be attributed to:
1. transfer equipment,
2. trash house,
3. incineration of trash, and
4. blown dust from improperly
composted gin trash. 0)3~8
. The actual particulate emission rate is a function of many variables including
type of cotton, harvest time, and technique used. Typical emission rates for a
specific gin are detailed in the following table:
TABLE VI-3
FARTICULATE EMISSIONS - MACHINE PICKED COTTON^' ^ 3"l<
Type of
Operation & Control
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unloading, Controlled
Multicylindcr Cleaner &
Stick Machine, Uncontrolled
Multicylinder Cleaner &
Stick Machine, Controlled
Molticylinder Cleaner
Uncontrolled
Multicylinder Cleaner
Controlled
Ti'a^U Fun ,. 'J:ii;:i-n':>:-">ll-T-'
Tr.-.-!i r.ir., Cor.trollcrt
No. 1 Line Cleaners,
Uncontrolled
No. 1 Lint Cleaners,
Controlled
No. 2 I,tnt Cleaners,
Uncontrolled
No. 2 Lint Cleaners,
Controlled
Battery Lint Cleaners,
Uncontrolled
Battery Lint Cleaners,
Controlled
Lint Clcr.nc.r Waste,
Uncontrolled
Lint Cleaner Waste
Controlled
X
Control
0
90
0
90
6
90
/%
SO
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Ih/ton
21.6
2.16
0.56
0.056
0.32
0.032
O.f.i
0.0£.'i
55.7
5.57
22.5
2.25
8.4
0.84
10.2
1.02
kg/ton
10.3
1.03
0.28
0.028
0.15
0.015
A •>•»
c.o:)2
27.9
2.79
11.3
1.13
4.2
0.42
5.1
0.51
Ib/bale
5.41
0.541
0.14
0.014
0.08
0.008
0.1&
0.016
13.92
1.39
5.62
0.562
2.10
0.210
2.55
0.255
kg/bale
2.46
0.246
0.064
0.0064
0.037
0.0037
0.07?,
0.0073
6.33
0.633
20.55
0.255
0.955
0.0955
1.16
0.116
Ib/hr
54.1
5.4
1.4
0.1
0.8
0.1
:.f>
0
139.
13.9
56.2
5.6
21.0
2.1
25.5
2.6
kg/hr
24.6
2.5
0.6
0.06
0.4
0.04
0. 7
0.07
63.3
6.3
25.5
2.6
9.6
1.0
11.6
1.2
Based on 10 baleo/hr of lint cotton at 500 Ibs/bale of lint cotton
E. Control Equipment;
Many types of equipment are used to control emissions from the cotton ginning
process. Equipment selected will to some extent depend on whether or not an existing
gin is being retrofitted or if a new gin is to be constructed.
Presently at least six (6) types of equipment are used in controlling emissions
from gins, including:
1. settling chambers,
2. large diameter cyclones,
3. small diameter cyclones,
4. filters,
5. baghouses, and
6. screen wire lint cages,
VI-7
-------
Settling chambers find some use on existing gins but are not recommended
for new gins because of the difficulty of maintaining the chambers and their
relatively large
Large diameter cyclones are no longer used because they are not as ef-
ficient as the small diameter cyclones. The large diameter cyclone has been
used with a degree of success on older gin facilities; however, the small
diameter cyclone is only used to control emissions from the high pressure air
discharges of a gin. Tests on small diameter cyclones show they are about
99% efficient. U5V2>(2)2 9-38 :
The low pressure air discharges of a gin facility may be controlled using
various types of filters, including in-line filters located in duct work con-
sisting of fine mesh wire screen. Another type of filter is similar to that
just described but instead of a wire mesh as the filtering medium, foam pads
are used. The pressure drop through the foam is quite high, and cleaning of
the foam is difficult. (l)'*-3-'t-'t
Baghouses can be used to control particulate emissions from the low
pressure portion of new cotton gins. Installation and maintenance are expensive
however. O^-t-S
Lint cages consist of a cage made of wire screen and placed over the low
pressure exhaust system. In-line filters have generally replaced the lint
cages. 0)"-5
Two new systems are being developed. One is for trash handling, the small
diameter trash system, and the monoflow system for handling almost all gin
emissions simultaneously. •
The small diameter trash system reduces the amount of air required in
handling gin trash by about a factor of 10. In reducing the volume of air
used, the amount of air that has to be cleaned is also reduced. C1)1*"5
The monoflow system was developed at the USDA Mesille Park Laboratory.
In the monoflow system, the air follows the cotton through most of the ginning
process. Some of the air is cycled through the system more than once and before
discharge to the atmosphere is cleaned by small-diameter cyclones and in-line
filters. (00-5-4-6
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for cotton ginning.
>.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
gypsum production. The four types of regulations are based on:
VI-8
-------
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume,
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express participate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry stan-
dard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these five
states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.1^ grains /dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
' 'Contrgj^j^jFlciency Basis: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Easjis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hoi'r for specific flow rates expressed in actual cub:ic
feet per minute;. The- Texas liiuiLationb IO.JL particulai.es are. as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.11 Ibs/hr
105 - '106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have general
process limitations for new sources. • For new sources with a process
weight of 5000 Ibs/hr, Illinois is representative, of the most
restrictive, 4.2 Ibs/hr (1.9 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of the least restrictive, 9.4 Ibs/hr (4.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight _Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states,
express particulate process limitations in terms of pounds per hour as
a function of a specific process weight rate. For a process weight
rate of 5000 Ibs/hr, Colorado is representative of the most restrictive
limitation, 6.3 Ibs/hr (2.9 kg/hr) and Virginia is representative of
the least restrictive limitation, 7.6 Ibs/hr (3.4 kg/hr).
Process Weip/nt__Rat^_Ba^g^_£^ecj.f^_^our£eRj: Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina and Tennessee have specific regulations for cotton ginning.
Alabama's restriction for a 10 bale/hour operation is 7.7 Ibs/hr
(3.5 kg/hr). Georgia's restriction is 22.1 Ibs/hr (10.0 kg/hr),
Tennessee's restriction is 7.7 Ibs/hr (3.5 kg/hr) and South' Carolina's
restriction is 14.4 Ibs/hr (6.5 kg/hr).
Table IV-4 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from cotton ginning.
VI-9
-------
TABLE VT-4
PARTICIPATE EM: liSIOMS AND LIMITATIONS
FROM COTTON GINNING
Type of Operation
and Control
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unloadln'i, Controlled
Multlcylinder Cleaner &
St ick Machine, Uncon-
trolled
I Multicy'.inder Cleaner t
" Stick Machine, Con-
trolled
, Hulticylindtr Cleaner,
Uncontrolled
Multicylinder Cleaner,
Controlled
Trash Fan, Uncontrolled
Trash Fan, Controlled
No. 1 Lint Cleaner,
Uncontrolled
No. 1 Lint Cleaner,
Controlled
No. 2 Lint Cleaner,
Uncontrolled
No. 2 Lint Cleaner,
Controlled
Battery Lint Cleaner,
Uncontrolled
Battery Lint Cleaner,
Controlled
Lint Clear.er Waste,
Uncontrolled
T.fnr CUviner Waste,
Cor.trolied
Z
Control
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
0
90
Emissions
Ihs/hr kp,/i>r
54.1 24.6
5.4 2.5
1.4 0.6
0.1 0.0.0
0.8 0.4
0.1 0.04
1.6 0.7
0.2 0.07
139. 63.3
13.9 6.3
56.2 25.5
5.6 2.6
21.0 9.6
2.1 1.0
25.5 11.6
2.6 1.2
Limitations Ibs/hr/kg/hr
N w Sources
Ul,
4.2/1.9
4.^/i.9
4.2/1.9
4.:: A. 9
4..!/1.9
4.^/1.9
4.2/K9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
4.2/1.9
_JJ.H..
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
9.4/4.3
Rxislint; Sources
CoX.
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2.9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2. 9
6.3/2.9
Vir.
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
I't.
8.2/3.7
.2/.09
.1/.05
7.6/3.'.
. 7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4 •
7.6/3.4 •
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
7.6/3.4
6.3/2. 9 | 7.6/3.4
.2/.09
80.4/9.5
8.4/3.8
3.2/1.5
3.8/1.7
Ala.
7.7/3.S
7.7/3.5
Ceorslq
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
7.7/3.5 22.1/10.0
1
1 '...••
7.7/3.5
i r . i. ! \ o . o
7.7/3.5 !". 3/10.0
7.7/3.5 ' n.: ":•.••* '.
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.:,
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
7.7/3.5
2i.;/jo.o
22..1/10.C
1
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0 !
I
22.1/10.0
22.1/10.0
22.1/Ki.C |
i
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Cotton ginning opera-
tions are different from facility to facility and their emissions depend on the
quality of the harvested cotton. From Table VI-4, it can be concluded that cotton
ginning operations need control to meet existing limitations. The Environmental
Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on cotton ginning
include the following:
i. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Cotton Ginning Industry (Draft) ,
Environmental Engineering, Inc., EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task
Order No. 6, July 15, 1971.
2. Control and Disposal of Cotton-Ginning Wastes, National Center for
Air Pollution Control and Agricultural Engineering Research
Division, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-31, May 3 and
4, 1966.
VI-10
-------
A. Source Category: VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Deep Fat Frying
C. Source Description:
The food processing industry uses deep fat frying to prepare potato chips,
french fries, doughnuts, seafood, corn chips, extruded products, nut meats,
onion rings, fritters, chicken parts, and Chinese foods. During 1970, total
production of the above items was 7 x 109 pounds. (*' 2~**
. : The deep fat frying industry is divided into five categories according to
the following:
1. snack foods — potato chips, doughnuts, cheese and
corn chips, etc.,
2. french fried potatoes,
3. seafood,
4. fried pies,
5. poultry parts, onion rings, Chinese
noodles and egg rolls, etc.
Deep fat frying is done in stainless steel vats that hold upwards of 200
cubic feet (VL500 gallons). The oil in the vat is kept between 350°F and 400°F.
The raw food to be fried is lowered into the vat by a conveyor and the oil is
circulated in the vat with a stirring device or externally mounted pump. A
continuatior of the. conveyor system reifoves thp fried food and transports it to
the packing operation.
Not all foods that arc deep fat fried are cooked to completion by the frying
process. As an example, breaded fish products are cooked long enough to "set"
the breading. The fish itself is raw and must be cooked by the purchaser before
consuming.
The location of the various facilities for the five (5) previously mentioned
processing categories is not necessarily dependent upon population centers. How-
ever, for products that spoil easily, such as potato chips and doughnuts, pro-
cessing facilities are located near areas of high consumption (population centers).
Products that are stored in a frozen state need not be manufactured near areas of
high consumption. In these cases, the processing facility is located near the
source of raw material.
Of the total yearly production of deep fat fried items, about 50% of the total
is attributed to potato chip and doughnut processing.(*)2-1 Potato chip process-
ing is concentrated primarily in densely populated, industrial areas. About 72%
(1966) of the processing plants are located in 5 of 9 regions of the United
States: C1)2'5*2"6 (East, North Central, Midwest, Midcentral, and West Coast)
A distribution of the deep fat frying industry by. region is presented below:
VI-11
-------
Percent of
Region National Production
1. New England 8
2. East 18
3. North Central 15
4. Southeast 8
5. Midwest 17
6. Mid-central 12
7. Southwest 8 .
8. Rocky Mountain 4
9. West Coast 10
The potato chips are cooked in vegetable oil and the type used depends upon
the season of the year. The two major types of oil are cottonseed and sunflower
seed oil. In 1970, approximately 432 x 106 pounds of potato chipsO)2"1* were
produced.
About 73% of doughnut production is consumed in the northeastern portion of
the country.C1)2"7 Doughnuts are cooked in either vegetable oil or animal fat.
In 1970, 521 x 106 pounds of doughnuts were produced, and this required the use
of 130 x 106 pounds of oil and lard.
The other 50% of the deep fat fried industry is devoted to the other items
in the five previously mentioned categories. Seafood is usually fried in soy-
bean oil. Whenever animal fats are used for frying, they are generally hydro-
genated and deodorized.C1)1-2 During 1970, the consumption of oil and fat from
all items except potato chips and doughnuts was 418 x 106 pounds.
The relative process weights for the five categories as well as oil/fat
types are detailed below:C1)2-4
Total 1970 Type of Oil Fat Consumption
Category Production Oil/Fat as Product Content
Snack Foods -
Potato Chips 960 x 106 Ibs Ctnsd,Snfl Sd 432 x 106 Ibs
Doughnuts 521 x 106 Ibs Veg Oil,Anim Fat 130 x 106 Ibs
Corn Chips 155 x 106 Ibs - 70 x 106 Ibs
French Fried lgoo x 1()6 lbg _ U4 x 1()6 lbg
Potatoes
Seafood 443 x 106 Ibs Soybean, Etc. 30 x 106 Ibs
Fried Pies
Poultry Parts,
2S°n R1M8S^i - - 250 x 106 lbs
Chinese Noodles,
Egg Rolls, etc.
VI-12
-------
D. Emission Rate;
Little quantitative information has been accumulated on hydrocarbon emissions
from the deep fat frying processes. During the cooking process, distillation of
the oils light ends occurs.^2'799 Particulate emissions consist of smoke from
overheated oil and droplets of oil. Particulate discharges occur during cooking
of high moisture content foods such as potatoes.
3~3> '*) 799-800
The amount and type of emissions from deep fat frying will vary with the equip-
ment used and the raw food to be fried. Raw food varies in moisture content from
about 10 percent for snack foods to a high of about 75 percent for potato chips
and french f ries. ^ ) 3~2 ' ^ 7" Upon emersion into the hot (350°F to 400°F) oil,
the water in the raw food turns to steam and bubbles through the oil. This pro-
cess causes some of the oil to be "steam distilled."^2'800
Estimated emission rates have been developed by assuming that the emission
rates will be similar to those for the manufacture of vegetable oil. The vegetable
oil emission factor is 38 Ib/ton of oil manufactured.
The amount of oil absorbed by the various types of food is given in tabular
form at the end of the preceding section. Assuming the hydrocarbon emission rate
of 38 Ibs/ton of vegetable oil, the following emission rates are presented the
various food products^)1* ±n Table VI-5.
TABLE VI-5
HYDROCARBON EMISSION'S FROM DF.EP FAT FRYING
Type of Operation and
' Control
Snack Foods
Potato Chips, Uncontrolled
Potato Chips, Controlled
Doughnuts, Uncontrolled
Doughnuts, Controlled
Corn Chips, Uncontrolled
Con; Chips, Controlled
Fr Fr Potatoes, Uncontrolled
Fr Fr Potatoes, Controlled
Seafood, Uncontrolled
Seafood, Controlled
%
Control
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Ih/ton
17.1
.2
9.4
.09
17.2
.2
3.0
.03
2.6
.03
k.f,/ton
8.6
.09
4.7
.05
8.6
.09
1.5
.02
1.3
.01
Ib/hr
102.6
' 1.0
4.7
.05
103.2
1.0
18.2
.2
1.9
.02
!
-------
The typical afterburner installation controls hydrocarbon emissions by oxi-
dizing the hydrocarbons in a flame and thereby converting the hydrocarbons to
acceptable hydrogen or carbon compounds. One drawback of this type of control
is that fuel must be purchased and burned in the afterburner . O)p5-
shows a typical afterburner control system.
pigure VI-8
Futl
Cool In;; Air
Combustion Chanber
Turbulent rxpanslon
Compression
1'xi'aust
Figure VI-8: Typlc.il Hydrocarbon Afterburner F.nlssiori
Control Svstcn for Control of Hydr ocarbon
The catalytic oxidizer is similar to an afterburner in that the temperature of
the hydrocarbons is increased. At the proper temperature, the hydrocarbons are
oxidized. The process usually occurs in two steps. The first is to increase the
temperature of the entering hydrocarbons to 600 or 800°F by heating them in a burner
with fossil fuel. After this first heating the second step is to pass them through
a catalyst bed. Upon interacting with the catalyst, the hydrocarbons increase their
temperature and are thus oxidized. Catalytic oxidizers have several disadvantages
including initial cost, high maintenance costs, and generation of new compounds
that may be more troublesome than the original pollutants . ^ »P5~3» 5~**) A typical
catalytic oxidation process is outlined below.
Hot ExhAunt Can
^ Hot Kv'cycle
ft lower _j^
.Mr
Vy P V -^
Pr«he*t Burner _^.
Cooled Exfwutit . ^6- i
tlcat Excluder
Conta-i
Air !
lifura Vl-t i Typlrnl f
f
L
r^n 1>li»«.ion
for Control 01 Hy*lroc«rhi'O rnln^lpn
VI-14
-------
Wet scrubbers are only practical for the removal of hydrocarbons that are
dissolved or condensed by the water. A major drawback to scrubbers is the disposal
of the contaminated wash water. This water/oil mixture must be suitably treated
before discharge.(*>P5~2)
F. Mew Source Performance Standards and Emission Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No new source performance standards
have been proposed for the deep fat frying industry.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: No states have adopted regula-
tions to limit emissions from deep fat frying. States that have "odor" and "nui-
sance" regulations could enforce these to control sources with excessive emissions.
G. References:
To develop the information in this section concerning deep fat frying hydro-
carbon emissions, the following references were used:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
formance for New Sources, Deep Fat Frying, Walden Research Corporation,
EPA Contract CPA 70-165, Task Order No. 6", October 1971.
2. Danielson, S. A., Air Pollution Engineering. Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973. '
3. Hopper, Tliumab G., Impact of New Source rerforiMr.n..e ntavichvrds o.\ 19S5
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Deep Fat Frying,
"pp 1-4, 1-4.
4. AS?IRAE Handbook & Product Directory 1975 Equipnient, American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., New York,
N. Y., 1975.
VI-15
-------
A. Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Direct Firing of Meats
C. Source Description;
The direct firing of meats is the process of using an open flame to
directly cook meat for human consumption. Charcoal broiling is one example
of direct firing of meats.C1)1
Natural gas, charcoal brickettes, or charcoal are the fuels used to supply
the necessary heat. Some direct firing of meats also takes place on electric
grills. Some grilling operations use a special technique to simulate the effects
of charcoal using only natural gas as the fuel. In this technique, a bed of
blocks having a consistency similar to pumice are placed between the heat source
and the food to be cooked. The blocks act like charcoal.C5)4
Direct firing of meats does not occur on a continuous basis. In general,
there are two peak periods daily for direct firing of meats, the first being
lunch time and the second dinner time.C1)2
D. Emission Rate;
A typical direct firing operation emits both particulates and hydrocarbons.
The particulace emission rate for a typical faat food restaurant is presented
in Table VI-7, assuming that the restaurant is operated at peak capacity, 12
hours per day, 6 days per week, and 52 weeks yearly.(2)2
TABLE VT.-7
PARTTCULATE EMISSIONS FROM DIRECT FIRING OF MEATS
Type of
Operation & Control
Direct Firing of Meats:
Hardee's Kawburgers, Uncontrolled
Hardee's Hamburgers, Scrubber
%
Control
0
90
Particulatc Emissions (3)
(Based on Maximum Grill Capacity)
Ib/ton
MA
NA
kg/ton
NA
NA
Ib/hr
0.63
0.063
kg/hr
0.29
0.029
Hydrocarbon emissions include methane, CH^, and aldehydes. The .hydrocarbon
emission rate was developed similarly to the particulate rate as shown in Table
VI-7A.
VI-16
-------
TABLE VI-7A
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM DIRECT FIRING OF MEATS
Type of
Operation & Control
Direct Firing of Meats
Methane - CH^
Hardee's Hamburgers, Uncontrolled
Hardee's. Hamburgers, Scrubber
Aldehydes
Hardee's Hamburgers, Uncontrolled
Hardee's Hamburgers, Scrubber
%
Control
0
90
0
57
Hydrocarbon Emissions (3^6» ('')'•
(Based on Maximum Grill Capacity)
Ib/ton
NA
NA
NA
NA
kR/ton
NA
NA
• NA
NA
Ib/hr
1.50
.15
1.5
.6
kg/hr
.7
.07
.7
.3
E. Control Equipment;
Particulate matter has been controlled using a wet scrubber in the grill exhaust
system.(^)
The emission of hydrocarbons can be controlled in several ways. One system
presently being used is the oxidizer/scrubber.(3) Incineration can be employed
successfully, but due to 1f-.fi expense, is seldom used.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (MSPS); No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for direct firing of meats.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; No states have adopted par-
ticulate or hydrocarbon regulations specifically for direct firing of meats. How-
ever, states do have the option of enforcing "odor","nuisance" and opacity regulations
to regulate excessive emissions.
G. References;
References used in preparation of this summary on direct firing of meats
include the following:
1. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Industrial
Factors, Direct Firing of Meats. <
2. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Emission
Factors, Direct Firing of Meats.
VI-17
-------
3. Final Emission Tests Report, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., Rocky Mount,
North Carolina, Commonwealth Laboratory, Project No. 74-238-01,
March 18, 1974.
4. Emission Tests Report, Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., Rocky Mount, North'
Carolina, Commonwealth Laboratory, Project No. 75-238-01, November
20, 1974.
5. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section, Industrial
Studies Branch, November 3, 1972.
VI-18
-------
A. Category; Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Feed Milling (Excluding Alfalfa)
C. Source Description:
The milling of cereal grains in the preparation of animal feeds is a multistep
process. The objective of milling is reduction of whole cereal grain kernels into a
predetermined-sized particle and seed portions. A typical cereal grain seed is
composed of gluten, germ, and bran.C'O193
Gluten is grain protein. Germ is the seed of the grain, and bran is the outer
skin' of the grain. C2) 1 9 3
In preparing the grain for animal feed production, several steps are required.
The grain is first unloaded into storage bins. After being taken from the bins,
the grain is cleaned.
198
The milling operation is accomplished in a hammer mill. As the grain
.passes through the hammer mill, it is struck by a multitude of swiftly moving
hammers and plates. After being pulverized, the grain is screened to obtain a
-uniform size. Other types of mills are sometimes used, including the attrition
•mill and roller mill. (2)198-2UU, 3
After milling s the grain is mixed with other grains and materials to form
a mixture of up to about 50 different components that form the animal f eed. (2)200-20 1
Much animal feed is bonded together in tiny pellets. The pellets ensure that
the animal consumes the correct proportion of nutrients. The milling process is
described figuratively in Figure VI-10.
"-20 1 .
BOX CAR
RF.Ci'.IVlNC
norrr.u
r
pi
i :
k^
ni.TK1.:"
[no] ii
Hi::
M
!-,
' V
T
IIOIMT.I'. CAK
UllCKU
L.
'.::i: iini1
Cj"
T!
SHIPPING
VI-19
-------
D, Emission Rate:
Particulate emissions attributed to milling are primarily a result of hand-
ling raw grain. (1)25, (3)3-63-3-66 (4)7-16 Table VI-9 presents particulate emis-
sions from feed milling, C1)214, C2X225
TABLE VI-9
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FEED MILLING
Type of
Operation & Control
Milling, Uncontrolled
Milling, Hoods &
Cyclones
%
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 5.1 tons/hr)
Ib/ton
3.1
0.31
kg /ton
1.6
.16
Ib/hr
15.8
1.6
kg/hr
7.2
.7
E. Control Equipment;
Control equipment used for reduction or elimination of particulate emissions
during grain milling vary depending on location and type of discharge. Hoods may
be used to collect escaping products during milling operations, while direct
discharges to the atmosphere are controlled via cyclones or fabric filters.C1)21**(2)225
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for feed milling.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to feed milling.
The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
VI-20
-------
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a regulation specifically for grain processing:
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin has a regulation specifically for grain processing:
Wisconsin - 0.4 IDS/1000 Iba gaa
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis:. Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000-acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 10,200 Ibs/hour. For new sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 5.1
Ibs/hr (2.3 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 12.4 Ibs/hr (5.6 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 10,200 Ibs/hr, Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 9.9 Ibs/hr (4.5 kg/hr) and Virginia is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 12.2 Ibs/hr (5.5 kg/hr)
Table VI-10 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations
from feed milling.
Vl-21
-------
TABLE VI-10
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATION'S FROM FEED HILLING
Type of
Operation & Control
Milllne, Uncontrolled
Milling, Hoods &
Cyclones
%
Control
0
90
Emissions
(Based on 5.1 Ib.i/hr)
Ibs/hr kfi/hr
15.8 7.2
1.6 .7
Limitations Ibs/hr / kg/hr
New Sources
MA
5.1/2.3
5.1/2.3
NH
12.4/5.6
12.4/5.6
Kxistin?. Sources
CO
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
Vir.
12.2/5.5
12.2/5.5
UT 85%
2.4/1.1
2.4/1.1
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hood and cyclones
are necessary to control feed milling operations to within existing particulate
limitations
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used in preparation of this summary on feed milling includes the
following;
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Grain Handling & Milling Industry (Draft),
Environmental Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists,
Inc., EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 4, July 15, 1971.
2. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0289,
December 1973.
3. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules
for Air Pollution Sources, PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0607, July 1973.
4. Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., EPA, Contract No. EHSD 71-36, October 2, 1971.
VI-7.2
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Fertilizer-Ammonium Sulfate
C. Source Description:
Ammonium sulfate, (NHi^ S04, is a solid, crystalline salt used primarily as
a fertilizer. It is also used in water treatment, Pharmaceuticals, fermentation,
food processing, fireproofing, and tanning.(3' Ammonium sulfate is produced
according to the following reaction:
2NH2
The production of ammonium sulfate is usually a hy-product of some other
manufacturing process. One of the largest single sources of ammonia for the
manufacture of ammonium sulfate is coke manufacturing. The ammonia is re-
covered by absorption in dilute sulfuric acid. After combining with the
sulfuric acid, the ammonia is recovered as ammonium sulfate.
Ammonium sulfate is recovered during the manufacture of hydrogen cyanide
by the Andrussow process. The Andrussow process utilizes methane, ammonia, and
air to produce the hydrogen cyanide. Unreactcd ammonia from the process is re-
covered by stripping the product stream with sulfuric acid, thus forming amonium
sulfate.
D. Emission Rates;
It is assumed that 1% of the ammonium sulfate produced each year ends up
as particulate emissions during the packaging process. (2)ltf7
Particulate emission rates are presented in Table VI-11.
TABLE VI-11
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
AMMONIUM SUT.FATF. FERTILIZER MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation & Control
Ammonium Sulfatc,
Uncontrolled
Ammonium Sulfate,
Wet Scrubber
%
Control
0
95
Particulate Emissions
Ib/ton
20
1
kf;/ton
10.0
0.5
(hnsc.d on 17 tons/lir)
Ib/hr
334
16.7
kp/lir
159
7.6
VI-23
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Ammonium sulfate particles in a gas stream are removed with a wet scrubber
or cyclone.^1-2 Another method developed specifically for ammonium sulfate
removal is covered by U. S. Patent 3,410,054 and was developed by W. Deiters.
A sketch of the unit is provided below in Figure VI-6.
DRIVER
T* VINLET
PROPELLER FOR ROTATING GAS
-;- DRIVE SHAFT
HORIZONTAL DISCS
ROTATING AT 2000 i
TO 4000 M/M1N
OUTER SHELL
SETTLING CHAMBER
— •> — DISCHARGE TUBE
Figure VI-6; Device for Agglomeration, of Ammonium Sulfate Particles in a
Gas Stream, Patent No. 3,410,054 by W. DeLters
Under suitable conditions, this ammonium sulfate particulate collector discharges
a gas that is completely free of the sulfate. This assumes that the inlet gas is
a dry air — NH~ mixture and finely distributed ammonium sulfate aerosal. C1)
~172
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for ammonium sulfate manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are
applicable to ammonium sulfate production.
VI-24
-------
The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cuhic foot and grains/dry stan-
dard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these five
states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 Jscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard, cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard.cubi foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Ba?!?' Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour.for specific flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate for New Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 34,000 Ibs/hr. For new sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
12.3 Ibs/hr (5.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 26.5 Ibs/hour (12.0 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hour for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process
weight rate of 34,000 Ibs/hour, Colorado is representative of a
most restrictive limitation, 20.8 Ibs/hr (9.4 kg/hr) and Virginia is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 27.3 Ibs/hr
(12.4 kg/hr).
VI-25
-------
Table VI-12 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions from ammonium sulfate production.
, TABU: vi-12
EABHSUtATEJMSSJtOSS AND LIHITATTONS FOR
._AMMONIUM Sl'I.FATE PRODUCTION
Type of Operation
and Control
Aoraoniun Sulfate, Uncontrolled
Annoniuo Sulfate, Wet Scrubber
Z
Control
0
95
(based on 1
Ibs/hr
334.
16.7
Ions
7 tons/hr)
159.
7.6
Limitations Ibs/hr/kK/hr
New S
— RS
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
>urces
26.5/12.0
26.5/12.0
20.8/9.4
20.8/9.4
existing So
Vir.
27.3/12.4
27.3/12.4
irces
UT 85X Control
50.1/22.7
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Ammonium sulfate pro-
duction described in Section D, producing 17 tons/hr, requires a control device
such as a wet scrubber to meet current particulate limitations.
The Environmental Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on ammonium sulfate
include the following:
1. Jones, H. R., Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry,
Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
2. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Mass Emissions, Midwest
Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, August 1, 1971.
3. Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute.
4. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II - Emission Factors,
Ammonium Sulfate.
5. ,"Air Pollution Problems at a Proposed Merseyside Chemical Fertilizer
Plant: A Case Study," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 2, pp. 35-48,
Pergamon Press, 1968.
6. Jones, H. R., Fine Dust and Particulate Removal, Pollution Control
Review No. 11. Noyes Data Corporation, 1972. <
VI-26
-------
A. Source Category: VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Fertilizer-Ammonium Nitra.te
C. Source Description;
Ammonium nitrate, NH.N0_, is manufactured by neutralizing nitric acid with
liquid or gaseous ammonia. The nitric acid and ammonia are initially mixed in
a neutralizer. The following chemical reaction takes place inside the neutralizer:
UNO- + NH + NH,N03
The process is diagrammed in Figure VI-2.
EXIT
(:;n,, ;!iTRo::r:i oxiDry
: OXIDKS, >:n., HO i;,o::;!
AMMONIA
NKUTRALIZF.R
(I'AXTICii.ATKS)
CiVCTLATOR
Figure. VI-2; Process for the. Mnnufact»rc._of Aaaontura Kltratc
. By Heui:rali7.ation of Nlr.ric Acid
The neutralizer's liquid product is transferred to an evaporator. After evapor-
ation is completed, the ammonium nitrate is dried in a dryer. The by-
products from the-.se two operations, nitrogen oxides, ammonium nitrate, water and
ammonia are ducted to a wet scrubber.(2)113-114 The coiicentrated liquid ammonium
nitrate is turned into solid particles by a process called prilling, which consists
of air cooling liquid droplets of the ammonium nitrate as the droplets descend from
the top of a special tower. The solid particles of ammonium nitrate that collect
at the bottom of the tower are called prills.<5) The prills are dried further in a
dryer which receives its heat input from an oil or gas burner unit.
After the ammonium nitrate is dried, the particles are transferred to a gran-
ulator and then to storage and packaging. Particulate emissions are discharged from
the wet scrubber with the ammonia. v.2)113-H1i .
VI-27
-------
D. Emission Rate;
The emission rate of particulate matter from the manufacture of ammonium
nitrate arises from evaporation, prilling, and bagging.
The particulate matter discharged during the manufacturing process and
attributed to the evaporator is about 1 Ib/ton of end product. The largest
single source of particulate matter arising from the manufacturing process
is the dryer. The rate is about 12 Ib/ton of end product.
Some particulate matter is discharged during the bagging of the product *
The amount discharged is about 1 Ib/ton of end product. It can be assumed that
about 1% of all the ammonium nitrate manufactured each year is discharged to
the atmosphere.'*'lx~6 The particulate emissions are tabulated below:
TABLE VI-15
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation & Control
Ammonium Nitrate Production
Evaporator, Uncontrolled
Evaporator, Wet Scrubber
Dryer, Uncontrolled •
Dryer, Wet Scrubber
Bagging, Uncontrolled
Bagging, Wet Scrubber
7
to
Control
0
901
0
901
0
901
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 365 short ton/day)
Ibs/
Short Ton
10
1
120
12
10
1
kg/
Metric Ton
4.1
.4
49.7
5.0
4.1
.4
Ibs/
hr
152.
15.2
1830.
183.
152.
15.2
kg/
hr
69.
6.9
832.
83.2
69.
6.9
Assumed Value
E. Control Equipment
Control equipment consists of a wet scrubber through which the pollutants in
the gases from the neutralizer, evaporator/dryer, and priller are passed. In
addition to some particulate matter, the scrubber's.discharge also contains am-
monia and nitrogen oxides.
VI-28
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for the ammonium nitrate fertilizer production.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to ammonium nitrate manufacture. The four types of regulations are
based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terras of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (nex^)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic fooc
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet
per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.60 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources: Pennsylvania has a
regulation specifically for ammonium nitrate production. For a source
with a process weight rate of 15.2 tons/hour, the maximum allowable
emission is 0.9 Ibs/hr (0.4 kg/hr) from the granulator.
Process Weight Rate for New Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a proces weight
rate of 30,420 Ibs/hour. For new sources with this process weight
rate, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
11.2 Ibs/hr (5.1 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a
least restrictive limitation, 24.6 Ibs/hour (11.2 kg/hour).
Process Weight Rate Basis^forExisting JSourcesj The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hour for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
VI-29
-------
rate of 30,420 Ibs/hour, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 19.4 Ibs/hour (8.8 kg/hr) and Virginia is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 22.5 Ibs/hour (10.2 kg/hour).
Table VI-16 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions for ammonium nitrate.
TABLK VI-16
PARTICULATR EMISSIONS AND LIMITATION'S FOR
AMMONIUM NITRATE MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation
and Control
Ammonium Nitrate
Evaporator, Uncontrolled
Evaporator, Wet Scrubber
Dryer, Uncontrolled
Dryer, Net Scrubber
Bagging, Uncontrolled
Bagging, Wet Scrubber
Z
Control
0
90
0
90
0
90
Emissions
Ibs/hr/kg/hr
152. /69.
15.2/6.9
1830. /832.
183. 783. 2
152. /69.
15.2/6.9
Limitations
New Sources
MA
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1
11.2/5.1.
NH
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
24.6/11.2
Existing Sources
Col.
19. '/8. 8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
Vir.
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
22.5/10.2
VT 85X
22.8/10.3
275. ,'125
22.8/10.3
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Table VI-16A presents
the degree of conlrol necessary for ammonium nitrate operations as described
in Section D to be in compliance with the state regulations listed in Table
VI-16.
TABLE VI-16A
CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE FOR AMMONIUM NITRATE PRODUCTION
Type of Operation
Evaporator
Dryer
Bagging
% Control Necessary
MA
93
99
93
NH
84
99
84
Col.
87
99
87
Vir.
86
99
86
UT
85
85
85
Wet scrubbers are adequate control measures to reduce particulate emissions from
ammonium nitrate particulate operations below the most restrictive limitations. The
Environmental Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
*
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on ammonium nitrate
include the following:
VI-30
-------
1. Emission Standards for the Phosphate Rock Processing Industry, Consulting
Division, Chemical Construction Corporation, EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-156,
July 1971.
2. Jones, II. R., Environmental Control in the Inorganic Chemical Industry,
Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
3. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards of 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Nitrate Fertilizers,
p. 4, The Research Corporation of New England, EPA, Contract 68-02-1382,
Task //3.
4. Chemical Economics Handbook, Stanford Research Institute.
5. Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxides from Stationary Sources, U. S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Pollution Control
Administration Publication No. AP-67, March 1970.
6. Air Pollution Problems at a Proposed Merseyside Chemical Fertilizer Plant,
A Case Study, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 2, pp. 35-48, Pergamon Press,
1968.
7. Jones, H. R., Fine Dust and Particulates Removal, Pollution Control
Review, No. 11, Noyes Data Corporation, 1972.
VI--31
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Grain - Drying
C. Source. Description;
Handling of grain in preparation for storage and processing is a complex
operation requiring several steps for completion. After the grain is harvested
and before it can be stored, it goes through the following seven-step procedure:
1. unloading from truck, rail, barge, ship,
2. cleaning,
3. drying,
4. turning,
5. blending,
6. separation, and
7. loading.(3)3-61 to 3-62
Grain received directly from the field contains up to 30 percent moisture.(2)8
If the moisture level is not properly controlled, the grain will spoil during
storage. To prevent spoilage, the moisture content of corn is lowered to about
15%, and with soybeans is lowered to about 10%.(2)3*8 The drying process is time
consuming because a typical dryer removes only about 5% moisture per pass.
Two types of dryers commonly used are the column aiid the rack dryer. (2)8--9
Initially, moist grain is fed to the dryer and heated. The grain is moved
to another part of the dryer where it is allowed to cool. After cooling, the
grain is discharged from the dryer. Figure VI-3 presents a column dryer, and
Figure VI-4 presents a rack dryer.C2)8-9 The column dryer recirculates up to 60%
of the exhaust, and this reduces energy consumption and the volume of effluent.(2)6~
D. Emission Rate;
Particulate emissions from drying grain are dependent upon the type of grain
and its dustiness.C2)20 Particulate is emitted to the atmosphere with the warm
moist exhaust gases. With recirculation, the total particulate emitted from a
column dryer is less than from a rack dryer performing the same function. In
both cases, the discharges are composed of similar materials but in different
proportions.(2)21
Particulate emissions from drying corn consist of grain dust and the
outer filmy skins of the kernels, called "bee's wings." The bee's wings are
heavy and large compared to the grain dust and make up the majority of the
visible particulate emissions from drying.(2)20 Particulate emissions from
drying soybeans consist of hulls, cracked grain, weed seeds, and field dust.(2)20-21
Table VI-17 presents the emissions from grain drying with column and rack dryers.
VI-32
-------
I 1
MOJST CHAIN IN L—i /
\/GRAIN KKCKIVING GARNER
FORCED AIR
SFCT10N
COOI.KR SKCTION
I)KV CHAIN 01'T
iro Vl-3; Typical Column Dryur Usi-d In llrylni; Graln
WAPJ-I AIR
INLliTS
MOISTURE-LADEN
AIR OUT
BAFFLE
Fip.ure VI-4; Typical. Rack Dryer Used in Drying Crnin
VI-33
-------
TABLE VI-17
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM GRAIN DRYING
Type of
Operation & Control
Grain Drying, Column
Dryer, Uncontrolled
Grain Drying, Recir-
. culating Column-
Dryer
Grain Drying, Rack
Dryer
%
Control
0
40-93
0
Particulate Emissions
• (Based on 60 tons/hr)--
lb/
ton grain kg/ton
0.3 -0.5 0.15-0.25
0.02-0,3 0.01-0.15
0.5 -0.7 0.25-0.35
Ib/hr kg/hr
20-30 9.1 -13.6
1- 5 0.46- 2.3
30-40 13.6 -18.2
E. Control Equipment;
The emissions from a dryer contain moist air and participates which
agglomerate and form cakes on surfaces. Because drying of grain is a seasonal
operation, control of partlculate emissions is accomplished using low-cost
screei:i systems* Scree.as limit., the size: of partii>.lr:H discharged, which rcduc.es
particulate emissions. The dust-laden exhaust gases are passed through a wire
screen device C24 mesh to 50 mesh) at velocities up to several hundred feet per
minute. Since the screens collect large amounts of dust over a very short time
period, the screens are cleaned automatically with a "vacuum head." Continuous
movement of the vacuum head over the screen allows for the dust build-up to be
continuously removed.
The vacuum's flow rate is about 10% of the dryer discharges. The vacuum
exhaust is cleaned using either a high efficiency cyclone or recycling through
the dryer. (OCS) 3-67 to 3-68
Systems that concentrate particulate in the area adjacent to the screens
are also in use. Vacuum systems are used to pick up the concentrated particu-
late, but the screens do not require continuous cleaning.
Because of the moisture content of the exhaust gases, fabric filters are
not used.(181)
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for grain drying.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to grain
drying. The four types of regulations are based on:
VI-34
-------
\» concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a limitations specifically for grain processing.
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin has a limitation specifically for grain processing
Wisconsin - 0.4 lbs/1000 Ibs gas
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
I1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis Specifically for Grain Drying; Pennsylvania has
a regulation specifically for grain drying. For the 60 tons/hour
process outlined in Section D, an emission rate of 39.3 Ibs/hour (17.8 kg/hr)
is the maximum allowable.
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process
weight rate of 60 tons/hour. For new sources with this process weight
rate, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
20.0 Ibs/hr (9.1 kh/hr) and Georgia is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 40.0 Ibs/hr (18.1 kg/hour).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of Ibs/
hour for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
VI-35
-------
rate of 60 tons/hour, Wisconsin.is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 33.0 Ibs/hour (15.0 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 63.7 Ibs/hr (28.9 kg/hr).
Table VI-18 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions from grain drying.
TABLE VI-18
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM GRAIN DRYING
Type of
Operation & Control
Grain Drying, Colunn
Dryer, Uncontrolled
Groin Drying, Rccir-
culating Column
Dryer
Grein Drying, Rack
Dryer
%
Control
0
40-93
0
Emissions
Ibs/hr
20-30
1- 5
30-40
kg/tir
9.1 -13.6
.46- 2.3
13.6 -18.2
Limitations Ibs/hr / kg/hr
PA
39.3/17.8
39.3/17.8
39.3/17.8
New Sour
MA
20.0/9.1
20.C/9.1
20.0/9.1
cen
CeorRia
40.0/18.1
40.0/18.1
40.0/18.1
Exist inc Sources
wis . ur HS2 :.HOO
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
63.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
63. 7/28. 9
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; For a 60 ton/hr drying
process described in Section D, a recirculating dryer is required to meet the most
stringent regulation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References:
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on grain drying include
the following:
1. Aften, Paul W., Thimsen, Donald J., "Proposed Design for Grain Elevator
Dust Collection," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
pp 738-742, Vol. 18, No. 11, November 1968.
2. (Draft Copy) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards
of Performance For New Sources, Grain Handling and Milling Industry, by
Environmental Engineering, Inc., and PEDCO Environmental Specialists,
Inc., July 15, 1971, for EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 4.
3. Technical Guidelines for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules
for Air Pollution Sources by PEDCO, Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
Suite 13, Atkinson Square, Cincinnati, OH, 45246, EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607, Tasks, July 1973.
VI-36
-------
A. Source. Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Grain Processing
C. Source Description;
Handling of grain in preparation for storage is a multistep operation.
After the grain is harvested, it goes through the following seven-step opera-
tion: '
1. unloading - truck, rail, barge, ship,
2. cleaning,
3. drying,
4. turning,
5. blending,
6. separation, and
7. loading.
Several of these are discussed in other sections.
Grain processing includes milling and starch extraction.(3) The grain
processing operation consists of the following steps:
1. milling (grinding),
2. separating,
3. mixing, and
4. storage-packaging.
The milling operations reduce grain into endosperm, bran, and germ. The
reduced endosperm becomes flour, and the germ, bran, and remaining endosperm
are used in the manufacture of animal feed. The grinding operation uses large
roller-mills specially designed for grain milling.
During the grinding process, the grain constituents are separated mechanically
so that the endosperm, bran, and germ are stored separately. The milling process
is graphically illustrated in Figure VI-5.
Starch extraction uses dent corn as its basic raw material. The first step
is removal of foreign material, and then the corn is softened by soaking in a
solution of warm water and sulfurdioxide.
Next, the corn is milled into .germ and hull components. Then, the mixture
of starch, gluten, and hulls are finely ground and screened. The starch and
gluten are then separated using centrifuges.(2)6-ll,6-12 The cornstarch is
further refined and packaged. See Figure VI-5.
D. Emission Rate;
Because of the value of milled grain, little is allowed to escape (during
the milling process) as particulate pollutants. Particulate emissions attrib-
uted to milling are primarily a result of handling raw grains.(1)25C4)3-63-3-66
(5)V-16 ,
VI-37
-------
(UVA10R
1
tRODUCi casinoi
IIT.MN.
ASPIRATOR
!
DISC SEPARATOR
1
SCOUXCR
1
HACSETIC SEPARATOR
F
t
1
TfJU'llKiC
•
TCITCRI:IC nus
.
IU.VU1MC
KNTOLCTtR
CRIKDIHC IIH
'
rust IJCAK
igurc
r
r
i *
EiniiH
'
rVKIFICR
'
RCDVCIW IOII.S
<
sir
n.
_J
TU>U»
VIRAN t
SHOUTS
rimntR
HWCIl.C ROI.U
1
'
nnt«
J
1
'
n:kiriCR
•
•UACillSC
1
»UU STOUCC
>ACiX*
1
cvtr?i*c
VI-5: Flour Mill ins
CCR.1 KOLLS
1
«.m.
C.M0.1K
IlILK CEllVCRX
(All. T*U
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Control equipment used for reduction or elimination of particulate emissions
during milling vary depending on location and type of discharge.
Hoods are used to collect the escaping product during some milling operations
while direct discharges to the atmosphere are controlled via cyclones.C1)2^
• Starch extraction emission controls are similar to controls used during milling.
operations previously discussed. The emission rates given in Table VI-19 use a
centrifugal gas scrubber. (AP-l+2)6-ll ,6-12
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for grain processing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the grain
processing. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emission limi-
tations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania T 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Iowa - 0.15 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Wisconsin - 0.4 lbs/1000 Ibs gas
VI-39
-------
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr .... . :
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 51 tons/hour and 3,300 tons/hour. For a source with a process
weight of 51 tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 22.9 Ibs/hr (10.4 kg/hr) and Georgia is
representative of a lea:-t restrictive limitation, 44.8 Ibs/hr (20.3 kg/hr).
For sources with a process weight of 3300 tons/hr virtually all the
states have a process limitation of 94.1 Ibs/hr (42.7 kg/hr). New Hampshire
and Georgia, are typical of states that have particulate limitations
for such large sources.
Process Weight Rate Basis for^ Existing Sources; The majority of states
express process limitations for existing sources in terms of Ibs/hr for
a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of 51
tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
32.5 Ibs/hr (14.7 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 57.2 Ibs/hr (25.9 kg/hr). For a process weight
rate of 3300 tons/hr, Indiana is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 94.1 Ibs/hr (42.7 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 876 Ibs/hr (397 kg/hr).
Table VT-20 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations for
grain processing.
TABLE VI-20
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM GRAIN PROCESSING
Type of
Operation i Control
Milling, Uncontrolled*
Milling, Hoods &
Cyclones*
Starch Extraction,
Uncontrolled**
Starch Extraction,
Centrifugal Gas
Scrubber**
Z
Control
0
90
0
97
Emissions
Ibs/hr kg/hr
158 79
15.8 7.9
26,400 12,040
792 359
Limitations Ibs/hr / kg/hr
New
MA
32.0/14.5
32.0/14.5
NH
94.1/42.7
94.1/42.7
GA
44.8/20.3
44.8/20.3
/,
Existins
UT 85X
23.7/24.2
-
3760/1796
-
CO
32.5/14.7
32.5/14.7
Ind.
94.1/42.7
94.1/42.7
Miss.
5?'.2/25.9
57.2/25.9
MISS
876/397
876/397
*Based on 51 tons/hr. **Based on 3,300 tons/hr.
VI-40
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; For grain processing
operations described in Section D, existing control technology is marginal
to meet the most stringent limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. . References:
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on grain processing include
the following:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standard of Performance
for New Sourcc-s, Grain Handling & Milling Industry (Draft), Environmental
Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA, Contract
No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 4, July 15, 1971.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Revised), EPA, Publication
No. AP-42, February 1972.
3. First, M. W., W. Schilling, J. H. Govan, A. H. Quinby, "Control of Odors and
Aerosols from Spent Grain Dryers," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associ-
ation. Volume 24, Number 7, July 1974.
4. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources, PEDCO, Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA, Contract
No. 68-02-0607, July 1973.
5« jExhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering Sciences,
Inc., EPA, Contract No. EHSD71-36, October 2, 1971.
6. Hopper, Thomas G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 19S5 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Vol, II, Industrial Factors, Starch.
VI-41
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Grain - Screening and Cleaning
C. Source Description;
Handling of grain in preparation for storage is a multistep operation. After
the grain is harvested, it goes through the following seven steps:
1. unloading - truck, rail, barge, ship,
2. cleaning,
3. drying,
4. turning,
5. blending,
6. separation, and
7. loading. (3) 3-61,3-62
Several of these are discussed in other sections of this report.
The cleaning of grain removes foreign objects that are picked up during har-
vesting and handling. The cleaning is done in two steps. First, the larger
foreign objects are removed by passing the uncleaned grain through coarse screens.
Second, an air aspirator removes chaff, fibers, and dust. The particles of
foreign material are entrained by the aspirator's air stream. C1) 7~3 After these
two operations, the grain is graded hy passing it through vibrating screens. (O 7~8
D. Emission Rate;
The particulate emission rate for cleaning and screening of grain is de-
pendent upon the type of grain being processed, and to some extent, growing and
harvesting conditions. Typical emission rates for screen, cleaning, and associ-
ated operations are presented in Table VI-21.
TABLE VI-21
PARTICULAR EMISSIONS FROM GRAIN SCREENING AND CLEANING
Type of
Operation & Control
Cleaning, Screening, Uncontrolled
Cleaning, Screening, Controlled
by Cyclones
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unolading, Controlled
by Cyclones .
%
Control
0
91
0
91
Particulate Emissions (As Grain nuot)(.2)
(Based on 300 l:o 1500 ton/hr)
grain
Ib/ton
5
.45
1-2
.09-. 18
kfi/ton
2.3
.20
.45-. 91
.04-. 08
Ib/hr
1500-7500
135- 675
300-3000
27- 270
kfi/hr
680-3401
61- 306
136-1360
12- 122
VI-42
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Particulate emissions from cleaning and screening can be controlled by
cyclones or fabric filters. Since stringent control of particulate emissions
from grain handling operations will probably be required in the future, fabric
filters will be used. Fabric filters have an efficiency of 99 percent, while
cyclones are 91 percent efficient.(2)
In a typical collection system, the dust is removed from the processing
area by a special ventilation system. The exhaust of the ventilation system
is passed through a fabric filter system, and the cleaned gases are discharged
to the atmosphere.(2)
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for grain screening and cleaning.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to grain
screening and cleaning. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin has a specific regulation for grain processing:
Wisconsin - 0.4 lbs/1000 Ibs gas
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process'industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
VI-43
-------
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis Specifically for Grain Screening; Pennsylvania
has a regulation specifically for grain screening. For a 300 ton/hour
process outlined in Section D, an emission rate of 91.5 Ibs/hr (41.5 kg/hr)
is the maximum allowable. For a 1500 ton/hour process outlined in
Section D, an emission rate of 180 Ibs/hr (81.6 kg/hr) is the maximum
allowable.
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 300 tons/hour and 1500 tons/hour. For sources with a process
weight rate of 300 tons/hour, Massachusetts is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 31.5 Ibs/hr (14.3 kg/hr) and Georgia is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 60.1 Ibs/hr (27.3 kg/hr).
For sources with a process weight rate of 1500 tons/hr, New Hampshire is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 83.0 Ibs/hr (37.6 kg/hr) .
and Georgia is representative of a least restrictive limitation of 85.2
Ibs/hr (36.6 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 300 tons/hr, .Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 43.1 Ibs/hr (19.5 kg/hr) and Mississippi is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 176.9 Ibs/hr (80.2
kg/hr). For a process weight rate of 1500 tons/hr, Indiana is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 85.2 Ibs/hr (38.6 kg/hr)
and Mississippi is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
534 Ibs/hr (242 kg/hr).
Table VI-22 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations
for grain screening and cleaning.
TABLE VI-22
PARTICULATE EMISSION S AND LIMITATION'S FROM GRAIN SCREEN ING AND CLEANING
Type of Operation
4 Control
Cleaning & Scrocninp, , Uncontrolled
Cleaning & Screening, Cyclones
Unloading. Uncontrolled
Unloading, Cyclones
Cleaning 4 Scrao.nir.c, Uncontrolled
Cleaning S Screening, Cyclones
Unloading, Uncontrolled
Unloading, Cyclones
1.
Control
0
91
0
91
0
91
0
91
Missions
Ibs/hr/kg/lir
(based on 300 tons/hr)
1500/680
135/61
300/136
27/12
(hascid on :>.5&0 tons/hr)
7500/3401
675/306
3000/1360
270/122
Limitations Ibs/hv/kR/hr
Now
MA
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
Nil
83/37.6
83/37.6
83/37.6
83/37.6
CA
60.1/27.3
60.1/27.3
60.1/27.3
60.1/27.3
C.A
85.2/36.6
85.2/36.6
85.2/36.6
85.2/36.6
Exi.stl-.iR
UT
225/102
225/102
45/20..4
45/20.4
UT
1125/510
1125/510
450/204
450/204
Col.
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
Ind.
85.2/38.6
85.2/38.6
85. 2/38. 6
85.2/38.6
Miss.
176.9/80.2
176.9/S0.2
176.9/80.2
176.9/80.2
Miss.
534/242
534/242
534/242
534/242
VI-44
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; For the grain
screening and cleaning operation described in Section D, existing control
technology is adequate to meet current limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
References used in preparation of this summary on grain cleaning and screening
include the following;
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Grain Handling & Milling Industry (Draft),
Environmental Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc.
2. Thimsen, D. S., P. W. Aften, A Proposed Design for Grain Elevator Dust
Collection, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 18,
Number 11, November 1968.
3. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for
Air Pollution Sources, PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. 68-02-0607, July 1973.
VI-45
-------
A. Source Category; VI Food and Agricultural Industry
B. Sub Category; Vegetable Oil Manufacturing
C. Source Description;
Many types of vegetable oils are manufactured for the food and other industries.
Vegetable oil not consumed by the food industry is used in the manufacture of
paints. (t*)6-ll»3 -p^e major vegetable oils include:
1. soybean,
2. cottonseed,
3. corn,
4. linseed,
5. peanut, and
6. safflower oil
in order of quantities produced yearly. t1/ 1-2
Processing vegetable seeds into vegetable oil includes:
1. dehulling,
2. disintegration of seed meats,
3. cooking of meats, and
A. oil extraction. CO2"1 » •1~"
After the seeds are cleaned, using air separators, screens and magnets, they are
dehulled. The dehulling increases the protein content of oil and the production
capacity. C1)2"5
The insides of the dehulled seeds, the meats, are crushed to allow for easier
processing. The crushing is usually done by a rolling process. The crushed seed
meats present the maximum surface area for the minimum volume to the extraction
process. O)2~s
The cooking of the seed meats ruptures the oil cells and removes the liquid
fraction from the seed meats.
The actual extraction of the oil is done in several manners depending upon the
type of oil being produced and the particular plant involved. 0)2-6
The oldest extraction process involves pressing the seeds in a screw press or
hydraulic press. Those plants utilizing presses for oil extraction are equipped
with continuous feed screw presses as opposed to the hydraulic press, which cannot
be continuously fed. The screw pressing process is detailed in Figure VT-llX1)2-8.2- 9
Oil extraction from soybeans utilizes a solvent extraction technique. Today
almost all vegetable oil, with the exception of cottonseed, is recovered by solvent
extraction. Solvent extraction diffuses solvent and oil through the cell walls of
the seed meats/1)2"10
VI-46
-------
PRETREATED
OILSEED MEAT
COOUXf. WATER
I or, on, IN
CAKE
1
SCRKKMHC
TANK
I
FILTRATION
1
1
BAGGING
I
CRUDE
OIL STORAGE
t
HEAL
10 OIL REFINING
.rtf.urc VI-11; Contlimous Feed Scrcu Press for Oil Extraction
The solvent extraction process is either continuous or in batches. The two
different types of extraction employed include:
1. percolation extraction and
2. countercurrent extraction.
The usual solvent employed is hexane; however, trichloroethylene is used in small
batch operations.U)2~ 10
The solvent is removed from the solvent-oil mixture in a long tube evaporator
and completed in a stripping column. About 90 percent of the solvent is removed
by the tube evaporator, and sparge steam is used in the stripping column to remove
the remainder of the solvent. A typical solvent extraction process is diagrammed
in Figure VI-12. U;2-ll • "
VI-47
-------
PROCESSES KZATS
01 PREPRZSSEi— j!ll»-
CAXZ
_, HEXA.-.-E VA?OR
f
Lr.XA.SE
T
SOLVENT
CONTACT TAir,;
•"•AT-; s^_
KISCELUMEOUS
h>~
|
EVAPORATOR
I
STOII Oil SU?CR-
_ _-KiTiI>.liF.&.'<5._
STRIPPING
COLUMN'
4
STEAM
l_
Y
OIL TO BE
REFINED
VI-12; Contlnuoua Plow Solvent Extraction Proctit
. For Vegetable Oil >:i.nufactura
CA)£ TO IE
CSOJKD
After the solvent has been recovered, the remaining mixture of vegetable
oil, free fatty acids, phosphatides, and other foreign matter is refined. The
refining process includes six steps:
1. Removal of color bodies by absorption in a process
requiring continuous mixing oi' heattu oil In cii.1ute
caustic soda.
2. Centrifuging the oil-reagent mixture in refined oil
and s'oap stock.
3. Secondary refining of oil by mixing the heated oil
with hot water and centrifuging the mixture to
remove remaining soap stock.
A. Vacuum drying of rerefined oil to remove additional
water.
5. Distillation of the volatile contents of the refined,
bleached, and hydrogenated oil.
6. Final processing including interesterif ication and
winterization of oil. C1
This process is diagrammed in Figure VI-13.^2)
D. Emission R.ate;
Two types of emissions are attributed to the manufacture of vegetable oil.^- '
Particulate discharges occur during:
1. cleaning,
2. delinting,
3. dehulling, and
4. meal grinding
operations,. Hydrocarbon emissions occur during removal of the solvent from the
oil-solvent mixture consisting of hexane vapors. C1) 3~1"3"2 Particulate emissions
VI-48
-------
CRUDE OIL
CAUSTIC
SODA SOLUTION
j I
WASH
V'ATKR
pp.opor.no
rnp
I
::v.:<:
I'ROI'OP.TIOIIIMC
TOT
MIXER
*
IIEATKR
I
•
CE.TRIFUCE
f
I
IH-VvTBR
•
MIXER
1
OIL
HKATEil
ISOAPSTOCK
REPINED OIL-
SOAPY
WATER
Figure VI-13; Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Process
from the manufacture of soybean oil are presented in Table VI-25.(5)295-296
About 80 percent of the total yearly production of vegetable oil is soybean
oil.C1)1"2 The processing of soybeans involves eight steps which emit
particulates to the atmosphere.
TABLE VI-25A
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM SOYBEAN OIL MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation and Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture
Hull Toaster, Uncontrolled
Hull Toaster, Cyclone
Flake Roll Aspirator, Uncontrolled
Flake Roll Aspirator, Cyclone
Primary Dehulling, Uncontrolled
Primary Dehulling, Cyclone
Hull Screen & Conveyor, Uncontrolled
Hull Screen & Conveyor, Cyclone
Meal Cooler, Uncontrolled
Meal Cooler, Cyclone
Meal Dryer, Uncontrolled
Meal Dryer , Cyclone
White Flake Cooling, Uncontrolled
White Flake Cooling, Cyclone
Forsberg Screens, Uncontrolled
Forsbere Screens, Cyclone
%
Control
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
0
99*
Total Participate Emissions^3'6"9
(Based on 4.1 ton/hr Oil)
Ib/ton
46.
0.5
69.
0.7
173.
1.7
12.
0.1
102.
1.0
6.
0.06
526.
5.3
12.
0.1
kg/ton
23.
0.2
34.5
.3
86.5
.9
6.
0.06
51.
0.5
3.
0.03
263.
2.6
6.
•0.06
Ib/hr
188.
1.9
284.
2.8
710.
7.1
49.2
.5
418.
4.2
24.6
.2
2150.
21.5
49.2
.5
kp./hr
'85.4
.9
129.
1.3
323.
3.2
22.4
0.2
190.
1.9
11.2
.1
976.
9.8
22.3
.2
*Hopper, T., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume I
VI-49
-------
The total of all particulate emissions from the above sources is 9.46 Ib/ton
(4.74 kg/ton) of vegetable oil for controlled plants. For uncontrolled plants,
the total for all sources is 946 Ib/ton (474 kg/ton) of vegetable oil.
Hydrocarbon emissions from newer plants arise from solvent handling operations,
Most operations utilize hexane, and about one-half gallon of hexane per ton of
seed processed is lost as hydrocarbon emissions. The following table details
hydrocarbon emissions from vegetable oil manufacturing.^'2"13
TABLE VI-25B
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM SOYBEAN OIL MANUFACTURE
Operntion & Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Uncontrolled
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Solvent Extraction
%
Control
0
99*
Hydrocarbon Kmissions(2) 2-5
Ib/ton oil
/..I
.04
kg /ton oil
2.1
.02
(based on A.I tons/hr)
Ib/hr
16.9
.2
kg/hr
7.7
.09
* Hexane 6.5 Ibs/gal, 1.47 tons seed/ton oil
E. Control Equipment:
Equipment used to control participate emissions is separate from and different
from that used to control hydrocarbon emissions.
With the exception of delinting of cottonseeds in the cotton ginning process,
high efficiency cyclones are used to control particulate emissions in seed handling
operations. ' ^ ^"l"1*"2 Bag filters could be used and would be more efficient but
more costly.(1'1+~2~lf~3
Control of hexane vapors from solvent recovery operations is important because
of its cost because it poses a fire hazard and is toxic in relative low concentra-
tions. U)1*-1* Hexane is recovered using condensers and oil absorption units. Any
hexane not recovered through the control equipment is burned in an afterburner.
Hexane may also be collected in carbon absorbing towers, but this method is usually
employed only in older plants.
VI-50
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No new source performance standards
have been promulgated for vegetable oil manufacture.
State RogulntJons for Mew and Existing Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission reflations arc patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useagc is categorized by three basic
types. 'These arc, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive so]vents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than'20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an o.1 efinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic .compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive ' 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive ; 3000 450
• .^ Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15*lbs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylenc, benzene, acetone and Ci-Ccn-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such ar, North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
VI-51
-------
Table VT.-26 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emission limitations
from vegetable oil manufacturing.
TABLE VI-26
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND _.LIMITATJ.;QjjS_ERQM
"VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation
and Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Uncontrolled
Soybean Oil Manufacture,
Solvent Extraction
%
Control
0
99
Emissions
Ibs/hr/kg/hr
16.9/7.7
.2/. 09
Limitations
Ibs/hr/kg/hr
Heated
3
3
•1.4
1.4
Unheated
8
8
3.6
3.6
Pajrticulate Regulations
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission regulations
for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state. There
are four types of regulations that are applicable to vegetable oil manufacture. The
four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and New
Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard
cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these five states are:
Alaska -
Delaware
Pennsylvania -
Pennsylvania -
Washington -
Washington
New Jersey -
0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
VI-52
-------
-Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of poundsi/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet
per niimite. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr ...... . :
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 4.1 tons/hr. For sources with a process weight rate of 4.1 tons/
hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
4.4 Ibs/hr (2.0 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation,10.4 Ibs/hr (4.7 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express process limitations for existing sources in terms of Ibs/hr
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate '
of 4.1 tons/hr, Florida is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 8.5 Ibs/hr (3.9 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 10.7 Ibs/hr (4.9 kg/hr).
Table VI-26B presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations
from vegetable oil.
TA1-.1.E VI-26B
PARTICULATE EMISS10SS AND LIMITATIONS FROM
VKCKTABLE OIL MANUFACTURING
Type of Operation
and Control
Soybean Oil Manufacture
Hull Toaster, Uncontrolled
Hull Toaster, Cyclone
Flake Roll Aspirator, Uncontrolled
Flake Roll Aspirator, Cyclone
Priicary Dehulling, Uncontrolled
Primary Dehulling, Cyclone
Hull Screen & Conviyor, Uncontrolled
Hull Screen & Conveyor, Cyclone
Meal Cooler, Uncontrolled
Meal Cooler, Cyclone
Meal Dryer, Uncontrolled
Meal Dryer, Cyclone
White Flake Cooling, Uncontrolled
White Flake Cooling, Cyclone
Forsberg Screens, Uncontrolled
Foreberg Screens, Cyclone
7.
Control
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
0
99
Emissions
based on 4.1 tons/hr
Ib/hr kR/hr
188. 85.3
1.9 .9
284. 129.
2.8 1.3
710. 323.
7.1 3.2
45.2 22.4
.5 .2
418. 190.
4.2 1.9
24.6 11.2
.:» .1
2150. 976.
21.5 9.8
49.1! 22.3
.5 .2
Limitations Ibs/hr/kg/hr
New
MA
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
4.4/2.0
RH
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7.
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
Existing
Florida
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
B.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
• 8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9 '
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
6.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
8.5/3.9
Kiss.
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.5
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
10.7/4.9
IT 855!
28.2/12.8
42.6/19.3
107/48.5
6.8/3.1
62.7/284
3.7/1.7
323. /147
7.4/3.4
VI-53
-------
--g: Coinpliance and Emission Limitation; Absorption of hexane
vapors is performed to conserve an expensive solvent and reduce the hazards of
explosion. Controlled, a plant producing 4.1 tons/hour vegetable oil meets
current hydrocarbon restrictions. Existing participate control technology
is adequate to meet current limitations.
The Environmental Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used in preparation of this summary on vegetable oil manufacturing
includes the follov?ing:
1. Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for Hew Sources, Vegetable Oil Industry (Draft), Environmental
Engineering, Inc., EPA, Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 9h,
July 15, 1971.
2. Hopper, T., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources. Volume I.
3. Impact »i_Kuw So'jrce rerforr.ianr-p. _Gtan_dards on .19 B 5 Motional Km_i_s_g_ion s
From Stationary Sources, Volume II, Emission Factors, Vegetable Gi1^
Manuf a c t ur ing, Marrone.
4. Baumeister, Theodore, Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers,
McGrax7-Hill Book Company, New York, Seventh Edition.
5. Mumma, C. E., T. E. Weast, Larry J. Shannon, Trace Pollutants from
Agricultural MacerjLa] Processes (Draft), EPA, Contract No. 68-02-1324,
Task No. 2,~June 4, 1974.
6. Priorization of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation Contract No. 68-02-0230, February, 1975.
VI-54
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category: Cast Iron Foundries (Electric Furnaces)
C. Source Description:
Iron foundries produce iron castings from molten iron through a number of
distinct and interconnected operations which include:
1. raw materials storage and handling,
2. melting,
3. pouring into molds,
4. muld dumping, and
5. casting cleaning.
The process flow in the foundry melting department is shown in Figure
l-AC'.f
ADDITIONS
KETALUOS
CIWXGE
i
FlUX
C.IASCE
i
run.
CIU.1GE
VII-1; Process Flow Diagram. Malting Department
An electric arc furnace is used in the melting of iron scrap to produce
grey iron. The furnace consists of a refractory lined, cup shaped, steel shell
with a refractory lined roof through which three graphite electrodes are in-
serted. Scrap iron is charged to the furnace and melted, and alloying elements
and fluxes are added as needed. Electric arc furnaces have rapid and accurate
heat control. The high temperatures of the arcs produce dense fumes consisting
of iron and other metal oxides plus organic particulates from oil and other
contaminants in the scrap.
VII-1
-------
Core-type electric induction furnaces are used for melting cast iron where high
quality, clean, dry, grease free metal is available for charging. The furnace consists
of a drum-shaped -vessel that converts electrical energy into heat by setting up a mag-
netic field when the primary coil of the transformer is energized. Alternating
current is passed through a primary coil with a solid iron core. The molten iron
is contained within a loop that surrounds the primary coil and acts as a secondary
coil. The current flowing through the primary coil induces a current in the loop,
and the electrical resistance of the molten metal creates the heat for melting.
The heated metal circulates to the main furnace chamber and is replaced by cooler
metal. Figures Vll-a^-lSand VII-3(2)IV-20 respectively illustrate the electric •
arc and the induction furnaces. The average process weight rate for electric
furnaces is 900 Ibs/hr or 3,950 tons per year{"0Cast'Iron Foundry (Furnaces)
D. Emission Rates;
The melting department produces the majority of emissions in the foundry.
These emissions consist of particulate matter, fumes, smoke, and vaporized metal
oxides. The quantity of these emissions is a function of the quality and com-
position of charge materials and the temperature of the bath. These emissions
are greatest during the melt-down phase of the cycle and less after the melting is
completed. The uncontrolled and controlled particulate emissions from electric
furnaces are presented in Table VII-1. (3)7 •1(* ~l
TABLE VII-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM CAST IRON FOUKDRIES, (ELECTRIC FURNACES)
Type of Operation and Control
Electric induction furnace,
uncontrolled
Electric arc furnace,
uncontrolled
Electric arc furnace,
with baghouse
Electric arc furnace,
with electrostatic precipitator
Particulate Emissions (based on 3,950 tons/yr)
% Control
0
0
99
99
Ibs/ton
_rTT
1.5
0.015
0.015
kg/rat
_—
0.75
0.0075
0.0075 .
Ibs/hr
__
0.68
0.0068
0.0068
kg/hr
Mt_
0.31
0.0031
0.0031
E. Control Equipment;
Baghouses and electrostatic precipitators are used to reduce emissions from
electric arc furnaces by 95 to 99%. CO Cast Iron Foundry (Furnaces) Elaborate
facilities for cooling the effluent gas stream from the furnace are not needed.
However, a shaking mechanism and compartmentation mus,t be provided for baghouses
while precipitator use may require sprayers or afterburners to heat and humidify
the gases vented to the control device. Generally, pollution control devices
are not used on induction furnaces. Table VII-1 shows the controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from electric furnaces in cast iron foundries.
VH-2
-------
TRANSFORMER
I
i-i
V
OJ
ELECTRONIC
CONTROLS
MAINTAIN
FP.OPER ARC
CHARGING
MACHINE
CHARGES
THROUGH
THIS DOOR
CIRCUIT
BREAKER
ELECTRODES
FLOOR CUT AWAY
TO SHOW TILTING
MECHANISM .
CONTROL
PANEL
TAPPING SPOUT
Figure VII-2; Illustration of Electric Arc Furnace
Figure VII-3: Illustration of Channel Induction Furnace
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8, 1974, EPA pro-
mulgated "New Source Performance Standards" for iron and steel plants. However,
these standards pertain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such, the electric
furnaces described in Section D are controlled by individual state regulations
covering general processes and/or specifically electric furnaces.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission regulations
for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state.
There are four types of regulations applicable to electric arc furnaces. The
four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are: „
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.-02 grains/standard cubic foot
Iowa has a limitation specifically for electric furnaces in iron
foundries. The limitation is:
Iowa - 0.10 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hr for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.0 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Wisconsin and Michigan have regulations specifically for electric
furnaces in iron foundaries. These limitations are expressed in terms
of pounds per 1,000 pounds of flue gas. The limitations are:
VII-4
-------
Wisconsin - .11 lbs/1,000 Ibs flue gas
Michigan - .10 lbs/1,000 Ibs flue gas
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 0.45 tons/hr. For sources with a process weight rate of 0.45
tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 1.3 Ibs/hr (0.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 2.4 Ibs/hr (1.1 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 0.45 tons/hr, Florida is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 2.1 Ibs/hr (1.0 kg/hr) and Missouri is representative of
a least restrictive limitation, 4.1 Ibs/hr (1.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources: Pennsylvania has a
general limitation on iron foundry melting operations. The limitation
in Pennsylvania is determined by the equation:.
A = .76E-4-
where A = allowable emissions Ibs/hr
E = emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or charging rate,
units/hr.
For the. melting operation examined in Section D, melting 900 Ibs/hr,
substitution into the above equation results with an allowable
limitation of 4.46 Ibs/hr. Table VII-2 presents the uncontrolled and
controlled emissions and limitations for electric arc furnaces.
TABU: vn-2
PA8TICIH.ATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATION'S FP-OM CAST. IRON FOTODRIF.S (ELECTRIC UiRNACES)
Type of Operation and Controls
Electric Induction furnace.
uncontrolled
Electric arc furnace,
uncontrolled
Electric arc furnace,
with luc.houoe
Electric ore furnace,
wit!) electrostatic preclplracor
Z
Conrro)
0
0
99
99
Particulate
Emissions
(based on
39SO tons/vr)
Jbs/hr
0.68
0.0068
0.0068
kfi/nr
0.31
0.0031
0.0031
.
Limitations (bhbs/hr/kg/hr
Iron General Process Industries
Melting New Sources Existing Sources
1'A
4. 46/2. 02
4.46/2.02
4.46/2.02
4.46/2.02
MA
1.3/0.6
1.3/0.6
1.3/0.6
1.3/0.6
NH
2.4/1.1
2.4/1.1
2.4/1.1
2.4/1.1
Florida
2.1/1.0
2.1/1.0
2.1/1.0
2.1/1.0
Missouri
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
Utah
85X Control
' -/- .
.102/.046
VII -5
-------
Potential Point Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Electric arc
furnaces melting 900 Ibs/hour meet even the most restrictive emission limitations
uncontrolled.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on cast iron foundries
using electric furnaces include the following:
(1) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume I. Text. A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc. EPA Contract No.
CPA 22-69-106. February, 1971.
(2) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume II. Exhibits. A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc. EPA Contract
No. CPA 22-69-106. February, 1971.
(3) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA.
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(4) Hopper. T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II. (Final Report). TRC - The
Research Corporation of New England. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task
#3, October 24, 1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans,- Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract No. 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Three sources which were not used directly but which could provide additional
information on cast iron foundries using electric furnaces include:
(6) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume III, Appendix. A.T. Kearney & Company, Inc. EPA Con-
tract No. CPA 22-69-106. February, 1971.
(7) Danielson, J.A. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
(8) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Per-
formance for New Sources. Gray Iron Foundries (Draft). Environmental
Engineering, Inc. and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract
No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 2. March 15, 1971.
VII-6
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Cast Iron Foundries (Cupola Furnace)
C. Source Description:
Cast iron foundries produce iron castings from molten iron through a number
of distinct but interconnected operations which include:
(1) raw materials storage and handling,
(2) melting, and
(3) pouring into molds.
The process flow in the foundry melting department, which is the principal source
of foundry emissions, is shown in Figure VII-4.(2)IV-9 Approximately 90% of the
metal poured in cast iron foundries is melted in cupola.s, but these are being -re-
placed by electric furnaces.(^ Cast Iron F°undary (Furnaces)
UCU
ADDITIONS
rjn.
KETAI.UCS
CHARCE
i
1
1 i
KCVERP.ERATORY
AIR
FU3XACE
ELECT? 10
IkTUCTION
rUIil^ACE
1
11 OLD 1K3
FWKACE
1 .
ru*
CKAtCC
CUP03-A
TJRKACE
Figure VII-11: Process Flow Diagram
Melting Department
VII-7
-------
In its simplest form, the gray iron cupola is a vertical, hollow shaft having
a steel shell lined with refractory brick or backed by a water curtain for temper-
ature control. A charging door located above the bottom of the cupola admits the
charge which consists of alternate layers of coke, iron materials, and flux.
Tuyeres, located near the bottom of the cupola, admit air for combustion. Provi-
sion is made for removing slag and molten iron from openings below the tuyeres,
the iron being tapped from the bottom level and slag skimmed from above the iron.
Figure VII-5 shows a schematic diagram of a conventional lined cupola.(2)IV-16
The average cupola melting rate is 10.6 tons of iron per hour, or 93,000 tons per
year. CO257 ..
Stock
Skip-hoist roil
Brick lining—"
Cost iron lining-'
Chorging door-
Refroclory lining
Wind box
Bloil duct
-Iron trough
Tophole 'or iron
(slog hole u 180*
opposite)
Sond bed
Door (l of 2)
Prop
Conventionol cupolo
Figure VII-5: Illustration of Conventional Lined Cupola
VII-8
-------
D. Emission Rates;
As the source of molten iron for the production of castings, the cupola is
the largest source of particulate emissions from cast iron foundries. Cupola
emissions include fume, smoke, and gas as well as particulate matter. Particulate
emissions from cupolas depend on the following:
(1) furnace design,
(2) charging practice,
(3) quantity and quality of charged materials,
(A) quantity of coke used,
(5) melting zone temperature,
(6) volume and rate of combustion air, and
(7) use of techniques such as oxygen enrichment and
fuel injection.
Table VII-3 lists typical particulate emission rates from cupolas.'5)7.10-1
TABLE VII-3
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM CAST IRON FOUNDRIES (CUPOLAS)
Type of
Operation & Controls
Cupola, Uncontrolled,
Cupola, with Wet Cap
Cupola, with Impingement Scrubber
Cupola, with High-Energy Scrubber
Cupola, with Electrostatic Precipitator
Cupola, with Baghouse
% •
Control
0
62.9
70.6
95.3
96.5
98.8
Part :'. ci.i.Ui.iiii Emissions
(Based on 93,000 tons/vr)
Ib/ton
17
8
5
0.8
0.6
0.2 .
kR/MI
8.5
4
2.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
Ib/hr
180.
85.
53.
8.5
6.4
2.1
ku/hr
82
39
24
3.9
2.9
1.0
E. Control Equipment;
Because of the widespread use of cupolas for melting, the severity and complexity
of the cupola emissions problem, and the generally high costs of collection equipment,
efficient and cost effective control methods and techniques have necessarily been em-
ployed on cupolas more than on any other foundry process. Every known method of
control has been tried with varying degrees of success. Among those collection sys-
tems which have been used are:
(1) wet caps,
(2) dry collectors,
(3) wet collectors,
(4) fabric filters, and
(5) electrostatic precipitators.
VII-9
-------
Wet caps are placed directly on top of cupola stacks and therefore require
no gas-conducting pipes or pressure-increasing blowers. However, due to their
low collection efficiencies, they no longer enjoy the popularity they once did.
Dry collectors such as centrifugal dust collectors remove 70%-80% of the
particulate matter from the gas stream provided that the proportion of smaller
particles is not too high.
High energy venturi scrubbers are capable of removing 95% of the particulate
emissions from cupolas. Variable throat venturi scrubbers are especially useful
for cupola operation because their pressure drop can be adjusted to achieve a
desired efficiency.
Glass fabric filters are often selected as cupola control equipment when
collection efficiencies approaching 99% are needed. Fabric filter units can be
installed to handle more than one cupola if desired.
Electrostatic precipitators, which also reduce particulate emissions by more
than 95%, have been used in very few applications in the United States. This is
due largely to comparatively high capital costs as well as operating and mainten-
ance problems.
Table VII-3 shows both the uncontrolled and controlled particulate emissions
from foundry cupolas.
F» New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards CNSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for cupola furnaces.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the cupola
furnace. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
VII-10
-------
Massachusetts, Michigan and Connecticut have regulations specifically
for iron foundry cupolas.
Massachusetts - 0.10 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
(production foundry)
Massachusetts - 0.40 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
(jobbing foundry)
Michigan 0-10 tons/hr - 0.40 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
Michigan 10-20 tons/hr - 0.25 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
Michigan over 20 tons/hr- 0.15 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
Connecticut - 0.8 lbs/1000 Ibs of flue gas or
85% reduction
Contro] Cf f i .cic_ncy_Ba_s_is_; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Has is; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates arc as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis fo£ New and Existing Specific Sources: Several
states have adopted specific regulations for cupola emissions expressed
in terms of pounds/hr for a wi.de range of process weight rates. For a
process rate of 10.6 tons/hour, New Hampshire's limitation of 19.8
Ibs/hr (9.0 kg/hr) for new sources is representative of a stringent
limitation. The following states are representative of states that have
limitations for existing cupolas with a 10.6 ton/hr process weight
rate:
New Hampshire - 24.4 Ibs/hour (11.1 kg/hr)
Georgia - 25.8 Ibs/hour (11.7 kg/hr)
Illinois - 25.1 Ibs/hour (11.4 kg/hr)
Indiana - 24.7 Ibs/hour (11.2 kg/hr)
Oklahoma - 25.1 Ibs/hour (11.4 kg/hr)
Tennessee - 25.1 Ibs/hour (11.4 kg/hr)
Pennsylvania does not have a regulation specifically for cupolas, but does
have one for iron foundry melting. The limitation in Pennsylvania is determined.
by the equation:
A = 0.7GE°'lf2 where A = Allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = Emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = Process factor, Ibs/unit
W = Production or charging rate,
units/hr
For a cupola melting 10.6 tons of metal per hour, substitution, into the
equation results in an allowable emission limitation of 10.6 Ibs/hr (4.8 kg/hr)
Table VII-4 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
for cupolas in cast iron foundries.
VII--11
-------
TABLE VII-4
PAOTICULATB EMISSIOMS AMP LIMITATIONS FROM CAST IROH FOUNDRIES (CUPOLAS)
Type of
Operation &
Control
Cupola,
Uncontrolled
Cupola, with
Wet Cap
Cupola, with
Impingement
Scrubber
Cupola, with
High-Energy
Scrubber
Cupola, with
Electro-
Static
Precipitator
Cupola, with
Baghouse
X
Control
0
52.9
70.6
95.3
96.5
98.8
Particulatc
Emissions
(Based on
92,856
tons/vr)
Ib/hr
180
85
53
8.5
6.4
2.1
ks/hr
82
39
24
3.9
2.9
1.0
Limitations^ Ib/hr ) kg/hr
Iron
Foundries
PA
10/6/4.8
10.6/4.8
10.6/4.8
10.6/4.8
10.6/4.8
10.6/4.8
Cupolas
New Sources
Ml!
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
19.9/9.1
Existing Sources
GA
25.8/11.7
25.8/11.7
25.8/11.7
25.8/11.7
25.8/11.7
25.8/11.7
NH
24.4/11.1
24.4/11.1
24.4/11.1
24.4/11.1
24.4/11.1
24.4/11.1
CT 85Z
Control
27/14.8
27/14.8
2 7/14; 8
27/14.8
27/14.8
27/14.8
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: For the typical
cupola described in Section D, melting 10.6 tons/hour, baghouses, scrubbers,
and electrostatic precipitators are capable of controlling emissions to
meet even the most stringent regulations.
Tlie Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Sources listed below were used to develop the preceding discussion on cupola
furnaces in iron casting foundries:
(1) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
(2) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry. Volume II, Exhibits, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(3) Hopper, T. G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report), TRC - The
Research Corporation of New England, EPA, Contract No. 68-02-1382,
Task #3, October 24, 1975.
(4) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition.
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(5) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No0 AP-42, April 1973.
VII-12
-------
(6) Systems Analysis of Emission.!? and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume I, Text, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA, Contract
No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(7) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Two sources were not used directly but could provide additional information on
cupolas in cast iron foundries:
(8) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Gray Iron Foundries (Draft), Environmental
Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 2, March 15, 1971.
(9) Systems Analysis of End.ssions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume III, /• ndix, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 22-6$'- , .February 1971.
VII-13
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category: Cast Iron Foundries (Core Ovens)
C. Source Description:
Cores for iron castings are normally made of silica sand and organic or
inorganic binders. The core making process is illustrated in the flow diagram
in Figure VII-6.(2)IV-15 Sand, core premixes, resins, binders, and other
additives are measured by weight or volume and added to the mixer at appropriate
times in the mixing cycle. The core sand mix is then discharged from the mixer
and transferred to the core machines by conveyor or totebox.
TO IIOLD1KC AKLA
Figure VII-6: Process Flow Diagram
Core Making
VII-14
-------
After forming, those cores that achieve a primary or complete set while in the
core machine require no special handling, while those requiring an oven bake or
gasing are placed on a flat core plate or formed core dryer providing rigid support,
Oil sand cores requiring baking are transferred to gas or oil-fired ovens.
Light oil fractions and moisture in the sand are evaporated, followed by oxidation
and polymerization of the core oil. Baking makes the cores strong enough so that
they can Be handled while the mold is being made and will resist erosion and
deformation By metal when the mold is Being filled.
There are several types of core ovens in use depending on the size, shape, and
type of core that is needed. The five types of core ovens that find the most wide-
spread use are:
1. shelf ovens,
2. drawer ovens,
3. portaBle-rack ovens,
4. car ovens, and
5. conveyor ovens.
Most ovens are operated at temperatures between 300° and 400°F (149° and 204°C)
for baking periods ranging from less than an hour to overnight. The weight of
cores baked at any one time may range from less than one hundred pounds to more
than a ton.
D. Emission Rates:
The air contaminants discharged from core ovens consist of organic acids,
aldehydes, hydrocarbon vapors, and particulate matter. /The vapors are the result
of the evaporation of hydrocarbon solvents and the light ends usually present in
core oils. The organic acids and aldehydes are the result of partial oxidation
of the various organic material in the cores.
In general, emission rates are low, especially from small- and medium-sized
ovens operating at 400°F (204°C) or less. Large amounts of emissions can generally
be expected from ovens operated at higher temperatures and from which the cores
baked contain larger than normal amounts of core oils. . Table VII-5 summarizes the
particulate and hydrocarbon emissions from core ovens.
'"
tJ ^*l»*i»fcfc* *. .*»*J*^« «.»•»*
Ovens,Iron Fndry
TABLE VII-5
.PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON,EMISSIONS FROM
CORE OVENS IN CAST IRON FOUNDRIES
Type of
Operation & Control
Core Ovens, Uncontrolled
Core Ovens, With Afterburner
X
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
ib/ton*
3.48
.35
kg/MT
1.74
.17
Ib/hr
0.20
.02
kg/hr
0.10
.01
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Ib/ton*
16.9
1.69
ke/MT
8.45
0.85
Ib/hr
1.0
0.05
kg/hr
0.5
0.02
* Ton of Cores Baked
+ Based on Actual Emission Data
VII-15
-------
,
L
E. Control Equipment:;
Most core ovens are vented directly to the atmosphere through a stack, as
they usually do not require air pollution control equipment. Excessive emissions
from core ovens have been reduced by modifying the composition of the core binders,
and lowering the baking temperatures. When neither of these approaches is feasible,
afterburners are the only control devices that have proved effective. Afterburners
that have been used for controlling emissions from core ovens are predominantly of
the direct flame type. Both controlled and uncontrolled particulate and hydrocarbon
emissions from core ovens are shown in Table VII-5.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No Ne\7 Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for core making in cast iron foundries.
State Regulations for Existing Sources; Particulate emission regulations for
varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state. There
are four types of regulations that are applicable to core making processes. The
four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 . - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VII-16
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
process limitations in terms of pounds per hour as a function of a
specific process weight rate. For the core oven process described
in Section D, an average process weight of 115 Ibs/hour was used. For
a process weight rate of this size, Massachusetts is representative of
a most restrictive limitation, 0.3 Ibs/hr (0.14 kg/hr) and New Hampshire
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 1.2 Ibs/hr
(.60 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general process limitations for particulate emissions in Ibs/hr
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of
115 Ibs/hr, New York is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
0.54 Ibs/hr (0.24 kg/hr) and Georgia is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 0.6 Ibs/hr (0.27 kg/hr).
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources for Hydrocarbons;
Currently, hydrocarbon emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles
Rule 66 and Appendix B type legislation. Organic solvent useage is
categorized by three basic types. These are, (1) heating of articles by
direct flame or baking with any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the
atmosphere of photochemically reactive solvents by devices that employ or
apply the solvent, (also includes air or heated drying of articles for the
first twelve hours after removal from //I type device) and (3) discharge
into the atmosphere of non-photochemically reactive solvents. For the
purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are defined as solvents of more
than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic .compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photocheraically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive; 3000 450
Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the. total volume, of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenated hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and Cj-c5n-
paraffins.
VII-17
-------
For both Appendix C and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even, if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/houi: values have been exceeded. Most stater, have regulations that
limit the. emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which ir,
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table VII-6 presents controlled and uncontrolled particulate and hydrocarbon
emissions and limitations from core ovens.
TABLE VII-6
PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSION'S A:1D LIMITATIONS FROM CORF. OVKKS
Type of
Operation
i Control
Core Ovens,
Uncontrolled
Core. Ovens,
vJth Afterb"-— .er
%
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 503
tons/yr)
Ibs/hr kR/hr
.20 .10
.02 .01
1 Limitations Ib/hr / ki-./nr i
Hydrocarbon E.rtiissions
(Based on 503
tons/yr)
Ibs/hr kp./hr
1.0 0.5
.05 0.02
iVnsral Processes 1
Particulale
MA
0.3/1.4
0.3/1. A
Georgia
0.6/0.27
0.6/0.27
UT E5X
Control
.03/.01
.03/.01
"Hydrocarbon
Heated
3
3
1.4
1.4
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Most core ovens are
vented directly co the atmosphere through a stack and do not require air pollu-
tion control equipment. From Table VII-6, it can be seen that even the most
restrictive limitations can be met without control equipment.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission regulations.
G. References:
The following literature was used to develop the information on core ovens:
(1) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume I, Text, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA, Contract
No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(2) Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emission Control in the Iron Foundry
Industry, Volume II, Exhibits, A. T. Kearney & Company, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 22-69-106, February 1971.
(3) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
VII-18
-------
(4) Hopper, T. G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report),
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England, EPA, Contract No.
68-02-1382, Task #3, October 1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans, Rules, and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(6) Priorization of Air Pollution from Industrial Surface Coating Operations,
Monsanto Research Corporation, Contract No. 68-02-0320, February 1975.
Two other references were consulted but not directly used to develop this
section on core ovens.
(7) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
(8) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources, Gray Iron Foundries, (Draft), Environmental
Engineering, Inc. and PEDCO Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA,
Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 2, March 15, 1971.
VII-19
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
C. Source Description:
Iron and steel plants contain a wide range of processes from preparation of
raw materials to production of a semifinished product for sale or further use.,
as shown in the iron and steel plant flow diagram in Figure VII-7.'1'2
IRON ORE x-
•»
COAL'
COKE OVEN
LIMESTONE
BLAST
FURNACE
OXYGEN
CONTINUOUS CASTING
BASIC
OXYGEN
^feSj
____
OPEN"HEA'RTH
FURNACE
INGOTS
FURNACE
Figure VII-7; Flow Diagram of an Iron and Steel Plant
BILLETS
VST***-™
^j^jjaCK iwViui
> i i ,. fr. INGOT TEEMING
The steel refining process removes undesirable elements in the metal by
chemical oxidation-reduction and is the heart of steel plants' processes. This
is accomplished in an open-hearth furnace, an electric furnace, or a EOF. Elec-
tric arc furnaces are used where small quantities of pig iron are available and
where remelting of steel scrap or small heats of special alloys are required.
Normally the furnace charge is 100% steel scrap plus alloying agents and fluxes.
The electric arc furnace is a cylindrical refractory-lined vessel with carbon
electrodes suspended from above. With the electrodes retracted, the roof is rotated
to permit the charge of scrap steel into the furnace. Alloying and slag materials
are added through doors on the side of the furnace. The current is switched to the
V1I-20
-------
electrodes as they descend into the furnace. The heat generated by the arc that
crosses Between the electrodes through the scrap melts the metal. The slag and
melt are poured by tilting the furnace. Figure VII-8 Shows the basic elements
of the electric-arc furnace.(^)8
CARBON
ELECTRODES
SCRAP.
LIMESTONE,
AND LIME
FURNACE
ROOF
MECHANISM THAT LIFTS
AND PIVOTS ROOF
FURNACE
ALLOY AND SLAG
ADDITIONS
CHARGING
SLAG
MOLTEN
STEEL
DESLAGGING AND TAPPING
Figure VII-8; Electric-Arc Steel Furnace
The electric-arc furnace lends itself to accurate control of temperature and
time of reaction for producing alloys. The furnace is usually charged with cold
steel scrap, but occasionally iron ore pellets or mol-ten metal are charged.
After the addition of the metal, fluxes, and other materials, the operation consists
of three phases:
(1) oxidation of undesirable elements and their removal
as slag;
VII-21
-------
(2) removal of carbon by reaction with oxygen;
(3) addition of materials to bring the alloy within the
desired specifications.
Electric arc furnaces vary in size, with capabilities ranging from 2 to 400
tons per batch. Each batch operation takes 1.5 to 10 hours per cycle, consisting
of:
(1) melt-down;
(2) boiling;
(3) refining;
(4) pouring.(2)21
A typical electric arc furnace will produce 245 tons of refined steel per day, or
89,425 tons annually.^2)4
D. Emission Rates:
Particulate emissions generated during electric furnace steel-making originate
from the following:
(1) physical nature of the scrap used;
(2) scrap cleanliness; ,
(3) nature of the melting operation;
(4) oxygen lancing;
(5) pouring (tapping).
"Most of the emissions originate during charging and refining. These emissions include
iron oxide fumes, sand.fines, graphite, and metal dust. Particulute emissions from
electric arc furnaces range from 4 to 30 pounds per ton of iron processed, with 10.6
pounds per ton as the median. (3)2tf^ These emissions are summarized in Table VII-7.
C3).2"7
TABLE VII-7
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
Type of
Operation & Control
Electric Arc Furnace,
Uncontrolled
Electric Arc Furnace,
with Baghouse
Electric Arc Furnace,
with Venturi Scrubber
Electric Arc Furnace,
with Electrostatic
Precipitator
%
Control
0
98-99
94-98
92-98
Particulate Emissions (Based on 89,425 Tons/yr)
Ib/Ton
10.6
0.21-0.11
0.64-0.21
0.85-0.21
kp^/MT
5.3
0.11 -0.055
0.32 -0.11
0.43 -0.11
Ib/hr
108
2.14-1.12
6.52-2.14
8.67-2.14
kR/hr
49
0.97-0.51
2.90-0.97
3.93-0.97
VII-22
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Particulate emissions from electric arc furnaces are captured with a hooding ar-
rangement at the furnace. The particulates are conveyed to a collection device that
has a high collection efficiency for small particles. The four types of hooding
arrangements include:
1. canopy-type hood, and/or building evacuation
•. . 2. plenum roof,
3. side-draft hood, and
4. direct furnace roof tap.
Fabric filters are the most commonly used device to remove particulates. Venturi
scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators are also used. When fabric filters are
used, the hot furnace gas must be cooled by water sprays, radiant coolers, dilution
air, or some combination of these to prevent degradation of the fabric. When a
precipitator is used, the gas is humidified to maximize the efficiency of the pre-
cipitator. The scrubber does not require any special treatment of the exhaust gas.
Removal efficiencies of these devices range from 92 to 99 percent as shown in
Table VII-7.C07-13-2
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
"ITf-w Source Performance Standards" for iron and steel plants in the Federal Register,
These standards are for basic oxygen furnaces.. As such, electric arc furnaces
described in Section D are controlled by individual state regulations covering
general processes and/or specifically electric arc furnaces.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations applicable to electirc
arc furnaces. The four types of regulations are based on;
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight..
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot
VII-23
-------
Iowa has a limitation specifically for electric furnaces in iron
foundries. The limitation is:
Iowa - ilO grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations for iron and steel plants in general. Their
limitation is expressed in terms of grains/dry standard cubic foot. The
states and limitations are:
Colorado - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot . . ••
Idaho - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - .022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hr for specific stack flow rates, expressed in actual
cubic, feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 10.0,000 acfm - 38.0 Ibs/hr
105 - 10G acfm - 158.6 .Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
general process limitations for new sources with process weight rates
of 10.2 tons/hour. For process of this size, Illinois is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 8.8 Ibs/hr (4.0 kg/hr) and New
Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 19.4
Ibs/hr (8.8 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
have adopted general process limitations for existing sources for
a wide range of process weight rates. For a process with a weight
rate of 10.2 tons/hour, Connecticut is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 9.9 Ibs/hr (4.5 kg/hr) and Illinois is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 12.3 Ibs/hr (5.6 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources:
Pennsylvania has a general limitation for iron foundry melting operations.
The limitation in Pennsylvania is determined by the equation:
/ 0
A = ,76E* where A = allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or charging rates,
units/hr
For the typical plant discussed in Section D, refining 10.2 tons per hour,
substitution into the equation will result in an allowable limitation of
VII-24
-------
10.4 Ibs/hr (4.7 kg/hr).
Table VII-8 presents the controlled and uncontrolled emissions and
limitations from electric arc furnaces.
TABLE VII-8
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
Type of
Operation t Control
Electric Arc Furnace,
.Uncontrolled
Electric Arc Furnace,
With Baghouse
Electric Arc Furnace,
With Venturi Scrubber
Electric Arc Furnace,
. With Electrostatic
Precipitator
Z
Control
0
98-99
94-98
92-98
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 89.425 tons/vr)
Ibs/hr
108
2.14-1.12
6.52-2.14
8.67-2.14
kR/hr
49
0.97-0.51
2.96-0.97
3.93-0.97
Limitations^) Ibs/hr/kg/hr ...
General Process Industries
New Sources
111.
8.8/4.0
8.8/4.0
8.8/4.0
8.8/4.0
Nil
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
19.4/8.8
Existing Sources
Conn.
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
9.9/4.5
111.
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
12.3/5.6
LT 85?, Control
16.2/7.4
16.2/7.4
16.2/7.4
16.2/7.4
FA
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing control
technology using either baghouses, venturi scrubbers, or electrostatic
precipitators is adequate to limit emissions from a 10.2 ton/hour electric
arc furnace to current limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission regulations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on electric arc furnaces
in the iron and steel industry are listed below:
1. Background Information for Standards of Performance; Electric Arc Furnace
in the Steel Industry, Volume I; Proposed Standards, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, EPA, 450/2-74-017a, October 1974.
2. Scheuneman, Jean L., M. D. High, W. E. Bye, R. A. Taft, Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-l,
June 1973.
3. Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edition, EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
VII-25
-------
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Several other sources could provide additional useful information on electric
arc furnaces in the iron and steel industry. These include:
6. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA-22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
7. Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards; Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters
and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel
Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants, Volume I, Main Text, EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, June 1973.
8. McGannon, H. E., The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, United
States Steel Corporation, 1964.
VH-26
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Iron and Steel Plants (Scarfing)
C. Source Description:
Scarfing removes surface defects in steel slabs, blooms, ingots,
and billets. Removal is accomplished by the use of oxygen torches which direct jets
of oxygen at the surface of the hot steel, causing localized melting and subsequent
oxidation of the steel. In addition to the oxygen, a fuel gas i"s used to elevate
the temperature of a spot on the steel surface so the oxygen and steel will ..
combine chemically. Scarfing operations are carried out either manually or
mechanically.
The largest tonnage of all conditioned steel is processed by hand scarfing of
cold steel. Mechanical scarfing of hot steel is accomplished with scarfing torches
that pass through the mill. The slabs pass the cutting torches on conveyors at 80 to 120
fpm (.41 m/sec to .16 m/sec), and a cut of about 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) is made on two sides;
of the slab. The sparks and fumes are blown downward by compressed air toward a
target plate which is continuously sprayed with water.
The scarfing operation is performed on approximately 50% of all steel produced,
or 87.3 x 106 tons per year.(2)C-116
B. Emission Rr,te3:
Particulate emissions from scarfing operations are fine iron oxide dust.
The average production rate of steel making plants is 923,000 tons per year, or
105 tons per hour. (*0Table A3-A5, (2)IV-2
Approximately 50% of this steel, or 462,000 tons is scarfed annually by each
plant. Particulate emissions from scarfing operations have been estimated at
3.0 Ibs/ton, as shown in Table VII-9.C3)97
TABLE VII-9
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM IRON & STEEL SCARFING
Type of
Operation & Control
Iron & Steel Scarfing
Iron & Steel Scarfing,
with Settling Chamber,
Electrostatic Precipitator,
or High Energy Scrubber
y
10
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 462,000 Tons/Hr)
Ib/Ton kg/MT Ib/hr kg/hr
3.0 1.5 :i58 .. 71.7
0.30 0.15 ,16 . 7.2
VII-27
-------
E. Control Equipment:
Control of particulate emissions from scarfing operations is desirable; only
75% of these operations are controlled.(3)222 Plants utilizing control equipment
use baffled settling chambers, electrostatic precipitators, or high energy
scrubbers. The control efficiency of these devices has been estimated to be
90%.(3)222 The controlled and uncontrolled emissions from scarfing operations are
shown in Table VII-9.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Emission Limitations; : .
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for scarfing operations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to scarfing operations. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
A. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey
are representative of states that express particulate emission
limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these four states are':
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations applicable to general operations at iron
and steel plants. Their limitations are expressed in terms of grains/
dry standard cubic foot. The four states and their limitations are:
Colorado - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Idaho - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah required general processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
VII-28
-------
Gas Volume Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted general
process limitations for new sources with process weight rates of 52.7 tons/hour.
For a process weight rate of this size, Massachusetts is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 22.6 Ibs/hr (10.2 kg/hr) and Georgia is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 45.8 Ibs/hr (20.8 kg/hr).
Process^ Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of pounds
per hour emitted for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process
weight rate of 52.7 tons/hour, Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 41.9 Ibs/hr (19.0 kg/hr) and Mississippi is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 61.7 Ibs/hr (28.0 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Pennsylvania has a
specific limitation for iron and steal scarfing. Tliy limitation for
Pennsylvania is determined by the equation:
A = 0.76E0-1*2 where A = allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = emission index = FxW Ibs/hr
'F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or changing rate units/hr
For the. typical plant discussed in Section D, the process weight is
52.7 tons/hour. Substitution into the equation will result in an
allowable emission of 14.6 Ibs/hr (6,6 kg/hr).
"Table VTI-10 presents particulate emissions and limitations from
scarfing operations.
TABLE VTT.-10
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM IRON AND STEEL SCARFING
Type of
Operntion (< Control
Ircn 4 Stflel Scurf Ing
Iron & Steel Scerfing,
vith Settling Chamber,
Electrostatic Pricipltntor,
or High Energy Scrubber
• Z
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(Based on
462.000 Tons/yrJ_
Jbs/hr kR/hr
153 71.7
16 7.2
Limitations l'> Ib3/hr / kg/hr
Scar I inp
r.\
14.6/G.6
14.6/6.6
General Process Industries
Hew Sources
MA
22.6/10.2
22.6/10.2-
• GA
45.8/20.8
45.8/20.8
J^xistinr. Sources
Col.
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
Miss.
61.-7/28.0
61.7/28.0
UT 85X Cent
23.7 /10.8
2.4 /'I. I
VII-29
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Uncontrolled
scarfing operations will be in violation of even the least restrictive
regulations. Application of settling chambers, electrostatic precipitators,
or high energy scrubbers is adequate to control scarfing emissions.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emissions limitations.
G. References;
Literature which provided useful information on the iron and steel scarfing
operation is listed below:
(1) A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part II - Application
Areas, Southern Research Institute, Contract No. CPA 22-69-73, August
25, 1970.
(2) A Systems Study of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry (Final Report),
Battelle Memorial Institute, Contract No. PH 22-68-65, May 15, 1969.
(3) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Mass Emissions, Midwest
Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1, 1971.
(4) Scheuneman, Jean J., M. D. High, W. E. Eye, R. A. Taft, Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-l,
June 1963.
(5) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
(6) McGannon, H. E., The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, United States
Steel Corporation, 1964.
(7) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VII-30
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metalurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Iron and Steel Plants (Sintering)
C. Source: Description:
Sintering agglomerates iron bearing fines including flue dust, mill scale,
and other iron-ore fines by controlled combustion to produce a burden for a
blast furnace. The sintering process is a continuous operation performed on
interconnected grates that form a slow moving loop. The grates are usually
8-12 feet. (2.44-3.66 m) wide and 90-100 feet (27.43-30.48 m) long and contain
the iron bearing fine and approximately five percent finely divided coke breeze
or anthracite coal. Near the head or feed end of the grate, the bed is ig-
nited on the surface by gas burners. As the grate moves along, air is pulled
down through the mixture by downdraft combustion. As the grates move con-
tinuously over the wind boxes toward the discharge end, the combustion front
in the bed moves progressively downward.with sufficient heat and temperature
(about 2400-2700°F [1351-1482°C]) to sinter the fine ore particles together
into porous, coherent lumps. Although the sinter bed is stationary with respect
to the moving grates that support it, the bed travels continuously and the com-
bustion is essentially a standing wave from the ignition point to the bottom
of the bed near the discharge end. Figure VII-12 is a schematic flox^ diagram of
a continuous iron-ore sintering process. Modern, sinter plants have capacities
of 1000-6000 tons (9.0 x 105-54.0 x 105 kg) per day of finished sinter.
COKE TO BLAST FURNACE
ORE TO BLAST FURNACE
R-RETURN FINES
C-COKE FINES
L- LIMESTONE FINES
0-ORE FINES
A-ADDITIVES
P P P P P FEEDER SCALES
RM- ROD MILL
BH- BURNER HOOD
ML- HEARTH LAYER
SC- SINTER COOLER
SSM-SINTER SCREENING HOT R
SSC-SIN1ER SCREENING COLC
IP- ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITAfOR
STACK
FAN
Figure VII -12: Sintering Process Flow Diagram
VI1-31
-------
Once the sinter has left the traveling grate, the sinter is cooled prior to
handling and sizing. Figure VII-13 is a schematic diagram of a shaft type
sinter cooler where the undersized sinter is elutriated with the hot air. After
passing through a dry collection device the sinter is recycled back to the
beginning of the process. Normally 1.5-5.0 pounds (.68-3.4 kg) of cooling air
is required for each pound of sinter cooled.
HOT SINTER IN
UNDER SIZE ELUTRIATED
OUT WITH HOT AIR
HIGH VELOCITY AIR
AIR DISTRIBUTOR
= COLD AIR IN
e~e~?
kf
\_ COLD SINTER DISCHARGE
Figure VII-.13: Sinter Cooler
D. Emission Rates:
Particulate emissions from the sintering process are emitted from the
handling of the raw materials, the combustion of the coke mixed with the ore,
and during the cooling and screening process. Since the handling of the raw
materials is different at each location, no estimates are made for it. Also,
handling of raw materials has many fugitive aspects and as such is not direct-
ly amenable to consistent estimation or traditional stack clean-up technology.
During the sintering operation itself, emissions arise from the combustion
of the moving bed of iron ore and coke. The flue gas is collected in a multi-
plicity of compartments called wind boxes located along the length of the
machine, from which dust-laden air is transported through ducts to dust col-
lection equipment, consisting of a combination of mechanical-electro-
static dry type precipitator. The amount and composition of the particulate
and gaseous emissions depends on several factors, including the type of ore
used, the efficiency of the mixing, the distribution of the unfired sinter on
the grate, and the age and maintenance of the equipment. Typical emissions
values for the sintering operation and the cooling screening operation, their
associated control equipment, and typical process rates are found in Table
VII-11 on the following page.
Under normal conditions, the particulate emissions range from 5-100 pounds
(2.25-45 kg) of particulate per ton of sinter produced, with a mean of around
20 pounds (9 kg) of particulate per ton of sinter. Gas volumes exhausted usually
VII-32
-------
TABLE VIT-U
RINTERIN G_PAnTI C IJlA'rEJi!!1^
Type of Operation
Sintcri ng
Windbox uncontrolled
Windbox yjt.li dry cyclone
Windbox with dry cyclone plus
electrostatic preclpitator
Windbox with dry cyclone plus wet
scrubber
Cooling nnd Cleaning
Discharge uncontrolled
Discharge wit!? dry cyclone
Discharge with dry cyclone plus
elcctrofitati c prccijiitntor
%
Control
0.0
90.0
95.0
99.8
0.0
90.0
99.5
Emissions
Ibs pact/
ton o£
sinter
20.
2.0
1.0
.04
22.
2.2
.11
kg part/
metric ton
sinter
9.9
1.0
.50
.02
10.9
1.1
.054
Ibs/hr emission
based on
1000-6000 tons/day
830.0-5000
83.0- 500
42.0- 250
1.7- 10.2
917.0-5500
92.0- 550
4.6- 27.6
kg/hr emission
based on
9.0-5.4 x 10s kg/d.iy
375.0-2250
37.5- 225
18.8- 113
' .8- 4.60
413.0-2475
41.3- 248
2.1-14.2 .
vary between 100,000 and 450,000 cubic feet per minute (2830-12740 m3/min)
with particulate loadings of . 5"6.5 grains/standard cubic foot. From 80-90
percent of the total particulate material from the sintering process are
greater than 20 microns in size by mass. Because of their size, weight, and
value as potential recyclable material, traditional dry methods of collection
have been utilized.
E. Control Ecjuipm^Mit t
Three methods of control have been employed in reducing emissions from the
sintering operation and the screening and cooling operations. These methods have
involved the use of electrostatic precipitators, dry cyclones, and wet scrubbers.
The emissions from the sintering operation involves venting the flue gases
collected in the windboxes to the atmosphere. These gases contain the products
of combustion and many of the inert fines from the iron ore. A mechanical
cyclone is used to separate out the larger particles, then a wet scrubber or an
electrostatic precipitator follows to collect the finer particles. A wet
scrubber is more suitable for sintering than an electrostatic precipitator
beca'use the disposal of the wet dust is easier than the dry dust from the
electrostatic precipitator. However, the dry electrostatic precipitator is
easier to expand, is more amenable to a cyclic emission, and is less expensive
and easier to operate than a wet system. Tha installation of one system over
the other is a matter of preference and local energy availability.
The sinter cooling process uses a cyclone to separate the larger fines to
be reagglomerated where the bulk of the process weight is sent to a screening
device. The exhaust from the cyclone is connected to an electrostatic
precipitator to further capture the fines and potentially recycle them.
VII-33
-------
"F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8,. 197.4, EPA
promulgated New Source Performance Standards for iron and steel plants.
However, these standards pertain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such,
the sintering operation described in Section D is controlled by individual
state regulations covering either general processes and/or specifically the
sintering process.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to the sintering process. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight. •
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic foot
for general processes. The limitations for these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard- cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations applicable to general operations at iron and
steel plants. Their limitations are expressed in terms of grains/dry
standard cubic foot. The four states and their limitations are:
Colorado - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Idaho - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rate expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
10s - 10s acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VII-34
-------
Process We:lj;hj:_Knte Basis for New_Sour_ces : Several states have adopted
process ITm il: a~t io n G for new sources with process weight rates of 42 tons/hour
and 250 tons/hour. For sources with a process weight rate of 42 tons/hr,
Illinois is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 18.7 Ibs/hr
(8.5 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 42.9 Ibs/hr (19.5 kg/hr). For a process weight rate of
2.50 tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 21.5 Ibs/hr (9.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 58.3 Ibs/hr (26.4 kg/hr).
Process
tj2j^£is_J:£^ The majority of states
__
express general process limitations for existing sources for a wide range
of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of 42 tons/
hour, Connecticut is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
41.9 Ibs/hr ( 19.0 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 51.5 Ibs/hr (23.4 kg/hr). For sources with a
process weight rate of 250 tons/hour, Illinois is representative of a
most restrictive, limitation, 61.0 Ibs/hr ( 27.7 kg/hr) and Mississippi
is representative1 of: a least restrictive limitation, 155.0 Ibs/hr
(70.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Bapj^s jor_ SpecjLf ic_ Sources ;_; Pennsylvania has a
process regulation specifically for sintering. . For a 42 ton/hour process
the limitation is 12.8 Ibs/hr (5.8 kg/hr) and for a 250 ton/hour process the
limits tinr. ir. 27.2 Ibir/hr (12.3 kg.hr). Table VII-12 presents
uuconi.i. oiled aucl controlled emissions and limitations for sintering..
TAM.I; VII-12
PARTICULATK EMISSION'S AX» LilirTA'lIONS TOR SIKTER1KG
Type of Operation
Sintering
Winribox. unconcrol ] cd
Vir.ribox \.-ith <'ry cyclone
Windbox with dry cyclone plus electro-
static pro.cipil.irur
Windbox with dry cyclone plus vet
scrubber
Cooling and Cleaninj;
Discharge uncontrolled
Discharge with dry cyclone
Discharge v.'itli dry cyclone plus electro-
static precipirator
Slnlcrinx
Windbox uncontrolled
UlnMox vitli dry cyclone
Windbox with dry cyclone plus electro-
static precipitator
Vim'.box with dry cyclone plus wet
scrubber
Coolir.i: iind Cle.-.nins
Discharge unci/hr
Soecific Soiir.-.el
PA
12.8/5.8
12.8/5.8
12,8/5.8
12.8/5.3
12.S/5.S
12.8/5.3
12.8/5.8
PA
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9 ,
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9
27.2/12.9
£:-:istir:r. Source
Conn. ! Xil
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.9/19.0
41.0/19.0
41.9/19.0
111.
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61.0/27.7
61. 0/27. 7
51. 5/23. 4
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
51.5/23.4
Miss.
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
155/70.3
153/70.3
New S.-iurc"
ill. >:H
18.7/8.5
18.7/8.5
18.7/8.5
18.7/8.5
18.7/S.5
1S.7/S.5
IS. 7/8.5
HA
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
21.5/9.8
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
42.9/19.5
KM
5S.3/26.4
58.3/26.4
5S.3/26.4
58.3/2C.4
58.3/26.4
58.3/26.4
53.3/26.4
VII-35
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Current technology
is adequate to control sintering and cooling operations to even the most
restrictive limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
References . .
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, April, 1974, USEPA.
2. "Wet vs. Dry Gas Cleaning in the Steel Industry," H. C. Henschem, J. of
the Air Pollution Control Association, May, 1968.
3. The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, U. S. Steel, August, 1964.
4. A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology, Part II - Application
Areas, Southern Research Institute.
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References that were not used directly in the development of the informa-
tion for this section but could provide qualitative background for other uses
and were reviewed include:
6. Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants, USEPA, January, 1969.
7. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources, EPA-340/l-73-001-a.
8. Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards;
Asphalt Concrete Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary
Lead Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants,
Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants, Volume 1, Main Text.
VII-36
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category: Iron and Steel Plants (Open-Hearth Furnace)
C. Source Description;
The open-hearth furnace is the type of unit that produces 90 percent of the
steel made in this country. The open-hearth furnace reduces the impurities present
in scrap and pig iron to the limits specified for the different qualities of steel.
The refining operation is carried out by means of a slag that forms a continuous
layer on the surface of the liquid metal.
Open hearth-furnaces are of two types, depending on the character of the
refractory material that forms the basin holding the metal. Where the material is
silica sand, the furnace is described as "acid furnace," and where it is dolomite,
it is termed a "basic furnace."
The open-hearth process consists of several stages:
1. tap to start,
2. charging,
3. meltdown,
4. hot-metal addition,
5. ore and lime boil,
6. vorkiug (.rtliiij.u^,),
7. tapping, and
8. delay.
During the charging period, the raw materials are dumped into the furnace, and the
melting period begins. When the solid material has melted, a charge of molten pig
iron is poured into the open hearth, followed by the ore and lime boil. During the
work period the phosphorus and sulfur are lowered to the specified levels, carbon
is eliminated, and the heat is conditioned for final deoxidation or tapping. At
the end of this time the furnace is tapped, with the temperature of the melt at
approximately 3000°F (1649°C). Figure VII-10 shows a cross-sectional view of an
open hearth furnace.
Figure VII-10; Cross-sectional View of an Open-Hearth Furnace
VII-37
-------
Open-hearth furnaces vary widely in size, the median being 100-200 tons
capacity. The time required to produce a heat is between 8 and 12 hours. A
typical plant will produce 140,000 tons of steel annually. C3)21*0
D. Emission Rates;
Air contaminants are emitted from an open-hearth furnace throughout the
process or heat, which lasts from 8 to 12 hours. The particulate emissions that
occur in greatest quantities are fumes or oxides of various metal constituents
in the steel alloy. The quantity of particulate emitted depends on the degree
of oxygen lancing that is used. Oxygen lancing reduces both the time needed for
a heat and the fuel consumption. The average rate of particulate emission from
open-hearth furnaces is 17 pounds per ton of material charged, as shown in
Table VII-13.C2)
TABLE VII-13
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM OPEN-HEARTH FURNACES
Type of
Operation & Control
Open-Hearth Furnace,
Uncontrolled
Open-Hearth Furnace,
with Venturi Scrubber
Open-Hearth Furnace,
with Electrostatic
Precipitator
Open-Hearth Furnace,
with Baghouse
%
Control
0
98-99
98.5
99.9
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 140,000 Tons Steel Annually)
Ib/ton
17
.34-. 17
.26
.017
kR/MT
8.5
.17-. 085
.13
.0085
Ib/hr
270
2.7-1.4
4.1
.3
kK/hr
123
1.2
1.8
.12
E. Control Equipment;
The iron oxide fumes from open-hearth furnaces are hard to collect economically
because of their small particle size, the large volume and high temperature of the
gas emitted, and the low value of the recovered material. However, three types of
collectors are successful in removing iron oxide dust and fume. These are:
1. electrostatic precipitators,
2. high efficiency wet scrubbers, and
3. fabric filters.
Electrostatic precipitators have been reported 98.5 percent efficient, while
maximum removal efficiencies for venturi scrubbers are in the range of 98-99 per-
cent. C1)53 A fabric filter has been shown to be 99.9 percent effective in partic-
ulate removal.'1'53 The application of control on open-hearth furnaces is only
41 percent.(2)221 Table VII-13 shows the controlled and uncontrolled particulate
emissions from open-hearth furnaces.
VII-38
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
"New Source Performance Standards" for iron and steel plants. However, these
standards pertain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such, the open-hearth
pperatlons described in Section D are controlled by individual state regulations
covering either general processes and/or specifically the open-hearth operations.
State Regulations for New and.Existing Sources: Particulate emission regu-
lations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the open-
hearth process. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware '- 0,20 grains/standard cubic toot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Four states have regulations applicable to general operations at iron
and steel plants. Their limitations are expressed in terms of grains/dry
standard cubic foot. The four states and their limitations are:
Colorado - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Idaho - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.022 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Gas Volume Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,00 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10 000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
10J - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Bas_:is for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources that have a process weight
rate of 15.9 tons/hr. For sources of this size, Illinois is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 11.1 Ibs/hr (5.0 kg/hr) and New Hampshire
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 25.3 Ibs/hr (11.5 kg/hr),
VII-39
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources/. The majority of states express
general process limitations for existing sources in terms of Ibs/hr for a
wide range of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of
15.9 tons/hr, Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 17.3 Ibs/hr (7.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 32.2 Ibs/hr (14.6 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources: Pennsylvania has a
regulation specifically limiting the emissions from steel production.
Pennsylvania's limitation is determined by the equation:
A = 0.76E^>lt2, where A = Allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = Emission index = FxW Ibs/hr
F = Process factor, Ibs/unit
W = Production or charging rate units/hour
Table 1 of the Pennsylvania regulations specifcies F for steel production as
40 Ibs/ton of product. For a process weight rate of 15.9 tons/hour, the
maximum allowable emission is 11.4 Ibs/hr (5,2 kg/hr). Table VII-14
presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations for open
hearth operations.
TABLE VII-14
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM OPEN-HEARTH OPERATIONS
Type of
Operation & Control
Open-Hearth Furnace, Uncontrolled
Open-Hearth Furnace, with Venturl
Scrubber
Open-Hearth Furnace, with Elec-
trostatic Precipltator
Open-Hearth Furnace, with
Eaghouse
Z
Control
e
98-99
98.5
99.9
Emissions
(Based on 140,000
tons/yr)
Ib/hr kfc/hr
270 123
2.7-1.4 1.2
4.1 1.8
.3 .12
Limitations ('') Ib/hr / kq/hr
Iron 4
Steel
PA
11.4/5.2
11.4/5.2
11.4/5.2
11.4/5.2
General Process Industries
New Sources
111.
11.1/5.0
11.1/5.0
11.1/5.0
11.1/5.0
KH
25.3/11.5
25.3/11.5
25.3/11.5
25.3/11.5
Existing Sources
MA
17.3/7.8
17.3/7.8
17.3/.7.8
17.3/7.8
KH
32.2/14.6
32.2/14.6
32.2/14.6
32.2/16,6
UT S)% Control
40.5/18.5
40.5/18.5
40.5/18.5
40.5/18.5
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations! For the size process
described in Section D, a control device capable of 96% control will satisfy
Pennsylvania's restrictions.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following literature was used to develop the information on Open-Hearth
Furnaces:
(1) Scheuneman, Jean J., M. D. High, W. E. Bye, R. A, Taft, Air Pollution
Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-l,
June 1963.
VII-40
-------
(2) Partlculate Pollutant System Study, Volume I - Mass Emissions, Midwest
Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1, 1971.
(3) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972', Mitre Corporation.
One source which could provide additional information on open-hearth furnaces
in the iron and steel industry is:
(5) McGannon, H. C., The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel, U.S, Steel,
1964.
VII-41
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Primary Copper
C. Source. Description ;
Copper mined in the U.S. is from deposits of:
Gornite - CusFeSi
Chalcopyrite - CuFeS2
Enargite
These minerals are of igneous origin and are distributed in massive rock strata
as "porphyry" deposits. These deposits are low in copper content — around 1%
Cu by weight. The complex chemistry of the ore materials, the low concentration
in the rock, and the strong affinity of copper for sulfur contribute to the
complex series of operations necessary to produce metallic copper from ore.
Copper usually occurs in deposits with other metals such as iron, lead}
arsenic, tin or mercury. Copper ore is processed by a se: ies of operations
consisting of mining, concentrating, smelting, and refining. These steps are
subdivided as follows:
1. mining (drilling, blasting, loading, handling) ,
2. concentrating (crushing, grinding, classification,
flotation, dewatering) ,
3. tfi'iiij. Ling (• oasi.i rig,. re.-u e.vhe.rar.Gry s mo icing, converting).
4. refining (fire refining, electrolytic refining).
Mining: Most U.S. copper comes from 'large open-pit mines where the
porphyry deposits are scraped clear of over burden, and blasting
operations loosen the ore. Electric shovels, with bucket capacities
of 15 cubic yards, load trucks which haul the ore to mills that con-
centrate it to 15% to 30% by weight.
Concentration; Sulfide ores are separated from noncopper-bearing
rock by froth flotation. The porphyry is ground to a powder and
slurried. Chemical agents called "frothers" are added to the
slurry while air is introduced. The "frothers" cause the air
bubbles to rise to the surface with the sulfide ore attached. The
froth is cleared off the surface of the water while the tailings
sink to the bottom. The copper sulfide ore is then washed and
dewatered, upgrading the ore to 15% to 30% by weight of copper. d' 271 .272
Smelting: Copper is obtained from copper ores by smelting which
includes the successive operations of:
1. roasting,
2. reverberatory smelting,
3. converting, and
4. fire refining.
VI1-42
-------
The steps in the smelting process achieve two types of separations;
1. between the metals and the gangue,
2. between copper and the chemically combined
contaminants, sulfur and iron.
Copper ores are smelted either as they come from the mine or
after grinding and flotation. Smelting transforms the low-
percentage ores into high percentage copper/sulfur concentrate.
The high percentage copper/sulfur concentrate could be smelted
directly or after partial roasting. Roasting removes part of
the sulfur, giving a favorable balance of copper, iron and
sulfur for reverberatory feed. In the reverberatory furnace,
iron present as oxide combines with siliceous flux to form a
slag, leaving a material known as matte, containing copper,
iron, and,sulfur combined with copper. Figures VII-14 and
VII_15 d)274*278 present schematics of the copper smelting
process and a typical reverberatory furnace, respectively.
The matte is reduced to copper in the converter in two stages
of'blowing air. The first stage eliminates sulfur and forms
iron oxide which is slagged off by the addition of siliceous
flux. The copper sulfide remaining in the converter is re-
duced to metal, and the sulfur is eliminated as S02 in the
"finish" blowing stage. This crude copper undergoes further
refinement by fire refining and is cast into anodes for
electrolytic reiiaing.
COPPER ORE
TAILINGS
SO2 RICH
FLUE GAS
ORE-
DRESSING
I
CONCENTRATE
J
ZINC OR PYRITIC
CONCENTRATE
FLUX AND PLANT REVERTS
WATER
1HOT
GASES
^ WASTE WASTE
GAS HEAT
0 . BOILER
*
STEAM
HOT FLUE
ROASTING
i '
REVERBERATORY
FURNACE
.SMELTING
MATTE
i,
1
, T QUARTZ
V T
CONVERTER
-
DUST COLLECTOR
SLAG
RECYCLE
BLISTER COPPER
TO ELECTROLYTIC
.REFINING
Figure VII-14; Copper Smelting
VII-43
-------
DISCHARGE
TO
ATMOSPHERE'
V
MULTIPLE
HEARTH
ROASTING
FURNACE
REVERBERATORY
FURNACE
SETTLING DUST
CHAMBER COLLECTOR
\\\\ \\\ \\ FT\\\\\\\\\\\
'
Figure VII-15; Reverberatory Furnace
Refining: Molten matte produced in the reverberatory furnace is
transferred in ladles to the converters where air is blown into
the liquid through "tuyeres." The oxidation reactions supply
enough heat to maintain a temperature of 2250°F with no auxiliary
fuel. The sulfur dioxide is carried out with the other flue
gases. Silica flux is added to combine with iron oxide to form
a fluid iron silicate slag. The slag is skimmed from the con-
verter and returned to the reverberatory furnace. Additional matte
is added to the converter and the process repeated until a suitable
charge of copper sulfide has been accumulated. Blowing is con-
tinued without further matte additions until remaining sulfur has
been eliminated. The resulting blister copper is 99% pure. ^2'257-260
D. Emission Rates;
The high temperatures attained in roasting, smelting, and converting cause
volatilization of a number of the trace elements present in copper ores and
concentrates. The raw waste gases from these processes contain not only these
fumes but also dust and sulfur dioxide.
The dust content of the waste gases from roasting operations depends on
the characteristics of the copper concentrates as well as on the volume of air
aspirated by the roasting furnace. Another factor of importance in hearth
furnaces is the extent to which the concentrates remain continuously in suspen-
sion when descending from the upper to the lower hearths. The size and number
of apertures in the hearths has an influence on the creation of dust in the
furnace, and consequently also on the dust content of the waste gases.
VII-44
-------
The reverberatory furnace melts the metal-beaming charge and forms the
matte and slag. The charge Is introduced through openings in the side wall
or in the roof. The heavier particles settle below the waste heat boilers
and into the hoppers of the balloon flues or settling chambers. The dust is
then removed to locations where it can be worked back into the system. The
amount of dust will depend upon variables such as the fineness of the charge,
the degree of agitation in charging and working, and specific gravity.(2)259-260
The dust content of the gases from the converter depends to a large extent
on the chemical composition of the copper matte. An increase in the operating
temperature of the converter causes higher volatilization of the metals and
consequently higher dust content in the raw gas.C2)260
Emission factors for total particulates from copper smelters are presented
in Table VII-17.
TADLF, VI I-17
PARTICUI.ATE MISSIONS FROM
PRIMARY OOl'PF.R PRODUCTION
Type of Operation*
and Control
Roasting, Uncontrolled
• Roasting, Dust Chambers
Roasting, Cyrl.one ;i
Roasting, Electrostatic Prer.ipitators
Roasting, Cloth Filters
Smelting, Reverberator)', Uncontrolled
Smelting, Reverberatory, Dust Chambers
Smelting, Reverberatory , Cyclones
Smelting, Reverberatory, Electrostatic Precipitators
Smelting, Reverberatory, Cloth Filter
Converting, Uncontrolled
Converting, Dust Chambers
Converting, Cyclones
Converting, Electrostatic Precipitators
Converting, Cloth Filters
Refining, Uncontrolled
Refining, Dust Chamber
Refining, Cyclone
Refining, Electrostatic Precipitators
Refining, Cloth Filter
%
Control
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
F.missions
Ibs/ton
45.
31.5-18.
6.8-2.3
.14
.05
20.
14. -8.
3.-1.
..06
.02
60.
42. -24.
9. -3.
.2
.06
10.
7. -4.
1.5-.5
.03
.01
kg/ton
22.5
15.8-9
34-1.?.
.07
.03
10.
7. -4.
1.5-.5
.03
.01
30.
21. -12.
4.5-1.5
.1
.03
5.
3.5
.8-. 3
.015
.05
Emission Rate
(based on 50 tons/hour)
Ibs/hr
2250.
1575. -900.
340. -115.
7.0
2.5
]000.
700. -400.
150. -50.
3.
1.
3000.
2100. -1200.
450. -150.
10.
3.
500.
350. -200.
75. -25.
1.5
.5
kg/hr
1021.
714. -408.
.154. -52.
3.2
1.1
454.
318. -181. '
68. -23.
1.4
.5
1361.
953. -544.
204. -68.
4.5
1.4
227.
159. -91
34. -11. 3
.7
.2
* Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate are required to produce 1 unit
weight of copper metal. Emission factors expressed as units per unit weight
of concentrated ore produced.
E. Control Equipment;
Cloth filters are utilized for secondary dust collection from converter
gases. Depending on the purpose of utilization, the following types of fabrics
are employed:
VII-45
-------
1. cloth woven from natural fibers
(wood, cotton),
2. cloth woven from synthetic fibers
(redon, pan, etc.)
The dust content of the exhausted air is strongly influenced by the air-to-cloth
ratio (ft3 of raw gas per ft2 of filter surface) as well as by the structure
and density of the filter weave. In order to maintain the full nominal rating
of the filter in continuous operation, cleaning of the filter cloth is of greatest
importance. With filters properly maintained, efficiencies up to 99.9% can be
attained.
Centrifugal separators installed on furnaces generally have maximum efficiencies
of 80%-85% and are therefore usually employed for primary removal of coarse dust.
Electrostatic precipitators, usually preceded by mechanical collectors are
applied to control particulates from copper smelting. The equipment is normally
more massive and rugged than counterparts in the power or other industries, and
dust handling techniques are far more positive. Mild steel construction is ac-
commodated by maintaining sufficient gas temperatures to preclude corrosion, with
temperatures ranging from 300° to 650° on converters, and from 600° to 900°F on
roasters. Actual collection efficiency usually is in the 98.5% to 99.5% range.(2)271
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): New source performance standards
have been promulgated by EPA January 15, 1970 for copper smelters. The promul-
gated standards for new and modified primary copper smelters limit emissions of
particulate matter in gases discharged from dryers to 50 mg/dscm (0.022 grains/
dry standard cubic foot). In addition, the opacity of these gases is limited to
20 percent.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration BasJs; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for
these five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot,
gas volume >300,000 scfm
Pennsylvania - O.O-'i grains/standard cubic foot,
gas volume <300,000 scfm
VIJ.-46
-------
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for_New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for new sources with a prcoess weight rate of 50
tons/hr. For new sources with this process weight rate, Massachusetts
is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 22.8 Ibs/hr (10.3
kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation,44.4 Ibs/hr (20.1 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources^ The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources in terms of
Ibs/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight
rate of 50 tons/hour, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 32.3 Ibs/hr (14.7 kg/hr) and Georgia is representative of
a least restrictive limitation, 44.6 Ibs/hr (20.2 kg/hr).
Table VII-18 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions from primary copper manufacure.
TABLE VII-18
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATION'S FROM
. PRIMARY COPPER PRODUCTION
Type of Operation*
and Control
Roasting, Uncontrolled
Roasting, Dust Chambers
Roasting, Cyclones
Roasting, Electrostatic Precipitatcr
Roasting, Cloth Filters
.Smelting, Revcrberatory, Uncontrolled
Smelting, Kevcrberatory, Dust Chcaber
Smelting, Reverberatory, Cyclones
Saeltir.g, Reverberatory, Electrostatic
Prccipitator
Smelting, Revcrberatory, Cloth Filter
Converting, Uncontrolled
Converting, Dust Chambers
Converting, Cyclones
Converting, Kleccrostatic Precipitator
Converting, Cloth Kilters
Refining, Uncontrolled
Refining, Dust Chanhcrs
Refining, Cyclones
Refining, Electrostatic Prccipitator
Refining, Cloth Filters
%
Control
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
85-95
99.7
99.9
0
30-60
35-95
99.7
99.9
Emissions
(based of. !>0 tons/hr)
Ibs/hr
2250.
1575. -900.
340. -115.
7.
2.5
1000.
700. -400.
150. -50.
3.
1.
3000.
2100. -1200.
450.-150.
10.
3.
500.
350. -200.
75. -25.
1.5
.5
kfi/lir
1021.
714. -408.
154. -52.
3.2
1.1
454.
318. -181.
68. -23.
1.4
.5
1361.
953. -544.
204. -68.
4.5
1.4
227.
159. -91.
34. -11. 3
.7
.2
Limitations Ibs/hr / kp/hr
New
IIA
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.B/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.3/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.3/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/10.3
22.8/1H.3
NH
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
44.4/20.1
Existing
CO
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
32.3/14.7
GA
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
44.6/20.2
UT 85X
333/153
150/63
450/204
75/34
* Approximately 4 unit weights of concentrate .ire required to produce 1 unit
wcifiht oC copper metal. Emission factors expressed .is units per unit weight
of concentrated ore produced.
VII-.47
-------
Existing control technology is adequate to allow a 50 ton/hour plant to meet
the most restrictive limitation.
The Environmental Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
1. Air Pollution Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas, Industrial
~Gas~Cleaning Institute, Inc. EPA Contract 68-02-0301, September 30,
1972.
2. Participate Po1lutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties" Midwei7t~RJesearch InsTitute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
3. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (Seccnd Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
References reviewed but not used include:
4. Background Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards
for Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters (Preliminary Draft),
_S_ec_tipiis 1 throuf;n b, Environmental fi ote-ctri.Oi'i Agi'.rify, Office, of Air
and Water Programs, August 1973.
5. Background Information - Proposed New Source Performance Standards for_
Primary. Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters (Pre.liminary Draft) , Sections
6 through 8, EPA, Office of Air and Water Programs, August 1973.
VII-48
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category: Steel Foundries (Secondary)
C. Source D c s c r ip 11on:
Steel foundries differ from the basic iron and steel plants in that their
primary raw material is scrap steel. Steel foundries produce steel castings as
a finished product by melting the scrap and pouring it into molds. The castings
are made for heavy industrial end uses such as bulldozer; frames and locomotive
wheels.
The steel melting operation is accomplished in one of five types of furnaces:
1. direct electric arc
2. electric induction
3. open hearth
A. crucible
4. pneumatic converter (The crucible and pneumatic converter are being phased out)
The basic melting process operations are:
1. furnace charging
2. melting
3. tapping the furnace into a ladle
4. pouring the steel into molds
An integral part of the steel foundry operation is the preparation of casting
molds, and the shakeout and cleaning of these castings. Some common materials
used in molds and cores for hollow casting include sand, oil, clay, and resin.
Shakeout is the operation by which the cool casting is separated from the mold.
The castings are cleaned by shotblasting, and surface defects such as fins are
removed by burning and grinding. A schematic of steel foundry processes is shown
in Figure VII-9.
FURNACE CHARGING
IIELTIKC
TAPPING
IKK.D PREPARATION
HOLD POURI KG
Figure VII-9;
Diagram
FIIIISHCO PRODUCT
VI1-49
SHAKtnUT, CUANING
-------
There are about 400 steel foundries operating in the U.S., with the average
plant producing 133 tons of castings per day or 48,000 tons per. year.O)IV-6
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emissions from the steel foundry include:
1. iron oxide
2. sand fines
3. graphite metallic dust
Factors affecting emissions from the melting process include the quality and
cleanliness of the scrap and the amount of oxygen lancing. Emissions from the
shakeout and cleaning operations vary according to type and efficiency of dust
collection. Particulate emissions from steel foundries are summarized in Table
VII-19.<2)7'13-2
TABLS VII-19
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM STEEL FOUNDRIES
Type o£ Operation and Controls
Electric arc melting,
uncontrolled
Electric arc melting.
with electrostatic precipitator
Electric arc ir.clting,
with baghouse
Electric arc melting.
with venturi scrubber
Open hearth melting,
uncontrolled
Open hearth melting,
with electrostatic precipitator
Open hearth melting,
with baghouse
Open hearth melting.
with venturi scrubber
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, uncontrolled
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, with electrostatic
precipitator
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, with baghouse
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, with venturi scrubber
Electric induction, uncontrolled
X Control
0
92-98
98-99
94-98
0
95-98.5
99.9
96-99
0
95-98
99
95-98
0
Particulate Emissions
(based on 48,000 tons/yr)
ibs/ton
13
1.04-0.26
0.26-0.13
0.78-0.26
11
0.55-0.17
0.011
0.44-.11
10
0.5-0.2
0.10
0.5-0.2
0.1
kR/mt
6.5
0.52-0.13
0.13-0.07
0.39-0.13
5.5
0.28-0.083
0.0055
0. 22-. 055
5
0.25-0.1
0.05
0.25-0.1
0.05
Ibs/hr
71.8
5.74-1.43
1.43-0.72
3.86-1.43
60.7
3.04-0.94
0.061
2.42-0.61
55.2
2.76-1.10
.55
2.76-1.10
0.55
kg/hr
32.6
2.60-0.65
0.65-0.33
1.75-0.65
27.5
1.38-0.43
0.028
1.10-0.28
25.0
1.25-0.50
0.25
1.25-0.50
0.25
E. Control Equipment:
Furnace emissions from steel foundries are controlled by use of one or more
collection devices such as the electrostatic precipitator, baghouse (fabric
filter), and venturi scrubber. The collection efficiencies of these devices
range from 92% to 99.9%, as shown in Table VII-19. Emissions from electric
induction furnaces are not usually controlled. (-O7* 13~2
VII-50
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
"New Source Performance Standards" for iron and steel plants. However, these
standards pertain only to the basic oxygen furnace. As such, the secondary
steel foundries described in Section D are controlled by individual state regu-
lations covering either general processes and/or specifically secondary steel
foundries.
St:at-e_Hegulations for New and Exist ing Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
the secondary steel foundries. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentrations,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process x^eight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emis-
sion limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. -The limitations for these
five states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - .02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington. - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Three states have general regulations for electric arc furnaces. Iowa,
Mississippi and Wisconsin express their limitations in terms of a
concentration. These limitations are as follows:
Iowa - 0.1 grains/standard cubic foot
Wisconsin - 0.11 lbs/1000 Ibs of gas
Mississippi - 0.10 lbs/1000 Ibs of gas
Control Efficiency Basis: Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis: Texas express particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitation for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10?000 - 100,000 acfm - 39.00 Ibs/hr
10J - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VII-51
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for new sources with process weight rates of 5,5
tons/hour. For processes of this size, Illinois is representative of
a most restrictive limitation, 7.4 Ibs/hr (3.4 kg/hr) and Wyoming is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 12.9 Ibs/hr (5.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources^ The majority of states
express general process limitations for existing sources for a wide range
of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of 5.5
tons/hr, Connecticut is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
10.4 Ibs/hr (4.7 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 12.9 Ibs/hr (5.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Several states have
adopted regulations concerning jobbing foundries. Some of these
regulations cover only cupola emissions and others specify foundry
operations in general. Georgia, New York, North Carolina and Oklahoma
have similar regulations and all use the same process weight rate curve.
For a foundry with a 5.5 ton/hr process weight rate, the particulate
limitation is 17.8 Ibs/hr (8.1 kg/hr). New Hampshire limits new
foundries with a 5.5 ton/hr process weight rate to 12.9 Ibs/hr (5.9 kg/hr)
and existing foundries to 15.9 Ibs/hr (7.21 kg/hr). Table VII-20 presents
controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limitations from steel
foundries.
. TABLE VII-20
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM STEEL FOUNDRIES
Type of
Operation 4 Controls .
Electric arc rcelting,
uncontrolled
Electric arc melting,
vith electrostatic precipitator
Electric arc melting,
vith baghouse
Electric arc ir.eltirg,
with vcnturi scrubber
Open hearth r.elting,
uncontrolled
Open hearth melting,
with electrostatic precipitator
Open hearth melting.
with bnghouse
Open hearth melting,
with vcnturi scrubber
Open hearth, oxygen lanced
melting, uncontrolled
Open hearth, oxygen lanced melt-
ing with electrostatic
precipitator
Open hearth, oxygen lanced melt-
ing, with baghouse
Open hearth, oxygen lanced melt-
ing, with venturi scrubber
Electric induction,
uncontrolled
£ Control
0
92-98
98-99
94-98
0
95-98.5
99.9
96-99
0
95-98
99
95-98
0
Particulate
Emissions
(based on
•48.000 tons/vr)
Ibs/hr
71.8
5.74-1.43
1.43-0.72
3.86-1.43
60.7
3.04-0.94
0.061
2.42-0.61
55.2
2.76-1.10
.55
2.76-1.10
0.53.
kg/hr
32.6
2.60-0
0.65-0
1.75-0
27.5
1.38-0
0.028
1.10-0
25.0
1.25-0
0.25
1.25-0
0.25
Limitations 3 Ibs/hr/ks/hr
General I'rcccss Industries
New Sou-cos Existing r-.'urcs-, '
111.
• 7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4 •
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4 '
7.4/3.4
Ivy.
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
tf
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
Conn.
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
10.4/4.7
Mips.
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
12.9/5.9
UI 85 7, Control
10.8 /4.9
10.8 /4.9
10.8 /4.9
10.8 /4.9
.9.2 /4.2 •
9.2 /4.2
9.2 4.2
9.2 /4.2
8.3 /3.8
8.3 ;/3.8 .
8.3 /3.8
8.3 /3-8
.09 /.04
VII-52
-------
Pofc-nt:uil Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Electric arc, open-
hearth, and open-hearf.h with oxygon lancing as described in Section D, equipped
with, electrostatic precipitators, venturi scrubbers, or a baghouse, will be.
able to comply with even the most restrictive limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
The following literature was used to develop the information presented for
steel foundries:
1. Exhaust Cases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., EPA, Contract No. EHSD 71-36, October 2, 1971.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973~.
3« Analysis of Final State Implementation Plajns - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
The following references were consulted but not: used directly to develop
the iufoT.iiitiL.Lon on steel foundries:
4. Hopper, T. G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emiss:ixms_from Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report),
TRC - The Research'Corporation of New England, EPA, Contract No.
68-02-1382, Task No. 3, October 24, 1975.
5. Particulnte Pollutant System Study, Volume I_- Mass Emissions,
Midwest Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA 22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
VII-53
-------
A. Source Category: VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category: Ferroalloy
C. Source Description;
A ferroalloy is an alloy of iron and one or more other metals used for
deoxidizing molten steels and making alloy steels. There are three major
categories of ferroalloys:
1. silicon-based alloys, including ferrosilicon and
calcium-silicon,
2. manganese-based alloys, including ferromanganese
and silicomanganese, and
3. chromium-based alloys, including ferrochromium
and ferrosilicochrome.
Manganese is the most widely used element in ferroalloys, followed by silicon,
chromiuiv., and phosphorous. Figure VII-'4 shows a typical flow diagram of
ferroalloy production.( )7
DUST
UJ.I
„. OUST
$\ IJ-I
OKI SIGSAGf
., . . OUST I
'! 14-!—HT-/
-.j.anrro-,^ 6
SHIPMENT
Figure! VIT.-4: Ferroalloy Production Process
There are four major methods used for the smelting operation needed to produce.
ferroalloys and high purity metallic additives for steel making. These are:
1. blast furnace,
2. electric smelting furnace,
3. alumino silico-thermic process, and
4. electrolytic deposition.
VII-54
-------
The choice of process is generally dependent on both the alloy produced and the
availability of furnaces.
Ferromanganese, the principal metallurgical form of manganese, is produced in
either the blast furnace or the electric-arc furnace. The coke-burning blast
furnace is not an efficient smelter for ferroalloys of manganese, chrome, and
silicon. The submerged arc, or the roofed-in open bath electric smelter, can
more effectively complete the reduction of the oxides and is therefore more widely
used than the blast furnace.
Ferromanganese is produced in the blast furnace by carbon reduction of manganese '
ore and iron ore in the presence of coke and limestone. Ferromanganese blast
furnaces usually operate at blast temperatures of 1100-1200°F (593-649°C), High
operating efficiencies are favored by the following:
1. small slag volume,
2. a basic slag,
3. high blast temperatures, and
4. coarse ores.
The majority of ferroalloy furnaces are submerged arc furnaces which are charged
with raw ore, coke, and limestone. Normally three electrodes are used; they protrude
into the furnace charge to a depth of 3 to 5 feet. The major smelting occurs in the
reaction zones surrounding the electrodes.
Simplified reactions illustrating the manufacture of ferroalloys are as
follows:(2)V-l3
Heat
Ore Constituents + Reducing Agent -»• Molten Alloy + Furnace Gas
Pr203 + 3C -»- 2Cr + 3CO
MnO + C -*• ' Mn + CO
Si02 + 2C •*• ^Si + 2CO
Fe203 + 3C + 2FE + 3CO
CaO + 3C + CaC0 + CO
•- /
More than 75% of the ferroalloys produced are the products of electric smelting
furnaces. The average annual production of a ferroalloy furnace is 14,800
tons;(-2)VI-19 and the average production rate is 6.9 tons/hr. 00 Ferroalloy
D. Emission Rates;
The production of ferroalloys has many dust-producing steps. The dust resulting
from:
ir
1. raw material handling,
2, mix delivery, and
3. crushing and sizing of the
solidified product
can be handled by conventional techniques and is a secondary problem compared to the
furnace emissions,
VII-55
-------
The major pollution problem arises from the ferroalloy furnaces themselves,
especially the blast and electric furnaces.
The furnace emissions vary widely in type and quantity.depending on the
particular ferroalloy being produced, the type of furnace used, and the amount of
carbon in the alloy. Furthermore, emission rates will also vary with the nature
of the process, the choice of raw materials, the operating techniques, and main-
.tenance practices. Table VII-21 shows the particulate emissions from ferroalloy
production. C3)7.4-2, (2)H-5-II-6 particulate emissions from the aluminosilico-
thermic process and electrolytic deposition are minimal and are not included in
this discussion.
TABLE VII-21
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
Type of
Operation & Controls
Open Furnace
50% FeSi, Uncontrolled
' 75% FeSi, Uncontrolled
90% FeSi, Uncontrolled
Silicon Metal, Uncontrolled
Silicon Manganese, Uncontrolled
FeHn =
FeCr
Closed Furnace
FeXn, Uncontrolled
FeMn, with Scrubber
Open Furnace
50% FeSi, with Venturi Scrubber
Silicon Metal, with Baghouse
Silicon Manganese, with Baghouse
FeCr, with Baghouse
FeMn, with Venturi Scrubber
%
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99.9
99.9
99
99
99
99.9
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 6.9 tons/hr)
Ib/ton
200
315
565
625
195
-
• -
45
.045
.2
6.3
2.0
-
—
kg/MT
100
158
283
313
98
-
-
22.5
.023
.1
3.1
1.0
-
—
Ib/hr
1380
2180
3910
4325
675
-
-
311
.31
1.4
43.3
13.5
-
—
ke/hr
628
990
1770
1960
306
-
-
141
.14
0.63
19.6
6.1
-
—
E. Control Equipment;
Several methods are used to control emissions from ferroalloy furnaces.
Emissions from open furnaces in the United States industry are controlled by:
1. wet scrubbers,
2. cloth filters, and
3. electrostatic precipitators.
None of these control devices has been found to be universally suitable for use
on every type of ferroalloy furnace because of variations in the emissions with
furnace type and product produced. Table VII-21 shows the controlled and un-
controlled emissions from the production of various ferroalloys.
VII-56
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); EPA promulgated New Source
Performance Standards for Ferroalloy Production Tuesday, May 4, 1976 in the
Federal Register. Vol. 41, No. 87. These standards pertain to the exit
stack conditions of the control device used for the submerged electric arc
furnaces. The standard is expressed in terms of kilograms per megawatt
. hours or pounds per megawatt hours. There are essentially two standards
depending on the material charged to the furnace. The following two charge
types and limitations express the New Source Performance Standards, for.; :
Ferroalloy Production.
Charge Material Limitation
Silicon metal, ferrosilicon, calcium 0.45 kg/MW-hr
silicon, silicomanganese, zirconium (0.99 Ibs/MW-hr)
Highcarbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, 0.23 kg/MW-hr
silicomanganese, calcium carbide (0.51 Ibs/MW-hr)
ferrochrome, silicon, ferromanganese
silicon, or silvery iron
Since the units for the New Source Performance Standards are not the same
as those listed in Section D, no attempt was made to compare emissions and
limitations.
Stale Regulations for New and Existing Sources: ParLiculate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to
state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to the ferro-
alloy industry. The four types of regulations are based on:
• 1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general process. The limitations for these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
V1I-57
-------
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations
in terras of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in
actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates
are as follows.
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for new sources with a process weight rate of 6.9
tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate, Illinois is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 6.0 Ibs/hr (2.7 kg/hr)
and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
14.7 Ibs/hr (6.7 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources^ The majority of states
have adopted process limitations for existing sources for a wide range
of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of
6.9 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 11.9 Ibs/hr (5.4 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictive limitation, 14.9 Ibs/hr (6.8 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for SpecifJLC Sources; Pennsylvania is the
only state that has a limitation specifically for a ferroalloy
production furnace. The limitation in Pennsylvania is determined by
the equation:
A = 0.76E°«'i? where A = allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = process factor, Ibs/unit
W = production or charging rate, units/hr
For a typical plant as described in Section D producing 13,800 Ibs/hr,
substitution into this equation results in a maximum allowable emission rate
of 1.03 Ibs/hr. Table 1 from Pennsylvania's regulation specifies
F = 0.3 Ibs/ton of product. This would make Pennsylvania's limitation
the most restrictive. Table VII-22 presents controlled and uncontrolled
emissions and limitations from ferroalloy production.
. TAME VII-22
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS ACT LIMITATIONS FROM FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
Type of
Operation & Control
Open Furnace
50% FcSi, Uncontrolled
752 FcSi, Uncontrolled
90X FeSi, Uncontrolled
Silicon Mat ,il, Uncontrolled
Silicon Manr.anase, Uncontrolled
Closed Furnace
Fc'!.t, Uncontrolled
FeMn, with Scrubber
Open Furnace
SO.1! FcSl, with Vcnturl
Scrubber
Silicon Metal with Bughouse
Silicon Manganese, with
II.-iChou.4c
FeCr, with Baghousu
FcMn, with V^nturi Scrubber
X
Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
98.9
99.9
99
99
99
99.9
Emifisj ons
(Based on 6.9
tons/hr)
Ib/hr kr./hr
1380 628
2180 990
3910 ' 1770
4325 1960
675 306
311 1*1
.31 .14
1.4 0.63
43.3 19.6
13.5 6.1
-
-
Limitations (5) Ih/hr / kp/hr
Ferroalloy
PA
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47 '
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0/.47
1.0,'. 47
General Process Industries
New Sources
111.
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
•6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.7
6.0/2.V
6.0/2.7
Nil
14.7/6.7
14.7/0.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/6.7
14.7/b.V
14.7/6.7
Existing Sources
Col.
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.;
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
Mir-.-:. ll!T S5X Control
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14. 9/0. 8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
14.9/6.8
208 / 94.2
327 /148
537 /2o6
694 /315
101 / 45.9
46.7/ 21.2
46.7/ 21.2
46.7/ 21.2
- :
_•
-
••
VII-58
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emissions Limitations; Furnaces used in
ferroalloy production are a significant source of particulate emissions. All
furnaces must be controlled in order to meet the emission limitations. With the
exception of Pennsylvania's ferroalloy limitation, control technology is capable
of meeting the applicable regulations for sources producing silicon metal as
described in Section D. This source would have to be controlled by 99.7% in
order to meet the strictest regulation other than Pennsylvania's ferroalloy
limitation. . .
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
G. References;
The following literature was used to develop the information on ferroalloys:
1. Background Information for Standards of Performance; Electric Submerged
Arc Furnaces for Production of Ferroalloys, Volume I; Proposed Standards.
Emission Standards and Engineering Division, EPA-450/2-74-018a, October
1974.
2. Dealy, James 0., Arthur M. Killin, Engineering and Cost Study of the
Ferroalloy Industry, EPA-450/2-74-008. May 1974.
5. Compilation of Ail Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition)» EPA,
Contract No. AP-42, April 1973.
4. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties, Midwest -Research Institute, EPA, Contract No. CPA-22-69-104,
May 1, 1971.
5. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Another source which was not used directly but which could provide information
on ferroalloy production is:
6. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. TRW Systems Group, Contract No. CPA-22-69-119,
April 1970.
VII-59
-------
A. Source Category; VII Metallurgical Industry
B. Sub Category; Primary Aluminum
C. Source Description;
Aluminum production from bauxite ore is a multistep process capable of pro-
ducing large quantities of emissions because of the nature and the size of the
process. Alumina production is categorized into two basic parts:
:••.'. 1. Extraction of alumina from bauxite
2. Electrolytic reduction of alumina to aluminum .. ...
Three states, Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia produce all of the U.S. bauxite.
Ninety-four percent of the total bauxite is used for producing alumina and the
rest is for refractories, chemicals, and abrasives. Plants producing alumina from
bauxite are generally located in coastal areas. The aluminum plants are located
in areas of low power costs, because electricity requirements for reduction of
alumina to aluminum are high.
The aluminum-containing minerals are:
Alumite: A white mineral containing 37% alumina KAL3(504)2(011)6
Aluminum Phosphate Rock: 4% to 20% alumina and small amounts of U309
Aluminous shale and slate: 20% to 24% Al20s
Dawsonite: 35% alumina, NaAL(OH)2C03
High-alumina clays: 25% to 35% alumina, consisting mainly of kaolinite
Igneous rocks: 23% to 28% alumina and feldspar
Saprolite: 25% to 36% alumina in deposits of saprolite
Coal ash: Coal ash contains alumina and sulfuric acid
Bauxite: Classified according to degree of hydration of alumina
1. Monohydrate bauxite (A1203*H20), boehmite and diaspore
2. Trihydrate bauxite (A1203«3H20), has low silica content known
as gibbsite or hydrargillite
Bauxite ore is treated to refine alumina by one of the following:
1. Bayer process
2. Combination process
The Combination process is used for treating high-silica-content bauxites,
such as those from Arkansas. Figure VII-20 presents a schematic of both the
Bayer process and the Combination process.
Figure VII-20
Bayer and Combined Process
VII-60
-------
Aluminum metal is manufactured by the Hall-Heroutt process, which involves
the electrolytic reduction of alumina dissolved in a molten salt bath of
cryolite (a complex of NAF.A1F-) and various salt additives:
3 + 4A1 + 302
Alumina Electrolysis Aluminum Oxygen
The electrolysis is performed in a carbon crucible housed in a steel shell,
known as a "pot." The electrolysis employs the carbon crucible as the
cathode (negative pole) and a carbon mass as the anode (positive pole) . The
type of anode configuration used distinguishes the three types of pots:
1. prebaked (PB) ,
2. horizontal stud Soderberg (HSS) , and
3. vertical-stud Soderberg (VSS).
The major portion of aluminum produced in the United States (61.9 percent
of 1970 production) is processed in prebaked cells. In this type of pot, the
anode consists of blocks thac are formed from a carbon paste and baked in an
oven prior to their use in the cell. These blocks — typically 14 to 24 per
cell — are attached to metal rods and serve as replaceable anodes. As the
reduction proceeds, the carbon in these blocks is gradually consumed (at a
rate of about 1 inch per day) by reaction with the oxygen by-product.
The second most commonly used furnace (25.5 percent of 1970 production) is
the horizontal-stud Soderberg. This type of cell uses a "continuous" carbon
anode; that is, a mixture of pitch and carbon aggregate called "paste" is
added at the top of the superstructure periodically, and the entire anode
assembly is moved downward as the carbon burns away. The cell anode is contained
by aluminum sheeting and perforated steel channels, through which electrode
connections, called studs, are inserted into the anode paste. As the baking
anode is lowered, the lower row of studs and the bottom channel are removed,
and the flexible electrical connectors are moved to a higher row. One disadvan-
tage of baking the paste in place is that heavy organic materials (tars) are
added to the cell effluent stream. The heavy tars often cause plugging of the
ducts, fans, and control equipment, an effect that seriously limits the choice
of air cleaning equipment.
The vertical-stud Soderberg is similar to the horizontal-stud furnace,
with the exception that the studs are mounted vertically in the cell. The
studs must be raised and replaced periodically, but that is a relatively simple
process. (1)7.1-1-7. 1-2
D. Emission Rates;
Particulate emissions from aluminum reduction processes come primarily from
the reduction cells and the anode baking furnaces. Large amounts of particulates
are also generated during the calcining of aluminum hydroxide, but the economic
value of this dust is such that extensive controls have been employed to reduce
emissions to relatively small quantities. Finally, small amounts of particulates
are emitted from the bauxite grinding and materials handling processes.
VII-61
-------
Particulate emissions from reduction cells consist of alumina and carbon
from anode dusting, cryolite, aluminum fluoride, calcium fluoride, chiolite
(Na A1J? ,), and ferric oxide. Particulates less than 1 micron in diameter
represent the large percentage (35% to 44% by weight) of uncontrolled effluents,
Controlled and uncontrolled emission factors for total particulates from
aluminum production are presented in Table VII-15. C1)7* 1~2~7«1-l+
TABLE VI1-15
PARTICULAR. EMISSIONS FROM PRIMARY A1XMIXUM PRODUCTION
Type of Operation
and Control
Bauxite Grinding Uncontrolled
Bauxite Grinding Spr.ly Towev
Bauxite Grinding Floating Bed Scrubber
Bauxite Grinding Quench Tower, Spray Screen
Bauxite Grinding Procipitator
Calcining, Uncontrolled
z r
Control
0
70
72
83
98
0
Emissions (based on 15 tons/hr)
Iba/ton | kg/Mton
6.0 3.0
1.8
1.7
1.0
.1
200.
Calcining, Spray Tower j 70 j 60.
Calclnln?,, Floating Bed Scrubber
Calcining, Quench Tower (Spray Screen)
Calcining, Electrostatic Procipitator
Anode S.-j'r-.ing, Uncontrolled
Anode Baking, Electrostatic Prccipitator
Anode Baking, Self Induced Spray
Prebakoj Reduction Cell, Uncontrolled
Prebakcd Reduction Coll, Spray Tower
Prebuked Reuuction Cell, Floating Bed Scrubber
Prehiikcd Rejection Cell, Electrostatic Prccipitator
PrctokJi! Re.Jucr.ijn Cell, Multiple Cyclone
Prets'i-.cd Reduction Cell, Fluid Bed Dry Scrubber
PrcbiV.tit ['.eduction Cell, Contei! Filter Dry Scrubber
Prebakcd Reduction Cell, Chncbc-r Scrubber
Pri.-b.iked Reduction Cell, Vertical Flow Tacked Bed
Prcbak<;d KeJuction Cell, Dry Amrnnla Adsorption
Horltontal-Stud Sodcrborg Cell, Uncontrolled
Hor Izontnl-Slud Soderbor^ Cell, Spvay Tower
Horizjr.cal-Stud Sodcrberg Coll, Floating Bed Scrubber
Ilori^ontn!-St.\!d Scilerfcurg Cell, Electrostatic Precipitator
Vertlciil-Sliu! Socicrburg Cell, Uncontrolled
Vcrtii-.al-Sr.il.-.! SoJurburg Cell, Spray Tower
Vcrtlcal-Siud Sinlerhurg Cell, Electrostatic Precipitator
Vcri.ic.il-St.ud Soicrburg Cell, Multiple Cyclone
Verdcsl-S tuii Sodfrbury Cell, Dry Alu-.ulna Adsorption
Vertical-Stud S.ide'rliur.-; Cell, Vi-p.turi Scrubber
N.i tr rials ):.-..i.11ing, Uncontrolled
Materials Hur.Jlir.g, Spray Towur
Materials li.ir.tilins, Floating Bed Scrubber
Materials Hatu'.ling, Quench Tower Spray Screen
Materials Handling, Electrostatic Precipitntor
72
83
98
0
62
98
0
80
.80
56.
34.
4.
3.0
'76.0
4.0
81.3
40.
40.
89-93 22. -14.
78 64.
. 98 4.
S3' 1«.
85 30.
85 30.
98 A.
.9
.9
.5
.05
Ibs/hr I kg/hr
90. 40.8
27- 12.2
25.2 11.6
15.3 6.8
1.8 .7
100. 3000. 1360.
30. i 900. 408.
28.
17.
2.
1.5
38.
2.
40.7
20.
20.
11. -7.
32.
2.
7.
15.
15.
2.
0 98.4 49.2
63-79 7'..— <2. 37. -21.
78 56. 1 28.
93 In. 7.
0
75
90-99
95
98
9G
0
70
72
83
98
78.4 : 39.2
640. 381.
510. 231.
60. 27.
45. 20.4
1140. 517.
60. 27.2
1220. 513.
600. 272.
600. 272.
330. -210. 150. -95.
960. 435.
1 60. 27.
210. 95.
450. 204.
450. :-04.
60. 27.
1476. £70.
1110. -633. 503. -:S6.
SnO. 381.
210. 95.
1176. 533. '
19.6 9.6 1 29-4. 133. I
7.8-8. :3.9-i. 117. -12. 53.-5.i :
3.9 2.0 53.5 ! 26.5 j
1.6 : .8 24. ' 10.9 !
3.1 : 1.6 : 46.5 ' 21.1 !
10.0 5. 1 150. i 68. :
3. I 1.5 . 45. ' 20.4
2.8 i 1.4
1.7 i .9
42. ; 19.1
25.5 11.6 i
.2 ! .1 i 3. 1.4
E. Control Equipment;
Because many different kinds of gases and particulates are emitted from
reduction cells, many kinds of control devices have been employed. To abate
both gaseous and particulate emissions, one or more types of wet scrubbers —
spray tower and chambers, quench towers, floating beds, packed beds, Venturis,
and self-induced sprays — are used on all three cells and on anode baking
furnaces. In addition, particulate control methods, such as electrostatic
precipitators (wet and dry), multiple cyclones, and dry scrubbers (fluid-bed
and coated-filter types), are employed with baking furnaces on PB and VSS cells.
Dry alumina adsorption has been used at several PB and VSS installations in
VI1-62
-------
foreign countries. In this technique, both gaseous and particulate fluorides
are controlled by passing the pot off-gases through the entering alumina feed,
on which the fluorides are absorbed; the technique has an overall control
efficiency of 98 percent. In the aluminum hydroxide calcining, bauxite
grinding, and materials handling operations, various dry dust collection devices
— such as centrifugal collectors, multiple cyclones, or electrostatic pre-
cipitators — and wet scrubbers or both may be used. O)7< l~**
F. New Source Performance'Standards arid Regulation Limitations;
. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): EPA has promulgated NSPS for Primary
Aluminum Reduction Plants on January 26, 1976. These standards limit the emissions
of flourides to:
(1) 1 kg/metric ton of aluminum produced for vertical stud Soderberg and
horizontal stud Soderberg plants
(2) 0,95 kg/metric ton of aluminum produced for potroon groups at prebake
plants, and
C3) 0.05 kg/metric ton of aluminum equivalent for anode bake plants.
However these standards to not relate directly to particulate emissions and
as such, are not included in the following analysis.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Five states (Alabama,
Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) have regulations specifically
for aluminum. These five states contain virtually all of the aluminum
producing industry. The regulations for these five states cover total
emissions for each ton of aluminum produced, to specific limitations for
indivdual pieces of process equipment at a specific plant. A description
of the limitations that apply to each of the above states is as follows:
Louisiana
Nevada
Criteria
baking of carbon anodes and
from the reduction process
(potlines)
reduction process (potlines)
for the Horizontal Stud
Soderberg process
Basic Refractory Division
facility of Basic, Inc., at
Gabbs
Limitation
22 Ibs/ton of aluminum
20 Ibs/ton of aluminum
(avg. three 24 hour periods)
Stack A
Stack B
Stack C
Stack D
Kiln No.
E =
E =
E =
E =
2 E
Kiln No. 3 E
2.04xlO-'*P
1.1 xlO->
1.41x10 -3p
1.48x10 -3P
- 1.633x10-2P
= 5.5 xlO"3P
VII-63
-------
Oregon total organic and inorganic 7.0 Ibs/ton of aluminum
particulate matter from plants (monthly avg) 5.0 Ibs/ton of
constructed on or after aluminum (avg annual)
January 1, 1973
total organic and inorganic 13.0 Ibs/ton of aluminum
particulate matter from plants (monthly avg) 10.0 Ibs/ton of
constructed on or before aluminum (annual avg)
. . January 1, 1973 .
Washington particulate matter from the 15.0 Ibs/ton of aluminum
'reduction process (pot-lines) (daily basis)
reduced to lowest level (BACT)
but not to exceed
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Existing control tech-
nology is adequate to control emissions from a 15 ton/hour plant to meet even the
most restrictive emission limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used in the development of the information in this section
on primary aluminum is listed below.
1> Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, March 1975.
References consulted but not directly used to develop this section include:
2. Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume I of II,
Sections 1 through 10, Singmaster and Breyer, EPA-450/3-73-004A,
July 23, 1973.
3. Profile of an Industry; Aluminum, Metals Week, August 12, 1968.
VII-64
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Asphalt Batching
C. Source Description:
Hot-mix asphalt plants produce asphalt paving material which consists of an
aggregate of mineral load-bearing material that has been mixed with asphalt cement.
Asphalt batching processes include:
(1) Proportional feeding of cold aggregates,
(2) Heating and drying of the aggregates to predetermined levels of
moisture content, and
(3) Coating with hot asphalt to produce a specific paving mix.
A
(2)1
typical process dr'agram of an asphalt batching plant is shown in Figure VIII-
117 stored sand and aggregate feed into a bucket elevator or cold elevator
which discharges into a rotary drier that may be either gas or oil-fired. The
dried aggregate discharges to the hot elevator which feeds into vibrating screens
for size classification and interim storage. Selected amounts of the sized aggre-
gates are dropped from the storage bins to the weigh hopper. The weighed aggre-
gate is then dropped to the mixer, where the hot asphalt is introduced to produce
the finished product. The final product mixture is discharged in batches or
continuously depending upon the individual plant set-up.
A typical batching plant will produce approximately 657,000 tons C592,000 M tons)
of paving material annually. The typical plant has a capacity of 150 tons (136
tons) per hour, and operates at 50 percent on-stream
COlO
AGG2EGATE
tllVATOI
HOT
AGCBECATt
EUVAtOS
COLD .
AGGHEGATE
JTOJACS
\7\7\7
Figure VIII-l! Flov Diagram for Hot-Mix Asphalt Batch Plant
D. Emission Rates:
Sources of particulate emissions from an asphalt batch plant include:
(1) Rotary dryer,
VIII-l '
-------
(2) Hot-aggregate elevators,
(3) Vibrating screens, and
(4) Hot-aggregate storage bins, weigh hoppers, mixers, and transfer
points.
(5) Handling of raw materials and fugitive emissions.
The largest process dust emission source is the rotary dryer, which re-
leases approximately 77 percent of the total particulate excluding fugitive
emissions emitted by an asphalt batch plant. (&) 328 Secondary sources in-
clude materials handling and sizing equipment. Particulate emissions from
asphalt batching plants are summarized in Table VIII-1. C3)8'.1".1*
TABLE VIII-1
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM ASPHALT BATCHING
Type of
Operation & Control
All Process Sources, Uncontrolled
All Process Sources, with Pre-
cleaner
All Process Sources, with High
Efficiency Cyclone
All Process Sources, with Spray
Tower
All Process Sources, with Bag-
house
%
Control
0
67
96.2
99.1
99.7
Particulate Emissions (Based en 150 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
45.0
15.0
1.7
0.4
0.1
kg/MT
22.5
7.5
0.85
0.20
0.05
Iba/hr
6750
2250
255
60
15
kR/hr
3061
1021
116
27
6.8
E. Control Equipment:
The choice of applicable control equipment ranges from dry mechanical collec-
tors to scrubbers and fabric collectors. Application of electrostatic precipitators
.has recently been tried on several plants. Practically all plants use primary dust
collection equipment, such as large diameter cyclone, skimmer, or settling cham-
bers. The chambers are used as classifiers with the collected materials being
returned to the hot aggregate elevator to combine with the dryer aggregate load.
Because there is a high level of contaminants in the air discharge from the
primary collector, the effluent from this device is ducted to a secondary or
tertiary collection device. Fabric collectors are presently in wide use as the
final collection device. Table VIII-1 shows the controlled and uncontrolled par-
ticulate emissions from an asphalt batch plant. (3) 8«1-'t
VIII-2
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);
On March 8, 1974 EPA promulgated New Source Performance Standards for asphalt
batching plants. The promulgated standards limit particulate matter emissions to
90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf) and 20 percent opacity.
State Regulations for. New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently.
from state to state. There are four types of general process regulations
that are applicable to the asphalt batching industry. The four types of
regulations are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas v-jlume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis: Alaska and New Jersey are representative of states
that express particulate emission limitations in terms of grains/standard
cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Several states have expressed particulate emission limitations specifically
for asphalt batching. These states and limitations are as follows:
Vermont - 0.07 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Several states have adopted particulate emission limitations for new
sources identical to EPA "New Source Performance Standards." These
states are:
Colorado - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Iowa - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Kentucky - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Oregon - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires the asphalt batching industry to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Delaware, Georgia, Idaho,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia have regulations
specifically for asphalt batching and/or light aggregate industries.
These limits are expressed in terms of Ibs/hr for a process weight rate of
150 tons/hour. The following lists the states and the respective
limitations that apply:
VIII-3
-------
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
40 Ibs/hour
600 Ibs/hr (existing), 189 Ibs/hr (new)
53.4 Ibs/hr
13.4 Ibs/hr (existing), 6.7 Ibs/hr (new)
40 Ibs/hr
40 Ibs/hr
42 Ibs/hr
13.2 Ibs/hr
45 Ibs/hr (new), 67 Ibs/hr (existing)
51.2 Ibs/hr
525.5 Ibs/hr
40 Ibs/hr
Gas Volume Basis; Texas is representative of states that expresses
particulate emission limitations in terms of Ibs/hour for specific
stack flow rates in actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limita-
tions for particulates are as follows:
1-10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000-1.00,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105-106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin have regulations for asphalt batching,
which limit the emission of particulates to 0.3 lbs/1000 Ibs of flue gas.
Table VIII-2 presents the particulate emissions and limitations from the
various asphalt batching processes.
TABLE VIII-2
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ASPHALT BATCHING
Type of
Operation & Control
All Sources, Uncontrolled
All Sources, with Precleaner
All Sources, with High Efficiency
Cyclone
All Sources, with Spray Tower
All Sources, with Baghouse
*
Control
0
67
96.2
99.1
99.7
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 112,500 tons/yr)
Ibs/hr
6750
.2250
255
60
15
Vg/hr
3061
1021
116
27
6.8
Limitations^ Ibs/hr / kg/hr
Asphalt Batchinp
New Sources
MA
6.7/3.0
6.7/3.0
6.7/3.0
6.7/3.0
,6.7/3.0
GA
189/85.7
189/85.7
189/85.7
189/85.7
189/85.7
Existing Sources
New Mex.
40/18.1
40/18.1
40/18.1
40/18.1
40/18.1
PA
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
13.2/6.0
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Spray towers,
baghouses and electrostatic precipitators are effective in reducing particulate
emissions from asphalt batching. Massachusetts fs limitation of 6.7 Ibs/hr for
a 150 ton/hour process would requirefstate of the Hr^\emission control.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations,
VIII-4
-------
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on asphalt batch plants
is listed below:
(1) Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources, PEDCO - Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607, July, 1973.
(2) Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final Re-
port) , Industrial Gas Cleaning Insitute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0301, Septem-
ber 30, 1972.
(3) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA, Publica-
tion No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final Itate Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Danielson, J.A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
(6) Friedrich, H.E., Air Pollution Control Practicies — Hot Mix Asphalt Paving
Batch Plants, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 19,
Number 12, December 1969.
(7) Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards: Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and .
Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingat Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants,
Sewage Treatment Plants, Vol. 1, Main Text, EPA, Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards, June, 1973.
Also consulted but not directly used to develop the discussion on asphalt batch
plants were:
(8) Field Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air Pollution Control, Volume III;
Inspection Procedures for Specific Industries, Pacific Environmental Services,
Inc., EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122, August, 1972.
(9) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission Proper-
ties^ Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May 1, 1971.
VIII-5
-------
A. Source Category: VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Asphalt Roofing (Blowing)
C. Source Description;
Asphalt blowing is an integral part of the manufacture of asphalt roofing.
The product of the blowing operation is asphalt saturant or coating; When mixed
with mineral filler, it is used to coat the roofing material and provide a base
for the crushed rock surfacing.
Airblowing is mainly a dehydrogenation process: oxygen in the air combines
with, hydrogen in the oil molecules to form water vapor. The progressive loss of
hydrogen results in polymerization or condensation of the asphalt to the desired
consistency. The operation is usually carried out batchwise in horizontal or ver-
tical stills equipped to blanket the charge with water or steam, but it may also
b.e done continuously. The asphalt is heated to 300° to 400°F (149° to 204°C) be-
fore the airblowing cycle begins. After 1/2 hour to 16 hours of blowing, the Sat-
urant or coating is transported to a tank or spray area for use. A typical plant
can blow 24 tons of asphalt per hour, or 210,000 tons per year. C1)2"8
D. Emission Rates:
Emissions from asphalt airblowing stills include oxygen, nitrogen, reactive hydro-
carbons, odors, and sulfur. Uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from the blowing
operation are 1.5 pounds per ton of saturated felt produced, or 2.5 ponnHp ppr f
of asphalt blown, as shown in Table VIII-3.
8> 2":1
TABLE VI I I- 3
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM ASl'HALT ROOFING MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Asphalt Blowing, uncontrolled
Asphalt Blowing, with afterburner
% Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions (CH,,) .
(Based on 210,000 tons/yr)
Ibs/ton*
2.5
.025
kg/mt
1.25
.0125
lbs/hr
60.0
0.60
kg/hr
27.22
•0.27
* Ton of Asphalt blown
E. Control Equipment:
Control of emissions from'asphalt airblowing stills has been accomplished
by incineration. Essential to effective incineration is direct-flame contact with
the vapors with a minimum retention time of 0.3 second in the combustion zone, and
maintenance of a combustion-chamber temperature of 1200°F (649°C). The un-
controlled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions from asphalt blowing are shown in
Table VIII-3.(2)8.2-1
VIII-6
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations!
New Source Performance Standards )NSPS) : No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for asphalt roofing manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Very few states have adopted
hydrocarbon regulations for specific process industries such as asphalt roofing
manufacture. Currently, hydrocarbon emission control regulations are similar to
the Los Angeles Rule 66-type legislation which has been instituted by many states
and local legislatures. These states include:
Alabama District of Columbia Louisiana Oklahoma
Arizona Illinois Maryland Pennsylvania
California Indiana New York Virginia
Colorado Kentucky North Carolina Wisconsin
Connecticut Ohio Puerto Rico
The limitation requires all solvents which are heated not to exceed 15 Ibs/
day- or 3 Ibs/hr emission to the atmosphere or be reduced by 85%. Photochemically
•reactive solvents which, are not heated are limited to 40 Ibs/day, 8 Ibs/hr or be
reduced 85*. C3).90
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These arc, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and- (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic .compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
en^ssions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
se limit a f-ions are as follows:
Process „ lbs/day & lbB/hour
1. heated process '15 3
2. unheated photocheraically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive ; 3000 450
VIII-7
-------
Appendix B (Fedcr al Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971)'limits the omission of photpchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
halogenatcd hydrocarbons, pcrchlorocthylcnc, benzene, acetone and c1-c5n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the. regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table VHT-4 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations
from asphalt roofing manufacture.
TABLE VIII-4
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Control
Asphalt Blowing, uncontrolled
Asphalt Blowing, with after-
burner
% Control
0
99
Hydrocarbon Emissions
(CHi,) (Based on 210, tons/yr)
Ibs/hr
60.0 "
0.60
kn/hr
27.22
.27
Limit aliens'* Ibs/hr/kft/hr
Heated
3
3
1.36
1.36
Ton of Asphalt blown
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Hydrocarbon emission
limitations are not based on process weight. Asphalt roofing is a relatively
small emitter, and the typical 24 ton/hour process can be controlled with
current technology. For asphalt roofing manufacture to comply with the
3 Ibs/hour limitation, a control efficiency of 95% must be maintained.-
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
VIII-8
-------
G. References;
Literature that was used to develop the discussion on asphalt blowing operations
is listed below:
(1) A Screening Study to Develop Background Information to Determine the Significance
of Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (Final Report). The Research Triangle Institute.
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 2. December, 1972.
(2) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.(Second Edition). EPA. Publication
. No. AP-42. April, 1973. . . .
(3) Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air Pollu-
tion Sources. PEDCO-Environmental Specialists. Inc. EPA Contract No. 68-02-
0607. July, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations, EPA, Con-
tract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission Properties.
Midwest Research Institute. EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. May 1, 1971.
The following sources were also consulted, but did not provide any useful infor-
mation on asphalt blowing operations:
(6) Field Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air Pollution Control Volume III.
Inspection Procedures for Specific Industries. Pacific Environmental Services,
Inc. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122. August, 1972.
(7) Background Information fcr Proposed New Source Standards; Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and Re-
fineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage
Treatment Plants, Volume I, Main Text. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, June, 1973.'
VIII-9
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Brick and Related Clay Products
C. Source Description;
The manufacture of brick and related clay products such as clay pipe, pottery,
and some types of refractory brick involves grinding, screening, and blending of
raw materials, and forming, cutting or shaping, drying or curing, and firing of
the final product.
Surface clays and shales are mined in open pits while most fine clays are
found underground. After mining, the material is crushed to remove stones and
stirred before it passes onto screens where the aggregate is separated by size.
At the start of the forming process, clay is mixed with water. The three
principal processes for forming brick are:
1. stiff-mud,
2. soft-mud, arid
3. dry-press processes.
In the stiff-mud process, sufficient water is added to give the clay plasticity
before being forced through a die to form the bricks. When the clay contains too
much water for the stiff-mud process, its moisture' content is increased to 20-30%
by addition of water and the bricks are formed in molds by a soft-mud process. In
the dry-press process, the clay is mixed with a small quantity of water and formed
in steel molds by applying a pressure of 500 to 1500 psi (35.2 to 105 kg/cm2).
Before firing, the bricks are dried by heat from the kilns. Tunnel kilns and
periodic kilns are the two types of kilns most commonly used for the six-step firing
operation. Total firing time varies with the type of product; maximum temperatures
of about 2000°F (1093°C) are used in firing common brick.
The brick manufacturing process is illustrated in Figure VIII-2.
typical plant can produce 3.2 tons per hour or 28.000 tons annually.
RELATED PRODUCTS
8* 3~2 A
BRICK AND
MINING
—
CRUSHING
AND
STORAGE
—
(P)
PULVERIZING
—
!P>
SCREENING
—
FORMING
AND
CUTTING
>
GLAZING
-
(P)
DRYING
[_F
HOT
-•_ GASES —
UELJ
(P)
KILN
(P)
STORAGE
AND
SHIPPING
Figure VIII-2; Basic Flow Diagram of Brick. Manufacturing'Process
("P" denotes a major source of particulate ealaslonc)
VIII-10
-------
D. Emission Rates;
The major sources of particulate emissions from brick manufacturing are indi-
cated by a "P" in the flow diagram of Figure V1II-2. These include:
1. crushing and storage,
2. pulverizing,
3. screening,
4. drying,
5. kiln, and
6. storage and shipping operations.
These emissions are summarized in Table VIII-5.
- 3~3
TABLE VII.I-5
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM BRICK MANUFACTURE
Type of Operation and Controls
Drying and Grinding, uncontrolled
Storage, uncontrolled
Gas-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Gas-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Drying and Grinding, with Fabric Filter
Stor??,.?, wlrh 5-sl-.ric Filtsr
Gas-fire:; Tur.ncl kiln, with scrubber
Oil-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Coal-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Gas-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Oil-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
5t Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
97
97
97
97
97
97
Particulate Emissions
(based on 28,000 tons/yr)
Ibs/ton
96
34
0.04
0.6
l.OA
0.11
0.9
1.6A
0.96
0.34
0.001
0.018
0.03A
0.003
0.027
0.048A
kB/M Ton
48
17
0.02
0.3
0.5A
0.05
0.45
0.8A
0.48
0.17
0.0005
0.009
0.015A
0.0015
0.0135
0.024A
Ibs/hr
307.
109.
0.128
1.92
32.
0.35
2.88
51.2
3.07
1.09
O.C032
0.0576
.96
O.OC96
0.0364
1.54
kg/hr
139.
45.4
.058
.87
15.
.16
1.31
23.2
1.29
• .49
.0015
.026
.44
.0044
.039
.70
A - Z Ash in Coal; Assume 107. Ash.
E. Control Equipment:
A variety of control systems may be used to reduce the particulate emissions
from clay manufacture. Although almost any type of particulate control system will
reduce emissions from the materials handling process, good design, and hooding are
essential to capture the emission. Blending, storage, and grinding emissions are
reduced up to 99% using fabric filters while combustion particulates are reduced as
much as 97% with a medium energy scrubber.(2)5-2,3-1 ^he controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from clay manufacture are shown in Table VIII-5.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No NSPS have been promulgated for
brick manufacturing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources^; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
brick manufacturing. The four types of regulations are based on:
VIII-11
-------
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard, cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states are:
Alaska - 0,05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania— 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
term? of pounds/hour for specific nfrack flow rates expressed ir; actanl
cubic feeL per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfra - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 ' acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr .
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
general process limitations for new sources. For new sources with a
process weight rate of 3.2 tons/hour, Massachusettes is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 3.8 Ibs/hr (1.7 kg/hr) and New Hampshire
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 8.8 Ibs/hr (4.0 kg/hr)
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express particulate limitations for a wide range of process weight rates.
For a process weight rate of 3.2 tons/hour Colorado is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 7.4 Ibs/hr (3,4 kg/hr) and New
Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 10.9 Ibs/hr
(4.9 kg/hr).
TaHle 71.11-6 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions for brick manufacture.
VIII-12
-------
TABLE VIII-6
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM BRICK MANUFACTURE
Type of Opcrntlon and Controls
Drying and Grinding, uncontrolled
Storage, uncontrolled
Gas-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-fired Tunnel kiln, uncontrolled
Gas-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Oil-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, uncontrolled
Drying and Grinding, with Fabric Filter
Storage, with Fabric Filter
Gas-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Oil-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Coal-fired Tunnel kiln, with scrubber
Gas-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Oil-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
Coal-fired Periodic kiln, with scrubber
X Control
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
97
97
97
97
97
97
'articulate Kmisslons
(based on
28,000 tons/yr)
Ibs/hr kjs/hr
307. 139.
109. 45. 4
0.128 .058
1.92 .87
32. 15.
0.35 .16
2.88 1.31
51.2 23.2
3.07 1.39
1.09 ..49
0.0032 .0015
0.0576 .026'
.96. -.44.
0.0096 .0044
0.0864 .039
1.54 -.070.
Limitations'* lbs/hr/kp,/hr
New Sources
Col.
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4.
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
7.4/3.4
New Hamp.
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9.
10.9/4.9.
10.9/4.9.
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
10.9/4.9
UT
85Z control
46.1/20.91
16. 3/ 7.39
0.019/.009
0.288/.131
4.8/2.2
0.053/.024
0.432/.196
0.76/.345
—
--...''
— .
—
—
—
~
™~
Existing S
HA
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
3.8/1.7
ources
New H.i!r\n.
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
8.8/9.0
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Fabric filters and
scrubbers have been successfully used to limit particulate emissions from brick
manufacturing.
The control technology exists to adequately meet the emission regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the discussion on bricks and related clay products
include the following:
EPA. Publica-
(1) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition).
tion No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(2) A Screening Study to Develop Background Information to Determine the Signifi-
cance of Brick and Tile Manufacturing (Final Report). The Research Triangle
Institute. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 4, December, 1972.
(3) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission Properties,
Midwest Research Institute. EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. May 1, 1971.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations. EPA, Con-
tract 68-02-0248, July. 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Hopper, T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emis-
sions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report). TRC - The Research
Corporation of New England. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No. 3, October,
1975.
References which were not used directly to prepare'this section but which did
contain relative information were;
(6) Danielson, J.A. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition. AP-40, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973.
(7) Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final Report)
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute. EPA Contract No. 6R-02-0301. September 30,
1972.
VIII-13
-------
A. jjource Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Cement Plants
C. Source. Description;
Cement is used as an intermediate product for many materials including:
1. concrete,
2. mortar,
3. concrete block, and
4. concrete pipe.
Raw materials for cement production include Time and silica as the principal
components, with alumina and ferric oxide as fluxing components. Approximately
3,200 pounds (1,454.5 kg) of dry raw materials are required to produce one ton of
cement.
Portland cement is made by either the wet process or the dry process. In
either case, there are four major steps in the manufacturing process:
1. quarrying and crushing operations,
2. grinding operations,
3. kiln operations, and
4. finish grinding end packaging operations,
In the dry process, the moisture content of the raw material is reduced to
less than 1 percent either before or during the grinding operation. The dried ma-
terials are then pulverized into a powder and fed directly into the upper end of
a rotary kiln. The material travels downward and is dried, decarbonated, and cal-
cined before fusing to form the clinker. The clinker is cooled, mixed with five
percent gypsum by weight, ground to the final product fineness, and stored for
packaging and shipment.
In the wet process, a slurry is made by adding water to the initial grinding
operation. After the materials are mixed, the excess water is removed, and final
adjustments are made to obtain a desired composition. The mixture is fed to the
kilns as a slurry of 30 to 40 percent moisture or as a wet filtrate of about 20
percent moisture. The burning, cooling, gypsum addition, and storage are carried
out as in the dry process.
These two processes are shown schematically in Figure VIII-3.C1)172 An aver-
age plant will produce 522,000 tons of cement annually. Approximately 58 percent
of U. S. production is being produced by the wet process.(2)102
VIII-14
-------
~l
TO
ItUCK,
IOX CAlt
PACKAGING! . T^
MACHINE | ' '
Figure VIII-3; Basic Flow Diagram of Portland Cement Manufacturing Process
D. Emission Rates;
There are six sources of particulate emissions at cement plants:
1. quarrying and crushing,
2. raw material storage,
3. grinding and blending (dry process only),
4. clinker production,
5. finish grinding, and
6. packaging.
The major source of particulate emissions in cement plants is the calcining
kiln. Dust is generated in kiln operations by the following:
1. grinding and tumbling action within the kiln,
2. liberation of gases during calcination, and
3. condensation of material that is volatilized
during passage through the kiln.
The principal secondary sources in the cement industry are dryers and crushers.
These emissions are summarized in Table VIII-7.(3)8.6-3, (1)185
VIII-15
-------
TABtE VIII-7
PARTICULATE EMISSION'S FROM CEMENT MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation & Control
Dry Process: Kiln, Uncontrolled
Dry Process: Grinders & Dryers,
Uncontrolled
Wet Process: Kiln, Uncontrolled
Wet Process: Grinders & Dryers,
Uncontrolled
Dry Process: Kiln, with Multi-
cyclones
Dry Process: Kiln, with Elec-
trostatic Precipitator
Dry Process: Kiln, with Multi-
cyclone & Electrostatic
Precipitator
Dry Process: Kiln with Multi-
cyclone & Baghouse
Wet Process: Kiln, with Elec-
trostatic Precipitator
Wet Process: Kiln, with Multi-
cyclone & Electrostatic
Precipitator
Wet Process: Kiln, with
Baghouse
%
Control
0
0
0
0
72.0-89.3
97.6-99.3
88.0-99.7
99.7
95.6-99.7
89.3-98.1
99.8
Parttculate Emissions (Based on 60 tons/hr)
li)S/ton
245
96
228
32
69-26
5.7-1.7
29- .6
.7
10- .5
24-4.3
.4
kR/MT
122
48
114
16
34-13
2.9- .9
15- .3
.4
5- .3
12-2.2
.18
Ibs/hr
14,600
5,720
13,590
954
4,090-1,560
340- 101
1,750- 36
42
590- 31
1,440- 256
21
kE/hr
6,630
2,600
6,170
433
1,860-708
154- 46
795- 16
19
270- 14
654-116
9.4
E. Control Equipment;
The complications of kiln burning and the large volumes of materials handled
have led to the adoption of many control systems for dust collection. Depending
upon the emission, the temperature of the effluents from the plant in question,
and the particulate emission standards in the community, the cement industry gen-
erally uses mechanical collectors, electrical precipitators, baghouses, or combi-
nations of these devices to control emissions. The controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from cement manufacture are shown in Table VIII-7.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On December 23, 1971 EPA promulgated
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants. The NSPS for
the kiln and clinker cooler are as follows:
Kiln - .3 Ib/ton feed (.15 kg/M ton feed)
Clinker Cooler - .1 Ib/ton feed (.05 kg/M ton feed)
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to portland cement manufacturing. The four types of regulations are based on:
VIII--16
-------
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis for Portland Cement; Michigan and New Mexico have
regulations specifically for cement kilns, clinker coolers and materials
handling operations. The limitations for these states and operations
are as follows:
State Criteria Limitation
Michigan wet or dry kiln 0.25 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
clinker cooler 0.30 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
materials handling 0.15 lbs/1000 Ibs flue gas
New Mexico kiln 230 mg/m3
Concentration Basis for General Processes; Alaska, Delaware, Washington
and New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis for Portland Cemeot; Iowa and North Carolina
require portland cement industries to maintain 99.7% control over
uncontrolled emissions.
Control Efficiency Basis for General Processes; Utah requires industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis for General Processes; Texas expresses particulate
emission limitations in terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates
expressed in actual cubic feet/minute. The Texas limitations for
particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 1,000,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
106 - 106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr .
Process Weight Rate Basis for Portland Cement Plants; Several states have
regulations specifically for portland cement man'ufacture. These regulations
cover either the entire process or the kiln and cooler separately. The
following lists the state, process and limitation for a 60 ton/hour portland
cement process:
VIII-17
-------
State
Arizona
Colorado
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
New Hampshire
New York
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
South Carolina
Virginia
Wisconsin
Process
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
whole process
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln (new)
clinker cooler (new)
whole process
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
kiln
clinker cooler
whole process
whole process
kiln
clinker cooler
Limitation
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
33.3 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
45.9 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
18 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
34.8 Ibs/hr
21.9 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
42 Ibs/hr
46.3 Ibs/hr
18.0 Ibs/hr
6.0 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for sources with a process weight rate of 60 tons/hour.
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, ?.?,1
Ibs/hr (10.5 kg/hr) and Maine is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 33.3 Ibs/hr (15.1 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations in terms of pounds/hr for a wide
range of process weight rates. For a 60 ton/hr process Connecticut is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 33,3 Ibs/hr (15.1 kg/hr)
and Mississippi is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
63.7 Ibs/hr (28.9 kg/hr). Table VIIT-8 presents controlled and uncontrolled
particulate emissions and limitations for portland cement manufacture.
TAIH.E V1II-8
PU1TICUIATE EMISSIONS ANP LIBITATIONS IHOM CEHCHT MANUFACTURE
Type ot
Operation & Control
Dry ProcejiR Kiln,
Uncontrolled
Dry Procena: Crlndern &
Driers, Uncontrolled
Wei Process: Kiln
Uncontrolled
Wet Process: Grinders i
DrUru, Uncontrolled
Dry Proce HI Kiln with
Hultleyc one.
Dry Proc*1 si Kiln with
Itator
Dry Proce a: Kiln with
Hultlcyc one and Klec-
trostail Fr.clpltator
Dry Prucr 0: Kiln with
Hultleyc one 4 Bailhou.e
Vic Proce •: Kiln with
Electro. Atlc Prcclp-
Itetor
Vot Proce .1 KUn with
Kultlcyc one 4 Elcc-
troic«ci Preelpttiior
Wet Proco II UJn wUh
Cathouie
I
Conirol
0
0
0
0
n-
89.3
>7.6-
99.}
>B.O-
99.7
19.7
15.6-
99.7
19.1-
98.1
19.8
(Based on 60 cons/hr)
Ibn/hr kK/hr
14600 6630
J720 2600
13590 6170
954 «33
4090-1560 1860-708
140-101 154-46
17)0-16 791-16
42 19
990-11 270-14
1440-254 654-116
21 94
NSPS
r.rl lc-.il.TU- Ural 1.. lions"
Portland Ci'ir.ntt 1'lnntr.
lli,-./lir / ks/lir
ll>y/hr Vr/hr 1 CoJ ,
18.0 8.2
18.0 8.2
18.0 8.2
18.0 8.2
18.0 8.2
.
18.0 8.2
18.0 8.2
18.0 8.2
18.0 t.2
18.0 I.I
13.0 8.1
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
:8.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
19.0/8.2
10.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
18.0/8.2
I'A
19.8/15.8
19.8/15.8
39.8/15.8
39.8/15.8
19.8/15.8
19.6/15.8
19.8/15.8
39.6/15.8
19.8/15.8
19. 8/11. 1
19.8/13.8
NVw Sources
Ihs/hr / k£/« ton
M.-IKK.
23.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
21.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
21. 1/10. i
21.1/10.5
23.1/10.5
21. 1/10. i
21. 1/10. i
23.1/10.5
M:i 1 nc
33.3/15.1
33.1/15.1
13.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
13.3/15.1
11.1/15.1
11.1/15.1
11.1/15.1
31.1/15.1
11. 1/11.1
frtlstlnft Source*
Ibs/lir /kK/M ton
Conn .
13.1/15.1
31.1/15.1
11.1/15.1
11.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
11.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
33.3/15.1
11.1/15.1
11.1/11.1
MLss
61.7/28.9
61.7/28.9
61.7/28.9
61.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
61.7/28.9
63.7/28.9
61.7/28.9
61.7/28.9
(1.7/28. «
61.7/28.9
VjT, Cont.
2190,993
858,189
2039 925
141 65
.
VIII-18
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; New Source Performance
Standards require 99.9% control over uncontrolled dry process kiln emissions. A dry
kiln with an efficient baghouse could potentially meet this limitation. All of the
states listed in Table VIII-8 will require a baghouse to meet the state regulations,
except Utah.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
G. References;
The literature used to develop the discussion on cement manufacture is
listed below:
(1) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission
Properties. Midwest Research Institute. EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-
104. May 1, 1971.
(2) Particulate Pollution Control Equipment Requirements of the Cement
Industry. Supplied by EPA, Emission Standards and Engineering Division.
(3) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA.
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations.
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Establishment of National Emission Standards for Stationary Sources,
Volume VI. Portland Cement Manufacturing Plants (Final Report). Re-
search Triangle Institute and PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Contract No. CPA 70rl64,- Task Order No. 2. September 30, 1970.
(6) Kreichelt, Thomas E., Douglas A. Kemnitz, Stanley T. Cuffee.
Atmospheric Emissions from the Manufacture of Portland Cement. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Services
Publication No. 999-AP-17.
Other sources that were consluted but were not directly used in this
section included:
(7) lammartino, Nicholas R. Cement's Changing Scene. Chemical Engineering.
June 24, 1974.
(8) Background Information for Proposed New-Source Performance Standards;
Steam Generators, Incinerators, Portland Cement Plants, Nitric Acid
Plants, Sulfuric Acid Plants. Office of Air Programs Technical Report
No. APTC-0711. August, 1971.
(9) Field Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air Pollution Control,
Volume II; Control Technology and General Source Inspection. Pacific
Environmental Services, Inc. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122. August, 1972.
(10) Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for
Air Pollution Sources. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA
Contract Wo. 68-02-0607. July, 1973.
VIII-19
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category! Coal Cleaning (Thermal Drying)
C. Source Description;
Thermal drying is the final step in the coal preparation process as shown in
the coal cleaning process diagram in Figure VIII-4.C1)213 Thermal drying of coal
ia done for one or more of the following reasons:
1. To avoid freezing difficulties and to facilitate handling during
shipment, storage, and transfer;
2. To maintain high pulverizer capacity;
3. To improve the quality of coal used for coking; and
4. To decrease transportation costs.
STACK
INDUCED POLLUTION
PSAFT ABATE.v.EKT
FAN "EQUIPMENT
STORAGE FIRST
SILO SCREENS
CRUSHER Sftl ClfANIHG THESMAl
SCREEN CIRCUIT DRYER
MOT
PRIMARY
DOST
ua COLLECTOR
VIII-Ai Coal Cl««nlDi ?roc»»« Floy Pl«tr««
All dryers in use are simply contacting devices in which hot flue gases are
air are used to heat the wet coal, evaporate much of the moisture, and transport
the water vapor out of the system. There are several different types of thermal
dryers employed by the coal-cleaning industry. These include:
1. fluidized bed dryer,
2. suspension or flash dryer,
VIII-20
-------
In the fluidized bed dryer, which is the most popular, the coal is suspended
in a fluid state above a perforated plate by a rising column of hot gases, and
the dried coal is discharged from the dryer by an overflow weir. The second most
widely used dryer in coal processing plants is the flash' dryer, wherein hot gases
generated by burning fuel in a furnace are used to transport the coal up a riser.
Highly turbulent contact of the gases and coal particles brings about excellent
drying. Rotary dryers are cylindrical drums in which the coal flows countercur-
rent to the flow of the hot gases. Screen type dryers carry the coal on recipro-
cating screens which accomplish evaporation by passing hot gases through the bed.
In cascade dryers coal cascades through louvers and comes into contact with hot
gases which impart heat for the evaporation of moisture. Schematic drawings of
a screen type unit, a flash-drying unit, and a fluidized-bed unit are shown in
Figures VIII-5 through VIII-7.(5)^50,^52,453
flotn VllI-5-Schea»tle Clutch of Ecr««n-iVj«. Thtrmti Col-B
bluutt tan
Bypiu iltck
AMnnpeilnj louvttt
tVltt-t- Ichmtlc Drawing Showing Component f»rt>
o£J[l
-------
Ciploiion vcnlt
Pulnmu
Z.4g"r«_VlIl-7-fret»ure-Typ; Flulillied.Bod^r^rn.i coil Sry»r,
Sh«lna_C«ponVr.i" Parts u>4 rlw of Coil
~" ~~
D, Emission Rates;
The thermal dryers are the largest single source of dust and particulates in
coal preparation plants. The crushing, screening, and sizing of coal are minor
sources of particulate emissions. Uncontrolled emissions from thermal dryers range
from 100 - 300 pounds per ton of coal dried as shown in Table VIII-9. (3) All
dryers have cyclones included as an integral part of the design and are used to
recover the product. Additional controls are often added to reduce air pollution
potential, but do not materially affect the recovery of recycleable product.
TABLE VIII-9
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM COAL CLEANING (THERMAL DRYING)
Type of Operation
and Controls
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Uncontrolled
•Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cycloncjs, Uncontrolled
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclones, 10" iP Scrubber
Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclones, 20" AP Scrubber
•Fluidized Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclones, 30" AP Scrubber
% Control
0
0
98.0
98.8
99.2
Particular Emissions (Rased on 64 tons/hr)
Ibs/ton
200
(100-300)
13
(10-25)
0.25
0.15
0.10
kg/MT
181.
11.8
.23
.14
.09
Ibs/hr
12,800.
832.
16.
9.6
6.4
kR/hr
S, 806.
377.
7.3
4.4
2.9
E. Control Equipment;
Particulate emissions from thermal dryers are best controlled by a series of
cyclones and scrubbers. Cyclone separators eliminate larger particle sizes and
recover approximately 70 percent of the product. Multiple cyclones will collect
as much as 85 percent of the product. Water sprays following the cyclones will
reduce particulate emissions by 95 percent, whereas the use of a wet scrubber
following cyclones can reduce the emissions by as much as 99.2 percent. The
controlled and uncontrolled emissions are shown in Table VIII-9.
Vlli-22
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS):
On January 15, 1976, EPA promulgated New Source Performance Standards for
coal preparation plants. The promulgated standards (Federal Register Jan. 15,
1976) regulate particulate matter emissions from coal preparation and handling
facilities processing more 200 tons/day of bituminous coal. The standard re-
quires that emissions from thermal dryers may not exceed 0.070 g/dscm (0.031
gr/dscf) and 20% opacity that emissions from pneumatic coal cleaning equip-
ment may not exceed 0.040 g/dscm (0.018 gr/dscf) and 10% opacity, and .(3)
emissions from coal handling and storage equipment (processing non-bitumi-
nous as well as bituminous coal) may not exceed 20% opacity. For fluidized
bed dryers the 0.031 grains/dry standard cubic foot is equivalent to 0.1
Ibs/ton of processed coal. C )
State Regulations for New and^ Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are
applicable to the coal cleaning industry. The four types of regulations
are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot. The limitations for these states are:
Alaska - .05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - .20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - .20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - .10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - .02 grains/standard cubic foot
Concentration Basis for Coal Cleaning; West Virginia has a regulation
specifically for coal cleaning based on standard cubic feet per minute:
West Virginia - 0.12 grains/standard cubic foot <120,000 cfm
0.10 grains/standard cubic foot >120,000 cfm <245,000 cfm
0.08 grains/standard cubic foot >245,000 cfm <500,000 cfm
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires the coal preparation industry to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled coal drying emissions.
'/
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
VIII-23
-------
1-10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000-100,000 acfm - 38.00 lbs.hr
105-106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for Coal Cleaning; Virginia and Pennsylvania
have specific emission limitations for coal drying.dleaning. For the
typical plant examined in Section D that produces 560,000 tons/hr on a
continuous basis, the Virginia limitation is 45 Ibs/hr (20.4 kg/hr). The
limitation in Pennsylvania is determined by the following equation:
A = .76E'42, where A = Allowable emissions, Ibs/hr
E = Emission index = F x W Ibs/hr
F = Process factor, Ibs/unit
W = Production or charging rate, units/hr
For the typical coal cleaning plant analyzed in Section D, substitu-
tion into the equation results with an allowable omission of 5.8 Ibs/
hr (2.64 kg/hr)., Pennslyvania also restricts coal dryer emissions to
0.02 grains/standard cubic foot O0.07 Ibs/ton for dryers) >*''
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
process limitations for sources with a process weight rate of 64 tons/hour.
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 23.5 Ibs/
hr (10.7 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative oi: a least-
restrictive limitation, 46.9 Ibs/hr (21.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general process limitations in terms of pounds/hour for a wide range
of process weight rates. For a 64 ton/hour process Colorado is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 33.7 Ibs/hr (15.3 kg/hr) and Mississippi
is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 66.5 Ibs/hr (30.2 kg/hr).
Table VIII-10 presents the relationship between controlled and uncontrolled
emissions and limitations.
TAMJ. VII1-10
fARTtCUULTF. EMISSIONS AND LIHITAT10SS KKOX COAL CUAK1NC (T.IEHMA1. DRYING)
Type of Operation
'luldlted Bed Dryer. Uncontrolled
Cyclone*, Uncontrolled
'lulilieJ Bod Dryer, Internil
Cyclones, 10" iP Scrubber
'luldlted Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclone*, 20" AP Scrubber
'luldised Bed Dryer, Internal
Cyclone*, 30" OP Scrubber
X
0
0
98.0
98.6
99.2
64 tona/nour)
IbD/hr
12,800.
632.
16.
9.6
6.4
kR/hr
5806.
377.
7.3
4.4
2.9
Coal Drying
PA
5.8/2.6
5.8/2.6
5.8/2.6
5.8/2.6
3.8/2.6
IISPS
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
6.4/2.9
VA-
45/20.4
45/20.4
45/20.4
llr.ttntimn'1 lhs/hr/kr./lir
General Process Industries
Ncv Sources
• MA
23.5/10.7
23.5/10.7
23.5/10.7
45/20.4 23.5/10.7
45/20.4 23.5/10.7
Nil
46.9/21.3
46.9/21.3
46.9/21.3
46.9/21.3
46.9/21.3
Cxlitlr.; Sourcei
Col.
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
33.7/15.3
::ISB ._
66.3/30.2
66.5/30.2
66,5.30.2
66.3/30.2
66.5/30.2
VT 851 Control
...
124.6/56.6
•»
•M.
~
VIII-24
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations!
Pennsylvania^ limitation specifically for coal cleaning requires the scrubber
to maintain a 40" AP while NSPS require a 30" AP.(3^
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References; . . .
The following references were utilized in the development of this section on
thermal drying of coal:
(1) Air Pollution Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final Report) ,
Industrial Gas Cleaning Insitute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0301, September 30,
1972.
(2) Background Information for Establishment of National Standards of Performance
for New Sources, Coal Cleaning Industry (Draff;), Environmental Engineering,
Inc. and Herrick Associates, EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142, Task Order No. 7,
July 15, 1971.
(3) Memo frore Ch.irl.e? P., Sedman. Industrial Studies Branch EPA March 4, 1976.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans — Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III — Handbook of Emission Prop-
erties, Midwest Research Institute, EPA Contract No. CPA 22-69-104, May,
1971.
(6) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report), TRC-The Research
Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No. 3, October,
1975.
Two sources which may contain information relative to thermal drying but
which were not directly used in the preparation of this discussion include:
(7) Field Operations and Enforcement Manual for Air Pollution Control, Volume
III; Inspection Procedures for Specific Industries, Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc., EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122, August, 1972.
(8) Background Information for Standards of Performance; Coal Preparation
Plants, Volume I; Proposed Standards, Emissions Standards and Engineering
Division, EPA 45-/2-74-02/a, October, 1974.
VIII-25
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Concrete Batching
C. Source Description:
Concrete batching is the process that proportions sand, gravel, and cement
by means of weigh hoppers and conveyors into a mixing receiver. There are three
types of Hatching plants in use:
1. Wet-batch plants
2. Central mix plants
3. Dry-mix plants
In wet batch plants, sand, aggregates, and cement are mixed in proper propor-
tions and dropped into a transit mix truck. Water is added simultaneously. In
central mix plants, the raw materials are mixed at a central plant and wet con-
crete is delivered to the job site in open trucks. In dry-mix plants, sand, ag-
gregate, and cement are mixed dry; water is added and the concrete is mixed at
the job site. In some cases, the concrete is prepared for on-site building con-
struction work or for the manufacture of concrete products. An average plant will
produce 65,320 tons of concrete per year. (l)Concrete Batching
D. Emission Rates:
Particulates are emitted in significant quantities from receiving and con-
veying of cement, sand, and aggregates, and from load-out of the wet concrete. The
particulate emissions consist of cement dust, but some sand and aggregate grave]
dust emissions do occur during batching operations.
Factors affecting the emission rate include:
1. Amount and particle size of the materials handled.
2. The type of handling systems used.
Particulate emissions from an uncontrolled plant are approximately 0.2 Ibs/
cubic yard of concrete. (3) 3-191 xhese emissions are summarized in Table
VIII-11. (2)8. 10-1
TABLE VIII-11
PARTICUI.ATE EMISSIONS FROM CONCRETE BATCHING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Concrete Batching, Uncontrolled
Concrete Batching, Controlled
%
Control
0
90
Particulate Emissions
(based on 36 Uons/hr.)
Ib/ton
0.1
0.01
kg/rat
0.05
0.005
Ib/hr
3.6
0.4
kg/hr
1.67
0.2
*Assumes 8 hr/day x 5 day/weak x 45 wk/yr « 1800 hr/yr.
VIII-26
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Control techniques for particulates from concrete batching include:
1. Enclosure of dumping and loading areas
2. Enclosure of conveyors and elevators
3. Filters on storage bin vents
4. Use of water sprays.
Vet scrubbers have encountered operational difficulties such as plugged
spray nozzles, corrosion, and waste-water disposal problems. The particulate
emissions for a plant with good control are shown in Table VIII-11.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No NSPS have been promulgated for
concrete batching operations.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are
applicable to concrete batching operations. The four types of regulations
are based on:
1. concentration
2. control efficiency
3. gas volume .
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington, New Jersey and Penn-
sylvania are representative of states that express general process
particulate emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic
foot and grains/dry standard cubic foot. Iowa has a regulation
specially for concrete batching and limits the emissions to .1
grains/standard cubic foot. The limitations for the other states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot when
gas volume is less than 300,000 dscf
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot when gas
; - volume exceed 300,000 dscf.
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Connecticut has a regulation that limits
emissions from concrete batching to .02 Ibs/cubic yard of concrete or
90% of uncontrolled emissions, whichever is lower. Utah's general
process weight regulation requires 85% control of uncontrolled emissions.
VI1I-27
-------
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations for
general processes in terms of .pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates
expressed in actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for
particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
.0000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
general process regulations for new sources with a process weight rate of 36
tons/hour. Illinois is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
17.2 Ibs/hr (7.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 41.6 Ibs/hr (18.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general particulate process limitations in terms of pounds/hour
for a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of
36 tons/hour Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
30.7 Ibs/hr (13.9 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 45.2 Ibs/hr (20.5 kg/hr). Table VIII-12 presents
uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limitations from concrete
batching operations.
TABLK VIII-12
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM CONCRETE BATCHING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Concrete Batching, Uncontrolled
Concrete Batching, Controlled
%
Control
0
90
Particulate
Emissions
based on
65,320 tons/yr
Ib/hr ks/hr
3.6 1.7
0.4 0,2
Limitations" lb/hr/kf;/hr
Concrete
B&cchinn
CT 9L>Z Control
.3
General Processes
New Sources
IL
.17.2/7.8
17.2/7.8
NH
41.6/18.9
41.6/18.9
Existing Sources
CO
30.7/13.9
30.7/13.9
M-tKB
45.2/20.5
45.2/20.5
UT 85% Cent.
0.5/0.3
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Connecticut with a
specific regulation for concrete batching, and Utah with a general process require-
ment are the only two states in which the batching must have control equipment.
In all other states uncontrolled concrete batching does not exceed existing
limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
VIII-28
-------
G. References;
Literature used to develop, the information on this section of the Mineral
Products Industry (Concrete Batching) is presented below:
1. Hopper. T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources. Volume II (Final Report). TRC - The Re-
search Corporation of New England. EPA Contract 68-02-1382, Task #3, Octo-
ber, 1973.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA Publi-
cation No. AP-42. April, 1973.
3. Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources. PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract No.'
68-02-0607.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
One reference was found to contain related information but was not utilized
in the preparation of the preceding discussion:
5. Services. Inc. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-122. August, 1972.
VIII-29
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral ProductsItulustry
B. Sub Category; Glass Wool Production (Soda Lime)
C. Source Description;
Soda lime is one of five types of glass, but it accounts for 90 percent of all
glass produced. At a typical glass plant, glass sand, soda ash, limestone, cullet
(broken glass), and minor ingredients are batch weighed, mixed, and charged to the
glass furnace.
In the furnace, the dry mixture blends with the molten glass and is held in
the molten state at about 2800°F (1538°C) until it acquires the homogeneous char-
acter of glass. The batch is then heat conditioned to eliminate stones and cooled
to 2200°F (1204°C). While still at a yellow-orange temperature, the glass is drawn
from the furnace and worked on forming machines. Figure VIII-8 shows a flow dia-
gram for a soda-lime glass plant.O)3~168 A typical plant produces 68,000 tons
annually.C3)1"3
Vf.A VfiO
t*'i,«Vr%
i»> r#M *.«v«. V)r
*.«n •
u.f--": i-, '
*PO'O' ?0- 1OO m(\h
SOD* A5H
Ht,CO,
10 y*ld wxll. N»,0
App«oi 20 I20mel^
°' «'"*"'•'
UMtSTONt
W bum) tim«
40 r«M lim>. 0*0
W|lO *'%C ^vtlU
•1 14* mjt*'.J>
AoprOI ;0"liOf»tVh
FEIOSPA9 '
R,O.AI,O, frs-o,
10 yifld ilumina. Al(0).
*'iO yitldt VD|
and Ni,0 or H,0
8
Pe.. or bo»< .c-d
to )'«id 8,0), i"d
fl'hC «ddili0n» 10
ff'd K,0. '-'[0.
?«?. R*0. ,nrt PbO
r.".«s. o..d.!-n«.
Mtleruli dfy.ot nearly dry
oiltnuout tanv 'u'nice looking
4own Ihrou^ loo (trown)
Submersed lhro»l ia bndgcwill
Al ibOUl 1,477- ? . 0 1 Z F
tftptrxJmi on irikre ind pioceit
k 1
Met urtg
•boul 2 . 7on*r
^ '
I'mnR *n
h
-------
D. Emission Rates;
Potentially significant sources of atmospheric particulate emissions include:
(1) Raw material handling operations,
(2) Glass furnace,
(3) Forming operations.
Of these, the furnace is usually the major source. The rate of particulate
emission is dependent upon the composition of the glass produced, the.furnace de-
sign, and operating conditions. The emissions result from both the entrainment
of batch constituents in the combustion air and from vaporization and subsequent
condensation of certain volatile components in the melt. The manufacture .of.
soda lime glasses generally presents less of an emission problem than the produc-
tion of specialty glasses. Table VIII-13 shows the particulate emission rate
from soda-lime plants.(2)8-13-1»(3)3-1
' TABLE VIII-13
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM SODA-LIME GLASS MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation & Control
Glass Melting, Uncontrolled
Glass Melting, with
Baghouse
Glass Melting, with Venturi
Scrubber
%
Control
0
99
95
Part irnlprp E
Ibs/ton
2
0.02
0.10
mission?. (Based on 68.000 tons/vr^
kS/MT
1
0.01
0.05
iWhr
15.6
0.156
0.78
kn/hr
• 7.08
0.071
0.35
E. Control Equipment;
Fugitive dust emissions from unloading of raw materials can be effectively
controlled by use of choked feeding and proper enclosures. Vent filters can be
used on bin filling and conveying operations, and weigh hoppers.
Only a few continuously operating control devices are used on the melting fur-
naces. These include wet scrubbers and baghouses. Because the - . . • _
dust emissions contain particles that.are only.a few microns.in diameter, cy-
clones and centrifugal scrubbers are not as effective as baghouses in collecting
the particulate matter. Table VIII-13 shows the controlled and uncontrolled par-
ticulate emissions from soda-lime glass manufacture.
VIII-31
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been proposed for soda lime glass manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emissions for
varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state to state.
There are four types of regulations that are applicable to soda lime glass
manufacture. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration
2. . control efficiency
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these four states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington •- 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (nev?)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general processes to maintain 85%
control efficiency .over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in terms
of pounds/hr for specific flow rates expressed in actual cubic feet per
minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.60 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
general process limitations for new sources with a process weight rate
of 7.8 tons/hour. For sources with this process weight rate, Illinois
is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 7-6 Ibs/hr (3.4 kg/hr)
and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
16.2 Ibs/hr (7.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis_ for^ Existing Sources; The majority of states
express particulate process limitations in terms of pounds/hr for existing
sources for a wide range of process weight rates. For sources with a
7.8 ton/hr process weight rate, Colorado is representative of a most
restrictive limitation, 12.8 Ibs/hr (5.8 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is
representative of a least restrictive limitation, 20.0 Ibs/hr (9.1 kg/hr).
VIII-32
-------
Table VIII-14 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions for soda lime glass manufacture.
1'ARTICULATE F.NTSSJJ1NS ,V.)I) l.TMtTATIt.A'S Bin:! SOIiA.UME .CLASSMAKlirACTCRF.
Type of
OuararV.n 4 Control
illass Malting, Uncontrolled
Ilass Molting, vlth
Baghcusi;
ilasa Melting, with Venturi
Scrubber
C! Mn.lt.illiirs" ]!>;;/hr/k.>/hr'
I'articulate Emissions | ::citlni; i
vHst-fl en fifi.OOO cons/vnl l-Y.rn.-ic.'si Xw Scurci-s
l-cir.croi i Ih.i/iir
0
99
95
15.6
0.156
O.V3
!(«/hr i !'.T. I III.
7.08 JJ.26/4.2
'
0.071 h. 26/4. 2
0.34 J1.2C/A.2
1
1
14. 25/6. 47
i4.25/6.47
jli. 25/6. 47
t'.xi stin:.' 'Souro.-:* ' "
C.-.Mf. i Col. i Nuv.
32.2/14.6
ri2.2/14.6
32. 2/14. 6
IS. 11/3. 22
IS. 11/4.22
:s.ii/8.;2
40.53/18.53
43.53/18.53
/.0.5V1S.53
IT SS" Cr.:-.tro)
2.34/1.06
:. 34/1. 06
:.34/i.C6
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitation; Current and availavle
control technology is adequate for soda lime glass manufacture to achieve
particulate emission limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
Literature used to develop the material on soda-lime glass manufacturing is
listed below:
(1) Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of'Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources, PEDCO - Environmental Specialists, Inc., EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607, July, 1973.
(2) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA, Publi-
cation No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(3) A Screening Study to Develop Background Information to Determine the Signif-
icance of Glass Manufacturing (Final Report), The Research Triangle Institute,
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607, Task 3, December, 1972.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VIII-33
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B, Sub Category; Gypsum
C. Source Description;
Gypsum, naturally-occurring hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSOi+.Zt^O, is mined in
open pits and underground mines and calcined at nearby plants. The calcination
process involves the conversion of gypsum from calcium sulfate dihydrate
(CaSOi+^l^O) to calcium sulfate hemihydrate (CaSO^.l/ZHpO) under, controlled tern-
perature conditions. The block flow diagram shown in Figure VIII-9 presents the
steps in the process and the composition of the gypsum.
GYPS UK
RCCK
CASO.V2H20
•
• PARTICIPATE
I
CRUSHING^——HSCITEMING | '
PARTICIPATE
I
PARTI CULATE
ENDING
DRYING
;FREE WATER
ONLY)
I -PARTICULATE
LAND
LASTt«
CASCV2K20
AGRICULTURAL
GYPSUM
CASCV, -2H20
CALCINING
*}—
PARTIC.ULATE
SOX,NOX
PLASTERS'
^CEMENTS*
STUCCO"!
Figu^rc VIII-9| ^ C)'psun Projucte Flow Diagram
The overall operation is essentially a drying operation in which the raw
material is crushed and ground under the influence of hot gases. The dust-laden
gases exit to a collector from which the finished product drops to a bin.
A typical calcining plant will .process 22.5 tons per hour or 197,100 tons per
year. (0 Gyp sum ' *
VIII-34
-------
D. Emission Rates;
Calcining gypsum is devoid of particulate air pollutants because it involves
only low-temperature removal of the water of hydration. However, the gases
created by the release of the water of crystalization carry gypsum rock dust and
partially calcined gypsum dust into the atmosphere. Dust emissions do occur from
grinding gypsum before calcining and from mixing of calcined gypsum with filler.
Table VIII-15 presents the particulate emission rates for gypsum processing.(2)8«I
TABLE VIII-15
PARTICULATF. EMISSIONS FROM GYPSUM PROCESSING
Type of
Operation & Control
Raw Material Dryer, Uncontrolled
Raw Material. Dryer, with Fabric
Filter
Raw Material Dryer, with Cyclone
and Electrostatic Precipitator
Primary Grinder, Uncontrolled
Primary Grinder, with Fabric
Filter
Primary Grinder, with Cyclone
and Electrostatic Precipitator
Calcincr, Uncontrolled
Calciner, with Fabric Filter
Calciner, with Cyclone and Elec-
trostatic Prccipitctcr
Couvo/iag, UnccitCrollod
Conveying, with Fabric Filter
Conveying, with Cyclone and Elec-
trostatic Precipitator
%
Control
0
99.5
99.0
0
99.9
>99.9
0
99.8
>99.9
0
99.8
>99.9
Particulate Emissions (Based on 197.000 tons/yr)
Ibs/ton
40
0.2
0.4
1
0.001
—
90
0.1
--
0.7
0.001
--
kR/MT
20
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.0005
—
45
0.05 .
—
0.35
0.0005
~~
Ibs/hr
. 900
4.5
9.0
22.5
0.023
—
2025
2.3
—
15.8
0.023
— *"
kg/hr
408
2.04
4.1
10.2
0.010
—
919
1.02
—
7.1
0.010
_._
E. .Control Equipment;
The most common equipment for the collection of particulate matter is the
electrostatic precipitator. It is also the most expensive and is used in gypsum
plants only when the emissions are too hot to be collected in a baghouse.
Cyclone collectors and baghouses are satisfactory, while wet collectors are
usually avoided because they convert an air pollution problem to a water pollu-
tion problem. Both baghouses and electrostatic precipitators used to collect gyp-
sum dust have efficiencies ranging from 95 to 99 percent.(3)21* The controlled and
uncontrolled emissions from gypsum manufacture are shown in Table VIII-15.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations:
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS);
have been promulgated for gypsum production.
No New Source Performance Standards
State Regulations for New and Existing Sourcesj Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
gypsum production. The four types of regulations are based on;
VIII-35
-------
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emis-
sion limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states are: .-....••••
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
•Pennsylvania r- 0,02 gra,ins/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
New Mexico has a regulation specifically for gypsum plants.
New Mexico - 690 mg/m3
Control Efficiency Basis; ULah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour 'for specific flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.— Ibs/hr
105 - 10G acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted general
process limitations for new sources with a process weight rate of 22.5
tons/hr. For a source with this process weight rate, Illinois is
representative of a most restrictive limitation, 13.4 Ibs/hr (6.1 kg/hr) and
New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 33.0
Ibs/hr (15.0 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express particulate emission limitations for existing sources for a
wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of 22.5
tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
24.7 Ibs/hr (11.2 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 40.7 Ibs/hr (18.5 kg/hr).
Table VHI-16 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions from gypsum manufacturing.
VIII-36
-------
TABLE VIII-16
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM GYPSUM PROCESSING
Type of
floatation 4 Control
Raw Material Dryer, Uncontrolled
Raw Material Dryer, with Fabric
Filter
Raw Material Dryer, with Cyclone
and Electrostatic Precipitator
Primary Grinder, Uncontrolled
Primary Grinder, with Fabric Filter
Primary Grinder, with Cyclone and
Electrostatic Precipitator-
Calciner, Uncontrolled .-• .
Calciner, with Fabric Filter
Calciner, with Cyclone and Elec-
trostatic Precipitator
Conveying, Uncontrolled
Conveying, with Fabric Filter
Conveying, with Cyclone and Elec-
trostatic Precipitator
Z
Control
0
99.5
99.0
0
99.9
>99.9
0
99.8
>99.9
0
99.8
>99.9
Participate E
fRAspd on 197,ir
Ibs/hr
900
4.5
9.0
22.5
0.023
___
2025
2.3
— j
15.8 i
0.023
•missions
0 ':ons/hr}
kjs/hr
400
52.04
4.1
10.2
0.010
—
919
1.02
—- ,..1
7.2
0.010
._
Limitations'1 Ibi/hr/kg/hr
New Source
111. | NH
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
13.4/6.1
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
33.0/15.0
Existing Sources
Col.
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
24.7/11.2
NH
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
40.7/18.5
UT 8531 Control
135/61.3
i .•---
—
3.38/1.53
"•—
- —
304/138
—
—
2.36/1.07
—
Potential Source Complaints and Emlssioi^Limitations; Current technology is
adequate for all processes of gypsum manufacture to be in compliance with even
the most restrictive limitations.
Current technology is adequate for all processes of gypsum manufacture to be
in compliance with even the most restrictive limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the discussion on gypsum processing is listed be-
low:
(1) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report), TRC - The Re-
search Corporation of New England, EPA Contract 68-02-1382, Task No. 3,
October, 1975.
(2) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA, Publi-
cation No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(3) Screening Study for Background Information and Significant Emissions for
Gypsum Product Manufacturing, Process Research, Inc., EPA Contract No. 68-02-
0242, Task 14, May, 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plansr-Rules and Regulations^ EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
VIII-37
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Mineral Wool
C. Source Description;
Mineral wool was formerly divided into three broad categories:
1) Slag wool
2) Rock wool
3) Glass wool
At the present time, however, a combination of slag and rock constitutes the
cupola charge materials, yielding a product generally classified as mineral
wool, as opposed to glass wool.
Mineral wool is made primarily in cupola furnaces charged with blast fur-
nace slag, silica roc,k, and coke. The charge is heated to a molten state at
3,000°F (1,650°C) and fed to a blow chamber where steam atomizes the
molten rock into globules that develop long fibrous tails as they are drawn to
the other end of the chamber. A temperature between 150° and 250°F (66° and
121°C) is maintained in the blow chamber. The wool blanket formed is con-
veyed to an oven to cure the binding agent and then to a cooler. A batting oper-
ation normally follows the cooler. The entire mineral wool process is shown
schematically in Figure VIII-10. O) 3t*3
Figure VIII-10; Flow Diagram of Mineral Wool Processing.
An average plant processes 2.2 tons of mineral wool per hour, or 19,300
tons annually.(3) Mineral Wool
D. Emission Rates;
The main sources of hydrocarbon emissions from mineral wool processing are:
1) Blowchamber
2) Ovens
3) Cooler
VII1-38
-------
Emissions from the blowchamber consist of fumes, oil vapors, and binding agents
as well as wool fibers. The curing ovens emit similar pollutants except that
no metallurgical fumes are involved. The hydrocarbon emissions from mineral
wool processing are shown in Table VIII-17.(3) Mineral Wool
TABLE VIII-17
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM MINERAL WOOL PROCESSING
Type of Operation
and Control
Blowchamber, uncontrolled
Oven, uncontrolled
Cooler, uncontrolled
Oven, with catalytic afterburner
Oven, with direct-flame afterburner
% Control
0
0
0
53
57 .
*Hydrocarbon Emissions (Rased on 19,300 tons/yr.)
Ib/Ton
0.987
0.996
0.041
0.468
0.428
kg /MX
0.494
0.498
0.021
0.234
0.214
Ib/'hr
2.17
2.19
0.090
1.030
0.942
KR/hr
.98
.99
.041
.47
.43
* As HCHO
E. Control Equipment;
Incineration of curing-oven emissions has proved to be a practical method
for control of these hydrocarbon emissions. O)31+7 Both direct-flame and
catalytic afterburners are available, but the former is more satisfactory for
use on mineral wool curing ovens. No demonstrated control has yet been shown
for the blowchamber or the cooler/3) Mineral Wool Table VIII-17 shows the
controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions from a mineral-wool processing
plant.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been-promulgated for .mineral wool manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Exist in g Sources; Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations are. patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type Icegislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemicnlly
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined .as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, .alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
A combination of aromatic .compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent
2.
VIII-39
-------
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows:
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process 15 3
2. unheated photochemicnlly reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive : 3000 450
• Appendix B (Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August 14,
1971) limits the emission of photpchemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume of a water based.solvent.
Solvents which have shown to be virtually unreactive are, saturated
lialogenatcd hydrocarbons, perchloroethylcnc, benzene, acetone and Cj-c^n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule .66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
.Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
'Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table VIII-18 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and limita-
tions for mineral wool manufacture.
TABLE VIH-18
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LP1ITAT] OSS FROM MINERAL WOOL PROCESSING
Typo of Operation
and Control
Blouchaaber, uncontrolled
Oven, uncontrolled
Cooler, uncontrolled
Oven, with catalytic afterburner
Oven, with direct-flame afterburner
X Control
0
0
0
53
57
rt Hydrocarbon Ktnigsions
i&isrd on 19
1!>/!-,r
2.17
2.19
0.090
1.030
0.942
300 tons/vr.)
l-i'/hr
.98
.99
.041
.47
.43
Limitations'1 lb/hr/kr,/hr
Heated
3
3
3
3
3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Unhonted
8
8
8
8
8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
* A» HCliO
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Hydrocarbon emission
limitations arc not based on process weight. Mineral wool manufacture is a
relatively small emitter, and for the typical 2.2 ton/hour process the hydro-
carbon emissions are below the limitations even uncontrolled.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
VIII-40
-------
G. References;
Literature used to develop the preceding discussion on mineral wool is
listed below:
1. Danielson, J. A. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition AP-40,
Research Triangle Park,. North Carolina, EPA, May 1, 1971.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition). EPA
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
3. Hopper, T. G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources. Volume II (Final Report).
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England. EPA Contract No.68-02-1382,
Task No. 3. October, 1975.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
One reference which could provide relative information on the mineral wool
industry is:
5. P^yjnina^y__Rep^r_t;_1972_ Census_pf__M^nuf_acturersJ._Industry Series.
, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce.
VIII-41
-------
A. Source Category: VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Phosphate Rock (Drying)
C. Source Description;
Phosphate rock is found in rich deposits of fluorapatite, with re-
lated minerals as impurities. Phosphate rock preparation involves beneficiation
to remove these impurities, drying to remove moisture, and grinding to improve
reactivity. These processes are shown schematically in Figure VIII-11.^2'3~164
(PAimCUlATf)
(p ARTICULATE)
V
WET
PHOSPHATE
ROCK
Figure VIII-11; Phosphate rock processing.
Usually direct-fired rotary kilns are used to dry phosphate rock. These dryers
burn natural gas or fuel oil and are fired counter^currently,
Approximately 697,000 tons of phosphate rock are dried annually by an average
plant in the United States.(3)Phosphate Rock Processing
D. Emission Rates:
The phosphate rock drying operation is a significan'
emissions, which are usually higher when drying pebble
centrate because of the small adherent particles of cl;\
The uncontrolled emission for the drying operation are K
(1)8.18-1
TABLE VIII-19
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK. DRYING
lurce of particulate
than when drying con-
id slime on the rock.
wn in Table VIII-19.
Type of Operation find Control
Phosphate Rock Drying, Uncontrolled
Phosphate Rock Drying, with cyclone
and wet scrubber
%
Control
0
• 95_.g9
Particulate Emissions
(based on 697,000 tons/yr)'
Ib/ton
15
0.75-0.15
kg/rat
7.5
.375-. 075
Ib/hr
1193
59.7-11.9
kfi/hr
. 541
27.1-5.4
VIII-42
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Control of particulate emissions from phosphate rock dryers is accomplished
with dry cyclones followed by wet scrubbers. This combination of control equip-
ment is successful in reducing emissions by 95 to 99 percent.(1)8.18-1 T^e con_
trolled and uncontrolled emissions from phosphate rock drying are presented in
Table VIII-19.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for phosphate rock drying.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
phosphate rock drying. The four types of regulations are based on:
1, concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4, process weight.
'Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate emis-
sion limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry
standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states are:
Alaska ' - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington — 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
/•
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 10G acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VIII-43
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 79.6 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
24.5 Ibs/hr (11.1 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 49 Ibs/hr (22.2 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources; The majority of states
express general particulate emission limitations for existing source for
a wide range of process weight rates. For a process weight rate of
79.6 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
34.9 Ibs/hr (15.8 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 77 Ibs/hr (34.9 kg/hr).
Table VIII-20 presents controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limita-
tions from phosphate rock drying.
TABLE VIII-20
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS KROM PHOSPHATE ROCK DRYING
Type of Oper.-.tion anrf Control
Phcsphjcc Rock Drying,
Uncontrolled
Phosphate P.jck Drying, with
Cyclone and Wet Scrubber
X
Cnr.r.rcl
0
95-99
Particulute Emissions
(based on 697,000 tons/yr)
Ib/hr
1193
59.7-11.9
ks/hr
541
27.1-5.4
Limitations4 Ib/hr/kg/hr
Now Sources Existing Sources
M.-.K3
24. i/ 11.1
24.5/11.1
MU
-.9/22.2
49/22.2
CoJ.
34.9/13.8
34.9/15.8
XI ss. .
.77/34.9
77/34.9
I'T 85X Cor.t.
179/81.2
179/81.2.
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Cyclones and wet
scrubbers adequately control phosphate rock drying emissions to within even the
most restrictive limitation.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References:
The references used to develop the preceding discussion on phosphate rock dry-
ing are listed below:
1.
2.
3.
Q°JPJL41-aJLJ-.g*L-Of. Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition) .
Publication No. AP-42. April, 1973.
EPA.
Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedules for Air
Pollution Sources. PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607. July, 1973.
Hopper. T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report). TRC - The Re-
search Corporation off New England. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No.
3. October 24, 1975.
VIII-44
-------
4. Analysis of State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation
References which were not directly used for this discussion but which could
provide other information on phosphate rock processing include:
5. Eniission_Standards for the Phosphate Rock Processing Industry. Consult-
ing Division, Chemical Construction Corporation. EPA Contract CPA 70-156.
July, 1971.
6. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas. Indus-
trial Gas Cleaning Institute. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289. December, 1973.
VIII-45
-------
A. Source Category: VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category: Phosphate Rock (Grinding)
C. Source Description;
Phosphate rock is generally found in rich deposits of fluorapatite, with re-
lated materials as impurities. Preparation of phosphate rock involves beneficia-
tion to remove these impurities, drying to remove moisture, and grinding to im-
prove reactivity. These processes are shown schematically in Figure VIII-12.
(2)3-164
(P ARTICULATE)
V
V
WET
NATUtALGAS OS f WE I CML
V
(PARTICIPATE).
[PHOSPHATE ROCK
GRINDING MILL^-J DUST S|LO L-*.
Figure VIII-12; Phosphate Rock Processing
The grinding operation is usually carried out after the drying step using air-
swept ball mills to grind the material. The ground rock is then stored in large
dust storage silos. Approximately 180,000 tons of phosphate rock are ground by a
typical American plant annually.(3)Phosphate Rock Processing
D. Emission Rates;
Phosphate rock grinders can be a significant source of fine particulate emis-
sions. Table VIII-21 presents the level of particulate emissions from phosphate
grinding operations.d'8-18~1»(3)Phosphate Rock Processing
TABLE VIII-21
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK GRINDING
Type of Operation and Controls
Phosphate Rock Grinding! Uncontrolled
Phouphatc Rock Grinding, with Dry
Cyclones and Fabric Filters
Z
Control
0
99.5-
99.9
Particulate Emissions
(based on 180,000 tons/yr)
Ib/ton
2.0
0. 01-. 002
kg/int
1.0
.005-. 001
Ib/hr
41.1
.21-. 04
kR/hr
18.6
0. 19-. 018
V1II-46
-------
E. Control Equipment;
Control of emissions from phosphate rock grinding is effectively accomplished
with baghouse collectors, which are successful in removing the extremely fine par-
ticles emitted by the grinders. Combinations of dry cyclones and fabric filters
can reduce emissions by 99.5 to 99.9 percent, as shown in Table VIII-19.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source performance Standards
have been proposed for phosphate rock grinding.
State Regulacions for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission
regulations tor varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are rour types of regulations that are applicable
to phosphate rock grinding. The four types ot regulations are based on;
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard
cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these four
states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubicfoot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general processes to maintain
85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows;
1 - 10,000 acfra - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
VIII-47
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 20.5 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate, Illinois
is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 12.7 Ibs/hr (5.8 kg/hr)
and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive limitation,
31.0 Ibs/hr (14.1 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express general particulate emission limitations for.a wide variety of
process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate of 20.5
tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
23;4 Ibs/hr (10.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 38.2 Ibs/hr (17.3 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources; Pennsylvania has a
regulation that applies to general grinding operations. For the size
process listed in Section D, the limitation for a 20.5 ton/hr process
is 9.5 Ibs/hr (4.3 kg/hr).
Table VIII-22 presents the controlled and uncontrolled emissions and limi-
tations for phosphate rock grinding.
TABLE VIII-22
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM PHOSP11ATE__ROCK GRINDING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Phosphate Rock Grinding, Un-
controlled
Phosphate Rock Grinding, With
Dry Cyclones and Fabric. Filters
%
Control
0
99.5-
99.9
Particulate
Emissions
based on
180,000 tons/yr
Ib/hr
41.1
.21-. 04
ks/hr _
18.6
0. 10-. .018
Limitations'1 Ib/hr/kg/hr
Grinding
Operations
Pennsylvania
9.5/4.3
9.5/4.3
General Processes
New Sources
IL
12.7/5.8
12.7/5.8
NH
31.0/14.1
31.0/14.1
Existing Sources
CO
23.4/10.6
23.4/10.6
tlH-
38.2/17.3
38.2/17.3
UT 85Z Cont.
1.5/10.7
1.5/10.7
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Dry cyclones and fabric
filters currently control phosphate rock grinding operations sufficiently to
meet current regulations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emissions limitations.
VITI-48
-------
G. References;
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition) . EPA Publi-
cation No. AP-42. April, 1973.
2. TpphrHeal Guide for Review and Evaluation of Compliance Schedul.es for Air
Pollution Sources. PEDCO-Environmental Specialists, Inc. EPA Contract No.
68-02-0607. July, 1973.
3. Hopper, T.G. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II (Final Report). TRC •* The Re-
search Corporation of New England. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task No.
3. October 24, 1975.
4. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
References which were not directly used for this category discussion but which
could provide other information on phosphate rock processing include:
5. Emission Standards for the Phosphate Rock Processing Industry. Consulting
Division, Chemical Construction Corporation. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-156.
July, 1971.
. 6. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Areas. Indus-
trial Gas Cleaning Institute. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0289. December, 1973.
VIII-49
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Sand and Gravel Processing
C. Source Description;
Deposits of sand and gravel, the consolidated granular materials resulting
from the natural disintegration of rock or stone,.are found in banks and pits and
in subterranean and subaqueous beds. Depending on the location of the deposit,
the raw materials for sand and gravel plants are either dredged or quarried and
then transferred to crushing and screening equipment. Power shovels, drag-
lines, cableways, suction dredge pumps, or other apparatus may be used to excavate
the materials. Suction pumps, earth movers, barges, and trucks are among the
equipment used to transport the materials to the processing plant.
At the processing plant, the material is washed before further proces-
sing. Depending on the specific market for which the material is being produced,
it is passed through various screens, classifiers, crushers, and then conveyed to
storage and loading facilities. The entire process flow is illustrated schemat-
ically in Figure VIII-13.
Excavation
of
Riv Hicirltl
' '" -
TfiT'*?9rS fr**r»»
to Htac *~^
Scrc*nlnft
*±i--
rf-^
CUtoifylng
tes—
•*£
" -. ...
Crushing
Fltur« VlII-Ui S.nd tnd Crcvel rroc«mtn» Flow Dt»trm
Storigc
A typical plant will process 80 tons per hour or 144,000 tons per year.'
^Assumes 8 hrs/day x 5 days/week x 45 weeks/yr = 1800 hours/year.
D. Emi s s i on Rates;
Particulate emission sources in sand and gravel processing include:
(1) Conveying,
(2) Screening,
(3) Crushing,
(4) Storage Operations, all of which can generate significant quantities
of dust.
(I)
VIII-50
-------
Emission rates are affected by:
1. moisture content of processed materials,
2. degree of size reduction required, and
3. type of equipment used for processing.
An additional source of dust is vehicle traffic over unpaved roads or dust-
covered paved roads in the vicinity of sand and gravel processing plants. How-
ever, this type of emission varies from plant to plant and is not amenable to
consistent estimation, so no estimation was made. Table VIII-23 summarizes the
particulate emissions from sand and gravel processing.(2)8.19^1
TABLE VIII-23
tARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING
Type of
Operation & Control
Sand & Gravel Processing,
Uncontrolled
Sand & Gravel Processing,
with Bsghouse
%
Control
0
95
Particulate Emissions
CBased on 80 tons/hour)
Ibs/ton
0.1
0.005
kg/MT
0.05
0.0025
Ibs/hr
8.0
0.4
kg/hr
3.6
0.2
E. Control Equipment;
Generally, control devices are not used in the sand and gravel processing
plant .UJSana and Gravel" Processing However> a baghouse could be employed to
collect 95 percent of the emissions. (3>3l+2> (O^d and Gravel Processing The
controlled and uncontrolled emissions are shown in Table VIII-23 .
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ; No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for sand and gravel processing.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; Particulate emission regula-
tions for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from state
to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to sand and
gravel processing. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
VIII-51
-------
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington and New Jersey are
representative of states that express particulate emission limitations
in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/dry standard cubic
foot for general processes. The limitations for these four states
are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of Ibs/hr for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual cubic
feet per minute. The Texas limitations are:
1 - 1011 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10'4 - 10:> acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 10t; acfm - 158.61 Ibs/hr
Process Weight R'at'.e Basis for New Sources: Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for nex^ sources with a process weight
rate of 80 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 24.5 Ibs/hr
(11.1 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 49,0 Ibs/hr (22.2 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources: The majority of states
express particulate process limitations for existing sources in terms
of pounds/hr for a wide range of process weight rates. For sources
with a process weight rate of 80 tons/hr, Colorado is representative
of a most restrictive limitation, 34.9 Ibs/hr (15*8 kg/hr) and
Mississippi is representative of a least restrictive limitation, 77 Ibs/
hr (34.9 kg/hr).
Process Weight Rate Basis for Specific Sources: Pennsylvania has a general
limitation for screening, crushing and grinding operations. For a 80
ton/hr process, the particulate limitations is 9.5 Ibs/hr (4.3 kg/hr).
Table VIII-24 presents uncontrolled and controlled emissions and
limitations for sand and gravel processing.
VIII-52
-------
TABLE VIII-24
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM SAND AND GRAVEL PROCESSING
Type of
Ooeration & Control
Sand & Gravel Processing,
Uncontrolled
Sand 4 Gravel Processing,
with Baghouee
X
Control
0
95
Particulate Emissions
(Based on 80 tons/hour)
Ibs/hr kE/hr
8.0 3.6
0.4 0.2
Limitations" Ibs/hr/kR/hr
Processing
Operations
Penn.
9.5/4.3
9.5/4.3
Genaral Processes
New Sources
Mass*
24.5/11.1
.24.5/11.1
NH
49.0/22.2
49.0/22.2
Existing Sources
Col.
34.9/15.8"
34.9/15.8-
Miss. JUT 85X Control
77/34.9 ',] 0.29/0.13
77/34.9 1 0.23, -..13
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations; Sand and gravel
processing, even uncontrolled, often meet even the most restrictive emission
limitations. Unless the fugitive aspects of a particular plant cause a problem,
this industry does not rely on extraordinary control measures to maintain
compliance.
The Environment Reporter was used to update emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the material iu this section is listed below:
(1) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report), TRC - The Re-
search Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task #3,
October 24, 1975.
(2) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA Publica-
tion No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(3) Danielson, J.A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May, 1973..
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans—Rules and Regulations, EPA,
Contract 68-02-0248, July, 1972, Mitre Corporation.
V1I1-53
-------
A. Source Category; VIII Mineral Products Industry
B. Sub Category; Stone Quarrying
C. Source Description;
Raw materials for the manufacture of rock and crushed stone products
are obtained from deposit beds in quarries by drilling and blasting. Open
quarries account for 95 percent of production, but underground quarries
are becoming more common. Secondary breakage is accomplished by mechanical
drop hammers rather than by additional blasting. Primary crushing is often
done at or near the quarry by jaw crushers and gyratories.
The material is moved to processing plants by use of heavy earth-
movir.g equipment for processing, including crushing, regrinding, screening,
and removal of fines. Extensive use is made of belt conveyors for materials
transfer between various processing operations. In some of the larger, more
efficient plants the stone is drawn out from tunnels under the storage piles.
The equipment is designed to blend the materials as necessary. Figure VIII-14
shows a flow diagram for stone processing.O)V-III-62
Rock rroni
Mine or Quarry
I'rimary
• Crusher
•».
Scrctiiinq
Finished
Product
Figure VIII-14; Flow Diagran for Rock Processing
A typical plant processes 300 tons per hour or 540,000 tons*
annually. (2)Stone Quarrying and Processing
*Assumet; 8 hr/day x 5 days/week x 45 weeks./yr. = 1,800 hrs/yr.
D. Emission Rates:
All stone quarrying and processing operations are potential 'dust
emission sources. These include:
(1) Blasting,
(2) Handling,
(3) Crushing,
(4) Screening,
(5) Conveying,
(6) Loading and transporting,
(7) Storing.
Stone quarrying by its very nature is a highly visible fugitive oriented
process. The blasting, handling, conveying, loading, transporting and storage
are all potential fugitive emitters. As such these sources of particulate
emissions vary from plant to plant depending on plant layout and housekeeping
facilities. For this section, however only point source emissions were
estimated. VIII-54
-------
Factors affecting point source emissions include:
(1) The amount and type of rock processed,
(2) The method of transfer of the rock,
(3) The moisture content of the raw material,
(4) Type of equipment used,
(5) The degree of enclosure of the transferring, processing,
and storage areas, and
(6) The degree to which control equipment is used on the
process,
(7) Meteorological conditions,
(8) Size reduction performed.
Table VIII-25 shows the emissions from stone handling processes
TABLE VIII-25
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING
00
E.
Type of Operation
and Controls
Primary Crushing, Uncontrolled
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
ing, Uncontrolled
Tertiary Crushing and Scrsan-
ing, Uncontrolled
Recrushing and Screening, Un-
controlled *
Fines Mill, Uncontrolled
Screening, Conveying and Han-
dling
Storage Piles, Uncontrolled
Primary Crushing with Fabric
Filter
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
ing, with Fabric Filter
Tertiary Crushing and Screen-
ing with Fabric Filter
Re.crushing and Screening with
Fabric Filter
Fines Mill with Fabric Filter
Screening, Conveying and Han-
dling with Fabric Filter
Enclosed Storage Piles
% Control
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
Particulate Emissions
(Based on .300 tons/hr).
Ibs/ton
0.5
1.5
6
1
6
2
10
0.005
0.015
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.02 '
0.10
kg/MT
0.25
0.74
3
5
3
1
5
0.0025
0.0075
0.03
0.025
0.03
0.01
Ibs/hr
150.
450.
1800.
300.
1800.
600.
969.
1.5
4.5
18.
15.
18.
6.
kg/hr
68.0
204.
816.
136.
816.
272.
440.
0.7
2.0
8.2
6.8
8.2
2.7
0.05 ' 30. ; 13.6
^Includes, 20% of stone recrushed
Control Equipment:
Dry collection of emissions is preferable where fines are market-
able. Dust emissions from some processing steps are suppressed by
wetting the materials. Where collected dust is salable, ventil-
ation to a baghouse will reduce emissions by 99 percent.(3)7 Wet scrub-
bers would achieve similar results, but cyclones would only be 80 per-
cent efficient. There is no indication that electrostatic precipitators
are used in the industry. The controlled and uncontrolled emissions .
from stone quarrying and processing are shown in Table VIII-25.
VI1I-55
-------
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): No new source performance
standards have been promulgated for the stone quarry industry.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sourcejs; Particulate emission
regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently from
state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable
to stone quarries. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, and
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis: Alaska, Delaware, Washington, New Jersey
and Pennsylvania are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic feet and
grains/dry standard cubic feet. The limitations for these states are:
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20. grains/standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic, toot
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot gas volume >300,000 scfm
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/standard cubic foot, gas volume <300,000 scfm
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries
to maintain 85% control efficiency over uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis: Texas expresses particulate emission limitations
in terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in
actual cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates'
are as follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.60 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Rate Basis for New Sources/. Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 300 tons/hour. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation,
31.5 Ibs/hr (14.3 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least
restrictive limitation, 63.0 Ibs/hr (28.6 kg/hr).
VIII-56
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources^ The majority of states
express particulate emission limitations for existing sources for a wide
range of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight rate
of 300 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 43.1 Ibs/hr (19.5 kg/hr) and Mississippi is representative
of a least restrictrive limitation, 177 Ibs/hr (80.3 kg/hr).
Table VIII-26 presents the uncontrolled and controlled emissions and
limitations for stone quarrying.
TABLE VIII-26
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM STONE QUARRYING AND PROCESSING
Type of Operation
and Controls
Primary Crushing, Uncontrolled
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
ing, Uncontrolled
Tertiary Crushing and Screen-
ing, Uncontrolled
Recrushing and Screening,
Uncontrolled
Fines Mill, Uncontrolled
Screening, Conveying and
Handling
Storage Piles, Uncontrolled
Primary Crushing with Fabric
Filter
Secondary Crushing and Screen-
Ing with Fabric Filter
Tertiary Crushing and Screen-
ing with Fabric Filter
Recrushing and Screening with
Fabric Filter
Fines Mill with Fabric Filter
Screening, Conveying and Han-
dling with Fabric Filter
Enclosed Storage Piles
%
Control
0
',
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
Partlculate Emissions
(Based 'on
300 tons/hrj
Ibs/hr kg/hr
150. 68.0
450. 204.
1800. 816.
300. 136.
1800. 816.
600. 272.
969. 440.
1.5 0.7
t
4.5 2.0
18. 8.2
15. . 6.8
18. «.2
Limitations3 Ibs/hr/ke/hr
Crushing
Operations
PA
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
J8.1 /R.3
38.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 78.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
18.3 /8.3
6. 2.7 18.3 /8.3
30. 13.6
18.3 /8.3
General Processes
New Sources
MA
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
31.5/14.3
NH
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63,0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
63.0/28.6
Existins Sources
Col.
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
'i3.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43.1/19.5
43. 1/19. S
Miss/
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
177/80.3
UT 85% Control
7.3 /3.3
21.8/9.9
87.2/39.6
72.7/33.0
87.2/39.6
29.1/13.2
145. /66.0
— —
Potential Source Compliance, and Emission Limitations: Fabric filters and
scrubbers are possible control measures to reduce particulate emissions
from stone quarrying operations below the most restrictive limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used i.o update emissions limitations.
VIII-57
-------
G. References;
The literature used to develop the preceding discussion on stone quarry-
ing and processing is listed below:
(1) Hopper, T.G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 Na-
tional Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, (Final Report),
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
1382, Task //3, October, 1974.
(2) Exhaust Gases from Combustion and Industrial Processes, Engineering
Science, Inc., EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-36, October 2,' 1971.
(3) Background information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided by
EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Studies Branch, November
3, 1972.
(4) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, (Second Edition),
EPA Publication No. AP-42, April, 1973.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July, "l972, Mitre Corporation.
One source was not: dlrpctly used to develop this s
-------
A. Source Category; IX Petroleum Industry
B. Sub Category; Petroleum Refining, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU)
C. Source Description;
Petroleum refineries process crude oil to produce a variety of porducts, most
of which are fuel. These products are differentiated from each other chiefly by
their boiling temperature range. Those fuels boiling at temperatures in the gaso-
line range (200-400°F) (93-204°C) and below command premium prices. Kerosene (350°-
550°F) (1770C-288°C), and distillate fuels (450-600°F) (232°C-316°C) are desirable
for jet and diesel fuels as well as for heating purposes. Those materials above
600°F (316°C) are generally undesirable products, and one objective of refinery
operations is to minimize them. Fluid Catalytic Cracking is the principal process
used' to convert high boiling point hydrocarbons into more valuable lower boiling
point material. O)83
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units consist of a reactor, a regenerator, and a product
separation unit as shown in FigureIX-1.'2' O8) Fresh feed and recycled feed are charged
separately or as a combined feed to the reactor section. The feed is commingled with
hot regenerated catalyst in the reactor where the catalyst-hydrocarbon vapor mixture
is maintained as a fluidizeJ. bed. The combination of catalyst, temperature, and time
cause the hydrocarbon to undergo a cracking reaction which produce products of lower
boiling point than the charge stock.
FRACTIONATOR
CARRnu CLECTROSTATIC STACK
P>
PRECI(>ITATOR
1 Buf r
(f~^ REGENCRATOnNj\ L\
IV I 7 \
—
STEW,! •
LIGHT CYCLE OIL —i —'
HEAVY CYCLE OX—
Figure IX-1: Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
A fraction of the combined feed is converted into by-products heavier than the
feed stock, which will not vaporize or leave the surface of the catalyst. The
carbonaceous residue on the catalyst is called coke. A portion of the fluidized
catalyst containing deposits of tar and polymers flows by gravity through a steam
stripper where volatiles are removed prior to reintroduction to the regenerator.
The cracked components are passed through stage cyclone separators to remove
entrained catalyst and then charged to fractionation equipment. The volatile
matter and much of the steam goes back into the reactor with fresh feed stock.
The coked catalyst bed in the regenerator is contacted with air to burn coke
deposits from the catalyst. The hot regenerated catalyst is then reintroduced to
the reactor. .
IX-1
-------
The catalysts used in FCC units are fine powders of synthetic or natural
materials of silica-alumina composition. Recently the use of "molecular sieve
type" catalyst has grown substantially due to improved activity and stability.
The sieve catalysts are synthetic aluminosilicates processed to give special
crystalline structures.(1)85-96
D. Emission Rates;
t
Particulate emissions from FCC units arise primarily from the exhaust of the
regenerators and the carbon monoxide boilers if so equipped. Beside the products
of combustion from the coking of the catalyst, there is actual loss of the catalyst
itself. Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units normally range in size from 20,000 bbl/day
(2380 m3/day) to 150,000 bbl/day (17850 m3/day) of feed stock. Data for a 40,000
bbl/day (4760 mVday)u' ** refinery is representative for units found at smaller
independent refineries includes the following:
Feed Rate;
Fresh Feed 40,000 bbl/day, 6400 m3/day
Recycle Feed 10,000 bbl/day, 1600 m3/day
Total Feed 50,000 bbl/day, 8000 m3/day
Catalyst Circulation Rate 2,100 tons/hour, 1,905 M tons/hour
Carbon Burning Rate 34,000 Ibs/hour, 15,400 kg/hr
Flue Gas SCFM 83,000 SCFM (without CO boiler)
115,000 SCFM (with CO boiler)
Table IX-1 summarizes the emissions from FCC units with and without control.
TA»U 1X-1
mTictiAt; tMMioss TOM n.mn CATM.YTIC CKACKISC pans
?V9. of Operation «nd Control
ritlo Cll.lytle Cr.ck't-.t Cnlt
VU!> 2 .»£*• of lottriul
cyclon..
fl»U Cililyclc CcieV nj Cnlt
cyclone* «r.d CO bol cr
fluid C.t.lytlc Cr.cV at Cr.it
ftcclpltitor
fluK C*t«lvtlc Cr*c> f.t Vnlc
cycler... ir.i CO fc«l tt And
" Ctntrol
0
0
tl
H
E
Jl./l.r
ISO
lit
IS
»
^l*Klon RJC
15»
111
21
U
• •
Hv-rnr^
0.39
O.il
O.OM
0.030
— 57S'
0.10
O.tt
0.15
o.oc,
The emissions listed in Table IX-1 are estimates based on estimates provided
By EPA. Emissions from a single unit can vary from day to day depending upon the
catalyst, the condition of the catalyst and the quality of the crude. (3)
E. Control Equipment;
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units ordinarily require particulate collection equip-
ment to achieve acceptable emissions and reasonable recovery of the catalyst. Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Units usually have two stage internal cyclones. Over the 18-24
month operation period the effectiveness of these cyclones deteriorates substan-
tially due to erosion and the emissions increase. External cyclones will reduce
IX-2
-------
particulate emissions and produce relatively clear stacks on small units. Larger
units require electrostatic precipitators to provide high particulate removal
efficiencies. Precipitators can be installed either ahead of or after the CO boiler
on FCC units. With the precipitator installation ahead of the CO boiler a flue gas
heat exchanger is necessary to reduce the gas temperature entering the precipitator.
Also, the gas volume, temperature and resistivity of the particles is suitable for
good collection efficiencies. However, the temperature and pressure require rather
expensive materials thereby negating some of the cost benefits. With precipitator
installation after the CO boiler a larger gas volume must be handled because of re-
duced pressure, and the addition of the products of combustion. The temperatures
and pressures allow for a less expensive, design of mechanical parts. To make up for
less favorable resistivity of the particles, ammonia is injected in the gas stream
to increase collection efficiency.
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); On March 8, 1974, EPA promulgated
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries, Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Units. The March 8, 1974 Federal Register, section 60.102, limits
particulate matter emissions from coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator to be
not in excess of 1.0 kg/1000 kg (1.0 lb/1000 Ibs). Section 60.106 lists equations
to determine, the particulate emission based on coke burning rate, volume of com-
bustion air, and dust loading of the exhaust. It has been calculated that this
value under typical refinery conditions is equivalent to 20.4 lbs/103 bbl of fresh
feed. (**)55 For the 40,000 bbl/day fluid catalytic cracking unit discussed in Sec-
tion P, the l-:mtf.irior! is 3/i Ibs/hr.
State Regulations for Hew and Existing Sources; Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky,
Wisconsin, and Virginia have identical specific regulations for petroleum re-
fineries equal to the restrictions of the NSPS. For the 40,000 bbl/day refinery
discussed in Section D, the limitation is 34 Ibs/hr.
State Regulations for Existing General Processes: New York has the most re-
strictive limitation based on a process weight of 9,000,000 Ibs/hr of 95 Ibs/hr
emission. Mississippi process weight table ends at 6,000,000 Ibs/hr with a
limitation of 876 Ibs/hr for the least restrictive limitation. For states without
specific regulations for fluid catalytic cracking units, the catalyst recirculation
rate is the process weight rate. Table IX-2 presents the uncontrolled and controlled
emissions and limitations from fluid catalytic cracking units.
t.VM.t lx-1
tmicuuii txiss:cxs «.o ii-.;r*7io-:s rr.os r.ui» CATALYTIC cmcusc isns
T f 1
ri« d C.nlr.tr Crartln* Vr.it
v th 2 *:»£C» o( Ir.t.Tnal
C clontl
v th I
•1
"
-rl,s
"ff7 f r.Tn,
5SO
:so
«s
13
«
Jj
0^ Ri'.r*
f.'...-^--:-".1
Ui
111
19
It
90
f
--._iii?___ .
>« 15.4
3i IS.«
U 1S.«
» 15.4
" "•'
l.:.-:c.-i:
_-^.=','-'-'.t ,
" "•'
j, ,j..
" IJ.t
-'* IJ.t
"rvT*
&i-SL.C--
91 4)
9S (>
95 0
91 »]
9} ()
_K;..«!H;??L
'" "'
«>» »7
IX 3.7
:?i i»
IX-3
-------
Potential Source Compliance and Emission Limitations: Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Units are potentially substantial emitters of particulate air pollutants.
Carbon monoxide boilers and electrostatic precipitators have proved to effec-
tively limit particulate emission.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
G. References;
Literature used to develop the material presented in this section is listed
below:
(1) Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas (Final
Report). Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute EPA Contract No. 68-02-0301.
September, 1972.
(2) Background Information for Proposed New Source Standards: Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters, and
Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants,
Sewage'Treatment Plants, Volume I, Main Text. EPA OAQPS June, 1973.
f3T Memo from Charles B. Sed™q?yt Tr> dust rial Studies Branch. EPA, March 4, 1976.
(4) Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985 National Emissions From
Stationary Sources Volume I, Final Report. EPA Contract 68-02-1382. October,
1975.
(5) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
Literature reviewed but not used in the development of the emissions or des-
cription was the following:
(6) Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III - Handbook of Emission Properties.
Midwest Research Institute. EPA Contract No. CPA22-69-104. May, 1971.
(7) Petroleum Refinery Background Information for Establishment of Federal Standards
of Performance for Stationary Sources (Final Report). Prepared for EPA by
Process Research Inc. Task Order No. 9. August, 1971.
(8) Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles, Rules and Regulations.
January, 1971.
IX-4
-------
A. Source Category: X Wood Processing
B. Sub Category; Wood Processing (Plywood)
C. Source Description;
In manufacturing plywood, an odd number of veneer plies or veneer and lumber
plies are glued together. The grain directions in any two adjacent plies are
perpendicular to each other. Plywood sheets range in thickness from 1/8 inch to
1 3/16 inches. These thicknesses can be produced by utilizing 3 to 7 plies.(1)6-16
There are five steps in the manufacture of plywood:
1. sawing and debarking of logs,
2. peeling into veneer,
3. drying veneer,
4. assembling veneers, and
5. gluing with a thermosetting resin.
6. Assembled, glued veneers are heated by steam
and pressed.(3)10.3-1
Plywood may be manufactured from almost any type of wood. However, it is
generally limited to specific types because of the difficulty in cutting and
gluing some types.(1)6-162,163 ^ fiow diagram detailing the manufacture of
plywood is presented in Figure X-l.
A
'I* Overflew from
I Leo Po.-.d
Si.cor.1
Cor.dcr.s.itc
A A O
Drier V!esh '% Exhaust "
and Delude
'..'Dior
G.i;cs
g Stcr.ioc
o;cr j
A ,
Bark
O
O
rs
L:
~
HI tic
''rop-arsticn
Glu:
Q Atrospheric Enissions
A Liquid
S\ Solid Hoste
1
T
L ___
Vonecr '_.
Preparation I
. I
eration
Glue
Line
Unusable
'..•nccr end
Icii-'iir.gs
Recycle
Mr
Finishin-
Triis eni
S,'.nJ?r Ou
X-l: Cotai led Prccci: Flc-.-i Diitiran for Vaneor and Plywood
X-l
-------
D. Emissions Rate;
Emissions from the manufacture of plywood include both particulates and
hydrocarbons. Particulate matter comes primarily from cutting and sanding
operations. Hydrocarbons come primarily from veneer and drying operations.
Most of the particulate is generated during sanding operations of the face
and back sheets of the plywood.(1)6-163(3)10.3-1 It is estimated that for
every square foot of plywood produced, sawdust is generated from sanding and
cutting operations at a rate of 0.066 Ibs to 0.132 Ibs (.030 kg to .060 kg).
0077
A portion of this is discharged into the atmosphere as particulate matter, but
much of it may be collected.
Hydrocarbons are discharged primarily from the veneer driers. The hydro-
carbons discharged include:
1. abietic acid,
2. sesquiterpener,
3. fatty acids,
4. resin esters, and
5. resin alcohols.
The hydrocarbon discharge of the veneer driers are easily spotted because of
their characteristic blue-haze plume. About 63 percent of the hydrocarbon
euiissions are eondensiblcs, snd 37 percent -arc volatiles. (6)76 Typical
particulate and hydrocarbon emissions are detailed in Table X-l.
TABLE X-l
PARTICIPATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM PLYWOOD MANUFACTURING
Type of
Oper. i Control
Sanding/Cutting,
Uncontrolled
Sanding/Cutting,
Baghousc
Veneer Drier,
Uncontrolled
Veneer Drier,
Condenser
7.
Control
0
99
50
Particulate Emissions
Based on 3.60 tons/hr
Ibs/ ton
150-271
1.2-2.7
kR/M ton
57.5-135
.6-1.4
Ibs/hr
408 - 961
4,1 - 9.6
kB/hr
185-436
1.9-4.4
Hydrocarbon Emissions
Based on 3.60 tons/hr
Ibs /ton
1.0-2.1
.5-1.1
kg/M ton
.50-1.0
.3 - .5
Ibs/hr
3.6-7.3
1.8-3.7
kg/hr
1.6-3.3
.8-1.7
E. Control Equipment
Many woodworking facilities contain equipment to control the emission of
particulate matter. The dust from sanding and sawing that escapes into the air
is collected in a hood and is transported through duct-work to a sized cyclone.
Fine dust is controlled with a baghouse filter.(2)372-374
X-2
-------
Some work has been done to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from veneer dryer
exhausts. One technique, that in a pilot plant operation, was able to remove
up to 50 percent of the hydrocarbon and uses condensation of the gaseous hydro-
carbons as the control technique.C5)968
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated for plywood manufacture.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources for Particulates; Particulate
emission regulations for varying process weight rates are expressed differently
from state to state. There are four types of regulations that are applicable to
the plywood manufacture. The four types of regulations are based on:
1. concentration,
2. control efficiency,
3. gas volume, an^f
4. process weight.
Concentration Basis; Alaska, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington and
New Jersey are representative of states that express particulate
emission limitations in terms of grains/standard cubic foot and grains/
dry standard cubic foot for general processes. The limitations for these
five states arer
Alaska - 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot
Delaware - 0.20 grains/standard cubic foot
Pennsylvania - 0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volume is less than 150,000 dscfm
Pennsylvania - 0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot, when
gas volumes exceed 300,000 dscfm
Washington - 0.20 grains/dry standard cubic foot
Washington - 0.10 grains/dry standard cubic foot (new)
New Jersey - 0.02 grains/standard cubic foot
Control Efficiency Basis; Utah requires general process industries to
maintain 85% control efficiency over the uncontrolled emissions.
Gas Volume Basis; Texas expresses particulate emission limitations in
terms of pounds/hour for specific stack flow rates expressed in actual
cubic feet per minute. The Texas limitations for particulates are as
follows:
1 - 10,000 acfm - 9.11 Ibs/hr
10,000 - 100,000 acfm - 38.00 Ibs/hr
105 - 106 acfm - 158.6 Ibs/hr
Process Weight Kate Basis for New Sources; Several states have adopted
particulate emission limitations for new sources with a process weight
rate of 3.6 tons/hr. For sources with this process weight rate,
Massachusetts is representative of a most restrictive limitation, 4.1 Ibs/hr
(1.9 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of a least restrictive
limitation, 9.7 Ibs/hr (4.4 kg/hr).
X-3
-------
Process Weight Rate Basis for Existing Sources^ The majority of states
express particulate emission limitations for existing sources for a
wide range of process weight rates. For sources with a process weight
rate of 3.6 tons/hr, Colorado is representative of a most restrictive
limitation, 7.9 Ibs/hr (3.6 kg/hr) and New Hampshire is representative of
a least rstrictive limitation, 11.9 Ibs/hr (5.4 kg/hr).
Specific Process Regulations for New and Existing Sources^ Two states have
adopted regulations specifically for plywood manufacture. Oregon requires
that sources limit their particulate emissions to 1.0 lbs/1000 ft2 of '
plywood or veneer based on 3/8" thickness of finished product. For
particleboard, the limitation is 3.0 lbs/1000 ft2 of particleboard
produced based on 3/4" thickness. For hardboard, the limitation is 1.0
lb/1000 ft2 of hardboard produced based on 1/8" thickness. Virginia
requires that in the manufacture of general wood products, that exhausts
. be limited to 0.05 grains/standard cubic foot.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources: Currently, hydrocarbon
emission regulations, arc patterned after Los An-geles Rule 66 and Appendix B
type legislation. Organic solvent useage is categorized by three basic
types. These are, (1) heating of articles by direct flame or baking with
any organic solvent, (2) discharge into the atmosphere of photochemically
reactive solvents by devices that employ or apply the solvent, (also includes
air or heated drying of articles for the. first twelve hours after removal
from //I type device) and (3) discharge into the atmosphere of non-photochemically
reactive solvents. For the purposes of Rule 66, reactive solvents are
defined .as solvents of more than 20% by volume of the following:
1. A combination of hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes,
esters, ethers or ketones having an olefinic or cyclo-
olefinic type of unsaturation: 5 per cent
2. A combination of aromatic .compounds with eight or more
carbon atoms to the molecule except ethylbenzene:
8 per cent
3. A combination of ethylbenzene, ketones having branched
hydrocarbon structures, trichloroethylene or tolune:
20 per cent • .
Rule 66 limits emissions of hydrocarbons according to the three process
types. These limitations are as follows: .
Process Ibs/day & Ibs/hour
1. heated process . 15 3
2. unheated photochemically reactive 40 8
3. non-photochemically reactive :. " 3000 450
Appendix )J (Federal Register^ Vol. 36, No. 158 - Saturday, August .14,
1971) limits the omission of photochemically reactive hydrocarbons to 15 Ibs/day
and 3 Ibs/hr. Reactive solvents can be exempted from the regulation if the
solvent is less than 20% of the total volume, of a water based solvent.
X-4
-------
A. Source Category; XI Manufacturing
B. Sub Category; Automobile Assembly Plant
C. Source Description;
Hydrocarbon emissions from automobile manufacturing arise in a large part
from painting. The painting of automobiles as they are manufactured is a multi-
step, semiautomated process.
The painting process can be generalized to the following steps:
1. cleaning and degreasing of bare metal,
2. addition of primer coates to bare metal, and
3. addition of finish coats.
The type of paint utilized is not always the same from one type of vehicle
to another. Lacquer-based paints and enamels are the most often used paints. CO8"
The application of the paint to the automobile is usually done on an
assembly line. The primer coats may be added by dipping the parts in a tank
of primer. The finish coats are added by two processes. First, the paint may
be added to the car parts manually as the parts pass through a suitable ventilated
"spray booth." Second, the paint may be added to the car parts automatically
as the parts pass through a suitably ventilated "spray booth. " In between some
coats, the finish may be dried in an oven. C1*)Figure 6
D. Emission Rate;
Paint is consumed at a rate of about 3.5 gallons/car in the manufacture of
new automobiles. Assuming that about 60 percent of the 3.5 gallons of paint is
solvent that will evaporate during the painting process, and assuming that each
gallon weighs about 10 pounds, the weight of hydrocarbon emissions per car is
estimated. C3)1'2
Typical aolent emissions from an automobile assembly line using a variety
of painting techniques is detailed in Table XI-l.C5)355
TABU XI-l
POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS IN AIR VOLUME FOR TREATMENT
Solvent
to be Air
treated, volume,
Item Palm > ,i,,000
>.IK .ind oven 11,000 '175,000
mill
uls .mil oven 8,(iOO IL'0,000
Inr
4. Dispersion lacquer Samr 8.GOO 55,000
Si!c> live- \e;iliii);-
Sl.iReil How
XI-l
-------
E. 'Control Equipment:
Because of the large volumes of make-up air necessary to assure operator
safety on the paint line, vehicle manufacturers have found the cost of control
of the solvent emissions prohibitive. Recently a system has been devised that
stages air from manual stations through to the automated stations as depicted
in Figure 'XI-1. By reusing the air the overall volume that needs to be treated
can be drastically reduced. Also, energy required to heat make-up air is also
reduced. The solvent emission potential is different from one position to the
next along the assembly line for painting. Selectively picking the areas where
solvent concentrations and quantities are the highest is an effective means to
drastically reduce solvent laden air volumes.(5)357 Incineration of collected
exhaust effectively reduces the hydrocarbon levels to acceptable levels.
PRESENT SYSTEM (A)
Fresh ait F,esh air
Manual ) —
Exhaust
Exhaust
STAGING SYSTEM (B)
Fresh air
Thermal treatment
Figure XI-1; Fresh Air
F. New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations;
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); No New Source Performance Standards
have been proposed for automobile painting.
State Regulations for New and Existing Sources; No regulations have been
passed specifically limiting hydrocarbon emissions from automobile painting.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
XI-2.
-------
G. References;
Literature used in the development of the information in this section
on automobile assembly is listed below.
1. Background Information for Stationary Source Categories, Provided
by EPA, Joseph J. Sableski, Chief, Industrial Survey Section,
Industrial Studies Branch, November 3, 1972, "Background Information
Needs for Industrial Surface Coatings."
2. Thomas G. Hopper, Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Industrial
Factors, Automobile Assembly Plants.
3. Thomas G. Hopper, Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 3.985
National Emissions frora Stationary Sources, Volume II, Emission
Factors, Automobile Assembly Plants.
4. R. E. Roberts, J. B. Roberts, An Engineering Approach to Emission
Reduction In Automotive Spray Painting, E. I. duPont deNemours
& Co. (Inc.).
5. s'Reducing Solvent Emissions In Automotive Spray Painting, R. E. Roberts
and J. B. Roberts, E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. JAPCA,
April, .1576. .
XI-3
-------
Solvent:', which have shown to be virtually unrcactive arc, saturated
halogenatcd hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene, benzene, acetone and c^-c^n-
paraffins.
For both Appendix B and Rule 66 type legislation, if 85% control has been
demonstrated the regulation has been met by the source even if the Ibs/day
and Ibs/hour values have been exceeded. Most states have regulations that
limit the; emissions from handling and use of organic solvents. Alabama,
Connecticut and Ohio have regulations patterned after Los Angeles Rule 66.
Indiana and Louisiana have regulations patterned after Appendix B. Some
states such as North Carolina have an organic solvent regulation which is
patterned after both types of regulations.
Table X-2 presents controlled and uncontrolled hydrocarbon emissions and
limitations from plywood manufacture.
TABLF. X-2
/
PARTICULATE AND HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS AND LIMITATIONS FROM PLYWOOD MANUFACTURE
Type of
Operation & Control
Saniir.s nri Cutting
Uncontrolled
Sanding and Cutting,
Baghouse
Type of
Operation 4 Control
Veneer Dryer,
Uncontrolled
Veneer Dryer, with
Condenser
Control
0
99
Control
0
50
Particulate
Emissions
Ib/hr k(-/hr
408-961 185-436
4.1-9.6 1.9-4.4
Hvilrocar. Emissions
Ib/hr ks/hr
3.6-7.3 1.6-3.3
1.8-3.7 .8-1.7
Particulate Limitations Ibs/hr / ks/hr
New
MA
4.1/1.9
4.1/1.9
NH
9.7/4.4
9.7/4.4
Existing
CO
7.9/3.6
7.9/3.6
NH
11.9/5.4
11.9/5.4
UT 857.
61.2/27.8
61.2/27.8
Hydrocarbon Limita Lions
Heated Unhcatod
3 1.4
3 1.4
a
8
3.6
3.6
Potential Source. Compliance and Emission Limitations; For the typical plywood
manufacturing operation producing 3.6 tons/hour plywood, Table X-2 indicates that
existing control technology is adequate to meet the most restrictive limitations.
The Environment Reporter was used to update the emission limitations.
X-5
-------
G. References;
The literature used to develop the preceding discussion on Wood Processing
(Plywood) is listed below:
(1) Baumeister, Theodore, Editor, Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers,
Seventh Edition, 1967.
(2) Danielson, J. A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition,
AP-40, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA, May 1973.
(3) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Second Edition), EPA,
Publication No. AP-42, April 1973.
(4) Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,
EPA, Contract 68-02-0248, July 1972, Mitre Corporation.
(5) VanDecar, C. Ted, Plywood Veneer Dryer Control Device, Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 22, Number 12, December 1972.
(6) Task Report; Trace Pollutants from Forest Materials, Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc., EPA, Contract No. 68-02-0232, Task Order
No. 29, June 21, 1974.
(7) Hopppr, Thomas G., Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume II, Plywood/Veneer^
Industrial Factors, TRC - The Research Corporation of New England,
EPA, Contract No. 68-02-1382, Task #3, October 1974.
X-6
------- |