73-CCC-1
(REPORT NUMBER!
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TEST
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
(PLANT NAME)
WIRE AND CABLE DEPARTMENT
1285 BOSTON AVENUE
(PLANT ADDRESS)
BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT
06602
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
-------
EMISSIONS SAMPLING REPORT
EMB PROJECT REPORT NUMBER 73-CCC-l
Emissions From Cable Covering Facility
at
General Electric Company
Wire and Cable Division
Bridgeport, Connecticut
on
June 26-28, 1973
by
E. P. Shea
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Reviewed by
John W. Snyder and Susan Wyatt
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228 Task No. 31
. . MRI Project No. 3585-C
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816 561-0202
-------
PREFACE
The work reported herein was conducted by Midwest Research In-
stitute (MRI), pursuant to a Task Order issued by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the terms of EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228.
Mr. E. P. Shea served as the Project Chief and directed the MRI Field
Team consisting of: Messrs. Reid Flippin, Henry Moloney, Douglas Weatherman,
Kevin Cline, Harold Branine, and Frank Hanis. Mr. Fred Bergman, assisted
by Mr. Mike Mammons and Mrs. Carol Green, performed the pollutant analyses
at the MRI laboratories. Miss Christine Guenther coded the data for the
computer calculations. Mr. E. P. Shea prepared this final report.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Paul C. Constant, Jr.
Program Manager
-------
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
II. Introduction . . .- 1
III. Summary and Discussion of Results 5
IV. Process Description and Operation 12
V. Sampling and Analytical Procedures 16
A. Location of Sampling Points. ............. 16
B. Sampling Procedures. 16
C. Analytical Procedures. 18
Appendix A - Particulate and Lead Results 20
Appendix B - Operations Results . 37
Appendix C -• Field Data 40
Appendix D — Standard Sampling Procedures 87
Appendix E - Particulate and Lead Analyses 88
Appendix F - Test and Sample Log 100
Appendix G - Project Participants and Titles .......... 110
Appendix H - Correspondence with Source 113
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
I Summary of Results - Stack A . 6
II Summary of Results -.Stack B ....... 7
III Summary of Results - Stack C 8
IV Total Emissions for Each Test. 11
V Location of Sampling Points 17
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Table' Title Page
A-I Lead and Particulate Emission Data 21
A-II Example Particulate Calculations .... 24
A-III Lead and Particulate Data and Calculated Values. ... 28
B-I Operation of Robertson Press 38
B-II Operation of Perrille Press 39
E-I Blank Values Lead and Particulate. . 90
F-I Sampling Log ...'...... 101
F-1I Sample Identification Log. . . . „ . . 102
F-III. Sampling Task Log. . „ 104
F-IV Run No. 1, 6-26-73 105
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Location of Sampling Points in Lead-Press Ventiliating
System.. . . 4
2 Temperature Distribution in Lead Presses 14
iv
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
This emission test is a part of a comprehensive study to determine
a regulatory strategy for lead emissions from stationary sources. The en-
tire project is referred to as the preferred standards path analysis on
lead. The purpose of this preferred standards path analysis is to recommend
a statutory and regulatory course of action for the control of stationary
sources of lead emissions. The recommendations must be based on a thorough
assessment of the pollutant effects and emissions as related to the Clean Air
Act of 1970, as amended. If it is decided that a regulatory program is
desirable, there are three available options for developing standards:
Section 109-110, "Ambient Air Quality Standards," Section 111, "New
Source Performance Standards," accompanied by state standards for existing
sources, and Section 112, "Hazardous Pollutant Standards."
A well defined emission inventory, which is not at this time
available, is vital to the development of a regulatory strategy for lead.
Such an inventory will define the extent of the problem by identifying
the major lead emitters, quantifying the emissions from these sources,
and determining the extent and effectiveness of presently employed general
particulate control technology for lead.
A preliminary emission inventory of lead sources was developed
through EPA contract to determine from the literature and plant data the
nature, magnitude and extent of industrial lead emissions to the atmosphere
in the United States in 1970. However, only a small amount of the data was
-------
supported by emission testing. A listing of industries for emission testing
has been compiled by EPA, based on information supplied by the emissions
inventory. Cable covering plants are on this list. The emission data
gathered during the testing program will be used to determine the nature
and extent of lead emissions from stationary sources, i.e., whether a
problem exists in the industry, and if so, the nature and extent of the
problem. The data will also be used to help determine the degree to which
particulate standards are effective in controlling lead emissions.
Finally, emission data can be used in conjunction with other information
on number and location of plants, trends in lead usage, growth rates,
and affected populations, to determine which industries are of highest
priority for regulation.
This report presents the results of the emission testing which
was performed by Midwest Research Institute at the General Electric wire
and cable facility in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The tests were 2-hr particu-
late emission tests using the equipment conforming with the Federal Register,
Volume 36, No. 159 (17 August 1971). The wire and cable facility was not
operating to capacity during the week of emission testing. However, the
plant coordinated its production with the emission tests. During testing,
both lead presses were operating. When the test was over at least ,one of
the presses was shut down so that the plant would have cable to process the
next day. Three stacks were sampled simultaneously for all tests.
-------
At the General Electric wire and cable plant, twisted cable is
covered with rubber or synthetic coatings, then passed through one of two
lead presses, where a lead coating is applied for curing purposes.
If the coating is rubber, the rubber is vulcanized by heating
the lead-covered cable to 350°F. The lead serves two purposes; it acts as
a conductor of heat and also as an applier of pressure during vulcanization.
After vulcanization or polymerization of the coating, the cable is cooled
and the lead removed in a continuous cutter. The lead is recycled back to
the lead pots where it is remelted and applied to fresh cable. The ventila-
tion system consists of three ducts with in-line fans to remove the particu-
late and lead vapors from the lead pots, presses and associated equipment.
Measured pollutant emissions from the lead press operation consist of par-
ticulates, lead, lead oxide, and carbon dioxide.
The three stacks and the equipment they vent are shown in
Figure 1. Stack A (20-in. diameter) vents both presses, one lead pot,
the dross kettle, and the hopper and feeder for lead; Stack B (14-in.
diameter) vents the pot for the Perrille press; and Stack C (12-in.
diameter) vents the pit under the Perrille press. The purpose of this
pit is to catch any lead that leaks out of the Perrille press and also to
catch floor debris. A hopper and feeder is located above each lead pot
and the dross kettle. The hoppers and feeders were intentionally omitted
from the drawing. . . •
-------
STACK A
WEATHER CAP-
FLOOR
O
20"
BLOWER
DROSS
KETTLE
ROBERTSON
LEAD POT
ELECTRIC
GAS VENT
FLOOR
Figure 1 - Location of Sampling Points in Lead-Press
Ventilating System
-------
The following sections of the report treat: (1) the summary and
discussion of results; (2) description and operation of the process; and
(3) sampling and analytical procedures.
III. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Tables I, II, III, and IV present a summary of particulate and
lead emission results from the emission testing on the lead press opera-
tion. Total particulate emissions were sampled, and the samples analyzed
for lead content. Table I contains the results of the three tests on the
A stack and also shows the moisture and Orsat analysis for the stack. The
particulate emissions total catch vary from 0.135 Ib/hr (0.0612 kg/hr) to
0.231 Ib/hr (0.105 kg/hr), with an average for all three tests of
0.179 Ib/hr (0.0813 kg/hr).
The Orsat and moisture analysis for A stack show an average of
2.1% water, 0.4% C02 and 20.8% 02 with no detectable CO. The lead emissions
for the three tests averaged 0.0192 Ib/hr (0.00872 kg/hr) with 0.00177 Ib/hr
(0.000804 kg/hr) for Test 1, 0.0291 Ib/hr (0.0132 kg/hr) for Test 2, and
0.0266 Ib/hr (0.0121 kg/hr) for Test 3.
The dross kettle which is vented by Stack A did not operate during
the first test. The lead is drossed once each shift for about 1 to 2 hr.
Dressing was finished before we started Test No. 1. The effect of the dross
kettle on lead emissions is pronounced. Both Tests 2 and 3 showed a large
increase (a factor of 15) in lead emissions over Test No. 1.
-------
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - STACK A
NAME
OS
QA
PMOS
PC02
P02
PCO
DESCRIPTION
DATE OF RUN
UNITS
STK FLOWRATE. DRYtSTD CN DSCFM
ACTUAL STACK FLOWRATE
PERCENT MOISTURE BY VOL
PERCENT C02 BY VOL» DRY
PERCENT 02 BY VOL» DRY
PERCENT CO BY VOLt DRY
ACFM
Al
06-26-73
4818
5202
1.9
.4
20.8
0.0
A2
06-27-73
4987
5333
2.1
.4
20.8
0.0
A3
06-28-73
4961
5405
2.3
.4
20.6
0.0
UNITS
DNM3/M
M3/M
PARTICULATES — PARTIAL CATCH
MF .
CAN
CAT
CAW
PARTICULATE WT-PARTIAL
PART. LOAD-PTLtSTD CN
PART. LOAD-PTL.STK CN
PARTIC EMIS-PARTIAL
MO
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
20.91
.00383
.00354
•" . 158-
13.20
.00227
.00213
.0972
13.08
.00232
.00213
.0985
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
PARTICULATES — TOTAL CATCH
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
_LEAD
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
LEAD
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
PARTICULATE WT-TOTAL
PART. LOAD-TTLtSTD CN
PART. LOAD-TTL.STK CN
PARTIC EMIS-TOTAL
PERC IMPINGER CATCH
— PARTIAL CATCH
LEAD " ' WT-PARTIAL
LEAD LOAD-PTL.STD CN
LEAD LOAD-PTL.STK CN
LEAD EMIS-PARTIAL
— TOTAL CATCH
LEAD WT-TOTAL
LEAD LOAD— TTL.STD CN
LEAD LOAD-TTL.STK CN
LEAD EMIS-TOTAL
PERC IMPIXGER CATCH
PERCENT LEAD PTL. PXRTIC. '
PERCENT LEAD TTL. PARTIC.
MG
6R/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
30.55
.00559
.00518
.231
31.6
.22
.00004010
.0000371
.00165
.23
.0000428
.0000397
.00177
6.4
1.05
.75
23.12
.00398
.00372
.170
42.9
3.95
.000680
.000636
.0291
3.95
.000682 L
. .000637 •
.0291
.2
29 . 9 '
17.1
17.90
.00317
.00291
. 135
26. V
3.53
.000625
.000573
.0266
3.54
,00(>2T
.000575
Q2fi6_
.4
26.99 AVE
19.78 AVE
MG/NM3
'MG/M3
KG/HR
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MG/NM3
.MG/M3
KG/HR
19.3
12.5
Al
136.3
147.2
METRIC VALUES
A2
141.1
150.9
8.77
8.11
.0717
12.8
11.9
.105
.0918
.0849
.000749
.0980
.0909
.000803
5.20
4.88
.0441
9.11
8.52
.0771
1.56
1.46_
.0132
1.56
1.46
.0132
A3
140.4
152.9
5.31
4.88
•.0447
7.26
6.66
.0612
1.43
L-31,
.0/20
,1.44
1.32
.0121
-------
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - STACK B
iNAME DESCRIPTION
DATE OF RUN
UNITS
QS
QA
PMOS
-------
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - STACK C
00
NAME DESCRIPTION
DATE OF RUN
UNITS Cl C2 C3
06-26-73 06-27-73 06-28-73
OS
QA
PMOS
PC02
P02
PCO
STK FLOWRATE. DRY»STD CN DSCFM
ACTUAL STACK FLOWRATE
PERCENT MOISTURE BY VOL
PERCENT C02 BY VOL t DRY
PERCENT 02 BY VOLt DRY
PERCENT CO BY VOL. DRY
ACFM
356
374
.7
0.0
20.8
0.0
479
472
2.0
0.0
20.8
0.0
398
409
2.2
0.0
20.8
0.0
PARTICULATES — PARTIAL CATCH
MF
CAN .
CAT
CAW
PARTICULATE WT-PARTIAL
PART. LOAD-PTLtSTD CN
PART. LOAD-PTL.STK CN
PARTIC EMIS-PARTIAL
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
12.90
.00265
.00253
.00808
7.33
.00131
.00133
.00538
6.65
.00127
.00123
.00433
PARTICULATES — TOTAL CATCH
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
LEAD
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
LEAD
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
PARTICULATE WT-TOTAL
PART. LOAD-TTL.STD CN
PART. LOAD-TTL»STK CN
PARTIC EMIS-TOTAL
PERC IMPINGER CATCH
— PARTIAL CATCH
LEAD WT-PARTIAL
LEAD LOAD-PTL.STD CN
LEAD LOAD-PTL.STK CN
LEAD EMIS-PARTIAL
— TOTAL CATCH
LEAD WT-TOTAL
LEAD ;LOAD-TTL,STD CN
LEAD LOAD-TTL.STK CN
LEAD EMIS-TOTAL
PERC IMPINGER CATCH
PERCENT LEAD PTL.
PERCENT LEAD TTL.
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
HG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
20.09
.00413
.00393
.0126
35.8
.02
.00000412
.00000391
.0000126
.04
.00000741
.00000705
.0000226
44.4
.155
.199
16.82
.00301
.00306
.0124
56.4
.40
. 0000726
.0000737
.000298
.41
.0000744
.0000755
.000305
2.4
5.46
2.44
9.58
.00183
.00178
.00624
30.6
lib
.0000300
.0000291
.000102
.17
.0000317
.0000308
.000108
5.4
2.44
1.77
UNITS
DNM3/MIN
M3/MIN
AVE
AVE
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
2.685
1.47
Cl
10.1
10.6
METRIC VALUES
C2
13.6
13.4
6.07
5.79
.00367
9.46
9.00
.00571
.00943
.00895
.00000572
.0170
.0161
.0000103
3.00
3.05
.00244
6.89
7.01
.00562
.166
.169
.000135
.170
.173
.000138
C3
11.3
11.6
2.91
2.82
.00196
4.19
4.08
.00283
.0687
.0666
.0000463
.0726
.0705
.0000490
-------
Table II contains the emission, moisture, and gas data for the
B stack. This stack vents the Perrille lead melt pot, which is gas-fired
and operates at a temperature of 800°F. The particulate emissions averaged
0.112 Ib/hr (0.0508 kg/hr) with an emission rate of 0.128 Ib/hr (0.0581
kg/hr) for Test 1, 0.0894 Ib/hr (0.0406 kg/hr) for Test 2, and 0.118 Ib/hr
(0.0535 kg/hr) for Test 3. The process rate applicable to the B and C
stacks was 1.02 tons/hr (0.925 metric ton/hr), Test 1; 1.23 tons/hr (1.12
metric tons/hr), Test 2; and 0.68 ton/hr (0.617 metric ton/hr), Test No. 3.
(See Section IV and Appendix B for details.) The particulate emissions per
ton of lead processed were 0.125 Ib/ton ( 0.0628 kg/metric ton) for Test
No. 1, 0.0727 Ib/ton (0.0363 kg/metric ton), Test No. 2; and 0.173 Ib/ton
(0.0867 kg/metric ton) for Test No. 3, with an average of 0.124 Ib/ton
(0.0619 kg/metric ton). The Orsat and moisture analysis for B stack show
an average of 1.97% water, 0.4% C02, and 20.8% 02, with no detectable CO.
The lead emissions for the three tests average 0.0250 Ib/hr
(0.0113 kg/hr) with the following emissions: Test 1, 0.0170 Ib/hr
(0.00771 kg/hr); Test 2, 0.0181 Ib/hr (0.00821 kg/hr); Test 3, 0.0397 Ib/hr
(0.0180 kg/hr). The lead emissions per ton of lead processed averaged
0.0299 Ib/ton ('0.0150 kg/metric ton) with the following lead emissions:
Test 1, 0.0167 Ib/ton (0.00834 kg/metric ton); Test 2, 0.0147 Ib/ton
(0.00733 kg/metric ton); and Test 3, 0.0584 Ib/ton (0.0293 kg/metric ton).
Table III contains the results of the three emission tests on
C stack and also shows the moisture and Orsat analysis. The average
-------
moisture was 1.63% and the Orsat analysis of C stack showed an average of
20.8% 02 with no detectable CC>2 or CO. The particulate emissions are:
Test 1, 0.0126 Ib/hr(0.00571 kg/hr). Test 2, 0.0124 Ib/hr (0.00562 kg/hr);
Test 3, 0.00624 Ib/hr (0.00283 kg/hr); and the average of all three
0.00^72.
tests, 0.0104 Ib/hr (ft -fWilfl kg/hr). The lead emissions for C stack
are: Test 1, 0.0000226 Ib/hr (0.0000103 kg/hr); Test 2, 0.000305 Ib/hr '
(0.000138 kg/hr); Test 3, 0.000108 Ib/hr (0.0000490 kg/hr); and the
average, 0.000145 Ib/hr (0.0000659 kg/hr).
Table No. IV contains the total emissions for all three tests.
The total particulate emissions are: Test No. 1, 0.372 Ib/hr (0.169 kg/hr);
Test No. 2, 0.272 Ib/hr (0.123 kg/hr); and Test No. 3, 0.259 Ib/hr (0.117
.kg/hr). The total lead emissions for each test are: Test No. 1, 0.0188
Ib/hr (0.0085 kg/hr); Test No. 2, 0.0475 Ib/hr (0.0215 kg/hr); and Test
No. 3, 0.0665 Ib/hr (0.0302 kg/hr). The lead processed was: Test No. 1,
0.896 ton/hr (0.813 metric ton/hr); Test No. 2, 1.061 tons/hr (0.963 metric
ton/hr); and Test No. 3, 1.009 tons/hr (0.915 metric ton/hr). The total
particulate emissions per ton of lead processed are: Test No. 1, 0.415
Ib/ton (0.208 kg/metric ton); Test No. 2, 0.256 Ib/ton (0.128 kg/metric
ton); and Test No. 3, 0.257 Ib/ton (0.128 kg/metric ton). The total lead
emissions per ton of lead processed are: Test No. 1, 0.0210 Ib/ton (0.0105
kg/metric ton); Test No. 2, 0.0448 Ib/ton (0.0223 kg/metric ton); and Test
No. 3, 0.0658 Ib/ton (0.0329 kg/metric ton). The percent lead in the
partial particulate catch for all three tests is: Test No. 1, 7.19%
10
-------
TABLE IV
TOTAL EMISSIONS FOR EACH TEST
Description
Particulate PTL
Particulate TTL
Lead PTL
Lead TTL
Lead Usage
Particulate PTL
Particulate TTL
Lead PTL
Lead TTL
Lead PTL
Lead TTL
Avg. Part. PTL
Avg. Part. TTL
Avg. Lead PTL
Avg. Lead TTL
Units
Ib/hr
Ib/hr.
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
tons/hr
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
%
%
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
1
0.257
0.372
0.0187
0.0188
0.896
0.287
0.415
0.0209
0.0210
7.19
4.99
Test
2
0.162
0.272
0.0475
0.0475
1.061
0.153
0.256
0 . 0448
0.0448
28.9
17.2
0.213
0.309
0.0438
0.0439
s
3
0.202
0.259
0.0664
0.0665
1.009
0.200
0.257
0.0658
0.0658
32.6
25.6
Tests
Metric Units 1
kg/hr ' 0.117
kg/hr 0.169
kg/hr 0.00848
kg/hr 0.00853
metric tons/hr 0.813
kg/metric ton 0.144
kg/metric ton 0.208
kg/metric ton 0.0104
kg/metric ton 0.0105
_
_
kg/metric ton
kg/metric ton
kg/metric ton
kg/metric ton
2
0.0735
0.123
0.0215
0.0215
0.963
0.0763
0.128
0.0223
0.0223
--
--
0.107
0.155
0.0219
0.0219
3
0.0916
0.117
0.0301
0.0302
0.915
0.100
0.128
0.0329
0.0329
--
--
-------
Test No. 2, 28.9%, and Test No. 3, 32.67.. The percent lead in the total
particulate catch is: Test No. 1, 4.997«, Test No. 2, 17.27», and Test
No. 3, 25.670.
The average particulate emission factors for all three tests are:
partial, 0.213 Ib/ton(b.l07 ^kg/metric ton}; total, 0.309 Ib/ton (0.155
kg/metric ton). The average lead emissions for all three tests are:
partial, 0.0438 Ib/ton (0.0219 kg/metric ton); total, 0.0439 Ib/ton
(0.0219 kg/metric ton).
Total lead processed for the four days, Monday through Thursday,
amounted to 184,300 Ib, or 92.15 tons—an average production of 23 tons/day.
Approximately 17« of this figure, or 1,843 Ib, was used for center check
starts, etc. The center check starts and other wasted lead are collected
and returned to the lead pots for reuse.
The production figures for the preceding week showed that
223,202 Ib or 111.6 tons of lead were processed in 5 days, yielding about
the same daily average of 23 tons/day of lead processed.
IV. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
The lead press process is designed to use a lead covering for
curing insulation on wire and cable. Twisted or stranded cable is covered
with either rubber or polymer coatings for insulation. In order to assist
in vulcanizing the rubber or completing the cross-linking of the polymer,
a lead covering is continuously extruded onto the cable. The cable is on
12
-------
large cable reels and is fed into the lead press continuously. Figure 2
shows the temperature profiles in both lead melting pots and both lead .
presses. As can be seen from this figure, the Perrille press requires a
higher operating temperature as well as a higher melt pot temperature than
the Robertson press. The Perrille press has a different screw with closer
clearances and requires the higher temperature to maintain a softer lead
until extrusion is complete.
After the lead sheath is applied, the cable is rerolled on reels
and then put into a live steam oven for heating. If the covering is rubber,
the oven temperature is 350°f for vulcanization. When polymer insulation
is used the oven temperature is 210-250°F. When the insulation is cured,
the lead covered cable is cooled to water (70°F) temperature and the lead
sheath removed in a continuous stripping machine. The temperature of the
lead is maintained at 70°F during stripping by spraying cooling water
directly on the lead as it is being stripped. The stripped lead is recycled
back to the hopper, which feeds the lead melting pots. A hooded belt-con-
veyor system, vented to the outside through a separate stack which was not
tested, carries the lead from the stripping machines to the hoppers. Once
each shift the melt pots are drossed, material skimmed off the top, and
the dross is put into a dross kettle. When enough dross has been collected,
it is sent to a lead refiner that custom refines the lead for a fee and
returns pure lead to the lead-press operation. The dross kettle did not
operate during Test No. 1. The dross kettle did operate during Tests
Nos. 2 and 3 and contributed a significant lead emission.
13
-------
750° F
Pot
500
580
690° F
Press
LEAD POT
Lead Press-
Top Die Block
Botton Die Block
Top Housing
Bottom Housing
Pipe Controller
750° F
540° F
540° F
500° F
580° F
690° F
ROBERTSON
LEAD POT 800° F
Front Coil Area 500° F
Middle Coil Area 600° F
Back Coil Area. 680° F
Feed Pipe 720°F
BC MC FC
680° F 600° F 500° F
Press
PERRILLE
Figure 2 - Temperature Distribution .in Lead Presses
14
-------
: The ventilating system at this plant is very good. No lead vapors
have been observed or caught in State Board of Health sampling in the press
building.
The process operations applicable to the operation of the lead
press are:
1. Feeding of lead from hopper to melt pot.—
2. Lead melting in either a gas or electric fired pot.I/
3. Pumping of molten lead to a continuous press.—'
4. Feeding of insulated cable to the lead press.
5. Continuous coating of the cable with a lead sheath.—'
6. Cooling of lead sheath by water sprays.
7. Vulcanization of rubber or polymerization of synthetic
insulation by heating in an oven.
8. Cooling of lead-covered insulation with water sprays to 70°F.
9. Stripping of lead from cable in a continuous stripper whichr'
is water cooled.
10. Recycling lead to storage hopper.—'
11. Dressing of lead in dross kettle.—
!_/ The above operations were vented to the atmosphere through the three
stacks that we tested.
2_/ The stripping machine operating at 70°F has a separate exhaust to the
roof. We did not sample this stack because there was no visible par-
ticulate emission coming from this stack during the presurvey or
while testing proceeded. Examination of the stack showed that there
was no buildup of particulate on the sides. There was such a visible
buildup on the three stacks we sampled.
15
-------
There are two complete installations at this plant. One line
uses a Robertson press and the other line a Perrille press. The operation
results for the week we tested are in Appendix B.
V. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
A. Location of Sampling Points
Figure 1 (p. 4) shows the location of the sampling points for this
task. There were two ports (3-in. holes) at 90 degrees in each of the three
stacks. The sampling ports for all three stacks were located about 10-12
diameters from the nearest upstream disturbance and over 4 diameters from
the outlet to the atmosphere or the nearest downstream disturbance. The
stacks exhausted through the roof of the wire and cable plant.
The ductwork and stacks were made of galvanized steel with a
thickness of 1/16 in., and each stack had an inline exhaust fan.
B. Sampling Procedures
Twelve points were calculated from the traverse point chart, but
because all stacks were less than 2 ft in diameter, two thirds of the.cal-
culated number or eight points were sampled in each stack, four points on
a diameter.—' Each point was sampled for 15 min with readings taken every
5 min.
Table V shows the recalculated points for each stack and were
the points used in this emission testing program.
I/ Federal Register, 36, 247, 23 December 1971.
16
-------
TABLE V
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Diameter Point
Stack (in.) No.
A 20 1
2
3
4
B 14 1
2
3
4
C . 12 1
2
3
4
Distance
(in.)
1- 3/8
5
15
18- 5/8
1
3- 1/2
10- 1/2
13
1
.3
9
11
Wall
Thickness
(in.)
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
1/16
Use
( in . )
1- 7/16
5- 1/16
15- 1/16
18-11/16
1- 1/16
3- 9/16
10- 9/16
13- 1/16
1- 1/16
3- 1/16
9- 1/16
11- 1/16
17
-------
For the particulate and lead sampling, the Research Appliance
Company— Model 2343 "Staksamplr" equipment was used. The sampling train
meets the specifications of the Federal Register, 36, 159 (17 August 1971).
Three stacks, A, B, and C were sampled simultaneously for 2 hr for each
test. Preliminary measurements were made on each stack to determine
approximate temperature and velocity profiles. Due to processing condi-
tions, 2% moisture was assumed for each stack.
The Orsat samples were taken by using a stainless-steel probe ,•'.
which contained a glass wool filter. The probe was inserted to point 2 of
each stack, and gas samples were pumped directly into the Orsat analyzer
for 5 min to purge the probe line and Orsat. Three analyses were made on each
stack for each test, and each analysis lasted 5 min.
C. Analytical Procedures
The particulate analysis was accomplished using the procedures in
the Federal Register, 36(159), 15,715-15,716 (17 August 1971).
After the samples were analyzed for particulates, the solid residue was
digested in 10 ml boiling Aqua Regia for 1-3 hr with reflux. The liquid was
cooled, diluted to 50 ml with distilled water and analyzed for lead on the atomic
absorption spectrophotometer. The filters were handled in the same manner.
The stack gases were withdrawn from the stack into the Orsat
analyzer. A 24-in. stainless-steel probe with a glass wool filter was placed
in one port of each of the three stacks at sample point No. 2. The probe and
I/ Mention of a specific company or product does .not constitute endorsement
by EPA.
18
-------
lines as well as the analyzer were purged with stack gas before analysis
was started. Three analyses were taken from each stack on each test. All
three stacks were sampled during the emission test by using the port at
90 degrees from the port into which the emission probe was inserted. Three
analyses for oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide were run on each
stack.
19
------- |