-------
Estimated data on employment in the asphalt roofing and siding
products industry are also included in Table 8-14. The data were calculated
by assuming that 79 percent of the employees in the asphalt felts and
coating industry were employed in the asphalt roofing and siding industry.
This percentage is based on historical data from the Census of Manufacturers
(1954, 1958, 1963, 1967, and 1972).10
Table 8-14 shows that employment in the asphalt roofing industry
increased from 10,900 employees in 1969 to 14,900 employees in 1976, and
the number of production workers increased from 8,600 in 1969 to 11,800
in 1976. Between 1969 and 1976 the industry employment increased by
37 percent.
8.1.1.5 Product Markets. The discussion of asphalt roofing product
markets which follows is divided into the following topics: (1) market
location, (2) product substitution, and (3) imports and exports.
8.1.1.5.1 Market locations. Most asphalt roofing products are sold
within 483 km (300 miles) of the production facility, so the location of
the markets would approximate the location of the production plants shown
in Figure 8-3. The market locations for specific products would approxi-
mate the regional shipments of products shown in Table 8-7. This table
shows that half of the individual shingles are sold in the North Central
region, and one-third are sold in the West; that 70 percent of strip
shingles are sold in the North Central region and the South; that 30 percent
of smooth-surfaced roll roofing and cap sheet is sold in the North Central
region, 29 percent in the South, 21 percent in the West, and 20 percent in
the Northeast; and that 30 percent of mineral-surfaced roll roofing and
cap sheet is sold in the South, 29 percent in the North Central region,
23 percent in the West, and 18 percent in the Northeast. '
8.1.1.5.2 Product substitution. At present, asphalt roofing products
provide over 80 percent of the roofing products purchased in the United
States. Cedar shingles, slate, and tile have found limited application
in the roofing markets in recent years. The physical properties of
asphalt roofing products make them durable and economical in the long
run. Recent price increases in asphalt roofing products have caused some
acceleration in the searches for substitutes by consumers and producers
8-36
-------
TABLE 8-14. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT IN THE
ASPHALT ROOFING AND SIDING PRODUCTS INDUSTRY, 1969-1976
Asphalt felts
and coating industry
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
No. of all
employees
13,800
14,200
14,400
15,600
16,700
17,300
16,600
18,900
No. of
production
workers
9,900
10,200
10,400
11,500
12,600
12,800
12,200
13,700
Asphalt roofing and
siding products industry
No. of all
employees
10,900
11,200
11,400
12,300a
13,200
13,700
13,100
14,900
No. of
production
workers
8,600
8,800
9,000
9,700a
10,400
10,800
10,400
11,800
These data from the 1972 Census of Manufacturers show that
79 percent of all employees in the asphalt felts and coating
industry work in the asphalt roofing and siding products
industry and that 79 percent of the employees in the latter
industry are production workers. The data for the other years
were developed from these ratios.
8-37
-------
of roofing products. In the commercial and industrial built-up roofing
market, there is some competition from various plastic materials which
are lighter and have shorter application times, but these products have
made no significant inroads into the residential market.
8.1.1.5.3 Imports and exports. The U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. General Imports and U.S. General Exports publications for 1973 and
1977 do not report any imports or exports of asphalt roofing products or
roofing products of any type. ' We assume, therefore, that the U.S.
domestic market for asphalt roofing products is supplied entirely by
domestic manufacturers and that domestic manufacturers do not export
asphalt roofing products.
8.1.1.6 Product prices. The producer prices of asphalt roofing
products tripled between 1969 and 1978. This is reflected in Table 8-15
which shows that the producer price index (1967 = 100) for asphalt roofing
products rose from 102.8 in 1969 to 305.2 in December 1978 and shows that
the producer price of asphalt roofing strip shingle rose from $6.44/sq in
1969 to $16.69/sq in January 1978. More recent data on producers' prices
of standard asphalt shingle to a large southeastern building supply
company show that the price of this product rose from $12.67/sq in 1974
to $17.01/sq in February 1979, an increase of 34 percent over the 5-year
period as shown in Table 8-16.
Manufacturers' shipments of asphalt roofing products, as shown in
Table 8-17, rose from 84,430,000 sq to 93,759,000 sq, or 11 percent, and
saturated felt shipments fell from 834,532 Mg (920,000 tons) to
778,292 Mg (858,000 tons), or 6.7 percent, from 1969 to 1976. At the
same time, the value of asphalt roofing product shipments rose from
$406,800,000 to $1,327,900,000, or 226 percent.
These dramatic price increases are attributable primarily to rising
material costs. Data from the 1976 Annual Survey of Manufacturers show
that 60 percent of the value of product shipments in the asphalt felts
and coatings industry is due to material costs, 15 percent is due to
salaries, wages, and benefits, and 25 percent is due to value added;
approximately 75 to 80 percent of these product shipments are shipments
from the asphalt and tar roofing and siding industry, as shown in
Table 8-18. The relationship of the materials, labor and supervision,
8-38
-------
TABLE 8-15. PRODUCER PRICE INDEX FOR ASPHALT ROOFING AND PRICE OF
ASPHALT ROOFING STRIP SHINGLES, 1969-197820-22
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978 (Jan.)
1978 (Dec.)
Producer price index
for asphalt roofing
(1969=100)
102.8
102.7
125.5
131.2
135.5
196.0
225.9
238.1
253.0
277.4
305.2
Producer price of asphalt
roofing strip shingles
($ per square)
6.44
N/Aa
7.34
7.75
8.30
11.56
13.24
14.04
14.95
16.69
N/Aa
aN/A = not available.
8-39
-------
TABLE 8-16. MANUFACTURERS' PRICES OF STANDARD ASPHALT
SHINGLES TO DISTRIBUTOR23
Year
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1/2/79
2/1/79
Price per square
12.57
13.16
13.98
13.98
15.87
16.51
17.01
Precent increase
__
4.7
6.2
0.0
13.5
4.0
3.0
A square is the amount of roofing material when applied
will cover 9.29 m2 (100 ft2) of surface.
8-40
-------
TABLE 8-17. VALUES AND QUANTITIES OF PRODUCT SHIPMENTS IN THE
ASPHALT AND TAR ROOFING AND SIDING PRODUCTS INDUSTRY, 1979-197611'16
Quantities of shipments
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Value
of product
shipments3
($ millions)
406.8
464.6
638.5
690.6
828.4
1,052.0
1,139.6
1,327.9
Asphalt
roof i ng
(thousands
of squares)
84,430
83,180
93,246
97,163
102,861
94,852
95,828
93,759
Saturated
(thousands
of Mg)
835
769
831
826
864
855
672
778
felts
(thousands)
of tons)
920
848
916
911
952
943
741
858
aThe value of product shipments data also includes the value of siding
products shipped, wh-ich are not shown. Siding products amounted to
560,000 squares in 1971 and were not reported in the following years.
By 1976, the quantitiy shipped is estimated to be 200,000 squares.
8-41
-------
TABLE 8-18. VALUE OF PRODUCT SHIPMENTS IN THE
ASPHALT ROOFING INDUSTRY, 1969-197616
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Value of jiroduct
Asphalt felts
and coatings
(SIC 2952)a
589.9
626.4
825.9
902.2
1,058.5
1,357.0
1,462.8
1,699.7
shipments (millions of dollars)
Asphalt and tar roofing
and siding products
(SIC 29523)b
406.8
464.6
638.5
690.6
828.4
1,052.0
1,139.6
1,327.9
SIC 29523
percent of
SIC 2952
69.0
74.2
77.3
76.5
78.3
77.5
77.9
78.1
aSIC 2952 is the standard industrial classification number assigned
,to this industry by the U.S. Census Bureau.
SIC 29523 is the code for this segment of the industry.
8-42
-------
and value added costs to the product value in the asphalt roofing industry
are about the same for both industries.
The price of asphalt rose dramatically in early 1974 when the price
of crude oil increased from $3.01/barrel in October 1973 to $11.65/barrel
in December 1973 as a result of the OPEC oil embargo and has continued to
24
increase steadily as the price of crude oil continues to rise.
Table 8-19 shows that from October 1974 until January 1979 the price
increase in saturant asphalt for the asphalt roofing industry was 41 percent.
The Government Accounting Office predicts a crude oil price of $16.00/barrel
by the end of 1979, and spot prices are ranging up to $28.00/barrel in
mid-1979.
Roofing felts have increased in price in the 1970's primarily from
price increases in wood pulp, wastepaper, other paper products, and
asphalt. Wood pulp and wastepaper product prices increased dramatically
in 1973 and 1974 as shown in Table 8-20, the same years asphalt roofing
showed dramatic price increases.
Granules, parting agents, and stabilizers for the surfacing of
roofing products accounted for about 16 percent of the total cost of
materials in. 1979 and do not have an appreciable effect on the price of
asphalt roofing products. The average price of mineral products pur-
chased from several suppliers by a large roofing manufacturing plant in
March of 1979 was $44.10 to $47.40/Mg ($40.00-$43.00/ton) for tab slate;
$25.36/f1g ($23.00/ton) for head lap; $17.64/Mg ($16.00/ton) for filler;
$41.89/Mg ($38.00/ton) for talc; and $11.02/Mg ($10.00/ton) for sand.25
8.1.2 Historical and Future Trends
Historical trends for the past 10 years and future trends for the
next 5 years are described for the following aspects of the asphalt
roofing industry: (1) annual changes in production, (2) industry expansion
through new plants and additions to existing plants, (3) geographic
concentration, (4) effects of imports and substitute products on growth,
(5) changes in plant sizes, and (6) production capacity utilization.
8.1.2.1 Annual Changes in Production and Product Mix. The total
production of the asphalt roofing and siding industry rose from
7,267,064 Mg (8,011,324 tons) in 1969 to 8,586,134 Hg (9,465,477 tons) in
1977, or 18.2 percent. In 1970, 1974, and 1975 the total production of
8-43
-------
TABLE 8-19. PURCHASE PRICES OF VARIOUS ROOFING ASPHALTS FROM 1974 TO 1979
26
CO
I
Dollars/megagram
Date
October 1974
April 1976
January 1979
(From 1974
to 1979)
Date
October 1974
April 1976
January 1979
Asphalt
Price %
65.32
72.76
92.60
Asphalt
Price %
59.25
66.00
84.00
flux
increase
+11.4
+27.3
+41.8
flux
increase
+11.4
+27.3
Saturant grade
Price
68.63
76.07
96.46
Dol
% increase
+10.8
+26.8
+40.5
lars/ton
Saturant grade
Price
62.25
69.00
87.50
% increase
+10.8
+26.8
Coating
Price
70.00
77.72
98.67
Coating
Price
63.50
70.50
89.50
jjrade
% increase
+11.0
+27.0
+40.9
jirade
% increase
+11.0
+27.0
-------
TABLE 8-20. PRODUCER PRICE INDICES AND PERCENT INCREASES FOR SELECTED
PRODUCTS IN THE PULP, PAPER, AND ALLIED PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
1970-197822
Pulp, paper, and
allied products
Year
1970
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
(Jan.)
Index
108.2
113.4
122.1
151.7
170.4
179.4
186.4
189.6
Percent
increase
__
4.8
7.7
24.2
12.3
5.3
3.9
1.7
Woodpulp
Index
109.6
111.5
128.3
217.8
283.4
286.0
281.1
263.3
Percent
increase
__
1.7
15.1
69.8
30.1
0.9
1.7
6.3
Wastepaper
Index
125.0
133.6
197.4
265.5
110.2
184.9
187.2
201.7
Percent
increase
__
6.8
47.8
34.4
58.5
67.8
1.2
7.7
8-45
-------
the industry decreased relative to the previous years while total production
increased in other years. Tables 8-21 and 8-21a show the annual production
quantities and annual percentage changes in total production for the
industry from 1969 to 1977 in megagrains and tons, respectively.
Tables 3-21 and 8-21a also show the annual percentage changes in
asphalt roofing products, asphalt and insulated siding, and saturated
felts. Asphalt roofing production increased from 6,381,989 Mg
(7,035,595 tons) in 1969 to 7,749,776 Mg (8,543,464 tons) in 1977, or an
increase of 21.4 percent; decreases in production were experienced in
1970, 1974, and 1975, while increases were experienced in 1971, 1972,
1973, 1976, and 1977. Asphalt and insulated siding production decreased
from 50,837 Mg (56,043 tons) in 1969 to 9,733 Mg (10,730 tons) in 1977,
or a decrease of 81 percent; decreases in production were experienced
every year except 1973. Saturated felt product production showed a
slight decline from 834,248 Mg (919,687 tons) in 1969 to 826,625 Mg
(911,283 tons) in 1977, or a decrease of 0.8 percent; decreases in
production were experienced in 1970, 1972, 1974, and 1975, and increases
were experienced in 1971, 1973, 1976, and 1977.
The trend of the past 10 years in asphalt products is expected to
continue for the next 5 years. Annual production of all products will
probably show years of increases and decreases with a net increase of
about 4 to 8 percent over the 5-year period. Asphalt roofing products
will continue to dominate the asphalt roofing and siding industry and
constitute about 90 percent of the production output of the industry as
they have for the past 10 years. Saturated felts will continue to
constitute about 10 percent of the production output and siding products
will remain at less than 0.5 percent of the production output.
Within the asphalt roofing product output sector, self-sealing strip
shingles will account for about 75 percent of output; roll roofing and
cap sheet will account for about 10 percent of output; and standard strip
shingles and individual shingles will each account for about 2.5 percent
of output. These ratios of output have been almost constant for the past
5 years (see Table 8-13) and are not expected to change to any extent
over the next 5 years.
8-46
-------
00
TABLE 8-21. ANNUAL PRODUCTION AND PERCENT ANNUAL PRODUCTION CHANGES FROM
YEAR TO YEAR IN ASPHALT ROOFING AND SIDING PRODUCTS, 1969-197711 (METRIC)
Total production
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Mg
7,267,074
7,049,600
8,084,512
8,570,127
8,959,136
8,315,365
7,953,860
8,431,890
8,586,134
% change
—
-3.0
+14.7
6.0
+4.5
-7.2
-4.4
+6.0
+ 1.8
Asphalt roofing
Mg
6,381,989
6,238,640
7,213,054
7,715,861
8,054,940
7,431,818
7,262,449
7,638,116
7,759,776
% change
—
-2.2
15.6
+7.0
+4.4
-7.7
-2.3
+5.2
+1.5
Asphalt and
insulated siding
Mg
50,837
41,502
40,957
27,860
40,683
27,819
18,978
15,276
9,733
% change
—
-18.4
-1.3
-32.0
+46.0
-31.6
-31.8
-19.5
-36.3
Saturated felts
Mg
834,248
769,458
830,500
826,406
863,509
855,728
672,434
778,498
826,625
% change
—
-7.8
+7.9
-0.5
+4.5
-0.9
-21.4
+15.8
+6.2
-------
TABLE 8-21a. ANNUAL PRODUCTION AND PERCENT ANNUAL PRODUCTION CHANGES FROM
YEAR TO YEAR IN ASPHALT ROOFING AND SIDING PRODUCTS, 1969-197711 (ENGLISH)
CO
I
CO
Total production
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
tons
8,011,324
7,771,582
8,912,481
9,447,831
9,876,675
9,166,976
8,768,450
9,295,437
9,465,477
% change
—
-3.0
+ 14.7
+6.0
+4.5
-7.2
-4.4
+6.0
+1.8
Asphalt roofing
tons
7,035,595
6,877,567
7,951,774
8,506,076
8,879,881
8,192,942
8,006,228
8,420,368
8,543,464
% change
—
-2.2
+15.6
+7.0
+4.4
-7.7
-2.3
+5.2
+1.5
Asphalt and
insulated siding
tons
56,043
45,753
45,151
30,713
44,850
30,668
20,922
16,841
10,730
% change
—
-18.4
-1.3
-32.0
+46.0
-31.6
-31.8
-19.5
-36.3
Saturated felts
tons
919,687
848,262
915,556
911,042
951,944
943,366
741,300
858,228
911,283
% change
—
-7.8
+7.9
-0.5
+4.5
-0.9
-21.4
+15.8
+6.2
-------
8.1.2.2 Industry Expansion by New Plants and Additions to Existing
Plants. The Annual Survey of Manufacturers and Census of Manufacturers
reported data on the total annual expenditures for new structures and
additions to plants and total annual expenditures for new machinery and
equipment for the asphalt felts and coatings industry as shown in Table
8-22. Approximately 75 percent of these expenditures were made by the
asphalt and tar roofing and siding industry as reported in the Census of
Manufacturers (1972, 1967, 1963, 1958, and 1954). In order to obtain
approximate annual expenditures by the asphalt roofing and siding industry
for the years 1969 to 1977, the expenditures of the asphalt coatings
industry were multiplied by 0.75. These data are also shown in Table 8-22.
The expenditures in Table 8-22 are based on current dollars for the
year reported and do not reflect comparable expenditures since price
inflation has not been considered. Table 8-23 reflects adjustments to
the estimated annual expenditures for new plant and equipment by the
asphalt roofing and siding industry to constant 1957-59 dollars by using
the Chemical Engineering (CE) plant cost indices for buildings and for
equipment, machinery, and supports. These figures show that annual
expenditures for new structures and additions to plants were less than
$4 million dollars each year (in 1957-1959 dollars) and that annual
expenditures for new machinery and equipment were less than $16 million
dollars (in 1957-59 dollars) for the industry which had about 100 plants
operating each year. An average of $56,000 (in 1957-1959 dollars) was
spent per operating plant in 1969 for new structures and equipment, and
this expenditure increased to $194,000 (in 1957-1959 dollars) in 1976.
Table 8-24 shows the end-of-year gross book value of depreciable
assets in the asphalt felts and coatings industry and the estimated
values for the asphalt and tar roofing and siding products industry. The
Census of Manufacturers showed that in the census years of 1954, 1958,
1963, 1967, and 1972 about 75 percent of the end-of-year gross book value
in .the asphalt felts and coatings industry was attributed to the asphalt
roofing industry. The estimated values for asphalt roofing in Table 8-24
were obtained by multiplying the values for felts and coatings by 0.75.
Table 8-25 shows the estimated end-of-year gross book value of depreciable
assets in the asphalt roofing industry adjusted to 1957-59 dollars using
8-49
-------
TABLE 8-22. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR NEW PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
BY THE ASPHALT ROOFING AND SIDING INDUSTRY, 1969-197610»l6
oo
en
O
Expenditures for new plant and equipment (mill
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
aData for
.Census of
Asphalt
Total new
Expenditures
8.8
11.8
15.8
19.7
26.8
35.4
33.9
52.1
felts and coatings3
New structures
and additions
to plant
2.4
2.8
2.1
3.2
3.9
7.8
7.1
10.1
asphalt felts and coatings from
Manufacturers (1967 and 1972).
New
machinery
and equipment
6.4
9.0
13.7
16.5
22.9
27.6
26.8
42.1
Annual Survey of
Asphalt
Total new
expenditures
6.6
8.9
11.9
15.2
20.1
26.6
25.4
39.1
Manufacturers
lions of dollars
roofing siding
New structures
and additions
to plant
1.8
2.1
1.6
2.5
2.9
5.9
5.3
7.5
(1969-1976) and
)
products b
New
machinery
and equipment
4.8
6.8
10.3
12.7
17.2
20.7
20.1
31.6
Data for asphalt roofing and siding products are estimated. Total new expenditures assumed
to be 75 percent of total new expenditures of asphalt felts and coatings. New structures
and additions to plant and new machinery and equipment are in the same proportion for both
industries. Data from 1972 indicate that asphalt roofing and siding comprise 75 percent of
the industry business.
-------
oo
i
un
TABLE 8-23. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR NEW PLANT AND EQUIPMENT BY
THE ASPHALT ROOFING AND SIDING INDUSTRY, ADJUSTED TO
1957-1959 DOLLARS, FOR 1969-1976
Total new expenditures ($ millions)
New structures and additions to plant
New machinery and equipment
CE plant cost index for building .
CE plant cost index for equipment
Adjusted expenditures (1956-59 prices)
Total new expenditures ($ millions)
New structures and additions to plant
New machinery and equipment
1969
6.6
1.8
4.8
122.5
116.6
5.6
1.5
4.1
1970
8.9
2.1
6.8
127.2
123.8
7.2
1.7
5.5
1971
11.9
1.6
10.3
135.5
130.4
9.1
1.2
7.9
1972
15.2
2.5
12.7
142.0
135.4
11.2
1.8
9.4
1973
20.1
2.9
17.2
150.6
141.9
14.0
1.9
12.1
1974
26.6
5.9
20.7
165.8
171.2
15.7
3.6
12.1
1975
25.4
5.3
20.1
177.0
194.7
13.3
3.0
10.3
1976
39.1
7.5
31.6
187.3
205.8
19.4
4.0
15.4
.Data taken from estimates made in Table 8-22.
Chemical Engineering plant cost index for buildings and the CE plant cost index for
equipment, machinery, and supports (1957-59 = TOO).27
Adjusted expenditures are: (1) the new structures and additions to plant expenditure
for each year multiplied by 100 and divided by the CE plant cost index for buildings
for that year; (2) new machinery and equipment expenditures for each year multiplied
by 100 and divided by the CE plant cost index for equipment, machinery, and supports
for that year; and (3) the total new expenditures are the sum of (1) and (2).
-------
TABLE 8-24. ESTIMATED END-OF-YEAR GROSS BOOK VALUE OF ASSETS
IN THE ASPHALT ROOFING INDUSTRY, 1969-197616
End-of-year value of depreciable assets (millions of dollars)
00
i
en
ro
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Asphalt
Total
219.7
229.0
238.3
281.3
298.3
339.2
370.2
439.5
felts and coatings
Structures
and buildings
69.1
74.9
75.9
83.2
86.8
101.1
109.3
121.1
{SIC 2952)a
Machinery
and equipment
150.6
154.1
162.4
198.1
211.5
238.1
260.9
318.4
Asphalt and tar roofing agd
siding
Total
165
170
180
210
225
255
280
330
products (SIC 29523)
Structures
a
Machinery
and buildings and equipment
50
55
60
60
65
75
85
90
115
115
120
150
160
180
195
240
Data for asphalt and tar roofing and siding products (SIC 29523) are estimated.
Gross book value of depreciable assets are assumed to be about 75 percent of
SIC 2952.
-------
oo
en
CO
TABLE 8-25. ESTIMATED END-OF-YEAR GROSS BOOK VALUE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS IN THE
THE ASPHALT ROOFING AND SIDING INDUSTRY, ADJUSTED TO
1957-1959 DOLLARS, FOR 1969-197616
Total depreciable assets ($ millions)
Structures and buildings ($ millions)
Machinery and equipment
CE plant cost index for building b
CE plant cost index for equipment
Adjusted expenditures (1957-59 prices)0
Total depreciable assets ($ millions)0
Structures and buildings ($ millions)
Machinery and equipment ($ millions)0
1969
165
% 50
115
122.5
116.6
139
41
98
1970
170
55
115
127.2
123.8
136
43
93
1971
180
60
120
135.5
130.4
136
44
92
1972
210
60
150
142.0
135.4
153
42
111
1973
225
65
160
150.6
141.9
156
43
113
1974
255
75
180
165.8
171.2
150
45
105
1975
280
85
195
177.0
194.7
148
48
100
1976
330
90
240
187.3
205.8
165
48
117
.Data taken from estimates made in Table 8-24.
Chemical Engineering plant cost index for buildings and the CE plant cost index for
equipment, machinery, and supports (1957-59 = 100).
Adjusted expenditures are: (1) the new structures and additions to plant expenditure
for each year multiplied by 100 and divided by the CE plant cost index for buildings
for that year; (2) new machinery and equipment expenditures for each year multiplied
by 100 and divided by the CE plant cost index for equipment, machinery, and supports
for that year; and (3) the total new expenditures are the sum of (1) and (2).
-------
the CE plant cost indices for buildings and for equipment, machinery, and
supports.
The Annual Survey of Manufacturers data shown in Tables 8-24 and
8-25 include all fixed depreciable assets on the books of establishments
at the end of the year. The values shown (book value) represent the
actual cost of assets at the time they were acquired, including all costs
incurred in making the assets usable (such as transportation and instal-
lation). Thus, the values shown in Tables 8-24 and 8-25 do not reflect
depreciation of the buildings and equipment as do usual book values. The
annual increase in end-of-year book value shown in Tables 8-24 and 8-25
indicate the increase in new plants and additions to existing plants and
indicate the increase in new machinery and equipment for new plants,
additional capacities at existing plants, and replacement equipment.
Based on the historical data presented in this document, it is
assumed that the capacity of the asphalt roofing industry should increase
at a rate of about 2 percent a year for the next 5 years. At least half
of this increased capacity can be met by the expansion of existing
facilities. Several companies have indicated that they will increase the
productive capacity of their plants by adding a line to make roll roofing.
As a result, it is assumed that only one new plant will be built in each
of the next 5 years, but that five new lines will be added at existing
plants.
8.1.2.3 Geographic Concentration. Figure 8-3 shows the current
location of asphalt roofing production plants in the United States. It
was estimated previously that 95 of these 110 plants were in operation in
1967. An estimated 15 new plants built since 1967 have been located in
states which had one or more plants in the past. This estimate is based
upon reported shipments of products by states in the Census of
Manufacturers reports for 1967 and 1972.10
Table 8-12 shows that in 1970 the Northeast region accounted for
19 percent of total U.S. production of asphalt roofing and siding products;
the North Central region, 31 percent; the South region, 36 percent; and
the West region, 14 percent; and in 1977 the Northeast region had declined
to 18 percent of U.S. production; the North Central region had increased
8-54
-------
to 32 percent; the South region had decreased to 34 percent; and the West
region had increased to 16 percent. Over the next 5 years the concen-
tration of production in the regions is not expected to change more than
3 percent either way in each region.
8.1.2.4 Effects of Imports and Substitute Products on Growth.
There are no reported imports of roofing products into the United States
and there are no indications that imports will have any effect on the
18
U.S. asphalt roofing market growth over the next 5 years.
The asphalt roofing industry currently has about an 80 percent share
of the roofing market in the United States and competes with cedar shingles,
tile, slate, and plastic products.' Over the next 5 years the share of
the total roofing market that the asphalt roofing industry will maintain
will depend upon its price relative to other products, consumer preferences,
and new substitute product competition. The price of asphalt roofing
products has risen dramatically in the last 10 years; thus the incentive
to search for cheaper substitutes, such as plastics, has increased. It
is unlikely that an acceptable substitute for asphalt roofing will be
found over the next 5 years, but this possibility exists.
Dramatic increases in crude oil prices and, therefore, increases in
asphalt prices are a real possibility in the near term. If asphalt
prices continue to rise in relationship to the price of other materials,
such as cedar, a significant shift in consumer preferences for other
products could occur. Predicting a shift in preference involves too many
unknowns to make a reasonable estimate of what may occur in the short
term. However, it is important to note that the asphalt roofing industry
could be adversely affected by any substantial price changes in petroleum
products.
8.1.2.5 Changes in Plant Sizes. The size of individual plants is
not reported by the asphalt roofing industry, government publications, or
any other known sources. Increases in production over the next 5 years
may be made by additions to existing plants, building new plants, or
increasing utilization of existing capacity. Since any or all of these
possibilities may occur, it is impossible to predict how plant sizes
(unknown at present) will change in the next 5 years.
8-55
-------
8.1.2.6 Production Capacity Utilization. The historical and current
total production capacity of the asphalt roofing industry and the capacities
of individual plants are not reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in the
Census of Manufacturers or in the Annual Survey of Manufacturers. Based
on information obtained from plant surveys and supplied by plants, it is
estimated that the newer asphalt roofing plant lines operate at 70 percent
of their design line speed of 3.048 m/s (600 fpm); and the typical plant
operates two shifts per day, 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year. It
has been estimated that the typical plant would have a 20 percent down
time and a 9 percent average waste.
8.2 COST ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
In this section, the estimated capital investment costs, annualized
costs, and unit product costs to construct and operate new model asphalt
roofing plants are presented for small, medium, and large plants, both
with and without blowing stills, as previously defined in Chapter 6. The
estimated capital investment costs, annualized costs, and cost effective-
ness of pollution control systems for each new facility are determined
and compared for each regulatory alternative. Costs for retrofitting the
pollution control systems to modified/reconstructed facilities that may
make those changes identified in Chapter 5, and thus qualify as possible
modified or reconstructed sources subject to standards, are not determined,
since the likelihood that any existing facility will make those changes
is extremely remote.
Capital investment costs represent the total investment required to
construct new facilities and install pollution control systems and include
direct costs, indirect costs, contractor's fees, and contingency.
Annualized costs represent the variable, fixed, and overhead costs required
to operate the plants, and represent the fixed and variable costs, less
recovery credits, required to operate the pollution control systems.
Unit product costs for each plant are the annualized cost of the plant
divided by the annual production. Cost effectiveness is the annualized
cost of each pollution control system divided by the quantity of particulate
pollutants collected annually.
8-56
-------
The cost analysis of the new model asphalt roofing plants and pollution
control systems for the five regulatory alternatives is divided into
three sections: (1) costs of new facilities without pollution control;
(2) costs of pollution control for the five regulatory alternatives; and
(3) cost summary. All costs are given in November 1978 dollars.
8.2.1 Costs of New Facilities Uithout Pollution Control
The capital investment costs, annualized costs, and unit product
costs for new model asphalt roofing plants are determined for small,
medium, and large plants, both with and without blow stills, as previously
defined in Chapter 6. The costs presented in this section are for new
facilities with no pollution control equipment and represent the costs
that are required to construct and operate each facility without regard
to the regulatory alternatives. Section 8.2.2 presents the costs of the
pollution control equipment under each regulatory alternative and those
costs must be added to the costs given in this section to determine the
total costs of a new facility. Total costs are presented in the cost
summary in Section 8.2.3.
8.2.1.1 Capital Investment Costs. The capital investment costs of
constructing new asphalt roofing facilities calculated in this analysis
are detailed estimates based upon a contractor's bid to construct a small
plant in October 1973.28 The method of estimating the capital investment
costs is commonly referred to as the detailed-item estimation method and
usually has an accuracy of about +5 percent. However, the costs are up-
dated using cost indices, and this introduces some error into current
cost estimates so that the accuracy of the estimates given is about
jHO percent.
The method used to estimate the cost of the small plant involved
using the contractor's October 1973 cost proposal and updating all the
costs to November 1978 dollars using the Chemical Engineering (CE) Plant
23
Cost indices and subcomponents are shown in Table 8-26. The costs
of the medium and large plants are estimated from the small plant costs
taking into account the additional equipment and building requirements of
these plants. The small plant has one roofing machine, the medium plant
has two roofing machines, and the large plant has two roofing machines
and one saturated felt line.
8-57
-------
TABLE 8-26. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING PLANT COST INDICES AND
SUBCOMPONENTS FOR OCTOBER 1973 AND NOVEMBER 197829
Cost indices
October November
1973 1978
Ratio of 1978
to 1973 indices
Chemical engineering plant 146.7
cost index
Construction labor 161.7
Buildings 150.9
Engineering and supervision 130.7
Equipment, machinery, 143.5
and supports
Fabricated equipment 143.7
Process machinery 139.6
Pipe, valves,-and fittings 153.9
Process instruments 148.1
Pump and compressors 140.8
Electrical equipment 105.3
Structural support and 141.5
miscellaneous
224.7
190.3
217.8
165.4
247.6
244.1
235.8
278.1
221.7
266.6
173.5
258.0
1.53
1.18
1.44
1.27
1.73
1.70
1.69
1.81
1..50
1.89
1.65
1.82
8-58
-------
Table 8-27 shows the estimated capital investment costs for each
plant both with and without blowing stills, excluding pollution control
equipment. The cost for plants without blowing stills is $8,946,000 for
the small plant, $14,501,000 for the medium plant, and $16,953,000 for
the large plant; and the cost of plants with blowing stills is $9,110,000
for the small plant, $14,831,000 for the medium plant, and $17,338,000
for the large plant. The capital investment costs for the blowing stills
are $160,000 for small plants, $320,000 for medium plants, and $370,000
for large plants. These costs include the purchase costs, indirect
costs, and the installed cost of the blowing still, preheater, pumps,
compressor, piping, and electrical equipment. All costs in Table 8-27
are determined from the information given in the contractor's October 1973
cost proposal. 8
A description of each capital investment cost item shown in Table 8-27
is given in Sections 8.2.1.1.1. to 8.2.1.1.4.
8.2.1.1.1 Direct cost items. Sitework includes rough grading;
roads on the plant property; paved parking in the loading dock and office
building areas; 213 m (700 ft) of railroad track; 366 m (1,200 ft) of
2.1 m (7 ft) high aluminum coated fence and two sliding gates; stone
grading; fill and compacting; excavation and backfill; drainage system;
and dewatering.
The manufacturing and warehouse building is constructed of pre-
fabricated 26-gauge pre-painted metal roof and sidings on a 0.2 m (8 in.)
reinforced concrete floor in the manufacturing section and a 0.15 m
(6 in.) reinforced concrete floor in the warehouse section. The building
includes a high bay section over the roofing machine(s), machine room,
utility and electric room, warehouse, office, locker room, pump house,
and machine shop. Also included in the building cost are concrete founda-
tions for the silo area and still yard; heating units for the warehouse;
steam unit heaters; air conditioning for office area; plumbing fixtures;
dock levelers; and partitions, light, heating, and air conditioning for
the office.
The cost of land is excluded in this analysis.
8.2.1.1.2 Indirect cost items. Costs for construction design and
engineering, drafting, purchasing, accounting, cost engineering, and
8-59
-------
TABLE 8-27. ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS OF NEW ASPHALT
ROOFING FACILITIES WITHOUT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Capital cost (November 1978 dollars)
Capital investment item Small plant
Plants without blowing stills
Direct costs
Sitework
Buildings
Fired heaters
Heat exchangers
Process and storage tanks
Pumps and compressors
Fire protection system
Electrical equipment
Instruments and controls
Piping, ductwork, and insulation
Materials handling systems
Roofing machine(s)
Miscellaneous structural steel
Miscellaneous equipment
Total direct cost (D)
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision
Construction overhead
Total indirect cost
Contractor's fee (-5% D)
Contingency (-5% D)
Working capital (-10% D)
Total investment cost
Plants with Blowing Stills
Investment cost without stills
Blowing stills
Increased working capital
Total investment cost
225,000
1,350,000
290,000
30,000
645,000
150,000
195,000
560,000
80,000
890,000
315,000
1,310,000
160,000
100,000
6,300,000
300,000
200,000
500,000
300,000
300,000
1,546,000
8,946,000
8,946,000
160,000
4,000
9,110,000
Medium plant
245,000
2,150,000
435,000
50,000
965,000
300,000
235,000
675,000
120,000
1,400,000
475,000
2,620,000
240,000
120,000
10,030,000
350,000
320,000
670,000
500,000
500,000
2,801,000
14,501,000
14,501,000
320,000
10,000
14,831,000
Large plant
270,000
2,700,000
540,000
60,000
1,035,000
335,000
255,000
700,000
135,000
1,580,000
480,000
3,060,000
260,000
150,000
11,560,000
370,000
360,000
730,000
580,000
600,000
3,483,000
16,953,000
16,953,000
370,000
15,000
17,338,000
8-60
-------
travel, are included in engineering and supervision of the plant
construction.
Items such as temporary construction facilities, tools, rentals,
travel, living expenses, taxes, and insurance are included in construction
overhead. This cost item is estimated at about 3 percent of the total
direct costs for each plant.
8.2.1.1.3 Contractor's fee. The contractor's fee will vary for
different contractors, and is estimated to be about 5 percent of the
total direct costs of each plant.
8.2.1.1.4 Contingency. The contingency factor is added to compensate
for work stoppages, weather problems, and other unpredictable events;
design changes during construction; underestimation errors; and expenses
not specifically listed which are likely to occur. In this analysis a
contingency factor of about 5 percent of the total direct costs for each
plant is added to the total capital investment cost.
8.2.1.2 Annualized Costs. The annualized costs for each model
plant will be the sum of variable costs, fixed costs, and plant overhead.
The following list shows the operating cost items considered in this
study:
Variable costs Fixed costs
Raw materials Capital recovery
Operating labor
Supervision and clerical labor Taxes and insurance
Maintenance labor and materials General and administrative
Operating supplies
Process utilities
Laboratory services Plant Overhead
Payroll charges
The annualized cost (in November 1978 dollars) for plants with
blowing stills is $14,645,600 for small plants, $26,580,400 for medium
plants, and $34,221,400 for large plants; and for plants without blowing
stills is $14,722,500 for small plants, $26,737,400 for medium plants,
and $34,445,100 for large plants. These costs are shown in Table 8-28
8-61
-------
TABLE 8-28. ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUALIZEO COSTS FOR NEW ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
WITHOUT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
00
i
Annual Ized costs (November 1978 dollars)
Annuallzed
cost Item
Variable costs
Raw materials
Operating labor
Supervision and
clerical labor
Maintenance
Operating supplies
Process utilities
Laboratory services
Payroll charges
Subtotal
Fixed costs
Capital recovery
Taxes and Insurance
General and
administrative
Subtotal
Plant overhead
Total
Small
With
bl owl ng
stills
10.058.900
658,600
218.000
497,000
49,700
424,600
10,000
235.700
12,152,500
1,482.700
182.200
182.200
1,847.100
636.000
14.645.600
plant
Without
blowing
stills
10,262.600
' 631.100
218.000
492.000
49.200
385.600
10.000
230.200
12,278,700
1.456.000
178.900
178,900
1.813,800
630.000
14,722.500
Medium
With
blowing
stills
20.295,400
1.070,200
230,000
672.400
67,200
850.800
20,000
332.500
23.538.500
2,413.700
296.600
296,600
3.006.900
1.035.000
27.580.400
plant
W1 thout
blowing
stills
20,706.100
1,015.300
230.000
662,400
66,200
772,900
20.000
321.500
23,794,400
2.360.000
290,000
290.000
2,940,000
1.003.000
27.737.400
Large
With
blowing
stills
25.488.600
1,262.200
286.000
802.800
80.300
1.091.900
20.000
394.200
29.426,000
2.821.800
346.800
346.800
3,515,400
1,280.000
34.221,400
plant
Without
blowing
stills
26.001.100
1.207.400
286.000
792.800
79.300
995.000
20.000
383,200
29.764,800
2,759,100
339.100
339,100
3,437.300
1.243.000
34.445.100
-------
and are based on plants operating 16 h/d, 250 d/yr. The inputs used to
determine these costs are shown below.
8.2.1.2.1 Variable costs. Variable costs include raw material s,
operating labor, supervision and clerical labor, maintenance labor and
materials, operating supplies, process utilities, laboratory services,
and payroll charges.
Asphalt, dry felt, filler, talc, and granules are the basic raw
materials used in asphalt roofing plants. The quantities of each material
used annually by each model plant were previously given in Table 6-3, and
the prices (in November 1978 dollars), which were previously given in
section 8.1.5 are:
1. blown asphalt, $97.00/Mg ($88/ton);30
2. asphalt flux, $92.60/Mg ($84/ton);30
3. dry felt, $235.92/Mg ($214/ton);31
4. filler, $17.64/Mg ($16/ton);32
5. talc, $41.90/Mg ($38/ton) ;32 and
6. granules, $44.10/Mg ($40/ton).32
Tables 8-29 and 8-29a show the annual quantities and costs of raw materials
used by each model plant.
A roofing shingle line or saturated felt line requires 14 operators
per shift for operations; materials handling requires three operators per
shift; warehousing requires three operators per shift; shipping and
receiving requires two operators per day; blowing stills require two
operators per shift; and miscellaneous operating labor requires two
operators per shift. Each plant operates two shifts per day. The small
plant operates the blowing still one shift, and the medium and large
plants operate the blowing stills two shifts. The saturated felt line at
the large plant is operated on only one shift.
The total operating labor required for each model plant without
blowing stills is: anal! plant, 46 people; medium plant, 74 people; and
large plant, 88 people. Total operating labor for plants with blowing
stills is: small plant, 48 people; medium plant, 78 people; and large
plant, 92 people.
8-63
-------
TABLE 8-29. ANNUAL RAW MATERIAL COSTS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
(METRIC)
oo
i
en
Raw material costs
Raw material
Blown asphalt
Felt
Filler
Granules
Talc
Total costs
Unit
costs
dollars
97.00/Mg
235.92/Mg
1 7. 64/Mg
44.10/Mg
41.90/Mg
Small
Quantity
Mg/yr
46,200
15,175
20,462
40,685
1,089
plant
Cost
$1,000
4,481.8
3,580.2
361.0
1,794.0
45.6
10,262.6
Raw material costs
Raw material
Asphalt flux
Felt
Filler
Granules
Talc
Unit
costs
dol lars
92.60/Mg
235.92/Mg
17. 64/Mg
44.10/Mg
41.90/Mg
Small
Quantity
Mg/yr
46,200
15,175
20,462
40,685
1,089
j)lant
Cost
$1,000
4,278.1
3,580.2
361.0
1,794.0
45.6
without blowing stil
Medium
Quantity
Mg/yr
93,128
30,811
40,924
81,372
2,177
plant
Cost
$1,000
9,035.0
7,269.6
721.9
3,588.4
91.2
20,706.1
with blowing stills
Medium
Quantity
Mg/yr
93,128
30,811
40,924
81,372
2,177
plant
Cost
$1,000
8,624.3
7,269.6
721.9
3,588.4
91.2
Is {November 1978 dollars!
Large
Quantity
Mg/yr
116,219
39,088
51,155
101,716
2,812
JNovember 1978
Large
Quantity
Mg/yr
116,219
39,088
51,155
101,716
2,812
pjant
Cost
$1,000
11,274.6
9,221.3
902.2
4,485.2
117.8
26,001.1
dollars)
plant
Cost
$1,000
10,762.1
9,221.3
902.2
4,485.2
117.8
Total costs
10,058.9
20.295.4
25.488.6
-------
TABLE 8-29a. ANNUAL RAW MATERIAL COSTS FOR ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
(ENGLISH)
oo
en
Raw material costs without blowing stills (November 1978 dollars)
Raw material
Blown asphalt
Felt
Filler
Granules
Talc
Total costs
Unit
costs
dollars
88/ton
214/ton
16/ton
40/ton
38/ton
Small
Quantity
tons/yr
50,930
16,730
22,558
44,852
1,200
jHant
Cost
$1,000
4,481.
3,580.
361.
1,794.
45.
10,262.
8
2
0
0
6
6
Raw material costs
Raw material
Asphalt flux
Felt
Filler
Granules
Talc
Unit
costs
dollars
84/ton
214/ton
16/ton
40/ton
38/ton
Small
. Quantity
tons/yr
50,930
16,730
22,558
44,852
1,200
j)lant
Cost
$1,000
4,278.
3,580.
361.
1,794.
45.
1
2
0
0
6
Medium
Quantity
tons/yr
102,666
33,967
45,115
89,706
2,400
plant
Cost
$1,000
9,035.
7,269.
721.
3,588.
91.
20,706.
with blowing still
Medium
Quantity
tons/yr
102,666
33,967
45,115
89,706
2,400
plant
0
6
9
4
2
1
s
Cost
$1,000
8,624.
7,269.
721.
3,588.
91.
3
6
9
4
2
Large
Quantity
tons/yr
128,122
43,091
56,394
112,133
3,100
(November 1978
Large
Quantity
tons/yr
128,122
43,091
56,394
112,133
3,100
plant
Cost
$1,000
11,274.
9,221.
902.
4,485.
117.
26,001.
dollars
plant
Cost
$1,000
10,762.
9,221.
902.
4,485.
117.
6
3
2
2
8
1
)
1
3
2
2
8
Total costs
10.058.9
20.295.4
25.488.6
-------
92,000
148,000
176,000
631,100
1,015,300
1,207,400
96,000
156,000
184,000
658,600
1,070,200
1,262,200
Wages for production workers in the paving and roofing materials
industry (SIC 295) in November 1978 were $6.86/h.33 At this wage rate,
the annual operating labor cost for each model plant is:
ANNUAL OPERATING LABOR HOURS AND COSTS (NOVEMBER 1978 DOLLARS)
Without blowing stills With blowing stil Is
Model plant size Labor hrs Cost ($) Labor hrs Cost ($)
Small
Medium
Large
Each plant requires a plant manager and plant superintendent. The
small and medium plants require four foremen each, and the large plant
requires six foremen. The small plant requires five clerical workers,
the medium plant requires six, and the large plant requires seven.
The salaries of each person are assumed to be $40,000 for the plant
manager, $30,000 for the superintendent, $22,000 for the foremen and
$12,000 for the clerical workers. At these salaries the cost of super-
vision and clerical labor for each plant is: small plant, $218,000;
medium plant, $230,000; and large plant, $286,000.
An asphalt roofing plant requires constant maintenance and repair
operations. Four shifts of maintenance workers are used, and a small
plant requires 5 workers per shift, or 20 workers; a medium plant requires
6 workers per shift, or 24 workers; and a large plant requires 7 workers
per shift, or 28 workers.
The wage rate of maintenance workers is assumed to be 10 percent
more than the production workers, or $7.55/h. At this wage rate, the
annual maintenance labor cost for each model plant size is: small plant,
$302,000; medium plant, $362,400; and large plant, $422,800.
The materials required for annual maintenance and repairs are assumed
to be about 3 percent of the direct capital investment costs of each
plant, or $190,000 for the small plants, $300,000 for the medium plants,
and $370,000 for the large plants without blowing stills; and $195,000
8-66
-------
for the small plants, $310,000 for the medium plants, and $380,000 for
the large plants with blowing stills.
The total annual maintenance labor and material costs for each plant
are: small plant without blowing stills, $492,000; small plant with
blowing stills, $497,000; medium plant without blowing stills, $662,400;
medium plant with blowing stills, $672,400; large plant without blowing
stills, $792,800; and large plant with blowing stills, $802,800.
Miscellaneous operating supplies, such as charts, lubricants, small
tools, and similar items, which are neither raw materials nor maintenance
and repair materials, are required in the plant operation. The annual
cost of these supplies is estimated to be 10 percent of the maintenance
labor and materials cost, or about $49,200 and $49,700 for the small
plants, $66,200 and $67,200 for the medium plants, and $79,300 and $80,300
for the large plants, without and with blowing stills, respectively.
The process utilities, energy and water usage, of the model plants
with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) on the saturator, coater section,
afterburner with heat recovery and cyclone on the blowing stills, and
cyclones on the materials handling operations were shown previously in
Table 6-3. In Tables 8-30 and 8-30a the annual utility requirements and
annual cost of water, natural gas, No. 2 fuel oil, and electricity are
shown for each plant size, both with and without blowing stills, for
model plants with no pollution control devices. The data in this table
were derived by subtracting the energy requirements for the baseline
pollution control equipment from the figures shown in Table 6-3. It was
assumed that the afterburners are fired with No. 2 fuel oil and the
asphalt blowing still preheaters are fired with natural gas.
No laboratory services are normally required at an asphalt roofing
plant. However, an allowance of $10,000 for small plants and $20,000 for
medium and large plants is made for contract laboratory services which
may be required periodically for quality control.
Payroll charges are assumed to be about 20 percent of the wages paid
to all employees, or about $235,700 for small plants with blowing stills;
$230,200 for small plants without blowing stills; $332,500 for medium
plants with blowing stills; $321,500 for medium plants without blowing
8-67
-------
TABLE 8-30. ANNUAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS FOR MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING
PLANTS WITHOUT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT (METRIC)35'37
00
I
CTl
CO
Annual utility usage and costs
Water'
Type of plant
Small
With blow still
Without blow still
Medium
With blow still
Without blow still
Large
With blow still
Without blow still
Usage
(m3x!03)
272
62
541
125
694
159
Cost3
($)
28,800
6,600
57,300
13,200
73,500
16,800
Natural
Usage
(joules
xlO13)
7.84
7.31
15.68
14.62
20.08
18.78
gas
K
Costb
($)
183,500
171,200
367,000
342,300
470,000
439,700
No. 2
Usage
(m3)
689
689
1,385
1,385
1,798
1,798
(November
fuel oil
Cost0
($)
94,600
94,600
190,300
190,300
247,000
247,000
1978 dollars)
Electricity
Usage .
(joules Cost
X1Q12) ($)
10.33 117,700
9.94 113,200
20.74 236,200
19.94 227,100
26.46 301,400
25.60 291,400
Total
cost ($)
424,600
385,600
850,800
772,900
1,091,900
995,000
.Based on a cost of about $0.106/m3.
"Based on a cost of $0.234/joules x 108.
^Based on a cost of $127.30/m3.
Based on a cost of $11.39/joules x 109.
-------
TABLE 8-30a. ANNUAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS FOR MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING
PLANTS WITHOUT POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT (ENGLISH)35'37
CO
cr>
vo
Annual utility
Type of plant
Small
With blow still
Without blow still
Medium
With blow still
Without blow still
Large
With blow still
Without blow still
Water
Usage
(ft3x!06)
9.6
2.2
19.1
4.4
24.5
5.6
Natural
Cost3
($)
28,800
6,600
57,300
13,200
73,500
16,800
Usage
(therms
0
0
1
1
1
1
x!0b)
.743
.693
.486
.386
.903
.780
usage and
gas
k
Costb
($)
183,500
171,200
367,000
342,300
470,000
439,700
costs (November 1978 dollars)
No. 2 fuel oil
Usage
(gal)
182,000
182,000
366,000
366,000
475,000
475,000
Cost1-
94
94
190
190
247
247
($)
,600
,600
,300
,300
,000
,000
Electricity
Usage
(kWh
xlO6)
2.87
2.76
5.76
5.54
7.35
7.11
A
Costd
($)
117,700
113,200
236,200
227,100
301,400
291,500
Total
cost ($)
424,600
385,600
850,800
772,900
1,091,900
995,000
jjBased on a cost of about $0.30/100 ft .
Based on a cost of $0.247/therm.
.Based on a cost of $0.52/gal.
Based on a cost of $0.041/kWh.
-------
stills; $394,200 for large plants with blowing stills; and $383,200 for
plants without blowing stills.
8.2.1.2.2 Fixed costs. Fixed costs include capital recovery of the
total capital investment cost, taxes, insurance, and general and adminis-
trative expenses.
Interest is assumed to be 10 percent annually, and the total capital
investment cost is recovered over a 10-year period. The capital recovery
factor (n = 10, i = 0.10) is 0.16275. Therefore, the annual capital
recovery costs are:
ANNUAL CAPITAL RECOVERY COST ($)
Small plant Medium plant Large plant
Plant without blowing stills 1,456,200 2,360,000 2,759,100
Plant with blowing stills 1,482,700 2,413,700 2,821,800
The annual cost of taxes and insurance is assumed to be 2 percent
of the total capital investment cost for each plant. This cost for
plants without blowing stills is $178,900 for small plants; $290,000 for
medium plants, and $339,100 for large plants; and for plants with blowing
stills is $182,200 for small plants, $296,600 for medium plants, and
$346,800 for large plants.
General and administrative expenses are assumed to be 2 percent of
the total capital investment cost for each plant and are equal to the
costs of taxes and insurance given above.
8.2.1.2.3 Plant overhead. Plant overhead is a charge to the costs
of the manufacturing facility which are not chargeable to any particular
operation. Overhead includes such cost items as medical services, general
engineering and contracting to others, plant utilities, plant guards,
janitors, cafeterias, administrative offices, accounting, and purchasing.
Overhead costs will vary from company to company and are usually calculated
as a percentage of direct labor cost or a percentage of installed capital
investment for the entire facility. Plant overhead is estimated to be
10 percent of the direct capital investment cost for each plant.
8-70
-------
8.2.1.3 Unit Product Costs. Table 8-31 shows the annualized cost
of each plant, quantities of asphalt roofing shingles produced annually
by each plant, and the unit cost of the products. The small plants
produce 109,759 Mg (121,000 tons) of product annually, the medium plants
produce 219,518 Mg (242,000 tons) of product annually, and the large
plants produce 281,201 Mg (310,000 tons) of product annually. About
97 percent (on a weight basis) of the product manufactured by each plant
is assumed to be asphalt roofing strip shingles and 3 percent is saturated
felt. For the purpose of determining the unit product costs, all of the
production at each plant is assumed to be asphalt roofing strip shingles.
An asphalt roofing strip shingle sales square weighs 106.6 Kg (235 Ib),
thus each small plant produces 1,030,000 sales squares per year; each
medium plant produces 2,060,000 sales squares per year; and each large
plant produces 2,640,000 sales squares per year.38 The unit product
costs for each plant are determined by dividing the annualized cost by
the annual production of sales squares.
8.2.2 Costs of Pollution Control for the Five Regulatory Alternatives
The capital investment costs, annualized costs, and cost effective-
ness of particulate pollution control systems for the model asphalt
roofing plants are determined for six basic types of devices: electro-
static precipitators (ESP), high velocity air filers (HVAF), afterburners
with heat recovery (A/B W/HR), cyclones (CYC), mist eliminators (M/E),
and fabric filters (F/F). Capital investment costs include the purchase
cost of the basic control equipment and auxiliary equipment, the
installation cost, foundations and supports, ductwork, stacks, electrical,
piping, insulation, painting, pumps, contractor's fee, contingency, and
other indirect costs. Annualized costs are the sum of variable costs
(operating labor, supervision, maintenance labor, maintenance and repair
materials, process utilities, and payroll charges), and fixed costs
(capital recovery, taxes, insurance and general and administrative expenses),
less recovery credits. Cost effectiveness is the annualized cost of the
control system divided by the quantity of pollutants collected annually
by the system.
The discussion which follows is divided into the following sections:
(1) description of the pollution control systems for each regulatory
8-71
-------
TABLE 8-31. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND UNIT PRODUCT
COSTS OF NEW MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
WITHOUT POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Plant
size and
description
Small
With blow stills
Without blow stills
Medium
With blow stills
Without blow stills
Large
With blow stills
Without blow stil Is
Annual i zed
cost
$
14,645,600
14,722,500
27,580,400
27,737,400
34,221,400
34,445,100
Annual production
of roofing shingles
Sales squares
1,030,000
1,030,000
2,060,000
2,060,000
2,640,000
2,640,000
Unit costs of
roofing shingles3
$/sales squares
14.22
14.29
13.38
13.46
12.96
13.05
aNovernber 1978 dollars,
8-72
-------
alternative; (2) description of the individual pollution control devices;
(3) annual particulate emissions from model asphalt roofing plants and
the control systems; (4) capital investment costs; (5) capital investment
cost comparisons; (6) annualized costs; (7) annualized operating cost
comparisons; (8) cost effectiveness; and (9) cost effectiveness comparisons.
8.2.2.1 Description of the Pollution Control Systems for Each
Regulatory Alternative. The pollution control systems required for each
regulatory alternative were discussed in Chapter 6 and shown in Tables 6-4
and 6-5 and in Figures 6-1 to 6-6. The information presented in those
tables and figures is used in this chapter to describe more specific
systems for each model plant and regulatory alternative. The costs of the
pollution control systems and the individual pollution control devices
presented in this chapter are based upon the descriptions given here.
Tables 8-32 and 8-32a show the pollution control systems and operating
characteristics for baseline model asphalt roofing plants, and Tables 8-33
and 8-33a show the pollution control systems and operating characteristics
for the model asphalt roofing plants for Regulatory Alternatives 2 through
5. Each model plant size (small, medium, and large) has two configurations:
Configuration 1 for plants with blowing stills, and Configuration 2 for
plants without blowing stills. Five basic operations are considered at
each plant for each control system under each regulatory alternative as
follows: () saturator, wet looper, and coater, (2) filler surge bin and
storage, (3) parting agent bin and storage, (4) asphalt storage, and
(5) blowing stills. The saturator, wet looper, and coater operation may
be controlled by one ESP, one HVAF, or one afterburner with heat recovery
(A/B W/HR) in small plants; two ESP's, two HVAF's, or two A/B W/HR in
medium plants; and three ESP's, three HVAF's, or three A/B W/HR in large
plants.
The filler surge bin and storage operation and the parting agent bin
and storage operation may each be controlled by either one cyclone or one
fabric filter, or each operation may be controlled by a separate control
device. The emissions from both the filler surge bin and storage operation
may be controlled by the same device, and the parting agent bin and
storage operation may be controlled by the same device. The asphalt
storage operation may be uncontrolled, controlled by the saturator control
8-73
-------
TABLE 8-32. POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
FOR BASELINE ASPHALT ROOFING MODEL PLANTS (METRIC)
oo
Control devices
Plant
Plant configu-
slze ration
Small
Medium
Large
1
1
lh
2h
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Saturator
wet looper, and coater
Control
device(s)
ESPC
HVAF"
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
Nm3/sa
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.93
9.79
9.79
9.79
9.79
9.79
9.79
14.58
14.58
14.58
14.58
14.58
14.58
°C
93
93
482
93
93
482
93
93
482
93
93
482
93
93
482
93
93
482
t_ airflow (Nm /s)Land operating temperature (°C) for each operation
F11 ler surge
bin and storage
Control 3 jj
device Nm /s
CYCf
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
Parting agent
bin and storage
Control
device
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
Nn,3/sb
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Asphalt storage
Control ,
device NmJ/s
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Blowing stll
Control
device
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A9
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nm3/s
2.83
2.83
2.83
—
—
—
2.83
2.83
2.83
—
—
—
3.30
3.30
3.30
—
—
—
Is
°C
482
482
482
—
—
—
482
482
482
--
—
—
482
482
482
--
—
—
.Mm /s = normal cubic meter per second (21°C, 101.325 Pa).
The control devices on the filler surge bin and storage
and on the parting agent bin and storage operations
operate at ambient temperatures.
•JESP = electrostatic preclpitator.
°HVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
CYC = cyclone.
rJN/A = not applicable.
Configuration 1 Is a plant with
blowing stills and Configuration 2
Is a plant without blowing stills.
-------
TABLE 8-32a. POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
FOR BASELINE ASPHALT ROOFING MODEL PLANTS (ENGLISH)
CO
i
Control devices, airflow (scfm), and operating temperature (°F) for each
Plant
Plant conflgu-
slze ration
Smal 1
Medium
Large
1
1
lh
2h
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Saturator
wet looper, and coater
Control
dev1ce(s)
ESPC
HVAF0
A/B W/HRe
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
scfma
10,450
10.450
10.450
10.450
10.450
10.450
20.750
20.750
20.750
20.750
20.750
20,750
30,900
30,900
30.900
30.900
30.900
30.900
°F
200
200
900
200
200
900
200
200
900
200
200
900
200
200
900
200
200
900
Filler
bin and
Control
device
CYCf
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
surge
storage
scf,nb
2.200
2.200
2.200
2.200
2.200
2.200
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2,900
2.900
2,900
2,900
2.900
2.900
Parting agent
bin and storage
Control
device
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
CYC
scfm6
1.400
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
1.400
2.100
2.100
2,100
2.100
2.100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2.100
Asphalt storage
Control
device scfm
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
operation
Blowing stills
Control
device
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A9
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
scfm
6.000
6.000
6.000
—
--
—
6.000
6.000
6,000
—
—
—
7,000
7.000
7,000
—
—
—
°F
900
900
900
—
—
--
900
900
900
-_
—
--
900
900
900
__
_.
~
.scfm - cubic meter per minute (70°F, 1 atmosphere).
The control devices on the filler surge bin and storage
and on the parting agent bin and storage operations
operate at ambient temperatures.
^ESP = electrostatic preclpltator.
°HVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
*CYC = cyclone.
jJN/A = not applicable.
Configuration 1 Is a plant with
blowing stills and Configuration 2
Is a plant without blowing stills.
-------
TAULE 8-33. POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2 TO 5
(METRIC)
oo
i
CTl
Control devices, airflow (Nro /s)a
Plant
Plant configu-
slze ration
Small
Medium
Large
1
1
1
2n
2n
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Saturator,
wet looper, and coater
Control .
device(s)
ESPf
HVAF9
A/B W/HR"
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
Nm3/s
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.93
9.79
9.79
9.79
9.79
9.79
9.79
14.58
14.58
14.58
14.58
14.58
14.58
°C
38
38
760
38
38
760
38
38
760
38
38
760
38
38
760
38
38
760
F11 ler surge
bin and storage
Control , .
device c Mm /sa
CYCj or F/Fk
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
and operating
temperature (°C) for each operation
Parting agent
bin and storage
Control
device0
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
Nm3/sd
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Asphalt
storage
Control , .
device Nm /s
M/E1
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Blowing stills
Control
device
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A"1
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nn3/s
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
-2.83
3.30
3.30
3.30
•Ce
760
760
760
760
—
—
760
760
760
_-
—
—
760
760
760
—
__
—
?Nm /s = normal cubic ineter per second (21°C. 101,325 Pa).
"The ESP and HVAF are preceded by a water spray to cool the Inlet air from 93°C to 38°C.
jThe cyclone Is used for Regulatory Alternatives 2 and 3 and the F/F for Alternatives 4 and 5.
The control devices on the filler surge bin and storage and on the parting agent bin and storage operate at ambient temperature.
The mist eliminator on the asphalt storage tanks operates at 54°C.
••The A/B W/HR operates at 482°C for Regulatory Alternatives 2 and 4 and operates at 760"C for Alternatives 3 and 5.
gllVAF = high velocity air filter.
jA/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
rCYC = cyclone.
*F/F = fabric filter.
'M/E = mist eliminator.
"'N/A = not applicable.
Configuration 1 is a plant with blowing stills, and Configuration 2 Is a plant without blowing stills.
-------
TABLE 8-33a. POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2 TO 5
(ENGLISH)
Control devices, airflow (scfm)
Plant
Plant conftgu-
size ration
Small 1
1
1
2
2,,
2"
Medium 1
1
1
2
2
2
Large 1
CO 1
• 1
2
2
2
Saturator,
wet looper, and coater
Control .
dev1ce(s)D
ESPf
HVAF9 .
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/U W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
scfm
10.450
10,450
10.450
10.450
10.450
10,450
20,750
20.750
20.750
20.750
20.750
20.750
30.900
30.900
30.900
30.900
30.900
30,900
°F
100
100
1400
100
100
1400
100
100
1400
100
100
1400
100
100
1400
100
100
1400
F11 ler surge
bin and storage
Control
device6
CYCJ or F/Fk
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
scfmd
2.200
2,200
2.200
2.200
2,200
2.200
2,900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2,900
2.900
2,900
2,900
2,900
and opera t inq temperature
Parting agent
bin and storage
Control
device0
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
CYC or F/F
sc fin
,400
.400
.400
,400
,400
,400
2.100
2,100
2.100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2.100
2.100
2.100
2,100
2.100
(°F) for each operation
Asphalt
storage
Control .
device scfm
M/E1
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
M/E
450
450
450
450
450
450
750
750
750
750
750
750
900
900
900
900
900
900
Blowing stills
Control
device
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/Am
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
A/B W/HR
N/A
N/A
N/A
scfm
6.000
6,000
6,000
—
—
—
6.000
6,000
6,000
—
—
—
7,000
7.000
7.000
—
—
""
.Fe
1400
1400
1400
—
__
—
1400
1400
1400
—
..
--
1400
1400
1400
—
—
""
.scfm = standard cubic feet per minute (70°F. 1 atmosphere).
°The ESP and HVAF are preceded by a water spray to cool the Inlet air from 200°F to 100°F.
dThe cyclone is used for Regulatory Alternatives 2 and 3 and the F/F for Alternatives 4 and 5.
The control devices on the filler surge bin and storage and on the parting agent bin and storage operate at ambient temperature.
me iiiiai ei inn na LUI un LIIC aspnaii. 3iuiatje laiiK^ updates at uu r.
fThe A/B W/HR operates at 900°F for Regulatory Alternatives 2 and 4 and
'HVAF = high velocity air filter.
jA/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
rCYC = cyclone.
*F/F = fabric filter.
M/E = mist eliminator.
mN/A = not applicable.
Configuration 1 Is a plant with blowing stills, and Configuration 2 is
operates at 1400°F for Alternatives 3 and 5.
a plant without blowing stills.
-------
device during plant operations, and controlled by a mist eliminator when
the plant is not operating. The blowing stills are controlled by one A/B
W/HR.
The specific pollution control devices and their operating character-
istics shown in Tables 8-32 through 8-33a are discussed below for each
operation.
8.2.2.1.1 Saturator, wet looper, and coater operation. The ESP,
HVAF, or A/B W/HR in small plants operates at 4.93 Nm3/s (10,450 scfm);
the control devices in medium plants operate at 5.07 Nm3/s (10,750scfm)
and 4.72 Mm /s (10,000 scfm), respectively; and the three control devices
in large plants operate at 5.14 Nm3/s (10,900 scfm), 4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm)
and 4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm), respectively. Each ESP or HVAF baseline
control device has an inlet gas temperature of 93°C (200°F), and each ESP
or HVAF for Alternatives 2 through 5 has water sprays in the fume duct to
reduce the inlet gas temperature from 93°C (200°F) to 38°C (100°F) to
condense gaseous hydrocarbons. Each baseline (Alternative 1) afterburner
with heat recovery has an operating temperature of 482°C (900°F), and
each afterburner with heat recovery is operated at a higher temperature
of 760°C (1400°F) for Alternatives 2 through 5.
8.2.2.1.2 Filler surge bin and storage operation. Each plant has
cyclones for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and each plant has fabric filters
for Alternatives 4 and 5. These devices operate at 0.33 Mm /s (700 scfm)
and 0.71 Nm3/s (1500 scfm) in small plants; and 0.66 Nm3/s 1400 scfm) and
0.71 Nm /s (1500 scfm) in medium and large plants. For the cost estimate,
q
these have been combined to give devices with air flows of 1.04 Nm /s
(2200 scfm) in small plants and 1.37 Nm3/s (2900 scfm) in medium and
large plants. They all have inlet gas streams at ambient temperatures.
8.2.2.1.3 Parting agent bin and storage operation. Each plant has
two cyclones for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and each plant has fabric
filters for Alternatives 4 and 5. Each of these devices operates at
0.33 Nm3/s (700 scfm) in small plants, and at 0.33 Nm3/s (700 scfm) and
0.66 Nm /s (1400 scfm) in medium and large plants. For the cost estimate,
•3
these devices were combined to yield a 0.66 Nm /s (1400 scfm) in small
q
plants; and 0.99 Nm /s (2100 scfm) in medium and large plants. They all
have inlet gas streams at ambient temperatures.
8-78
-------
8.2.2.1.4 Asphalt storage operation. The baseline (Alternative 1)
plants have no controls on the asphalt storage operation. Each plant has
one mist eliminator on the asphalt storage operation for Alternatives 2
o
through 5. The small plants have a 0.21 Nm/s (450 scfm) unit, the
medium have a 0.35 Nm/s (750 scfm) unit, and the large plants have a
0.425 Nm/s (900 scfm) unit. All mist eliminators have inlet gas stream
temperatures of 54°C (130°F).
8.2.2.1.5 Blowing still operation. All plants with blowing stills
(Configuration 1) are controlled by an A/B W/HR. The afterburner operates
at 2.8 Nm3/s (6,000 scfm) in small and medium plants and at 3.3 Nm3/s
(7,000 scfm) in large plants. Each A/B W/HR for Alternatives 1, 2, and 4
has an operating temperature of 482°C (900°F), and each A/B W/HR is
operated at a higher temperature of 760°C (1400°F) for Alternatives 3 and
5. The afterburner operates 2,084 h/year in small plants, 3,888 h/year
in medium plants, and 3,872 h/yr in large plants.
8.2.2.2 Description of the Individual Pollution Control Devices.
All of the individual particulate pollution control devices used by the
model asphalt roofing plants for the five regulatory alternatives were
described in Chapter 4. A brief description of each device is given
below. Supporting information and calculations are given in the
oq
reference.
8.2.2.2.1 ESP. All ESP's are modular, low voltage, multiple-pass
units equipped with a fan, liquid pump and piping, and stack. Each unit
has an assumed drift velocity of 0.04 m/s (7 ft/min) and an assumed
pressure drop of 500 Pa (2 in. of H20) for the ductwork and ESP system.
8.2.2.2.2 ESP with cooling systems. All ESP1 s with cooling systems
are as previously described except that they now include a water pump, a
recirculating water storage tank, water sprays installed in the fume duct
to cool the fume, a sump for oil-water separation, and the associated
piping.
8.2.2.2.3 HVAF. The HVAF units previously described in Chapter 4
are equipped with a glass fiber mat filter, fans and motors, a 20-ft
stack, ductwork, and necessary controls. Each unit has an assumed pressure
drop of 6,200 Pa (25 in. of H20) for the ductwork and filter system.
8-79
-------
The assumed power requirements for each unit are 95 kW (127 hp), 100 klJ
(134 hp), 105 kW (141 hp), and 180 kW (144 hp) respectively.
8.2.2.2.4 HVAF with cooling systems. All HVAF's with cooling
systems are the same as the HVAF's given above, with cooling systems
identical in size and water flow to those for ESP's of the same size.
The power requirements for the HVAF's with cooling systems are increased
because of the water pump and are assumed to be: 97 kW (130 hp) for the
4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm) unit; 103 kW (138 hp) for the 4.93 Nm3/s
(10,450 scfm) unit; and 108 kW (144 hp) for the 5.07 Nm3/s (10,750 scfm)
unit; and 111 kW (148 hp) for the 5.14 Nm3/s (10,900 scfn) unit.
8.2.2.2.5 Afterburner with heat recovery. All afterburners are
equipped with a counterflow shell and tube heat exchanger and are designed
to operate at an incinerator outlet temperature of up to 815°C (1500°F)
with a 0.3- to 0.5-second residence time. They are designed to operate
on No. 2 fuel oil at an efficiency of 98 percent, and the heat exchanger
recovers 50 percent of the heat. The pressure drop through the system is
2,000 Pa (8 in. of HpO) for the ductwork, heat exchanger, and incinerator.
The units all have an incinerator, burners, stack, controls, fan, fan
motor, and necessary auxiliary equipment. Each of the two smaller
units has power requirements of 15 kW (20 hp) for the fan motor and fuel
pump; and each of the three larger units has power requirements of 22.4 kW
(30 hp) for the fan motor and fuel pump.
8.2.2.2.6 Cyclone. The cyclones are single-chamber units constructed
of 10-gauge carbon steel and have a support, hopper, scroll, fan, fan
motor, and ductwork as auxiliary equipment. The air flow through the
units is 18.3 m/s (3,600 ft/min) and the pressure drop is about 500 Pa
(2 in. of H20). The power requirements for the fan motors are assumed
to be 1.5 kW (2 hp) for the small unit; 2.2 kW (3 hp) for the next three
units; and 15 kW (20 hp) for the two large units, respectively.
8.2.2.2.7 Mist eliminators. These units are fiber mist eliminators
consisting of a packed bed of fibers retained between two concentric
screens. Mist particles are collected on the fibers and become part of
the liquid film which wets the fibers. The collected liquid drains down
to the bottom of the unit and is recovered. The pressure drop through
each unit is about 2,500 Pa (10 in. of H^O). The power requirements for
8-80
-------
the fan motor for each unit are 2.2 kW' (3 hp), and 3 kW (4 hp) for the
respective units.
8.2.2.2.8 Fabric filters. The fabric filters are constructed of
carbon steel with dacron polyester bags. The collector has a pulse-jet
type cleaning mechanism and a screw conveyor system. The fan is located
at the outlet side of the unit so that the compartmented fabric filters
operate at negative pressure. The maximum air-to-cloth ratio is 5.0, and
the pressure drop is 2,500 Pa (10 in. of H20) through the system.42 The
power requirements for the fan motors are 3.7 kW (5 hp), 5.6 kW (7.5 hp),
5.6 kW (7.5 hp), and 7.5 kW (10 hp) for the respective units.
8.2.2.3 Annual Particulate Emissions From Model Asphalt Roofing
Plants and the Control Systems. This section is concerned with the
particulate emissions from five separate asphalt roofing plant operations:
(1) the saturator, wet looper, and coater; (2) filler surge bin and
storage silos; (3) parting agent bin and storage silos; (4) asphalt
storage tanks; and (5) blowing stills. The uncontrolled emissions,
emissions from installed control systems, and the quantities of parti-
culate pollutants collected from each operation for each plant size and
configuration for the five regulatory alternatives and for plants with no
controls are discussed in this section. First, the quantities of parti-
culates that would be emitted annually from model plants with no controls
are determined. Next, the quantities of particulates that would be
emitted annually from the various control devices and the efficiency of
the devices are discussed. Then the quantities of particulate pollutants
that are collected by each device and each system installed in each model
plant size, with and without blowing stills, are given for each regulatory
alternative. Finally, the efficiencies of the control devices are
di scussed.
8.2.2.3.1 Uncontrolled emissions. The uncontrolled emissions from
each plant are derived from information contained in Chapter 3 and
Chapter 6. The particulate loading of the exhaust gases from the hoods
and ductwork on the filler surge bin and storage operations is calculated
from data in Table 6-4 that show that the uncontrolled operation emits
5.13 kg/h (11.3 Ib/h) at a small plant, which has an exhaust gas rate of
1.04 Nnr/s (2,200 scfm), and the particulate loading from the parting
8-81
-------
agent bin and storage operation is assumed to be the same as from the
filler operations. The participate loading of the exhaust gases from the
asphalt storage operation is calculated from data in Table 6-4 that the
uncontrolled operation emits 5.13 kg/h (11.3 Ib/h) at a small plant which
o
has an exhaust gas rate of 0.21 Nm /s (450 scfm). The calculations are
shown below.
1. Filler and parting agent operations:
Particulate loading = (5.13 kg/h)(h/60 min )(im'n/1.04 Nm3)
(1,000 g/kg) = 82.5 g/Nm3 (0.60 gr/scf)
2. Asphalt storage operations:
Particulate loading = (0.75 kg/h)(h/60/min)(min/0.21 Nm3)
(1,000 g/kg) = 59.4 g/Nm3 (0.43 gr/scf)
Given the particulate loading, the annual uncontrolled emissions
from each operation for each plant size can be calculated. The annual
particulate emissions from the saturator and coater operation are taken
from the emissions test data and calculated to model plant sizes.
Table 8-34 shows the annual uncontrolled particulate emissions from
each operation for each size plant.
8.2.2.3.2 Emissions from baseline control systems. The quantities
of particulates emitted from the control systems are taken in part from
Table 6-4, which shows:
1. the ESP, HVAF, and A/B on the saturator, wet looper, and coater
operation emit 16.67 kg/h (36.75 Ib/h);
2. the A/B W/HR operating at 482°C (900°F) on the blowing stills
emits 37.19 kg/h (82 Ib/h) during the saturant blow and 45.76 kg/h
(100.8 Ib/h) during the coating blow; and
3. the cyclones on the material handling systems emit 0.54 kg/h
(1.2 Ib/h).
All the control devices on the small plant operate 4,000 h/yr,
except the mist eliminator, which operates 4,800 h/yr, and the A/B W/HR
on the blowing stills, which operate 2,000 h/yr. The plant produces
109,759 Mg (121,000 tons) of product each year. The test data indicate
tnat the .average control efficiency for all three control devices is
93.3 percent. Therefore, the emissions from the control devices can be
8-82
-------
TABLE 8-34. UNCONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM EACH OPERATION
AT THE MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS
oo
oo
CO
Uncontrolled emissions
Plant operation
Saturator, wet
looper, and
coater
Filler surge bin
and storage
Parting agent bin
and storage
Asphalt storage
tanks
Blowing stills
Small
Mg/yr
65.89
20.53
13.06
3.59
378.00
plant
(tons/yr)
(72.63)
(22.63)
(14.40)
(3.96)
(417.00)
Medium
Mg/yr
130.82
27.06
19.60
6.02
746.00
plant
(tons/yr)
(144.22)
(29.83)
(21.60)
(6.63)
(822.40)
Large
Mg/yr
194.81
27.06
19.60
6.00
(944.00)
plant
(tons/yr)
(214.77)
(29.83)
(21.60)
(6.63)
(1,041.00)
Totals
481.07 (530.62) 929.50 (1,024.68) 1,163.96 (1,283.56)
-------
calculated in a manner similar to those shown below for the ESP with heat
exchanger:
ESP with cooling system emissions = 65.89 (100-93.3) =
4.39 Mg/yr (4.84 ton/yr)
The annual control emissions calculated for each control device are
shown in Table 8-35, which also shows the annual uncontrolled emissions
for each operation, and the amount of pollutants collected annually by
each control device.
8.2.2.3.3 Pollutants collected. The amount of pollutants collected
annually by each control device is shown in Table 8-35. The amount of
pollutant was determined by subtracting the quantity of control emissions
in Mg/yr (ton/yr) from the uncontrolled emissions in Mg/yr (ton/yr).
8.2.2.3.4 Control efficiencies. The control efficiencies for each
type of device used on each operation are shown in Table 8-36. The test
data showed that the average control efficiency for all three saturator
control devices was between 92 and 94 percent. Cyclones have an efficiency
of 80 percent, the fabric filters an assumed efficiency of 98.4 percent,
and the mist eliminator efficiency is assumed to be 98.0 percent. The
A/B W/HR system on the blowing stills have an efficiency of 77.7 percent
at an operating temperature of 482°C (900°F), and an efficiency of
93.9 percent at an operating temperature of 760°C (HOOT).
8.2.2.4 Capital Investment Costs. The capital investment costs of
the pollution control systems defined in the previous two sections are
given for each model plant in Tables 8-37 to 8-39. The costs given in
these tables include the cost of purchasing and installing the control
equipment, auxiliary equipment, foundations and supports, ductwork,
stacks, electrical systems, piping, insulation, painting, instrumentation,
indirect costs such as engineering and construction overhead, contractor's
fees, and contingencies. All costs are for new equipment installed at
the time the plant is built and are given in November 1978 dollars.
The capital investment costs estimated in this analysis are based
upon limited specifications for the equipment since no detailed specifi-
cations are available. All costs are derived from previous estimates
reported in the literature and have been updated for inflation using the
Chemical Engineering (CE) fabricated equipment cost index. Since the
8-84
-------
TABLE 8-35.
UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, CONTROL EMISSIONS, AND PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS COLLECTED
FOR EACH MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT OPERATION AND POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE
oo
i
OO
en
Plant
operation
and size
Saturator, wet
looper, and
coater
Small
Medium
Large
Filler surge
bin and storage
Smal 1
Medium and
Large
Parting agent bl
and storage
Smal 1
Medium
Large
Asphalt storage
Small
Medium
Large
Description of control
Oevfce(s)
ESP/HE3.
HVAF/HED
A/B W/HRC
ESP/HE
HVAF/HE
A/B W/HR
ESP/HE
HVAF/HE
A/B W/HR
CYCd
F/Fe
CYC
F/F
n
CYC
F/F
CYC
F/F
M/Ef
M/E
M/E
NmVs
4.93 1
4.93 i
4.93 i
9.79
9.79 1
9.79
14.58
14.58
14.58
1.04
1.04
1.37
1.37
0.66
0.66
0.99
0.99
0.21
0.35
0.425
( scfm)
10,450)
10,450)
10,450)
20,750)
20,750)
20,750)
30.900)
30,900)
30,900)
(2.200)
(2.200)
(2,900)
(2,900)
(1.400)
(1,400)
(2.100)
(2,100)
(450)
(750
(900)
system
°C (°F)
38 (100)
38 (100)
760 (1400)
38 (100)
38 (100)
760 (1400)
38 (100)
38 (100)
760 (1400)
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
54 (130)
54 (130)
54 (130)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
65.89
65.89
65.89
130.82
130.82
130.82
194.82
194.82
194.82
20.53
20.53
27.06
27.06
13.06
13.06
19.60
19.60
3.59
6.02
7.04
(tons/yr)
(72.63)
(72.63)
(72.63)
(144.22)
(144.22)
(144.22)
(214.77)
(214.77)
(214.77)
(22.63)
(22.63)
(29.83)
(29.83)
(14.40)
(14.40)
(21.60)
(21.60)
(3.96)
(6.63
(7.76)
Control
eml ssions
Pollutants
collected
Mg/yr (tons/yr) Mg/yr
4.39 (4.1
4.39 (4.1
4.39 (4.
8.78 9.(
8.78 9.
8.78 9.
11.25 (12.
11.25 (12.
11.25 (12.
4.10 4.
0.33 0.
5.41 (5.<
0.44 (0.
2.61 (2.
0.21 (0.
3.97 (4.
0.32 (0.
0.07 (0.
0.12 0.
0.14 0.
34) 61.50
J4) 61.50
34) 61.50
58) 122.04
58) 122.04
58) 122.04
10 183.57
10 183.57
40) 183.57
52 16.43
36 20. 20
)6 21.65
18 26.63
B8) 10.45
?3) 12.85
38) 15.62
35) 19.28
08 3. 52
13 5.90
15 6.90
(tons/yr)
(67.79)
(67.79)
(67.79)
(134.54)
(134.54)
(134.54)
(202.37)
(202.37)
(202.37)
(18.11)
(22.27)
(23.87)
(29.35)
(11.52)
(14.17)
(17.22)
(21.25)
(3.88)
(6.50
(7.61)
-------
TABLE 8-35. UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, CONTROL EMISSIONS. AND PARTICULATE POLLUTANTS COLLECTED
FOR EACH MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT OPERATION AND POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICE
(concluded)
00
oo
en
Plant
operation Description of control system
and size Devlce(s) NmJ/s (scfm) °C (°F)
Blowing stills
Small A/B W/HR 2.83 (6,000) 482 (900)
A/B W/HR 2.83 (6,000) 760 (1400)
Medium A/B W/HR 2.83 (6,000) 482 (900)
A/B W/HR 2.83 (6,000) 760 (1400)
Large A/B W/HR 3.30 (7,000V 482 (900)
A/B W/HR 3.30 (7,000) 760 (1400)
?ESP = electrostatic preclpltator.
ESP/HE » electrostatic preclpltator with cooling system.
<;HVAF = high velocity air filter.
°HVAF/IIE = high velocity air filter with cooling system.
*A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
TCYC = cyclone.
»F/F = fabric filter.
M/E = mist eliminator.
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
378
378
746
746
944
944
(tons/yr)
(417)
(417)
(822.4)
(822.4)
(1.041)
(1.041)
Control
emissions
Mg/yr
84.3
22.7
133.2
46.6
210.5
58
(tons/yr)
(92.99)
(25.5)
(146.8)
(51.3)
(232.2)
(64)
Pollutants
collected
Mg/yr
293.7
355.3
612.8
699.4
733.8
886.0
(tons/yr)
(324.0)
(391.5)
(675.6)
(771.1)
(808.9)
(977.0)
-------
TABLE 8-36. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES
USED IN THE MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
oo
i
oo
Uncontrol led
Plant
operation
Saturator
wet looper,
and coater
Filler surge
bin and
storage
Parting agent
bin and
Description of control device
Device Nm
ESP/HE3
HVAFD
A/B W/HRC
CYCd
F/Fe
CYC
F/F
3/sec
4.72
4.72
4.72
1.04
1.04
0.66
0.66
( scfm)
(10,000)
(10,000)
(10,000)
(2,200)
(2,200)
(1,400)
(1,400)
°C (°F)
38 (100)
38 (100)
760 (1400)
ambient .
ambient
ambient
ambient
emi
Mg/yr
63.05
63.05
63.05
20.53
20.53
13.06
13.06
ssions
(tons/yr)
(69.50)
(69.50)
(69.50)
(22.63)
(22.63)
(14.40)
(14.40)
Pollutants
collected
Mg/yr
58.85
58.85
58.85
16.43
20.20
10.45
12.85
,( tons/yr)
(64.87)
(64.87)
(64.87)
(18.11)
(22.27)
(11.52)
(14.17)
Coll.
eff.
%
93.3
93.3
93.3
80.0
98.4
80.0
98.4
storage
Asphalt
storage
Blowing
stills
M/E
A/B
A/B
W/HR
W/HR
0.21
2.83
2.83
(450)
(6,000)
(6,000)
54
482
760
(130)
(900)
(1400)
3.59
378
378
(3.96)
(417)
(417)
3.41
293.7
355.3
(3.76)
(324)
(391.5)
98.0
77.7
93.9
.ESP/HE = electrostatic precipitator with cooling system.
HVAF/HE = high velocity air filter with cooling system.
.A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
°CYC = cyclone.
eF/F = fabric filter.
-------
TABLE 8-37. CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR THE BASELINE
MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
CO
co
CO
Capital investment costs (November 1978 dollars)
Plant
size
Small
•Medium
Large
Plant
configu-
ration
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Saturator, wet
looper and coater
Device(s)
ESPa
HVAFD
A/B W/HRC
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
Cost($)
253,000
225,000
210,000
253,000
225,000
210,000
506,000
446,000
417,000
506,000
446,000
417,000
757,000
661,000
620,000
757,000
661,000
620,000
Filler
surge bin
and storage
CYCd
12,900
12,900
12,900
12,900
12,900
12,900
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
Parting
agent bin
and storage
CYC
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
Asphalt
storage
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Blowing stills
A/B W/HR
121,000
121,000
121,000
N/Ae
N/A
N/A
121,000
121,000
121,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
141,000
141,000
141,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
capital
cost
395,500
367,500
352,500
274,500
246,500
231,500
656,700
596,700
567,700
535,700
445,700
446,700
957,700
831,700
790,700
786, 700
690,700
649,700
?ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
HVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
^CYC = cyclone.
'N/A = not applicable.
-------
TABLE 8-38. CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING
PLANTS FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3
00
oo
IT)
Capital investment costs (November 1978 do!
Plant
size
Small
Medium
Large
Plant
configu-
ration
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Saturator, wet
looper and coater
Device(s)
ESPab
HVAFD
A/B W/HRC
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
Cost($)
274,200
246,200
210,000
274,200
246,200
210,000
548,100
488,100
417,000
548,100
488,100
417,000
819,600
723,600
620,000
819,600
723,600
620,000
Filler
surge bin
and storage
CYCd
12,900
12,900
12,900
12,900
12,900
12,900
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
17,200
Parting
agent bin
and storage
CYC
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
8,600
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
Asphalt
storage
M/Ee
19,700
19,700
19,700
19,700
19,700
19,700
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
lars)
Blowing stil
tA/B W/HR
121,000
121,000
121,000
N/Af
N/A
N/A
121,000
121,000
121,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
141,000
141,000
141,000
. N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
Is capital
cost
436,400
408,400
372,200
315,400
287,400
251,200
728,200
668,200
597,100
607,200
547,200
476,100
1,019,700
923,700
820,100
878,700
782,700
679,100
.ESP = electrostatic precipitator with cooling system.
HVAF = high velocity air filter with cooling system.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
"CYC = cyclone.
J1/E = mist eliminator.
N/A = not applicable.
-------
TABLE 8-39. CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL ASPHALT
ROOFING PLANTS FOR REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 4 AND 5
00
o
Plant
size
Small
Medium
Large
Plant
configu-
ration
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Capital
investment
Filler
Saturator, wet surge bin
looper and coater and storage
Device(s)
ESPa
HVAFD
A/B W/HRC
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
Cost($)
274,200
246,200
210,000
274,200 -
246,200
210,000
548,100
488,100
417,000
548,100
488,100
417,000
819,600
723,600
620,000
819,600
723,600
620,000
F/Fa
28,500
28,500
28,500
28,500
28,500
28,500
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
32,000
costs (November 1978 dollars)
Parting
agent bin
and storage
F/F
23,400
23,400
23,400
23,400
23,400
23,400
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
27,900
Asphalt
storage
M/Ee
19,700
19,700
19,700
19,700
19,700
19,700
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
29,400
Blowing still
A/B W/HR
121,000
121,000
121,000
N/AT
N/A
N/A,
121,000
121,000
121,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
141,000
141,000
141,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
s capital
cost
466,800
438,800
402,600
345,800
317,800
281,600
758,400
698,400
627,300
637,400
577,400
506,300
1,049,900
953,900
850,300
908,900
812,900
709,300
• ESP = electrostatic precipitator with cooling system.
HVAF = high velocity air filter with cooling system.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
= fabric filter.
JM/E = mist eliminator.
N/A = not applicable.
-------
pollution control equipment is not defined by detailed specifications and
since the costs are adjusted for inflation with a broad index, the probable
accuracy of the estimated costs is +30 percent.
The total capital investment costs shown in the tables were derived
by determining the costs of individual control systems for each operation.
The methods and assumptions used to arrive at these costs are discussed
below.
8.2.2.4.1 ESP. The cost (in December 1975 dollars) of an uninstalled
ESP without auxiliary equipment can b"e estimated from the following
equation:
Purchase cost = $75,000 + $27.56 (net plate area, m2), or
Purchase cost = $75,000 + $2.56 (net plate area, ft2).41
The cost of auxiliary equipment, including fans, damper, ductwork, fan
motor, and miscellaneous items, adds about 20 percent to the basic ESP
cost. »41 Installation costs vary between 50 percent and 150 percent of
the basic ESP and auxiliary equipment cost; in this analysis an instal-
lation cost of 75 percent, is assumed. "**'
The cost of the ESP system must be adjusted from December 1975
dollars to November 1978 dollars. This is done by using the CE fabri-
cated equipment cost index, which rose from 196.4 in December 1975 to
244.1 in November 1978.41'43
The installed capital equipment cost (C) for each ESP system (in
November 1978 dollars rounded to the nearest $1,000) is:
1. 4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm) ESP system:
C = [$75,000+($2.56)(8,200)](1.2)(1.75)(244.1/196.4) = $251,000
2. 4.93 Nm3/s (10,450 scfm) ESP system:
C = [$75,000+($2.56)(8,500)](1.2)(1.75)(244.1/196.4) = $253,000
3. 5.07 Nm3/s (10,750 scfm) ESP system:
C = [$75,000+($2.56)(8,800)](1.2)(1.75)(244.1/196.4) = $255,000
4. 5.14 Nm3/s (10,900 scfm) ESP system:
C = [$75,000+($2.56)(9,000)](1.2)(1.75)(244.1/196.4) = $256,000
8.2.2.4.2 ESP with cooling systems. The cost of an ESP with a
cooling system increases the above ESP system costs by the cost of the
cooling system. The installed cost of a cooling system including the
purchase cost, handling and setting, steel, concrete, electrical, piping,
8-91
-------
paint, insulation, and indirect costs was obtained from suppliers of this
equipment. The updated costs (rounded to the nearest $1,000) for cooling
systems (HE) for each unit are:40'43'44
1. 4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm) ESP system:
Cooling system installed cost = $20,300
2. 4.93 Nm3/s (10,450 scfm) ESP system:
Cooling system installed cost = $21,200
3. 5.07 Nm3/s (10,750 scfm) ESP system:
Cooling system installed cost = $21,800
4. 5.14 Nm3/s (10,900 scfm) ESP system:
Cooling system installation cost = $22,000
The total installed capital investment cost for ESP's with cooling
systems is $271,300, $274,200, $276,800 and $278,000 for the respective
systems.
8.2.2.4.3 HVAF. The installed cost of a HVAF system, including the
purchase cost of the HVAF and auxiliary equipment, installation, engineering,
foundations, ductwork, stack, electrical, insulation, painting, piping,
and indirect costs, is taken from Air Pollution Control Technology and
Costs: Seven Selected Emission Sources. The approximate cost (in 1974
dollars) of the HVAF systems is $45,500/Nm3/s ($15/scfm) for systems in
the size range of 4.72 to 5.04 Nni3/s (10,000 to 10,900 scfm).
The 1974 cost is adjusted to November 1978 dollars with the CE
fabricated equipment cost index, which rose from 170.1 in 1974 to 244.1
in November 1978.41'43 Thus, the capital investment cost (C) of the HVAF
systems (rounded to the nearest $1,000) is:
1. 4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm) HVAF system:
C = ($15) (10,000) (244.1/170.1) = $215,000
2. 4.93 Nm3/s (10,450 scfrn) HVAF system:
C = ($15) (10,450) (244.1/170.1) = $225,000
3. 5.07 Nm3/s (10,750 scfm) HVAF system:
'C = ($15) (10,750) (244.1/170.1) = $231,000
4. 5.14 Nm3/s (10,900 scfm) HVAF system:
C = ($15) (10,900) (244.1/170.1) = $235,000
8.2.2.4.4 HVAF with cooling system. The cost of a HVAF with a
direct water spray cooling system increases the HVAF system costs shown
8-92
-------
above by the cost of the cooling system, and their costs are identical to
those used on the ESP's. The capital investment cost (C) of each HVAF
with cooling system (rounded to the nearest $1,000) is:
1. 4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm) HVAF with cooling system:
C = $215,000 + $20,300 =$235,300
2. 4.93 Nm3/s (10,450 scfm) HVAF with cooling system:
C = $225,000 + $21,200 = $246,200
3. 5.07 Nm3/s (10,750 scfm) HVAF with cooling system:
C = $231,000 + $21,800 = $252,800
4. 5.14 Nm3/s (10,900 scfm) HVAF with cooling system:
C = $235,000 + $22,000 = $257,000
8.2.2.4.5 Afterburner with heat recovery. The cost of an A/B W/HR
is taken from Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs: Seven Selected
Emission Sources and Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution
Control Systems.40'41 The capital investment costs of the A/B W/HR and
auxiliary equipment is about $17,000/Nm3/s ($8/scfm) in 1974 dollars.40
Installation, ductwork, piping, electrical, insulation, painting, supports,
foundation, stack, and indirect costs range between 25 percent and
100 percent of the basic equipment cost and are assumed to be 75 percent
41
in this analysi s.
The cost of the A/B W/HR system must be adjusted from 1974 dollars
to November 1978 dollars. This is done by using the CE fabricated equipment
cost index, which rose from 170.1 in 1974 to 244.1 in November 1978.41'43
The installed capital cost (C) of each A/B W/HR system (in Novem-
ber 1978 dollars rounded to the nearest $1,000) is:
1. 2.83 Nm3/s (6,000 scfm) A/B W/HR:
C = ($8) (6,000) (1.75) (244.1/170.1) = $121,000
2. 3.30 Nm3/s (7,000 scfm) A/B W/HR:
C = ($8) (7,000) (1.75) (244.1/170.1) = $141,000
3. 4.72 Nm3/s (10,000 scfm) A/B W/HR:
C = ($8) (10,000) (1.75) (244.1/170.1) = $201,000
4. 4.93 Nm3/s (10,450 scfm) A/B W/HR:
C = ($8) (10,450) (1.75) (244.1/170.1) = $210,000
5.07 Nm3/s (10,750 scfm) A/B W/HR:
C = ($8) (10,750) (1.75) (244.1/170.1) = $216,000
8-93
-------
6. 5.14 Nm3/s (10,900 scfm) A/B W/HR:
C = ($8) (10,900) (1.75) (244.1/170.1) = $218,000
8.2.2.4.6 Cyclones. The capital investment cost of cyclones is
taken from Capital and Operating Costs of Pollution Control Equipment
Modules - Vol. II - Data Manual and Capital and Operating Costs of Selected
Air Pollution Control Systems. ' The 1972 installed capital investment
cost of each system, including purchase cost of cyclone and auxiliary
equipment, installation, ductwork, piping, supports, instrumentation,
electrical", insulation, paint, and indirect costs, is: $4,800 for the
0.66 Nm3/s (1,400 scfm) system; $7,000 for the 0.99 Nm3/s (2,100 scfm)
system; $7,200 for the 1.04 Mm3/s (2,200 scfm) system; $9,600 for the
1.37 Nm3/s (2,900 scfm) system.44 These costs (adjusted for inflation)
agree with those given in Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air
Pollution Control Systems.
The capital investment cost (C) of each system (rounded to the
nearest $100) adjusted from 1972 dollars to November 1978 dollars with
the CE fabricated equipment cost index is:
1. 0.66 Nm3/s (1,400 scfm) cyclone:
C = ($4,800) (244.1/136.3) = $8,600
2. 0.99 Nm3/s (2,100 scfm) cyclone:
C = ($7,000) (1.79) = $12,500
3. 1.04 Nm3/s (2,200 scfm) cyclone:
C = ($7,200) (1.79) = $12,900 '
4. 1.37 Nm3/s (2,900 scfm) cyclone:
C = ($9,600) (1.79) = $17,200
8.2.2.4.7 Mist eliminators. The capital investment cost of rnist
eliminators is taken from a 1977 EPA report. The estimated capital
investment cost for each system, in May 1977 dollars, is: $17,100 for
the 0.21 Nm3/s (450 scfm) system; $25,500 for the 0.35 Nm3/s (750 scfm)
system; and $30,600 for the 0.425 Nm3/s (900 scfm) system.
These capital investment costs are adjusted using the CE fabricated
equipment cost index, which rose from 211.9 in May 1977 to 244.1 in
November 1978, or about 15.2 percent.43'46
8-94
-------
The capital investment cost (C) of the mist eliminator system is:
1. 0.21 Nm?/s (450 scfm) M/E:
C = ($17,100) (1.152) = $19,700
2. 0.35 Nm3/s (750 scfm) M/E:
C = ($25,500) (1.152) = $29,400
3. 0.425 Nm3/s (900 scfm) M/E:
C = ($30,60.0) (1.152) = $35,300
8.2.2.4.8 Fabric filters. The capital investment cost of fabric
filter systems is taken from Nonmetallic Minerals Industries Control
Equipment Costs. The capital investment cost of fabric filter systems
(in December 1976 dollars) including the collector, auxiliaries, instal-
lation, foundation, stack, piping, ductwork, insulation, painting,
electrical, and indirect costs is: $20,000 for the 0.66 Mm3/s (1,400 scfm)
system; $23,800 for the 0.99 Nm3/s (2,100 scfm) system; $24,300 for the
1.04 Nm3/s (2,200 scfm) system; and $27,300 for the 1.37 Nm3/s (2,900 scfm)
system.
The costs are adjusted from December 1976 dollars to November 1978
dollars with the CE fabricated equipment cost index, which rose from
208.3 in December 1976 to 244.1 in November 1978, or about
17.2 percent.43'48 The November 1978 capital investment cost (C) of
each fabric filter system (rounded to the nearest $100) is:
1. 0.66 Nm3/s (1,400 scfm) fabric filter:
C = ($20,000) (1.172) = $23,400
2. 0.99 Nm3/s (2,100 scfm) fabric filter:
C = ($23,800) (1.172) = $27,900
3. 1.04 Nm3/s (2,200 scfm) fabric filter:
C = ($24,300) (1.172) = $28,500
4. 1.37 Nm3/s (2,900 scfrn) fabric filter:
C = ($27,300) (1.172) = $32,000
8.2.2.5 Capital cost increase from baseline. The capital cost
increase from the baseline for control systems for Alternatives 2 to 5 at
a given plant, with or without blowing stills, is given in Table 8-40.
For a snail plant with an ESP or HVAF, the capital cost increase of the
pollution control system is $40,900 for Alternatives 2 and 3 and $71,300
for Alternatives 4 and 5; for a medium plant, the capital cost increase
8-95
-------
TABLE 8-40. CAPITAL COST INCREASE FROM BASELINE
FOR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Plant
size
Small
Medium
Large
Saturator
control device
ESPa or HVAFb
A/B W/HRC
ESP or HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP or HVAF
A/B W/HR
Regulatory
alternatives
2 and 3
40,900
19,700
71,500
29,400
97,900
35,300
Regulatory
alternatives
4 and 5
71,300
50,100
101,700
59,600
128,100
65,500
?ESP = electrostatic precipitator with cooling system.
HVAF = high velocity air filter with cooling system.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
8-96
-------
is $71,500 for Alternatives 2 and 3 and $101,700 for Alternatives 4 and
5; and for a large plant, the capital cost increase is $97,900 for
Alternatives 2 and 3 and $128,100 for Alternatives 4 and 5. When an
A/B W/HR is used to control the saturator, wet looper, and coater, the
capital cost increase for a small plant is $19,700 for Alternatives 2 and
3 and $50,100 for Alternatives 4 5; for a medium plant, the capital cost
increase is $29,400 for Alternatives 2 and 3 and $59,600 for Alternatives 4
and 5; for a large plant, the increase is $35,300 for Alternatives 2 and
3 and $65,500 for Alternatives 4 and 5.
8.2.2.6 Annualized Cost. The annualized costs for the pollution
control systems are the sum of variable costs and fixed costs, less
recovery costs. Variable costs include operating labor, supervision,
maintenance labor, payroll charges, maintenance and repair material s, and
process utilities. Fixed costs include capital recovery, taxes, insurance
and general and administrative expenses. Recovery credits are given for
the value of the usable pollutants collected or the fuel value of the
pollutants incinerated.
Table 8-41 shows the total annualized cost, without recovery credits,
for each pollution control system for each plant size and configuration
for the five regulatory alternatives.
The inputs used to determine the annualized cost of the control
systems are discussed below.
8.2.2.6.1 Variable costs. The variable costs include labor and
supervision, maintenance and repair materials, and process utilities.
Each pollution control device requires an operator to periodically
check the instruments, controls, and the unit for proper operation, and
requires maintenance labor to maintain and service the equipment. The
increase from baseline in the amount of time required to operate and
maintain the control devices and the associated labor and supervision
costs are shown in Table 8-42.
The amount of operating labor required for each device is based on
the assumptions that the ESP, HVAF, cyclone, mist elininator, and fabric
filter require 0.5 hour of operating labor per day (0.25 h/shift), and
that the afterburner with heat recovery system requires 2 hours of operating
labor per day (1 h/shift). The amount of maintenance labor required for
8-97
-------
TABLE 8-41. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST OF POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
FOR THE FIVE REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES WITHOUT RECOVERY CREDITS
00
I
VO
CO
Plant
size
Small
Medium
Large
Plant Saturator
configu- control
ration device Alternative 1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
ESPbc
HVAFC .
A/B W/HRa
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
115,100
121,800
187,500
63,900
70,600
136,300
192,500
205,200
335,300
120,500
133,200
263,300
255,800
274,600
468,400
174,800
193,600
387,400
Total annual ized cost of pollution3
control systems (November 1978 dollars)
Alternative 2
131,300
138,200
239,300
80,100
87,000
188,100
198,700
211,500
412,500
147,500
160,300
361,300
292,100
310,400
609,700
211,100
229,400
528,700
Alternative 3
144,400
151,300
252,400
80,100
87,000
188,100
211,800
224,600
425,600
147,500
160,300
361,300
322,700
341,000
640,300
211,100
229,400
528,700
Alternative 4
140,300
147,200
248,300
89,100
96,000
197,100
208,100
220,900
421,900
156,900
169,700
370,700
301^500
319,800
619,100
220,500
238,800
538,100
Alternative 5
153,400
160,300
261,400
89,100
96,000
197,100
221,200
234,000
435,000
156,900
169,700
370,000
332,100
350,400
649,700
220,500
238,800
538,100
.The ESP and HVAF have cooling systems in Regulatory Alternatives 2 through 5.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
^HVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
CO
TABLE 8-42. ANNUAL LABOR AND SUPERVISION COST INCREASE FROM BASELINE
FOR MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES
Pollution Annual operating
control labor3
system h $
ESP W/HEC
HVAF/W/HE0
M/Ed 125 860
F/FC
Supervision3
$
— —
-.—
90
•
Maintenance
labor3
h $
200 1,500
200 1,500
200 1,500
200 750
Payrol 1
charges3
I
300
300
490
150
Total labor and
supervision costb
$
1,800
1,800
2,900
900
Wages of operating labor are $6.86/h; wages of maintenance labor are $7.50/h; supervision cost
is 10 percent of operating labor; and payroll charges are 20 percent of all operating labor,
.maintenance labor, and supervision costs.
Rounded to the nearest $100.
.Based on 4,000 h/yr operation.
Based on 4,800 h/yr operation.
-------
each device is based on the assumptions that the ESP, HVAF, afterburner
with heat recovery, mist eliminator, fabric filter, and heat exchanger
systems require 4 hours maintenance per week, and the cyclones require
2 hours maintenance per week. These assumptions are based on information
given in Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs: Seven Selected
c . . c 40
Emission Sources.
The costs shown in Table 8-42 are based on operating labor wages of
$6.86/h, and maintenance labor wages of $7.50/h.33 Supervision costs
are 10 percent of operating labor, and payroll charges are 20 percent of
the sum of operating labor, supervision, and maintenance labor wages.
The annual cost of maintenance and repair materials, operating
supplies and replacement parts is estimated to be 3 percent of the total
capital investment cost of the ESP, HVAF, and afterburner with heat
recovery systems; and 5 percent of the cyclone, mist eliminator and
fabric filter systems. 40'44
Tables 8-43 and 8-43a show the annual process utility requirements
and utility costs for each pollution control device used in the model
asphalt roofing plants. The utility requirements are calculated from the
information given in Section 8.2.2.2 for each device. The annual utility
costs are based on a cost of $0.106/m3 ($0.30/100 ft3) for water;
$137.40/m3 ($0.52/gal) for No. 2 fuel oil; and $11,39/gigajoules*
($0.041/kWh) for electricity.34"36
The fuel requirements for the afterburners with heat recovery are
not reduced for the heating value of the hydrocarbons in the gas stream.
This is considered a recovery credit and is discussed in Section 8.2.2.6.3.
8.2.2.6.2 Fixed costs. Fixed costs include capital recovery,
taxes, insurance, and general and administrative cost for each system.
The total capital investment cost of each system is recovered over
its depreciable life, which is assumed to be 20 years for each control
device. (This assumption is generally valid for all devices except the
afterburner with heat recovery, which has a life of about 10 years. To
simplify calculations, a 20-year life is assumed for all the devices.)
Interest is assumed to be 10 percent. Therefore, the capital recovery
Gigajoule is a billion joules.
8-100
-------
TABLE 8-43. ANNUAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COST INCREASE FROM BASELINE FOR INDIVIDUAL
POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES USED IN MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS (METRIC)
oo
i
Control
device
ESP/HEa.or
HVAF/HED
A/B W/HRC
F/Fd
M/Ee
Operating
characteristics
Nm3/s
4.72
4.93
5.07
5.14
2.83
3.30
4.72
4.93
5.07
5.14
0.66
0.99
1.04
1.37
0.21
0.35
0.425
°C
38
38
38
38
760
760
760
760
760
760
amb
amb
amb
amb
54
54
54
Annual utility
Water
m3xlO Cost ($)
2.8 300
3.4 400
3.7 400
4.0 400
__ -•_
—
—
_-
—
•
•_ _ »
__
__
—
« — •• »
__ * —
— — — —
requirements and costs (November 1978 dollars)
No. 2
m3
„
--
--
--
95
222
310
323
334
342
^ —
--
--
__
— —
--
— —
fuel oil
Cost ($)
._
--
--
--
13,100
30,500
42,600
44,300
45,700
46,300
_ _
--
--
--
— —
_-
— —
Electricity
JoulesxlO9
35
35
35
35
_ —
--
--
—
—
--
32
37
37
76
40
50
60
Cost ($)
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
— —
—
—
—
—
--
200
500
500
800
500
600
700
Total
annual
cost ($)
1,700
1,800
1,800
1,800
13,100
30,500
42,600
44,300
45,700
46,300
200
500
500
800
500
600
700
All annual utility requirements are based on 4,000 h/yr operation, except the 2.83 Nm3/s A/B W/HR,
which operates 2,000 h/yr, and the M/E's, which operate 4,800 h/yr.
Costs are based on water, $0.106/m3; No. 2 fuel oil, $137.40/m3; and electricity, $11.39/joules x 10 .
All costs are rounded to the nearest $100. .
»r
"ESP/HE = electrostatic precipitator with cooling system.
,HVAF/HE = high velocity air filter with cooling system.
'A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
T/F = fabric filter.
5M/E = mist eliminator.
-------
TABLE 8-43a. ANNUAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS AND COST INCREASE FROM BASELINE FOR INDIVIDUAL
POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES USED IN MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS (ENGLISH)
CO
I
o
ro
Control
device
ESP/HEa. or
HVAF/HE0
A/B W/HRC
F/Fd
ME6
Operating
character!"
scfm
10,000
10,450
10,750
10,900
6,000
7,000
10,000
10,450
10,750
10,900
1,400
2,100
2,200
2,900
450
750
900
Annual utility
sties
°F
100
100
100
100
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
1400
amb
anib
amb
amb
130
130
130
ft3xlO
100
120
130
140
_ _
--
--
--
--
--
_ __
--
--
--
<• v
--
--
Water
3 Cost($)
300
400
400
400
_ _
--
--
--
--
--
_ „.
--
—
--
«. —
--.
™ —
requirement
No. 2 fuel
galxlO3
—
—
—
25.2
58.8
82.0
85.2
88.0
88.2
— _
--
—
--
— _
--
— —
s and costs (November 1978
oil
Cost($)
--
—
--
13,100
30,500
42,600
44,300
45,700
46,300
_ —
--
—
__
• *
-_
— —
Electricity
kWhxlO3
35
35
35
35
_ —
—
--
--
__
--
6
13
13
21
11
14
16
Cost($)
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,400
— _
—
--
—
—
--
200
500
500
800
500
600
700
dollars)
Total
annual
cost($)
1,700
1,800
1,800
1,800
30,500
30,500
42,600
44,300
45,700
46,300
200
500
500
800
500
600
700
All annual utility requirements are based on 4,000 h/yr operation, except the 6,000 scfm A/B W/HR,
which operates 2,000 h/yr, and the M/E^s, which operate 4,800 h/yr.
Costs are based on water, $0.30/100 ft ; No. 2 fuel oil, $0.52/gal; and electricity, $0.041/kWh.
All costs are rounded to the nearest $100. .
.ESP/HE = electrostatic precipitator with cooling system. F/F = fabric filter.
HVAF/HE = high velocity air filter with cooling system. M/E = mist eliminator.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
factor (n = 20, i = 10) is 0.11746.41 This factor, multiplied by the
capital investment cost for each pollution control device, gives the
capital recovery cost.
The annual cost of taxes and insurance is assumed to be 2 percent of
the total capital investment cost for each control device. General and
administrative costs also are assumed to be 2 percent of the total capital
investment cost.
The annualized cost for each control device is shown in Table 8-44.
These costs are used to determine the annual ized cost for each plant
shown previously in Table 8-41.
8.2.2.6.3 Recovery credits. The materials collected by the ESP,
ESP with heat exchanger, HVAF, HVAF with heat exchanger, and the mist
eliminator on the asphalt storage tanks are liquid hydrocarbons. The
afterburners with heat recovery on the saturator, coater operation incine-
rate liquid hydrocarbons. The cyclones and fabric filters collect filler
and parting agent for recycle. The afterburner with heat recovery
operating at 760°C (1400°F) on the blowing still incinerates liquid
hydrocarbons. It is assumed that all of the liquid hydrocarbons collected
have the same dollar and heat value as No. 6 fuel oil which costs about
$79.30/m3 ($0.30/gal) in November 1978 dollars and has a heating value of
41.8 gigajoules/m3 (150,000 Btu/gal).49'50 The filler has a value of
$17.64/Mg ($16/ton) and the parting agent has a value of $41.90/Mg
($38/ton). The liquid hydrocarbons burned in the afterburner with heat
recovery systems have an assumed heating value of 3.96 gigajoules/m
(142,000 Btu/gal), which is the heating value of No. 2 fuel oil. The
dollar value of No. 2 fuel oil is $137.40/m3 ($0.52/gal). The dollar
value of No. 2 and No. 6 fuel oil is based on a specific gravity of
903 kg/m3 (7.54 Ib/gal) for No. 2 fuel oil and 960 kg/m3 (8.0 Ib/gal) for
No. 6 fuel oil. The heat recovery system is used to generate steam
or to preheat asphalt. The heat released in burning the liquid hydro-
carbon replaces an equivalent quantity of heat from burning No. 2 fuel
oil. The particulates from the saturator, coater are assumed to be
100 percent combustible, and those from the blowing still cyclone are
assumed to be 50 percent combustible.
8-103
-------
TABLE 8-44. INCREASE IN ANNUAL VARIABLE AND FIXED OPERATING COSTS FROM BASELINE
OF INDIVIDUAL POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES FOR THE MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
co
o
Operating Annual operating
costs (November 1978
characteristics Variable costs
Control
device
ESP/HEa
and .
HVAFD
A/B W/HRC
A/B W/HR
F/Fd
M/Ee
All costs
operates
^ESP/HE =
DHVAF/HE
CA/B W/HR
Labor
o and Ma int.
Nm /s (scfm) °C . (°F) super, material
4.72 (10,000) 38 (100) 1,800 1,800
4.93 (10,450) 38 (100) 1,800 1,800
5.07 (10,750) 38 (100) 1,800 1,800
5.14 (10,900) 38 (100) 1,800 1,900
2.83 (6,000) 760 (1400)
3.30 (7,000) 760 (1400)
4.72 (10,000) 760 (1400)
4.93 (10,450) 760 (1400)
5.07 (10,750) 760 (1400)
5.14 (10,900) 760 (1400)
0.66 (1,400) ambient 900 800
0.99 (2,100) ambient 900 800
1.04 (2,200) ambient 900 800
1.37 (2,900) ambient 900 700
0.21 (450) 54 (130) 2,900 1,000
0.35 (750) 54 (130) 2,900 1,500
0.425 (900) 54 (130) 2,900 1,500
are based on 4,000 h/yr operation except the 2.83
2,000 h/yr, and the M/E's, which operate 4,800 h/yr
electrostatic precipitator with cooling system.
= high velocity air filter with cooling system.
= afterburner with heat recovery for blowing still
Process Cap.
util.
1,700
1,800
1,800
1,800
13,100
30,600
42,600
44,300
45,700
46,300
400
500
500
800
500
600
700
Nm3/s
.
rec.
2,400
2,500
2,600
2,600
_ _
— —
--
--
—
1,700
1,800
1,800
1,800
2,300
3,500
4,100
(6,000 scfm)
A
dollars)
Fixed costs
Taxes
and
Gen.
and
ins. admin.
400
400
400
400
— _
w ^
--
--
—
300
300
300
300
400
600
700
A/B W/HR,
400
400
400
400
— _
--
— _
—
--
—
300
300
300
300
400
600
700
which
Total
costs
8,500
8,700
8,800
8,900
13,100
30,600
42,600
44,300
45,700
46,300
4,400
4,600
4,600
4,800
7,500
9,700
10,400
"F/F = fabric filer.
•
CM/E = mist
el iminator.
-------
Recovery credits are not considered in any of the annualized costs
reported in this document because there are not enough data on the amount of
product that is being recovered.
8.2.2.7 Annual ized Cost Comparisons. The annual ized costs of the
baseline (Regulatory Alternative 1) pollution control systems are lower
than those of the other four Regulatory Alternatives. The annualized
costs for Alternatives 2 to 5 increase by the annualized cost of the
cooling systems on the ESP and HEAP and by the cost of the additional
fuel required to operate the A/B W/HR at a higher temperature on the
saturator, wet looper, and coater operation; and increase by the annualized
cost of the mist eliminator on the asphalt storage tanks. Alternatives 3
and 5 incur an increase in cost for the net fuel required to raise the
operating temperature of the A/B W/HR from 482°C (900°F) to 760°C (1400°F).
Alternatives 4 and 5 incur an additional annualized cost for using fabric
filters on the material handling systems instead of cyclones, since the
annualized cost of fabric filters is greater than the cyclones.
Table 8-45 shows the increase in the annualized costs of the pollution
control systems for each plant size and configuration for Alternatives 2
to 5 as compared to the baseline pollution control systems and shows the
percentage increase in annualized costs compared to the baseline annualized
costs without recovery credits. The increase in annualized costs is least
for Alternative 3 followed by Alternatives 2, 5, and 4 (in that order) for
plants with blowing stills and is less for Alternatives 2 and 3 than for
Alternatives 4 and 5 for plants without blowing stills.
Comparison of the three alternative control devices on the baseline
saturator, wet looper, and coater operation in Table 8-42 shows that the
ESP is the least expensive to operate, followed by the HVAF and A/B W/HR.
The ESP costs $6,700 less to operate than the HVAF, and $72,400 less to
operate than the A/B W/HR at small plants; costs $12,700 and $142,800
less than the respective devices at medium plants; and costs $18,800 and
$212,600 less than the respective devices at large plants. Comparing the
three alternative devices on the saturator, wet looper and coater operation
for Alternatives 2 to 5 shows that the ESP with cooling systan costs
$6,900 less to operate than the HVAF with cooling system and $108,000
less to operate than the A/B W/HR at the small plants; costs $12,800 and
8-105
-------
TABLE 8-45. INCREASE IN ANNUALIZED COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR ALTERNATIVES
2 TO 5 COMPARED TO THE BASELINE POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
oo
o
Plant
size
Small
Medium
Large
Plant Saturator
configu- control
ration device
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
ESPC
HVAF
A/B
ESP
HVAF
A/B
ESP
HVAF
A/B
ESP
HVAF
A/B
ESP
HVAF
A/B
ESP
HVAF
A/B
A
u
W/HR6
W/HR
W/HR
W/HR
W/HR
W/HR
Increase in annual ized costs (November 1978
Alternative 2
$ percent
16,200
16,400
51,800
16,200
16,400
51,800
• 6,200
6,300
77,200
27,000
27,100
98,000
36,300
35,800
141,300
36,300
35,800
141,300
14.1
13.5
27.6
25.3
23.4
38.0
3.2
3.1
23.0
22.4
20.3
37.2
14.2
13.0
30.2
20.1
18.5
36.5
Alternative 3
$
29,300
29,500
64,900
16,200
16,400
51,800
19,300
19,400
90,300
27,000
27,100
98,000
66,900
66,400
171,900
36,300
35,800
141,300
percent
25.4
24.2
34.6
25.3
23.4
38.0
10.0
9.5
26.9
22.4
20.3
37.2
26.2
24.2
36.7
20.1
18.5
36.5
Alternative 4
$ percent
25,200
25,400
60,800
25,200
25,400
60,800
15,600
15,700
86,600
36,400
36,500
107,400
45,700
45,200
150,700
45,700
45,200
150,700
21.9
20.9
32.4
39.4
36.0
44.6
8.1
7.7
25.8
30.2
27.4
40.8
17.9
16.5
32.2
26.1
23.3
38.9
dollars)3
,b
Alternative 5
$ percent
38,300
38,500
73,900
25,200
25,400
60,800
28,700
28,800
99,700
36,400
36,500
107,400
76,300
75,800
181,300
45,700
45,200
150,700
33.3
31.6
39.4
39.4
36.0
44.6
14.9
14.0
29.7
30.2
27.4
40.8
29.8
27.6
38.7
26.1
23.3
38.9
Net annualized costs are the sum of annual variable and fixed operating costs less
.recovery credits.
The increase in annualized cost as a percentage of the total baseline annualized cost.
.ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
°HVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
$213,800 less than the respective devices at medium plants; and costs
$18,300 and $317,600 less than the respective devices at large plants.
Comparison of the two alternative devices on the materials handling
operations shows that the cyclones are less expensive to operate than the
fabric filters. The annualized cost differences between the two types of
devices are $9,000 at small plants and $9,400 at medium and large plants.
These cost differences account for the cost differences between
Alternatives 2 and 4 and for the cost differences between Alternatives 3
and 5.
Comparison of the annualized costs of the A/B W/HR on the blowing
stills at the two operating temperatures shows that the higher temperature
760°C (1400°F) operation costs more than the lower temperature 482°C
(900°F) operation. The annual cost difference is $13,100 at the small and
medium plants and $20,600 at the large plants. These cost differences
account for the cost differences between Alternatives 2 and 3, and
between Alternatives 4 and 5.
8.2.2.8 Cost Effectiveness. The cost effectiveness of a device or
system is simply the annualized cost of the device or system divided by
the amount of pollutants collected in megagrams (tons) per year. The
lower the cost effectiveness in dollars per megagram (dollars per ton),
the more cost effective is the device or system.
Table 8-46 shows the cost effectiveness of each individual pollution
control device considered in this analysis. Table 8-47 shows the cost
effectiveness from baseline of each control system for each plant size
and configuration for Regulatory Alternatives 3 and 5. The cost effective-
ness of individual control devices and control systems used on the model
asphalt roofing plants are compared in the following two sections.
8.2.2.8.1 Cost effectiveness comparisons of individual control
devices. An examination of Table 8-46 shows that the cost effectiveness'
of the devices used on the saturator, wet looper, and coater operation is
about $958/Mg ($869/ton) for the ESP with cooling system, $l,070/Mg
($971/ton) for the HVAF with cooling system, and $2,650/Mg ($2,400/ton)
for the A/B W/HR operating at 760°C (1,400°F). The cost effectiveness of
the devices used on the material handling systems ranges from $259/Mg
($235/ton) to $344 ($313/ton) for cyclones, and ranges from $383/Mg
8-107
-------
TABLE 8-46. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES
USED IN MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
co
i
o
CO
Control
device
ESP/HEb
IIVAF/HE0
A/B W/HRd
A/B W/HR
CYC6
F/Ff
H/£9
Operating
characteristics
Nm3/s
4.93
4.93
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
3.30
3.30
4.93
0.66
0.99
1.04
1.37
0.66
0.99
1.04
1.37
0.21
0.35
( scfm)
OC
(10,450) 38
(10,450) 38
(6,000
(6,000
(6,000
482
760
482
(6,000) 760
(7,000) 482
(7,000) 760
(10.450) 760
(1,400
(2,100
(2.200
(2,900)
(1,400
(2,100
(2.200
(2,900
(450) 54
(750) 54
0.425 (900) 54
(OFT
(100)
(100)
(900)J
(1400)1
(900)J.
(1400)J
(900)
(1400)
(1400)
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
(130)
(130)
(130)
Cost
Annual Ized
cost ($)
58
65
26
34
69
93
79
103
163
3
4
4
5
7
8
9
10
7
8
9
.900
,800
,840
,900
,200
,400
,200
,100
,000
,600
,500
,800
,600
,900
,900
,300
,200
,000
,800
,300
effectiveness In $/Mg
Pollutants
collected
Mg
61
61
293
355
612
699
733
886
61
10
15
16
21
12
19
20
26
3
5
6
.50
.50
(tons)
(67.79)
(67.79)
.7 (324.0)
.3
.8
.4
391.5
675.6
771.1
.8 (808.9
.0 (977.0)
.50
.45
.62
.43
.65
.85
.28
.20
.63
.52
.90
.90
(67.79)
(11.52)
(17.22)
(18.11)
(23.87)
(14.17)
(21.25)
(22.27)
(29.35)
(3.88)
(6.50)
(7.61)
($/ton)
Cost
effectiveness3
ITHg
958
1,070
91
98
113
134
108
116
2,650
344
288
292
259
615
462
460
383
1,988
1.492
1.348
I/ton
869
971
83
89
102
121
98
106
2.400
313
261
265
235
558
419
418
348
1,804
1,354
1,222
Cost effectiveness Is the annual Ized cost of the pollution control system divided by the amount of
.pollutants collected annually (4,000 h/yr operation).
ESP/HE = electrostatic preclpltator with cooling system. ?M/E = ml st eliminator.
*jHVAF/HE = high velocity air filter with cooling system. .Data based on 2,000 h/yr operation.
A/B H/HR = afterburner with heat recovery. JData based on 4,000 h/yr operation.
,M/E = mist eliminator.
TF/F = fabric filter.
-------
TABLE 8-47. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MODEL ASPHALT ROOFING PLANTS
00
o
Plant
size
Small
Medium
Large
Plant
configu-
ration
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Saturator
control
device
ESP3
HVAFD
A/B W/HRC
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
ESP
HVAF
A/B W/HR
Baseline
$/Mg
355
376
579
2,090
2,310
4,458
270
288
470
1,264
1,326
2,621
287
308
524
1,094
1,212
2,425
$/ton
322
341
524
1,900
2,099
4,052
245
261
426
1,099
1,215
2,401
270
290
494
993
1,100
2,200
Alternative 1
to
Alternative 3
$/Hg
239
239
528
265
267
844
128
129
596
417
419
1,514
303
301
780
533
526
2,077
$/ton
217
217
480
239
242
766
115
117
537
373
374
1,353
275
273
708
484
478
1,885
Alternative 3
to
Alternative 5
$/Mg
1,459
1,459
1,459
1,459
1,459
1,459
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
1,089
$/ton
1,321
1,321
1,321
1,321
1,321
1,321
988
988
988
988
988
988
988
988
988
988
988
988
Alternative 1
to
Alternative 5
$/Mg
295
298
572
573
376
901
179
180
624
497
498
1,463
334
331
792
596
590
1,966
$/ton
270
271
521
339
342
817
163
163
561
444
445
1,311
301
300
718
541
535
1,783
.ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
°HVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
($348/ton) to $615/Mg ($558/ton) for fabric filters. The cost effective-
ness of the mist eliminator on the asphalt storage tanks ranges from
$l,348/Mg ($l,222/ton) to $l,988/Mg ($1,804/ton). The A/B W/HR on the
blowing stills has a cost effectiveness which ranges from $91/Mg ($83/ton)
to $134/Mg ($121/ton) when operating at 432°C (900°F), and ranges from
$98/Mg ($89/ton) to $116/Mg ($106/ton) when operating at 760°C (1400°F).
These data indicate that the most cost effective device for
controlling the saturator, wet looper, and coater operation under
Regulatory Alternatives 2 to 5 is the ESP with cooling system. The HVAF
with cooling system costs about $112/Mg ($102/ton) more than the ESP with
cooling system. The A/B W/HR operating at 760°C (1400°F) costs about
$l,692/Mg ($1,531/ton) more than the ESP with heat exchanger. The A/B W/HR
is about two times as expensive on a dollar per megagram (dollars per ton)
basis as the other two devices installed on the saturator, wet looper, and
coater operation.
The data given in Table 8-46 also indicate the cyclones on the
filler surge bin and storage operation, and the parting agent bin and
storage operation, are more cost effective than the fabric filters. The
fabric filters cost about $300/Mg ($270/ton) to $480/Mg ($435/ton) more
than the cyclones. This indicates that Alternatives 4 and 5, which use
the fabric filters, are less cost effective than Alternatives 2 and 3,
which use the cyclones.
8.2.2.8.2 Cost effectiveness comparisons of regulatory alternatives.
The data in Table 8-47 indicate that the most cost-effective regulatory
alternative is No. 3 and that Alternatives 3 and 5 are more cost-effective
than Alternatives 2 and 4.
8.2.3 Cost Summary
The capital investment costs, annualized costs, and unit product
costs for new model asphalt roofing plants with pollution control systems
are given for small, medium, and large plants, both with and without
blowing stills, for the five regulatory alternatives. These costs are
derived from the information presented in the previous two sections
(8.2.1 and 8.2.2).
The capital investment costs represent the total investment required
to construct new model asphalt roofing plants and install a new pollution
8-110
-------
control system, and include direct costs, indirect costs, contractor's
fee, and contingency. Tables 8-48 to 8-50 show the total capital invest-
ment cost for each regulatory alternative and plant configuration (with
or without blowing stills) for small, medium, and large plants,
respectively. The small plants cost $9,178,000 to $9,577,000; the medium
plants cost $14,948,000 to $15,589,000; and the large plants cost
$17,603,000 to $18,388,000. The pollution control systems cost $232,000
to $467,000 for small plants; cost $447,000 to $758,000 for medium plants;
and cost $650,000 to $1,050,000 for large plants. The pollution control
systems represent 2.5 to 4.9 percent of the total capital investment cost
of small plants; 3.0 to 4.9 percent of the total capital investment cost
of medium plants; and 3.7 to 5.7 percent of the total capital investment
cost of large plants.
The annualized costs represent the variable, fixed, and overhead
costs required to operate the plants and represent the variable and fixed
costs required to operate the pollution control systems. Tables 8-51 to
8-53 show the total annualized cost for each regulatory alternative and
plant configuration for small, medium, and large plants, respectively.
The annualized cost for small plants is $14,761,000 to $14,920,000; for
medium plants is $27,773,000 to $28,118,000; and for large plants is
$34,477,000 to $34,983,000. The pollution control systems cost $64,000 to
$261,000 per year to operate at small plants; cost $121,000 to $435,000 per
year to operate at medium plants; and cost $175,000 to $650,000 per year
to operate at large plants. The annualized costs of the pollution control
systems represent 0.4 to 1.7 percent of the total annualized cost of small
plants; represent 0.4 to 1.5 percent of the total annualized cost of medium
plants; and represent 0.5 to 1.8 percent of the total annualized cost of
large plants.
The unit product costs represent the annualized cost of the plant
plus the annualized cost of the pollution control system divided by the
annual production of roofing shingle sales square at each plant. The
small plants produce 1,030,000 roofing shingle sales squares annually;
the medium plants produce 2,060,000 sales squares annually, and the large
plants produce 2,640,000 sales squares annually. Tables 8-54 to 8-56
show the unit product costs for each plant configuration and Regulatory
8-111
-------
TABLE 8-48. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS OF A SMALL, NEW ASPHALT
ROOFING PLANT WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
en
Capital investment costs
Description of alternative
and capital cost item
Alternative 1
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternatives 2 and 3
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternatives 4 and 5
New plant
Control system
Total
ESPbon
With blow
stills
9,110,000
396,000
9,506,000
9,110,000
436,000
9,546,000
9,110,000
467,000
9,577,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
8,946,000
275,000
9,221,000
8,946,000
315,000
9,261,000
8,946,000
346^000
9,292,000
HVAFC on
With blow
stills
9,110,000
368,000
9,478,000
9,110,000
408,000
9,518,000
9,110,000'
439,000
9,549,000
(November 1978 dollars)3
saturator
Without blow
stills
8,946,000
247,000
9,193,000
8,946,000
287,000
9,233,000
8,946,000
318,000
9,264,000
A/B W/HRd
With blow
stills
9,110,000
353^000
9,463,000
9,110,000
372,000
9,482,000
9,110,000
403,000
9,513,000
on saturator
Without blow
stills
8,946,000
232,000
9,178,000
8,946,000
251,000
9,197,000
8,946,000
282,000
9,228,000
A small plant produces 109,759 Mg (121,000 tons) of roofing shingles annually. All costs rounded
to the nearest $1,000.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
HVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-49. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS OF A MEDIUM, NEW ASPHALT
ROOFING PLANT WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
oo
i
Capital investment costs (November 1978 dollars)9
Description of alternative
and capital cost item
Alternative 1
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternatives 2 and 3
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternatives 4 and 5
New plant
Control system
Total
ESPb on
With blow
stills
14,831,000
657,000
15,488,000
14,831,000
728,000
15,559,000
14,831,000
758,000
15,589,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
14,501,000
536,000
15,037,000
14,501,000
607,000
15,108,000
14,501,000
637,000
15,138,000
HVAFC on
With blow
stills
14,831,000
597,000
15,428,000
14,831,000
668,000
15,499,000
14,831,000
698,000
15,529,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
14,501,000
476,000
14,977,000
14,501,000
547,000
15,048,000
14,501,000
577,000
15,078,000
A/B W/HRd
With blow
wtills
14,831,000
568^000
15,399,000
14,831,000
597,000
15,428,000
14,831,000
627,000
15,458,000
on saturator
Without blow
stills
14,501,000
447,000
14,948,000
14,501,000
476,000
14,977,000
14,501,000
506,000
15,007,000
A medium plant produces 219,518 Mg (242,000 tons) of roofing shingles annually. All costs rounded
.to the nearest $1,000.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
jHVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-50. TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS OF A LARGE, NEW ASPHALT
ROOFING PLANT WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
Description of
alternative and
capital cost item
Capital investment costs (November 1978 dollars)'
ESPb on saturator
HVAFC on saturator
With blow
stills
Without blow
stills
With blow
stills
Without blow
stills
A/B W/HRd on saturator
With blow Without blow
stills stills
GO
I
Alternative 1
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternatives 2 and 3
New pi ant
Control system
Total
Alternatives 4 and 5
New pi ant
Control system
Total
17,338,000 16,953,000 17,338,000 16,953,000
958,000 787.000 832.000 691.000
17,338,000 16,953,000
791.000 650.000
18,296,000 17,740,000 18,170,000 17,644,000 18,129,000 17,603,000
17,338,000 16,953,000
1.020.000 879.000
18,358,000 17,832,000
17,338,000 •16,953,000
1.050.000 909.000
18,388,000 17,862,000
17,338,000 16,953,000
924.000 783.000
17,338,000 16,953,000
820,000 679.000
18,262,000 17,736,000 18,158,000 17,632,000
17,338,000 16,953,000
954,000 813,000
17,338,000 16,953,000
850,000 709.000
18,292,000 17,766,000 18,188,000 17,662,000
dA large plant produces 281,201 Mg (310,000 tons) of roofing shingles annually. All costs
.rounded to the nearest $1,000.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
= high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-51. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR A SMALL NEW ASPHALT
ROOFING PLANT WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
oo
Annual ized costs (November 1978 dollars)
Description of
alternative and
annualized cost item
Alternative 1
New pi ant
Control system
Total
Alternative 2
New pi ant
Control system
Total
Alternative 3
New pi ant
Control system
Total
Alternative 4
New Plant
Control system
Total
Alternative 5
New pi ant
Control system
Total
ESP Don
With blow
stills
14,646,000
115,000
14,761,000
14,646,000
131,000
14,777,000
14,646,000
144,000
14,790,000
14,646,000
140,000
14,786,000
14,646,000
153,000
14,799,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
14,723,000
64,000
14,787,000
14,723,000
80,000
14,803,000
14,723,000
80,000
14,803,000
14,723,000
89,000
14,812,000
14,723,000
89,000
14,812,000
HVAFC on
With blow
stills
14,646,000
122,000
14,768,000
14,646,000
138,000
14,784,000
14,646,000
151,000
14,797,000
14,646,000
147,000
14,793,000
14,646,000
160,000
14,806,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
14,723,000
71,000
14,794,500
14,723,000
87,000
14,810,000
14,723,000
87,000
14,810,000
14,723,000
96,000
14,819,000
14,723,000
96,000
14,819,000
A/B W/HRd
With blow
stills
14,646,000
188,000
14,834,000
14,646,000
239,000
14,885,000
14,646,000
252,000
14,898,000
14,646,000
248,000
14,894,000
14,646,000
261,000
14,907,000
on saturator
Without blow
stills
14,723,000
136,000
14,859,000
14,723,000.
188,000
14,911,000
14,723,000
188,000
14,911,000
14,723,000
197,000
14,920,000
14,723,000
197,000
14,920,000
A small plant produces 109,759 Mg (121,000 tons) of roofing shingles annually. All costs
.rounded to the nearest $1,000. H1^^ = ^^ velocity air filter.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator. A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-52. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR A MEDIUM, NEW ASPHALT
ROOFING PLANT WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYST01
00
I
Annualized costs (November 1978 dollars)3
Description of
alternative and
annualized cost item
Alternative 1
New pi ant
Control system
Total
Alternative 2
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternative 3
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternative 4
New pi ant
Control system
Total
Alternative 5
New plant
Control system
Total
ESPD on
With blow
stills
27,580,000
193,000
27,773,000
27,580,000
199,000
27,779,000
27,580,000
212,000
27,792,000
27,580,000
208,000
27,788,000
27,580,000
221 J)00
27,801,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
27,737,000
121,000
27,858,000
27,737,000
148,000
27,885,000
27,737,000
148,000
27,885,000
27,737,000
157,000
27,894,000
27,737,000
157,000
27,894,000
HVAFC on
With blow
stills
27,580,000
205,000
27,785,000
27,580,000
212,000
27,792,000
27,580,000
225,000
27,805,000
27,580,000
224,000
27,804,000
27,580,000
234,000
27,814,000
saturator
Without blow
st i 1 1 s
27,737,000
1 33^00
27,870,000
27,737,000
160,000
27,897,000
27,737,000
160,000
27,897,000
27,737,000
170,000
27,907,000
27,737,000
170,000
27,907,000
A/B W/HRCl
With blow
stills
27,580,000
335^000
27,915,000
27,580,000
413,000
27,993,000
27,580,000
426,000
28,006,000
27,580,000
422,000
28,002,000
27,580,000
435^000
28,015,000
on saturator
Without blow
stills
27,737,000
263A000
28,000,000
27,737,000
361,000
28,098,000
27,737,000
361^000
28,098,000
27,737,000
371^000
28,118,000
27,737,000
370,000
28,107,000
A medium plant produces 219,518 Mg (242,000 tons) of roofing shingles annually. All costs rounded
j. _ a. i « — A. d11 r\f\n ** 11 WA r~ L* .1 ..u. ..^i^—jj... ^j .£•.: i .*..
to the nearest $1,000.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
jHVAF = high velocity air filter.
A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-53. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR A LARGE, NEW ASPHALT
ROOFING PLANT WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
00
I
Annual ized costs (November 1978 dollars)
Description of
alternative and
annual ized cost item
Alternative 1
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternative 2
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternative 3
New pi ant
Control system
Total
Alternative 4
New plant
Control system
Total
Alternative 5
New pi ant
Control system
Total
ESP Don
With blow
stills
34,221,000
256,000
34,477,000
34,221,000
292,000
34,513,000
34,221,000
323,000
34,544,000
34,221,000
302,000
34,523,000
34,221,000
332,000
34,553,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
34,445,000
175,000
34,620,000
34,445,000
211,000
34,656,000
34,445,000
211,000
34,656,000
34,445,000
221,000
34,666,000
34,445,000
221,000
34,666,000
HVAFC on
With blow
stills
34,221,000
275,000
34,496,000
34,221,000
310,000
34,531,000
34,221,000
341,000
34,562,000
34,221,000
312,000
34,533,000
34,221,000
350,000
34,571,000
saturator
Without blow
stills
34,445,000
194,000
34,639,000
34,445,000
229,000
34,674,000
34,445,000
229,000
34,674,000
34,445,000
239,000
34,684,000
34,445,000
239JJOO
34,684,000
A/B W/HRQ
With blow
stills
34,221,000
468,000
34,689,000
34,221,000
610,000
34,831,000
34,221,000
640,000
34,861,000
34,221,000
619,000
34,840,000
34,221,000
650,000
34,871,000
on saturator
Without blow
stills
34,445,000
387,000
34,832,000
34,445,000
529,000
34,974,000
34,445,000
5294000
34,974,000
34,445,000
538,000
34,983,000
34,445,000
538,000
34,983,000
A large plant produces 281,201 Mg (310,000 tons) of roofing shingles annually. All costs rounded
to the nearest $1,000. JJHVAF = high velocity air filter.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator. A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-54. UNIT PRODUCT COSTS OF A SMALL, NEW ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT
WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
00
I
CO
Description of
alternative and
product cost item
Alternative 1
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 2
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 3
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 4
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 5
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
ESPb on
With blow
stills
14.22
0.11
14.33
14.22
0.13
14.35
14.22
0.14
14.36
14.22
0.14
14.36
14.22
0.15
14.37
Unit product costs (November 1978 dollars/sales 5
saturator
Without blow
stills
14.29
0.06
14.35
14.29
0.07
14.36
14.29
0.07
14.36
14.29
0.08
14.37
14.29
0.08
14.37
HVAFC
With blow
stills
14.22
0.12
14.34
14.22
0.13
14.35
14.22
0.15
14.37
14.22
0.14
14.36
14.22
0.16
14.38
on saturator
Without blow
stills
14.29
0.07
14.36
14.29
0.08
14.37
14.29
0.08
14.37
14.29
0.09
14.38
14.29
0.09
14.38
1/B W/HRU
With blow
stills
14.22
0.18
14.40
14.22
0.23
T4745
14.22
0.24
14.46
14.22
0.24
14.46
14.22
0.25
14.47
square)
on saturator
Without blow
stills
14.29
0.13
14.42
14.29
0.17
14.46
14.29
0.17
TO6
14.29
0.18
14.47
14.29
0.18
14.47
A small plant produces 1,030,000 roofing shingle sales squares annually. The total unit
product cost is the sum of the unit cost attributable to plant annualized costs and the unit cost
battributable to pollution control system annualized costs.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator. .
HVAF = high velocity air filter. A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-55. UNIT PRODUCT COSTS OF A MEDIUM, NEW ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT
WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
00
I
VO
Description of
alternative and
product cost items
Unit product costs (November 1978 dollars/sales square)'
ESPb on saturator
HVAFC on saturator
With blow
stills
Without blow
stills
With blow
stills
Without blow
stills
A/B W/HRQ on saturator
With blow Without blow
stills stills
Alternative 1
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 2
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 3
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 4
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 5
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
13.39
0.09
13.48
13.39
0.10
13.49
13.39
0.10
13.49
13.39
0.10
13.49
13.39
0.11
13.50
13.46
0.06
13.52
13.46
0.07
13.53
13.46
0.07
13.53
13.46
0.07
13.53
13.46
0.08
13.54
13.39
0.10
13.49
13.39
0.10
13.49
13.39
0.11
13.50
. 13.39
0.11
13.50
13.39
0.11
13.50
13.46
0.06
13.52
13.46
0.07
13.53
13.46
0.07
13.53
13.46
0.08
13.54
13.46
0.08
13.54
13.39
0.16
13.55
13.39
0.20
13.59
13.39
0.21
13.60
13.39
0.20
13.59
13.39
0.21
13.46
0.12
T3758
13.46
0.18
13.64
13.46
0.18
13.64
13.46
0.18
13.64
13.46
0.18
TO4
A medium plant produces 2,060,000 roofing shingle sales squares annually. The total unit
product cost is the sum of the unit cost attributable to plant annualized costs and the unit cost
.attributable to pollution control system annual ized costs.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator. .
HVAF = high velocity air filter. A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
TABLE 8-56. UNIT PRODUCT COSTS OF A LARGE, NEW ASPHALT ROOFING PLANT
WITH A POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
00
I
ro
o
Description of
alternative and
product cost items
Alternative 1
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 2
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 3
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 4
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
Alternative 5
Plant costs
Control costs
Total
ESPb on
With blow
stills
12.96
0.10
13.06
12.96
0.11
13.07
12.96
0.12
13.08
12.96
0.11
13.07
12.96
0.13
13.09
Unit product costs (November 1978 dollars/sales
saturator
Without blow
stills
13.05
0.07
13.12
13.05
0.08
13.05
0.08
13.13
13.05
0.08
13.13
13.05
0.08
13.13
HVAF<:
Wi th bl ow
stills
12.96
0.10
13.06
12.96
0.129
13.08
12.96
0.13
13.09
12.96
0.12
13.08
12.96
0.13
13.09
on saturator
Without blow
stills
13.05
0.07
13.12
13.05
0.09
13TF4
13.05
0.09
13.14
13.05
0.09
13.14
13.05
0.09
13.14
.square)3
A/B W/HRQ on saturator
With blow
stills
12.96
0.18
13.14
12.96
0.23
13.19
12.96
0.24
13.20
12.96
0.23
13.19
12.96
0.25
13.21
Without blow
stills
13.05
0.15
13.20
13.05
0.20
13.25
13.05
0.20
13.25
13.05
0.20
13.25
13.05
0.20
13.25
A large plant produces 2,640,000 roofing shingle sales squares annually. The total unit
product cost is the sum of the unit cost attributable to plant annualized costs and the unit cost
.attributable to pollution control system annualized costs.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator. .
HVAF = high velocity air filter. A/B W/HR = afterburner with heat recovery.
-------
Alternative for small, medium, and large plants, respectively. The cost
of a roofing shingle sales square at small plants is $14.33 to $14.47; at
medium plants is $13.48 to $13.64; and at large plants is $13.06 to
$13.25. The unit product cost increase attributed to the annualized cost
of the pollution control system at small plants is $0.06 to $0.25; at
medium plants is $0.06 to $0.21; and at large plants is $0.07 to $0.25.
The cost increases attributable to the pollution control system operations
represent a cost increase in the total unit product cost of 0.4 to
1.7 percent at small plants; 0.4 to 1.6 percent at medium plants; and 0.5
to 1.6 percent at large plants.
8.3 OTHER COST CONSIDERATIONS
This section summarizes the cost currently being imposed upon the
asphalt roofing and siding manufacturing industry (ARM) as a result of
(1) the Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA); (2) the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA); and (3) the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA).
The impact of the alternative regulatory options on the resource
requirements, of state, regional, and local regulatory and enforcement
agencies is also assessed in this section.
8.3.1 Water Pollution Control Act
The Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the ARM industry was published
by EPA in 1974.51 At that time, the cost to the industry to comply
with Best Available Technology Economically Acceptable (BATEA) was estimated
to be $0.18/Hg ($0.16/ton) of product (1973 dollars). Standards based on
these guidelines have not yet been finalized. Thus, the ARM industry is
not currently subject to specific provisions under the Water Pollution
Control Act.
The ARM industry has minimized waste water discharge in recent years
by recirculating cooling water, substituting cooling rolls for direct
contact cooling spray, and by recirculating cooling water used in emission
52-54
control systems.
8-121
-------
In the absence of specific performance standards for water emissions,
there should be no cost impact that would inhibit the industry's ability
to bear the increased costs associated with air pollution regulations.
8.3.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires all
sources of hazardous solid wastes to record quantities of hazardous waste
generates; to label all containers used in storage, transport, or disposal;
to use appropriate containers; to furnish information on chemical
composition of such waste to handlers; to use a system to assure proper
disposition of wastes generated; and to submit reports to the
Administrator detailing quantities of wastes generated and the disposi-
tion of those wastes. It is not known if the ARM industry is a source of
hazardous waste. Asphalt roofing plants presently employ conservation
techniques such as recycling paper and waste wood materials in the manu-
facture of felt, re suing reclaimed oil as fuel or feed stock, and
recovering waste heat from afterburners for use in other plant operations.
Therefore, if the ARM industry becomes subject to the provisions of the
RCRA, only minimal costs may be incurred due to waste produced from
additional control equipment required to meet the proposed alternative
regulatory options.
8.3.3 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act
Several asphalt roofing plants were visited during the course of
this program. It was the opinion of personnel at plants visited that the
impact of OSHA regulations on- the industry is minimal. One particular
plant had recently been inspected by OSHA personnel with no resulting
violations. Several OSHA offices have been contacted to ascertain if
there were any compliance problems in the ARM industry plants. There were
no reported problems and no reported violations.
The control equipment required under the alternative regulatory
options should result in minimal OSHA-related compliance costs (i.e.,
electrical, plumbing, and similar equipment). The ARM industry's ability
to comply with any one of the alternative regulatory options would there-
fore not be greatly affected by the economic impact of OSHA regulations.
8-122
-------
8.3.4 Resource Requirements Imposed on State, Regional, and Local
Agencies
The State Implementation Plans which have been approved by EPA
require that a company make an application and receive a permit to
construct before it is allowed to begin construction. >57 The applica-
tion for the construction permit must list all emission sources, the
control system for the emission sources, the nature of the emission
(particulate, CO), and all pertinent drawings.
After construction is completed, the states require that the company
apply for and receive a permit to operate before operation can be started.
The application for operation must contain pertinent emission test data.
Certain local and regional agencies also require construction and operating
permits before construction of a new plant is started.58 However, since
no more than one new asphalt roofing manufacturing plant per year is
estimated to be constructed in the United States through 1985, the promul-
gation of standards for this industry should not impose major resource
requirements on state, regional, and local agencies.
8.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
8.4.1 Introduction and Summary
8.4.1.1 Introduction. This section will assess the economic impact
of the potential New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) on asphalt roofing
manufacturing plants. Economic profile information on the industry
presented in Section 8.1 will be a principal input to this assessment.
The impact on individual new plants will be assessed by using model
plants that represent small, medium, and large members of the industry.
Various financial analysis techniques will be applied to the model plants.
These findings will be assessed, based on the industry profile, to deter-
mine industry-wide impacts.
As noted in previous chapters the fundamental manufacturing processes
for which the NSPS is being developed is the asphalt saturation and
coating, and blowing still operations of roofing material manufacture.
This process is generally similar throughout the 110 asphalt roofing
manufacturing plants. While the process is similar, there is considerable
difference in plant size attributable to the number of plant production
lines. For the purpose of this study, small plants have been designated
8-123
-------
as those with one roofing line; medium size plants, those typically
having two roofing lines; and large plants, those with two roofing lines
plus an intergrated saturated felt line. Saturated felt, an organic
material frequently made from recycled wastepaper and saturated with
asphalt, is basic feedstock for roofing manufacturing plants.
8.4.1.2 Summary. A discounted cash flow analysis demonstrates that
an investment in a new asphalt roofing manufacturing plant will remain a
profitable investment after the addition of controls required by Regulatory
Alternative 5, the most stringent alternative. The investment is profi-
table for all three model plant sizes: small, medium, and large.
If this additional control cost is completely passed through to
customers, it will raise the price of the product by 0.1 percent, a minor
increase. If the control cost must be completely absorbed by the
manufacturers, the profit margins of the manufacturers are such that a
reduction in profit margin equivalent to 0.1 percent of the price will
not have a major economic impact.
The Alternative 5 controls will add, at most, 0.7 percent to the
total initial investment required for a model plant. The additional
0.7 percent is a minor increase and will not restrict capital availa-
bility for the new plant.
Overall, the most stringent alternative will not have a significant
economic impact on the asphalt roofing industry.
8.4.2 Ownership, Location, and Concentration Characteristics
Ownership characteristics range from single plant, privately held
operations to large, publicly held corporations that own as many as 26
roofing plants. The publicly held companies are diversified corporations
within which the manufacture of shingles may represent one of as many as
10 distinct business segments. The various business segments may or may
not be related to asphalt roofing, such as building materials, metal
products, photography, sugar operations, etc.
In the above companies, the sales contribution from the asphalt
roofing products line ranges from less than 10 percent to more than
80 percent of a company's total sales.
The seven largest members of the industry own 85 of the total
110 plants in the industry, or 77 percent. The plants are distributed
8-124
-------
across the country, approximately conforming to the population distri-
bution.
There is a gradual move underway in the industry toward consolidation
of ownership through both vertical and horizontal integration.
Evidence of vertical integration is provided by the fact that the manu-
facture and distribution of shingles was previously two distinct business
activities carried on by separate companies, but over the past few
years, corporations have been increasingly combining the manufacture and
distribution of shingles into a single line of business.
Evidence of horizontal integration is supplied by the fact that from
1969 to 1978 there have been at least eight mergers or acquisitions
between companies in the industry.
8.4.3 Pricing Mechanism
Transportation costs are an important element in the pricing mechanism
of the asphalt roofing industry. Manufacturers ship on a freight-equalized
basis, i.e., the customer pays no more in freight than it would cost from
the nearest supplier. A customer pays only the freight costs from the
closest available source of supply, regardless of-the location of the
shipping or producing plant for a particular order. If a manufacturer
ships a greater distance, that manufacturer absorbs the additional freight.
Price shifts by one manufacturer of asphalt and tar roofing products
are readily communicated throughout the industry and result in an "evening
up" of all manufacturers' prices within a short time.
Since producers of asphalt roofing products generally sell their
products f.o.b. producer's plant with freight costs to the customer
equalized from the competitive producing or shipping point nearest to the
customer, the producer must often absorb a portion of the transporation
cost of shipments. Therefore, a producer located considerably farther
away from a given area than other producers selling in that area cannot
profitably sell in that location at a competitive price. Transportation
costs become prohibitive beyond a radius of approximately 300 miles from
the manufacturer when another manufacturer is located nearer to the
customer.
8.4.3.1 Supply. In general terms, the supply and demand relationship
in the asphalt roofing industry can best be summarized as stable.
8-125
-------
In spite of the integral relationship between the asphalt roofing
manufacturing industry and the building industry, the asphalt roofing
industry is not a highly cyclical industry as is the building industry.
Figure 8-5 illustrates this stability. Production of asphalt roofing has
only varied by +7.7 percent per year (as shown in Table 8-21a) over the
years since 1973, while over the same period of time new housing starts
have fluctuated by as much as+34.3 percent in a single year. ° Produc-
tion of asphalt roofing for 1977 is 3.7 percent below the peak production
of 1973. The reason asphalt roofing is not a highly cyclical industry is
that there are two segments in the total market. One segment is the new
construction market and the other segment is the reroofing market for
existing structures. The reroofing segment of the market comprises from
50 to 70 percent of the total market, depending on the activity for new
construction. Since reroofing is an appreciable amount of the total
market and is stable, it dampens swings in asphalt roofing production.
Entry into the industry is relatively easy for several reasons: there
are no major patent obstacles, high technology is not involved, and the
capital requirements are not excessive by manufacturing standards. In
spite of the ease of entry into the industry, the industry does not have
a history of excess expansions of capacity that lead to oversupply problems.
8.4.3.2 Demand. On the other side of the supply and demand equation,
the industry has inelastic demand over a wide range. The industry has
experienced rapidly rising costs, the major cause of which has been
rising asphalt prices, which rose 41.8 percent from 1974 to 1979.
Figure 8-6 illustrates that production (demand) has increased at the same
time that prices have increased sharply. This demonstrates inelastic
demand. An examination of published statements by industry members,
actions by industry members, statements by industry observers, and industry
profits and prices indicate that producers have been able to pass through
fil fi?
cost increases and maintain acceptable profits. '
There are several reasons for the industry's inelastic demand.
First, a roof is an indispensable part of a building. Second, the
competitive product (wood shingles) costs about 60 percent more than
asphalt shingles. Third, in the volatile new housing segment of the
market, the cost of the shingles, as sold by the manufacturer, represents
8-126
-------
Cumulative % of new housing starts from 1969 base.
Cumulative % of asphalt roofing production
from 1969 base.
60-]
50_
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
-20-
-30-
I
70
I
72
I
74
71 72 73 74 75 76
Figure 8-5. Stability in Asphalt Roofing Production.
Sources: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1977.
Section 8.1.
1
77
8-127
-------
Cumulative % of Asphalt Roofing Producer Price Index
from 1969 base
Cumulative % of Asphalt Roofing Production from
1969 base
1 JU —
140 _
130 _
120
110_
100 _
90
80 _
70 _
60 _
50 _
40 _
30
Of)
CU
10_
0
-10
JL_U
1
7
0
7
1
1
7
2
1
7
3
74
75
1
7f
i
7
7
Figure 8-6. Relationship Between Price and Production
Source: Section 8.1
8-128
-------
less than 1 percent of the cost of a new house, so that small increases
in the price of shingles produce very small increases in total new housing
costs.
The trend line for the production of asphalt roofing shows a 2 percent
annual growth rate from 1969 to 1977.63 This growth rate is likely to
continue over the next 5 years for two reasons. First, the reroofing
market (additions,* alterations, and repairs) has been growing over recent
years and should continue to generate firm demand for asphalt shingles.
Second, demand for the new housing sector of the roofing market should be
high. The population demographics are favorable for the housing market,
particularly in the important 25- to 34-year-old age group. Also, housing
has gained increased popularity as an inf-lation hedge.
To date, the changes in capacity that have been announced by industry
indicate that supply should remain in line with demand. Therefore, over
the next 5 years the relationship between supply and demand should be
sufficiently balanced to permit manufacturers to pass through cost in-
creases and maintain profits, as they have been able to do in the past
when supply and demand has been in balance.
8.4.3.3 New Developments. A change that is taking place in the
industry is the increased popularity of fiber glass, mat-based shingles.
As fiber glass, mat-based shingles increase their market share, more.
companies are beginning to change from the production of felt to fiber
glass. The market share of fiber glass, mat-based shingles has grown as
follows:
1975 1976 1977 1978 (est.)
3.29% 4.45% 8.0% 12.0%
By 1980 ARMA expects fiber glass shingles to account for 20 percent of the
market. By the early 1980's, industry members expect fiber glass shingles
to account for 50 percent of the market, as discussed in Section 8.1.
Two reasons for the popularity of fiber glass mat shingles are their
increased durability, 20 years of life versus 15 years for organic shingles,
and their improved fire rating, Class A (the highest) versus Class C for
organic shingles.
Fiber glass mat shingles are currently about 5 percent more expensive
than organic mat shingles; however, fiber glass mat shingles require
8-129
-------
approximately 12 percent less asphalt to produce, so that in the near
future, as the cost of asphalt continues to rise, the"5 percent cost
difference should be eliminated.65'66
The only difference in the manufacturing process between producing
fiber glass mat shingles and organic mat shingles is that the fiber glass
mat shingles bypass the saturating step in the production process. In
this study the NSPS incremental costs and costs of production are those
of the organic mat operations. This results in a conservative finding of
NSPS impacts on fiber glass operations.
8.4.4 Methodology
This section will describe the methodology used to measure the
economic impact of the NSPS on the asphalt roofing manufacturing industry.
The principal economic impact that will be assessed is the effect of incre-
mental costs of NSPS control on the profitability of new grassroots plants.
In the analysis which follows, each model asphalt roofing manufac-
turing plant will be evaluated as if it stands alone, i.e., the firm is
not associated with any other business activity nor is it associated with
any larger parent company. This assumption has the effect of isolating
the control cost without any assistance from other business activities or
firms.
Since each State Implementation Plan (SIP) contains particulate
emission control standards, any new plant would have to meet SIP standards
in the absence of a NSPS. Therefore, incremental NSPS control costs are
the control costs over and above those baseline costs required to meet
the various SIP standards.
Economic impact is evaluated on model plants whose description is
based on representative characteristics of new roofing plants, such as
production capabilities, asset size, and other financial measures. The
model plants provide an indication of the degree of impact on all new
plants in the industry by incorporating into the model the major charac-
teristics prevailing in various size segments of the roofing industry.
They do not represent any particular existing plant, as any individual
plant will differ in one or more of the above characteristecs.
The primary analytical technique employed in determining whether a
capital investment should be accepted is discounted cash flow (DCF)
8-130
-------
analysis. Additionally, internal rate of return and playback will be
calculated. DCF measures the discounted dash inflows over the life of an
investment and compares them to the discounted cash outflows including
the initial investment. If the sum of the discounted cash inflows is
equal to., or greater than, the sum of the discounted cash outflows, the
investment provides a return equal to, or greater than, the firm's cost
of capital and the investment should £e accepted. If the sum of the dis-
counted cash inflows is less than the sum of the discounted cash outflows,
the investment provides a return less than the firm's cost of capital and
the investment should be rejected.
Cash flow is used because it is cash that is required to meet a
firm's obligations regardless of how bright that firm's financial picture
may be "on paper." Essentially, determining cash inflow involves calcu-
lating net earnings and adding depreciation, which is a non-cash expense.
All cash flows must be discounted to the present by use of an appro-
priate discount factor to enable comparison. The discount factor accounts
for the time value of money, i.e., $1 today is worth more than $1 a year
from today. In addition, the discount factor includes a return (profit)
to the firm as compensation for bearing the risk that is inherent in the
investment.
8.4.5 Critical Elements of the DCF
Calculations developed by the DCF method depend on the validity of
the elements that comprise the DCF equation. These elements are:
1. project life;
2. depreciation;
3. hours of annual operation;
4. revenue and cost of manufacture;
5. control costs;
6. control cost passthrough versus control cost absorption; and
7. di scount factor.
The project life of the investment is taken as 10 years, the useful
life of most of the major pieces of production equipment found in the plants.
Some of the equipment should last longer and the building should have a
useful life of approximately 20 years. To the extent that buildings and
8-131
-------
equipment have a useful life longer than 10 years and no salvage value
is included in the calculations, the-10 year choice is conservative.
Annual operation is assumed at 4,000 hours based on: 16 hours/day x
5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 4,000 hours/year.
Annual revenue and cost of manufacture are assumed constant in the
calculations. This assumption, made for simplicity of presentation,
essentially assumes a constant profit margin over the project life. This
is consistent with historical performance in that manufacturers, with
minor variations, have typically been able to maintain their profit
margins. Sensitivity analysis was performed in order to determine the
effect of a possible decline in profit margins sustained over the entire
10 year life of the project that could result from price competition
and/or an increase in costs. The sensitivity analysis evaluated the
effect of a 10 percent decrease in profit margins. If the profit margins
increase rather than decrease, the plant's financial position improves
accordingly and NSPS controls become proportionately less costly.
Control costs are as shown previously and represent Alternative
Control Option 5.
Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method. Deprecia-
tion could also be calculated using one of several accelerated methods
that would have the effect of increasing paper expenses but decreasing
tax payments and consequently increasing cash flow in the early years.
Straight-line is used because it results in the most conservative dis-
counted cash flow projections.
In the DCF analysis it is assumed that the control cost will be
completely absorbed by the manufacturer with no cost passthrough in the
form of higher prices. This represents a worst-case assumption.
A 10 percent discount factor is used. With a typical capital struc-
ture of 30 percent debt financing, 70 percent equity financing, and a
50 percent tax rate, the 10 percent discount factor represents a 10 percent
cost of debt and a 12 percent cost of equity, which is realistic for this
industry.
8-132
-------
Capital Capital
structure costs Tax rate
Equity 70% X 12% N/A* =8.4
Debt 30% X 10% X 50% =1.5
9.9 = 10%
di scount factor
In order to guard against the possibility that a 10 percent discount
\
factor is too low, sensitivity analysis was performed using 15 percent as
a discount factor, which would represent an increase in the cost of
equity from 12 percent to 19.3 percent.
Capital
structure
70%
30%
X
X
Capital
costs
19.3%
10.0%
Tax rate
N/A*
50%
Equity 70% X 19.3% N/A* = 13.5
Debt 30% X 10.0% 50% = 1.5
T5%~
di scount factor
8.4.6 Data Sources
The following list provides the data sources for various aspects of
the analysi s:
1. Average selling price - Section 8.1
2. Costs - Section 8.2
131
3. Debt to equity ratio - annual reports
4. Costs of debt capital - annual reports
5. Costs of equity capital - annual reports
6. Alternative control options - Section 8.2
7. Sizes and operating hours - Section 8.2
8. Depreciation schedules - Section 8.2, Internal Revenue Code
9. Investment tax credit - Internal Revenue Code
10. Plant investment - Section 8.2
8.4.7 Plant Investment
For each of the three model plant sizes, the capital investment
costs represent the total investment required to construct new model
asphalt roofing plants with a blowing still and to install a new baseline
pollution control system, plus one of the air pollution control alterna-
tives. These capital investment costs include direct costs, indirect costs,
*Not applicable.
8-133
-------
working capital, contractor's fee, and contingency. A detailed description
of the costs was presented in Section 8.2.
8.4.8 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Tables 8-57, 8-58, and 8-59 show the discounted cash flow (DCF)
analysis for each of the three model plants. All dollars are constant
end-of-1978 dollars. All cash flows occur at the end of each year.
State incoijie tax is not included because each state has its own particular
rate, which would complicate the presentation; Texas, which is an important
producer state, has no state income tax, and some states permit Federal
income tax deductibility. Even if state taxes were included despite all
these drawbacks, the results would be affected insignificantly.
1. Row 1, revenue of these tables, is calculated by multiplying the
number of squares that the plant produces by the average selling price of
one square. The average selling price of one square is taken to be
$16.51. Annual operating time is considered to be 16 hours/day x
250 days/year = 4,000 hours/year. The revenue is assumed to be constant
for each year.
2. Row 2, cost of manufacture, represents annualized costs (exclud-
ing interest, which is considered in the discount factor) as shown in
Table 8-28 in Section 8.2. Cost of manufacture includes baseline control
costs that would be required by SIP's irrespective of an NSPS. Costs
vary according to plant size. Costs per square (the number of shingles
to cover 100 square feet) for each plant (with blowing still) are:
a. Small plant: $14.27 minus $.56 interest = $13.71
b. Medium plant: $13.42 minus $.45 interest = $12.97
c. Large plant: $13.00 minus $.41 interest = $12.59
Annual operating time is the same 4,000 hours as noted above. Cost of
manufacture is assumed to be constant for each year.
3. Row 3, control costs, incremental for most stringent control
option.
4. Row 4, earnings before tax, is revenue minus costs (cost of
manufacture and control costs).
5. Row 5, tax liability, is calculated by multiplying earnings
before tax by the marginal Federal corporate income tax rate, which is
currently 46 percent.
8-134
-------
TABLE 8-57. DCF FOR SMALL PLANT
(With blowing still)
($000's)
oo
i
CO
01
Row
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Cost elements
Revenue
Costs
Pollution control costs
Earnings before Interest
and tax
Federal Income tax
Investment tax credit
Pollution control ITC
Net earnings after tax
Depreciation
Pollution control
depreciation
Net cash flow
Discount factor 10*
Discounted cash flow
Discounted Inflow
Discounted outflow
1979
17,005
(14,124)
(22)
2,859
(1.315)
551
7
2,102
776
4,
2,882
.90909
2,620
14.788
(9,577)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
17,005
(14,124)
(22)
2.859
(1,315)
~
1,544
776
4
2,324 2,324 2,324 2,324 2,324 2,324 2,324
.82645 .75131 .68301 .62092 .56447 .51316 .46651
1,921 1,746 1,587 1,443 1,312 1,193 1,084
1987 1988
17,005
(14,124)
(22)
2,859
(1.315)
--
__
1,544
776
4
2,324 2,324
.42410 .38554
986 896
NPV
5,211
-------
TABLE 8-b8. UCF FOR MEDIUM PLANT
(With blowing still)
($000's)
CO
1
CO
Row
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Cost elements
Revenue
Costs
Pollution control costs
Earnings before Interest
and tax
Federal Income tax
Investment tax credit
Pollution control ITC
Net earnings after tax
Depreciation
Pollution control
depreciation
Net cash flow
Discount factor 10%
Discounted cash flow
Discounted Inflow
Discounted outflow
1979
34,010
(26,712)
(4)
7,302
(3,359)
886
10
4.839
1.235
5
6,079
.90909
5,526
32.661
(15.589)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
34.010
(26.712)
(!)
7,302
(3.359)
—
3,943
1,235
5
5,183 5,183 5.183 5,183 5,183 5,183 5,183
.82645 .75131 .68301 .62092 .56447 .51316 .46651
4.283 3,894 3.540 3.218 2,926 2,660 2.418
1987 1988
34,010
(26,712)
(4)
7,302
(3.359)
--
__
3.943
1,235
5
5.183 5.183
.42410 .38554
2,198 1,998
NPV
17,072
-------
ca
i
CO
TABLE 8-59. DCF FOR LARGE PLANT
(With blowing still)
($000's)
Row
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Cost elements
Revenue
Costs
Pollution control costs
Earnings before Interest
and tax
Federal Income tax
Investment tax credit
Pollution control ITC
Net earnings after tax
Depreciation
Pollution control
depreciation
Net cash flow
Discount factor 10X
Discounted cash flow
Discounted Inflow
Discounted outflow
1979
43,586
(33,235)
US)
10,313
(4,744)
1,019
9
6.597
1,432
5
8,034
.90909
7,304
43,997
(18.338)
1980 1981
43,586
(33,235)
(38)
10,313
(4.744)
~
...
5,569
1,432
5
7,006 7,006
.82645 .75131
5,790 5,264
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
43.586
(33,235)
(38)
10,313
(4.744)
--
__
5.569
1.432
5
7,006 7,006 7,006 7,006 7,006 7,006 7.006
.68301 .62092 .56447 .51316 .46651 .42410 .38554
4,785 4,350 3,955 3,595 3.268 2.985 2.701
NPV
25.609
-------
6. Row 6, investment tax credit (ITC), considers the 10 percent
investment tax credit, which acts to reduce the tax liability of the
plant (total direct investment plus blowing still plus baseline control s
less building) by 10 percent.
7. Row 7, control investment tax credit, for NSPS controls.
8. Row 8, net earnings after tax, represents earnings before tax
minus tax liability, plus investment tax credit.» For example:
Net earnings before tax $100
Less tax liability -46
Plus investment tax credit +10
$64
9. Row 9, depreciation, is an non-cash expense and, as such, is
added to net earnings after tax for the purpose of determining cash flow.
Depreciation is calculated using the straight-line method.
10. Row 10, control depreciation, represents depreciation of the
most stringent regulatory control option and is calculated using the
straight-line method for 20 years, which is conservative.
11. Row 11, net cash flow, is the result of adding net earnings
after tax and depreciation.
12. Row 12, discount factor, shows the present value of a dollar of
future cash flow for each future year. The discount factor used is
10 percent, which represents the weighted average cost of capital.
13. Row 13, discounted cash flows, after the annual cash inflows are
discounted, they are summed to derive the present value of the cash in-
flows over the life of the project. The discounted cash inflows are then
compared" to the sum of the discounted cash outflows. The difference is
the net present value (NPV).
8.4.9 Findings
8.4.9.1 Control Affordability
1. DCF - The results of the discounted cash flow analysis from
Tables 8-59, 8-60 and 8-61 show that all three model plants have a positive
NPV. The small plant has an NPV of $5,211,000; the medium plant has an
NPV of $17,072,000; and the large plant has an NPV of $25,609,000. The
positive NPV means that after including the 10 percent required return,
8-138
-------
the investment yields an additional amount over the project life expressed
in today's dollars.
2. IRR - A second financial test shows that the internal rate of
return for each of the model plant sizes is 21 percent for the small
plant, 31 percent for the medium plant, and 37 percent for the large
plant.
3. Paybacks - Additionally, the cash flow projections for the
small, medium, and large model plants indicate a payback period of 4 years,
3 years, and 2-1/2 years, respectively, an attractive payback period for
most manufacturing operations. A less-than-5-year payback also meets an
investment criterion explicitly published by one member of the industry. °
Since the above tests indicate that each of the three model plants
remains a profitable investment after the addition of the most stringent
regulatory control option in the absence of cost passthrough, it can be
assumed that this addition will not exert a significant economic impact.
Several secondary indicators also sustain this finding:
1. Sensitivity analysis for the DCF - This was performed on the
profit margin for the small plant by reducing the profit margin by 10 percent
and recalculating the NPV. The NPV remained positive by $4,258,000. An
additional sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the discount
factor from 10 to 15 percent and recalculating the NPV. Here again, the
NPV remained positive by $2,572,000 for the small plant.
2. Percent increase in selling price - The most stringent regulatory
control option will add a maximum of 2.H to a selling price of $16.51
per square, or approximately 0.1 percent. This can be compared to cost-
push price increases of 39.3 percent, or $3.26 per square in 1974, or
more recently an average annual increase of 9 percent from 1975-1977.
3. Control cost passthrough vs. absorption - In the DCF, it is
assumed that the control cost will have to be completely absorbed by the
manufacturer with no cost passthrough in the form of higher prices. This
represents a worst-case assumption because the demand is inelastic over a
considerable range. The industry has an approximate after-tax profit on
sales of 5.7 percent. To the extent that control costs could be either
partially or completely passed through, the financial performance of the
model plants would improve.
8-139
-------
In addition to these quantitative indicators, some additional insight
into industrial viability can be gained by examining the actions of com-
panies in the industry. Large, sophisticated firms perceive the industry
as attractive to new investment and several entrenched firms in the
industry are extending their operations. Several examples include:
1. Georgia Pacific opened its first roofing plant in Franklin,
Ohio, in 1978. Construction was also begun on a new roofing plant cit
Quakertown, Pennsylvania, and plans were announced for a third roofing
plant to be located near Atlanta, Georgia.
2. GAP Corporation is building a new roofing plant in Fontana,
California, that will go into operation in 1980; it will be the company's
fourteenth roofing plant.
3. CertainTeed Corporation opened a new roofing plant in Oxford,
North Carolina, in March of 1978.
4. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation purchased Lloyd A. Fry
Company and Trumball Asphalt Company for approximately $180,000,000 in
cash in 1977.
8.4.9.2 Capital Availability for Control Systems. The necessary
capital is likely to be available to companies for the purchase of control
equipment.
The total capital required to meet NSPS for a anal 1 model plant would
add $71,000 to an initial investment of $9,506,000, a 0.7 percent increase.
The figure for medium and large plants is 0.7 percent and 0.5 percent respec-
tively. This increase in the initial investment is not likely to seriously
alter the capital availability situation for a company which otherwise can
obtain the necessary capital.
The majority of the companies that are entering the industry for the
first time or expanding an existing position in the industry are major,
publicly-held corporations that provide improved access to the financial
markets as well as considerable internal financial strength and business
sophistication. These publicly held companies have debt-to-equity ratios
of approximately 30 percent, which is indicative of reserve borrowing
power.
Finally, a variety of special pollution control financing arrange-
ments are available to new asphalt roofing manufacturing plants, such as
8-140
-------
low interest bank loans, SBA loans, and Industrial Development Bonds.
These sources of funds generally provide loan rates and repayment terms
more favorable than general industrial borrowing.
' 8.4.10 Affected Facilities in Other Locations. An integrated
asphalt roofing plant includes an asphalt blowing operation. There are
approximately twenty-four plants where the asphalt blowing operation,
although physically adjacent to the roofing plant, was a separate corporate
entity. These units have since been purchased by one company and are thus
considered integrated roofing plants. Blowing stills are also installed in
petroleum refineries and, in very rare occasions, as production units with-
out ties to either a refinery or a roofing plant. Control costs for new
stills in refineries will have no more economic impact than those in roofing
plants. The control equipment is the same, and any captured pollutants can
be recycled to the refining process.
Should anyone consider building an asphalt blowing operation without
ties to a roofing plant or refinery, the control cost will constitute a
greater percentage of the operating cost. Specifically, the cost of the
extra fuel will have to be absorbed by the difference between the cost of
the asphalt flux and the blown asphalt product. Furthermore, it is doubtful
that all of the cost credit for the recovery of pollutants or for the waste
heat will be available to offset the fuel charges. It is therefore likely
that new asphalt stills will be located either in refineries or roofing
plants.
8.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The purpose of Section 8.5 i s to address those tests of macroeconomic
impact as presented in Executive Order 12044 and, more generally, to
assess any other significant macroeconomic impacts that may result from
the NSPS.
The economic impact assessment is concerned only with the costs or
negative impacts of the NSPS. The NSPS will also result in benefits or
positive impacts, such as cleaner air and improved health for the popula-
tion, potential increases in worker productivity, increased business for
the pollution control manufacturing industry, and so forth. However, the
NSPS benefits will not be discussed here.
8-141
-------
8.5.1 Executive Order 12044
Executive Order 12044 provides several criteria for a determination
of major economic impact. Those criteria are:
1. Additional annualized costs of compliance that, including capital
charges (interest and depreciation), will total $100 million (a) within
any one of the first 5 years of implementation (normally in the fifth
year for NSPS), or (b) if applicable, within any calendar year up to the
date by which the law requires attainment of the relevant pollution
standard.
2. Total additional cost of production of any major industry product
or service will exceed 5 percent of the selling price of the product.
3. Net national energy consumption will increase by the equivalent
of 25,000 barrels of oil per day.
4. Additional annual demand will increase or annual supply will
decrease by more than 3 percent for any of the following materials by the
attainment date, if applicable, or within 5 years of implementation:
plate steel, tubular steel, stainless steel, scrap steel, aluminum,
copper, manganese, magnesium, zinc, ethylene, ethylene glycol, liquified
petroleum gases, ammonia, urea, plastics, synthetic rubber, or pulp.
The asphalt roofing NSPS will not trigger any of the above four
criteria.
1. The NSPS will not add to the annual ized costs for a new medium-
sized plant. There are three new medium-sized plants projected to be
built over the next 5 years (annualized costs for a anal 1 and large plant
are $22,000 and $38,000, respectively). This is compared to a $100
million trigger.
2. The NSPS will add a maximum of 0.1 percent to the selling price
of the product. This potential increase is far below the 5 percent
trigger.
3. The NSPS will lead to an increase in oil consumption of
124 barrels-per-day. This 124 barrels-per-day increase compares to a
25,000-barrels-per-day increase for use as a trigger.
4. The NSPS will result in no perceptible change in demand or
supply. Executive Order 12044 states that a change of 3 percent or more
should be used as a trigger.
8-142
-------
Additionally, both the small dollar cost of the NSPS controls and
the inherent economics of the industry, such as its geographical diversi-
fication, lack of an import or export market, et al., preclude the possi-
bility of significant macroeconomic impacts, either on a regional or on a
national basis. The NSPS will not aggravate national inflation, disrupt
regional or national employment patterns, or change the U.S. balance of
payments position.
8-143
-------
8.6 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 8
1. Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association. Manufacture, Selection
and Application of Asphalt Roofing and Siding Products. 10th ed.
New York, NY. 1970. p. 5.
2. Ref. 1, p. 3.
3. Barth, E. J. Asphalt-Science and Technology. New York,
Gordon and Breach, 1962. p. 425-427.
4. Ref. 1, p. 13, 14.
5. Letter and attachment from Quaranta, J., CertainTeed Products
Corporation, to Noble, E. A., EPA/ESED. September 8, 1975.
Supplemental information for 114 response.
6. Letter and attachments from Hambrick, M. M., Celotex, to
Goodwin, D. R., EPA/ESED. May 30, 1975. Information on plants
at Goldsboro, Los Angeles, and Cincinnati.
7. Ref. 1, p. 41a.
8. Ref. 1, p. 15.
9. Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association. List of Plants:
Asphalt and Tarred Roofing Manufacturers. New York, NY.
May 12, 1978. 4 p.
10. U. S. Census of Manufactures. Volume II. U. S. Department of
Commerce. Washington, D. C. Census for 1954, 1958, 1963, 1967,
and 1972.
11. Asphalt and Tar Roofing and Siding Products. U. S. Department of
Commerce. Washington, D. C. Series M-29A. Summaries for 1969,
1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977.
12. Mineral Industry Surveys: Petroleum Statement, Annual. U. S.
Department of Interior. Washington, D. C. Summaries for 1969,
1971, 1973, and 1975.
13. Energy Data Reports: P. A. D. Di stricts Supply/Demand, Annual.
U. S. Department of Energy. Washington, D. C. Final Summaries
for 1976 and 1977.
8-144
-------
14. Evans, J. V. Asphalt. In: Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, Volume 3, 3rd edition, Hark, H. F., et. al (ed.).
New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
15. Cantrell, A. Annual Refining Survey. The Oil and Gas Journal.
715(12): 108-146. March 20, 1978.
16. Annual Survey of Manufactures: Industry Profiles. U. S.
Department of Commerce. Washington, D. C. M(AS).
Surveys for 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1976.
17. Ref.l, p. 1.
18. U.S. General Imports: Schedule A Commodity Groupings by World Area.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D. C. FT 150/Annual
1973, and FT 150/Annual 1977. October 1974 and July 1978.
19. U.S. Exports: Schedule B Commodity Groupings by World Area.
U. S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D. C. FT 450/Annual
1973 and FT 450/Annual 1977. June 1974 and June 1978.
20. Handbook of Labor Statistics 1977. U.S. Department of Labor.
Washington, D. C. Bulletin 1966. 1977.
21. Monthly Labor Review. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D. C.
Volume 102, Number 2. February 1979.
22. Statistical Abstract of the United States. U. S. Bureau of Census.
Washington, D. C. Abstracts for 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974,
1975, 1976, 1977, and 1978.
23. Telecon. North Carolina Asphalt Roofing Distributor with Antel, D.,
MRI/NC. March 7, 1979. Prices of asphalt roofing shingles.
24. Cantrell, A. Annual Refining Survey. The Oil and Gas Journal.
p. 97-123. March 28, 1977.
25. Telecon. Merz, S., Celotex Corporation, with Cooper, R.,
MRI/NC. March 8, 1979. Prices of dry materials for asphalt
roofing plants.
26. Telecon. Lambert, D., Exxon Corporation, with Antel, D.,
MRI/NC. March 8, 1979. Prices of asphalt.
27. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering. _86_(6): 7.
March 12, 1979.
8-145
-------
28. Franzblau and Fitzsimmons, Inc. Revised Proposal for Asphalt Roofing
Plant. Submitted to the Flintkote Company. Proposal No. 245.
Kearny, NJ. October 19, 1973.
29. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering. J36.(4): 7.
February 12, 1979.
30. Telecon. Lambert, D, Exxon Company, with Antel, D., MRI/NC.
March 8, 1979. Prices of asphalt.
31. Telecon. Clarke, S., CertainTeed Corporation, with Antel, D.,
MRI/NC. March 30, 1979. Felt costs.
32. Telecon. Merz, S, Celotex Corporation, with Cooper, R., MRI/NC.
March 8, 1979. Dry materials price for asphalt roofing plants.
33. Employment and Earnings, February 1979. U.S. Department of Labor.
Washington, D. C. Vol. 26, No. 2. February 1979.
34. Telecon. Representative of Kansas City, Missouri,
Water Department with Kelso, G, MRI/KC. April 19, 1979.
Cost of water in Kansas City, MO.
35. Retail Prices and Indexes of Fuels and Utilities, Residential
Usage. U. S. Department of Labor. Washington, D. C. June 1978.
36. Monthly Labor Review. U. S. Department of Labor. Washington, D. C.
Vol. 102, No. 3. March 1979.
37. Survey of Current Business. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Washington, D. C. Vol. 59, No. 3. March 1979.
38. Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers' Association. Manufacture, Selection,
and Application of Asphalt Roofing and Siding Products. 12th ed.
New York, NY. 1974.
39. Calculations for Chapter 8, Section 8.2.2.2.
40. Air Pollution Control Technology and Costs: Seven Selected Emission
Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, N. C. P8-245 065. December 1974.
41. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution Control Systems.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N. C.
EPA-450/3-76-014. May 1976.
42. Perry, R. H., and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
5th ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
43. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering. _86_(7): 7.
March 26, 1979.
8-146
-------
44. Capital and Operating Costs of Pollution Control Equipment
Modules - Vol. II - Data Manual. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D. C. EPA-R5-73-023b. July 1973.
45. Development of Cost Chapter for Control Techniques Document (CID)
for Asphalt Roofing Industries. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N. C. Contract No. 68-02-2842.
November 1977. 15 p.
46. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering. _85_:(15): 7.
July 17, 1978.
47. Nonmetallic Minerals Industries Control Equipment Costs.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, N. C.
EPA-68-02-1473. February 1977.
48. Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering. 85_:(4): 7.
February 13, 1978.
49. Sprackland, T. Oil Scramble Could Jolt East's Prices. Energy
User News. 4.(3): 1. January 15, 1979.
50. Perry, R. H., and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
4th ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963.
51. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Paving and Roofing
Materials (Tars and Asphalt). U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA 440/1-74/049, Group II. December 1974.
52. Memo from Shea, E. P., MRI/NC, to Noble, E. A., EPA/ISB.
March 29, 1979. Report on trip to CertainTeed plant, Oxford, NC.
53. Memo from Shea, E. P., MRI/NC, to Noble, E. A., EPA/ISB.
April 3, 1979. Report on trip to Flintkote plant, Peachtree, GA.
54. Memo from Shea, E. P., MRI/NC, to Noble, E. A., EPA/ISB.
April 23, 1979. Minutes of meeting with representatives of
Owens-Corning.
55. Memo from Shea, E. P., MRI/NC, to 4654-L Project File. May 15, 1979.
OSHA inspection of Flintkote plant, Peachtree, GA.
56. Texas Clean Air Act. Regulation 6, Control of Air Pollution
by Permits for New Construction or Modification.
Section 131.08. May 6, 1979.
57. New Jersey Administrative Code. Title 7, Chapter 27,
Subchapter 6, 7:27-16.10. Permit to Construct and
Certificate to Operate. New Jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection. March 1, 1976.
8-147
-------
58. Regulation 2. Division 13, Permits. Bay Area Air
Pollution Control District. February 1975. P. 58-59.
59. 1978 Annual Reports for Bird & Son, Inc.; CertainTeed Corporation;
Flintkote, Inc.; GAP Corporation; Georgia-Pacific Corporation;
Johns-Manville, Inc.; Koppers Company; Masonite Corporation;
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation; U.S. Gypsum; and Jim Walter
Corporation.
60. United States of America before the Federal Trade Commission in
the matter of Jim Walter Corporation Docket No. 8986.
61. Statistical Abstract of the United States 1977. U. S. Bureau of
Census. Washington, D. C.
62. 1978 Annual Report: GAF Corporation.
63. Goldfarb, Jonathan, C.F.A. Prospects for the Residential Roofing
Market. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith, Inc.
64. Professional Builder Apartment Business. August 1978. Vol. II.
65. Telecon. CertainTeed Corporation with JACA.
66. 1978 Annual Report: Koppers Company, Inc.
8-148
-------
APPENDIX A. EVOLUTION OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD
In June 1974, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
initiated a screening study of the asphalt roofing manufacturing (ARM)
industry. Based upon the results of the screening study conducted in
July 1974, standards development was initiated for the ARM category.
In July 1974 a literature survey was begun, and state and regional
air pollution control agencies and the industry were canvassed by tele-
phone and mail to obtain information on plant operations and to determine
which plants, if any, appeared to be well controlled. Plant visits were
then scheduled to those plants which appeared, from the survey informa-
tion, to be the best controlled. The purpose of the plant visits was to
obtain information on process details, quantitites of emissions, and
emission control equipment. The feasibility of conducting future emission
testing was also determined during the plant visits.
Significant events relating to the evolution of standards develop-
ment for ARM are itemized in the chronology below.
A.I CHRONOLOGY
The important events which have occurred in the development of
background information for a New Source Performance Standard for Asphalt
Roofing Manufacturing are depicted below in chronological order.
A-l
-------
Date
Activity
May 31, 1974
July 16, 1974
July 17, 1974
August 14, 1974
August 14, 1974
October 24, 1974
October 25, 1974
November 5, 1974
November 5, 1974
November 6, 1974
November 8, 1974
November 11, 1974
November 11, 1974
November 12, 1974
November 25, 1974
November 26, 1974
Project start date. Contract awarded
to MRI.
Literature and telephone surveys initiated.
Letters requesting information mailed to Texas
Air Control Board, LAAPCD, Bird and Son, Inc.,
Maryland Division of Air Quality, CertainTeed,
Johns-Manville, Commercial Testing and Engineer-
ing, and Valentine, Fisher, and Tomlinson.
Plant visit to GAP asphalt roofing plant,
Kansas City, Missouri.
Plant visit to CertainTeed asphalt roofing
plant, Kansas City, Missouri.
Plant visit to Celotex asphalt roofing plant,
Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Plant visit to Johns-Manville asphalt roofing
plant, Savannah, Georgia.
Plant visit to Lloyd A. Fry asphalt roofing
plant, Portland, Oregon.
Plant visit to Bird and Son asphalt roofing
plant, Portland, Oregon.
Plant visit to Malarkey asphalt roofing
plant, Portland, Oregon.
Plant visit to Bird and Son asphalt roofing
plant, Portland, Oregon.
Plant visit to Flintkote asphalt roofing
plant, Los Angeles, California.
Plant visit to Celotex asphalt roofing plant,
Los Angeles, California.
Plant visit to Johns-Manville asphalt roofing
plant, Los Angeles, California.
Plant visit to Johns-Manville asphalt roofing
plant, Waukegan, Illinois.
Plant visit to CertainTeed asphalt roofing
plant, Chicago Heights, Illinois.
A-2
-------
Date
November 27, 1974
December 17, 1974
January 23 & 24, 1975
March 10-13, 1975
April 9, 1975
April 22, 1975
May 1, 1975
May 6, 1975
May 13, 1975
May 14, 1975
May 15, 1975
May 15, 1975
May 28, 1975
June 3, 1975
June 4 & 5, 1975
June 12 & 13, 1975
Activity
Plant visit to Lloyd A. Fry asphalt roofing
plant, Summit, Illinois.
Plant visit to Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Test sites were selected.
Emission test at Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Preliminary model plants submitted to
Economics Analysis Branch (EAB).
Section 114 letters mailed to CertainTeed,
Lloyd A.Fry, 6AF, Bird and Son, Celotex,
Flintkote, Johns-Manville, Trumbull, and
Douglas Oil.
Pretest survey of Johns-Manville asphalt roofing
plant, Waukegan, Illinois.
Pretest survey of CertainTeed asphalt roofing
plant, Chicago Heights, Illinois.
Plant visit to Bird and Son asphalt roofing
plant, Portland, Oregon.
Plant visit to Bird and Son asphalt roofing
plant, Wilmington, California.
Pretest survey of Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Los Angeles, California.
Pretest survey of Johns-Manville asphalt
roofing plant, Los Angeles, California.
Plant visit to CertainTeed asphalt roofing
plant, Shakopee, Minnesota.
Pretest survey to Elk Roofing asphalt roofing
plant, Stephens, Arkansas.
Pretest survey to Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Fairfield, Alabama.
Emission test at Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Cincinnati, Ohio.
A-3
-------
Date
Activity
June 17, 1975
July 22 & 23, 1975
August 8, 1975
August 18-27, 1975
September 9-13, 1975
September 16-19, 1975
October 6-10, 1975
October 20-24, 1975
December 31, 1976
February 1, 1977
March 1, 1977, and
March 17, 1977
March 31, 1977
April 1, 1977
April 1, 1977
April 5, 1977
April 5, 1977
Pretest survey of CertainTeed asphalt
roofing plant, Shakopee, Minnesota.
Visible emission test conducted at
CertainTeed asphalt roofing plant,
Chicago Heights, Illinois.
Plant visit to Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Fairfield, Alabama.
Emission tests on asphalt blowing operation
at Elk Roofing, Stephens, Arkansas.
Emission test at CertainTeed asphalt roofing
plant, Shakopee, Minnesota.
Emission test at Johns-Manville asphalt
roofing plant, Waukegan, Illinois.
Emission test at Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Fairfield, Alabama.
Emission test at Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Los Angeles, California.
Contractor activity terminated.
Effort begun to locate additional well-
controlled blowing stills for testing.
Section 114 letters requesting additional
information on asphalt blowing mailed to GAF;
Chevron, USA; Exxon; Jim Walters; Global Oil;
Douglas Oil; and Trumbull Oil.
Plant visit to Lundy-Thagard Oil asphalt
blowing operation, Southgate, California.
Plant visit to Douglas Oil asphalt blowing
operation, Paramount, California.
Plant visit to Hirt Combustion Engineers,
Montebello, California.
Plant visit to Trumbull Asphalt asphalt
blowing operation, Martinez, California.
Plant visit to Global Oil asphalt blowing
operation, Pittsburgh, California.
A-4
-------
Date
April 6, 1977
April, 1977
June 9, 1977
April, 1978
October 15, 1978
November 9, 1978
December 13, 1978
January 18, 1979
January 18, 1979
February 14, 1979
March 19, 1979
March 23, 1979
March 27, 1979
April 4, 1979
May 1, 1979
Activity
Plant visit to Chevron, USA, Asphalt
Division, asphalt blowing operation,
Portland, Oregon.
Report on impact of NSPS on 1985 National
Emissions from Stationary Sources by The
Research Council of New England (TRC).
New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)
Development Program activity on hold
because of other priorities.
Report on priorities for NSPS under the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 by
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL).
NSPS Development program activity resumed.
Meeting to initiate new contract and to
establish the present status of the study.
Plant visit to Celotex asphalt roofing
plant, Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Plant visit to GAP asphalt roofing
plant, Kansas City, Missouri.
Plant visit to CertainTeed asphalt roofing
plant, Kansas City, Missouri.
Concurrence meeting for pollutants
and facilities.
Plant visit to CertainTeed asphalt roofing
plant, Oxford, North Carolina.
Section 114 letters sent to CertainTeed
and Flintkote.
Plant visit to Flintkote asphalt roofing
plant, Peachtree City, Georgia.
Meeting with Owens-Corning to discuss status
of plants recently acquired from
Lloyd A. Fry.
Section 114 letter to Owens-Corning.
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
This appendix consists of a reference system, cross-indexed with
the October 21, 1974 FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR 37419) containing the Agency
guidelines concerning the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements.
This index can be used to identify sections of the document which contain
data and information germane to any portion of the FEDERAL REGISTER
guidelines.
B-l
-------
Appendix B
CROSS-INDEXED REFERENCE SYSTEM TO HIGHLIGHT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT
Agency Guidelines for Preparing
Regulatory Action Environmental
Impact Statements (39 FR 37419)
Location Within the Background
Information Document
1. Background and Description of
Proposed Action
Summary of Proposed Standard
Statutory Basis for the
Proposed Standard
Relationship to Other
Regulatory Agency Actions
Industry Affected by the
Proposed Standard
Specific Processes Affected
by the Standard
The proposed standard is summarized
in chapter 1, section 1.1.
The statutory basis for the proposed
is summarized in chapter 2.
The relationships between the
proposed standard and other
regulatory agency actions are
summarized in chapter 8, section 8.3.
A discussion of the industry
affected by the standard is
presented in chapter 3, section 3.1.
Further details covering the
business and economic nature of the
industry are presented in chapter 8,
section 8.1.
The specific processes and facilities
affected by the proposed standard
are summarized in chapter 1,
section 1.1. A detailed technical
discussion of the processes
affected by the proposed standard
is presented in chapter 3,
section 3.2. A discussion of the
rationale for selecting these
particular processes or facilities
is presented in chapter 9, section 9.2.
8-2
-------
Appendix B
CROSS-INDEXED REFERENCE SYSTEM TO HIGHLIGHT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT (continued)
Agency Guidelines for Preparing
Regulatory Action Environmental
Impact Statements (39 FR 37419)
Location Within the Background
Information Document
2. Alternatives to the Proposed
Action
Control Techniques
Regulatory Alternatives
Environmental Impact of
Alternatives
3.
Environmental Impact of the
Proposed Standard
Primary Impacts Directly
Attributable to the Action
Secondary or Induced Impacts
The alternative control techniques
are discussed in chapter 4,
sections 4.2 and 4.3.
The various regulatory alternatives
including "no additional regulatory
action" are defined in chapter 6,
section 6.2. A summary of the
major alternatives considered is
included in chapter 1, section 1.3.
The environmental impact of each
regulatory alternative is
presented in chapter 7, sections 7.1
through 7.5. A summary of the
environmental impacts associated
with the various alternatives is
presented in chapter 1, section 1.2.
The primary impacts on mass
emissions and ambient air quality
due to the alternative control
systems are discussed in chapter 7,
sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and
7.5. A matrix summarizing the
environmental and economic impacts
is included in chapter 1.
Secondary impacts for the various
regulatory alternatives are
discussed in chapter 7, sections 7.1,
7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5.
B-3
-------
Appendix B
CROSS-INDEXED REFERENCE SYSTEM TO HIGHLIGHT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PORTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT (continued)
Agency Guidelines for Preparing
Regulatory Action Environmental
Impact Statements (39 FR 37419)
Location Within the Background
Information Document
4. Other Considerations
A summary of the potential adverse
environmental impacts associated
with the proposed standard is
included in chapter 1, section 1.2
and chapter 7. Potential socio-
economic and inflationary impacts
are discussed in chapter 8,
section 8.5. Irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of
resources are discussed in
chapter 7, section 7.6.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
C.I INTRODUCTION
The asphalt roofing manufacturing industry was surveyed by EPA
personnel to identify those plants and facilities at which to conduct
tests to evaluate techniques for controlling particulate emissions related
to processes in the asphalt roofing industry. Several plants were
selected and tested for organic particulate emissions. Since many of the
mineral handling and storage operations for limestone, traprock, and mica
at asphalt roofing plants are similar to the screening, conveying, and
storage of mineral products at non-metallic mineral processing plants, it
was decided to transfer selected control technology for inorganic parti-
culate from this industry to the asphalt roofing manufacturing industry.
This Appendix contains emission test data obtained from asphalt roofing
plants and selected emission test data obtained from non-metallic mineral
processing plants.
C.2 EMISSION TEST PROGRAM FOR MANUFACTURE OF ASPHALT ROOFING
A source testing program was undertaken by EPA personnel to evaluate
techniques for controlling particulate emissions related to processes in
the asphalt roofing manufacturing industry. Plant process facilities
tested included asphalt storage tanks, blowing stills, saturators, and
coaters. These tests included sampling and analyses of particulate,
polycyclic organic matter (POM), hydrocarbons (HC), S09, NOY, aldehydes,
C. A
c-i
-------
and CO. In this Appendix, the facilities tested and the test methods
used are identified. The results of emission tests and visible emission
observations, as well as the characteristics of exhaust gas streams are
summarized in Tables C-l to C-23 and Figures C-l to C-9. The individual
sections of the processing equipment which are controlled and the type of
control device, or devices, for each plant tested are also discussed
later in this Appendix.
Particulate sampling was conducted using the EPA Test Method 26 for
asphalt roofing plants. Outlet gaseous hydrocarbon measurements were
made using a Flame-Ionization Detector (FID) by monitoring the gas sampled
in the EPA Method 26 train at a point between the filter and the first
impinger. Continuous measurements of NOV and SO, concentration levels
A C.
*
were made using a Dynascience electrochemical SOp analyzer. Total POM
was measured utilizing the EPA Method 26 train in conjunction with a POM
collection column developed by Battelle Columbus Laboratory (BCL). EPA
Reference Method 3 was used for Orsat analysis. Analysis of C02 and 02
was by Orsat; CO concentration was determined by Nondispersive Infrared
(NDIR) measurements. Determinations of aldehyde concentration were made
utilizing the Los Angeles Wet Chemistry Method.
Visible emission observations were made at the exhaust of each of the
control devices in accordance with procedures recommended in EPA Reference
Method 9 for visual determination of the opacity of emissions from
stationary sources.
Mention of a specific company or product does not constitute endorsement
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
C-2
-------
Fugitive emissions were read at the points specified in the tables
and figures. An attempt was made to quantify the fugitive emissions by
recording the duration and intensity of the emissions from the sources.
C.2.1 Description of Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Facilities Tested
C.2.1.1 Facility A
Facility A was operating the shingle manufacturing line at a produc-
tion rate of 27.85 Mg/hr (30.7 tph) during the emission tests. Emission
sources sampled on the shingle manufacturing line included: dip-type
saturator, drying-in drum section, wet looper, and coater. All of these
sources were ducted via a manifold to two modular electrostatic precipi-
tators.
Visible emissions were observed at the exhaust of each of the two
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) stacks. Fugitive emissions were
observed at the saturator section, at the drying-in drum section, and at
the coating section of the production line. Particulates, HC, and POM
were measured at the inlet and outlet of the ESP's.
The results of the emission tests at Facility A are contained in
Figure 1 and in Tables C-l to C-3a.
C.2.1.2 Facility B
The production rate of the shingle manufacturing line at Facility B
was 37.0 Mg/hr (40.8 tph) during the emission test program. Emission
sources sampled on the shingle manufacturing line at Facility B included
the dip-type saturator, drying-in section, and coater. All of the sources
were controlled by two afterburner units. One of these units (unit 2)
also controlled emissions from a surge tank and six asphalt storage
tanks.
C-3
-------
Visible emissions were recorded for each of the two afterburner
outlet stacks, and fugitive emissions escaping the capture hoods were
recorded for the saturator area of the asphalt production line. Emissions
were measured for particulates, HC, gas composition, NOX> SCL, aldehydes,
and POM.
Results of the emission tests at Facility B are given in Figure 2
and in Tables C-4 to C-9.
C.2.1.3 Facility C
The shingle production rate at Facility C during the emission tests
was 26.31 Mg/hr (29.0 tph). Emission sources tested were the spray-dip
saturator, drying-in section, wet looper, and the coater. All of these
sources were controlled by a high velocity air filtration (HVAF) unit.
The same HVAF unit also controlled emissions from the main asphalt storage
tank and seven process storage tanks.
Visible emissions were observed and recorded at the filter outlet
stack discharge. Fugitive emissions were observed around the saturator
capture hoods and around the HVAF inlet ductwork. Half of the saturator
readings were made at the spray-dip portion and the other half at the
strike-in/coater section.
Other tests made at the inlet and outlet of the filter unit included
particulate, gaseous hydrocarbon, POM, and S02-
The results of the emission tests at Facility C are given in
Figures C-3 to C-7 and in Tables C-10 to C-14.
C.2.1.4 Facility D
The shingle manufacturing line at Facility D was operating at a
production rate of 43.27 Mg/hr (47.7 tph) during the emission tests. The
C-4
-------
emission sources sampled were the dip-type saturator, the drying-in
section, and the wet looper. Emissions from these sources were
controlled by a high velocity air filter (HVAF).
The visible emissions were recorded at the asphalt truck unloading
area and at the HVAF outlet stack. Fugitive emissions were recorded at
each end of the saturator capture hoods. Emission tests were also
conducted to determine particulate and gaseous hydrocarbon levels.
The results of the emission tests at Facility D are contained in
Figure C-8 and in Tables C-15 and C-16.
C.2.1.5 Facility E
The emission sources sampled at Facility E were two asphalt blowing
o
(or oxidation) stills with a blowing capacity of 36.34 m (9,600 gal.)
each. The blowing durations were 1-1/2 hours for saturant blows and
4-1/2 hours for coating blows. Each still was equipped with a knock-out
chamber, and one afterburner was used for controlling emissions from the
stills.
Visible emission observations were recorded at the afterburner stack
by two observers. Emissions were also measured for particulates, HC,
NOX, S02, aldehydes, and POM.
The results of the emission testing program at Facility E are
contained in Figures C-9 and in Tables C-17 to C-22a.
C.2.1.6 Facility F
Emission tests were conducted at Facility F to determine the opacity
of stack emissions from the mist eliminator that controlled emissions
from the asphalt storage systems. Two main storage tanks, one flux tank,
and four work tanks were ducted to the same mist eliminator.
C-5
-------
Visible emission tests were made of the exhaust stack effluent from
the mist eliminator. The results are contained in Table C-23.
C.3 EMISSION TEST PROGRAM FOR SELECTED NON-METALLIC MINERAL PROCESSES
A source testing program was undertaken by EPA to evaluate
techniques available for controlling particulate emissions from non-
metallic mineral plant process facilities including screens and material
handling operations, especially conveyor transfer points. This Appendix
describes the facilities tested (their operating conditions and character-
istics of exhaust gas streams) and summarizes the results of the
particulate emission tests and visible emission observations.
Five baghouse collectors controlling process facilities at five
crushed stone installations (two limestone, one mica, and two traprock)
were tested using EPA Reference Method 5, except as noted in the facility
descriptions, for determination of particulate matter from stationary
sources. The results are summarized in Tables C-24 to C-32.
Fugitive and visible emission observations were made in accordance
with procedures recommended in EPA Reference Method 9 for visual determin-
ation of the opacity of emissions from stationary sources. Visible
emission observations were made at the exhaust of each control device and
fugitive emission observations at hoods and collection points for process
facilities. The data are presented in terms of percent of time equal to
or greater than a given opacity.
C-6
-------
C.3.1 Description of Selected Non-Metallic Mineral Process Facilities
Tested
C.3.1.1 Facility G
The production unit sampled at Facility G was the conveyor transfer
point at the tail of an overland conveyor for crushed limestone. The
conveyor had a 227 kg/s (900 tph) capacity using a 76.2 cm (30-inch) belt
at a speed of 3.6 m/s (700 fpm). The transfer point was enclosed, and
emissions were vented to a small baghouse unit for collection. Three
particulate sampling tests were conducted. Visible emission observations
were made at the baghouse outlet and at the transfer point. The results
are given in Tables C-24 to C-25a.
C.3.1.2 Facility H
At Facility H the production units sampled were two 3-deck vibrating
screens. These screens, used for the final sizing of limestone, were
operated at a rate of 31.5 kg/s (125 tph). Particulate emissions
collected from the top of both screens, at the feed to both screens, and
at both the head and tail of a shuttle conveyor between the screens were
vented to a mechanical shaker-type baghouse. The results are given in
Tables C-26 to C-27A.
C.3.1.3 Facility J
The finishing screen for traprock at Facility J was totally enclosed.
and was operated at a rate of 63 kg/s (250 tph). Emissions collected
from the top of the screen enclosure, from all screen discharge points,
and from several conveyor transfer points were vented to a fabric filter.
The results are given in Tables C-28 to C-29a.
C-7
-------
C.3.1.4 Facility K
Five screens used for final sizing of traprock and eight storage
bins were tested at Facility K. This facility processed traprock at a
rate of 94.5 kg/s (375 tph). All screens and bins were totally enclosed,
and emissions were vented to a jet pulse-type baghouse for collection.
The results are given in Tables C-30 to C-31a.
C.3.1.5 Facility L
The bagging operation used to package ground mica was sampled at
Facility L. Particulate emissions were controlled by a baghouse.
Fugitive emission observations were made at the capture point. The
results are given in Table C-32.
C-8
-------
TP 1
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Module 2
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Module 1
Figure C-l. Schematic of ducting arrangement and test points (TP)
Plant A
C-9
-------
Table C-l. Plant A. Visible Emissions Composite Summaries for October 7, 1975.
40
>»
4J
O
30
20
10
c
Ol
-------
Table C-l (Cont). Plant A. Visible Emissions Composite Summaries for October 8, 1975.
IT
Z
r
T
o
-------
Table C-l (Cont). Plant A. Visible Emissions Composite Summaries for October 9, 1975
I
rr
i TTTF
40
o
(O
0.
0 30
OJ
o
d)
20
10
i rr
Time - Hours
Outlet Stack TP-3, Observers 1 and 3
i
I
40
o
(O
C
a)
o
j_
0)
30
20
10
I '
i I i I i
II1!
Time - Hours
Outlet Stack TP-2, Observers 2 and 4
C-12
-------
Table C-l (Cont). Plant A. Visible Emissions Composite Summaries for October 9, 1975
«40
£>
o
»-
' 30
+-•
c
OJ
I?
•o. 20
10
40
1
o
ro
Q. Tn
K
o
_ J_
•• ni on
•£ ^°
•
0
rn~
1
i
T'TTT
I
i
I
1
1
!
-
~ IL.
i
i
!
i
i
1 |
i
n
1 !
1
1
i
1
1
I
1
I
1
12 3
Time - Hours
Saturator/Coater Hood, Observers 1 and 2
i
1
1
1
i
i i
i
I
l
i i
l i
i i
1
1
1
1 1
ii;
i
i
•i
i
i
i
|
j
1 l 1
1
III . l.<_i. «.
-------
Table C-2. PARTICULATE AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION
EMISSION DATA SUMMARY - PLANT A
AND
(METRIC)
Run Number Run 1 . Run 2 Run 3 Run 4
Location Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet
Date 10/7/75 10/7/75 10/8/75 10/8/75 10/8/75 10/8/75 10/10/75 10/10/75
Volume of Gas Sampled (Nm3) a 2.86 5.98 2.90 5.66 3.14 5.76 3.17 5.82
Percent Moisture by Volume 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.2 2.7
Average Stack Temperature— (°C) 51.6 54.4 51.1 56.1 57.2 64.4 48.3 54.4
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate— (ta3/s) 11.98 ' 12.09 12.39 11.79 12.48 11.65 12.47 11.83
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-(m3/s) C 13.80 13.99 14J9 13.67 14.48 13.82 14.08 13.63
Percent Isokinetic 97.2 100.3 101.2 100.4 102.5 100.3 103.5 99.7
Percent Opacity Average d --- 3.6 — 0 — 0 — - 0(10/9/75)
Production Rates Mg/Hr ... --- — — — - —
Particulates — probe, cyclone,
and filter catch
mg 530.30 127.8 423.30 29.4 489.60 61.8 352.70 22.1
(kg/Nm3 x 10"3) 0.19 0.02 0.15 0.006 0.16 0.01 0.11 0.004
(kg/m3 x 10"3) 0.16 0.02 0.13 0.004 0.13 0.009 0.10 0.003
.(kg/s x 10~4) 22.2 2.60 18.00 0.6 19.40 1.20' 13.90 0.40
Particulates, kg per Mg
Collection Efficiency, Percent 88.3 96.6 93.6 96.8
Gaseous Hydrocarbons
Averaae Results
Weighted Average Value, ppmv 42.8 50.6 43.7 50.3 38.1 43 2 39 3 42 7
as CH4 e
(kg/Hm x 10" ) 0.029 0.035 0.030 0.034 0.026 0.030 0.027 0.029
(kg/s x 10" ) 3.49 4.18 3.69 4.03 3.23 3.41 3.31 3.43
Collection Efficiency, Percent
(based on weighted P'^^/s)
average) 0 000
Averaae
Inlet Outlet
3.02 5.80
2.4 2.8
52.2 57.8
12.33 11.84
14.14 13.78
101.1 100.2
1.0
28.15
449.00 60.28
0.15 0.01
0.13 0.009
18.40 1.2
0.235 0.015
93.8
41.0 46.7
0.028 0.032
3.44 3.77
0_
•'Normal cubic meters at 21.1°C, 101.7 x ~\Q Pa.
b Normal cubic meters per second at 21.TC, 101.7 x 10 Pa.
c Actual cubic meters per second.
** Average of 6-ninute interval averages per date; opacity reading times do not coincide with particulate test tines.
e Parts per million, by volume.
f Includes data from both outlet stacks (TP-2 and TP-3).
C-14
-------
Table 0-2a. PARTICIPATE AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION AND
EMISSION DATA SUMMARY - PLANT A
(ENGLISH)
Run Number
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Average
Location
Inlet
Outlet Inlet
Outlet Inlet
Outlet Inlet
Outlet f Inlet Outlet f
Date
Volume of Gas Sampled—DSCF a
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature—0?
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate--OSCFM
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate—ACFK C
Percent Isokinetic
d
Percent Opacity Average
Feed Rate--ton/hr
Particulates—probe, cyclone,
and filter catch
mg
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/Ton
Collection Efficiency, Percent
Gaseous Hydrocarbons
2.7
10/7/75 10/7/75 10/8/75 10/8/75 10/8/75 10/8/75 10/10/75 10/10/75
100.92 211.03 102.54 199.74 110.76 203.29 111.83 205.39
2.8 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.2
125. 130. 124. 133. 135. 148. 119.
25,389. 25,615. 26.255. 24,990. 26.438. 24,679. 26,422.
29,248. 29,644. 30.070. 28,959. 30.683. 29,290. 29.840.
97.2 100.3 101.2 100.4 102.5 100.3 103.5
3.6 — 0 — 0
106.51 204.87
2.4 2.8
130. 126. 136.
25,073. 26,131. 25^089.
28,881. 29.959. 29.194.
99.7 101.1 100.2
0(10/9/75) — 1.0
31.03
530.30 127.8 423.30 29.4 489.60 61.8 352.70
0.0809 0.00931 0.0635 0.00227 0.0681 0.00469 0.0486
0.0702 0.00804 0.0555 0.00196 0.0586 0.00395 0.0430
17.61 2.06 14.31 0.48 15.43 0.99 11.00
88.3
96.6
93.6
96.8
22.1 449.00 60.28
0.00166 0.0653 0.00448
0.00144 0.0568 0.00385
0.35 14.59 0.97
0.47 0.03
93.8
Average Results
Weighted Average Value, ppmv
as CH4 e 42.8 50.6 43.7 50.3 38.1 43.2 39.3 42.7
gr/DSCF 0.0127 0.0151 0.0130 0.0150 0.0113 0.0129 0.0116 0.0127
Ib/hr 2.77 3.32 2.93 3.20 2.56 2.71 2.63 2.72
Collection Efficiency, Percent
(based on weighted OSCFM average) _0 _Q _0 _0
41.0 46.7
0.0122 0.0139
2.73 2.99
0
b Dry standard cubfe feet at 70°F, 29.92 In. Hg.
e Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 70"F, 29.92 In. Hg.
j Actual cubic feet per minute.
e Average of 6-mimjte interval averages per date; opacity reading times do not coincide with partlculate test times.
I Parts per million, by volume.
Includes data from both outlet stacks (TP-2 and TP-3).
C-15
-------
Table C-3. PARTICIPATE POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER CONCENTRATION AND EMISSION DATA SUMMARY - PLANT A
(METRIC)
Samolino Location
Inlet (TP-1)
(Sampled Stack)
Outlet (TP-3)
Outlet (TP-2) a
Estimated Values
Combined Tota
Flow Conditions
For Outlet Stacks
I
ions
Date
Volume of Gas Sampled--(Nm ) a
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature—(°C)
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate--(Nu /s) b
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate—(m /s) c
Percent Isokinetic
Particulate--
Po'iycyclic Qroanic Matter
10/9/75
•
2.25
2.1
58.3
12.47
106.7
uQ
2.81
2.2
58.9
5.67
6.57
99.7
2.2
58.9
6.07
7.05
2.2
58.9
11.74
13.62
Concentration
(ka/m3 x 10'9)
Emission Rate
(ka/s x 10-')
I
Location
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet (TP-? •*• T°-
Cc.-oonent
Anthracene/Phenanthrene 51.2 44.8
Methyl anthracenes 181.8 102.2
Fluoranthene 0.950 6.25
Pyrene 7.40 2.90
Methyl Pyrene/Fluoranthene 4.00 20.9
3enzo(c)phenanthrene 0.350 Non Detected
Chrysene/Benz(a)anthracene 8.30 0.700
Methyl chrysenes 21.8 0.350
Benzo fluoranthenes 5.30 0.350
Ser.z(a)pyrene)
Benz(e)pyrene) 13.5 0.900
Totals 294.6 179.4
Collection Efficiency, Percent
22.70
80.55
0.41
3.27
1.78
0.156
3.68
9.66
2.36
6.00
(13.07)
15.90
36.16
2.22
1.03
7.41
NO
0.25
0.12
0.12
0.32
(6.36)
2.83
10.04
0.05
0.40
0.23
0.02
0.45
1.21
0.29
1.86
. 4.25
0.25
0.12
0.87
NO
0.029
0.015
0.015
0.74 0.04
16.25 7.46
54.1
'.'loraal cubic r.eters at 21.1'C, 101.7 x 10 Pa.
bNoraal cubic meters oer second at 21.IT, 101.7 x 10^ Pa.
cActual cubic meters per second.
d Average N.i, at TP-2 outlet stack during 4 (four) partlculate tests was 6.6 sercent higher than
flow fron TP-3 stack. M3/s was 5.9 percent higher. These values were used to estimate total outlet flow.
e3enro(a) and Senzo(e)pyrene analysis combined and reported as one value.
C-16
-------
TABLE C-3a. PARTICULAR
POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER CONCENTRATION AND EMISSION DATA SUMMARY - PLANT A
(ENGLISH)
Sampling Location • Inlet (TP-1)
Date 10/9/75
Volume of Gas Sampled— DSCF * 79.48
Percent Moisture by Volume 2.1
Average Stack Temperature— °F 137.
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate— OSCFM b 26,416.
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM C 30,625.
Percent Isokinetic 106.7
Paniculate—
Polycyclic Oroanic Matter uq
Samolino Location Inlet Outlet
Component
Anthracene/Phenanthrene 51.2 44.8
Methyl anthracenes 181.8 102.2
Fluoranthene 0.950 6.25
Pyrene 7.40 2.90
Methyl Pyrene/Fluoranthene 4.00 20.9
Benzo(c)phenanthrene 0.350 Non Detected
Chrysene/Benz(a)anthracene 8.30 0.700
Methyl chrysenes 21.8 0.350
Benzo fluoranthenes 5.30 0.350
Benz(a)pyrene) e
J V
Benz(e)pyrene) 13.5 0.900
Totals 294.6 179.4
Collection Efficiency, Percent
. Comoineo Total
(Sampled Stack) Outlet (TP-2) Flow Conditions
Outlet (TP-3) Estimated Values For Outlet Stacks
99.30
Z-2 2.2 2.2
138. ' 138. 138.
12,009. 12.858. 24,867.
13,914. 14,946. 28,860.
99.7
Concentration Emission Rate
gr/OSCF x 10"6 Ib/hr x 10-3
Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet (TP-2 * TP-3) d
9.92 6.95 2.25 1.48
35.2 15.8 7.97 3.37
0.18 0.97 0.04 0.21
1.43 0.45 0.32 0.096
0.78 3.24 0.18 0.69
0.068 NO 0.015 NO
1.61 0.11 0-36 0.023
4.22 0.054 0.96 0.012
1.03 0.054 0.23 0.012
2.62 0.14 0.59 0.030
5.71 x 10"6 2.78 x 10"6 12.9 x 10° 5.92 x 10"3
54.1
* Dry standard cubic feet at 70°F, 29.92 1n. Hg.
Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 70"F. 29.92 1n. Hg.
Actual cubic feet per minute.
Average DSCFM at TP-2 outlet stack during 4 (four) paniculate tests was 6.6 percent higher than
flow from TP-3 stack. ACFM was 6.9 percent higher. These values were used to estimate total outlet flow.
Benzo(a) and 8enzo(e)pyrene analysis combined and reported as one value.
C-17
-------
TP4
Outlet
TP2
Outlet
Afterburner
TP6
Recovery
oil drain
?TP6
Recovery
oil drain
TPI
Inlet
Saturator and Coater Enclosure
Figure C-2. BLOCK DIAGRAM SHOWING RELATIVE LOCATIONS
OF PROCESS COMPONENTS AND SAMPLE POINTS
Plant B
C-18
-------
Table C-4. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION DATA - PLANT B
24 hr Clock
Date Time
9-9-75 0935-1230
9-9-75 0935-1230
9-9-75 1425-1830
9-9-75 1425-1830
9-11-75 0935-1230
9-11-75 0935-1230
9-11-75 1330-1640
9-11-75 1330-1640
9-12-75 0900-1930
9-12-75 0900-1930
Discharge Dist. to Source Direction Wind Wind Velocity
Observer Area Meters Feet From Source Direction M/ s MPH
1 A 9.14 30 S SE 3.6-6.7 8-15
2 A 9.14 30 S SE 3.6-6.7 8-15
1 A 9.14 30 S - SE 2.2-6.7 5-15
2 A 9.14 30 S SE 2.2-6.7 5-15
1 B 15.24 50 E N-NW 3.6-6.7 8-15
2 B 15.24 50 E N-NW 3.6-6.7 8-15
1 B 15.24 50 S NW 4.5-8.9 10-20
2 B 15.24-18.3 50-60 S NW 4.5-8.9 10-20
1 C 3.05-6.1 10-20 N * * *
2 C 3.05-6.1 10-20 N * * *
Heather
Overcast
Partly Cloudy
Overcast
Partly Cloudy
NA
NA
Partly Cloudy
Partly Cloudy
Overcast
Partly Cloudy
Overcast
Partly Cloudy
*
Background
Gray Clouds and
Light Blue Sky
Gray Clouds and
Light Blue Sky
NA
NA
White Brick Building
White Brick Building
White, Gray Clouds,
Blue Sky
White, Gray Clouds,
Blue Sky
Green and White
Doors and Hood
Green and White
Doors and Hood and
Gray Machinery
175 rain-0%
175 min-0%
245 min-0%
245 min-0%
150 min-0%
150 min-0%
190 min-0%
190 min-0%
331 min 30 sec- 0%
8 min 15 sec- 5%
3 min 15 sec-10%
4 min 45 sec-15%
13 min 0 sec-20%
6 min 0 sec-25%
7 min 30 sec-30%
1 min 0 sec-35%
0 min 15 sec-40%
338 min 0 sec- 0%
18 min 30 sec- 5%
9 min 0 sec-10%
0 min 45 sec-15%
5 min 0 sec-20%
4 min 15 sec-30%
Notes: * Indoors
NA Not Applicable
Discharge Area A - Test Point 4 (Outlet)
Discharge Area B - Test Point 2 (Outlet)
Discharge Area C - Saturator Hood, Hot Looper, Coaler Section.
-------
TABLE C-5. SUMMARY Of PARTICULATE AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION AND EMISSION RATES
PLANT B (METRIC)
AFTERBURNER NUMBER I.
O
I
ro
o
Date
Volume gas sampled, Nin
Percent moisture by volume
Stack temperature, °C
Stack volumetric flow rate, Ha /sb
Stack volumetric flow rate, ni /s°
Percent Isokenetic
Production rate
Partlculates — probe, cyclone, and
filter catch
"9
g/Ni»
9/m3
kg/h
kg/My
Collection efficiency, percent
Individual runs
Gaseous hydrocarbons, average results
Weighted average value, ppmv as CH.
kg/Nra3
kg/h
Collection efficiency percent
TP-I
1
9-9-75
2.55
3.0
43
3.8
4.26
95.7
1.210.7
0.475
0.423
6.480
71.3
0.048
0.695
TP-2
1
9-9-75
2.35
3.4
290
6.35
12.80
108.8
134.9
0.058
0.029
1.296
79.7
64.9
0.043
0.990
0
TP-I
2
9-11-75
2.55
2.0
101
3.59
4.76
102.1
879.6
0.345
0.260
4.392
67.6
0.046
0.580
TP-2
2
9-11-75
3.24
2.5
273
6.29
12.18
108.6
147.3
0.046
0.024
1.008
76.5
25.2
0.016
0.382
34.4
TP-1
3
9-12-75
3.18
1.8
103
3.71
4.91
95.7
1,321.7
0.416
0.314
5.508
67.7
0.046
0.601
TP-2
3
9-12-75
3.13
1.4
277
6.46
12.42
102.1
182.6
0.059
0.030
1.404
75.4
NO
NO
NO
NO
Average/3
TP-1
2.76
2.3
82
3.70
4.64
97.8
36.9Mg/h
1.137.3
0.412
0.332
5.508
0.145
77.
68.9
0.046
0.612
runs
TP-2
2.91
2.4
280
6.37
12.47
106.5
154.9
0.054
0.028
1.188
0.004
2
45.1
0.030
0.684
?Dry standard cubic meters at 20°C. 101.7 x 103 Pa. ,-
"Dry standard cubic meters per minute at 20°C, 1.017 x 10 Pa.
.Actual cubic meters per minute. r
Dry standard cubic meters per minute at 20°C, 1.017 x 10 Pa.
-------
TABLE C-S. SUMMARY OF PARTICIPATE AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION AND EMISSION RATES
PLANT B (METRIC)
AFTERBURNER NUMBER 2
O
I
O
o>
Date
Volume gas sampled, ton a
Percent moisture by volume
Stack temperature, °C
Stack volumetric flow rate. Nni /s
Stack volumetric flow rate, m /sc
Percent isokenetlc
Production rate
Partlculates — probe, cyclone, and
filter catch
ing
g/Nm3
g/m3
kg/h
kg/Mg
Collection efficiency, percent
Individual runs
Gaseous hydrocarbons, average results
Weighted average value, ppmv as CH.
kg/Urn3
kg/h
Collection efficiency, percent
TP-3
1
9-9-75
1.47
5.7
101
3.03
4.13
100.8
17,274.7
11.76
8.61
355.0
171.2
121
3.50
TP-4
1
9-9-75
3.10
4.6
366
5.96
13.69
101.0
57.7
0.019
0.008
1.1
99;7J
78.0
0.055
3.11
10.8
TP-3-2
TP-5-4
9-11-75
3.79
3.6e
86e
3.53
4.57
101. 8e
1.805.1
0.402e
0.310e
14.2
120. 5f
0.089
3.289
TP-4
2
9-11-75
3.19
3.0-
377
6.28
14.56
99.0
50.3
0.016
0.007
1.1
92.9
77.7
0.053
3.25
i.o"
'
TP-3
3
9-12-75
2.72
4.3
94
3.29
4.37
97.2
2.208.2
0.815
0.614
26.7
92. 9J
110.7
0.076
2.44
0
TP-4
3
9-12-75
2.88
2.8
347
6.10
13.32
91.7
89.5
0.031
0.014
1.9
66.1
0.046
2.69
Average/3
TP-3. TP-5
2.66
4.5
94
3.28
4.36
99.9
36.9 Mg/h
7.096.0
4.33
3.18
132.0
1.28
95.
134.1
0.096
3.08
^
runs
TP-4
3.05
3.5
363
6.11
13.86
97.2
65.8
0.022
0.009
1.4
0.015
.2
73.9
0.050
3.03
*
?0ry standard cubic meters at 20°C, 101.7 x 10 Pa. ,
"Dry standard cubic meters per minute at 20°C, 1.017 x 10 Pa.
.Actual cubic meters per minute. s
Dry standard cubic meters per minute at 20°C, 1.0)7 x 10 Pa:
Weighted average of runs TP-3-2 and TP-5-4.
'Weighted average of runs TP-3-2 with average runs TP-5-2 and TP-5-3.
PTP-5-2 and TP-5-3 averaged and added to TP-3-2 for combined kg/s.
"Based on weighted Nn> /s.
-------
TABLE C-5a. SUMMARY OF PAKTICULATE AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATION AND EMISSION RATES
PLANT B (ENGLISH)
AFTERBURNER NUMBER 1
O
ro
Date
Volume gas sampled, dscfd
Percent moisture by volume
Stack temperature, °F
Stack volumetric flow rate. OSCFHb
Stack volumetric flow rate. ACFH°
Percent Isokenetic
Production rate
Participates — probe, cyclone, and
filter catch
my
gr/OSCF
gr/ACF
)b/h
tb/ton
Collection efficiency, percent
Individual runs
Gaseous hydrocarbons, average results
Weighted average value, ppmv as CH^
ur/OSCF
Ib/h
Collection efficiency, percent
TP-1
1
9-9-75
90.1
3.0
111
8.043
9.035
95.7
1.210.7
0.207
0.184
14.3
71.3
0.021
1.45
TP-2
1
9-9-75
83.0
3.4
555
13.452
27,118
108.8
134.9
0.025
0.012
2.9
79.7
64.9
0.019
2.19
0
TP-1
2
9-11-75
90.2
2.0
. 214
7.599
10,077
102.)
879.6
0.150
0.113
9.8
67.6
0.020
1.28
TP-2
2
9-11-75
114.3
2.5
524
,13.318
25,810
108.6
147.3
0.020
0.010
2.3
76.5
25.2
0.007
0.84
34.4
TP-1
3
9-12-75
112.4
1.8
218
7.860
10,394
95.7
1.321.7
0.181
0.137
12.2
67.7
0.020
1.33
TP-2
3
9-12-75
110.5
1.4
532
13.693
26,322
102.)
182.6
0.025
0.013
3.0
75.4
NDk
ND
NO
ND
Average/3
TP-1
97.6
2.3
181
7.834 13
9.835 26
97.8
40.7 tons/h
,1.137.3
0.179
0.145
12.1
0.29
77.
68.9
0.020
1.35
runs
TP-2
102.6
2.4
537
.488
.417
106.5
154.9
0.023
0.012
2.7
0.07
7
45.1
0.013
1.52
fDry standard cubic feet at 70°F. 29.92 In. Hg.
"Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 70°F, 29.92 in. llg.
^Actual cubic feet per minute.
ppmv - parts per mil)ion by volume.
Weighted average of runs TP-3-2 and TP-5-4.
'weighted average of runs TP-3-2 with average of runs TP-5-2 and TP-5-3.
jjTP-5-2 and TP-5-3 averaged and added to TP-3-2 for combined Ib/h.
.Based on weighted average.
^Damper closed.
ND = no data.
-------
TABLE C-5a. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE AND GASEOUS IIVDROCARBON CONCENTRATION AND EMISSION RATES
PLANT B (ENGLISH)
AFTERBURNER NUMBER 2
O
I
ro
i—«
fu
Date
Volume gas sampled, dscfa
Percent moisture by volume
Stack temperature, °F
Stack volumetric flow rate, DSCFM1"
Stack volumetric flow rate, ACFMC
Percent Isokenettc
Production rate
Partlculates — probe, cyclone, and
filter catch.
mg
gr/USCF
gr/ACF
Ib/h
Ib/ton
Collection efficiency, percent
Individual runs
Gaseous hydrocarbons, average results
Weighted average value, ppmv as CH.
gr/l)SCF
Ib/h
Collection efficiency percent
TP-3
1
9-9-75
51.9
5.7
214
6,414
8.757
100.8
17.274.7
5.121
3.748
281.5
171.2
0.053
2.77
TP-4
1
9-9-75
109.3
4.6
691
12.620
29.017
101.0
57.7
0.008
0.004
0.9
99^
78.0
0.024
2.47
10.8
TP-3-2
TP-5-4
9-11-75
133.8
3.6e
187e
7.475
9.681
101. 8e
1.305.1
0.1756
0.136*
11.2
120.5f
0.039f
2.609
TP-4
2
9-11-75
112.5
3.0
712
13.298
30.841
99.0
50.3
0.007
0.003
0.8
92,9
77.7
0.023
2.58
KO*
TP-3
3
9-12-75
95.9
4.3
202
6.981
9.251
97.2
2.208.2
0.355
0.267
21.2
110.7
0.033
1.94
TP-4
3
9-12-75
101.6
2.8
657
12.919
28.227
31.7
B9.5
0.014
0.006
1.5
92, 9 J
66.1
0.020
2.14
£
Average/3
TP-3. .TP-5
93.9
4.5
201
6.957 12
9.230 29
99.9
40.7 tons/h
7.096.0
1.884
1.384
104.6
2.57
95.
134.)
0.042
2.44
J*
runs
TP-4
107.8
3.5
687
.946
.362
97.2
65.8
0.010
0.004
1.1
0.03
2
73.9
0.022
2.40
6_
"Dry standard cubic feet at 70°C. 29.92 In. Hg.
"Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 70°C. 29.92 In.
^Actual cubic feet per minute.
ppiuv = parts per million by volume.
Weighted average of runs TP-3-2 and TP-5-4.
Hg.
'[weighted average of runs TP-3-2 with average runs TP-5-2 and TP-5-3.
jlTP-5-2 and TP-5-3 averaged and added to TP-3-2 for combined Ib/h.
"Based on weighted average.
JDamper closed.
-------
Table C-6. SUMMARY OF POM DATA FOR PLANT B
(METRIC)
o
I
MAS
Component Notation
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Methyl anthracenes
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Methyl Pyrene/Fluoranthene
Benzo(c)phenanthrene ***
Chrysene/Benz(a)anthracene *
Methyl chrysenes *
| Benzo fluoranthenes **
Benz(a)pyrene ***
Benz(e)pyrene
Perylene
3-Methylcholanthrene ****
Indeno(l ,2,3,-cd)pyrene *
Benzo(ghi )perylene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ***
Dibcnzo(c,g)carbazole ***
Dibenz(ai and ah)pyrenes ***
Coronene
TOTAL
Raw Data (POM
No Correction for
Inlet
(EPA Sample
S75-006-329;
BCL Sample 2-3)
631
1359
8.
60.
185.
ND
35.
13.
1.9
1.0
1.3
0.1
by GC-MS,
Blanks, gq
Outlet
(EPA Sample
S75-006-341;
BCL Sample 12)
" 633.3
1027.3
18.2
48.5
130.6
ND
203.3
221.1
12.5
f,.,\
V J
ND
POM in Blank,
ug POM in Sample
(EPA Sample (Corrected for
S75-006-155; blank), pg
BCL Sample 16) Inlet Outlet
0.45 630.6 632.9
<0.1 1359. 1027.3
0.1 7.9 18.1
0.1 59.9 48.4
<0.1 185. 130.6
ND
<0.1 35. 203.3
<0.1 13. 221.1
<0.1 1.9 12.5
/O.A ••« /;.,•)
V J ..3 V J
ND 0.1 ND
POM, Loading in
Gas Stream,
pg/Nm-'
Inlet Outlet
254. 280.
548 455.
3.19 8.01
24.2 21.4
74.6 57.8
„
14.1 90.0
5.24 97.8
0.77 5.53
°-«° /J.aX
0.52 V J
0.04 ND
925 1020
Sample Volume, Nm
2.48
2.26
-------
Table C-6A. SUMMARY OF TOM DATA - PLANT B
(ENGLISH)
NAS
Component Notation
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Methyl anthracenes
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Methyl Pyrene/Fluoranthene
Benzo(c)phenanthrene ***
Chrysene/Benz(a)anthracene *
o Methyl Chrysenes *
i
ro
oo Benzo Fluoranthenes **
Benz(a)pyrene ***
Benz(e)pyrene
Perylene
3-Methylcholanthrene ****
Indeno (1,2,3,-cd) pyrene *
Benzo(ghi Jperylene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole
Dibenz(a1 and ah)pyrenes
Coronene
TOTAL
Raw Data (POM
No Correction for
Inlet
(EPA Sample
S75-006-329;
BCL Sample 2-3)
97.4
209.7
1.23
9.26
28.5
ND
5.4
2.0
0.29
0.15
0.20
0.015
by GC-MS,
Blanks)gratnsxlO"4
Outlet
(EPA Sample
S75-006-341;
BCL Sample I 2)
97.7
158.5
2.8
7.48
20.15
ND
31.4
34.1
1.93
-------
Table C-7. ALDEHYDE RESULTS - PLANT B
Run
Number
TP3-1
TP3-2
TP3-3
TP4-1
TP4-2
TP4-3
ro . „„.
Clock Time a
1426-1445
1452-1510
1538-1555
1426-1444
1451-1509
1538-1555
Gas Sample
Volume
Nm3 b DSCF
0.434 15.31
0.447 15.77
0.444 15.69
0.456 16.09
0.481 16.99
0.451 15.91
Aldehyde
mq HCHO C
4.5
4.4
5.9
7.6
9.5
8.6
Average Inlet
Outlet
Aldehyde
Concentration,
mg HCHO/Nm3
10.4
9.9
13.3
16.7
19.8
19.1
11.2
18.5
.Stack Flowrate
Hm3/s DSCFM
3.15 d 6,674
3.15 d 6,674
3.15 d 6.674
6.08 e 12,890
6.08 6 12,890
6.08 C 12.890
Emission Rate
kg/s x 10''' Ib/hr
0.33
0.31
0.42
1.02
1.21
1.16
0.35
1.13
0.26
0.25
0.33
0.81
0.96
0.92
0.28
0.90
Note: TP3 = Inlet.
aAll Samples taken on 9-13-75.
0 Corrected to standard conditions, 20°C and 101.7 x 10 Pa
c Resul'ts corrected for blank
d Mean flow at TP3 from partlculate runs.
6 Mean flow at TP4 from partlculate runs.
-------
Table C-8. CO EMISSIONS AND EMISSION RATES - PLANT B
o
I
en
Run
1
2
3
POM
Average
CO Concentrations,
TP-1 TP-2 TP-3
10.0 290. 20.
12.0 250. 19.
10.0 265. 12.
280.
10.7 271. 17.
ppm TF
TP-4 TP-5 kg/sxlO-4
440. 270. 0.44
355. 145. 0.50
300. 240. 0.43
365. 218. 0.45
Total 1.09
Emission
Inlet
Rates, kg/s x 10-' (Ib/hr)
Outlet
'-1 TP-3+5 TP-2 TP-4
Ib/hr kg/sxlO-4 Ib/hr kg/sxlO-4 Ib/hr kg/sxlQ-4 Ib/hr
0.35 0.71
0.40 0.78
0.34 0.45
0.36 0.64
0.87
0.56 21.37
0.62 18.32
0.36 19.87
20.46
0.51 20.0
45.83
f16. 96 30.40
14.54 25.86
15.77 21.22
16.24
15.88 25.83
36.38
24.13
20.52
16.84
20.50
Analysis method: Grab samples analyzed by non-dispersive infrared analyzer.
-------
Table C-9'
NO RESULTS - PLANT B
A
Sampling
Location
TP-1,
TP-2,
TP-2,
TP-2,
TP-3,
TP-4,
inlet
outlet
outlet
outlet
inlet
outlet
Time of Sampling
Date
9-12-75
9-12-75
9-12-75
9-12-75
9-12-75
9-12-75
Hour
1810-1820
1645-1700
1730-1745
1815-1830
a.m.
1850-1905
NO, ppm
/\
0
15
10
10
0
10
Analysis method: Grab samples analyzed by electro-
chemical cell analyzer
C-26
-------
Figure C-3. SCHEMATIC OF EMISSION SOURCES CONTROLLED BY HVAF INCLUDING TEST POINT (TP)
Plant C
EMISSIONS FROM
MAIN ASPHALT
STORAGE TANK
TP2
VALVE II
ro
,
COATER
.
SATURATOR
STRIKE-IN SECTION
HOT LOOPER
d
— (
<) VALVE
CYCLONIC
EXPANSION
CHAMBER
HVAF
EMISSIONS FROM
7 IN-PROCESS
ASPHALT STORAGE
TANKS
NOTE;
All sampling was conducted with
Valves I and II open. Only
during FID run (10/24/75) valves
were closed temporarily and re-
opened to determine contribution
of emissions from tanks.
-------
HVAF STACK OUTLET
OBSERVER #1
3
4
t— 3
i — *
0
1
0
(
CVJ
CVJ
^\
o
5
4
£ 3
0
1
0
(
CVJ
CVJ
o
3 1
i
O *JD ^~ CO
3 in cvj ro
LO *O "^ CJ\
r- r- O O
fl'
U
1
" U
n
t
2
1
1
1
[
1
ll
3
TIME, MRS.
i!
ro
CTl ^" CO ^"
in , — 'cvj m
r— CVJ CVI CVJ
CO
o
ro
4 5 6
i
"3" *CVJ
ro ^}-
ro ro
CO1
CLOCK TIME
OBSERVER #2
n
J
J
) 1
o 10 !?" o
o m i^1 o
10 vo J^o
J
r
LJ
L
2
-
_.
-
J
•
3
TIME, MRS.
tn o roS^^0^ LO CD ro «^-
Q ^_ ( O'~cvj cvj ro ro ro
""^ "~—r~ 'CLOCK'TTME
"h
•
456
i i
co'oo o oo o1
^-ro in in o
«a~ in UD vo oo
Figure C-4 . Plant C.
-------
HVAF INLET DUCT (FUGITIVE)
OBSERVER
£ 2
i — i
o
°L-C 1
0 1
0
(
i —
o
3
>-
H-l 0
0 *•
D-
° 1
0
\^_
n ^
n
T n
f-l
3 1 2 3 4 56
TIME, MRS.
I 'ill ' '
I iii
O O Lf) CD LO O ^ *^J" CO 1OCO f^
co co *3* co ro CD r~* ~ if") CD CM co *^
co cr\ cr» o CD CM ro ro «^j- ^j-^ ^J"
O 'OOr-r— i— r— r— ,— r— •— r—
CLOCK TIME
OBSERVER #2
VO CT\ ^^
r- CM o i — PO r
CLOCK
TO CM CO «3- CD
TIME
O% CT» CT* CM O
CO «i- CM *3" CO
LT> LO ID vo r^
Figure C-5. Plant C.
-------
SATURATOR SPRAY/DIP (FUGITIVE)
OBSERVER #1
J
/I
2
1
n
t
o
o
en
f— ^
)
I i
1 1
mo <
o m •
CT> O>
33
53-
:n
n
m <—
01 o
mmmi
in
C\J
0
••
1
^
TIME, MRS;
t
CO
n n
n
>. 3
O co '•n vo
LT5 r— CO O
i — CM CM m
CM
-«^
o ooo oo '—
CLOCK TIME
OBSERVER #2
0
4
£ 3
C_3
o_
2
1
0
C
1
CM o
CM 0
^- CTl
O o
) 1 2
TIME, MRS.
i i i
h n
3
i
i>i i
mo com ' — ro CM m ^a-
om
-------
SATURATOR STRIKE-IN AND COATER (FUGITIVE)
OBSERVER #1
Q
7
6
5
>- 4
H-
i — i o
2 3
o
<)
1
n
-
r
u
J
r
U
Pin
IT
n
l
1
Q
if1!
™
2
7
ft
5
>-
t-
i — i
£** 4
Q-
o
3
?
1
n
OBSERVER n
1
N
I_J
u
3 0
1
L
n
i
j"
1
TIME, MRS.
*xj cr» en
ro
r—
i
1
CT> •—
<=r o ^ ;x
co«^
i-
u:
r-
u.
r-
jr
•r-
.
-r^ vo
-•— ro
oco
/
"JP-| n
LJ 1
—
2
-
3
TIME, MRS.
1
i
oo en «a-oi—
LD O CM OO IDi — CM
ro^
r
CLOCK TIME
?
u
r"
n ir>
<
i
J3T
— r
^.p^
CLOCK TIME
Figure C-7* Plant C.
-------
Table C-10.
PART1CULATE EMISSION TESTS SUMMARY
o
i
CO
ro
PERFORMANCE OF HVAF CONTROL DEVICE - PLANT C
METRIC UNITS
INLET 9 OUTLET
2.85 3.69
2.00 2.51
60.8 52.2
8.71 9.29
10.21 10.66
96.9 99.5
19.07
2728.2 55.5
.956 0.015
.815 0.013
83.2 1.4
1.57 0.027
AVERAGE OF TESTS
ENGLISH UNITS
Nm3
°C
Nm3/sec b
m /sec
Mg/Product
per hr.
mg
kg/Nm3xlO"3
kg/m3x!0'3
kg/secxlO"4
kg/Mg
SAMPLE LOCATION
- Volume of Gas Sampled - DSCF
Percent Moisture by Volume
- Average Stack Temperature - °F
- Stack Volumetric Flow Rate - DSCFM e
- Stack Volumetric Flow Rate - ACFM f
Percent Isoklnetlc
- Production Rate - tons product
per hr.
Partlculates - probe, cyclone.
and filter catch
mg
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
lb/hr
Ib/ton product
Average Mass Collection Efficiency » 98. 3X
INLET 9
100.557
2.00
142
18.462
21.636
96.9
21.03
2728.2
0.418
0.356
66.0
3.14
OUTLET
130.406
2.51
126
19,681
22.596
99.5
55.5
0.00700
0.00567
1.11
0.053
" Dry normal cubic meters at 20°C, 101.7 x 103 Pa
Dry normal cubic meters per minute at 20"C, 101.7 x 10 Pa
*i Actual cubic meters per second
Dry standard cubic feet at 68°F, 29.92 In. Hg.
* Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 68°F, 29.92 In. Hg.
Actual cubic feet per minute
9 Averages do not Include Inlet Run CEL-3P.
-------
Table C-ll
POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER (POM) EMISSION TESTS SUMMARY - PUNT C
(METRIC)
HVAF CONTROL DEVICE
Run Number
Date
Volume of Gas Sampled-Nm
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack Temperature-°C
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-toi3/*
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-m /s
Percent Isokinetlc
Polycyelic Organic Matter
Comoonent
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Methyl Anthracenes
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Methyl Pyrene/Fluoranthene
8enzo(c)phenanthrene
Cyrysene/Benz(a)anthracene
Methyl Cyrysenes
Benzo Fluoranthenes
8enz(a)pyrene
Benz(e)pyrene
Perylene
3-Methylcholanthrene
TOTAL
IPOM Reduction -91.1
Inlet Outlet
CEL-SP CEL-6P
10/23/75 10/23/75
1.68 3.56
1.26 0.90e
53.9 51.7
9.06 9.67
10.34 10.9
95.8 92.1
Concentration Emission Rate
I
-------
Table C-11A
POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER (POM) EMISSION TESTS SUMMARY - PLANT C
(ENGLISH)
HVAF CONTROL DEVICE
Inlet Outlet
Run Number CEL-5P CEL-6P
Date 10/23/75 10/23/75
Volume of Gas Sampled-DSCF a 59.167 125.605
Percent Moisture by Volume 1.26 0.09 e
Average Stack Temperature-°F 129 125
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-DSCFM b 19,200 . _ 20,500
Stack Volumetric Flow Rate-ACFM c 21,900 23,100
Percent Isokinetic 95.8 92.1
Polycyclic Organic Matter
Concentration
Component gr/OSCF x 10"6
Inlet Outlet
Anthracene/Phenanthrene 111 15.2
Methyl Anthracenes 292 21.0
Fluoranthene 6.00 0.307
Pyrene 21.3 0.786
Methyl Pyrene/ Fluoranthene 54.6 6.95
Benzo(c)phenanthrene ' 5.22 not detected
Cyrysene/Benz(a)anthracene 11.1 0.203
Methyl Cyrysenes 31.6 0.227
Benzo Fluoranthenes 0.274 0.0921
Benz(a)pyrene 0.0183 H
(0.123)
Benz(e)pyrene 0.0313
Perylene 1.19 not detected
3-Methylcholanthrene 1.57 not detected
TOTAL 536 44.9
SPOM Reduction -91.1
Emission Rate
Ib/hr x 10"3
Inlet Outl et
18.3 2.67
48.1 3.69
0.987 0.0539
3.51 0.138
8.98 1.22
0.859 not detected
1.82 0.0357
5.20 0.0399
0.0451 0.0162 .
0.00301 d
(0.0216)
0.00515
0.196 not detected
0.258 not detected
88.3 7.89
a Dry standard cubic feet at 68°F, 29.92 in. Hg.
6 Dry standard cubic feet per minute at 68"F, 29.92 in. Hg.
c Actual cubic feet per minute
6 Benzo(a)pyrene and 8enzo(e)pyrene combined and reported as one value
6 Silica gel observed to be saturated during clean-up at end of run.
C-34
-------
Table C-12. TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSION TESTS SUMMARY - PLANT C
HVAF CONTROL DEVICE
Date
10/21/75
10/22/75
10/24/75
Average
ppmv, as CH4
Inlet Outlet
91 133
120 125.
131 134
total hydrocarbon concentration
kg/m x
Inlet
0.062
0.082
0.089
10"3 gr/DSCF
Outlet Inlet Outlet
0.091 0.0272 0.
0.086 0.0359 0.
0.095 0.0387 0.
0396
0375
0413
Date
10/21/75
10/22/75
10/24/75
Average
kg/s x
Inlet
53.80
70.18
77.74
total hydrocarbon emission rate
1
-------
Table C-13
FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR (FID) DATA SUMMARY - PLANT C
Sampling Location: HVAF Inlet
Date: October 21-24, 1975
Data taken at three minute intervals
Average Gaseous Hydrocarbon Concentrations
Total
o
1
CO
CTi
Run
CEL-1-THC
CEL-3-THC
CEL-7-THC
CEL-9-THC
Total
Traverse
Points
46
47
47
30
Minimum
PPM
101.4
112.1
123.0
119.3
Maximum
PPM
96.7
128.8
141.2
134.8
Point Average
PPM
91.0
120.4
131.4
126.7
kg/m3xlO"6
62.24 .
82.15
88.56
86.04
(gr/DSCFxlO"3)
(27.2)
(35.9)
(38.7)
(37.6)
Volumetric Flow
Nm3/«;xlO"4 (SCFM)
8.75
8.71
8.99
5.58
(18,547)
(18,464)
(19,039)
(11,820)
Pollutant Mass Rate
kg/sxlO"4 (Ibs/hr)
5.23
7.50
7.86
4.85
(4.15)
(5.95)
(6,24)
(3.85)
-------
o
I
GO
Table C-14
FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR (FID) DATA SUMMARY - PLANT C
Sampling Location: HVAF Outlet
Date: October 21-24, 1975
Data taken at three minute intervals
Average Gaseous Hydrocarbon Concentrations
Run Total Minimum Maximum Point Average
Traverse ~ fi
Points PPM PPM PPM kg/fa xlO
CEL-2-THC 47 126.6 139.4 132.7 90.62
CEL-4-THC 48 118.2 133.0 125.3 85.81
CEL-8-THC 47 132.6 148.0 140.0 94.51
(qr/DSCFxlO"3:
(39.6)
(37.5)
(41.3)
Total
Volumetric Flow Pollutant
1 Nm3/sxlO"4 (SCFM) kq/sxlO"4
9.15 (19,389) 7.71
9.47 (20,076) 7.89
9.51 (20,160) 8.49
Mass Rate
(Ibs/hr)
(6.
(6.
(6.
12)
26)
74)
-------
> f
' V
SP2 Outlet
SP1
Inlet
Demister
No. 1 Shingle Line Saturate:
HVAF
Figure C-8. BLOCK DIAGRAM SHOWING
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Plant D
;(SP3
C-38
-------
Table C-15. PLANT D
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION DATA
Date
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
0 9-17-75
I
CO
10 9-17-75
9-17-75
9-17-75
9-18-75
9-18-75
9-18-75
9-18-75
9-18-75
9-18-75
24 Mr. Clock Location
Time Type of Discharge
0745-0823
0745-0823
0815-0846
0815-0846
0906-0935
0906-0935
0907-0940
0907-0940
1245-1319
1245-1319
1415-1912
1415-1912
0827-0853
0842-1100
0842-1100
1105-1135
1105-1135
1200-1827
' A
A
A
A
A
. A
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
C
C
D
Observer
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
D1st. to Source
Meters Feet
6.1
6.1
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
6.1
6.1
3.05
3.05
6.1
6.1
6.1
4.6
4.6
18.3
18.3
0.9-28.9
20
20
10
10
10
10
20
20
10
10
20
20
20
15
15
60
60
3-95
Direction
From Source
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SE
SE
SE
SE
S
E
E
NE
NE
Coaler End
of Hood
Wind
Direction
S-N
S
S-N
S
S-N
S
S-N
S
H-S
N
NE-SW
NE
NA
S-N
S
*
*
*
Wind Velocity
M/s MPH
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
3.6-5.4 8-12
5.4-8.05 12-18
5.4-8.05 12-18
NA
5.8-8.05 13-18
5.8-8.05 13-18
* *
* *
* *
Weather
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Overcast
Overcast
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
*
*
*
F
Background
Gray Shed Wall
Gray Shed Wall
Gray Shed Wall
Gray Shed Wall
Gray Shed Wall
Gray Wall
Gray Shed Wall
Gray Wall
Gray-Black Brick
Gray-Black Brick
Wall
White-Gray Clouds
White-Gray Clouds
Gray Shed Wall
Light Gray Clouds
and Blue Sky
Light Gray Clouds
and Blue Sky
Dark Gray Wall
Dark Gray Wai 1
Gray Brick Wall
Time - Opacity
38 min. - 0%
"ip mi n /TV
jo 111 in, - u A
31 min. - 0%
31 min. - 0%
29 min. - 0%
29 min. - 0%
33 min. - 07,
33 min. - OX
34 min. - 0%
34 min. - 0%
10 mil). 45 sec.
235 min. 15 sec
8 min. 15 sec.
236 min. 45 sec
25 min. 45 sec.
138 min. - 15%
138 min. - 15%
30 min. - 20%
30 min. - 20%
42 min. 15 sec.
28 min. 15 sec.
17 min. 0 sec.
4 mil). 30 sec.
- 10%
. - 15%
- 10%
. - 15%
- 15%
- 0%
- 5%
- 10%
- 15%
-------
Table C-15. PLANT D
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION DATA (CONTINUED)
24 Mr. Clock Location Dlst. to Source Direction Wind Wind Velocity
Date Time Type of Discharge Observer Meters Feet From Source Direction M/s MPH Weather
9-18-75 1200-1827 D 2 0.9-28.9 3-95 Coater End * * * .
of Hood
9-19-75 0802-1115 D 1 0.9-28.9 3-95 Coater End *' * * *
of Hood
•
9-19-75 0802-1115 D 2 0.9-28.9 3-95 Coater End * * * *
<"> of Hood
i
-P»
O
9-19-75 1117-1747 D 1 0.9-28.9 3-95 Saturator End * * * *
of Hood
9-19-75 1117-1747 D 2 0.9-28.9 3-95 Saturator End * * * *
of Hood
Background
Gray Brick Wall
Gray Brick Wall
Gray Brick Wall
Cream Colored
Wall Dark Green
Equipment
Light Tan Wall
Green Equipment
28
31
14
5
84
21
3
0
68
9
2
. 68
63
32
15
2
48
71
46
3
Tii
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
min.
ne •
30
45
30
0
15
0
45
15
- (
15
45
30
45
30
30
0
15
0
30
45
•_OEaj
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.'
sec.
n
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
sec.
;±ty_
- 0%
- 5%
- 10%
- 151
- 0%
- 5%
- 10X
- 15%
- 5%
- 10%
- 0?
- 5X
- \0",
- 15t
- 20t
- 0%
- 5T
- 10%
- 15%
Notes:
• Indoors
NA Not Available
A Coating Tanker Unloading Area, Hose Coupling and Associated Piping
0 lleaf Outlet Stack from Saturator Hood II, TP2
C Leakage from Top of Saturator Hood II
D Saturator Hood II, Shingle Line
-------
TABLE C-16. PLANT 0
PARTICIPATE AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBON RESULTS OF SHINGLE LINE SATURATOR
HVAF FILTER SYSTEM (Weights are minus blanks)
Run 1 Run 2
SP1-1 SP2-1 SP1-2 SP2-2
Particulate Results
Front half train, 240.6 39.0 29.2 49.9
TCE wash, mg
Front half train, 4.0 2.8 1.9 1.9
acetone wash, mg
Prefilter, TCE wash, 1.1 -- 0.9
mg
Glass fiber filter 322.4 31.2 264.0 39.9
catch, mg
T* Total front half, mg 568.1 73.0 296.0 91.7
""' Concentration, kg/Nm xlO'3 0.213 0.027 0.105 0.034
Concentrat1on.gr/DSCF 0.093. 0.012 0.046 0.015
Particulate emission
rate,
kg/s x }Q • 28.3 • 3.6 13.9 4 7
kg/Mg
lb/hr 22.4 2.9 11.0 3 7
Ib/Ton
— ~.
Collection efficiency, % 87.1 66.4
Gaseous Hydrocarbon Results
Minimum value, ppm -- 38.0 -- 45.0
Maximum value, ppm -- 74.3 -- 76.4
Weighted avg value
ppm — 58.3 -- 64.7
Concentration, kg/Mm xlO — 0.039 -- 0.043
Concentratlon^gr/DSCF — 0.017 — 0.019
Hydrocarbon emission
rate.
kg/s x 10" — 5.4 — 6.0
Ib/hr — 4.27
Run 3
SP1-3 SP2-3
27.1 27.7
1.0
0.4
311.5 50.5
340.7 79.2
0.117 0.030
0.051 0.013
15.6 4.4
12.4 3.5
--
71.8
47.0
67.4
59.3
0.039
0.017
5.7
4.50
Average
SP-1 SP-2
98.97 38.87
2.53 1.90
0.80
' 299.30 40.53
401.60 81.30
0.145 0.030
0.0633 0.0133
19.2 4.2
0.16 0.035
15.27 .3,37
°-320 0.071
77.9
43.3
72.7
60.8
0.041
0.018
5.7
4.51
Production Rates
43.3 Mg/Hr (47.7 T/Hr)
-------
/TP2
\
Heat
exchanger
Knock
out
box
Afterburner
Knock
out
box
Recovery
Oil
TPI
Figure C-9. BLOCK DIAGRAM SHOWING RELATIVE LOCATIONS
OF PROCESS COMPONENTS AND SAMPLE POINTS.
Plant E
C-42
-------
Table C-17. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION DATA - PLANT E
Date
8-19
8-19
8-19
8-19
8-20
8-20
o
i
w 8-20
8-20
8-21
8-21
8-21
8-21
24 Hr. Clock
Time
12:47-17:02
12:47-17:02
17:12-18:29
17:12-18:29
13:33-15:09
13:33-15:09
15:56-17:28
15:56-17:28
10:08-11:48
10:08-11:48
13:14-17:52
13:14-17:52
Oist. to Source Direction Wind Wind Velocity
Observer Meters Feet From Source Direction M/S MPH
1 15.24-18.3 50-60 E-SE E-S 2.24-4.5
2 15.24-18.3 50-60 E-SE S 3.6-5.4
1 15.24-18.3 50-60 E S-NE 2.24-4.5
2 15.24 50 SE S-N 2.24-4.5
1 15.24-18.3 so-60 SE S-SW 3.6-8.9
2 15.24 50 SE N-S 3.6-6.7
1 18.3 60 E S 2.24-4.5
2 15.24 50 SE SW-NE 3.6-5.4
1 18.3 60 E N-E 3.6-5.4
2 18.3 60 E NE-SW 3.6-5.4
1 15.24-24.4 50-80 E-SE NE 3.6-5.4
2 13.7-24.4 45-80 SE-SSE NE-SW 2.24-5.4
5-10
8-12
5-10
5-10
8-20
8-15
5-10'
8-12
8-12
8-12
8-12
5-12
Weather
Partly
Cloudy
(30X)
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
.Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Clear
Clear-
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Partly
Cloudy
Background Time-Opacity
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
243 min
245 min
78 min
78 min
97 min
97 min
93 min
93 min
100 min
100 m1n
258 min
258 min
30 sec-OX
30 sec-OX
- OX
- OX
- OX
- OX
- OX
- OX
30 sec-OX
30 sec-OX
- OX
- OX
-------
Table C-18. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION SYSTEM FOR BLOWING STILLS - SATURANT BLOWS - PLANT E (METRIC)
Run Number 2 6 7
Date 8-20-75 8-25-76 8-26-75 ?
Stack Conditions
Sample Location AB Inlet AB Outlet AB Inlet AB Outlet AB Inlet AB Outlet
Sample Number B-3 B-4 B-ll B-12 B-13 B-14
Volumetric Flow Rate. fll 4 Q9 8g 4Q g4 „ „
Nm /S
Stack Temperature. °C 200.6 203.9 207.2 200.6 188.3 192.2
Moisture, Volume Percent 44.7 18.8 41.0 20.8 ' 27.2 11.6
Production Rates
Particulates — Probe, Upstream
Impiqgers, Prefilter, Filter,
kg/m3 x 10'3 38.03 0.654 25.95 0.20 19.59 0.238
kg/s x 10"4 285.9 28.5 220.1 7.9 160.7 10.2
kg/Mg
Afterburner Efficiency , percent
This run 90.0 96.4 93.6
Average, Three Runs 93.3
Gaseous Hydrocarbons
ppm as CII4 9152 78.8 8146 7.1 5726 3.3
kg/m3 x 10"3 6.18 0.053 5.50 0.005 3.87 0.002
kg/s x 10"4 49.7 2.2 48.0 o.2 35.9 0.1
Afterburner Efficiency, percent
This run 95.6 99.6 . 99.7
Average, Three Runs 98.3
Average
AB Inlet AB Outlet
...
.88 4.19
193.9 198.9
37.6 17.1
24.22 Mg/Hr
27.87 0.364
222.3 15.5
3.31 0.23
7675 29.7
5.18 0.02
44.5 0.8
-------
Table C-18a. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION SYSTEM FOR BLOWING STILLS - SATURANT BLOWS - PLANT E (ENGLISH)
o
1
.£»
cn
Run Number 2
Date 8-20-75
Stack Conditions
Sample Location AB Inlet A8 Outlet
Sample Number B-3 B-4
Volumetric Flow Rate, DSCFM 1715 8673
Stack Temperature,°F 393 399
Moisture, Volume Percent 44.7 18.8
Production Rates
Part1culates--Probe, Upstream
Impingers, Prefllter, Filter,
gr/DSCF 16.64 0.286
Ib/hr 226.9 22.6
Ib/Ton
Afterburner Efficiency, percent
This run 90.0
Average, Three Runs
Gaseous Hydrocarbons
ppm as CH4 9152 78.8
gr/OSCF 2.699 0.023
Ib/hr 39.43 1.72
Afterburner Efficiency, percent
This run 95.6
Average, Three Runs
6 7 Average
8-25-76 8-26-75
AB Inlet AB Outlet AB Inlet AB Outlet AB Inlet AB Outlet,
B-ll B-12 B-13 B-14
1884 8476 2001 9485 1867 8878
405 393 371 378 390 390
41.0 20.8 27.2 11.6 37.6 17.1
26.7 T/Hr
11.34 0.087 - 8.561 0.104 12.18 0.159
174.7 ' 6.3 127.5 8.1 176.4 12.3
6.61 0.461
96.4 . 93.6
93.3
8146 7.1 5726 3.3 7675 29.7
2.403 0.002 1.689 0.001 2.264 0.009
38.06 0.15 28.49 0.03 35.33 0.65
99.6 99.7
98.3 t
-------
Table C-19. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION SYSTEM FOR BLOWING STILLS - COATING BLOWS - PLANT E (METRIC)
Run Number
Date
Stack Conditions
Sample Location-
Sample Number
Volumetric Flow Rate, Nm /sec
Stack Temperature, °C
Moisture, Volume Percent
Production Rates
Particulates--P'robe, Upstream
Impingers, Prefllter, Filter
0 11
j^ kg/Nm x 10
°^ -4
kg/s x 10
3
8-21-75
AB Inlet AB Outlet
B-5 B-6
0.867 4.27
215 199.4
33.6 15.6
34.5 0.28
265.6 11.3
4
8-22-75
AB Inlet AB Outlet
B-7 B-8
0.917 4.51
221.1 194.4
33.9 15.0
35.3 0.15
288.9 6.8
5 Average
8-24-75
AB Inlet AB Outlet AB Inlet
B-9 B-10
0.89 4.02 0.89
210.6 194.4 f 215.6
34.9 16.5 34.1
8.07
33.0 0.23 33.4
267.2 8.9 273.9
AB Outlet
—
4.27
196.1
15.7
Mg/Hr
0.22
9.1
kg/Mg
Afterburner Efficiency, percent
This run
Average, Three Runs
Gaseous Hydrocarbons
ppm as CM.
kg/Nra3 x 10"3
kg/s x 10"4
Afterburner Efficiency, percent
This run
Average, Three Runs
12.21
0.405
95.7
6420 69.2
4.33 0.046
36.3 2-0
94.6
97.6
96.7
7066 103.3
4.77 0.07
42.5 3.1
92.6
95.2
96.7
6100 21.7
4.12 0.014
36.2 0.6
98.4
6506
4.39
38.4
64.7
0.043
1.9
-------
Table C-19a. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION SYSTEM FOR BLOWING STILLS - COATING BLOWS - PLANT E (ENGLISH)
Run Number 3 4
Date G-21-75 8-22-75
Stack Conditions
Sample Location AB Inlet AB Outlet AB Inlet AB Outlet
Sample Number B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8
Volumetric Flow Rate, dscfm 1838 9045 1943 9549
Stack Temperature, °F 419 391' 430 382
Moisture, Volume Percent 33.6 15.6 33.9 15.0
Production Rates
Particulates--Probe, Upstream
Impingers, Prefilter, Filter,
gr/dscf 15.06 0.123 15.42 0.066 .
Ib/hr 210.8 9.0 229.3 5.4
0
.p, Ib/Ton
Afterburner Efficiency, percent
This run 95.7 97.6
Average, Three Runs 96.7
Gaseous Hydrocarbons
ppm as CH4 6420 69.2 7066 103.3
gr/dscf 1.894 0.020 2.084 0.030
Ib/hr 28.83 1.57 33.73 2.49
Afterburner Efficiency, percent
This run 94.6 92.6
Average, Three Runs 95.2
5 Average
8-24-75
AB Inlet AB Outlet AB Inlet AB Outlet
B-9 B-10
1881 8524 1887 9039
411 382 420 385
34.9 16.5 34.1 15.7
8.9 T/Hr
14.41 0.099 14.60 0.096
212.1 7.1 . 217.4 7.2
24.42 0.81
96.7
6100 21.7 6506 64.7
1.799 0.066 1.919 0.019
28.75 0.46 30.44 1.51
98.4
-------
Table C-20. SUMMARY OF POM DATA - PLANT E (METRIC)
o
i
£
NAS
Component Notation
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Methyl anthracenes
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Methyl Pyrene/Fluoranthene
Benzo(c Jphenanthrene ***
Chrysene/Benz(a)anthracene *
Methyl chrysenes *
flenzo fluoranthenes **
Benz(a)pyrene ***
Benz(e)pyrene
Perylene
3-Methylcholanthrene ****
Indeno (1 ,2,3,-cd)pyrene *
Benzo(ghi )perylene
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene ***
Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole ***
Dibenz(a1 and ahjpyrenes ***
Coronene
TOTAL
Raw Data (POM by
No Correction for
Inlet
(EPA Sample
S75-006-112 S 113
BCL Sample 2-lj
41.152
112.128
1.920
2,816
44,096
ND
12,032
39,360
1,152
512
896
ND
GC-MS,
Blanks, Jug
Outlet
(EPA Sample
S 75-006-106
BCL Sample 15)
79.0
69.3
6.0
7.8
51.8
1.0 .
4.0
3.5
4.7
(••:)
ND
POM in Blank.
uq POM in Sample
(EPA Sample (Corrected for
S 75-006-155; blank), ug
BCL Sample 16) Inlet Outlet
0.45 41,152 78.5
<0.1 112,128 69.3
0.1 1,920 5.9
0.1 2.816 7.7
<0.1 44,096 51.8
ND --' 1.0
<0.1 12,032 4.0
<0.1 39,360 3.5
<0.1 1,152 4.7
(°A - A ,A
V J 896 V J
ND
POM, Loading in
Gas Stream,
ug/Nm3
Inlet Outlet
18,049 25.5
49,179 22.5
842 1.92
1,235 2.50
19,340 16.8
0.32
5,227 1.30
17,263 1.14
505 1.53
225 /T.46\
393 V J
—
112,308 74.97
Sample Volume. Nm3 Z-'6 3'08
Separation of Benz(a)oyrene and Benz(e)Pyrene was conducted only on one inlet sample due to cost limitations.
-------
TABLE C-20a. SUMMARY OF POM DATA - PLANT E
(ENGLISH)
O
I
IO
HAS
Component Notation
Anthracene/Phenanthrene
Methyl anthracenes
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Methyl Pyrene/Fluoranthene
Benzo(c)phenanthrene ***
Chrysene/Benz(a)anthracene *
Methyl chrysenes . *
Benzo Fluoranthenes **
Benz(a)pyrene ***
Benz(e)pyrene
Perylene
3-Methylcholanthrene ***
Indeno (l,2,3,-cd)pyrene *
Benzo(ght)perylene
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene ***
Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole ***
Oibenz(ai and ah-)pyrenes ***
Coronene
TOTAL
Raw Data (POM by
No Correction for
Inlet
(EPA Sample
S75-006-112 & 113
BCL Sample 2-1)
6351
17,304
296
435
6805
NO
1857
6074
178
79
138
NO
GC-MS,
Blanks)qrainsxlO
Outlet
(EPA Sample
S 75-006-106
BCL Sample 15)
12.0
11.0
0.9
1.2
8.0
.2
.6
.5
.7
(')
NO
POM in Blank
grains x 10"4
(EPA Sample
S 75-006-155;
BCL Sample 16)
0.07
<0.015
0.015
0.015
<0.015
NO
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
0>.015\
NO
POM in Sample
(Corrected for .
blank), grainsxlO"
Inlet Outlet
6351 12
17,304 11
296 0.9
435 1.2
6805 8
.2
1857 .6
6074 .5
178 .7
79 /~7 ~\
138 V J
..
POM, Loading in
Gas Stream.
gr/DSCF x 10"'
Inlet Outlet
78.870 111
4.910 98
3,680 8
5,400 11
84,520 73
1.4
22,840 5.7
75,440 5
2,210 6.7
980 /~6 A
1720 \- J
i
490,780 328
76.4 109.2
Separation of Benz(a)pyrene and.Benz(e)pyrene was conducted only on one inlet sample due to cost limitations.
-------
TABLE C-21. SO AND NO. READINGS BY CONTINUOUS
MONITORINGXANALYSIS a Plant E
SO,
Inlet Outlet
Saturant Blow: ,
Run B-ll B-10 e
Range, ppm <400 - 730 ° 0 - 350
Mean, ppra N.A. '- 141
Coating Blow: f
Run B-ll B-10
Range, ppm <400 - 920 c 46 - 330
Mean, ppra N.A. d 166
NO 8
x
Saturant Blow;
Run B-9 B-12
Range, ppm 0 - 1600 245 - 500
Mean, ppm 902 . 391
Coating Blow:
Run B-9 B-12 f
Range, ppm 60 - 1900 50 - 435
Mean, ppra 814 260
S02 data are from EnviroMetrics analyzer; NOX
data are from DynaScience analyzer.
Data taken during a portion of a coating blow
representing last 1Q minutes of saturant blow.
Calibration gas cylinders empty at end of run
and thus, analyzer calibration could not be
verified.
d
Mean values not available as complete blow was
not sampled.
eData taken during saturant blow preceeding
coating blow for which B-10 particulate samples
were collected.
This coating blow did not appear normal as flow
was stopped during the process.
%o S02 scrubber was used ahead of the analyzer
used Co make the NO measurements. Thus, they
may contain a contribution due to the S02» as
well as NOX.
C-50
-------
TABLE C- 22. ALDEHYDE RESULTS - PLANT E
(METRIC)
Run Number
AL-l-IN
AL-2-IN
AL-3-IN
AL-4-OUT
AL-5-IN
AL-6-OUT
AL-7-IN
AL-8-OUT
AL-9-OUT
Date
8-22-75
8-22-75
8-24-75
8-24-75
8-24-75
8-24-75
8-25-75
8-25-75
8-27-75
Gas Sample,
Volume
Clock Time Nm3 a
1009-1021 0.0269
1200-1231 0.0812
1558-1616 0.0538
1603-1616 0.0790
1719-1739 0.0591
1724-1757 0.0948
1130-1147 0.0487
1135-1205 0.0801
1237-1437 0.3085
Average Inlet
Average Outlet
(includes -Run AL-8)
Average Outlet
(without Run Al-8)
Efficiency
(without Run AL-8)
Aldehyde
Concentration,
mgHCHO/Nm3 b
713.8
1428.6
542.8
7.6
296.1
4.4
2218.8
1260.9
14.6
1040.6
321.9
8.9
Stack
Flow Rate,
Nm3/sec
0.9
0.9
0.88
4.0
0.88
4.0
0.93
4.45
4.3
Emission Rate
kg/sec x 10'4
6.42
12.86
4.81
0.30
2.53
0.18
20.72
56.11
0.63
9.47
14.31
0.37
96.3
Corrected to standard conditions, 20°C and 1.01 x 10 Pa.
Results corrected for blank.
-------
TABLE C-22a. ALDEHYDE RESULTS - PLANT E
(ENGLISH)
o
1
U1
ro
Run Number
AL-l-IN
AL-2-IN
AL-3-IN
AL-4-OUT
AL-5-IN
AL-6-OUT
AL-7-IN
AL-8-OUT
AL-9-OUT
Date
8-22-75
8-22-75
8-24-75
8-24-75
8-24-75
8-24-75
8-25-75
8-25-75
8-27-75
Clock Time
1009-1021
1200-1231
1558-1616
1603-1616
1719-1739
1724-1757
1130-1147
1135-1205
1237-1437
Gas Sample
Volume a
OSCF
0.95
2.9
1.9
2.8
2.1
3.3
1.7
2.8
10.9
Average Inlet
Aldehyde
Concentration b
gr/OSCF x lO"4
312
624
237
3.3
129
1.9
970
551
6.4
455
Stack
Flow Rate
DSCFM
1907
1907
1365
8476
1865
8476
1971
9429
9111
Emission Rate
Ib/hr x 10'4
5.09 '
10.21
3.02
.24
2.01
.14
16.44
44.52
.50
7.52
Average Outlet
(includes Run AL-8)
Average Outlet
(includes Run AL-8)
Efficiency
(without Run AL-8)
141
3.9
11.36
0.29
96.3
Corrected to standard condi tions, 68°F and 29.92 in. llg.
Results corrected for blank.
-------
Table C-23- SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION DATA - PLANT F
24 Mr. Clock
Date Time
7-22 10:00-13:00
7-22 10:00-13:00
7-22 11:00-17:00
7-22 14:00-17:00
7-23 8:00-11:00
7-23 8:00-11:00
o
dn 7-23 11:00-14:00
CO
7-23 11:00-14:00
Obs.
Site
A
B
C
D
• A
B
E
F
Dlst. to
Meters
12.2
12.2
15.3
15.3
12.2
12.2
15.3
15.3
Source
Feet
40
40
50
50
40
40
50
50
Direction
from Source
E
E
SW
SW
E
E
W
w
Wind
Direction
SW
SW
SW
SW
S
S
S
S
Wind Velocity
M/S
0.9-2.2
0.9-2.2
0.9-6.7
0.9-6.7
0.9-2.2
0.9-2.2
0.9-4.5
0.9-4.5
MPII
2-5
2-5
2-15
2-15
2-5
2-5
2-10
2-10
Weather
Part
Cloudy
Part
Cloudy
Part
Cloudy
Part
Cloudy
Overcast
Overcast
Overcast
Rain
Part
Cloudy
Rain
Background
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky
Sky(ll:00-
11:30)
Dark Tank
(11:30-
14:00)
Sky(ll:00-
11:30)
Dark Tank
(11:30-
14:00)
Time-Opacity
179 mln
15 sec
180 min
180 mln
180 mln
180 mln
180 mln
180 mln
180 mln
45 se
- 0%
- OX
- ox
- OX
- OX
- OX
- OX
10X
-------
Table C-24
FACILITY S
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/11/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Conveyor Transfer Point
Type of Discharge: Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 18.3 m (60 ft.)
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Observation Point: Ground-Level
Height of Point of Discharge: 2.44 m' (8 ft.)
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: North
Description of Background: Grey Apparatus
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Westerly
Wind Velocity: 0. to 4.47 m/s (0 to 10 mi/hr)
Color of Plume: None
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
Summary of Average Opacity
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 through 30 10:40 1:40 0 0
31 through 40 1:45 4:45 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
C-54
-------
Table C-25
FACILITY G
Summary of Results (Metric)
Run Number-
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Process Weight Rate = kg/s
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - m /s
Flow rate - Nm /s
Temperature = °C
Water vapor - Vol . %
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
3 -3
kg/Nm x 10 J
3 -3
kg/m x 10
kg/s x 10"5
kg/Mg x 10"5
Total catch a
kg/Nm3 x 10"3
3 -3
kg/m x 10
kg/s x 10"5
kg/Mg x 10"5
1
6/10/74
360
229
0.96
0.79
36.7
2.4
0.00217
0.00178
0.252
1
—
-
—
2
6/11/74
288
231
0.97
0.79
38.3
2.4
0.0037
0.00307
0.378
1.5
0.00435
0.00357
0.378
1.5
3
6/12/74
288
220
1.01
0.84
36.1
2.3
0.00474
0.00391
0.504
2
0.00593
0.0049
0.504
2.5
Average
-
312
227
0.98
0.81
37.1
2.4
0.00355
0.00293
0.378
1.5
0.00513
0.00423
0.441
2
^Back-half sample for run number 1 was lost.
C-55
-------
Table C-25a
FACILITY G
Summary of Results (English)
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Process Weight Rate - TPH
Stack Effluenct
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
' Ib/hr
Ib/ton
1
6/10/74
360
910
2303
1900
98.0
2.4
0.00095
0.00078
0.02
. 0.00002
-
-
-
2
6/11/74
288
915
2313
1902
101.0
2.4
0.00162
0.00134
0.03
0.00003
0.00190
0.00156
0.03
0.00003
3
6/12/74
288
873
2422
2003
97.0
2.3
0.00207
0.00171
0.04
0.00004
0.00259
0.00214
0.04
0.00005
Average
-
312
899
2346
1935
98.7
2.4
0.00155
0.00128
0.03
0.00003
0.00224
0.00185
0.035
0.00004
^ack-half sample for run number 1 was lost.
C-56
-------
Table C-26
FACILITY H
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 11/21/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens
Type of Discharge: Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 61 m (200 ft.)
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Observation Point: 15.2 m (50 ft.)
Height of Point of Discharge: 12.2 m (40 ft.)
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: Northwest
Description of Background: Dark woods
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: Easterly
Wind Velocity: 4.47 to 13.4 m/s (10 to 30 mi/hr.)
Color of Plume: White
Detached Plume: ' No
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
Summary of Average Opacity
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 through 40 12:10 4:10 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during the observation period.
C-57
-------
Table C-27
FACILITY H
Summary of Results (Metric)
Run Number'
Date
Test Time - Minutes
a
Production Rate - kg/s
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - m /s
3
Flow rate - Nm /s
Temperature - °C
Water vapor - Vol. %
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
kg/Nm3 x 10"3
kg/m3 x 10"3
kg/s x 10"5
kg/Mg x 10"4
Total catch
kg/Nm3 x 10"3
kg/m3 x 10"3
kg/s x 10"5
kg/Mg x 10"4
1
11/19/74
120
33.26
2.6
2.62
16.7
0.4
0.0137
0.0137
3.9
10.0
0.0183
0.021
5.79
15.0
2
11/21/74
240
29.99
2.87
2.88
10.0
0.3
0.000069
0.000069
0.0252
0.1
0.00137
0.0016
0.5
1.5
3
11/22/74
240
32
2.73
2.8
10.5
0.1
0.00092
0.0092
0.252 .
1.0
0.00206
0.0023
0.6
2
Average
-
200
31.75
2.73
2.76
12.4
0.27
0.0049
0.0049
1.4
3.7
0.0073
0.013
2.3
6.0
throughput through primary crusher.
C-58
-------
Table 27a
FACILITY H
Summary of Results (English)
Run Number'
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Parti cul ate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
1
11/19/74
120
132
6220
6260
62.0
0.4
0.006
0.006
0.31
0.002
0.009
0.009
0.46
0.003
2
11/21/74
240
119
6870
6880
50.0
0.3
0.00003
0.00003
0.002
0.00002
0.0006
0.0007
0.04
0.0003
3
11/22/74
240
127
6540
6700
51.0
0.1
0.0004
0.004
0.02
0.0002
0.0009
0.001
0.05
0.0004
Average
-
200
126
6543
6613
54.3
0.27
0.00214
0.00214
o.m
0.00074
0.0032
0.0057
0.18
0.0012
Throughput through primary crusher.
C-59
-------
Table C-28
FACILITY J
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 9/18/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens
Type of Discharge: Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 91.44 m (300 ft.)
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Observation Point: 12.2 m (40 ft.)
Height of Point of Discharge:17.76 m (55 ft.)
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: North
Description of Background: Trees
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Northerly
Wind Velocity: 2.235 to 4.47 m/s (5 to 10 mi/hr.)
Color of Plume: None
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
Summary of Average Opacity
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 through 40 8:30 12:30 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during period of observation.
C-60
-------
Table C-29
FACILITY J
Summary of Results (Metric)
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
a
Production Rate - kg/s
Stack Effluent
3
Flow rate - m /s
Flow rate - Nm /s
Temperature - °C
Water vapor - Vol . %
Parti cul ate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
kg/Nm3 x 10"3
3 -3
kg/m x 10
kg/s x 10"5
kg/Mg x 10"3
Total catch
3 -3
kg/Nm x 10
3 -3
kg/m x 10
kg/s x 10"3
kg/Mg x 10"3
1
9/17/74
240
56.7
11.2
10.9
20.6
1.3
0.0062
0.0062
7.69
1.35
0.0094
0.0092
0.11
2
2
9/18/74
240
57.96
11.0
10.5
23.3
1.6
*
0.0087
0.0082
10.33
1.8
0.0103
0.0098
0.12
2.15
3
9/19/74
240
55.44
10.4
10.1
22.2
1.3
0.0053
0.0050
5.92
1.05
0.0071
0.0069
0.0081
1.45
Average
-
240
56.7
10.8
10.5
22.1
1.4
0.0066
0.0064
7.94
1.4
0.0089
0.0087
0.106
1.85
aThroughput through primary crusher.
C-61
-------
Table C-29a
FACILITY J
Summary of Results (English)
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPHa
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
1
9/17/74
240
225
26790
26200
69.0
1.3
0.0027
0.0027
0.61
0.0027
0.0041
0.0040
0.91
0.0040
2
9/18/74
240
230
26260
25230
74.0
1.6
0.0038
0.0036
0.82
0.0036
0.0045
0.0043
0.98
0.0043
3
9/19/74
240
220
24830
24170
72.0
1.3
0.0023
0.0022
0.47
0.0021
0.0031
0.0030
0.64
0.0029
Average
-
240
225
25960
25200
71.7
1.4
0.0029
0.0028
0.63
0.0028
0.0039
0.0038
0.84
0.0037
'Throughput through primary crusher.
C-62
-------
Table C-30
FACILITY K
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 11/16/74 - 11/19/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens and Bins
Type of Discharge: Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 36.58 m (120 ft.)
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Observation Point: Ground-Level
Height of Point of Discharge: 0.15 m (1/2 ft.)
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
Description of Background: Hillside
Description 'of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Westerly
Wind Velocity: 0.894 to 4.47 m/s (2 to 10 mi/hr.)
Color of Plume: None
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 11/19/74: 120 minutes; 11/19/74: 60 minutes
Summary of Average Opacity
Time Opacity
Set Number
11/18/74: 1 through 10
11 through 20
11/19/74: 21 through 30
Start
12:50
1:50
9:05
End
1:50
2:00
10:05
Sum
0
0
0
Average
0
0
0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
C-63
-------
Table C-31
FACILITY K
Summary of Results (Metric)
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - kg/sa
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - m /s
Flow rate - Nm /s
Temperature - °C
Water vapor - Vol . %
Parti cul ate Emissions'
Probe and filter catch
kg/Mm3
kg/m
fcg/s x 10"4
kg/Mg x 10"3
Total catch
3 -3
kg/Nm x 10
3 -3
kg/m x 10
kg/s x 10"3
kg/Mg x 10"3
1
11/18/74
120
96.8
9.26
9.61
6.97
1.1
0.0302
0.0313
3.28
3.4
0.047
0.0487
5.10
5.25
2
11/18/74
120
86.2
8.26
8.33
15.10
1.1
0.022
0.0222
2.08
2.4
0.3153
0.0318
2.96
3.45
3
11 /I a/74
120
115.9
8.95
9.10
12.78
0.6
.0.035
0.0355
3.59
3.1
0.0389
0.0396
4.00
3.45
Average
-
120
99.5
8.83
9.01
11.61
0.9
0..029
0.0297
2.99
2.95 ,
0.0391
0.040
4.02
4.05
throughput through primary crusher.
C-64
-------
Table C-31a
FACILITY K
Summary of Results (English)
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPHa
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor -Vol. %
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
1
11/18/74
120
384
22169
23001
44.5
1.1
0.0132
0.0137
2.60
0.0068
0.0205
0.0213
4.05
0.0105
2
11 /1 8/74
120
342
19772
19930
59.2
1.1
0.0096
0.0097
1.65
0.0048
0.1378
0.0139
2.35
0.0069
3
11/19/74
120
460
21426
21779
55.0
0.6
0.0153
0.0155
2.85
0.0062
0.0170
0.0173
3.18
0.0069
Average
-
120
395
21122
21570
52.9
0.9
0.0127
0.0130
2.37
0.0059
0.0171
0.0175
3.19
0.0081
'Throughput through primary crusher.
C-65
-------
Table C-32
FACILITY L
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 9/30/76
Type of Plant: Mica
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 2.13 m (7 ft.)
Location of Discharge: Bagging Operation
Height of Observation Point: Ground-Level
Height of Point of Discharge: 0.91 m (3 ft.)
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N/A
Description of Background: Indoors
Description of Sky:
Wind Direction:
Wind Velocity:
Color of Plume:
Detached Plume:
Duration of Observation:
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 hour
Summary of Data
Opacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Min. Sec.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C-66
-------
APPENDIX D. EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND
CONTINUOUS MONITORING
D.I EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS
Participate pollutants in the form of organic solids and oils are
generated in the manufacture of asphalt roofing products. Reference
Method 26 was developed to measure these emissions using Reference
Method 5 as a base, and then making modifications suitable for collecting
the singular type of particulate emission.
Method development tests and emission measurements were conducted at
seven asphalt roofing plants. These studies resulted not only in
obtaining measurements of particulate emissions, but also in developing a
particulate sampling procedure, Reference Method 26, for isokinetic
collection of representative particulate samples and determination of the
particulate emission concentration. Reference Method 26 is basically a
modification of Reference Method 5. The major differences between the
two methods include:
1. Change in filtration temperature from 120°C to 40°C (248°F to
104°F).
The physical state of organic matter is a function of temperature.
Therefore, it is necessary to select a filtration temperature that
provides a consistent basis for evaluating the different control systems
and the emissions from different plants. The 40°C (104°F) upper limit
was selected to be consistent with the optimum operating temperature of
40°C (104°F) for the collection systems, i.e. filtration and electro-
static precipitation.
2. Use of a precollector filter to reduce the oil droplet loading
on the primary filter.
This change was necessary to prevent oil from seeping through the
glass-fiber filter mat during periods of high droplet concentrations. A
D-l
-------
procedure to avoid the necessity of quantitatively removing the oil from
the precpllector was added to the method. This procedure involves
weighing the precollector system before and after sampling to obtain the
mass collected by difference. Use of this precollector is optional in
Reference Method 26 and is intended for use when sampling emissions from
the blowing still control device.
3. Change in cleanup reagent from acetone to 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Sample cleanup and recovery procedures were also developed and
tested during the method development program. Various solvents were
used, e.g., acetone, chloroform, hexane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, diethyl
ether, methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene. The chlorinated hydro-
carbons proved to be the most effective solvents. Chloroform and methylene
chloride were rejected as unsafe due to the toxic chemical exposure
criteria established by OSHA. The solvent, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCE)
was decided upon because it was most effective in dissolving the baked-on
oil and tars and, due to its lower vapor pressure, was potentially less
toxic than the other solvents.
4. Change in analytical procedure to minimize sample loss through
evaporation.
In the laboratory the cleanup reagent presented some problems. The
low vapor pressure of TCE caused an increase in the time necessary to
evaporate the samples at ambient temperature to a final weight. Experi-
ments were conducted to quantify the loss of light hydrocarbons by
condensing the vapors from the evaporation process and analyzing them by
gas chromatography. Results showed that the hydrocarbon loss for outlet
sample fractions was minimal.
A continuous weight loss was recorded for the samples over a period
of several weeks after removal of the condenser. The weight loss was
most significant for inlet samples. The outlet samples also continued to
lose weight, but to a lesser degree. Consequently, the criterion of
"constant weight" was defined as "a less than 10 percent or 2 mg (which-
ever is greater) mass change between two sequential weighings twenty-four
hours apart." Most samples weighed in this manner reached a constant
weight between the 24 to 48 hour weighings.
D-2
-------
5. Collection and analytical procedure for condensed water.
In cases where moisture contents of the stack gases were above
10 percent, condensation in the filtration section of the sample train
occurred. These conditions did not happen when sampling saturator line
emissions, but did occur during the blowing still tests. By cooling the
sample gas to 40°C (104°F) in the probe and precollector cyclone, the
moisture was trapped in the cyclone collection flask. In the analyses,
the oil was extracted from the water phase using a separatory. funnel and
TCE. The remaining water fraction was evaporated at 100°C (212°F),
desiccated, and weighed.
D.I.I Other Emission Test Procedures
Previous investigators used test methods which differed from the EPA
approach. These methods, e.g., LAAPCD and conventional Method 5 including
impinger analysis, measured both filterable and condensible hydrocarbons
as particulate. The gaseous hydrocarbons were measured by flame ioni-
zation analysis; the sample gas, however, was taken directly from the
stack. The gases were neither filtered nor cooled to 40°C (104°F). In
some cases the data gave similar emission rates. In other cases, large
differences occurred. Since EPA did not conduct comparative tests, it
cannot be determined if these differences were due to process operating
conditions or to differences in the test methods.
Visible emissions were measured by Method 9. Fugitive emissions
were measured by Method 22.
D.2 CONTINUOUS MONITORING
The transmissometer is not ideally suited to the measurement of
opacity in the effluent gas stream from an asphalt roofing plant. The
effects of variable stack gas temperatures can cause the readings of the
transmissometer to lack any correlation with Reference Method 9 measure-
ments. For example, by increasing the stack temperature, the oil droplets
that cause the visible emissions will be converted into a gas which would
not be detected by the transmissometer but which will recondense and be
visible in the atmosphere. Depending on stack temperature at the
measurement point, the transmissometer may be a useful tool for monitoring
operation and maintenance.
D-3
-------
D.3 PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS
Performance Test Method 26, which is recommended for the measurement
of participate emissions from asphalt roofing processes, is essentially
a modification of Reference Method 5. Changes were made in the sample
filtration temperature and in the cleanup and analysis. The procedure is
sufficiently similar to Method 5 so that test personnel experienced with
Method 5 should have little difficulty with Method 26.
The asphalt roofing industry has two major processes, each with
peculiar problems which hamper the performance of the emission test. The
asphalt saturator line is a continuous process, subject to numerous line
speed fluctuations and stoppages, thus making coordination of testing
with the process essential. Extra care must be used to maintain the
sample intergrity during these times.
The blowing still facility is a batch process. The process may last
several hours. Emissions, flow rates, moisture contents, and temperatures
are a function of time. Careful attention is required to ensure that the
sample collected is representative of the emission and the process as
defined in the regulation.
Sampling costs for a test consisting of three Method 26 runs is
estimated to be about $8,000 to $12,000. If in-plant personnel are used
to conduct the tests, the costs will be somewhat less.
Method 9 is recommended for measurement of opacity from stacks and
similarly confined emission sources. Method 22 is recommended for ths
determination of the frequency of visible fugitive emissions produced
during material processing, handling, and transfer operations.
D-4
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE TEST METHODS
*****
METHOD 26 - DETERMINATION OF
^ARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM THE ASPHALT
ROOFING INDUSTRY
Applicabi1ity and Pr inc 1 pi e
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to the determination of
particulate emissions from asphalt roofing industry process saturators,
blowing stills, and other sources as specified in the regulations.
1.2 Principle. Particulate matter is withdrawn isokinetically
from the source and collected on a glass fiber filter maintained at a
temperature no greater than 40°C (,104°F). The particulate mass, which
includes any material that condenses at or above the filtration temper-
ature, is determined gravimetrically after removal of uncombined water.
2. Apparatus
2.1 Sampling Train. The sampling train configuration is the same
as shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5, except a precollector cyclone is
added between the probe and the heated filter and located in the heated
section of the train. The sampling train consists of the following
components:
2.1.1 Probe Nozzle, Pitot Tube, Differential Pressure Gauge,
Filter Holder, Condenser, Metering System, Barometer, and Gas Density
Determination Equipment. Same as Method 5, Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3 to
2.1.5, and 2.1.7 to 2.1.10, respectively.
D-5
-------
2.1.2 Probe Liner. Same as in Reference Method 5, Section 2.1.2,
with the note'that at high stack gas temperatures [greater than 250°C
(480°F)], water-cooled probes may be required to control the probe
exit temperature to no greater than about 40°C (104°F).
2.1.3 Precollector Cyclone. Borosilicate glass following the
construction details shown in APTD-0581. (Note: The tester shall use
the cyclone when the stack gas moisture is greater than 10 percent or
when the stack gas oil concentration is high enough to cause oil to
seep through the glass mat filter. The tester need not use the pre-
collector cyclone or glass wool under other, less severe, test
conditions.)
2.1.4 Filter Heating System. Any heating (or cooling) system
capable of maintaining a sample gas temperature at the exit end of the
filter holder during sampling of no greater than 40°C (104°F). Install
a temperature gauge capable of measuring temperature to within 3°C
(5.4°F) at the exit end of the filter holder so that the sample gas
temperature can be regulated and monitored during sampling. The tester
may use systems other than the one shown in APTD-0581.
2.2 Sample Recovery. The equipment required for sample recovery
is as follows:
2.2.1 Probe-Liner and Probe-Nozzle Brushes, Graduated Cylinder
and/or Balance, Plastic Storage Containers, and Funnel and Rubber
Policeman. Same as Method 5, Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, and 2.2.7,
respectively.
2.2.2 Wash Bottles. Glass.
2.2.3 Sample Storage Containers. Chemically resistant,
borosilicate glass bottles, with rubber-backed Teflon screw cap liners
D-6
-------
or caps that are constructed so as to be leak-free and resistant to
chemical attack by 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCE), 500-ml or 1000-ml.
(Narrow mouth glass bottles have been found to be less prone to
leakage.)
2.2.4 Petri Dishes. Glass, unless otherwise specified by the
%
Administrator.
2.2.5 Funnel. Glass.
2.3 Analysis. For analysis, the following equipment is needed:
2.3.1 Glass Weighing Dishes, Desiccator, Analytical Balance,
Balance, Hygrometer, and Temperature Gauge. Same as Method 5,
Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.4, 2.3.6, and 2.3.7, respectively.
2.3.2 Beakers. Glass, 250-ml and 500-ml.
2.3.3 Separatory Funnel. 100-ml or greater.
3. Reagents
3.1 Sampling. The reagents used in sampling are as follows:
3.1.1 Filters, Silica Gel, and Crushed Ice. Same as Method 5,
Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.4, respectively.
it
3.1.2 Precollector Glass Wool. No. 7220, Pyrex brand, or
equivalent.
3.1.3 Stopcock Grease. TCE-insoluble, heat-stable grease
(if available). This is not necessary if screw-on connectors with
Teflon sleeves, or similar, are used.
3.2 Sample Recovery. Reagent grade 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCE),
<_ 0.001 percent residue, and stored in glass bottles is required.
Run TCE blanks prior to field use and use only TCE with low blank
values (_< 0.001 percent). The tester shall in no case subtract a
D-7
-------
blank value of greater than 0.001 percent of the weight of TCE
used from the sample weight.)
3.3 Analysis. Two reagents are required for the analysis:
3.3.1 TCE. Same as 3.2.
3.3.2 Desiccant. Same as Method 5, Section 3.3.2.
4. Procedure
4.1 Sampling Train Operation. The complexity of this method
is such that, in order to obtain reliable results, testers should
be trained and experienced with Method 5 test procedures.
4.1.1 -Pretest Preparation. Maintain and calibrate all the
components according to the procedure described in APTD-0576, unless
otherwise specified herein.
Prepare probe liners and sampling nozzles as needed for use.
Thoroughly clean' each component with soap and water, followed by a
minimum of three TCE rinses. Use the probe and nozzle brushes during
at least one of the TCE rinses (refer to Section 4.2 for rinsing
techniques). Cap or seal the open ends of the probe liners and
nozzles to prevent contamination during shipping.
Prepare silica gel portions and glass filters as specified in
Method 5, Section 4.1.1.
Prepare cyclone precollector systems for use, as follows:
Desiccate or oven-dry plugs of glass wool as needed and weigh these
to a constant weight (use techniques similiar to those described above
for glass fiber filters). Place each tared glass wool plug in a
labeled petri dish. Next, thoroughly clean equal numbers of glass
cyclones and 125-ml Erlenmeyer flasks, using soap and water, followed
by several TCE rinses. Pair each cyclone with a flask and identify
D-8
-------
(mark or label) each piece of glassware. Determine the tare weight
of each glass cyclone, to the nearest 0.1 mg. Seal the open ends of
each flask and cyclone to prevent contamination during transport.
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Select the sampling site,
probe nozzle, and probe length as specified in Method 5, Section 4.1.2.
Select a total sampling time greater than or equal to the
minimum total sampling time specified in the test procedures section
of the applicable regulation. Follow the guidelines outlined in
Method 5, Section 4.1.2, for sampling time per point and total sample
volume collected.
4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train. Prepare the collection
train as specified in Method 5, Section 4.1.3 with the addition of
the following:
If a precollector cyclone is to be used with a tared glass wool
plug (see note in Section 2.1.2), prepare this by placing the glass
wool plug into the inlet section of the cyclone near the top.
Loosely pack the glass wool so as to avoid high pressure drops in
the sampling train. See Figure 26-1. Connect the cyclone to the
corresponding 125-ml Erlenmeyer flask.
Set up the sampling train as shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5 with
the addition of the precollector cyclone, if used, between the probe
and filter holder. Use no stopcock grease on ground glass joints,
unless the grease is insoluble in TCE.
4.1.4 Leak Check Procedures. Follow the procedures given in
Method 5, Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak-Check), 4.1.4.2 (Leak-Check
During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3 (Post-Test Leak-Check).
D-9
-------
CYCLONE EXHAUST
GLASS WOOL
CONNECTION FOR 125 ml FLASK
Figure 26-1. Precollector cyclone with glass wool plug.
D-10
-------
4.1.5 Particulate Train Operation. Operate the sampling train
as described in Method 5, Section 4.1.5, except maintain the gas
temperature exiting the filter at no greater than 40°C (104°F).
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic. Same as in Method 5,
Section 4.1.6.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Begin proper cleanup procedure as soon
as the probe is removed from the stack at the end of the sampling
period. Allow the probe to cool. When the probe can be safely
handled, wipe off all external particulate matter near the tip of
the probe nozzle and place a cap over it to prevent losing or gaining
particulate matter. Do not cap off the probe tip tightly while the
sampling train is cooling as this would create a vacuum in the filter
holder, thus drawing water from the impingers into the filter holder.
Before moving the sampling train to the cleanup site, remove
the probe from the sampling train, wipe off the stopcock grease, and -
cap the open outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose any
condensate that might be present. Wipe off the stopcock grease from
the filter inlet where the probe was fastened and cap it. Remove the
umbilical cord from the last impinger and cap the impinger. If a
flexible line is used between the first impinger or condenser and
the filter holder, disconnect the line at the filter holder and let
any condensed water or liquid drain into the impingers or condenser.
After wiping off the stopcock grease, cap off the filter holder out-
let and impinger inlet. The tester may use either ground-glass
stoppers, plastic caps, or serum caps to close these openings.
0-11
-------
Transfer the probe and filter-impinger assembly to a cleanup
area, which is clean and protected from the wind so that the chances
of contaminating or losing the sample will be minimized.
Inspect the train prior to and during disassembly and note any
abnormal conditions. Treat the samples as follows:
4.2.1 Container No. 1 (Filter). Carefully remove the filter
from the filter holder and place it in its identified petri dish
container.
Use a pair of tweezers and/or clean disposable surgical gloves
to handle the filter. If it is necessary to fold the filter, do so
such that .the film of oil is inside the fold. Carefully transfer to
the petri dish any particulate matter and/or filter fibers which
adhere to the filter holder gasket, by using a dry Nylon bristle
brush and/or a sharp-edged blade. Seal the container.
4.2.2 Container No. 2 (Cyclone). Remove the Erlenmeyer flask
from the cyclone. Using glass or other nonreactive caps, seal the
ends of the cyclone and store for shipment to the laboratory. Do not
remove the glass wool plug from the cyclone.
4.2.3 Container No. 3 (Probe to Filter Holder). Taking care
to see that material on the outside of the probe or other exterior
surfaces does not get into the sample, quantitatively recover
particulate matter or any condensate from the probe nozzle, probe
fitting, probe liner, cyclone collector flask, and front half of the
filter holder by washing these components with TCE and placing the
wash in a glass container. Carefully measure the total amount of
TCE used in the rinses. Perform the TCE rinses as follows:
D-12
-------
Carefully remove the probe nozzle and rinse the inside surface
with TCE from a wash bottle. Brush with a Nylon bristle brush and
rinse until the TCE rinse shows no visible particles or discoloration,
after which, make a final rinse of the inside surface.
Brush and rinse the inside parts of the Swagelok fitting with
TCE in a similar way until no visible particles remain.
Rinse the probe liner with TCE. While squirting TCE into the
upper end of the probe, tilt and rotate the probe so that all inside
surfaces will be wetted. Let the TCE drain from the lower end into
the sample container. The tester may use a glass funnel to aid in
transferring the liquid washes to the container. Follow the TCE
rinse with a probe brush. Hold the probe in an inclined position,
squirt TCE into the upper end as the probe brush is being pushed with
a twisting action through the probe, hold the sample container under-
neath the lower end of the probe, and catch any TCE and particulate
matter which is brushed from the probe. Run the brush through the
probe three times or more until no visible particulate matter is
carried out or until no discoloration is observed in the TCE. With
stainless steel or other metal probes, run the brush through in the
above prescribed manner at least six times, since metal probes have
small crevices in which particulate matter can be entrapped. Rinse
the brush with TCE and quantitatively collect these washings in the
sample container. After the brushing, make a final TCE rinse of the
probe as described above.
It is recommended that two people clean the probe to minimize
sample losses. Between sampling runs, keep brushes clean and protected
from contamination.
D-13
-------
Brush and rinse the inside of the cyclone collection flask and
the front half of the filter holder. Brush and rinse each surface
three times or more, if necessary, to remove visible particulate.
Make a final rinse of the brush and filter holder. After all TCE
washings and particulate matter have been collected in the sample
container, tighten the lid on the sample container so that TCE will
not leak out when it is shipped to the laboratory. Mark the height
of the fluid level to determine later whether or not leakage occurred
during transport. Label the container to clearly identify its
contents. Whenever possible, containers should be shipped in such a
way that they remain upright-at all times.
4.2.4 Container No. 4 (Silica Gel). Note the color of the
indicating silica gel to determine if it has been completely spent
and make a notation of its condition. Transfer the silica gel from
the fourth impinger to its original container and seal. The tester
may use as aids a funnel to pour the silica gel without spilling and
a rubber policeman to remove the silica gel from the impinger. It is
not necessary to remove the small amount of dust particles that may
adhere to the impinger wall and are difficult to remove. Since the
gain in weight is to be used for moisture calculations, do not use
any water or other liquids to transfer the silica gel. If a balance
is available in the field, follow the procedure for Container No. 4
in Section 4.3.4.
4.2.5 Impinger Hater. Treat the impingers as follows: Make
a notation of any color or film in the liquid catch. Measure the
liquid volume in the first three impingers to within +_ 1 ml by
using a graduated cylinder or weigh the liquid to within +^0.5 g,
D-14
-------
by using a balance. Record the volume or weight of liquid present,
then discard the liquid. (This volume or weight information is
required to calculate the moisture content of the effluent gas.)
4.2.6 Blank. Save a portion of the TCE used for cleanup as
a blank. Take 200 ml of this TCE directly from the wash bottle being
used and place it in a glass sample container labeled "TCE blank."
4.3 Analysis. Record the data required on a sheet such as the
one shown in Figure 26-2. Handle each sample container as follows:
4.3.1 Container No. 1 (Filter). Transfer the filter from the
sample container to a tared glass weighing dish and desiccate for
24 hr in a desiccator containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. Rinse
Container No. 1 with a measured amount of TCE and analyze this rinse
with the contents of Container No. 3. Weigh the filter to a constant
weight. For the purpose of Section 4.3, the term "constant weight"
means a difference of no more than 10 percent or 2 mg (whichever is
greater) between two consecutive weighings, made 24 hr apart. Report
the "final weight" to the nearest 0.1 mg as the average of these two
values.
4.3.2 Container No. 2 (Cyclone). Clean the outside of the
cyclone, remove the caps, and desiccate for 24 hr or until any
condensed water has evaporated. Weigh the cyclone plus contents
(glass wool plug and oil). Determine the weight of the oil by
subtracting out the combined tare weight of the cyclone plus glass
wool. Transfer the glass wool and cyclone catch into a tared
weighing dish; use TCE to aid in the transfer process. Desiccate
the cleaned cyclone for 24 hr and reweigh the cyclone. If the
final weight of the clean cyclone is within 10 mg of its initial
D-15
-------
Plant:.
Date:.
Run No.:.
Filter No.:.
Amount liquid! lost during transport:
TCE blank volume, ml:
TCE wash volume, ml: ___^
TCE blank concentration, mg/mg (equation 4):
TCE wash blank, mg (equation 5):
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2
3
Total
WEIGHT OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED, mg
FINAL WEIGHT
^xcT
TARE WEIGHT
^>
-------
tare weight, report the calculated oil weight. However, if the weight
difference is greater, extract the oil from the glass wool (use measured
amount of TCE) and analyze this oil solution with Container No. 3. Be
careful not to include any of the glass wool fibers.
4.3.3 Container No. 3 (Probe to Filter Holder). Before adding
either the rinse from either Container No. 1 or the TCE-oil mixture
from the glass wool extraction to Container No. 3, note the level of
liquid in the container and confirm on analysis sheet whether or not
leakage occurred during transport. If noticeable leakage occurred,
either void the sample, or take steps, subject to the approval of the
Administrator, to correct the final results.
Measure the liquid in this container either volumetrically to
± 1 ml or gravimetrically to +^0.5 g. Check to see if there is any
appreciable quantity of condensed water present in the TCE rinse
(look for a boundary layer or phase separation). If the volume of
condensed water appears larger than 5 ml, separate the oil-TCE
fraction from the water fraction using a separatory funnel. Measure
the volume of the water phase, to the nearest ml; adjust the stack
gas moisture content, if necessary (see Sections 6.4 and 6.5). Next,
extract the water phase with several 25-ml portions of TCE until, by
visual observation, the TCE does not remove any additional organic
material. Evaporate the remaining water fraction to dryness at 93°C
(200°F), desiccate for 24 hr, and weigh to the nearest 0.1 mg.
Treat the total TCE fraction (including TCE from filter container
rinse, HpO phase extractions, and glass wool extraction, if applicable)
as follows: Transfer the TCE and oil to a tared beaker, and evaporate
D-17
-------
at ambient temperature and pressure. The evaporation of TCE from
the solution may take several days. Do not desiccate the sample
until the solution reaches an apparent constant volume or until the
odor of TCE is not detected. When it appears that the TCE has
evaporated, desiccate the sample and weigh it at 24-hr intervals to
obtain a "constant weight" (as defined for Container No. 1 above).
The "total weight" for Container No. 3 is the sum of the evaporated
particulate weight of the TCE-oil and water phase fractions. Report
the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.
4.3.4 Container No. 4 (Silica Gel). This step may be conducted
in the field. Weigh the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus impinger)
to the nearest 0.5 g using a balance.
4.3.5 "TCE Blank" Container. Measure TCE in this container either
volumetrically or gravimetrically. Transfer the TCE to a tared 250-ml
beaker and evaporate to dryness at ambient temperature and pressure.
Desiccate for 24 hr and weigh to a constant weight. Report the results
to the nearest 0.1 mg.
5. Calibration
Calibrate the sampling train components according to the indicated
sections of Method 5: Probe Nozzle (5.1), Pitot Tube Assembly (5.2),
Metering System (5.3), Probe Heater (5.4), Temperature Gauges (5.5),
Leak Check of Metering System (5.6), and Barometer (5.7).
6. Calculations
6.1 Nomenclature. Same as in Reference Method 5, Section 6.1
with the following additions:
D-18
-------
C. = TCE blank residue concentration, mg/g.
M. = Mass of residue of TCE after evaporation, mg.
V = Volume of water collected in precollector, ml.
Vt = Volume of TCE blank, ml.
V. = Volume of TCE used in wash, ml.
Wt = Weight of residue in TCE wash, mg.
Pt = Density of TCE, mg/ml (see label on bottle).
6.2 Dry Gas Meter Temperature and Orifice Pressure Drop.
Using the data obtained in this test, calculate the average dry gas
meter temperature and average orifice pressure drop (see Figure 5-2
of Method 5).
6.3 Dry Gas Volume. Using the data from this test, calculate
V / . .% by using Equation 5-1 of Method 5. If necessary, adjust the
volume for leakages.
6.4 Volume of Water Vapor.
V
Where:
K-| = 0.001333 m3/ml for metric units.
= 0.04707 ft3/ml for English units.
6.5 Moisture Content.
B - Vw(std) Eq. 26-2
ws " Vstd) + Vw(std)
D-19
-------
Note: In saturated or water droplet-laden gas streams, two
calculations of the moisture content of the stack gas shall be made,
one from the impinger and precollector analysis (Equations 26-1 and
26-2), and a second from the assumption of saturated conditions. The
lower of the two values of moisture content shall be considered correct.
The procedure for determining the moisture content based upon
assumption of saturated conditions is given in the Note of Section 1.2
of Reference Method 4. For the purpose of this method, the average
stack gas temperature from Figure 2 may be used to make this determi-
nation, provided that the accuracy of the in-stack temperature sensor
is within + 1°C (2°F).
6.6 TCE Blank Concentration.
r - Mt Eq. 26-3
ct - vt Pt
6.7 TCE Wash Blank.
Wt = (Ct)(Vtw)(pt> Eq> 26~4
6.8 Total Particulate Weight. Determine the total particulate
catch from the sum of the weights obtained from Containers 1, 2, and
3 less the TCE blank.
6.9 Particulate Concentration.
Cs = "2 VVm(std)
D-20
-------
Where:
K2 = 0.001 g/mg.
6.10 Isokinetic Variation and Acceptable Results Method 5,
Sections 6.11 and 6.12, respectively.
7. Bibliography
The bibliography for Reference Method 26 is the same as for
Method 5, Section 7.
D-21
-------
. METHOD 22-- VISUAL DETERMINATION OF FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS FROM MATERIAL PROCESSING SOURCES
Preamble
This method involves the visual determination of
fugitive emission; i.e., emissions not emitted directly from
a process stack or duct. Fugitive emissions include such
emissions as those: 1) escaping capture by process equip-
ment exhaust hoods; 2) emitted during material transfer; 3)
emitted from buildings housing material processing or handling
equipment; 4} emitted directly from process equipment.
This method does not require that the opacity of
emissions be determined. Instead, this method determines
the amount of time that any visible emissions occur during
the observation period; i.e. the accumulated emission time.
Since this procedure requires only the determination of
whether or not a visible emission exists and does not require
the determination of opacity levels, no special inspector
training is required.
1. Principle. Fugitive emissions produced during material
processing, handling, and transfer operations are visibly
determined by an observer without the aid of instruments.
2. Applicability. This method is applicable for the deter-
mination of the frequency of fugitive emissions from stationary
sources only when specified as the test method for determining-
compliance with new source performance standards. This method
1s applicable to emission sources located Indoors or outdoors.
D-22
-------
3. Definitions.
3.1 Emission Frequency. The percent of time emissions
are visible during the observation period.
3.2 Emission Time. The accumulated amount of time
that emissions are visible during the observation period.
3.3 Fugitive Emission. The pollutant generated by an
affected facility which is not collected by a capture system
and is released to the atmosphere.
3.4 Observation Period. The accumulated time period
during which observations are conducted, not to be less than
6 minutes.
4. 'Equipment.
4.1 Stopwatch. Accumulative type stopwatch with a
sweep second hand and unit divisions of at least one-half
4.2 Light Meter. Light meter capable of measuring
illuminance in the 50 to 200 lux (Ix.) range; required for
indoor observations only.
5. 'Procedure.
5.1 General. The inspector surveys the affected faci-
lity or building or structure housing the process unit to be
observed and determines the locations of potential emissions.
The observer then chooses a suitable observation position. If
the affected facility is located inside a building the observer
chooses an observation location which permits observation of
the emissions in a manner consistant with the requirements
D-23
-------
of the applicable regulation (i.e. outside observation of
emission escaping the building/structure or inside observa-
tions of emissions directly emitted from the affected faci-.
lity process unit).
5.2 Position. The observer stands in a position which
enables a clear view of the potential emission point(s) of
the affected facility or of the building or structure housing
the affected facility, as appropriate for the applicable
subpart. A position of at least 15 feet but not more than
one-quarter mile from the emission source is recommended.
For outdoor locations the observer should be positioned so
that the sun is not directly in the observer's eyes.
5.3 Field Records.
5.3.1''Outdoor Lpcatjon. The observer shall record
the following information on the field data sheet (Figure 1):
company name, industry, process unit, observer's name, observer's
affiliation, and date. Weather conditions, including estimated
.wind speed, wind direction, and sky condition will be recorded.
The observer shall sketch the process unit being observed
and shall note his location relative to the source and the sun.
The potential and actual fugitive emission points should be
indicated on the sketch.
5.3.2 Indoor Location. The observer shall record the
following information on the field data sheet (Figure 2):
company name, industry, process unit, observer's name,
D-24
-------
observer's affiliation, and date. The type, location, and
intensity of lighting will be recorded as appropriate on the
data sheet. The observer shall sketch the process unit being
observed and shall note his location relative to the source.
The potential and actual fugitive emission points should be
indicated on the sketch.
5.4 Indoor Lighting Requirements. For indoor locations,
a light meter shall be used to measure the level of illumina-
tion. The observer shall measure the illumination at a loca-
tion as close to the emission source(s) as is feasible. An
illumination of greater than 100 lux (10 f.c.) is considered
necessary for proper application of this method.
5.5 Observations. The observer records the clock time
observations begin. One stopwatch is used to monitor the
duration of the observation period; this stopwatch is started
when the observation period begins. If the observation period
is divided into two or more segments by process shut-downs or
inspector rest breaks, the stop-watch is stopped when a break
begins and restarted without resetting when the break ends.
The stopwatch is stopped at the end of the observation period.
The accumulated time indicated by this stopwatch is the
duration of the observation period. When the observation
period is completed the observer records the clock time.
During'the.observation period, the observer continuously
watches the'potential emission source. Upon observing an
D-25
-------
emission (condensed water vapor is not "considered an emission),
the second accumulative stopwatch is started; the watch is
stopped when the emission stops. The observer continues this
procedure for the entire observation period. The accumulated
elapsed time on this stopwatch indicates the total time emis-
sions were visible during the observation period i.e., the
emission time.
5.5.1 Observation Period. The observer shall choose an
observation period of sufficient length to meet the require-
ments for determining compliance with the emission regulation
in the applicable subpart. When the length of the observation
period is specifically stated in the applicable subpart, it
may not be necessary to observe the source for this entire
period if the emission time required to indicate non-compli-
ance (based on the specified observation period) is observed
in a shorter time period. In other words if the regulation
prohibits emissions for more than 6 minutes in any hour, then
observations may (optional) be stopped after an emission time
of six minutes is exceeded. Similarly, when the regulation
is expressed as an emission frequency,, if the regulation
prohibits emissions for greater than 10 percent of the time
in any hour, then observations may (optional) be terminated
after 6 minutes of emissions are observed since 6 minutes is
10 percent of an hour. In any case, the observation period
shall not be less than 6 minutes in duration. In some cases,'
D-26
-------
the process operation may be intermittent or cyclic. In such
cases, it. may be convenient for the observation period to
coincide with the length of the process cycle.
5.5.2 Inspector Rest Breaks. The inspector shall not
observe emissions continuously for a period of more than 15
to 20 minutes without taking a rest break. For sources
requiring observation periods of greater than 20 minutes, the
observer shall take a break of not less than 5 minutes and
not more than 10 minutes after every 15 to 20 minutes of
observation. If continuous observations are desired for
extended time periods, this can be accomplished by two inspec-
tors alternating between making observations and taking breaks.
5.5 Recording Observations. The accumulated time of
the observation period is recorded on the data sheet as the
observation period duration. The accumulated time emissions
were observed is recorded on the data sheet as the emission
time. Record the clock time the observation period began
and ended, as well as the clock time any inspector breaks
began and ended.
6.0 Calculations. If the applicable subpart requires
that the emission rate be expressed as an emission frequency,
determine this value as follows: Divide the accumulated
emission time (seconds) by the duration of the observation
period (seconds) or by any minimum observation period
required in the applicable subpart if the actual observation
D-27
-------
period is less than the required period; multiply this quotient
by one hundred to determine the emission frequency (percent).
D-28
-------
APPENDIX E. ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS
The recommended standards of performance will limit the emission of
participate matter from asphalt roofing manufacturing plants. These
standards include both mass and visible emission limitations. The control
systems used by the asphalt roofing industry include high velocity air
filters (HVAF), electrostatic precipitators (ESP), afterburners (A/B),
baghouses, and mist eliminators. Aspects of enforcing the recommended
standards of performance are discussed below.
E.I PROCESS OPERATION DURING COMPLIANCE TESTING
The major sources of pollutants in asphalt roofing plants are
asphalt blowing stills, asphalt saturators, asphalt coaters, asphalt
storage tanks, and mineral handling and storage areas. Process para-
meters affecting the quantity of uncontrolled particulate emissions from
these sources are production line speed, grade and amount of asphalt used,
asphalt temperatures, and methods of storage and handling of materials.
For asphalt blowing stills, the volume of air used in oxidizing the asphalt
and the duration of the blow are major factors in the amount of pollutant
generated.
During the emission tests the production line should be making a
106.6 kg (235 Ib) shingle and should be operating at or near plant
capacity. The HVAF and ESP inlet fume temperature should be below 43°C
E-l
-------
(110°F), and the operating temperature of the A/B should be 704° - 816°C
(1300° - 1500°F) during the tests. Testing should be interrupted if any
of the following conditions occur: line speed reductions below 80 percent
of plant capacity during the test; variations in control equipment
operating temperatures; felt breaks; process equipment malfunctions
(.blown fuses, fans off, and broken shingle cutters); and granule changing
operations.
E.2 DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASS STANDARD
The devices used to control particulate emissions from asphalt
roofing plants exhaust their effluents to the atmosphere through a stack.
The method specified in 40 CFR 60 (Method 26) provides specific guide-
lines for the measurement of particulate emissions from asphalt roofing
plants.
An emission control system may serve several process operations.
New equipment should be designed to facilitate emission testing. Sampling
ports should be installed as shown in Method 1, the Federal Register,
December 23, 1971. Sampling platforms and electrical outlets should be
provided.
E.3 DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH VISIBLE EMISSION STANDARDS
Method 26 is not economical for day-to-day monitoring to ensure that
emissions are within allowable limits. Opacity and visible emission
standards ensure that emission control devices are properly maintained
and operated. Therefore, opacity and visible emission standards are
established as independent, enforceable standards. Opacity observations
will be made using Method 9. Visible emission opservations will be made
using Method 22.
E-2
-------
E.4 EMISSION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The recommended method for continuous monitoring of control devices
for the saturator and coater and the blowing still is to measure the
operating temperatures of the HVAF, ESP, and A/B. The monitoring point
for the HVAF and ESP is located at the inlet of the control devices. The
A/B monitoring points are located in the combustion zone and the area
immediately after the combustion zone. Temperature monitoring equipment
would increase the capital and annualized pollution control equipment
costs by an estimated 2 to 4 percent.
The recommended standards do not require continuous monitoring
systems for opacity. The oil and asphalt particles in the fume would
blind the transmissometer in a short period of time. The estimated costs
of procurement, installation, and maintenance of the transmissometer are
considered excessive compared to the cost of the control equipment needed
to meet NSPS. The monitoring method recommended for the asphalt storage
tank and for mineral handling and storage is to monitor the opacity of
the mist eliminator controlling the asphalt storage tank and the baghouse
controlling the mineral handling and storage. Method 9 is the recommended
method for opacity measurement.
E-3
-------