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         VII22
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         VII56
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 .Cacl-^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(n9
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 dcnlty)
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

Ct-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 ticmcompliance.

    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 Ei;/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 lrcl
ti'.itrr Yitip-)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- TSi-?t Spi-fAdcv Siohcr, I'ntk-rf J red
Vairr Tul>e-2, Ovcrfln*d
K.iler Tul-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

Cnl

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 7ulc- 2, Sprc.'iJcr Stoker, Undcrfircd
viili Fo.u-lc Filler
W.itcr 7i:!*c-2, 0\vrf ired
Water TviSi2, 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. Sprndor 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*

Col
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 250-550F.  The temperature range
may be more narrow depending upon the fabric and the flue gas composition.

    There are many types of scrubbing devices for contacting liquids with gas
streams for the purpose of removing particulate matter and gaseous pollutants.
The three most common are:

            1.  wetted surfaces, i.e., systems of wetted pipes, baffles,
                or walls located in the off-gas duct;
            2.  devices for contacting the gas with a liquid spray,
                either in a spray-filled chamber or in a Venturi;
            3.  devices for bubbling the gas through a quantity of liquid
                 (by ducting it below a liquid surface or by blowing it
                through impingement trays or through a packed column).

                                       II-6

-------
All of these devices humidify  and cool the exhaust and produce a  "steam"  plume at
the stack under some atmospheric conditions. Application of a higher  pressure
drop across a scrubber  generally results in a higher degree of particulate removal.
(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_SPUKCS
                                  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 250-550F.  The temperature range
may be more narrow depending upon the fabric and the flue gas composition.

    There are many types of scrubbing devices for contacting liquids with gas
streams for the purpose of removing particulate matter and gaseous pollutants.
The three most common are:

            1.  wetted surfaces, i.e., systems of wetted pipes, baffles,
                or walls located in the off-gas duct;
            2.  devices for contacting the gas with a liquid spray,
                either in a spray-filled chamber or in a Venturi;
            3o  devices for bubbling the gas through a quantity of liquid
                (by ducting it below a liquid surface or by blowing it
                through impingement trays or through a packed column)0

                                      11-12

-------
All of these devices hymidify and cool the exhaust and produce  a  "steam"  plume at
the stack under some atmospheric conditions. Application  of  a higher  pressure
drop across a scrubber generally results in a higher degree  of  particulate re-
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

    87C            189F
    74C            165F
   120C            248F
    40C            104F
   45.8C           114F
   47.7C           118F
    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 249F and is used when  higher
temperatures are required or when compliance with air pollution control legislation
is required.(6)872

    Solvent emissions from vapor degreasing occur primarily during loading and
unloading of the degreaser.  Solvent escapes from the vapor zone and,  to  a lesser
extent, during idling conditions.  Daily emissions of a single spray degreasing
booth may vary from a few pounds to 1300 pounds per day.  A typical metal cleaning
operation using a vapor degreaser  can clean 200,000 Ibs of metal in one  day.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.CSS_ANl_S.QL.ViMI...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
JM/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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.  Fuel
        consumption is dependent upon  the amount of heat exchange employed and
        the operating temperature.  Thermal incinerators are capable of
        operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%.  Figure IV-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*SS33'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
>or
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  7Sr
 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..
              
-------
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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.
        Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
        and the operating temperature.  Thermal incinerators are capable
        of operating continuously at  efficiencies of 90% to 99%.  Figure
        IV-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 350F-425F. 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 ;>_
37Of
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 320F. 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.
                                     70F  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 .
                  SVo 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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to  1400F.
                                     IV-37

-------
Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange
employed and the operating temperature.  Thermal incinerators
are capable of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to
95%. C1)350  Figure IV-30O)358 is a schematic of a thermal incin-
erator.  Thermal combustion is used to incinerate fumes from the
larger metal decorating operations.(2)3  Other types of control
equipment applications are possible but were not summarized in
Table IV-11.
       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 (^400F)  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 75F
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 7SF
                        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 600F to 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.
        Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
        and the operating temperature.  Thermal incinerators are capable of
        operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%.  Figure IV
        presents a flow diagram for thermal combustion.
                                   IV-47

-------
      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
tOOF 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 7Sr 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

                                        ED, 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 900F and incinerated at 1200F to 1600F.
        Fuel consumption is dependent upon the amount of heat exchange employed
        and the operating temperature.  Thermal incinerators are capable
        of operating continuously at efficiencies of 90% to 99%.  Figure
        IV-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 Registeryol.  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 600F to 900F  and incinerated at 1200F to
        1600F.  Fuel consumption is dependent upon the  amount of heat
        exchange employed and the operating temperature.  Thermal incin-
        erators are capable of operating continuously  at efficiencies of
        90% to 99%.  Figure IV-46(2)358 presents a flow  diagram for thermal
        combustion.

        Catalytic combustion causes flameless  oxidation  of the undesired
        hydrocarbon from the surface coating exhaust.  The oxidation occurs
        with a catalyst of a platinum group metal deposited on a ceramic
        base or metal ribbon.  Figure IV-4?(2)359 is a schematic of a
        catalytic incinerator. Efficiencies range between 85% and 95%
        depending on the application.
                             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)
           gglSi 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 CWetSeal 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 250F to improve  the
desorption effect.  The vapors are cooled in a heat exchanger and bubbled through
the gasoline in the ground tank  where they are absorbed.  During this time,  the
second canister adsorbs vapors from the vehicles.  The initial adsorption
efficiency of 99% decreases to 94%, at which time the carbon is regenerated.^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  40F.   Vapors are pulled through the
heat exchanger by the blower, cooled off,  and returned to the ground tank.  A
small amount of gasoline vapor is condensed.  This reduces the pressure allowing
the unit to shut off.  This system has limited effectiveness on warm days when
the heat flux into the unit is large.  The use of a vapor recovery pump to extract
vapors from the vehicle filler neck area further complicates matters. (^
                                                                         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 250F.   The vapors are cooled to 35F in the
first heat exchanger.  The heavy-end  hydrocarbon and all water vapors are condensed.
The remaining vapor goes through  the  second stage of the compressor where, the
pressure is increased to 425 psi  and  the  temperature reaches 275F.  In the second
condenser, an isobaric temperature decrease to 10F occurs.   All hydrocarbons
except traces of methane and ethane are condensed.   They are returned to the surge
tank, and the overflow goes to the ground tank.   The refrigeration unit maintains
the condensers at their design temperature  at all times.  It does not cycle on
and off with the compressor.  Three pre-production  models are now being field-
tested, two at gas stations in San Diego, and a  third at a research center.
                                      IV-93

-------
F.  New 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-
950F (399-510C).  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 >lnii(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 PlansRules and Regulations, EPA,
     Contract 68-02-0248, July,  1972,  Mitre Corporation.


     The following reference was also  consulted but not directly used to develop
the content of this discussion:

(4)  Environmental Control in 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
JUctor
J.
COj. H2 *~~"
Shift
Co:.vrcr

">. 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 3000F (1370 to 1650C).   Part of the
fuel is burned to C02, CO, and water, thus generating heat for the combustion of
fresh feed.  The unburned carbon is collected as a black, fluffy particle.

    Three basic processes are used in the United States for producing this
material.  These include:

     1.  Furnace Process, 91.5 percent of total U.S.  production.
     2.  Channel Process, 0.1 percent of total U.S.  production.
     3.  Thermal Process, 8.4 percent of total U.S.  production.

    Regardless of the process used, three steps are fundamental to the production
of carbon blacks according to the following:

     1.  Production of black from feed stock.
     2.  Separation of black from the gas stream.
     3. . Final conversion of the black to a marketable product.

In the channel process, natural gas is burned with a limited air supply in long,
low buildings.  The flame from this burning impinges on long steel channel sec-
tions that swing continuously over the flame.  Carbon black is deposited on the
channels and scraped off .into collecting hoppers.  The black is conveyed to
a processing area where grit is removed, lumps are broken into small particles,
and the product is pelletized for packaging.  Figure V-4 shows the flow diagram
for the channel process.
                              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 500F (260C).  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 3000F (1650C).  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)b3~1 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:ocss, 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  700F  (260  to  370C).   The retort has air intakes
at the bottom, but their use is limited to the start-up period.  The entire
cycle takes 3 hours to 24 hours, the last  four being  an exothermic reaction.
Approximately four units of hardwood are required to  produce one unit of char-
coal.

D.  Emission Rates:

    During pyrolysis of the hardwood, most of the gases, tars,  oils,  acids, and
water from the wood are driven off. The tars, oils, and acids are useful by-products,
but economics has made recovery unprofitable, so  all  these materials  are dis-
charged to the atmosphere.

    Table V-9 presents particulate and  hydrocarbon emissions for plants with and
without a recovery plant, based on an assumed retort  capacity of 5 tons. 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=0.76EI+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
100-120F (38-A9C) 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 1300F for  0.3 seconds or
 greater in a direct-flame afterburner or an equally effective device.  This
                                       V-25

-------
 does  not  apply to emergency reliefs and vapor blowdown systems.  The
 emission  of  organic compounds from a vapor blowdown system or emergency
 relief  can be burned by a smokeless 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 ^536F  (280C)  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 1300F for 0.3 seconds or
greater in a direct-flame afterburner  or an equally effective  device.  This
does not apply to emergency reliefs and vapor blowdowri systems.   The
emission of organic compounds from a vapor blowdown system or emergency
relief can be burned by a smokeless flaret  or an  equally effective control
device.  This emission limitation will reduce organic compound emissions
approximately 98%.
                                       V-28

-------
    Potential Source Compliance and Emission 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,
    WhoFuture."  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 170F (77C).  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)510~2
                                       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 PlansRules 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 140C (284F) and 30 atmospheres pres-
sure.   The Ziegler Process carries out the polymerization reaction in  a stirred
tank reactor at 75C (167F) 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 240C (464F)  and the pressure ranges from 1,600  to 2,520  atmospheres (1.6
x 107 to 2.5 x 107 kg/m2).   Residence time in the reactor is 20 seconds  at  1,600
atmospheres (1.6 x 107 kg/m2).  The tubular reactor calls for a temperature of 250C
(482F) under 1,560 atmospheres (1.6 x 107 kg/m2) pressure and a residence  time of
30 seconds.  Both reactors consume approximately 2,000 pounds (907 kg)  ethylene per
ton of low density polyethylene produced.  An average plant will produce 182,500
tons of low density polyethylene per year.  After the reaction is  complete, the mon-
omer-polymer mix is flasked and unreacted monomer, solvent, and waxes are separated
from the product, which is then extruded and pelletized for handling.   The  low den-
sity polyethylene manufacturing process flow diagram  is shown in Figure V-15.' '
_, 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 Sl
                     r.tf-f'.Y rj:ii
 c.i t CB-ni'-.t
^ft |t,eii.*t*.:rf(HTi-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.
                        (yAo*-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
194F C90C)  and to 239F (115C).. six and one-half hours later.  The polymer is
produced in the. form of small beads and is separated  from  the  suspension after
cooling. The beads are then washed, dried, and extruded.

    In  the solution  technique,  styrene  and solvent (such as ethylbenzene)  are fed
into a  series of  tubular  agitated polymerization reactors.  The mixture  enters the
first reactor at  about  250F  (121C)  and  leaves the last one at about  340F (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 600F
(93 to 315C) for 8 to 12 hours, similar to the way varnish is made.  The
pigment and vehicle are mixed in dough mixers or large agitated tanks.  Grinding
is accomplished in three or  five roller mills.

D.  End s s ion R.a t es:

    Vehicle preparation by heating is the largest source of hydrocarbon emissions
from ink manufacturing.  At  350F (175C) the resins, drying oils, petroleum oils
and solvents decompose, and  the decomposition products are emitted from the cooking
vessel.  The emissions continue throughout  the. cooking process, reaching a maximum
just after the maximum temperature has been reached.

    The quantity,  composition, and rate of emissions from ink manufacturing depend
upon the cooking temperature and time, the ingredients,  the method of introducing
additives, the degree of stirring, and the extent of air or inert glass blowing.
The hydrocarbons emitted by  printing ink manufacturing processes are presented
in Table V-27.C1)5'14~2

E.  Control 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   ,  Prcess                          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      ^ *** ***<***   Mst Btates have regulations th2
Coniecticur  IT*  ,rm handli8 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.   paekaii.;
     3.  mixing                 6.   aging

     The cooking process  is  the most  important step in any varnish-making opera-
 tion,  for it  is during this step  that  the  following processes occur:

     1.  depolymerization of resins and oils,
     2.  bodying of  natural  and synthetic oils,
     3.  melting of  materials,
     4.  esterification of resins,  anhydrides or  oils  with polyhydric  alcohols,
     5.  isomerization of oils,
     6.  preparation of alkyl resins,
     7.  purification of the resins.

     Varnish is  cooked in open or  enclosed  gas-fired kettles for periods of
 4 to 16 hours at  temperatures  of  200 to  650F  (93 to 340C) depending upon the
 particular batch  being processed.   The average,  plant produces 280 tons  of varnish
 per year.  Figure V-17 shows a typical varnish  cooking room.


 D.  Emission Rates;

     The cooking  and thinning operations  are  the major sources of emissions in
 the varnish manufacturing process.  The average batch starts to release vapors at
 about 350F (177C) and reaches  its  maximum  rate of release at approximately the
 same time the maximum cooking temperature is reached.  Obviously, the open kettle
 allows the vaporized material to  be  emitted  to  the atmosphere more than the closed
 kettle operations.   The addition of  solvents and thinners  during the cooking pro-
 cess also results in the emission of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, especially
 if the thinning  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 PlansRules  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 pu. 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 Hl


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^_^oureRj:   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 350F and 400F.
The raw food to be fried is lowered into the vat by a conveyor and the oil is
circulated  in the vat with a stirring device or externally mounted pump.  A
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,

     2Sn 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 (350F to 400F) oil,
the water in the raw food turns to steam and bubbles through the oil.  This pro-
cess causes some of the oil to be "steam distilled."^2'800

    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 800F 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 -^
Prhe*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*lrocrhi'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. Mnnufactrc._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 Li  /

                                  \/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-ll3  -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 Fundary  (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 400F  (149 and 204C)
for baking periods ranging from less  than an hour to overnight.  The weight of
cores baked at any one  time may range from less than one hundred pounds to more
than a  ton.
 D.   Emission Rates:

     The air contaminants discharged from core ovens consist of organic  acids,
 aldehydes,  hydrocarbon vapors, and particulate matter.  /The vapors  are  the result
 of the evaporation of hydrocarbon solvents and the light ends usually present  in
 core oils.   The organic acids and aldehydes are the result of partial oxidation
 of the various organic material in the cores.

     In general, emission rates are low, especially from small- and  medium-sized
 ovens operating at 400F (204C) or less.  Large amounts of emissions can generally
 be expected from ovens operated at higher temperatures  and from  which the cores
 baked contain larger than normal amounts of core oils. . Table VII-5 summarizes the
 particulate and hydrocarbon emissions from  core  ovens.
                                                        '"
tJ ^*l*ifcfc* *. .**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 2400-2700F [1351-1482C]) 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 3000F (1649C).  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 2250F with no auxiliary
      fuel.  The sulfur dioxide is  carried out with  the  other flue
      gases.  Silica flux  is added  to combine  with iron  oxide to form
      a  fluid iron silicate  slag.   The  slag  is skimmed from  the con-
      verter and returned  to the reverberatory furnace.   Additional matte
      is added  to  the  converter and  the process repeated until a suitable
      charge of copper sulfide  has  been accumulated.  Blowing is con-
      tinued without further matte  additions until remaining sulfur has
      been eliminated.  The  resulting blister  copper is  99%  pure.  ^2'257-260
D.  Emission Rates;

    The high temperatures attained in roasting, smelting,  and  converting cause
volatilization of a number of the trace elements present in  copper  ores  and
concentrates.  The raw waste gases from these processes contain  not only these
fumes but also dust and sulfur dioxide.

    The dust content of the waste gases from roasting operations depends on
the characteristics of the copper concentrates as well as  on the volume  of air
aspirated by the roasting furnace.  Another factor of importance in hearth
furnaces is the extent to which the concentrates remain continuously in  suspen-
sion when descending from the upper to the lower hearths.  The size and  number
of apertures in the hearths has an influence on the creation of  dust in  the
furnace, and consequently also on the dust content of the  waste  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 900F 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 1100-1200F (593-649C),  High
operating efficiencies are favored by the following:

            1.  small slag volume,
            2.  a basic slag,
            3.  high blast temperatures, and
            4.  coarse ores.

    The majority of ferroalloy furnaces are submerged arc furnaces which are charged
with raw ore, coke, and limestone.  Normally three electrodes are used; they protrude
into the furnace charge to a depth of 3 to 5 feet.  The major smelting occurs in the
reaction zones surrounding the electrodes.

    Simplified reactions illustrating the manufacture of ferroalloys are as
follows:(2)V-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 (A12033H20), 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* 1~2~71-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) 81-'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 PlansRules 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 400F  (149  to  204C) be-
fore the airblowing cycle begins. After 1/2 hour to 16 hours of blowing,  the Sat-
urant or coating is transported to a tank or spray area for use. A  typical plant
can blow 24 tons of asphalt per hour, or 210,000 tons  per year. C1)2"8

D.  Emission Rates:

    Emissions from asphalt airblowing stills include oxygen, nitrogen,  reactive hydro-
carbons, odors, and sulfur.  Uncontrolled hydrocarbon  emissions from  the blowing
operation are 1.5 pounds per ton of saturated felt produced, or 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 1200F (649C).  The un-
controlled and controlled hydrocarbon emissions from asphalt blowing  are  shown in
Table VIII-3.(2)8.2-1
                                     VIII-6

-------
F.  New Source Performance Standards and Regulation Limitations!

    New Source Performance Standards )NSPS) :  No New Source Performance Standards
have been promulgated  for asphalt roofing manufacture.

    State Regulations  for New and Existing Sources;  Very few states have adopted
hydrocarbon regulations  for specific process industries such as asphalt roofing
manufacture.  Currently,  hydrocarbon emission control regulations are similar to
the Los Angeles Rule 66-type legislation which has been instituted by many states
and local legislatures.  These states include:

     Alabama      District of Columbia   Louisiana        Oklahoma
     Arizona      Illinois               Maryland         Pennsylvania
     California   Indiana                New York         Virginia
     Colorado     Kentucky               North Carolina   Wisconsin
     Connecticut                         Ohio             Puerto Rico

    The limitation requires all solvents which are heated not to exceed 15 Ibs/
day- or 3 Ibs/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 2000F  (1093C)  are used in firing common brick.
    The brick manufacturing process is illustrated  in  Figure  VIII-2.
typical plant can produce 3.2 tons per hour or  28.000  tons  annually.
RELATED PRODUCTS
                                                                        8* 3~2  A
                                                                         BRICK AND
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-
troicci 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 ClnlDi ?roc Floy Pltr
    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-Scheatle Clutch of Ecrn-iVj. Thtrmti Col-B
                                    bluutt tan
                          Bypiu iltck
                                            AMnnpeilnj louvttt
                              tVltt-t- Ichmtlc Drawing Showing Component frt>
                                 	oJ[l
-------
                                                   Ciploiion vcnlt
                      Pulnmu
                         Z.4g"r_VlIl-7-freture-Typ; Flulillied.Bod^r^rn.i coil Sryr,
                                  Shlna_CponVr.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 2800F  (1538C) until it acquires the homogeneous char-
acter of glass.   The  batch is then heat conditioned to eliminate stones and cooled
to 2200F  (1204C).  While still  at a yellow-orange temperature, the glass is drawn
from the furnace  and  worked on forming machines.  Figure VIII-8 shows a flow dia-
gram for a soda-lime  glass plant.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
Appoi 20 I20mel^
' '"*"''









UMtSTONt
W bum) tim
40 rM lim>. 0*0
W|lO *'%C ^vtlU
1 14* mjt*'.J>
AoprOI ;0"liOftVh








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 lhrol 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)8I
                                      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
3,000F  (1,650C) and  fed to a blow chamber where steam atomizes the
molten rock into globules that develop long fibrous tails as they are drawn to
the other end of the chamber.  A temperature between 150 and 250F (66  and
121C) is maintained in the blow chamber.  The wool blanket formed is con-
veyed to an oven to cure the binding agent and then to a cooler.  A batting oper-
ation normally follows the cooler.  The entire mineral wool process is shown
schematically in Figure VIII-10. O) 3t*3
           Figure VIII-10;   Flow Diagram of  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.
QJPJL41-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 rrocmtn Flow Dttrm
                                                              	    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 PlansRules 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 (200-400F) (93-204C) and below command premium prices.   Kerosene (350-
550F) (1770C-288C), and distillate fuels (450-600F)  (232C-316C) are desirable
for jet and diesel fuels as well as for heating purposes.   Those materials above
600F (316C) are generally undesirable products, and one objective of refinery
operations is to minimize them.  Fluid Catalytic Cracking is the principal process
used' to convert high boiling point hydrocarbons into more valuable lower boiling
point material. 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.

                                      TAU 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..
flU Cililyclc CcieV nj Cnlt
cyclone* r.d CO bol cr
fluid C.t.lytlc Cr.cV at Cr.it
ftcclpltitor
fluK C*tlvtlc Cr*c> f.t Vnlc
cycler... ir.i CO fcl 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. Sedq?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

-------